One Reason Why Tiger isn't a Favorite

[Ghad]

Tiger-approx. 58 seconds

That is why you need to tell the driver to steer the tank so that the corner of the chassis points towards the enemy.

1. You will use much shorter time to traverse the enemy into your sights.
2. You will get somewhat the effect of sloped armor (Does this work ingame?)

we should keep in mind that all that common knowledge is from the western front and movies. The sherman isnt exactly a good match for the tiger, non sloped, thin armor and a 75mm gun.


also a quote from Wikipedica, I know its not the best source but..

This is EXACTLY why a game like RO is so needed. Young people from western countries today have almost no knowledge of WWII outside of the western front and pearl harbour, except for maybe what little they could pick up from enemy at the gates

 

[MkH^]

Still...I think the turret rotation times need to be looked at. I don't buy the fact that all other tanks involved in RO rotate 360 degrees in less than 20 seconds but yet the Tiger takes 58 seconds. Something is abit screwy.

That's completely realistic. Besides, you are not supposed to even use the turret but for tweaking your aim, the aiming itself should be done in conjunction with the driver turning the Tigers front armor at the target, so the gunner does not have to traverse the turret almost at all. That's how they were used in real life, much like assault guns.

 

[Slyk]

There are plenty of resources available on the web. It's easy enough to "Google" up stats and figures. LOTS of good sites out there. Education makes a lot better argument.

 

[Witzig]

There are plenty of resources available on the web. It's easy enough to "Google" up stats and figures. LOTS of good sites out there. Education makes a lot better argument.

Here you find a part of the Sources used by the RO Team, that a lot better than googling some sites

http://www.redorchestragame.com/plugins/p13_download_manager/getfile.php?categoryid=3&p13_sectionid=5&p13_fileid=19

 

[Nebfer]

That is why you need to tell the driver to steer the tank so that the corner of the chassis points towards the enemy.

1. You will use much shorter time to traverse the enemy into your sights.
2. You will get somewhat the effect of sloped armor (Does this work ingame?)

This is EXACTLY why a game like RO is so needed. Young people from western countries today have almost no knowledge of WWII outside of the western front and pearl harbour, except for maybe what little they could pick up from enemy at the gates

you can argue all you want that the avrage "westener" has little ww2 knlage but it dosnt change the fact that he even messed up with the sherman

IT HAD A WELL SLOPED FRONT!!! so to say that the sherman had no sloped armor is just plane wrong. now whill the frontal armor was 51mm it was sloped at 34* (wich gave it the equilvent of 91mm) it was the side armor that had no slope and was only 38mm (1.5inch)!

well I still think German tanks are far weeker than there soveit counter parts.

partly due to the fact we are using tanks used in 1942 (Ie Panzer IV AusF F2 (AKA AusF G)) for battles with tanks made in 1944! (Ie T-34/85)

 

[BoltActionJackson]

you can argue all you want that the avrage "westener" has little ww2 knlage but it dosnt change the fact that he even messed up with the sherman

IT HAD A WELL SLOPED FRONT!!! so to say that the sherman had no sloped armor is just plane wrong. now whill the frontal armor was 51mm it was sloped at 34* (wich gave it the equilvent of 91mm) it was the side armor that had no slope and was only 38mm (1.5inch)!

well I still think German tanks are far weeker than there soveit counter parts.

partly due to the fact we are using tanks used in 1942 (Ie Panzer IV AusF F2 (AKA AusF G)) for battles with tanks made in 1944! (Ie T-34/85)

I was pretty sure that the weapons and tanks available for a map are dependant on the year that battle was fought. Therefore if it is a 1942 map then you will only see tanks that were available then.

 

[wokelly]

you can argue all you want that the avrage "westener" has little ww2 knlage but it dosnt change the fact that he even messed up with the sherman

IT HAD A WELL SLOPED FRONT!!! so to say that the sherman had no sloped armor is just plane wrong. now whill the frontal armor was 51mm it was sloped at 34* (wich gave it the equilvent of 91mm) it was the side armor that had no slope and was only 38mm (1.5inch)!

well I still think German tanks are far weeker than there soveit counter parts.

partly due to the fact we are using tanks used in 1942 (Ie Panzer IV AusF F2 (AKA AusF G)) for battles with tanks made in 1944! (Ie T-34/85)

Problem with sherman was the front was made out of two pieces of armor, which made the sloped front weaker then is should of been, then there is the problem of overmatching. For guys who dont know what that means, basically overmatching is when a shell thicker then the armor (German 75mm hiting sherman 50mm slope armor for example), the shell just breaks through the armor instead of penetrating, causing massive amounts of armor fragments to peper the inside of the tanks and slaughter the crew.

This game doesnt have it, but you can bet the IS2 with its 128mm gun would rape tigers, panthers, pz4s with one shot with ease unless the shell was deflected.

Im not big on tanks in this game. If I want real tank combat, I play WWIIOL. This game has a basic deflection design, but besides that its bad. The stuG for examples is shat. Its front sloped armor should be very strong, however since you cant angle your vehical, it wont do much.

 

[Jack]

I knew this would happen when I found out the Tiger was coming to RO. I have seen similar posts on the Steam forums: "OMG the Tiger sucks!!!" Welcome to real world performance.


The reason that the Tiger's turret is so slow is because it had to be manually hand-cranked most of the time.

There was a motor provided, but unless the tank's main engine was running at high RPM, it didn't have the power to move the thing adequately. I remember reading somewhere the gunner had to rotate the handwheel something like 400 revolutions to swing the turret through 360 degrees.



This is why I love ROOST so much. Even though the armored portion of the game still has room for improvement, it is the only game I know of (other than Combat Mission:Barbarossa to Berlin) that actually lets a player get a feeling for how vulnerable a lot of the German AFVs were, instead of making them into these God-like, invincible machines.


The IS-2 on the other hand, has more armor, with far better sloping, rounded turret with next to no shot traps, faster turret traverse, lower silouhette, less ground pressure, higher power to weight ratio, and was easier to maintain mechanically than the Tiger. So much for Arayan superiority

Of course slow reloading, and the gun performance was less than would be expected of a weapon of that caliber, but it makes less difference when you outnumber the enemy, are faster and more maneuverable, and have better armor.



Similar thing happens in forums for simulation games like IL-2. People in there constanly are making posts with titles like "why does the 109 suck so bad! It was the best fighter of teh war!#@?"

Or those that thought just because the P-51 was good at 25,000 feet than in game it needed to also outperform all other aircraft on the deck, or that it's 6 .50s should kill tanks and saw ships in half

 

[Heinz]

I knew this would happen when I found out the Tiger was coming to RO. I have seen similar posts on the Steam forums: "OMG the Tiger sucks!!!" Welcome to real world performance.
The reason that the Tiger's turret is so slow is because it had to be manually hand-cranked most of the time.
There was a motor provided, but unless the tank's main engine was running at high RPM, it didn't have the power to move the thing adequately. I remember reading somewhere the gunner had to rotate the handwheel something like 400 revolutions to swing the turret through 360 degrees.
This is why I love ROOST so much. Even though the armored portion of the game still has room for improvement, it is the only game I know of (other than Combat Mission:Barbarossa to Berlin) that actually lets a player get a feeling for how vulnerable a lot of the German AFVs were, instead of making them into these God-like, invincible machines.
The IS-2 on the other hand, has more armor, with far better sloping, rounded turret with next to no shot traps, faster turret traverse, lower silouhette, less ground pressure, higher power to weight ratio, and was easier to maintain mechanically than the Tiger. So much for Arayan superiority
Of course slow reloading, and the gun performance was less than would be expected of a weapon of that caliber, but it makes less difference when you outnumber the enemy, are faster and more maneuverable, and have better armor.
Similar thing happens in forums for simulation games like IL-2. People in there constanly are making posts with titles like "why does the 109 suck so bad! It was the best fighter of teh war!#@?"
Or those that thought just because the P-51 was good at 25,000 feet than in game it needed to also outperform all other aircraft on the deck, or that it's 6 .50s should kill tanks and saw ships in half

comparing a 1942 tank (Tiger) to a 1944 tank (the JS-2) is hardly a fair comparison. let's put the JS-2 up against a KoenigsTiger or Jagdpanther and see what we get, eh?

 

[kfnguy2]

I knew this would happen when I found out the Tiger was coming to RO. I have seen similar posts on the Steam forums: "OMG the Tiger sucks!!!" Welcome to real world performance.


The reason that the Tiger's turret is so slow is because it had to be manually hand-cranked most of the time.

There was a motor provided, but unless the tank's main engine was running at high RPM, it didn't have the power to move the thing adequately. I remember reading somewhere the gunner had to rotate the handwheel something like 400 revolutions to swing the turret through 360 degrees.



This is why I love ROOST so much. Even though the armored portion of the game still has room for improvement, it is the only game I know of (other than Combat Mission:Barbarossa to Berlin) that actually lets a player get a feeling for how vulnerable a lot of the German AFVs were, instead of making them into these God-like, invincible machines.


The IS-2 on the other hand, has more armor, with far better sloping, rounded turret with next to no shot traps, faster turret traverse, lower silouhette, less ground pressure, higher power to weight ratio, and was easier to maintain mechanically than the Tiger. So much for Arayan superiority

Of course slow reloading, and the gun performance was less than would be expected of a weapon of that caliber, but it makes less difference when you outnumber the enemy, are faster and more maneuverable, and have better armor.



Similar thing happens in forums for simulation games like IL-2. People in there constanly are making posts with titles like "why does the 109 suck so bad! It was the best fighter of teh war!#@?"

Or those that thought just because the P-51 was good at 25,000 feet than in game it needed to also outperform all other aircraft on the deck, or that it's 6 .50s should kill tanks and saw ships in half

Nice post. I completely agree with you.

And to the guy who says people from the west are ignorant to WW2... That just an ignorant statement as well. I for one am from the US... As are a lot of WW2 intelligent people here... So please... Refrain from the generalizing. Thanks.

 

[Graf]

The reason that the Tiger's turret is so slow is because it had to be manually hand-cranked most of the time.

This was what I was wanting to know. Thanks. I knew the PzIVJ was handcranked but wasn't sure about the Tiger.


You guys crack me up. Think I'm bitchin' about the Tiger model...


1. I never use anything German, only for testing.


2. Just asking if its historical and why. Turret is handcranked, there ya go.


3. I know more about Soviet tank tech in WW2 more than American, and I am an American. Don't generalize.


Thanks for answering the subject Jack, all I needed to know.

 

[D.a.L-UnteroffizierG]

Feel sorry for the poor SOB in that Tiger.

lets meet on arad... ill tear you apart with my tiger.....

 

[Rameusb5]

To be 100% realistic, the Tiger (and some of the other tanks) should have variable turret speeds.

With the engine OFF (IE nobody in position 1), the Tiger's turret had to be manually traversed, which took somewhere between 1.5 and 2 minutes to rotate entirely through 360^.

With the engine ON, the rotation time was based on the engine RPM at the time. At low revs (engine idle), the turret rotation time (to go 360^) was about 1 minute. At max revs, the turret rotation time was about 18 seconds.

So if the devs want to spend a ton of time adding the code that would support this, more power to them. But the ugly truth is that most players are going to have difficulties using the "Max Revs" turret traverse times because I'm not sure if "neutral" is modelled in the game currently.

As far as I'm concerned, they got it pretty close. You can always download the "offline" version of WWIIOL and compare the turret rotation times there (though they don't have any late war or Russian tanks).

 

[Gunslinger]

I knew this would happen when I found out the Tiger was coming to RO. I have seen similar posts on the Steam forums: "OMG the Tiger sucks!!!" Welcome to real world performance.


The reason that the Tiger's turret is so slow is because it had to be manually hand-cranked most of the time.

There was a motor provided, but unless the tank's main engine was running at high RPM, it didn't have the power to move the thing adequately. I remember reading somewhere the gunner had to rotate the handwheel something like 400 revolutions to swing the turret through 360 degrees.



This is why I love ROOST so much. Even though the armored portion of the game still has room for improvement, it is the only game I know of (other than Combat Mission:Barbarossa to Berlin) that actually lets a player get a feeling for how vulnerable a lot of the German AFVs were, instead of making them into these God-like, invincible machines.


The IS-2 on the other hand, has more armor, with far better sloping, rounded turret with next to no shot traps, faster turret traverse, lower silouhette, less ground pressure, higher power to weight ratio, and was easier to maintain mechanically than the Tiger. So much for Arayan superiority

Of course slow reloading, and the gun performance was less than would be expected of a weapon of that caliber, but it makes less difference when you outnumber the enemy, are faster and more maneuverable, and have better armor.



Similar thing happens in forums for simulation games like IL-2. People in there constanly are making posts with titles like "why does the 109 suck so bad! It was the best fighter of teh war!#@?"

Or those that thought just because the P-51 was good at 25,000 feet than in game it needed to also outperform all other aircraft on the deck, or that it's 6 .50s should kill tanks and saw ships in half

Who can argue with such knowledge. I will argue with you about an 88 shell bouncing repeatedly off of a t34's armor. I dont give a rats ass what angle the t34 is at either. 1500 meters and under and the t34 is a flaming pile of ****.

 

[SenorDingDong]

The fact is the Tigers cannon is way underpowered, and tanks need to be more evenly matched.

on Konigs Platz, should be a King Tiger for the Germans, not tiger.

Also,

where is the Panzer 4 H? For late war battles, this is a must.

Where is the Jagdpanzers and Hagdpanthers, etc.

A lot of tanks need to be added to even the tank battle out a bit, right now its too one sided for the Russians.

 

[wokelly]

The fact is the Tigers cannon is way underpowered, and tanks need to be more evenly matched.

on Konigs Platz, should be a King Tiger for the Germans, not tiger.

Also,

where is the Panzer 4 H? For late war battles, this is a must.

Where is the Jagdpanzers and Hagdpanthers, etc.

A lot of tanks need to be added to even the tank battle out a bit, right now its too one sided for the Russians.

King tigers were pretty rare in terms of tanks, but I agree, at least one on those late war maps are needed.

Pz4 serier never really got any better from G-J. Slightly better gun and side skirts are the extent of the modifications really, and ingame gun power doesnt seem to be important considering the rage these tank battles occur at.

 

[Black_Pegasus]

My only question is, are the German tanks on the Roost 44-45 maps top of the range for this period? If so no wonder they took such a whooping, only the Panther is really holding its own ;-\

 

[Feuerstrahl]

Although I am German, I admit the German tanks suffered from quality and quantity the whole war. Poorly researched boks like "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" add to the idea that Germany had fleets of heavy tanks. The tiger was a great 1942 tank and could fight the T-34 and KV-1 evenly. But the lack of sloped armor made the design almost a step back, and so more metal and weight had to be used for less armor. In my opinion, the American experience on the Western Front seems to cause the idea that the Tiger is invincible, as many people have said. If I was in a Sherman, Stuart, or Lee I would think the Tiger is invincible too!

With the right crew, the Tiger was a very powerful tank. It is like a musical instrument: the sound that comes out is only as good the musician.

I do agree for K

 

[SenorDingDong]

Germany and Russia by far had the best tanks of the war.

Germany didnt suffer from Quality only Quantity.

German Tanks Needed to even the playing field:

And if you wanna add in some rarer tanks.

 

[Ghad]

So please... Refrain from the generalizing. Thanks.

Noted, good man, I could have been more precise.


On another note: One must wonder what would have happened if Germany had focused on mass producing panthers and stugs instead of wasting so much resources on the tiger that really was an inferior design in several ways.

This would have given the germans an advantage in quantity, and it would have made the logistics of spare parts easier.