• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

IS 2 greatest tank of ww2

7thGuardsTankDiv

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 24, 2006
40
349
0
What, IS 2 is a relativaly expensive tank and not primitive *****

What, IS 2 is a relativaly expensive tank and not primitive *****

:mad: German tanks are made with better construction quality fit and finish uselesly spitshined this extra quality Ger put into their tanks is extremely foolish during a demanding war and gives absolutely 0 combta advantage especially since german tanks are extermely unreliable, Soviet tanks are made to the quality that is nessecary any extra quality is useless and waste of production time and whould be extremely stupid. Rather make 2 battle quality IS 2 instead of one uselessly spitshined IS 2. Despite efficient manufacture, IS 2 is not a poor quality cheep piece of crap Its a very advanced design and most advanced and modern tank that served in WW2 having powerful 600hp engine. IS 2 is complex first class weapon system and 7000 were build by wars end and not cheap mass produced piece of crap like the sherman tank. Americans didnt even have anything even comparable in sophistication till the Pershing tank which came 2 years after IS 2 and served for less than a month in WW2
 

7thGuardsTankDiv

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 24, 2006
40
349
0
Russia about quantity versus quantity stupid stereotype not true!

Russia about quantity versus quantity stupid stereotype not true!

Russian weapons are advanced designs for instance SVT 40 is an extremely complex and high production quality weapon much better quality than haphazard quality g43. Soviet Su 27 superfighter was the most expensive and complex fighter ever produced 75 mil per unit more expensive than F 15 Eagle and Su 27 worlds best 4th gen fighter. Soviet Heavy tanks of 1950 60 were the best most coplex and innovative and expensive tanks in the world of better quality than in ww2 cuz there was time for a better polish and constuction quality after ww2! Soviet subs of 1980 were also more technologicaly advanced and expensive than American Subs!
 

=GG= Mr Moe

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 16, 2006
9,798
890
0
54
Newton, NJ
My God, he's like a child that found his favorite cookie...:rolleyes:

Clearly, there is no reasoning with him, tsk tsk tsk...

PS: Thanks for the pic of the Panther II Sichartshofen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: u-s-e-r

Tomcat_ha

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
3,283
185
0
31
IS2 was better than modern day abrams so it pwned the panther easily. Just like the I16 is better than the F22.
 

Jack

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 24, 2005
752
0
0
Just stop with the "which nation has the biggest dick" contest.


It seems like people defend one country or another's vehicles/weapons/aircraft/whatever because it says something about the host nation.



Just be objective please, and use the history.

Germany lost. Russia won. Germany had a higher degree of workmanship...but this coupled with disheveled macro-economic organization ensured low amounts of vehicle output.

Russia focused on essentials, and only on several varieties of vehicle. Thus, they were able to outproduce Germany even when they had lost their own industrial regions in the South while Germany had all of Western European industry.


The IS-2 was primariliy an infantry support tank. But it was very ahead of its time in terms of design, hence it being the model for the T-54. Things such as rounded turret, well sloped glacis both laterally and vertically, and higher power-to-weight ratio than any of Germany's heavy tanks. Remember that while a later war vehicle, the Russians were able to use the modified KV chassis, which greatly aided production and must be counted as a point in their court.


The Germans had some great vehicles, and I would argue the Panther was actually the best tank of the war. But lets use classes. There is no such thing as the "best tank," there is a "best light tank," "best medium," etc.


Panther was probably the best medium tank. M-26 is recognized as probably being the best light tank (although it didn't see much combat), and Tiger II was the best heavy tank.


In terms of war-winning ability versus tactical ability however, all of the German vehicles falterd in light of economic weaknesses and flawed doctrine. You can't have like 10 different chassis and 12 different engine configurations runnign aroudn the battle area and not expect there to be a logistical nightmare. As oppossed to the Russians, which had 2 main chassis types, and 2 main engine types.
 

-MM!!-Lazarus

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 21, 2006
301
0
0
Sweden
Maybe Guard had some points. Unfortunately I will never know as trying to read the text without punctuation and paragraphs made my brain hurt.
 

DingBat

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
751
0
0
I hate to break up this love fest, but some of you are embarassing yourselves and I thought you might like an opportunity at damage control.

Our friend in the 7th Guards may be paragraphically challenged, and he may have a little too much faith in Soviet design, but he has yet to insult anyone in this thread. On the other hand, I've seen only a few rebuttals that actually included anything that bears a resemblence to fact. Jack has come the closest (nice post, Jack).

No, insults are actually not a convincing debate technique. Strange, but true.

Now, if someone would like to provide us with a fact based argument as to why the IS2 shouldn't be considered the greatest tank of WW2, I would really enjoy that.
 

daschewy

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 9, 2006
1,514
16
0
32
Yuppie
alright, heres my take on why it isnt the greatest tank. The tank may have had a great time but it had a slow rate of fire and great tanks combine firepower with a high rate of fire, the IS2 lacked that. Quality, the tank definately was not the greatest in terms of quality, while German tanks werent super reliable either, they were of better quality in almost every aspect. Optics, the gun also didnt have the greatest optics, the OP said it doesnt matter but having good optics matters allot since good optics let you target targets at longer distances. Mobility, I highly doubt this tank was super mobile, it may have been more mobile than German tanks but it wasn't as mobile as some of the other medium tanks.

A great tank combines mobility, fire power and armour. The IS-2 may have had raw fire power but it didnt have such a great ROF and Optics to be combined with the heavy gun it had. Also it may have had thick armour but the quality of the armour wasnt that great, and quality does matter when it comes to metullargy (sp?). And about mobility, it may have been more mobile than the Tigers and other heavy german tanks, but it wasnt as mobile as the T-34 or Panther.

IMO the Panther or T-34 85 have to be the greatests tanks of WW2.

Sorry about my angery comment at the OP, but Im starting to get tired of all these Russia Strong people, if you go to militaryphotos.net there are tons of them and they are by god the most super nationalistic people and that **** gets real old.
 
  • Like
Reactions: u-s-e-r

Drude

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 1, 2006
569
3
0
Finland, Helsinki
www.kt-va.org
7thGuardsTankDiv said:
:D WOW this is odd you folks call the panther 1 still better even though its max effective range of its high velocity yet still to small cal and puny 75mm gun is just to weak and DOSNT HAVE ENOUGH MOMENTUM TO PENETRATE MUCH THICKER THAN PANTHERS SLOPED 132MM HULL AND 160MM TURRET AT A DISTANCE OF NO MORE THAN 750 METERS MAX BEYOND THAT THE PANTHER CANT EVEN PENETRATE IS 2 FRONT ARMOR YET IS 2 CAN PENETRATE PANTHERS FRONTAL HULL UP TO 1400 METERS AND EASILLY AT 1200 METERS = IS 2 OWNS PANTHER IN TANK TO TANK AND VIRTUALLY INVULNIRABLE TO PANTHER BEYOND A MERE 750 YARDS DO THE MATH HOW THE **** CAN PANTHER BE BETTER TANK VS TANK!!!!!!
Do you even know what "paragraph" means?

Your technical specs won't help in action. Did you read anything above?

Panther is more agile and can fire twice or triple times more than IS2.
Also: in our history german crew were more experienced than soviet tankers.
You can have 1000mm front plate and 350mm cannon in your tank but if the crew sucks, it won't help much in action.