Jump to content


Tiger 1 homage


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

madogthefirst #21 Posted Jul 22 2016 - 06:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 21699 battles
  • 7,959
  • [SHIRE] SHIRE
  • Member since:
    12-28-2011

View Postcaramel, on Jul 21 2016 - 18:11, said:

 

Historically these two tanks almost never faced their "Counterparts" ,the tiger 1 could be reliably penetrated by both 75Mm and 76MM shermans from the front {as well as most of the Russian and british counterparts}, with the 76MM able to punch through at 800 meters, while average combat ranges were around 500 {Not much use for the Tiger and panthers 2KM Range when they're in that short range is there} consistantly and regularly broke down and were FAR less agile then the T-34 and Sherman, both of which were considerably better tanks because they did their jobs well multi-roll tanks that DID their jobs well, rather than be glorified pill-boxes. The Tiger 1 was designed as a break-through tank, but the only thing it ever broke through was its transmission.

 

Yes, the 75's were far more ineffective against the panther/tiger 2's, the 76's could still reliably penetrate them; also the whole issue with again, the Shermans and T-34's being far more mobile and able to easily out maneuver these "Supposedly superior tanks" giving them easy access to the juicy sides. The ONLY reason these tanks have decent kill counts is because they often ambushed; as far as ASSAULTS go, the tiger and panthers were a complete and total flop, whose only real good point was the frontal armor; fun fact the Sherman Jumbo had enough frontal armor to no sell direct shots from the "Legendary" german 8.8's.  {170MM effective on the HULL} but that's been nerfed heavily for balance in game.

 

The reason that the humble PZ-IV and Stug-III are the ones fighting the Sherman and its counter-parts, are those are the ones that were often actually FACING those tanks and thus, easily to balance.  If the tiger WAS shoe-horned into the roll of fighting tier 5's, at best it'd be a tier 6 And even then you'd be losing guns, and likely seeing some nerfs to its accuracy or some other stats; and if it was brought down to tier 5? hah, good luck.  Another funny thing? The Pershing, a tank which could, would, and will destroy a tiger with it's 90MM, was in development during the era where the tiger was even remotely on the Radar of the allies; if it had been a threat to the point wheraboo make it out to be, the Pershing likely would have been pushed forward a lot sooner, rather then the "Sherman being deemed acceptable for the job." with guns like the 90MM and the British firefly's gun being deemed "Not significant enough of an upgrade, nor is there enough cause to mandate said upgrade.};  Jackson was capable of kiilling tiger's with its 9mm0 though I don't recall jacksons ever engaging tiger tanks} and hellcat with 76MM HVAP's were more then capable of {I do distinctly recall Hellcats engaging and killing Panthers, could be wrong there, but coulda sworn it happened during the BOTB and resulted in a MASSIVE loss in german tanks vs the entrenched allies.}

 

The biggest thing is, the most kills on BOTH sides are the lowly towed AT guns, not tank on tank engagements; and those few tank on tanks as far as the allied are concerned, the Sherman more than held its own for most of the war

The 17lber was deemed inferior to the US 76 which is why the US did not use them. Firefly mush like the Tiger is over hyped, its only claim to fame is that 17lber got added onto a Sherman before the 76 did.

View Postcaramel, on Jul 21 2016 - 18:54, said:

 

T-34 and M4 sherman could both reliably penetrate the front of both panthers and Tiger 1's from 700+ Meters, which IS hte average combat range of tank on tank engagements, your 1KM+ range is a rare occurrence at best.  So they can just as easily one shot you, and since they're FAR more mobile you're unlikely to get a bead on them before they shoot you; They might have been better than russians, but US radios were always pretty damn good.

 

In REAL War, the first one to shoot usually won, not who just had the bigger stick. But hey, if you wanna waggle your armor at it like its invulnerable, I'll just pull up that Sherman jumbo again, which could, would, and did regularly no-sell, or in simple terms for you, BLOCKED 8.8 rounds to the face from 600 meters; the same range that would easily punch a 76mm through your frontal armor.

Pretty sure the Jumbo did not see combat, though I'm ready to be wrong.



Wyvern2 #22 Posted Jul 22 2016 - 06:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 35817 battles
  • 3,124
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View Postmadogthefirst, on Jul 22 2016 - 06:00, said:

The 17lber was deemed inferior to the US 76 which is why the US did not use them. Firefly mush like the Tiger is over hyped, its only claim to fame is that 17lber got added onto a Sherman before the 76 did.

Pretty sure the Jumbo did not see combat, though I'm ready to be wrong.

 

17pdr as it was mounted on the M4 was inferior to the 76mm. As a gun, the 17pdr is superior in most ways to the 76mm unless you use APDS, where despite its obscene(and in game over buffed) penetration was negated by the horrid dispersion. Incidentally, this was due to the muzzle brake and sabot separation issues, as neither the 6pdr nor the 20pdr really had similar mechanical issues.

Legiondude #23 Posted Jul 22 2016 - 07:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 23,025
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View Postmadogthefirst, on Jul 21 2016 - 23:00, said:

The 17lber was deemed inferior to the US 76 which is why the US did not use them

 

Pretty sure the Jumbo did not see combat, though I'm ready to be wrong.

Well the US entertained a couple of times the need for more firepower, but when the question was brought up it was determined it wasn't necessary for the droves of Panzers III and IV the crews faced in the field and that tooling for production would displace production orders already in effect. The report I link below which demonstrated the weaknesses of the 17 pounder in comparison to the 90mm or the 76mm gun as a tank weapon wasn't completed until 1946.

 

Just about all Jumbos produced saw combat in the ETO, notably Creighton Abrams "Cobra King" which only relatively recently returned to the states. A handful staying behind for inventory and experimentation like the T33 flamethrower tank

 

View PostWyvern2, on Jul 21 2016 - 23:34, said:

17pdr as it was mounted on the M4 was inferior to the 76mm. As a gun, the 17pdr is superior in most ways to the 76mm unless you use APDS

If "most ways" was "just penetrating power", sure. But there's alot more categories that favor the M1 family, The_Chieftain replicates the report that produced this image here, here, and here with final conclusions.



Omega_Weapon #24 Posted Jul 22 2016 - 10:04

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42224 battles
  • 1,352
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View Postcaramel, on Jul 21 2016 - 21:22, said:

 

I'd take the M4 or T-34 over the Tiger or Panther because a good M4 or T-34 driver can circle [edited]the later to death nine times out of ten and fire faster then the tiger with their normal guns {And in the t-34's case, faster than both with the 56'" while the 105MM sherman would OBLITERATE either with a direct heat shot as it would cripple the tiger or panther on a direct hit, if not outright TCK it.

 

edit: also, just to point out. US crews were better trained, had better radios, and often were more accurate due to their advanced firing stabilizers, allowing them to much more rapidly move onto a target, engage, and leave the area. German crews were better at ambushing because their crews were often newbies, conscripted and stuck in tanks while US tanks were trained by veterans who we wisely brought back from the front instead of leaving to die like the germans loved to do, just ask how that went for the Luftwaffe.

 

Wow. How can a person come across as so rabidly ignorant? Try reading some actual books on WW II history. You might sound like less of a nut bar.

Macnasty182 #25 Posted Jul 22 2016 - 13:40

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 19714 battles
  • 162
  • [56TH] 56TH
  • Member since:
    05-05-2015

View PostLegiondude, on Jul 22 2016 - 02:51, said:

Sure Japan had premiums, but at the time(Depending on what info Listy is sitting on for his book) nothing to spare except that one Tiger to serve as a candidate for premium heavy

 

And I had heard something to the tune of Tiger 131 being copyrighted by Bovington, so WG would have to pay a license to use it, as opposed to just picking out any other documented Tiger to implement

 

Then use the numbers off of Tiger Ace Michael Whittman and Bobby Woll's tiger they seemed to do reasonably well in theirs,as for the Sherman and the T34 when you have quantity over quality does impose a slight advantage,and the Shermie was known buy the Brits as the tommy cooker and the yanks as a,,,,,,,,,,,,makes ya wonder why they called it that.

dmckay #26 Posted Jul 22 2016 - 13:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 12337 battles
  • 5,214
  • Member since:
    07-23-2013

View PostOmega_Weapon, on Jul 22 2016 - 04:04, said:

 

Wow. How can a person come across as so rabidly ignorant? Try reading some actual books on WW II history. You might sound like less of a nut bar.

 

With all due respect can you explain exactly why you referred to him as a "nut bar". One of the problems with this whole issue of Tiger/Panther vs Shermans (which appears at least once a month) is that there simply were very very few engagements between them. So very little to go on. Shermans maintained a positive kill ratio over Panthers but again there were few engagements between them.  Sherman did however insofar as can be determined, acheive a 3-1 kill ration over them in the few fights that did occur. Some will say 2-1.  Just little data to go on. 

Edited by dmckay, Jul 22 2016 - 13:52.


dmckay #27 Posted Jul 22 2016 - 13:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 12337 battles
  • 5,214
  • Member since:
    07-23-2013

View PostMacnasty182, on Jul 22 2016 - 07:40, said:

 

Then use the numbers off of Tiger Ace Michael Whittman and Bobby Woll's tiger they seemed to do reasonably well in theirs,as for the Sherman and the T34 when you have quantity over quality does impose a slight advantage,and the Shermie was known buy the Brits as the tommy cooker and the yanks as a,,,,,,,,,,,,makes ya wonder why they called it that.

 

The belief that Shermans brewed up more than any other tank has been totally proven to be false. The same thing occurred to German tanks and the Panther was notorious for this. The carnage of tanks on both sides was huge but it was anti-tank weapons that were mostly reasonable for this by far. There are multiple threads on this topic you can find by doing a search of the forums.  Tons of data has been posted on this topic on here.  Good luck.  Check it out. 

Edited by dmckay, Jul 22 2016 - 13:49.


Verblonde #28 Posted Jul 22 2016 - 14:07

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17377 battles
  • 2,399
  • [FUNTB] FUNTB
  • Member since:
    02-08-2015
I was under the impression that the Sherman's reputation for brewing up was derived from early petrol-fueled versions and the later models were much better in this respect?

Legiondude #29 Posted Jul 22 2016 - 14:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 23,025
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostVerblonde, on Jul 22 2016 - 07:07, said:

I was under the impression that the Sherman's reputation for brewing up was derived from early petrol-fueled versions and the later models were much better in this respect?

No, the reputation began when the British overstuffed their Shermans with ammunition

 

General weakness in ammo stowage were identified however(particularly the sponsons), which is what spurred the development of the wet ammo rack. 

 

 



dmckay #30 Posted Jul 22 2016 - 14:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 12337 battles
  • 5,214
  • Member since:
    07-23-2013

View PostLegiondude, on Jul 22 2016 - 08:17, said:

No, the reputation began when the British overstuffed their Shermans with ammunition

 

General weakness in ammo stowage were identified however(particularly the sponsons), which is what spurred the development of the wet ammo rack. 

 

 

 

^Ya this was the problem. Had nothing to do with fuel. 

Verblonde #31 Posted Jul 22 2016 - 14:25

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17377 battles
  • 2,399
  • [FUNTB] FUNTB
  • Member since:
    02-08-2015
Ah, thank you!

jwolf1971 #32 Posted Jul 22 2016 - 18:39

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 15995 battles
  • 392
  • Member since:
    11-07-2013

View PostCutthroatlemur, on Jul 22 2016 - 02:19, said:

Blah blah blah.  Historical ranges, assault attacks, transmission problems.  None of that is relevant in WOT.  

 

Imagine that you had to fight WOT style, where crew experience, accuracy, reload speed, and communication are important and reliability, number of tanks on each side, and starting position are equal.  Would you rather be in a Churchill, M4, or T34?  Or a Tiger or Panther?  

 

If you value your future you choose the latter.

 

It's hard to make a categorical case for one or the other because you left out a huge factor - terrain.

 

If I knew I would be on a map with open terrain and good fields of fire (Steppes?), I would choose a Tiger I and take advantage of its view range and accuracy. I could two-shot a Sherman or a T-34 with even average damage rolls before the enemy would ever see me. Plus, even if the Sherman or T-34 got within their view ranges (say 320m), the penetration drop-off over that distance plus a little angling would make penning the Tiger a 50-50 or so. I'd gladly trade shots with a Sherman or T-34 under those circumstances - my 1500 HP would outlast at least three and maybe even four enemies in a series of 1v1 engagements. 

 

On a map with lots of hills and hard cover (Murovanka?), I'd probably choose the mobility of the Sherman or T-34 over the Tiger I. I could use cover to move into position for 2 good flanking shots without risk of getting spotted by the Tiger I and then pull back and move to a different spot before the Tiger I could turn to engage. The sluggish Tiger I would be exposed to fire for a longer time while moving from cover to cover if it tries to outmaneuver me. 

 

Of course, in WoT, we don't have the advantage of knowing which map we'll playing when choosing our tanks. The name of the game is figuring out how to play your strengths against your enemies' weaknesses, whatever those strengths and weaknesses may be. Successful players learn to do it in any circumstances, while unsuccessful players doggedly play according to fixed ideas about what each tank should do, regardless of circumstances, and whine that such-and-such tank could never have beaten their tanks in real life. 



WulfeHound #33 Posted Jul 22 2016 - 19:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 12888 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostMacnasty182, on Jul 22 2016 - 07:40, said:

 

Then use the numbers off of Tiger Ace Michael Whittman and Bobby Woll's tiger they seemed to do reasonably well in theirs,as for the Sherman and the T34 when you have quantity over quality does impose a slight advantage,and the Shermie was known buy the Brits as the tommy cooker and the yanks as a,,,,,,,,,,,,makes ya wonder why they called it that.

 

Not going to happen at all, as both of those men were Nazi scumbags

 

(And no, the M4 was not known as a Tommy cooker or Ronson)


Edited by WulfeHound, Jul 22 2016 - 19:50.


Verblonde #34 Posted Jul 22 2016 - 20:12

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17377 battles
  • 2,399
  • [FUNTB] FUNTB
  • Member since:
    02-08-2015

How dodgy was Otto Carius? I don't know much about him - you could use his tank as a model for a premium (a la Berlin vehicles), if he wasn't too ghastly...

 

(Edit: from what I can see online after a quick Google, Carius ought to be fine - not SS or anything like that)


Edited by Verblonde, Jul 22 2016 - 20:19.


Da_Craw #35 Posted Jul 22 2016 - 20:19

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 22189 battles
  • 2,038
  • [DOG5] DOG5
  • Member since:
    05-30-2014

Why does everyone feel the Tiger is being disrespected in the first place?  It is in a tier populated by mostly late and post-WWII machines. It is upwards of 4 tiers higher than its contemporaries. Whether the Tiger actually deserves its stats is a different question. From a WOT standpoint, the Tiger IS a beast compared to the Churchill, KV-1, T-34 and the M4.  The Tiger was deployed in North Africa at a time when the Allies were fielding Matildas, Grants, Lees, and Stuart's and Cruisers. 

 

There is an argument to be made that the Tiger in WOT suffers from a GERMAN bias, not a Russian bias. The Tiger is overpowered in game to meet the expectations of the player base.  Most of the hand wringing is that it is not OP versus its tier, but NO tank should be allowed to dominate its tier to that extent. That is the whole point of tiers. 



Omega_Weapon #36 Posted Jul 23 2016 - 01:57

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42224 battles
  • 1,352
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View Postdmckay, on Jul 22 2016 - 07:41, said:

 

With all due respect can you explain exactly why you referred to him as a "nut bar". One of the problems with this whole issue of Tiger/Panther vs Shermans (which appears at least once a month) is that there simply were very very few engagements between them. So very little to go on. Shermans maintained a positive kill ratio over Panthers but again there were few engagements between them.  Sherman did however insofar as can be determined, acheive a 3-1 kill ration over them in the few fights that did occur. Some will say 2-1.  Just little data to go on. 

 

​Well most of his comments come across as somebody spewing bizarre anti-German propaganda (historical and game related). Just a couple of his wacky statements were "Tiger I could be reliably penetrated by both 75mm and 76mm shermans from the front {as well as most of the Russian and british counterparts}" and "As far as ASSAULTS go, the tiger and panthers were a complete and total flop". No credible person who has studied world war 2 could believe that kind of crap.



Cmdr_Adama_BSG75 #37 Posted Jul 23 2016 - 02:41

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 31158 battles
  • 112
  • [HAL-X] HAL-X
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

OMG, I opened a can of worms. But, please, keep it up. I love the Tiger 1 and really enjoy reading all the information you guys are providing in your arguments. And is civil! I gotta clan battle, but I'll be back to this in a bit.

 



Wyvern2 #38 Posted Jul 23 2016 - 02:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 35817 battles
  • 3,124
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View PostOmega_Weapon, on Jul 23 2016 - 01:57, said:

 

​Well most of his comments come across as somebody spewing bizarre anti-German propaganda (historical and game related). Just a couple of his wacky statements were "Tiger I could be reliably penetrated by both 75mm and 76mm shermans from the front {as well as most of the Russian and british counterparts}" and "As far as ASSAULTS go, the tiger and panthers were a complete and total flop". No credible person who has studied world war 2 could believe that kind of crap.

 

Except it's true. The Tiger failed at its job as an assault tank. The panther got ground under in most offensive actions it undertook, especially in the west, where incidents like Arracourt were total disasters for the Germans. Second of all, while reliably is debatable in the case of the 75mm/76mm F34, the Tiger could certainly be penetrated by such weapons, in fact, the German Tigerfibel, the instruction booklet for german tiger tankers, states that 600m is enough for an M4/T-34 to be a threat frontally. Furthermore, the first Tigers KOed in the west were taken out by 6pdr armed churchills, the Soviets didn't even realize they were facing a new tank when they first met the Tiger at Leningrad. With a 76mm M1/85mm, the Tigers armor is easily penetrated out to 1k meters or more, especially once HVAP comes into play. The Panther is another story thanks to its sloped armor, but the turret could still be perforated. Legitimate historians all support this version of events, and statistics as well as AAR's all uphold the fact that the Panther/Tiger didn't do their jobs very well.

dmckay #39 Posted Jul 23 2016 - 03:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 12337 battles
  • 5,214
  • Member since:
    07-23-2013

View PostWyvern2, on Jul 22 2016 - 20:46, said:

 

Except it's true. The Tiger failed at its job as an assault tank. The panther got ground under in most offensive actions it undertook, especially in the west, where incidents like Arracourt were total disasters for the Germans. Second of all, while reliably is debatable in the case of the 75mm/76mm F34, the Tiger could certainly be penetrated by such weapons, in fact, the German Tigerfibel, the instruction booklet for german tiger tankers, states that 600m is enough for an M4/T-34 to be a threat frontally. Furthermore, the first Tigers KOed in the west were taken out by 6pdr armed churchills, the Soviets didn't even realize they were facing a new tank when they first met the Tiger at Leningrad. With a 76mm M1/85mm, the Tigers armor is easily penetrated out to 1k meters or more, especially once HVAP comes into play. The Panther is another story thanks to its sloped armor, but the turret could still be perforated. Legitimate historians all support this version of events, and statistics as well as AAR's all uphold the fact that the Panther/Tiger didn't do their jobs very well.

 

Just a quickie.  The Shermans did what they were designed to do much much better than what the  Tiger and Panther were designed to do. It's  kinda like comparing apples to oranges. T-34 damn good.  But the Shermans were the best medium tanks in the war and the data bears that out. This will NEVER be resolved to everyone's satisfaction but it is, to me, kinda a fun debate.  Also I can argue under that under the right conditions the Tigers and Panthers were indeed bad azz. Just not often enough and way too few of them.  I think that is fair to say. 

Edited by dmckay, Jul 23 2016 - 03:19.


Wyvern2 #40 Posted Jul 23 2016 - 03:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 35817 battles
  • 3,124
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View Postdmckay, on Jul 23 2016 - 03:17, said:

 

Just a quickie.  The Shermans did what they were designed to do much much better than what the  Tiger and Panther were designed to do. It's  kinda like comparing apples to oranges. T-34 damn good.  But the Shermans were the best medium tanks in the war and the data bears that out. This will NEVER be resolved to everyone's satisfaction but it is, to me, kinda a fun debate.  Also I can argue under that under the right conditions the Tigers and Panthers were indeed bad azz. Just not often enough and way too few of them.  I think that is fair to say. 

 

Those right conditions were almost exclusively stationary bunker/sniping from range. If you want that sort of performance, there's a certain vehicle known as the JpzIV, which is 15-25 tons lighter than either of those tanks. The only reason this isn't resolved to anybody's satisfaction is because people dont care for statistics of performance and prefer to compare paper numbers. Also, the Panther was supposed to be the main line med replacement of the PzIV, in that role, it failed miserably. It is(supposed to at any rate) fulfill essentially the same function as the M4, and it fails at that job miserably. Tiger is a breakthrough tank, at least in theory, and it fails at that job as well.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users