WinOrLose Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Recently played a QB where I bought a couple of tigers as I had not used them before. I have to say I wasn't overly impressed with their performance. Both tigers lost HTH duels with 76 shermans at between 500 to 650m. The tigers were spotted first, even with one of the shermans buttoned. I was thinking that panthers with their sloped (and slightly thicker?) front armour would have been a better choice. What is the in game experience of others? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Against 75mm gun Shermans Tigers have a much greater chance of surviving side shots than Panthers. Tiger shines a loooong ranges. 500m is considered point blank to them. At 1000m+ they'll be scoring kills while their opponents are still trying to find the range. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 The Tiger is an unusual tank in that its strongest armor is on its front turret rather than the front hull, therefore hull down positions are especially important when using them, although there appears to be a bug in the game that makes the front turret not quite as effective as it should be. If you play QBs with random weather it is worth keeping in mind that the Tiger is much less likely to bog than the Panther in-game, even though this is not historically accurate. But yes, the Panther is generally superior for shootouts vs. Allied armor because if its near-invulnerable upper front hull (I think 17 pds APDS is the only thing that can penetrate it in-game). That is where the large majority of strikes hit because of the center of mass aiming system, and because the Panther turret is somewhat smallish in proportion to the hull. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
$Pec5 Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Vanir Ausf B or MikeyD, What about a king tiger vs a tiger or panther? I know little about the advantages of this behemoth in comparison to the tiger or panther? However, I imagine that the king tiger has the side and front turret armor of a tiger as well as the long range 88mm tiger gun combined with the front hull sloped armor of a panther (i.e. the king tiger is, as Mylie Cyrus put it once 'the best of both worlds' when comparing it to the tiger and panther). Is this accurate or am I way off in assuming this? Also, how's the off-road performance in-game of the king tiger? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinOrLose Posted February 14, 2013 Author Share Posted February 14, 2013 Problem with most Normandy fighting is they will be at quite close range. I am positive my tigers were in hull down (or at least partial hull down) and both were killed by turret hits. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waffen_PL Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 King Tiger had much thicker armor then Tiger I . For example Frontal Hull was 100-150mm at 50° and turret front was 180mm at 9°. But i never used him in CM. About the effectiveness of allied guns against Tiger. I'm not sure right now so I don't want to misinformed but from what I remeber- theoretically 75mm gun should be able to penetrate Tigers armor up to 400-500m depending on kind of used ammunition. However the quality of steel used by Allies during testing was much worse than German and quality munition itself was bad too. In fact 75mm proved to be usless against Tigers armor. But that was same for 76mm. It supposed to be answer to german "cats" but it wasn't. Probably munition quality problem was somehow solved during war but initially 76mm had great problems with tigers. I think that effectiveness of 76mm against Tiger in game is too good. Specially during early stage of Normany battle. Here is nice site with lots of data. However as I think this are theoretical data so they can be far from reality http://www.tarrif.net/ Tiger tanks and others german monsters are great subject. There are many myths around them but they were rather bad tanks. It's a paradox. They were winning battles in very spectacular way but they were also loosing for germans war in same spectacular way They were operationally useless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 What about a king tiger vs a tiger or panther? I know little about the advantages of this behemoth in comparison to the tiger or panther? However, I imagine that the king tiger has the side and front turret armor of a tiger as well as the long range 88mm tiger gun combined with the front hull sloped armor of a panther (i.e. the king tiger is, as Mylie Cyrus put it once 'the best of both worlds' when comparing it to the tiger and panther). Is this accurate or am I way off in assuming this? Also, how's the off-road performance in-game of the king tiger? The version of the King Tiger presently in the game has the Porsche turret, which can be penetrated frontally by the US 76mm gun since the front turret is only 100mm thick, but it is curved so rounds will penetrate or bounce randomly depending on what spot they hit. So yes, the KT is like a Panther with the side armor of a Tiger. When/if the KT with the Henschel turret shows up that will change. The off-road performance of the KT in game is a little on the poor side, which is not historically accurate as my earlier linked-to thread talks about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
$Pec5 Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 The version of the King Tiger presently in the game has the Porsche turret, which can be penetrated frontally by the US 76mm gun since the mantlet is only 100mm thick, but it is curved so rounds will penetrate or bounce randomly depending on what spot they hit. So yes, the KT is like a Panther with the side armor of a Tiger. When/if the KT with the Henschel turret shows up that will change. The off-road performance of the KT in game is a little on the poor side, which is not historically accurate as my earlier linked-to thread talks about. So then was Beezleboss quoting the front turret armor of the Henschel turret (180mm) and not the Porsche turret (100mm)? If so, I hope that BF comes out with a KT with the Henschel turret. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 So then was Beezleboss quoting the front turret armor of the Henschel turret (180mm) and not the Porsche turret (100mm)? If so, I hope that BF comes out with a KT with the Henschel turret. Yes, the 180mm turret thickness is for the more common Henschel. s.H.Pz.Abt 506 was equipped with them during its participation in the Market Garden fighting, so I assume they will be in the MG module. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DasMorbo Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 As far as I know from my scale modelling researches a TigerII that actually made it to the battlefield was a worst case scenario for the Allies. Too much muzzle velocity (first shot hits up to 500m/yards roughly), too much power (target hit will be put out of action immediately), too much armor (counter fire will not do much damage). In that aspect the game is quiet accurate. I had a TigerII in the "Kampfgruppe Engel" campaign for five missions and it raked up 18 tank kills. Took roughly 10 counter fire hits and didn't even break down... took some considerable internal damage though. TigerIs are not very suited for bocage fighting. Distances are too short as described. This was the case in reality, too. The Germans lost unusally many (for their measure) TigerIs to close combat fighting. Still was deadly when used carefully because of the overpowered gun. Gun is a little less powerful than the TigerII's because the barrel is shorter (L/56 vs L/70). Panthers are tactically the best of the three, because the have punch, very good front armor and add speed (which the other two lack) to the mix. So they can redeploy better. On the other side their side armor is weak and I lose them regularly to side shots when I get overly ambitious. My favourite still. AFIAK the Shermans 76mm gun was not very good against the 'Cats' but it did leave some impression. Could still do more damage than the 75mm without penetrating. With some sort of special munitions (designation unknown) it could actually take out a Panther or Tiger in normal combat conditions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
$Pec5 Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Now for another question regarding Panther vs Tiger...which tank has be better AT gun? I understand that the long barrelled 88mm Tiger gun is larger than the Panther 75mm gun, but I vaguely recall hearing that the Panther's gun performed better as an AT weapon compared to the 88mm. Is this correct? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Now for another question regarding Panther vs Tiger...which tank has be better AT gun? I understand that the long barrelled 88mm Tiger gun is larger than the Panther 75mm gun, but I vaguely recall hearing that the Panther's gun performed better as an AT weapon compared to the 88mm. Is this correct? The 75 mm L/70 gun of the Panther has a higher armour penetration with both the standard PzGr. 39 APCBC-HE and the PzGr. 40 APCR than the Tiger Is L/L56 with all available AT ammunation (including HEAT, if i remeber correctly) on ranges below ~2000 meters. One reason why this is so is because the longer barrel (5,25m) of the Panthers gun allows for a higher muzzle velocity than the Tiger Is 88 (4,928 m). At ranges above ~2000 meters, the Tigers 88 performs better penetration wise with both APCBC-HE and APCR because its larger and heavier projectile doesnt loose momentum as fast as the smaller 75mm projectiles of the panthers gun do. In case the armour of target was penetrated however, the Tigers 88mm APCBC-HE rounds would cause heavier damage than the 75mm APCBC rounds of the Panther, i guess. If the targets armours was penetrated with APCR projectiles, the after armour effects were probably about the same. EDIT: The Tiger IIs 88 L71 gun was better penetration wise than both the Panthers 75mm and the Tiger Is 88. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkelried Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Looking from the Allied side - if you meet the cats in open terrain - you're done. but as soon as you have some cover and ondulation they can be beaten quite consistently. i use the following tactics: if possible fire with artillery at the cats - 25pdrs are nice due to their high ROF, then 105er and 155er are the ones you need. if you can't kill the cat, you do damage to their systems and you may immobilize them.artillery is important too for the second approach. i use the arty to separate the cats from their infanty and then assault them with zook/piat teams. here again, damage and immobilization can do the basic part of the job. a sherman or two help to finish them off when they can't move any more and/or can't see anything anymore.on the defense the 6pdr is an excellent gun at short ranges. getting into a reverse slope position certainly helps. here again immobilization and damage is the target.Smoke is also your friend against the cats. The Sherms carry quite some smoke rounds. Fire them close to the cat and then run the Sherms/zooks/piats etc forward. so combination of artillery, smoke and a good mix of at-weapons takes the magic of the cat's away. to me the tigers and the panther make no difference - i just kill them then they're a heap of smoking metal :-D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 As far as I know from my scale modelling researches a TigerII that actually made it to the battlefield was a worst case scenario for the Allies. The Soviets had a nickname for it that roughly translates to "the end of everything". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 to me the tigers and the panther make no difference - i just kill them then they're a heap of smoking metal :-D Be honest: against human players or the AI? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DasMorbo Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 @ Winkelried: Have you ever read a battle account of/by Creighton Abrams? Your tactical approach bears a lot of similarities to his way of dealing with the 'cats'. Especially your last point! BTW: I really admire Abrams skill. Raking up 30+ kills with a long barreled German tank was quite doable, especially against the poorly trained and equipped Russians. But knocking out 30+ German tanks in a tin can like his is a much more extraordinary feat! :cool: Cheers Olf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DasMorbo Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Be honest: against human players or the AI? +1 Jep humans make the task not easier. Still his way seems pretty much all you can do. Cheers Olf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkelried Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Be honest: against human players or the AI? prefer human players :-D keep my kill list only for those :-D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 which tank has be better AT gun? I recall reading somewhere that there were preliminary plans to refit the Panther 75mm to the Tiger I when Panther first came out! I guess that idea was nixed mostly due to the stockpile of 88 ammo that had been built up by then. Panther 75 does have one disadvantage, its got a crappy HE round, rather like the crappy HE round for the Brit 17 pounder. Its been awhile since I've looked at that in the game, I think you can see the difference between Panther and Sherman 75mm HE rounds. Sherman outperforms in that regard. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karabekian Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 especially against the poorly trained and equipped Russians. And yet these Germans learned that by late 1944 the Tiger VIB was the only tank capable on taking on the Soviets offensively. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 its got a crappy HE round No such thing in CMx2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkelried Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 No such thing in CMx2. not my experience. in the QBs i played als Allied - i learned not to fear panther HE too much. there is in my (subjective) experience quite difference between the panther HE and the Pz IV or Pak40 HE against infantry.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silkwraith Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 'Tiger tanks and others german monsters are great subject. There are many myths around them but they were rather bad tanks. It's a paradox. They were winning battles in very spectacular way but they were also loosing for germans war in same spectacular way They were operationally useless.' I beg to differ because a 101 AARs can prove this statement incorrect. Yes 'The Bocage' was not their ideal combat terrain but stating the above is ........... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DasMorbo Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 And yet these Germans learned that by late 1944 the Tiger VIB was the only tank capable on taking on the Soviets offensively. Where do you got that from?!? The Sowjets shredded an estimated 10.000 tanks of their own in conquering the Ukraine from early 1944 to roughly late summer 1944 (Jentz & Doyle - Russian Medium Tanks, Concord). Tiger I, Tiger II and Panther were still in 1945 serious threats to the russian tank force and the PzIV could take the T-34/85 on as well. Till the end the Sowjets were very poor on the tactical level combat and training was also inferior till the end of the war. Furthermore their tanks were of a pretty rough production quality by western standards which hampered their performance as well. Problem for the Germans: they were outnumbered like you wouldn't believe it. Best regards Olf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkelried Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 @ Winkelried: Have you ever read a battle account of/by Creighton Abrams? Your tactical approach bears a lot of similarities to his way of dealing with the 'cats'. Especially your last point! haven't read this, but remember an event, where US shermans fired with WP against king tigers where the frontal armor had cracked (poor late war quality it seems) and the WP entered the tank through these cracks and the crew had to bail out. although don't think this is modeled in CMx2 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.