Has Pz-III a chance against T-34 and T-70 against Pz-IV?
Hey Yoshi whats going on with univermag (contest winner) when we can expect that with the upcoming patch tula makes a return. Univermag is a players favorite and plays out really well.
What happend to the poll where we could vote for our favorite maps that some weeks ago wolverine started??
Yes. But you'll need to pick your shots. Pz III shouldn't penetrate the front of a T-34 even at 300m, unless it can catch it coming up over a rise and get a good shot into the lower front plate, or a shot down into the roof of the hull or turret. Side plate through the road wheels is a good shot to take, although not at much more than 30 degrees. The 40mm armor (upper side plate, rear plates) can all be penetrated, if the angle isn't too steep.
Now, before everyone starts bleating that the L/60 can penetrate 84mm of armor in German tests, consider this lot:
1. German armor tests for 50mm were carried out against plate at 30 degrees, hardness of 250-350 BHN. The test criteria were slightly different to British, US and Russian criteria when looking for the limit velocity, so we have to "normalize" some (down to 75mm) to match the other countries' criteria.
2. Soviet plate on the T-34 was extremely hard (BHN 450ish). This has good effects against smaller projectiles (T=D and lower), but tends to make it brittle to heavier projectiles. The 50mm struggles against 45mm plate that hard.
3. The German PzGr doesn't handle steeper angles of impact as well as others (including the Soviet rounds), because of the ogive shape. Better penetration at shallow angles. Another case of a country designing counters to their own weaponry - dead good against the very upright armor on German tanks. (Zimmerit, anyone?)
So - get a straight shot on 45mm Soviet plate and the 50mm L/60 will punch straight through. BUT the T-34 usually presents very sloped armor angles. A challenge!
For the T-70 taking on the Pz IV: the 45mm BR-243 isn't a bad round - 58mm of penetration at best. Not as good as the 50m PzGr, but...
Front face of the Pz IV is 50mm of face-hardened armor at 5 degrees. The T-70 MIGHT penetrate - but it'll need a lot of luck! BUT the front glacis is only 25mm at 72 degrees. Hard to hit, but vulnerable. Pz IV drivers: don't park on a downslope and expose your front glacis!
Side shots are another matter: the Pz IV has 30mm of FHA, placed vertically. The T-70 can theoretically punch through this at 300m at 45 degrees. Rear is only 20mm or armor. Side and rear shots ARE dangerous to both the Pz III and Pz IV from the T-70. Not from very shallow angles, but advice for German tankers: watch where you are parking! Ideal is to get face-on and hull down.
WonderfulThis is something we are likely to do in a future update. But for this one we are focused on getting in one map with a good ratio of light and medium tanks as well as the changes to the weapons. Using that as a guide we can approach other maps in the future and make informed changes.
Are you shooting it in the back? Or the front?Also what is the nonsense with transport carriers like the Russian tractor taking 5 shots from tanks?!
Late Pz IV Gs had additional front armor plate (50+30mm), earlier tank were similar to F2Actually the front of the Panzer IV G (the one in game) had 80mm of armor positioned at 12 degrees, from what I see on the internet and remember myself anyway. That is unless the Panzer IV ingame is not really the G but the F2 which would have something different.
Late Pz IV Gs had additional front armor plate (50+30mm), earlier tank were similar to F2
Finnish tests made with 5 cm Pak 38 (which is basicly the same gun what Panzer III had) had less impressive results. German APHE penetrated 57 mm of armor from 100 meters in 70 degree angle, 90 degrees being a "flat" surface. In the same conditions German APCR projectile penetrated 95 mm of armor.As for the Panzer III gun tests; did all other nations have the same one then? Do you know better than the German testers? It seems like you're trying to make it look like they were lying to themselves, which in their position and considering their methods generally, I highly doubt they would. In reality the tank that took out the most T34s in 1941-42 was the PIII, not the PIV, and at quite a considerable rate.
What I'd also like to know is, if you finally take out the bug that a PzB784(r) is much more effective against a Pz4 than the PTRS41.
I can shoot through the drivers slot, the driver and damage the engine/blow up the ammo rack shooting a Pz4 with the PzB from the front in an 90
Actually the front of the Panzer IV G (the one in game) had 80mm of armor positioned at 12 degrees, from what I see on the internet and remember myself anyway. That is unless the Panzer IV ingame is not really the G but the F2 which would have something different.
As for the Panzer III gun tests; did all other nations have the same one then? Do you know better than the German testers? It seems like you're trying to make it look like they were lying to themselves, which in their position and considering their methods generally, I highly doubt they would. In reality the tank that took out the most T34s in 1941-42 was the PIII, not the PIV, and at quite a considerable rate.
In the game however it happened that at even 50-100 meters to the front of T34, the PIII could not kill it. At least that was my experience last testing session. They aren't the only ones suffering from this syndrome, the PIV vs T34 has this too, which gives comical situations where your target doesn't die on Barashka bridge after 3 shots with the 75mm to the front, at very close ranges. Although this could all be some sort of balance and/or done for more fun gameplay, so you don't insta-die (even though ironically I've been instakilled from long range in the PIV by T34s, from the front, and never the other way around).
Also what is the nonsense with transport carriers like the Russian tractor taking 5 shots from tanks?!
Finnish tests made with 5 cm Pak 38 (which is basicly the same gun what Panzer III had) had less impressive results. German APHE penetrated 57 mm of armor from 100 meters in 70 degree angle, 90 degrees being a "flat" surface. In the same conditions German APCR projectile penetrated 95 mm of armor.
1. Pz IV G started with 50mm. 30mm bolt-on plates were used in the later builds of the Ausf G. Ours is modeled without.
2. "Do you know better than the German testers?" - don't be childish; read what I actually wrote. The test criteria used by different countries were - different. The ones used by the US, UK and Russia gave lower results than the German tests - see the relevant BIOS reports, as an example. Including the interviews with some of the German armor experts. UK tests reported lower numbers than the German tests, so we've normalized to the non-German tests. The small number of German tests run using Russian equipment tends to report higher, for example. But it is a tiny sample size.
3. German reports on the 50mm L/60 from the Russian front in 1941 indicate the word "useless" against the frontal armor of the T-34 and KV-1, by the way.
4. Carriers: the German half-track in particular has a lot of empty space. An AP round penetrating the side of the passenger compartment will actually pass straight through, just creating a couple of holes in the plate (and any passengers unlucky enough to be in the way). There is no ammo to blow up and a relatively small fuel tank as a target.
A pure aside: its quite amusing to read that the Brits interviewing the German experts found that most of the "armor curves" were derived by one guy, from his own secret theory that he never let anyone else see. He'd take the limit velocity from a single test and "derive" the complete armor curve from that one number. Which made the Brits raise a few eyebrows as to the accuracy of the whole thing. But all "armor curves" are derived from probabilistic data. "5 rounds out of 7", "3 out of 5" in the tests. Then the whole deal about using specially-prepared ammo and guns. Its complicated
For the record, its got us back looking at the weird edge cases (pun unintended). We caught one error on the T-70. Looking at an odd one on the T-34 at the moment. Re-checking the theoretical calcs on some specific plates.
In fact I believe your Finnish test tested the 5cm KwK or 5cm KwK 40, which match your results almost-perfectly, being off by 1-2 mm only. Here is a link to all of them: http://www.panzerworld.com/armor-penetration-table[url]http://www.panzerworld.com/armor-penetration-table[/URL]
So I believe they pretty much perfectly simulate the conditions against the T34 tank, which had 60 degrees of slope in the front from the horizontal, and which also had inconstant quality of armor throughout the war (while these were tested against some of the best armor plates they could find with some of the best rounds they could find).
Finns didn't have 5 cm Kampfwagenkanones, only 7,5 cm in their Stugs and Panzer IVs. But Finns had German 5 cm anti-tank guns and as I wrote, the 5 cm Pak 38 is basically the same as KwK 39. They both even have the exactly same barrel length; L/60. And what is that KwK 40 version? I thought there were 5 cm KwK 38 L/42 and KwK 39 L/60?
One thing that causes different reports about how effective these guns were, was the testing method. As [TW]Wilsonam wrote, the testing method and what was considered as a "penetration" varied in different nations. Germans indeed used different quality of armor than for example Soviets and what qualifies as a penetrative hit could've been different too. I think Finnish results are quite close what the results were on the field. Finns destroyed several T-34s with their 5 cm Paks and every one of them were shot over 10 times.
I suspect that 5 cm KwK 40 is really KwK 38, because the penetration table doesn't mention 5 cm KwK 38. Even the results point to that direction; KwK 39 and Pak 38 have the exactly same results with their L/60 barrels and the gun named 5 cm KwK 40 has worse results, which would be expected from L/42 barrel length.I am not completely sure what is meant by "5cm KwK 40", it might be the exact same gun off different tests which changed name for administrative reasons, but what I really suspect is that it's the 1940 update to the regular 5cm KwK.
It's 60 degrees from vertical, as seen from this armor scheme:The T34's armor is sloped at 60 degrees from the horizontal I believe.