Rare Crazy Panzer Projekts.

CharlesBronson · Jul 22, 2005

Front and rear view of the "Kachzen" APC, despite the relative simplicity of this vehicle, only two protipes seems to be manufactured.
Lenght about 5 meters, weight 7 tons.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 25, 2005

An APC without a top to me is pretty much useless.

HealzDevo · Jul 30, 2005

I can think of where it would be useful. It would be easier to clean blood out of than if it had a roof to trap that blood inside the vehicle. But yes, it would be sniper bait. If the Allied snipers had heard of that vehicle I bet they were saying, 'yes, please give us a vehicle we can shoot at, Germans.' Maybe the idea is to put the driver and a passenger in the front, put people you don't want in the back, and drive near enemy lines and let the ALlies do the extermination work for you.

HealzDevo · Jul 30, 2005

Actually looking at it are you sure it didn't get manufactured under a different name? It looks similar to the SdKfz out of Bf1942 Forgotten Hope used by the Germans. Have to try to dig up some images of it for you.

plan_D · Jul 31, 2005

All APCs were open top in World War 2, the Allies had them too. It's not that bad, they can't be sniper bait in open field.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jul 31, 2005

Yeah but once you bring them into the urban type environment then you are fair game to them.

schwarzpanzer · Aug 15, 2005

Germany should have kept the limit at 60 tons. The King Tiger was 68 tons and that was too heavy - it's not like the Tiger couldn't deal with anything the Soviets or Western Allies threw at it, it only weighed 54 tons.

The JS2 (Soviet, aprox 45 tons), M26 Pershing (USA, aprox 50 tons) and Sherman Firefly (UK, aprox 30 tons) were easily capable of defeating the Tiger1, but not the Tiger2. A better proposition was the Panther2, which, like the Tiger1, also weighed aprox 55 tons.
Or, as some here have mentioned, the E-50 or E-75.

On the Maus:

There was a Maus Flakpanzer, armed with 2 88mm Flak guns.

Did the Mouse see any action?

Maybe 1 did at Kummersdorf, but it was destroyed by its crew, maybe before killing another tank - unknown.

The one at Kubinka wasn't completed before the German surrender and is actually 2 put together (hull/turret).

The thing that the German designers hadn't thought about was that it could be very easily destroyed if you used the right weapon- i.e. a tallboy

Strangely, it was very vulnerable to Molotov cocktails!

The reason the Panther II has a Panther G turret is because they were testing the chassis. I assume they would have fitted the 605 later on.

Probably. I try to found a pic of this turret but I failed

It was planned, but never actually done.

Does anyone here have the armour penetration data of the 75mmm L100?

I know this gun, along with the Maus' suspension was designed/built by Skoda.

All APCs were open top in World War 2

Not true, the Sherman/RAM Kangaroo wasn't:

http://tanxheaven.com/ljs/shervar/shervar.htm

plan_D · Aug 15, 2005

The Tiger I was superior to the IS-2, M26 and Sherman Firefly. All were not "easily capable" of destroying the Tiger I. In a straight shooting match the Tiger I was superior to all of them, the M26 and Firefly were both more durable, manuverable and reliable than the Tiger I. They both were inferior in armour protection. The IS-2 only carried 28 rounds, it had weak welding, it had a slow rate of fire due to two-piece loading and it was cramped. It also had inferior armour protection to the Tiger I although it was more reliable and easier to repair/build.

The Maus never saw any action. That is pure myth. The Maus was destroyed by it's "crew" and members of the production team.

Thank you, it's pretty obvious it was planned. That is why they were testing the chassis with a G turret first.

I did forget about the RAM Kangeroo, that's given.

Adler, APCs aren't supposed be operating in urban areas. They should be dropping off the troops before reaching the village, town or city so it can be cleared by the infantry and any supporting tanks. APCs are just armoured trucks to mobilise the infantry in the operational advance to keep them up with the armour.

schwarzpanzer · Aug 15, 2005

The Tiger I was superior to the IS-2, M26 and Sherman Firefly. All were not "easily capable" of destroying the Tiger I. In a straight shooting match the Tiger I was superior to all of them, the M26 and Firefly were both more durable, manuverable and reliable than the Tiger I. They both were inferior in armour protection. The IS-2 only carried 28 rounds, it had weak welding, it had a slow rate of fire due to two-piece loading and it was cramped. It also had inferior armour protection to the Tiger I although it was more reliable and easier to repair/build.

Heavily disagree there, unless you're talking about the Konigstiger?

Toe-to-toe, the Tiger was the worst there in all respects except flank protection, though the JS2 was close.

The Maus never saw any action. That is pure myth. The Maus was destroyed by it's "crew" and members of the production team.

Can't say definately one way or the other, I think it did, but was destroyed because:

1. The Ruskies got too close.

2. The scientists were valuable to the Soviets, more room to barter with.

Thank you, it's pretty obvious it was planned. That is why they were testing the chassis with a G turret first.

You're welcome, it is obvious, isn't it?

The turret and hull were made by different companies, always a bad thing IMHO.

plan_D · Aug 15, 2005

You disagree?

Which part to you disagree with? You believe that the M26 and Firefly could match a Tiger I in a straight shooting match?

The IS-2 was poorly built and suffered extensive armour trouble when welding failed. The Tiger I could destroy it at ranges up to and including 1000 metres.

Go look up armour values of all those tanks, the Tiger I was superior. It had superior firepower to the IS-2, Firefly and M26. It had superior armour protection than all of them. It had better optical equipment. Better radios.

In battle the Tiger I was superior to them. If you really want to discuss this with me properly, bring facts and sources to bare.

schwarzpanzer · Aug 16, 2005

The IS-2 was poorly built and suffered extensive armour trouble when welding failed. The Tiger I could destroy it at ranges up to and including 1000 metres.

True, but the late Tigers were poorly maintained/manned.

The IS2 was also not primarily an anti-tank weapon, but could still take out a TigerI at near twice 1000m.

Even vs a Tiger2, there was aprox an equal chance (proven), but admittedly the same with the Panther G.

Michael Wittmans Tiger was destroyed by a single Firefly, along with many others.

The M26 Zebra missions anihilated TigerI's.

bring facts and sources to bare.

OK, you asked for it!

All armour data is frontal, head on data (admiteddly where the Tiger loses)

All penetration data is @ 100mm range on homogenised nickel/steel vertical plate

PzVI Tiger I Ausf E and Ausf L

hull 100mm @ 66°

superstructure 100mm @ 80°

mantlet 110mm max @ vertical

gun: 88mm L56 KwK36

armour penetration:

AP (PzGr39(late) 177 mm

APCR (PzGr40) 224 mm

Sherman Firefly

hull 51mm @ 45°

superstructure 51mm @ 34°

mantlet 89mm @ round

gun: 76.2 mm L58 QF 17 Pdr

armour penetration:

APCBC 179 mm

APDS 253 mm

IS2M

hull 120mm @ 60°

superstructure 120mm @ 30°

mantlet 100mm @ round

gun: 122 mm L46 D-25

armour penetration:

APHE 145 mm

HVAP 205 mm

HEAT 200 mm

M26 Pershing

hull 76mm @ 37°

superstructure 102mm @ 44°

mantlet 114mm @ round

gun: 90 mm L52

armour penetration: APCBC 270 mm

NB: The Tiger and Firefly often added applique armour and/or spare tracklinks effectively increasing armour protection, more so on the Firefly.

Smokey · Aug 16, 2005

Japanese Heavy Tank Projekts

Super-Heavy Tank "O-I"

Moving fort or what?

Weight : 120 ton
Dimensions: 10.0 x 4.2 x 4.0(h) m
Armor (max) : 200 mm
Speed (max) : 25 km/hr
Engine : Gasoline Engine 550 PS/1500 rpm x 2
Armaments : 105 mm Cannon x 1, Type 1 37 mm x 1, Type 97 7.7 mm x
3
Crew : 11

Allegedly one was made and was shipped to Manchuria according to a engineer concerned with the project

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/O-I.htm

Experimental Ultra Heavy Tank
modification of the O-I Super Heavy Tank with 4 turrets

Type 4 Chi-To Medium Tank
Weight 30.0t
Crew 5
Length 6.73m
Width 2.87m
Height 2.87m
Min clearance 0.40m
Armor 75 - 35mm
Armament 75mm, 2 x MG
Engine Type 4 V12 Diesel with supercharger, 400hp
Max speed 45km/h
Obstacle 2.70m Trench

Six completed

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/japan/japan-tank.html

Soviet Heavy Tanks

SMK Heavy Experimental Tank

http://www.battlefield.ru/smk.html

T-35 Heavy Tank

The Russian "Crocodile"

T-35 Heavy Tank

A crap tank, but it looks impressive

http://www.battlefield.ru/t35.html

Not WW2, but interesting

The "Object 279" during trials. 1959-1960

The hull of the tank was covered by a thin elliptical shield. That shield protected the tank against HEAT ammunition and to prevent it from overturning during a nuclear explosion.
Another unusual feature of the tank was the chassis. It consisted of four tracks combined in pairs. Such construction increased the tank's height, but guaranteed that the tank would rarely get bogged down. The tank also had great tractability on snowy and swampy terrain. At the end of 1957, a single tank had been built, but after that the project was abandoned. The "Object 279" is now displayed at Kubinka.

http://www.battlefield.ru/is4.html

British A1E1 "Independent" Heavy Tank (1925)

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/BritishHeavyTanks.html

And of course the ultimate WW2 tank projekt, utterly insane;

P 1000 / P 1500

The numbers are the weights(!)

http://www.panzerschreck.de/panzer/pzkpfw/p1000.html

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1636

35.00m long X 14.00m wide X 11.00m tall and armed with 2 x 280mm naval guns!

Specifications for P 1000

Weight: 900000-1000000kg
Crew: - men
Engine: 2 x MAN V12Z32/44 Diesel / 24-cylinder / 2 x 8500hp
8 x Daimler-Benz MB501 Diesel / 20-cylinder / 8 x 2000hp
Speed: Road: 40km/h
Cross-Country: --km/h
Range: Road: ---km
Cross-Country: ---km
Fuel Capacity: --- litres
Lenght: 35.00m
Width: 14.00m
Height: 11.00m
Armament: 2 x 280mm SK.C/34 L/54.4
1 x 128mm Kanone
8 x 20mm Flak 38
2 x 15mm Mauser MG 151/15
Ammo: -- rounds
Armor (mm/angle): Turret Front: 360mm / ?
Turret Side: 220mm / ?
Turret Rear: ? / ?
Turret Top: 150mm / ?

http://pedg.org/panzer/public/website/p1000.htm#1000

P 1000 turret ended up at coastal defence battery (Batterie Oerlander) near Trondheim, Norway (!)

plan_D · Aug 16, 2005

The Tiger Is were not poorly manned, they were always given to the best of Wehrmacht. How they were maintained has nothing to do with their combat capability. If a tank breaks down in the field it's not recorded as being lost to enemy action but to mechanical faults.

IS-2 vs Tiger I -

The IS-2 was not a primary anti-tank weapon, you're right. It lacked the punch of a effectively built tank. It had a slow RoF with two piece loading, it carried more HE shells than AP shells and it only had 28 rounds. At 2000 metres the IS-2 would never be able to strike the Tiger I, it's optics were not capable of such accurate aiming. Even if it did, the shell would most likely bounce off.

The IS-2 was definately not an equal to the Tiger II in a straight shooting match, that is far from proven. The claims of Soviet tank crews is over the top and mistaken identity on the part of Soviet crews. They would often state they had destroyed more Tigers, Elefants and King Tigers than were actually there.

The IS-2M was designed to be invincible to all enemy armour. On paper it may look so, as it carried an equal of 120 mm armour at maximum. This isn't so though because the IS-2M was the product of poor casting, it was vulnerable at 1000 metres to the Tiger I and Tiger II.

Let me quote Russian Tanks of World War II - Stalins Armoured Might by Tim Bean and Will Flower -

"The new hull could withstand a direct shot from a German 8.8 cm armour-piercing round at over 1000m, whilst its own gun could penertrate 160mm of armour at the same range, if its gunners could hit the target."

That does sound impressive but if we continue from the same book -

"In reality, the IS-2 had several major shortcomings. The designers were aware that the IS-2's effectiveness in combat was restricted by a slow rate of fire (just 2 or 3 rounds a minute) and stowage room for only 28 rounds. The former factor was partially solved in 1944, when an improved D-25T gun was introduced with a more efficient breech. Combat experience also revealed that the 122mm gun could not penetrate the Panther's sloped armour above 600m, whilst splintering remained a problem for the IS-2's own armour. Tempering the frontal armour to very strong hardness proved too complex and costly to introduce, and the deficiency was allowed to remain."

From another section of IS-2's in combat -

"...although post-battle analysis again revealed that the IS-2's armour was vulnerable up to 1000m because of faulty casting.".

Basing armour penertration at 100 metres is a little unfair. It should be 500-600 metres where most tank conflict took place. The German cannon were more capable at destroying heavier armour at longer range due to higher velocity.

As you will notice with the Tiger Is 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 with Pzgr40, it could pierce 123mm of armour at 1,500m. That means, even if the IS-2's armour was fully capable, it could still be destroyed or at least badly damaged at 1,500 metres.

I really do not know why you say the Tiger I loses on frontal armour, it's armour protection on the front is great than the Firefly and Pershing on paper, while being greater than that of the IS-2 in practice.

The armour on the front, from Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War 2 by Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle -

(mm/angle)

Turret: 100/8
Superstructure: 100/10
Hull: 100/24
Gun mantlet: 100-110/0

In a straight shooting match from 3000m and closing, the Tiger I in practice wins time and time again with an increase in armour protection, gun power, faster RoF, better optics, better radio and was actually one kilometre faster than the IS-2M.

The Tiger I was all-round superior to the IS-2M.

I will get to how the Tiger I was superior to the others later.

schwarzpanzer · Aug 17, 2005

Another excellent post Smokey!

The SMK is a great tank as it was the forerunner to the excellent KV-1.

The Tiger Is were not poorly manned, they were always given to the best of Wehrmacht.

As a rule, yes, but a lot ended up with Hitler Youth crews, hardly the best in the Wehrmacht!

How they were maintained has nothing to do with their combat capability. If a tank breaks down in the field it's not recorded as being lost to enemy action but to mechanical faults.

Yes it does, plus if they are lost, they are lost!

IS-2 vs Tiger I -

Correct on RoF, but wrong on lacking punch, even it's HE shells could rip a Tiger apart.

The optics varied, usually poor accuracy, but that was more down to the crew.

the IS-2M was the product of poor casting

Not usually. That's just propaganda. Surprisingly a lot of Panthers and KT's had poor quality armour!

it was vulnerable at 1000 metres to the Tiger I and Tiger II.

True, in fact the 75mm L48 (PzIV, Hetzer, StugIIIG) was capable of desroying an IS2M turret frontally at 1,500m!

Combat experience also revealed that the 122mm gun could not penetrate the Panther's sloped armour above 600m

There's something wrong there.

Basing armour penertration at 100 metres is a little unfair.

Yes it is, I have better info somewhere, but that's the best I had at the time, sorry!

It should be 500-600 metres where most tank conflict took place. The German cannon were more capable at destroying heavier armour at longer range due to higher velocity.

Yes, but higher velocity weapons suffer excessively from shatter-gap at 500-600m. Also higher velocity weapons lose accuracy very quickly.

As you will notice with the Tiger Is 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 with Pzgr40, it could pierce 123mm of armour at 1,500m. That means, even if the IS-2's armour was fully capable, it could still be destroyed or at least badly damaged at 1,500 metres.

Yes but by the time the IS2M came out, Pzgr40 rounds were no longer available, or at least very, very, very rare.

I really do not know why you say the Tiger I loses on frontal armour, it's armour protection on the front is great than the Firefly and Pershing on paper, while being greater than that of the IS-2 in practice.

The Sherman maybe, but not the IS2M and certainly not the M26.

The armour on the front, from Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War 2 by Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle -

(mm/angle)

Turret: 100/8
Superstructure: 100/10
Hull: 100/24
Gun mantlet: 100-110/0

Those are the exact figure I gave!!
Only my angles are from the horizontal, yours are from the vertical.

In a straight shooting match from 3000m and closing, the Tiger I in practice wins time and time again with an increase in armour protection, gun power, faster RoF, better optics, better radio and was actually one kilometre faster than the IS-2M.

Worse armour, less gun power unless using the mega-rare Pzgr40, but the other points are right, however:

On the points of; cost, weight, size, unable to cope with sub-zero mornings, acceleration, reliability, complicated build, fuel consumption and weight of numbers it loses hands down, which are much more important factors.

I will get to how the Tiger I was superior to the others later.

The Firefly it was equal to, the Pershing?? I'd love to see you explain that one!

plan_D · Aug 17, 2005

Look at all German records, they state that a tank lost to mechanical failure is exactly that a mechanical loss not one to enemy action. Exactly right that it is lost but something lost to mechanical failure could be reclaimed later on, recovered and repaired. That is why it's a mechanical listing, just in case they arrive back there and the tank is still there. They know which it is and they can recover it. No point in taking one home with a shattered barrel and blown out fuel tank.

The optics varied from bad to worse. It's a known fact of Soviet optical equipment, they were poor pieces of equipment. It was a matter of crew ability and the inexperience crew of a Tiger would still have a better advantage.

Prove it is propaganda. You cannot just come out and state that without proof. The Panther and King Tigers at the late stages in the war is true, they were lacking manganese and had to use high carbon steel. However, the case in point is the IS-2, the IS-2 had poor casting and I even provided a source.

Go tell the Soviet tank crews there is something wrong there. You obviously have not read combat reports. There isn't something wrong at all, it was a proven fact. The Soviet tankers had to report this fact or get more of their men killed by giving away positions too early.

Higher velocity weapons are more accurate than low velocity. They drop speed quickly over extreme distances but with a mass of weight in shell, they keep the energy up to be accurate enough to strike a target 2000m.

The IS-2M had poor quality armour to the point that it's armour protection was less that of the Tiger I. That is why I stated in practice it's armour was less. You have not provided any source that states the poor quality of IS-2M was propaganda.

Again, the point of armour was made and you have not countered it.

It all depends on how many IS-2s the Tiger could take out before being taken out itself. In reality, in a straight shooting match from 3000m closing the Tiger would win, time and time and time and time again.

From a war point, the Sherman was better than every tank on the field but go tell a Sherman crew that.

You know what I'd love, a serious post by you with proper sources.

schwarzpanzer · Aug 18, 2005

Exactly right that it is lost but something lost to mechanical failure could be reclaimed later on, recovered and repaired.

Unless the enemy now controls that territory, of course.

Again, the point of armour was made and you have not countered it.

I am above going into an anti-Soviet propaganda arguement, sorry.

Admitedly average IS2 armour quality and accuracy was worse than the Tigers, but not as bad as you make out.

The last-of-line IS2M's armour quality was probably better than the Tigers the deprivated of materials, bombed-daily, slave labour staffed factories turned out (in pathetic numbers).

Higher velocity weapons are more accurate than low velocity. They drop speed quickly over extreme distances but with a mass of weight in shell, they keep the energy up to be accurate enough to strike a target 2000m.

I know, I didn't mean that.

What I mean is high velocity weapons wear the barrel quickly, so if either the RoF is kept too high and/or the gun sees a lot of use, accuracy ends up wildly innacurate.

The Tigers gained little advantages from having a HV gun, unlike the KT, even then at combat ranges of 500-600m the D-25T PaK44 were superior to the Pak43. Although your KwK36 has the advantage there.

In reality, in a straight shooting match from 3000m closing the Tiger would win, time and time and time and time again.

A King Tigers attrition rate vs the JS2M was aproximately 50/50. I understand your love for the Tiger slightly, as the TigerI was almost equal I suppose, you've changed my mind slightly there, but I'd still plump for the JS2M as a lot were in fact excellently made.

It all depends on how many IS-2s the Tiger could take out before being taken out itself. In reality, in a straight shooting match from 3000m closing the Tiger would win, time and time and time and time again

.

No chance, a good crew vs a good crew, if both were reasonable batches then the IS2M would win, no two ways about it.

The 1st JS2's were anihilated by Tigers, yes, but the 1st KT's were also beaten by IS2's.

From a war point, the Sherman was better than every tank on the field but go tell a Sherman crew that.

How? The T-34 'out-classes' it.

You know what I'd love, a serious post by you with proper sources.

You know what I'd love? You to get over yourself.

plan_D · Aug 21, 2005

The point is you have to list it as a mechanical loss just in case you get back to the ground. The Allies, especially the Americans, would abandon almost anything because they knew they had it all in high supply. A Tiger tank that's broken down due to a clutch problem would be left by the Americans if that area is still anything near a battlefield.

The IS-2M casting was left as it was, the Soviet Union thought to improve the armour through hardening would be too expensive. What I have read states the IS-2 was poorly made throughout it's WW2 life.

It would have been much less accurate at long distances than the Tiger I. It had inferior optical equipment and a less accurate, slow velocity cannon.

The KwK36 would be superior to those, as you said. And as the Tiger I was equipped with the KwK36 it applies directly to this discussion.

The King Tiger isn't up in this discussion though and I've read the combat reports of actions against the Kings. The Soviet tank crews often reported there to be more Kings destroyed than were actually on the battlefield. Another point about the King is that it was designed for the west, not the east. The German High Command recognised the King to be too heavy for effective action in the east, that's why it didn't have an amazing time out there.
However, the King destroyed more enemy armour than the amount of Kings that got destroyed. Another point, the King would break-down then be destroyed by the enemy when they didn't know it had broken down. The Soviets would record it as a 'kill' the Germans would mark it as a mechanical loss.
The kill:loss ratio for the King against all other armies is much in it's favour. I don't quite believe it's 1:1 against the IS-2 but then I've never read any different.

From 3000m the Tiger would have the first advantage, it had better long range capability. It could be hitting the IS-2 before the IS-2 could strike back. And the Tiger wouldn't pierce the IS-2Ms frontal armour, even at 3000m it would shake the crew and could possibly be lucky enough to knock it out through other damage.
A good crew in the Tiger would be able to use all it's advantages and increase their advantage. The IS-2 crew has to make up for the lack of equipment to match the Tiger I.

You can never go off combat alone but if you read up on many of the combats between IS-2s and German armour it's down to tactics and skill in concealment for the IS-2. It was a small tank compared to the Tiger I, it could hide well.
I've read an action between one Panther Ausf G and a platoon of IS-2Ms. The Panther destroyed three before retreating. The IS-2Ms were being knocked out before they had time to react as the Panther would keep moving. Obviously, the Panther crew was remarkable but it still proves that the IS-2M was nothing special.

The T-34 far from out-classes the Sherman. The T-34 lacks the equipment of the Sherman, for a start. The Sherman is more durable, more manuverable and easier to build than the T-34. The Sherman 76s had enough firepower to match the T-34. The T-34 suffered greatly from the same problems as the Sherman against German armour, they were both weak and were knocked out in droves but they just kept coming. In Korea, in every encounter between Shermans and T-34s, the Shermans came out on top. They were M4A8(76W)s against T-34/85-I.

You'd love that? Well, keep dreamin' - it isn't going to happen.

schwarzpanzer · Aug 22, 2005

I suppose it's a matter o opinion on the breakdowns (new discussion thread?), but even if it's not on enemy territory it may be 'written off'.

The IS-2M casting was left as it was, the Soviet Union thought to improve the armour through hardening would be too expensive. What I have read states the IS-2 was poorly made throughout it's WW2 life.

Correct for the IS2, airbubbles mainly due to poor casting, but quality did improve with the IS2M and hardness/malleability was usually decent.

It would have been much less accurate at long distances than the Tiger I. It had inferior optical equipment and a less accurate, slow velocity cannon.

Well, truth be told 'a poor workman always blames his tools'. A few Tigers were blasted at aprox 2000m metres by competent crews, who were sadly in short supply. Kinda like the Zeitzevs of the Russian infantry.

A lot of the crews were women too remember! (PMT? )

It had inferior optical equipment and a less accurate, slow velocity cannon.

Correct on the 1st 2, but not by that much, the cannon was actually HV, though obviously not as much as the 88/L71, but IIRC better than the KwK36/56?

The KwK36 would be superior to those, as you said. And as the Tiger I was equipped with the KwK36 it applies directly to this discussion.

Yeah, it's due to 2 things:

1. You made a good point.

2. Shatter-gap (important you learn of this, trust me!)

Another point, the King would break-down then be destroyed by the enemy when they didn't know it had broken down.

True everywhere, but a lot of times the crew would be inside, a broken KT was still very lethal.

I don't quite believe it's 1:1 against the IS-2 but then I've never read any different.

Not in open country as much, but in urban areas that's right.

And the Tiger wouldn't pierce the IS-2Ms frontal armour, even at 3000m it would shake the crew and could possibly be lucky enough to knock it out through other damage.

That's the point you made, good job! Its more due to the RoF though that, nit accuracy.

But an IS2 round didn't exactly rely on penetration, you get me?

1 122mm round could concuss the crew or rip the turret clean off!

Though if an 88 hit an IS2, the crew might run for it!

The Panther destroyed three before retreating. The IS-2Ms were being knocked out before they had time to react as the Panther would keep moving. Obviously, the Panther crew was remarkable but it still proves that the IS-2M was nothing special.

The Panther A onwards was actually roughly equal to the ISM (OK then, maybe slightly better!) and superior to the TigerI in most respects believe it or not!

The T-34 lacks the equipment of the Sherman, for a start.

Yeah, smoke dischargers etc, but radios ended up being fitted.

Something you may want to know is T34's were NEVER fitted with bedsprigs - MYTH!

Sherman is more durable, more manuverable and easier to build than the T-34.

Maybe (except radial engined versions), false, dunno too many variants.

The Sherman 76s had enough firepower to match the T-34.

Much better than the /76 much worse than the /85.

The T-34 suffered greatly from the same problems as the Sherman against German armour, they were both weak and were knocked out in droves but they just kept coming. In Korea, in every encounter between Shermans and T-34s, the Shermans came out on top. They were M4A8(76W)s against T-34/85-I.

Yeah, but it's just the tactics though, the Russians Korean/Chinese were stuck in WW1 using 'human wave' tactics - very silly indeed! Same with their infantry, aircraft etc.

You'd love that? Well, keep dreamin' - it isn't going to happen.

Heheh!

plan_D · Aug 22, 2005

Look at German after-combat reports; losses are listed by cause of loss.

The IS-2M armour wasn't as strong as the statistics make out. Combat reports prove so.

The IS-2M crew had to be very good to make up for the IS-Ms short fall. A good workman would blame his bad tools if he couldn't do anything with them.

I don't rank the D-25T above the KwK36 - certainly not. The KwK36 was capable of destroying the IS-2M above regular combat ranges, that means it's a more than adequete cannon. An argument you use for the 17pdr being superior due to the 8.8cm because it's a smaller shell, remember the D-25T is 12.2cm!

Yes, the King could still be deadly but a lot of the time even when the crew had abandoned the King the Soviets would destroy the King and claim it as active.

I would like a source for that, please. I do doubt the Tiger and IS-2 were equal in kill:loss.

The KwK36 had a faster RoF to the D-25T. The D-25T only achieved a 2-3 shells a minute RoF. Also, the German crews were generally superior to that of the Soviets which gave the Tiger I an even bigger increase in RoF. Not only that, the Tiger I was a more accurate tank due to superior optics.
The D-25T wasn't a weak cannon at short ranges but it was lacking at long ranges. As combat reports showed the D-25T was often unable to knock a Panther out at ranges beyond 600m. The Tiger I armour wasn't much less than that of the Panther on the front, it would be able to withstand a blow at 1000m. The fact is, at 1000m, the D-25T would have to rely on luck when, and if, it hit the target. The KwK36 was well known to be knocking out IS-2Ms at 1000m. At 2000-3000m the KwK36 has the advantage through optical superiority, it's not a case of the IS-2M abandoning after being hit, the KwK36 could shake the crew to hamper their progress and there is always the possibility of armour failure and hitting vital spots. A Panther was knocked out by a Sherman in Normandy at 600m when the Sherman struck between it's chassis and turret, jamming the turret.

The Panther G was capable of destroying the IS-2M at 800m. I firmly believe the Panther G was the best all-round tank of the entire war. I would highly rate the Panther G above the IS-2M and I would rate it above the Tiger I. The point was though, a Tiger could have done the same. The Tiger I had a more powerful cannon than the Panther at long ranges, the weight of shell made sure of it. The Panther's cannon would start dropping away from it's extremely high velocity due to the low weight of shell while the KwK36 8.8cm had much more kinetic energy due to large weight.

Radios did end up being fitted but even in 1945 not all T-34s had radio. Their equipment was still inferior. And I've never heard that myth.

It was certainly more durable. T-34s broke down a lot, certainly a lot more than people seem to believe. The narrowness of the Sherman did make it more manuverable. The T-34 had wide tracks giving it better cross-country ability. Too many variants for the Sherman? Certainly not. There was M4, M4A1, M4A2, M4A3, M4A4 all of which were easily tooled up for fitting the 76mm after it was brought into service. All other variants are special fittings. The Sherman was built in massive numbers and certainly was easier to build.

Not largely inferior to the T-34/85. A Sherman 76 would be a match for a T-34/85.

They weren't stuck in WWI - they were just unable to match the ability of the Allied troops. The point still stands that Shermans defeated T-34s.

reddragon · Aug 22, 2005

I was under the impression that the Russian 122 mm was not as effective a weapon as the German 88 mm.

Rare Crazy Panzer Projekts.

Senior Master Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Lieutenant Colonel

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Airman

Lieutenant Colonel

Senior Airman

Lieutenant Colonel

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Lieutenant Colonel

Senior Airman

Lieutenant Colonel

Senior Airman

Lieutenant Colonel

Senior Airman

Lieutenant Colonel

Airman 1st Class

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads