Jump to content


The IS-2, best tank of WW2?


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

Matthew J35U5 #81 Posted 13 June 2017 - 11:50 PM

    Major

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

View Postolemanbyers, on 20 April 2017 - 07:50 PM, said:

 

studebaker trucks were the soviets secret weapon.

 

 

also, other than the "revolutionary" idea of being shorter, what advantage does the t-34 have over a sherman? they're both really kind of the same idea, although the sherman is a much better built tank.

The T-34 was first. :V


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


BusiedBat306 #82 Posted 21 June 2017 - 02:25 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13678 battles
  • 368
  • [MCGS]
  • Member since:
    02-07-2014

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?

 

Myth? LOL go look at archives, the kill ratio of German tanks speaks for itself. Panzer 3s were even relevant later in the war as the lack of adequate target finders meant that T-34s took so long to engage a target they were usually destroyed before they could fire a shot. There are even examples of T-34s lacking gun sights. 

              Want help/advice with the Tiger 1? PM me.

"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning." - Erwin Rommel

 

Clan Recruitment:

[MCGS] Shmitz Recruiting: We Want You! (XBOX)


BusiedBat306 #83 Posted 21 June 2017 - 02:45 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13678 battles
  • 368
  • [MCGS]
  • Member since:
    02-07-2014

View PostUranprojekt, on 25 April 2017 - 09:16 AM, said:

 

Top image: A rare sight; a Tiger II moving under its own power, probably showing off to all those other Tiger IIs which were, undoubtedly, broken down at the time.

Bottom image: The only thing the Tiger II was ever good for; becoming a museum piece.

 

The IS-2 may have been a bit subpar by western standards, but at least it actually worked.

 

Top image: 50+ Tiger IIs moving under their own power...

Bottom image: Of course they make great museum pieces, nobody is going to pay to see a tank unless it has a reputation. 

 

The IS-2 like most mid-late war Russian tanks was thrown together and only functioned as a result of their massive numbers and piles of replacement parts. In a scenario where both tanks were given adequate maintenance and supplies, the Tiger II would destroy an IS-2. (If we are to compare a tank, you must do it objectively, as factoring in other aspects provides warped results.)

 

Should I perhaps mention a time when supplies were in fact equal? **Cough Brody*** (This was earlier in the war, however this shows what happens when both sides are given the supplies they need...

https://www.revolvy.... of Brody (1941)&item_type=topic

 

 

 


              Want help/advice with the Tiger 1? PM me.

"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning." - Erwin Rommel

 

Clan Recruitment:

[MCGS] Shmitz Recruiting: We Want You! (XBOX)


Zxyphos #84 Posted 21 June 2017 - 02:45 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 18182 battles
  • 12,368
  • [RATT]
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

"IS-2 had short comings: inaccuracy at long range and a slow rate of fire. The 122mm could not pen a Panther's sloped armour above 600 meters, while splintering remained an issue for the IS-2's own armour. Tempering the frontal armour to strong hardness proved too complex and costly to introduce so the deficiency was allowed to remain." -- "Russian Tanks of WWII: Stalin's Armoured Might." pg.140. 

 

I have read many informative books on Russian armour and none seem overly impressed with the IS-2. I suggest reading some of Steve Zaloga. After all, he IS considered the leading expert on Soviet Military weaponry. 



Panthergraf #85 Posted 22 June 2017 - 07:18 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 37503 battles
  • 1,516
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014
Late war soviet tanks weren't thrown together, the quality of production became very good from 1944 on, due to excessive testing and evaluation of every tank that rolled out of the factory.

The Crisis of soviet reliability and production quality was early 42 til late 43.

WidowMaker1711 #86 Posted 22 June 2017 - 07:40 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11837 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostBusiedBat306, on 21 June 2017 - 02:25 PM, said:

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?

 

Myth? LOL go look at archives, the kill ratio of German tanks speaks for itself. Panzer 3s were even relevant later in the war as the lack of adequate target finders meant that T-34s took so long to engage a target they were usually destroyed before they could fire a shot. There are even examples of T-34s lacking gun sights. 

 

http://www.panzerworld.com/german-tank-kill-claims

 

German claims didnt take into account the tanks that could be salvaged and repaired. 



BusiedBat306 #87 Posted 22 June 2017 - 09:20 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13678 battles
  • 368
  • [MCGS]
  • Member since:
    02-07-2014

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 22 June 2017 - 02:40 PM, said:

 

http://www.panzerworld.com/german-tank-kill-claims

 

German claims didnt take into account the tanks that could be salvaged and repaired. 

 

This also applies to any other nation. Also I must add that if a vehicle is knocked out, even if it can be salvaged, much time and effort must be applied to do so, and that vehicle is no longer any use whatsoever in the given battle. Additionally, more often than not crew members would die as a result of such a hit, often times men with training that is hard to replace.

              Want help/advice with the Tiger 1? PM me.

"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning." - Erwin Rommel

 

Clan Recruitment:

[MCGS] Shmitz Recruiting: We Want You! (XBOX)


Zxyphos #88 Posted 22 June 2017 - 11:01 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 18182 battles
  • 12,368
  • [RATT]
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostPanthergraf, on 22 June 2017 - 03:18 PM, said:

Late war soviet tanks weren't thrown together, the quality of production became very good from 1944 on, due to excessive testing and evaluation of every tank that rolled out of the factory.

The Crisis of soviet reliability and production quality was early 42 til late 43.

 

Not according to the books I've read, unless these leading historians on armoured vehicles have it wrong, which I highly doubt. I will agree things improved in the later years. But, even the IS-3, which was in service for many many years after WW2, had serious design flaws and issues that the Russians couldn't completely remedied even during "peace time" (defective hulls, unreliable engines and gear boxs to name a few). Sorry to say, but reliability and production quality--or lack thereof--had an affect on Russian tanks throughout the war--as well as into peace time--like the aforementioned IS-3. However, cite your sources to the contrary because what you stated is news to me. 

WidowMaker1711 #89 Posted 23 June 2017 - 04:48 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11837 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostBusiedBat306, on 22 June 2017 - 09:20 PM, said:

 

This also applies to any other nation. Also I must add that if a vehicle is knocked out, even if it can be salvaged, much time and effort must be applied to do so, and that vehicle is no longer any use whatsoever in the given battle. Additionally, more often than not crew members would die as a result of such a hit, often times men with training that is hard to replace.

 

The russians and the americans especially shot a tank till it caught fire. The British would try and retrieve everything from the battlefield and either in the case of Cuckoo run it until it could go no further or remove its ability to be a fighting vehicle without a lot of work


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


BusiedBat306 #90 Posted 23 June 2017 - 01:13 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13678 battles
  • 368
  • [MCGS]
  • Member since:
    02-07-2014

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 22 June 2017 - 11:48 PM, said:

 

The russians and the americans especially shot a tank till it caught fire. The British would try and retrieve everything from the battlefield and either in the case of Cuckoo run it until it could go no further or remove its ability to be a fighting vehicle without a lot of work

 

While this may be the case, that still does not change the definition of a knocked out tank. If I hit a tank and rendered it useless, even for the duration of just that battle, I would consider that a valid kill, especially in the event that we advanced and took the region containing the neutralized vehicles. (Clearly the entire German Panzerwaffe agrees with me.) Another thing that I would like to point out is the overall uselessness of the strategy you have pointed out. Late in the war replacement parts were scarce for the Germans, so knocking out any important part whatsoever would be enough to effectively total the tank. Wasting time firing to achieve the effect of a fire seems like a rather large waste of time and resources, especially considering the amount of attention you may draw from nearby units. This is extremely relevant as contrary to the wonderfully realistic Fury... Tigers operated in groups of at least 4 or 5, with (at full strength) another 40 Tigers on the other end of a very short radio transmission. 

 

Side note: I thoroughly enjoy debating subjects like this, as a large part of my life revolves around WW2. Please do not take anything negative away from my arguments as no offense is intended from my end. 


              Want help/advice with the Tiger 1? PM me.

"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning." - Erwin Rommel

 

Clan Recruitment:

[MCGS] Shmitz Recruiting: We Want You! (XBOX)


Phoneythree464 #91 Posted 24 June 2017 - 12:05 AM

    Private

  • Players
  • 19434 battles
  • 4
  • [BL-10]
  • Member since:
    01-17-2015
Is 2 was not the best tank of ww2 the m4 a3 is if it wasn't for that tank I would not be here today so cram the Russian [edited]up your [edited]

BusiedBat306 #92 Posted 30 June 2017 - 04:06 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13678 battles
  • 368
  • [MCGS]
  • Member since:
    02-07-2014

View PostChieftain WGA, on 25 July 2016 - 02:46 PM, 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.


 


 


 

 

This is really old but holy cow I'm dying. :D

              Want help/advice with the Tiger 1? PM me.

"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning." - Erwin Rommel

 

Clan Recruitment:

[MCGS] Shmitz Recruiting: We Want You! (XBOX)


darrenv64 #93 Posted 13 July 2017 - 11:58 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 9460 battles
  • 396
  • [741ST]
  • Member since:
    06-06-2017

As someone whose seen Soviet era (more like error) equipment in comparison to Western contemporaries, Soviet equipment has one, and only one, redeeming factor, quantity. Check these articles out: http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html and http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/. In summary, Soviet tanks are crap.

Soviet tanks in WoT are either buffed, or their non-Russian contemporaries are nerfed, in order to continue the myth. Soviet armor throughout WWII and the Cold War suffered from poor optics, poor reliability, and crew accommodation was wanting. It's easier to drive, move from cover to cover, maintain situational awareness, find a target, engage the target, and repeat as necessary in Western AFV's than Soviet equipment.



Matthew J35U5 #94 Posted 22 July 2017 - 12:27 PM

    Major

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

View PostRarefication, on 21 June 2017 - 09:45 AM, said:

"IS-2 had short comings: inaccuracy at long range and a slow rate of fire. The 122mm could not pen a Panther's sloped armour above 600 meters, while splintering remained an issue for the IS-2's own armour. Tempering the frontal armour to strong hardness proved too complex and costly to introduce so the deficiency was allowed to remain." -- "Russian Tanks of WWII: Stalin's Armoured Might." pg.140. 

 

I have read many informative books on Russian armour and none seem overly impressed with the IS-2. I suggest reading some of Steve Zaloga. After all, he IS considered the leading expert on Soviet Military weaponry. 

While the IS-2 was under development, the bureaucrats in charge disagreed on whether to arm it with a 100 mm gun, or the 122 mm gun. The deciding factor was likely that the D25 was capable of defeating the Panther's armour from 2000+ m, while the D-10 was able to do so from only 1200 m. 

 


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


Ogre4Hire #95 Posted 22 July 2017 - 07:12 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7388 battles
  • 302
  • Member since:
    03-14-2016

View PostRagingxMarmoset, on 23 May 2017 - 09:19 AM, said:

Very true. The Tiger II had a fantastic gun and great armor, but none of that matters if you can't get it to the fight. 

 

It had great armor on paper.  In practice, the Germans had already eliminated all quality controls from their factories to speed up production, and were also using POWs as slave labor to produce parts.  This lead to a lot of their armor actually being poorly tempered and prone to shattering under enemy fire.

Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?


HighSpyker #96 Posted 22 July 2017 - 07:19 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 36883 battles
  • 6,323
  • [IRN]
  • Member since:
    09-12-2013

View PostGreywoolfe64, on 22 May 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

 

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.

 

Don't.  It has the most trollish gun imaginable.  It's common for me to miss fully aimed shots at less than 200 meters with a 7+ skill crew.

RangerCharlie75 #97 Posted 27 July 2017 - 12:29 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18739 battles
  • 587
  • [USAV]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014
Didn't the IS-2m serve until the 1980's in reserve units?

 


pilotguy79 #98 Posted 20 September 2017 - 02:33 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17696 battles
  • 1,743
  • [LIP]
  • Member since:
    06-01-2016

The best tank. Hmmm. Depends on what you mean as the best? 

The best tank in my mind would be the tank that had the most impact across all theatres of ww2 and had the greatest positive impact. 

So im guessing the Sherman and it's many variants. While not superior to any other tank and definitely not more armoured .

it was reliable, versatile , easy to manufacture, easy to maintain and easy to transport, cheap to operate. Tank on tank conflict did happen but not as much as tank on soft targets and light armoured vehicles. So for most of the encounters. The Sherman was more than able to deal with the target. 

Also, the sheer number of Sherman's and the various different models created a scenario where the strongest and toughest wasn't enough , numbers and lots of them paid off in the long run. Disabling a tank is just as effective as killing it. 

So the best tank for me would be the one the had the greatest impact on the war.

i believe Russia had a few tanks that would fit the same description. Cheap,light,easy to manufacture and cheap to run .

 

 



darrenv64 #99 Posted 20 September 2017 - 04:30 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 9460 battles
  • 396
  • [741ST]
  • Member since:
    06-06-2017

The key factor for the M4, and all U.S. equipment for that matter,  is standardization. Parts and components manufactured in various plants and buy different entities were interchangeable. The M4, for example, was produced in eleven different factories, not including parts and component subcontractors, while maintaining an unrivaled level of standardization. It didn't matter if Ford, GM, American Locomotive, etc., made the part, it would fit and function to the same tolerances. A serviceable transmission could be cannibalized from a GM built M4 and installed on a Ford assembled M4 quickly. Something unachievable on German and Soviet tanks.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users