Forums

Just wondered what some thought how the Tiger PZ IVE performs in the campaign series. I find it has a very inconsistent chance of a hit and seems to take losses quite readily as compared to the Panther which is a brute to deal with.
regards s

I think their representation in CS not optimal. Some of the values for some units really make one puzzle. For me the Tiger is one of them. Another one is the exaggeration of SS qualities. Most units are OK though and in the end the unit values are probably an implementation of someone's opinion. Making suggestions to change some would probably lead to an endless discussion.

Huib

I would rather have Tigers than not have them. However, I agree. Give me Panthers over Tigers in CS any day.

While we're on that subject: I was recently looking at some of the unit data, and I discovered that the early war German Motorized Rifle Platoons have slightly better soft attack values than early war Panzergrenadiers. According to the unit handbook, the only difference between Mot. Rifle platoons and Panzergrenadiers is the name. So, why the difference in attack values?

Oh by the way, I think the title should read "PZ VIE", not "PZ IVE."

yes, thetiger in CS is not the feared beast it was in ww2, maybe that can change.....

Perhaps it harks back to the fact that CS was not designed to be played with armour facing on......Tiger's have 16 all round, if I recall correctly, and Panther's only 13 to reflect that thinner side armour. The guns being more or less equal, that would give the Tiger the edge in non-armour facing games.

McIvan Wrote:Perhaps it harks back to the fact that CS was not designed to be played with armour facing on......Tiger's have 16 all round, if I recall correctly, and Panther's only 13 to reflect that thinner side armour. The guns being more or less equal, that would give the Tiger the edge in non-armour facing games.

Another reason not to play with AF

The slippery slope of armor values :)

in all respects the Panther was a better armored tank in the front only due to it's sloping design, while the Tiger armor was thicker it was not angled enough to increase the amount of energy to penetrate it. So naturally, with AF on the Tiger should be the weaker tank. With AF off the Tiger gains an edge it normally shouldn't have, only because it side armor was thicker.

Now the King or Royal Tiger........thats another story and yes that one does put the fear into me when i see those bastrds!!

My answer is simple the kill rate of tigers to shermans was 1 Tiger to 32 Sherm's. The numbers for T-34's were higher. In the Rommel Papers there is a note that stated if the track or rear end was not hit they could not be taken out even at close range. The real problem was numbers as they were unreliable and used too much fuel which was in short supply.