There’s a difference between how fast a tank can have its gun reloaded and fire in succession and how often they fire when in battle when you have to look for and identify targets.
If your T-34 fires at 8 RPM than thats against a static, identified target. While being almost blind as the crew can’t observe its surrounding while operating or loading the gun.
isnt it? I recall it having the “add on armor” mod which gave tracks.
uuuugh thats literally water. That does not really make any difference with both of those machines.
Would this be reliable?
It does, but is is hull only, turret gets no additional armor. As seen here.
I have used it on several PCs. It basically just tells the system “you are activated now shut up”. Never had any issues with it. It’s open source snyway so if it wasnt safe there would probaby be many people against it. Never seen anyone say anything bad about it.
What do you mean?
It completely affects a vehicles effectiveness in reality.
The T-34 is the epitome of bad design decisions that modern tank avoid.
The Pz III and IV and of course the Sherman were were a lot more effective than just their raw stats because their crews could work more efficiently with their vehicle.
Only the T-34-85 remedied some of those problems.
Other than 0.6-1.5s reload this isn’t considered in the slightest.
Thats why T-34-76 are much better than tanks that were equal or better in reality.
ah so its J that gets the turret add-ons? Fair
Yes, but the ones you described affect both vehicles. And that has no real connection to it ingame tho anyway.
Pz 3s were great command machines but lacked everything else for a 1941. Their huge turret still could not fit a decent cannon, and had problems which come with doors on the sides of the turret. Plus, if we are on reality, the benzin engine it had ran poorly on german fuel, showing much better performance in USSR hands.
Shermans got rid of such doors in sides of hull quickly tho. Shermans look like best WW2 tanks ever existing tho. Good modernization potential, decent armor and cannon (tho its only if compared with 1942 counterparts, as in 1943 when it first met combat there is T-34-85), tho it had some problems same with t-34 - different engines, turret and hull elements depending on the plant.
And to be completely fair - there were no tank cheaper than T-34 that offered same armanment + armor capabilities.
Even Shermans thy considered cheap were much pricey, tho they offered more internals like oftenly Radio came with tank, the air circylation system, ect.
should it be tho?
Thy must also consider the size of the shots then
size and weight of the 7.62 are smaller, meaning they are easier to operate.
The T-34 wasn’t a cheap tank to built by any metric. What made it cheap was the poor/good enough building mentality and the fact that it was mass produced from 1941 to mid 1945 with only minor changes here and there.
Strip a Sherman from all the extra’s and build it like a T-34 and the Sherman would be as cheap or cheaper to produce.
But why should this matter anyway? It’s simply about a vehicles capabilities.
Maybe they could have won the war by building 100 Million T-26 but that doesn’t change the fact that the T-26 is a tank with very little performance even for 1939.
You know what also helps to operate a cannon? Convenient ammo storage for the loader.
Having no turret floot but standing on ammo boxes might make the tank cheaper to produce and allow for more ammo to be carried but it also means that getting to the ammunition is a lot harder than when the ammo is literally under your feet.
The difference between weight and size of ZIS-3 ammunition and KwK 40 is neglictable.
It’s 8.8kg for the BR-350A and 11.8kg for the Pzgr. 39, while the HE rounds have almost identical weight.
It will.
In Churchill VII PznIV side is a target I take whenever I can and it never bounces. If he angles even 5 degrees, the frontal part of the side becomes vulnerable. Of course I can always shoot the glacis, but I find sides an easier target and more reliable. Shooting turret with british solid shot is viable but also pure pain due to whack-a-mole and generally killing 1 crewman at a time. It’s most fun with 17 pounder on firefly. I shoot T-34 in the turret, his gun goes yellow, loader dies, he then 1-shots me. Oh and thx to Gaijin excellent coding if you hit almost dead center and shell touches the barrel, no matter how slightly - shell with 180 pen is gone, no damage.
If you hit between mantlet and cheek - the shell will move along the armor plate that’s there and fail to pen.
So to hit T-34 reliably you have to carefully aim at the turret cheek, but if you hit the one with loader, you’re dead.
It’s hilarious.
And shooting T-34 hull is not a good idea because even slightly uneven terrain makes it stop the 17 pounder when also angled, ans T-34E exists.
T-34 is a goddamn nightmare of randomness and broken game mechanics.
Of course it’s far from unkillable. But facing it absolutely sucks.
Shermans had more periscopes and stabiliser and then wet ammo stowage.
They were pretty damn high end if we think about it, so it’s not surprising T-34s were much cheaper.
Damn, Panther outside of size should be much cheaper than Sherman. No APU (Pz IV had such thing until G version I think, Germans understood how useful it could be), crude hydraulic turret drive (Sherman had all electric - Pz IV did too, but German take on it was inferior - or hydraulic driven by electric pump, Panther had hydraulic pump connected to driveshaft, which made turret rotation dependent.on engine RPM and not exactly fast in the 1st place), inferior optics layout (Sherman had gunner’s sight and periscope which allowed him to look around for targets, in Panther he had to rely entirely on the commander or rotate the turret, neither was a great solution), extremely simplified final drive (Sherman used way more sophisticated and reliable solution), ammo all over the place with 0 concern with crew survivability, inferior hatches, no stabiliser.
I’m pretty sure if Americans decided to mass manufacture their own Panther (sure as hell they would ditch the interlocking wheels because thry had way better access to rubber) it would end up being cheaper than M4
Sherman is not all electric, it uses hydraulics driven by an electric motor.
Edit: After a quick search, the Oilgear turret traverse (hydraulic electric) wasn’t produced in enough quantity to keep up with demand early on, so a fully electric mechanism from Westinghouse (the same people that made the gyrostabilizer) was created. It wasn’t prefered though, and late Shermans all use the Oilgear mechanism.
The T-34 turret drive is purely electric. One of the things that was noted by the British upon inspection of a T-34 is that the power traverse, while fast, is not accurate for laying the gun on target, so a gunner would use power traverse to point the gun in the general direction of the enemy and then manual traverse to actually put the gun on target. So purely electric systems are fast but not accurate (at least not in WW2).
Also, when it comes to the Panther turret traverse, if there’s one thing it is good at it is potential speed. The Tiger IIs also use a hydraulic system powered by engine drive, and would do nearly 30°/s when at 3000 RPM (calculated from 19°/s at 2000 RPM).
And in fact, Germany generally went backwards in visibility and observation as the war progressed, which led to more vulnerability on the flanks.
I think in general it’s fine for WT to abstract these things away (ditto the atrocious loading conditions of early T-34s) because it makes balancing the game easier.
Fun fact, they wanted to include periscopes instead, even replace the cupola by the same from the stug as seen ln the Pz.Beob.Wg IV Ausf.J. but they never actually started that production because they planned to stop Pz IV production.
Uhh, low cupola Pz IV looks so sexy :O
Fair enough
its practically 15%, and the ZiS shot is shorter for an entire 10 cenimiters
id agree if it was less than 5% but the 15% difference is at least this big.
i mean both Panzer IV and Shermans also have the ammo storage under turret
then i`ll consired trying this next time i’ll end up with stupid idea of running 3.3 cromwells xD
ah yes. I have a clip of Pershing 190 shot bouncing off Tiger 1 turret because it SCRATCHED the barrel tip with its side. Crazy.
its not only the insides that make tank cheap, its tech process that matters most. Panther was not cheap as used MANY people for MANY hours.
Only the Sherman’s with wet ammo stowage have them beneath the turret basket.
But they still carry ready rounds in the turret.
The Pz IV has ammo next to the loader in bins and in the hull sponsons.
But not below his feet.
Other than the T-34, almost no other tank used a system like that.
It’s one of the reasons why a KV-2 took ages to reload while a SU-152 could do it much faster.
Doesn’t make any difference realistically.
You could also argue that the turret space for the T-34 is 10-15% smaller than the Pz IV and a lot more compared to a Sherman.
The damage is pathetic but the mobility is unmatched.
In one match I sprinted across the map at 64kph to kill a guy who was marked near our spawn.
I Intercepted him and shot him three times but the kill didn’t count because the match ended.
The story of the Cromwell V in WT.
With APHE he would have died on the first hit.
Holy cope,another W TigerTank take. T-34-85 bad lmao. Literally second best medium tank on that BR right after Panther. Also Jumbo being bad is another L take. Jumbo is great tank,as long as you dont angle too much so you get shot thru side.
Sherman`s better