The Panzer IV is the new T-34

[PhoenixDragon]

Let's say this particular example, Overmatch, failed to hit the fuel tank or the ammo storage. Should it not be a kill anyway? Or produce much more damage inside the tank. Even if the crew was able to survive, inside it would be hell. And they would all leave the tank to survive.

Depends. Non-vital penetrations should probably have a higher effect on the tank, but at least some of the crew are likely to survive those non-vital hits, and it's possible the tank will remain in action. It happens. Penetration doesn't mean an automatic kill. Which is good, because in reality, both of those tanks should be penetrating the other on almost every shot.

And the Russian one, would be ok to damage the Panzer IV, weaken it's deck or something.

A hit atop the turret would burst the armor right above the heads of the commander, gunner, and loader, which I can't imagine would be good to them. A hit above the engine deck would likely cause serious damage to the engine, and might even set a fire. I don't think it should be an automatic always-one-hit-kill, but it should have a chance, and should certainly do damage.

If a russian 1kg grenade can a chance of killing the Panzer IV instantly, why does countless HE rounds from the T34 would not do the same?

Because HE rounds vs. tanks are weird. The two are coded differently. They seem to do hitpoint damage. But you can (...eventually...) kill a tank by pounding its front with HE rounds. Might take you around ten or so... (Considering the results some people are claiming about shooting the T-34, I would almost think they're using HE)

And how come the F34's AP can't even do the same?

...can't what? Do a one-hit kill? It can...

There. This is what I am talking about. This is the wrong approach! Instead of making the ATR stronger they should make the tanks less frequent! And the 50% should also be revised.

Okay. If we want to make tanks a realistic rarity, so that tank power and infantry anti-tank power is equal to the historic balance, we should get one tank every... Three rounds, or so. Not one tank slot, one tank.

If you're going to have tanks more often than that realistic frequency, you're either going to have to scale up the infantry's ability above realism to deal with them, or else you're going to have a scale of balance that's far off from realism.

How much of the 1kg-grenade was actually explosives?

Looks like 760 grams. The charge is made so it detonates flush against the armor (Ideally), and can burst through 20mm of armor, and causes spalling through thicker armor.

 

[[Mad_Murdock]]

I take back what I said, I think you are right atheist. Most common souces say RPG-40 had a charge of 760 grams, which is still not something to shake a stick at.

Edit: Dangit Phoenix you beat me to it.

 

[Sarkis.]

Depends. I win

I don't think it should be an automatic always-one-hit-kill I win

Because HE rounds vs. tanks are weird. The two are coded differently. I win

...can't what? Do a one-hit kill? It can... Ok I loose, but it still is easier to take out a tank with RPD 40 than tank guns

Okay. I know it's ok, this is why I win

My point being, a lot of related tank things need revision because right now all things fail simple logic

 

[PhoenixDragon]

I win

Well, at least now I know not to bother wasting time attempting to make a detailed and rounded reply to you. Or replying to you in general.

 

[AtheistIII]

I take back what I said, I think you are right atheist. Most common souces say RPG-40 had a charge of 760 grams, which is still not something to shake a stick at.

Looks like 760 grams. The charge is made so it detonates flush against the armor (Ideally), and can burst through 20mm of armor, and causes spalling through thicker armor.

ok, thanks guys

 

[Mormegil]

I think the separate commander / gunner does give the Panzer IV an edge in response time. You can spot as the commander, and insta-switch to the gunner (or even order your gunner to fire at will). The T-34 commander has that animation delay to switch to the gun sights. Granted, the Panzer IV in real life with 2 people's situational awareness would have given a greater advantage.


I've noticed at some point during the patching, kills to the gunner now instantly switch you to a new crewman ALREADY in the gunner position. Previously, if you were the gunner and got killed, you "possess" the driver or hull-MG, and would have to travel to the gunner position. I've noticed this in the T-34. Does this happen in the Panzer IV too? That could be a serious issue helping the Soviets.

Also, I'm not sure how good the tank AI is at targetting weak spots. The T-34's ammo locations are closer to center mass. If the AI is shooting at center mass, the Panzer IV AI will score more kills. The Panzer IV on the other hand has the ammo boxes located in the periphery. If the tank AI is aiming at center mass (like most players seem to), they'll get fewer kills on the Panzer IV. So I'm not sure if an AI versus AI is the best real world test. It also assumes that Gumrak is evenly matched. If the Germans have a geography advantage, they'll likely get more wins (and maybe more kills).

I'd like to see some stats from real players - but that could also be biased if one side tends to get better tankers.

 

[Cwivey]

I've noticed at some point during the patching, kills to the gunner now instantly switch you to a new crewman ALREADY in the gunner position. Previously, if you were the gunner and got killed, you "possess" the driver or hull-MG, and would have to travel to the gunner position. I've noticed this in the T-34. Does this happen in the Panzer IV too? That could be a serious issue helping the Soviets.

It doesn't happen in the PzIV, you spawn in the Driver seat and can't get to the gunner position until the AI moves to the seat (He'll probably get killed on the way there too). If you die as commander in the PzIV, your only real option is to back-up or suicide charge the T-34. Whereas the T-34 has a chance of getting another shot off straight after the commander's death.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

For months we complained about how weak the T-34 was and how easily it was raped by both AT rifles and PzIVs. Now I have to say it's actually good, being less vulnerable to AT rifle fire, with the frontal sloped armour actually being significant and even deflecting enemy rounds sometimes, so yeah, the T-34 is okay for me.

But what is not okay is how the PzIV has been nerfed. Yesterday I killed between eight and ten PzIVs with my T-34 on Commissar's House in a single life. Just a single shot either on the spot under the driver window or slightly under the cross in the side and boom. It's just too easy to one-hit kill a Panzer IV now, even with an AT rifle. Its frontal armour feels almost as weak as the T-34 used to be. The Panzer IV now needs some serious buffs, getting a thicker frontal armour and weak spots harder to hit.

Either buff the PzIV or nerf the T-34. Would love some input about how realistic it is now and how it would be according to my suggestion.

I'm in absolute agreement.

 

[Nikita]

In my opinion, the only problem is the lack of damage/suppression caused by a penetrating shot. This happens to put the Panzer IV at a greater disadvantage in a 1v1 battle.

The armor, for the most part, behaves accurately. There are still cases where the PTRS penetrates armor that it would be unable to in real life, whether or not this is a gameplay design decision.

The issue is that, when the Panzer IV fires at the front glacis plate of the T34, but does not hit the ammunition hitbox, a penetration generally occurs, but damage of any kind is by no means guaranteed. Similarly, while the Panzer IV can reliably shred through the T-34's front right mantlet, gradually de-crewing the Soviet tank by killing each successive crew member trying to gun, no damage is done to anything other than the crew.

Because the T-34's ammo hitboxes are more 'out of the way' than the PIV's, the T-34 ends up absorbing a lot more damage than it should, simply because the shots may be penetrating, but they are not causing a catastrophic kill. That said, the T-34 is far from 'overpowered', and it is more than possible for Panzer IVs to shred them on any map. My personal choice: hit through the mantlet, killing the gunner, followed up by a shot at the most vertical part of the sloped bow, straight into the ammo storage.

In general, penetrating shots by both tanks simply lack "stopping power". Fires are abstractly modeled if at all, arbitrarily taking effect only after multiple penetrations. The "suppression" effect when a penetration occurs that knocks a crew member around inside the tank takes place only if the player is not using optics when hit, and even then, the effect is very temporary. Finally, if within sight of an enemy and able to retaliate, there is NEVER any incentive (saving reinforcements, reduced respawn time) for a crew to "scuttle" their vehicle as opposed to fighting on to the bitter end. This last issue means that tanks are only scuttled when completely unable to fire a shot or move, often after four or five damaging hits.

I think that, rather than seeing an imbalance between the two tanks, the armor system merely suffers from insufficient stopping power from a penetration.

A few suggestions:

--the tank hit "suppression" effect should be greater if possible, and should knock a hit player out of any optic-assisted view when in effect.

--The probability of a fire, system damage, and crew death (not just the death of crew members in the projectile's path) as a result of penetration should be increased.

--tank respawn times and tank reinforcement costs should be greatly increased, with the additional change that, if players choose to "bail out" (possibly replacing the scuttling system with an animation where crew hatches simply open, representing vehicle abandonment), only half the reinforcement lost occurs and only half the respawn time applies. This incentivizes preservation of the crew and de-incentivizes fighting on in a hopeless tank duel to the last man.

 

[Barber[FG]]

I think another problem in Tank Combat is that often, especially in stock maps, tank combat takes place within short ranges that either tank can very easily penetrate the other tanks armor. I just played a custom map in which combat took place at over 750 meters. It was a lot more fun as both tanks were taking hits or even bouncing them.

I think I took at least nine hits causing some decent damage to my tank before taking a critical hit causing my tank to explode

 

[Extension7]

Played on Arad2 with a coupla people.

I was playing Russians that round and I must say, the PZIV Does indeed need a buff.

Me and I partner weren't killed unless they got the flank on us, if we angled our tank ever so slightly the hull was pretty much a 10 foot wall of brick for all I knew. They only ever damaged the turret.

Also, I was picking off Panzers like flies. One or two shots to the hull and the rest is history. It seemed like their turrets had more armor then the rest of the tank.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

During this past weekend, countless numbers of players found that the PZ4 is indeed a death trap... in the smaller maps.

No amount of angling, dangling or deducing helped. Three (mostly two) shots and you're are dead.

That is just too severe for decent gameplay. Please Devs, look at this PZ4 again.... something just ain't right.

 

[Mormegil]

During this past weekend, countless numbers of players found that the PZ4 is indeed a death trap... in the smaller maps.

No amount of angling, dangling or deducing helped. Three (mostly two) shots and you're are dead.

That is just too severe for decent gameplay. Please Devs, look at this PZ4 again.... something just ain't right.

I would really like to see the spawn issue fixed. T-34 gunners respawning back in the gunner seat is too much of an advantage. Especially since it's the most vulnerable part of the tank. I'd bet fixing that would equalize things quite a bit.

 

[Dokb]

Especially infuriating when you manage to flank their T-34 in your slow lumbering tank, sink several rounds into its flank (one into the turret ring, bounces off, one just below the turret ring where its ammo is stored, bounces off) and it turns around and simply either one or two shots you.

No one ever wants to play gumrak on Australian servers and there are currently no aussie/nz servers that run the custom tank maps (which I know of, if some kind soul would like to show me the way ).

I know that you aim for the ammo points on tanks for quickly blowing up tanks or go for their engine at least if you can.

Let's say that I'm in a Panzer IV and I am aiming for a T34, what spots should I be aiming for? I know about the area just beneath the machine gunner, that's where an ammo point is and when aiming for the sides, I aim for just below the front of the turret ring. I always tap Q and E a few times to angle the shots but even then...

What am I doing wrong?

How can I tell when my shots glance off the armour? Is that what that puff of smoke means? I never get much tank experience due to no gumrak.

 

[Sarkis.]

You're doing nothing wrong. Tanking in RO2 is completely broken

 

[Mekhazzio]

What you're doing wrong is shooting at a part of the tank that is not only fairly heavily armored and steeply sloped, but has nothing behind it but one cremwan. To be fair, the T-34/76 doesn't have a lot of crew to spare, but that's not exactly going to be a fast kill. The "just below the turret ring" is advice for hitting the Pz4, which has small ready ammo storage areas on either side of the hull and pretty weak side armor.

If you want a first-round kill on the T-34, you likewise have to hit its ammo storage, which is entirely in the center of the floor of the hull. If you're perfectly side-on to it, you want to hit the gap just above and between the second and third road wheels, although the area is so large that just about anything forward of halfway down the tank is likely to hit it. If I remember the code right, you have a >40% chance to instantly kill the tank by a hit there.

The trick, for both tanks, is that you're not simply aiming at spots on the tank, you're aiming at volumes in the interior. As the target's pitch and yaw changes, so too will the locations on the outside that will be your aimpoint. Then you further need to adjust for which armor plates are in the way. You'll get better odds at inflicting serious damage by going through a softer plate more straight-on.

Start up the game, bring up the console (with the `/~ key) and enter:

open TE-Gumrak?minplayers=32

Voila, instant tank shooting gallery, so you can experiment as much as you'd like from either side. The AI is absolutely atrocious at tanks, so you'll get plenty of free shots from all angles. You may find that actual data doesn't support the "Pz4 is made of paper!" anecdotes.

 

[Sarkis.]

The T34 has become practically impervious to AT Rifles, the only way of killing it, is through a well placed, lucky side shot, hitting the floor, between those road wheels. The PZ4 however... won't go 30 meters past his last cover without being blown to hell by a couple of diehard AT Rifle gunners from 200 meters. If the PZ4 tries and leave his initial area showing his right flank, he is pretty much done for. Many times 1 shot, not from the F34 gun, but from the ATR at more than 100 meters. The PZ4s right ammo cache... Anti Tank soldiers have learned very well how to kill it. Otherwise they can pound the turret and kill or damage the PZ4 very easily.

So yes... if you are in T34, many times the PZ4 will not seem made of paper at all. Other times you will kill it repeatedly with one shots, hitting the ammo cache behind the driver seat. But if you are an Anti Tank soldier, those 5 shots well placed have an amazing chance of taking out the Panzer. And will many times outperform the F34. In that case the Panzer is made of paper, and that is not only an anecdote.

Now being anecdotal: If we are to say that, PZ4 vs T34, the panzer is made of something rather than paper, then the T34 is made of adamantium. Or at least that is the perspective of a hapless German Anti Tank Soldier and also the German Tanker.

And countless matches of Bridges of Druzhina are there to prove that.

German tanker has to get really lucky to beat the T34. Russian tanker has to get very unlucky to lose to a PanzerIV. I still do care what the data and testing says about both tanks and their foes. But playing the game suggests that something is really wrong with both tanks.

 

[Mekhazzio]

I had a particular piece of music come up on my playlist while playing around with it, and it matched so well I felt compelled to run with the idea
RO2: First-round kills on T-34s - YouTube

 

[Major_Day]

I would really like to see the spawn issue fixed. T-34 gunners respawning back in the gunner seat is too much of an advantage. Especially since it's the most vulnerable part of the tank. I'd bet fixing that would equalize things quite a bit.

This^^^^ is a major part of the problem,the T34 can return fire much quicker than the Panzer after the gunner has been killed, because the Panzer crew have to crawl through to the gunners seat, the T34 crew do not, they spawn back in the seat instantly.:IS2:

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

In my opinion, the only problem is the lack of damage/suppression caused by a penetrating shot. This happens to put the Panzer IV at a greater disadvantage in a 1v1 battle.

The armor, for the most part, behaves accurately. There are still cases where the PTRS penetrates armor that it would be unable to in real life, whether or not this is a gameplay design decision.

The issue is that, when the Panzer IV fires at the front glacis plate of the T34, but does not hit the ammunition hitbox, a penetration generally occurs, but damage of any kind is by no means guaranteed. Similarly, while the Panzer IV can reliably shred through the T-34's front right mantlet, gradually de-crewing the Soviet tank by killing each successive crew member trying to gun, no damage is done to anything other than the crew.

Because the T-34's ammo hitboxes are more 'out of the way' than the PIV's, the T-34 ends up absorbing a lot more damage than it should, simply because the shots may be penetrating, but they are not causing a catastrophic kill. That said, the T-34 is far from 'overpowered', and it is more than possible for Panzer IVs to shred them on any map. My personal choice: hit through the mantlet, killing the gunner, followed up by a shot at the most vertical part of the sloped bow, straight into the ammo storage.

In general, penetrating shots by both tanks simply lack "stopping power". Fires are abstractly modeled if at all, arbitrarily taking effect only after multiple penetrations. The "suppression" effect when a penetration occurs that knocks a crew member around inside the tank takes place only if the player is not using optics when hit, and even then, the effect is very temporary. Finally, if within sight of an enemy and able to retaliate, there is NEVER any incentive (saving reinforcements, reduced respawn time) for a crew to "scuttle" their vehicle as opposed to fighting on to the bitter end. This last issue means that tanks are only scuttled when completely unable to fire a shot or move, often after four or five damaging hits.

I think that, rather than seeing an imbalance between the two tanks, the armor system merely suffers from insufficient stopping power from a penetration.

We wouldn't have this problem if the German BDZ fuzes were modelled ingame, because then a T-34 having suffered a penetrating hit would 90% of the time either burst into fire or explode almost immediately. Those were the observations of German tank crews in the east atleast.