Not hard to believe when you consider the horrendous losses the Germans inflicted on the Soviet tankers during the war.
Upvote
0
IS 2 greatest tank of ww2
- Thread starter 7thGuardsTankDiv
- Start date
Ugh, where to begin...
Other tanks, besides Panther and T34 do deserve their mention. I must say that while playing combat mission I quite fell in love whit shermans due to their fast turrets.
The jokes about the .50 being it's best anti tank weapon are way over rated...the bad reputation comes mainly from DDay operations where upgraded variants and tank destroyes were not yet present. Problem being IMO lagging tank destroyer desing rather than need for better tank or heavier one.
Sure yuo can dream for better one, but then yuo need to move toward MBT-doctorine rather than "cavalry tank" & "Infatry tank" or "Heavy break through tanks".
Which begs the question wether the "egg heads" behind the lines can design such a thing, my wager being that tech during ww2 just wasn't there for any nation.
Everyone talks about the easy mass production of T34 and how reliable it was, but all I see is solid consious evelopement for the soviet "Deep battle" doctorine.
Innovative sloped armour as well as first dual purpose gun. However Barbarossa happened and mass production features were on priority.
Still it's wrong to say that it wasn't refined product. Yuo don't desing innovative features to quickly mass producable later versions were plenty of that. It simply didn't try too hard as panther did which sacrificed "field smarts". Just look at the tracks, impressive to drive...not so much to maintain.
But, to answer the question of the topic about JS2, yes as metioned it didn't quite perform according to expectations due to imperfections in production. This is quite clear from frequent redesing of it's front hull throught the war...later models taking care of the breaking weldings.
This still leaves the spalling but I think all tanks suffered from that, germans perhaps less earlier in war, but I think none took steps to asses the proble like in modern tanks.
Sure, it's big gun gives yuo draw backs in slow reload and limited ammo sluppy. So is it a best tank in the war...no yuo can't produce Heavy tanks in big enough numbers.
Was it the best "break through tank" of the war? In my mind there is no question about it...American didn't get their Pershing out really, British Churchill was more specialized beast
and german Tiger available abysmal number, had slow turrent(yuo might *** well have heavy SP) and ***** to maintain on field.
Perfect, nope... Im sure it was simply maimed to death by lowly 75mm stugs etc...but thats the job of this kind of tank and it was there in reasonable numbers, unlike other nation's "heavies".
Other tanks, besides Panther and T34 do deserve their mention. I must say that while playing combat mission I quite fell in love whit shermans due to their fast turrets.
The jokes about the .50 being it's best anti tank weapon are way over rated...the bad reputation comes mainly from DDay operations where upgraded variants and tank destroyes were not yet present. Problem being IMO lagging tank destroyer desing rather than need for better tank or heavier one.
Sure yuo can dream for better one, but then yuo need to move toward MBT-doctorine rather than "cavalry tank" & "Infatry tank" or "Heavy break through tanks".
Which begs the question wether the "egg heads" behind the lines can design such a thing, my wager being that tech during ww2 just wasn't there for any nation.
Everyone talks about the easy mass production of T34 and how reliable it was, but all I see is solid consious evelopement for the soviet "Deep battle" doctorine.
Innovative sloped armour as well as first dual purpose gun. However Barbarossa happened and mass production features were on priority.
Still it's wrong to say that it wasn't refined product. Yuo don't desing innovative features to quickly mass producable later versions were plenty of that. It simply didn't try too hard as panther did which sacrificed "field smarts". Just look at the tracks, impressive to drive...not so much to maintain.
But, to answer the question of the topic about JS2, yes as metioned it didn't quite perform according to expectations due to imperfections in production. This is quite clear from frequent redesing of it's front hull throught the war...later models taking care of the breaking weldings.
This still leaves the spalling but I think all tanks suffered from that, germans perhaps less earlier in war, but I think none took steps to asses the proble like in modern tanks.
Sure, it's big gun gives yuo draw backs in slow reload and limited ammo sluppy. So is it a best tank in the war...no yuo can't produce Heavy tanks in big enough numbers.
Was it the best "break through tank" of the war? In my mind there is no question about it...American didn't get their Pershing out really, British Churchill was more specialized beast
and german Tiger available abysmal number, had slow turrent(yuo might *** well have heavy SP) and ***** to maintain on field.
Perfect, nope... Im sure it was simply maimed to death by lowly 75mm stugs etc...but thats the job of this kind of tank and it was there in reasonable numbers, unlike other nation's "heavies".
Upvote
0
Of course the SVT-40 had some teething issues, most of which are because of a lack of training and using the rifle for something it wasn't. (Like a sniper.)
The Gew. 43 also had a single problem that won't be addressed in any anecdotes, because they weren't used to the point that it happened.
There is no gas regulator, and it's a short-stroke system, and the bad heat-treating in some of the weapons (namely the ones made in concentration camps.) meant that the bolt carrier group slammed back hard enough that after enough rounds the entire BCG would just fly off. You can see that they knew about this because in the later models they drilled holes in to relieve gas pressure into the stock.
Upvote
0
IS-2 is not the greatest tank of WWII.
The Super Pershing had the best gun of WWII and the Tiger II had the thickest armor of WWII.
The Super Pershing, however, only had a marginally better gun than the TII and yet had substantially inferior armor. The Tiger II had much better armor than either the Super Pershing (of which 1 total was employed in WWII) or the IS-2. Granted, it had a pretty obscene cost and it was prone to breakdowns, but in a combat engagement I'd rather be sitting in a Tiger II.
The IS-2 had limitations of its own, namely that its gun didn't fire a very high velocity projectile and that its penetration wasn't very good. While it would have been able to penetrate a Panther or a Tiger I with ease, it would be incapable of penetrating the frontal plate of a Tiger II at any range with any cartridge, and that's obviously a significant advantage for a Tiger II firing a high velocity 88mm AP cartridge. The IS-2 also had another issue, namely that its cartridges were separated into two pieces, with the powder charge separate from the shell.
"German Army data on the penetration ranges of the 122 mm A-19 gun against the Panther tank showed it to be much less effective than the Soviets thought: the A-19 gun was unable to penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther at any distance, and could only penetrate the bottom front plate of the hull at 100 m.[3] It was however the large HE shell the gun fired which was its main asset, proving highly useful and destructive in the anti-personnel role. The size of its gun continued to plague the IS-2, the two-piece ammunition was difficult to manhandle and very slow to reload (the rate of fire was only about two rounds per minute). Another limitation imposed by the size of its ammunition was the payload: a mere 28 rounds could to be carried inside the tank."
In other words, the IS-2 was an extremely effective heavy tank in WWII that fulfilled its role with exceptional armor penetration and armor protection combined with unusually good mobility, but suffered from enough issues to dock its performance overall and lacked the adequate means to compete with the greatest tanks of the era (although well equipped to obliterate everything else on the battlefield).
The Super Pershing had the best gun of WWII and the Tiger II had the thickest armor of WWII.
The Super Pershing, however, only had a marginally better gun than the TII and yet had substantially inferior armor. The Tiger II had much better armor than either the Super Pershing (of which 1 total was employed in WWII) or the IS-2. Granted, it had a pretty obscene cost and it was prone to breakdowns, but in a combat engagement I'd rather be sitting in a Tiger II.
The IS-2 had limitations of its own, namely that its gun didn't fire a very high velocity projectile and that its penetration wasn't very good. While it would have been able to penetrate a Panther or a Tiger I with ease, it would be incapable of penetrating the frontal plate of a Tiger II at any range with any cartridge, and that's obviously a significant advantage for a Tiger II firing a high velocity 88mm AP cartridge. The IS-2 also had another issue, namely that its cartridges were separated into two pieces, with the powder charge separate from the shell.
"German Army data on the penetration ranges of the 122 mm A-19 gun against the Panther tank showed it to be much less effective than the Soviets thought: the A-19 gun was unable to penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther at any distance, and could only penetrate the bottom front plate of the hull at 100 m.[3] It was however the large HE shell the gun fired which was its main asset, proving highly useful and destructive in the anti-personnel role. The size of its gun continued to plague the IS-2, the two-piece ammunition was difficult to manhandle and very slow to reload (the rate of fire was only about two rounds per minute). Another limitation imposed by the size of its ammunition was the payload: a mere 28 rounds could to be carried inside the tank."
In other words, the IS-2 was an extremely effective heavy tank in WWII that fulfilled its role with exceptional armor penetration and armor protection combined with unusually good mobility, but suffered from enough issues to dock its performance overall and lacked the adequate means to compete with the greatest tanks of the era (although well equipped to obliterate everything else on the battlefield).
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Oh even though I haven't read it, I can see how it went:
The biased Axis troll: King Tiger
The biased Russki troll: IS-2
The "oh I'm so smart and knowledgeable, you guys are idiots" guy: Panther
The typical National Geographics/Military Channel guy: Sherman
Loud Proud French: Somua!
Troll of trolls: T-34
The biased Axis troll: King Tiger
The biased Russki troll: IS-2
The "oh I'm so smart and knowledgeable, you guys are idiots" guy: Panther
The typical National Geographics/Military Channel guy: Sherman
Loud Proud French: Somua!
Troll of trolls: T-34
Last edited:
Upvote
0
uh well to correct you a bit:
Ridiculous IS-2 troll: DA BEST!!!!11111oneoneeleven!!!1111
rest of the forum: LOL!
IS-2 troll: STFU NUBS, RUSSIAN OPTICS SUPERRIOR ARE!!!111
rest of the forum: LOL!
ect
Upvote
0
No leave it, this is one of those threads that never dies. Sure it may go quiet for a while then suddenly out of nowhere someone will chime in with their random idea of what was the most badass tank of the war and why.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0