indigenous The best WW2 tank ever made by a minor nation: Hungary's 44M Tas

[JamesPond1200@psn 299]

9 minutes ago, RavenousElf said:

I disagree that it is irrelevant to point out how inconsistent the standards seem to be and the desperate need of solid ones.

The Yak-141, F-16AJ, R2Y2, and others should be enough to validate this, as it has even more realism than they do.

[WayOfTheWolk 1,573]

1 hour ago, Victory_799@psn said:

No, that's just wrong. This 80 mm gun is an 80.0 mm gun, not a 75 mm gun. And no it is not a licence built Bofors 75mm Model 1929 AA gun. Let me explain the confusion: The Swedish developed the Bofors 75mm Model 1929 AA gun, but also developed an almost identical 80 mm AA gun version. The Hungarians purchased some 80 mm AA gun versions, and I think the licence too. The Hungarians either used/licence made this gun under the Hungarian designation of 29/38M AA gun, or they modified the Swedish 80 mm and named the new modified gun the 29/38M AA gun. Then to develop this 80 mm 29/38M AA gun further, they heavily modified the 29/38M gun and they named the new gun the 29/44M gun. So the 29/44M gun is not a 75 mm gun and is not a licence built Bofors gun either. I also don't know what you mean about a "Hungarian tradition of rounding up gun calibres", I have never come across such a thing or any examples of it.

 

However, I do agree with the second part of your comment. There really is no good reason for not allowing the 80 mm gun in War Thunder.

I have never heard of an 80mm Bofors gun in any of their older company catalogs, I will have to do some research on this specific gun now that you've informed me. I am aware certain guns such as the 66mm L.18 carried the 7cm Skoda designation in Hungarian service which did not reflect the actual bore diameter. I assumed it was the same treatment for this 29/44M gun. 

[Victory_799@psn 101]

9 minutes ago, WayOfTheWolk said:

I have never heard of an 80mm Bofors gun in any of their older company catalogs, I will have to do some research on this specific gun now that you've informed me. I am aware certain guns such as the 66mm L.18 carried the 7cm Skoda designation in Hungarian service which did not reflect the actual bore diameter. I assumed it was the same treatment for this 29/44M gun. 

Well the Bofors 80 mm gun was nowhere near as famous as other Bofors guns such as the 40 mm. You could look through the Wikipedia page here which talks about both the 75 mm and 80 mm Bofors gun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_75_mm_Model_1929

[Headnaught 502]

You can bring up the R2Y2, E-100, F-16AJ, Yak-141, etc. as many times as you want, it's not changing anything. As has already been said, our standards for what vehicles can be admitted as a suggestion are not identical to what Gaijin deems acceptable to implement. There's no point splitting hairs over this, we have discussed this as a team multiple times and came to the conclusion that the hypothetical 80mm armed variant of this vehicle does not meet our criteria. If you want to say "I want this added, but also with the 80mm" then that's fine, but arguing more about our decision will be off-topic and completely unproductive.

[Victory_799@psn 101]

4 minutes ago, Headnaught said:

You can bring up the R2Y2, E-100, F-16AJ, Yak-141, etc. as many times as you want, it's not changing anything. As has already been said, our standards for what vehicles can be admitted as a suggestion are not identical to what Gaijin deems acceptable to implement.

Ok, yes I understand.

4 minutes ago, Headnaught said:

There's no point splitting hairs over this, we have discussed this as a team multiple times and came to the conclusion that the hypothetical 80mm armed variant of this vehicle does not meet our criteria. If you want to say "I want this added, but also with the 80mm" then that's fine, but arguing more about our decision will be off-topic and completely unproductive.

But how did you arrive at that conclusion? What about the 80 mm gun disqualifies it? How is it any different from any other tank gun? And also you call it a "hypothetical 80mm armed variant of this vehicle", but it isn't a variant at all, it is the original tank, if anything, we can say that the 75 mm gun is the "new variant" as it came into the picture later. The tank is exactly the same, the only difference is what gun it has, that's like saying "this wooden gun inside the Tiger I counts as a new variant". The engineers never even referred to them as different vehicles or variants or anything, it was one project, one model of tank that needed a temporary replacement gun. Also I don't agree with saying it is a hypothetical vehicle, as the Tas was being built and the blueprints/design they were following included the 80 mm gun rather than the 75 mm one, so it seems they really were building the "80 mm Tas", they just never finished or got to the stage where they mount the 80 mm gun (or the 75 mm gun).

 

I'm sorry for dragging this out for so long, but I truly don't see the problem. All I see is people telling me to suggest the tank in its temporary "budget" form.

[Headnaught 502]

4 minutes ago, Victory_799@psn said:

What about the 80 mm gun disqualifies it?

 

The fact that it's an anti-aircraft gun that happened to be chosen for this tank. That would be like saying the 88mm FlaK was made for the VFW. And regardless of what the tank was designed with, we have to look at what it would have been. For example, the TTD was designed to use a 120mm cannon, but is in game with a 105mm because that's all it was built with (or in your case, going to be built with.) Like I said, there is no point to dragging this out any further. You can disagree with our reasoning but don't bloat the comment thread with any more arguments.

[Victory_799@psn 101]

2 minutes ago, Headnaught said:

The fact that it's an anti-aircraft gun that happened to be chosen for this tank. That would be like saying the 88mm FlaK was made for the VFW.

But the Tas was to be armed with an anti-tank conversion of the 29/44M though, not the AA gun itself, right? 

2 minutes ago, Headnaught said:

And regardless of what the tank was designed with, we have to look at what it would have been. For example, the TTD was designed to use a 120mm cannon, but is in game with a 105mm because that's all it was built with (or in your case, going to be built with.) 

Well at first it would have been a 75 mm armed Tas, but then later the same vehicle (as far as I understand) would have its gun replaced by the 80 mm gun, so the Tas hull that was made was going to be both a "Tas 75 mm" and a "Tas 80 mm" at one point.

2 minutes ago, Headnaught said:

Like I said, there is no point to dragging this out any further. You can disagree with our reasoning but don't bloat the comment thread with any more arguments.

Yes I see, you don't want to hear about it. But is there nothing we can show you that would change your/your team's mind/minds?

[PacketlossRedux 595]

okay, i have deleted this comment as i made some gross mistakes in claims, regarding the performance of the 75mm L/43 gun vs Gaijins implementation of it, that i thankfully realised due to Victory's questions

 

But the rest of the claims still stand regarding the wrong shell and penetration on the Turan II, the missing APCR and less than realistic HEAT pen of the 75mm L/43 gun.

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by PacketlossRedux

[PacketlossRedux 595]

having read the linked Haditechnika source on the development of the 80mm gun it is pretty clear that the gun was intended for usage in the TAS, but due to the Russian invasion it never materialised and as such the 75mm was chosen as stopgap solution.

 

Edit: the information on the hungarianweaponry website is based on @Hebime's  research conducted in the Military History Museum and Archives, Budapest. It has some mistakes as time has passed since Hebimes research, but its one of the few reliable sources based on real research of archive data.

Edited March 24, 2023 by PacketlossRedux

[Victory_799@psn 101]

5 hours ago, PacketlossRedux said:

iam a bit frightened by the 75mm TAS as when Gaijin added the gun with the Zrínyi, it was a simple copy and paste from the German KwK 40 L/48 cannon. The problem is not only that Gaijin just c&p the KwK performance but it also performs worse.( i went back to double check and read Hebime's research again and "According to archive Hungarian documents the Hungarian 75 mm 43.M L/43 tank gun had the very same armor penetration as the German 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/43." ) Which means Gaijin C&P the wrong gun too.

 

The gun is also missing APCR and has less HEAT pen than what sources state. Even according to the military history museum and archives in Hungary, there was German APCR available. This knowledge was forwarded amongst others to Gaijin by forum staff member Hebime, who conducted research in the archives of the military history museum, and Gaijin threw all of that in the trash bin judging by the work they have done on the Toldi, Turan and Zrínyi. 

 

• Turan II still has the wrong shell with much less pen than what it should have, the report for it has been ignored -by now- for 13 months
• Zrínyi I most likely has the c@p and wrong KwK cannon, when the Hungarian 75mm was developed from the PaK 40's license that was bought in 1943. 
• no APCR and less HEAT pen.
• The Turan III and Zrínyi I both had a 75mm L/43 cannon developed from the PaK 40 and the TAS would have had an L/46 version

 

So these should be sorted out with Gaijin before any TAS gets into the game, cause if not, the result will be an un-historical, underwhelming and overtiered tank that will be a huge let down for everyone, just like the Zrínyi I.

 

Unfortunately Gaijin does not have a historical consultant for the HU content either. So as much as i would absolutely love to see the TAS in the game i also would rather not have it, than have an absolutely butchered version.

 

Isn't the Zrinyi I also missing 25 mm of frontal armour as well? I agree it is really sad when more obscure vehicles such as the Hungarian tanks get added with inaccuracies and perform far worse than they should (meanwhile Soviet tanks seem to perform in an absolute best-case fantasy scenario). It makes the average player think "Oh well Hungarian tanks seem to be a bit bad", giving false impressions to millions of people, such as when OddBawz made a video saying how the Zrinyi I was so bad (it really isn't, even with the historical inaccuracies). I see the point you are trying to make, the dilemma is have the tank but with inaccuracies, or don't have the tank at all. I would rather have the tank with small inaccuracies than not have it at all, but of course this can be fixed by Gaijin just caring a little bit. You said that the Tas' 75 mm 43.M is an L/46 rather than an L/43, you are 100% sure of this right? Also, would this affect the performance of the gun in any way and how?

39 minutes ago, PacketlossRedux said:

having read the linked Haditechnika source on the development of the 80mm gun it is pretty clear that the gun was intended for usage in the TAS, but due to the Russian invasion it never materialised and as such the 75mm was chosen as stopgap solution.

 

Edit: the information on the hungarianweaponry website is based on Hebime's research conducted in the Military History Museum and Archives, Budapest. It has some mistakes as time has passed since Hebimes research, but its one of the few reliable sources based on real research of archive data.

When you say the "hungarianweaponry website is based on Hebime's research" (and is thus reliable and accurate), are you talking about this site: https://hungarianweaponryww2.wixsite.com/hungarianmilitaryww2/single-post/2018/03/27/the-44m-tas-prototype-heavy-tank

And if you are, then surely the 75 mm 43.M L/46's data is wrong on this site as it lists the APHEBC-T penetration as 113 mm and less (depending on angle and distance), whereas in War Thunder, the 75 mm 43.M has 145 mm of penetration (and less) on its APCBC round. That's a pretty significant difference.

[PacketlossRedux 595]

2 hours ago, Victory_799@psn said:

Isn't the Zrinyi I also missing 25 mm of frontal armour as well? I agree it is really sad when more obscure vehicles such as the Hungarian tanks get added with inaccuracies and perform far worse than they should (meanwhile Soviet tanks seem to perform in an absolute best-case fantasy scenario). It makes the average player think "Oh well Hungarian tanks seem to be a bit bad", giving false impressions to millions of people, such as when OddBawz made a video saying how the Zrinyi I was so bad (it really isn't, even with the historical inaccuracies). I see the point you are trying to make, the dilemma is have the tank but with inaccuracies, or don't have the tank at all. I would rather have the tank with small inaccuracies than not have it at all, but of course this can be fixed by Gaijin just caring a little bit. You said that the Tas' 75 mm 43.M is an L/46 rather than an L/43, you are 100% sure of this right? Also, would this affect the performance of the gun in any way and how?

i will look into this further, but Hebime told me that it was L/46 when we were making a suggestion for another game...i still have the pm's so i went back and checked. 

 

2 hours ago, Victory_799@psn said:

When you say the "hungarianweaponry website is based on Hebime's research" (and is thus reliable and accurate), are you talking about this site: https://hungarianweaponryww2.wixsite.com/hungarianmilitaryww2/single-post/2018/03/27/the-44m-tas-prototype-heavy-tank

yes. But take it with a grain of salt cause its relatively old.

2 hours ago, Victory_799@psn said:

And if you are, then surely the 75 mm 43.M L/46's data is wrong on this site as it lists the APHEBC-T penetration as 113 mm and less (depending on angle and distance), whereas in War Thunder, the 75 mm 43.M has 145 mm of penetration (and less) on its APCBC round. That's a pretty significant difference.

That is a discrepancy indeed and the 113mm at 90 degrees on a 100m is indeed wrong. That comes from the firing tables of the L/43 and should not be listed under the L/46. 
As bellow it its correctly stated that : 

"Since the Hungarian 75 mm 43.M L/43 tank gun had the same armor penetration as the German 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/43 and 7.5 cm PaK 40 L/43 - according to archive Hungarian documents - the Tas' 75 mm 43.M L/46 tank gun would also have the same armor penetration as the German 7.5 cm PaK 40 L/46"

Spoiler

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by PacketlossRedux

[atta26hu 108]

On 24/03/2023 at 19:53, Victory_799@psn said:

Isn't the Zrinyi I also missing 25 mm of frontal armour as well? I agree it is really sad when more obscure vehicles such as the Hungarian tanks get added with inaccuracies and perform far worse than they should (meanwhile Soviet tanks seem to perform in an absolute best-case fantasy scenario). It makes the average player think "Oh well Hungarian tanks seem to be a bit bad", giving false impressions to millions of people, such as when OddBawz made a video saying how the Zrinyi I was so bad (it really isn't, even with the historical inaccuracies). I see the point you are trying to make, the dilemma is have the tank but with inaccuracies, or don't have the tank at all. I would rather have the tank with small inaccuracies than not have it at all, but of course this can be fixed by Gaijin just caring a little bit. You said that the Tas' 75 mm 43.M is an L/46 rather than an L/43, you are 100% sure of this right? Also, would this affect the performance of the gun in any way and how?

When you say the "hungarianweaponry website is based on Hebime's research" (and is thus reliable and accurate), are you talking about this site: https://hungarianweaponryww2.wixsite.com/hungarianmilitaryww2/single-post/2018/03/27/the-44m-tas-prototype-heavy-tank

And if you are, then surely the 75 mm 43.M L/46's data is wrong on this site as it lists the APHEBC-T penetration as 113 mm and less (depending on angle and distance), whereas in War Thunder, the 75 mm 43.M has 145 mm of penetration (and less) on its APCBC round. That's a pretty significant difference.

I was sad when OddBawz made that video of the Zrínyi I, it is not that bad as he portrays it and with the inaccuracies like you said it gives false impression of the vehicle to many people.

 

For the Zrínyi I armor I dont know if its 100mm or the same as the Zrínyi II with 75mm, because Karika who made several hungarian tank topics on the world of tanks forum wrote that its 75mm and not 100mm, I dont know how true is that information. But the Zrínyi I mantlet needs to be 75mm and not 50mm, and the lower front plate needs to be 50mm+25mm and not 15mm+35mm or whatever it is ingame and etc.

Edited May 30, 2023 by atta26hu

[PacketlossRedux 595]

1 hour ago, PacketlossRedux said:

You said that the Tas' 75 mm 43.M is an L/46 rather than an L/43, you are 100% sure of this right? Also, would this affect the performance of the gun in any way and how?

Thank you for asking questions cause you made me ask questions myself and go back to re read my communications with Hebime. So to correct myself.

 

Yes Hebime wrote that the third gun was made with L/46 length. And yes that would mean better performance than the L/43

 

Regarding Gaijins implementation of the 75mm L43 gun:

 

There is the KwK L/43, L/48 and the PaK L/46.

The 43.M L/43 was a shortened PaK variant with bigger chamber than the KwK, Therefore its penetration was between the KwK L/48 and the PaK L/46. So gaijin didn't mess up the L/43 penetration. I was wrong to claim that they did.

The 43.M L/46 should be practically the same as the PaK L/46 at 792m/s muzzle velocity

 

Edited March 24, 2023 by PacketlossRedux

[OpusAudereSemper 80]

+1 perfect add for hungarian subtree in italian tech tree ! good job !

[Victory_799@psn 101]

49 minutes ago, PacketlossRedux said:

Thank you for asking questions cause you made me ask questions myself and go back to re read my communications with Hebime. So to correct myself.

 

Yes Hebime wrote that the third gun was made with L/46 length. And yes that would mean better performance than the L/43

 

Regarding Gaijins implementation of the 75mm L43 gun:

 

There is the KwK L/43, L/48 and the PaK L/46.

The 43.M L/43 was a shortened PaK variant with bigger chamber than the KwK, Therefore its penetration was between the KwK L/48 and the PaK L/46. So gaijin didn't mess up the L/43 penetration. I was wrong to claim that they did.

The 43.M L/46 should be practically the same as the PaK L/46 at 792m/s muzzle velocity

 

No problem, I was just being curious. So the 75 mm 43.M L/43 has the correct penetration values in WT right? Are all of its statistics correct too or are there some mistakes because I heard that it should have more explosives in the APCBC round. And will the 75 mm 43.M L/46 have a bit more penetration than the L/43? Also was the third 43.M gun (the L/46 one made for the Tas) actually finished, or just being made? And should the L/43 and L/46 get APCR shells or not? I will have to update my post if it was an L/46 version for the Tas instead of an L/43.

[PacketlossRedux 595]

16 hours ago, Victory_799@psn said:

No problem, I was just being curious. So the 75 mm 43.M L/43 has the correct penetration values in WT right? Are all of its statistics correct too or are there some mistakes because I heard that it should have more explosives in the APCBC round.

well Gaijin calculates penetration with their own formula, so based on what we know its correct. I dont know much about the explosive filler..we were more fixated on the APCR,HEAT shell and the incorrect armor values...

16 hours ago, Victory_799@psn said:

And will the 75 mm 43.M L/46 have a bit more penetration than the L/43?

yes it has more pen and a higher muzzle velocity compared to the L/43.

16 hours ago, Victory_799@psn said:

Also was the third 43.M gun (the L/46 one made for the Tas) actually finished, or just being made?

Well the iron sample vehicle was not fully assembled, and the 75mm was chosen and intended for that vehicle. It was definitely commissioned to be made for it. Honestly it can be either of the two due to the lack of information. The production line existed for it and already made two in the L/43 length..

16 hours ago, Victory_799@psn said:

And should the L/43 and L/46 get APCR shells or not?

These are basically PaK 40 guns license built. These used the same ammo whether in a tank or as an anti tank gun. Even the Hungarian Military History Museum claims in one of their video that we had APCR for these guns albeit in limited quantity... so the L/43 getting APCR depends on us getting a good source for proof...

 

In case of the L/46 we are entering what if category as the war closed in, but if we can prove that the Germans supplied APCR for our license built 75mm PaK 40 guns, all barrel length versions should be eligible for it.

 

16 hours ago, Victory_799@psn said:

I will have to update my post if it was an L/46 version for the Tas instead of an L/43.

I trust Hebime and his work but unfortunately i dont have a picture or a copy of a document to provide for this. There are most likely other sources too...and i know that Hebime's research data was forwarded to Gaijin with the Italian-Hungarian tech tree suggestion years before.....So ..maybe just mention it

 

 

Edited March 25, 2023 by PacketlossRedux

[Victory_799@psn 101]

@PacketlossRedux, you say you trust @Hebime's research and work, and showed me Hebime's firing tables for the 75 mm 43.M L/43, which he said he got from the actual Hungarian military archives in Budapest. On this table the 43.M L/43 has 113 mm of penetration and less, whereas in War Thunder it is 145 mm and less, are the firing tables from the archives wrong? Or does it have too much penetration in War Thunder? I don't understand, please explain.

[TerikG2014 1,389]

8 hours ago, Victory_799@psn said:

does it have too much penetration in War Thunder? I don't understand, please explain.

Gaijen don't use firing tables to calculate  shell performance  and instead use formula  to calculate them therefor they will deviate from firing table estimates.

[PacketlossRedux 595]

10 hours ago, Victory_799@psn said:

@PacketlossRedux, you say you trust @Hebime's research and work, and showed me Hebime's firing tables for the 75 mm 43.M L/43, which he said he got from the actual Hungarian military archives in Budapest. On this table the 43.M L/43 has 113 mm of penetration and less, whereas in War Thunder it is 145 mm and less, are the firing tables from the archives wrong? Or does it have too much penetration in War Thunder? I don't understand, please explain.

 

1 hour ago, TerikG2014 said:

Gaijen don't use firing tables to calculate  shell performance  and instead use formula  to calculate them therefor they will deviate from firing table estimates.

 

yep. A while back Gaijin decided to not use sources like firing tables because many times different sources stated different values, so they went with (if i remember correctly )using

• caliber
• shell weight
• shell type
• weight of explosive mass
• muzzle velocity to calculate penetration...

 

i shared the firing table to show, from where did those penetrations stats came from that were wrongly listed under the L/46 gun too.

Edited March 25, 2023 by PacketlossRedux

[Victory_799@psn 101]

 

2 hours ago, TerikG2014 said:

Gaijen don't use firing tables to calculate  shell performance  and instead use formula  to calculate them therefor they will deviate from firing table estimates.

57 minutes ago, PacketlossRedux said:

 

 

yep. A while back Gaijin decided to not use sources like firing tables because many times different sources stated different values, so they went with (if i remember correctly )using

• caliber
• shell weight
• shell type
• weight of explosive mass
• muzzle velocity to calculate penetration...

 

i shared the firing table to show, from where did those penetrations stats came from that were wrongly listed under the L/46 gun too.

Ok I see, so they're both correct, but Gaijin does their own thing when calculating penetration. But does that mean that Gaijin also makes every tank have more armour in War Thunder? Because if they don't and they leave the armour values as they were in real life, then in War Thunder a gun will be able to penetrate a tank that it couldn't in real life right? Imagine a tank with 130 mm of frontal armour in real life. Since the 75 mm 43.M L/43 has 113 mm of penetration, it can't penetrate this tank, but in War Thunder it will be able to because it has 145 mm of penetration. That is unless in War Thunder that tank gets 160 mm of frontal armour instead. So surely what tank can penetrate what is completely unrealistic in War Thunder.

Edited March 25, 2023 by Victory_799@psn

[PacketlossRedux 595]

35 minutes ago, Victory_799@psn said:

 

Ok I see, so they're both correct, but Gaijin does their own thing when calculating penetration. But does that mean that Gaijin also makes every tank have more armour in War Thunder? Because if they don't and they leave the armour values as they were in real life, then in War Thunder a gun will be able to penetrate a tank that it couldn't in real life right? Imagine a tank with 130 mm of frontal armour in real life. Since the 75 mm 43.M L/43 has 113 mm of penetration, it can't penetrate this tank, but in War Thunder it will be able to because it has 145 mm of penetration. That is unless in War Thunder that tank gets 160 mm of frontal armour instead. So surely what tank can penetrate what is completely unrealistic in War Thunder.

 armor should be based on historical sources and measurements with no artificial buffs..i know that historical sources and certain measurements are accepted in historical reports

[Victory_799@psn 101]

Just now, PacketlossRedux said:

 armor should be based on historical sources and measurements with no artificial buffs..i know that historical sources and certain measurements are accepted in historical reports

So that means every tank can penetrate far too much armour in War Thunder? I thought it was supposed to be realistic... 

Oh, and by the way, I'm trying to make a post showing Gaijin that they messed up the in-game visual model of the 34/40M machine gun and its rate of fire, but I can't seem to post anything in that forum. I'm trying to post in Home>Technical>Historical Reports>Ground vehicles and when I click on any of the 5 sub forums, it doesn't allow me to post in any of them, there literally is no button to start a topic! 

No wonder there are barely any posts there. Any idea how I can post this historical inaccuracy report?

[TerikG2014 1,389]

41 minutes ago, Victory_799@psn said:

So that means every tank can penetrate far too much armour in

Some tanks pen more some tanks pen less but it was the only way to get reliable penitentiary  values as when firing tables are produced they aren't done agisnt the same quality material under identical condition  and exactly the same distances which mean they aren't exactly  a reliable means of figuring out how much armour a gun can actually  pen by using the calculator  they can at least cut some of that variability  (at least that's the logic as it was explained to me)

[Victory_799@psn 101]

30 minutes ago, TerikG2014 said:

Some tanks pen more some tanks pen less but it was the only way to get reliable penitentiary  values as when firing tables are produced they aren't done agisnt the same quality material under identical condition  and exactly the same distances which mean they aren't exactly  a reliable means of figuring out how much armour a gun can actually  pen by using the calculator  they can at least cut some of that variability  (at least that's the logic as it was explained to me)

Ok, so the War Thunder penetration values are pretty accurate and life-like?

[_YugoSlav_ 199]

1 hour ago, Victory_799@psn said:

Any idea how I can post this historical inaccuracy report?

Try here: https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder