Forums

King Tiger II, Bovington Museum
(they have the sign right...that's where the "fire exits" all right...)

Hey guys:

I apologize if I'm reinventing a thread...I searched but found no mention of this.

A PBEM partner and I were looking over the King Tigers we just got in a team scenario and we noticed (not for the first time) that the Tiger II, even carrying the monster late war 88 version "kwk 43 L whatever" (sorry....I used to know my armaments but old age and all) has a relatively short range on hard targets of 12.

If memory serves, the Tiger II was quite capable of taking out Allied tanks beyond 3 km.

It's good range, not complaining, but compared to the Tiger I (16?), the Leopards (16?), and even the venerable Rhino/Nashorn (20?), and many others, it get's a short range in the game with it's powerful 8.8 cm late war main gun.

I can see where Tank Destroyers may get credit for longer range capability, but even the Tiger I has longer range on hard targets then the Tiger II.

I'm sure the designers had a reason for this...anyone know what it is?
Optics?
Ammunition?
Some other deficiency unique to the Tiger II?
Operator error (mine)?


Where are these Talonsoft boys?


Regards,

Dan

No idea Dan but going by the bottom pic with that barrel should take out anything.

Just checked on the net Dan it a more powerfull gun than the Tiger 1 range not sure of but will check.

Info so far the King Tiger had a more powerfull gun than the Tiger 1 muzzle rate of 1200 metres per second about 1/3 faster than the Tiger 1.

Dan Caviness Wrote:I'm sure the designers had a reason for this...

Regards,

Dan

Well observed. I never noticed it.
Probably the reason is sloppyness. Wouldn't be the first time. Very strange that other 88 kwk43 guns such as of the Jagdpanther and the towed version PaK43 have completely different figures.
IMO this should be corrected in the first patch. Consistancy seems far and between...

Huib

Alfons de Palfons Wrote:IMO this should be corrected in the first patch. Consistancy seems far and between...

Feel free to add them to the Issue Database, Huib.

That is what it is for.

Jason Petho

It does make some sense that the same gun on different platforms (Towed AT Gun, Limited Traverse Tank Destroyer and Full Turreted Tank) may have different performance (In terms of firepower and range in the game) despite having the same gun. I would think for starters the AT gun and Tank Destroyer Platoons would have a lower soft attack value than the Tiger II (less HE rounds being the reason).

The Tiger II gun is listed as:

Quote:The Tiger II was armed with the very accurate 88mm KwK 43 L71 tank gun. This 88mm gun, 71 calibers long (6.3m or 21 feet), had a maximum effective range of 10km (6.2 miles). The Tiger II was initially equipped with a binocular Turmzielfernrohr (TZF) 9b/1 sighting telescope and later with the monocular TZF 9d sighting telescope. The gun could be elevated to a maximum of 17 degrees and depressed to a maximum of 8 degrees. The rounds for the 88mm gun weighed almost 20kg (44 pounds) each, which resulted in a relatively slow rate of fire. The powerful 88mm gun was able to knock out Sherman, Cromwell and T-34/85 tanks at a range of 3,500 meters (2.2 miles).

So it does seem that 12 hex max range does seem way too short.

The Nashorn (with the same gun as the Tiger II) should probably have a lower fire power factor than the Tiger II because of this:

Quote:Limited space provided in the fighting compartment allowed storage space for only 24 to 40 rounds.

And the Jagdpanther V may also have a bit difference performance as noted here:

Quote:The 88mm gun was fitted with Sfl.Z.F.1a (5×8) gun sight and was capable of destroying enemy tanks at ranges of 3000 meters. Both weapons were mounted in a well-sloped frontal plate (80mm at 55 degrees). The main 88mm gun was protected by massive 100mm "saukopf" (pig’s head) type mantlet. The limited traverse (11 degrees to the left and right) and elevation (-8 to +14 degrees) of the main gun was a severe disadvantage when it came to a mobile battle, since the crew was forced to maneouver the vehicle to face the target.

Just stuff to keep in mind.

Thanx!

Hawk

Jason Petho Wrote:

Alfons de Palfons Wrote:IMO this should be corrected in the first patch. Consistancy seems far and between...

Feel free to add them to the Issue Database, Huib.

That is what it is for.

Jason Petho

Done. Issue ID: 52

I have in the past wondered about this very same thing regarding the hard attack range of the Tiger II vs the Tiger I's. In addition I believe the Tiger II's hard attack values may be a bit shy of what the should be if on were to compare it's numbers with the Tiger I's. At 1000 meters the 88mm L/71 had the ability to punch thru 65% more armor than the L/56, And at 2000 meters it looks like it could go thru 57% more using standard APCBC ammo if the detailed German armor penetration tables I'm looking at are correct. Shell weight was the same for both. However in the game, The Tiger II's hard attack value is only 47% greater at 1000 meters and 45% greater at 2000 meters. Then there is the accuracy factor using the APCBC ammo. It appears that the Tiger I's gun may have been slightly more accurate under test and combat conditions. 100/93% at 1000 meters & 87/50% at 2000 for the L/56 versus 100/85% at 1000 meters & 85/43% at 2000 meters for the L/71. The site were this info can be found is at http:www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

Same gun should have the same range and killing factor regardless of mount fire cost should be different because of the mount though.