Tigers and Panthers suck

[MrsWargamer]

It's true, these historically feared tanks, in THIS game, really blow dead bears.

As the Germans I rarely enjoy using them, and as the Allies I regularly blow them away to easily it seems.

They are not open topped so the mortar complaint shouldn't be relevant here.

But really, I have been forced when using them, to use them cowering behind Pz IV and Stugs too afraid to duke it out with Sherman schlock.

I'm currently using my Tigers and Panthers as anti tanks guns that are self propelled. The pity is, unlike an anti tank gun, the Tiger and Panther can't hide in woods or buildings. I get more mileage out of a PAK than I do a Panther.

Somewhere along the way, these venerable threats are really over rated pussies.

[insidius]

It's true, these historically feared tanks, in THIS game, really blow dead bears.

As the Germans I rarely enjoy using them, and as the Allies I regularly blow them away to easily it seems.

They are not open topped so the mortar complaint shouldn't be relevant here.

But really, I have been forced when using them, to use them cowering behind Pz IV and Stugs too afraid to duke it out with Sherman schlock.

I'm currently using my Tigers and Panthers as anti tanks guns that are self propelled. The pity is, unlike an anti tank gun, the Tiger and Panther can't hide in woods or buildings. I get more mileage out of a PAK than I do a Panther.

Somewhere along the way, these venerable threats are really over rated pussies.

I have to agree (although not with the same language).

This tank really needs beefed up. Maybe someone should tackle a 'realism' mod?

[Rosseau]

We'll have to check out the Squads file and beef them up a bit, assuming that's the problem.

[LOGAN5]

I agree Tigers are very weak in multiplayer it is almost comical, you can shoot those M5s about 20 times and they don't die, but a Tiger, no problem 1 shot and it is suppressed and turns around running with its tail between its legs.

[cptkremmen]

I've noticed that too. Little stuarts seem harder to kill than tigers....

I am presuming someone has made a mistake in the code somewhere???

[Obsolete]

No... The Stuarts may be harder to kill than Tigers because they are a much smaller target, and far more quicker. Thus, it's much harder to make a direct hit.

As for the Tigers & Panthers being a bit weak compared to history.... they were much better earlier in the Beta since the allies only had about half the fire-power than they do have now.

[shawnt63]

Just to add some fuel to the fire here is a small quote from an article Canadian Terry Copp wrote for the Legion magazine in 1999:

When an investigation of Allied and German tank casualties in Normandy was carried out it confirmed the most pessimistic views about Allied armor. The statistics showed 60 per cent of Allied tank losses were due to a single round from a 75- or 88-mm gun. The stats also showed that 2/3 of all tanks brewed up when hit.

German armor-piercing shells almost always penetrated and disabled a tank. In fact, the armor on our tanks offered such little protection that the only way to survive was to avoid being targeted. The contrast with German tank casualties was especially striking. Only 38 per cent of hits from the Sherman 75-mm or six-pounder-anti-tank gun penetrated German armor. What’s more, German Panther and Tiger tanks often survived one or two hits. The sloping frontal armor of the Panther and the German self-propelled guns prevented penetration of 3/4 of all direct hits.

No one present on the battlefield in July 1944 would have considered using a regiment of Shermans as a manoeuvre force in attacking well-prepared defensive positions that controlled open approaches. Such a force would simply have been destroyed without effecting the battle.

Also interesting to note is German optics for sighting were superior to the Allies so although they didn't have gyro stabilized guns to fire on the move, they could site better and more accurately.

Regarding the Stuart tank, there was a quote on another website from a survey completed I think in 1950 regarding how allied tanks fared against AT Guns, Tanks and Tank destroyers, mines and hollow charge weapons (PZ Faust and PZ Schrek I assume) and for the Stuart over 50 percent of their loss was to enemy tank and tank destroyers, and another 36 percent to mines! There was a caveat to this study that it was a a bit sketchy as to how accurate some of the data is based on some rather small input information (or should I say limited) so it may not be as accurate as it could be.

Shawn

[shawnt63]

Some insight on US Tank strength and losses in Normandy:
First US Army tank status reports were made irregularly during June; daily reporting only became normalized in July. Thereafter, with a few exceptions when days are missing or units did not report, daily reports were made for First Army. Then after 12th Army Group became operational, reports were made for all units assigned to the First, Third, Ninth, and Fifteenth Army. Losses were initially reported as a cumulative total for the first 26 days after D-Day (6 June-1 July) and thereafter on a “weekly” basis (that actually varied from four to nine days).

Strength, 22:00 29 July
M4 (75mm) 748
M4 (76mm) 95
M4 (105mm) 48
M5 541

Losses to 1 July
M4 (75mm) 187
M5 44

Losses 2-29 July
M4 (75mm) 208
M4 (76mm) 12
M4 (105mm) 4
M5 67

Given the amount of M5's in comparision to the Shermans it doesn't appear that they were destroyed in quite the numbers as the Shermans but I don't think it means they were harder to kill. There is a combination of things here - how they were employed (recce) and the fact that German tankers and AT gunners would target the Bigger gun tanks first before taking out the M5's. I don't think if a Stuart is being targetted that it should have more survivability than a Sherman or Cromwell - but it would probably benefit the German player more to target the Sherman or Cromwell first so they don't take out your MKIV or Panther

[IainMcNeil]

The Stuart has less armour than teh Sherman but is a smaller faster target so hader to hit. If you hit the Stuart it is likely toast but it is harder to get the hit.

[LOGAN5]

You ever see those ww2 photos where the Sherman tanks have all kinds of sandbags and stuff all over them, to try and boost the armor. I'm not sure what is meant by "brew-up", I am assuming that means everyone inside is burned alive because the round punches right through the metal and into the cabin. I read something about the engines also being too loud giving away its position to the Germans...

[IainMcNeil]

Brew-up means catch fire. Shermans were notorious for it.

Reports from crews suggest that often if a Sherman came under fire the first thing the crew did was bail out. They'd return later once the the threat had gone.

Once thing to bear in mind about Nomrandy stats is that all this combat was at short range. At the ranges where combat ocurred the effectiveness of the tanks was pretty equal and enviironmental factors became more important such as training, experience, cover, etc. This is what our model is based on and was designed with out BBC appointed historical advisor, John Buckley, Professor of History at Wolverhampton Universtiy and writer of many books on WW2 tank warfare.

[Smirfy]

Brew-up means catch fire. Shermans were notorious for it.

Reports from crews suggest that often if a Sherman came under fire the first thing the crew did was bail out. They'd return later once the the threat had gone.

Once thing to bear in mind about Nomrandy stats is that all this combat was at short range. At the ranges where combat ocurred the effectiveness of the tanks was pretty equal and enviironmental factors became more important such as training, experience, cover, etc. This is what our model is based on and was designed with out BBC appointed historical advisor, John Buckley, Professor of History at Wolverhampton Universtiy and writer of many books on WW2 tank warfare.

Yup the ranges were short and one must remember also Allies were generally on the offense against well dug in armour something that dont happen in game. It is also worth remembering when the German Armour did go on the offense it fell victim to the 17pdrs and TD's in a simmilair way to the Allies. I have seen nothing so far to suggest the armour model is way out of whack, I lose 2-3 tanks to bag a Tiger

[LOGAN5]

The Sherman isn't so weak when its gets right behind you

[adherbal]

Slightly off topic but while I love the look of most vehicles, I always thought the tiger II was disappointing. It looks like too slim and cartoony, especially the turret.

There were 2 turret types so maybe the model below is not the one used in the game, but still it looks too high and thin as far as I can tell.



Being the bigger, most powerful tank in the game it probably could've used a bit more details (polygons) as well.

[cptkremmen]

Looking at the squads file I wouldn't say there were any glaring errors.

Personally I would increase the effective frontal armour of the panther and Tiger 1 by an additional 10, though how much difference that would make to their survivability I am not sure.

I would say the Panther in particular should be reasonably easy to kill from the side, but pretty darned tough for anything but a 17pdr frontally.

Interestingly I notice the 6pdr/US 57mm gun has relatively little penetrating ability. They are usually rated about as effective as the 75mm Sherman gun, against Armour anyway. The heavier Sherman shell would be much more effective against soft targets.

Speaking of which I notice British 2pdr guns fire HE, which of course they never had....

[IainMcNeil]

No the 2pdr gun has no HE capability. Try targetting infantry in game

Same for 37mm German AT gun.

To get a real result look at penetration multiplied by damage. Penetration is just how much the damage is reduced by with range. 6prd has very good AT at short range - as good or better than Sherman if I remember correctly.

[Obsolete]

I'm not sure what is meant by "brew-up",


American tanks were called Flaming-Coffins for a real good reason. Because they were! Even if you failed to take one totally out by a direct hit, they caught on fire so easily. The problem was so bad, that both the Brits and Russians (who were being sold the hardware) continued to scream down the throats of the American manufacturers. However, this still seems to have landed on deaf ears, and I do not know how such a bad design flaw could continue on such a large scale. IIRC, there eventually was a super-duper M5 model that was changed to diesel, etc, but by that time the Russians laughed the Americans right off the barganing table.

And don't even get me started on all the other terrible yet mass-produced allied design flaws.

[Sleet]

That's why they called them Ronsons after the lighter.

Perhaps up the range (if possible) of the Panther and Tiger (II) so they can shoot from farther out. There are historical documents showing hitting targets from 1km and more.
Try that with a Stuart? LOL

[Obsolete]

Ronson Lighter pretty much sums it up. Though I prefer to use the term Tiger Bait

I agree that I would have liked to see the heavier tanks have longer range, but that still wouldn't be very accurate, since scale wise they should shoot across a few hundred game-tiles worth anyway.

[himmelstoss]

well anyhow...is there anything done to beef up the german tanks?

himmel