Umm.... the IS-2 could never withstand a direct hit from an 88mm PzGr.39/43 APCBC-HE round. Those 88mm shells were rated for 203mm of penetration at 30 degrees slope.distance?
distance?
The IS-2 could now withstand a direct hit by a 88 mm AP round at over 9,144 yards / 1,000 m.
distance?
Umm.... the IS-2 could never withstand a direct hit from an 88mm PzGr.39/43 APCBC-HE round. Those 88mm shells were rated for 203mm of penetration at 30 degrees slope.i was talking about fthe 88mm flak 18. and i guess i forgot to correct some things before i posted.
At 2000 yards the 88mm PaK 43 / 41 L / 71 could beat 153mm of armor with PzGr.40 / 43 ( Armor Piercing Composite Rigid ) ammo. At 1000 yards it could defeat 193mm.learn to read the whole thing. i did put in there the reloading time.
As I've always said about the IS-2 and the other "big" Soviets tanks, many people forget one major factor when gauging their "effectiveness". Yeah, they may have Tiger-like armor. Yeah, they may have 88mm like AP values. However, the IS-2 had a reload time of 20 seconds at best (2-3 rounds a minute). Read up. The ammo was loaded in 2 parts: first the projectile then the powder charge. NOT very effective in terms of reloading efficiency. In AH, the IS-2 would have a tough time. Formidable enemy tank guns found on the likes of the Panther, Tiger, M4/76 and M18, Panzer IV H, and Firefly would get 3-4 shots for everyone the IS-2 could dish out. In short, think of the Tiger I with a reload of 20 seconds and that is what the IS-2 would bring to AH. It would not fair as well as many people think. Heck, even the King Tiger would have a 2-1 reload rate (and superior armor, too).
Until they model spalling, there is no point in having anything other than the uber-Tigers...
We can sit here and talk about armor thickness and degrees of slope all day... read up on how crews of Tigers fared when their tank ate a 122mm or 152mm HE round.
They should really model in headaches from rounds... Can you imagine taking 10 or 15 75MM rounds upside the turret and what that had to soundlike to the guys inside that giant bell if they were bouncing? Good lord!
They should really model in headaches from rounds... Can you imagine taking 10 or 15 75MM rounds upside the turret and what that had to soundlike to the guys inside that giant bell if they were bouncing? Good lord!
Semp, that crap isn't going to stop untill GV's have as much chance as the aircraft does to get away.Conversely, it won't stop until tanks don't have the option to do it either. I am certain that many airplane drivers would also utilize such a tool if they could.
GV's weren't put in the game to serve as targets for those lacking the skills to achieve A2A kills. If you want to bomb, HTC has already provided numerous targets for that purpose.Gv's are not special or immune from bombs or being strafed. The biggest threat German tanks faced were not other tanks but aircraft, that's why the Germans were forced to travel at night. And I don't think the lankstuka is right either, but being bombed is one of the problems GVs face.
GV's weren't put in the game to serve as targets for those lacking the skills to achieve A2A kills. If you want to bomb, HTC has already provided numerous targets for that purpose.Gv's are not special or immune from bombs or being strafed. The biggest threat German tanks faced were not other tanks but aircraft, that's why the Germans were forced to travel at night. And I don't think the lankstuka is right either, but being bombed is one of the problems GVs face.
Again only whiners whine about being bombed, if you look at the stats it doesn't account for more then 25% of someones total deaths in a ground vehicle, if it does your tactics are poor.