Jump to content


The IS-2, best tank of WW2?


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

Party Poison91 #41 Posted 28 June 2016 - 07:16 PM

    Major

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

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 28 June 2016 - 07:15 PM, said:

 

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

 

Damn right. Not to mention the very high crew survivability.
"That's a typical, shabby NAZI trick!"

HighbornShihtzu #42 Posted 28 June 2016 - 11:27 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 24610 battles
  • 653
  • Member since:
    04-16-2014

T-34 was the best tank of WWII  (followed by the various Sherman lines), everything else is subjective nonsense.

 

Why?  Simple answer WWII was a war of mass industrialization brought forth on both the battlefield and the civilian population.  Furthermore, both in the 'here and now of the war years' and up to present day the T-34 set the bar for how tanks are designed, deployed, researched, etc on the battlefield and more importantly off the battlefield in geo-political/socio-economic spheres.  The T-34 is the symbol of this industrialization that now dominates modern war. 

 

 


Edited by HighbornShihtzu, 28 June 2016 - 11:29 PM.


JAG THE GEMINI #43 Posted 08 July 2016 - 06:22 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 66070 battles
  • 2,456
  • [FAUST]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostHighbornShihtzu, on 29 June 2016 - 12:27 AM, said:

T-34 was the best tank of WWII  (followed by the various Sherman lines), everything else is subjective nonsense.

 

Why?  Simple answer WWII was a war of mass industrialization brought forth on both the battlefield and the civilian population.  Furthermore, both in the 'here and now of the war years' and up to present day the T-34 set the bar for how tanks are designed, deployed, researched, etc on the battlefield and more importantly off the battlefield in geo-political/socio-economic spheres.  The T-34 is the symbol of this industrialization that now dominates modern war. 

 

 

 

This is not true imo. If anything, the rest of the world apart from the fallen UDSSR build Tanks in numbers after WW2 which are much closer to the production numbers of the Panther(about 6000 units. Tanks like the chieftain, centurion, Patten 46/48, Type 59 and Leopard 1 were all prodcued in numbers between 1000-11000. The Panther is EXACTLY in the middle of that numbers. The sovjet union was "OVERPRODUCING" and thus did not set a whole new bar for the entire wlrd regarding tank development/production rather than for themselfs. Some tank-Experts even consider the Panther to be the first MBT due to the good combination of armor, speed and firepower. The T34 lacked in armor, it was just the sloped structure of the tank which could at best deflect incoming shells. Another important thing of MBT´s is crew comfort/survivability. western Tanks sillouette were/are  higher than those of the old sovjet union ones to give the crew more space. Something which was NOT! a priority in the T34 design and production years, it was "JUST" a potent, mass produced tank which used some older but brilliant ideas of a british tank designer.

Edited by JAG THE GEMINI, 08 July 2016 - 07:01 PM.

 

 

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


Chieftain WGA #44 Posted 25 July 2016 - 07:46 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 4 battles
  • 246
  • Member since:
    06-28-2013

View PostDennis420b, on 25 May 2016 - 05:29 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.

 

 

Do they? Folks like Zaloga and myself view the T-34 as an evolutionary dead end. That's not to say the tank wasn't effective, or very suited for the Soviet position, but it's also not stating that it's the best thing since sliced bread.


 

Face it, what actually has been kept over from T-34? What was introduced by T-34? About the best that can be said for it is the diesel engine / rear drive, but even at that, diesels were well familiar with other nations, and the British, at least, were also using rear engine rear drive, as had the US in the few rear-drive tanks that they had bought from Christie such as the T3 Medium.


 

Christie suspension? Ditched. Even the Soviets were planning on getting rid of it in favour of torsion bars. British moved to it, but then also ditched it. Sloped armor? Frontal sloped armor was long known, but the sides and rear of T-34 got un-sloped for the T-44 and onwards. It was an utter waste of space. Lack of sprocket wheel? Ditched in all following tanks.


 

Basically every feature of T-34 was already developed by the time it came along, or would be relegated to the dustbin of history. That's not to say that T-34 wasn't a very effective tank, and I can't imagine that the Soviets could have built one better suited to their needs. But revolutionarily the best tank? An arguable statement.


 


 


 



Nocturnal814 #45 Posted 25 July 2016 - 08:10 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 22 May 2016 - 12:14 PM, said:

 

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.

 

the British were also prone to exaggeration. On one particular raid they claimed 60 kills on a day in which the luftwaffe lost a total of 2 aircraft on all fronts...

something, something, something, dark side...

Nocturnal814 #46 Posted 25 July 2016 - 08:24 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostChieftain WGA, on 25 July 2016 - 11:46 AM, said:

 

 

Do they? Folks like Zaloga and myself view the T-34 as an evolutionary dead end. That's not to say the tank wasn't effective, or very suited for the Soviet position, but it's also not stating that it's the best thing since sliced bread.


 

Face it, what actually has been kept over from T-34? What was introduced by T-34? About the best that can be said for it is the diesel engine / rear drive, but even at that, diesels were well familiar with other nations, and the British, at least, were also using rear engine rear drive, as had the US in the few rear-drive tanks that they had bought from Christie such as the T3 Medium.


 

Christie suspension? Ditched. Even the Soviets were planning on getting rid of it in favour of torsion bars. British moved to it, but then also ditched it. Sloped armor? Frontal sloped armor was long known, but the sides and rear of T-34 got un-sloped for the T-44 and onwards. It was an utter waste of space. Lack of sprocket wheel? Ditched in all following tanks.


 

Basically every feature of T-34 was already developed by the time it came along, or would be relegated to the dustbin of history. That's not to say that T-34 wasn't a very effective tank, and I can't imagine that the Soviets could have built one better suited to their needs. But revolutionarily the best tank? An arguable statement.


 


 


 

 

Posted Image

 



something, something, something, dark side...

WidowMaker1711 #47 Posted 25 July 2016 - 09:55 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11935 battles
  • 10,009
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostNocturnal814, on 25 July 2016 - 08:10 PM, said:

 

the British were also prone to exaggeration. On one particular raid they claimed 60 kills on a day in which the luftwaffe lost a total of 2 aircraft on all fronts...

 

Same can be said about the Luftwaffe. By Mid August 1940 they were bleating to the world that Britain was down to a handful of airworthy fighters and the Britain was all but beaten. Which belies two facts. 1: Beaverbrook had by sheer force of personality upped production rate from .5 built -1 destroyed to 2-1 for Spitfires and from 1-1 to approx 3-1 for Hurricanes and 2: Britain had established a centralised repair centre for damaged airframes. It wasnt on a squadron by squadron basis like the Germans.


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Nocturnal814 #48 Posted 26 July 2016 - 01:20 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 25 July 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

 

Same can be said about the Luftwaffe. By Mid August 1940 they were bleating to the world that Britain was down to a handful of airworthy fighters and the Britain was all but beaten. Which belies two facts. 1: Beaverbrook had by sheer force of personality upped production rate from .5 built -1 destroyed to 2-1 for Spitfires and from 1-1 to approx 3-1 for Hurricanes and 2: Britain had established a centralised repair centre for damaged airframes. It wasnt on a squadron by squadron basis like the Germans.

 

you probably didn't read what I was responding to, but he said pretty much what you did. I was making the point that it was common for all air forces to do exactly that. Shared kills were common, with each pilot often claiming it as his kill leading to inflated kill records

something, something, something, dark side...

WidowMaker1711 #49 Posted 26 July 2016 - 01:26 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11935 battles
  • 10,009
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostNocturnal814, on 26 July 2016 - 01:20 AM, said:

 

you probably didn't read what I was responding to, but he said pretty much what you did. I was making the point that it was common for all air forces to do exactly that. Shared kills were common, with each pilot often claiming it as his kill leading to inflated kill records

 

Of course in the Battle of Britain air to air kills are skewed. Because if a RAF Pilot bailed out hes on friendly soil and lives to fight again. A Luftwaffe Pilot/Crew bailing out is captured and out of the fight.


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Sqn Ldr B #50 Posted 26 July 2016 - 02:50 PM

    Major

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

View PostNocturnal814, on 25 July 2016 - 09:10 PM, said:

 

the British were also prone to exaggeration. On one particular raid they claimed 60 kills on a day in which the luftwaffe lost a total of 2 aircraft on all fronts...

 

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 22 May 2016 - 09:14 PM, said:

 

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.

 

People really need to stop assuming everything I post is intended to make the British look good and their enemies bad.


"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


Matthew J35U5 #51 Posted 30 July 2016 - 10:40 PM

    Major

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

View PostJAG THE GEMINI, on 08 July 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

 

This is not true imo. If anything, the rest of the world apart from the fallen UDSSR build Tanks in numbers after WW2 which are much closer to the production numbers of the Panther(about 6000 units. Tanks like the chieftain, centurion, Patten 46/48, Type 59 and Leopard 1 were all prodcued in numbers between 1000-11000. The Panther is EXACTLY in the middle of that numbers. The sovjet union was "OVERPRODUCING" and thus did not set a whole new bar for the entire wlrd regarding tank development/production rather than for themselfs.

I wonder if the west not actually fighting any (major*) wars after WW2 has anything to do with them not building that many tanks. Good thing that Germany during WWII was relatively peaceful and had no shortage of tanks. 

 

*With 'major' meaning something on the scale of WW2.


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


Nocturnal814 #52 Posted 31 July 2016 - 01:47 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 25 July 2016 - 05:26 PM, said:

 

Of course in the Battle of Britain air to air kills are skewed. Because if a RAF Pilot bailed out hes on friendly soil and lives to fight again. A Luftwaffe Pilot/Crew bailing out is captured and out of the fight.

 

you clearly have no idea what I meant...

something, something, something, dark side...

MrWuvems #53 Posted 01 August 2016 - 02:09 PM

    Major

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

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 30 July 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

I wonder if the west not actually fighting any (major*) wars after WW2 has anything to do with them not building that many tanks. Good thing that Germany during WWII was relatively peaceful and had no shortage of tanks. 

 

*With 'major' meaning something on the scale of WW2.

 

​Well, no qualifiers really needed. From a per-head perspective, we're living in Pax Global since the end of WW2 where deaths from conflict(both wars and, globally, murder but there are bad pockets, always are) are at a historical "wait what?" levels of low. That and the way technology shook out has moved development away from big death bricks and more towards autonomous systems and things good at killing expensive death bricks, with the notable exception of USN carrier task forces.

Nocturnal814 #54 Posted 01 August 2016 - 02:25 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostSqn Ldr B, on 26 July 2016 - 06:50 AM, said:

 

 

People really need to stop assuming everything I post is intended to make the British look good and their enemies bad.

 

based on your usual posts, it would be hard not to assume every post you make is meant to paint the brits in only a positive light....

something, something, something, dark side...

Sqn Ldr B #55 Posted 01 August 2016 - 02:29 PM

    Major

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

View PostNocturnal814, on 01 August 2016 - 03:25 PM, said:

 

based on your usual posts, it would be hard not to assume every post you make is meant to paint the brits in only a positive light....

 

No, you're just making stupid assumptions. Particularly when one considers that I actually did point out that everyone makes things up.

"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


JAG THE GEMINI #56 Posted 03 August 2016 - 06:19 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 66070 battles
  • 2,456
  • [FAUST]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 30 July 2016 - 11:40 PM, said:

I wonder if the west not actually fighting any (major*) wars after WW2 has anything to do with them not building that many tanks. Good thing that Germany during WWII was relatively peaceful and had no shortage of tanks. 

 

*With 'major' meaning something on the scale of WW2.

 

​WHAT!? Cold war WAS a major thing. Sovjet russia was for DECADES a major thread for the west yet tank numbers were much lower than those of the sovjets which were "overproducing" even after ww2 like I already wrote so there is a DEFINITIVE difference between western and russian tank "doctrine/philosophy".

Edited by JAG THE GEMINI, 03 August 2016 - 06:23 AM.

 

 

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


DeRKrT #57 Posted 21 August 2016 - 07:32 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14508 battles
  • 53
  • Member since:
    12-04-2015
I wouldn't put it in the top 3. They were good tanks that done their job for their time, post war improvements in the design of tanks, in the tank gun and in ammunition, really showed that this tank and most other heavy tanks, were becoming obsolete. The T-34 branch, Panther and the Pershing are examples of influential design tank designs.

Moderator for the World Of Tanks Community on the PS4

TURDF3RG3S0N #58 Posted 22 September 2016 - 10:46 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21399 battles
  • 261
  • [SDRGN]
  • Member since:
    07-20-2016

Not sure if it has been mentioned or not... but as far as most effective armored fighting vehicle, the StuG III recorded the most kills overall - destroying some 20,000 Allied armored vehicles.  It was also very effective against the T-34, and had a very favorable kill/death ratio, was cheap to produce and reliable.  

 

There were Allied tanks like the Pershing and the IS-2 that were introduced late in the war that were better, and Germany's Tiger I posted a better kill/death ratio.  But as far as proven combat effectiveness, the StuG deserves consideration just based on the sheer volume of enemy vehicles destroyed. 



M1A1 tanker 2AD #59 Posted 22 September 2016 - 11:08 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 16548 battles
  • 1,394
  • Member since:
    03-06-2016

Lol. Found this little tidbit...

 

General Patton stuns Marshall Zhukov into silence

OCTOBER 29, 2012

General Patton and Marshall Zhukov reviewing Allied troops in Berlin, 1945.

Pat Merle-Smith has told me of what took place during a second Berlin visit in the first week of September 1945. “The Russians were putting on a military review for all four occupying powers. [General Patton] was seated next to Marshal Zhukov and I, naturally, was with the standees a few rows below. I heard quite clearly what was said when some huge Soviet tanks passed by. ‘My dear General Patton, you see that tank, it carries a cannon which can throw a shell seven miles.’ Patton answered, ‘Indeed?’ Well, my dear Marshal Zhukov, let me tell you this, if any of my gunners started firing at your people before they had closed to less than seven hundred yards I’d have them court-martialed for cowardice.’ It was the first time I saw a Russian commander stunned into silence.”


"It doesn't take a hero to order men into battle. It takes a hero to be one of those men who goes into battle." ~ Gen. H. "Stormin" Norman Schwarzkopf

"Never forget that no military leader has ever become great without audacity." ~ Carl von Clausewitz
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." ~ Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman
"In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength." ~ Gen. Robert E. Lee
 


Ruthless4u #60 Posted 23 September 2016 - 12:13 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 11561 battles
  • 19,204
  • [SKREB]
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostMrWuvems, on 24 May 2016 - 10:30 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.

 

Never met a Sherman tank crewman who liked it.

Equality is a myth.

In order to ensure rights for one, you must destroy rights of another.
 

Keep calm and wait for Naval Action.

 

Please donate to Aperts international 

http://www.apert-international.org





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users