Red Orchestra's Tiger x real life Tiger
- Thread starter CaptRio
- Start date
1) You can't penetrate the Tiger ingame frontally with 76.2mm.
2) If you hit a T34 frontally (and an IS-II) with the 88mm Gun of the Tiger you'll destroy the Engine and/or the Ammo Magazine, with one Shot.
If the T34 is angled 30
2) If you hit a T34 frontally (and an IS-II) with the 88mm Gun of the Tiger you'll destroy the Engine and/or the Ammo Magazine, with one Shot.
If the T34 is angled 30
Upvote
0
The Tiger in the game really needs to be toughened up and the Turret speed improved. It is kinda wimpy. 
All the heavy tanks, German and Russian, could use a reloading time improvement.
All the heavy tanks, German and Russian, could use a reloading time improvement.
Upvote
0
Mike_Nomad said:
actualy turret speed is realistic.
the tiger was made for long range ingagements, so you wouldnt need to turn the turret quickly.
Upvote
0
this has been gone over a billion times. in theory, I agree with the OP. I think the patch did address alot of the shortcomings. to fix it any further, we'd need more realistic (crappy) optics for the russians and longer engagement distances.
Upvote
0
The_Countess said:
The Tiger turret speed is based on whether the engine is running or not, When the engine is running if its RPMs are increased so does the turret speed. To be truly realistic, the engine would need to both be running and the throttle adjustable. All I asked for was an increase in the turret speed, comparable to the Panther.
Upvote
0
The Tiger is not realistic. But the same goes on for many other tanks aswell. Yes, the R/L Tiger would be better in combat than the ingame Tiger. However, if you learn to master the Tiger, it's a real beast. Not quite as good as the Panther, but still a very good tank, superior to the T34/85 if you know how to use it.
The patch has improved the situation a lot and now its not nearly as annoying as before. It still feels that there is the odd cumulative damage system in there, but 1 shot 1 kill's are more common now, as they should be. Anyways I hope it will continue to improve. I hope the devs will implement more and more critical hit locations, so that eventually the cumulative damage system has less and less influence and maybe it can be removed one day.
The patch has improved the situation a lot and now its not nearly as annoying as before. It still feels that there is the odd cumulative damage system in there, but 1 shot 1 kill's are more common now, as they should be. Anyways I hope it will continue to improve. I hope the devs will implement more and more critical hit locations, so that eventually the cumulative damage system has less and less influence and maybe it can be removed one day.
Upvote
0
But is there at least one map where you have to fight against a T 34/76 in aTiger I? Everything i see are T 34/85s and IS2s.
And yeah, inb those days German steel was one of the best kinds of steel, not like the russian. So you can't compare 100mm Kruppstahl with 100mm "mass production steel".
And the "front penetration" on russian tanks only happens, if you hit the drivers hatch.
btW. Did the T 34/85 have more armor then the T 34/76? I thought it was a T 34/76 chassie with a new, round turret and it's 85mm cannon.
And don't forget! A Tiger was able to destroy a T 34 even at a distance of 1,400 meters, a T 34/85 at quite close 500 metres. But this realistic ranges are very hard to get in game because the map sizes are often to small and the fog often takes the view for the required 1,400 meters. So, in the ingame fire ranges, the T 34 has really good chances and the Tiger never gets chances like he had in history.
And yeah, inb those days German steel was one of the best kinds of steel, not like the russian. So you can't compare 100mm Kruppstahl with 100mm "mass production steel".
And the "front penetration" on russian tanks only happens, if you hit the drivers hatch.
btW. Did the T 34/85 have more armor then the T 34/76? I thought it was a T 34/76 chassie with a new, round turret and it's 85mm cannon.
And don't forget! A Tiger was able to destroy a T 34 even at a distance of 1,400 meters, a T 34/85 at quite close 500 metres. But this realistic ranges are very hard to get in game because the map sizes are often to small and the fog often takes the view for the required 1,400 meters. So, in the ingame fire ranges, the T 34 has really good chances and the Tiger never gets chances like he had in history.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Not to be too cynical here, but this has already been mentioned in a TON of other threads.
The truth of the matter is that (IMHO) the Tiger is modelled FINE. What is making the Tiger seem anemic is that it is being played on maps that are late war only. By 1944/45, the Tiger was already 2 years old, and not the invulnerable monstrocity that it was earlier in the war. This fact, combined with the fact that most people's concept of the Tiger's reputation is based on the WESTERN front accounts, where it's primary opponent was the M4A3 Sherman, makes it seem a lot less "good" than most people THINK it should be.
There is only one map where the Tiger faces the T34/76, and that's Ogledow (sp). The Russians have (I believe) 1 T34/76, and the Germans have 2 Tigers.
The devs (or guys who make the custom maps) need to release a few TANK maps set in the Late '42 - Early '44 timeframe. Ideally, I'd like to see a map where it's COMBINED ARMS but the tanks themselves are limited (Like if they die, they don't come back). This would make the Tiger the behemoth everyone wants it to be while at the same time not allowing it to completely overpower these maps.
The truth of the matter is that (IMHO) the Tiger is modelled FINE. What is making the Tiger seem anemic is that it is being played on maps that are late war only. By 1944/45, the Tiger was already 2 years old, and not the invulnerable monstrocity that it was earlier in the war. This fact, combined with the fact that most people's concept of the Tiger's reputation is based on the WESTERN front accounts, where it's primary opponent was the M4A3 Sherman, makes it seem a lot less "good" than most people THINK it should be.
There is only one map where the Tiger faces the T34/76, and that's Ogledow (sp). The Russians have (I believe) 1 T34/76, and the Germans have 2 Tigers.
The devs (or guys who make the custom maps) need to release a few TANK maps set in the Late '42 - Early '44 timeframe. Ideally, I'd like to see a map where it's COMBINED ARMS but the tanks themselves are limited (Like if they die, they don't come back). This would make the Tiger the behemoth everyone wants it to be while at the same time not allowing it to completely overpower these maps.
Upvote
0
![[TW]Wilsonam](/data/avatars/s/0/10.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
This bit about German steel vs. Soviet steel is only partially true... The quality of the German steel was high at the beginning of the war, where the Soviet was unpredictable - some good, some bad. Later in the war, 1994 on, as the Germans ran short of the important trace metals for making high quality hardened steel alloys, their armour quality deteriorated. There was also a patch in 1944 when Panther armour suddenly dropped markedly for a time. In these cases, the armour suddenly became prone to shattering - not a good thing.
The germans also toyed with various face-hardening techniques, some of which turned out to make the armour too brittle under combat conditions.
Yes, as stated (once or twice) before - reload times and turret rotation speeds are averaged. Turrets on electrical drives, such as the Tiger's, depend directly on the engine revs - but you also run the risk of burning out the clutches or oeverheating the engine if you are inexperienced. Reload times will get cleverer when we implement ready-racks - but, of course, we'll then get people moaning about how slow the reload is when they forget to restock the ready-rack!
For the record, the Tiger's armour (at 100mm) doesn't overmatch an 85mm round enough to cause any issues for the round; it does for the 76mm. See the Tiger vs. T-34 76 in maps to come!
Likewise, it is incorrect to assume that armour slope makes no difference - it makes a vast difference in how the energy from an incoming round is applied. When the angle becomes steep enough, the kinetic energy is suddenly applied to a far larger area and fails to cause the requisite super-heating of the armour at the contact point - and fails to penetrate. Doesn't matter how much the round over-matches the armour at that point, unless the armour is poor quality enough to shatter.
Back to the original ref material: we use modern (post-war) research from various British, American and Soviet sources on how penetration occurs. One of the things this tends to show is that the "T/d" ratio is something of a fallacy - what matters is the energy the round is carrying and whether or not it can be applied on a sufficiently small area. Steeply angled armour immediately spreads the impact. This is also why the modern trend is to create LONGER penetrators, not BROADER More energy applied, over the same surface area.
EDIT: Yes, the Tiger was becoming obsolete on the Eastern Front from 1944 on. It was helped by the poor quality/training of many Soviet crews and the experience of the Tiger crews. Its reputation is best known from US/British opponents who only had 76mm guns (on the whole) and had a torrid time dealing with Tigers. Also, there are NO maps from us showing the Tiger in its 1942/43 heyday!
The germans also toyed with various face-hardening techniques, some of which turned out to make the armour too brittle under combat conditions.
Yes, as stated (once or twice) before - reload times and turret rotation speeds are averaged. Turrets on electrical drives, such as the Tiger's, depend directly on the engine revs - but you also run the risk of burning out the clutches or oeverheating the engine if you are inexperienced. Reload times will get cleverer when we implement ready-racks - but, of course, we'll then get people moaning about how slow the reload is when they forget to restock the ready-rack!
For the record, the Tiger's armour (at 100mm) doesn't overmatch an 85mm round enough to cause any issues for the round; it does for the 76mm. See the Tiger vs. T-34 76 in maps to come!
Likewise, it is incorrect to assume that armour slope makes no difference - it makes a vast difference in how the energy from an incoming round is applied. When the angle becomes steep enough, the kinetic energy is suddenly applied to a far larger area and fails to cause the requisite super-heating of the armour at the contact point - and fails to penetrate. Doesn't matter how much the round over-matches the armour at that point, unless the armour is poor quality enough to shatter.
Back to the original ref material: we use modern (post-war) research from various British, American and Soviet sources on how penetration occurs. One of the things this tends to show is that the "T/d" ratio is something of a fallacy - what matters is the energy the round is carrying and whether or not it can be applied on a sufficiently small area. Steeply angled armour immediately spreads the impact. This is also why the modern trend is to create LONGER penetrators, not BROADER
More energy applied, over the same surface area.EDIT: Yes, the Tiger was becoming obsolete on the Eastern Front from 1944 on. It was helped by the poor quality/training of many Soviet crews and the experience of the Tiger crews. Its reputation is best known from US/British opponents who only had 76mm guns (on the whole) and had a torrid time dealing with Tigers. Also, there are NO maps from us showing the Tiger in its 1942/43 heyday!
Upvote
0
Whether they are right or wrong about the Tiger in RO (and I am not saying either way), there are always going to be players who think the Tiger was the Uber-Panzer and isn't strong enough. The fact is production stopped in 1944 because it was becoming obsolete and needed to be replaced by the King Tiger.
Upvote
0
the Tiger had a fearsome rep on the eastern front as well. I suggest those in doubt read Otto Carius' book. read & learn, I always say.
Upvote
0
The way you guys say, it seems that the Tiger on the eastern front had to rely only on its troops experience and training. And that it was completely obsolete.
Geez...
Geez...
Upvote
0
CaptRio said:
Ah, don't let it bother you, it's just the un-informed, that's all. heck, perhaps they will learn a thing or 2 here if they pay enough attention.
Upvote
0
Heinz said:Ah, don't let it bother you, it's just the un-informed, that's all. heck, perhaps they will learn a thing or 2 here if they pay enough attention.
Want to say the IS-II shouldn't be able to penetrate the Tiger ? Or the T34/85 ? Or what is you point ?
Its not like the Tiger is the worst Tank in Ostfront, actually imho its currently the strongest.
Upvote
0