T-34/85 owns the Hetzer

[offtaskagain]

Don't be expecting your hetzers to wipe the floor with the T-34/85 like they did Shermans. I just ran a quick test with a platoon of 4 hetzers vs. 6 T-34/85s. The 85s KO'd all 4 Hetzers from 800m with 1 loss. More tests are needed but the Hetzers were dead fast.

[busboy]

With a test like that, I'm not suprised.

Even if you balance out the tests more (like, oh, say, even numerical odds ) I think the T-34s are still going to win..the 85mm gun will get the Hetzer every time, but the reverse might not be true.

However, if the Hetzer is used in an ambush role with a narrow LOS, the Hetzer's small size will keep it deadly.

The Hetzer would get whooped in the steppes, no doubt. But just try to come into a wooded village and not crapping your pants when one pops out of seemingly no where.

[Cameroon]

Is it me, or does a T-34/85 have a rather slow ROF? I know that's the impression I got from a night run & gun I recently had in a QB. I wish I could remember what I was fighting, but I do distinctly recall exclaiming to myself "Oh com'n, FIRE"

[Bastables]

Err, even buying a platoon of four Hetzers is cheaper than one platoon of three T 34/85s. I think you may have stacked the decks a bit.

[Silvio Manuel]

This is interesting to me b/c the Soviet 85mm's I've heard of antecdotally are usually said to be the equal to the Western 75mm...maybe it was the 76mm? Even so, the CMBO 76mm doesn't fare to well vs. Hetzer, does it? Accourse, the Sherman's armor isn't up to snuff either.

[Nippy]

Originally posted by Bastables:

Err, even buying a platoon of four Hetzers is cheaper than one platoon of three T 34/85s. I think you may have stacked the decks a bit.

What was the skill rating for each side? If it was Elite T-34/85's vs conscript Hetzers then it's no surpirse they lost. Kind of like how people would have Green Tiger's go up against Elite Fireflys in CMBO and then act surprised when the Tiger's got knocked out.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Nippy:

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

Err, even buying a platoon of four Hetzers is cheaper than one platoon of three T 34/85s. I think you may have stacked the decks a bit.

What was the skill rating for each side? If it was Elite T-34/85's vs conscript Hetzers then it's no surpirse they lost. Kind of like how people would have Green Tiger's go up against Elite Fireflys in CMBO and then act surprised when the Tiger's got knocked out.</font>

[CC_Brad]

The T-34/85 cannot be underestimated. From around 700m with 2 flank shots the 85 knocked out a King Tiger of mine in a test battle. The KT couldnt or didnt swing its turret fast enough to save itself.

[dalem]

Originally posted by CC_Brad:

The T-34/85 cannot be underestimated. From around 700m with 2 flank shots the 85 knocked out a King Tiger of mine in a test battle. The KT couldnt or didnt swing its turret fast enough to save itself.

So can a U.S. Chaffee or Sherman. From the flanks everything is vulnerable.

-dale

[CC_Brad]

Dunno if it would matter in CMBB but the angle of the 85mm was not perpendicular or 90 degrees to the KT's flank. The shell came in more at a 45 degree angle..which may not matter anyway at that range.

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

The T-34/85 cannot be underestimated. From around 700m with 2 flank shots the 85 knocked out a King Tiger of mine in a test battle. The KT couldnt or didnt swing its turret fast enough to save itself.

So can a U.S. Chaffee or Sherman. From the flanks everything is vulnerable.

-dale</font>

[bobo]

Hmmm. I tried a few test runs at 1000m.

8 Reg Hetzers vs 8 Reg T34/85s

1. Draw 7 of each KOd

2. Axis victory 4 Hetzers dead 7 T34s dead

3. Axis victory 4 Hetzers dead 8 T34s dead

4. Axis victory 4 Hetzers dead 8 T34s dead

5. Axis victory 3 Hetzers dead 8 T34s dead

YMMV Bobo

[akdavis]

Originally posted by Cameroon:

Heh, actually... a 1941 T-34 is better off from the flank than its weak-point turret front facing a threat 45 @ 60 over its whole body, except the turret front. Unless I misread something in the stats. [/QB]

Hmm...not sure about the stats, but I do know that even if the turrent front is weak, it is actually a small area and heavily curved.

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by akdavis:

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

Heh, actually... a 1941 T-34 is better off from the flank than its weak-point turret front facing a threat 45 @ 60 over its whole body, except the turret front. Unless I misread something in the stats.

Hmm...not sure about the stats, but I do know that even if the turrent front is weak, it is actually a small area and heavily curved.</font>

[tools4fools]

Here another test at the CM shooting range:

8 vet T-34/85 model 44 (with 85/L55 gun)

vs

8 vet Hetzer

cost:

1440pts vs 856pts

Distance:

1000m

T-34 hat a hit% of 28% on Hetzer,

Hetzer had a hit% of 38% on T-34.

T-34 got "very seldom" kill possiblity for Hetzer,

Hetzer got "OK" kill probability for T-34.

Each pair facing each other, flat open terrain, all pairs seperated by tall pines.

Run the test 12 times. Result after 96 shootouts was 60 T-34 (62,5%) losses vs 44 Hetzer losses (45,8%); In detail:

T-34 losses vs Hetzer losses:

(2:6)(6:2)(6:3)(2:7)(5:3)(6:2)(7:6)(3:6)(6:2)(6:2)(6:2)(5:3)

Observations: Some upper hull ricochets on Hetzer upper hull, some ricochets on T-34 front turret. Otherwise always penetrations or partial penetrations. ROF seemed to be about equal with the T-34 maybe a little faster.

Comparing the stats, the T-34 should have problems penetrating the Hetzers upper hull front armor; it's 60mm "rounded" (which means rounded gun mantlet, otherwise it's 60° or 55° if I remember correct). Penetration at 1000 m for 60° is 43mm for the 85L/55. At 30° it is 95mm at the same range.

Armor quality of the Hetzer is 85% only, that's why there were only few ricochts I guess.

All in all the "very seldom" kill possibility seems to be given after the armor vs gun penetration stats without taking the armor quality in count.

[MikeyD]

I wonder if the difference in result between the first test and the last is that extra 200m added to the range (800m vs 1000m).

The Germans are modeled with much better optics and even less powerful guns are liable to get better kill ratios at longer ranges. My own unscientific impression is that Russian guns really don't like firing beyond 1000m.

[tools4fools]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I wonder if the difference in result between the first test and the last is that extra 200m added to the range (800m vs 1000m).

I doubt that; first test was made with 6 T-34 vs 4 Hetzers... They were obviously not seperated in pairs where each pair has is one "shooting lane" seperated with tall pines which block LOS to the other pairs.

In my test the Hetzer and T-34 were going head on. In the first test it was 6 vs 4...Huge difference there.

And I had test runs where the T-34 defeated the Hetzer with 6:2 as well...

[demoss]

Heh, actually... a 1941 T-34 is better off from the flank than its weak-point turret front facing a threat 45 @ 60 over its whole body, except the turret front. Unless I misread something in the stats.

Not sure if this is a difference between the T-34 M40 and M41, but the M40 is also very vulnerable to the lower side hull (same thickness as the upper side hull, but at 0 degrees!). In [CENSORED] the side lower hull and the front turret were where all my T-34 kills (by Pz IIIF and Pz 38tE, both 37 mm) came from. And I was also very pleased to find that the MG-34 *is* effective against Russian armored cars.

Speaking of light anti-armor effectiveness, was anybody else surprised by the relative performance of the Boys ATR and the Lahti? I had always heard that the Boys was a piece of s--t, while the Lahti was relatively respectable. Maybe that's just because only Finns had the Lahti.

[K_Tiger]

Anyone made tests with the hetzers in hull down positions?? The way we play with those little buggers in CM:BO...

[Renaud]

Originally posted by tools4fools:

Comparing the stats, the T-34 should have problems penetrating the Hetzers upper hull front armor; it's 60mm "rounded" (which means rounded gun mantlet, otherwise it's 60° or 55° if I remember correct). Penetration at 1000 m for 60° is 43mm for the 85L/55. At 30° it is 95mm at the same range.

Armor quality of the Hetzer is 85% only, that's why there were only few ricochts I guess.

Keep in mind that the angle of incidence at 1000 meters is going to reduce the effective slope on the hetzer front from the 60 degrees rating. This is due to the projectile dropping downward as it loses velocity of course. I think all the ratings assume a 90 degree (straight on) angle of incidence. Try putting the hetzers on a reverse-slope hull down position - this should greatly increase the effective slope (maybe up to 80?) and result in more bounces from the 85mm I would guess. More flat-out misses as well, but you get the point.

Ren

[Battlefront.com]

Renaud,

I think all the ratings assume a 90 degree (straight on) angle of incidence.

Yup. And this is yet another reminder that the stats are only guidelines. There are dozens of factors being calculated on the fly that affect the real penetration ability of that particular round at that particular time on a particular surface of that vehicle.

The Hetzer does have a number of advantages vs. the T-34/85, but of course if a matchup (test or in a game) is not playing up those advantages... yeah, the T-34/85 is something that the Hetzer needs to fear. For all its weaknesses (including slower RoF), the T-34/85 was a very good medium tank and in an unfavorable matchup a dangerous opponant.

Steve

[tools4fools]

Originally posted by Renaud:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tools4fools:

Comparing the stats, the T-34 should have problems penetrating the Hetzers upper hull front armor; it's 60mm "rounded" (which means rounded gun mantlet, otherwise it's 60° or 55° if I remember correct). Penetration at 1000 m for 60° is 43mm for the 85L/55. At 30° it is 95mm at the same range.

Armor quality of the Hetzer is 85% only, that's why there were only few ricochts I guess.

Keep in mind that the angle of incidence at 1000 meters is going to reduce the effective slope on the hetzer front from the 60 degrees rating. This is due to the projectile dropping downward as it loses velocity of course. I think all the ratings assume a 90 degree (straight on) angle of incidence. Try putting the hetzers on a reverse-slope hull down position - this should greatly increase the effective slope (maybe up to 80?) and result in more bounces from the 85mm I would guess. More flat-out misses as well, but you get the point.

Ren</font>

[Nippy]

"Speaking of light anti-armor effectiveness, was anybody else surprised by the relative performance of the Boys ATR and the Lahti? I had always heard that the Boys was a piece of s--t, while the Lahti was relatively respectable. Maybe that's just because only Finns had the Lahti."

All I know is that the PTRD/PTRS is a nightmare for all Germans Tanks Below the PZIV...don't even talk about HT's, Bunkers, or Armored Cars. :eek:

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Renaud,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I think all the ratings assume a 90 degree (straight on) angle of incidence.

Yup. And this is yet another reminder that the stats are only guidelines. There are dozens of factors being calculated on the fly that affect the real penetration ability of that particular round at that particular time on a particular surface of that vehicle.

The Hetzer does have a number of advantages vs. the T-34/85, but of course if a matchup (test or in a game) is not playing up those advantages... yeah, the T-34/85 is something that the Hetzer needs to fear. For all its weaknesses (including slower RoF), the T-34/85 was a very good medium tank and in an unfavorable matchup a dangerous opponant.

Steve</font>

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by akdavis:

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

Heh, actually... a 1941 T-34 is better off from the flank than its weak-point turret front facing a threat 45 @ 60 over its whole body, except the turret front. Unless I misread something in the stats.

Hmm...not sure about the stats, but I do know that even if the turrent front is weak, it is actually a small area and heavily curved.[/QB]</font>