[Charles22]

Okay, obviously I took the first T38M1938 I saw and didn't know of the other (the one I took was buried deep enough as it was).

I don't know, but it just seems to me that the effective pricing of armor isn't correct, but it's probably also true that if it's pricing were raised and guns were lower, for example, we would see some other anamoly like Nashorns for ten cents.

Despite it hitting less, I just can't get over the '40 T34 having a gun, that when it hits will smash every enemy AFV, and have the cream of the armor crop (aside from the KV series) and have all that speed, and still is the same encyclopedia price as the pretty much worthless PZIIIE (in the game the T34 would be closer to 50).

Everything the USSR has, even the 46L66 can destroy the PZIIIE, while the only hope for Germany against the T34 is the 88 (before the 50L66 ATG), or in-close infantry, as no AFV gun until 50L42 salvo will dent it. The main things it has going for it a period of invincible armor, top-flight speed, and, if it hits, a very destructive gun.

Again, I just think the 45L66 is overated in punch (not that it's a T34 gun), and if it were doing so well I would have to wonder why the USSR wouldn't have kept just putting that on their AFV's as they were doing with the T35 and such early on. Apparently it was failing in some way. It couldn't be the accuracy of it, because you would think it more accurate than the 76's they came out with (some of the latter 76's being an exception of course).

As well, I hope you guys don't get into the trap that some have, that is the error of comparing the T34 to the Tiger. The T34 isn't really meant to compete with it, that's why they made the KV series, or rather, the Tiger was an answer to the KV series. I believe technically the Panther was the answer to the T34 (though the earlier Tiger could somewhat fill that role, since as with most heavies it could withstand any medium tanks), so people should compare the T34 to that or the PZIVH's and so forth. The reason I mention this is because I've been in arguments with people before (not this board) about the silliness of comparing two completely different tank classes and try to run pricing through that.

The argument went that since the Tiger beat the T34 so much of the time, then the T34 should be a lot cheaper (or Tiger more expensive). With that logic the PZIIIE which is at the same encyclopedic price as the '40 T34, should be a lot cheaper, and it's even in the same class to boot. That would only be valid if comparing the Tiger to the KV. One could make the same dumb argument that the PZIV comes off badly against the KV or JS, and that the PZIV should be a lot cheaper thereby. It's just running in circles to do that, and is only effective, it seems to me, if someone is trying to get their 'favorite', T34 in this case, to not be subjected to the same system that the others were (pricing due to equipment alone, not also based on phoney matches between two mis-matched classes).

Why on earth do people compare a medium tank to a heavy and expect fair pricing from the result? I just don't get it. You could take the same argument to comparing T34's to PZIIC's for example. Let's say one PZIIC costs 30pts. After the battle to determine price, the T34 destroys 100 of them without loss. Does this mean that now the T34 should now be 100X the PZIIC price? It just doesn't work. I know you were talking about the chances of infantry destroying them lowering price, but nonetheless, the PZIIC in this example has the same risk of destruction from infantry does it not (more actually)?

Sorry if I sound a bit frustrated or angry, but that comparing different classes of tanks just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, and to see people still using that as a measuring stick is more irksome still, nonetheless I still think that '40 T34 is too cheap (just the first thing I noticed about the super-cheap USSR equipment).

Thnaks for your response, and I hope I'm not seeing history repeat in the case of any 'battle' pricing aspect there may be.