The mighty TIGER, or not so much?

[shreck]

I've been GVing allot lately, and I find the tiger to be inferior in many respects to the sherman. In fact many squadies will never take tiger cause it is absolutely no better than the sherman but costs 4 times the perks. I've been using the tiger allot as to see how it stacks up these days, It is borderline average IMHO. I would think the tiger should have a marked advantage at ranges beyond 2500 with superior armor at any range, also the sherman should be superior at close range with higher rate of fire and the " spinning top turret ". I'm not really up on history when it comes to tank performance but I do believe the tiger was feared by ALL and the prefered way to kill one was to spot it then call in the heavies, never engage one in direct frontal fire. Now the reason I post this is cause I've found it to be common place to engage a sherman at 3000 plus hitting said sherman muliple times "some ricochets some solid sprites causing NO damage while recieving one solid hit and losing the tiger or turret if I'm lucky in the process. I'm not sure this should be the case but if one of you history gurus could shed some light on the actual performance of these carriages of war I would be most gratefull. Cause if this is how it will remain then I'm afraid very very few tigers will ever be used and that is just not nostalgic enough for me

Oh and last night I was trading shots with a sherman in my tiger at about 3400 and hit him 3 times frontaly, he decided to reposition, hit him once on the starbord skirt just below the turret, and once in his butt when he fled to get some separation, I saw NO damage at all!! Not sure this kind of thing is accurate. Anyway it would be great if someone could shine a light on this for me  Thanks 

[Furball]

Just to clarify, our "Sherman" is a British Firefly, which had a very good 17 pounder gun able to knock out Tigers with relative ease.

Doesn't explain the armour on it though...

[Chalenge]

After trying my hand at GVs I came away thinking its hit or miss and not accurate to actual vehicles anywhere. They have all been adjusted for gameplay so much that I cant make rhyme-or-reason of them. The M4 has a much faster turret but to aim one your stick has to be dampened just so. I suppose I could modify my setup for a special GV mode but then again why spend the time doing that? I get killed first shot by the 'uber' guys all the time. Panzer M4 Tiger M8 even it doesnt matter. Meanwhile my shots bounce off M3s! I would think an M3 would be reduced to scrap even on a hit like that but what do I know?

[shreck]

Just to clarify, our "Sherman" is a British Firefly, which had a very good 17 pounder gun able to knock out Tigers with relative ease.

Doesn't explain the armour on it though...

I understand that, but was the 17 pounder effective at long ranges, My memory seems to recall that it had poor ballistics although a very hard hitting shell!  Now that i think about it maybe it's the accuracy of the sherman at long ranges that may be modeled incorectly  still scratching skull !

[RipChord929]

17lb'er used APDS, first gun to use it...
Very high velocity, flat shooting too...

From what I've read, Firefly was fitted with a flat plate of
extra armor on front hull.. Just a flat plate w cutouts for
hull gun and vision blocks... Some kind of British made
special ballistic plate... Welded to the front hull...
It also said they had constant problems with the front
bogie sets, because of the extra weight...

So I've read....anyway...

RC

[Boxboy]

In  your explanation of the situation if it was happening the way you saw it there is NO way the sherman could have survived multiple hits from the 88 of the Tiger.  M3's had 88 shells "pass through" the hull with no damage except the entry and exit holes in the cargo bay.

As for the 17 pounder, it was initially an anti tank gun (carrage mounted) that was "shoehorned" into the sherman by the Brits and quite effective at range IF it saw the Tiger first.  The problem with many "Tiger" accounts in WWII was that the allies thought EVERY german tank they saw was a Tiger.

[BMathis]

Don't waste your perks. Take a Sherman

[BaldEagl]

At least in the game the guns on the Tiger and Sherman are very close to one another.  The Sherman also has thickened frontal armor, particularily around the barrel (I forget what they call that part).  So, in game the likelyhood of a one shot kill in either of these if facing one another is close to equal (actually, the Tiger has a slight advantage).  Once the shots are not to the front the advantage to the Tiger gets bigger.

The biggest difference between them though, is their ability to withstand bombs.  The Sherman is no safer than a Panzer in this regard, while the Tiger will last forever unless it takes a direct hit in the right spot.  You can kill a Sherman by dropping close, not so with a Tiger.

[BMathis]

The biggest difference between them though, is their ability to withstand bombs.  The Sherman is no safer than a Panzer in this regard, while the Tiger will last forever unless it takes a direct hit in the right spot.  You can kill a Sherman by dropping close, not so with a Tiger.

Great point Eagle

[RipChord929]

Mantlet

RC

[Motherland]

You realize at 3,400 yards you're shooting at a target that is over 2 miles away, right?

[stroker71]

I think the tiger has been porked in some ways since the Firefly has comeout.  I was able to kill Panzers at any distance with the tiger.  The other night I was trading long range shots with a panzer (around 3000) and killed his engine, turret, and tracked him but never got the kill till he ended flight.  Think I hit him 6-8 times and had to target another tank that was shooting at me.  But i use the tiger mainly because of habit and I am comfortable ranging people.  But I have had cases of shooting M3's so square in the side the round bounces back at me....explain that one.  One of these times I am going to have the recorder going for that.  M4's...hmmm hit them square in the side of the turret at close range only to have them turn and one shot kill my tiger.  Also it is very very rare that I turret an M4...either they are dead or they kill me.

[RipChord929]

I choose M4 over Tiger because it cost's less perks...
But use Tiger when aircraft are around, cuz its pretty bombproof...

At most ranges for me, 88 ricochets off M4 front hull..
But a turret hit, low near turret ring, pops its cork...
Most times, anyway....

That 17lb'er is soo flat shooting that they can range you super quick....
Another reason I like it so much... And why they are on target so fast...

Then ya have to figure glitches too, the "indestructable glitch",
that seem to pop up at random, for anybody... No way to counter that!!!

  RC

[shreck]

You realize at 3,400 yards you're shooting at a target that is over 2 miles away, right?

 YES!  pretty damn cool I think 

[shreck]

At least in the game the guns on the Tiger and Sherman are very close to one another.  The Sherman also has thickened frontal armor, particularily around the barrel (I forget what they call that part).  So, in game the likelyhood of a one shot kill in either of these if facing one another is close to equal (actually, the Tiger has a slight advantage).  Once the shots are not to the front the advantage to the Tiger gets bigger.

The biggest difference between them though, is their ability to withstand bombs.  The Sherman is no safer than a Panzer in this regard, while the Tiger will last forever unless it takes a direct hit in the right spot.  You can kill a Sherman by dropping close, not so with a Tiger.

 If the only measurable diff is better protection against bombing " I'm not so sure about this as I lose tigers all the time to single bomb attacks "then shouldn't the perk and ENY value be closer together ?