• 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/

Zielschiene in RO2

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
T

Tank!

Grizzled Veteran
Oct 9, 2007
207
353
#1
Taken from the The RO2:HoS Fact Thread (FAQs answered here):



  • New Tank Damage System: Heroes of Stalingrad has a significantly more complex damage system than Ostfront. Damage to systems such as optics...

In relation to the German tanks in RO2 lets say a lucky hit manages to damage the main optics on either the Panzer III or IV (TZF5d & TZF5f). Naturally, you would open the front observation port in the turret and switch to the open sight. So the question is in RO2, will switching to the open sight occur automatically once the main sight is damaged? How and when will the observation port open? (#21 on the bottom picture) How will the open sight work? How will it be aimed properly and adjusted for range? And lastly, do the soviet tanks planned for RO2 have any such similar device?




test1h.jpg


test2c.jpg


test3rg.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Oldih, TT33, jalex3 and 6 others
#6
Assuming that we are dealing with PzKpfw IV Ausf F2, I found some interesting information.

It used the far superior KwK L/43 gun in comparison to the old L/24. This new gun fired a 6.8 kg armour-percing projectile with a muzzle velocity of 740 m per second: this provided power to penetrate 89mm of armour at an angle of 30 degrees at a range of 500 metres. [Information acquired from World Encyclopedia of the Tank by Christopher Chant]
 
Upvote 0
#7
Tiger2 said:
Assuming that we are dealing with PzKpfw IV Ausf F2, I found some interesting information.

It used the far superior KwK L/43 gun in comparison to the old L/24. This new gun fired a 6.8 kg armour-percing projectile with a muzzle velocity of 740 m per second: this provided power to penetrate 89mm of armour at an angle of 30 degrees at a range of 500 metres. [Information acquired from World Encyclopedia of the Tank by Christopher Chant]
Click to expand...
What's interesting/new about that? :confused:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tank!
Upvote 0
#8
Well the German army demanded a standard 75mm gun. Krupp then produced an L/48 version of the KwK40 which increased penetration by only 3mm (to 92mm total at standard angle and range).

Firstly what version of the F2 are we getting? The one with the L/43 gun fitted or the L/48? Secondly I cannot find out what was the reasoning behind development of this version if from what the book says its effect was negligible.
 
Upvote 0
#9
Tiger2 said:
Firstly what version of the F2 are we getting? The one with the L/43 gun fitted or the L/48? Secondly I cannot find out what was the reasoning behind development of this version if from what the book says its effect was negligible.
Click to expand...

All F2's and a couple of hundred G's carried the L/43 gun.

The story behind the upgrade is funny:

When the L/43 gun was first introduced the German army wanted an even more powerful gun, resulting in the L/48 gun which was at the same level of the PAK 40.

Thing is that they had huge problems in the field with cartridge ejection and jams of the "hotter" charge of the L/48 (longer barrel means you can use more propellant, resulting in higher v/0). Instead of redesigning the case (maybe they would have been incompatible with the guns then?), they simply reduced the propellant until the problem went away, resulting in a "downgrade" of the propellant charge and therefore reduced the v/0 to near L/43 levels (just 10m/s faster), resulting in the KwK.40 L/48 only firing at 750m/s as opposed to 790-800m/s. AFAIK the "hotter" charge was available for nearly a year.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Capt.Cool
Upvote 0
#10
LemoN said:
All F2's and a couple of hundred G's carried the L/43 gun.

The story behind the upgrade is funny:

When the L/43 gun was first introduced the German army wanted an even more powerful gun, resulting in the L/48 gun which was at the same level of the PAK 40.

Thing is that they had huge problems in the field with cartridge ejection and jams of the "hotter" charge of the L/48 (longer barrel means you can use more propellant, resulting in higher v/0). Instead of redesigning the case (maybe they would have been incompatible with the guns then?), they simply reduced the propellant until the problem went away, resulting in a "downgrade" of the propellant charge and therefore reduced the v/0 to near L/43 levels (just 10m/s faster), resulting in the KwK.40 L/48 only firing at 750m/s as opposed to 790-800m/s. AFAIK the "hotter" charge was available for nearly a year.
Click to expand...

it sounds like the fun and games the western allies had trying to get the 17 pdr on first the cromwell and then the sherman (getting it in also meant not mashing the commander when you fired it), including just fixing the thing into the sherman's turret so the entire tank nearly went on 2 wheels every time they fired it :troll:
 
Upvote 0
#11
Frostedfire said:
it sounds like the fun and games the western allies had trying to get the 17 pdr on first the cromwell and then the sherman (getting it in also meant not mashing the commander when you fired it), including just fixing the thing into the sherman's turret so the entire tank nearly went on 2 wheels every time they fired it :troll:
Click to expand...
Well, they just turned it by 90
 
Upvote 0
#12
If I am not wrong, the T-34/75 suffered from serious problems. There was very little space inside and the commander had to load the rounds. At the point where they introduced the hexagonal turret it was already for a 85mm gun design and that gave enough space to have a dedicated loader. The T-34's advantage was its speed and operational range from the facts that I gathered, other than that the Panzer IV dominated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alexander Ostmann
Upvote 0
#13
Tiger2 said:
If I am not wrong, the T-34/75 suffered from serious problems. There was very little space inside and the commander had to load the rounds. At the point where they introduced the hexagonal turret it was already for a 85mm gun design and that gave enough space to have a dedicated loader. The T-34's advantage was its speed and operational range from the facts that I gathered, other than that the Panzer IV dominated.
Click to expand...
What?

The Commander in the T-34/76 was aiming the gun, not loading it (Driver, hull machine-gunner, Commander, loader). The Hexagonal turret simply gave the crew of the T-34/76 more space and, amongst other things, a coupola. It has nothing to do with the T-34/85.

But could you please explain to me what this has to do with the topic at hand? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#15
Basically T-34/75 is a design inferior with no effective commander. If the man in charge is operating the gun, there is no radio, visibility is poor and the crew is exhausted by the cramped space... you will probably need that sloped armour as the advanced coordination and detection range of the Panzers means you will be taking some serious hits.

I guess that is how the balance was there. The Germans knew they were heavily outnumbered and this forced them to go after quality. The Soviets put the emphasis on superior numbers with many more T-34s coming off the assembly lines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alexander Ostmann and Felix Ostheim
Upvote 0
#16
Tiger2 said:
Basically T-34/75 is a design inferior with no effective commander. If the man in charge is operating the gun, there is no radio, visibility is poor and the crew is exhausted by the cramped space... you will probably need that sloped armour as the advanced coordination and detection range of the Panzers means you will be taking some serious hits.

I guess that is how the balance was there. The Germans knew they were heavily outnumbered and this forced them to go after quality. The Soviets put the emphasis on superior numbers with many more T-34s coming off the assembly lines.
Click to expand...
First of all, WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC?!?

Second, it's T-34/76, not 75.

If you want to share your flawed wisdom then please do so in the History section, don't just derail a thread.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Das Bose and Tank!
Upvote 0
#17
LemoN said:
First of all, WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC?!?

Second, it's T-34/76, not 75.

If you want to share your flawed wisdom then please do so in the History section, don't just derail a thread.
Click to expand...
i was responding to the other person, the suggestion has already been added to the list..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tank!
Upvote 0
#18
Tiger2 said:
suggestion has already been added to the list.
Click to expand...



Wait a minute. Who is the prankster who moved this thread from General Discussion to Ideas and Suggestions? This was not an 'idea' and there is nothing to 'suggest'. This was a discussion of a standard piece of equipment found in the Panzer III & IV. What was expected from the responses was a real life picture of one from a panzer, an RO 2 screenshot of the same thing, and a simple explanation about how it will function in RO2 plus info on a soviet counterpart if any.



LemoN said:
Woule be absolutely amazing if TWI would add that in!
Click to expand...
Add this in how exactly? Assuming that TWI did all thier homework, as there was much talking about realism and the interiors taking 3 months to complete, then there would be nothing to add in as this device is as standard as tank tracks. Furthermore, the damaging of the optics feature would demand it with impunity.



Zetsumei said:
In a way its similar to having iron sights on the sniper
Click to expand...
Woule be absolutely amazing if TWI would add that in!:troll:



LemoN said:
But could you please explain to me what this has to do with the topic at hand?
Click to expand...
Yes. Please explain or stay on topic Tiger2.



Capt.Cool said:
the main advantage of the T34 was the SLOPED AMOUR!
Click to expand...
In 1941 perhaps. But when the modern 75mm KwK40 was introduced on the Panzer IV F2....
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Hobitt, TT33, Alexander Ostmann and 2 others
Upvote 0
#19
Tank! said:
Wait a minute. Who is the prankster who moved this thread from General Discussion to Ideas and Suggestions? This was not an 'idea' and there is nothing to 'suggest'. This was a discussion of a standard piece of equipment found in the Panzer III & IV. What was expected from the responses was a real life picture of one from a panzer, an RO 2 screenshot of the same thing, and a simple explanation about how it will function in RO2 plus info on a soviet counterpart if any.



Add this in how exactly? Assuming that TWI did all thier homework, as there was much talking about realism and the interiors taking 3 months to complete, then there would be nothing to add in as this device is as standard as tank tracks. Furthermore, the damaging of the optics feature would demand it with impunity.



Woule be absolutely amazing if TWI would add that in!:troll:



Yes. Please explain or stay on topic Tiger2.



In 1941 perhaps. But when the modern 75mm KwK40 was introduced on the Panzer IV F2....
Click to expand...


Note that German rounds were still designed as if targeted at flat armour (while Russians made the reverse mistake, designing as if firing at sloped armour)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tank!
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu