TerrorX Posted February 20, 2002 Share Posted February 20, 2002 I was wondering does the Tiger tank seem a tad bit weak in CMBO?. I am mainly comparing this to the Shermans which seem to knock out my Tiger when going one to one with them, could it be the ammo type or tank crew experience level. It just seems like everytime I go up against a Sherman even if my tank crew is Veteran, the Tiger almost 70 percent of the time gets knocked out and this is done while the frontal armor is facing the opponent. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted February 20, 2002 Share Posted February 20, 2002 What range are you firing from, are they 76mm armed? I have had great success with Tigers, you just have to realize that from close range they were not UBERPANZERS and that legend is just that, legend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 20, 2002 Share Posted February 20, 2002 Originally posted by TerrorX: I was wondering does the Tiger tank seem a tad bit weak in CMBO?. I am mainly comparing this to the Shermans which seem to knock out my Tiger when going one to one with them, could it be the ammo type or tank crew experience level. It just seems like everytime I go up against a Sherman even if my tank crew is Veteran, the Tiger almost 70 percent of the time gets knocked out and this is done while the frontal armor is facing the opponent. :confused: There is one "sort-of" issue here that you will find some sympathy with (at least from me) THe Tiger I had a disctinct LONG range advantage which is why the Allies wanted to close fast on them or get flank shots. the game does not model very many tank duals over 1000 m Most tanks duals in CMBO are less then 500 m the Tiger Shines in encounters with allied tanks when it can fire at them from over 1000 m then that 88 mm main weapon can really be effective BUT it has been suggested a few times that the 88 mm does not have the long range accuracy or penetration ability it "should" be historically afforded. this has been debated here MANY times. The simple fact is it boils down to keeping the uber tank the (Tiger I) way back out of the action and trying to pick off the allied armour from a distance without exposing your flanks. When those Sherms get in close the 17 lbr in the Fire Fly and the 76 mm sherms can and do penetrate the frontal armour of the Tiger, they can do this especially effectively with HVAP (tungsten) as the Tiger I does not sport nice sloping frontal armour. other comments? -tom w [ February 19, 2002, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerrorX Posted February 20, 2002 Author Share Posted February 20, 2002 I usually keep my distance extreme and try not to expose my rear or side, just seems that those shermans get off more accurate shots even if at extreme distances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted February 20, 2002 Share Posted February 20, 2002 The tiger I was past its prime in late 1944, and generally better suited to the steppes of the East Front than the cities, woods, and bocage of the West Front. In 1943 it truly was an ubertank, since it could knock out sherms and T34s from long ranges while remaining invulnerable to their medium velocity cannon. However, by 1944 and 1945, the Allies had developed better cannon, such as the 17lber, 76mm, and Russian 85mm that could take out a tiger from the front, at least at close range. Still, the tiger was always the standard against which other tanks were judged, and always a feared opponent. In CM, everything depends on staying as far back from the enemy as possible. On the attack, you cannot use tigers as breakthrough tanks leading the assault, that only worked for awhile on the eastern front. Instead, keep the big kitties back from the front in hull down. This will let the high velocity 88 outrange slower cannon, and will minimize the handicap of a very slow turret. Use the tigers to provide overwatch for faster tanks, especially pz IVs that have the speed and turret rotation speed to go in first. On the defense, set yourself up in a position that gives you good flank protection and a limited field of fire across or looking down the enemy's path of attack. This lets you avoid being flanked, allows you to take on enemy tanks one at a time, and again minimizes the effects of the slow turret. You may notice that these are the same tactics as for turretless panzerjaegers and StuGs. However, you can employ the tiger a bit more agressively than these panzers, since you have the turret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted February 20, 2002 Share Posted February 20, 2002 Yes, in CMBO the Allies definitely the tools to declaw the aging Tiger I. If you truly want to learn how to max the capabilities of an expensive panzer like the Tiger I, use the PzKpfw IV or other paper thin panzers. It makes you learn how to carefully manage them. There is one common mistake axis players make with their Big Cats is that they will rely much too often on their armor. Anyways, despite the Tiger I's problems in CMBO I still love them. I use them 3-4 times more often than the Panther. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 20, 2002 Share Posted February 20, 2002 It is important to note that *the* thing that Michael Wittmann did differently than other tank commanders is extreme care. He handled his tank like a raw egg, always using a maximum of cover, only crossing open space with maximum precaution. Much like an infantryman rushes from cover to cover. And this did not change when he switched from a StuG to a Tiger, on the contrary, he got *more* careful because the Tiger couldn't get out of trouble as fast as the StuG. So why do some CMBO people expect they can get away with king-of-the-hill tactics in the same tank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted February 20, 2002 Share Posted February 20, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: It is important to note that *the* thing that Michael Wittmann did differently than other tank commanders is extreme care. He handled his tank like a raw egg, always using a maximum of cover, only crossing open space with maximum precaution. Much like an infantryman rushes from cover to cover. And this did not change when he switched from a StuG to a Tiger, on the contrary, he got *more* careful because the Tiger couldn't get out of trouble as fast as the StuG. So why do some CMBO people expect they can get away with king-of-the-hill tactics in the same tank?Wittmmann's behavior at V-B does not fit your descritpion, however, and that is the one encounter he is most famous for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 20, 2002 Share Posted February 20, 2002 Originally posted by M Hofbauer: Wittmmann's behavior at V-B does not fit your descritpion, however, and that is the one encounter he is most famous for.Good point. But his behaviour at Villers-Bocage is not typical. And he lost his tank in this fight, which kinda supports the point about "proper" behaviour. I don't know offhand how many tanks he lost, but this event is the exception, not the rule. This is a sharp contrast to many other SS units where it was normal to throw their tanks away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted February 21, 2002 Share Posted February 21, 2002 Well, Villers-Bocage was his huge highlight I believe and he may have been a bit reckless. However, I'm thinking he didn't get to that level of experience and fame by being reckless from the onset of his career. Recklessness over the course of any war isn't good for your health Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts