RoflSeal

IS-2 (All Modifications) - Questions, Information, Gameplay

The Egyptians did not have the D-74 during the Suez crisis. It's a 122mm APBC shell fired a 2625fp/s. This means actually its A-19. To get D-25T lower figures by about 5%.

 

And if the D-25 had lackluster Armor piercing performance, the Kwk 36 and KwK42 must of been lackluster as well, considering the D-25T outperformed those guns. There are no two ways about it. The D-25T was a powerful gun for its era.

Edited by RoflSeal
  • Upvote 4
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Egyptians did not have the D-74 during the Suez crisis. It's a 122mm APBC shell fired a 2625fp/s. This means actually its A-19. To get D-25T lower figures by about 5%.

 

And if the D-25 had lackluster Armor piercing performance, the Kwk 36 and KwK42 must of been lackluster as well, considering the D-25T outperformed those guns. There are no two ways about it. The D-25T was a powerful gun for its era.

Well, then tell me the Name of the APBC Shell in question, it sure as hell wasn't the BR471 or BR471B.

 

While at it, just tell me a reliable source (Book) which supports those numbers which are FAR higher than anything I could find for the D25T or the A-19.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then tell me the Name of the APBC Shell in question, it sure as hell wasn't the BR471 or BR471B.

 

While at it, just tell me a reliable source (Book) which supports those numbers which are FAR higher than anything I could find for the D25T or the A-19.

CAMD RF 81-12038-303.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then tell me the Name of the APBC Shell in question, it sure as hell wasn't the BR471 or BR471B.

 

While at it, just tell me a reliable source (Book) which supports those numbers which are FAR higher than anything I could find for the D25T or the A-19.

It has to be BR-471B. The only APBC round compatible with the D-25T

Also, Books, tend to display the penetration using Russian CP criteria. A criteria that will show the lowest performance. WWII Gunnery says that British criteria will show the highest performance, German and US were about equal. When the US tested the D-25T, they also got over 200mm of penetration at 0deg at short ranges.

 

And then if you use the IP criteria that the Russians also used, though nowhere near as much, it shows the D-25T having these similar performance figures aswell

penetration.gif

 

And books are not necessarilly reliable. They also tend not to get updated once new primary sources (archives material) are found. The most reliable sources are primary sources.

 

I also updated the graph, because I found an error in the conversion from 30 to 0 degrees.

Edited by RoflSeal
  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has to be BR-471B. The only APBC round compatible with the D-25T

Also, Books, tend to display the penetration using Russian CP criteria. A criteria that will show the lowest performance.

Because soviets used the hardest steel they didn't even use for their Tanks or because they used it against captured Tanks in a method which was basically starting with small calibers and then use bigger guns until it pens?

 

 

And then if you use the IP criteria that the Russians also used, though nowhere near as much, it shows the D-25T having these similar performance figures aswell

penetration.gif

Don't know, either it's a very morale boosting chart or simply a very late one, but surely not with WW2 Ammo.

 

According to this, the D25T would outperform the D10T which was considered to be far more effective in AT Role.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because soviets used the hardest steel they didn't even use for their Tanks or because they used it against captured Tanks in a method which was basically starting with small calibers and then use bigger guns until it pens?

 

 

Don't know, either it's a very morale boosting chart or simply a very late one, but surely not with WW2 Ammo.

 

According to this, the D25T would outperform the D10T which was considered to be far more effective in AT Role.

If you look at the King Tiger, the Russians first tested the 122mm, then moved on to a mixture of 100mm, 122mm, 85mm and 152mm shells. The last shells were 75mm and 88mm, and the final shell was 122mm if I remember correctly.

Doesn't support your statement.

 

What part of different criteria shows different performance do you not understand? Are you trolling?

Edited by RoflSeal
  • Upvote 4
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unditching beam.

Can be used to make a tank become unstuck in mud and also...

 

Jeremy+Clarkson+is+a+smart+man_9587ad_48

 

LIES! That is actually a log of raw Stalinwood to provide extra armor for glorious defender of motherland!  ;)s

 

 

Now seriously, the log was used for what ROFLSEAL said.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the King Tiger, the Russians first tested the 122mm, then moved on to a mixture of 100mm, 122mm, 85mm and 152mm shells. The last shells were 75mm and 88mm, and the final shell was 122mm if I remember correctly.

Doesn't support your statement.

What statement? That I don't trust a scanned piece of soviet paper which doesn't even state the Shell fired, the Date or the Velocity in combination with your assumption that it was the WW2-Ammo? And your RoF in training conditions?

 

 

What part of different criteria shows different performance do you not understand? Are you trolling?

I don't understand the part in which unknown ammo, unknown velocity and unknown Date with figures that differ by a huge margin from "trusted" Data can be the criteria to use. And no, since I'm not the one posting odd Data I'm not the troll here.

 

But hey, why should I bother to let the IS-2 be accurate instead of a one-shot one-kill tank, after all it's going to be a German Premium, if not because they captured it in WW2, then because East Germany got the first ones in 1952 and since we ignore Dates compared to Tiers anyway, I'm sure my Gold would be sufficient to buy the -with your data- best Tank of WW2.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What statement? That I don't trust a scanned piece of soviet paper which doesn't even state the Shell fired, the Date or the Velocity in combination with your assumption that it was the WW2-Ammo? And your RoF in training conditions?

Your statement that Soviets started with small calibers and moved on to large calibers is wrong.

The source itself is  TsNIIP GBTU KA reference, 1944, hence you can rightly assume round fired is BR-471B. Round listed is D-25T hence it has a muzzle velocity of circa 790m/s. Since the 71st IHTR wrote that the IS-2 had a practical rate of fire of 3rpm in a report on combat experience in August-September 1944, since Kotin's loading device was designed to increase rate of fire, and was installed on late production vehicles in 1945, I don't see anything wrong with a RoF of 4-6rpm.

 

I don't understand the part in which unknown ammo, unknown velocity and unknown Date with figures that differ by a huge margin from "trusted" Data can be the criteria to use. And no, since I'm not the one posting odd Data I'm not the troll here.

122mm D-25T performance under different criteria at 100m/0deg firing BR-471B APBCHE

US Navy BL (results printed in WWII Ballistics) (50% of fragments pass through 50% of the time): 201mm

Russian IP (TsNIIP GBTU KA reference, 1944) (75% of fragments pass through 20% of the time): 211mm

British W/R (MN 388/01)(50% success with success being that a shell passes through) : 208mm (graph shows 215, but since D-25T has approximately 3% worse performance then A-19, I subsequently lowered it)

Russian CP (Encyclopedia of Domestic artillery) (75% of fragments pass through 80% of the time) : 176mm

 

WWII Ballistics suggests that Russian CP gives a performance between 12-15% worse then US Navy BL.

That means that 176*1.12 or 1.15 gives a range of 197.1-202.4mm. 201mm is within this range.

WWII Ballistics also says that British W/R should show higher performance then US Navy BL. As we can clearly see. it does.

 

I see nothing wrong.

 

But hey, why should I bother to let the IS-2 be accurate instead of a one-shot one-kill tank, after all it's going to be a German Premium, if not because they captured it in WW2, then because East Germany got the first ones in 1952 and since we ignore Dates compared to Tiers anyway, I'm sure my Gold would be sufficient to buy the -with your data- best Tank of WW2.

 

Yeah whatever.

 

 

The IS-2, like all vehicles has advantages and disadvantages.

3rpm, whatever way you look at it, is not great when you compare to smaller calibers.

The turret is relatively weak compared to the hull

If barrel collision models are implemented, the IS-2 can potentially have trouble in confined spaces, it is a very long vehicle after all

-3 degrees of gun depression is rather bad.

 

But its firepower, that is one of its advantages, not its disadvantages. The IS-2 had very good firepower

Edited by RoflSeal
  • Upvote 9
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your statement that Soviets started with small calibers and moved on to large calibers is wrong.

The source itself is  TsNIIP GBTU KA reference, 1944, hence you can rightly assume round fired is BR-471B. Round listed is D-25T hence it has a muzzle velocity of circa 790m/s. Since the 71st IHTR wrote that the IS-2 had a practical rate of fire of 3rpm in a report on combat experience in August-September 1944, since Kotin's loading device was designed to increase rate of fire, and was installed on late production vehicles in 1945, I don't see anything wrong with a RoF of 4-6rpm.

So? If you say they started with 122mm, then used other Weapons, doesn't it derail the figures even more than otherwise?

 

Leaving that aside, what was Kotin's loading device?

Yes, it's just the semi-automatic breech block.

 

Guess what, IS-2 entered service with it.

The D-25T Gun was initially a A-19 adapted to the same mount as the D-5T and only the very first Guns had the old screw-breech, serial production vehicles had the semi-automatic drop breech.

 

For comparsion, you can take the ISU-122, which initially mounted the screw-breech A-19S and had a RoF of 1.5rpm, the upgraded version called ISU-122S used the D-25S with the same breech as the serial production D-25T, which doubled the rate of fire to the mentioned 3rpm. Given a sustained rof under combat conditions, 4-6 under optimal conditions are well in the line.

 

The IS-2, like all vehicles has advantages and disadvantages.

3rpm, whatever way you look at it, is not great when you compare to smaller calibers.

The turret is relatively weak compared to the hull

If barrel collision models are implemented, the IS-2 can potentially have trouble in confined spaces, it is a very long vehicle after all

-3 degrees of gun depression is rather bad.

 

But its firepower, that is one of its advantages, not its disadvantages. The IS-2 had very good firepower

I agree on the 3rpm, I just don't want WoT-like cherry-picking where some vehicles get optimal training conditions and others get combat rof. Same was with Penetration Data which in WoT was (or still is) partially based on tests with older or flak ammo.

 

It's barrel isn't that much of an issue I suppose, after all it's just L/43 or so, and a turreted tank on top of it.

 

I don't say IS-2 had bad firepower, just it's penetration (not fragments etc.) wasn't that great compared to higher velocity guns.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't say IS-2 had bad firepower, just it's penetration (not fragments etc.) wasn't that great compared to higher velocity guns.

It's superior to the 88mm L/56 and the 75mm L/70. The L/56 has a lover M.V., the L/70 a higher one.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's superior to the 88mm L/56 and the 75mm L/70. The L/56 has a lover M.V., the L/70 a higher one.

Well, superior or not is a very broad statement, which needs to be adressed in a lot of different ways which may or may not have any value for the Game.

 

Firstly, we take the 88mm L/56:

The performance you adress sounds like the oldest model of PzGr 39 as mentioned by Jentz.

Not going into depth with later PzGr 39 versions, the Tiger 1 fired also PzGr 40 APCR @ 930m/s:

Those would penetrate more than the D25T at ranges below 2km same at 2km and then fall off more than the D25T - though it needs to be kept in mind that Penetration is just one side of the story, as the D25T would be more devastating after the penetration, while the German APCR would depend on hitting vital spots (including crew...).

 

The Panther's long 7,5cm?

I can't tell for sure, as I currently dl the book about it (thanks to roflseal who's constant interventions (sourced) to my opinions drove me far enough to decide wasting about 10gig HDD just for Books which can be counted as sources), but I'm fairly sure it's penetration using the PzGr 40/42 was pretty impressive at up to 1km-1,5km and drop off more than the Tiger I's PzGr 40.

 

 

It needs to be noticed, that while the German 75 and 88 did have a disadvantage in the damage caused after penetration as well as having significantly weaker HE Shells than the 122mm D25T, their rate of fire is significantly higher.

 

However, this is not WoT, and hopefully won't turn out to be. The IS-2 would have to face Tiger II, not Tiger I.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't count in APCR in a comparison between APHE rounds... would be a bit senseless imho.

Well, I go for raw penetration numbers... it's a personal preference, as I value the chance of inflicting damage directly over sure 1-hit kills if it pens.

Also, higher velocity (again, for me) is a very important factor.

 

At the same time, isn't it senseless to compare a Gun from a 1942 Tank with a Gun from a 1944 one?

And is it really that much of a good idea to compare APCBC-HE with APBC-HE?

Or a Gun with much higher RoF with one that has a slower RoF?

 

Everyone has to find out for themselfes what is the best gun for their preference, my calculations go as far as "can it inflict damage there", as no matter the preference a Gun that just bounces off isn't efficient.

 

 

My favorite Gun to use on a tank, would most likely be the 0725 (75/55mm taper bore), as it has high rof, penetration and velocity even though the after-penetration Damage would be small.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soviet tanks are pretty small. Despite being 60 tons the IS-4 is only the size of a panther.

Edited by t___a
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanks always look smaller than they are in pictures, to give an Idea, the muzzle break at the end of those 122mm guns are about the size of an average persons torso

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

off topic question to OP:

the photo in your signature...what and where?

thanks in advance

 

[spoiler]

no__i_insist___after_you_by_wormwoodthes

[/spoiler]

 

The IS-2 is from the Museum of Armoured Warfare Museum in Poznań, Poland and represents a tank of the 4th Heavy Tank Regiment of the post-war Polish Army. The Sherman VC Firefly is a recent addition to the growing collection of the Second World War Museum in Gdańsk, Poland, which is still being built. I think the picture was taken on June 1 of last year during an open day of the museum in Poznań.

  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you people, this includes the OP, NOT understand that the IS-2 was designed to counter the Tiger I? Of course it is better, jesus christ .. that's what I'd expect from a tank designed to counter one.

 

You people keep asking the wrong question - you ask: 'Is the IS-2 better than the Tiger I?' when in fact you should ask: 'Is the IS-2 a match for the Tiger II?' - how about you answer this - is it, or is it not?

 

And even then, I highly doubt the answer will be 'Yes.'. Consider this timeline:

 

KV-1 / KV-2 -> Tiger I -> IS-1 -> Tiger II -> IS-2/3 -> <insert megalomaniac german tank here> -> <insert IS-4,7, T-10 here>

 

So no, the IS-2 ain't better than the Tiger II, because the Tiger II was intended to be superior to anything that would be 'the next step' in allied tank development.

 

Also, you people sound like you would be curious about the fact that the penetration of the IS-2 is better than the one of the Tiger I.

 

Let me explain you how a tank-gun's penetration capabilities are determined:

 

1. Gun Caliber

2. Barrel Length (therefore, muzzle velocity)

3. Ammunition Type

 

and a few other, minor factors that I will leave out here.

 

D-25T vs. KwK 36

 

Gun Caliber: 122mm vs. 88mm

Barrel Length: L/53 vs. L/56

 

Go figure.

 

 

Oh, before I forget. I think I remember the OP and I just wanted to make sure it's not the guy I think it is (but I'm afraid it is) so I'll leave this here:

 

The T43E1 was / is not a production tank produced in series.

  • Upvote 3
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The T43E1 was / is not a production tank produced in series.

 

 

 

From Hunnicut

 

These T43E1 production tanks differed in a number of respects from the original T43.

Quote

 

The production run of 300 T43E1s was completed by Chrylser at Newark, Delaware plant during 1953 and 1954.

 

From Icks

Quote

 

With the beginning of the Korean war in 1950 production  of the T43 was authorized. In the meantime testing continued and minor modifications resulted in the T43E1. These modifications were incorporated in production. The first production tank was competed in 1952 and all were completed by the end of 1954.

 

As another example of another T designated vehicle entering production.

 

There had been complaints that the T26 exceeded army regulations regarding weight and width, posing a problem in shipping. When pressed on the issue again on December 10, 1943, Devers responded emphatically that he saw a need for "at least 250 T26 to be produced now" This settled the matter, and on December 16, 1943, Gen. George Marshall finally overruled McNair and authorized the production of 250 T26E1 heavy tanks by April 1945.

Edited by RoflSeal
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

From Hunnicut

Quote

 

From Icks

Quote

 

As another example of another T designated vehicle entering production.

 

 

 

 

In 1953-1954 a series of 300 tanks, initially designated T43E1, were built by Chrysler at the Newark plant. Testing was unsatisfactory, with the tanks entering storage in August 1955. After improvement recommendations, on 26 April 1956 the tank was designated the M103 Heavy Tank. Of the 300 T43E1s built, 80 went to the US Army (74 of which were rebuilt to M103 standard), and 220 were accepted by the US Marine Corps, to be used as infantry support, rebuilt to improved M103A1, then M103A2 standards.

 

But it was in service for only about a year before being moved to storage / reserve. Later 74 out of 80 Army T43E1s were converted and 219 out of 220 Marine Corps T43E1.

 

I don't see how there is any sense to keep arguing with you, you seem to refuse to listen to anything that does not comply your opinion.

 

Do you know the saying "A wise man changes his mind, a fool never will"? You won and I can live in peace and finally stop smashing my head against my desk because you obviously refuse to even bother reading my posts..

Edited by Zel_Zeret
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you people, this includes the OP, NOT understand that the IS-2 was designed to counter the Tiger I? Of course it is better, jesus christ .. that's what I'd expect from a tank designed to counter one.

 

No it wasn't, it was a further development of the IS-1, which was a further development of the IS-1(object 233) and IS-2(Object 234), which was a further development of the KV-13.

Edited by t___a
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it was in service for only about a year before being moved to storage / reserve. Later 74 out of 80 Army T43E1s were converted and 219 out of 220 Marine Corps T43E1.

 

I don't see how there is any sense to keep arguing with you, you seem to refuse to listen to anything that does not comply your opinion.

 

Do you know the saying "A wise man changes his mind, a fool never will"? You won and I can live in peace and finally stop smashing my head against my desk because you obviously refuse to even bother reading my posts..

Whether or not T43E1 can be considered a success is irrelevent to the fact that it was a vehicle that entered production.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not T43E1 can be considered a success is irrelevent to the fact that it was a vehicle that entered production.

 

 

Then T29, T30 and T34 are also production vehicles. Afaik 2 of each were produced.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then T29, T30 and T34 are also production vehicles. Afaik 2 of each were produced.

Stop twisting his words, what means by that is mass production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.