Trustpager

IS-6 - Should it get BR-471D

With the BR-471B shell now only having 199mm of pen flat at 10m the IS-6 can only pen the Tiger 2H turret reliably from 350m.

 

Giving the IS-6 BR-417D would be historical as the tank was designed early and then late 1944, the same as the IS-3 and IS-4 which have BR-417D. This would allow the IS-6 to be able to reliably kill Tiger 2Hs from the front again.

  • Confused 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only find info on BR471B being from early 1945, is there any document that says that the is6 was equiped with or tested with BR471D?

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ABT653 said:

I can only find info on BR471B being from early 1945, is there any document that says that the is6 was equiped with or tested with BR471D?

Hmm that is what I'm looking for. It's really difficult to find any information about ammunition types for WW2 era tank guns, especially Soviet.

 

I don't even think tanks having the D shell is chosen by historical use. Considering the IS-3 in game has the D shell but it isn't the IS-3m judging by the name and lack of fuel tanks that can be dropped. 

 

Even if it didn't have it, honestly from a balance perspective being stuck with a long reload and only 199mm of pen at 7.3 sucks.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Trustpager said:

Giving the IS-6 BR-417D would be historical as the tank was designed early and then late 1944, the same as the IS-3 and IS-4 which have BR-417D. This would allow the IS-6 to be able to reliably kill Tiger 2Hs from the front again.

Why? It's not like the Tiger II will be able to easily destroy an IS-6 from more than 350m hitting that tiny spot on the turret...

At the time the IS-6 prototype existed the only rounds available were the BR-471 and BR-471B.

The BR-471D was only available in the mid 50s.

What the IS-6 lacks in penetration it makes up for it with mobility and better RoF compared to the IS-3.

Also, not only does the BR-471B penetrate front from 400m, it will also penetrate the side if the turret is just slightly angled.

 

If historical accurate neither 122mm AP or APBC round would be able to penetrate more than 165mm of ductile armor, making the Tiger II completely immune against both 100mm and 122mm WW2 ammunition from the front.

With that the Tiger II could go head to head against the IS-3 and the Tiger armed with the 105mm gun would even be able to penetrate the IS-3s front armor.

Only the 122mm BR-471D round should be able to penetrate the turret of the Tiger II but it would have barely enough penetration to penetrate the turret of the T29/30/34.

 

Without BR-471D it would look like this:

IS-2 1944 <<<< IS-3 < IS-6 < Tiger II H < T34 = 105 Tiger II

 

With BR-471D it would look like this:

Tiger II H < IS-3 < IS-6 < T34 = 105 Tiger II

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17. marec 2019 at 14:29, KillaKiwi said:

If historical accurate neither 122mm AP or APBC round would be able to penetrate more than 165mm of ductile armor, making the Tiger II completely immune against both 100mm and 122mm WW2 ammunition from the front.

 

Except that IRL the IS-2 could kill Tiger 2s with HE shells from front and that is not modeled in game. One of the German tank aces described in his book very concisely just such an occurence when his platoon attacked a depot and IS-2 crews managed to get into their tanks.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jackTIGR said:

Except that IRL the IS-2 could kill Tiger 2s with HE shells from front and that is not modeled in game. One of the German tank aces described in his book very concisely just such an occurence when his platoon attacked a depot and IS-2 crews managed to get into their tanks.

The only part a 122mm HE shell can damage is the optics. Theres just no way a 122mm HE can reliably damage a tank as heavily armored from the front as the Tiger II.

 

However I have to correct myself in that the 122mm AP round is probably able to penetrate the turret to around 600-1000m since AP shells penetrate more armor than flat shells even if they reach a point where the shell is deforming during the penetration. However it's always hard to make assumptions about AP penetration knowing that Soviet AP shells weren't that effective due to the lack sufficent nose hardness.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/03/2019 at 04:26, Trustpager said:

With the BR-471B shell now only having 199mm of pen flat at 10m the IS-6 can only pen the Tiger 2H turret reliably from 350m.

 

Giving the IS-6 BR-417D would be historical as the tank was designed early and then late 1944, the same as the IS-3 and IS-4 which have BR-417D. This would allow the IS-6 to be able to reliably kill Tiger 2Hs from the front again.

Just flank it, bro.

On 15/04/2019 at 04:53, kobra2123 said:

1605555906_Untitled.png15.png.d7b41a2f72Untitled.png.fdc344648afd0d6d4fc1bac3bc4

   1966185216_Untitled.png13.thumb.png.f45e570115636_Untitled.png12.thumb.png.6e1f2

 

 

 

 

Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4. maj 2019 at 23:17, KillaKiwi said:

The only part a 122mm HE shell can damage is the optics. Theres just no way a 122mm HE can reliably damage a tank as heavily armored from the front as the Tiger II.

 

Not in the game, no. But IRL the HE was a completely different kind of beast, especially with the poor/brittle armor quality and poor welding the "King" Tigers came with.

 

Just two examples from the first link, there's a lot more in that link, plus in others:
""Shot #1. Target: upper front plate. Shell: 122 mm HE-fragmentation.

Result: spalling across an area 300 mm by 300 mm. The welding seam between the upper front plate and the machine gun port burst on 3/4 of its circumference. Internal bolts holding the machine gun ball were torn off. The welding seam between the upper front plate and the right side burst, and the right side was displaced by 5 mm. The tank caught fire internally.""
 
Oh, can't pass this one by:
"Shot #3. Target: upper front plate. Shell: 122 mm AP flat type. Distance: 500 m.
Result: dent 310 mm by 300 mm, 100 mm deep. On the rear side, a piece of armour 160 mm by 170 mm and 50 mm deep cracked off. The welding seam between the upper front plate and hull roof burst. All seams between the upper and lower front plates burst. The seam between the lower left hull and the left side of the hull burst. The driver's observation device was torn off."
 
Here, we see the perils of overly hard armour again. Even though the shell did not penetrate, the large chunk of armour that flew off the other end effectively carried out the shell's job, killing crew members and destroying tank components. The driver now has his observation device embedded in his skull, which doesn't increase his effectiveness any. More welding seams fail throughout the tank."

 

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/is-2-vs-german-big-cats.html

 

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a954940.pdf

 

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/08/german-armour-quality.html

 

 

 

Edited by jackTIGR
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.