Soviet KV-2...totally wrong(not only the pic)

soldier · Post by **soldier** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:51 am

The Pz IV H and IV J's KwK weapon had considerably more penetrating power than the T-34 43's gun and was actually very closely matched against the soviets 85mm.
Armours a bit more tricky to calculate but I think the soviet tank has a clear edge. The T -34 43 had a stronger turret and was much more slopped, with thicker armour everywhere except for the front hull of the Pz IV H but the German tank also had side skirts which probably helped against some AP rounds. The current ground defense ratings of 11 for the Russian tank vs 14 for the German is way off in my opinion.
In terms of mobility and speed on bad terrain, T-34 43 wins hands down.

Molve · Post by **Molve** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:12 am

skarczew wrote:
The end goal must be to make good human players purchase T43s in large numbers, right?
Wrong, T-34 .

Yeah, thanks.

skarczew · Post by **skarczew** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 5:48 pm

Kerensky wrote:Out of curiosity, how would you say the T34/43 compare to... say the PZ IVH? My understanding is they are relatively equal, in terms of armament and armor, but the IVH probably has a slight advantage, especially in gun power.

This seems to confirm my impression:
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/s ... hp?t=54764

Currently the IVH outclasses the T34/43 in every category except speed.

And the answer to gun power is this:

The Pz IV H and IV J's KwK weapon had considerably more penetrating power than the T-34 43's gun and was actually very closely matched against the soviets 85mm.

Regarding HA:
Russian 76.2mm gun was somewhat comparable with Sherman's 75mm and outclassed by German 75mm on Panzer IV.

Because T-34/43 proved to be inferior and possible to be destroyed at all distances, the Russians decided to develop its successor, which resulted in T-34/85.

Russian 85mm could be compared to 75mm on Mark IV. It was outclassed by long 76mm on Sherman (this was a surprise to Russians who tested it on training grounds - I cannot find the link atm, as battlefield.ru is not working for me) and outclassed by German 75mm that Panther had.
It is not a very big surprise for me, 85mm was used as a AA gun earlier

.

However, regarding SA it may have been a bit better.

Armor:
Here is the box of Pandora. Fans of T-34 surely know the numbers (millimeters) and the famous slopes, but those fans overlook few important aspects:
- how to handicap the tank? lets make a hole in the armor so the front plate will be the weaker and the driver will protect everything with his body

;
- T-34 was cramped because of the slopes; this was especially visible in earlier versions - and it has been reflected in the report from Aberdeen;
- due to bad refining process, armor was "too hard" which in result caused metal fragments flying inside, even though the armor itself was not penetrated; same thing appeared later on German side in Tiger II;
- through the war the hull (and its armor) stayed pretty the same, only the turret was improved;

Now some rants about the German side:
- even Panzer I was used during initial fights with the Soviets (Barbarossa);
- main German tanks were Panzer III and Panzer IV for a pretty long time; the most numerous German tank at Kursk was not Tiger and not Panther, but Panzer III;
- the most numerous German armored vehicles to be produced were not the tanks, but different kinds of self-propelled guns (e.g. Panzer III strikes again, now changed into StuG III

);
- armor in German tanks was of very high quality; this translated directly into higher resistance and less casualties - especially when the armor had been penetrated; however - at the end of the war it went worse;
- additional armor screens helped, too;

Mobility:
- I totally have no idea why T-34 has movement speed of 6; I know that it is the way that was created in the PG, and the PzC took the stats from it;
it looks like SSI was thinking that Christie-type suspension automatically means "great terrain mobility"; it can be also noted that tanks like Panzer IID (also Christie), Panther (somewhat similar to Christie at a first glance) also have speed of 6; in my opinion it is wrong, since Christie proved to have a lot of problems and poor offroad performance; after WWII Christie went into oblivion and nowadays the most advanced tanks usually have the torsion-bar suspension, like the one on Panzer III;
- before the war Soviets evaluated Panzer III and it proved to be faster than T-34 and almost as fast as BT tanks;
- wide tracks - T-34 was superior in this case ("weight : area of tracks" ratio was pretty good); but on the other side an early T-34 experienced serious teething problems which resulted in heavy losses due to technical breakdowns; with the time, T-34 got heavier and the German counterparts got wide tracks as well;

Conclusions:

Firepower: Panzer III<T-34<=Sherman<Panzer IV=T-34/85<=Sherman (76) ("<=" means "the same or slightly better")

The current ground defense ratings of 11 for the Russian tank vs 14 for the German is way off in my opinion.

Yep, regarding armor I think T-34, T-34/85 and Panzer IV should be pretty close to each other.

Armor: Pancer III<Sherman<T-34<=Panzer IV=T-34/85 (basic variant of Sherman, as Jumbo and other ones would do quite a mess there

)
So maybe something like 12-13 for T-34 and 14 for T-34/85 and Panzer IV?

Mobility: Panzer IV<=T-34<Sherman<=Panzer III (all countries except USSR resigned from using Christie-type suspension; USSR planned to do it, but in the end non-interrupted production was far more important)

It would be good to give better mobility for lighter tanks and reduce the speed of heavy ones. The choice is simple: either you kill everyone but not get to you objectives, or get to them, but casualties will be higher.

Sadly, www.battlefield.ru is not working correctly today, otherwise I would add some interesting links

.

Razz1 · Post by **Razz1** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:40 pm

The game statistics are like this ^

Except mobility and defense. The T-34 was more mobile and should stay at 6.

The defense needs to be brought up to 12. This way there is more reason to buy it and use it. It will also be a little better in combat.

skarczew · Post by **skarczew** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:42 pm

Razz1 wrote:The T-34 was more mobile and should stay at 6.

And I heard the opinion that the "mobility" of T-34 was caused by the fact, that the tank and its crew was easily to be replaced.
It was easy to send them into hard terrain, no matter if it was mud, snow, marsh or frozen lake. There was always a replacement (new tank and new people).
As a result, T-34 was seen by Germans everywhere, and this is the base for a popular myth. Of course nobody mentioned tanks that had drowned, bogged down or simply broke and had to be abandoned.

Germans commanders did not have this luxury (to risk sending tanks and crews into a bad terrain).

According to SSI Panzer IID was also highly mobile and they gave it mobility of 6. Too bad Germans were stupid and stopped experimenting with Christie after that model

.

So, do you have any reliable source that can prove your words?

Razz1 · Post by **Razz1** » Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:30 pm

Yes, I have quite a few sources but I'm not going to spend hours looking them up.

I'll let others post them. The wide track is enough to give then speed of 6. It is well know they could travel in the mud, and bad terrain.

soldier · Post by **soldier** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:21 am

And I heard the opinion that the "mobility" of T-34 was caused by the fact, that the tank and its crew was easily to be replaced.
It was easy to send them into hard terrain, no matter if it was mud, snow, marsh or frozen lake. There was always a replacement (new tank and new people).
As a result, T-34 was seen by Germans everywhere, and this is the base for a popular myth. Of course nobody mentioned tanks that had drowned, bogged down or simply broke and had to be abandoned.

Strange post
T- 34 had a faster top speed than the Pz III and Pz IV (same as panther did). It has speed of six because it was faster, plain and simple. Its no "myth" and has nothing to do with numbers of tanks and unit replacements ?

Nobody mentions breakdowns or bogs because it has no relevance to the game. Needless to say it affected many tanks from many nations. Cruiser, Matilda, Tiger, Panther, KV .

impar · Post by **impar** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:07 am

Regarding tank speeds, it seems the hex-speed value comes from the road speed in mph divided by 5.
A 25mph (~40km/h) road speed tank gets a 5 hex-speed.

skarczew · Post by **skarczew** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:10 am

The wide track is enough to give then speed of 6.

Sadly, it is not. The thing that matters is the ratio "weight : area of tracks". Lighter tanks do not need to have wide tracks, while heavier ones need them to compensate for increased weight.
For all the fans of wide tracks: it is true that it increases the mobility in a very bad terrain, but also decreases the speed and increases fuel consumption in normal conditions.

Moreover, T-34 had wide tracks only in versions from the years 1940-1941. Later the tracks were narrowed (yup; I heard they made it because apparently T-34M had better mobility with narrow tracks), the tank got bigger and heavier (new turrets, new armament) and the weight:area ratio was no longer so great (was around the same as for German tanks). Should I also mention that wide (and pretty thin) tracks were also more vulnerable to breaking than the normal ones?

T- 34 had a faster top speed than the Pz III and Pz IV (same as panther did). It has speed of six because it was faster, plain and simple. Its no "myth" and has nothing to do with numbers of tanks and unit replacements ?

This link contradicts your opinion: http://battlefield.ru/t34/stranitsa-4-r ... -t-34.html

Полной неожиданностью для наших военных явилось и превосходство «немца» в скорости. На гравийном шоссе Кубинка-Репище Pz-III разогнался на мерном километре до скорости 69,7 км/ч, в то время как лучший показатель для Т-34 составил 48,2 км/ч. Выделенный же в качестве эталона БТ-7 на колесах развил только 68,1 км/ч.

So it is not as simple, as you think.

Also, please check the evaluation of Russian tanks done in Aberdeen. No myths, just pure facts.

rezaf · Post by **rezaf** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:24 am

Partially off topic: Can an actual explanation/reasoning about which real-world measurements lead to which PzC stats be found anywhere?

It is obviously very different reasoning from Panzer General, as especially Air and Ground Defense values often differ considerably.

Sometimes, there's some obvious connection to reality, such as movement of ground units (though there are some exceptions), but other times, there's no way to make a straight connection. For example air-attack.
It can't just be the firepower of the guns, otherwise Flying Fortresses would have immense AA firepower, which they have not (and should not).
Speed, maneuverablitity etc. all ought to play a part, I guess.
Same is true for ground units. What constitutes their air defense value? Which variables play into initiative values?

It'd be interesting to know the "official" reasoning for coming up with stats for new units...
_____
rezaf

soldier · Post by **soldier** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:40 pm

This link contradicts your opinion: http://battlefield.ru/t34/stranitsa-4-r ... -t-34.html

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-iii.htm
http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/Vehicle ... -III-L.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_III
My own book Hitlers War Machine (Robert Cecil) has Pz III J top speed at 25 mph (40 kph)
Steel Panthers has Pz III H top speed at 24 mph (38 kph)

Theres 5 references that state Pz III variants had a top speed of around 40 kph, while T- 34 variants are well known to do about 54. I've been looking at WW2 tanks for years and have never heard of a Pz III doing 69 kph. Obviously the russians either got a super model to test or got their facts mixed up somehow because thats 29 kph faster than its its registered top speed !

Unless you can provide more links to back up your "opinion".

Having said that i do like the Russian battlefield site. Its always had lots of cool and interesting stuff.

soldier · Post by **soldier** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:08 pm

http://battlefield.ru/t34/stranitsa-10.html
Heres your own link stating T- 34 was faster than Pz III. In fact the very same article page 10. Its a very interesting read.

This is a German generals communique regarding the T-34, pasted from the site

" Characteristics of T-34.

T-34 faster, more maneuverable, has a better patency of off-road than our Pz.Kpfw.III and Pz.Kpfw.IV. His armor is stronger. Penetration of its 7.62 cm guns beyond our 5 cm KwK and 7,5 cm KwK40. The successful arrangement of inclined bronelistov increases the likelihood of a ricochet.

You may not like it but it seems the Germans were impressed

skarczew · Post by **skarczew** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:33 pm

Partially off topic: Can an actual explanation/reasoning about which real-world measurements lead to which PzC stats be found anywhere?

Yes, thats a very interesting thing.
I think most of stats were originally based on those from PG, adjusted and changed later.
However, I am not aware of the exact formula(s)

.

Theres 5 references that state Pz III variants had a top speed of around 40 kph, while T- 34 variants are well known to do about 54. I've been looking at WW2 tanks for years and have never heard of a Pz III doing 69 kph. Obviously the russians either got a super model to test or got their facts mixed up somehow because thats 29 kph faster than its its registered top speed !

Now, you need to understand one difficult thing: mentality.
For Germans their tanks were something that represented the quality, superb engineering (and Panzer III was the most advanced German tank for its times) and they were proud of it. Driving all the time at the maximum speed would put the stress to the engine, clutches, etc, effectively killing this nice toy in a very short time.
For Russians, all kinds of equipment were just a tool that they exploited to the limits. They used to fly on their planes at the full speed, they used to kill brand new T-34s before they rode 100km in them.
I won't be surprised if Russians gave the top speed (55) that was allowed by the construction, and Germans gave the safe speed (40) as the max that would allow Panzer III to go to the Moscow and back, without the need of repairs.

I am also biased towards the pretty new & up to date Russian website which is based on the documents, rather than some stats from Wiki, the computer game , few other websites (based on?). The book is the most interesting thing, but you need to have in mind that a lots of books were based on information that was revealed by the Russians. And they revealed lots of that, in 70s, 80s, when the propaganda was pretty strong, Russian tanks were indestructible, Soviet soldier was the toughest, and the political system the best, etc :/ . Would be good to know what sources were the book based on

.

In the link provided by me, it is mentioned that T-34 had the speed of 48,2 км/ч.
I think it mentions one of the first versions, with the wide tracks (and those were limiting the speed). I am almost certain that 55 km/h is the top speed of some of the later versions of T-34 with narrower tracks.

I would like you to check the Aberdeen evaluation: http://english.battlefield.ru/technics/ ... nd-kv.html
Guys from the USA said it was slower than their tanks, which is pretty amusing, as most of their tanks is stated to run 4X km/h.

Russians were aware of problems with T-34 and they wanted to get rid of it. First of such attempts was the T-34M. It had to have suspension from Panzer III instead of problematic Christie, new 3-man turret, different armor slopes (in order to increase usable space inside) and so.

You may not like it but it seems the Germans were impressed

Yep they were. Nazis treated them as subhumans, and those subhumans were able to create such thing.
Like I mentioned, first versions of T-34 had a very good "weight:track area" ratio and thus the off-road mobility was good (but this do not imply that the speed was high). Reliability was tragic (faults in design affected this as well), though, as most of early T-34s were lost to technical breakdowns.
Armor was thicker, but of bad quality (though the generals did not have the chance to experience it on their own). Gun was powerful enough to be feared, for sure.

P.S. I do not like people blindly following myths ("T-34 superb! Sherman crap!"), but I am opened for a discussion

.

skarczew · Post by **skarczew** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:45 pm

Btw, there is an interesting table on this site:
http://battlefield.ru/t34/stranitsa-12.html

It states losses of T-34 depending on the caliber of German guns. It can be seen that in the Stalingrad operation in 1942-1943 50mm guns accounted for more than 50% loses

.

Some1 · Post by **Some1** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:57 pm

soldier wrote:[...]
My own book Hitlers War Machine (Robert Cecil) has Pz III J top speed at 25 mph (40 kph)
Steel Panthers has Pz III H top speed at 24 mph (38 kph)

Theres 5 references that state Pz III variants had a top speed of around 40 kph, while T- 34 variants are well known to do about 54. I've been looking at WW2 tanks for years and have never heard of a Pz III doing 69 kph. Obviously the russians either got a super model to test or got their facts mixed up somehow because thats 29 kph faster than its its registered top speed !
[...]

My source agrees with your sources

:

Code: Select all

Pz.Kpfw. I               | A  | B  |
Max road speed    [km/h]:  37   40
Max offroad speed [km/h]:  ?    ?
Power-to-weight   [PS/t]:  19.5 16.7
Ground pressure[kg/cm^2]:  0.40 0.42

Pz.Kpfw. II              | D-E | F-J | L "Luchs" |
Max road speed    [km/h]:  55    40    60
Max offroad speed [km/h]:  19    19    19
Power-to-weight   [PS/t]:  14.0  14.7  15.2
Ground pressure[kg/cm^2]:  0.8   0.66  0.75

Pz.Kpfw. III             | A,B,C | D  | E  | F,G | H  | J,L,M,N | N (23t, source: Wikipedia) |
Max road speed    [km/h]:  32      40   40   40    40   40        40
Max offroad speed [km/h]:  ?       ?    18   18    18   19*       ? (<18)
Power-to-weight   [PS/t]:  15.3    16.6 15.4 14.8  13.9 13.5      13.0
Ground pressure[kg/cm^2]:  0.72    0.94 0.95 0.99  0.94 0.94*     1.01

*) Questionable, if the engine and the tracks/drivetrain were not modified between H and the later versions, than J-N should have a ground pressure of 0.97 PS/t and an off-road speed of less than 18 km/h

Pz.Kpfw. IV              | A  | B  | C  | D  | E  | F1 | F2,G | H,J |
Max road speed    [km/h]:  30   40   40   40   42   42   40     38    
Max offroad speed [km/h]:  17   20   20   20   20   20   16     16 
Power-to-weight   [PS/t]:  14.4 18.1 15.0 15.0 14.3 13.4 12.7   12.0
Ground pressure[kg/cm^2]:  0.65 0.66 0.75 0.75 0.79 0.79 0.84   0.89

Pz.Kpfw. V "Panther"     | A  | D  | G  |
Max road speed    [km/h]:  46   46   46
Max offroad speed [km/h]:  24   24   24
Power-to-weight   [PS/t]:  15.4 15.1 15.6
Ground pressure[kg/cm^2]:  0.90 0.85 0.88

Pz.Kpfw. "Tiger"         | I-E | II-B |
Max road speed    [km/h]:  38    38
Max offroad speed [km/h]:  20    17
Power-to-weight   [PS/t]:  12.3  10.1
Ground pressure[kg/cm^2]:  1.04  1.07

Source: "Die deutschen Panzer 1926-1945", F.M. von Senger und Etterlin

Kerensky · Post by **Kerensky** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:21 pm

Your Panzer company spots a formation of T-34s advancing quickly. You are intimately familiar with the capabilities of your tank, and you have fought the T-34 before so somewhat you know what it's capabilities too. With the lives of you and your fellow soldiers on the line, what is your reaction...

... In a Panzer II?
... In a Panzer IIIL?
... In a Panzer IVG?
... In a Panzer V or Panzer VI?

I think it might be...

"Withdraw and call for help!"
"Try to take some of them with us!"
"Tonight we dine in hell, but so will they!"
"Keep them at range, my gun barrel needs more rings!"

impar · Post by **impar** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:02 pm

Kerensky wrote:... what is your reaction...

... In a Panzer II?
... In a Panzer IIIL?
... In a Panzer IVG?
... In a Panzer V or Panzer VI?

Call 911-Luftwaffe, Ju-87G service.

Some1 · Post by **Some1** » Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:04 pm

skarczew wrote:[...]
Now, you need to understand one difficult thing: mentality.
For Germans their tanks were something that represented the quality, superb engineering (and Panzer III was the most advanced German tank for its times) and they were proud of it. Driving all the time at the maximum speed would put the stress to the engine, clutches, etc, effectively killing this nice toy in a very short time.
For Russians, all kinds of equipment were just a tool that they exploited to the limits. They used to fly on their planes at the full speed, they used to kill brand new T-34s before they rode 100km in them.
I won't be surprised if Russians gave the top speed (55) that was allowed by the construction, and Germans gave the safe speed (40) as the max that would allow Panzer III to go to the Moscow and back, without the need of repairs.
[..]

While this might be true, the basic stats indicate a clear mobility/speed advantage of the T-34 compared to the Panzer-III:

Power-to-weight [hp/t]: 19.2-15.6 vs. 16.6-13.0
Engine: Diesel vs. petrol
Ground pressure [kg/cm^2]: 0.64-0.87 vs. 0.72-1.01
Cruising range road [km]: 150-175 vs. 300-465
Cruising range off-road [km]: 95-97 vs. ?

Source of T-34 data: Wikipedia

skarczew · Post by **skarczew** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:57 am

Kerensky wrote:Your Panzer company spots a formation of T-34s advancing quickly. You are intimately familiar with the capabilities of your tank, and you have fought the T-34 before so somewhat you know what it's capabilities too. With the lives of you and your fellow soldiers on the line, what is your reaction...

... In a Panzer II?
... In a Panzer IIIL?
... In a Panzer IVG?
... In a Panzer V or Panzer VI?

I think it might be...

"Withdraw and call for help!"
"Try to take some of them with us!"
"Tonight we dine in hell, but so will they!"
"Keep them at range, my gun barrel needs more rings!"

I would run away and wait till all of them break down.

On a more serious note, I would prepare Panzerschreck. T-34 had a very distinctive sound (steel tracks) and it was possible to hear it from a pretty big distances. Pretty much time...

According to a battlefield.ru, 90% of T-34 loses were caused by different kinds of AT squads/guns.
Moreover, Russians regarded their tanks as the last mean of destroying enemy tanks. I think the similar thing was in the other armies.

Sadly, hollywood films and silly games made many people think that the war is composed of "tank duels". Ahhh, T-34 vs Panzer IV. Boom, blast! Ahh, Sherman vs Panther. Boom, blast! What a good and true story!

19.2-15.6 hp/t vs. 16.6-13.0 hp/t
Diesel instead of gasoline
0.64-0.87 kg/cm^2 vs. 0.72-1.01 kg/cm^2

Please, always state which versions do you compare, as it takes way too much time to verify it

.
And whats in your opinion the advantage of using diesel instead of gasoline?

While it is true that T-34's engine was quite powerful, the construction did not allow to fully utilize its power. From the Aberdeen report:

Suspension
On the T-34, it is poor. Suspension of the Christie type was tested long ago by the Americans, and unconditionally rejected.
(...)

Motor
The deficiency of our diesels is the criminally poor air cleaners on the T-34. The Americans consider that only a saboteur could have constructed such a device.(...)
- the air cleaner doesn't clean at all the air which is drawn into the motor;
- its capacity does not allow for the flow of the necessary quantity of air, even when the motor is idling. As a result, the motor does not achieve its full capacity. Dirt getting into the cylinders leads them to quickly wear out, compression drops, and the engine loses even more power.(...)
On both motors the starters are poor, being weak and of unreliable construction.

Transmission
On the T-34 the transmission is (...) very poor. When it was being operated, the cogs completely fell to pieces (on all the cogwheels). A chemical analysis of the cogs on the cogwheels showed that their thermal treatment is very poor and does not in any way meet American standards for such mechanisms.

Rolling friction clutches
Without doubt, poor. In America, they rejected the installation of friction clutches, even on tractors (never mind tanks), several years ago. In addition to the fallaciousness of the very principle, our friction clutches are extremely carelessly machined from low-quality steel, which quickly causes wear and tear, accelerates the penetration of dirt into the drum and in no way ensures reliable functioning.
(...)

General comments
(...)
In particular the Americans were troubled by the disgraceful design and extremely poor work on the drive/ gear/ transmission links/ blocks (?) on the T-34. After much torment they made new ones and replaced ours. All the tanks' mechanisms demand very frequent adjustments/ fine-tuning.

When T-34 was introduced, it had the chance to play a big role, but failed - due to various reasons already mentioned.
When those problems were mostly resolved (in T-34/85), it was just an average tank, and Germans had Panzer IV and Panther to copy with it.

soldier · Post by **soldier** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:19 am

I am also biased towards the pretty new & up to date Russian website which is based on the documents, rather than some stats from Wiki, the computer game , few other websites (based on?). The book is the most interesting thing, but you need to have in mind that a lots of books were based on information that was revealed by the Russians. And they revealed lots of that, in 70s, 80s, when the propaganda was pretty strong, Russian tanks were indestructible, Soviet soldier was the toughest, and the political system the best, etc :/ . Would be good to know what sources were the book based on .

Achtung Panzer is an excellent site, i consider reliable
I can't recommend Steel Panthers encyclopaedia highly enough. A very reliable source of info. All stats in it have been tirelessly debated and updated for over a decade with a view to realism. They were pretty fanatical about it and heres a link to prove it.
http://spwaw.com/lholttg/penetration.htm

I included the other sites because they back up these stats. If you don't believe any of it and think Pz III drove around at 70 clicks, thats fine with me but i won't provide sources for my sources as you wan't. I think 5 and your own link is enough.

P.S. I do not like people blindly following myths ("T-34 superb! Sherman crap!"), but I am opened for a discussion

I have never even mentioned Sherman on this site

When those problems were mostly resolved (in T-34/85), it was just an average tank, and Germans had Panzer IV and Panther to copy with it

Actually T -34 43 was already released in October 42, the time of the Aberdeen tests and had improvements to crew comfort, visibility, protection and reliability. It featured a redesigned turret with a better gun and was the most numerous version produced by far. I'm not saying it was a Rolls Royce or that it was engineered to US standards, never have. In any case mechanical reliability was a problem for many other early tank models and isn't even represented in Panzer Corps.

I only think T- 34's ground defense of 11 is too low when compared to Pz IV f and KV-2
and although you may dispute it i think speed of 6 is quite correct.