Login

russian armor

T-34 needs a buff

PAGES (20)down
10 Jun 2015, 06:05 AM
#181
avatar of Zyllen

Posts: 770

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jun 2015, 05:24 AMnewvan

I'm sorry that I suck at foreign languages. First one is simple basic geometry drown by myself, anyone able to make and verify 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, you can find same looking graphics at any ballistic related site. Third - from french site, I think it quite relayable source.


For the record mate im done discussing the t-34 in real life. But if you are going to enter a debate you have to provide a lot more information then just throwing 2 random charts to me without any context. i cannot be bothered to look up this university. and why should i do your work!

you want to discuss this with me do so by p,m.


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


LOL! and WTF .
10 Jun 2015, 06:37 AM
#182
avatar of KurtWilde
Donator 11

Posts: 440

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jun 2015, 06:05 AMZyllen


For the record mate im done discussing the t-34 in real life. But if you are going to enter a debate you have to provide a lot more information then just throwing 2 random charts to me without any context. i cannot be bothered to look up this university. and why should i do your work!

you want to discuss this with me do so by p,m.



LOL! and WTF .


Indeed, I suggest you take a comprehension class. I will donate 50% of the tuition
10 Jun 2015, 06:48 AM
#183
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned
Panzer4 > t34.
10 Jun 2015, 06:53 AM
#184
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1

In order to make T-34 and alternative to call-ins, while not overbuffing its AT performance and frequency of one-shots of 4-man squads, its MGs should be buffed. They will provide steady DPS, which is fine for generalist tank and doesn't contradicts "unit preservation" concept.

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jun 2015, 06:05 AMZyllen
LOL! and WTF .

Your english is even worse.
10 Jun 2015, 07:50 AM
#185
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1

Guys, aren't you forgeting something? I said it again and again, why are you considering individual units extracting them from context?
Considered as a single unit, T34 it's not performing so good, obviously.

But think about what a buff would mean:

- It will be so much closer to PZIV. Why is that a problem? Because of the costs.
- It hits the field sooner.
- It's direct hard and soft counters were nerfed not a longtime ago. Remember pak 40 nerf?? Far accuracy from shrecks was nerfed also. You want to revert the last changes of T34 BUT YOU FORGET THE NERFING OF ITS COUNTERS => if T34 will be buffed, soon enough many of you will come back here and cry it's OP => its counters will be buffed again => many of you will come here and complain about paks and shrecks overperformance again and so on.... and so on.... do you see the problem? Why should we enter into this cyrcle again? What many of you don't understand it's that such changes will trigger other changes sooner or later, changes that you won't agree with; stop pretending that such changes won't occur IF T34 will be buffed again.

Call me biased but I honestly see no good reason for which T34/76 needs a buff.
10 Jun 2015, 08:13 AM
#186
avatar of Goldeneale

Posts: 176

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jun 2015, 06:05 AMZyllen


For the record mate im done discussing the t-34 in real life. But if you are going to enter a debate you have to provide a lot more information then just throwing 2 random charts to me without any context. i cannot be bothered to look up this university. and why should i do your work!

you want to discuss this with me do so by p,m.



LOL! and WTF .


Honestly it looked to me like he had a sound argument. Sure his English wasn't very good but it certainly wasn't incomprehensible.

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jun 2015, 07:50 AMJohnnyB

Call me biased but I honestly see no good reason for which T34/76 needs a buff.


It is a very nice AT mine.
10 Jun 2015, 08:36 AM
#187
avatar of Trubbbel

Posts: 721

should just let T34/85 replace the T34/76 and increase the price a bit problem solved.

I see this all the time for all kinds of units: "buff a little and raise price". In the end all units will cost lots and all units will be good. Which means they will now take the position of the new "bad" units since all the previously bad units are gone. But the cost is higher so you can't build units as much. Aka Solution.
10 Jun 2015, 08:48 AM
#188
avatar of newvan

Posts: 354

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jun 2015, 07:50 AMJohnnyB
Guys, aren't you forgeting something?

There is some problems with this position - that it will be changed, like it or not, and not only this unit, and it will shatter old balance proportions, and after that it will be other patches and all of them will "trigger other changes". And new faction(s) will do it even more, much more, and Relic will add them. Game isn't in the place now, when it can survive stagnation.
10 Jun 2015, 09:15 AM
#189
avatar of pussyking
Donator 11

Posts: 551

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jun 2015, 07:50 AMJohnnyB


Call me biased but I honestly see no good reason for which T34/76 needs a buff.


There are plenty of legitimate reasons mentioned in this thread if you actually read what other people write.
10 Jun 2015, 09:21 AM
#190
avatar of QueenRatchet123

Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jun 2015, 07:50 AMJohnnyB
.

Call me biased but I honestly see no good reason for which T34/76 needs a buff.


10 Jun 2015, 09:38 AM
#191
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1217

Realism stuff:


I think the T-34/76 needs a cost reduction and slightly better vet. After the Panzer IV reaches vet2 there is simply no contest.


10 Jun 2015, 10:07 AM
#192
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

Why not make the 76 have 800 health like the 85 model? Increase the cost a bit to compensate. Let it be the muscle rather than the dagger.
10 Jun 2015, 10:33 AM
#193
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jun 2015, 09:38 AMButcher
Realism stuff:


I think the T-34/76 needs a cost reduction and slightly better vet. After the Panzer IV reaches vet2 there is simply no contest.





What? The t-34s gun F-34 or even F-32 was more than enough to defeat the 50mm frontal armor of the PIV and PIII.

Of course the longer KwK l/43 guns could defeat the t-34s, but until the PIV got it's 80mm hull armor upgrade, it was very valnuarable to the f-34 gun. Even after the upgrade, the turret was still valnuarable and the hull armor could be penetrated at ~500 meters with APCR. (People keep talking about how PIIIs with their 50mm gun at 500 meters with APCR, so i see no reason why t-34s couln't do this either).

Even so, there was a large number of non upgunned PIVs and a very substantial number of PIII still in service at 1942. During the summer offensive, the wehrmacht only had some ~100 available PIV with the high velocity gun. Also, the STUG III thing is completely false, considering that the STUG III with the long gun and 80mm production only started in 1942 march (that's not early 1942) and only really took off in 1942 december.

As for the armor of the t-34, one has to keep in mind that it's side armor was almost just as thick as it's front armor, meaning that the tank could be effectivelly angled at a 45 degree angle and thus increasing it's overall armor protection. Tiger I also could do the same thing due to it's strong side armor.


So for it's time, the t-34 was a perfectly adequate tank, able to fight it's competitors.

As for the other stuff...

Insufficient radios, - Somewhat true, althought most tanks did have a radio, but only a one way radio (meaning that tank crews could only listen, and not reply)
- poor vision (slits instead of a 360° cupola for the commander), (fixed on the T-34/85 for the commsander) - i believe cupola was added in the 1943 version
- poor optics, - Not really true, as far as i'm aware. Althought optics might vary from tank to tank. Hell, even the americans at aberdeen praised the t-34 for it's optics. (They were very critical of the t-34 in some other atspects)
- the commander having to fulfill several tasks, (fixed on the T-34/85) - True.
- an especially cramped interior, - This is a vast overstatement.
- depending on the version the escape hatches were insufficient, - True.
- the electric turret rotation was inaccurate (it would continue to spin a bit further and had - to be cranked on position by hand), - Never heard of this, can't comment.
- it lost too much speed while turning with the sticks, - ??? Sorry i don't understand what you mean.
- the turret lacked a baseplate, the crew had to move around in the vehicle when the turret turned. - True.



The high losses of the t-34 can be explained due to many reasons. And while it's individual performance might be one of them, it is definately not a major reason.
10 Jun 2015, 10:42 AM
#194
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Why not make the 76 have 800 health like the 85 model? Increase the cost a bit to compensate. Let it be the muscle rather than the dagger.

It is already in game.

Its called KV-1.
10 Jun 2015, 10:55 AM
#195
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jun 2015, 10:42 AMKatitof

It is already in game.

Its called KV-1.


The KV1 is better in other areas, for example it has a much better ROF.
10 Jun 2015, 15:38 PM
#196
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned
"hypothetically" heres an idea that is totally made up. Say we reduce the cost of both t3 and t4 but t3 takes twice as long to build so that the timing isn't screwed up. And t3 is required to build t4. Put t34 in t4 building and drop price to 280 mp 80 fuel.

What this does is make the t34 come out a few minutes later but its much easier to mass produce them and easily replace them. Giving them more late game utility, if other nations tech is delayed then this just extends the early-mid game which is something we all want.

Because cmon t34s are not panzer4s its effectiveness is just fine where its at, but costs too much for what a t34 should be. No real reason to overexaggerate its performance and turn it into a panzer4 clone for more cost or same cost if you are a fanboy.
10 Jun 2015, 16:50 PM
#197
avatar of Cabreza

Posts: 656

Giving it more thought, I'm not so sure a price decrease is the way to go with the T34/76. Reducing the price 80-85 fuel puts it into the category of competing with the T70. The soviets don't really need another cheap tank, they need a good all around medium tank that can be effective into the late game. Without that they will always be reliant on call-in tanks.
10 Jun 2015, 16:58 PM
#198
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1217

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jun 2015, 10:33 AMBurts



What? The t-34s gun F-34 or even F-32 was more than enough to defeat the 50mm frontal armor of the PIV and PIII.
Doesn´t mean that the advantage of engagement range isn´t in the German tanks favor. It´s no secret the 75mms were much more accurate and had vastly superior penetration characteristics. You can see that on graphical records of tank losses which suddenly increased after the upguns became more and more common on German tanks.

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jun 2015, 10:33 AMBurts

- the electric turret rotation was inaccurate (it would continue to spin a bit further and had - to be cranked on position by hand), - Never heard of this, can't comment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTnS0XS2al8#t=4m00s

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jun 2015, 10:33 AMBurts

- it lost too much speed while turning with the sticks, - ??? Sorry i don't understand what you mean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTnS0XS2al8#t=14m05s


jump backJump back to quoted post10 Jun 2015, 10:33 AMBurts

The high losses of the t-34 can be explained due to many reasons. And while it's individual performance might be one of them, it is definately not a major reason.
Let´s call it a mix of tactical and strategical mistakes and a huge amount of basic flaws of the tank.
10 Jun 2015, 17:42 PM
#199
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

"hypothetically" heres an idea that is totally made up. Say we reduce the cost of both t3 and t4 but t3 takes twice as long to build so that the timing isn't screwed up. And t3 is required to build t4. Put t34 in t4 building and drop price to 280 mp 80 fuel.

What this does is make the t34 come out a few minutes later but its much easier to mass produce them and easily replace them. Giving them more late game utility, if other nations tech is delayed then this just extends the early-mid game which is something we all want.

Because cmon t34s are not panzer4s its effectiveness is just fine where its at, but costs too much for what a t34 should be. No real reason to overexaggerate its performance and turn it into a panzer4 clone for more cost or same cost if you are a fanboy.


And then what are you suggesting to move into T3? "Su76"-Katyusha-Su85? I guess you could have the lighter vehicles on one tier and the mediums on the other one. With a rework on the Su76 it might work.

Reducing the cost is a valid buff, it's just a matter of taste wether we go for the cheap and crap or decent cost decent performance.
10 Jun 2015, 18:15 PM
#200
avatar of UGBEAR

Posts: 954

should just let T34/85 replace the T34/76 and increase the price a bit problem solved.


relic make non-doc KT, non-doc luchs, non-doc ostwind, non-doc sturm tiger,non-doc panther meanwhile doctrinal only T-34/85, doctrinal only Sherman w/76mm gun, when T-34/85 have been produced 3 times than the panther tank..... hard to believe the game designer is not an aixs biased dude.
PAGES (20)down
3 users are browsing this thread: 3 guests

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

1023 users are online: 1023 guests
1 post in the last 24h
11 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50002
Welcome our newest member, rwintoday1
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM