• 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/

new tanks?

And hopely they make the tiger now correct. I mean only destructable on the side or rear. And the front .....ah you know.
Yes, and perhaps they will make it it so that it has a mechanical breakdown every few miles, or sinks into the mud because its so heavy.
Anyway with the new damage system in RO2 their will be a lot more areas of every tank that can be hit disabling them, or kill one of the crew
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Well according to Panzertruppen by T Jentz

On July 1942 the Divisions that eventually got used in and around Stalingrad had in July 1942 (with 6th Army & 4th Panzer Army)
14th, 16th, 22nd & 24th Panzer Divs, 3rd, 16th, 29th & 60th Mot infantry

Panzer II............... =126
Panzer 38t............. =114 (22nd pz)
Panzer III 50mm L42 =134
Panzer III 50mm L60 =246
Panzer IV 75mm L24 =66
Panzer IV 75mm L43 =67
Command Tanks...... =19

By mid November 1942 the units attached to 6th army and to Army Group B had operational the following tank.
6th Army (14th, 16th & 24th Panzer Divs & 3rd & 60th Mot infantry Divs)
Panzer II............... = 12
Panzer III 50mm L42 = 10
Panzer III 50mm L60 = 93
Panzer III 75mm L24 = 17
Panzer IV 75mm L24 = 7
Panzer IV 75mm L43 = 34
Command Tanks...... = 7
---
Army Group B (which 6th Army was part of) also had a further
(22nd & 27th Panzer, 16th & 29th Mot infantry)
Panzer II............... = 26
Panzer 38t............. = 27
Panzer III 50mm L42 = 5
Panzer III 50mm L60 = 61
Panzer III 75mm L24 = 38
Panzer IV 75mm L24 = 3
Panzer IV 75mm L43 = 44
Command Tanks...... = 3

Thanks for this VERY informative post. Going by this, it seems that the long gun Pz III Aus J1 (L60) would be the most appropriate choice historically for TWI to add to the game. It also shows that the choice by TWI to add the Pz IV Aus F2/Aus G (L43) was a good one (despite many claims against this on the forums) since it was the most numerous Pz IV variant in the battle, especially on the winter maps like Gumrak and Fallen Fighters. It is still dwarfed in importance by the Pz III Aus J1...I hope they add this variant (it should have been the default German tank for the RO2 release, IMHO).

Anyhow, yeah, they'll most likely add the J version of Pz III. But if they really want to stick to T-70 and make it a bit more fair, they should add one of the 37mm gun equipped Pz III (like, ausf E or F)... not sure if they were still around by then, but Mkb's weren't so it won't hurt anyone :p

I don't think the earlier Pz III were in frontline service at the time. The T-70 was in service in large numbers during the battle, making it an important historical addition. It is no counter to the Pz III Aus J or J1, that is a totally unfair contest. Russians will complain until the KV-1 is added. I hope they also add the small German tanks: Pz II Aus F and Pz 38(t) Aus G would be the most appropriate variants there, IMHO, perhaps someone could comment... StuGs and Marder IIs would also make fine additions once we get more big tanking maps.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Contrary to popular belief the Germans never held tank superiority on the eastern front.While the Tiger was a great tank it was never made in enough numbers to effect the war(and wasn't in Stalingrad).And the Panther was again a great tank but by the time they got it into production the Russians was pumping out T-34/85's and IS-2 tanks in far greater numbers.German advantage was in crew training and radio equipment.

On the eastern front the Germans never quite wrestled tank supremacy away from the Red Army.


Exactly!

...something Tripwire or modders need to consider with Tank maps, perhaps adding more numbers to the Russian team.

Because, as good as Russian tanks are, they can't really be used as they were, infact Russian tanks have to follow the German tactics in order to work well on most maps.


EDIT: On the actual Topic, it would be nice to see some Light tanks and APC's maybe the German Puma? (because im not one of those people who remember model names). Because Heavy tanks will just dominate and well, it'll be the (stupid) assault rifles all over again.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
And hopely they make the tiger now correct. I mean only destructable on the side or rear. And the front .....ah you know.

A T34 can at least get a partial penetration on a tiger front if it engages at 70m or less (which is like 50% of tank battles on public servers). 100m if it has BR-350P APCR rounds for its F-34 gun. Not sure if they had em in Stalingrad though.
 
Upvote 0
Thanks for this VERY informative post. Going by this, it seems that the long gun Pz III Aus J1 (L60) would be the most appropriate choice historically for TWI to add to the game. It also shows that the choice by TWI to add the Pz IV Aus F2/Aus G (L43) was a good one (despite many claims against this on the forums) since it was the most numerous Pz IV variant in the battle, especially on the winter maps like Gumrak and Fallen Fighters. It is still dwarfed in importance by the Pz III Aus J1...I hope they add this variant (it should have been the default German tank for the RO2 release, IMHO).

Well here's some info that the book I mentioned (the source of the tank numbers), and is from a report by the 24th panzer division at Stalingrad date 11 October 1942. (me paraphrasing)

Panzers should only be attached to panzergrenadiers as regular infantry have little idea on how to use tanks, the target should be scouted as much as possible and planed for accordingly. The use of single tanks should be prohibited as covering fire can not be used. Before the attack the Panzers with the guidance of infantry and terrain should knock out opposing tanks and AT Guns. The Panzers should stay behind the infantry attack providing covering fire, communications should be via the side hatch away from return fire. The infantry must not bunch up behind the tank but move foreword under the cover of the Panzers Guns and terrain.

The L24 gun is recommended due to it's short barrel, the L43 gun is said to take to much damage in the streets, AP rounds have been usefull on stone wallls, smoke is useful on infantry strong points to blind them. Panzer IIs have been useful at escorting supply units moving through contested areas.

In defense their use as a local reserve is recommended, also their use on the front lines is not recommended, though if pressed the use of single panzers in camouflaged positions have proven to be useful.
If disabled in operations the tank should be guarded by infantry until it can be removed to protect it from close in attacks.

I don't think the earlier Pz III were in frontline service at the time. The T-70 was in service in large numbers during the battle, making it an important historical addition. It is no counter to the Pz III Aus J or J1, that is a totally unfair contest. Russians will complain until the KV-1 is added. I hope they also add the small German tanks: Pz II Aus F and Pz 38(t) Aus G would be the most appropriate variants there, IMHO, perhaps someone could comment... StuGs and Marder IIs would also make fine additions once we get more big tanking maps.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6
Well they could use them for earlier battles, who says the game has to only take place at Stalingrad? It could very easily be retrofitted for earlier battles.
Their was 286 Panzer IIIs used in operation Barbarossa, with a further 64 in inventory...
Numbers and types of panzers in use in June 1941
Panzer I*...........181 (9th, 12th, 17-20th Pz)
Panzer II............810
Panzer III 37mm..286
Panzer III 50mm..707
Panzer IV...........448
Panzer 35t.........155 (6th Pz)
Panzer 38t.........625 (7th, 8th, 12th, 19th & 20th Pz)
Command tank....198

* Yes they where still in use it seems.

Also a German report (from Panzer Regiment 33, 9th Panzer Div) on the 50mm L60s ability to deal with the T-34 and KV-1 during the summer of 1942.
T-34 PzGr 38
Hull sides are penetrated at up to 500m
Turret & upper hull sides penetrated at up to 400m
Turret Front up to 400m
Hull front not effective, though drivers hatch can be removed

KV-1
Hull Sides at up to 300m
Turret and upper hull sides 200m
Turret Front under 100m

PzGr 40 (APCR) was not recommended due to the cartage casing getting stuck in the breach


The 75mm L43 gun is mentioned as dealing with the T-34 at ranges of 1,200 meters at any angle.
Though they also mention cartage extraction issues.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
KV-1
Hull Sides at up to 300m
Turret and upper hull sides 200m
Turret Front under 100m

Your source is clearly propaganda the KV-1 was often only destroyed by a flak 88 anti tank gun or infantry with a satchel charge.Until the Tiger was fielded most panzers could just disable it and even then it would keep on fighting.The Germans was so impressed by its heavy armor design that they used lots of captured KV's and it even lead to the design of the Tiger.(along with their experiences with the french Char-b)

This KV-1 was abandoned after it ran out of ammo
Spoiler!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
the L/60, which was the one that was said to be able to penetrate the T34, frontally.
Don't think it could penetrate T-34's frontal armour.
Incorrect. The L/60 could penetrate the 52 mm turret front/mantlet of the T-34/76 Model 194? at under 500 meters, it could destroy the glacis hatch as someone mentioned, and it could penetrate the 45 mm glacis itself at under 100 meters. Look here for that:




l60f.jpg





Panzer III 50mm L42 =134
Panzer III 50mm L60 =246
Panzer III 50mm L42 = 10
Panzer III 50mm L60 = 93
Panzer III 50mm L42 = 5
Panzer III 50mm L60 = 61
Good numbers. If Tripwire decides to put in anything other than an L60 as the Panzer III variant, then they are wrong, biased, or historically nerfing the Germans.



Yes, and perhaps they will make it it so that it has a mechanical breakdown every few miles, or sinks into the mud because its so heavy.
Which one? The T-34/KV with the pos slam transmission that forced them to carry spares on the engine deck or the multitudes of T-34/KV that were lost to marshy terrain?
 
Upvote 0
Your source is clearly propaganda the KV-1 was often only destroyed by a flak 88 anti tank gun or infantry with a satchel charge.Until the Tiger was fielded most panzers could just disable it and even then it would keep on fighting.The Germans was so impressed by its heavy armor design that they used lots of captured KV's and it even lead to the design of the Tiger.(along with their experiences with the french Char-b)

This KV-1 was abandoned after it ran out of ammo
Spoiler!

Incorrect, the report is a by the 9th panzer division, and is based off their combat experience.

The KV 1 was vulnerable to 50mm L60 guns, theirs even a Russian report that mentions this, they even say that using 50mm APCR the KV1 could be taken out at 700 meters (under favorable angles).

According to the Russians the KV1 was penetrated 9.5% of the time by 50mm AP, 37% by 50mm APCR, 41% by 88mm and 6.5% by 105mm AP
(though it might be talking about the KV1s)
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewto...sid=a6b192ccb22f35527d61fb4f9aaa1f7a&start=15

Note the Panzer IIIs did not get the 50mm L60 guns till the start of 1942, the only 50mm L60s at the start was with the Pak 38s.
 
Upvote 0
Your source is clearly propaganda the KV-1 was often only destroyed by a flak 88 anti tank gun or infantry with a satchel charge.

That's true though remember about something - the stories about impenetrable KV tanks come from beginnings of Operation Barbarossa. And at the time, Germans didn't really had any adequate AT weapons. Best thing mounted on tanks were 50mm L/42 cannons, which were unable to reliably penetrate KV tanks at reasonable ranges. They didn't had 75mm AT guns (which were able to penetrate KV tanks later in the war), so the only thing they were left with were 88mm Flak guns. And of course, they also had 50mm L/60 guns, but tanks equipped in them didn't came until early '42 or so.
On the second though, they also had towed versions of the 50mm L/60 gun, which could penetrate KV and T-34 tanks at close ranges, but it was impossible when enemy tanks positioned themselves on a wide-open steppe!
But either way, my point is... in late '42, KV tanks reputation of being impenetrable was long gone - they were still a though nut to crack and they inspired Germans to create their heavy tanks, but they weren't impenetrable any more.

Incorrect. The L/60 could penetrate the 52 mm turret front/mantlet of the T-34/76 Model 194? at under 500 meters, it could destroy the glacis hatch as someone mentioned, and it could penetrate the 45 mm glacis itself at under 100 meters.
Yes, you're right and I know that source material - but like I already answered in my earlier post I should have wrote "reliably penetrate" instead of just "penetrate".
 
Upvote 0
To answer the OP's question:


posted by [TW]Yoshiro @ 11:02PM on October 18, 2011

And since people keep asking "What is Tripwire currently doing?" People are working on a whole bunch of things - coders on fixes/debugging (and performance), artists on new content , design team considering tweaks to gameplay (but that will happen more after we are comfortable with stability). - Alan Wilson (VP)
 
Upvote 0
Your source is clearly propaganda the KV-1 was often only destroyed by a flak 88 anti tank gun or infantry with a satchel charge.Until the Tiger was fielded most panzers could just disable it and even then it would keep on fighting.The Germans was so impressed by its heavy armor design that they used lots of captured KV's and it even lead to the design of the Tiger.(along with their experiences with the french Char-b)

Not propaganda. The quoted ranges there are very short in tanking terms. Penetrate the KV-1 turret at <100m? That's great until the KV-1 returns fire...you're too close to escape. Implementing a KV-1 that is realistically vulnerable in RO2 would encourage German tankers (Pz III J1 drivers in particular) to use historical tactics and teamwork to take down these beasts which, while difficult, is not impossible.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6
 
Upvote 0
Down play the KV all you want the fact remains the Germans didn't have anything close to the survivability of the KV-1b in Stalingrad.In fact the only heavy tanks the Germans had in Stalingrad was captured KV's.While nothing is indestructible the kv's had the highest survivability of any tank in Stalingrad. Check out the specifications in this link and armor thickness....NO medium tank even came close to this in Stalingrad.

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tanks-heavy/kv-1-1941.asphttp://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tanks-heavy/kv-1-1941.asp
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Down play the KV all you want the fact remains the Germans didn't have anything close to the survivability of the KV-1b in Stalingrad.In fact the only heavy tanks the Germans had in Stalingrad was captured KV's.While nothing is indestructible the kv's had the highest survivability of any tank in Stalingrad. Check out the specifications in this link and armor thickness....NO medium tank even came close to this in Stalingrad.

[url]http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tanks-heavy/kv-1-1941.asp[/URL]

I don't think anyone is implying that KV-1b was worse in head-on fight than anything Germans had at Stalingrad (including Pz IV F2/G), quite the opposite actually. I'm just saying that it wasn't impenetrable (like you've just pointed out yourself).
And for KV's defence, I can only say, that Germans were actually putting 75mm KwK 40 (the same as used on Pz IV F2/G) on their captured KVs when they could - says much about how valuable the tank was even for Germans!
 
Upvote 0