Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tank-Ace on June 05, 2012, 11:22:35 PM
-
So, our early war set up is pretty lacking, particularly for tanks. A Panzer III would help fill in the set, and give us another actual tank besides the T-34. Infact, with multiple models of the Panzer III, the T-34 might even become perked.
In addition to just getting the Panzer III, it would also give us two additional things.
1) The hull for the StuG III, infact it gives us the hulls for SEVERAL StuG III's. We could get an early Ausf A with the StuK 39 L'24, an Ausf F with the StuK 40 L'43, and a late Ausf G with the StuK 40 L'48.
2) the cannon for both the SdKfz 251/10, and the SdKfz 234/2 Puma armored car.
To do things right, we would have to add several variants, although we could get by with 2, if we just added an Ausf F, and the Ausf L, but we couldn't really run any North Africa setups unless we wanted the axis to be either under-represented or over-represented with their tanks. And if we add the Panzer III, we might as well do it right.
Ausf. F: 37mm KwK 36, penetrating ~45mm of armor at 100m, 50mm L'42 penetrating 65mm of armor at 100m, 3 7.62mm Mg 34's (one in the hull, two coaxil to the KwK 36). Armor is 30mm all around on the turret and gun mantle, 30mm on the hull front and sides, and 21mm on the back. 25mph
Ausf J: 50mm L'42 or 50mm L'60 penetrating about 82mm at 100m with the L'60, 2 7.92mm MG's. Armor is 30mm all around on the turret, 50mm on the gun mantle, 50mm on the hull front and rear, and 30mm on the hull side. 25mph.
Ausf. L: 50mm L'60, and 2 7.92mm MG's. armor is 57mm on the turret front, 30mm on the turret sides and rear, 70mm on the gun mantle, 70mm on the hull front, 30mm on the hull side, and 50mm on the hull rear.
The Ausf. L could even be used for a Krusk scenario.
-
Useless, we have a Panzer IV F, with a smal gun optional for EW, all we need to combat T3476's :) I'd rather see something like a KV line, or IS line, maybe even a few more american tanks/TD's :aok
-
No. we have added enough tanks for a while. we need more important additions such as the ki43 and the g.55 and such.
-
No. we have added enough tanks for a while. we need more important additions such as the ki43 and the c.200 and such.
Fixed. :p
-
If it came down to a vote, I don't see many voting the PzIII, iconic as it is, simply is outclassed by every tank we have in game already. Same goes for a Japanese tank or Italian. Eventually if we start running out of core things to add then it makes sense, until we run out of He-111s and d.520's.
As for tanks to add, I can see 4 thrown in game right now that would serve a purpose, and possibly one Recon Car (Puma) to take care of the age old M-8.
-
No. we have added enough tanks for a while. we need more important additions such as the ki43 and the g.55 and such.
I would also like to see some more fighters for the Russians. Not spectacular in performance but the LaGG-3 and the MiG-3 would be usefull and a fun challenge. And of course more Japanese planes :x
-
I agree with Butcher and HighTone on this one. The panzer3s were horribly outclassed by the earlyest t34s, whats already a pretty inpotent tank in the MA...
Still, the very large majority of the tank operations were on the eastern front: IS-2, KV1/2, Su-100, Jagdpanzer4, Hetzer, Nashorn, a couple british tanks, maybe the Pershing too, and the fighters as HT mentioned.
-
Id like to see ,more a/c fom countries other than us/germany/britain before more tanks and then I'd rather see tanks from other countries then us/germany. I would ask for Japanese tanks but I dont know anything about them and I assume most were outclassed by us/british models
-
Useless, we have a Panzer IV F, with a smal gun optional for EW, all we need to combat T3476's :) I'd rather see something like a KV line, or IS line, maybe even a few more american tanks/TD's :aok
You mean the Panzer IV with the short stubby little 75mm L'24, barely capable of penetrating even the rear of a T-34 at any real range? The one who's gun was outclassed by the 50mm L'60?
And the IS line would be barely perk worthy. 3 rounds per minute or so, about as much penetration as the Tiger I, and about as much armor as a Panther, all packaged up into a 23mph tank with 22 rounds of ammunition.
I understand that GV's are less popular in the MA's, but HTC made an executive decision with the Ju-87G, might happen with the Panzer III.
And really, for the versatility of the modeling, this is probably one of, if not the, best potential additions.
We get the weapons for 2 more vehicles, one of which uses an existing vehicle's frame, and the chassis needed for another 3, all of which use existing guns.
-
You mean the Panzer IV with the short stubby little 75mm L'24, barely capable of penetrating even the rear of a T-34 at any real range? The one who's gun was outclassed by the 50mm L'60?
And the IS line would be barely perk worthy. 3 rounds per minute or so, about as much penetration as the Tiger I, and about as much armor as a Panther, all packaged up into a 23mph tank with 22 rounds of ammunition
I understand that GV's are less popular in the MA's, but HTC made an executive decision with the Ju-87G, might happen with the Panzer III.
And really, for the versatility of the modeling, this is probably one of, if not the, best potential additions.
We get the weapons for 2 more vehicles, one of which uses an existing vehicle's frame, and the chassis needed for another 3, all of which use existing guns.
Give one reason why the Panzer III needs to be added before the 20 vehicles that would be more useful.
-
I can give you several, but top of the list is that we get major components for four other additions modeled (some arguably even more usefull than an IS-2, Churchill, KV-1, or many other tanks you can name), and minor components for a fifth.
-
I can give you several, but top of the list is that we get major components for four other additions modeled (some arguably even more usefull than an IS-2, Churchill, KV-1, or many other tanks you can name), and minor components for a fifth.
Why not wait for the KV-1, Churchill, IS-1 and many others - before the Panzer III? afterall Panzer III although Iconic - would be flat out useless in Aces High.
-
more japanese pl
-
Why not wait for the KV-1, Churchill, IS-1 and many others - before the Panzer III? afterall Panzer III although Iconic - would be flat out useless in Aces High.
Hardly, while it couldn't fight the late-war tanks on even terms, or T-34's at range, it could still kill the Panzer IV F, T-34's at close range, M4's at close range, and other Panzer III's easily enough.
And in the main arenas, the Panzer III would probably get more use than the Churchill, just because its 10 mph faster, and more use than the KV-1 because it's easier to hide, and would be manuverable enough to escape fire that would blow the turret off of a KV1.
Bigger gun and better armor doesn't mean something will be more usefull. See the IS-2 for example, it would probably be relegated to a town killer, since it's gun and armor would be little better than that of a Tiger I, and its inferior in just about every other way.
Really, theres no argument for not adding the Panzer III at all, and the only real argument for 'not right now' is 'more fighters!'.
-
I can give you several, but top of the list is that we get major components for four other additions modeled (some arguably even more usefull than an IS-2, Churchill, KV-1, or many other tanks you can name), and minor components for a fifth.
Good point. The Pzkw. III chassis was the basis for several vehicles, including the StuG. III.
The request is worthy. <turns> Scribe, fetch hither my signet ring and a candle, so that I may apply The Seal!
-
Hardly, while it couldn't fight the late-war tanks on even terms, or T-34's at range, it could still kill the Panzer IV F, T-34's at close range, M4's at close range, and other Panzer III's easily enough.
And in the main arenas, the Panzer III would probably get more use than the Churchill, just because its 10 mph faster, and more use than the KV-1 because it's easier to hide, and would be manuverable enough to escape fire that would blow the turret off of a KV1.
Bigger gun and better armor doesn't mean something will be more usefull. See the IS-2 for example, it would probably be relegated to a town killer, since it's gun and armor would be little better than that of a Tiger I, and its inferior in just about every other way.
Really, theres no argument for not adding the Panzer III at all, and the only real argument for 'not right now' is 'more fighters!'.
Town killer? the IS-2 was a Breakthrough heavy tank - used to bust through fortifications with he rounds, but its mobility was on par with a Tiger, Armor was far better and Gun packed a hell of a punch enough to knock out a Tiger/Panther. There is no inferior to it, IS-2 would be on par with a King Tiger.
How many King Tigers are relegated to Town killing? none.
Panzer III wouldn't get more use than a Churchill tank, KV-1 yes depending which model, KV-85 would get used more then both churchill and Panzer III, KV-1 on other hand with hand cranked turret and no mobility would be useless, other than for scenarios as the Panzer III. Churchill on the other hand has VERY good armor, while a bit slower, has a pretty decent gun and quite a few modifications from a Townkiller with 95mm gun, or 75mm, standard issue was a 6lb gun, early versions had a 2lb gun in the turret and 75mm Howitzer in the hull. Making it a pretty versatile tank all round, however if that doesn't take the case then Cromwell tank would certainly be added.
Cromwell did 40mph, had a 75mm long Barrel, and some 75mm or so of armor, pretty balanced medium tank setup, better then Panzer 4 - slightly less then M4(76) while faster then every tank even a T34/85.
Assuming HTC wants to go the route of making components for other things, the Panzer III makes a good choice - however as most will agree HTC tends to need time developing new things. Spending months to develop a tank nobody will use, just to have components for other things might not favor many players.
Especially when the Panzer III would pretty much be relegated to Scenario setups, since MW and EW are rarely populated by tankers.
In the long run it makes sense to add the Panzer III, its an iconic tank that stormed Europe at the height of the third reich, however if it comes down to a vote, I can see whatever was built in 1945 winning vs anything historical of value.
/Just ask the He-111
-
moin
i think a late panzer III with long 5,ocm gun would be a good adition.
You guys need to knew that the Panzer IV was disingned to suport Panzer III battel tanks.
with the late version of the Panzer III you can kill the most used tanks in AH.
And from my point of you view i like the Panzer iv F im better in using this eary panzer IV than the late version, why ever, and i think driving a late Panzer III wil be a alot of fun to me too :-).
A cromwell wold be a good choice too.
cu christian
-
Town killer? the IS-2 was a Breakthrough heavy tank - used to bust through fortifications with he rounds, but its mobility was on par with a Tiger, Armor was far better and Gun packed a hell of a punch enough to knock out a Tiger/Panther. There is no inferior to it, IS-2 would be on par with a King Tiger.
How many King Tigers are relegated to Town killing? none.
Panzer III wouldn't get more use than a Churchill tank, KV-1 yes depending which model, KV-85 would get used more then both churchill and Panzer III, KV-1 on other hand with hand cranked turret and no mobility would be useless, other than for scenarios as the Panzer III. Churchill on the other hand has VERY good armor, while a bit slower, has a pretty decent gun and quite a few modifications from a Townkiller with 95mm gun, or 75mm, standard issue was a 6lb gun, early versions had a 2lb gun in the turret and 75mm Howitzer in the hull. Making it a pretty versatile tank all round, however if that doesn't take the case then Cromwell tank would certainly be added.
Cromwell did 40mph, had a 75mm long Barrel, and some 75mm or so of armor, pretty balanced medium tank setup, better then Panzer 4 - slightly less then M4(76) while faster then every tank even a T34/85.
Assuming HTC wants to go the route of making components for other things, the Panzer III makes a good choice - however as most will agree HTC tends to need time developing new things. Spending months to develop a tank nobody will use, just to have components for other things might not favor many players.
Especially when the Panzer III would pretty much be relegated to Scenario setups, since MW and EW are rarely populated by tankers.
IS-2 is 2 mph slower, has a worse HP/ton ratio, has a much slower firing weapon, poorer balistics, and little better penetration than the 8,8cm KwK 36 L/56. Its armor is going to be about that of the Panther from the front, minus the lower hull weak spot, and about as much as the Tiger I on the hull sides.
Really, its HE, and its frontal armor are going to be the only redeeming qualities, the 88mm L'56, 75mm L'70, and 17lber will out-shoot the A19, even if they won't out-hit it. And the 88mm L'71 will do both.
I don't know about you, but that sounds a hell of a lot like inferiority, and town-killer set up.
Few, because its 88mm L'71 can get off about 6 rounds per minute, as opposed to the IS-2's ~3ish, and its far and away the best anti-vehicle cannon in the game. Even the 128mm L'55 didn't match it for maximum penetration in real life.
Depending on the model, the Churchill would without question see less use than a Panzer III. 25mph, 50mm armor, and a 50mm L'60 is better than 15mph, 102mm of armor, and a 2lber. A Mk III or IV would see more use than the Panzer III J, but even the Ausf. L might be close to equal. A Mk VI would probably see less use, since its essentially an up-armored but significantly slower M4.
So yeah, it really comes down to the variant in question.
The Cromwell had a short 75mm, firing the same rounds as the US M3 Tank Gun.
-
Depending on the model, the Churchill would without question see less use than a Panzer III. 25mph, 50mm armor, and a 50mm L'60 is better than 15mph, 102mm of armor, and a 2lber. A Mk III or IV would see more use than the Panzer III J, but even the Ausf. L might be close to equal. A Mk VI would probably see less use, since its essentially an up-armored but significantly slower M4.
You are forgetting the Panzer III has to face all the late war monsters, including the churchill in the late war arena. Were not talking an easy war version in that case you put the Panzer III e would not stand up to anything other then a building. Churchill early version would be in a class of Panzer III, T34/41, Panzer 4 F, in which case it depends whether HTC allows the L/43 in which case it would dominate Early war, doesn't matter which tank gets added.
Late war models of the Panzer III is the N, which was basically a support tank for the Panther/Tiger starting in early 1943, the L models were phased out for Panzer 4 F's.
Again I have nothing against the Panzer III, its iconic value remains much, but if HTC added the Panzer III for early war (including variations) lets see an early war tank it couldn't touch the Char B1. After all, I've been begging for the D.520 which was a modern day French Fighter, the Char B.1 was a pretty darn good tank, throw it in the late war arena it would be useless of course, early war it would eat Panzer I/II/III/IV's for breakfast.
In my opinion, Late war dominates the ground vehicle battles of Aces High, EW/MW have absolutely no tanking period, thus leaves Late War - although I know less then 5 that use the M3/M8 - adding a Panzer III simply would be more of iconic if nothing more then hanger value. Aircraft are another reason, in scenarios, snapshots and FSO - aircraft are dominate used, Scenario's sometimes use ground vehicles, but to a very limited capacity.
If Aces High ever evolved as a game to point ground vehicles play a role to extent there are enough tankers to compete with a game like WW2 online - then it makes perfect sense, but for now FSO and LWA dominate Aces high, and it should be taken in consideration these are the factors that need to be looked into. Believe me I wish Snapshots were taken more seriously, I would love to see hundreds show up for a one/two hour scenario NOT linked to FSO every week.
-
And an Ausf. L could take on most of the LW tanks about as well as an M4(75) could. Better than the M4 in some ways, especially if they gave it a few APCR rounds. The damn things penetrated 130mm of armor at a 30 degree slope at 100mm. For a 50mm gun, thats damn impressive.
The Churchill Mk III doesn't quite make it into EW IIRC, while the Panzer III J2 makes it in, meaning that the EW Panzer III would probably see more use than the EW churhill. Hell, I think the Ausf. L might barely make it into EW.
The Panzer III Ausf. L saw use at Kursk, which was also the last battle that saw sizable use of the Panzer III. They weren't phased out by that point.
And the Panzer III Ausf J2 would also be capable of combating the Char B1, as could a Panzer IV with the L'43.
-
And an Ausf. L could take on most of the LW tanks about as well as an M4(75) could. Better than the M4 in some ways, especially if they gave it a few APCR rounds. The damn things penetrated 130mm of armor at a 30 degree slope at 100mm. For a 50mm gun, thats damn impressive.
The Churchill Mk III doesn't quite make it into EW IIRC, while the Panzer III J2 makes it in, meaning that the EW Panzer III would probably see more use than the EW churhill. Hell, I think the Ausf. L might barely make it into EW.
The Panzer III Ausf. L saw use at Kursk, which was also the last battle that saw sizable use of the Panzer III. They weren't phased out by that point.
And the Panzer III Ausf J2 would also be capable of combating the Char B1, as could a Panzer IV with the L'43.
Given the time frames, Panzer III up to H makes it before 1941, L model is midwar being after 1942. Panzer III Ausf J's were not in france btw, It was Ausf E's. H models were just coming into production for the Balkins campaign, and Barbarosa. J/L/M were after the realization that the Panzer III couldn't scratch paint on the T-34/39/40 and the KV-1.
Of course any Late war Panzer III is more than a match for the Char B1, the Char was in service for france in 1940 where the Panzer IIIe was the dominate tank, as could a Panzer 4 F/L43 that was not debuted for 2 years later................ Given this time period the Panzer F was not even in service yet - Panzer 4 E/D were.
You cannot compare apples to oranges, of course a Panzer J would combat a Char B, except both are years apart in production time and dates, same as comparing a Tiger tank to a Pershing, one was produced in 1942 the other a few years later - given the time frame, many things have changed in war at this point.
IS-2 was not needed to combat tiger tanks, given so few were actually built - the IS-2 had a more main battle tank role, it was to break through fortified lines and kill that single Tiger while breaking through an entire defensive line.
-
The cutoff date for EW is past 1941, as the 190A5 is in EW, as is the Spit 9. Panzer III J's came into service late 1941/early 1942.
Exact service dates matter little in the MA, as they're all mixed in indiscriminately, as you've been so eager to point out. So who cares if Panzer III J2 and the Churchill II didn't enter service at the same time, since the III J will still wail the crap out of a Churchill II if its well driven.
And what the IS-2 was designed to do is entirely irrelvent. In AH it would be a mediocre heavy tank, mostly relegated to town killing and base attack (because of its HE shells) rolls, and would be of limited value in a GV vs GV engagment. It would probably inferior to the Tiger I. Almost certinaly inferior if we get the 1943 model.
And it would almost certianly be inferior to the Panther in the typical MA enviornment, as the Panther will out shoot the IS-2 all day long.
-
And what the IS-2 was designed to do is entirely irrelvent. In AH it would be a mediocre heavy tank, mostly relegated to town killing and base attack (because of its HE shells) rolls, and would be of limited value in a GV vs GV engagment. It would probably inferior to the Tiger I. Almost certinaly inferior if we get the 1943 model.
And it would almost certianly be inferior to the Panther in the typical MA enviornment, as the Panther will out shoot the IS-2 all day long.
You brought it up as the Is-2 would be a useless town killer, given how many Panthers it would face in a normal Aces High situation I say it would be perked far more then a Tiger and less than a King tiger, in which it would dominate in either a defensive position or offense.
People choose a Panther over a Tiger why? it answers my question.
-
You brought it up as the Is-2 would be a useless town killer, given how many Panthers it would face in a normal Aces High situation I say it would be perked far more then a Tiger and less than a King tiger, in which it would dominate in either a defensive position or offense.
People choose a Panther over a Tiger why? it answers my question.
I said the Is-2 would be a good town killer, but mediocre in most other roles. Certinally inferior to the Panther when attacking enemy tanks, and probably inferior to the Tiger I as well.
Given the fact that the Panther out-shoots the Is-2 by a much larger margine than the Panther out-shoots the Tiger I, I'm inclined to doubt it.
There is litterally not a chance in hell the Is-2 would be perked above 30 base price, and I think even 25 would be a strech. And because of the slow, 3rpm rate of fire, you'll end up with a situation similar to that of the Firefly: the perk price not being worth the advantage typicaly gained from using the vehicle in combat.
People choose the Panther over the Tiger I because they feel it has a better blend of characteristics for the typical GV fight in Aces High, where speed and manuverability, and gunning is critical.
At range, the IS loses because its much less likely to hit on the first shot, and it'll be another 20 seconds before it can shoot again. In a brawl, it loses because its basicly first hit wins, and its completely boned if theres a second tank anywhere within about 800yds.
We're talking a 20 second reload time for the IS-2, and gun penetration not much better than that of the 88mm L'56. Combine that with inferior optics, inferior balistics, lower speed, worse manuverability, and only 22 shells, and really you have a recipie for a rather unpopular, situation-specific tank.
-
Oh, damn it Jager, its amazing.
A good town killer what carryes 28 rounds, shots one in every 25 seconds, and is perked to like 40... aye, an awesome a20 magnet. A good town killer is the... 75mm m4! excellent fire rate, 97 rounds + rockets. nuff said.
That tank still wasnt as bad. Dont belittle its cannon, its armor penetration was between the panther and the tiger2. The only disadvantage it had vs the tiger1 was the smaller ammo load.
I think it has far more place in the game than the panzer3 couse the majority of the tank combat was between the russians ans the germans, yet the germans have the panther, panzer4 f and h, the sdkfz251 (not a tank but still a GV) and the two tigers. The whole russian armada is represented by the 2 t34s.
-
I want a Char B1 then
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/B1_bis_%27H%C3%A9ros%27_Mourmelon_4.JPG/1024px-B1_bis_%27H%C3%A9ros%27_Mourmelon_4.JPG)
-
Oh, damn it Jager, its amazing.
A good town killer what carryes 28 rounds, shots one in every 25 seconds, and is perked to like 40... aye, an awesome a20 magnet. A good town killer is the... 75mm m4! excellent fire rate, 97 rounds + rockets. nuff said.
That tank still wasnt as bad. Dont belittle its cannon, its armor penetration was between the panther and the tiger2. The only disadvantage it had vs the tiger1 was the smaller ammo load.
Come on Debrody, you've never been one to buy into propoganda and hype, don't start on me now.
The IS-2 is slower, has a worse HP per ton ratio, a roughly comparable ground preasure, and does not have the ability to turn in place. So manuverability goes to the Tiger I, even if by just a small margine.
The IS-2's gun, as you said, could get off about 1 round every 20 -25 seconds. Thats between 2.4 and 3 rounds per minute, as opposed to the Tiger I's 6-7 rounds per minute. The German optics were superior to those of the Russian IS-2, and I'd be willing to bet that the 88mm had better balistics. So the Tiger I will readily out-shoot an IS-2.
Penetration is slightly better than the 88mm L'56 at close range, although the 88mm falls behind at long ranges.
IS had 100mm on the turret front, 100mm glacis (flat nose) or 100/60/120mm for lower, glacis and driver's plate (stepped nose). And 90mm on the sides/rear.
So for frontal armor, the IS-2 is somewhere between the Tiger I and the Panther for protection, depending on the model. And its going to have better overall protection.
So the Tiger I has better mobility and much better shooting, while the IS-2 has a moderate armor advantage, and a penetration advantage.
Overall, they would be about equal...... however, that 25 second reload time is going to hurt it in a tank fight, and hurt it bad. One miss, and its essentially screwed, because in that 20 seconds, the Tiger I is going to drop 3 shells onto it.
-
Come on Debrody, you've never been one to buy into propoganda and hype, don't start on me now.
The IS-2 is slower, has a worse HP per ton ratio, a roughly comparable ground preasure, and does not have the ability to turn in place. So manuverability goes to the Tiger I, even if by just a small margine.
The IS-2's gun, as you said, could get off about 1 round every 20 -25 seconds. Thats between 2.4 and 3 rounds per minute, as opposed to the Tiger I's 6-7 rounds per minute. The German optics were superior to those of the Russian IS-2, and I'd be willing to bet that the 88mm had better balistics. So the Tiger I will readily out-shoot an IS-2.
Penetration is slightly better than the 88mm L'56 at close range, although the 88mm falls behind at long ranges.
IS had 100mm on the turret front, 100mm glacis (flat nose) or 100/60/120mm for lower, glacis and driver's plate (stepped nose). And 90mm on the sides/rear.
So for frontal armor, the IS-2 is somewhere between the Tiger I and the Panther for protection, depending on the model. And its going to have better overall protection.
So the Tiger I has better mobility and much better shooting, while the IS-2 has a moderate armor advantage, and a penetration advantage.
Overall, they would be about equal...... however, that 25 second reload time is going to hurt it in a tank fight, and hurt it bad. One miss, and its essentially screwed, because in that 20 seconds, the Tiger I is going to drop 3 shells onto it.
Think of the perk Value, far less then Tiger II, just above Tiger 1.
-
No hard feelings involved, Jager. Just stated that your comment as the IS2 would be a good town killer is plainly nonsense.
Also the tiger has a 100mm vertical frontal plate, the panther has a 80mm sloped, yet the IS2 has 100mm sloped or 120mm but less sloped, also 90mm (!) of side armor, how it comes its between the two german tanks?
True, the fire rate is slow and the ammo load is small, still, dont rush or spawn camp with it and it will peform well. Possibbly better than the later Panzer3's, what seemed to be inpotent to the t34/76s...
-
I'd rather see any British tank before another variation of the Panzer. Honey (actually U.S.), Matilda, Valentine, Churchill, Crusader... just pick one. Build it and they will come.
Of course an Skd armored car would still be a good addition to the German line-up.
And while we're wishing the D3A needs a serious update.
-
No hard feelings involved, Jager. Just stated that your comment as the IS2 would be a good town killer is plainly nonsense.
Also the tiger has a 100mm vertical frontal plate, the panther has a 80mm sloped, yet the IS2 has 100mm sloped or 120mm but less sloped, also 90mm (!) of side armor, how it comes its between the two german tanks?
True, the fire rate is slow and the ammo load is small, still, dont rush or spawn camp with it and it will peform well. Possibbly better than the later Panzer3's, what seemed to be inpotent to the t34/76s...
A 122mm HE shell holds about twice as much explosive charge as the shermans 75mm HE shell, IIRC. 28 of those, probably knocking down 2-3 buildings per shell isn't insignificant. And its stronger armor would allow it to largely ignore the auto ack fire from town and bases (although the 88mm and 17lber man guns would pose a rather large threat if ignored), which means more than any other tank, its able to opperate independent of air support.
As for the armor, it would depend on the variant, like I said. That 120mm section had very little slope, with the effective thickness being about 130mm, and the 60mm glacis plate actually had a greater LOS thickness. Lower hull is going to be about 110mm of protection, or still vulnerable to the KwK 40 and M1 76mm out to about 1400-1600yds, the KwK 36 out to a hair over 2000yds, and both the KwK 42 and 17lber out to over 2500yds.
Up close, its whoever shoots first wins, usually. That means the low ROF puts the IS-2 at a disadvantage.
At medium range, its generally who has the best shooting, provided penetration is still sufficient to penetrate. Since the Tiger I can penetrate the hull out to 2000m (turet out to about 3000m, I would estimate), that means that the IS-2's slower ROF, inferior optics, and poorer balistics are going to hurt it.
At long range, its whoever aquires the range first and has sufficient penetration. This means that the Tiger I is going to have an advantage in the actual gunnery, while the IS-2 will have an advantage in penetration. So skill being equal, it really comes down to how the damage is modeled (is it overall HP based, or is it component/crew based).
Considering that the majority of engagments tend to take place within 1600yds, and only a small fraction of engagments take place at ranges exceediing 2000yds, this means that the IS-2 is going to be sup-par in most engagments, while being probably about 1/4th of the way up the scale between the Tiger I and Tiger II in those rare long-range engagments.
-
My lord, boy, you ever played this game?
There are two HE shells needed to knock out a building. So if you grab a twice as large shell, that should get 3 buildings?
Also 20-25 seconds between each shot fired... according to my experience, i tipically got bomb****ed after 4-5 minutes spent in the town (couse the base is flashing, you know). That means, you can fire 10-13 rounds and boom, youre dead by an a20. All your 40(or so) perks are lost, way to go, a really effective way indeed.
Here is sketch of the IS-2's armor:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/IS-2_scheme_of_armour.jpg)
Do a little math and take the consequences, which gun can kill it, from what angle and from what distance. If youre ready, post those numbers, then we can talk about it.
Anyway, i think its still better to be in anything else than in a tank what has 50mm frontal armor and an 50mm gun and what stood with no chance against the t34/76 whats already the far worst in game. Even an m8 would completely own a panzer3.
-
My lord, boy, you ever played this game?
There are two HE shells needed to knock out a building. So if you grab a twice as large shell, that should get 3 buildings?
Could happen then, yes. Blast radius.
A 75MM HE shell is worth 156lb of damage in AH. Twice that amount would be 312lb, which is almost exactly as much has a 250lb bomb has. But of course you would need to hit two or three buildings standing very close to each other. Usually it would still just be one hit - one building.
-
156lbs? That means, about 70kg of explosive in that 75mm round... interesting. I belive in you, its still weird... Who could load in a that heavy bullet?
Okay, its possible to weaken the next building, it should work even more with the bigger round, so doubles are possible in the town center, but they surely wouldnt be usual.
Its still a fact that a heavily perked, slowly firing monster is not a good town killer but a bomb magnet.
-
The shell didn't actually weigh that much, but for some reason, it has that much blast damage. I mean I could see that much on the impacted target, with some of that damage being caused by the impact of the round itself, but I'm not sure anyone knows why the blast itself is modeled quite so high.
As to the Panzer III, the Ausf J2 onwards could fight T-34's at ranges under 300m. The Ausf L probably even had parity at 300m.
And the Panzer III would tear the M8 a new *** hole.
-
156lbs? That means, about 70kg of explosive in that 75mm round... interesting.
That's the AH damage rating. A Hispano round has about 4lbs, the 75mm HE has 156, a 250lbs bomb has 313, a 1000lbs bomb as the emasure of all things has 1000.
-
That's the AH damage rating. A Hispano round has about 4lbs, the 75mm HE has 156, a 250lbs bomb has 313, a 1000lbs bomb as the emasure of all things has 1000.
i want other panther models..one without glass chin, and it should be an easy add. also kv1-2 would be fun. or the land battleships series
-
Last post for a while. The PzIII Ausf J should be added because germany needs early war tanks. I agree Tank ace
-
Last post for a while. The PzIII Ausf J should be added because germany needs early war tanks. I agree Tank ace
Why does Germany need early war tanks more than other nations need them? Currently only Germany and the Soviets have an early war tank of any kind.
-
Why does Germany need early war tanks more than other nations need them? Currently only Germany and the Soviets have an early war tank of any kind.
Not to hijack, but if you could get another early war tank available, which would you like to see?
It'd be neat to see some French S-35s!
-
Grant or a British cruiser for North Africa.
-
Still would rather see a Panzer III because..... well its a Panzer III. It led the German blitzkrieg across France, the Ukrain, Russia, Afrika.
AND we could get several different StuG III's in the not to distant future.
-
Grant or a British cruiser for North Africa.
I'd vote British cruiser tank over anything else from the germans for now, maybe an early/late war version - Crusader for Early War and Cromwell for Late war?
-
Why not wait for the KV-1, Churchill, IS-1 and many others - before the Panzer III? afterall Panzer III although Iconic - would be flat out useless in Aces High.
bet ya you give me a 50mm Pnzr III and ill give you kills butcher :)
other than that i'd love the Crusader and Cromwell tanks. Churchill in AH is near useless unless you're sticking the Petard on there. KV-1=yes IS-1=why?...
Armored cars such as the 234 and 222 would have their place also in game. very limited, but they'd have a place
-
A post of mine from another thread build this:
Crusader III AA MkI
Great Britan 1940-1943
Armor: 32mm
Range: 322 km.
Speed: 24-42 km/h (off-road/road)
Armament: Bofors 40mm AA Gun with an autoloader and powered mounting in an open topped turret.
Bofors 40mm AA Gun:
Caliber: 40mm
ROF: 120 rounds/min
Muzzle velocity: 881 m/s
Effective range: 12,500 ft
Maximum Range: 23,600 ft
The Bofors 40 mm gun is a famous anti-aircraft auto-cannon designed by the Swedish firm of Bofors. It was one of the most popular medium-weight anti-aircraft systems during World War II, used by most of the western Allies as well as various other forces. It is often referred to simply as the Bofors gun. The gun fired a 900 g (2 lb) high explosive 40 × 311R (rimmed) shell.
Then we get a true British tank and an Allied AA gun on par with the Wirbs and Ostis. Seems to me to be a better fit for the game than building anther Panzer.
-
bet ya you give me a 50mm Pnzr III and ill give you kills butcher :)
other than that i'd love the Crusader and Cromwell tanks. Churchill in AH is near useless unless you're sticking the Petard on there. KV-1=yes IS-1=why?...
Armored cars such as the 234 and 222 would have their place also in game. very limited, but they'd have a place
The Puma would be awesome to add, same gun as the Panzer III, while doing 40+ mph.
-
The Puma would be awesome to add, same gun as the Panzer III, while doing 40+ mph.
Of course, going faster on the ground... unless you have a supply chain dedicated to getting you back upright... =
(http://uwemilitaria.org/1-Wheel/Puma/Graphic/puma10-PumaNormandyBurntUSD.jpg)
-
The Puma would be awesome to add, same gun as the Panzer III, while doing 40+ mph.
yeah butcher what reason behind the IS-1 though?
-
bet ya you give me a 50mm Pnzr III and ill give you kills butcher :)
other than that i'd love the Crusader and Cromwell tanks. Churchill in AH is near useless unless you're sticking the Petard on there. KV-1=yes IS-1=why?...
Armored cars such as the 234 and 222 would have their place also in game. very limited, but they'd have a place
Must....resist....comment.... .must......resist........ :bolt:
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/MkIII.jpg)
-
yeah butcher what reason behind the IS-1 though?
My logic is a balancing act for FSO and scenarios not so much the main arena. Any scenario past 1943 automatically gets Panther/Tiger, while allies get the heavy hitting T34/85. Throw a Su-100, IS-1 in that list and you have some competition. Look at the allied AAA vehicle setup,
I was a bit surprised going out looking for a decent allied AAA vehicle to find none! Even the Germans placed little interest in them until late in the war, only version I wouldn't mind seeing from the axis is the halftrack version with quad or single 20mm.
-
My logic is a balancing act for FSO and scenarios not so much the main arena. Any scenario past 1943 automatically gets Panther/Tiger, while allies get the heavy hitting T34/85. Throw a Su-100, IS-1 in that list and you have some competition. Look at the allied AAA vehicle setup,
I was a bit surprised going out looking for a decent allied AAA vehicle to find none! Even the Germans placed little interest in them until late in the war, only version I wouldn't mind seeing from the axis is the halftrack version with quad or single 20mm.
The SU-85 would be a welcome addition as well!
And for the AAA vehicle, Butcher: Check out the Crusader AA tanks... there were 40mm and 20mm versions, and they did see service although it was limited due to Allied air superiority.
-
I really don't see how the IS-1 would give much balance, or have much use, since only a regiment saw service during the later part of Kursk.
-
I really don't see how the IS-1 would give much balance, or have much use, since only a regiment saw service during the later part of Kursk.
Isn't a regiment more then enough to fill combat strength? I have plenty of accounts of Panthers/Tigers facing IS-1 and IS-2s in combat - one of the most notable engagements was an IS-1 took on 6 Panthers and got tracked early in Kursk, however it disabled/destroyed 5 panthers and one bailed out.
However it took a direct hit from the remaining Panther and caught fire, killing all the crew members.
-
Yeah, but thats litterally like saying we need the M4A3E2 because it was a more heavily armored M4, and that it would help balance the advantage the Axis have in ground campaigns.
Yes, it saw combat. Is it really represenative? No. Will it be able to stand up to Tiger I's and Panther's in AH2-combat? No. Will it help balance things out? Probably not.
-
Yeah, but thats litterally like saying we need the M4A3E2 because it was a more heavily armored M4, and that it would help balance the advantage the Axis have in ground campaigns.
Yes, it saw combat. Is it really represenative? No. Will it be able to stand up to Tiger I's and Panther's in AH2-combat? No. Will it help balance things out? Probably not.
Can't argue with a guy that never had 1,000 kills in a ground vehicle in aces high in one tour.
-
So I'm not qualified to give imput because I didn't dedicate a tour to spawn camping?
Right..... cause the other 6 years are completely irrelevent.
-
Can't argue with a guy that never had 1,000 kills in a ground vehicle in aces high in one tour.
:headscratch:
-
Can't argue with a guy that never had 1,000 kills in a ground vehicle in aces high in one tour.
brilliant :aok You oscillate between false modesty and 'shut up I'm better' posts
-
IS-1 at Kursk ?!?
That's a October/November 1943 vehicle so how was this possible?
-
IS-1 at Kursk ?!?
That's a October/November 1943 vehicle so how was this possible?
I can't find any mention of IS-1's at Kursk.
Mostly T-34s and T-70s.
There were SU-122's, however, and some Churchills, KV-1s, and SU-76s. I've read some mention of SU-152s, but only a few participated.
-
I can't find any mention of IS-1's at Kursk.
Mostly T-34s and T-70s.
There were SU-122's, however, and some Churchills, KV-1s, and SU-76s. I've read some mention of SU-152s, but only a few participated.
Source is quite sketchy on it, Osprey IS-2 Heavy Tank 1944-73 quotes "It is not clear if any IS-1 tanks were actually issued to combat units. In the event, it was decided to rebuild most of them as IS-2s, at and at least 102 were reconfigured with the 122mm gun"
The more I read the more unlikely IS-1/2 were ever in any defensive operation especially at Kursk, they were posted strictly in reserve, its also quite clear it was most likely NOT an IS-1 but in fact an IS-2 that would of been faced, and far after December 1943.
It was decided the 85mm of the IS-1 proved to be no good, so they tested the 122mm gun which later was installed on the IS-2 on a Panther captured at the Kubinka Testing grounds near Moscow. at 1500 yards where it penetrated the front AND rear hull of a Panther!
Not quite sure if this is believable or not, but the IS-2 production began in December 1943 where 103 IS-1 and IS-2 were b uilt.
In this case the grossdeutschland division was one of the first units to face IS-2's and exchanged shells with Tigers, around may 1944 is the early I can see any combat being done. IS-2's were held in reserve strictly as a breakthrough tank since numbers were not yet available they were used as the main spearhead tank from 1944 to attack heavily fortified german positions.
-
It was decided the 85mm of the IS-1 proved to be no good, so they tested the 122mm gun which later was installed on the IS-2 on a Panther captured at the Kubinka Testing grounds near Moscow. at 1500 yards where it penetrated the front AND rear hull of a Panther!
I find that HIGHLY unlikely, unless they removed the engine and all internal components. I mean theres not a chance in hell that the round would penetrate the front hull, the bulkhead separating the crew compartment from the engine, the engine itself, and then the rear of the tank.
-
I find that HIGHLY unlikely, unless they removed the engine and all internal components. I mean theres not a chance in hell that the round would penetrate the front hull, the bulkhead separating the crew compartment from the engine, the engine itself, and then the rear of the tank.
Its the russians, it could of been used as a propaganda piece - or simply over exaggeration by the testing grounds officer.
-
Its the russians, it could of been used as a propaganda piece - or simply over exaggeration by the testing grounds officer.
You mean sorta like how the 122mm 'penetrated' the turret of a captured Tiger II at over 2000yds :lol?
Or like how the T-34/85 'countered' the Panthers and Tiger I's?
It always cracks me up when people go around saying how IS-2's knocked out dozens of Tiger II's at over 2000yds, since its both impossible from the front, and so improbable as to be almost impossible.
-
It always cracks me up when people go around saying how IS-2's knocked out dozens of Tiger II's at over 2000yds, since its both impossible from the front, and so improbable as to be almost impossible.
Actually this is well known on multiple times, poor construction caused quite a few problems, as I said the Tiger II Captured was in fact plagued with so many welding cracks they were a bit surprised when a 85mm round knocked the tank out from the front.
Factories that were using labor from other countries were sabotaging the tanks, as I said ^ poor welding was one way to disable a Tiger II, the armor plates were poorly welded which under any kind of stress from a 122mm round for example would easily penetrate or buckle the armor in only a handful of shots.
What we have in game is far different then real life, they were trying to beef production on tanks in the closing months - instead of properly building the tanks they were rushing some of them and the rushing was what got so many knocked out.
Russians were building tanks in factories using Russian people, Same as Americans were building American tanks, Germans however used forced labor - someone posted the document a while back of another Tiger II captured and tested in Moscow, it was shown to have serious welding flaws, enough the Russians disregarded the Tiger II completely as being to poorly constructed to bother even building a design to beat it. They figured a few hits was all it needed to knock the tank out, not sure what caliber was needed, but they emphasized pressure on the armor plate would cause it to buckle.
Edited: this is just from Wikipedia alone without actually even seriously digging for info on the Tiger II:
During August 1944, a number of Tiger II tanks were captured by the Soviets near Sandomierz and were soon moved to their testing grounds at Kubinka. The Soviet team gave the opinion that the tests revealed the tanks to be severely defective; the transmission and suspension broke down very frequently and the engine was prone to overheating and consequential failure. Additionally, the Soviets opinion was of deficiencies in the armor after firing many anti-tank rounds at the same target. Not only did they report that the metal was of shoddy quality (a problem not particular to the Tiger II—as the war progressed, the Germans found it harder and harder to obtain the alloys needed for high-quality steel), but the welding was also, despite "careful workmanship", extremely poor. As a result, even when shells did not penetrate the armor, there was often a large amount of spalling, and the armor plating could often crack at the welds when struck by multiple heavy shells, rendering the tank inoperable.Also they reported A-19 and BS-3 can penetrate hull front weld joint at 500m,and turret front at 1000-1500m.[39][48]
When I say what we have in game is different, we have a perfect Tiger II without any flaws what so ever, it was quite rare to see a German tank built so late in the war not have some kind of issue due to sabotage.
-
Dozens at 2000m in a single engagment? I guarantee neither gun could penetrate the front of a Tiger II at 2000m, even with the crappy armor. And even if they knocked out a few, the Tiger II's would still tear the crap out of them with their KwK 43's. Especially at long range?
-
Dozens at 2000m in a single engagment? I guarantee neither gun could penetrate the front of a Tiger II at 2000m, even with the crappy armor. And even if they knocked out a few, the Tiger II's would still tear the crap out of them with their KwK 43's. Especially at long range?
You are thinking the Germans had any Veteran tankers left, consider how late in the war it is - those gunners might not exactly be combat veterans with years of service unlike early in the war. The Gun was fine as it could easily knock out tanks at 2000m, problem AGAIN is the fact the Tiger II could not withstand hits, while IS-2 would just chug along.
-
Well considering it was issued to the most experienced crews available, and no tank in WWII save another Tiger II made using high-quality steel and good welds could take a direct hit from the KwK 43, even at 2000m, I'm faircly certian that an even-numbers engagment at 2000m would result in a loss for the soveits.
I mean there is litterally no area where the Tiger II is inferior to the IS-2 save for manuverability. And thats even counting the typically pretty poor steel used.
A 122mm might cause spalling and crack welds after repeated hits to the same section of armor on a Tiger II, but it would just simply penetrate an IS-2.
-
Well considering it was issued to the most experienced crews available, and no tank in WWII save another Tiger II made using high-quality steel and good welds could take a direct hit from the KwK 43, even at 2000m, I'm faircly certian that an even-numbers engagment at 2000m would result in a loss for the soveits.
I mean there is litterally no area where the Tiger II is inferior to the IS-2 save for manuverability. And thats even counting the typically pretty poor steel used.
A 122mm might cause spalling and crack welds after repeated hits to the same section of armor on a Tiger II, but it would just simply penetrate an IS-2.
Only one hit was needed to disable a Tiger II, one, if both shoot at same both both were knocked out. Russians produced thousands of IS-2's vs not even 500 Tiger IIs, easy to see a pair of IS-2 vs one King Tiger, the Tiger loses vs one IS-2 lost.
-
You're not hearing what I'm saying.
At 2000 yds, a group of IS-2's would be INCREDIBLY unlikely to knock out, disable, or kill dozens of Tiger II's.
Why?
At 2000 yds, theres a chance a Tiger II wouldn't be crippled by a 122mm hit even with crappy steel, so its not a guaranteed kill, even if a shell strikes a joint.
At 2000 yds, a direct hit on an IS-2 equals a kill with the KwK 43.
German optics are superior, and the balistics of the KwK 43 are highly superior to those of the 122mm.
King Tiger fires more than twice as fast as an IS-2, needing only 10 seconds to load a round, as opposed to the 25 or 30 seconds for an IS-2.
So, the Tiger II's would have a CHANCE at surviving a direct hit, even if its not a GREAT chance, the IS-2's really don't, and the Tiger II's out-shoot the IS-2.
So again, at 2000m, a group of IS-2's is not going to knock out dozens of Tiger II's, and come away with a tactical victory. Sure, they might knock out a dozen or two, but the losses of IS-2's would probably be numbering up over 50.
Also, when the hell did dozens (as in multiple dozens of Tiger II's) bump into a large group of IS-2's? I can't find a documented encounter at anything greater than company-level.
-
Why don't we just get HTC to make a deal with WoT.
When you up a tank in AH, you play a game in WoT, then all of these problems would be solved.
-
Why don't we just get HTC to make a deal with WoT.
When you up a tank in AH, you play a game in WoT, then all of these problems would be solved.
ah no thanks
-
You're not hearing what I'm saying.
Also, when the hell did dozens (as in multiple dozens of Tiger II's) bump into a large group of IS-2's? I can't find a documented encounter at anything greater than company-level.
You really did not read anything I said, go back and read up. Tiger II's did not stand toe to toe with IS-2's, one direct hit from a IS-2 was enough to DISABLE a Tiger II. True the 88mm can penetrate a IS-2, however one round was enough from an IS-2 to DISABLE a Tiger II. Why? Poor welding and craftmanship. You dont' seem to realize the armor was NOT the quality steel it should of had, instead they used a low grade steel. So in this case the armor is not as strong as you want to believe, however I have plenty of source to prove this, you have NO proof what so ever, only by what the stats of the tank are in perfect condition. Except in wartime there is a shortage of everything at this point: HIGH grade steel, Gasoline hell even ball bearings were in short supply.
I proved the Steel grade quality was POOR - this leads to poor armor protection - add POOR welding on top of that means an easy kill for an IS-2 simply by disabling the Tiger with one hit, doesn't matter if the 88mm can hit and kill an IS-2 it only needed one shot and POOF goes tiger II.
You keep arguing over and over and not understanding the Tiger II did NOT stand up to IS-2 due to the defects, only thing going for the Tiger II at this point was its 88 L/71 other then that it only took one hit at times to disable it completely.
You think it would cause a "Small fracture" which is not the case, POOR steel leads to poor armor protection. It makes perfect sense that an IS-2 disables a Tiger at 2000meters simply with this lack of armor defect, which was a common problem.
Secondly you keep thinking Tiger II's were only driven by Aces - actually I can show plenty of source saying this isnt the case. Late in the war, Veterans are dying left and right - Here's an example:
"The Tiger II's 8.8cm gun could be deadly with a well-led and well-trained crew. However, LT. Col. Bill Hamberg (Army) commander of a tank battalion from the 5th armored division during WW2 remembers "As the war was nearing December 1944, I noticed that the accuracy of a German Tiger firing steadily decreased. On a number of occasions when my tanks presented easy targets to Tiger tanks, they were unable to hit our vehicles. It was obvious to me the Germans no longer had the time to train their tank crews in basic fundamentals of tank gunnery."
"As the war progressed, Germany was forced to reduce or no longer use certain critical alloy materials in the production of armor plate, such as nickel, tungsten, molybdenum, and manganese; this did result in lower impact resistance levels compared to earlier armor.[51] Manganese from mines in the Ukraine ceased when the German Army lost control of this territory in February 1944. Allied bombers struck the Knabe mine in Norway and stopped a key source of molybdenum; other supplies from Finland and Japan were also cut off. The loss of molybdenum, and its replacement with other substitutes to maintain hardness, as well as a general loss of quality control resulted in an increased brittleness in German armor plate, which developed a tendency to fracture when struck with a shell. Testing by U.S. Army officers in August 1944 in Isigny, France showed catastrophic cracking of the armor plate on two out of three Panthers examined.[52][53]
Basicaly, (and assuming I correctly remember basic metalurgy from my degreee!) Steel is iron mixed with a small ammount of carbon to make it harder. Different alloys of steel are created with different proportions of carbon and the addition of other small quantities of fancy materials -for example Chromium, Tungsten, Molybdenum... Here's a quick explanation based on the steels used in bicycles. If you don't have access to these materials, some of which were quite exotic at the time, you can't make steel as strong without choosing different materials -which might lead to altogether different properties, e.g. higher weight, more fragmentation, harder to weld/manufacture..."
Read the book Tiger Tanks by Michael Green, tells you everything you need to know about Tiger I and II.
it gives countless details on the armor when it was good/bad.
-
You really did not read anything I said, go back and read up. Tiger II's did not stand toe to toe with IS-2's, one direct hit from a IS-2 was enough to DISABLE a Tiger II. True the 88mm can penetrate a IS-2, however one round was enough from an IS-2 to DISABLE a Tiger II. Why? Poor welding and craftmanship. You dont' seem to realize the armor was NOT the quality steel it should of had, instead they used a low grade steel. So in this case the armor is not as strong as you want to believe, however I have plenty of source to prove this, you have NO proof what so ever, only by what the stats of the tank are in perfect condition. Except in wartime there is a shortage of everything at this point: HIGH grade steel, Gasoline hell even ball bearings were in short supply
OK well first off, we're talking about a 2000m engagment range, when penetration for the 122mm has dropped off to about 115mm or so. Now I'm no expert, but I'm fairly certian that if the average Tiger II could take a hit from a US 90mm at close range and keep going, then its going to be able to take a hit from a 122mm at 2000m.
The 122mm isn't some god-cannon that retains massive kenetic energy at long range. Its mass helps it maintain kenetic energy better as speeds decrease compared to a smaller round, yes, but its not like ONE hit is going to crack seams and kill all the crew members at 2000m.
Even the Russians said it took multiple hits to actually crack the damn things. And they also commented on the exelent craftsmanship.
I proved the Steel grade quality was POOR - this leads to poor armor protection - add POOR welding on top of that means an easy kill for an IS-2 simply by disabling the Tiger with one hit, doesn't matter if the 88mm can hit and kill an IS-2 it only needed one shot and POOF goes tiger II.
2000m, enough said.
You keep arguing over and over and not understanding the Tiger II did NOT stand up to IS-2 due to the defects, only thing going for the Tiger II at this point was its 88 L/71 other then that it only took one hit at times to disable it completely.
You keep missing the part where the 122mm really lacked the nessecary energy at 2000m to ensure a kill or even a disabled vehicle on the first hit, when the 88mm L'71 didn't have the same problem.
You think it would cause a "Small fracture" which is not the case, POOR steel leads to poor armor protection. It makes perfect sense that an IS-2 disables a Tiger at 2000meters simply with this lack of armor defect, which was a common problem.
It makes perfect sense that an IS-2 COULD disable a Tiger II at 2000m, but even MOST, not all, being disabled on the FIRST hit at 2000m is incredibly unlikely.
Poor quality steel isn't the same as cardboard. Its still 150mm of still relatively hard metal, or 180mm on the turret.
Secondly you keep thinking Tiger II's were only driven by Aces - actually I can show plenty of source saying this isnt the case. Late in the war, Veterans are dying left and right - Here's an example:
"The Tiger II's 8.8cm gun could be deadly with a well-led and well-trained crew. However, LT. Col. Bill Hamberg (Army) commander of a tank battalion from the 5th armored division during WW2 remembers "As the war was nearing December 1944, I noticed that the accuracy of a German Tiger firing steadily decreased. On a number of occasions when my tanks presented easy targets to Tiger tanks, they were unable to hit our vehicles. It was obvious to me the Germans no longer had the time to train their tank crews in basic fundamentals of tank gunnery."
At 2000m, its not going to be a quick engagment. Infact, I'm skeptical of the 122mm's abilities to put multiple rounds on a target at 2000m without misses, and I'm HIGHLY skeptical of their ability to do it in the first two shots or so.
Even 2 rounds from an IS-2 is going to give enough time for a Tiger II to have fired off 5 rounds, and knowing that the accuracy of the gun is not of concern, we can assume that after about 10 rounds (between 3 and 5 rounds from the IS-2's), the gunners would have aquired the range, and would be able to land hits.
"As the war progressed, Germany was forced to reduce or no longer use certain critical alloy materials in the production of armor plate, such as nickel, tungsten, molybdenum, and manganese; this did result in lower impact resistance levels compared to earlier armor.[51] Manganese from mines in the Ukraine ceased when the German Army lost control of this territory in February 1944. Allied bombers struck the Knabe mine in Norway and stopped a key source of molybdenum; other supplies from Finland and Japan were also cut off. The loss of molybdenum, and its replacement with other substitutes to maintain hardness, as well as a general loss of quality control resulted in an increased brittleness in German armor plate, which developed a tendency to fracture when struck with a shell. Testing by U.S. Army officers in August 1944 in Isigny, France showed catastrophic cracking of the armor plate on two out of three Panthers examined.[52][53]
Tendency to, and also this gave no range of the test firing. It could have been 50m for all you've quoted. An impact at 250m is a lot different from an impact at 2000m.
Find the ranges for those tests, and the caliber of weapon impacting the armor, please.
-
Tendency to, and also this gave no range of the test firing. It could have been 50m for all you've quoted. An impact at 250m is a lot different from an impact at 2000m.
Find the ranges for those tests, and the caliber of weapon impacting the armor, please.
Range of those tests was 1500 meters, I believe I stated above used on a Panther G, also the same testing ground used the IS-2 on a King Tiger - again at 1500 meters not 50 as you want to believe.
Whether the documents are authentic is hard to tell, why would the Russians entirely ignore the King Tiger? My guess is probably because the IS-3 was being developed - and because of the extremely low numbers of the King Tiger - whether its propaganda its hard to tell.
Fact is the German tankers (Tiger or Tiger II) Feared any SU model russian tank more then anything else including the IS-2. Specifically any SU-100, 122 and 152 models. You don't have to penetrate the armor to jam the turret ring or completely disable a tank with one hit.
You are still under the false hope the German tankers could actually hit anything at 2000m from Mid 1944 and on Read below:
"The Tiger II's 8.8cm gun could be deadly with a well-led and well-trained crew. However, LT. Col. Bill Hamberg (Army) commander of a tank battalion from the 5th armored division during WW2 remembers "As the war was nearing December 1944, I noticed that the accuracy of a German Tiger firing steadily decreased. On a number of occasions when my tanks presented easy targets to Tiger tanks, they were unable to hit our vehicles. It was obvious to me the Germans no longer had the time to train their tank crews in basic fundamentals of tank gunnery."
Veteran crew and gunner? Yep one hit could knock out an IS-2 with a well placed shot. As ^ says above after December 1944 chances of a German crew actually hitting anything is unlikely - plus with the armor statistics shown at 1500-2000 yards by the Russians - Whoever hits first wins the engagement.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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 :P
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Two different situations, with two entirely different outcomes.
(http://www.wordphiliac.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/CaptainobviousChooseOption.jpg)
-
Do not anger the fanboy...
(http://i27.tinypic.com/2afiknl.jpg)
-
(http://www.wordphiliac.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/CaptainobviousChooseOption.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
So basically you are saying I am right on everything - except for you continue to argue otherwise?
You have no clue how many times the Tiger II's were hit it did not specify 1 shot 1 kill, or if they were in combat the hours/day before hand, from the report which is authentic - IS-2's killed a platoon of Tiger II's at 2000m. You assume they are mint condition factory fresh, in wartime not likely, you won't find that information.
Fact is IS-2 man handled a platoon of Tiger IIs, just as Karnak said a T-34 whipped the Tiger II in an Ambush - as I said before the German's LACKED any gunnery later in the war, which concludes to me this document is pretty authentic, most likely the Russians caught the Tiger II's off guard and won a shoot out.
-
A platoon is 4 Tiger II's, a company is 12. So a group of IS-2's came out with a tactical win against two companies of Tiger II's in a long-range shoot out, where they litterally have NO advantage, and not even an area of parity in early-mid 1944, and only have parity in armor late 1944 and 1945?
In early-mid 1944 the IS-2's could really only hope for a 1:1 Kill to loss ratio at best. 1:1.5 or 1:2 would be more realisitc, assuming they weren't jumping the Tiger II's with something like 50 IS-2's. Especially considering that the A19 wasn't real accurate at the 2000m mark, but the KwK 43 still was.
A platoon or two, I could see. But two full companies losing to IS-2's in a long-range engagment is very unlikely. As I said before, a draw is about the best that the IS-2's could hope for, depending on the time frame.
And again, no time frame was given in the comment to which I was refering to, no specific numbers either. Just said that "IS-2's destroyed dozens of Tiger II's at more than 2000yds [and all in one sitting no less!]". Dozens could mean 24, or it could mean upwards of 48; we just don't know.
So, how about this: We agree that the comment was vauge as hell, and that we don't have enough information to decide which group would be the victor. Really getting a bit tired of this "nuh-uh, you're wrong. No, YOU'RE wrong. No I'm not, you are!" argument.
-
A platoon is 4 Tiger II's, a company is 12. So a group of IS-2's came out with a tactical win against two companies of Tiger II's in a long-range shoot out, where they litterally have NO advantage, and not even an area of parity in early-mid 1944, and only have parity in armor late 1944 and 1945?
Where do you come up with a two companies of Tiger IIs? You just keep adding a load of crap each post. Scroll back I said Platoon on multiple ocassions, now you upped it to two Companies, what next post will be a battalion or regiment?
-
Spalling is often (not always, but definitely more so) caused by heavy HE rounds sending a shockwave through armor.
MAYBE they were lobbing 122mm HE at that range... not sure if there is any more information on this "2000m" tank battle... considering the hit % at much closer ranges, fights at those ranges must have been something to see.
Both the 122mm and 152mm guns, firing HE, could devastate heavy armor just from the blast (I.e., tearing a turret off, killing the crew, etc). And, of course, kinetic energy plays a much lesser role at that point.
-
Where do you come up with a two companies of Tiger IIs? You just keep adding a load of crap each post. Scroll back I said Platoon on multiple ocassions, now you upped it to two Companies, what next post will be a battalion or regiment?
You lowered the origional number, you idiot. I started out by repeating some of the more outrageous BS I've heard (Read the quote in my last post, 2nd to last section). In that quote, the "number" given was "dozens". This means at LEAST 24, that being 2 dozen. 24 being about 2 companies of Tiger II's. Hence, "dozens" means at least 2 companies.
Quite litterally, you just pulled the part about a platoon out of your arse.
*EDIT* just saw the part of your post yesterday about IS-2's and T-34's destroying Tiger II's. Karnak also said those T-34's destroyed the Tiger II's at close range.
So, you are ignoring both:
1) the fact that, acording to the origional source of BS IS-2 fanboi-ism, the number of Tiger II's was 24 at minimum.
2) the engagment took blase at 2000m, not close range, and HVAP was not used (122mm did not have HVAP during the war).
-
You lowered the origional number, you idiot. I started out by repeating some of the more outrageous BS I've heard (Read the quote in my last post, 2nd to last section). In that quote, the "number" given was "dozens". This means at LEAST 24, that being 2 dozen. 24 being about 2 companies of Tiger II's. Hence, "dozens" means at least 2 companies.
Quite litterally, you just pulled the part about a platoon out of your arse.
*EDIT* just saw the part of your post yesterday about IS-2's and T-34's destroying Tiger II's. Karnak also said those T-34's destroyed the Tiger II's at close range.
So, you are ignoring both:
Yep you simply pulled the number out of your butt, two companies do I hear a regiment next?
Here's my comment:
Fact is IS-2 man handled a platoon of Tiger IIs, just as Karnak said a T-34 whipped the Tiger II in an Ambush - as I said before the German's LACKED any gunnery later in the war, which concludes to me this document is pretty authentic, most likely the Russians caught the Tiger II's off guard and won a shoot out.
And your comment:
Quote from: Tank-Ace on Yesterday at 09:30:29 PM
A platoon is 4 Tiger II's, a company is 12. So a group of IS-2's came out with a tactical win against two companies of Tiger II's in a long-range shoot out
Now you add two companies? where does this come from? Or simply another delusional statement from you?
-
(http://www.focusonlinecommunities.com/servlet/JiveServlet/showImage/38-1549-1262/popcorn.jpg)
-
Yep you simply pulled the number out of your butt, two companies do I hear a regiment next?
Here's my comment:
Fact is IS-2 man handled a platoon of Tiger IIs, just as Karnak said a T-34 whipped the Tiger II in an Ambush - as I said before the German's LACKED any gunnery later in the war, which concludes to me this document is pretty authentic, most likely the Russians caught the Tiger II's off guard and won a shoot out
what document are you refering to? The origional comment about "IS-2's knocking out dozens (minimum of 24 by defenition) of Tiger IIs in a single engement"? Or something you posted, which is irrelevent to the origional comment?
And your comment:
Quote from: Tank-Ace on Yesterday at 09:30:29 PM
A platoon is 4 Tiger II's, a company is 12. So a group of IS-2's came out with a tactical win against two companies of Tiger II's in a long-range shoot out
Now you add two companies? where does this come from? Or simply another delusional statement from you?
The origional comment said "dozens", by defenition this means a minimum of 24, or about 2 companies. You brought up a platoon out of no where.
Also, the T-34 ambush is ENTIRELY irrelvent, because its an ENTIRELY different situation. differences are:
1) 85mm firing HVAP vs 122mm firing either AP, APC, or HE rounds
2) close range vs 2000m
3) ambush vs long-range shoot out
It always cracks me up when people go around saying how IS-2's knocked out dozens of Tiger II's at over 2000yds, since its both impossible from the front, and so improbable as to be almost impossible.
The comment that started this. Notice, it says nothing about a platoon, but it DOES, however, mention dozens of Tiger II's at 2000yds +.
"dozens" means at least 2 dozen (24), else it would not be plural. A company is 16 Tiger II's, counting the company command. And so "dozens" meaning at least 2 dozen, which is 24, is about 2 companies of tiger II's, 2 companies being 28 vs 24 tanks.
I really can't explain the concept of "dozens" needing to be at least 24, by defenition, any better than this.
Would you feel better if I said 1.75 companies of tiger II's, instead of 2? Because thats the lowest ammount of platoons that "dozens" can be, and still remain "dozens", as in the plural of dozen, which is 12.
-
The origional comment said "dozens", by defenition this means a minimum of 24, or about 2 companies. You brought up a platoon out of no where.
Edited: I wrote "Please point it out where I said Dozen" using Search its clear you brought this number up out of the blue.
I'm done with this discussion since its turned delusional.
-
Oh my god, butcher, you're being retarded.
In broad outline, here is a paraphrased version of the conversation.
I said I laugh when people claim IS-2's knocked out multiple dozens of tiger II's in a single engagment at more than 2000yds.
You said that because of armor quality, it was possible.
I said something along the lines of the IS-2 being out-shot at 2000m
You said something about quality of gunners, and more about crappy steel quality.
I said 90mm @ 500m or less > 122mm @ 2000yds+, and that since Tiger II's could and did stand up to 90mm's at 500 yds, and even less, theres no guarantee they couldn't stand up to a 122mm at 2000yds or more.
You said more about armor quality, gunner, and completely ignored what I said.
I repeated myself
You said something about how long they had been in combat
I said it was situational
You said that IS-2's could beat a platoon of Tiger II's (4 tanks) in a long range engagment.
I said something along the lines of "what, whered the platoon come from, origonally we were talking about 2 dozen minimum, thats about 2 companies".
You said "Wheres the companies coming from?!?! I said a platoon, you must be BS'ing!!!"
I said "What in gods name are you talking about, what YOU said is entirely irrelevent to the origional argument"
You said "Ha, I knew you were BS'ing. I told you I said a platoon, and not 2 companies".
I said this post.
-
With the ME410 coming they have already modeled the 50mm cannon, just a little less work they would need to do to introduce the PZIII
I was hoping they would make a 57mm version of the Mossie so we could get some tanks with 2lb'er
-
Maybe you cangat a u-boat to shoot that 57mm at. :noid
-
With the ME410 coming they have already modeled the 50mm cannon, just a little less work they would need to do to introduce the PZIII
I was hoping they would make a 57mm version of the Mossie so we could get some tanks with 2lb'er
57mm is the 6lber.
-
57mm is the 6lber.
Oops, I knew that, just misplaced my brain whenever I posted that.