Jump to content
1.JaVA_KEBEN

Tiger to strong ?

Recommended Posts

29 hits apcr in the flank of a tiger in close range ………...…… no effect …. not even a track with damage 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know if the developers weakened the weapons or made the Tiger indestructible,but it really kills the game play:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like this is a new issue with ammunition that has no HE filling. I've experienced the same with KV1 and T34 while firing at German tanks. I shoot round after round to their side and no visual effect whatsoever. It seems like APHE is the only viable ammunition for piercing armor. It looks like the AP round overpenetrates everything. I haven't tried APCR so I can't confirm its effects. We still have the option to use APHE to reliably kill Tigers from the sides at close ranges.

 

It doesn't kill the gameplay as  much as shooting at the side of the old T34 (that most red tankers use exclusively) at point blank multiple times while it proceeds to oneshot my P4 and P3. We have been dealing with this issue since Tank Crew started but maybe oneday it will be adressed.

Edited by Torrens
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normal , one or two shoots on the side from a tiger with apcr ...close range ..and the tiger was out .

Now i shoot  29 hits on his flank , close range …. no damage visual 🤨

 

 

In a other mission i need 14 shots on real close range on his side , i think not more then 50 meter to kill a tiger ….strange 🙁

 

Edited by 1.JaVA_KEBEN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Torrens said:

I feel like this is a new issue with ammunition that has no HE filling.

 

Good point. I was just standing quite close to the blue spawnpoint on a map, and happened to have APHE loaded when a Tiger spawned (I was perpendicular to the side). I cursed at first because I would have preferred APCR in this situation, but I shot anyway and the Tiger blew up.

Since some Pz3s spawned I kept the APHE (APCR is somehow weirdly crap against Pz3s). More Tigers spawned and I repeatedly blew them up with the first shot. This is in stark contrast with my recent experience with APCR, which was terrible.

 

Of course, switching to APHE isn't a solution to our problem, because the reason why we use APCR in the first place is that, penetration wise, APCR is meant to be better, and I only got through with APHE *in this case* because the distance was so very small.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next thing we know-we will be able to blow up tanks with the MGs and after that just by shooting a flare (red for allies,green for axis)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be that the damage model was "corrected" in an attempt to reflect real life effects after post-penetration, but its not finished yet. APCR doing very little damage in comparison to APHE after penetration is perfectly fine and same goes with AP. You may just be forced to flank the enemy very desicively for the time being. I brought up the old T34 and it's unrealistic damage model because German tanks don't have any solutions to circumvent the issue. It is highly likely that German APCR does have the same issue, however due to the indestructible old T34 the issue might go unnoticed by German tankers since they are used to pumping shell after shell to the enemy with no effect as well.

 

I'm totally okay with AP requiring few more shots to take out and enemy especially APCR but it is deffinately not quite right the way it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Torrens said:

indestructible old T34

Same situation as the old Pz 3...I dont think we should compare these two issues.Old tanks are old buggy tanks,both T34 and Pz3.The recent "fix" of Tiger's armor was not called for.When i switched the radio frequency to the axis frequency and shot the Tiger at 90 degrees from less then a 100 meters 5 times - there were not even any damage reports!!!!This is insane!!!I know,I know....tracks,videos,bug reports blah blah blah.Could have at least told us about this '"fix".:acute:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately the old P3 is a very rare sight unlike the old T34 which is overwhelmingly the most abundant tank in EFront server, further helping my point that the issue with ammunition without HE filler is most likely present with German tanks as well, however may go unnoticed due to the abundance of the buggy old T34 as players are used to it not dying when it should. Their gameplay is likely just as "ruined" as yours when they use APCR against Soviet tanks. In fact this is what German tankers have experienced since beginning of TC and you seem to only just now get the first taste of the same frustration. TC is still early access it will be fixed overtime. As for the time being, use APHE and try to get into point blank range like I usually do. I haven't even used APCR in months.

Edited by Torrens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No,not the first taste of frustration  at all:joy:.

The old buggy tanks frustrated players on both sides for quite a while. Unkillable rear end of T34 and unkillable side of the Pz3. Plus the Pz 3 has a far more inferior armor and armament,which doesn't stop it from destroying the red tanks with ease and absorb rounds like a sponge...Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that the Tiger keeps getting "tougher". To the point of ridiculousness...Perhaps its the rounds getting weaker.I don't know.

Let's not bring up the "old" ,or how some people like to call them "free" tanks in this topic,please. Nothing is free.

I hope the developers fix the Tiger's damage model soon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Torrens, you invoke a picture of balance, where none exists (or existed, before this recent change).

In red tanks, we were only able to hurt the Tiger from within a very narrow-leafed clover leaf (near perpendicular shots), i.e. not only did you have to be very close, if you didn't succeed to blow the Tiger up immediately, the Tiger commander would notice and turn towards you, and game over.

 

This impression of parity is I think a result of Red winning many maps. And that is an effect which has to do with the higher speed of the T34 off road, and the inability of the game engine to support a closed front, with very large amounts of paks, the absence of infantery and so on... all factors that conspire, so that, in the faster tank, you can simply drive around the opposition. And what contributes to this that when maps are won by achieving the map goals, how many tanks were killed doesn't go into the result.

 

However, if you look at tank vs tank kills, you can see there was no balance at all. It simply makes no viable past-time. For instance, if you look at a stats page you can see that even middling Tiger commanders score very highly, whereas on the red side, it's basically just IL-2 pilots who score highly.

The argument of historicity is bonkers here because you can turn this many ways. Why even have the specialized Durchbruchspanzer in game at all, to oppose regular tanks? If historical numbers were applied, the Tigers in each mission should be limited to zero.

 

It's just a waste of time to take historicity as the guide for a viable MMOG. History is full of highly asymetrical conflicts which you wouldn't turn into games because you'd not be able to get people to join the losing side.

Edited by stupor-mundi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stupor-mundi said:

This impression of parity is I think a result of Red winning many maps. And that is an effect which has to do with the higher speed of the T34 off road, and the inability of the game engine to support a closed front, with very large amounts of paks, the absence of infantery and so on... all factors that conspire, so that, in the faster tank, you can simply drive around the opposition. And what contributes to this that when maps are won by achieving the map goals, how many tanks were killed doesn't go into the result.

 

 

These are minor points.
I think there are more serious problems.
Two main problems of blue players.

1) language barrier(I don't know English either).  The blue side has a high percentage of players with different languages. This reduces the speed of communication between players. So many important messages cannot be delivered to the player on time due to poor English proficiency...(this is not only my personal problem, but also the problem of many other players)
2) the blue side should work on the overall interaction. Many tanks and planes simply do not know what to do on the map. They do not know about the conditions of victory and the main directions of the offensive. they do not know how to destroy the T34, do not know what flags to protect and where not to let the red tanks.

The red players have a big trained team that knows how to win on every card. These guys are playing to win, it is difficult to oppose something against them.

That's why the Reds win every month.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Pz.J.St./JG51Zommer said:

 

I agree. Communication is very important. So is the mission objectives. They are usually described in the briefing section of the mission,translated to English. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, stupor-mundi said:

Torrens, you invoke a picture of balance, where none exists (or existed, before this recent change).

In red tanks, we were only able to hurt the Tiger from within a very narrow-leafed clover leaf (near perpendicular shots), i.e. not only did you have to be very close, if you didn't succeed to blow the Tiger up immediately, the Tiger commander would notice and turn towards you, and game over.

 

This impression of parity is I think a result of Red winning many maps. And that is an effect which has to do with the higher speed of the T34 off road, and the inability of the game engine to support a closed front, with very large amounts of paks, the absence of infantery and so on... all factors that conspire, so that, in the faster tank, you can simply drive around the opposition. And what contributes to this that when maps are won by achieving the map goals, how many tanks were killed doesn't go into the result.

 

However, if you look at tank vs tank kills, you can see there was no balance at all. It simply makes no viable past-time. For instance, if you look at a stats page you can see that even middling Tiger commanders score very highly, whereas on the red side, it's basically just IL-2 pilots who score highly.

The argument of historicity is bonkers here because you can turn this many ways. Why even have the specialized Durchbruchspanzer in game at all, to oppose regular tanks? If historical numbers were applied, the Tigers in each mission should be limited to zero.

 

It's just a waste of time to take historicity as the guide for a viable MMOG. History is full of highly asymetrical conflicts which you wouldn't turn into games because you'd not be able to get people to join the losing side.

I'm not really talking about balance or any parity of reds winning or historical numbers or anything related to historical accuracy excpet for the ammunition performance, I'm pointing out the issue with APCR and how it most likely is an issue with the German tanks as well, however as you know perfectly well might go unnoticed since old T34 has damage model issues. A German tanker might not notice their APCR being useless since they are used to facing old T34 where any landing strike is unreliable and might have no affect at anytime. Since the game is early access I believe that the issue with AP and APCR will be fixed during the upcoming patches. Meanwhile APHE also had its damage model changes as for the latest patch notes state and do kill Tigers very effectively when flanked.

 

But if you really want to dive in the balance side of things, I think that these issues are only prevalent on EFront server. I also play on other tank servers that have very different winning parity and they mostly limit the old T34. I want to point out that balance issues are mostly a server options problem and horrible map design for example limitless IL2 just like you said. But IL2 players are not the only ones who score highly on the red team, this statement is wrong. There are plenty of games where Il2's are absent and red tankers perform incredibly well. These players do not use KV1, Sherman or SU122 or new T34. On the German side all tank models occasionally perform well because there is no tank that is so much superior to others that all players use only that tank. On the red side its one tank model that is consistently the only good performer. You are correct that there never has been a proper balance in that particular server. There however is another tank server that is able to achieve balanced gameplay. I do believe that if old T34 and P3 didn't exsist anymore in TC, the balance of the opposing forces would improve. Even in EFront server.

Edited by Torrens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Pz.J.St./JG51Zommer said:

 

The red players have a big trained team that knows how to win on every card. These guys are playing to win, it is difficult to oppose something against them.

That's why the Reds win every month.

 

Last week I played a few times on the german side, it was really not that hard to beat the red players. And I must say that the German side also has some very good players .. who often make it very difficult for us !

2019_12_21__23_7_41.jpg

Edited by 1.JaVA_KEBEN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Torrens, maybe I haven't made my point clear.

I didn't intend to belabor the fact that red wins many maps on EFront. Rather, what I'm trying to get across, is that *although* red win many maps, what's important for players is that they can achieve an acceptable kill/get killed ratio, and that ratio is bad for red, even on those maps that red wins.

Sure you will find a few red tankers in stats who have high scores, but the overall picture of those stats shows clearly how much easier it is to survive in tiger. (Whilst being effective, of course. Certainly you can just drive away from the action...)

The issues with the damage model of the 'old' (free) tanks is one where the hit outcome is, I would say, more erratic. I.e. sometimes a shot bounces off. There's not much point going on about this because I bet the free tanks will be removed when TC is released.

But this is in contrast with, fighting a tank like the Tiger, which you simply can't touch beyond a certain distance. Now the SU 122 has been released which is fun and interesting but doesn't really change the situation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, stupor-mundi said:

There's not much point going on about this because I bet the free tanks will be removed when TC is released.

 

 

In a thread that is about incorrect damage models there is somehow no point in discussing incorrect damage models? Then why is there a point in even saying that APCR and AP rounds have issues? I don't quite understand the logic here. Is another type of bad damage model more important than another? I sure hope that old T34 will be gone and maybe it will but same goes for the APCR issue. Then why even talk about it? Do you see where I'm going here? Point here was literally what you say in my quote. There is not much point about going on about this because it will be fixed in the near future. I simply worded it in a different way and made a very similar comparison.

 

Again I don't agree that red tankers have overall worse kill ratios. I see red tankers with nice amounts of kills everytime I play. On top of that all kills are not equal. Killing a Tiger that is limited is a lot more precious than losing a free tank that has unlimited respawns. How would your playstyle change if your team only had 5 available old T34's? You would stop driving into Tiger's gunsights knowing that you can try again and again and again. Here we can observe the issue where server settings encourage certain gameplay and even affect k/d rations indirectly. This is why I don't think it is fair to simply compare k/d ratio even though I disagree that red tanks have worse ratios.

 

I wouldn't say that surviving in a Tiger is by default easier than other tanks since this is very situational. You can disengage at will and rely on the borked damage model to survive ridiculous hits at point blank range unlike the Tiger. If we pretend that the game happens in a 1v1 vaccuum and we are not in EFront server then I suppose it is easier to survive in a Tiger. Yet after all the points that you made, old T34 is still the absolute dominant tank type in EFront despite fun and cool KV1, Sherman and SU122 that I use everyday. There is a reason for this.

Edited by Torrens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys...I hate to pull out hard core facts but my research is very thorough and, well.....I rest my case on this:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyh-JpWdGmQ

 

I think we will all admit, that's some pretty damaging stuff....I just wanted to clear all this up.  

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, SCG_Neun said:

Guys...I hate to pull out hard core facts but my research is very thorough and, well.....I rest my case on this:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyh-JpWdGmQ

 

I think we will all admit, that's some pretty damaging stuff....I just wanted to clear all this up.  

Love that flick!  We should all just stop with the negative waves!!

Edited by SYN_Mike77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SYN_Mike77 said:

Love that flick!  We should all just stop with the negative waves!!

 

 

Who , i'm not negative … only a question about the armer of  the tiger 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

He doesn't mean it like that...it was just an attempt of mine to be funny, and we were lightening the mood.  Making game adjustments and the feedback is a good thing.

 

Edited by SCG_Neun
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you forget to compare the stability of the tank relative to the enemy aircraft.
The tiger is much more vulnerable to the air than the T34. it has a large size, not so maneuverable. PE-2 with 10xfab100 will kill him with a high probability.

 

If the tiger is in a good position, why can't the PE2 be directed at it?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 1.JaVA_KEBEN said:

 

 

Who , i'm not negative … only a question about the armer of  the tiger 

Watch the clip!  Or better yet the whole film if you haven't seen it!  

 

The most applicable part in that film is the Tank driver.  For the whole film he runs down the Sherman as nothing more than a death trap.  When he finally gets a Tiger, he immediately launches into a rant about what a piece of crap this thing is!  That's us! (Me included)

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Torrens I don't want to make k/d ratios the deciding factor. I brought up k/d ratios *because* on EFront a lot of maps are won by red by taking flags, in spite of very high attrition. My point was that, red winning many maps, can give a wrong impression, of there being some kind of balance. The k/d ratios on an actual server have of course a lot to do with loads of other factors.

But simply in terms of being able fight tigers at all, it was ridiculous before and it's now extra ridiculous. My argument is not about whether that's accurate in historical terms, I simply don't know. it's about setting up an online game in such a way that there is something on one side and nothing on the other side to balance it off.

And I don't buy into Zommer's argument here. That's a valid argument for those who want to fly tank destroyers, but not for those why want to tank.

I don't want to ride in a tank scurrying like a mouse, waiting for IL-2 or Peshkas to deal with enemy tanks and for the red tanks just have the functions to take ground objectives which planes can't.

As for the attempts of others to lighten the mood, the mood is not light for the predominantly red tankers because we have seen many months of these shifts and I can't see anything in the TC lineup that will address the situation.

I think I'll just stop tanking until this is fixed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my opinion m4a2 stronger than t34 and better weapon against tiger, and m4 have anti-air .50, best tank on red side. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, stupor-mundi said:

As for the attempts of others to lighten the mood, the mood is not light for the predominantly red tankers because we have seen many months of these shifts and I can't see anything in the TC lineup that will address the situation.

I think I'll just stop tanking until this is fixed.

 

Stupor. Why didn't you like the SU-122? Many players hoped that Su122 is a tiger killer.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found that the only way to kill a Tiger in the SU-122 is land a direct hit between the turret and hull. It wont work every time but sometimes. Getting in behind the tiger and hitting in the back is the best way. Good luck not getting hit by that 88mm though! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pz.J.St./JG51Zommer said:

Stupor. Why didn't you like the SU-122? Many players hoped that Su122 is a tiger killer.

 

While the gun itself is capable of disabling a tiger, all the other aspects conspire to make driving around in the 122 fairly suicidal.

Only when you try these turretless vehicles out, do you fully appreciate the huge advantage that you get in a turreted tank afforded by the commander opening the hatch and popping the head out, at the absolutely highest point of the vehicle. Being able to look around 360 deg while at the same time listening.

In the 122, in the position on the left, you can open the front/side hatches and listen and look, but you don't gain the spatial awareness that you have from the top of a turreted tank. It feels more like looking out of the windows of a house. OTOH, in the position on the right, you have a rotatable periscope, but in that position you can't listen. You can't use terrain in the way you do in a turreted tank, where your entire tank is occluded by a hill or a bump, whilst the commander's head can just look over that bump.

If you're shooting at long range, you are disadvantaged by the steep howitzer arc of the round, it's much harder to achieve a first round hit than with a proper flat trajectory gun, and after you've shot, reloading takes forever.

If you're shooting at short range, either in a town or aided by very undulating terrain, you're very disadvantaged by the awful S.A., i.e. it is much much more likely that the tiger's commander detects you, before you're able to sneak up on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Pz.J.St./JG51Zommer said:

Stupor. Why didn't you like the SU-122? Many players hoped that Su122 is a tiger killer.

It is a tiger killer. But not the tiger we currently have. I had instances, when i shot a tiger at point blank from a 122  and the tiger was ok. Now add a couple of kilometers of distance to that and the 122 is worthless... Sadly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, RIVALDO said:

It is a tiger killer. But not the tiger we currently have. I had instances, when i shot a tiger at point blank from a 122  and the tiger was ok. Now add a couple of kilometers of distance to that and the 122 is worthless... Sadly. 

 

Su-122 has a low-velocity howitzer, not anti-tank gun like the SU-85 or SU-76.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I understand the frustration....as I've experienced it with german vehicles and aircraft many times in the past.  Never quit playing over it though.

 

I'd like to see them add some physiological effects with hits suffered from large caliber rounds, like the 122 rendering the crew incapacitated and unable to return fire after a period of time.  I think this would be neat but also add a new dimension to the sim that might end up being kind of frustrating and at the same time realistic.  

Edited by SCG_Neun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RIVALDO said:

Now add a couple of kilometers of distance to that and the 122 is worthless... Sadly. 

Did you try it. A shot from a couple of kilometers should most likely hit the top of the tank, which is much more vulnerable, than its front, side or rear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also seems most here forget how a howitzer gun and its shell work, would recommend trying panzer Elite or combat mission 2 barbarossa to berlin or other simulators to see that SU-122 isnt a tank hunter but can fight tanks but its not what its built for but none the less: the shells effectiviness depends on several factors: the angle it hits the enemy tank with, especielly HEAT rounds, as the shell is slow and the shell wobbles, and the angle of the enemy tank affects the results too. HE ammo will use its shock force to destroy parts and if hit correctly and some luck: even take the turret off. But a lot of times it will heat the armour where its too thick or the HEAT ammo fails to hit at the right angle and just damage/do nothing to the tiger.
But like some said: hit it on the turret front armour or right places it will most likely destroy it and the range wont matter for HEAT ammo nor HE ammo.  But best is to hit the roof like Yogiflight says and then a long distance helps but it makes it damn hard to hit the enemy, so its not for everyone to try.

But yeah I think from the reactions here some more tweaking on how effective the shells are, but dont think it will 100% always kill a tank for reasons I mentioned. Also that explosion effect Neun mentioned is also something that would be nice if they added it, maybe lose the driver and radio operator if the shell hits the driver compartment, or the gunner and commander if hit on the turret with a HE shell etc, but not 100% of the time as there are plenty of crew members and tanks that did survive hits without getting hurt but shaken like hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, stupor-mundi said:

OTOH, in the position on the right, you have a rotatable periscope

left(gunner) sight rotatable too

7 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

Did you try it. A shot from a couple of kilometers should most likely hit the top of the tank, which is much more vulnerable, than its front, side or rear.

I tested that and find, on close range 0-500m HEAT better, from 700-800m and higher - HE rounds hit to the top and usually destroy tiger.

Anyway it is not tank killer and best way use SU-122 in team play with over tanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the Tiger that is the problem, it's the ammo. I hit a Kv1 with +15 APCR rounds the other day and it did nothing... I usually only need 1

 

Is this why the Tiger is banned on E-front? And ALL the allied tanks are available?  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the Tiger, its the ammo. It's not the ammo, its the T-34. It's not the T-34, its the Panther. It's not the Panther, its the gun-mech. It's not the gun-mech its the optics, etc etc etc. I can guarantee you'll see similar commentary throughout.

 

TC is not the tank-sim people thought it would be. It isn't the spiritual-successor to Kharkov 43 nor is it a new generation hyper-realistic/even moderately realistic AFV simulations akin to a WWII Steel Beasts. It's an arcade tank game where the developers juggled some numbers, plastered some hyperbole, and excreted a product. I've asked time and time again for the devs to demonstrate their FMV/RV/Ballistic modeling platform. They've never, not once, answered or replied. That pretty much tells me all I need to know.

 

Still, I saw it coming over a year ago.

 

Quote

On top of all of that TC is shaping up to be a disappointment, at least for me. The damage modeling is bad (it's abstracted), the terrain is bad, the texture mapping is haphazard, and the ballistic/kinetic modeling nonexistent. As someone that went out of their way to defend this product before and after EA launch I've just no faith that Tank Crew will be anything but a point and click hit-point adventure in a project that probably looked great on paper, but is ultimately hampered by an aging engine, one ill-suited to this type depiction and where the direction of the project seems to be a mash of arcade game-play in the guise of a simulation.

 

Quote

There is a huge difference between creating a flight sim, its subsequent airframes and damage models, and something else entirely to shift to the realm of AFV's with their kinetic weapons systems and highly, overtly complex, ridiculously intricate armor and CAP penetration values. They might be pumping out content, but we've yet to see any sort of ballistic simulation for any of the tanks provided for the tank sim they advertised, and I can guarantee you never will.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking on the bright side, the problem of every German being in a Tiger has just been solved by the latest update. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah the tiger isnt too strong, at the moment its fairly accurate to how it was in reality and well this is a simulator and we want it to be as realistic as possible, when I drive a t-34 and face a tiger I WANT to feel fear and know I wont be able to do anything frontally, so have to either sneak around or make a mass attack like the russians did in ww2, with arty barrage before we attack.
Im all for historically accurace on good and bad, hate when game developers nerf or try to balance tanks to please gamers who dont have any understanding of ww2.

There is a reason why the top 10 panzer aces were in tigers and had over 100 kills each. :P

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The APCR that the T-34/KV-1 has  wouldn't  be able to penetrate  the tiger from the front evan if wasn't buged and just a quick note that APCR wasn't  design to penetrate sloped armour  only  thick 90 degree armour that what APCBC or similar round that what in was used for and game also shows  you the penetration value.The SU122 was built for the same reason as the early Stug witch was infantry support.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...