Firefly -1 reply

Please wait...

shrinerr

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

1st October 2003

0 Uploads

1,258 Posts

0 Threads

#31 16 years ago

Just because the Shermans burnt up easier than the Tigers and Panthers is no reason to stop the Firefly being able to kill a Tiger in 1 shot, what was the ratios of them not being knocked out to them being knocked out by the 17 pndr?




UTHER

ARTE ET MARTE

50 XP

5th December 2003

0 Uploads

551 Posts

0 Threads

#32 16 years ago

Anlushac "A 6lbr should not be able to penetrate the TIGER II ausf B and should need alot of luck to penetrate the sides. IRL the only weak spot was lower side hull and even then the attaced side skirts made penetration difficult."

But surely the 6lbr would penetrate the KT rear armour, as i said i hit it up the rear from about 100m with my Churchill in Breakthrough and it didnt even start smoking let alone die!!




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#33 16 years ago

This is one of those situations where it could go either way.

The side armor of a Tiger II ausf B is 80mm thick sloped 25 deg from vertical. Relative armor thickness is about 89mm. The 6lbr APCBC can penetrate about 82mm of armor sloped at 30deg from 500m.

I said the lower side hull was a weak spot because it is only place where armor is 80mm and flat so armor slope has no play. The rear hull armor plate is 80mm thick set at 30deg reverse angle. Gun is rated to penetrate 82mm, its a close call.




UTHER

ARTE ET MARTE

50 XP

5th December 2003

0 Uploads

551 Posts

0 Threads

#34 16 years ago

Definately a close call, At 100m i wouldnt want to be the German Tank crew putting it to the test!




Comrade0Red

Za *TRA*, Za Kommunizma!

50 XP

25th March 2004

0 Uploads

895 Posts

0 Threads

#35 16 years ago

At the ranges FH operates at if you want to make things realistic the Tiger should be a rolling coffin. Irl it was no particulairly fast, had no electric turret traverse and up close even very thick armour didn't do that much good. That's why the Tiger on the eastern front was such a failure. Either the Germans didn't know how to use it and put it up close, or there were some very smart Soviet tankers who hid their t-34s in the trees until attacking it would be in THEIR interest.




MelanchOli

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

31st March 2004

0 Uploads

303 Posts

0 Threads

#36 16 years ago
Comrade0RedAt the ranges FH operates at if you want to make things realistic the Tiger should be a rolling coffin. Irl it was no particulairly fast, had no electric turret traverse and up close even very thick armour didn't do that much good. That's why the Tiger on the eastern front was such a failure. Either the Germans didn't know how to use it and put it up close, or there were some very smart Soviet tankers who hid their t-34s in the trees until attacking it would be in THEIR interest.

I would be very careful with calling the Tiger a "failure" on the eastern front. Or any other front, for that matter. But you are right insofar that the Tiger excels most at long-range combat. It was designed to do so.

Many other tanks of WW2 couldn't even see the Tiger at ranges because of rather bad optics where the Tiger could already aim at and kill them, AFAIK. The disadvantages of the BF engine don't give the Tiger its proper credit. The maps are too small and the view distance is too short. I guess most people playing FH (including myself, I must add) don't really know what "Tigerphobia" is. For me, the Tiger is just a tank that I need to waste four or five T34-85s against, then it's done. IRL however, a T34-85 wouldn't even get into combat range before getting hit (and killed) by a Tiger. According to a tank web site I once read, the Tiger achieved deadly hits up to a range of 1,500 meters. Well, try to see an enemy tank at that distance in WW2 - not to talk about hitting that!

My point is (and I was trying to point that out in the posting I got quite bad), the Tiger in FH is generally put in a situation where its advantages don't really pay out. You are usually in close-quarters combat and not dictating combat by having better sights, better aiming and making use of a far-reaching, instant-kill tank gun.

It's comparable to a Sniper attacked by an Assault class player in close-quarters. Sure, the Sniper has better optics, better sights, greater range and a single hit ends up rather deadly. But he can't make use of all that - even if the Assault "only" uses the Colt, the Sniper is at a huge disadvantage. We all know that.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#37 16 years ago
Comrade0RedAt the ranges FH operates at if you want to make things realistic the Tiger should be a rolling coffin. Irl it was no particulairly fast, had no electric turret traverse and up close even very thick armour didn't do that much good. That's why the Tiger on the eastern front was such a failure. Either the Germans didn't know how to use it and put it up close, or there were some very smart Soviet tankers who hid their t-34s in the trees until attacking it would be in THEIR interest.

Have you ever even opened a book on World War 2 armor? Have you ever bothered to read said book?

I have seen interviews with Russian tankers and none of them considered the Tiger a rolling coffin or a failure. And the Tiger crews didnt seem to have any problems with racking up large numbers of kills.

I dont know what books you claim to have read but I suggest you expand your library a bit more.




Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#38 16 years ago

Anlushac11Have you ever even opened a book on World War 2 armor? Have you ever bothered to read said book?

I have seen interviews with Russian tankers and none of them considered the Tiger a rolling coffin or a failure. And the Tiger crews didnt seem to have any problems with racking up large numbers of kills.

I dont know what books you claim to have read but I suggest you expand your library a bit more.

The Tiger has been subject of widespread german propaganda campaigns ( they even had a ministery and a minister for that ) boasting about it's performance in a way that is way out of proportion........a Tiger really could not roll over anti tank mines and continue asif nothing happend....it's tracks were no stronger then other (heavy) tanks, they were blown off hitting an anti tank mine just as other type tank tracks did, incapacitating the Tiger......wether or not the Tiger then had to be abondoned ( you can't repair a track in the heat of battle, just like in FH you will be killed outside the tank ! ) depended on the situation around the Tiger, if the territory could not be held, the crew had to abandon and self destruct the Tiger so it in fact was "killed" by a single anti tank mine.......some of the misinformation, myths and propaganda still influences many people today, what they think a Tiger tank was.

You really should read the Tigerfibel ( in german, or the english translation ) and find out what a Tiger is all about, the Tigerfibel doesn't lie about the Tigers weaknesses.....but it also tells what a superior fighting vehicle it could be, if used right.

It's first use in battle in Russia was a faillure, but that was more a result of rushing them into combat before they were technically up to it, and they needed to be used with specific restrictions aswell wich had to be yet discovered.

Once the germans understood their own weapon better, it was a very dangerous weapon....... It DID have an electrically driven turret, a cannon that smashed through almost every enemy armour, and frontal armour that was virtually inpenetrable for all but the heaviest cannons and at way closer ranges then the Tiger needed to kill. Like all tanks, it was relative weak in the sides, rear and top and bottom but in tanks you cannot prevent that, or they will be too heavy for their engine to move them. That was already a problem for the Tiger, and you can't call a 700 HP engine weak.....it had to be compact too, to fit in the tank, and ofcourse with all the armour and a high capacity cooling system ( tank engines have to work very hard in a small room, producing tremendous heat ) there is not much room for a big engine.

Commanders like Wittmann just knew the capabilities of their weapon well, and used it to their advantage. In the end nearly all of them perished anyway, as Tigers are just tanks, only better protected and capable of killing longer range but not untouchable.....properties wich can be negotiated with the right tactics.......a Tiger in itself isn't hard to destroy if it can be approached from the sides or the back, or if it is "saturated" with too many enemy tanks at the same time.....and that is felt correctly in FH aswell, a nOOb with a Tiger never gets very far.....




TigerTeufel

[11PzG]

50 XP

13th October 2003

0 Uploads

60 Posts

0 Threads

#39 16 years ago
Comrade0RedAt the ranges FH operates at if you want to make things realistic the Tiger should be a rolling coffin. Irl it was no particulairly fast, had no electric turret traverse and up close even very thick armour didn't do that much good. That's why the Tiger on the eastern front was such a failure. Either the Germans didn't know how to use it and put it up close, or there were some very smart Soviet tankers who hid their t-34s in the trees until attacking it would be in THEIR interest.

This is by far the dumbest Post I have ever read. Thick armor no good? Tiger..eastern front failure? There are simply too many people on here who have no grasp of even the simpliest concepts. Simply reading over all the posts on these forums would give a person enough understanding to know not to make obvioulsy defective statements like these ones. I cant mess around trying to explain to every moron I come across what is true and what is false. Those of us who know the real facts know and those that dont, simply dont.

The sad thing is most of them think they actually know what they are talking about! And all of those who know what im talking about right now is going "yeah exactly" and those who dont..well i cant think on the same level of someone who thinks the Tiger was a failure and thick armor is no good. So I got no f*cking idea what they are thinking, but we all know its wrong thing, thats for sure. So do us all a favor huh? halt's maul




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#40 16 years ago

When Allied tankers came up against a Tiger I dont think you would have heard any of them say "Enemy armor spotted...oh nevermind, its only a Tiger" Well maybe the guys in IS-2's... BUT THATS THE EXCEPTION.

Ask the Brit tankers who survived Villers-Bocage if a Tiger was a failure or ask Russian tankers who died at Prokhorovhka if the Tiger was a failure. Yes the Russians won the battle but they also paid the butchers bill. Ask the Soviet tankers In the wide open spaces of the Steppes and in the plains of Hungary and Poland where the Tiger had wide open spaces if the Tiger was a failure. The Tiger was a force to be reckoned with. and was usually in the hands of battle hardened experienced crews.

Some say a weapon is only as good as the man in it. OK lets look at that.

When introduced the Tigers recieved hand picked crews who went through specialized training to maximize the abilities of their vehicles. IIRC the crews had to be combat experienced and the gunners were instructed on the 88 by Luftwaffe experts on the guns operations.

When considering the Tiger you also have to take into account that the Tiger was made with the highest quality materials and to the highest standards that Germany could produce.

The crew quality and 88mm gun combined with the outstanding Zeist optics made for a outstanding weapon system that inflicted far more casulties on enemy tanks than they took.