That sounds like a good reason to place Jagdtiger at 6.3, due to long reload and “blah blah just pen from the flank”.
Don’t be ridiculous.
Just stop talking and check it out. Perform the test with your friend, and draw your own conclusion. So far, I haven’t really seen anyone coming to me and say “hey I have tested it, and I still believe that this doesn’t change the thing, because…” If anyone really did this, I would be happy to discuss with him. Unfortunately, no one here really care about it.
Tiger I is perfectly killable by its contemporaries- sometimes, even angled. Tiger I does not need to face Postwar Super-Heavies or faster and stronger early Cold War MBTs/Light Tanks with HEATFS; its real, contemporary counterparts found on its own current BR ranges are more than enough already.
Just admit that people improve over time so they get better stats on recent vehicles. I dont think logs are p2w advantage that gives you 3 k/d.
Speaking of suggestion, I disagree because that extra protection doesnt change tigers survivability much. Jumbo will still go for cupola, t34-85 and long barrel guys for hull.
The hull. I’d say that additional armor can make more difference than you thought, especially when the angle is around 30 degrees. This makes angle a tactic easy to use and much more effective than before in many scenarios. 6.3 would be too high, I wrote that paragraph before tesing the vehicle in custom battle and realizing tracks are 0.5x, then I forgot to remove that paragraph. But 6.0 is fair, I’d say.
I only talk about KD after certain players start trash talking “skill issue” blah blah and ignore all the things I wrote.
You can go further and get 180mm effective at its thinnest, with the only hull weakspots being two extremely small and volumetric bounce-prone gaps on the MG ball and driver port.
Meanwhile, KV-1E have difficulty penetrating Pz4H’s hull at 3.7, not to mention Sherman I Composito at 3.7, Sherman III/IV at 3.7.All of which are 3.7 medium tanks. And tiger, on the other hand, can penetrate IS-2 1944’s mantlet and capula, as well as T34’s hull MG and lower front plate, Both of which are 6.7 heavy tanks. Same goes for T29, a 7.0 premium heavy tank.
And on the picture you post, it is obvious that this pack tiger has angled too much. With less angle the front armor would already be able to prevent any D-5T or M1 penetration. And that is why I consider pack tigers p2w.
A shot from Su-85 at 500m distance. The ammunition is BR-365. No penetration.
If you don’t understand How much 15mm of armor could change the thing, check IS-2 1944’s lower front plate. Analyze it with Panther. Check the difference between the part protected by additional armor and the part that is unprotected.
No mention of the actually american shermans? They all struggle against the KV-1E’s armor more than the KV-1E against them.
*get stuck on volumetric
Lower plate only at a very favorable angle
It is maximizing front and side armor, being ~180mm effective on the corner.
Pretty weird you don’t show the impact angle or protection equivalent. You could just aim for the sections without tracks:
You know, the same way people have to aim for the KV-1E’s sections without add-on armor.
Or you could shoot the gigantic lighthouse on top of it.
Or just get closer like everyone else instead of complaining about a few extra degrees where the pack Tigers MIGHT stop a shell or two that the H1 might have stopped regardless
I’m indeed quite unhappy with the fact that M4 shares the same BR with Composito and Sherman III/IV. But at the very least, the Americans have M4A2 at 4.0 with 63mm front armor.
I’m so surprised that you ignore the Pzgr. round that overpressures post-pen. Try it again, plz.
Dude that’s 70.25mm of armor… What kind of angle could save that from 88mm cannon? You better check it again. You probably have mistaken it for T26E5, which also have weak points at lower front plate, but smaller.
You don’t need 180mm to protect your tiger from D-5T or M1… If you angle that much despite knowing you have 60mm side armor, I’d really feel sorry for you.
Didn’t I already mention that KV-1E is BIASED?? If it is needed to aim like people have to aim KV-1E then it is broken.
However “gigantic” it is, it’s still just around 1/4 the size of front plate.
I have said it over and over again that I really feel bored now. It’s not “H1 might have stopped regardless”. Test in custom battle please. Especially between range 100 meters and 400 meters.
I’m so surprised that you don’t know the overpressure stuff of Pzgr. round. Don’t tell me you use BR-365K rather than BR-365 with Soviet 85mm cannon. ffs…
Well, I’m not sure about that. Jagdpanzer IV is the first vehicle in which I cannot reach win rate 60% with KD above 3 (my Jagdpanzer IV’s KD is 4 after 64 battles, but the win rate is only 59%). And my playstyle is not sniping, by the way. Pretty sure that German mains are worse than Russian mains or American mains. Those two groups are often garbage as well, but they are at least better than German mains who are just as useless as the majority of ARB USA prop players.
Nope. Just look a topic like that where a russian main fail in destroy a extremly easy to destroy tank like Tiger and come with a bunch of nosense demanding a higher BR.
Tiger Ost and West are fine in 5.7 just a few cosmetics and some tracks links is not enough for 0.3 BR more.
There have been like 10-15 people saying “skill issue” blah blah and ignore everything I wrote in the posts in this topic. Well, most of them just went mad after I went through their stats. Average War Thunder forum bruh. I hope your stats are really good to support your words. Otherwise, you may leave the topic and stop wasting my time.
Or, you could actually sit down and discuss this topic seriously. I’ve made my test in custom battle, briefly wrote my conclusion, and I decided that pack tigers are p2w, just like Sherman I Composito, Sherman III/IV and KV-1E. I have written a lot, you may check the posts above. You can also read others’ arguments.
In addition, you could ask a friend for help to perform a test in custom battle, whereby you could make your own conclusion. Maybe you could simulate real-battle scenario to see if the additional armor of pack tigers really works, now that I had only done a brief test(you’d need a skilled friend, though).
My test was mainly about D-5T 85mm/M1 76mm versus pack tigers, because these two cannons are influenced by additional armor the most among all the guns at this BR, and both guns are very widely used at BR 5.0-6.7. The smaller guns (F-34, M3 75mm etc.) are too weak to kill a tiger frontally, while the larger guns (D-25, M3 90mm and others) are powerful enough and they penetrate all tigers anyway.
And another thing. Just don’t say anything stupid like “just flank the tiger”. I’ve killed many tigers with T14, and I have just removed 3 tigers with stock Leopard 40/70 today. The last thing I need is some smart guys trying to teach me how to flank. No, I’m fine, thank you. Tiger I is the first WW2 tank I’ve ever known, why would I not know the lower part of Tiger I’s side armor is 60mm thick? The Soviets already wrote it in their AT gunners’ handbook.
Why that one still sits at 4.0 will forever be a mystery.
During the battlepass that had the adamant award task i just parked in the open in the E model and let people shoot me and managed to get it in just a few games.
