The people's tank

  • 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/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

The people's tank


  • Total voters
    244
Status
Not open for further replies.

Quietus

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 25, 2005
1,945
0
0
California
I think there's some confusion. The SU-122 and SU-152 are not the same as the ISU-122 and ISU-152. ISU's came later and had different hulls and main gun (except the ISU-152 had the same gun as the SU-152).
 

Saturnalia

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 4, 2006
98
0
0
80mm sides and rear !

Im pretty sure most Russian tanks should have no problem with this.

Its pretty much like the IS-2 since no German tank in game could kill it except at close range from the front (Tiger I Panther G) but its flanks and rear were vulnerable (90mm). Use the speed of your T-34's to flank and kill the Tiger II.

Adding early tanks at this point is not a good move since there are no early war tank maps save 1, the one with the windmills but we do however have many 1944-1945 maps that could use the Tiger II or other late war designs. The most obvious map that requires a Tiger II at the moment is RO-Konigsplatz.

Also note armor quality factors heavily into this, as this link shows. Link features a King Tiger having the crap blasted out of it in tests, which should cheer Soviet fans up a bit.
 
Last edited:

Rss

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 16, 2006
428
1
0
33
Suomen Kansanvaltainen Tasavalta
Read the books about the russian - finnish war and atleast there is seems like they didnt have much of a problem destroying them.
Easy to take em out due to its design (and perhaps the drivers) as in Molotows, At-guns and even Smgs.

Haha, where did you get that from, Korkkaris?

Finns had very few AT-assets which could knock it out, 37 mm PAK was practically useless.
 

Solo4114

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 12, 2006
1,608
38
0
Good point! But i would not compare the Tiger and Tiger II with Panzer IV F2/G and Panzer IV H, theres huge differences. The Tiger II is near in evry way superior to the Tiger, except that he was even more underpowered and had problems with his running gear.

What I'm getting at here is two things. First, the gameplay itself wouldn't change. Instead of having a heavily armored, heavily gunned beast, you'd have an even more heavily armored, even more heavily gunned beast. And it'd still end up being used the same way (and would likely suffer from the same complaints).

My second point in terms of the Pz IV F2/G to Pz IV H upgrade is that people sat around and begged, whined, complained, cajoled, argued, etc. to get the Pz IV H and then they got it. And did it really drastically change gameplay? Not from what I can see. It's not like it's all THAT much more survivable than the Pz IV F2s from before, nor is it all THAT much more powerful. And yet, there was tons of clamor for it. The only reason I can see for that is peopel who wanted a more historically accurate tank in terms of availability. But from a gameplay perspective, nothing really changed when the H was added.

I really doubt much would change from a gameplay perspective if the Tiger II was added. Are there numerical differences and performance differences? Sure. Just like there are with the F2/G and the H. But the player's actual experience of those differences will be, I suspect, only marginally improved. Maybe in terms of comparing the Tiger I to the Tiger II, but how different will the Tiger II be from driving the Panther's current implementation? Not much, I'm betting.


It's like people who get all excited about fps numbers. "Dood! MY card can get 200fps!!" "Oh yeah? Well, MY card can get 250!!" Big deal. It's not like your eyes can tell the difference between 200 and 250. Any difference is purely psychological, much the same way it'd be for the addition of the Tiger II. Geeking out over the numerical differences is kind of silly to me when the experience of the average player driving the thing won't be all that different.
 

jedinstven-o crni Wuk

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 3, 2006
937
0
0
germany
The Tiger II would change drasticaly gameplay. It is of course my opinion, but i try to think about the way how players already use Panther and IS2 (which are without any doubts the best tanks in game).

And i see way to often that skilled people "misuse" the IS2 as a driving unrealistic fortress no one can penetrate.

Barashka
Arad
and best example
Ogledow

From al this maps so far i know Barashka and Ogledow would be the only one featuring the Tiger II. I can see already now, the Tiger II camping on the farm or the hill in Ogledow, shoting one soviet tank down after another, without any real chance to "flank" the tank, the current official tank maps, are just way to small for real tank tactics and use. We should not forget that the Tiger II had way more armor and a incredible powerfull gun, compared to his enemies, like the IS2. The soviet tanks could penetrate the Tigers II rear, true. But it is one thing if i "can" penetrate it or if i get in game really the chance to do it, and as long we do not have options like shattering of armor that can harm the crew or week points like turret mantlets, optics and even a possibilty to break the engine or at least some realistic tank maps, the Tiger II is going to be one more unrealistic overpowered beast even more worst than the IS2 already is!

The panzer IV H is not a great change to the game, that is true, but it was more from a "feel" in the game if anything, to at least see the most common german tank in game, even when it is still a bit underguned (still way to often richochets from the T34/85 armor). But this is already a known issue that armor calculation works in game sometimes strange, exspecialy on close "point blank" distance.
 

Welt

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 12, 2006
324
17
0
Finland
The Tiger II would change drasticaly gameplay.

IMO it wouldnt. As the tests at Kubinka show, it should be possible to penetrate Tiger II with IS-2's 122m cannon. And that is because the quality of armor decreased drastically towards the end of the war.

So, it would be a slower but more armored compared to IS-2. And if the armor quality would be taken into consideration when implementing the Tiger II, think of the whining when the tank isn't the "Holy Grail" some people are waiting for.
 

jedinstven-o crni Wuk

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 3, 2006
937
0
0
germany
IMO it wouldnt. As the tests at Kubinka show, it should be possible to penetrate Tiger II with IS-2's 122m cannon. And that is because the quality of armor decreased drastically towards the end of the war.

So, it would be a slower but more armored compared to IS-2. And if the armor quality would be taken into consideration when implementing the Tiger II, think of the whining when the tank isn't the "Holy Grail" some people are waiting for.

yes ... and from other sources i can read the Tiger and Ppanther should penetrate the IS2 in any angle at least below 400-500m (the Tiger even on longer distance) ... but it in game they do not. Just angle the soviet beast ... and you have to worry about near anything.

I dont say the Tiger II is a holy grail, just assuming how the TIger II would work bassed on the fact how the curent tanks we have in game already work. And sadly i think, the Tiger II would be in no way near to his realistic use.

And i realy do not know, how to model quality of armor, im sure it is possible, but i think it would need some work (non the less i would love such a feature). But it is another question, what quality the armor of the Tiger II realy was, as it is today hard to have some 100% accurate sources. There might be sources that will explain the Tigers II armor as one of the best, while another sources talk about how ineffective it was. The truth is maybe different. As said earlier, history is not a science like math, where a proof is a 100% accurate statement. Maybe the IS2 can penetrate the tigers II front armor, but from what distance? What angle? Which direction? What amunition? I have read somwhere that 70% of the amunition the IS2 used in battle has been HE shells, and even that, might be wrong, cause the source could be wrong (german tank book cant rember anymore). I wuld be very interested under what kind of scenario the tests in kubinka have been done. The worst case conditions? Or best or average?

All im saying is, that before anyone "cries" for new toys like the Tiger II, he should try to take a look on tanks we already have and how players use them. It starts to get sometimes realy ridiuclous and strange. Like chains that have richochets ... just as small example.
 
Last edited:

18Bravo

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 31, 2006
525
1
0
Tennessee, USA
Puma was the armored car with the 5cm gun right? In the only other game I've played with that in, being forgotten hope, that thing could outrun a clown car, and turn better than one too. 8 wheels and you turn in one direction, you have four turning your way, and the other four turrning the other.
 

Recce

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 31, 2006
605
0
0
I have read somwhere that 70% of the amunition the IS2 used in battle has been HE shells, and even that, might be wrong, cause the source could be wrong (german tank book cant rember anymore).
You can find the same quote at the Russian Battlefield web site.http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=50
The high HE to AP load is a reflection of it's intended purpose / mission; it definately wasn't a tank hunter. But like the Shermans on the Western Front, when they had to, they would go toe-to-toe with tanks. It's just that the JS-2 had a greater chance of surviving.
I wuld be very interested under what kind of scenario the tests in kubinka have been done. The worst case conditions? Or best or average?
I've found two articles on the web about the Kubinka testing. The infamous Russian Battlefield article and one at Achtung Panzer.
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&lang=en&id=282
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/articles/tigertam.htm

The companion RBF web page that covers the battle is here
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&lang=en&id=167

It should be noted that all three of these shared the the Tankomaster magazine as their source.
I'm not sure that I've seen any reports of the front armour of the K
 

Solo4114

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 12, 2006
1,608
38
0
Probably you read it on these boards.

All of this is secondary to my point, though, which is that people will still play the game exactly the same with the King Tiger as they do with the Panther and the Tiger. No tactics will change, and their experience on the battlefield will either be drastically different because they're in an invincible ubertank, or it'll be no different in which case they'll sit around whining about how they should be in an invicible ubertank.

Hence my suggestion to focus on the early part of the war. We actually HAVE maps that could be fun with early war tanks. The ranges we engage at usually are relatively short for later war tanks, but for early war tanks they'd probably be just fine. Plus, people would have to learn whole new sets of tactics like shoot and scoot, using effective ambushes, the value of a low-profile tank, coordinated infantry support, etc. Why? Because you couldn't just drive up somewhere, park, and blast away in an early war tank. Well, you could, but you wouldn't be too effective.
 

RedOctober

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 28, 2006
29
0
0
But looking at the pictures, the thing is really badly shot-up and this must effect the tests, with the accumilated stresses. Looking at crack caused by shot #43, the HE shell, the terminators of the crack are the centers of shots #52 and#59 (or is it #54?). I doubt it would have cracked if the other shots hadn't been there.
It was determined that the pictures were doctored
Well, you could, but you wouldn't be too effective.

Realistically portrayed T-70,T-26,T-28,T-60, or T-40 vs a Panzer III J-N or Panzer IV F not much of a match for the panzers shoting from a hill would be very effective the Panzers would have little trouble. What would be needed for early engagements are the "beasts from the East" the Russian KV tanks.
 
Last edited:

Sichartshofen

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
1,410
99
0
34
What is going to attract people more? The tins cans of 1941 that your average player has no idea existed. Or the infamous Tiger II. Let them think they're in an invincible uber tank, they'll just have to learn the hard way.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the frontal armour of the K
 

dogbadger

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 19, 2006
3,230
553
0
here to kill your monster
The Puma! - yes, grant the Germans some speed. It would be interesting going up against t-60s or BT7's, except it arrived '44 I think a bit late.
Im not that clued up on its usage- will look it up. Similar gun to PIII J/L? Just over 50 mph road speed? I'd love someone to create it for RO
 

Saturnalia

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 4, 2006
98
0
0
It was determined that the pictures were doctored


Realistically portrayed T-70,T-26,T-28,T-60, or T-40 vs a Panzer III J-N or Panzer IV F not much of a match for the panzers shoting from a hill would be very effective the Panzers would have little trouble. What would be needed for early engagements are the "beasts from the East" the Russian KV tanks.

Give the Germans Pz IIIs with 37 mm guns first!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.