Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Albacore on February 21, 2003, 12:06:15 AM
-
A very impressive piece of Russian hardware that led to the adaptation of the Hs129. Take Special notice of the killed Tiger photos. We need the Js with the 122mm gun. Wowzers.
http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_1.html
-
Althoug a very nice tank, the Iosef Stalin series was not as well armored as the Tiger, and its 122mm gun was inferior in all but HE power.
-
JS2 actually had much better armor than Tiger 1.
-
It's a hell of a big tank! The tracks are huge! I managed to get inside one at Duxford. I seem to have deleted most of my images, here are the only ones left:
http://www.btinternet.com/~nexx/Duxford/102-0229_IMG.JPG
http://www.btinternet.com/~nexx/Duxford/102-0238_IMG.JPG
http://www.btinternet.com/~nexx/Duxford/102-0240_IMG.JPG
-
From http://www.onwar.com/tanks/index.htm
IS-2
Armor Detail - Front - Side - Rear - Top/Bottom
Hull - 120mm@60° - 90mm@90° - 60mm@49° - 20mm@0°
Superstructure - 120mm@30° - 90mm@75° - 60mm@41° - 30mm@0°
Turret - 90mm@round - 90mm@72° - 90mm@60° - 30mm@0-5°
Mantlet - 100mm@round
Tiger 1
Armor Detail - Front - Side - Rear - Top/Bottom
Hull - 100mm@66° - 60mm@90° - 80mm@82° - 25mm@0°
Superstructure - 100mm@80° - 80mm@90° - - - 25mm@0°
Turret - 100mm@82° - 80mm@90° - 80mm@90° - 25mm@0-9°
Mantlet - 100-110mm@90°
-
The biggest detractor in my mind is the extremely rapid 1.5-2 rounds per minute rate of fire... that's on par with a shore battery or cruiser. It sure would raise the pucker factor in a tank battle when a Tiger lets loose about 3-4 rounds at you in the time it takes you just to reload (better hope he misses).
-
You should check out the JS III I have pics of the one brady and I saw at Aberdeen proving grounds thing is huge, but not as big as the Jagdtiger muhahhahaha.
-
Ya that was good day:)
Put my paw on a Jagtiger i did:), amongst other thing's.
The JS II would rock hard, imo, It's low ammo load could be an issue, but if you had a buddy in aM3 with supleis it would be very cool, imagine wacking hangers with that gun:)
-
Still would like to see the JS series low ammo or not but the T34 85 would be sweet.
-
So the vote is in. Give us some Commie armor and perhaps a map of Kursk and we'll kill each other like it's 1999.
-
I used to live not far from Aberdeen. That Nike outlet center is pretty decent for slightly substandard shoes.
-
very cool perk tank
-
Originally posted by brady
Ya that was good day:)
Put my paw on a Jagtiger i did:), amongst other thing's.
The JS II would rock hard, imo, It's low ammo load could be an issue, but if you had a buddy in aM3 with supleis it would be very cool, imagine wacking hangers with that gun:)
Actually, I would like to see any of the large, mobile guns for armor attacks. I think the "tanks" we have are fine, sur emore is good, but think of the "armored artillery" as a nice change. The Su-122, Sturmgeschutz III, etc. The M7 Priest is a nice idea, but a Russki tank would be cool. How many Joe Stalin's were produced?
Hey, and if you had the Su-122, you could model the excellent Su-85 tank destroyer!
Just my dos pfennigs.
Sakai
-
The SU-100 was an even better tank destroyer. That gun it had was insane. The SU-85 was ok, the SU-122 and 152 were very nice for taking crap down. The Brumbar would be nice or the Priest series.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
JS2 actually had much better armor than Tiger 1.
The direct comparison of armor thickness does not accurately represent the level of protection. The Tiger was armored with tempered face-hardened Krupp KC armor, while the JS2 had only homogenous cast-steel armor. Also the armor gun mantlet of the Tiger was 120mm thick and covered nearly the entire front of the turret (see picture below). On the other hand the JS2 had more sloped armor which would increase it's effectiveness ... but not as much as some would like to believe.
Armor Data
MODEL: TIGER I / TIGER II Nr. 1 to 47 / TIGER II Nr. 48 to end
FRONT
Gun Mantlet: 120mm @ 0° / - / Topfblende
Turret: 100mm @ 10° / 100 mm Curved / 180mm @ 10°
Superstructure: 100mm @ 9° / 150mm @ 50° / 150mm @ 50°
Hull: 100mm @ 25° / 100mm @ 50° / 100mm @ 50°
SIDE
Turret: 80mm @ 0° / 80mm @ 30° / 80mm @ 21°
Superstructure: 80mm @ 0° / 80mm @ 25° 80mm @ 25°
Hull: 60mm @ 0° / 80mm @ 0° / 80mm @ 0°
REAR
Turret: 80mm @ 0° / 80mm @ 30° / 80mm @ 20°
Hull: 80mm @ 9° / 80mm @ 30° / 80mm @ 30°
Germany's Tiger Tanks, Tiger I and II Combat Tactics, by Thomas L Jentz
-
No Gscholz.
The stalin II had much better armor than tiger I. They had comporable AP firepower - yet the Stalin II could knock out Tiger I from a much greater distance frontally than Tiger I could JSII. If you want to downgrade cast armor vs sheet armor then please do so to Tiger I was well. Its whole mantlet and thus whole turret front armor was a casting.
Side armor was similar and both could knock each out on the side at significant ranges.
Do you really think 120mm cast sloped at 60 degrees is inferior to 102mm at nearly vertical?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Do you really think 120mm cast sloped at 60 degrees is inferior to 102mm at nearly vertical?
I beg to differ Gurnherz, the JS-2 front turret armor was only 90mm thick cast steel vs. the Tigers 120mm cast steel mantlet and 100mm Krupp armor. The Tigers front hull armor was "only" 100mm thick, but was sloped 24 degrees and made of superior tempered face-hardened Krupp KC plates. As you can see in the picture below the Tigers front hull armor was hardly as "uncompromisingly flat" as many believe. The heavily sloped 120mm cast steel front hull armor of the JS-2 was arguably somewhat better, but with the exception of a few offensive engagements (like the Kursk battle) the Tiger was used in a defensive role, which would allow the Tiger to fight at ridgelines and/or prepared positions in a full or partial hull-down position, so its turret armor was usually the deciding factor.
The addition of the JS-2 in AH would be nice, especially for scenarios, but its slow rate of fire and 28 round capacity (vs. 92/106/120 in the Tiger depending on variant) will limit its use considerably.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
... yet the Stalin II could knock out Tiger I from a much greater distance frontally than Tiger I could JSII.
Eh ... the Tiger could knock out a JS-2 at 1800 meters ... this was a penetrating kill. The JS-2 could knock out a Tiger at 2000 meters IF it could hit it with the crappy Soviet optics, and the kill was not achieved by penetration, but rather the mass of the 122mm jamming the turret ring or crushing armor to the point of crippling systems behind it. At 2000 meters the JS-2 could cripple a Tiger. At 1800 meters the Tiger could kill a JS-2.
In one engagement I remember reading about, four Tigers were knocked out by JS-2s. Three were recovered during the night, only one was a total loss.
-
Tiger I : 88L/56 1000m could pen 129mm thats standard AP. The better tungsten core ammo was not available past 1944.
Tiger II: 88L/71 1000m could pen 191mm thats standard AP.
JS2: 122L/48 1000m could pen 136mm thats standard AP.
Armor Tiger I: Upper hull 102mm at 10 degrees
Lower hull 102mm at 24 degress
Armor JS2: Upper hull 120mm at 30 degrees
Lower hull 100mm at 30 degrees
To kill a JS2 at 1800m a Tiger Is gun would need what is listed for the Tiger IIs gun in performance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Tank vs Tank" by K. Macksey, page 144, a quote from General Hasoo von Mantueffel:
"It was shocking to find that, although my Tigers began to hit them at 2200m, our shells did not penetrate them untill we had closed to half that distance"
In reference to fighting JS tanks.
-
Mr. Squire, I stand corrected. I was indeed reading the wrong table mistaking the 88L/71 for the 88L/56. Grunherz' "much grater distance" statement is still in the wrong with your numbers though, and your armor numbers does not take quality into account (which was my main argument). The 88L/56 will still penetrate the turret of the JS-2 well beyond of 1000 meters.
-
Funny how modern Russian Tanks are only slightly larger than the JS series in terms of weight.
-
0 degree penetration figures:
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/wwiiol/scans/75_88_penetr.gif)
-
Those numbers seems to be in feet rather than meters. Anyways a lot of different number seem to float around here.
-
Originally posted by Albacore
Funny how modern Russian Tanks are only slightly larger than the JS series in terms of weight.
Not really. 40-50 tons is prolly the heaviest practical weight for a tank. The M1A2 is not a tank ... it's a desert battleship! ;)