What good is the tiger tank?

Since it blasted to pieces every allied piece of crap it met. And with style, from at least 1000 meters. And it was operated by the best crews in war, too. See, allied crews didn't survive enough to gatter the experience of german crews... someone published a table with WW2 tank aces around here. Look at it, and you will understand.

Do you fap to the German uber tanks on daily bases? Funny how you call everyone bias here.

I think Tiger Tank needs more splash damage and this is the only thing.

Do you fap to the German uber tanks on daily bases? Funny how you call everyone bias here.

Reality and facts are not bias, so try again.

Johnny, throwing out labels like the "best", on the basis that it allegedly "blasted to pieces" everything is fairly absurd. You need a proper tertium comparationes, and armour, firepower, survivability etc. are not the only things that matter and has to be taken into consideration, at all.
First off, the Tiger, again, was originally conceived as a breakthrough weapon, a function by the way it only performed a handful of times during the war, but this dictated its strong armour layout, gun configuration etc. Most of the time it was employed as a fire brigade, ie. to close out or blunt enemy advances, and perform set piece attacks on important limited objectives like bridgeheads. In these functions it undoubtedly excelled and was a success.
However, it was too costly and complicated, had too high a logistical footprint, and even more importantly lacked the endurance or mobility to function within the confines of a regular armoured division. It required special rail transport, elaborate recovery/maintenance, and a special training regimen. It was by no means suited as a workhorse medium tank like the T-34/Sherman/PzIV and to compare them directly without further qualification would be meaningless as they had simply different mission profiles and roles to perform operationally, not to mention the Tiger had at least roughly double the weight and per unit cost.
Again, the Tiger had a niche application. Whether the vehicle was a success in the grand scheme of things and amortised the cost of its development and production including the opportunity costs is debatable - I think it did, given how German wartime industry operated - but there are also good arguments to the contrary.

Reality and facts are not bias, so try again.

Reality and facts state that number of tigers was so insignificant that they made no difference while the cost and time to make one was tremendous compared to sherman or T34.

These two were inferior to Tiger, yet they were game changers, not tigers.
Its not important which side have better tanks, but which side have more of them and can afford replacing losses.

That is a fact and reality.

History debate irrelevant.
Only in game unit performance matters.And it lacks impact.

Since it blasted to pieces every allied piece of crap it met. And with style, from at least 1000 meters. And it was operated by the best crews in war, too. See, allied crews didn't survive enough to gatter the experience of german crews... someone published a table with WW2 tank aces around here. Look at it, and you will understand.

I do not negate that Tiger was a good tank but it seems you forget about few things.
Panther was WW2 masterpiece, not Tiger.
Tiger had 90 angle armor which is design pudding.
Panther was only 10% more expensivethan PzIV while Tiger was too expensive for what it could do.
I would rather say, that Tigers, King Tiger, and stuff like that, led Germans to the loss.
Germans would make better use of few PzIV with long barrels than one Tiger.
They have lost not because of amazing ubser steel allied tanks, but because of shitty tanks in numbers.

And it's not hard to become Ace with Tiger when you are shooting to Shermans.
There was a time when KVs were smashing Pz 1-4 so... But it does not make them best WW2 tanks.

And the crew... I remember battle between USA and Germans (yet dont remember which one) where Germans had used Panthers. Shermans were useless. Could not penetrate them. Germans received order to move back or maybe they ran out of ammo - really, dont remember - so instead of reversing, they turned back and showed Shermans there asses. None Panther survived - that crew

The chief weakness of the Wehr was the weak logistics and growing fuel shortages in 1943, which was even more critical than production. The tanks they already had could not be supplied anywhere near to their full effectiveness, let alone fielding more of them. In this respect production costs are not as critical as supply and service infrastructure.

I think in this respect the Tiger was OK, but borderline fail. It served to boast combat morale and could clear out AT belts safely.

The Panther tank in 43' was a clear fail, and should have been rolled out in 44'.

Again, the Tiger had a niche application. Whether the vehicle was a success in the grand scheme of things and amortised the cost of its development and production including the opportunity costs is debatable - I think it did, given how German wartime industry operated - but there are also good arguments to the contrary.

Ja, I concur. The situation of the German war effort from 1943 onwards was fairly paradoxical. On the one hand, with the shift to a war time economy, the production situation improved greatly, if obviously too late, whereas their lack of manpower and critical strategic resources like fuel forced them to effectively abandon modern, mobile operations. Same situation in the air, the Germans late in the war had more planes available than ever before, yet lacked the manpower and the fuel to man and operate them, and the ever more critical situation necessitated shortcuts in training of those few personnel available, leading to ever greater losses. Perfect vicious cycle.

Australian Magic, there were perfectly good reasons at the time for going with nonsloped armour, such as ease of design and production (unlike its opponents, German industry had no institutional experience building tanks whatsoever), and also other factors: You need a very significant slope to actually have a tangible impact, roomier interior, leading to better crew ergonomics, etc.. Still is btw, look ie. at the early Leo 2. The Germans did not expect their armour initially to stop the contemporary At guns by the way.
Anyways, if you ever have the opportunity, try ie. getting into a T34 or P IV. The P IV is nothing for a claustrophobic guy, to say the least, however, the T-34 takes that to a whole different level. Its even difficult to get in there, especially in the drivers position, let alone fight effectively in it I imagine. And god help you if that thing ever catches fire, the commander and loader might have a shot at getting out, driver and gunner are fucked.

stop with the pointless history lessons pls

With this sort of stuff, I think we need to see replays.

So much of the game is how people use their units that theory crafting is close to useless.

The IS-2 is an awesome tank, but if I drive it backwards into a line of Paks, then of course it's going to die, horribly.

Likewise with the Tiger.
I'm sure Austerlitz is capable of not doing things like I've described (though given some of his posts, maybe I shouldn't be so sure), but we absolutely have to see replays so we know what really happened to his Tigers.

Maybe it was stuck in mud, maybe it was caught out in the middle of the entire Soviet force. Maybe it was gangbanged by fast moving Jacksons.

But in this thread all we see is Austerlitz saying Tiger's aren't good enough. Personally, I think Tigers are fine, especially given the overload of support options available to it, but we need to see how Austerlitz is using them. If he's playing stupidly with them, then it's not an issue and his arguments are void.
If he's playing effectively with them, using them effectively and reasonably and they're still getting smashed, then we have an issue.


So, Austerlitz, let's see some replays, then we can get some debate going.

I agree!

Tbh. these kind of threads needs to be followed up with replays otherwise they are redundant

love when the library leaks over into the playground.

Its not important which side have better tanks, but which side have more of them and can afford replacing losses.

That is a fact and reality.

Never denied that, perfectly true.

You have to also take into account there were far more allied tanks to shoot at than German ones. You can't become a tank ace if theres not even enough enemy tanks in your sector to achieve that status.

Ofcourse I'm not excluding bounces from a ZiS, but I know for 100% sure, that when you shoot 100 shots on a Tiger with a ZiS and 100 shots on a IS-2 with a Pak, you will get more hits on the Tiger than a IS-2. Even when you consider RNG it will,

Today I learned that math is hard.

Is-2 Frontal Armor: 375

PaK-40 penetration: 210 / 200 / 190

Chance to penetrate at all ranges: 56% / 53% / 50.67%

Tiger Frontal Armor: 300

ZiS penetration: 200 / 190 / 180

Chance to penetrate at all ranges: 66.67% / 63.33% / 60%.

So no. The ZiS has a ~10% higher chance to penetrate the Tiger than the PaK-40 has to penetrate the Is-2. It's not complicated.

Today I learned that math is hard.

Is-2 Frontal Armor: 375

PaK-40 penetration: 210 / 200 / 190

Chance to penetrate at all ranges: 56% / 53% / 50.67%

Tiger Frontal Armor: 300

ZiS penetration: 200 / 190 / 180

Chance to penetrate at all ranges: 66.67% / 63.33% / 60%.

So no. The ZiS has a ~10% higher chance to penetrate the Tiger than the PaK-40 has to penetrate the Is-2. It's not complicated.

Thank you, perhaps this would be easier

Add RoF in the equation and BOOM, equal time to kill each other.

A Zis has a more reliable first hit, while the pak might me able to land extra shots.

Add RoF in the equation and BOOM, equal time to kill each other.

A Zis has a more reliable first hit, while the pak might me able to land extra shots.

And zis has 6 men,much more difficult to kill.And paks are easier to clear due to flame arty,shocks better soviet arty etc.

And zis has 6 men,much more difficult to kill.And paks are easier to clear due to flame arty,shocks better soviet arty etc.

If there is heavy tank directly before your ATG, then where did your heavy tank go?

If there is heavy tank directly before your ATG, then where did your heavy tank go?

What good is having ur heavy tank before the AT gun going to do vs flame arty or katyusha?

Its not important which side have better tanks, but which side have more of them and can afford replacing losses.

Ah yea it is. It should translate in-game aswell. Axis with better tanks and Allies with more of them.