Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

Tiger1996 wrote:Actually all the 'propaganda' video documentaries of which I have always seen that is greatly praising on the Tiger tank in such a way.. are English ones in fact! I mean American or specifically British sourced and not just translations

Sadly for you, that "fact" proves nothing. It doesn't change actual facts that you want to ignore.

Well it is true that especially among Brits and Amis the Tiger tank is a real icon. In germany it is actually more known that the Tiger wasn't as good as anyone thinks.

But I'd be carefull with americcan documentaries, I also watched some of them and they often tend to be a bit incorrect.
I once watched a documentary where they compared a Elefant/Ferdinand with the M1A1 Abrams... I guess in order to be "the best" again.

Also they (imo) tend to make their documentaries like "Well, the onyl reason why we lost so many soldiers is because of this OP tank". Like they want to justify their losses.
But this is simply a personal impression, idk wether it's really true or not.

Imo german documentaries tend to be more critical and also more correct and better researched.

I watched a documentary long time ago. It was an US one and they compared the normal 75 mm sherman of the first production and 51 mm armor with the Tiger tank and result was: "Tiger incredible better and superior". They didnt even mention that there had been upgraded shermans with more armor and bigger guns.

And when you look at the facts from german pages and sources (which are often quite critical) you will see that that the tiger was not as great in 44 anymore.

Axis deployed 132 Tigers in france and all have been lost till mid August. 2/3 not by enemie fire. 20 lost to arty and planes at least.

These Tigers destroyed all in all 500 tanks and vehicles (including cheap stuart tanks, bren carriers etc). Some of these 500 had been recovered + we know how axis counted "kills" and "losses" during combat.

And now consider that the a Tiger did cost easily 5 times as much as an normal medium tank.


The money cost are in old Reichsmark:

335.000 Reichsmark for a Tiger (some sources claim even 800.000)
46.000 for late Panther
40.000-42.000 for Tank IV´s and shermans.
30.000-32.000 for stugs
+
Tiger did need twice the ammount of steel and materials than a panther
+
Tiger did need a lot more time to be build compared to panther and esspecially shermans and Tank IV´s
+
Tiger did need a lot more maintanance and fuel etc
+
Tiger was a nightmare for the logistics. It couldnt be loaded on trains easily and did need special "Tracks" when mounted on Trains
+
It did need special Panther recovery Tanks to recover the tigers. No other tank was so hard to recover than tigers (i count the Elephant to it as well and KT/JT)
+
It couldnt cross pioneer bridges.
+
These "132 Tiger losses for 500 or less vehicles, tanks, light tanks etc" had been made most of the time in ambushes. During normal attacks, the tiger was just as easy to stop as a cheap sherman. All it need was the right cheap tool: "17 pdr, 76 guns" and make the shot in the right time.
+
And thats all although Tigers got only used by already very experienced crews which often became aces before they used Tigers.


So the Tiger NEVER made up its cost. When a Tiger platoon killed 500 T34 (over a certain period) then the russians build new 500 tanks as axis could repair their Tigers (subsumming all repairs during that time). And this was not "allied superior production capabilities" fault. In fact, germans had much better production capacities than russians had and more raw materials for tanks as USSR had. But some of these "super tanks" did eat up such an ammount of ressources that russians could build 2 tanks for the material cost of a single axis tank and 5 tanks or more for the materials and steel a single Tiger did need.


To give it a more realistic view transfared to "BK reality": The Tiger would cost 1800-2000 MP, 200 fuel, 4 min production time, incredible upkeep (7 fuel or even 8), and often engine and gear breakdowns. With vet 1 they would not gain "flank speed" and instead a passive ability with the name "reduced break down chance".

But the performence would not change that much. There would be two pros for it in BK then.

1. Relatively early available
2. Good accuracy at range and some more range.


The only chance to make this tank worth its cost would be by pure "ace micro the Tiger".



The US did fear the Tiger before normandy due to some russian reports and the north africa battles. In Summer nobody speak about a "Tiger crisis" and instead the Panther became the top feared tank. At that time they did speak about "Panther crisis". And also many US tankers mistakenly reported Tank IV´s as Tigers due to similiar look from the distance and they feared tigers due to the propaganda and "myths" that already exist at that time while in reality most allied tanks in france got killed by Stugs and Panzerfaust (1/3 of allied tank losses in normandy are credited to panzerfaust).

Warhawks97 wrote:I watched a documentary long time ago. It was an US one and they compared the normal 75 mm sherman of the first production and 51 mm armor with the Tiger tank and result was: "Tiger incredible better and superior". They didnt even mention that there had been upgraded shermans with more armor and bigger guns.

And when you look at the facts from german pages and sources (which are often quite critical) you will see that that the tiger was not as great in 44 anymore.

Axis deployed 132 Tigers in france and all have been lost till mid August. 2/3 not by enemie fire. 20 lost to arty and planes at least.

These Tigers destroyed all in all 500 tanks and vehicles (including cheap stuart tanks, bren carriers etc). Some of these 500 had been recovered + we know how axis counted "kills" and "losses" during combat.

And now consider that the a Tiger did cost easily 5 times as much as an normal medium tank.


The money cost are in old Reichsmark:

335.000 Reichsmark for a Tiger (some sources claim even 800.000)
46.000 for late Panther
40.000-42.000 for Tank IV´s and shermans.
30.000-32.000 for stugs
+
Tiger did need twice the ammount of steel and materials than a panther
+
Tiger did need a lot more time to be build compared to panther and esspecially shermans and Tank IV´s
+
Tiger did need a lot more maintanance and fuel etc
+
Tiger was a nightmare for the logistics. It couldnt be loaded on trains easily and did need special "Tracks" when mounted on Trains
+
It did need special Panther recovery Tanks to recover the tigers. No other tank was so hard to recover than tigers (i count the Elephant to it as well and KT/JT)
+
It couldnt cross pioneer bridges.
+
These "132 Tiger losses for 500 or less vehicles, tanks, light tanks etc" had been made most of the time in ambushes. During normal attacks, the tiger was just as easy to stop as a cheap sherman. All it need was the right cheap tool: "17 pdr, 76 guns" and make the shot in the right time.
+
And thats all although Tigers got only used by already very experienced crews which often became aces before they used Tigers.


So the Tiger NEVER made up its cost. When a Tiger platoon killed 500 T34 (over a certain period) then the russians build new 500 tanks as axis could repair their Tigers (subsumming all repairs during that time). And this was not "allied superior production capabilities" fault. In fact, germans had much better production capacities than russians had and more raw materials for tanks as USSR had. But some of these "super tanks" did eat up such an ammount of ressources that russians could build 2 tanks for the material cost of a single axis tank and 5 tanks or more for the materials and steel a single Tiger did need.


To give it a more realistic view transfared to "BK reality": The Tiger would cost 1800-2000 MP, 200 fuel, 4 min production time, incredible upkeep (7 fuel or even 8), and often engine and gear breakdowns. With vet 1 they would not gain "flank speed" and instead a passive ability with the name "reduced break down chance".

But the performence would not change that much. There would be two pros for it in BK then.

1. Relatively early available
2. Good accuracy at range and some more range.


The only chance to make this tank worth its cost would be by pure "ace micro the Tiger".



The US did fear the Tiger before normandy due to some russian reports and the north africa battles. In Summer nobody speak about a "Tiger crisis" and instead the Panther became the top feared tank. At that time they did speak about "Panther crisis". And also many US tankers mistakenly reported Tank IV´s as Tigers due to similiar look from the distance and they feared tigers due to the propaganda and "myths" that already exist at that time while in reality most allied tanks in france got killed by Stugs and Panzerfaust (1/3 of allied tank losses in normandy are credited to panzerfaust).

+1

There is simply no way to express this any better. Take my upvote, Sir!

But then Tigers would be available by default from the first building, without any CPs to be required as well.. not to mention about that it would actually have the highest possible range of the game ever at that time which is almost the whole map perhaps combined with superior gun accuracy too! Or more specifically I mean that such silly kind of paks won't be able to out-range it anymore... ^^

http://weltkrieg2.de/zahlenvergleich-de ... er-panzer/

Also check this. Here you can see that the K/D was not depending on Tigers or anything. The K/D before tigers came had been just as high or higher than at times with tiger.

Combat debut of first tigers in the east was the 29 august. During 42 just 78 go build of which 55 in nov and dec 42.

So when you take this time -from november till end of the war- you will see that the K/D did not increase because of axis Tigers or other super tanks.
So to keep the tiger effective there should have happend one of these two things:

1.K/D slightly better for axis, but axis won the war. That means that the super tanks like tigers did attack all the time and maintaining the tactical initiative.
2. Axis would have lost, but K/D would have been always at least 1:5.


None of these things happend so the "super tanks" never gained tactical importance or having any impact on strategic situations.


And then keep this in mind:

(scroll down to bottom)

http://ww2-weapons.com/german-arms-production/
http://ww2-weapons.com/History/Production/Russia/
http://ww2-weapons.com/History/Production/UK/


If you check all this you will see that Axis was the second strongest econemie or at least the one with second strongest war production capacities. Only USA was by far better.

"According to research by a team of Soviet historians, the Soviet Union lost a staggering 20,500 tanks from June 22 to December 31, 1941. At the end of November 1941, only 670 Soviet tanks were available to defend Moscow"

And look at this. The K/D For germans was insane long before the Tigers came and when axis fought with tanks being actually inferior. The losses for axis was:

"Im Frühjahr 1942 hatte die Wehrmacht an der Ostfront rund 35 Prozent ihrer Einsatzstärke von Juni 1941 verloren. Der Kampfkraftverlust war sogar noch höher; er lag bei 50 Prozent für die Heeresgruppe Süd und sogar 65 Prozent für die beiden anderen Heeresgruppen Mitte und Nord. 3319 abgeschossenen Panzern standen nur 732 neu ausgelieferte Kettenfahrzeuge gegenüber."

From june 41 till spring 42 axis lost 3319 tanks.


So that tigers did have very good K/D´s was not because they were Tigers. It was simply because the K/D of axis tanks aganst russians was always good, even better in the early stages.

Also a report from the Jagdpanzer IV (48 i think):

"On June 6, 1944 there were 62 Jagdpanzer IVs available: 31 for the Panzer-Lehr-Division, 21 for the 2nd Armored Division and 10 in the XIIIth Division SS «Hitlerjugend». The XIIIth panzerdivision SS in France was formed during the 26 April of the same year, with an initial batch of 10 Jagdpanzer IV but then another batch of 11 joined in, which saw action in july 1944 after the Allied landings in Normandy. Tank destroyers of the 12th SS Panzer Division SS had a battalion commanded by Sturmbannfuhrer Hanrayh. His subordinate, Oberscharführer SS Roy Rudolph (12th Abt.) was considered the best Panzerjäger-IV and platoon commander ace with 36 kills in total. A fame acquired in the first days of the fighting in Normandy. In the Emeville area in July 20, 1944, he single-handedly knocked several American Shermans. On August 10, it went into action with the First Polish Armoured Division, knocking out eleven Polish Shermans for only seven casualties in his platoon. Roy was killed in action during the Battle of the Bulge, shot by a US sniper while scanning out of the cupola in December 17, 1944. Jagdpanzer IVs of the 12th Division played indeed a significant role during the German breakthrough from under Falaise and during the battle of the Bulge were most were destroyed. "

So it clearly shows that not only tiger was able doing stuff like wittmann did. In fact, such cheaper tanks performed much better under the pressure of 44 than Tigers did. But those didnt earn a reputation as Tigers did.

So tanks that didnt even cost a third of that a Tiger did and which had been maybe even cheaper than shermans did show just as effective results and K/D´s as the Tiger did, just unlike tigers these tanks had a better reliablity and maybe even survivability.



So honestly Tiger1996, you have probably read too much propaganda.

Fact is:
1. Every German tank was from superior quality, equiped with good guns, sufficient armor, good gunsights and other stuff like copulas with nice 360 dgree view and radios.
2. Not only Tiger had good K/D´s. Tanks with much lower cost did just as good as Tigers.
3. Just as important as the tank is the crew.
4. Tigers K/Ds´s are related to some lucky facts.
- They fought USSR
- Superior to everything allied had in 42/43 so far
- Crewed by experienced crews


But that doesnt makes this tank being from "superior quality" to other axis tanks. Considering the downsides in my previous post i would say that every axis tank (stug, Tank IV, Panther) was from a better quality than a tiger maybe as they hadnt so many cons as tiger had.



So i really hope you finally got the picture finally.

Warhawks97 wrote:Fact is:
1. Every German tank was from superior quality, equiped with good guns, sufficient armor, good gunsights and other stuff like copulas with nice 360 dgree view and radios.
2. Not only Tiger had good K/D´s. Tanks with much lower cost did just as good as Tigers.
3. Just as important as the tank is the crew.
4. Tigers K/Ds´s are related to some lucky facts.
- They fought USSR
- Superior to everything allied had in 42/43 so far
- Crewed by experienced crews

+ Axis late tanks always suffered from crappy motors and bad transmissions. The only really good working chassis in 1944 was actually the Pz. IV Chassis, which is also the reason why it's used for so many tanks.
+ Missing Molybdenum at the end of war -> Armor was easier to be penetrated

Well I agree with your points here, but also with the contras you posted before. So basically big mismanagement in production was one of the biggest mistakes of the third Reich (producing way to expensive Tigers instead of cheaper and better working Pz. IV or Panther etc).

Tiger1996 wrote:But then Tigers would be available by default from the first building, without any CPs to be required as well.. not to mention about that it would actually have the highest possible range of the game ever at that time which is almost the whole map perhaps combined with superior gun accuracy too! Or more specifically I mean that such silly kind of paks won't be able to out-range it anymore... ^^

again you fail.

You have max gun range, effective and accurate range.

In fact, the max range of Tiger gun was even lower as the max range of a sherman 76 gun. (10 km vs 14,6)

The effective is the result of shells trajectory and ballistic drop, gunsight and enemie armor. In the open field the Tiger would have the egde.


When a 17 pdr stays in an ambush with its very small size, then its likely that it hits the tiger from 1 km distance faster as the Tiger will even aim the 17 pdr.

So here tell me pls who is first in "effective range"? In that case, when 17 pdr is nicely hidden behind a dirt wall then the 17 pdr would have the range advantage or the "effective range" advantage.

Same behaves with tanks. You cant shoot what you cant see. An ambushed 76 sherman that is opening fire from 500 meters will kill the tiger long before the tiger can spot the sherman. So the effective range here is in best case "equal".

So in your sample pls add true sight+ ambush capabilties for all but the very largest tanks (JT) and maybe even stuff like "hull down"

or stuff like that:

http://www.worldoftanksguide.com/images/cover.jpg

I was looking for another picture which i once found in a Bundeswehr Book for Panzer tactics from my father with all the different positionings.



But taking all in all; True sight, ambushes, real cost etc then it wouldnt really matter whether your tiger could shoot accross the map or not. Allied could open fire also from far distance once they´ve spotted the tiger and when tiger is exposing a weak spott. Meanwhile allis could affort sufficient tanks for assault by keeping a sufficient reserve to repell axis tank attack. Axis couldnt do so really. They would be very powerfull during defense and in killing advancing enemie tanks, however, when they decide to attack they would lose also many tanks to hidden allied guns and tanks and thus they would have a huge hole in their defense which could be floated with allied tank reserves and vehicles.


The more you try to make it realistic, the more would suffer the tiger as at the end massive cost and breakdowns would make this tank almost unworthy to be build

Tiger1996 wrote:But then Tigers would be available by default from the first building, without any CPs to be required as well.. not to mention about that it would actually have the highest possible range of the game ever at that time which is almost the whole map perhaps combined with superior gun accuracy too! Or more specifically I mean that such silly kind of paks won't be able to out-range it anymore... ^^

Oh, cool for added historical realism, the Allied side will always start with 10 to 20 shermans and other assorted vehicles, air strikes will get cheaper and reload faster and most Anti tank guns will actually still out range the Tiger, by virtue of big fucking target on the horizon compared to hidden or not so hidde towed AT guns.

WT errata.

I wrote a wrong thing some days ago. In game there is really a difference between tiger H1 (early) and tiger E (late). The E is different and historically exact from a graphic point of view.

That dont means all is exact at WT. Some PZIII for exemple are credited with an incredible 67 km/h speed, when the PZIII M have it s frontal additionnal 20 mm rived plate ... absent/stolen/forgotted. Possibly WT have the same issue than BK and most historical game dedicated to pvp : balance vs historical accuracy.

Guys, plz look at minute 3:40 here on this video ^^ U see where exactly the penetration occurred?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wskN7KnJ95o

"He is like, I am a Sherman.. I can ambush u my dude!
But I have got an 88mm dick..." - BaronVonGamez

Tiger1996 wrote:Guys, plz look at minute 3:40 here on this video ^^ U see where exactly the penetration occurred?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wskN7KnJ95o

"He is like, I am a Sherman.. I can ambush u my dude!
But I have got an 88mm dick..." - BaronVonGamez

We already determined that world of tanks and war thunder are not trustworthy sources, keep failing, Tiger.

More over, in the video it's clear the jumbo driver made a mistake, climbing down he hill, he relinquished all his angling.

Ya, and u r the trusted source?

Two things:

Armacalic wrote:We already determined that world of tanks and war thunder are not trustworthy sources, keep failing, Tiger.

This is number one.


And number two:
This guy plays an Arcade tank battle. That means: incorrect penetration, armor and gun behaviour.

If you really want to "prove" something with WT, use at least footage from a realistic tank battle or a Simulator battle.

Tiger1996 wrote:Ya, and u r the trusted source?

There's quite a few, but you have already ignored all of them. "I recommend u don involve urself with what u're not meant to", specially with your grammar and your fail sources, we already mentioned a few historians and sites that have information of the tanks and guns, spread around several threads. Get a new act up quick, getting information wrong and believing it is getting boring.

WT arcade isnt realistic at all. Even "realistic" isnt always realistic.

Just check out al the "UFO" planes with wrong stats (like more engine power as it really had) etc.

Also 88 has 120 mm at 30 degree at 100 meters, 110 mm at 500 meters. This Jumbo 190 meters away. Thats quite close. The Jumbo also came down the hill so he wasnt well angled towards the tiger.

Check min 7:26-7:32. Hear what is made says. His panther got frontally penetrated by a Tank IV H. Very realistic game. But it also says that there are always space for the impossible to happen.

It s not a representative video of the tiger at WT. Here the tiger is in the upper rank for the battle that happen not so often. Player would probably less smile facing IS 2 and KT.

For not so realistic is WT, usually people who had also play it are more indulgent at bk when their precious tiger or kt is one shot. 5% at bk is really very low from statistic point of view.

being a tankiste is no more than be locked in a steel box sitting on 500 liter of oil and an ammo pill when other peoples are shooting you.