Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
They gimped the Tiger tank in this game...Just an FYI.
Domesto
Member Posts: 110
I started a new account to see if any changes have been made to this game and after looking over the forums I notice that many people are still finding out the hard way (grinding) that the Tiger tank in this game is gimp. I played the Tiger in beta and found out just how bad it was then. The 8,8cm L/56 will bounce shells off the front of shermans and T-34s at 200m often. I am driving both the M4A3E8 (Sherman) and the T-34/85 and Tigers with the 8,8 L/56 still bounce shells off the front of my tanks just like they did in beta.
The Armor on the Tiger is paper, can punch through the front of it no problem with the sherman. Yes it only has 100m front hull but angling the tiger does not seem to make a difference as it should (Tiger crews had been trained to angle the armor for max protection).
Anyways, I only bother with this thread because this (along with arty being OP) seems to be a very hot topic as people become very pissed off when they spend lots of time grinding to get the famous Tiger tank only to find that it has been gimped/nerfed into being a huge waste of time.
IMO the whole german tree is a waste of time as the Russian tanks and even some US tanks can do everything better.
Just an FYI.
Edit: If you are thinking of playing this game to drive a Tiger, read this thread http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/43670-the-poor-damage-from-tiger-long-88/
Comments
You're finding out what the Germans in WW2 found out. Angled armor = good. Flat slab = not so much.
The front of the sherman and t-34 is nearly as thick (or sometimes vastly thicker, such as the "Jumbo" Sherman") in effective armor than the Tiger. From any angle. Add in the "angling the tank" factor makes it that much thicker. And the armor penetration values you see listed typically are AT a 30 degree angle already (they chose it because it was rare to fire straight on at something, so eliminate the "Best" case). So if a Sherman's gun can penetrate 98mm @ 1000m against FHA, it's doing that against the "BEST" case scenario of a Tiger (turned tank). If the Tiger is at angle closer to zero than 30, the gun will do that much better. Now in WoT, they've shrunk the ranges WAY down on the guns (basically, the sherman's 76mm gun would penetrate the tiger from anywhere on most of these maps at any angle, since the maps are only 1.5km across I believe).
BTW, the Sherman's HVAP ammo, would penetrate the Tiger at nearly 2km.
The Tiger was a beast when it was facing low velocity 75mm's and 57mm's in 1943. The russians learned that more is better, and hence went to their 85mm's and 122mm's. The brits upped their guns to the QF17lb and the Americans went to the high(er) velocity 76.2mm M1A1 and M1A2 guns and used HVAP for those tough nuts to crack, and the M36 Jackson was making more appearances on the european battlefield at this time as well with its high velocity 90mm. And by the time of D-Day, there were so few Tigers on the western front as to be almost a non-factor. And even those typically were broken down.
Horizontal angle is better than vertical angle as the round will come down on the target. So 100m of armor angled horizontal will tend to protect better than 100m of armor angled vertical.
Next, if they made the guns more powerful because of the size of the maps (Please link this info because I have never seen any of the devs claim this before) then the 8,8cm L/56 should even MORE SO never bounce off the front of a sherman that has 63mm on it's front. By the way, the 8,8cm L/56 using APCBC was able to penetrate 110mm at 30 degree at a range of 500m (500m is the max view distance on tanks in WoT).
Also from what I understand the only guns that took into the 30 degree angle on penetration values was the German guns.
I'm not going to bother going into why is the Tiger is matched up with tanks that had been built much later than it.
Anyhow, Just go to the WOT forums and read the threads there if you want to see how bad it is. Of course the Devs with their alt accounts are doing everything they can to spin some sort of false truth and rewrite history.
Again my point here is to just give people a heads up on how bad the Tiger tank is in the game before they spend weeks grinding for it just to be let down.
P.S. The 75mm can also penetrate the front of the tiger in WOT.
Almost all the guns were tested at 30 degrees. I believe the russians might have used 20 degrees for testing for some guns, but basically, no one cared about the perfect shot angles. And the angle a round hits a tank at due to "dropping" is basically a non-factor (A couple of degrees at most). The round falls, yes, but due to rifling, the round tends to stay horizontal for the meaningful part of its flight (the first second or two). Lobbed rounds (arty) "tips over", but that's supposed to happen, as they aren't trying for penetration. The tiger's 88 is facing armor that's around 100mm in effective thickness. It can barely handle that at range, and with the large fudge factor (25%) built into the game, some rounds will bounce.
L/56 88 in game: 132/171/44. That 132 is at close range. It drops rapidly at range (all guns do in game). At 500m, reduce penetration by another 25% or so. So in theory, your 88 shot could "roll badly" and hit the bottom of its penetration range at 500m and only do 66mm of penetration, easily deflectable by the sherman and T-34 frontally.
Why do you even talk about 8,8 L/56? It's basically a med's gun, just a quick career episode for the Tiger. 8.8 L/71 works pretty well agains all tanks it faces. Armor is almost non-existent it's true and makes Tiger a very difficult tank to play, but after that you get KT, which is well worth the efforts
And I don't understand "Tiger crews had been trained to angle the armor for max protection". "Crews" - do you mean yourself?
I enjoy my Tiger very much, so not really sure what the problem most people have is. It doesn't allow me to dominate the entire field, but the majority of my matches I dish out far more than I receive.
It doesn't bounce many shots and the gun doesn't hit as hard, but it fires faster than most. Just have to play to the tanks strengths and weaknesses I guess.
Tiger sucks really bad when it's a top tank and facing IS or T29 on other team.
I agree, the Tiger tank takes a killing when it is up aginst anything with a good cannon. The tiger shoots a little faster but the armor cant hold up to the T29 blasting at it.
Use long 88 - problem solved.
Tiger has its best tier7 weapon. I have IS, Tiger..and keeping my Tiger.
Just learn how to use it.
I know a lot of people don't like the Tiger and feel it is statistically inferior to other tanks, but I do exceptionally well in the Tiger.
It is a great tank if played to its strengths. The range and accuracy are deadly for long range enouncters. The rate of fire can turn a peek a boo fight to your advantage if you don't run and hide after every shot. Many times you can turn a fight with other T7 heavies into a situation where you are getting 2 shots to their 1 and there isn't much they can do about it.
Tiger is s a decent sniping tank, but that's pretty much it. And at the top of the list it's not a role your team expects you to play.
The Tiger is not even that good a sniper tank. It has really bad camo, so you are spotted by everyone and once spotted everyone knows you are an easy target so they take the shot, plus arty start to rain down on your head.
The Long 8,8 claims to Penetrate 203mm average but it bounces off the front of weaker tanks all the time (Loss of penetration power over distance is the reason given (even with max view at 500m). The accuracy on the 8,8 L/71 claims to be .3 at 100m but it seems to miss a good amount or IMO just as much as the Russian 100mm D10T with a .37 at 100m. Now even if you do penetrate the target, at times you can do down to only 165 damage to the target. So most of the time you have to shoot the target a ton of times, all the while being visible to the enemy.
I'm going to go ahead to say what needs to be said. There is Russian bias in this game, and the devs are borderline racist with some of the comments they have made to people in the forums in the threads discussing German tanks. It is easy to see when they are using alt account also as they use the same insults against people as they have used before on their primary accounts.
Players bias about Russian bias is bigger than the Russian bias itself. Would you pesonally prefer to be in a team with Maus or IS-7 as a top tank in Himmelsdorf?
I never seen racist comments from the developers. Rude, impolite and insensitive on Russian forums - yes. Can't recall anything racist. Do you have a proof link?
I've been doing some research, and ran three accounts each using one of the three nations represented per account. In other words... One account had all Russian tanks, another US tanks, and the third German tanks. What I found is that the Russian tanks are hard to kill, insanely accurate, are cheaper to research and buy than the other two nations. The developers claim that their tanks (bear in mind, these guys are Russians, so it should be self explanatory) are "known" for their sloped armor, despite the well known fact that their armor is paper thin, all their tanks are lightly armored, their tanks shouldn't be able to hit the broad side of the barn 100% of the time, and look like cigarette cartons on tracks.
Apparently, they forgot that the German's Tiger series tanks were nearly the reason we all were almost speaking German. If it wasn't for the allies cutting off the supply lines, those things would have rolled right over us. Hence the well known fact that German tanks were heavilly armored, and had an insane amount of accuracy. Which the Russian developers refuse to admit to.
If you want my opinion, just forget about this game. They will never fix the balance despite the claim that they have that there are over 10k people on their servers at any given time. (Which, as we all know, is a flat out lie. If there were, the matches would be better balanced.) If you insist on sticking around, then go for it. Other than that, have fun with the 12 year old punks that infest the game and the forums.
This is an outright lie.
Speaking about the comminity, as a matter of fact few aliances from EVE moved into or have a solid presence in WoT. For me it's a good sign of a mature and intelligent player base.
You failed to backup how my statement that you highlighted is a lie. However, I will point out that your own statement about the community being mature and intelligent is far off the mark. I will also point out that not many people on the forums even has any clue to what they're saying, flaming or backing up.
World of Tanks is a game i would have tried.. but from the multiple sources I've read
the tiger tank phenomenon seems to be legit
So I haven't tried it myself as of yet... I don't see the point in playing a game that caters to a single country... (one im not a part of at least) for national pride...
Russian tanks beating german tanks 1 on 1 seems ridiculous for WW2 (not withstanding a significant skill gap)
but overall it doesn't sound like a game worth playing from multiple reviews i've read :
PS. Personally I would have thought it to be rewarding to defeat a "superior" german tank using lesser equpiment (russian tank)t.
http://wiki.worldoftanks.com/Main_Page
and comparing accuracy of all guns. Overall Russian tanks are the worst. It's so widely known fact, that I doubt that you even ever played this game.
You failed to backup your statement.
Continuously repeated nonsense. Whereas in fact most German tanks in game will beat Russian counterparts in one-on-one situations.
First off, allow me to say that yes, I have played this game. I decided today was going to be the last run. Clearly your the one that hasn't even played it. Otherwise you would have seen it yourself. As I told stated, I did do some research in game. Which, as my results showed, the Russian tanks in game were insanely accurate, unlike what the developers claimed. Which, again shows that they favored their own country's tech tree. As far as me supposedly not backing up my statement, I have more than done that. Anyone can head over to their forums to see that I'm correct. {mod edit}
WoT USED to be fun, until they started churning out more premium tanks. To say the least, they're just inventing weapons to put on tanks now in an effort to "balance" the game out. It's good for a short laugh, but to frustrating at times to really enjoy. Maybe they'll get smart with their next game, I hear they're coming out with World of Warplanes. Somehow, I doubt this one will be any less frustrating.
Yeah I was wondering what the point of creating 3 seperate accounts would achieve and took that into consideration for his "opinion".
There is a lot of speculation and hyperbole about tanks in the game. Some of it is true, but usually not to the degree most people try to make it out to be. I've played a lot of tanks that people flat out say are terrible and have found them to be very fun and competitive when played to their strengths. Not every tank is made to rush into the thick of battle and slug it out against every tank they come up against.
There is a lot of variance between the tier, nation and class of your enemy tank. I enjoy it and think the Tiger is a good tank for its tier. It can't do everything, but no tank I have played really can.
Domesto,
I wish I would have come across your post sooner! Now that I own a Tiger, I can't agree more with you that the developers of WoT gimped it.
My question to you (and anyone else that may be reading this) is: can you recommend a better game than WoT? I'd love to find a game similar to WoT, but one in which the WWII-era tanks perform closer to historical reality.
Daffid011,
It sounds like you're implying that there is something fishy about creating three separate accounts.
Well, I've created two, and am considering a third. Why? Because there is limited garage space in *free* accounts, and a person rapidly runs out of room for new vehicles. If a person wants to avoid spending actual money, it seems logical to me to create extra accounts. I have one for the German vehicles, and one for Soviet vehicles. I am thinking about opening a third to explore American vehicles.
Just wanted to clarify that for readers who aren't familiar with the game.
Yeah I do get that as a reason why someone would vreate three accounts, but I just don't understand how it would make someone more educated about how the tanks play nation versus nation.
[in general]
The Tiger certainly isn't the scourge of the battlefield it was historically in WWII, but this is a game where balance is more important to gameplay than being completely historically accurate, but the Tiger is a good tank. Perhaps more difficult to play than other tanks, but still a good tank.
In my Tiger I have killed more enemies than I have played by a lot. Almost a 3:1 kill to death ratio. I earn some form of medal or citation on average every 2 games.
Just wait for the King Tiger - the best heavy of level 8. After that VK 4502, which is again kind of difficult to play tank. And finally Maus - hugely popular in clan wars.