Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: gman52nd on November 16, 2005, 03:53:59 PM
-
why cant a t34 kill a tiger
-
5 t34 can kill a tiger.
one on one,i dont think so
-
Originally posted by ATA
5 t34 can kill a tiger.
one on one,i dont think so
How? I spent a good long while offline yesterday pounding on the Tiger with the T-34. So far as I can tell the T-34 cannot hurt the Tiger.
And the fact that one of the three tanks in AH is outright 99.9% immune to the T-34 could explain to a large degree why the T-34 is so rarely seen.
The T-34/85 would have been a much better addion for AH I think.
-
You absolutely right,but its a game.You need to know what hit boxes you should hit to kill a tiger,spit,bomber or anything else.
Have you notice it's very hard to shoot down an "uber" pilot?
How many times you gotta hit them with cannons?Forget about 50 calls ....imposble.
-
Originally posted by ATA
You absolutely right,but its a game.You need to know what hit boxes you should hit to kill a tiger,spit,bomber or anything else.
Have you notice it's very hard to shoot down an "uber" pilot?
How many times you gotta hit them with cannons?Forget about 50 calls ....imposble.
Erm, no, I hadn't actually noticed that because it doesn't work that way at all. Yes, there are hit locations and in the case of the tanks these are probably modeled as having a certain armor thickness and slope whereas in aircraft it is simply hit points. The tank damage model is much more sophisticated than the aircraft damage model, despite surface appearances.
The top pilots take no more damage than anybody else does, they're just harder to hit. When you do hit them they die like anybody else.
-
Karnak,i guess you right....
But "uber" pilots know all the bugs in game,i've seen p38 or spit take off almost verticaly.......or tigers drive away after 3000 pounds of ord dropped on them and such.......
-
Russian tank (T-34-76) in AH can't stand against late war 1944-45 Panzer IV Hs and Tigers. tank matchups would be very different if we have AH T-34 go up against 1942-43 Panzer IIIs and IVs.
-
Originally posted by ATA
Karnak,i guess you right....
But "uber" pilots know all the bugs in game,i've seen p38 or spit take off almost verticaly.......or tigers drive away after 3000 pounds of ord dropped on them and such.......
I have hit (got the hit sprite) a Tiger with a 500lb bomb and nothing happened other than the other guy saying how laoud it was and that wasn't a "top pilot". Tigers are just plain tough.
As to the 38 and Spit going VTOL, well, I've never seen that happen.
-
Click Here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146201)
The only way to kill a tiger in a T34 is to get behind it even then you have to get close and aim well.
-
Originally posted by Larry
Click Here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146201)
The only way to kill a tiger in a T34 is to get behind it even then you have to get close and aim well.
Not exactly true. About 6 months ago I was defending a port (forget which map) and was killed by all things, an LVT2 firing through a seawall and I couldn't hit him. This was NOT an LVT4 but only a 2 firing his machine guns. No I was not hit by ship guns as what was left of their fleet had bugged out and I was NOT hit by any ord from an aircraft. I have been killed in Tigers from PIV's also and sometimes with that special one hit and not up my arse either. Offline a tiger might be impervious to T-34 or PIV rounds, but that hasn't been my experience online.
All the Best...
Jay
awDoc1
-
The only tank I drive is the T34, and I can tell you from practical experience that there is NO WAY to kill a Tiger with a T34. I've never managed to get in a position to drop a shot onto the rear engine deck armor, but I can tell you the shots bounce on every other portion of the Tiger except for the tracks.
The only way for a T34 to deal with a Tiger is to:
1) Run away and hide behind something
2) Track one side of the Tiger and then run around to the other side and get into a position where he can't depress his gun to hit you.
3) Run up to where you and he touch and then maintain direct contact. There is actually a point where because of barrell length you can fire at him, but he is too close to hit you. You still won't kill him, but it irritates the living day lights out of them. Plus he might disco during the engagement and give you the kill. :rolleyes:
I usually try to opt for #1
What we really need now is the Sherman, so that T34 drivers like me will have something we can actually kill with impunity.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
What we really need now is the Sherman, so that T34 drivers like me will have something we can actually kill with impunity.
- SEAGOON
Well, that would at least be a use for a Sherman.:D
-
Ya the 85 would have been way more appropriate for the game. Too bad no one thought of it before hand.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
Russian tank (T-34-76) in AH can't stand against late war 1944-45 Panzer IV Hs and Tigers. tank matchups would be very different if we have AH T-34 go up against 1942-43 Panzer IIIs and IVs.
That is such an incorrect statement it is not funny. Tiger's were killed on numerous occasions by T-34-41's and T-34-41imps
Do a little research of actual combat reports instead of reading penetration charts before you claim something.
-
2 or 3 tours ago I hopped in a T-34 for chits and giggles and sat on a hill top shelling an enemy field. All of a sudden this Tiger spawns from the VH and I fire a couple of ranging shots at it and then when I got the bearings, I nailed it from 2000 yards and it blew up. The other guy immediately called me a cheater for using an aim bot.
It can kill a Tiger but I guess it all depends on where you hit it. When the Tiger first came out, I was able to kill one with an M8 by hitting it repeatedly in the engine section.
ack-ack
-
Get behind a Tiger and fire right at that Tank on the back you will have him real quick, Works Extremely well in an Osti, Took me about 20 Shots in an osti to a Tigers Rear end and BOOM.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
That is such an incorrect statement it is not funny. Tiger's were killed on numerous occasions by T-34-41's and T-34-41imps
Do a little research of actual combat reports instead of reading penetration charts before you claim something.
Tigers were greatly outnumbered by t34 i believe
-
Originally posted by 1K3
Russian tank (T-34-76) in AH can't stand against late war 1944-45 Panzer IV Hs and Tigers. tank matchups would be very different if we have AH T-34 go up against 1942-43 Panzer IIIs and IVs.
Yep to bad the pnzr and tiger we have were built in '42 and '43-'44 and the T34 was built from '40-'45 looks like the russians thought it was good enough for the whole war, but then again WW2 tank battles almost always happened within 1000m and not the 5K+ that happens in AH.
pnzrIVH 4/1943-7/1944 3,774
pnzrVIE(Tiger1) 8/1942-8/1944: 1,350
7/1942-8/1944: 1,354
1943 - 649
T34/76 1940-45: 35,120
1943 - 15,529
-
Originally posted by Larry
Yep to bad the pnzr and tiger we have were built in '42 and '43-'44 and the T34 was built from '40-'45 looks like the russians thought it was good enough for the whole war, but then again WW2 tank battles almost always happened within 1000m and not the 5K+ that happens in AH.
pnzrIVH 4/1943-7/1944 3,774
pnzrVIE(Tiger1) 8/1942-8/1944: 1,350
7/1942-8/1944: 1,354
1943 - 649
T34/76 1940-45: 35,120
1943 - 15,529
The T-34 we have was produced in 1943 at the tail end of T-34/76 production versions as I understand it. It was produced through 1945, but not as the main anti-tank version of the T-34, the T-34/85 took that role. Our T-34/76 is for all practical purposes identical to a 1941 T-34/76.
Your bald faced lie that the T-34 we have was what the Russians thought was good enough for the entire war boggles the mind. The T-34/85 which entered production in 1943 kind of kills that claim, after all why interupt production to try to get a better gun and turret if you think what you have is just fine.
As to hitting the Tiger in the rear with the T-34/76 in AH, well, that has no effect. I have hit the offline Tiger from point blank in the rear with 50+ AP rounds and not one bit of damage ocurred.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Your bald faced lie that the T-34 we have was what the Russians thought was good enough for the entire war boggles the mind. The T-34/85 which entered production in 1943 kind of kills that claim, after all why interupt production to try to get a better gun and turret if you think what you have is just fine.
LoL lie thats funny. So then why did they keep it in production if it wasnt good enough? And for the not being able to kill a tiger from behind think HTC could do more for that then me, so best thing to do is email them about it, but with ToD if it is fixed dont count on it anytime soon.
-
Probably because 76mm is good enough for infantry support and killing most German tanks or vehicles?
You are the one that made the claim that the Russians thought 76mm was good enough. If that is so, explain why they were so keen to get the 85mm gun on the T-34 and into action.
-
Mabey bucause they wanted to have something better jsut like why the germans made tigers and panthers. Why settle with good when you can have great. And if they didnt think it was good enough then they would have stoped making /76 and jsut made the /85
-
Actually, the T34/85 didnt't enter in producion until 1944. first action it saw was in the spring of the same year.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The T-34 we have was produced in 1943 at the tail end of T-34/76 production versions as I understand it. It was produced through 1945, but not as the main anti-tank version of the T-34, the T-34/85 took that role. Our T-34/76 is for all practical purposes identical to a 1941 T-34/76.
[/B]
Yeah, actually many people convinently forget how much hardship the russians had producing some decent equipment up the 2nd half of the gpw. Their industry took a serious blow in 1941-42, and it took a lot to recover, until then they produced all POS they could, a very large percantage of tank production until 1943/44 were almost completely useless light tankettes... they relied on those death traps to a large scale even at kursk. To those guys in those T-40s and T-60s, even the PzIII was something f. scary.
As to hitting the Tiger in the rear with the T-34/76 in AH, well, that has no effect. I have hit the offline Tiger from point blank in the rear with 50+ AP rounds and not one bit of damage ocurred. [/B]
Something I'd expect given the live fire trials I've seen for the Tiger I. At it's time, it was much more scary than the Tiger II in a later era, a lot fewer guns could successfully battle it. One live fire trials was done against a Tiger captured in NA, results - with a 75mm Sherman gun - as I recall were that the only conditions of penetrating the side plate was less than 100 yards range, 18 degree angle of impact from the surface (near vertical impact required). Pretty tough. Your T-34 example vs. the turret is even worser given it's just as thick, plus it's curved making a good angle very unlikely, and add to that the Soviet AP rounds were quite a lot worser than German or Allied ones, lacking an armor-piercing cap...
Got a nice page from the 'Tigerfibel' recalling a Tiger tank being hit zillion times by Soviet fire, many parts damaged, and still rolled some 60km on it's own power...
Oh, and the T-34/85 did not enter production until Dec 15 1943. That's 1944 in my book. Same time as the Tiger II btw.
-
I wasn't shooting the Tiger's turret. That armor is much too think. I was shooting the rear of the engine compartment.
Tiger II can't be compared to the T-34/85. The Tiger II was produced in very low numbers and had huge mechanical reliability issues due to overstessingthe engine and drive system.
-
Probably because 76mm is good enough for infantry support and killing most German tanks or vehicles?
Allied 76.2mm had a 'shatter gap' problem. Rounds with too high an impact velocity would sometimes fail even though their penetration capability was (theoretically) more than adequate.
This was a problem with the British 2 pounder in the desert, and would have decreased the effectiveness of U.S. 76mm and 3" guns against Tigers, Panthers and other vehicles with armor thickness above 70 mm.
The nose of US armor-piercing ammunition of the period was 'soft' (brittle?). When these projectiles impacted armor which matched or exceeded the projectile diameter at a certain spread of velocities, the projectile would shatter and fail.
For the a 76mm APCBC M62 the shell would shatter and fail between 50 meters and 900 meters. These ammunition deficiencies proved that Ordnance tests claiming the 76 mm gun could penetrate a Tiger I's upper front hull to 2,000 yards (1,800 meters) were sadly incorrect.
Here's one story of 2 Tigers being engaged by a mix of Soviet T34/76 and US lend lease Shermans:
The 13.(Tiger) Kompanie, of Panzer Regiment Großdeutschland, reported on the armor protection of the Tiger: "During a scouting patrol two Tigers encountered about 20 Russian tanks on their front, while additional Russian tanks attacked from behind. A battle developed in which the armor and weapons of the Tiger were extraordinarily successful. Both Tigers were hit (mainly by 76.2 mm armor-piercing shells) 10 or more times at ranges from 500 to 1,000 meters. The armor held up all around. Not a single round penetrated through the armor. Also hits in the running gear, in which the suspension arms were torn away, did not immobilize the Tiger. While 76.2 mm anti-tank shells continuously struck outside the armor, on the inside, undisturbed, the commander, gunner, and loader selected targets, aimed, and fired. The end result was 10 enemy tanks knocked out by two Tigers within 15 minutes" (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.).
Here's an image of a Panther after being struck by multiple 76.2 mm rounds:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/pantherhit.jpg)
Die Tiger Fibel (http://www.geocities.com/tigerfibel/tfindex.html)
One thing as well, if the first round doesn't penetrate, chances are none of the following rounds will. Firing from the same range, into the same spot, will not 'wear a whole' in armor. If you stay in one spot firing over and over then get killed thats not the AHs gv modeling, that's your own stupidity. The facts are that there is a lot of 'randomness' when it comes to 'knocking out' mbts. More so then you see in AH. If you go head-to-head vs. a Tiger in a T-34/76 you will die and that's all you need to know.
-
The turret/hull sides/rear all the same thickness, 80-82mm on the Tiger. The only thin place is the lower hull sides, 60mm, but these are 90% covered why the overlapped roadwheels, making it a pretty hard shot.
I merely compared the T/85 and T2 on that they came at the same timescale, ie. the T/76 was contemporary to the T1, the T/85's was the T2. But I disagree about the 'huge' mechanical issues, granted such large vehicle have more stress on the drive than a smaller one, but from what I've read on actual Tiger II operations, they seldom had major problems with that, and the cross-country capabilities of both big cats was surprisingly good.
-
No doubt that the Tiger was a vastly more lethal tank than the T-34.
The Tiger I's complete immunity to the T-34/76 in AH does make the T-34 rather pointless because in nearly any assult you will encounter Tigers defending.
The Tiger I would still hold a marked edge over the T-34/85, but the T-34/85 would at least be a viable tank to use. As it is there only tank that is really usable as a free tank is the Panzer IV H. It may be slower than the T-34 and have somewhat weaker armor, but at least it has a usable gun.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
The turret/hull sides/rear all the same thickness, 80-82mm on the Tiger. The only thin place is the lower hull sides, 60mm, but these are 90% covered why the overlapped roadwheels, making it a pretty hard shot.
Look at your information again.
-
Back when I played I posted several times about this... the T-34 is pretty useless against a Tiger.
IIRC (and you should be able to look it up) it is actually possible to kill a Tiger in a T-34.
The Tiger has an oddly shaped turret, kind of pentagonal or hexagonal. Anyway, it definately has "slabs" on the turret... 1 slab makes up the left side of the turret, 1 slab makes up the right side, and 2 slabs make up the rear. If you shoot the exact same slab 3 times at exactly a 90 degree angle (you'll know if you aren't, because the rounds will bounce off) you can disable the turret. A random number of shots to the same slab later and the tank will blow up. IIRC, it was between 5 and 11 shots after the turret was disabled.
Anyway, do a search by my name and T-34, going back a year or two... it'll be there in more detail.
-
76,2mm gun of T-34/76 was nothing special; it was just slightly better than German 50mm tank gun and maximum penetration at point blank range at 0dgr angle was about 80mm.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/page_59.gif
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
The turret/hull sides/rear all the same thickness, 80-82mm on the Tiger. The only thin place is the lower hull sides, 60mm, but these are 90% covered why the overlapped roadwheels, making it a pretty hard shot.
I merely compared the T/85 and T2 on that they came at the same timescale, ie. the T/76 was contemporary to the T1, the T/85's was the T2. But I disagree about the 'huge' mechanical issues, granted such large vehicle have more stress on the drive than a smaller one, but from what I've read on actual Tiger II operations, they seldom had major problems with that, and the cross-country capabilities of both big cats was surprisingly good.
Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger Ausf. E Sd. Kfz. 181
Armor (mm/angle):
Front Turret: 100/8
Front Upper Hull: 100/10
Front Lower Hull: 100/24
Side Turret: 80/0
Side Upper Hull: 80/0
Side Lower Hull: 80/8
Rear Turret: 80/0
Rear Hull: 80/8
Turret Top / Bottom: 25/81-90
Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 25/90
Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 25/90
Gun Mantlet: 100-110/0
The above armor specs, ARE what the Tiger I had.
Keep in mind bud the T34's that the Germans encountered in late 1943-1945 were of the "Long barreled variety", 1940- late 43 had the "short barrelled version" (we have the short barrel in AH2).
Keep in mind comparing the Tiger I (Heavy Tank) to a T34/76 or /85 (BOTH are Medium Tanks) is totally pointless. You cannot compare the two. If you do, you are anything short of insane. However, you are yet trying to compare a King Tiger (TigerII) to a /85!!!! :rofl
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
But I disagree about the 'huge' mechanical issues, granted such large vehicle have more stress on the drive than a smaller one, but from what I've read on actual Tiger II operations, they seldom had major problems with that, and the cross-country capabilities of both big cats was surprisingly good.
The Russian report on the Tiger II was scathing in regards to the engine, transmission and axles.
You are right that the big tracks on both the Tigers gave them good cross country capability though. You'll see stuff claiming the Sherman was better on ground weight, but with some slight research you can easily find that those claims are complete bunk. The mecahnical issues of the Tiger II were something else entirely though. The Tiger I was much better mecahnically. The Tiger II would have been better all round if the Germans had been able to put a stronger engine in it and a more robust transmission and axles.
I still think the Panther V G was the best overall tank of WWII. It might not be as impressive as a Tiger I or Tiger II, but it was a better mainline combat unit all told I think.
-
hmm, that russian article has a lot of bull in it, various claims about penetration of the frontal side which is simple hard to believed by the experts. My personal take is that in a typical Soviet style this is a kind of a report prepeared for 'the chief' (stalin) as if you check out Jentz Tiger book, you can find Soviet instructions for the troops how to combat the Tiger. Those state frontally it's a no-no, unlike this article on BF.ru.
Now as for the mechanical reliability, I have very good book here from a hungarian author (a rather young but very serious guy, who is head of the military archives already here), he goes into great depth of Tiger II operations in Hungary by the 503. sPzAbt, and surprisingly you don't find day after day reports of tanks constantly breaking down... I guess with proper care and maintaince by their original owners they were just fine.One could example he qoutes is detail is the first large scale operation in Oct 1944 of the unit when it was first thrown into battle after the refit (btw, the well known Tiger II parade in docfilms is showing this unit in Paderborn just after the refit and transitioning to Hungary), and engaged the Soviets near Debrecen. They did something like a 100 km march, no serious mechanical problems, despite there was some very heavy fighting. So, I am very sceptical about those above than normal mechanical troubles. Mechanical troubles you'd find with all tank units, more commonly with heavy units, but then again, I can only see the 'Tiger II was very unreliable' general claim in the more popular books, but when I look into the excellent, detailed works... nothing like that.
I'd agree on you with the Panther, I like it a lot, more than Tigers that were heavy tanks - a special kind, for special purposes. They were intended, or were special 'mainline' tanks. It kinda got distorted after the war, really, by 'historians', effected by allied recounts that 'everything is a Tiger'.
Btw, afaik Panthers were more troublesome from what I heard. They were mass produced examples, Tigers got a kind of special treatment, better materials were allocated or such. In any case, Jentz qoutes some servicibility figures and indeed the Tiger beats the Panther there (it's as good as the PzIV!), however possibly the Tiger's better survivalibility spoil the stats. And the engine was not that bad, pretty avarage for a WW2 tank, none of those had really powerful engines for their size, compared to what is there today... but that's true for all vehicles of the time, heavy trucks had engines that are fitted today into 'shopping cars'... most countries didn't even develop engines specifically for tanks.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The above armor specs, ARE what the Tiger I had.
Good to know, but I'd rather stick to my primary sources like WW2 british firing trials against tiger and other silly stuff...
However, you are yet trying to compare a King Tiger (TigerII) to a /85!!!! :rofl
Karaya [/B]
Try to read what I said. I said the Tiger-B was contemporary to the T-34/85, the two entered production and combat at about the same time. True, T-34/85 also met the Tiger I. And the Tiger II also met T-40s. Though luck for the latter.
-
I understood that the Panthers had serious teething issues until the G. The G I understood to have fixed those issues.
I've never heard anything bad about the Tiger I's serviceability. The Russian report on the Tiger II sounded reasonable to me though. They attributed the unexpectedly high armor penetration to slipping German quality due to the state of the German industry near the end of the war, a reasonable claim and it wouldn't affect earlier ones. The drive train they had issues with as it was apparently the same as the Tiger I's drive train, but with a whole heck of a lot more weight on it and once again that late war German industry possibly causing more quality issues. That also sounds reasonable.
-
Hmm, the drive train was not exactly the same as in the Tiger I - you can't really imagine they just stuffed the same thing into the Tiger II ?
Now as for the armor quality, they note two things iirc. Decline of molybdenium content and replacing it with vanadium, plus decreased plate hardness.. sounds bad?
Well... most alloys in metallurgy can be replaced by another to get the same properties (japanese were masters in this), and basically more alloys do not mean better qualities, just easier manufacturing to get the same qualities, ie. the process is more error-tolerant. Now as far as vanadium goes, it's one of the best alloys existing for armor, so it was actually an improvement. The reason they don't use it much is because it's expensive, cost was not an issue for the germans since they had vanadium, but less molybden, and they had a good metal industry that introduced better mechanical-working of the plates, so they had equal quality - flawed examples got more numerous though, since the production process was more sensitive now. The Russkies used a lot, and came up with very hard plates - which often cracked even when they'd easily reject smaller projectiles, T-34 plate tests done by the Germans showed this vs. 50mm gun.
And as for armor hardness 'decline' goes, it's really a sand in the eye. Thicker plates are always 'softer' than thin ones because they resist then better without cracking... that's a general rule. As for the shooting tests, I don't really need to comment, just look at the pictures, they kept it shooting until it fell apart, what's the surprise in that? If hit repeatadly on the same spot, any armor would fail sooner or later. The frontal armor shots are of suspect as well, they claim 88, 100 and 122mm penetrations. But on front of the turret there's only two : the 88 and probably the 100mm one, both capable AT weapons of this; the 100mm one is a bit of a 'cheat' tough, they removed the gun mantlet which protected the aiming slit, and hit the armor at this opening, where it naturally weaker. Probably the russkies got one early example that still bear it's child diseases, plus they couldn't maintain it properly, fixed it with cannibalized spare parts and stuff..
And I ask again, if they penetrated the armor so easily, why did they tell the troops different, ie. do not attack it from front, only from sides with special tungsten ammo and close range? Perhaps because the 'shoot the tiger to pieces and document with sad photos' was to make the high brass (and today's russian nationalists) happy, whereas troops on the front needed real information?
BTW, the battlefield.ru site had at a time posting pictures of 'destroyed german afvs'. Some of these were very poor fakes, with little black dots retouched onto the abandoned tanks as 'penetrations'. There was one clear case where a 'knocked out by soviet fire' Tiger was montaged from two different photos (turret and hull). The site owner was probably innocent, he bought the book with the pictures in russia, but this gives some idea how much welcome is the idea in Russia to rewrite things into something nicer..
-
Perhaps. It is always best to view documents from totalitarian regimes with some degree of sceptisism and the Russians under Stalin were standouts even among totalitarian regimes in that regard.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Good to know, but I'd rather stick to my primary sources like WW2 british firing trials against tiger and other silly stuff...
Try to read what I said. I said the Tiger-B was contemporary to the T-34/85, the two entered production and combat at about the same time. True, T-34/85 also met the Tiger I. And the Tiger II also met T-40s. Though luck for the latter.
And you think I pulled the armor specs out of my a**? Please, post the reply to Achtung Panzer! and the host of authors (of books I have) that have the identical measurements.
I read what you said. I just happen to know what I'm talking about. Enjoy life.
Karnak, he ain't worth the time.
Karaya