StuG and JPIV Penetration

Let me explain this in numbers:

A Su-85 firing on Panther at max range:
chance to penetrate 220/260 = 85%
chance to hit 24*0.04 = 96%
Chance to do damage (hit and penetrate) 85*96= 82%

A Su-85 vet 2 firing on vet 2 Panther at max range:
chance to penetrate 286/286 = 100%
chance to hit 24*0.052 = 100%
Chance to do damage (hit and penetrate) 100*100= 100%

End result:

Tank destroyers still deal reliably vs tanks.

Axis tanks and brawler units still fare better vs TANKS and are NOT meant to stand up to their own hard counters.

Literally nothing wrong here.

MUH KRUPP STAHL is not an argument.

That means that balance relationship these units have at in vet 1 is disrupted at vet 2, for no good reason.

The Vet 2 SU-85 has 100% penetration chance now because the Panther traded armour for HP in SBP.

That's a buff vs the SU-85.

End result:

Tank destroyers still deal reliably vs tanks.

Axis tanks and brawler units still fare better vs TANKS and are NOT meant to stand up to their own hard counters.

Literally nothing wrong here.

MUH KRUPP STAHL is not an argument.

You can argue that with the balance team that seem to also believes that allied TDs are op at range 60.

(have you made up your mind if Sherman is the most cost efficient medium tank or not yet?)

The Vet 2 SU-85 has 100% penetration chance now because the Panther traded armour for HP in SBP.

That's a buff vs the SU-85.

Not really. You seem to have misunderstood the change in the Panther.

Some of the power of Vet 2 panther has been move to vet 0 while the vet 2 Panther is now weaker than the old vet 2 panther.

Patch change = Vet 0 Panther stronger, Vet 2 Panther weaker.

Not really. You seem to have misunderstood the change in the Panther.

Some of the power of Vet 2 panther has been move to vet 0 while the vet 2 Panther is now weaker than the old vet 2 panther.

Patch change = Vet 0 Panther stronger, Vet 2 Panther weaker.

It's weaker by 4 armour.

End result:

Tank destroyers still deal reliably vs tanks.

Axis tanks and brawler units still fare better vs TANKS and are NOT meant to stand up to their own hard counters.

Literally nothing wrong here.

MUH KRUPP STAHL is not an argument.

What? I think it's crazy that a unit cannot nullify its counter by vetting.
/s

It's weaker by 4 armour.

Depends from which patch. The Panther at vet 2 used to have around 320 armor and 960 HP for years and used to be one best armored Ostheer tank with armor even superior to that of the Tiger.

The was changed for one patch when they removed the 10% armor bonus completely and in the next patch then they moved the 160 HP bonus to vet 0, lowered the armor and reintroduced the vet armor bonus.

Even so your claim than Panther has traded Armor for HP in vet and thus it is buffed vs vet 2 Su-85 is simply false.

Bottom line currently the vet 2 Panther is the weaker version when it comes to durability.

Although patch history is interesting, it also rather irrelevant. What is important is that SU-85 vs Panther relationship changes from vet 0 to vet 2 drastically for no apparent reason.

The SU-85 at vet 2 can damage even a Panther vet 3 with 100% chance which translates it vets faster and better than Panther.

When it comes to facing vetted Su-85/M36 the armor bonus of the Panther is quite pointless and the unit would benefit more from a different bonus.

When it comes to facing vetted Su-85/M36 the armor bonus of the Panther is quite pointless and the unit would benefit more from a different bonus.

The penetration bonus on the SU-85 is also pointless if your opponent spams StuGs and Ostwinds. It's just the nature of the armour system.

The penetration bonus on the SU-85 is also pointless if your opponent spams StuGs and Ostwinds. It's just the nature of the armour system.

It get also accuracy bonus and thus better chance to hit them also.

When it comes to facing SU-85s and Jacksons, Ostheer has Paks and Panzerschrecks (and the Elefant) to deal with them. The Panther isn't meant to face off dedicated tank destroyers, it's meant to shut down enemy medium and heavy tanks, and its armor scales well against medium tanks and decently against heavies.

Depends from which patch. The Panther at vet 2 used to have around 320 armor and 960 HP for years. The was changed for one patch when they removed the 10% armor bonus completely and in the next patch then they moved the 160 HP bonus to vet 0 lowered, the armor and reintroduced the vet armor bonus.

Even so your claim than Panther has traded Armor for HP in vet and thus it is buffed vs vet 2 Su-85 is simply false.

Bottom line currently the vet 2 Panther is the weaker version when it comes to durability.

Although patch history is interesting, it also rather irrelevant. What is important is that SU-85 vs Panther relationship changes from vet 0 to vet 2 drastically for no apparent reason.

The SU-85 at vet 2 can damage even a Panther vet 3 with 100% chance which translates it vets faster and better than Panther.

When it comes to facing vetted Su-85/M36 the armor bonus of the Panther is quite pointless and the unit would benefit more from a different bonus.

Your data is correct, but I disagree with your conclusion.

You say if a SU85 pens a Panther with 100% chance then we need to buff the Panther's armor.
Since both units are tank destroyers, we could turn the whole argument around and say: a Panther pens the SU85 (actually all Allied TDs) with 100% chance. Now do we need to buff the SU85 armor? I don't think so.
The veterancy concept for Allied TDs is "high damage glass cannon". So the Allied TDs get a pen buff, also because Axis armor is quite heavy.
A Panther does not benefit from pen buffs that much as Allied armor is quite light, so Axis vet follows the concept of a heavy brawler.

Basically:
Axis armor buff does not help the tank against Allied TD, but against all other AT weapons
Allied pen buff does not help against medium, but against heavy armored tanks (Tigers, but also Panther).

We can discuss about whether the current amount of veterancy buffs is alright or if the base stats should be altered slightly, but this would be best discussed in another thread.

Back to topic:
This thread is about StuG and JPIV penetration (vs medium tanks), not about Panther vs SU85

Your data is correct, but I disagree with your conclusion.

You say if a SU85 pens a Panther with 100% chance then we need to buff the Panther's armor.
Since both units are tank destroyers, we could turn the whole argument around and say: a Panther pens the SU85 (actually all Allied TDs) with 100% chance. Now do we need to buff the SU85 armor? I don't think so.
The veterancy concept for Allied TDs is "high damage glass cannon". So the Allied TDs get a pen buff, also because Axis armor is quite heavy.
A Panther does not benefit from pen buffs that much as Allied armor is quite light, so Axis vet follows the concept of a heavy brawler.

Basically:
Axis armor buff does not help the tank against Allied TD, but against all other AT weapons
Allied pen buff does not help against medium, but against heavy armored tanks (Tigers, but also Panther).

We can discuss about whether the current amount of veterancy buffs is alright or if the base stats should be altered slightly, but this would be best discussed in another thread.

Back to topic:
This thread is about StuG and JPIV penetration (vs medium tanks), not about Panther vs SU85

You have every right ot disagree with my opinion.

But your logic is flawed the Ostheer Panther is higher tier, higher pop and more expensive TD than the Su-85 thus it should perform better than than SU-85.

But you are missing the point. The point is not how good one trade with the other but how much better SU-85 trade at vet 2 although it vet faster.

If Su-85/Panther relationship is correctly balance at vet 0 the Panther is simply UP at vet 2.

The reason it being debate in this thread is that Stug and especially JP get no penetration bonuses with vet. Instead the get armor bonus which are not really helpful.

Your logic is also flawed the Ostheer Panther is higher tier, higher pop and more expensive TD than the Su-85 thus it should perform better than than SU-85.

But you are missing the point. The point is not how good one trade with the other but how much better SU-85 trade at vet 2 although it vet faster.

If Su-85/Panther relationship is correctly balance at vet 0 the Panther is simply UP at vet 2.

1. They are both the end game TD of the respective faction. And even then your argument works only for OST, since OKW needs to build T4 anyway.

2. For the numbers:
Panther needs 7 shots face-to-face to kill a SU85
SU85 needs 9 shots face to face to kill a Panther
Cost-corrected this pushes the SU85 up to a price of 450 MP / 167,14 FU / 19,29 POP
For comparison Panther: 490 MP / 185 FU / 19 POP

EDIT: this is the average shot number (corrected for accuracy and pen chance, neglecting collision hits) that the tank needs to fire to kill its opponent.

Panther is therefore slightly underperforming is a performance-to-cost perspective. But you get a more sturdy unit against mediums and AT guns. And also a turret.
At least in this case, I don't think the balance is that far off.

The reason it being debate in this thread is that Stug and especially JP get no penetration bonuses with vet. Instead the get armor bonus which are not really helpful.

Penetration bonuses aren't helpful either unless the heavy tank player is kind enough to throw your JPIV/StuG some medium tanks to practise on.

A tank destroyer is a reactive unit built to counter something. It can't have its core functionality locked behind veterancy.

With the three Allied TDs it's not a problem because their penetration is already high enough. But vet-locked penetration bonuses for the JPIV and StuG would solve nothing.

StuG G fuel up to 100 or 110 and give it 55 range.

Seems fair to me. Still bad pen, but an answer to tankhunters, so Panther can focus on heavys. -> small brother of JP4.

Maybe split the schreck-upgrade to two upgrades, so you can get it earlier (like Sturmpios). To compensate later StuG.

When it comes to facing SU-85s and Jacksons, Ostheer has Paks and Panzerschrecks (and the Elefant) to deal with them. The Panther isn't meant to face off dedicated tank destroyers, it's meant to shut down enemy medium and heavy tanks, and its armor scales well against medium tanks and decently against heavies.

Lets check Panther vs ISU

At vet 0 Panther has +10 range advantage over IS-2 and the ISU has 210/260 = 81% to penetrate at range 40 and another 60% chance to score a natural hit bringing the chance to damage to 49%

At vet 2 Panther has no range advantage over IS-2 and IS-2 has 210/286 = 73% to penetrate at range 50 another 72% chance to score a natural hit bringing the chance to damage to 53%

In addition the IS-2 now rotate turret x150% faster while the Panther x140%.

So actually it trade worse at vet 2 than at vet 0.

The frontal armor might actually help a bit vs mediums.

But as pointed out the 9 armor it get for back half of the vehicle does not really help vs multiple medium that can score rear hit even from side shot that can easily be achieved. That makes diving with a Panthers to finish damaged mediums a high risk low reward move.

Penetration bonuses aren't helpful either unless the heavy tank player is kind enough to throw your JPIV/StuG some medium tanks to practise on.

A tank destroyer is a reactive unit built to counter something. It can't have its core functionality locked behind veterancy.

With the three Allied TDs it's not a problem because their penetration is already high enough. But vet-locked penetration bonuses for the JPIV and StuG would solve nothing.

I would disagree since imo people invest in Panther because JP lose their effectiveness when heavy tanks appear.

But my point is other the armor bonus for stug and JP are not really helpful. Even if penetration in great either imo it superior to armor.

1. They are both the end game TD of the respective faction. And even then your argument works only for OST, since OKW needs to build T4 anyway.

2. For the numbers:
Panther needs 7 shots face-to-face to kill a SU85
SU85 needs 9 shots face to face to kill a Panther
Cost-corrected this pushes the SU85 up to a price of 450 MP / 167,14 FU / 19,29 POP
For comparison Panther: 490 MP / 185 FU / 19 POP

EDIT: this is the average shot number (corrected for accuracy and pen chance, neglecting collision hits) that the tank needs to fire to kill its opponent.

Panther is therefore slightly underperforming is a performance-to-cost perspective. But you get a more sturdy unit against mediums and AT guns. And also a turret.
At least in this case, I don't think the balance is that far off.

I am not sure what method you are using to get the numbers but you are still missing my point.

Compare the units at vet 0 and at vet 2 you will probably come to the conclusion that SU-85 trades significantly better at Vet 2.

The Panther isn't meant to face off dedicated tank destroyers, it's meant to shut down enemy medium and heavy tanks, and its armor scales well against medium tanks and decently against heavies.

Quoted for emphasis.
Maybe now if certain individual reads it coming from someone who IS ENFORCING CURRENT RELIC BALANCE PHILOSOPHY DIRECTLY BY WORKING ON BALANCE PATCHES, that certain individual finally will get it and stops rambling that tank hardcounter can't hardcounter its own hardcounter or negate its own hardcounter vet by its own vet.

When it comes to facing SU-85s and Jacksons, Ostheer has Paks and Panzerschrecks (and the Elefant) to deal with them. The Panther isn't meant to face off dedicated tank destroyers, it's meant to shut down enemy medium and heavy tanks, and its armor scales well against medium tanks and decently against heavies.

But it can if it gets into 50 range without being shot. Two more hits.

In your opinion, what would be the impact of giving the StuG switchable rounds that give it Panther penetration but only 80 damage? That'd give a StuG pair with the rounds toggled on the same damage output as a lone Panther.