Captain Wacky Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Swift: Why is the KT so big or the IS-2 so small? I'm no expert but I always thought that the KT and the IS-2 had matching armour protection... am I wrong? And even if not the gun on the IS-2 must have weighed more than the KTs (and thus created a larger tank). :confused: <hr></blockquote> Or maybe its just a tank with a really small profile with a lot of armor and a big honkin' gun. Argie is jealous because I am a sexy bitch and he is not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Swift: Why is the KT so big or the IS-2 so small? I'm no expert but I always thought that the KT and the IS-2 had matching armour protection... am I wrong? And even if not the gun on the IS-2 must have weighed more than the KTs (and thus created a larger tank).<hr></blockquote> German tanks were humongous in general. Just compare a Panther with a T-34. It was designed to be a counterpart of the latter, but it became much larger. The silhouettes of KT vs. IS-2 isn't so surprising if you compare the masses of those tanks. Königstiger weighs 68 tons, and Iosif Stalin Dva... 46 tons. That's only a ton more than Panther! I think it has something to do with Soviet engines. For example, the diesel engine of IS-2 gave it only 560 hp, while Panther and KT both had a 700 hp engine. Another factor to consider was the Soviet strategy. They just wanted to put up more tank brigades and divisions in a short time so to overwhelm the German invaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by gunnergoz: The T-34 is a /85 version: There is a cupola for the commander and the size of the turret is larger than the /76 version would be (the /76 turret sides slope up almost continuously from the side armor, at almost the same angle. The /85 turret was larger above the turret ring by a significant degree.<hr></blockquote> Not sure, but it looks like a T34/76 C turret to me, the apparently flat turret front and the prominent mantlet is a bit of a give away. The T34/85 had a more rounder front turret. Mace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 What's struck me seeing those comparative silhouette's is the sheer size of the King Tiger & even the older Tiger. No wonder so many Allied tankers pretty much shat themselves when seeing one of those monsters loom over the horizon. YIKES! Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by gunnergoz: The T-34 is a /85 version: There is a cupola for the commander and the size of the turret is larger than the /76 version would be (the /76 turret sides slope up almost continuously from the side armor, at almost the same angle. The /85 turret was larger above the turret ring by a significant degree.<hr></blockquote> I don't think so. You can clearly see the bulbous areas to the side of the mantlet which indicates this is a T-34/76. Off the top of my head I would say it is a '43. This model had a considerably larger turret than earlier models. Also, as Mace said, you can see the mantlet of the /76. Keep in mind, there were several different turrets for the /76, at least one of which did have a cupola for the commander, IIRC. [ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Bellator Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 Doh! It's not smaller - it's further away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgars Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 Pitty that there is no American and British tanks in the picture. How big was Sherman compared to these vehicles, something like a PzIV or bigger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ciks: Pitty that there is no American and British tanks in the picture. How big was Sherman compared to these vehicles, something like a PzIV or bigger?<hr></blockquote> The Sherman was much taller than the PzIV. I believe it was even taller than the Tiger I, by a very small amount IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Bellator Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 Got to agree, the Sherman is a very big tank. I read of one duel in Normandy which took place in an orchard, when a PzIV smashed up a few Shermans who were stuck in a column with guns pointing forward. Apparently they couldn't rotate their turrets to engage due to the tree branches alongside, but the PzIV was much lower and engaged them from among of the trees until they reversed out of there. It wouldn't suprise me if they were bigger than Tigers but someone here will know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 7, 2001 Share Posted December 7, 2001 The IS-2 was smaller than the Tiger for the same reason the Pershing was smaller than the Tiger. The Tiger's LARGE transmission is in the front hull and the hull design had to wrap around the driver, mg mount, AND transmission. The IS-2 just had to fit a driver in the centerline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts