Advice on t-34 vs STUGs???

[Bigduke6]

Krautmann,

I stand corrected, although it sounds like you were having some bad luck there. At 500m. I figure the 50mm is pretty dangerous to the T-34, maybe I'm just paranoid.

[Krautman]

Yup, that really was bad luck... But it's always those events that remain in your memory, isn't it? Some days later, sitting in the train, one thinks "****, why didn't that f***ing gunner do a better job there?"

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[JasonC]

No it is not speed. The T-34 is faster than the IIIs, and the Panther is as well. The Panther is out when they lose, the T-34 is there when the Russians are losing to the IIIs. It is doctrine and operational factors, not tank quality anything.

Tank quality issues are overrated by tactical gamers because they matter in small scale actions between a few vehicles. In collisions between entire armored corps, they are much less important. And even that grand tactical level is overshadowed by larger ones.

The dominant process in the war was strategic, mobilization and attrition and the balance of forces. The next most important was "big chess" maneuvering at the army scale and above, which is what brings about things like the 1941 pockets, Stalingrad, Kursk and it counterattack aftermath, Bagration, etc.

On the StuH report, the point of it was to show that the Germans themselves regarded their 80mm front vehicles as penetrable under 500m, by the 76L42. They regarded the StuH's HEAT as an effective tank killer only at short range, because the low muzzle velocity made hits rare at long ones.

A good rule of thumb is ranges that are 1 second of flight time or less, for the gun's muzzle velocity, are pretty easy shots with minimal "drop". From that distance out to 2x muzzle velocity (2 second flight time about) the shots are getting distinctly harder, as accurate range estimates become necessary. Beyond that is true long range fire, which only quite good tankers managed to consistently do well.

The original writer's point was at long range the StuH would just miss, and in close the T-34 would kill it with its replies, so it wasn't an effective tank killer. The point made in passing, that T-34s kill 80mm front vehicles inside 500m, was the one I needed. (No StuHs existed until after the move from 50mm fronts to 80mm fronts).

On 50L60 vs. T-34s, 3 against 1 at 500m the PzIIIs are heavily favored, particularly if they have 20+50 front. One on one they are not favored. The curved turret front on T-34s tends to act as a 30 degree slope but with high variance. You then still need (1) a hit (2) on the turret not the hull (3) that happens to be in the "stickier" half, in slope effect terms and (4) having decent behind armor effect. Meanwhile the shots coming the other way need (1) a hit and (2) a decent penetration roll, that is about it. 76mm APHE tends to have good BHE. Partials sometimes limit it to a crew loss, but the reverse (50 AP) is more common.

As a result, late 1942 Pz IIIs want odds against T-34s, in terms of the tactical match up. If you also have Marders hunting from range, great. On shot speed and accuracy, though, the Pz III is superior. Marginally so, but clearly so. It also engages faster and responds to new orders much faster (3 man turret).

I've killed KVs with hail fire because of this - a whole platoon dings the guy 20 times, they get rattled and reply only slowly, miss, somebody gets a gun or track hit, the next ding persuades the crew to bail. But it is not something you like to rely on.

Combined arms is. The Germans used gun fronts against Russian armor in the early war. Poor Russian combined arms coordination, radioless 2 man turret AFVs, and the overall initiative resting with the Germans, let this work quite well. By the time you have the late 42 fleet mix, your AFVs can help out materially, but they still work with other assets and need tactics.

By 1943, you can just dominate open areas - even if you are in Panzer IVs. They need turret hits, you kill through any plate at range, the BHE problem is gone, you still have the awareness advantages etc. A front-invulnerable tank is not necessary. You just don't stand stock still out in the open when they have numbers, that is all.

[MikeyD]

May I suggest you play German captured T34s vs Russian captured Stugs. All of a sudden the Stugs will become less of a threat against T34s.

[John Kettler]

While the comparison made via substituting Shermans for T-34/76s is intriguing, I feel constrained to point out the attendant distorting factors: Ergonomic 3-man turret vs. poorly designed 2-man T-34/76 turret = significant ROF advantage to the Sherman, compounded by improved accuracy while firing on the move with the gyrostabilizer engaged (modeled as always on). There's also the ability of a Sherman to fight effectively while buttoned.

Regards,

John Kettler

[IDILIX]

Exactly the same thing happened to me a game a year ago and the only cure was to retreat and try for a flank shot... In fact I killed the offending Stugs with a barrage of AT rifles...