T-34 needs a buff

.

You don't know who you are even talking to, plus atleast I know how to play the game. t34/76ss were shitty and outdated when panzer4s with long barreled 75mm started rolling out. Only redeeming quality is the ease of production from the industrial giant that is the soviet union with their relatively infinite manpower reserves and landmass. It beat panzer3s thats about it its not some christ tier tank that was perfect in every way and would go toe to toe with tigers, panthers, and king tigers.

76 would be fine in a more AT intensive role to encourage its use, with a fuel increase to bring that in line.

Personally I would prefer AI accent for T-34/76, and very soon you will know why.

The thing is even with the new ~shenanigans~ Soviets really don't lack for anti infantry power at all and the T34 being a dedicated Tank Hunter like it actually was in real life would give Soviets more options, this of course however would necessitate a price increase or it wouldn't be able to have THAT great armor or pen, just better than currently.


And while it is adorable to see you guys slap fight about T34's versus Panther; both fulfilled the roll of Tank Hunter, but what the Panther had that the T34's didn't is a high velocity gun giving it greater pen at longer range. The Panther was also kinda more accurate on the move.

Das, don't really care who you are. Your denial of historical accuracy is fun though.

For "AT T-34/76", what roughly speaking characteristics we are speaking about - bad AOE, same mg, same armour and health, same speed, 160 dmg, so what for pen and cost? And don't forget NDA from T3 with alike role and cheaper price.

For "AT T-34/76", what roughly speaking characteristics we are speaking about - bad AOE, same mg, same armour and health, same speed, 160 dmg, so what for pen and cost? And don't forget NDA from T3.

Better frontal armor, same health. So say it has like 230 frontal armor (so still easy to pen with dedicated AT guns), but really really shit AoE with 160 damage.

Possibly better MG's.

So say it has like 230 frontal armor (so still easy to pen with dedicated AT guns)

It seems more like damage sponge than AT. Good penetration, but only on the closest distance could be interesting choice. And the idea of upgrade to OT for Mu, is still my favourite from other options, or some other Mu dependant upgrade, but I cant see which one, only other option is anti cumulative net.

Daspoulos has never opened a history book that wasn't biased, if at all apparently. The T34 was only reliably killed by the 88 until the heavier Panzers were developed to kill it. The long barreled Panzer 4 still had to close to a range it could hit back, also that by the time of the long barreled variants appearance, the Russians were firing back with the 85mm.

The T34 wasn't just good because it was mass produced, It was successful as it didn't get stuck in mud, didn't light on fire by moving even early in its production, didn't freeze up in the climates the invading Nazi Germany found itself in, and yes was also very easy to put together and was a damn good machine (which as much as it makes you red in the face the Nazi's saw that). Just as if production of the Panzer 4 late variants or Panther would have seen the Nazis off much better than wasting so much time and effort on tanks that equated to the production time of 4 of the less complicated Panzers. Hell someone even posted the prototype i mentioned, its a T34 drawn by German designer lol.

I think History speaks for itself, especially when the Germans developed new tanks in direct response to the "shit" T34/76.

Thanks for the usual derail Daspoulos back to topic, 76 would be fine in a more AT intensive role to encourage its use, with a fuel increase to bring that in line. As has been mentioned here, bitching about call in Meta and refusing to even hear of buffs for non doc units is pretty dumb when its the lack of good solid stock units that is the root of the issue.

Oh boy the t-34 is once again similar to the katana vs long swords discussions. it reached mystical proportions and statistics be damned.

The T34 was only reliably killed by the 88

peculiar since half the t-34's in 1941 where knocked out by 50 mm long barrelled p3's and only 9 % by the 88

The long barrelled Panzer 4 still had to close to a range it could hit back

Completely false. depending on what gun the p4 long barrel could knock out a t-34 out between 1000-1500 meters. use this as reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_KwK_40

It was successful as it didn't get stuck in mud,

True but not much of an accomplishment considering the soviets knew their territory while the Germans fought in Europe with its much better infrastructure.

didn't light on fire by moving even early in its production

Once again this is false. The t-34 had some major issues in the beginning.



I think History speaks for itself, especially when the Germans developed new tanks in direct response to the "shit" T34/76.


False once again. The Germans realised that they needed better tanks after encountering the much better French and British tanks that the German panzers simply could not handle. when the Germans invaded Russia the panther and tigers where already being designed.

However the Germans didn't expect the soviets having the t-34 and en mass converted their obsolete p1 2 and 3's into marders and stugs.

The problem is not the t-34 but the fact that the su85 is not in the tier making it very vunrabel to heavies TD's and generalist tanks.

dayum son, where did you find this?

su85 are fine when used in formations, not spammed one being a feet away from the another and su76m's are going to get a fix soon

but t-34 sure have problems

NDA ffs

Oh boy the t-34 is once again...

Completely false. depending on what gun the p4 long barrel could knock out a t-34 out between 1000-1500 meters. use this as reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_KwK_40
You do realize that 45mm on 60 angle is 90 mm for frontal shoot? It's 45/cos60=90, it's school program.
Once again this is false. The t-34 had some major issues in the beginning.
But most of those problem was solved during prototype series 1938-1939 and first line productions of 1940.
False once again. The Germans realised that they needed better tanks after encountering the much better French and British tanks that the German panzers simply could not handle. when the Germans invaded Russia the panther and tigers where already being designed.
Which model of French tank? The idea of 30 ton tank was in development from 1937 by Непschel, but it's interesting that first prototypes was build only after invasion in USSR in 1942. And it must be fearsome British tanks was a reason why first serial Panther wasn't deployed in Africa, but on the other front.

Completely false. depending on what gun the p4 long barrel could knock out a t-34 out between 1000-1500 meters. use this as reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_KwK_40
You do realize that 45mm on 60 angle is 90 mm for frontal shoot? It's 45/cos60=90, it's school program.
Once again this is false. The t-34 had some major issues in the beginning.
But most of those problem was solved during prototype series 1938-1939 and first line productions of 1940.
False once again. The Germans realised that they needed better tanks after encountering the much better French and British tanks that the German panzers simply could not handle. when the Germans invaded Russia the panther and tigers where already being designed.
Which model of French tank? The idea of 30 ton tank was in development from 1937 by Непschel, but it's interesting that first prototypes was build only after invasion in USSR in 1942. And it must be fearsome British tanks was a reason why first serial Panther wasn't deployed in Africa, but on the other front.

1. mate thats the glacis that will never ever get hit with a straight attack and 30 degrees is very generous.
2. considering how many tanks the soviets where forced to abandon in 1941 its fair to say the t-34 did had problems. it did become a very reliable tank. however the 85 once again had some problems with its suspension that was a bit overburdened
3. bis 1 char with 60 mm sloped armour. and the panthers where not deployed in Africa because they simply did not exist. tigers on the other hand where deployed.

You don't know who you are even talking to, plus atleast I know how to play the game. t34/76ss were shitty and outdated when panzer4s with long barreled 75mm started rolling out. .

good thing Russia developed manny t34 variants before the t34/85

1. mate thats the glacis that will never ever get hit with a straight attack and 30 degrees is very generous.
2. considering how many tanks the soviets where forced to abandon in 1941 its fair to say the t-34 did had problems. it did become a very reliable tank. however the 85 once again had some problems with its suspension that was a bit overburdened
3. bis 1 char with 60 mm sloped armour. and the panthers where not deployed in Africa because they simply did not exist. tigers on the other hand where deployed.

1.Yeahh... very uncommon, mate, if Panzer IV works like artillery or USSR was land of hills, I know that Moscow stands on 7 hills but whole Great European Plain...
a.


d.


About trajectory for 800 m/s shell.


2.Most abandons were through destroyed logistics, like - lack of fuel and spare parts, supply vehicles, on the front, chaotic retreat, domination of Luftwaffe and lack of coordination in command.

3.How many of those monsters were build, less than 400? Half of them were captured, so against this machine Panther were developed? And now some maths... again, it has 40 angle, like you can see here

and 60 mm on Char B1 bis, 60/cos40=78,324..., o my god, it less than T-34, and Char B1 bis was counted as "heavy" tank.

Oh god,real life and game comparison shitposting.


http://www.coh2.org/forum/108/the-library

@newvan

Your English is bad mate. i have no idea what those graphs are or where they come from. but we are here to discuss the t-34.

But lets get back to the t-34. its fine for cost and what it is doing. but the t-34 and the p4 long suffered from the fact their is no TD in either tier 3. the result is that your utterly screwed by jacksons as the ostheer and panthers as the SU.

Thats why the sherman is so popular with the usf. even if a panther rolls out you only need to wait a few minutes to get your jackson on the field.

where did you pull those numbers from? That doesnt even make any sense

He usually doesn't make sense, even when Alex makes

Daspoulos has never opened a history book that wasn't biased, if at all apparently. The T34 was only reliably killed by the 88 until the heavier Panzers were developed to kill it. The long barreled Panzer 4 still had to close to a range it could hit back, also that by the time of the long barreled variants appearance, the Russians were firing back with the 85mm.

The T34 wasn't just good because it was mass produced, It was successful as it didn't get stuck in mud, didn't light on fire by moving even early in its production, didn't freeze up in the climates the invading Nazi Germany found itself in, and yes was also very easy to put together and was a damn good machine (which as much as it makes you red in the face the Nazi's saw that). Just as if production of the Panzer 4 late variants or Panther would have seen the Nazis off much better than wasting so much time and effort on tanks that equated to the production time of 4 of the less complicated Panzers. Hell someone even posted the prototype i mentioned, its a T34 drawn by German designer lol.

I think History speaks for itself, especially when the Germans developed new tanks in direct response to the "shit" T34/76.

Thanks for the usual derail Daspoulos back to topic, 76 would be fine in a more AT intensive role to encourage its use, with a fuel increase to bring that in line. As has been mentioned here, bitching about call in Meta and refusing to even hear of buffs for non doc units is pretty dumb when its the lack of good solid stock units that is the root of the issue.

You think he has read any history book? You are an optimist and a believer of the virtues of men

@newvan
Your English is bad mate. i have no idea what those graphs are or where they come from.

I'm sorry that I suck at foreign languages. First one is simple basic geometry drown by myself, anyone able to make and chek it, geometry wouldn't lie. Second - it just example with ballistic formula, particularly this one from state technological university of Belarus, it wasn't made for Panzer IV ammo, but for shells that are close to it's characteristics. Even for more basic parabolic trajectory we need a lift in 30 degree for gun, to make such shoot, you can find same looking graphics at any ballistic related site. Third - from french site, I think it quite relayable source.

@newvan

Your English is bad mate. i have no idea what those graphs are or where they come from. but we are here to discuss the t-34.

But lets get back to the t-34. its fine for cost and what it is doing. but the t-34 and the p4 long suffered from the fact their is no TD in either tier 3. the result is that your utterly screwed by jacksons as the ostheer and panthers as the SU.

Thats why the sherman is so popular with the usf. even if a panther rolls out you only need to wait a few minutes to get your jackson on the field.

I don't think his English is that bad, i don't think its hard to comprehend him. He is trying to answer you, using evidence, which is a word you have never heard of