Russian Armor in CMBB

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by zukkov:

i was suprised to see that the 76/L52 gun on the su76m is not as good as the 76/L42 gun on the t34. which one was known as the "crash boom"?

Dunno - but I'm surprised to "learn" that the Russian 76/L52 was used on any SP chassis - AFAIK the SU-76 used a variant of the ZIS-3 76.2mm divisional field piece, which was to all intents and purposes exactly the same as the 76mm in the T34!

The L52 gun (I forget the designation) was a pre-war design that was produced in limited numbers only during the war, whereas teh bulk of Russian 76.2mm field artillery was the ZIS-3 of about 40 calibres.

[Sitzkrieg]

Originally posted by Nippy:

Fun fact: The Soviet 57mm L/73 is almost identical in preformance to the American 76mm up to ranges of 1000 meters and it seems to work better against sloped armor.

No doubt! :eek:

Fear this little sucker! I just tried a QB against a mixed Soviet force of T-34/76 and T-34/57.

I saw this in earlier today and had to try these out.

First off, in Oct '43 the T-34/57 is cheap (using variable rarity anyway). 22 T-34s vs. 4 Tigers. Soviets were Medium quality, Germans High quality (no one higher than Vet though). Rural, gentle slopes, light trees. However, not a "billard table" as there were far more trees than I expected and enough elevation changes to restrict full map LOS. Plus lots of marsh and soft ground (this was in the South). The tree cover enabled the Soviets to get within about 150 to 200 meters.

To the T-34/57s I lost one Tiger, another gun damaged with crew casualty and another took several partial or full penetrations from one of these. Luckily no crew casualities or damage but the guy almost paniced or routed a couple of times when he was getting hammered on.

I still was able to destroy all the Russian tanks but if I had mixed in more of the T-34/57s, I think I would have lost all my Tigers with as many shots as I took at close range (damn turret is SO SLOW!).

Definately a giant killer and not a "picked cherry" as rarity will attest too. Also, I never knew the Soviets mounted anything but a 76mm or 85mm gun in the T-34. Time to brush up on my Eastern Front knowledge I guess.

Keith

[CombinedArms]

So was this T-34/57mm a long dedicated anti-tank weapon (sort of like the Brit 6-pounder).

What's puzzling me in all of the above discussion of the T-34's limitations is how much this informed opinion seems to contradict the T-34's widespread reputation as "the best all-around tank of the war". Despite its sloped armor it seems that it can be readily killed at range by a whole slew of German AFVs. Moreover, its 76 and 85mm guns aren't quite as good as the Sherm 75 and 76 (at least against tanks) and these same T-34 guns are no where near as good as the Firefly's 17-pounder. When one considers the absence of radios and a dedicated loader till later in the war, the T-34 seems to me the inferior of the Sherman in all but off-road manueverability and ground pressure. The T-34/85 is starting to be a pretty good tank, but some other thread asserted that the Russians actually preferred lend lease Sherm 76s to the T-34/85. And if the T-34 is really not quite as good as the oft-maligned Sherman, then how can it be the best tank of the war? :confused: :eek:

Have we been sold a bill of goods all these years?

[ October 14, 2002, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Denizen]

It depends on too many facts to be reliable. AT rifles were able to penetrate vision blocks and gunnery optics of Tiger tank and thats where you aimed. Same goes to AT- guns. You can aim the thing where you want to, if you are half deasent gunner, so pure armor mm- reading vs gun penetration is academic at best.

This is a very important point; we must remember that no armor battle works as perfectly as on paper, that it is foolish to assume that a certain thickness of armor is completely immune to a certain caliber projectile.

[Nippy]

No doubt!

Fear this little sucker! I just tried a QB against a mixed Soviet force of T-34/76 and T-34/57.

Here is a fun little test. Open up the mission edior and buy a T-34/76 and a T-34/57 for the Soviet and a Tiger I for the Germans. In the map editor have the Tiger face both T-34 models head on and set them 100m apart. Now select each T-34 one at a time and use the LOS key to "test" the tiger. Here is what you get.

T-34/76

Hit chance 92%

Kill: None

T-34/57

Hit chance 94%

Kill: Fair

I know which one I'd rahter have

[offtaskagain]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

Have we been sold a bill of goods all these years?

The T-34 was called by several of the big name German generals the best tank in the world in 1941. In the fall of '42 up-gunned german AFVs started to appear and rapidly put the T-34 down a few notches. The T-34 was really only king for the first year of the war, after that it fell way down the armor food chain. Most people who think its the best tank of the war have only seen the quotes from the first year and don't see the rest where the big cats ruled the battlefield.

[Panzer76]

The T-34 is a great tank. It is fast, it doesnt bog down easily, it can take out every axis tank from the front in the beginning of the war, and is very resitant to enemy tanks at that time point.

BUT, tanks rarly fought other tanks! Most often than not, they fought inf and Pak fronts. People tend to forget that the games they plau day in and day out vary considerbly from the historical battles, which goes a long way in explaining why people are surprised over X tanks performance in the virtual battlefield.

*Of cource* will the T-34 struggle in the later years, as ANY of the early years tanks.

[Slapdragon]

Also realize this, the M4A3 met the T-34 in battle in Korea and the middle east. In both regions it was, tank for tank, superior.

Now some of this is outside of the game -- the late model M4 was better built, easier to operate, and its stabilization actually worked, but the T-34 was no slouch, it just was just king of the battlefield when it first showed up against short barreled Model IIIs and 38s.

[Slapdragon]

Also realize this, the M4A3 met the T-34 in battle in Korea and the middle east. In both regions it was, tank for tank, superior.

Now some of this is outside of the game -- the late model M4 was better built, easier to operate, and its stabilization actually worked, but the T-34 was no slouch, it just was just king of the battlefield when it first showed up against short barreled Model IIIs and 38s.

[Denizen]

The T34 was the best design of its era, and if not for the T55 it would be the best design of all time. Here is why:

Dollar for dollar (or ruble for ruble as the case may be) no armored vehicle could match the capabilities of the T34. Built entirely out of simple dummy-proof parts, the T34 could at least compete with German designs of incredibly greater complexity. Even with a completely unskilled workforce suffering from malnutrition, the factory production time required for the T34 was between 3700 and 8000 man-hours. For comparison, the German heavies required hundreds of thousands of man-hours with skilled workers. Often criticized for not improving the T34 from 1941-1943, the soviets in fact made huge strides in the design of the T34, cutting production time in half, vastly simplifying parts and reducing the total number of parts, meaning that maintenance of the vehicles became easier as well as production. On the whole, the significant thing about the T34 is not its capability in comparison to other tanks, but rather the fact that it was supremely superior use of resources; all of the man and material that went into the production and maintenance of a single Panther platoon or even a Sherman or PzR 3 platoon would be enough to create a force of T34s several times larger. The T34 is history's most important AFV; its unparalleled efficiency allowed a the Soviet Union to become a superpower by 1945 after having been teetering on the brink of capitulation in 1941.

[PJungnitsch]

These figures were posted before:

Average cost of Sherman combat models produced from January 1942 - May 1945 is $48,798

Panther: $39,000

T-34/76: 34,000

T-34/85: $29,500

Prices are dollars adjusted for various factors.

While the T-34 was somewhat cheaper than its rivals, it was not by that much. And I would wager that production time of Panther (very slightly more than Sherman) in '44 was similar to T-34 as Panther was specifically designed for mass production.

Each however did suit their own countries production techniques.

[K_Tiger]

Denizen.

You forgot to mention, the unparalleled death rate of the T-34..

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Denizen:

For comparison, the German heavies required hundreds of thousands of man-hours with skilled workers. .

The Germans found that in '43 the amount of hours required to build five PIIIs would result in 4 Panthers. Which one is more cost effective.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Denizen:

all of the man and material that went into the production and maintenance of a single Panther platoon or even a Sherman or PzR 3 platoon would be enough to create a force of T34s several times larger..

I'd be interested if you could substantiate this.

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by Paul Jungnitsch:

These figures were posted before:

Average cost of Sherman combat models produced from January 1942 - May 1945 is $48,798

Panther: $39,000

T-34/76: 34,000

T-34/85: $29,500

Prices are dollars adjusted for various factors...

I'm rather skeptical that the Panther was about 80% of the cost of a Sherman, which makes me wonder about all the other figures as well. What is your source for this?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

So was this T-34/57mm a long dedicated anti-tank weapon (sort of like the Brit 6-pounder).

What's puzzling me in all of the above discussion of the T-34's limitations is how much this informed opinion seems to contradict the T-34's widespread reputation as "the best all-around tank of the war". Despite its sloped armor it seems that it can be readily killed at range by a whole slew of German AFVs. Moreover, its 76 and 85mm guns aren't quite as good as the Sherm 75 and 76 (at least against tanks) and these same T-34 guns are no where near as good as the Firefly's 17-pounder. When one considers the absence of radios and a dedicated loader till later in the war, the T-34 seems to me the inferior of the Sherman in all but off-road manueverability and ground pressure. The T-34/85 is starting to be a pretty good tank, but some other thread asserted that the Russians actually preferred lend lease Sherm 76s to the T-34/85. And if the T-34 is really not quite as good as the oft-maligned Sherman, then how can it be the best tank of the war? :confused: :eek:

Have we been sold a bill of goods all these years?

My view on this is the fact that the T34/76 was so advanced for its day bearing in mind it was first available in late 1940 (from memory). Not only was it the first medium battle tank to have substantially sloped armour to specifically aid its survivability, it was damn fast, low silhouette, significantly low ground pressure to enable it to go just about anywhere and finally, it also had a bloody big gun for its day which was at least the equivalent of its main rival's 50mm versions (German) and 40mm versions (British) in terms of AFV penetration and far superior in terms of HE effect on soft targets.

The other thing worth noting is that the Sherman only became available on the battlefront around mid to late 1942 i.e. almost 2 years later, yet was not a substantial improvement on its Russian predecessor in terms of AFV penetration and soft target effectiveness while being easier to hit because of its tall design, poorer ground pressure and therefore less flexible in all conditions, easier to penetrate (initial models at least) and slower to boot.

That's the crux of the matter in terms of best tank of WWII. It most certainly was the absolute standout contender for the early period of the war. Whether the Panther trumped these very same benefits later in the war is a matter of personal opinion.

Regards

Jim R.

[TSword]

In 1940 & 41 the T-34 was the best tank in the world.

In 1942 and 1943 the Soviets put out roughly 15'000-20'000 T-34 per year which was only possible by concentration. In 1943 they looked for improvements like the T-40 which was beaten by Tiger and Panther already before introduction. Tiger and Panther led the Soviets to the JS-2 (The only russian MBT which could kill both at over 1000 m from the front). The germans in 1941 were in a disadvantage against the T-34 and KV-1 weapons and armor wise, so they caught up in 1942 with some additional margin. In 1943 the Panther and Tiger then totally dominated vs. the Soviet designs (Which led the Soviets to abandon T-40 and go into direction of JS-2 and ISU-100, ISU-152). Only in mid 1944 the Soviets then catched up with their upgunned tanks like T-34/85 (still inferior to Tiger I and Panther) and JS-2 (basically a KV-1 with a (to) big gun). Although russian doctrine called mainly for artillery to stop enemy tanks, tank vs. tank however sometimes was unavoidable.

In 1945 the Soviets then introduced the JS-3 (the ancestor of T-55) which completely outclassed any western design of the time.

The T-34 was a 1938 design whereas the odd Sherman was a 1942 design. The 75mm Sherman with it's narrow track and high center of gravity was just a helpless junk of steel in the east (one only imagine them in the mud season, lying stranded on the side like some dead praehistoric animal..). Only positive thing the later M4's had wet ammo storage and good almost luxury interior layout (in comparison to T-34) which made it liked by it's crew. Don't think the 76 mm version were more prominent up to late 1944 then in the West...

Greets

Daniel

[ October 15, 2002, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: TSword ]

[PJungnitsch]

Originally posted by Brian Rock:

I'm rather skeptical that the Panther was about 80% of the cost of a Sherman, which makes me wonder about all the other figures as well. What is your source for this?

You think you were skeptical, you should have seen the reaction of the SLS (Sherman Lovers Society) on Tanknet and Onwar. It was interesting that while everyone there expected the Sherman to be substantially cheaper no one had any figures proving this.

Source is Mark Harrisons 'Accounting For War'

Part of the problem could have been the 'cost plus' system that the US government setup with military manufacturing companies.

[ October 15, 2002, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Paul Jungnitsch ]

[Bluecoat]

Don't forget that like the Sherman, the T-34 was just as adaptable - beng much upgunned - taking the 57mm, the 75 to 76mm and ultimately after 1943, in larger numbers the 85mm. This evolution rang alongside the improvment of the ergonomics of its design for its crew and mechanical efficiencies.

The Original T-34 did a colossal route march if I remember rightly - covering one helluva distance (i have the details somewhere :/)

It also provided the chasis for the other Russian Spg's.

Thats another bonus of the T-34 that in design terms matched the sherman (and thats without the aforementioned +'s of curved armour, tracks, speed etc).

[MikeyD]

If you like the Cromwells and Comets in CMBO you should like the BTs and T34s in CMBB. They're both based on the pre-war designs of U.S. inventor Walter Christie.

I can't remember precisely why the U.S. rejected his designs in favor of the Sherman type. It may have had to do with Christie suspension units intruding into the fighting compartment (or in the Brit case, double wall construction). Stuart and Sherman both have bolt-on exterior suspension, leaving the interior free.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Paul Jungnitsch:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian Rock:

I'm rather skeptical that the Panther was about 80% of the cost of a Sherman, which makes me wonder about all the other figures as well. What is your source for this?

You think you were skeptical, you should have seen the reaction of the SLS (Sherman Lovers Society) on Tanknet and Onwar. It was interesting that while everyone there expected the Sherman to be substantially cheaper no one had any figures proving this.

Source is Mark Harrisons 'Accounting For War'

Part of the problem could have been the 'cost plus' system that the US government setup with military manufacturing companies.</font>

[MikeyD]

I recall reading of the Tiger I costing an outrageous amount and taking a staggering number of man-hours to produce. Panther may have learned from the earlier Tiger and been less complex to construct, but it does does NOT look like a $40,000 vehicle even in post-depression dollars.

I'm not entirely sure how one could compare prices of products produced from such wildly differing economic systems as the U.S. industrial free-market, Socialist command economy, and the German capitalist/slave worker economies.

[Broken]

I would be careful comparing cost figures from capitalist, fascist and communists countries. A better indicator of how easy they were to produce is the actual production figures compared to the relative sizes of the economies.

[Vipez]

Oh nice to see i'm not the only one thinking about russian tank quality.

CMBB is much differant than CMBO, since now I really have to thing what i do, especially with ruskies.

And somehow i have trouble with KV1s & T34s dealing with German Panzer3S. Somehow i think PZ3 is equal to T-34. Btw if someone has tried that mission "Katukov strikes back" it is not that easy to get the german pz3s since they do have a big chance to get the t34s, though T34s probably have great advantage from greater ranges to Pz4 early versions & pz3s...

Must have been hard atleast in the Kursk battle for the russians. Since the ZIS3 gun can kill german cats from ranges less than 300 only. Has anyone actually won that mission "von Lauchert" I have found it impossible to play with russians. German panthers allways knock out my t34s & kv1 from ranges beyond 2 km and i can't even shoot at those ranges. Even the 122 mm is not enough to deal with Panthers.

sorry about typos, wrote this so quickly :eek:

[Guest Mike]

Everything you want to know about the T34/57 is Here.