• 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/

Ping Pong Tanks?

Dont forget about all the new damage mechanics for tanks, in the latest video a round went through the turret killed the commander. So even if a tank is angled to you, there is almost always a way to fix that.

True although armour thickness around the mantle area is very thick on most tanks so you might be better off going for something else or just getting the hell out of there.
 
Upvote 0
Dont forget about all the new damage mechanics for tanks, in the latest video a round went through the turret killed the commander. So even if a tank is angled to you, there is almost always a way to fix that.

True... this was just based on the RO:CA / RO:Ost mechanics.... there is also angle and armour mechanics for the turret as well not noted in the above, but I hardly ever got much damage taken to a tank from the turret no matter what angle it was on, so to me, it's not very important to note imo.... when a tank was angled properly, it seemed that no matter where the turret was pointing (at you or away from you) everytime I shot at it, it too would deflect the shell. *shrugs*
 
Upvote 0
RO:Ost's armour angling was a hell of a lot more difficult than what they had in RO:CA.... the Panzers were easier to angle and deflect shots, T34's were almost always invincible, and the Panther & IS2 were immortal in the game if you didn't get a straight side or back shot..... heck the Panther's front armour couldn't be penetrated straight on with any other tank other than the IS2, so you'd see Panthers just strolling through the battle field with KV1's and T34's firing everything they had at them and nothing happened most times..... while the IS2 could still be taken out if it was a straight on shot.
I dont know I found it was easy to one shot a T-34 if I aimed for the Drivers door, in the mod. Though IIRC it was a bit less effective in the retail version.
 
Upvote 0
I love RO and the realism they put in with the armored combat, however I feel that the bounces were a bit exaggerated.
Actually it wasn't realistic and it was super-exaggerated.
In Darkest Hour I feel the tank combat is much more realistic and fun. The german armor is strong but isn't invincible, and you don't hear bounces all that often.
Allegedly, they rewrote the armor code from scratch in Darkest Hour.
Kashash said:
Perhaps after RO2 release someone should make a mutator just like the Armored Beast mutator
But I thought the devs said that RO II had realistically done tanks compared to RO I. There would be no need for a mod if this is true. And why would you wreak their efforts and reintroduce ping-ponging?
[GF-H] M.Whittman said:
a T34 shrugging off direct hits from an 88mm cannon seems a bit unrealistic to me.
It definately is. T34's should not be shrugging off KwK40 cannons either. Its armor is just too inadequate for those weapons.
Cpt-Praxius said:
angling a tank in RO
I suppose in RO II this system will cease to be relevant as the devs said tanks will be realistic.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Well, considering every shell that didn't penetrate bounced, or shattered to pieces when it bounced, I don't quite see the issue with bouncing tank rounds. Tank rounds don't disappear, and I assure you a round going faster than the speed of sound hitting a metal vehicle directly will make a big "ping pong" noise.

Sloped armor was supposed to bounce the shell... that was the whole point of it. You want it to be less realistic? The bouncing noise does need to be redone, and I'd love to hear some blood chilling metallic sounds.

I just took this quote as an example.

Tank rounds don't disappear on impact if they don't penetrate. However if they lack just a little bit of power to fully penetrate, it will not magically reverse out of the hole so it can bounce off. I am not very knowledgable in this area but I think bounce or penetrate is a little bit of an oversimplification.

Or is this thread solely about bouncing when tanks are angled? I get confused by the above posts:eek:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I suppose in RO II this system will cease to be relevant as the devs said tanks will be realistic.

Sloped armour - YouTube

It was realistic for tank shells to bounce off, despite what others say..... and even if they didn't bounce off, it is a well known fact that many T34's against most other tanks of its time generally survived a lot long and from a lot more hits than their counterparts.... now throw that towards the IS2, Panther, Tiger I and II and you have a number of tanks that can do the same thing, much like what exists in RO1.

The physics in RO2 might have changed since RO1, but many of the same principles should still remain intact.

And as it goes for "Realistic"..... RO tanks have been far more realistic than it's competition since the mod days.... it's just been refined over the years and continues to do so.

The physics of the RO Tanks has always been based on realism..... they didn't pull sloped armour and shell deflection from the sky.

How it changes in RO2, we'll just have to see.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
If someone knew what they were doing with the tank they were in, of course angling was easy to do.... that was the whole point of having angled armour in the first place..... to save your sorry arse from getting blown up.

The thing is angling your tank like you do in RO1 was pretty rare practice in typical conditions, considering you exposed bigger target of yourself, your side armour (which rarely was as strong as the glacis, of course in a retrospect you could argue this is dependant on period of the war and the vehicle itself, but that's just in a retrospect), your tracks and so on. Tight enviroment, shoot'n scoot or say narrow areas where "RO angle" had benefits for the sake of shooting (still doesn't magically make you invulnerable anyway) is another story, but it wasn't like "ZOMG ENEMY TANK ANGLE 11 O CLOCK NOW THEY CAN'T PENETRATE US!"

As much as angling may have small benefit as that way you don't expose your armour at complete square it's something you do in a subtle manner, not in massive superninja-angletrickstuff where the gunner is yelling the driver to correct his angle by one degree and magically the armour is boosted +7000%

Cpt-Praxius said:
Ok, so this is a very general diagram of angling a tank in RO to save your skin.

Depends on a tank, angle Tiger to 10:30 and it can deflect any shell save for very very very very accurate pixelhunt shot from IS-2, which is very rare to see in the first place. Angle Panther just below your "green" diagram and it is vulnerable for everything besides two areas that requires also pretty great pixelhunting. The list goes on.

(Of course that is ignoring flank\rearshots but that's not the point.)

(And just so you know this isn't that much about sloped armour. This is about angling your tank to gain a "slope" and how in RO1 it goes to a ridiculous degree that you can deflect IS-2 shell with T-60 -- just for the sake of example, these are numerous -- as long as you angle it right, which is equivalent of a wet cardboard piece deflecting 12.7mm bullet if you just "angle" it right.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
me thinks someone is biased. :D also to my knowledge angling a tank is something they did in real life so how is it not realistic.

It's about the effect of angling, not angling itself.

For all I know, if you angle your tank your front armour will be somewhat more effective, but at the same time, you expose your side armor. And that is a whole lot weaker even when angled.

Another thing I thought of some time ago, say you fire a round from far away at sloped armor, will the arc of the round cause the sloped armor to be ineffective while 'flat' armor becomes more effective? Of course the loss of kinetic energy of the round would be a deciding factor, but is it correct if I say the Pz4 is more protected from long range shots then a T34?
 
Upvote 0
It's about the effect of angling, not angling itself.

For all I know, if you angle your tank your front armour will be somewhat more effective, but at the same time, you expose your side armor. And that is a whole lot weaker even when angled.

Another thing I thought of some time ago, say you fire a round from far away at sloped armor, will the arc of the round cause the sloped armor to be ineffective while 'flat' armor becomes more effective? Of course the loss of kinetic energy of the round would be a deciding factor, but is it correct if I say the Pz4 is more protected from long range shots then a T34?

I'n order for the vertical Pz4 armor to be more sloped than the diagonal T34 front plate, the shell would need to come in at 22.5 degrees or more, which I think is unlikely at ranges up to 1km even when taking into account the effect drag has on the trajectory.

I'm thinking of high-end Panzergranaten with a terminal velocity of 1000m/s. If you instead take a round fired from a Soviet 152mm S-41 with its 432m/s, I guess you might get a higher angle. That shot would probably not need to penetrate however, instead it would just crush the Pz4 with sheer force lol.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
True although armour thickness around the mantle area is very thick on most tanks so you might be better off going for something else or just getting the hell out of there.

The thing is, because of the typically awkward shape of a turret mantlet, the metal has to be cast instead of forged like a solid glacis plate. This means that the vast majority of all armor is usually vulnerable when it comes to hits upon the mantlet. Some mantlets were forged instead of cast, such as the Tiger I (late model mantlet nearly 20 cm of high quality forged steel).

Tank on Darkest Hour for a few hours. The weakness of mantlets is quite apparent and essential in some Allied versus Axis armor match ups. An M4 Sherman's 75 cannon cannot reliably penetrate a Panzer IV glacis, but will punch through its abysmal 5 cm box mantlet at 1KM+. A Sherman 76 will fail or shatter against a Panther glacis, but punch through its cast mantlet at, again, 1KM+.

WW2 armor; a finicky thing.


Cast and... "forged" are the two types, correct? Forged looks a little funny.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
But I thought the devs said that RO II had realistically done tanks compared to RO I. There would be no need for a mod if this is true. And why would you wreak their efforts and reintroduce ping-ponging?

Strong awareness of the seriousness of my post.

But about the tanking in RO it always annoyed me that it was more about the art of angling than the art of stealthiness, accuracy and quickness of taking a first shot just as it was in real. The only tanks in real worth angling were tanks like Tiger beacuse of its boxy shape and not as drastic difference in thickness of armor between side and front. There was no point to angle for tanks like Panther or T34 as the front plate was already sloped and angling would just expose the weaker side.
The angling in RO;ost gave you about 200% increase in armor protection which basically would make T34/76 invincible to a Tiger :rolleyes:. Should be 30-40% at most although I'm not an expert.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Exclusive Red Orchestra 2 Early Beta Footage - July 2011 - YouTube 17:00 looks like there's still some ping-pong to be had.

What's there to ping pong? It's a sad fact of tanking that penetration doesn't instantly mean the tank goes up in flames or starts smoking like someone is burning rubber all over the place especially if the shot did not cause any "real" damage.

It's like emptying 500 bullets into aircraft's fuselage right from behind and complaining it's still barely flying because only thing you did was scrapped the airframe to a horrendous condition with maybe perhaps the rudder (and maybe elevator) being damaged. Even more so considering modeling a genuine fear of death in a game is simply impossible, or some other effects related of say taking a hit.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I'm just worried that with the tank being too durable the whole thing will be a bit too arcade, however if that's how it really was then that's cool. I was under the impression that getting the first shot was more important in WW2, which in turn makes concealment and spotting more valuable.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
If the first penetrating shot can to a reasonable extent be relied upon to knock-out the enemy in a tank duel, that means that you are essentially able to win the duel and get out unharmed, whereas if every tank can take around 5 hits on average, the first penetration only means that you'll probably win the duel, but end up with a 80% damaged tank (meaning most of your crew members dead and machinery knocked out)

(I know there are no hitpoints, and when I say 80% damaged I just mean the relative/average condition your vehicle will be in.)

So basically: certain victory and no losses VS probable victory and 80% losses.

Is there anyone that knows if the regular Panzergranate 39 APCBC-HE-T round was used in Stalingrad, which is what I'm assuming? Perhaps they had some other kind of ammo?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0