T-34 rework

I think you're right on most parts, even after overmatch is accounted for the T34 seems to have higher armor resistance than the Panzer IV, although some people at Axis History Forum (https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=110070) calculated different effective armors for the T34 against the KwK40 instead of 92.4 mm.

that's because T-34 armor quality would vary.. a 42 model T-34 for example would have better armor than a 1943 model because of the drop in quality in 1943 but a 1944 model would have better quality than both a 43 and a 42 thanks to submerged welding... also the effective armor would also vary depending on the incoming shell type... pzgr 39 will have a different result to pzgr 40

It seems from my research that shell normalization effects vary more in relation to the shape/composition of the shell rather than the raw caliber/thickness ratio.

correct... normalization is far smaller for capped shells and is far greater in subcaliber shells... but also decreases with higher L : D... this is why APCR and APDS has such terrible performance against sloped armor but APFSDS (which has much higher L : D) performs much better against sloped armor... its also why Kontakt-5 is soo effective against APFSDS since it essentially yaws the projectile which functions a lot like normalization

For example, the normalization effect of a sloped armor plate on an 88mm HEAT shell is much smaller than that on an 88mm AP shell.

that's because a HEAT shell doesn't have normalization... the shell explodes on impact thus its motion is not deformed and the shell penetrates efficiently against sloped armor... instead HEAT is decided by geometric thickness for the most part...

Also, while the KwK40/PaK40 are not large enough to cause dishing, according to the report you linked the method of penetration resulting from the overmatch would be ductile hole enlargement. While the T/D ratio of the T34/KwK40 is not small enough to result in dishing (0.6), it is nonetheless smaller than the T/D ratio of the Panther/122mm D-25T (0.65), and I think you'd be familiar with the Kubinka (?) report where the 122mm gun completely overmatched the Panther's front glacis and went straight through the tank (of course there's other factors in play like the differences between the guns under expected circumstances, the much higher explosive content of the 122mm, and the differences in kinetic energy between the shells of both guns, but overmatch still clearly seems to be at play here).

the kubinka trial didn't involve plate overmatch... the 122mm D-25T has over 200mm penetration with the BR-471B flat nosed APHEBC shell which under the calculator returns 133.0mm for RHA and 121.7mm for high brinelle steel

also only 10% of the kinetic energy of a high explosive round (no not an APHE or APHEBC/APCBC-HE) round is from the high explosive itself... the majority of the energy from the impact is still from the kinetic energy of the shell itself...

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/12/he-vs-armour.html

"An analysis of natural shots, static detonations, and calculations shows that the contribution of the explosive filler of a 100-152 mm HE shell contributes around 5-10% of the overall impulse (at an impact velocity of more than 700 m/s), and the main damage to the armour plate is dealt by the impact of fragments."

I'll ignore the parts about the T34/85, that's a whole other discussion. In order to evaluate the efficiency of the T34 I would probably compare it to its closest counterpart, the Ostwind. The Ostwind is more expensive, but it can shoot down planes (although it is terrible at that). The Ostwind also packs more raw anti-infantry power, but lags behind a T34 in terms of anti-tank power. I'm not sure but I think the T34 is faster and more survivable. Both tanks are very effective at dealing with light targets (infantry/light vehicles). The T34's inability to deal with heavier vehicles is not a problem with the unit. The unit is great at what it's designed for. It's not designed as a generalist tank. If you want to compare it with generalist tanks like the Cromwell, Sherman, and Panzer IV, then you'd need to buff the unit's AT power, but you'd be giving the tank and the faction a whole new role.

then it would be unfair that the best multirole tank the soviets have is equivalent to an ostwind while other facs have P4Js P4Gs M4A3s and comets to lean on...

either make the T-34-85 nondoc or give the soviets a better option if u wish to keep the T-34 in this state...

stub dick p4

AHAHHAHAHHAHHA stub dick...


yeah this is a good idea but only if the 3 min pgren and the 4 min FHT were to somehow disappear

the kubinka trial didn't involve plate overmatch... the 122mm D-25T has over 200mm penetration with the BR-471B flat nosed APHEBC shell which under the calculator returns 133.0mm for RHA and 121.7mm for high brinelle steel

My point with Kubinka has less to do with the fact that the armor was penetrated and more with the degree at which plate was penetrated. The 122mm ripped clean through the frontal plate and went straight through the rear of the tank while destroying basically everything in it's path. Even though the D-25T can still penetrate an 80mm plate without accounting for overmatch, my point was that overmatch was still clearly in play to the degree of the (over)penetration of the plate. I referenced the explosive content of the 122mm shell because I was talking more about the aftermath of the explosion/penetration rather than the penetration ability of the 122mm itself. The 122mm's ability to frontally penetrate the Panther can be attributed to the penetration power of the gun itself, but the D-25T's overperformance against the Panther can be attributed to various other factors including shell overmatch and the explosive power of the shell. While a 100mm D-10T can penetrate the Panther frontally just the same, it won't overperform as much as the D-25T does.

yeah this is a good idea but only if the 3 min pgren and the 4 min FHT were to somehow disappear

The stub dick P4 sucks at everything, even against infantry. Regular Panzer IV is better at everything.

frankly, regardless of if its added as a non command vehcle or not id like the stubby to get a gun profile akin to the stubby stug. the turret would be a hug boon and it would act a bit like a short range but more robust scott (the stubby stug being a long ranged, squisher casemate P4)
id bump the damage up to 160 and reconfigure the AOE profile so that its AI is otherwise unchanged so that structures and armour it does pen take heed

its gun would be great against infantry, its armour and health forgiving, if not dominant at its timing and its pen would be enough to force allied lights to take caution.

My point with Kubinka has less to do with the fact that the armor was penetrated and more with the degree at which plate was penetrated. The 122mm ripped clean through the frontal plate and went straight through the rear of the tank while destroying basically everything in it's path. Even though the D-25T can still penetrate an 80mm plate without accounting for overmatch, my point was that overmatch was still clearly in play to the degree of the (over)penetration of the plate.

overmatch is at play with any caliber but only becomes really significant at thrice the diameter of the thickness of the armor plate which is the point I'm trying to say...

I referenced the explosive content of the 122mm shell because I was talking more about the aftermath of the explosion/penetration rather than the penetration ability of the 122mm itself. The 122mm's ability to frontally penetrate the Panther can be attributed to the penetration power of the gun itself, but the D-25T's overperformance against the Panther can be attributed to various other factors including shell overmatch and the explosive power of the shell. While a 100mm D-10T can penetrate the Panther frontally just the same, it won't overperform as much as the D-25T does.

it actually does... the 100mm D-10C has more kinetic energy per meter squared than the 122mm D-25T firing the same round type and the kubinka trials kinda showed that the 100mm kinda goes through the panther pretty easily...

the thing about the 100mm however is that during the trials the D-25T fired a superior quality of shell to the D-10C since the BR-412D was yet to be released therefore the penetration for both the D-25T and the D-10C were around 200mm RHAE at point blank... yet of course the 122mm shell was larger which allowed it to outperform the 100mm

performance of 80mm at 55 against flat nosed 122mm APHEBC = 121.7
performance of 80mm at 55 against flat nosed 100mm APHEBC = 142.2

BR-412D penetration = 230mm
BR-412B penetration = around 200mm
BR-471B penetration = around 200


now if the BR-412D were around which had 230mm were used in kubinka id be willing to bet that the 100mm D-10C would outperform the D-25T...

The stub dick P4 sucks at everything, even against infantry. Regular Panzer IV is better at everything.

just like the T-34 but at least OST has the P4 in the lategame...

They could make the stub dick p4 as a "light" medium. Maybe in t2 after BP2 is teched kinda thing. Fine tuning needed

or redesign ostwind to be cheap and better vs light tanks since currently it sucks.

or redesign ostwind to be cheap and better vs light tanks since currently it sucks.

Sucks vs light tanks? or sucks in general...

Sucks vs light tanks? or sucks in general...

Ostwind is good vs infatry but it sucks vs vehicles. Its probability to hit and penetrate vehicles especially when moving is very low and slide shots are more difficult to achieve.

The price gap with PzIV has also become narrower. By increasing utility and lowering power level it will become a more appealing choice. (I would argue the same about Centaur)

T-34-76 should be raised to 720HP or 800HP to function more like an attrition unit as stated before, capable of turning battles by virtue of simply outlasting the enemy, just like late-game Conscripts. It would also make it good for scouting or shielding the SU-76 and SU-85.

I think it'd be neat, right now the T-34 is nothing special and has nothing going for it except for the cost, which is low because it's nothing special and has nothing going for it.

T-34-76 should be raised to 720HP or 800HP to function more like an attrition unit as stated before, capable of turning battles by virtue of simply outlasting the enemy, just like late-game Conscripts. It would also make it good for scouting or shielding the SU-76 and SU-85.

You're describing the KV-1 here.

You're describing the KV-1 here.

Considering most sov stock units are early war or pre war maybe make the kv 1 stock and kick the t34/76 to doctrines. Lol

This unit is anything but underpowered. The problem is that the importance of 1v1 medium vs medium battles gets way overestimated a lot of the time. Mediums functioning as bruiser tanks fighting each other is quite rare because the vast majority of the time they are backed by double at guns. They mainly serve the purpose of mobile AI and potentially game ending pushes once you got critical mass (2-4) to flank the enemies at guns. In those two areas the T34 is exceptionally good. It's the most cost efficient medium in terms of AI by far and it's very easy to reach critical mass with it.

This unit is anything but underpowered. The problem is that the importance of 1v1 medium vs medium battles gets way overestimated a lot of the time. Mediums functioning as bruiser tanks fighting each other is quite rare because the vast majority of the time they are backed by double at guns. They mainly serve the purpose of mobile AI and potentially game ending pushes once you got critical mass (2-4) to flank the enemies at guns. In those two areas the T34 is exceptionally good. It's the most cost efficient medium in terms of AI by far and it's very easy to reach critical mass with it.

That is accurate and closer to in game situation.

This unit is anything but underpowered. The problem is that the importance of 1v1 medium vs medium battles gets way overestimated a lot of the time. Mediums functioning as bruiser tanks fighting each other is quite rare because the vast majority of the time they are backed by double at guns. They mainly serve the purpose of mobile AI and potentially game ending pushes once you got critical mass (2-4) to flank the enemies at guns. In those two areas the T34 is exceptionally good. It's the most cost efficient medium in terms of AI by far and it's very easy to reach critical mass with it.

This

Mediums functioning as bruiser tanks fighting each other is quite rare because the vast majority of the time they are backed by double at guns. They mainly serve the purpose of mobile AI and potentially game ending pushes once you got critical mass (2-4) to flank the enemies at guns. In those two areas the T34 is exceptionally good.

sooo the only things that matter is the mobile AI and flanking AT guns by this retarded logic... the stubby P4 and the stug E are the best medium tanks ingame...

It's the most cost efficient medium in terms of AI by far and it's very easy to reach critical mass with it.

a tank with both AT and AI >>>>> plain AI tank... if you think AI cost efficiency is what matters then how come spamming ostwinds or centaurs isnt meta...


in any case the soviets are still an underperforming faction according to tourney and automatch data... trying to perpetuate that "soviet OP" nonsense isnt gonna go far..

sooo the only things that matter is the mobile AI and flanking AT guns by this retarded logic... the stubby P4 and the stug E are the best medium tanks ingame...



a tank with both AT and AI >>>>> plain AI tank... if you think AI cost efficiency is what matters then how come spamming ostwinds or centaurs isnt meta...


in any case the soviets are still an underperforming faction according to tourney and automatch data... trying to perpetuate that "soviet OP" nonsense isnt gonna go far..

There's a cold war like balance of power. As long as both sides have mediums they know should they attack both sides are gonna take massive losses. This results in the aforementioned gameplay. If one side only has AI tanks instead it will get overrun by mediums.

There's a cold war like balance of power. As long as both sides have mediums they know should they attack both sides are gonna take massive losses. This results in the aforementioned gameplay. If one side only has AI tanks instead it will get overrun by mediums.

the T-34-76 has terrible AT potential as proven by the previous tests soo this does not apply... there is no "overrunning" here until the T-34-76 is made more cost efficient

This unit is anything but underpowered. The problem is that the importance of 1v1 medium vs medium battles gets way overestimated a lot of the time. Mediums functioning as bruiser tanks fighting each other is quite rare because the vast majority of the time they are backed by double at guns. They mainly serve the purpose of mobile AI and potentially game ending pushes once you got critical mass (2-4) to flank the enemies at guns. In those two areas the T34 is exceptionally good. It's the most cost efficient medium in terms of AI by far and it's very easy to reach critical mass with it.

100 % true although it can depend on the map to some extent.

However regardless of the map, the longer the game goes on the more likely soviets will win due to the attrition war.

100 % true although it can depend on the map to some extent.

However regardless of the map, the longer the game goes on the more likely soviets will win due to the attrition war.

This is not true if both players play equally well, and it showed even during the recent WC. SOV has better manpower economy, but not late game tools to really capitalize on that. Your statement would be true if SOV could for example use this to eventually build an equivalent to Brummy or Panther and really start bullying the opponent in some department. If the game drags for long enough without any decisive engagements, Axis can just stall the game with AT guns and wait for proper late game tech, which is something SOV has trouble answering again.

100 % true although it can depend on the map to some extent.

However regardless of the map, the longer the game goes on the more likely soviets will win due to the attrition war.

well not really... the P4 tends to win the attrition war since it can kill the T-34 more efficiently...

even if we add AT guns into the equation the soviets will still bleed more since the T-34 is more likely to get knocked out from a combination of AT gun and panzer 4 fire...


though i will say that the zis 3 still edges out significantly over the pak 40... but it really is no substitute for a real medium tank...


and again to all that side with giaa... youre forgetting the fact that if AI cost efficiency and spammability were the only criteria for a strong unit then the centaur/ostwind/stugE/105sherman would be more meta than mediums... but this clearly isnt true... AT is EXTREMELY important to a performance of a vehicle just as significant as AI...