Gumrak/tanks = imbalanced?

[Dobb]

As much as I like most of the discussion on which panzer is which, are they represented accurately in the game then?

Because for some Goddamn reason, they're so overpowered that they should've just made a Tiger or a Panther and plop the thing in instead! Since surely they'll trump the early T-34s.

I used the PZIVs and they're pretty easy to fight a 1 vs 1 against a T-34, but never the other way around. The rounds barely do much damage against a Panzer IV, and I had this one time where I shot the thing at a SIDE armour, almost at 100 meters or less. Didn't knock out the tank, but it one shot me (perfect health/armour) and I blew up from a lucky ammo/fuel hit or something.

If they wanted a fair 1 v 1 advantage with the PzIVs and T-34s, they probably pick the right tanks, but if they didn't, well, we need to streamline the command system and give the Russkis a 2 to 1 ratio in terms of players.

 

[Mormegil]

"One hundred and seventy-five Ausf. F2s were produced from March 1942 to July 1942.[citation needed] Three months after beginning production, the Panzer IV. Ausf. F2 was renamed Ausf. G.[26] There was little to no difference between the F2 and early G models."

if little to no difference when they renamed it, that does mean the armor was still only 50mm on the front, with the same gun and etc, if so, maybe they could think about rename the panzer IV ausf G, to Panzer IV ausf G early version ( or something like that )

that is all, if you guys still think im wrong, even if i corrected myself of what you guys told to me, well i dont know what to respond after

You should reread the article. It clearly states 30mm armor was added, totalling 80mm in the Ausf G. The 50mm version was only being produced from March to May 1942. Production from May 1942 to June 1943 of the Ausf. G had the additional frontal armor.

During its production run from May 1942 to June 1943, the Panzer IV Ausf. G went through further modifications, including another armor upgrade. Given that the tank was reaching its viable limit, to avoid a corresponding weight increase, the appliqu

 

[wokelly]

Do you have manufacturing dates for "early" PzIVGs and then later ones with 80mm hull front?

Anyways it would be much clearer to use PzIVF/2 than start stripping PzIVG of it's armor (aka replace PzIVG with PzIVF/2).

edit:

ISBN 1841761834

So having uparmored PzIVGs in Stalingrad wasn't impossible.

Yeah possible, but not representative of the type of tanks the Germans were fielding by this time. Production of the uparmoured Gs were rare until November when the 50/50 order was given, and than in January when all tanks were uparmoured. But for pre-november 1942 matches (IE all stalingrad battles prior to the encirclement), it would be rediculous especially since 6th Army fielded far more Mark IIIs than Mark IV specials, let alone the limited production run late G series. An uparmoured G should not be allowed at all IMO for this game.

The Devs wanted a more even match between tanks than the Mark III would have allowed, an early G series vs the T-34 is fine for that. Both tanks should be theoretically capable of KOing each other frontally out to 1km. An uparmoured G drops that down to whatever range the T-34 can hope to score a hit on the turret, where as the G can KO the T-34 out to 1km, not a fair matchup.

 

[rada660]

Yeah possible, but not representative of the type of tanks the Germans were fielding by this time. Production of the uparmoured Gs were rare until November when the 50/50 order was given, and than in January when all tanks were uparmoured. But for pre-november 1942 matches (IE all stalingrad battles prior to the encirclement), it would be rediculous especially since 6th Army fielded far more Mark IIIs than Mark IV specials, let alone the limited production run late G series. An uparmoured G should not be allowed at all IMO for this game.

The Devs wanted a more even match between tanks than the Mark III would have allowed, an early G series vs the T-34 is fine for that. Both tanks should be theoretically capable of KOing each other frontally out to 1km. An uparmoured G drops that down to whatever range the T-34 can hope to score a hit on the turret, where as the G can KO the T-34 out to 1km, not a fair matchup.

why i think we are only trying to confirmed that its the wrong Panzer IV used

 

[aop]

Yeah possible, but not representative of the type of tanks the Germans were fielding by this time. Production of the uparmoured Gs were rare until November when the 50/50 order was given, and than in January when all tanks were uparmoured. But for pre-november 1942 matches (IE all stalingrad battles prior to the encirclement), it would be rediculous especially since 6th Army fielded far more Mark IIIs than Mark IV specials, let alone the limited production run late G series. An uparmoured G should not be allowed at all IMO for this game.

The Devs wanted a more even match between tanks than the Mark III would have allowed, an early G series vs the T-34 is fine for that. Both tanks should be theoretically capable of KOing each other frontally out to 1km. An uparmoured G drops that down to whatever range the T-34 can hope to score a hit on the turret, where as the G can KO the T-34 out to 1km, not a fair matchup.

Don't forget that well get more vehicles in updates. Stuff like KV-1 would balance the tank battles a lot.

I hate the idea of fiddling vehicle specs to gain balance, I have already seen WW2OL ruined because of that.

 

[Field Marshal Rommel]

if the side armor got thinner, why is it so hard to kill a panzer IV from the side?

The damage given to a tank after it is penetrated needs looking into. The AP bursting charges seem weak. I heard the term "sponge tanking" being used since the tanks soak up hits like a sponge.

uparmoured Gs were rare until November when the 50/50 order was given, and than in January when all tanks were uparmoured. But for pre-november 1942 matches (IE all stalingrad battles prior to the encirclement), it would be rediculous especially since 6th Army fielded far more Mark IIIs than Mark IV specials, let alone the limited production run late G series. An uparmoured G should not be allowed at all IMO for this game.

They allowed the MkB 42 and AVT 40 though.

 

[albatrossq]

Check the data I provided earlier. While the hull front has sloped armor there isn't that much of it, only 45mm. For comparison Panzer IVG has 80mm on hull front. So they are pretty much equal if the poor quality of Soviet armor isn't taken in to account.

From historical point of view your claims are total bull****. PzIVG should not have any problems with hull front of T-34/76 Model 1942 even at 1km range.

Don't talk nonsense. The T-34's armour is sloped at 60 degrees which you will find, with a little bit of trigiometry (though not that I think random WSS nazi ultra-panzer fanboys are educated) you will find that the T-34's armour from a horizontal POW is 90mm. This isn't taking into account the much increased chance for the shell to bounce, especially if the T-34 is angled.

Anyway, the Panzer 4 had 40mm frontal armour, unsloped. It could be taken out on practically all ranges by the 76 mm of the T-34, if the T-34 aimed at the turret.

Just like the T-34/85 could kill Panzer 4's of any models on practically any ranges.

Also Soviet steel quality was not bad. It's very easy to make high-grade steel if you got the materials.

 

[aop]

Don't talk nonsense. The T-34's armour is sloped at 60 degrees which you will find, with a little bit of trigiometry (though not that I think random WSS nazi ultra-panzer fanboys are educated) you will find that the T-34's armour from a horizontal POW is 90mm. This isn't taking into account the much increased chance for the shell to bounce, especially if the T-34 is angled.

Anyway, the Panzer 4 had 40mm frontal armour, unsloped. It could be taken out on practically all ranges by the 76 mm of the T-34, if the T-34 aimed at the turret.

Just like the T-34/85 could kill Panzer 4's of any models on practically any ranges.

Also Soviet steel quality was not bad. It's very easy to make high-grade steel if you got the materials.

Panzer 4G doesn't have 40mm frontal armor. Turret front is 50mm. At 1,1km 76mm F-34 L/42 doesn't always penetrate it. Hull front is 50mm or 50+30mm depending on when the tank was made.

Soviet armor was poor quality at the time and very suspectible to spall, even a round that didn't penetrate it could wound or kill the crew via spall damage thus it didn't provide nowhere near the protection level of 90mm vertical RHA plate.

edit:

ISBN: 9781846031496

 

[Field Marshal Rommel]

Don't talk nonsense. The T-34's armour is sloped at 60 degrees which you will find, with a little bit of trigiometry you will find that the T-34's armour from a horizontal POW is 90mm. Also Soviet steel quality was not bad. It's very easy to make high-grade steel if you got the materials

Read this:

Anyway, the Panzer 4 had 40mm frontal armour, unsloped.

50 mm sloped at 11 degrees. Of course the newer versions had 80 mm sloped at 12 degrees.

 

[aop]

Read this:





50 mm sloped at 11 degrees. Of course the newer versions had 80 mm sloped at 12 degrees.

Could you post the ISBN numbers of books you are quoting, most of them seem like interesting reading.

 

[DssgMarine]

Close it/Shut it/Armorglass.

I've highlighted the port that is open on the Panzer 4 ingame. the drivers view slit is also open like in your pictures posted. it should close protecting the driver more and gives a reason to even use the periscope.

 

[pustak]

The damage given to a tank after it is penetrated needs looking into. The AP bursting charges seem weak. I heard the term "sponge tanking" being used since the tanks soak up hits like a sponge.



They allowed the MkB 42 and AVT 40 though.

I agree entirely. Judging from the sounds and visuals I do not believe I am having any trouble penetrating the armor on the PZ-IV with the 76.2, but I can't seem to do significant damage with 3 or 4 unanswered, aimed shots, while I usually die to a single shot -- two at the most. It's been a while since I saw the figures, but didn't the Pzgr. 39 contain a smaller bursting charge than the T-34's AP ammo?

I am beginning to wonder if this is less a balance issue than a bug/glitch with the T-34's gun or ammo.

 

[Fusek]

Long story short : PZIV is good for long range, T34 is more for close in brawls. People just need to adjust their play styles. Allies have to make flanking manouvers to win this map, not sit all at the same ridge or else this is the result:

 

[The Beast (nl)]

Exactly.

I have read a thick book about the battle at Kursk.

I have read that the T34 drivers kept zig zagging onto
the enemy and flanking the germans.
The T34 is very moveable. They used the positive points
of this tank.

In the old RO1 i had also a flanking technique against the
panthers and tigers. With the speed i could reach the back or side
of the german tanks.

But with teamwork you can win as a russian easily.

 

[Lettland]

Exactly.

I have read that the T34 drivers kept zig zagging onto
the enemy and flanking the germans.
The T34 is very moveable. They used the positive points
of this tank.

That's how I've been playing the Russian armor. I practically never come to a complete stop, constantly rolling, trying to maintain an angle, and getting in close. Once I started doing that (just a couple of nights ago), but kill ration vs. the Panzer IV went way up!

 

[DingDong09]

There were multiple T-34 models and multiple Panzer IV models, so you can't just say T-34 is better than PzIV.

Ingame we have Panzer IVG and T-34/76 Model 1942 and Panzer IVG is clearly the better out of those two. While their frontal armor protection is quite similar the 75mm L43 KwK40 beats the crap out of 76.2mm L42 F-34. PzIVG also has advantage of 3 man turret which increases the situational awareness as gunner and commander are separate crew members.

ER... WRONG!
Panzer IV G frontal armor a mere 50 mm, side armor maybe 30 mm at most. T-34 has 45 mm frontal armor at 30 degree from the horizontal = 90 mm, angle it slightly and 100-110 mm, more than twice the armor. 76.2 can penetrate the PZIV G frontally at any game range, every time, 75 mm wont penetrate 90-110 mm each time. From the front or back the 76.2 mm should go through completely each time.

 

[DingDong09]

sorry already addressed

 

[aop]

Wrong, G had 50 mm.

Did you even bother to read my previous posts that included even sources?

ISBN 1841761834

 

[Field Marshal Rommel]

I've highlighted the port that is open on the Panzer 4 ingame.

The only reason for that highlighted port is for the backup sight to the main optic. Unless the main optic is damaged that port should never be open in combat.

the drivers view slit is also open like in your pictures posted. it should close protecting the driver more and gives a reason to even use the periscope.

I am pretty sure in real life that you could only use the periscopes only when the view slit was closed.

2 errors

Did you even bother to read previous posts that included even sources?

He is one of them so called "trolls". Feed the trolls tuppence a bag.

 

[aop]

ER... WRONG!
Panzer IV G frontal armor a mere 50 mm, side armor maybe 30 mm at most. T-34 has 45 mm frontal armor at 30 degree from the horizontal = 90 mm, angle it slightly and 100-110 mm, more than twice the armor. 76.2 can penetrate the PZIV G frontally at any game range, every time, 75 mm wont penetrate 90-110 mm each time. From the front or back the 76.2 mm should go through completely each time.

Nope, 45mm @ 30