• 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/

Panzer IV H and STUG G variants.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The turret motor was removed to simplify production and add an additional 200 liter fuel, which increased the range to 300 kilometers. It's interesting they would do something like this when the Wehrmacht suffered from serious fuel shortages.

whats even stranger is the fact that the first few AusF Js did not have the extra fule tank as there was problems with the fule lines leaking...

-------------------
well the only varient that had an 88mm was Sd. Kfz. 164 "Nashorn"

but that was a hybred of the PZ III and PZ IV.
 
Upvote 0
I know the difference between all the Panzer models =[

Someone in-game was going on about how we need the IVH with it's schurzen and 88mm gun. So I was wondering if there was actually a IV variant with an 88.



Nope. Just the 75mm, the barrel just got longer that's all.

wasnt there are a wooden model, with a panzer IV that used 2 75mm guns in his turret ? I coud swear i have read about that somewhere ...

though, woud rember to C&C ... then more to a world war 2 tank design.
 
Upvote 0
Nice Karl good find!
I have found something a bit disturbing on the Red Orchestra forums. Apparently they are trying to say that the Stug III F/8 in game is the Stug III G (look at pic below) If this were the case then it should have had more armor, a stronger gun, and an MG 34 and an MG 42, as well as a commander's cupola, painted in camo rather than Panzergrau, and the side skirts. So by logical conclusion seeing as this is not in game then the Stug in game is not the Stug III G!
Not to mention since this is on a Panzer III chassis the rear hull should have no less than 50mm of armor.



TankDatasheet_Stug3.jpg

stug3g_main.jpg

What a late Stug III G should look like.​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
guys the sheets are just not realy a issue and only so far usable, that you know the amo storage location of evry tank!

what realy bugs waaay more is how the units are /work in game realy in the end. THAT is where RO.O becomes by times ridiculous ... always when you face 3-4 T34/76 and 1 KV 1s 600-700m away on Orel with your Tiger, just to see evry second shoot richochet from that armor ... and after some time beeing penetrated by them FRONTALY ! And with the long reload time, the Tiger has compared to the T34, it can by times make a real difference, cant count the times how often i had richochets from it.

not eevn to mention, that the tanks on Arad/Ogledow shoud be the Panzer IV H, it makes it often a bit pathetic to get with in to a fight again T34/85 and IS 2 ... as you know ... as soon they are angled ... you are fresh meat ... with panthers, it becomes at least a soccer party with shells, but the chances for the IS2 are bigger cause of his powerfull gun, which shoudnt richochet at all on this close distances.

More maps like Orel and July (from the distance, the layout can of course be different!) BUT with a realistic armor and pentration ...
 
Upvote 0
The guy who made the data sheets isn't to keen on the variants of German tanks. Armor ratings are even more ridiculous. The Tigers frontal armor is rated as 6/10, while the T34 frontal armor is rated as 5/10. That is just a load of crap. The Tiger deserves atleast an 8.

yeah, agreed. if someone could relate changes in the "armor ratings" to actual changes in the game's tanks, we'd have the makings of a realism mod on our hands.
 
Upvote 0
The guy who made the data sheets isn't to keen on the variants of German tanks. Armor ratings are even more ridiculous. The Tigers frontal armor is rated as 6/10, while the T34 frontal armor is rated as 5/10. That is just a load of crap. The Tiger deserves atleast an 8.

data sheets were made before patch that beefed up the tiger and mauled the uberness of the t34...

edit

and also i was watching something on tv about german tanks in ww2 in russia. i recall it saying that towards the end of the war the germans had about 80 good and running tanks that they shipped around with trains, because they couldent drive to each combat zone fast enough. it was those 80 tanks that made legends of german tanks being soooooo much better then russian tanks.

so yes, on most maps the germans should have less tanks and the devs shouldent be afraid to make the german tanks more realistic(better) then the ruskie tanks but give the ruskies more tanks.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
ok so the Data sheet says its an StuG IIIG whill the art for it (in the same pic) shows its an F8 (wich by the way had the same gun as the "G" model.)

Nope. Incorrect! The Stug III F had a shorter 75mm Stu.K.40 L / 43.
Where as the Stug III G had a 75mm Stu.K.42 L / 48 as well as an MG 34 and a MG 42 as I said above.
I would have ranked the Stug III G's gun as a 7.5 since it was one of the most effective guns of WWII but not as heavy as the bigger self propelled guns or the 88's on the Tigers.

so yes, on most maps the germans should have less tanks and the devs shouldent be afraid to make the german tanks more realistic(better) then the ruskie tanks but give the ruskies more tanks

Yes agreed! More reinforcements too. I'd love to see the Soviet swarm tactic in action.

Tiger, just to see evry second shoot richochet from that armor ... and after some time beeing penetrated by them FRONTALY ! And with the long reload time, the Tiger has compared to the T34, it can by times make a real difference, cant count the times how often i had richochets from it.

This must be fixed. The T-34/76 and T-34/85 only had 45mm of armor all around. So one 88mm round should penetrate with little trouble no matter how sloped the armor is. The Tiger I has 100mm of armor in the front which should only be penetrated by the IS-2 at close to medium range. (Keep in mind the 122mm round of the IS-2 is roughly comparable in penetrating power to that of the Tiger's 88mm) The sides of the Tiger are 80mm rear is the same. So a T-34/85 could take out the tiger on the sides/rear or maybe even a T-34/76 at point blank range. What's funnier or buggier is the SU 76 ***** deflecting 88mm rounds with its crappy 16mm armor on the sides. That armor is comparable to a BA 64/Halftracks armor!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
ok so the Data sheet says its an StuG IIIG whill the art for it (in the same pic) shows its an F8 (wich by the way had the same gun as the "G" model.)

Nope. Incorrect! The Stug III F/8 had a lower velocity 75mm Stu.K.40 L / 43.
Where as the Stug III G had a 75mm Stu.K.42 L / 48 as well as an Mg-34 and a Mg-42 as I said above.

I have to agree with Nebfer on this one. The original StuG III Ausf F was armed with the L/43, while the Ausf F/8 was armed with the L/48, as was the Ausf G.

The picture of StuG G provided by Rommel34 is a late model Ausf G, as there is a coax MG mounted in the manlet. Production of the Ausf G started in Dec '42, but the Hoghead / Saukopf mantlet wasn't used until Feb '44. After Sept '44 the manlet was produced with a coax MG. Having said that, it hoghead manlet could be fitted to other models of StuG, if the vehicle went in for repairs.

As well as roof mounted MG, I would like to see the Ausf G get the Nahverteidigungswaffe (and commanders cupola so you didn't blow you're own head off trying to use it). Give those "clown cars" a nasty shock, but as it's a very late modification and probably difficult to model the user's interface, I doubt that's going to happen. http://www.custermen.net/nahvert/nah.htm
 
Upvote 0
First your right. I'm sorry. I was foolishly thinking of the regular Stug F variant rather than the F/8 that is already in game. The Stug III G pic was just a quick pic I found on the internet. Didn't mean to say we should get a very late war Stug III G.

rommel the T34/85 could penetrate the front of the tiger up to 900 meters if i remember correctly

I have the T-34/85's AP penetration right here:

BR-365 ( Armor Piercing )
Weight: 9.2 kg
Velocity: 792m/s

100m: 96 mm
500m: 83 mm
1000m: 71 mm
1500m: 60 mm
2000m: 50 mm


Notice that at 100m it comes close to but does not penetrate the Tiger I's frontal armor but it can easily pentrate the 80mm sides/rear of a Tiger I up to 550 m.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
It wasn't the armor thickness of the Tiger that was the problem ... it was the lack of sloped armor. The T-34's had that, and could use it effectively. Even if they couldn't penetrate the frontal armor, they could get a shell under the front side and take out the engine or hit the tracks from the side or an angle. In real tank combat, a decomissioned tank is as good as dead.

Also for those of you calling for less T-34/85's and more 76's, there were over 10k 85's produced in 44' alone which was more than 3 times the amount of 76's produced that year. Not to mention the thousands of tank destroyers produced and IS-2's, which numbered close to 4,000. In contrast, only a little over 1300 Tigers were produced, with production nearly stopping in 45' and the number of Tiger II's not even reaching 500. The only comparable numbers are that of the Panzer IV (10k) with the most common being the Ausf H and Panzer V (6k). And those are numbers for the entire war.

The Germans did not perform well because of greater numbers, or because of better tanks (They were sorely outgunned at the beginning of the war and never caught up in terms of quality or manufacturing power) ... they performed well because of their experienced crewmen and commanders, many of whom earned it in the Afrika campaign.

So before we start discussing "realism" , try to take in other factors as well.
 
Upvote 0
It wasn't the armor thickness of the Tiger that was the problem ... it was the lack of sloped armor. The T-34's had that, and could use it effectively. Even if they couldn't penetrate the frontal armor, they could get a shell under the front side and take out the engine or hit the tracks from the side or an angle. In real tank combat, a decomissioned tank is as good as dead

The T-34/76s and 85s 45mm armor no matter how well sloped will be penetrated by one 88mm round not two or three like the game would have us to believe. It is like shooting a sloped piece of cardboard with a sniper rifle. There is no way in hell it is going to deflect even at long ranges which I am sure there is no need to say that the Tiger excelled at long range kills.
Yes the Tiger lacked sloping armor but that means nothing when you have 100mm of frontal armor. In fact when your tank armor is thicker than the incoming enemy round's caliber the round would frequently shatter upon hitting the armor as was the case with the Sherman's 76mm round.
A disabled tank is still very dangerous although it is vulnerable to flanking actions. In fact it is tantamount to an armored PAK gun enplacement or a dug in gun with MG 34 support. Anyway lets stay on topic....
Um yeah lets add the Panzer IV H and the Stug III G!:D
 
Upvote 0
Yes the Tiger lacked sloping armor but that means nothing when you have 100mm of frontal armor. In fact when your tank armor is thicker than the incoming enemy round's caliber the round would frequently shatter upon hitting the armor as was the case with the Sherman's 76mm round.


dont know why so many people always go with the tigers armor ... 100mm yes ... but the tiger never had the same effect on russian troops as on western (american, brittish) troops. After there first schock and new tanks (IS85, KV85, T34/85, IS2, SU/ISU-152), russians learned fast how to deal with german armor, if needed.

The tiger had his time, same as the T34/76. But after 1943 in 44 he wasnt that beast anymore like before, still casualties have been notheless high, cause of good trained crews.
 
Upvote 0
Its not just the armor its the 88mm gun the German's "trump card" that the Soviets were scared of. Yes they feared it even their newest tanks could and were taken down by the infamous long range 88mm on the Tiger I as well as the other variants found on the Tiger II ,other German tanks, and Pak guns.The Tiger I was a forminable oppenent until the end of the war on both fronts but it wasnt until 1944 that the Tiger I 's armor started to become a bit obsolete(although it was still very useful) on the Eastern front anyway but its gun remained deadly until the war's end.
I'm not saying the Tiger I is indestructable. Just saying that its gun is sevearly weakened(most tanks shouldnt take even 1 88mm round. It should not be deflected ) and its frontal armor needs a bit more tweeking. After all it does have alot of other short commings like the slow turret speed ,slow off road speed, and reload why not make it worth all of that?:)
Can we stay on topic now?

STUG III G AND PANZER IV H OR HUNGER STRIKE!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.