rexford Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 Recent discussions and research on other forums strongly suggests that the IS-2 tanks had 110mm mantlets, and IS-2 Model 1944 had a front lower hull thickness of 100mm cast or 90mm rolled. These figures contrast with the British Intelligence report (100mm mantlet and 127mm front lower hull) that I used to swear by. I asked Vasiliy Fofanov to look in his Russian books on armor thickness and he replied (on Yahoo! Tankers site), "Zheltov et al. confirms, it is 100mm cast or 90mm rolled." Many drawings on Russian Battlefield show 100mm lower front hull on IS-2 Model 1944, see http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_1.html, FIGURE 6. Cross-sections showing different arrangements for joining the frontal armour plates. Unfortunately, another drawing on the same page shows 120mm for front lower hull on IS-2 with 60 degree glacis. Confusion reigns supreme! Thanks to Dima for bringing this subject to my attention. [ January 15, 2003, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: rexford ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 This might or might not correlate, but back in the 1980's, in the days of ASL, it was discovered at one point through some article in the Avalon Hill "General" that the IS-2 (I forget the specific model) had a thinner gun mantlet than had been presumed in the ASL game specs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted January 16, 2003 Author Share Posted January 16, 2003 Originally posted by Spook: This might or might not correlate, but back in the 1980's, in the days of ASL, it was discovered at one point through some article in the Avalon Hill "General" that the IS-2 (I forget the specific model) had a thinner gun mantlet than had been presumed in the ASL game specs.You're correct. ASL used the 160mm figure that was popular at the time, but they also were restricted by an armor system that only allowed the turret rating to be one change increment higher or lower than the hull. The 160mm thickness for mantlet is no longer given any weight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 I just checked the CMBB strategy guide on Soviet armor listings. Apparently, the IS-2 has two Model 1944 versions in CMBB, the standard and an "early" version. The early M1944 utilizes the same armor as for the IS-2 M1943 (about 90-100mm front hull thickness), while the "standard" M1944 utilizes the values cited in the British intelligence report (127). I suppose it depends on which M1944 version is being assessed here, and it doesn't help that I'm not an expert to specific IS-2 versions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demoss Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 This might or might not correlate, but back in the 1980's, in the days of ASL, it was discovered at one point through some article in the Avalon Hill "General" that the IS-2 (I forget the specific model) had a thinner gun mantlet than had been presumed in the ASL game specs. Been years since I've played a scenario with one, but I recall it being the IS-2m that had the uberarmor. It was roughly comparable to a KT, as I recall. Presumably this is the later 1944 model. 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.