Test out the MG-42 and New Tanks in the Rising Storm Beta

  • 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/

[TW]Wilsonam

VP, Tripwire Int.
Oct 17, 2005
4,060
2,618
113
63
Roswell, GA
www.tripwireinteractive.com
Has Pz-III a chance against T-34 and T-70 against Pz-IV?

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.
 

Fafnir_6

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 8, 2011
300
29
0
Edmonton, AB
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??

This. Univermag needs to get into wide circulation ASAP. It is so awesome.

I have enjoyed the additions to the beta quite a bit (the MG, the maps and the new tanks). I haven't tried the T-70 out yet but the Pz III pretty cool to drive.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6
 

shooter77

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 2, 2013
125
0
0
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.

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?! :confused:
 
Last edited:

Mr Headshot95

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 27, 2014
229
0
0
USA
This 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.
Wonderful

Variety is the spice of life. Let's spice up those combined arms maps.:)
 

Mr Headshot95

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 27, 2014
229
0
0
USA
Also what is the nonsense with transport carriers like the Russian tractor taking 5 shots from tanks?! :confused:
Are you shooting it in the back? Or the front?

I've noticed it takes quite a few shots as well from seeing tanks shoot at them, but troop transports also aren't carrying high explosive shells. You pretty much have to aim for driver and gunner, or hope for a good engine hit to brew it up.

I know I've taken out a gunner with the Pzb before.
 

morticore

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 13, 2012
643
5
0
Łęczyca, Poland
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.
Late Pz IV Gs had additional front armor plate (50+30mm), earlier tank were similar to F2
pzivarmour2.jpg

[QUOTE="shooter77, post: 1330401, member: 38956"]
 

Yoshiro

Senior Community Manager
Staff member
Oct 10, 2005
13,524
4,132
113
The carriers are mostly "air". Once you punch through the side (which is a pretty much guarantee with all the tanks in game) you are more likely to hit air and personnel unless you get an engine shot. The fuel storage hit zone is fairly small in both.
 

shooter77

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 2, 2013
125
0
0
Late Pz IV Gs had additional front armor plate (50+30mm), earlier tank were similar to F2

"During its production run from March 1942 to June 1943, the Panzer IV Ausf. G went through further modifications, including another armor upgrade."
"Delivery of Ausf G, with additional armour bolted or welded to the front of the hull and superstructure, began on 20 June 1942."
"This decision to increase frontal armor was favorably received according to troop reports on 8 November 1942.."

It wasn't just "late Panzer IV Gs", it was a significant portion of the new Panzer IVG's and from November 1942 50% of them, then from 5 January until June 1943 all of them. The non-80mm armor ones were the "F2" literally just renamed to "G" after three months in early 1942 to streamline the production and bureaucracy.

What we have ingame is not a real G, it's just an F2/G.
 
Last edited:
Aug 19, 2010
183
4
18
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.
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.
 

sanf

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 12, 2012
96
1
0
Germany
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
 

aaz777

Active member
Jun 30, 2013
1,840
3
38
Russia, Pushkin
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
 

[TW]Wilsonam

VP, Tripwire Int.
Oct 17, 2005
4,060
2,618
113
63
Roswell, GA
www.tripwireinteractive.com
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?! :confused:

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.
 

shooter77

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 2, 2013
125
0
0
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.

Seems like the Finnish tests were relatively wacky then and/or done in different conditions. I'd rather trust things right from the horse's mouth in this case, than some obscure foreign test. I remember the Soviets tested the T34 against the Panzer 3 in 1940 and their report actually came to the conclusion that the Panzer 3 was superior in every single way to the T34, except for the PIII's gun which they said could be "upgraded by the Germans at any time" (it still had the 37mm in 1940). While the statistics from 1941 battles seem to point in this direction, this was likely exaggerated and contradicted by some German accounts as well.

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

What is said about the test tables there that is relevant for our discussion:
-"Test plates were placed at an angle of 60 degrees from horizontal, to simulate how perfect alignment is rarely possible in combat."
-"The tests from which the numbers were taken generally use high-quality armor plates and ammunition. Real numbers could therefore vary in combat conditions."

The thing is the PIII in 1941-1942 mostly used the Kwk 39 L/60 and not the 5cm Kwk 40 or PAK 38 (the infantry version), and this was absolutely the case with the L or M version we have ingame (forgot which one was added exactly). And as you can see, the values there match up correctly.

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).
 
Last edited:

shooter77

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 2, 2013
125
0
0
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.

1. See my other post to morticore. I realized yours is modeled without, but that is not really a Panzer IV G as much as it is a renamed F2 (sometimes called F2/G, it would be more accurate).

2. See my recent previous post to Marsalkka just now, the criteria for that table was given.

3. German reports also say:
"...Later in the report, it is stated that the 5cm L/60 and 7,5cm L/43 guns have made the T-34 inferior to the German tanks whereas it previously was considered superior."
31. July 1942 (p.241, Vol. 1)
From Jentz's work.

The KV1 would be penetrated by APCR ammo only up to a certain range (I think 100-150m) from the front or from the side or rear with regular ammo.

4. How realistic is it though that the APC's of WW2 would survive 5 shots from a tank? I guess not at all myself.

A pure aside: The British interrogators also tortured their captives on a large scale, although this need not be the case here per se. The conversations just sound like they contain interesting rumors and hearsay anyway.
 
Last edited:
Aug 19, 2010
183
4
18
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]

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.


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).

I think that 60 degrees in T-34's armor meant 30 degrees in the way Germans marked results. T-34's armor is 45 mm thick in a 60 degree angle, so it's effective armor would be 90 mm. So if German 5 cm KwK 39 L/60 would penetrate 84 mm armor in a same 60 degree angle, it would penetrate 168 mm of armor when the armor plate is "flat". Therefore that German 84 mm of penetration in a 60 degree angle isn't comparable with the 60 degree angle that T-34's hull front had.
 

shooter77

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 2, 2013
125
0
0
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?

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.

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.

This does not account for the distances they used them at, the angle, the ammunition and the general condition and quality of the weapon (and its ammo again). I think the overall statistics in battle show that my statistics from the widespread tests are more correct. I don't know where the 84mm penetration quote comes from, because my table shows 67mm for regular APHE rounds at 100m for the PIII L/60 gun. And the Kwk 5cm stats are way too close to the Finnish ones to be ignored.

The T34's armor is sloped at 60 degrees from the horizontal I believe. Which gives it a much lower figure than the 90mm you quoted (and that figure seems to be discredited on a lot of forums from what I gather). In fact authoritative sources on WW2 tanks apparently put the T34's armor rating at 66-72mm in practice, the same historical forums say. The highest T-34 armor rating from historians is from "Zaloga, Steven J. and Peter Sarson (1994). T-34 Medium Tank 1941–45". They give a rating of 75mm from the front. Nothing close to 90mm.

The Finns tested it from a 70 degree angle, with 90 degrees being "flat". I think that should be interpreted as 70 degrees from the horizontal. Horizontal is after all 90 degrees in a circle.

EDIT: Actually looking again, I think it could also be interpreted as 70 degrees from the vertical, as "flat" could mean vertical unsloped plates like they'd sit on some parts of a vehicle. But I incline towards the first option as it closely corresponds with the table results, and vertical is not 90 degrees like you said but 0 (or is it?).
 
Last edited:
Aug 19, 2010
183
4
18
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.
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.

Again, I suspect Finnish tests and rating must've been more "demanding" than the German ones. I really commented that to prove the point, that these kind of results are depended on quite a many variables and testing methods. That's why there can be so many different results.


The T34's armor is sloped at 60 degrees from the horizontal I believe.
It's 60 degrees from vertical, as seen from this armor scheme:
http://army.lv/large-photos/t-34.18971.jpg[url]http://army.lv/large-photos/t-34.18971.jpg[/URL]

And from that with the cosine rule, we can calculate that T-34's effective armor is 90 mm.