Are there any plans to to implement a T34/57 into RO:O. They were present in 1943 for Kirsk, and had better Anti-tank abilities than the 76, which could make them a nice addition to maps like BDJ or Orel. They were realtively rare cause the long-barreled gun didn't last to long, and the Russians were just as interested in HE infantry support as AT abilities (which the 76 was better at), but I still think it would be a nice addition.
3D & Animation T34/57
- Thread starter [VFD]HH
- Start date
Upvote
0
Wow nice, havent heard of this variant before. With the t34's sloped armour, and the ZiS-4 high velocity gun (plus high rate of fire) this could be the most lethal early war tank in the game!! 
Upvote
0
The other thing to be aware of is that following the capture and evaluation of Panther tanks by the Red Army, it was decided not to continue research and development into (very) high velocity guns (for the anti-tank role), but rather to focus on large calibre guns.
This was due to protection affored by the Panthers sloped armour, even against the Tiger's 88m KwK.36.
Development of existing high velocity guns was finished (if far enough along), and any future high velocity gun development would be primarily for anti-aircraft.
Upvote
0
Well you would see them in the 1941-43 era, and they would be a nice way to balance out the map since they would have more bite against tigets than 76s.
About only 18 seeing combat...I'm pretty sure more than that saw combat. My source (like pretty mcuh everybody else's) was the Russian Battlefield, and from that alone it seems like more than that (althuogh still a small number) saw combat at the very least during 1941, and made a name for themselves.
And well they talk about how the one platoon never saw combat during Kirsk, do we have any way of knowing that there weren't other ones that did see combat?
I mean its certianly not pressing, but it would be a nice change.
About only 18 seeing combat...I'm pretty sure more than that saw combat. My source (like pretty mcuh everybody else's) was the Russian Battlefield, and from that alone it seems like more than that (althuogh still a small number) saw combat at the very least during 1941, and made a name for themselves.
And well they talk about how the one platoon never saw combat during Kirsk, do we have any way of knowing that there weren't other ones that did see combat?
I mean its certianly not pressing, but it would be a nice change.
Upvote
0
Having "Read More HERE", that was the ZIS-2, not the ZIS-4.
But you are right in that heat dissipation and barrel wear was a big problem with the technology/materials of the '40s. And these problems were part of the reason why Russians chose to pursue large calibre guns rather than high velocity guns.
Taken from the Jan '45 Intelligence Bulletin, describing the 88mm KwK43 / Pak43
"Therefore, German gun crews have been warned not to use high-velocity ammunition in Model 1943 tubes which have fired as many as 500 rounds. To preserve the gun tube against erosion, they may fire high-explosive shell with a low-velocity propellant rated at 1,080 feet per second."
http://www.lonesentry.com/new88mm/index.html
Upvote
0
From that page.....
"T-34-57 on trials on the Sofrino proving ground."
What tank was it we were talking about?
Upvote
0
As cool as it may be and a real niche weapon, the time it takes to create a model from end to end it just to intensive for such a low production vehicle with very little impact on the overall game. If there are more model/animator/coders out there willing to take it on, more power to them but right now the communities single greatest need is animation artists and coders. Making the mesh is the second easiest job next to doing the research out of the whole process.
Upvote
0
I think the deeper issue here is the fact that people are tired of getting stuck as Russian on Orel or BDJ due to inferior tank selection. They just want something that has some chance at taking out the German tanks.
Whether or not that is historically accurate to wish for both sides to have an equal chance, I don't know. I do know of several people who refuse to play Orel and BDJ because of the crap tanks the Russians get on some maps compared to the German armor selection.
I think we should just create a big tank map with BT-7 versus PZIII and let the little guys duke it out.
Whether or not that is historically accurate to wish for both sides to have an equal chance, I don't know. I do know of several people who refuse to play Orel and BDJ because of the crap tanks the Russians get on some maps compared to the German armor selection.
I think we should just create a big tank map with BT-7 versus PZIII and let the little guys duke it out.
Upvote
0
From that page.....
"T-34-57 on trials on the Sofrino proving ground."
What tank was it we were talking about?
"On June 27 [1940]......
At that time, Grabin's design bureau was working already on 57 mm antitank gun (ZIS-2), that's why it was ordered to develop a tank variant of that 57 mm gun, but first drafts of such gun was already developed by Grabin's initiative.......
At that time, Grabin's design bureau was working already on 57 mm antitank gun (ZIS-2), that's why it was ordered to develop a tank variant of that 57 mm gun, but first drafts of such gun was already developed by Grabin's initiative.......
Till the end of March 1941, being mounted on gun-carriage, it was on factory trials. In April 1941, gun was mounted on production T-34 and sent to ANIOP for trials on the proving ground. Those trials have revealed an extremely short life of its barrel (overheated after 100-150 shots) and low accuracy.
In July 1941, an improved gun, being named ZIS-4, was installed in T-34 and tested again on Sofrino proving ground. Trials were successful and gun was recommended for service in spite of its cost price."
So the final gun accepted into production was not the gun quoted as "overheating after 100-150 shots".Creating guns with very high velocity muzzle velocity (1000+ m/s) wasn't easy at the time, it was the materials and manufacturing techniques of the period.
Does anyone know the barrel length of either the ZIS-2 and/or the ZIS-4
Upvote
0
Well if you historically look at the battle of Prokhavno (sp?) which BDJ is directly based off of, the Russians would need far more tanks (prolly around 3x tanks on the field) and still be able to take 10x casualties compared to the Germans. Furthermore, the Germans would need less tigers for that battle, because they get 1 or 2 per 16 tanks atm, when it should be closer to 1 or 2 per 25.
Furthermore, the most plentiful Soviet tanks (besides the T34/76) in the battle were T70s, then Churchills, while the Germans had the most Pz3, then Pz4s, and only a few tigers.
So BDJ should really be many minor engagements between inferior Soviet AND German Armor all around the map, instead of large engagements of T34s against mixed tanks led by a Tiger (generally.) And the Soviets should probably be on the offensive, tbh.
Orel 88vs76, as far as I see, was a shameless attempt to make a map where the Germans had a clear advantage. Although the Soviet tanks are faster, they don't seem to get to the Central heights any faster, therefore the map currently gives the Germans superior firepower at no cost. The only thing balancing out the map was the clown car (which actually made it pro-Soviet...sad that in so many maps the Clown car is the best Soviet tank) but if they are replaced with UCs (not sure if they are or not) it would quickly go pro-German.
I just realized I completely derailed my own thread, but I'm to lazy to change it atm.
To conclude, a T34-57 is necessary, because 57 is my favorite number, and also then we can free up T60s for the airborne role.
Furthermore, the most plentiful Soviet tanks (besides the T34/76) in the battle were T70s, then Churchills, while the Germans had the most Pz3, then Pz4s, and only a few tigers.
So BDJ should really be many minor engagements between inferior Soviet AND German Armor all around the map, instead of large engagements of T34s against mixed tanks led by a Tiger (generally.) And the Soviets should probably be on the offensive, tbh
. Orel 88vs76, as far as I see, was a shameless attempt to make a map where the Germans had a clear advantage. Although the Soviet tanks are faster, they don't seem to get to the Central heights any faster, therefore the map currently gives the Germans superior firepower at no cost. The only thing balancing out the map was the clown car (which actually made it pro-Soviet...sad that in so many maps the Clown car is the best Soviet tank) but if they are replaced with UCs (not sure if they are or not) it would quickly go pro-German.
I just realized I completely derailed my own thread, but I'm to lazy to change it atm.
To conclude, a T34-57 is necessary, because 57 is my favorite number, and also then we can free up T60s for the airborne role.
Upvote
0
It is not destroyed tank. It has got stuck in a dirt. The track has been damaged after it has stopped. German sappers?
Upvote
0
Personally, I'd love to see more early war engagements between smaller tanks like the Pz III and the BT-7.
Orel88v76 I find to be ok, mostly because the Tigers can't be everywhere at once and the rest of the German armor is relatively balanced. Orel Redux on the other hand is simply a German fanboy's wet dream come to life. I refuse to play that map and would delete it from or simply skip it in any rotation over which I had control.
There's a lot of factors that can't be modeled in this game as far as tank combat and force ratios. Battles were not fought exclusively with tanks fighting tanks. Many of them had air support and massed infantry support, even if it was "the largest tank engagement ever" or whathaveyou.
As a practical matter, though, I agree with Slyk. Not every variant can be added and coded. Minor variants, although often cool, offer little by way of gameplay changes.
Personally, I felt that adding the Pz IV H was largely a waste of time, and I'd much rather have had the Pz II and T-26 (45mm variant) added instead. There's a lot of tank variants out there, but not too many that'd change the fundamentals of gameplay. While I think the T-34-57 might add more variation than one might think, fundamentally, I think driving it would be the same as driving, say, a T-34-85 or really like driving any of the tanks we have currently (with the exception of the BT-7 and T-60).
While tactics might vary slightly, people would still pretty much use them the same way: drive somewhere, park, shoot at the guy and trade shots until he's dead or you are. With early war tanking, that'd be DRASTICALLY different, and I think you'd need a lot more combined arms maps rather than pure tank maps.
Orel88v76 I find to be ok, mostly because the Tigers can't be everywhere at once and the rest of the German armor is relatively balanced. Orel Redux on the other hand is simply a German fanboy's wet dream come to life. I refuse to play that map and would delete it from or simply skip it in any rotation over which I had control.
There's a lot of factors that can't be modeled in this game as far as tank combat and force ratios. Battles were not fought exclusively with tanks fighting tanks. Many of them had air support and massed infantry support, even if it was "the largest tank engagement ever" or whathaveyou.
As a practical matter, though, I agree with Slyk. Not every variant can be added and coded. Minor variants, although often cool, offer little by way of gameplay changes.
Personally, I felt that adding the Pz IV H was largely a waste of time, and I'd much rather have had the Pz II and T-26 (45mm variant) added instead. There's a lot of tank variants out there, but not too many that'd change the fundamentals of gameplay. While I think the T-34-57 might add more variation than one might think, fundamentally, I think driving it would be the same as driving, say, a T-34-85 or really like driving any of the tanks we have currently (with the exception of the BT-7 and T-60).
While tactics might vary slightly, people would still pretty much use them the same way: drive somewhere, park, shoot at the guy and trade shots until he's dead or you are. With early war tanking, that'd be DRASTICALLY different, and I think you'd need a lot more combined arms maps rather than pure tank maps.
Upvote
0
Yes, the battle of Kirsk was mostly about infantry, so this giant tank vs tank engagement is silly.
I think there is a fundamental problem that if both sides have tanks, the respective tankers want to feel safe and kill the other tank before doing what tanks were made for (infantry support.)
I think the only case where you don't see this is Konigplatz on the Russians (if they are good) they will load up their guns with HE and try and not worry to much about the Tiger, giving infantry support and clearing positions. If a Tiger comes, they should quickly judge if they need to engage it, retreat and go back to inf support, or ignore it. Often, because of the nature of the combat, neitehr side will be able to get any damaging shots, so they can ignore it, or one side or the other will quickly demonstrate an advantage, so the tanker (if they have the advantage) can engage, or if they don't they can retreat. This actually applies to both sides.
This actually applies in all situations, but most people will only go with the engaging option, which leaves you as a sitting duck. I don't know how giving tankers BT7s or T60s will fundamentally change this. Sure, now they can often do nothing against other tanks, but they still usually stay in place and try.
Tankers are just overall to concerned about their own safety, and overly used to the concept of tanks being destroyed by tanks, to realize in combined arms it is about the infantry, and if you realize your just a toy to make things go smoothly, thats exactly what will happen. Hell, when I'm engaging tanks, while reloading (especially with the IS2) I'm scanning for infantry and mowing them down with the Coax.
Would the T34-57 fundamentally change things..no. I don't think any one tank (besides maybe the King Tiger in late war, or the KV2 in early war, will fundamentally change anything.) However, I feel like the only way to get maps to where we want them, is to have a whole wide selection of tanks, including minor variants, and then go from there.
Edit: And yeah, light tank vs light tank engagements would be kickass (BT7, T26, PZ2/3, etc..and yes I know some of these are classified as medium tanks, imo they are lightish.)
I think everybody wants to see BIG TANK vs BIG TANK with flanks supported by BIG TANKS!!! People forget that World War II tank warfare was all about mobility, and thus MBL Tanks and Light tanks were as important, if not more important, then the breakthrough heavy tanks.
I think there is a fundamental problem that if both sides have tanks, the respective tankers want to feel safe and kill the other tank before doing what tanks were made for (infantry support.)
I think the only case where you don't see this is Konigplatz on the Russians (if they are good) they will load up their guns with HE and try and not worry to much about the Tiger, giving infantry support and clearing positions. If a Tiger comes, they should quickly judge if they need to engage it, retreat and go back to inf support, or ignore it. Often, because of the nature of the combat, neitehr side will be able to get any damaging shots, so they can ignore it, or one side or the other will quickly demonstrate an advantage, so the tanker (if they have the advantage) can engage, or if they don't they can retreat. This actually applies to both sides.
This actually applies in all situations, but most people will only go with the engaging option, which leaves you as a sitting duck. I don't know how giving tankers BT7s or T60s will fundamentally change this. Sure, now they can often do nothing against other tanks, but they still usually stay in place and try.
Tankers are just overall to concerned about their own safety, and overly used to the concept of tanks being destroyed by tanks, to realize in combined arms it is about the infantry, and if you realize your just a toy to make things go smoothly, thats exactly what will happen. Hell, when I'm engaging tanks, while reloading (especially with the IS2) I'm scanning for infantry and mowing them down with the Coax.
Would the T34-57 fundamentally change things..no. I don't think any one tank (besides maybe the King Tiger in late war, or the KV2 in early war, will fundamentally change anything.) However, I feel like the only way to get maps to where we want them, is to have a whole wide selection of tanks, including minor variants, and then go from there.
Edit: And yeah, light tank vs light tank engagements would be kickass (BT7, T26, PZ2/3, etc..and yes I know some of these are classified as medium tanks, imo they are lightish.)
I think everybody wants to see BIG TANK vs BIG TANK with flanks supported by BIG TANKS!!! People forget that World War II tank warfare was all about mobility, and thus MBL Tanks and Light tanks were as important, if not more important, then the breakthrough heavy tanks.
Upvote
0