i guess that the panzer F2 incident player would not agree with you…
Check out Spookston. In multiple videos various tanks like Shermans, Tiger IIs, etc. took a round to ammo, making it black and simply vanishing into a void.
pls attach them here
so far i have found this on the videos you suggested, a tiger ii shooting a direct hit to the the usa t-34 ammorack and the t-34 is exploding and then shooting to a M4A3E2 (76W) ammorack and sxploding too, actually i think that both incidents are very similar with mine a direct hit to the ammo rack on the tank floor, check on 13:26 for the usa t-34 and on 14:02 for the M4A3E2 (76W)
same thing in spookston sherman video you suggested too, a sherman shotting a direct hit to the floor ammo rack of an italian 105/25 M43 which explodes on 3:19 and then to a panzer iv g right side ammo rack which explodes too at 6:24 and again same thing happens on a panzer iv f2 left ammo rack explosion on 9:28 and again with a crusader aa mk ii turret ammo rack on 13:29
I was talking about instances where ammo doesn’t explode.
an example would be helpful
Soviet armor is only overperforming flat, which means nothing since you’re not shooting a T-72 from above using a Tiger 2.
All fuel tanks act the same, this is well known.
Saying otherwise is propaganda of the country’s vehicles your post is trying to defend. Soviet in this case.
1 Like
I told you where to look, I think he was playing a French vehicle with 4s reload, can’t exactly remember.
i think you mean this video (french somua with 4.0’’ reload) and you probably refer about the incident at 12:54 , well the ammo rack didnt explode because it simply wasn’t hit , the shell penetrated the tank above of the ammo rack and continued further inside the tank , you can see that none of the shells got black which means it wasnt hit. On 13:36 you can see that when the ammo rack is hit the shells change to black (just like the shells on the ammo rack of the BT-5 in my case…)
Look the video and screenshots …
ammo rack not hit
ammo rack hit
No, I remember him shooting Tiger II (H) directly in it’s turret ammo, ammo going black, disappearing and nothing happening afterwards.
So let me undertand, I got a penetrative HIT but a 128mm 26.35KG altillery shell travelling at 880m/s could not knock the turret off?
At least you have destroyed the cannon bridge… in my case i got only a hit with no damage at all, you should be happy lol !!!
1 Like
Yes they did. The German logistic system was crap in reality. The Tigers were rushed to service and many bugs were never correctly worked out.
55,000 T-34s destroyed is not exactly what could be called a low amount of combat losses.
The Sherman had better crew survival rates than the T-34 by a long shot, plus sponson ammo stowage was removed in newer Shermans, so the burn rates were far lower as well. 70-80% with the T-34 compared to 20-30% with the wet Shermans. And even the non-wet Shermans had about the same burn rates of the T-34
No and no. Everyone already knew the advantages of sloped armor very early on in armored design. It was just not always incorporated because it is slightly more difficult to weld than a flat plate. Plus, the Mark 1 had slopped armor as well, so it wasn’t pioneered by the T-34. And guns worse then long 88 could 100% go through. The upper front plate and turret were only 60 millimeters and 120 millimeters of RHA equivalency respectively. The Panther’s gun, just as an example, could penetrate 138 millimeters at 100 meters.
If the fuel tank is breached, that vehicle is unusable. Fuel leaking into the fighting compartment would be catastrophic, even if not on fire. It would be a combat loss even if the crew survives, as it would be impossible to work in a vehicle with those fumes inside. And an APHE round detonating in the fuel tank would most likely breach the fuel tanks and do exactly what I just said.
Germany would not have taken the Soviet Union, even without the T-34. They simply did not have the logistical capabilities to supply a military that far from their homeland.
Yeah, no. First of all, the U.S. has received several T-34s during the war that were sent for testing at Aberdeen, (which preformed very poorly) so there would be no need to pay off scientists and engineers. Secondly, the T-34 was not some type of pseudo MBT. When you compare the T-34 to the T-54, the similarities are not exactly clear. The T-54 has a very different hull, different engine, transmission, very different turret. It’s pretty much bigger gun, more armor, better engine. If saying “I want a tank that is a jack of all trades tank” and it having the same second number meaning as it, that means it is a MBT? By that logic, I can say that the M26 Pershing is a Pseudo MBT because that turned into the M46, which turned into the M47, which turned into the M48, which turned into the M60. So I can now call the M26 a pseudo MBT? Speaking of those MBTs, the T-34 did not influence NATO armor designs. After World War 2, NATO armor designs massively evolved. The U.S. perused the Patton series, which did not take any provable influence from the T-34, Great Britain perused the Centurion, which actually was ready before the war ended, but got there too late to see combat, and Germany perused the Leopard 1, which prioritized mobility. And all of these took negligible influences from the T-34.
So to round it up, the T-34 had a bad combat record with bad crew survivability, did not have a revolutionary new armor that made it impervious except for the very best the opposition had, the fuel tanks were not some kind of ERA that could absorb incoming fire, was not a Pseudo MBT, and the T-34 did not influence NATO tank designs to a notable amount, if at all.
2 Likes
i had posted some data here before related to T-34s and KVs losses during the ‘‘Barbarossa invasion’’ that seems to agrree with that.
‘’ In the first two weeks of the invasion (Barbarossa), the Soviet Union suffered the loss of most of its T-34s and KVs, as well as the loss of most of the older tanks:
- By 12 July 1941, the 4th MC had 45 new vehicles out of the original 414.[[19]]
- By 27 June, the 6th MC had ceased to exist, having lost all 450 new tanks.[[20]]
- By 7 July, the 8th MC had 43 tanks (both old and new) out of an original 899.[[18]]
- By 7 July, the 15th MC had 66 tanks (both old and new) out of an original 749.[[18]]
On one hand, these corps had, within weeks, lost most of their T-34s and KVs, but on the other hand, German reports did not note such a massive elimination in combat.‘’
Source: ''German encounter of Soviet T-34 and KV tanks - Wikipedia ‘’
Also those losses were without the presence of Tiger I on the battle field . it participate the eastern front in 1942
I have posted some data about tiger i performance against T-34s too.
‘’ Soviet ground trial testing conducted in May 1943 determined that the 8.8 cm KwK 36 gun could pierce the T-34/76 frontal beam nose from 1500 m, and the front hull from 1500 m. A hit to the driver’s hatch would force it to collapse inwards and break apart.
According to the Wa Prüf 1 report, the Soviet T-34-85’s upper glacis and turret front armour would be defeated between 100 and 1,400 m (0.062 and 0.870 mi) at a side angle of 30 deg, while the T-34’s 85 mm gun was estimated to penetrate the front of a Tiger between 200 and 500 m (0.12 and 0.31 mi) at a side angle of 30 degrees to the incoming round.
source : ‘’ Tiger I - Wikipedia ‘’
I sense a slight form of red-sarcasm in you. This is not a comment approved by the upper echelons of the party.
1 Like
How many of those losses were abandonment due breaking down and being abandoned, hit and abandoned without penetration, or driving somewhere they couldn’t be recovered from due driver incompetence and lack of recovery vehicles?
None of those very real world considerations are in WT.
Being “tracked” in combat is something that is in WT - but not subsequent abandonment that would happen even with well trained crews. And abandoned Soviet tanks in 1941 were invariably a loss to the army.
The following paragraph represents a better picture of T-34 ineffectiveness on a wider scale during 1941: T-34 tank · RUSSIA OBJECTIFIED · Russia in Global Perspective
Maybe Soviet tanks have Stalinium armor, but German also have Hitlerinium armor.
Most of weird bounces and nonpens I get against Soviet and German tanks.
US - Shermans, m24,M26,m36 and many more are also the same.
The difference here is that the hits are penetrativeand the tanks are not dying or atleast severy damaged.
Talking about history, of course there were losses of T-34s due to lack of crew training or mechanical malfunctions etc. I think that we can all agree that the main advantage of T-34 was its mass production and not its performance which was good indeed.
Talking about the game, the problem is the unexplained “overperformance” in multiple occasions of most of russian tanks as i show with my examples in this topic or as easily someone can find on media .
To be more spesific once again, i dont mean that if a player take a russian tank will do a parade starting from team spawn all the way to the enemy spawn killing all the enemy tanks and surviving all enemy shots . (Despite that i have seen such battles with kv-220 squads before the BR upgrade…:)
My opinion is that the game favours the russian tanks by giving them ‘‘lucky’’ surviving leathal or no damage shots much more frequently than any other nation. Of course every tank in any nation has these kind of ‘‘lucky’’ surviving shots but not with such repetition.
The proof for what i am saying is that if we suppose that there is an equality of lucky surviving or no damage shots in all nations tanks, how can be explained the fact the vast majority of bias videos on media are for Russian tanks ?
For an example, i have seen lately 5 different videos all of russian tanks that got shot by a sturmmorser (which its shot is with no doubt lethal) and surviving with minor or no damages at all !!!
There should be videos with the same incident concerning other nation tanks but i have not seen anyone so far, i wonder why?