womble Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 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 It's been claimed on here that firing WP at tanks too tough to kill with available AP was a relatively common tactic. If your entire glacis plate and turret mantlet is producing dense white smoke, you're effectively blind, and had better get yourself somewhere where no one can sneak up on you til the phosphorus burns out. I don't think most WW2 tanks were entirely airtight, either, and phosphorus smoke leaking in through any orofices or openings would be most unwelcome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkelried Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 I don't think most WW2 tanks were entirely airtight, either, and phosphorus smoke leaking in through any orofices or openings would be most unwelcome. yes this is true even for today's tanks. the problem is usually solved with a generator pumping filtered air into the tank to create an overpressure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 I understand Tiger I had an especial problem being driven in reverse. The big engine fans would pull carbon monoxide into the fighting compartment That's why they got those muffler shields, not to protect against bullets but to protect against airflow. I've read anecdotes of captured incapacitated Germans being carried back on stretchers, their hair turned green like the Joker from the HC burning aluminum smoke from smoke rounds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I think the Panther is the best tank all around in the game. Great speed, firepower, and armor. Optics are good too. I know I alway buy them when playing German. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKfW Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 The Panther was only about 15% more expensive in terms of materials to make than the PzIV IIRC. It was, by no means, a deal breaker for the Germans in terms of cost or production intensity. The Tiger I, on the other hand, certainly was a highly-labor intensive and expensive machine to make. I am sure it was designed on a far higher "precision" scale than the later tanks like the Panther, and from a quality standpoint, I am certain it was held to higher standards than the Panther. However, in war, the equation being sought should be a different equation than straight craftsmanship... simply, "Cost = value??" In this regard, the Panther was, far and away, the best tank the Germans fielded in the war. It was, in no respect, a breaker of the German economy. This is also the reason the Tiger I production was halted in 44. The Tiger II was horrendous from a quality standpoint, and don't even get me started on monstrously horrid beasts like the JagdTiger... whose gun would unmoor and come seriously out of calibration with the optical gunsight if the driver of the tank took too tight a turn, or braked too hard... There were weapons which were rediculously unrealistic and wasteful, at a time when the Germans were in no position to waste anything. A few of these were armored vehicle designs, but many, like the V2, were simply last ditch efforts of a failing political apparatus... The Germans knew they were done after the eastern offensives of 44... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waffen_PL Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 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 ........... I will try to write something later. My English isn't good so I'm not sure if I'm gonna make it Yes Tigers were bad. Very bad. As I said before I'm not talking about single battles were they had outstanding results over enemy tanks but at operational scale. They were huge burden for a German army and unparalleled unreliable 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensal Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Not sure i agree that Tigers were operationally useless. But Russian tests on the armour of captured King Tigers suggested that the quality of the metal used by the Germans at that late stage of the war was deteriorating and that as a result, although the amour plating was thicker, it was not necessarily capable of withstanding ap as Tiger Is 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensal Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 A link to the site where I saw the info about Tiger II armour deficiencies 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensal Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 the link http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tiger-tamers-battle-for-sandomierz-bulge-august-of-1944.htm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron Jacquinot Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Tiger or Panther? Only IS2 only hardcore!)) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Panther > IS2 > Tiger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 You know whats funny is if you pit the panther vs tiger in a qb, the Panther usually wins. Its high velocity 75 goes through the Tiger's armor like swiss cheese. The real question is T34/85 or IS2... The IS2 gun is great, but the reload is slow and the Russian armor isn't super accurate, so it can be dicey. Its armor is good, but the heavier German guns go through it all the same. Meanwhile you get similar performance usually with the T34, with quicker reloads. I always loved IS2s just by look, etc. but was shocked in CMBB to see them in action vs my generally more positive experiences with the T34s. Of course BB isnt real life, and it's not CMx2. I cant wait to see them in x2, and though I want all the Ost Front, I'm sort of glad they started where they did. The wealth of armor and new units in Bagration will be great enough for me, and it'll save the time theyd have to spend with totally new units for both sides in say 41. Though don't get me wrong, the idea of a redone Yelnia Stare, and battles in front of Moscow has me drooling, along with Stalingrad, Kharkov.. well you get the idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKfW Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Armor quality was more important in being able to sustain multiple hits without cracking. Reduced quality was a function of over hardening vs. optimal hardening (alloying materials very important here). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seedorf81 Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 If anyone asked me which tank I wanted if I had to fight as tanker in WW2, it would undoubtedly be the TIGER I. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RT North Dakota Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 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? Two tanks is not a very viable force. With the greatest respect, you probably didn't play to their strengths. You really need at least 4 of any tank type to be effective. I strongly suggest not seeking out opinions as to the historic performance of the Tiger and attempting to apply that to the game. What I would suggest is knocking up some firing ranges and seeing how the Tiger actually performs in the game, both as concerns weapons and armour. From that, all good things follow. .....and beware the Tamiya and Airfix version of tank history, pumped by the plastic modellers!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron Jacquinot Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 If anyone asked me which tank I wanted if I had to fight as tanker in WW2, it would undoubtedly be the TIGER I. Do you know about Tiger-1 repairability? He was very heavy, always have problem with transmission and running gear. It was very difficult to evacuate this monster form field if your tank was damaged(needs 2 tractors and 1 Pz4 tank), it was very difficult to repair tracks on field (need loading crane), it was very difficult to transfer Tiger battalion, because to transport Tiger you need special railway platforms and you need change battle tracks on transport tracks and take off outward rollers, for this you need 48 hours. Tiger was nightmare for German surround services))) Panther was better but with similar problems, Germans have no time to fix all bugs in Panther. Germans should be build more Pz4 tanks and don't waste time and money on Tigers. But this is game and in game you don't need repair or transport your tank, for me Panther is better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 What is the in game experience of others? More "good enough" is superior to fewer "best." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seedorf81 Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 Do you know about Tiger-1 repairability? He was very heavy, always have problem with transmission and running gear. It was very difficult to evacuate this monster form field if your tank was damaged(needs 2 tractors and 1 Pz4 tank), it was very difficult to repair tracks on field (need loading crane), it was very difficult to transfer Tiger battalion, because to transport Tiger you need special railway platforms and you need change battle tracks on transport tracks and take off outward rollers, for this you need 48 hours. Tiger was nightmare for German surround services))) Panther was better but with similar problems, Germans have no time to fix all bugs in Panther. Germans should be build more Pz4 tanks and don't waste time and money on Tigers. But this is game and in game you don't need repair or transport your tank, for me Panther is better. He man, welcome back. yes, I know about those troubles and I most certainly know about the Allied airsupremacy (Tiger equals duck; sitting duck that is:)), fuelshortages etc.. But when a battle is about to start, do not under estimate the effect that morale has. And even though the Panther is prettier and better, for me there is only one tank that seems to say:"He tankboy, you come with me and I will not only kick some serious ass, but I will also protect you when the bullets start to fly!" Sherman, Comet, Cromwell, PzkwIV, T34 and T34/85 certainly do not say that to me. Churchill and KV1 and Panther maybe a bit. KV1, Kingtiger, JS2 and JS3 way to cumbersome. So if I had to go into battle with a ww2 tank, the TIGER I would be it. PS. If only the Matilda tank would have had a decent gun, then I think it could have gotten a pretty good reputation.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I dont know.. the T34/85 is an impressive looking tank IMO... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seedorf81 Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I dont know.. the T34/85 is an impressive looking tank IMO... Yeah, it's just like with them girlies, I reckon.. It's all in the eye of the beholder. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron Jacquinot Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 He man, welcome back. yes, I know about those troubles and I most certainly know about the Allied airsupremacy (Tiger equals duck; sitting duck that is:)), fuelshortages etc.. But when a battle is about to start, do not under estimate the effect that morale has. And even though the Panther is prettier and better, for me there is only one tank that seems to say:"He tankboy, you come with me and I will not only kick some serious ass, but I will also protect you when the bullets start to fly!" Sherman, Comet, Cromwell, PzkwIV, T34 and T34/85 certainly do not say that to me. Churchill and KV1 and Panther maybe a bit. KV1, Kingtiger, JS2 and JS3 way to cumbersome. So if I had to go into battle with a ww2 tank, the TIGER I would be it. PS. If only the Matilda tank would have had a decent gun, then I think it could have gotten a pretty good reputation.) Well, maybe, but... Do you remember what happens with Michel Wittman? I think Tiger good tank for defence, you can have good score when you fire at long range staying in closed position, because you have good 88mm gun, good German's optics and much armor, but when you need to attack Tiger not best choice, too heavy, too slow. I don't remember any successful offensive operation with Tiger. My point - Tiger1 best defensive tank destroyer in WW2. Fear factor was very high, many Soviet tankers when attack German position and saw Tiger, abandon they t-34/76 or t-70 before Tiger open fire. P.S. Tiger have very little fuel distance endurance, just about 80 km on rough country, and it was impossible to use them in Russian mud in spring. It was moving bunker, best to defence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 So if I had to go into battle with a ww2 tank, the TIGER I would be it. I'm reminded of German stories on the Russian front. Tigers are bullet magnets like nobody's business. If there's eight things visible on the battlefield and one of them is a Tiger you shoot at the Tiger. Ferdinands/Elephants got it even worse. 'Bullet magnet' is indeed a tactical consideration, that's why the Brits went to such trouble counter-shading, disguising and camouing their Sherman 17 pounder tank barrels. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinOrLose Posted February 17, 2013 Author Share Posted February 17, 2013 Two tanks is not a very viable force. With the greatest respect, you probably didn't play to their strengths. You really need at least 4 of any tank type to be effective. I strongly suggest not seeking out opinions as to the historic performance of the Tiger and attempting to apply that to the game. What I would suggest is knocking up some firing ranges and seeing how the Tiger actually performs in the game, both as concerns weapons and armour. From that, all good things follow. .....and beware the Tamiya and Airfix version of tank history, pumped by the plastic modellers!! It was only a medium sized battle. I had a panzergrenadier company and a pair of tigers. The map was fairly open so I plonked them on overwatch in hull/partial hull down positions. Both got taken out at 500 - 600m frontally by 76 shermans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 It was only a medium sized battle. I had a panzergrenadier company and a pair of tigers. The map was fairly open so I plonked them on overwatch in hull/partial hull down positions. Both got taken out at 500 - 600m frontally by 76 shermans. 500-600m is knife fighting range, not overwatch! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 I don't remember any successful offensive operation with Tiger. Michael Wittman did the offensive action in a Tiger, at Villers Bocage. 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.