One more time....russians misvaloured??

[gorgias]

Well the another day playing soviets in late 44 i noticed a certain superiority. The tigers ("early" not kings)could "disable" various IS-2 easily..... stranged i maked a secenario to do some test...

2 IS-2 vs 2 Tigers (early) no tungsten round.

800 meters IS hull down tigers no. Front to front.

Result 2 turns:

tigers (20 shoots 10 every one) = 7 impacts -> 1 shell broke up, 2 front turret partial pen., 4 knock out front pen. (yes the tanks continue shooting to the knock out IS )

IS-2 (8 shoots 4 every one) = 2 impacts (amazingly before the tigers impact them ABSOLUTELY lucky ) both of them shell broke up in front tiger turret.

Conclusion is obvious the IS-2 didnt take any chance vs tigers to 800 m front to front. I understand the very low ROF of IS-2, its low long distance poor accuracy etc..etc..... but was so great the germans tigers superiority?

Well we can think this is logical superior penetration and armor for germans.... Sure?

500-1000 m 142-129 mm to 0º for germans tigers and.....

500-1000 m 160-136 mm to 0º for IS-2

armor:

Tiger front turret: 102 mm 8º

IS-2 front turret: 100 mm curved

Well really it is not so different.Inclusive i see a light soviet superiority but.......

Ths conclusion is obvious the pen. algoritms favour to germans the most of times.

If u dont believe me do the test plz. Dont mistake with me plz I THINK the CMBB is a MARVELLOUS game...but as is well knowed the last years wargames overstimate systematically to germans and understimate to soviets Why?? Simple...... the 90-80 % gamers play with germans....and is a lot of "commercial" to make a easy game playing germans than not.....

Another theme is the totally inexistent capacity AT of the soviet infantry in the game.... (PLZ dont say to me that the molotov is AT weapon PLZZZZZZ ) Was it so.....? Are u sure? But it'll be in another topic.....

I know the 99% of people is absolutely disagree with me... but there is anybody who clocluded the same..."The russians are understimated" Plz say to me i have curiosity.....

Bye and SORRY a lot for my english and for insisting with the same topic "one time more"..... hehehehe

[manuelespejo]

gorgias i absolutely agree with u! :eek:

[Denizen]

I agree as well... The Tiger was given a unique trait "reinforced turret armor" which gives it an odd advantage in terms of armor protection, as there were reinforced areas of the IS-2 turret in real life, up to 160mm on the late version mantlet (the early mantlet only went up to 110mm) Dont expect BFC to do anything about it though.

[gorgias]

Dont worry denizen I dont expect anything..... I know the money is money and the soviets must be a "sparring" to the germans for every new and future "german player" enjoy the game........

[offtaskagain]

The IS-2 shell break up is likely due to over penetration. You can search for it, look for any postings by Rexford. Also, the Russians themselves noted the superiority of Tigers in frontal engagements. I don't have a location of one but there are several documents that relate an order to IS-2 crews to avoid engaging Tigers frontally. Conversly, Tiger crews were ordered to avoid IS-2s unless the Tigers were in platoon strength or greater.

[ April 08, 2003, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]

[Amedeo]

The IS-2 units avoided engagements with Tigers unless they had numerical superiority and then only at more than 2000m range. This is an historical fact.

Try a test with late IS tanks w/APBC ammo at 2200m, say 5 IS vs. 4 Tigers and see the results...

A.

[gorgias]

2200 m?? Are u sure?? But How many turns could the IS-2 need to get a single hit to 2200 meters??

2 shoot by minute... low accuracy to long range...well perhaps 10 turns (minutes being optimistic).

Are u serious or joke me? Is there some gun in the game wich could penetrate a the "reinforced" frontal tiger armor to 2200 meters? Maybe the 100 mm AT gun but the 122 mm.......... i think anyway. But if it can not disable a tiger to 1000 meters!!!!!

Tiger crew avoiding the confrontation with IS-2? In real life is possible in CM Why? Do u think seriously that the IS-2 can suppose a real threathen to the Tigers?

[MikeyD]

The 'heavy' IS-2 was considerably smaller than a Tiger II. Even to class it with a Panther would be stretching it. I've stood next to one and it's MUCH smaller than you'd think.

The King Tiger was a unique vehicle, there's no shame in not being able to stand up to it. The IS-2's gun was definitely superior in infantry support, though. It was based on an artillery piece and fired a much larger HE shell than the Tiger could throw. And a bazillion IS-2s were produced to less than 500(?) Tiger 2s.

About infantry anti-tank capacity, nobody can come up with evidence of a proper anti-tank weapon besides those anti-tank rifles (and the hand-thrown stuff in the game) being used by russian infantry. If anyone had given them evidence for a weapon in service I'm sure BFc would've jumped at the chance to put it in (after all, they put in the ampuloment!).

[ April 08, 2003, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[White Phosphorus]

A lots of memoirs mention the Russians using greande bundles. Also The Soviet General Staff study on the battle of Kursk mentions them as well.

[gorgias]

Mickey i didnt speak about the king tiger but about the "first" or "early" tiger....

Well about evidence of AT infantry weapons.... The USA didnt give numerous "bazookas" to soviets in the lend lease program?? with the shermans, M3 white scout, stuart etc..etc.....

[laxx]

may be off-topic, maybe not....with spoiler alert ahead...maybe not:

----------------------

- There is a scenario where a company of Tigers try to enter a town infested with well armed IS-2. THis is a good scenario in that IS-2 will win quite easily but with tactics and less bogging, the tigers could win as well.

As for IS-2, i never like the concept of a lone IS-2 or Tiger for that matter to go up against an enemy tank. I changed tactics to always have at least a pair of tanks when engaging, and i tend to place them very closely so that both will have LOS at the same time.

cheers!

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by laxx:

As for IS-2, i never like the concept of a lone IS-2 or Tiger for that matter to go up against an enemy tank. I changed tactics to always have at least a pair of tanks when engaging, and i tend to place them very closely so that both will have LOS at the same time.

That is an excellent tactic for any tank type. But there is a risk. With some luck the enemy can hit one and with the "ranging in" modelling has a higher initial chance to hit the second parked very close to the first.

Still, I'd use your tactic and take my chances.

Cheers,

Sarge

[PzKpfw 1]

Someone care to identify a single man portable Soviet Inf AT weapon other then ATRs issued standard to Soviet Rifle formations in large numbers ?.

IS-2's were not AT platforms they were designed as breakthru tanks, to defeat built up German infantry positions, bunkers etc.

IS-2s carried more HE/Frag then AP rounds, and the ammo load was only 28 rounds, of which only 7-9 rounds were AP. Reportedly 122mm OF-471 HE/Frag could crack & even tear off Tiger E armor if hit near the weld seams.

The IS-2 armor was also a weak point originaly Ie, In March 1944 the Soviets conducted LF tests vs an IS-2 with an Zis 3 76mm gun @ ranges of 500 - 600m the 76mm penetrated or partialy penetrated IS-2 from all aspects.

Initial Soviet combat reports stated the IS-2 could defeat the Tiger E, DFP out to 1200m, but could only defeat the Panther glacis below 700m. Reportedly the later BR-471 122mm ammo could crack the Panther glacis out to 2500m.

Regards, John Waters

[gorgias]

Ok perfect.. have u seen in the game a IS-2 disable a Tiger E out to 1200 m without a lot of luck??

First the IS-2 will be destroyed before it can hit the tiger the high number of times necessary for a shoot penetrate the frontal turret of tiger.... the most of times.

Second with the very low ROF of IS-2 How many turns will have to be shooting the IS to be able to hit the tiger to 1200 meters!!!!! ?

Really u use the soviet tank to that ranges?? seriously?? But if the % average to be able to hit a target to that range usually is 1-5% (initially) for a good soviet tank....

I never use a soviet tank out to 1000 meters... no fear...... sincerely i dont like to present my AP ammunition to germans.... But if in my first test to 800 meters and very goods conditions the IS-2s had only a 25 % of hits!!!!

Infantery ATs: Did Anybody hear to speak about a soviet RPG?? Copy of the british PIAT.... And the lend lease bazookas??

The better is "Did use the soviets massively this type of weapons?" hehehehehe Well, well, well... And the germans?? Did the germans use massively the King Tiger?? Maybe the Sturmtiger....?? Sorry sorry maybe the elefant or ferdinand......??

No sarcastic in anyway only joke hehehe

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by gorgias

:

Ok perfect.. have u seen in the game a IS-2 disable a Tiger E out to 1200 m without a lot of luck??

I havent had many IS-2 engagements with Tiger E, I prefer to use IS-2s against emplaced German inf & defences. I have had IS-2s kill Panther G's out to 1400m with turret front penetrations.

First the IS-2 will be destroyed before it can hit the tiger the high number of times necessary for a shoot penetrate the frontal turret of tiger.... the most of times.

You never mentioned you were hitting the Tiger E turret front, the 1200m reported by IS-2 crews only concerned the DFP, the mantlet is a whole nother story as its up to 140mm thick in places.

Second with the very low ROF of IS-2 How many turns will have to be shooting the IS to be able to hit the tiger to 1200 meters!!!!! ?

\

The low ROF is historical due in part to the ammunition first the 122mm ammo was 2 part, & 2nd weight; an BR-471 round weighed 25Kg, a German Panther crew could get off 3-5 rounds in the time an IS-2 could get 1 off. Also what was your crew quality?. Also remeber optics quality, which is in the Germans favor. It's also interesting that the D-25T maximum effective range is listed at 9km inderect fire, & 900m in direct fire, in some publications.

Really u use the soviet tank to that ranges?? seriously?? But if the % average to be able to hit a target to that range usually is 1-5% (initially) for a good soviet tank....

Erm no the 2500m is from Soviet IS-2 reports but this could only be done by an exceptional crew. & that would be on par again with Soviet optical disadvantages.

Infantery ATs: Did Anybody hear to speak about a soviet RPG?? Copy of the british PIAT.... And the lend lease bazookas??

And can you provide exact numbers on Bazooka deliveries lend lease, as well as units whom were supplied with them?. Can you provide records on the RPG service entry date as well as numbers produced & shipped to units?.

Soviet infantry did not have to rely on MP AT weapons they were provided with direct support of SU & tanks, as well as DF artillery pieces down to Co level. The interesting part is photos of Soviet inf in 1944 - 1945 show them carrying Panzerfausts.

Regards, John Waters

[ April 09, 2003, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Soddball]

Firstly, the IS-2 is not a dedicated tank killer. If you want one, pick the SU-85 or SU-100. They are superior tank killers.

Secondly, the IS-2's rate of fire is abominable. It's a good infantry tank but is poor against a Tiger.

Thirdly, if you read my FAQ you will not that the StuGIIIG can put a round through the front armour of the IS-2 at 500m. The IS-2 is not an ubertank.

I think that your ignorance and preconceptions are blurring your vision.

[Amedeo]

Gorgias I'm not kidding.

In an issue of the Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen the German said:

"1. When a Tiger appears most IS tanks turn away and attempt to avoid a fire fight.

2. In many cases the IS tanks let themselves engage in a fire fight only at long range over 2000m, and also when they themselves are in favourable positions [...]"

I set up a test pitting a single late model PzKpfw-VI E vs. a single late model IS-2 just over 2000m (IS-2 had APBC rounds).

BTW If you or anyone else is interested in the scenario file just drop me a line, email in profile.

The German crew was rated elite, the Soviet one crack (I decided to use souped up ratings just to speed up things a bit, but the relative quality should reflect the actual late was situation).

I ran the test 10 times with no fog of war (to be able to correclty asses what happened at both sides) and got the following results.

01) Tiger killed during 2nd move

02) Tiger killed during 4th move

03) Tiger killed during 1st move

04) IS-2 killed during 1st move

05) IS-2 killed during 1st move

06) Tiger killed during 2nd move

07) Tiger killed during 2nd move

08) IS-2 immobilized and w/gun damaged by 2nd move

09) Tiger killed during 3rd move

10) Tiger killed during 1st move

So the IS won 7 engagements out of 10 with a 2min firefight (average). The victories were obtained without losses, save for turn 2 and turn 6 in which the Tiger managed to damage the tank and/orcrew before succumbing.

IMHO with less experienced crews the same results can be expected, maybe with one or two turns delay. And if you have Soviet numerical superiority and manage to increase the range a bit, I think that the Tigers stand no chance.

Regards,

Amedeo

[Bastables]

Originally posted by gorgias:

Dont worry denizen I dont expect anything..... I know the money is money and the soviets must be a "sparring" to the germans for every new and future "german player" enjoy the game........

Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen sep 1944:

"(35m range) Tiger was hit by a 12,2cm shell on front below radio op position," Round did not penatrate due to obliqe angle.

"1. When a tiger appears, most IS tanks turn away and attempt to avoid firefight.

2. In many cases, the IS tanks let themselves engage in firefights only at long range (over 2000 metres) and also only when they themselves are in favrouble positions on the edge of woods, villages, or ridge lines."

German experiences fighting IS 2s match how the Tankist (soviets) were trained/SOP for fighting Tigers. Neither German nor Soviet reports on Tiger versus IS-2 show, to use an olegism (developer of IL2) "absolute superiority" in favour of the IS2. Hell things such as 2000m recomended engagement ranges don't reflect well at all on the IS2.

[Leon]

Hi

In my opinion nearly all German equipement is a little bit "to strong" in this game.... i.e. 3,7 cm PAK disabling T-34 at 400-500 meters and something like this...

Talking about IS-2 - have a look at it:

http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_2.html

http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_3.html

S!

leon

[rune]

And it is only your opinion.

The formulas match test firing reports in most cases. The T34 depends on which model the T34 is. All of this has been gone over before, and historical references given.

Rune

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Denizen:

I agree as well... The Tiger was given a unique trait "reinforced turret armor" which gives it an odd advantage in terms of armor protection, as there were reinforced areas of the IS-2 turret in real life, up to 160mm on the late version mantlet (the early mantlet only went up to 110mm) Dont expect BFC to do anything about it though.

If this were true the IS III would never have been proposed never mind built, as 160mm turret armour would have been proof versus the main German PaK.

The IS III was built because the turret armour of the IS II could not be increased without unbalancing the turret, simple as that.

[YankeeDog]

Regarding Russian use of Bazookas and other IAT weapons:

Most books I have read put the number of bazookas actually shipped under Lend Lease at about 5000. Curiiously, nothing I've read makes this clear whether this figure represents launchers (presumably with some multiple of rockets per launcher), or just the rockets themselves.

I do remember seeing a photo somewhere of a bazooka in a shipping crate showing the launcher and several rockets all in the same crate, so my *guess* is that the "5000" refers to the number of these crates, with one launcher and a few rockets per crate.

5000 bazookas is certainly enough that one would expect them to have at least some presence on the East Front battlefield *if* they were deployed.

And therein lies the rub. Apparently, the Russians (or at least the Russian brass that made deployment decisions) didn't like the things very much. Reports from Russian field tests of the zook that I have read generally show that they had a pretty low opinion of it. And I have never read a single account of a zook's use in actual combat on the East Front. This raises the distinct possibility that they were never deployed in any significant numbers at all.

The issue of Russian bazookas was debated quite frequently on this forum during CMBB's development. While it's possible that I missed a post somewhere along the line, I have yet to see a *single* post giving hard evidence of actual zook deployment on the East front anywhere. Considering the considerable collective knowledge of the grogs on this forum, this would seem to lend support to the thesis that the Russians never deployed the zooks they received in any significant numbers.

If anyone has hard evidence of zooks being used on the East Front, I'm sure many here would love to hear about it. Barring evidence of actual usage, I don't think you're likely to see them in a future version of CM.

As a side note, there is plenty of evidence that late-war allied infantry (on both East and West fronts) were quite keen on picking up discarded Panzerfausts and using them against their makers. One American infantryman I saw interviewed put the number of Panzerfausts in his unit in the fall of 1944 at "at least one per platoon". I have also read accounts of Russians using captured Panzershrecks. Somewhere in the foggy recesses of my mind, I seem to remember a story about the Russians capturing a Panzershreck factory in East Prussia and keeping the assembly line running to equip their own troops.

In many cases, the the German IAT weapons seem to have been favored by Allied infantry more as bunker-busters than as tank killers as by this point in the war German tanks were becoming fairly rare. Bazookas also seem to have been used against stationary defensive emplacements on the West Front.

I would actually advocate *limited* availablity of captured Panzerfausts and Shrecks to late-war Russian infantry before I would advocate the inclusion of Zooks on the East front. For the record, I'd actually like to see both, just with appropriately high rarity factors.

Final note: The first Russian RPG, the RPG-43, is in the game. While I do not speak Russian, it is my understanding that "RPG" did not originally stand for "Rocket Propelled Grenade", which is the way most people use the term in English today. The original Russian acronym stood for "Grenade for Use Against Tanks" or something like that, and thus could apply to a thrown weapon just as well as a rocket-propelled one. I'm sure some Russian Grog will be along to correct me on this one if I'm wrong.

Anyway, the first Russian RPG weapon in the modern sense (as in a rocket-propelled shaped charge IAT weapon) was based on the Pz. 150, a late-war upsized version of the Panzerfaust that AFAIK never saw action. Apparently the Russians captured several prototypes of it, though, and developed their postwar RPG design from the German prototype.

Grogs please feel free to correct any mistakes I've made. . .

YD

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by Denizen:

I agree as well... The Tiger was given a unique trait "reinforced turret armor" which gives it an odd advantage in terms of armor protection, as there were reinforced areas of the IS-2 turret in real life, up to 160mm on the late version mantlet (the early mantlet only went up to 110mm) Dont expect BFC to do anything about it though.

Care to provide a refrence for this claim Denizen?. The Tiger E reinforced mantlet thickness was researched & documented.

Concerning the IS-2 turret front They tried but could not, reinforce it, since it was originaly designed for an 85mm gun, the 122mm when installed caused balance problems.

They intended to increase front turret armor to 130mm but couldn't, again mainly due to balance issues, . What they did do was widen the front of the turret & increase the mantlet thickness.

Another problem is, the whole reason of the IS-3's front armor was, designed to defeat the 8.8cm L/71 the IS-2 could not do this, a Soviet tank loss study in 1944 found that the main cause of tank loss was front turret penetrations.

While the 2nd leading cause of loss was hull front penetrstions. If the late IS-2s mantlet was reinforced to 160mm as you claim, then their was realy no need for the IS-3 design.

Regards, John Waters

[ April 09, 2003, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[JasonC]

The IS-2 turret is probably undermodeled because its "curved" armor plate is treated as modest angle most of the time. I too have seen a ridiculous number of "shell broke up" results against the "reinforced turret front" of the Tiger I. Bouncing 85mm sometimes I can see. In the game, they bounce those practically always and sometimes bounce long 122mm and 152mm.

As for the fellow testing 2000m with crack crews, no it doesn't just make it go faster. Those conditions have nothing to do with practical CMBB realities. A regular IS-2 crew will not hit the Tiger at those ranges, before running out of AP.

Also, the Tiger's tactic should be fast move to 1500m or so, then fire. A typical IS-2 crew can't hit a moving target at such ranges. Only the home in from one shot to another makes long range fire practical anyway, and fast movement prevents that. Slow ROF, limited ammo, moving target, no unrealistically uber crew, all mean the Tiger is in no real danger during this movement.

Once the Tiger gets to a range where its own rounds will reliably get through the turret front, it stops and fires. It will home rapidly with its higher ROF and kill the IS-2 with ease.

As for the historical tactic of avoiding direct dueling with Tigers, it is true but hardly based on any perceived inferiority in tank duel terms. The Russians simply understood they could have heavy tank units at more locations along the front than the German could. If they let the German heavies duel, they might lose some of the fights and so allow the small number of German heavy tank units to address these threats in sequence.

By instead denying battle where the German heavies were, and pressing where they weren't, they kept their heavy tank "fleet in being". The Germans could not readily counter them at every point. The Russians did not care where they broke through, only that they did. It was a simple case of hitting where they ain't.

In the real deal, the Russians considered their IS-2s valuable at "vanilla" parts of the line because their armor protected them from the most common German heavy AT weapon, the 75L48, whether on Pz IVs, StuGs, Marders, early Jagds, Hetzers, or the towed PAK.

In CMBB, they sometimes cower even from Pz IVs - I've seen it. And those will kill them through the undermodeled turret front, not at 500m via weak point hits as the Russians own reports admit, but routinely at 750-800m. Why? Because "curved" acts like very little slope, a known CMBB issue in other contexts as well.

The main problem with handling Tigers and the like in CMBB is not modeling details, however. Those can all be overcome by good enough play. If they stack the deck somewhat, it is at the margin in a basically accurate, hyper detailed AT model. The main problem is tank cower routines.

Players cannot control those, and it is extremely frustrating to see perfect play defeated by completely unrealistic idiotic decisions by the Tac AI. IS-2s cower from Pz IVs. Upgunned SUs cower from heavy tanks they have hunted perfectly and have the drop on. T-34s with APCR cower from Tigers they have maneuvered to 100m away from and directly behind.

I have personally seen each of these, and lost armor engagements because of them that I would have handily won had the crews just pulled the freaking trigger after I set up the shot. All the other issues are quibbles. Tank cower is broken and needs to be fixed.

One man's opinion.

[Amedeo]

Originally posted by JasonC:

As for the fellow testing 2000m with crack crews, no it doesn't just make it go faster. Those conditions have nothing to do with practical CMBB realities. A regular IS-2 crew will not hit the Tiger at those ranges, before running out of AP.

I meant faster with respect to veteran crews. I agree that with regular or green crews this kind of firefight is hopeless in CMBB.

Moreover the favourable results against the Tiger can be obtained only with AMBC ammo that was (AFAIK) still not disponible during summer/fall 1944 (the period to which the quoted German report refers to).

Anyway I think that if you want to fight against big cats with IS-2's in CMBB you have to look for very long range engagements in numerical superiority, or adopt shoot-n-scoot from medium range or ambush positions at short range followed by a speedy retreat.

If you want to stationary firefight the Panzers frontally at medium range the SU-85M and SU-100 are way better. If you want to maneuvre for a flank shot, the T-34-85 is the best choice for speed and ROF.

Regards,

Amedeo