Home Forums WWII Tiger I v T34/76 in the Panzer game

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #70474
    Norm S
    Participant

    As an ongoing look as to how tactical games deal with gun / armour relationships, I have added the T34/76 v Tiger I from Panzer by GMT to my article list.

    LINK
    https://battlefieldswarriors.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/panzer-by-gmt-analysis-of-t34-v-tiger-i.html

     

    #70493
    John D Salt
    Participant

    Looking at the armour and gun values given, it looks very much to me as if they are using a scale of one point per 5mm of RHAe. Given the tolerances to which armour plate was manufactured in WW2, I think that is the finest scale that can be justified.

    I’d be interested to know the reason you say the T-34’s armour was particularly subject to spalling — is this really right for the 1943 model?

    All the best,

    John.

    #70502
    Norm S
    Participant

    Hi John, it is just something that I pulled from the back of my memory, something to do (I think) with cast rather than the rolled steel.

    Anyway, while trying to search for some source material, I came across a fantastic document – you may already have this, but if not here it is anyway – one more for the collection!

    LINK

    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/011426.pdf

     

    • This reply was modified 4 years ago by Norm S.
    #70589
    John D Salt
    Participant

    Oooh, nice. I’ve seen lots of Hurlich’s reports from Watertown Arsenal, but this one seems to be the grand round-up of all of them.

    It’s worth remembering that everyone had problems with the quality of armour plate and/or fasteners during WW2, and I think on the whole the Sovs were no worse than anyone else. However the T-34 spalling problem was specifically mentioned on the Combat Mission web site as arising because of a drop in quality (as well as quantity) of steel production in the USSR with the evacuation of heavy industry to the East. My understanding was that the problems were sorted out by the time Stalingrad was won, and indeed I wonder how many of the stories of low-qiality engineering in T-34s were related to the T-34s produced in the Stalingrad factory before it closed.

    Somewhere I have a book in Russian with the catchy title “The Armour Protection of the T-34 Medium Tank”, which I shall consult if only I can find where I left it.

    Having mentioned that the armour scale GMT are using seems to correspond to about 5mm steps, I’m guessing that they have not given any vehicles bonuses or penalties for armour quality, however defined. It seems very rare for wargames rules to attempt this, which is quite understandable given the difficulty of finding reliable data on the ultimate tensile strength of specific plates. However UTS can be taken as related to hardness for a forst-order estimate in homogeneous plates, and the information I have shows that there does not seem to be a massive difference between the way the major nations made their steel, always bearing in mind Hurlich’s point about the Russian fondness for thin, highly sloped, very hard plates. I think this one of the things that should be taken into account with post-war rules, because I think the strength of the plates on vehivles roduced in the 50s or 60s is probably quite a bit higher than those from WW2, and modern steels have UTS up to about 1200 MPa, so would be worth half as much again in resistance to penetration in the ordnance velocity range as a WW2 plate of about 800 MPa.

    All the best,

    John.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.