Has anyone bagged a T-34 with the Panzer III yet?

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Does anyone know how to range with HE in the Zeiss optics? Because the rotary range don't turn enough to line up on the notch.

Edited November 27, 2015 by RoflSeal

[migmadmarine]

As I recall, on German sights there should be a seperate post at the bottom of the sight used for the HE scale. 

[Yogiflight]

When you select HE ammunition the optics turn automatically to the HE scale.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

It seems that both T-34 and Pz III have same re-load time, about 11 seconds. Does anyone know if this is accurate?

[Finkeren]

It seems that both T-34 and Pz III have same re-load time, about 11 seconds. Does anyone know if this is accurate?

 

Loading times for a manually loaded gun are always gonna be approximate, especially, when we're talking about combat conditions inside a cramped tank compartment with a swiveling turret. That being said, the loading time for the Panzer III should be significantly shorter than the T-34 for a number of reasons.

 

For one thing, the 76mm round is a lot heavier and harder to move around in the cramped space.

 

Secondly, the ergonomics of especially the early T-34s (but really all T-34s) were horrendous, most of all for the loader. The primary reson being, that the T-34 didn't have a turret basket (a platform where the loader stands, that rotates along with the turret), in a T-34 the loader stands on the floor of the hull. That means, that the loader in a T-34 constantly had to watch out for the turret to move, or he might get hit or even crushed by the breech of the gun as the turret swings  , obviously affecting his effectiveness.

 

The third reason is the impractical way ammo is stored within the T-34. All tanks of the era had a loading rack that was easy for the loader to reach and held a number of rounds ready to fire (normally a mixture of mostly HE with a few AP) I think in the case of the T-34 it was 5 or 6 rounds. Once those were expended, the loader had to get more ammo from storage other places within the tank, sometimes in places that were quite hard to reach, as designers essentially crammed extra ammunition in where ever it would fit (are you getting the sense, that the loader did not have the easiest job in a tank?) In the T-34 it was even worse: Most of the ammunition was stored under the floor, or to be more precise: The ammunition boxes was the floor. To get more ammo, the loader had to somehow reach underneath the rubber mat he was standing on (remember: no turret basket), open a box of rounds and pull them out and place them in the loading rack, close the box and replace the mat  . In a stressed combat situation, the loader would often neglect to do this in order to speed things up and just pull up a box of rounds, load directly from it and throw it on the floor when empty. the result was, that the floor of a T-34 in heavy combat quickly became a mess of empty boxes and spent shells with next to no even floor to stand on (with every box pulled out and not replaced, the loader essentially removed a piece of the floor he had to stand on  ) 

 

I don't know much about, how the loaders ergonomics were in a Panzer III, but I don't think I'm wrong in suspecting, that they were a lot better than in the T-34. The ammo rack might also have held more rounds, as the 50mm round is significantly smaller.

 

All things considered, I think the Panzer III should have a much higher rate of fire than the T-34, perhaps even twice as fast. But (and this is important) the big difference should only really kick in, once the ready ammunition in the ammo rack has been exhausted. Prior to that, the loading times should be more similar, though still with an advantage to the Panzer because of the lighter round and overall better ergonomics.

 

If the devs at some point plan to enhance the realism of the tanks (something which I don't think is urgent, kepp the focus on the flight sim) they might consider simulating an ammo rack, which would be filled with a mixture of HE and AP from the start, and which would get exhausted, significantly lowering rate of fire after the first 5 - 8 shots or however much the rack held historically (supposing you shoot a mixture of HE and AP) The loader would then automatically fill the rack up again over maybe a minute or two, if there was a lull in fighting. This would be a really interesting feature from a tactical perspective and might make players less trigger-happy    But as I said, I think this can wait for a later date.

For now, 11 seconds seems reasonable for the Panzer III. I would increase the loading time for the T-34 to perhaps 16 sec. Not giving a huge advantage, but at least something.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Finkeren

[Rjel]

Using the information from the website linked by RoflSeal, I'm getting consistent head on kills on T-34s. But can someone tell what range I'm killing it at from this screenshot? If I'm understanding the information about the Zeiss optics, I'm somewhere between 700 and 1000 meters. Is that correct? Is that what the gauge set to 7 is telling me?

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

You set the guage at 700m for AP.  I would say the range is in between 600-700m as the T-34 is just wider then the big triangle (which is 4 stricht). So take the T-34 as 5 stricht wide. T-34 is 3m wide so 3/~5 = ~0.6km

Edited November 29, 2015 by RoflSeal

[Rjel]

Excellent. Thanks RoflSeal.

[Cybermat47]

Those German sights are pretty good, provided you know how to use them

[sop]

So when is the kursk expansion happening (joke)

[Finkeren]

So when is the kursk expansion happening (joke)

Why should that be a joke? I think there's an excellent chance that Kursk could be the next title.

[sop]

Your correct of course my sarcasm fails me sometimes ))

[Fern]

I cant even bag a T34 with a 1000 kg bomb.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

Has anyone could destroy T34 with Stuka's 37mm by 1 hit? I have to make the kill by at least 2 hits every time. 

[216th_Peterla]

Has anyone could destroy T34 with Stuka's 37mm by 1 hit? I have to make the kill by at least 2 hits every time.

Hi Gustav,

The upgraded or updated damage model and armour values of this armoured vehicles had make them more difficult to disable. Before I use to get a Panzer III with the AP 23mm of the Shturmovick in a single pass, but right now it becomes almost impossible. I made a couple test(always aiming to the rear were the radiator is) and all of them were unsuccessful. Maybe before was too easy.

Didn't try with the Stuka but I guess that is similar. You will need more of those 37mm hits to totally disable a T34.

[Fern]

I finally took out a tank in one pass in Stuka with 37s. I changed my convergence to 180 and was nearly on top off the tank.

[Reflected]

Same here, I tested online and didn't manage to take out T34s with the Stuka's big guns

[Gunsmith86]

Has anyone could destroy T34 with Stuka's 37mm by 1 hit? I have to make the kill by at least 2 hits every time. 

 

That is very realistic than because we know that most pilots hit at least 3 times before a tank displayed visible signs of destruction. (smoke, flames, explosions,...)

[migmadmarine]

And also mobility or crew bails are more prevalent in the real world, as a tank immobilized is in more trouble than it might be in game, and living crews fear for their lives where as game crews don't. 

[GunnyHighway]

Yes I have, and I also been killed several times by Panzer III L.

 

With my T-34, I also killed some Stuka's that were too focus on my demise.

Edited December 1, 2015 by GunnyHighway

[Finkeren]

And also mobility or crew bails are more prevalent in the real world, as a tank immobilized is in more trouble than it might be in game, and living crews fear for their lives where as game crews don't.

I think a bail out function should be first in the line of additions to tank game play.

 

I don't agree that loss of mobility isn't serious in the game, it absolutely is, especially against AI.

[Reflected]

OK, tried human Stuka vs human T-34.

 

I spent my whole ammo of tank guns on one: nothing. I must have hit it 3-4 times for sure. On the other hand, T-34 mg-s seem to be able to fire in all directions  with the effectiveness of a laser gun. Attack planes fell all over the place.

I jumped in a T-34 then, and shot down a Heinkel in flames with a half second burst.

 

As much as I like the idea of tanks, this is not fun, nor believable. 

[Sokol1]

Quote

 

 

I spent my whole ammo of tank guns on one: nothing.

 

As T-34 driver I was killed by Stuka BK-37, Bf 109 Jabo bomb - I believe 250 Kg, and sometimes by that "Hollywood" 1.000 KG bombs dropped by Stuka's - but is funny the T-34 emerge from the big smoke column and see the Stuka "grave" nearby, many guys use wrong fuses.  

 

Statistically I can say that Bf 109 Jabo is more effective than Stuka and this ridiculous bomb.  

 

 

 Attack planes fell all over the place.

I jumped in a T-34 then, and shot down a Heinkel in flames with a half second burst.

 

Flying bellow 200 meters like many do, is exactly what is expected. 

[Reflected]

 

 

Flying bellow 200 meters like many do, is exactly what is expected. 

 

Yeah, in BoS, or a Hollywood/ Moscow sci-fi. If this was realistic, Soviet tank drivers would have been bigger aces than pilots.

Also, how come that gun can fire 360 degrees, with all kinds of elevation? Wasn't it fixed on the forward part of the plane?

 

All in all, I won't join any tank servers again, because all it can do is get me p@ssed, unless of course I drive the mighty T-34. I'm sorry, but currently this feature is not worthy of the simulation title Il2 is - as promising as it is.

[Sokol1]

Well, are dozen of servers to choose... the only issue is, most are empty, and the popular ones now have tanks.

[Finkeren]

Also, how come that gun can fire 360 degrees, with all kinds of elevation? Wasn't it fixed on the forward part of the plane?

 

It's the coaxial MG you're firing. It can fire in any direction the gun points.

 

I know it can be a bit confusing, because we can see the AI tanks fire their hull MGs all the time (something I haven't found a way to do in a player controlled tank)

[Dakpilot]

Yeah, in BoS, or a Hollywood/ Moscow sci-fi. If this was realistic, Soviet tank drivers would have been bigger aces than pilots.

Also, how come that gun can fire 360 degrees, with all kinds of elevation? Wasn't it fixed on the forward part of the plane?

 

All in all, I won't join any tank servers again, because all it can do is get me p@ssed, unless of course I drive the mighty T-34. I'm sorry, but currently this feature is not worthy of the simulation title Il2 is - as promising as it is.

 

T34-76/42 has bow hull mounted DT 7.62mm with limited traverse and also co-axial turret mounted DT 7.62mm fitted on the right hand side of main 76mm armament

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

I think they should go to Kursk if they do a really great job on tank business. We cannot waste this battle with alpha mechanics.

 

I am having fun with those tanks. I hope that tanks side game can evolve a lot

Edited December 3, 2015 by 6./ZG26_Gielow

[Reflected]

And could it all be manned from inside, from the safety of the unpenetrable armor? I don't think so.

[Finkeren]

And could it all be manned from inside, from the safety of the unpenetrable armor? I don't think so.

 

The coaxial MG is mounted right in the gun mantle that fires along the same axis as the gun. The main purpose of it was actually quick range finding and fine tuning at shorter distances. That's why there's a seperate ranging scale for the MG in the T-34 sight.

 

It pretty much works like this: You fire the coaxial MG at the target until you achieve hits (when you see tracers bouncing off the enemy tank), you then read the scale for the MG, let's say 450m, quickly set the elevation to 450 for the gun and fire. Obviously this is not very subtle and definately not for use in an ambush, but it's crudely effective.

 

Of course it was used for other purposes as well, the gunne with his more effective sight could lay much more accurate MG fire at a soft target than the hull gunner could and from a higher vantage point. Potentially it could even be used against aircraft, though obviously that would be quite impractical, which is why it became common to fit light MG on the roof of the turret on many AFVs late in the war.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Finkeren

[Dakpilot]

 

 red arrow indicates 7.62

 

you can find some nice exploded diagrams of turret interior showing mounting on web

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Reflected]

A-ha! Thanks a lot for the info!!

 

 

 

Potentially it could even be used against aircraft, though obviously that would be quite impractical, which is why it became common to fit light MG on the roof of the turret on many AFVs late in the war.

 

Well, if only they had  known what we know in BoS  They would have called it the "click'n'kill"

[Finkeren]

Well, if only they had  known what we know in BoS  They would have called it the "click'n'kill"

 

To be fair, IRL ground attack aircraft didn't stick around continuesly circling the area at very low altitude presenting a perfect target for any gunner worth his salt.

[Brano]

It must have been lucky shot.I almost hit attacking Fw with my main gun,only because I noticed him early enough to have nice aim at his head-on straight attack.What a pitty we dont have shrapnel ammo for F-34 gun   

Coax MG otherwise works as rear gunner of any aircraft.If your target is close and in good position,there is no problem to hit it.Why there should be? But mostly I just chase ghosts and fire lot of degtyarev projectiles into thin air.But it may at least scary them a bit 

[Finkeren]

I have not yet downed an aircraft with the coaxial, but I have achieved hits and caused more than a couple of planes who were heading straight for me to break off their attack.

[Elem]

To be fair, IRL ground attack aircraft didn't stick around continuesly circling the area at very low altitude presenting a perfect target for any gunner worth his salt.

Like this you mean?....

 

"Operating in large formations, the Sturmoviks used a tactic known as the “circle of death,” in which they would orbit over German tanks and then dive on the vehicles’ thinly-armored rears. “The other preferred tactic was ‘shaving flight,’ or nap-of-the-earth flying,” says James Sterrett, author of Soviet Air Force Theory, 1918-1945."

[Finkeren]

Like this you mean?....

 

"Operating in large formations, the Sturmoviks used a tactic known as the “circle of death,” in which they would orbit over German tanks and then dive on the vehicles’ thinly-armored rears. “The other preferred tactic was ‘shaving flight,’ or nap-of-the-earth flying,” says James Sterrett, author of Soviet Air Force Theory, 1918-1945."

 

Yes, that is the exception to the rule, owing in part to the IL-2 being exceptionally well protected against small arms fire.

[Yogiflight]

The main reason, why aircrafts weren´t shot down by tanks in real life, is that the tankcrews were not sitting there looking holes in the air, to see where is an aircraft comming, I can shoot down. Their aim was the fighting against ground targets, especially enemytanks, but also infantry with antitank weapons. So that was the thing, they were concentrated on, because this was the main danger for them.

[Finkeren]

The main reason, why aircrafts weren´t shot down by tanks in real life, is that the tankcrews were not sitting there looking holes in the air, to see where is an aircraft comming, I can shoot down. Their aim was the fighting against ground targets, especially enemytanks, but also infantry with antitank weapons. So that was the thing, they were concentrated on, because this was the main danger for them.

 

Of course, but tanks were quite often attacked, while they weren't in combat. In many configurations the AA MG on the top of tanks and assault guns, it required the shooter to sit with most of his body outside the tank, rendering him totally unable to do his inside the tank, they obviously weren't meant to be used in direct combat.

 

On the other hand: If the AA MGs weren't effective in fending off attacking aircraft (not necessarilly shooting them down) they wouldn't have been used to extent that they were late in the war into the 1960s.

[Yogiflight]

Yes you are right. I think the main effort of the AA-MGs, was to hold attacking aircrafts a bit more on distance, when firing or throwing bombs.