Author Topic: Powerful Tanks Become Vulnerable in 2.45  (Read 23092 times)

Offline Gunnerz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Powerful Tanks Become Vulnerable in 2.45
« Reply #210 on: 09-10-2012, 20:10:21 »
''Even though the 76mm gun was a much better anti-tank weapon than the 75mm M3 gun it replaced it did not have enough power to penetrate the front of the new heavy German tanks that were seen in the ETO.

These tanks were the Tiger II and the Jagdtiger, and both had frontal armor that was well sloped and too thick for the 76mm gun to penetrate even with the APCR-T M93 projectile.
Another new German tank that was encountered in much greater numbers than either the Tiger II or the Jagdtiger was the Mk.V Panther medium tank.
The 76mm gun had problems penetrating the upper-front glacis plate of the Panther even with the M93 projectile but hits to the thinner lower front hull resulted in penetrations at almost any range with any ammo.

The front turret armor of the Panther was thick enough to stop penetrations by the APC61 and AP79 projectiles at ranges greater than 300-400m.
Hits to the side and rear of the hull and turret by the 76mm AP ammo resulted in penetrations at ranges over 2500m.

The M93 ammo could penetrate the front turret armor of the Panther at ranges over 1,500m and could penetrate the sides and rear of the hull and turret at ranges over 2,500m.
Penetrations of the front glacis plate of the Panther with the M93 ammo varied greatly due to the variation in the quality of the armor present on each Panther. Penetrations were recorded up to 800m on some vehicles whereas on others, the M93 projectile could only penetrate at ranges closer than 100m and in some cases, not at all.

The new 76mm gun had one disadvantage compared to the 75mm M3 gun, its HE shell was not as powerful. The high explosive ammunition for the 76mm contained an explosive charge of .86 lbs. compared to the 75mm HE ammunition that contained an explosive charge of 1.47 lbs. The difference in blast effect between the two rounds was fairly significant, but the 76mm HE round still remained effective against soft targets.''

Offline hitm4k3r

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.123
    • View Profile
Re: Powerful Tanks Become Vulnerable in 2.45
« Reply #211 on: 09-10-2012, 20:10:49 »
I don't understand, how someone could actually stick to one side in this whole matter. Tbh, I can't hear Kwiots whining about German tanks anymore, because he is not basing his complains on anything valuable. The only thing I hear is "Oh what have you done to my allmighty German tanks?!?!?!?". Next to this I can't hear Theta's Germanyphobia anymore. The kill/loss numbers of all german tanks compared to the allied tanks have to say something.

That Shermans (75mm) are superior to Panzer IV's is something I would heavily argue though. Maybe in terms of their armor shape (sloped) and their numbers, but in terms of firepower the german tanks were better without a doubt. The Panzer IV can penetrate up to 30 mm more than the 75mm Sherman. In FH2 though you don't see anything of this firepower. It plays like a Sherman with weaker armor. And we are not even talking about the Panther or the Tiger.

On the other hand we have some allied problem tanks like the M10/M36 or the african tanks with 2pdr. The 6pdr is fine though. If you have problems with it then you should use it more often to get used to it. So if you want to discuss here, stay on the point and don't bring your biased POV about some tanks, because you are a team stacker who only plays Axis/Allied.

Offline Kwiot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 793
  • POLISH ACE
    • View Profile
Re: Powerful Tanks Become Vulnerable in 2.45
« Reply #212 on: 09-10-2012, 21:10:55 »
@Theta:
I know that you live in such funny country like Holland or Belgium where you smoke marihuana on the breakfast, but this what you wrote it total bullshit... Read some books, articles, etc. Butcher has already explained your numbers...

For me it's quite ridiculous that standard Sherman can take out Panzer IV frontally (even without this special rounds), but Panzer IV can't do the same with it... Now even from side it's quite difficult... And where's balance?! Answer is ALLIED BIAS!!!

Offline hitm4k3r

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.123
    • View Profile
Re: Powerful Tanks Become Vulnerable in 2.45
« Reply #213 on: 09-10-2012, 22:10:54 »
@Theta:
I know that you live in such funny country like Holland or Belgium where you smoke marihuana on the breakfast, but this what you wrote it total bullshit... Read some books, articles, etc. Butcher has already explained your numbers...

For me it's quite ridiculous that standard Sherman can take out Panzer IV frontally (even without this special rounds), but Panzer IV can't do the same with it... Now even from side it's quite difficult... And where's balance?! Answer is ALLIED BIAS!!!

I made a video, where I show that it is still possible to 1S1K the Sherman from the front with the PIV H. It is only more difficult because of the deviation and the much smaller weakspots of the Sherman tank in terms of his front armor. What bothers me more is the performance of the KWK40L/48 of the PIV overall. Especialy on the side armor of Sherman tanks it is not acceptable.

ALL 75mm Shermans have APCPC rounds, so I can live with it, that I am down with one shot after this shell pierces through my 50mm strong PIV front turret. This gun and ammunition are capable of much more than 30mm btw.
« Last Edit: 10-10-2012, 02:10:31 by 5hitm4k3r »

Offline Gunnerz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 114
    • View Profile
Re: Powerful Tanks Become Vulnerable in 2.45
« Reply #214 on: 09-10-2012, 22:10:50 »
@Theta:
I know that you live in such funny country like Holland or Belgium where you smoke marihuana on the breakfast, but this what you wrote it total bullshit... Read some books, articles, etc. Butcher has already explained your numbers...

For me it's quite ridiculous that standard Sherman can take out Panzer IV frontally (even without this special rounds), but Panzer IV can't do the same with it... Now even from side it's quite difficult... And where's balance?! Answer is ALLIED BIAS!!!

Poland is more ''funny'' if you ask me.
But thanks for the complement.

Offline Eat Uranium

  • Tea Drinker
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4.512
  • Today's news will contain [REDACTED]
    • View Profile
    • FH2 Music
Re: Powerful Tanks Become Vulnerable in 2.45
« Reply #215 on: 09-10-2012, 23:10:20 »
That Shermans (75mm) are superior to Panzer IV's is something I would heavily argue though. Maybe in terms of their armor shape (sloped) and their numbers, but in terms of firepower the german tanks were better without a doubt. The Panzer IV can penetrate up to 30 mm more than the 75mm Sherman. In FH2 though you don't see anything of this firepower. It plays like a Sherman with weaker armor. And we are not even talking about the Panther or the Tiger.
It should be noted that while the Pz IV H penetrates 110mm compared to the M4A3's 80mm, they both have the same 80mm front hull (panzer turret is 50mm, M4A3 is 80mm with 90mm mantlet).  Sherman also has 1000hp compared to 850hp (on account of thicker rear and side armour).

Offline Butcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1.839
  • ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    • View Profile
Re: Powerful Tanks Become Vulnerable in 2.45
« Reply #216 on: 09-10-2012, 23:10:45 »
With all the versions of Shermans and Panzer IVs around throughout the war it´s hard to say which one was better. The Panzer IV was a design of the thirties (produced from 1937), while the Sherman was produced from 1942 onwards. This is a giant gap of five years in which the tank armies turned from tankettes into the first Medium tanks. So it´s no wonder the Panzer IV reached its limits by 1944 - yet it still performed acceptable.

Speaking about Panzer IVs in Normandy, that would usually be the "Ausf. H" with only a small number of older versions (F2/G). Shermans would be Sherman II and V mostly.

The Sherman had the edge in armour protection due to the slope and wet storage was applied. However it was common for the Panzer IVs to have sideskirts on H/J versions, which made them more resistant versus HEAT rounds. The skirts proofed troublesome in the Bocage and got stuck in trees etc. Generally the Sherman was better protected.

The armament also varied. In Normandy the short 75mm gun was the most present gun on the Sherman which excelled in the anti infantry role, but was ineffective versus tanks frontally. The Panzer IVs turret could be penetrated from far away and the front at close ranges. The german 75mm/L48 could finish off all Sherman versions of the time at further ranges. The difference in armament gives the Panzer IV the edge in my opinion. It could engage from further away despite having weaker armor protection, also optics were formadible.

The further the war went however this changed. By the fall of 1944 the Shermans were more and more armed with the long barreled 76mm gun. This gun didn´t offer the great HE capabilities of the former short barreled 75mm but performed better in the anti tank role. It was roughly comparable to the german 75mm/L48 in its performance.

By that time the Panzer IV had already reached its limit and the tank was just produced to have tanks. The "Ausf. J" was a downgrade to the "Ausf. H". Although having a bigger fuel tank it lacked a powered turret. By that time the M4A3s and Easy Eights outperformed the Panzer IVs, although the Panzer IVs still had a potent gun and could cause trouble.

To summarize it: In Normandy the Panzer IV still had the edge over the underarmed Sherman which changed in late 1944/1945.
« Last Edit: 09-10-2012, 23:10:51 by Butcher »
He got banned for our sins. He was not the member FH forums deserved, he was the member we needed.

Offline hitm4k3r

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.123
    • View Profile
Re: Powerful Tanks Become Vulnerable in 2.45
« Reply #217 on: 10-10-2012, 01:10:03 »
You hit it spot on. And Eat Uraniums conclusion shows quiet well what I am talking about. The PIV feels like a Sherman with weaker armor. But it lacks the capablity of fighting targets on long range. I played alot on the german side today and the weak TD guns of the StuG III and Marder I make it really difficult. On maps like Goodwood or Villersbocage (the maps I played today) you encounter mainly the weaker Shermans and not the M4A3. And to kill the Cromwell with a shot on the turret from the front is more a luck game because of those rivets that you can see on the coll. mesh renders.

That I get some trouble against the M4A3 or a the Sherman 76 mm is accaptable for me, but ingame a M4A3 feels the same like a Sherman M4A1 and the Sherman II or V if you encounter it with a PIV because you need two shots to the front in the most cases. The balance between long range effectiveness and armor of the different tanks is just off. If I need two shots with a StuG III on the front of a Sherman from 50 metre, then there is something wrong. I ended up so damn often in a deathtrap today while driving the Marder I that it is just frustrating.

On a final note I would like to mention, that it is difficult to messure the armor in HP and mm ingame. You messure the armor with the shots that you need on a target with the current system. Same as you messure the strength of a gun to encounter a target.
At a range of lets say 200 metre (dk the exact range) the Tiger and the Firefly get the exact same tanks. They need both two shots on each other.   

Offline x4fun ODIUM

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
    • www.762-ranking.de
Re: Powerful Tanks Become Vulnerable in 2.45
« Reply #218 on: 10-10-2012, 02:10:54 »
To give a short feedback of my (!) FH2.45 vehicle experiences:

A) Being shot from a Tiger II and surviving in a Cromwell:
1,5 stripes damage from an 8,8-cm-KwK 43 L/71. As I understand Ts4EVER's post, it cannot have bounced off, since there actually was some "damage". So no angle mod problem here.
Yes it was a Tiger II because I was together in one TS3 channel with its driver (GamefreakDP).

That does not feel like FH2 for me any more .


B) Hiding in the PAK40 at Eppeldorf North and waiting until the sherman drives blindly within 15 meters range of you, just to have your AP round bounce off there and make a nice marker:

Yes I could reproduce that shot. I was so stunned the first time I could not take a screenshot then.
Feels like "Why do I spend my time here? This PAK makes no sense."


C) Firing into the rear side of the turret of an M4A3 from 3 meters distance at Farmhouse/Cobra.
When sitting in a Panther with a 7,5-cm-KwK 42 L/70. Having the shell bounce off and the Sherman start smoking (not burning). Sadly no screenshot.
Feels... well you know how it feels. Not good.


D) Firing a Panzerschreck at the Sherman's side and have the Sherman survive it
(posted before in other thread): Feels frustrating.


E) Firing at an M3A1 Halftrack and have the Panther 75mm AP shell bounce off 2x from the front.
Feels wrong.


Despite BF3 being released, we had 3 populated servers each evening with FH 2.40.
Now it is only one measly FH 2.45 server. 80 players, 100 when the evening is good, which has become a rare occasion. I would like for FH2 to have more players again. Even if they fill HSLAN and give me the "762 is evil" thing all the time. That is annoying but not as bad as this state of affairs.

I hope that 2.46 moves into the direction of FH 2.40 and FH 0.7 again. Tanking worked and players enjoyed it. I do realize that the developer team codes for their own interest, enjoyment and personal practice. But this development should not be overlooked, or there may not be any player base left, soon.

I see long standing FH2 players make cynic jokes about tanking. I see newcomers complain about tanking and its surreal effects. Most of my tank driving 762 admins have resigned and don't even complain any more. I see how many of them switch to Arma, Dayz, WoT, CoH and other games.

The reason I am being given when I ask why for is in most cases: "vehicles and their armor are just wrong now, vehicles FH2 are no fun anymore." This goes for PAKs, APCs, Tanks, sometimes even planes. With their "sloped armour", where the Minenmunition of 20mm cannons / 40mm Bofors bounces off. Minenmunition can not really "bounce off" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minengescho%C3%9F).

Please fix the vehicle armour system. I do not wish to "battle communicate" any more.
Nor do I get the feeling from reading the chat in our servers that most of the players wish to.
I wish to play Forgotten Hope again. See you in FH2.46, I am counting on you, Devs!




« Last Edit: 10-10-2012, 06:10:02 by x4fun ODIUM »
Kind Regards / MfG
x4fun I<ODIUM>I


Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.141
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Powerful Tanks Become Vulnerable in 2.45
« Reply #219 on: 10-10-2012, 07:10:08 »
From a basic gamer point of view:

Matilda Mk II should be the "Queen of Battlefield" during the early stage of the war. I want to see some dread when facing one. Its tiny cannon should at least show some penetration power.
what feels wrong The 2 pdr is too weak to do anything now. For the first time in FH history (including FH1), I finally emptied a tank's ammo reserve.

Valentine tanks should feels like, perhaps a redundant of the Matilda, but a little bit weaker.
what feels wrong The 2 pdr cannon.

Crusader Mk.III should feels like an improvement over the previous Crusader tanks, especially the cannon.
what feels wrong The 6 pdr cannon should show some power at least.

Sherman with 75 mm M3 gun should feels like a standard vehicle with good anti-infantry capability, but "just adequate" gun, which can be ineffective in killing something bigger than StuG III/IV/40 and Panzer IVs.
what feels wrong Sherman feels overly powerful now, especially its armour. They should at least show some vulnerability to guns equal to PaK40.

Sherman Firefly should be the ultimate anti-German heavies. Its gun should at least kill any big German tanks with ease. It might be weak (as weak as the standard Sherman), but it is the only tanking option available to the allied to team to effectively kill German heavies.
what feels wrong The 17 pdr cannon is too weak now.

Cromwell IV should be a fast tank that feels almost like a jeep, agile and quick. Its guns should also feels like Sherman's. But its armour should feels slightly weaker than the Sherman's.
what feels wrong Cromwell is not only fast, but overly strong as well.

Churchill should feels like an infantry tank, slow, but very capable. They should show good protection, up to at least a shot from 75 mm cannons (exception of Panther's and Jagdpanzer's long barrel 75 mm).
what feels wrong Churchill feels slightly overpowered now, almost like Tiger's equal, but with much weaker gun.

Panzer IV H should feels like a weaker version of Sherman, but packs more punch with its long-barreled gun.
what feels wrong Panzer IV feels quite strong, and the cannon is too weak.

Panzer V Panther should feels like a fast but powerful tank, its gun should projects tremendous power with even single click, but its gun's anti-infantry capability should be reduced. They should also display vulnerability to the sides and rear, but its front should be very very powerful.
what feels wrong Panzer V is strong almost from all aspects, its non-frontal aspects should show some vulnerability. Its gun feels very ineffective now.

Panzer VI E/H Tiger should feels like a big tank, heavy and slow, yet the gun should be very powerful, almost dominating, the pure pwnage tank. Also it should have better anti-infantry capability than the Panther. The number should be reduced IMO.
what feels wrong Tiger's cannon is the only complaint here. It should effectively kill anything in allied inventory with much ease, with the exception of the heavy ones like Churchill or Shermans with upgraded armour.

Panzer VI B Koenigstiger should feel like the ultimate tank, have at least similar maneuverability with Tiger, but faster turret rotating speed. The guns are also the ultimate gun that can kill almost everything with single punch, but anti-infantry capability should be reduced when compared to Tiger.
what feels wrong Same with Tiger, the Koenigstiger should pack more punch with its cannon, I expect to kill or at least burn (red health bar) anything around the battlefield with 1 shot.

If the devs decided to nerf the tanking system in FH2, at least I want it to be relational... for example, if it takes 2 shots for a Tiger to kill a standard Sherman, then I want the 76 mm M1 gun of upgraded Sherman to do little on the Tiger as well. So we can reproduce the feeling of the powerfulness of a Tiger tank.

Offline Tankbuster

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 921
    • View Profile
Re: Powerful Tanks Become Vulnerable in 2.45
« Reply #220 on: 10-10-2012, 09:10:37 »
Quote

Cromwell IV should be a fast tank that feels almost like a jeep, agile and quick. Its guns should also feels like Sherman's. But its armour should feels slightly weaker than the Sherman's.

IIRC the Cromwell's armour was thicker than the Sherman

Offline Gotkai

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Powerful Tanks Become Vulnerable in 2.45
« Reply #221 on: 10-10-2012, 09:10:37 »
Nice summary Zoologic. It´s more or less the sum i would write.

Offline Zoologic

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.141
  • In FH Since 0.67
    • View Profile
Re: Powerful Tanks Become Vulnerable in 2.45
« Reply #222 on: 10-10-2012, 11:10:44 »
Quote

Cromwell IV should be a fast tank that feels almost like a jeep, agile and quick. Its guns should also feels like Sherman's. But its armour should feels slightly weaker than the Sherman's.

IIRC the Cromwell's armour was thicker than the Sherman

Sherman's 68 mm armour is sloped, while Cromwell's frontal 60-90 mm armour is not sloped at all. I think we have to compensate for that.

Offline Oberst

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 854
    • View Profile
Re: Powerful Tanks Become Vulnerable in 2.45
« Reply #223 on: 10-10-2012, 12:10:33 »
...
On a final note I would like to mention, that it is difficult to messure the armor in HP and mm ingame. You messure the armor with the shots that you need on a target with the current system. Same as you messure the strength of a gun to encounter a target.
At a range of lets say 200 metre (dk the exact range) the Tiger and the Firefly get the exact same tanks. They need both two shots on each other.   

This is one mayor point! On a certain range serveral tanks, which shouldnt FEEL or BE equal, get equal.

Offline hitm4k3r

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.123
    • View Profile
Re: Powerful Tanks Become Vulnerable in 2.45
« Reply #224 on: 10-10-2012, 15:10:16 »
Quote

Cromwell IV should be a fast tank that feels almost like a jeep, agile and quick. Its guns should also feels like Sherman's. But its armour should feels slightly weaker than the Sherman's.

IIRC the Cromwell's armour was thicker than the Sherman

That doesn't matter. The guns of the german standard tanks (PIV, StuG, PAK40) could easily punch through the allied standard tanks (early Sherman models and the Cromwell aswell). 76mm is not much a problem for all of those tanks and especialy as it wasn't sloped armor it provided a good target. Ofcourse the allied forces tried to improve the armor of their tanks and developed tanks like the M4A3 or the Jumbo versions. What gets overlooked is the fact that the gun of the PIV can punch through a M4A3 aswell, not as easy as against an M4A1 but it made still quiet "some" damage.  ;D

Something like shown in Odiums screenshot with the PAK 40 and the M4A3 is just nonesense and is a step too far even if you justify it with scaling. This PAK 40 on Eppeldorf is always on the same spot, what makes it even more dangerous. If you take a look at the penetration tables of the PAK 40 then you will see that even angled shots on the side armor of a Sherman should be a 1S1K with anything that uses a PAK 40 (Marder I especialy) still with scaling in mind. At a ranges of 500m the PAK 40 can punch through double/triple the side armor of a Sherman (ca. 40mm) even with a angle of 30 degree. And that should be the charm of playing a Marder or a StuG. Bad mobility but alot - and I mean alot, alot, alot - firepower.
And we are not talking about the armor of those TD. The StuG front armor might be ok, but if it gets flanked by a force of Sherman tanks it's gone. The Marder is a 1S1K in 99% of my shots with a Sherman.

Yesterday while playing the Marder on Goodwood I even waited to let the Shermans get closer (was like 75-100 metre) and I still wasn't able to kill them with one shot from the front. At such ranges it doesn't matter for a PAK 40 if the armor of the Sherman II is sloped, even if I justify it with scaling to make the game playable.


What I would like to notice is, that the 6pdr makes quiet good damage. A PIII isn't a big problem for me. Maybe a tad more punch, but overall it feels good to have a tank with a 6pdr.