Alexei Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 What is true, what is propaganda here?: The JS-2 in Comparison with Its German Counterparts Were Tiger II really that bad when encountering JS-2 ?? :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Wow! That was an interesting read. One historical KT/IS-2 CD scenario not withstanding, I had never seen an account of King Tigers vs IS-2s before. Though its hard to tell from the text I suspect most of the success against the Tigers in the narrative actually involved T-34-85s. As to how 'bad' the KT really was, I can only recall the numerous games I've played where I thought wasting all my points on an expensive KT would give me invulnerability. I'd invariably make a stupid mistake and either bog it or lose it to a side shot. Its almost like owning a KT makes you stupid, you throw all proper armor tactics out the window! And from the narrative that sounds like precisely what happened to the Germans during the assault. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 In CM, the IS-2 tanks are regularly smashed by German vanilla 75L/48 guns. What MikeyD said about expensive übertanks: "never put all your eggs in the same basket". Personally, I'll rather buy a platoon of Stugs and lose all but one, than spend the same points on a Koenigstiger, and see it bog well beyond the victory flags, or lose it's gun to a cheap shot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 This webpage made for some great reading. It does state further down on the details link that the German loss was not due to the inferiority of their vehicle but the inferiority of their planning coupled with good Russian defensive setup and planning. As was stated in this thread, a well placed 75L48 penetrates the IS-2's armor with deadly effect. Is that realistic? If so, than the IS-2 was no less a failure than the King Tiger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 i've never had much luck with the is2 myself, though i haven't used them all that often. slow firing and low ammo loads make them too expensive compared to the t34/85. still i suspect that russian morale was heightened considerably when supported by the impressive looking is2s, much as american morale was boosted when the pershing came along... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by Alexei: What is true, what is propaganda here?: The JS-2 in Comparison with Its German Counterparts Were Tiger II really that bad when encountering JS-2 ?? :confused: I don't know where it is but there was a long raging thread on Soviet heavy tank cowardice and geberated several interesting posts on the misconceptions about JS-2's. I wouldn't even know where to begion searching for it. IIRC, Redleg was a significant contributer on it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=006743;p=1 This the thread i think thewood was talking about. Can i ask one quick question though? Why does the JS2 only have a 4-man crew? I thought one of the T34/85 greatest advantages was the 3-man turret? Thanks [ March 24, 2004, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: stikkypixie ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 The only experience I have with IS2's against KT's is waiting for one to reload while the KT beat it to the second shot and knocked it out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cessna Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by Jack Carr: As was stated in this thread, a well placed 75L48 penetrates the IS-2's armor with deadly effect. Is that realistic? If so, than the IS-2 was no less a failure than the King Tiger. No tank is invulnerable. A "well placed" shot can be disastrous, regardless of a tank's armor - every tank has weaknesses. I don't think I'd write off the JS-II because of this... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 "Why does the JS2 only have a 4-man crew? I thought one of the T34/85 greatest advantages was the 3-man turret?" The T34 has a 3-man turret plus driver and bow mg operator. the IS-2 has a 3-man turret and driver. No bow mg. Actually, in real life things were more complicated. The initial production T-34-85 still only had a 2 man turret! That's why the early commander's cupola was positioned farther forward on the turret roof, so he could slip into and out of the gunner's seat quickly. This is an obscure piece of info and still in some dispute, so CMBB doesn't represent this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Ah ok thanks Mike! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 The IS-2 definately isn't invulnerable to Pak40 (let alone Tiger or Panther), but it has better chances of surviving a hit than a T-34. The gun has a nice blast value, handy when dealing with ATG's, but the slow ROF is a handicap. This compels one to use them as a bunch. Of course, using tanks singly is never a good idea. But it's not a real übertank, definately not like KV-1 in 1941 or Tiger in 1943. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by Cessna: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jack Carr: As was stated in this thread, a well placed 75L48 penetrates the IS-2's armor with deadly effect. Is that realistic? If so, than the IS-2 was no less a failure than the King Tiger. No tank is invulnerable. A "well placed" shot can be disastrous, regardless of a tank's armor - every tank has weaknesses. I don't think I'd write off the JS-II because of this... </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cessna Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Yes, I did - there's no need to be rude. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by Cessna: Yes, I did - there's no need to be rude. If the turret front of the IS-2 can't stand a 75/L48 round at 100-300 meters, then it's definitely a weakness. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Maybe we should be comparing the KT to the IS-3! Now that's a mean mutha. I always forget its in the game (it is, isn't it?) because of no dedicated polygon. I can probably count on the fingers of one hand how many times I've seen it in battle, but it WILL give your wimpy KT a run for its money. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cessna Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by Bone_Vulture: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cessna: Yes, I did - there's no need to be rude. If the turret front of the IS-2 can't stand a 75/L48 round at 100-300 meters, then it's definitely a weakness. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 The Pak40 also penetrates Panther/Tiger etc. frontally from 300 m. Too bad for Russians they didn't have Pak40! (But Romanians do, making them an interesting choice for the Allied player in 1944...) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 what the Russian have is that long barreled 57mm ZIS-2(?) anti-tank gun that is capable of making some really nasty holes in sone really expensive armor. You've given me an idea. I should dust off some of those Russian captured Panthers I never use and run them up against German anti-tank defenses. See if there's any difference in outcome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by MikeyD: what the Russian have is that long barreled 57mm ZIS-2(?) anti-tank gun that is capable of making some really nasty holes in sone really expensive armor.The difference being in that one of them was the ubiquitous backbone of German AT defences whilst the other was expensive and rarely met in battle. Actually, I wonder... how were the 57mm high-velocity guns distributed? At random, or given primarily to certain divisions/some specialized high echelon units... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Strikes me as something that would turn up in Guards units. The Kalin raid (?) on the outskirts of Leningrad supposedly featured a number of 57mm armed T34s 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 I couldn't find any info on 57mm ZIS-2 gun distribution on the 'Russian Battlefield' site. They did say it was grotesquely expensive and production was stopped on Dec. 41, not be restarted til a year and a half later with a new barrel shortened from 86 caliber lengths to 63.5. I'd say the Tiger/Panther threat would pretty well guarantee that they'd be put to use on the front whenever they were available. 76.2mm ZIS-3 was classed as divisional artillery, not anti-tank so I don't know how that gun was distributed to units either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by Cessna: Yes, I did - there's no need to be rude. Listen chief, it's really quite simple. The original post by Alexei asks: "Were Tiger II's really that bad when encountering JSII's?". The website talks about a one-sided encounter in which the Soviet JSII's mop up against a counter attack by King Tiger's. It also states down the page a ways that the victory described on the page was not due to the superiority of the Russian tank but the inferiority of the German tactics. Someone else posted that the German 75L48 kills JSII's. Ok...so far so good...All I simply said was if the King Tiger was a failure because of it's inability to take on the Russian heavy tank than the JSII was just as bad because of its inability to take on the German medium. To which you replied, "No tank is invulnerable." ??? Help me out on this one. To top it off, suddenly I'm the rude guy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 The trivia that I've heard is that the Königstiger was effective defending, but was too cumbersome to lead assaults? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel J Lee Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 By every statistical accounting of German tank guns' effectiveness that I've read, the Panthers L70 is more effective at penetrating armor than the Mark IV's L48. Plain and simple. The King Tiger/JS-2 battle covered in this article is an anomaly. That is to say, there are very few accounts of KTs on the offensive in this manner and in this case they WERE poorly used. Note, quite a few were abandoned in working condition. They were definitely better appropriated on the defensive. The skirmishes with JS-2s that I've read about (along the Vistula river for e.g. in Jan. '45?) resulted in pretty even loss numbers between the two sides. The JS-2 was more maneuverable, so better offensively. THe KT had better long range fire ability. Both were heavily armored. Both could destroy one another at normal combat ranges (as most accounts indicate). So, I would not rush to say which was a better tank unless I knew the circumstances I was fighting under. That's my two cents. I would say, though, that because the KT often broke down in the field and WAS cumbersome and slow that I would take the JS-2 in most cases. But I'm not an expert. Good discussion though. 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.