Tiger Tank VS. T-34
- Thread starter ROFancyPants
- Start date
Firstly, that's a theorectial model. If you visit the Guns Vs Armour website, you'll see that the model used by Russia tends to underestimate the capabilities of APBC, such as the BR365K.
Secondly, these are for 80% of the shells, in which 75% of the shell fragments were found behind the plate. Opposed to the usual German metric of two thirds of the shells with 50% of shell fragments penetrating.
Personally I wouldn't fee safe if only 50% of the shell ended up on my side of the armour, opposed to 75% of the shell.
If you want a different figure, pop-over the www.tarrif.net where you'll get 100mm at 500m and 30degrees for RHA when using BR365K. I've picked RHA, as no Tiger tank tested has been found to have FHA.
Tarrif works at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds; so it's probable that (a lot of) his penetration data comes from the gun trials the US Army did in '46.
Upvote
0
So let us do nothing then rite?
With all the respect and no offense (especially to devs), but I just don't get the fact how we are nitpicking about tanks when UE engine itself and the current map sizes are not simply that good to simulate any realistic tank battles.
Sure, I wouldn't mind improving it to some extent but we seriously lack maps large enough and a engine that would make tanks feel like tanks in the first place, not like "hey this is (rally) car disguised as a tank and it does have cannon".
Upvote
0
Orel is still not long enough range. Orel is JUST at the outside of what a good tank map would look like, and look how popular it is.
Wanna know the REAL reason why tank combat won't ever be realistic? Because this is an FPS, not a tank sim. People don't WANT realistic tank combat in an FPS. AT least, not the majority of people who play.
How many times have you played Orel and thought "Man, this would be a lot more interesting if I didn't have to drive so damn far to get to the action."
That thought right there is why we won't see truly realistic tank combat taking off in RO:Ost. People want to get right into the thick of things, not drive somewhere and then maybe wait to ambush the enemy if they even show up in the first place.
Real world tank combat, especially WWII tank combat, is just as much about maneuver and positioning as it is about penetration values and armor slope. In fact, those things are all intimately connected.
If I'm leading a force of T-34-76s against German AFVs mounting long 75s and 88s, you bet your *** I'm gonna take the long way around if it means:
- I'm in a hull-down position
- I deny the enemy the ability to even see me by using terrain to cloak my movements.
- I'm at under 500m and positioned on the enemy's flank.
And so on.
If it takes me 20 minutes to get there, then that's what I'll do. But that's not what gamers want to do, so we get RO's version of "balanced tank combat." Which, I agree, is not realistic by a long shot.
Still, as Oldih points out, we are nitpicking more than necessary. Fixing tank combat in this game is not as simple as "Just make the penetration values realistic". Nor is the problem solely isolated to the T-34-76 (or -85) vs. the Tiger. The problems are pervasive in the system and apply to ALL tank matchups, albeit to greater or lesser effect, depending on the matchup in question.
And I'm not trying to diminish the problems that do exist by pointing out the fact that some people only see those problems from a particular point of view. Yes, the T-34 can ricochet rounds far more easily than it should, but ALL of the tanks do this in certain matchups. If anything, I think the people who ONLY post about their experiences in German uber-tanks diminish their OWN position because that's ALL that they see as a problem (most of the time -- plenty of them do still acknowledge other problems in the system as a whole, but simply point out that the T-34 is way outperforming what it should be, as well as the other problems). It's hard to take someone seriously when ALL they seem concerned about is their own narrow interests rather than the system as a whole.
Fixing the system would involve MAJOR overhauls. Among the things that would be needed are:
- More modelling of specific damage locations. (IE: gun optics, turret traverse mechanism/ring, gun elevation mechanism, road wheels, crew compartments/positions, etc.)
- Additional damage mode (IE: spalling), which would be highly speculative anyway.
- Degrading armor (IE: shot comes in, bounces off, but your armor can only take X amount of pounding before it starts to spall and/or is penetrated completely)
- MUCH larger maps (IE: 3-4km distances)
- Historically balanced loadouts (IE: likely done by having Russian tanks respawn every 3 seconds, while a German Tiger tank would take, say, 10-15 min.).
And so on.
that's not to say the current system is perfect, perfectly balanced, or couldn't stand to have some improvements made. But it does mean that fixing it is a really complex process that'd involve more work than simply "I should be able to penetrate at this range."
Wanna know the REAL reason why tank combat won't ever be realistic? Because this is an FPS, not a tank sim. People don't WANT realistic tank combat in an FPS. AT least, not the majority of people who play.
How many times have you played Orel and thought "Man, this would be a lot more interesting if I didn't have to drive so damn far to get to the action."
That thought right there is why we won't see truly realistic tank combat taking off in RO:Ost. People want to get right into the thick of things, not drive somewhere and then maybe wait to ambush the enemy if they even show up in the first place.
Real world tank combat, especially WWII tank combat, is just as much about maneuver and positioning as it is about penetration values and armor slope. In fact, those things are all intimately connected.
If I'm leading a force of T-34-76s against German AFVs mounting long 75s and 88s, you bet your *** I'm gonna take the long way around if it means:
- I'm in a hull-down position
- I deny the enemy the ability to even see me by using terrain to cloak my movements.
- I'm at under 500m and positioned on the enemy's flank.
And so on.
If it takes me 20 minutes to get there, then that's what I'll do. But that's not what gamers want to do, so we get RO's version of "balanced tank combat." Which, I agree, is not realistic by a long shot.
Still, as Oldih points out, we are nitpicking more than necessary. Fixing tank combat in this game is not as simple as "Just make the penetration values realistic". Nor is the problem solely isolated to the T-34-76 (or -85) vs. the Tiger. The problems are pervasive in the system and apply to ALL tank matchups, albeit to greater or lesser effect, depending on the matchup in question.
And I'm not trying to diminish the problems that do exist by pointing out the fact that some people only see those problems from a particular point of view. Yes, the T-34 can ricochet rounds far more easily than it should, but ALL of the tanks do this in certain matchups. If anything, I think the people who ONLY post about their experiences in German uber-tanks diminish their OWN position because that's ALL that they see as a problem (most of the time -- plenty of them do still acknowledge other problems in the system as a whole, but simply point out that the T-34 is way outperforming what it should be, as well as the other problems). It's hard to take someone seriously when ALL they seem concerned about is their own narrow interests rather than the system as a whole.
Fixing the system would involve MAJOR overhauls. Among the things that would be needed are:
- More modelling of specific damage locations. (IE: gun optics, turret traverse mechanism/ring, gun elevation mechanism, road wheels, crew compartments/positions, etc.)
- Additional damage mode (IE: spalling), which would be highly speculative anyway.
- Degrading armor (IE: shot comes in, bounces off, but your armor can only take X amount of pounding before it starts to spall and/or is penetrated completely)
- MUCH larger maps (IE: 3-4km distances)
- Historically balanced loadouts (IE: likely done by having Russian tanks respawn every 3 seconds, while a German Tiger tank would take, say, 10-15 min.).
And so on.
that's not to say the current system is perfect, perfectly balanced, or couldn't stand to have some improvements made. But it does mean that fixing it is a really complex process that'd involve more work than simply "I should be able to penetrate at this range."
Upvote
0
![[5thW]Rehakles[TRO]](/data/avatars/s/3/3418.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
couldnt agree more.....I got tired of tanks quite a while ago...oh, and we played Arad as our home map for some months so I know what Im talking about.....
too many "bouncing-shell" kills in one round and Im off the server straight away
Upvote
0
No disrespect to the TWI guys, but Arad isn't really much of a tank map. Arad's basically a shooting gallery. It's a "close combat" tank map. BDJ and Orel are the closest things to pure tank maps that we have, and even they're not long-range enough. BDJ has the better terrain variations to allow for clever strategy, but it's still relatively short-range.
Upvote
0
Agreed.
Especially it is nice map to hunt some elephants (=tanks) with your hunting rifle (PTRD).
Really, this is the only reason why I personally like Arad. You can snipe tanks off at way insane distances and get lots of "WTF hjow u killed me?!" messages.
Upvote
0
we are fighting on local maps. it is not unrealistic that the german have the same number of tanks in one small area. over all the russians had more tanks, sure, but if u are looking at a small scale battle between some russian and some german tanks the numbers can be equal without being unrealistic.
Upvote
0
Well the biggest problem is that we are having random tanks combined. And usually tanks were in a single large unit, like Schwere Panzer Ableitung by Germans and not just randomly "hey let's deploy one panther there and tiger also few mark fours together and some stugs and mix them in a silly combo."
Not to mention the fact StuGs were part of artillery, not armorued forces.
Upvote
0
Yes, but it wouldn't be any fun to have a map where you have a single platoon of Tigers going up against a single platoon of T-34-76s. Why bother playing a map like that when you know the outcome before the thing even loads? This is one of those reasons why you don't WANT absolute 100% realism, but rather abstractions based on realistic numbers.
Upvote
0
It depended on the group. Some groups had a mix of many different tanks while others were almost exclusively one tank model. The Stugs we have in game are the tank hunter variety since they have a powerful high velocity gun on them. Stugs were used alot for setting up ambushes on approaching enemies, tanks, infantry whatever. A good use of any assault gun is ambushing.
Upvote
0
True that, but in general some 'special' ones (like worshipped Tiger) were usually deployed in one single unit with some light tanks to cover them up. It is not impossible to see a mixed unit, but to think this on strategic base it is unlikely to have just some random mixtures in every battle.
I know, but every StuG crewman wore red shoulder straps in their uniform, meaning they serve in artillery unit, not purple what the armoured forces did use.
Sure, they were more like assault guns, but in German army back in 1930s\40s they still wore red shoulder straps, meaning they DO serve in artillery unit, no matter which role the tank was used.
So technically StuGs, no matter what variant, belongs under the control of artillery unit. Atleast the crewmen.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Right, but that's neither here nor there. As a practical matter, even if it's historically realistic to have a platoon of 3 Tigers going up against a platoon of 3 T-34-76s (or however many tanks would've been in the platoon), doing so in the game would be boring for both sides.
The Russian side would be bored because they'd constantly be getting killed while being unable to do any damage to the Germans. The Germans would get bored because the map would be won too easily. Unless, of course, they simply fell into the fanboy category or were only interested in boosting their own ego. But generally speaking I don't think the game should cater to either of those two groups. Especially not at the expense of everyone else.
The Russian side would be bored because they'd constantly be getting killed while being unable to do any damage to the Germans. The Germans would get bored because the map would be won too easily. Unless, of course, they simply fell into the fanboy category or were only interested in boosting their own ego. But generally speaking I don't think the game should cater to either of those two groups. Especially not at the expense of everyone else.
Upvote
0
I know, but that still doesn't change StuG crewmen had usually (pretty much in most cases) red shoulder straps and red shoulder straps = trained and currently being serving in artillery unit. So generally the crewmen are considered to be part of artillery, while the tank itself may have diffrent use.
If they would have purple then they could be classified as trained and currently serving in AT or armoured forces (still talking about StuG crewmen). It is not impossible to see AT crewman in StuG, but in general (and somewhat 'overgeneralizing') most of the crewmen in StuGs were technically part of artillery unit.
Useless info? Might be, but when we talk about realism, everything's being more or less nitpicked
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I try not to do "point/counter-point" responses usually, but you raised a few distinct issues, so I'm breaking my usual rule here. Apologies in advance for bad forum etiquette on my part.
That may be so, but the distribution of tanks is generally done in an abstract way. As I've posted elsewhere, you won't usually see realistic individual units portrayed. For example, you won't see a platoon of tigers up against a platoon of T-34s, even if that's what you would've seen in the battle. The loadouts, at best, are an abstraction of the forces that took part in the battle, so even though you see "54th Armored Regiment vs. 139th Armored Cavalry" on a map, it's not as if you're actually seeing a perfect one-to-one matchup of individual tanks. I doubt it'd be much fun to do the perfect matchup anyway, for game balance and fun.
Here I disagree with you. I don't think RO purports to be a realistic WWII sim. Nor do I think you have a black-or-white choice between "realistic WWII sim" and "goofy DoD/CoD/BF1942 arcade-style-action". RO is simply a MORE realistic FPS than the other FPS games on the market today. No other game bothers to model penetration at all (arguably aspects of Forgotten Hope include this, but even then it's pretty abstracted). RO is the only game that I know of that bothers to model ballistics in ANY way, and that models ANY kind of "instant-kill zone" for armor. That's a damnsight better than the competition can offer, even if RO's particular representation isn't realistic.
It's not always 2 hits for a kill. Sometimes it's one. Sometimes it's many ricochets before you reposition and try again. But generally speaking, given the ranges at which we engage on official RO maps, most of the time you'd actually expect one-hit kills pretty much all the time. We mostly engage at ranges of about 300-600m. On RARE occasions you get people who want to "snipe" on Arad, at which point they're firing at maybe 700-800m. All our tank maps are close-combat maps as far as armor goes.
Absolutely, and I think maps like Berezina show that, in combined-arms actions, RO's armor system works like a dream for the most part. Personally, I think the all-armor maps are always going to be a bit of a problem, mostly because the system ISN'T perfectly realistic and you'll see that a lot more on maps like that. But with combined-arms maps, there's usually so much going on that it's a lot less of a problem.
That may be so, but the distribution of tanks is generally done in an abstract way. As I've posted elsewhere, you won't usually see realistic individual units portrayed. For example, you won't see a platoon of tigers up against a platoon of T-34s, even if that's what you would've seen in the battle. The loadouts, at best, are an abstraction of the forces that took part in the battle, so even though you see "54th Armored Regiment vs. 139th Armored Cavalry" on a map, it's not as if you're actually seeing a perfect one-to-one matchup of individual tanks. I doubt it'd be much fun to do the perfect matchup anyway, for game balance and fun.
Here I disagree with you. I don't think RO purports to be a realistic WWII sim. Nor do I think you have a black-or-white choice between "realistic WWII sim" and "goofy DoD/CoD/BF1942 arcade-style-action". RO is simply a MORE realistic FPS than the other FPS games on the market today. No other game bothers to model penetration at all (arguably aspects of Forgotten Hope include this, but even then it's pretty abstracted). RO is the only game that I know of that bothers to model ballistics in ANY way, and that models ANY kind of "instant-kill zone" for armor. That's a damnsight better than the competition can offer, even if RO's particular representation isn't realistic.
It's not always 2 hits for a kill. Sometimes it's one. Sometimes it's many ricochets before you reposition and try again. But generally speaking, given the ranges at which we engage on official RO maps, most of the time you'd actually expect one-hit kills pretty much all the time. We mostly engage at ranges of about 300-600m. On RARE occasions you get people who want to "snipe" on Arad, at which point they're firing at maybe 700-800m. All our tank maps are close-combat maps as far as armor goes.
Absolutely, and I think maps like Berezina show that, in combined-arms actions, RO's armor system works like a dream for the most part. Personally, I think the all-armor maps are always going to be a bit of a problem, mostly because the system ISN'T perfectly realistic and you'll see that a lot more on maps like that. But with combined-arms maps, there's usually so much going on that it's a lot less of a problem.
Upvote
0