Is the T-34's gun really under modeled in the game??

[Amedeo]

Here's a Red Army handout dated 1943.

Go here: http://www.rkka.ru/docs/real/sau/main.htm

The impression I get is, the Soviets felt 76mm could overcome 85mm German plate at 300m.

Not the 76mm on the T-34 and not with vanilla AP/APBC ammo.

If one reads the penetration tables in the aforementioned booklet one should conclude that tank or field 76mm guns, firing standard AP/APBC rounds, had no chance against German 85mm plate.

The only 76mm rounds that are listed as capable of penetrating 85mm plate at 300m, and under, are HEAT (broneprozhigayushchiy) rounds or APCR (podkaliberniy). Basic AP/APBC (broneboynyy) rounds are listed as capable to defeat 85mm plate only if fired by the 76mm antiaircraft (zenitnaya) gun.

There's no mention of L/41 76mm guns being able to penetrate 85mm plates with AP.

The booklet seems to support the modelling of CMBB Soviet 76mm guns that are not capable to penetrate the sides of Tigers and Ferdinands even at point blank.

[Redwolf]

Just in case you didn't notice, CMBB has both the 76mm L/31 and the L/42 for the T-34.

[JasonC]

First, none of it is about penetrating 85mm plate because there aren't any 85mm plates involved. They are 80mm. The Tiger sides were often above that build spec, around 82mm in thickness sometimes, and higher quality than the 80mm plate standard on the front of Panzer IV hulls and StuG hulls. But they emphatically were not 85mm. (Note that the lower side hull of the Tiger I was only 60mm, but was mostly protected by the running gear.)

Second, against standard 80mm plate the Russian 76mm of various kinds (L42, L51 - not talking about HE chucker IGs or the high velocity AA guns) should penetrate 80mm plate at close range. That range may vary from 300 meters to 600 meters, depending on the shell type (closer required for uncapped, better for APBC, L51 better than L42, etc). But it all amounts to close tactical range. Against a Tiger a side or rear aspect requirement is added because an 80mm (or 82mm) plate needs to be the one struck, and the front is thicker than that. Some of the pens may be "partial"s in CMBB terms, that's fine. (There are 76mm holes in the sides of dead Elephants at Kursk for those who doubt it, along with 45mm subcaliber = APCR = T ammo holes, for that matter).

In CMBB, in 1944 and later the Russian ammo modeling is better and there is APCR. The 30+50mm plate on the early-mid StuGs is overmodeled at all times. The behind armor effect is quite low against large vehicles, with 2-4 penetrations (not shots taken) typically required to fully KO a Tiger even at point blank range from the side. These are separate problems. Similarly, the undermodeling of Russian 85mm in 1943 is a separate problem.

It is not in my experience true that penetration of a Tiger side at any range with Russian 76L42 is impossible in CMBB. On the contrary, it is possible (often "partial"), just relatively rare and close and with several needed to kill the things, even with improved 1944 ammo. These are all excellent reasons to not fight Tigers with flank and close tactics with vanilla T-34/76s in CMBB. But they are not horribly undermodeling of the penetration of the Russian 76mm in particular. The 30+50 StuGs and the 85mm in 1943 issues are much more egregious from a realism and a game play perspective, both.

As for the expectation for a full platoon of T-34/85s (not 76s) vs. a single Panther, at close range (under 400 meters), they ought to be strong favorites in the match up and they will be in CMBB. There aren't any T-34/85s until 1944, so they never suffer from the early ammo undermodeling issue. In practice, they can get partial penetrations on a Panther turret front out to 650 to 700 meters in the game - with full penetrations likely around 400-500 meters. They just need to hit the turret instead of the glacis. With 3 shooters at close range, they are likely to put a hit on the turret marginally faster than the Panther puts a single hit on any of them, anywhere. Even if the Panther gets the first hit and it is a full kill, the chances remaining are about even.

A single match up, the Panther is heavily favored, but 3 to 1 covers a multitude of such edges if the kill is possible for a singleton. Similarly, 3 T-34/76s with T ammo perfectly placed on the flank of a buttoned Tiger at point blank are favored against it - but a single is not (rather absurdly, in the last case). None of these are serious issues with the armor modeling. The low behind armor effect vs. big Tigers is the single most questionable aspect of any of those.

The only questionable bit for Panthers is the IS-2 matchup, not the T-34 (either kind). In reality the Russian 122mm frequently destroyed them with front hull hits, and this can happen in the game, but typically against the late models with the Panther hull front rated at 85% quality or "frequent flaws". The IS-2 also suffers unduly from cower and its rate of fire is somewhat nerfed (should be lower than the Panther, just not as much lower as it is in game, which is half or less). The earlier IS-2s also suffer from relatively poor rating of their own protection (the "round" turret is frequently 30 degrees slope or less e.g., and the hull front of the early models is much weaker than the later ones).

In reality a late model IS-2 vs. a Panther ought to be a pretty favorable matchup for the IS-2, with its hull basically invulnerable and its turret decently protected (from a portion of high angle hits on the rounded turret, resulting in ricochets), while its own gun ought to be effective with nearly every hit, and the ROFs ought to be fairly close (within a factor of 1.5 or so - compare only about 1/3 hits occurring to turrets in a hull up duel).

But this is minutae and the Russian player can handle much of it - only take "late" IS-2s e.g., avoid "hunt" orders to minimize cower by not giving the tac AI "discretion" to run away, fighting hull up rather than hull down, and the like.

The reason the 30+50 StuG is a problem of a different order is there are no such Russian player only solutions available. A vehicle that costs the same as a T-34 dominates it through overmodeling, and in a time frame in which the more expensive 85mm answers are ammo-nerfed, as well. The same nerfing of 85mm ammo modeling deprives the Russians of their period answers to Tigers in the second half of 1943.

Hence my standing recommendations - no thick front StuGs in 1942, use Panzer IIIs or Marders instead; and no thick front StuGs or Tigers in 1943, used Panzer IVs instead, unless "no holds barred" has been specified beforehand and rariety set to "off". Such prior notice allows the Russian player access to the non-vanilla weapons of either period, to "cherry" pick as much as the Germans are, when they take overmodeled 30+50 StuGs and Tigers, exclusively. The Russian can answer with towed 57mm, lend lease or captured AFVs, or asymmetric responses (300mm rockets, IL-2s e.g.) otherwise prevented by rariety costs.

If instead the idea is for the Russians to use the most common towed 76mm ATGs and vanilla T-34/76s in the name of historical accuracy, then the Germans should be driving the Panzer III longs and Panzer IV longs they were actually using in 1942-3, that also behave in the game like their historical armor actually performed.

In 1944, none of these procedures are necessary. The Russians then have access to 85mm vehicles with proper improved ammo modeling, and to late war vehicles with 122mm main armament. Everybody can use whatever they please.

In the other direction, there is a similar issue in 1941 with the Russian KV-1. Just ban them for the same cherry picking reasons, unless the same no holds barred has been agreed beforehand. The main German answers of that era were towed guns not AFVs, and only some of them are even in the game (e.g. the divisional long 105s are missing, and HC ammo is underprovided; while the low velocity 150mm sIG is in the game towed, the common answer of 150mm divisional howitzers are only available indirect, etc).

All it takes...

[Amedeo]

I talked about 85mm plates just because the Soviet pamphlet used them as a reference. I didn't imply that Tiger side armour was 85mm thick but that Soviet intelligence assumed that the "85mm" figure was representative of the Ferdinand side protection. And the latter is comparable to that of the Tiger, since also on the Ferdinand the actual side armour is 80mm thick.

My base point was that the original statement by Bigduke that that Soviet bookled showed that the Soviets themselves thought that "85mm" thick German armour was defeatable by 76mm guns had to be clarified.

The fact is that the booklet itself suggests that the only way to defeat Ferdinand's side armour with ordinary AP/APBC rounds is by using 57mm ATGs or 76 and 85mm antiaircraft guns. 76mm field guns are given a chance to penetrate at 300m only if using APCR ammo.

This is only to remark that CMBB modelling of L/41.5 76mm Soviet guns is adequate.

Having said so, I'd note that I totally agree with the position that states that there are actual and documented problems with the game's modelling of the infamous 50mm+30mm armour, the early 85mm ammo and the turret shape and size of some soviet tanks (notably the T-34 and the IS series). And I agree with the fact that these "faults" makes impossible to represent in correct terms many AFVs matchups that were very common during the mid-war timeframe.

[Bigduke6]

I stand corrected, Amedeo is right, the graphic makes a distinction between AAA 76mm and 76mm L/41.

Of course, if I am not mistaken, it is not possible for a Soviet CMBB player to field a AAA 76mm (76-мм зенитная пушка обр. 1938 г.) against Tigers, as the weapon does not exist in CMBB.

Given the Soviets did indeed stop Tigers during the war with flank shots, I would also argue real-life Soviets had a good deal more 76mm subcaliber ammunition available to them, than CMBB Soviets.

The bottom line is unchanged: In CMBB it's practically impossible to defend against Tiger tanks by employing the historical tactic of an AT network built on 76mm cannon engaging the Tigers at 100m - 300m or so from the flank.

[Redwolf]

Given the Soviets did indeed stop Tigers during the war with flank shots, I would also argue real-life Soviets had a good deal more 76mm subcaliber ammunition available to them, than CMBB Soviets.

The bottom line is unchanged: In CMBB it's practically impossible to defend against Tiger tanks by employing the historical tactic of an AT network built on 76mm cannon engaging the Tigers at 100m - 300m or so from the flank.

But now you shifted the topic from 76mm guns mounted on T-34s (two of them modeled in CMBB) to all 76mm guns.

Let's list, with max penetration not counting tungsten ammo:

• 76.2mm L/31 as mounted on T-34, KV-1: 66-70mm
  
• 76.2mm L/42 as mounted on T-34: 81-82mm
  
• 76.2mm L/17 infantry gun and on infantry tanks: 38mm
  
• 76.2mm L/51 F-22 towed gun: 83mm (also in German use 129mm)
  
• 76.2mm L/42 IS-3 towed gun: 77mm
  
• 76.2mm L/?? mountain gun: 51mm
  

The Tiger is modeled with 82mm side armour and 100% armour quality.

[Bigduke6]

Indeed I did. For me the point is being able to use (ok, try to use) historical tactics. If I use the tactics and don't get a reasonable approximation of the historical result, then I wonder why.

It appears AAA 76mm were used in the ground role by the Soviets. Can't do that in CMBB, ok, noted.

It appears by 1943 subcaliber rounds were readily available to most Soviet AT gunners likely to take on a German heavy vehicle. Which is not really the case in CMBB, from what I have seen they are fairly rare.

I still haven't figured out why the Soviet accounts more or less routinely talk of 76mm defeating Tigers with close range flank shots, this including by M43 T-34, at a time in the war when (a) tungsten rounds were supposedly rare and ( the Soviet 76mm AT gun park was far from overwhelmingly based on the 1938 AAA gun.

Maybe the real-life Soviets were better at getting off 2-3 rounds at 100m - 200m from the side of a Tiger, without getting smashed, than the pixel Soviets are. Somehow, if you try and ambush a Tiger at close range using Soviet 76mm in CMBB, the Soviets are almost always going to die, at any aspect.

If the shell vs. plate simulation is roughly accurate, and I'll grant you that seems at least roughly to be the case, then the culprit is elsewhere.

[ArgusEye]

It would seem the 76AA was not used by the Soviets as AT on anything like a large scale. I'm sure it happened though, on occasion.

The things that hamper the AT gun against heavy armour are a few well known ones:

- Borg spotting. A tank that just got used as a bell is usually not great at spotting anything, but when one spotter sights any target, all units have pinpoint knowledge of its position. Emplaced AT guns were historically quite hard to spot, despite their muzzle flash and smoke - and virtually invisible if not firing.

- The ammo load of AT guns is on the high side for guns that can be moved around by their crew, but rather low for well-emplaced guns. I understand the compromise, but the effect is that emplaced AT guns have a lot more to worry about ammo-wise than their real life counterparts.

- Kneading armour by sending shot after shot into the same area of plate is not modeled. This was a very well known technique, and the Soviets had elevated it to doctrine. The dearth of this aspect makes quite a difference in these circumstances. Especially Soviet AT gun vs. Kitty is affected.

- Targeting running gear at short range, which was done by many guns that couldn't penetrate the body, is not modeled. Even at short range the gun only targets the whole tank. This fits quite well with the dismal accuracy of all guns in the game.

[dieseltaylor]

I find I am generally successful using 20mm/25mm AA to replicate the doctrine. Track hits tend to make commanders/players nervous and immobilisations common enough to reward the player.

I have dueled a Tiger and a 150mm inf gun with a single 20mm AA gun and come off a winner with an immobilisation and a kill - admiitedly it took about 30 turns!

My test below seems extreme I was only doing it en masse to save time - little realising how short the test would be.

800m square map, flat, June 43.

32 25mm AA guns versus 5 Tiger , 5 MkIV's and 10 StugIII's on hunt command

Ist minute

Tigers - 2 bailing out 1 gun destroyed

IV's OK

III's 2 immobilised , 1 bailing

AA's no damage

2nd minute

Tigers 2 bailed, 2 gun destroyed, 1 immobilised

IVf's bailing 1,immobilised 2, gun destroyed 1, OK 1

III's 2 immobilised, i gun destroyed, 2 bailing, 1 abandoned, 4 OK

Russian losses

3 knocked out, I abandoned.

The most guns on any tank at the start was 6 and obviously I picked on the Tigers. The first one bailed in 10 seconds : )

It does seem to me sometimes that not everyone follows the Russian doctrine and then posts complaining of the results they get. I have mobbed Tigers with Valentines and seen them retreat.

I therefore think CM probably does have a mechanism for massed fire however most people play small scenarios where the effect is masked by the low number of units firing at a given target.

If anyone would like the saved files to see the results.... and even count the number of AA rounds fired just message me.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

you can get the massed fire effects with smaller number of guns in my experience (no tests but have done it succesfully in games). for example Tiger I isn't normally abandoned when a small calibre gun (57mm for example) achieves a single partial penetration, but when i combine to the 57mm single partial penetration fire from two ineffective 76mm guns the Tiger I tends to get abandoned. perhaps it's all in my head.

what comes to Tiger I sides it can in real world be penetrated with 76mm standard AP ammo, but you need to hit the weak points (get very lucky or get good shots from short range). since CMBB does not model those and the modelled plates can not be penetrated, you are left with less than desirable result (like with the StuG fronts).

[Erwin]

On BoB site, it was regularly noted that a tank like a Tiger could be forced to abandon if enough (say) 20mm AA shells hit it. I think it's a morale issue.

[jtcm2]

Just to follow up: 76mm (L42 or 51) is modelled about right in CMBB, yes ? ArgusEye points out that in CMBB, ATGs don't fare as well as in real life, because of borg spotting, non-modelling of armour failure after repeated hits, and non-prevalence of hits on running train-- which, I assume, means that in RL, 76mm ATGs could and did take out Tigers at close range better than in CMBB.

What about T-34/76s ? In CMBB, against Tigers, any attempt to close and flank usually ends badly. Was this tactic not used in real life ? Was it as costly in RL as in CMBB ? Or are there more factors (borg spotting, non-kneading, non-targetting of running train) which affect the execution of these tactics with T-34 against Tiger ?

[dieseltaylor]

Ho hum, 7 t34's [76] firing at a lone Tiger get it to abandon in 1:45 minutes.

June 1943 800 metre square map. 2 T34's lost. No tricky moves just place my T34's across the map weighted left and right, the closest one at 414 metres is in the centre of the map.. Computer placed the Tiger and I targetted the T34's. Eventual track hit, then a gun hit butas I was not both sides it may well have been the immobilisation that was the critical one.

Now , what was the point : )

Mass fire works. Being brave enough to do it on a battlefield comes down to can you get odds like that without distraction. Very large battlefields with some cover may give you the opportunities, or the Germans have limited ranged AT capability so you can get the odds you want eventually by taking out the lesser stuff.

[jtcm2]

Thanks, v. instructive.

This, of course, with the Tiger not firing back.

[dieseltaylor]

Gosh! ! How did I lose two t34's : )

Ok should have made it more logical in layout.

[Michael Emrys]

Gosh! ! How did I lose two t34's

Do you suppose you might have mixed them up with the morning papers and put them in the trash by mistake?

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

: )

and darn it ! it was trash collection day! true

[jtcm2]

Oh yes, good point.

[dieseltaylor]

I actually re-ran the tests and noticed there are 8 T34/76's.

Being the Tiger this time I found on the first run that it took 1:55 until the Tiger crew bailed. Gun hits were not damaging and it was again an immobilisation causing the bail-out. What was curious was the T34's backed away and became icons though still firing. They were also slower at seeing the Tiger and opening fire. At start the nearest was 541 metres.

Third test I set up at the backline and again the T34's reversed - never good for accuracy and my Tiger took out 5 of them for a winning draw 52-48. Again the crew bailed on immobilisation. Range for all kills would have been around the 800 mark.

The test is flawed as the Tiger crew should be veteran - at least, and if memory serves me right they do not bail easily : )

I suspect the T34's are best at closer range as all they need is hits on target for the immo. , firing at range reduces the chance.

[Joachim]

Immo'd tanks receiving incoming are likely to bail in CM.

Immo'd+gun damage causes the crew to abandon. That's why trucks etc. bail when immo'd from bogging.

__________________________________________

Regarding Soviet Field manuals on fighting Tigers further above:

Assumptions about Tigers:

a) Rumors say it is damn tough to kill attacking Tiger hordes.

Soldiers are unwilling to fight Tigers and are prone to getting away alive.

c) Often attacking tanks are mis-id'd as Tigers though they are only PzIVs.

Assumptions about Stavka intentions:

d) Even Tiger hordes must be fought - fighting them will delay them, strip off accompanying infantry and buy time

e) It is better to lose a btn fighting with some noticeable effect than the same battalion surrendering without a shot.

f) Morale must be kept high

g) Any ATG front must be placed carefully to maximize its effectiveness. Sloppyness should be avoided.

Imagine yourself as the one who is responsible to write a field manual on fighting Tigers, imagine the assumptions were true. Now what do you write:

1) Yes, our guns can fight and kill Tigers. You provide examples and detailed plans on how and where to hit the beasts. But of course the gun front and its supporting elms must be placed carefully (read: if the gun front fails, the local commander it is to blame.)

2) Comrades, run!

3) Something else.

What are the effects of 1) to 3) for the war effort, what are the effects on your personal career/health?

Well, I think I would choose option 1. It would help the war effort - vs a Tiger btn, but even more vs a PzIV or StuG btn. And my job in the HQ would be a bit safer.

And finally the big question:

Is a field manual which says Tigers can be fought effectively real evidence? Or would it look just the same if Tigers could not be fought effectively?

[Amedeo]

Well, I probably would have chosen option 1 too, but it's worth noting that the Soviet didn't really embrace a "don't worry, anything goes" attitude in this regard.

I mean, they could have said that 76mm AP rounds could penetrate German 80mm plates (maybe at "short" range) but they didn't. They didn't in the fire test reports against catured AFVs (Ferdinand, Tiger I and II side armour), they didn't in their how to pamphlets.

[dieseltaylor]

I am not sure on a couple of points:

1] I was under the impression that the Tiger class recieved the "best" armour so 80mm there was superior to a degree over other 80mm armour on the Stug fronts.

2] From what I recall from "Tigers in the Mud?[snow] the commander says they were unpopular with the infantry as their presence in the front line would bring down all manner of artillery. And when advancing the Tiger commanders big concern [other than breakdown] was the tracks so hail fire in itself was a concern. So the Russians could have found that in the face of high firepower the Tigers would rarely push an attack home - unless of course it was part of a major attack.

[Joachim]

Well, I probably would have chosen option 1 too, but it's worth noting that the Soviet didn't really embrace a "don't worry, anything goes" attitude in this regard.

I mean, they could have said that 76mm AP rounds could penetrate German 80mm plates (maybe at "short" range) but they didn't. They didn't in the fire test reports against catured AFVs (Ferdinand, Tiger I and II side armour), they didn't in their how to pamphlets.

Telling gunners that 76mm penetrates 80mm plate would lead to gunners opening up early. Which would result in disaster and the word would spread the field manual is plain wrong. The trick is to tell that it can be done, but needs thorough planning and execution. That leaves enough local scapegoats if it goes wrong - and leads to heightened awareness of the ATG front crews.

@DT: Well, the infantry might be right. Maybe one reason why the heavy tanks were used behind mediums later on?

But the concern of the Tiger commanders is pretty much a luxury problem. That amount of fire would usually disable other tanks and kill their crews. And still those tanks did attack.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

There is so much wrong with this thread, I dont know where to start. Even the most basic facts are being bent by the Russian side.

Firstly, the T-34/76 cannot penetrate the long barrel stug, or the glacis of the Panzer IV. Why? Because even the long barrel F-34 has half the velocity of a 17 pounder, 30% less than a US 76mm, and the same as a US 75mm. Its quate a stretch to say the F-34 can penetrate a tank which gives problems for obviously superior weapons. Dont even bot trying to tell me a gun which fired a projectile at 650m/s is comparable with a gun of 1000m/s. That completely unbelievable.

So where do these stories of the 76mm killing everything head on come from? From before the Stug and IV had 80mm of armor. It was nearly a year before they got long barrels and that extra 30mm of armor. During that time, the F-34 and 75mm were quite capable of killing them out to 800m.

But its only 30mm extra, thats not so much, is it? There is quite a difference between 50 and 80mm, seeing as 50mm is about 25% less than the penetration of the F-34 at 500m, while 80mm is more than 30% more than the penetration at 500m, and indeed more than at point blank range.

When it comes to the T-34 being penetrated, here is the thing, nobody has ever been able to prove the T-34 and IS-2 were ever produced with armor less brittle than 350BHN. The Sherman used about 250BHN armor, while the German tanks about 280. Because of that, the T-34 could be penetrated by the 50mm of the Panzer III at over 500m, while the Sherman was completely immune to it over 250m.

Now why is the hardness of armor so important? Wouldnt harder be better? Not at all. Harder is more brittle, and so it breaks easily. In fact, 350BHN armor is half as effective as 250BHN armor, and 280BHN is actually 85% stronger than 350BHN.

Because of the hardness, Russian armor was extremely vulnerable. Even the Glacis of the IS2 has had spall due to the 50mm. There are countless claims of 75mm L/48 shells penetrating IS-2. There are also hundred of T-34 destroyed by Panzer III. In fact, the PIII was used until 1943, when it was pulled back and re-issued as a command vehicle.

You guys know Whittman? The Tiger ace? Well he started in the PIII, racked up dozens of T-34 kills, and even after he was transfered to a Tiger regiment, they kept him in the command PIII because he was the best person at using it. He didnt get his Tiger until months later.

When it comes to the IS-2 and SU-122 cannon, neither were intended as tank killers. In fact, the 122mm was issued with only one shell type, HE. There was no AP, and anybody who says otherwise is making it up. They produced a HEAT shell which was very ineffective, and it barely saw service. The 122mm could not penetrate a Tiger or KT frontally at any range. In fact, a SU-122 hit a Tiger on the side at 50mm and the shell did not penetrate. Why? Because its HE, its got a contact fuse. Unless the fuse is removed, the shell has nearly no value as a tank killer.

But doesnt the 122mm have this huge HE charge that can blow turrets off? Not even close. It has 3kg of HE, which is a joke. Thats less than the Panzerfaust. Thats what the completely ineffective RPG-40 had.

Comparing the 122, and even the 152, to other weapons really highlights the ineffectiveness of the weapons. The nebelwerfer has 90 and 110lbs of HE in it, the 60lb rocket is obvious, so is the 30lb, and those were nearly completely useless against tanks. In fact, even the NW could not destroy the Tiger I with the thinner top armor when Otto Carius was attacked by his own side.

If you want me to believe a HE shell with 3kg of explosives is going to kill the best tanks of the war, its not happening.

If the Su-122 was even supposed to be tank killer, then why was it issued to support regiments alongside the Su-76. Because it was for support, and thats what it excelled at. Just because it wasnt a great tank killer, doesnt mean it wasnt good at what it was meant for.

The only real Russian tank killers were the 85mm and 100mm. The 85 was equivalent to the German 75mm L/48, and the US 76mm. If you read German accounts the performance of the two was the same, and its verified by the numbers.

There is one massive problem with both the 76 and 85, the speed of the shells causes a very large "shatter gap", where between 200 and 1100m, the shells will shatter on contact with the front armor of the Tiger. Solution? Dont attack a Tiger head on. They didnt have any real issue with the IV or Stug, the shatter gap was extremely small, so much as to be ignored.

All high velocity tank guns have this issue, its just far less pronounced for the Germans, because their guns were far more powerful compared to the armor they face.

Now if you Ruskie fans really dont believe me about the quality of Russian armor, lets make some comparisons. Try and follow, because it cant get any clearer.

The 17 pounder and 75mm L/70 have nearly the same penetration, about 125mm@500m@30. The 17 pounder will easily punch holes in the late war Panther which was produced with 85mm 300BHN armor. The IS-2 has 100mm of 350-400BHN armor. Its quite safe to say they are comparable.

So if the 17 pounder can penetrate the Panther, its quite safe to say the 75mm L/70 will do the same to the IS-2 at the same range.

What am I getting at? Well, if you dont think the 88mm can penetrate the IS-2, then perhaps you should consider that the 88mm L/56 in the Tiger I will penetrate more the 30% more armor than the 75mm L/70 at beyond 500m. Its quite safe to say the 88 could make some problems for the IS-2. The IS-2 would need to have 115mm of armor to be able to take a hit from the 88mm at the same range a Panther can take a hit from the 17 pounder, and thats assuming the IS-2 has the fortune of having the same armor quality as the poorly made Panther armor. Comparing the IS-2 to a high quality Panther would blow it out of the water.

Then there is the sights. Do you guys know what a stadia sight is? Thats what the Russians had, and they are only really accurate under 800m. There Germans on the other hand had some of the best coincidence rangefinders ever made. Whats the big deal? Well, even the best gunner can barely get within 200m of a target when using a stadia sight, while anybody can get within 50m on the first shot when using a proper coincidence rangefinder.

The Russians equiped post war tanks with a handheld coincidence rangefinder, but at the length of the rangefinder is one of its most important features, the Russian ones are much of a joke. They are no more accurate than Stadia. In fact, they never found a way to fix the problem until they started using laser rangefinders in the late part of the last century.

Until you actually take a look though the sights of a T-34 will you realize exactly how hard it is to use. Its this yellow tinted piece of garbage, while the Germans have these extremely nice Zeiss optics. Its night and day, no comparison at all. People say the Coincidence rangefinders take to much time, but people who say that have no merit. Anybody who knows about stadia knows you have to take your sight off the target to compare it to a scale, and if the target is in camo or not the same height as the tank you are calibrated to fight, then you are screwed. Thats why no nation but the Russians use them. Its the worse possible option.

The reasons just keep going on and on and on.

You cant just tell me a Russian conscript said something, as people say a lot of things. Do you believe what you hear from our own soldiers down at the bar? Im sure you believe those guys who run around claiming to be SEALs, right? Then why would you believe someone who has no scientific support in any fashion at all? In fact, is counteracted by every piece of science I can find.

You cant just say you heard some story, because the other side has people who say just to opposite. You have to have science on your side, and thats all that matters in an argument like this.

So, whatever became of Mr. Jagdzilla?

[jtcm2]

He's in a bar somewhere telling people about PzIII and "Whittmann" etc etc