Tiger vs M4, long range

[Cthulhu]

This tour the Firefly has killed the Tiger 575 times.  The Tiger has killed the Firefly 601 times.  That's with the Tiger being mostly used for defense, i.e. set up in a good position, waiting to ambush.

I believe this data illustrates the problem perfectly. Even if the two guns were equal (which IMO they're not), the thicker armor of the Tiger should shift the numbers far more in the Tiger's favor than the data indicates. It appears that the M4, as modeled, is artificially tougher than it should be.

[BnZs]

This tour the Firefly has killed the Tiger 575 times.  The Tiger has killed the Firefly 601 times.  That's with the Tiger being mostly used for defense, i.e. set up in a good position, waiting to ambush.

We all realize that default paint scheme as contrasted with the colors of the MA terrains is a more important factor in the GV game than armor or guns, right?

[Anaxogoras]

I'm not sure if it contributes more, but it certainly is an important factor.  Good point.

Every tank should have a default green paint scheme.

[BnZs]

I'm not sure if it contributes more, but it certainly is an important factor.  Good point.

Every tank should have a default green paint scheme.

Tiger vs. M4, I'm pretty sure that IS the difference holding the Tiger back. Both tanks, first sight, first shot, first kill *usually*. The Tiger's armor must be what lets it hold on to a *narrow* positive edge.

[stroker71]

If you take the pros and cons of each tank they are almost a wash.  I still think the armor on the FireFly (Sherman body) is over-modeled.  The turret is very hard to take out unless hit from the side.  It either kill the FireFly or nothing...rarely is it a damage shot.  Seems like when ever I shoot a FireFly from the front it bounces off no matter the distance, angle, or spot. 

Armor = Tiger
Camo = FireFly
Gun = washout
Angle you can aim gun = FireFly
Speed = washout
Turret speed = FireFly


hhmmm Maybe the FireFly is a better tank overall

[Cthulhu]

I agree that HTC couldn't have done a better job of blending the M4 into the terrain (short of replacing the pintle gun graphic with that of a friggin' tree), but I still feel the M4 is artificially tough. I've seen too many rounds bounce off. If nearly all the historical accounts are to be believed, a kid with a well-designed spud gun could kill a Sherman.

[Chalenge]

Lusche I may be off concerning the Firefly but I see the M-4 kill Tigers from any angle and any distance and the Tiger cannot do that to an M-4 everytime and I think it should. The guys that used them even said that a Tiger from any angle shoots them the die to one hit yet in the game my first shot on a Firefly is usually bounced off. It also seems like a Tiger can have elevation on a Firefly and still get bounced rounds but the Firefly can one shot a Tiger from below and at any distance. Its really irritating now with the sound glitch that sounds like a bounced round hitting the ground but then your turret is out.

[cegull]

This may cause the long range shooter cheering section to blush but here is some data on sight magnification for ww2 tanks
French CharB & S35 tanks had sights with 4 power magnification.
Soviet KV-1 and T-34: sights had 2.5 power magnification.
Sherms: looks like they had only 1.44X
Tiger 1 Articulated telescopic sight model TZF-9:  2.5X
PZ III/IV  TZF-5 by Leitz optics: 2.5X
PZ Late models, some had TZF-12a variable magnification sights: 2.5/5X
Late model M10 tank killer had 6X sight.

much of the above came from airlandseacraft.com

As you can see these were not exactly laser sights.  Range estimation was more or less made by the commander with range finding binocs and a sense of range provided by experience. 
If you could round up an old .22 scope with 2.5X mag and then sight in some SUV's 1/1/2 miles away it gives you an approximation of the sight picture of the 2.5X sights.  The cross hairs obscure most of the target.  These sights were not set up for killing targets at extreme ranges.  Since I doubt that the coding for range, velocity, damage etc can take in all the variables why not just limit damage to within 1000 meters (screams of rage in background). Players might have to use a little more strategy to get kills, rather than set back at mucho killometers in a Tiger and up their score. 

[RTHolmes]

I see the M-4 kill Tigers from any angle and any distance and the Tiger cannot do that to an M-4 everytime and I think it should.

have u tried this offline? I spent some time a while back trying the M4 short range against all the tanks on the field to find the best places to kill em on the level and close. theres plenty of places to hit a tiger, especially offset which wont get a 1 shot kill at 1000yds.

[Charge]

Anybody noticed the difference between Firefly and other tanks in FOV of gunsight?

-C+

[OOZ662]

Anybody noticed the difference between Firefly and other tanks in FOV of gunsight?

-C+

I figured it was just a wider reticule.

[BigPlay]

If you take the pros and cons of each tank they are almost a wash.  I still think the armor on the FireFly (Sherman body) is over-modeled.  The turret is very hard to take out unless hit from the side.  It either kill the FireFly or nothing...rarely is it a damage shot.  Seems like when ever I shoot a FireFly from the front it bounces off no matter the distance, angle, or spot. 

Armor = Tiger
Camo = FireFly
Gun = washout
Angle you can aim gun = FireFly
Speed = washout
Turret speed = FireFly


hhmmm Maybe the FireFly is a better tank overall

It should be better at all ranges that the firefly's gun can penetrate the Tiger's thickest point of armor with one shot, outside of those ranges the Tiger should always have the advantage. Turret traverse speed is not as important at range as it is in close quarter fighting. You have to remember that the Tiger was developed to fight the Russians on Russian expansive soil and to engage tanks at safe range, nit to slug it out at close quarters.

[Ack-Ack]

It should be better at all ranges that the firefly's gun can penetrate the Tiger's thickest point of armor with one shot, outside of those ranges the Tiger should always have the advantage. Turret traverse speed is not as important at range as it is in close quarter fighting. You have to remember that the Tiger was developed to fight the Russians on Russian expansive soil and to engage tanks at safe range, nit to slug it out at close quarters.

But as in the description from the OP, there is no way in real life that a Firefly could score a one shot kill against a Tiger at 4700 yards.  Even with using APCBC APDPS rounds, the 17 pounder on the Firefly would not have sufficient energy to score a one shot kill even at a 30 degree angle.  Even at ranges beyond 2000 yards, I think the 17 pounder would be very hard pressed to score a one shot kill against a Tiger.


ack-ack

[BigKev03]

I think this boils down to the way the modeling on the shermans turret armor is portrayed.  Now barring an odd angle shot, flank shot, or rear shot at range the Tiger should dominate the field.  As other posters have said I have gone out and tried the tiger in the TA to take notes on range and such when shooting at a sherman.  I will say that out of 100 times I aimed at the turret a total of 47 rounds bouned of harmlessly the other 53 either killed the sherman or it was a disabling shot.  Now that is almost 50% ineffective shot on turret but due to the range I was at I cannot for 100% accuracy say what the cause of the high round bouncing????  In my opinion I think the turret armor is not what it should be when compared to historical data.  Now I know it takes a lot to code this and this may be the reason but I think that HTC should look at it.  I have also done sherman agaisnt tiger range testing and out of 100 rounds that hit the turret of the tiger 37 bounced off and the remaining 63 where kill or disabling shots.  Not bad when the range I was at for this test was 2500 meters.  I did learn alot on how to engage either tank but in this game I doubt I will be presented these opportunites very often.

BigKev

[FireDrgn]

I believe this data illustrates the problem perfectly. Even if the two guns were equal (which IMO they're not), the thicker armor of the Tiger should shift the numbers far more in the Tiger's favor than the data indicates. It appears that the M4, as modeled, is artificially tougher than it should be.

Not really.  If it was one m4 for every one tiger mabye it would show up in game......

Game play changes the numbers from what you would see in RL

1: Every one guns for the tiger when they see one.

2: Not as many tigers taken outof the hanger per tour as shermans....

3: Still tigers are poorley used from what ive seen.

My point is their may be an issue with the flys armor. but for the most part players waste tigers.

<S>