The early model T34 SUCKS!

[Head Mahone]

Prove to me I'm wrong. Hell I'd rather have a Sherman!...

Head

[ November 19, 2002, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Head Mahone ]

[Soddball]

Erm, no. You made the statement, you justify it.

[Head Mahone]

A "Regular" gunner can't hit crap with that 76 and a pzIII tears right through it's front armor!

[Soddball]

Fair point. What is it the early T-34 does well, though? It has plenty of ammo for its machine guns, and its 76mm HE round and cannister round are very effective against infantry. In that respect, it's much like the Sherman 75mm - not particularly useful against tanks, but very effective as infantry support.

The key, I think, is to use multiple T34s against a single German tank.

It's certainly true that the early T34 had some glaring weaknesses - hence the continual upgrades Use it as infantry support rather than in an anti-tank role and I think you'll have much better luck.

[Nippy]

Originally posted by Head Mahone:

A "Regular" gunner can't hit crap with that 76 and a pzIII tears right through it's front armor!

The problem with the early war T-34 is that the turret armor...to put it lightly...sucks.

German 50mm L/47 rounds bounce off the front hull every time, but if it hits the turrent the T-34 is dead meat. Which means that going hull down is just about pointless.

Try fighting a meeting engagment against T-34s with 37mm equiped PzIIIs and PzII in mud or deep snow. Then you'll see why it gave the Germans such a head ache.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Head Mahone:

[QB]Prove to me I'm wrong. Hell I'd rather have a Sherman!...

"Sucks" isn't exactly a technical term, so I'm not certain just how bad you think the early T-34 is, but:

A) The penetration of many 37mm guns will be downgraded slightly in the patch.

There's a _reason_ the Russians up-armored the T-34. The word "sucks" may have even been involved.

[Head Mahone]

Thanks fellas. I was just under the impression that the T34 had a little more ummppff to it. Especially after reading that Romell said "they were better than anything that we had." I guess at the time that he said that they might have been. Those times must have changed since the area in which one of my current PBEMs is taking place.

I hooked all the way around the map and successfully out flanked my opponents armor column only to see my T34s miss every shot from about 380m away and slowly sit there and die in their hulls-down position!

Now on to plan B!

[ November 19, 2002, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Head Mahone ]

[MikeyD]

Remember, while that sucky early T34 was trundling around the steppes Sherman was just a gleam in it father's eye. Hell, I don't even think the Grant was designed yet! While Russia Russia was playing with T34s and KVs the U.S. was still making due (or is that making do?) with a handful of obscenely awful "Combat Cars"

[ November 19, 2002, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[THumpre]

The T34 did have "a little uummppff" to it, it just isn't a Panther or a Tiger. Exploit their strength, speed and cheapness, don't fight them like they were German mediums or heavies, and you you will find that they are a nasty surprise indeed...

[offtaskagain]

Originally posted by Head Mahone:

Thanks fellas. I was just under the impression that the T34 had a little more ummppff to it. Especially after ready that Romell said "they were better than anything that we had." I guess at the time that he said that they might have been. Those times must have changed since the area in which one of my current PBEMs is taking place.

The T-34 was only better than German tanks for '41. By 1942 upgunned and uparmored Stugs and Pz IVs had appeared that could handle T-34s easily. Even in 1941 though the T-34 had some very serious handicaps. It had no cupola so it was basically blind except for where the gun was pointing. The Sherman was a better tank than the T-34 in most aspects, including gun and armor, except for off-road mobility.

[ November 19, 2002, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]

[offtaskagain]

Doh!

[ November 19, 2002, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]

[Head Mahone]

Yea, I was very suprised to see not one T34 bog down while moving through about 800m of wet corn field.

[Nippy]

The Sherman was a better tank than the T-34 in most aspects, including gun and armor, except for off-road mobility.

Sherman doesn't have canister rounds

Not to mention the nice low profile and sloped armor as opposed to tghe Shermans Slab side armor and Empire State Building like height.

At least the Russians finally got it right with the T-34 85mm model. Putting that tank in a hull down posotion gave it an advantage over the enemy, unlike the earlyer models with their tissue paper turrets.

Then there's the T-26...lets not go there.

[gunnergoz]

Some folks just don't get the timelines right. Yes, all of these tanks could be found on the battlefields of 1939-45. They were not all contemporaries, however and as is well known, some were designed in the late '20's and some were designed in the early '40's.

For that matter, anyone want to put up an M60A3 versus an M1A2? They exist in the same time frame, but no one pretends that they are comparable.

Do your research and THINK, people. Sheesh!

"Sucks" is not a scholarly description, nor even a working one. It is the hallmark of a sloppy vocabulary probably arising from an uninformed mind.

[White Phosphorus]

The way I see it, is that most of T-34's advantages are out of scope of CM's battlefield.

[akdavis]

Originally posted by Head Mahone:

A "Regular" gunner can't hit crap with that 76 and a pzIII tears right through it's front armor!

Which version of PzIII? The 37mm? The short 50mm? The long 50mm? The former two can penetrate the turret front on the T-34 I believe, but the T-34 can penetrate any part of their armor. Now if your complaint is that Green T-34s don't do well against Veteran PzIIIs, well that's a whole different issue.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Nippy:

The Sherman was a better tank than the T-34 in most aspects, including gun and armor, except for off-road mobility.

Sherman doesn't have canister rounds

Two words- fifty....cal. Even so, I'm sure that the Soviet 76mm HE is much better than US 75mm, due to the more volatile/powerful Soviet HE round. Sherman ground pressure...argh.

[meldorian]

The T34 did have "a little uummppff" to it, it just isn't a Panther or a Tiger. Exploit their strength, speed and cheapness, don't fight them like they were German mediums or heavies, and you you will find that they are a nasty surprise indeed...

But that is the problem! The T-34 is by no means "cheap", it's as expensive as the later versions of the Pz III with the 50mm/L60 gun. And it doesn't even get radios. I personally don't believe that CMBB is balanced. The Russians simply suck. I would rather play the Americans in CMBO in June '44 and fight Panthers and Tigers with Shermans and Wolverines than face a platoon of Pz IV Gs with twice their number in T-34s. The problem is, you won't get that many T-34s for what the German player is paying for his platoon.

[laxx]

Head Machone,

actually, i would rather have t-34s than Panzer III in 1941 when barbarossa started.

Some key points on t-34s:

- Fast Speed

- poor turret

- poor optics

- lots of ammo

- decent guns

- no radio

- hatch down when engaging enemy (all russian tanks)

the Panzer III 37mm long nose can't successfully penetrate the frontal armor of the t-34, at best you will get a rare kill status.

we did some test in the tips and tricks forum where we tested 1941 german vs russian tanks. the conclusion *i* have is that german tanks were out-gunned by the t34s/kv-1 in 1941. in mid-1942 did the Panzer IVs have decent 75mm long nose models to go up against the russian tanks.

laxx

[ November 19, 2002, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: laxx ]

[Big Ron]

Quote - But that is the problem! The T-34 is by no means "cheap", it's as expensive as the later versions of the Pz III with the 50mm/L60 gun. And it doesn't even get radios. I personally don't believe that CMBB is balanced. The Russians simply suck. I would rather play the Americans in CMBO in June '44 and fight Panthers and Tigers with Shermans and Wolverines than face a platoon of Pz IV Gs with twice their number in T-34s. The problem is, you won't get that many T-34s for what the German player is paying for his platoon.

I don't think the game as a whole was designed to be fair, just accurate. The Russians were being beaten in the early stages by superior tactics that tended to bring more German tanks to bear against fewer Russian ones. If you want'fair' battles then you'll have to agree it with your opponents. I'm playing the Russians in a PBEM and have BT-7 tanks. Think how fair that is against Pz III with 50mm L60 guns. I haven't even hit one yet. Lucky it's dark so I can sneak in my tank hunters.

[jgdpzr]

Originally posted by White Phosphorus:

The way I see it, is that most of T-34's advantages are out of scope of CM's battlefield.

I agree with this. Along these lines, the value of the Sherman is also greatly shortchanged in CM, IMO, perhaps to an even greater extent when reliability and the ability to 'transport on treads' are considered. The logistical tails of units operating T-34's and Shermans were so much simpler than what the Germans had to deal with, particularly those supporting the schwere panzers. However, as you allude, the game doesn't directly factor these things in. It doesn't care that the Tigers and Panthers had to generally be transported via train to railheads before closing the relatively short ground to the front on their tracks, while the Shermans and T-34's could travel kilometer after kilometer on their tracks. In the game, all tanks start out 'on the battlefield.'

CM places a hugely exaggerated importance on tanks' anti-tank capabilities. Not only because of the diminishment of logistical factors, but also because most CM games attempt to be somewhat balanced--a situation that was probably more the exception than the rule in RL.

To get at the issue of logistics, you really need a game of operational or larger scale. However, you can bet the real commanders we try to emulate DID factor these things in, even when actively engaging the enemy. Some may have gone to an extreme in their emphasis on logistical support (Patton's claim that the US army didn't need a better tank than the Sherman springs to mind), but they certainly had reasons to appreciate the Sherman and T-34 that fall outside of the scope of the CM battlefield.

One thing that CMBB adds that somewhat mitigates this is the ability to start battles with casualties. I wouldn't mind seeing them take it a step further, however, by implementing a system that separated infantry and armor casualty levels, in essence creating a random vehicle-specific casualty factor that would be a direct attempt at estimating mechanical reliability. Ideally, this can vary according to vehicle and time period. For example, if you are fighting a battle in June '43 as the Germans and you buy a Panther, there should be a very high possibility that said vehicle will not be there when you start the battle. Sure, such random factors may frustrate players, but the same can be said for those German commanders at Kursk relying on the availability of Germany's latest wonder-weapon. And, I can guarantee you that after playing enough battles, you'd come to appreciate the fact that those T-34's you were supposed to bring to the party were actually there.

[Nippy]

"Sucks" is not a scholarly description, nor even a working one. It is the hallmark of a sloppy vocabulary probably arising from an uninformed mind.

Looks like somebody hasn't used the T-26 yet.

[[Wiking]]

I dunno, I quite like them. I mean, my Tigers eat through them like Al Roker on diet!

[Gaylord Focker]

Is there a rule the Russian has to take a T-34 or other most powerful tank in the arsenal to every battle?

There simply was'nt enough tanks, let alone T-34's to cover every acre of front in the East.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by meldorian:

But that is the problem! The T-34 is by no means "cheap", it's as expensive as the later versions of the Pz III with the 50mm/L60 gun. And it doesn't even get radios. I personally don't believe that CMBB is balanced. The Russians simply suck. I would rather play the Americans in CMBO in June '44 and fight Panthers and Tigers with Shermans and Wolverines than face a platoon of Pz IV Gs with twice their number in T-34s. The problem is, you won't get that many T-34s for what the German player is paying for his platoon.

Duh!

Of course you'd rather play the Americans. The P-4G was designed to defeat the T34/76 - it's a newer tank, with a much better gun.

A correct comparison would be to play P-4G's vs Pershings!!

As someone else pointed out - apples and oranges.

As for your comparison of T34 and P3 point costs - the P3 is a tank killer with the long 50. the T34/76 is an infantry killer with a much bigger gun and plenty of HE ammo for it.

Horses for courses - would you say a Wespe is useless because it is vulnerable to an ATR that it can't even see to shoot back at?