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/

shooter77

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

Regardless, the KwK 40 as it's named there based on Heereswaffenamt reports and some WW2 tank books, had basically identical (differentiating 1-2mm at most) results to the Finnish test. I think this is too big a coincidence, but you're not incorrect in saying the Finnish tests just might've used different methods, albeit this does not mean they were more correct by definition.

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.

Except the effective armor of the T-34 seems to not be given as 90mm by any authority source on the tank. So the cosine rule would apparently not work as intended in practice for it. The Panzer 3 with the L/42 could penetrate the T34 point blank from the front, but in turn not the KV1's front which was actual 90mm. The German report quoted earlier, and apparently some other historians, say that L/60 turned the Panzer 3 superior and finally able to battle it effectively. So taking all this in, in effect, the practical armor of the T34 was not 90mm but indeed 75mm at very most. The penetration of up to 100 meters to the front of the T34 with the L/60 everything points to would then also be correct.

And again, I'm not sure where the 84mm penetration number comes from. Apparently not from German sources, which seem to showcase instead German tests were more straining than whatever ones that came up with 84mm.

I also figured out before your post that it was 60 degrees from the vertical, as from the horizontal would mean it had just 53mm or so of practical armor, which would be too low. However, 90mm is simply too high taking in all other reports, historical research books and plain statistics of tanklosses on each side. It points towards the middle-ground from earlier which indeed was 66-72 to 75mm max as stated before. The reasons for this effective armor instead of the mathematical 90mm could be poorly constructed armor and bad steel quality, besides the slope at one point simply not helping anymore as its real armor is still only 45mm.
 
Last edited:

Mr Headshot95

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 27, 2014
229
0
0
USA
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.
I think what Wilsonam meant is that you have to actually hit the very small engine or fuel compartments, located in the front, to do any real damage to it.

If you fired an AP shell at the back area of the halftrack, it would likely pass through and through only putting a hole in the side because there isn't anything in the back but space. You could turn the back compartment to Swiss Cheese but it would hardly damage the halftrack's vital components.

One must be very precise.
 
Last edited:

[TW]Wilsonam

VP, Tripwire Int.
Oct 17, 2005
4,061
2,618
113
63
Roswell, GA
www.tripwireinteractive.com
A pure aside: The British interrogators also tortured their captives on a large scale

Right, yup, ok. Can't say I've ever heard of any German engineers complaining of this. Do tell where this one came from?

The conversations just sound like they contain interesting rumors and hearsay anyway.

Right, yup, ok. Interviews with the German engineers directly responsible for the testing would be "rumors and hearsay". Along with copies of all their data. Where it hadn't been destroyed, obviously.
 

Paulchen Panzer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 14, 2012
442
0
0
Hamburg
www.44id.de
After this discussion started here around I tried it out for my own. I must say i am not really a fan about the changings. I loved destroying P.IV by shooting on their Hull MG or the one at the Turret. But when this is going to be the way closer on how realistic it was in reality, these changings then are OK for me. But it is really hard like others said. Think its a bit too hard. Yesterday we spoke around in our TS about this discussion here and gues what others told me about their impressions of the Anti-Tank Gunner Role in the Game (not the Beta). Most said that they tried as hard as they can too shoot down a Tank but they said its hard enough to get a shot on it to disable something. Most of my Guys said that if they would not know where they need to shoot at it would be f...... disappointing to play this Role. Most of the Players don`t know about the Press Kit where the weak Points from the Panzers are shown. I think this Role is going to become the unloveds Role for the Future. I would like to see then from Tripwire new Pictures about the Weakspots so that we could post them on our Homepage to give Players a reference to shoot at cause i often heard that and i was in most of the times the only one who answered.

But Tripwire i`ll end playing this game when the Zoombug will not be fixed.
You can`t play wars anymore. I`ve got it nearly every day and sometimes more than 20 times a round and the next day nothing. It`s ridiculous.
Reseting the .ini does not help by deleting the folder. Restarting the Computer even does not help. I think it depends on Hardware Cause i`ve got one Member who never had it and some others have it sometimes around one time per month.
 
Aug 19, 2010
183
4
18
The reasons for this effective armor instead of the mathematical 90mm could be poorly constructed armor and bad steel quality, besides the slope at one point simply not helping anymore as its real armor is still only 45mm.
I don't think "effective armor" is any kind of official term, but I've heard it used as a synonym for "relative armor thickness" or "line-of-sight thickness" and that's how I've tried to use it. In that use it doesn't take account of armor quality or ricochets that the slope causes. If effective armor would take into account armor quality, then what is the base that other armor plates are compared to? i.e. What kind of 100 mm armored plate "acts" like a 100 mm armored plate that others are compared to?

I should've used the term "relative armor thickness" from the beginning, so things wouldn't have gotten so complicated :D But trying to direct discussions back to original trails: I don't think it's likely that 5 cm KwK 39 would've penetrated T-34's frontal hull armor when shot from the same level. It would've needed to be shot from a slope to reduce the angle of impact. Of course sides and rear of T-34 were totally penetrable with a 5 cm L/60 gun, especially from a close range.
 

[TW]Wilsonam

VP, Tripwire Int.
Oct 17, 2005
4,061
2,618
113
63
Roswell, GA
www.tripwireinteractive.com
I don't think "effective armor" is any kind of official term, but I've heard it used as a synonym for "relative armor thickness" or "line-of-sight thickness" and that's how I've tried to use it. In that use it doesn't take account of armor quality or ricochets that the slope causes. If effective armor would take into account armor quality, then what is the base that other armor plates are compared to? i.e. What kind of 100 mm armored plate "acts" like a 100 mm armored plate that others are compared to?

The effectiveness of armor plate isn't a linear relationship with the "line-of-sight thickness". It is dependent on multiple factors - many of which were only partly understood at the time, with limited research done on them. Post-war, the shift was already being made to sub-caliber ammunition, leading to modern long-rod penetrators - combating modern composite and/or reactive armors. As a result, there is a lack of good understanding of the math for WW2-era penetration. Lots of good estimates and theories - lack of empirical data to check it on.

Factors involved:

Yes - armor thickness.

Armor hardness, which gets complicated fast. Harder isn't necessarily better, although the Russians went for very high hardness steel (over 400 BHN). They also tested against very hard plate, where the Germans tested against softer plate (250-350 BHN). Too high and you get brittleness, leading to shattering. But high hardness helps defeat lightweight rounds, by shattering them. Germans face-hardened some plate to try and get the best of both worlds, but it was a complex, time-consuming and expensive process. And not much help against big caliber rounds.

Shape of the round (the "ogive"), along with the round's ductility. This drives how the round performs as it impacts the plate. Very "pointy" rounds are more likely to skip off at higher angles of incidence, but are likely to have better performance at low angles. More blunt-nosed rounds act the opposite way.

Performance of the round on/post impact. When the round heavily over-matches the plate, penetration is actually caused by "plugging". The projectile punches a very neat hole in the armor, penetrating intact. In those circumstances, APHE rounds should detonate behind the plate. However, rounds often break up on/during impact. This will reduce their effectiveness on penetration, but is clearly very messy behind the plate, generating armor spalling, as well as shrapnel from the round itself. Smaller rounds that shatter will most likely lose too much kinetic energy in breaking up, so fail to penetrate. And I've got some wonderful photos of AP shot lodged solidly in 3 inch armor plate, the interior face of the plate starting to petal. Weird and wonderful stuff!

Quality of armor plate and projectiles: hugely emotive, anecdotal. The suggestions are that initial-war German ammo and armor was of a very high quality and performed close to test levels, while Soviet ammo stocks were of mixed quality. Appears their early-war plate was good. German quality tended to decline, including stories of sub-par plate on the Panthers shattering. All Soviet production suffered in quality terms after 1941, when industry was moved east, but "probably" improved 1943/44, before declining again later in the war. But all supposition!

[One of the best all-round reads on the topic: World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery by Lorrin Wexford Bird and Robert D Livingston.]
 

shooter77

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 2, 2013
125
0
0
Right, yup, ok. Can't say I've ever heard of any German engineers complaining of this. Do tell where this one came from?

The head of one of the British interrogation facilities admitted it in his memoires, over half a century after the fact:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...thods-belie-proud-boast-fought-clean-war.html

"It was in 2005 during my work as an investigative reporter that I came across a veiled mention of a World War II detention centre known as the London Cage. It took a number of Freedom Of Information requests to the Foreign Office before government files were reluctantly handed over.
From these, a sinister world unfolded
 
Aug 19, 2010
183
4
18
The effectiveness of armor plate isn't a linear relationship with the "line-of-sight thickness". It is dependent on multiple factors - many of which were only partly understood at the time, with limited research done on them.
Yeah, that's why I asked: "If effective armor would take into account armor quality, then what is the base that other armor plates are compared to?". I was trying to get a sense of shooter77's claim, that T-34's effective armor was "75mm max". So let's phrase the question another way: What kind of armor was that T-34's hull armor compared to get that kind of conclusion? Early war German armor?
 

shooter77

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 2, 2013
125
0
0
It is not *my* claim, it's a claim taken from people who looked into authoritative WW2 tank sources like Zaloga and saw the ratings in there.

I simply speculated why that would be the rating instead of the theoretical 90mm, and based myself on some information I saw around somewhere yesterday night which showed close range frontal penetration against the T34 but not the KV1 (which had actual pure 90mm frontal, not theoretical).
 

Kleist

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 3, 2009
2,034
333
0
Deutschland
Some question for up coming updates.


1) Will we ever seen a working WASD turrent control option (client side) in the last patch i heared about it is in testing.

2) will the ammo switch bug ever get fixed? Or is it teally wanted that we can magical switch between HE and AP shells (when the gun is already loaded)?

3) will tanks become some (better) engine sound when they circle arround?

And some ideas and suggestion for vehicles.

- right mouse button for go into iron sight when sitting on a SPW or UC MG. Because it's the way every infantry weapon in game is created. Right mouse mean iron sight.

Scroll direction for UC driver. E.g. if you scroll down every crew member close the hatch or go into cover, but the same scroll direction for the UC driver result in head up. It is just the oposit of every tank crew or APC crew.

And i really like to see a delay of 3s before you can enter or leave a vehicle. So no one can magical beem in and out. I think it is needed, because we have no animation for it (right now)
 

Zetsumei

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
12,458
1,433
0
33
Falmouth UK
will the ammo switch bug ever get fixed? Or is it teally wanted that we can magical switch between HE and AP shells (when the gun is already loaded)?

Last update brought a server option, allowing server to make it such that you have to fire your shot before it changes ammo.
 

Cwivey

Grizzled Veteran
Sep 14, 2011
2,964
118
63
In the hills! (of England)
1) Will we ever seen a working WASD turrent control option (client side) in the last patch i heared about it is in testing.
I gave arrow key controlled (because wasd drives the tank) turrets to you years ago. What happened to that? :p

(TWI actually implimented it into the ROInput.ini file but commented out, easy enough to enable yourself)
 

aaz777

Active member
Jun 30, 2013
1,840
3
38
Russia, Pushkin
will the ammo switch bug ever get fixed? Or is it teally wanted that we can magical switch between HE and AP shells (when the gun is already loaded)?

Last update brought a server option, allowing server to make it such that you have to fire your shot before it changes ammo.

With this option on, can i change ammo type during reload process?
 

Kleist

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 3, 2009
2,034
333
0
Deutschland
I gave arrow key controlled (because wasd drives the tank) turrets to you years ago. What happened to that? :p

(TWI actually implimented it into the ROInput.ini file but commented out, easy enough to enable yourself)


Yeah, thanks for that. Sadly i haven't test it a lot because tanks aren't my favorite role in RO2. Now i want to see what have change.

Sadly I have lost my wasd controls after my last Format C: i was hoping to see it official in my ingame settings with this vehicle update. So i have to check my ini again :rolleyes:
 

Scum82

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 29, 2013
294
0
0
Yes, and you said that moving inside T-70 is pretty much hard, since it is a small tank to move in. And animations would be hard to create because of that.

:D

Bumping this as I wonder if someone could eventually start up a "Vehicle polishing mod" which would add animations later. Since adding the vehicles is a rather large effort I guess adding the little bits to it would be easier for small, independent teams to do. Even if its the old disembodied floating back and forth of RO1's tanks it'd be fine.
 

Kleist

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 3, 2009
2,034
333
0
Deutschland
Last update brought a server option, allowing server to make it such that you have to fire your shot before it changes ammo.

That's good. Right now i have just testet the beta against bots (no time to join the rare events. .. sadly):eek:
I am sure a lot of server will activate it then.:cool:
 

bier

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2011
107
24
0
"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.

As the games focuses on Stalingrad(yes in my opinion also a bad decision) it should show the Panzer IV as it was most likely during Stalingrad. Most of the older Pz. IV got uparmoured after Stalingrad. Even if one doesn't apply the factor that one doesn't care about Stalingrad, an uparmouring of the Pz. IV would seriously affect gameplay. All of a sudden the T-34 would really struggle to penetrate the Pz. IV frontally. Given that we have direct balance in RO2 against the indirect in RO1, i would say this would break the balance.

It is not *my* claim, it's a claim taken from people who looked into authoritative WW2 tank sources like Zaloga and saw the ratings in there.

I simply speculated why that would be the rating instead of the theoretical 90mm, and based myself on some information I saw around somewhere yesterday night which showed close range frontal penetration against the T34 but not the KV1 (which had actual pure 90mm frontal, not theoretical).

I ain't a physician, but i claim to have at least a bit of WW2 knowledge. From what i think the slighest thing in angling and envoirment can change a lot. A tank standing just a bit sideways might give him much more theoretical armour. Or standing downwards a hill might decrease it significantly. Also the round's size matters and might throw over all calculations. But as i am not anywhere near informed in that regard i stick to the reports from the front. If i remember correctly, the 5cm KwK39 had the same results as the 5cm KwK38 against the T-34 and KW-1. Both were only really effective against the side and rear at close range. I remember also that it was stated that when engaging T-34 tanks frontally one should aim for the driver's hatch. But that doesn't qualify the Pz. III as beeing abled to frontally penetrate the T-34 for me. If i remember correctly all the 7,5cm KwK40 etc. were abled to penetrate the T-34 at ranges which they wouldn't by just counting penetration and armour.
 

seienchin88

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 16, 2013
326
0
0
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.
You have some very good solid points but here I have to say this does not mean much.
Every statement viewed as fact should be questioned after the motives of the person who gave the statements.
German had strong incentives to lie or overestimate the T-34s armor and effectivness. It was in their own interest to show the T-34 to be as strong and battle deciding as possible. It gives us rather an insight on how the germans perception of the T-34 was than the actual combat effectivness.

Still it seems that in 1941 the T-34 did cause some problems to the germans since physics support these statements.