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
If you look at most modern tanks you'll realize that a hull mounted MG isn't a possibility.
I've looked at many (all?) modern tanks and I realize it is possible. But no one wants to bother, since the shortcomings outweight the benefits, one of them is indeed:
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.
Since there was room for the hull mounted weaponry in much smaller tanks, I'd tend to disagree that space was the problem. m_kenny's post clears the issue of the hull MG, though
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.
If we say that 100mm tick mantlet was a "fatal design flaw", it's safe to say that Panther, for example, was riddled with flaws.
The IS-2 used to threat with 122mm gun usually. So the crews of the old Tiger got to be rather careful when IS-2 were around.
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):
The IS-2 from the pic is the early model, with 'cranked' glacis armor. Most of the IS-2 tanks had one piece glacis plate (as shown at the m_kenny's post), and I've seen no pictures that those were penetrated in combat (not that was impossible, though).
.
tomo,
m_kenny's post doesn't clear the issue as it shows a 'fixed' hull MG, which requires nearly no space and was put there merely as an act of desperation. In combat it would be useless, and I believe it was in general removed.
Riddled with flaws ? How so ? It featured a 100 mm mantlet as-well.
The reason it was rather odd on the IS-2 was that the turret was the prime target on that tank, the turret being as large as it was. For some odd reason they chose to upgrade the glacis plate instead of the turret, which was a huge mistake cause not only was the glacis a small target, but the lower hull was kept at 120mm sloped 30 degrees, making it also vulnerable at that spot beyond 1,000m for most German guns.
It is quite understandable that German tank crews saw the T-34/85 as a greater threat than the IS-2.
At close range it was a real danger, sure, but not much at long range as German tank crews reported again and again that beyond 800m the IS-2 could hardly hit anything.
m_kenny's post doesn't clear the issue as it shows a 'fixed' hull MG, which requires nearly no space and was put there merely as an act of desperation. In combat it would be useless, and I believe it was in general removed.
Riddled with flaws ? How so ? It featured a 100 mm mantlet as-well.
The reason it was rather odd on the IS-2 was that the turret was the prime target on that tank, the turret being as large as it was. For some odd reason they chose to upgrade the glacis plate instead of the turret, which was a huge mistake cause not only was the glacis a small target, but the lower hull was kept at 120mm sloped 30 degrees, making it also vulnerable at that spot beyond 1,000m for most German guns.
It is quite understandable that German tank crews saw the T-34/85 as a greater threat than the IS-2.
At close range it was a real danger, sure, but not much at long range as German tank crews reported again and again that beyond 800m the IS-2 could hardly hit anything.
Re. the fatal flaws,
The Panther, with the same weight and the much lighter turret cannon carried much less armor then IS-2. So if we say that IS-2 had a fatal flaw because of only one piece of armor, it is also safe to say that Panther was riddled with flaws since it was less armored every other spot.
A quick look at the Armour penetration table site reveals that only 8,8cm L/71and 12,8cm German guns had a chance to beat the lower glacis plate (120mm @30deg ) of the IS-2 beyond 1km. Since the AP shell would've been at the descending part of the path (further spoiling the impact angle), the shot needed to be strictly at the front of the plate (almost 0 deg head-on).
On the other hand, the T-34-85 was a fair game for the venerable 7,5cm pak similar stuff (Pz-IV, StuG-III etc). So those represented less threat for the Germans, since the IS-2 was vulnerable to the 7,5cm as the T-34-85 to the 5cm pak, (= invulnerable beyond 500m).
Please post some links that describe the inabillity of the IS-2 crews/guns to hit anything beyond 800m.
The hull MG installation of the IS-2 a pretty stupid idea, but perhaps the brass is to blame for that, not the designer that make real their requirement
m_kenny's post clears the issue wether the IS-2 had the hull MG
Ceterum censeo, if a small (15-30 tons) tanks had the room for a hull MG crewman installation, the lack of space is hardly a reason for not having the same for a 45+ ton tank.
The Panther, with the same weight and the much lighter turret cannon carried much less armor then IS-2. So if we say that IS-2 had a fatal flaw because of only one piece of armor, it is also safe to say that Panther was riddled with flaws since it was less armored every other spot.
A quick look at the Armour penetration table site reveals that only 8,8cm L/71and 12,8cm German guns had a chance to beat the lower glacis plate (120mm @30deg ) of the IS-2 beyond 1km. Since the AP shell would've been at the descending part of the path (further spoiling the impact angle), the shot needed to be strictly at the front of the plate (almost 0 deg head-on).
On the other hand, the T-34-85 was a fair game for the venerable 7,5cm pak similar stuff (Pz-IV, StuG-III etc). So those represented less threat for the Germans, since the IS-2 was vulnerable to the 7,5cm as the T-34-85 to the 5cm pak, (= invulnerable beyond 500m).
Please post some links that describe the inabillity of the IS-2 crews/guns to hit anything beyond 800m.
The hull MG installation of the IS-2 a pretty stupid idea, but perhaps the brass is to blame for that, not the designer that make real their requirement
m_kenny's post clears the issue wether the IS-2 had the hull MG
Ceterum censeo, if a small (15-30 tons) tanks had the room for a hull MG crewman installation, the lack of space is hardly a reason for not having the same for a 45+ ton tank.
The weight of a tank doesn't correlate to how roomy it is inside tomo, to assume such a thing is to lack a lot of understanding on the issue. Soviet tanks, small large (Esp. the large ones though) are known for their cramped interior, so much so that German as-well as US tankers often have referred to them as deathtraps for the poor crews inside in the event anything went wrong.
As for the IS-2's lower frontal hull, both the 7.5cm KwK42, 8.8cm KwK36 7.5cm PaK41 could punch straight through it at beyond even 1,500 meters. And the 7.5cm Kwk40 was capable at up to 600m atleast.
Keep in mind that the armour quality of the IS-2 was poor throughout the war, with hits from guns such as the numerous PaK40 often causing lethal spalling inside the tank even when it hit heavily armoured places such as the glacis. The armour way too brittle.
The problem with that theory is that both tanks were built for different purposes. The Panther was designed to combat other tanks, providing excellent mobility, great space of ammunition storage and crew comfort, great protection from the front and excellent firepower. The IS-2 on the other hand was designed as a heavy infantry support tank, and was kept small but heavily armoured and armed, with little room for both crew ammo, in short it wasn't a very good tank.
The T-34/85 was better than the IS-2 in that it was more spacious inside, it had a high rate of fire and great mobility and speed. The armament of the T-34/85 was also sufficient most of the time, and was dangerous to the flanks of any tank.
As for the IS-2's lower frontal hull, both the 7.5cm KwK42, 8.8cm KwK36 7.5cm PaK41 could punch straight through it at beyond even 1,500 meters. And the 7.5cm Kwk40 was capable at up to 600m atleast.
Keep in mind that the armour quality of the IS-2 was poor throughout the war, with hits from guns such as the numerous PaK40 often causing lethal spalling inside the tank even when it hit heavily armoured places such as the glacis. The armour way too brittle.
The problem with that theory is that both tanks were built for different purposes. The Panther was designed to combat other tanks, providing excellent mobility, great space of ammunition storage and crew comfort, great protection from the front and excellent firepower. The IS-2 on the other hand was designed as a heavy infantry support tank, and was kept small but heavily armoured and armed, with little room for both crew ammo, in short it wasn't a very good tank.
The T-34/85 was better than the IS-2 in that it was more spacious inside, it had a high rate of fire and great mobility and speed. The armament of the T-34/85 was also sufficient most of the time, and was dangerous to the flanks of any tank.
Last edited:
The figures for the armour protection on the IS-2 are misleading as the IS-2 armour was not tempered, which made the armour splinter when struck. The Soviets found the process of tempering to be complex and costly, so the problem was allowed to remain throughout the war. In relation to the Panther, the IS-2 was found to be unable to penetrate the frontal armour above 600m; at this distance the IS-2 was vulnerable to the Panther.
There are combat reports of IS-2s withstanding 8.8cm rounds from distances up to and including 1000 - 1500m, but combat is not a paper report and physics can be altered by so many different fundamentals. I've read of a IS-2 withstanding three 8.8cm hits at 1000 - 1200m, and then being knocked out at 700m by the same vehicle - which indicates the possible strength of the IS-2 armour and possibly the inability of the IS-2 to return effective fire?
Most open field armour conflict took place at 400 - 600m (something like 40% of Soviet tank losses were at that distance); but unfortunately for the Soviets the Germans could bring down effective fire on them while closing to that distance. If I remember correctly approximately 20% of Soviet losses were at distances over 1000m.
The IS-2 did make Heinz Guderian get worried about the Tiger crews driving around the battlefield without worry, because he believed the IS-2 was the tank that removed the invulnerability of the Tiger.
There are combat reports of IS-2s withstanding 8.8cm rounds from distances up to and including 1000 - 1500m, but combat is not a paper report and physics can be altered by so many different fundamentals. I've read of a IS-2 withstanding three 8.8cm hits at 1000 - 1200m, and then being knocked out at 700m by the same vehicle - which indicates the possible strength of the IS-2 armour and possibly the inability of the IS-2 to return effective fire?
Most open field armour conflict took place at 400 - 600m (something like 40% of Soviet tank losses were at that distance); but unfortunately for the Soviets the Germans could bring down effective fire on them while closing to that distance. If I remember correctly approximately 20% of Soviet losses were at distances over 1000m.
The IS-2 did make Heinz Guderian get worried about the Tiger crews driving around the battlefield without worry, because he believed the IS-2 was the tank that removed the invulnerability of the Tiger.
Hello Plan_D
Quote:" the IS-2 was found to be unable to penetrate the frontal armour above 600m; at this distance the IS-2 was vulnerable to the Panther. "
If one look the penetration tables that is true for Panther's glacic plate but the turret front of Panther was penetrable to 122mm shell up to 2000+m. It was a clearly smaller targer than the glacic but also more often visible. And even without penetration a shell as heavy as 122mm might knock the turret out.
Juha
Quote:" the IS-2 was found to be unable to penetrate the frontal armour above 600m; at this distance the IS-2 was vulnerable to the Panther. "
If one look the penetration tables that is true for Panther's glacic plate but the turret front of Panther was penetrable to 122mm shell up to 2000+m. It was a clearly smaller targer than the glacic but also more often visible. And even without penetration a shell as heavy as 122mm might knock the turret out.
Juha
That is true [apologies for missing out the turret], but the IS-2 crews were not going to hit any target at 2,000m. Combat reports show the IS-2 was not up to design specifications, which I believe were something like it should be able to withstand a direct-hit from a 8.8cm round at over 1000m and be able to penetrate 160mm armour at the same distance. In fact, combat after combat showed the IS-2 to be vulnerable to the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II at all relevant combat ranges - obviously the vulnerability to the Panther was not at the same distances as the Tigers.
This doesn't mean the IS-2 was a particularly poor tank design; mostly the production process and "creature comforts" [like decent optical equipment] let it down. And when handled correctly the IS-2 was a dangerous machine, 13th August, 1944, 71st Independent Heavy Tank Regiment's 11 IS-2s blocked an attack made by 14 Tiger IIs, destroying four and damaging seven with a loss of three and seven damaged. Not too bad, but it wasn't an open field for long distance shooting - they engaged at 600m.
This doesn't mean the IS-2 was a particularly poor tank design; mostly the production process and "creature comforts" [like decent optical equipment] let it down. And when handled correctly the IS-2 was a dangerous machine, 13th August, 1944, 71st Independent Heavy Tank Regiment's 11 IS-2s blocked an attack made by 14 Tiger IIs, destroying four and damaging seven with a loss of three and seven damaged. Not too bad, but it wasn't an open field for long distance shooting - they engaged at 600m.
First of all, as Tomo and I have already wrote in this thread, 122mm gun was chosen over 100mm gun because of supply consideration. During war one used what one had. Nothing stupid on that, its much better to have 122mm gun and ammo to it than not have a gun or at least ammo to the gun. Noting stupid on that decision. the design team tried to answer the critic which their KV series had got and the appearence of T34/85 put them in tight spot.
Now IS-2 was capaple to knock out same sized German tank from normal battle ranges and had much better side protection than Panther. That it had trouble with 50% heavier Tuger II should surprise anyone and because Soviets were advancing towards Berlin not retreating towards it their heavy tank solution was much lighter than Germany's and IMHO rightly so. Simply IMHO 68ton tank was too heavy for 40s. And Soviets didn't put so much weight on A/T capacity of their heavy tanks than Germans and so have much heavier HE shell in their disposal.
BTW this thread wasn't on Eastern Front
Juha
Now IS-2 was capaple to knock out same sized German tank from normal battle ranges and had much better side protection than Panther. That it had trouble with 50% heavier Tuger II should surprise anyone and because Soviets were advancing towards Berlin not retreating towards it their heavy tank solution was much lighter than Germany's and IMHO rightly so. Simply IMHO 68ton tank was too heavy for 40s. And Soviets didn't put so much weight on A/T capacity of their heavy tanks than Germans and so have much heavier HE shell in their disposal.
BTW this thread wasn't on Eastern Front
Juha
Last edited:
Soren
Yes, JS series tanks suffered from low RoF and limited ammo supply but what were the other options?
100mm gun was in short supply and its ammo production low.
85mm, I don't know was it officially out but at least the KV series had got much critisism because it carried same gun than the medium T-34 there were lot of talk that that was not very satisfactory situation. There was also much critisim on the whole heavy tank concept because they had tendency to be left behind during a rapid advance, had problems with bridges and at times wrecked roads and so made life of supply and construct troops miserable. With T-34/85 the team knew that they needed to put a heavier gun in their new heavy tank and also top brass might well wanted heavier HE than the 85mm shell. The new T-34 could deliver 85mm fire and SUs heavier for breakthrough support. As I wrote earlier the design team was in a tight spot.
Juha
Yes, JS series tanks suffered from low RoF and limited ammo supply but what were the other options?
100mm gun was in short supply and its ammo production low.
85mm, I don't know was it officially out but at least the KV series had got much critisism because it carried same gun than the medium T-34 there were lot of talk that that was not very satisfactory situation. There was also much critisim on the whole heavy tank concept because they had tendency to be left behind during a rapid advance, had problems with bridges and at times wrecked roads and so made life of supply and construct troops miserable. With T-34/85 the team knew that they needed to put a heavier gun in their new heavy tank and also top brass might well wanted heavier HE than the 85mm shell. The new T-34 could deliver 85mm fire and SUs heavier for breakthrough support. As I wrote earlier the design team was in a tight spot.
Juha
Yet a shift wasn't made when the D-10 became readily available in late 44 ?
The IS-2 simply shouldn't have entered production before the D-10 entered full scale production, which was sometime late 44, it's that simple. The SU-100 entered production in late 44 after full production of the D-10 had ensued.
It had been far better to build more T-34/85's until the 10cm D-10 became available. Putting the 12.2cm gun on the IS-2 was pure stupidity and rendered the tank nomore effective in tank combat than the T-34/85, and in most cases even less effective actually. The overly cramped space meant that even Jagdtiger crews could reload their 12.8cm gun twice as fast as the IS-2 crews could their 12.2cm gun.
Also if you plan to put a gun on your tank which will only fire once every 30 seconds then you better also plan to put some damn good optics on it so you can take full advantage of each shot. But did the Soviets atleast do that ? No, nothing even approaching proper optics was put on that tank, further nessicating the need for a fast firing gun.
The IS-2 simply shouldn't have entered production before the D-10 entered full scale production, which was sometime late 44, it's that simple. The SU-100 entered production in late 44 after full production of the D-10 had ensued.
It had been far better to build more T-34/85's until the 10cm D-10 became available. Putting the 12.2cm gun on the IS-2 was pure stupidity and rendered the tank nomore effective in tank combat than the T-34/85, and in most cases even less effective actually. The overly cramped space meant that even Jagdtiger crews could reload their 12.8cm gun twice as fast as the IS-2 crews could their 12.2cm gun.
Also if you plan to put a gun on your tank which will only fire once every 30 seconds then you better also plan to put some damn good optics on it so you can take full advantage of each shot. But did the Soviets atleast do that ? No, nothing even approaching proper optics was put on that tank, further nessicating the need for a fast firing gun.
Last edited:
Soren
are you sure that there was enough D-10s and ammo to them to arm both SU-100s and JSs with it? After all part of SU-100 chassises were armed with 122mm gun. I cannot remember was that what was planned or because of supply problems with D-10 or/and its ammo.
Juha
are you sure that there was enough D-10s and ammo to them to arm both SU-100s and JSs with it? After all part of SU-100 chassises were armed with 122mm gun. I cannot remember was that what was planned or because of supply problems with D-10 or/and its ammo.
Juha
You keep saying this but so far I have not seen a single source. What refernces do you have that show the capabilities of Soviet Optics?
How about this?
"When I fired at the T-34 in the valley, I wasn't aware that there were a number of those monsters waiting two kilometers away at the edge of the forest. No sooner had I pulled the trigger than the Russian behemoth began firing. For once, the Russians struck our tank with their first round. "
from:
Rudolph Salvermoser, A Grodeutschland Veteran
and I gave several other instances earlier that are worth repeating:
Jentz, Panzertruppen 1
page 205:
The Russian tanks usually formed in a half circle, open
fire with their 7.62 cm guns on our Panzers already at a range
of 1000 meters and deliver enormous penetration energy with
high accuracy.
Our 5 cm Kw.K. tank guns can achieve penetrations only
on vulnerable locations under very special favorable condi-
tions at very close ranges under 50 meters. Our Panzers are
already knocked out at a range of several hundred meters.
Many times our Panzers were split open or the complete
commander's cupola of the Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV flew off from
one frontal hit. This is proof that the armor is insufficient, the
mounting for the commander's cupola on our Panzers is de-
ficient, and the accuracy and penetration ability of the Rus-
sian 7.62 cm tank guns are high.
page 206
The Panzer crews know they can already be knocked out at long range by enemy (Soviet) tanks
page 231
In correctly recognising his technical superiority in weapons the T34 already opens fire on German Panzers at ranges from 1200 to 1800 meters
page 233
Russian tank forces are good. The level of training also good
page 233
The rumors that Russian armor quality has become poorer are emphaticaly denied.
page 243
firing at long range they cause considerable losses to the German Panzers
The fantastic combat moral of the Russian tank crews has led to having to destroy stationary tanks that have already been hit five or six times.........the Russian crews remained fighting in their tanks so long as their weapons still could be fired
Sights of Soviet Tanks
I have yet to see a thread/site that has reliable data that shows Soviet Optics were not up to the job.
For one who hasn't seen either sides optics in real life you seem to bring forth a good case m_Kenny, but gaving seen the optics in person I can tell you that the Soviet ones are of very poor quality. Hence why you see it mentioned so many times in books on the subject, and hence why other countries who obtained Soviets tanks emmidiately changed the optics.
Also maybe you should take a look at the German Waprüf tests for an assessment on the Soviet optics. No praise is given, I can tell you that.
The quotes you present don't prove any form of acccuracy of the guns or quality of the optics, it simply states some incidents where Russian tank opened fire at 1,000 meters or more, which was very common btw. What was uncommon was for the Soviet tanks to hit anything at that range, hence Salvermoser's astonishment when the a Soviet tank for once hit with its first round.
Btw, Std. German practice was to open fire at distances much greater than 2km away. Nashorn crews reported IS-2 tanks were knocked at distances as great as 4.6km.
Also maybe you should take a look at the German Waprüf tests for an assessment on the Soviet optics. No praise is given, I can tell you that.
The quotes you present don't prove any form of acccuracy of the guns or quality of the optics, it simply states some incidents where Russian tank opened fire at 1,000 meters or more, which was very common btw. What was uncommon was for the Soviet tanks to hit anything at that range, hence Salvermoser's astonishment when the a Soviet tank for once hit with its first round.
Btw, Std. German practice was to open fire at distances much greater than 2km away. Nashorn crews reported IS-2 tanks were knocked at distances as great as 4.6km.
Last edited:
Those quotes seem to be from 1941 - 1942 when the Panzers in reference are 3.7cm KwK36 and maybe 5.0 KwK38 Pz.Kpfw IIIs and short-barrelled 7.5cm Pz.Kpfw Ds. It's no surprise that the Pz.IIIs, especially those without the L/60, had to close to 50 metres to gain a favourable condition to destroy a T-34. They didn't have to close to 50 metres to strike the tank; but it's clear it would have been ineffective.
It's also no surprise that a German tank crew would state that the T-34s were destroying them at "long range" when they felt they had to close to distances well below the usual combat ranges that we know from 1943 onwards (400 - 600m). If you think about a crew having to close to 100m to destroy its opponent, if the opponent can kill them at 300m - then it's three times the distance and a long way!
Those highlighted points, m_kenny, seem to be the reason that Tigers, Panthers and better weapons were available to the Wehrmacht a year or two after.
Let's not forget that the T-34 was the best tank in the world for some time after it's creation - but in 1941, there weren't that many. In Panzer Leader - Heinz Guderian states his shock during the initial invasion at meeting three T-34s in a village, which had to be dispatched at close range with 5.0cm AT weapons. In 1941, meeting a T-34 must have been like an American meeting a Tiger in 1944.
It's also no surprise that a German tank crew would state that the T-34s were destroying them at "long range" when they felt they had to close to distances well below the usual combat ranges that we know from 1943 onwards (400 - 600m). If you think about a crew having to close to 100m to destroy its opponent, if the opponent can kill them at 300m - then it's three times the distance and a long way!
Those highlighted points, m_kenny, seem to be the reason that Tigers, Panthers and better weapons were available to the Wehrmacht a year or two after.
Let's not forget that the T-34 was the best tank in the world for some time after it's creation - but in 1941, there weren't that many. In Panzer Leader - Heinz Guderian states his shock during the initial invasion at meeting three T-34s in a village, which had to be dispatched at close range with 5.0cm AT weapons. In 1941, meeting a T-34 must have been like an American meeting a Tiger in 1944.
Last edited:
Would love to. Despite many years around the forums I have never seen anything substantive about how effective Soviet optics were. Many claims are made but no hard information. The query is not how they compared toGerman models but rather if they were good enough to get hits at 1000 mtrs. ect.
In short did they do the job rather than did they win a design award.
The UK technical study of a T34 (completed in 1943) noted that though the way the optics were assembled was pretty basic and low tech it appeared to work.
