What am I missing

[Makes The Jelly Judder]

Every gets so over exited about the tiger, but from the stats of brit late war tanks both the Churchill and Cromwell tanks both exceeded the meager amour stats of the tiger. Please explain.

[ November 18, 2003, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Makes The Jelly Judder ]

[Kwazydog]

Judder, try it in CMAK or CMBB in '43 and you will probably get a better impresison of why this vehicle made such an impact in the war

By the CMBO time frame (mid '44 onwards) you are indeed correct...the Tiger had actually been outdated in many ways. The 88 will still packed a hell of a punch though, and its amrour was still pretty tough unless close.

Dan

[Makes The Jelly Judder]

I doubt we will get Cromwells in CMAK. 88 equals a resounding whoolp to all tanks. But most german guns were not 88's. And Brit tanks must have been proof aginst these guns at least at somekind of range......

Thw tiger in in CMBB in 43 is still leathal(sp?)

[ November 18, 2003, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Makes The Jelly Judder ]

[Beta1]

As stated prevoiusly - you dont see the real killing power of the tiger in BO you need to see it BB to see why its so fearsome.

In BO because of the lack of rarity factors Tigers run into a lot of 76mm/17pdr/90mm tanks rather than the large numbers of 75mm tanks that made up the majority of the allied armor. Also becuase of the normandy terrain the engagement ranges are shorter making armor penetrations more easily acheived by the allies.

In BB when the tiger appears it is facing tanks that have guns inferior or at best comparable to the 75mm allied guns but facing them on the steppes at ranges of 1km+. At that sort of range the T34s have little hope of a penetration while the 88mm tiger can KO them easily. The 88mm is also more accurate making the tiger a real monster to face. The same goes for the panther whoes weak side armor makes it less dangerous in the tight normandy terrain than the flatter steppes

I guess if you only have BO you can approximate this by playing a large flat map with few trees and purchasing a equal points value of tigers/panthers and sherman 75s. Certainly in BB you can be pretty sure of a tiger beating 3-4 T34/75s at 1.5km

[JasonC]

The only thing that made the Tiger impressive was the weak quality of the main guns (and the ammo) on common early and mid war Allied tanks. The Russian 76mm and US 75mm were underpowered against 80mm sides, let alone 100mm fronts.

Once the Allies were using 85mm and 76mm guns and had improved ammo for them, the Tiger was a fine tank but no longer "uber". (The King was "uber" again, late). It's gun remained powerful, however, good enough to hurt just about anything down to the end of the war.

The armor protection of a Tiger is comparable to that of a T-34, when slope differences are accounted for. The difference is the Germans shot at T-34s with long 75s, while early T-34s and Shermans shot at Tigers with short ones. A 75L24 Panzer has the same problems with a T-34.

Compared to Panthers, the other heavy the Germans had in quantity, the strength of the Tiger is the thickness of its side armor. This limits the threat from middle quality AT weapons - US 57&75, Rus76, 105mm, zooks. That makes a difference attacking shoe-string AT defenses, trying to "make do". When dedicated TDs or upgunned armor are available, side hits are going to kill regardless and the Panther is actually better (upper front hull much better sloped).