is2 and tiger ace

The first use of the IS vs Tiger is covered in the (terrific) book "Red Storm over the balkans".

The IS Guards regiments were inserted to widen a penetration on Pzg 'GD'. They attacked the defending infantry and support weapons. Mantueffuel, who also had CAS, sent a group of tigers to intercept; the tigers started firing from 2,000 meters and realized that the shots bounced. They had to close the distance in order to get through. The IS regiments lost a few units.

This is from memory, I may dig up it later if it interests anyone. The IS Guards units were not meant to fight other tanks- they were meant to create or widen penetrations/breakthroughs on enemy defenses and fight tanks if they came. The Soviets by doctrine used SPGs to hunt other tanks, not IS models.

What you are referring to is the Tirgu Frumos engagement, look up post 131, however, this was not the first encounter, the Soviets lost an IS-2 to S.Pz.Abt 506 before that.

You are entirely right tho, IS-2s were not meant or optimised to fight other tanks, heck, they only carried 8 AP shells standard...

but most of all tiger I were outdated compared to is2s. panther was a better match against is2s. anyways NEW TOPIC, IS3 VS TIGER II

"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

But But if you read about US Army anything anywhere and youll find that nothing they had could kill German armor! Their AT Guns were too weak (if you try to research them) Shermans were total and complete crap incapable of doing anything but killing their own crews, P47 Rockets couldnt Penetrate anything heavier then a Panzer IV if they hit, and the tank destroyer doctrine was a failure not to mention the Bazookas. So how did all these tanks mysteriously die???

Kind of being a smart ass here but I am half serious. Every source I seem to look up about the various ways America dealt with Panzers seems to show that EVERYTHING was ineffective...yet...they still died in droves...

What you are referring to is the Tirgu Frumos engagement, look up post 131, however, this was not the first encounter, the Soviets lost an IS-2 to S.Pz.Abt 506 before that.

You are entirely right tho, IS-2s were not meant or optimised to fight other tanks, heck, they only carried 8 AP shells standard...

It was designed as a breakthrough tank taking out enemy armor was secondary. They tested it with the D-10 100MM gun, but dropped it due to logistics and the fact that the 122MM had better HE performance and was better for bunker busting. Also doesnt the fact that the D-25 was more than enough too kill Germany armor with just HE shells alone.

Despite all that, the is2 in game has a 6 second reload weak damage. Compared to the 30 second reload it had in real life, and large explosive capabilities. 9 second reload 240 damage anyone?

Despite all that, the is2 in game has a 6 second reload weak damage. Compared to the 30 second reload it had in real life, and large explosive capabilities. 9 second reload 240 damage anyone?

Problem with this is that it would make the IS-2 incredibly RNG tastic

Problem with this is that it would make the IS-2 incredibly RNG tastic

How would it be any different from an isu/elefant/jagdtiger? The is2 already has good penetration. Give it 33% damage upon deflection and ur gold. Plus fix its scatter, it can be random.

How would it be any different from an isu/elefant/jagdtiger? The is2 already has good penetration. Give it 33% damage upon deflection and ur gold. Plus fix its scatter, it can be random.

The ISU-152 isint RNG tastic, wiping a squad with one shot is pretty much the standart for it. If it doesnt one shot a squad isu user has some serious bad luck

Im talking about RNG againts inf, not tanks.

But But if you read about US Army anything anywhere and youll find that nothing they had could kill German armor! Their AT Guns were too weak (if you try to research them) Shermans were total and complete crap incapable of doing anything but killing their own crews, P47 Rockets couldnt Penetrate anything heavier then a Panzer IV if they hit, and the tank destroyer doctrine was a failure not to mention the Bazookas. So how did all these tanks mysteriously die???

Kind of being a smart ass here but I am half serious. Every source I seem to look up about the various ways America dealt with Panzers seems to show that EVERYTHING was ineffective...yet...they still died in droves...

Anyone serious (outside of "history" channel documentaries) ever said the entire US AT arsenal was ineffectual?
That being said, Arracourt etc. which you'll often find quoted as a vindication of US armour doctrine/employment is a problematic example at best, as the newly created German Panzerbrigaden that made up the bulk of the German forces were hastily shuffled into action and proved clear organisational failures, way too light on combat support/logistics and even more importantly, virtually untrained. In fact, most German crews could hardly operate their tanks individually, let alone function and fight as a formation. This was exarcerbated by the fact that for the most part they were commanded by men who lacked Western front experience and completely underestimated the organic firepower of US formations and the impact of their aerial support...In a way a similar situation to what the Soviets experienced in 1941 on a far larger scale.

As for IS-2 reload, balance&gameplay over authenticity any day IMO.

Anyone serious (outside of "history" channel documentaries) ever said the entire US AT arsenal was ineffectual?
That being said, Arracourt etc. which you'll often find quoted as a vindication of US armour doctrine/employment is a problematic example at best, as the newly created German Panzerbrigaden that made up the bulk of the German forces were hastily shuffled into action and proved clear organisational failures, way too light on combat support/logistics and even more importantly, virtually untrained. In fact, most German crews could hardly operate their tanks individually, let alone function and fight as a formation. This was exarcerbated by the fact that for the most part they were commanded by men who lacked Western front experience and completely underestimated the organic firepower of US formations and the impact of their aerial support...In a way a similar situation to what the Soviets experienced in 1941 on a far larger scale.

As for IS-2 reload, balance&gameplay over authenticity any day IMO.

They play documentaries on the History Channel? I thought that was for Reality TV...

On a more serious notes I am talking about various books I have read on the Subject. Some from German perspective and a very interesting research paper a retired Lt. Col wrote for his Masters Degree about the P47 and how they would literally "Kill" more Panzers then there actually were in the area thus showing that the rockets werent as effective as we thought they were.

Other then Artillery reforms the US did in the 30s everything I tend to read is it wasnt as good. Yet the fact of the matter is the US inflicted significant losses on the Germans none the less. A study on the US fuse systems used in the 105MM Howitzer were proven more reliable and devastating then the German artillery but even the GIs in the war believed the German artillery was better.

I find it rather comical.

They play documentaries on the History Channel? I thought that was for Reality TV...

I thought it was for aliens

Well, the grass is always greener I guess.

Tac Air proved not particularly effective at killing hard targets, Zetterling goes into some detail on this in his Normandy book, however, it had enourmous disruptive value, destroying soft-skins, rolling stock etc, forced night movement etc. In fact, it fortified the German experience that any army under total enemy aerial superiority is effectively precluded from conducting "modern", ie. mechanised operations.

I think it is widely acknowledged that US artillery was not merely superior in quantity, but at least towards the end of the war also technologically (VX fuses for one) and procedurally, with very fast reaction speed, ToT, exarcerbated even more by the ubiquity of wireless sets at the platoon level...

When the game first came out, the Tiger was OP and the IS-2 was UP & had problems dealing with panthers. I think they had the IRL role of the IS-2 in mind, but they made the mistake of making it far too expensive along with having it in a faction with weak AT options.

Now dozens of patches later, the Tiger and the IS-2 are somewhat similar vehicles in the game.

I had wondered how an IS-2 and ISU-152 (with very slow KV-2 ROF) would work in the game. Give it great AP, and even more super HE. A true squad wiping machine. Then a big price cut- down to the panther tank's range. But then the Soviet faction lacks heavy armor that can stand toe to toe with the tiger & panther and would get sniped by the Jagdpanzer IV. It would be a very asymmetrical arrangement.

Arracourt has become a trope of such. I used to believe in this trope but the claim of "East Front not like West Front so fail" and other rationale, seemingly invented after the fact has given me cause for doubts- most of the sourcing is from Cole's Lorraine campaign and it has been repeated in other texts & even tv shows.

I think it is actually BS, as the west front historians that cover this come across as not grasping the east front, and thus playing up the jingoism rather than making a quality appraisal. The claim seems to aim at condescending the RKKA when in fact the Red armored units were halting PzK sized attacks regularly in mid-44'- and these were higher quality than what the US faced.

Pz General Balck addresses Patton & his command of Army Group G in his memoirs- basically he says that the US command was too slow paced and his survival until the Ardennes offensive was to him, "a miracle". His command was totally outclassed in numbers, material and formations. He also cites "1,250 sorties a day against AG-G, typical" vs LW @ zero in France as being very restrictive. To put this into reference, this level of airpower was 300-400 sorties more what 6.AOK used on an average day in Stalingrad.

Anyone serious (outside of "history" channel documentaries) ever said the entire US AT arsenal was ineffectual?
That being said, Arracourt etc. which you'll often find quoted as a vindication of US armour doctrine/employment is a problematic example at best, as the newly c

Well yes americas amazing resource supply and quick reinforcement makes up for being less skilled than the german army in a number of ways.

Well yes americas amazing resource supply and quick reinforcement makes up for being less skilled than the german army in a number of ways.

What makes you think the US army was comprised entirely of unskilled draftees while the Wehrmacht was comprised entirely of battle hardened crack troops?

Theyre both fine....
Only thing id change is the SKin on the Tiger ace to match that of COh1 tiger ace in campaign....

IS2 is good AI and decent AT, its a solid tank.


Tiger... its a good tank, but i feel it spends half its life in reverse from Jacksons or SU85s....

Tiger could maybe do with a frontal armor buff.... Granted in RL the panther was harder to penetrate from the front, but from the cost of the tiger i feel it should have more field presence than it does....

Used to crap myself in Coh1 at tigers, now i think "marked target and lololololol".

What makes you think the US army was comprised entirely of unskilled draftees while the Wehrmacht was comprised entirely of battle hardened crack troops?

I'm thinking at a larger scale. Sure germany probably had some of the finest crack troops, but as the war progressed a lot of them died in risky assaults. So the volksgrenadiers and conscripted foreigners slowly became more prevalent. German commanders though were experienced and more knowledgeable than the american officers usually. Purely from experience. They were just limited in a number of ways that the americans were not. Same with the russians. Theres a lot you can do with seemingly infinite resources compared to the enemy.