T-34 Vs Tiger
Sullivan Maurer
yeah we know, there is no russian bias... thats why german aircrafts, think about the jets battlerating, Energie fighting is totaly destroyed since 1.35, bf109s FM is a bad joke, FW-190 D13 br was raised to 6.0!, Tier 1 and Tier 2 german tanks are matched against extremly overpowered t-34 with sloped armor, the same accurate guns as Germans, oneshot su-122 as accurate as a tiger,...
yeah we know, there is no russian bias... thats why german aircrafts, think about the jets battlerating, Energie fighting is totaly destroyed since 1.35, bf109s FM is a bad joke, FW-190 D13 br was raised to 6.0!, Tier 1 and Tier 2 german tanks are matched against extremly overpowered t-34 with sloped armor, the same accurate guns as Germans, oneshot su-122 as accurate as a tiger,... no, just no.
Not this again, you can oneshot a T-34/85 up to 2000m with your 88mm. The T-34/85 is the most fragile Russian tank at that BR and if anything hits you, you explode. I never had great success sniping at German tanks with APCR from the front, it is much more effective to blow their ammo with a flanking APHE shot.
Yeah, you have marginally more effective gun at close range, but at distances over 500m it doesn't matter, since any shell the Tiger throws your way will knock you out. Also, any shell you fire back is in no way guaranteed to take out the Tiger, especially if it's angled.
I too have had a horrid experience with the Tiger. 9 out of 10 shells that hit me will one shot me, no matter how far or how angled i am, and i find it hard to believe every single enemy i come across is a tank ace and knows just where to aim.
On the other hand i see people saying that the Tiger gun is so awesome it will one shot anyone at ranges of 1km or greater. I find that also not to be even remotely the case. I usualy dont even one shot the friggen reserve russian tanks the AI uses and ive tried hitting both the AI and players at several different angles in to several spots from trying to hit the side of a turret to get some ammo rack, to the side of the engine, to straight on from every direction and almost never get a 1 shot kill.
Granted im not the best tanker, but from the amount of tries to get this tank to work, i can safely say that there is something seriously wrong with the way the Tiger damage model (both offensive and defensive) is currently set up.
At a range of slightly under 1 km, the T-34-85 can penetrate you frontally if you don't angle. When angled, you get 107mm effective armor and the range is a good bit less. All this is with the most advanced APHEBC ammo available, not with APCR.
Honestly though, even without APCR the T-34-85 could penetrate you at reasonable distances, especially with the close quarter maps we have. So the chance of surviving an APHEBC shell with slightly less explosive content than the Tiger's APHECBC, kinetic energy value of a Panther (which is already considered to be OMG SO EPICKS FIREPOWER), more shrapnel due to a larger shell, and with the exposed side ammo racks of the Tiger, do you really think you're supposed to stop one of those? Hell no. Never will you with the game's current maps.
Sure, except RoF which is obviously no advantage......AT ALL...and the panther turret is made out of clay, once hit repair time 4 minutes. And even though T34s got less armor they absorb shells like magnets.
profile register preferences faq search UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic next oldest topicAuthorTopic: Tiger loss/kill ratios on the eastern frontWWII=interest
Senior Member posted 01-26-2003 04:11 PM Is there really a set definition on Tiger kill/loss ratios for the eastern front during it's employement?I have heard numbers thrown around such as 1 Tiger loss goes with 20 T-34 losses. I have also heard the same thing, except the T-34 losses going down all the way to 7 or reaching all the way up to 57. Does anybody know of anygood estimates on this subject?IP: Logged
Kill ratio in action 1:12.16Kill ratio total 1:5.44 (this includes Tigers destroyed out of combat)For both east and west, but not, it appears, including the Tiger companies that were attached to some SS-PDs in 1943 (and after?).Not quite what you are after, but still does not sound too unreasonable.The numbers are broken down by Abteilung, so if you know which one fought where, you will be able to get better figures out of the table.The thesis can be DL'd from CALL database, search all libraries, and type in 'schwere panzer abteilung'. Haven't read it all myself yet. It's 150 pages, and I am strapped for time. IP: Logged
Yea, but the Tiger's in Combat books I believe are 100% from German records. So...they are reporting German claims of kills (a pretty imprecise methodology). Haven't looked at the CALL paper, but it is very important that one counts the same thing for both sides (destroyed and damaged vs destroyed and damaged). German claims of Soviet tank kills would by their nature be counting both destroyed and damaged (and maybe a few other things), not just destroyed. IP: Logged
Would it be right to interpret what you are saying as indicating that tank vs. tank the Tiger was probably a waste of time and resources?It appears to me that the true value of the tank was its ability to shrug off mid-war Soviet AT rounds from the 7.62 Zis-3 gun, no matter where hit, enabling it to break through concentrated PAK fronts (in the west, the Tiger I armour was not sufficient to withstand even the 6-pdr ATG, as shown in Tunisia, and with the arrival of the 17-pdr it just became a very expensive spam can on the attack). It would be interesting to see the claims/stats for AT guns destroyed, as these may give a clearer picture of the operational usefulness of the Tiger tank.IP: Logged
In my upcoming book, I do compare German claims of tank kills versus actual Soviet losses. The German estimations are not bad. Still, I had not looked at the specific claims for the Tigers that Schneider uses, so do not know what they include or how they compare to division and army level loss reports (which are the ones I've examined). In general, claims of enemy losses should not be used unless you can, as a minimum, cross-check it to the opposing side records so you can see if they are in the ballpark. quote:BTW - (Popjel, Member of the War Council of 1st Tank Army at Kursk) has an interesting passage about tank recovery at the battle in the second volume of his war memoirs.Actually, I have not looked at that. We did gather a brief report on tank repair from the First Tank Army records. In general, the percent of Soviet tanks that were damaged/destroyed that were repaired were much less than the Germans. Again, I have not looked at the CALL report....but if they base their figures on German Tigers destroyed versus claimed kills, they are going to end up with some really distorted figures. quote:Would it be right to interpret what you are saying as indicating that [b]tank vs. tank the Tiger was probably a waste of time and resources?[/b]Absolutely not! I'm just wary of these specific exchange figures, without knowing what is in them (and so far I have been too lazy to check). quote:It would be interesting to see the claims/stats for AT guns destroyed, as these may give a clearer picture of the operational usefulness of the Tiger tank.We have a count of AT guns lost (it is probably low) in the Kursk Data Base. There were an awful lot of guns lost.
IP: Logged
Emphatic statement there I look forward to the book. Will you be comparing effectiveness between sPzAbt and ordinary Panzerabteilungen? Regarding AT units at Kursk, Popjel again makes one of these statements you really come to appreciate when reading Kommissar memoirs Something along the lines of 'While our AT Brigades all died in a day, they had made themselves immortal in the minds of the Soviet people.' Sounds like a pretty big desaster to me, but at least it is nicely dressed up in heroics.
IP: Logged
I have held them on my computer waiting to download them, but if I do download them, I need an unzipper to see them. If you have seen them or have them, are they worth getting an unzipper over?
I dont know if it is worth it or not.
IP: Logged
I have held them on my computer waiting to download them, but if I do download them, I need an unzipper to see them. If you have seen them or have them, are they worth getting an unzipper over?
I dont know if it is worth it or not.
You can download free unzip programs over the internet kind of like geting free acrobat reader. I think the one I use is winzip and doing an internet search should find this or others. I believe chris and TDI were the driving force behind the creation of the KDB or the kosave study funded by the US army. Im sure it will be one of the key areas used in his book. PS. A bit of correction in computer term if they are on your computer they are already downloaded. Now all you have to do is unzip them to see them.
IP: Logged
And my computer terminology is correct. I know what downloading is, but I have not downloaded the KOSAVE files yet.Another person on another forum graciously sent them to me via email. He warned me I had to have an unzipper. So what I did was save the emails to my filling cabinet, were I can download them whenever I wish.IP: Logged
How can you? The German divisions were operating with one or two tank battalions (briefly four in the case of the GD PzGrD)...and there were seven tiger companies, each attached to a different armor division. I may be able to assemble what the Germans claimed for each division for each day....and I know what the Soviet armor losses were (usually for each day). But, how to seperate them out as to how many were by tigers, versus other tanks, versus air, versus AT, versus artillery, versus Marders, versus Sturmgeshutz, versus infantry, versus mechanical breakdown.....Now, I may in some cases have claims from the Tiger company/battalion (there was only one battalion in the south...but it has been seperated into three companies and each attached to a division), and claims from the tank regiments, and I have some aggregate claim for the day sometimes for the air, and an overall division claim...but unless these claims are consistently reported and assembled...there is really no way to apportion out cause of loss. This is assuming, of course, that the total number of losses claimed from all the individual claimers does not greatly exceed that which the Soviets actually lost. quote:Regarding AT units at Kursk, Popjel again makes one of these statements you really come to appreciate when reading Kommissar memoirs Something along the lines of 'While our AT Brigades all died in a day, they had made themselves immortal in the minds of the Soviet people.' Sounds like a pretty big desaster to me, but at least it is nicely dressed up in heroics.These are the kind of statements that if you read them backwards, sometimes really tell you something. The first two defense lines went real quick, as did the attached AT units. Popyel is putting a good face on what appears to be a really bad deployment on the part of the Soviets. Furthermore, it doesn't appear that these formations did anywhere near the damage to the German armor that one would expect.Is it possible to get a copy of Popyel's discussion on Kursk?
IP: Logged