ZiS-3 vs Pak-40

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.

The parabolic trajectory basically means that the grenade is thrown in an arc, similar to artillery shells fired from howitzers

This means that the chance of hitting the rear of the tank all depends on the position of the tank as well as chance. If the grenade happens to land on the rear of the tank, it counts as a rear hit. So that means that if a squad is in front of a Tiger tank facing forward, and the grenade goes over the front half of the tank and lands on the rear half, it will count as a rear hit

Grenades probably always hit because they are set to phase through most objects when thrown, in comparison to pazerfausts which do not. I dont have the data right in front of me at the moment though so this is just based off of experience with how COH works

Thanks for the explanation.

I'd prefer a higher RoF for an anti tank gun because both guns crewed by either faction seems to have extensive trouble hitting any armored target reliably, stationary or not.

But because of this reality, the Barrage ability becomes comparatively much more valuable because it's the more effective and reliable way to damage an enemy position, despite the munition cost.

@Robotnik: Thanks, but I already knew all that.

I was speaking about raw data on how the AT Nade determines whether it hits front or back, as percentages overall.

pak and ZIS arent facing the same units so you cant just do the math like that

pak and ZIS arent facing the same units so you cant just do the math like that

Couldn't have said it better myself. The pak seems better for Russians because they want a faster at gun to take out medium german armor, where the ZiS seems better for Germans because they want a AT gun that can also function as a support unit. Grass is always green on the other side I guess.




P.S. I like the ZiS gun. Barrage is sweet, and ambush camo, even though it's doctrinal, is pretty good.

with the new patch going T2/T3 and having ZiSs support your t34s/t70s seems like a viable strategy

pak and ZIS arent facing the same units so you cant just do the math like that

+1. They serve their roles differently.

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.

Very true. I would say begin with more shots hitting the mark and see what that does.

I think one reason why we are repeatedly seeing people say something like "I'd rather take <other faction's AT gun>" stems from faction design:
Ostheer does not have as many indirect fire options as Soviets. Their main source of indirect fire are mortars and then nothing at all until (if) they go T4. Everything they have is rather squishy (flames, explosions) and because of this and other reasons (no Oorah, more expensive mines) they have a harder time defending their AT gun. The things they'd use an AT gun for are mainly T70/T34 against which survivability is arguably more important than rate of fire. Against a Su-85 it just serves as a deterrent and can be taken out by the Soviet indirect fire solutions available in these situations (Su-76, Katyusha, 120 mm mortar).

Soviets already have potent indirect fire options or do not require them as much (survivable snipers, M3 flamers for taking/weakening positions). The squishyness of a Pak would not mean much to them because they could support it easier (mines, AT grenade, Oorah, merge, easier recrewing, doctrinal cloak). Rather, they'd take more potent non-Su-85 AT solutions because their amount and relative power of them is a bit lower (currently: combination of solutions less potent on their own).

And I think this is completely intentional from the design Devs.
Still, both lack from poor accuracy... their scatter stats should be improved so they are better against disabled and immobile (lack of enemy awareness) vehicles as well as against frontal charging vehicles.

I think one reason why we are repeatedly seeing people say something like "I'd rather take <other faction's AT gun>" stems from faction design:
Ostheer does not have as many indirect fire options as Soviets. Their main source of indirect fire are mortars and then nothing at all until (if) they go T4. Everything they have is rather squishy (flames, explosions) and because of this and other reasons (no Oorah, more expensive mines) they have a harder time defending their AT gun. The things they'd use an AT gun for are mainly T70/T34 against which survivability is arguably more important than rate of fire. Against a Su-85 it just serves as a deterrent and can be taken out by the Soviet indirect fire solutions available in these situations (Su-76, Katyusha, 120 mm mortar).

Soviets already have potent indirect fire options or do not require them as much (survivable snipers, M3 flamers for taking/weakening positions). The squishyness of a Pak would not mean much to them because they could support it easier (mines, AT grenade, Oorah, merge, easier recrewing, doctrinal cloak). Rather, they'd take more potent non-Su-85 AT solutions because their amount and relative power of them is a bit lower (currently: combination of solutions less potent on their own).

And I think this is completely intentional from the design Devs.
Still, both lack from poor accuracy... their scatter stats should be improved so they are better against disabled and immobile (lack of enemy awareness) vehicles as well as against frontal charging vehicles.

I hadn't thought of it that way. That does seem to make sense.

And yes, I definitely agree that both AT guns should be better for their cost.

I think one reason why we are repeatedly seeing people say something like "I'd rather take <other faction's AT gun>" stems from faction design:
Ostheer does not have as many indirect fire options as Soviets. Their main source of indirect fire are mortars and then nothing at all until (if) they go T4. Everything they have is rather squishy (flames, explosions) and because of this and other reasons (no Oorah, more expensive mines) they have a harder time defending their AT gun. The things they'd use an AT gun for are mainly T70/T34 against which survivability is arguably more important than rate of fire. Against a Su-85 it just serves as a deterrent and can be taken out by the Soviet indirect fire solutions available in these situations (Su-76, Katyusha, 120 mm mortar).

Soviets already have potent indirect fire options or do not require them as much (survivable snipers, M3 flamers for taking/weakening positions). The squishyness of a Pak would not mean much to them because they could support it easier (mines, AT grenade, Oorah, merge, easier recrewing, doctrinal cloak). Rather, they'd take more potent non-Su-85 AT solutions because their amount and relative power of them is a bit lower (currently: combination of solutions less potent on their own).

And I think this is completely intentional from the design Devs.
Still, both lack from poor accuracy... their scatter stats should be improved so they are better against disabled and immobile (lack of enemy awareness) vehicles as well as against frontal charging vehicles.

Excellent analysis.

@Robotnik: Thanks, but I already knew all that.

I was speaking about raw data on how the AT Nade determines whether it hits front or back, as percentages overall.

The thing is that there are no percentages involved, unlike many things in COH. Its dynamic, and whether it hits the front or back actually depends on whether if physically hits the front or back of the tank in game. There really is no easy way to give percentages on this

I think one reason why we are repeatedly seeing people say something like "I'd rather take <other faction's AT gun>" stems from faction design:
Ostheer does not have as many indirect fire options as Soviets. Their main source of indirect fire are mortars and then nothing at all until (if) they go T4. Everything they have is rather squishy (flames, explosions) and because of this and other reasons (no Oorah, more expensive mines) they have a harder time defending their AT gun. The things they'd use an AT gun for are mainly T70/T34 against which survivability is arguably more important than rate of fire. Against a Su-85 it just serves as a deterrent and can be taken out by the Soviet indirect fire solutions available in these situations (Su-76, Katyusha, 120 mm mortar).

Soviets already have potent indirect fire options or do not require them as much (survivable snipers, M3 flamers for taking/weakening positions). The squishyness of a Pak would not mean much to them because they could support it easier (mines, AT grenade, Oorah, merge, easier recrewing, doctrinal cloak). Rather, they'd take more potent non-Su-85 AT solutions because their amount and relative power of them is a bit lower (currently: combination of solutions less potent on their own).

And I think this is completely intentional from the design Devs.
Still, both lack from poor accuracy... their scatter stats should be improved so they are better against disabled and immobile (lack of enemy awareness) vehicles as well as against frontal charging vehicles.

I agree - this also incentivizes both factions to capture enemy AT Guns, which is a good thing. Now, if only the same idea can be applied to MGs and Mortars...

ZiS barrage ability is useless due to it's cost (i could understand 30 muni but not 60) and gun iself is lame, today i had 3 ZiS's against 2 Panzers, ofc i killed all tanks but i had to reman all 3 guns....

30 for a ZiS barrage? Please no. 30 is what you pay to throw a grenade, not what you pay for an instant artillery piece.

ZiS are ok, youve just got to be really good with how you use them.


I find having the ZiS near front line to deflect tanks, pushing with cons works, with a Maxim a little further back in safe spot that the ZiS can quickly run back to when inf trys to take them out.

ZiS work really nice with KV8 or IS2 for protection, and an M5 makes life a lot easier.


The reason Pak is better is because Germans are supposed to have an easier time dealing with Soviet armour, which tends to show up earlier and in more numbers.

Soviets are supposed to struggle a little with better equipped german tanks that turn up slightly later and in fewer numbers.

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.

try to kill sov zis now with a p4 4Head ... it needs like 6 shoots from 1 meter to take it out .. and soviet tanks are waaaay better against inf .. even su 85 obliterate infantry ..though it's supposed to be a tank destroyer

Nullist, you value squad size far too much when you consider that a recrew is right around the corner if you lose your crew. A flanked ATG is dead, period. I'd rather take my PaK than can fire more quickly with the support of more effective handheld AT(shrecks) and far more effective armor.

The barrage is next to useless unless your opponent is holding his dong.

The barrage is next to useless unless your opponent is holding his dong.

you can use a barrage on advancing infantry if you aim well enough. its almost impossible to dodge when theyre close. all a pak can do is try to run.