More hypothetical crap...

[Predator]

Having done some extra reading on WWII via shutting myself off from the world in general, I have had my curiosity piqued. After seeing the thread on point values of the T-34, I happened upon a description of what I am sure is the well known IS-2 Josef Stalin. Along with that I tripped over the equally imposing KV-2, and it made me think. Should either be included in CM2, and if so, how much should they cost? It seems from my readings that there were a great many IS-2s made during World War 2 (I didn't get an exact number) so I figure it should be put in. As far as point values go however, with a 122mm gun, the ability to penetrate 185mm of armor at 1000m, and a ludicrous amount of armor, around 250 at least. I'd think its faster-firing brother, the IS-3 would be a little more expensive. Also, as far as the KV-2 goes, I'm not as educated on that piece of armor. I know it was used mostly as an "Artillery Tank" but, myself, i'd like to see it in the game. But because of its shortcomings (like not being able to fire on ground that wasn't level) I can see why it might not be included. I know that KV-2s did see combat, but as far as price value on a piece of armor with so many flaws... who knows? :confused:

Lemme know whatcha think.

[Stalins Organ]

He hehe - yes it will be interesting to see what BTS comes up with!!

One restriction on the KV-2 might be that you are never allowed more than 1 of them in a single battle1

As for the IS-2, well, yes, they were pretty common - IIRC somethign like 2800 were made, which is quite a lot for a heavy tank.

It will be expensive.

The IS3 will not be expensive tho', because it won't be in CM2 as it did not see service in WW2.

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Predator:

... with a 122mm gun, the ability to penetrate 185mm of armor at 1000m, ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>... unless it was spaced, like the armour on late PzKw III versions.

There's an interesting thread about this at the AFV-News BBS: http://www.activevr.com/afv/cgi_bin/webbbs/config.pl?read=14745

Panther glacis wasn't a problem, PzKw III on the other hand...

Cheers

Olle

[Mattias]

God, I had no idea that thread had grown and mutated like that

Anyway, Olle, is the same 122mm gun they are talking about?

I have heard this problem being mentioned i relation to the SU-122 mounted gun, but not the 122 mm gun of the IS-2.

As for the inclusion of the KV-2 and IS-2, sure they'll be in, the latter if nothing else.

And as CM2 no doubt will see a revised points cost scale there will be room for everything, it's just a matter of relative numbers after all.

M

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias:

Anyway, Olle, is the same 122mm gun they are talking about?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>AFAIK there was only one type, so I'd assume a "yes" to that question.

The KV2 will also be interesting to see how it's modeled.

From what I've heard the turret rotation was really slow... as long as the hull was very near horisontal. If the hull tilted more than a few degrees (5?), it was impossible to rotate the turret.

Cheers

Olle

[Mattias]

Olle,

The SU-122 was armed with the M-30 Howitzer

The ISU-122 on the other hand was armed with the A-19 Cannon or the modernised version called D-25S (with a semi-automatic block breech, also mounted in the IS-2).

The howitzer, while being effective was not able to compete with the cannon in AT terms.

Since the ISU's were fielded much later than the SU's I was wondering if the "spaced armour vs. APHE" issue had been identified and rectified by removal of the HE filler in the cannon 122 mm rounds.

M.

[Stalins Organ]

Yeah - the SU-122 will be the Sherman 105/Stuh-42 of the Russian army - a 122mm howitzer mounted in teh front of a T34 chassis.

Don't know about how much amo it'll carry though - can't get into the Russian military zone today!

[Dittohead]

SU-122 had 40 rounds

[Jarmo]

I'd expect IS-2 to fall into the same price category as the King Tiger.

Probably a bit cheaper.

The KV-2 has the benefit of being the ugliest tank ever made, but I don't

know if that should influence pricing.

[Warmaker]

The IS-2 did indeed see late war combat. The problem was that it didn't carry alot of ammunition. Also, the gun took an extraordinarily long time to reload (look at the size of the turret if any pics are available). Long range accuracy was something to be desired also. Still as an Axis player it is something to be respected but I know my Koenigstigers will prevail. The '88 can do anything! As far as costs, I'm not sure. Maybe put it points wise very close to the Tiger II.

[rexford]

The Russian Battlefield offers much data on the IS-2/IS-2m series of tanks:

a) IS-2 is first version with 85mm and 122mm guns (maybe 100mm, too), front hull armor is very vulnerable, Tiger penetrates at 1200m

All IS-2 tanks have relatively thin turret front and mantlet armor, many reports of 88L71 penetrating turret front/mantlet at 2200m or longer

c) IS-2 122mm fires two part heavy ammo, and breechblock on first model guns contributes to slow rate of fire, like 1.5 shots per minute

d) IS-2 122mm gun is long anti-tank weapon, SU-100 is short howitzer type

e) 122mm on IS tank penetrates Panther glacis at 600 to 2500+ meters, depending on ammo used and glacis quality

f) First IS-2 with narrow mantlet has line of sight problem with gun barrel, since gunner sight hole is very close to barrel. This would impact shots at moving targets where gun is rotated with target to track speed and then jumped ahead to fire at a lead angle.

g) Russian ammo has lower nose hardness than American, might shatter fail on alot of hits where it overpenetrates armor. Russian Battlefield site notes that AP rounds may have shattered.

h) 122mm tank is valuable cause of HE potency, most Russian tanks carried alot more HE than AP.

i) Russian Battlefield site compares IS-2/2m to King Tiger, IS is lighter, has more potent HE, breaks down less, gun has equal or less random scatter

j) U.S. analyzed IS-2m found in Berlin ruins, all armor except the vertical hull side was very hard. It was speculated that turret hits might crack turret ring even if the hit were defeated, due to the heat treatment given to lower areas of IS turret.

k) U.S. fired 122mm APBC at targets from 0 to 70 degrees from vertical, round penetrated alot of armor and was superior to Allied or German ammo against angled targets.

122mm APBC has a blunt nose and ballistic windscreen

l) 122mm AP doesn't penetrate as much armor as APBC, and has traditional high slope effects due to pointed nose. 122mm fired combination of AP and APBC, so tank in CM would have inconsistent performance against Panthers due to random ammo availability (who knows what is in the bin, based on supply line peculiarities).

[rexford]

For IS-2 tank stuff, see above.

[busboy]

The IS II has an awful rate of fire, and the IS III is even worse (not faster as noted in the first post) The real reason for this was rather large two piece ammunition, rather than one piece. Historicly, the IS III and the later T-10 (basicly an IS III with an extra road wheel) were slaughtered by the Israeliis becuase their Centurian and Patton tanks could run rings around them to get to their side armor, and the Egyptians con't rotate or reload fast enough. Historical based conclusion: These tank were better used en mass from long range.

On the plus side, these "heavy tanks" weigh about the same as a panther, and have decent ground pressure.

I'll chip in on the fact that the IS II was rather poorly armored. Also, many IS IIs were built just Gawd awful. Honestly, they look like chipped vomit with toast on tracks (poorly finished, extremely rough castings, no dust shields leaving fragile looking tracks exposed...) Of course, not all were like that.

A few brief replies on rexfords above post:

a. The IS I had an 85mm gun. The first couple hundred had 100mm naval guns, which had better armor piercing performance than the 122. However, the 100 was hard to come by, so the 122 was picked for logistics and numbers.

d. This is completely wrong. The SU-100 mounted the long barreled 100mm gun that was tried on early IS IIs (the "100" indicates the type of gun) The Su-122 had a short barrel 122mm which was different from the 122 on the IS II. Also, the SU-122 is easy to recognize due to the "shroud" around the gun mantle.