So the Tank system isn't broken? A case study Tiger vs T34/76
- Thread starter Reddog
- Start date
Panzer Wars
Panzer Wars
I am going to jump into the discussion...because the Armor combat in RO is not accurate. Or realistic. The T-34/76 should not be able to penetrate the Tiger at 600 or 450 yards..no way.
But taking this further....when a tank shell does penetrate the armor of another tank...it does specific damage.
1. It may strike fuel or ammo and blow the tank up.
2. It may strike a person and kill him.
3. It may strike an important piece of equipment and knock that out.
So it could be simulated something like this:
1. Check for penetration (correctly)
2. Check what is struck after penetration.
3. Damage what is struck. (a dead driver, knocked out gunsight, blown up tank, ect.)
But don't have hits and the tank starts turning yellow... then red then... boom! Man, I don't play RTS's.
By the way, these tanks driving around the map after they catch fire is silly. Back when I was in the Army, I was in a amored fighting vehicle when the engine caught fire....every one was out of that vehicle in about 4 seconds or less. As I was jumping out, I pulled the fixed fire extinguisher which put the fire out....but NO ONE stays in a burning vehicle, no one...so it would be nice to knock the tank on fire but operating graphic out of the game.
Panzer Wars
I am going to jump into the discussion...because the Armor combat in RO is not accurate. Or realistic. The T-34/76 should not be able to penetrate the Tiger at 600 or 450 yards..no way.
But taking this further....when a tank shell does penetrate the armor of another tank...it does specific damage.
1. It may strike fuel or ammo and blow the tank up.
2. It may strike a person and kill him.
3. It may strike an important piece of equipment and knock that out.
So it could be simulated something like this:
1. Check for penetration (correctly)
2. Check what is struck after penetration.
3. Damage what is struck. (a dead driver, knocked out gunsight, blown up tank, ect.)
But don't have hits and the tank starts turning yellow... then red then... boom! Man, I don't play RTS's.
By the way, these tanks driving around the map after they catch fire is silly. Back when I was in the Army, I was in a amored fighting vehicle when the engine caught fire....every one was out of that vehicle in about 4 seconds or less. As I was jumping out, I pulled the fixed fire extinguisher which put the fire out....but NO ONE stays in a burning vehicle, no one...so it would be nice to knock the tank on fire but operating graphic out of the game.
Upvote
0
TKP said:
when a tanks engine catches fire, i woud like to see a warning, maybe as a message that your tank is heavily damaged/burning and "can" explode soon, so you HAVE to leave it, or to die with it, or maybe hearing the players avatar coughing and someone crying "fire" or so.
The dust and smoke from the fire is not able to hold out when it gets inside the tank
Upvote
0
TKP said:
From my impression, your latter scenario is the end goal for tank combat. Baby steps though, they had to get a game out the door so they could keep doing this
Upvote
0
Well what should be in is:
Destroyed Tank by Ammo Explosion, works on the PzIII/StugIII and PzIV
Immobile Tank through Engine Destruction: Is ingame, and works, just happens very rarely
Immobile Tank through Track Destruction/Disablement: Is ingame and works fine imho
Destroyed Tank by Ammo Explosion, works on the PzIII/StugIII and PzIV
Immobile Tank through Engine Destruction: Is ingame, and works, just happens very rarely
Immobile Tank through Track Destruction/Disablement: Is ingame and works fine imho
Upvote
0
vonRas said:
What drugs are you on, the stugIIIG was almost impossible to knock out from the front as well
with 80mm of protection and also a low profile, they were the perfect tank killers. Only problem is the sides of it were so weak that one shot and your right kaboom, but deployed properly they are a good quality defensive tank.
Upvote
0
raydude said:
The Law of Large Numbers. Yay science. Basically it means that the larger your sample data is the closer it will represent the true probability of an event. For example, if I flip a coin once and only once and it lands on heads then my data concludes that when a coin is flipped it will come up heads 100% of the time. If I flip it 3 times and get 2 heads, 1 tails, then my data concludes that the probability of getting heads on a coin flip is 66.66%. The more you flip the coin the more the data will reflect the true probability of 50% (excluding all outside influences).
So if you run your test once your data may be accurate, but it does not represent the actual probability of an event occuring. However, if you run your test 100 more times, you'll come that much closer to the actual probability of the T-34 destroying the Tiger in 3 shots.
Upvote
0
With all due respect: no.
Probaility theory has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. If the Tiger's front armor is not functioning properly, then it isn't functioning properly. There isn't a random process going on here to where sometimes the T-34/76 would penetrate, and sometimes not. If there were, that would only make the bug all the worse!
The idea is that the T-34/76 should not even be able to penetrate the front Tiger glacis from that range to being with!
This is irrespective of it takes 3 shots to blow the tank up, or 2 or 4 or whatever.
The very fact shots are penetrating to begin with is what we are concerned about and the only evidence needed to demonstrate the existence of a bug in the armor system. Finding an average number of shots needed to blow the tank up wold say more for the gunner's accuracy and other facets of the system, but it would not change anything about the penetration.
Probaility theory has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. If the Tiger's front armor is not functioning properly, then it isn't functioning properly. There isn't a random process going on here to where sometimes the T-34/76 would penetrate, and sometimes not. If there were, that would only make the bug all the worse!
The idea is that the T-34/76 should not even be able to penetrate the front Tiger glacis from that range to being with!
This is irrespective of it takes 3 shots to blow the tank up, or 2 or 4 or whatever.
The very fact shots are penetrating to begin with is what we are concerned about and the only evidence needed to demonstrate the existence of a bug in the armor system. Finding an average number of shots needed to blow the tank up wold say more for the gunner's accuracy and other facets of the system, but it would not change anything about the penetration.
Upvote
0
All I was pointing out is that this 'case study' is fatally flawed, due to lack of consistent data. It doesn't even prove that 3 is the magic number for the T-34 to take down the Tiger.
It never was clear exactly what part of the tank was hit. With all due respect, if you're going to state that under no circumstances could the T-34/76 main gun penetrate the Tiger's armor you should back it up with factual evidence. I'm not going to believe that just because you say so. The biggest problem I have with debating armor penetration on these forums is that most people either gather their 'facts' from the internet or got them from word of mouth. Amongst the many threads all related to this topic there are very few, if any, sources cited. My favorite are the 'grandpa' stories, which are never exagerrated and prove the issue at question well beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Jack said:
It never was clear exactly what part of the tank was hit. With all due respect, if you're going to state that under no circumstances could the T-34/76 main gun penetrate the Tiger's armor you should back it up with factual evidence. I'm not going to believe that just because you say so. The biggest problem I have with debating armor penetration on these forums is that most people either gather their 'facts' from the internet or got them from word of mouth. Amongst the many threads all related to this topic there are very few, if any, sources cited. My favorite are the 'grandpa' stories, which are never exagerrated and prove the issue at question well beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Upvote
0
Uh---the Tigster definitely was short-changed at the RED ORCHESTRA bank---smoking after one hit. May be worthwhile to repeat the test ten times just to make sure this didn't represent a fluke through-the-driver's-visor-hit as somebody suggested. For my money the Panther is havoc on tracks but it had very weak side armor on the turret and hull---a problem which was recognized by the German Army and was going to be fixed on the Panther II. The Panther is also hard to hide---very high. Having written this, its speed can be used to snipe and change position quickly. I would prefer the Tiger for a frontal assault because of its outstanding all-around armor, and, for such a heavy tank, it has very good speed. Study the combat photos of Tigers at Kursk---one or two advancing all alone---standing on the barren steppe destroying everything which their sights could see. Remarkable. Bleak time for the T-34 fraternity.
Upvote
0
DraKon2k said:
That sausage-comparison explaining angleing of a tank is hilarious, but does it's job very well!
Upvote
0
5SS Hollenfeur how was it not clear what part of the tank was hit? The guy gave screenshots showing the front of the Tiger facing him dead on. The only possible locations for the shot striking would be the glacis, front upper hull, or mantlet.
This test was not "fatally flawed." You are using the rules of probablility theory in a test that has nothing to do with probability. We are not trying to determine if 3 shots was the "magic number" to destroy the Tiger.
I will reiterate: the point is that no rounds from the front should be penetrating whatsoever from the 76mm L/42 gun! If you are in doubt, then follow the scientific principle and reproduce the results on your own. I bet you will come away with the same conclusions as the topic poster.
I see your point about sources not being cited regarding this, but frankly, it is such a cliched fact that most of us don't feel the need to. The material is out there. Just look at any book about WWII tank warfare, and read about the Tiger. It will be made clear that the T-34/76 could not penetrate the Tiger frontally, especially beyond 500m. The T-34/76s had to maneuver around the flanks for the thinner side armor, and even then only at under 500m.
You must understand that you don't need to accept that the T-34/76 couldn't penetrate the Tiger frontally just because "I said so." There are literal tons of sources to back this up, everything from penetration tables, to the recollections from both Russian and German tankers. Try to find a source that does not substantiate this.
This test was not "fatally flawed." You are using the rules of probablility theory in a test that has nothing to do with probability. We are not trying to determine if 3 shots was the "magic number" to destroy the Tiger.
I will reiterate: the point is that no rounds from the front should be penetrating whatsoever from the 76mm L/42 gun! If you are in doubt, then follow the scientific principle and reproduce the results on your own. I bet you will come away with the same conclusions as the topic poster.
I see your point about sources not being cited regarding this, but frankly, it is such a cliched fact that most of us don't feel the need to. The material is out there. Just look at any book about WWII tank warfare, and read about the Tiger. It will be made clear that the T-34/76 could not penetrate the Tiger frontally, especially beyond 500m. The T-34/76s had to maneuver around the flanks for the thinner side armor, and even then only at under 500m.
You must understand that you don't need to accept that the T-34/76 couldn't penetrate the Tiger frontally just because "I said so." There are literal tons of sources to back this up, everything from penetration tables, to the recollections from both Russian and German tankers. Try to find a source that does not substantiate this.
Upvote
0
Jack said:
I also have presented multiple questions regarding the ****ed up cumulative damage system, but nothing has been answered regarding that.
First off, the "takes x number of hits to destroy" concept currently used is completely faulty to begin with! Either the first shot penetrates and kills everyone or destroys the vehicle, or it doesn't, which is either caused by the gun not being capable of penetrating the armor, or the crew getting really lucky. There is no such thing as "overall armor" or "hitpoints".
Apart from those hits, the tank may be immobilized or otherwise made combat ineffective by the hit.
It's not as if the armor wears out a little after each hit, indicated by yellow or red status to the crew members, until there's just one thin strip of it left, and only then does the gun actually penetrate, nor does the enemy tank crew load each grenade with slightly more powerful propulsion charge until it penetrates.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
ALl the devs have to do is.....
LOOSE THE FRIGGIN HP SYSTEM FOR TANKS!
And let penetration sount more in damage.
Also there are situations when 1 penetration doesn absolutly nothing to the tank and crew and there are time when 1 single AP round destroys the engine, radio system the gun and lights the ammo on fire.
I really hope that RO will rely more on penetration after the patches.
Anyywaaayzz.
(Off Topic)
Anyone knows of a relativly recent ww2 tank simulator game?
Im craving for (realistic) ww2 tank battles
LOOSE THE FRIGGIN HP SYSTEM FOR TANKS!
And let penetration sount more in damage.
Also there are situations when 1 penetration doesn absolutly nothing to the tank and crew and there are time when 1 single AP round destroys the engine, radio system the gun and lights the ammo on fire.
I really hope that RO will rely more on penetration after the patches.
Anyywaaayzz.
(Off Topic)
Anyone knows of a relativly recent ww2 tank simulator game?
Im craving for (realistic) ww2 tank battles
Upvote
0