Author Topic: tigers are outta control (Read 1613 times)

MadBull · « **Reply #30 on:** February 20, 2005, 01:10:57 PM »

Ok I think I found the website you are referring to. And it doesn't really give you a leg to stand on.

First off it gives no copy of the manual only tips of what the manual says. Which is not hard reliable data.
Second you should quote and read a little more of that paragraph you are referring to.

" But the Tiger I was not to fire at moving targets at ranges greater than 2000 meters. The EXPECTED performance of a Tiger I gunner on a PRACTICE range was one hit out of three rounds fired within 30 seconds at a tank traveling 20 kilometers per hour across the front at ranges from 800 to 1200 meters."

So this means the target is moving not stationary. Traverse time of the turret along with aiming must be included in this time. Along with alot of unknown factors of the test.

For instance since the turret could be operated by Hydraulics or hand. Wich was used for the test ? We'll assume hydraulic. So then what rpm was the motor running at? Seens how the rpm of the motor directly affected the speed the turret swings. Was that tested on a early model Tiger or late model? It is a fact that the Tiger was constantly modified and improved on almost a monthly basis. And what was the layout of the range. Was it flat, Hilly, lots of shrubs? What. Again their lives were not on the line. And this is a EXPECTED time that the gunner is suppose to meet to qualify on the range. Like minnimal standards of sort. Which means it can be done faster.

As far as you thinking there indestructible. Well sir you have a case of "Tiger - phobia" The fact is they almost were to a point. Here are some examples

" The rule applied by the British concerning the engagement of Tigers was that 5 shermans were needed to destroy a single Tiger. But only 1 sherman was expected to return from the engagement. "

"On July 7th 1943 a single Tiger commanded by Franz Staudegger engaged a soviet group of some 50 T-34's around psyolknee. He used his entire supply of ammo destroying some 22 soviet tanks while the rest ran. "

" On Aug 8th of 1944 a single Tiger commanded by Willie Fey engaged a British tamk colum destroying 14 out of 15 shermans. And then destroyed 1 sherman later that day with his last 2 rounds of ammo."

And the list of facts goes on forever.
I agree with you that some of the modeling for the gv's seem wrong but I do not think this is one of those things.

You don't see me yelling for the snorkel kit the first 495 Tiger's had do you. Wich would enable me to drive through water 4 to 5 meters deep for 2.5 hours wich would mean I would no longer get stuck in the water when I'm not paying attention. Or the later model wading kit that would allow me to drive through 1.3 meters of water constantly. Nope I just auger and grab another 1.

Face it they are uber cause the're supposed to be hence the perk price. But their not indestructible. Killed 2 in my panzer last night.

As for you personal attack on my formal training in the military. Unless your in you'll never know. And if you are in. Your either a officer or a idiot if you think that manual followed to the "T" in combat will save your life. And think that everything it says in there is set in stone.
Your just looking to start a argument that will not help your case only hurt it.

BALSUR · « **Reply #31 on:** February 20, 2005, 04:14:51 PM »

ok, as for attacking folks, I started this thread because something needs to be done about the tigers in AH. Asking to adjust the reload time is a viable request considering what information is available. Madbull & Rabbidrabbit then decided they would pick my post to peices. So, who attacked who here? You guys were the ones who said based on your experience the manual would be wrong and the british data is crap. YOU brought your military experience into this not I. Now, have either one of you been in a tiger tank? Has either of you seen one fire? If not then that data and information is what we have available.

As for starting arguments and insulting people you 2 must be on the payroll then. Because you have been nothing but insulting since your 1st response. It's no wonder people tell me they don't post or even read these anymore. It's because of people like you!

Madbull, I didn't personally attack your training you let it hang out there when you posted your experience. You don't want people to comment on it then don't bring it up. The same goes to you rabbidrabbit. As, for me understand, YES, I am medically retired 18BB4. YES, I am victor and papa qualified, if you were in the Army then you should know what that is. YES, I earned my EIB in 1989 and my first CIB in 1989 also. I achieved my 2nd award in 1991 and 3rd in 1993, although the Army doesn't authorize stars on your CIB anymore. You should also know that the manual is the base for performing tasks and setting the standards. You can cut some corners and sometimes you can't. Thats not the issue here. None of us have any combat experience in a Tiger tank so, why trash the only information available. That just shows me your unwillingness to be flexible in any eviroment.

So, in closing here I will state once agian. Can it be changed or not. I think Pyro is the only one that needs to respond to that since he is the one who will make the change or not.

PS. Madbull I was not an officer and the only idiotic thing I have done is post anything here. My days in this forum are counting down thats for sure.

Urchin · « **Reply #32 on:** February 20, 2005, 04:36:03 PM »

Well, historically the Tiger was a very tough opponent.

I know the T-34 we have is just about completely impotent against it. As far as the Panzer IVH vs the Tiger... the Tiger should be vulnerable frontally from <500 meters. To the side from <1000 meters, from the rear also <1000 meters.

The Tiger would pop the Panzer IV like a grape from within 2000m+ if it hit the turret (which only has 50mm of armor on the front), and probably merely kill it from ~2000 yards with a hit to the front hull.

I don't really have a problem with the Panzer IV vs Tiger matchup, a smart Panzer driver with good aim would probably be able to work himself into a position to kill the Tiger.

The T-34 vs Tiger matchup on the other hand, I find completely imbalanced, and I think we really should have 3 or 4 tungsten rounds in the T-34 just because the T-34 literally cannot kill a Tiger 1v1 (at all, from any range or angle) unless the Tiger driver is mentally retarded, AFK, or both. It take 3 hits to the same "panel" (either left front, right front, left, right, or rear) on the turret at exactly 90 degrees incidence (if you are even a smidge off, all the rounds will ricochet) to disable the turret. After the turret is disabled it takes a seemingly random (but high) number of shots to actually kill the Tiger (to the side or rear, same rules for hitting as for the turret). In my tests, this number was between 8 and 12 additional hits.

Now, our T-34 takes ~12-13 seconds to reload. So, even assuming you manage to get yourself into a perfect spot at 5 yards on an unsuspecting Tiger... it would take you ~40 seconds to kill him. The Tigers turret takes a full minute to spin 360 degrees (well, IRL anyway, no idea in game, I've never timed it). The requirement for 3 hits on the exact same panel of the turret means you will never have time to disable the turret on a Tiger before he brings it around to kill you, no matter where you are relative to the turret when you start shooting.

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #33 on:** February 20, 2005, 05:12:17 PM »

First off,

Thanks for your service Balsur.

Second, don't ever take a BBS debate seriously enough to get mad over. Your setting yourself up for disappointment. I for one, would be disappointed to see you go over something so trivial. All things in context.

My point from the beginning was that knowing what I do know and seeing what evidence you found does not make a conclusive arguement. As Madbull pointed out, it is far from conclusive and if anything shows that fire rate to most likely be nearer the outside of the standard than the average of a well tuned crew.

That being said, what is the standard that HTC wishes to use? You could make the same arguement for the PNZR too since they have the same rate of fire now. It's all up to them what they use since in real life there are a large number of factors that would affect the reload time in a tank so it would be a variable not any particular constant especially since we are argueing 3-4 seconds. One could clearly argue that a tank in motion will be much slower to load since the crew is getting bounced around for instance.
In my experiences, a well trained crew can load shells as fast as 3 seconds but as I said , thats an ideal, as in it's not likely to be any faster due to the laws of physics and you can pick any arbitrary number above that and make a somewhat credible arguement the closer to the ideal the better the arguement.

My only arguement to you is to not hang your hat of a few limited pieces of information as being the authority and denounce all others based apon your interpretations. I don't think any less of you for it since it really does not matter. Good luck and I hope to see you about.

MadBull · « **Reply #34 on:** February 20, 2005, 08:32:03 PM »

Well first off let me say thank you for your service Balsur.

And rabbidrabbit is right once again. You are getting angry over something you should of known was going to be debated. You shouldn't let him nor I get under your skin so much. Espeacilly over a topic on the bbs. And yes I know I can come off as a jerk but it is not intentional. I just love to argue.

It may seem that we may be picking apart your evedince. Well I guess we are. But then again The evidence you are basing the reload time on is inconclusive.

You stated that you came across a Tiger gunner's manual. I got excited and was anxcious to read it to be honest. Only to be dissapointed.
It is a tip quoted from the Tiger gunner's manual. Not a copy of the manual itself. Like you had originally said. Bummer. I would really like to read a copy of the whole manual.

We are just trying to get you to look at it from another perspective.

Did you completely ignored the data I posted from the same web page you got your info from.

Expected performance is a minimum standard that has to be met on the range. You cannot argue that point. It is like the running time set forth by the military to run your 2 miles in a PT test. There is a set time you have to make it in. But you can do it faster.

And the cold hard fact as quoted above is that this was a moving target on a practice range. So again, at the very least the travel time of the turret must be calculated in the equasion. Even if the the range was flat level ground. And there was not a tree or shrub or hill in sight. And all the factors that I mention above and the few that I didn't were in your favor. This would still not give us a accurate reload time of a experienced Tiger crew shooting at a stationary target. Not to mention war time adrenaline.

But I will say that the 3 in 30 time is about accurate when I'm in my stationary Tiger shooting at a moving target from 800 to 1200 out. Even longer if it's a slippery little m3 or m8. By the time I get the range adjusted and then the lead time adjusted. Then get that slow turret turning. And finally to score a hit on the 3rd shot. It is probably more than accurate.

It is nothing personal. You can make quite the enemy on the field of battle. It is just to debatable with not enough information or evidince available to support it. But more than enough to debate it.
JMHO

BALSUR · « **Reply #35 on:** February 21, 2005, 01:59:38 AM »

I am done with this Madbull, Rabbidrabbit.
BTW, I live in germany and have been actively seeking out any WW2 material I can find over here. I do have copies of alot of manuals and other material. I suggest the best place to look for German WW2 information when searching the web you go to .de of course you'll have the language barrier to cross. it's truely amazing what you can find in european web sights. I actually picked up a "cricket" from D-Day for about $3.00.

Also, THANK YOU! MADBULL/RABBIDRABBIT for you service!

Zzzippo · « **Reply #36 on:** February 23, 2005, 07:46:59 AM »

Actually Tigers were often outnumbered 10 to 1 during the war. And they often won those fights, as they do in the game.

Seagoon · « **Reply #37 on:** February 23, 2005, 09:25:54 AM »

Actually, as I read Balsur's post I was thinking to myself that an allied tanker in '44 could have repeated Balsur's first line pretty much verbatim.

We are talking about a Perk Vehicle which really and truly was uber (give Tiger Aces of the Leibstandarte a read sometime, they really did wax 40 T-34s or Shermans in a good afternoon.) As others have pointed out, the Tigers out of control problem won't be fixed by changing the Tiger, it will be eliminated when we have the T-34/85 and Sherman Firefly or better yet Jumbo Sherman.

Sad fact is though, we'll probably get the plain old M4A1 which will introduce another "happy time" for the Tiger Experten until players realize that its even more of a garbage can than the T-34/76.

- SEAGOON

Red Tail 444 · « **Reply #38 on:** February 23, 2005, 11:11:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
hmmm my tiger always dies from 1 shot.

Punt

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #39 on:** February 23, 2005, 11:23:17 AM »

No doubt about it... it seems that the gv armor issue needs adressing.. good luck with that. It's currently way over simplified and inaccurate.

I think we need a few models of the Sherman because it will enable many more options in scenarios.

jaxxo · « **Reply #40 on:** February 25, 2005, 03:07:53 PM »

seems to me the tanks are modeled under optimal terrain conditions. Throw a 5 square mile muddy field into a tiger and t34 battle an see who has the advantage. Its hard to guage gv's in particular unless the terrain is modeled as to favor what the tank was designed for. Didnt the german get the holy hell kicked outta them at kursk? (not sure if thats the right spelling)

Urchin · « **Reply #41 on:** February 26, 2005, 08:13:57 AM »

Well, in AH, even if we had "mud" or soft terrain (which we don't), the T-34 would still be helpless against the Tiger.

The Soviets got around the fact that their tanks couldn't win head to head confrontations with German tanks by going around them... there were only so many Germans to defend that gigantic frontier. Go around the strong areas, cut them off from their supplies, capture strategic areas and set up anti-tank guns, etc.

In AH, you really don't have that option, it is slightly out of the scale of the game. If you are in a T-34 attacking a field, and someone ups a Tiger to defend it, they just ended your "mission", whether you know it or not. I've played cat and mouse games with a Tiger for 20 minutes before he finally got me, but there was never any chance of him taking any damage.