BadElvin Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Is it just me, or do the Tigers in 2.0 seem alot easier to kill? :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Is it just me, or do the Tigers in 2.0 seem alot easier to kill? :eek: Set up whatever situations prompted you to make this post, then run them about 50 times each, then publish your results on this forum, otherwise it's just baseless speculation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Is it just me, or do the Tigers in 2.0 seem alot easier to kill? :eek: No :eek: ...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 My battalion of Shermans at 3-400m being cut down by a platoon of Tigers would disagree... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 In a game i am playing, my opponents Churchill IV achieved a frontal penetration that killed a crew member of a Tiger from 500m, so i checked it in the scenario editor, and i found out that the Churchill IV carries 8 x APDS rounds. From Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_6_pounder "and the Armour-Piercing, Discarding Sabot (APDS) shot, which was available from 1944 and made it effective in fighting the Tiger I and Panther tanks frontally." Also read the specifications of the Churchill IV's 6 pdr main gun: http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/penetration-tables.asp#6pdr This is why you need to be more specific when you comment on tank v tank combat effects in CM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Is it just me, or do the Tigers in 2.0 seem alot easier to kill? :eek: Not at all to me. They shouldn't be much of a trump card when you're talking about sub-500m engagements anyway, since its so viable to get a good side shot in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Brit tank 6 pdr with APDS was considered the 'poor man's 17 pounder'. I read the Brits had originally changed all their Churchills to 75mm, then thought better of it and swapped some back to 6 pdr just before the balloon went up. Churchills with 75mm are helpless against Tigers (from the front). I've found myself withdrawing my 75mm guns and advancing with my 6 pdr tanks, using 75mm smoke to assist them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 The 75mm Churchills aren't that bad against Tigers and Panthers. The trick is to distract the tank. This means 'withdrawing' with your 75mm then re-engaging a bit more to the left or the right. A flank attack obviously is preferable, but probably wont happen as easily against a live opponent and with the Churchill's slow speed. HOWEVER at close ranges it will penetrate a Panther's side turret for example. So you distract the Panther to open up on something else close and bam turret side exposed.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadElvin Posted January 22, 2013 Author Share Posted January 22, 2013 Thanks guys!! I didn't mean to waste your time with my "baseless speculation". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MengJiaoRedux Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Not at all to me. They shouldn't be much of a trump card when you're talking about sub-500m engagements anyway, since its so viable to get a good side shot in. It's true. I had a whole scenario set up so that half-a-dozen tigers would do their worst against a hastily fortified village. As I pretty much expected, six-pounders and demolition charges gave the tigers a hard time, though they did inflict some serious losses on the defenders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Thing I've noticed with the 6lber's is that being solid AP shot the after armor effects really do suck. I recently got 2 penetrations, one on the front upper armor, the other on the front turret, ofa PZ IV with a 6lber Churchill. The German crew didn't like the new air conditioning and promptly reversed outta there. The 6lber will do it's job, but it really doesn't make em go bang like the US or German rounds. Of course the 17lber is an exception, it's just so damn big, routinely if I hit a Puma or H/T with it they brew up immediately. Bigger tanks not as often but they get killed quick enough for me. =P Shame the Centurion never saw combat in WW2, I'd like to see a 20lber in action... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noob Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Thanks guys!! I didn't mean to waste your time with my "baseless speculation". We were never allowed to determine if your speculation was baseless or not, as you provided no evidence to substantiate it, anecdotal or otherwise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.