Granatbusche Modell 39
- Thread starter Teufel Hund
- Start date
There are already plenty of artificial limitations in the game. If you want the game to be totally realistic, then you can have this grenade launcher but the PzIV has to be subsitited with a PzIII which will get mouth raped by the T-34.
I'd prefer total realism when it comes to equipment but to put this weapon in this game in this state, they'd have to remove the anti-personnel grenades for it to not be ridiculous.
The Panzer III should be in the game, I agree. But that doesn't mean that the Panzer IV should not, it belongs there too. the Panzer IV does need a few tweaks, but overall I feel it's performing realistically. Again, what is, or is not, in any particular battle (ie map) is a map designer issue. Map design is where the game should be balanced. Not in what is, or is not in the game, or how it performs.
You view of the game is quite unrealistic. You should play allies much more, only then talk about realism and balance, beacuse right now its pretty one sided. Playing as both a t-34 and a PzIV tank commander (more on t-34) I say I know the meaning of "mouth rape" and you're not gonna like it.
While I have nothing against this being added, the tanking bugs need to get fixed first.
The t34 gun mantlet , probably the thickest piece of metal on the tank , is easily penetrated evey by an AT rifle. This always kills the commander. This is one area of the tank that should probably be impervious to the AT rifle, and perhaps even the p4's ammo. ( Im not sure exactly how thick it was in that area )
The t34 gun mantlet , probably the thickest piece of metal on the tank , is easily penetrated evey by an AT rifle. This always kills the commander. This is one area of the tank that should probably be impervious to the AT rifle, and perhaps even the p4's ammo. ( Im not sure exactly how thick it was in that area )
As I've said, I play both sides equally. The T-34 simply requires different tactics. You can't just sit there and try to trade shots with a Panzer IV, any competent panzer gunner will take you out within seconds of seeing you. Use your speed to advantage, circle around the opposite side of the map from where the panzer is. Get into a hull down position to the side (or even better the rear if possible), and only then open fire. He'll be dead before he even realizes where you are. I have no problem taking out Panzer IV's using this tactic.
Of course a good panzer commander will have his tank in a hull down overwatch position from which he can dominate the battlefield. If this happens, you don't stand a chance. But that is realistic. Your best option in this case is to get the commander to call down some arty on the panzer. But this too is realistic, because that's exactly how the Russians in real life would have dealt with such a situation.
Last edited:
I'd like to add my support to getting this grenade launcher in game. It would make for a nice selection for AT troopers (PzB784 or GB39).
Cheers,
Fafnir_6
Cheers,
Fafnir_6
Turret front for the T-34/76 M42 is 65mm thick. The sides were 52mm with a 30
Then you should understand that its not fun to be faceraped by enemy team because they have weapon (or bug in case of t-34, one big green bug) advantage. Thus the artifical limitations. If it wasnt for them it would be PzIII having the fate of t-34 now.
While Grb 39 should be somewhat balanced as an AT weapon, as an infantry weapon PTRS is no more than a rifle with good penetration that has to be deployed (thus its worse than bolt-action rifle). If Grb 39 is going to used be on tank maps only then let it be used as an AT weapon, not a grenade lobbing megarifle of death. Axis AT guy should rely on a pistol for defence and avoid enemy infantry especially considering that Grb is short-range weapon.
p.s. I wish I could say more about t-34 bugs but its thread about Grb 39, lets leave it that way.
p.p.s. Pzb39 7.92 round was too weak and did little damage thus it shouldnt even be a default weapon.
p.p.p.s. Some sources say that Gzb 39 range was 75-150m but it was inaccurate.
Last edited:
Russian side is already fighting with sticks and stones, why not add this? Slow firerate, poor distance and if there will be no AP grenades this is great.
Too bad allies got nothing to compensate this and thats the next thing to do.
*AT hrenades are quite heavy? So there will be no piles of ammo to carry with for killing whole platoon of tanks.
Too bad allies got nothing to compensate this and thats the next thing to do.
*AT hrenades are quite heavy? So there will be no piles of ammo to carry with for killing whole platoon of tanks.
Last edited:
The GrB 39 would need to be deployed before firing as well. It weighs 12.6kg, and the grenades are 383g each. Remember that it is simply a PzB 39 with a shorter barrel and standard Schie
simple.
simple.
I like. Simple balancing fix:
More accurately model T34 armor characteristics.
The slope on the front armor meant that the t34 could get penetration on a P4 from about 100m further. (not to mention the t34-76 was comparable to the P4-longbarrel's gun)
It also meant that AT rifle rounds were almost useless from the front at prone level.
simple.
I like. Simple balancing fix:
More accurately model T34 armor characteristics.
The slope on the front armor meant that the t34 could get penetration on a P4 from about 100m further. (not to mention the t34-76 was comparable to the P4-longbarrel's gun)
It also meant that AT rifle rounds were almost useless from the front at prone level.
You may want to check those numbers again... The F-34 (the gun on the T-34 in game) is no where near comparable to the KwK 40 (the gun on the Panzer IV in game). When looking at penetration values, keep in mind that the Germans tested against armor plate at 30
Last edited:
Historicaly Stalingrad turned into choas.The typical equipment layout for fighting units was just not there a month after the fighting started.The 6th army and soviet 62 both had extremely high supply priorities(especially after the fighting began)by both countries supply sytems.It was the molotov cocktail that accounted for most tank casualties.This was urban fighting alot at night(Chuikov love to take back Von Paulus's gains at night) and tanks -aircraft-cannons all were hard and risky to employ even in static defence.Chuikov phased out tanks quikly because the amout of space they took on barges when crossing the volga.The germans and russians both had entire battalions and regiments(mostly soviet) armed with submachine guns and pistols.The russians were first on this because of night fighting-the german company level officers on up complained very loudly about the mobs of russins at night with PPsh submachine guns. The piont that I am making is that yes you are correct-Allow it- but to compinsate for this we will give the russians instant respawn(russian replacements were never-ending-one of the emmense morale breakers for german troops fighting in stalingrad) allow them all to be assault-the russian team should out number the german team 3-1-and hell -to boot we will throw in the women on the russian team(not uncommon in the city for the russians) If you are looking for tripwire to get you as close to historical accuracy as possible-they have a very long way to go.
Another factor to consider is the differences between penetration testing done by the Germans and Russians. The Russians used the same armor plate for testing as they did on their tanks, ie homogenous steel plates. The Germans also tested on the same armor that they used, but they used face hardened rolled steel alloy plate. Testing done by the US during the war showed that face hardened rolled alloy plate was 10% to 20% (depending on the alloy) more effective than homogenous steel plate.
As for the slope on the T-34 doubling the thickness, I admit I'm tired and may have made a mistake in my calculations. But feel free to calculate it yourself. http://www.panzerworld.net/armourcalculator
That calculator gives me 90mm (45mm @30 degrees from horizontal)
But that doesn't take away that at the ranges we have in game, both tanks should be penetrated equally.
Instead of 90% penetration for the PzIV and something like 40% (my perception, which could be well off) for the T-34, even on the 30mm side armour.
The 6th army had food and manpower issues-not combat neccessities.Ammo got through even in the calamity of the airlift campaing.This was the frustration of both armies.German soldiers wanted food-instead they got ammo and had to eat their horses and steal from the russians(end of battle).The russians were frustrated because they had expected to collapse the pocket around Stalingrad in two weeks.This was not the case because the German sisth army had ammo and euipment to keep the pocket open for 6 weeks all the way up until January(pocket was collapsed early January)The german army also had plenty of russian ammunition and small arms etc. Only the victors got to loot at Stalingrad and with the losses the russians were incurring throuout the battle(start to beginning)the German 6th had immense stockpiles of russian equipment.The russian winter clothing the germans stole became a friendly fire crisis-Germans who had so many nationalities fighting in the pocket(especially at the end) had terrible language barriers and everybody running around with russian winter clothing(by the way the russians took those away for the death march to siberia)created lots of accidental friendly fire incidents. You are mostly correct in the Wehrmact's supply and distribution problems as a whole-not the case with the 6th German army before the pocket was surrounded-Hitler insisted that the 6th infantry and 4th panzer armies would recieve replacemants and new eqiupment above all else(including the SS-which was very rare for hitler).Stalin did the same thing with the Soviet 62nd army inside the city fighting to hold the west bank of the volga.Like I stated in another post-the russian 62nd army had more PPsh-hand grenades-morters-anti tank rifles(the russians had entire reaction battalins armed with all anti-tank rifles to quikly respond to frustrated German armor thrusts in the city(the germans tried to keep armor usage to outskirts of city were it had its natural advantages and would throw armor into the rubble of the city out of pure frustration because russian anti-tank rifles and mortars made the German infantry seek cover and leave the armor to be pecked to peices and set alight with the never ending supply of molotov cocktales the russians had and anti-tank rifles which were great for urban fighting because cover was much harder to find-a simple house wooden wall of window ledge did not stop the 20mm round and when you concentrate several hundred like the russians would do the germans learned some painful lessons from this.Anyway the point I am making is that the 6th army was not the rest of the wermacht when it came to supply and new epuipment-Hitler wanted that city bad and Stalin was hell bent on keeping it-both armies enjoyed this priority.The russians had stripped their armies of veterans who had survived June 41 to Stalingrad at general Chuikovs request to bolster russian morale by flooding the 62nd army with decorated veterans(these did not start showing up until 2 weeks into the fighting) and the officers of the 62nd army(political commisars especially) were good intelligent men(the losses incured by russia made this difficult for these men because the peasant mob they were given to fight Germany had to be whipped into shape in a cruel fasion in the hopes they could survive a little longer)who used motivational techniques instead of taking time to train men on effective infantry tactics with a city that was constatly afraid of falling under the weight of the proffessional German wermact-they tried to compansate for this using good battle harded officers which russian had by the time the battle began.