Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Sooner00 on December 06, 2005, 07:43:20 AM
-
http://www.military.cz/panzer/index_en.htm
Armament: 122 mm Gun
Crew: 4
Armor (max.): 200 mm
Speed (max.): 40 km/hr
Dimensions: 6.67 x 3.20 x 3.43 m
Weight: 45.8 ton
(http://www.military.cz/panzer/tanks/soviet_union/is3/image/is3.jpg)
-
limited numbers and it was slow.
-
The Tiger was in a limited number also, I have no idea of the numbers of either tank, but in Tank Town that 122 mm gun would be sweet.
-
the problem is that the IS-3 was deployed in the low hundreds. also it was deployed in the final months of the war. however it was considered the best tank in the world up into the 1950s.
PS
good find on the site.
-
This is the REAL Tiger killer :)
JS-2 tank
(http://tanxheaven.com/reviews/js2rev/js2-2m-001.jpg)
(http://www5b.biglobe.ne.jp/~TANK-GUY/Gallery02/ES-js2/js2-05.jpg)
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
limited numbers and it was slow.
122mm TURRET
-
Read the book PANZER ACES by Franz Kurowski. (Available at all your local "Buns & Noodles").
There are several combat reports in there of Tigers taking out the JS-2 & JS-3's just as easily as other Soviet Tanks. The 88mm main gun used on the Tiger series of tanks was most likely the best anti-armor gun of WW2.
:aok
-
lol how about this, we get a King Tiger tank THEN we get the Joseph Stalin tank 3 :) It should be an interesting tank match-up.
(http://achtungpanzer.bos.ru/gallery/galleries/tigerII_26.jpg)
(http://membres.lycos.fr/barkmann/articles/tigre2-fd/tigre2-fd.jpg)
(http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/05/images/canfora_tiger_01.jpg)
damn those Stalin 3 tanks are beast!
(http://pubimage.hangame.com/blitz/wallpaper/JS3_1280_960.jpg)
(http://www.panzercolor.com/galeri/rusya/mo_js3/mo_js3_1.jpg)
(http://hsgalleries.com/images/mo_js3_3.jpg)
captured JS-3 tank by Israelis
(http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Palestine-Israel/Isr-capuredJS3-SomeusedonBAR-LEVLINEonthesuezcanaldugin.jpg)
-
i think we should have tank destroyers. but i have never had a problem taking out a tiger with an M8. all you have to do is take out the tracks, then go to work on the turret. then park next to it and blast untill he towers out or dies. :aok
EDIT:
as i understand it, the IS-2 and IS-3 had the same main gun.
-
That would be fun in tank town, someone pops out in a tiger, then a IS3 pops out to go after the tiger, then a King Tiger pops out, and kills both of them. Man those big guns going off will make the panzer's and T34's scurry like cockroaches.
-
YES we got a sooner fan in here. OU OU OU!!!
-
another problem with the IS series was their intollerably low rate of fire. slower than the ingame reload time of the T34.
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
another problem with the IS series was their intollerably low rate of fire. slower than the ingame reload time of the T34.
Is the Ruskie 128mm tank round used in the JS Series Tanks & SU-122 Assault Gun a two-piece artillery type shell (seperate warhead and propellant charge) like the 128mm shells used in the JAGDTIGER?
If so might be there reason for their low rate of fire. That, or a one piece 128mm shell has got to be damn heavy! I have a 3" (76mm) practice AA Shell and it is damn heavy to lug around! :D
-
the Jagdtiger used the 12.8 cm dual use AA gun. the big brother of the 88.
-
Why does it matter how many there were produced? Does it really matter how popular a plane was or a GV? They all played a big roll, no matter how many victories they had.
-
or else....;)
-
Tiger I and II were main battle tanks. Tiger II was almost a Spec Op tank, delivered to specialized units that usually operated alone.
IS2 and 3 were too dependent on infantry, slow and with terribly low ROF.
-
what was the diff between Tiger I and Tiger II
-
Get rid of the tiger altogether!!! It prevents the inclusion of literally DOZENS of lighter tanks.
The current all-or-nothing hit system is BS anyways. If a tank round hits your turret but doesn't penetrate it's going to blow the ever-loving-crap out of the outside of that turret, and a hit in the same place (in the large crater left by the first hit) would penetrate easily. That isn't so in AH, so the tiger actually de-stabilizes the entire GV system.
-
Originally posted by viper215
what was the diff between Tiger I and Tiger II
this is a tiger I
(http://www.ijn.dreamhost.com/Non-Naval%20Models/Images%20-%20Non-Naval%20Models/Tiger%20tank.gif)
this is a tiger II
(http://www.aberjonapress.com/catalog/sh/images/kingtiger.jpg)
-
The konigstiger "tiger 2" was unbeatable in ww2. two of these were parked at the Riechstag in Berlin at the end of the war and were single handedly holding off the onslaught of the russian invasion. They eventually ran out of ammunition. Of the ones left behind during the Battle of the Bulge none were battle damaged they simply ran outta fuel. The IS-2 was very unsuccessful in combat and the IS-3 saw hardly any action if any at all during the final days of the war. Just because it has a 122 mm cannon doesn't mean it's any better than the 88mm. Russia's biggest problem was the lack of a good high velocity anti-tank round. The 88mm was the best anti-tank round in the war which helped feed the "tigerphobia" the allies were experiencing.
As for AH adding another combersome, slow chunk of armor that can be taken out by a 500 lb bomb isn't going to help anything. A few things need to happen first.
1st - Ah needs to look into the surveys conduct by the British, Americans and Germans. Then do the physics on general purpose bombs (HE) agianst armor. They'll find that even direct hits dont take out heavy armor or kill the crew. It's all there in black and white but noone seems to care about the realism of bombs.
2nd- the IL2 and Hurr2D cannot pierce the top of the heavy tanks turrets. All of their success was on light skinned vehicles and some panzer II's and III's. Once agian the facts are there in the surveys but, who cares for the realism, popping turrets is fun.
3rd - The tanks biggest enemy during WW2 was lack of fuel. Planes run outta fuel but tanks dont, so much for realism.
anyway, IMO these factors need to be fixed before the ground war can be taken seriously.
-
Probably the most important difference between German & Russian tanks was the superiority of german optics. See first, shoot first. We don't have this variance in AH, so we'd never get anywhere close to a true historical matchup. Since we all see the same distance, with two equally skilled gv'ers, the victor at range will be the one with the highest Pk gun.
-
Just delete the tiger!
That opens the way for all US and British and Japanese tanks, too! With the tiger you really can't have anything "weaker". Let the panzer shift to the top dog for tanks. At least *IT* can be killed.
-
U can keep the tiger in and even add the tiger II. I would like to see the perks increased for it though. Tiger I= 100 perks Tiger II= 300. 50 perks for the tiger I is not enough. Should be at least 100.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Get rid of the tiger altogether!!! It prevents the inclusion of literally DOZENS of lighter tanks.
The current all-or-nothing hit system is BS anyways. If a tank round hits your turret but doesn't penetrate it's going to blow the ever-loving-crap out of the outside of that turret, and a hit in the same place (in the large crater left by the first hit) would penetrate easily. That isn't so in AH, so the tiger actually de-stabilizes the entire GV system.
Bad Idea, the TIGER I should be kept, it has it's place on the battlefield. I agree with MwDogg though - it should be perked WAY MORE than it is currently. 100 to 300 perkies. The Tiger was a fairly rare bird on the battlefield compaired to the ratio of German tanks in action.
I also agree with Krusty about the hit system for armor here in AH. It has some major flaws that need to be addressed. The rear armor of a Tiger is a prime example - much too strong. Also damage to armored vehicles by aircraft needs to be looked at.
-
You don't understand... It's not about the perk price. Hell you can put it at 1000 perks and folks will still be able to afford them. It's about the fact that it's 99.999999....% invulnerable to all other players in the game. Hell making the perk price even higher just means there's less tigers to take out the tigers spawn camping you.
It's like a first person shooter that gives you a "god mode" plugin for 60 seconds when you reach xxx kills. It's not only stupid and unbalanced but it's unfair as hell.
The tiger in this game is unfair as hell. THAT is why it should be removed. In addition to leveling the playing field, making every player actually able to kill every other player (hey if you don't want to die, play offline, don't just take the tigr), and it then allows (on top of this) future tanks to be included.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
You don't understand... It's not about the perk price. Hell you can put it at 1000 perks and folks will still be able to afford them. It's about the fact that it's 99.999999....% invulnerable to all other players in the game. Hell making the perk price even higher just means there's less tigers to take out the tigers spawn camping you.
It's like a first person shooter that gives you a "god mode" plugin for 60 seconds when you reach xxx kills. It's not only stupid and unbalanced but it's unfair as hell.
The tiger in this game is unfair as hell. THAT is why it should be removed. In addition to leveling the playing field, making every player actually able to kill every other player (hey if you don't want to die, play offline, don't just take the tigr), and it then allows (on top of this) future tanks to be included.
So by this logic they should also then remove the 262? It's 99.999999% invulnerable. In fact, I've killed way, way more Tigers than I've ever killed 262s :)
-
Actually, the 262 is 100% vulnerable. Barely any hit whatsoever will damage it horribly. I pulled up gently from a 500mph dive on some bombers and ripped both wings off at the wing roots.
What the 262 is, is 99% uncatchable.
That's a far far FAR cry from a tank that can sit in 1 place and be hit from every direction by as many panzrs and t34s as can spawn and aim at it, and yet take no damage. *THAT* is invulnerable. Invulnerable and unfair is when you have a shot, you take the shot, the shot is valid, the shot hits, but the target never receives damage no matter how many times you hit it.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Actually, the 262 is 100% vulnerable. Barely any hit whatsoever will damage it horribly. I pulled up gently from a 500mph dive on some bombers and ripped both wings off at the wing roots.
What the 262 is, is 99% uncatchable.
That's a far far FAR cry from a tank that can sit in 1 place and be hit from every direction by as many panzrs and t34s as can spawn and aim at it, and yet take no damage. *THAT* is invulnerable. Invulnerable and unfair is when you have a shot, you take the shot, the shot is valid, the shot hits, but the target never receives damage no matter how many times you hit it.
Yeah was just messing with you on the 262s. I tear wings off of them constantly. I dunno about the Tigers being invulnerable though. I don't GV all that much, but the Tigers I drive tend to pop in 1 or 2 shots. I've also killed quite a few of them, it just takes teamwork to distract them and others to rush up and kill them... similiar to what Shermans had to do irl. That or somebody goes and gets a jabo and 2x1000 pounders.
The problem really seems to be spawn campers, and not the thickness of Tiger armor or low Pk t34 gun =P If there's a healthy amount of range, it's always easy to outmanuver the Tiger and bring numbers against.
-
Heh, see my post about rangefinders, too, regarding "if there's a healthy amount of range".
-
I dont think we should remove the tiger. I think its just the hit armor thingy. With a T34 shooting a tiger from the back should desable the tank with maybe 1 or 2 shots. But i sit there wasting all my rounds and nothing. I think the panzer shells wont penatrate the back to. Thats 1 of the weakest parts on the tiger i think. Thats how the shermans won was great numbers and some of them getting on the tigers back and disabling it.
-
krusty, the tiger's front armor is all but invincible. aim for the rear or the tracks. you will take it out without much trouble. if he cannot be flanked, call in for air support. a MOAB should take it out without much trouble.
in addition
if (and thats a huge "if") the tiger is removed it should be replaced by the Panther.
-
I kill tigers all the time with panzer's. I just can't go head on with them like everyone does. U just have to be patient and sneak up on them and get on there 6. 2 shots kills the tiger. first shot kills there engine and sometimes the die. 2nd shot kills them.
-
Why not this for a Tiger killer...US tank destroyer-M-36.
(http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m36.jpg)
-
Why not add the Centaur, a brit tank to the mix? It's not a tank killers, but....
With a 95 mm howitzer, it could make things interesting.
-
Originally posted by Gato
Why not add the Centaur, a brit tank to the mix? It's not a tank killers, but....
With a 95 mm howitzer, it could make things interesting.
A howitzer is not the same as the main gun on a tank - even if it is as large as 95mm. A regular 75mm tank gun of longer caliber would probabily have more armor penetrating power. You wouldn't have the range or flat trajectory of a regular high velocity tank round by useing a howitzer - less chance of a first round hit.
If you did hit the target - You might "rattle them around" a bit inside and do some damage with a hit from a howitzer but it wouldn't take the tank out.
The Howitzer armed tank is better for blasting bunkers, pillboxes & targets holding the Infantry up.
:aok
-
Which was more lethal as an anti-armor gun the 88mm gun on the Tiger? or the 76mm on the Panther? I was under the impression that the 76mm on the Panther had a higher velocity and more killing power vs. armor despite the smaller diameter of the shell?
-
Originally posted by Soulyss
Which was more lethal as an anti-armor gun the 88mm gun on the Tiger? or the 76mm on the Panther? I was under the impression that the 76mm on the Panther had a higher velocity and more killing power vs. armor despite the smaller diameter of the shell?
NOTHING could beat the 88mm on the battlefield. It was probabily the best anti-armor gun of the war. There are reports from early war actions of 88's taking out tanks at extreme ranges with HE & AA rounds. Shells from the 88 would go clear through a Sherman (front to rear) - with the HVAR round & superior optics of German gunsights, they were even MORE deadly. Add that to the armor of the TIGER, KING TIGER or JAGDPANTHER (also used on it) and you had an almost unstoppable package.
The PANTHER's gun was the 75mm L/70 (not a 76mm) and was also used on the JAGDPANZER IV/L70. This was probabily the best 75mm tank gun of the war and was superior to the Soviet 85mm tank gun in range and penetrating power with the HVAR round.
:aok
-
NOTHING could beat the 88mm on the battlefield. It was probabily the best anti-armor gun of the war.
The main gun on the PANTHER was a 75 mm Rheinmetall KwK 42 L/70 with 79 rounds supported by two MG 34 machine guns. 75 mm was not a particularly large calibre for the time. Nonetheless, the Panther's gun was one of the most powerful tank guns of WWII, due to the large propellant charge and the long barrel, which gave it a very high muzzle velocity. The flat trajectory also made hitting targets much easier, since aiming was less sensitive to range. The 75 mm gun actually had more penetrating power than the 88 mm gun of the Tiger I, although not of the Tiger II.
-
jester, the king tiger didnt use the same gun as the regular tiger. the gun that was shoehorned into the king tiger was a magnum 88 as i understand it. i am quite shure it also had a longer barrel. and also, the main gun of the panther had better AT capacity than the 88 fitted into a tiger.
-
Originally posted by CAV
The main gun on the PANTHER was a 75 mm Rheinmetall KwK 42 L/70 with 79 rounds supported by two MG 34 machine guns. 75 mm was not a particularly large calibre for the time. Nonetheless, the Panther's gun was one of the most powerful tank guns of WWII, due to the large propellant charge and the long barrel, which gave it a very high muzzle velocity. The flat trajectory also made hitting targets much easier, since aiming was less sensitive to range. The 75 mm gun actually had more penetrating power than the 88 mm gun of the Tiger I, although not of the Tiger II.
CAV,
You can't figure it just by muzzle velocity alone - there are many factors such as range, accuracy and type of rounds used as outlined below:
In May 1941 the German general staff had demanded a new Kampfwagen Kanone (Tank Gun) specification for the TIGER; it had to be capable of penetrating 100 mm at about 1,500 meters and the improved Pzgr.39 could approach that. This is one of the two reasons why the 88 mm KwK 36 L/56 was retained as the main gun of the TIGER I, instead of the Rheinmetall 75 mm KwK 42 L/70 (Gun used on the PANTHER). The other reason was the fact that at that time, armor penetration was mainly a function of thickness to diameter (T/d) ratio. During World War II, the Armor Piercing (AP) round relied on its own weight (and a 88 mm KwK 36 L/56 gun APCBC shell weighed 10.2 Kilograms, as opposed by an 75 mm KwK 42 L/70 gun APCBC shell, which weighed 6.8 Kilograms) to penetrate the enemy's armor. Theoretically, the higher the muzzle velocity, the more penetration any kind of AP round would have, all other variables remaining constant. In real World War Two tank combat, however, other important variables intervened, such as the thickness to diameter (T/d) coefficient, which means that the higher the diameter of any given round relative to the thickness of the armor it is going to strike, the better the probability of achieving a penetration. Furthermore, if the diameter of the armor piercing round overmatches the thickness of the armor plate, the protection given by the inclination of the armor plate diminishes proportionally to the increase in the overmatch of the armor piercing round diameter or, in other words, to the increase in this T/d overmatch. So, when a Tiger hit a T-34, the 88 mm diameter of the Tiger's round overmatched the 45 mm glacis plate of the T-34 by so much that it made no difference that the Russian tank's glacis was inclined at an angle of 60 degrees from vertical.
(There is much more to this report but you get the idea.)
Originally posted by SMIDSY
jester, the king tiger didnt use the same gun as the regular tiger. the gun that was shoehorned into the king tiger was a magnum 88 as i understand it. i am quite shure it also had a longer barrel. and also, the main gun of the panther had better AT capacity than the 88 fitted into a tiger.
Yea, Smidsy,
I knew they were different guns, I was refering to the 88mm cannon family in "General" & the 88mm of the TIGER I in particular as that is the model of the Tiget Tank we have in the game. From the early Flak Gun models used for anti-tank work to the 88mm models built for the Tigers, Jagdpanthers, Elephants & Nashorns even though other guns may have been close or larger size or longer caliber than the German made 88's - NONE had their scheer killing power, range, very effective anti-tank rounds, optics & ease of handling in reloading all rolled into one package.
The German 88mm cannon family was pretty much "King of the Battlefield" in WW2 as far as anti-tank guns go. :aok
-
Originally posted by Jester
So, when a Tiger hit a T-34, the 88 mm diameter of the Tiger's round overmatched the 45 mm glacis plate of the T-34 by so much that it made no difference that the Russian tank's glacis was inclined at an angle of 60 degrees from vertical.
Sure seemed to make a difference in AH though. I was blasting the Tiger and T-34 off line using a Tiger and dang me, but that T-34 felt almost as tough. I ricocheted multiple 88mm AP rounds off of it.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Sure seemed to make a difference in AH though. I was blasting the Tiger and T-34 off line using a Tiger and dang me, but that T-34 felt almost as tough. I ricocheted multiple 88mm AP rounds off of it.
That's because the armor damage model in AH is V - E - R - Y simplified to the point of being laughable. I have destroyed TIGERS by putting one to two shots into the spot just below their sides but above the road wheels at medium ranges with the PANZER IV. But have turned around and and at close range put 35 rounds(!!!) of AP into the dead six (weakest verticle armor on a Tiger) of an already damaged Tiger before he blew up. This is REALLY one of the major bugs in AH that needs looking into and redone.
As you stated in your quote above, I have a ton of books on German Panzer combats in WW2, there were obviously times when shells DID glance of the inclined plates of the T-34 but usually it took only one shot from the TIGER's 88 to just lift the turret right off them.
-
Not exactly a pure Tiger killer, but some tank destroyers would go a long way to spicing up the GV game. I'd imagine they'd be much easier to model also with the lack of a turret and simple, angular shapes. It would be a bit more difficult to fight in with the limited traverse, but that would justify a much lower perk cost on the big gun models.
Hetzer w/ 75mm PaK 39 L/48
Jagdpanzer IV with a 75mm L/70 gun
Argueably the best of breed, Jagdpanther w/ 88mm PaK 43 L/71. Decent armor, 46km/h road speed.
well.. I had neat pics, and all of a sudden the links are broke. gotta fix it laterl.