|
Post by R35T NO MORE on Feb 13, 2016 23:31:14 GMT
Talking about the real life tanks here, which was the better tank do you think?
|
|
I AM The Scouting Authority.
Captain
Invicta Insomniac
Like a circle in a spiral, Like a wheel within a wheel
Posts: 1,683
Likes: 541
Console: Xbox
Preferred server: East
Clan tag: BNKR
Is R35T a Skreb?: Yes
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 17:12:18 GMT
|
Post by I AM The Scouting Authority. on Feb 14, 2016 0:09:00 GMT
Talking about the real life tanks here, which was the better tank do you think? IS. Even Carius didnt want to face them.
|
|
RagingxMarmoset
Captain
Potatoe at Arms
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 491
Console: Xbox
Is R35T a Skreb?: Yes
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 23:24:13 GMT
|
Post by RagingxMarmoset on Feb 14, 2016 0:31:57 GMT
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.
|
|
Fatvsthin
Recruit
Posts: 6
Likes: 4
Console: Xbox
Date registered: Feb 14, 2016 0:15:15 GMT
|
Post by Fatvsthin on Feb 14, 2016 0:45:46 GMT
In long range circumstances, I would say Tiger.
Close Range has to go to the IS.
|
|
Vince Cable's Exotic Spresm
Captain
Faith, King, Empire President for Life
The cause of labour is the hope of the world
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 628
Console: Xbox 360 & One
Mini-Profile Background: https://ericgerlachdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/samuel-johnson-cant-believe-what-just.jpg
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 17:06:06 GMT
|
Post by Vince Cable's Exotic Spresm on Feb 14, 2016 11:46:47 GMT
The IS probably. Especially the IS-2 when it got the 122.
|
|
Aschenblume
Corporal
Best Conqueror Driver 2K16
Posts: 229
Likes: 58
Console: Xbox
Clan tag: [PG]
Date registered: Feb 14, 2016 15:32:30 GMT
|
Post by Aschenblume on Feb 14, 2016 22:39:58 GMT
During the Baltic campaign; It was there Carius saw the first of the IS-2's. Him and a small strike team of Tigers went out to a small village to root out Soviet armor. In his memoirs he at first thought it was a captured Tiger II.
One note of the IS-2's 122 is that the gun had to be lowered all the way to be able to fit the shell in. fun fact.
|
|
vgcizzy13
Recruit
Posts: 4
Likes: 2
Date registered: Feb 15, 2016 0:26:58 GMT
|
Post by vgcizzy13 on Feb 15, 2016 3:50:13 GMT
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.
|
|
|
Post by R35T NO MORE on Feb 15, 2016 21:16:06 GMT
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. Good points in here guys, and i appreciate this post^ makes very good points.
|
|
vgcizzy13
Recruit
Posts: 4
Likes: 2
Date registered: Feb 15, 2016 0:26:58 GMT
|
Post by vgcizzy13 on Feb 16, 2016 12:33:50 GMT
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. Good points in here guys, and i appreciate this post^ makes very good points. Thanks rest, I've never bothered talking much about the historical aspects on the wot forums cause there's too much bullshit.
|
|
Vince Cable's Exotic Spresm
Captain
Faith, King, Empire President for Life
The cause of labour is the hope of the world
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 628
Console: Xbox 360 & One
Mini-Profile Background: https://ericgerlachdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/samuel-johnson-cant-believe-what-just.jpg
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 17:06:06 GMT
|
Post by Vince Cable's Exotic Spresm on Feb 16, 2016 13:26:03 GMT
The Historical Discussions section on the official forum is a dead place, WG don't care about it, and there's about four people who pay any attention to it. Anyone with a view differing from someone else's is usually shot down in flames by the same couple of people and get put off going back ever again.
|
|
JoeDB
Recruit
Yes I'm French. But not "Fucked up the A in 1940" French.
Posts: 34
Likes: 13
Console: PS4
Date registered: Feb 17, 2016 14:18:04 GMT
|
Post by JoeDB on Feb 17, 2016 15:30:14 GMT
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
|
|
Vince Cable's Exotic Spresm
Captain
Faith, King, Empire President for Life
The cause of labour is the hope of the world
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 628
Console: Xbox 360 & One
Mini-Profile Background: https://ericgerlachdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/samuel-johnson-cant-believe-what-just.jpg
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 17:06:06 GMT
|
Post by Vince Cable's Exotic Spresm on Feb 17, 2016 17:44:37 GMT
I may do a historical article over here soon. There's a few of mine on the official place. Anything in particular anyone wants to see? (I specialise in British and aviation history).
|
|
JoeDB
Recruit
Yes I'm French. But not "Fucked up the A in 1940" French.
Posts: 34
Likes: 13
Console: PS4
Date registered: Feb 17, 2016 14:18:04 GMT
|
Post by JoeDB on Feb 17, 2016 17:58:46 GMT
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!
|
|
Vince Cable's Exotic Spresm
Captain
Faith, King, Empire President for Life
The cause of labour is the hope of the world
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 628
Console: Xbox 360 & One
Mini-Profile Background: https://ericgerlachdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/samuel-johnson-cant-believe-what-just.jpg
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 17:06:06 GMT
|
Post by Vince Cable's Exotic Spresm on Feb 17, 2016 18:06:22 GMT
Ah yes, I remember now. Monty's Fortress. I'd forgotten about that one. I might put something together on the Fortress then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
Date registered: Apr 26, 2024 23:09:28 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 0:37:37 GMT
"Flying Fortress" by Edward Jablonski. Good book.
|
|
JoeDB
Recruit
Yes I'm French. But not "Fucked up the A in 1940" French.
Posts: 34
Likes: 13
Console: PS4
Date registered: Feb 17, 2016 14:18:04 GMT
|
Post by JoeDB on Feb 19, 2016 4:38:51 GMT
"Flying Fortress" by Edward Jablonski. Good book. Good to know, thanks!
|
|
Turboclicker
Recruit
Posts: 35
Likes: 12
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 18:32:40 GMT
|
Post by Turboclicker on Feb 22, 2016 3:51:45 GMT
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.
|
|
JoeDB
Recruit
Yes I'm French. But not "Fucked up the A in 1940" French.
Posts: 34
Likes: 13
Console: PS4
Date registered: Feb 17, 2016 14:18:04 GMT
|
Post by JoeDB on Feb 22, 2016 20:01:54 GMT
"Flying Fortress" by Edward Jablonski. Good book. Good to know, thanks! I looked at the book on amazon and I'm seriously considering getting it Anyone else had a read?
|
|
Pit Friend
Corporal
Posts: 244
Likes: 79
Console: Xbox 360 & One
Clan tag: PTATO
Is R35T a Skreb?: Yes
Date registered: Feb 13, 2016 23:13:42 GMT
|
Post by Pit Friend on Feb 22, 2016 22:45:51 GMT
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.
|
|
Saelon
Recruit
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Console: Xbox
Is R35T a Skreb?: Yes
Date registered: Feb 23, 2016 18:46:40 GMT
|
Post by Saelon on Feb 23, 2016 19:38:57 GMT
Talking about the real life tanks here, which was the better tank do you think? The IS-2. A more interesting comparison would probably be the IS-2 vs the Tiger II, because the IS-2 is kind of better in every way than the Tiger, except for raw rate of fire. (In real life, I'd probably say the IS-2 is also better than the Tiger II because the Tiger II's armour was both overkill, and ineffective (because of material shortages), and 70 ton tanks have much more disadvantages than 45-ton tanks. In an ideal world, like WoT, the Tiger II might be better). One note of the IS-2's 122 is that the gun had to be lowered all the way to be able to fit the shell in. fun fact. This isn't true actually, only the one-piece shell (only trialed) had restricted loading angles. The two piece shells had no such restrictions. The Historical Discussions section on the official forum is a dead place, WG don't care about it, and there's about four people who pay any attention to it. Anyone with a view differing from someone else's is usually shot down in flames by the same couple of people and get put off going back ever again. Yes. But the people like you that kept coming back after being shot down are interesting to read things from. There are things I would make threads on, but I'm concerned about wargaming's opinion on what is off-limits for historical discussion.
|
|