Close Combat Series :: View topic - MarkIIIL vs T34...Three blown T34s in a raw..

MarkIIIL vs T34...Three blown T34s in a raw..

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> CC5 Stalingrad

#1: MarkIIIL vs T34...Three blown T34s in a raw.. Author: cronus,

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:31 pm
—
I've been experiencing that the small caliber 50mm L60 gun of the PzIII is better than the PZIVG's 75mm L48 gun against hard targets like T34 and KV1.

Last night my microcontrolled PzIII knocked out 3 t34s in a raw less than a minute. I came out of the forest and first 2 of the shots are sideshots and the last one is on the front..I achieved this with run-stop-fire. At the edge of the forest I did the first shot, they were unaware of me..first T34 knocked out..All 2 T34s fired at me but I was on the move, they missed. When they were reloading, I stopped and fired, second one blown.Then moved again, the last one turned on me with the hull, fired again and missed, then I stop and fired, it was a direct hit from the front.. 3 shots, 3 success, it was quiet a view.I could never do it with a PzIVG, cause it's slower and somewhat it's aim is worse even with experienced crew.

#2: Re: MarkIIIL vs T34...Three blown T34s in a raw.. Author: Antifa,

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 9:57 pm
—

cronus wrote:

Last night my microcontrolled PzIII knocked out 3 t34s in a raw less than a minute.

. . . in a row in less than a minute . .

The game can be quirky at times. A lot of it is chance.

#3: Author: Arg0n, Location: Slavonski Brod

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:18 pm
—
The game is a bit wierd. The last time I looked 1 T-34 shot 3 mark III's. But then again i read that that german AT weapon (I think that rifle don't know the name) penetrated IS-1's armor on a weak spot somwhere on the lower hull. So life too has its strange moments. And as Antifa said a lot of the game is pure chance.

Last edited by Arg0n on Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:33 pm; edited 1 time in total

#4: Author: Hedges13, Location: USA

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:20 pm
—
well i suppose the reason that u got so lucky with ur tank 3 shots 3 kills is most likely because u were shooting at T34 ober. 42's - the significantly weaker ones with poor optics... had they been T34 ober. 43's... you most likely would not have destroyed even one of them.

However, if my assumption is incorrect and they were ober. '43s then .... wow that is a pretty big quirk! Smile

anyways good hunting[/b]

#5: Author: Arg0n, Location: Slavonski Brod

Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 11:45 pm
—
A question: what are optics needed for? the most conflict in CC range from about 50 to 500, and in Stal. the ranges are about 200m so the hits are mostly accurate. Even Stevie Wonder (no offense to blind people) could hit a tank from 200m.
PS. I am a flexibile man so correct me if I am wrong.

#6: Author: Nembo,

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:40 am
—
Optics help you hit a target a lot more then aiming looking done the gun barrel. I think you would agree. Smile

#7: Author: WH,

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:53 am
—
One thing sure is that the tank warfare in Close Combat series depends on luck and chance to some degree. It is Close Combat that even Stuart can blow away King tiger. Rolling Eyes

#8: Author: RD_Cobalth-77,

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 7:49 am
—
Yes, you need some luck, but Cronus has a point, it is easier to kill any T-34 with the PzIIIJ than with the PzIVG in Stalingrad mod.
Don't know why, but we came to the same conclusion.

#9: Author: cronus,

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:07 am
—
They were battle hardened T34 obr.42s...Not the rookie ones, they reacted pretty well but I was luckier and faster.

Point is this. Why the small caliber L60 is better than 75mm long barreled L48?? This is not one occasion, I've been experiencing this all the time.

When your PzIVG fires a AP on a T34, it almost always immobilize or damage it but not kill it. But when an experienced PZIII crew fires on T34 from even distances like 500m, it almost always kills it at the first shot, if not, PzIIIJs fast reloading time is the reason of a death T34.

I have a PzIIIJ with 8 hard target credits, two of them are KV1s. Never a PzIVG could achieve that score.

#10: Author: Arg0n, Location: Slavonski Brod

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:34 am
—
Yes that's fine n' all, but as I read the T-34 could penetrate 60 mm from 1Km with the standard APHE shell and Pz III had 50 mm in the front. go to http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ and check the data. There is always some sort of a mistake in CC games, but I think that is a "disease" native to most CC games. See my thread Why the Panther is so stong? There are dumb situations where Mk IVH kicks the living sh** out of IS-2! But then again I am always complaining so...

#11: Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:24 pm
—
Argon,

study topic better bfr making such conclusions...

Quote:

Yes that's fine n' all, but as I read the T-34 could penetrate 60 mm from 1Km with the standard APHE shell and Pz III had 50 mm in the front

60mm vs what kind of armor plate? which PzIII had 50mm frontal armor? What type of armor PzIII had?

Quote:

There are dumb situations where Mk IVH kicks the living sh** out of IS-2

so what? why PzIVH couldn't pen. JS-2? I'd say at ranges closer than 500m JS-2 had no chances vs PzIVH(only if JS hit PzIVH at first shot).

1) PzIII was always better armored than PzIV as it was supposed to fight vs tanx(by german doctrine) and PzIV was for inf support role.
2)5cm KwK39 PzGren40 (APCR) could pen 151mm@100m/90deg(147mm@100m/90deg for KwK40(APCR)) but lacked AP power at further ranges 84mm@500m/90deg (KwK40=126mm@500m/90deg). So at ranges up to 200-300m KwK39/Pak38 can KO anything.

Each german tank have 8 SP(APCR) shells in Stal.

Quote:

it is easier to kill any T-34 with the PzIIIJ than with the PzIVG in Stalingrad mod

yes at ranges up to 200-300m. As it has better AP perfomance and better ROF.

Quote:

Point is this. Why the small caliber L60 is better than 75mm long barreled L48

there is no 7.5cm L/48 in Stal mod at all.

#12: Author: Arg0n, Location: Slavonski Brod

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:56 pm
—
Stupid explorer. Very Happy

Last edited by Arg0n on Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:13 pm; edited 1 time in total

#13: Author: Arg0n, Location: Slavonski Brod

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:58 pm
—
Dima, PzKpfw III Ausf J, SdKfz 141/1 had 50 mm of homogenous steel armor.
And penetration tables are for for homogenous steel armor at 90 degrees.
About the second thing you are right, but still just because you say something does not mean it's correct. As far as I'm informed the above stats are correct.

PS. Dima if I'm wrong correct me again and give me some of your history resources.
I am a polite man and if I ever insult anyone with my stubborn personality I apologise.

Arg0n.

#14: Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:06 pm
—
sry if i was too rude...

Quote:

Dima, PzKpfw III Ausf J, SdKfz 141/1 had 50 mm of homogenous steel armor.

1)PzIIIJ had FH(face-hardened) armor plates for most parts that resisted much better vs APHE than RHA(rolled hmogenous armor).That is represented in Stalingrad.
Why u think brits removed HE fillers even from US 75mm shells and no british AP had HE filler.
2)since spring 1942 PzIIIJ:
a)20mm FHA plate was added to high front hull plate(70mm FHA total).
b)20mm FHA plate was added to frontal turret(almost 70mm FHA total).

Quote:

And penetration tables are for for homogenous steel armor at 90 degrees.

60mm pen. at 1000m/90deg is incorrect for F-34 gun and BR-350B shell.

guaranteed pen. at 1000m/90 was 68mm. Initial pen. was 78mm.
Stalingrad uses average pen. 73mm@1000m.

#15: Author: Arg0n, Location: Slavonski Brod

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:19 pm
—
Thanks for the correction Dima, BTW do you have some link about the FH armor plates.
And I was wrong coz' I didn't use the data from Russian Battlefield.
Maybe my stats are a bit pre-spring 1942, but it says the Ausf. J had 50 mm.
PS do you know in what kind of armor was Molybdenum (Mo) used in the armor plates of German tanks?
Arg0n.

#16: Ohh yes Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:32 pm
—
Smile

Hello men, Im back.

I just got ADSL, and im now DL map by map, (my ADSL disconects...) and im really look forward to try this mod. I really excited to see the huge reserch work done by Dima.adb and the work of grapix.crew.
All this talk here make me even more eager to get the DL.. Smile

Optics/sights in General
Optics, vs No-optics at 200 meter would not make any differance, in some situations as fog, bad lights, bad weather at close ranges open sight is supperior, and in some situations no differance.
At ranges over some 400 meters the situation changes, and optics is preferd.
But, differance betwen good optics, vs avarage optics in good lightning situation is non at all. The differance comes in lowlight,bad contrast situations and such.

Ye!
Stalk

#17: Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:48 pm
—

Quote:

BTW do you have some link about the FH armor plates

try to search in the net or get book.

Quote:

PS do you know in what kind of armor was Molybdenum (Mo) used in the armor plates of German tanks

not v sure but it seems like RHA plates used for Panther and Tiger1 had Molybdenym(at least till spring 1944).
TigerII RHA didn't have it. Vanadium was used instead.

#18: Author: Arg0n, Location: Slavonski Brod

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:30 pm
—
Yes I read the article: "Was King Tiger really king" and it seems that Vanadium made it brittle, 122 shots (HE I think) caused armor cracking. but this is off topic. Yes I remember I forgot to tell that sometimes I've seen 88 mm L/71 in the game bounce off a T-34's armor from about 100m so it's a bit wierd.
Comments any one?

#19: Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:31 pm
—

Arg0n wrote:

Yes I remember I forgot to tell that sometimes I've seen 88 mm L/71 in the game bounce off a T-34's armor from about 100m so it's a bit wierd.
Comments any one?

in Stal?

#20: Author: Arg0n, Location: Slavonski Brod

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:36 pm
—
No but other mods, CC3, but some wierd s*** in Stal too.
Don't worry Dima I think it's the game, not the mod.
Let me simplify the game is great, but everything has it's own problems, and the game can sometimes to "miracles" out of realism (lucky shots, elite AT troops fleeing when they have to assault a tank...) do you understand?

#21: Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:53 pm
—

Arg0n wrote:

No but other mods, CC3, but some wierd s*** in Stal too.
Don't worry Dima I think it's the game, not the mod.

well, i just thought for a bit that u found 8.8cm L/71 in Stal Very Happy

....bitching Laughing

anyway i'd say it's possible in reality...if shell hit sloped frontal hull and actually depends on angle of impact. :tank
Well sometimes 7.62mm can't pen. steel helmet Very Happy

.

Make CC not war! :drink2

#22: Author: Arg0n, Location: Slavonski Brod

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:32 am
—
One thing I noticed that most people thought that tanks engaged each other head to head, but tankers often turned their tank about 20 deg to the sides so the engagement angle of the front armor was not 90 deg but 70, so if the armor is sloped it was even harder to blow it up. Have you watched Band of Brothers when that guy turned around just as the sinper tried to hit him in the head and it saved his life? When you asked that question "in Stal?" i thought What the... Confused

AFAIK Nashorns and Ferdinands first used 8.8 cm L/71 in german army and they appeared in 1943.

#23: Author: HistoryTeaches, Location: Germany

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:31 am
—
when was Stalingrad over ? Wink

#24: Author: ronson, Location: England

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:31 pm
—
The Northern pocket finally surrendered on 2nd February 1943, the Southern pocket and von Paulus surrendered prior to this on the 31st of January. Why he refused to surrender the whole army at the same time, and prolonged the suffering of his soldiers is one of the criticisms that he spent the last years of his life attempting to justify.

Cheers
Ronson

#25: Author: HistoryTeaches, Location: Germany

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:19 pm
—
i was just trying to show Argon that Nashorn and Ferdinand/Elefant were not avaliable during Stalingrad

but thanks for making this historic point ronson Smile

#26: Author: Arg0n, Location: Slavonski Brod

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:25 pm
—
HistoryTeaches I know that Nashorn and Ferdinand were not avaliable during stal, they first appeared in July at Kursk.
I know that: this mod is 1942, and Stalingrad battle ended in Feb. 1943 as ronson said. Kursk was fom 4. July to 23. August. Don't jump to conclusions. When I said What the... I thought Dima was mistaken or he was trying to get me into a "trap" because I know that 88mm KwK L/71 was NOT in use in any AFV-s on the front till 1943 in July when these two first appeared.
So please think about some things before you try to discredit anyone.
Always ask to make sure you got the message right about before trying to correct a mistake. Tko pita ne skita! (Croatian proverb translated: He who asks does not wander!)
But no hard feelings ok?

#27: Author: HistoryTeaches, Location: Germany

Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:26 pm
—
just trying to help you honey Razz

#28: Author: cronus,

Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:18 am
—

Dima wrote:

Argon,

study topic better bfr making such conclusions...

Quote:

Yes that's fine n' all, but as I read the T-34 could penetrate 60 mm from 1Km with the standard APHE shell and Pz III had 50 mm in the front

60mm vs what kind of armor plate? which PzIII had 50mm frontal armor? What type of armor PzIII had?

Quote:

There are dumb situations where Mk IVH kicks the living sh** out of IS-2

Quote:

it is easier to kill any T-34 with the PzIIIJ than with the PzIVG in Stalingrad mod

yes at ranges up to 200-300m. As it has better AP perfomance and better ROF.

Quote:

Point is this. Why the small caliber L60 is better than 75mm long barreled L48

there is no 7.5cm L/48 in Stal mod at all.

Yes, I've made a mistake to think that the PzIVG's with L48 gun. But the early variants had L43 gun, which is comparable to Soviet F34 gun and L48 gun,so there is no big difference between them.

75mm KwK 40 L/43
Penetration of Armor Plate at 30 degrees from Vertical.
Ammunition:.......100m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
Panzergranate 39 98mm 91mm 82mm 72mm 63mm
Panzergranate 40 126mm 108mm 87mm 69mm 0mm

Pzgr.39 (APCBC) - Armor Piercing Composite Ballistic Cap
Pzgr.40 (APCR) - Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (Tungsten Core)

50mm KwK 39 L/60
Penetration of Armor Plate at 30 degrees from Vertical.
Ammunition:.......100m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
Panzergranate 39 67mm 57mm 44mm 34mm 26mm
Panzergranate 40 130mm 72mm 38mm 0mm 0mm

But there is a BIG difference on the paper with the L/43 and L/60 guns,in favor of PzIVG's L/43 gun. But the Stalingrad mod experince tells the opposite. I've seen many occasions that the L/60 gun is far better at penetrating of T34's and KV-1's armour.

Let's come to the armour issue;

The armor of PZIIIJ/L/M;
Front Turret: 57/15
Front Upper Hull: 50+20/9
Front Lower Hull: 50/21
Side Turret: 30/25
Side Upper Hull: 30/0
Side Lower Hull: 30/0
Rear Turret: 30/12
Rear Upper Hull: 50/17
Rear Lower Hull: 50/9
Turret Top / Bottom: 10/83
Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 18/79
Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 16/90
Gun Mantlet: 50+20/0

The armor of PzIVG;
Front Turret: 50/11
Front Upper Hull: 50 or 50+30/10
Front Lower Hull: 50 or 50+30/12
Side Turret: 30/26
Side Upper Hull: 30/0
Side Lower Hull: 30/0
Rear Turret: 30/10
Rear Upper Hull: 20/12
Rear Lower Hull: 20/9
Turret Top / Bottom: 10/83
Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 12/85
Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 10/90
Gun Mantlet: 50/0

PzIIIJ/L/M's armour is slightly better than PzIVG, but I think it does not give an edge for PzIII to fight against enemy tanks over PZIVG.

#29: Ye Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:08 pm
—
Hmm

Intresting topic.

Just some of the German OKH’s own thoughts in the subject.

III: The 5cm L/60 was useful vs Grant and Valentine in Africa, but hit had little value in FRONTAL engagement with T-34 and Kv-1.

III L with 5cm L/60, In march 1942 they looked to replace the 5cm L/60, test to fit the IV 7.5cm turret to the III/L, but it was to heavy, idea scraped, continued production with 5cm L/60.
They had ordered 1.100 III/L, but in June 1942 it was cut back to 653, and 450 would be fitted with the 7.5 L/24, Named III N.

In March 1942, OKH considered replacing as soon as possible the Pz III by the Panther, in June 1942, the order of 1000 of the final Pz III (M), was cut back to 775. Shortly afterwards it was decided to take 165 of the chassis to make Stug of the instead.
Then reaction from the front about the III N with the 7.5cm L/24 came in, and they was positive, the commanders liked them and so did the crews.
At this point they totally abandoned the 5cm, and decided to make the remaining (M) model as III N with the 7.5 L/24. They put aside 100 (M) to be built as flamers.
In all, only 250 of the 1000 Pz IIIM was built with 5cm L/60.

In general (not specific to this mod), the 5cm T/D is matched the T-34, the 7.5 L/43 is far better +66%, and have a good ratio. And the energy of the 5.0cm L/60 is 718.000 j. The 7.5 L/43 is 1.861.000 j, this gives the 7.5cm a huge advantage factor at 2.59 + the extra T/D.
The pressure in cm2 is: for the 5cm L/60= 36.000 j and for the 7.5cm 42.000 j.

Ye !

Stalky

I really like this Mod, Smile

more Stalingrad to the community!

#30: Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 12:28 pm
—
cronus,
took u some time to write heh Razz

Quote:

KwK40 Panzergranate 40 126mm 108mm 87mm 69mm 0mm
KwK39 Panzergranate 40 130mm 72mm 38mm 0mm 0mm

as i told in prev. replies 5cm APCR had better pen. up to 200-300m...

well,i have to admit that there is something wrong with KwK40...

yesterday my PzIVG hit T34 14times at 400+m and didn't KO it tho was destroyed by T34.
another T34'43 received 7-9 7.5cm APCR(SP) shells in it's side and wasn't even immobilized.

i can explain it actually as hit/pen probability is CC highly depends on terrain element tank located behind or next but still that's real crap.

so imo the problem is not that 5cm kills so good but that 7.5cm kills so bad. i'll c what i can do with it Smile

#31: Author: cronus,

Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 9:01 am
—
Actually I copied the data from a file, so editing was not a big problem Laughing

Personally I don't rely on PZIVG's to engage the enemy armour. They may have a better gun in real life but, it does not show itself in gameplay I don't know why? I hope you can find. Maybe an easy data correction can save the situation.

As your examples in most conditions a T-34 knocks out the PzIVG even it takes the first hit. I've never seen an occasion that the PzIVG knocked out a hard target at the first hit, maybe there is an accuracy problem for the gun.

I've lost a PZIVG against a T-60, at a h2h fight. Pz fired maybe 6 times, T-60 fired 3-4 rounds and immobilized my unit. Dissapeared and then moved back of my unit and knock'ed it out by a back shot from 70 meters. Then I could kill the T-60 with a PzIID!!!

This gives germans a big disadvantage and hinters the gameplay so much I think, because limited numbers of German panzer groups are heavily based on PzIVG medium tanks. And they are not reliable units that you can base a strategy on them. They are generally useless against enemy armour.

I can not see so much difference between assulting on a position possibly guarded by enemy tanks with or without PZIVGs. Because they turn to burning wrecks immediately.

#32: Author: Arg0n, Location: Slavonski Brod

Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 8:58 pm
—
Are you sure that was a t-60 not a 70?
If it is then the PzKpw IVG needs changing.

#33: Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 9:04 pm
—
he meant T70 i believe, T60 can't pen PzIVG with frontal hits. But it's 50mm frontal armor can be pen. by T70 at ranges lower than 100m.

#34: Author: Arg0n, Location: Slavonski Brod

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:29 am
—
Darn the double post please delete this one!

Last edited by Arg0n on Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:40 am; edited 2 times in total

#35: Author: Arg0n, Location: Slavonski Brod

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:30 am
—
Yes, TNsH 20mm is only effective against light armor. And in its original form (aircraft mounted gun) it could destroy tanks (From above). But about that T-70 I think it shows the data flaws of Pz IVG. Dima, I think the mod is great Very Happy

, but the Pz IVG needs changes. Serious ones Sad

#36: Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:32 am
—

Arg0n wrote:

Dima, I think the mod is great Very Happy

, but the Pz IVG needs changes. Serious ones Sad

what chnges?

#37: Author: Arg0n, Location: Slavonski Brod

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:42 am
—
I think the gun is slightly underpowered, but still this could be my own opinion... I know the tank is ok, but the weapon tables need only one change 7.5 cm L/43. the rest is fine.

#38: Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:48 am
—

Arg0n wrote:

I think the gun is slightly underpowered, but still this could be my own opinion... I know the tank is ok, but the weapon tables need only one change 7.5 cm L/34. the rest is fine.

fixed.

ask for patch Wink

#39: Author: cronus,

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:37 pm
—
No it was a T60, it ended up my PZIVG from the back. It was 60-70 meters away from Pz and Pz couldn't rotate the gun in time.

How can we correct the PzIVG gun issue?

#40: Author: Arg0n, Location: Slavonski Brod

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:04 pm
—
Yes I see, but you confused me when you said 6-7 shots as TNsH 20mm fires multiple shot at once. About fixing it talk to Dima.

#41: Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:42 pm
—

Quote:

but you confused me when you said 6-7 shots as TNsH 20mm fires multiple shot at once

20mm TNSh fires 1rnd each time.

Quote:

No it was a T60, it ended up my PZIVG from the back. It was 60-70 meters away from Pz and Pz couldn't rotate the gun in time

At ranges up to 100m TNSh can pen. 35mm
PzIVG has:
21mm rear hull
32mm rear turret.

#42: Author: cronus,

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:48 am
—
Hehe, 20 mm T60 gun is pretty usefull Ithink. I have one captured unit still in operation at the 5th day and tank commander got many decorations including the iron cross..Has three tanks, a field gun and over 30 infantry killings. It's fast, small (hard target) and pretty good gun for short engagements, I wonder if it can see the end of the campaign Question

Dima, do I have to wait for the next patch for the PzIVG L/43 gun correction? Cause I don't know the data editing.

#43: Author: Dima,

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:32 am
—

Quote:

Dima, do I have to wait for the next patch for the PzIVG L/43 gun correction? Cause I don't know the data editing.

yes it will be released this week.

#44: Author: cronus,

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:37 am
—
About the patch 1.2.

After the installation of the patch, I've had a fight with Russian armour group in south stalingrad dock. I don't know the port name but with couple of ships.

I've had 3 PzIIIJs, 2 PzIVGs, 2 PzIIFs, 1PzIVF.
Russian armour group had 2 T70s, 4 T34s.

At the start, I've positioned my 2 PzIVGs on longe range duel positions and PzIIIJs in ambush positions.

After the initial long range(230-240m) fire duel with PZIVGs and T34s, 2 T70s destroyed, one T34 incapacitated, and a T34 is damaged. My 2 PzIVGs are destroyed.

Seems a better long range AT capacity. It seems panzers need longer ranges to overcome the losses.

#45: Author: Dima,

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:21 am
—
well,

240m is not long range...400-500m will be better for PzIVG.

PzIVG is vulnerable at any range coz of it's 50mm armour, so u should meneuvre it and try to hit T34 with side hit. That will mean 1 shot 1 kill:).

#46: PzIIIL still outperforms PZIVG Author: cronus,

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:51 am
—
Stupid thing is that the direct hit ratio of the PZIVG is far worse than the T34 or PzIIIL.

PZIIIL>T34>PzIVG.

Is there anything in the game data that simulates the aiming capability of the gun systems of these tanks?

One thing is for sure: PzIVG is not a capable tank in this mode even with veteran crew. Such a waste of valuable resources.

#47: Re: PzIIIL still outperforms PZIVG Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:00 am
—

cronus wrote:

Stupid thing is that the direct hit ratio of the PZIVG is far worse than the T34 or PzIIIL. PZIIIL>T34>PzIVG.

u r incorrect. PzIVG>PzIIIL>T34.

Quote:

Is there anything in the game data that simulates the aiming capability of the gun systems of these tanks?

yes and PzIVG has better accuracy.

Quote:

One thing is for sure: PzIVG is not a capable tank in this mode even with veteran crew. Such a waste of valuable resources.

if it was v good in reality it wouldn't be upguned to 7.5cm L/48 and uparmored to 80mm(and they still tried to place as more track or road whells on front as possible).

still better than PzIVE/F vs T34, isn't it? Laughing

Close Combat Series -> CC5 Stalingrad

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1