• 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/

Was the Tiger really this Weak?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
H

H-street

Grizzled Veteran
Feb 27, 2006
47
0
#1
After really getting into tank maps (Go Ogledow!!)

i'm finding the Tiger (P V) to be very weak armor and shot wise..

i am constantly getting taken out with 1 shot to my frontal armor while landing good shots from the tiger is a rare 1 shot takeout (only side shots are 1 shot kills)..

is this really how it was? everything i've read indicates the tiger was one of the most difficult tanks to take out unless you could flank it..


right now the Panther is easily much better than the tiger.. i've survived multiple (5 is the most i remember) shots to the panther without it even going yellow (damaged)..

maybe i am just misinformed, but right now i take the PIV over the tiger just because in the PIV my turret armor will even deflect and take more damage than the Tiger plus i reload and aim faster..
 
#4
Realize that sloped armor is more important that thickness of armor (beyond a certain point). Realize also that the Tiger's weak spots are widely know by many tankers in the community. The panther is simply a better tank.

Dont forget to angle your tank to 1 or 11 (angle it aoubt half and hour more for the tiger) and you will be surviving many more than 5 shots.

I honestly dont know why people think the tiger was some amazing tank. Its big, heavy, slow, and based on old engineering. Russian tanks have some pretty good penetration capabilities. I honestly dont know how you could make the tiger any better since its engineering is faulty (mainly armor). Remeber children, more armor does not mean better tank.
 
Upvote 0
#5
[CoR]MiccyNarc said:
Usually if I shoot any tank in the front with a Tiger, the tank is destroyed.

Whatever you do, don't expose your frontal or side armor, always angle your tank.

And the Panzer IV has paper armor compared to Tiger in my opinion, but I prefer it because I prefer speed.
Click to expand...
are u kidding me? I've been to this Tank Museum in Maryland, Saw a Tiger 1 front armor, Just like it was in WW2..

There where holes in the front armor were shells just bounced off! :D

Also.. the Panther is very good! Becuase its slant and on Ogeldow.. Its awosme to play with :) Just angle the tank and u cant be killed!
 
Upvote 0
#7
Yeah, I'm no expert but apparently in WW2 the Panther(PZ V) was a better tank, not only because it had increased speed, manueverability and turret traverse speed but it had also frontal sloped armor, and if I am not mistaken a turret just as useful, if not as powerful as the Tiger's. However, the Tiger had stronger overall armor, which was harder to penetrate and could sustain MUCH more damage than that of the Panther's, after all, the Tiger was a heavy tank.

Some german tiger commanders reported to taking dozens of anti-tank rifle shots, dozens of anti-tank gun shots, and tank projectiles while still remaining fully functional. Personally I just don't see how the PZ VI would be superior to the V. The extra armor is not much of an advantage and the overall slowness severely hinders it compared to the PZV.

Then again, the Tiger really does feel WEAK in this game, this could be attributed to its appearance in '44 and '45 scenarios when the Tiger entered in service in '42, therefore going up against much more advanced designs, which begs the question: why the TigerI and not the TigerII?

This seems to have been done for balance purposes, but if you really want some balance then you should be putting the TigerII against the IS-2, which were equal opponents. Frankly I don't see the point in having a '45 scenario without the TigerII.

Moreover, the STG44 entered in service in late '43(hence why it was called mp43 first) and there were over 400,000 produced(around as many as G43's), I'd imagine they were much more common in the real battles than in the ones Red Orchestra tries to reproduce, especially such important ones where SS troops are known to have participated, who always had the best and latest technology in the german forces.

Anyway, I'm just babbling now.
 
Upvote 0
#8
Moz said:
The panther is actually a better tank, but the tiger is still way to weak.
Click to expand...

The Panther was more fast, agile and had solid front armour but the Tiger had more armour on all sides even if it didn't have the slope on the armour that the Panther had.

Both Tanks had powerfull guns, but the Tigers gun had more blast, while the Panther had better penetrating values if I recall correctly.

IMHO the Tiger seem a bit easy to damage but in RO:s defense, tank combat usually took place on longer ranges then it does ingame.

All this I have learned from playing another truly amazing game ; Combat Mission.


//Salkin
 
Upvote 0
#10
well thy also have a lot of t-34/85s up unltill mid 44 the most comen tank was the T-34/76 even then it remaned on of the more comen tanks untill 45.

the german on the other hand are useing a mid war panzer 4 with its week armor and gun.

in 44 thy had better armor and gun. (L48 vs L43 and 80mm vs 50mm -though the 80mm was only like on the hull front the turret was still 50mm.)

and what about the pore quality optics the soviets had?
 
Upvote 0
#11
Hyperion2010 said:
Realize that sloped armor is more important that thickness of armor (beyond a certain point). Realize also that the Tiger's weak spots are widely know by many tankers in the community. The panther is simply a better tank.

Dont forget to angle your tank to 1 or 11 (angle it aoubt half and hour more for the tiger) and you will be surviving many more than 5 shots.

I honestly dont know why people think the tiger was some amazing tank. Its big, heavy, slow, and based on old engineering. Russian tanks have some pretty good penetration capabilities. I honestly dont know how you could make the tiger any better since its engineering is faulty (mainly armor). Remeber children, more armor does not mean better tank.
Click to expand...
Glad to see someone has opened there eyes to the common misconception of the "godly tiger."

This isn't to say that it wasn't a good tank. In it's first stages compared to most other tanks and the lack of high quality heavy tanks for the allies made it an amazing piece. But later in the war with increase in allied heavy tanks and the development of flank tactics against them... Well they weren't so amazing afterall. The Tiger could pierce t34/76's and shermans up to 1600 meters while neither could penetrate the frontal armor of the tiger. But later t34/85 could penetrate tiger's frontal armor up to 1,000 meters and the IS2 at 1,000 meters plus from all directions.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#12
I have a feeling there are some things goofed up with armor and ballistics, and I know I'm not the only one. I don't think it's as much a matter of the Tiger being weak...I think the current problem with the tank maps is the plain fact that the Germans have an innaccurate model of the Panzer IV to support its' Tigers. Having the F2 (1942) on 1944-45 maps (remember there aren't even any '43 maps) is kind of like the Russians having T34/76s...but they don't, they get T34/85s and IS-2s. There aren't a whole lot of differences between the F2, the G, and the H-but the later Panzer 4s sometimes had armor skirting and the H had a little better cannon as well as upgraded armor. Please give us the PzKpfw IV Ausf. H :)

PS: For those of you all giddy about Soviet tanks/bashing the Tiger take a look at the combat statistics ie. kill/loss ratios...even on the Eastern front vs the huge odds.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#14
i can appreciate the difference between early and later model tanks, slopped vs nonsloped armor..

i guess the reason i feel the tiger is weak is because i am 1 shot killed on my frontal armor in the Tiger more times than i am 1 shot killed in my PIV..


after playing a bunch of tank maps and noticing that it just felt odd, which like i said is one of the reason i will usually skip the tiger

if this was historically accurate, where the PIV really had a higher survival rate on the eastern front then maybe its just my expectations where too high for the Tiger..

i may have to start up a local server and do some testing to see if i'm just imagining it or not.
 
Upvote 0
#15
daschewy said:
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7489/untitled7wl.jpg

According to that the Tiger should be able to penetrate a T-34 85 in the distance represent in the game. Same goes for the T-34 85 against the tiger
Click to expand...
Exactly :). The t34/85, as I said could penetrate the Tigers frontal armor at nearly 1,000 meters. The IS2 could do the same at over 1,000 meters.

On arad... in front of the trees where the most far back russian tank spawn is (behind the north field) to about the front of the initial german tank spawn is approximately 1,000 meters depending on where you are... give or take a few. In other words... most of your longest range fights on Arad will be at most 1,000 meters - give or take a few hundred.

I hope that answers all the concerns.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu