JS2 Tank - Russian, designed to fight the Tiger

[gyrene81]

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/weapons/afv_production.htm#IS

Source given at the bottom.

armchair general? 

just a bit more reliable and more cross references:
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tanks-heavy/is-2.asp

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tank-destroyers/su-100.asp

[LLv34_Snefens]

armchair general? 

It's just hosted at AG, no connection otherwise. Actually the RKKA WW2 site has some great information translated from russian sources, not otherwise available in the usual books, and web pages based on these, released in English.

[Tank-Ace]

It's built on the PzkwIV chassis, which cannot pivot, isn't it?



wrongway

Panzer III chassis. hence the StuG III. StuG IV was a completly different vehicle.

[bangsbox]

Is2 would have much better protection then tiger it's armor has a crazy slope. Lots were made and reason why there HE was considered it's main asset is German infantry were much more a danger when is2 was around only becuase Germans were running low on tanks by it's introduction. I'd like to see a churchhill with that awesome mortar.

[SmokinLoon]

Is2 would have much better protection then tiger it's armor has a crazy slope. Lots were made and reason why there HE was considered it's main asset is German infantry were much more a danger when is2 was around only becuase Germans were running low on tanks by it's introduction. I'd like to see a churchhill with that awesome mortar.

The Churchill AVRE with the 290mm Petard mortar was a strange brew!  The mortar was loaded via the hull position instead of from inside the turret, it was a nasty weapon that had devastating effects.  In AH though, it would be a sitting duck because it only had a range of about 100 yards, it moves at 15mph, and in not all that well armored.  But true, it would be fun to assault the town center with it.   

[Tank-Ace]

IS-2 can't really be compared to the Tiger I, since they're not contemporary.


IMO, the closest you can get for time of introduction without throwing preformance out the window is as follows:

KV-85 and Tiger I
Is2 and Tiger II
Panther and T-34/85
Jagdpanther and Su-100

[SmokinLoon]

IS-2 can't really be compared to the Tiger I, since they're not contemporary.


IMO, the closest you can get for time of introduction without throwing preformance out the window is as follows:

KV-85 and Tiger I
Is2 and Tiger II
Panther and T-34/85
Jagdpanther and Su-100

 

[Tank-Ace]

Tiger I = 1942 design
IS2 is a 1944 design

Since we already have the Tiger II, I don't see why people are comparing it to the Tiger I (which is often beaten by even the panther).

[Butcher]

Tiger I = 1942 design
IS2 is a 1944 design

Since we already have the Tiger II, I don't see why people are comparing it to the Tiger I (which is often beaten by even the panther).

Comparing apples to Oranges, The Tiger was the king of the battlefield before most tanks were even on the drawing board. When it was available there were no anti-tank guns designed yet to even knock it out at any range from the front. The Russians tried to find a situation to the Tiger problem, for example the Kv-85, Su-85, T-34/85 which were stop gaps while they were designing newer tanks/AT guns for the problem at hand even then it took over a year and a half.

Nothing can be compared to the Tiger (built in 42/ready for combat in 43) vs a Panther (built 43, bugs fixed it in mid44). Neither American, British or Russian had any options to combat it effectively, however everyone did come up with Viable options to defeat it (Firefly is a prime example).

Same mistake is made with comparing aircraft like a Me109 to a P51D, one plane built before 1939 and the other 1942/43 and both have quite different uses, but based on the same principle.

The same thing has been going on for many years now, the Russians built the Mig-25 and the Americans responded with the F-15 Eagle, both can't be compared as the Mig-25 was designed as a High alt, Bomber interceptor and the F-15 a Air superiority fighter.

Apples 'n Oranges

[321BAR]

It's built on the PzkwIV chassis, which cannot pivot, isn't it?



wrongway

yes the StuG III was built on a Pz4 chassis but there were over 350 known StuG's that were modified to pivot in place after the battle at kursk. (i think it was the battle of kursk, it may have been an earlier battle but im not sure)

Panzer III chassis. hence the StuG III. StuG IV was a completly different vehicle.

what tank said. The Stug III was built on the Pnzr III chassis as was the Stug IV on the Pnzr IV chassis <S> and neither iirc could ever pivot in place as the tigers and panther could. The construction of a new transmission to fit either's chassis would be much more unpredictable in battle and time consuming than to just pump another 500 out and most likely the 350 you heard of were very late war experimental units. Speculation though <S>

[Tank-Ace]

I've heard accounts of small units (at the company level at the most, more likely the platoon level) field-modding thier StuG's, but no official expieraments with it.


And Butcher, in real life its apples and oranges, but not here. People are talking about the IS2 as if it would be THE answer to the "problem" of the Tiger tank. But the Tiger II already kicked the bar up another 1000ft higher IMO.

[Butcher]

I've heard accounts of small units (at the company level at the most, more likely the platoon level) field-modding thier StuG's, but no official expieraments with it.


And Butcher, in real life its apples and oranges, but not here. People are talking about the IS2 as if it would be THE answer to the "problem" of the Tiger tank. But the Tiger II already kicked the bar up another 1000ft higher IMO.

There are a few options to counter the Tiger, up a King Tiger, Panther, T34-85 - Each can kill a Tiger at Long/medium/Short range.
In the future there are a number of Soviet options to add, however I do agree other tanks need to be built first rather then "specifically" something to kill the Tiger. Problem with the JS-2 which most don't realize - it will be heavily perked - there are a number of cheaper options to counter a tiger.

[Tank-Ace]

Not only that, but it will be insanely annoying to use. Gun thats about the same as the Tiger I's, 23mph, 30 second reload time, and likely poor balistics. Its only redeming quality would be its armor.

[Butcher]

Not only that, but it will be insanely annoying to use. Gun thats about the same as the Tiger I's, 23mph, 30 second reload time, and likely poor balistics. Its only redeming quality would be its armor.

Yeah all those times I scream in an angry german voice when I miss a shot with a PantherG "RELOAD FASTER!!!!" I could imagine the whining that comes from the IS-1 or IS-2.

Think the ISU-122 and ISU-152 were about the same also , 1-2 RFPM every 30 seconds, would be one heck of town killers though.