tiger ii Panzerbefehlswagen Tiger Ausf. B

[_Vidarr_ 21]

Tiger Ausf. B Command Tank

Since this is a suggestion for a vehicle similar to some we already have in-game, this post will be kept brief and I won't be going as in-depth on historical background or other detailed information as I would normally do for such a post.

 

Background

Of the some 487 "King Tiger" tanks produced during WWII, approximately 5% were Panzerbefehlswagen command tanks. Two variants of Pz Bef Wg Tiger B tanks were fitted with an additional radio set to accompany the standard FuG 5 (and FuG 2 mounted in company HQ and platoon commander tanks). The Sd.Kfz 267 was fitted with a FuG 8 transceiver which utilized the Sternantenna D (as seen in figure 1.) while the second variant, Sd.Kfz 268, was fitted with the FuG 7 for communication with aerial units. Each command tank (of either variant) saw the removal of 17 rounds of main gun ammunition as well as removal of machinegun ammunition to accommodate the new radio set, its antenna, and other accessories including an auxiliary GG 4400 generator. Only the Sd.Kfz 267 saw notable production and combat use and thus is the subject for this suggestion.

 

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

 

Statistics

 

The in-game stats for the Pz.Bef.Wg Tiger Ausf. B are largely identical to the standard Tiger B. One notable difference is that, to make room for the the additional radio set and its required equipment, ammunition stowage for the main gun was reduced to 63 rounds and machinegun ammunition stowage reduced to 3300 rounds. I will edit this page to indicate the specific ammunition racks removed once I am able to verify it with a source. In the event that the ammunition racks removed for the command tank are the turret racks, this would result in a slightly slower fire rate in exchange for improved survivability.

 

 

Regarding mobility:
Mobility for the Pz.Bef.Wg Tiger Ausf.B is the same as the standard Tiger B. However, both tech tree Tigers as well as the Pz.Bef.Wg should have their engines governed to 2500 rpm as was done historically. This limited gross horsepower to around 580-600 horsepower and mechanically-limited the Tiger's maximum speed in forward and reverse gear to 34.6 km/h and 9.27 km/h, respectively. With this said, it isn't unheard of for tank crews to remove or otherwise disable engine speed governors in the field, and this could be reflected by the addition of a modification. In either case, the mobility for the Pz.Bef.Wg. Tiger Ausf.B should be identical to that of the standard Tiger II.

 

Figure 3.

 

 

In-Game

This suggestion for the Tiger II command tank stems from the inclusion of other command tanks currently in the game. The intent is to provide an alternative GE premium vehicle (though this is merely a suggestion) to the Tiger II mit Sla.16, which is available only in the "King Tiger Pack." This would, in theory, be a relatively-inexpensive vehicle to add to War Thunder. While not the most unique vehicle, it carries the benefits of a premium tank without having a large disparity in performance from its tech tree counterpart.

 

 

Sources

Jentz, T., Doyle, H. (1997). Germany's Tiger Tanks: VK45.02 to Tiger II
Jentz, T., Doyle, H. (2001). Panzer Tracts No. 6 Schwere Panzerkampfwagen: D. W. to E-100 Including the Tigers

Edited April 21, 2023 by _Vidarr_
Removed all BR suggestions. Battle Rating seems to have become the focus of the replies, which is not the intent; the vehicle itself should be the focus.

[Miki_Hoshii 2,449]

Open for discussion.

[eleks12 1,079]

Strong +1 

[Milocat 4,854]

+1, a command Tiger II would be awesome.  

 

Bonus points if it gets this:  

Spoiler

 

 

[Solarmod 1,203]

1 hour ago, Milocat said:

+1, a command Tiger II would be awesome.  

 

Bonus points if it gets this:  

  Hide contents

 

 

This. I didn't really think the tiger ausf B had a command variant, now I want it bad!

[Stuhlfleisch 3,762]

Absolutely! This would be a great addition and it'd be consistent with the already available premium command-tanks. +1

 

Also, a 6.3 Tiger II (H), even with 12 seconds of reload time sounds like a lot of fun 

[stuka2689 314]

I think 6.3 make no sense.....just nerfing performance without armor and gun(nobody use apcr on tiger 2)is not a good solution.

5.3 seeing tiger 2(h) is not balanced.

I think this tank could be tiger 2 105mm replacement. So, I think give it for tech tree is good idea.

[RoadRunnerdn 53]

Sure, more tanks the merrier but absolutely not at 6.3.

 

The Tiger 2 H is already extremely good at 6.7. Even with slight nerfs the thing would be OP at 6.3.

[ponnes 473]

On 31/05/2020 at 07:41, _Herr_ said:

One key change for the vehicle to solidify its position at BR 6.3 would be the removal of PzGr 40/43 APCR ammunition. While less damaging than PzGr 39/43, the APCR round is useful

[_Vidarr_ 21]

Figure I'll revisit the page with a few more tidbits/suggestions.

If this vehicle were to be added, I feel it would be worth it to differentiate between the regular Tiger B in the tech tree, the Tiger B Sla.16 premium, and the new Command Tiger B. I recommend some changes to existing features/visuals to allow for more differences between the vehicles.

 

tl;dr:
-remove zimmerit paste from the Tiger II Sla.16. As a 'late war' vehicle, the tank as it exists in-game would not have received factory zimmerit.

-replace turret of Tiger II Sla.16 with the late-pattern model (with single-piece track links) as seen in modified form on the Tiger II 10,5cm.

-remove Anti-aircraft machinegun from the Tiger II Sla.16

-add late-war Flammenvernichter exhaust system to the Tiger II Sla.16

-add anti-aircraft machinegun to the Pz.Bef.Wg Tiger B to distinguish it further from the standard tech-tree vehicle

 

 

Tiger II Sla.16:
This vehicle is based on late-war testing in which a Tiger II was successfully modified with provision for the new engine. While it never received the engine, favorable results from prior testing in a Jagdtiger are (imo) grounds enough to justify the presence of the vehicle in-game. However, I'm unfamiliar with the specific modified Tiger in question. The presence of armor shielding on the rear hatch, presence of zimmerit paste, and (looks like) use of the post-July production loader's hatch (which corresponds with the 44mm thickness in-game) suggest that the Tiger II Sla.16 in War Thunder is modeled on a Tiger II produced between July and September of 1944.

 

Given that this vehicle is something of a 'what if/mid-1945' vehicle, it would make more sense to have features of late-production Tigers. For example, zimmerit paste ought to be removed from the Sla.16 model as this was no longer applied to vehicles from the factory after September 1944. It would also be reasonable to fit a late-production turret such as those photographed at the Henschel factory in 1945 (also seen modified form on the "Tiger B 10,5cm" in-game).

These turrets have a new arrangement of track link hooks made for the later, single-link Kgs 73/800/152 tracks (and some additional mounting loops). These are seen on the Tiger 10,5cm in-game and would be appropriate for a 'late-war' tank like the Tiger Sla.16. It might also be nice to feature the late war "Flammenvernichter" exhaust system (seen on Panther Ausf. F in-game).

Due to the better overall performance of the Tiger II Sla.16 in War Thunder with better torque, a better power/weight ratio, and with additional protection on the turret sides, I would suggest removal of the cupola-mounted MG 34 AA machine gun.

 

Pz.Bef.Wg. Tiger Ausf. B:
If the zimmerit is removed from the Tiger II Sla.16 and the model reworked to more-accurately represent late production features of the Tiger II, I would suggest giving the Pz.Bef.Wg Tiger B an appearance close to that of the tech tree variant as most photographs of Tiger command tanks indicate pre-September 1944 production with zimmerit applied. To differentiate between the regular Tiger and the command variant, it may be worthwhile to add a cupola-mounted AA machinegun to the new vehicle. This way, all three vehicles have immediate distinguishing features so that they can be identified from all angles. The command Tiger is the only one to feature a cupola MG and has the minor additions of an antenna with its stowage case while the Sla.16 has the change of turret/track, lacks zimmerit, and features changed exhaust.

 

[NoodleCup31 8,824]

On 31/05/2020 at 07:41, _Herr_ said:

the Pz Bef Wg would not have room for ammunition in the turret. In-game, it loses the 'ready-rack,' reducing rate of fire

HELL YEA SIGN ME UP

 

 

[Chomusuke1 1,221]

9 hours ago, _Herr_ said:

I would suggest removal of the cupola-mounted MG 34 AA machine gun

Why not remove all 50 cals from the american shermans in order to distinguish them from chinese/Italian shermans? Very bad suggestion. If the vehicle (Tiger II) has the fliegerbeschussgerät ring mount then it has to have an MG:

It is as simple as that. If you want more distinction give one an MG 42 rather than an MG 34

 

Edited August 3, 2020 by Chomusuke1

[_Vidarr_ 21]

On 03/08/2020 at 00:58, Chomusuke1 said:

Why not remove all 50 cals from the american shermans in order to distinguish them from chinese/Italian shermans? Very bad suggestion. If the vehicle (Tiger II) has the fliegerbeschussgerät ring mount then it has to have an MG:

It is as simple as that. If you want more distinction give one an MG 42 rather than an MG 34

 

 

I won't comment on the M4 tanks having/not having .50-cals as this isn't pertinent to the discussion and isn't a valid comparison. I would disagree that any German tank with a fliegerbeshussgerät should, simply because it has provision for one, receive a 3rd MG 34. In the case of Tiger I, only two MG 34s were issued as standard. When a German tank is photographed with an AA machinegun mounting, if is often the case that the bow MG is not visible; this is because that 2nd MG was pulled off and fixed to the AA mount. This was commonly done for roach marches where aircraft were more of a concern. Another good indication that an AA machinegun came from the hull is the weapon itself; the Panzerlauf variant of MG-34 (used for internal vehicle mounts) has a very distinctive barrel.

 

A Panzer IV Ausf. H of the 130th Panzer Division in March 1944; the bow position clearly lacks its MG 34 as it has been moved to the cupola

 

 

I'm not sure why some vehicles in War Thunder have the use of their bow machineguns while others do not. I think this discussion could go into the weeds a bit, but my inclination would be to have a modification for some vehicles to mount an additional 3rd MG 34 or to move the bow MG to the AA position. The problem here is the lack of consistency with the usability of bow MGs in-game.

 

Anyway. I disagree with the reasoning of (paraphrasing) "it has a mounting for an AA machinegun, therefore it should have a 3rd machinegun" for the historical reasons previously mentioned. The fliegerbeshussgerät showed up in mid-1943 and tanks like the Tiger I Ausf. E and Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf. H are rarely seen with a 3rd machinegun (rather they're seen with the hull MG moved to the cupola; still only 2 machineguns total). However, bow machineguns need to be more consistent in the game. A Jagdtiger has the ability to use its bow-MG, yet a Tiger II does not nor do most turreted vehicles in the game.

 

I do, however, agree that more German vehicles should receive a 3rd machinegun (I just disagree with the reason you gave). My argument in support of this is that there are plenty of photographs showing German tanks, particularly late-war photographs from mid-1944 onwards, with a 3rd machinegun. I am unsure of whether or not Tiger II was issued with 3 as standard, but there is plenty of evidence that, for whatever reason (probably scrounging from other tanks in the unit that were out of service), tanks sometimes had an extra one. An extensively-documented example is Tiger II '008' of Stab/s.SS-Pz.Abt.501. This tank has a clearly-visible bow machinegun still mounted while an additional 3rd machinegun is also shown affixed to the cupola. This 3rd machinegun appears to be a panzerlauf variant, which suggests it may have been removed from another vehicle's bow position.

ss-S.Pz.Abt.501 Tiger '008' with three MG 34s

 

Tiger IIs of s.Pz.Abt.503. Note that only the tank in the foreground is shown with no MG 34 in the bow position. The next tank in line is seen with a fliegerbeshussgerät fitted to the cupola, but without a machinegun mounted. There is, however, still an MG 34 in the bow position.

 

I would be fine with all production-turret Tiger IIs receiving 3 machineguns in-game since this was common for that specific vehicle. However, there are plenty of photos to the contrary of Tiger IIs without a 3rd MG 34 on the cupola and this was my reasoning for suggesting removal of the weapon from the premium Tiger II Sla.16. The Sla.16 Tiger is an objectively-superior vehicle in terms of armor and mobility when compared to the regular tech-tree Tiger II H and it has the added bonus of an additional machinegun. I feel it would be more reasonable to remove the Sla.16 Tiger's cupola MG and grant it to the tech tree variant to at least somewhat offset the former's advantages.

 

 

Regarding the use of the MG 42 as a way to distinguish, I disagree with this option as a standard component for German tanks with the fliegerbeshussgerät. Images of the MG 42 mounted to tanks in this manner are comparatively rare. With the exception of a few vehicles like the Panzer IV/70 and Panther Ausf. D which had simplified bow-machinegun positions, German tanks were issued with the MG 34 panzerlauf exclusively (in terms of GPMGs). While some crews indeed mounted the MG 42, most images of tanks like Tiger II show a 3rd MG 34 Panzerlauf on the fliegerbeshussgerät 42.

Edited September 22, 2020 by _Herr_
Correction: Tiger 008 of ss-S.Pz.Abt.501 was not Kalinowski's; he commanded 009.

[Chomusuke1 1,221]

16 hours ago, _Herr_ said:

In the case of Tiger I, only two MG 34s were issued as standard

 

Three. The Tiger I even had a special holder for the Flieger MG inside the turret:

 

 

16 hours ago, _Herr_ said:

When a German tank is photographed with an AA machinegun mounting, if is often the case that the bow MG is not visible; this is because that 2nd MG was pulled off and fixed to the AA mount.

 

Tiger II & Panther I photos:

 

 

 

16 hours ago, _Herr_ said:

German tanks were issued with the MG 34 panzerlauf exclusively (in terms of GPMGs). While some crews indeed mounted the MG 42

 

The Fliegerbeschussgerät 42 could mount both MG as towards the end of the war the Germans were phasing out the MG 34 in favor of the MG 42:

 

 

 

Edited August 5, 2020 by Chomusuke1

[Solarmod 1,203]

8 hours ago, Chomusuke1 said:

 

Nice meme

[qpranger 1,887]

My dream is to have as many Tigers in the game as there are Shermans.

[_Vidarr_ 21]

12 hours ago, Chomusuke1 said:

 

Three. The Tiger I even had a special holder for the Flieger MG inside the turret:

 

 

 

Thank you for the interesting post; judging by the date listed in the 2nd image, that data would be valid as of October 1943 and thus encompass the entirety of Tiger II production. I'd be very curious to know when the addition of an internal provision for the AA machinegun was added to the Tiger I, as I know the Ausf. E vehicles were issued only two MGs early in production. I wasn't aware that they switched to 3 as standard so thank you for bringing that up and I'd be happy to read more on the subject if you have a recommendation. With that said, photographs of tanks with 3 machineguns installed at once seem to be mostly taken around mid-late 1944 at the earliest. As such, for vehicles like Pz IV H, Tiger I, etc. that had only 2 when their production runs started, I'd suggest a 3rd MG as a 'modification' in-game since this was a later addition in production and was not necessarily the case for all vehicles of a given type.

 

Regarding the MG 42, I wouldn't use Samuur's Tiger II as proof of the MG 42's "large scale" use on tanks, but given the data you showed from the production requirements of the Tiger B, I would agree that all Tiger IIs would be represented correctly if they were fitted with three MG 34 Panzerlaufs. My suggestion for removing it from the Tiger II Sla.16 was, again, primarily a matter of balance given the Sla.16 sits at the same BR and is objectively a better vehicle all-round and yet is the only Tiger II to also receive an AA machinegun; combine this with the abundance of photographs of Tiger IIs without the AA machinegun mounted. However, given that the official record states that Tiger II was to be issued with 3 MG 34 Panzerlaufs, I would support your suggestion to have all Tiger IIs receive this in-game regardless of the Sla.16's advantages.

I'm aware the MG 42 was used on the Fliegerbeschussgeraet 42, but I'm unaware of any documentation that states an MG 42 was issued to tanks for this purpose; i.e. as far as I'm aware, use of the MG 42 on this mount was a 'field modification' and thus doesn't fit War Thunder well. If you have a source that shows the MG 42 was issued as part of a vehicle's* armament, I'd certainly support its inclusion in-game.

 

*vehicles meaning tanks such as Tiger II that, as you've shown, were issued with 3x MG 34 (and no MG 42) as standard; I don't mean to include vehicles that were issued the MG 42 as standard.

Edited August 5, 2020 by _Herr_

[Chomusuke1 1,221]

17 hours ago, _Herr_ said:

I'd be very curious to know when the addition of an internal provision for the AA machinegun was added to the Tiger I,

 

Probably soon after the introduction of the new cupola (July 1943?)

 

17 hours ago, _Herr_ said:

I'd be happy to read more on the subject if you have a recommendation

 

I have this at the moment:

http://amicale.3emedragons.free.fr/Docs materiels WW2/Waffen Arsenal 166 - Deutsche Flugabwehrmaschinengewehre und ihre Lafetten in der Wehrmacht 1935-1945+.pdf

 

Edited August 6, 2020 by Chomusuke1

[Chomusuke1 1,221]

A Panzer IV H with 3:

 

 

Edit: Wrong thread meant to put this pic here:

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/461351-german-cupola-aa-defence-machine-guns-on-tanks

 

Edited August 13, 2020 by Chomusuke1

[_Vidarr_ 21]

On 13/08/2020 at 17:15, Chomusuke1 said:

A Panzer IV H with 3:

 

 

Edit: Wrong thread meant to put this pic here:

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/461351-german-cupola-aa-defence-machine-guns-on-tanks

 

Nice photo; also nice to see an H model with three MGs. Out of curiosity when/where was this taken? This appears to be a tank from 3.Pz.Reg/2-Abteilung, 2.Pz.Div and I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the photo was taken in France in mid-1944?

[Chomusuke1 1,221]

The caption from that picture:

 

Edited August 16, 2020 by Chomusuke1

[venator56 185]

I have got an idea!

 

What about combining the removed KT 105mm with the command variant?

 

I mean we got a 88mm kommand variant but it would have the range finder in turret and the stronger hl 234 engine with late war exterior appearance.

 

How it sounds like?

[Chomusuke1 1,221]

On 09/10/2020 at 00:13, venator56 said:

What about combining the removed KT 105mm with the command variant?

An excellent idea

[Galen503 547]

I guess if there are absolutely no more original ideas and the devs wanted to squeeze us for one last $20 than why not?

 

Right now I just can't see any reason to need this vehicle. Its definitely a premium whether you want it there or not. Why not just buy the KT sla. 

 

Can they add it, sure. Will it make any difference at all, no. 

[Chomusuke1 1,221]

The Tiger 105 in the game seems to be a very late chassis. Gaijin should stick a new turret with 88mm, rangefinder, coax MG 42, antennas...etc on this specific 105 chassis and release it as the command tank:

 

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by Chomusuke1