Jump to content


Did the Tiger 1 use the L/71?


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

kirandrtanker #1 Posted Dec 27 2014 - 22:20

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10473 battles
  • 137
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

I wonder if the variety of guns that are available in the game were actually in use in real life combat, one of them is the top gun the L/71 im also a bit skeptical with the derp gun....:sceptic:



Xime #2 Posted Dec 27 2014 - 22:21

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 34039 battles
  • 67
  • [TKOC] TKOC
  • Member since:
    07-14-2012
Not mounted historically

Winterpwner #3 Posted Dec 27 2014 - 22:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 8605 battles
  • 11,067
  • [ANZIO] ANZIO
  • Member since:
    03-16-2011
Never. It was planned to, but was never actually mounted. The Tiger used the L/56 only.

kirandrtanker #4 Posted Dec 27 2014 - 22:28

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10473 battles
  • 137
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View PostXime, on Dec 27 2014 - 21:21, said:

Not mounted historically

 

Then why is it in the game?

Priory_of_Sion #5 Posted Dec 27 2014 - 22:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,759
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011

View Postkirandrtanker, on Dec 27 2014 - 16:28, said:

 

Then why is it in the game?

 

It was planned to be mounted. Historically planned upgrades are usually included in WoT. 


Edited by Priory_of_Sion, Dec 27 2014 - 22:37.


Hellcatz #6 Posted Dec 27 2014 - 22:37

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13584 battles
  • 641
  • Member since:
    05-02-2012

View Postkirandrtanker, on Dec 27 2014 - 16:28, said:

 

Then why is it in the game?

 

Because ~130 pen at tier 7 for a heavy is garbage.

 

WG choses game balance over historical accuracy. 

 

In the Historical battle modes (when it was in the game), the Tiger was forced to mount the L/56 gun.



Quantumkiwi #7 Posted Dec 27 2014 - 22:44

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 17497 battles
  • 685
  • Member since:
    10-28-2011

View Postkirandrtanker, on Dec 27 2014 - 22:28, said:

 

Then why is it in the game?

 

This game is not historically accurate, just look at the waffle fantasy tanks, etc

Daigensui #8 Posted Dec 27 2014 - 22:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 31983 battles
  • 29,987
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostQuantumkiwi, on Dec 27 2014 - 13:44, said:

This game is not historically accurate, just look at the waffle fantasy tanks, etc

 

It's singular, not plural, and even then the crazy Germans did consider using the E 100 hull for AA purposes.



Xlucine #9 Posted Dec 28 2014 - 03:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostDaigensui, on Dec 27 2014 - 21:46, said:

 

It's singular, not plural, and even then the crazy Germans did consider using the E 100 hull for AA purposes.

 

In a project so secret that not even doyle has heard of it. Also, AA tanks with 20 degrees elevation are very useful

Sad_But_Drew #10 Posted Dec 28 2014 - 22:22

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 27126 battles
  • 433
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

There were plans to upgun (I think they may have prototyped it even).  By the time they had the guns ready, the Tiger I had been replaced with Tiger II (which was built with the long gun).

 

It's game-balance.  Some tanks have pretty much only what they carried (Shermans for example).  Others have planned but never implemented upgrades (Hellcat, the Tiger I and P, the LONG 75mm and schmalturn for the Panther).  And some guns were allowed to work, even though they never did (Vickers HV, without that, the Brits would be REALLY hamstrung).



Legiondude #11 Posted Dec 29 2014 - 02:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 20522 battles
  • 23,191
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011
The L/71 was supposed to be tested and a conversion program in place by the end of 1942, but enough successes with the L/56 combined with development momentum going towards straight up building a new tank(Tiger II) meant it was pushed farther and farther back. Tests were prepared for in August 1944 and by then the need was basically moot

Colddawg #12 Posted Dec 31 2014 - 14:42

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 45846 battles
  • 3,917
  • [ICON-] ICON-
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010
With the historical Tiger I barely able to compensate for the massive recoil of the L/56 I wonder how it was to negotiate the L/71's recoil.

Walter_Sobchak #13 Posted Dec 31 2014 - 18:36

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostPriory_of_Sion, on Dec 27 2014 - 16:36, said:

 

It was planned to be mounted. Historically planned upgrades are usually included in WoT. 

 

Everytime that picture is posted, it reminds me that I only have a german language PDF version of Spielbergers Tiger book (the source of the above picture.)  They have a used english language copy at the local hobby store for $39.95.  I have so far resisted spending the money.  Please, stop reminding me of it! 

Legiondude #14 Posted Dec 31 2014 - 19:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 20522 battles
  • 23,191
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Dec 31 2014 - 11:36, said:

 

Everytime that picture is posted, it reminds me that I only have a german language PDF version of Spielbergers Tiger book (the source of the above picture.)  They have a used english language copy at the local hobby store for $39.95.  I have so far resisted spending the money.  Please, stop reminding me of it! 

It's got nice eye candy, and history on Tiger derivative projects and SPGs, but if you want a real technical publication on specifically the heavy tanks that's more up to date you're better off getting Germany's Tiger Tanks. Unfortunately Tigers I and II and Their Variants is marred by formatting and translation errors, which cripples it's quality in comparison to the other books in the series(such as Panzer IV and Its Variants)



Black_Stealth_Badger41 #15 Posted Dec 31 2014 - 20:52

    Captain

  • Players
  • 39649 battles
  • 1,750
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012

View Postkirandrtanker, on Dec 27 2014 - 13:28, said:

 

Then why is it in the game?

 

3/4 of the vehicles in this game. Never existed :
1) were dreamt up by someone on the development team at wargaming,
2) were scratches on a piece of paper,
3) were Blueprint models that never saw the light of day,
4) were Blueprint models that had wood production models built
5) were produced and tested 2-4 tanks in total  some saw combat most didn't
6) Were produced and either immediately discontinued or company lost the production bid.

Then probably about a 1/4 of vehicles in this game that actually saw combat through the 30's, 40's, 50's and early 60's. Many of them have improper historical mounted equipment.


It's a video game which wargaming always likes to point out. Historically accurate is a term they like to drag out whenever they need to "NERF" a vehicle completely or  to slightly BUFF it.  Then they bring in the "Game balancing" argument.

Legiondude #16 Posted Jan 01 2015 - 08:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 20522 battles
  • 23,191
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostHBadger41, on Dec 31 2014 - 13:52, said:

 

3/4 of the vehicles in this game. Never existed :
1) were dreamt up by someone on the development team at wargaming,
2) were scratches on a piece of paper,
3) were Blueprint models that never saw the light of day,
4) were Blueprint models that had wood production models built
5) were produced and tested 2-4 tanks in total  some saw combat most didn't
6) Were produced and either immediately discontinued or company lost the production bid.

Roughly 55% of the vehicles in game are non production type vehicles, less than half of that are paper designs



Chopa #17 Posted Jan 01 2015 - 09:48

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 40944 battles
  • 491
  • [DOG5] DOG5
  • Member since:
    07-30-2011

Anyone who thinks this is a game about tanks leave the room.  It's all about climbing trees......Or an ever growing beanstalk.

I would venture to suggest that 90% fictional is more like it. The real tanks are mostly the stock versions of names you all recognize.

You saw how popular "Historical" battles were. Admire WG's business model, but never imagine you are playing even the remotest relative of a tank sim or a historical wargame.



THUNDERUSKILL #18 Posted Jan 01 2015 - 13:57

    Private

  • Players
  • 10942 battles
  • 3
  • [ANV] ANV
  • Member since:
    01-11-2014

View Postkirandrtanker, on Dec 27 2014 - 21:20, said:

I wonder if the variety of guns that are available in the game were actually in use in real life combat, one of them is the top gun the L/71 im also a bit skeptical with the derp gun....:sceptic:

 

FIRST OFF THE VALINTINE WAS A CANADIAN RECON TANK, SECOND RAM NEVER SAW ACTION LIKE MOST OF [edited]TANKS IN WOT SO STOP ADVERTISE IT AS SUCH,STOPE USEN NON WW2 TANKS U MIGHT GET PPL BACK FROM WORLD OF THUNDER!

 



THUNDERUSKILL #19 Posted Jan 01 2015 - 13:58

    Private

  • Players
  • 10942 battles
  • 3
  • [ANV] ANV
  • Member since:
    01-11-2014

View PostTHUNDERUSKILL, on Jan 01 2015 - 12:57, said:

 

FIRST OFF THE VALINTINE WAS A CANADIAN RECON TANK, SECOND RAM NEVER SAW ACTION LIKE MOST OF [edited]TANKS IN WOT SO STOP ADVERTISE IT AS SUCH,STOPE USEN NON WW2 TANKS U MIGHT GET PPL BACK FROM WORLD OF THUNDER!

 

 

UNTILL THEN WOT SUX

[edited]

 



farcticox #20 Posted Jan 01 2015 - 14:25

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 62481 battles
  • 534
  • [ACF] ACF
  • Member since:
    02-09-2013

A fantasy waffle

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users