IS-2 Frontal Armor

Still, the frontal armor issue with the IS-2 doesn´t seem to be that uncommon. In that engagement a lone IS-2 escapes the crossfire of a King Tiger, Raketenwerfer and Schreck - sidehits on short range included.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiaIlJmrJ14&list=UUyUcNdOxXcVt3o9eZKdza9w#t=30m0s

I´m fine with its frontal armmor. Flanking is part of the game. But if Panzer IV shots constantly bounce off the the rear and side, the armor values are bullshit.

same goes for t34 Vs tiger but thats ok because it is a glorified german tiger? But when it not german armour it has too be OP .

Still, the frontal armor issue with the IS-2 doesn´t seem to be that uncommon. In that engagement a lone IS-2 escapes the crossfire of a King Tiger, Raketenwerfer and Schreck - sidehits on short range included.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiaIlJmrJ14&list=UUyUcNdOxXcVt3o9eZKdza9w#t=30m0s

And why do you believe its an issue?

Soviets can't have heavily armored tanks? Its german only privilege?

Armor is fine, you have have over 50% to penetrate it with dedicated AT and your heavy AT have 100%.
Pretty much the same is when allies go against german heavies with inferior AT.

The thing is that sideshots bounce off from it on a regular basis. Flanking is part of the game. Useless on IS-2s.

Bringing up the T-34/76 which is hardly supposed to fight versus tanks is stupid. T-34/85s - which are more or less in the role of a Panzer IV - will make short process of any Tiger.

More so, German AT should deal with heavy tanks. After all Russian AT deals with German tanks easily. "Wehraboo" you call it, while you are just looking for Soviet sided balance. Why should German AT not go through IS-2s armor? After all Soviet AT units (Zis and Su-85 and even the T34/85) go through the Tiger, despite failing to do so historically. So no reason why German AT should struggle to take down Russian tanks.

The thing is that sideshots bounce off from it on a regular basis. Flanking is part of the game. Useless on IS-2s.

Bringing up the T-34/76 which is hardly supposed to fight versus tanks is stupid. T-34/85s - which are more or less in the role of a Panzer IV - will make short process of any Tiger.

More so, German AT should deal with heavy tanks. After all Russian AT deals with German tanks easily. "Wehraboo" you call it, while you are just looking for Soviet sided balance. Why should German AT not go through IS-2s armor? After all Soviet AT units (Zis and Su-85 and even the T34/85) go through the Tiger, despite failing to do so historically. So no reason why German AT should struggle to take down Russian tanks.

Russian / US AT fairly often fails to penetrate Tigers. If you played allies once in awhile then you would realise this. I had 3 E8's the other day that even when flanking failed to kill a Tiger. When it was low it just popped smoke and reversed to somewhere I could no longer shoot its rear armour. None of the shots after that penetrated and it ended up winning vs my Tanks.

Afaik side shots have a 50/50 % chance to either hit the front or the rear armour, so complaining that sideshots always bounce and that flanking is pointless isnt really valid. If RNG trolls you and forces you to hit the front armour, then you shouldnt expect it to pen constantly in a Panzer IV. German AT and armour typically have higher penetration than allied tanks and their tanks typically have more armour than allies. Allies have a bigger problem penetrating axis armour than axis do vs allied armour. Again this is the problem with playing one side, you always have the grass is greener issue.

The thing is that sideshots bounce off from it on a regular basis. Flanking is part of the game. Useless on IS-2s.

And why do you repeat this? Its a common knowledge since alpha that there is NO side armor in CoH2, only front half and rear half. You want to flank successfully? Get on its rear as T34s have to do against Tigers and Elephants.

Bringing up the T-34/76 which is hardly supposed to fight versus tanks is stupid. T-34/85s - which are more or less in the role of a Panzer IV - will make short process of any Tiger.

In pairs, with mark target and possible guard button. That is hardly a 1v1 scenario nor Tiger should fight alone like, ever.

More so, German AT should deal with heavy tanks. After all Russian AT deals with German tanks easily. "Wehraboo" you call it, while you are just looking for Soviet sided balance. Why should German AT not go through IS-2s armor? After all Soviet AT units (Zis and Su-85 and even the T34/85) go through the Tiger, despite failing to do so historically. So no reason why German AT should struggle to take down Russian tanks.

And it does with the same or greater efficiency as allied AT deals with german heavies.

And no, russian AT doesn't deal easily with german armor, in every single case you need to use 2 to 1 numbers or combined arms.

And if you want historical accuracy, well, there you have it, IS-2 had superior armor to Tiger and inferior to King Tiger, which is accurately portrayed in the game.

Why the conviction that german AT should always penetrate and only german tanks should bounce shells off?
IS-2 is heaviest armor allies have, it doesn't have as much punch as Tiger, but can take slightly more punishment.

Its balanced this way.
I know its hard to accept the fact that allies might have something that isn't made of paper, but thats how it is and thats how it will stay.

Historically, the first Tiger kill was when a Churchill with a piddly gun drove very close and shot at its gun mantlet (IIRC).

So yeah, acting as if Tigers, or any other heavy tank for that matter, should be immune to some forms of AT is stupid. AT in this game is meant to be used against tanks. Tiger is a tank, so AT is useful against it. That's a rule every single tank obeys to.

In fact, the IS-2 and Tiger are so homogenized that it seems silly to me to say either one is too powerful. They are almost identical apart in some details (mostly fire rate, turn speed and armor, and the last point is kinda offset by Axis having more penetration on their AT weapons). I would like the IS-2 to deal 240 damage at the cost of fire rate, to reflect it's behemoth 122mm gun. It would mean more unit diversity too. As someone suggested, buff its coaxial to make up for it against infantry if required.

Try flanking next time, like every one else.

I must agree with the flanking part.
You should have started flanking right away man, shooting frontal armor is always a tricky thing.

Still, the frontal armor issue with the IS-2 doesn´t seem to be that uncommon. In that engagement a lone IS-2 escapes the crossfire of a King Tiger, Raketenwerfer and Schreck - sidehits on short range included.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiaIlJmrJ14&list=UUyUcNdOxXcVt3o9eZKdza9w#t=30m0s

I saw the replay and ALL SHOTS were frontal hits.

29:40 KT frontal . Pen.
29:47 KT frontal . Crew shock
30:07 KT frontal . Pen.
30:11 Rak frontal . Bounce
30:13 KT frontal . Miss/Bounce
30:19 KT frontal . Bounce
30:25 KT frontal . Bounce
30:27 Rak frontal . Bounce

KT:
Pen 240-200 Armor 425/225
Chance - 64%-53.3% / 100%-97.56%

IS2:
Pen 250-190 Armor 375/205
Chance - 58.82%-44.7% / 100%-84.4%

From 6 shots, 2 penetrated, 1 crit, 1 might have missed and the other 2 bounced. FOR those % it´s just slightly unlucky RNG.

Bonus: take a look at the IS2 shot at 30:20. You would expect that to be a frontal hit right? Take a better look.

The thing is that sideshots bounce off from it on a regular basis. Flanking is part of the game. Useless on IS-2s.

Bringing up the T-34/76 which is hardly supposed to fight versus tanks is stupid. T-34/85s - which are more or less in the role of a Panzer IV - will make short process of any Tiger.

More so, German AT should deal with heavy tanks. After all Russian AT deals with German tanks easily. "Wehraboo" you call it, while you are just looking for Soviet sided balance. Why should German AT not go through IS-2s armor? After all Soviet AT units (Zis and Su-85 and even the T34/85) go through the Tiger, despite failing to do so historically. So no reason why German AT should struggle to take down Russian tanks.

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/soviet-85-mm-guns-vs-tigers.html oh really?

Plz dont talk about "side-hits".

No such thing exists in CoH2.

There is only front and rear armor values.

Jagdpanzer IV laugh at IS-2 frontal armour.

I saw the replay and ALL SHOTS were frontal hits.

29:40 KT frontal . Pen.
29:47 KT frontal . Crew shock
30:07 KT frontal . Pen.
30:11 Rak frontal . Bounce
30:13 KT frontal . Miss/Bounce
30:19 KT frontal . Bounce
30:25 KT frontal . Bounce
30:27 Rak frontal . Bounce

KT:
Pen 240-200 Armor 425/225
Chance - 64%-53.3% / 100%-97.56%

IS2:
Pen 250-190 Armor 375/205
Chance - 58.82%-44.7% / 100%-84.4%

From 6 shots, 2 penetrated, 1 crit, 1 might have missed and the other 2 bounced. FOR those % it´s just slightly unlucky RNG.

Bonus: take a look at the IS2 shot at 30:20. You would expect that to be a frontal hit right? Take a better look.

Pretty sure at 30:11 that is a Raketenwerfer bouncing from the side. The same thing happens at 30:25.

I don´t get you people. I was complaining about the side armor. A Tiger will take much more damage from the side. Flanking an IS-2 is not rewarding. And that´s the issue at hand.

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/soviet-85-mm-guns-vs-tigers.html oh really?

Russian testing... they also fired some hundred shells at king Tigers front armor on the shooting range and when the material finally succumbed, they claimed a penetration. The article doesn´t state what kind of ammunition was used (there is more than just one "AP shell"). With tungsten a Panzer IV could go through IS-2 armor as well. Those shells however were pretty rare and not standard. A penetration occuring that often is thus silly.

"The 85 mm gun could penetrate the front of a Tiger I tank between 200 and 500 m (220 and 550 yd).[56] Against the frontal armour of the Panther, the T-34-85 could only penetrate the non-mantlet of its turret at 500 m (550 yd),[50] meaning that even upgraded models of the T-34 usually had to flank a Panther to destroy it." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

200-500m are definitely less than 1000m + as your article claims. Also consider that every Tiger crew was instructed to angle the armor. So 90 degree hits won´t occur that often. That means a Tiger still remains pretty safe.

Pretty sure at 30:11 that is a Raketenwerfer bouncing from the side. The same thing happens at 30:25.

I don´t get you people. I was complaining about the side armor. A Tiger will take much more damage from the side. Flanking an IS-2 is not rewarding. And that´s the issue at hand.

Russian testing... they also fired some hundred shells at king Tigers front armor on the shooting range and when the material finally succumbed, they claimed a penetration. The article doesn´t state what kind of ammunition was used (there is more than just one "AP shell"). With tungsten a Panzer IV could go through IS-2 armor as well. Those shells however were pretty rare and not standard. A penetration occuring that often is thus silly.

"The 85 mm gun could penetrate the front of a Tiger I tank between 200 and 500 m (220 and 550 yd).[56] Against the frontal armour of the Panther, the T-34-85 could only penetrate the non-mantlet of its turret at 500 m (550 yd),[50] meaning that even upgraded models of the T-34 usually had to flank a Panther to destroy it." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

200-500m are definitely less than 1000m + as your article claims. Also consider that every Tiger crew was instructed to angle the armor. So 90 degree hits won´t occur that often. That means a Tiger still remains pretty safe.

So umm, why would the red army lie to themselves? This testing war done during wartime, and was important for the red army. So i really do not know why the red army would lie to themselves. Your wikipedia source isin't better at all, that article shows documents, information and photographs.
While the only thing wikipedia article says it states a statement, and does not really back up at all.
Where do you get this information that they fired a hundred shots at the king tiger?

I hope they don't change the IS-2. I've had some great tank battles tigers vs IS-2 recently, it's something that is satisfying to play with and to kill.

And God knows it's far more fun to play against/with than an ISU-152.

I've seen it bounce shots but, it's a heavy tank after all, it's designed to bounce shots. With RnG, you'll get some ridiculous moments but only 1/1000 games. I've seen a lot of them and never had one that did this or fought one that did this. It's a statistical anomoly. 99% of the time, it's a well-balanced unit.

Burts wrote: So umm, why would the red army lie to themselves?

Because Propaganda. If you've seen the documents, it means they were written to be seen, which means it's not objective information. Don't search for objective truth in Soviet or Nazi historical documents. You will rarely find it there.

Because Propaganda. If you've seen the documents, it means they were written to be seen, which means it's not objective information. Don't search for objective truth in Soviet or Nazi historical documents. You will rarely find it there.

Yea.... because soviets have used propaganda to destroy tigers.
Why they have made anything heavier then T34 in the first place if propaganda was such a good anti tank weapon?

Hi all;

I want to discuss about IS-2 frontal armor that in my opinion is too heavy, that means that medium tanks and paks have serious troubles to penetrate it.

In this case, you can see in the video that I find an IS-2 self repairing and can't shoot at me (glitch) but it shows how strong is its frontal armor.
2 Tigers + Pak(vet2) shooting at him seems like tickling him, the help of a jagdtiger was needed to kill the tank (you will see long distance shoots coming from south). It was thanks to the Jagdtiger that we could finish the job. Despite of that, it took over 1 minute to kill an inmobile target with 4 AT cannons.

Dont u see, that that is a BUG??? LOL!

I hope they don't change the IS-2. I've had some great tank battles tigers vs IS-2 recently, it's something that is satisfying to play with and to kill.

And God knows it's far more fun to play against/with than an ISU-152.

I've seen it bounce shots but, it's a heavy tank after all, it's designed to bounce shots. With RnG, you'll get some ridiculous moments but only 1/1000 games. I've seen a lot of them and never had one that did this or fought one that did this. It's a statistical anomoly. 99% of the time, it's a well-balanced unit.



Because Propaganda. If you've seen the documents, it means they were written to be seen, which means it's not objective information. Don't search for objective truth in Soviet or Nazi historical documents. You will rarely find it there.

Just because we can see them now, does not mean that these documents were made for propoganda purposes. No, that is wrong, these documents are specifically for the red army, and the red army concluded, that the F34 gun of the t-34 was not adequate againts tigers or panthers. That is why they introduced the 85mm gun on their T-34s, probaly because of these tests which showed that the 85mm is very effective againts tigers, and decent againts panthers.
If we can't rely on historical documents, then maybe mass murder of jews, aushwitz, treblinka are all made up? Maybe they are all just propoganda? Maybe general plan ost was just propoganda meant to scare the soviets and allies?


Also, that wikipedia penetration thing is way messed up. You get the idea that a tigers armor was actually superior to a panthers armor, because t-34 can penetrate 100mm at only 200~ meters on tiger, yet can penetrate panther ~100mm of curved armor on turret 500m???
???


Infact, every single source i found on the internet about the 85mm gun penetration on the su-85 and t-34/85 (they had identical guns), points to 100mm of penetration at 90 degrees @100m using common AP rounds. Tigers hull armor was exactly 100mm, and turrets armor is 100-120mm.

Just because we can see them now, does not mean that these documents were made for propoganda purposes. No, that is wrong, these documents are specifically for the red army, and the red army concluded, that the F34 gun of the t-34 was not adequate againts tigers or panthers. That is why they introduced the 85mm gun on their T-34s, probaly because of these tests which showed that the 85mm is very effective againts tigers, and decent againts panthers.

Then why did so many T-34/85 get lost while trying to flank Tigers? After all they could have stayed at long distance and sniped the Tigers on equal footing.

The 85mm was introduced to narrow the gap in the firepower of German and Russian tanks, not close it. Actually the lighter models like StuG and Panzer IV gave Soviets a headache because they had a way superior weapon to the 76mm. Thus the 85mm was introduced. Also: A chance of penetrating on close range is better than not penetrating at all. The 85mm was used because it could be mounted on the T-34 chassis, not because it was so superb. (Hell, maybe that was the reason those ridiculous test results were published. Try to explain to Stalin that you can only mount an average gun on the vehicle, that struggles versus the heavies.)

Also, that wikipedia penetration thing is way messed up. You get the idea that a tigers armor was actually superior to a panthers armor, because t-34 can penetrate 100mm at only 200~ meters on tiger, yet can penetrate panther ~100mm of curved armor on turret 500m???
???

It´s referring to the "non-mantlet" part of the turret, which is that spot marked red (the small edges) on this picture - which pretty much means the Panther was almost impervious frontally to that gun - as the article states. The mantlet was thick enough.