[Rules] T-34A/B/C? And T-34/57? And ZIS-30 57mm SPG?

[G. K. Zhukov]

I'm wrong. The ZIS-30 looks more like the 2-pdr on the carrier. But the gun is outsized.

Google is your friend (- or is it?  ).

Images of ZIS-30 57mm SPG AT Gun

Isn't this a Komsomolets tractor with a loooong gun on it?

[plloyd1010]

Yup, that is what I found this morning. Yes it is a Komosomolets. Imagine it with a 75/50 on it, now you the Cleatrac's problem.
I expect it was discontinued the ZIS-30 for stability problems, like top heavy and lateral recoil issues. I wonder what happened to this one's tracks.

[G. K. Zhukov]

Interesting Russian source information on the T-34/57:

T-34-57 Tank-Killer

[plloyd1010]

That article suggests there were never more than 20 examples made. Up to 18 of those are accounted for in the article. The odd thing is those 3 random ones mentioned as being deployed in 1943.

The RKKA in WW2 suggests the ZIS-30 was an expediency of later 1941, and that they were used around the Moscow battles.

It appears the penetration of the AP & APHE round of the 57mm gun were on the low side of the 85-90mm range. Still that is 15mm better than the M1/6-pdr (MkIII).

[larry marak]

The 3 manufactured in 43 had an improved version of the 57, but by then the 85mm gun wasvavailable and much more affordable to mass produce

[larry marak]

Hi again. I come to you with a couple of questions on the workhorse of the Red Army.

1) T-34A/B/C?

In the earlier releases of the system, every T-34 depicted by the various countersheets was a "T-34A":



Usually, the T-34A designation corresponded to the T-34 M1940 with the shorter L-11 76.2mm gun. But there were not many of these, and production had already switched at the start of the war to the M1941 model, which sported a longer, more powerful F-34 gun. But somehow every early T-34 in "Eastern Front" is depicted with a T-34A. Even those with Katukov's 4th Tank Brigade, which were new M1941's from the Stalingrad Tractor Factory with the F-34 gun.

Later models with the 76.2mm gun were represented with the T-34C model, which I assume is the three-man turret, Kurk-era M1943:



It has a better armor and especially a longer range (F-34 gun) than the "T-34A".

Only recently, with the appearance of "Kursk South Flank" and "Burning Tigers" IIRRC, the intermediate "T-34B" model has appeared:



It has the early model armor mated with the later long-range gun ("5-6" instead of "5-5"). I assume this counter portrays the M1941/1942 models that were the majority of T-34's seen in combat during the first half of the Eastern Campaign (including Barbarossa or at least from the Battle for Moscow on). And, if my assumptions are correct, that would mean a lot of the "Eastern Front" and other early war modules should have these "T-34B" instead of the "T-34A".

Is that correct?

Comerade Zhukov, from Heroes onward, the T-34/76 A and T-34/76 B have been in the system.  They were originally misprinted as T-34 and T-34A respectively.  The very first PG game extended all the way to Kursk.

[saracv3]

Here's a most ridic l ous question: An armor guru friend of mine says there is no evidence that a T34c could punch a Tiger I anywhere
In fact, it fell 1mm short at the rear armor. Yet this T34/57 could probably do the job, and other 76.2 variants that the Western Allies had could do the job.

Am I right? And the T34c must have been fodder for the Tiger at Kursk. One wonders how the Soviets won.

[richvalle]

I can't comment on the ability of the T34c being able to penetrate a Tiger. But... you don't have to punch though a tank to drive it off or disable/damage it. Also driving off the supporting infantry would stop tanks from going forward.

[plloyd1010]

Craig, your friend does not understand that a mm-by-mm comparison is not particularly definitive, just very important. While the armor is (no pun) a pretty solid number, gun penetration is somewhat less so. The gun penetration is calculated and tested at proving grounds, different report often have slightly numbers (sometimes more than slightly). Once outside, it could go up or down a little, again. After that there is the angle of the shot, quality of the round, and the integrity of the armor. All that assumes that the shot hits on the armor, very good odds of that, but not always certain. All this creates a range pro possible outcomes. Good armor (and armor configuration) skew it potential in the tank's favor. Larger caliber, good quality alloys, and so on move potential outcomes toward the gun.

With gun-rating performance vs. armor measurement, the tigers are invulnerable. The vast variabilities on the battlefield meant they are very tough, but not invulnerable, and the Russian have a lot of tanks, thus a lot of shots. German tankers, and their trainers, understood this. That is why Tiger crews, and to a lesser extent other panzer, would approach the enemy obliquely to maximize their armor effectiveness.

[saracv3]

Love your. answer,Peter. I Just shows that us newbies go back through old posts, and I was interested in this one.