Panzer III please

[Butcher]

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.

[Tank-Ace]

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.

[Butcher]

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?

[tunnelrat]

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.

[Tank-Ace]

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).

[Butcher]

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?

[Spikes]

[Tank-Ace]

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.

[Butcher]

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.

[Tank-Ace]

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.

[haggerty]

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

[10thmd]

Maybe you cangat a u-boat to shoot that 57mm at.

[Karnak]

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.

[haggerty]

57mm is the 6lber.

Oops, I knew that, just misplaced my brain whenever I posted that.