The Armor System. Whats really wrong?

[Golf33]

Nicely done, raydude On the one hand we're supposed to believe the 88/L56 could destroy every opposing tank at several kilometers, but on the other hand we're supposed to believe that those opposing tanks were unable to destroy Tigers from any range or angle. This is of course why no Tigers were ever destroyed prior to the introduction of the IS2 and why the Allies lost the war....

I do agree that tank gun lethality is not high enough in RO:O, but IMO this is a function of:

1) Excessive glancing. Rounds bounce against armour that is not greatly angled - as posted above, while sloping does increase effective thickness and may cause some glancing, it's not something that happens routinely.

2) Too many penetrating hits fail to cause significant damage. Putting a 122mm round into the engine compartment of a PzIV at 100m range and at a 90-degree angle should completely destroy the engine at a minimum. I would expect there would also be a chance of engine fire leading shortly to ammo storage detonation in this case. Putting a round into the turret should have a very good chance of killing the turret crew and/or disabling the main armament.

Regards
33

 

[Aelius]

So, you don't believe the tables from your own referenced website:

Tiger I vs. T-34/85 T-34/85 vs. Tiger I
Front: Turret 1400 m 500 m
Mantlet 400 m 0 m
DFP* 100 m 300 m
Side: Turret 2200 m 1600 m
Superstructure 2100 m 1600 m
Hull 3500 m 2900 m
Rear: Turret 3200 m 1600 m
Hull 2100 m 1500 m
*DFP = Drivers Front Plate

Check out the penetration range for the T-34 versus Tiger 1. Tiger's front turret gets penetrated at 500m. That's well within RO engagement ranges. Side Turret penetrated at 1600m. Hull at 2900m. Rear at 1600m. Hull at 1500m. Its from the tables on the same website you referenced. I'm not making this stuff up! Its from the same website you reference

Why do you feel the need to twist things? I freaking hate people who do that with intense passion. You doing this to get a rise out of me?

This conversation is over.

 

[LemoN]

for people that dont know
there is NO T34/76
but there is a T34/41 (wich is on bondarevo)
a T34/42 wich has a bigger turret
a T34/43 wich has the round fueltanks on the rear and not the boxed fueltanks
a T34/44 wich has as far as i know a bit better armour than the 43
and the T34/85 wich is the standardt T34 we see ingame

just my 2 cents

 

[Mr Darcy]

Why do you feel the need to twist things? I freaking hate people who do that with intense passion. You doing this to get a rise out of me?

This conversation is over.

Aelius, a question. How is he twisting things? If he is taking data from the same source as yourself then surely it's just as valid.

I don't know enough about tank combat to dispute or agree with either of you, so i'm not attacking or twisting. Just questioning.




Brings back memories of il-2 when they introduced the p-47 though - people were arguing that it could withstand 88mm flak hits and could destroy Tiger I's with it's 8x.50cal machine guns.

 

[raydude]

I do agree that tank gun lethality is not high enough in RO:O, but IMO this is a function of:

1) Excessive glancing. Rounds bounce against armour that is not greatly angled - as posted above, while sloping does increase effective thickness and may cause some glancing, it's not something that happens routinely.

2) Too many penetrating hits fail to cause significant damage. Putting a 122mm round into the engine compartment of a PzIV at 100m range and at a 90-degree angle should completely destroy the engine at a minimum. I would expect there would also be a chance of engine fire leading shortly to ammo storage detonation in this case. Putting a round into the turret should have a very good chance of killing the turret crew and/or disabling the main armament.

Regards
33

Agreed wholeheartedly. I'm sure the devs also agree on these points, and will be fixing the underlying damage and penetration calculation and not the data points for the shells and armor.

 

[raydude]

Aelius, a question. How is he twisting things? If he is taking data from the same source as yourself then surely it's just as valid.

I don't know enough about tank combat to dispute or agree with either of you, so i'm not attacking or twisting. Just questioning.

One doesn't need to know a lot about tank combat. His referenced site provides a lot of information, detailing both the pros AND cons of the Tiger tanks. Specifically, if one focuses on the Tiger 1 (which is the Tiger in the game), one can look at the penetration tables themselves and come to the same conclusion I did - that the T34/85 is adequate for killing the Tiger 1.

What upsets me is that Aelius is ignoring the fact that the Tiger 1 faced different models of the T-34, and is presenting the quotes from Thomas L. Gentz as proof of the Tiger 1 superiority vs. the T-34/85. It is not! The quote specifically states that the Tiger 1's in that account faced T-34's firing 76.2mm rounds. A quick search on google reveals that the T-34/76 is would have been the model firing that gun - and YES, the T-34/76 was undergunned compared to the Tiger 1.

HOWEVER, the T-34/85 is the model we see in the game. That model was introduced in 1944 as a counter to the Tiger and performed well in that role.

The facts to me are plain as day - if one knows how to comprehend them.

 

[Lt. Winters]

Sry i cant take a look at the a website, it seems to be a broken link for me...

but anyway, Golf i agree with you completly and i think the devs know but there has been alot of speculation about whether or not the engine can fix this without causing too much stress on servers. I think they could probobly fix it but w/e.

BTW i was wrong about that more panthers than tiger thing, i was thinking vice versa. Although early panthers were knocked out b4 seeing action bcuz of mechanical failures, after the battle of kursk most of these problems were fixed.

I also dont see anyone twisting anything "to be blunt" and dont see wat your talking about.

BTW:

To sum up. The only Russian tank able to penetrate the Tiger's front or even side armor was the IS2. Period end of story.

this is the most retarded thing ive ever heard.

 

[Jack]

I wish people would learn to use published books instead of the internet for fact finding. This thread is an example of why the interent shouldn't be used for highly technical discussions...there is just way too much variance in data.

If someone wants to prove a point, all they do is find the website with the lob-sided statistics that support their view, then the oppossing person does the same. These websites are often not very professional, and we have next to no information on the credentials of the authors, or even where they derived their data from.


The line that Lt. Winters quoted is a perfect example of this: no credible data set is going to show that only the IS2 could pentrate the Tiger's armor.




I agree with the others who have espoused that the underlying armor and shot caluclations in ROOST are probably spot on...it's the deflection angle that is being overdone. And of course some weird situations with the 20mm auto-cannon on the T-60 and the PTRD.


I trust the devs will have all these problems fixed in the new patch coming out.

 

[Aelius]

Aelius, a question. How is he twisting things? If he is taking data from the same source as yourself then surely it's just as valid.

I don't know enough about tank combat to dispute or agree with either of you, so i'm not attacking or twisting. Just questioning.




Brings back memories of il-2 when they introduced the p-47 though - people were arguing that it could withstand 88mm flak hits and could destroy Tiger I's with it's 8x.50cal machine guns.

Because of what he is saying in the underlining. Look I know that most tanks (most) by the end of the war could penetrate the Tiger I tank, this includes a number of U.S. tanks as well, at some distance, some at max distance some up close but most of them at basicly any combat distance which is roughly +/- 800m. The data he is showing is evidence of that.

What he is saying, and which pisses me off, is that the Tiger I is supposed to be this death coffin just because a Russian tank is shooting at it and that all maps are within this combat distance. This would be highly incorrect. I think some of the combined arms maps are roughly +/- 1 mile square but the tank maps are easily 2+ miles square. He is saying there is pretty much nothing wrong. I'm saying there is. If you look at the penetration table it shows that the front of the Tiger could not be penetrated by the T34 (at all) over 500 meters. Then how come it gets annihilated at max distance. Look at the Arad map as an example. You are look at roughly 2 mile distance between the two extreme edges of the map and the t34 tanks can knock out the Tiger I in 2 shots virtually every single time when hitting the front.

It doesn't make any sense.

Plus if we are using mostly the tanks from the end of the war then how come the Russian get their best tank of WWII and the Germans only get a Tiger I. Where's the KingTiger, it was introduced in 44 and all Tiger I production had stopped at this point so where is it?

A lot of things don't make sense in the way armored combat is setup right now.

Anyway...

 

[Aelius]

Sry i cant take a look at the a website, it seems to be a broken link for me...

but anyway, Golf i agree with you completly and i think the devs know but there has been alot of speculation about whether or not the engine can fix this without causing too much stress on servers. I think they could probobly fix it but w/e.

BTW i was wrong about that more panthers than tiger thing, i was thinking vice versa. Although early panthers were knocked out b4 seeing action bcuz of mechanical failures, after the battle of kursk most of these problems were fixed.

I also dont see anyone twisting anything "to be blunt" and dont see wat your talking about.

BTW:



this is the most retarded thing ive ever heard.

I should have clarified that it could do it at any range, while the other tanks could not.

P.S. Go piss in your own cup of tea retard.

 

[Mr Darcy]

Because of what he is saying in the underlining. Look I know that most tanks (most) by the end of the war could penetrate the Tiger I tank, this includes a number of U.S. tanks as well, at some distance, some at max distance some up close but most of them at basicly any combat distance which is roughly +/- 800m. The data he is showing is evidence of that.

What he is saying, and which pisses me off, is that the Tiger I is supposed to be this death coffin just because a Russian tank is shooting at it and that all maps are within this combat distance. This would be highly incorrect. I think some of the combined arms maps are roughly +/- 1 mile square but the tank maps are easily 2+ miles square. He is saying there is pretty much nothing wrong. I'm saying there is. If you look at the penetration table it shows that the front of the Tiger could not be penetrated by the T34 (at all) over 500 meters. Then how come it gets annihilated at max distance. Look at the Arad map as an example. You are look at roughly 2 mile distance between the two extreme edges of the map and the t34 tanks can knock out the Tiger I in 2 shots virtually every single time when hitting the front.

It doesn't make any sense.

I've had a look at the web-site that you referenced on the first page, unfortunatly not in full detail (Been too busy playing the game ). It does seem interesting, i'll have to read it further later on.

The general consenus is that Arad is 800m to a side (no proof for or against though) which equals half a mile (1600m = 1mile) so the map would be 1/4 of a square mile. Going by the same math, the max distance via your estimation of 2 square miles would be 2262metres.

Now in the times i've played Arad i've generally engaged at 200m-300m where according to the site you would expect either tank to penertrate with most shots at most areas. In fact i haven't raised the gun range above 400m on any map. (Not to say this doesn't happen of course).

A more interesting question that i've just noticed is that the Tiger could bearly penertrate the IS-2 at all, i've been hit at ranges of 200m+ while in an IS-2 and been damaged/destroyed by the Tiger but at the same time not been able to kill the Tiger . Oh well.

I'm going to try a few things out in practice mode. Back later.

Oh, one last thing, could you tone down the agression please. No one likes to be disagreed with, but you're more likly to get people around to your point of view if you arn't cursing like a sailor. It also stops people who want to find out more from asking in case someone shoots them .

take care.


edit: Thought i'd add here instead of added a new post.

I've used my Highly-accurate-Never-Wrong(tm) distance estimation method on Arad. I jumped in a german halftrack and drove up the left side of the map from german spawn towards the north field cap point. It took just under one minute to get from below german spawn to above north field. Due to the terrain, the speed bounced around between 30kph and 40kph so i'm estimating at 35kph.

As you know speed / time = distance. so 35kph (35000 metres per hour) / 60 seconds = ~ 580m.

It wouldn't take much for a T34/85 to get within the 300m to 500m needed to penertate some of the front areas of the Tiger.

So it could be possible that some people are over estimating how effective the Tiger would be at such close ranges (For tank combat and Tiger engagement ranges). Like in the example i mentioned in passing in my first post, when the devs of il-2 added the P-47 and P-51 people expected them to behave according to historical data when the players weren't using the plane right. The p-51 is best know for being a long range high altitude escort fighter, at 25,000ft (about 7800m) it was better than most of the German (prop) fighters. In the game altitudes above 4000m-5000m weren't modeled correctly due to the lower level nature of the eastern front air warfare. So the players were using the Mustang at altitudes where the performance differance was less or none. This also ignores the fact that every US pilot by 1944 had about 250 hrs flight training before they were sent to the front. The average Luftwaffe pilot was lucky if he got 30-40 hrs.

I'm rambling (again!) so i'll stop while i'm ahead. It's getting late, if i have the time (or remember!) i'll play around more with Arad in practice mode tomorrow.

 

[Aelius]

I've had a look at the web-site that you referenced on the first page, unfortunatly not in full detail (Been too busy playing the game ). It does seem interesting, i'll have to read it further later on.

The general consenus is that Arad is 800m to a side (no proof for or against though) which equals half a mile (1600m = 1mile) so the map would be 1/4 of a square mile. Going by the same math, the max distance via your estimation of 2 square miles would be 2262metres.

Now in the times i've played Arad i've generally engaged at 200m-300m where according to the site you would expect either tank to penertrate with most shots at most areas. In fact i haven't raised the gun range above 400m on any map. (Not to say this doesn't happen of course).

A more interesting question that i've just noticed is that the Tiger could bearly penertrate the IS-2 at all, i've been hit at ranges of 200m+ while in an IS-2 and been damaged/destroyed by the Tiger but at the same time not been able to kill the Tiger . Oh well.

I'm going to try a few things out in practice mode. Back later.

Oh, one last thing, could you tone down the agression please. No one likes to be disagreed with, but you're more likly to get people around to your point of view if you arn't cursing like a sailor. It also stops people who want to find out more from asking in case someone shoots them .

take care.


edit: Thought i'd add here instead of added a new post.

I've used my Highly-accurate-Never-Wrong(tm) distance estimation method on Arad. I jumped in a german halftrack and drove up the left side of the map from german spawn towards the north field cap point. It took just under one minute to get from below german spawn to above north field. Due to the terrain, the speed bounced around between 30kph and 40kph so i'm estimating at 35kph.

As you know speed / time = distance. so 35kph (35000 metres per hour) / 60 seconds = ~ 580m.

It wouldn't take much for a T34/85 to get within the 300m to 500m needed to penertate some of the front areas of the Tiger.

So it could be possible that some people are over estimating how effective the Tiger would be at such close ranges (For tank combat and Tiger engagement ranges). Like in the example i mentioned in passing in my first post, when the devs of il-2 added the P-47 and P-51 people expected them to behave according to historical data when the players weren't using the plane right. The p-51 is best know for being a long range high altitude escort fighter, at 25,000ft (about 7800m) it was better than most of the German (prop) fighters. In the game altitudes above 4000m-5000m weren't modeled correctly due to the lower level nature of the eastern front air warfare. So the players were using the Mustang at altitudes where the performance differance was less or none. This also ignores the fact that every US pilot by 1944 had about 250 hrs flight training before they were sent to the front. The average Luftwaffe pilot was lucky if he got 30-40 hrs.

I'm rambling (again!) so i'll stop while i'm ahead. It's getting late, if i have the time (or remember!) i'll play around more with Arad in practice mode tomorrow.

That's intresting. I figured it was a far longer range because I used to play, I think it was called, Panzer Commander and that's a simulation made by German and Russian developers who accurately tried to model the game on realism. I still vividly recall what tanks looked like through the scope of a PanzerIV F2 and Tiger I. So I was estimating distance based on the size of the tank in the gun scope and comparing it to RO. The reason I knew what distance the size was because other members of the team would yell out distance when they spotted the enemy.

For example through the scope of the Tiger I the size matches to that of roughly 2,000m when compared to the tank sim I played.

I assumed the view was fairly close since RO appeared to be trying to go for realism over FPS.

Obviously I was wrong.

I also wish to appologize for my harsh language, there's no excuse. However some people here tend to look for arguments for the sake of arguments. I don't usually loose it like that but everyone has a button and a couple of people managed to press it.

Well I learned my lesson. This is not a sim, it's an FPS and I shouldn't expect any realism.

 

[Ranari]

I absolutely LOVE the tank combat in ROOST, but I have to agree, the angling is WAY overdone. I have absolutely no problems with a Tiger being knocked out by a T34/85 at the ranges you see in Arad (300-500m). I never have considered the Tiger as an invincible war machine, because it wasn't. What I do have a problem with, though, is vice-versa - why isn't the Tiger knocking out a T34/85 at those same ranges in a single shot? Or simply more put, why does it seem like a lot of times the heavier German guns do absolutely nothing to the Russian armor?

I've shot the rear (yes, the rear) of a T34/76 with an AP round of a Panther at point-blank range. Guess what it did? Absolutely nothing. It deflected it. Now that's bull****. Not only is it bull**** that it deflected that shot, but I also took engine damage too because I was so close. How the heck? It makes absolutely no sense.

Also, not enough Panthers (OPINION). Weren't something like a little over 5000 Panthers produced from 1943-1945? This compared to a bit over 8000 P4's.

And another side note, and this one isn't tank related, but does it seem like there's an excessive use of artillery in this game? You can't go a few seconds passed without hearing concentrated artillery shells spewing an area. I mean, I love the artillery effect and atmosphere it creates, but WUOH there's an absolute shitton of it going off. I see infantry with binoculars calling in artillery within seconds of the last barrage's conclusion. Put a longer refresh time on that, yikes! It's just too much - too much for my own ears actually.

 

[Mr Darcy]

Well I learned my lesson. This is not a sim, it's an FPS and I shouldn't expect any realism.

No problem.

I think the problem is that RO is a sim running on a FPS engine. If it helps people gain a greater interest in tank combat and move on to more sims then this can only be a good thing. Case in point being me, i started out playing flight sims with Lucasart's "Their Finest Hour" on the Commadore amiga back in 1990-ish. That got me going on flight games and i've since moved onto far more realistic games.

Given a bit of time the devs should be able to at least fudge more accurate damage effects.

A thought i've just had, is it possible that the 2+ hits to kill plus armour ricochets are to simulate the longer engagment ranges that would have actually happened than there is in the game? Obviously this wouldn't explain a lot of things, but it's a thought. With the point blank shooting ranges in the game most tanks would be one-shot-one-kill everytime. I imagine that if this were the case, then many people would be bitching that there was no point in tanks as you can always kill them and it's becoming a twitchfest. The first to see and shoot is the winner.

 

[D.a.L-UnteroffizierG]

Why do you feel the need to twist things? I freaking hate people who do that with intense passion. You doing this to get a rise out of me?

This conversation is over.

This was given to Tiger tank crews. just my 2 cents.



Damagemodel:

Its ok but for one thing:
Why cant i take out a Tiger or panther with a JS2 from the rear with one shot?????

WTF?????

WHY cant i kill a T34 with PZ4 with a hit in the ammo storage????

WTF?????

All this was possible in the Mod......

Looks like the Hitzones on the Tanks dont work.

WTF!!!!!!!

 

[MkH^]

A thought i've just had, is it possible that the 2+ hits to kill plus armour ricochets are to simulate the longer engagment ranges that would have actually happened than there is in the game? Obviously this wouldn't explain a lot of things, but it's a thought. With the point blank shooting ranges in the game most tanks would be one-shot-one-kill everytime. I imagine that if this were the case, then many people would be bitching that there was no point in tanks as you can always kill them and it's becoming a twitchfest. The first to see and shoot is the winner.

Well, while not having been on this ball 60 years ago, I'm quite sure that's how it did happen in real life too. If the gun had the capability to penetrate the other tank, the crew that hit first got the kill. If the gun didn't have the capability to penetrate, it did not. But what didn't happen, was that the gun penetrated and the enemy crew lived to speak about it.

I don't see why the tank combat is made so arcade while the infantry combat is very realistic, so this sort of contradicts the argument about tank being arcade to make it more longlasting and fun.

 

[Kettenhund88]

I think somthing is wrong with a cuple of gys around here. I must give Aelius a little support. Sorry for my bad english...

1.) RO is a Arcarde shooter with an FPS style, it has no Simulation! It makes fun but it is NO SIMULATION

2.) The main weapon of T34/85 is the 85mm S-53 L / 52 cannon, is equipped with "BR-365 AP" (amor piercing shell)

3.) The performance of "BR-365 AP" is at max 71mm at 90 degree to 500 m!But this data is from russian source. It is a completely difference betwen "russian" steel and "german" rolled homogeneous nickel-steel plate! Real factual reports give us information about the real chance of T34/85 to penetrate the front of Tiger1. (LISTEN! : Tiger 1 have 100mm at 80 degree for the lower hull and 100mm at 60 degree for the upper hull)

4.) Fact is: the T34/85 was unable to penetrate the front of Tiger1 at ranges more than 350-400 m. If the crew of the tiger1 turn the hull in 25-40 degree to the enemy tank you have no chance to destroy tigers at any ranges with 85mm cannon.

5.) Now back to map ARAD: This map is completely creasy and unreal. Tigers Panthers and PZIV figting against T34/85 and IS2 at ranges between 500m and 900m. But the ballistic of 88mm Kw.K.36 L / 56 from Tiger1 or 75mm Kw.K.42 L / 70 from Panther are brainless implemented. The armor-piercing shells fly in a ballistic curve,It seems that the map is 2000m long, but it isnt. In reality shells flying a straight line up to 1000m...

6.)Please for all to remind:

RO is Arcarde Gaming, No Simulation, NO REAL Warfare, but funny is it....


Edit:

@ D.a.L-UnteroffizierG

What a nice picture, i have a real "Tigerfiebel" too, and that picture says what i say! Anybody see the little mini "Kleeblatt" at 12 a clock in front of the tiger!

 

[Mr Darcy]

This was given to Tiger tank crews. just my 2 cents.

A little white square with a red X in it. Lucky them.

If you're trolling Aelius leave it, he's said sorry for being agressive.

 

[D.a.L-UnteroffizierG]

Edit:

@ D.a.L-UnteroffizierG

What a nice picture, i have a real "Tigerfiebel" too, and that picture says what i say! Anybody see the little mini "Kleeblatt" at 12 a clock in front of the tiger!

yep, and as you can see the t-34 in the year 1943 should be able to penetrate at 500 m

@ Mr Darcy: i am not trolling anyone..

 

[Mr Darcy]

@ Mr Darcy: i am not trolling anyone..

That's cool then. Just checking because the picture is the broken link icon. I was half expecting some smart-alec picture.

Don't suppose that you have a link to the picture do you?