Login

russian armor

IS-2 Frontal Armor

PAGES (7)down
31 Jul 2014, 12:04 PM
#61
avatar of Jaigen

Posts: 1130

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Jul 2014, 11:07 AMBurts



Just because we can see them now, does not mean that these documents were made for propoganda purposes. No, that is wrong, these documents are specifically for the red army, and the red army concluded, that the F34 gun of the t-34 was not adequate againts tigers or panthers. That is why they introduced the 85mm gun on their T-34s, probaly because of these tests which showed that the 85mm is very effective againts tigers, and decent againts panthers.


Actually its a myth that the t-34-85 was created to defeat panthers and tigers. the 85 was actually designed to counter the stug and a p4. was the 85 able to penetrate the tiger and panther? yes. but equipping the t-34 with an 85 mm had some serious drawbacks. but all and all it was an improvement over the t-34.
31 Jul 2014, 12:13 PM
#62
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702

Then why did so many T-34/85 get lost while trying to flank Tigers? After all they could have stayed at long distance and sniped the Tigers on equal footing.

The 85mm was introduced to narrow the gap in the firepower of German and Russian tanks, not close it. Actually the lighter models like StuG and Panzer IV gave Soviets a headache because they had a way superior weapon to the 76mm. Thus the 85mm was introduced. Also: A chance of penetrating on close range is better than not penetrating at all. The 85mm was used because it could be mounted on the T-34 chassis, not because it was so superb. (Hell, maybe that was the reason those ridiculous test results were published. Try to explain to Stalin that you can only mount an average gun on the vehicle, that struggles versus the heavies.)

It´s referring to the "non-mantlet" part of the turret, which is that spot marked red (the small edges) on this picture - which pretty much means the Panther was almost impervious frontally to that gun - as the article states. The mantlet was thick enough.





Where do you get information that many t-34/85s died flanking tigers? Why are those test results ridiciluos? Every single source i found links to that the t-34/85 gun penetration was exactly 100mm at 1000 meters, except wikipedia... The panzer IV wasn't really all that well armored (it had 50mm armor and only in 1943 did it upgrade it's hull to 80mm and still had that 50mm on the turret .
The stug had 80mm worth of armor, and the t-34/76 did struggle againts, but could penetrate it at 500m, just like it could penetrate the side armor of the tiger at 500m.
The t-34/76 had around 70mm worth of armor on the turret and the sloped armor translated to 70mm worth of armor on the hull.

Yes, the panther did have the advantage over the t-34/85, but to be fair, panther was more of a heavy tank than it is a medium tank.
And it's not to say that the t-34/85s armor was crap, either, it had 90mm worth of armor on the turret, pretty good for a medium tank.

And answer to jaigens post, yes the t-34/85 was indeed created to counter tigers. Not panthers, but tigers, soviets did not know about the panther when creating the t-34/85mm. If you want a counter to the panther, IS-2, isu-152 or su-100 work well.

This is very usefull http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/
31 Jul 2014, 12:34 PM
#63
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

The thing is that sideshots bounce off from it on a regular basis. Flanking is part of the game. Useless on IS-2s.

Bringing up the T-34/76 which is hardly supposed to fight versus tanks is stupid. T-34/85s - which are more or less in the role of a Panzer IV - will make short process of any Tiger.

More so, German AT should deal with heavy tanks. After all Russian AT deals with German tanks easily. "Wehraboo" you call it, while you are just looking for Soviet sided balance. Why should German AT not go through IS-2s armor? After all Soviet AT units (Zis and Su-85 and even the T34/85) go through the Tiger, despite failing to do so historically. So no reason why German AT should struggle to take down Russian tanks.


Yes, yes, we all know that the Red Army fought with sticks and and tanks were also sticks (you are like lovers stereotypes). T-34-85 / KV-85 / IS-1 were originally developed to combat the heavy tanks. There was a choice between 57 and 85 mm - penetration at 1000 meters they were similar. But the choice is 85mm- more damage, better high-explosive projectile
31 Jul 2014, 12:57 PM
#64
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Jul 2014, 12:13 PMBurts



Where do you get information that many t-34/85s died flanking tigers? Why are those test results ridiciluos? Every single source i found links to that the t-34/85 gun penetration was exactly 100mm at 1000 meters, except wikipedia... The panzer IV wasn't really all that well armored (it had 50mm armor and only in 1943 did it upgrade it's hull to 80mm and still had that 50mm on the turret .
The stug had 80mm worth of armor, and the t-34/76 did struggle againts, but could penetrate it at 500m, just like it could penetrate the side armor of the tiger at 500m.
The t-34/76 had around 70mm worth of armor on the turret and the sloped armor translated to 70mm worth of armor on the hull.

Yes, the panther did have the advantage over the t-34/85, but to be fair, panther was more of a heavy tank than it is a medium tank.
And it's not to say that the t-34/85s armor was crap, either, it had 90mm worth of armor on the turret, pretty good for a medium tank.

And answer to jaigens post, yes the t-34/85 was indeed created to counter tigers. Not panthers, but tigers, soviets did not know about the panther when creating the t-34/85mm. If you want a counter to the panther, IS-2, isu-152 or su-100 work well.

This is very usefull http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/


Yes 85mm was designed more than vs. Tiger (prototype tiger got the Red Army in 1942)
Panther appeared in the Battle of Kursk in 1943.
But at the same side armor panther rather weak and was a case of: T-70 destroyed two Panthers into the boards.

31 Jul 2014, 13:48 PM
#65
avatar of Bulgakov

Posts: 987

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Jul 2014, 10:41 AMKatitof


Yea.... because soviets have used propaganda to destroy tigers.
Why they have made anything heavier then T34 in the first place if propaganda was such a good anti tank weapon?



Katitof.

A: Stop using sarcasm when talking to people. You sound like the Simpsons' Comic Book Guy. Just say it straight. "Bulgakov, I think you are wrong because A B C". The way you speak antagonises people. Even when disagreeing, it is possible to do it in a way that the other person can accept your opinion without a fight. What you do now is turn things into a zero-sum argument.

B: I never said they used Propaganda to defeat tanks. How did you draw this conclusion...?

C: My point was that Soviet documents may not be relied upon as totally objective depending on who was supposed to see those documents.
31 Jul 2014, 14:00 PM
#66
avatar of VetLolcake

Posts: 342

Permanently Banned



Katitof.

A: Stop using sarcasm when talking to people. You sound like the Simpsons' Comic Book Guy. Just say it straight. "Bulgakov, I think you are wrong because A B C". The way you speak antagonises people. Even when disagreeing, it is possible to do it in a way that the other person can accept your opinion without a fight. What you do now is turn things into a zero-sum argument.

B: I never said they used Propaganda to defeat tanks. How did you draw this conclusion...?

C: My point was that Soviet documents may not be relied upon as totally objective depending on who was supposed to see those documents.


THANKYOU!!
Vaz
31 Jul 2014, 14:10 PM
#67
avatar of Vaz

Posts: 1158

It was just a combination of luck+self repair that kept the IS-2 alive for so long. Penetrating the front of an IS-2 with a tiger is a coinflip. You just happened to roll heads 10 times in a row. It happens. Meanwhile the self repair kept going and healing the tank.

There are no heavy tanks in this game that are easily penetrated from the front by medium tanks and even AT guns. I don't see why the IS-2 should be more vulnerable from the front while other heavy tanks are not. Besides, it's not like German AT power is lacking.


cosign
31 Jul 2014, 14:10 PM
#68
avatar of coh2player

Posts: 1571

The 85mm gun can easily shoot holes through the Tiger's flanks (IRL). It was pretty similar in this department to the 75mm L/48.

Doctrinally, the Soviets relied on Tank destroyer Artillery units (Massed coordinated AT guns) in the defense and Assault Gun regiments (SU-85, SU-100, ISU-122, ISU-152 etc.) in the offense to hunt tanks. The SUs were equipped with a tactical radio net and were oriented towards this.

Heavy tank regiments and other subunits equipped with the IS-2 were meant to breakthrough the German defense system in the first wave, hold the front and neutralize German mobile anti-tank reserves (AT guns and armor).

The role of the light and medium tanks of the tank corps and mech. corps was to perform offensive operations with exploitation and not waste their time engaging panzer counterattacks if possible. Naturally, they frequently fought German mobile reserves.
31 Jul 2014, 18:22 PM
#69
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Pretty sure at 30:11 that is a Raketenwerfer bouncing from the side. The same thing happens at 30:25.

I don´t get you people. I was complaining about the side armor. A Tiger will take much more damage from the side. Flanking an IS-2 is not rewarding. And that´s the issue at hand.


Sigh. I´m gonna make this clear because it seems you are not reading the comments.

THERE. IS. NO. SIDE. ARMOR.

Look at a tank, draw an imaginary line on the middle of it. This is what separates front from rear hits. When you position your tank on it´s side, you are just increasing the chances of getting a rear hit.

AGAIN, look at the 30:20 shot from the IS2 and the rear hit indicator (lighting) that shows up on the KT. You would expect that to be a frontal hit, but it actually landed on rear.
8 Aug 2014, 03:44 AM
#70
avatar of Warthrone

Posts: 205

Permanently Banned
Was this a glitch?
8 Aug 2014, 18:00 PM
#71
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Was this a glitch?


Just the will of the RNG gods.

I saw the replay and ALL SHOTS were frontal hits.

29:40 KT frontal . Pen.
29:47 KT frontal . Crew shock
30:07 KT frontal . Pen.
30:11 Rak frontal . Bounce
30:13 KT frontal . Miss/Bounce
30:19 KT frontal . Bounce
30:25 KT frontal . Bounce
30:27 Rak frontal . Bounce

KT:
Pen 240-200 Armor 425/225
Chance - 64%-53.3% / 100%-97.56%

IS2:
Pen 250-190 Armor 375/205
Chance - 58.82%-44.7% / 100%-84.4%

From 6 shots, 2 penetrated, 1 crit, 1 might have missed and the other 2 bounced. FOR those % it´s just slightly unlucky RNG.

Bonus: take a look at the IS2 shot at 30:20. You would expect that to be a frontal hit right? Take a better look.
8 Aug 2014, 23:36 PM
#72
avatar of Warthrone

Posts: 205

Permanently Banned
So if its not a glitch thats pretty ridiculous then....
8 Aug 2014, 23:39 PM
#73
avatar of reefermadness

Posts: 43

Its not a glitch, in the actual game for vehicles there is no "side" armor. There is a front and rear. Projectiles hitting the back half of the side will render a "rear armor hit".
9 Aug 2014, 03:10 AM
#74
avatar of Warthrone

Posts: 205

Permanently Banned
Its not a glitch, in the actual game for vehicles there is no "side" armor. There is a front and rear. Projectiles hitting the back half of the side will render a "rear armor hit".


Didnt know that. Thanks
9 Aug 2014, 10:44 AM
#75
avatar of Warthrone

Posts: 205

Permanently Banned
So Will this be looked at. I think its ridiculous that this actually happned in game.
9 Aug 2014, 12:05 PM
#76
avatar of MilkaCow

Posts: 577

Not sure what's so unusual about this? IS-2 is a heavy tank. Lots of frontal armor. All the tanks and the PaK were shooting from their Maximum range, where their penetration is worst. Not even sure if it's that unlucky, it's just weird to see. The first shots almost all penetrate (far more penetrations than there should be) but then a lot of the subsequent ones did not. That makes it look weird - first it takes a lot of dmg and then nothing for a long time, but that's a normal behavior for all random models.
9 Aug 2014, 12:09 PM
#77
avatar of Cannonade

Posts: 752

Iirc, overall, penetration values differences are quite small over different ranges.

Its there making a small difference, but really doesn't matter all that much.
Where it starts to count a more, is when you compare the commensurate value of a better ranged penetration unit firing back at you, in comparison. Then the penetration values effectively stack, depending on what your penetration at that range is vs theirs.
9 Aug 2014, 12:10 PM
#78
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17889 | Subs: 8

So Will this be looked at. I think its ridiculous that this actually happned in game.


No, because its not a problem.

Heavy tanks can take hits.

That goes for all heavy tanks.

Thats how heavy tanks work.
9 Aug 2014, 15:12 PM
#79
avatar of Greeb

Posts: 971

People complaining about that video should see what happens when five T34s fight a Jadgtiger.
Four them getting rear shots and none of them doing shit.

Super heavy tanks are a pain in the ass to deal with, that's why we only see call-ins lateley.


9 Aug 2014, 23:31 PM
#80
avatar of Warthrone

Posts: 205

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post9 Aug 2014, 15:12 PMGreeb
People complaining about that video should see what happens when five T34s fight a Jadgtiger.
Four them getting rear shots and none of them doing shit.

Super heavy tanks are a pain in the ass to deal with, that's why we only see call-ins lateley.




Jagd tiger is almost 300 fuel. OKW Fuel so that like over 400 fuel norm. What pisses me off is in this video The tiger cannot penetrate it for over one minute.
PAGES (7)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

504 users are online: 2 members and 502 guests
Brick Top, helly12
10 posts in the last 24h
35 posts in the last week
147 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45045
Welcome our newest member, helly12
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM