Also, the T34 -85, is an incredible tank. It can run in snow, in blizzards and won't stall. German tanks were horrendous in colder conditions, freezing up. The Soviet Tanks needed less maintenance than German tanks and that is why they can be fielded in large numbers. It is a winning formula, when you have the industrial advantage.
@@Beezleboob any source for your claim? Because Oskin destroyed 3 king tigers and damaged a 4th one.they conducted extensive test on the tanks and one is at display at kubinka tank museum.
The Story In June 1944, Carius and the 2nd Heavy Panzer Company were transferred to Dünaburg to fend off the Soviet offensive against Army Group North. The Soviets managed to outflank the German defensive lines further south during Operation Bagration aimed at destroying Army Group Centre. The renewed Soviet assault in the north intended to take the port city of Riga. On 22 July 1944, Leutnant Carius with his company of eight Tigers advanced towards the village of Malinava, north of Dunaburg, to halt the Soviet advance. Carius and Leutnant Albert Kerscher took a Kübelwagen to recon the village. They found the Soviets had arrived in the village. Carius knew that the force in the village was only the vanguard, waiting for the rest of the Soviet force to arrive. He knew that this was the critical time to attack and recapture the village before the reinforcements arrived. Carius attacked the village using two Tigers and kept the six remaining Tigers in the reserve. There was only one road leading into the city and attacking with the entire company would create a dangerous bottleneck. Carius led the attack in his Tiger and Kerscher’s Tiger followed close behind. Surprise and speed were critical to Carius’ plan. When Carius’ Tiger was about to enter the village, two T-34/85 tanks were observed rotating their turrets. At that moment, Kerscher fired and knocked them out. Then Carius noticed a strange tank ahead of him and for a second he thought he was facing a captured King Tiger. However, he quickly reidentified the target as one of the new Soviet IS-2 heavy tanks. He opened fire and catching the heavy tank in the flank. The Soviet tank exploded into a ball of flame. The two Tigers went on to cause havoc within the village, knocking out 17 Soviet tanks in 20 minutes. Carius received Oak Leaves for his Knights Cross for his involvement in and around Dünaburg.
"The Tiger II and the IS-2 only met on a few occasions. Generally this encounters resulted in high losses on both sides. The first and most successful battle happened between a single IS-2 and 7 King Tigers. The IS-2 ambushed the Tiger IIs and destroyed three of them. The other four retreated." If the Tiger II cant stand well against a IS-2, then a Tiger I sure as hell wont.
Nicholas Stojanovic They caused more casualties because they did a dishonorable sneak attack. If I sneak up on you and kill you with a crow bar, does that mean I am stronger than you?
The funny thing is it is the other way around, Carius got angry about the German propaganda overblowing his kills, also Germans tend to count simple immobilization as "kills". Soviet's didn't even give a shit about tankers, only by the end of the Soviet Union were Soviet tank aces and battles disclosed, so the sources are much more reliable. 4 Million Axis soldiers (about 90% of the original strength) died in the Eastern Front vs 6-7 Million Soviets lost on battle, that is still a massive loss for Germany because they are not ready to have massive casualties
Cupko Cupkovic nope only able to pen from side and with Luck from Front Turret but only with special ammo ! Only real enemie for an Tiger Tank was the SuperPershing
Maby a tiger 1 but not the tiger 2 But the tiger 1 could takeout an is2 aswell and even apanzer 4 could do that when it was a early one with steped fromt armor
@@topmemes7925 in paper is-2 is only capable of penetrating the turret on front off tiger 2. But in reality, the steel of tiger 2 was so bad that 122mm HE on the front hull could sometime hull break tiger2 and also is APHE could sometime penetrate the front hull. Keep in mind that the steel quality of tiger 2 was often very bad but sometime it was ok.
Z T Panzer 4 with its 75mm gun could penetrate the side part of the IS-2, but the Pz itself. 4 could not penetrate the forehead of the IS-2 sample of 1944.
The IS-2 was in theory more deadly than the tiger I. The Tiger had 100MM of frontal armour that wasnt sloped. and The IS-2 had 120mm that WAS sloped however the IS-2s 122mm didnt have as much penetration as the 88mm, However that didnt really matter because IS-2s mostly fired HE at tanks. Doing things such as destroying optics jamming the turret ring or damaging the main gun.
Yes I must admit the IS-2 had a main draw back of the very low firing rate, making it poorer tank than the Tiger in some aspects. However, you must recognize her amazing qualities as well, like the power of the 122mm HE which is superb against strong points, supporting infantry, and great against bunkers and AT guns. The IS2 had other qualities like a sloped frontal armor which is much thicker than the T34s. 3854 IS2 tanks made, while 1200 tiger I tanks made. 2300 IS3 made. Enuff said
PATRONSKiii you are talking bullshit. IS 2 had gun had penetration of some 160mm at 100 meters. Tiger tank ( number 1 ) 88mm gun with pzgr 40 shell ( volfram shell APCR ) had penetration of 210mm at 100 meters. Tiger 2 tank had penetration of 230mm at 100 meters with pzgr 39/43 standard AP shell,with APCR pzgr 40/43 it had over 250mm penetration at 100 meters. Tiger tank ( no 1 ) could knock out IS2 at over 1500 meters with pzgr40 shell!
It could even do that with the normal shell, the turret front was only 100mm thick and a russian hel study during 1944 showed that 60% of the russian tanks knocked out were by frontal penetrations in the turrets.
Alexey Kostylev True but the big difference lied in that the Tiger I had a high percentage of scoring a hit at that distance while the IS-2 had a very low chance. Basically at 1200m or more it became almost impossible for the IS-2 to engage enemy armored targets.
Dreachon What do u mean by "impossible to engage armored targets at 1200 or more"? d-25t had sufficient penetration and damaging effect to kill or seriosly damage any tank at 1000m. If even it didn't penetrate the armor, the damaging effect would be enough to put the enemy out of action. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II >> During August 1944, a number of Tiger II tanks were captured by the Soviets near Sandomierz and were soon moved to their testing grounds at Kubinka. The Soviet team gave the opinion that the tests revealed the tanks to be severely defective; the transmission and suspension broke down very often and the engine was prone to overheating and consequential failure. Additionally, the Soviet opinion was of deficiencies in the armor after firing many anti-tank rounds at the same target. Not only did they report that the metal was of shoddy quality (a problem not particular to the Tiger II-as the war progressed, the Germans found it harder and harder to obtain the alloying materials needed for high-quality steel), but the welding was also, despite "careful workmanship", extremely poor. As a result, even when shells did not penetrate the armor, there was often a large amount of spalling, and the armor plating could often crack at the welds when struck by multiple heavy shells, rendering the tank inoperable. They also claimed that their A-19 and BS-3 guns could penetrate the weld joint on the hull front at 500 m, and the turret front at 1,000-1,500 m
Alexey Kostylev I am talking about the ability to reliably hiy a target and the biggest issued lied with the IS-2 and the D-25T gun, it wasn't all that accurate. Crews did not engage enemy armor at such distances as they would in those cases revela their position and make themselves receptive to return fire. Having overwhelming firepower means little if you cannot hit the target, furthermore the IS-2 suffered from a horrible low rate of fire of 2 to 3 shots per minute.
It is a 105mm caliber weapon but for some odd reason the germans called it a 10cm weapon. THe armor penetration is also not surprising given the considerable lenght of the gunbarrel.
TheWersum No ?! Youre a little kid you dont know anything over tanks !!? The King Tiger had more Armor , more fire Power , .... From all a little bit more. PLS dont say shit in internet before you know anything!!
@@TheWersum The KönigsTiger had an 88mm/105mm cannon with a front end so thick that no allied gun at the time could penetrate it. What are you getting at?
@@TheWersum Yeah, the 122mm HE shell is effective, because it was meant to deal against fortifications, but do not call it light. A Soviet HE shell would weigh at above 25 kilograms. So not only do you have to carry this big hunk of metal in a cramped hot space, but you also have to prep the charge for it to work. Do you have any idea how long that takes, even for a group of well-built soldiers?
My point was clear, The SU-100 armed with the D-10 was a better and much more potent Anti-tank killer than the ISU-152 or the IS2 was.... What is hard to understand it's well documented? The Brumbar was able to knock out tanks at close range with great effect, It hardly made it better than the Nashorn at AT roles.
You have to remember guys that during this time german tanks were made out of denser steel than there russian counterparts and the germans used denser steel in testing. The 88mm L56 gun of the Tiger 1 is quoted to have around 120mm penetration @ 100m. If the gun was tested against a lower density armour that the russians used, the figures would have been higher, I would personally guess in the regions of 150mm penetration @100m. The JS2 has 120mm of frontal armour, although thicker than the Tiger 1s 100mm armour, the lower density of the metal probably meant that the frontal armour of both vehicles were somewhat equal. The JS2s 122mm D25T gun is quoted to have around 160mm penetration, against german armour this would be less effective. Probably more around the 140mm range (this is just my educated guess). Both tanks coould destroy each other with relative ease at close range, the only time that I can recall of one of the tanks surviving the other was when a JS2 shot the front plate of an angled tiger and the round ricochet of the tiger. Just remember that a lot of quotes you see of penetration figures and armour figures are never completely comparable because nations were making different quality and density metals.
It's not actually lower denser but rather a case of hardness and brittleness. German armorplate was in the 250 to 300 Brinell or BHN which was the sweet spot for steel armor during WWII, however russian armor plate was in the 350 to 450BHN. Going above the ideal zone meant that the plate staretd to become more and more brittle, on the IS-2 in particular the armor was between 400 and 450BHN making it much more brittle than the armor of the Tiger I and far more succeptible to spalling and breaking underneath the impact of an impacting rounds. The cast armor on the IS-2 was also flawed with a high number of imperfections and airbubbles trapepd within reducing it's ability to withstand impacts.
Actually the reverse is true, when armor becomes too hard it actually starts to lose it's ability to stop incoming rounds as the armor will crack underneath the impact. 280bhn was the sweet spot for armor, going beneath this made it too soft and above made it to brittle. The IS-2 looks at 400 to 450bhn for it's armor.
Vladimir Lenin IS 2 had harder armor than Tiger II? Only in fairy tales. Tiger II had 150mm sloped frontal armor which was immune to IS2 from any distance. Tiger II had 180mm of armor at turret which was AGAIN immune to IS2 from any distance. Tiger II had 8.8cm gun which was able to penetrate IS2 turret at 3500 meters.
The IS-2 gun was very powerful and even its HE shells could have a devastating effect on many tanks. But The IS-2 had a extreamly long reload time. They could maybe get 2 shots of a minute. Compared to a King Tigers 4-6 rounds a min. Not to mention that the high velocity 88 had superior penetration.
The Tiger II and the IS-2 only met on a few occasions. Generally this encounters resulted in high losses on both sides. The first and most successful battle happened between a single IS-2 and 7 King Tigers. The IS-2 ambushed the Tiger IIs and destroyed three of them. The other four retreated.
But I will give you a source since you never provide any. "On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg stood a further 11 Stalin tanks, and away on the egde of the village itself were around 120-150 enemy tanks in the process of being refuelled and re-armed. I opened fire and destroyed first and last of the 11 Stalin tanks on the road….My own personal score of enemy tanks destroyed in this action was 39." schwere SS Panzer Abteilung (103) 503 / III SS Panzer Corps,East Germany, April of 1945. In April of 1945, SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Körner (platoon commander from the 2nd Company) was supporting an infantry counterattack in the Bollersdorf area (east of Berlin), when he encountered two Soviet JS-II heavy tanks at a distance of 200m. He quickly destroyed the first one and second one trying to reverse in order to take a firing position drove into an anti-tank ditch and was abandomed by the crew. On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg, Körner observed additional 11 JS-II tanks and around 120 to 150 enemy tanks in the process of being refuelled and re-armed on the egde of the village. He then fired and destroyed all 11 JS-II tanks on the road and attacked the rest of the tanks and their suprised crews. Number of fuel and ammunition trucks exploded causing even more panic among the Russian tankers, while Körner fired all 39 rounds he had left and knocked out 39 enemy tanks before he withdrew. Following this action, sSSPzAbt 503 and other units were falling back to defend Berlin. On his way to Berlin, Karl Körner destroyed over 100 Soviet tanks and 26 anti-tank guns in total, achievement for which on April 29th, he was awarded the Knights Cross in the bunker of Reichs Chancellery. After the ceremony, Körner returned to his unit on the frontline at Charlottenburg district of Berlin. On May 2nd, last King Tiger from sSSPzAbt 503 was destroyed during an attempt to break out of the city on the Spandau Bridge. You can find this information if you read enough books....however this source is from "Achtung Panzer" But you will find the info from the Waffen SS Tank Aces book etc.
And that is why Tiger units often spotted a higher kill ratio than the IS-2? The Tigers of the Grossdeutschland spotted a 16 to 1 kill ratio against the IS-2 and with a well experienced crew they could swiftly negate the main gun of the IS-2.
Oh and Dreachon also in the WWII Secret Weapons Book - it was stated actually the Allies had some idea of the 'tapered bore' principles - apparently during the '30s' the French secretly purchased about 30 or so tapered bores but strictly they were for experimental purposes - the tests indicated the efficiency of the tapered bores but apparently Allied technical experts and officers dismissed the idea claiming tapered bores were 'too small in size' to have feasible purpose - another reason why?
Vladimir Lenin If at any range you mean at 1200m of less than yes and even then the chance of hitting those parts was almost null. Also the front of the turret is a grand 185mm thick, the IS-2 cannot penetrate that at it get's at 100m a flat penetration of just 158mm, not enough to go through the front of the Tiger II turret.
Herminipper The turret is not angled. While the lower front hull is angled, it only has a nominal thickness of about 150mm with the angle, and it was easily penetrable by the IS-2s gun.
The upper front of the Tiger II is sloped as well or are next to being unable to read a techincal drawing also blind that you cannot tell the difference between a angled plate and a flat plate. The Tiger II upped hull is 150mm thick sloepd at an angle of 40 degree from horizontal which provides the equivelant of 233mm of flat armor which the IS-2 could not penetrate at all. The turret fron on the Tiger II is also sloped at 81 degree from horizontal and is 180mm thick in addition to also represnting only a very narrow front that is large also protected by the massive saukopf gunmantlet.
By 1944, the T34/85 and the T34 1943 were the main tanks of the Soviet Union. The T34 43 had a longer barrel 76.2mm gun. The T34 85 can penetrate Tiger and Panther armor at limited ranges. But still, the ease of production allowed the Soviet Union to chuck men and materiel into the wind against the Germans. 8000 tanks is a lot. 8000 tanks is as much as the total production amount of the Pzkpw IV in WWII. Their mainstay tank. Tigers were few, panthers more but many had issues.
your just a WoT or War Thunder player you dont know much about real combat... and its not turret crew its called top hatch learn you facts before you talk shit
IS-II was just a partial answer at Tiger, because it's 122mm gun could destroy Tiger at any range, but it's armor, which was 120mm maximum couldn't resist Tiger's 88mm shell at any range, which drastically lowered it's efficiency. When the tank is answer, it's expected to be a completely superior in all terms.
Not to mention the HESH (high-explosive squash head) rounds the British had, impacts from those on frontal armor could turn tank crews into paste, however the advent of depleted Uranium AP shells made HESH less used. Pure HE rounds are best used against infantry and bunkers. HEAT, HESH, AP and DUAP are what really makes a punch, each in a different way.
As a result a faster method was improvised. One M48 lined up on each side of the road, with one track on the dirt shoulder and the other track on the asphalt; then they raced to a designated position miles away. If M48s made it without striking a mine, the road was clear and the convoys could proceed. In most cases, an M48 that struck a land mine in these operations only lost a road wheel or two in the explosion; seldom was there any hull damage which would be considered "totaling" the tank.
That doesn't matter. Less than 500 king tigers were produced before the end of the war in Europe, while well over 3,000 IS-1's and IS-2's were produced in the same time span.
Regardless, the IS 2 tank is probably the most successful allied variant in the whole war. The Germans weren't afraid of T34s or Shermans or Churchills thrown in by 1944. Hence the IS is the tank that can stand toe to toe with Panthers and Tigers on the battlefield. I do believe it can also knock out the Tiger II.
Yes, a lot of people don't realize that it's pretty easy for the T-34 to destroy any WWll tank when it hits their side armour. So all Soviets had to do is split their tank force and attact from multiple angles.
then there was this old website where this guy gave you calculations on how to work out not just nominal thickness but to apply it in scenes where your vehicle and the enemy's vehicle are located at so-so angles and calculating the actual theoretical angle this would determine whether your vehicle weapon would penetrate the frontal or side armor chances ....
While nobody who knew history would deny that the King Tiger (or the Tiger I even) was a better machine than anything in the IS series, the reality was that every downed Tiger was a major lost investment, knocking out an IS just means another has already rolled off the assembly line.
While softer, it did give the benefit of a reduced chance of spalling. The Americans conscientiously made their armor softer for this purpose. If you look at allied tanker casualty reports vs. number of tanks knocked out, Sherman crews actually had a pretty high survival rate in the case of a penetration. While softer armor cannot be the only reason for this, it couldn't have hurt.
IS-2 could only be penetrated by 88mm gun from 400 meters while IS-2 could penetrate King Tiger from 600 meters and completely turn Panzer 5 in to scrap from 1000 meters. 122 mm gun is the most powerful gun of WW2 to be mounted on tank.
When talking about anti tank guns the SU-100 was the most effective AT gun the Soviets had in use. Until later western allied tanks came along the only AT gun the west had that inspired dear in German tank crews was the 17pdr as used on the Firefly. The Germans regarded the 17pdr as the British 88 and recognised that when used correctly it could kill any German tank.
Well, the IS-II had better armor than Tiger I, due to being sloped, but that didn't help it, due to the fact that it couldn't resist Tiger's shells at any range. IS-II had armor of 90-120mm, from 0-60°, while Tiger had armor of 80-120mm, but at 0°. IS-II front hull armor was 100mm at 60°, turret 120mm, rounded (0-60°), sides and rear of turret and hull 90mm at 60°. Tiger's front hull was 100mm, turret 120mm, both at 0° and it's sides and rear of hull and turret were 80mm, also at 0°.
2.) (cont) My colleague Dreachon explained the 120mm maximum is used in older sources but actual light of research points out from JS-2 armor blueprints no more than actually 100mm in general. However there are two models of the JS-2 - the obr 43 which would have had 100mm but relatively poorly angled and having only cast-type armor which meant it was inferior to the Tiger I or Panthers still - the Brinell was well over the 400 compared to a Tiger I's 250-290... that meant even if it digested
hence enabling travel conforming on uneven terrain; BUT besides what you mentioned it stated the weakness was the tracks were only 645 cm2 and the large angular movements made caused very heavy wear. Another weakness was it reduced available space in the hull as the suspension springs by the side plates - although the tracts could be removed by half an hour and the two front road wheels steered. Lastly the engine for the T3 Christie was said to have high OIL consumption ... did the '34' also
What is interesting though is the JS-3 tank for the matter had Rolled Homogenous armor in its hull whilst the turret was still cast-armor butin the famous soup-bowl turret shape which was meant to provide better ballistic protection though as the story goes the JS-3 didn't see service in WWII - but it when it di see service in the Middle Eastern conflicts ... it didn't fare too well :(
In fact by late 1944 Soviet engineers tried to rearm the JS-2 with the 100mm but teething problems still gave way as the turret was at best ideal for the 85mm gun developed by Petrov - and when Soviet engineers tried to improve the armor thickening of the JS-2 it was only exacerbating the problem with weight being one of them - sometimes that only increased the Brinell of the armor and it actually only gave the JS-2 armor only an actual thickness of 50mm due to the high Brinell!
had viewed a clip from the Gulf War - and yes whilst its almost 50 years after WWII the clip depicted American units throwing chrages or a grenade or two into a T-54/T-55 and after the 'Fire for Effect' order the explosion seemed to have only just caused internal totaling but it did not 'rip off the turret' of the T-54/T-55 ...
that kinectic energy that hits the tank is what diggs the explosion into the tank. what you are saying is that a 120mm he shell would do the same damage as a static explosion of the same size
Publisher is Amber Books, features over 1500 vehicles from 1915 to the 2008, from 55 countries, there are 7 authors, as I've said, - Christopher Foss, Will Fowler, Terry Gardner, Dr. Chris Mann and William Philpott, Alexander Stilwell and Jim Winchester. The book is, pure and simple fantastic, probably the best info if you want to know performances of virtually all military vehicles of the world. David Miller isn't author of that book, but of one other called Modern Weapons, which I also have.
Also - it was stated that the 122mm although it could punch over 100mm of armor at 1000 yards - remember the Soviet testing of RHA plate is different in batch and quality compared to the German tests - the Germans used RHA of good Brinell and also at a 30 deg slope; the Soviets tended to just use whatever RHA with possibly lesser Brinell but at a 90 deg angle hence giving slight trouble ...
Of 7 JS-2 tanks - 4 get knocked from the side by Tiger I crews whilst the JS-2 crews probably had no idea what the heck hit them despite initially at over 2000 yards the 88mm L/56 rounds failed to knock the JS-2 tanks - crew training was another factor and the fact the Tiger I's were in ambush... There is an old artilce in 2006 stating a Panther got pulled out of a Swamp either in Ukraine or Poland; this Panther took a direct 122mm shot right to the mantlet and it tore right through the rear!
Correct, an immediate solution to a pressing problem that could be created by the least amount of modifications to existing designs and can be brought into service as quickly as possible.
The JS-2 used two stage ammunition , the main 122mm shell and the powder charge, plus the gun had to be lowered towards the ground to be able to load it, this took considerable time in tight close quarters combat, and could easily get an JS-2 crew killed. By the time the JS-2 got one shot off, the Tiger tank could shoot 5-10 shells at you because it used only one stage ammunition, the Js-2 was a death trap!! Only good for bunker busting or long distance combat.
Your calculation is correct as for the user is this the front or side, the lower hull front on the Tiger II is 100mm thick sloped at 40 degree from horizontal with the upper hull front beeing 150mm thick and also sloped at 40 degree from horizontal. The side of the hull is 80mm thick sloped at 65 degree from horizontal.
This argument can go on forever, Because if you say Tigers forced the Russians and Allies to rethink, it was the T34 that forced the Germans to bring out the Tiger and Panther. The Russians had a trully good medium tank and that shocked the Germans to high heaven during operation Barbarossa. Not to mention the dreaded KV1s and KV2. Sloped armor of the Panther came from T34 sloped armor design. Tank production means everything. If Germany had 10,000 more tigers, war's over.
He had an almost childlike believe that the latest weapon systems would swing the balance in germanies favor and deliver victory from the jaws of certain defeat.
They each have their own roles, the specialist are meant for a single task but they do that very well, the generalists have many tasks which they can all do properly but never will be as good as a specialist in that given field.
You have to distinguish from upper hull and lower hull. Lower hull was 80 mm (3.1 in) at 90° while the upper was 80 mm (3.1 in) at 65°. Even the 76 mm could penetrate that and later the 122mm could penetrate the KT's front if it hit the bottom plate 100 mm (3.9 in) at 40° or upper plate if shooting from an elevated position and a relatively short range 1.2 km at most. KT's main advantage was reload speed and range.
Yep - nasty - heck in Band of Brothers it was nasty when Randalmen got struck by a shard - I don't mean to be an idiot but it must have been nasty as hell inside any tank that got seriously spalled; afterall internally a tank is as delicate and fragile as any machinery; damage the optics well you might hope to replace it or get luck; damage the drive you got a sitting duck; damage the ammunition...you get the message. Apparently a '3476 veteran claimed at Kursk
I also lastly ask this because next to where we briefly discussed how the Germans used stuff like coal-stove gas and bottled gas or the ersatz food/materials - in Eyewitness WWII a junior book I occasionally skim upon - it was stated the Brit Home Front was short of weapons so besides stuff like Sten-Guns the Home Guard would improvise with jam-tin cans or wine bottles filled with gasolene or even improvised mines if necessary ...
The only good things about the Tiger were: it's outstanding 88mm gun, and it's thick frontal armor. (Although, by not sloping the front, the Germans lost a lot of precious metal. They could have gotten the same armor thickness with less armor had they sloped the front of the TIger.)
The schurzen were provided to the panther as well, it's the thing skirts it has on the hull. Main reason thatt he heavier tanks didn't get was because the schurzen were intendid for anti-tank rifle and tanks like the Panther and tiger had enough side armour to keep those shells out.
Yes friend, I know all that books, unfortunately, I've never been so lucky to even find one, less indeed read. What I have is an encyclopedia, which means that it doesn't talk about wars, battles and achievements in other words, but about the vehicle itself - the most detailed that it could been. The huge info about performances, combined with pictures and excellent drawings. I didn't know almost anything about tanks, but when I bought that book, I know almost everything!
Mainly because up until then for most countries they didn't know that fighting a fast high speed armoured action would reqire more crew, the french believed more in how it was the previous war and there a single man in the turret was sufficient. For the T-34 it was a direct resultd of the design beeing kept as small as possible and reducing internal space.
The JS-2 armor - the turret is only 100mm cast. Remember I mentioned there was the obr 43 which like the ones in Targu Frumos and would have been the first models to roll out in late '43 - then later there was the obr 44 (I'll have to check with Dreachon when this model rolled out) and it had like I mentioned 90mm RHA frontal or 100mm cast but with the 60 deg vertical slope; the obr 43 JS-2's had very poor angling and due to the 'step' hull which wasn't any slope intentions hence such
Yeah, I was saying that had they put sloped armor on the Tiger they would have reduced the mass, like the panther. They got smart, and made the Tiger 2 with sloping armor, but it was too late.
Yes, that was a big drawback of the 122mm gun. A drawback of the German guns was that they wore out quickly (especially if APCR ammo with extra powder charge was used) and had to be re-calibrated often after going across rough ground for a while. And you also have to realize that in the video, the IS tanks were caught off guard because the German tank commander did an exceptional feat. That doesn't mean that the IS tanks are just complete shit, they just weren't used to their potential.
JS had to completely lower the cannon to reload and had to re-adjust aiming every time it reloaded. I imagine it would be painful even for the trained crews. Tiger had superior range, precision, fire rate, target acquisition, faster projectile velocity, less drop from its shells, composite rounds and crews which knew what they were doing. The 122mm was extremely powerful but unstable. Some Russian tanks seem like they were designed to kill their crews.
There were produced 3845 tanks IS-2 and they drove away nazis from the eastern polish border till Berlin, so they sow enough actions, and Tigers crews even were recommended to avoid direct fights with IS-2.
Actually, a fernen commander reported that is 2 avoided engagements with tiger units under 2000meters if the tigers advance and that the crew would often bail out after the tank recived the first hit.
@ltmurphy23 Moreover like our colleague Dreachon points out the 122mm? It wasn't a dedicated AT gun like the QF 17 pounder or BS-3 10mm gun cannon; the large rounds meant that it was 2 piece loading and the JS-2 is a small tank actually compared to the Tiger or Panther tank - mounting a large slow firing corps gun into a very compact package meant the ergonomics of the JS-2 was poorer than what it was portrayed as.
It doesn't make sense from a military point of view but it is true that a tank can far easier digest an anti-tank mine than a softskin, the tank will suffer only damage to it's tracks and the suspension but that can all be repaired.
Oh and Dreachon - hows that link I sent you or the photo of the '34/76' I mentined to you that had its turret overhanging lifted by the gun? Oh and for the Ferdi crew posing proudly at Kursk - if its too busy for you - don't worry thats cool - I'll be still content discussing other exciting things w' you and now you gave me another thing that caught my attention - 100 tonne cranes at Nibelungen! Danke Jewel as usual!
Indeed - the Soviets during the 1930s their arty doctrine emphasized that ALL GUNS - no matter what designation would be used also for defence AND that ALL GUNS they had regardless of type or bore - would also be used for the AT role IF they had to - even if they weren't specifically 100% dedicated AT guns ...
Well said - just a few food for thoughts if I may: 1.) The 122mm still had 'poor' armor penetration compared to the KwK 36 L/56 of the Tiger I - and not to mention the very SLOWWWW ROF. My colleague Dreachon has a photo of a 2x 122mm rounds that did a partial penetration to a Tiger I mantlet (though not sure what range) - plus apparently the crew survived but the mantlet was badly deformed - though it indicates the durability of the Tiger I armor. 2.) The 120mm maximum is actually incorrect
This already existed in WWII, late production model StuG III, IV and the hetzer all had a remote controlled MG on the roof that could be fired from inside the vehicle.
True, but there weren't that many AP rounds made. Most were reserved for the IS-2 and the ISU-122. The russians liked the HE because it was good against anything. Bunkers, emplacements, thin skinned vehicles, light armor, medium armor, heavy armor, enemy anti-tank guns, so they made a shit-ton, yes exactly a shit-ton, of the HE ammunition. But yeah, if they loaded AP rounds, that was even more devastating. Just the sheer momentum those rounds had was immense.
Yes and no, there are 2 version in this case the regular jagdpanzer IV which had 60mm on the hull and the later panzer IV/70 which had 80mm of armour. In terms of protection the jagdpanzer has about the same protection as a StuG or a T-34 while the IV/70 is closer to the Panther.
The Tiger was literally one of the worst millitary vehicles of WW2. Each tank drained precious supplies, precious time, and as for battlefield performance? Tigers broke down constantly on the Easter front, and were too complex to fix easily. They used up gas like nothing else, and therefore were a lot of times abandoned by crews because of lack of fuel. Also, they were slow moving which made them perfect targets for close air support and even artillery.
Thank you. If you want to know, my sources for German tank are some of web pages like Tiger Tank Battalions, German King Tiger tank, Panzerkampfwagen V Panther and Wikipedia in some cases. There's also one book and which is my best source - 500 page The Encyclopedia of Tank and AFV's written by 7 authors of US and UK, one of authors is writer of 60 books of military subjects, including Jane's magazine and USA military adviser C. F. Foss. And I have some documentaries, of course, all are German.
3.) Returning armorwise the obr 44 JS-2 however was an attempt to save weight whilst thinning the armor but angling it to provide better protection theoretically; whilst earlier JS-2 models had poorer armor and cast-type - one model of the obr 44 JS-2 had 90mm RHA at 60 deg to the vertical frontally - giving theoretically 180mm flat armor whilst the 100mm cast at the same angle only gives 200mm flat armor BUT at cast which we know cast armor is cheaper but inferior to RHA ...
That actually true, panther was overall more rewarding machine. But from what i've heard, Tiger-1 was way more realible than Panther-1, sometimes they could not even turn engine on panther. Then when they done Panther-2 and king-tiger the roles changed. But i guess it were aleredy to late by then..
I think that RoF in under ideal conditions but it's certainly more feasible for an ISU to have this RoF than the IS-2 as the ISU has much more internal space and more height for the crew to work in.
No correction, the guards title was never based on a units previous performance or combat performance, they wer given based on the new role the unit were to play. Finest example is that the guards designation was given to alot of formation that were new from the traning and had previously little to no experience in combat.
Tiger I weighs 56 tonnes - and don't forget I mentioned earlier optics - not sure of the JS-2 optics but the Tiger I had the excellent Leitz Turmzielfernrohr TZF 9b sights (later replaced by the monocular TZF 9c) - and yes indeed there are reports of Tiger I crews claiming blows on enemy targets 2-3000 yards away - a JS-2 has very little to compare to this - with also cramped ergonomics. Still I don't think neither one of us wants to get caught in a 122mm HE blast eh?
And that Donald D Wall seems to imply that at the time being had Mussolini REALLY feel alienated by Hitler, it is likely that WWII would have been in a different scope?
Your right a 122mm would crack open any German tank... It would want to be parked right along side the most of em, but your Right... well done you ! The only Soviet AT gun fitted to tank destroyer that could challenge a Tiger at decent range was the SU-100.
4.) Still - indeed a tank being superior to another or AFV for the matter is expected to fulfill the 3 mains of 'speed, protection and firepower' - though no doubt crew ergonomics, training and also CO$T is another for sure. 5.) Lastly Dreachon told me of a photo he has of a JS-2 obr 43 that had recieved a direct blow from an 88mm (could be either the L/56 or L/71) - this blow was so intense that the mantlet was upturned by a 90 deg angle messing up the frontal turret of the JS-2!
I also ask this because the Japanese Warlord Hideyoshi was reputed to have tunneled and mined his enemy's castle's to force them into submission; he would even use flooding if possible - in the Siege of Kameyama in 1583 the castle fell like this - and another castle - the master of the castle noticed the walls were literally sinking and subsiding from the tunneling/mining Hideyoshi employed - so I got to thinking if it was feasible in reality for German forts in Normandy?
Can't remember where had I read an article, about a King Tiger had scared the crews of a JS-2 to bailed out as soon as appearing itself in front of them. But that could be just an un-confirmed story.........
True but the grenades they tossed inside the turret were not meant to destroy the tank but the kill the crew, a grenade inside the crew compartment is going to make a mess.
Russian tanks had sloped armour making shells bouncing off more easily. But the russians posessed only the short barrelled 76 mm cannon from the KVI and early T34 at the outbreak of the war. Later 85mm canon was an anti aircraft gun placed in self propelled guns later in the T-34/85. But German Tank Guns (not to confuse with Anti-Tank-Guns) from 1941 onwards were never matched by any nation till the 50´s. The Panthers 75mm long barreled cannon fired high velocity shells that matched the Tiger I
So many experts from World of Tanks here
Jimmy Pusey you mean war thunder
Tiger < IS2 < Tiger 2
no...just no the tiger 1 was about as evenly matched...well if it didnt break down on the way to the battlefield
@@joeshmireku8665 Br o I left that comment 2 years ago
No War Thunder actually
RIP Otto Carius:
Died on January 27th, 2015
WOW that was a really long life!
Also, the T34 -85, is an incredible tank. It can run in snow, in blizzards and won't stall. German tanks were horrendous in colder conditions, freezing up. The Soviet Tanks needed less maintenance than German tanks and that is why they can be fielded in large numbers. It is a winning formula, when you have the industrial advantage.
1 tiger vs 50 t 34 and tiger survived story
@@chingis1154 there was another engagement where Alexander oskins t34 destroyed three king tigers singlehandedly in ogledow
@@Beezleboob any source for your claim? Because Oskin destroyed 3 king tigers and damaged a 4th one.they conducted extensive test on the tanks and one is at display at kubinka tank museum.
The Story
In June 1944, Carius and the 2nd Heavy Panzer Company were transferred to Dünaburg to fend off the Soviet offensive against Army Group North. The Soviets managed to outflank the German defensive lines further south during Operation Bagration aimed at destroying Army Group Centre. The renewed Soviet assault in the north intended to take the port city of Riga.
On 22 July 1944, Leutnant Carius with his company of eight Tigers advanced towards the village of Malinava, north of Dunaburg, to halt the Soviet advance. Carius and Leutnant Albert Kerscher took a Kübelwagen to recon the village. They found the Soviets had arrived in the village. Carius knew that the force in the village was only the vanguard, waiting for the rest of the Soviet force to arrive. He knew that this was the critical time to attack and recapture the village before the reinforcements arrived.
Carius attacked the village using two Tigers and kept the six remaining Tigers in the reserve. There was only one road leading into the city and attacking with the entire company would create a dangerous bottleneck. Carius led the attack in his Tiger and Kerscher’s Tiger followed close behind.
Surprise and speed were critical to Carius’ plan. When Carius’ Tiger was about to enter the village, two T-34/85 tanks were observed rotating their turrets. At that moment, Kerscher fired and knocked them out.
Then Carius noticed a strange tank ahead of him and for a second he thought he was facing a captured King Tiger. However, he quickly reidentified the target as one of the new Soviet IS-2 heavy tanks. He opened fire and catching the heavy tank in the flank. The Soviet tank exploded into a ball of flame.
The two Tigers went on to cause havoc within the village, knocking out 17 Soviet tanks in 20 minutes. Carius received Oak Leaves for his Knights Cross for his involvement in and around Dünaburg.
"The Tiger II and the IS-2 only met on a few occasions. Generally this encounters resulted in high losses on both sides. The first and most successful battle happened between a single IS-2 and 7 King Tigers. The IS-2 ambushed the Tiger IIs and destroyed three of them. The other four retreated." If the Tiger II cant stand well against a IS-2, then a Tiger I sure as hell wont.
Vladimir Lenin yeah sure lol
Vladimir Lenin Sounds like Soviet Propaganda to me. Go back to your hole communist, nobody likes you.
Nicholas Stojanovic They caused more casualties because they did a dishonorable sneak attack. If I sneak up on you and kill you with a crow bar, does that mean I am stronger than you?
The funny thing is it is the other way around, Carius got angry about the German propaganda overblowing his kills, also Germans tend to count simple immobilization as "kills". Soviet's didn't even give a shit about tankers, only by the end of the Soviet Union were Soviet tank aces and battles disclosed, so the sources are much more reliable. 4 Million Axis soldiers (about 90% of the original strength) died in the Eastern Front vs 6-7 Million Soviets lost on battle, that is still a massive loss for Germany because they are not ready to have massive casualties
IS2 the Tiger killer !
Cupko Cupkovic nope only able to pen from side and with Luck from Front Turret but only with special ammo !
Only real enemie for an Tiger Tank was the SuperPershing
Maby a tiger 1 but not the tiger 2
But the tiger 1 could takeout an is2 aswell and even apanzer 4 could do that when it was a early one with steped fromt armor
@@tobiaszistler the 1944 was better and tiger 2 has shit metal so a is could penetrate a tiger 1 aswell a 2
@@topmemes7925 in paper is-2 is only capable of penetrating the turret on front off tiger 2. But in reality, the steel of tiger 2 was so bad that 122mm HE on the front hull could sometime hull break tiger2 and also is APHE could sometime penetrate the front hull. Keep in mind that the steel quality of tiger 2 was often very bad but sometime it was ok.
Z T
Panzer 4 with its 75mm gun could penetrate the side part of the IS-2, but the Pz itself. 4 could not penetrate the forehead of the IS-2 sample of 1944.
The IS-2 was in theory more deadly than the tiger I. The Tiger had 100MM of frontal armour that wasnt sloped. and The IS-2 had 120mm that WAS sloped however the IS-2s 122mm didnt have as much penetration as the 88mm, However that didnt really matter because IS-2s mostly fired HE at tanks. Doing things such as destroying optics jamming the turret ring or damaging the main gun.
Yes I must admit the IS-2 had a main draw back of the very low firing rate, making it
poorer tank than the Tiger in some aspects. However, you must recognize her amazing qualities as well, like the power of the 122mm HE which is superb against strong points, supporting infantry, and great against bunkers and AT guns.
The IS2 had other qualities like a sloped frontal armor which is much thicker than the T34s.
3854 IS2 tanks made, while 1200 tiger I tanks made. 2300 IS3 made. Enuff said
@@Beezleboob " The HE literally does nothing to the armor." low IQ retard confirmed
Tiger 1: Jotaro!
IS-2 : Dio!
PATRONSKiii you are talking bullshit.
IS 2 had gun had penetration of some 160mm at 100 meters.
Tiger tank ( number 1 ) 88mm gun with pzgr 40 shell ( volfram shell APCR ) had penetration of 210mm at 100 meters. Tiger 2 tank had penetration of 230mm at 100 meters with pzgr 39/43 standard AP shell,with APCR pzgr 40/43 it had over 250mm penetration at 100 meters.
Tiger tank ( no 1 ) could knock out IS2 at over 1500 meters with pzgr40 shell!
It could even do that with the normal shell, the turret front was only 100mm thick and a russian hel study during 1944 showed that 60% of the russian tanks knocked out were by frontal penetrations in the turrets.
>>Tiger tank ( no 1 ) could knock out IS2 at over 1500 meters
and other way round. These tanks were equally poweful
Alexey Kostylev
True but the big difference lied in that the Tiger I had a high percentage of scoring a hit at that distance while the IS-2 had a very low chance.
Basically at 1200m or more it became almost impossible for the IS-2 to engage enemy armored targets.
Dreachon What do u mean by "impossible to engage armored targets at 1200 or more"? d-25t had sufficient penetration and damaging effect to kill or seriosly damage any tank at 1000m. If even it didn't penetrate the armor, the damaging effect would be enough to put the enemy out of action.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II
>>
During August 1944, a number of Tiger II tanks were captured by the Soviets near Sandomierz and were soon moved to their testing grounds at Kubinka. The Soviet team gave the opinion that the tests revealed the tanks to be severely defective; the transmission and suspension broke down very often and the engine was prone to overheating and consequential failure. Additionally, the Soviet opinion was of deficiencies in the armor after firing many anti-tank rounds at the same target. Not only did they report that the metal was of shoddy quality (a problem not particular to the Tiger II-as the war progressed, the Germans found it harder and harder to obtain the alloying materials needed for high-quality steel), but the welding was also, despite "careful workmanship", extremely poor. As a result, even when shells did not penetrate the armor, there was often a large amount of spalling, and the armor plating could often crack at the welds when struck by multiple heavy shells, rendering the tank inoperable. They also claimed that their A-19 and BS-3 guns could penetrate the weld joint on the hull front at 500 m, and the turret front at 1,000-1,500 m
Alexey Kostylev
I am talking about the ability to reliably hiy a target and the biggest issued lied with the IS-2 and the D-25T gun, it wasn't all that accurate.
Crews did not engage enemy armor at such distances as they would in those cases revela their position and make themselves receptive to return fire.
Having overwhelming firepower means little if you cannot hit the target, furthermore the IS-2 suffered from a horrible low rate of fire of 2 to 3 shots per minute.
It is a 105mm caliber weapon but for some odd reason the germans called it a 10cm weapon.
THe armor penetration is also not surprising given the considerable lenght of the gunbarrel.
It's a 122mm
JS-2 cant keep up with Tiger Is rapid firing gun, but who ever hits first wins so...
David Kolev Actually the IS 122mm gun uses double the time because they gotta load the bullet and the charge! :(
TheWersum No ?! Youre a little kid you dont know anything over tanks !!?
The King Tiger had more Armor , more fire Power , ....
From all a little bit more. PLS dont say shit in internet before you know anything!!
@@TheWersum
The KönigsTiger had an 88mm/105mm cannon with a front end so thick that no allied gun at the time could penetrate it. What are you getting at?
@@TheWersum
Yes, the 88 is a weak gun, as it shot allied tanks from a click out, a range where they can't even touch the Tiger 1.
@@TheWersum
Yeah, the 122mm HE shell is effective, because it was meant to deal against fortifications, but do not call it light. A Soviet HE shell would weigh at above 25 kilograms. So not only do you have to carry this big hunk of metal in a cramped hot space, but you also have to prep the charge for it to work. Do you have any idea how long that takes, even for a group of well-built soldiers?
My point was clear, The SU-100 armed with the D-10 was a better and much more potent Anti-tank killer than the ISU-152 or the IS2 was.... What is hard to understand it's well documented? The Brumbar was able to knock out tanks at close range with great effect, It hardly made it better than the Nashorn at AT roles.
You have to remember guys that during this time german tanks were made out of denser steel than there russian counterparts and the germans used denser steel in testing. The 88mm L56 gun of the Tiger 1 is quoted to have around 120mm penetration @ 100m. If the gun was tested against a lower density armour that the russians used, the figures would have been higher, I would personally guess in the regions of 150mm penetration @100m.
The JS2 has 120mm of frontal armour, although thicker than the Tiger 1s 100mm armour, the lower density of the metal probably meant that the frontal armour of both vehicles were somewhat equal.
The JS2s 122mm D25T gun is quoted to have around 160mm penetration, against german armour this would be less effective. Probably more around the 140mm range (this is just my educated guess).
Both tanks coould destroy each other with relative ease at close range, the only time that I can recall of one of the tanks surviving the other was when a JS2 shot the front plate of an angled tiger and the round ricochet of the tiger.
Just remember that a lot of quotes you see of penetration figures and armour figures are never completely comparable because nations were making different quality and density metals.
It's not actually lower denser but rather a case of hardness and brittleness.
German armorplate was in the 250 to 300 Brinell or BHN which was the sweet spot for steel armor during WWII, however russian armor plate was in the 350 to 450BHN.
Going above the ideal zone meant that the plate staretd to become more and more brittle, on the IS-2 in particular the armor was between 400 and 450BHN making it much more brittle than the armor of the Tiger I and far more succeptible to spalling and breaking underneath the impact of an impacting rounds.
The cast armor on the IS-2 was also flawed with a high number of imperfections and airbubbles trapepd within reducing it's ability to withstand impacts.
Dreachon thank you for your comment, yes this is what I meant. Its a shame that war thunder does not take this into account
***** The IS-2 had much harder armor than the Tiger or Tiger II. While this was good for stopping shells, it also caused spalling.
Actually the reverse is true, when armor becomes too hard it actually starts to lose it's ability to stop incoming rounds as the armor will crack underneath the impact.
280bhn was the sweet spot for armor, going beneath this made it too soft and above made it to brittle.
The IS-2 looks at 400 to 450bhn for it's armor.
Vladimir Lenin
IS 2 had harder armor than Tiger II? Only in fairy tales.
Tiger II had 150mm sloped frontal armor which was immune to IS2 from any distance.
Tiger II had 180mm of armor at turret which was AGAIN immune to IS2 from any distance.
Tiger II had 8.8cm gun which was able to penetrate IS2 turret at 3500 meters.
The IS-2 gun was very powerful and even its HE shells could have a devastating effect on many tanks.
But The IS-2 had a extreamly long reload time. They could maybe get 2 shots of a minute. Compared to a King Tigers 4-6 rounds a min. Not to mention that the high velocity 88 had superior penetration.
The Tiger II and the IS-2 only met on a few occasions. Generally this encounters resulted in high losses on both sides. The first and most successful battle happened between a single IS-2 and 7 King Tigers. The IS-2 ambushed the Tiger IIs and destroyed three of them. The other four retreated.
Yeah sure dude. Keep dreaming soviet propaganda.
What is your source?
But I will give you a source since you never provide any.
"On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg stood a further 11 Stalin tanks, and away on the egde of the village itself were around 120-150 enemy tanks in the process of being refuelled and re-armed. I opened fire and destroyed first and last of the 11 Stalin tanks on the road….My own personal score of enemy tanks destroyed in this action was 39."
schwere SS Panzer Abteilung (103) 503 / III SS Panzer Corps,East Germany, April of 1945.
In April of 1945, SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Körner (platoon commander from the 2nd Company) was supporting an infantry counterattack in the Bollersdorf area (east of Berlin), when he encountered two Soviet JS-II heavy tanks at a distance of 200m. He quickly destroyed the first one and second one trying to reverse in order to take a firing position drove into an anti-tank ditch and was abandomed by the crew. On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg, Körner observed additional 11 JS-II tanks and around 120 to 150 enemy tanks in the process of being refuelled and re-armed on the egde of the village. He then fired and destroyed all 11 JS-II tanks on the road and attacked the rest of the tanks and their suprised crews. Number of fuel and ammunition trucks exploded causing even more panic among the Russian tankers, while Körner fired all 39 rounds he had left and knocked out 39 enemy tanks before he withdrew. Following this action, sSSPzAbt 503 and other units were falling back to defend Berlin. On his way to Berlin, Karl Körner destroyed over 100 Soviet tanks and 26 anti-tank guns in total, achievement for which on April 29th, he was awarded the Knights Cross in the bunker of Reichs Chancellery. After the ceremony, Körner returned to his unit on the frontline at Charlottenburg district of Berlin. On May 2nd, last King Tiger from sSSPzAbt 503 was destroyed during an attempt to break out of the city on the Spandau Bridge.
You can find this information if you read enough books....however this source is from "Achtung Panzer" But you will find the info from the Waffen SS Tank Aces book etc.
***** Yes indeed. good note there.
Vladimir Lenin Not impossible at all, but the IS2 I'm sure kicks up a huge amount of dust when it fires....revealing it's location.
And that is why Tiger units often spotted a higher kill ratio than the IS-2?
The Tigers of the Grossdeutschland spotted a 16 to 1 kill ratio against the IS-2 and with a well experienced crew they could swiftly negate the main gun of the IS-2.
The IS-2 could have just knocked out both tiger's in one shot from its 122 MM lol
Doubt it. It has quite a low muzzle velocity lol
Velocity does not matter from that close of a range. But I probably exaggerated that IS taking out both at the same time.
Justin Marciniec Only one actually, it takes long to reload so the other one would be able to shoot it.
122mm doesn't mean anything if the gun is slow and has low muzzle velocity.
KeiserNoName No. The muzzle velocity is same as the tiger's 88mm kwk36
Oh and Dreachon also in the WWII Secret Weapons Book - it was stated actually the Allies had some idea of the 'tapered bore' principles - apparently during the '30s' the French secretly purchased about 30 or so tapered bores but strictly they were for experimental purposes - the tests indicated the efficiency of the tapered bores but apparently Allied technical experts and officers dismissed the idea claiming tapered bores were 'too small in size' to have feasible purpose - another reason why?
they were lucky it wasnt a king tiger...
The IS-2 could penetrate the Turret and lower frontal armor of the Tiger II at any range.
Vladimir Lenin
If at any range you mean at 1200m of less than yes and even then the chance of hitting those parts was almost null.
Also the front of the turret is a grand 185mm thick, the IS-2 cannot penetrate that at it get's at 100m a flat penetration of just 158mm, not enough to go through the front of the Tiger II turret.
Vladimir Lenin lol at that angle - good luck!
Herminipper The turret is not angled. While the lower front hull is angled, it only has a nominal thickness of about 150mm with the angle, and it was easily penetrable by the IS-2s gun.
The upper front of the Tiger II is sloped as well or are next to being unable to read a techincal drawing also blind that you cannot tell the difference between a angled plate and a flat plate.
The Tiger II upped hull is 150mm thick sloepd at an angle of 40 degree from horizontal which provides the equivelant of 233mm of flat armor which the IS-2 could not penetrate at all.
The turret fron on the Tiger II is also sloped at 81 degree from horizontal and is 180mm thick in addition to also represnting only a very narrow front that is large also protected by the massive saukopf gunmantlet.
By 1944, the T34/85 and the T34 1943 were the main tanks of the Soviet Union. The T34 43 had a longer barrel 76.2mm gun. The T34 85 can penetrate Tiger and Panther armor at limited ranges. But still, the ease of production allowed the Soviet Union to chuck men and materiel into the wind against the Germans. 8000 tanks is a lot. 8000 tanks is as much as the total production amount of the Pzkpw IV in WWII. Their mainstay tank. Tigers were few, panthers more but many had issues.
BokserPerm Ussr won because of sheer weight of numbers
That is correct, there is also a report of a nashorn knocking out an IS-2 from over 2000m.
A tiger can easily penetrate and kill an is 2 by shooting at the turret, killing all the turret crew.
your just a WoT or War Thunder player you dont know much about real combat... and its not turret crew its called top hatch learn you facts before you talk shit
+burak burk it seems that you have no knowledge. Surprised that with this severe lack of knowledge, you even know how to type.
I bet your brain feels as good as new, seeing that you never use it...
or that YOU never use your own brain.
Your severe lack of knowledge makes me laugh so hard that I'm coughing
IS-II was just a partial answer at Tiger, because it's 122mm gun could destroy Tiger at any range, but it's armor, which was 120mm maximum couldn't resist Tiger's 88mm shell at any range, which drastically lowered it's efficiency.
When the tank is answer, it's expected to be a completely superior in all terms.
That tank is JS-2 watch the full docymentary
*Face Palm* Do you really think that Joseph Stalin was the one that designed it? -_-
@@kapipolska123 well it was named after him
German tankists who fight in Tigers against IS-2 were like sentenced to death from the start!
tiger would wi
and it did.
No
Not to mention the HESH (high-explosive squash head) rounds the British had, impacts from those on frontal armor could turn tank crews into paste, however the advent of depleted Uranium AP shells made HESH less used. Pure HE rounds are best used against infantry and bunkers. HEAT, HESH, AP and DUAP are what really makes a punch, each in a different way.
As a result a faster method was improvised. One M48 lined up on each side of the road, with one track on the dirt shoulder and the other track on the asphalt; then they raced to a designated position miles away. If M48s made it without striking a mine, the road was clear and the convoys could proceed. In most cases, an M48 that struck a land mine in these operations only lost a road wheel or two in the explosion; seldom was there any hull damage which would be considered "totaling" the tank.
That doesn't matter. Less than 500 king tigers were produced before the end of the war in Europe, while well over 3,000 IS-1's and IS-2's were produced in the same time span.
Regardless, the IS 2 tank is probably the most successful allied variant in the whole war.
The Germans weren't afraid of T34s or Shermans or Churchills thrown in by 1944. Hence the IS is the tank that can stand toe to toe with Panthers and Tigers on the battlefield. I do believe it can also knock out the Tiger II.
Yes, a lot of people don't realize that it's pretty easy for the T-34 to destroy any WWll tank when it hits their side armour. So all Soviets had to do is split their tank force and attact from multiple angles.
then there was this old website where this guy gave you calculations on how to work out not just nominal thickness but to apply it in scenes where your vehicle and the enemy's vehicle are located at so-so angles and calculating the actual theoretical angle this would determine whether your vehicle weapon would penetrate the frontal or side armor chances ....
While nobody who knew history would deny that the King Tiger (or the Tiger I even) was a better machine than anything in the IS series, the reality was that every downed Tiger was a major lost investment, knocking out an IS just means another has already rolled off the assembly line.
While softer, it did give the benefit of a reduced chance of spalling. The Americans conscientiously made their armor softer for this purpose. If you look at allied tanker casualty reports vs. number of tanks knocked out, Sherman crews actually had a pretty high survival rate in the case of a penetration. While softer armor cannot be the only reason for this, it couldn't have hurt.
big up @WOTGeorge for making me this beast
Your welcome Bro only the best for my fellow patriot
IS-2 could only be penetrated by 88mm gun from 400 meters while IS-2 could penetrate King Tiger from 600 meters and completely turn Panzer 5 in to scrap from 1000 meters.
122 mm gun is the most powerful gun of WW2 to be mounted on tank.
When talking about anti tank guns the SU-100 was the most effective AT gun the Soviets had in use. Until later western allied tanks came along the only AT gun the west had that inspired dear in German tank crews was the 17pdr as used on the Firefly. The Germans regarded the 17pdr as the British 88 and recognised that when used correctly it could kill any German tank.
Well, the IS-II had better armor than Tiger I, due to being sloped, but that didn't help it, due to the fact that it couldn't resist Tiger's shells at any range.
IS-II had armor of 90-120mm, from 0-60°, while Tiger had armor of 80-120mm, but at 0°. IS-II front hull armor was 100mm at 60°, turret 120mm, rounded (0-60°), sides and rear of turret and hull 90mm at 60°.
Tiger's front hull was 100mm, turret 120mm, both at 0° and it's sides and rear of hull and turret were 80mm, also at 0°.
True, an APCR shell from a KwK 43 L/71 will penetrate 238mm at
2.) (cont) My colleague Dreachon explained the 120mm maximum is used in older sources but actual light of research points out from JS-2 armor blueprints no more than actually 100mm in general. However there are two models of the JS-2 - the obr 43 which would have had 100mm but relatively poorly angled and having only cast-type armor which meant it was inferior to the Tiger I or Panthers still - the Brinell was well over the 400 compared to a Tiger I's 250-290... that meant even if it digested
hence enabling travel conforming on uneven terrain; BUT besides what you mentioned it stated the weakness was the tracks were only 645 cm2 and the large angular movements made caused very heavy wear. Another weakness was it reduced available space in the hull as the suspension springs by the side plates - although the tracts could be removed by half an hour and the two front road wheels steered. Lastly the engine for the T3 Christie was said to have high OIL consumption ... did the '34' also
What is interesting though is the JS-3 tank for the matter had Rolled Homogenous armor in its hull whilst the turret was still cast-armor butin the famous soup-bowl turret shape which was meant to provide better ballistic protection though as the story goes the JS-3 didn't see service in WWII - but it when it di see service in the Middle Eastern conflicts ... it didn't fare too well :(
In fact by late 1944 Soviet engineers tried to rearm the JS-2 with the 100mm but teething problems still gave way as the turret was at best ideal for the 85mm gun developed by Petrov - and when Soviet engineers tried to improve the armor thickening of the JS-2 it was only exacerbating the problem with weight being one of them - sometimes that only increased the Brinell of the armor and it actually only gave the JS-2 armor only an actual thickness of 50mm due to the high Brinell!
had viewed a clip from the Gulf War - and yes whilst its almost 50 years after WWII the clip depicted American units throwing chrages or a grenade or two into a T-54/T-55 and after the 'Fire for Effect' order the explosion seemed to have only just caused internal totaling but it did not 'rip off the turret' of the T-54/T-55 ...
that kinectic energy that hits the tank is what diggs the explosion into the tank. what you are saying is that a 120mm he shell would do the same damage as a static explosion of the same size
Publisher is Amber Books, features over 1500 vehicles from 1915 to the 2008, from 55 countries, there are 7 authors, as I've said, - Christopher Foss, Will Fowler, Terry Gardner, Dr. Chris Mann and William Philpott, Alexander Stilwell and Jim Winchester.
The book is, pure and simple fantastic, probably the best info if you want to know performances of virtually all military vehicles of the world.
David Miller isn't author of that book, but of one other called Modern Weapons, which I also have.
The IS-2 was really meant as a breakthrough tank against fortified lines, otherwise it would have had the 100mm gun.
Also - it was stated that the 122mm although it could punch over 100mm of armor at 1000 yards - remember the Soviet testing of RHA plate is different in batch and quality compared to the German tests - the Germans used RHA of good Brinell and also at a 30 deg slope; the Soviets tended to just use whatever RHA with possibly lesser Brinell but at a 90 deg angle hence giving slight trouble ...
Oh.. Anton... That tank didn't see enough action for that to even be an option.
Of 7 JS-2 tanks - 4 get knocked from the side by Tiger I crews whilst the JS-2 crews probably had no idea what the heck hit them despite initially at over 2000 yards the 88mm L/56 rounds failed to knock the JS-2 tanks - crew training was another factor and the fact the Tiger I's were in ambush...
There is an old artilce in 2006 stating a Panther got pulled out of a Swamp either in Ukraine or Poland; this Panther took a direct 122mm shot right to the mantlet and it tore right through the rear!
IS-2 was the best tank of WW2!
Correct, an immediate solution to a pressing problem that could be created by the least amount of modifications to existing designs and can be brought into service as quickly as possible.
IS-2 was never designed for tank vs. tank combat. It was a breakthrough tank firing HE mainly.
The JS-2 used two stage ammunition , the main 122mm shell and the powder charge, plus the gun had to be lowered towards the ground to be able to load it, this took considerable time in tight close quarters combat, and could easily get an JS-2 crew killed. By the time the JS-2 got one shot off, the Tiger tank could shoot 5-10 shells at you because it used only one stage ammunition, the Js-2 was a death trap!! Only good for bunker busting or long distance combat.
The King Tiger cannot penetrate 238mm of armor. Period. If you disagree, you have not looked into this enough. Again, max pen at ranges
Your calculation is correct as for the user is this the front or side, the lower hull front on the Tiger II is 100mm thick sloped at 40 degree from horizontal with the upper hull front beeing 150mm thick and also sloped at 40 degree from horizontal.
The side of the hull is 80mm thick sloped at 65 degree from horizontal.
This argument can go on forever, Because if you say Tigers forced the Russians and Allies to rethink, it was the T34 that forced the Germans to bring out the Tiger and Panther. The Russians had a trully good medium tank and that shocked the Germans to high heaven during operation Barbarossa. Not to mention the dreaded KV1s and KV2.
Sloped armor of the Panther came from T34 sloped armor design. Tank production means everything. If Germany had 10,000 more tigers, war's over.
He had an almost childlike believe that the latest weapon systems would swing the balance in germanies favor and deliver victory from the jaws of certain defeat.
They each have their own roles, the specialist are meant for a single task but they do that very well, the generalists have many tasks which they can all do properly but never will be as good as a specialist in that given field.
You have to distinguish from upper hull and lower hull. Lower hull was 80 mm (3.1 in) at 90° while the upper was 80 mm (3.1 in) at 65°. Even the 76 mm could penetrate that and later the 122mm could penetrate the KT's front if it hit the bottom plate 100 mm (3.9 in) at 40° or upper plate if shooting from an elevated position and a relatively short range 1.2 km at most. KT's main advantage was reload speed and range.
Yep - nasty - heck in Band of Brothers it was nasty when Randalmen got struck by a shard - I don't mean to be an idiot but it must have been nasty as hell inside any tank that got seriously spalled; afterall internally a tank is as delicate and fragile as any machinery; damage the optics well you might hope to replace it or get luck; damage the drive you got a sitting duck; damage the ammunition...you get the message. Apparently a '3476 veteran claimed at Kursk
I also lastly ask this because next to where we briefly discussed how the Germans used stuff like coal-stove gas and bottled gas or the ersatz food/materials - in Eyewitness WWII a junior book I occasionally skim upon - it was stated the Brit Home Front was short of weapons so besides stuff like Sten-Guns the Home Guard would improvise with jam-tin cans or wine bottles filled with gasolene or even improvised mines if necessary ...
The only good things about the Tiger were: it's outstanding 88mm gun, and it's thick frontal armor. (Although, by not sloping the front, the Germans lost a lot of precious metal. They could have gotten the same armor thickness with less armor had they sloped the front of the TIger.)
The schurzen were provided to the panther as well, it's the thing skirts it has on the hull.
Main reason thatt he heavier tanks didn't get was because the schurzen were intendid for anti-tank rifle and tanks like the Panther and tiger had enough side armour to keep those shells out.
Yes friend, I know all that books, unfortunately, I've never been so lucky to even find one, less indeed read.
What I have is an encyclopedia, which means that it doesn't talk about wars, battles and achievements in other words, but about the vehicle itself - the most detailed that it could been.
The huge info about performances, combined with pictures and excellent drawings. I didn't know almost anything about tanks, but when I bought that book, I know almost everything!
Mainly because up until then for most countries they didn't know that fighting a fast high speed armoured action would reqire more crew, the french believed more in how it was the previous war and there a single man in the turret was sufficient.
For the T-34 it was a direct resultd of the design beeing kept as small as possible and reducing internal space.
The JS-2 armor - the turret is only 100mm cast. Remember I mentioned there was the obr 43 which like the ones in Targu Frumos and would have been the first models to roll out in late '43 - then later there was the obr 44 (I'll have to check with Dreachon when this model rolled out) and it had like I mentioned 90mm RHA frontal or 100mm cast but with the 60 deg vertical slope; the obr 43 JS-2's had very poor angling and due to the 'step' hull which wasn't any slope intentions hence such
Yeah, I was saying that had they put sloped armor on the Tiger they would have reduced the mass, like the panther. They got smart, and made the Tiger 2 with sloping armor, but it was too late.
Yes, that was a big drawback of the 122mm gun. A drawback of the German guns was that they wore out quickly (especially if APCR ammo with extra powder charge was used) and had to be re-calibrated often after going across rough ground for a while. And you also have to realize that in the video, the IS tanks were caught off guard because the German tank commander did an exceptional feat. That doesn't mean that the IS tanks are just complete shit, they just weren't used to their potential.
The schurzten couldn't stop an anti-tank shell, they were never designed for such a task.
It's the same thing. The Iosif Stalin, The IS, the Joseph Stalin 122, the JS, the same thing. The Russians called it the Joseph Stalin.
JS had to completely lower the cannon to reload and had to re-adjust aiming every time it reloaded. I imagine it would be painful even for the trained crews. Tiger had superior range, precision, fire rate, target acquisition, faster projectile velocity, less drop from its shells, composite rounds and crews which knew what they were doing. The 122mm was extremely powerful but unstable. Some Russian tanks seem like they were designed to kill their crews.
There were produced 3845 tanks IS-2 and they drove away nazis from the eastern polish border till Berlin, so they sow enough actions, and Tigers crews even were recommended to avoid direct fights with IS-2.
Actually, a fernen commander reported that is 2 avoided engagements with tiger units under 2000meters if the tigers advance and that the crew would often bail out after the tank recived the first hit.
@ltmurphy23 Moreover like our colleague Dreachon points out the 122mm? It wasn't a dedicated AT gun like the QF 17 pounder or BS-3 10mm gun cannon; the large rounds meant that it was 2 piece loading and the JS-2 is a small tank actually compared to the Tiger or Panther tank - mounting a large slow firing corps gun into a very compact package meant the ergonomics of the JS-2 was poorer than what it was portrayed as.
It doesn't make sense from a military point of view but it is true that a tank can far easier digest an anti-tank mine than a softskin, the tank will suffer only damage to it's tracks and the suspension but that can all be repaired.
Oh and Dreachon - hows that link I sent you or the photo of the '34/76' I mentined to you that had its turret overhanging lifted by the gun? Oh and for the Ferdi crew posing proudly at Kursk - if its too busy for you - don't worry thats cool - I'll be still content discussing other exciting things w' you and now you gave me another thing that caught my attention - 100 tonne cranes at Nibelungen! Danke Jewel as usual!
Indeed - the Soviets during the 1930s their arty doctrine emphasized that ALL GUNS - no matter what designation would be used also for defence AND that ALL GUNS they had regardless of type or bore - would also be used for the AT role IF they had to - even if they weren't specifically 100% dedicated AT guns ...
Well said - just a few food for thoughts if I may:
1.) The 122mm still had 'poor' armor penetration compared to the KwK 36 L/56 of the Tiger I - and not to mention the very SLOWWWW ROF. My colleague Dreachon has a photo of a 2x 122mm rounds that did a partial penetration to a Tiger I mantlet (though not sure what range) - plus apparently the crew survived but the mantlet was badly deformed - though it indicates the durability of the Tiger I armor.
2.) The 120mm maximum is actually incorrect
This already existed in WWII, late production model StuG III, IV and the hetzer all had a remote controlled MG on the roof that could be fired from inside the vehicle.
True, but there weren't that many AP rounds made. Most were reserved for the IS-2 and the ISU-122. The russians liked the HE because it was good against anything. Bunkers, emplacements, thin skinned vehicles, light armor, medium armor, heavy armor, enemy anti-tank guns, so they made a shit-ton, yes exactly a shit-ton, of the HE ammunition. But yeah, if they loaded AP rounds, that was even more devastating. Just the sheer momentum those rounds had was immense.
Yes and no, there are 2 version in this case the regular jagdpanzer IV which had 60mm on the hull and the later panzer IV/70 which had 80mm of armour.
In terms of protection the jagdpanzer has about the same protection as a StuG or a T-34 while the IV/70 is closer to the Panther.
Correction, Guards titles were given to units who were considered Elite either be some outstanding action or there combat effectivness
The Tiger was literally one of the worst millitary vehicles of WW2. Each tank drained precious supplies, precious time, and as for battlefield performance? Tigers broke down constantly on the Easter front, and were too complex to fix easily. They used up gas like nothing else, and therefore were a lot of times abandoned by crews because of lack of fuel. Also, they were slow moving which made them perfect targets for close air support and even artillery.
Thank you. If you want to know, my sources for German tank are some of web pages like Tiger Tank Battalions, German King Tiger tank, Panzerkampfwagen V Panther and Wikipedia in some cases.
There's also one book and which is my best source - 500 page The Encyclopedia of Tank and AFV's written by 7 authors of US and UK, one of authors is writer of 60 books of military subjects, including Jane's magazine and USA military adviser C. F. Foss.
And I have some documentaries, of course, all are German.
3.) Returning armorwise the obr 44 JS-2 however was an attempt to save weight whilst thinning the armor but angling it to provide better protection theoretically; whilst earlier JS-2 models had poorer armor and cast-type - one model of the obr 44 JS-2 had 90mm RHA at 60 deg to the vertical frontally - giving theoretically 180mm flat armor whilst the 100mm cast at the same angle only gives 200mm flat armor BUT at cast which we know cast armor is cheaper but inferior to RHA ...
That actually true, panther was overall more rewarding machine. But from what i've heard, Tiger-1 was way more realible than Panther-1, sometimes they could not even turn engine on panther. Then when they done Panther-2 and king-tiger the roles changed. But i guess it were aleredy to late by then..
I think that RoF in under ideal conditions but it's certainly more feasible for an ISU to have this RoF than the IS-2 as the ISU has much more internal space and more height for the crew to work in.
Correct, the armour for tanks in WWI was thin, barely enough to keep out bullets, they were build with rivets.
No correction, the guards title was never based on a units previous performance or combat performance, they wer given based on the new role the unit were to play.
Finest example is that the guards designation was given to alot of formation that were new from the traning and had previously little to no experience in combat.
Tiger I weighs 56 tonnes - and don't forget I mentioned earlier optics - not sure of the JS-2 optics but the Tiger I had the excellent Leitz Turmzielfernrohr TZF 9b sights (later replaced by the monocular TZF 9c) - and yes indeed there are reports of Tiger I crews claiming blows on enemy targets 2-3000 yards away - a JS-2 has very little to compare to this - with also cramped ergonomics. Still I don't think neither one of us wants to get caught in a 122mm HE blast eh?
I agree, the 17 Pounder was a gem.
Yes the chassis would be build first and then later the turret would be added, normally the turret would have it's own seperate buildingline.
And that Donald D Wall seems to imply that at the time being had Mussolini REALLY feel alienated by Hitler, it is likely that WWII would have been in a different scope?
Your right a 122mm would crack open any German tank... It would want to be parked right along side the most of em, but your Right... well done you ! The only Soviet AT gun fitted to tank destroyer that could challenge a Tiger at decent range was the SU-100.
4.) Still - indeed a tank being superior to another or AFV for the matter is expected to fulfill the 3 mains of 'speed, protection and firepower' - though no doubt crew ergonomics, training and also CO$T is another for sure.
5.) Lastly Dreachon told me of a photo he has of a JS-2 obr 43 that had recieved a direct blow from an 88mm (could be either the L/56 or L/71) - this blow was so intense that the mantlet was upturned by a 90 deg angle messing up the frontal turret of the JS-2!
I also ask this because the Japanese Warlord Hideyoshi was reputed to have tunneled and mined his enemy's castle's to force them into submission; he would even use flooding if possible - in the Siege of Kameyama in 1583 the castle fell like this - and another castle - the master of the castle noticed the walls were literally sinking and subsiding from the tunneling/mining Hideyoshi employed - so I got to thinking if it was feasible in reality for German forts in Normandy?
Can't remember where had I read an article, about a King Tiger had scared the crews of a JS-2 to bailed out as soon as appearing itself in front of them. But that could be just an un-confirmed story.........
True but the grenades they tossed inside the turret were not meant to destroy the tank but the kill the crew, a grenade inside the crew compartment is going to make a mess.
Russian tanks had sloped armour making shells bouncing off more easily. But the russians posessed only the short barrelled 76 mm cannon from the KVI and early T34 at the outbreak of the war. Later 85mm canon was an anti aircraft gun placed in self propelled guns later in the T-34/85. But German Tank Guns (not to confuse with Anti-Tank-Guns) from 1941 onwards were never matched by any nation till the 50´s.
The Panthers 75mm long barreled cannon fired high velocity shells that matched the Tiger I