Whats the source? Commando-hatch was above skirts, so distance-view wasn't locked.
Way more important was fighting room design, the reason why german vehicles had no angled armor (first). Reload, communication and working-space was key of german vehicles. Not saying german armor was good, but the battle effect was superior, even Pnz.III was able to counter early T34 with ease. And with Pnz.IV-F2 they had a very effective answer. -> WarThunder doesn't reprecent T34 good. ^^
But all over, ingame T34 armor is wrong repecented, should be better. But diffictult to make it not OP.
Yes, that's the point. Only a commander with side skirts could look around. the loader, gunner, radio operator, driver had side viewing devices, which were covered with side skirts. And later these side viewing devices were removed and even if the tank did not have a side skirt, other crew members could not help the commander in flank observation. The T-34 had viewing slots and rotating MK4 viewing devices, so the loader (and in the T-34-85 also a gunner) could help the commander in visibility |
I real-life T34 had very bad optics (acc.), very bad all-round view (ingame-view), bad communication-system (delayed response time) and bad engine lifetime BUT good pen and good frontal armor, because of bad soviet steel would be bad against high-explosives.
Making T34 more realistic wouldn't be a buff, because 75mm 48 were very powerful... xD
Myth. The T-34 had good optics. In 1941, Soviet optics were of very high quality and had some capabilities that British and American optics did not have at that time. Visibility yes, there were quality problems. But while the Soviet tank visibility improved throughout the war. Another problem in the T-34 is the commander and gunner at the same time, which made it difficult to observe the situation. The German view from the tanks was degraded, especially the Pz.4, which had a very reduced view because of the side skirts. Another claim of good visibility, which refutes the claim of their excellent visibility - German tank commanders preferred to fight with their heads out of the hatch.
An interesting situation happened in 1942. For the T-34, a hex turret was adopted which improved visibility well in the T-34. At the same time, side skirts began to appear in German tanks, which greatly impaired visibility, obscuring the side viewing devices of the loader, gunner, driver and radio operator.
|
the other option of course is to make the T-34-85 nondoc.... but id bet the balance team would throw a hissy fit if that were to be done...
I personally would like to see the T-34 alongside the M4 Sherman and Cromwell. A more useful universal tank. And not like the T-34 now. Replace Ability and Veterancy, increase price if needed. |
Only it far penetration is low because it designed as "flanker" vehicle similar to Puma.
And it has the great mobility so it can attack side/rear armor. The unit is quite good in open maps.
And what flanking are you talking about here if the T-34 has no acceleration. Pz.4, Panther, Cromwell, Comet (with hammer tactics) are real flanking tanks. They have acceleration. |
|
Let's just rework the 1st veterancy and abilities for the T-34-76 and T-34-85. There is no need for ridiculous change and ridiculous excuses for these changes. |
The Russians did, back sometime around 1942. Speaking of which, if ram is going to be a vet 1 ability, could it be made to act more like the historical event? It would be interesting if the ram had a chance to immobilize both vehicles or turret lock both (when the T34 climbs part way up the other vehicle). It could make for some interesting play/counterplay. Those abilities would have to be limited to Panther's and below. Any larger target should just have a chance to stun.
If you dig up some information, you will find out that the ram was used Not only by the Soviets on. So it is with the British and even the Germans. Ram, not patented by the Soviets and used only by the Soviets. The ram would be used on tanks like the IS-2 and Tiger 2. Let's give them a ram. |
Ppl complained that T34\76 is only good is for ram, while ram is beeing stupid ability. Now ppl complain that ram is behind vet1.
Realistically speaking, RAM right now is usable only to cheese it out with IL-2 bombinb\Strafe run. Other then that you are not gonna need or use ram on regular bases.
On the other hand ram+offmaps are batshit OP cheesing, and this is why RAM is being locked under vet1. At least players who want to cheese out heavy tanks, will be requared to play with t34 a bit before they can do it.
Battering ram is a stupid ability, to move a ram for veterancy is even more stupid ability. This decision does not improve the T-34, but simply ... breaks it. Who the hell came up with this solution? This is a nomination for the most ingenious idea of the year. T-34-76 and T-34-85 are long overdue for a change in veterancy and ability. But instead, let's just forget about it and pretend that we fixed something. |
Vet 1 stuff
4) You get already vet1 after killing 14 gren models for example, without getting self damage.
5) You get vet 1 already after 4 shot(hits) fights vs enemy PIV, without getting self damage.
6) You get also some vet, when you get damage from enemy.
So you can get fast vet1 for T34. It is just to give enemy a chance to see and react, that you got new t34 to ram your units.
So if you look close to this change, it is a very very small nerf to a very strong + cheap ability.
This all looks absurd. Suicide Veteran Unit in the game is the main mechanic of which veterancy and the preservation of veteran units. Just remove the ability, you do not need to come up with stupid solutions when the solution is simple. If the new Ram is adopted, it will not solve the T-34 problem, it will create a new T-34 problem, take away this ridiculous veterancy. |
|
A simple and logical question arises: why do I need a T-34 behind the aisles of the kamikaze? If there is a T-70 that comes earlier and is good in the AI role, while the T-34 comes at the same time Pz.4. Or take Katyusha for the same price, which will be perfect against blobs. And ZiS-3 will be much more advantageous against Pz.4. |
It performs exactly the same as a Pz 4 at long range while have only less than 1s longer reload time, 1 less mg (but it's hull mg does double the damage) and costing 90 fuel and 300 mp.
So yes, it is a good medium, you're just too stubborn to realise it.
Pz.4 constantly wipes a full infantry unit of 6 people. T-34, machine guns do damage, cannon is bad against all targets. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
