Tank Penetration vs Range graph and statistics

UPDATED- WFA Vehicles



OKW vehicles have had fuel costs adjusted by 150% to compensate. Vehicles are arranged in ascending order of fuel cost (except the Dodge, which was mistakenly placed) by type category.

Credits to http://www.coh2-stats.com/ and Tensai Oni for the data.

The penetration/range graph will be completed at some point in the near future (hopefully).

NOT UPDATED


The light blue tank names on the left side are the armor values.

You might notice that the Elefant, Pak 43 and the ISU aren't present. That's because the range of both and the penetration of the Elefant and Pak 43 distort the rest of the graph, as seen here-

NOT UPDATED

the panther should be 240 at mid, something is up somewhere.

the panther should be 240 at mid, something is up somewhere.

That's what I thought as well- maybe the source website isn't accurate?

http://coh2-stats.herokuapp.com/ballistic_weapons/panther_75mm_mp

The other unit stats for the Panther (such as cost) seem to be up to date though, so I'm not too sure.

http://coh2-stats.herokuapp.com/ballistic_weapons
Looks like there aren't any weapons with 240 penetration at mid except the Brummbar stun round.

You could add the Pak43, and in general Paks^^ btw gj.

Personal comments:
Looks like the Sherman does really high DPS, if it can penetrate, owing to a low reload.
The T-34/85, which has a similar cost, has medium-low DPS but is more reliable at close range against heavy armor due to better penetration values.

The Panzer IV has abnormally high armor values for its cost, but has a mediocre HP value and its gun is pretty bad to boot.

The Puma is an oddball, the only longer-ranged anti-tank vehicle which has very high falloff, from 160 near to 80 far.

And for a tank hunter, the Panther has a lower penetration values than I'd have expected.

Go ahead and point out any inaccuracies/mistakes/whatnot as well.

- Stug G and E versions costs differences are very low, penetration and damage differences are twice bigger
- Elefants deals twice more damage altho it had same gun caliber as Tiger
- Puma close, mid penetration is bugged? it should be 120/100/80 I believe

So we're not imagining the puma overperforming...Panther also seems weak, so maybe accurate data?

Elefant has the better 88 with more muzzle velocity which makes it that effective ^^

You could add the Pak43, and in general Paks^^ btw gj.

Done! The Zis has the same penetration drop-off as the SU85, with slightly longer reload. The Pak 40 is 10PEN better across all ranges. Pak43 is way up there, and the M42 down at the bottom.

Stug G and E versions costs differences are very low, penetration and damage differences are twice bigger

The stats here really only matters for anti-tank purposes, and the Stug E minces infantry much better than the already buffed G version.

you used excel and cloud to make this?

The Panther should be at 240, we are looking into it.

Elefant has the better 88 with more muzzle velocity which makes it that effective ^^

I know muzzle velocity is higher in Elefant, but in game it deals 2x Tiger's and 2x IS-2's damage Kappa

Hmmm thats odd

Nice thread.

Sturmingbeard, is there any chance to put penetration chances (in percentage) for some tanks vs others or at least write formula of it how it's counted?


btw. this thread is good to place it in front of coh2.org page

you used excel and cloud to make this?

Excel and MSPaint, actually

The Panther should be at 240, we are looking into it.

Good to hear.

Sturmingbeard, is there any chance to put penetration chances (in percentage) for some tanks vs others or at least write formula of it how it's counted?

Penetration chance is Penetration/Armor. So at point blank penetration percentage for T-34/85 against a P4 is (160/180)*100 = 88%

I'll work on a couple common matchups.

CTP=Chance to penetrate
TTK=Time to kill
Note that this assumes damage is constant when it isn't. A tank with 161HP will last a whole reload cycle more than a tank with 160HP when hit with a 160DMG shell. Most tanks have HP in multiples of 160 or 80, though, which simplifies matters.

IS2 vs Tiger, Max range.
IS2 63% CTP Tiger, DPS 15.75, TTK 81.3 seconds
Tiger 53% CTP IS2, DPS 16.96, TTK 56.6 seconds

Tiger wins convincingly, as IS2 takes 1.4 times longer to kill it.

IS2 vs Tiger, Close range.
IS2 83% CTP Tiger, DPS 20.8, TTK 61.5 seconds
Tiger 64% CTP IS2, DPS 20.7, TTK 46.3 seconds

Tiger wins slightly less convincingly, as IS2 takes 1.33 times longer to kill it.

In both cases the Tiger wins despite lower penetration and lower armor due to lower reload and importantly higher health. If the Tiger had 960HP it would lose at point blank, slightly.

I'll figure out T-34/76, Sherman, and T-34/85 against P4 later, that being a very common scenario.

Fucking eh nice job Strummingbird. I can't say I'm having much luck at using Soviet armor since the patch, I'm still learning. Will post some comments up once I get some more seat time.

Verry nice job. Thank you man for posting this charts.

Here are a couple more.

T-34/85 vs P4, Max range
T-34/85 66.6% CTP P4, DPS 17.48, TTK 36.61 seconds
P4 62.5% CTP T-34/85, DPS 20, TTK 40 seconds
T-34/85 Wins

T-34/85 wins despite a lower DPS due to its 160HP advantage.

T-34/85 vs P4, Close range
T-34/85 89% CTP P4, DPS 23.3, TTK 27.5 seconds
P4 75% CTP T-34/85, DPS 24, TTK 33.3 seconds
T-34/85 Wins

DPS evens up at close range due to increased ramp-up on the T-34's 85mm, thereby increasing disparity.


Sherman vs P4, Max range
Sherman 66% CTP P4, DPS 24.27, TTK 26.37 seconds
P4 62.5% CTP Sherman, DPS 20, TTK 32 seconds
Sherman Wins

Sherman vs P4, Close range
Sherman 77.7% CTP P4, DPS 28.6, TTK 22.37 seconds
P4 75% CTP Sherman, DPS 24, TTK 26.67 seconds
Sherman Wins

The Sherman deals a lot of damage, but can't take much either.


T-34/76 vs P4, Max range
T-34/76 44.4% CTP P4, DPS 11.02, TTK 58.07 seconds
P4 66.6% CTP T-34/76, DPS 21.3, TTK 30.04 seconds
P4 Wins

T-34/76 vs P4, Close range
T-34/76 66.6% CTP P4, DPS 16.5, TTK 38.78 seconds
P4 80% CTP T-34/76 , DPS 25.6, TTK 25 seconds
P4 Wins

Compared to the other 'heavy mediums' the Soviets have, the T-34/76, for its cost, has much better armor. On the other hand, it's gun is terrible, especially at range, firing very slowly and not compensating with penetration.

It looks like the trend points towards tanks doing better at different ranges, but so far I haven't come across and two vehicles where difference in performance at range is so drastic that at close one wins and at max range the other one does.

This thread, I approve.
Much useful info.

And I guess this is part which I do not want to learn by heart.

Thank you Strummingbird for this info and work you put in to this.