Author Topic: Wrong penetration of T-34-85  (Read 2391 times)

Offline Ts4EVER

  • Banner of THeTA0123
  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 7.766
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
« Reply #15 on: 13-02-2016, 18:02:19 »
It means it can penetrate thicker armor material.

Offline Eat Uranium

  • Tea Drinker
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4.517
  • Today's news will contain [REDACTED]
    • View Profile
    • FH2 Music
Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
« Reply #16 on: 13-02-2016, 19:02:18 »
So the PzIV should cause more damage than the T-34/85?
The 75mm AP will have a slightly better damage modifier against given armour than the 85mm AP, but the 85mm will have a higher base damage due to the higher calibre.  Without looking at the numbers I couldn't say which one does more damage.

Offline zyssyxn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
« Reply #17 on: 14-02-2016, 14:02:50 »
OK, let me do follow Matthew_Baker's test.

I will use T-34-85, Panzer IV, M4A3(76)W's normal AP shoot 5 Tiger and Panther's areas in less 10m, that is:
a. Tiger turret front
b. Tiger hull up front
c. Tiger hull down(uncover with tracks)
d. Tiger hull down(cover with tracks)
e. Panther turret front

1. T-34-85
Penetrated: none of them



2. Panzer IV H
Penetrated: b, c, e



3. M4A3(76)W
Penetrated: a, b, c, d, e




I have to say that it is surprise me. Why? I think many of FH2 players are fans of WWII, and I think devs are also. And it is clear for us that, amongst M1A2 76mm gun( M4A3(76)W), 75mm/L48( Panzer IV H) and Zis-s-53( T-34-85), Zis-s-53 85mm gun has the best penetration of them.

So why it is opposite in game? Yes, this may be not a "bug", because this is a mistake!

For history? No, whether 85mm gun does or not has better penetration than M1A2 76mm and 75mm L48 gun, it still can penetrate Tiger hull up front obvious, but it can't do in game.

For balance or entertainment? I don't think so, make T-34-85 can't penetrate Tiger hull front will make balance and entertainment more worse, we can decrease the numbers of T-34-85 in maps, or instead them by T-34-76 to have better balance and keep entertainment. Make T-34-85 no history for banlance and entertainment is a worst way for game, if players find that their Tiger tank can't penetrate T-34-85's hull front, how they will feel?

I have three suggestions:
1. M4A3(76)W has too high penetration, to make its penetration as same as PanzerIV H is a good way.
2. Increase T-34-85's normal AP penetration as same as M4A3(76)W in game now, at least as same as PanzerIV H's penetration,
Increase T-34-85's APCR can penetrate Panther's hull front. For banlance, decrease the numbers of T-34-85 in every maps, or instead by T-34-76.
3. Increase Tiger's turret front armor, it is only little armor more than its hull front, but in history, most of its turret front armor are overlapping, so its thickness is 110mm to 140mm, but only less part of it is 110mm.

I post these are not censure devs, I think devs are also WWII fans and love it as me, they work for FH2 very hard and do not ask for remuneration, they are respectable. And I just love FH2 too and want to improve it better and better. So, I hope my suggestions will useful for devs.

Thanks for devs and players who love FH2!

Offline nysä

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.136
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
« Reply #18 on: 18-02-2016, 23:02:15 »
An interesting topic. It's fairly difficult to consider all the balance factors and still, make the game historically pleasing for everyone.

When it comes to the sloping armour, it was quite easily penetrated by a piercing round with a ballistic cap (PzGr 39): it just didn't ricochet that easily off the sloped surface, especially if the angle was less than 60 degrees. Sure, T-34-85's frontal armour was increased - but, at the cost of the rear armour, as well as top and bottom. Also, the linking of the armour plates became much weaker and the turret's base (+ring) became more vulnerable to ricochets and small caliber rounds. And then there's the case of deterioration of the steel quality, which in the Soviet tanks hit lower than 250-280 Brinells, when in the American tanks it was pretty much standard 300-320 (and got better towards the end of the war, due to consistent quality control). 

Personally, I'd find the 85 too accurate if I'd quote Robert Michulec's "T-34 Mythological Weapon": "the theoretical accuracy of the 85 mm gun was 63% at 1,500 meters", while Panther's 75 mm L/70 gun was almost 100% (theoretical) and 72% (actual) at the same distance."

So.. maybe 85 could have more punch, but please make it less accurate ;)

Offline zyssyxn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
« Reply #19 on: 19-02-2016, 15:02:31 »
An interesting topic. It's fairly difficult to consider all the balance factors and still, make the game historically pleasing for everyone.

When it comes to the sloping armour, it was quite easily penetrated by a piercing round with a ballistic cap (PzGr 39): it just didn't ricochet that easily off the sloped surface, especially if the angle was less than 60 degrees. Sure, T-34-85's frontal armour was increased - but, at the cost of the rear armour, as well as top and bottom. Also, the linking of the armour plates became much weaker and the turret's base (+ring) became more vulnerable to ricochets and small caliber rounds. And then there's the case of deterioration of the steel quality, which in the Soviet tanks hit lower than 250-280 Brinells, when in the American tanks it was pretty much standard 300-320 (and got better towards the end of the war, due to consistent quality control). 

Personally, I'd find the 85 too accurate if I'd quote Robert Michulec's "T-34 Mythological Weapon": "the theoretical accuracy of the 85 mm gun was 63% at 1,500 meters", while Panther's 75 mm L/70 gun was almost 100% (theoretical) and 72% (actual) at the same distance."

So.. maybe 85 could have more punch, but please make it less accurate ;)

Unfortunately, almost of your points are wrong.

First, for all kind of AP round in WWII were less effect on sloping armour, no matter what is it, AP, APCR, APBC or APCBC, have a ballistic cap may decrease the "slope effect", but can't counteract it, this actuality was continued untill the APFSDF was designed. If you have saw the test of American Aberdeen Proving Grounds, you will find that how the "slope effect" is.

Second, American test the main type tanks of Soviet in WWII, include T-34-76, KV-1, T-34-85 and IS-2 in Aberdeen Proving Grounds, they found that Soviet tanks have a high Brinells armor, which is between 300~400 Brinells, Americans even worry about too high hardness armor will decrease the protection effects, but they shoot these tanks' armor in test and found that these armors are as well as Amarican normal hardness armors. Amricans also test the steel quality of Soviet tanks, they found that T-34 have a high steel quality, both the roll armor of hull and the casting armor of turret, Americans even praise the casting turret of T-34 that have a high quality casting technique. The only deficient things is the casting quality of KV-1 not very well.

The accuracy of Soviet gun are also have a well quality, both American and Soviet test the IS-2's 122mm D25T gun show that it have a same accuracy as KingTiger's 88mm L71 gun, the only advantage of Germans are the magnification of gun sights, Tiger I, Panther and KingTiger have 2.5/5x magnification, IS-2 and T-34-85 have 4x magnification, but for other German tanks, like Panzer IV, Stug III and others have only 2.5x magnification gun sights.

Most of these dates can be found in <WWII Ballistics- Armor and Gunnery>, and also in other books and official dates. If you are interesting in it, I can give you some links.
« Last Edit: 19-02-2016, 15:02:40 by zyssyxn »

Offline nysä

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.136
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
« Reply #20 on: 19-02-2016, 17:02:11 »
Sure. Not going to nitpick all your answers, but c'mon;

Quote
Stug III and others have only 2.5x magnification gun sights

Sfl.Z.F. 1a = 5x / 8 degrees

No need for links, I have a library worth of "few" thousands on the German and Allied armour - I can do some healthy comparisons based upon this. But you can always stick to your WoT/Warthunder, if the Soviet bias is not strong enough for you  ::)
« Last Edit: 19-02-2016, 18:02:49 by nysä »

Offline zyssyxn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
« Reply #21 on: 19-02-2016, 19:02:15 »
Sure. Not going to nitpick all your answers, but c'mon;

Quote
Stug III and others have only 2.5x magnification gun sights

Sfl.Z.F. 1a = 5x / 8 degrees

No need for links, I have a library worth of "few" thousands on the German and Allied armour - I can do some healthy comparisons based upon this. But you can always stick to your WoT/Warthunder, if the Soviet bias is not strong enough for you  ::)

So you will stick to your "library ", which even have a wrong Brinells about Soviet tanks? And if Soviet bias is not stupid enough for you? ;D

If you don't believe the test of American Aberdeen Proving Grounds, which one you believe? German? Soviet? UK? God? or yourself?  :o

Offline nysä

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.136
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
« Reply #22 on: 19-02-2016, 19:02:52 »
.
« Last Edit: 03-03-2019, 12:03:25 by nysä »

Offline zyssyxn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
« Reply #23 on: 20-02-2016, 05:02:37 »
 ;D

Offline nysä

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.136
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
« Reply #24 on: 20-02-2016, 16:02:54 »
.
« Last Edit: 03-03-2019, 12:03:51 by nysä »

Offline hitm4k3r

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.123
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
« Reply #25 on: 20-02-2016, 23:02:48 »
Relax guys, we are checking the materials and discussing the issue. Consens so far is that the 85mm gun will most likely get a little buff to penetrate 100mm aswell as the PIV. Currently the 85mm AP shell is set to 90mm wich is indeed a bit weak compared to AP of the KWK40/L48 wich penetrates 100mm. That is the reason why the PIV will get through the Tiger I front hull and turret, where the material is set to 100mm (not the mantlet btw) and the T34/85 not. But keep in mind that the 85mm shell has a higher damage compared to the 75mm shell allready, so once it penetrates it will deal more damage. But please don't expect huge differences. Engaging a Tiger or a Panther from the front is still suicidal, especialy when the driver of those tanks knows how to use them.

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns/75-mm.asp

This is our reference and IIRC the penetration values in FH2 are standardized to the 500m values as we can't take all characteristics of the shells over different distances into account.

About accuracy: it is not only about the gun itself, nor about magnification. There are many factors involved, one of the most important ones being the calibration of the optics together with the accuracy of the gun itself.

Anyway, I hope this clears some stuff up and thanks for the feedback. :)
« Last Edit: 20-02-2016, 23:02:20 by hitm4k3r »

Offline kingtiger1891

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
« Reply #26 on: 21-02-2016, 00:02:28 »
Out of my limited fh2.5 experience I did managed to shoot a stug at fog distance of Arad with the 85mm APCR, and surprisingly it's not an one-shot kill. I don't know if it's the long distance tank fight still screwed up or the 85mm gun is indeed too weak.

Offline hitm4k3r

  • Developer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1.123
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
« Reply #27 on: 21-02-2016, 01:02:35 »
I see no issues with the APCR. Always remember: when fighting at fog distance, you will most likely never know wich pixel of the tank you hit. There is a very high chance that it will get reflected, or deflected so that the dealt damage gets reduced by the angle mod. I tried front 1s1k against the StuG and the PIV with APCR from different distances and angles and managed to do so. The issue we are discussing here, is the too weak performance of the nomral 85mm AP shell and not the APCR 85mm.

Offline kingtiger1891

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
« Reply #28 on: 21-02-2016, 08:02:33 »
The issue we are discussing here, is the too weak performance of the nomral 85mm AP shell and not the APCR 85mm.
I know, just trying to say the 85mm seem to have weaker fire power than expected, both AP and APCR. Not suggesting it should be otherwise, but I think the Soviet need something to take the role of Firefly/M10, meaning 1s1k by hitting the Panther mantlet.

Offline jan_kurator

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 2.410
  • Magnificent Mustard
    • View Profile
Re: Wrong penetration of T-34-85
« Reply #29 on: 21-02-2016, 10:02:10 »
The issue we are discussing here, is the too weak performance of the nomral 85mm AP shell and not the APCR 85mm.
...I think the Soviet need something to take the role of Firefly/M10, meaning 1s1k by hitting the Panther mantlet.
they have SU152 for that role