T-34-57, ROF 0, 1, or 2?

xenovin

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
1,983
Reaction score
1,165
Location
Skynet
First name
Vincent
Country
llUnited States
Hive mind, I need to SSR a counter to represent the T-34 armed with a 57L gun (or 57LL?) in 1941 so I'm using a T-34 M41 (but they had radios as a bonus) and wondering if the higher rate of fire 57L would have a ROF of 0 (like most T-34s) or a 1 (or 2?) with the higher rate of fire? These were competent tank crews. Thanks!
 

olli

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
8,270
Reaction score
1,830
Location
Scotland
Country
llGermany
Hive mind, I need to SSR a counter to represent the T-34 armed with a 57L gun (or 57LL?) in 1941 so I'm using a T-34 M41 (but they had radios as a bonus) and wondering if the higher rate of fire 57L would have a ROF of 0 (like most T-34s) or a 1 (or 2?) with the higher rate of fire? These were competent tank crews. Thanks!
Contact Alan Findlay/ Broken Ground Design, pretty sure he has these counters in his Russian sets CH have also done counters for them in the Russian Rare Vehicle packs #1
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,426
Reaction score
3,365
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Hive mind, I need to SSR a counter to represent the T-34 armed with a 57L gun (or 57LL?) in 1941 so I'm using a T-34 M41 (but they had radios as a bonus) and wondering if the higher rate of fire 57L would have a ROF of 0 (like most T-34s) or a 1 (or 2?) with the higher rate of fire? These were competent tank crews. Thanks!
83078308

Not done the vehicle notes yet....
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,426
Reaction score
3,365
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
The vehicle had a lower RoF than might be expected for the size of the gun due to the loader also being the tank commander. He had too many jobs to do in combat.
You could argue for a higher RoF when the vehicle was dug in as then he's not trying to tell someone where to go.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
RoF is a subjective thing, but I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and give a RoF of [1].
The vehicle had a lower RoF than might be expected for the size of the gun due to the loader also being the tank commander.
While with some T-34 (76mm) crews the commander could double job as anyone, one account had the commander as driver, the commander usually doubled as gunner, not loader. This is in contrast to British practice for their few 2MT (Light Tank Mk VI, Valentine II, Crusader III) where the commander did indeed double as loader. The British thinking was that peering through a gunsight, tracking a target, was too concentration and time intensive for a double job crewman. In ASL a Soviet 2MT (except the T-80) is a RST (ditto Italian), while British 2MT are ST.

The T-34 m40/m41 have RST and [0] RoF, while the T-34 m43 with the exact same crew assignments has RST and [1] due to a bit more elbow space in the turret. While the 57mm rounds were roughly as long, they were lighter, so I would be inclined to up the RoF to [1]. This would also follow the existing pattern of giving guns ≤ 57mm a RoF of [2] for T and [1] for ST/RST.
 
Last edited:

xenovin

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
1,983
Reaction score
1,165
Location
Skynet
First name
Vincent
Country
llUnited States
You gents are great - thank you!
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Hive mind, I need to SSR a counter to represent the T-34 armed with a 57L gun (or 57LL?) in 1941 so I'm using a T-34 M41 (but they had radios as a bonus) and wondering if the higher rate of fire 57L would have a ROF of 0 (like most T-34s) or a 1 (or 2?) with the higher rate of fire? These were competent tank crews. Thanks!
Since there is no official counter, design for effect. If you put ROF 2/3, you likely need fewer of them. I wonder at the radio's though. I recall there were some 200 of these 57LL's variants made and most of them died early in Barbarossa (Smolensk?). They accounted themselves fairly well as I recall. -- jim
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Since there is no official counter, design for effect. If you put ROF 2/3, you likely need fewer of them. I wonder at the radio's though. I recall there were some 200 of these 57LL's variants made and most of them died early in Barbarossa (Smolensk?). They accounted themselves fairly well as I recall. -- jim
This I have to strongly disagree with. No vehicle with a MA in the 50-57mm range has a RoF >[2] and the few with RoF of [2] are all 3MT, rated "T" in ASL. Most T-34/57 were based on the M41 with the cramped turret and built in '41 and I suggested a RoF of [1]. There were, I believe, a small number built in late '42 or early '43 and they might have been based upon the slightly larger turreted m43. For those I would also recommend them to have a RoF of [1], a [2] being I feel a step too far, though somewhat more marginal.

While ASL has a lot of Design For Effect as its basis, vehicular and TK data is one of the areas where a more measured approach is possible and has been done. It turned the original SL from a good game to a game where the nerds can feel quite at home. I remember being horrified that CH in one of their "modules" rated the armour of their T-54/55 at "8", the same as a Sherman, their being so many other "soft" ways (eg 6+1 crews) to portray the difference in performance between Israeli and Arab armour. Using "soft" tweaks as opposed to butchering hard data also gives players with a historical bent more correct lessons from history.

ASL is not history, at best it gives a taste of history, but let us not deviate even further.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,071
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Using "soft" tweaks as opposed to butchering hard data also gives players with a historical bent more correct lessons from history.

ASL is not history, at best it gives a taste of history, but let us not deviate even further.
Meh. It's a game. Not history. It's not that great of a deviation. Furthermore, I was not suggesting a ROF of 2/3, just reminding that if you add a ROF >1, there are balanced issues to consider. -- jim
 

JRKrejsa

Elder Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
3,667
Reaction score
1,094
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
I’d just like to see one of those things in a non-CH scenario.

Would be quite the tank in ‘41.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Would be quite the tank in ‘41.
While you would get 20% more non-IF shots, you have a 2 column decrease with your HE, never mind the HE7. Against AFV the best German armour is (6) and with a T-34 m41 you already have a 7 (hull) or 9 (turret) TK advantage whilst being practically frontally proof against anything lighter than an 88. The Soviets came to the same conclusion and decides the extra AP performance was not worth the HE decrease, don't forget tanks engage non armour far, far more often than armour. A typical ammo load-out for many nations was roughly 1/3 AP and 2/3 HE.

In late '42 or '43 the extra AP performance would have been a definite bonus as by then the Germans had the Pz IV F2 & H, never mind handfuls of Tigers and Panthers. The gun and its towed version, the ZiS-2 was the best in the 50-57mm class. Though ASL rates the ZiS-2 and the British/US 6lbr the same, the ZiS, through its stages of upgrade of AP shot ‡, managed to keep a 10-20mm penetration advantage. Only with APDS did the 6lbr catch up with the ZiS-2's APCR.

‡ ASL's TK numbers seem to be based on the best AP shot type available during the war. So a gun might start the war firing plain AP or APHE then get APC (Armour Piercing Capped) and finally APCBC (AP Capped Ballistic Cap). Each newer generation of shot gaining some penetration or was better able to deal with face hardened or sloped armour or better at long range. With HEAT there often were improvements in the shaped charge design that gained penetration. As an example the Germans had 75mm PaK 97/38 HEAT, the Hl/A to Hl/C series where the penetration went from 75mm to 90mm. With APDS or APCR there was not the same improvement steps, at least until post-war.
 

bprobst

Elder Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
2,533
Reaction score
1,438
Location
Melbourne, Australia
First name
Bruce
Country
llAustralia
Would be quite the tank in ‘41.
You have to remember the official viewpoint.

The T-34-57 was initially proposed as a tank destroyer in 1941 (because yes, that gun destroyed tanks!). However after a brief trial period it was shelved because (a) the 76mm gun was just as capable of destroying any German tank in 1941 and (b) the 57mm was considered to have an ineffective HE round for use against infantry. The T-34 was intended to be an all-purpose AFV. (There was perhaps also an element of "don't complicate the build process by making the factories choose between two different types of guns".)

In 1942-43 the concept was revisited because the Germans were beginning to field armoured vehicles that the 76mm had trouble destroying and it was realised something better was needed. While the 57mm was definitely better, it still had that pesky HE round limitation, and there was certainly no desire to replace the T-34 fleet with a new series of tanks that couldn't effectively deal with soft targets. Therefore development of the 85mm gun was seen as a superior solution (and it was).
 
Top