Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: LEADPIG on April 17, 2007, 11:02:17 AM

Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: LEADPIG on April 17, 2007, 11:02:17 AM
Yeaa ????
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Guppy35 on April 17, 2007, 11:35:11 AM
Cause there are already two German tanks?

Just sayin'  :)
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Larry on April 17, 2007, 12:09:50 PM
But america has more GVs :(

I want my king tiger of atlease this (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/tank-hunters/jagdtiger.asp)  :aok
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Lusche on April 17, 2007, 12:19:27 PM
Why no T34/85, Stug III, Pz III, Churchill, Su-76, Kübelwagen, Hetzer, Jagdpanther, Crusader... ?    ;)
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Flame 2 the boy on April 17, 2007, 12:31:30 PM
whats the difference, they all die the same;)
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Lusche on April 17, 2007, 12:44:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Flame 2 the boy
whats the difference, they all die the same;)


Except that  King Tiger drivers would be even more prone to freaking out on CH200 when their precious 100+ perk tanks die to "lame divebombing Stukatards!" in TT :D
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Flame 2 the boy on April 17, 2007, 02:10:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Lusche
Except that  King Tiger drivers would be even more prone to freaking out on CH200 when their precious 100+ perk tanks die to "lame divebombing Stukatards!" in TT :D


WHAT?:huh  whatever do u mean? No one bombs Tank Town...that just simply isnt done.
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: tedrbr on April 17, 2007, 02:18:22 PM
German 88mm FlaK36.  Manned puffy ack.  Indirect Artillery.  Long range direct fire.
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: devild0g on April 17, 2007, 03:24:35 PM
Hahahah they are whinning cause they can no longer sit out in the open between 2 hills in tiger leaving whole front side showing without worrying about being hit!! lol! Now you learned stop whinning and start finding cover like anyone in panzer and sherman is doing. Now you cant just sit there drinking a soda while rounds deflect off your tiger. oh and btw your still best off in a panzer... TT is basically just a way to get perks quickly and a way to get your name honored... for landing 2 kills in a gv wow. So hitech already did us a favor of making a map where you spawn so close togeather, this leads to people who like spawn camping, thats what happens when you dont need to spawn and drive.:lol
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: LEADPIG on April 17, 2007, 03:46:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Larry
But america has more GVs :(

I want my king tiger of atlease this (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/tank-hunters/jagdtiger.asp)  :aok


Wait a minute just hold on TrueKill.....Hempstead Tx? ....I'm from Prairie View, Tx 5 miles away if i'm thinking the same Hempstead :D
Title: aircraft veicals
Post by: kennyhayes on April 17, 2007, 07:53:18 PM
If you added the king tiger it would be to unfair. And lots of people would leave tt and it ould not be as fun. The only way to kill one is by getting like 3 shermans behind it or boombing it.
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: coinbird on April 17, 2007, 09:17:49 PM
why no Italian armor?
(http://www.comandosupremo.com/Autoblinda2.jpg)
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Larry on April 17, 2007, 11:31:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Wait a minute just hold on TrueKill.....Hempstead Tx? ....I'm from Prairie View, Tx 5 miles away if i'm thinking the same Hempstead :D


Out west of Houston by sealy.
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Kev367th on April 18, 2007, 12:46:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by coinbird
why no Italian armor?
(http://www.comandosupremo.com/Autoblinda2.jpg)


Didn't that have 1 forward and 5 reverse gears? :)
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: 68Ripper on April 18, 2007, 02:17:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Kev367th
Didn't that have 1 forward and 5 reverse gears? :)


No I think you are thinking of the French tank! Retreat full speed! We we misseur!

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Stang on April 18, 2007, 02:58:08 PM
There are these things called "ground vehicles" in the game?  Go figgure.  Thanks for letting me know 5 years in.
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Krusty on April 18, 2007, 03:01:06 PM
That thing wouldn't even stand up to hispano fire!

Look at it, it's got frakking BOLTS holding the plates together! Any hit, even if it didn't penetrate, would pop bolts/rivets and the thing would fall apart.
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Solar10 on April 18, 2007, 05:50:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Kev367th
Didn't that have 1 forward and 5 reverse gears? :)


No kev.  It did have 5 forward and 1 reverse...  

The turret was placed on backwards though so it always faced the enemy. ;)
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: LEADPIG on April 19, 2007, 09:14:01 AM
If we can't get the Panther or King Tiger how bout this ?????

  http://image.rcuniverse.com/forum/upfiles/328671/Ge96164.jpg

The T-28 Super Heavy first thought about as a possible participant in the invasion of Japan. Shows the respect we had for the Japanese and their fanatatical fighting style. :confused:
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Nilsen on April 19, 2007, 10:30:43 AM
id love to see the Wespe or a similar type tracked artillery
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: coinbird on April 19, 2007, 08:39:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Nilsen
id love to see the Wespe or a similar type tracked artillery


such as some fine italian examples:

(http://www.comandosupremo.com/10525.jpg)

"This vehicle came into production on 2 Apr 43. Considered to be the best in Italian Self-Propelled Guns (SPG) it was armed with a 105 mm 25 Calibre howitzer on a M43 chassis. This chassis was the same as the M 15-42, but widened 7.9 feet (2.4 meters). The hull superstructure had 70mm of armor protection and the rest of the vehicles armor ranging from 15 mm to 50 mm.

A total of 494 were ordered, however, only half were built by the time of the armistice signing. The Germans utilized these vehicles after the Italian armistice of 8 Sep 43, and used them effectively against the Allies in Italy.

Credit: Italian Medium Tanks in Action, By Squadron/Signal Publications Armor #39/Nicola Pignato. "
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: darxe on April 22, 2007, 09:18:42 AM
We should add that Italian armor!!  Then I would have something to do when I bailed out of my plane.  With all the bolts on it, I could run up to it with a wrench and take it apart.
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Hawco on April 23, 2007, 10:22:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Kev367th
Didn't that have 1 forward and 5 reverse gears? :)



:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Masherbrum on April 23, 2007, 12:40:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by coinbird
such as some fine italian examples:

(http://www.comandosupremo.com/10525.jpg)

"This vehicle came into production on 2 Apr 43. Considered to be the best in Italian Self-Propelled Guns (SPG) it was armed with a 105 mm 25 Calibre howitzer on a M43 chassis. This chassis was the same as the M 15-42, but widened 7.9 feet (2.4 meters). The hull superstructure had 70mm of armor protection and the rest of the vehicles armor ranging from 15 mm to 50 mm.

A total of 494 were ordered, however, only half were built by the time of the armistice signing. The Germans utilized these vehicles after the Italian armistice of 8 Sep 43, and used them effectively against the Allies in Italy.

Credit: Italian Medium Tanks in Action, By Squadron/Signal Publications Armor #39/Nicola Pignato. "


Rommel would disagree with you.
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Masherbrum on April 23, 2007, 12:43:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Lusche
Why no T34/85, Stug III, Pz III, Churchill, Su-76, Kübelwagen, Hetzer, Jagdpanther, Crusader... ?    ;)


Why sell ourselves short?

(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/maus.jpg)
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Noir on April 23, 2007, 06:16:36 PM
the king tiger sucked, because its armor lacked manganese (germans lost the supply) there is a whole thread about that
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: AApache on April 24, 2007, 07:42:48 AM
Guess we should be happy with whatever perverbial bone HTC throws us bro:eek:
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Yarbles on April 24, 2007, 11:37:13 AM
Quote
Originally posted by 68Ripper
No I think you are thinking of the French tank! Retreat full speed! We we misseur!

:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl


No the French were not that brave, you just fired the gun and a white flag popped out the end of the barrel.
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: 1K3 on April 24, 2007, 11:57:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Why sell ourselves short?

(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/maus.jpg)


German Mouse!
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Nilsen on April 24, 2007, 12:24:08 PM
French jokes never gets old i guess... *sigh*
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Yarbles on April 24, 2007, 01:00:58 PM
I think the refusal to go into Iraq didn,t help but in retrospect it may not have been a bad idea.

The reality is we English hid behind the channel and were smug. The French and British were brave enough to declare war on Germany in defence of Poland.

Some countries were so brave they had to wait to be invaded before they would get involved (USSR) or wait until Germany declared war on them (???). How brave is that?

So only the British have the right to take the piss and then only a little bit.
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Willfly on April 24, 2007, 02:41:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by LEADPIG
If we can't get the Panther or King Tiger how bout this ?????

  http://image.rcuniverse.com/forum/upfiles/328671/Ge96164.jpg

The T-28 Super Heavy first thought about as a possible participant in the invasion of Japan. Shows the respect we had for the Japanese and their fanatatical fighting style. :confused:


You have gotta be kidding, only 2 prototypes were produced of that tank and one burned down It never saw combat
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: LEADPIG on April 25, 2007, 04:55:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Willfly
You have gotta be kidding, only 2 prototypes were produced of that tank and one burned down It never saw combat


  But look at the size of it good god by will ya~~~~~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:O
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: LEADPIG on April 25, 2007, 05:01:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Yarbles
I think the refusal to go into Iraq didn,t help but in retrospect it may not have been a bad idea.

The reality is we English hid behind the channel and were smug. The French and British were brave enough to declare war on Germany in defence of Poland.

Some countries were so brave they had to wait to be invaded before they would get involved (USSR) or wait until Germany declared war on them (???). How brave is that?

So only the British have the right to take the piss and then only a little bit.


France got sideswiped in WW2 they weren't expected all that blitzkrieg stuff. They were ready to fight all nice and normal and then Germany came out with a different style and France was like WHAT! :O They couldn't do anything but run which was the smart thing. One country Germany wouldn't want to mess with now is Israel. Hitler would of got his butt kicked now. Israel ain't takin no watermelon after that holacaust thang, i don't blame em.
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Masherbrum on April 25, 2007, 07:50:04 AM
The German HAXX0RS attacked France from an illegal means and did NOT get PWNT by the Maginot Line.  :furious
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: CarlsBee on April 25, 2007, 02:58:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Noir
the king tiger sucked, because its armor lacked manganese (germans lost the supply) there is a whole thread about that


I think I saw somewhere there are no confirmed front armor piercing of tiger II in battle.   Almost all lost were due to breakdown or no fuel, abandoned and drestoyed by their own crew.

;)
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Flame 2 the boy on April 25, 2007, 03:07:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The German HAXX0RS attacked France from an illegal means and did NOT get PWNT by the Maginot Line.  :furious


i guess the french shouldnt have put all there eggs in one basket then
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: CAF001 on April 25, 2007, 06:10:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by LEADPIG
If we can't get the Panther or King Tiger how bout this ?????

  http://image.rcuniverse.com/forum/upfiles/328671/Ge96164.jpg

The T-28 Super Heavy first thought about as a possible participant in the invasion of Japan. Shows the respect we had for the Japanese and their fanatatical fighting style. :confused:


THAT is a driving cannon!
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Keiler on April 26, 2007, 04:41:25 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Noir
the king tiger sucked, because its armor lacked manganese (germans lost the supply) there is a whole thread about that


The armor sucked (alloy-wise), but as already stated, it was still way too thick to be pierced by virtually anything under battle conditions, and then only at suicidal short ranges where the TigerII's long 88L71 would've knocked out the opponent long, long time before (in case of a hit),except for the IS-III russian heavy tank.

Matt
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: CarlsBee on April 29, 2007, 06:10:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Keiler
The armor sucked (alloy-wise), but as already stated, it was still way too thick to be pierced by virtually anything under battle conditions, and then only at suicidal short ranges where the TigerII's long 88L71 would've knocked out the opponent long, long time before (in case of a hit),except for the IS-III russian heavy tank.

Matt

The armor sucked (alloy-wise), but....

:rofl                              :rofl                               :rofl
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Rino on April 29, 2007, 06:54:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Yarbles
I think the refusal to go into Iraq didn,t help but in retrospect it may not have been a bad idea.

The reality is we English hid behind the channel and were smug. The French and British were brave enough to declare war on Germany in defence of Poland.

Some countries were so brave they had to wait to be invaded before they would get involved (USSR) or wait until Germany declared war on them (???). How brave is that?

So only the British have the right to take the piss and then only a little bit.


     Wow, the UK tries to ruin and embarrass Germany after not losing WW1,
they can then feel smug about dragging the US into their next war first.

     What's next...blaming the US for not funding their Lend Lease stuff?
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: AAolds on April 30, 2007, 02:15:58 AM
I would love to see the whole gambit of WWII GVs available at some point, as well as all aircraft.
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Yarbles on April 30, 2007, 03:06:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Rino
Wow, the UK tries to ruin and embarrass Germany after not losing WW1,
they can then feel smug about dragging the US into their next war first.

     What's next...blaming the US for not funding their Lend Lease stuff?


Interesting interpretation of History from an Isolationist perspective. Smart of the UK to engineer US support through pearl harbour and the german declaration of war  :aok

And no one should complain about lend lease it only took about 55 years to pay back:rolleyes:
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Yarbles on April 30, 2007, 03:31:19 AM
But

France, Britain and really the USSR were heavily involved in empire and Germany and Japan wanted to play too. I think the US made a big contribution in the 20th century by promoting and supporting a less imperial appraoch and if the US hadn't stitched the UK up on lend lease the Uk would have just wasted the money on trying to hold on to India and the like.

So lets all be friends and play nicely  :D
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Keiler on April 30, 2007, 04:18:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by CarlsBee
The armor sucked (alloy-wise), but....

:rofl                              :rofl                               :rofl


I want to laugh too! :)
Care to explain the joke?

Matt
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: CarlsBee on April 30, 2007, 01:55:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Keiler
I want to laugh too! :)
Care to explain the joke?

Matt


Armour sucked but was the best of the day.  Just imagine it did not suck, (alloy-wise) of course, just imagine!
Title: Why no King Tiger or Panther????
Post by: Noir on April 30, 2007, 07:10:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by CarlsBee
I think I saw somewhere there are no confirmed front armor piercing of tiger II in battle.   Almost all lost were due to breakdown or no fuel, abandoned and drestoyed by their own crew.

;)


Check that thread (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=190806&highlight=king+tiger)

Looks like the situation changed during 1944, I guess we are both right :cool: