rexford Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 Alfred on the Russian Battlefield forum posted the following on IS-2 armor: "I bought Mikhail Svirins book on the IS-2 tank. Svirin includes a diagram of the IS-2(1944) armor values. The sloped variant IS2(1944) has 100mm cast armor both on the nose and glacis front hull. There was also the parallel production run with 90mm Rolled armor on both glacis and lower front nose . Looking at your site I see: <http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/is2/is2_16_1.gif> Where is this 120mm figure coming from? Mikhail Svirins book has design blueprints as refrences to his figures. Who is right?, I am confused and need to know which are the correct armor values for a modell I am building." Alfred seems to make a good point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amedeo Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 BTW the book he's referring to is this one: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaylord Focker Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 Insteresting, *bump* 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted May 26, 2003 Author Share Posted May 26, 2003 Originally posted by Amedeo: BTW the book he's referring to is this one: What does the book have for front hull armor on IS-1 and Model 1943 IS-2, and are thickness figures given for the mantlet and turret front on all versions? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amedeo Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 Lorrin, I haven't a copy of the book, I think that the right person to ask is V. Fofanov. IIRC he owns the book. Regards, A. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 An unusual thing about the IS-2 stats on the 'Russian Battlefield' website. The sectional drawings are labeled as 120mm upper hull front, 100mm lower hull front. BUT the drawings themselves look the same top and bottom! The upper hull certainly isn't 20% thicker as drawn. The text says one thing the drawings show something else. Take a peek (2/3rds the way down the page): http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_1.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted May 28, 2003 Author Share Posted May 28, 2003 Vasiliy Fofanov posted some data from the book on the Tankers site some time ago, 100mm nose armor at 30 degrees from vertical on all IS-1 and IS-2 tanks except that 90mm rolled substituted for 100mm cast on IS-2 Model 1944. Alfred noted on the Russian Battlefield site that the Svirin book has 75mm for IS-2 mantlet. Drawings show a tapered mantlet thickness, with 75mm at bottom and top thickening towards the middle where it is either 100mm or 110mm. Tiger mantlet thickness for a long time was based on the thinner tapered top and bottom areas, even though the central mantlet exceeded 130mm in most locations. Panther mantlet armor is also tapered with thinnest sections at top and bottom and maximum at apex. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted May 28, 2003 Author Share Posted May 28, 2003 Originally posted by MikeyD: An unusual thing about the IS-2 stats on the 'Russian Battlefield' website. The sectional drawings are labeled as 120mm upper hull front, 100mm lower hull front. BUT the drawings themselves look the same top and bottom! The upper hull certainly isn't 20% thicker as drawn. The text says one thing the drawings show something else. Take a peek (2/3rds the way down the page): http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_1.html Good eyes, sir! Also note that Figure 6 shows 100mm for IS-2 nose armor in all cases. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 So my question is, what was the damming evidence that bumped the 105mm glacis of CMBB v1.0 to the 120mm we have now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 That IS-2 nose has been a bone of contention for the longest time. What we're dealing with is duelling references. I recall BFC originally went with British army measurements, taken off a captured vehicle I believe. Wartime German measurements would've come off another captured vehicle, and so on and so on. The problem is the IS-2 had a quite roughly cast nose, and thickness from vehicle to vehicle could vary wildly. So 100mm is correct, 105mm is correct, 120mm is correct! All depends on which vehicle you measure off of. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl_Smasher Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 The 120mm glacis is being mixed up with the 1943 model IS-2, which has a small upper section at 30 degrees. The Watertown Arsenal report 1945 measured a IS-2 (1944 model) and indicates it had 102mm upper glacis by actual measurement of the steel section. Vasiliy Fofanov posted this on the tankers forum "The sloped variant has 100mm cast armor both on the lower and upper front hull. There was also the parallel production run with 90mm RHA instead of 100mm cast. You (or whatever sources you are quoting ie. Russian battlefield) have clearly confused the early version, which indeed had a 120mm superstructure thickness, and the later model. Best regards, Vasiliy" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted May 28, 2003 Share Posted May 28, 2003 The Russian Battlefield site burned me on another obscure point earlier (BT-2s mounting 37mm L/60 cannons instead of L/45), so I count anything they state as being open to interpretation. Still, it's a (mostly) great site. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 Originally posted by MikeyD: So 100mm is correct, 105mm is correct, 120mm is correct! All depends on which vehicle you measure off of. I am going to have to disagree on this, 95 to 105mm is inline with tolerances for 100mm armour 120mm is definitely not. The extra mass would also mean some pretty incorrect quenching time leading to armour that is softer than the Soviets preferred high hardness. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted May 29, 2003 Author Share Posted May 29, 2003 Originally posted by Karl_Smasher: The 120mm glacis is being mixed up with the 1943 model IS-2, which has a small upper section at 30 degrees. The Watertown Arsenal report 1945 measured a IS-2 (1944 model) and indicates it had 102mm upper glacis by actual measurement of the steel section. Vasiliy Fofanov posted this on the tankers forum "The sloped variant has 100mm cast armor both on the lower and upper front hull. There was also the parallel production run with 90mm RHA instead of 100mm cast. You (or whatever sources you are quoting ie. Russian battlefield) have clearly confused the early version, which indeed had a 120mm superstructure thickness, and the later model. Best regards, Vasiliy" Really good post that summarizes the best info around, which hopefully will get things changed. Looking at CMBB just now, IS-2 Model 1944 has 120mm on the 60 degree glacis and the 30 degree nose. [ May 29, 2003, 05:25 AM: Message edited by: rexford ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amedeo Posted May 29, 2003 Share Posted May 29, 2003 After a very approximative calculation, it seems that moving from the 70mm@74° glacis plus 120mm@30° driver plate to a hypotethical 120mm@60° glacis, would increase the front upper hull armour mass of about 30%, while passing to a 100mm@60° plate would limit this increase to about 7%. Not a hard piece of evidence, but surely a hint that, to avoid deteriorating further the automotive performances of the IS-2, the latter was the best solution (especially if we consider that weight and balance problems stopped the badly needed thickening of the front turret armour). Regards, Amedeo 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.