GhostOne Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 I consider myself to be an "intermediate grog" as compared to some of you that can discuss in detail the stats on WWII hardware and OOB's like Aristotle knew logic. So here's one for you. I always thought the Tiger was the king tank on the battlefield. I have been working with it and it is getting waxed constantly without even much of a kill count. Frankly I think the Panther is a better machine and more effective or the PzIV/70. Is the superiority of the Tiger a myth? Ghost Ghost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carentan Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 What's shooting at it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 Haven't played with the Tiger yet (because I'm on the west coast and haven't got The Game), but even the Panther doesn't have much of a chance against well organized superior numbers of Shermans. In my two VoT PBEM matches (once as each side) the Panther didn't score any Sherman kills. Once it suffered a gun hit from the very first shot fired at it (really annoying), the second time it managed to decimate an MMG team that was really no longer in the action before suffering two direct hits broadside at 50 m from a Sherman (I had 6 shermans left when it showed up, though one was brewed by the sIG while hunting the Panther). The Panther has really nice front armor, and a good gun, but the turret is slow, and a well organized attack can force it to expose its weaker side/rear armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostOne Posted June 19, 2000 Author Share Posted June 19, 2000 I think it was the Achilles that was smoking it most of the time and I believe a Cromwell the other times. You could take a nap while the turret rotates to target. Also the gun just didn't seem to be anywhere near as accurate as that of the Panther or PzIV/70. Was there a difference in the targeting systems? Ghost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 The Tiger was the king of the battlefield...when it first saw service in 1941. By 1944 it was far out classed by the Panther and about a half dozen Soviet tanks. Just look at the slope of the Tiger's armor...errrr or lack thereof The Tiger IMHO represents the best and the worst of Krupp (the designers of the tank). ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcarey Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 Also what range are you employing it at? It's a better standoff tank, as the allied guns bounce off at long range - Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 I tend to agree with you on this subject. Not sure how this relates to your situation but here goes my 2 cents... Most games rely on the angle and thickness of the armor to determine penetration effects. However, the Tiger acquitted itself very well in combat. And most testing on captured Tigers seemed to indicate the armor performed much better than you would expect from just the numbers. It gets a bad rap from the flat armor lower hull, boxy shape, etc.. However, if you look at many of the photos in armor books which show the dents and damage caused by Russians AT's it was one very tough and durable tank. It is hard to quantify just how much more effective the armor really was, but the Tiger deserves better than it is treated in most games I have seen. A good reference is Osprey Vanguard 20 "the Tiger Tanks" page 8-10 penetration testing a Tiger E versus all Allied AT guns Sept 1943 37mm rear 400yds barely 6pdr - rear 1500 yds - side 500 yds shots angled at 30 deg 75mm - 700 yds side M10 - 1400 yds >60 deg angle 17pdr - hull and turrent side 1900 yds I quote from the book "In no instance was the frontal armour penetrated." Not sure what is killing them in your games, would have to study distance and angle of shot etc.. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MantaRay Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 Well, I think that historians are kind of divided on what tank was best. Most I have read give either the Panther or the T-34 the most accolades. 2 of the biggest reasons for this are the mobility that they both had, and the success they had while in battle. The T-34 is most likely the better tank due to the ease of production, from an operational viewpoint, but I would have to think that in the tactical sense a slight edge may have gone to the Panther due to the better gun and optics. You also must remember that the Panthers didnt come out until 43, so over the whole course of the war, maybe you could say that the T-34's were the "Kings of the Battlefield!" But I will take an Army of Tiger 2's over anything. They were the Kings that would never be crowned. Ray ------------------ When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one." MantaRays 5 Pages Hardcore Gamers Daily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostOne Posted June 19, 2000 Author Share Posted June 19, 2000 It had to fight at 300-400 meters given the terrain layout on the map I am currently playing. I'm glad to hear that my assessment of the Panther as a better vehicle holds water as that perception was gleaned only from experience with them both in the game. Shows how well BTS has modeled these. Ghost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MantaRay: But I will take an Army of Tiger 2's over anything. They were the Kings that would never be crowned. Ray <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi in the list of vechicles which of these is the Tiger 2 you were refering to: Pz VA Panther (with skirt armor) Pz VG Panther Pz VG Panther (with chin mantlet extension) Pz VIE Tiger Pz VIE Tiger (late, thicker armor) Pz VIB King Tiger (Porche Turret) Pz VIB King Tiger -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 All this talk about armor and nobody's answered the guy's question yet.... The Tiger is not a dog, it's a cat. Panthera tigris to be exact Anyway, IMHO by the latter part of 1944, the Tiger was past its prime, although still a pretty formidable tank. It just wasn't the overwhelming thing it had been earlier in the war. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntg84 Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 The Tiger was a hit when it entered battles in Russia and North Africa in 1941-1942. In North Africa is was unbeatable, only by bad supply lines. But it knocked out T-34's and everything else the enemy had to throw at them until 1945. At 1944-1945 the Tiger's dominance was challenged (and that was mainly by air supperiority by the allies)and by heavy Russian tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 Although the tiger may have been past its prime on the West front late 44 it still was effective till the bitter end on the Russian front, as no doubt CM2 will show. Plus its bite was worse than its bark. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPeng Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 There's just something about that 88...its like 13 MORE than the Panther's 75. Like, Spinal Tap's amps go up to 11, and everyone else's only go up to ten, so they're like, one LOUDER. Peng an idiot as always ------------------ I'm talking and I can't shut up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TURBO Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 GhostOne If you can try to keep as much distance as possible. The achilles has a very good gun and try to get your front armour facing at a 45 degree angle to whatever is doing the shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntg84 Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 Being an 88mm does help, but there are diffrent versions of the gun. I'll use a 75mm as an example. A short barreled 75 is less powerful than a long barrel 75. A long barreled 50mm was more powerful than a short barreled 75mm. So the length and type of 88mm does count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 The Achilles sports the lovely, delicious 17 pounder, a weapon specifically fielded to declaw Tigers and Panthers at any range. At 300 to 400 metres I'm not surprised they're giving you grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V B Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 First off Tiger tanks were not in service in '41 (Middle/Late '42). And the Tiger tank was mainly a defensive tank due to the slow maximum crusing speed and flank speed.And the accuracy on the early Tiger 1 (Which is what I am guessing you are using...you might want to state exactly what version of tiger you are using.) 88 gun was not very good as compared to the Panther or the later Tiger counterparts. Heiz was drunk when he decided that a Tiger raised on its side would make a much better firing platform. [This message has been edited by V B (edited 06-18-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntg84 Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 Go to www.achtungpazner.com This site has tons of info on German tanks of WW2. I'm sure it will answer all questions. Want more reading? Pick up an Osprey New Vanguard Series (great for modelers and the history buff.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Peltz Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 You said that you were up against the Achilles in one instance- the Achilles mounted the 17 pdr, something to beware of no matter what German tank you are in. The tight battle area you mentioned would nullify many advantages German armour/firepower would have had. The best distance (if available) to fight Allied armour at would be in the 1200-1500m band. This range allows the Germans to outreach their opponents, utilize their generally superior optics, and maximize their armour protection. At 800m, things become much more even. It then boils down to maneuvering, hiding, and hull-down. As an aside, the US Army apparently did an analysis after the war of both Allied and Axis records, and determined that 70% of tank vs. tank combat occurred at 800m or less range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntg84 Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 http://www.achtungpanzer.com/ crap I spelled it wrong. 1 year of German class down the drain! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 Well put Babra, 300 meters is a stones throw for tank-to-tank engagements. Wasn't the Achilles the British version of the m-10? Zamo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 The Tiger 88 was indeed very accurate, first rate optics as in all other German Tanks. Sherman kill at Kasserine pass 2700m. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V B Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 It is reported that in July of 1944, commander of 3rd company of schwere Panzer Abteilungen 506, Captain Wakker, destroyed Soviet T-34 at the range of 3900 meters. "Achtung Panzer" Anyone here have accuracy of a Panther or Tiger II as compared to a Tiger 1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grunto Posted June 19, 2000 Share Posted June 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GhostOne: I always thought the Tiger was the king tank on the battlefield. I have been working with it and it is getting waxed constantly without even much of a kill count. Frankly I think the Panther is a better machine and more effective or the PzIV/70. Is the superiority of the Tiger a myth?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> well the tiger i is a fine machine. look at the heroes page on the combat mission hq and find the story of michael whittmann. the tiger 1's gun isn't as good against tanks as the panther gun, but it is better than the panzer IV. Yes the jgdpzIV/70 has the panther's gun so it is also better against tanks. the tiger 1 is bertter against soft targets because of its 88mm gun. since it has a larger shell it packs more HE in its HE round. its 88mm gun is pretty good against tanks, just not as good as the panther or jgdpzIV so yes your observations are sort of correct. on the other hand i don't care what the situation, a tiger has got a chance to make some account of itself. perhaps there's something you're doing with the tigers which is not optimal. btw if memory serves tigers have elite crews. someone can jump in and correct me but i believe the tigers were in ss divisions and elite panzer units, but the regular panzer divisions and infantry division armored support were pzIVs, panthers, and more commonly in the infantry divisions, stuGs. the tiger 1 also has better side/rear armored protection than the panther or jgpzIV. the panther has a relatively weak rear. perhaps the panther is a better attacking tank with its higher speed and what i would think would be faster turret traverse. the tiger 1 is an awesome combined arms tank. those 88 shells can take out pesky machinegun positions. if you ever get a king tiger (tiger 2), now that main 88mm gun will cook/toast/wax most any british/american target with ease. it had problems with some of the russian armor of the time but it was a great tank against americans or british. its armor is also superior to the panther or jgpzIV. however it is slow and probably has a terribly slow turret traverse. heaven help the tank in its sights though. another really cool vehicle is the panther variation of a tank hunter, the jagpanther. now that has the tiger 2's main gun and the speed of the original panther, with better frontal protection than either the panther or jagdpzIV. think of that as a stugIVG on steroids. if you want a small target for ambushes get the 38t version of a close top tank destroyer, the hetzer or jgdpz38t. it has the stuGIVG's 75 and the frontal armor probably much the same as a panther, and has a remote control roof machinegun. it is a very small target. andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts