Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Eric19 on August 13, 2012, 10:21:54 PM
-
after reading a bit on the IS-1 and 2 i think it would be a great candidate for AH simply because it would be a soviet heavy tank and we don't have one of those yet neither does the american side but the IS-2 would one hell of a tank if we got it 122mm gun able to penetrate the front armor plate on a panther from head on granted it only carried 28 rounds and and only fired about 2 rounds a minute it would provide a very good chalenging tank to any good tanker we have in AH
-
More EW and MW stuff first.
-
after reading a bit on the IS-1 and 2 i think it would be a great candidate for AH simply because it would be a soviet heavy tank and we don't have one of those yet neither does the american side but the IS-2 would one hell of a tank if we got it 122mm gun able to penetrate the front armor plate on a panther from head on granted it only carried 28 rounds and and only fired about 2 rounds a minute it would provide a very good chalenging tank to any good tanker we have in AH
But it would be practically unbeatable and it would be perked through the Roof
-
Both Panthers, Tigers ,basically all heavy German contemporary AFV could deal with the IS2
Only after the IS2 got its D25-T gun it was competing fully against them.
-
IS-1 only seen far limited combat, most were refitted right off the bat to IS-2, difference is IS-1 had 85mm gun while IS-2 had 122mm gun.
IS-2 was produced in pretty good numbers, seen combat all over the eastern front and did combat the german heavies quite fine.
Slopped Armor, good firepower, top speed was 23mph, secondary armament was the famous DShK machine gun, which gives it a 50cal anti aircraft gun on top along with two DT machine guns.
Perk wise would be interesting to see, 122mm can combat a tiger/panther, but its ROF being 2-4PM with the best crews, makes it more of a breakthrough tank rather then tank killer.
In all, I'd like seeing it added with SU-100, 32mph Speeds with sloped armor and 100mm gun that matches the best of the german AFV's.
-
after reading a bit on the IS-1 and 2 i think it would be a great candidate for AH simply because it would be a soviet heavy tank and we don't have one of those yet neither does the american side but the IS-2 would one hell of a tank if we got it 122mm gun able to penetrate the front armor plate on a panther from head on granted it only carried 28 rounds and and only fired about 2 rounds a minute it would provide a very good chalenging tank to any good tanker we have in AH
Yes 100x YES, IS line of tanks are just sexy
-
But it would be practically unbeatable and it would be perked through the Roof
It would be about equal to the Tiger I in tank vs tank combat. Tiger I has mobility, amament, and optics, IS-2 has armor and low profile.
Really, it would be perked at maybe 40-50 max. You just can't do a lot in a fight with 2-3 rounds a minute.
-
It would be about equal to the Tiger I in tank vs tank combat. Tiger I has mobility, amament, and optics, IS-2 has armor and low profile.
Really, it would be perked at maybe 40-50 max. You just can't do a lot in a fight with 2-3 rounds a minute.
TRUE TANK MAN TRUE
-
Assuming which version of the IS-2 were getting....
IS-2(1944) which the majority were built of the IS-2 line would be whats added into Aces High.
23 MPH vs 25 of a Tiger? neither wins a mobility contest.
Armor: IS-2 had sloped armor, extremely low profile - excellent armor.
Armament: Early IS-2's were breakthrough tanks with a low velocity 122mm gun I see no point in adding this in game, 1944 version had the D25-T with better optics and can easily stand toe to toe with a Tiger/Panther, however Tiger does have a better Anti-tank gun.
As for perk price this would be debatable, both tanks squared off have an equal advantage of killing each other, Tiger fires faster other then that nothing.
Tiger is what 28 perks? I can see IS-2 being maybe 30.
Early Model IS-2 has no advantage, it was simply a breakthrough tank designed for fortifications, D25-T was on equal par with the Panther's 75mm L/70 just slower reload time, HE rounds however were known to kill tank crews, I doubt this will be modeled in game - making the HE round useless unless for buildings.
In all if you manage to score a hit, you'd kill a Panther/Tiger - otherwise you are dead, I see no reason to be higher then 30 perks.
-
no doubt there butcher by the way I had no idea the early IS-2 had a low volecity 122mm gun ty for info man
-
no doubt there butcher by the way I had no idea the early IS-2 had a low volecity 122mm gun ty for info man
IS-2M operated like the Tiger tank, in small combat groups that roamed the battlefield to sectors that were going to attack and needed something to smash the defenses.
Basically the Soviets adopted tactics to pick the weakest spot in the defensive line and attack, causing a breakthrough and circle around the positions, instead of facing tanks head on they simply faced Pazerfaust and Pak 40 anti-tank guns.
There were so few tiger/Panthers that the IS-2 was simply not needed to face tanks, rather the defensive positions posed the biggest problems at the time - they figure they could force a breakthrough in the line - then cram as many tanks and infantry through it.
From all the debates I've seen I've come to this conclusion:
IS-2 was NOT a tank destroyer, or a main battle tank, it was more of a support tank if anything like the StuG line of tanks the Germans had - it could of very easily mounted the 100mm gun and been a tank killer, rather the Russians needed a Breakthrough tank more importantly.
Panthers and Tigers are the better tank killers, however IS-2 simply played a different role, as far as Tiger II - it simply cannot be compared, the IS-2 weighed more then the Panther and far less then the Tiger - let alone Tiger II.
A good book to find is called Osprey - IS-2 Heavy Tank 1944-73
Its out on the internet in PDF form, was lucky to find it for a $1 on amazon :D
-
All IS-2's had a relatively low velocity 122mm.
It wasn't a super high velocity gun, like the 75mm L'70, or the 88mm L'71, but it certianly wasn't a low velocity gun like the 75mm L'24.
-
muzzle velocity for the A19 gun was 800m/s which is 2624ft/s now correct if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure thats more muzzle velocity than the panzer H or F or tiger1 or any of the M4s and the M18 so I wouldn't call that a very low velocity gun
-
muzzle velocity for the A19 gun was 800m/s which is 2624ft/s now correct if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure thats more muzzle velocity than the panzer H or F or tiger1 or any of the M4s and the M18 so I wouldn't call that a very low velocity gun
Velocity depends on a few factors... Sure its no where equal to a Panther's L-70.... however in terms of armor penetration the 122mm does just fine in the tank killing capabilities being low velocity and I think its on par with a Panther's L70.
122 mm M-1931/37 A-19, D-25 L/46.5 is standard 122mm early IS-2's used.
122 mm 1943 D-25 T L/431 is what IS-2(1944) used.
Here's penetration difference at 1000 yards:
A-19: 155mm at 1000 yards, APHE: 190mm at 1000 yards
D-25: 204mm at 1000 yards
Standard AP round: 140mm at 1000 yards
Sure its velocity might not be same as Panther...but fire an APHE which were issued to 1944 tankers, it has no trouble penetrating a Tiger tank at 1,000 meters.
-
Those numbers seem a bit high for 1000m.
I've never seen any source put the 122mm at up over 192mm of penetration at 100m range. Highest I've seen for the BS-3 100mm was actually 204mm at 100m.
Maybe double check your numbers, but something seems off there.
-
Those numbers seem a bit high for 1000m.
I've never seen any source put the 122mm at up over 192mm of penetration at 100m range. Highest I've seen for the BS-3 100mm was actually 204mm at 100m.
Maybe double check your numbers, but something seems off there.
Sources:
Russian Tanks and Armored Vehicles 1917-1945, by Wolfgang Fleischer, 1999
Osprey Vangard IS-2 Heavy Tank 1944
Osprey puts the 122mm AP round at 150-160mm penetration at 1000 meters, thats 10-20 higher then the book above says, so I would say its about close, considering two sources list it quite close, then again getting actual russian information is extremely tasking, I haven't found two tables that are the same..yet.
1944 tanks did carry APHE rounds, which were used for Tigers/Panthers/King Tigers if needed, thus why it had over 200mm armor penetration but dropped off terribly after 1,000 yards.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the russian APHE the same as other nation's, in that it was just an AP round with an HE component that would burst after armor was penetrated? Extreme penetration drop off at extended ranges is usually associated with APCR rounds.
Also, you say they were carried for use against the Panther and Tigers, would those make up a significant portion of their ammunition compliment, or would it be something like HVAP, where only a few rounds were carried for emergency situations?
As to the Russian data, I wouldn't bother looking for two sources that state the same thing. God only knows exactly how thourough they were with their initial testing. And after 80+ years of what wasn't the best organized political system god ever made, I would be amazed if complete testing data remains for the various versions and ammunitions. A big reason why we have such good data for German weapons is because of the testing Allied nations did on captured weapons.
A better method might be to find data from a western source, or perhaps from Yugoslavia, as they did post-war testing of various weapons from both sides (Although I'd be leery of the data you get from them, as they also stated that the KwK 40 L'48 was inferior to both the US M1 76mm and the Russian 85mm firing typical wartime ammunition). Then just convert that over to Russian data and check for the sources that most closely match the numbers you come up with.
-
A better method might be to find data from a western source, or perhaps from Yugoslavia, as they did post-war testing of various weapons from both sides (Although I'd be leery of the data you get from them, as they also stated that the KwK 40 L'48 was inferior to both the US M1 76mm and the Russian 85mm firing typical wartime ammunition). Then just convert that over to Russian data and check for the sources that most closely match the numbers you come up with.
I have roughly 1400 books or PDF files total, if I don't already have it - I can probably get it for a price (meaning some things are out of print and require some serious cheese). Thus saying, I've scoured the internet for russian information, anything from AAR's to biographies and come up pretty short.
What little information I can get is what I can consider source unless someone can prove otherwise, maybe its correct - maybe its not, I can't exactly say otherwise until I do the research and with thousands of topics you simply cannot get every bit of information.
Unlike TracerFI or some of the others who quickly scan through wikipedia and post "the me262 was a post war aircraft" I actually do research broadly and try to come to an answer or solution with sources.
Far as I am concerned the information I have is pretty correct, it might seem far fetched, but I see no other source that says 200mm at 1,000 yards is out of the question. In my best opinion I don't think the IS-2 needed an AP round to kill a Tank at 1,000 yards - a HE round would give enough concussion blow to a tank to blow the turret off, and there is plenty of evidence that it has happened. Just like one example of a Panzer III which fired over 40 rounds at a KV-1 tank and could not penetrate the tank, finally the gunner decided to shoot the KV-1's barrel to disable the tank. Maybe its true or false, its pretty tough to sit down and ask the tankers themselves when they passed away before I was even born.
-
I have roughly 1400 books or PDF files total, if I don't already have it - I can probably get it for a price (meaning some things are out of print and require some serious cheese). Thus saying, I've scoured the internet for russian information, anything from AAR's to biographies and come up pretty short.
What little information I can get is what I can consider source unless someone can prove otherwise, maybe its correct - maybe its not, I can't exactly say otherwise until I do the research and with thousands of topics you simply cannot get every bit of information.
Unlike TracerFI or some of the others who quickly scan through wikipedia and post "the me262 was a post war aircraft" I actually do research broadly and try to come to an answer or solution with sources.
Not saying you haven't done your research. I'm saying its entirely possible your data is off, because your source is using wartime Soviet data, suceptible to human error, low quality testing, and propoganda.
Far as I am concerned the information I have is pretty correct, it might seem far fetched, but I see no other source that says 200mm at 1,000 yards is out of the question. In my best opinion I don't think the IS-2 needed an AP round to kill a Tank at 1,000 yards - a HE round would give enough concussion blow to a tank to blow the turret off, and there is plenty of evidence that it has happened. Just like one example of a Panzer III which fired over 40 rounds at a KV-1 tank and could not penetrate the tank, finally the gunner decided to shoot the KV-1's barrel to disable the tank. Maybe its true or false, its pretty tough to sit down and ask the tankers themselves when they passed away before I was even born.
As far as I'm concerned, the data is questionable, but still within reasonable bounds, depending on the construction of the round in question.
All I'm saying is that finding some independent (ie, non-soviet) source confirming the numbers would be a good idea, so that we don't have some over modeled IS-2 all because the Soviets wanted to impress people.
And again, why exactly did the APHE shells have significantly higher drop in penetration at long range (a characteristic usually associated with HVAP or APCR rounds)? And how many were typically carried?