People are getting WAY too into tank battles for this game imo. 4 tanks? That’s 1/3 of the team just in tanks! This isnt war thunder
3 Likes
wait, if im not mistaken, then back in the day these 2 vehicles were actually used in different roles.
Panther was supposed to be a long range tank vs tank master
while the tiger was more suited for city environment than the panther.
So the Panther had:
-better “effective armor” because of slope
-more powerful AT gun
-weak armor besides front, especially top and bottom of the tank
And the Tiger had:
-thicker armor overall but not sloped
-bigger caliber for more BOOM vs infantry
-visibility for the crew was better, small viewports to the side of the turret, like the PzIV
also wasn’t the bazooka just powerful enough to dmg the tiger from the side? I think I remember reading something about that, not sure tho.
agreed. go play war thunder.
So you can find out about it not being the uber-tank all the wheraboo’s want, and whine like the newbies do when they first get to it in WT?
Sooooo… not looking forward to all those threads…
2 Likes
I´m against that idea and always will be. We are fighting US troops here so no tigers for you.
So no tigers because US troops didn’t face them at Normandy - only the Brits did - but M2 carbine, Jumbo, and any significant Luftwaffe presence are all OK??
3 Likes
They aren´t and you know that.
I said that more than enough times on this forum.
Seriously, do I really have to mention every other bs that everybody knows about even if it is off topic? That is pointless.
3 Likes
The idea that they shouldn’t be in the game “because they didn’t face US troops” - is pathetic and deserves to be pointed out so it can be mocked.
1 Like
ELOROS JUST GOT REKT.
hows it feel?
Oh right, I forgot we are taking full holywood direction. Really sorry for not wanting that and expressing that opinion.
What is really sad, is the fact that you seem to agree with that approach. But to be fair I know it is unavoidable at this point (which does not make it right).
If you have such spite against me then fine, nothing I can do about it. But keep flame wars to yourself instead of behaving like a clown.
What full hollywood direction are you on about? What does that even mean ffs??
Why would I not agree with “if it was at Normandy then it is a valid item for considering to be included in the game” as an approach?
Why is it that YOU have a problem with that?
I wouldn´t have any problem at all if we could at least get some british troops since “they served in Normandy too.” We already have weapons in game, just to place it into the right hands.
You got British weapons in an “Allied” army - so you get to face tigers 
(should they ever arrive with whatever “balance” is provided, etc)
moreover I wouldn’t have a problem facing Tigers in Normandy with an “American” army either - since they(Tigers) were present in the campaign and it is not an unreasonable historical possibility in a game where every battle is fantasy anyway!
Perhaps later campaign levels might also include some british squads since it is “Allied” army. With those, Tigers could actually not be a bad addition if devs find a way to balance it. As you said, those battles are pretty much a fantasy, so who would give a heck about brits and US storming same beaches together, but some basics should remain at least somewhat consistent imo.
don’t think they are going to change the game to give us much consistency in basics at this late stage 
Heck I’ve started playing The Operational Art of War again (TOAW IV) 7 or 8 years since I last did and over 20 years since I first got it way back at version II, just to get a bit of historical grounding again!
The late-war bazookas with M6A3 HEAT were, but early war bazookas could not penetrate the tiger from the side. The Tiger had 80mm of side armor. M6A1 HEAT had 55-60mm of Penetration. M6A2 HEAT had 75-80mm of penetration. M6A3 HEAT had 100-105mm of penetration.
The Panther, Meanwhile, had 45mm of side hull armor, sloped to the point of giving it roughly 50mm of equivalent thickness.
As for how they do vs infantry;
Panther A Turret traverse rate: 24 degrees / second
Tiger E turret traverse rate: 14 degrees / second
Panther A HE round TNT equivalent: 725g
Tiger E HE round TNT equivalent: 698g
Panther A coaxial ammo count: 2700 rounds
Tiger E Coaxial ammo count: 2350 rounds
(reload rate for the main gun is effectively the same for both)
The cupolas were similar between the Late production Tiger 1’s and Panther. (while the early Tiger 1 cupola had better visibility, it was also more vulnerable to anti-tank fire) Gunners optics were also effectively the same in performance, with both receiving a dual-magnification 2.5x / 5x optic, with a 28 degree and 14 degree field of view respectively.
Anti-tank does also certainly go to the panther, with significantly higher penetration from the main round, and more effective frontal armor.
While the Tiger had some advantages IRL over the Panther (crew comfort and safety, as well as some amount of reliability) These don’t really matter so much in-game, like at all. So, yeah. A panther A or G > A Tiger H1 or E. I’d even argue a Panther D is better than a Tiger for game purposes, though it’s 6 degrees / second turret traverse rate would hurt it vs infantry quite a bit. (It would, however, still be better for game balance on account of the side armor actually being able to be penetrated by an M5A1 Stuart with it’s ~80mm of flat pen, or an infantry-carried anti-tank weapon)
1 Like
Well the new optics really have nerfed them quite a bit.
All the ‘tigers’ that U.S. Troops said they saw were all panzer IVs. To a U.S. Soldier all German tanks were Tigers.
I wonder who invented this explosive?)
Maybe allow either one ‘heavy’ tank OR two light tanks on the battlefield for each team at once?
Currently being able to play two jumbo shermans is very, very strong, and light vehicles have no real place in the current meta once you out-level them since they get hard countered by later vehicles and generally speaking don’t have a huge increase to mobility (not to the point of it making a big difference).