Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: shreck on August 28, 2008, 01:21:45 PM
-
I've been GVing allot lately, and I find the tiger to be inferior in many respects to the sherman. In fact many squadies will never take tiger cause it is absolutely no better than the sherman but costs 4 times the perks. I've been using the tiger allot as to see how it stacks up these days, It is borderline average IMHO. I would think the tiger should have a marked advantage at ranges beyond 2500 with superior armor at any range, also the sherman should be superior at close range with higher rate of fire and the " spinning top turret ". I'm not really up on history when it comes to tank performance but I do believe the tiger was feared by ALL and the prefered way to kill one was to spot it then call in the heavies, never engage one in direct frontal fire. Now the reason I post this is cause I've found it to be common place to engage a sherman at 3000 plus hitting said sherman muliple times "some ricochets some solid sprites causing NO damage while recieving one solid hit and losing the tiger or turret if I'm lucky in the process. I'm not sure this should be the case but if one of you history gurus could shed some light on the actual performance of these carriages of war I would be most gratefull. Cause if this is how it will remain then I'm afraid very very few tigers will ever be used and that is just not nostalgic enough for me ;)
Oh and last night I was trading shots with a sherman in my tiger at about 3400 and hit him 3 times frontaly, he decided to reposition, hit him once on the starbord skirt just below the turret, and once in his butt when he fled to get some separation, I saw NO damage at all!! Not sure this kind of thing is accurate. Anyway it would be great if someone could shine a light on this for me Thanks :D
-
Just to clarify, our "Sherman" is a British Firefly, which had a very good 17 pounder gun able to knock out Tigers with relative ease.
Doesn't explain the armour on it though...
-
After trying my hand at GVs I came away thinking its hit or miss and not accurate to actual vehicles anywhere. They have all been adjusted for gameplay so much that I cant make rhyme-or-reason of them. The M4 has a much faster turret but to aim one your stick has to be dampened just so. I suppose I could modify my setup for a special GV mode but then again why spend the time doing that? I get killed first shot by the 'uber' guys all the time. Panzer M4 Tiger M8 even it doesnt matter. Meanwhile my shots bounce off M3s! I would think an M3 would be reduced to scrap even on a hit like that but what do I know?
-
Just to clarify, our "Sherman" is a British Firefly, which had a very good 17 pounder gun able to knock out Tigers with relative ease.
Doesn't explain the armour on it though...
I understand that, but was the 17 pounder effective at long ranges, My memory seems to recall that it had poor ballistics although a very hard hitting shell! Now that i think about it maybe it's the accuracy of the sherman at long ranges that may be modeled incorectly still scratching skull !
-
17lb'er used APDS, first gun to use it...
Very high velocity, flat shooting too...
From what I've read, Firefly was fitted with a flat plate of
extra armor on front hull.. Just a flat plate w cutouts for
hull gun and vision blocks... Some kind of British made
special ballistic plate... Welded to the front hull...
It also said they had constant problems with the front
bogie sets, because of the extra weight...
So I've read....anyway...
RC
-
In your explanation of the situation if it was happening the way you saw it there is NO way the sherman could have survived multiple hits from the 88 of the Tiger. M3's had 88 shells "pass through" the hull with no damage except the entry and exit holes in the cargo bay.
As for the 17 pounder, it was initially an anti tank gun (carrage mounted) that was "shoehorned" into the sherman by the Brits and quite effective at range IF it saw the Tiger first. The problem with many "Tiger" accounts in WWII was that the allies thought EVERY german tank they saw was a Tiger.
-
Don't waste your perks. Take a Sherman (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/signs014.gif)
-
At least in the game the guns on the Tiger and Sherman are very close to one another. The Sherman also has thickened frontal armor, particularily around the barrel (I forget what they call that part). So, in game the likelyhood of a one shot kill in either of these if facing one another is close to equal (actually, the Tiger has a slight advantage). Once the shots are not to the front the advantage to the Tiger gets bigger.
The biggest difference between them though, is their ability to withstand bombs. The Sherman is no safer than a Panzer in this regard, while the Tiger will last forever unless it takes a direct hit in the right spot. You can kill a Sherman by dropping close, not so with a Tiger.
-
The biggest difference between them though, is their ability to withstand bombs. The Sherman is no safer than a Panzer in this regard, while the Tiger will last forever unless it takes a direct hit in the right spot. You can kill a Sherman by dropping close, not so with a Tiger.
Great point Eagle
-
Mantlet
RC
-
You realize at 3,400 yards you're shooting at a target that is over 2 miles away, right?
-
I think the tiger has been porked in some ways since the Firefly has comeout. I was able to kill Panzers at any distance with the tiger. The other night I was trading long range shots with a panzer (around 3000) and killed his engine, turret, and tracked him but never got the kill till he ended flight. Think I hit him 6-8 times and had to target another tank that was shooting at me. But i use the tiger mainly because of habit and I am comfortable ranging people. But I have had cases of shooting M3's so square in the side the round bounces back at me....explain that one. One of these times I am going to have the recorder going for that. M4's...hmmm hit them square in the side of the turret at close range only to have them turn and one shot kill my tiger. Also it is very very rare that I turret an M4...either they are dead or they kill me.
-
I choose M4 over Tiger because it cost's less perks...
But use Tiger when aircraft are around, cuz its pretty bombproof...
At most ranges for me, 88 ricochets off M4 front hull..
But a turret hit, low near turret ring, pops its cork...
Most times, anyway....
That 17lb'er is soo flat shooting that they can range you super quick....
Another reason I like it so much... And why they are on target so fast...
Then ya have to figure glitches too, the "indestructable glitch",
that seem to pop up at random, for anybody... No way to counter that!!!
:salute RC
-
You realize at 3,400 yards you're shooting at a target that is over 2 miles away, right?
YES! pretty damn cool I think :rock
-
At least in the game the guns on the Tiger and Sherman are very close to one another. The Sherman also has thickened frontal armor, particularily around the barrel (I forget what they call that part). So, in game the likelyhood of a one shot kill in either of these if facing one another is close to equal (actually, the Tiger has a slight advantage). Once the shots are not to the front the advantage to the Tiger gets bigger.
The biggest difference between them though, is their ability to withstand bombs. The Sherman is no safer than a Panzer in this regard, while the Tiger will last forever unless it takes a direct hit in the right spot. You can kill a Sherman by dropping close, not so with a Tiger.
If the only measurable diff is better protection against bombing " I'm not so sure about this as I lose tigers all the time to single bomb attacks "then shouldn't the perk and ENY value be closer together ?
-
While i have no idea of the historical aspects of the tiger tank out side of the the game.......in game>>>>>.... The Tiger has always in my opinion been easy to kill with a Panzer. One shot kills have always been common. I always though it actually got harder to kill a Tiger when they changed the ballistics of the ammo...<<<< I think balistics is the right word here >>>>> It was around the same time we got the High velocity rounds for the T34.
there are very few situations that make the tiger worth tanking out of the hanger.. None of them work for my style of play...
-
I GV alot and its a joke when a puney little 250lb or even a 500lb bomb hits 50 to 100yards away from my tank, however i seem to end up in the tower.A bomb hitting open ground that far away wouldnt do much to an armored vehicle other than cover the tank with dirt , scratch the paint and possibly give the folks inside a headache. When i drop a bomb directly on a tank from an aircraft i get "invalid component" whats whith that. Much work still needs to be done.IMHO
-
You realize at 3,400 yards you're shooting at a target that is over 2 miles away, right?
Where did you go to school? :huh
-
So wouldn't it make sense to even the playing field point wise tween firefly and tiger ?
-
Where did you go to school? :huh
Whoops, almost 2 miles. For some reason I was thinking it was 1680 yards instead of 1760 yards.
-
i think tiger is underpowered.... i was in a tiger one time, was head to head with a sherman... i shot him in the turret.... he takes the hit.. then he shoots me one time in front.... and im dead..
-BigBOBCH
-
They should lower the perkie cost of the current tiger, or perhaps replace it with the King Tiger at its current perk cost. Or the Panther, either works for me :aok
-
Whoops, almost 2 miles. For some reason I was thinking it was 1680 yards instead of 1760 yards.
1.93 miles, close enough. :noid
-
Yeah it's bomb proof alright. I've dropped a full load of lancs (salvo 14) onto a tiger after it taking 2 DIRECT hits from 2 1K bombs. It still kept driving. I took a Tiger up to kill it then, and got bombed by a 190A8 with a 500kg bomb, 1K bomb basically. I don't get it, do some people just get a bugged tiger? Other times I've hit a tiger with a 500lb bomb and killed it.
-
Yeah it's bomb proof alright. I've dropped a full load of lancs (salvo 14) onto a tiger after it taking 2 DIRECT hits from 2 1K bombs. It still kept driving. I took a Tiger up to kill it then, and got bombed by a 190A8 with a 500kg bomb, 1K bomb basically. I don't get it, do some people just get a bugged tiger? Other times I've hit a tiger with a 500lb bomb and killed it.
Hmm you could spit on my tiger these days and kill it!
-
Yeah it's bomb proof alright. I've dropped a full load of lancs (salvo 14) onto a tiger after it taking 2 DIRECT hits from 2 1K bombs. It still kept driving. I took a Tiger up to kill it then, and got bombed by a 190A8 with a 500kg bomb, 1K bomb basically. I don't get it, do some people just get a bugged tiger? Other times I've hit a tiger with a 500lb bomb and killed it.
I know how ya feel man.... I've seen some bizarre things happen on the GV scene...
Doesn't seem to be any consistency to it... VERY ODD....
Thats why there are so many accusations of cheating in game... Certain players sure
seem to get that "indestructable bug" often... Isn't always a Tiger either....
I just don't get it....
RC
-
[quote author=FireDragon link=topic=245540.msg3003046#msg3003046 date=121995226
there are very few situations that make the tiger worth tanking out of the hanger...
So wouldn't it make sense to even the playing field point wise tween firefly and tiger ?
Were in violent agreement Shreck....Based on my style of play the tiger is not worth taking out of the hanger for FREE...
-
I think the game has no "shell passed through target and did no serious damage" visual effect so it uses the "shell bounced off and did no serious damage" visual effect instead. Example: I hit an M3 at close range with T34 HVAP but I lead him a bit too much and the shell hit the drivers outside window post. In real life it would have passed right through it but done little damage (except scaring the poop out of the driver). The game probably has no visual effect for this so it gives the "bounced off" visual effect instead. (Yes I know I should have been using HE not HVAP.)
(The "hit the side and/or rear of the Sherman with Tiger and got no damage" sounds odd though.)
-
The Gv model along with other things has had major problems for many years. HTC is like a teenager with a car, he puts cool rims, Rockin stereo, paint on it but doesnt maintain whats under the hood. lame but thats the way it is. The Tiger isnt worth the big diff in perks. Its still my fav ride.
KAM
-
I'm not really up on history when it comes to tank performance
Well, there is your problem right there.
-
Well folks, New update coming soon with a new GV, maybe they've revised the modelling a bit. :pray
-
:noid
Where did you get this info....
:noid :noid
-
Ever had a round from a tiger bounce off an lvt? I have quite a few. Recently I did that and the shell went vertical killing an F4U that was just getting ready to drop a bomb on me. I watched him come up again and fly all around looking for the guy in the air that shot him down! :rofl
-
Yeah it's bomb proof alright. I've dropped a full load of lancs (salvo 14) onto a tiger after it taking 2 DIRECT hits from 2 1K bombs. It still kept driving. I took a Tiger up to kill it then, and got bombed by a 190A8 with a 500kg bomb, 1K bomb basically. I don't get it, do some people just get a bugged tiger? Other times I've hit a tiger with a 500lb bomb and killed it.
If you don't score a direct hit to the hull just behind the turret they live. If you do they die. Very simple.
-
Uh. 14,000lbs of ord x3, drones, wouldn't kill a Tiger ANYWAY in world war II? 42,000lbs of ord. Yes I know it all doesn't hit EXACTLY on the target, but still.
-
Uh. 14,000lbs of ord x3, drones, wouldn't kill a Tiger ANYWAY in world war II? 42,000lbs of ord. Yes I know it all doesn't hit EXACTLY on the target, but still.
Just telling you how it is in the game. No direct hit to that spot, no kill.
-
Yes Shermans are a little harder to kill & Tigers have been made easier ( with some exceptions )
It amazes me that the HO tactics used in aircraft people try to use on the ground. Hit a Sherman side on in the rear quarter area & it pops even with a panzer.
In a Tiger hit the Sherman low down in front.This will work with a Panzer but requires at least two hits. You just have to survive the first shot from the Sherman.
Tiger Commanders in WW2 relied on reports about Fireflys being in their area so they could change their tactics.
Also it's a waste of time shooting at a Sherman , when in a Panzer, at a range greater than 1k.
I refuse to up in the over modelled , easy to get kills , Sherman. There just is no challenge in that for me.
Use some tactics. Geez it has an engine & can move so try for position & a bit of stealth. Get the angle & use some thought & planning with your attack.
Choose your attack position , have a fall back position when they are getting range on you & use the terrain.
Frontal attacks should be avoided as you will live longer.
With LVT2's use HE same for M3's. LVT4's pop fine with AP.
-
The reality is this, 1. the sherman FIREFLY entered WWII to late to be effective (Started delivery in late 1944) 2. We still don't have an American tank (because American commanders did not want to use a tank with Brit modifications, making the Firefly a Brit tank) 3. NO Sherman, of any model, survived a single shot from a Tiger...ever! The Tiger has lost it's dignity in this game.
-
The reality is this, 1. the sherman FIREFLY entered WWII to late to be effective (Started delivery in late 1944) 2. We still don't have an American tank (because American commanders did not want to use a tank with Brit modifications, making the Firefly a Brit tank) 3. NO Sherman, of any model, survived a single shot from a Tiger...ever! The Tiger has lost it's dignity in this game.
correct! the tiger really should stand out IMHO It was feared by all and entire armies altered tactics when they knew tigers were around! In this game the tiger has become a joke and a NON factor definitely not worth the perk or eny value! I will still use it always----> holding on to that little bit of history :aok
If we want a challenger to the tiger then the challenger--> cough firefly cough < should be saddled with fairly equal cost and risk !
Oh and please bring on the---------------> PANTHER "G" < :rock
-
One other thing is the default skins between the tiger and firefly. Disable the skins and panzers and tiger stick out like sore thumbs. Might as well make them bright orange!
-
There's been a lot of opinion and anecdotes about the relative merits of the Tiger and the Sherman Firefly in this game. I thought some hard numbers were in order, so I went to the scores page and calculated kill ratios between the different tanks going back the previous five completed tours.
Here are the cold, hard facts, without the hysteria.
For the last five months the Tiger has a kill ratio against the Sherman of 1.13, which means the Tiger killed the Sherman 13% more than the Sherman killed the Tiger. This sounds bad to people, but you have to remember that both the Tiger gun and the Sherman gun are extremely effective - including against each other! So the difference in armor between them is less of a factor.
However, it's not just Shermans vs. Tigers. Here's how the other lineups went:
Tiger ratio vs. Panzer:
4.78
Sherman ratio vs. Panzer:
2.99
verdict: Tiger is 60% more effective against the Panzer than the Sherman is
Tiger ratio vs. T34:
18.9
Sherman ratio vs. T34:
8.89
verdict: Tiger is 113% (more than twice) as effective against the T34 than the Sherman is.
My read of the data goes like this. The Tiger and Sherman guns are both very, very powerful. Against each other the guns are powerful enough to get the job done, and the armor difference between them is less meaningful, so the kill ratio is fairly close to even, though the Tiger still has a modest edge.
The ratios against the *other* tanks, however, primarily reflect the ease with which the less effective guns of the Panzer and T34 fare against the Tiger and Sherman armor. These numbers show that both the T34 and the Panzer have a significantly easier time defeating the Sherman than they have of defeating the Tiger.
The Tiger is still the most effective tank vs. tank machine in the game. Is it worth 30 or 40 perks when the Sherman is going for 7 or 8 perks? I don't really think so. I think that the Sherman should be perked more like 20 points to the Tiger's 30 or 40. The Sherman is too good against the other tanks - and too good against the Tiger - for the huge disparity in perk costs.
I think it costs too much compared to the Sherman, but the numbers don't lie: the Tiger is still the toughest tank killer in the game.
-
Could some of the issuses you are discribing be the result of getting supplies. I know if i get hit and don't die in a tank but get supplies it is like getting new tank. S
-
One other thing is the default skins between the tiger and firefly. Disable the skins and panzers and tiger stick out like sore thumbs. Might as well make them bright orange!
Many of the more gamey ones, do this on purpose. I've seen films where they do it on gv's and low attack aircraft light up from 5k out like brite white icons; i'm sure tigers and panzers are easy targets once your client disables the skins.
-
the sherman in my aspect is the best tank we have.the tiger can take hits but the sherman's fast spinning gun is the best!!!if you have a tiger in a town and you take a turn and there is a sherman you are ded.
the shermans gun will turn on you before you can press the "2" button.
the sherman was my choce in tank club because of this and i killed 2 m4s(herbel and asp4422)2 tigers(matrix2 and talas2)1 panzer(shegotya)1 t-34 (?)and deturreted one t-34(?) then i was the second last guy alive(the other was spartin2)and another m4 killed me(?).
the only reason i could find this out is because i recorded the whole thing. :D
the m4 is my favorite tank. :aok
-
Many of the more gamey ones, do this on purpose. I've seen films where they do it on gv's and low attack aircraft light up from 5k out like brite white icons; i'm sure tigers and panzers are easy targets once your client disables the skins.
:huh
-
Just telling you how it is in the game. No direct hit to that spot, no kill.
I know exactly how it is in game. I had maybe 3 or 4 direct hits on that spot? At least, with 42 bombs one of em had to have hit...
-
Ever had a round from a tiger bounce off an lvt? I have quite a few. Recently I did that and the shell went vertical killing an F4U that was just getting ready to drop a bomb on me. I watched him come up again and fly all around looking for the guy in the air that shot him down! :rofl
heck i have had rounds bounce off of m-3's,, 4 too be exact, before a plane killed him and i got the assist
-
i read most of this thread but i have to say the M-4 shell drops faster then the panzr ot tiger at any distance, larger but it drops faster then the tiger shell.
m-4 is harder at ranging a target if your used to the pnzr or tiger as it drops faster. but if you guys think a m-4 round flyies as streight and true as a tiger or panzer round your mistakin as all heck, guess ive been GV'ing alot longer but those m-4 rounds drop really fast.
i didnt read the last few pages of this so if i miss out on something "myfault" for not reading. but the M-4 lacks in range to most people as it drops so fast, but in good hands like "Wonder" its devastating but a pnzr or tiger has more range then the M-4 about 500 yds or more in this game.
i dont like the M-4 on that base of the shell dropping so fast, others like the tank but i dont just like the T-34 doesnt shoot long distance but the m-4 has some damb good things about it and to get ot know it well you can kill anything, thats like any fighting vehicels in this game. you just have to get to know it.
-
i read most of this thread but i have to say the M-4 shell drops faster then the panzr ot tiger at any distance,
wouldn't physics suggest that since the 17lb cannon on the M4 has a higher velocity, that it drops less at any given distance? I mean...Newton says that everything drops the same amount per second, but since something travelling faster goes further, it actually has less drop per foot/meter than a slower projectile.
-
I just got back after dying in a tiger. I was hit many many times before good teamwork killed me.
One thing I do question is why would we bother racking up 7 panzer kills in a tiger only to lose 20 odd perks when we are killed?
It hardly seems worth the effort when I can up a Firefly for the same hitting power for 1/5 the cost.
-
Maybe because that Sherman would have died before "many many" hits were scored on you? Did you see my numbers on the previous page of this thread? The Sherman, while having a fantastic gun, and really good armor, isn't as survivable as the Tiger is. Sure, if someone ups a Tiger you can up a Sherman and have a great chance of killing him, but if the enemy are in Panzers and T34s, the Tiger is like King Kong.
Anyhow, yeah, I think the Sherman is perked too low. I'd like to see it be more like 1/2 or even 2/3 of the perk cost of the Tiger, not 1/3 or 1/4 like it is now.
-
What was the K/D ratio between Tigers and other tanks during the actual war?
I think the Tiger in the game is a hunk of junk. Its slow, unmanueverable, the main gun doesnt seem to traverse very high, its loud, and an all around rattle trap. I once shot a Panzer point blank in the side and the Panzer kept going. In real life the Tiger was feared more then any other tank. In the game it aint worth taking out for free let alone with the perks.
And I dont care about GV perks. If I ever need them, and I never do, I just jump in a wirbel once a night. Anyhoo Im pumped up about tanks for the first time with the new T-34 coming out. The new T-34 sounds like its going to be a raider extroidanair.
-
The traverse time on the tiger is exactly the same as it was IRL. There was a debate on it a while back so I timed it and it was spot on. They just had a damn slow traverse. They were also reported to be abdominally loud and were severely limited in the types of terrains they could move across. The guns were also very heavy in relation to the chassis and caused issues of their own
Be thankful you can fire them on the run in the game. Something that you could not do IRL.
-
let us not forget the tiger's ahmmmmm... "resistance" to being bombed :) :)
sherman goes up as easy as a panz to a 500 lb in the general region.. tiger, not so much..
-
i read most of this thread but i have to say the M-4 shell drops faster then the panzr ot tiger at any distance, larger but it drops faster then the tiger shell.
m-4 is harder at ranging a target if your used to the pnzr or tiger as it drops faster. but if you guys think a m-4 round flyies as streight and true as a tiger or panzer round your mistakin as all heck, guess ive been GV'ing alot longer but those m-4 rounds drop really fast.
i didnt read the last few pages of this so if i miss out on something "myfault" for not reading. but the M-4 lacks in range to most people as it drops so fast, but in good hands like "Wonder" its devastating but a pnzr or tiger has more range then the M-4 about 500 yds or more in this game.
i dont like the M-4 on that base of the shell dropping so fast, others like the tank but i dont just like the T-34 doesnt shoot long distance but the m-4 has some damb good things about it and to get ot know it well you can kill anything, thats like any fighting vehicels in this game. you just have to get to know it.
Uuuuuh WOW!!!!
I had to read this 3 times....
And still, WOW....
Are you seeing the same thing I am???
:O RC
-
IRL the Tiger had a tendency to lose a track in reverse. So much so that when they backed up, people had to stand watch to tell the driver to halt if a track started to come off. Yes this tank had issues IRL, but it was despite them, very successful. More so than in AH, imho.
Sethipus, good work on the stats. The only thing that coudl be argued beyond them is that the ratios should be higher to be historically accurate. It would be interesting to know how much new players who just got their 38th perkie, upped a Tiger, and promptly lost it hurt those ratios.
Despite being a moderately successful GVer, I almost never up a Tiger because proper use of terrain and maneuver can make up for its weaker armor (than a Tiger), and the gun is very good. It is especially good on crossing shots because you do not have to lead as much with the small amount of drop the round has.
-
The traverse time on the tiger is exactly the same as it was IRL. <snip> Be thankful you can fire them on the run in the game. Something that you could not do IRL.
Slightly off topic: didn't the Sherman have a gyroscopically stabilized gun? Is that modeled in AH?
-
I just got back after dying in a tiger. I was hit many many times before good teamwork killed me.
One thing I do question is why would we bother racking up 7 panzer kills in a tiger only to lose 20 odd perks when we are killed?
It hardly seems worth the effort when I can up a Firefly for the same hitting power for 1/5 the cost.
That's what makes me mad, you take up a Tiger for 30 perks, kill a bunch of panzers, M4's etc and still lose 20 some odd perks.
-
Played a few sims in my time, finally tried an AH Tiger today.
What a joke, don't waste your perkies.
-
The whole deal with perk planes is that they are like dessert - not something you eat for the main course. You're not meant to up Tigers all the time. That's why they're perked, to discourage that! So you can't bemoan the inevitable perk point loss for the tiger, that just goes with the territory.
I assaulted an enemy base in a Tiger earlier this month and killed 50 nme planes and tanks before they finally got me. By the way, they finally got me only after I literally ran completely out of ammo. I still lost almost 9 perk points for that sortie. Was hella fun though.
You can't expect perk rides to be perk farmers. It's like in the 262. You fly it because you enjoy flying it, but you have to realize that you will never, ever, ever, till the end of time, enjoy a positive net perk level in it.
-
Played a few sims in my time, finally tried an AH Tiger today.
What a joke, don't waste your perkies.
Says a guy who apparently believed that the Tiger should actually be invincible, and slaughter everything at will. Sorry, doesn't work that way. In real life Tigers got killed too you know. Look, the numbers don't lie. If you want to make a credible case that the Tiger isn't the toughest (not invincible, but toughest) tank vs. tank vehicle in the game, please feel free to do so. But back up the claim with more than your experience of finally driving your first Tiger and getting your donut handed to you.
-
I wish I knew how the jeep drivers keep killing my Tiger. I can't get my gun to bear, then suddenly they're ramming me, firing, and I'm dead. Something wrong there.
-
War it's a bug where they can drive into the body of the tank and shoot inside the hull.
-
The Tiger is the King of the Jungle as long as there are no Shermans around.
I was tanking not too long ago in a Tiger and racked up 8 kills, took 5 damaging hits from Panzers and T34s. Last shot from a Panzer finally did me in.
I have been "1 shot killed" by a Sherman multiple times. I was just lucky this go 'round and didn't run into any that saw me first.
That being said, the Tiger is an amazing tank and the Sherman is it's equal in the game.
I'd have to agree to increase the amount of perks required to hop into a Sherman.
-
War it's a bug where they can drive into the body of the tank and shoot inside the hull.
Shouldn't they take damage from ramming me, or something? That bug's been around for a year now at least. Make it hurt to ram a tank in a jeep, or something...
-
Shouldn't they take damage from ramming me, or something? That bug's been around for a year now at least. Make it hurt to ram a tank in a jeep, or something...
Shoot it from the commander's position. Light mg fire kills em quick.
-
Shoot it from the commander's position. Light mg fire kills em quick.
I tried, but the gun doesn't traverse a full 360 degrees from up there. They ran til i couldn't fire on them, then I dropped down to turn and try, but by then they'd rammed me and killed my Tiger.
-
as a dedicated GVer, I'd say the Tiger costs waaaay too much. easily killed by the M4. and, i'm sure, by the new T34, but by not much else. i grabbed one once to defend a vehicle base, drove it 20 yds out of the hanger, and was killed by the first shot that hit me, presumably an M4 or another tiger. 50 perkies gone in 5 seconds. i've never bothered to get one since. tigers should cost no more than 15 perkies
but the Tiger is over modeled for damage also. recently watched a Tiger caught in the middle of a just-captured field withstand the assults of manned acks, field acks, planes, and about 15 75mm rounds from my LTV4. it was tracked, but the turret worked great, eventually finding and killing me. it was ridiculous.
and i don't understand why contact fused HE richorchets off of armor, instead of detonating.
-
Warspawn, did you know you can turn GV's in gun/commander positions using the rudder?
-
i grabbed one once to defend a vehicle base, drove it 20 yds out of the hanger, and was killed by the first shot that hit me, presumably an M4 or another tiger. 50 perkies gone in 5 seconds. i've never bothered to get one since.
I know I've killed tigers by camping the VH in a T34 from behind. If someone was right at the back door of the VH it's entirely possible they got you. Most of the time folks don't even get the chance to start up.
-
At the range of 3,400 Firefly should have had a real hard time penatrating you (the Tiger I) frontally. while you should have a much easier time. GVing is not realistic for penetration data. Guns have abnormal hitting power and armour seems weak at some times and very strong at other, the code is either faulty or its for balance and gameplay reasons. Heres my post from another "sherman" topic, might give better insight to these 2 guns.
Firefly 17lber OQF MkIV (believe this is the gun we have in the 5C) Gun data.
APCBC (Armour Piercing Cap Ballistic Cap)
Muzzle Velocity: 2,900 Ft/Sec
Penetraion at 0 deg.
500m: 172mm
1000m: 162mm
1500m: 150mm
Pen. @ 30 deg.
500m: 136mm
1000m: 128mm
1500m: 119mm
2000m: 107mm (so no mantle penetration but everywhere else stands a good chance of full penetration)
so its safe to say at 2500m the 17lber will still penetrate your tigers frontal upper hull armour since it was only 100mm and the turret mantlet was only 110mm @ 0 deg. Either way I believe the firefly we are usuing has APCBC ammo (then again it only says "AP") so if its solid core AP round it will have less penetration then the APCBC. Just be thankful we dont have APDS (@ 1500m it penetrates 213mm @ 0 deg.) cause the tiger will be easily beat out to 3000m (give or take) as for the Firefly VC's Armour it was only 50.8mm @ 46 deg. front upper hull, turret was 76.2mm and mantlet was 88.9mm so the tiger should have no problem penetrating up to 2000m (but NOT the turret mentlet)
88mm KwK 36 L/56(? not sure about 56 sounds right)
Pzgr 39 APCBC (most likely the ammo we use in tiger in game)
Muzzle Velocity: 2,657 Ft/Sec
Penetration at 30 deg.
500m: 108mm
1000m: 100mm
1500m: 94mm (Technically a dead Firefly below this range)
2000m: 83mm (NO chance of a mantlet penetration but rest of turret no problem)
@ 90 deg.
500m: 130mm
1000m: 119mm
1500m: 109mm
2000m: 99mm
2500m: 90mm
so all in all the Firefly VC can penetrate the Tiger I at most normal ranges in the MA and vice versa so on paper they are both a pretty equal match in penetration but NOT in armour. So technically the 1st to shoot will win (in theroie) but we all know that things such as shot placement, packet loss, or just bad luck can effect the IN GAME values of armour. Then again this is a game so dont be suprised if the penetrations are off a bit or a lot.
anyway hope this info helps
-
I tried, but the gun doesn't traverse a full 360 degrees from up there.
The commander's pintle gun does rotate 360 degrees.
-
The Tiger is the King of the Jungle as long as there are no Shermans around.
Yeah and what is when? NEVER. And if theres no shermans around and a Tiger, chances are someone's gunna up a sherman.
-
I tried, but the gun doesn't traverse a full 360 degrees from up there. They ran til i couldn't fire on them, then I dropped down to turn and try, but by then they'd rammed me and killed my Tiger.
The pintle gun has traversed 360* since.... since the Sherman was added, IIRC.
-
So based on some of the replies with advantages given to the 2 main tanks of concern here (Tiger and FireFly). It is reasonable to justify asking for another reduction of the tigers perk or the FireFly is raised up closer to the tigers. Yes....no....maybe so!!
FYI i had the hit several panzers 3-4 times to kill them last night. And it wasn't from that far away...1600 or so. I personally think the gun on the tiger is porked. Also tonight I made it onto an enemy vbase with a panzer. Shot a panzer coming out of the hanger smoked him turet he turn turns and fires killing me in one shot...worst part was it was a numbers guys. Not sure how you can fire with a dead turret.
-
Not sure how you can fire with a dead turret.
been happenin to me too.....
-
Sometimes when you smoke them it's not the turret doing the smoking.
-
So based on some of the replies with advantages given to the 2 main tanks of concern here (Tiger and FireFly). It is reasonable to justify asking for another reduction of the tigers perk or the FireFly is raised up closer to the tigers. Yes....no....maybe so!!
Raise the sherman to the same perk value as the tiger! Tigers only advantage over sherman is it's defense against being bombed "and this is NO real benefit as anyone bombing GVs is looking for the tigers 1st, I'll bet the tiger suffers a 4 to 1 increase of bomb attacks over the sherman just cause of perk value" sherman armor from what I see is on par or superior, sherman firepower is superior, aquiring targets with the speedy turret is waaaaaaaaaaaay superior, and damage model seems to be superior, so with all this in mind, the sherman should actually be perked higher than the tiger! It is truely sad that the tiger is sooooooo average and barely better than the panzer these days!
-
Shreck, if the Sherman is so superior, why does the Tiger kill the Sherman more than vice versa, and why is the Tiger 60% more effective than the Sherman against the Panzer, and 250% more effective against the T34? This is based on every single tank on tank inter-model kill over the last completed five months.
Seriously, anecdotes are a dime a dozen. The Sherman is demonstrably not superior against other tanks than the Tiger, on average.
-
Sometimes when you smoke them it's not the turret doing the smoking.
Well when your 50feet away....fire....and see your round hit the turret...well maybe I took out the microwave oven
-
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/ahss13-1.jpg)
a good day in my tiger! :aok
-
Wow Whiskey. That's absolutely camptastic! Congrats. :aok
-
Don't waste your perks. Take a Sherman (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/signs014.gif)
I'll take the gal in yer avatard, thanks :)
-
(http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/9110/120633544461ds0.gif)
wrngway
-
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/ahss13-1.jpg)
a good day in my tiger! :aok
You said it was a camp bust, you're saying 54+ people were camping a spawn?
-
You said it was a camp bust, you're saying 54+ people were camping a spawn?
been awhile back so its kinda sketchy but i think i drove from the base to were the camp was killed a whole mess of bad guy's (with the help of some supplies from my freinds of course!) two spawns came together there, and ours was camped when i got there, after a while i guess i was camping theres, they captured the other base so then we had no spawn at all to the spot so i tried to leave the area, with air support and more supplies i managed to drive about 7 K. to land them. being chased an shooting and killing all the way!it was a good day and i needed a drink and a smoke when it was over!
-
Even if Whiskey had been sitting in their freaking spawn hangar, that's a great job. They had 5 different names he killed in that list alone. If he were (and he wasn't, but just saying suppose he were) sitting in their hangar killing them as they spawned, five guys should be able to spawn in at the same time and four of them would get out of the hangar while he was reloading. They just didn't get the job done, that's all. And he said he was breaking up a camp they had going of his own spawn. Good job Whiskey!
-
ty
but i have to say I AM BRAGGING a bit by posting this pic, and it was fun :aok
hope i didnt hurt any feelings by doing so :salute
-
Even if Whiskey had been sitting in their freaking spawn hangar, that's a great job. They had 5 different names he killed in that list alone. If he were (and he wasn't, but just saying suppose he were) sitting in their hangar killing them as they spawned, five guys should be able to spawn in at the same time and four of them would get out of the hangar while he was reloading. They just didn't get the job done, that's all. And he said he was breaking up a camp they had going of his own spawn. Good job Whiskey!
Do the Math........ :noid
-
(http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg229/WWhiskey/ahss13-1.jpg)
a good day in my tiger! :aok
Yeah good day in midwar...where the tiger is still king!!
-
Yeah good day in midwar...where the tiger is still king!!
yep that were it was!
-
You realize at 3,400 yards you're shooting at a target that is over 2 miles away, right?
I've opened up on targets over 5,000 away and had them spot me and kill me with one shot.
Yeah, that's realism.
ROX
-
well the INVINCIBLE Sherman turret is no fun because it's never invincible when I'm in it,I can NEVER take one of those turrets out,even if from the side at close range,they should be going right through that thing,not back at me
-
I killed a tiger in 2 passes today with an il-2 with 37mms. We will ignore that the poor sap rolled his tank down the hill trying to avoid my attacks....... :noid
-
Just to clarify, our "Sherman" is a British Firefly, which had a very good 17 pounder gun able to knock out Tigers with relative ease.
Doesn't explain the armour on it though...
No kiddin. It seems the Firefly is able to shrug off rounds a lot oeasier than the Tiger... actually... the Tiger doesnt shrug off rounds at all.
-
well at least this ones only 4 months old :rolleyes:
-
Tiger??? more like a kitty cat!! I prefer the Sherman over the tiger, way less perks and better all around IMO. At least my tigers die too easily..what's the point in using it.
-
For the most part, at close to medium range between the m4 and tiger its really only a matter of who can hit the other first, with the tiger having a slightly better chance of survival imo.
-
well at least this ones only 4 months old :rolleyes:
Help!! They're abusing the SEARCH function!!!
:noid :lol :noid
wrongway
-
No kiddin. It seems the Firefly is able to shrug off rounds a lot oeasier than the Tiger... actually... the Tiger doesnt shrug off rounds at all.
The other day I saw a M4 that was 1600 out. I put two hits right where the driver sits before he could find me. Then him and I shot at the same time (my third round to the same place and his first round shot) and we both go to the tower. They really need to do something about it because how it is now the tiger is just an overpriced POS.
-
I know how ya feel man.... I've seen some bizarre things happen on the GV scene...
Doesn't seem to be any consistency to it... VERY ODD....
Thats why there are so many accusations of cheating in game... Certain players sure
seem to get that "indestructable bug" often... Isn't always a Tiger either....
I just don't get it....
RC
No kidding. The other night I one-shotted several vehicles with a panzer.
Then we were attacking a base and the three of us hit a M8 14 times at less than 1000 yards (sherman, panzer, T34/85) before it went down. About 1/2 hour later I engaged a T34/76 at about 50 yards with my Panzer and hit him 8 times in the turret without killing him. He hit me at least 4 times also at that range.
We wound up over-lapped, jocking back and forth swinging the guns trying to drive one way or the other to get a shot without exposing ourselves to the other's :rofl
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3294/3156728435_6b190f865c_o.png)
-
perk NEEDS to lowered on the tiger. way to easy to kill it with the sherman , and now the 37mm armed IL-2.
NOT
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3294/3156728435_6b190f865c_o.png)
Like I said before, your stats don't tell the whole story! Tigers nowadays are used very conservatively, IF the TIGER was used as liberally as the sherman, I believe the kill to death would be worse than said sherman! And again let's not even get into how much more often tigers are targeted by planes ;)
Really need to up the anty with the sherman!! :aok and how about the PANTHER ? can we have one ? :D
-
In other words, you only see what you want to see....not too surprising in
my experience.
-
I think the chart shows that the Firefly is too cheap. It should cost more perks/kill with a firefly than with the the T-34/85.
-
Hi..
One of the things that has always needing fixing on the the GV's is the "zoom in" on the gun sights. We can zoom in a target 3000+ yds and get hits at that range. WW2 tanks crews would never take shots like that.... they can't see that far. 800 yds was a long shot in WW2. 88 AT guns was feared becaused they would take long range shots...(800 to 1500 yds) but they had large crews, good sights and range finders! The Tiger had the same gun, but a 1000+ yds was still a very long shot for them and any other tank during the war.
Cavalry
-
I think the chart shows that the Firefly is too cheap. It should cost more perks/kill with a firefly than with the the T-34/85.
Yep.
Compared to other the GVs the Tiger is about the right cost. The Firefly should be around 15-20 and the T-34/85 around 5.
The next question is in the overall scheme is the sliding scale too high? Something is wrong when you see more (%-wise) 262s that Tigers eventhough they cost 7x as much
-
Sorry but I dont think much of the AH Tiger. It is maybe useful upping in defense out of hangars when you have air superiority but as far as offensive operations? With the heavy IL-2 now? Its slow, not maneuverable, loud, and has a big target painted on it. I bet with the 37mms in the game now that Tiger sorties are way down. Its not a particularly tough tank to kill it seems to me. Not when dropping down in vertical with the big cannon. The T-34 or even Firefly seem harder to kill then the Tiger.
I think the Tiger is over-perked myself. Yes its big cannon is "effective" but I wouldn't call it "dominant" and it pays a price for its size and speed.
I'm seeing them less and less in my IL-2s.
-
The only time I up a Tiger any more is port defense. I defend an island port last month with a Tiger and the LVTs had a feet dry spawn. I ended up with 37 kills and probably killed 300 troops with the Mgs before the CV despawned. Of course this was only possible because the planes off the CV couldn't drop a bomb in the ocean and hit. The LVT4s were no threat to the Tiger at all. But in general terms the Tiger is nearing hanger queen status due to being able to get the same effectiveness with the low priced M4. The only real chance a Tiger has in a standard GV battle is from concealment or if the only opposition is panzers and t34/76s. There are exceptions to the rule but M4s are the most common "heavy" now for sure.
-
the tiger does seem pretty lame now-take an m4 for a whole lot less.The IL makes life really difficult.I realize they are not accuritely modeled but sometimes it is totally unreal.seems only way to buld perks is to take a panzer an they seem pretty inefective these days but I dont wanna burn a bunch of points in a spawn war.
-
problem with the sherman is that we didnt get the rather dumpy 75mm short barrel version....we got the Firefly with all the bells and whistles....and its a cheap tank, everyone knows it, and no one that banks on alot of nme tanks being around takes tigers anymore.
Personaly ive bounced my last 88mm off of the M4's frontal armor/turret.
That curved rear and side turret on the Tiger is a one piece face hardend chunk of steal 80mm's thick around the rear and sides, and the 17pounder cuts through it like butter....The M4's turret was made in a mold by a guy that probably made hubcaps in 1938, and 88's bounce off that sukker like its the bismark, and the MAXIMUM thicknes I believe was 76mm's anywhere on that tank.{straining to find accurate tables online} accept the mantlet which was 91mm's. Thickness of the M4's turret armor varies around its circumfrence due to the shape, and the process in which its made.....this isnt modled I believe.
Having been in ordnance in the Army im more familier with bullets and bb's, but just browzing around the internet trying to find proof of either tanks survivability, its obviouse on the whole which tank was superior. The M4 has it a little to far its own way here, and the perk price should be adjusted.....
-
Yea sloped/curved vs flat means nothing. :rofl :rofl
I now return you to your regularly scheduled german 1337 whine.
-
A round turret {if hit at its center} will allways present a flat surface.
We now return to our regularly scheduel.....geeez the attitude on here.
-
A round turret {if hit at its center} will allways present a flat surface.
We now return to our regularly scheduel.....geeez the attitude on here.
:rofl
Think you need a dictionary.. look up round and flat.
-
Sheesh. The important factor is not round or flat, it's penetration angle, as stephen implies. A rounded turret, if hit at the point where the circumference is perpendicular is 90 degree penetration, i.e. same as if it were flat, vertical, and perpendicular to the incoming round. Thus, when aiming at the side of the rounded turret, make sure to hit the center, both left right and up down, i.e. where the metal is 90 deg/ 90 deg (both axes) to your incoming round. Or, forget the turret and hit the vertical side of the hull (not the tracks).
The M4 mantlet is very thick- never hit the turret if the mantlet is pointed at you. Also, the glacis is sloped so don't hit that either. Hit the vertical center of the rounded armor below the glacis.* You can take out an M4 in one shot from a T34/76 if you hit there at ranges under 1K.
Penetration angle is what is important. Although penetration is much more complex than this, just think of the thickness of the armor along the path of the incoming round. If the armor is 75 mm thick and at 90/90 degrees to the incoming round, it has to go through 75 mm. If the same armor is at 45 degrees then it has to go through square root of 2 = 1.41 times as much or 1.41*75 = 106 mm.
*this may actually be a bug. I don't know about this armor in an M4. However, this technique also works with the T34 because, I guess, the armor is modeled there as the same thickness as the glacis but at a 90 degree angle (ie vertical). The actual T34 had an enormously thick casting at that point, so penetrating there is not quite 100% realistic.
-
I am a sherman drivin loser in most of your opinions lol, but I agree i wish they would give mea reason to spend my moldy perks on something worthwhile. Ive killed many a tiger giggling when they pop first shot.
-
Wow, this is an old thread..
I've seen a big improvement since the last update..
Far less of the "indestructable glitch" than last summer..
Tigers actually die when you hit'em with a pair of 500lb'ers
In fairness, I don't really know if it was a game adjustment
by HTC, or the new SLI comp that I bought for the game..
My framerates have gone from 65 up to 180+.. And I have
noticed that my gunfire is FAR more effective in a dogfight..
Planes now explode with just a little squirt on target..
I'M LIKIN THAT, LOL!!!
So I'm thinking, that I may have been suffering from the
"rubber bombs/bullets syndrome" at least partially...
RC
-
hehe... the old "flat vs round" arguement.
Thing is... just how often does impact from an incoming AP round it at 90 dgrees to the armor (which would be ideal for the AP round)? Sloped or no sloped armor, rounded or not. Flat? Doesnt matter, really. There is a higher probability of deflection the smaller of an angle the AP round impacts.
I believe I read somewhere that there was once a theory in WWII about not putting the front of the tank directly towards a known enemy tank or AT position, but rather at a 15-20 degree to either side. The thought was that an incoming round had a higher chance of being deflected. I dont remember who, what, or when this came about during the war and Im not even sure where I read it. Seems to me that it was either the Sherman or maybe even the later Matilda tanks that had the rounded turrets that provided this theory (or was the result), above and beyond the theory of the slopwed T34 armor. I cant remember, but anyways.... makes sense to a certain degree.
-
Sorry to post so late on a thread that's getting a bit dusty, but if I'm reading some of your comments correctly, you guys are saying that 88mm rds are failing to penetrate the M4's front plate. That doesn't sound right at all. The Sherman's glacis is 2 1/2 inches thick at an angle of 45 degrees (turret is 3-4 inches in the front w/ a 5" mantlet).
Penetration data for the the 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 is shown below:
Pzgr. 39 (APCBC)
Pzgr. Patr. 39 Kw.K. 36 APCBC Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped with explosive filler and tracer.
Weight of projectile: 10.2 kg (22.48 lbs)
Muzzle velocity: 773 m/s (2,536 ft/s)
Explosive filler 0.059 kg
Penetration figures given for an armoured plate 30 degrees from the horizontal
Hit probability versus 2.5 x 2 m target [1]
Range Penetration in training in combat
100 m 120 mm 100 % 100 %
500 m 110 mm 100 % 100 %
1000 m 99 mm 100 % 93 %
1500 m 91 mm 98 % 74 %
2000 m 83 mm 87 % 50 %
2500 m n/a 71 % 31 %
3000 m n/a 53 % 19 %
Pzgr. 40 (APCR)
Armor Piercing Composite Rigid round with a sub-calibre tungsten core.
Weight of projectile: 7.3 kg (16 lbs)
Muzzle velocity: 930 m/s (3,051 ft/s) < IMPRESSIVE
Penetration figures given for an armoured plate 30 degrees from the horizontal
Hit probability versus 2.5 x 2 m target [1]
Range Penetration in training in combat
100 m 171 mm 100 % 100 %
500 m 156 mm 100 % 100 %
1000 m 138 mm 100 % 93 %
1500 m 123 mm 97 % 74 %
2000 m 110 mm 89 % 47 %
2500 m n/a 78 % 34 %
3000 m n/a 66 % 25 %
Note that the ballistic path @ range makes the actual impact angle (for a head-on shot) less than the 45 degree slope angle of the Sherman's glacis armor (probably close to or even less than the 30 degree measured data). From the looks of the data, the Tiger could kill the Sherman with relative ease from any range. Historical accounts agree with this. Firefly's may have been able to kill Tigers, but the Tiger's fire was almost always 100% lethal to Shermans, and the Allied crews knew it.
One other thing: Rounded turrets, such as on the Sherman and T34, are cast. Although significantly easier to manufacture, casting are notorious for having internal voids, cracks... all sorts of flaws. The rounded shape may be a plus, but the quality of the steel is greatly diminished by casting.
-
Here is some facts on the Sherman Vs the Tiger I tank. The game is way off at times. The link of the information is included for proof.
History channel had some interview with Sherman tank commanders. One commander stated that: " We saw the German Tiger I on the street and so we backed up behind a building. The Tiger was several blocks away and still managed to shoot through 2 buildings and still hit our side of our Sherman killing most of the crew and the engine. This was a British tank commander - (Sherman M4 - Firefly).
Penetration Table 02: Sherman A2 , Sherman A4 , Tiger I .
Tiger I vs. Sherman A2 Sherman A2 vs. Tiger I Tiger I vs. Sherman A4 Sherman A4 vs. Tiger I
(88 mm KwK) (75 mm M3) (88 mm KwK) (76 mm M4)
Front: Turret 1800 m 0 m 1800 m 700 m
Mantlet 200 m 0 m 200 m 100 m
DFP* 0 m 0 m 0 m 600 m
Nose 2100 m 0 m 2100 m 400 m
Side: Turret 3500 m 100 m 3500 m 1800 m
Superstructure 3500 m 100 m 3500 m 1800 m
Hull 3500 m 900 m 3500 m 3200 m
Rear: Turret 3500 m 100 m 3500 m 1800 m
Hull 3500 m 0 m 3500 m 1700 m
* DFP = Drivers Front Plate
Source : JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; ISBN 0-7643-0225-6
Source link: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm
<S> GGHOST
-
Thanks for the additional info GGhost. Although it's always good to see the actual data and not go on reputation alone, IMHO the Tiger's reputation as a killer was well deserved. :uhoh
-
Yes, the Tiger I was a true heavy tank with a high velocity large 88 MM caliber main gun. Some people forget that this gun was a large Anti-aircraft flak gun shooting flak at bombers at high altitude. Just modified the gun and some shells for the tank usage. The armor thickness on this beast was unbelievable.
Nice links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N87P6YHnUsk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBp4eWqXfno
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-Dwo7BY2Qg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SntWB7Wjv0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxppM8DaXtg
<S> GGHOST
-
I'm just surprised that more eyebrows aren't raised when we hear about 88mm rds bouncing off of Shermans.
-
Allot of them are driving M4 - Shermans.....Maybe the Shermans need to be perked more? And correct the dynamics of the game. And lower the Tiger I perk points also to more user friendly range.
<S> GGHOST
-
Allot of them are driving M4 - Shermans.....Maybe the Shermans need to be perked more? And correct the dynamics of the game. And lower the Tiger I perk points also to more user friendly range.
<S> GGHOST
Sherman's definitely don't need to be perked more. They need to correct the damage model for the Sherman. The 76mm may pack a whallop, but the chassis itself is not survivable against 88mm fire.
-
Sherman's definitely don't need to be perked more. They need to correct the damage model for the Sherman. The 76mm may pack a whallop, but the chassis itself is not survivable against 88mm fire.
If they don't change its damage model, then they do need to perk it more. It's far more important to me that the perked vehicles reflect their cost than that they are 100% historically accurate.
-
i think in actuality that the game models up all allied equipment over the down modeling of the axis equipment.
i dont say this to start an argument or to hear brain dead insulting and retarded retorts from the players in the peanut gallery, so save them for someone else.
my point is simple really, if you exactly model equipment such as the Tiger to be as purely dominant in the game as they were in rl, then you would have only german equipment being used. there would be little to no variation or variety on the AH battle field.
lets face a simple fact, germany was defeated in a war of attrition, never in the war of technology or quality.
if AH didnt model in some weaknesses then you would see fields of tigers and nothing else. this is completely unrealistic as the numbers, or actually the lack of numbers, of the tigers fielded during the war was their achilles heal and the only reason they were defeated.
i dont remember his name but he was a famous tiger commander so you could look it up, but anyways the guy stated " one of our tigers could easily take on and destroy 10 t34's, but there was always an 11th". his point was that the horde wins.
it was the same review for the shermans.
the allies defeated germany by putting more tanks and equipment into the field than the germans could destroy, compound that with resupply issues, area saturation bombing by high alt bombers, and close in ground pounding by fighter support squadrons and the tigers in such limited numbers could not compete. they were simply overwhelmed.
think of how miserable the gv wars would be if you had even as few as 10 or 12 properly model tigers on the field and entrenched. even bringing in tigers of your own would not do alot of good, you would be killed while moving in to find the enemy tigers. every battle would become lop sided in favor of the guy who parked his tank first. the only way to clear the field would be by massive carpet bombing campaigns, thus ending the GV v. GV combat aspect of the game.
i personally hate how AH has under modeled most of the german equipment, but i understand it and agree with the implementation of the intentional under modeling in these circumstances. without finding a way to build into the game the restrictions of availability and supply that the germans suffered from during the war, the german equipment would be the only thing anybody would field. unless that is they enjoy being sent to the tower every ten seconds.
in reality nothing the allies had was the equal too, let alone the superior of, the equipment fielded by the germans. but the allies had numbers and they used those numbers to tip the balance in their favor.
the only reasonable way to implement any kind of fair play into the game, without massive programing issues, is to up model some things while simultaneously down modeling others in search of a balance that makes the game playable while promoting variety.
if a sherman had less than a 10% chance of killing a tiger and there was a tiger on the field would you take out the sherman knowing he had a 100% chance of killing you? no, you would up bombers and pound the field until all the tigers were dead then you would up your own tiger. the ground game would die a miserably lonely death.
i hate the way it is but i understand the purpose of it, so i find it to be an acceptable evil in comparison to what would happen in the alternative.
-
Stuff about good gameplay
I think most of us that run GVs agree with you; no one wants an all-powerful vehicle at any perk cost because it isn't fun for either party. Same as camping a spawn point isn't "fun"...
The fun is the hunt and the semi-panic of trying to get the kill before you are killed when you screw up and are positioned badly or out-foxed.
We do want the strength, or lack there-of, to be reflected in the perk cost though. Right now the difference in survivability doesn't warrant the 4x perk cost of the tiger when one VC has no trouble in killing it and the VC's perk is low enough no one has any issue upping them even when they expect to die. Tigers survive better against aircraft, to an extent. But at a much higher perk cost they sure aren't that much more survivable or deadly to other tanks, especially the ones with the minor perks like the VC or T34/85.
-
I never thought about it from that perspective FLOTSOM, but I suspect that you're right. Here's an idea.. how about Sherman drones (only about 5% serious with that one :D)
The German commander you're referring to, is it Michael Wittman, or a more senior officer?
-
lets face a simple fact, germany was defeated in a war of attrition, never in the war of technology or quality.
Stating the reasons that the Germans had the most formidable tanks in production is defensible. As a blanket statement, though, what you say is not defensible. Numerous circumstances where one side did A better, another did B better. The Germans were desperate at the end of the war, and tried to put into effective production some futuristic or frankly crackpot ideas they thought might turn the tide, a thing which the Allies had no reason to do. There were a ton of "ahead of their time" ideas floating around on the other side too, if one cares to research. "Red Skull"-esque legends of Germany's evil omnipotent super scientists are greatly exaggerated by the History Channel and etc.
i personally hate how AH has under modeled most of the german equipment, but i understand it and agree with the implementation of the intentional under modeling in these circumstances.
How many examples of the opposite phenomenon do you want? I have plenty.
If anything there would be more reason to undermodel Allied equipment that will be sufficiently popular on name-recognition alone, to "balance" things. However, I wouldn't bet any money that this is actually going on.
Much more likely that any true flaws result from just how hard what HTC sets out to do really is.
-
If they don't change its damage model, then they do need to perk it more. It's far more important to me that the perked vehicles reflect their cost than that they are 100% historically accurate.
Blasphemy! :D Equipment should be modeled to the highest fidelity possible and then perked accordingly,not the other way around.
-
The German commander you're referring to, is it Michael Wittman, or a more senior officer?
it could have been wittman, but i dont remember. i know it was a man that saw some action in all of the major arena's germany was involved in. it was a book that i read some years ago that was written by him and/or his son finished it for him, based upon his diary he kept in the war.
Stating the reasons that the Germans had the most formidable tanks in production is defensible. As a blanket statement, though, what you say is not defensible. Numerous circumstances where one side did A better, another did B better. The Germans were desperate at the end of the war, and tried to put into effective production some futuristic or frankly crackpot ideas they thought might turn the tide, a thing which the Allies had no reason to do. There were a ton of "ahead of their time" ideas floating around on the other side too, if one cares to research. "Red Skull"-esque legends of Germany's evil omnipotent super scientists are greatly exaggerated by the History Channel and etc.
How many examples of the opposite phenomenon do you want? I have plenty.
If anything there would be more reason to undermodel Allied equipment that will be sufficiently popular on name-recognition alone, to "balance" things. However, I wouldn't bet any money that this is actually going on.
Much more likely that any true flaws result from just how hard what HTC sets out to do really is.
alas my BnZ i do both agree and disagree with all that you say. the issues of technological advancements would be a long and drawn out affair and not do justice to this thread so i will not discuss it here except to say that i was not referring to either sides perceived hopes placed in future tech but only into items that were built in some numbers and saw enough combat to say that they actually participated in the war.
as to the History channels exaggerations and misinformation of history i do sooooooo agree. you will get no argument from me on that.
i think if you comparison shop the built in cobbling and hindering of the performance and capabilities of the equipment between both the allied and axis sides, you will find some badly modeled axis equipment out there as opposed to some almost god like ability found with the ranks of the allies.
but even that conversation would turn this thread into an irrational insult fest quickly as the over opinionated and under intelligent mouths got into the mix.
so i will agree to disagree with you on the current topic between us and renew to the op's original topic of the neutered tiger.
as i sated above, a purely and precisely modeled tiger would unfortunately destroy ground war playability. so for now, until such a time as the powers that be decide to find a more appropriate way to regulate the use of the beast without allowing it to single handedly dominate the battle field, i will settle for a slightly under modeled version.
but i do agree that as it is under modeled it does not earn the perk cost that it currently suffers under. that is an easier issue that can in the current environment, be dealt with by HTC.
-
the only way to clear the field would be by massive carpet bombing campaigns, thus ending the GV v. GV combat aspect of the game.
Or 1 or 2 UBERGUNNED IL2s! Nowadays all that it takes is 1 IL2 to clear out several tigers as well as any other GV with nothing more than GUNS!-----------------> very sad :furious
-
Or 1 or 2 UBERGUNNED IL2s! Nowadays all that it takes is 1 IL2 to clear out several tigers as well as any other GV with nothing more than GUNS!-----------------> very sad :furious
Yea, I know it sucks how easy it is to kill a Tiger in an IL2. It's all about angle of attack
-
a little off subject but good reading anyway
Major General Harmann Balck
'If Manstein was Germany's greatest strategist during World War II, Balck has strong claims to be regarded as our finest field commander. He has a superb grasp of tactics and great qualities of leadership'
-Major-General von Mellenthin
http://members.tripod.com/chiss_dude/germangeneralsofworldwarii/id3.html
http://www.11thpanzer.com/dsp_balck.htm
http://hosted.wargamer.com/Panzer/balck.html
-
a little off subject but good reading anyway
Major General Harmann Balck
'If Manstein was Germany's greatest strategist during World War II, Balck has strong claims to be regarded as our finest field commander. He has a superb grasp of tactics and great qualities of leadership'
-Major-General von Mellenthin
http://members.tripod.com/chiss_dude/germangeneralsofworldwarii/id3.html
http://www.11thpanzer.com/dsp_balck.htm
http://hosted.wargamer.com/Panzer/balck.html
cool articles WWhiskey!
good reads thank you for posting them!
:aok
-
I agree with those that say that something has to be done with the Tiger1 or Firefly. There's not many places a Tiger can hit a Firefly and not have it penetrate at the ranges we normally see in this game. Firefly's were fairly rare vehicles, and weren't tossed out there in the way a normal sherman was. They were used more like a tank destroyer rather then a regular tank. They were high priority targets for the germans, and would be singled out if possible in any engagment as priority number 1. If the firefly of the platoon was taken out the sherman 75/76's had little chance with a long range shooting match against a Panther, Tiger1, or something more deadly (anything with a 88m L-71). The Firefly has one good feature, it's excellent gun. Very much on par with the panthers 75mm L-70. But that's it, other then that it's armor was poor, and it's silloette was very high. I think the damage model as far as the Firefly taking out the Tiger in this game is fairly accurate, but the other way around is not. Tiger should probably be about double the perkies of a Firefly, or a firefly half the perkies of a Tiger in late war to make it even out. Either do that or make the Firefly a bit more fragile and keep it the same perkies. I'd really like to see us get a regular sherman 75/76, how many Shermans did they make and we only have the rarest version in this game. Now in Midwar the Tiger is still king by a large margin and deserves it's high perk price.
:salute
BigRat
-
There's not many places a Tiger can hit a Firefly and not have it penetrate at the ranges we normally see in this game.
:salute
BigRat
You realize, for the most part, the ranges we see in game are totally unrealistic. We are shooting, hitting, and killing other tanks as ranges up to and beyond 2 miles. Re-reading Death Traps By Belton Y. Cooper,
http://books.google.com/books?id=Yanu67Pf_usC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=death+traps:++t&source=bl&ots=Zb3Zqv7l74&sig=JgSMR3fVp3Z9gc6XkHwjNM3n32U&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA329,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=Yanu67Pf_usC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=death+traps:++t&source=bl&ots=Zb3Zqv7l74&sig=JgSMR3fVp3Z9gc6XkHwjNM3n32U&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA329,M1),
engagement ranges seemed to be more around the 25 to 200 yard range. You can almost never get that close to someone here. You really want one hit kills, there you go.
wrongway
-
Firefly's were fairly rare vehicles, and weren't tossed out there in the way a normal sherman was.
So about 2000 produced and a standard deployment of one Firefly per Troop (platoon of 4 tanks) means it was "rare?"
-
You realize, for the most part, the ranges we see in game are totally unrealistic. We are shooting, hitting, and killing other tanks as ranges up to and beyond 2 miles. Re-reading Death Traps By Belton Y. Cooper,
http://books.google.com/books?id=Yanu67Pf_usC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=death+traps:++t&source=bl&ots=Zb3Zqv7l74&sig=JgSMR3fVp3Z9gc6XkHwjNM3n32U&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA329,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=Yanu67Pf_usC&pg=PA149&lpg=PA149&dq=death+traps:++t&source=bl&ots=Zb3Zqv7l74&sig=JgSMR3fVp3Z9gc6XkHwjNM3n32U&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA329,M1),
engagement ranges seemed to be more around the 25 to 200 yard range. You can almost never get that close to someone here. You really want one hit kills, there you go.
wrongway
Very true, :aok
The tiger was so dangerous because it could kill at 1800yds,
and was virtually impervious to enemy fire at that range..
They racked up so many kills from the allied/russian tanks
having to endure and pass thru, that death zone, before
their guns reached effective ranges, 800 or less.. (round #s)
As the game sits now, we have MIRACLE guns, and sights..
Totally unrealistic... But, can you imagine the SCREAMIN from
the player base, if the game was made more "real"? LOL!!!
:salute RC
-
You wouldn't get much screaming from me if it was made more "real"
If you used good teamwork you could easily defeat the tiger in close quarter combat with lesser tanks due to it's slow traverse rate and comparatively slow speed.
Trouble is, nobody wants to share.
-
And if only the clouds were made of marshmellows and the grass of lucky charms :pray
-
So about 2000 produced and a standard deployment of one Firefly per Troop (platoon of 4 tanks) means it was "rare?"
Well maybe not considered rare among British armored units but rare overall considering it would constitute less then 5% of sherman production.
:salute
BigRat
-
When you consider that roughly 50,000 Shermans were produced...and the major user of the Sherman was the US, which didn't use the Firefly but the 76mm M4A3, which we don't have, then yes, the Firefly is a rare variant.
The US 76mm could penetrate a Panther front or flank only at short ranges until the HVAP rounds were delivered, but most of those went to the TD units. The 76mm was basically on par with the German Kwk 40 L/48 75mm found in the IV Ausf F2. It was still inferior to the Panther's Kwk 42/L70.
Bringing the 76mm Sherman into AH isn't going to accomplish much. Tigers and Panzers will still punch holes in them.
As for the Sherman armor, I put 5 rounds into the deck of a Sherman from long range the other night. Five solid hits - and didn't even smoke him. The deck armor of a Sherman is only 9mm, a 75mm round coming down from a 45-degree angle should be a one-hit kill.
I also have issue with M8s killing Tigers - even shooting them from behind - shouldn't happen. Again, a lot of it comes down to player mentality - with no penalities or reprecussions for dying in a stupid manner, players are going to do stupid things, like attacking a Tiger with an M8.
Based on my data of armor and armament, here's how it should stack up...
Offensively:
Tiger
Firefly
T-34/85
Panzer IV
T-34/76
M8
Defensively (survivability)
Tiger
T-34/85
T-34/76
Firefly
Panzer IV
M8
Wirbels - are anomalies. A standard PzIV chassis, usually a recycled Ausf D or E chassis, that takes 5-8 hits to kill. A single turret hit should take out the gun. The argument of a shot passing through the turret is not without merit, however, there's a big honking gun mount inside that turret. M8s are also anomalies - a single 75mm round will completely disassemble an M8.
And for the record, I owned a 1:1 M3 White halftrack for nearly 10 years, and one of my buds owned a fully restored M8. These things aren't made like tanks...
J
-
Tanks should be modeld correctly.
No one new would grab a Tiger unless they thought it was the lord of battle... Perk the hell out of it, but im really sick of having them shot out from under me when I turn nose on with nme tanks.
Ever try to kill a sherman head on with a T-34? you might as well be using spit balls.
-
I read back a bit - the German tanker who made that quote about 10 and 11 T-34s was Otto Carius. He wrote the book 'Tigers in the Mud'. He spent all but the last few weeks of his career on the Eastern Front. Great read, and it really emphasizes the Tiger's killing abilities against all sorts of Russian armor, including Lend-Lease Shermans used by the Soviets.
From what I gathered in the book, the Tiger crews feared mechanical failure more than any Soviet tank until the appearance of the JS-series on the battlefield.
As for US tanks, in truth, the only US tank capable of going 1 v 1 with a Tiger was the Pershing, but not enough of them entered service to alter the war.
That's not to say that other tanks weren't capable of killing the Tiger - but its not until the Pershing took the field that Allied tank crews were eager to go head-to-head against German armor.
I don't use Tigers anymore, I can't justify the cost in perks against the slight margin of survivability. That being said, I can't see how bringing another GV into the mix, like a Panther or Jagdpanther, is going to radically change things. Panthers were superior to Tigers in terms of armor protection (based on the sloped vs/ flat penetration formula), faster, more maneuverable, and with a gun that was just as effective as the 88mm in killing Allied tanks (the 88mm was truly overkill, when it comes right down to it).
Where would you put a Panther in the game, and what would you compromise? Protection, or main gun ability, to balance the gameplay? Would it be perked somewhere in between the Tiger I and Sherman, perhaps giving the Tiger a little more realisitic protection modeling and the Sherman a little less?
I dunno...all I know is that as long as a Tiger can be killed by a T-34/76 or Panzer IV, its not worth the perks to use them. There's no decided advantage to justify the cost. Not when guys are landing double-digit kills in Fireflys and T-34/85s.
J
-
I read back a bit - the German tanker who made that quote about 10 and 11 T-34s was Otto Carius. He wrote the book 'Tigers in the Mud'. He spent all but the last few weeks of his career on the Eastern Front. Great read, and it really emphasizes the Tiger's killing abilities against all sorts of Russian armor, including Lend-Lease Shermans used by the Soviets.
From what I gathered in the book, the Tiger crews feared mechanical failure more than any Soviet tank until the appearance of the JS-series on the battlefield.
As for US tanks, in truth, the only US tank capable of going 1 v 1 with a Tiger was the Pershing, but not enough of them entered service to alter the war.
That's not to say that other tanks weren't capable of killing the Tiger - but its not until the Pershing took the field that Allied tank crews were eager to go head-to-head against German armor.
I don't use Tigers anymore, I can't justify the cost in perks against the slight margin of survivability. That being said, I can't see how bringing another GV into the mix, like a Panther or Jagdpanther, is going to radically change things. Panthers were superior to Tigers in terms of armor protection (based on the sloped vs/ flat penetration formula), faster, more maneuverable, and with a gun that was just as effective as the 88mm in killing Allied tanks (the 88mm was truly overkill, when it comes right down to it).
Where would you put a Panther in the game, and what would you compromise? Protection, or main gun ability, to balance the gameplay? Would it be perked somewhere in between the Tiger I and Sherman, perhaps giving the Tiger a little more realisitic protection modeling and the Sherman a little less?
I dunno...all I know is that as long as a Tiger can be killed by a T-34/76 or Panzer IV, its not worth the perks to use them. There's no decided advantage to justify the cost. Not when guys are landing double-digit kills in Fireflys and T-34/85s.
J
thats the guy!!!
<SALUTE> thanx!
and i agree with the rest of your post as well.
-
I read back a bit - the German tanker who made that quote about 10 and 11 T-34s was Otto Carius. He wrote the book 'Tigers in the Mud'.
Thanks JHerne. I shoulda known that. I have the book.
-
I also have issue with M8s killing Tigers - even shooting them from behind - shouldn't happen.
Really?
The ability to destroy a Tiger I from other than the front is described in a wartime report from the 7th Armored Division while in Belgium in December of 1944:
While northern and eastern flanks had been heavily engaged, the northeastern section had been rather quiet. The only excitement there had been was when an M8 armored car from "E" Troop destroyed a Tiger tank. The armored car had been in a concealed position at right angles to run along a trail in front of the MLR. As the tank passed the armored car, the M8 slipped out of position and started up the trail behind the Tiger, accelerating in an attempt to close. At the same moment the German tank commander saw the M8, and started traversing his gun to bear on the armored car. It was a race between the Americans who were attempting to close so that their puny 37-mm would be effective in the Tiger’s "Achilles heel" (its thin rear armor), and the Germans who were desperately striving to bring their "88" to bear … Suddenly, the M8 had closed to 25 yards, and quickly pumped in 3 rounds… the lumbering Tiger stopped, shuddered; there was a muffled explosion, followed by flames which bellowed out of the turret and engine ports, after which the armored car returned to its position.
-
Really?
Yeah, but our M8s drop kill Tigers from over 1k away, and don't have to be behind them :rolleyes:
-
Yeah, but our M8s drop kill Tigers from over 1k away, and don't have to be behind them :rolleyes:
Got film?
-
Yeah, but our M8s drop kill Tigers from over 1k away, and don't have to be behind them :rolleyes:
Film?
Damn lusche. :D
-
Got film?
Film?
Damn lusche. :D
+1
(or is it +3??)
-
Got film?
I wish, but filming dogs my laptop too badly to play.
I would have loved to get film of the M8 3 of us went after 2 weeks ago too. Panzer, Tiger and T34/85 at less than 500 yds. I hit him 6 times, the Tiger hit him 3 and the T34 hit him 4 before he popped. He got me twice, the T34 once and the Tiger once. :furious
Then the next sortie I one-shotted 4 T34s and Panzers in a row. :huh Talk about rubber-bullet syndrome....
-
Ever notice you can knock out a tigers turret if you hit em on top of his turret?
Elevation is the key...i.e. you above the tiger slightly, but it works.
-
After trying my hand at GVs I came away thinking its hit or miss and not accurate to actual vehicles anywhere. They have all been adjusted for gameplay so much that I cant make rhyme-or-reason of them. The M4 has a much faster turret but to aim one your stick has to be dampened just so. I suppose I could modify my setup for a special GV mode but then again why spend the time doing that? I get killed first shot by the 'uber' guys all the time. Panzer M4 Tiger M8 even it doesnt matter. Meanwhile my shots bounce off M3s! I would think an M3 would be reduced to scrap even on a hit like that but what do I know?
I shot an M16 in the windshield and it bounced off,lol
-
I shot an M16 in the windshield and it bounced off,lol
because the m16/m3 are lightly amored and AP goes right through them,use HE and 99% of the time they go boom...the m8 is a little better amored but basiclly the,HE usually it goes boom.
-
Well Danny just tonight I hit three M3s with a lot more then one HE round and they just kept on trucking. :frown:
-
Ever notice you can knock out a tigers turret if you hit em on top of his turret?
Elevation is the key...i.e. you above the tiger slightly, but it works.
Experiences against Tigers in the Beta frame of the current scenario has got a lot of experienced tankers really scratching their heads. Most of them know the piss poor, hit'n miss (pun intended) GV model we have that really has a low consistancy rating. However, in the Beta the Tiger seemed to be phenomenal in all aspects, especialy in taking damage at close range and rolling away, far in excess of what most seem to experience in the MA.
For myself, I fired at just under 2K, from an elevated base, down on the top of the turret of a Tiger, with three direct hits (with sprites and no visible richocet) to no effect whatsoever, he rolled away. However, in the MA, I have hit a Tiger coming down off a small hill, showing just a bit of his turret top, and pinged him there at 2.5K or a little more. Kaboom! Go figure.
-
Well Danny just tonight I hit three M3s with a lot more then one HE round and they just kept on trucking. :frown:
hmmm...usually one shot for me,if thats the case then most of you would be better off using you pintle gun on em :salute
-
This was a true.. WTF moment. But the third shot got him.
(http://www.51hangar.net/Kass/2ndTiger2ndhit.jpg)
(http://www.51hangar.net/Kass/2ndTiger2ndhita.jpg)
(http://www.51hangar.net/Kass/2ndTiger2ndhitb.jpg)
-
Fencer I think once a round has hit a tank it can not hit it again. That round can ricochet in any direction and can pass through the tank it has already hit. Iv caught it on a film before. I was in a B25H and hit a tiger in the back of the turret. When it ricocheted it passed through the back of the chassis where the engine is and hit under the tank then killed the tiger. I think I still have the film Ill post it later if I can find it.
-
Yep. Only the first impact counts. Same with all projectiles apparently. I've got film of a B25's 50cal bullets bouncing off a CV 5" turret and flying back thru me, with no hit sprites on the B25.
-
Maybe they changed the hardness settings or the lethality of the gvs for the scenario....... Can they do that?
-
Fencer I think once a round has hit a tank it can not hit it again. That round can ricochet in any direction and can pass through the tank it has already hit. Iv caught it on a film before. I was in a B25H and hit a tiger in the back of the turret. When it ricocheted it passed through the back of the chassis where the engine is and hit under the tank then killed the tiger. I think I still have the film Ill post it later if I can find it.
Thats as good of explaination I could ask for, thanks.
-
I've been GVing allot lately, and I find the tiger to be inferior in many respects to the sherman. In fact many squadies will never take tiger cause it is absolutely no better than the sherman but costs 4 times the perks. I've been using the tiger allot as to see how it stacks up these days, It is borderline average IMHO. I would think the tiger should have a marked advantage at ranges beyond 2500 with superior armor at any range, also the sherman should be superior at close range with higher rate of fire and the " spinning top turret ". I'm not really up on history when it comes to tank performance but I do believe the tiger was feared by ALL and the prefered way to kill one was to spot it then call in the heavies, never engage one in direct frontal fire. Now the reason I post this is cause I've found it to be common place to engage a sherman at 3000 plus hitting said sherman muliple times "some ricochets some solid sprites causing NO damage while recieving one solid hit and losing the tiger or turret if I'm lucky in the process. I'm not sure this should be the case but if one of you history gurus could shed some light on the actual performance of these carriages of war I would be most gratefull. Cause if this is how it will remain then I'm afraid very very few tigers will ever be used and that is just not nostalgic enough for me ;)
Oh and last night I was trading shots with a sherman in my tiger at about 3400 and hit him 3 times frontaly, he decided to reposition, hit him once on the starbord skirt just below the turret, and once in his butt when he fled to get some separation, I saw NO damage at all!! Not sure this kind of thing is accurate. Anyway it would be great if someone could shine a light on this for me Thanks :D
The germans were bad at making tanks, lost the war, M4s pawned all the Tigers : but the M1A1 Abrams it's still using today a german Rheinmetall-Borsig gun.
-
Maybe they changed the hardness settings or the lethality of the gvs for the scenario....... Can they do that?
yes they can,if you go offline and go into options in the arena setup tab,you can change things in the game,like unlimited MG ammo,super strong .303s,paper tanks,etc... but here is a word of advice,NEVER change the light color to black :lol
-
yes they can,if you go offline and go into options in the arena setup tab,you can change things in the game,like unlimited MG ammo,super strong .303s,paper tanks,etc... but here is a word of advice,NEVER change the light color to black :lol
In Special Events, the ONLY thing that CM's will adjust lethality on would be ack. (and ship guns/ shore batteries) If you adjust the lethality of plane/gv weapons, it is universal so everybody would have increased lethality.
I am pretty sure you can not adjust the hardness of planes/vehicles. I don't recall any such setting.
I changed the color to all black once. Took me 5 min to dig out the .dot command so I could see again.
-
Maybe they changed the hardness settings or the lethality of the gvs for the scenario....... Can they do that?
You can change lethality with the PlaneGunLethality settings, but I'm not sure if it's possible to change only lethality for tank guns and not at the same time things like aircraft cannon.
The PlaneGunLethality settings for the Tunisia scenario (and all past scenarios that I'm aware of) are at 1.0, which is the same as in the Main Arena.
We do set the ack levels lower frequently in scenarios (controlled by the GroundAutoLethality settings), but those do not affect the lethality of manned guns, aircraft guns, or vehicle guns.
I think that any effects people are seeing that seem different are just because there is a lot of variability in the result, and any small sampling can show a lot of variability.