• 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

dogbadger

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 19, 2006
3,230
553
0
here to kill your monster
the greatest

funny, he's exactly who i was thinking of - when this thread was resurrected by giving examples of, shall we say, 2 less than succesful tanks, in order do undermine the claims of a effective model with a pretty good war record.
It's a bit like disputing Ali being the greatest heavyweight by noting that Buster Douglas had longer reach, and Earnie Shavers a harder punch.
Sometimes ppl need to ignore stats, charts and tables, and just look at what actually was achieved.
not that I think the IS-2 was the greatest tank btw, but you get my drift.
 

[5GTA] Juan

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 18, 2008
88
11
0
Ebro Front
www.clantoro-ro.wesped.es
I always understood that the best overall tank in WWII was the T34-85...
All that expensive, slow-firing, almost-no-moving heavy tanks had no influence in the war except for small actions in Normandy...
The Tiger made less than 100Km on his own tracks before getting in fire or breaking transmission...
 

Susi

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 31, 2008
457
295
0
Finland
On its best Michael Wittmann with his Tiger destroyed:

7 Cromwell IV, 1 Sherman Firefly, 3 Stuart, 9 Half-Tracks, 4 Bren Carriers
and 2 6pdr anti-tank gun in one succesfull run.

Does that mean that Tiger is as good as 7 Cromwells, no but it can be.
You cant say how much better is faster tank than tank with huge gun.
Its all-about how they are used.

Anyways its, stupid to argue about this as its totally clear that
Vickers VIB was the best tank in WW2, just because its most
sexiest. :D

http://www.flickr.com/photos/67307569@N00/3554668346/
 

Nikitn

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 31, 2010
73
1
0
as i've always said, Russia is just about quantity rather than quality. c'mon, IS 2 is NOT the greatest.
No it isn't. Saying such a thing is dumb and ignorant, actually.

Proven wrong many times since 10th century (especially in 1944 and 1945 ;)).
 

Nikitn

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 31, 2010
73
1
0
Ah the classic "war-winner" argument: I agree to some degree to what you said the T-34 did make a big impact on the war as there were always replacements, however it is important to consider technological advantage or superiority as well. The T-34 was a tank of desperation for desperate times which means it recieved few modernizations or model reworkings/replacements to keep the technological edge, instead everything was kept simple for mass production to rebulid a crippled tank force after 1941. Its greatest strength "production and simplcity" was its greatest weakness which the Germans quickly exploited with their generally better designs not talking about the Panther or Tiger (overkill) series but about the Stug III F-G and Panzer IV G-J series which provided the Germans with unparalleled tank firepower and armor superiority from 1942-1944 against their Soviet counter-parts. In spring of 1944 when the T-34/85 finally cameout ( well on the battle-field) it only served to shorten the techincal gap in firepower (the T-34/85 did not replace the T-34/76 in ww2) its anti-armor properties being inferior to comparable designs such as the Panzer IV and the Sherman 76. It's armor was left almost unchanged (turret armor was only changed) from earlier designs. Both of these failing allowed The Panzer IV and Stug designs to maintain a their superiority at long ranges (as well as optics,ect.) which was the ideal German method to dealing with Soviet tanks. While the T-34 was produced enough that it could ultimately sustain the heavy losses inflicted upon it by the Germans there are many battles in the Ost-front that have been won or adavnces halted/repelled due to "technogical superiority" as well which is why to get a nice solid "BEST TANK" comparison technogical superiority needs to play a major part in the tank in question especially when comparing a vehicle to a German tank design : My pick :

Allies: Sherman 76 or Firefly (because in may ways better than the T-34, it also served in most fronts of the war)
Axis: Stug III/Pz IV or Panther (they do no meet production of T-34 or Sherman but they were the more highly produced German vehicles).
err what? check out penentration stats for weapons like 57mm soviet AT gun, or the 85mm guns. They could take out vast majority of German tanks with ease.

People seem 2 forget that it was very rarely that tank fights occured >1000m range. Just like it is rare even in Afghanistan for very long-range firefights.

T-34 was without question the most advanced tank design in its time (1941). It had mistakes like all new tank designs have, but they were soon fixed. It was simple - this was no weakness. It had superiour speed all the way till 34/85.

Allied tanks were generally junk in tank2tank combat and were built 2 be mass produced. Shermans were nicknamed tommy cookers for an entire year b4 the problems were fixed. Sure maybe allied tanks weren't meant 2 be used as AT weapons per US doctrine, but they were - many times in 1944 and 1945.

I think just comparing a tank 2 tank is really dumb. maybe Germans had higher technical standards (until 1944-1945 then their steel quality became inferiour) but then again their tanks were infamous for being unpractical.

End of the day: on eastern front USSR + allies lost some 6,8 million KIA (Rossiyja i CCCP - vorozheniiji poterii v XX vek). Nazi Germany + allies lost ~ 4,4 million KIA on the eastern front (book: deutsche militariche verluste im Zweite Weltskrieg).

Nothing more that matters other than this, and the fact that Nazi Germany lost.
 
Last edited: