Are history books wrong?

[desertrat1943]

Thank for all the technical comments but, again, don't you think that T34s are a little too brittle and undergunned to be used in CM as effectively as they were used in reality? I know soviets could churn out hundreds of them every day, but the poor fellow like me has only a few hundres of purchase points to spend...Don't touch the stats, because they are right and holy, but at least bring down the price for T34!

[rune]

No, i think they are modelled exactly the way they were. Remember the tank was not designed to go up against other tank, it was an infantry support weapon, that happened to be good agains the early war German Tanks. Two man turrets, lack of radios, lack of trained crews, a transmission the drivers hated and all.

The values are based on a formula. Firepower/mobility/and other stuff. Rarity is what you are looking for, and can be handled that way. It was common so the cost drops at certain points, then goes up as a newer version of the t34/76 comes out. Again, play with them against the panzer I, or the Panzer II or early Pz III. This is when the lore was built.

It is a perception issue.

Rune

[Nippy]

You are right. The T-34 has also to be viewed from an operational level. It has a Diesel engine - its range was about 600 km (with drop tanks). The Christie suspension on the wider tracks proved to be superior under conditions where German tanks refused operation.

Didn't some American General near the end of WWII say something to the effect of:

"If we would of had Tigers and Panthers in Normandy, we never would have got out of France. If the Germans would of had Shermans and Cromwells in the Battle of The Bulge, they would of reached Antwerp and beyond."

From a gamepoint view, try setting ground conditions to "Wet" or "Mud" and then attack with heavy German armor...it ain't pretty.

[rune]

Follow up, what the Soviets thought of the T34.

http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_2.html

In the summer of 40, the Soviets themselves thought the Panzer III was a better tank. Read the article above and be surprised. As always, thansk to Valera and his wonderful site.

Rune

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, a small correction... the early T-34 transmissions were HORRIBLE. They were an exact copy of a much older American design (IIRC) that really wasn't up to the stress of the vehicle's weight and engine power. There are stories of drivers using prybars to get the thing into gear and then having to leave it there.

But yes, in general the T-34 was a rude shock to the Germans for the following reasons:

1. The German intelligence gathering capabilities sucked. Therefore, seeing something like the T-34, KV-1, and KV-2 when all that was expected were BTs... yeah... that would be a shock

2. Related to the above, part of the German's pre-Barbarossa confidence was based on what was seen of the Red Army in Finland and in the invasion of Poland. Because they missed finding out about the next generation of Soviet weapons (rockets and planes were also a rude shock) the Germans had unrealistic expectiations of how easy it would be to deal with the Red Army in 1941.

3. The Germans weren't used to fighting a determined enemy after the first couple of days or weeks of combat. The Soviets never let up on the intensity, even though their losses were huge. Therefore, having tough SOB armor to deal with didn't help the Germans think positively about how things were going.

4. The most common matchup of the first T-34s and KVs were against PzIIs, Pz35(t) and Pz38(t) tanks. The next common matchup was against PzIIIs and StuGs. The least common was PzIVs. The StuGs and PzIVs could handle the T-34s to a large degree, but the fact was they were often nowhere to be seen when T-34s and KVs were spotted.

In general, remember that a lot of the benefits of the T-34 were not evident in a small scale battle. Numbers produced, operational aspects, ability to handle difficult terrain, performance in sub freezing temps, etc. were all very important. So for the same reason a big tank like the King Tiger can be rightly knocked for its non battlefield failings, the T-34 can be praised for its abilities when looked at on the whole.

It is a great tank, but not an über weapon. If it were, how then can the German's continued advance in 1941 and 1942 be explained? Somehow these "invincible" T-34s were dealt with. The stories of rounds bouncing off them are often blown out of context as much as the human waves of infantry.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and allow me to "pimp" one of our books we sell...

"German Panzer Tactics in WWII" by Charles Sharp.

On page 42 there starts a section talking about how combat generally went against the KVs and T-34s. One part of the report states that the T-34 could be penetrated at 300-400m by the Pak36 (37mm gun).

Steve

[demoss]

The early T-34s had two big weaknesses - the turret armor was weak and the gun was weak (yes, there's also the lack of radio, but that's more a manufacturing and doctrinal issue than anything, and the two-man turret isn't great). I think both were more true of the 1940 model than the 1941 model - I'm certain of the gun and less so of the armor.

But all told, it was one hell of a successful design. I think the earliest non-Russian tank that's roughly comparable to the T-34 M40 in speed, punch, AND armor is probably the Chaffee - which appeared four years (+ a few months?) later and, I think, still doesn't really match up in armor. There simply weren't that many tanks made in WW II with that kind of speed, and most of them were only suitable for a recon role in Europe.

I haven't played them a lot yet, but even the T-34 M40 was pretty darn scary at Yelnia with only PaK 36 to oppose it. Sure, the turret is penetratable, but you need to fire off a number of shots, which means you have to live long enough to fire off a number of shots. I also suspect the T-34 M41 will fare significantly better.

[Renaud]

Originally posted by Carl Deppen:

I've read many accounts from the war and in 1941 only a lucky hit or a hit close from the side or rear were the then German tanks able to take out a T-34. Something in the game modeling of the T-34 is wrong, because the results just aren't historical.

The T34-40/41 has JUST enough armor to reliably defeat the 75L24 or MKIII 50L42 'short' from medium ranges (lt 700m), but only if the angle if incidence is not such that the 60 degree slope is reduced by more than 20 degrees (to, say, 40deg or less 'effective' slope). If you fire from higher ground with your 50L42 or 75L24, particularly from beyond 200 meters but not beyond 700, you will start to get damaging penetrations on the T34 from every side (front/back/sides). Not catastrophic penetrations, just damaging enough to sooner or later knock them out. Of course you also have to avoid getting fired back at by the 76mm which can defeat your early war MKIII and IV poorly sloped armor with enough excess power to cause immediate destruction (note that a lot of Rusky AP has a large HE charge). Also the center of the T34-40/41 'curved' turret front has a weakness if you hit it near dead-on. Such a hit eliminates the slope effect of the curved surface and even a 37mm can penetrate. Note that they eliminate this weakness in later versions by up-armoring the turret front...very good research and historical modeling going on here.

Rather than the various slipshod and anecdotal accounts that are floating around out there, I would use CMBB to determine how various Eastern Front weapons stacked up against each other. That's how much respect I am starting to have for these armor models.

Ren

[Robohn]

I've played about 10 TCP/IP games with my buddy, and I am always the Soviets. He thought it was bad to see tons of Shermans, I have him positively sick of T-34s. One of our battles took place in rain and fog, a good portion of his force bogged in and quicky became worthless.

Utilizing many of the tactics I learned to use with Shermans against the Panther and Tiger tanks I find the T-34s to be quite useful. Getting T-34s into the German rear is devilishly fun...Even against King Tigers.

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by sitzkrieg:

Didn't we already go through this with the Tiger and Panther tanks in CM:BO? We found out they weren't nearly as "Uber" as the history books made them out to be.

WTF?!? You mean this bug STILL hasn't been dealt with?!?!?! :eek:

BTS, FIX OR DO SOMEFINK!!!

[ October 17, 2002, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Brian Rock ]

[Brian Rock]

Proverbial warning #4: CMBB battles are meant to be fair. Real war isn't.

If you want a sense of why the Germans hated T-34s fight three battles. The first two will be 1,000 point battles and the Russians will be attacking with understrength forces, possibly even outnumbered by the defenders. In the third one they'll spend 8,000 points and have a 10:1 superiority in tanks (and infantry and artillery and...)

Oh, only the third battle counts for victory conditions.

[busboy]

Brian, CMBB is not inherently ment to be fair. Its ment to be as accurate as possible. Its up to the scenario designers/QB conditions to make it either "fair," "realistic" (which I would argue as the REAL definition of fair), and "gamy."

As for the Chaffee being equal to the T-34? The Chaffee was a light tank, its armor was rather inferior. You can compare the two, but its inaccurate.

Its much more useful to compare the T-34 with the Sherman. As it has been noted, the Sherman's guns (for AP) are equally or even more effective. It has been noted by some here that the Sherman actually had better off road performance than the T-34, its protection can be considered rather equal, and then the Sherman is a much more reliable vehicle to top it off.

The difference between the T-34 and the Sherman seems to be in the time they appeared. If the British had lend lease Shermans in France, 1940 (which is a historic impossability, but this is rhetorical) then the "T-34 shock" we're discussing would instead be the "Sherman shock."

The Sherman and the T-34 were the tanks that soldiered the Allies to victory. But they weren't all powerful.

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by busboy:

Its much more useful to compare the T-34 with the Sherman. As it has been noted, the Sherman's guns (for AP) are equally or even more effective. It has been noted by some here that the Sherman actually had better off road performance than the T-34, its protection can be considered rather equal, and then the Sherman is a much more reliable vehicle to top it off.

Wait wait, I must have missed this. When did it come out that the Sherman was better off-road? Using CMBB alone as my source , I would pick the T-34 for off-road capability over the Sherman every time....

I looked back over this discussion and didn't see it, so I apologize if it was brought up and explained already in this thread.

[busboy]

There are some threads floating around that argued the point to my satisfaction, but I was suprised mysef. A torsion bar suspension is superior to a horizontal volute system like the Sherman has.

However, what I seemed to recall seeing was the T-34's off road handling was not as good as it could have been. Perhaps it was that the springs of the suspension didn't have enough give and the ride was rough? Someone will recall the thread or have sources to back it up.

I will add that it wasn't until the M4A3E8 that Shermans had comperable ground pressure to the T-34s. The duckbills added to the tracks of Shermans didn't work as well as one fat track.

[Guest Mike]

The T34 didn't have torsion bar suspension - it had Christie suspension.

Teh difference is that the Christie suspension has large springs attached to the mounting arm for the road wheels to dampen movement, whereas torsion bar has, well, torsion bars to absorb teh energy.

Christie suspension requires a lot more room inside the hull, and isn't that well damped so gives a quite bouncy ride.

[Peterk]

> If you want a sense of why the Germans hated T-> 34s fight three battles.

But on the flip side, you will pretty much never have one of us treating our little russian toy soldiers and tanks the way they were treated historically.

If we send 5 tanks over a ridge and they all get blasted, I believe that all of us would decide "Ok that's no good" and look for another way. The real russians would have sent another 50 up the same ridge before calling it quits.

[busboy]

Whoops, you're right. However, torsion bar suspensions are outgrowths of the Christie suspension if I understand right. I just make the mistake of using the two terms interchangably.

[Slapdragon]

This is common with every simulation since Tractics came out: people are shocked to find out that their invincible favorite X was not invincible. Remember, the T-34 was fought and killed, even though it was a shock, by the thousands in 1941 and 1942. Germans beat them with grenades, 37mm AT guns, 50mm AT guns, short 75s, the works. This is why they got to the gates of Moscow -- they destroyed ten thousand or more tanks along the way.

But remember, the Germans did not fight fair. They blew up the T-34 in every way they could, from ravaging it from the air, to sticking crowbars in its tracks.

Also remember the Russians did not play fair. The Russians felt that a successful T-34 lead attack on a German battalion needed a hundred T-34s in a few hundred meters of front. Bumper to bumper. And this juggernaut would hit a weakened German infantry battalion, who was more used to kicking French and Polish ass than taking a tidle wave of steel on.

So, if you really want some historical battles, play the Russians and attack with a 6-1 advantage against German infantry only. CM afterall is a game, and fair fights is the norm, but the reality is nothing is fair.

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Cameroon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by busboy:

Its much more useful to compare the T-34 with the Sherman. As it has been noted, the Sherman's guns (for AP) are equally or even more effective. It has been noted by some here that the Sherman actually had better off road performance than the T-34, its protection can be considered rather equal, and then the Sherman is a much more reliable vehicle to top it off.

Wait wait, I must have missed this. When did it come out that the Sherman was better off-road? Using CMBB alone as my source , I would pick the T-34 for off-road capability over the Sherman every time....

I looked back over this discussion and didn't see it, so I apologize if it was brought up and explained already in this thread.</font>

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by busboy:

Brian, CMBB is not inherently ment to be fair. Its ment to be as accurate as possible. Its up to the scenario designers/QB conditions to make it either "fair," "realistic" (which I would argue as the REAL definition of fair), and "gamy."

Which is precisely what I meant.

The scenarios are generally designed to give either side an equal chance of winning (with exceptions). In the real world the attacker usually won't attack unless they expect to win. It'd be a poor CO who continually engineered battles that only gave him a 50% chance of victory.

[gunnergoz]

Read your history, fellas. When you do, you'll take note of the extraordinary numbers of T-34's that were KO'd on the road to victory. Ditto the Sherman. The German tanks were good, but the Jerries' unit cohesion, experience and elan did a lot more for them than did the ubertanks themselves.

War is about fighting spirit, coupled with leadership and the will to win despite losses. Oh, yeah...it's also about fielding enough good men over a longer period of time than can your adversary. Sure, it helps if you can equip them adequately, but all you need do is ensure that your technology will keep enough of the core seed of warriors alive long enough to see out the war. Alive longer than your adversary, anyway.

At one time, the Germans had "it," that war-winning elan. They didn't even need the best equipment on the field, although better doctrine helped them overcome the technological gap they faced. But, given attrition over time, after enough of the German heroes died, the only winners left on the battlefield with this warrior spirit, were driving various models of T-34's and Shermans.

War-winning generals preserve that seed of warrior spirit at all costs. The Russians did it through sheer volume of population...We in the West did it by applying firepower in timely amounts to overcome our foe.

Don't measure the thickness of the armor or the caliber of the gun bore, guys...it's all really all about the spirit within the men and their leaders, who drove all this iron junk to victory, or saw it go down in defeat.

[Battlefront.com]

Busboy,

However, what I seemed to recall seeing was the T-34's off road handling was not as good as it could have been. Perhaps it was that the springs of the suspension didn't have enough give and the ride was rough? Someone will recall the thread or have sources to back it up.

Besides mechanical breakdowns and inexperienced crews, the only thing I can think of is the sharp, low "nose" of the front. On a steep downslope or trench the nose had a tendency to dig in, thus getting the tank stuck.

Steve

[CombinedArms]

OK, I think I'm beginning to get it about the T-34. In particular, I'm starting to see its reputation in terms of analogies to the Japanese Zero and the Sherman tank.

The analogy to the Zero is: it was the product of a nation thought to be technologically backward, and its capablities came as a shock to its opponent early in the war. After a few months, in both cases, effective tactics had been found to deal with the suprising capabilities of the Zero and T-34 with the existing weapons of the US and Germany, and then, by mid-1943, in both cases, answers had been found in the form of upgunned and uparmored German tanks and US planes like the Hellcat and Corsair.

The analogy to the Sherman is that, first of all, the Sherman was a pretty good tank when it first appeared, and secondly, and more importantly, it was produced in great numbers and also gradually improved so that, with superior numbers, it could remain effective--even a war winner. Also, the two tanks have fairly similar strengths and weaknesses, and from 1942 on, it sounds like Sherman-like tactics may work pretty well with the T-34.

My guess is that the T-34's reputation derives from a combination of the two factors: its early shock value and reputation as an advanced design, and its later sheer abundance on the battlefield. The Sherman lacked the first factor (nobody could ever see this slightly klugey, if effective and reliable, improved-Grant-tank-with-a-turret as a shockingly advanced design) and that explains its rather lower reputation, even though its overall fighting value and war impact is suprisingly similar to the T-34.

Just my two cents.

[ October 18, 2002, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

OK, I think I'm beginning to get it about the T-34. In particular, I'm starting to see its reputation in terms of analogies to the Japanese Zero and the Sherman tank.

The analogy to the Zero is: it was the product of a nation thought to be technologically backward, and its capablities came as a shock to its opponent early in the war. After a few months, in both cases, effective tactics had been found to deal with the suprising capabilities of the Zero and T-34 with the existing weapons of the US and Germany, and then, by mid-1943, in both cases, answers had been found in the form of upgunned and uparmored German tanks and US planes like the Hellcat and Corsair.

The analogy to the Sherman is that, first of all, the Sherman was a pretty good tank when it first appeared, and secondly, and more importantly, it was produced in great numbers and also gradually improved so that, with superior numbers, it could remain effective--even a war winner. Also, the two tanks have fairly similar strengths and weaknesses, and from 1942 on, it sounds like Sherman-like tactics may work pretty well with the T-34.

My guess is that the T-34's reputation derives from a combination of the two factors: its early shock value and reputation as an advanced design, and its later sheer abundance on the battlefield. The Sherman lacked the first factor (nobody could ever see this slightly klugey, if effective and reliable, improved-Grant-tank-with-a-turret as a shockingly advanced design) and that explains its rather lower reputation, even though its overall fighting value and war impact is suprisingly similar to the T-34.

Just my two cents.

Yeah. What he said.

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Originally posted by Abbott:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Carl Deppen:

Yeah, well try the CCBB scenario Jaegermeister and find out how "Uber" the big German cats are.

Jaegermeister------------Spoiler+++

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

I was able to knock out all of the Tigers and all but one of the Panthers. Won a minor victory, it was tough.</font>