Jump to content


Lets Call a Tiger III a Tiger III


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

Verblonde #41 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 22:13

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17996 battles
  • 2,978
  • [FUNTB] FUNTB
  • Member since:
    02-08-2015

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 03 2016 - 16:09, said:

 

Nearly 100 hulls were built, while only 5 actual tanks were completed (and three were converted into armored recovery vehicles).

 

Aye, the bulk were the basis of the Ferdinand (later Elefant), weren't they?

 

Edit: according to Wikipedia (noted fount of reliable information...!), only one actual Tiger (P), as we know them, saw combat - as a command vehicle. That must be what I was remembering. (Link)


Edited by Verblonde, Jun 03 2016 - 22:18.


WulfeHound #42 Posted Jun 03 2016 - 22:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostVerblonde, on Jun 03 2016 - 16:13, said:

 

Aye, the bulk were the basis of the Ferdinand (later Elefant), weren't they?

 

Edit: according to Wikipedia (noted fount of reliable information...!), only one actual Tiger (P), as we know them, saw combat - as a command vehicle. That must be what I was remembering. (Link)

 

Yes

Legiondude #43 Posted Jun 04 2016 - 04:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 20522 battles
  • 23,193
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 03 2016 - 15:09, said:

 

Nearly 100 hulls were built, while only 5 actual tanks were completed (and three were converted into armored recovery vehicles).

Going by the "counting heads" method it may be as high as 13 if you reference the serial numbers of the hulls and turrets

 

Unfortunately Porsche built the things with different serial numbers, so hull #8 might be mated to turret #10 and such because of all the backroom tinkering in order to try and get out all the kinks.



MiraclesHappen #44 Posted Jun 05 2016 - 04:59

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 32652 battles
  • 104
  • [5THAD] 5THAD
  • Member since:
    04-07-2014

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 03 2016 - 20:53, said:

 

>calls anything not mass produced fake

What? Do you realize just how absurd that logic is? And there is data as to how the vehicles would perform, that's why they were tested.

 

You aren't getting what I said.


Yet there is data as to how the prototypes performed, on testing ranges, to the extent they were tested (many were not even fully constructed - light steel etc).

 

But the finished product would likely have been much different. Just read up on any tank development. Prototypes and the vehicle fielded were substantially different. Just note tanks like the Panther for which there are two or three prototypes in the tech tree. Big difference. The changes were made for a reason, maybe that earlier version was not manufacturable.

For instance, you could have a prototype that would bog down and be worthless in the field. See any Jap heavy in the game right now. Those werent real weapon systems nor could they have ever been real.

Or they could have had bag engines that caught fire or suspensions that broke or turrets that would not traverse (see the BP Matty - it wasnt made because it didnt work).

 

Fantasy tanks.

 



MiraclesHappen #45 Posted Jun 05 2016 - 05:37

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 32652 battles
  • 104
  • [5THAD] 5THAD
  • Member since:
    04-07-2014

View PostVerblonde, on Jun 03 2016 - 22:02, said:

Isn't the 'not mass-produced' logic a bit harsh? For example (if memory serves) wasn't there only 1 Tiger (P) and that's quite a fun part of the game?

 

Its not my intent to be harsh or not. I am not saying fantasy tanks shouldn't be in the game. I am merely defining the term in the context of an earlier statement as to how many were in tier ten.

For my part, I am perfectly okay with fantasy tanks in this game, because its a silly game not a sim. By silly, see WWI tanks fighting WWII tanks, German and French tanks fight side by side against German and French tanks (and all the other nationalities). Hit Points, Icons for enemy tanks etc etc.

 

Its not a "realistic" game so fantasy isnt important.

 

Now there ARE games where that is not as true, like WWII Online where they pride themselves on being more of a sim, no hitpoints, either shot and killed or not (mostly, shot in arm can wound) and tanks that are penned without damage to crew or gear can be penned all day and live - or can die to the first shot that hits ammo or frags the crew etc.


That is a great game for that sim reason. But it also limits the tank force pool - its just WWII era tanks (and just 1939-43 or so at that) and its just ones that were actually made. AND only side appropriate (if you spawn from an English unit you dont get a PzIV).

So its two different game types and two different concerns.

But for here, a Object Whatever is fine by me.

I just want their names distinctly different enough I can easily tell which is which at a glance without having to commit large sums of memorization to the task.


 



WulfeHound #46 Posted Jun 05 2016 - 06:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostMiraclesHappen, on Jun 04 2016 - 22:59, said:

 

You aren't getting what I said.


Yet there is data as to how the prototypes performed, on testing ranges, to the extent they were tested (many were not even fully constructed - light steel etc).

 

 

Testing was usually done with weights to simulate the entire weight of the vehicle if the turret wasn't ready. You can see this with images of the VK 30.01H and 36.01H. Those have concrete rings on top of the hull to simulate the turret weight. Mild steel and armor steel have very minimal differences in weight/density (as in less than a tenth of a gram) so the differences in weight of a production tank and a prototype are usually minimal.

 

Block Quote

 

But the finished product would likely have been much different. Just read up on any tank development. Prototypes and the vehicle fielded were substantially different. Just note tanks like the Panther for which there are two or three prototypes in the tech tree. Big difference. The changes were made for a reason, maybe that earlier version was not manufacturable.
 

 

There were two prototypes for the Panther, one from MAN and the other from Daimler-Benz (that was offered with two different suspensions). The MAN version was produced because 1) it had a different silhouette compared to the T-34, 2) had a larger turret ring and had a better protected coax and gunner periscope, 3) didn't use a diesel engine or aluminium for the block, and 4) the contract was promised to MAN.

Block Quote

 For instance, you could have a prototype that would bog down and be worthless in the field. See any Jap heavy in the game right now. Those werent real weapon systems nor could they have ever been real.

Or they could have had bag engines that caught fire or suspensions that broke or turrets that would not traverse (see the BP Matty - it wasnt made because it didnt work).
 

 

Fantasy tanks.

 

That's why prototypes are tested, to see if they work or not. Although the O-I was tested (and failed), plus the Type 4/Type 5 turret was also built and used as coastal artillery.

 

The Matilda "Black Prince" (actually just a Matilda II with an A27 turret, completely unrelated to the actual Matilda Black Prince) has literally almost no documentation about it aside from a photograph. How do you know that the turret didn't rotate?



XCER #47 Posted Jun 05 2016 - 09:39

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 80583 battles
  • 289
  • [BGPSN] BGPSN
  • Member since:
    08-31-2012
can you remember which way your gun is pointing? if so click left button...make tank go boom...name not important. boom is important.

mattwong #48 Posted Jun 05 2016 - 19:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 05 2016 - 00:13, said:

There were two prototypes for the Panther, one from MAN and the other from Daimler-Benz (that was offered with two different suspensions). The MAN version was produced because 1) it had a different silhouette compared to the T-34, 2) had a larger turret ring and had a better protected coax and gunner periscope, 3) didn't use a diesel engine or aluminium for the block, and 4) the contract was promised to MAN.

 

And the guy making the decision had friends in MAN.

MiraclesHappen #49 Posted Jun 06 2016 - 12:46

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 32652 battles
  • 104
  • [5THAD] 5THAD
  • Member since:
    04-07-2014

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 05 2016 - 06:13, said:

 

Testing was usually done with weights to simulate the entire weight of the vehicle if the turret wasn't ready. You can see this with images of the VK 30.01H and 36.01H. Those have concrete rings on top of the hull to simulate the turret weight. Mild steel and armor steel have very minimal differences in weight/density (as in less than a tenth of a gram) so the differences in weight of a production tank and a prototype are usually minimal.

 

 

There were two prototypes for the Panther, one from MAN and the other from Daimler-Benz (that was offered with two different suspensions). The MAN version was produced because 1) it had a different silhouette compared to the T-34, 2) had a larger turret ring and had a better protected coax and gunner periscope, 3) didn't use a diesel engine or aluminium for the block, and 4) the contract was promised to MAN.

 

That's why prototypes are tested, to see if they work or not. Although the O-I was tested (and failed), plus the Type 4/Type 5 turret was also built and used as coastal artillery.

 

The Matilda "Black Prince" (actually just a Matilda II with an A27 turret, completely unrelated to the actual Matilda Black Prince) has literally almost no documentation about it aside from a photograph. How do you know that the turret didn't rotate?

 

1) Simulated weights still not the same thing. Center of Gravity, torques on the hull, all going to be different and any of that might make a huge difference in performance.

 

2) The Panther story is interesting, though not news. But you seem to miss my point. Look at any tanks most recent prototype and the production vehicle that is fielded and there will be stark differences. Those differences were not usually a random choice, but decisions made because of unworkable aspects of the prototype that they wished to correct. Also a prototype might have lacked many significant but necessary items when tested, altering its performance outcomes to unrealistic levels (say lack of necessities like running lights, hatches, fuel full ammo gear weight etc). Testing might have been of parts never assembled or with parts that could not have actually been paired (say using old production odds and ends). To field the prototype as a workable machine therefore is to ignore some aspects of its design that may not be in its stats - like engine fires, tracks thrown, not enough room in the turret to work the guns, etc etc etc.

 

3) I was speaking generally with the Matty BP for brevity. There was some aspect of the turret to turret ring angle that didn't work. Too big a turret on top could conceivably lead to top heaviness and leaning and turret binding, not enough juice in the smaller motor to divert to traverse motor. Or just not enough elbow room to ram home the shells, or places to put the shells. Whatever it was, it didn't work out - yet there it is in game performing wonderfully. AKA Fantasy.

 

 



Shrike58 #50 Posted Jun 06 2016 - 12:53

    Major

  • Players
  • 70941 battles
  • 8,838
  • Member since:
    02-23-2013
"Tiger III" will probably stick over "4503" because there are two less syllables; that's just the way it is.  I don't care that much one way or the other.

WulfeHound #51 Posted Jun 06 2016 - 15:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostMiraclesHappen, on Jun 06 2016 - 06:46, said:

 

1) Simulated weights still not the same thing. Center of Gravity, torques on the hull, all going to be different and any of that might make a huge difference in performance.

 

CoG is going to shift minimally if a full turret is installed, especially if said turret and gun are balanced well.

 

Block Quote

 

2) The Panther story is interesting, though not news. But you seem to miss my point. Look at any tanks most recent prototype and the production vehicle that is fielded and there will be stark differences. Those differences were not usually a random choice, but decisions made because of unworkable aspects of the prototype that they wished to correct. Also a prototype might have lacked many significant but necessary items when tested, altering its performance outcomes to unrealistic levels (say lack of necessities like running lights, hatches, fuel full ammo gear weight etc). Testing might have been of parts never assembled or with parts that could not have actually been paired (say using old production odds and ends). To field the prototype as a workable machine therefore is to ignore some aspects of its design that may not be in its stats - like engine fires, tracks thrown, not enough room in the turret to work the guns, etc etc etc.

 

I'll take the Abrams as an example. There were two prototypes, one from Chrysler and one from General Motors, The Chrysler design won out and that shape hasn't changed in the past 25+ years, with minor exceptions as things like TUSK, remote weapons stations, and other things are added on. For WWII, the differences between the T6 and M4A1 were minimal (gun, cupola, and some internal changes). Later on, modifications would be made as reports filtered back from units using the M4A1's, modifications such as a new gunsight, applique armor on the turret and hull, a wider gun shield, and so on.

 

Block Quote

 3) I was speaking generally with the Matty BP for brevity. There was some aspect of the turret to turret ring angle that didn't work. Too big a turret on top could conceivably lead to top heaviness and leaning and turret binding, not enough juice in the smaller motor to divert to traverse motor. Or just not enough elbow room to ram home the shells, or places to put the shells. Whatever it was, it didn't work out - yet there it is in game performing wonderfully. AKA Fantasy.

 

The turret fit perfectly. Again, there's very little information as to why it was rejected, so anything is pretty much speculation.

Fantasy is the Conqueror Gun Carriage, as the design is completely made up by WG. Fantasy is not a prototype that probably worked and was rejected for some unknown reason.



mattwong #52 Posted Jun 06 2016 - 17:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 06 2016 - 09:58, said:

The turret fit perfectly. Again, there's very little information as to why it was rejected, so anything is pretty much speculation.

 

Right, but the point is that any rejected design in this game probably had real-life drawbacks which are not reflected in this game.

 

As a general rule, most of the real-life mass-produced tank models in this game are outperformed by the prototypes and fantasy tanks.  This is not the way it should be.  People don't come to this game wanting to play tanks they've never heard of.  They come to this game wanting to re-enact what they think period tank warfare was like in their heads.



ContraMuffin #53 Posted Jun 06 2016 - 21:50

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 14970 battles
  • 158
  • [AFK] AFK
  • Member since:
    01-16-2014

View Postbbop2k, on Jun 03 2016 - 15:34, said:

I thought that the T49 was the "Derp Scout":unsure:

 

VK 2801 has the 105 howitzer, so it's the true derp gun. It deserves to be the derp scout.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users