Jump to content


Tiger II


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

LCpl_Jones #1 Posted 04 January 2019 - 08:09 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 11216 battles
  • 950
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    06-17-2017

it's such a pointless pile of garbage

 

it equals a defender apparently, gj mm. nice joke

 

seriously wtf can it do ? other then just be an hp piñata 

 

i try to play at as 2nd support, with a bit of range because the gun is 'vaguely' accurate. yeah pointless, it's just a lowe that's just more crapat everything.



Crashzi #2 Posted 04 January 2019 - 08:11 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 6383 battles
  • 148
  • [GO-LD] GO-LD
  • Member since:
    12-09-2016
The irl version was a monster just that WG made the Russian tanks better

undutchable80 #3 Posted 04 January 2019 - 08:13 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 8959 battles
  • 2,299
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    10-30-2014
I take it I will stop grinding that line after I elite the Tiger 1, like I did with the T29? ;)

kaneloon #4 Posted 04 January 2019 - 08:17 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29237 battles
  • 2,278
  • Member since:
    11-18-2011

It's no worse than others, and it leads to upper tiers. If you want a defender buy a defender.

 



HassenderZerhacker #5 Posted 04 January 2019 - 08:20 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 28618 battles
  • 2,627
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View Postkaneloon, on 04 January 2019 - 08:17 PM, said:

It's no worse than others

 

ROFLMAO

19:22 Added after 1 minute

View Postundutchable80, on 04 January 2019 - 08:13 PM, said:

I take it I will stop grinding that line after I elite the Tiger 1, like I did with the T29? ;)

 

The Tiger II and the E100 aren't good tanks.

E75 is OK, but it's tier 9.



Homer_J #6 Posted 04 January 2019 - 08:23 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 30191 battles
  • 32,332
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Postundutchable80, on 04 January 2019 - 07:13 PM, said:

I take it I will stop grinding that line after I elite the Tiger 1, like I did with the T29? ;)

 

But then you won;t get to the E75

 

Over the years the Tiger II has gone from terrible to not too bad and back again a few times.  Currently I think it's status is "forgotten."



HassenderZerhacker #7 Posted 04 January 2019 - 08:38 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 28618 battles
  • 2,627
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostHomer_J, on 04 January 2019 - 08:23 PM, said:

 

But then you won;t get to the E75

 

Over the years the Tiger II has gone from terrible to not too bad and back again a few times.  Currently I think it's status is "forgotten."

 

they should give it the same armor as the AMX M4 mle.49, problem solved.

Bennie182 #8 Posted 04 January 2019 - 08:38 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 55034 battles
  • 1,797
  • [WGL-A] WGL-A
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

View PostLCpl_Jones, on 04 January 2019 - 08:09 PM, said:

it's such a pointless pile of garbage

it equals a defender apparently, gj mm. nice joke

seriously wtf can it do ? other then just be an hp piñata 

i try to play at as 2nd support, with a bit of range because the gun is 'vaguely' accurate. yeah pointless, it's just a lowe that's just more crapat everything.

This guy needs to learn to play.. If I win 60% in it, while mostly played solo in those battles and it's crap I must be godlike for some reason.

It's not the best, but certainly not the worst. I admit it needs some buffing. For me some mobility increase and more armor on turret front will help a lot.



_Conan_Librarian_ #9 Posted 04 January 2019 - 08:41 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 32168 battles
  • 414
  • Member since:
    01-16-2011

Tiger 2 was too big and heavy.

Tiger 2 got a lot of tech problems.

Tiger 2 armor crack on hit, poor steel quality

 IS 2 and T34-85 guns got no problem at all with damaging/destroying Tiger 2

Tiger 2 got poor maneuverability and mobility.

Tiger 2 was no match for IS3, sadly those two tanks never faced each other in battle.

Tiger 2 88mm L71 gun got worse accuracy than IS2 122mm gun

Tiger 2 was made in small numbers and never got any impact on battlefield

Tiger 2 used crazy amount of fuel

Tiger 2 was a mistake, same as Tiger 1, over engineered and very expensive

Tiger 2 looks cool

 

https://www.youtube....?v=sXj8t4-I1mw 

 


Edited by Ojciec_Director, 04 January 2019 - 08:43 PM.


mortalsatsuma #10 Posted 04 January 2019 - 10:26 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13958 battles
  • 1,698
  • Member since:
    06-13-2014

View PostOjciec_Director, on 04 January 2019 - 08:41 PM, said:

Tiger 2 was too big and heavy.

Tiger 2 got a lot of tech problems.

Tiger 2 armor crack on hit, poor steel quality

 IS 2 and T34-85 guns got no problem at all with damaging/destroying Tiger 2

Tiger 2 got poor maneuverability and mobility.

Tiger 2 was no match for IS3, sadly those two tanks never faced each other in battle.

Tiger 2 88mm L71 gun got worse accuracy than IS2 122mm gun

Tiger 2 was made in small numbers and never got any impact on battlefield

Tiger 2 used crazy amount of fuel

Tiger 2 was a mistake, same as Tiger 1, over engineered and very expensive

Tiger 2 looks cool

 

https://www.youtube....?v=sXj8t4-I1mw 

 

 

Then how can you say it was no match? 

Fedeita89 #11 Posted 05 January 2019 - 01:19 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 7836 battles
  • 97
  • Member since:
    04-15-2016

View PostOjciec_Director, on 04 January 2019 - 08:41 PM, said:

Tiger 2 was too big and heavy.

Tiger 2 got a lot of tech problems.

Tiger 2 armor crack on hit, poor steel quality

 IS 2 and T34-85 guns got no problem at all with damaging/destroying Tiger 2

Tiger 2 got poor maneuverability and mobility.

Tiger 2 was no match for IS3, sadly those two tanks never faced each other in battle.

Tiger 2 88mm L71 gun got worse accuracy than IS2 122mm gun

Tiger 2 was made in small numbers and never got any impact on battlefield

Tiger 2 used crazy amount of fuel

Tiger 2 was a mistake, same as Tiger 1, over engineered and very expensive

Tiger 2 looks cool

 

https://www.youtube....?v=sXj8t4-I1mw 

 

 

most of the russian tanks were so bad that didn't even see the field but, surprise, they are ingame and they are the most powerful tanks.

leave the mechanical problems to the history books since this game has never taken them in consideration.


Edited by Fedeita89, 05 January 2019 - 01:22 AM.


_Conan_Librarian_ #12 Posted 05 January 2019 - 03:34 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 32168 battles
  • 414
  • Member since:
    01-16-2011

View PostFedeita89, on 05 January 2019 - 01:19 AM, said:

 

most of the russian tanks were so bad that didn't even see the field but, surprise, they are ingame and they are the most powerful tanks.

leave the mechanical problems to the history books since this game has never taken them in consideration.

 

I know man, still russian tanks are not bad. Dont forget that idea of MBT , ERA armor, composite armor all thanks to russian ideas. Tiger 2 was and still is overrated like hell. Remember Tiger -phobia during WW2 on western front? Every tank allies spoted was a tiger. Its a cool legend but got nothing to do with true. Still game is game and i wish for balance, but this will never come.....

Edited by Ojciec_Director, 05 January 2019 - 03:34 AM.


barison1 #13 Posted 05 January 2019 - 04:07 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 38788 battles
  • 784
  • [MEME] MEME
  • Member since:
    01-14-2012

View PostOjciec_Director, on 04 January 2019 - 08:41 PM, said:

Tiger 2 was too big and heavy.

Tiger 2 got a lot of tech problems.

Tiger 2 armor crack on hit, poor steel quality

 IS 2 and T34-85 guns got no problem at all with damaging/destroying Tiger 2

Tiger 2 got poor maneuverability and mobility.

Tiger 2 was no match for IS3, sadly those two tanks never faced each other in battle.

Tiger 2 88mm L71 gun got worse accuracy than IS2 122mm gun

Tiger 2 was made in small numbers and never got any impact on battlefield

Tiger 2 used crazy amount of fuel

Tiger 2 was a mistake, same as Tiger 1, over engineered and very expensive

Tiger 2 looks cool

 

https://www.youtube....?v=sXj8t4-I1mw 

 

i highly doubt the accuracy of that given information, seems more a propaganda source of the russians

the transmission/engine was the biggest issue of tiger 2, which was already an issue for tiger 1.
armor quality wasnt bad, just too hard making it shatter easier, mostly against higher caliber shells

gun wise the tigers are just better to knock out other tanks, whereas the IS2 suited against non tank engagements due to the higher caliber HE shell. stabilisation was on tiger 2 better aswell. seems pretty unlikely that is2/t3485 would be more accurate, also considering germans had better optics/range finders and all.

number wise tiger 2 didnt had much impact yea, quantity>quality. for every tiger you could make a whole bunch cheap suicide tanks

wouldnt really call it a mistake to make tigers, just the massive focus on super heavies was a mistake, should been more balanced with way fewer of them as defensive long range and way more cheap tanks/material

 

 

03:14 Added after 7 minutes

View PostOjciec_Director, on 05 January 2019 - 03:34 AM, said:

 

I know man, still russian tanks are not bad. Dont forget that idea of MBT , ERA armor, composite armor all thanks to russian ideas. Tiger 2 was and still is overrated like hell. Remember Tiger -phobia during WW2 on western front? Every tank allies spoted was a tiger. Its a cool legend but got nothing to do with true. Still game is game and i wish for balance, but this will never come.....

britain was ahead of its time with the MBT tho, centurion was proven pretty effective. and wasnt the ERA research stalled pretty early on as they couldnt make it work out well and then resumed like 15 years later

 



TankkiPoju #14 Posted 05 January 2019 - 09:45 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21303 battles
  • 6,566
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostOjciec_Director, on 04 January 2019 - 08:41 PM, said:

Tiger 2 was no match for IS3, sadly those two tanks never faced each other in battle.

 

IS-3 was also pretty bad in real life, it was basically made for WW2 victory parades by Russians to show their power.

jdc302 #15 Posted 05 January 2019 - 10:27 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 15808 battles
  • 86
  • Member since:
    07-09-2011

View PostOjciec_Director, on 04 January 2019 - 07:41 PM, said:

Tiger 2 was too big and heavy.

Tiger 2 got a lot of tech problems.

Tiger 2 armor crack on hit, poor steel quality

 IS 2 and T34-85 guns got no problem at all with damaging/destroying Tiger 2

Tiger 2 got poor maneuverability and mobility.

Tiger 2 was no match for IS3, sadly those two tanks never faced each other in battle.

Tiger 2 88mm L71 gun got worse accuracy than IS2 122mm gun

Tiger 2 was made in small numbers and never got any impact on battlefield

Tiger 2 used crazy amount of fuel

Tiger 2 was a mistake, same as Tiger 1, over engineered and very expensive

Tiger 2 looks cool

 

https://www.youtube....?v=sXj8t4-I1mw 

 

 

I think that with the IS, to reload the gun, the crew had to aim to gun upward just to reload. Can you imagine if this were in WOT? 

XxKuzkina_MatxX #16 Posted 05 January 2019 - 11:46 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 53025 battles
  • 2,396
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostTankkiPoju, on 05 January 2019 - 10:45 AM, said:

 

IS-3 was also pretty bad in real life, it was basically made for WW2 victory parades by Russians to show their power.

 

Your tank knowledge never ceases to amaze me, like "it's easier to use gun depression in low profile tanks"!!! But then again it's the wot forums where anything goes so keep going you're doing just fine.

Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 05 January 2019 - 11:56 AM.


LCpl_Jones #17 Posted 05 January 2019 - 12:28 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 11216 battles
  • 950
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    06-17-2017

View Postkaneloon, on 04 January 2019 - 08:17 PM, said:

It's no worse than others, and it leads to upper tiers. If you want a defender buy a defender.

 

 

i have a defender, what's the point of your comment ?

 

View PostBennie182, on 04 January 2019 - 08:38 PM, said:

This guy needs to learn to play.. If I win 60% in it, while mostly played solo in those battles and it's crap I must be godlike for some reason.

It's not the best, but certainly not the worst. I admit it needs some buffing. For me some mobility increase and more armor on turret front will help a lot.

 

i know i pointed to that in the op, still as you're such a deity of tiger II driving maybe some knowledge could be shared rather then a snarky comment

 

View PostOjciec_Director, on 04 January 2019 - 08:41 PM, said:

Tiger 2 was too big and heavy.

Tiger 2 got a lot of tech problems.

Tiger 2 armor crack on hit, poor steel quality

 IS 2 and T34-85 guns got no problem at all with damaging/destroying Tiger 2

Tiger 2 got poor maneuverability and mobility.

Tiger 2 was no match for IS3, sadly those two tanks never faced each other in battle.

Tiger 2 88mm L71 gun got worse accuracy than IS2 122mm gun

Tiger 2 was made in small numbers and never got any impact on battlefield

Tiger 2 used crazy amount of fuel

Tiger 2 was a mistake, same as Tiger 1, over engineered and very expensive

Tiger 2 looks cool

 

https://www.youtube....?v=sXj8t4-I1mw 

 

 

 dubious claims aside, it's a game. there's no need for such disparity in tank capabilities. 

 

 


Nishi_Kinuyo #18 Posted 05 January 2019 - 12:59 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 8070 battles
  • 4,931
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011
Well, WG sort of made a promise to buff the E100 line... :harp:

XxKuzkina_MatxX #19 Posted 05 January 2019 - 01:01 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 53025 battles
  • 2,396
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostLCpl_Jones, on 05 January 2019 - 01:28 PM, said:

 

i have a defender, what's the point of your comment ?

 

 

i know i pointed to that in the op, still as you're such a deity of tiger II driving maybe some knowledge could be shared rather then a snarky comment

 

 

 dubious claims aside, it's a game. there's no need for such disparity in tank capabilities. 

 

 

Amazing right? You ask for help with a certain tank, a tank that's known to be at least UP but instead you get some biased nationalist crap!!!

 

I read this topic when you started it yesterday soon after the mods closed a similar one also about the tiger. I saw the first couple of comments and nothing about game play like "snipe more with it", "use gold more often since it got better pen" or even "use it as a sniper TD".

 

I thought, let it be till the morning for more people to write something useful or at least something related but NO, they kept repeating the same wehraboo trash over and over.

 

Guys if you're so tilted and uncomfortable playing russian tanks, or a russian game for that matter, petition a western studio to make you a tank MMO where the king tiger will be "teh bestest tonk evaaaaaa". It's unhealthy and poisonous for you, the community and even the game development to keep doing that.

 

On topic, the tiger 2 should be balanced against other tier 8 heavies especially the new ones like the patriot, defender, etc. or at least comparable in performance to the Lowe its premium brother.



AliceUnchained #20 Posted 05 January 2019 - 01:38 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 38769 battles
  • 9,091
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostBennie182, on 04 January 2019 - 08:38 PM, said:

This guy needs to learn to play.. If I win 60% in it, while mostly played solo in those battles and it's crap I must be godlike for some reason.

It's not the best, but certainly not the worst. I admit it needs some buffing. For me some mobility increase and more armor on turret front will help a lot.

 

At 1.369 average damage that 60% win rate seems quite high. The various team battle only awards, the rampage and domination awards, and the Brothers in Arms awards would suggest you really did not 'play mostly solo with it'. 

 

View PostOjciec_Director, on 04 January 2019 - 08:41 PM, said:

Tiger 2 was too big and heavy.

Tiger 2 got a lot of tech problems.

Tiger 2 armor crack on hit, poor steel quality

 IS 2 and T34-85 guns got no problem at all with damaging/destroying Tiger 2

Tiger 2 got poor maneuverability and mobility.

Tiger 2 was no match for IS3, sadly those two tanks never faced each other in battle.

Tiger 2 88mm L71 gun got worse accuracy than IS2 122mm gun

Tiger 2 was made in small numbers and never got any impact on battlefield

Tiger 2 used crazy amount of fuel

Tiger 2 was a mistake, same as Tiger 1, over engineered and very expensive

Tiger 2 looks cool

 

https://www.youtube....?v=sXj8t4-I1mw 

 

Basically everything you write here is either wrong, out of context, disproved, lacks supporting evidence, irrelevant, and/or made up nonsense. There's a lot of misinformation around the internet, mainly because most people blindly copy/paste stuff they find without doing any kind of fact checking, verification. Out of curiosity I will watch the video, but I am fairly sure what I will read and hear will be the same nonsense I've seen and heard many times before.

 

Allow me to rectify a few of the blunders you've posted here (and I'm assuming you just mindlessly copied them over from that YT video without actually knowing/understanding anything yourself):

 

1.) While the PanzerKampfwagen Tiger Ausführung B, Königstiger, or Tiger II, certainly was big and heavy, and underpowered (using the same engine as the lighter Panther and Tiger tanks) it was actually quite mobile: the wide tracks gave it a low ground pressure, and it had good ground clearance. The whole 'it was not mobile' nonsense is a myth, and has been disproved on many occasions. 

 

2.) Armor cracking in itself says absolutely nothing about the quality. Just like high hardness says nothing about quality. Armor cracking typically is a mode of defeat when high hardness armor is struck by overmatching (so higher caliber) projectiles. The few properly documented cases of lower quality armor actually concern analysis of the Panther tank by US forces. And some of their conclusions are actually based on US assumptions as to what constituted good quality armor, which were later (after the war) shown to be wrong. The main issue observed with late war German vehicles was not so much armor cracking, but welds cracking/bursting open. This again says nothing about the quality of the armor, but everything about the quality of the welds. Late war German armor composition changed, due to lack of strategic metals (molybdenum for one). This composition change, and generally a higher hardness to go along with it, initially caused problems for the traditional welding techniques with welds bursting on impact as a result. This was later rectified by the Germans for the most part.And while it certainly seems plausible that armor quality dropped somewhat, due to shortages and less strict quality control, there is practically zero evidence showing that overall armor quality was poor. Or less than that of other nations.

 

3.) Both the IS-2 and T-34-85 could not penetrate a Tiger II frontally at any range. They would have to get within close distance (especially the T-34-85) and get in the side of one to penetrate it. There is only one documented case of a Tiger II penetrated frontally, and that by a British 17-pounder through the front turret. The Soviets had to rely on ambush tactics in order to knock out Tiger II's.

 

4.) Claiming that the high velocity 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 has worse accuracy than the 122 mm on the IS-3 is beyond ridiculous. But please, do provide me with the actual documented proof.

 

5.) As the Tiger II and IS-3 never actually engaged one another, there's no way to say with any certainty which one would prevail. Far more than the vehicles themselves this would depend on terrain, range, and crew experience/skill. Making these kind of wild unsubstantiated claims just underlines your complete lack of knowledge on the matter.

 

6.) The main reason for the low number of Tiger II's produced is the simple fact that the Allies continuously bombarded German factories, infrastructure, supply lines. Most of the Henschel plant was leveled by Allied bombing. Wiki even states that 95% of the plant was destroyed.

 

7.) Cost of a unit, or a more generic 'it was expensive' argument falls completely flat every time. In a dictatorial state, the ruling body can dictate at any time what the cost should, or will be. Therefor cost is an utterly useless, and irrelevant comparison parameter.

 

Now I'd be happy to go into more detail on all the above, and perhaps even teach you a thing or two on the subject, but you should start by letting go of all the nonsense info you've been fed or looked up yourself.

 

Edit: And please spare me the Kubinka 'tests'. All the Soviets did was strip the vehicles of everything (gun, mantlet, engine, etc), in some cases quite possibly even on previously burned out hulls, then fire a load of AP and HE from various calibers at it and draw conclusions from that. Fire enough projectiles at something, and the armor will weaken, will crack, will fail, and welds will burst as well. The same would happen to any other vehicle, be it German, Soviet, or anything else.

 

Edit II: Also watched part of the video, at around 04:15 the poster talks about frontal turret penetration, turret dislocation: the picture however shows a Tiger I, not a Tiger II... I can't take anyone fudging up like that seriously in any way. Further note, the penetration of a Tiger II turret with those tests was actually achieved by an 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71. Additionally, achieving penetration of the front with the gun and mantlet taken out near edges is far easier as the armor in that area is not supported on all sides.

 

Edit III: Ah now I understand, most of information is taken from tankarchives.com which is so full of utter nonsensical conclusions and biased idiocy it's beyond a joke. The website is full of interesting information, tons of great pictures, but the conclusions from the author are beyond absurd and should be ignored by everyone. 

 

Edit IV: Later on the poster/author talks about IS-2 being able to shatter or penetrate the Tiger II glacis. Yet there is no documented proof this ever happened in combat, ever. It only happened with the afore mentioned Kubinka 'tests' and only on damaged hulls (better description would be wrecks). It's a shame the Soviets never exposed an IS-2 to the same 'tests'.

 

Edit V: The commentary around 16:30 in the linked YT video basically is the only useful information to be found in that video. The rest is misinformation with vital details missing (either deliberately or simply because they were lacking in the first place), mainly based on the utterly wrong conclusions drawn by the author of tankarchives.com. Just to clarify with one example: if one draws the conclusion that a low velocity howitzer gun actually is more accurate than a long barreled high velocity gun, one should seriously question one's own conclusion and go back to double, even triple check the source data: the German and Soviet accuracy tables are NOT directly comparable (you will find a very useful explanation as to why that is in the commentary on tankarchives).

 

View PostLCpl_Jones, on 05 January 2019 - 12:28 PM, said:

 dubious claims aside, it's a game. there's no need for such disparity in tank capabilities. 

 

They're beyond dubious, they're flat out false, wrong, inaccurate. But once something is out on the internet it is very hard to get rid off.

 


Edited by AliceUnchained, 05 January 2019 - 08:59 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users