• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Best and worst of suggestion - Look here before posting

1. Take a careful look at the rear end of the Ausf. E - you'll see the smoke pots above the main muffler. Now take a look at an F1, F2 or G* - look - no smoke pots! And, no, I don't just mean modern drawings that have forgotten to put them on - I mean both photos and German Wehrmacht equipment layouts.

2. As for the Zielschiene - we are looking at it and usability. The sight is modeled, along with the gunner's port - but it is really cumbersome and hopeless to use. Current view is that it ain't worth the effort, for the rare (broken optic) moments when you'd want to use it.



Point #2 first. The Germans considered it worth the effort as it was present in the production run of the Panzer II, 38(t), III, and IV. When speaking of the IV only in late 1944 with the very late IV J was the Zielschiene and its front turret port dropped:




28593116.jpg


60265545.jpg





It really comes down to the following:

1.) Can the optics be broken in game? Yes.
2.) Was there a backup device in these tanks? Yes.
3.) Is it worth it? In COD/DOD:s: No. In 'realism' type games: Yes.

As for the cumbersome and hopeless to use part I suppose the sniper's iron sight on the K98k will be as graceful as a cat. Really it is up to the RO2 player to form an opinion about how cumbersome and hopeless or useful and crafty the equipment is.



Now for point #1. Looking at a Panzer IV E the smoke device is right above the main muffler:




test1te.jpg


test21.jpg





In comparison on the Panzer IV F1/F2 the smoke device was moved to the left. If you carefully look with your eyes you can see its location is now above the secondary muffler for the traverse motor (circled in red). I am surprized that you missed this:




test20l.jpg


test3ng.jpg


test4e.jpg





Here are some pictures of the Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung on the Panzer IV F1 and F2 (circled in red):




test5kt.jpg


test6qs.jpg


test7e.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Continued from previous page......



*As for the G, why bring it up? There is no need to because the tank depicted in RO2 is an F2:




tank1p.jpg


tank5.jpg


tank2f.jpg


tank3d.jpg


tank4x.jpg





But lets say you guys at Tripwire decide to convert the F2 into a G by replacing the single baffle muzzle break and deleting all relevant vision/signal ports. In that case some extremely early G's retained the Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung but normally on the model G's the Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung was replaced with turret smoke devices:




test26.jpg


test27c.jpg





smoke dispenser (Nebelkerzenabwurf) for tanks not added. Thanx Alan for the info. (I still hope we will see more tank models in the far future where we also have smoke dispenser included!)
Put it back on the list please. Also add tank tracks to the list as well :D



Stuka etc attacks instead of arty. No. We were messing with this one a while back internally, but the weight of ordnance getting dropped is just horrendous. Totally overpowering.
Just give it four 50 kg (110 lb) wing rack bombs then instead of the heavier bombs.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Tank!, there is no difference between F2's and early G's.

The F2 simply was renamed to G in July 1942 to avoid confusion, all changes that are attributed to the ausf. G are in fact changes during the production run of the ausf. G, of which quite a few exist even if you disregard the supposed changed from F2 to G.

The early Ausf G were identical with the Ausf F2. This gradually changed throughout the production run as improvements were introduced. The first change entailed vision ports being eliminated from the turret sides and in the loader's side of the turret front. Other changes, in the summer of 1942, included a new style muzzle brake, installing a system which allowed the transfer of coolant to another Pz Kpfw to aid cold-weather starting, and smoke dischargers mounted on the turret side instead of the hull rear. Delivery of Ausf G, with additional armour bolted or welded to the front of the hull and superstructure, began on 20 June 1942. In January 1943, the driver's episcope (KFF2) was eliminated. In March 1943, a new cupola with thicker armour and a single-piece hatch was introduced together with 'Schurzen', which were thin steel plates attached to the sides of the hull and which surrounded the turret sides and rear. From late March 1943, the 7.5cm KwK40 L/48 was installed instead of the L/43. The very late models of the Ausf G received a new type of drive sprocket, and the radio antenna was moved to the left hull rear, making' it almost impossible to distinguish a late Ausf G from an early Ausf H.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I think this is what you are referring to said:
Both Ausf F(F1) and Ausf F2 were identical except for their armament.Ausf F2’s new 75mm L/43 gun was mounted with single baffle muzzle brake.
There are various differences between what is dubbed the "F2" & the G series while they may seem small they are not non-existent as you seem to imply.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tank! and LemoN
Upvote 0
According to the D 653/7 manual and a Vorlaufige K-Geratverzeichnis (parts manual) there is an F2.
Of course there is an F-2, because it existed!

The F-2 simply was named G after July 1942, so it's the same tank.

There are various differences between what is dubbed the "F2" & the G series while they may seem small they are not non-existent.
Do tell.
I can already guarantee you that all of them were changes during the production cycle of the G, not the F2 model.


PS: Lol at you kids voting down my posts and voting up your's.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
F2 and early G is the same tank

A couple of hundred G's recieved the L/43 cannon with single baffle muzzle break. One can generally say that the name changes were not based on any modifications on vehicles but orders from high levels. The vehicles just got a new name even if they were surviving, old vehicles. Before 1942 July, the long-gunned Panzer IV were known as F2, but they became G after then. That means, F2 and G were not essentially differentiable until post-war militarians separate them either due to short of information or for a convenient use.

All the changes that one "may" recognise as changes from F2 to mid G are not changes from one to another, but changes during the production run of the ausf. G.
kniga.jpg

"Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf. G, H and J 1942-45"
By Hilary L. Doyle, Tom Jentz


[1]Was there any difference between Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf. F2 and Ausf. G

The F2 and the G were basically the same - the designation for the 7. Serie Pzkpfw IV with 7.5cm L/43 changed from F2 to G on 5th June 1942. From 1st July 1942, Wa Pruef 6 decreed that the old F1 was to be called the F and the old F2 was to be called the G.

The muzzle brake was just one of many non-diagnostic changes in production, like hull side doors in Pzkpfw III.



The F2 is basically an early G, so to speak. The F2 only existed from March 1942 until July 1942 when all F2's were renamed G's, from then on it was known as a G model. There really is no difference between an F2 and a G, since they are the same tank. The thing is, that there were modifications made during the production run.

The muzzle brakes are NOT how you tell the difference, since the G models had the single chamber muzzle brake until September 1942, when it was replaced by the double chamber muzzle brake. Likewise, the L/43 and L/48 guns are NOT how you tell the difference either, since the G model did not get the L/48 gun until April 1943.

Best way to look at it, is that the F2 and early G's are the same (since the F2 was renamed G anyway), then you have a line of G's with several modifications added, then in May of 1943, the H model comes out.
(...) This is an early model G identified by the single baffle muzzle brake at the end of the L43 barrel. The spare tracks attached to the front hull plate were a regular addition and added protection.
PZ4G_DAK_Knocked_out.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Ok I guess I'll come with one of my suggestions then.

In the pursuit of all out realism I think differences is ammunition used by the two sides should be noticable. By that I'm not just talking muzzle velocities and ballistic coefficients, I am also talking dispersion.

For example the Germans were the only ones to issue rifle ammunition seating heavy boat tailed projectiles, whilst the Russians relied on light flat based spitzers. This gave the Germans a clear advantage in engagements at long ranges, as their projectiles featured a much higher ballistic coefficient, and were therefore less affected by wind and range, resulting in higher accuracy.

Now this didn't make much of difference in places such as Stalingrad ofcourse, where typical engagement ranges were usually below 300 meters. But at ranges above 400 meters the German marksmen had a clear advantage over their Soviet counterparts, atleast when it came to the accuracy of their weapons system.

Below I have provided the specifications & characteristics of the German & Soviet rifle ammunition used during WWII:

7.92x57mm IS s.S. Patrone (600mm barrel)
Caliber: .323"
Bullet weight: 12.8 gram (198 grains)
Muzzle velocity: 760 m/s (2493 fps)
Sectional density: 190.5 kgf/cm
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vyllis and Tank!
Upvote 0
PS: Lol at you kids voting down my posts and voting up your's.
I was thinking the same thing too...
1 out of 3 members like this post



Thanx Alan for the quick info! :)
So Alan, no comments on the IV's Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung?



The point is that RO2's IV has the features of a 7/BW but is labeled an 8/BW. For it to be a genuine (not post production renamed to) 8/BW the single baffle muzzle break, vision/signal ports, and whatever else would have to be deleted. Most importantly zusatzpanzer (30mm additional armor) would have to be added to the hull of the 8/BW. So far in RO2's IV screenshots there is no evidence of this additional front armor. Essentually it looks like RO2's IV will be like RO1's "mix and match versions" Panther "G".



Ok I guess I'll come with one of my suggestions then.
I guess I will too:

YouTube - Red Orchestra RMFMod 遅延信管テスト その2
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Miro!
Upvote 0
For example the Germans were the only ones to issue rifle ammunition seating heavy boat tailed projectiles, whilst the Russians relied on light flat based spitzers. )

Soviets started to produce type D heavy ball in 1930 (type L light flat tail spitzers stayed still in production), and type D was a heavy boat tail bullet. Allthough intented mainly to be used in MGs, it was used also on rifles.
 
Upvote 0
For it to be a genuine (not post production renamed to) 8/BW

Considering that the tanks were virtually the same initially and the germans tended to have bad habit of discriminating their own names and designations alot (E.G. Bf 109 is officially Bf 109, yet in operational reports Bf 109 and Me 109 were commonplace even on the same damm page), even to the point everything's a huge pile of mess it's bit odd to call for lack of genuinity when it's authentically speaking accurate.

Speaking of the devil it was said it is early G and going with the fact that early Gs are virtually the same as F2, what is wrong with that? If they were claiming for late G for some later period of war it would make more sense to point out some of the flaws, unless you specifically argue that if any historian who uses PzIVG must refer to the common accepted modern historian point of view, not how the germans labelled it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vyllis
Upvote 0
Ok I guess I'll come with one of my suggestions then.
Spoiler!
 
Upvote 0
Floyd said:
Question?
Why are the units in both metric and US units of measure? As mv is stated in m/s, is the windage in mm, cm or inches? It says inches but one has to wonder at the mixing of the units of measure.

Floyd I kept windage in inches because I didn't believe it was necessary to list it in both measures, the difference is clear enough in inches.

But if you wish to convert inches into mm or cm, then it's as simple as multiplying your listed inches by 25.3 to get mm, or 2.53 to get cm.

1 inch = 25.3 mm = 2.53 cm

I edited my post though and changed windage into cm for you :)

Soviets started to produce type D heavy ball in 1930 (type L light flat tail spitzers stayed still in production), and type D was a heavy boat tail bullet. Allthough intented mainly to be used in MGs, it was used also on rifles.

Problem is that Type D heavy ball was hardly issued, and secondly it didn't provide much of any advantage over the Type L because of a rather ineffective overall form factor. The ballistic coefficient of the Type D was only a mere .420 (G1), an improvement of .023 in BC for a loss in MV of over 80 m/s (Type D MV = 780 m/s). As a result it was never a favored choice by Russian snipers, who instead hand selected Type L ammunition.

German snipers on the other hand were from the beginning issued with the very well made s.S. ammunition (BC = .593 G1), primarily made available for their use as-well as for MG's. And starting in 44 they were even issued specially manufactured match grade s.S. ammunition for sniper use only, which was similar to the std. s.S. ammunition except that propellant charges were more precisely measured and the projectile itself was missing the seating ring of regular s.S. ammunition, increasing BC slightly.

However S.m.E. ammunition was the primary ammunition type used by most German 7.92x57mm IS chambered weapons, which was a 178 gr FMJ BT with a steel core, ballistic coefficient of .480 (G1) and a MV of 780-800 m/s depending on from which weapon it was fired.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Put it back on the list please. Also add tank tracks to the list as well :D

Just give it four 50 kg (110 lb) wing rack bombs then instead of the heavier bombs.

Ok - on the smoke pots. Now you see 'em - now you don't - see pics. Go figure.

Our tanks have tracks... so "huh?".

Four 50 Kg bombs is still the best part of 200 Kg of HE dropping at one time. And it requires us to code in/create the JU-87 and its fairly unique flight path; create a JU-87, we'll need to do a Soviet equivalent - probably the IL-2. Not happening!
 

Attachments

  • Pz IV G Troika Gen 05.jpg
    Pz IV G Troika Gen 05.jpg
    61.4 KB · Views: 0
  • Pz IV G Tornado Gen 02.jpg
    Pz IV G Tornado Gen 02.jpg
    63.6 KB · Views: 0
  • Pz IV G Sq Gen 7s.jpg
    Pz IV G Sq Gen 7s.jpg
    72.5 KB · Views: 0
  • Pz IV G Troika Gen 04.jpg
    Pz IV G Troika Gen 04.jpg
    62.2 KB · Views: 0
  • Pz IV G Troika Gen 01.jpg
    Pz IV G Troika Gen 01.jpg
    70.8 KB · Views: 0
Upvote 0
He means tanks leaving tracks in the ground - like footprints.
Especially in snow it would look cool and add imersion. They can disapear after a while like decal.

I think its a good idea, but dont know if the game server can handle this. Any idea?
Oh, ok... being tested. Will make/fail the cut depending on performance impacts.
 
Upvote 0