Jump to content


The IS-2, best tank of WW2?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
98 replies to this topic

Not that proud #1 Posted 19 May 2016 - 07:45 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 17494 battles
  • 5,566
  • Member since:
    02-22-2014

That is the question.  I was messing around on the Internet, and came across this:

 

Block Quote 

Tanks armed with the 122 mm gun did not see much combat. They were mainly used for defensive purposes West of Tarnopol. Tanks opened fire at enemy tanks 2200-2400 meters away. During a single battle, Senior Lieutenant Makogonov's tank company destroyed and burned 17 Tiger tanks with direct hits. Of those, 8 were destroyed by Junior Lieutenant Pankov, 5 by Junior Lieutenant Pchelin, and 4 by platoon commander, Lieutenant Romashin."

 

It appears to be a report on the IS-2 from the Soviet archives. I found it here: 

 

http://tankarchives....f-is-2.html?m=1

 

Needless to say, I cracked up when I read this given the broad German superiority myth that continues in popular history.  So, how good was the IS-2 and why doesn't it get more respect?



Sqn Ldr B #2 Posted 19 May 2016 - 07:58 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014
It didn't get more respect because the USSR wasn't exactly on talking terms with the rest of the civilised world for forty years after the war and no one found out much about it. Still definitely a good tank though.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Not that proud #3 Posted 19 May 2016 - 08:12 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 17494 battles
  • 5,566
  • Member since:
    02-22-2014

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 19 May 2016 - 02:58 PM, said:

It didn't get more respect because the USSR wasn't exactly on talking terms with the rest of the civilised world for forty years after the war and no one found out much about it. Still definitely a good tank though.

 

That's definitely true, and the US has made a tradition of vastly overblowing our contribution to the European war to the detriment of the rest of the Allies, but maybe it's time to give Russia some of it's due. 



SGT Rock 1963 #4 Posted 19 May 2016 - 08:50 PM

    Major

  • WoTC Ambassador
  • 12844 battles
  • 4,564
  • [JOCO]
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013

View PostNot that proud, on 19 May 2016 - 03:12 PM, said:

 

That's definitely true, and the US has made a tradition of vastly overblowing our contribution to the European war to the detriment of the rest of the Allies, but maybe it's time to give Russia some of it's due.

They did give them their due, In 1945. When the allies let USSR capture Berlin on MayDay. They earned that right, After destroying the german army on the Eastern front, Basically alone. Albeit with limited support from some brave british pilots.


                                                                                                               

SGT_Rock_1963   On mixer, Leave a follow. 

 

 

 


MrWuvems #5 Posted 19 May 2016 - 09:10 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

Well it did have the usual Russian flaws. The loading system was awful, and it wasn't proofed against 75mm guns.

 

But that's beside the point, you've been on the Red Orchestra forums haven't you?



Sqn Ldr B #6 Posted 19 May 2016 - 09:13 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostSGT Rock 1963, on 19 May 2016 - 09:50 PM, said:

They did give them their due, In 1945. When the allies let USSR capture Berlin on MayDay. They earned that right after destroying the german army on the Eastern front, Basically alone. Allbeit with limited support from some brave british pilots.

 

151 Wing RAF, I believe that is.

http://forum-console...oyal-air-force/


"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


KanonFyodor #7 Posted 19 May 2016 - 09:47 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5065 battles
  • 238
  • Member since:
    01-07-2016

View PostNot that proud, on 19 May 2016 - 03:12 PM, said:

 

That's definitely true, and the US has made a tradition of vastly overblowing our contribution to the European war to the detriment of the rest of the Allies, but maybe it's time to give Russia some of it's due. 

 

Absolutely true, but Soviet propoganda also overplayed the performance of its forces as well. Claims like the one in the original post have to take that into consideration.

Edited by KanonFyodor, 23 May 2016 - 03:55 PM.


SGT Rock 1963 #8 Posted 20 May 2016 - 12:17 AM

    Major

  • WoTC Ambassador
  • 12844 battles
  • 4,564
  • [JOCO]
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013

View PostSGT Rock 1963, on 19 May 2016 - 03:50 PM, said:

They did give them their due, In 1945. When the allies let USSR capture Berlin on MayDay. They earned that right, After destroying the german army on the Eastern front, Basically alone. Albeit with limited support from some brave british pilots.

 

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 19 May 2016 - 04:13 PM, said:

 

151 Wing RAF, I believe that is.

http://forum-console...oyal-air-force/

Sqn Ldr B is where I picked up this intel. On topic, My favorite in-game heavy is the IS. Would like the premium lS-2 as well. Berlin trio anyone?


                                                                                                               

SGT_Rock_1963   On mixer, Leave a follow. 

 

 

 


Party Poison91 #9 Posted 22 May 2016 - 10:29 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013
Yeeeeeah, I would take reports from the Soviet archives with a lethal dose of salt.
"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

GingerNinjaMax #10 Posted 22 May 2016 - 07:18 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 6523 battles
  • 510
  • Member since:
    12-14-2013

View PostParty Poison91, on 22 May 2016 - 10:29 AM, said:

Yeeeeeah, I would take reports from the Soviet archives with a lethal dose of salt.

 

Yeah remember 1st Gulf War the Iraqi press conferences every day said oh we have shot down 10 or 15 or 20 or whatever they felt like Allied planes. As said before its propaganda and its good for morale.

Sqn Ldr B #11 Posted 22 May 2016 - 08:14 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View PostGingerNinjaMax, on 22 May 2016 - 08:18 PM, said:

 

Yeah remember 1st Gulf War the Iraqi press conferences every day said oh we have shot down 10 or 15 or 20 or whatever they felt like Allied planes. As said before its propaganda and its good for morale.

 

During the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe once claimed they'd shot down, in one day, more aircraft than the Royal Air Force actually had in service at the time. Everyone makes it up, it's good for morale.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


Greywoolfe64 #12 Posted 22 May 2016 - 09:14 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16831 battles
  • 2,187
  • [27PZR]
  • Member since:
    02-13-2016

View PostSGT Rock 1963, on 20 May 2016 - 12:17 AM, said:

 

Sqn Ldr B is where I picked up this intel. On topic, My favorite in-game heavy is the IS. Would like the premium lS-2 as well. Berlin trio anyone?

 

I'm still holding out for the IS-2- it's the one tank on the Soviet tree  that I'd buy in a heartbeat as soon as I knew it was available.

"Some say that he dines on lower glacis, and that he once spent three weeks hiding in a thick French bush. All we know is, he's called the Stug!"

Current garage (MOE's marked with star*) -click spoiler.

Spoiler

 


Dennis420b #13 Posted 23 May 2016 - 10:43 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

Many factors come into play when you consider the best piece of military hardware. IMHO and many historians and military experts, the T-34 was the best tank of WW2. It was a great individual tank, but also you have to consider how the tank fits into the nations military scheme. For example the Tiger I had a fearsome reputation and did a great job in the field (especially considering only 1,300+ were built), but its maintenance issues, production cost and development really was a drag on the German economy, logistics and motor pools. It was simply not worth it in the long run. Whereas the simple T-34 was near perfect to the nation, despite having some issues for the individual crews. By the Time the IS-2 was on the scene the war was over. It was basically clean up time. Gauging its performance in such an environment is difficult to do with accuracy. I would sooner believe that weapons/systems/abilities like the T-34, IL-2, Jeep, M1 Garand, P-51 Mustang, Hawker Typhoon/Tempest, Mosquito, B-17, Both American and Soviet Artillery, PPSH 41, Katyusha Rocket, British Intelligence, American production capability and Soviet manpower were what won the war and had the greatest impact. I am sure I left out a bunch of stuff, but really specialty weapons like heavy tanks were only a small part of the war.

 



AngryL0AF #14 Posted 24 May 2016 - 07:56 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 25339 battles
  • 656
  • [10SR]
  • Member since:
    04-18-2014

^ what Dennis said.

 

"Best" is a fairly loaded word to use. In terms of one on one, perfectly tuned and crewed vs. how they fit into tactical, strategic and logistic doctrine changes the answer. The exaggerated evolution of technology that occurred between 1939 and 1945 (very Anglo-centric view of the duration of the war.) also meant that different tanks had greater impact at different times.



Lord_Karnage1337 #15 Posted 24 May 2016 - 09:37 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5626 battles
  • 144
  • [0_O]
  • Member since:
    12-07-2015

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 19 May 2016 - 07:58 PM, said:

It didn't get more respect because the USSR wasn't exactly on talking terms with the rest of the civilised world for forty years after the war and no one found out much about it. Still definitely a good tank though.

 

It's your opinion. I believe many Russians and Slavs will be insulted with your post.

 

 



Sqn Ldr B #16 Posted 24 May 2016 - 02:57 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View Postsinanziricus, on 24 May 2016 - 10:37 AM, said:

 

It's your opinion. I believe many Russians and Slavs will be insulted with your post.

 

 

 

Russians and Slavs will be insulted by my post because I pointed out the obvious fact that the government of the USSR did not make public any information after the war and were not on the kind of terms with Western countries to tell them such information? It isn't an opinion, it's a rather blatant fact. Nice logic there. I believe those many Russians and Slavs maybe need to get a grip if they're insulted by that.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


MrWuvems #17 Posted 24 May 2016 - 03:30 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 23 May 2016 - 04:43 PM, said:

Many factors come into play when you consider the best piece of military hardware. IMHO and many historians and military experts, the T-34 was the best tank of WW2. It was a great individual tank, but also you have to consider how the tank fits into the nations military scheme. For example the Tiger I had a fearsome reputation and did a great job in the field (especially considering only 1,300+ were built), but its maintenance issues, production cost and development really was a drag on the German economy, logistics and motor pools. It was simply not worth it in the long run. Whereas the simple T-34 was near perfect to the nation, despite having some issues for the individual crews. By the Time the IS-2 was on the scene the war was over. It was basically clean up time. Gauging its performance in such an environment is difficult to do with accuracy. I would sooner believe that weapons/systems/abilities like the T-34, IL-2, Jeep, M1 Garand, P-51 Mustang, Hawker Typhoon/Tempest, Mosquito, B-17, Both American and Soviet Artillery, PPSH 41, Katyusha Rocket, British Intelligence, American production capability and Soviet manpower were what won the war and had the greatest impact. I am sure I left out a bunch of stuff, but really specialty weapons like heavy tanks were only a small part of the war.

 

 

I wouldn't put the T-34 in the same breath as the Garand or Jeep. Because the Garand shot straight and didn't jam and the Jeep didn't exceed half its operational life span driving from the factory onto the train. Disposable garbage is still garbage. Even when the T-34 had "superweapon" status its combat effectiveness was just awful.


 

The M4 gets a bad rap, but it's something to look at. It was expandable and modifiable to ridiculous levels (everything from the Sherman Crocodile to the Super-Sherman), had comparable firepower to other medium tanks of similar timeframes (see: Korea for late-model M4s vs late-model T34s) and excellent crew survivability when taking a penetrating hit. But more importantly, the tank could be repaired and maintained far better than the Pz4 or T-34 while having absurd levels of mass-production behind it.


 

Note I left the Cromwell and Crusader out because I simply don't know how field-reliable they were but UK tanks sort of... had a "total crew loss" problem at times.



Lord_Karnage1337 #18 Posted 25 May 2016 - 05:24 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5626 battles
  • 144
  • [0_O]
  • Member since:
    12-07-2015

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 24 May 2016 - 02:57 PM, said:

 

Russians and Slavs will be insulted by my post because I pointed out the obvious fact that the government of the USSR did not make public any information after the war and were not on the kind of terms with Western countries to tell them such information? It isn't an opinion, it's a rather blatant fact. Nice logic there. I believe those many Russians and Slavs maybe need to get a grip if they're insulted by that.

 

And why do you think your government is different? Governments of USA and UK did not make public any information as well.. they just gave you false stories in which you believe. "It's a rather blatant fact".... those facts are based on your belief.

 

"USSR wasn't exactly on talking terms with the rest of the civilised world" 

 

You are saying that Russians and Slavs are not civilized? That we were stupid and you were smart?

 

We can talk about history but please stay neutral, and choose your words carefully.  



Dennis420b #19 Posted 25 May 2016 - 05:29 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 26817 battles
  • 3,547
  • Member since:
    09-04-2013

View PostMrWuvems, on 24 May 2016 - 09:30 AM, said:

 

I wouldn't put the T-34 in the same breath as the Garand or Jeep. Because the Garand shot straight and didn't jam and the Jeep didn't exceed half its operational life span driving from the factory onto the train. Disposable garbage is still garbage. Even when the T-34 had "superweapon" status its combat effectiveness was just awful.


 

The M4 gets a bad rap, but it's something to look at. It was expandable and modifiable to ridiculous levels (everything from the Sherman Crocodile to the Super-Sherman), had comparable firepower to other medium tanks of similar timeframes (see: Korea for late-model M4s vs late-model T34s) and excellent crew survivability when taking a penetrating hit. But more importantly, the tank could be repaired and maintained far better than the Pz4 or T-34 while having absurd levels of mass-production behind it.


 

Note I left the Cromwell and Crusader out because I simply don't know how field-reliable they were but UK tanks sort of... had a "total crew loss" problem at times.

 

Well there is a reason that tank design followed the T-34 plan and not the M4. I see your opinion and note it, but your opinion is not shared by the vast majority of military historians. Most view the T-34 as a revolution in tank design.

Sqn Ldr B #20 Posted 25 May 2016 - 06:20 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014

View Postsinanziricus, on 25 May 2016 - 06:24 AM, said:

 

And why do you think your government is different? Governments of USA and UK did not make public any information as well.. they just gave you false stories in which you believe. "It's a rather blatant fact".... those facts are based on your belief.

 

"USSR wasn't exactly on talking terms with the rest of the civilised world" 

 

You are saying that Russians and Slavs are not civilized? That we were stupid and you were smart?

 

We can talk about history but please stay neutral, and choose your words carefully.  

 

"The USSR wasn't exactly on talking terms with the rest of the civilised world", which, if you knew your grammar correctly, would imply that the USSR was in fact included in the concept of the 'civilised world'. If I had said "The USSR wasn't exactly on talking terms with the civilised world", then that would imply that the USSR was not part of the civilised world, but that isn't what I wrote. I suggest you brush up on your English skills before getting up on your high horse and shouting about things.

Edited by Sqn Ldr B, 25 May 2016 - 06:21 AM.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users