Panther and Tiger underated?

  • 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/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

TONYUK

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 15, 2008
82
2
0
Hemel Hempstead, England
I hear a lot of players on line using Voip complaining about this. Like hitting an IS2 with 4 88mm shots and having little or no effect. Today whilst driving a Tiger it took me 3 hits at point blank range to kill a T34. That cannot be right. I got killed by an IS2 in a Panther whilst angled, in 3 shots. Whether this has been improved in DH I am not sure. Are these two finest tanks of WWII correctly mirrored here? They sure have their weaknesses, but not when operating from long ditances. It seems to me these two tanks get killed too easily and ballistics are not very effective the way they were in WWII.

Thoughts anyone?
 

Klaus

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 22, 2006
806
188
0
96
Israel, Tel-Aviv
The Tiger is literally invurnable when angled properly at 10.5.
At 1.5 it is only protect against T34s as at this angle, IS2s still take it out in one shot.
 

Tank!

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 9, 2007
207
353
0
Tonyuk said:
Today whilst driving a Tiger it took me 3 hits at point blank range to kill a T34. That cannot be right. Are these two finest tanks of WWII correctly mirrored here?

They are not. The T 34-76 or 85 shouldn't be taking a KwK 40 (long Panzer IV weapon) from point blank up to 1,200 meters at any angle. The KwK 36 (Tiger I weapon) would simply be overkill. Please try Darkest Hour as the tank code is noticeably better and more realistic/detailed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TT33

TT33

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 2, 2007
571
159
0
Today whilst driving a Tiger it took me 3 hits at point blank range to kill a T34. That cannot be right. . Are these two finest tanks of WWII correctly mirrored here? They sure have their weaknesses, but not when operating from long ditances. It seems to me these two tanks get killed too easily and ballistics are not very effective the way they were in WWII.
Thoughts anyone?


Short answer No, The T-34's 45mm @ 60 degree frontal plate was insufficient to stand up to the 75mm L/43-L48 on the later Panzer IV's (Ausf G,H,and ,J) as Tank! stated. No doubt from "Panzertruppen" (Thomas Jentz) "The long 75mm L/43-L/48 could penetrate the front of the T-34 up to 1,200 meters at any angle". The T-34 could much less sustain any hit from the 88mm L/56 at even very long ranges at any angle. Perhaps you have heard the phrase "The T-34 tips its hat to the Tiger" ...maybe its not a very descriptive phrase as it does not mention the explosion(s) which resulted in the turret being flung from the tank after the 88mm APCBC round penetrated the vehicle which apparently was quite common as the round would penetrate the front and through the engine causing a catastrophic explosion.

Now relentless T-34 tank fans would bring up its sloped armor, claiming that it would deflect anything because of this. Soviet tests place the T-34's frontal armor equivalent to a 75mm plate at @ 0 degrees ( I believe an American war test placed the actual thickness closer to 37 mm@ 60 rather than 45mm@ 60 ** I am still hunting down war test documents of this at this rate I am going to be broke!) Although most armor formulas and tank fans place it as equivalent to a 90 mm plate @ 0 degrees both of these figures are relatively thin, however they are irrelevant as the effective armor and or angled armor play a very small part here due to the armor's very thin nature. Which allows even the 75mm round caliber to sufficiently overmatch the armor negating its theoretical ballistic protection given by the sloped armor thus allowing effective penetrations at long distances. In short taking a direct 88mm hit or even a long 75mm hit to the frontal hull is very dangerous the armor of the T-34 which was not designed to take it any more than the Matildas tanks were designed to withstand Flak 36 fire in France.

TONYUK said:
Whether this has been improved in DH I am not sure

DH tanking is much better in that it has more tank features such as turret armor and the ablity to kill the tank crew with a penetrating shot however it does have its own faults.

Now the Panther vs Allied and the IS-2 rounds is another can of worms I will post about tomorrow.....
 
Last edited:

TONYUK

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 15, 2008
82
2
0
Hemel Hempstead, England
Tank Angles

Tank Angles

Does anyone know where I can find a chart or something similar stating the ideal angle for each type of tank, russian and German. Generally speaking some say 10.30 others say 11.00, I am not sure which is correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alan123

lubberthebully

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 25, 2009
4
0
0
The Tiger 1's front armor in real life was almost invunrable, as it was 4 inches thick. Later tanks such as the IS-2 or JS-2 and the firefly had big enough guns to puch through, but both of those tanks came late in the war (1944). I know shermans anyway couldnt punch through the tigers front armor, and im guessing to t34-76mm couldnt either. T-34-85mm maybe could but i still think they had to flank the tiger and hit its side armor.
 

Nezzer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 3, 2010
2,334
1,021
0
29
Porto Alegre, RS
I think the tank health system should be abolished and be replaced by some new penetration system. Or the projectile penetrates or it doesn't penetrate, I mean, if you are in a Tiger, you could take as many hits as you want without really penetrating that you'd stay alive, but if you were hit on a weak spot, you could die in a single shot from a T-34, which is pretty realistic.

I heard that nobody has ever found a Tiger with a frontal armour penetration, so Tigers should be impossible to get disabled from the frontal armour. That would encourage the T-34 driver to try to flank the Tiger using its high speed, instead of trying to destroy the Tiger in a face-to-face battle.

And I think tanks blow up too easily in ROOST. In real life, most tank crews made it out of the tank, so when the armour's been penetrated, the tank should catch fire and be totally disabled and blow up some seconds later to give the chance for the crew to leave it. Another thing that bothers me in ROOST is that we see very often tanks operating normally while on fire...
 

Gopblin

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 16, 2006
124
24
0
In the game, "big" tanks are weakened to create a more level playing field. It is just as infuriating to see IS-2 or ISU-152 shots bounce of a P4. I'm pretty sure 152mm should tear the turret clean off, and 122 should just blast clear through everything except King Tigers.

Best wishes,
Daniel.
 

BlackLabel

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 9, 2007
3,137
1,063
0
Churmany
the tank should catch fire and be totally disabled and blow up some seconds later to give the chance for the crew to leave it. Another thing that bothers me in ROOST is that we see very often tanks operating normally while on fire...

That is happening in DH mod ;)
 

NickRoman

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 13, 2010
5
0
0
I completely agree with the OP. I am a big history buff and avid gamer. I have been playing games like this since Panzer Blitz came out. It is not clear to me whatsoever why and who decide that a Soviet T-34 could ever in any way manner shape or form take on a Tiger. As the OP stated, I have been one shot by a Soviet T-34 and have had to shoot say, 5 times to get destroy it. I even hit it fron the rear and side with no difference. Sorry, not only stupid but completely inaccurate.

Can anyone Mod this? Can the developers please, please change this?

I quote from wiki:
Link: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I[/URL]

Gun and armor performance

Tigers were capable of penetrating the front of an American M4 Sherman between 1,800 and 2,100 m (1.1 and 1.3 mi)[19], the British Churchill IV between 1,100 and 1,700 m (0.68 and 1.1 mi), the Soviet T-34 between 100 and 1,400 m (0.062 and 0.87 mi), and the Soviet IS-2 between 100 and 300 m (0.062 and 0.19 mi).[19] The Soviet T-34 equipped with the 76.2 mm gun could not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range[citation needed], but could achieve a side penetration at approximately 500 m firing BR-350P APCR ammunition.[citation needed] The T34-85's 85 mm gun could penetrate the front of a Tiger between 200 and 500 m (0.12 and 0.31 mi),[19], the IS-2s 122 mm gun could penetrate the front between 500 and 1,500 m (0.31 and 0.93 mi).[19]

From a 30 degree angle of attack, the M4 Sherman's 75 mm gun could not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, and needed to be within 100 m to achieve a side penetration against the 80 mm upper hull superstructure.[19] The British 17-pounder as used on the Sherman Firefly, firing its normal APCBC ammunition, could penetrate the front out to 1000 m. The US 76 mm gun, if firing the APCBC M62 ammunition, could penetrate the Tiger side armor out to just over 500 m, and could penetrate the upper hull superstructure at ranges of 200 m. Using HVAP ammunition, which was in constant short supply and primarily issued to tank destroyers, frontal penetrations were possible out to just over 500 m.

As range decreases in combat, all guns can penetrate more armor (with the exception of HEAT ammunition, which was rare in World War II). The great penetrating power of the Tiger's gun meant that it could destroy many of its opponents at ranges at which they could not respond. In open terrain, this was a major tactical advantage. Opposing tanks were often forced to make a flanking attack in order to knock out a Tiger.
 

dogbadger

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 19, 2006
3,230
553
0
here to kill your monster
I completely agree with the OP. I am a big history buff and avid gamer. I have been playing games like this since Panzer Blitz came out. It is not clear to me whatsoever why and who decide that a Soviet T-34 could ever in any way manner shape or form take on a Tiger.....

In the interests of making an enjoyable game for all (bar seemingly the most rabid of 'history buffs'), game designers did.
 

NickRoman

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 13, 2010
5
0
0
In the interests of making an enjoyable game for all (bar seemingly the most rabid of 'history buffs'), game designers did.


The point is it isnt enjoyable for all except "gamers" who want "balance". If thats the case, and I assume that is your perspective, then why place the game in a historical context?

Why not just call it War and go have fun? But if the Devs take the time to place it in a historical context, then either do it right or call it something else.
 

Oldih

Glorious IS-2 Comrade
Nov 22, 2005
3,414
412
0
Finland
The point is it isnt enjoyable for all except "gamers" who want "balance".

There is already the sad fact there is no unit cohesion, no organisation, no chain of command and no real unit formations in FPS games. Having realistic penetrations and armour stuff would be physically ok, but practically only skill required would be to pick up Tiger and be able to shoot straight. Refer to the link I put in that one other thread in the Ideas and Suggestion subforum. Hell, if we really go realistic and make a proper Tiger tank battalion in fire battalion counter-attack every tank you would encounter would be a Tiger in late war in the specific map. Realistic? Yes. Fun? If you're masochistic or jerk off for Waffen-SS pictures.

Actually then comes the problem that ignoring KrivoiRog and BDJ, every RO tank map has engagement ranges of 300-400 yards roughly. Every late war tank (Panther might be the sole exception in terms of survivability) in those ranges could penetrate eachother more or less, so just to make the one hit kill fest even more interesting it wouldn't matter what tank you have - other than the rate of fire. Arad is the only one where it can reach as far as 600-700 yards in few very specific locations but even that's more of an exception, 300-400 is the norm. Another interesting problem is that you respawn faster than you can blink your eye and you have unlimited supply of AFVs. It doesn't matter if you go completely lunatic with it.

Generally speaking from physical point of view, RO tanking not realistic at all as some of the penetrations are odd and angling is rather overly effective. When looking at some other stuff, like how much coordination and correct use of vehicles (to some degree) does matter in the game aswell as communication and invidual skill (where to shoot at in some cases), it's sort of realistic. Tiger is one of those vehicles that does require alot of coordination between the gunner and commander and presuming you get the angle right you're invulnerable to any damage. Presuming the gunner can shoot straight you can destory any tank in the game.

Again, physically that's as realistic as Harry Potter. Practically speaking when taking some other small details into account which are 99% absent in video games... it's not as unrealistic as one might think.
 

Tank!

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 9, 2007
207
353
0
In the interests of making an enjoyable game for all (bar seemingly the most rabid of 'history buffs'), game designers did
Yeah this stuff is really "enjoyable":



Video #1 T-34/85 penetrating a Tiger I frontally at four times the distance that it should:
YouTube - T34/85 vs Tiger I tank
Video #2 T-60's 20 mm penetrating things it should never be penetrating:
YouTube - Red Orchestra's unrealistic T-60 light tank
Video #3 PTRD weapon of mass destruction:
YouTube - Red Orchestra NoWay#01 PTRD-41 on Arad



NickRoman said:
The point is it isnt enjoyable for all except "gamers" who want "balance".
If this game were truly balanced the Panzer IV's would be deflecting just as many T-34 rounds as the T-34 is massively deflecting 75 mm KwK 40 rounds.
Tiger is one of those vehicles that does require alot of coordination between the gunner and commander and presuming you get the angle right you're invulnerable to any damage.
Angling should not be needed in a Tiger I against soviet 76 mm calibers at all ranges and against the soviet 85 mm @ greater than 450 meters. The only weapon which you should be worried about in RO is the IS2...but I have experienced the Tiger I being all too many times destroyed by a SU 76 frontally in Krivoi Rog at rediculous distances both angled or not angled and by both AP or HE.
Oldih said:
Practically speaking when taking some other small details into account which are 99% absent in video games... it's not as unrealistic as one might think.
Bull. Red Orchestra fails at tanking realism and is fundamentally flawed at the basic level because:

*The devs seem to think that the T-34/76/85 is the equivalent to the Tiger I/Panther G
**and the PTRD to the Panzerfaust.

*For the first point here is some game code from the UC files found in your ROVehicles\Classes folder:

T3485//Armor
FrontArmorFactor=11
SideArmorFactor=6
RearArmorFactor=5
Health=800
HealthMax=800

T3476 is based off the T3485 so the values are the same//Armor
FrontArmorFactor=11
SideArmorFactor=6
RearArmorFactor=5
Health=800
HealthMax=800

Panther//Armor
FrontArmorFactor=18
SideArmorFactor=6
RearArmorFactor=5
Health=800
HealthMax=800

Tiger//Armor
FrontArmorFactor=14
SideArmorFactor=8
RearArmorFactor=8
Health=800
HealthMax=800

An observant person would immediately notice that the T34's, Tiger, and Panther all have the same Health of 800 which is instantly worrisome. Another point is that the Tiger and Panther's effective armour factors (cm) seem to at least resemble their real life counterparts whereas those of the T-34's have noticably too thick of a FrontArmourFactor. Ideally the frontal value should be no greater than 9 cm. The T-34 is 4.5 cm @ 60 degrees which equals 9 cm of effective armour. However due to poor armour quality some books mention that the soviets rated the frontal hull armour protection of the T-34 as ~ 75 mm of effective armour while others state that it was "slightly inferior in frontal protection to that of the KV1 S". So here is the KV1 S RO code:

KV1S//Armor
FrontArmorFactor=8
SideArmorFactor=6
RearArmorFactor=5
Health=600
HealthMax=600

Immediately noticable is the fact that the medium T-34 has 200 more health points than a marginally better protected and heavier KV1S. The FrontArmourFactor of both T-34's should be very similar to that of the KV1S. The T-34/85's equivalent on the German side would be the Panzer IV H, not the Tiger or Panther as some people seem to think as the P IV H has a marginally better 75 mm weapon (ballistically and penetration wise) compared to the soviet 85 mm and similar frontal armour protection to the T-34/85. Here is its RO code:

PanzerIVH//Armor
FrontArmorFactor=8
SideArmorFactor=4
RearArmorFactor=2
bHasAddedSideArmor=True
Health=650
HealthMax=650

The Panzer IVH's ArmourFactors appear to be correct but as you can see it has about the same health of the KV1S and drastically less health than that of the T-34's. So in conclusion, RO's T-34's do not fit in the medium tank category as they have been unrealistically elevated with a FrontArmorFactor that is unrealistically too thick and the same health values of the Tiger and Panther which, coupled with an overdone angle code, enables it to take severe punishment and deflect numerous 75 mm and higher caliber rounds when it should not.



**For the second point watch Video #3 PTRD above. Realistically, the PTRD was considered a heavy and obsolete weapon which could not defeat 35 mm unless at ideal angles at suicidal ranges. In RO in the hands of an average player, the PTRD has the ability and power of a Panzerfaust enabling it to destroy all German tanks currently in game with 1 or 2 well placed rounds including the skirted Panzer IV's and the Tiger/Panther tank. Unrealistic elevation of an obsolete weapon to match the abilities of a Panzerfaust. One of the devs had this to say on the PTRD:

The only weapon that we did give a little extra "ooommfh" was the PTRD, since it was essentially outdated on any but the earliest maps. You won't be penetrating the front of a Tiger or Panther with it (as some have claimed), but it does have about 20% extra penetrating power just to make it somewhat useful in later war maps. It's also worth noting that the PTRD in game can't penetrate the Tiger from ANY direction, and the Tiger's side armor was 80mm.

Play Video #3 PTRD above and watch from 0:30 seconds to 0:45 seconds.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TT33

Oldih

Glorious IS-2 Comrade
Nov 22, 2005
3,414
412
0
Finland
Yeah this stuff is really "enjoyable":

Only if you look at it on the most physical point of view. Honestly speaking as much as TWI does deserve a big stick for sort of false advertising initially about simulation level combat, there is alot of other things we could go ****pick so much that even hardcore player would probably bleed his\her ears out E.G. about infantry related issues.

And since I like to be annoying, it already breaks my immersion and prevents me from enjoying the game as when I hop online to play a game that atleast pretents to be realistic and what do I see? Some lunatic squad leaders ordering rush as if it were zergrush 2k10, players moving as they were the Lemmings themselves, having minimal situational awareness and so on. Since when full frontal rush was accectaple military tactic against gunline of perfectly positioned guns? Since when putting more smoke up than ten Marlboro factories does in a year was a viable tactic? Since when the artillery was so goddamm accurate when undirected and fired basically on rough coordinates without any help of FO? Since when I was supposed to be part of a 'simulation' where over half of the players either can't play or acts like untrained poor hobo that was given a rifle and a combat uniform? Since when WW2 battles were pitched battles and the germans lose more Tigers in one map than they did in one year? And the list goes on very long.
 

NickRoman

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 13, 2010
5
0
0
And since I like to be annoying, .

Well, of all the statements you made above, I, and it seems like others would agree with you on this one, LOL.

Kidding aside, why not, as I suggested have a toggle that would allow those of us who want and appreciate real world or historical authenticity to have that and toggle it to gamer for those that want
 

Tomcat_ha

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
3,277
185
0
32
the difference is, is that the infantry part is well balanced oldih, the tanks are not as balanced.
 

Oldih

Glorious IS-2 Comrade
Nov 22, 2005
3,414
412
0
Finland
the difference is, is that the infantry part is well balanced oldih, the tanks are not as balanced.

Unfortunately going by standard RO maps making tank penetrations and such more realistic wouldn't make things that more balanced considering we have already very random pick'n mix of vehicles together with maps where you barely have long ranges or depth in terms of keeping things 'realistic'.

Obviously it's a bit of paradox that realism itself often means things are not balanced, while balance goes against realism - and ignoring some rare exceptions - things balanced by unbalance has rarely been a functioning concept from the point of competitive gameplay.

Tank! said:
It is blatantly unrealistic in the sense that in RO the T-34/76 is matched up performance wise with the Tiger I tank, the T-34/85 with the Panther tank and the PTRD with the Panzerfaust.

I am fully aware how ****ed up things are in RO and it begs for the question why they ever added such half-arsed **** in the game. It becomes a problem of how do you really look at it, physical realism, big picture vs small level\operational issues of realism (logistics etc), small features\possible stuff relative to the gameplay.

Tank! said:
If this game were truly balanced the Panzer IV's would be deflecting as many T-34 rounds as the T-34 does currently in RO which deflects massive amounts of kwk 40 75 mm rounds.

Call me an exception but there are three spots which always - and always - penetrates T-34 armour even with Panzer 3's 50mm cannon even when angled. Obviously from realistic point of view, it's utter bull****. Don't get me wrong, but I don't consider myself in need of lecture about the subject as I've heard - seen - and even complained myself in the past about it until I began to drop the supposed simulation aspect and just start playing and learning the vehicles. Actually to be honest the whole system does favour germans if they man Tiger or Panther with adequately good knowledge about few things, as in certain angle Tiger can't be damaged at all while against Panther you need IS-2 to do some damage while every russian tank when angled - can be penetrated by almost any german AFV. PzIII, PzIV later models, StuG and such can all penetrate T-34 and IS-2 under any angle, even though with IS-2 it's really difficult to pixelhunt the proper location at longer ranges. Even T-60 under perfect angle (where it normally would deflect IS-2 shell) can be penetrated. The whole matter is just knowing where to aim as for some reason some very obnoxious and illogical parts like to cause holes. Again, from pure physical point of view it doesn't make any sense but saying the whole game favours russian armour too much is bit wrong.

NickRoman said:
Kidding aside, why not, as I suggested have a toggle that would allow those of us who want and appreciate real world or historical authenticity to have that and toggle it to gamer for those that want “balance”.

Since the game is over four years old officially and they haven't done anything to really change the system I doubt they would do it now. One hope still left though is either to pick a server with Armoured Beasts mutator or Darkest Hour mod. I believe Mare Nostrum has also greatly improved tanking mechanics to more realistic levels. :)

But putting the physical realism aside, another problem with just having an option doesn't work is due the amount of vehicles avaible on a single map. Let's make a hypothetical (albeit plausible) situation that a company of Tigers would be delaying or attempting to stop a breakthrough. That would mean 14 tigers on german side, while russians would have only - and probably only - T-34\76s avaible, as they were very common even in 1944. Even if one would make it so that none of the Tigers respawn once they are KO'd if we have a map like Arad, realistic penetrations among other things would make it virtually impossible for russian side to even try winning. Realistic? Absolutely. However what are the odds that everytime someone would play such map you'd either see everyone on the german side or the server suddenly dies off?
 
Last edited:

Tank!

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 9, 2007
207
353
0
Call me an exception but there are three spots which always - and always - penetrates T-34 armour even with Panzer 3's 50mm cannon even when angled. Obviously from realistic point of view, it's utter bull****.
Realistically speaking the model of T-34/76 we have in RO would be vulnerable in the frontal turret (52 mm) to the 5.0 cm KwK L/60 on the Panzer III L at about 400 meters and under. Also the T-34/76's drivers hatch in the frontal hull was vulnerable to being caved in/destroyed by 5.0 cm hits as mentioned in the book Panzertruppen.

Oldih said:
Actually to be honest the whole system does favour germans if they man Tiger or Panther with adequately good knowledge about few things...The whole matter is just knowing where to aim
Look at my revised post above. It CAN NOT possibly favor the Germans as RO's T-34's are overhealthed/armoured in addition to having a too vigorous angling effect in order to enable them to engage the Tiger/Panther successfully. As a result of this the mainstay weapons such as the Kwk 40/StuK 40 which equip the Panzer IV/Stug III are left as an impotent deflecting cap gun against even a slightly angled T-34 in RO. In real life this was not the case. The T-34 was never designed to defeat or deflect high velocity weapons of the 75 mm caliber:

At ranges up to 1,200 metres, the T-34 is cleanly penetrated at every angle that it is hit by the Pzgr.39 fired from the 7.5 cm Kw.K.40 L/43

Along with Pak 40, the Kwk 40/StuK 40 was one of the most numerous and effective anti-tank guns of the German army. However, in RO jump in a Stug III and encounter a slightly angled T-34. You will deflect from it and it will kill you with one or two rounds every time. How does this favor the Germans when thier mainstay weapon, which was specifically made, mounted on Marders, Stugs, IVs, ect. and used to counter the T-34, deflects uselessly from a slightly angled T-34 and a more moderately angled T-34 can put up a long deflection match with a Panther/Tiger?

Oldih said:
I believe Mare Nostrum has also greatly improved tanking mechanics to more realistic levels
If anything Mare Nostrum's tanking is even worse than RO. Jump in a M3 Stuart or Vickers and see how many Kwk 40 and 88 mm rounds you can take before you die. Usually its 2-3 or more.​

Oldih said:
due the amount of vehicles avaible on a single map. That would mean 14 tigers on german side, while russians would have only - and probably only - T-34\76s avaible, as they were very common even in 1944.
To hell with the Tiger/Panther. If the Panzer IV's weapon and the T-34's health/armour acted correctly in RO then the number of Tigers could be reduced to a single slow spawning one for gameplay. The map would consist of Panzer IV G/H's, a handful of Stug III, and a single Tiger/Panther vs T-34/76's and lets toss in 3 T-34/85's. The Panzer IV/Stug's would be noticably superior to the T-34/76 especially past 250 meters as the soviet 76 mm has hit accuracy issues and trouble with 80 mm armor whereas the T-34/85 would be superior to the Stug because of the lack of a turret on the Stug and it would be roughly equal to the Panzer IV. Of course the T34's have the speed advantage and more reinforcements but the Panzer's have the long range gun advantage. The Tiger is only there to counter any extremely experienced player in an 85 or to engage at relatively long range any enemy tanker who dares to linger for too long in open spaces. I believe an early version of RO-Debreceen (not talking about imitation copies with 50 million different things added) with the AB mod had a lineup like this and it played quite nicely.​
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TT33

Oldih

Glorious IS-2 Comrade
Nov 22, 2005
3,414
412
0
Finland
I believe I mentioned I am fully aware of some physical **** and I don't need too detailed lecture about the subject. Nothing offensive meant, but I am pretty much aware what one tank could do realistically and what not, even how overdone the angling is. I know it might not sound like it but I decided to drop the aspect of using IRL data in RO tanking because it doesn't make any sense at all by the rough basics. Same applies to some technical code of how much T-34 has too much armour so to speak, how obslete PTRD was already after beginning of the war (and applies to every AT rifle) when it came to knocking anything heavier than a truck or halftrack out. ;)

I can imagine it sounding very paradoxic but after two years of playing RO and figuring out the game is physically as realistic as Battlefield 1942 I decided to stop complaining (too much) about the subject and play by it's own rules and to my own surprise I actually found it moderately ok if you just have a friendly player to tank with. Obviously AB mutator would be nice with good custom maps or Darkest Hour but if those weren't avaible (so to speak) I didn't have personal vendetta against RO tanking - even though I acknowledge how much of bull**** it is from physical realism's point of view.

Tank! said:
It CAN NOT possibly favor the Germans as RO's T-34's are overhealthed/armoured in addition to having a too vigorous angling effect in order to enable them to engage the Tiger/Panther successfully

Theoretically speaking you are sort of right, but personally my practical experience in the game says bit otherwise. On the public games. I can't imagine how many times I've been called something nasty due taking out multiple angled T-34s with just StuG\PzIV. Maybe I've just spent too much time messing with tanks and found some buggy spot that will always - regardless of the angle - penetrates.

Tank! said:
If anything Mare Nostrum's tanking is even worse than RO. Jump in a M3 Stuart or Vickers and see how many Kwk 40 and 88 mm rounds you can take before you die. Usually its 2-3 or more.

I stand out corrected then. :)

Tank! said:
To hell with the Tiger/Panther.

The whole point of that part was to show that it's really alot more up to mapper itself how to 'balance' things in the face of realism as much as it goes against itself aswell. Unless we're talking some specific odd situation and let's say a company of tanks vs another company of tanks it would be single model of tanks only. In terms of TOE and OOB that's quite realistic, and hence we run into the realism relative to what issue.
 
Last edited: