is2 and tiger ace

Nobody has been speaking about the Panther. This is a thread about the Is 2 and the Tiger Ace.

But let's inspect some claims made:

(wall of text)

Show Spoiler

tl;dr it's badly made up and cherrypicked, refuted many times by many people.


Oh and also the Tiger ace is simply a bad concept.

The Panther was clearly referenced in addition to the Tiger I in this thread. Also its nice to see some info back up a claim,but could you please provide the origin of this source?

1v1 sherman > tiger/panther. Best gun, armor, reliability, cost, and the fact that they weren't operated by super evile nazi's. That part alone is what makes them 10x better.

I have zero idea what your getting at here.

1v1 sherman > tiger/panther. Best gun, armor, reliability, cost, and the fact that they weren't operated by super evile nazi's. That part alone is what makes them 10x better.

some serious butthurt right here folks

The Panther was clearly referenced in addition to the Tiger I in this thread. Also its nice to see some info back up a claim,but could you please provide the origin of this source?

I don't know which source you want so I'll give you all of them.

Claim number 1, penetration numbers

This one is simply proven by looking at penetration numbers from the USA and the Uk, Aberdeen and Bovington test respectively. And of course the German penetration numbers.

V

Show Spoiler

Claim number 2, Soviet tank losses

No spoiler for this, Soviet General Krivosheyev and Jentz both (independently from each other) inspected the true, irrecovered Soviet tank losses and both calculated pretty much the exact same number of vehicles.


Claim number 3, armour quality

Show Spoiler

Satisfactory?

I don't know which source you want so I'll give you all of them.

Claim number 1, penetration numbers

This one is simply proven by looking at penetration numbers from the USA and the Uk, Aberdeen and Bovington test respectively. And of course the German penetration numbers.

V

Show Spoiler

Claim number 2, Soviet tank losses

No spoiler for this, Soviet General Krivosheyev and Jentz both (independently from each other) inspected the true, irrecovered Soviet tank losses and both calculated pretty much the exact same number of vehicles.


Claim number 3, armour quality

Show Spoiler

Satisfactory?

Indeed although im assuming these impregnability claims came from different angles during the testing(this source says 90 degrees the one earlier was at 30 so ill have to do some more research. Not sure What Soviet tank losses have to do with this though?

It must really burn you guys up to know the nazis lost the war

There's a glimmer of hope though, I'm told theres a secret nazi base in antarctica where your pal adolf was cloned

This is the most stupid reply I red from some time for the following reasons:

1. Nobody started a political discution here about WW2 parties and politics
2. The discution is based on statistics and numbers
3. Nobody argued about who lost the war or why
4. Winning a war often doesn't mean that the winning side had the best men, leaders or/and best equipment
5. Serving for the wrong side doesn't affect your soldier (or general) skills

People who are stating that the real tank aces were among germans are simply realistic for the reasons above. The only one who are pissed off about this are people like you who believe in the fairy tells that can be red in school manuals and movies, without going further.
I know it's hard to think out of the Matrix but you should try not to eat everything you are given without asking yourself why.

4. Winning a war often doesn't mean that the winning side had the best men, leaders or/and best equipment

In early October 1941, Heinz Wilhelm Guderian wrote pathetic and neglect:

"... The Soviet T-34 tank is a typical example of backward Bolshevik technology. This tank cannot be compared with the best of our tanks made true sons and Reich have repeatedly proven their advantage ... "

But by the end of October, inspired by the successful actions of the 4th Tank Brigade Mikhail Yefimovich Katukova against the 4th Panzer Division, "Heinz Greyhound" fundamentally changed his mind about the Soviet tank:

"I made a report on this situation, which is new for us, and sent him to the Army Group. I'm in understandable terms described a distinct advantage to the T-34 and brought to our Pz.IV appropriate conclusions, which were to affect our future tank building ... "

"By rating« Top Ten Tanks », compiled by Military Channel television station in 2007 on the basis of surveys of British and American troops and experts, the best tank of the XX century was the Soviet T-34. He got close to the limit marks for firepower protected by mobility, the highest rating for the exploration industry. Conquered the T-34's reputation ensured him a high score on the last criterion "

In early October 1941, Heinz Wilhelm Guderian wrote pathetic and neglect:

"... The Soviet T-34 tank is a typical example of backward Bolshevik technology. This tank cannot be compared with the best of our tanks made true sons and Reich have repeatedly proven their advantage ... "

But by the end of October, inspired by the successful actions of the 4th Tank Brigade Mikhail Yefimovich Katukova against the 4th Panzer Division, "Heinz Greyhound" fundamentally changed his mind about the Soviet tank:

"I made a report on this situation, which is new for us, and sent him to the Army Group. I'm in understandable terms described a distinct advantage to the T-34 and brought to our Pz.IV appropriate conclusions, which were to affect our future tank building ... "

I fail to see your point. At the end of war the german tanks were still better. In 41 and 42 soviet tanks were surclassing german ones, yes, everybody knows that, but then untill war ended, the german tanks took the lead.

If you imply that the late german tanks were inspired by T34 project I must say:

1. Panther tank is the only one who somewhat looks like the T34 and my opinion is that german designers were inspired by T34 sloppy armor - for sure, but there is no actual prove of that. What about the soviet assault guns? SU 85, SU 100, ISU 152 and so on. Where were they inspired from? )
Further, the T34 project is not - surprise! - a soviet one. No sir. The tank it was first designed by an american engineer, but the project was rejected and bought by russians. Now do you understand the difference between original soviet BT and KV models and the T34 model? Bingo....
2. Tiger - the best tank in the war (yes, that was the best tank in the war, not T34, shermann, or other thin cans ) was not inspired by any foreign model, it was 100% a german project.

"By rating« Top Ten Tanks », compiled by Military Channel television station in 2007 on the basis of surveys of British and American troops and experts, the best tank of the XX century was the Soviet T-34. He got close to the limit marks for firepower protected by mobility, the highest rating for the exploration industry. Conquered the T-34's reputation ensured him a high score on the last criterion "

The Military channel also shows you Jagdpanzer IVs in an animation and tells a story how the US forces were attacked by Jagdtigers.

They tell you that the Hetzer was armed with a 76mm gun (75mm in reality) etc.

Then it goes on in a documentary about the Panther, telling you how invincible it was, only to tell you how vulnerable it was from the sides when doing a documentary about Hellcats.

In short: Those documentaries are often shit. They try to catch the viewers attention with hyperbole and drama. The vehicle they are doing the documentary on is usually "the best".

That said, the T-34 was a war winning vehicle. But having talked to people who were actually facing it in the war, the perception was generally that the T-34 was crudely made and often didn´t see you, was ignoring targets, did unpredictable things and in general didn´t perform to what it should.

The concept of talking about a "best" tank is unprofessional imo. The best in what? There´s always a tank better in another aspect.

Further, the T34 project is not - surprise! - a soviet one. No sir. The tank it was first designed by an american engineer, but the project was rejected and bought by russians.

Source?

Source?

He´s probably referring to the Christie suspension.

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

That said, the T-34 was a war winning vehicle. But having talked to people who were actually facing it in the war, the perception was generally that the T-34 was crudely made and often didn´t see you, was ignoring targets, did unpredictable things and in general didn´t perform to what it should.

That is exactly how T-34/76 performs in-game under my control! Yay, Relic! Realism!

He´s probably referring to the Christie suspension.

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

I think he's referring to BT-2, but its connection to T-34 is blurry (except maybe the fact that fails of BT series forced USSR to develop T-34)

I fail to see your point. At the end of war the german tanks were still better. In 41 and 42 soviet tanks were surclassing german ones, yes, everybody knows that, but then untill war ended, the german tanks took the lead.

If you imply that the late german tanks were inspired by T34 project I must say:

1. Panther tank is the only one who somewhat looks like the T34 and my opinion is that german designers were inspired by T34 sloppy armor - for sure, but there is no actual prove of that. What about the soviet assault guns? SU 85, SU 100, ISU 152 and so on. Where were they inspired from? )
Further, the T34 project is not - surprise! - a soviet one. No sir. The tank it was first designed by an american engineer, but the project was rejected and bought by russians. Now do you understand the difference between original soviet BT and KV models and the T34 model? Bingo....
2. Tiger - the best tank in the war (yes, that was the best tank in the war, not T34, shermann, or other thin cans ) was not inspired by any foreign model, it was 100% a german project.

Tiger/panther and other "super" tank would have been the "best" if the Germany did not run out of ressources.

They were not the best for the situation the Germany was in, thus Hitler was wrong about that (It is him taht wanted super weapon against the advice of his Generals). And except in video game, it is always better to have a lot of armors/men than a few but elite.

Btw, being the "best" is always relative.

That is exactly how T-34/76 performs in-game under my control! Yay, Relic! Realism!


I think he's referring to BT-2, but its connection to T-34 is blurry (except maybe the fact that fails of BT series forced USSR to develop T-34)

So not actually an American design at all really

I feel like the IS2 topgunner is sniping all the models? (more so than other topgunners)

imo there should be a limit how many you can call in. Maybe 1 or 2 per game!

Last games I played we killed like 3 IS2's 5mins another 3 arrive Kappa

LOL Why should only the IS2 have production limits? Also they most likely had control of most the map and fuel caches to do that.

The IS2 does not pen German armor that well especially heavy armor. It does do what it is suppose to do kill infantry which all german armor is also pretty great at doing except maybe the panther. Can't tell you how many one shot rifle men squads i've had die from a tiger I. It needs the speed and armor to be able to flank and it is the only tank allies have that can actually spearhead a push. The tiger I ace also crew shocks like crazy sometimes if that happens to your E8 sherman your going to lose it for sure unless you got something to smoke cover it.

I think all the heavies at the current state are just fine.

LOL Why should only the IS2 have production limits? Also they most likely had control of most the map and fuel caches to do that.

So according to him, the only Soviet heavy should have a limit, but not the Axis ones.



Seem legit. best idea 10/1

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

Nope, when we talk about is vs tiger, u can say whoever shots hits first will kill the target.

Nope, when we talk about is vs tiger, u can say whoever shots hits first will kill the target.

Naja, not necessarily. If you actually read through the German AARs, Tiger crews managed to kill IS-2s frontally from about a kilometer out, but reported that their shells proved ineffective beyond that range. In another AAR i've seen, a Tiger crew documented damaging hits beyond 500 meters, but recommendend opening only within that distance if possible to ensure kills. The IS-2 was a well armoured vehicle and afforded its crews a degree of protection that ie. a T-34 or even a Tiger I for that matter could not.
That being said, this is not an exact science. Angles, nonstandard metallurgical properties or imperfections etc can always conspire to greatly increase or reduce the effectiveness of any given armour layout, meaning, there will be freak occurences. Ie. during one particular documented engagement, two Tigers ran into 2 IS-2s at very short range on a forest road, and in the ensuing fight, a 122 mm shell bounced off an angled Tigers glacis from less than fifty meters out...

Naja, not necessarily. If you actually read through the German AARs, Tiger crews managed to kill IS-2s frontally from about a kilometer out, but reported that their shells proved ineffective beyond that range. In another AAR i've seen, a Tiger crew documented damaging hits beyond 500 meters, but recommendend opening only within that distance if possible to ensure kills. The IS-2 was a well armoured vehicle and afforded its crews a degree of protection that ie. a T-34 or even a Tiger I for that matter could not.
That being said, this is not an exact science. Angles, nonstandard metallurgical properties or imperfections etc can always conspire to greatly increase or reduce the effectiveness of any given armour layout, meaning, there will be freak occurences. Ie. during one particular documented engagement, two Tigers ran into 2 IS-2s at very short range on a forest road, and in the ensuing fight, a 122 mm shell bounced off an angled Tigers glacis from less than fifty meters out...

Interesting, Source?

Otto Carius said in his book . He said that he belived they possibly had a better thank, if not all around, they had better armor, but bigger firepower was limited by seperate shell loading. I think that theory that tiger couldn't pen an is/is2 more than 100m is pure bullshit. Documents are flawed and used by propaganda from both nazi party and ussr. I read couple of book that are about ww2 and i think that otto can be credible as good source, he had respect for Ivan as a soldier, not so much for Americans... As soldiers. He claimed a couple of IS/IS2 kills. A 5 i one operation, (note there were usualy 2-4 tiger in operations that was led by Otto)

Posting from memory here as I am on my laptop, (although I am pretty sure about the specifics) give me a day and I'll dig it out.
The IS-2 could indeed be penetrated at ranges of greater than a 100 meters by the Tiger, I don't think anybody apart from the usual suspects has seriously maintained otherwise.
Just a word of caution tho, anecdotal evidence, from whomever, has its obvious limitations in any given historical issue.