really hitec

[PR3D4TOR]

A couple of days ago a Tiger II was running away, I was in an M18 and I put three shots into his engine compartment, straight 6.  Not even a mobility kill.  When I up a tiger, I have been one shot frontal from M18s.  I just dont get it either.

What you don't get is that the Tigers didn't have a vulnerable butt. It's a Hollywood myth. The Tiger I's rear armor is as thick as the side armor, or a Panzer IV's front glacis plate (80 mm), which is only 20 mm less than its front plate (100 mm). Tiger II has the same 80 mm rear plate, but with a 60 degree slope added to it, making it as tough as a Panther's front. These tanks were self propelled bunkers designed to drive trough enemy lines and keep going (breakthrough tank); they didn't have any weak facing to exploit like in the movies.

[321BAR]

What you don't get is that the Tigers didn't have a vulnerable butt. It's a Hollywood myth. The Tiger I's rear armor is as thick as the side armor, or a Panzer IV's front glacis plate (80 mm), which is only 20 mm less than its front plate (100 mm). Tiger II has the same 80 mm rear plate, but with a 60 degree slope added to it, making it as tough as a Panther's front. These tanks were self propelled bunkers designed to drive trough enemy lines and keep going (breakthrough tank); they didn't have any weak facing to exploit like in the movies.

actually predator the tigers were meant to sit back and shoot at range. they weren't meant for driving the foward advance as much as you think but to support the advance. the armor was effective at range as long as they stayed at range

[Reschke]

A whine has been recorded both in the BBS and in the MA on 200 tonight since bombers decided to come and help alleviate some of the spawn camping at a GV base. The thing I can't understand is that that someone in Aces high whining about not being able to one shot kill someone else just because my Sgt. Rock comic book collection said that it was supposed to happen.

[PR3D4TOR]

actually predator the tigers were meant to sit back and shoot at range. they weren't meant for driving the foward advance as much as you think but to support the advance. the armor was effective at range as long as they stayed at range

The Tiger was a prewar design. So was the German concept of the Schwere Panzerabteilung. They were elite battalion-sized units, equipped with Tiger I, and later Tiger II. Originally intended to fight on the offensive during breakthrough operations, the German late-war realities required them to be used in a defensive posture by providing heavy fire support and counter-attacking enemy armored breakthroughs, often organised into ad-hoc Kampfgruppen. During any major Panzer advance after 1942 you'd find Tigers at the spearhead of the Panzerkeil. Typically Tigers formed the point, Panthers the base, with the Panzer IVs and Panzer IIIs forming the wings.

[bj229r]

But on who's side?

Hmmm....I plead 5th....

[321BAR]

The Tiger was a prewar design. So was the German concept of the Schwere Panzerabteilung. They were elite battalion-sized units, equipped with Tiger I, and later Tiger II. Originally intended to fight on the offensive during breakthrough operations, the German late-war realities required them to be used in a defensive posture by providing heavy fire support and counter-attacking enemy armored breakthroughs, often organised into ad-hoc Kampfgruppen. During any major Panzer advance after 1942 you'd find Tigers at the spearhead of the Panzerkeil. Typically Tigers formed the point, Panthers the base, with the Panzer IVs and Panzer IIIs forming the wings.

very thorough pred. can i see your sources of this info? any GV tactical knowledge i'm interested in seeing <S>

[jamdive]

Because the Panzer was in a superior position to take the shot and the Tiger was in a bad position to take the shot.  Why'd you think?  Oh right, you didn't bother thinking...

You are obviously the one who hasn't bothered to think. I made no referance to any shooting positions. If I can hit it in the side 3 times it should be dead. Maybe a broadside shot registers as a bad position to shoot from in your world.

[Tank-Ace]

very thorough pred. can i see your sources of this info? any GV tactical knowledge i'm interested in seeing <S>

Not saying I nessicarily believe him without sources, but it DOES make sense:


The most heavily armed and armored Tiger tanks at the tip of the spear,  the Panthers with their superior long-range firepower (due to the flatter trajecotry of the 75mm L'70) but weaker side armor in the middle, being protected on the flanks by the more weakly armored but much more expendable Panzer III/IV's.

[Butcher]

actually predator the tigers were meant to sit back and shoot at range. they weren't meant for driving the foward advance as much as you think but to support the advance. the armor was effective at range as long as they stayed at range

the Tiger had quite a few rolls, not exactly an armored pill box, this is just what it excelled it (read up on Battle of Villers-Bocage to see what a tiger does on offense).
It was a able to do armed recon, a roll which it excelled it - quite a few battles I read up on is where a tiger goes out hunting and catches a dozen or more russian tanks being fueled before a fight.

Yet a simple bolt action anti tank rifle can kill a driver and stop a Tiger in its tracks, the biggest misconception people read about is the Tiger was it was going to fail miserably as a breakthrough tank - it's gas guzzling engine would of made it a terrible assault tank.

What it excelled in was later in the war when the Germans went on defense and the Tiger excelled in defensive positions, I honestly think the Panther had a better job at being a breakthrough tank, being fast and heavily armed - much better recon tank then a Tiger.

[Tank-Ace]

Depends on the situation. If you're attacking a fairly well defended possition, the Tiger would be better. Why? Because its 88mm has better HE rounds, and is better able to tackle dug-in possitions. In addition to this, its thicker side armor would provide better protection against flank shots, and thus enable the tiger to press the attack further than the Panther would be able to.



So, yeah, it would be a less effective tank when on a general offensive, but when you need to smash something up and break through defenses, the tiger is the tank you want.

[PR3D4TOR]

very thorough pred. can i see your sources of this info? any GV tactical knowledge i'm interested in seeing <S>

In my head

I don't really know how many books I have on tanks, but perhaps fifty if not more. If you want online sources then onwar.com is a nice site to quickly look up statistics on the many WWII tanks. If you're more interested in Panzer history achtungpanzer.com is the site for you.

Tiger profiles from those sites:

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/data/tiger1.htm
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-vi-tiger-ausf-e-sd-kfz-181.htm

[PR3D4TOR]

Not saying I nessicarily believe him without sources, but it DOES make sense:


The most heavily armed and armored Tiger tanks at the tip of the spear,  the Panthers with their superior long-range firepower (due to the flatter trajecotry of the 75mm L'70) but weaker side armor in the middle, being protected on the flanks by the more weakly armored but much more expendable Panzer III/IV's.

There were two goals of the wedge formation (Panzerkeil). First to have the heaviest armor at the point since they would bear the brunt of the enemy fire. Secondly to give the formation depth so that the enemy gunners would have to re-range when switching targets.

The Panther was designed as a stand-off tank with a long reach gun and heavy front plate, but soft sides and rear. It's relatively easy to keep your front plate between you and the enemy at long range. The Tiger was almost equally armored on all sides since it would be taking hits from not only the front, but sides and rear. Being at the tip of the spear means you are more in danger of being flanked by fast medium tanks. The Tiger II was designed as a big Panther adding more armor to the front only, but retained the still formidable 80 mm side and rear armor. At this time in the war even the Germans realized that they had lost the strategic initiative and needed tanks suited for defensive roles more than offensive.

[icepac]

Rounds don't "hit" where your sprite appears, film it and watch extremely close - you probably seen a dead hull hit, when on film it glanced off the hull and did no damage.

Then why have hit sprites at all if they don't represent where your projectile has hit?

[Tank-Ace]

I think he means that you get a different sprite if you ricochet, but that sprite doesn't always appear where you hit the tank.

[Squire]

The Tiger I was not a pre war design. Porsche got the go ahead to design a heavy tank in the Fall of 1940. The Tiger II was not a follow on to the Panther (in concept or deployment) it was a follow on to the Tiger I which it was intended to replace. The Tiger I and Tiger II were heavy tanks operated in independant heavy tank battalions at panzer corps level. At 56 and 68 tons they lacked the cross country mobility of the Panzer IV and Panther and were certainly impaired to some degree by that in breakthrough operations.

The Panther as good as it was was (and being 43 tons) it was classed as a medium tank and deployed the same as a Panzer IV and was assigned to regular medium tank battalions just like a Panzer IV. It was not treated by the Germans as a heavy tank as it lacked the heavy side and rear armor. It was meant to replace the Panzer IV as the standard medium tank eventually but like many other plans the Germans ran out of time.

Panzer IV > Panther. Mediums.

Tiger I > Tiger II. Heavys.

As was the case of the JS-2 it was not a replacement for T-34s and the Pershing was not a replacement for Shermans.

As for the Hollywood myth stuff thats partially correct but its not a myth that the Tigers (and Panthers, and quite frankly most WW2 AFVs) were more vulnerable to shots to the non-frontal areas be that side or rear than they were to shots to the front. Also a penetration to the rear would likely kill the engine so its not really myth that a rear shot would be the most prized if it became available. There is also the added benefit of being in the tanks blind spot if its turret was facing in the frontal arc. If I was a T-34 or Sherman crew (or ATG crew or Bazooka team) I would opt for a rear shot over either a front or a flank shot if the opportunity came upon me.