General Inaccuracies -1 reply

Please wait...

Count Nosferatu

The Count Stalks...

50 XP

22nd February 2004

0 Uploads

2,100 Posts

0 Threads

#51 16 years ago
KillorLiveWTF? I assume you're referring to the 75/l43, which could knock out a T34 no problem. T34's did not have a lot of armor, and it was very poor steel. By the end of '44 they were not main line tanks, this was more a job for the heavies by then. The 75/l43 is more comparable (but still not quite) to the 85mm on the T34/85. The 75/l43 penetrated a little more armor, but the '85 had more HE per shell. Now, the T34/85 was not a heavily armored beast either--47mm in the front hull, sources say between 30 to 45 degrees (don't know where the truth lies). That means that any long barreled 75 should have no problem for a hull penetration, and the 75/l70 and 88/l56 would have no problem making swiss cheese of the '85 anywhere, including the mantle. The MK4 was later upgraded to 80mm of armor front in the Ausf F2 (I believe), and used the 75/l43. The Ausf H used armored skirts on the side to stop HEAT rounds and the 75/l48. Both of these could withstand a shot from a T34/76 no problem to the front, and both of them could preforate a T34/76 from almost anywhere. The Germans used soft ballistic cap AT rounds, meaning it wouldn't totally neglify (is that a word?) the sloped armor, but it would allow for a more "head-on" hit, and would end up penetrating more armor because of that. This means that a 30-45 degree T34 is now about 45-60 degrees, while I'm sure that's not correct you get the general idea. You have a good idea of how armor works, you're just confused, keep studying. Anlushac can teach you a LOT too, if you're willing to learn.[/QUOTE]I apologise, my editing removed the "Allied" part of the post.... I was comparing the gun to the next step up - ie the Allied 75mms NOT the next German step up [which with hindsight I should have done]. I am aware that the gun's shell was just as important as the gun [eg the British and their fiendish AP rounds] but I was comparing to the Allied counterparts in my post. There are some anomalies even in what you said though... first you aren't comparing like with like... the T34s rolling out of Leningrad's factories without paint or proper finishing had poor quality armour but not those coming out of other factories distant from combat. Second the T34 WAS the main MEDIUM combat tank up to the end of the war.... the M4 Sherman along with lesser US tanks also forming a large bulk of it. Considering that the medium tanks were the main backbone of the Russian armoured pushes then it is safe to say that the T34 was also the main combat tank. ALSO the Pzkw IV was vastly inferior to the Pzkw V, even with its skirting boards, the gun being the main exception to this. [quote=The Jackalx2k] The model you saw is probably the ugly old one. (My first model for FH lol) There was alot added to it and now it looks freaken insane

Yep the model shown does look very nice.... sure it may look ugly but then the Mark VI IS an ugly tank ;)....... you can't beautify a toad :D. Oh and if you say the Ge43 is the right length I'll take your word for it... although there is still something about the model which bugs me :S......




D-Fens

uwe bolltastic!

50 XP

2nd May 2003

0 Uploads

4,837 Posts

0 Threads

#52 16 years ago

I don't think the old Panzer III model was ugly... are you trying to say that a lot of those models in the vehicles section are too low detail? I'd like to see that barn that was in the PzIII render and that lighthouse..