CM2 topic: turret speeds & the T-34

[Grisha]

From the Russian Military zone I saw that the T-34/76 had a turret traverse of 360 degrees in 14 seconds. A Sherman M4A2 had a traverse speed of 360 degrees in 15 seconds. Panthers had hydraulic systems, and were dependent on engine rev's. Initially, Panthers could rotate the turret at 360 degrees in 15 seconds, but when the engine rpm was lowered later on, time increased to 18 seconds. And, w/o rev'ing it took a Panther about 20 seconds to traverse 360 degrees.

Many of you already are very familiar with these specs, moreso than I. But what really caught my fancy, because I'm primarily a Soviet player was the T-34's traverse time, 14 seconds, which tops the Sherman. Actually made me giddy inside

------------------

Smert' ili Pobeda

[Guy w/gun]

Oh Man!!!!!!!!!!!

I've been wondering what the traverse speed was my self! Wow can't wait to swing around that big 85mm fast and give the krauts a taste of the "people's army"

[109 Gustav]

I read somewhere that if the T34's power traverse mechanism was knocked out, which happened frequently, it took an incredibly long time to crank around by hand. The crank was in a bad place, the turret was cramped, and the gunner had no one to help him, becuase he was also the commander.

I think CM2 should simulate damage to traverse mechanisms. It would be a good sample of battle damage that could be caused with or without armor penetration, and could really handicap a tank, without having them be shocked or gun damaged.

------------------

No one but the enemy will tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you. -Ender's Game

[Dittohead]

Fast turrets don't help much if you have a two man turret. Imagine the slowww rate of fire for T-34/76's and poor accuracy

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grisha:

From the Russian Military zone I saw that the T-34/76 had a turret traverse of 360 degrees in 14 seconds. A Sherman M4A2 had a traverse speed of 360 degrees in 15 seconds.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

interesting as one of the advantages the Soviet's listed concerning the M4A2 Sherman over the T-34-85 was that the Sherman had a faster turret traverse.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Slapdragon]

The E8 was considered better than the T-34/85 in Korea in part because of the turret speed, backing up what John says about the A2.

[Grisha]

109 Gustav,

Wouldn't that happen to any tank actually? You blow it's motor, it's time to crank, regardless of tank, right? Or, are you saying that only a T-34 should have this sort of handicap???

PzKpfw 1,

I'm just stating what I saw at the Russian Military Zone(RMZ). And though the T-34/85 had a larger turret ring diameter than the T-34/76, the article at RMZ says that its turret traverse was 4.2 rpm. This equates to 360 degrees in 14.29 seconds. I'll post an inquiry there as to this information. BTW, my original post was in reference to the T-34/76, not the 85. But, now that you brought it up, I had to look ...

------------------

Smert' ili Pobeda

[This message has been edited by Grisha (edited 11-02-2000).]

[argie]

I didn't understand this right or Grisha is talking about the T-34/76 turret traverse speed, and was Guy w/gun who talks about a 85mm gun?

The turret for the T-34/85 was completely redesigned and was a lot more heavy than the one in the T-34/76, so is logical that the Russians said the turret from Shermans were faster, but Grisha give us numbers for the T-34/76 turret, not the T-34/85...

Maybe I misunderstand all the thing, but John and Slapdragon are talking of another tank

Ariel

OOOOPPPPSSS!!!!

Grisha beats me when I was writing it

[This message has been edited by argie (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Grisha]

Okay, I did some more wandering in the internet, and found some more information. According to another source, the Sherman's turret traverse was 360 degrees in 10 seconds! Also, I found another set of times for the T-34/76. For the model 1941 it was 13.85 seconds, and for the model 1942, 15 seconds.

So, the evidence is starting to show that while the T-34 may have had a faster turning turret than most German tanks, the Sherman was faster yet.

[Tiger]

The T-34/76 had a turrent crew of 2, the commander and loader. The commander was responsible for aiming and firing the gun, as well as directing his tank and if he was a unit commander, the others in his unit; probably without a radio. There was no turrent basket either. The commander and loader sat on seats hanging from the turrent ring. The commander, as well as directing the tank, aiming and firing the main gun, was also responsible for rotating the turrent @ 26 degrees a second. This comes roughly to 13.8 seconds to rotate 360 degrees, as long as the commander is not busy doing something else. The commander being overworked in the 2-man turrent probably contributed to the Sherman being rated with a faster turrent traverse I'd imagine.

-johnski

[Snake Eyes]

Turret speed is certainly important, but don't under estimate the importance of pivot speed. The Tiger I, for example, could pivot very quickly due to its length to width ratio. This gave the crew the option of rotating the turret or pivoting the entire vehicle.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Grisha]

Good point, Snake Eyes. Does the Tiger make use of this ability in CM? I haven't played with Tigers too much, but I can't really recall seeing them doing this to get off a shot. It's usually just the turret that rotates.

------------------

Smert' ili Pobeda

[Snake Eyes]

I recall one game in which a Panther pivoted to face a Hellcat. The range was < 100m. I might add that the Hellcat won the encounter.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grisha:

I'm just stating what I saw at the Russian Military Zone(RMZ). And though the T-34/85 had a larger turret ring diameter than the T-34/76, the article at RMZ says that its turret traverse was 4.2 rpm. This equates to 360 degrees in 14.29 seconds. I'll post an inquiry there as to this information. BTW, my original post was in reference to the T-34/76, not the 85. But, now that you brought it up, I had to look ...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grisha thats right your post concerned the T-34-76 , my comment was that I found it interesting, that the traverse speed apperently changed, from the T-34-76 to T-34-85, as Soviet reports concerning the M4A2 76mm & T-34-85 list one of the advantages over the T-34-85 as 'faster turret traverse'. the other advantages were, better AT performance, ammo stowage protection, optics,& mechanichal reliability.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Ari Maenpaa]

One more aspect to consider:

In his book "Punaiset Panssarit" Pekka Kantakoski states that T-34's turret traversing mechanism wasn't as exact as those used in the German or other western tanks.

T-34's turret easily traversed over the desired bearing and thereby required additional corrections thus giving the first shot opportunity to an opponent.

I don't have the book in my hands right now so I'm not sure what model of T-34 he was talking about. It's possible that he meant both models as the Finnish army possessed some of them after the war.

Kantakoski served in the army during a period when they used T-34s, Stug IIIs and Panzer IV's. So I think he has good background to make this kind of statements.

Interestingly Kantakoski also notes that not even relatively modern T-72 has as good viewing equipment as the German Stug had.

Ari

[Los]

By the way it goes without saying that IF the commander has to work the gun then the T34/76 is buttoned up when shooting , thus piling on disadvantages in other parts of equation. Sure the turrent might have a rotation to equal or faster than a Panther's but when you are peering through a little scope trying to acquire a target that you don't even know is there then that "perceived" advanatge more or less goes out the window.

As an aside Valera Potapov who runs that site and others is providing us excellent data on the CM2 research front.

BTW the Soviets bought two Pz IIIs in 1940 and did a number of head to head comparisons to the T34/76 which I imagine most people around here would assume is superior in every respect to any German early war tanks. The Russians had their eyes opened (from Valera's site):

"The T-34 was superior in terms of protection and firepower, but that's all. The Pz-III had a cosy three-man turret with a commander's cupola. Each crewman had an internal communication device at his service. In contrast, the T-34 had a very cramped two-man turret without a commander's cupola. Only the tank commander and the driver had internal communication.

The German tank had a very smooth motion and wasn't as noisy as the T-34: moving with maximum speed the Pz-III could be heard from

150-200 metres while the T-34 could be heard from 450-500 metres....Soviet engineers were surprised by Pz-III's maximum speed. It was

far superior and could run up to 69.7 km/h whereas the T-34's best result was 48.2 km/h.

By those results the GABTU issued a summary document for Marshal G.I.Kulik, who affirmed it and ordered production of the T-34 to cease until improvements were made in all revealed defects and drawbacks."

It goes on to say that they completely redesigned the T34/76 with a three man turret and other improvements to adress all the drawbacks but for some reason the design was never implemented.

ANyway it goes without saying also that however "superior" the early T34/76 was to early was designs in some aspects, they were stll destroyed in the hundreds and thousands by infantry divisions that were stil wheeeling around cheesy 37mm AT guns. There are many elements that go into a superior tank besides a big gun and armor, heck if that was the case the French would have wiped out the germans in may, 1940.

Fortunatley the CM2 team is getting good research (including right from Russia)and good analysis to make heads or tails of all these and other factors.

Cheers...

Los

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Keep in mind that most Russian tanks came with a small sledgehammer to "persuade" the gear lever when it got difficult, especially the KV-1.

[Grisha]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Los said:

Anyway it goes without saying also that however "superior" the early T34/76 was to early was designs in some aspects, they were stll destroyed in the hundreds and thousands by infantry divisions that were stil wheeeling around cheesy 37mm AT guns. There are many elements that go into a superior tank besides a big gun and armor, heck if that was the case the French would have wiped out the germans in may, 1940.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, Los, most T-34s and KV-1s were lost in the summer of 1941, because they didn't have ammo/fuel/parts, and were therefore abandoned, not due to combat.

After all is said and done about the inadequacies of the T-34 (and KV-1) relative to the many merits of the Pzkpfw III/IV, the Germans still did not engage these two Soviet tanks head-on in 1941, but rather used maneuver to hit them from the flanks. Thus, in CM2 in 1941 the onus should be on the German player to use maneuver to take out T-34s, or pay the consequences of superior AP & armour.

BTW, where did you get that little piece about 37mm ATG taking out T-34s???

------------------

Smert' ili Pobeda

[Los]

37mm could take out T34s so long as you didn't fire at inpenetrable points (of which relative to eth 37 and the T34 there are admittedly many) . Two videos I own, "German mountain troops in Russia" and "Die Frontshau" both show interesting combat action footage of immobilizing and destroying T34s with flank and rear shots of 37mm, (They show a fair amount of bouces too!) There are plenty of written accounts of said action too, such as "in Deadly Combat" (Gottlob Herbert Biddrmann) which is written by a 37mm AT gunner, or even DA 20-230 -1950 Russian Combat Methods in WW2) or DA-20-269-1953 "Small unit actions in the German campaign in Russia," or volume two of the Divisional History LAHSS contains accounts of such engagements. Even late into teh war, 43 and beyond the bulk of German infantry divisions still contained a large amount of 37mm AT guns even as new AT guns, like the 50mm and the 75mm started trickling through the system. Somehow these mamanged.

"After all is said and done about the inadequacies of the T-34 (and KV-1) relative to the many merits of the Pzkpfw III/IV, the Germans still did not engage these two Soviet tanks head-on in 1941"

Of course not, it would have been stupid to do so, but a tank has four sides to it, not just one, and if somebody doesn't grasp that simple concept and take advantage of it, then they deserve to get blown up. The point is there is much more that goes into an effective tank than just how big it's gun is or how thick it's frontal armor. 'nuff said.

If one tries to kill a tank by hitting it's frontal armor and the round bounces off, the next time you aim somehwere else until you can kill it. Then disseminate the information to others. WHatever the methodolgy the Germans used they obviosuly learned to overcome the beast. (I know this is not differnt form your own point.)

They're tough nuts to crack but not impervious or invincible, Players of CM2 shouldn't expect to grab a few T34s and wade into the Germans in some impervious fashion. They'll be quite disappointed, as were their real counterparts. As an aside, when CM one came out we saw this same misconcenption and phenomenon with fans of the Tiger tank and the Panther. How many posts did we suffer through with players bitching about how easy their Tigers were knocked out, because they just bulled straight ahead. Funny really.

"Most T-34s and KV-1s were lost in the summer of 1941, because they didn't have ammo/fuel/parts, and were therefore abandoned, not due to combat"

Yeah the Russians lost about 6000 tanks in the encirclement battles of 1941, though obviosly many of these were destroyed in outright combat. They started the war with over 22,000 tanks, (about 16000 were pretty decrepit.) SO I'll agree with you for many of their tank types however the Soviets realized which were the most effective tanks fairly quickly and sought to keep them in operation They started the war with about 1500 were T34s or KV1s, but ended 1941 with only 1900 tanks (Total, for all types).

As an aside 73% of all Russian tanks (and lend lease tanks) they had were destroyed during the war, over 96000!

"Thus, in CM2 in 1941 the onus should be on the German player to use maneuver to take out T-34s, or pay the consequences of superior AP & armour."

Hardly a revelation. But remember something, this thread is about "Turret Speeds and the T34." It conveys upon a tank little to NO advantage to have a faster turret speed if you don't have a commander or third crewman hanging out of the cupola or otherwise observing the spotted target while the gunner rotates the turret, his eye on the scope. SO in CM terms don't expect the T34 to have an advantage over some other 3 man turret tank in a dead heat turret rotation to fire since it won't, even if it happens to swing it's gun in the right direction a second earlier. Any actual tanker knows what I'm talking about. Other factors prevail which is the whole point of what I'm trying to say anyway. Cheers...

Los

[Grisha]

One thing I thought of was about the driver in a T34. Say you're in a T-34, unbuttoned, and you've spotted a tank. Okay, commander goes under to gun, but the driver isn't going anywhere. He's still up there looking around, albeit with a limited FOV than the commander who was on top of the turret. While commander is under with the cannon, if the driver sees anything he could radio on the internal such an event, since driver and commander were the only ones with comms. It's a sort of limited, frontal unbuttoned situation, but it's not like the T-34 can't see.

The key for a T-34/76 is if it's engaged, or not, ie locked on a target. Should a T-34 be locked on a target, then it should have a handicap relative to other three-man turrets, buttoned or unbuttoned. That I agree with, and if BTS smacks such a handicap on T-34s with target locks, It'd be fine with me.

------------------

Smert' ili Pobeda

[KiwiJoe]

I don't think the driver would want to be unbuttoned around any sort of fire as the t34 drivers hatch is quite large and located right in the front hull plate. To keep it simple and fair the t34 should be able to be unbuttoned as any other tank is, but shouldnt be able to fire its main (and coaxel?) gun till the tank buttons. This should involve some sort of time delay as I would imagine that spotting a tank, then buttoning up, then trying to reaquire it in the sights would take a while.

All in all that in itself should put the T-34 at quite a disadvantage when facing several fast pz-IIIs.

[109 Gustav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grisha:

109 Gustav,

Wouldn't that happen to any tank actually? You blow it's motor, it's time to crank, regardless of tank, right? Or, are you saying that only a T-34 should have this sort of handicap???

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course it should happen to any tank. As I said, this would be a great way to simulate damage to a tank, other than having the crew killed/shocked, the gun damaged, or immobilized, which are currently the only ways tanks can be damaged without being knocked out.

------------------

No one but the enemy will tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you. -Ender's Game

[This message has been edited by 109 Gustav (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Los]

I'm just thinking out loud here...

I'm going to suggest something here. The T34-76 had a two-man turret crew. That is obvious. However it seems to me incomprehensible that the Soviets would fight in a manner as to so severly cripple their combat capability as to put themsleves in a scenario we have been talking about where the commander is the gunner. I believe that it was the loader that was missing from the turret crew mix. That has to have been the case. In other similar two man crews it's the loader that is missing. So must it be in the T34-76. I will confirm this over the next 24 hours but I bet I'm right. Also keep in mind that the Russians called the guy who operates the gun the "Turret commander", not the gunner.

Regardless, this thread has served to focus some discussion on an issue not really needed to be addressed in CM1 that will be addressed in CM2 and subsequent versions. How to penalize the one and two man turret crews. Even the absence of a loader is a big handicap in a stand up tank fight. Even with the tank unbuttoned, the gunner (if you have ever seen a T34 interior) has got to perform some serious contortions to acquire, aim, fire, then come off the gun grab a round get himself in position by the breach to slam a round in (after a while he would have needed to ditch empty casing or pass them to the commander) all the while the commander is shouting and freaking out trying to get him to slew on targets (A T34-76 only has two guys on the inetrcom system,according to Valera's site). Of course buttoned up or even unbuttoned the TC could perform double duty as a loader, though PER Red Army Tactics and Regulations dated 1944 this is stricly a Turret commander's (Gunner's) job.

Actually the regs give confilicting signals re: who laods and who shoots,. I will take this up w/ Valera in Russia and sick him on the case.

Meanwhile in a three man crew the Gunner continues to track targets, while the loader deals wit loading an dthe TC continues to acquire. We'll have to obviously impact in some fashion potentially: ROF, spotting, and accurracy of shorthanded turret crews.

Los

[109 Gustav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los:

I'm just thinking out loud here...

I believe that it was the loader that was missing from the turret crew mix. That has to have been the case. In other similar two man crews it's the loader that is missing. So must it be in the T34-76.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, no. The T34 had a crew of a driver, hull gunner, loader, and an overworked commander/gunner. The commander was responsible for picking out targets, shooting them and yelling instructions to the driver (Not positive, but I don't think many T34s had intercoms). If the turret traverse motor was damaged, which happened frequently, he also had to crank the turret around with a very poorly positioned crank.

------------------

No one but the enemy will tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you. -Ender's Game

[Los]

Yes since my last post I've been carefully reading the Red Army regs dated 1944 in tis matter. I'm trying to verify that with Valera since the Red Army regs are conflicting with that. once section pegs the KB (turret coomander which is what they call the gunner) as loading and firing while the commander commands. In a later section it is as you explain. Valera has access to real WW2 Russian tank crewmen so am hopefully getting a clarification. That above mentioned case is definately the worse of two evils. Thanks.

Los