Ramble on tanks, armor and other stuff...
- Thread starter [TW]Wilsonam
- Start date
![[TW]Wilsonam](/data/avatars/s/0/10.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
Back to "nuances", really. Until you get the calcs down to this level of detail, the "balance" between the Pz IV and the T-34 isn't so obvious. The Pz IV has a nominally more powerful gun, but the German PzGr.39 doesn't handle heavily sloped armor as well as the Soviet BR-354 rounds. Ultimately, no-one has to worry about the calculations going on behind the scenes - but there will be some learning to be done on how to take out the opposition most effectively!I can't wait to see all those calculations in action
hockeywarrior
FNG / Fresh Meat
As long as there are no artificial "boosts" to either tank to cause any sense of "balance" I'm fine with anything you guys do. I want to see both of these tanks individually represented as close to real life in their looks and capabilities as humanly possible with no real concern for gameplay balance that screws with historical figures. It would be such a waste of time for you guys to do so much work only to dumb down the research to pointlessly try to balance these two vehicles.
The "balance" comes from players' ability to learn the strengths and weaknesses of each vehicle and to plan their tactics accordingly -- just like real life. As you said, both tanks have their advantages and disadvantages, and this should be the key to excelling with both vehicles in the game. I hope that this is preaching to the choir, of course
This mirrors my opinions on weapon balance as well -- it is totally unnecessary and completely inappropriate for a game like RO2.
Last edited:
Do you have a debug mode where you can see penetration shots, ricochets and destroyed on impact shots? I would love to see something like this.
I guess it is too much to ask, but do penetration shots actually cast holes in the hull of the tank? Or is there some mark to at least know where the tank was hit from afterwards?
Tank simulation, yay, so excited.
I guess it is too much to ask, but do penetration shots actually cast holes in the hull of the tank? Or is there some mark to at least know where the tank was hit from afterwards?
Tank simulation, yay, so excited.
Now, I actually stopped posting on here and I don't want to be nitpicking here (well, I actually am), but....
Wilsonam, why are you saying that the PzGr. 39 doesn't handle sloped armour very well? I hope you are aware that it's a APCBC round, meaning its capped, increasing it's effectiveness against sloped armour rather than decreasing it. The Russian rounds were NOT APCBC but rather APBC, meaning they didn't have a cap.
For anybody who doesn't know what an APC or APCBC round does, here's a crude (and overdrawn) illustration of how a cap works.
Basically, an APC has a cap of light alloy "protecting" it's nose (APCBC has a hollow ballistic cap on top of it, increasing the aerodynamics), decreasing it's chances of shattering and also causing the round to "turn" into the armoured plate and shortening the amount of armour in it's way.
Wilsonam, why are you saying that the PzGr. 39 doesn't handle sloped armour very well? I hope you are aware that it's a APCBC round, meaning its capped, increasing it's effectiveness against sloped armour rather than decreasing it. The Russian rounds were NOT APCBC but rather APBC, meaning they didn't have a cap.
For anybody who doesn't know what an APC or APCBC round does, here's a crude (and overdrawn) illustration of how a cap works.
Basically, an APC has a cap of light alloy "protecting" it's nose (APCBC has a hollow ballistic cap on top of it, increasing the aerodynamics), decreasing it's chances of shattering and also causing the round to "turn" into the armoured plate and shortening the amount of armour in it's way.
Last edited:
But then again PzGr39 is APCBC which should imply basically the opposite, unless of course german tanks in RO2 are using some kind of ersatz shells due act of gods
Edit: Ninja'd by LemoN but anyway.
Who cares about tank gun penetration... tanks are too expensive to be wasted fighting other tanks! Send in the new recruits with satchel charges!
For Lemon and Oldih... yes, correct, Pzgr.39 is capped. However, the Soviet rounds were also heavily shaped - hence the comments on the ogive. The cap helps vs. standard AP shot - but the Soviet BR-354A/B are better. Their external ballistics may not be as good, but the ogive shape lends a turning moment that will tend to rotate the round in towards normal. The cap on the German rounds will do so initially but, as the main body of the steel round makes contact, the ogive shape generates a turning moment in the wrong direction, leading to deflection.
Another classic case, by the way, of both sides designing ammunition to counter their own armor, not the enemy's!
So, standard AP shot < German Pzgr.39 < Soviet BR354A/B. But, of course, the Soviets had other issues around production quality earlier in the war. I'm just talking about the deisgn of the round's ogive here (NOT the cap on it). The German rounds cope will with angles out to 30-odd degrees off normal - but the Soviet (assume they get there AND don't fall apart), operate well out to much steeper angles.
Another classic case, by the way, of both sides designing ammunition to counter their own armor, not the enemy's!
So, standard AP shot < German Pzgr.39 < Soviet BR354A/B. But, of course, the Soviets had other issues around production quality earlier in the war. I'm just talking about the deisgn of the round's ogive here (NOT the cap on it). The German rounds cope will with angles out to 30-odd degrees off normal - but the Soviet (assume they get there AND don't fall apart), operate well out to much steeper angles.
So it's better to aim at T34 turret because kwk40 has serious problems with its mighty 45mm glacis? That's something new. I would really love to see sources to those claims, because everything I've ever read about WW2 tanks and cannons indicated, that T34 was vulnerable at very great distances to kwk40 no matter the barrel length.
So basically the only tanks capable of defeating T34s glacis were Tigers and Panthers? And all those Pak 40 AT guns were pretty much moderately effective in most combat situations?
I guess vast majority of T34s destroyed by frontal shot by german tanks in the 1942 have holes in the turret?
That would be a groundbreaking news to me to be honest. And another good reason to read RO forums more, because there's so many interesting things to learn in here (it's not sarcasm).
So basically the only tanks capable of defeating T34s glacis were Tigers and Panthers? And all those Pak 40 AT guns were pretty much moderately effective in most combat situations?
I guess vast majority of T34s destroyed by frontal shot by german tanks in the 1942 have holes in the turret?
That would be a groundbreaking news to me to be honest. And another good reason to read RO forums more, because there's so many interesting things to learn in here (it's not sarcasm).
Last edited:
Speaking of which since you mentioned you have modelled hardness how much influence it will have? Mostly curious, as your reply certainly explained other details well but practically speaking since soviet steel tended to be quite brittle while german shells were able to withstand greater stress than most allied or soviet counterparts, it would practically speaking lead to some form of penetration even when the shell would behave 'poorly' from design point of view
Even if a round fails to penetrate, it could produce spall on the inside of the vehicle. I wonder if that'll be simulated at all? Probably not, unless grenades also have tracked shrapnel.
Depends on the steel quality, which was pretty good for the Germans in 1942. Still would be an interesting inclusion.
![[3.SA]Koba](/data/avatars/s/8/8674.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
It'd be nice to have the Soviet and Axis soldiers try to speak the enemy's language every now and then (maybe with a bad accent). Your insults are more powerful if the opponent can understand you and profanity is usually the first thing a young man learns in another language.
I recommend adding "Die Deutschen haben die kleinsten Schw
I recommend adding "Die Deutschen haben die kleinsten Schw
Last edited:
Shocking as it may seem - the T-34 glacis was a major problem for the Germans. It isn't an issue of the thickness of the plate - it is the slope. Take a look at (German) stats on destroyed T-34s, as well as photographic evidence. The 88mm overmatched it enough to punch through - the base 75mm guns struggled, the mid-war ones did better. And the turret mantlet/front plates are only 50mm of cast armor - while the side plates aren't overly thick either. Actually, in this case it is the 75mm L/43, but as far as I remember, the L/48 have very little extra power.
For my own curiosity, just ran the numbers for the PzGr.40 APCR round. That drills through the T-34 glacis quite happily at 500m. The Panther's 75mm L/70 is still pounding through the glacis at 1000m, too, which should keep people happy! Actually, the Panther goes straight through the cast mantlet of a 1942 T-34 at 2000m. Ouch. I'll also go back and look at photo evidence from 1941/2, even if only because I know a number of other people will! If memory serves, most of the T-34 kills are from side and turret hits. Now I think about it, I'm surprised the turret front wasn't better armored. I'll have to remind myself what they did on the later models. Later-war higher quality Soviet armor may have helped some.
So, the Pz IV vs. T-34 will be an interesting contest. Pick your shots carefully, chose your ammo carefully!
Wilsonam, please cite your sources on the KwK.40 PzGr.39 repeatedly failing to penetrate the front upper glacis at 90
Last edited: