@gettincrazywithit because a game that includes russians draws lots more russians to it. And if you've played men of war, you will notice that russians are the worst community of gamers in existence.
ever played Eve great community, very much russians, World of Tanks, very much russians, WOW great community when playing, shity community when losing your acc through hacking or if you piss off a guild, many americans...
@gettincrazywithit Russian T-34 is too rigged for the game its cheap to make and has good armor and good gun itll outplay the panzers plus the soviets had a large army so troops are cheaper to make and stuff
@Tofu64Vagine Dude, they could make it so its pretty even. Like Stalingrad for instance would make for great gameplay. Kursk etc..lots of flaks and armor would be great...
@Tofu64Vagine T34 had a bad gun, the 76mm main gun was very in accurate and had a low velocity barrel which made the inpact less the that of a 75mm from a Pz.IV, also the T34's armor was strong in the early days of the war, it was rubish against a Panther let alone a Tiger...
Oh man...vanilla CoH hurts my eyes....stop that shit and download the 'blitzkrieg' mod for CoH...there you have realism and way more epic stuff to play with...
Tank battles in Company of Heroes cant be uber realistic like they are in WOT because the game has to worry about balancing issuses as well as the fact that your not so much taking control of the tanks as you are commanding them.
@superassasinz Lol, no, world of tanks is very, very far from realistic......About the only thing realistic in it is the names of the tanks, equipment and the models. The mechanics and damage and the rest....quite far from it....Still, its a fairly fun game.
This game was fun. But, the balancing of this game favored fairness then actually historical accuracy. Hence made this game bullshit. Number of times I've seen SHERMANS in this game have 75 & 88mm shells bounce off. Complete bullshit. Plus the invisible Pak40s...
@Voss2120 have u played the game after the last patch? everything is much more balanced now , and about the sherman... they usually bounce agaisnt tigers in real life so it inst so inacurate at all
and dont come with the "you believe in all shit there is on the internet?", its not my fault i believed you were honest...next time i guess i'll have to be more cautious about it, dont you think?
@shebaloso You know what? This is pointless. We've only had ONE argument. So if you don't know which argument I have destroyed you in...then that's your problem. You're the one refusing to admit you're wrong. Anyway, goodbye.
Super Pershing beat the Tiger ll. End of story. Go cry.
@damanwidaplans lol, youre such a child. when i ask you in plain english what u r saying, you back out, funny thing isnt it?..."Super Pershing beat the Tiger ll" but you just said "Lets see...the Pershing was superior to 99% of the German tanks except for the Tiger ll. In fact, I wasn't even arguing about the Tiger ll"....you REALLY know what youre talking about, dont you?. All you say is "pershing beat tiger II, its a fact. youre wrong". dont you have an actual argument?
@shebaloso Oh wow, you catch me when I forget to type something in and you make a big deal about it because it's the only thing you have (further proving my point that you have run out of things to say). Here it is. Plain and simple.
@damanwidaplans there you go! it wasnt that hard, now, was it? actually, it wasnt about the typing mistake,i know what you meant. it was about the thing of changing subject you told me before....and i guess your only argument on the "Super Pershing > King Tiger" is the duel between the two isnt it? all right, i guess further arguing is gonna be fruitless. i'm gonna rely on the specs of both tanks and you r gonna rely on the actual fight (which is controversial, doubtless). fine them, goodbye
Profile and try to dig things up completely irrelevant to this argument. Again, YOU'VE LOST this argument, get the fuck over it. God damn, kid. When someone gets your fat rolls in a knot, there's no stopping you.
My account says otherwise? How does my account say I'm an American? That it's green and black? That I'm into gaming? Please, kid. Get real. What did you lose? The argument, that's what you lost. Wow, you've really got to learn to debate. It's fun throwing information around but once you know you've destroyed the other person, it gets boring when they won't shut their mouth (IE: You). The Tiger l was inferior to the Pershing. The only Pershing vs Tiger ll, the Pershing won. It's settled.
@damanwidaplans you are so arrogant, ALL you do is keep saying youre right, that you've won, that the other's got to learn..what is really annoying is an arrogant kid that thinks he is learned and rational...if you ask two people what r their favourite food, and both answer pasta, youre gonna say people generally prefer pasta over other types of food? thats EXACTLY what youre trying to do. the pershing won due to a lucky shot, and you know that.
@damanwidaplans and youve got to be fucking shitting me...your account DOES say your from the US (as it says you are 22 year old, so i'm looking at the right spot, thank you). tell me, what actual events youre using? that the pershing won a tank duel? a few kts have also been knocked out by t-34s. does that mean the russian tanks r better? finally let me get this straight...youre saying that YOU r right while me and ALL military historians are wrong?
@shebaloso Yeah. Oh, and so you also believe I'm 22 right? Everything from my profile is correct, right? Please, kid. I'm only 20. And where the hell are you getting military historians from? It doesn't fucking matter what their OPINIONS are either, fact of the matter is that the Pershing killed the Tiger ll. That's it! It's like being at a soccer game. No matter how good you think the other team is, if they lose they LOSE. Way to be retarded. You're out of things to say! You had to go to my...
@damanwidaplans i swear to you, if you write me a message in which you explain your point in this argument, telling me what you think i'm trying to say to you and telling also with which argument you think you have destroyed me i'll shut my mouth...until now, thats what i've been asking and all you say is that i lost...please, use your superior debate skills to prove me that youve won.
Just because there are accounts of M36 sluggers killing those tanks neccesarily means they're able to evenly fight one versus one, besides, think how many M36 Sluggers those King Tigers and Jagdtigers destroyed.
I was also referring to the accuracy of the 88 L/56 within the Tiger, at a range of 2km the Pershing would be at a disadvatage due to the experience of German crews and the Tiger's optics.
Battlefield experience is a whole lot different than tech-specs, L/56 wins.
@Daggernoth An M36 going head to head with a heavy German tank would be ill advised and would probably get the M36 crew killed unless they got a shot off first. TD crews were trained to use ambush and speed to kill enemy tanks. Most TD battalions had a VERY high kill/death ratios and were mostly used to take out the heavy German tanks that the standard Shermans could not handle. Almost all TD battalions list their combat records on their web sites. The info is there you just have to look it up.
@My49ers4life Maybe they had so high K/D ratio because of support -tank units who drawed the attention and took fire from panzers while TD's were able in that time to flank them, reduce distance and score hits?
Tactics bring victories, but we can't take them into account when we make side by side comparison.
If properly used and with support units, german tanks cannot be defeated. vice versa too :))
@Daggernoth Nope. Tank Destroyers were usually concealed under debris of broken battlefields. As much as you'd like to believe, the Tigers weren't invincible. Even russian tanks could take Tigers on. There have been records of Pershin tanks taking Tigers 1 on 1. 1 shot usually penetrating and exploding within the tiger, killing the crew.
@damanwidaplans the tiger was first used in 1943. comparing it to a tank fielded 2 years later is naturally unfair. at the the battle of kursk, the tiger outranged and outgunned ALL of the russian tanks. if a tank produced in 1943 was comparable to armor fielded one/two years later (is-2, m26) certainly, it could pack quite a punch. besides, the tiger II was the german panzer of 44/45 (the production of the tiger I had already stopped). 1 on 1 against that beast? well, good luck with that..
@shebaloso 2 words. Super Pershing. Anyway, you can hear stories about how Tiger crews were usually devastated when fighting with a Pershing. Like a story where a Pershing shot through the tiger, chopping off the commanders legs, the crew tried escaping but died soon afterwards from the damage they had taken. In total, only around 3 Pershings were lost in the war ( I can't remember the exact number but it was like 2). And it doesn't matter what's fair. Fact is fact, and you're wrong.
@damanwidaplans. super pershing? a single super pershing was shipped to europe, and luckily for its crew, it never engaged a tiger II in battle. i'm talking about tanks that actually were used in WWII. u want to talk about k/d ratio? fine...in no more than 3 months, a single panzer division armed with king tigers claimed 500 kills at a loss of 45 tanks, 34 of which destroyed by their own crews. 3 pershings lost? 20 pershings were shipped to europe....
@shebaloso The super pershing did in fact defeat a Tiger ll. Don't just read wikipedia. It engaged a Tiger ll which was hidden inside a destroyed building. Quickly, the Tiger came out of hiding and shot at the Super Pershing but the shot just barely managed to get deflected from the Super Pershing's extra frontal Armor (or it missed) I can't remember. The Pershing quickly loaded an Armor penetrating round and shot the Tiger from the underbelly when it rose above a hill. The tiger was destroyed.
@damanwidaplans i do know about it. the tiger shot actually missed by more than 4 feet. a tiger ap round could penetrate up to 200 mm of armor. the pershing was not so well armored. besides, it was a VERY lucky shot for the us crew...and it also should be noted that if a sherman shot the rear armor of a tiger II, the shot would surely penetrate. shooting its even less armored underbelly is not a real win, if you know what i mean
@shebaloso Dude, you're wrong. The Pershing won more Tiger encounters than vise versa. The only Tiger ll vs Pershing encounter was won by a Pershing. GET THE FUCK OVER IT.
@damanwidaplans no need to curse. i'm being respectful to you, there is no need to curse. get the fuck over what? man, EVERY SINGLE military HISTORIAN agree that the german tanks were the best, that the pershing was no match for a tiger II, just because youre american you dont have to be so patriotic. even the allied high command did not like the pershing
@damanwidaplans i'm not wrong. i do believe the pershing is superior to the tiger I, i never said otherwise. i just think u should be comparing it to the tiger II, instead of its smaller brother. its like saying a sherman is better than a panzer II. even with the shortage of high quality steel and all of its mecanical problems, the king tiger was FAR superior to the pershing. if u want to talk about 1 on 1 battles, which almost never occurred, u must consider both tanks at their full potential.
@shebaloso You're just pulling the 'respectful' card as something to combat this argument that you have so clearly lost. I'm not cursing at you, I'm just using it for emphasis. Anyway, German tanks were superior to American tanks, but that doesn't mean all of them. Lets see...the Pershing was superior to 99% of the German tanks except for the Tiger ll. In fact, I wasn't even arguing about the Tiger ll. This argument started about Tiger l's and you lost that one so you switched to tiger ll's.
@shebaloso Oh, and I'm not American. Next time don't make assumptions because they make you look like a fool. You're running out of options and it's beginning to show how desperate you are to cling on to this argument. Anyway, I leave you in defeat. Hopefully you wise up and quit replying. I never said it was more powerful than the Tiger ll. But the only encounter there was, the Tiger ll lost. Oh and the Tiger ll did get a show at it in the confrontation. But it hit at an angle. What's next? V1?
@damanwidaplans man, youre so over your head...please, enlighten me...what the hell did i lose?...all you do is keep saying i'm wrong and youre right..i believe i'm not the one running out of options. you may be not american, but youre account says otherwise...so either you ARE an american or you are an american wannabe...i guess the fool here ain't me.
@damanwidaplans you said the the pershing was better than the tiger I. i said you should be comparing it to the tiger II. i said the tiger II is superior to the pershing. you just said it too. how do you leave me in defeat? in what did you prove me wrong?
@shebaloso Any other information on the Tiger ll being better than a Super Pershing is just opinion. I'm just using facts here. You're using your heated passion for the Tiger ll. Guess who won this argument? The one using actual events, or the fool blabbering his opinionated mouth?
@damanwidaplans The King Tiger was the better of the two. but truth is we will never know, they never met in combat. the one account where the two tanks supposedly met, the Super Pershing crew said they encountered what was though to be a KT, but they dont know. waht brings me to doubt the claim is that the German shot bounced off the armour, the 88mm L\71 of the KT could more than pierce the Pershings armour especially at irban combat distances as it KTs gun was the most powerful AT gun of ww2
@fallschirmjager0000 power has nothing to do with rounds bouncing off armour the angel is what matters, and the german 88mm was not more powerful then the M26 90mmM3 gun.
personaly the M26 takes the win in every way, it has more armour, faster, more powerful gun, better rounds used in the gun, smaller so its hader to hit, the KT was awesome but it could not match the M26 in urban combat, on the open field the KT could win but in all factors the M26 wins
@HONORGUARD308 well in this case it power has to be considered especially with the close distance of less than 100m. besides that the crew of the Super Persing claimed a shot bounced off the turret, with the turrets armour being relatively thin in comparison to the front glasis plate and also the turrets armour is flat, not angled so I doubt it was a King Tiger. Actaully the King Tiger had very good mobility, it was the suspension that caused the most problems, also there was only 1 s-pershing..
@HONORGUARD308 and 489 King Tigers made. the super pershings armour was the same as that of a regular pershing with the exception of welded armour plates bolted on. also we really ahve no idea as to how the s-pershing would have performed in actual combat because there is little evidence.
@fallschirmjager0000 true, i would take my bets on the M26SP though even cause it has a longer barrel that makes it have more power behind the round but also the KT was awesome so yeh we could talk about this all day and we still wont know, and one thing that is drilled into our heads in the Australian Defence Force is that your gear is only as good as your trainning so a M26sp vs KT would be far fixed fight it comes down to the skill of the crew if you ask me
@HONORGUARD308 well said. KT crews were hand picked from the best Panzer crews, so therefore would have served in combat for many years before moving on to the KT.
Actually if you knew anything about tank guns you would know that size does not mean power, yes the Pershings gun was the larger caliber by 2mm but power means muzzle velocity. The 88mm L/71 of the King Tiger was longer and had a muzzle velocity of 1000m/s (1 kilometer per second) where as the Pershings 90mm gun had a muzzle velocity of 820m/s to that means KT was more powerful, hence thats why its called the most poweful AT gun of WW2. Also they used different engines, the KTs had 20hp more.
There are several accounts of M36s killing king tigers and jagdtigers. If you search 776th td battalion they have pictures on their site of a jagdtiger that was knocked out by an M36 from 900 yards. Also I have pictures on my computer of a jagdpanther that was knocked out by a frontal glacis plate hit from an M36. Those pictures can be found on the 899th td battalion site if you want to look it up. Only one tank saw combat that was equal to a tiger 2 and that was the super pershing (only 1made).
If you doubt this you can look it up for yourself. You might be thinking of the British 17 pounder as the gun with accuracy problems and it was only a problem with APDS rounds. I still don't understand why there are Pershings in this game and not M36s. 1,400 M36 tds saw combat before the end of the war and only 20 Pershings were confirmed to have seen combat before the war ended. Also I would suggest reading books by Steve Zaloga and R.P. Hunnicutt as they are the best US WW2 armor historians.
@MagicSnipe The M3 90mm was one of the most accurate allied guns of WW2. M36 TD crews in some units used GI helmets for target practice at 600 yards. Also a 776th TD battalion M36 had a confirmed kill on a Panther at 3,200 yards. Only 1 Pershing (out of 20) was ever completely knocked out in combat. 2 more were damaged but returned to service. I don't remember how many Tigers and Panthers the Pershings killed but I have seen video and photo evidence of at least 5 Tigers and a few Panthers.
@MagicSnipe Wrong also... The Pershings frontal armor was 102mm sloped at 45 degrees. The Tigers frontal armor was 100mm non-sloped or 0 degrees meaning that the Pershings armor was more effective due to slope despite being roughly equal in thickness. See last my post, the 90mm M3 was better than the 88mm L/56. Both are underpowered and have fairly poor mobility so neither really has an advantage there. The Pershing was a better MBT as it should be since it was 2 years newer than the Tiger.
@My49ers4life yes i 2nd that. but the guy may have meant the older 2 part (projectile and cordite propellant) guns. which weren't as good as the 88. or he was just commenting on game play.
how ever those were known to be sub par and were replaced with a 1 part (shell firing) cannons.
my sources said that the Pershing armor was 110mm frontal. and the tigers was still 100mm. ( guess ill have to find a real one and cut it to find out =P )
@netlogboy What kind of bullshit is that scheme you just made? The Tiger was still superior to the Pershing considering its only 2mm smaller cartridge, seriously, have you ever seen statistics of this or is it your own personal preference? In that case, your wrong.
@netlogboy It doesen't really matter in this case what caliber the damn gun is when the difference is 2 mm, again, the Tiger had a whole different projectile (carthridge) which was more powerful than the counterpart on the Pershing tank, also the barrel of the Tiger tank was longer, therefor having much more velocity and punch to its projectile.
@Daggernoth Incorrect... A simple search of armor penetration tables will reveal that the U.S. 90mm M3 gun penetrated more armor than the German 88mm L/56 at all distances. The 90mm fired a heavier projectile at a higher velocity. U.S. M3 90mm, M82 APCBC- 24.1 pounds @ 2,800 fps, German 88mm Kwk 36 L/56, Pzgr.39 APCBC- 22.5 pounds @ 2,536 fps. The 90mm carried far more kinetic energy with all AP rounds and penetrated more armor look it up...
@netlogboy No you dumbshit they CHANGED it to a 75mm.
"In light of experience gained in North Africa, the 37 mm gun was found to be inadequate and the design was changed to use a British 57 mm gun. During the development process, the design was further upgunned to a 75 mm gun," And who cares if the M18 was faster? The Tiger could hit targets 2.5 MILES AWAY (it's been reported), and even with its LATER 76mm gun it STILL couldn't peirce the Tigers frontal armor.
@bud389 Actually he's a bit right The Pershing has a 90 mm cannon. But only a few have been in Europe and there was only one Pershing who saw actual combat. Correct me if i'm wrong, i'll look it up in my encyclopedia.
@netlogboy well first of all, the Tiger stopped production in 1944 and the M26 wasn't even around till 1945, and no, the M26 STILL had less frontal armor then the tiger. The 88 was feared because of how accurate AND powerful it was, it could sustain a flatter trajectory longer then almost any other tank gun.
@netlogboy my dear lad, i just think you should read more and learn some facts about guns and armour on this tanks and td's. In some points you're maybe right, but if a Tiger was used with proper tactics, neither of the tanks you've mentioned in your previous posts (except Pershing) would not stand a chance in 1 on 1 battle in open front, starting range 2500m. It's obvious that in real battle
@kleistss situation things change, but stating that " The M18/M36 were ALOT faster than the tiger , who was very slow. by the time the tiger had spotted these tankdestroyers , he was done for" you're just showing your ignorance on the matter. :(
@netlogboy oh, not to mention dumbass, the M36 was a TANK DESTROYER, it wasn't a TANK. The M36 would be destroyed by a tiger not to mention, it's armor was LIGHTER then the Tiger I's, the tiger had a complete .5 inches more then the M36, and the Tigers main cannon could peirce the M36's armor aswell. M18 hellcat? ARE YOU HIGH?! IT HAS COMPLETE SHIT WORTH OF ARMOR AND IT USED A 57MM CANNON! JESUS FUCKING CHRIST YOUR RETARDED!
@netlogboy which is why this game is innaccurate... Tiger could have taken any of those out, and has been reported to of taken out targets 2.5 miles away. It used an 88mm KwK 36, which had a flatter trajectory then most weapons and was one of THE MOST FEARED tank guns in the whole war. The only disability of the Tiger was it's weight, which was what contributed to most of it's field problems, which weren't all too common.
@Warlord13413 It killed a enginner squad, who could repair a tank and change the things. Also, it helped to the pershing go away. So, don't say shit, for me it wasn't included in the video name and in the description about the V1.
I can comment what I want, so don't fucking bother me again, piece of shit.
the tiger I frontal armor don't deflect incoming shells but its just basically impenetrable to guns below 75 mm at any range and 75mm higher at a certain range
@kooziejr well but the russians tanks are nothing against the germans anti-tank weapons and tanks in an 1on 1 the german would have crushed the russians because the russian were not able to to produce so much tanks with out the attck of the allies from the west
@GoffderDamerone no shit. Germany would have crushed any one country. fact is they were fighting the whole world..scary thing is they would have won if they had not made some stupid tactical errors. End of the day Russia/France/Britain/Canada/Australia/USA/Poland/Yugos /Scandanavia are impossible to beat when your troops are freezing to death in Russian winter.
@kooziejr NO SHIT.The german lost because of the winter of russia.the russians were able to fight in the winter in their own homeland,russia,but the germans had lack of winter uniform.also,they were NOT fighing the whole world.don't forget hungry,italy,japan etc.also,the germans lost not only because of the tactical errors,BUT also made the USA started its amazing industrial power.their tanks ,planes,resources&shit like that would make ANY country being flooded by the US armed forces.
@GoffderDamerone well,you're a noob.the russians had not enough tanks NOT because they couldn't make them,but their crew were lack of training.many of the russian tank crews went on the front line just after a 48 hour training.
I look at some of the comments and laugh. Some people out there really think that the German tanks in this game are unrealistically overpowered. If this game was realistic, then the only thing the allies would have in their advantage would be air support rangers and commandos. In real life those were the only things, aside from vast numbers, that the allies had in their favor.
@mommasboy8879 no the shermans were useful and was able to finally overwhelm the enemy tigers and panthers in the war with sheer number and mobility. The M26 Pershing was better than even the pantherr and a few mm short in armour to compare with the tiger
@22Weijin the shermans had a totally insufficient gun and not nearly enough armor, and had a under powered engine. Pershings were about an even match for a panther, but were a logistical nightmare as they used a different type of ammunition then the shermans. And did you know that a 88 and a tiger could destroy a sherman in one hit?
@mommasboy8879 did you know that 3 shermans could kill a tiger if you used them properly? and the pershing was an amazing tank. It is actually better than the panther with around the same amount of resources spent. If we count fuel as 3 manpower each since fuel is hard to get
@22Weijin first off, the British ran a number of tests with sherman tanks and tiger tanks, and in each instance, unless the tiger tank crew was completely inexperienced, it took FOUR shermans to destroy the tiger and in each case only one sherman survived. And in the case of panthers vs pershings, it sounds as if you're thinking that the tanks in company of heroes are realistic, they're not.
@mommasboy8879 ... do you even know tanks? pershing are considered an advanced heavy tank. It is superior to panthers inthe real world. One pershing could 2 shot a panther while a panther will take avery long time. There was one pershing, call the super pershing. It was able to kill a tiger in one shot, while the tigers rounds were bouncing of of it. a normal pershing isnt as good but is superior to the panther.
@mommasboy8879 real world duh read more about pershings and shermans and you will know what i am talking about. The super pershing is a pershing that was upgraded with a huge amount of armour. and a more powerful gun. the 90mm just isnt as good as the 88. Go search up pershing vs panther and you will see a panther getting killed by a pershing. And yea i am talking about WW2
@22Weijin I'm ending this argument. Only 20 pershings were deployed to Europe. They saw next to no combat. The "Super Pershing" only destroyed three tanks, the last one was reported as a Tiger, but its widely agreed that it was probably a Panzer Four. Three pershings were deployed to Korea. After a few weeks of breaking down and trying to find the right ammunition, they were all destroyed in a half hour against four enemy T-34s, and not a single enemy tank was destroyed. Beat that.
@mommasboy8879 No your facts are wrong not completely but wrong. only 17 pershinngs were delivered to the war at 1945, 2 superpershing were also deployed. it is true the pershings 2 shotted the panthers . The super pershing may or may not have shot a tiger, but after tests, it was found that the pershing could indeed do just that. Also, the part where 4 t 34s killed 4 pershings? it wasnt a fair fight, the pershings wer split up and the t34s killed them 1 by 1.BTW more than 4 pershing in korea
@mommasboy8879 Lol you are calling someone that actually look up tanks and research them wrong, thinking your self is right. The pershing is alot better thatn a t34, it is a fact, and yea shooting a tiger in the belly, the weakest part of the armour with a 90mm high velocity AP round is fatal.
@22Weijin you still didn't tell me were you got your information, I got mine from the books The Ultimate guide to Tanks, and German tanks of World War Two. I'm guessing you got your information of the internet. And were exactly the "belly" of a Tiger?
@mommasboy8879 The belly of a tiger is the bottom armour, hard to reach yet a instant kill if shot at. The tigers belly is a bit more stronger, but the pershing was able to shoot straight though it. You way you know about tanks yet you dont know what a belly is? By the way the ultimate guide to tanks has some pretty bad stuff in there, does it tell you that panthers and tiger often has engine fails? resulting in a large amount of casulties due to breakdown. I get my info from lots library books.
@22Weijin I've never seen that called the belly, and by the way this is getting boring, I have read from a dozen different book that the allies had no tank as good as a panther. Also, your earlier comment, on the T-34 vs. pershing? If the pershing had split up (they didn't) They still would have raped the T-34s if your claims were true
@mommasboy8879 in real life 1 ap shot that peirces an enemy armour would kill a tank, depending on where they hit. no we imagine that the pershings armor deflects 2 of the 4 t34 shots, the remaining 2 would be fatal.if you really understand tanks in ww2, you would realize it would all be based on luck rather than armor.by the way i now really doubt you know tanks and isnt just 12 years old kid.you dont know that pershings were not considered ww2 tanks be cause they arrived late in the war.
@22Weijin First I'm 15, and second I'm sick of arguing this with I believe that American tanks sucked but were produced in such numbers that they swamped the Germans, you don't> We should make peace before this turns into the next world war.
@mommasboy8879 you are an idiot. America were shit in WWII. If the war was America VS Germany from 1939 then america would have got fucking steamrolled. You don't have to be ashamed cause your country was not the strongest back then. The truth is germany would have beaten any country in the world 1 V 1. It was actually the Russians who produced tanks in such numbers that Germany could not cope with it...NOT the Amercan pea shooters.
@kooziejr America wouldn't have lost in a one v one with Germany in 1939, our navy would have defeated the German one in the pacific, then would have used our incredible industrial power to out produce Germany, and starve them of oil. However, not taking the pacific into account, the American army would not have stood a chance. And why am I an idiot? did you read my comments?
Look like they were hit by a barrage of artillery before your tigers engaged. Also the guy u faced only send one by one. So of course you gonna owned him.
Sherman was disadvantaged against the German tanks because of well, everyhitng. Bigger gun , thicker armor, but the Allies used the wisely, and thats how the Allied had the advantage.
yeah thats y the americans and british won all the good battles. come on man the sherman and the m26 were great tanks. this game just makes them look bad
@owen2652 Sherman tank... with a front armor of 50mm and sides and rear armor of 38mm, can be destroyed by most of the German heavy tanks, and unable to damage enemy tanks except when fired from the closest distances (to destroy a Tiger a Sherman had to fire with its gun touching the rear armor of the Tiger... and the Tiger is able to destroy a target that is 2700m far).
@BehemothPaintball i think its just the computer, because if it was a human on hman fight im sure the person would be trying to macro flank the tigers
da Tigrenok i Pershing i M10 ottarobanit toka tak!On ih s rastojanija rasstrelaet i vse!Kstati esli kto znaet napewite na skoka u Pershinga ego 90mm bjet?!?!!!
Pershings arent "WW2 tanks", since they entered war after 1945, at the very end of it, and didnt see combat enough to prove their superiority, although, indeed, there are relates of a Pershing beating a Tiger, but to few to prove something once and for all.
And, by the way, even if it was guaranteed that a Pershing would beat a Tiger "a priori", 'to rape' wouldnt be the most accurate verb, it would be more like 'to win with difficulties'.
Pershings are WW2 tanks because they faught in WW2 if they faught in the war they WW2 tanks. ok hows this surf the net and you will find it 1 pershing going up against 4 tigers and 2 panzer 4s and that ne pershing knocked out 2 tigers and 1 of the panzers with out being hit i think that proves the Pershing was better that the Tiger now King Tiger is dif. the King Tiger was only beatin by a Super Pershing in a Tank on Tank fight that i know of
ok the look it up Super Pershing vs Tiger on google the Pershing bounced the 88shell off and belly shot on the tiger destroying it it is all about the pershing
might be crazy but happened but people shtll seem to think the Tiger is the best tank of the war when in reality they sucked every nation except france had a tank that can take out a tiger with ease
No, as powerful and heavily armoured as the Tiger was, it WAS NOT the best tank, I agree!
However the Pershing was the United States version of the Tiger, sorry mate, the Pershing was a waste of time aswell. It had the exact same problem as the Tiger, slow, brokedown to often, not easy to produce in great numbers, generally unconvetional.
The 2 Best tanks of WW2 were the T-34 (T-34/85 aswell) and the M4 Sherman. Why? lots of them, with balanced features. Easy!
there not chaeting its a tiger ace !!!
6669Anthrax 3 weeks ago
But if there were 2 axis that had 2 tigers, then 2 Blizkrieg doctrines, as they have done to launch the v1? Fucking cheaters...
MeFJuve 3 months ago
such a legendary RTS, why dont they make coh2 eastern front or someshit??
gettincrazywithit 5 months ago
@gettincrazywithit because a game that includes russians draws lots more russians to it. And if you've played men of war, you will notice that russians are the worst community of gamers in existence.
randomperson2538 5 months ago
@randomperson2538 Americans are good you wanna say?
ever played Eve great community, very much russians, World of Tanks, very much russians, WOW great community when playing, shity community when losing your acc through hacking or if you piss off a guild, many americans...
halorecon95 4 weeks ago
@halorecon95 I never said yanks were any good either. They're just one step down on the shitlist imo.
randomperson2538 4 weeks ago
@gettincrazywithit Russian T-34 is too rigged for the game its cheap to make and has good armor and good gun itll outplay the panzers plus the soviets had a large army so troops are cheaper to make and stuff
Tofu64Vagine 1 month ago
@Tofu64Vagine Dude, they could make it so its pretty even. Like Stalingrad for instance would make for great gameplay. Kursk etc..lots of flaks and armor would be great...
gettincrazywithit 1 month ago
@Tofu64Vagine T34 had a bad gun, the 76mm main gun was very in accurate and had a low velocity barrel which made the inpact less the that of a 75mm from a Pz.IV, also the T34's armor was strong in the early days of the war, it was rubish against a Panther let alone a Tiger...
halorecon95 4 weeks ago
Axis player is also useing blitzkrieg assault. Lame nooobs
LiberalWing 5 months ago
Tank battles in CoH
both tanks sit 20 meters away from each other for 5 minutes until one moves side ways for fuck knows why
lolololololololtoast 6 months ago
Oh man...vanilla CoH hurts my eyes....stop that shit and download the 'blitzkrieg' mod for CoH...there you have realism and way more epic stuff to play with...
Ghosteye101 6 months ago
Tank battles in Company of Heroes cant be uber realistic like they are in WOT because the game has to worry about balancing issuses as well as the fact that your not so much taking control of the tanks as you are commanding them.
TRCobra92 6 months ago
LoL...And what about that v1 rocket?
Adamzdez 6 months ago
the video tittle is 2 tigers vs 2 M26,M10 and M4 sherman but noone sad about the V1!
UkiKuki877 6 months ago
@UkiKuki877 or the engineers
JandTtime 6 months ago
lvl 0 the tiger.... ¬¬
Alysson1000 7 months ago
Why didn't the german player flank the US tank - best tactic with zwo or more tanks.
HektorPedo 8 months ago
u guys should try world of tanks...............its realistic,very
superassasinz 8 months ago 7
@superassasinz no comment .. =)
Ostfront1942 8 months ago
@superassasinz Lol, no, world of tanks is very, very far from realistic......About the only thing realistic in it is the names of the tanks, equipment and the models. The mechanics and damage and the rest....quite far from it....Still, its a fairly fun game.
CMDRFandragon 8 months ago
@CMDRFandragon whats cool on it are the different hit zones of the tanks: for example shooting on the mg or the tracks!
0099ffgg 6 months ago
@superassasinz
No it isn't.
Idilyon 6 months ago
@superassasinz World of Tanks rules. its one of the more realistic games ive played, except for the explosions XD
Lancing34 6 months ago
@superassasinz too realistic, you start off with the shitiest tank and the pros fucking own you
ahebrawi 6 months ago
@ahebrawi
it's miles from realistic.. i hoped that it would be more like a simulator..not a stupid arcade..
veilsideskyline33 6 months ago
@superassasinz no its not
MegaGalvanize 1 month ago
This game was fun. But, the balancing of this game favored fairness then actually historical accuracy. Hence made this game bullshit. Number of times I've seen SHERMANS in this game have 75 & 88mm shells bounce off. Complete bullshit. Plus the invisible Pak40s...
Voss2120 8 months ago
@Voss2120 have u played the game after the last patch? everything is much more balanced now , and about the sherman... they usually bounce agaisnt tigers in real life so it inst so inacurate at all
Ryan3d 8 months ago
@Ryan3d No no. I meant Tiger, Panzer IV , and Panther rounds bouncing off shermans not the other way around.
Voss2120 8 months ago
0:37 to pershing 0 damage? fail?:D
pozerlubos 8 months ago
american player is beginner (noob)
MrAbram94 9 months ago
@MrAbram94 really. I think both players are noobs.
HektorPedo 8 months ago 10
and dont come with the "you believe in all shit there is on the internet?", its not my fault i believed you were honest...next time i guess i'll have to be more cautious about it, dont you think?
shebaloso 11 months ago
@shebaloso You know what? This is pointless. We've only had ONE argument. So if you don't know which argument I have destroyed you in...then that's your problem. You're the one refusing to admit you're wrong. Anyway, goodbye.
Super Pershing beat the Tiger ll. End of story. Go cry.
damanwidaplans 11 months ago
@damanwidaplans lol, youre such a child. when i ask you in plain english what u r saying, you back out, funny thing isnt it?..."Super Pershing beat the Tiger ll" but you just said "Lets see...the Pershing was superior to 99% of the German tanks except for the Tiger ll. In fact, I wasn't even arguing about the Tiger ll"....you REALLY know what youre talking about, dont you?. All you say is "pershing beat tiger II, its a fact. youre wrong". dont you have an actual argument?
shebaloso 11 months ago
@shebaloso Oh wow, you catch me when I forget to type something in and you make a big deal about it because it's the only thing you have (further proving my point that you have run out of things to say). Here it is. Plain and simple.
Super Pershing > King Tiger
Pershing > Tiger
Pershing < King Tiger
damanwidaplans 11 months ago
@damanwidaplans there you go! it wasnt that hard, now, was it? actually, it wasnt about the typing mistake,i know what you meant. it was about the thing of changing subject you told me before....and i guess your only argument on the "Super Pershing > King Tiger" is the duel between the two isnt it? all right, i guess further arguing is gonna be fruitless. i'm gonna rely on the specs of both tanks and you r gonna rely on the actual fight (which is controversial, doubtless). fine them, goodbye
shebaloso 11 months ago
Profile and try to dig things up completely irrelevant to this argument. Again, YOU'VE LOST this argument, get the fuck over it. God damn, kid. When someone gets your fat rolls in a knot, there's no stopping you.
damanwidaplans 11 months ago
My account says otherwise? How does my account say I'm an American? That it's green and black? That I'm into gaming? Please, kid. Get real. What did you lose? The argument, that's what you lost. Wow, you've really got to learn to debate. It's fun throwing information around but once you know you've destroyed the other person, it gets boring when they won't shut their mouth (IE: You). The Tiger l was inferior to the Pershing. The only Pershing vs Tiger ll, the Pershing won. It's settled.
damanwidaplans 11 months ago
@damanwidaplans you are so arrogant, ALL you do is keep saying youre right, that you've won, that the other's got to learn..what is really annoying is an arrogant kid that thinks he is learned and rational...if you ask two people what r their favourite food, and both answer pasta, youre gonna say people generally prefer pasta over other types of food? thats EXACTLY what youre trying to do. the pershing won due to a lucky shot, and you know that.
shebaloso 11 months ago
@damanwidaplans and youve got to be fucking shitting me...your account DOES say your from the US (as it says you are 22 year old, so i'm looking at the right spot, thank you). tell me, what actual events youre using? that the pershing won a tank duel? a few kts have also been knocked out by t-34s. does that mean the russian tanks r better? finally let me get this straight...youre saying that YOU r right while me and ALL military historians are wrong?
shebaloso 11 months ago
@shebaloso Yeah. Oh, and so you also believe I'm 22 right? Everything from my profile is correct, right? Please, kid. I'm only 20. And where the hell are you getting military historians from? It doesn't fucking matter what their OPINIONS are either, fact of the matter is that the Pershing killed the Tiger ll. That's it! It's like being at a soccer game. No matter how good you think the other team is, if they lose they LOSE. Way to be retarded. You're out of things to say! You had to go to my...
damanwidaplans 11 months ago
@damanwidaplans i swear to you, if you write me a message in which you explain your point in this argument, telling me what you think i'm trying to say to you and telling also with which argument you think you have destroyed me i'll shut my mouth...until now, thats what i've been asking and all you say is that i lost...please, use your superior debate skills to prove me that youve won.
shebaloso 11 months ago
@Myers49ers4life
Just because there are accounts of M36 sluggers killing those tanks neccesarily means they're able to evenly fight one versus one, besides, think how many M36 Sluggers those King Tigers and Jagdtigers destroyed.
I was also referring to the accuracy of the 88 L/56 within the Tiger, at a range of 2km the Pershing would be at a disadvatage due to the experience of German crews and the Tiger's optics.
Battlefield experience is a whole lot different than tech-specs, L/56 wins.
Daggernoth 1 year ago
@Daggernoth An M36 going head to head with a heavy German tank would be ill advised and would probably get the M36 crew killed unless they got a shot off first. TD crews were trained to use ambush and speed to kill enemy tanks. Most TD battalions had a VERY high kill/death ratios and were mostly used to take out the heavy German tanks that the standard Shermans could not handle. Almost all TD battalions list their combat records on their web sites. The info is there you just have to look it up.
My49ers4life 1 year ago
@My49ers4life Maybe they had so high K/D ratio because of support -tank units who drawed the attention and took fire from panzers while TD's were able in that time to flank them, reduce distance and score hits?
Tactics bring victories, but we can't take them into account when we make side by side comparison.
If properly used and with support units, german tanks cannot be defeated. vice versa too :))
kleistss 1 year ago
@Daggernoth Nope. Tank Destroyers were usually concealed under debris of broken battlefields. As much as you'd like to believe, the Tigers weren't invincible. Even russian tanks could take Tigers on. There have been records of Pershin tanks taking Tigers 1 on 1. 1 shot usually penetrating and exploding within the tiger, killing the crew.
damanwidaplans 11 months ago
@damanwidaplans the tiger was first used in 1943. comparing it to a tank fielded 2 years later is naturally unfair. at the the battle of kursk, the tiger outranged and outgunned ALL of the russian tanks. if a tank produced in 1943 was comparable to armor fielded one/two years later (is-2, m26) certainly, it could pack quite a punch. besides, the tiger II was the german panzer of 44/45 (the production of the tiger I had already stopped). 1 on 1 against that beast? well, good luck with that..
shebaloso 11 months ago
@shebaloso 2 words. Super Pershing. Anyway, you can hear stories about how Tiger crews were usually devastated when fighting with a Pershing. Like a story where a Pershing shot through the tiger, chopping off the commanders legs, the crew tried escaping but died soon afterwards from the damage they had taken. In total, only around 3 Pershings were lost in the war ( I can't remember the exact number but it was like 2). And it doesn't matter what's fair. Fact is fact, and you're wrong.
damanwidaplans 11 months ago
@damanwidaplans. super pershing? a single super pershing was shipped to europe, and luckily for its crew, it never engaged a tiger II in battle. i'm talking about tanks that actually were used in WWII. u want to talk about k/d ratio? fine...in no more than 3 months, a single panzer division armed with king tigers claimed 500 kills at a loss of 45 tanks, 34 of which destroyed by their own crews. 3 pershings lost? 20 pershings were shipped to europe....
shebaloso 11 months ago
@shebaloso The super pershing did in fact defeat a Tiger ll. Don't just read wikipedia. It engaged a Tiger ll which was hidden inside a destroyed building. Quickly, the Tiger came out of hiding and shot at the Super Pershing but the shot just barely managed to get deflected from the Super Pershing's extra frontal Armor (or it missed) I can't remember. The Pershing quickly loaded an Armor penetrating round and shot the Tiger from the underbelly when it rose above a hill. The tiger was destroyed.
damanwidaplans 11 months ago
@damanwidaplans i do know about it. the tiger shot actually missed by more than 4 feet. a tiger ap round could penetrate up to 200 mm of armor. the pershing was not so well armored. besides, it was a VERY lucky shot for the us crew...and it also should be noted that if a sherman shot the rear armor of a tiger II, the shot would surely penetrate. shooting its even less armored underbelly is not a real win, if you know what i mean
shebaloso 11 months ago
@shebaloso Dude, you're wrong. The Pershing won more Tiger encounters than vise versa. The only Tiger ll vs Pershing encounter was won by a Pershing. GET THE FUCK OVER IT.
damanwidaplans 11 months ago
@damanwidaplans no need to curse. i'm being respectful to you, there is no need to curse. get the fuck over what? man, EVERY SINGLE military HISTORIAN agree that the german tanks were the best, that the pershing was no match for a tiger II, just because youre american you dont have to be so patriotic. even the allied high command did not like the pershing
shebaloso 11 months ago
@damanwidaplans i'm not wrong. i do believe the pershing is superior to the tiger I, i never said otherwise. i just think u should be comparing it to the tiger II, instead of its smaller brother. its like saying a sherman is better than a panzer II. even with the shortage of high quality steel and all of its mecanical problems, the king tiger was FAR superior to the pershing. if u want to talk about 1 on 1 battles, which almost never occurred, u must consider both tanks at their full potential.
shebaloso 11 months ago
@shebaloso You're just pulling the 'respectful' card as something to combat this argument that you have so clearly lost. I'm not cursing at you, I'm just using it for emphasis. Anyway, German tanks were superior to American tanks, but that doesn't mean all of them. Lets see...the Pershing was superior to 99% of the German tanks except for the Tiger ll. In fact, I wasn't even arguing about the Tiger ll. This argument started about Tiger l's and you lost that one so you switched to tiger ll's.
damanwidaplans 11 months ago
@shebaloso Oh, and I'm not American. Next time don't make assumptions because they make you look like a fool. You're running out of options and it's beginning to show how desperate you are to cling on to this argument. Anyway, I leave you in defeat. Hopefully you wise up and quit replying. I never said it was more powerful than the Tiger ll. But the only encounter there was, the Tiger ll lost. Oh and the Tiger ll did get a show at it in the confrontation. But it hit at an angle. What's next? V1?
damanwidaplans 11 months ago
@damanwidaplans man, youre so over your head...please, enlighten me...what the hell did i lose?...all you do is keep saying i'm wrong and youre right..i believe i'm not the one running out of options. you may be not american, but youre account says otherwise...so either you ARE an american or you are an american wannabe...i guess the fool here ain't me.
shebaloso 11 months ago
@damanwidaplans you said the the pershing was better than the tiger I. i said you should be comparing it to the tiger II. i said the tiger II is superior to the pershing. you just said it too. how do you leave me in defeat? in what did you prove me wrong?
shebaloso 11 months ago
@shebaloso Any other information on the Tiger ll being better than a Super Pershing is just opinion. I'm just using facts here. You're using your heated passion for the Tiger ll. Guess who won this argument? The one using actual events, or the fool blabbering his opinionated mouth?
damanwidaplans 11 months ago
@damanwidaplans The King Tiger was the better of the two. but truth is we will never know, they never met in combat. the one account where the two tanks supposedly met, the Super Pershing crew said they encountered what was though to be a KT, but they dont know. waht brings me to doubt the claim is that the German shot bounced off the armour, the 88mm L\71 of the KT could more than pierce the Pershings armour especially at irban combat distances as it KTs gun was the most powerful AT gun of ww2
fallschirmjager0000 11 months ago
@fallschirmjager0000 power has nothing to do with rounds bouncing off armour the angel is what matters, and the german 88mm was not more powerful then the M26 90mmM3 gun.
personaly the M26 takes the win in every way, it has more armour, faster, more powerful gun, better rounds used in the gun, smaller so its hader to hit, the KT was awesome but it could not match the M26 in urban combat, on the open field the KT could win but in all factors the M26 wins
HONORGUARD308 10 months ago
@HONORGUARD308 well in this case it power has to be considered especially with the close distance of less than 100m. besides that the crew of the Super Persing claimed a shot bounced off the turret, with the turrets armour being relatively thin in comparison to the front glasis plate and also the turrets armour is flat, not angled so I doubt it was a King Tiger. Actaully the King Tiger had very good mobility, it was the suspension that caused the most problems, also there was only 1 s-pershing..
fallschirmjager0000 10 months ago
@HONORGUARD308 and 489 King Tigers made. the super pershings armour was the same as that of a regular pershing with the exception of welded armour plates bolted on. also we really ahve no idea as to how the s-pershing would have performed in actual combat because there is little evidence.
fallschirmjager0000 10 months ago
@fallschirmjager0000 true, i would take my bets on the M26SP though even cause it has a longer barrel that makes it have more power behind the round but also the KT was awesome so yeh we could talk about this all day and we still wont know, and one thing that is drilled into our heads in the Australian Defence Force is that your gear is only as good as your trainning so a M26sp vs KT would be far fixed fight it comes down to the skill of the crew if you ask me
HONORGUARD308 10 months ago
@HONORGUARD308 well said. KT crews were hand picked from the best Panzer crews, so therefore would have served in combat for many years before moving on to the KT.
fallschirmjager0000 10 months ago
@fallschirmjager0000 Actually..... the KT's gun was SMALLER than that of the M26.
It had a 90mm, as opposed to the 88mm. The US's answer to the German 88. If you care to read about it.
Though, the Pershing had less armor, it was more mobile, the KT's had a bad habit of engine failure (They used the same engine as the Tiger I )
FuctUpKid23 9 months ago
Actually if you knew anything about tank guns you would know that size does not mean power, yes the Pershings gun was the larger caliber by 2mm but power means muzzle velocity. The 88mm L/71 of the King Tiger was longer and had a muzzle velocity of 1000m/s (1 kilometer per second) where as the Pershings 90mm gun had a muzzle velocity of 820m/s to that means KT was more powerful, hence thats why its called the most poweful AT gun of WW2. Also they used different engines, the KTs had 20hp more.
fallschirmjager0000 9 months ago
There are several accounts of M36s killing king tigers and jagdtigers. If you search 776th td battalion they have pictures on their site of a jagdtiger that was knocked out by an M36 from 900 yards. Also I have pictures on my computer of a jagdpanther that was knocked out by a frontal glacis plate hit from an M36. Those pictures can be found on the 899th td battalion site if you want to look it up. Only one tank saw combat that was equal to a tiger 2 and that was the super pershing (only 1made).
My49ers4life 1 year ago
If you doubt this you can look it up for yourself. You might be thinking of the British 17 pounder as the gun with accuracy problems and it was only a problem with APDS rounds. I still don't understand why there are Pershings in this game and not M36s. 1,400 M36 tds saw combat before the end of the war and only 20 Pershings were confirmed to have seen combat before the war ended. Also I would suggest reading books by Steve Zaloga and R.P. Hunnicutt as they are the best US WW2 armor historians.
My49ers4life 1 year ago
@MagicSnipe The M3 90mm was one of the most accurate allied guns of WW2. M36 TD crews in some units used GI helmets for target practice at 600 yards. Also a 776th TD battalion M36 had a confirmed kill on a Panther at 3,200 yards. Only 1 Pershing (out of 20) was ever completely knocked out in combat. 2 more were damaged but returned to service. I don't remember how many Tigers and Panthers the Pershings killed but I have seen video and photo evidence of at least 5 Tigers and a few Panthers.
My49ers4life 1 year ago
@MagicSnipe Wrong also... The Pershings frontal armor was 102mm sloped at 45 degrees. The Tigers frontal armor was 100mm non-sloped or 0 degrees meaning that the Pershings armor was more effective due to slope despite being roughly equal in thickness. See last my post, the 90mm M3 was better than the 88mm L/56. Both are underpowered and have fairly poor mobility so neither really has an advantage there. The Pershing was a better MBT as it should be since it was 2 years newer than the Tiger.
My49ers4life 1 year ago
@My49ers4life yes i 2nd that. but the guy may have meant the older 2 part (projectile and cordite propellant) guns. which weren't as good as the 88. or he was just commenting on game play.
how ever those were known to be sub par and were replaced with a 1 part (shell firing) cannons.
my sources said that the Pershing armor was 110mm frontal. and the tigers was still 100mm. ( guess ill have to find a real one and cut it to find out =P )
178thbattlegroup 1 year ago
But even Tiger's gun better then M26 , both of them got hit by each other cause the same fate , so there are no such big difference between both guns
7511232 1 year ago
@netlogboy And stop using the argument "Because of the 90 MM round that the... tank fires", it simply isn't valid, since the difference is only 2 MM.
KalleMickelborg 1 year ago
@netlogboy What kind of bullshit is that scheme you just made? The Tiger was still superior to the Pershing considering its only 2mm smaller cartridge, seriously, have you ever seen statistics of this or is it your own personal preference? In that case, your wrong.
KalleMickelborg 1 year ago
@netlogboy It doesen't really matter in this case what caliber the damn gun is when the difference is 2 mm, again, the Tiger had a whole different projectile (carthridge) which was more powerful than the counterpart on the Pershing tank, also the barrel of the Tiger tank was longer, therefor having much more velocity and punch to its projectile.
KalleMickelborg 1 year ago
ill stick with my men of war thanks
dardraa 1 year ago
@Goodytree 2 pershings, havent u seen the first one getting destroyed by the tiger?? and the second followed the tiger where it got blowed up too...
SpartiuS94 1 year ago
90mm M3 mounted on the Slugger and the Pershing is worse than the Tiger's 88mm L/56, just pointing that out.
Daggernoth 1 year ago
@Daggernoth Incorrect... A simple search of armor penetration tables will reveal that the U.S. 90mm M3 gun penetrated more armor than the German 88mm L/56 at all distances. The 90mm fired a heavier projectile at a higher velocity. U.S. M3 90mm, M82 APCBC- 24.1 pounds @ 2,800 fps, German 88mm Kwk 36 L/56, Pzgr.39 APCBC- 22.5 pounds @ 2,536 fps. The 90mm carried far more kinetic energy with all AP rounds and penetrated more armor look it up...
My49ers4life 1 year ago
@netlogboy No you dumbshit they CHANGED it to a 75mm.
"In light of experience gained in North Africa, the 37 mm gun was found to be inadequate and the design was changed to use a British 57 mm gun. During the development process, the design was further upgunned to a 75 mm gun," And who cares if the M18 was faster? The Tiger could hit targets 2.5 MILES AWAY (it's been reported), and even with its LATER 76mm gun it STILL couldn't peirce the Tigers frontal armor.
bud389 1 year ago
@bud389 Actually he's a bit right The Pershing has a 90 mm cannon. But only a few have been in Europe and there was only one Pershing who saw actual combat. Correct me if i'm wrong, i'll look it up in my encyclopedia.
Warhammer40k1561 1 year ago
@netlogboy well first of all, the Tiger stopped production in 1944 and the M26 wasn't even around till 1945, and no, the M26 STILL had less frontal armor then the tiger. The 88 was feared because of how accurate AND powerful it was, it could sustain a flatter trajectory longer then almost any other tank gun.
bud389 1 year ago
@netlogboy my dear lad, i just think you should read more and learn some facts about guns and armour on this tanks and td's. In some points you're maybe right, but if a Tiger was used with proper tactics, neither of the tanks you've mentioned in your previous posts (except Pershing) would not stand a chance in 1 on 1 battle in open front, starting range 2500m. It's obvious that in real battle
kleistss 1 year ago
@kleistss situation things change, but stating that " The M18/M36 were ALOT faster than the tiger , who was very slow. by the time the tiger had spotted these tankdestroyers , he was done for" you're just showing your ignorance on the matter. :(
kleistss 1 year ago
@netlogboy oh, not to mention dumbass, the M36 was a TANK DESTROYER, it wasn't a TANK. The M36 would be destroyed by a tiger not to mention, it's armor was LIGHTER then the Tiger I's, the tiger had a complete .5 inches more then the M36, and the Tigers main cannon could peirce the M36's armor aswell. M18 hellcat? ARE YOU HIGH?! IT HAS COMPLETE SHIT WORTH OF ARMOR AND IT USED A 57MM CANNON! JESUS FUCKING CHRIST YOUR RETARDED!
bud389 1 year ago
@netlogboy which is why this game is innaccurate... Tiger could have taken any of those out, and has been reported to of taken out targets 2.5 miles away. It used an 88mm KwK 36, which had a flatter trajectory then most weapons and was one of THE MOST FEARED tank guns in the whole war. The only disability of the Tiger was it's weight, which was what contributed to most of it's field problems, which weren't all too common.
And no, Sherman V IRL = Dead against a tiger.
bud389 1 year ago
bad micro on the german side.
SkullKing11841 1 year ago
your forgot to kill the sherman lol
freego56 1 year ago
that guy should keep his mouth shut before i slap him silly
deathboywill 1 year ago
In real life that battle would have been ended in 3 shots.
Tanks die very quickly.
pixphi 1 year ago
@pixphi maybe even less depending on where the shells actually hit
LuisRC91 1 year ago
@pixphi yeah but in real l ife king tiger is hard to kil by the tanks but i think t-34 can beat the king tiger cuz t-34 have a fast recoil and speed
ravenhirio 1 year ago
@ravenhirio Haha what? Fast recoil and speed? A T-34/85 could disable a King tiger but only from the side or the rear.
Frontally the armor could't even be penetrated while the king tiger could take em out them from more then 2000 meters away.
T-34s where a good solid medium tank, but they where not made for fighting king tigers ravenhirio.
Ondkorven 1 year ago
V1?
Bah... change the name of the video...
mBRbf2 1 year ago
@mBRbf2 the V1 didnt deal any dmg... look before you comment idiot
Warlord13413 1 year ago
@Warlord13413 It killed a enginner squad, who could repair a tank and change the things. Also, it helped to the pershing go away. So, don't say shit, for me it wasn't included in the video name and in the description about the V1.
I can comment what I want, so don't fucking bother me again, piece of shit.
mBRbf2 1 year ago
Why the V1 though. i thought it was straight on tank battle.
Kinda disappointing.
Dranix1971 1 year ago
0:23 : smart to set one of your tigers with it's side against the enemy...not
Uygur102 1 year ago
blitzkrieg Doctrine allows to have two Tiger I
Terror Doctrine allows to have one ace Tiger I
the tiger I frontal armor don't deflect incoming shells but its just basically impenetrable to guns below 75 mm at any range and 75mm higher at a certain range
MsNeutral 1 year ago
@plantadesombra what's the name of mod? i see u got 2 tigers in the same time
TheTroo 1 year ago
@TheTroo In the earlier patches it was possible to have 2 tigers at the same time, without using bergetiger.
IRewweIR 1 year ago
@MrDanneyeah who is spamming?i'm not advertising,telling others to go shiity website etc.
tooichan 1 year ago
@ kooziejr
well i guess we are talking about an 1 on1?
GoffderDamerone 1 year ago
@kooziejr well but the russians tanks are nothing against the germans anti-tank weapons and tanks in an 1on 1 the german would have crushed the russians because the russian were not able to to produce so much tanks with out the attck of the allies from the west
GoffderDamerone 1 year ago
@GoffderDamerone no shit. Germany would have crushed any one country. fact is they were fighting the whole world..scary thing is they would have won if they had not made some stupid tactical errors. End of the day Russia/France/Britain/Canada/Australia/USA/Poland/Yugos /Scandanavia are impossible to beat when your troops are freezing to death in Russian winter.
kooziejr 1 year ago
@kooziejr NO SHIT.The german lost because of the winter of russia.the russians were able to fight in the winter in their own homeland,russia,but the germans had lack of winter uniform.also,they were NOT fighing the whole world.don't forget hungry,italy,japan etc.also,the germans lost not only because of the tactical errors,BUT also made the USA started its amazing industrial power.their tanks ,planes,resources&shit like that would make ANY country being flooded by the US armed forces.
tooichan 1 year ago
@GoffderDamerone well,you're a noob.the russians had not enough tanks NOT because they couldn't make them,but their crew were lack of training.many of the russian tank crews went on the front line just after a 48 hour training.
tooichan 1 year ago
I look at some of the comments and laugh. Some people out there really think that the German tanks in this game are unrealistically overpowered. If this game was realistic, then the only thing the allies would have in their advantage would be air support rangers and commandos. In real life those were the only things, aside from vast numbers, that the allies had in their favor.
mommasboy8879 1 year ago
@mommasboy8879 no the shermans were useful and was able to finally overwhelm the enemy tigers and panthers in the war with sheer number and mobility. The M26 Pershing was better than even the pantherr and a few mm short in armour to compare with the tiger
22Weijin 1 year ago
@22Weijin the shermans had a totally insufficient gun and not nearly enough armor, and had a under powered engine. Pershings were about an even match for a panther, but were a logistical nightmare as they used a different type of ammunition then the shermans. And did you know that a 88 and a tiger could destroy a sherman in one hit?
mommasboy8879 1 year ago
@mommasboy8879 did you know that 3 shermans could kill a tiger if you used them properly? and the pershing was an amazing tank. It is actually better than the panther with around the same amount of resources spent. If we count fuel as 3 manpower each since fuel is hard to get
22Weijin 1 year ago
@22Weijin first off, the British ran a number of tests with sherman tanks and tiger tanks, and in each instance, unless the tiger tank crew was completely inexperienced, it took FOUR shermans to destroy the tiger and in each case only one sherman survived. And in the case of panthers vs pershings, it sounds as if you're thinking that the tanks in company of heroes are realistic, they're not.
mommasboy8879 1 year ago
@mommasboy8879 ... do you even know tanks? pershing are considered an advanced heavy tank. It is superior to panthers inthe real world. One pershing could 2 shot a panther while a panther will take avery long time. There was one pershing, call the super pershing. It was able to kill a tiger in one shot, while the tigers rounds were bouncing of of it. a normal pershing isnt as good but is superior to the panther.
22Weijin 1 year ago
@22Weijin What are you talking about?! I'm talking about WW2 tanks, are you talking about modern or fictional tanks?!
mommasboy8879 1 year ago
@mommasboy8879 real world duh read more about pershings and shermans and you will know what i am talking about. The super pershing is a pershing that was upgraded with a huge amount of armour. and a more powerful gun. the 90mm just isnt as good as the 88. Go search up pershing vs panther and you will see a panther getting killed by a pershing. And yea i am talking about WW2
22Weijin 1 year ago
@22Weijin I'm ending this argument. Only 20 pershings were deployed to Europe. They saw next to no combat. The "Super Pershing" only destroyed three tanks, the last one was reported as a Tiger, but its widely agreed that it was probably a Panzer Four. Three pershings were deployed to Korea. After a few weeks of breaking down and trying to find the right ammunition, they were all destroyed in a half hour against four enemy T-34s, and not a single enemy tank was destroyed. Beat that.
mommasboy8879 1 year ago
@mommasboy8879 No your facts are wrong not completely but wrong. only 17 pershinngs were delivered to the war at 1945, 2 superpershing were also deployed. it is true the pershings 2 shotted the panthers . The super pershing may or may not have shot a tiger, but after tests, it was found that the pershing could indeed do just that. Also, the part where 4 t 34s killed 4 pershings? it wasnt a fair fight, the pershings wer split up and the t34s killed them 1 by 1.BTW more than 4 pershing in korea
22Weijin 1 year ago
@22Weijin Where did you get your (wrong) facts?
mommasboy8879 1 year ago
@mommasboy8879 Lol you are calling someone that actually look up tanks and research them wrong, thinking your self is right. The pershing is alot better thatn a t34, it is a fact, and yea shooting a tiger in the belly, the weakest part of the armour with a 90mm high velocity AP round is fatal.
22Weijin 1 year ago
@22Weijin you still didn't tell me were you got your information, I got mine from the books The Ultimate guide to Tanks, and German tanks of World War Two. I'm guessing you got your information of the internet. And were exactly the "belly" of a Tiger?
mommasboy8879 1 year ago
@mommasboy8879 The belly of a tiger is the bottom armour, hard to reach yet a instant kill if shot at. The tigers belly is a bit more stronger, but the pershing was able to shoot straight though it. You way you know about tanks yet you dont know what a belly is? By the way the ultimate guide to tanks has some pretty bad stuff in there, does it tell you that panthers and tiger often has engine fails? resulting in a large amount of casulties due to breakdown. I get my info from lots library books.
22Weijin 1 year ago
@22Weijin I've never seen that called the belly, and by the way this is getting boring, I have read from a dozen different book that the allies had no tank as good as a panther. Also, your earlier comment, on the T-34 vs. pershing? If the pershing had split up (they didn't) They still would have raped the T-34s if your claims were true
mommasboy8879 1 year ago
@mommasboy8879 in real life 1 ap shot that peirces an enemy armour would kill a tank, depending on where they hit. no we imagine that the pershings armor deflects 2 of the 4 t34 shots, the remaining 2 would be fatal.if you really understand tanks in ww2, you would realize it would all be based on luck rather than armor.by the way i now really doubt you know tanks and isnt just 12 years old kid.you dont know that pershings were not considered ww2 tanks be cause they arrived late in the war.
22Weijin 1 year ago
@22Weijin First I'm 15, and second I'm sick of arguing this with I believe that American tanks sucked but were produced in such numbers that they swamped the Germans, you don't> We should make peace before this turns into the next world war.
mommasboy8879 1 year ago
@mommasboy8879 hm, americans no longer sucked when they got the pershing, tho it was to late to make a huge impact in the war.
22Weijin 1 year ago
@mommasboy8879 you are an idiot. America were shit in WWII. If the war was America VS Germany from 1939 then america would have got fucking steamrolled. You don't have to be ashamed cause your country was not the strongest back then. The truth is germany would have beaten any country in the world 1 V 1. It was actually the Russians who produced tanks in such numbers that Germany could not cope with it...NOT the Amercan pea shooters.
kooziejr 1 year ago
@kooziejr America wouldn't have lost in a one v one with Germany in 1939, our navy would have defeated the German one in the pacific, then would have used our incredible industrial power to out produce Germany, and starve them of oil. However, not taking the pacific into account, the American army would not have stood a chance. And why am I an idiot? did you read my comments?
mommasboy8879 1 year ago
@mommasboy8879 wow. you are a fucking idiot
kooziejr 1 year ago
@kooziejr Why am I an idiot?
mommasboy8879 1 year ago
@mommasboy8879 and also it was proven that the pershing is superior to the t34. search pershing vs t34 if ou want
22Weijin 1 year ago
@22Weijin IF, they got CLOSE enough AND they had a gun upgrade
Janforth04 1 year ago
@Janforth04 yea i got the gun upgrade and i ambushed the tiger.
22Weijin 1 year ago
german tanks just fuck the crap out of people xDD
trytojustify 1 year ago
m26 could had taken down the tiger. It did have a 90mm high velocity cannon that could pierce the armor.
GantortheGreat 1 year ago
Look like they were hit by a barrage of artillery before your tigers engaged. Also the guy u faced only send one by one. So of course you gonna owned him.
916ppl 1 year ago
0:36 ... :DDDD O.O a fucking V1 against a Pershing ... the Pershing wins hahaha :D
imbacat87 1 year ago
Sherman was disadvantaged against the German tanks because of well, everyhitng. Bigger gun , thicker armor, but the Allies used the wisely, and thats how the Allied had the advantage.
Eivannn233 1 year ago
@Eivannn233 we won beacuse we made so fucking much
CocaCola782 1 year ago
Hey I know, lets rush two tiger tanks with one pershing
lets not even think about flanking them, lets just go head on, that will work
tsoukinator 1 year ago
@tsoukinator : ahah, yes that's exactly what's going on... super noobs shouldn't use Pershing tanks.
oOCrossroadsOo 1 year ago
Allied player should have relied on AT Guns. Give me 4-8 57mm AT Guns on armoured priecing mode and all take a tiger out.
Other tanks shouldn't face a tiger, they won't last. The tiger is a tank killer.
daytrader3 1 year ago
@daytrader3 : A M26 lead correctly can take out a Tiger... but it will be kinda hard, so support is needed.
Then AT guns are good but can be easily destroyed by arty and/or tanks... their team is too exposed.
oOCrossroadsOo 1 year ago
well german tanks were all excellent whit power and armor but not whit augiliti and speed that why the best tanks are russian..
croatian1997 1 year ago
Ever heard of flanking your enemy ?
QuellDerQual 1 year ago 2
yeah thats y the americans and british won all the good battles. come on man the sherman and the m26 were great tanks. this game just makes them look bad
owen2652 1 year ago
@owen2652 Sherman tank... with a front armor of 50mm and sides and rear armor of 38mm, can be destroyed by most of the German heavy tanks, and unable to damage enemy tanks except when fired from the closest distances (to destroy a Tiger a Sherman had to fire with its gun touching the rear armor of the Tiger... and the Tiger is able to destroy a target that is 2700m far).
Apart from that, the Sherman was a good tank.
oOCrossroadsOo 1 year ago
m 26 is made to keep flanking the tiger its armor isnt strong at its just fastall
3217491 1 year ago
was unfair for the pershings
GenGeogeSPatton 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
armour was well ahead of its time
zzirSnipzz 1 year ago
armour was well ahead of its time
zzirSnipzz 1 year ago
you do not know how to use an M10 (whoever you were versing)
BehemothPaintball 2 years ago
@BehemothPaintball i think its just the computer, because if it was a human on hman fight im sure the person would be trying to macro flank the tigers
piatdor 2 years ago
da Tigrenok i Pershing i M10 ottarobanit toka tak!On ih s rastojanija rasstrelaet i vse!Kstati esli kto znaet napewite na skoka u Pershinga ego 90mm bjet?!?!!!
serewka1985ify 2 years ago
dudes, stop arguing about best WW2 tank. on a 1vs1 fight, it was the tiger. period.
Ariranhaa 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Pershing rape the Tiger in 1-1
DSMeclipsegst 2 years ago
Pershings arent "WW2 tanks", since they entered war after 1945, at the very end of it, and didnt see combat enough to prove their superiority, although, indeed, there are relates of a Pershing beating a Tiger, but to few to prove something once and for all.
And, by the way, even if it was guaranteed that a Pershing would beat a Tiger "a priori", 'to rape' wouldnt be the most accurate verb, it would be more like 'to win with difficulties'.
Ariranhaa 2 years ago
Pershings are WW2 tanks because they faught in WW2 if they faught in the war they WW2 tanks. ok hows this surf the net and you will find it 1 pershing going up against 4 tigers and 2 panzer 4s and that ne pershing knocked out 2 tigers and 1 of the panzers with out being hit i think that proves the Pershing was better that the Tiger now King Tiger is dif. the King Tiger was only beatin by a Super Pershing in a Tank on Tank fight that i know of
DSMeclipsegst 2 years ago
Comment removed
RitterDerKokosnusss 2 years ago
ok the look it up Super Pershing vs Tiger on google the Pershing bounced the 88shell off and belly shot on the tiger destroying it it is all about the pershing
DSMeclipsegst 2 years ago
Yeah I've heard that story. Pretty crazy.
VitaminsAndPiss 2 years ago
might be crazy but happened but people shtll seem to think the Tiger is the best tank of the war when in reality they sucked every nation except france had a tank that can take out a tiger with ease
DSMeclipsegst 2 years ago
Yeah I believe the story.
No, as powerful and heavily armoured as the Tiger was, it WAS NOT the best tank, I agree!
However the Pershing was the United States version of the Tiger, sorry mate, the Pershing was a waste of time aswell. It had the exact same problem as the Tiger, slow, brokedown to often, not easy to produce in great numbers, generally unconvetional.
The 2 Best tanks of WW2 were the T-34 (T-34/85 aswell) and the M4 Sherman. Why? lots of them, with balanced features. Easy!
VitaminsAndPiss 2 years ago