Retreating Monster Tanks revealed (monster pictures)

[Redwolf]

I don't see why this simple question requires a 100 line answer:

In CMBB, is the ISU-122, all aspects specific to this vehicle and all general armor combat factors combined, modeled so that it should better not take on a Pz IV lang from 500-600m?

Yes or no?

[ December 02, 2002, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[manchildstein (ii)]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

He wouldn't be the first, nor the last, to misunderstand what the IS and ISU vehicles were designed for. And this is understandable because on paper these things look like they were supposed to plink tanks.

i wonder how much of this has to do with the old squad leader? in that game the is tanks were used to slug it out with panzers... until i started to hang out on these battlefront forums, i had no idea that the is tanks were mainly anti-personnel...

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by manchildstein II:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

He wouldn't be the first, nor the last, to misunderstand what the IS and ISU vehicles were designed for. And this is understandable because on paper these things look like they were supposed to plink tanks.

i wonder how much of this has to do with the old squad leader? in that game the is tanks were used to slug it out with panzers... until i started to hang out on these battlefront forums, i had no idea that the is tanks were mainly anti-personnel...</font>

[Mikeydz]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I don't see why this simple question requires a 100 line answer:

In CMBB, is the ISU-122, all aspects specific to this vehicle and all general armor combat factors combined, modeled so that it should better not take on a Pz IV lang from 500-600m?

Yes or no?

Yes, the way the ISU is modeled in CMBB, it should not take on a PzIV at 500-600m.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Do you guys realize that the ISU-152 and the ISU-122 are identical vehicles, only that the guns were exchangeable? (they had the same mount, any 152 could easily be converted into a 122 by simply pulling out the gun and inserting the other one)

And so the point about taking out the 152mm gun and putting in the 122 one is...????

The 122mm gun was originally fitted solely because there weren't enough 152mm guns to fit to the chassis. Happily for the Russians the combination worked well.

and a lot of us know this because the Russian Battlefield site says so!

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Mike:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

Do you guys realize that the ISU-152 and the ISU-122 are identical vehicles, only that the guns were exchangeable? (they had the same mount, any 152 could easily be converted into a 122 by simply pulling out the gun and inserting the other one)

And so the point about taking out the 152mm gun and putting in the 122 one is...????

The 122mm gun was originally fitted solely because there weren't enough 152mm guns to fit to the chassis. Happily for the Russians the combination worked well.

and a lot of us know this because the Russian Battlefield site says so! </font>

[billcarey]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Unfortunately you mix up the short 122mm howitzer and the 122mm AT gun, just like Andreas before.

Even if what you say is true (and I can't speak to that either way) the fact that a vehicle mounted an AT gun doesn't mean that it should be used to engage armored targets at any range.

The Nashorn is clearly meant for anti-tank work, yet should run screaming in terror from a pack of T-60s *if they are very very close* because a big scary gun is only advantageous at distance.

Everything's a tradeoff. The IS-2 trades rate of fire for giant boom-making ability, and as such would fare less well against a tank that traded high explosive punch for rate of fire and muzzle velocity.

My uneducated thoughts.

- B.

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

I don't see why this simple question requires a 100 line answer:

And you accused everybody else of having a short attention span? Man... how obvious could the answer be after reading just a page or two fo this thread?

In CMBB, is the ISU-122, all aspects specific to this vehicle and all general armor combat factors combined, modeled so that it should better not take on a Pz IV lang from 500-600m?

Yes or no?

The ISU-122 is correctly modeled and through that modeling it becomes readily apparent that the ISU-122 is at a disadvantage in SOME situations vs. PzIVs at close (600m or less) range. But luck and circumstances have a lot to do with it. However, luck and circumstances at 1500m have a lot less to do with it. And since it was designed for such long range use, this makes perfect sense. Bringing a sword to a knife fight where you start out 1' away from your oponant isn't the smartest choice to make.

Do you guys realize that the ISU-152 and the ISU-122 are identical vehicles, only that the guns were exchangeable? (they had the same mount, any 152 could easily be converted into a 122 by simply pulling out the gun and inserting the other one)

Yup. I at least do my homework before I start arguing minutia with people.

And so the point about taking out the 152mm gun and putting in the 122 one is...????

Besides the answer that Mike gave, another is a more basic... the more tools in your tool box, the more jobs you can tackle. The 122 has certain advantages over the 152. The two that I can see is a higher veolicty and 50% greater ammo capacity.

So, Redwolf... c'mon... can't you just admit that you didn't know squat about the ISU-122 before you started this thread and were arguing in great part out of ignorance? You thought it was some sort of über Tank Destroyer, which didn't have anything to fear from a puny "mid war" German piece of crap, right?

Steve

[The_Capt]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I don't see why this simple question requires a 100 line answer:

In CMBB, is the ISU-122, all aspects specific to this vehicle and all general armor combat factors combined, modeled so that it should better not take on a Pz IV lang from 500-600m?

Yes or no?

Having taken a look at this from many angles..I would have to say no.

If BFC does make the ISU-122 more agressive and more willing to go toe to toe, the result will be an unfair tendency of ISU-122 to be penetrated and said surviving crew running for their little lives.

The biggest reason is the ROF. The ISU is a big guy with a sledgehammer..if he hits you, it is lights out BUT the PzIV is a small guy with a nasty lil knife. If the ISU misses, the lil bastard will shiv him six ways to Sunday before the fat guy can get the hammer back up for another swing.

The key is to stay at the far range of the hammer where the knife can't reach then you can take your time and swing away. Same goes for the IS-2.

Take a T-34/85 and put it into the exact same sit as you have been talking about and it won't back a foot. It has far less armour and a weaker gun but it can a) kill the PzIV and match its ROF.

[Mikeydz]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Redwolf,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I don't see why this simple question requires a 100 line answer:

So, Redwolf... c'mon... can't you just admit that you didn't know squat about the ISU-122 before you started this thread and were arguing in great part out of ignorance? You thought it was some sort of über Tank Destroyer, which didn't have anything to fear from a puny "mid war" German piece of crap, right?

Steve</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

Let me increase the precision of my question: the point about putting out the 152mm howitzer and putting in the 122mm L/48 is what?

And what exactly is the point of your question? Face facts man... you are totally wrong here and are grasping at straws. Kindly refute the quotes from Zaloga I made on the previous page before you pursue this further. You are only further creating a rather unfavorable reputation for yourself by continuing to dodge pretty much everything.

Steve

P.S. The original ISU-122 (the one we have been testing with) took the A-19 version of the 122mm gun due to a shortage of the 152mm ML-20S gun. Yes I am talking about the ISU-122, not the SU-122.

[ December 02, 2002, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

And so the point about taking out the 152mm gun and putting in the 122 one is...????

The 122mm gun was originally fitted solely because there weren't enough 152mm guns to fit to the chassis. Happily for the Russians the combination worked well.

and a lot of us know this because the Russian Battlefield site says so! </font>

[Mikeydz]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

In CMBB, is the ISU-122, all aspects specific to this vehicle and all general armor combat factors combined, modeled so that it should better not take on a Pz IV lang from 500-600m?

Yes or no?

Having taken a look at this from many angles..I would have to say no.

</font>

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Bringing a sword to a knife fight where you start out 1' away from your opponant isn't the smartest choice to make.

It isn't bad idea, just not the best one.

Nice. What else is there to say about this entire thread?

[Redwolf]

So, as another attempt to bring this to end end,

you guys claim the 122mm L/48 gun is only in the ISU because there was a shortage of 152mm howitzers and that the tactical purpose of the vehicle equipped with the 122mm L/48 is the same the 152mm one?

[Battlefront.com]

Cpt.Kloss,

And I will remind you that YOU actually made it personal by insulting me (and your favourite beta followed) and you are quite responsible for warming up this discussion.

And you are as innocent as a lamb? I could point to any one of your posts to show the opposite, but how about this great one from the original thread on this topic:

Is it a joke? IS2 was DESIGNED to fight Tigers!

Nicely phrased. It shows that you are humble and interested in learning instead of getting people ready to fight with you. Oh, and of course you are also incorrect about the Tiger thing.

Then there was this little gem two sentences down:

Sometimes I think that someone from Battlefront has a great love for german army to the extend of bending history (much has been discussed about 37mm "doorknockers", short-barelled L24 knocking T34's in 41,PAK 75 massacring IS2 platoons by front turret hits etc.)

Yet again, a nice emotionally neutral commentary complete with relevant points supported by data that humbles the average reader.

IN CMBB I think under ANY conditions this would be IMPOSSIBLE (CMBB SU76 would never think of engaging Panther even under very favourable condition).

Another very learned observation. Backed up by test data I assume? I mean, why would you make such a strong statement of fact if you just pulled it out of your arse?

What's the conclussion? CMBB german are UBER. Get use to it. I do not know whether fault lies in accuracy and shell quality/penetration data.

Yet another keen conclusion stated in a way that could only be seen as fair and balanced.

Now that my sarcasim mode is off... perhaps you would like to rethink the way you post? English might not be your first language, but you sure have a certain negative tone sharpened to a razor's edge.

Now to continue with your last post...

You seem to forget where is a difference between us: you are Battlefront and I am your client (anyway appreciating your product).If you continue to behalf in this way none will give you a sincere feedback.

Here is where you are wrong. The worst form of feedback to have on this forum is aggressive nonsense. I have been moderating this Forum for FIVE YEARS so I know what I speak of. People that post garbage with a bad attitude make it VERY difficult to have intellectual debates which are designed to better the game or people's understanding of it and the history it simulates. I do not fear losing such people from this Forum. In fact, I welcome it.

After giving me a warning please think about giving a warning to yourself (I suppose no one else can do this)and stop be aggresive wheter I deserve this or not - learn patience towards guys like me or redwolf.

After about 28 pages of trying to discuss things rationally, you will have to forgive me for getting a bit impatient. The two discussions that I speak of shouldn't have gone for more than 4 total.

And who appart from redwolf "contributed" to THIS thread? This is redwolf-battlefront discussion.

Wrong. This is not a one on one debate. Your coming in here and putting you your 2 cents worth alone makes it bigger than that. Howeveer, many people have done what you have not. In fact, many have done what Redwolf has not. And that is to put the rather strong accusations to the test of the game and of the history books. You ridicule these people and the data they come up with with hollow meaningless words.

We say that self-preservation mechanism is too harsh and usually affects only one side (even if other is seriously threatened also)and see that as a problemm.We do not talk about established war doctrines (american TD's were designed to fight tanks but mainly supported infantry). Regardless of doctrine all available assets were used according to situations and needs.

Correct. And if you read even half of this thread you would see that the game does this.

Of course what I write is worthless BUT if you give it one more thought -without prejudice - I will consider I achieved what I wanted.

What? Pissing people off and supporting a position that has no factual basis?

regardless, I DO respect your hard work and your presence here.

Thanks for the bone, but it would be more believable if your posts reflected even a hint of that respect.

Steve

[Redwolf]

I have to take the remark about the first ISU-122 gun being the howitzer back. Sorry.

[ December 02, 2002, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by redwolf:

So, as another attempt to bring this to end end,

you guys claim the 122mm L/48 gun is only in the ISU because there was a shortage of 152mm howitzers and that the tactical purpose of the vehicle equipped with the 122mm L/48 is the same the 152mm one?

http://www.battlefield.ru/isu122_152.html

For the love of god do some more reading.

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

Inspite of you continuing to make an arse out of yourself (see yet another Redwolf factual mishap), I'll answer this obvious question of yours in two parts:

you guys claim the 122mm L/48 gun is only in the ISU because there was a shortage of 152mm howitzers...

Er... Mr. Shortattentionspan... we claimed nothing of the sort. Respected sources researched and documented this as fact. Again, I ask you if you have any documentation to refute the sources cited in this thread, present them now. Otherwise go away...

...and that the tactical purpose of the vehicle equipped with the 122mm L/48 is the same the 152mm one?

Again... respected sources "claim" this, not I or anybody else. But I'll take two well known and trusted sorces' word for it until you can demonstrate a better source.

So we are still sitting here wondering, Redwolf, what is your point?

Steve

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by redwolf:

So, as another attempt to bring this to end end,

you guys claim the 122mm L/48 gun is only in the ISU because there was a shortage of 152mm howitzers and that the tactical purpose of the vehicle equipped with the 122mm L/48 is the same the 152mm one?

Yep! Exactly.

[Battlefront.com]

Ah... finally, Redwolf actually admits to a factual flubup. Hooray!

Now, you have asked several questions in a row here. I have been kind enough to answer them, even if my frustration with you is plainly evident. So...do me the curtesy of answering some of my own...

1. Do you now admit that the ISU-122 is a vehicle designed not as a Tank Destroyer but as an Assault Gun (i.e. infantry support, not AT duty)? If you say "no", please cite historical refferences to refute Zaloga and Valera's websites (the two sources used here).

2. Do you now admit that the ISU-122 has some serious shortcomings vs. a PzIV at short range (600m or less)? Before answering this recheck all the various test files, including your own, and add up how many times the ISU-122 triumphs and how many times it is defeated. If you say "no", please show us something, ANYTHING, that shows that the ISU-122 should not fear a PzIV at this short range.

3. Do you now admit that there is not rampant running away problem of "über tanks"? Before you answer this, make sure you fully understand and grasp the various tests conducted using various different vehicles, ranges, and conditions. For example, my tests on Page 1, and plenty of others after. If you answer "no" to this, please provide files which show various problems that are inexplicable according to what you have read here.

4. Do you now admit that there is no "bug" with the TacAI pulling back without firing a shot? Before you answer this, check over the various tests which show the TacAI firing before pulling back, or not pulling back at all, and what the likely outcome was for the ISU-122. If you answer "no" please provide files (not the plural!!) which show the TacAI behaving in a manor that can not be explained as a sensible means of survivial. If it is a "bug", it should be easy to replicate.

5. Do you now admit that the TacAI is behaving in the best interest of the player by moving a friendly vehicle out of harm's way *before* it is *likely* to be killed? Again, if you answer "no" please so some sort of statistical sampling from a provided file that supports your claim that the TacAI is robbing the player of victory.

I think that should about do it. I am curious to see how you answer these questions, or if you even answer them at all. I've got a bunch that haven't been answered thus far.

Steve

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Ah... finally, Redwolf actually admits to a factual flubup. Hooray!

<snip>

I think that should about do it. I am curious to see how you answer these questions, or if you even answer them at all. I've got a bunch that haven't been answered thus far.

Hmm.......gloating doesn't become you Steve

[PJungnitsch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The IS-2 was not meant to get into tank duels either. To quote Zaloga again:

"The primary role of the new IS heavy tank was not tank fighting. The IS tanks were to be issued to special Guards heavy tank regiments. The role of these regiments was to assist in breaking through German defenses during offensive operations. It is worth noting that this was the primary tactical role of the German Tiger I. However, the Wehrmacht went onto the strategic defensive by the time that the Tiger I was available in significant numbers, so as often as not it was use in its secondary defensive role of combating Soviet tanks."

....on paper these things look like they were supposed to plink tanks. Of course, they can do this... but only if used very carefully.

This makes quotes like the following make a lot of sense; from Tiger vs Stalin, Notes for Panzer Troops, Sept 1944:

The squadron commander made the following conclusions from all the engagements his squadron had with Stalin tanks:

1)Most Stalin tanks will withdraw on encountering Tigers without attempting to engage in a fire fight. [i take this to mean they are to avoid Tigers, which they theoretically outmatch in some ways]

2)Stalin tanks only generally only open fire at ranges over 2200 yd and then only if standing oblique to the target. [i take this to mean they are afraid to get hit]

3)Enemy crews tend to abandon tanks as soon as hit [i take this to mean they think they are ranged in and will be soon dead]

....The Inspector General of Panzer troops (who is responsible for this official publication), commented as follows on the above remarks:

1)These experiences agree with those of other Tiger units and are correct.

[Battlefront.com]

Mike,

Hmm.......gloating doesn't become you Steve

No, I am not trying to gloat here. I am trying to prevent Redwolf from jumping onto some other "bug" that becomes an exercise in futility after the first couple of pages. So far he has only admitted to making one tactical error. No admission about all the other errors and the strategic misfire. If he owns up to his mistakes, perhaps he will be less likely to repeat them in the future. He has shown some ability to learn from his mistakes. At least in this thread he actually made a file for peer review unlike the Sneak thread.

And if he doesn't come clean and own up to the community here, I reserve the right to lock up any thread he becomes overtly involved with that appears to be going in the same round and round as this and the Sneak thread did. I want no more of this nonsense.

Steve

[StellarRat]

Geez, after typing enough responses to this post (which was settled about 236 posts ago) I have a hard time believing that Steve is even bothering to reply anymore. He could have written half the manual for CM3 by now. Thanks for your admirable patience Steve.