WEHRMACHT=RUBBISH

What illustration? I dont see any illustration stating king tiger was penetrated at 1000m...

That illustration of yours that states projectile: 100mm/L52 APBC, target King Tiger hull and then shows the green part. That side is bugged as it seems.

I have absolutely no idea where this myth came from that the gun had to be levelled to 0 degrees to reload. This is completely false. It's accuracy was not "piss poor" and was just as accurate as KWK 43.

Lt. Wolfgang Kloth of the 2nd Panzer Div. commented that German crews quickly realized that the IS-2 had to first level the gun downward to reload the cannon, then reacquire the target each time to fire.

This is a fact and Germans used that to their advantage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNXiK8_mRoo#t=12m0s

Kill claims are unreliable. They are not matched with allied records and cant be trusted.

It wasn´t about the total kill claim, but the ability of the Tiger II to defeat IS-2s.

How stugs and PIVs were able to defeat 120mm of armor is beyond me....

"During the first engagements in early 1944 the IS-2s showed an unexpectedly high amount of losses, especially against the smaller german 7,5cm guns of StuG and Panzer IV aswell as the similar 7,5cm Pak. In many tests and trials of fire made by the design offices, the cause was found in the unfavorable stepped shape of the frontal armor. this was 60mm thick at an inclination of 18° flat and then stepped up at the drivers hatch to 120mm."

The shot would get deflected down at the drivers hatch into the 60mm strong armor.

(Only found it on the German wiki, but you can use google translate if you dont believe me. it´s in the first section of the article.) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS-2_%28Panzer%29

That illustration of yours that states projectile: 100mm/L52 APBC, target King Tiger hull and then shows the green part. That side is bugged as it seems.

Lt. Wolfgang Kloth of the 2nd Panzer Div. commented that German crews quickly realized that the IS-2 had to first level the gun downward to reload the cannon, then reacquire the target each time to fire.

This is a fact and Germans used that to their advantage.

It wasn´t about the total kill claim, but the ability of the Tiger II to defeat IS-2s.


"During the first engagements in early 1944 the IS-2s showed an unexpectedly high amount of losses, especially against the smaller german 7,5cm guns of StuG and Panzer IV aswell as the similar 7,5cm Pak. In many tests and trials of fire made by the design offices, the cause was found in the unfavorable stepped shape of the frontal armor. this was 60mm thick at an inclination of 18° flat and then stepped up at the drivers hatch to 120mm."

The shot would get deflected down at the drivers hatch into the 60mm strong armor.

(Only found it on the German wiki, but you can use google translate if you dont believe me. it´s in the first section of the article.) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS-2_%28Panzer%29

Read the text below on the image. Green means "no penetration" while red means penetration is likely.


Interesting where those germans got their information. Soviet manuals say that the gun can be reloaded just fine in all positions.


The D-25 gun has a separate charge, so it is important to ensure complete ramming of the shell. In order to load the gun, do the following:

Disable the inertial guard in case a shot has not been fired.
Press the breech lever to disengage the breech lock from the loop on the frame.
Move the lever back and to the right as far as it will go.
Place the shell on the tray, disengage the tray lock, and move the tray to the cradle.
Push the shell from the tray onto the guide and use the punch to ram the shell into the breech such that the driving band engages with the barrel rifling.
Insert a propellant charge into the chamber.
Close the breech and place the safety into the "fire" position."

Nothing about angles is mentioned.


I think it's better to trust soviet instructions rather than some german "observations"

Interesting where those germans got their information. Soviet manuals say that the gun can be reloaded just fine in all positions.

Updated it with a link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNXiK8_mRoo#t=12m0s

You are assuming it didn´t have to be leveled down, because it´s not mentioned in the instruction. One could also assume it´s not mentioned there, because it´s obvious. The tank manual probably doesn´t mention opening the hatches to enter the tank either. Doesn´t mean one doesn´t need to open the hatches. If faced with the problem of not being able to fit the shell and propellant into the gun, a normal human will level it down. No need to write it down.

I think Germans who revolve their tactic around the gun being leveled down to survive and reporting from that, is a more reliable source than assumptions based on a manual.

http://tankarchives.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/d-25-reload-angles.html
http://tankarchives.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/is-3-reloads.html
http://tankarchives.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/is-2-vs-german-big-cats.html

That should sort a few things out.

I think the whole game needs a rebalance. By the phase in the war that is represented (1944) most German and Russian infantry squads were the same size and had similar levels of experience and training. Both also had tanks that were capable of handling each other. The game ATM seems to put 1941 infantry with 1944 armour. And many units and weapons that were very common in WW2 are in doctrines, such as the PPSh, DP-28 and PTRS for Soviets or German regular SMG infantry.

Here are the total tank losses of the soviets per type:

Soviet tank losses per type:
- 1.235 IS-2
- 3.755 KV-tanks
- 41.971 T-34
- 370 T-28
- 7.124 BT
- 9.097 T-26
- 10.881 T-60/70
- 2.675 amphibian.
- 176 Mk-4
- 1.804 M-4A2
- 696 M3 Stuart
- 783 MK-1/2/3/5/7
- 2.301 Mk-9/-11
- 691 M3 Lee
- 1.671 others
Total soviet tank losses: 83.560 tanks

Soviet assault gun losses:
- 507 SU-122
- 409 SU-152
- 672 ISU-122
- 734 ISU-152
- 1853 SU-85
- 381 SU-100
- 196 SU-57
- 6.452 SU-76
- 1.807 foreign SPGs
Total soviet spg losses: 13.011 SPGs

Total german tank and spg losses(eastern front) = 34000
Total soviet tank and spg losses(eastern front) = 96500

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II



In WW2 the soviets lost a total of 1235 IS-2 tanks against the german army. In just about 1 year in Service. So i dont think that the IS-2 was THAT godlike many seem to believe.

Thread going offtopic.

Lol this topic. All these "I know better history than you" FailFish.


And Wehrmacht is only hard if you dont have a gameplan. Plan and think ahead. They can counter everything. from riegels, pak40 OP Junkers AT strafe that rips tanks + infantry apart.

The person who made this thread is a complete noob if he states that germans are rubbish in coh 2.All their units are versatile and are valuable through the whole game(even early units are very useful in late game).On the other hand soviet infantry is disposable.

As german you can make a blob which can destroy everything and can be hardly stopped

This turned into a history whine thread.

Here are the total tank losses of the soviets per type:

Soviet tank losses per type:
- 1.235 IS-2
- 3.755 KV-tanks
- 41.971 T-34
- 370 T-28
- 7.124 BT
- 9.097 T-26
- 10.881 T-60/70
- 2.675 amphibian.
- 176 Mk-4
- 1.804 M-4A2
- 696 M3 Stuart
- 783 MK-1/2/3/5/7
- 2.301 Mk-9/-11
- 691 M3 Lee
- 1.671 others
Total soviet tank losses: 83.560 tanks

Soviet assault gun losses:
- 507 SU-122
- 409 SU-152
- 672 ISU-122
- 734 ISU-152
- 1853 SU-85
- 381 SU-100
- 196 SU-57
- 6.452 SU-76
- 1.807 foreign SPGs
Total soviet spg losses: 13.011 SPGs

Total german tank and spg losses(eastern front) = 34000
Total soviet tank and spg losses(eastern front) = 96500

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II



In WW2 the soviets lost a total of 1235 IS-2 tanks against the german army. In just about 1 year in Service. So i dont think that the IS-2 was THAT godlike many seem to believe.

Soviets accounted for losses differently than germans.


I'm not saying IS-2s were "godlike" however some people here seem to belive that the king tiger was the most godlike tank and god forbid allies actually had decent tanks Kappa

I never did like the matchup for tiger and is2, but I also really dislike the is2 having a 6 second reload and a highly innacurate gun with a low damage model. I'd be all for a better is2 with a 240 damage model 9-11 second reload, more accurate gun, and possible frontal armor increase for say a cost of 250 fuel.There is an area that involves keeping historical accuracy to a minimum though. For the is2 to have such a short reload and only cost 230 fuel its going to have to be gimped in some areas. Im unsure about angling and such but the king tiger and is2 were roughly similar in terms of frontal armor. But I have not heard is2s being impenetrable like I've heard the king tiger being impenetrable. (except for certain shots going through the turret). ATleast on the western front that is.

When COH 2 was released IS-2 had 240dmg with questionable penetration combined with 10 sec reload, and it lost to a stug in 1vs1 and costed 300fuel, everyone who built it just laughed at how bad it was, but back then Panthers had 1280hp too, and AT guns and other units had super vet

Justifying game balance with history
This isnt a WW2 simulator, this is a RTS game.

Is2 fired 2 rounds per minute, and had around 160mm of penetration. They would not penetrate king tigers frontally. Only due to poor quality metals did they fracture the armor plating. Tiger 2s were better than is2s.

It's guys like this that really soured these forums for me, trying to bring realism into a game, only to be completely wrong. IS-2s in WW2 loaded pure HE when firing at tanks. The spalling and raw force from a 122mm HE round was all that was needed to knock out german tanks

If the Tiger 2 wasn't getting bombed, it was breaking down or running out of fuel. The gun was good though.

so im curious why do so many axis heavy players complain about the fact the IS-2 beats a Tiger I in a 1v1?
Do you guys understand the IS-2 was better than the tiger in every way except reload speed due to having to load a propellant charge and a shell, and raw penetration which was largely a moot point anway? If anything a IS-2 should beat a Tiger II....

No it doesnt. The is2 was a heavy infantry support tank. you say reload as it was a minor issue but the fact was that the tiger could shoot out 4-5 times more shells then the is2. the is2 was
fairly inaccurate. That said the is2 could knock-out a tiger.

So my money would be firmly on the tiger. Now the soviets at the time really had some good TD's especially the su100. but the is2 was not one of them.

Now gameplay reasons is that the panther has simply shit dps and cannot penetrate the is2 reliability. Neither can the jacksons the tiger/tiger 2 but you can have 2 jacksons for each panther and overall the tiger is going to face 4 times more AT dps then the is2. the okw can compensate with shrek volks the ost cannot. That said the is2 has to much armour.

No it doesnt. The is2 was a heavy infantry support tank. you say reload as it was a minor issue but the fact was that the tiger could shoot out 4-5 times more shells then the is2. the is2 was
fairly inaccurate. That said the is2 could knock-out a tiger.

So my money would be firmly on the tiger. Now the soviets at the time really had some good TD's especially the su100. but the is2 was not one of them.

Now gameplay reasons is that the panther has simply shit dps and cannot penetrate the is2 reliability. Neither can the jacksons the tiger/tiger 2 but you can have 2 jacksons for each panther and overall the tiger is going to face 4 times more AT dps then the is2. the okw can compensate with shrek volks the ost cannot. That said the is2 has to much armour.

lol wat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II

In WW2 the soviets lost a total of 1235 IS-2 tanks against the german army. In just about 1 year in Service. So i dont think that the IS-2 was THAT godlike many seem to believe.

Those numbers doesn't mean much if we're only talking about tank vs tank here.
In WW2 most of the Soviet tank losses was due to Anti-tank gun and Panzerschreck etc, not by German armor.

WHY DIDNT ANYONE READ MY SUGGESTIONS????
they are considerate,and meanningful.I spent tens of minutes writing those suggestions!!!!!!

Agreed with all of them,only reservations about 5 man grenadiers.Lets do pzgren buff,with T0 grens and tech costs first,if ost still getting rolled by usf ..then u can consider 5 man grens.All at once might break things.Also 5 man grens will create a soviet imbalance headache.
Agree on pzgren buff/chnage.
Agree on small tiger price decrease.
Agree on gren t0.
Not agreed on 5 man gren yet.

Updated it with a link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNXiK8_mRoo#t=12m0s

You are assuming it didn´t have to be leveled down, because it´s not mentioned in the instruction. One could also assume it´s not mentioned there, because it´s obvious. The tank manual probably doesn´t mention opening the hatches to enter the tank either. Doesn´t mean one doesn´t need to open the hatches. If faced with the problem of not being able to fit the shell and propellant into the gun, a normal human will level it down. No need to write it down.

I think Germans who revolve their tactic around the gun being leveled down to survive and reporting from that, is a more reliable source than assumptions based on a manual.

Just to be sure.

Conclusions on the possibility of using a single piece 122 mm shell in the D-25 gun on IS-122 and ISU-122S guns.

Based on instructions from GBTU, the NIBT proving grounds tested the feasibility of using a one piece 122 mm shell for the D-25 and D-25S guns on the IS tank and ISU-122S SPG, and came to the following conclusions:
Loading the gun:
In the ISU-122S SPG, the gun can be loaded at any angle.
In the IS-122 tank, the gun can be loaded at the following angles:
Horizontal: 360 degrees
Vertical: -3 to +10 degrees
It is impossible to load the gun when it is elevated more than 10 degrees due to insufficient space between the gun breech and turret ring.
The loading of the D-25 gun with a single piece shell is inconvenient and difficult due to a large size of the shell (1210-1400 mm long), heavy mass (about 40 kg) and limited movement space for the loader. Loading in the SPG is easier than loading in the tank.
The ammunition capacity on the tank is reduced to approximately 27 shells compared to the current 28. In the SPG, the ammunition capacity is increased to 34 shells compared to the current 30.



If the soviets could load the IS-2 with a one piece shell at these angles, they definately could load a 2 piece shell at any angle.