Cessna Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by Jack Carr: 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. Okay, fair enough - I thought you were being sarcastic. If that's not the case, I apologize. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meldorian Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Originally posted by MikeyD: 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. Only over short distances. In long range engagements, neither can frontally hurt the other and it comes down to who gets a weak spot penetration first. As King Tigers have both more ammo and a higher rate of fire, the ueber cat is superior in these, at least in CMBB. But rejoice, the JSIII is faster, which should more or less compensate for the King Tiger's higher ammo loadout. edit: I once had this really fun fight between a platoon of Tiger 2s and 6 or so JSIIIs. I played the Russians and I won, but only after runnig out of AP rounds. The last King Tiger got battered by 122mm HE rounds until it retreated off the map. [ March 24, 2004, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: meldorian ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cessna Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 With that said, my point is that tank armor isn't 100%. Tanks aren't solid blocks of steel - each has its own strengths and weaknesses. A heavily armored tank may take a hit in a vision port or some sort of weakness. One of the things that impresses me about the game is the fact that it incorporates armor quality into the game. It's a nice touch. So I suppose that it is entirely possible to have a wide range of possibilities. What may penetrate with one shot may not with another... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 What I found interesting from the Russian Battlefield site was the reference to Tiger I's which allegedly had better penetration ability against IS 2's than the Panther. This is definitely not the case in CMBB. Also, they mention that because of the almost square dimensions of the Tiger it significantly aided its manoeuverability. I'd never heard this hypothesis before but I guess it kind of makes sense and I do recall from American reports that they were always jealous of how well the Tiger I was able to negotiate tricky terrain compared with their own tank fleet. Regards Jim R. [ March 25, 2004, 06:48 AM: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George MC Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Interesting debate. There are several relevant referneces to the above in the Nafziger publication 'German Panzer Tactics in WWII' by Charles Sharp. I'll quote some of the comments which refer to combat between JS II and the German Tiger (does not mention whether Tiger I or II). The first from a German Combat Report. "In many cases the the Josef Stalin tanks let themselves engage in a firefight only at long ranges (over 2000m) and also only when they themselves are in favourable positions on the edge of woods, villages, or on a ridge line." It then goes on to add - The enemy crews tend to evacuate their tanks immediately the first shot is fired at them." Other comments -"In addition, a firefight with Josef Stalin tanks should not be undertaken in less than platoon strength. Employment of single Tigers means their loss." In response to this report Heinz Guderian, the Inspector general of the Panzer Truppen added some comments. When discussing the tactics employed by Tiger units he was concerned that the crews believing in the invincibility of the Tiger were tending to disregard the principles of tank tactics. Quote -"Statements like "thick fur", "impregnable", and the "security" of the crews inside the Tigers ....... must be wiped out and forgotten." And in regard to the comments about engaging in firefights with JS tanks at platoon strength he added -"...three Tigers should not flee from five Josef Stalin tanks only because they cannot start the firefight at full platoon strength.... Many times tank-versus-tank combat will be directly decided , not by the number of tanks, but more often by superior combat tactics." To compare these German comments there are also Soviet combat reports published in the same book. The relevant one being that the JS tanks and Tigers tended to try and ambush each other. As this Soviet report states -"If there was a German tank out there in the open, not camouflaged, the IS approached, fired, and withdrew...Gunnery took the form of just one round (between the IS and the Tiger. A second round was just about ruled out. The firing accuracy of the Tiger and our IS was about identical." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 A small warning about the Russian Battlefield site. It's happened repeatedly that while 99% of the info is spot-on accurate its always that last 1% that trips you up. I recall being tripped-up last year by a bit of misinformation on the (admittedly obscure) BT-2, and there's some doubt about their IS-2 hull front armor numbers. So if Russian Battlefield says the Tiger I outpenetrated the Panther it should be considered to be *possibly* correct. George MC, your comments are very interesting from the games pespective. "...the IS approached, fired, and withdrew" brings to mind a great deal of board debate about Russian tank 'cowardice' in the game. And the line "the crews believing in the invincibility of the Tiger were tending to disregard the principles of tank tactics." sounds exactly like how I use Tigers! [ March 25, 2004, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Ok, just wanting to point out one thing, which doesnt have anything to do wiht the KTII, but JS2 in CMBB. The JS2 can be extremly effective. 1) If it hits a german AFV, its dead. 2) High blast value against soft targets. How to use it: Shoot & Scoot. Try, and you ll be rewarded by many a burning german AFV. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 There are reports and I've seen the accompanying pictures where Nashorns knocked out Stalin tanks at 2000m and greater ranges with penetrations of the turret front or mantlet. The turret front was 100mm rounded, the mantlet 110mm (or 100mm) and rounded, and the high hardness armor could lose some resistance due to brittleness. The IS-2 hull front could be 90mm rolled armor at 30 degrees, which could be penetrated by the Tiger II and Nashorn at a good range. 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.