Jump to content


The IS-2, best tank of WW2?


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

MrWuvems #21 Posted 25 May 2016 - 01:33 PM

    Major

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

View PostDennis420b, on 24 May 2016 - 11:29 PM, said:

 

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.

 

Well Russian tank design did. Ergonomic nightmares, lack of reliability, lower velocity guns with HEAT rounds and large calibers.

Western tank design focused on crew survivability and fire control systems with sabot rounds.


 

And what did the T-34 overthrow in tank design other than the shape of the frontal plate (which, again, they did wrong by not leaving the tank with enough space, causing crews to be trapped in often burning tanks)? The T-34 is the most mythologized weapon system since the katana.



Dennis420b #22 Posted 25 May 2016 - 11:45 PM

    Major

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

View PostMrWuvems, on 25 May 2016 - 07:33 AM, said:

 

Well Russian tank design did. Ergonomic nightmares, lack of reliability, lower velocity guns with HEAT rounds and large calibers.

Western tank design focused on crew survivability and fire control systems with sabot rounds.


 

And what did the T-34 overthrow in tank design other than the shape of the frontal plate (which, again, they did wrong by not leaving the tank with enough space, causing crews to be trapped in often burning tanks)? The T-34 is the most mythologized weapon system since the katana.

 

again, military historians by and large disagree.

 



MrWuvems #23 Posted 26 May 2016 - 02:33 PM

    Major

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

View PostDennis420b, on 25 May 2016 - 05:45 PM, said:

 

again, military historians by and large disagree.

 

 

In the [edited]way that having access to large industrial complexes makes the tank better. However, that takes away from the actual logistic war-winning effort of moving production into the Urals. It's not the tanks that were good, it was the way the economy was handled. It's like saying the pocket-carriers were better ships than Essex and Midway class because there were more.

KanonFyodor #24 Posted 26 May 2016 - 05:31 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5065 battles
  • 238
  • Member since:
    01-07-2016
Regarding the T-34, in a way that is similar to the A6M2 Zero, much of it's reputation rests on the events surrounding it's early use and never faded despite lagging performance. In 1941 the T-34 lacked many essential features and poor crews yet it's performance still made it into Werhmacht AARs. PzIIIs and Pz38s, the armored fist of the Panzer divisions, found it a very difficult opponent. When the Werhrmacht began to consider a new medium tank design (the Panther, ultimately) one of the first proposals was to make an improved version of the T-34. Obviously it did make a positive impression on the Germans. Despite improvements the German tanks were improving faster and by '43 it couldn't match the firepower of even the PzIV and the latest PzIIIs could knock it out at typical combat range with special ammo. So no, it didn't keep up with Jones's very well and the T-34/76 of 1943, even though vastly improved from the earlier versions, was not equal to it's contemporary opponents but it is far from mythologized. It earned it's reputation.

Dennis420b #25 Posted 27 May 2016 - 04:39 AM

    Major

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

View PostKanonFyodor, on 26 May 2016 - 11:31 AM, said:

Regarding the T-34, in a way that is similar to the A6M2 Zero, much of it's reputation rests on the events surrounding it's early use and never faded despite lagging performance. In 1941 the T-34 lacked many essential features and poor crews yet it's performance still made it into Werhmacht AARs. PzIIIs and Pz38s, the armored fist of the Panzer divisions, found it a very difficult opponent. When the Werhrmacht began to consider a new medium tank design (the Panther, ultimately) one of the first proposals was to make an improved version of the T-34. Obviously it did make a positive impression on the Germans. Despite improvements the German tanks were improving faster and by '43 it couldn't match the firepower of even the PzIV and the latest PzIIIs could knock it out at typical combat range with special ammo. So no, it didn't keep up with Jones's very well and the T-34/76 of 1943, even though vastly improved from the earlier versions, was not equal to it's contemporary opponents but it is far from mythologized. It earned it's reputation.

 

Again, the vast majority of military historians would disagree. You have to consider that when first encountered the PZ III and PZ IV were out classed by it. The T-34 was the best tank of the day in 41-42. Not until the PZ IV f2 did the Germans have a tank with a gun capable of taking it on, and even then still the PZ IV f2 was still under armored(or more to the point poorly shaped). To compound this the standard AT gun for the Germans was still the 37mm. True the 50mm Pak 38 was available but this was not everywhere and still needed to be close to get a kill. The Pak 40 was in service but not yet in wide enough service. Thats why they rushed French 75mm field guns on different frames with strengthening bands on the barrel (to fire higher power rounds) into service. I am not sure what rounds you are talking about that the Pz III could use, as after 1943 the Pz III and Pz IV were switched in roles of support and tank proper, and the later models of Pz III carried the low velocity 75mm. The largest high velocity gun fitted to the PZ III was the 50mm KwK 39 L/60 of the J-M models (1941-43).

Dennis420b #26 Posted 27 May 2016 - 04:42 AM

    Major

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

View PostMrWuvems, on 26 May 2016 - 08:33 AM, said:

 

In the [edited]way that having access to large industrial complexes makes the tank better. However, that takes away from the actual logistic war-winning effort of moving production into the Urals. It's not the tanks that were good, it was the way the economy was handled. It's like saying the pocket-carriers were better ships than Essex and Midway class because there were more.

 

Well yes quantity has its own attributes as does quality. Thats why you have to step away from simply comparing one on one and look at the overall strategic effects of a design when considering which is best.

KanonFyodor #27 Posted 29 May 2016 - 10:16 PM

    Sergeant

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

View PostDennis420b, on 26 May 2016 - 11:39 PM, said:

 

Again, the vast majority of military historians would disagree. You have to consider that when first encountered the PZ III and PZ IV were out classed by it. The T-34 was the best tank of the day in 41-42. Not until the PZ IV f2 did the Germans have a tank with a gun capable of taking it on, and even then still the PZ IV f2 was still under armored(or more to the point poorly shaped). To compound this the standard AT gun for the Germans was still the 37mm. True the 50mm Pak 38 was available but this was not everywhere and still needed to be close to get a kill. The Pak 40 was in service but not yet in wide enough service. Thats why they rushed French 75mm field guns on different frames with strengthening bands on the barrel (to fire higher power rounds) into service. I am not sure what rounds you are talking about that the Pz III could use, as after 1943 the Pz III and Pz IV were switched in roles of support and tank proper, and the later models of Pz III carried the low velocity 75mm. The largest high velocity gun fitted to the PZ III was the 50mm KwK 39 L/60 of the J-M models (1941-43).

 

Ha! I think we passed each other in the night, metaphorically. I think we actually agree if I take your meaning correctly. I suppose my post was not clear enough but I was disagreeing with MrWuvems and defending the reputation of the T-34 while acknowledging it's fading capabilities.I do not think any historian would disagree with that.

 

The round I was referring to is the PzGr40 and/or PzGr40/1, tungsten cored AP rounds. My understanding was that tungsten core rounds became increasingly scarce as the war progressed so that by 1943 they were hard for tankers to get a hold of, similar to the HVAP for the US 76mm. The more conventional PzGr39 was the default standard AP round. It is also true that the T-34/76 was past it's glory days by then but I don't think it lost any of its reputation, which it absolutely deserves. The IIIN was never a primary variant, there were over 3 PzIIIL-M produced for every one IIIN.



Panthergraf #28 Posted 31 May 2016 - 01:31 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 37507 battles
  • 1,516
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

Just asking: What were the glory days of the T-34-76? 

 


Edited by Panthergraf, 31 May 2016 - 01:35 PM.


mockney_piers #29 Posted 07 June 2016 - 02:59 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 10275 battles
  • 2,445
  • [FILTH]
  • Member since:
    01-20-2016

"what was the best tank" isn't really setting up much of a frame of reference is it.

 

You could easily argue the best tank of WW2 was the Centurion...the fact that it didn't actually manage to do any actual shooting at the enemy in the war however... ;)



Matthew J35U5 #30 Posted 16 June 2016 - 12:36 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostParty Poison91, on 22 May 2016 - 05:29 AM, said:

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

View PostGingerNinjaMax, on 22 May 2016 - 02:18 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.

Propaganda is usually released to the public, not confined to archives for 70 years. 

View PostDennis420b, on 25 May 2016 - 12:29 AM, said:

 

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.

I think it would be fair to say that the west and the east each carried on with evolutions of their existing designs. 

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 25 May 2016 - 01:20 AM, said:

 

"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.

I'm glad to see you don't need me to have this kind of conversation. ;P

View PostNot that proud, on 19 May 2016 - 02:45 PM, said:

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

 

 

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?

The IS-2 was good, the best heavy tank of the war, faint praise though that may be. I don't know much about this particular incident, but EE usually cross-references with German records, so there are worse sources. 

 

Positives:

Fast enough to maneuver with medium tanks off-road

One of the best-protected tanks relative to its mass. 

Gun was an effective anti-fortification and anti-tank weapon

Negatives:

Early armour design was bad–a holdover from the KV-13 project. 

Ammunition capacity was low, and reloading was fairly slow. (2 rpm average for all shells ~4 rpm for ready rack, worse than 2 rpm for shells not in ready rack)

(This isn't intended as an exhaustive list, just things that were on my mind)

Part of why it may be overlooked in western sources is that availability was fairly low, ~2500 were produced total, only ~1400 or so by the end of the war. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


GingerNinjaMax #31 Posted 22 June 2016 - 10:09 PM

    First lieutenant

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 16 June 2016 - 12:36 PM, said:

Propaganda is usually released to the public, not confined to archives for 70 years.

 

Yes very good.  The comment was made as a generalisation of soviet era "facts".

There are too many cases to list of (shall we be kind and call them) "errors". Now where does it say that this document was never used for public consumption either at the time or later or was just placed straight in the archives. Also what is to say that the document was first shall we say "exaggerated" by the unit involved and then by their commander and then by the next chief in line and passed all the way up to Stalin via the Commisars.

So before you dismiss comments about the lack of reliability of Soviet Documents and for that matter the publishings of all belligerents during the War, could you please Matthew stop being so patronising and show us the proof that this document was buried for the 70 years and never made public


Edited by GingerNinjaMax, 22 June 2016 - 10:23 PM.


Party Poison91 #32 Posted 27 June 2016 - 09:16 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostGingerNinjaMax, on 22 June 2016 - 10:09 PM, said:

 

Yes very good.  The comment was made as a generalisation of soviet era "facts".

There are too many cases to list of (shall we be kind and call them) "errors". Now where does it say that this document was never used for public consumption either at the time or later or was just placed straight in the archives. Also what is to say that the document was first shall we say "exaggerated" by the unit involved and then by their commander and then by the next chief in line and passed all the way up to Stalin via the Commisars.

So before you dismiss comments about the lack of reliability of Soviet Documents and for that matter the publishings of all belligerents during the War, could you please Matthew stop being so patronising and show us the proof that this document was buried for the 70 years and never made public

 

This.
"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

JAG THE GEMINI #33 Posted 27 June 2016 - 09:39 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 65326 battles
  • 2,429
  • [FAUST]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostMrWuvems, on 25 May 2016 - 02:33 PM, said:

 

Well Russian tank design did. Ergonomic nightmares, lack of reliability, lower velocity guns with HEAT rounds and large calibers.

Western tank design focused on crew survivability and fire control systems with sabot rounds.


 

And what did the T-34 overthrow in tank design other than the shape of the frontal plate (which, again, they did wrong by not leaving the tank with enough space, causing crews to be trapped in often burning tanks)? The T-34 is the most mythologized weapon system since the katana.

THIS!! If I had a choice I would have prefered a Tiger, Panther or Pershing EVERY day because I do not want to be in a cramped stell box in which my crews life doesn't mean ANYTHING.


Edited by JAG THE GEMINI, 27 June 2016 - 09:40 PM.

 

 

My youtube channel:https://www.youtube....w_as=subscriber


WidowMaker1711 #34 Posted 27 June 2016 - 09:52 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11839 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014
Seriously. All these awful topics about tanks usually including the IS2 and the Tiger lately and this is the one Matthew wakes up for

For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Sqn Ldr B #35 Posted 27 June 2016 - 10:03 PM

    Major

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

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 27 June 2016 - 10:52 PM, said:

Seriously. All these awful topics about tanks usually including the IS2 and the Tiger lately and this is the one Matthew wakes up for

 

At this point that's the limit of historical topics on this forum. Basically "I LIEK TIGGER!" and then "Well, aaactuallllyyy..." *insert page-long dissertation on how absolutely amazing the Russians are.

"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


LGz JETHRO66 #36 Posted 28 June 2016 - 12:56 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 25781 battles
  • 1,682
  • [LGZ]
  • Member since:
    02-23-2014
image.jpegStuglll 30000 kills

Matthew J35U5 #37 Posted 28 June 2016 - 01:09 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostGingerNinjaMax, on 22 June 2016 - 05:09 PM, said:

 

Yes very good.  The comment was made as a generalisation of soviet era "facts".

There are too many cases to list of (shall we be kind and call them) "errors". Now where does it say that this document was never used for public consumption either at the time or later or was just placed straight in the archives. Also what is to say that the document was first shall we say "exaggerated" by the unit involved and then by their commander and then by the next chief in line and passed all the way up to Stalin via the Commisars.

So before you dismiss comments about the lack of reliability of Soviet Documents and for that matter the publishings of all belligerents during the War, could you please Matthew stop being so patronising and show us the proof that this document was buried for the 70 years and never made public

Poisoning the well isn't a debate strategy. Anyway, I had been thinking of this incident where EE looked at records from both sides, the OP's snippet has no context. 

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 27 June 2016 - 04:52 PM, said:

Seriously. All these awful topics about tanks usually including the IS2 and the Tiger lately and this is the one Matthew wakes up for

I've been busy, yes.


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


WidowMaker1711 #38 Posted 28 June 2016 - 02:19 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11839 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 28 June 2016 - 01:09 PM, said:

I've been busy, yes.

 

Well welcome back. The lunatics are now running the asylum.


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Party Poison91 #39 Posted 28 June 2016 - 07:13 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16129 battles
  • 2,650
  • [X-OFF]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013

View PostJAG THE GEMINI, on 27 June 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

THIS!! If I had a choice I would have prefered a Tiger, Panther or Pershing EVERY day because I do not want to be in a cramped stell box in which my crews life doesn't mean ANYTHING.

 

I'd prefer the Churchill over the first two you mentioned.
"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

WidowMaker1711 #40 Posted 28 June 2016 - 07:15 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11839 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostParty Poison91, on 28 June 2016 - 07:13 PM, said:

 

I'd prefer the Churchill over the first two you mentioned.

 

Find me a hill and find me a contemporary tank that can climb it as well.


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users