• 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/

Tigers like paper, Panthers invincible

I pretty much agree with Tank!, its a shame the tanking system was not realistic.
Klaus said:
IS2 greatest tank of WWII
LoL, probably a joke post but still no not really it had immense flaws....... and its illogically large and difficult to reload 122mm made it less than great anti-tank tank as comparable vehicles not only had a much quicker reload but superior hitting distance as well as accuracy.The high losses of this tank vs even the 75mm L/48 forced the Soviets to refine the design and even these later versions were heavily flawed.

As for the FG-42, nice someone else noticed the muzzle flash...... It also drives me up the wall that the first verison was made rather than the more common second version (see pic below).Notice the pistol grip and wooden stock.
FG-42.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
shaqism said:
If it was realism, a tiger still wouldn't stand a chance against a t 34. Ram it, win.
It would not work as the Tiger is much more massive and heavier than the T-34 it would be like smashing a VW bug head on into into a large truck..... There are alot of accounts of this happening and the Tiger I suffering from little more than superficial (scorch mark on paint) if any damage.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I agree fully

I agree fully

I love red Orchestra

But for the love realistic wargaming-the Tiger 1 needs to be fixed. These monsters deserved their reputation. I love the arad map played countless times-but when playing germans-I witness the mighty tiger inching foward out of spawn for the fear any soviet tank on the map will one shot it.

Read "Tigers in the Mud" by Otto Carius to see how these machines fared.
These vehicles had good armour admitted and confirmed by both sides of the conflict. I hope this is fixed.
 
Upvote 0
IS2 greatest tank of WWII

Most people who know what they're talking about consider that to be either the panther or the t34.

But yes the tanks in RO are infuriating to say the least. The later model panzer 4s were IRL superior in firepower and armor to the T34-85. In game they get ripped to pieces. IRL it took 5 T34s to take a Tiger or Panther. In game it takes 1 (I didn't actually expect the 5:1 ratio would carry over for game balance, but reducing it to 1:1 is ridiculous). The IS2 was a very good tank... but its gun was roughly a panther gun that took 2-3 times as long to reload, not an ungodly one-shots-everything-on-the-map machine (anti tank anyway, anti infantry it pretty much was :cool:). Of course, if the Sovies get their biggest tank, where's the big daddy of German steel the King Tiger? Given the ridiculous bias towards the Russians in the game it'd probably only end up about as good as the IS2 but it'd at least give the Germans parity...
 
Upvote 0
I love red Orchestra

But for the love realistic wargaming-the Tiger 1 needs to be fixed. These monsters deserved their reputation. I love the arad map played countless times-but when playing germans-I witness the mighty tiger inching foward out of spawn for the fear any soviet tank on the map will one shot it.

Read "Tigers in the Mud" by Otto Carius to see how these machines fared.
These vehicles had good armour admitted and confirmed by both sides of the conflict. I hope this is fixed.

The Tigers and Panthers were for the most part, the most advanced and well designed tanks of the war, the only problem with them was that it took too long and cost too much to produce these vehicles, which is why the T34 was considered the best of the best because they were cheap and quick to produce and by the time one tiger got off the assembly line, several T34's would already be out on the front lines.

But that still doesn't mean the T34's were more powerful then the Panther or Tigers and could take them out with one shot in the front.... that's just silly talk, yet there it is in the game.
 
Upvote 0
The T-34 became obsolete vs German armor in mid-late 1942 it never really recovered it only really shortened the technological (the Soviets knew this however their goal was production) the gap with the introduction of the T-34/85 which although it could contend with the German Panzers such as the late Panzer IV's (G,H,J) (which at this point had totally outstripped the 76mm (F-34) T-34 variants) these 85mm version T-34's remained in many ways inferior to these Panzer IV's until the close of WWII.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
The T-34 became obsolete vs German armor in mid-late 1942 it never really recovered it only really shortened the technological (the Soviets knew this however their goal was production) the gap with the introduction of the T-34/85 which although it could contend with the German Panzers such as the late Panzer IV's (G,H,J) (which at this point had totally outstripped the 76mm (F-34) T-34 variants) these 85mm version T-34's remained in many ways inferior to these Panzer IV's until the close of WWII.

Not that you'd know that from playing the game :mad:
 
Upvote 0
I think everybody who plays RO can agree that the tanking in RO is odd, off, unrealistic or just plain retarded...For example the SU 76 (that thinly armored self propelled tin deathtrap) can consistantly take two 75 mm or two 88 mm to destroy. The first hit only catches it on fire. If the situation were reversed and the Germans had a Marder III taking two hits from a T-34/85 or IS 2 people would be raising hell on these forums.


The soviet death trap T60 with its impotent 20 mm weapon can easily penetrate the front 50 mm armor of the Panzer III L (go play Hedgehog) and Panzer IV F1 & 2. This is a blatant spit in the face of realism. Why did Tripwire do this? Are they lacking in technical info or cannon performance data? Does TW lack books or research? Did they think it would be badass or 'cool' to code an obsolete light anti infantry tank with overpowered cannon properties? Again, if the situation were reversed and the Germans had a Panzer II F with its 20 mm penetrating and destroying a 45 mm thick T-34 people would be screaming bloody murder on these forums.


Lastly, for the Panzer IV H vs the T34/76 & T34/85 anybody with a basic knowledge of tanks knows that both these versions of T34 retained the same basic frontal hull armor of 45 mm at 60 deg from vertical due to weight reasons. According to Schiffer's Panzertruppen, Osprey Publishing, and World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery (and many others):
WWII Ballistics:Armor.....goes a bit further and states that up to 1,600 metres if perpendicular. Another book (Guderian's duck?) states that the soviets themselves rated the armor of the KV1 S as offering marginally superior frontal protection than that of the T34.


Unfortunately, in RO the Pz IV H's cannon performance is a joke. If you encounter even a SLIGHTLY angled T34/76/85 it will take incredible amounts of 75 mm frontal hits which will deflect without damage even as close as point blank. On top of this a correctly angled T34 will deflect multiple 88 mm even at point blank which is rediculous. The T34's 45 mm at 60 deg was good in 1941 against 50 mm rounds and less but because of round overmatch a 75 mm or larger round does not give a damn if the T34's armor is sloped at 60 deg because the armor is to thin to offer proper ballistic resistance. According to a report from specialists from the People's Commissariat for Tank Industry who examined 154 knocked-out T-34 tanks in several repair workshops in Aug 1942 they claim that 75 mm rounds vs T34's at various angles and ranges averaged a ratio of 70% of hits being dangerous and 30% being safe (non penetrating or non vital areas). For 88 mm hits 95% of hits were considered dangerous and only 5% safe. Sadly in RO, an angled T34 acts like its armored like an IS3. If TW can not get the mainstay Soviet/German tanks to behave realistically......what can one expect from RO2?


I primarily bought RO because of its promise of being a 'realistic tanking simulator' as stated on RO's website. Some time ago TW edited their website and removed this claim. When RO2 comes out and if it has vehicles it will primarily be Pz IV vs T34. Due to all the stuff written above there is a 90% chance I will not buy the game unless game footage on Youtube shows a dramatically improved tanking system.

You're right. Expecially about the T-34's and SU-76's armor that can resist from the 75mm L/48 and 88mm L/56 shots even from low distance........ridicolous. I agree with you.

But i don't like that you do the German fanboy......you have big knowledge in this camp, why don't you use this knowledge honestly and right? Be objective.

You can also say that is true that the 85mm ZiS-S-53 can penetrate the Tiger's 100mm frontal armor even at 500 meters, if the Tiger is not angled.......

....and that all Panzer III and Panzer IV models can be easily penetrated from 76.2mm F-34*, 85mm ZiS-S-53 and 122mm D-25T guns (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/guns.asp) (* the F-34 gun cannot penetrate the frontal armor of late models of Panzer IV if they are angled (Ausf. H or later)).....

....and that the 30mm lateral armor of Panzer IV can be easily penetrated by ALL russian guns, that the Panther's 40mm lateral armor is not invincible as in RO* and, as the lateral armor of all Panzer IV/III, can be easily penetrated by ALL russian guns at every angle, and that the 85mm rounds shouldn't be deflected by the Panzers IV's 50mm turret armour, and that a Panther and Tiger cannot oneshot an angled IS2 from frontal (120mm @ 60 degrees), and that the 90mm lateral armor of IS2 hasn't the same resistance of the lateral armour of other german thanks........

*=
the Panther had a 80mm frontal plate, not a 60mm

and nearly invulnerable side armor is a thing i have encountered way too often in Ost, so i guess its a bug in the armor system


The T-34 became obsolete vs German armor in mid-late 1942 it never really recovered it only really shortened the technological (the Soviets knew this however their goal was production) the gap with the introduction of the T-34/85 which although it could contend with the German Panzers such as the late Panzer IV's (G,H,J) (which at this point had totally outstripped the 76mm (F-34) T-34 variants) these 85mm version T-34's remained in many ways inferior to these Panzer IV's until the close of WWII.

How is it possible? T-34/85 has better armor, better firepower and better mobility than Panzer IV G,H,J......

EDIT:

Another two things about the first part of my speech:

The first is that in RO the SdKfz 251 equipped with 75mm gun can take 2-3 shots from every russian gun (even from the 85mm) before die (this is the most ridicolous thing in RO :mad:)

The second is that the additional shields (~20mm) with which the Panzer IV H is equipped are totally mistaken........these additional shields (in the sides of tank and around the turret) was projected to contrast the PTRD shots and the HEAT shots. In this way the shots explode before touching the (thin) armour of the tank. But i see in RO that the PTRD can penetrate the lateral armor of Panzer IV H....also that is very unrealistic.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
RiccardoTheBeAst said:
But i don't like that you do the German fanboy
Because it seems to me that the biggest most obvious tank problems are on the German side.

RiccardoTheBeAst said:
You can also say that is true that the 85mm ZiS-S-53 can penetrate the Tiger's 100mm frontal armor even at 500 meters, if the Tiger is not angled.....
A captured T34/85 tested April 1944 at Kummersdorf. The T34/85 failed against front hull and turret of a Tiger at 500 meters from 0 degrees......So this test reveals less than 500 meters at 0 degrees.

RiccardoTheBeAst said:
that the Panther's 45mm lateral armor is not invincible as in RO* and, as the lateral armor of all Panzer IV/III, can be easily penetrated by ALL russian guns at every angle, and that the 85mm rounds shouldn't be deflected by the Panzers IV's 50mm turret armour
You are right about all of this. In addition the very short gun Panzer IV F1 can penetrate the front of the Kv1 in game which it should not.

RiccardoTheBeAst said:
and that a Panther and Tiger cannot oneshot an angled IS2 from frontal (120mm @ 60 degrees)
Yes, but the frontal turret which is the weakest and thinnest area frontally on the Is2 is a different story.

RiccardoTheBeAst said:
How is it possible? T-34/85 has better armor, better firepower and better mobility than Panzer IV G,H,J
The T34/85 has better turret armor than perhaps the T34/76 and the Panzer IV G,H,J but the T34/85's frontal hull is still the same 45 mm at 60 degrees making it equally as vulnerable to 75 mm hull hits as the T34/76. On firepower, the 7.5 cm KwK40 L48 on the Panzer IV and the 76 mm gun M1 on the Sherman both have similar to slightly better ballistic and penetration performance to that of the 85 mm on the T34. On mobility, that of the T34/85 suffered when compared to the ~5 ton lighter T34/76. The Germans could also impliment wide tracks (ostketten) on their tanks. While looking at this update news: ([URL]http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=552128&postcount=1[/URL]) on the Darkesthour forums I found this book quote on the DH "Hitler's biggest mistake" thread:



In the book T-34 Mythical Weapon page 259 mentions that "despite its faults, the T-34 Model 1941 presented a worthy opponent for its enemies, which the T-34/85 could not do. It is true that the T-34/85 was a bit better than the T-34/76 but after comparing the two tanks using the general conditions on the battlefield, the earlier model gave its crew better possibilities to survive. The problem lay in the fact that in late 1941 the Pz IV (with long 75 mm) was a rare tank, while in 1944 it was one of four basic vehicles (the others are the Stug, Panther, & Tiger) of the Panzerwaffe that could challenge the T-34 successfully. Despite its evolution (to 85 mm) Soviet T-34 tank crews in 1944 had comparatively worse conditions to operate in than those who fought in 1941. The problem did not lie exclusively in the lack of a successor, but rather in the lack of modernization of the T-34."



RiccardoTheBeAst said:
The first is that in RO the SdKfz 251 equipped with 75mm gun can take 2-3 shots from every russian gun (even from the 85mm) before die (this is the most ridicolous thing in RO :mad:)
I agree that there is something very wrong about this as I sometimes have taken a 122 mm hit and survived but I think it is not a Tripwire vehicle. Imo, the most rediculous thing in RO is the realistically obsolete Ptrd and its unrealistic in game ability to penetrate and destroy 80 mm thick tanks.

RiccardoTheBeAst said:
these additional shields (in the sides of tank and around the turret) was projected to contrast the PTRD shots and the HEAT shots. But i see in RO that the PTRD can penetrate the lateral armor of Panzer IV H....also that is very unrealistic.
Probably the makers of this game thought the shields would look good or "cool" on the tanks but they probably have no idea on their purpose or function vs ptrd's.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
giant cut

I don't agree with your gun comparision.

Here the penetration table of ZiS-S-53 85mm:
Penetration table 1,2,3
Penetration table 4 (taken from ToW, but it confirm the Penetration Table 1,2 and 3)


All the sites (and even ToW) from which i took the penetration table for 85mm gun, confirm that the USA's 76mm L/55 gun and URSS's 85mm L/54.6 gun have better penetration than the German's 75mm L/48. The sites (and ToW) also confirm that the 76mm L/55 and 85mm L/54.6 have similar performance (with APCR the 76mm is better than 85mm, but with APHE/APHEBC 85mm is better than 76mm) against tanks.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Look here all three weapons vs a T34/85. Yugoslav guns vs armor tests of 1960s:

http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=18562&view=findpost&p=392196


I don't want to query your reliability,
but the posts that you linked haven't any font.

Also, the point is that is difficult for me to believe that all the penetration tables that i posted are wrong and invented, expecially because these penetration tables have many fonts....

Another thing , 76mm L/55 and 85mm L/54.6 have bigger caliber and much longer barrel than KwK40 and this, theoretically, gives to these guns

-more accuracy
-more muzzle speed
-more penetration (caused by more muzzle speed)
-more range

than the 75mm L/48.

Here the penetration tables of 75mm KwK40 L/48:

1
2
3

And i repeat, i'm not saying that you're a liar, simply it seems strange that the KwK40 is better than the other two guns by the penetration tables. ;)

P.S.: can you upload the book about ZiS-S-53 on another site? Rapidshare don't allow me to download it. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
RiccardoTheBeAst said:
Also, the point is that is difficult for me to believe that all the penetration tables that i posted are wrong and invented
The Soviet penetration tables are probably not directly comparable to the German ones as they might be firing at different types of target armor plates with different hardnesses, (Rolled Homogeneous Armor, Face Hardened Armor, Cast Armor) at different impact angles...



RiccardoTheBeAst said:
Another thing, 76mm L/55 and 85mm L/54.6 have bigger caliber and much longer barrel than KwK40 and this, theoretically, gives to these guns more accuracy, more muzzle speed, more penetration, and more range than the 75mm L/48
It seems that the muzzle velocities of these three weapons are all about ~790 m/s with normal rounds (not APCR). Perhaps the allied weapons have less propellant charge with slightly heavier rounds.



RiccardoTheBeAst said:
i'm not saying that you're a liar, simply it seems strange that the KwK40 is better than the other two guns by the penetration tables
Here is some stuff from the WWII Tank Gun Specifications thread on another forum:




WWII Tank Gun Specifications said:
7.5cm KwK40 L/48
Projectile weight: 6.8 kg PzGr.39 APCBC
Sectional Density: 1.208
Muzzle Velocity: 790 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 2122 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 48.03 KJ
Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
500m = 123mm
1,000m = 109mm
1,500m = 97mm
2,000m = 86mm
2,500m = 76mm
3,000m = 68mm
_________________________________________________
8.5cm D-5T L/54
Projectile weight: 9.2 kg BR-365 APBC**
Sectional Density: 1.273
Muzzle Velocity: 792 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 2885 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 50.84 KJ
Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
500m = 121mm
1,000m = 102mm
1,500m = 88mm
2,000m = 77mm
2,500m = 69mm
3,000m = 63mm
_________________________________________________
7.6cm M1 L/55
Projectile weight: 7.0 kg M62 APCBC
Sectional Density: 1.211
Muzzle Velocity: 792 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 2195 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 48.38 KJ
Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
500m = 116mm
1,000m = 106mm
1,500m = 97mm
2,000m = 89mm
2,500m = 81mm
3,000m = 74mm
_________________________________________________
Penetration data derived from WW2 Armor & Gunnery by Robert D. Livingston & Lorrin R. Bird, who's figures are based on US test firings conducted at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds USA.

**Armour Piercing with Ballistic Cap: An AP projectile with a truncated nose covered by a lightweight ballistic cap to improve flight characteristics. The truncated nose has better penetration above certain velocities, particularly when it overmatches the target armour plate and when the plate is prone to brittle failure. This was a common projectile for the Soviets in World War II as they did not develop APC or APCBC projectiles until the 1950s.

Face hardening is a method used to increase the armour hardness of the surface of armour plate. The rear side of the armour plate remains at its original hardness. The purpose of the hardened face is to shatter an incoming projectile’s head before it can penetrate. FH armour resists uncapped AP and APBC** projectiles quite well, when the armour plate thickness is around the same size or not too badly overmatched by the projectile.




RiccardoTheBeAst said:
P.S.: can you upload the book about ZiS-S-53 on another site? Rapidshare don't allow me to download it. Thank you.
It is actually a book about the myths of the T-34 that a friend pointed me to. I thought you might enjoy it but thats the only place I know of to get it from. If the link does not work:mad: then curse the internet:D. As for putting it on another site I am computerly retarded:eek: and I dont know how to.:(
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
The Soviet penetration tables are probably not directly comparable to the German ones as they might be firing at different types of target armor plates with different hardnesses, (Rolled Homogeneous Armor, Face Hardened Armor, Cast Armor) at different impact angles...



It seems that the muzzle velocities of these three weapons are all about ~790 m/s with normal rounds (not APCR). Perhaps the allied weapons have less propellant charge with slightly heavier rounds.



Here is some stuff from the WWII Tank Gun Specifications thread on another forum:









It is actually a book about the myths of the T-34 that a friend pointed me to. I thought you might enjoy it but thats the only place I know of to get it from. If the link does not work:mad: then curse the internet:D. As for putting it on another site I am computerly retarded:eek: and I dont know how to.:(

I'm so interested to take a look about all these tests "Penetration data derived from WW2 Armor & Gunnery by Robert D. Livingston & Lorrin R. Bird, who's figures are based on US test firings conducted at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds USA."

Finally it seems that KwK 40 is better than ZiS-S-53 and 76mm M1 (taking for true the tests that you have posted). Nevertheless i will do more research to be 100% sure.


About the book you can upload it here (if you want)

Mediafire
Megaupload
 
Upvote 0
By the way, surprised as I am that this thread is still active, after doing more "research," I've revised my opinion.

The Panther is ONLY "invincible" against the T-34/85. The IS-2 can cut it to ribbons frontally and from the side and at most angles, save 1 o' clock. At 1 o' clock the Panther crewman has a reasonable expectation of deflection of the IS-2's main gun, however, now and again the 122mm will successfully penetrated a perfectly angled Panther, for what reason I do not know, perhaps random chance of penetration or a hitbox bug.

However, the Tiger I is the Axis counterpart to the IS-2, provided you find the right angle. It can successfully deflect ALL shells from ALL Allied tanks.

What I find interesting, though, is that the frontal armor of the Tiger I and IS-2 are so weak they can be penetrated by medium tanks such as the Panzer IV and the T-34/85. When angled, they deflect 100% of the time. But the Panther has the ability to resist any 85mm round to the front glacis at any angle, including 90 degrees.

It's a historical fact that the IS-2 had superior frontal armor to the Panther, therefore it should be more successful at defeating kinetic energy penetrators. Simple trig and armor thickness can confirm this. Also, through trig, we can determine that the Panther's front glacis was only marginally superior in effective thickness to the Tiger I's front plate. This excepts the chance of deflection caused by angled plate, which as I understand requires a rather complicated understanding of quantum mechanics which I do not possess. :eek:

Suffice to say, Tiger's front plate should be better....IS-2's front plate should be better....both somewhat more equivalent in effective thickness to the Panther.
 
Upvote 0
me said:
T-34/85 had 54mm of effective vertical thickness armored plate....I derived this using trig identities and a simple geometric model.

In short, T-34/85 had an inferior frontal armor (neglecting slope deflection and overmatch). Superior side armor (prox150%).

Aghghgh I just made a huge mistake

I thought the T-34's front glacis was sloped at 60 degrees from the horizontal whereas it's 60 degrees from the vertical....which makes a huge difference in the distance you'd have to traverse of armored plate at a 0 degree trajectory.

As I said, the effective thickness of a 45mm glacis at 60 degrees from horizontal is 51mm. The effective thickness of a 45mm glacis at 60 degrees from the vertical is 90mm.

So the front glacis of the T-34 would actually have been superior to the Panzer IV, neglecting overmatch. Overmatch, however, would be a big consideration, considering we're talking about 76 versus 80mm with T-34 vs PIV, whereas we have 75mm versus 45mm with PIV vs T-34.

Why didn't anyone correct me?

The fact of the matter is that the T-34 front glacis was awesome and vastly compensated for the thin thickness of the front plate.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0