Jump to content


German Superiority

Germanbias

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
63 replies to this topic

SimTim #41 Posted Oct 14 2012 - 06:35

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7232 battles
  • 1,653
  • Member since:
    07-08-2011
Heh, 'German Superiority' reminds me of when the game says 'Armour Superiority' when you build a Mammoth Tank in C&C 3.

Anyway, you might want to umm be quiet, most people on the forums already think that there is a Russian bias, and the remaining people like me who don't believe in Russian bias get angry when someone says German tanks suck, so somewhere on your post put 'I am new' to avoid flaming.

Just trying to help you.

Good night (or day if you live in Europe and joined the wrong server) sir.

SoukouDragon #42 Posted Oct 14 2012 - 20:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 13943 battles
  • 3,482
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostSimTim, on Oct 14 2012 - 06:35, said:

Heh, 'German Superiority' reminds me of when the game says 'Armour Superiority' when you build a Mammoth Tank in C&C 3.

Anyway, you might want to umm be quiet, most people on the forums already think that there is a Russian bias, and the remaining people like me who don't believe in Russian bias get angry when someone says German tanks suck, so somewhere on your post put 'I am new' to avoid flaming.

Just trying to help you.

Good night (or day if you live in Europe and joined the wrong server) sir.

This. German tanks are just as good as the others. There is no bias.

alternaive #43 Posted Oct 15 2012 - 11:03

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 4498 battles
  • 388
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012
I am currently playing mainly German tanks, but my final aim is to gather an "All-star" team. I don't think that German tanks were generally superior to their allied counterparts, but I think there are a few reasons why the German tanks ingame perform worse than expected/worse than they should do historically.

Quality:

Quality is not simulated in the game, and that was one of the points were the Germans and the U.S. did have the lead. The Germans had the best optics and some of the best propellants. Their armour steel was far better than the British or the Soviet. The book "King Tiger vs IS-2" from the Osprey duel series contains two other examples of why quality matters:


  • The Soviet 122 mm AP ammunition was initially made with very bad steel, which lead to a rather low performance. At the end of the war, the Soviet used harder steel for their projectiles, which increased the performance of the 122 mm AP by 10%.


  • While it is widely known that the German steel quality dropped due to shortage of ressources, most people ignore the fact that Soviet steel was still inferior. According to the author the King Tiger (made at a time were German steel was very bad and brittle) still was made of better steel than all IS-2 tanks, because the Soviets did use high-carbon steel without any special treatment.

Ingame the Soviet tanks are very good, because they have thick armour and big guns, while all tanks are fitted with the same optics (regarding magnification). In reality the Soviet tanks needed such thick armour, because of the low steel quality. They needed guns with a diameter of 100 mm or even 122 mm, because of their very low-performance propellants and weak projectiles made of too soft steel.


One think that also bothers me regarding quality is the armour of the early German tanks. Back then the Germans used face-hardned armour (FHA), which was more effective against AP shots due to very high hardness (500+ HB) at the outer side. Capped AP ammunition however nullified the advantage of the FHA. However the Pz III with the 70 mm thick armour (20 mm RHA + space + 50 mm FHA) is told to perform very good against the U.S. 75 mm and Soviet 76 mm guns (both ingame easily penetrate it), because the RHA destroyed the caps of the projectiles, while the FHA defeated the rest.


Slope:

I don't think slope is simulated realistically ingame; mainly two aspects are strange:


  • Ricocheting: I noticed pretty often that tanks with rather thin armour, but rounded shapes manage to ricochet a huge amount of shots. While this actually should be ok, it often happens that some unrealistic ricochets happen. I mean those times, when I fire a 75 mm L70 or 88 mm L56 at the turret of a M4 or T-34 and the round "just bounce of". In reality AP ammunition should at least penetrate the turret armour partial and because both 75 mm L70 and the 88 mm L56 can roughly penetrate twice as much armour as they encounter, I would expect that the "partial penetration" should be enough to penetrate the whole armour in such a case.


  • On the other hand, I think sloped armour performs to weak compared to it's thickness. The VK 3002 DB and Panther both have 80 mm armour at 55° from the vertical, so the relative (line of sight) thickness should be 140 mm. Taking into account that sloped armour is more effective than unsloped armour, I would expect an effective protection equivalent to 150 mm for them, which means that they have 1.5 times more armour than the Tiger. Ingame however a T-34-85. M4A3E8 or VK 3601H will be capable to penetrate the armour at medium ranges.


History:

One reason why the German tanks perform worse than expected is pretty simple: They are fighting against more modern tanks. The VK 3001 and 3601 tanks were already designed at the time operation Barbarossa started, so they should have been in the same tier as the T-34, if the game would focus on history. The Tiger, VK 3002 and Panther all were responses to the T-34 and should historically be in a tier above the T-34. The T-34-85 was a resonse to the Tiger and Panther and should be a tier above them. Balancing however is the reason why the VK 3001 and 3601 are in the same tier as the T-34-85, and the Panther and Tiger are a tier above the T-34-85.


Game design:

The game is working with hitpoints and for some very strange reason damage is not based on kinetic energy, but solely on the size of the shell. Even though the 75 mm L70 and the 88 mm L56 were probably the best tank killers during the war, they need a unrealistic high amount of shots against most tanks, while large guns (regardless of barrel lenght) often can destroy a tank with two or three shots.



ElvenLord #44 Posted Oct 15 2012 - 11:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 17000 battles
  • 2,433
  • [LABS] LABS
  • Member since:
    06-12-2011

View Postalternaive, on Oct 15 2012 - 11:03, said:

Slope:

I don't think slope is simulated realistically ingame; mainly two aspects are strange:


  • Ricocheting: I noticed pretty often that tanks with rather thin armour, but rounded shapes manage to ricochet a huge amount of shots. While this actually should be ok, it often happens that some unrealistic ricochets happen. I mean those times, when I fire a 75 mm L70 or 88 mm L56 at the turret of a M4 or T-34 and the round "just bounce of". In reality AP ammunition should at least penetrate the turret armour partial and because both 75 mm L70 and the 88 mm L56 can roughly penetrate twice as much armour as they encounter, I would expect that the "partial penetration" should be enough to penetrate the whole armour in such a case.


  • On the other hand, I think sloped armour performs to weak compared to it's thickness. The VK 3002 DB and Panther both have 80 mm armour at 55° from the vertical, so the relative (line of sight) thickness should be 140 mm. Taking into account that sloped armour is more effective than unsloped armour, I would expect an effective protection equivalent to 150 mm for them, which means that they have 1.5 times more armour than the Tiger. Ingame however a T-34-85. M4A3E8 or VK 3601H will be capable to penetrate the armour at medium ranges.


Armor slope is modeled in game. In fact they increase its effectiveness by using something calling normalization, which theoretically increases the slope of the target by a few degrees in order to help minimize the Penetrating power of AP shells.

alternaive #45 Posted Oct 15 2012 - 11:27

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 4498 battles
  • 388
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012

Quote

Armor slope is modeled in game. In fact they increase its effectiveness by using something calling normalization, which theoretically increases the slope of the target by a few degrees in order to help minimize the Penetrating power of AP shells.

I think that it is not modelled realistically... else a Panther/Vk 3002 would be frontally immune to fire from lower tier tanks.

Legiondude #46 Posted Oct 15 2012 - 14:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 20896 battles
  • 23,198
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostElvenLord, on Oct 15 2012 - 11:22, said:

Armor slope is modeled in game. In fact they increase its effectiveness by using something calling normalization, which theoretically increases the slope of the target by a few degrees in order to help minimize the Penetrating power of AP shells.
Actually to my understanding, normalization reduces the effectiveness of sloped armor because it removes a few degrees worth of effective armor to make it easier to pen(The reason we think of it as becoming "harder" to pen with the change is because the leeway in the equation was reduced, but not removed entirely)

ElvenLord #47 Posted Oct 15 2012 - 21:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 17000 battles
  • 2,433
  • [LABS] LABS
  • Member since:
    06-12-2011

View PostLegiondude, on Oct 15 2012 - 14:35, said:

Actually to my understanding, normalization reduces the effectiveness of sloped armor because it removes a few degrees worth of effective armor to make it easier to pen(The reason we think of it as becoming "harder" to pen with the change is because the leeway in the equation was reduced, but not removed entirely)

Yes forgive me, you are quite right. I wrote my response shortly after getting up and was not fully awake... :Smile-hiding:

Cleric2145 #48 Posted Oct 15 2012 - 22:21

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 6592 battles
  • 151
  • [LTG_B] LTG_B
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010

View Postalternaive, on Oct 15 2012 - 11:03, said:

I am currently playing mainly German tanks, but my final aim is to gather an "All-star" team. I don't think that German tanks were generally superior to their allied counterparts, but I think there are a few reasons why the German tanks ingame perform worse than expected/worse than they should do historically.
*snip*

All my +1's go to you sir, that was very well-reasoned and explained.

Lostwingman #49 Posted Oct 15 2012 - 22:35

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 22933 battles
  • 24,252
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    01-11-2011

View PostSuperZero0ne, on Oct 08 2012 - 23:14, said:

Now if you look back into history there was a 5:1 ratio of M4's and PzIV deaths.
lol
>Putting the German subforums in charge of history

What in the hell is going on with the universe....

xthetenth #50 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 07:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 14701 battles
  • 3,528
  • [SEAMN] SEAMN
  • Member since:
    09-02-2010

View Postcamperben, on Oct 13 2012 - 06:31, said:

I believe it is common knowlege that the Russians were quite willing to sacrifice 10 tanks to knock out 1 German Panzer. They continue that strategy today. Russians build in numbers to overwhelm and the US builds quality to kill 20 tanks each. They did the same thing at Kursk that they intended to do in the Fulda Gap.....send through hordes of cheap, easy to build tanks and win by sheer weight of numbers.

As for the M4 comments above. I find the M4 in this game environment to be an extreemly tough opponent in any tank I have run yet. I know this is not a simulator but the M4 was a piece of garbage in WWII which was famous for having a skin like soft butter and a propensity to catch on fire from just about any hit from any side. Oddly we adopted the Russian strategy of building an inferior tank compared to anything the germans fielded so we could mass produce tons and overwhelm.  They were a joke on the battlefield against anything but infantry (and even then still very vulnerable to the Panzerfaust and other infantry shaped charged weapons).

I get that its a game but it kinda bugs me that a tank that caused so many needless deaths in WWII is in here as somekind of serious opponent. If this was a simulator any hit from ANY german tank ...just about anywhere would destroy it instantly.  You had to be pretty clever or lucky to take out a Panzer with an M4 Sherman. All a panzer had to do was hit you anywhere once...and the M4 was a bonfire. Also the range of the Germans was vastly superior...another big problem when you have weak armor and a main gun that had no chance to penn.

This is the best. Remember kids, the presence of armor has no effect on infantry losses because combined arms isn't a thing. The Sherman's armor, which was thicker than contemporary Panzer IV marks is like soft butter and its rate of catching fire, which was in the 30% range with wet ammo racks (lower than late model panzers) is just about any hit. The Allies were in no way limited to what could be shipped over, lifted out of a ship by cranes in ports and supplied by ports that were recently captured. It's a mystery why they kept their main tanks to designs that reflected those limitations.

Truefacts™. Or maybe Belton Cooper's had a terrible effect on WWII historiography and people were idiots to think that a guy working in a repair depot would have anything other than a wildly skewed view of a machine he only saw when it was broken. I wonder what the take of a medic would be if the US had gone the other way and all he'd heard was dying and wounded soldiers cursing the lack of tank support that saw them needlessly bloodied in painful assaults on positions that could be reduced and suppressed if only a tank had been there.

I could make a far better argument that the Panzers only look so good because Germany made a conscious decision to arbitrarily inflate their tanks' performance numbers. This would actually be consistent with all their major policies on the construction and deployment of their tanks.

Lazar_Lyusternik #51 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 15:06

    Captain

  • Players
  • 8127 battles
  • 1,199
  • Member since:
    07-15-2012
Great post, alternaive! No sense quoting the entire thing.
Armor thickness is taken into account. Quality is not.
Soviet gun penetration values are inflated, as well.
German gun: L/48 75mm (Panzer IV gun)
96 penetration at 500m, armor slope 30 degrees - historical
In-game value: 110mm
Soviet gun: F-34 75mm (T-34 gun)
69 penetration at 500m, presumed no slope - historical
In-game value: 109mm

Hmm... Which one seems more inflated for 'balance'?

Legiondude #52 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 15:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 20896 battles
  • 23,198
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostLazar_Lyusternik, on Oct 16 2012 - 15:06, said:

Great post, alternaive! No sense quoting the entire thing.
Armor thickness is taken into account. Quality is not.
Soviet gun penetration values are inflated, as well.
German gun: L/48 75mm (Panzer IV gun)
96 penetration at 500m, armor slope 30 degrees - historical
In-game value: 110mm
Soviet gun: F-34 75mm (T-34 gun)
69 penetration at 500m, presumed no slope - historical
In-game value: 109mm

Hmm... Which one seems more inflated for 'balance'?
Steel quality is apparently a "soft" stat(It's unlisted)

And penetration values in game are measured at 100m IIRC, not 500

alternaive #53 Posted Oct 16 2012 - 17:04

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 4498 battles
  • 388
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012
No, they didn't use real penetration values. They used them as "rough idea" and then put a lot of balancing and other stuff into the game. In reality the 75 mm L48 of the Panzer IV firing Pzgr. 39 APCBC ammunition can penetrate slightly more armour than the 76 mm gun M1A1 with the M62 APCBC ammunition or the 85 mm gun D-5T with BR-365 (APCBC) ammunition. Ingame however the later guns are better...

Hydrovindictus #54 Posted Oct 17 2012 - 00:31

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 12094 battles
  • 532
  • [REL-V] REL-V
  • Member since:
    09-07-2012

View Postcamperben, on Oct 13 2012 - 06:31, said:

I believe it is common knowlege that the Russians were quite willing to sacrifice 10 tanks to knock out 1 German Panzer. They continue that strategy today. Russians build in numbers to overwhelm and the US builds quality to kill 20 tanks each. They did the same thing at Kursk that they intended to do in the Fulda Gap.....send through hordes of cheap, easy to build tanks and win by sheer weight of numbers.

As for the M4 comments above. I find the M4 in this game environment to be an extreemly tough opponent in any tank I have run yet. I know this is not a simulator but the M4 was a piece of garbage in WWII which was famous for having a skin like soft butter and a propensity to catch on fire from just about any hit from any side. Oddly we adopted the Russian strategy of building an inferior tank compared to anything the germans fielded so we could mass produce tons and overwhelm.  They were a joke on the battlefield against anything but infantry (and even then still very vulnerable to the Panzerfaust and other infantry shaped charged weapons).

I get that its a game but it kinda bugs me that a tank that caused so many needless deaths in WWII is in here as somekind of serious opponent. If this was a simulator any hit from ANY german tank ...just about anywhere would destroy it instantly.  You had to be pretty clever or lucky to take out a Panzer with an M4 Sherman. All a panzer had to do was hit you anywhere once...and the M4 was a bonfire. Also the range of the Germans was vastly superior...another big problem when you have weak armor and a main gun that had no chance to penn.

You forgot what the tankers themselves called them in WWII, "rolling coffins".  It would take 4 shermans to take out one german tank.  Three to get killed so the fourth could circle around and have a chance at penning the rear armor.

ComradeHX #55 Posted Oct 17 2012 - 01:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 13810 battles
  • 5,749
  • Member since:
    12-02-2011
Imo, PzIV is fine with 105mm.

Its on-the-move accuracy is pretty good with 105mm.

ComradeHX #56 Posted Oct 17 2012 - 01:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 13810 battles
  • 5,749
  • Member since:
    12-02-2011

View Postcamperben, on Oct 13 2012 - 06:31, said:

I believe it is common knowlege that the Russians were quite willing to sacrifice 10 tanks to knock out 1 German Panzer. They continue that strategy today. Russians build in numbers to overwhelm and the US builds quality to kill 20 tanks each. They did the same thing at Kursk that they intended to do in the Fulda Gap.....send through hordes of cheap, easy to build tanks and win by sheer weight of numbers.
In WWII they built cheap tanks and kept decreasing production cost not because they want to sacrifice however many tanks for one german one; it is because there is a lot of demand for a lot of tanks, and the difference between having tank and not is huge.  Cheap is better than no tank.


Today, Russia is keeping old tanks and upgrade them(slap on new gun, fcs, era, and maybe engine); not building low quality tanks for war(monkey versions were to make money).
Not like Russia does not build tank with plane engine or with super expensive technology; just that those were found to not be as great as people thought they were.

Edited by ComradeHX, Oct 17 2012 - 01:44.


Tiger_23 #57 Posted Oct 17 2012 - 02:28

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 11547 battles
  • 10,227
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010
Let me put some points here: (Ingame x RL)

Ingame the german pen values are at 30°

The russian pen values are at 90°/0º

Soviets tested his guns on flat plates (with poor quality), while Germans tested his guns on 30° plates with pretty good quality.

Classic Ex:


76mm F-34  .....................................................................................................75mm 40 L/48

Pen at 100m : 64-67mm@30° ....................................................................Pen at 100m : 106mm@30° INGAME ''buff''

Soviet method : 86mm@90°/0° IN-GAME.....................................................Soviet Method : 129-131mm@90°/0°

Shell Weight: 6.3 kg.......................................................................................Shell Weight: 6.80 kg
Muzzle Velocity: 655 m/s.................................................................................Muzzle Velocity: 790 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 1351 kj....................................................................................Kinetic Energy: 2122 kj
KE Density: 29.79 kj/cm^2................................................................................KE Density: 48.03 kj/cm^2


Also, The 88 L56 have 150-162mm@0°/90° IRL

122mmD-25T

WoT pen 175mm...


1 - D25T AP shell used in ww2 was BR-471, WoT is using the UBR-471 post-war ammo.

2 - Bundesarchiv docs , Test with 122mm D-25 soviet gun :


penetration values as against vertical armour!
USA data from test on aberdeen and DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) data from archives.


Yes comrades!

DDR/Aberdeen tests:


122D-25T = 158mm@100m/30°**
Shell Weight:  25 kg, APBC (AP)
Muzzle Velocity:  780 m/s
Kinetic Energy:  7605 kj

88 43 L71 = 202mm@100m/30° (value used in game)
Shell Weight:  10.4 kg, APCBC (AP)
Muzzle Velocity:  1000 m/s
Kinetic Energy:  5200 kj


USSR tests:

122D-25T = 175-180mm@100m/0°(90°)** (value used in game)

88 43 L71 = 240-250mm@100m/0°(90°)

** BR-471 ammo , used in WW2. The actual ammo used in Wot is UBR-471 (post war).

@WOT:

Put the Russian guns to 30° values like the Germans or put the German guns with the 0°/90° Values like the Russians.

Edited by Tiger_23, Oct 17 2012 - 02:33.


redplauge #58 Posted Oct 24 2012 - 13:36

    Captain

  • Players
  • 16320 battles
  • 1,100
  • [W-G] W-G
  • Member since:
    02-27-2011

View PostThe_Elephant, on Oct 08 2012 - 23:21, said:

As for this post, I have no idea what your talking about, all I can tell you is get the 3601 not the 30001 :D

well the 3001p is ok, the 3001h is a pos.

as for the pz4 with its berff of -50(or so) pen, it now is dead. just skip it. 3001p, 3601, tiger, ect. use as a second line sniper. not main line battle tank.

and as for "historical accuracy" get over it.

bullofscapa #59 Posted Oct 26 2012 - 22:23

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 4468 battles
  • 594
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostTiger_23, on Oct 17 2012 - 02:28, said:

Let me put some points here: (Ingame x RL)

Ingame the german pen values are at 30°

The russian pen values are at 90°/0º

Soviets tested his guns on flat plates (with poor quality), while Germans tested his guns on 30° plates with pretty good quality.

Classic Ex:


76mm F-34  .....................................................................................................75mm 40 L/48

Pen at 100m : 64-67mm@30° ....................................................................Pen at 100m : 106mm@30° INGAME ''buff''

Soviet method : 86mm@90°/0° IN-GAME.....................................................Soviet Method : 129-131mm@90°/0°

Shell Weight: 6.3 kg.......................................................................................Shell Weight: 6.80 kg
Muzzle Velocity: 655 m/s.................................................................................Muzzle Velocity: 790 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 1351 kj....................................................................................Kinetic Energy: 2122 kj
KE Density: 29.79 kj/cm^2................................................................................KE Density: 48.03 kj/cm^2


Also, The 88 L56 have 150-162mm@0°/90° IRL

122mmD-25T

WoT pen 175mm...


1 - D25T AP shell used in ww2 was BR-471, WoT is using the UBR-471 post-war ammo.

2 - Bundesarchiv docs , Test with 122mm D-25 soviet gun :


penetration values as against vertical armour!
USA data from test on aberdeen and DDR (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) data from archives.


Yes comrades!

DDR/Aberdeen tests:


122D-25T = 158mm@100m/30°**
Shell Weight:  25 kg, APBC (AP)
Muzzle Velocity:  780 m/s
Kinetic Energy:  7605 kj

88 43 L71 = 202mm@100m/30° (value used in game)
Shell Weight:  10.4 kg, APCBC (AP)
Muzzle Velocity:  1000 m/s
Kinetic Energy:  5200 kj


USSR tests:

122D-25T = 175-180mm@100m/0°(90°)** (value used in game)

88 43 L71 = 240-250mm@100m/0°(90°)

** BR-471 ammo , used in WW2. The actual ammo used in Wot is UBR-471 (post war).

@WOT:

Put the Russian guns to 30° values like the Germans or put the German guns with the 0°/90° Values like the Russians.

^^^^

They will never do this, because the 122 will not be the god cannon it is now in game. The KV 1S is OP with the D-2-5T. I played my Panzer IV today for the first time post patch, and it is horrible. The gun misses at 400M more than it hits (yes it is a 100% crew), and it bounces way too much against targets I never had issues with before. Cant hit weak spots at range anymore due to the horrible dispersion of the L/48. I want my L/70 back, or I want the L/48's dispersion and aim time reduced. Or a Pen buff.... either way, they screwed up a tank that had nothing wrong with it in the first place.

Edited by bullofscapa, Oct 28 2012 - 04:01.


a_hippie #60 Posted Oct 26 2012 - 22:31

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 33216 battles
  • 2,097
  • Member since:
    01-04-2011

View PostSuperZero0ne, on Oct 08 2012 - 23:14, said:

Is it just me or do some of the German tanks seem nerfed compared to their american counter parts.(Yes I know that some of this has already been discussed before.) For example, I go into matches with my PzIV and majority of my deaths are from M4's, T1 HT's, M4A3E2's, and M4A3E8's. Now if you look back into history there was a 5:1 ratio of M4's and PzIV deaths. Now I have my PzIV fully upgraded and I use the 105 gun on it, I fire, they take the hit, they fire, I die. It's really irritating, what are your thoughts guys?

It is not just you. Welcome to my Russian fantasy.





Also tagged with Germanbias

3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users