Best/Favourate Tank in the west
- Thread starter Yeomanz
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So let me get this straight. The Soviet tankers would drive around with open hatches in the hope of diminishing the effects of a possible Panzerfaust/Panzerschreck strike, ignoring the otherwise obvious danger of driving around with open hatches in a hot zone. Yet when hit by a HC weapon and being exceedingly lucky enough to survive it they'd suddenly reverse their tactics and close their hatches to protect themselves from handgrenades, ignoring the fact that if they'd been hit once by a HC weapon then there'd be a very high chance of them being hit once more, esp. if they started to move in any way.
Anyway the point stands that the Germans were very well equipped with both Panzerfausts Panzerschreck by the summer of 44, and these weapons rarely required you to hit more than once to destroy a tank.
As for the "99% claim", every related account I've ever read describes how easily both weapons set enemy tanks ablaze and that usually 1 hit is more than enough. If you don't believe me though you're more than welcome to present evidence to the contrary, but I suspect you'll find that a very tough task.
Btw, if you've seen the effect of a HC weapon then why are we even argueing this ? You then know as well as I do how terrorfying such a weapon is if it succeeds in breaching the armour of a vehicle.
Anyway the point stands that the Germans were very well equipped with both Panzerfausts Panzerschreck by the summer of 44, and these weapons rarely required you to hit more than once to destroy a tank.
As for the "99% claim", every related account I've ever read describes how easily both weapons set enemy tanks ablaze and that usually 1 hit is more than enough. If you don't believe me though you're more than welcome to present evidence to the contrary, but I suspect you'll find that a very tough task.
Btw, if you've seen the effect of a HC weapon then why are we even argueing this ? You then know as well as I do how terrorfying such a weapon is if it succeeds in breaching the armour of a vehicle.
Hi,
Since the 3 crew members were located in turret, the possible 5th crew member would've to be seated next to the driver with almost no role in battle. The 100mm gun itself would've allow faster reloads, since it used unitary ammo.
The next major Russian tank type, the T-54/55, sported 100mm gun, armor up to 8in (yep, 203mm), almost the same engine, and weighted 20% less then IS-2. The Leo1 and AMX-30 have had 105mm installed, again weighting under 40 tons and being of modest size.
So I see no need to increase the tank.
I agree that the Russkies could've used the better optics radios though.
Hello Soren
hatch closed but unlocked as I wrote earlier
I doubt the 99% but accept that usually only one hit which penetrate was enough
as a combat engineer I know thet there might well be a difference between how spectacular an effect of an explosition against armour shows outside and what is its effect inside the armour. All HE explositions on surface seem spectacular to those who had not seen them often. We even shot a LAW rocket against a target leaning against a big boulder, effect was dramatic, the target disintegrate but a quick glance on the surface of the boulder revealed nothing, we might have found something if we had looked more carefully but we had much more spectular show to do next, so we were in hurry to make the final toutches to our effort to empty a small lake/a pond by explosives, a bit eggaration but we shot lot of water and most of the ice skyhigh, and it was really spectacular sight in afternoon sunlight.
Juha
hatch closed but unlocked as I wrote earlier
I doubt the 99% but accept that usually only one hit which penetrate was enough
as a combat engineer I know thet there might well be a difference between how spectacular an effect of an explosition against armour shows outside and what is its effect inside the armour. All HE explositions on surface seem spectacular to those who had not seen them often. We even shot a LAW rocket against a target leaning against a big boulder, effect was dramatic, the target disintegrate but a quick glance on the surface of the boulder revealed nothing, we might have found something if we had looked more carefully but we had much more spectular show to do next, so we were in hurry to make the final toutches to our effort to empty a small lake/a pond by explosives, a bit eggaration but we shot lot of water and most of the ice skyhigh, and it was really spectacular sight in afternoon sunlight.
Juha
Last edited:
Hi, Juha,
I disagree about what you've said about unlocked/unbuttonned tanks.
The Russian tankers used to have their tank's hatches closed and locked.
After the rough experience with Panzerfausts, killing and wounding the crew, they weren't locking their hatches any more, in order to allow friendly troops to open the hatch pull out the ones that survived.
Since the Russkies learned the hard way the pluses of mutual support and started to use the knowledge, it was unlikely that enemy infantryman could both run to the tank, climb up, open the hatch, throw the hand grenade inside, and live to tell about that; the other tanks and friendly infantry would've not allow that in most of the cases.
Also, the tank crews started to mount steel sheets, or even the bed springs to the turrets in order to invoke the premature detonation of the incoming projectile's warhead. The German tanks of the WWII did gave a lot of inspiration for that.
I disagree about what you've said about unlocked/unbuttonned tanks.
The Russian tankers used to have their tank's hatches closed and locked.
After the rough experience with Panzerfausts, killing and wounding the crew, they weren't locking their hatches any more, in order to allow friendly troops to open the hatch pull out the ones that survived.
Since the Russkies learned the hard way the pluses of mutual support and started to use the knowledge, it was unlikely that enemy infantryman could both run to the tank, climb up, open the hatch, throw the hand grenade inside, and live to tell about that; the other tanks and friendly infantry would've not allow that in most of the cases.
Also, the tank crews started to mount steel sheets, or even the bed springs to the turrets in order to invoke the premature detonation of the incoming projectile's warhead. The German tanks of the WWII did gave a lot of inspiration for that.
Hello Tomo Pauk
maybe, IIRC I read the story from a caption in a book written by a Yank or a British, so maybe something was lost in translation. And yes those bed springs are well known. Anyway, the story that not all HC penetrations were lethal was known also in West, in fact I recall reading first on cases in West before I saw the abovementioned caption
Juha
maybe, IIRC I read the story from a caption in a book written by a Yank or a British, so maybe something was lost in translation. And yes those bed springs are well known. Anyway, the story that not all HC penetrations were lethal was known also in West, in fact I recall reading first on cases in West before I saw the abovementioned caption
Juha
Last edited:
Well it seems you are beginning to agree with me then Juha.
I've seen the effect of high explosives on armour as well plenty of times, and yes it can look very spectacular from the outside while an after inspection will reveal that it hasn't done squat, and so yes it can be VERY decieving. But I'd also like to point out that I'm not talking about hollow charge weapons here, just ordinary explosives. HC weapons don't just look spectacular from the outside, they also create a real mess on the inside.
Btw found a really good video on the Panzerschreck, here you also see a plate of armour being penetrated. The effect looks identical to that of a RPG-7:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_C-vOIVzmA
I've seen the effect of high explosives on armour as well plenty of times, and yes it can look very spectacular from the outside while an after inspection will reveal that it hasn't done squat, and so yes it can be VERY decieving. But I'd also like to point out that I'm not talking about hollow charge weapons here, just ordinary explosives. HC weapons don't just look spectacular from the outside, they also create a real mess on the inside.
Btw found a really good video on the Panzerschreck, here you also see a plate of armour being penetrated. The effect looks identical to that of a RPG-7:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_C-vOIVzmA
The 5th guy would be the radio operator and a hull machine gunner if such a thing was added, as in the German tanks. This was the way forward. The hull machine gun was extremely effective when enemy infantry was in the area.
As for the T-54, remember only the front turret had 204mm armour, the hull only had 99mm and the sides were pretty weak as-well. And again, a 4 man crew. And along with the T-72 the T-54/55 was when eventually tested by the British US considered a deathtrap, it was waay too cramped for one.
I believe the ideal heavy tank of WW2 would've been a Tiger Ausf.B with a stronger drivetrain and the fuel injected version of the HL230 engine producing 1,000 PS (737 kW) of power. The armament, armour, optics, radio equipment, ride comfort etc etc of the tank was already pretty much perfect, all that was really needed was a stronger drivetrain, while a more powerful engine is always useful.
.The 5th guy would be the radio operator and a hull machine gunner if such a thing was added, as in the German tanks.
T-34, KV-1, Sherman etc all featured the hull machine gunner.
This was the way forward. The hull machine gun was extremely effective when enemy infantry was in the area.
Rather a way backvard. The hull machine gunner position was all but removed from the 1st generation of post-WWII tanks, and no modern tank has it. Despite the massive proliferation of RPGs of all kinds.
As for the T-54, remember only the front turret had 204mm armour, the hull only had 99mm and the sides were pretty weak as-well. And again, a 4 man crew. And along with the T-72 the T-54/55 was when eventually tested by the British US considered a deathtrap, it was waay too cramped for one.
I've never said that T-54/55 were ideal tanks, but just offered the numbers for comparison.
I've also offered Leo1 and AMX-30 for the same purpose
And it's no wonder for someone used to the roomy M-47/48/60, or Centurion/Chieftain, to say that T-54 is cramped..
The hull machine gunner has been removed from modern designs as tanks today are far more mobile and the angle of the hull rarely allows one to be installed, plus the turrets have much faster travers and the gun stays locked on target even if driving through the toughest types of terrain. All of this means that the hull machine gun isn't necessary on new tanks, but on a WW2 tank it was essential, and that the IS-2 lacked it just put it at a disadvantage.
Boy ,don't i like to talk about tanks 
The only shortcomings I find to the Soren's proposal was the late war entry (late 1944?) and usage of gasoline engine (but that goes along with German technology of the time, so only a minor issue).
My proposal would be the KV-1 with 107mm cannon; feasible in 1940.
The Russians did have the similar KV-3 prototype tested, but found it having unreliable drive train suspension because of the weight of the added armor to the KV-1's hull.
The only shortcomings I find to the Soren's proposal was the late war entry (late 1944?) and usage of gasoline engine (but that goes along with German technology of the time, so only a minor issue).
My proposal would be the KV-1 with 107mm cannon; feasible in 1940.
The Russians did have the similar KV-3 prototype tested, but found it having unreliable drive train suspension because of the weight of the added armor to the KV-1's hull.
The trade-off for not having a hull machine gunner was the better integrity of the glacis plate for IS-2. From my point of view that decision was right.
I disagree that those were the reasons for deleting the hull MG*, but even if they were**, the Centurion, Conqueror, IS-3, T-44 -55, AMX-30 -50, Leo-1 - the 1st generations of those tanks did have more in common with WWII designs, then with 1980's ones. Yet, the most notable thing was, again, the lack of hull machine gunner position.
My conclusion is that the designers regarded the hull machine gun was a thing of the past, what's fine for me.
*I disagree that hull MG position was essential for a WWII tanks. It adds up to the volume to be armor protected, reduces integrity of the glacis plat, further adding to the engine power requirements, fuel consumption, added training.
**The M-26 -47 did have well sloped glacis, yet sported the hull MG. So the angle was not a reason against hull MG.
Hello
while looking a good photo on A43 Black Prince, maybe a nearest what british got as a heavy tank, from Fletcher's The Universal Tank, noticed on same page info on British "A Survey of Casualties Amongst Armoured Units in North West Europe". According to that survey only 50-60% Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck hits actually penetrate armour of British tanks. IMHO surprisingly low, I have been thinking that something like 66-80% of hits penetrate.
I had thought that Black Prince would have been one candidate for a good breakthrough tank with its 152mm frontal and 95mm side armour, but it seems that the rumour that one of the 6 protos has Meteor engine cannot be comfirmed. With 350hp Bedford engine the type was hopelessly underpowered with its 48 tons weight. IMHO in mid 40s weight over 50tons made life of combat engineers too difficult, same to recovery crews.
Juha
while looking a good photo on A43 Black Prince, maybe a nearest what british got as a heavy tank, from Fletcher's The Universal Tank, noticed on same page info on British "A Survey of Casualties Amongst Armoured Units in North West Europe". According to that survey only 50-60% Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck hits actually penetrate armour of British tanks. IMHO surprisingly low, I have been thinking that something like 66-80% of hits penetrate.
I had thought that Black Prince would have been one candidate for a good breakthrough tank with its 152mm frontal and 95mm side armour, but it seems that the rumour that one of the 6 protos has Meteor engine cannot be comfirmed. With 350hp Bedford engine the type was hopelessly underpowered with its 48 tons weight. IMHO in mid 40s weight over 50tons made life of combat engineers too difficult, same to recovery crews.
Juha
If you look at most modern tanks you'll realize that a hull mounted MG isn't a possibility. The balanced gun and fast precise turret traverse also makes it unnecessary.
Now while you say than the absence of a hull MG on the IS-2 improved the integrity of the glacis you'd be wrong. Why ?:
1.) Cause there simply wasn't room for a hull MG. Thus the absence of the hull MG wasn't a design choice in order to improve armour integrity, it was simply left out because there wasn't room for it. To sorta make up for that an MG was placed at the rear of the turret.
2.) The viewing slot compelety ruined what'ever advantage there might have been of not having a hull MG, leaving glacis vulnerable to rounds from even the StuG's. And if that wasn't bad enough the front turret was only a mere 100mm thick, making it vulerable to a StuG and Panzer IV past 1,000 m. This fatal design flaw meant that the IS-2 never seriously threatened the old Tiger Ausf.E.
In mid august 1944 a unit of just 3 Tiger Ausf.E's managed to destroy 15 IS-2's in a long range full frontal engagement, the range never getting closer than 1,500 meters, for no losses in return. Here's a picture taken after the engagement (The IS-2 in front was taken out by a single hit which penetrated the upper part of the glacis plate and exploded inside the tank setting off the ammunition storage):
Now while you say than the absence of a hull MG on the IS-2 improved the integrity of the glacis you'd be wrong. Why ?:
1.) Cause there simply wasn't room for a hull MG. Thus the absence of the hull MG wasn't a design choice in order to improve armour integrity, it was simply left out because there wasn't room for it. To sorta make up for that an MG was placed at the rear of the turret.
2.) The viewing slot compelety ruined what'ever advantage there might have been of not having a hull MG, leaving glacis vulnerable to rounds from even the StuG's. And if that wasn't bad enough the front turret was only a mere 100mm thick, making it vulerable to a StuG and Panzer IV past 1,000 m. This fatal design flaw meant that the IS-2 never seriously threatened the old Tiger Ausf.E.
In mid august 1944 a unit of just 3 Tiger Ausf.E's managed to destroy 15 IS-2's in a long range full frontal engagement, the range never getting closer than 1,500 meters, for no losses in return. Here's a picture taken after the engagement (The IS-2 in front was taken out by a single hit which penetrated the upper part of the glacis plate and exploded inside the tank setting off the ammunition storage):
Last edited:
Do you have more information on the Unit that claimed the 15 IS II's in August 1944?
The photo of these 3 IS II's have lots of claims attached to them. The Squadron/Signal book 'Soviet Panzers In Action' dates them to Feb 17 1945 near Konisberg and claims them as victims of GD.
The Wydawnictwo book 'Grossdeutschland Vol II' again says it was GD but now it is April 1945 and location is Romania. Varrious other books give even more dates/locations.
In order to make the photo look more impresive the propoganda boys manipulated it by bringing the rear 2 tanks further forward and thus we have:
There is a 'fixed' front hull MG on the IS II.
The photo of these 3 IS II's have lots of claims attached to them. The Squadron/Signal book 'Soviet Panzers In Action' dates them to Feb 17 1945 near Konisberg and claims them as victims of GD.
The Wydawnictwo book 'Grossdeutschland Vol II' again says it was GD but now it is April 1945 and location is Romania. Varrious other books give even more dates/locations.
In order to make the photo look more impresive the propoganda boys manipulated it by bringing the rear 2 tanks further forward and thus we have:
There is a 'fixed' front hull MG on the IS II.
Last edited:
