One Reason Why Tiger isn't a Favorite

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

akisman

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 6, 2006
16
3
0
Apart from the fact the tiger being underpowered in the 45-or in general as a lot of people proved-it does make sense to have it in Konigsplatz. In the book Berlin the downfall from A. Beevor and from the battlefield documentaries I ve seen, it seems indeed that a few tigers were active in Berlin and in front of the Reichstag and actually tried to spearhead some of the last breakthrough attempts from Berlin in the last days of the war. So if you wanna go realistic the germans should lose every time in this map cause they were just too few-and if you wanna go even more historical correct you shouldnt play as a german at all-mostly the French waffen ss defended these areas.
 

Jack

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 24, 2005
752
0
0
Yes, I agree with the poster concerning Tigers in the Mud

In real life, angling was not done nearly as much as in the game because by angling, you expose your flank armor to potential other enemy tanks.


Angling was used obviously, but the difference between real-life and ROOST is that in ROOST you have to angle sideways, even in tanks with well sloped plate.
 

[Insert name here]

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 14, 2006
32
0
0
malice said:
Like on Arad there are two tigers. If they both drove up to the wall in the spawn and sat in a hull down position there while the panthers and panzer 4 rushed the germans. Two tigers could take out any tank the russians have at any range in this game. If the two worked together they might even be able to destroy the russian tanks before they can see them.

Funny, I was reading this topic and was saying to myself, "when I finish reading all the posts in this topic, I'm gonna tell them about that wall in Arad and how I killed a lot of russians when I used it." :p
 

Nite

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 5, 2006
68
0
0
In real life they didn't worry about angling, They wer more worried about preventing their flanks and rear from being exposed. And besides, the effects weren't as dramatic in real life.
 

toMra

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 14, 2006
3
0
0
White_Wolf said:
A lot of people here want good/reliable information on the Tiger I, so here is some:

Total Tiger Losses (includes ALL Tigers): 1,715
Total Tiger Kills (includes ALL Allies): 9,850

For the entire war the Tiger Tanks managed to achieve a 5 to 1 tank kill/loss ratio. Even though this includes Shermans and other "Tiger fodder" this is still an incredible achievement.

Check the 1st of my sources for far more detailed kill/loss ratios for Tigers.

Sources:
http://www.alanhamby.com/losses.html
http://pedg.org/panzer/public/website/tiger.htm


According to SWINGING THE SLEDGEHAMMER by CHRISTOPHER W. WILBECK, 41 % of the tiger was destroyed by it's own crew. So the kill ratio is closer to 10/1.
 

Heinz

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 29, 2005
1,804
0
0
New York, USA
White_Wolf said:
I've read quite a few books about Tiger tank commanders and even the book written by Otto Carius (Tigers in the Mud). He has one of the highest body counts (in regards to tanks) of all Tiger tank commanders and I do not recall hearing anything about angling the tank in his book. I could be wrong but I am quite certain that he always had his tank face the enemy straight on. He has at least 150 tank kills in Tiger tanks and he survived the war so clearly he was doing something right (although this might have been kncoking out tanks from 2000m). I'll read the book again, but I am fairly positive he never angled his tank.

I am reading that book right now, for the second time. if you take him at his word, the Tiger in RO:O does seem "off".

However, RO:O has no practical way to effectuate the weaknesses of the pre-1944 russian armor. these weaknesses were small crews, poor optics, and the almost-always practice of completely buttoning up the tank before getting into the action. throw a little "no radio" seasoning into the mix, and you have crap armor that could only throw numbers at the tactically superior Wehrmact armor.

contrarily, German armor crews were the best in the world, were 5-man crews, and their optics were world-class as well.

as for angling, no, it was not done. it's a "game" feature only. :)
 

Phoenix-D

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 28, 2006
706
0
0
The optics would be easy enough to simulate. It'd kind of piss people off though. :p

Stick the Tiger against the early mark T-34s and KV-1s and I think most of the problems would go away. Fixing the tank damage system would do the rest; the gradual damage is a good idea in principle but its either buggy or not implimented very well.
 

kfnguy2

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 11, 2005
176
0
0
Heinz said:
I am reading that book right now, for the second time. if you take him at his word, the Tiger in RO:O does seem "off".

However, RO:O has no practical way to effectuate the weaknesses of the pre-1944 russian armor. these weaknesses were small crews, poor optics, and the almost-always practice of completely buttoning up the tank before getting into the action. throw a little "no radio" seasoning into the mix, and you have crap armor that could only throw numbers at the tactically superior Wehrmact armor.

contrarily, German armor crews were the best in the world, were 5-man crews, and their optics were world-class as well.

as for angling, no, it was not done. it's a "game" feature only. :)
He's pretty much got it. The Devs have all the real world data for armor and whatnot implemented in the game. This is pretty much simulating what it was really like, apart from the tank damage model. You can't put history accounts or any other biased information into a game as it's not objective data. Instead, they got the actual facts of the armor and cannons etc and this is what would really happen - Apart from the IS2 and Tiger's cannon seemingly a bit weak compared to the others. But I highly doubt the Tigers armor is misrepresented in the game as the tanks it is facing so far really could do that to tigers.

On Ogledow there are 2 t34/76's and i have shot all of its rounds into a panther and not one pierced. Imagine the Tiger doing the exact same. But again, it was a much better tank earlier on in the war when it didn't have any competition but still a great tank nonetheless.
 

[RWTD]Ghost[BCthc]

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 23, 2006
167
0
0
Shots bouncing to much, major problem. Just because the tiger doesnt have "sloped" armor means it takes damage much easier then say a T34, even though IRL the tigers armor, while not sloped, was crafted from very high quality metals, making it extreamly strong. I hope they take the time to take the whole armor system apart and build it up into a sim quality aspect, like the infantry combat.
 

kfnguy2

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 11, 2005
176
0
0
[RWTD]Ghost[BCthc] said:
Shots bouncing to much, major problem. Just because the tiger doesnt have "sloped" armor means it takes damage much easier then say a T34, even though IRL the tigers armor, while not sloped, was crafted from very high quality metals, making it extreamly strong. I hope they take the time to take the whole armor system apart and build it up into a sim quality aspect, like the infantry combat.
From my understanding, they did take that into account. Currently, after much testing, the Tiger appears to be the 3rd hardest tank to penetrate frontally. Behind the IS2 and the Panther anyway. I don't know how much testing you have done, but the Tiger, in my experience, is much harder to penetrate than the T34/85.
 

[RWTD]Ghost[BCthc]

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 23, 2006
167
0
0
Its doesnt bother me that the tiger can be taken out by the T-35/85 or JS2 tanks, as they could do that IRL. What bothers me is watching the tigers 88 bouncing off a t34 at - 200 meters. It just didnt happen. Or even a better example, watching shots bounce off the SU76, with its what... 36mm or so of frontal armor?
 
Last edited:

kfnguy2

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 11, 2005
176
0
0
[RWTD]Ghost[BCthc] said:
Its doesnt bother me that the tiger can be taken out by the T-35/85 or JS2 tanks, as they could do that IRL. What bothers me is watching the tigers 88 bouncing off a t34 at - 200 meters. It just didnt happen. Or even a better example, wathcing shots bounce off the SU76, with its what... 36mm or so of frontal armor?
Right I agree but let's not just focus on the tiger. The IS-2 is in the SAME position as they both had VERY similar AP ability.
 
Last edited:

karl stiner

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 18, 2006
1,205
8
0
51
Ireland
only the back of a tiger is weak

only the back of a tiger is weak

The famous German Tiger tank was, like the Panther, a response to the great Soviet T43 tank. The Tiger was very heavily armored and was equipped with a powerful 88mm main gun. The difference between an American 75mm gun and a German 88mm gun may not sound like much, but in terms of weight and effectiveness of shell it was enormous. This powerful weapon was augmented by a hull mounted machine gun.
This high velocity cannon was the most powerful main gun carried by any tank during WW II. It could destroy all Allied tanks at long range. Even the very heavy Soviet Stalin tank could be penetrated at 1,500 meters, and most Allied tanks could be knocked out at 3000 meters.
The Tiger's vertical 100mm (4") frontal armor made it nearly impervious to fire from the 75mm guns of Allied Sherman tanks and early Soviet T34/76 tanks. Sloped armor would have given the Tiger an even greater immune zone, but Hitler did not want the Tiger to reflect Russian T-34 design influences. In any event, the Tiger was only vulnerable if one of the smaller Allied tanks could get in a killing shot from behind, where its armor was thinner.
On the other hand, the Tiger's heavy armor and big gun made it so heavy (55 tons) that it sometimes bogged down on muddy or soft ground. Its great weight also prevented it from crossing lightly built bridges. In addition, the Tiger was not very reliable. It was plagued by engine overheating and suspension problems.
The Tiger was relatively slow, with a top speed of about 23 mph, and it was a fuel guzzler. Its maneuverability was also poor. It was even slow to train its turret. The latter took almost 2 minutes to traverse through 360 degrees under power, or about three minutes to train manually.
A Tiger cost about three times as much to produce as a Panzer Mk. IV, so Tigers were never built in the numbers required to win the war on the ground. Total Tiger production amounted to some 1350 tanks. Perhaps the most formidable tank of the war in one on one tank combat, the Tiger was not the best all-around tank in the German inventory. Its lighter, faster, more numerous and more reliable running mate, the Panther, held that honor.:D:D
 

toMra

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 14, 2006
3
0
0
karl stiner said:
The famous German Tiger tank was, like the Panther, a response to the great Soviet T43 tank. The Tiger was very heavily armored and was equipped with a powerful 88mm main gun. The difference between an American 75mm gun and a German 88mm gun may not sound like much, but in terms of weight and effectiveness of shell it was enormous. This powerful weapon was augmented by a hull mounted machine gun.
This high velocity cannon was the most powerful main gun carried by any tank during WW II. It could destroy all Allied tanks at long range. Even the very heavy Soviet Stalin tank could be penetrated at 1,500 meters, and most Allied tanks could be knocked out at 3000 meters.
The Tiger's vertical 100mm (4") frontal armor made it nearly impervious to fire from the 75mm guns of Allied Sherman tanks and early Soviet T34/76 tanks. Sloped armor would have given the Tiger an even greater immune zone, but Hitler did not want the Tiger to reflect Russian T-34 design influences. In any event, the Tiger was only vulnerable if one of the smaller Allied tanks could get in a killing shot from behind, where its armor was thinner.
On the other hand, the Tiger's heavy armor and big gun made it so heavy (55 tons) that it sometimes bogged down on muddy or soft ground. Its great weight also prevented it from crossing lightly built bridges. In addition, the Tiger was not very reliable. It was plagued by engine overheating and suspension problems.
The Tiger was relatively slow, with a top speed of about 23 mph, and it was a fuel guzzler. Its maneuverability was also poor. It was even slow to train its turret. The latter took almost 2 minutes to traverse through 360 degrees under power, or about three minutes to train manually.
A Tiger cost about three times as much to produce as a Panzer Mk. IV, so Tigers were never built in the numbers required to win the war on the ground. Total Tiger production amounted to some 1350 tanks. Perhaps the most formidable tank of the war in one on one tank combat, the Tiger was not the best all-around tank in the German inventory. Its lighter, faster, more numerous and more reliable running mate, the Panther, held that honor.:D:D



1. The Tiger I was not a direct response to the t-34 . The order to develop a new heavy tank came in may 1941, before operation Barbarossa.

2. The 88mm KwK 36 L/56 gun was a very powerful gun indeed, but the 75mm KwK 42 L/70 had better armor penetrating capabilites. The most powerful tankgun in the war was mounted on the Tiger I's bigbrother K
 

kabex

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 27, 2006
820
0
0
Mexico
toMra said:
1. The Tiger I was not a direct response to the t-34 . The order to develop a new heavy tank came in may 1941, before operation Barbarossa.

2. The 88mm KwK 36 L/56 gun was a very powerful gun indeed, but the 75mm KwK 42 L/70 had better armor penetrating capabilites. The most powerful tankgun in the war was mounted on the Tiger I's bigbrother K
 

donkey

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 23, 2006
17
0
0
Brisbane Australia
Obviously excluding the Jadgtiger that saw none/very little combat service and was a tank destroyer ?

The Tiger was developed because the Germans realised the Panzer III's and IV's were becoming obselete. The superior but poorly handled French armour in 1940, especially the Char 1 Bis that made life miserable for Panzer commanders and required 88mm flak to be towed up to deal with it probably had something to do with the Tiger coming about.

The Germans also had a nasty shock at Arras when the Matilda 2's advanced impervious to anti-tank weapons and once again the 88mm Flak had to be employed in a direct fire anti-tank role to stop the advance of a battalion or so of Matildas complete with piss weak 2 pdr guns.

The Germans were also aware of the KV-1 and T-34 prior to crossing the border, but it hadn't really sunk in how much superior a T-34 or KV-1 was to a PIVD or PIIIE/F/G with 37 or 60 L 42 guns.

The Tiger did well early on because at best it was facing low velocity 75mm or 57mm rounds. In the West with the coming of the Firefly and M4A3 76mms and the M10 its best days were behind it, except when used as a pillbox and standing off using the superior optics and range of the 88mm L56. In the east, it was fucked as soon the stalemate was broken and normally in those situations left a long way behind the battle out of fuel and alone.

You wil find the Panther is the response to the T-34 and it wans't a question of sloped armour but almost directly copying the design that offended German national pride.
 
Last edited:

Oberst Freitag

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 19, 2006
329
0
0
hetzer said:
If we are talking accurate then very many of the Kursk Tigers & Panthers should break down before reaching combat! Then we would have to mount recovery with 3 Famo half tracks for each Tiger!!
then most of the russian tankers should randomly miss most of their shots because they couldn't hit ****
 

Oberst Freitag

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 19, 2006
329
0
0
karl stiner said:
The famous German Tiger tank was, like the Panther, a response to the great Soviet T43 tank. The Tiger was very heavily armored and was equipped with a powerful 88mm main gun. The difference between an American 75mm gun and a German 88mm gun may not sound like much, but in terms of weight and effectiveness of shell it was enormous. This powerful weapon was augmented by a hull mounted machine gun.

its more about the amound of propellent used and the caliber of the barrel...the 75mm gun of the panther, with the length of 70 calibers, was much more powerful than the shermanns, 75mm with the length of 40 calibers
 

kfnguy2

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 11, 2005
176
0
0
Yeah you pretty much hit the spot on every point. The 88mm kwk l/71 is probably the best bang for the buck "Cannon" in ww2 for a tank. I would say the T15E1 90 mm could give it a run for its money.