Is-2 or King Tiger?

And here we go again.

I wonder when someone will actually present some evidence that the JS-2 had a better maintenance recard than than the Tiger II. Until then, it can't be used as an argument.

 

On the IS-2

I know we shouldn't rely on websites for all our knowledge but I don't really have much of a library of books.

from http://www.russianwarrior.com/STMMain.h ... tory.htm&1

Now correct me I'f i'm wrong but the flaws in the IS-2's armour would seem to be even with the flaws in the Tiger II's armour.

As to the gun and penetration ranges, if their figures are correct then the Tigher II has the advantage.

The same web page also mentions that in one 3 week period IS-2's destroyed over 40 axis tanks and that the majority of their own losses (supposedly 8) were due

Being cynical I would query Kill rates as agains't loss rates as both sides probably inflated or minimised these (though I do understand the Germans tended to be more pernickety about the accuracy of their records - always willing to be corrected).


As to reliability I have not been able to find much other than

from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... a/is-2.htm Interestingly I have also just finished reading "Tank Rider" by Iveni Bessenov and in it there are mentions of mechanical breakdowns with both T-34's and IS tanks the infantry travelled on so i guess the IS series, while better mechanically than teh KV series still had it's problems.

While looking for information I found the battlefield.ru site not loading for me but I did find one good article on the IS-2 at http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quart ... _serie.htm

 

The main problem is, that these are all generalized statements. The only information which would induce somekind of overall knowledge of reliability would be massive statistics, including the far majority (preferably all) of the JS-2s

 

I would agree with that Christian. On balance I would go for the Tiger II purely on it's gun and rate of fire over the IS-2 especially given that I cannot find any instance of the Tiger II being penetrated frontally whereas this did occur to the IS-2.

The roles of both tanks were different too. The IS-2 was intended as a breakthrough tank (sound familiar?) while the Tiger II was I believe primarily a defensive tank in it's design.

 

Wrong.Tiger II was an assalult tank.BUT it was too slow for those operations.Because of it's great armour he was excellent in defensive rolle.

 

The Tiger II had a cruising speed of 38 km./h., as opposed to about 41.8 km./h. for the Medium Tank M4A3. Those 3.8 km./h. are of course really important.

 

!ACHTUNG!
You will note I did not state it was a defensive tank, I merely stated an opinion or belief based on the information I have read on the internet or books, quoted from and provided links to.

If I am wrong please give me some sources showing that I am wrong rather than just saying Wrong and following it up with a somewhat sweeping statement.

As to mobility you say

Check the following link and scroll down to the heading "Mobility" and to the "Specifications"
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htm

Speed for the Tiger ausf B is listed as Road 35-38km/h, Cross country as 17km/h
According to Panzers at War by A J Barker the road speed is listed as 42km/h while the cross country speed is 17km/h (As this is an old publication and possibly innaccurate it may be wrong - sheesh, the things I bought all those years ago! ah well it has nice piccies ).
From German Tanks of World War Two by Von Senger und Etterlin, page 73 I find this "Road speed was about 42km/h and cross country 15-19km/h" - again this is an old book and probably less accurate than the Jentz and Doyle books are.
Even allowing for this, these figures are reasonably consistent.

Speed for the IS-2 is listed as 37Km/h on http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quart ... _serie.htm but does not give figures for road or cross country.

On wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosef_Stalin_tank the speed is listed as 37km/h but yet again makes no mention of cross country performance.

Despite the poorer information on the IS-2 there seems little difference in the speeds between the two tanks. It would be interesting to find some more definitive information of the IS-2 road and cross country performance.

So from all of that I would say that there was little difference in the overall mobility with the exception that the Tiger Ausf B would have to be more carefull in fording or bridging due to it's greater weight.[/quote]

 

Fuel consumption per 100 km was 970 liters instead of the 700 liters according to this same (captured) manual. Average rate of movement along the highway was 25-30 km/h, 13.4-15 km/h along an dirt road. The average speed when moving over rough terrain was even worse: 6-7 km/h.

Taken from http://www.battlefield.ru/

Tiger 2 has been made when German industry was very weak.Tiger 2 didn't have the QUALITY like tiger 1 .That's the whole deal.

 

Uhm. Define QUALITY in this context?

 

!ACHTUNG!
So you base your entire evaluation of a design based on tests performed by a single captured vehicle, which wasn't handled according to the manual?[/quote]

 

The my opinion: Tiger 2 was the best tank as tanks against tanks, IS-2 was the best as assault tank.
The my thought explanations: The IS-2 had a low rate of fire (1 - 2 shot in minute), that has been trouble to the aimed fire to moving target, especially on a far... Also, Tiger 2 had a better the sights, speed of rotation of turret and handleability. Required of the efforts on the lever in IS-2 even to 60 kg, driver had get tired and the maneuvering qualities was worse.

 

Actually I have never come accross any problem with the IS-2 driving ability. In fact, the chassis was used until the 60s, so I don't think there was any problem with it.

How do you know it was not handle accordingly to the manual?

How can the Tiger-II have a similar mobility to the Panther if the power to weight ratio in the last is higher? how long can a 69 ton tank keep 38 km/h, if the Panther, with the same engine, and 45 tons, gets to 41 km/h?

IIRC this was done for a protoype, not on serial production tanks...

In terms of reliability, the IS-2 was capable of running 1000 kms without any major repair, other sources raised this to 1200-2000 kms. This difference is probably due to the performance of different series... I have not any german reference on the KT, but there are cases of 37/45 breaking in a short trip, or Peiper placing his at the end of the columns because if they brake down they were difficult to evacuate...

In reality the IS-2 was a much more rational machine.

Regards.

 

I believe the Medium Tank M4A3 refers to the Sherman, not the Panther. I'd be very surprised if the Americans were putting the same engine the the Sherman as the Tiger II used!

 

Yes I know, I was talking about the data supplied in websites such as:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htm

http://www.panzerworld.net/tigerii.html

Regards.

 

From "Sledgehammers: Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battlions in WWII" by Christopher Willbeck:

Cross country speed of the Tiger I is quoted as "10-20 kph" and as "15-20 kph" for the Tiger II. It also states that "Tiger battalions' mobility was extremley limited; its mobility was barely 50% greater than a foot borne infantry battalion by day, and about the same as an infantry battalion by night. Attempts to move faster than this, - or to move a great deal, at any speed - were sure cause serious maintenace problems." Note this does not mean indivisual tanks were not capable of moving faster.
Of course this says absolutely nothing about the reliability of the IS-2.

 

alejandro_
Weight affects acceleration much more than top speed, which is affected by aerodynamics, friction, and max HP output.

 

Alejandro, it is worth quoting those sources then rather than the post concerning a different tank. My knowledge of mechanics and tanks is limited so I will bow out here, but if you quote something comparing the M4 Sherman people will naturally assume that your argument concerns the M4 Sherman.

 

Only because power to weight ratio is close on two objects does not mean they will travel at the same speed.


Panther
44.8 tonnes
700 hp
15.625 hp/tonne
Tiger II
68 tonnes
700 hp
10.29 hp/tonne

Look at for example Type 96 vs Leopard 2
hp/tonne for Type 96 is 21 and Leopard 2 is around 24
Difference in speed is 17km/h in favor of the Leopard 2.

If you say that 3hp/t is such a difference look at the Lecler to the leopard 2

 

Alejadro

What you 'think' is completely irrelevant.

Simply compare the instructions in the German manual on how to maneuvre with Tigers to the descrption given in the report.

The drive train design can have a lot of influence on how well the power is used. Besides, you're trying to shift the burden of evidence here, which is a logical fallacy.

And the evidence of this is where? Furthermore, is this as described by the Soviet manual for armour unit marhces, which required frequent maintenance and rest stops, or is it without any maintenance stops?

Without defining rational, you are by definition wrong.

canambridge
There is a difference between cross-country speed and cruising speed. Furthermore, the specifications in the German manual for movement with Tiger units specifies movement speeds lower than what could be obtained by the vehicles, but that is true for the Soviet manuals as well. Think about it: just because your car can drive 200 km./h. doesn't mean that you should.

 

I think it's more of a rhetorical question, Christian. As far as I know, the Tiger II's gearbox was not very reliable, which would support Alejandro's point. Suspension was equally troublesome wasn't it?