T-34/85 owns the Hetzer

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by tools4fools:

Makes absolutly sense to me that the projectile drops "downwards" as loosing velocity and therefore reducing the slope effect. Great. Never thought that such stuff is all calculated. Just great.

I don't know about CMBB, but I remember that this particular effect was not modeled in CMBO. It could have been introduced in CMBB together with all the other armor combat refinements, but I'm not sure about this.

Dschugaschwili

[Commissar]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

I managed to come really close with my T34s (100m) and...:-( I got flank shots, I missed, Panther was able to destroy me with first shot while I couldn't hit from 100m (was T34/85's gun THAT bad?.) I was even unable to penetrate PziV's armor at 450m...

I just did a test and had a T-34/85(late) just take out a PzIVH at about 1900m. Scored penatration shots on the hull and front turret. It did take a while though. Both crews were regular.

The T-34/85 was a much needed upgrade in the gun for the T-34 series. However, the 85mm was no German 88. T-34/85s still needed to get in close to have a chance against tne German cats.

You may want to try out the SU-100. They seem to do pretty well at long range, assuming they hit their target. They weren't uber but seem to do nicely.

[Commissar]

[ October 26, 2002, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[Ben Galanti]

Originally posted by Dschugaschwili:

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

Makes absolutly sense to me that the projectile drops "downwards" as loosing velocity and therefore reducing the slope effect. Great. Never thought that such stuff is all calculated. Just great.

I don't know about CMBB, but I remember that this particular effect was not modeled in CMBO. It could have been introduced in CMBB together with all the other armor combat refinements, but I'm not sure about this.

Dschugaschwili</font>

[rexford]

At 800m, Hetzer 60mm/60 degrees presents 144mm vertical equivalent to 85mm APBC prior to armor quality factor.

At 800m, T34/85 high hardness glacis (60mm/60 degrees) presents 122mm vertical to 75mm APCBC prior to high hardness multiplier (0.76) and armor quality.

So Hetzer glacis should not be penetrated by T34/85 APBC at 800m, and T34/85 glacis should be easy pickens. Hetzer is smaller target.

Hetzer lower nose on front is very vulnerable, 60mm at 40 degrees resists 85mm APBC like about 80mm vertical x quality.

Hetzer should kick T34/85 butt at 800m and 1000m in majority of cases. In some games, T34/85 will win due to random effects.

[Silvio Manuel]

Not having the Hetzers be hulldown in the test isn't too fair...any halfway decent CO would do that. Also, the later T34/76s are probably a better comparison to the Sherman, as far as main gun goes. I've heard that Sherman 75 gun is slightly better than T34/76 gun, and Sherman 76 gun is slightly better than T34/85.

If the Hetzers are firing from a slightly elevated position, their glacis slope will be enhanced by the (?) angle of attack of the incoming shells. Conversely, if the T34s are higher, their shells will hit an effectively less-sloped armor plate. The same is true if the Hetzer is higher up, but moves too far fwd and loses hulldown to its adverssary...the weaker lower hull armor will be very vulnerable due to this AOA effect.

[billcarey]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

\

My conclusion is that a game is not well balanced (russian tanks too expaensive) and I am ready to prove it. If anyone diagrees I suggest we play armor only 1500 points 10 games, 1944-45. If any of you is able to win as Soviets at least 4 games I will say: well, I am poor russian tank commander...otherwise somethibg must be done with it...

I'd just like to point out:

Even if someone did take you up on this offer, and you won every game, it would not prove your conclusion. It would prove that either:

1. You are a very good german tank commander

2. I am a very poor russian tank commander

3. German tanks have a better cost/effectiveness ration than Russian tanks in 1944 and 1945 when there are no non-armored units engaged in battle.

#3 is a far cry from the pricing system being unbalaned, as it implies that the only relevant factor in considering price is anti-armor ability. I would suggest that survivability, mobility, and anti-infantry ability are all other valid factors to price on.

As a counter test, I propose to play ten games, five with 1000 points of panthers facing a russian infantry batallion with AT guns, and five with 1000 points of T34M40s facing a batallion of german troops with AT guns. I would wager that the russians would hold their own (if only for cannister) but even if they didn't the results wouldn't mean anything because the panthers have much better AT capacity. Doh.

Just an aside about the difficulty of seperating out factors to judge the pricing system (which I'm very happy with. The PzIII with the 75l24 is a great tank!)

- B.

[Silvio Manuel]

Cpt.Kloss,

The pricing system factors in all aspects of a tank, not just AT capability. Maybe a more accurate test would be to substitute SU-85's for T34/85s? In Aug 44, the SUs are 123pts to the T34/85s 153pts... a much more equitable situation when going point-for-point vs. the cheap Hetzers.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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>

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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>

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by Ben Galanti:

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

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

Makes absolutly sense to me that the projectile drops "downwards" as loosing velocity and therefore reducing the slope effect. Great. Never thought that such stuff is all calculated. Just great.

I don't know about CMBB, but I remember that this particular effect was not modeled in CMBO. It could have been introduced in CMBB together with all the other armor combat refinements, but I'm not sure about this.

Dschugaschwili</font>