Login

russian armor

is2 and tiger ace

PAGES (9)down
29 Apr 2015, 11:24 AM
#61
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

Historically it should roflstomp the Tiger 1 in every department, in Coh2 thats another story.


Almost every, the Tiger I still has rate of fire and accuracy.
29 Apr 2015, 11:24 AM
#62
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 1225



Historically it should roflstomp the Tiger 1 in every department, in Coh2 thats another story.

Except utterly nonconsequential stuff such as ROF, practical accuracy, situational awareness, etc, etc.. You know factors that determine more than anything who gets in the usually decisive first hit in armoured combat. Seriously, why do so many people here feel the need to comment on things they understand so little about?
In fact, in Coh2, the IS-2 - at present - does "Roflstomp" the Tiger in just about every department, save for vet ability and AI lethality, and there, the Tigers edge is none too great either.
29 Apr 2015, 11:38 AM
#63
avatar of Beinhard

Posts: 161


Except utterly nonconsequential stuff such as ROF, practical accuracy, situational awareness, etc, etc.. You know factors that determine more than anything who gets in the usually decisive first hit in armoured combat. Seriously, why do so many people here feel the need to comment on things they understand so little about?
In fact, in Coh2, the IS-2 - at present - does "Roflstomp" the Tiger in just about every department, save for vet ability and AI lethality, and there, the Tigers edge is none too great either.


Does it matter when puny Tiger 1 cant pen the IS-2 :snfAmi:

29 Apr 2015, 11:44 AM
#64
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 1225



Does it matter when puny Tiger 1 cant pen the IS-2 :snfAmi:


Huh? What makes you believe that?
29 Apr 2015, 11:55 AM
#65
avatar of Beinhard

Posts: 161


Huh? What makes you believe that?


Armour Profile IS-2 mod. 43

http://www.oocities.org/pentagon/quarters/4635/tanks/is/is2_armor_scheme.gif


Tiger 1 Kwk 36

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/4127/6F7013DA15824DB68D288B9CBCFCA8E7.jpg


Beyond 100m the IS-2 is pretty much impervious to 88mm Kwk 36 APCBC :snfAmi:


Meanwhile IS-2 can feast on Tiger 1 from beyond 1500m

http://www.panzer-war.com/img40.gif

29 Apr 2015, 11:58 AM
#66
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



Armour Profile IS-2 mod. 43

http://www.oocities.org/pentagon/quarters/4635/tanks/is/is2_armor_scheme.gif


Tiger 1 Kwk 36

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/4127/6F7013DA15824DB68D288B9CBCFCA8E7.jpg


Beyond 100m the IS-2 is pretty much impervious to 88mm Kwk 36 APCBC :snfAmi:


Meanwhile IS-2 can feast on Tiger 1 from 1500m

http://www.panzer-war.com/img40.gif



But KRUPP STEEL!

Your filthy soviet propaganda based on unquestionable facts won't deceive anyone!

Tiger best WW2 tank ever, just ask any axis fanboy :snfBarton:

Space aliens descended from heaven and gave nazis Tigorrrrz! :snfPeter:
29 Apr 2015, 12:01 PM
#67
avatar of Beinhard

Posts: 161

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Apr 2015, 11:58 AMKatitof


But KRUPP STEEL!

Your filthy soviet propaganda based on unquestionable facts won't deceive anyone!

Tiger best WW2 tank ever, just ask any axis fanboy :snfBarton:

Space aliens descended from heaven and gave nazis Tigorrrrz! :snfPeter:



b-b-b-b-buuut King Togre best tonk, EAT IS-2 for dinner with forks of kruuuup stahl!

29 Apr 2015, 12:25 PM
#68
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 1225

Katitof, grow up. If you don't have anything meaningful to contribute to a discussion, why participate? You don't have to behave like a teenaged fanboy every step of the way, this is starting to annoy me.

Beinhard, allow me to quote you: The Tiger I could straight up "not pen(etrate) the IS-2." Aha? Except, even if for some unspecified reasons that strictly applied to the frontal armour, it actually could, and your internet source (that is lifted straight up from Jentz, Panzertruppen, vol. 2, P 296) prove just that, even with PzGr. 39. You also do realise that the Germans had a different AP capability measuring standard/test setup than the Soviets (and Americans), right? You also seem to be oblivious of that rather glaring shot trap, which was inter alia the reason for the Mod. 44 modification of the design to start with, and greatly extended the effective range even of Pzgr. 39, but hey. And while Pzgr. 40 was in short supply indeed, it had zilch difficulty penetrating the frontal armour of the IS-2 at relevant combat ranges, even at less favourable angles.
29 Apr 2015, 12:33 PM
#69
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702

Pretty sure the tiger I could not penetrate the 44 model of the IS2, which is what the IS-2 in game is.

I am also pretty sure that germans tested penetration that would probaly be higher than usual, since they tested specifically picked high quality AP rounds for testing, while soviets just used random ones. Not sure about this though


29 Apr 2015, 12:46 PM
#70
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 1225

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Apr 2015, 12:33 PMBurts
Pretty sure the tiger I could not penetrate the 44 model of the IS2, which is what the IS-2 in game is.

Lower front hull armour of the IS-2 (all models) amounted to 100 mm at 30 degrees, which was under serious threat even by the much more pedestrian KwK L/48...
Not to mention that in the literature, you'll find literally a plethora of armour configurations for the IS-2, apparently different batches/production runs had often severely downgraded armour from the nominal values.
The Germans tested at least one captured IS-2 extensively at Kummersdorf and were not exceedingly worried, I'll see if I can dig this up.
That said, there is no doubt that the IS-2 was an exceedingly well protected vehicle, as it had to be in its primary role.
29 Apr 2015, 12:46 PM
#71
avatar of Arclyte

Posts: 692

krupp steel bro
29 Apr 2015, 12:47 PM
#72
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702


Lower front hull armour of the IS-2 (all models) amounted to 100 mm at 30 degrees, which was under serious threat even by the much more pedestrian KwK L/48...
Not to mention that in the literature, you'll find literally a plethora of armour configurations for the IS-2, apparently different batches/production runs had often severely downgraded armour from the nominal values.
The Germans tested at least one captured IS-2 extensively at Kummersdorf and were not exceedingly worried, I'll see if I can dig this up.
That said, there is no doubt that the IS-2 was an exceedingly well protected vehicle, as it had to be in its primary role.



Ah, lower hull armor, that's true. But not many shots really do hit the lower hull...
29 Apr 2015, 12:57 PM
#73
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1

There is only one thing that concerns me about Tiger Ace.
Shoot + TWP (separate cooldown with standard shooting) + Shoot combo
Which is dead Jackson for example. Without any chance to get away.

TWP should be on same cooldown as basic main gun shots.
Not only it penetrates, it gives you one extra shot on target. But with this feature (bug?) it gives you two extra shots.
29 Apr 2015, 13:27 PM
#74
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 1225

There is only one thing that concerns me about Tiger Ace.
Shoot + TWP (separate cooldown with standard shooting) + Shoot combo
Which is dead Jackson for example. Without any chance to get away.

TWP should be on same cooldown as basic main gun shots.
Not only it penetrates, it gives you one extra shot on target. But with this feature (bug?) it gives you two extra shots.

Ye. I think this bug (or is it a feature?) is in existence since release...almost ludicrous.
29 Apr 2015, 13:58 PM
#75
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

ACE concept for Axis tank is just a lol idea, what's an ACE tank that is by fact better than all its counter part during 2 years, Sherman and T34.
Are you an ACE because you shot many tanks from 2400 meters to 700 meters with no fear to be destroyed yourself.

It is like being considered as an ACE because you kill many people with any modern semi-auto rifle with scope + full kevlar armor vs naked people with glock.

I can understand the concept of ACE for Air pilot since planes were pretty equals but not for tanks.
Wittman has been killed with 2 or 3 other tanks of his bataillon by a single firefly in an ambush...
29 Apr 2015, 14:10 PM
#76
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 1225

Jesus. We can discuss the merits of the eponymous ingame unit all day, but why drag historical arguments into it? This is just bizarre, and seems to server more of an opportunity for various people to put their resentments on display. What does the manner of Wittmann's death have to do with this game?

Wittman gained a substantial amount of his "kills" using a StuG by the way, a vehicle that was quite vulnerable to both common Soviet AFVs and At guns. Not to mention that planes and aerial combat throughout the war was usually far from being "equal". There was nothing "equal" about aerial warfare during the Polish campaign for example, and I could go on at length.
29 Apr 2015, 14:23 PM
#77
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

So why don't we have StuG ACE instead of Tiger? Design is based on something coming from history but that something concerning ACE is just inappropriate. Now it exists in the game to provide an additional feature, fair enough but I'm not the one who came first to say ACE should be that better because ACE were that better in reality.

I just point out that it wasn't particularly difficult to become an ACE in the German Army in command of Tiger when the only serious threat to you ass came only in 1944.
29 Apr 2015, 14:41 PM
#78
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 1225

The Tiger, while well protected indeed, was far from invulnerable even during its inception, as exemplified during its (fairly disastrous) combat debut...losses in the German heavy tank bataillons were often substantial, not in the least because they tended to be employed either offensively as a breakthrough tank, or defensively in fire-fighting duties against substantial odds. However "unfair" you apparently think that is, high crew survivability of any given weapons system allows personnel to gain more experience, and that is a very tangible advantage Allied crews tended not to possess, but only a fool would neglect to take into account.
Oh wait: I might as well say that it was insanely easy to become an "ace tanker" in the RKKA of 1941 because very little in the German arsenal could endanger a T-34 or KV1, but arguments of this kind are just inane, no offence.
Why don't we have a StuG ace? Serious question? Quasi-historical A: Because S.Pz.Abt. personnel tended to be handpicked and successively more experienced, and gameplay/immersion B: Because its more sexy.

Anyways, grab yourself a copy of Schneider, Tigers in Combat, or the oldie but goldie Jentz, Panzertruppen for a start, both of which contain numerous after-action reports of Tiger usage.
29 Apr 2015, 15:59 PM
#79
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1

Concept of Ace tank (concept, not exact CoH2 implementation) is fun for both sides: one get strong tank which win all 1v1 but should be used carefully, other get an ultimate enemy which need to be taken down with wolf pack of mediums or something like that.

But! There are many way how to implement it ugly.

They should make StuG Ace! *crosses fingers*

29 Apr 2015, 16:21 PM
#80
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

Steel could be good but it's shitty desing of front armor of the Tiger which made it less effective.

I mean, who the garden designs front armor of the tank with 90angle? :loco:
PAGES (9)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

767 users are online: 767 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49107
Welcome our newest member, Falac851
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM