Tank Duel, Who Would Win ?

That sounds about right. I thought it was around 900 turns for 360 degrees. But if the the tank wasn't level, it was almost impossible to crank it through some arcs.

 

wikipedia states the Soviet IS-2 tank was put into service April of 1944, and the war wasn't over until may of 1945. In that whole year It HAD to have seen action... What about looking into Russian sources on it? Were they in Prussia?

This is an image I found the caption says it is a column of Soviet IS-2 tanks on the road in East Prussia, 1st Belorussian. Probably near Königsberg

The was a massive battle there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_K%C3%B6nigsberg#/media/File:Battle_Of_K%C3%B6nigsberg_Begin.png

 

Nobody said it didn't see action. The problem lies in confirmed encounters with Tiger II, which really do seem to have been a small handful.
Made me look in at least one book (Bean & Fowler)
Issued to Gds regts. (First to 11th Hvy - Sth Ukraine). 20 days of fighting around Korsun. Only Eight lost by 72 Hvy Gds. One IS2 said to have taken five direct hits from an Elefant's 88 before being destroyed by a second Elefant.

A few issues with IS2. (From B & F)
Was originally intended to carry a more powerful ('more effective' probably a better term) 100mm gun, but a surplus of 122mm production capacity led to that compromise choice.
Slow firing on first gun variant (2-3 RPM). Improved by New design with better breech.
Stowage for only 28rds.
Large gun chosen led to difficulty in making with thicker turret armour.
Splintering an issue with armour.


They do have one confirmed IS2/Tiger II encounter in there:
13th August '44
71st Hvy Tk Regt's 11 IS2s, 'blocked' 14 Tiger IIs of the 501st.
C.600m ranges.
Four Tiger IIs destroyed. Seven Damaged.
Three IS2s Destroyed. Seven Damaged.
Mention of After battle report that noted IS armour vulnerable at up to 1000m due to casting issues.

(The above comes with the caveat that specific actions is not really my area of speciality - there are others here who can far better confirm if the above account is even vaguely accurate. I've only checked a couple of books.)

 

let's consult with our expert---Guderian, who knows a little about tanks, .. he says the Tiger would get beat

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet_IS-II.php

 

Interesting as the exchange above looks to be pretty close to even with the Tigers having a bit of a numerical edge but apparently on the offensive.

 

th

are you agreeing or disagreeing with ''PFC'' Guderian?? the world renowned tank expert, tank leader, tank historian, etc?? who lived and breathed tanks

 

If the quote is genuine, he appears to refer to Tiger. Not Tiger II.

Edit: I am a twat. I see the thread is referring to First Gen Tigger.

 

The battle reported above appears to conflict with his statement. Please note that he was also a military commander who would say things to influence the behavior of his troops as well. If the translation is accurate then the "can only result in the loss" part is obviously excessive if describing the Tiger. Consider that the Tiger and the IS2 were closer in both firepower and armor than the Tiger and the Sherman yet occasionally a Sherman won when confronting a Tiger.

 

SAorry I may have missed something. Where exactly did the "Guderian " quotes come from? I cantl see them on the link

 

Second column, second paragraph. Though it appears rather spurious. Spread from website to website more than anything. Not found a decent attribution yet.

Though, if it stands, I'd agree with lwd; So what? Generals said things. They weren't infallible, or to be somehow treated as founts of holy scripture. (Except for his equally uncertainly attributed "Here's to Hobart!" - on that, he was spot on, if he said it. )

 

Consider that in general officers aren't usually happy about trading resources one for one. Then look at the case of Germany in the second half of the war. If I were Guderian I wouldn't want my troops engaging in a fight where they only had a 50:50 chance of winning unless it was absolutely critical. In his position I would try and discourage one on one contests between Tigers and IS2s as much as possible. Especially at that point in the war I don't want a "fair fight".

 

Sheldrake --right hand column under IS-2 in action
yes, I'd go with General LWD instead of PFC Guderian, also....

Tiger older than IS 2

''impervious'' --

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1_in_action.htm scroll down to last section bottom of page ""Tiger 1E vs IS-2'''

point number '''7. in addition a firefight with JS tanks should not be undertaken in less than Zug strength. Employment of single Tigers means their loss'''....

that's twice we see single Tiger V JS equals death for Tiger, from German viewpoint !!
bold and italics mine

point 7 from a kompanie commander this time

 

I say again.
He appears, if the quote stands, to be referring to Tiger. As does the fprado link.
The question on this daft thread was Tiger II...

Edit: I am a twat. I see the thread is referring to First Gen Tigger.

Deployment of any single tank means it's death. Surely? Though since he's apparently referring to a different sort of tiger, it's all rather moot.

As is any of this versus stuff .

 

'''Here is how this works, the poster says a match and then gives his opinion on why he thinks that vehicle or tank would win. Others can reply or start a new topic etc.

IS-II VS Tiger 1''' bold mine .... we're talking Tiger 1s...link is talking Tiger 1s.....

ok, just like other threads..I back up statements with more than 1 example with links, and rebut posts, and then people still deny??

Von P says '''Though, if it stands, I'd agree with lwd; So what? Generals said things.'' so I give a kompanie commander saying the same thing as Guderian, and people are still denying it...??

''
'''Compared with the Tiger, the JS-2 was slightly better protected even though it was ten tons lighter.. The 88 mm and 122 mm guns had more or less the same AP ability, but again, German gun had less HE ability. Both tanks could penetrate each other's frontal armor from ~1000 metres. At greater distances success highly depended on experience of the crew and battle conditions.
The JS-2 had thicker armor, thus it had a better chance at distances over 1500 metres. On the other hand, the Tiger had better optics and thus had a better chance of hitting the JS-2. The main drawback of the Tiger was the slow angular velocity of the turret. However, the Tiger had an excellent length/width ratio (almost 1:1) which made it extremely maneuverable. And if the Tiger could not traverse its turret fast enough, the whole tank could swivel to bring the gun to bear.''' bold mine

as I and others stated, crew important

http://english.battlefield.ru/tanks/10-heavy-tanks/19-js-2.html quote above from this link...who doesn't love the tanks??

 

My apologies. I had taken it as Tiger 2, under the assumption that such versus stuff would at least include comparable vehicles. Then we both cited the same contact with tiger 2, which further compounded my idiocy.

Mea Culpa.

 

Guderian

Kompanie commander

Guderian

why are they saying this?

 

But of course it's not just my opinion vs Guderians is it? I was basing it in large part off the action posted where roughly equal number of Tigers (admittedly IIs) and IS2 resulted in roughly equal losses. That certainly suggest that committing a single Tiger vs a single IS2 is pretty much a toss up and not a certain loss for either side. As for the company commander he's not talking about a one on one either is he? He mentions IS tanks (PLS note the plural). In any case a single tank like a single fighter is at a significant disadvantage if more than one opponent shows up. Multiple tanks allow you the chance to actually use some tactics. Again is the difference between a Tiger and an IS tank greater than the difference between a Sherman and a Tiger? I wouldn't think so yet Shermans on occasion did win one on one duels with Tigers. Not something I would want to do on a regular basis certainly but also not certain.

 

View attachment 23637

 

Fair comment.

 

Guderian and Kommander comments are from that time frame...looks like they ran into a tank that put some fear into them....Guderian says ''one on one"'....certainly the K Commander doesn't mean single Tigers by themselves should not go after more than 1 JS ...that should be common sense.....it means one v one, no?? as Guderian said? I don't think tankers are going to take a single tank after more than 1...they knew better
anyway, these links are not the whole picture....need to look up penetration power of the guns, no?? I'm definitely no expert in the penetration tables, etc.....from these links, the tanks appear near even --in total --at moderate range...
the quotes from Guderian and K Kommander very interesting though...from that Battlefield link it says JS2s and Tiger 1 and 2s '''engaged only occasionally'''

point 8, what is this?? ..."'after the first hitS are registered,..blind the JS by firing [HE shells]''' ..bold mine
they want to switch to HE...?? are the APs not working ???? hits with an S? they hit with more than 1 AP shell,?!! what are your thoughts on point 8 ? they don't know if AP is a kill, so they go to HE, then back to AP?