Some German tanks and Russion AT gun

[Krieger]

It seems to me that the Tiger is just way too weak and overall not good at all. It can be knocked out in about 1 hit, which shouldn't be happening, the gun isnt even close to the russian tank. I got shot 800meters away from a russian tank at an angle it it blew up my Tiger. This should really be looked into.

My other problem is the russian pt or at rifle. People are complaining that the panzerfuasts are too powerfull when this class can shoot from a LONG distance and injure a tank pretty badly. The germans should really be given a panzerschrek atleast.

 

[Plaid13]

I dont think anything is really wrong with the tiger that isnt wrong with the other tanks. Mobility and tracks that are very hard to knock off. But the tiger is strong as hell vs the tanks it should be strong against. Try playing orel 76vs 88 and you will see just how strong the tiger is. The reason the tiger seems weak in the offical maps is because they are all late war maps vs the more powerful tanks. the time in the war when the tiger was the all powerful weapon its thought of was early on when the russians were in the smaller weaker tanks and the tt34/76 Those 76mm rounds do bounce off nonstop in the game as they should. So basicly the real problem isnt the tank isnt right its more like the maps arnt right. They just dont put the tiger in offical maps vs the tanks that it was really powerful against.

 

[Field Marshal Rommel]

Im sorry but I dont agree with that at all!

The Tiger I's 88mm was the one the strongest antitank guns of the war yet when I Play Ro-Orel 76 vs 88 or any other map the Tigers I 88 deflects like crazy off of most Soviet tanks like the Su-76 and the T-34 76(or 85). It takes 2 direct shots to down a T-34 in a Tiger which is just inexuseable. On later war maps as you suggested the Tiger I is weaker due to the Soviets having better tanks this concept is wrong! The most common tank the T-34/85 still had the same armor as its precessor the T-34/76 (45mm ) on the hull which was why the 85 never proved itself a match against the Tiger that and the Tiger out gunned it severely.
Also when angled against the T-34/85 it had to come within 100meters to penetrate the Tigers frontal armor this is another reason why served until the end of the war because its armor was still adaquate and its gun which I cant stress enough was fearsome until the bloody end.
The Is-2 is essentually the Tiger I's equivilant they are very good matches against each other.In fact its 122mm is compareable to the Tiger I's 88mm and have about the same penetration omitting the TigerI's Apcr ammuntion of course.

Main armament was the 8.8-cm KwK 36 LI56 adapted from the anti-tank version ot the superb 88mm Flak gun.It was the most powerful anti-tank gun then in use by any army, capable of penetrating 112 mm of armour at 1400 meters.The Tiger carried 92 rounds of Main gun.Ammunition in stowage bins, lockers in the turret floor and anywhere else that was handy.Self-defence against infantry was provided by 2 MG 34 7.92-mm machine guns one mounted co-axially with the main gun and one in a flexible mount in the front of the hu

The Tiger's gun needs looking into any direct shot by it should kill in 1. The other thing the bothers me about the Tiger is its frontal armor is easily penetrated by the T-34/76 and the Su-76 at times. These tanks should never be able to do that even not even at point blank range the Tiger I's frontal armor could only be penetrated by 2 tanks in game the IS-2 and the T-34 85! In fact the only 2 tanks the Tiger should be angling it self against should be the T-34/85 and the IS-2! This is the one of the most important tanks "bugs" that needs to be fixed ASAP!

 

[Maschine Pistole-38]

Im sorry but I dont agree with that at all!

The Tiger I's 88mm was the one the strongest antitank guns of the war yet when I Play Ro-Orel 76 vs 88 or any other map the Tigers I 88 deflects like crazy off of most Soviet tanks like the Su-76 and the T-34 76(or 85). It takes 2 direct shots to down a T-34 in a Tiger which is just inexuseable. On later war maps as you suggested the Tiger I is weaker due to the Soviets having better tanks this concept is wrong! The most common tank the T-34/85 still had the same armor as its precessor the T-34/76 (45mm ) on the hull which was why the 85 never proved itself a match against the Tiger that and the Tiger out gunned it severely.
Also when angled against the T-34/85 it had to come within 100meters to penetrate the Tigers frontal armor this is another reason why served until the end of the war because its armor was still adaquate and its gun which I cant stress enough was fearsome until the bloody end.
The Is-2 is essentually the Tiger I's equivilant they are very good matches against each other.In fact its 122mm is compareable to the Tiger I's 88mm and have about the same penetration omitting the TigerI's Apcr ammuntion of course.


The Tiger's gun needs looking into any direct shot by it should kill in 1. The other thing the bothers me about the Tiger is its frontal armor is easily penetrated by the T-34/76 and the Su-76 at times. These tanks should never be able to do that even not even at point blank range the Tiger I's frontal armor could only be penetrated by 2 tanks in game the IS-2 and the T-34 85! In fact the only 2 tanks the Tiger should be angling it self against should be the T-34/85 and the IS-2! This is the one of the most important tanks "bugs" that needs to be fixed ASAP!

Heres another tank bug, the Tiger which had numbers below 1,300 has seemingly unlimited number of respawns. You what the 'true pwnage power' of a Tiger? Realize that it was also extremely rare and i'd be more than happy to see their respawns limited to one or two.

 

[Field Marshal Rommel]

I wouldnt mind that if it was properly portrayed in game. That way even if there are 2 respawns the Tiger I should last for most of the map like they did in real life.It would also make you afraid of being killed a bit and inspire more tactical game play from the tank crew. Also any map with Tigers should actually have 2 or more Tigers (factories) because they travaled together a (german tactic).

 

[Tak]

Proportional tank respawns would kick some serious ass.

1 Heavy per map per team, woot!



<-- wants all heavy tanks to fall off the face of Orel and die ><
​

 

[Field Marshal Rommel]

The Is-2 although made in big numbers were supposedly quite rare to see in the battlefield.
oh yeah I forgot about the Soviet AT-rifle Im with you it needs a major tone down no more "magical 1 shot" killls or historically impossable frontal armor kills, long distance kills, or damaging the Tiger or the Panther which were immunne to At-rifle fire (except tracks ,optics,ect.).-lol I m getting tired of posting why the Soviet At-rifle needs a tone down!

 

[Rak]

Nice post Rommel.

 

[Sichartshofen]

Agreed.

The Tiger and Panther cannons should never bounce off the T34's at the ranges we play at. The IS-2 gets 1 hit kills on PzIV's and StuG's the Tiger should be doing the same againsts T34's. T34/76 and KV1s should only penetrate the sides and rear of a Tiger at 100 meters, not 1000!

There is also too much emphasis on angling in the game. The only tanks that should benefit from angling are the IS-2 and Tiger. Tankers in WWII were taught to show the thickest part of their armor toward the enemy. But in RO everyone angles their tank the second they see someone. Isn't it so convinient that all russian tanks benefit from angling, while only 2 German tanks do.

As for the PTRD. That needs to be toned down heavily. It should have ZERO effect againsts heavy tanks and the front of the PzIV, PzIII and StuG. You can destroy Tigers, IS-2's, KV1's and Panthers with ease. Last night someone with a PTRD managed to knock out my engine. I was so disgusted I left the server.

For a game claiming to be "simulation level" it is quite unrealistic.

 

[Maschine Pistole-38]

The Is-2 although made in big numbers were supposedly quite rare to see in the battle field.

Also unlike the Tiger, the IS-2 was not spread out among three fronts by 1944. Something the IS-2 didn't have to worry about. You also need to rule in that the IS2 was not the Soviet answer to the Tiger, they didn't need one. They used their own tanks but most importantly their airforce. Something i'd to see used because it played a major factor in destroying German tanks.

But i'm fine with the Tiger being 90% of what it is and having a lot of respawns. Makes the game more interesting and fun.

 

[Field Marshal Rommel]

Also unlike the Tiger, the IS-2 was not spread out among three fronts by 1944. Something the IS-2 didn't have to worry about. You also need to rule in that the IS2 was not the Soviet answer to the Tiger, they didn't need one. They used their own tanks but most importantly their airforce. Something i'd to see used because it played a major factor is destroying German tanks.

Perhaps not the answer to the Tiger I, It was a break out tank armed with He and limited Ap ammuntion but it did become a bit of a solution toward the Tiger I when they met in combat. The TigerI is not even close to 90% realistic because the biggest assets it had are essentially missing or blunted. I dont think it would wreck game play if the Tiger I was as powerful as it should be after all the IS-2 is pretty realistic I hear no complaints from anyone about it also the Tiger has real vulnerablities like its sides. You forgot or left out the Luftwaffe's important role in the Eastern front.-

There is also too much emphasis on angling in the game. The only tanks that should benefit from angling are the IS-2 and Tiger. Tankers in WWII were taught to show the thickest part of their armor toward the enemy. But in RO everyone angles their tank the second they see someone. Isn't it so convinient that all russian tanks benefit from angling, while only 2 German tanks do

I love when the T-34 does this and becomes indestructible towand any ap round fire.There really needs to be a Tank patch soon that fixs all tanks and vehicles ( the clown car sometimes takes 2 50mm or 75mm shots and the T-60 should only penetrate the PzIII on the sides at less than 50meters not to mention on Ro-Hedgehog(1944) the PzIII L should have side skirts making it totally invulnerable to the T-60 because it was equipped with side skirts in 1943!!! )!!!

 

[Tak]

The devs are currently looking at borked penetration and the extremes of the penetration ranges (never/always penetrate situtations). So at least on the tank side of things, hopefully that'll be fixed soon



I still think we should get rid of heavy tanks entirely and stick to light/medium tanks, and force the emphasis on combined arms >< *grumpy guy fist waggle*
​

 

[Field Marshal Rommel]

That would be terriable disservice to the Eastern front!!! Since the biggest and bloodiest tank battles took place there with mammoth tanks such as my favorite the Ferdinand/Elefant tank. If you want medium tanks then I suggest you go play the Pacific theater.

I sincerely hope they fix the Tiger's 88mm gun and armor as well as the PzIIIL 's armor since it has more that the current PzIV.

 

[ROMMEL34]

The T-60 should only penetrate the PzIII on the sides at less than 50meters not to mention on Ro-Hedgehog(1944) the PzIII L should have side skirts making it totally invulnerable to the T-60 because it was equipped with side skirts in 1943!!! )!!!

Dont get upset FM Rommel. (I dont like your name LOL) The T-60 has been bugging me since this game came out so I will soon make a demo/rant showing how the T-60 is consistantly penetrating a PzIII L's 70mm frontal armor with a puny and underpowered 20mm cannon.

Here are some numbers for the T-60s 20mm:
Penetration With AP @ 90 deg:
50m 100m 300m 400m 500m 700m
35mm 27mm 22mm 20mm 16mm 10mm

 

[Field Marshal Rommel]

Good!!!!!! It bugs me that in 1944 after all PzIII's and PzIV's were issued side skirts you find a PzIIIL in the game without the skirts facing a recon"tank" it outclasses many times over and still beating all historical data the PzIIIL gets owned.The PzIIIL's Soviet equivalent was the T-34/76.The PzIII was responseable for a significant number T-34 causualties.
Have any Tiger I numbers?

 

[Sichartshofen]

Have any Tiger I numbers?

Penetration at 60 degrees or 30 degrees perpendicular:
PzGr.39 ( Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap )
Weight / Velocity / 100 m 500 m 1000 m 1500 m 2000 m
10.2 kg / 800 mps / 120mm / 110mm / 100mm / 91mm / 84mm /

PzGr.40 ( Armor Piercing Composite Rigid )
Weight / Velocity / 100 m 500 m 1000 m 1500 m 2000 m
7.3 kg / 930 mps / 170mm / 155mm / 138mm / 122mm /110mm /

 

[ROMMEL34]

PzGr.39
Weight Velocity 100m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
10.2 kg 773 m/s 120mm 110mm 100mm 91mm 84mm​

PzGr.40
Weight Velocity 100 m 500 m 1000 m 1500 m 2000 m
7.3 kg 930 m/s 171mm 156mm 138mm 123mm 110mm​

@30 deg from vertical

 

[Rrralphster]

Good!!!!!! It bugs me that in 1944 after all PzIII's and PzIV's were issued side skirts you find a PzIIIL in the game without the skirts facing a recon"tank" it outclasses many times over and still beating all historical data the PzIIIL gets owned.The PzIIIL's Soviet equivalent was the T-34/76.The PzIII was responseable for a significant number T-34 causualties.
Have any Tiger I numbers?

Pz III L didn't have "Sch

 

[Crim]

You know the source you just linked? Yeah,

During production, PzKpfw III's design underwent many changes including various modifications made on the turret (e.g. cupola, gun mantlet, vision slots, hatches, armor skirts) and hull (e.g. escape hatch, armor skirts) and superstructure (e.g. air intakes, spaced armor, headlights arrangement) components. Since mid 1943, Panzer IIIs were mounted with Schurzen - 5mm armor skirts. During service and repairs, many Panzer III tanks were up-armored, rearmed and re-equipped with new equipment and components creating completely non-standard variants.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Field Marshal Rommel]

Pz III L didn't have "Sch