CM2 topic: turret speeds & the T-34

[Snake Eyes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gregory Deych:

I've asked around, and the consensus seems to be that for early model T34s, it was difficult (though not impossible) for a commander to observe the battle unbuttoned. Here is one wily individual, illustrating how it could be done.

I'm not sure if it's a T34 or T70, but the principle is sound.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've heard of M1 thumb, but this could cause T34 hatch head.

[This message has been edited by Snake Eyes (edited 11-08-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

So how about Soviet tank gunnery...optics, range finders, accuracy, etc

[Grisha]

John Waters,

Jeez, with the sheer amount of vehicles BTS will need to model for CM2, it would seem masochistic to simulate the derivations that resulted from production priorities

BTW, thanks for the elaboration on the Aberdeen vehicles. That turret is definitely earlier '40-'41 type, though I can't tell if it was cast or welded. My forte is aircraft, and I'm sadly lacking in detailed knowledge of Soviet vehicles.

I'm curious as to why these vehicles were sent to the USA to begin with. A little nudge to open the second front, perhaps?

[Gregory Deych]

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

Gregory, not impossible, but that tank is not moving. It's in a static defensive position covered with branches. It looks like the commander is using the length of his forearm to prop the hatch open near the bottom. Not sure how well this would work in a moving tank or having to shift around to look round the other side. Don't forget the commander has to aim and fire the gun, rotate the turrent with a foot pedal (if the power is working), and direct the driver, all at the same time. No doubt it can be done (and was), but not very efficient/effective as a 3-man turrent crew.

In later models I believe they added a cupola to the T-34/85.

-john<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Re: forearm

I don't think so, at least it doesn't look to me like simply propping it up with the forearm (in that particular position) would hold that hatch. It may have had predermined stops...no idea really, how it's staying open.

[Jeff Duquette]

This is pretty ass-back wards and dangerous for the crew. Presumably the gunners position was suspended from the turret rather than the hull...can you imagine the latter

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

From: The Russian Military Zone: http://history.vif2.ru/t34_85_2.html

T-34-85

The absence of a rotating turret basket in the crew compartment was a consequence of the layout. In action, the loader worked while standing on the top of the ammunition crates stowed in the bottom of the tank. When the turret rotated, he had to move alongside the breech ring, and was hindered in doing so by the spent cases piled up there on the floor. During intensive firing, the piled-up cases made it difficult to get to the shells in their combat stowage in the bottom.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[-Jochen-]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So how about Soviet tank gunnery...optics, range finders, accuracy, etc<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I visited Finnish Tank Museum in Parola few months ago and I was able to inspect many common tanks and vehicles, unfortunately on from outside.

One thing I found was that T-34/76 and T-34/85 had huge slack in their gun barrels, ie. I was able to move gun barrel up and down 2-3 cm (about 1 inch) by one hand, there was same amount of slack in horizontal but it was not as apparent as vertical slack.

On the other hand Stug III (early and late models) and PzKw IVJ did not have this kind of slack. I could move their barrels up and down few millimeters (1/10th of inch) and there was no slack between barrel and rest of the gun as in T-34's. Sherman, Challenger and Comet did have similar "feel" of barrel rigidity in realtion to turret as german vehicles.

I don't know if the sights (optics) are connected directly to barrels of T-34's but if they are not, I would think that they have profound effect on accuracy: barrel would move a bit between successive shots.

What I have found interesting is that T-34 (at least early models) are actually slower than PzKw III. Up to this point I have thought it was opposite. In closer look it makes bit sense actually. Soviet build quality of transmission was very poor and I would think that it loses fair bit engine power. Tracks are also crude construction so they cause more friction than german (and allied) counterparts.

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

jochen

Kids today! Why can't they fetishize Fascist military hardware like normal people?

Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief

Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight

Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free

But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

[Dr. Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav:

I think CM2 should simulate damage to traverse mechanisms.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice idea, but i don't think it adds much flavor to the enjoyment of the game, and will make too much information overlaod.

Besides, where are you going to come up with numbers and statisitics to find out actually, for all vehicles for all nationalities, this parameter. A bit overwhelming, and open to much debate and interpretation... the proverbial can of worms.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Dittohead]

I believe the gun damaged result, includes the traverse mechanism. Maybe increase the possibilities of gun damaged on Certain tanks.

[Grisha]

Well ... my only hope after seeing the kind of response people seem to have for the T-34 is that BTS doesn't fudge factor the poor thing to death. That would be a shame

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Well ... my only hope after seeing the kind of response people seem to have for the T-34 is that BTS doesn't fudge factor the poor thing to death. That would be a shame <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would they do that Grisha?, we can point negative aspects out on every tank fielded, their are a few other considerations such as despite its shortcomeing's the T-34-76 performed exceptionaly, it did all asked of it.

Another point is the main perceived shortcomings are in reference to tactical tank vs tank combat, which was really not a factor in the design intention as the T-34-76 like the Sherman was an exploitation tank where its main adversaries were Infantry & AT guns, not German tanks, as well as the fact that even if the German tanks when they met got an 10 - 1 kill ratio their were 100 more T-34's waiting to replace them.

And until the Tiger & Panther the T-34-76 was superior to the Germans main tank's Ie, the PzKpfw III & IV, even after their upgrades to the 5,cm L/60 & 7.5 cm L/43 in mobility, armor & on par with the L/43 in firepower.

The only reason the T-34-76 was not used to its full potential early on was due to teething problems, & Soviet crew training, & command deficiencies at all levels, once these problems were worked out, its true potential was used, as it should have been in 1941.

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 11-09-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

Greg:

Well for being such a worthless piece of S*%#, the T34 sure managed to scare the bah-jezus out of the Germans. Enough to prompt them into cranking out the Tiger I and Panther. Early designs iterations of both MkVI and MkV -- at least there outward appearance -- was certainly heavily influenced by the T34-76's design.

It's the cult of the Panzer at work here. Perhaps if we carry on with this discussion long enough we can eventually come to a state where we remove our rose colored glasses.

We are so inundated with information on the Tiger and Panther the vehicles begin to take on mythical status. You can hardly get onto the internet without finding some web site on "I Love the Tiger Tank". Try to find a decent web site on the Sherman Tank Thank goodness for "The Russian Military Zone" which - IMO -gives us a relatively unbiased look at Soviet Military Equipment in WWII.

Now hurry up and send me the pbem move you owe and quite wastin time here

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-09-2000).]

[Los]

That's pretty hillarious Jeff since it is the Russian Military Zone that actually chronicles these weaknesses better than any other site. Maybe it's your bubble that's getting busted. I don't suppose you've actually ever gone there? Yes the T34 was a great tank, yes it scared the hell out of the Germans when _first_ encountered but they quickly learned how to deal with it just as any enemy with half a brain will rapidly search out and exploit weaknesses in any weapons system encounted.

Los

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That's pretty hillarious Jeff since it is the Russian Military Zone that actually chronicles these weaknesses better than any other site. Maybe it's your bubble that's getting busted. I don't suppose you've actually ever gone there? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

huh? I think if you read my previous posts I have been quoting the RMZ for T34 weaknesses. A little equal time toward the strengths of the T34 are perhaps in order at this point.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 11-09-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

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

That's pretty hillarious Jeff since it is the Russian Military Zone that actually chronicles these weaknesses better than any other site. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must have read Jeff's post wrong Los, as isn't that exactly why Jeff was recomending Valera's site, for it's honesty about Soviet equiptment?.

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.

[Jeff Duquette]

Thanks John...that's the way I read it too

Early Panther Conceptual Design...Image From the most excellent "Achtung Panzer Web Site" URL: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/intro.htm

Some definite "I wanna be a T34" influence going on there.

[Bastables]

Bah angry man on leave notices a much better T-34 thread.

Do a search

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

Absolutely Shatter, you have been completely misunderstood. When Andreas, Chuppy and Peter posted pictures of themselves at the IWM I took the earliest opportunity to complement Chuppy on how hot he looked in that T-shirt. Of course the next time an appropriate thread about the front bogey wheel on the Matilda II came up I skillfully insinuated a subtle remark about what a spunk PeterNZ was and a redhead too!

But alas, shatter, everyone thought I was a dickhead as well.

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

Muddying the waters as usual.

by Simon Fox

Mr T says "I pity the foo!"

[The Commissar]

Here's a question for armor historians:

In the Korean war, where T-34's were widely used by the communist forces, which was the model?

I ask because from what little I have read and heard about the conflict, sources say that the T-34 pretty much had its way with the Sherman, despite the many flaws/disadvantages you all have pointed out.

Am I getting incorrect information, or was the model used in Korea adressed many/most of the T-34's early disadvantages? Also, did the Koreans have radios in their T-34's?

Thanks in advance,

Cheers!

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

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Bastables]

Originally posted by The Commissar:

Here's a question for armor historians:

In the Korean war, where T-34's were widely used by the communist forces, which was the model?

I ask because from what little I have read and heard about the conflict, sources say that the T-34 pretty much had its way with the Sherman, despite the many flaws/disadvantages you all have pointed out.

Am I getting incorrect information, or was the model used in Korea adressed many/most of the T-34's early disadvantages? Also, did the Koreans have radios in their T-34's?

Thanks in advance,

Cheers!

I think you'll find it was the HVSS Shermans (E-8) that 'had its way' with the T-34-85s, during the Korean war. Although the T-34 did do quite well when faced with the M-24s in the early stages.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 02-07-2001).]

[rexford]

The origin of the turret cupola on T34 M43 was a German POW who advised his captors that T34 was easy to destroy from side since it was blind! Vision to sides from inside tank was awful, and glass in vision slits did not magnify.

Games like Advanced Squad Leader treated T34 as slow turret traverse due to all the factors working against the vehicle (cramped two man turret crew, overworked commander, no cupola, shockful suspension, etc.).

The great thing about CM2 will be IS tanks with that 1-3 shots per minute rate of fire. Or SU 152 with even lower rate of fire.

There were some stories out about 20 years ago regarding the lack of training given to T34 crews prior to their being pushed into the cauldron. Quite a few scenario's on the miniatures table at the time required that T34's would close range to 500m or so before firing due to poor accuracy and shoddy crew coordination.

Jentz' book on eastern front has some info on what panzer crews thought of T34 during 1942 battles. The trick was to fire on them from the side to minimize German losses from head-on engagements.

T34 mantlet was only about 40mm to 45mm thick, and the turret ring was about the same. 37 Pak with APCR could pierce mantlet and disable gun. 37mm Pak with AP could do in mantlet at fairly close range.

[rexford]

Advanced Squad Leader also penalized T34 for low gun depression by reducing probability that tank would find a hulldown position that could be used.

[Abteilung]

A trained HMG (MG 34,42) crew could score hits on the turret ring of a T-34 and jam the traverse mechanism. Knowing the effective range of a German HMG can extend out to ~3500m, this is a SIGNIFICANT aspect of the war which should be modelled.

Soviet tanks were great in concept, but often hampered by the exigencies of war. Germans exploited nearly every advantage they could against soviet armor, which often resulted in staggering soviet losses.

Here is documentation of some german tactics in Jentz's first edition of PanzerTruppen on page 231.

On 26 May 1942 the General der Schnellen Truppen beim Oberkommando des Heeres distributed the following instructions to units on the Eastern Front for Combating the Russian T34 Tank with our Panzers:

"Characteristics of the T34 - The T34 is faster, more maneuverable, has better cross-cross-country mobility than our Pz.Kpfw. III and IV. Its armor is stronger. The penetrating ability of its 7,62 cm cannon is superior to our 5 cm Kw.K and the 7,5 cm Kw.K.40. The favorable form of sloping all of the armor plates aids in causing the shells to skid off.

Combating the T34 with the 5 cm Kw.K. tank gun is possible only at short ranges from the flank or rear, where it is important to acheive a hit as perpendicular to the surface as possible. Hits on the turret ring, even with high-explosive shells or machine gun bullets, usually result in jamming the turret. In addition, armor piercing shells fired at close range that hit the gun mantle result in penetrations and breaking open the weld seams. The T34 can be penetrated at ranges up to 1000 meters with the 7,5 cm Kw.K.40 as well as the 7,5 cm Hohlgranate (shaped charge shells)"

Firing these Hohlraumgranaten in salvoes toward even sound contacts into wooded areas were suprisingly effective at turning back attacks. Using HE round with delay fuses set they would also inflict heavy casualties on infantry advancing with these tanks.

The following account is on pg 244 and may be of some use to us.

Heinz Weller, Unteroffizier with his Pz.Kpfw.IV (7,5 cm Kw.K L/24) in der 8.Kompanie/Panzer-Regiment 3, provides additional detail in his comabt report dated 13 August 1942:

I received the order to drive through a clearing up to the wood line by Point 208. At the same time two Pz.Kpfw.III drove from the north along the forest trail and fired into the woods where the enemy tanks were claimed to be, based on their engine noise. A Panzergrenadier observed that the T34 being fired at near point 208 had turned his gun in the direction from which he was being fired at. This was for me the signal to advance across the open plain and knock the T34, now clearly identified by me, out of action with Holhraumgranaten at a range of about 25 meters. After the battle was over, I inspected the burned out T-34 and found a light tank directly beside it that had also been hit by my Holhraumgranaten and burned out

As always thanks for reading my rabble and have a pleasant day.:0

[This message has been edited by Abteilung (edited 02-08-2001).]

[rexford]

Advanced Squad Leader rulebook is really an excellent reference, and adds the following regarding T34 deficiencies:

1. many had only a FEW HOURS CREW TRAINING. This supports gamer scenario where charging T34 with inexperienced crews would hold fire till close range. How many of the bogged T34 were due to inadequate crew training or inexperienced commander decisions.

2. M40, M41 and M42 models did not generally have radio's until 1943, and depended upon flag signals and radio equipped commander tanks for direction. Flag signals require close groups, open hatches, slow or no movement and relatively clear line of sight.

3. T34 moves in small, relatively rigid packs due to limited radio use.

4. Detailed commands given prior to action, and once objective is gained, line of sight lost or radio command tank knocked out, T34 could sit around and wait, easy pickens for flanking panzers and ATG.

5. KV-1 had radio's in every tank.

6. T34 transmissions problematic during early years of war and breakdowns common.

7. T34 didn't have APCR till late in 1943.

Jentz points out that many T34 crews were excellent shots. There were some experienced and highly trained groups, although long term survival is another matter.

T34 76.2mm gun could not outpenetrate 75L43, comparsison of numbers indicates that 75L43 outpenetrates T34 gun by almost 50%. PzKpfw IVf2 and early G carried 50mm face-hardened on hull front and turret front/mantlet, while T34 hull presented about twice that frontal thickness to PzKpfw IV.

T34 AP rounds would also lose velocity and accuracy faster than German APCBC, due to shape factor.

Potapov RMZ site notes that Russian ammo quality highly variable prior to 1944. U.S. 75mm AP in desert noted for highly variable powder charge which would not only lead to inconsistent penetration, but would play games with accuracy. You aim for 900m and powder charge gives you trajectory for 800m. I imagine that variable quality meant metal quality and powder charge.

Russian optical glass might also be questionable at times. T34 turret side vision slit glass noted in some sources for bubbles and other little distractions and difficulties.

T34 turret front on M40, M41 and M42 models very advanced ballistically, with few flat areas, so actual area that could be hit and penetrated is somewhat small. This reduces T34 vulnerability a little on turret front hits. Trade-off for cramped crew quarters is most advanced tank shape in the world during 1940 and for a while afterwards. That turret ring is another matter (MG bullets can disable T34 turret rotation : instead of PzKpfw II 20mm AP use machine guns with AP rounds).

To this day, Russians stress small target area, advanced ballistic shape on turret and cramped quarters. And mass use of tanks.

On the battlefield, T34 could penetrate PzKpfw IV at ranges where T34 hull might survive some hits, and where shape of T34 turret reduces hit probability compared to Pzkpfw IV.

T34 fires blunt nose APBC, which has all sorts of advantages on angled hits.

While all of this and the info in other posts might be impossible to crank into CM2 in every case, enough should be used so that the main issues regarding T34 deficiencies are covered.

[Skipper]

While bollocking early model T34 for its mechanical failures, you may want to check similar figures for german or american tanks.

Say 150 hours before a capital overhaul was pretty standard for that time. Modern figures are several times better - mainly due to metallurgy advances.

100 hours is A LOT MORE than 10-11 days of operation, on the average. It is rather like a couple of months of active combat service. Tanks very rarely travel 500 km a day, you know. Changing transmission is not a terribly difficult task, provided you have a spare one, plus some time. Certainly does not constitute an "army level depot repair".

It is worth remembering that a tank has its differences from a '97 model Honda.

[Olle Petersson]

First I admit I've only read the first page in this thread, but the tendancy was clear:

Nobody mentions the conditions for these rotation speeds (other than engine revs and gearing).

At least for the Panther, and presumably a heap of other tanks, the hull position played a huge part in turret speed. This was because of unbalance in the turrets. As soon as the hull is tilted away from the horisontal, traverse speed goes way down.

AFAIK this isn't modeled into the calculations of CM, other than as a general overall slowdown of the traverse speed.

How often do you have a horisontal hull in real life? Pretty much never.

Near horisontal? More often.

Tilting 10 degrees or more in any direction? Not uncommon.

Cheers

Olle

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

Webmaster of Combat Mission för svensktalande, a CM site in Swedish. Norwegians, Finns, Danes and Icelanders are also welcome as members, others can still enjoy pictures and downloads.

Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight...

Detta har kånntrollerats av Majkråsofft späll-tjäcker.

[rexford]

We did a search through photo's to identify K-O'd T34's with frontal penetrations, and have a difficult time of it. Based on the search the overwhelming % of knocked out T34 appeared to be from side hits.

In North Africa, the 50mm Pak was very accurate due to small dispersion, good muzzle velocity (for time and place) and superior optics. The Afrika Corps would place 50mm Pak on the hidden side of a rise and then have a panzer bait the Birtish.

British tanks would charge after the lone PzKpfw II in cavalry fashion, and as soon as they passed the rise 50mm Pak would pick them off from the side.

Brazen Chariots has a section where charging Honey tanks went over the side of a ravine, indicating a complete lack of recon smarts.

Now you may be wondering what British light tank tactics have to do with T34 and CM2? I did for a minute or two, too.

The way that tanks are used, due to doctrine, tactics (no radio's and flag signals) or inexperience has alot to do with performance and survivability on the battlefield.

At El Alamein, the British knew that Rommel would almost always fake a straight-on attack and then hook around the flanks, so they prepared for it. Hidden 6 pdr ATG were waiting. Predictable tactics gives the other side a BIG advantage.

So having enemy tanks move and fight in predictable fashion, where appropriate, on the wargame battlefield is part of the design challenge. We may like to have complete control over every T34 during 1941 battles, but restrictions should be in the game.

And we may wish to have our British desert light tanks show a little more restraint when a fox shows its head, and not go off in full pursuit. We're not talking large scale tactical problems here, like British piecemeal attacks and lack of coordinated action, which gave Rommel and Afrika Korps such an advantage. Although many Russian losses were due to tanks coming out of hiding individually against a Tiger or Panther and being blown apart.

Tanks are more than guns and armor, and tactical limitations are an important part of the picture. Advanced Squad Leader did it better than anyone else I've seen, and little bunches of T34's that move together or fire together (no overwatch), and suffer from buttoned-up penalties, slow turret traverse and reduced accuracy, helps the panzers to crank up the kill ratio. Plus T34's in squad leader were open to breakdown when they approached or exceeded max speed.

And there are a host of other little game drawbacks for T34.

You got to penalize 'em correctly to have 'em fight and die in proper fashion.