The Panzer IV is the new T-34

[Mormegil]

Shot the tanks in their amor at close range with the coax and they blew up. At first, I though I was killing the commander, but you can do that with HE rounds and they won't blow up, not always anyway. I did not get the kill, but I got the kill points.

Good way to really test this is to go against a human player, that can verify the hatches are buttoned up. There may be gaps in the armor model letting MG fire through.

The HE test may not be valid if the shell impacts on the armor, and fragmentation doesn't happen to go into the open hatch.

 

[Major_Day]

but do both tanks suffer from being shot with mg's or just the axis tank?

Both tanks,and it only happens against bots,the best map to try this out on is Ogledow,where it is remarkably easy to do it every time.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

Unfortunately, that is a test that's highly susceptible to human error and skill influencing the outcome. Namely, I don't think you know where to shoot the T-34.

I ran the same test, and my results for the Panzer 4 shooting the T-34:

1-hit kills: 19
2-hit kills: 18
3-hit kills: 10
4-hit kills: 3
5-hit kills: 0

Total hits: 97
Average hits: 1.9 (1.94 if we go to three significant digits)

I was careful to follow the same conditions that you posted. Despite that, there were three times I decided to engage a T-34 when it was angled at 30 degrees. All three were shot in the hull front, and all three resulted in a one-hit kill.

However, I am a little unclear on one thing you said. When you say bounces weren't counted, do you mean you didn't count any shot that did not penetrate as a hit? I wasn't sure, so I included those in my numbers, though they were fairly few. If they shouldn't be counted, my total hits would be about 5-10 or so less (If we go with 5, about 1.84 penetrations per kill).

Did some more testing in more variable conditions; shooting at a T-34 from even a very slight angle above horizontal makes 1-shot kills extremely common. This also includes long-range shots, where the round is coming down at a steeper angle. Firing from an angle below that of the T-34 makes it harder, unless you have a clear line on the lower-front hull; generally took me only 1-2 hits if I could, 3-4 if not. So long as you shoot at a plate that's fairly flat to you, you can penetrate it, and I never saw a T-34 at enough of an angle to bounce off the front glacis while still able to depress the gun to me.

T-34/76

TOTAL HITS: 125

AVERAGE: 2,5 HITS PER KILL

1 HIT KILLS: 13 (26%)
2 HIT KILLS: 10 (20%)
3 HIT KILLS: 17 (34%)
4 HIT KILLS: 08 (16%)
5 HIT KILLS: 02 (04%)

I count 126 hits, there.

PANZER IV/G

TOTAL HITS: 94

AVERAGE: 1,8 HITS PER KILL

Rounding does not work that way. If you're reducing it to two significant digits, that would be 1.9. Three significant digits would be 1.88.

Sometimes bot tanks are really getting blown up by machine gun fire, some times in a row, some nearby tanks get destroyed like this. I found this out, because to draw enemy tanks to face my head on, firstly I used machine gun fire from the paraxial mg on them, and a very few blew up.

That's a real strange one, yeah. I have to wonder if that's a single-player only bug, or if it affects multi-player at all. It's possible that it has something to do with the implementation of hit-registration, if it's somehow applying the MG hits directly to HP. If it were giving penetration flashes, I'd almost think that sometimes the MG is firing bullets coded as tank-cannon rounds.

Incidentally, it's a "coaxial" or "coax" MG.

When the T-34's hull is looking well up, in an angle that favors it's glacis, that plate becomes literally immune to fire from the Panzer. I just don't think the T-34 it self can shoot its enemies at that point, but still a good defense mechanism.

On the plus side, that usually presents the lower-front plate at a much flatter angle, making it a valid target, and you're almost assured to hit the big main ammo store.

How much energy remains from an AP round, from how much it looses depending on the armor it goes through, seems to have an effect on it's probability of taking out a weakspot.

Urgh... Well, that got me to actually dig through the tank code. I'd advise people against it. It's a mess (Hell, even the indentation is inconsistent!). However, on a quick skim, there seems to be no way for vehicle armor penetration to alter the ImpactDamage of a anti-vehicle round. I can't swear it's so, but it appears to be that way. I'm not bothering to dig further to figure it out. This code makes me angry.

However, my digging did turn up some interesting things. It looks to be impossible to deal more than 5 penetrations to a vehicle without killing it. To do so, you have to have missed all internal damageable zones. The tanks have 800 health, while the projectiles have ImpactDamage 400. If you hit no interior zones, it deals only 0.375 times ImpactDamage. Otherwise it does full. On top of that, there is a DamageMultiplier that is commented to multiply all damage to that zone by that amount, and a KillPercentage that is commented as a chance to instantly kill the vehicle (0.2 or 0.3 for most vulnerable areas). It appears that KillPercentage actually works as a chance to apply that DamageMultiplier (Though it's functionally an instant-kill in that case, as even the lowest DamageMultiplier, for fuel, is 10. More than enough to kill the tank). This also means that two penetrations hitting any interior zone should always kill the tank. I don't know how it handles penetrating multiple zones, that might actually deal reduced damage, but I got tired of the code by then and didn't dig through that, too.

Also, it seems spalling can only hit crew.

explaining why targeting the same weakspot from the side is many times more effective than from the front. Either that, or the fact that from the side the same shot probably hits multiple weakspots, raising it's own chance naturally.

Very much the latter.A somewhat straight-on side shot on the T-34 can pass through as many as 4 vital areas (Two fuel, two ammo). Okay, theoretically 5, but the vector you'd need for that is incredibly small. From the front you're very unlikely to get more than 2.

Which is in anyway, in my opinion, a poor system. Since, I believe, a huge weakspot will give out the same probability as a weaker one.

In general, the big ammo stores have KillPercentage 0.3, while the small ones have 0.2. The hull MG ammo store in the T-34 has KillPercentage 0 (Which appears to mean no chance of calling up its DamageMultiplier 100).

 

[Sarkis.]

Unfortunately, that is a test that's highly susceptible to human error and skill influencing the outcome. Namely, I don't think you know where to shoot the T-34.

I ran the same test, and my results for the Panzer 4 shooting the T-34:

1-hit kills: 19
2-hit kills: 18
3-hit kills: 10
4-hit kills: 3
5-hit kills: 0

Total hits: 97
Average hits: 1.9 (1.94 if we go to three significant digits)

I was careful to follow the same conditions that you posted. Despite that, there were three times I decided to engage a T-34 when it was angled at 30 degrees. All three were shot in the hull front, and all three resulted in a one-hit kill.

However, I am a little unclear on one thing you said. When you say bounces weren't counted, do you mean you didn't count any shot that did not penetrate as a hit? I wasn't sure, so I included those in my numbers, though they were fairly few. If they shouldn't be counted, my total hits would be about 5-10 or so less (If we go with 5, about 1.84 penetrations per kill

Wow... now just where the hell are you shooting it to kill it like that? I tried my best and could not kill it that well. And sure, human factor is definitely skewing the results. But I can't believe there is a better place to shoot the T-34 aside from it's starboard ammo cache, precisely where it overlaps the big central floor ammo cache, when looking from the front.

And I only counted penetrations, a bounce was treated as a ''I missed'', hence were not counted as shots.

And also, I do get the sense that shooting the T-34 from above, in its frontal glacis, does make for easier kills. I don't know why.

I will not give that the T-34 is equal to the Panzer IV. Even if their statics present that, the real action between 2 players is hardly anything like that, mostly because we try to shoot faster, instead of more precisely, and also because some shots do bounce. And both things give the advantage to the T-34. It's weakspot placement is simply better, harder to hit, easier to hide.

I just want to know where the hell are you shooting the T-34. Because I will run my tests again in that case.

 

[Mormegil]

Taking Pheonix Dragon's data on the T-34 penetration against Sarkis' penetration on the Panzer IV, I see no statistical difference.

PIV average is 1.88, T-34 average is 1.81. One-tailed Student's t-test to check if there's really a difference gives a p-value of 0.35 (one typically wants less than 0.05 to be considered statistically significant).

I will not give that the T-34 is equal to the Panzer IV. Even if their statics present that, the real action between 2 players is hardly anything like that, mostly because we try to shoot faster, instead of more precisely, and also because some shots do bounce. And both things give the advantage to the T-34. It's weakspot placement is simply better, harder to hit, easier to hide.

Really? You present data to prove your point, then once that data is refuted, you claim the data doesn't matter. That's called "Moving the goal posts."

I personally don't try to shoot faster, I take careful aim. I wouldn't be surprised if this is why I get lots of 1 hit kills with either tank.

So are you suggesting, the tanks are equal, but the players aren't. So we should nerf the T-34? That doesn't sound right to me.



Oh, this old thread by Alan Wilson sheds some light on the behind the scenes stuff. It might be of interest to read.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

Wow... now just where the hell are you shooting it to kill it like that?

Pretty much the center of the front glacis. Right between the driver hatch and hull MG (A bit more toward the MG), and about halfway between the center-line between them and the bottom of that front plate. If the tank is angled upward slightly, aim a bit lower, transitioning to the lower plate when it's flatter than the upper. If it's angled down, aim a little higher, though never below the mid-line between the driver's hatch and the hull MG. Basically, it's aiming at where the hull MG ammo storage is inside the tank (The kills hitting the hull-front at 30 degrees off were aimed right under the driver hatch). Depending on the angle, it'll hit that, possibly a crew or two, and the engine. If you're below the T-34, you can aim straight at the main ammo storage through the lower-front plate, also likely hitting some crew or the engine, while if you're above or at long range, a shot at the hull MG ammo will almost certainly also hit the main ammo.

If nothing else, a center-mass shot is very likely to hit an internal zone to do full damage, keeping the total number of penetrations needed down.

But I can't believe there is a better place to shoot the T-34 aside from it's starboard ammo cache, precisely where it overlaps the big central floor ammo cache, when looking from the front.

That would be a good target, except it's very small from that angle. Get multiple rolls on the KillPercentage, but it's too easy to miss and hit no zones (Hence the five-penetration kills, where you hit nothing inside the tank).

And I only counted penetrations, a bounce was treated as a ''I missed'', hence were not counted as shots.

Okay. So roughly 1.84 penetrations per kill on my attempt. Not sure which ones they were on, though (Obviously none of the 1-hit kills).

And also, I do get the sense that shooting the T-34 from above, in its frontal glacis, does make for easier kills. I don't know why.

Not only does it decrease the off-angle of the impact (Guaranteeing maximum penetration, which the Panzer 4's gun will easily achieve), it rather drastically increases the effective cross-section of the main ammo store. Firing from a hill into a T-34 below, you're almost guaranteed that any penetration of the glacis will hit the main ammo store. A shot passing roughly through the hull MG ammo and into the main ammo store is going to do a huge amount of damage.

 

[Sarkis.]

Really? You present data to prove your point, then once that data is refuted, you claim the data doesn't matter. That's called "Moving the goal posts."

That's called: It is a lot harder to hit the T-34's weakspots, than the Panzer IV's, not rocket science there. One tank can make shots bounce a lot, the other cannot. Again, I really believed the T-34 was superior way before I did my testing.

So are you suggesting, the tanks are equal, but the players aren't. So we should nerf the T-34? That doesn't sound right to me.

Why not? I can have this awesome gun that shoots 1000 rounds per milisecond, but a player cant yeld its amazing super recoil. A bot can. Why would you be quick to not consider the player's use of each tank. Is obvious that a lot of people know where to shoot the Panzer. At the same time the T-34 is always a lot more shady, making shots bounce and inducing human error.
I'm not even talking about nerfing the T-34. I do realize that what I suggest (Full realism), will probably be better in the end for the T-34 instead of the Panzer IV. But it will most of all, be better for the best crew/player.

The way both tanks are modeled now, there is no person that can claim that the Panzer IV is superior for instance. Or that both are equal for that matter.

If both are equal, please, I want to use the Panzer IV with the T-34's values and hitbox, and all, just make it look like the Panzer. Will be really nice seeing supposedly 50mm of armor bouncing shots, and hero AT gunners being about as useless as slingshots against me.

You people try and pretend that both tanks are equal. Well that they are not.

I'm loosing my patience, the next one I will claim is simply biased in favor of the T-34.

You put a rookie T-34 vs a rookie PZ4, and the T34 wins. You put a expert T-34 vs a expert PZ4, and the T-34 wins. You put an RPG-40 vs the PZ4, and the RPG-40 wins. You put a Pzb 784 vs the PZ4 and the Pzb also wins hands down.

One tank can bounce friggin AP shots! Its hatch is invincible, what more do I need to present! JESUS!

edit: Also, I want to see your tests on the Panzer, Phoenix. Because I will repeat mine.

 

[Sarkis.]

I ran the same test, and my results for the Panzer 4 shooting the T-34:

1-hit kills: 19
2-hit kills: 18
3-hit kills: 10
4-hit kills: 3
5-hit kills: 0

Total hits: 97
Average hits: 1.9 (1.94 if we go to three significant digits)

''Round 2, Fight! Finish him!''

T-34 shooting Panzer IV/G

TOTAL HITS: 78

Average: 1,56 hits per kill

1 hit kills: 28 (56%)
2 hit kills: 18 (36%)
3 hit kills: 02 (04%)
4 hit kills: 02 (04%)
5 hit kills: 00 (00%)

''Toasty!! Flawless Victory!''

and now I will have to do the same for the T-34, but I don't think I can shoot as good as you.

 

[ro2player]

People today in server were thinking outloud, wanting Panthers, and Tigers, KVs and IS2s. If one day we get them, I bet they will all look gorgeous, but actually playing them will probably be just as weak and uninteresting, if nothing is done.

Or panzer III...If Tripwire doesn't solve problem of tanks then so : no need news tanks. If it is tanks with the same problem, it's just : NO. First : fixe bugs of tank.

Short Version: Tanking in RO2 sucks, but is not far from being great. Sarkis wants to play tanks and have fun instead of frustration. Sarkis also would want that Panzer commanders stood a damned chance at fighting back!


I am really eager to hear from TWI about the tanks! Please!

i am agree. Tanks need to be fixed...

I did some testing to prove, yet again, why the T-34 is superior to the Panzer IV, in RO2.


In RO2, the T-34 is vastly superior to the Panzer IV. In reality, the T-34 probably had the upper hand as well, because it's armor had much more capability, and probability to defeat the enemy gun. But once hit, both tanks were pretty much done for, that holds true for the Panzer IV currently, but not for the T-34. At least not as much.

I'm loosing my patience, the next one I will claim is simply biased in favor of the T-34.

You put a rookie T-34 vs a rookie PZ4, and the T34 wins. You put a expert T-34 vs a expert PZ4, and the T-34 wins. You put an RPG-40 vs the PZ4, and the RPG-40 wins. You put a Pzb 784 vs the PZ4 and the Pzb also wins hands down.

For the moment Panzer IV is damned...Panzer IV was more powerfull tank than RO 2 shows it in the game. "Panzer IV, Best Panzer of RO 2" ! because Panzer IV in reality was more powerfull than T 34.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

Until the tanking in RO2 equals or exceeds the quality of the fun filled Gameplay found in RO, there is no further need of debate as there is no comparison between the two. Besides, we are going in circles. In RO2 tanking is "pretty" on the inside but that's about it. Sure, I like the animations but that only goes so far. Tanking was/is 1000% better in RO/DH. Sure, it looks nicer interior wise... but that's where it ends. Its time we heard from TWI.

RO2 Tanking Gameplay is, to say the least, rough.

TWI, please fix the tanks.... as it stands now, tanking in RO2 is B.A.D.

BROKEN AS DESIGNED
​

'NUFF SAID!

 

[ro2player]

RO2 Tanking Gameplay is, to say the least, rough.

TWI, please fix the tanks.... as it stands now, tanking in RO2 is B.A.D.

RO2 Tanking Gameplay is not gameplay : for the moment it s only "beta version" of RO 2 tanking.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

''Round 2, Fight! Finish him!''

Does rather show the flaw of this test, when the numbers can swing by almost 20% for no discernible reason. Still, at this point we're looking at both tanks typically being a one- to two-hit kill if you know where to shoot, so that's not bad. Which isn't to say that there aren't some notable bugs (The commander-station crew-shuffle bug and the random occasional skewing of shots being most notable), or some aspects that could be done better (Bursting charges, or simply having spall hit non-crew zones as well, as well as getting rid of the german-only tungsten ATR ammo).

stuff

Yes Mike, we heard you say that the last several times you posted the exact same thing in this thread. In fact, that's pretty much all you've been saying, recently. Did you plan on contributing anything to the discussion, or are you just repeating yourself louder in the hopes that people acknowledge your presence?

 

[Mike_Nomad]

Regardless of distracting insults; The fact remains.........

Its time we heard from TWI.

RO2 Tanking Gameplay is, to say the least, rough.

TWI, please fix the tanks.... as it stands now, tanking in RO2 is B.A.D.

BROKEN AS DESIGNED
​

'NUFF SAID!

 

[Mormegil]

In regards to my suggestion, if the tanks are equal, but the players aren't, then you'd like the T-34 nerfed.

The way both tanks are modeled now, there is no person that can claim that the Panzer IV is superior for instance. Or that both are equal for that matter.

Dragon Phoenix's data supports they are equal.

If both are equal, please, I want to use the Panzer IV with the T-34's values and hitbox, and all, just make it look like the Panzer. Will be really nice seeing supposedly 50mm of armor bouncing shots, and hero AT gunners being about as useless as slingshots against me.

Wouldn't that throw off the per armor surface penetration calculations. You wouldn't know where to shoot to get the best penetration. Plus, the T-34 is smaller than the Panzer IV, so a bunch of shots would pass through the "ghost" chassis. This would make no sense, and give an advantage to the Panzer IV.

I'm loosing my patience, the next one I will claim is simply biased in favor of the T-34.

When you put up your data, I was very impressed, and changed my mind. I acknowledged the T-34 was superior, just not "vastly superior." When Phoenix put up his data, showing equivalent hits, I changed my mind back that they're about equal. "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" - John Maynard Keynes

You put a rookie T-34 vs a rookie PZ4, and the T34 wins. You put a expert T-34 vs a expert PZ4, and the T-34 wins.

But if Phoenix's data shows the same player can do equally well in either tank, then that's incorrect.

edit: Also, I want to see your tests on the Panzer, Phoenix. Because I will repeat mine.

I'd also like to see this. Maybe Phoenix is just a much better shot, or shooting from a lot closer. His numbers could also be 0.6 better on the Panzer.

So my tentative conclusion is based on the assumption Phoenix kills the Panzer IV as well as Sarkis kills T-34s. In retrospect, that's a big assumption.


BTW: Sarkis, your average number of hits went from 1.9 to 1.6. T-test shows that difference is statistically significant. What I'm seeing here is probably a practice effect. You are getting better after killing 200 tanks in a row. I'd be curious how your shooting against the T-34 does now.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

Bottom line:

Tanks and Tanking made RO outstanding.... Sure Infantry was fine but the tanks were fabulous.

Can we say the same for RO2? Please, TWI...... fix the tanks.

 

[Mormegil]

Bottom line:

Tanks and Tanking made RO outstanding.... Sure Infantry was fine but the tanks were fabulous.

Can we say the same for RO2? Please, TWI...... fix the tanks.

There were a lot of tanking issues in stock RO (that DH addressed). The biggest issue in RO1 was the angle / penetration calcs were based solely on the hull position. I and most other T-34 players exploited this by pointing the 1 o'clock and 11 o'clock corners to the enemy. This resulted in unrealistic deflection on the turret armor. So lets not forget these issues, as we look nostalgically at RO1.

I think what really made tanking fun in RO1 was the variety of tanks (stock and community), along with the variety of tank maps developed over the years of RO1. Unfortunately, until TWI can produce more tanks, and/or the community does, this aspect isn't going to change.

Good team tanking was also a blast. That's something that is very rare in RO2, since most servers don't run tanks, and most commanders lock their tank. Of course the opposite side of the coin was bad team tankers who didn't speak the same language as you, or just fired the MG non-stop. Got to take the good with the bad, I suppose.

 

[Sarkis.]

What I was doing was shooting the Panzer IV it's other weakspot as well, not only the juicy one. Because I knew the results would be outrageous if I did, because I've know the Panzer is easy to kill since the game launched. So yes, in a sense, I saved the best for last. But I guess, that's ok since at first, I could not shoot the T-34 as well as the Panzer IV. But since someone who can shoot the T-34 better than me showed up, I decided to go for broke.

These numbers even if equal, or superior are not the real issue. We know that if hit the weakspots will generally behave equally. We know that the T-34 has much harder to hit weakspots, at least frontally. We know that the T-34's weakspots also travel lower in relation to the ground, hence are easy to hide.

Even if the number are equal, and they should be, if they did not carry a little bit of human error. Precisely the kind that the Panzer brings a lot less, for having a bigger weakspot. Equal or not, the numbers just only prove which tank is harder to destroy. And that is obviously the T-34, because the T-34 can bounce shots fired at the very same weakspots. So the T-34 has the extra layer of defenses.

There is also the bonuses that the T-34 received to counter the ATR, and presumably the Panzer IV. Those bonuses alone make the T-34 stronger than it should. The excuses for those bonuses were noble, for more balance, but backfired.

I still have to present my results for the T-34, since I am probably shooting from closer than Phoenix as well, and that helps.

Tanks, and anything around them needs a ton of fixing. The T-34 is superior and the Panzer is weaker, and there is no getting around that fact.

 

[Mormegil]

Equal or not, the numbers just only prove which tank is harder to destroy. And that is obviously the Panzer, because the T-34 can bounce shots fired at the very same weakspots. So the T-34 has the extra layer of defenses.

I see what you mean. It would be good to see a test of number of penetrating shots versus bouncing shots on each tank, when aiming at the "weak spots." Or simply replicate the tests mentioned before, but counting bounced shots.


What would be really nice, is if somebody familiar with UnrealEd, can put together a very basic map with 1 T-34 facing 3 Panzer IV with no ammunition, locked in place by blocking volumes, along with a corresponding Panzer IV against 3 T-34s. This way, several people can do a systematic test with the same conditions.


Edit: Something I just realized about the bot matches mentioned a few pages back, showing the Panzer IV dominating. Those results could be skewed since they were on Gumrak. At those longer ranges, the Panzer IV tends to do better (as it should). At most maps "point blank" range, the Panzer IV's optics don't really help any. Plus the further distances requires a higher elevation for the gun, resulting in a more advantageous angle on the T-34 frontal armor when the shot travels back down the parabola.

 

[Nikita]

This discussion has gotten A LOT better and more objective... replicable experiments, statistical analysis and significance, etc...

Keep it going! This is what the discussion should have been like all along.

One point I'd like to make, though, is that if the critical hit zones of the Panzer IV are easier to hit... that's something one would have to take up with the original designers. It's an inherent trait of the design where the ammo stores and fuel tanks are on each tank, and that's life, fate, and war.

If we want to present a list of constructive suggestions with regards to armor system changes, though, we can't simply say that a tank is stronger than it should be. We have to point out a list of armor plates and show that they aren't functioning as they should at a given distance. Driver's hatch might be a good place to start.

 

[Sarkis.]

The fact of the matter is that as long as RO2 depends on the weakspots as the most viable way to take out a tank, the T-34 will always have the advantage, becase of it's placement, as it was in real life.

Now, Phoenix mentioned that the tanks have a hitpoint system. Perhaps that hitpoit system could be tuned to offer greater damage, and probability of taking out a tank by shooting it in vital areas, but not necessarily ammo caches. And obviously spalling, and bursting charges also having a greater effect.

In RO2, generally, to take out a tank from the fight you need to blow it up. At that, the T-34 was superior, harder to light up. But that does not say how easier or harder it was to be simply taken out of the fight, without blowing up, in this case.

I would very much appreciate if both tanks did not need to blow up to be destroyed. Specially because what drives a tank before fuel and propellant charges, is firstly the crew. The crew right now is being treated as hitpoints. You have to hit 3 to 4 times to take out. But with the effect of the bursting charge, it would be easy to kill/wound 4 in one go, and RO2 doesn't portray that.

In DH, a good penetration meant BOOM! I loved that! Is harsh, yes, but probably the most realistic approach. Meant that a Sherman did not stand too much of a chance against a Tiger, but neither did the Tiger if hit close at it's side, not for too much anyway.

In RO, it was just a mindless ping pong, KV1 could not kill StugIII, no matter what you did, and the other way around as well, and both tanks would just stand angled bouncing shots. It was pretty lame. The IS2, and even the T-34 could bounce 88mm shots like it was nothing. I really can't say tanks in RO were so much fun. But in DH it was a dream. Even the tracers rounds looked better in DH, penetration effects as well.