The best WW2 tank ever made by a minor nation: Hungary's 44M Tas

@atta26hu @Miltaccfd

2 Likes

Ooh, it was an over-the-barrel type of thing, I see, very interesting! Thank you for the response. :)
Guessing it’s like a copy of the German one the Germans used on their 37mm PaK?

yes its the same Stielgranate 41

Yeah, would be very cool if they add it. Probably requires some special mechanic though, like when you press key choosing this ammo and wait until it gets loaded.

3 Likes
  1. Well I dont know for sure either. But we have to look what we have. On the model there was no hull machine gun
"Tas-Panther comparison

from the comparison we see it written that the Tas had 2 machine guns this is from 1943.
But from tank encyclopedia “The above-mentioned 1:10 scale mid-development Tas mockup – which most likely was made sometime around the end of 1943”. So the mockup and the comparison was made in the same year. From the facebook post (of the comparison paper) it writes its from 1943 october 15. It would be good to know when was the mockup made, was it before or after the comparison? But I dont know, wouldn’t a mockup mean the finalised version?

  1. That I dont know too sadly, from the comparison paper it is 100mm. But who knows. Some say 100 and some 120mm.

  2. Yes, the 29/44.M was first made as an AA gun, it was made because of high altitude american bombers, if I recall correctly because it could shoot way higher.
    Sadly I dont know if they built the guns or not. It would make sense that they did producing it or at least start the production.

One thing I dont understand is the replacement gun. Was it a 75mm L/43 or L/46 cannon?
Wasn’t the 75mm L/43 cannons on the Zrínyi I and Turán III? and the L/46 for the Toldi Páncélvadász?

3 Likes

How could the Nimrod ever be worse than the L-62? At worst, it would be the same, but in reality the Nimrod was much better than the L-62, firstly because of an improved turret and more crew, but also because it had access to Hungarian-developed special anti-tank rounds, as well as the HEAT muzzle grenade which could deal with any enemy tank at close range.

1 Like

steel-cored AP rounds i think.

1 Like

1:
I thought of using the dates to figure it out, but I didn’t know when the comparison paper is from (I guessed sometime in the autumn of 1943), so that’s great that you found it is from 15 October. I found this about the date of the mockup:

“The blueprints with all necessary data and budget plans were finished on 3 December 1943. Photos of the 1:10 scale metal mockup of the new vehicle were given to the HTI on 6 December 1943.”

From this we can assume that the mockup was made after the comparison paper, and yes, you’re probably right in thinking that the mockup would probably be either the finalised version, or at least pretty close to it.

However, in the tank encyclopedia specification table, it lists 1 MG for prototype vehicles and 2 MGs for planned serial production vehicles, which implies that the hull machine gun was a later addition, or was planned to return after having been deleted. I think the tank encyclopedia specification table has some mistakes though and earlier on in the article they write: “A second 8 mm machine gun to be placed in the hull and operated by the radioman was also considered although it is not present on the factory mockup.”, which implies they know as much as us and aren’t sure of the hull MG.

So I think we can conclude that the tank encyclopedia specification table was wrong or speculative, and that the mockup was made after the comparison paper, thus the Tas probably had the hull MG at first, then it was decided to remove it, so it would have only gotten the single coaxial MG, however we can’t be 100% sure of this.

2:
Since the comparison paper was from early development, and I think the 100 mm figure is rarer and usually associated with less reliable sources, whereas the 120 mm figure seems more common and I find it in more reliable sources, I feel that the 100 mm figure was probably the early number, and then later they increased it to 120 mm, which would make sense. If this were not true, then where would the 120 mm figure have come from?

So here, I’m inclined to believe that it was initially 100 mm thick, but then they changed it to 120 mm, but again we can’t be 100% sure.

3:
Yeah, I figure they must have gotten further than we know with the 29/44.M in that 1 year since the prototype was made and tested. The information must have been lost, which sucks as it would explain the gun situation of the Tas.

The 75 mm 43.M gun for the Tas was either an L/43 (same as Turan III and Zrinyi I), or an L/46 (slightly longer, same in-game performance as the PaK 40 L/46 armed German vehicles). Some sources say L/43, others say L/46, but I’m inclined to believe that L/46 is the correct length because:

  • Where else would the L/46 figure have come from? The Turan III and Zrinyi I were the only other users of the gun, and they had the L/43.
  • The sources that say L/43 could have just assumed the length of the gun from the Turan III and Zrinyi I’s gun.
  • It would make sense that for the more powerful Tas, they would have tried to give it at least a slightly better 75 mm gun.
  • The main source that says it is an L/46 is very detailed and I think it is quite accurate.

The Turan III and Zrinyi I had the 75 mm 43.M L/43 gun. The Toldi Pancelvadasz had a different 75 mm Pak 40/2 L/46 gun.

1 Like

Its not a copy, it IS german produced, they made the Stielgranate 41 for 3,7 cm Paks, Flaks, 4 cm Paks and Flaks and 5 cm Paks.

1 Like

I read that it was a copy from a 3.7 cm Pak that the Hungarians enlarged for the 40 mm gun of the Nimrod.

1 Like

L3/33

The Best Heavy Tank of WWII

1 Like

L3 is MBT

2 Likes
  1. Oh, very nice! I guess then tank encyclopedia is outdated. Well, would be great if we could ask Karika about it (person who wrote the encyclopedia page about the Tas), but I am guessing he would probably say the same that in the end it would have had 1 mg. But yeah sadly we can’t be 100% fully sure.

  2. It may be. Of course it would be better to have the 120mm. But in the end its Gaijins choice.
    I have heard (correct me if I am wrong) that because of not being able to produce very thick plates, Hungary bought the armor plates for the Tas. Do you know if this is true/real?

  3. I too have read that it would have been an l/46. Whats the difference between the Pak 40 and the Pak 40/2? Hmm, I am wondering if the Tas’s replacement gun was the same type of gun as the Toldi páncélvadász’s.

  1. I feel like a lot of the limited information regarding this tank is spread too widely in too many different and obscure places, in different languages, and is known by different people. I think it would be great if there was some kind of dedicated space where everyone (regardless of language and not specifically for War Thunder) could collect any information about the 44M Tas, making sure it is as accurate as possible. Anything that is found like new sources, blueprints, images, etc. could be shared there and the true story and specifications of the Tas could be pieced together accurately, and false numbers and incorrect information can be identified to make it clear what is certainly right and wrong. This way historians, researchers, enthusiasts, descendants of the original engineers, War Thunder forum members, and anyone else could all combine their knowledge, because I’m sure we all have pieces of information that someone else interested in the topic doesn’t know. Currently, I think this thread is the closest to such a space, but it excludes anyone who doesn’t play War Thunder.

  2. Well I hope it can be decided with certainty rather than Gaijin just choosing a number. When it comes to buying thick armour plates, I don’t know, I haven’t heard about it, but it sounds like it could be true for the prototype, but after that Hungary would have had to be able to produce the armour plates themselves. I have heard that Hungary struggled to produce thick armour plates in general, but I don’t know specifically about how the armour plates for the Tas were made.

  3. I don’t know about the differences between the Pak 40, Pak 40/2, and Pak 40/3, but I assume they were pretty negligible. However, the Pak 40 and 43.M were not the same gun. The Pak 40 was a German anti-tank gun, whereas the 43.M was a Hungarian tank gun that was derived from the Pak 40, so was relatively similar, but not the same. The replacement gun of the Tas was a Hungarian 43.M gun, whereas the gun of the Toldi Páncélvadász was the Pak 40/2 L/46, so they were closely related guns, but not the same.

Mounting iirc. The gun itself and performance are identical.