King Tiger - WIP

[dogbadger]

Originally Posted by otester

I was making it then this other guy at DH made Henschel and Porche version in like a day, don't think detail was as high but I lost the will to carry on, I was near the end of finishing the UV.

Hang on, thats a bit weird. If you were both working for DH, how come he made the KT when he must of known you were working on it yourself, and had been for some time?

[Dr.Luuvalo]

Originally Posted by karl stiner

hehehe i am realy trying to understand this post

Doctor being bit cryptic here. I ment that I think any units and other objects in the game should be named as they were originally named be the forces that are deploying them in game. German officials bloody well didn't call their their new tanks king tigers. As PzKpfw VI Ausf. E is named Tiger I in game, logically VI Ausf. B should be Tiger II, both are fairly accurate historically.

[Slyk]

*snap* of a twig.........and the sound of scampering feet in the dark edge of the forest......

[18Bravo]

That Brummbar looks great, would finally give the axis something larger than an 88mm, and what better than a 150mm. Though I don't think it really had AP rounds, but the power of an HE round of that size should do enough damage. That would make for a rather nice heavy assault gun.

[karl stiner]

Originally Posted by 18Bravo

That Brummbar looks great, would finally give the axis something larger than an 88mm, and what better than a 150mm. Though I don't think it really had AP rounds, but the power of an HE round of that size should do enough damage. That would make for a rather nice heavy assault gun.

yes i was going to say the Brummbar for infantry maps

[[VFD]HH]

So without reading this thread, a few questions?
Will the Tiger II made for DH be made (or whatever, since I don't know **** about mods) in such a way that we will see it in RO soon
B) Will this ever see action in any map ever, considering they were rare in Ostfront, and would be hard to balance in any map.
C) If B is true, how long until we see OrelKINGTIGERvsBT7Redux (or something equally as silly and unbalanced.)

[Heinz]

Originally Posted by Slyk

*snap* of a twig.........and the sound of scampering feet in the dark edge of the forest......

Slyk, you loose your beer again?

[Nestor Makhno]

Problem with using a Brummbär or anything like that in infantry maps is that you ideally need buildings and stuff that can be blown up.

This is technically possible providing you can limit the network implications of replication. This has yet to be done successfully but who knows?

[BuddyLee]

I don't know if having an invincible tank ingame would play well....

I only support the idea if the Soviets are given 4 times the number of tanks in their loadout... for teh luv of all that r realism.

[[VFD]HH]

Which means 4 times the tankers (You could get away with 2 times if the germans are TTing and the Soviets not, but then the quality of the tanking would require the Soviets needing even *more* tanks)

Which means either unbalanced teams (something RO cannot really handle atm) or Germans have tons of infantry.

The easiest way to put the KT would be to design a tank where the Germans are at a huge disadvantage map wise, and even teams.

Lets face it, if the germans have KTs and the Soviets anything, more people will join the german team regardless of layouts.

Have 1 KT and 2 IS2s or such, and put it on a map like Hedgehog.

[KIPPO]

Werent the wheels of the king tiger overly complicated and prone to freezing up solid.

[[VFD]HH]

The KT, Elefaunt, and Panther were all considered poor tanks in the end cause of mechanical problems, despite all having great K ratios and being on paper great tanks.

Hell, imo in RO the panther is the best tank by far.

A lot of people on these forums tend to forget things like that when they post "The KT was never frontally penetrated!" Not much use if it requires the manhours of 5-6 tanks to build, crazy amounts of maintenance for on an already stretched war effort, and with all of that said it breaks down 10 miles before the battle and has to be blown up.

[otester]

Originally Posted by [VFD]HH

The KT, Elefaunt, and Panther were all considered poor tanks in the end cause of mechanical problems, despite all having great K ratios and being on paper great tanks.

Hell, imo in RO the panther is the best tank by far.

A lot of people on these forums tend to forget things like that when they post "The KT was never frontally penetrated!" Not much use if it requires the manhours of 5-6 tanks to build, crazy amounts of maintenance for on an already stretched war effort, and with all of that said it breaks down 10 miles before the battle and has to be blown up.

Crews that did daily maintanance rarely had a problem. It was noobie crews that made KT look bad. If you fail to give Abrams daily maintanance it will break down very quickly just like KT.

[SchutzeSepp]

Originally Posted by [VFD]HH

The KT, Elefaunt, and Panther were all considered poor tanks in the end cause of mechanical problems, despite all having great K ratios and being on paper great tanks.

Hell, imo in RO the panther is the best tank by far.

A lot of people on these forums tend to forget things like that when they post "The KT was never frontally penetrated!" Not much use if it requires the manhours of 5-6 tanks to build, crazy amounts of maintenance for on an already stretched war effort, and with all of that said it breaks down 10 miles before the battle and has to be blown up.

but what could they have done? there are to many "what-if's" here, sure if they had concentrated on making only their most simple and effective tank the Stug or even the panther G instead of wasting resources on unreliable expensive prototypes like the kingtiger or maus. then they might have stretched the end of the war a little. but then their enemies would have had the time to bring out their new tanks, like the pershing and IS3, and then we would have said: how stupid of those germans to rely on their old tanks, while the enemy was making new ones.
the fact is, that with tanks like the kingtiger they would have been able to keep their technological advantage over the enemy in case of a longer war.
and germany simply didn't have the resources to use the same strategy as usa and russia, to put quantity above quality. i say they did with what they had, and they did a damn good job, because everybody thought they would have lost in 1942...

[otester]

Originally Posted by SchutzeSepp

but what could they have done? there are to many "what-if's" here, sure if they had concentrated on making only their most simple and effective tank the Stug or even the panther G instead of wasting resources on unreliable expensive prototypes like the kingtiger or maus. then they might have stretched the end of the war a little. but then their enemies would have had the time to bring out their new tanks, like the pershing and IS3, and then we would have said: how stupid of those germans to rely on their old tanks, while the enemy was making new ones.
the fact is, that with tanks like the kingtiger they would have been able to keep their technological advantage over the enemy in case of a longer war.
and germany simply didn't have the resources to use the same strategy as usa and russia, to put quantity above quality. i say they did with what they had, and they did a damn good job, because everybody thought they would have lost in 1942...

Your right.

Taking RAF out in 1940 was one of the biggest failures, loosing control of their own skys in 1943.

If RAF had been knocked out, had 1/2 MBTs at a time and further development of stuka. They could have taken on Russia.

Russia at that time did not have SAMs or any real way of dealing with basically an earlier A-10.

Panther G could not have taken the T-34/IS2/IS3 alone but I think by conccentrating on sandwiched armour which would vastly reduce the weight of possible future KT's and better munitions and research into smoothbores and APFSDS, Germans would have pulled through.

KT could have been a sucessful profit, use diesel engine and train crews to be able to look after the tank to keep it in shape like modern crews do with the abrams.

KT was a very capable tank, 1500hp engine was in the works to keep it ahead. 88mm L\71 could send a T-62 to the grave and back.

[Maschine Pistole-38]

Originally Posted by otester

Your right.

Taking RAF out in 1940 was one of the biggest failures, loosing control of their own skys in 1943.

If RAF had been knocked out, had 1/2 MBTs at a time and further development of stuka. They could have taken on Russia.

Russia at that time did not have SAMs or any real way of dealing with basically an earlier A-10.

Panther G could not have taken the T-34/IS2/IS3 alone but I think by conccentrating on sandwiched armour which would vastly reduce the weight of possible future KT's and better munitions and research into smoothbores and APFSDS, Germans would have pulled through.

KT could have been a sucessful profit, use diesel engine and train crews to be able to look after the tank to keep it in shape like modern crews do with the abrams.

KT was a very capable tank, 1500hp engine was in the works to keep it ahead. 88mm L\71 could send a T-62 to the grave and back.

The Luftwaffe still had to deal with the VVS, which had much better 'tank buster' aircraft than Germany could ever have.

[otester]

Originally Posted by Maschine Pistole-38

The Luftwaffe still had to deal with the VVS, which had much better 'tank buster' aircraft than Germany could ever have.

They still do today, the Su-39.

But with air superiority it doesn't matter.

What was their 'tank buster'?

[karl stiner]

Originally Posted by KIPPO

Werent the wheels of the king tiger overly complicated and prone to freezing up solid.

no when is was very cold and freezing weather this sometimes happend with the jagdpanther not the king tiger the mud would Freeze

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by otester

Crews that did daily maintanance rarely had a problem. It was noobie crews that made KT look bad.

No, not really. The same problems that plagued the Tiger I also affected the Tiger II. For instance, the engine used in the Tiger I was already overstressed by the tank's heavy weight, and this was only exacerbated when they used the same engine in the much, much heavier Tiger II. You can have the best mechanics in the world, and it won't make a bit of difference if the engine is being asked to do more than it was designed to do.

Again, I'll post a link to this excellent book on the Tiger's history. It really goes into great depth to explain whole, true history of the Tiger's combat history. It's a very good read and I can only recommend it to those who want to know more about the Tiger:

http://www.amazon.com/Sledgehammers-...7637116&sr=8-1

[otester]

Originally Posted by LukeFF

No, not really. The same problems that plagued the Tiger I also affected the Tiger II. For instance, the engine used in the Tiger I was already overstressed by the tank's heavy weight, and this was only exacerbated when they used the same engine in the much, much heavier Tiger II. You can have the best mechanics in the world, and it won't make a bit of difference if the engine is being asked to do more than it was designed to do.

Again, I'll post a link to this excellent book on the Tiger's history. It really goes into great depth to explain whole, true history of the Tiger's combat history. It's a very good read and I can only recommend it to those who want to know more about the Tiger:

I agree that the engine was way to small for the job but with care it would keep going.

Originally Posted by LukeFF

http://www.amazon.com/Sledgehammers-...7637116&sr=8-1

Ordered it, should be interesting.