that brings up question on german mains
Sniping. With 135 pen on T-34. In arcade.
That stuff you use before starting the game must be very good stuff.
4 Likes
Well…you right.
To me it brings up the question why a 1941 T-34 is better than a 1943 Pz IV.
Which mainly comes down to unrealistically high RoF of T-34-76 in WT.
1 Like
6.5s seems reasonable?
(I misunderstood it as 85mm)
A lot of other 76mms / 75mms are 5.9s reload or 6.5s reload too.
The main reason why I’d take the T-34-76 over the Panzer IV is that it actually has good hull armour, and is pretty mobile. The gun is good enough for most things, but isn’t anything impressive – same as with its reload.
For a tank with a cramped two men turret with ammo boxes on the turret floor, certainly not.
The T-34 and many other tanks already have many benefits of robot controlled tanks.
If the commander sees a tank, which he most likely only going to do from an open hatch, he has to go back into the turret, into the gunner position, aim the gun where the vehicle was, find the tank, aim, estimate the range and lead, fire, observe his hit and tell the gunner what shell to load next.
Then being almost blind again until he goes back to look outside from the open hatch, to find new targets.
All while also telling the driver where to go.
In WT the T-34 can do all that at the same time as any other tank.
Driving around at 40kph and accurately aiming at vehicles from third person view while reloading shells a whooping 1.5s slower than a Pz IV.
1 Like
Sure, the reload may be unrealistic, as it could well as be 8s or 10s…
but this is a video game, and manual reload speed in War Thunder is fluid – it isn’t completely realistic for balancing reasons.
What makes you think that the Sturmtiger’s 40s reload is realistic? Or the Leopard 2’s 6.0s reload (instead of 5s / 4.5s)?
Why don’t the loaders tire out and reload longer?
Why can all the tanks operate the gun, shoot, reload, and use binocs with just two crew members?
This is just game balance, and at the moment, the T-34-76s are fine at where they are and with their current reload speed.
Keep in mind that the T-34-76s sacrifice 1.5s of reload time (like you stated), gun depression, and penetration, along with a 0.3 higher BR so that it can have good hull armour, turret rotation speed, and mobility.
If you truly want it to have an 8s / 10s reload then it would go down to 3.7 or maybe even 3.3.
It’s not a sacrifice when it makes the vehicle better than another vehicle that has different stats.
The 76mm is still superior to the US 75mm in terms of damage and slope penetration and the Pz IVs penetration is pretty much an outlier at this point, where most tanks are either Sherman’s, T-34’s or some other nations medium tank with 100mm penetration or less.
Pretty sure that the Soviet 76mm penetrates a Sherman at the exact same ranges as the Germam 75mm, since APCPC isn’t all that amazing against sloped armor.
Well you’re compensating those stats for another stat, and in some cases (like with the Panzer IV H) a higher BR.
That is true.
The T34’s 76mm has 100g of TNT and 47mm of penetration @60 degrees point blank, whereas the Sherman’s 75mm has a respectable 64g of TNT but only 39mm of penetration @60 degrees point blank.
The T-34-76 also has much better acceleration and better hull armour.
The Sherman, however, makes up for it by having a stabilizer, 5s reload, smoke grenades, much better turret armour, 50.Cal, much better gun depression and better APCR.
I can see why people would prefer playing the T-34-76 but I prefer playing the M4A2.
Yet the M4 and M4A1 are still below 4.0.
So even with that amazing technological edge, a 1942 Sherman is still worse than a T-34 1941 with an outdated and cramped fighting compartment.
If it wasn’t for Germanys invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the T-34 would have been replaced by the T-43 shortly after it was built.
There’s simply no balance reason why the T-34 1940/1941 should have a much lower RoF and appropriately lower BR.
Germany was using short barreled Pz IIIs and IVs at that time, upgrades the Pz III to long 5cm guns shortly after, around the time the M3 Lee came around.
Only the T-34 is an outlier BR wise.
Almost at the same BR as Jagdpanzer IV and 38(t).
1 Like
Well the M4 and M4A1 have much worse armour than the M4A2 variant.
They also have worse transmissions and no access to APCR nor smoke grenades.
It makes sense why they are lower.
Do you mean no reason why they shouldn’t have?
I mean I can understand wanting them to have an 8s / 10s reload but be 3.7, but I don’t think there’s really any issue with them being at 4.0 with a 6.5s reload.
Keep in mind that there are a bunch of other vehicles with similar two-man / three-man (but cramped) turret design that may or may not have unrealistic reload speeds (such as the T-34-57, Puma, AMX-13 (FL11), EBR (1951) etc).
Even stuff like the Hetzer (with its extremely cramped crew) has the same reload as all the other 75mm tanks from Germany (5.9s).
what a take
6 Likes
is it really the case? I mean, there are many things good in T-34, but the reload aint one of those things.
Especially when not aced, 9 seconds base reload is crazy slow reload. Even best 7 second reload is still longer than anyone but huge calibers…
1 Like
but its no better? Its really sitting too high if compare with either Shermans or Panzer IVs.
Shermans have stabs, better penetrating APHE shots, reload of 5 to 6 seconds even not aced. Better aim speed, better frontal armor, some mobility (slower but still not churchill 7). And lower BR. I mean, it looks like its not always comes to techs of a tank :/
actually crazy take
“shortly after”? the t-43 is a 1943 prototype. Which was built exactly because t-34 showed bad at war. If it wasnt for the war, they wouldnt even develop it further. tho the A-20 and A-34 prototypes which became T-34 would change a bit - but not to t-43 :/.
it does not. T-34-41 has no APCR either, and Shermans have better frontal armor.
They beat out Pz IVs so much it’s not even funny.
Only the M4A2 is as competitive, simply because it gets frontal armor that can now stop Soviet 76mm shells pretty reliably and German 75mm sometimes, making it almost as armored as T-34s.
They have M24 mobility but with armor that can stop other medium tank guns.
They are like Cromwells but with APHE and reverse speed.
Whats their actual downside?
- -5° gun depression instead of 10°
- Lower flat pen than US 75 (but better slope penetration)
- Not having a stabilizer like Sherman’s and M24
- 6.5-6.9s reload instead of 5-5.9s for firing APHE
Advantages:
- Mobility only beaten by Cromwell
- Fast turret traverse
- Not having the worst reverse speed
- Practically the best armor out of medium tanks
- Most damaging APHE
In theory a Pz IV is always going to get shot first by every other medium tank, besides a Chi-Nu or Pz III, because it doesn’t have mobility nor turret traverse to either react or be in flanking position. It’s only saving grace is to penetrate heavy tanks more easily, making it a M10 with better turret traverse.
The Cromwell is only going to die to a Pz IV by getting Gaijined and then getting shot in return.
They can kill Sherman’s from the side easily but solid shot to the front isn’t the most reliable, while being a lot worse against T-34s.
The M4A1 and M4 are an easily kill from the front for a T-34 and while they have stabilized guns, hitting the turret isn’t easy on a moving T-34.
The Chi-Nu, P40 and Pz IIIs aren’t even worth mentioning.
And about the RoF: A Pz IV with a dead loader has a stock reload of 7.6s. Compared to a T-34 with 6.5-6.9s.
Inside a much tighter turret with no turret basket.
So how does that make any sense that a Pz IV with two crews in the turret has a slower RoF than a T-34 with two crew in the turret?
The T-34-76 are artificially a lot better than they should, simply because the RoF is far too good for a tank with two crews in a cramped turret with poor ergonomic.
Of course thats an issue with a lot of other tanks as well and often makes no sense, like the T-80 having a significantly better RoF than other light tanks by adding a dedicated loader, compared to the T-70s one-man turret, which is pretty much standard on almost all other light tanks.
Historically they followed the same trend: Armor, Firepower and numbers over RoF.
The 2pdr ended up being useless against Pz IIIs with spaced armor so they put a 6pdr in the Crusader, even when they now only had space for a commander and gunner.
Better a gun that can penetrate the enemy than one that can’t.
But the 2pdr didn’t have any useful HE round, and while the 6pdr also didn’t have one, the loss in capabilities wasn’t great.
Compared to the T-34-57 which would only have traded armor penetration for a less effective HE shell.
Which in WT has a 5s reload like a Sherman, beating the Pz IV now even in RoF.
But the Crusader Mk III still sits at the same/lower BR than the Pz III L/M.
Of course the reason for that is that solid shot is just less effective. So while the RoF is unrealistic, the vehicle isn’t more effective than it should be.
1 Like
Doesn’t change the fact that the T-34 was just an up-armored up-gunned BT-7 and it wouldn’t have entered major production, if it wasn’t the best available tank at the time.
It’s a major step up from the BTs in terms of survivability and firepower.
The Soviets already knew about the Pz III before 1941 and realized the advantage of having a three crew turret with a cupola for the commander.
They don’t put those on tanks for fun, you know?
3 Likes
APCR is useless compare to APHE and the M4A1 and M4 can’t take a Soviet 76mm to the front, so they have worse armor.
Only the turret front of T-34s is a weakspot but it’s small and often rounds clip the mantlet and do nothing.
2 Likes