@Warhawks:
Yeah, I agree with most of what you stated. By the time the Tiger I is available, it really serves no purpose for the respective doctrines anymore. It's more of a nice to have gimmick but most of the time the other tanks in higher numbers simply do it better (which is maybe exactly what should be shown?
).
Odd, I mean I get that the Panzer IV had face hardened armour and thus had "more" effective armour than on paper but I doubt that the 76mm gun that should have a lot more average penetration than that (I believe around 130mm@500m on average? Don't quote me on this) should have that much of a hard time to penetrate it - as shouldn't the Panzer IV vice versa with it's rather penetration in comparison to the also not too impressive Sherman armour (even with sandbags). I don't really get why the Panzer IV gets a damage boost with APCR while the Sherman does not. The Panzergranate 39 had explosive filler while the Panzergranate 40 did not. This, in combination with the soft steel that was used on Shermans, should actually do less damage since armour spalling was very low because of it. The regular AP on 76mm Shermans had no explosive filler because the fuses on the APHE were bad(?). It would make more sense for the Panzer IV to make more damage with standard AP than the Sherman and less damage with APCR and instead give the Sherman and edge with APCR since I would assume that the spalling on successful penetration was way higher on harder steel. Reversing the roles like that would lead to a huge hit on balance however so I am not sure how good of an idea that is.
On a side note, I find the US to be way harder to play well because nothing they have has a lot of punch, including their tanks. You have to babysit every unit you have because it can be wrecked in seconds by anything. Brits don't have that issue because while you have to watch out for your tanks, your infantry can really take a beating and punish the enemy. As someone who is more of a beginner, especially in PvP, I find the US to be the most useless faction to me, also because of their tanks that can't deal with Panzer IV Ausf. H unless you call in the very expensive big guns at which point the enemy usually also has brought a big cat to the table.
My map choice on my replay post was criticized but the average map really does not allow a lot of flanking so I find myself slugging it out frontally quite often, which, in case of the US vehicles, is very much an uphill battle, especially if you did not choose armour doctrine.
Thanks for the link! Nice compilation you have there
Oh yeah, must have been a lucky dice roll then. What, you can oneshot a Tiger II with a 76mm?
@Tiger1996:
Yes, a bit like the "press 2 twice" in WoT you mean. It costs quite a bit of ammo however and I believe that most tanks did have around 5 rounds of APCR/HVAP, whatever you call it, to deal with tough targets so I think it's fair to have it in game.
Speaking of APDS: I take it it's not possible to accurately represent the awful accuracy of early APDS rounds? I have heard a lot of complaints about the Achilles and while I don't necessarily agree with stripping it of it's camo ability, I do understand the issue that it is overall way more versatile than the Firefly, available to all doctrines and relatively cheap as well. Coming out of camo to give a Panther a full broadside with APDS feels satisfying but I don't think it should be able to accurately hit it on max distance in the first place when you load APDS. Likewise, is it possible to produce a higher drop off in penetration for APCR? I am not sure that bigger caliber (75mm+) APCR drops below regular AP penetration on combat distances but I do know that especially earlier, small caliber ones tended to drop off rather quickly so that it was only a close range solution.
I don't know whether that would improve the gameplay because it would probably only incentivize Allies to yolo-rush German tanks in order to make their APCR/APDS shine. Germans probably only really need APCR against Jumbos, Pershings and Churchills which is not much as all of them are doctrine specific vehicles and in the case of the Jumbo, one of the variants won't ever tickle anything above a Panzer IV Ausf. F2.
Oh in War Thunder I did find the Panther Ausf. D to be an incredibly potent vehicle on 5.7 as long as you could place it's front toward the enemy. I had a game on that one map with the ditch to the one side with the destroyed train bridge (cannot remember the name) where I sniped over said ditch with the L/70 against Jumbos and other stuff in a realistic battle in which I amassed more than a dozen kills and was not killed once, only losing a crew member to a penetrating shot on the gun mantlet and later two more to the balanced P47. The tank was completely in pieces after that but I was alive in the end.
I do love the Tiger in this game but it does not profit from random bounces as much. The turret won't be penetrated a lot, sure, but those upper glacis bounces the Panther can pull off against even very high penetration guns (20pdr and the like), the Tiger rarely does. I call them bullshit bounces because it's the same kind of mechanic that has my 88mm bounce off the side of a T-34/85 and the 128mm of the Sturer Emil bounce off the front of a goddamn M10. I did rage quit after that kind of event happened in two consecutive games. Driving an IS tank backwards or nuking people with the SU-152 and KV-2 is way more satisfying. Also: Panzer IV Ausf. F2 and Ausf. G have to be the best medium tanks tier per tier. That gun is simply a dream to shoot.
Quick question to you since you mentioned it elsewhere and it fits here: Why does flanking speed on tanks cost ammo instead of fuel?
@Jalis:
Thanks, now prepare yourself for a very long and rambling post
What you say is true but most of it also applies to Panther which was an incredibly front heavy tank (apparently like the late Panzer IV, only heavier overall) that wore out it's final drive(?) very quickly. Pivoting was also better avoided on Panther as it got a lot of mud and debris into the complex Schachtellaufwerk and, from what I remember, even threw off the track when the conditions were bad enough. I imagine that getting a stuck Tiger out of a ditch was difficult task because of it's weight but I imagine that a Panther tank, while weighing twelve tons less, was also a pain to recover (probably needed a Bergetiger
)
The biggest advantage the Tiger had over the Panther was that it had meaningful side armour and thus was not able to be penetrated from long distances by smaller caliber guns, including the 75mm on the earlier Shermans, or in the case of Panther without sideskirts, by PTRS and the likes. All of those things cannot be modeled sadly however as mentioned earlier.
I would make the Tiger slightly less mobile, give it slightly less penetration chance than the Panther but superior anti infantry capabilities as well as enhanced survivability because of way stronger side and rear armour coupled with a roomy interior. It's already very expensive and as others have mentioned, it's rarely built because it's a big game changer. I find it to arrive to the battlefield way too late to do anything and it almost feels like it's armour is as strong as that of a Panzer IV Ausf. H, with only it's gun being something to fear for the enemy tanks. Getting a Tiger to the veterancy level to make use of it's full potential is also quite challenging because you spent so much resources on it, thus have not much "mass" to divert attention from it, leading to the enemy focusing his firepower on it which will very quickly wreck a Tiger if you throw in a bit of arty and APCR or APDS.
Let's face it, the only reason to get a Tiger tank in BK is because it looks sexy as hell. I still find it to be the most menacing looking tank in WWII, just because it is big and boxy. Panther and Tiger II look great as well but don't have an as dangerous look to them in my opinion because they are more streamlined.
It's the same reason I love the KV-2 because it takes that big and boxy theme to a different level ;D
Okay, lots of rambling here, I'll stop now