Tiger tank vs IS tank.

The reading I've done suggests that the IS had more effective armor, was far more reliable, and when fitted with the 122mm gun, much deadlier.

The IS probably. Especially the IS-2 when it got the 122.

Certainly a difficult question to break down and answer,particularly when you consider the fact that each of these tanks was designed and built based on completely opposite theories regarding the employment of armor and combined arms, and different methodology regarding the tactical usage of armor in all aspects of battle.

First we must look at both armored vehicles general level of reliability on and off the battlefield. The tiger is often regarded as a highly unreliable piece of weaponry. However, this is because the tiger was rushed into combat, and much like the panther was forced to have its bugs and kinks worked out in combat. Though many of these problems would be worked out over time, the tiger was considered to be a maintenence nightmare until the wars closing days.

As for the IS series of tanks, like all soviet weapons system, the IS was designed and built with simple peasants in mind, to that end, simplicity and ease of manufacture, teaching, and maintaining were paramount in a system being accepted by the Soviet military. To the Soviet mind, quantity is a quality all its own and soviet tactics were. Direct reflection of that.

As for the actual weapons system employed by to both tanks. The tiger mounted the phenomenal kwk 36 L56 8.8 cm gun, whose velocity was enough to penetrate the armor of any armored vehicle these tanks faced up through the end of the war. The IS-2 on the other hand mounted the 122mm A-19 gun system, which as has already been noted, required the barrel to be level when the next shell was loaded into the breach. Reload times were also relatively long, but the IS-2 was a well armored tank, esp. once the cast turret was introduced.

In the end, I believe that the tiger was probably the more versatile tank of the two, considering its inherent advantage of being able to engage enemy armor at a considerably greater distance that it's IS counterpart. But that's just my opinion, the reality would be that either tank would find itself with the advantage based upon locally existing combat conditions.

Thanks rest, I've never bothered talking much about the historical aspects on the wot forums cause there's too much bullshit.

Yeah Sqn Ldr, I noticed that too. I am only just learning about tank history but I always found those posts interesting. Hopefully it gets better content here Playing this game is really making me better at history heh

I have read a lot of them at the original place and really enjoyed it so I thought I'd let you know Looking forward to further posts.


Speaking of aviation history, I'd really like to learn more about the flying fortress. I did do a couple searches over the regular forum but did not find much except the super cool picture you posted.  I will keep an eye out on the aircraft thread!

"Flying Fortress" by Edward Jablonski. Good book.

I would like to see how people think the Tiger's outdated 1936 gun is phenomenal while almost completely disregarding the fact the A-19 and D-25T had roughly the same penetration as the KwK 43 L/71 mounted on the King Tiger, which was a far better gun than the L/56. It had the same penetration while bringing a far better HE Round to the table which is the primarily used round in tanks, not AP. I understand the early flaws of the A-19 and possibly D-25T but the statistics can not be dismissed.

Possibly because it was capable of coring any tank it hit until things like the Churchill, Sherman Jumbo, and IS tanks came out. Also, as the Germans had good optics, sights, and until the end of the war training which meant they could do this at long ranges. The Soviet guns could do huge damage when they hit, the key phrase there being when they hit. Between their doctrine of shooting on the move and their somewhat iffy optics and training long range Soviet fire was ineffectual unless used en masse.