Is-2 or King Tiger?

Well, if you can give some evidence on this fact...

We have already discuss this in the past:

- Kubinka tests.

- Tank Strike - the Experience of the Tank Army in Front Offensive Operations in the Great Patriotic War by A. I. Radzievskiy, Moscow, 1977

The KT had a series of disadvantages which were quite difficult to overcome, it was hard to evacuate, high fuel consumption, heavy weight...

Gunter_Viezenz

Thats a 3 hp difference out of ~20, I am talking about a difference of 5 hp out of approximately 10... by the way, 700 hp is at maximum revs, the engine was limited to a maximum 2500 rpm, which lower output power.

Another way to look at it:

Type-96 vs Leo-2: 14.28% higher in Leo-2.
Panther vs Tiger-II: 51.84% advantage to Panther.

It just doesn't hold...

Regards.

 

Roel
There were some problems with the first vehicles, just like there was on the Panther, but these problems were fixed.

alejandro_

You're the one who made a proposition, so why do I have to prove it?

And as I've mentioned in my previous post, the Kubinka test has several fallacies which makes it difficult to derive any useful conclusions from it.

As for the book you mention, since I don't have it, perhaps you would be so kind as to quote the sections showing how JS-2s have driven more than a thousand kilometres without any maintenance, based on actual experiences, highly preferably explaining the actual route taken?

The JS-2 had deficiencies as well, including a low rate of fire, a low ammunition storage capacity and a crammed interior. That doesn't make it 'irrational'.

 

When and how they were fixed? I don't recall any change in the Tiger-II transmission or suspension. By the way, the specimen tested at Kubinka had a Henschel turret, which means that at least 50 had been produced at that point. How many do you consider to be first "series"? it is just hard to believe that the KT, using the same engine than the Panther, could give a comparable mobility, especially when considering the Panther's tendency to catch fire or overheat.

No, somebody said it was difficult to drive, but I have not come accross any evidence showing that,

Read the reports from units: the ammo was considered enough for one day of combat. The low rate of fire is not that critical because most of the time the IS-2 did not face enemy tanks, and in a combat the ROF are not that huge.

I'll try to look for more information on the data I supplied, but it will take time.

Regards.

 

the first IJ2 to be looked at by the germans were in may 44
a company of tiger 1 from grossdeuchland got engaged at 3000 m by weird
russian tanks and got the shock of their life to see their 88 bounce off the
buggers , a bit of the hero stuff later , Hptm Klemz had a knight cross
decoration in the offing and the german crews were gazing with unbriddled
interest upon the latest bad news from tankograd ! :-?

they concluded than the IS 2 was well armed and well armoured ,
ludicrously cramped and a bit unmanoeuvrable .

I can not find any statistics of reliability except in the negative ,
there was no complain about it while there were plenty about the KV
all the mods were on the armor shape and armament ,
but not on the engine ,drive train or suspention
there is records of the first units , at battalion strenght , going to
battle at polotsk and brest with distinction after 200 miles of fighting
under russian wartime maintenance (need I said more )
it compare well with the wretched baptism of fire of it's weigh equivalent
the panther .
on the 2nd and 3th ukrainian , long distance driving was the
norm and the IS2 did follows the pace ,
I conclude than the IS2 was a reliable machine ,
well designed for it's purpose , infantry support and break through
operation , I suspect than the russian crew were more worried about
panzerfaust than KT
.
.
.

 

I would not say the Panther is the IS 2's equivalent, the IS 2 is a heavy breakthrough tank while the Panther is a sophisticated medium tank - and they are designed as such.

 

He said they were each other's weight equivalent only, though I agree that weight alone does not determine mobility.

 

on the subject of reliability , weight has a direct negative influence on
mechanical stress and breakdown ,
going overweight might be a display of engineering excelence
but is ..always.. asking for trouble.
I find the KT to be an obscenity born of flawed thinking , there is
somthing sick about the search for bigger , biggest solutions to
battle field problems . a lightly armored staff car with two panzershrek
on the roof could have been as valid an option .

 

or perhaps the mule with a recoiless gun proposed by krupp

 

Yes in the future we shoudl fight with mules that carry big guns on their backs, not with hi-tech weapons to kill the enmy in mass numbers. Leave it up to mules.

 

Making fun out of an ass....not nice :cry:

http://foto.rambler.ru/users/evmtvm/11/picccszn_30/

 

I wasnt making fun of it, comple opposite complim,enting it on its effectivness.

 

Right you are... I withdraw my comment!

 

.
.
I was told than mules had a distingished combat record on the italian front

unfortunatly it was combat with their handlers
.
.
.