Login

russian armor

T 34 a much better tank than P4

30 May 2017, 07:54 AM
#1
avatar of dartag01

Posts: 13

Hi Guys,

I understand that the T 34 is very cheap in the game and that this is the main reason for it to be completly inofensive... Though I find it very annoying...

Anyone who got some interest in WWII knows that the T 34 was an extremly good tank which inspired the Panther but most importantly it was poorly available at least at the begining of the war...

Would not it be by then more logical to inverse the P4 with the T 34 in term of price and firepower and resistance...

I mean By this than the reality is that the T 34 was superior to the P4 and in the game it is reversed...

For the Balance matter I don't think it would be a problem since the germans have Stugg 3 and Panther already... I don't understand ?

Is someone having a clue of why it is like this ???

I give you a link to a video that expose my point.

Video from real engineering
30 May 2017, 08:38 AM
#2
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

Gameplay > Historical accuracy.
30 May 2017, 08:59 AM
#3
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

The German superiority in the early stages of the war (at least) was not achieved by the quality of their equipment (which was in many cases inferior to the enemy's equipment) but in the superior training and tactics.

When German invaded France or the Soviet union their equipment and numbers were inferior to the opposition but they where able to overcome via superior training and tactics.

T-34/76 was a great tank on paper but for instance the luck of radio greatly diminished its operational capacity on the actual field.

Reproducing that feel on a RTS is rather difficult. In game I would say the T-34/76 is more cost efficient than a PZIV.
30 May 2017, 09:31 AM
#4
avatar of insaneHoshi

Posts: 911



I give you a link to a video that expose my point.

Video from real engineering


While that guy knows his engineering, he is pretty bad at engineering. Sure the t34 was better than the p4 at the onset of barbarosa, but the thing is, at that time, the p4 was only armed with a low velocity cannon, the one that the command p4 has.

The version that is in the game, is the upgunned P4 which was developed in response to the t34.

So no it isnt a better tank than the P4 (It could be, but that video sure as shit doesnt prove it)
30 May 2017, 10:41 AM
#5
avatar of Maret

Posts: 711

Pz4 with long barrel gun better than t34-76, but t34-85 better than P4. You could see this in game too. Main inconsistence, that in game German army of 1944-45, while soviet army of 1941. Only su-85 from 1943. Because for 1944-45 regular soviet medium it's t34-85, not 76. And su-100,su-122, not su-85 (it was stopped produced, when t-34-85 was started produced)
30 May 2017, 11:25 AM
#6
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1

I still think that the T34/76 is better than late P4s because of it´s sloped armor. P4s were horribly designed offering the enemy perfect 90° armor to shoot at and easily penetrate.

T34/76 was also lighter and thus more agile. P4s were always underpowered.

Of course non of this matters in terms of how these units perform in COH2. Gameplay >>>> Realism
30 May 2017, 11:49 AM
#7
avatar of Maret

Posts: 711

Each tank had good and bad sides. P4 was more comfortable, with better optics radio and MG on top of it. T34-76 1941 mod. (t34-76 mod.1943 it's almost new tank, so many and huge were improvements) has more armor, better manuerable, but lack of comfort (hell heat in summer, troubles with start in winter), bad optics, unreliable radio. As one soviet tankman said "T34 is the best tank for serving in peaceful time".
30 May 2017, 12:02 PM
#8
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1217

In danger of falling for a troll post:

The T-34 was just good en masse which is exactly the role it fulfills in Coh2.

The Panzer IV (from the F2 version onwards) was far superior in any other regard which only somewhat got fixed with the 85mm version of the T-34 (mind you the T-34/76 didn't even have a cupola. Just vision slits and a periscope). Still the Panzer IV remained with better optics, accuracy of the gun, low flash gun powder, crew comfort, reload speed etc. Everything that is important to get off the first shot.

Relatives I have spoken to from that time also confirmed that the sheer number of T-34s was the only thing they had going for them with situations happening where the vehicle was thrown away in dozens. The T-34 was the most lost tank of the war for some reason.

That being said the T-34s in Coh2 acutally represent the Russian doctrine with this tank quite well.
30 May 2017, 12:03 PM
#9
avatar of dartag01

Posts: 13

jump backJump back to quoted post30 May 2017, 11:49 AMMaret
Each tank had good and bad sides. P4 was more comfortable, with better optics radio and MG on top of it. T34-76 1941 mod. (t34-76 mod.1943 it's almost new tank, so many and huge were improvements) has more armor, better manuerable, but lack of comfort (hell heat in summer, troubles with start in winter), bad optics, unreliable radio. As one soviet tankman said "T34 is the best tank for serving in peaceful time".


A russian tank with problem to start in winter ???? I know Germans had such problems. I know for sure they could not stop the engines during the coldest winter or had to make fire under the tank to start them back the following day... I did not know T 34 had problems...

Still It does not answer the question: Why the Zis 3 76mm canon of the T 34 is so shitty in the game... It was a balance question aiming to stick the reality of the machine, not an historical question....

I just wanted to point 2 things : Russian have no Mobile turret tanks able to down a large tank. and the SU 85 or ISU 152 are very low compared to Jag and Elephant... This is where the trouble stand for me... The fact that russian have no mobile anti tank option in the game while they had amazing sturdy tanks... ok no Radio, bad optic. Give it a low accuracy (it has it already) a poor fiel of view (it has it already).

But it has a wonderfull canon. give it the punch it deserve especially because russian have no such thing in their arsenal.....

Be honest when was the last time you made or saw a T34 helping to win a game....

The T 70 is much more usefull than it... the P4 is outclassing it...

I honestly think this tank is made unjustifiably useless in the game...
30 May 2017, 12:25 PM
#10
avatar of Maret

Posts: 711


I know for sure they could not stop the engines during the coldest winter or had to make fire under the tank to start them back the following day... I did not know T 34 had problems...


It was problem for each army (not from good life, t34 crew started fire under tank). USF had little troubles with that because Sherman has heater (small engine for heating) to warm engine. It was popular to warm inside tank when you are waiting on position. Because start of main engine to heat yourself was...costly and resource of engine decreased.


Still It does not answer the question: Why the Zis 3 76mm canon of the T 34 is so shitty in the game... It was a balance question aiming to stick the reality of the machine, not an historical question....

It was not zis-3 gun, only su-76 had zis-3 gun. T34 gun was F34 (best to 1941, but bad to 1943).


I just wanted to point 2 things : Russian have no Mobile turret tanks able to down a large tank. and the SU 85 or ISU 152 are very low compared to Jag and Elephant... This is where the trouble stand for me... The fact that russian have no mobile anti tank option in the game while they had amazing sturdy tanks... ok no Radio, bad optic. Give it a low accuracy (it has it already) a poor fiel of view (it has it already).
But it has a wonderfull canon. give it the punch it deserve especially because russian have no such thing in their arsenal.....

Soviet has t34-85 as mobile tank destroyer (500 meters and you can kill tiger on front). Su-100 is close equivalent to Elephant, it was pure tank destroyer. Radio (thanks to lend lease, soviets could make their copy of british tank radio for tanks), good optics, good shells (thanks to lend lease gun powder) all it has t34-85. Isu-152,122 and Is-2 they all for breakthrough germans defense and crushing bunkers, fighting against tanks not was their main role (but they have opportunites to that).
Bad comfort and other cruel things of t34 it's what you have when enemy on your Homeland and you need to evacuate your factories (it was all knew when first t34 was produced, in fact t44 must be new tank, t34 was just timely replacement. And t34-85 has turret from t44). When you fighting for your life, comfort will be the last problem for you.
30 May 2017, 12:36 PM
#11
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post30 May 2017, 12:25 PMMaret


It was problem for each army (not from good life, t34 crew started fire under tank). USF had little troubles with that because Sherman has heater (small engine for heating) to warm engine. It was popular to warm inside tank when you are waiting on position. Because start of main engine to heat yourself was...costly and resource of engine decreased.


It was not zis-3 gun, only su-76 had zis-3 gun. T34 gun was F34 (best to 1941, but bad to 1943).


Soviet has t34-85 as mobile tank destroyer (500 meters and you can kill tiger on front). Su-100 is close equivalent to Elephant, it was pure tank destroyer. Radio (thanks to lend lease, soviets could make their copy of british tank radio for tanks), good optics, good shells (thanks to lend lease gun powder) all it has t34-85. Isu-152,122 and Is-2 they all for breakthrough germans defense and crushing bunkers, fighting against tanks not was their main role (but they have opportunites to that).
Bad comfort and other cruel things of t34 it's what you have when enemy on your Homeland and you need to evacuate your factories (it was all knew when first t34 was produced, in fact t44 must be new tank, t34 was just timely replacement. And t34-85 has turret from t44). When you fighting for your life, comfort will be the last problem for you.


SU-100 - JagdPanter analog, they have similar armor, gun and concept
T-34-85 has a tower from T-43
30 May 2017, 12:51 PM
#12
avatar of dartag01

Posts: 13

Please Guys

all this is very interesting, still, bare with me here...

My problem is that in game, especially mid game, the russian have no equivalent to P4. while everybody does have its own: sherman and cromwell are well priced and can performed... not the T34 76...

that was my idea from the start.
30 May 2017, 12:52 PM
#13
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1

Please Guys

all this is very interesting, still, bare with me here...

My problem is that in game, especially mid game, the russian have no equivalent to P4. while everybody does have its own: sherman and cromwell are well priced and can performed... not the T34 76...

that was my idea from the start.


That´s true. Never understood why Soviets don´t have a decent medium tank apart from doctrinal T34/85.

T34/85 should just be non-doctrinal T4.
30 May 2017, 12:55 PM
#14
avatar of Maret

Posts: 711

Please Guys

all this is very interesting, still, bare with me here...

My problem is that in game, especially mid game, the russian have no equivalent to P4. while everybody does have its own: sherman and cromwell are well priced and can performed... not the T34 76...

that was my idea from the start.


Double su-76 (even 1 with infantry protection) give your best AT option until panther or tiger arrive (but with Mark target and micro you can kill them too).
30 May 2017, 13:00 PM
#15
avatar of Garrett

Posts: 309 | Subs: 1

The T34-76 is pretty good tho, I would argue its the best tank when you look at price-effectiveness ratio. The P4 on the otherhand is very underwhelming, or at least inconsistent as hell...
30 May 2017, 13:05 PM
#16
avatar of Maret

Posts: 711

jump backJump back to quoted post30 May 2017, 13:00 PMGarrett
The T34-76 is pretty good tho, I would argue its the best tank when you look at price-effectiveness ratio. The P4 on the otherhand is very underwhelming, or at least inconsistent as hell...


I think it will be good, if p4 have smoke screen as standart option. P4 good vs stock soviet armor (almost everything will be penetrated from every distance), it's bad against t34-85 and heavies.
30 May 2017, 13:28 PM
#17
avatar of Garrett

Posts: 309 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post30 May 2017, 13:05 PMMaret


I think it will be good, if p4 have smoke screen as standart option. P4 good vs stock soviet armor (almost everything will be penetrated from every distance), it's bad against t34-85 and heavies.


Well, I ve seen bouncing P4s from pretty much everything, T34s (76s) and even Jacksons. And I don't mean a bounce from time to time, I mean regularly. I think the penetration is a big problem of the P4. And I also think it is not supposed to fight enemy heavies.
30 May 2017, 14:13 PM
#18
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

jump backJump back to quoted post30 May 2017, 13:28 PMGarrett


Well, I ve seen bouncing P4s from pretty much everything, T34s (76s) and even Jacksons. And I don't mean a bounce from time to time, I mean regularly. I think the penetration is a big problem of the P4. And I also think it is not supposed to fight enemy heavies.

I mean no offense, but you're probably just used to always attack front armor from all the other stuff axis gets (schrecks, paks, even raketens, panthers, stugs, etc). A medium tank bouncing a shot is pretty normal, especially if it has good anti infantry like the p4. And of course it's not supposed to fight heavies, that's the panther and tiger's job, or even the stug. You don't really see cromwells fighting kts a lot right? I think you are just expecting too much from the p4.
30 May 2017, 14:23 PM
#19
avatar of Garrett

Posts: 309 | Subs: 1


I mean no offense, but you're probably just used to always attack front armor from all the other stuff axis gets (schrecks, paks, even raketens, panthers, stugs, etc). A medium tank bouncing a shot is pretty normal, especially if it has good anti infantry like the p4. And of course it's not supposed to fight heavies, that's the panther and tiger's job, or even the stug. You don't really see cromwells fighting kts a lot right? I think you are just expecting too much from the p4.


Haha, I dont expect anything from RNG anymore. You pretty often see 76s penetrating the front armour of all kinds of heavies. We had a game where a Tiger bounced twice from the frontal armour of a Comet while a '76 killed the tiger with a first-shot frontal penetration. Its just dumb that a 150 fuel p4 bounces on a Jackson on close range. Often it is RNG for both sides, but that's why it is so frustrating to see 125/150 of your fuel down the drain compared to the 80 your '76 costs.
30 May 2017, 15:07 PM
#20
avatar of Puppetmaster
Patrion 310

Posts: 871

jump backJump back to quoted post30 May 2017, 14:23 PMGarrett


Haha, I dont expect anything from RNG anymore. You pretty often see 76s penetrating the front armour of all kinds of heavies. We had a game where a Tiger bounced twice from the frontal armour of a Comet while a '76 killed the tiger with a first-shot frontal penetration. Its just dumb that a 150 fuel p4 bounces on a Jackson on close range. Often it is RNG for both sides, but that's why it is so frustrating to see 125/150 of your fuel down the drain compared to the 80 your '76 costs.


How do you feel when a Jackson (dedicated tank destroyer) bounces on a P4?
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 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

889 users are online: 1 member and 888 guests
go88mykitcheninthero
2 posts in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49076
Welcome our newest member, nashvilledigitalgrou
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM