631
General Discussion / Re: Discussion bout (future) Eastfront
« on: 07-07-2010, 12:07:18 »
Not doing a moving fortress from T-34 ? 
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
632
General Discussion / Re: Discussion bout (future) Eastfront
« on: 07-07-2010, 12:07:52 »
cough ... bullcrap .... French was first with sloped armor and diesel tank - FCM36 , Poland with 7TP was first with diesel and german with diesel in couple of Pz I Ausf A , and USArmy with T1 / M2 medium tank ( sloped armor ) etc etc ..... And always russian tanks was weaker
. Even Israelian littleupgunned Sherman beats to crap T-62 or even a IS-3 
Without advantage in numbers of tanks ... they lose .
633
General Discussion / Re: A few complains.
« on: 07-07-2010, 11:07:39 »
I have only one but big complain ... why M13/40 is so underpowered ?
According to this :
Target Tank Model Light Mk. VI Cruiser Mk. I Cruiser Mk.IIA Cruiser Mk.IVA Cruiser Mk.VI
Front
Gun Mantelet 1200 m 1200 m 600 m 600 m 0 m
Turret 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 800 m 700 m
Superstructure 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 700 m
Hull 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1000 m
Sides
Turret 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 700 m
Superstructure 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m
Hull 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m
Rear
Turret 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m
Upper Hull 1200 m 1200 m 600 m 1200 m 1200 m
Lower Hull 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m
i dont understand how in FH2 that tank is so weak , he can kill any allied tank from 500 to 1000 m , at last from side . Even a M3 Grant wasnt that hard to kill from side or rear ...
http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/AT_GUNS2.htm#47PstK
According to this :
Target Tank Model Light Mk. VI Cruiser Mk. I Cruiser Mk.IIA Cruiser Mk.IVA Cruiser Mk.VI
Front
Gun Mantelet 1200 m 1200 m 600 m 600 m 0 m
Turret 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 800 m 700 m
Superstructure 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 700 m
Hull 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1000 m
Sides
Turret 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 700 m
Superstructure 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m
Hull 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m
Rear
Turret 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m
Upper Hull 1200 m 1200 m 600 m 1200 m 1200 m
Lower Hull 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m 1200 m
i dont understand how in FH2 that tank is so weak , he can kill any allied tank from 500 to 1000 m , at last from side . Even a M3 Grant wasnt that hard to kill from side or rear ...
http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/AT_GUNS2.htm#47PstK
634
General Discussion / Re: Discussion bout (future) Eastfront
« on: 07-07-2010, 10:07:47 » Well ... first real tank in history have a sloped armor ... btw that was a french tank
635
Community Polls / Re: The current state of balance (2.26)
« on: 07-07-2010, 10:07:02 »I mean 88 AT gun AKA Tiger 1 gun. I am pretty sure Tiger gun is better against tanks than Flak 88, it has muzzle brake and all.
And I am pretty sure I got oneshotted to front by Churchill in Totalize by Paythoss (Damn you
Anyway Tiger frontal armor is 120 so its more than 110 (obviously) and IIRC FH armor penetration characteristics was based on 1000 meters? Of course not in point blank range but overall. I say give Tiger bit more health so it can survive 2 shots if it cant right now, like Churchill has HUGE health you can penetrate it easily but it still won't die. I do like Churchill though my fav allied tank after crusader 3 so don't get me wrong that I would like to nerf it
Your tracks was asking for sweet hit from APDS ... i just cant say "no" to them
Im voting for more historical accuracy ... but i know that may kill a fun from game
636
General Discussion / Re: Discussion bout (future) Eastfront
« on: 06-07-2010, 17:07:26 »
suure ... and BT-IS and BT-SV only by accident was looks like FCM36 from years before ? 
637
General Discussion / Re: Discussion bout (future) Eastfront
« on: 06-07-2010, 14:07:55 » Well .... is this tank dont lookalike for another tank ? and is at last 6 years before something
639
General Discussion / Re: Discussion bout (future) Eastfront
« on: 04-07-2010, 12:07:22 »
BTW vehicles ... i hope we dont find to many T-34 or KV-1 on maps from begining of Barbarossa ? They was really rare tanks in this days and mostly germans counter many variants of T-26 , BT-5 or BT-7 , T-28 with his three turrets or swimming T-37 or T-38 . Especially i wish for T-35 . Any modders gonna take that challenge ? i know his power and armor was on short barreled Pz IV level , but that size and five turrets to control .
They was really rare tanks in this days and mostly germans counter many variants of T-26 , BT-5 or BT-7 , T-28 with his three turrets or swimming T-37 or T-38 . Especially i wish for T-35 . Any modders gonna take that challenge ? i know his power and armor was on short barreled Pz IV level , but that size and five turrets to control .
640
General Discussion / Re: Discussion bout (future) Eastfront
« on: 04-07-2010, 10:07:48 »I wonder why the Germans bothered to make a copy of T-34 (aka Panther) if it was such a crappy tank as some posters here seem to think? If the Shermans were so OMG UBER compared to the T-34, then why did the Americans need M-26 Pershings and air support to effectively halt T-34 advance in Korea?
Also, offering KV-1 as an example of a good tank is a lollercoaster, it's only saving grace was its armour. Otherwise it's simply precursor to the late-war German Wunderwaffen: underpowered engine makes it slow as a snail, transmission breaks every five kilometers, so heavy it cannot cross most bridges and fails cross-country...
Hmmm .... reports from Aberdeen trial says difrent things .... after 350 km ride in T-34 was broke almost everyting but KV-1 was still good enough to fight .....
or maybe u talk about KV-2 , or T-35 ?And in Korea ... M4A3 W HVSS Sherman PWNZ all T-34-85 . learn history
Panther wsnt copy of T-34 , is just logical link in MAN design of tanks who was created for replacing of pz IV . Especially a rear part is reserved for MAN
BTW ... sloped armor plates was in german army well know , look for how look any armored car or APC ... its just easy build a boxlike tanks ... Panter was so easy to build like a car (and was cheap like Pz IV ) , you just need build specialized factory , that was only weak link for massive production .
Hrhrhr .... tadam - Pz IV Ausf.K
641
General Discussion / Re: Discussion bout (future) Eastfront
« on: 03-07-2010, 18:07:36 »
Well ... from 100 m PaK36 dont have big problems to go through side doors of T-34 Especially when T-34 have 40 mm side and rear armor in earlies models .
Especially when T-34 have 40 mm side and rear armor in earlies models .
642
General Discussion / Re: Discussion bout (future) Eastfront
« on: 03-07-2010, 11:07:02 »
Look for reports of russian trials on two Pz III Ausf E , buyed and tested in 1940 , some times before War . Another reports about T-34 you find in USA , where in 1942 they tested a T-34 and KV-1 on Aberdeen grounds .
643
General Discussion / Re: Discussion bout (future) Eastfront
« on: 03-07-2010, 10:07:20 »
Well ... i dont think so . Pz III have problems with T-34 , but not that big like we thinking
Generally , armor and gun was better in T-34 ( 50-57 mm plus some aplique 30 mm armor on front Pz III Vs 45 mm sloped but with big holes on front in T-34 ; 50 mm KwK 39 L/60 ( KwK 38 L/42 in early models ) vs 76.2 mm F-34 L/ 42.5 ( L-11 L/30.5 first series ) . Rest was superior in Pz III . Even turret ring diameter was bigger . Tortion bar suspension from III leaving behind outdated Chriestie's from T-34 ( plus low qualify of stell in springs makes a T-34 wobbling like ship in storm ) , even Vmax was bigger . Pz III 40 km/h is normal speed without overheating engine ... with pedal to the metal Pz III Ausf F , on russians trials , reach speed 68 km/h 
. Only BT-5 was that fast ... on wheels . I dont think must say about comfort for crew in III ? Gear box in T-34 was poorly maked , forcing him to driving low on 2nd gear or very fast on 3rd . No gear between , what was main purpose of famous cavalery charges of T-34 formation .... right in the fire of camping PaKs and FlaKs
Once again i say ... T-34 was ONLY a average tank , who was tough but not invincible oponent for Panzers
Theres was a Best from the East , who was a really scared Panzerwaffe , but that wasnt a T-34 ....
Against KV-1 theres was no AT or tank gun effective on normal ranges . Only 88mm FlaK can try hit that monster from side or from close distance on front.
Luckly , russians tankers was not good trained to fully use that tank , but theres was some incidents , when single KV-1 or KV-2 stops a full Panzer Division .
That tank was main purpose for make a Pz IV Ausf (F2)G , Tiger and Panther ...
And if you interested , look on THAT site You see , how weak in FH2 german guns are maked ( specially 37mm PaK 36 and 50 mm PaK 38 )
I hope my BAD english dont scared anybody
Quoting is allowed
Generally , armor and gun was better in T-34 ( 50-57 mm plus some aplique 30 mm armor on front Pz III Vs 45 mm sloped but with big holes on front in T-34 ; 50 mm KwK 39 L/60 ( KwK 38 L/42 in early models ) vs 76.2 mm F-34 L/ 42.5 ( L-11 L/30.5 first series ) . Rest was superior in Pz III . Even turret ring diameter was bigger . Tortion bar suspension from III leaving behind outdated Chriestie's from T-34 ( plus low qualify of stell in springs makes a T-34 wobbling like ship in storm
) , even Vmax was bigger . Pz III 40 km/h is normal speed without overheating engine ... with pedal to the metal Pz III Ausf F , on russians trials , reach speed 68 km/h . Only BT-5 was that fast ... on wheels . I dont think must say about comfort for crew in III ? Gear box in T-34 was poorly maked , forcing him to driving low on 2nd gear or very fast on 3rd . No gear between , what was main purpose of famous cavalery charges of T-34 formation .... right in the fire of camping PaKs and FlaKs 
Once again i say ... T-34 was ONLY a average tank , who was tough but not invincible oponent for Panzers
Theres was a Best from the East , who was a really scared Panzerwaffe , but that wasnt a T-34 ....
Against KV-1 theres was no AT or tank gun effective on normal ranges . Only 88mm FlaK can try hit that monster from side or from close distance on front.
Luckly , russians tankers was not good trained to fully use that tank , but theres was some incidents , when single KV-1 or KV-2 stops a full Panzer Division
.That tank was main purpose for make a Pz IV Ausf (F2)G , Tiger and Panther ...
And if you interested , look on THAT site
You see , how weak in FH2 german guns are maked ( specially 37mm PaK 36 and 50 mm PaK 38 ) I hope my BAD english dont scared anybody
Quoting is allowed
645
General Discussion / Re: Discussion bout (future) Eastfront
« on: 01-07-2010, 13:07:50 »
Some interesting efects from germans test
Weapons tested vs M4A3E4 Sherman
Armor:
Glacis - 64mm@47deg, 250 BHN
Side hull - 38-51mm@0deg, 250 BHN
Front turret/mantle - 90mm average, 230 BHN
Side turret - 51mm, 230BHN
75mm M40 PaK40 firing AP, HVAP and HEAT
M39 (PzGr.39?) AP penetrates glacis @ 1100m
M40 (PzGr.40?) subcaliber penetrates glacis @ 1200m
M40W (PzGr.40W) subcaliber penetrates glacis @ 150m
M38 (Hl.38?) HEAT penetrates glacis if side angle is less then 30deg
M39 (PzGr.39?) AP penetrates side hull at any efective range
M40 (PzGr.40?) subcaliber penetrates side hull at any efective range
M40W (PzGr.40W) subcaliber penetrates side hull @ 750m
M38 (Hl.38?) HEAT penetrates side hull
M39 (PzGr.39?) AP penetrates front turret @ 1000m
M40 (PzGr.40?) subcaliber penetrates front turret @ 1500m
M40W (PzGr.40W) subcaliber penetrates front turret @ 100m
M38 (Hl.38?) HEAT penetrates front turret if side angle is less then 15deg
M39 (PzGr.39?) AP penetrates side turret at any efective range
M40 (PzGr.40?) subcaliber penetrates turret hull at any efective range
M40W (PzGr.40W) subcaliber penetrates side turret @ 500m
M38 (Hl.38?) HEAT penetrates side turret
vs T-34/85
Armor on the test tank:
Hull is made from 350 BHN steel
Glacis - 46mm @ 60deg
Upper side hull - 45mm @ 40deg
Lower side hull - 45mm @ 0deg
Rear hull - 47mm @ 48deg
75mm M40 PaK40 firing AP, HVAP and HEAT
M39 AP (PzGr.39?) penetrates glacis @ 1300m*
M40 subcaliber (PzGr.40?) penetrates glacis @ 1200m*
M40W** subcaliber (PzGr.40W?) fails to penetrate glacis.
M38B HEAT (Hl.38/B?) penetrates glacis if side angle is less then 20deg.
M39 AP penetrates upper side hull @ 1750m
M40 subcalibre penetrates side hull at any efective range
M40W subcaliber penetrates side hull @ 200m
M38B HEAT penetrates side hull if side angle is less then 30 deg.
All rounds penetrate lower side hull at any efective range.
M39 AP penetrates front turret @ 1000m
M40 subcaliber penetrates front turret @ 1250m
M40W subcaliber fails t penetrate front turret
M38B HEAT fails to penetrate front turret
M39 AP penetrates side turret @ 1750m
M40 subcaliber penetrates side turret at any efective range
M40W subcaliber penetrates side turret @ 200m
M38B HEAT penetrates side turret if side angle is less then 30deg
*It apears that subcaliber (APCR/HVAP) suffered more from high hardness, largely sloped glacis...
**That is a version of M40 subcaliber that had soft steel core. It was acording to the manuel to be used vs "fast, lightly armored targets"...
Weapons tested vs M4A3E4 Sherman
Armor:
Glacis - 64mm@47deg, 250 BHN
Side hull - 38-51mm@0deg, 250 BHN
Front turret/mantle - 90mm average, 230 BHN
Side turret - 51mm, 230BHN
75mm M40 PaK40 firing AP, HVAP and HEAT
M39 (PzGr.39?) AP penetrates glacis @ 1100m
M40 (PzGr.40?) subcaliber penetrates glacis @ 1200m
M40W (PzGr.40W) subcaliber penetrates glacis @ 150m
M38 (Hl.38?) HEAT penetrates glacis if side angle is less then 30deg
M39 (PzGr.39?) AP penetrates side hull at any efective range
M40 (PzGr.40?) subcaliber penetrates side hull at any efective range
M40W (PzGr.40W) subcaliber penetrates side hull @ 750m
M38 (Hl.38?) HEAT penetrates side hull
M39 (PzGr.39?) AP penetrates front turret @ 1000m
M40 (PzGr.40?) subcaliber penetrates front turret @ 1500m
M40W (PzGr.40W) subcaliber penetrates front turret @ 100m
M38 (Hl.38?) HEAT penetrates front turret if side angle is less then 15deg
M39 (PzGr.39?) AP penetrates side turret at any efective range
M40 (PzGr.40?) subcaliber penetrates turret hull at any efective range
M40W (PzGr.40W) subcaliber penetrates side turret @ 500m
M38 (Hl.38?) HEAT penetrates side turret
vs T-34/85
Armor on the test tank:
Hull is made from 350 BHN steel
Glacis - 46mm @ 60deg
Upper side hull - 45mm @ 40deg
Lower side hull - 45mm @ 0deg
Rear hull - 47mm @ 48deg
75mm M40 PaK40 firing AP, HVAP and HEAT
M39 AP (PzGr.39?) penetrates glacis @ 1300m*
M40 subcaliber (PzGr.40?) penetrates glacis @ 1200m*
M40W** subcaliber (PzGr.40W?) fails to penetrate glacis.
M38B HEAT (Hl.38/B?) penetrates glacis if side angle is less then 20deg.
M39 AP penetrates upper side hull @ 1750m
M40 subcalibre penetrates side hull at any efective range
M40W subcaliber penetrates side hull @ 200m
M38B HEAT penetrates side hull if side angle is less then 30 deg.
All rounds penetrate lower side hull at any efective range.
M39 AP penetrates front turret @ 1000m
M40 subcaliber penetrates front turret @ 1250m
M40W subcaliber fails t penetrate front turret
M38B HEAT fails to penetrate front turret
M39 AP penetrates side turret @ 1750m
M40 subcaliber penetrates side turret at any efective range
M40W subcaliber penetrates side turret @ 200m
M38B HEAT penetrates side turret if side angle is less then 30deg
*It apears that subcaliber (APCR/HVAP) suffered more from high hardness, largely sloped glacis...
**That is a version of M40 subcaliber that had soft steel core. It was acording to the manuel to be used vs "fast, lightly armored targets"...