KingTiger vs. Abrams engagement ranges


Jan 3, 2010
Reaction score
Oh Boy! A classic cherry-picking factoid that isn't even true.
Note about map size and engagement ranges. The notion that massive maps are a prerequisite for modern combat is false. Engagement ranges have changed very little since WW2. A King Tiger was just as capable of hitting a target at 4km as an Abrams. What's changed is the effectiveness and flexibility of engagement at longer ranges, making a 4km shot from an Abrams far more likely to hit a target at 4km than a King Tiger. But check out modern AARs from real warfare and you're going to be hard pressed to find 4km engagements and even those aren't going to be all that fun to simulate (i.e. tank sniping at long range is BORING). The desire for larger maps is fine, just don't confuse opinion with fact when it comes to their necessity.

The Kingtiger gunsight, using the Pzgr 39/42 round is limited to 3000 meters. Anything beyond that, especially as far as 4K, would be extremely limited by the ability to guestimate the range, and using bombardment as a means to obtain a hit. It is hardly comparable to a Abrams engagement range, which is actually secret, but is claimed to be 3500 meters, and there is anecdotal evidence of obtaining hits further.

But, that is not the point. There are weapon systems that can obtain hits at this range (4 Km) and even beyond. Notably missiles. So, there we have it again. Specious arguments to fit the need to limit the game and deny that the CM2 game is not a good platform for modern warfare. I think that most anyone would say that modern engagement ranges have increased over WWII (given terrain that allows it).