The Panzer IV is the new T-34

[Veltro87]

ok guys.... you claim that you want the game to be as much as historical accurate as possible, here you whine about t34 having more firepower than pz4?

don't get if you guys are trolling or simply to lazy to google out tha thec data about the ammo used by the 2 tanks

so let me post the important data for you

and keep in mind that this post doesn't cover the penetration caracteristic of the guns, but just what happends if the shell goes in

now i suppose that for the germans the "ap" shell is actually the 75mm Pz.Gr. 39, now this shell that was fired by almost any 75mm gun of the germans had 18 grams of explosive filling (a 90-10 mixture of RDX and wax)

for the t 34, well thats depends cuz in summer 1942 there was a swich in production for the ApHe ammunition of the F-34 gun, anyway

early Br350a had a 150 grams (yeah thats huge) of TNT filling
later Br350b had 65 grams of A-IX-2 filling (mixture of RDX and wax, dunno the %, but A-IX-1 was 96-4)

just for more comparison the 88mm Pz.Gr 39 of the tiger had 56 grams of filling

so yeah, upon penetration rusky shells wrecked more havoc
anyway bigger filler holes ment that the shells had weaker walls, and made them more prone to break upon impact than german ones(yeah, shell break and premature fuze detonation.... never gonna happend in RO)

so peace out bros

p.s.
sorry if you get 2 posts.... always check if you're logged before hitting submit

[Mekhazzio]

Originally Posted by Sarkis.

Another opinion I have is that the game should go beyond balance, like it does with most of the firearms in game, and deliver imbalance. Meaning that the real fight between Panzer IVG and T34/76 would really be balanced in favor of the Panzer, or who shoots first.

The Pz4 Ausf F2/G and the T-34/76 are pretty much the two most equivalent main production tanks of the entire war, on any front. There's a reason these two were chosen for RO2, even though this version of Pz4 was far less common during Stalingrad than its inferior cousins.

If the game were implemented as more of a real tank sim with crew interaction focus, the separate commander & gunner crew positions on the Pz4 would be a huge advantage, but that's neither here nor there. In terms of straight up gun vs armor, they should be the next best thing to equivalent.

After doing some testing, it appears to me that the Pz4 still has the edge in the game when it comes to armor modeling. It's oddly durable for having what was, by mid war terms, terrible armor protection.

The AI sure seems to think the Pz4 has the upper hand. I left my test server running overnight on Gumrak. 10 hours later, the results are pretty lopsided, about a 6:1 kill count in favor of the Germans. That is, at least, a lot better than before the big patch, where it was closer to 40:1.

[Mekhazzio]

Originally Posted by Veltro87

(yeah, shell break and premature fuze detonation.... never gonna happend in RO)

Shell shatter -is- modeled in RO, actually.

[ak™]

I'm not half bad as a tanker, but there are some really good German tankers. I've seen some that kick some serious ***, including mine. I really think its up to the better tanker.

[Choice]

Originally Posted by r5cya

oh yeah! that was a riot! ever run under one in ost and get killed? good times!

Oh yeah!

I remember the first time it happened to me, I think it was my first OST game, on Arad .. I was near the enemy tank, who got hit by a friendly tank I remember thinking "Woah that's cool" just as the ricocheted shell lands at my feet..

[Nezzer]

Playing Kursk today I noticed that they are fairly balanced at long range. The T-34 is still a beast though, more than it should be. I played only as Russian and took like 10 hits to die sometimes. I also noticed how slow the T-34 is in the game. Its speed was always a significant advantage over all German tanks, used a lot to defeat them, but it's almost meaningless in the game. At close range, the Panzer IV still feels weak.

[WombatNinja]

Have to admit, the Panzer IV is pretty weak in comparison to the T-34, though from what I've saw an experienced Panzer IV tanker can still go to head to head with a T-34 and turn up on top. I think the Panzer IV should be restored to its former glory and the T-34 can just stay the way it is now.

[PhoenixDragon]

Originally Posted by WombatNinja

I think the Panzer IV should be restored to its former glory and the T-34 can just stay the way it is now.

Testing shows that the Panzer is still superior.

[Clowndoe]

What testing?

[PhoenixDragon]

Originally Posted by Clowndoe

What testing?

The Gumrak test mentioned above. Pit a full team of German and Russian bots in tanks against each other and let it run for a while (The above comparison linked by Mekh ran for 10 hours). By running bots, you eliminate variables such as skill and tactics, making it a straight-up comparison of the tanks' guns, armor, and (Due to AI randomness in aim) the size of vulnerable locations. When the Germans take out six Russian tanks for every one of theirs they lose, it seems pretty obvious that the German tank has some notable strength over its Russian counterpart.

[Sarkis.]

Everything that involves Tanks in RO2 needs serious revision.

There I said it

I am no expert in the actual tanks, nor the the game data. But the feel of it is just so wrong it hurts. Tanking alone is rather fun, mowing down infantry, tank battling all this is nicely executed. But how one particular weapon relates to one particular vehicle does not add up! And some other pretty important details

I am not trying to criticize the tank damage modeling in all its complexity, nor TWI's wisdom about the matter. But I'll be very critical of what the gameplay of tanking is at the moment. How does it feel to play Tank Commander.

I love it but I am currently hating it. To be fair: I know it's complicated stuff, but patch after patch and we are still on a very strange scenario with these tanks.

Forgetting all the real world Panzer vs T34 discussion, I cannot understand the logic of the results the game presents for us in various situations.

Gameplay Speaking

• T34 drive's hatch. Right now is impregnable at those 60 degrees of the entire glacis. A shot trough there seems only possible when the angling greatly favors its enemy.

• Antitank rifles vs PZ4. Right now I fear PTRS more than F34, and this is very wrong. As already mentioned here. The starboard ammo is a 1 hit kill for AT guns. Some good 5 shots can do devastating damage on various components on its hitting on the panzer's side. All this from a PTRS 250m away.

• Is very easy to blow up a PZ4 with the F34 hitting it's lower frontal plate, right side etc. That I agree with. However the same does not apply with the KWK 40 vs the T34's side, or many angles from behind. Either you go for a weak spot on the T34, or you will have to shoot twice, if not more times. The side upper armour plate from the T34 is also able to make shots from the Panzer bounce, at little more than 200m, with no more angling than it has by it self.

• I don't know if it is a bug or something. But many times getting hit while on the Panzer sends your view straight to the commander, while the Gunner is intact and you can't switch back so soon. That could be some sort of stun effect, but I fail to understand how the same does not happen with the T34.

• Terrain will trow you around all the time, specially if the terrain is not perfectly flat. Having your tank in some weird angle sometimes makes the gun loose alignment with the sights. Tanks should just get a stable cheat after some time immobile.

• The tanks have an incredible bad time negotiating terrain still, sidewalk and some obstacles, broken walls. Tanks should simply have more right of way vs these obstacles.

• Being a tanker and spawning as fast as infantryman can is just not cool. I don't know who had this idea. Bless your heart. But I and many others have no respect at all for this idea. It is a bad idea. Bad game design. Much worse because ROOST had it better. Proud God is right. Let tankers be tankers and rifleman at the same time and give tanks a much bigger spawn time.

Now the part that relates with the real world and how many of the tank related weaponry should relate:

Reality Check

• Many places suggest that the Panzer 4 was able to penetrate the T34's armour at any angle (ok that is an exaggeration by the one who makes the claim, since there are many possible angles) over at least 1 km. While we can currently make penetrations at such distances, that has to say something about those shots bouncing at 100m or less vs T34.

• A round almost penetrating the armor will generally generate lots of spalling, that would likely kill or injure crewman. A tank round it self achieving penetration would generally mean the end of it for the crew. It's explosive charge blowing up or not. It simply makes too much in regards of shrapnel and enormous pieces of metal bouncing all around the tank, transforming that into a not very pleasant work place. I am no expert, but I am led to believe those shots we are making, the good ones, that still fail to hit a weak spot, should in many cases be much more devastating to the crew, many times completely killing everyone instantly. People have mentioned the increased explosive charge of the T34's round. Hitting the Panzer on the side at point blank range with that thing would not make a vector of death inside the tank, killing anyone in it's path. It would cook everything and the ammo would cook everything again! And the same goes for proper penetrations against the T34.

• People that advocate for WASD controls have a point, they do give a better impression than mouse controls does in regards of how realistic the turret movement is. Arma 2's turrets have a ton of molasses effect applied to it. RO2 could go even further and try to mimmick real turret movements. Even if we are left with mouse controls. However configuring WASD should be possible for those who want. I personally don't.

• Speed. Many sources suggest that the T34 was able of offroad speeds in excess of 50km/h. While the Panzer struggled to go beyond 20 Km/s offroad. I don't know at all if this is really true. But both tanks making 38 km/s also does not seem true at all. If we cannot properly simulate what is offroad and what is not. At least a rebalance of both tanks speed against real data.

• Antitank grenades. The russian AT grenade killing the Panzer 4G is beyond fantasy. It doing some sort of damage would not be. The german AT grenade was the only true killer. There are many ways to better depict them in game.
Also throwing the german AT grenade, and it having killing power vs infantry is also ridiculous. At the same time the russian 1kg grenade is hardly lethal vs infantry. ( Huge blast vs Shaped charged )

People have show their disinterest in tanks. Many times the Tank Commander role is left untouched in full servers. Not to say that people won't use it. But having heard that many people don't like tanking at all in RO2 was for me a surprising thing. That is not anymore. Tanking can be awful. While teammates are expecting so much from their tankers, performing admirably and still being hindered by the game's crazy nuances is just very unpleasant. Tanking it BF3 is terrible and annoying. Tanking in RO2 should not be terrible and annoying.

How can we expect new tanks and vehicles in the future, going beyond the upcoming ones, when the current tanking situation is so messed up!?

Tanking right now is as If the IS2 could not kill a Tiger I, but a Antitank rifle round can penetrate the Tiger side to side, exit it and penetrate the IS2 and blow both to smithereens

Tanking in RO2 should be glorious!

[Nezzer]

That's why I let Sarkis do all the talking

[Rrralphster]

Originally Posted by Sarkis.

• Antitank grenades. The russian AT grenade killing the Panzer 4G is beyond fantasy. It doing some sort of damage would not be. The german AT grenade was the only true killer. There are many ways to better depict them in game.
Also throwing the german AT grenade, and it having killing power vs infantry is also ridiculous. At the same time the russian 1kg grenade is hardly lethal vs infantry. ( Huge blast vs Shaped charged )

Slight underestimation of the power of TNT(mixed ofcourse, as usuall).
A 600g charge can plough through an inch of hardened steel...

Even the mighty Tiger's engine deck only had a thicknes of 25mm (1 inch)...

600g --> 1000g = 1 dead Tiger (not even talking about the "relatively weaker Pz IV")

[Sensemann]

I think it's very frustrating to see that you still get session banned from the server when shooting at your own tank.
Yesterday, I was kicked because I was shooting at the PZ IV with my MG.

The commander simply didn't listen to the team to move up 10 meters to see the enemy tank. I thought knocking at the tank with some bullets would get his attention.

Result: "You are session banned"

[PhoenixDragon]

Originally Posted by Sarkis.

T34 drive's hatch. Right now is impregnable at those 60 degrees of the entire glacis. A shot trough there seems only possible when the angling greatly favors its enemy.

Not a bug. This seems to be an error in assuming that the driver hatch is a weak point. The truth is actually the opposite. The T-34 driver's hatch in real-life appears to be the thickest point of armor on either tank, and at a 60-degree angle certainly should be incredibly tough.

Antitank rifles vs PZ4. Right now I fear PTRS more than F34, and this is very wrong. As already mentioned here. The starboard ammo is a 1 hit kill for AT guns. Some good 5 shots can do devastating damage on various components on its hitting on the panzer's side. All this from a PTRS 250m away.

The ATRs were intentionally made stronger so that the infantry had any chance against the (unrealistically larger number of) tanks present in the battle. That said, the situation is roughly the same for both sides. Arguably slightly worse for the T-34, since the German ATR, despite being a captured Russian weapon, has 50% more penetration power...

Is very easy to blow up a PZ4 with the F34 hitting it's lower frontal plate, right side etc. That I agree with. However the same does not apply with the KWK 40 vs the T34's side, or many angles from behind. Either you go for a weak spot on the T34, or you will have to shoot twice, if not more times. The side upper armour plate from the T34 is also able to make shots from the Panzer bounce, at little more than 200m, with no more angling than it has by it self.

The T-34 has side armor that is both thicker than the Panzer's, and sloped, particularly for that side-upper-armor plate you mention. That's one of the worst places to shoot the tank. Hit it below that, around the treads, and it's plenty vulnerable.

However, I've not seen this T-34-favoring disparity people speak of. In the shots I've seen, it takes roughly as many shots to take out either tank. The AI seems to think the Panzer has a huge advantage over the T-34. I certainly haven't seen anything in-game suggesting that the T-34 actually has the edge.

Terrain

Yeah, there's a few issues with terrain, and many of them are an inescapable problem of the engine. The LoD-treatment of the terrain makes for all sorts of invisible hillocks that you won't know about until you either land a perfectly-aimed shot in invisible dirt, or you spot a tank floating in mid-air.

Many places suggest that the Panzer 4 was able to penetrate the T34's armour at any angle (ok that is an exaggeration by the one who makes the claim, since there are many possible angles) over at least 1 km. While we can currently make penetrations at such distances, that has to say something about those shots bouncing at 100m or less vs T34.

What those sources don't mention is that the true was the same the other way around. Both tanks' guns were more than capable of punching through any armor facing (With the possible exception of the T-34's heavily-angled front glacis, and almost certainly the driver's hatch) past a kilometer.

Speed. Many sources suggest that the T34 was able of offroad speeds in excess of 50km/h. While the Panzer struggled to go beyond 20 Km/s offroad. I don't know at all if this is really true. But both tanks making 38 km/s also does not seem true at all. If we cannot properly simulate what is offroad and what is not. At least a rebalance of both tanks speed against real data.

I'd question that source, when the 1942 5-speed gearbox was supposed to increase the T-34's offroad speed to somewhere around 30km/h. Still faster than the Panzer, of course. In any case, the T-34 is noticeably faster than the Panzer in-game, unless they changed the speeds fairly recently.

Antitank grenades. The russian AT grenade killing the Panzer 4G is beyond fantasy. It doing some sort of damage would not be. The german AT grenade was the only true killer. There are many ways to better depict them in game.
Also throwing the german AT grenade, and it having killing power vs infantry is also ridiculous. At the same time the russian 1kg grenade is hardly lethal vs infantry. ( Huge blast vs Shaped charged )

A deck-hit with the RPG-40 would be capable of causing damage past the armor quite easily (It's supposed to penetrate 20mm). The only unrealistic part against tanks is that it can do hitpoint damage (Apparently) on thicker armor facings.

To do the German AT grenade, it really needs a "place" system, rather than throwing it. And if we want to be really realistic, there should be the chance that it falls off...

Incidentally, the RPG-40 is completely incapable of killing an infantryman on its own. It doesn't do enough damage. They have to already be injured to be killed by it.

Tanking right now is as If the IS2 could not kill a Tiger I, but a Antitank rifle round can penetrate the Tiger side to side, exit it and penetrate the IS2 and blow both to smithereens

I think we've had enough exaggeration already, don't you?

[AtheistIII]

600g --> 1000g = 1 dead Tiger (not even talking about the "relatively weaker Pz IV")

How much of the 1kg-grenade was actually explosives?

[[Mad_Murdock]]

I would say 1kg. As far as I know, weight designations for explosives denote the weight of the charge. Hence the 12kg satchel for example would have a 12kg charge.

[Barber[FG]]

I want a “realistic simulation” of how the two tanks would perform against each other. If the T34 gunner can hit a critically weak sweet spot, often destroying the Panzer IV; that is fine by me as long as it is a “realistic simulation” of what would happen. Likewise, if the Panzer IV gunner hits a critically weak sweet spot on the T34 engulfing it if flames… as long as it is a “realistic simulation” of what would happen- AWESOME! Historically, the Panzer IV was superior in certain environments and at certain aspects of Tank formations Combat to the T34. However, the T34 had its own advantages to concider.

Personally, I do not want to see the tanks armor values and how each tank performs in the “simulation” catered balance for the sake of balance over a preferred “realistic Simulation” of how each tank preforms against the other.

In close quarter city tank Combat, it is often the tank that gets the first good shot that wins the battle. In a slugfest at ranges ranging out to 800meters and above, the Panzer IV is a superior tank. In Ranges 600 meters and below, the T34 comes into its own.

[Sarkis.]

Quoting some dude in the axishistory forum

There are several references in Jentz: "Panzertruppen" about the performance of the 5cm L/60 vs T34.

1. 31. july 1942 (p.241, vol. 1)
PzGr 38 was not effective against the hull front, though sometimes it managed to knock the dirvers hatch off. Lower hull side could be penetrated up to 500 meters, turret side and front and upper hull side up to 400 meters. PzGr 40 didn't work in the gun, so there is no data for that round. Later in the report, it is stated that the 5cm L/60 and 7,5cm L/43 guns have made the T-34 inferior to the German tanks whereas it previously was considered superior.

2. May 1942 (p. 231, vol.1)
PzGr penetrates up to 400 meter at hull and turret sides, at 300 meters from the front after several hits on the drivers hatch at 300 meters. PzGr 40 was defective and only fired at KV's

A "Panzerbeschusstafel" from March 1943 shows the range and areas which 5cm L/60 tank gunners should fire at vs the T-34 in order to be sure to achieve penetration:

- Turret front plate, 100 meters with PzGr 38 and 40
- Hull front, the narrow vertical part where upper and lower hull meets, 100 meters with PzGr 40
- Turret side, 600 meters with PzGr 38, 500 meters with PzGr 40
- Upper hull side, PzGr 38 500 meters, PzGr 40 400 meters
- Lower hull side, PzGr 38 1000 meters, PzGr 40 800 meters, but maximum range for the PzGr 40 was set to 600 meters
- Rear turret, PzGr 38 600 meters, PzGr 40 500 meters
- Rear hull, PzGr 38 and 40, 300 meters

If the 5 cm PaK 38 (L/60) was able to knock off the drivers hatch. The hatch in game should have a chance of becoming a weakspot. Able to resist only one tank round from the Panzer's KwK 40 L43. Or having a probability of being knocked off. It was certainly not a impregnable area of the T34.

Quoting from Wilsonam's thread:

Panzer IV impacting T-34, left side, between road-wheels 2 and 3, actual angle of impact 43 degrees (plate is vertical, tank moving at an angle across the Panzer's front). The plate is 45mm RHA, hardness BHN 400 - high hardness plate.
T/d = 0.60
Final plate resistance is 60.7mm - it would be higher if it wasn't high hardness plate
Penetration for the round is 104mm in this case and it doesn't shatter, leaving the penetration unchanged, giving a Pen:Res ratio of 1.7187
This is an immediate Overmatch - that side plate is no match for the incoming 75mm round, even when angled and at 500m range
The round penetrates - clipping through the forward left fuel tank and into the main ammo storage in the hull. Scratch one T-34.

Let's say this particular example, Overmatch, failed to hit the fuel tank or the ammo storage. Should it not be a kill anyway? Or produce much more damage inside the tank. Even if the crew was able to survive, inside it would be hell. And they would all leave the tank to survive.

About the AT grenades, sure the German one HHL should be placed on the enemy tank, and should have a probability of falling. And the Russian one, would be ok to damage the Panzer IV, weaken it's deck or something. But not blowing one up with each 2 grenades thrown. If a russian 1kg grenade can a chance of killing the Panzer IV instantly, why does countless HE rounds from the T34 would not do the same? And how come the F34's AP can't even do the same? Again a poor balance decision. It was in Battefield 1942 that frag grenades could take out tanks, and in Call of Duty WaW that everyone could have an AT grenade, but even there they were not so effective against the tanks.

The ATRs were intentionally made stronger so that the infantry had any chance against the (unrealistically larger number of) tanks present in the battle. That said, the situation is roughly the same for both sides. Arguably slightly worse for the T-34, since the German ATR, despite being a captured Russian weapon, has 50% more penetration power...

There. This is what I am talking about. This is the wrong approach! Instead of making the ATR stronger they should make the tanks less frequent! And the 50% should also be revised.

In any case, the T-34 is noticeably faster than the Panzer in-game, unless they changed the speeds fairly recently.

In game test: The Panzer IV goes at 37 km/h and the T34 goes at 39 km/h. The T34 however gets up to speed with much more ease. Accelerating much faster it is able to cruise through tough terrain in game faster. Test quickly done on Pavlov's stretch of flat terrain.

The power/weight ratio of both tanks:

T34: 17.5 hp/tonne plus the 5 gearbox and the wider tracks,
PZ4: 12.0 hp/honne plus the thinner tracks

But instead of pressing this advantage in favor of the T34, the game tries to paint both as the same tank.

Again, I don't know all truth. I am just saying things need revision. And Nezzer is right, the T34 has become the new Panzer 4 in game.

[AtheistIII]

I would say 1kg. As far as I know, weight designations for explosives denote the weight of the charge. Hence the 12kg satchel for example would have a 12kg charge.

Well, I know that that is not the case at least for aerial bombs, but that may be due to loading capacities of the planes, so i'm not sure if that counts for infantry equipment as well.