Tigers like paper, Panthers invincible

[Tank!]

Notably, however, with APCBC ammunition the ZiS 85 could penetrate the Panzer IV's front plate out to 2000m.

From Guns vs Armor:.....for the Soviets in World War II as they did not develop APC or APCBC projectiles until the 1950s......

What I find interesting is that the frontal armor of the Tiger I and IS-2 are so weak they can be penetrated by medium tanks such as the Panzer IV and the T-34/85.

For the Tiger I on an earlier page the Kummersdorf test is mentioned where the 85 mm failed to penetrate the Tiger I front at 500 meters at 0 degrees (not angled) but in RO the 85 mm can penetrate a Tiger I through the front to at least 2,000 meters (four times the distance that it should!):

YouTube - T34/85 vs Tiger I tank

 

[VariousNames]

If they failed to develop APCBC during WWII, that would mean that their ammunition was obsolete as opposed to the T-34/85, which had a more powerful gun than the Panzer IV.

 

[VariousNames]

Your source says explicitly...

That the T-34/85 is using a APBC projectile, meaning armor piercing with ballistic cap. The note further draws a distinction, saying that the Soviets used these on account of the fact that they had not developed APC or APCBC projectiles until after World War 2.

So the results from the 85 cannot be directly compared with those of the 76mm or the KwK40.

What I found interesting, however, was that the 76mm APCBC actually overtakes the 85mm APBC before 1000m....and it overtakes the KwK40 by 2000m in terms of total armor penetrated.

By the way, my source was explicit in the angle of the armored plate.

 

[RiccardoTheBeAst]

Your source says explicitly...

That the T-34/85 is using a APBC projectile, meaning armor piercing with ballistic cap. The note further draws a distinction, saying that the Soviets used these on account of the fact that they had not developed APC or APCBC projectiles until after World War 2.

So the results from the 85 cannot be directly compared with those of the 76mm or the KwK40.

What I found interesting, however, was that the 76mm APCBC actually overtakes the 85mm APBC before 1000m....and it overtakes the KwK40 by 2000m in terms of total armor penetrated.

By the way, my source was explicit in the angle of the armored plate.

Even i noted this...but i supposed that this difference was caused by different shells properties.....(only a supposition)

 

[VariousNames]

It probably has a lot to due with the aerodynamics of the 76mm round as opposed to the 75, whereas the 75mm is actually a more powerful cartridge.

It can be compared with the small-arms ballistics of two cartridges...

The 7.62 NATO has more kinetic energy than the 6.5 Grendel up to around 500m but after that point the 6.5 Grendel has more kinetic energy because it retains more of its initial energy, despite it being lower at the muzzle, due to its aerodynamic shape. Interestingly, the 6.5 Grendel also has more penetration due to its shape, at short ranges, in spite of having less kinetic energy at those ranges.

Suffice to say there's more to the equation than kinetic energy at the muzzle.

Edit: incidentally the source he links talks about APCBC cartridges, which as has been noted, was not actually available to any Russian tank crews in World War 2. In other words, the 76mm T-34 in World War 2 would not have done nearly as much damage to German tanks as you're seeing in those charts. The type of round you're using has just as much, if not more, to do with the penetration values than aerodynamic efficiency, at least when we're talking about spitzer shaped tank rounds (which are usually massive).

 

[Tank!]

Notably, however, with APCBC ammunition the ZiS 85 could penetrate the Panzer IV's front plate out to 2000m

When in the 1950's?

If they failed to develop APCBC during WWII, that would mean that their ammunition was obsolete as opposed to the T-34/85.

It is the soviets who failed to develop APCBC until the 1950's meaning their (soviet) ammunition (APBC) was obsolete.

That the T-34/85 is using a APBC projectile, meaning armor piercing with ballistic cap. The note further draws a distinction, saying that the Soviets used these on account of the fact that they had not developed APC or APCBC projectiles until after World War 2.

1.) Armour Piercing with Ballistic Cap (APBC). An AP projectile with a truncated nose covered by a light aerodynamic cap to improve flight characteristics.
2.) Armour Piercing Capped with Ballistic Cap (APCBC). An AP projectile with an armor piercing cap fitted over the tip and a light aerodynamic cap fitted over the piercing cap to improve flight characteristics. Britain, Germany and the USA used APCBC projectiles as their standard anti-tank ammunition during World War II.

So the results from the 85 cannot be directly compared with those of the 76mm or the KwK40.

Yes, because their (Soviet) rounds are inferior to APCBC of the German 75 mm/American 76 mm. Face hardened armor which equipped most German tanks would tend to resist APBC:
1.) Face hardening is a method used to increase the armour hardness of the surface of armour plate. The purpose of the hardened face is to shatter an incoming projectile’s head before it can penetrate. FH armour resists AP and APBC projectiles quite well, when the armour plate thickness is around the same size or not too badly overmatched by the projectile.

incidentally the source he links talks about APCBC cartridges, which as has been noted, was not actually available to any Russian tank crews in World War 2. In other words, the 76mm T-34 in World War 2 would not have done nearly as much damage to German tanks as you're seeing in those charts.

What charts? I am very confused now???? Sorry if bad English. But if we are talking about the charts I posted up: http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=553310&postcount=35 then it is about the:
1.) German 75 mm KwK 40
2.) Soviet 85 mm D5T
3.) American 76 mm M1
There is no soviet 76 mm as it is in a weaker class along with the American 75 mm.

 

[VariousNames]

Well, what happened there was I thought that was a Soviet gun and it turns out it was the American 76mm. My mistake, didn't look at the gun.

Man, I'm....rather surprised to see the American 76 just barely outperform the 75 KwK. But damn, would that thing be a Pz.IV killer. Up to 2500m. Not so much against El Tigre.

 

[NickRoman]

I have been playing games like this since Panzer Blitz came out. It is not clear to me whatsoever why and who decide that a Soviet T-34 could ever in any way manner shape or form take on a Tiger. I have been one shot by a Soviet T-34 and have had to shoot say, 5 times to get destroy it. I even hit it fron the rear and side with no difference. Sorry, not only stupid but completely inaccurate. My Father who was in Patton's 3rd Army and fought accross France, Belgium and Germany would say this is completely FUBAR.

Perhaps a toggle for relaism versus game balancing.

Can anyone Mod this? Can the developers please, please change this?

I quote from wiki:
Link: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I[/URL]

Gun and armor performance

Tigers were capable of penetrating the front of an American M4 Sherman between 1,800 and 2,100 m (1.1 and 1.3 mi)[19], the British Churchill IV between 1,100 and 1,700 m (0.68 and 1.1 mi), the Soviet T-34 between 100 and 1,400 m (0.062 and 0.87 mi), and the Soviet IS-2 between 100 and 300 m (0.062 and 0.19 mi).[19] The Soviet T-34 equipped with the 76.2 mm gun could not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range[citation needed], but could achieve a side penetration at approximately 500 m firing BR-350P APCR ammunition.[citation needed] The T34-85's 85 mm gun could penetrate the front of a Tiger between 200 and 500 m (0.12 and 0.31 mi),[19], the IS-2s 122 mm gun could penetrate the front between 500 and 1,500 m (0.31 and 0.93 mi).[19]

From a 30 degree angle of attack, the M4 Sherman's 75 mm gun could not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, and needed to be within 100 m to achieve a side penetration against the 80 mm upper hull superstructure.[19] The British 17-pounder as used on the Sherman Firefly, firing its normal APCBC ammunition, could penetrate the front out to 1000 m. The US 76 mm gun, if firing the APCBC M62 ammunition, could penetrate the Tiger side armor out to just over 500 m, and could penetrate the upper hull superstructure at ranges of 200 m. Using HVAP ammunition, which was in constant short supply and primarily issued to tank destroyers, frontal penetrations were possible out to just over 500 m.

As range decreases in combat, all guns can penetrate more armor (with the exception of HEAT ammunition, which was rare in World War II). The great penetrating power of the Tiger's gun meant that it could destroy many of its opponents at ranges at which they could not respond. In open terrain, this was a major tactical advantage. Opposing tanks were often forced to make a flanking attack in order to knock out a Tiger.

 

[Oldih]

Quite frankly the discussion has been going on since the release and as much as there is good points to ask why the game is as it is, I think this old post summarises it up quite well:

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=399296&postcount=20

And just to add, part of the whole penetration discussion is that how to adjust things properly for shatter gap\overmatch among other small details that were greatly present during WW2 tank combat as theoretical penetration doesn't always mean it practically works so which the americans found out sooner or later to their disappointment among with plethora of other things.

And actually I could even add insult to injury that based on jeff's old post, few cases where I've seen tanks clearly coordinating on public games (usually by clan members) they have almost single handedly dominated the whole game while the opposite side is attempting to do silly rushes to charge in have failed miserably and resulted into headbutting into a concrete wall all the time.

 

[VariousNames]

It's kind of hard to claim that it's a "theoretical" penetration value when they were derived from actual experiments and not from any theoretical calculations whatsoever.

In other words, if those are the listed penetration values, during an experiment, they achieved that value of penetration on actual armor plate.

The only question is whether there was a different quality of steel, but often their experiments included actual tanks or at least provided an approximate result.

Edit:
In response to the linked post:
I've taken a good deal of time explaining why, exactly, a late model PzIV, i.e. 80mm front plate, actually has superior front armor to the T-34, whereas the T-34 has superior side armor to the PzIV. It's simple trig (which is not theoretical, it's mathematics), the effective distance a round has to travel at 0 degrees from the horizontal on each armored plate gives you a significantly larger value for the PzIV plate.

It's also the case, when you look at tank production figures, it's quite reasonable to have a substantial number of Panthers and T-34/85s, as their production numbers are quite comparable to the PzIV and T-34/76, respectively, by 1944/45.

Also, it's pretty clear to me that the StuG should be receiving greater representation on most Axis maps. There should CERTAINLY be fewer Tiger Is, as the production figures were extremely low (the cost being extremely high).

I also dispute the idea that "tactics" were what won the day for the Axis. No matter how good your tactics are, they don't affect your armor penetration values or your armor thickness/slope. Sorry. Nothing can be done about that one. It's a pretty asinine point, too, considering that in RO, we're talking about human players who may be more educated about the opposite faction's tactics and may be dutifully playing their respective tanks to the best of their abilities.

Just because the average Soviet soldier had no mental concept of how to defeat a Panther with a PTRD in real life doesn't mean an RO player can't know precisely where the weak spot in the armor lies to defeat it. In effect, real life World War 2 tactics are irrelevant to Red Orchestra. The only thing that should matter is realism in the physics engine.

And as a note....the game is clearly unrealistic in terms of armor penetration values. There have been very solid cases put forward that the PTRD (by people who have seen the code) has too much armor penetration. It's also notable that in RO (there is video documentation to support this), the T-60's 20mm gun can defeat the Panther and IS-2, which is sheer nonsense. I can also show you the post where one of the developers of DH said that some of the angle models are inaccurate, and that he fixed them for DH (I'll let you be the judge of that).

As much faith as I have in Tripwire for realism, I don't think they're gods, incapable of any mistakes, particularly when it comes down to a software bug.

 

[BlackLabel]

as for PTRD..its hard enough to be sneaky and be in flanks of tanks without getting killed on the way to that spot..its a gameplay decission and a fun one imo...

 

[TT33]

It's kind of hard to claim that it's a "theoretical" penetration value when they were derived from actual experiments and not from any theoretical calculations whatsoever.

Sure it is the PTRD was tested against very thin plates nothing in excess of 30mm (mostly very thin plates inclined at different angles) thus vs a thicker piece of steel as the round is very small and traveling at a very fast rate hitting armor which is much thicker than the PTRD round hitting a tank even at 0 degrees it is doubtful that it would actually penetrate due to round shatter and the round being pretty over-match vs the the armor,etc. even thinner armor should cause it issues especially if the PTRD is not shot at armor that is not perpendicular very close range. Remember that the 5-8 mm side skirt armor was enough to strip caps of small caliber rounds as well as deform the PTRD.

The only question is whether there was a different quality of steel,

Not a question but a fact( soviet steel quality was pretty bad especially in the late war: output rather than quality control mentality) this can change penetration as much as 10mm+ as seen by an Italian test of a 20mm vs armor which penetrated 10 mm more than a similar German cannon which was tested vs much higher quality plates (ultimately when tested vs the same steel quality the guns are very similar). Also Soviet rounds tended to be very brittle more so than the Western Allies the Germans took advantage of this and made their vehicles with face hardened armor which broke up the rounds "which should have penetrated".

I've taken a good deal of time explaining why, exactly, a late model PzIV, i.e. 80mm front plate, actually has superior front armor to the T-34,

Yes, yes this is not really something surprising except to "wiki-experts". The T-34's hull armor from 1942-1945 would have been outmatched (thinner than the round) by most German AT rounds from guns such as the 75mm L/43-48 which would have negated the ballistic protection of the T-34's slope thus 80mm thick FHA proves better than 45 mm inclined @ 60mm.Which is why the Panzer IV can penetrate a T-34 up to 1600 meters and the 76mm T-34 would have to close to ~500 meters and under, I believe the 75mm L/48 can even out range the T-34/85 by a few hundred meters. What's frustrating to me is that in the game the T-34 deflects everything especially when angled. Angling the T-34 should do nothing vs 75mm- and higher rounds like sloping cardboard and then shooting it with a gun you wont find a magic angle that will deflect the projectile if anything exposing the weak weld seams of the T-34 by angling would cause more issues. Sloped armor tanks are not really supposed to be angling anyway.

real life World War 2 tactics are irrelevant to Red Orchestra. The only thing that should matter is realism in the physics engine.

Very true in games people learn the exploits and secrets as fast as they can and play using them until the end for example the clown car crews with panzerfausts, PTRDs, and satchels or just the always frustrating drive by satcheling.....

. I can also show you the post where one of the developers of DH said that some of the angle models are inaccurate, and that he fixed them for DH (I'll let you be the judge of that).

I can tell you as being part of the DH mode a ton of things were added edited and or fixed not just angles.
[QUOTE=BlackLabel].its a gameplay decission and a fun one imo[/QUOTE]
Its one of the most frustrating weapons in game to tankers and realism guys.

 

[Oldih]

The only thing that should matter is realism in the physics engine.

Even perfect physics engine, ballistics, penetration and make the perfect ultimate WW2 experience wouldn't help if the basics of maps and such are still flawed, E.G. vehicles respawn faster than you can blink your eye, vehicle losses have no meaning in the battle itself, respawn system makes the game more of a team deathmatch\pitched battle most of the time among other things. I am still willing to bet that a realistic map with realistic penetrations of one Tiger company against a battalion of T-34\76s in later war breakthrough map would cause server to die everytime the map is played on.

DH actually does quite well (ignoring the plethora of custom maps with Jumbo Sherman but then again it isn't official content) with most of the design philosophies and such regarding tanking and maps, while regular RO maps and tanking have rather odd background even if you try to make theoretical background for it. RO default tanking actually favours (theoretically speaking) some sort of tactical application and coordination by rough basics which generally speaking are impossible to see on public games for diffrent reasons.

But then on the other side of the coin comes the problem that almost any tank can be damaged and penetrated even when angled - and yes, this doesn't make any sense from physical point of view, no need to remind me at all. If you have spent tens of hours just testing where you can penetrate and where you can't the game actually favours germans alot as properly angled Panther is only vulnerable to IS-2 while properly angled Tiger is invulnerable to any damage while they can damage any tank in the game even if they're angled. Even PzIV, StuG and such can all destroy angled T-34 with ease and have potential to KO IS-2 aswell, even though with every german tank it's alot of pixel hunting in that case.

 

[TT33]

one Tiger company against a battalion of T-34\76s in later war breakthrough map would cause server to die everytime the map is played on.

Of course you'd need the whole package (lots of tools and options) not just an engine with excellent armor effects that's a no brainer however if there is still issues I'm of the mind set of editing maps rather than nerfing code thus I would edit the map slightly but keep the edits with in confines of what would have been or may have been available not some fantasy map with hovering Maus laser tanks...

RO default tanking actually favours (theoretically speaking) some sort of tactical application and coordination by rough basics which generally speaking are impossible to see on public games for diffrent reasons.

You are entitled to your opinion however if you play on a DH public tank server there is usually some kind of coordination over the mic on the odd times I play. On RO's its usually empty tank servers or a tank server with a few silent guys.

the game actually favours germans alot

No, it does not all the tanks are buggy a well angled T-34 can take half the team firing at it and not die until someone sneaks up on its side and gets a good clean 0 degree shot and sometimes even those can deflect or the penetration is disregarded by the game ( penetration with no damage which tends to happen with the t-34). I've also experienced a really good IS-2 gunner who could shoot through the "sweet" Tiger angle (He haunted konigsplatz on that particular server) usually got 1 shots on me as well as another veteran tanker on Konigsplatz.Not to mention a good Su-76 can kill any tank with 2-3 HE shells which is pretty good as it takes 2 or 3 shots to kill the lightly armored SPG......

 

[Oldih]

You are entitled to your opinion however if you play on a DH public tank server there is usually some kind of coordination over the mic on the odd times I play. On RO's its usually empty tank servers or a tank server with a few silent guys.

I don't recall saying it's DH only issue, but generally speaking expecting people to coordinate on public games when it comes to using multiple tanks (that is E.G. having three Panzers and actually attempting to move in as a platoon) is rather rare, even though considering that DH has more players which are into realism in general that might be the case. I do have to admit I haven't played DH for quite some time, maybe I should try some tanking in there and maybe have a genuine surprise.

Of course you'd need the whole package

Merely pointing the obvious out as it's quite common for people to forget those when it comes to stuff like that even though it's by no means meant to be offensive

No, it does not all the tanks are buggy a well angled T-34 can take half the team firing at it and not die until someone sneaks up on its side and gets a good clean 0 degree shot and sometimes even those can deflect or the penetration is disregarded by the game

I can understand where that's coming from, but everytime I see an angled T-34 and I'm the one shooting at it it's 1-2 shots and the tank is gone - even leading to the amusing "omfg hacker" even if it's just Panzer 3 on Bondarevo I'm using.

Not to mention a good Su-76 can kill any tank with 2-3 HE shells which is pretty good as it takes 2 or 3 shots to kill the lightly armored SPG......

That HE shell thing is quite new to me actually

 

[TT33]

I can understand where that's coming from, but everytime I see an angled T-34 and I'm the one shooting at it it's 1-2 shots and the tank is gone - even leading to the amusing "omfg hacker" even if it's just Panzer 3 on Bondarevo I'm using.

There's a certain way these T-34 deflect kings do it and you get 5 or 6 guys deflecting right off it some of them Panthers or Tigers as well seen it happen many times on Orel or BDJ this "bug" even carries over a bit to AB. Perhaps it has something to do with being slightly inclined/depressed and angled?

Anyway the later Panzer III's with 50mm L/60 is capable of penetrating the T-34 realistically through the frontal armor as well as the turret front however penetrating the frontal hull armor is little more difficult and requires a nice 0 degree shot. It is important to remember that over 50% of T-34 losses up to September of 1942 was due to the 50mm L/60 of which was used as an At gun the Pak 38, or on a vehicle such as the the Panzer III J/1. The Panzer III is nothing to sneer at the Soviets wanted to incorporate its features on the T-34M which was supposed to replace the regular T-34 however the Germans decide to attack and the plan was then abandoned.

(notice: the torsion bar suspension and the commanders cupola)

That HE shell thing is quite new to me actually

Another Ro-Orel experience on the FKR 3 back when they had a server I think it was "Liveround69" who loved using the Su-76 to bust Tigers if I got off the first shot assuming it caused damage he would still wound the tank pretty fierce with HE before I killed him due to the low damage of the 88mm and the unrealistically slow reload rate of the 88mm L/56 (as well as pretty much all the German tanks).

 

[Tank!]

due to the low damage of the 88mm

The 88mm is still underpowered despite RO Patch 1007 on 06-21-2006:

• Tweaked armor and penetration values for the Tiger, T-60 and SU-76, as well as increasing the power of the Tiger