Cranking out the T-34s



  • I was wandering when everyone on this site decided to use tanks with Russia. I know that man power is important but what about the T-34s.



  • I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this question. I don’t think I’ve ever built a T-34 before. What are you referring to?



  • i think he is saying russia should buy armor with its IPCs.



  • T-34: main soviet tank during WWII. It’s first appearance startled the Germans who thought it impossible that such an inferiour race could develop such a fine machine. One of the first designs to incorperate sloped armor; many times lower caliber anti-tank weapons would simply bounce off of it. High speed and high manuverability (compared to contemperary German tanks) without sacrificing armor made this tank a favorite among it’s crews despite it’s gun’s limited range.



  • It had a 76MM gun, i dont think range was a problem.



  • Indeed, it’s gun was large (I believe as large as any German tank’s) but the total length of the barrel was comparatively short making it much more inacurate at long range than german guns.



  • Well are you talking about A&A, A&A Europe, or some other variant. Well I think that it is foolish for Russia to spend huge IPCs on tanks at first (maybe one tank per turn), until there is no longer a threat of a large German counterattack. However some may argue that tanks are necessary to wear down the opponents defenses, but I think it might spell disaster when Germany is making at least 10 more IPCs than Russia near the beginning of the game.



  • T-34, better than any panzer ever made. You could mass produce those things faster than Ford could make cars.



  • Yes I was referring to the Russians cranking out the armor. But I wanted to get everyones insight into how much and different varriations of using the Russian armor. Honestly, though I would take a late model tiger 1 or tiger 2 or even a panther tank over the T-34s. Those German tanks were AWESOME!



  • THe only problems with Tigers was that they were a logistical nightmare. Tigers were often prone to breakdowns and their fuel consumption was huge. T-34s were much more reliable.


    Never before have we had so little time in which to do so much

    [ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-03-23 08:42 ]



  • Tigers strained the German economy way too much. They didn’t have the mechanics, factory workers, or Gasoline to run them. T-34s were easy to make, used very little fuel, and almost never broke down.

    Though, it would take 3 T-34s to take down a Tiger 2.



  • If I had my choice still probably choose a King Tiger or Jagdtiger. Probably spent most of my time ambushing though.



  • I’m not sure how reliable the T34 truly was, but so many were made, the russians had no problem replacing them. The German tanks were better, but they were a lot more complicated.
    The best tank of the war was the Tiger II, but it served purely a defensive role. At the end of the war, the germans weren’t attacking anyway.
    Then again, america fastly produced M4s, but it took 5 of those to take out a panther.



  • The problem with Germany was there whole their logistic situation. In 1944, they had the Tiger, King Tiger, Pz IV, and the Panther, plus all the different types of assault guns. It was hell trying to maintain such a complex logistics situation. By 1944, I would have been producing nothing but panthers and jagd panthers. It would have made Germany’s life much easier to just produce one type of tank chassis. Not only would you have a great tank, but you would also have the best tank destroyer fielding the 88mm.



  • The Panther was arguably the best medium tank of the war so I guess it would make sense for Germany to focus solely on one product. A big problem Germany had was finding replacement parts for damaged tanks. As for a heavy I’d take any of the jagd series of tanks.



  • I am no military strategest, but the truth is how efficientwould building only panthers be? you would have to change every production line, and at the end of the war, Germany was in mostly defense. Wouldn’t heavier tanks be prefible?



  • The problem with heavy tanks was that they were huge fuel eatters. Plus different tanks were made for different roles. Take the jagd series for instance. Great against other tanks but weak against inf. since they would outflank. Panthers were need fr ARM counterattacks when they were needed. Then there’s the actual production itself. I think the Americans could build 3-4 shermans in the amount of time it took to make one Tiger.



  • i think we will all agree that compared to the Russian and German tanks the British and Amarican were horrible.



  • I wouldn’t exactly say that the American and Brit tanks were horrible. The Pershing and Firefly tanks had great mobility, reliability, and firepower. The only problem with UK/USA tanks were armor.



  • US and British tanks also were heavily out-gunned by their German and Russian counterparts. WWII was great in that it stired the ailing tank programs in the west. At the begining of the war the west was still reliant on obsolete technology. Even at the end the most common US and British tanks were sub-standard.



  • so not true! the german tanks SUCKED compared to french tanks (in the begg. of the war), which had heavier armor, and 75 mm guns. in fact, the germans had only one tank out at the time with a cannon larger than 50mm. France had some even scarier tanks in the works, but the inferior in strength and number german tanks paved the way for german victory in france.

    this proves that it isn’t the size of your cannon, it is what you do with it!



  • So true. The French had some great tanks but they were spread throughout the different inf. divisions. The Germans concentrated their tanks in powerful Panzer divisions. While German tanks were inferior, their tank doctrine was superior and the equalizer. Plus, it didn’t hurt having Stukas flying in to clear the way.



  • I definately agree with the Flying Wing. The German panzers were heavily outgunned by the Mitildas and Fireflys. Plus later designs like the Hellcats. Of course tanks were no match for German Maus, the most powerful tank ever created.



  • The Maus, a creation from Hitler’s disillusioned mind. It was an obvious waste of time and resources. However, I couldn’t agree more, though it never had any combat experience. The Maus was very powerful. It’s second armament was as big as some tank’s main armament!



  • Actually the Maus did see some combat action in the Eastern Front. From the looks of it, no shell could pierce the armor of the Maus. I think that there’s a Maus still in Russia today.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

32
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts