Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

While looking at some of the armylists, I've noticed that T-34 are rediculously cheap, like 50 points per tank. While Panzer IV is almost 100 points. Since I've havent investigated too much into the rules yet. But in real life I guess T-34 is probably on par with Panzer IV if not better. So Im wondering if Im missing something.

Probably the rating of the troops. The PIvs are driven by better troops.

Go and look at the rules for Soviet Tanks and the ratings of the crews.

Also look at the German, and any other nation's special rules.

The reason why Soviet tanks are drastically reduced in price is that in most lists are crewed by poorer troops and are hit with the Hen and Chicks rule that drastically limits their effectiveness.

Meanwhile, most German tanks are Veteran, and can make use of Stormtrooper movement.

In real life the comparison is a complex one, because it depends which versions you're comparing, and when.

The initial version of the T-34 was superior to the contemporary version of the Panzer IV. At that stage, the Panzer IV was a support tank, with a short-barreled 75mm gun that was not particularly effective against armour. The T-34 had a better gun, better (sloped) armour and better mobility. However, it also had a cramped turret and poor optics, and most T-34s didn't have radios. Despite their reputation for reliability, T-34's were crudely constructed, and suffered from mechanical faults. T-34 crews were also poorly trained, and they were rarely used well. By contrast, Panzer crews were highly trained and experienced, and this combined with better tactics and superior communications gave them the edge. However, the T-34 gave the Panzer crews a nasty shock, because it was (technically) a generation ahead of the Panzer IV.

With the introduction of the long 75mm in 1942, from the Ausf Fs onwards (a direct response to the superior armament of Soviet medium and heavy tanks), the Panzer IV became far more effective than the T-34. The Panzer IV's 75mm outranged the T-34's 76.2mm, and was more accurate, even though the 76.2mm could penetrate the Panzer IV's armour. The Panzer crews still had a big advantage in terms of tactics and training. This lasted into 1943. Panzers tended to win tank battles, but by this time the real enemy was probably the anti-tank gun - the standard Soviet 57mm anti-tank gun could penetrate the Panzer IV's armour, and was used in huge numbers.

By 1944 the Soviets have introduced the T-34/85, with a better designed turret and a more powerful gun. This version outclassed the Panzer IV in most respects, but probably not by much (the T-34/85 looks better on paper than it actually was). As always when making these comparisions, you have to remember that it was a war of attritition, and the fact that T-34s were available in huge numbers was as important as any other factor.

One Group of tanks driven by a general educated, well disciplined and well trained troops. The other crewed by ill educated peasants (generally), poorly trained and badly equipped. You give them the same tanks and the Educated disciplined ones will come out on top 9 times out of 10.

That's not a million miles from the attitude that the Germans themselves had towards their opponents. And we all know how that turned out.

Tailgunner wrote:That's not a million miles from the attitude that the Germans themselves had towards their opponents. And we all know how that turned out.

Germans forgot that although quality tends to beat quantity, this does not always work with human beings. Also, they forgot that quantity, if multiplied x times and splashed with hatred and brute determination, will beat quality 9 times of 10. This and that roads do not exist in Russia, especially in winter.

Russians usually field cheap and chips troops. Not the best stats but rely on sheer numbers (can easily field +21 tanks in a list sometimes)

Although by late war, they're just as good as anyone else skill. Though they still have Hen and Chicks , with the exception of their heavies

Heh, roads and logistics...that is one of the issues seldom talked about in the war and impossible to "play" in a wargame, but in its own way, BF does take into account.

Look at most of the German entries...panzergrenidiers have trucks as an optional purchase. The bulk of the artilery is pulled by optional horses. The German army, to a large extent, just did not have the logisitics to support the extended warfront they were fighting.

Once you left the relatively "industrial" confines of Poland roads and even rail disappeared. Your Panzer IV might be technically superior and driven by superiorly trained troops, but it just took one good shot by a T-34 and now resupply was weeks away...months if it was late winter or worse spring.

The Russians on the other hand just had to go the next village over for a warm body, and you even had situations where the next new tank was being built on the other side of the building you were currently fighting in.

They had the same crappy road problems, they just had a shorter distance to drive on them.

Short of a campaign though, and an extended one at that, you just can't realistically take it into acount.

The points system in FOW also reflects the overall availability of a particular unit, therefore rarer units tend to cost more points. Russia produced (and imported) HUGE amounts of armoured vehicles (and subsequently lost huge amounts). Russia had a huge amount of resources to draw on, scattered heavy industries meant there wasn't much loss from capture/bombing, and the Lend-Lease programs helped immensely.

Germany constantly had problems producing enough armoured vehicles to keep up with demand, which is why there are so many captured/looted vehicles used by the Wehrmacht and SS throughout the war. The SS-Das Reich actually used a good number of captured T-34s in the MW period. Germany had relatively few resources outside of their captured territory, massed heavy industrial areas that suffered heavily from Allied bombing, highly technical tanks that took longer to produce.

Tailgunner wrote:In real life the comparison is a complex one, because it depends which versions you're comparing, and when.

The initial version of the T-34 was superior to the contemporary version of the Panzer IV. At that stage, the Panzer IV was a support tank, with a short-barreled 75mm gun that was not particularly effective against armour. The T-34 had a better gun, better (sloped) armour and better mobility. However, it also had a cramped turret and poor optics, and most T-34s didn't have radios. Despite their reputation for reliability, T-34's were crudely constructed, and suffered from mechanical faults. T-34 crews were also poorly trained, and they were rarely used well. By contrast, Panzer crews were highly trained and experienced, and this combined with better tactics and superior communications gave them the edge. However, the T-34 gave the Panzer crews a nasty shock, because it was (technically) a generation ahead of the Panzer IV.

With the introduction of the long 75mm in 1942, from the Ausf Fs onwards (a direct response to the superior armament of Soviet medium and heavy tanks), the Panzer IV became far more effective than the T-34. The Panzer IV's 75mm outranged the T-34's 76.2mm, and was more accurate, even though the 76mm could penetrate the Panzer IV's armour. The Panzer crews still had a big advantage in terms of tactics and training. This lasted into 1943. Panzers tended to win tank battles, but by this time the real enemy was probably the anti-tank gun - the standard Soviet 57mm anti-tank gun could penetrate the Panzer IV's armour, and was used in huge numbers.

By 1944 the Soviets have introduced the T-34/85, with a better designed turret and a more powerful gun. This version outclassed the Panzer IV in most respects, but probably not by much (the T-34/85 looks better on paper than it actually was). As always when making these comparisions, you have to remember that it was a war of attritition, and the fact that T-34s were available in huge numbers was as important as any other factor.

Having just read "Panzer Leader", Guderian talks a lot about the logistical issues the early model PzIIIs and IVs faced between the capitulation of France and Operation Barbarossa.

The short-barreled main guns were a huge handicap, even when facing the heavy British tanks in 1940 and were nearly useless against the heavy Russian armour. He did everything in his power to get the OKH/OKW and Hitler to arm them adequately before Barbarossa but was over-ruled. As such, the Panzer Divisions suffered immensely when faced with concentrated attacks by all heavy Russian armour - not just the T-34. Add to this the fact that nearly all German anti-tank guns in the first months of Barbarossa were unable to penetrate Russian tank armor and the problem that Hitler kept dispersing the Panzergruppes before the autumn rains turned the roads into a quagmire and you can see why Barbarossa failed.

I remember reading an excerpt from a diary written by one of Germans: After those rains we can't drive anymore. We are digging, not driving. We wish frost would start sooner". His wish was granted - as soon as Panzers almost drowned in mud, frost hit them.

ancientsociety wrote:Having just read "Panzer Leader", Guderian talks a lot about the logistical issues the early model PzIIIs and IVs faced between the capitulation of France and Operation Barbarossa.

The short-barreled main guns were a huge handicap, even when facing the heavy British tanks in 1940 and were nearly useless against the heavy Russian armour. He did everything in his power to get the OKH/OKW and Hitler to arm them adequately before Barbarossa but was over-ruled. As such, the Panzer Divisions suffered immensely when faced with concentrated attacks by all heavy Russian armour - not just the T-34. Add to this the fact that nearly all German anti-tank guns in the first months of Barbarossa were unable to penetrate Russian tank armor and the problem that Hitler kept dispersing the Panzergruppes before the autumn rains turned the roads into a quagmire and you can see why Barbarossa failed.

You have to remember that people like Guderian, writing relatively soon after the war, were anxious to paint themselves in as good a light as possible and to blame Hitler for everything that went wrong.

It's absolutely true that logistics was a major issue for the Germans in Russia, and it was an area where they consistently came up short - mostly because they didn't gear up for total war until it was far too late, while Britain and the Soviet Union did so immediately (the USA didn't need to!). But that is all getting rather beyond the OP's question, which asked how the T-34 compared to the Panzer IV.

Vertrucio wrote:Go and look at the rules for Soviet Tanks and the ratings of the crews.

QFT! OP, play a few games using a Trained German list, give them H&C, and see how well it works out. It's difficult to appreciate how much those two factors hurt the Sov's effectiveness without experiencing the PITA that is a Platoon wide +1 to hit if ANY team in the platoon moves