Jump to content

Why so many IS-1's?


Recommended Posts

IIRC only 130 of them were built... and yet I see them in plenty of scenarios in CMRT.

Or maby I'm just imagining things.

But it feels like there are more IS-1's than one might expect.

How many IS-1's were directly involved in operation bagration (in the areas covered by the game at least)?

Anyway, like I said, it's just a feeling.

But it feels like the IS-1 should be a rare thing, not something that pops up often enough to feel "common".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC only 130 of them were built... and yet I see them in plenty of scenarios in CMRT.

Or maby I'm just imagining things.

But it feels like there are more IS-1's than one might expect.

How many IS-1's were directly involved in operation bagration (in the areas covered by the game at least)?

Anyway, like I said, it's just a feeling.

But it feels like the IS-1 should be a rare thing, not something that pops up often enough to feel "common".

I'm no expert, but possibly many of those scenarios are set early in Bagration and are trying to give the feel of early "new big tank".

Plus most scenarios are designed and built independently, so the builder may not anticipate them being in "plenty" of others.

So, random convergence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no expert, but possibly many of those scenarios are set early in Bagration and are trying to give the feel of early "new big tank".

Plus most scenarios are designed and built independently, so the builder may not anticipate them being in "plenty" of others.

So, random convergence.

Maby it's the "this is rare so it's cool, I'll use it"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddball's point was that only about 140-150 IS-1's were ever built cos they had problems and production was switched to IS-2 quite quickly. They were far more numerous.

However, wouldn't it be boring if scenarios reflected reality - ie: nearly all infantry based with little armor. Designers quite rightly focus on fun engagements - and that's why we used to see so many Puma's in CMBN even tho' they were also very rare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are IS-1s that numerous in scenarios? If you're talking QB that's another matter. The combination default early July date unless you change it yourself and the lower points cost (with rarity off) may be driving their automatic purchase.

I don't know. Like I said, it was just a feeling I got.

If someone feels like going through all the scenarios to check, feel free to do so :)

But it's too damned hot here for me to do anything right now! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, wouldn't it be boring if scenarios reflected reality - ie: nearly all infantry based with little armor. Designers quite rightly focus on fun engagements - and that's why we used to see so many Puma's in CMBN even tho' they were also very rare.

Forget the Puma's, I get sooooo Tired of almost every German battle having Tiger 1's

I am certain I have destroyed 10 times the total number ever made just in the scenarios I have played over the same amount of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was that saying someone came up with on the CMBB board? Amateurs play Tiger Is vs IS-2s, veterans play Hungarian infantry versus Finns. Or some such similar combination. :)

Except in CM2 we have been limited, The best one so far has been CMFI and the module. At least there was some units and troops that were unusual or challenging to play with.

Italians were hard for me at first to learn to play with.

Winning some h2h matches with them make you fill pretty good. :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was that saying someone came up with on the CMBB board? Amateurs play Tiger Is vs IS-2s, veterans play Hungarian infantry versus Finns. Or some such similar combination. :)

Weren't the Finns the most powerful force in CMBB (and rightfully so)? Tigers and IS are no match for their pine cones so Hungarians wouldn't stand much of a chance either ;):D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weren't the Finns the most powerful force in CMBB (and rightfully so)? Tigers and IS are no match for their pine cones so Hungarians wouldn't stand much of a chance either ;):D

I vaguely recall having one of my finnish troops throw a molotov some 150 meters or so...

Of course, BFC claimed it was a bug, but we all know the truth :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just on the history, the heavies the Russians had for Bagration were mostly ISU-122 and ISU-152 assault guns, closely followed by IS-2s. They had nearly 500 of those types combined, only about 1/4 of them the turreted IS-2s proper. Few if any actual IS-1s. Some remaining SU-152s (KV chassis rather than ISU chassis) round out the heavy chassis armor used in Bagration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just on the history, the heavies the Russians had for Bagration were mostly ISU-122 and ISU-152 assault guns, closely followed by IS-2s. They had nearly 500 of those types combined, only about 1/4 of them the turreted IS-2s proper. Few if any actual IS-1s. Some remaining SU-152s (KV chassis rather than ISU chassis) round out the heavy chassis armor used in Bagration.

Nice to get some info on that :)

I was under the impression that that SU-152 was built on the T-34 chassis like the SU-85, but I admit that I have never actually pondered it much and just taken SU as T-34 and ISU as IS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Jason has it right. Just looking at side view photos or drawings of the different vehicles should be a good enough clue.

Michael

Yup. Like I said, I just never took a closer look and just went on the assumption based on the SU-85 and SU-122.

It's my own fault since I already knew about the SU-76i (which is based on a Pz III/IV and not a T-34, so I should have known that SU was just the assault gun designation)

oh well... you know what they say about assuming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OddballE8 - as Michael confirms, the SU-152 is on the KV chassis. The SU-76 is on a T-70 chassis, incidentally, also breaking the "SU means T-34 chassis" heuristic. Really, SU just means self propelled gun and doesn't say anything about the chassis, while the "I" does, and tells us that an I-SU is an SU on a IS chassis. (The I is also "really" a J for Joseph, incidentally).

The SUs that are built on the T-34 chassis were the SU-122, short howitzer version, then the SU-85, and finally the SU-100. Which pretty much succeed each other as models - they stop making the earlier in that series when the next is available.

SU-152s replace the discontinued KV-2 with its heavy howitzer, making a much more practical and successful weapon without the super heavy turret that made the originals practically immobile. KV-1s continued to be made at the same time, but weren't nearly as useful once the Germans had long 75s everywhere. They tried to keep the line going with the KV-85, but by the time there were 85mm guns on the T-34 chassis those were pretty superfluous; their marginally thicker armor (reduced from earlier KV models to improve mobility) wasn't decisive against any of the main German AT weapons.

Of all the KV chassis vehicles, the KV-1 in the early war before the Germans fielded long 75s, and the SU-152 in midwar, where the most successful. Arguably the latter far more than the former, though for operational and doctrinal reasons more than anything tech spec related. (I just mean the early KV-1 was an ubertank in its day, but didn't get a chance to show it very much because the Russians were losing and badly misused them etc. They used the SU-152 very effectively).

The IS chassis replaces the KV chassis in heavy tank production (in the same factories and lines etc) but isn't based on it, it is a complete redesign (and a vastly improved one, that influenced all subsequent Russian tank design etc). Once the Russians are cranking out IS-2s and ISU-122s, they aren't making SU-152s anymore. But the ones they have are still completely useful in 1944-45, it never becomes obsolete in combat value terms.

On the light side, the Russians start out making light T-60s with 20mm main armament using converted automotive production lines, in the second half of 1941. Understand, there is no drawdown of medium or heavy tank production to get those, only fewer domestically produced trucks, because they made in truck factories. With some overlap for changeover timing at different plants during 1942, those transition to just making T-70s in 1942.

Then the SU-76 is based on that same light chassis and supercedes it, as the 45mm main armament T-70 becomes obsolete late-war. That switchover happens in 1943, with some delays settling on a good working SU-76 design after a few earlier versions had teething problems. They still keep using the T-70s they have, but transition their tank brigades to all mediums instead of mixed mediums and lights in the last year or so of the war; all the new light chassis production is going to SU-76s at that point.

So the real functional division, in terms of the factories involved, is light medium heavy.

Lights go turreted 20mm 41-42, turreted 45mm in 42-43, then unturreted 76mm in 43-45. With the first marginal, the second kind of meh, the last very successful.

Mediums are very successful turreted 76mm 41-43 and (ditto) turreted 85mm 44-45, plus unturreted short 122mm in 42-43, unturreted 85mm in 43-44, and unturreted 100mm in late 44 and 45. The last was certainly powerful but really too late to have much impact; all the turreted versions were outstanding, though they had a period of technical nadir in competitive terms in 1943 (after Germans get good guns and before the T-34 gets the 85mm redesign).

Heavies are successful turreted 76mm in 41-42, unsuccessful turreted 152mm in 41, unsuccessful turreted 85mm in 43, successful unturreted 152mm in 43-44 - all on the KV chassis. Plus very successful long 122mm in 44-45 both turreted and not, and reasonably successful 152mm with more armor in 44-45, on the IS chassis.

More detail than you probably need, but that's how it went...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...