Is anyone still talking about the T34?

[fakemcfarland]

I realize that it's a tiny bit quicker, but it is HIGHLY inferior to the P4.

I thought I was tanking wrong, but I read and talked to a LOT of people about strategies and then I tried the P4.

I was unstoppable. No more of that crap where the T34 gunner ALWAYS dies in 1 hit to the front. I know that historically the T34 had pretty good armor and could battle the P4s just fine, so whats the deal?

Every tank match, the Germans have a large advantage.

And none of these in Stalingrad :IS2:

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Battle the PzIV just fine? Maybe the earlier one with the short barreled gun, but from the F2 onward the T34 became essentially gunfodder for the German panzers. It's a blunt statement indeed, but the T34 lacked the superior optics, armament, communications equipment and better trained crew of the Panzers, and that got clearly reflected in the loss rates.

 

[fakemcfarland]

Well fine. If Stalingrad T34 were so inferior to the P4 and this is modeled in-game, then why aren't the Russians given something else for balance sake?

So the Germans lost 1500 tanks and the Russians lost 4300.

A big part of that was German air support early on.

A bigger part was that was Russia's philosophy of quantity over quality which put more T34s on the front line.

And yes, a big part was the P4s superiority.

So how about reflecting this in-game by giving the Russians more tank roles? Or better yet, give T34 drivers near instant respawn.


Even at initial strength, Germans had 500 and Russians had 900.


As it is now, it's VERY imbalanced.

 

[Conscript]

I tried tanking for a while the other night. I'm convinced it's pointless even including the T34 on Commisar's House.

So, I start at the spawn. I roll forward into the park. Enemy Pz4 at the other end. Turn to face him, man the gun. Fire. Shell doesn't seem to do anything. He fires. Gunner dead.

One of my other crew members scrambles to the gunners seat. Just as I look down the sight again, he fires. Loader dead. Tank is now worthless as you cant replace the loader. All this time, I can hear the "dink!" of shells from unseen anti tank rifles taking out my engines. Then, boom. Another shot from the Pz4 and I'm toast.

Respawn. Roll into the park again. Same Pz4 is there. Fire on him, no effect. He fires back, and the cycle begins again. Boom. Dead.

This time, I think Ill try what everyone always says, "use your superior speed and outflank". Spawn. Full speed ahead! Go charging across the park. One shot from Pz4. Engine dead. Turn to fire back, no effect. Another incoming shell. Loader dead. FFS.

By this time, I seething with frustration.

I try once more. Spawn. This time, turn 180 degrees. Decide to sneak the other way around the map, and maybe come out behind the Panzers in the park. So I head down past the water refinery, and keep moving to get behind them.

WARNING: PROTECTED AREA. Boom.

Conscript has left the server. With a broken keyboard and high blood pressure.

The whole thing was an exercise in frustration. I cant take the Pz4 on in a slug fest. I cant use my speed because one shot disables me. I cant outflank them because the map is too constrained. Utterly pointless.

I wouldn't mind if I was losing out to the Panzer at long distance, because I understand that was where it excelled. But, were talking at ranges of what, 200 metres, max? Surely that's well within the effective lethality of even the 76mm cannon on the T34?

 

[Mormegil]

It seems to me you're not hitting the ammo box on the Panzer IV. At 200 meters, I'm penetrating with almost every shot. Since the last patch, I'm able to punch right through the mantlet armor, as it's meant to.

From what I've gathered, the ammo boxes are about the same size on either tank, but the Panzer IV is bulkier - so just hitting the Panzer IV means less of a chance to hit the ammo box.

That said, I've been having a lot of luck on Commissar's house taking out Panzer IVs with single hits aiming for the ammo box. The Panzer IV does have the edge on firing first, having a separate gunner, but it's not nearly as one sided as on release. At least not for me.

 

[Amizaur]

Hi all

IMHO one of the things that are not right is the fact, that just penetrating the PzIV with 76mm APBC-HE, without hitting the ammo boxes, has a very low chance of neutralising him. OK, he's little damaged, maybe some crewman is dead, but he can just return his fire in a second and kill you.

In reality, the PzIV crew after the AP-HE penetration would be - on average - partially dead, partially wounded, partially just trying to get the hell out of this stell coffin. The inside would be filled with smoke or even some fire.

There would be a high chance of the tank being either inoperable (some equipement broken, like electric shortcuts or the engine out), or just the crew being be too wounded / too shocked / too panicked to stay and just continue the fight. Usually they would be just evacuating the tank.

Also, there should be some chance for tank explosion, and some greater chance of tank be set on fire, even if the shell didn't hit any hitboxes. Even if the shell didn't hit them, then just some hot splinter thrown by burster explosion could hit the ammo or pierce a fuel tank....

No crew would stay in the tank, if it was penetrated AND there is fight going on AND there is a fire in crew compartment. Historically in 95% of cases they evacuated as quickly as they could before the ammo coocks off.
Then IF for some time the ammo didn't coocked, enemy was not shooting, and the fire was minor, SOMETIMES they even managed to get back, and put out the fire .


Now - so what to do in RO2 when the crew don't value their lifes or fear the painfull death, and in fact they even can't evacuate even if they wanted too ?

If the overal shell damage was just increased, and the tanks were made to just mostly explode after 1th or 2nd penetration, it would also not feel "right".

We can't force the crew out, we can't "motivate" the human player to get out from damaged tank - in most cases he would fight to the end even if he could exit. Better die and spawn home than survive and get home on foot .
Or maybe we can ?

Is there a tank fire implemented currently ? With a danger of imminent explosion ? Even if it was, the human player can't get out anyway.

Few ideas in my mind - any comments welcomed:

Maybe change the way the tank "scuttling" (K key) works ?
If the tank is heavily damaged or on fire (that would mean danger of explosion in 3-20 seconds) the player could just hit the "K" key and be.... teleported to the spawn with decreased wait-time.

The "scuttled" tank WOULD NOT EXPLODE(!) - it would stay where it was, empty, burning or damaged, so the other (shooting) player would NOT know if his enemy "escaped" the tank or not - he would just have to "finish" the burning tank with more shots, to be sure, or wait 10-20 seconds till it explodes from ammo fire.

If a player had time to escape with "K" but didn't do it, then it would have increased wait time. That would be a motivation for me, what you think ?

I would also add some chance for tank explosion even without the ammo being hit - if the shell was AP-HE type. Well, most of penetrations of T-34 from Panzers resulted in an explosion or at least a fire. Can't seen that in game.
Have no historical data for the other case, but I'm also sure that most penetrations of 50mm armoured PzIVs by T-34's guns resulted in tanks being knocked-out at once, some burned, even though the crew survive rate was overall higher.

Next thing - maybe some "shock" effects for the crew of penetrated vehicle ? Some dark-screens, ear-ringing, blur, colourless-blurred.... ? For few seconds ? The time could be somewhat random.
That would make at least SOME advantage for the player that managed to get the first succesfull penetration. There would be higher chance, that he manages to reload and finish the damaged vehicle, before his crew is able to react.

Another idea - maybe make the "computer" crewmembers to "bail-out" after penetrations in situations when real world crew would bail ?

So after most of penetrations resulting in 1). AP-HE explosion (the shock and smoke of the explosion) or 2). some crew members dead or 3). more than 1 wounded - or something like that ? And a little randomised ?
Computer crew would "escape" the tank, and then the human player could stay in the empty the tank and try to fight alone - and get a Hero of Soviet Union - posthumously . With longer-waiting-for-new-tank penalty.

Or he would "escape" with the "K" key and get a new tank quickly....

The computer crew could "bail out" and spawn as soldiers at the hatches, but as this is impossible currently - so they could be made to just leave their stations empty (some code modification) and the game could "play" to player some "get away ! save your life" "it will blow up!" crew shouts... .

If the human player could be made to escape by just spawning at the hatch, it could be made that he would just have to survive for 20 15-20 seconds (and be not killed by enemy tank or the infantry) and if he managed that, he would be teleported to the spawn with new tank waiting for him (or decreased waiting time).

I remember that in RO1 sometimes I prefereed to die in a tank, than to escape tank fire and return on foot on large maps. But if I had only to survive the escape, and in 15 seconds I would be evacuated to the spawn and get new tank faster than if I died, I woud value my "virtual" life much higher and try to save it, abandoning a tank in hopeless situation.

I believe even if some of those or similar ideas were realised, it would result in more realistic gameplay - improved with things like post-penetration visual "shock" effects for the crew and higher chances of tank being blown up or set on fire, and by the scuttled/abandoned/empty tanks not exploding at once, but left for some time (30sec?) so could be "finished" by the atacking players (not being sure if they are empty or not - imagine those emotions and uncertainity, is he shocked, and will return fire or is it dead / empty?).

That could also make more realistic player behaviour - by motivating them to value more their "virtual" life and try to evacuate the tanks in hopeless situations - to get some benefits in reward .

Regards!

Ami

 

[Wookie87]

The thing that is not right is the fact, that just penetrating the PzIV with 76mm APBC-HE, without hitting the ammo boxes, has a very low chance of neutralising him. OK, he's little damaged, maybe some crewman is dead, but he can just return his fire in a second and kill you.

In reality, the PzIV crew after the penetration would be - on average - partially dead, partially wounded, partially just trying to get the hell out of this stell coffin. In case of APHE detonation, the inside would be filled with smoke or even some fire.

By all accounts yeah, but you would also have to add this effect to t34 penetrations too. And seeing there is already enough raging about T34's...

 

[Amizaur]

Of course this would work for both tanks.

Well, I can't change the fact, that the German Panzergrenade 39 was so effective in setting T-34s on fire. But at least we can make the BR-350 also quite-effective against 50mm PzIVs, and the PzIV also a bit more vunerable.
Now they are sometimes an uber-tanks taking almost no damage, manned by terminators, not humans.

T-34 just can't be much worse than it is, even with some random chance for explosion (let it be 15%) or fire (30%) added.

But on the other hand, if the T-34 manages to penetrate PzIV - and on ranges like 100-500m in the game, T-34 should penetrate PzIVs 50mm just every single time under almost any angle - he would have greater chances to explode/neutralise it.

Also the visual penetration effect could be a little more distinct, different than non-penetration or ricochet. Penetration could be just some sparks and short tiny flash, with little smoke (burster going off inside, seen by the hole) and some dust maybe. Non-penetration by AP-HE could be some sparks with more bright flash with more smoke (burster going off outside) and more dust. Ricoshet - just a sparks and little dust. Only if the ground is hit, there should be fountain of flying dirt visible.
As it is now, I really can't say if my shots penetrated or not, and on longer ranges even if I hit or missed...

Some other things: it could be verified - comparing to some WW2 videos - if the tanks don't "rock" too much after the shot in RO2. There were recoil-dampers after all, and the tanks were rather heavy. They were designed to be stable gun-platforms. Sure, there would be some sharp shake, but I'm not sure if there would be much of "suspension rocking/swinging" that makes observation of outgoing shell almost impossible on closer ranges. The flash and smoke obscuring the view are ok - I like them, it's realistic - but I'm not sure about this rocking of the whole tank (including commander's binoculars).
Maybe on relatively light tanks armed with very powerfull guns - like IS-2, T-34/85, Sherman Firefly, maybe also long PzIV - this effect should be visible. IT was sometimes said, that too powerfull gun made it not only uncontrollable (less accurate), but made the tank to shake and rock too much after shot, with all the consequences for mechanics and crew, including too long stabilisation time for next shot.

But such effect should be much weaker for heavy Tiger (mentioned to be en excellent gun platform, so stable that the gun almost didn't change the aim-point after shot), Panther, or for relatively heavier armed tanks with less-powerfull guns (the rest).

 

[fakemcfarland]

I guess the point in short is tanking can be very fun, but on Realism the T34 is a gamble. You can flank the P4 but theres still a HUGE chance it will just bounce off even if shot just right. Then the P4 just turns and kills your gunner in 1 hit.

What about just reducing the chance of that happening? The trouble isnt a p4 1 hit kill. It's the automatic gunner kill which is basically a 1 hit kill. Remove that and the P4 would still have an advantage, but not the HUGE one that makes the game un-fun.

 

[CaptHawkeye]

The thing is, if the devs balanced the tanks based on kill/death counts vs. other tanks, then the type of shell being used basically doesn't matter. Soviet APHE was notorious for failing outright before penetration which would mean the T-34's main armament was not as strong in practice as on paper.

 

[Mangley]

They should just balance the tanks, at least until DLC 1.

It's one of those cases where putting realism before gameplay is hurting the experience more than adding to it.

And for the love of god disable the AI hull machinegunners!

 

[Teufel Hund]

Next thing - maybe some "shock" effects for the crew of penetrated vehicle ? Some dark-screens, ear-ringing, blur, colourless-blurred.... ? For few seconds ? The time could be somewhat random.
That would make at least SOME advantage for the player that managed to get the first succesfull penetration. There would be higher chance, that he manages to reload and finish the damaged vehicle, before his crew is able to react.

I like this idea. I assume that whatever damage is done, or crew killed, are a combined result of the penetration, spalling, and/or the burster charge. But some "shock" effects for the surviving crew would be realistic, and should be fairly easy to add to the game.

The PzGr 39 has an 18g RDX charge (equal to approximately 27g of TNT). The BR-350A had a 150g TNT charge. Although the BR-350A was prone to shattering on impact with face hardened armor (which is what the Germans used), and the fuse on the HE charge was prone to failing even when it did penetrate.
In comparison the Stielhandgranate Model 24 had an explosive charge of 170g of TNT.

I'd say give the Russians a 50% chance of the burster charge going off if the round penetrates. If it does go off, it would almost certainly kill the entire crew. Explosions in small confined spaces are a very bad thing. The smaller German charge is still likely to result in the crew having a very bad day (concussion, burst eardrums, etc), but not as likely to kill. But probably enough to still render the crew combat ineffective.

 

[Serpico]

The key to taking out P4s is hitting the ammo rack behind the driver, it is possible to go toe to toe with p4s if you know the weak spots. Also, including the Venerable KV-1 would be an excellent way to balance out the p4.

 

[Sufyan]

Tanks are fine, the T34 is fine.

It was the best overall tank in 1941 and early 1942, but only because German tanks and common anti-tank guns were stinkers. With the PzIV F2, the armour of the T34 no longer provided much of a challange.

Against an equally skilled opponent the T34 is screwed in one-on-one situations, which is why they should avoid other tanks on combined arms maps. On Gumrak, T34s need to operate in groups of 10 and go for objectives because they can not win shooting matches. Their one advantage is speed and that is only useful in taking objectives, not winning gun duels.

Large groups of T34 will ofen outnumber the groups of German tanks they run into on objectives, which gives them a fair chance of winning. If the Germans are also running around in big groups you have to focus on unprotected objectives. The game could grind to a halt where one objective is taken while the other falls, but it should be noted that it is much easier to coordinate a large group of tanks to drive full speed on to objectives than it is to coordinate the fire of a large group of tanks. If 10 T34 charge head first into an equal number of PzIV, several Soviet tanks are going to make it through unharmed because it is not likely that every German tank is going to pick a unique target. Once at knife fighting range it is mostly about rolling the dice, as both tanks are equally vulnerable.

The only time the T34 is pretty much always outperformed is in one-on-one encounters, which happens either because there really is only one T34 in the area, or because the T34s form a static gunline where they can be killed one by one.

 

[wigdigster]

If the t34 didn't provide much of a challenge to the long barrel p4?

why did they develop the panther: to hunt T34.

T34 front armor was still more effective than P4 chassis front armor due to its slope, it was also less susceptible to at rifle fire due to the angle.

while the p4 has some obviously better qualities than the early t34: copula, 3 man turret etc.. the t34 still had the more effective front armor and could still out-penetrate a p4 at further ranges (yes, the long barrel p4 included).

The t34 was a bit faster? how about MUCH faster. T34 on road tops out going 55 km/Hr, on rough terrain 40Km/Hr depending.

P4 tops out at maybe 45Km/Hr on the road and a pathetic 17km/hr offroad due to its smaller tracks..

 

[Field Marshal Rommel]

If the t34 didn't provide much of a challenge to the long barrel p4? why did they develop the panther: to hunt T34.

The upgunning of the Panzer IV was a quick response to achieve some superiority over the T34. On the other hand, the Panther was developed primarily to completely outclass the T34 in every possible respect.

it was also less susceptible to at rifle fire due to the angle

The AT rifles are overpowered in the game.

T34 front armor was still more effective than P4 chassis front armor due to its slope

This might be true when speaking of 50 mm thick Panzer IVs or 20 - 50 mm projectiles but not the uparmored 80 mm Panzer IVs or 75 mm projectiles. Look here:

the t34 could still out-penetrate a p4 at further ranges (yes, the long barrel p4 included).

Incorrect. As noted here the Panzer IV F2 (50mm thick) could out-penetrate the frontal armor of the T-34/76 at a further range:

[URL]http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=937968&postcount=46



:IS2:[/URL]

 

[wigdigster]

The upgunning of the Panzer IV was a quick response to achieve some superiority over the T34. On the other hand, the Panther was developed primarily to completely outclass the T34 in every possible respect.



The AT rifles are overpowered in the game.



This might be true when speaking of 50 mm thick Panzer IVs or 20 - 50 mm projectiles but not the uparmored 80 mm Panzer IVs or 75 mm projectiles. Look here:









Incorrect. As noted here the Panzer IV F2 (50mm thick) could out-penetrate the frontal armor of the T-34/76 at a further range:

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=937968&postcount=46



:IS2:

regardless, top ranges in stalingrad were around 200m (ingame). This means a garaunteed penetration for either side. Which means cooking off comes down to ammo placement in the tank. As it stands right now the p4 is way too tough at the ranges in game.

That being said in city streets, the p4 was superior to the t34 simply because of its 3 man turret, because it was first hit wins and copula allows for faster spotting.

My problem with the P4 is that it is not cooking off like it should, and somehow manages to defeat 3 or 4 direct hits just to the left of the driver (to cook off ammo behind). The p4 should also be MUCH slower, the speedo reads 30 km/hr through artilary craters, when the p4 had well documented issues with difficult terrain due to small tracks.

 

[Teufel Hund]

regardless, top ranges in stalingrad were around 200m (ingame). This means a garaunteed penetration for either side. Which means cooking off comes down to ammo placement in the tank. As it stands right now the p4 is way too tough at the ranges in game.

The very close ranges are actually working against the T-34. At such close ranges the BR-350A is still traveling at near muzzle velocity. It was well known for it's tendency to shatter upon impact with face hardened armor, ironically with the higher velocity it is more likely to do so. This could easily explain what we see in game.

The p4 should also be MUCH slower, the speedo reads 30 km/hr through artilary craters, when the p4 had well documented issues with difficult terrain due to small tracks.

Agreed, 16 kph would be about right off road.

 

[Vesper11]

It was well known

Right. Was also well known that AT rifle can penetrate t-34 from front. So even if it did shatter like 80% of time there is still no explanation for PTRS...

edit:

I'd say give the Russians a 50% chance of the burster charge going off if the round penetrates.

N% chances wont do. I think TWI want RO2 to be based on skill rather than chance. Otherwise ---------> introduction of jamming! (you dont want that for axis team)


p.s. as a reply to next post. Either its TWI history or WW2 history, its definitely something wrong with both PzIV and t-34, though PzIV seems closer to what it was IRL.

 

[Teufel Hund]

Right. Was also well known that AT rifle can penetrate t-34 from front. So even it did shatter like 80% of time there is still no explanation for PTRS...

The PTRS is greatly overpowered. TWI has a history of making AT rifles overpowered. Even using the BS-41 AP-I rounds, the penetration at 100m is only 40mm.