Slitherine

In the 1941 campaign as the Axis I ended up in 1944 with the Russians with superior tanks and infantry than the Germans, however I had the maximum number of labs (10) a couple of turns after the start. How can the Russians starting at a lower level can out tech me after 3 years? Is it because they are allowed to have more than 10 labs?

Thanks

syagrius wrote:In the 1941 campaign as the Axis I ended up in 1944 with the Russians with superior tanks and infantry than the Germans, however I had the maximum number of labs (10) a couple of turns after the start. How can the Russians starting at a lower level can out tech me after 3 years? Is it because they are allowed to have more than 10 labs?

Thanks

Difficulty levle affect enemy War Effort which means higher max labs.

Ah ok, I was playing at moderate advantage allies, that means they have more labs.

Thanks Johan

syagrius wrote:In the 1941 campaign as the Axis I ended up in 1944 with the Russians with superior tanks and infantry than the Germans, however I had the maximum number of labs (10) a couple of turns after the start. How can the Russians starting at a lower level can out tech me after 3 years? Is it because they are allowed to have more than 10 labs?

Thanks

I think the Russian tanks by 1944 did outclass most German armor. The T-34/85 was arguably the best tank of WW2, overall (yes the Panther was great, but it had mechanical issues---the T-34 was much more reliable).

The Josef Stalin series of tanks which made their appearance in late '44 were also very good.

I focus on armor because you mentioned it specifically. In general, by 1944 the front-line "first string" Russian ground and air forces were much better equipped than their German counter-parts.

So even at normal settings this may not be ahistorical. And of course, as you mentioned, you gave the Allies an advantage anyway.

I think the T-34 is largely overrated. The Germans managed to destroy thousands of them, the russian tanks prevailed only because of numerical superiority.

syagrius wrote:I think the T-34 is largely overrated. The Germans managed to destroy thousands of them, the russian tanks prevailed only because of numerical superiority.

Nah, you're thinking of the Sherman.

The T-34 was a huge shock to the Germans, as early as 1941 they were running into these tanks with "strangely sloped armor". The upgunned 85 was good enough to still be around in 1967 during the Arab-Israeli war (although it didn't stand up well against Centurions and Pattons---not to mention superior tactical doctrine).

I think a lot of the destruction of T-34's by the Germans was due to the same thing---superior tactical doctrine.

For Panzer II and III and early version of Panzer IV the T-34 was more than a match I agree. But it was not superior to Pz IV with long 75mm gun and obviously inferior to the Panthers and Tigers. Yes tactics was the main difference, but tank to tank the germans had better machines than the Russian after 1943, they only lacked numbers.

syagrius wrote:For Panzer II and III and early version of Panzer IV the T-34 was more than a match I agree. But it was not superior to Pz IV with long 75mm gun and obviously inferior to the Panthers and Tigers. Yes tactics was the main difference, but tank to tank the germans had better machines than the Russian after 1943, they only lacked numbers.

The up-gunned and up-armored PzIV was insufficient to deal with T-34's according to no less an expert than Heinz Guderian (see "Panzer Leader" c.1957). The PzIII and PzIV had to have armored skirts added in the field, to compensate for their continued vulnerability.

The mass-produced aluminum engine of the T-34 was light, efficient and reliable. The same could not be said of the Panther, even though the engine was modelled after that of the T-34 (Guderian referred to it as their "problem child" in remarks made in 1943 and 1944). So for this reason I would disagree that the Panther was superior. An immobilized tank quickly becomes a dead tank.

Tiger's were amazing tanks, but so slow as to be useless, and the tactic of circling behind them to take advantage of their weaker rear armor quickly became doctrine for all of the Allied tank forces.

Perhaps when you think of the destruction of T-34's, you think of Kursk, where many of them (carring 76mm guns at that time) were out-ranged by the superior German guns. But the 85 mm gun, with its high velocity, solved that problem for the Red Army.

With its 2600 fps muzzle velocity, the T-34/85 was somewhat outclassed by the 3070 fps muzzle velocity of the 75mm gun on the Panther. But it gave away little in range, was more reliable, and as you have noted, there were a LOT of them.

If we only were discussing armament, I would probably have to agree that the Germans were better. The long 75 was somewhat better than the 85. But when I take into account mobility, reliability and armor protection, the T-34/85 looks to me like the better tank overall.

Having said all that, I can say with certainty that when it comes to discussions like this one, nothing is in fact certain. On any given day, a T-34 meeting a Panther might or might not survive. But when you consider that the T-34 was classified a medium tank, and the Panther a heavy, the fact that T-34's frequently did survive such encounters is testimony to how good they were.

I know that it is a ongoing debate about who had the best tanks.

syagrius wrote:I know that it is a ongoing debate about who had the best tanks.

And it is an entertaining debate.

I know I made fun of the Sherman in my first post, but an argument could be made that IT was the best tank of WW2. It was so easily mass produced, that there were thousands of the little buggers running around. A King Tiger beset by four or five Shermans was in the same predicament as an elk attacked by wolves. No matter which way you turn, you're basically screwed.

Interesting :

"A German comparison of German tanks with the new Soviet T-34-85 and IS-2 heavy tank (with a 122 mm gun), from March 23, 1944, stated that "the Panther is far superior to the T-34/85 for frontal fire (Panther Ausf G could penetrate frontal armor of T-34/85 at 2,000 m, while T-34/85 could penetrate frontal armor of Panther Ausf G at 500 m), approximately equal for side and rear fire, superior to the IS-2 for frontal fire and inferior for side and rear fire." In 1943 and 1944, a Panther was able to destroy any Allied enemy tank in existence at ranges of 2,000 m, while in general veteran Panther crews reported a 90 percent hit rate at ranges up to 1,000 m. The Panther weighed about as much as the new Soviet IS-2 heavy tank, and indeed this vehicle is a closer match than the much lighter T-34"

I agree with this assessment

...CCC, Command, Control and Communications, is how tank battles are won. German tanks had radios, most Russian tanks did not. They were consequently easily outmaneuvered by the Germans.
...The Germans lost the Battle of Kursk as they were not able to use their key advantage of maneuver.
...German optics were better allowing longer range fire, better visibility.
...German armor was of better quality, hence 50mm of German armor was better than 60mm of Russian armor.
...In any one engagement between a single Tiger tank and any single allied tank, bet on the Tiger.
...During the war, German tanks consistently won when outnumbered up to about 3 to 1. Unfortunately for them, they were usually outnumbered by much more than that as the war wound down.

Umm, Shawkhan, Kursk was a little more complicated than that. Not that your summary is wrong, per se, just a major over-simplification.

Strategically, Kursk was a mistake in the first place. And it became more and more of a mistake as the attack was postponed again and again. But Hitler had his ego invested, and so...

But the germans should never have attacked into the teeth of fortifications like that. That's not what blitzkrieg theory is about at all. Blitz theory is about going around the strongpoints, exploiting the weak spots, bypassing and isolating the fortifications while striking deep into the enemy rear.

So, strategically, it was a mistake to attack at all.

Tactically, gods, I'm going to wind up writing War & Peace if I go into that...

**edit**

Oh, and that quote Syagrius offers above mentions that the T-34 was lighter. It also had wider treads, the combination of which made for a much lower GPSI (ground pressure per square inch), and that translates into much better mobility on marshy, boggy, or muddy ground. It was in many ways a quintessentially Russian tank

Also, while german steel may have been of better quality, there is also the issue of sloping and curving. The T-34 was generally superior in this department. Look at the turret, where a good proportion of hits take place. There are no flat surfaces to strike; everything is curved. And the T-34's hull generally has very good armor sloping.

By contrast, look at the Tiger I. There are flat spots and outright shot pockets all over it. The Panther is much better, but still displays that teutonic fondness for square corners.

possum wrote:Oh, and that quote Syagrius offers above mentions that the T-34 was lighter. It also had wider treads, the combination of which made for a much lower GPSI (ground pressure per square inch), and that translates into much better mobility on marshy, boggy, or muddy ground. It was in many ways a quintessentially Russian tank

Also, while german steel may have been of better quality, there is also the issue of sloping and curving. The T-34 was generally superior in this department. Look at the turret, where a good proportion of hits take place. There are no flat surfaces to strike; everything is curved. And the T-34's hull generally has very good armor sloping.

By contrast, look at the Tiger I. There are flat spots and outright shot pockets all over it. The Panther is much better, but still displays that teutonic fondness for square corners.

Very true, which is why I thought the T-34 was in fact not over-rated by historians. It was indeed a tank built for the peculiar Russian conditions, and it met the need very well. I am glad that you brought up the issue of the wide treads; I had forgotten that point, and it is equally as important as the T-34's sloped armor. Sloped armor doesn't do you much good if you're stuck in the mud up to your armor skirts

hehe nce work guys, dont wanna hi jack this, is there a forum which discusses why tanks can use more barres of oil per turn than any other unit? in a game im playing now one tank moving then shooting spends 8 oil all together, when a aircraft carrier uses only 6. . this doesn't make sense to me at all!