• 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/

German magical AT rifle

Which version of the PzIV is appearing in the game? The F2 seems the most logical choice against the T-34s.

Also, The long barreled 75mm was made to hunt tanks that was plaguing Rommel. The PzIII didn't stand a chance at all, even though they were the mainstay of the panzer army with support from PzIV A ~ D as assault tanks.
The Panzer IV in game is the Ausf G, the Ausf F2 only had a small production run in early to mid 1942 before the G started, and once it did all F2 where re classed as Ausf Gs (theirs almost no difference between a F2 and a early G), the F2 came about due to a manufacturing convenience.
Also the 50mm L60s where quite capable of handling the T-34, not satisfactory but good enough, German reports indicated that with the L60 A T-34 could be engaged from
Hull Front: Aim for the drivers door...
Turret Front 100m (both types)
Turret Sides 600m with APC
Hull Sides 500m for the upper and 1,000m for the lower (APC ammo aka PzGr 39)
Rear hull 600m for the upper and 300m for the lower (APC ammo)

As for the L42 which I beleave is going to be on the Panzer IIIJ they are using
It should be able to at these ranges (based off the above info)
Turret front: perhaps 50m?
Turret sides ~100m for APC & ~400m for APCR
Hull sides ~100m for APC & ~400m for APCR for the upper and 500m for the lower for both APC and APCR
Hull Rear roughly the same as above.



Edit
as for the SMG vs Rifle thing

Rifles
Range, Penetration and accuracy are their main thing, but their weak up close, semi autos help out a bit though.

SMGs
Close range firepower but with low penetration and accuracy (though at it's optimal range accuracy is not much of a issue).

Automatic Rifles (like the MKb)
Better firepower than a Rifle but less accuracy and penetration but much better than SMGs and having a longer effective range than SMGs as well.

SMGs are powerful in close because that's what their good at in real life.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I can understand that. What I would like to see is a game where "balance" is a dirty word. If the Germans didn't have an AT rifle, but the Russians did, give the Russians an AT rifle but don't give one to the Germans. Of course, then everyone moans about the game being unbalanced.

I agree 100%. The Germans may not have had an effective AT Rifle in any significant numbers, but they did have other ways of dealing with tanks.
 
Upvote 0
That's definitely true, because when you look at a bigger picture, the Germans have access to Assault Rifles, while Russians have better SMGs, so more or less, we can kinda argue they get a advantage/disadvantage. Could've done abit more research regarding them tackling tanks though, having two same guns for both sides kinda gimps the uniqueness in some small way.
 
Upvote 0
I agree 100%. The Germans may not have had an effective AT Rifle in any significant numbers, but they did have other ways of dealing with tanks.

Yeah they did it was the PbZ 38. Their was another thread where a dev was saying it was not included because it was too weak.

About 20,000 of them were distributed throughout the army, capable of peircing 40mm of armour, and upraded to the PxB 39 grenade rifle around late 1942 when they became inneffective against tanks and had to be armed with HE/anti-tank grenades.

Granted the PTRD can penetrate 20mm more then the german PbZ, I don't think it warrants not including it into the game and playing with captured weapons that wouldn't have been available in great numbers.

PzB got replaced with the captured PTRD probably due to lack of resources. The rifle looks simple as hell to model and the only reason I can think they would not allow the Russians to have a better anti tank rifle while both sides already are imbalanced like they are, is that they barley have enough time for the stuff they are including post launch. Which is cool by me, at least they got prioreties or whatever. Just rather we weren't running around with weapons that usually got sabatoged before they were used by the enemy.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Edited due to finding a good, definitive source:

Frontal armor. The Panzer III AusfM was the final improvement to frontal armor, from 50mm to 70mm.

Panzer IV AusfG - 80mm (3.2") frontal armor.

The Germans had a real problem because the III was designed to be the tank fighter, and the IV to be the general assault tank (hence the short barrled 75mm gun). The way things developed, they had to use the Panzer IV for this purpose because its hull was wide enough to accept a turret ring which could house a long barreled 75mm anti tank gun. So, eventually they had to get "creative" about the frontal armor on the IV seeing as it was going to be facing 75mm-76mm armor piercing rounds on a regular basis.

Not on the sides.
But who knows, maybe they will add skirts.


About the sides, they're the same, 30mm vertical. Both tanks used Schurzen along the sides and around the turret, and the values of the armor in that points was always 30mm for both tanks.

Panzer III has rounded 70mm mantlet that covers all the front of the turret, against the vertical 50mm armor of Pz IV.

Panzer IV has rear armor that is only 20mm in all the models and it's a weak spot for AT grenades and ATR, while the Pz III armor was 30mm in the beginning (1939/40), 60mm (30+30) for Ausf. H and 50mm for J/L/M/N.

Comparing the last models (Pz III L/M/N and Pz IV G_late/H/J) you will find that the Pz III has a balanced armor in all the front of the tank (70mm) against the unbalanced armor of Pz IV that is 80mm for the hull but 50mm for the turret.

Talking about the Pz IV and III announced for HoS, they will have pratically the same armor except the back-hull armor that will be 50mm for Pz III against the 20mm of Pz IV, with also a uber-small difference in the mantlets (both 50mm) that will be rounded for the Pz III and vertical for the Pz IV.
 
Upvote 0
that's not accuracy... that's "ease of use".

and... "hoseing down a target" is precisely what makes everyone asume that is less accurate, recoil makes the whole gun shake, makeing it harder for a shot to land exactly where you want it to. if course that "drop" in accuracy and precision is more than made up by the sheer ammount of lead sent in the target's "general direction" :p

The MG34 had a selective fire capability.
 
Upvote 0
The question would be did the guys who made the statistic/ gathered info, took that into account, or did thy just measured shell holes...

The data is listed by caliber types not the size of the shell holes.

Both the squeeze bore guns where uncommon in any case (particularly in the time frame of the statistic), in any case if your idea is correct then you should have a significant number in the sub 50mm range, rather than ~60% of the combat losses being attributed to 50mm rounds. In fact the statistic details the 50mm guns by type the L42 & L60 (a bit specific if their just counting shell holes, though 75mm is all lumped together).

Though you do bring up a good point, though it may not be completely valid if the data already takes that into account, (not to mention the fact that the guns you mention where not all that common).

I'm pretty sure you're referring to this report:
http://www.battlefield.ru/en/documents/80-armor-and-equipment/428-soviet-tanks-vulnerability.html

The data is a collection of the size of the penetration holes, which in turn were attributed to various calibres.

It's a statistic from late 1942 of knocked out T-34's (and T-70's) in Soviet repair shops. The report itself specifically states it's the size of the penetration holes and specifically notes that a significant portion of penetrations in the 20-40mm range have to be attributed to sub-calibre ammunition. Similarly, APCR ammunition, due to its design, leaves a sub-calibre penetration mark as well.

In addition, while the Pak.41 was rather uncommon (something like 140 guns delivered until may 1942), the sPzB.41 was rather common. Up to 1943 roughly 1500 were delivered. My entire point is that this statistic is by no means end-all, and especially calibres which were unlikely to penetrate the T-34 in the first place are much more likely to be hits of sub calibre ammunition of guns of a larger calibre than hits in the 50mm and 75mm range. And while it gives a calibre we stil don't know what weapon actually caused it. 5cm KwK 38, 5cm KwK 39, 5cm Pak 38? All of those three have the same calibre, yet have vast differences in velocity and penetration capabilities. Same with the 7.5cm penetrations. KwK 37, KwK 40, PaK 97/38, PaK 40, PaK 269(r)?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0