Best tank

Firstly it is not a matter of ROF but of ammunition capacity. I'm not saying a tank should be capable of spitting out rounds at maximum ROF indefinitely, I'm only saying it should be able to maintain full combat capacity for more than ten shots, especially in the middle of intense tank to tank combat such as at the spearhead of an operation where the JS-2 was to be used. ROF does not matter so much as the ability to continue the fight after dispatching a small number of enemy vehicles or targets. A 28-round stock of all types does not allow even a single miss in an average combat situation; if this were really not a problem, then why did all tank designers of the war bother to squeeze three times as many dangerous explosive rounds into their already tightly packed tanks than the JS-2 could stow?

Secondly the commont regarding the gun being slow is not a matter of ROF either, but merely of reaction time. Targets on a long-range battlefield such as you describe are likely to spot each other simultaneously; however, the tank using QF ammunition is going to be much faster at delivering the first, and if necessary the second shot than the tank using two-part ammunition.

 

Not really, as both tanks would likely already have a round loaded... AFAIK tank crews went into battle with one round loaded so they could be the first to fire... When they did fire the round, a second round was loaded immediately whether or not there were any visible targets, again so they could be quick once the target was spotted... I don't think it was any different for tanks with two-piece shells... There were never any accounts of (experienced ) tank crews shouting "Vasili, a Tiger! Quick, assemble the round and load it, so we can fire!" that would be like telling a soldier only to load his rifle once the enemy was seen... It would be a drawback however, if both tanks spotted each other simultaneously, both missed, and both had to load another round... then the JS-2 would be in trouble, but that's quite a specific example...

Another drawback of the JS-2 I believe was that the turret traverse was very slow, due to it having a large heavy gun... This meant that if a target was spotted it took a long time for it to swing its turret around to aim... But this probably was only a real problem in close quarters fighting...

As for round capacity, 22 rounds does look like a drawback for any extended fighting where the JS-2 is outnumbered... We really need more information... Does anybody know how many shots on average does a tank fire in battle per day? Or what the logistic doctrines of the Red Army were when it came to re-supplying their tanks?

 

Although what to laod often caused a bit of a quandry. Not much good having AP up the spout if you see an anti-tank gun, and not much good having HE up the spout if you see a tank.

 

Ricky nailed it.
In an armor video-gameI've been known to play, it's much quicker to fire the round in the chamber--correct load or no--and reload as quickly as possible with the desired-type of ammunition.
Much slower to unload the round in the chamber--AP--when your target is a HE-one such as troops or AT-gun. Especially true in a JS-2 with two-piece shells.
The JS-2 didn't allow any margin for error in regard to wasting rounds. With 28 rounds total, that means only roughly 14 shells of each-type. Better have a dead-eye gunner, 'cause you need to make EVERY shot count.

Tim

 

It is 28 rounds and as I said before the crews considered it to be enough for 1 day combat. Check in battlefield.ru for the "Report about operations of the 71st Independent Guards Heavy Tank Regiment."

Because tanks are built for different purposes and missions. The british tank "Conqueror", designed to fight against the IS series could carry 30-35 rounds, and it was never a problem. Also, a 122 HE round will probably do the work of 3/4 76mm HE and so on. Most of the AP rounds in the IS were not used anyway...


Regards.

 

Or, to be more accurate, one unit considered it sufficient during one operation.

 

Real-life accounts that I have read say much the same thing. Load for what you most expect to meet, and shoot what you've got at what you meet. A HE shell will at least rattle an enemy tank crew, hopefully giving you time to reload before they fire. At best, they'll think they got knocked out and will bail out.

 

Have you found a report in which the crews said that the ammo was not enough?

Regards.

 

I haven't looked.

 

alejandro:
I don't believe anyone is disputing the destructive power of a 122mm HE round, but simply the notion that only 28 two-piece rounds can be carried.

All well and fine if the "offensive breakout" goes as expected... not so good if stiff German counterattacks are the response. Better have that supply train of main-gun ammo close-by because replenishment will be forthcoming. (And probably while under-fire.)

This tells me the JS-2 was not intended to operate independently, but only in close support with infantry and armor. The JS-2 would never be able to hold-up an enemies' advance in such a way as the Tiger, or KV-2 was famous for.

Tim

 

Well from what i have read about this tanks they were only used for "offensive breakout" after this the lighter tanks were used to carry on with the atack and it was a role that they were good,but then again maybe that was becouse at this stage of the war German counteratacks were something that was hardly to happen.

One of the IS-2's most notable engagements took place during the fighting in August 1944 to establish a bridgehead across the river Vistula around the town of Sandomierz. This was the first time the IS-2 had come up against the fearsome Tiger II. During the engagement on August 13, the 71st Independent Heavy Tank Regiment's eleven IS-2s blocked an attack by fourteen Tiger IIs of the 105th Heavy Panzer Regiment. An engagement at 600 metres (660 yd) coupled with skilled tactical handling saw four Tiger IIs destroyed, for the loss of three IS-2s and seven damaged. This was a very creditable performance, although the post-battle analysis again revealed that the IS-2's armour was vulnerable up to 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) due to faulty casting.

Source
Russian Tanks of World War II(Stalins Armoured Might)-Tim Bean Will Fowler

 

Combat history showed that this was true,maybe that was becouse Pather armor was sloped at 35' and the King Tiger was at 50'(allmost twice more).Experince showed that IS-2 could penetrate Panther armor at distance no more than 600m but like we saw from my previous post it didn,t had trouble when fighting with King Tiger at same distance.

 

The Tiger II's frontal armour was sloped at 40 degrees from horisontal, not 50.

 

I think that 50 is the correct value.

Sources

Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War II - Peter Chamberlain and Hilary L. Doyle.
Osprey New Vanguard-KingTiger Heavy Tank 1942-45 - Tom Jentz and Hilary Doyle.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II 40° (no source - though links provided to 4 sites)

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm 50° (no source – no surprise there then :-? )

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htm 50° (uses Jentz as source)

http://afvdb.50megs.com/germany/pz6.html#AusfB 50° (References and sources given including Jentz/Doyle - this is the better of the 4 links)

Christian your own site matches or betters most of the above but doesn’t mention the armour angles.

 

It's 40 degrees from horisontal and 50 degrees from vertical. It depends on what you measure from. Unless you state whether the slope is from vertical or horisontal, it doesn't convey any real information.

The Wikipedia website mentions that it's 40 degrees from horisontal, which is correct.
Achtung - Panzer ! and Armor Site makes no mention of whether it's 50 degrees from horisontal or vertical, however it is implicit that it's from vertical, based on the angles of the other angles. 50 degrees from vertical is correct.
The AFV Database website mentions that it's 50 degrees from vertical, which is correct.

The post above used the Panther's glacis armour slope of 35 degrees as a reference. Since these 35 degrees is from horisontal, the slope mentioned for the Tiger II must also be measured from horisontal if nothing else is mentioned. The correct slope in this case would therefore be 40 degrees.

The difference is quite important, in that 40 degrees from horisontal gives a nominal slope multiplier of 1,56, while 50 degrees from horisontal only gives a nominal slope multiplier of 1,31. For reference, 35 degrees from horisontal gives a nominal slope multiplier of 1,74.

The Tiger II's glacis plate was 150 mm thick (nominal), and the Panther's glacis plate was 80 mm think (nominal). The actual thickness of the Panther's glacis plate was often closer to 85 mm, as measured at Aberdeen after the war on several test vehicles.

This provides the Tiger II with a glacis plate with a relative armour thickness of 234 mm, as opposed to 139,2 mm (or 147,9 mm, depending on which nominal thickness you use) for the Panther. At the same time, the Tiger II's armour plate would be far less prone to overmatching.

 

Yep,you are right on this one.The panther sloup armor 55' from vertical.What realy brings a question from all this is.Why(if true) IS-2 tanks would have more trouble to penetrate Panther armor then the King Tiger.
And what is even more interesting is that while i was searching for more info about IS-2 i found(in other book) out that Is-2 could penetrate Panther armor even at the ranges of 1000m but Panther needed to close up to 600m.

Source for this info is.
Osprey New Vanguard-IS-2 Heavy Tank 1944-73 - Steven Zaloga

 

It depends on which armour you are referring to. If you are referring to the frontal armour, then it couldn't be penetrated at all by the Russian 122 mm D-25T in the case of the Tiger II by single hits. The side armour of the Tiger II could be penetrated by heavy Russian anti-tank artillery from normal combat ranges (I can't remember for sure, but I believe the T-34-85 would have to get closer than the average engagement range to be able to penetrate the Tiger II's 80 mm. side armour).

As I recall, the German rated the Panther equal to the JS-2 for frontal engagements, and inferior in side engagements.

 

If i am not wrong i think that first 3 King Tigers destroyed on the Easternt front were hit by T-34-85,hits took places on the side armour sides of King Tigers(but the crew of T-34-85played dirty ,they were hiding in ambush)

I know that one of the reasons why Panther trouble for IS-2 was solved by the end of 1944 was that because shortage of manggnese and the germans had to use high-carbon steel aloyed with nickel for armor plates.
Do you have some information about what was used for King Tiger armor plates?

 

i would have to say the best tank is... a tie, the T34-85, PzIV, Sherman were all about equal. they all played differnet strenghts and weaknesses. however if the Panther was a simiple design, and more reliable, and German trusted tank manufacturing to the car manufactures, then the Panther would be the best.