The Iosif Stalin 2 (IS-2) & Tiger II (King Tiger)

[E25280]

Or the Priest/Saxton with the 75mm cannon.

Surprised no one corrected this yet -- 105mm, not 75mm.

[skribetm]

the russian 122mm main gun had horrible loading and long range aiming characteristics. it also proved to be a large but under powered AP round. it was found to be lacking penatration power against most medium armored and virtually useless against heavily armored vehicles. it was equated to being less than the allied 75mm gun firing AP rounds.

i certainly believe the above statement, but i would like the source/data to back it up. i dont really believe russian written material because its mostly colored for propaganda, like this paragraph from wiki.

"The A-19 122mm gun had very good armour penetration, delivering 3.5 times the kinetic energy of the older 76.2mm gun, and when it didn't penetrate, could often knock a turret right off a tank with the combination of the impact and explosive filler. Its very large high explosive shells were very effective against bunkers, infantry and antitank guns. The main disadvantage of the gun was its huge, two-part ammunition, which were difficult to manhandle, slow to reload (the rate of fire was only about two rounds per minute), and only allowed 28 rounds to be carried. (Zaloga 1984:175)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosif_Stalin_tank#References

say what again? very good armor penetration but when it didn't penetrate.... d'oh!

seems that wiki is overrun with russian/chinese propagandists keeping an eye on everything socialism related. if it doesn't suit their taste they change it up to their liking. no wonder wikipedia is and will always be inadmissible evidence in u.s. courts.

[FLOTSOM]

i certainly believe the above statement, but i would like the source/data to back it up. i dont really believe russian written material because its mostly colored for propaganda, like this paragraph from wiki.

"The A-19 122mm gun had very good armour penetration, delivering 3.5 times the kinetic energy of the older 76.2mm gun, and when it didn't penetrate, could often knock a turret right off a tank with the combination of the impact and explosive filler. Its very large high explosive shells were very effective against bunkers, infantry and antitank guns. The main disadvantage of the gun was its huge, two-part ammunition, which were difficult to manhandle, slow to reload (the rate of fire was only about two rounds per minute), and only allowed 28 rounds to be carried. (Zaloga 1984:175)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosif_Stalin_tank#References

say what again? very good armor penetration but when it didn't penetrate.... d'oh!

seems that wiki is overrun with russian/chinese propagandists keeping an eye on everything socialism related. if it doesn't suit their taste they change it up to their liking. no wonder wikipedia is and will always be inadmissible evidence in u.s. courts.

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=50 this is a page with a good article on the JS2. it was a Russian review of the tank so take it for the propaganda laden review that it is. but it does give an excellent history of the design and building of the JS2.

i guess one insight into the failure of the 122mm against the German armor would be the fact that only 3000 were built. for the Russians that is hardly even a test run.

i cannot find the page that i read about the German review of the deficiencies of the Russian 122mm. i am sorry, i have spent almost 2 hours now looking for it and just cant find it. it is a review of the allied weapons vs various German armor. it gave field stats (reports from the field) and test stats of captured armaments. it was translated into English along with diagrams and graphs as supporting information.

i found one other site that gave a one sentence mention that the 122mm was not sufficiently effective against tanks to continue its use as a tank destroyer, but that it was extremely effective as a Mobile artillery piece in support of infantry units within urban enviroments. i didn't bother to post it because like i said it was a one liner that was vague and unsupported by any documentation so i didn't feel it was of any true value.

if you can find anything specific please let me know.

FLOTSOM

[skribetm]

FLOTSOM

I truly appreciate your taking the time to research and to share it with us!  I hope to repay your kindness in the future, just as soon as I find further information about our topic here.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING SIR!

[FLOTSOM]

FLOTSOM

I truly appreciate your taking the time to research and to share it with us!  I hope to repay your kindness in the future, just as soon as I find further information about our topic here.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING SIR!

but to give you some good reading check out this page on the battle of kursk

http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-kursk-germanys-lost-victory-in-world-war-ii.htm

its a good read that may make you think twice about how much of the russian information about the war is believable

HAPPY THANKSGIVING to you and yours as well my friend

FLOTSOM

[skribetm]

i think the history.net account is the ONLY version that offers a more believable "alternative" account on the biggest tank battle in history. all the other sites have generic communist russian propaganda versions! it was a great read!!! i had to go back to wikipedia for the maps though, helped me understand the armor positions as the war progressed.

if the 5th russian army were encircled, it would have been a slaughter! pity those t-34s that rushed the middle too!! fell into their own tank ditches! oh my russians, we shouldn't have worried too much during the cold war!

[FLOTSOM]

the thing i found the most laughable is that the russians have maintained that they destroyed hundreds of the new german panthers in the battle of kursk. they bragged how the t34 was so domanant that the panthers had no effect and their squads were utterly smashed by the t34's. then when you actually view the history you find that the panthers were still located deep in germany under going training excersises for the new crews at the time of the battle. what a joke! but people still eat up the russian versions of the war by the shovel full.

i wish also that they history.net version came with maps. it would be nice to have seen the german version of where thier forces were deployed instead of just the russian one.

FLOTSOM

[glock89]

the thing i found the most laughable is that the russians have maintained that they destroyed hundreds of the new german panthers in the battle of kursk. they bragged how the t34 was so domanant that the panthers had no effect and their squads were utterly smashed by the t34's. then when you actually view the history you find that the panthers were still located deep in germany under going training excersises for the new crews at the time of the battle. what a joke! but people still eat up the russian versions of the war by the shovel full.

i wish also that they history.net version came with maps. it would be nice to have seen the german version of where thier forces were deployed instead of just the russian one.

FLOTSOM

It to one sided i like to hear it from both sides.

[FLOTSOM]

It to one sided i like to hear it from both sides.

I'm not sure what you mean glock.

the article uses information provided by both the Germans and the Russians.

it then compiles them together to show a truer accounting of events during the battle as well as the future disposition of the forces involved to support the truth of this accounting of the battle of kursk.

I'm not understanding how you can see that as being one sided. if you would like to describe in full your argument then we can discuss it further.

FLOTSOM

[glock89]

I'm not sure what you mean glock.

the article uses information provided by both the Germans and the Russians.

it then compiles them together to show a truer accounting of events during the battle as well as the future disposition of the forces involved to support the truth of this accounting of the battle of kursk.

I'm not understanding how you can see that as being one sided. if you would like to describe in full your argument then we can discuss it further.

FLOTSOM

Sorry really tired i guess i didn't read it all the way.

[vonKrimm]

Two words only:

BOMB MAGNETS

[Babalonian]

Thanks Flotsom and Skirbetm for your appreciated input while I was out of town for the holiday, good stuff.  It's a shame you couldn't find that German review of the 122mm Flotsom, it would be a very tasty read to add to this post. 

The IS2 I have never personally thought as the best tank of WWII, but when it's accurately modeled in a simulator, it's one of my favorites, it has its fair share of strength and weaknesses, and I think it would be a blast to have in AH.

I guess the King Tiger has been brought up on this wishlist in detail too much, nobody seems interested in discussing it's addition or impacts to AH compared to the IS2 in this thread.

Two words only:

BOMB MAGNETS

You are more than welcome to come and try to drop bombs on my IS2 if it gets added to AH, just as long as it gets modeled with the DShK machine gun. 

[NEARY]

before we add more german and russian tanks (which we have 2 of each already) we need an american tank (the firefly IS BRITISH)

[Babalonian]

You want an American tank, that's all good, but please request those pathetic-excuses-for-competitive-WWII-armor in a seperate thread.  It insults the superior German and Russian armor of the time when you mention them in the same thread

[FLOTSOM]

You want an American tank, that's all good, but please request those pathetic-excuses-for-competitive-WWII-armor in a seperate thread.  It insults the superior German and Russian armor of the time when you mention them in the same thread

OUCH!!! now thats some COLD SHEEEEEEEPPPPPPP!