ZiS-3 vs Pak-40

let's compare reload time for AT guns:

ZiS-3 - 4.4 sec
Pak-40 - 2.9 sec

That means Pak is 35% faster!

I agree that barrage from Zis-3 is OP, but main function of AT guns it's kill the tanks!!!
What do you think about this?

P.S.: dont say - use SU-85...

They didn't make paks more accurate this patch, so they're still useless. OH pak shoots faster so bad accuracy is less of a killer but Zis-26 can just be straight driven into and around by PzIVs and Oswtwinds.

Don't ever use them,they are useless,shit RoF,misses 1 out of 3 shots and when it hits it doesn't damage enough because enemy Armoured Cars/FlameHT/Tanks just circle around them and that's it...360 MP spent on nothing...my advice,decrew a Pak,now that is an AT gun

I'd swap ZiS with Pak-40 every time. Barrage is very costly and fails to do any real damage more often than it does.

I prefer the ZiS personally. The higher number of crewmen makes tanks much less likely to decrew them, which in turn makes it more reliable AT under normal circumstances (overlapping ZiS guns are very decent AT). Also easier to vet up, and to keep on the field with merge. The Barrage is a very strong tool as well.

The PAK's vet ability is awesome but I find it practically a bit lackluster against the things it needs to kill a lot of the time. T-70s will flank and decrew it, T-34s will often decrew it, IS-2s will decrew it, KV-8s will decrew it. SU-85s with the bulletin outrange it and can often destroy the gun. ZiS vet ability is less powerful but still quite nice.

PaK has only 4/6 the survival, is not Mergable, and lacks Barrage.

For this, its only advantage is 30% faster RoF.

Its pretty clear which is the shittier unit.

1 shot from p4 killing 2 man from Zis, 1 shot from t34 kill 1 guy from Pak - they not survival, its same.
But reload...
Like i say - main function of AT guns it's kill the tanks!!!
Why Pak faster i'm dont understand...
I see like one Ostwind killing two ZiS in forward and go away.

in response to the claim that the pak is the worst AT gun

actually i think its the opposite

if you get a stronger AT gun in exchange for 4 man squad

because if your at gun gets flanked, chances it escapes are small, no matter you have 4 or 6 men, so i'd rather have the stronger AT gun.

and another point
having your at gun decrewed has more to do with your placement on the battlefield than having either 4 or 6 man squads

Why Pak faster i'm dont understand...

maybe because of the additionial Zis ability ?! I don't now...

1 shot from p4 killing 2 man from Zis, 1 shot from t34 kill 1 guy from Pak - they not survival, its same.
But reload...
Like i say - main function of AT guns it's kill the tanks!!!
Why Pak faster i'm dont understand...
I see like one Ostwind killing two ZiS in forward and go away.

The T-70 and T-34 fire faster, are a bit nimbler and much more accurate than a P-IV, so I tend to find PAKs just get decrewed much more quickly and have a really hard time keeping vet. In addition to Soviet T3 having more tanks. The main function of the AT gun is area denial for tanks, really. The ZiS does that really well *if* it's supported. Even against an Ostwind it does OK normally, most of the time.

Not saying PAKs are bad or anything but they are either against very hard AI tanks or T4, which can just stay out of range and they don't have much in the way of light vehicles to threaten. In the context of both the sides' vehicles, I think the ZiS tends to be more helpful.

Let's do some basic math:

ZiS:
1 shot per 4.4 seconds = 0.227 shots/sec

Pak40:
1 shot per 2.9 seconds = 0.345 shots/sec

0.345 / 0.227 = 1.52

This means that the rate of fire for the pak is ~50% higher than for the zis. Not 30%, not 35%.

Whether or not 50% higher RoF is worth the barrage and 2 extra crew is a matter of opinion, but I just wanted to correct some of the faulty numbers I've been reading in these threads.

Pragmatically speaking, you are only likely to get 1-2 shots off from either PaK or ZiS, in any given engagement.

This is related to frankly how easy it is to simply move out of LoS with a vehicle, or just to charge in ontop of it, barring it being engine damaged.
Not to mention Smoke.

As far as that goes, ATGs provide a hardline AT deterrant. They "block" direct advance from a specific arc, but are really never likely to get off more than 1-2 shots unless your opponent is completely retarded or otherwise deadset on soaking the loss in order to push specifically into that area.

Concluding from this, I find the 30% RoF to be largely useless, because you simply wont ever get off enough shots to capitalise on it. This is arguably a personal opinion and preference, granted.

As to the model count differential, I think this is a very pragmatically useful element and advantage for ZiS. A decrewed ATG, is a lost ATG. This is a final and concrete result, to which 2 extra models is a concrete mitigator. Add to this the sustained field presence made possible by Merge, and that concrete advantage becomes evem more significant.

Then onto the Barrage, for which there is zero reciprocation in asymmetric design, in Ost.
The irony on that, is that it means ZiS can, for nominal Muni, leverage itself VERY effectively against what is already a systemic imbalance in Support team model counts, namely to Barrage 4/6 Ost Support crews, including PaKs.

So not only does ZiS have a battlefield diversity that is unprecedented on Ost, it can also leverage that against the existing 4/6 crew weakness of Ost, as well.

A double advantage.

Frankly, Ive never understood the model count discrepancy between Ost and Sov Support teams. IF Ost Support teams had 1.5 armor, Id totally understand, and it would be commensurate with overall infantry model counts at 4x1.5armor models vs 6x1.0 armor.
But that is not the case.

I still firmly maintain either equalising Support model counts, or, alternatively, adding 1.5 armor to the currently subpar 4/6 Ost Support teams.

ATTENTION!

You are using the wrong numbers for RoF.

PaK: 3.96s
ZiS: 5.8s

Adjust your calculations.

Roughly this means that in
6s:
-ZiS fires 1 shot
-PaK fires 1 shot
12s:
-ZiS fires 2 shots
-PaK fires 3 shots
18s:
-ZiS fires 3 shots
-PaK fires 4 shots

This really isnt much of a practical discrepancy, due to the ingame situation, where very rarely is either ATG actually going to have 12s of firing time on a vehicle.

In order for the PaKs better RoF to actually have any effect, it requires the engagement to be MUCH longer.

See what I mean?

The problem with ATGs, overall, I think, is their accuracy. Those 1-2 shots they so manage to get off, need to goddam motherfucking hit! Positioning and support is such a pain in the ass, as well as the relative speed of vehicles which will be in your face before you get off your 2nd shot, is out of whack. Especially because you pribaly cant even get thqt second shot off, because you are ALREADY retreating and repositioning your ATG after that first shot cos the vehicle is already in your face.

This, and the incomprehensible 4/6 model count on Ost, especially considering Merges potential for keeping 6/6 Support teams onfield. It. Just. Makes. No. Sense.

well

at t=0
shots fired = 1 for both

and 1 shot difference is alot in my book

3 shots for pak @ t=8, 2 for zis

anyways, 1 seems like a small number if you present it that way but its also 33%

and my grenadiers have a bigger chance to snare an incomming tank than conscripts, as if that is not important in an at gun dmg/survival thread

Relic have been extremely vague on what AT Nades parabolic trajcetory actually means.

We know there is a chance for it to hit rear, instead of front, when thrown from front, but they havent said how that is determined or what the chance is. Add to that, that Faust can impact on blocking obstacles if the vehicle dodges. ATnade will ALWAYS hit, no matter what.

The superficial chance to hit rear armor, when thrown frontally, is pretty serious though, because it negates positioning.

Considering how rarely even PIVs seem to get engine damage from AT nades, I don't think the chance to hit rear from it is particularly high. Definitely nowhere near what the PIAT "rear from the front, front from the rear" parabolic was.

I think that having both an actually useful vet1 ability and a significant reload advantage are far too much to give in exchange for the ZiS having a munition-expensive RNG artillery ability. I'd always rather have a PaK than a ZiS as soviets. I also think that even with this advantage the PaK is still fairly weak for cost as an antivehicle unit and believe that both ATGuns really need to be cheaper or more effective against stuff in their firing cones, considering how easy they are to flank as it is.

If PaK and ZiS both got their AT potential increased, it would only further demonstrate ZiS indirect superiority with Barrage and 6/6 crews.

Lets assume that ATGs both get the accuracy increase we all pretty unanimously ask for.

Then what?

Then you have a more survivable ZiS, that is AT efficient, that can also also Barrage 4/6 Ost Support crews vs a PaK that is still only 4/6, still cant Barrage, and still needs a prolonged engage,ent to make use of the 30% RoF.

It doesnt add up.

If PaK and ZiS both got their AT potential increased, it would only further demonstrate ZiS indirect superiority with Barrage and 6/6 crews.

Lets assume that ATGs both get the accuracy increase we all pretty unanimously ask for.

Then what?

Then you have a more survivable ZiS, that is AT efficient, that can also also Barrage 4/6 Ost Support crews vs a PaK that is still only 4/6, still cant Barrage, and still needs a prolonged engage,ent to make use of the 30% RoF.

It doesnt add up.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of soviet players would be crying tears of joy if you just replaced the ZiS with the PaK right now in the unit selection. That's how much value we see in the munition sink artillery and the two extra crewmembers who like to get stuck behind a tree and stop the gun from firing (yes indeed, weapon teams can't fire if the groupies that do nothing but wait for the users to get killed aren't happily manhugging each other behind the gun).

1 shot from p4 killing 2 man from Zis, 1 shot from t34 kill 1 guy from Pak - they not survival, its same.

Too bad I didn't save the Replay where my vet2 100% health Pak40 was oneshotted including the Pak itself by a random T34/76 that just had a look.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of soviet players would be crying tears of joy if you just replaced the ZiS with the PaK right now in the unit selection. That's how much value we see in the munition sink artillery and the two extra crewmembers who like to get stuck behind a tree and stop the gun from firing (yes indeed, weapon teams can't fire if the groupies that do nothing but wait for the users to get killed aren't happily manhugging each other behind the gun).

Im pretty sure the vast majority of ost players would be crying tears of joy if you just replaced the PaK with the ZiS right now in the unit selection. Thats how much value we see in the munition sink artillery and the two extra crewmembers who like to get stuck behind a tree and stop the gun from firing (yes indeed, weapon teams can't fire if the groupies that do nothing but wait for the users to get killed aren't happily manhugging each other behind the gun).

Id take +2 models and Barrage, over 30% RoF, any day.

Im pretty sure the vast majority of ost players would be crying tears of joy if you just replaced the PaK with the ZiS right now in the unit selection. Thats how much value we see in the munition sink artillery and the two extra crewmembers who like to get stuck behind a tree and stop the gun from firing (yes indeed, weapon teams can't fire if the groupies that do nothing but wait for the users to get killed aren't happily manhugging each other behind the gun).

Id take +2 models and Barrage, over 30% RoF, any day.

I would take the Pak's RoF any day,so it's more a matter of personal choice I guess