Tiger(Pz)(VIE) heavy tank or not?

[ched]

well...this tank have problem , this tank looks good when you see it ,but in the firepower and support is not good .what happens? this tank in the information outpost says 88mm of tube and support of impact 88mm , the tank does not serve well, the other day was playing and an AT gun of 45mm destroy them with one shoot ..LOL if you have a responde send me

[klapton]

Non sloped armor makes the tiger vulnerable, specially against tungsten rounds. Maybe the 45mm ATG had such ammo.

Don't be fooled by the 88mm gun on the Tiger; it is less powerful than the 88mm ATG.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I would also assume the killing shot was on the Tiger's side or rear which is also relatively vulnerable when compared with its frontal aspect. It is not the all killing behemoth that legend has us believe, especially when caught out up close.

Regards

Jim R.

[Priest]

Used properly the Tiger is a MONSTER. Ambushed or used improperly the Tiger is easily defeated due to its slow turret and such.

CMBO just hit it right and realistic.

[Skolman]

In a frontal attack against british tanks like shermans or cromwells it is a behemoth.It`s main weak point is the poor sigth when it`s buttoned and it fires very inacurate ,thats at least what i realised.

Oi ! Skolman

[Silvio Manuel]

It also sucks that German optics have no advantage in CMBO, since this was one of the Tiger strengths. Its 88mm FlaK gun has good penetrating power, but its 773 MV is just about the slowest of all German AT guns (IIRC P4=750, StuG 770, Tiger 773 Marder 792, 50mm 880, Panther 925, 88mm PaK43 1018. And apparently for CM MV=accuracy, so the Tiger loses out again. It's mainly good for surviving side/rear shots (compared to Panther) facing down thick Allied armor AND also busting infantry w/ its 88mm. Otherwise, Panther is better...faster, better PSI, better gun, slow instead of VERY slow turret. And only ~20pts. more.

Tiger also gets hurt by other CMBO shortcomings that are improved in CMBB...it's MGs are CMBO-weak (like all MGs), it can't use Cover Armor so it may do its very slow turret pivot to shoot at a retreating crew, while it exposes its flank to AT fire.

[Lindan]

I'm playing a massive tank battle in CMBB right now. The final days of Zitadelle, the Kursk battles. The Tiger platoon is up on a far away hill, but they will destroy everything they can see on the whole map. 1-1,5 km away they will shrug off tremendous amounts of punishment. That are the engagement ranges where they really shine.

[Wilson]

Originally posted by Lindan:

I'm playing a massive tank battle in CMBB right now. The final days of Zitadelle, the Kursk battles. The Tiger platoon is up on a far away hill, but they will destroy everything they can see on the whole map. 1-1,5 km away they will shrug off tremendous amounts of punishment. That are the engagement ranges where they really shine.

Have you tried this in CMBO? Do you find the Tigers just as sturdy as in CMBB at that range?

PS what russian tanks were you up against?

[Soddball]

The Tigers in CM:BO won't be as effective as in CM:BB. In CM:BB the front turret armour is modelled differently, and optics (gunsights) are modelled. The Tiger's optics were notoriously good. To test them in the new game, place a Tiger at one end of a 1.5km map, and a platoon of T34/85s at the other end. The Tiger will rapidly demolish the opposition.

Don't forget that the Tiger was designed and built in 1941 and appeared on the battlefield in 1942. By the time the Allies fought it in Normandy it was over 3 years old. By this time, many lessons had been learned from fighting T-34s on the Eastern Front. The Panther is a better tank in many respects - its gun is nearly as good but it has highly sloped armour and much lower ground pressure (reduced risk of bogging). By the time the Allies faced the Tiger, they did at least have some means of knocking it out - Sherman Fireflies and 76mm-armed Shermans and tank destroyers - even though these were rare. In 1942, the Russians could do very little to combat the Tiger.

[ November 15, 2002, 03:36 AM: Message edited by: Soddball ]

[Skolman]

I think sigths are modelled in CMBO

Shermans and tigers are shurely worse in spotting enemys than other tanks. They are also worse in accuracy.(compared to panthers for example which are the deadliest tanks in CMBO for sure).

Although i wouldn`t say the tiger is a bad tank...against shermans ,cromwells or churchills it is still THE killer.

Oi !

[TufenHuden]

Tiger in cmbo,does suck but I've destoyed pershings at long rang(A dull Dreay Day),but it wacked me as well,the 1st version of the 88mm isn't bad,but can be taken out buy sherms-76's,17-pndr's firefly's,95mm close support,but 75mm will bounce,Panther is the tank,my favorite in cmbo/cmbb,use tiger in hull down,take quick shot,

back out.

Cheers

Tufenhuden :cool:

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Skolman:

I think sigths are modelled in CMBO

Shermans and tigers are shurely worse in spotting enemys than other tanks. They are also worse in accuracy.(compared to panthers for example which are the deadliest tanks in CMBO for sure).

Although i wouldn`t say the tiger is a bad tank...against shermans ,cromwells or churchills it is still THE killer.

Oi !

If you mean optics, no they are not modelled in CMBO.

[Skolman]

That`s strange ! Does panthers and tigers (for example) really have the same chance to hit targets ? ...I allways had the feeling that especially shermans have problems in spotting the enemy....i can`t belive that this was just my imagination ???

[Silvio Manuel]

Tiger I in CMBO should have a significantly LOWER hit% compared to a Panther. Tiger's MV (muzzle velocity) is 773m/s while the Panther's is far better at 925m/s, and in CM MV= accuracy.

In CMBB, German tanks get the superior optics, so the Tiger's lower MV doesn't matter so much. And most Soviet guns (most from 85mm and under) are outshone by even the Sherman's 75mm, let alone the US/UK 76mm (not the 17pdr which kicks ass, much like the Panther's gun).

[YankeeDog]

It is important to recognize that the Tiger I is a 1942 design. When it first saw combat, it was virtually invulnerable to anything the allies could field against it. By 1944, it was no longer first generation technology. As noted, while the armor on the Tiger I is quite thick, it makes very little use of slope to increase the armor's effectiveness.

The very fact that the Tiger I is still a formidable foe in June of 1944, two and a half years after it's initial deployment, is a testament to the quality of it's design. It's not surprising that by this time the allies had come up with weapons, such as tungsten rounds, the 76mm and 17lb. gun, and others, to deal with the Tiger I.

The biggest drawback of the Tiger I was probably it's cost - compared to Allied tanks, or even many other German designs, it was very expensive to manufacture. One can argue that 2 or 3 Shermans (or T-34s) is more useful than one Tiger in most situations.

It is also true that there are certain aspects of the Tiger I's effectiveness, such as the 'good' optics, that CMBO does not model. CMBB takes a big step towards modeling these aspects of the Tiger I's design.

Cheers,

YD

[Rob Murray]

I've found the Tiger very vulnerable in CMBO. Slow turret seems to be an often fatal flaw.

[ November 19, 2002, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Rob Murray ]

[Ari Maenpaa]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

It is also true that there are certain aspects of the Tiger I's effectiveness, such as the 'good' optics, that CMBO does not model. CMBB takes a big step towards modeling these aspects of the Tiger I's design.

Unfortunately I'm not so sure the step in CMBB is that big. Things like "good" optics are relative. Even if the German optics are currently modelled accurately in CMBB, what good it makes when the point of comparison, the Soviet optics model, is based on speculation. At least that's how I understand what the manual says of the subject.

In fact in CMBB terms the difference between "good" (German) and "standard" (Soviet) optics is very small (at least in daylight conditions). Put a crack Tiger I and a crack IS-2 face to face 2000 meters apart from each other. The LOS tool tells that both of them have 16% hit propability against the opponent. The only real advantage the Tiger has, is it's faster firing rate, which helps to achieve hits quicker. So much for superior optics Also I haven't noticed that the "better" German optics give any advantage in spotting.

I have to make more tests, but at the moment it seems that in CMBB the German advantage in optics is only marginal.

Ari

[Wilson]

I don't really care much for CMBB after playing the demo. This is more to do with my interest in the Western Front than anything else.

Give me the Tiger 1 in CMBO on the Western Front, optics or not.

What exactly do the optics in CMBB do that the optics in CMBO dont? I refer to the example of 16% hit chance with the IS-2 and the Tiger 1.

With your Tiger, all that matters is that you use it with lots of infantry IN FRONT and dont expose its rear. Have plenty of reserve PnzrGndrs at its flanks and riding on its back and keep it some distance from the enemy positions.

You should experience happy hunting that way. After all it is a very interesting anmd remarkable tank, even if a little outdated by 1944.

[Incognito]

IMHO Tiger is a massive super StuG at least in CMBO, CMBB is another matter.

[Ari Maenpaa]

Originally posted by Wilson:

What exactly do the optics in CMBB do that the optics in CMBO dont? I refer to the example of 16% hit chance with the IS-2 and the Tiger 1.

The CMBB optics model basically gives the German tanks a small accuracy bonus on long ranges, but with several drawbacks. The luck factor is still prevalent.

Originally posted by SpaceHamster:

IMHO Tiger is a massive super StuG at least in CMBO, CMBB is another matter.

That's not the case. Unfortunately

Many times I have hoped the Tiger wouldn't have a turret, because for my playing style that very-slow-turret is often more a burden than a benefit. The Tiger has a very nasty habit to idiotically die to rear or side turret penetrations. CMBB brought a big help in this problem by introducing 'cover arc' commands.

Ari

[rexford]

Originally posted by Soddball:

The Tigers in CM:BO won't be as effective as in CM:BB. In CM:BB the front turret armour is modelled differently, and optics (gunsights) are modelled. The Tiger's optics were notoriously good. To test them in the new game, place a Tiger at one end of a 1.5km map, and a platoon of T34/85s at the other end. The Tiger will rapidly demolish the opposition.

The Panther is a better tank in many respects - its gun is nearly as good but it has highly sloped armour and much lower ground pressure (reduced risk of bogging). By the time the Allies faced the Tiger, they did at least have some means of knocking it out - Sherman Fireflies and 76mm-armed Shermans and tank destroyers - even though these were rare. In 1942, the Russians could do very little to combat the Tiger.

Good points.

Sherman 75mm APCBC penetration is downgraded in CMBB, so Tiger side armor is not as vulnerable at 500m (and beyond) as it was/is in CMBO. Another point in Tiger favor.

In close country, like France, Tiger side armor buys ALOT of survival ability compared to Panther side plates, especially against 75mm armed Shermans.

Against a 76mm armed M10, Tiger shifts into the 45 degree facing to firer, and the front and side armor cannot be penetrated in pre-HVAP days.

[Warmaker]

I agree. Though the Panther has several great advantages over the Tiger IE, the old Tiger's side/rear armor values more than once have saved my crews' rears and averted a disaster for my forces.

The Panther if caught on its flanks is surely dead if hit. A Tiger I on the other hand may survive, depending on the caliber of the weapon attacking it of course but a small ATGs won't kill it like it would a Panther.

[Incognito]

Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SpaceHamster:

IMHO Tiger is a massive super StuG at least in CMBO, CMBB is another matter.

That's not the case. Unfortunately

Many times I have hoped the Tiger wouldn't have a turret, because for my playing style that very-slow-turret is often more a burden than a benefit. The Tiger has a very nasty habit to idiotically die to rear or side turret penetrations. CMBB brought a big help in this problem by introducing 'cover arc' commands.

Ari[/QB]</font>

[Ari Maenpaa]

Originally posted by SpaceHamster:

IMHO thats the case.

In cmbo cos it's slow turret atleast I had to use it whit "narrow" LOS and in hull down.

Yep, I agree. In fact that’s pretty much what I tried to say, but my wording could have been better. Ie. pointwise the Tiger I is an “expensive” turreted tank, but on the CMBO battlefield it has to be played like a turretless one. So a “cheaper” turretless SP gun version of the Tiger would have been very nice for CMBO gaming purposes, because the (almost useless) turret makes the Tiger I too overcosted for QBs IMHO.

Agreed thou turretless Jagdpanther is much better than turreted tiger.

Particularly true in CMBO, but CMBB introduced the ARC commands which help to utilise the benefits of the turret. Also in CMBB the hull rotation have been made painfully slow (ridiculously slow, I’d say) which punishes the turretless vehicles.

Ari

[Negrin]

Tiger 1 was designed as a "breakthrough" tank to spearhead assaults at heavily defended enemy lines.Yes,infantry support as well as lesser armored support(PzKpfw IIIN) was definately neccessary for the Tigers success in this role.Tank killing was a secondary occupation of this vehicle.Tigers heavy frontal armor does give it a significant advantage in this role at long range.At regular combat ranges up to 1000 yds the Tiger shows it`s weakness,lighter side and rear armor that can be breached by regular AP shot not just Tungsten core.Outside this range for the most part it will dominate.With a powerful gun and thick armor it set the stage for the next generation of German Tanks.

Tiger II and Panther were designed from the start as Tank killers.With extremely high velocity guns they were an extremely deadly adversary.The 88 on the Tiger II was unmatched by any other tank gun used by any nation during WW2,icluding JS2 and Pershing!