my man its held by a hinge.
99% of tanks dont have an hinged opening on the front armor
its nowhere near comparable. its not a issue of faulty construction or unreliable design. its an issue of armor overperfoming ingame compared to real life simple as.
1 Like
The original 45mm hatch had the same ballistic limit as the glacis. 3 periscope hatch creates a large weakspot due to the armor shape around the viewports.
Penalty isn’t reasonable, and glacis already has incorrect safety limit against 75mm shells (640 m/s at normal attack). Pass through at ~720 m/s
1 Like
And? I hate it when people post some pictures or tables and expect everyone to come to the same conclusion instead of just saying what they want to show with the image.
Its more I am struggling to understand the point you are getting at. The IRL weak spot comes from the way the hatch rested (small lip around the cutout) meaning it was constructionally weak.
From what I gathered while looking at it IRL, the inner section of the hatch is the same thickness as the rest of the plate, with the extra 25mm or so over the top creating the lip that rests on top of the UFP.
So Gaijin having it as 75mm just can not be helped as that is the IRL thickness and Gaijin doesn’t model things like weak latch/hatch/hinge designs.
They did model it before with reduced armor effectiveness and it still is on the T-34-85.
And it makes like no sense to be the most “protected” part of the T-34s armor, when it was structucally a weakness.
1 Like
No I agree with that in a historical sense. Its just up to the Devs however. Many, many things are wrong in War Thunder yet the only ones that get fixed or buffed based on the smallest hint of “Realistic proof” will almost always be the vehicles that the devs like the most.
It is a historical strong point.
The old T-34 76 3 periscope glacis can be penetrated at the periscope directly by high power ATG, while the 45mm hatch itself isn’t weaker.
75mm hatch is far stronger.
In WT T-34 is instead missing armor, for instance the bow joint or the weld on 45mm strips on the turret face.
Joint, like glacis should have safety ~640 m/s with pass through ~720 m/s against the best 75mm shells.
God help you if T-34 performed correctly. Pen Sherman glacis with 350B at a greater range than the 76 can reply.
1 Like
You mean having a reload of 4 RPM instead of the 9.23 in War Thunder?
I already sourced; in combat conditions, 100 rounds expended in 20 minutes of combat.
Crew report up to 16-17 r/m.
Not sure if you’ll notice the though. After all, you’re still intentionally misinterpreting the conclusion from the report.
Here’s a thought.
How fast do you have to shoot to even blow through 100 rounds in WT?
1 Like
No you did not.
Entire ammo load in 20-25 minutes
Drill explicitly states aiming & firing 2 shots per stop, study takes the total time to complete the drill including malfunctions, not the rate of fire as we understand it.
Time to aim and fire 2 rounds is as little as 11s.
1 Like
I don’t need to interpret anything because it’s simply impossible for a 76mm T-34 with an incredible cramped two man crew turret, with ammo inside boxes on the turret floor to even remotely match the RoF of a Sherman or similiar tank.
Oh good so you evolved to “I don’t need a source to apply a reload penalty to only this Soviet 2 man turret but no others”
I haven’t seen you point out the Panzer II has a 1 man turret, should it’s reload be increased by 5x then?
1 Like
A T-34 1941 carries 77 rounds, a T-34 192 100.
100 rounds in 20 min is 5 rounds per minute or every 12sec.
But you know, one guy writing a letter where it says 20-25 min is not really any scientific measurement.
It literally doesn’t tell us anything about the condition.
T-34s were used as SPGs just as much as tanks. When you have to fire indirectly you don’t need the commander to search for targets or a driver to move the tank.
Also when you actually look at this old document in its terrible quality, you’ll notice that it actually says 1.5-1.7 rounds per minute and NOT 16-17.
It says practically rate of fire and not the best performance that is outright possible.
Like in which world does a tank fire a 76mm gun on average every 3.6s???
It says “… 1.000m…”
then later mentions 1.5-1.7 rounds per minute, on average for the 76mm gun.
T-34 turret isn’t cramped.
T-34, indirect fire?
1. Tank crews do not know how to fire indirectly as they were not trained to do it.
I consider it reasonable to simplify the fighting compartment of the T-34 tank by removing the azimuth circle and clinometer from the T-34 and removing them from service, as the devices have no practical use.
The manual described a clinometer, but none was found inside the tank.
I cited ammo load for 1942, 1943 T-34’s, on a report for combat in 1943.
It’s not scientific to say they blew through an ammo load 25% faster than you claim their peak rate of fire is?
Here’s a question. If they shoot so slowly, why do they need 100 rounds?
12s reload for 100 rounds, do you know what that figure is for M60? The cyclogram is over 15 seconds.
1 Like
And let me guess? On the M60 it’s not a one page letter written by some dude on the battlefield.
The 4 RPM figure you rely on is directly contradicted by the details of the source itself, conducted in snowfall (obscuring the target) with a frozen gun
All you are offering is excuses
1 Like