The one on top is the T-29, but the one in the bottom is an actual sketch of the L-11 armed T-28.
1 Like
oh yeah - so it is - had completely forgotten about that one!
The first picture is a rare t-29 medium tank designed to replace the t-28 but the project was cancelled due to the introduction of t-34 tanks.
And also, t-29 used the same L-10 gun as t-28 did…
The second picture is a drawing
That specific T-29 does use a L-11, by the looks of it.
I think it just kind of looks that way from the angle of the photo - it kind of looks like teh “pig nose” mantlet of the L-11, but it isn’t - it’s jsut he same flat cover for the recuperator as the T-298 L10. My mistake too.
AFAIK there is no evidence that either of the 2 T-29’s ever had the L11 gun.
Barrel’s too long for an L-10.
It is on the drawing - but not in the T-29 photo - compare:
This is the T-28 in Finland with the L-10 gun - it overhangs just slightly in front of the MG turrets - same for the T-29:
are you thinking L-10 is the length in calibers?? It isn’t - the L-10 is a 26.5 caliber gun, so that is 26.5 x 76.2mm = 2.02 meters long.
The earlier gun on both the T-28 and T-29 (and also teh T-26-4 artillery tank) is the KT gun - 16 calibers I think
With this logic, we should get PZ4 F2 instead of PZ3
Pz4f2 is a 1942 tank, T-34 is a 1940 tank. Moscow is 1940-1941.
No. The barrel simply looked longer to me due to the perspective of that picture.
Apart from being outside the battle timeline - with what logic??
1 Like
Enough with asking for that thing
1. Adding Pz-3L is much better than asking for F2 because 3L has better armour and more balanced gun.
And most importantly it was developed in 1941 unlike the Pz 4F2 that was developed in 1942
2. How many times do I have to say that Enlisted ain’t warthunder. All braindead warthunder players think about the F2 and completely ignore the fact that Pz-3L is much more suited for anti-infantry protection.
In Enlisted, Panzer 4F2 will work only as a tank destroyer while Panzer 3L is more of a main battle Tank
Anyways, stop asking for that thing
This game is not Warthunder
1 Like
One could say the same thing about repeated requests for the T-34, when there is absolutely nothing in the current German arsenal to counter it.
1 Like
No,thanks .
I hope never to see the battle of Kursk in Enlisted
1 Like
That’s just worng, idk why you think so man but both the Pz 3 J and the Pz 4 F1 can Destroy the T-34 at any range that we have right now in the game.
(I’ll explain where) Pz 4f1- turret frontal sides, lower frontal plate and higher frontal plate.
PZ 3 J (and every thing that comes after it)- turret frontal sides and higher frontal plate
1 Like
There are players who want t-34 removed
But majority wants t-34 to stay
Look here:
It cannot penetrate the hull without HEAT.
Cannot pen the hull either, as long as its slightly angled.
1 Like
Yes the Pz f1 with HEAT ammunition can pen the front of T-34 EVERY WHERE.
and Pz 3 J1 can pen the lower side of the frontal plate, the neck and the turret frontal sides. May I ask you what rank are you in the soviet side bias chack
1 Like
but it does not get any HEAT in Enlisted, lol. Only HE and APHE.
And we have the Pz3E, not J1.
So when we get the T-34 give it HEAT it isn’t hard.
And add the better Pz 3s…
1 Like
The pz4 is ment to be infantry support. Adding HEAT to it would make it the best tank in the campaign for Germany and make the other tanks obselete. Realistically speaking, the HEAT round was more rare than the APCR for the 37/50mm guns.
And if the devs really wanted to add T-34 they would have added the better Pz3 by now. But we still got a Pz3B soooooooo