Jump to content


was the tiger a reliable tank?


  • Please log in to reply
199 replies to this topic

Rena_Dyne #21 Posted Aug 25 2014 - 23:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 9344 battles
  • 4,337
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View Postnapalm43, on Aug 25 2014 - 15:00, said:

I just finished watching a documentary about when the 3rd army went up against Panthers and had to wait on the Hellcats to save the day since their 75mm guns were just bouncing left and right while the Panthers were chipping away at the Shermans for a loss of 3 tanks at the outset of the battle. Most of Patton's tanks had the 75mm at the time.

 

Early Era 75MM m4's had issues penetrating Panthers and Tigers from outside certain ranges {I believe it was 400-500 yards?} while later era shermans that gained the 76MM could penetrate most commonly seen german armor, and HVAP allowed them to easily penetrate Tigers and Panthers, the issue again, was not the shermans themselves, but that the HVAP was almost always given to T.D crews, like the Jackson, Hellcat, and other tanks. and HVAP was in short supply as it was.

G0lfSierra1 #22 Posted Aug 25 2014 - 23:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 19224 battles
  • 2,330
  • Member since:
    05-27-2013
Yeah but it would still be pretty cool to be in someting from that era that could do 60+ MPH and spank anything it faced with such ease like the M18's did. Also the Panther could wreck your day from over a mile away and Im pretty sure the Tiger had a nice long range too.

Rena_Dyne #23 Posted Aug 25 2014 - 23:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 9344 battles
  • 4,337
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View Postnapalm43, on Aug 25 2014 - 15:12, said:

Yeah but it would still be pretty cool to be in someting from that era that could do 60+ MPH and spank anything it faced with such ease like the M18's did. Also the Panther could wreck your day from over a mile away and Im pretty sure the Tiger had a nice long range too.

 

Shhh, don't mention the Hellcats top speed in here, or we'll have a particular user in here telling us how we're wrong and the hellcat couldn't go that fast.

Dominatus #24 Posted Aug 25 2014 - 23:19

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,790
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

It should be noted that the 75mm gun could not penetrate Tigers frontally with AP, although the 76mm could do it from just about any combat range. The 76mm gun, even with HVAP could not penetrate the glacis plate of a Panther, neither could the 17pdr's APCBC round which had similar performance. They probably could penetrate the turret front though. Everything down to 14.5mm AT rifles could penetrate the sides of the Panther from certain distances.

 

In regards to the Hellcat, it should be noted that it was considered relatively unsuccessful as a vehicle. It was vulnerable to every AT weapon the Germans had. High speed is not particularly useful in combat, and the speed limit of the Hellcat was rather, excessive in its uselessness. It also lacked any sort of defensive weapon other than the .50 on the roof. It had very little going for it over an M4(76), an M36, or even an M10 (although it had the advantage of powered traverse over the M10).



G0lfSierra1 #25 Posted Aug 25 2014 - 23:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 19224 battles
  • 2,330
  • Member since:
    05-27-2013
If anything, SerB needs to buff the speed on them since the game gives it its historical speed but converted to metric which is way slower. Even the Tiger seems slower than in real life in the game.

Rena_Dyne #26 Posted Aug 25 2014 - 23:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 9344 battles
  • 4,337
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View Postnapalm43, on Aug 25 2014 - 15:20, said:

If anything, SerB needs to buff the speed on them since the game gives it its historical speed but converted to metric which is way slower. Even the Tiger seems slower than in real life in the game.

 

Uhh, dude, the hellcats "metric" speed would be 96 KM/H, or something like that, in game its maximum speed is 55 km/h, the tigers are IIRC actually faster since the game doesn't take into account that going top speed in them would burn out the transmissions >.>

Daigensui #27 Posted Aug 25 2014 - 23:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 31961 battles
  • 29,987
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View Postcaramel, on Aug 25 2014 - 15:28, said:

the tigers are IIRC actually faster since the game doesn't take into account that going top speed in them would burn out the transmissions >.>

 

It was the engine cooling that was the problem, not the transmission.



G0lfSierra1 #28 Posted Aug 25 2014 - 23:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 19224 battles
  • 2,330
  • Member since:
    05-27-2013
In game speed of the M18 is ~70 KPH which is about the same as the E25 but the E25 doesnt scrub off as much speed when turning or going up hill as the Hellcat so its a tad faster overall.

Rena_Dyne #29 Posted Aug 25 2014 - 23:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 9344 battles
  • 4,337
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View Postnapalm43, on Aug 25 2014 - 15:33, said:

In game speed of the M18 is ~70 KPH which is about the same as the E25 but the E25 doesnt scrub off as much speed when turning or going up hill as the Hellcat so its a tad faster overall.

 

Look at the speed it actually attains in game, unless going down hill you don't really get over 55KMH

G0lfSierra1 #30 Posted Aug 25 2014 - 23:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 19224 battles
  • 2,330
  • Member since:
    05-27-2013
Exactly my point. IRL they went a lot faster than they do in the game.

Rena_Dyne #31 Posted Aug 25 2014 - 23:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 9344 battles
  • 4,337
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View Postnapalm43, on Aug 25 2014 - 15:37, said:

Exactly my point. IRL they went a lot faster than they do in the game.

 

honestly, I'm fine with the speed as is. Their has to be a limit somewhere, the E25 has no turret so. meh. I just want a bit of a mobility buff so it can actually turn like it was able too, and maybe some actual acceleration.

collimatrix #32 Posted Aug 25 2014 - 23:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 12102 battles
  • 2,792
  • Member since:
    02-01-2011

View PostAdmiralTheisman, on Aug 25 2014 - 23:47, said:

 

Does not the Abrams consume a large amount of fuel for its engine? Would not a simpler tank be a better option? It is hardly like you have to worry about flak 88 penetrating your armor. A conventional diesel engine equipped Western MBT seems like the best bet if you get to be time traveler in WW2. 

 

The turbine guzzles enormous amounts of fuel, but it also puts out enormous amounts of power.  The specific fuel consumption, that is fuel consumption divided by power, is about the same as a gasoline tank engine if memory serves.  It's only vs. diesels that it compares poorly.

Best bet for a time traveler in WWII is a Bradley.  The 25mm will kill most things you'll run into, and it has far more ammo.

 

View Postpanzershreck65, on Aug 25 2014 - 23:26, said:

Ive always said that if i had to pick any tank to drive into a war from ww2 it would be either the T34-85 or the Tiger 1.

however, german tanks were plagued with issues that usually involved something to do with them being overwieght (because hitler was an idiot and always wanted more armor on the tanks, even when they had more than enough) 

 

ive heard a lot about the interleaved suspension, while it was great for a nice dry area like kursk, it was horrible if you got into mud with it, especially if it was winter, mud would freeze in the wheels and then you gotta remove a whole big bunch of heavy wheels to get it unstuck.

 

however i never heard much about the tiger having and very notable automotive problems like its sister tank the panther had. there were probably some, but how bad were they?

 

I'm not clear on the specifics, but I do recall reading that they were tricky to keep in action.  The engine and transmission were supposed to be somewhat fragile, but an even bigger problem was the lack of spares if ever you did break those parts.



G0lfSierra1 #33 Posted Aug 25 2014 - 23:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 19224 battles
  • 2,330
  • Member since:
    05-27-2013
The Tiger was the last thing any tank commander wanted to see frontally since it was usually the last thing he would see. They broke down a lot but once they got to the fight, they were a tough nut to crack for our tanks.

SinsOfWrath #34 Posted Aug 25 2014 - 23:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 19917 battles
  • 2,636
  • [CARTE] CARTE
  • Member since:
    07-18-2012
The Tiger and King Tiger were designs ahead of the time.  The problem was transmission coupled by a complicate suspension system.  In the eastern front the issues became even more apparent due the lack of supplies.  The Russians knew they couldn't pen the Tigers and frequently went for their tracks just to temporarily take them out of the battle.  A good read is "History of the 503 Tank Battalion."  Overall the average kill rate was 12 of theirs to one Tiger.  I would pick a Tiger or a T-44, which was the predecessor of the T-54.

AdmiralTheisman #35 Posted Aug 26 2014 - 00:31

    Captain

  • Players
  • 30786 battles
  • 1,821
  • Member since:
    07-01-2013

View PostSinsOfWrath, on Aug 25 2014 - 23:47, said:

The Tiger and King Tiger were designs ahead of the time.  The problem was transmission coupled by a complicate suspension system.  In the eastern front the issues became even more apparent due the lack of supplies.  The Russians knew they couldn't pen the Tigers and frequently went for their tracks just to temporarily take them out of the battle.  A good read is "History of the 503 Tank Battalion."  Overall the average kill rate was 12 of theirs to one Tiger.  I would pick a Tiger or a T-44, which was the predecessor of the T-54.

http://ftr.wot-news....-at-statistics/



panzershreck65 #36 Posted Aug 26 2014 - 01:59

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 12710 battles
  • 603
  • Member since:
    08-13-2011

i always thought that the tiger 2 took a lot of automotive parts from the tiger 1 and put them in a much heavier design because they couldn't waste time developing a whole new set of parts for the tiger 2 and so that they could more easily get spares. 

 

and as such, it had some horrendus mechanical issues. never heard nearly as much about the tiger being all that bad if they were reasonably well maintained.



Daigensui #37 Posted Aug 26 2014 - 02:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 31961 battles
  • 29,987
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View Postpanzershreck65, on Aug 25 2014 - 17:59, said:

i always thought that the tiger 2 took a lot of automotive parts from the tiger 1 and put them in a much heavier design because they couldn't waste time developing a whole new set of parts for the tiger 2 and so that they could more easily get spares. 

 

Tiger Ausf. B has more in common with Panther (except the transmission) than with Tiger.



Jeeps_Guns_Tanks #38 Posted Aug 26 2014 - 02:42

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16990 battles
  • 5,607
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    07-14-2010

View PostSinsOfWrath, on Aug 25 2014 - 15:47, said:

The Tiger and King Tiger were designs ahead of the time.  The problem was transmission coupled by a complicate suspension system.  In the eastern front the issues became even more apparent due the lack of supplies.  The Russians knew they couldn't pen the Tigers and frequently went for their tracks just to temporarily take them out of the battle.  A good read is "History of the 503 Tank Battalion."  Overall the average kill rate was 12 of theirs to one Tiger.  I would pick a Tiger or a T-44, which was the predecessor of the T-54.

 

Your Tiger kill claims are hogwash and have been proven wrong.  Basically the SS liked to lie about how good they were, and they were better at lying than fighting, since people like you still buy into the [edited]even now. 

 



panzershreck65 #39 Posted Aug 26 2014 - 02:47

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 12710 battles
  • 603
  • Member since:
    08-13-2011

View PostDaigensui, on Aug 25 2014 - 21:07, said:

 

Tiger Ausf. B has more in common with Panther (except the transmission) than with Tiger.

 

well **** that's even worse lol

Donward #40 Posted Aug 26 2014 - 02:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 46957 battles
  • 7,083
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    08-29-2011

View PostSinsOfWrath, on Aug 25 2014 - 15:47, said:

The Tiger and King Tiger were designs ahead of the time.  The problem was transmission coupled by a complicate suspension system.  In the eastern front the issues became even more apparent due the lack of supplies.  The Russians knew they couldn't pen the Tigers and frequently went for their tracks just to temporarily take them out of the battle.  A good read is "History of the 503 Tank Battalion."  Overall the average kill rate was 12 of theirs to one Tiger.  I would pick a Tiger or a T-44, which was the predecessor of the T-54.

Because of their futuristic design, the US, Britain and USSR directly copied their designs and incorporated them in their armed forces. Ersatz Panthers and Tigers were used well into the 1960s...






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users