There is so much wrong with this thread, I dont know where to start. Even the most basic facts are being bent by the Russian side.
Firstly, the T-34/76 cannot penetrate the long barrel stug, or the glacis of the Panzer IV. Why? Because even the long barrel F-34 has half the velocity of a 17 pounder, 30% less than a US 76mm, and the same as a US 75mm. Its quate a stretch to say the F-34 can penetrate a tank which gives problems for obviously superior weapons. Dont even bot trying to tell me a gun which fired a projectile at 650m/s is comparable with a gun of 1000m/s. That completely unbelievable.
So where do these stories of the 76mm killing everything head on come from? From before the Stug and IV had 80mm of armor. It was nearly a year before they got long barrels and that extra 30mm of armor. During that time, the F-34 and 75mm were quite capable of killing them out to 800m.
But its only 30mm extra, thats not so much, is it? There is quite a difference between 50 and 80mm, seeing as 50mm is about 25% less than the penetration of the F-34 at 500m, while 80mm is more than 30% more than the penetration at 500m, and indeed more than at point blank range.
When it comes to the T-34 being penetrated, here is the thing, nobody has ever been able to prove the T-34 and IS-2 were ever produced with armor less brittle than 350BHN. The Sherman used about 250BHN armor, while the German tanks about 280. Because of that, the T-34 could be penetrated by the 50mm of the Panzer III at over 500m, while the Sherman was completely immune to it over 250m.
Now why is the hardness of armor so important? Wouldnt harder be better? Not at all. Harder is more brittle, and so it breaks easily. In fact, 350BHN armor is half as effective as 250BHN armor, and 280BHN is actually 85% stronger than 350BHN.
Because of the hardness, Russian armor was extremely vulnerable. Even the Glacis of the IS2 has had spall due to the 50mm. There are countless claims of 75mm L/48 shells penetrating IS-2. There are also hundred of T-34 destroyed by Panzer III. In fact, the PIII was used until 1943, when it was pulled back and re-issued as a command vehicle.
You guys know Whittman? The Tiger ace? Well he started in the PIII, racked up dozens of T-34 kills, and even after he was transfered to a Tiger regiment, they kept him in the command PIII because he was the best person at using it. He didnt get his Tiger until months later.
When it comes to the IS-2 and SU-122 cannon, neither were intended as tank killers. In fact, the 122mm was issued with only one shell type, HE. There was no AP, and anybody who says otherwise is making it up. They produced a HEAT shell which was very ineffective, and it barely saw service. The 122mm could not penetrate a Tiger or KT frontally at any range. In fact, a SU-122 hit a Tiger on the side at 50mm and the shell did not penetrate. Why? Because its HE, its got a contact fuse. Unless the fuse is removed, the shell has nearly no value as a tank killer.
But doesnt the 122mm have this huge HE charge that can blow turrets off? Not even close. It has 3kg of HE, which is a joke. Thats less than the Panzerfaust. Thats what the completely ineffective RPG-40 had.
Comparing the 122, and even the 152, to other weapons really highlights the ineffectiveness of the weapons. The nebelwerfer has 90 and 110lbs of HE in it, the 60lb rocket is obvious, so is the 30lb, and those were nearly completely useless against tanks. In fact, even the NW could not destroy the Tiger I with the thinner top armor when Otto Carius was attacked by his own side.
If you want me to believe a HE shell with 3kg of explosives is going to kill the best tanks of the war, its not happening.
If the Su-122 was even supposed to be tank killer, then why was it issued to support regiments alongside the Su-76. Because it was for support, and thats what it excelled at. Just because it wasnt a great tank killer, doesnt mean it wasnt good at what it was meant for.
The only real Russian tank killers were the 85mm and 100mm. The 85 was equivalent to the German 75mm L/48, and the US 76mm. If you read German accounts the performance of the two was the same, and its verified by the numbers.
There is one massive problem with both the 76 and 85, the speed of the shells causes a very large "shatter gap", where between 200 and 1100m, the shells will shatter on contact with the front armor of the Tiger. Solution? Dont attack a Tiger head on. They didnt have any real issue with the IV or Stug, the shatter gap was extremely small, so much as to be ignored.
All high velocity tank guns have this issue, its just far less pronounced for the Germans, because their guns were far more powerful compared to the armor they face.
Now if you Ruskie fans really dont believe me about the quality of Russian armor, lets make some comparisons. Try and follow, because it cant get any clearer.
The 17 pounder and 75mm L/70 have nearly the same penetration, about 125mm@500m@30. The 17 pounder will easily punch holes in the late war Panther which was produced with 85mm 300BHN armor. The IS-2 has 100mm of 350-400BHN armor. Its quite safe to say they are comparable.
So if the 17 pounder can penetrate the Panther, its quite safe to say the 75mm L/70 will do the same to the IS-2 at the same range.
What am I getting at? Well, if you dont think the 88mm can penetrate the IS-2, then perhaps you should consider that the 88mm L/56 in the Tiger I will penetrate more the 30% more armor than the 75mm L/70 at beyond 500m. Its quite safe to say the 88 could make some problems for the IS-2. The IS-2 would need to have 115mm of armor to be able to take a hit from the 88mm at the same range a Panther can take a hit from the 17 pounder, and thats assuming the IS-2 has the fortune of having the same armor quality as the poorly made Panther armor. Comparing the IS-2 to a high quality Panther would blow it out of the water.
Then there is the sights. Do you guys know what a stadia sight is? Thats what the Russians had, and they are only really accurate under 800m. There Germans on the other hand had some of the best coincidence rangefinders ever made. Whats the big deal? Well, even the best gunner can barely get within 200m of a target when using a stadia sight, while anybody can get within 50m on the first shot when using a proper coincidence rangefinder.
The Russians equiped post war tanks with a handheld coincidence rangefinder, but at the length of the rangefinder is one of its most important features, the Russian ones are much of a joke. They are no more accurate than Stadia. In fact, they never found a way to fix the problem until they started using laser rangefinders in the late part of the last century.
Until you actually take a look though the sights of a T-34 will you realize exactly how hard it is to use. Its this yellow tinted piece of garbage, while the Germans have these extremely nice Zeiss optics. Its night and day, no comparison at all. People say the Coincidence rangefinders take to much time, but people who say that have no merit. Anybody who knows about stadia knows you have to take your sight off the target to compare it to a scale, and if the target is in camo or not the same height as the tank you are calibrated to fight, then you are screwed. Thats why no nation but the Russians use them. Its the worse possible option.
The reasons just keep going on and on and on.
You cant just tell me a Russian conscript said something, as people say a lot of things. Do you believe what you hear from our own soldiers down at the bar? Im sure you believe those guys who run around claiming to be SEALs, right? Then why would you believe someone who has no scientific support in any fashion at all? In fact, is counteracted by every piece of science I can find.
You cant just say you heard some story, because the other side has people who say just to opposite. You have to have science on your side, and thats all that matters in an argument like this.
