Vanir Ausf B Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Well not reliably and consistently at least. I've had one Panther literally fire almost its entire ammo loadout (37 shots) at one IS-2 at 1200m. As soon as an IS-2 is only slightly angled, its turret just shrugs off everything that comes flying at it. In fact I have noticed Panthers to refuse to shoot at angled IS-2, presumable estimating their chances of destroying it rather realistically. Yes, I wrote that in haste. Let me clarify by saying that the Panther can penetrate the lower hull out past 1000 meters. The upper hull is pretty much impossible for anything short of -- maybe -- a Jagdtiger. The rounded front turret and mantlet will give highly variable results, similar to Soviet 85mm or US 76mm vs. the Panther turret. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerKat Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Here's an IS1 I was playing in a game with. He took the full ammo load of 3 mKIV's That's a tough tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amizaur Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 I guess that the Is-2 hard and brittle cast armor would crack and break subjected to so many 75mm hits - just like German armor of Tigers 1 and 2 cracked and broke after multiple hits in Russian tests . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 It may have. It was particularly prone to spalling. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 I recall a Russian tanker anecdote that they were impressed with the lack of spalling from American armor. Russian armor was very hard - and very brittle. After the war US developed 'laminate' sandwich armor for its armored cars. The outer layer was very hard, the inner layer was softer and had more give. The ultimate evolution of that was ceramic armor. A very hard ceramic plate backed by very soft steel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noxnoctum Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Reading this thread really makes me wish we could get an Arab-Israeli war CM . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Reading this thread really makes me wish we could get an Arab-Israeli war CM . Me too. I've been plugging for that for years. No idea if or when we might see that, but not soon is my guess. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Why would any Soviet tank commander take up hull down positions with an IS-2? They were breakthrough tanks, designed to shrug off, or at the least not explode, when they were hit by any of the main weapons manning the forward defensive lines. WW2 tanks couldnt accuratley fire on the move. So exchanging rounds with an enemy meant stopping the tank. Why not use the advantage of a hull down position if the tank has to stop moving anyways? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foreigner Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Going back to the point how IS-2 was so much "lighter" than comparable German designs. IS-2 had both the engine and the transmission/final drive at the back. German WWII tanks (at least from PzKpfw III on up) had the transmission/final drive in front. That means you have a heavy driveshaft running the length of the vehicle. On heavier tanks, just that adds several tons. But this also results in the need for a taller profile, and larger armored volume, adding additional weight, which in turn requires a more powerful engine and stronger suspension ... Coupled with the German weapon designers' tendency to overengineer everything you get the vicious circle idea. Granted, the German approach has its benefits. The turret can be placed more in the middle (see how forward IS-2's turret is). The middle placement reduces crew compartment "travel" especially over rough terrain, creating more comfortable crew conditions. The chance to stick the gun in the mud in an unexpected "dive" is also lower. You spread the weight of the turret more evenly on the suspension. And you don't have to turn the gun back during transport. I am less certain about the claimed degree of additional protection forward transmission placement gives to the crew. On one hand, there's more iron/steel between the incoming round and the crew. On the other hand, it doesn't cover the whole front - moreover, it is fairly low in the hull, where the chances of hit are not big to begin with. Also, now there is a greater chance that even a non-penetrating hit might disable the transmission and immobilize the tank, which greatly increases the vulnerability. In the end, I believe history has provided the verdict - to the best of my knowledge, no modern main battle tank has the engine and transmission/final drive at opposite ends of the vehicle... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Why would any Soviet tank commander take up hull down positions with an IS-2? We've had this same discussion forever regarding PzIV. A hull-down PzIV is going to get hit on its 50mm front turret plate. A fully exposed PzIV is going to share some of those hits with the thicker hull armor. So hull-down seems disadvantageous. If I recall the original discussion the crucial factor was range. A reduced target size at a great enough range greatly reduced the chance of being hit at all. But at relatively close range hit probablility goes up - and hit probability on a hull down vehicle means turret front hit probability. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alchenar Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 That seems like a bit of a fallacy. The choice is not between 1) shell hits turret or hull and 2) shell hits turret but rather 1) shell hits turret or hull and 2) shell hits turret or ground beneath turret Or to put another way, if the enemy gunner is good enough to be hitting where he aims then he'll aim for the turret regardless of whether the tank is hull down or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I agree. At any given range the turret presents the same size target whether the hull is visible or not. Ergo, the probability of hitting it remains the same in either case. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Or to put another way, if the enemy gunner is good enough to be hitting where he aims then he'll aim for the turret regardless of whether the tank is hull down or not. Every gunner has a distribution, usually a bell curve. A better gunner just has a narrower one. Unless the gunner and the situation are such that there is no realistic chance of a miss on a turret-sized target at all the hull-down situation leads to less hits. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 In the end, I believe history has provided the verdict - to the best of my knowledge, no modern main battle tank has the engine and transmission/final drive at opposite ends of the vehicle... The Merkava has its drive in the front. It's also rather heavy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Engine and transmission both up front aren't 'opposite ends', though, Merkava is not exactly a design success. For one thing it had an annoying problem with heat ripples coming off the forward engine deck distorting the view through the gunner's sight. And to uparmor that big bow you need to do a LOT of uparmoring, its like a manmade mountain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 poesel71 - the Swedish S tank also puts the engine up front, to protect the crew. The Merkava copied its low profile, as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skwabie Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Engine and transmission both up front aren't 'opposite ends', though, Merkava is not exactly a design success. For one thing it had an annoying problem with heat ripples coming off the forward engine deck distorting the view through the gunner's sight. And to uparmor that big bow you need to do a LOT of uparmoring, its like a manmade mountain. /OT on Read an article on a mil magazine that the Merk was really a compromise with the engine up front design. The Israelis lacked good metallurgy to produce decent composite armor, hence put the engine box in front to protect the fighting compartment behind it. Considering a small and recent nation Israel is I tend to think it says the truth. /OT off 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Skwabie - and you would be wrong. The earliest mark I model - based on British designs incidentally - had only rolled homogenous armor, and the mark II model had only that plus spacing. But the mark III had modular composite armor, and the current mark IV Merkava has a "composite matrix of laminated ceramic steel-nickel alloy" (sloped, modular). The mark IV appeared in 2003. So for over a decade, the Merkava has had (nearly) state of the art composite armor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 The major reason why the Markava has the engine in front is that it has an APC-like infantry compartment in the back, which needs a back door, otherwise their exit would be a little too Private Ryan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 From everything I've read about the Merkava, the crew is more important than the tank to a nation that small, so having the engine in front just ups their survivability. The compartment in the back is primarily used to transport rescued crew that has bailed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skwabie Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Skwabie - and you would be wrong. The earliest mark I model - based on British designs incidentally - had only rolled homogenous armor, and the mark II model had only that plus spacing. But the mark III had modular composite armor, and the current mark IV Merkava has a "composite matrix of laminated ceramic steel-nickel alloy" (sloped, modular). The mark IV appeared in 2003. So for over a decade, the Merkava has had (nearly) state of the art composite armor. JC I've apparently sold off the mags last time I moved apartment. But it was a rather nice article which went in-depth about Israeli Merks. IIRC even the Merkava IV's composite armor was still not up to par with the latest western design at the time, hence they used heavy sloping and whatnot. But knowing these stuff is still class, I digress. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 That seems like a bit of a fallacy. The choice is not between 1) shell hits turret or hull and 2) shell hits turret but rather 1) shell hits turret or hull and 2) shell hits turret or ground beneath turret Or to put another way, if the enemy gunner is good enough to be hitting where he aims then he'll aim for the turret regardless of whether the tank is hull down or not. That's not the way it works as gunners and rifle men tend due to training aim centre of mass, as you're trying to maximising the hit chance to qualify during qualifcation shoots. on a fig 11 shot grouping is around the stomach or chest depending if the shooter is prone or standing unsupported and relative height of the butts to the shooter. on a fig 12 your looking at a lot of shot groups around the chin/throat If a tgt is exposing it's head/turret then the centre of the turret is your aim point , if it's the entire person or afv you're aim point is it's "centre". One is aiming to hit the target which is maximised by centre of mass aimponts, not bits of it of it like the head or turret. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Here's a flash-from-the-past. Discussions about IS-2 armor on the BFC board a full eleven years ago! Back before Russian armor sources were so easy to come by. Its fun when you Google a topic and the first item that comes up is something with your own name in it. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=38804 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 That's not the way it works as gunners and rifle men tend due to training aim centre of mass, as you're trying to maximising the hit chance to qualify during qualifcation shoots. [snip] One is aiming to hit the target which is maximised by centre of mass aimponts, not bits of it of it like the head or turret. That's all true, but consider how that works out in practice. When the whole tank is exposed, the gunner aims for the center of mass, which would be somewhere in the upper part of the upper hull most likely. Given a random distribution of hits around the aim point, a percentage of those hits are likely to strike the turret or mantlet. Now take the case where only the turret is visible. The gunner, still aiming at the center of mass, aims at the center of the mantlet. Since it is a smaller target, on average he gets fewer hits overall, but it get worse. Now instead of rounds hitting above the aim point and striking the turret, they may miss the tank entirely or merely glance off the roof. Seems to me that going hull down is almost always a winner, even if the turret armor is somewhat less substantial. Apparently tankers agreed with me, as that is what they tried to do when circumstances allowed it. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 That's all true, but consider how that works out in practice. When the whole tank is exposed, the gunner aims for the center of mass, which would be somewhere in the upper part of the upper hull most likely. Given a random distribution of hits around the aim point, a percentage of those hits are likely to strike the turret or mantlet. Now take the case where only the turret is visible. The gunner, still aiming at the center of mass, aims at the center of the mantlet. Since it is a smaller target, on average he gets fewer hits overall, but it get worse. Now instead of rounds hitting above the aim point and striking the turret, they may miss the tank entirely or merely glance off the roof. Seems to me that going hull down is almost always a winner, even if the turret armor is somewhat less substantial. Apparently tankers agreed with me, as that is what they tried to do when circumstances allowed it. Michael Should be "centre of visible mass" that they're aiming for then Emrys, else you have to do a mental imaging calculation on the bits you can't see. Null argument. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.