Panzer III please

[Tank-Ace]

Whoever hits first maybe wins. You're still relying on unreliable Russian data that you yourself admit may have been exagerated. You also seem to be over-estimating HOW poor the steel was.

I mean if it can't stand up to a 122mm at 2000m, theres not a chance in hell it would stand up to a US 90mm at 500m, as they often did.


Also, the idiot that said IS-2's knocked out dozens of Tiger II's at 2000+m in a single engagment didn't give a time frame. Could have been August or September, before german steel quality REALLY went to hell, or it might have been in April 1945, when they were throwing kids into the tanks.

[Butcher]

Whoever hits first maybe wins. You're still relying on unreliable Russian data that you yourself admit may have been exagerated. You also seem to be over-estimating HOW poor the steel was.

I mean if it can't stand up to a 122mm at 2000m, theres not a chance in hell it would stand up to a US 90mm at 500m, as they often did.


Also, the idiot that said IS-2's knocked out dozens of Tiger II's at 2000+m in a single engagment didn't give a time frame. Could have been August or September, before german steel quality REALLY went to hell, or it might have been in April 1945, when they were throwing kids into the tanks.

At least the russians have data, prove me otherwise...... highly doubtful you will see German reports on steel quality, especially since the war was far lost at this point. Then again you won't admit its true, simply shrug it off as "exaggeration".
I pointed out a few times why the Russian source was possibly unreliable, I did not say it was "for certain" - in my best opinion, since you show no data otherwise you simply say "You also seem to be over-estimating HOW poor the steel was." however you show absolutely no proof or source to make this claim.

I am going by what is written down, not what is on the history channel or wikipedia.

[Tank-Ace]

If the majority of Tiger II's, or even 1/2 of them, could withstand the impact of a US 90mm APCBC shell at 500m or less, I think its a fairly safe bet that they could withstand a 122mm shell from an A19 at 2000m.


If the 90mm with more kenetic energy doesn't knock out a Tiger II, theres no reason to assume that a 122mm with less kenetic energy would.


Hell, at 2000m, the A19 had less penetration than the KwK 40 and US 76mm. Not saying the impact of one is equal to the impact of another in terms of kenetic energy, but its certainly a point against your theory of IS-2's mauling Tiger II's at 2000m.



Fact is that at 2000m, even a hit from a heavy shell like the 122mm isn't a GUARANTEED kill, or even nessicarily a likely kill, depending on when the Tiger II it hits was made. A 152mm? Probably, but then you're getting into another range of shell calibers entirely. And even then, the HE round is going to be more effective than the AP round.



Oh, and something I forgot to mention earlier; A turret being jammed by a shell is entirely irrelevent, as its pure dumb luck even for a highly accurate gun like the KwK 43 being fired by a highly skilled gunner. If you think that a typical soviet gunner could intentionally wedge a shell in between the turret and the hull with a gun of moderate accuracy like the A19, you're simply clueless.

Even sorta half-aiming, an inept Tiger II gunner with 3 days of training would have the same chance of hitting the tank as the soviet would of wedging his shell under the turret.




I really don't understand why you're so determined to try and convince me the Tiger II was a pile of crap. I mean the IS-2 was kinda mediocre to be perfectly honest, more of an infintry-support tank than anything else.

[Butcher]

I really don't understand why you're so determined to try and convince me the Tiger II was a pile of crap. I mean the IS-2 was kinda mediocre to be perfectly honest, more of an infintry-support tank than anything else.

You are so determined to believe the Tiger II was indestructible when in fact it was quite opposite. It was nothing more then a wonder weapon that was simply over engineered and so complex, that simple quantity of cheaply made garbage beat it.

[Karnak]

In one engagement a single T-34/85 took on three Tiger IIs and won, so no, the Tiger II was not indestructible to Russian weapons.

[Butcher]

In one engagement a single T-34/85 took on three Tiger IIs and won, so no, the Tiger II was not indestructible to Russian weapons.

There was a Tiger I disabled by a bolt action anti tank rifle at Kursk, at 50m he put the shot through the drivers view port and killed him, not sure if the vehicle was recovered or destroyed (can't remember).

[321BAR]

In one engagement a single T-34/85 took on three Tiger IIs and won, so no, the Tiger II was not indestructible to Russian weapons.

seems they are in game also

[Tank-Ace]

In one engagement a single T-34/85 took on three Tiger IIs and won, so no, the Tiger II was not indestructible to Russian weapons.

From the front at 2000m? Again, this type of thing is highly situational. I'm not saying the Tiger II was indestructable, I've never said that. But I AM saying that a hit at 2000m isn't a guaranteed kill.

[Karnak]

No, from the front at short range.  The T-34/85 commander had positioned his tank using a cornfield as concealment and then ambushed the Tiger IIs, killing the first with the first shot, the second took two or three hits and was about to get a gun solution on the T-34 when the HVAP round penetrated the front of the turret and the third Tiger II was destroyed while trying to retreat.

[Tank-Ace]

No, from the front at short range.  The T-34/85 commander had positioned his tank using a cornfield as concealment and then ambushed the Tiger IIs, killing the first with the first shot, the second took two or three hits and was about to get a gun solution on the T-34 when the HVAP round penetrated the front of the turret and the third Tiger II was destroyed while trying to retreat.

OK, see? That makes sense. 3 Tiger II's destroyed in an ambush, not in a stand-up fight at 2000m. Two different situations, with two entirely different outcomes.

[Spikes]

Two different situations, with two entirely different outcomes.

[tunnelrat]

Do not anger the fanboy...

[Tank-Ace]

(Image removed from quote.)

And given butcher's lack of common sense, stating the obvious is nessecary for clarification.

You've been kinda grumpy lately spikes. Look on the bright side of things, summer's here, camping season, kayaking, fishing, all that good stuff.

[Butcher]

And given butcher's lack of common sense, stating the obvious is nessecary for clarification.

You've been kinda grumpy lately spikes. Look on the bright side of things, summer's here, camping season, kayaking, fishing, all that good stuff.

Edited:

Just found out you are 15 or 16, which explains much like the inability to admit you are wrong on the whole Tiger II issue which is understandable. Clearly nothing more needs to be said since it was answered in the topic already.

[Tank-Ace]

17, actually. And no, I'm not nessicarily wrong. Its highly dependent on the time frame, which was unspecified.


late 1944, 1945, you're right. Early-early mid 1944, I'm right. Mid 1944, its a wash.


However, you refuse to admit that you might even potentially be wrong, yet alone that you ARE wrong, again depending on the time frame.


Fact is that a 122mm at 2000m carries less kenetic energy than a 90mm M3 at 500 yds. So, since Tiger II's could (sometimes) stand up to a 90mm at even closer than 500m, we can guarantee for a fact that Tiger II's could (again, sometimes, but still more often than with the 90mm) stand up to a 122mm at 2000m.



But no, you assume that because a 122mm caused heavy spalling, and could even crack welds at close to mid ranges, that it was also capable of doing this at long ranges consistently.


One hit isn't going to equal one kill at 2000m. Even for the KwK 43, a FAR superior gun, it isn't guaranteed to be a kill.