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
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.

I agree it would be bad for balance, but I think the tank should be named F2/G instead, as it is not a "real" G but rather a renamed F2. There are no significant differences. The "real" G's with upscaled armor etc started production in June 1942 and became half of all new Panzer IVs in November-December (and 100% in early January 1943 I believe).

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.

L/60 performance was obviously better than L/42 performance. Here are some gems I found in an old thread on axishistory.com:

A "Panzerbeschusstafel" from March 1943 shows the range and areas which 5cm L/60 tank gunners should fire at vs the T-34 in order to be sure to achieve penetration:

- Turret front plate, 100 meters with PzGr 38 and 40
- Hull front, the narrow vertical part where upper and lower hull meets, 100 meters with PzGr 40
- Turret side, 600 meters with PzGr 38, 500 meters with PzGr 40
- Upper hull side, PzGr 38 500 meters, PzGr 40 400 meters
- Lower hull side, PzGr 38 1000 meters, PzGr 40 800 meters, but maximum range for the PzGr 40 was set to 600 meters
- Rear turret, PzGr 38 600 meters, PzGr 40 500 meters
- Rear hull, PzGr 38 and 40, 300 meters

So even though the front could be penetrated, the areas, the front turret plate and the narrow band on the hull front, were very small.

The only note is that "Pzgr 38" might be a typing error, as that ammo doesn't exist. Or maybe it's the alternative name for something, I suspect the Pzgr39 is meant instead. Also to keep in mind is that this is from a field manual, which usually put "safe" (lower) figures in there to make the crew more cautious and secure the kills as to not risk their lives needlessly or ammunition. So they could very well be longer. And the figures are obviously without any beneficial angles for the PzIII, just regular combat situations.

Also, apparently the driver's hatch could too be penetrated from the front after a shot or two, which could cause serious havok and damage for the tank (penetration, shot trap ricochet, turret jam, etc).

One of the Soviet reports also found in the thread, concerning some issues with KV1's and T34's:

TECHNICAL REPORT FROM THE 10th TANK DIVISION, AUGUST 1941

[The original Russian transcript came to me from Mr. Charles Sharp. It is a report signed by the commander of the 10th Tank Division, dated 2 August 1941.)
\

The division’s soldiers and commanders spoke of their tanks as very reliable machines. But along with these qualities they had the following defects:

1) For the KV tanks:

a) Under the impact of shells and large-caliber bullets, the turret ring and armored cupolas can jam.

b) The diesel engine has little reserve power, resulting in it being overloaded and overheating.

c) The main and side clutches break down.

2. For the T-34:

a) Hull armor is penetrated at 300 to 400 meters by a 37-mm antitank round. Side armor is penetrated by a 20-mm antitank round. When crossing ditches the low set of the vehicle causes its nose to dig in, and traction with the ground is insufficient due to the relative smoothness of the tracks.

b) With a direct hit by a shell the driver’s front hatch collapses.

c) The vehicle’s treads are weak—any round takes them off.

d) The main and side clutches break down.
 
Last edited:

Nestor Makhno

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 25, 2006
5,758
1,118
0
56
Penryn, Cornwall
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.

Sorry, but never in a million years. No mod team would have access to the kind of animation talent required to properly animate crawling around in such tiny spaces. This part of the process in not even remotely 'little'. Why else do you think it is being dropped? There are some things a decent, motivated mod team can do well; complex animations are not one of those things.

In fact, thinking about it more, the rigged character model would most likely need to be redone in order to have a chance of realistically handling some of the contortions. This would, in turn, mean having to redo every animation in the game.

Trying to remember how ro:eek:st did it. Was it not the same as how it is now done in the new beta tanks?
 
Last edited:

Scum82

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 29, 2013
294
0
0
Yikes! Fair enough, was hoping it was one of those situations where it would be costly and needless, but doable if a bunch of very dedicated folks felt the need e.g. a Skyrim style mod pack, but I can sort of see why.

With the RO1 style I was thinking about less the actual transitions between seats (instant teleport situation) and more opening of hatches or switching views. A semi shaky cam kind of movement, but mostly something that felt like a disembodied ghost floating back and forth as hatches opened and leavers moved without any character models touching them. Was maybe thinking for modding in changing position the character model de-spawned, the camera view then floated between seats (shaky cam or not) with a hitbox and, once in the new position, the character model reappeared ready to do whatever they do.
Obviously though I'm just some bloke on a forum guessing with "hello world" programing skills, plus for a mod team to do that they would have to see the need to do that and have the want to do that.
 
Last edited:

Yoshiro

Senior Community Manager
Staff member
Oct 10, 2005
13,351
4,062
113
If I've learned one thing from my days modding it is that: In the modding world, animators are magical creatures, good ones are unicorns.

In the Troopers mod (for UT2k3/2k4) we had to fake animate and start bending characters and things with code offsets because we could not find an animator.
 

bier

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 31, 2011
107
24
0
I agree it would be bad for balance, but I think the tank should be named F2/G instead, as it is not a "real" G but rather a renamed F2. There are no significant differences. The "real" G's with upscaled armor etc started production in June 1942 and became half of all new Panzer IVs in November-December (and 100% in early January 1943 I believe).

If i remember correctly in RO1 there were modded in vehicles which separated the G in early and late. But thats a rather minor thing.


L/60 performance was obviously better than L/42 performance. Here are some gems I found in an old thread on axishistory.com:

Sorry i formulated that a bit bad. Of course the L/60 had more penetration, but all in all its performance was still very far from sufficient.

The only note is that "Pzgr 38" might be a typing error, as that ammo doesn't exist. Or maybe it's the alternative name for something, I suspect the Pzgr39 is meant instead. Also to keep in mind is that this is from a field manual, which usually put "safe" (lower) figures in there to make the crew more cautious and secure the kills as to not risk their lives needlessly or ammunition. So they could very well be longer. And the figures are obviously without any beneficial angles for the PzIII, just regular combat situations.

As i said i talked from my memory. Despite i had some inaccuracies in my memory i think the point still stands that the PZIII had huge problems penetrating the T-34 frontally. But i think all in all we pretty much have the same viewpoint atm.

Also, apparently the driver's hatch could too be penetrated from the front after a shot or two, which could cause serious havok and damage for the tank (penetration, shot trap ricochet, turret jam, etc).

One of the Soviet reports also found in the thread, concerning some issues with KV1's and T34's:

Actually that thread looks like a goldmine, for interested persons. Do you have the link on hand?

Here is some blog entry i found today on Warthunder forums, which goes very nice into the overmatching thing: http://ruhrpottpatriot.tumblr.com/post/73235077911/crash-course-tanks-overmatching-and-why-some-tank
 

Yoshiro

Senior Community Manager
Staff member
Oct 10, 2005
13,351
4,062
113
As to release (as I've seen it come up a few times now), we have entered the final stage of tweaks, testing and fixes. So if all goes well we are looking at days over weeks.
 

Scum82

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 29, 2013
294
0
0
It may seem like a "Does a bear crap in the woods" question, but will there be a free weekend with the update?
 

Yoshiro

Senior Community Manager
Staff member
Oct 10, 2005
13,351
4,062
113
It may seem like a "Does a bear crap in the woods" question, but will there be a free weekend with the update?

I don't know at this time. It depends on what we can work out with Valve (which I believe is still on going).
 

shooter77

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 2, 2013
125
0
0
Sorry i formulated that a bit bad. Of course the L/60 had more penetration, but all in all its performance was still very far from sufficient.

Sufficient for 1941-42 according to the ratio.

As i said i talked from my memory. Despite i had some inaccuracies in my memory i think the point still stands that the PZIII had huge problems penetrating the T-34 frontally. But i think all in all we pretty much have the same viewpoint atm.

Well no one said it would be a cakewalk to penetrate it from the front. But ingame it seems impossible, while IRL it wasn't.

Actually that thread looks like a goldmine, for interested persons. Do you have the link on hand?

Here http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=133403
First time I checked it I didn't quite realize it had more pages, it's quite good.
 

Soulfly

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 29, 2013
96
0
0
Germany
Regarding the Panzer III and its ability to fight against the T34, well assuming that the ingame version uses the "5-cm-KwK L/42" it has no chance at all to penetrate the frontal armor of a T34 only when hitting its side or back there was a chance to destroy it. This is why the Wehrmacht took horrible tank losses when such engagement took place.

The T34 was able to make severe hits up to 1000 meters, this is why the Panzer IV was introduced and took the anti-tank role from the Panzer III which production came to a hold in August 1943.
 

shooter77

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 2, 2013
125
0
0
Regarding the Panzer III and its ability to fight against the T34, well assuming that the ingame version uses the "5-cm-KwK L/42" it has no chance at all to penetrate the frontal armor of a T34 only when hitting its side or back there was a chance to destroy it. This is why the Wehrmacht took horrible tank losses when such engagement took place.

The T34 was able to make severe hits up to 1000 meters, this is why the Panzer IV was introduced and took the anti-tank role from the Panzer III which production came to a hold in August 1943.

The inability of the 5cm L/42 to penetrate from the front aside from against the driver's hatch did not mean the Wehrmacht took "horrible tank losses".

Here is the first encounter ever of PIIIs (and Panzers in general) against the T34: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Raseiniai

Don't see any horrible tank losses there.

Here is another, a much bigger one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brody_(1941))

Again, no "horrible casualties" although this time they are actually somewhat significant.

I suspect you based this on reports of some individual T34s going disrupting German lines on their own against 37mm armed PIIIs and PAKs 36's. (which as the Soviet report showed, could also penetrate the T34).

Also, the ingame holds the Panzer III "L" or "M" version, which were all armed with L/60's. Don't know what you're relying on for those penetration figures, but I believe the max accountable range or whatever it was officially called of the early T34/76 was only 600m. You could shoot past that, but you had to make a guess without any accuracy of your sights (or that's how I remember it).
 

Yarnu

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 6, 2011
93
15
0
As to release (as I've seen it come up a few times now), we have entered the final stage of tweaks, testing and fixes. So if all goes well we are looking at days over weeks.

Master Yoshiro!


Any chance that we can look over the entire change log before the update is live? :D:D:D
 

Scum82

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 29, 2013
294
0
0
I don't know at this time. It depends on what we can work out with Valve (which I believe is still on going).

Cheers. Just started Uni and trying to convince a few of the people there to join in. A free weekend would be a perfect opportunity :D
 
Last edited:

ZzDe0

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 24, 2010
92
7
0
Sorry, but never in a million years. No mod team would have access to the kind of animation talent required to properly animate crawling around in such tiny spaces. This part of the process in not even remotely 'little'. Why else do you think it is being dropped? There are some things a decent, motivated mod team can do well; complex animations are not one of those things.

In fact, thinking about it more, the rigged character model would most likely need to be redone in order to have a chance of realistically handling some of the contortions. This would, in turn, mean having to redo every animation in the game.

Trying to remember how ro:eek:st did it. Was it not the same as how it is now done in the new beta tanks?

Are the animations for the panzer iv and t-34 going to stay? Or are they going to be removed to keep it consistent?