Tiger<T34??!!??!!

FONFALKS
Private First-Class
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon 24 Jun 2019 20:40
Contact:

Tiger<T34??!!??!!

Postby FONFALKS » Thu 27 Jun 2019 00:11

I have already made posts about balancing units, but i just have to share this...
Had my first battle playing general mode in which Russians attacked my heavy tank battalion with their heavy tank battalion, in all my games this has never happened before, as i was careful to put my tigers behind entrenched infantry and thus it was usually walk in a park to defend maps, HOWEVER this time i did not have bunkers on my side and tanks faced each other and this is what happened....
So i had some Tigers up on hill, i think 4 in total and they had cover (yellow shield, i think it is best cover tank can have) and their position was just perfect - then T34/85 show up, not in flanks, but right there in front of Tigers, at close to maximums distances, so situation basically is a large scale tank duel front to front. And what happened?
I had 4(!!!) tigers at that flank, they were not suppressed by anything and had cover, vs 3 T34/85 with no cover. Result is that my 4 Tigers were dead and 2 T34 dead.... THAT IS JUST STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But ok, i had reinforcements, 3 more Tigers come up in that good spot with cover, again front to front tank battle 3v3 (T34s also had reinforcements), all my Tigers dead again and 2 T34s destroyed.
HOW ABSURD IS THAT. TIGERs IN GOOD POSITION IN COVER VS T34s IN FIELD AND T34s win!!!!!!
Balance of this game is just wrong. W R O N G. And once more, if anyone misunderstood - Tigers were not suppressed by anything and there was no hidden AT guns firing at Tigers as well. If this is how it is going to be then i simply do not see the point of this game, i can accept this result with PZIV but not with Tigers....

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6599
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: Tiger<T34??!!??!!

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Thu 27 Jun 2019 20:10

First off, stop complaint spamming the forums.

Second of all, the 85mm could pen the front of early Tigers.

Thirdly, IIRC cover only helps conceal tanks from being spotted.
Image

FONFALKS
Private First-Class
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon 24 Jun 2019 20:40
Contact:

Re: Tiger<T34??!!??!!

Postby FONFALKS » Thu 27 Jun 2019 21:19

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:First off, stop complaint spamming the forums.

Second of all, the 85mm could pen the front of early Tigers.

Thirdly, IIRC cover only helps conceal tanks from being spotted.


Ah i see, you are local paid troll, defender of the game, knight on shining armor. You lie constantly and it is indeed pathetic. If you had paid any attention to what i wrote you would not that i was talking about close to maximum distance which is close to 2km tank duel, at that range historically T34/85 simply had no chance in hell to penetrate Tigers armor, even at range of 1km it was almost impossible.
And to win duels at that distance against Tigers would be just absurd, if that would happen in reality, war would end within few months.
Reality is Tiger was far superior to T34 of all modifications and was almost invulnerable to any T34 at ranges of over 1 km (i am talking about front armor).
As well made as this game is (yes yes there are bugs and some things need to be polished, but it is new game, i hope patches will do that), its makers are very misinformed or uninformed about actual units that were in WW2. Same goes with SU76, it would get annihilated immediately by any tank starting from even PZ3 with 50 mm gun, as SU76 was light SPG and was not meant to duel against tanks, it was meant to provide direct and indirect fire support for infantry and to shoot at tanks from well prepared ambushes and retreat and repeat from different position, it almost had no armor.
But i guess you can not have it all.

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6599
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: Tiger<T34??!!??!!

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Thu 27 Jun 2019 21:36

FONFALKS wrote:*RANT*


Image
Image

MDeciusTaurus
Private
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat 22 Jun 2019 19:43
Contact:

Re: Tiger<T34??!!??!!

Postby MDeciusTaurus » Thu 27 Jun 2019 22:31

FONFALKS wrote:I have already made posts about balancing units, but i just have to share this...
Had my first battle playing general mode in which Russians attacked my heavy tank battalion with their heavy tank battalion, in all my games this has never happened before, as i was careful to put my tigers behind entrenched infantry and thus it was usually walk in a park to defend maps, HOWEVER this time i did not have bunkers on my side and tanks faced each other and this is what happened....
So i had some Tigers up on hill, i think 4 in total and they had cover (yellow shield, i think it is best cover tank can have) and their position was just perfect - then T34/85 show up, not in flanks, but right there in front of Tigers, at close to maximums distances, so situation basically is a large scale tank duel front to front. And what happened?
I had 4(!!!) tigers at that flank, they were not suppressed by anything and had cover, vs 3 T34/85 with no cover. Result is that my 4 Tigers were dead and 2 T34 dead.... THAT IS JUST STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But ok, i had reinforcements, 3 more Tigers come up in that good spot with cover, again front to front tank battle 3v3 (T34s also had reinforcements), all my Tigers dead again and 2 T34s destroyed.
HOW ABSURD IS THAT. TIGERs IN GOOD POSITION IN COVER VS T34s IN FIELD AND T34s win!!!!!!
Balance of this game is just wrong. W R O N G. And once more, if anyone misunderstood - Tigers were not suppressed by anything and there was no hidden AT guns firing at Tigers as well. If this is how it is going to be then i simply do not see the point of this game, i can accept this result with PZIV but not with Tigers....


I also have to second that the T-34/85 had a powerful enough cannon to penetrate the Tiger I E. T-34s generally get a bad reputation not because of the overall quality of the vehicle but because of the overall quality of the crew. The average age of a German tank commander in WWII was 26 while the average Soviet tank commander was 19. That's the real life difference.

User avatar
varis
Brigadier
Posts: 3349
Joined: Mon 20 Feb 2012 16:52
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Tiger<T34??!!??!!

Postby varis » Thu 27 Jun 2019 22:41

Ok guys...

Forum Rules
  1. Message content must be the following:

    1. Constructive to the topic
    2. Respectful towards any other user on the board, regardless of how much your opinions differ.
    3. Readable (this means no all CAPS messages and usage of punctuation and paragraphing is obligatory)
  2. Message content must not be the following:
    1. Abusive, disrespectful, harassing or hostile
    2. An attack on or bullying of another user
Image

FONFALKS
Private First-Class
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon 24 Jun 2019 20:40
Contact:

Re: Tiger<T34??!!??!!

Postby FONFALKS » Thu 27 Jun 2019 23:00

[/quote]
I also have to second that the T-34/85 had a powerful enough cannon to penetrate the Tiger I E. T-34s generally get a bad reputation not because of the overall quality of the vehicle but because of the overall quality of the crew. The average age of a German tank commander in WWII was 26 while the average Soviet tank commander was 19. That's the real life difference.[/quote]

"As a result, the T-34 was upgraded to the T-34-85 model. This model, with its 85 mm (3.35 in) ZiS gun, provided greatly increased firepower compared to the previous T-34's 76.2mm gun. The 85 mm gun could penetrate the turret front of a Tiger I tank from 500 m (550 yd) and the driver's front plate from 300 m (330 yd) at the side angle of 30 degrees"

1)T34/85 does not have bad reputation, it was best medium tank in WW2
2)It could not do anything to Tigers front armor from distances of over 1 km, it is a simple fact and has nothing to do with crew.
3)Tiger was made to kill tanks, T34 was made to support infantry, and had many advantages over Tiger in that regard, like speed, fuel consumption and was very easy and cheap to build, easy to fix.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6679
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Tiger<T34??!!??!!

Postby molnibalage » Fri 28 Jun 2019 11:01

Grabbed_by_the_Spets wrote:First off, stop complaint spamming the forums.

Second of all, the 85mm could pen the front of early Tigers.

Thirdly, IIRC cover only helps conceal tanks from being spotted.

Yes but not from 2 km....

User avatar
Drang
Major-General
Posts: 3724
Joined: Sun 3 Feb 2013 04:20
Location: Fighting on the edge of the world
Contact:

Re: Tiger<T34??!!??!!

Postby Drang » Fri 28 Jun 2019 22:52

Given how rare it is for me to lose a Tiger to anything but the most attentive Soviet AT gunnery, an IS-2 or massive air power, I'm gonna want a replay of this

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6599
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: Tiger<T34??!!??!!

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Tue 2 Jul 2019 09:17

FONFALKS wrote:2)It could not do anything to Tigers front armor from distances of over 1 km, it is a simple fact and has nothing to do with crew.



Target: lower front. Distance: 1500 meters. Result: the plate cracked from previous impacts by the 85 mm gun. Two pieces broke off: 500 mm by 240 mm and 800 mm by 200 mm."


These are certainly some excellent results. They appear to be confirmed in practice, since a Red Army document on tactics of Tiger combat notes that it can be penetrated from the front at 1000 meters, and from the side at 1450 meters. It is not surprising that an 85 mm gun with similar ballistics was placed first in the SU-85, then in a T-34, to make a dangerous enemy for any German tank.


http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/soviet-85-mm-guns-vs-tigers.html

So the T-34/85 could reliably penetrate Tigers from within 1000m range, and could still catastrophically damage it from 1500m range, so once again, I see nothing wrong with how it's implemented in gmae so far.

And as Drag said, the only real time Tigers struggle is against overwhelming firepower, ambushes, airstrikes or IS-2's.
Image

Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests