Josef Stalin-II vs The World

Sorry, my mistake. I think your post may be spot on - the post-war improved version having 160mm whereas the WW2 version had "only" 120. All sources I know say the WW2 version had no more than 120mm armour.

 

smeghead
battlefield.ru states that it had 120 mm of armor.

Panzer Truppen The Complete Guide to the Creation and Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force 1943-1945, Thomas L. Jentz, 1996 states that the initial version had 120 mm of armor.

Russian Tanks and Armored Vehicles 1917-1945, by Wolfgang Fleischer, 1999 states that the 1944 had "120-160mm" - NOT 160 mm. I don't quite know what they mean by that.

Russian Tanks of World War II Stalin's Armored Might, by Tim Bean & Will Fowler, 2002 states that the IS2M had 120 mm of armor.

fas.org is unclear...

Can you provide a source that clearly states that the WW2 version(s) of th e IS 2 has a 160 mm thick glacis?

 

Panzerman you got a drawing of a IS-1 posted earlier on...

Here is the correct picture:


grabbed this from battlefield.ru:

The last myth I would like to resolve: today some people often call a late-war JS-2 as "JS-2m" or "JS-2M". In fact, JS-2M didn't exist whilst JS-2m appeared in 1954-56 after a serious moderinsation programm. Therefore, all war-time JS-2 tanks designatet as "JS-2" without any additional suffixes.

 

Oh, damn. Thank you for correcting that. Thankfully my point still stands - if not, it would have been a travesty

 

Your welcome

So this "proves" max armour was 120mm with 60 degree slope (wich equals to how many mm normal?) for the WWII IS-2

 

If I am not very much mistaken, it ends up at a relative thickness of 138.5640646055102 millimetres.

The King Tiger is 195.8110933998418 millimetres relative thickness, incidentally.

 

Actually, it's 240 degrees for the JS-2 (it's 60 degrees from vertical, not horizontal) and 233 mm. for the Tiger II.

 

Wouldn't it be a 90 - 60 = 30 degree slope (240 degree would mean a 360 -240 = 120 degree slope....)?
A triangle always has 180 degrees total....

So it would be
cos<A =C / B
A being the angle of 30 degrees, C being the 120mm and B being the thickness thanks to the slope
cos<30 = 120 / B
B = 138.6 mm

 

Ah, sorry, I meant 240 mm.

 

ok but that would mean it has a 60 degree slope on the front glacis

cos<a = 120 / 240

<a = 60 degrees

 

Yes it would, which is also what it has.

Edit: It depends on whether you use a Sin. or Cos. for the calculation, one calculates from horisontal and one from vertical (I use Sin., and you use Cos.).

Also see <http://www.panzerworld.net/armourcalculator.html>

 

Gee, and I thought trigonometry would never come back to haunt me after school

 

What's trigonometry? All I know is math...

 

is part of math, involves all kinds of angles, sine, cosine and tangent, but do not ask me how to use them.

 

Hmmm... I'll just stick to math... No need to confusing sub-divisions

 

Well, the different aspects of math need a name. It's basically part of geometry, and relatively easy at that, with a few fixed formulae to work with.

 

I never had 'geometry', 'trigonometry', 'algebra', 'arithmatic' etc. - only math - any that seems to have worked out well.

 

Heads-up

Aren't we getting just a LITTLE bit off-topic here?

 

No.














...














...














...keep scrolling...














...














...














...just a bit more...














...














...














...we're getting a lot off topic

 

The 88L71 would have had loads of difficulties penetrating the IS-2 armour in the front hull. After the war the yugoslavians carried some tests with the gun and it failed to penetrate 100mm@60°, even when using HVAP derived from the 90mm gun.

The data from german tables are based on estimates, and they are not very accurate anyway. They claim that the StuG-III couldn't penetrate frontally the T-34-85 when it could do it from 1000 meters.

Regards.