Tiger Tank VS. T-34

  • 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/

Solo4114

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 12, 2006
1,608
38
0
I love how in every thread where people complain about the tank system or mention the AB mutator some just can't help but try to bring it down to a "you're all nazi fanboys" every two to three pages.

The AB mutator does not make Tigers or Panthers indestructable. For example T34 85's can finally take out Panthers frontally on Arad. In either case there are a lot less "wtf?" situations on those few servers running the mutator.

On the AB mutator, I don't think it's one-sided for the Germans at all. I think AB is pretty balanced, actually. There are things that make me go "WTF" in AB when I've played, but it wasn't focused on one side.


As for the bit about german fanboyism, when most threads complaining about the tank system seem to start off with or devolve into "WTF?? My Tiger got killed by a T-34!!!" or "WTF?? My Tiger couldn't kill a T-34!!", it's hard NOT to suspect fanboyism in at least some of the posts. It seems that most complaints come from the German side, usually, or at least that a whole hell of a lot of 'em do. You see FAR less comments like "WTF?? My T-34 was at point blank range and couldn't penetrate the side of a Pz IV!!" or "WTF?? How'd my IS-2 get penetrated by a Pz III???" They show up, but the bulk of "WTF" style comments seem to come from the German side of things.

As I've said, the problems are universal to the tank system, or are problems with the system itself that are more visible in certain matchups than in others. But the problems exist for all tanks. Close range combat is and has been wacky since day 1. Angling is overmodelled on ALL tanks, but particularly visible on the T-34s. Then there's the hull/turret issue, etc., etc., etc.


I think the system's actually pretty neutral in how it's screwed up (most of the time, anyway), but unfortunately that has to often be pointed out to people who only seem to seize upon the Tiger v. T-34-76 matchups and how much more powerful/durable the T-34 is than it should be.

So, when I see a ton of threads about how the Tiger's nerfed, and we need X, Y, and Z new German vehicles, and when's the King Tiger showing up, and on and on, well...yeah, it kinda looks like there's some fanboyism out there (although not everyone who posts in these threads is a fanboy, of course). That also doesn't make what the fanboys say any less true, but it does suggest a lack of perspective and failure to understand the full scope of the problem. But then, they're fanboys, so I wouldn't expect them to consider any perspective but their own.
 

Quietus

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 25, 2005
1,945
0
0
California
Still AB fixes most of the stock tank flaws.
Which is the main point. If people waited until something was "perfect" they would still be waiting. Is stock RO perfect? No, yet people have no problem playing it. Why is a mutator made by one guy held to a higher standard than the stock game? I think some are picking out flaws in the mutator to use as an "excuse" why they don't want to play it. It's ok for people to admit they don't care for realistic tank combat nobodys going to kill them for their preference. Anyway.
 

KrazyKraut

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
1,848
69
0
Beer capital of the world
My T-34 was at point blank range and couldn't penetrate the side of a Pz IV!!" or "WTF?? How'd my IS-2 get penetrated by a Pz III???" They show up, but the bulk of "WTF" style comments seem to come from the German side of things.

Reason being: those happen far less often than the previously mentioned T34 surviving direct Tiger hits. Pz4 currently is a paper tank, all three versions. Shells rarely bounce of. And the Pz3 vs. IS2 problem is well documented on these boards, however these two never meet on any of the stock maps (iirc).

With more than every 2nd Soviet tank being a T34 you're bound to run into more "Tiger/Panther vs. T34"-spoofs than "Pz3 vs. IS2"-spoofs.
Why is a mutator made by one guy held to a higher standard than the stock game? I think some are picking out flaws in the mutator to use as an "excuse" why they don't want to play it.
My thoughts exactly. AB mutator isn't perfect. But it's waaaayyyy better than stock RO armor system.
 

Mike_Nomad

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 15, 2006
5,024
1,037
0
79
Florida, USA
www.raidersmerciless.com
Which is the main point. If people waited until something was "perfect" they would still be waiting. Is stock RO perfect? No, yet people have no problem playing it. Why is a mutator made by one guy held to a higher standard than the stock game? I think some are picking out flaws in the mutator to use as an "excuse" why they don't want to play it. It's ok for people to admit they don't care for realistic tank combat nobodys going to kill them for their preference. Anyway.

Quietus, its simple reasoning...human nature is to resist change for whatever reason. This combined with cheerleading and misguided loyalty leads to the hesitancy. Its no big thing though because as more and more of the popular servers utilize AB Mutator those who are "hesitant" while offering the "when its perfect" excuse will notice their servers or their favorite servers hosting fewer and fewer players. Besides, in the world of software, there is no such thing as perfect. The handwriting is on the wall. AB Mut is the shiznit.

AB Mut is wonderful as helps all the armor not just one side or the other. No need to go into details, its been done so many times before. TWI gave all of us a great game, there is no denying this fact. Now, some of our talented people have graciously stepped up to the plate and did wonders in making the game even better. Three cheers for added gameplay value. That is what entertainment is all about.

As an Admin, the things I must always consider is that which brings players back to the servers again and again. Granted, we all make mistakes, Lord knows I've made some good ones. When it comes to AB Mutator, there is no mistaking the major enhancement the game enjoys from it.
 

Solo4114

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 12, 2006
1,608
38
0
KrazyKraut,

Two things. 1.) T-34/76 and Tiger never meet on any stock RO map either. 2.) My issue is less with the fact that people complain about the matchup in general, but usually that it's people complaining that THEIR Tiger/Panther did X, Y, or Z. When you see people repeatedly posting about how their [insert German tank here] got pwned/couldn't pwn, it casts the issue in a particular light.

As I said, though, that's not to say they're wrong. The T-34/76 v. Tiger matchup IS borked in some significant ways. But it's the fact that you almost never see people complaining about the Russian side, when the problems are in fact universal. Personally, I've had some WEIRD stuff happen playing as a Russian tanker. The point blank thing has been an issue for me, as well as having shot 0 degree rounds into the turret of a Panther (in stock RO) and had it done nothing because the hull was angled. I've also never had any of the problems people describe as a Tiger driver. That's not to say it doesn't happen, though.

I just find it interesting that people ONLY seem to complain about stuff when it's the Germans not performing well. To me, that suggests a bias in their point of view.


Mike,

Your point about servers adopting it is EXACTLY why I think AB should remain a mutator -- there's choice involved, rather than a top-down "YOU WILL PLAY THE GAME THIS WAY" decision from Tripwire. If people want to say "Well, it ain't perfect, but I like it a hell of a lot better than stock RO", go for it! I support them wholeheartedly. Likewise, if they say "Eh, it just isn't ready for prime time yet", that should be their decision.

Now, if adding AB to the stock game meant including a little check box where "Armored Beast Features" are turned on or off, and servers can choose to do one or the other, hey, that's an awesome idea. But I don't think AB should be FORCED on the community, the same way that stock RO (thanks to the presence of AB) is no longer FORCED on the community either. We all have a choice now, as it should be, and the "market" will regulate itself.
 

KrazyKraut

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
1,848
69
0
Beer capital of the world
1.)T-34/76 and Tiger never meet on any stock RO map either.
Which doesn't matter since, apart from the turret, the 76 and 85 have about the same armor values in game (and in real life). The difference in front armor is 2mm. A shot that would kill a 76 would very likely kille a 85, too. Arad, Barashka... whenever there's a Tiger on a map the Soviet tank it'll face the most is the T34 85. In the current situation, T34 85 vs Tiger, the Tiger looses, while it should win (Generalizing on purpose here). In addition to its real life issues of being slow and having a slow traverse its cannon is strangely ineffective against T34 armor (no matter if it's the 76 or the 85). A
2.) My issue is less with the fact that people complain about the matchup in general, but usually that it's people complaining that THEIR Tiger/Panther did X, Y, or Z. When you see people repeatedly posting about how their [insert German tank here] got pwned/couldn't pwn, it casts the issue in a particular light.
I think you're being a little paranoid here. And I think it's not very helpful: The more people defend the situation we have now, even if it's just by discrediting half the people complaining as fanboys, the longer we will have to live with the borked tanks.

The AB mutator puts some pressure on the devs, but it's still just a mutator and that's a bad thing. Many people just avoid mutator servers, because they want to play the game the way they are used to. The fact that they have to learn certain elements new puts them off, even if it was ultimately for the better.

Besides that: Without one of the big 50 player servers running the mutator it'll never catch on.
 
Last edited:

Recce

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 31, 2006
605
0
0
T-34/76 and Tiger never meet on any stock RO map either.

Which doesn't matter since, apart from the turret, the 76 and 85 have about the same armor values in game (and in real life). The difference in front armor is 2mm. A shot that would kill a 76 would very likely kille a 85, too. Arad, Barashka... whenever there's a Tiger on a map the Soviet tank it'll face the most is the T34 85. In the current situation, T34 85 vs Tiger, the Tiger looses, while it should win (Generalizing on purpose here).
I think it does matter, otherwise you ignore half of the situation, the capabilities of the Russian 85mm over the 76mm gun.
In (stock) Arad, the usual combat range is generally 500m or less.
In Barashka, due it the "mist", the maximum combat ranges is 400m.
So you'll need to expand on your argument of why the Tiger should win in those conditions.
Surely both tanks are within the effective range of each others gun.
Or are you really saying that the Tiger rarely wins, because my logic dictates that the Tiger should win 50% of time.
 

dogbadger

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 19, 2006
3,230
553
0
here to kill your monster
AB Mut is wonderful as helps all the armor not just one side or the other. No need to go into details,...

ok not details then, but could you please broadly run it by me how AB helps the russians - on the orel variants for example?
I'm not being funny here; i ask based partly on my observations, but more so as they seem to be confirmed when i read things like
'..So if >orel's< too hard on stock then it's REALLY too hard >for russians< when running AB..', from another AB aficionado.
I mean, this seems to contradict your statement.
So in that case how does this work for both sides - what's the deal?
 

KrazyKraut

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
1,848
69
0
Beer capital of the world
I think it does matter, otherwise you ignore half of the situation, the capabilities of the Russian 85mm over the 76mm gun.
In (stock) Arad, the usual combat range is generally 500m or less.
In Barashka, due it the "mist", the maximum combat ranges is 400m.
So you'll need to expand on your argument of why the Tiger should win in those conditions.
Surely both tanks are within the effective range of each others gun.
Or are you really saying that the Tiger rarely wins, because my logic dictates that the Tiger should win 50% of time.

On Barashka: 50 percent of the time, or basically whoever shoots first. On Arad the Tiger should have a slight advantage due to the distance from German spawn to the far side of the north field, which is a bit more than 500m iirc. My experience however is the T34-85 beats him on both maps, and that is in direct tank-to-tank engagements, where only gun and armor matter. Granted the Tiger's gun seems to get better with distance (before it gets weaker again)... which I find even more annoying.

I'm not argueing the T34-85 shouldn't be able to penetrate the Tiger's armor on those maps. But the 88mm of the Tiger should definetly kill the T34-85s armor, on all relevant combat distances these maps offer, too. No matter if it hits from 12 o clock or 1 o clock.
 
Last edited:

Oldih

Glorious IS-2 Comrade
Nov 22, 2005
3,414
412
0
Finland
I just find it interesting that people ONLY seem to complain about stuff when it's the Germans not performing well. To me, that suggests a bias in their point of view.

Somehow I agree here more than I thought.

The more people defend the situation we have now, even if it's just by discrediting half the people complaining as fanboys, the longer we will have to live with the borked tanks.

The main issue is that we have too small maps and almost every official tank map is late war map, so unless we are talking some lucky situations or few expections, almost every tank would be able to penetrate each other in one single hit.

I mean it, we need like 4-5x larger tank maps and also bit more early-mid war tankmaps to get some idea about how it would perform.

Then we would actually see how much Tiger would rape Soviet tanks without that much trouble in almost any normal situation as long as the range allows it, but let's face the fact also: we would need more players to Russian side and less to German side and more tanks for Russians and less for Germans in order to be 'realistic'. As Solo mentioned earlier, we would need 100% realistic system first, a demonstration map of about three square kilometer large and one single Tiger against 30-50 T-34\76s.

Since that is not possible, we need to rely on generic balance. Sure I don't mind it, but this is the part where people comes either fanboying either side or ignoring some important facts.
 

arnold

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 30, 2006
68
0
0
I think it does matter, otherwise you ignore half of the situation, the capabilities of the Russian 85mm over the 76mm gun.
In (stock) Arad, the usual combat range is generally 500m or less.
In Barashka, due it the "mist", the maximum combat ranges is 400m.
So you'll need to expand on your argument of why the Tiger should win in those conditions.
Surely both tanks are within the effective range of each others gun.
Or are you really saying that the Tiger rarely wins, because my logic dictates that the Tiger should win 50% of time.

this is bs:
the farest range a t34/85 can penetrate the tigers front armor is about 550m, but thats a 0 degree hit! even at 300m the t3485 has to hit with max 15 degree. look into the "tiger fibel", there u can see something called "kleeblatt". in a one one one situation a tiger can make it impossible for the t34 to penetrate him, while the tiger can kill the t34 from every angle. the tiger should win a one on one duell nearly every single time if they spot each other at the same time.
 

Oldih

Glorious IS-2 Comrade
Nov 22, 2005
3,414
412
0
Finland
this is bs:
the farest range a t34/85 can penetrate the tigers front armor is about 550m, but thats a 0 degree hit! even at 300m the t3485 has to hit with max 15 degree. look into the "tiger fibel", there u can see something called "kleeblatt". in a one one one situation a tiger can make it impossible for the t34 to penetrate him, while the tiger can kill the t34 from every angle. the tiger should win a one on one duell nearly every single time if they spot each other at the same time.

Theoretically 85mm L\55 cannon T-34\85mm had with APBC could penetrate 97mm steel at 1000m range in zero degree angle.

So practically below 650m ranges one shell is going to penetrate Tiger with very high chances, presuming we are targeting to the hull.
And Tungsten (APCR) could penetrate Tiger in any spot in zero degree angle, even in 30 degree angle chances to penetrate the turret are quite high.
In 30 degree angle it could penetrate Tiger almost in any part of the hull still at 450 - 500m.

And considering possible flaws in the armour of the enemy tanks and German armour quality in late war or the fact they might have seen combat before and repaired, E.G. Tiger that has been minorly damaged (aka hit couple of times but not penetrated) and reinforced the armour with extra plates or something, it has VERY high possibility that it will penetrate if it just hits the spot or nearby it which is reinforced, since the overall strenght of the armoru is far less than it was originally, even at longer ranges.
 

arnold

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 30, 2006
68
0
0
Last edited:

Oldih

Glorious IS-2 Comrade
Nov 22, 2005
3,414
412
0
Finland
Originally Posted by Oldih
In 30 degree angle it could penetrate Tiger almost in any part of the hull still at 450 - 500m

In that I was referring to the Soviet APCR round (don't remember the name). I apologize the fact I speak worse english than any else.
 

FatPartizan

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 11, 2006
370
0
0
this is bs:
the farest range a t34/85 can penetrate the tigers front armor is about 550m, but thats a 0 degree hit! even at 300m the t3485 has to hit with max 15 degree. look into the "tiger fibel", there u can see something called "kleeblatt". in a one one one situation a tiger can make it impossible for the t34 to penetrate him, while the tiger can kill the t34 from every angle. the tiger should win a one on one duell nearly every single time if they spot each other at the same time.

6348jc4.jpg


No . according to the Soviet standards

ZiS-S-53 vs a tiger. Recommendations for shooting.
90 degrees = 1000m
60 degrees =700m .
Quality of manufacturing of the Soviet shells in current of war varied. During that moment when was is written "Tigerfibel" . Was only BR-365. Was not BR365k and BR365p . They have appeared after collision with a Tiger.

It is necessary to ask always a question than it is shot?
When we shoot?
In what we shoot?

A debut of Tigers. 1942. 90 degrees BR365 vs Tiger. The 800m(?) or less.

1944. 90 degrees BR365k vs Tiger. The 1000m or less.

I shall try to explain.

All 85mm AA-gun were in air defence. Only air defence. They seldom shot on tanks. Only if tanks entered into a zone of air defence. It was not in army.
In 1941 army had 300 85 mm AT-guns. The cousin AA-gun :) . Almost all of them have been lost in 1941. The army has refused it.

The reasons?

1. It was overkill .
2. It was expensive . Almost as German 88mm AA-gun .
3. Expensive shells.
4. Need well prepared crew .
5. It was difficult for hiding.
6. It was heavy. Need power truck .

Nobody tried to make for this gun a new AP shell.

The Soviet AP shells up to the middle of war are much worse American and German. F-34 = 75mm Sherman gun . But penetration is much worse .
 
Last edited:

mat69

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 1, 2006
826
0
0
[...]
Since that is not possible, we need to rely on generic balance. Sure I don't mind it, but this is the part where people comes either fanboying either side or ignoring some important facts.
What are you saying here? Are you suggesting that either making everything perfect or nothing or are you suggesting that TWI found the holy grail in balance and that there is only one way of balanced?

[sarcasm] Some important facts have allready been ignored like recognising that tanks have a turret ...[/sarcasm]
 

Oldih

Glorious IS-2 Comrade
Nov 22, 2005
3,414
412
0
Finland
What are you saying here? Are you suggesting that either making everything perfect or nothing or are you suggesting that TWI found the holy grail in balance and that there is only one way of balanced?

Well unless you can make that Soviets have ten time more tanks than Germans, ten times more people than Germans in tanks, maps that limits up to like ten square kilometers, flaws in armour and armour quality in general, possible history of vehicles have they been in combat before, morale effects of tank crewmen, internal damage which comes by penetration (or which may not come), have tank units working together as a unit and not random inviduals, take into account supplies for the tanks, have 4-5 man crews and such.

That's the reason why we have this generic balance that just let's put random tanks in random order let people pick them up and start shooting. RO tank system itself just makes it feel weird and to say it simply it does suck realism wise, while it does work gameplay wise in general, and while AB does improve it I have often noticed that servers running AB are quite empty.
 

Recce

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 31, 2006
605
0
0
the BR-365P, a apcr round, would have a better chance, but htey were very rare.

In that I was referring to the Soviet APCR round (don't remember the name). I apologize the fact I speak worse english than any else.
Germany had more trouble sourcing tungsten than the Allied countries. Even though, it wasn't common compared to other AP shells. For the Russian army, the 76mm shell was (supposedly) accepted into service in Oct '43, and the 85mm accepted in Feb '44.
Initially APCR is supposed to have been issued to units which were expecting to be attacked, upto 8 per vehicle. From spring '44, all vehicles were supposed to be issued with 4 shells.

But seeing as it's not issued in the game, it's academic
 
Last edited: