IS-2 in Soviet Campaign *** Spoiler ***

[Lethaface]

**** SPOILER SOVIET CAMPAIGN *****

Recently I was able to continue my Soviet campaign game, after some RL issues. I have finally fought my way though Asintorf (mission 3, major victory) and broke the Straggler resistance guarding the bridges towards Orsha (mission 4, minor victory).

The pleasant surprise of mission 5 was that after all those meters fighting on foot (must be about 6-8 KM of walking/hunting), I will be reinforced by a regiment of Soviet IS-2 heavy tanks. They are tasked (among a battalion of infantry) to defeat a ferocious german counter attack by 2/3 of a Stug battalion and supporting infantry. In the mission my impression was that those poor Stugs have no real chance, attacking over open terrain, commanded by AI, against my heavy tank regiment.

However, to my surprise a few Stugs punished my IS-2's in a mid/long range tank duel (~1000-1500m). The Stugs spot better, have better accuracy and are more than able to penetrate my IS-2 from the front. This being my first real battle with IS-2's I decided to restart the mission and move the IS-2's under cover of smoke to a concealed position close to an infantry position. This showed that the gun of the IS-2, if it manages to hit an enemy tank, is very capable indeed. Almost guaranteed KO. However, even in concealed position the Stug's proved to be a dangerous opponent for my IS-2's. Never did I have the feeling that my IS-2's are truly superior tanks versus these assault guns.

Now I'm probably not using them right, but how should one operate a regiment of IS-2's when facing a battalion (-) of Stug's attacking through open terrain? In other words I'm a little underwhelmed with my IS-2 performance. Any advice regarding how to herd this flock of beasts?

P.S. My compliments to the mission and campaign designers, feels authentic and interesting. In the beginning mission 1 and 3 where a little overwhelming due to the sheer number of troops and map size but I have started to enjoy those larger challenges.

[YankeeDog]

Rate of Fire is the IS-2's Achilles' heel; the 122mm has a high kill% against any Panzer, but if the IS-2 doesn't hit on the first shot, in a front vs. front engagement the IS-2 is in trouble as most German tanks will get 2, sometimes 3 shots in before the IS-2 gets a second shot.

This weakness actually makes the IS-2 less effective in 1000m+ range armor duel vs. armor duel than their gun power might suggest. At longer ranges, nobody's particularly likely to score a hit on the first shot, but German AFVs like the StuG will get the second and third shots off much faster than the IS-2 and so are much more likely to get the first hit. The IS-2's frontal armor *can* bounce 75mm/L48, but not reliably, and in any event even if the armor bounces the first hit without serious damage, it usually rattles the crew enough that their aim goes to sh*t.

Don't know that I can offer all that much in terms of advice other than basic armor good tactics -- Try to use terrain to create many on few situations. Try to hit from the flank in order to take advantage of the Stug's lack of turret. Engage from multiple angles to split the enemy's fire. Try shoot and scoot to give the IS-2 a chance to reload in safety.

The usual stuff.

[Lethaface]

Good point regarding the reloading, perhaps I have been a bit unlucky in spotting and accuracy but I will probably need to dial down my appreciation of IS-2's. They are not like the Cats with armor and range, nor like the fast moving and shooting Shermans.

Guess I'll just have to face off against that battalion of Stugs and hope I don't lose to many IS-2's.

[MikeyD]

Maybe its my imagination but the IS-2s and ISUs seem to take awhile to find their range. Initial shots tend to be all over the place. Then eventually you finally start getting hits and the hits are devastating. But it rarely happens with first, second or third shots.

[Gamer58]

IS-2

Noisy as hell

Clunky

2 piece ammo - bag of powder and shell

Poor optics

Unprofessionals ill fed crews

Made by people forced into making them at Tank Factory #25 in the middle of the Urals and by other people forced into making them at Tank Factory #57 in the middle of Siberia - with no communication between the two except copies of the same blueprints

Welding joints like an apprentice on his worst day

Stug (2/3 battalion you say? hmm, pretty darn big force there)

Quiet

Low profile

Culmination of development of 1-2 decades of tank development

Crews trained by crews with tank hunter experience in North Africa, Italy etc

Schneider optics that can reach out miles and hit you in the ****s at will

Rheinmetal precision milled 48 caliber 75mm gun

One piece ammo with high quality components

No contest.

Also: Russian crews lulled into sense of well being and safety in the presence of/within the IS-2 because it bears the "magic" of having IS's name on it - so it must be invincible. Cycle of unprofessionalism that began with their "training", and "everything will be OK" attitude "We're the Red Army of the Great Russia! How could we lose?" continues etc etc.

[Gamer58]

More about just one aspect of it all.

Stug optics were 5x magnification. As stated, you could hit the enemy miles away in the ****s, at will.

Schneider no, but Bender and Zeiss - who make optics today for the M1A1.

Superior light gathering, clarity, and rangefinding down to the triangles to determine the range of enemy vehicles means a much easier and more accurate aim.

The little triangles mean you can hit first time every time without even firing a ranging shot.

Most important of all however were the two decades of tank building experience, superior crew training and discipline and...

crew training and discipline - it beats equipment every time.

[Lethaface]

The good German optics and milling accuracy are certainly present in CMRT.

2/3 of a battalion is indeed a large force! Although I am now whittling their numbers with ambushing IS-2's in sort of key-holed positions. At least the 122mm shells have good impact characteristics

[MikeyD]

I recall someone (a Beta team member) had sat in a late war WWII Russian tank and got to fiddle with the optics. He claimed the quality and situational awareness was better than we're often led to believe. I've looked through a couple Russian sniper scopes, myself, and there was nothing particularly sub-standard about them either. Any German advantages would only be at the outer performance edges - low light levels and extended ranges.

IS-2 suffers from one fault - its primary role is HE-throwing direct infantry support with tank killing only secondary. Russia had better dedicated tank killing guns that it could have mounted in IS-2 but its primary mission would have suffered. US made similar decisions in that regard, considered the Brit 17 pounder to be an inferior 'general purpose' gun due to its unimpressive HE round.

[Gamer58]

It's true that the Russian optics were better than their welding, and were in fact highly regarded by the West. But compared to the German optics they weren't a match. When I say "better optics", I really mean "better glass + better mag factor + wider FOV (except unlike other tanks, note that in the case of the StuG, the Germans had no better FOV than other nations) + MAGIC TRIANGLE MARKINGS". So I really mean better optics and markings on the sight.

This is a Soviet tank sight. http://gfx.esl-europe.net/media/de/news/2006/ro/t34gunsights2.jpg

No magic triangles. No first shot hit. Must range it in and guestimate. Low literacy rate in Soviet states mean manuals hard to read also.

German sights had magic triangles (as well as being clear and good light gatherers, even better than the Soviet ones).

Magic triangles + precision milling of gun barrel + good quality ammo + superior crew training and discipline (+ ability to read) means big boom boom first time almost every time.

[Lethaface]

I recall someone (a Beta team member) had sat in a late war WWII Russian tank and got to fiddle with the optics. He claimed the quality and situational awareness was better than we're often led to believe. I've looked through a couple Russian sniper scopes, myself, and there was nothing particularly sub-standard about them either. Any German advantages would only be at the outer performance edges - low light levels and extended ranges.

IS-2 suffers from one fault - its primary role is HE-throwing direct infantry support with tank killing only secondary. Russia had better dedicated tank killing guns that it could have mounted in IS-2 but its primary mission would have suffered. US made similar decisions in that regard, considered the Brit 17 pounder to be an inferior 'general purpose' gun due to its unimpressive HE round.

The spotting (dis)ability of my IS-2's in this mission has surprised me though. The Commander does have a binoculars but they regularly fail to spot (moving) StuG's in the open at <500m. The StuG's seemed to spot my hiding (partial hull down behind some high trees (although no underbrush)) IS-2's more easy. Perhaps my IS-2's being a lot bigger influence the spotting chances.

[MeatEtr]

Honestly guys, while making and testing this scenario my IS-2s usually just brushed aside the Stugs. If I had to toss out a stat, I'd say about 75% of the time my IS-2s defeated the Stugs with losses of around 2-5 ISs (IMO acceptable losses). Thats based on at least a dozen playthroughs. Also if memory serves, I think there was some comments from other testers about even beefing up the Germans with a Panther to help. That suggestion was denied due to being historically inaccurate.

Happy to hear you like it Lethaface. Had a ball making it. And lets face it, who doesn't like blowing stuff up with big guns.

P.S. Agree with you about some missions being a little too big, at least for my tastes. Especially for the first mission of a cam. But IIRC Steve said something along the lines of setting the tone for CMRT having larger scale battles.

[wadepm]

Perhaps my IS-2's being a lot bigger influence the spotting chances.

I saw a photo of an IS-2 next to a Tiger I and the IS-2 was a LOT smaller, at least from the front. Surprisingly so. I am having trouble finding the photo though...anybody seen it?

[Lethaface]

Ah you are the one that send a battalion of StuG's after me!

I'm surely defeating the StuG's now, and at least my comment was not directed against this scenario or not being winnable (it certainly is); but at my surprise towards the IS-2 performance. When it comes to taking out StuG's I'd take a Sherman Firefly over an IS-2 any day!

First time I started this mission I tried to attack the stugs at a range of ~1000m with my full tank regiment (11 IS-2's) and it horribly failed, while I was suspecting to walk all over them. You have taught me a valuable lesson!

[LukeFF]

Stug optics were 5x magnification. As stated, you could hit the enemy miles away in the ****s, at will.

And where are these combat reports about StuGs hitting the enemy miles away in the (censored)s?

[Amizaur]

As someone said, the advantage of German optics over Rusian optics would show only at the "outer performance edges - low light levels and extended ranges". They were not bad at all. Possibly better than American ones. And someone mentioned the "magic trangles" in German sights - as a big advantage. The truth is that only very early T-34/85 and IS-2 had old telescopic sights with a simple cross. All later IS-2 and T-34/85 gunsights (TSh-15, Tsh-16 and TSh-17) had x4 magnification, good FOV and reticule with horizontal mil scale used for leading angle and range estimation, just like in German sights.

So really there were no big advantage for German sight users.

The real difference was, that when a German gunner - after carefully estimating the range - missed the first shot (and most of first-shots were missed at ranges over 1000m) - he could follow in 5s with next, corrected shot that was much more likely to hit, and then in next 5s with a third corrected shot - almost guaranteed hit.

Russian gunner in IS-2 after firing first shot had to wait AT LEAST 20s (more likelyy 30s) before he could fire again, a time enough for a German tank to return fire 3 or 4 times.

That's why the most common tactic for IS-2 was to fire a single, well aimed shot, and if missed - reverse into cover and go to another firing position. As first-shot accuracy was not great, the efficiency of that method was not high. But if the shell hit sometimes, the results were catastrophic (full crew loses often).

The Russian crews fighting on IS-2 tanks were maybe not so well trained (especially gunners) like German ones, but they were much higher quality than ordinary T-34 crews. There were two officers in the crew (the commander and driver). IS-2 were considered as highly valuable assets (not as expendable as T-34) and got best crews with better training, also used better and more carefull tactics. An IS-2 in an ambush could be deadly. At less than 1000m the first well aimed shot is likely to hit and destroy German tank in one shot, then the IS should reverse for reloading, then find another covered position and take another well-aimed shot. Sadly, it's hard to act this way in CMx2 in WEGO mode.

If we could get a special order for slow-reloading tanks or tanks fighting against overwhelming enemy - you would select two points (like in old "shoot & scoot order_ and the tank would then wait in ambush untill it finds a target and shots, and then reverse to the second selected point.

[Glubokii Boy]

When playtesting a scenario i made i was a bit supprised at the BIG advantage the german tanks had against the russians when i came to spotting.

Russian t34/85s did battle against both StuG IIIs and Pz IVGs.

The range was not very far (700-400 meters).

The german tanks consistantly spotted and fired upon the russians first despite the

german crews being green and regular Vs veteran crews for the russians.

This battle took place at 04.15 hours. The sun was just above the horizon.

The german advantage during low light conditions for sure seems to be in the game...

I wounder if sunglare is also modled ? The russians where attacking strait into the sun...:cool:

[JasonC]

Gamer58 - Russian optics *are* German optics. The Russian optics facilities were all designed and built by Zeiss Corporation during the 1920s and early 1930s, when the two countries were closely cooperating, just as all the highly productive Russian tank factories were designed by American industrial engineers from Detroit, slightly later. Granted the quality control may have been higher in the German plants, giving better glass etc. But they were using German machinery designed by Germans and installed by them, for their precision optics, throughout.

[JasonC]

I suspect serious misunderstanding about the armor layout of the IS-2.

There are simply more regions and plates to track on it than on most vehicles, and more variations of type within the same vehicle designation.

The lower front hull, below the beak, is 100mm thick and sloped backward from the vertical at 30 degrees.

On early models, there is a highly sloped front deck up to a superstructure plate. The sloped deck is 72 degrees from the vertical and 70mm thick. It presents relatively little of the vertical surface to a flat shot, because the angle is so steep. Above that is a small superstructure section that is only 20 degrees from vertical, but that is 120mm thick.

Then for the turret front, there are curved sections above and below the mantlet that are 102mm thick and round, 30 to 45 degrees to most hits. The mantlet itself is significantly thicker, having a 75mm thick plate over the base turret armor. In the center of the mantlet there is no slope to speak of (5-10 degrees at most), but the armor is 160mm thick. That is post war Centurion territory, and more than a Churchill or a Sherman Jumbo (6 inches or 152mm for those). At the edges of the mantlet (rather than the turret) there is some slope and up to 75mm over 102mm. So 160mm is as weak as the mantlet portion gets, it is actually tougher toward the edges because the mantlet layer is thicker there.

In later models, the front hull above the beak becomes a single slope at 60 degrees from the vertical, instead of the 72 degree section then the 20 degree section. That glacis is 100mm thick, and at that angle immensely strong. It should resist like more than 8 inches of rolled plate and a long 88 should have trouble with it.

So a late model presents relatively few target areas for a German 74L48 round at medium range. Below the beak, 100mm at 30 degrees, the German gun can handle if close enough. But 100mm at 60 (the glacis) it doesn't have a prayer. 160mm in the center of the mantlet, it doesn't have a prayer. 102mm at the edges of the turret, it can easily face 45 degrees plus of slope and need quite close range to penetrate.

If the IS-2 is late model and partial hull down, the lower front hull plate is not exposed. Only the edges of the turret are vulnerable then, and only close and with a good hit location in terms of relatively low angle but off the mantlet. Square hits on the mantlet are going to bounce and square hits on the glacis aren't going to do a darn thing.

The Russians' own estimate was that a *Panther* needed to be within about 700 meters to be seriously dangerous to an IS-2, because it could drill the mantlet at that distance. But that is with a 75L70, with vastly more energy and penetration than a 75L48.

If you have an hull up, early model IS-2 at close range, then a StuG III should be reasonably capable against you. Center mantlet hits should still bounce off, but many of the other surfaces are vulnerable. Anything later, they should need smaller plates hit even close, and should be only randomly and occasionally effective (turret edge hits, "just so") at longer range.

Bottom line, the IS-2 (as long as not the early model) should feel like a completely dominant AFV vs a StuG from the front at medium range or longer, especially when partial hull down. The StuGs should not be able to approach a formation of them without being slaughtered.

[JasonC]

Amizaur - it isn't the magnification, that is a relatively minor issue. Quality of the glass makes is much easier to pick up targets out of the background, rapidly. Anyone who has used a $500 rifle scope vs a $50 rifle scope knows what I am talking about. They can have the same magnification and the same field of view, but the higher quality glass is simply much clearer, edges are vivid, where they are blurred and indistinct with lower quality glass. This mostly matters for picking up the target in the first place, not for adjusting shots. Motion is much less visible in a blurred field than in one with sharp outlines. When we speak of optics quality it is mostly this we are talking about, not differences in aiming reticles or magnification settings. I don't disagree with the comment that such things matter most in low light conditions or extreme ranges; that is correct.

[MikeyD]

When you pick IS-2s for QB what is the typical 'experience' level that you see? We're talking about IS-2 inability to spot but that may be a function of crew competence levels. A green crew versus a veteran or crack crew I think we can guess whose going to spot who first regardless of vehicle.

[MOS:96B2P]

This battle took place at 04.15 hours. The sun was just above the horizon.

The german advantage during low light conditions for sure seems to be in the game...

I wounder if sunglare is also modled ? The russians where attacking strait into the sun...:cool:

About a year ago in a PBEM game in CMBN my opponent had to fight looking into the sun and complained terribly about the difficulty of spotting. Since that PBEM battle we play during a time frame when neither one of us has the sun in his eyes. Also if you go to camera level one, down where the troops are, and look into the sun the glare is very irritating. So yes, I believe sun glare is modeled.

That reminds me, on a different thread http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=115073&highlight=house+rules

people were talking about rules to fight the AI that would allow for a better more challenging fight. You could have your own troops fighting into the sun against the AI. That also would probably help the AI put up a better fight.

[Lethaface]

When you pick IS-2s for QB what is the typical 'experience' level that you see? We're talking about IS-2 inability to spot but that may be a function of crew competence levels. A green crew versus a veteran or crack crew I think we can guess whose going to spot who first regardless of vehicle.

The experience I posted about in this thread is solely from the campaign mission, which features IIRC a mix of early/mid/late IS-2's with regular experience. I don't know the experience level of the StuG's, but I guess MeatEtr knows

[Lethaface]

And I am actually sort of using the tactics Amizaur posts to good effect: ambush, fire and reverse!

[Amizaur]

JasonC - I can agree that the difference in optics quality could be in glass quality. Russian sights had to be mass-produced so quality had to be sacrificed, especially in 1942-1943 period. Nevertheless in good light conditions the difference should not be that high - those optics were an adequate tool for the task. German were better, sure, but Russian optics quality can't justify that Russian tanks have problems with spotting German tanks at all at ranges below 1000m. First, it's not THAT bad, second - spotting was done mainly by naked eye and binoculars, and no one should have problem spotting a tank in open field below 1000m without any optics.

You wrote about IS-2 turret and mantlet armor, about 160mm max thickness and "75mm mantlet armor over the base turret armor". Can I ask, where that info comes from ?

I was personally interested in that subject to the point, that - being not satisfied with armor descriptions cited in various sources, suspecting that the sources cite one another and there could be an error in initial measurements - I made a trips to two of preserved IS-2 examples in Poland to personally measure the armor as well as I can.

I could not measure the thickness of some parts, but I could see the armor layout of the turret and mantlet (external and internal) and measure some parts. It seems for me that the cited 160mm is possible only at small area around the gun.

It seems that the turret was designed with total armor thickness 100-120mm in mind. Single piece armor is 100-120mm thick, and in areas where thinner mantlet armor covers thinner turret armor, the sum of thickness is around 160mm (probably to ensure level of protection similar to single 120mm armor).

The left mantlet area (around the gunsight port) is about 75mm thick but it's not over a "base mantlet armor", below that area is about 80mm of front turret armor. The left mantlet between the gunsight port and the gun (covering the opening in front turret armor) is about 120mm thickness maximum. The right mantlet area (around MG port) is up to 100-120mm thick and is not backed up by any front turret armor at all (covering an opening in turret armor). It's easy to make an error trying to measure trough a MG port hole - there is a steel pipe welded inside MG port that is extending good 60mm inside the turret, so getting 180mm reading trough the hole doesn't mean the armor is so thick. It's about 100-120mm (the thickness differs and reaches max of 120mm only in small area where mantlet surface is vertical). I can't see where the mythical 160mm could be, maybe in reinforced area very close to the gun tube, but that's a small percent of whole mantlet. Also sum of the mantlet and turret armor near the gunsight port (75-80mm + 80mm) gives roughly 160mm, but those two cast 80mm plates would not resist as solid 160mm armor.

I'll try to find notes and schemes I made, because what I wrote is only what I remember and what can be seen measured on the photos. I made a lot more measurements but have to find them.

[JasonC]

Amizaur re 1000 meters, um, I don't think that is so easy, unless the tank is moving fast throwing up dust, or firing with a nice big muzzle blast while you were watching, or similar. Anything stationary with any kind of camou pattern at 1000 meters is not at all easy to quickly pick out of the whole visual field, up to that distance. Evidence for those who don't spend a lot of time trying to shoot such distances -

http://www.chuckhawks.com/f-class_1000_yards.jpg