I have more trouble with the volumetric on the Tiger 2 than the IS-2 myself, but then I’ve played the IS-2 more so that probably skews it a bit, and like I mentioned before its far more frustrating when it happens with a ~20 sec reload vs ~7 sec.
Not even getting started with THAT bag of worms
If you are having difficulty with a 100mm turret, idk what to tell you. A tiger 2 88mm nearly can’t fail to pen unless you get to the edges of the turret. Meanwhile, the US 90mm APHE strugges with the tiger 2 mantlet just on pen numbers alone while it pens the is2 with no problem.
Tiger 2 turns faster, is2 accelerates slightly faster. In terms of mobility, they are nearly identical. Also, because the off center turret of the is2 it bounces far more when stopping than the tiger 2.
I have trouble with 45mm turret even while using 102-140 penetration guns and you apparently don’t understand the volumetric + flawed penetration mechanics issue, so just go away.
IS-2 turret front is a small target that will produce a ton of random bounces. Tiger II has good reload, so that’s not a huge issue. But this whole “but muh turret is paper” is as true as a claim that T-34-41 has 45mm turret front and thus is an easy kill. It’s not.
US 90mm indeed has to use APCR to ROFLpen Tiger II. Or Ferdi. Or Jagdtiger below 600. Yeah it will very likely not be a 1-shot. But it’s a reliable way of taking these out. Vs IS-2 1944 indeed 90mm is doing better, because it can penetrate the turret. Still, I do not trust a turret shot vs any Soviet tank with overlapping mantlet. And IS-2 1944 has the upgraded turret where there is more volumetric wizardry going on
Just take it’s LFP armor and move it down to 6.3.
This thing’s flaws restricts your gameplay by a significant amount and having a good shell isn’t really enough of a compensation for it’s woes.
With the m82 or any aphe you can just aim to the right cheek there’s no overlapping on there at all, it is basically the same armour as on the is 2 as only the left side got the extra armour. If is a
Buff the reload and remove the APCBC and we’re good.
15s reload with overpressure one shots is still very effective.
T32 also reloads in 15s and there’s barely any room to load that super long cartridge case.
Which is funny, because the T26E1-1 somehow has a faster RoF with it’s giant one piece ammo.
Like what’s the point of seperate loading when it didn’t actually improve RoF?
Wut?
As far as I know even 10.5Cm Tiger 2 doesnt have that kind of heavy shell.
gaijin uses reload as a balancing thing hence why the reload is so gimped historical accuracy for reloads is not there top priority
I think he wrote “shell” but meant “cartridge”. Pzgr 39/43 weights about 10kg. Case + propellant adding another 11-12kg is a reasonable assumption.
I meant rounds, not shells.
I know, and I do agree. It makes sense as an abstraction for a wide variety of reasons, not least the fact that in War Thunder we reload in the most absurd situations (you can literally jump off a cliff after firing and your loader will still be dutifully reloading the gun).
I mean, this Jagdtiger is reloading:
But since the discussion was about the IS-2 underperforming, you are in the convenient situation where you have historical grounds to buff the reload if you feel like the tank needs a little bit of help, and that’s always a nice thing to have.
Projectile mass is 10.2kg.
I don’t think entire round still weights around 22kg.
IMO IS-2 1944 can safely get f.e. 17s reload aced (can be further reduced to the historical 15s if it doesn’t overperform) while retaining the B shell and everybody would be happy IMO. B shell makes a gigantic difference due to insane angled performance. If it was to go, normal shell should get a bit higher penetration. Anyway, some buff is entirely reasonable.
Well, it does.
– 8,8 cm Pzgr.Patr. 39-1/Flak 41 –
(…)
D. Durchschnittsgewichte
34. Gewicht
der fertigen Patr. mit Messinghülse etwa 21,2 kg
der fertigen Patr. mit Stahlhülse etwa 19,9 kg
So at best its 20kg with steel cartridges and 21.2kg with brass.
On that note, the Jagdtiger could use a reload buff as well. It’s a colossal casemate with two dedicated loaders for its two piece ammo, it’s even more affected by the engine nerf due to its already limited mobility, and it has horrendous gun handling.
Definitely. 18.2s for a follow up shot for a casemate that is mostly stationary is just sad.
I just hate how awful the gun depression is, seriously why couldn’t the USSR add an extra -2 to make it -5.0? Goofy ahh tank doctrine
I think it’s actually 18.6 aced, but yeah. I mean I do very well in it, but if I have to imagine a new player with a stock vehicle and a basic crew trying it for the first time… yeah.
Many SPGs have been getting reload rate reductions for this reason. The next time there’s an official feedback thread for BR changes I will suggest this.
Served them right in the end. They created a tank that was frontally protected even from the Tiger II at normal combat ranges while keeping it under 45 tons. And they also managed to give it a gun that could genuinely do the breakthrough job expected of a heavy, while also being a great anti-tank weapon. If they had to sacrifice gun depression to do it, so be it.
If I recall IS-2s usually engaged at around 2000m so you would have a fair amount of elevation on the gun anyway. Just another case of real life use not translating into a video game environment.
Well, that’s how you get 46T with King-Tiger quality hull protection and 122mm gun, aside from rear mounted transmission that allows for a lower-sitting tank.
To increase gun depression you’d need a taller turret. Which is added weight. Probably quite a bit. And since IS-2 showed up when the war was already won (Germany run out of fuel in 1942, yes, they still had some later on, but not enough for maneuver warfare) missing some capabilities was deemed not a huge issue + a lot of Soviet Union is really flat. + IS-2s mostly long-range fired at fortifications etc.
