A historical comparison in the Game

And i'd actually like a source of soviet optics being "bad" instead of a video and some saying that russians always miss the first shot.

Hell, even the americans admitted that the optics of the t-34 were superior to anything they had. And they were rather critical about the t-34. Mainly because the early t-34 models weren't exactly reliable.

"The gun sights and range finding for the F-34 main gun (either the TMFD-7 or the PT4-7[52]) were rather crude, especially compared to those of their German adversaries, affecting accuracy and the ability to engage at long ranges.[53] As a result of the T-34's two-man turret, weak optics, and poor vision devices, the Germans noted:

T-34s operated in a disorganised fashion with little coordination, or else tended to clump together like a hen with its chicks. Individual tank commanders lacked situational awareness due to the poor provision of vision devices and preoccupation with gunnery duties. A tank platoon would seldom be capable of engaging three separate targets, but would tend to focus on a single target selected by the platoon leader. As a result T-34 platoons lost the greater firepower of three independently operating tanks.[54]

The Germans also noted the T-34 was very slow to find and engage targets, while their own tanks could typically get off three rounds for every one fired by the T-34."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

The T-34 proofed to be a very clumsy vehicle. The only advantage it had, was it´s availability. It was always there. Engaging German armor was another thing though.

"The gun sights and range finding for the F-34 main gun (either the TMFD-7 or the PT4-7[52]) were rather crude, especially compared to those of their German adversaries, affecting accuracy and the ability to engage at long ranges.[53] As a result of the T-34's two-man turret, weak optics, and poor vision devices, the Germans noted:

T-34s operated in a disorganised fashion with little coordination, or else tended to clump together like a hen with its chicks. Individual tank commanders lacked situational awareness due to the poor provision of vision devices and preoccupation with gunnery duties. A tank platoon would seldom be capable of engaging three separate targets, but would tend to focus on a single target selected by the platoon leader. As a result T-34 platoons lost the greater firepower of three independently operating tanks.[54]

The Germans also noted the T-34 was very slow to find and engage targets, while their own tanks could typically get off three rounds for every one fired by the T-34."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

The T-34 proofed to be a very clumsy vehicle. The only advantage it had, was it´s availability. It was always there. Engaging German armor was another thing though.

Wikipedia is not a very reliable source. It is constantly getting editing and is filled with conflicting information everywhere. However, for example US testing of the t-34 noted that the optics of the t-34 were superior to anything they had. And the US like i said were rather critical of the t-34, even tho some of the flaws they noticed was because they did not know how to handle the vehicle properly.

In the same article wikipedia claims that the t-34 is the best tank in the world, then goes on rambling how horrible the t-34 actually was :/


And that the reason why the t-34s acted in a disorganized fashion and very slow to find targets can be atributted to the 2 man turret, poor coordination and crews or perhaps vision, not gun optics and cam pretty much be only contributed to the very early versions of the t-34.


If the t-34 was so crappy, then why did the germans base their panther on the t-34? Why did the germans value captured t-34s and used them to great effect?

I didn't take the time to read through all 3 pages, so maybe someone has already posted what i'm about to say:

Basically this game is making two timelines coexisting (which is the biggest historical problem, but the gameplay dictates it): Ostheer (from vCoh2) is the incarnation of Wehrmacht from 1941 to 1942-3 (from beginning to the end of Barbarossa), while Oberkommando (from WFA) is the incarnation of Wehrmacht from 1944 to 1945.

So if you take those things into account, and do not care too much about historical accuracy (i'm an history geek, i've been thinking about those things a lot since i began playing this game), Relic is not "too far" from being good. Basically, USF and USSR never fought alongside like you can do in the game, so this fact alone should give you a hint that you shouldn't focus too much about timelines. Having Ostheer + OKW in one team would mean you make cohabit the same army with a three years span seperating them (which is obviously not possible).

As I have already stated everything else and provided sources 8which you ignore), I´m just going to concentrate on that part:

If the t-34 was so crappy, then why did the germans base their panther on the t-34?

Because of the sloped armor. What´s the point? That sloped armor on T-34s proved ineffective as soon as 75mm/L43 and 48 guns were mounted on most German vehicles. Concepts get copied all the time and the Panther improved on the T-34s flaws (radio, cupola, gun, amount of armor) rather than totally copy it. The concept of sloped armor was good - but that doesn´t make the whole T-34 design top notch.

Why did the germans value captured t-34s and used them to great effect?

Germans used everything they could get their hands on. That includes Czech 38ts, French Hotchkiss, Somua etc. etc. Some somewhat useful tank is better than none at all. And the T-34s they actually captured and used were modified with cupolas etc. to get rid of their flaws.

As I have already stated everything else and provided sources 8which you ignore), I´m just going to concentrate on that part:

Because of the sloped armor. What´s the point? That sloped armor on T-34s proved ineffective as soon as 75mm/L43 and 48 guns were mounted on most German vehicles. Concepts get copied all the time and the Panther improved on the T-34s flaws (radio, cupola, gun, amount of armor) rather than totally copy it. The concept of sloped armor was good - but that doesn´t make the whole T-34 design top notch.

Germans used everything they could get their hands on. That includes Czech 38ts, French Hotchkiss, Somua etc. etc. Some somewhat useful tank is better than none at all. And the T-34s they actually captured and used were modified with cupolas etc. to get rid of their flaws.

I'm fairly sure that the T-34 did have radios, atleast the later versions, and the t-34s gun was more than enough all the way until the arrival of tigers. And the T-34 was more armored than the PIV, and i believe the t-34 did have a commander cupola, atleast the later versions of it.

And like i said, even US aberdeen tests aknowledged that the optics of the t-34 were of very good quality.


And i'm not saying that the t-34 design was top notch, you are the one saying it was apparently a horrible tank.

And like i said, even US aberdeen tests aknowledged that the optics of the t-34 were of very good quality.

Source?

And i'm not saying that the t-34 design was top notch, you are the one saying it was apparently a horrible tank.

We came to this topic as someone was complaining about late game German (tank) advantage. And Panthers or even StuGs were definitely better than the T-34 in combat performance. That´s the point I was trying to make. After all the T-34 was the tank lost the most in the entire war.

Source?

We came to this topic as someone was complaining about late game German (tank) advantage. And Panthers or even StuGs were definitely better than the T-34 in combat performance. That´s the point I was trying to make. After all the T-34 was the tank lost the most in the entire war.

http://english.battlefield.ru/evaluation-of-the-t-34-and-kv-dp1.html

http://english.battlefield.ru/evaluation-of-the-t-34-and-kv-dp1.html

.ru .... not even reading that. And then you are complaining about wikipedia.

.ru .... not even reading that. And then you are complaining about wikipedia.

Why? What's wrong with it? It is pretty much a direct copy of what the US testers said about the tanks.


The reason i said wikipedia is unreliable is because pretty much everyone can edit it and fill it with whatever stuff they want. The only articles in wikipedia that can be relied upon are featured articles.

.ru XDD

The Soviets separated their offensive phases into two basic stages:

1. Breakthrough

2. Exploitation

The Breakthrough involved eliminating Axis fortified lines of defense. It was considered over when the zone was smashed and cleared of enemies. The Soviets generally used rifle corps (1944) to do this, supported by self-propelled guns (like SU-76, SU-122 and larger) and heavy tank units like the IS-2. If the enemy defense was too strong, they deployed their tank armies, tank corps, and mech. corps early.

IS-2 was a breakthrough tank and designed to be in the first echelon. Its gun was good against fortifications and it could eliminate armored reserves that attempted to intervene. It was NOT a tank hunter. The Soviet dedicated tank hunters were generally the SU-85/SU-100 and the ISU/SU-152 regiments in late 1944.

Exploitation occurred after a clean breakthrough. This is where the tank units with their SPG support were pushed through the gap. Most were T-34s (with some lend lease shermans) supported by SPG units.

-
I dont think IS-2 was really a Battle tank and more of a Break-through tank.

correct me if im wrong

Hello from Russia!

The issue with the optics soviet tanks we (here, in Russia) understand has long time ago.

Soviet sights were good enough. A optical glass - no.

Optical factory is located in the western European part of the country. And with the start of the war, they were under attack.

Some were captured. Some were evacuated to the Urals. Some in the siege (as Leningrad).
The result for the industry was the same: lack of optical glass. Then it's time ersatz.

The problem of Soviet bad optics was solved only with the help of Lend-Lease (hooray allies!). This means that in 41-43 years soviets has bad optics, and in 44-45 it was already on par with the Germans (especially considering decline quality of German optics as a result of the ally bombing).

coh2player tell about IS-2 right. Of course, he was not a tank hunter. 25 kg projectile for tank hunt? The obvious overkill.
About SU/ISU-152 not quite. They are supposed to be used against fortifications, like the KV-2. Their use against tanks was improvised. Like using a 8.8 cm Flak against British and French tanks.

P.S. I was always surprised that СoH2 USSR are rushers and the Third Reich are defenders.
I mean that the Allies did not beneficial to delay the fight, while the Germans on the other hand, benefit from access to the late phase. CoH2 and history? This just ridiculous.
P.S.S. My english just lame. I know.

A lot of arguing about the T-34, people need to remember there wasn't just one T-34 though, there were several types of hugely varying conditions. Not only the M1940 / M1941 / M1942 / M1943, but their production limitations. The T-34's sloped armour was very difficult to penetrate with most of Germany's Anti-Tank weaponry.

Early T-34's had design kinks that were still being worked out, and huge numbers of them were lost to mechanical failures. During the height of Barbarossa, Tanks were being rushed out of the factories without optics, trained crews, or radios. In 1942 Tiger Tanks and Panzer IV's with extra armour and KwK 40's became commonplace, destroying the T-34 with ease. This is what tainted it's reputation.

If you got a good one (not rushed) with a good crew (fully trained) before 1942, it was a real terror, and difficult to stop. At the time of its inception, it was the greatest tank in the world. Unfortunately for the Soviets, the pressure they were forced to work under prevented it from making a very big difference before Germany was able to catch up.

Yes. But they definitely come across as being used against tanks quite often. Unlike the tank brigades, they were all equipped with radios. The 3 regiments of SPGs (usually one heavy) of a tank or mechanized corps were used as their support/reserve and didn't execute independent missions from what I've read on the subject about Anti-tank artillery (memoir account: Panzer killers).

About SU/ISU-152 not quite. They are supposed to be used against fortifications, like the KV-2. Their use against tanks was improvised. Like using a 8.8 cm Flak against British and French tanks.

i think the ISUs intended role as a heavy assault gun does not translate well into COH2. Its improvised role of anti-tank and blob killer does though. The problem is we do not see much heavy fortifications in the late game when the ISU152 comes out. The ISU will be mainly fighting heavy tanks and not bunkers.

Soviets do get mass tank spam. try using regular T34s or something called SOVIET INDUSTRY

that game looks interesting. is it a good game?

While Man of War is surely more "realistic" than coh2 it's still not a realistic game.
"Achtung Panzer!" feels really realistic, long battles, long ranges, units die by one shot, missions that represent battles that took actually place and you have the feeling of a real operation.
Feels a bit like the Wargame series, although the mechanics are not as good as it.

Coh2 is a cool game, but storming a mini version of the Reichstag with 3 con squads feels really awkward. Just like those Age of Empires 2 "epic campaign battles" felt with their 75 popcap.

Soviets do get mass tank spam. try using regular T34s or something called SOVIET INDUSTRY

Soviet Industry, aka I'm sitting on 300 fuel, but I have no manpower for my infantry, and I have no manpower for my tanks!

Soviet Industry stopped being good when the manpower cost of vehicles was jacked up. Now the manpower penalty limits tank building just like fuel used to, and you end up playing the same game with less infantry.

Wikipedia is not a very reliable source. It is constantly getting editing and is filled with conflicting information everywhere. However, for example US testing of the t-34 noted that the optics of the t-34 were superior to anything they had. And the US like i said were rather critical of the t-34, even tho some of the flaws they noticed was because they did not know how to handle the vehicle properly.

In the same article wikipedia claims that the t-34 is the best tank in the world, then goes on rambling how horrible the t-34 actually was :/


And that the reason why the t-34s acted in a disorganized fashion and very slow to find targets can be atributted to the 2 man turret, poor coordination and crews or perhaps vision, not gun optics and cam pretty much be only contributed to the very early versions of the t-34.


If the t-34 was so crappy, then why did the germans base their panther on the t-34? Why did the germans value captured t-34s and used them to great effect?

Because most USF and also some british optics were actually even worse than the T34 optics. There is so much information about the optics subject that I can't believe people are still spreading misinformation. German tank optics provided more FOV than their counterparts. The fact that german tank crews were very well trained in distance calculation and so on provided them with the very high chance to get "first shot hits" without having to fire ranging shots. This was due to the design of the german optics. Now pair this with a high velocity gun, and you are hitting far away targets before they even get a chance to react. Carl Zeiss optics, to this day, belong to the best in the world.

This is out of the Tigerfibel. You can clearly see the triangle system the germans used in their optics. Exactly this made judging distances very easy for the german crews since they mostly knew the size of the opposing tanks out of their head.

Soviet Industry, aka I'm sitting on 300 fuel, but I have no manpower for my infantry, and I have no manpower for my tanks!

Soviet Industry stopped being good when the manpower cost of vehicles was jacked up. Now the manpower penalty limits tank building just like fuel used to, and you end up playing the same game with less infantry.

Yeah I never understood why Relic didn't adjust this after the changes to Soviet armour prices. The increased MP cost of vehicles leaves you very low on MP for reinforcing or replacing squads. I believe that you are meant to rush t3 while keeping your inf pop to a minimum and most of your army should consist of armour. That way you have less MP bleed, but it just doesn't work out as it should. Always sitting on mass amounts of fuel as the game progresses.