Author Topic: JS Series MBT (Read 948 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #15 on:** February 22, 2003, 04:26:41 AM »

No Gscholz.

The stalin II had much better armor than tiger I. They had comporable AP firepower - yet the Stalin II could knock out Tiger I from a much greater distance frontally than Tiger I could JSII. If you want to downgrade cast armor vs sheet armor then please do so to Tiger I was well. Its whole mantlet and thus whole turret front armor was a casting.

Side armor was similar and both could knock each out on the side at significant ranges.

Do you really think 120mm cast sloped at 60 degrees is inferior to 102mm at nearly vertical?

GScholz · « **Reply #16 on:** February 23, 2003, 02:11:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Do you really think 120mm cast sloped at 60 degrees is inferior to 102mm at nearly vertical?

I beg to differ Gurnherz, the JS-2 front turret armor was only 90mm thick cast steel vs. the Tigers 120mm cast steel mantlet and 100mm Krupp armor. The Tigers front hull armor was "only" 100mm thick, but was sloped 24 degrees and made of superior tempered face-hardened Krupp KC plates. As you can see in the picture below the Tigers front hull armor was hardly as "uncompromisingly flat" as many believe. The heavily sloped 120mm cast steel front hull armor of the JS-2 was arguably somewhat better, but with the exception of a few offensive engagements (like the Kursk battle) the Tiger was used in a defensive role, which would allow the Tiger to fight at ridgelines and/or prepared positions in a full or partial hull-down position, so its turret armor was usually the deciding factor.

The addition of the JS-2 in AH would be nice, especially for scenarios, but its slow rate of fire and 28 round capacity (vs. 92/106/120 in the Tiger depending on variant) will limit its use considerably.

GScholz · « **Reply #17 on:** February 23, 2003, 02:41:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
... yet the Stalin II could knock out Tiger I from a much greater distance frontally than Tiger I could JSII.

Eh ... the Tiger could knock out a JS-2 at 1800 meters ... this was a penetrating kill. The JS-2 could knock out a Tiger at 2000 meters IF it could hit it with the crappy Soviet optics, and the kill was not achieved by penetration, but rather the mass of the 122mm jamming the turret ring or crushing armor to the point of crippling systems behind it. At 2000 meters the JS-2 could cripple a Tiger. At 1800 meters the Tiger could kill a JS-2.

In one engagement I remember reading about, four Tigers were knocked out by JS-2s. Three were recovered during the night, only one was a total loss.

Squire · « **Reply #18 on:** February 23, 2003, 03:58:44 AM »

Tiger I : 88L/56 1000m could pen 129mm thats standard AP. The better tungsten core ammo was not available past 1944.

Tiger II: 88L/71 1000m could pen 191mm thats standard AP.

JS2: 122L/48 1000m could pen 136mm thats standard AP.

Armor Tiger I: Upper hull 102mm at 10 degrees
Lower hull 102mm at 24 degress

Armor JS2: Upper hull 120mm at 30 degrees
Lower hull 100mm at 30 degrees

To kill a JS2 at 1800m a Tiger Is gun would need what is listed for the Tiger IIs gun in performance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Tank vs Tank" by K. Macksey, page 144, a quote from General Hasoo von Mantueffel:

"It was shocking to find that, although my Tigers began to hit them at 2200m, our shells did not penetrate them untill we had closed to half that distance"

In reference to fighting JS tanks.

GScholz · « **Reply #19 on:** February 23, 2003, 04:32:10 AM »

Mr. Squire, I stand corrected. I was indeed reading the wrong table mistaking the 88L/71 for the 88L/56. Grunherz' "much grater distance" statement is still in the wrong with your numbers though, and your armor numbers does not take quality into account (which was my main argument). The 88L/56 will still penetrate the turret of the JS-2 well beyond of 1000 meters.

Albacore · « **Reply #20 on:** February 24, 2003, 03:30:10 PM »

Funny how modern Russian Tanks are only slightly larger than the JS series in terms of weight.

Staga · « **Reply #21 on:** February 24, 2003, 05:14:18 PM »

0 degree penetration figures:

GScholz · « **Reply #22 on:** February 24, 2003, 05:43:10 PM »

Those numbers seems to be in feet rather than meters. Anyways a lot of different number seem to float around here.

GScholz · « **Reply #23 on:** February 24, 2003, 05:46:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Albacore
Funny how modern Russian Tanks are only slightly larger than the JS series in terms of weight.

Not really. 40-50 tons is prolly the heaviest practical weight for a tank. The M1A2 is not a tank ... it's a desert battleship!