Why such a short range of IS2?!

Velocity is the most important, look at a rail gun, or the effects of particulate matter accelerated to large speeds in orbit. A flec of paint at high enough speed can have the same impact as an atom bomb.

Velocity is the most important, look at a rail gun, or the effects of particulate matter accelerated to large speeds in orbit. A flec of paint at high enough speed can have the same impact as an atom bomb.

"Look at [insert celestial body], or the effects of cosmic scale collisions. An object traveling at a literal snail's pace with a high enough mass can have the same impact as an atom bomb."

Claiming velocity (or any single factor) as "the most important," is horribly misguided. Scale any of the factors up high enough, and you'll get insane results. With modern technology, increasing the velocity of a projectile is trivial compared to increasing the mass of the projectile, hence rail guns. Velocity is emphasized so much not because it's more "important," but because it's far more practical to maximize.

Also, I say modern technology because, to my knowledge, this wasn't always the case. While velocity was the most practical factor to optimize now, that doesn't mean it was the most practical factor to optimize during the time period in question, the 1940s. This truth is seen in the weaponry (artillery guns and tank cannons) of the time, which had much larger calibers (when possible) than equivalent modern weapons do. In the context of this conversation and given the practical limitations faced during the time period, payload and mass probably were "more important" than velocity. Again though, there is no absolute "most important" factor when you remove context.

"Look at [insert celestial body], or the effects of cosmic scale collisions. An object traveling at a literal snail's pace with a high enough mass can have the same impact as an atom bomb."

Claiming velocity (or any single factor) as "the most important," is horribly misguided. Scale any of the factors up high enough, and you'll get insane results. With modern technology, increasing the velocity of a projectile is trivial compared to increasing the mass of the projectile, hence rail guns. Velocity is emphasized so much not because it's more "important," but because it's far more practical to maximize.

Also, I say modern technology because, to my knowledge, this wasn't always the case. While velocity was the most practical factor to optimize now, that doesn't mean it was the most practical factor to optimize during the time period in question, the 1940s. This truth is seen in the weaponry (artillery guns and tank cannons) of the time, which had much larger calibers (when possible) than equivalent modern weapons do. In the context of this conversation and given the practical limitations faced during the time period, payload and mass probably were "more important" than velocity. Again though, there is no absolute "most important" factor when you remove context.

If you look at the decision making of 1940's german arms manufacturers velocity was indeed favoured over mass, mass was kept to the minimum needed to be effective, higher velocity over mass gives more advantages for similar destructive ability. Ie more accuracy, due to faster moving projectile, carry capacity due to lighter projectile, faster loading, less material needed to manufacture each shell. Also, the fact that soviets didnt use shaped charges ment for less efficient distribution of kinetic energy. Indeed a larger shell could achieve similar
results, but it is less efficient to do so, this philosophy carries over to modern design. Also, tanks like the sturmtiger and the ISU-122, naval ships like the bismark and guns like the Gustav, have no modern analogue, as they were inefficient a cumbersome at best, completely useless at worst. Thusly, out of the factors that make a gun efficient, velocity was definitely preferred by the Germans in their engineering, the Soviets could afford to be more experimental as their factories were more numerous and less effected by bombing.

Sorry for any errors, phone posting, will edit when I get home.

*unit ready*
*unit died*

Except that the topic was destructive power, and your post implied that velocity was "the most important" when it came to that. No one is arguing it's not better for accuracy, loading times, or material efficiency.

You say it's "less efficient" to make up for velocity with destructive power, but that's a deceptive claim. Yes, velocity is more efficient. You're using the same caliber, but getting more destructive power out of it. But efficiency isn't remotely close to relevant to the discussion. Velocity was preferred, sure, but it was not as PRACTICAL. Look at the german 128mm. Larger than modern tank cannons because mass had to (and very much did) make up for velocity during those times, not that the 128mm had a low velocity. Obviously, the clearer examples are the ISU 152 and of course the KV2, but you mentioned germans and velocity.

Anyway, to refocus the discussion, velocity is the goal because of material efficiency, accuracy, loading times, and yes destructive power. Others were pointing out that mass/payload could and did reach the impact on destructive power that velocity had (specifically for the 122mm), which you appeared to attempt to refute.

Unless there were several targets, it missed, or nearly missed. Its multi part ammunition also forced its amunition capacity to be very low.

The gun had its drawbacks for sure but the fact of the matter is that all of those were considered and the gun was still selected due to its high potential.

"Look at [insert celestial body], or the effects of cosmic scale collisions. An object traveling at a literal snail's pace with a high enough mass can have the same impact as an atom bomb."

Claiming velocity (or any single factor) as "the most important," is horribly misguided. Scale any of the factors up high enough, and you'll get insane results. With modern technology, increasing the velocity of a projectile is trivial compared to increasing the mass of the projectile, hence rail guns. Velocity is emphasized so much not because it's more "important," but because it's far more practical to maximize.

Also, I say modern technology because, to my knowledge, this wasn't always the case. While velocity was the most practical factor to optimize now, that doesn't mean it was the most practical factor to optimize during the time period in question, the 1940s. This truth is seen in the weaponry (artillery guns and tank cannons) of the time, which had much larger calibers (when possible) than equivalent modern weapons do. In the context of this conversation and given the practical limitations faced during the time period, payload and mass probably were "more important" than velocity. Again though, there is no absolute "most important" factor when you remove context.

First of all one has define destructive power versus type of target.

Against tanks there basically 2 type munition used:
The munition relying on kinetic energy
The munition relying on chemical energy

When it comes kinetic energy projectiles velocity it the most important factor (up to point where friction become too high) because of the equation of kinetic energy.

E=1/2*M*V^2, note that velocity is in the square which means that if one doubles mass one gets double energy but if one doubles velocity one gets quadruple energy.

When it comes to Chemical energy one could argue that mass is more important, since one can increase the payload thus the total chemical (explosive) energy but things are not that simple.

The reason here is shaped charges, shaped charges achieve higher destructive result vs Tanks for their pay load because they can consecrate that chemical energy in a very small point.

Now when it comes to the guns of IS-2, KV-2 or ISu-152, these guns where actually artillery pieces used in AT role. It was more of stop gap solution and it is a solution that is generally not chosen to deal with Tanks.

Can't believe nobody mentioned the IS-2s biggest flaw: The gun had to be set into the original position to be able to reload. Tank combat in WW2 however usually was about trial and error; overshooting or undershooting the target and adjusting accordingly. The 2nd or 3rd shot would usually hit the target. This couldn't be done with the IS-2 since the gun would have to be readjusted with every shot which took time and you could lose track of the target.

Example:



As for the balance discussion I would like to see the respective heavy tanks have their own roles. Tiger and IS-2 shouldn't be mirrored. IS-2 should have 240 dmg, slow reload and very good performance against soft targets while the Tiger should have a range advantage and perform good against armor and tanks alike (just not as good as the IS-2 vs infantry).

Except kinetic energy isn't really relevant for comparing the effects of mass and velocity in this context. Neither are shaped charges.

The "velocity guns" can be equated to KEPs, but 152mm and 122mm HE rounds can't really be grouped into either category. Increased velocity means a lot more energy, but thats only really going to increase penetration. While I suppose that does fall under destructive power, more mass means more explosive filler. For rounds this big, that means both more penetration (negligible, I guess), and more shock (I'd count that as damage) to the vehicle if it doesn't penetrate, and more straight up damage if it does. That's why I tried not to exclusively refer to mass, but also to payload (because that's what I think we're actually trying to imply when we say mass).

I get that the bolded part isn't really true given the proportionalities, but that's only if you remove my words from their context. He mentioned an example that used an absurd velocity to yield an absurd result, and that statement was only meant to imply that you could do the same for mass (use an absurd mass to yield an absurd result).

Overall, I think you're sticking too close to principles that really aren't applicable to the actual points of discussion.

No, I'm saying Velocity = Destructive power.

Charged shell/Size also = Destructive power.

An increase in size is directly proportional to a decrease in velocity, unless self-propelled.

Destructive power is the metric by which effectiveness is better.

My point is Velocity > Charge/Size

Infact, many earlier AT shells by all factions were just steel core.

Charge may = velocity - but this is coupled with immense downsides, to the point were charge has to be enormous to equal the destructive power provided by an 88 for example, which utilized high velocity to penetrate.

Also, Increasing velocity is easier than increasing charge, the fact that Soviets preferred charge/shell size over attempting to create the highest velocity is more to do with their doctrine of tank design.

Your example of the German 128mm is good,

If we take the Jagdtiger, which used a 12.8cm pak44

Muzzle velocity 950 m/s (3,100 ft/s)
Maximum firing range 24,410 m (26,700 yd)

"The heavy charge was used when the gun was fulfilling its intended role as an anti-tank gun, where it fired a 28.3 kg APCBC-HE projectile (PzGr.43) at a muzzle velocity of 950 m/s. With the heavy charge, and using the PzGr.43 projectile, the Pak 44 was capable of penetrating 212 millimetres (8.3 in) of 30 degree sloped armour at 500 metres, 200 millimetres (7.9 in) at 1,000 metres (1,100 yd),and 178 millimetres (7.0 in) at 2,000 metres (2,200 yd) range."

-Hogg, Ian V. German Artillery of World War Two.

Compare it to the IS-2 which has the 122 mm D-25 tank gun (a direct descendant of the 122 mm gun M1931/37 (A-19))

Muzzle velocity 806 m/s (2,640 ft/s)
Maximum firing range 20.4 km (12.67 mi)

"The A-19 was primarily used for indirect fire against enemy personnel, fortifications and key objects in the near rear. It was also equipped with armour-piercing shells for direct fire against armoured targets. Although not an ideal anti-tank gun because of its large size, slow traverse and relatively slow rate of fire, in 1943 the A-19 was one of only a few Soviet guns effective against the new German tanks, such as the Tiger and Elefant."

Potapov, V. Was the Tiger really King?

The large 122 mm HE shell was its main asset, proving highly useful and destructive as an infantry-killer. In extremis, the IS-2 engaged enemy heavy armor with OF-471 (Russian: ОФ-471) high explosive projectiles. These shells had a mass of 25 kg (55 lb), a muzzle velocity of 800 m/s (2,600 ft/s), and were equipped with a 3.8 kg (8.4 lb) TNT charge. The explosive power could blow off an enemy tank turret, drive sprocket and tread of the heaviest German tank even if it could not penetrate the armor.

Soviet Heavy Tanks: World War 2 In Review Special,
The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II, Chris Bishop, P. 41

This is given due to "evident gradual decline in the quantity of molybdenum (M) in the German T-VI and T-V tanks, and a complete absence in the T-VIB. The reason for replacing one element (M) with another (V, vanadium) must obviously be sought in the exhaustion of their on-hand reserves and the loss of those bases supplying Germany with molybdenum. Low malleability appears to be characteristic of the "Tiger-B's" armor. An advantage of domestic armor, as is well-known, is its high malleability; German armor has fewer alloys and is therefore significantly less malleably."

"D-25 Tank gun". The Russian Battlfield. Retrieved 6 November 2014.

Thus, whilst similar effects can be achieved, in terms of creating destructive power (specifically against enemy tanks) Velocity is indeed superior.

During testing of the weapon, the German KwK 43 tank gun gave good results in both armor penetration and accuracy, practically the same as the Soviet 122 mm D-25 gun on the JS-2 tank. At a range of 1000 metres, the following projectile impact deviations from the aiming point were observed: 260 mm in the vertical, and 210 mm in the horizontal. In comparison, for the JS-2 tank's D-25 gun the average projectile deviation from the aiming point did not exceed 170 mm in the vertical and 270 mm in the horizontal during stationary firing at a range of 1000 metres. The penetration capability of the 71-caliber long 88 mm KwK 43 gun, with its muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s for its armor-piercing projectiles, was 165 mm at a 30 degree impact angle at 1000 metres. In particular, the "Tiger-B" projectile went completely through the turret of its "colleague" at a range of 400 m. But in high-explosive power, the 88 mm projectile was 1.39 times inferior to the 122 mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile.

Potapov, V. Was the Tiger really King?

Therefore it can be seen, that a difference of 1.39 between a German 8.8cm gun and a Soviet 122mm, is negligible, and the effects of the Soviet gun are mainly attributed to a lower quality found in the alloy used for the KT's armour. Despite a much smaller shell, the 8.8cm gun attributes being on par with a 122mm gun to its velocity.

Note, this test uses the inferior PzGr. 39/43 (APCBC-HE)
Projectile weight: 10.40 kg (22.9 lb)
Muzzle velocity: 1,000 m/s (3,300 ft/s)

Rather than PzGr. 40/43 (APCR)
Projectile weight: 7.30 kg (16.1 lb)
Muzzle velocity: 1,130 m/s (3,700 ft/s)


------------------------PzGr. 39/43 (APCBC-HE) ---- PzGr. 40/43 (APCR)

Range in metres ------- 2000 ----------------------- 2000

Penetration in -------- 132 ------------------------ 153
millimetres

Jentz, 1996, p. 9

So, even though PzGr. 39/43 (APCBC-HE) is a 3.1kg more massive shell than PzGr. 40/43 (APCR), its penetration is increased. The Germans recognized that velocity was the "most important" factor, when it came to achieving raw destructive power, let alone all the other advantages provided by a higher velocity gun (range/accuracy/storage capacity, etc). In fact, the British realised the importance of velocity, which was behind the design theory of the British Sherman Firefly and Comet, also the American M4A3E8 - Easy 8. All of these guns used velocity to generate destructive power. This is shown by modern doctrine also. The only disadvantages of higher velocity, is the difficulty in manufacturing (has to be higher quality production and material) and the length of the barrel can make transport and maneuvering in close quarters more difficult.

As to your note about "Velocity was preferred, sure, but it was not as PRACTICAL."

-This is untrue, the Germans used velocity as it was both proven effective and able to be done with a material shortage.

"Anyway, to refocus the discussion, velocity is the goal because of material efficiency, accuracy, loading times, and yes destructive power. Others were pointing out that mass/payload could and did reach the impact on destructive power that velocity had (specifically for the 122mm), which you appeared to attempt to refute."

I was not trying to refute the destructive power of the 122mm gun (Although, I think it was worse).

Due to:-

-The live fire tests were conducted in the fall of 1944 at Kubinka, during the course of which the following results were obtained:-

3. Impacts of 3-4 armor-piercing or high-explosive fragmentation shells from 152, 122, or 100 mm artillery pieces caused cracks, spalling and destruction of the weld seams in the tank's 100-190 mm thick frontal armor plates at ranges of 500-1000 metres. The impacts disrupted the operation of the transmission and took the tank out of service as an irrevocable loss.

4. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated when impacting the edges or joints of the "Tiger-B" tank's front hull plates at ranges of 500-600 metres.

5. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's front turret plate at ranges of 1000-1500 metres.

Potapov, V. Was the Tiger really King?


To Reiterate, I was trying to articulate, perhaps ineffectively, that velocity > charge/size in terms of the capability to destroy ("knock out") enemy armour. Considering the Is-2 took 3-4 shots to take out a King Tiger, made of an inferior alloy (due to availability) with destructive power coming from shell charge/size.

"In the context of this conversation and given the practical limitations faced during the time period, payload and mass probably were "more important" than velocity."

I strongly disagree, due to the reasons I have illustrated throughout.

Again though, there is no absolute "most important" factor when you remove context.

I agree, context is important, the context being the the capability to destroy ("knock out") enemy armour.

Although in this context, "the IS-2 and Tiger I could knock each other out in normal combat distances below 1,000 m (1,100 yd). At any range, the performance of each tank against each other was dependent on the crew and combat situation"

Zaloga, Steven (1994). IS-2 Heavy Tank 1944-73. Osprey. p. 12.

*Note* I would have included penetration and destruction capability of the D-25 against the superior alloy of the PzV and PzVI although I could fine no non-anecdotal evidence.

Except kinetic energy isn't really relevant for comparing the effects of mass and velocity in this context. Neither are shaped charges.

The "velocity guns" can be equated to KEPs, but 152mm and 122mm HE rounds can't really be grouped into either category. Increased velocity means a lot more energy, but thats only really going to increase penetration. While I suppose that does fall under destructive power, more mass means more explosive filler. For rounds this big, that means both more penetration (negligible, I guess), and more shock (I'd count that as damage) to the vehicle if it doesn't penetrate, and more straight up damage if it does. That's why I tried not to exclusively refer to mass, but also to payload (because that's what I think we're actually trying to imply when we say mass).

I get that the bolded part isn't really true given the proportionalities, but that's only if you remove my words from their context. He mentioned an example that used an absurd velocity to yield an absurd result, and that statement was only meant to imply that you could do the same for mass (use an absurd mass to yield an absurd result).

It has less to do with gun and more do with munition. Since gun usually can fire different types of munitions.

If the munition rely in kinetic energy to destroy enemy tank than velocity is a key component in its energy.

If the munition rely on chemical energy one could either for as you say "high payload" (with its drawbacks) or for shaped explosion. When it come to AT weapons most manufacturers choose shaped charges. (And that is why reactive armor for tanks has been developed)

Once more the guns used by IS-2, KV-2 and ISU-152 where artillery pieces.

Overall, I think you're sticking too close to principles that really aren't applicable to the actual points of discussion.

I am simply explaining the basics about guns and since I have served in an artillery unit I am in position to know something about it.

I know far less than you guys but it is my understanding that at high velocities the heat generated on impact with some weapons is such that the (solid) projectile essentially melts through the armour and can susbsequently ignite munitions, fuel etc. Inside the tank and possibly even just the oxygen inside the tank. This maybe modern munitions though and not ww2 era

I know far less than you guys but it is my understanding that at high velocities the heat generated on impact with some weapons is such that the (solid) projectile essentially melts through the armour and can susbsequently ignite munitions, fuel etc. Inside the tank and possibly even just the oxygen inside the tank. This maybe modern munitions though and not ww2 era

Sound like Hohlladungsgeschoss Germans used to increase the AT-ability of assault-guns with short-barrel. StuG E had a Heat-Shell pen 100mm tank-steel. Test it in War-Thunder. ^^

And also Germans used Wuchtgeschoss, high mass-shell like Panzergranate ROT with Wolfram-Kern.

Maybe yes maybe not.
The game is historically accurate on what regards to the design of troops, weapons, tanks... and how they look like and move. For sure it can be a bit historical accurate on balance, commander skills... and other aspects.

Historically Tigers outranged SU85s. And the Soviet Union probably had 4 conscripts squad vs 1 Grenadier squad.

People also die when you shoot them once, instead of when you shoot them with a light machine gun 20 times. Tanks often get destroyed by one penetrating shot. Tanks had more than 40 meters of range. Even a Kubel could drive over someone and kill him, but we can all imagine how BS it'd be if Kubel had crush.

Stop obsessing over "historical accuracy" and learn to play the game.

Historically Tigers outranged SU85s. And the Soviet Union probably had 4 conscripts squad vs 1 Grenadier squad.

People also die when you shoot them once, instead of when you shoot them with a light machine gun 20 times. Tanks often get destroyed by one penetrating shot. Tanks had more than 40 meters of range. Even a Kubel could drive over someone and kill him, but we can all imagine how BS it'd be if Kubel had crush.

Stop obsessing over "historical accuracy" and learn to play the game.

At Ostfront also more German tanks got destroyed by their crew than from soviets. löl

At Ostfront also more German tanks got destroyed by their crew than from soviets. löl

There was also 1 german tank for 20+ soviet ones and many of these German tanks didn't even made it to the front line before running out of fuel or just breaking down.

Once Soviets launched counter offensive, eastern front germans were just a shadow of their early war power.

There was also 1 german tank for 20+ soviet ones and many of these German tanks didn't even made it to the front line before running out of fuel or just breaking down.

Once Soviets launched counter offensive, eastern front germans were just a shadow of their early war power.

That's true. German tactics were mainly infanrty and PaK coop, the hole war. Soviets won war because of artillery, not because of tanks.

There was also 1 german tank for 20+ soviet ones

The German tanks were outnumbered but nowhere near a 1:20 ratio lol. Tank strength at the Eastern Front was about 1:1 to 1:3 (GER-SOV) depending on the time.

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2013/01/tank-strength-and-losses-eastern-front.html

https://ww2-weapons.com/russian-vs-german-tanks-in-ww-ii/

The German tanks were outnumbered but nowhere near a 1:20 ratio lol. Tank strength at the Eastern Front was about 1:1 to 1:3 (GER-SOV) depending on the time.

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2013/01/tank-strength-and-losses-eastern-front.html

https://ww2-weapons.com/russian-vs-german-tanks-in-ww-ii/

Reread your own links.

Germany total =! germany on eastern front.

They were hopelessly outnumbered on eastern front.
And it doesn't just account for P4s and up, but P3s, P2s and others, while soviets were just pumping more and more T34s.

Reread them yourself. Those links clearly state the numbers are Eastern Front only (as I stated).

The Soviets produced 65k T-34s while losing 45k of them, so they weren't outnumbering the Germans in high ratios at all. At least not until the very end. There were never that many more at any one time. The war-winning feat was that the Soviets could replace tanks as fast as they lost them, not that they could build that many more in comparison.

Panzer IIIs were not used in frontline fighting since summer 1943. Panzer IIs not since the end of 1942.