is2 and tiger ace

A rule of thumb for closing spent out balance threads on CoH2.org should be:

"A balance discussion degenerating into anecdotal performance of WW2 weaponry and panzerporn is a clear sign that nothing meaningful is to be added to the actual balance subject; as the fanboys resort to irrelevant trivia as a pathetic attempt lobby their agenda (Also proof they are clueless about actual game balance & design mechanics). Terminating with extreme prejudice is advised."

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.

How do you arrive at this conclusion, though? I mean the 1944 version of the IS-2 had 120mm, which was very tough for a tiger I to penetrate, even with the APCR round.


The IS-2 did have 2 models though, and the first one had a much weaker and inferior armor layout.

How do you arrive at this conclusion, though? I mean the 1944 version of the IS-2 had 120mm, which was very tough for a tiger I to penetrate, even with the APCR round.


The IS-2 did have 2 models though, and the first one had a much weaker and inferior armor layout.

The Tiger had no problem penetrating any (land)vehicle the Soviets constructed during the war, and with APCR it could defeat the armour of several postwar tanks.

A rule of thumb for closing spent out balance threads on CoH2.org should be:

"A balance discussion degenerating into anecdotal performance of WW2 weaponry and panzerporn is a clear sign that nothing meaningful is to be added to the actual balance subject; as the fanboys resort to irrelevant trivia as a pathetic attempt lobby their agenda (Also proof they are clueless about actual game balance & design mechanics). Terminating with extreme prejudice is advised."

I'm fairly sure it's our good right to argue about history and WW2. It's an interesting subject, you know. There is nothing left about the Tiger ace to discuss. It's a failed idea, a thought experiment, a 'the Wave' of CoH2.

The Tiger had no problem penetrating any (land)vehicle the Soviets constructed during the war, and with APCR it could defeat the armour of several postwar tanks.






I'm fairly sure it's our good right to argue about history and WW2. It's an interesting subject, you know. There is nothing left about the Tiger ace to discuss. It's a failed idea, a thought experiment, a 'the Wave' of CoH2.

Now again, how do you arrive at this conclusion? the tiger only had 120mm of armor penetration at 60 degrees, at 100m, which was the exact armor of the IS-2.


EDIT : Ok apparently i was wrong. Forgot about APCR rounds

I'm fairly sure it's our good right to argue about history and WW2. It's an interesting subject, you know. There is nothing left about the Tiger ace to discuss. It's a failed idea, a thought experiment, a 'the Wave' of CoH2.

It is, do so in the library sub-forum. This is the balance sub-forum, WW2 weaponry trivia is irrelevant to any intelligent balance discussion.

Now again, how do you arrive at this conclusion? the Tiger only had 120mm of armor penetration at 60 degrees, at 100m, which was the exact armor of the IS-2.

Well for starters, combat reports.

But I'll just quote my own post from further back in the thread.

Claim: The IS 2 was impenetrable to the Tiger beyond 100 metres.

The Tiger did indeed penetrate 120mm at 100metres. But only when the Germans tested it. German penetration criteria was 97%, 99% according to other sources, and the target was a 60°(from the horizontal) sloped armour plate.. There are several tests, by several countries which all came to similar conclusions. The UK, the USA, Finland, the GDR and Yugoslavia rated the kwk 36 at around 150-170mm of penetration.

And of course the fact that the Is 2 also had a 100 mm turret.

Well for starters, combat reports.

But I'll just quote my own post from further back in the thread.



And of course the fact that the Is 2 also had a 100 mm turret.

150-170mm at 90 degrees yes, not on sloped armor, though. As for the 100mm turet, while that is true, the turret is a rounded mantlet, which makes a 0 degrees hit extremelly unlikely.


Anyways, i edited my previous post and forgot about APCR rounds. It is true that the tiger I could penetrate the IS-2 with APCR rounds.

150-170mm at 90 degrees yes, not on sloped armor, though. As for the 100mm turet, while that is true, the turret is a rounded mantlet, which makes a 0 degrees hit extremelly unlikely.


Anyways, i edited my previous post and forgot about APCR rounds. It is true that the tiger I could penetrate the IS-2 with APCR rounds.

The problem with the German penetration data is not that it's at 0 degrees, but that it's measured in 5 out of 5 hits need to penetrate. Assuming the German penetration criterium was 50%(I have never seen this proven) this would do a 97% chance of penetrating. Besides, the IS 2s armour was oftentimes not excellent at all.

And the notion that 'A 0° hit on a sloped surface is extremely unlikely' is simply an unfounded assumption.

The problem with the German penetration data is not that it's at 0 degrees, but that it's measured in 5 out of 5 hits need to penetrate. Assuming the German penetration criterium was 50%(I have never seen this proven) this would do a 97% chance of penetrating. Besides, the IS 2s armour was oftentimes not excellent at all.

And the notion that 'A 0° hit on a sloped surface is extremely unlikely' is simply an unfounded assumption.

I dunno, but looking at the relative sizes of the mantlets, it seems very unlikely for a round to hit them to be able to do any significant damage at all.

I looked it up. KwK36 penetration at a 30° from Vertical is 137 at 1000 metres 50% penetration 1 time.

The IS tanks had no mantlet like the Panther.

How do you arrive at this conclusion, though? I mean the 1944 version of the IS-2 had 120mm, which was very tough for a tiger I to penetrate, even with the APCR round.


The IS-2 did have 2 models though, and the first one had a much weaker and inferior armor layout.

If you go back 2 pages, I pointed out just that.
Otherwise, Domine already made whatever point was left to make.

Brutus, as for my sources,check out Schneider, Tigers in Combat, Zaloga, IS-2..., then there is (in Russian) Zheltov etc, Combat employment... who also has several, primary sourced IS-2 engagements of the 72nd Guards Heavy Tank Regiment fighting against S.Pz.Abt 506 including a total loss to a frontal 88mm penetration from 1000-1100 meters. There are scattered references to even longer range penetrations tho.
In the first larger scale engagement of Tigers vs IS-2 at Tirgu-Frumos, the Soviets lost 3 IS-2s total write offs, 2 of them to Tigers from about a kilometer out, and 1 to a frontal penetration from a Pz.IVs KwK L/48 at 500 meters as per Großdeutschlands AAR which you will find quoted all over the place. One of these was recovered by the Germans and put through its paces at Kummersdorf.
For the very short range engagement I referenced, look up Jentz, Panzertruppen Vol II, p.
216 ff, which also features general observations and guidelines on engaging the new IS-2s. It indeed appears that the Tiger in question, standing angled, bounced the 12,2 cm shell from just 35 meters out. Obviously, there was a shitton of luck involved in that particular incident.

Yeah panthers and tigers were told to angle their tanks when engaging is2s. Better chance to bounce. They tried to aim for the turret rings as well. With the 75mm l/70 and 88 l/56 being pretty accurate weapons it wasn't impossible.

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


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

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

not to mention the is2 gun is so big it has to lower the gun to reload the thing

Nice strawman!Numbers and actual data says otherwise

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/07/28/please-dont-use-the-5-m4s-1-panther-myth/

Reason Why we say its all myths is because pretty much all of your "sources" are just unverified claims and personel accounts made by the Germans namely SS PanzerBrigades; who were so notorious for inflating their kill claims even oberkommand didnt take them seriously.











And the SS were all honorable men of integrity right? If Tank Archives and other sources are so wrong apparently then please by all means point me to true legit sources?


"At the end of two weeks of fighting, the Panther regiments in the Ardennes were shattered, losing about 180 tanks or 43 percent of the starting force of about 415 Panthers. Of the remaining 235 Panthers, only 45 percent were operational, and the remaining 55 percent were dead-line with mechanical problems or battle damage. In the case of the US First Army, which bore the brunt of the Ardennes fighting, by the end of December in had lost about 320 Sherman tanks of which about 90 were M4A1/A3 (76mm), equivalent to about one-quarter of its average daily strength that month. Due to continual reinforcements, First Army had about 1,085 Shermans on hand at the end of December 1944 with about 980 operational and only 9 percent deadline with mechanical problems or battle damage."


^^^Taken from http://books.google.com.ph/books/about/Panther_Vs_Sherman.html?id=SWwRkr_6mzUC&redir_esc=y

just checking here. are you sure you know what straw mans argument is?

not to mention the is2 gun is so big it has to lower the gun to reload the thing

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2015/01/d-25-reload-angles.html

Also not sure why you quoted my post without posting anything yourself.

anyways how did this balance thread turn into a history thread

yeah i meant to post something there but now i fixed it

anyways how did this balance thread turn into a history thread

DakkaIsMagic made a post about how it was odd only Germany gets an "ACE" tank call in, CardBoardTank responded naming off some Tank Aces(some legit some not) then it all went downhill from there.

DakkaIsMagic made a post about how it was odd only Germany gets an "ACE" tank call in, CardBoardTank responded naming off some Tank Aces(some legit some not) then it all went downhill from there.

im not sure about the "one-piece" variant but i think the 2 piece variant needed to be lowered

im not sure about the "one-piece" variant but i think the 2 piece variant needed to be lowered

It definitely had to. It´s just the Russian fan train in action again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNXiK8_mRoo#t=12m00s