new realisim mod for SP15

[Stig]

It is wonderful that we can discuss and debate this stuff, cite sources, and delve into it. I hope everyone maintains a civil attitude and remembers that being challenged on a fact or figure is not a personal attack. It's just an attempt to arrive at facts and figures we all can agree upon.

Carry on then...

[frinik]

Actually all IS-2 commanders were experienced officers and drivers were at least sergeants, more often - junior grade lieutenants.   There weren't much of IS-2 produced during WW2 too compared to Tigers.

Sorry Mistwalker but lots of IS/JS2 were produced :3854 for both 1943 and 1944 versions compared to only a maximum of 1476 Panzer VI ausf. E/H Tiger I ( some sources say 1447).if you're sceptical just google it and you'll see the respective production output for both.

This is a comment on the JS2.While the design was good for its time, Western observers tended to criticize Soviet tanks for their lack of finish and crude construction. The Soviets responded that it was warranted considering the need for wartime expediency and the typically low battlefield life of their tanks.[5]

I'll have to research more on the issue of quality of Optics for Soviet tanks.However I am fairly sure that German optics which were( and still are; it's interesting to see those high end Japanese and Korean digital cameras outfitted with Zeiss(Sony), Schneider-Kreuznach  or Leitz optics and zooms) the best in the World at that time would easily surpass the Soviet made ones.Whether the latter would be good enough to allow long-range shooting remains to be verified..

I'll also have to find that report on the issue of the poor quality of the JS2 armour.

Considering that based on Soviet reports estimating the average life expectancy of their tank crews to be 3 1/2 weeks in 1944 how could their crews be experienced all around?Mind you, starting in mid 1944, the Germans were also experiencing the same with more and more inexperienced crews, decreasing training due to shortages of fuel and the need to replace staggering losses etc.


 
 

[Mistwalker]

Sorry Mistwalker but lots of IS/JS2 were produced :3854 for both 1943 and 1944 versions

That is not correct. 3395 of  JS-2 and 107 of JS-85 were produced.  2245 of JS-2  were produced in 1943-44 and 1140 were produced already in 1945. About 400 of those didn't even get to the frontline, because war has ended.

Whether the latter would be good enough to allow long-range shooting remains to be verified..

Late soviet sights were copied from pz3 sights and allowed 4x magnification (like TSH-15 and TSH-17).

I'll also have to find that report on the issue of the poor quality of the JS2 armour.

I have everything right here in the books of colonel Jeltov and other authors. As I said it happened often only with casted armor (i.e. turret and front) and mostly only on early machines. Fire tests with KwK 36 have shown that side armor gave better protection than lower front and turret armor. I can write details and post penetration curves. Interested?

Considering that based on Soviet reports estimating the average life expectancy of their tank crews to be 3 1/2 weeks in 1944 how could their crews be experienced all around?

Do I need to explain what means "average"?  T-34's were issued to tank brigades and didn't live long because of poor protection against most common german AT guns like PaK 40. Heavy tanks were issued to separate guard regiments of breakthrough with most experienced personnel, much like german Schwere Panzerabteilungs.

[scottyd2506]

Sorry Mistwalker but lots of IS/JS2 were produced :3854 for both 1943 and 1944 versions

That is not correct. 3395 of  JS-2 and 107 of JS-85 were produced.  2245 of JS-2  were produced in 1943-44 and 1140 were produced already in 1945. About 400 of those didn't even get to the frontline, because war has ended.

Whether the latter would be good enough to allow long-range shooting remains to be verified..

Late soviet sights were copied from pz3 sights and allowed 4x magnification (like TSH-15 and TSH-17).

I'll also have to find that report on the issue of the poor quality of the JS2 armour.

I have everything right here in the books of colonel Jeltov and other authors. As I said it happened often only with casted armor (i.e. turret and front) and mostly only on early machines. Fire tests with KwK 36 have shown that side armor gave better protection than lower front and turret armor. I can write details and post penetration curves. Interested?

Considering that based on Soviet reports estimating the average life expectancy of their tank crews to be 3 1/2 weeks in 1944 how could their crews be experienced all around?

Do I need to explain what means "average"?  T-34's were issued to tank brigades and didn't live long because of poor protection against most common german AT guns like PaK 40. Heavy tanks were issued to separate guard regiments of breakthrough with most experienced personnel, much like german Schwere Panzerabteilungs.

   I think you all are pretty knowledgeable on this topic, there are some rights and wrongs, but some of the history we study is not always laid down black and white, nor do 2 anthers have the same stats or tests revel the same statistics either.
   It is not clear cut and dry the optics of the IS-2 were all poor or where good.

 Same with the Tiger II's armor quality, not clear cut all of them had poor armor quality..   

   I do not totally discount Russian sources of testing, but as much as I love the Russians, they do fudges rating a bit for propaganda.. The USA did the same before sending troops out in those Sherman Tanks, told the troops they was in the best tank in the world.

     "Look troops, Those King Tigers can be penetrated from the front easy. Look at the tests. So stop running and get out there in ur T34-85 and fight!"

  I seem to take numbers for what they are..  not generalize from a few RARE RARE examples.

   Optics for the JS-2, Armor quality for the King Tiger ?? 
  maybe a few JS-2 did have poor optics, maybe a few King Tigers did have low nickle armor, maybe 99% of JS-2's had good optics, maybe 99% of King Tigers had Good high quality armor.

   They was both good tanks, Face to face at 1500 meters, I'd say the king Tiger would have the big advantage..
But overall the Is-2 was probably a better tank, still VERY strong, at only 45 tons it could go almost anywhere. Tiger II's were HEAVY, transmissions burned up easy, slow in the mud (easy targets), could not cross a lot of bridges. Ran out of gas quicker. Easier for aircraft to go after (slower).

    I'm kinda like frinik, I think the T34-85mm is one of the best tanks of the war for general purpose... same with Panther.

    I am sorry if I offended ya with this mod, never intended to make the Tiger II a super weapon, just as it was in real life, it's frontal armor was darn near indestructible, esp at longer ranges.

  if I'm in a T-34-85 going up against a KT at long range, I do not want to be politically correct, but historically correct.. and not be able to kill it from the front, rather have to race for the woods, and sneak around the battlefield, and surprise it with a side shot.. use tactics... makes it more fun.
   
    have a good day

[Mistwalker]

It is not clear cut and dry the optics of the IS-2 were all poor or where good.

It's clear. We have a lot of info and books about those tanks here. I know some real WW2 tank users from Kubinka too and have been in JS myself, although third variant.   

Same with the Tiger II's armor quality, not clear cut all of them had poor armor quality...

   

As I said to frinik, it's would be better not to call it "poor armor quality" but "lower resistance to penetration". Even in Steel Fury those are separate parameters.

I do not totally discount Russian sources of testing, but as much as I love the Russians, they do fudges rating a bit for propaganda.

You seriously think that official archive documents were written for propaganda?

"Look troops, Those King Tigers can be penetrated from the front easy. Look at the tests. So stop running and get out there in ur T34-85 and fight!"

No, nobody said such stupid things. In later years of war it was common tactics to destroy german tanks by _flank_ fire.

I am sorry if I offended ya with this mod, never intended to make the Tiger II a super weapon, just as it was in real life, it's frontal armor was darn near indestructible, esp at longer ranges.

Not a bit of offense taken, I just had to point at some incorrect info and answer some "why?" questions.   

if I'm in a T-34-85 going up against a KT at long range, I do not want to be politically correct, but historically correct.. and not be able to kill it from the front, rather have to race for the woods, and sneak around the battlefield, and surprise it with a side shot.. use tactics... makes it more fun.

It seems that a single case bothers you too much. Usually in game even with JS-2 it's very hard to destroy Tiger 2 front-to-front. 

[scottyd2506]

It is not clear cut and dry the optics of the IS-2 were all poor or where good.

It's clear. We have a lot of info and books about those tanks here. I know some real WW2 tank users from Kubinka too and have been in JS myself, although third variant.   

Same with the Tiger II's armor quality, not clear cut all of them had poor armor quality...

   

As I said to frinik, it's would be better not to call it "poor armor quality" but "lower resistance to penetration". Even in Steel Fury those are separate parameters.

I do not totally discount Russian sources of testing, but as much as I love the Russians, they do fudges rating a bit for propaganda.

You seriously think that official archive documents were written for propaganda?

"Look troops, Those King Tigers can be penetrated from the front easy. Look at the tests. So stop running and get out there in ur T34-85 and fight!"

No, nobody said such stupid things. In later years of war it was common tactics to destroy german tanks by _flank_ fire.

I am sorry if I offended ya with this mod, never intended to make the Tiger II a super weapon, just as it was in real life, it's frontal armor was darn near indestructible, esp at longer ranges.

Not a bit of offense taken, I just had to point at some incorrect info and answer some "why?" questions.   

if I'm in a T-34-85 going up against a KT at long range, I do not want to be politically correct, but historically correct.. and not be able to kill it from the front, rather have to race for the woods, and sneak around the battlefield, and surprise it with a side shot.. use tactics... makes it more fun.

It seems that a single case bothers you too much. Usually in game even with JS-2 it's very hard to destroy Tiger 2 front-to-front. 

More than a single case.

  Yes, propaganda, it happens now, and most certainly did back then. One had the right to ignore it if one likes.  I being American, know the P51 Mustang was not the best or near the best fighter of the war. Yet you here propaganda all the time, USAAF pilots back in WW2 were often told it was the best aircraft on earth... then swear it was the best after flying it. when they never tested most other planes.

Yet They never flew Yank F4U-4's, Brit Spitfire 14's, Jap N1K2 George, Ruski Yank3, Ger Me-262 etc.
Telling your troops you have great stuff, while showing them the enemy had garbage is a heck of a moral booster...


 So you have been in a JS3 huh? I'd love to see one.
I've only been in 2 tanks- a USA M60 just 9 years ago, someone left the padlock off of it at the VFW where the ol lady plays Bingo-, so me and my son got in and looked around, he was like 5 at the time and it was neat.

   Also back in 1976 there was a guy down the street our  school who used to collect large things in his huge front yards, a train caboose, and a Sherman tank... We'd get in the tank and play (I was probably 12 at the time)..   We did not try and tear anything up..  I remember there was at least 2 hatches to get in and out.. it has been gone from that spot for 25 years now.

    There are the Patton Tank museum just 170 miles south of us... plan to go there sometime soon.
  chat with ya later

[frinik]

Mistwalker, this is not to start a pissing contest(  I am not saying or implying that you are simply stating that I am not! .

.I am just putting my arguments and opinions and you are putting yours and I like it.Debate is always soemthing  good and you elarn something form itThat is not correct. 3395 of  JS-2 and 107 of JS-85 were produced.  2245 of JS-2  were produced in 1943-44 and 1140 were produced already in 1945. About 400 of those didn't even get to the frontline, because war has ended.

I''ll check another source to see if the numbers you quote tally( the problem is that different sources quote different stats for example I found 4 different stats for the production of the Tiger I ranging from 1447 to 1489) Even if only 3395 JS2 were produced and discounting the 400 that did not make it to the battlefield the 3000 fielded would still make it more than twice as many produced as Tiger Is( with some were kept for training crews in Germany and others were used against the Allies in Tunisia, Sicily,Italy(mainland) and France in 1943-1945.So roughly 1250 Tigers operated on the East Front( 1942-1945) vs 3000 JS2s.As for KV-85s I did not count them.


Late soviet sights were copied from pz3 sights and allowed 4x magnification (like TSH-15 and TSH-17).
Quote.They copied the design however the quality of manufacturing and workmanship( polishing and cristallisation of the glass used ) is not something you can easily copy as they are the result of a long tradition and dedication to quality and require the use of a sophisticated and skilled workforce and machinery. I have a relative who worked for Leitz in Switzerland and also represented Schott AG, a German manufacturer of glass and optics for astronomy,aeronautics, cameras( NASA and ESA use their lenses in their space cameras and telescopes) and industrial purposes. He told me for example that it took the Japanese camera and optic makers no less than 30 years of hard work, investment and dedication to reach the quality level of German optics before they were able to wrest the photographic and camera optics market from them . He told me that it was easy for the Taiwanese, Koreans and I assume today's Chinese top copy German or Swiss designs( binoculars, magnifying glasses. Swiss army knives) and sell their "copies" at a fraction of the price of the real thing but they were unable to replicate the quality of the optics because they lacked the know-how and were more focussed on mass production than craftsmanship.I am fairly certain that this is exactly what happened with Soviet copies of German optics.They were able to successfully copy the German designs and probably produce a better quality of optics than their own designs but they lacked the expertise, specialised labour force and machinery( which btw the Germans used to supply then with until 1941) to reach German quality and sophistication. Interestingly enough, as soon as they were able to ,the Soviets rebuilt Zeiss's Jena factory in the GDR  (refraining from pillaging or dismantling the machinery) so it could supply them with quality, military optics which it did until the Wall collapsed in 1990.This is the reason the Allies supplied a lot of optics to the Soviets through the land-lease agreement.

They was both good tanks, Face to face at 1500 meters, I'd say the king Tiger would have the big advantage..
But overall the Is-2 was probably a better tank, still VERY strong, at only 45 tons it could go almost anywhere. Tiger II's were HEAVY, transmissions burned up easy, slow in the mud (easy targets), could not cross a lot of bridges. Ran out of gas quicker. Easier for aircraft to go after (slower).

The comparison between the JS2 and the Tiger II ( the word Koenigstiger in German refers to the Bengal tiger reknown for its ferocity and large size) to me seems irrelevant.( As for the JS2 being faster to escape an aircraft I think that  whether  a tank goes at 15 or 35 kmph is not going to escape a strafing aircraft flying at over 300 kmph

The JS2 was not primarily conceived to fight the Tiger I nor the Panther( the T34/85, the JS1/KV85, SU85 and 100 on the other hand were designed with those heavy tanks in mind).It was to be used as a replacement for the KV-1 and KV-2 which were either outdated or had proved to be a disappointment. It was meant to be used against fortified positions,pillboxes, artillery and AT emplacement, MG nests , bunkers, etc. At 45 tons I am not sure it could either use every bridge in Eastern Europe.

The Tiger II contrary to the legend was not slow actually it's top speed was a good as the Panther's( however it was prevented from using its top speed because the transmission would not have been strong enough for its weight).It's turret's rotation rate was as a good as the Sherman's, its wide caterpillars gave it good cross-country abilities and its ground pressure ratio was almost the same as the Panther's.It had outstanding optics, an excellent gun, could carry up to 86 shells and was well armoured. It could take on and destroy most Soviet and Allied armour at distances of 1500 to 3000 metres( the latter in ideal conditions).It could shoot 7 to 8 rounds a minute compared to only 1.25 to 1.5 rounds a minute for the 1944 JS2 model( incidentally in SF the JS reloads way too fast.I left it as it is but....).However it was designed and built at a time when Germany was still capable of offensive action with battlefield supremacy in mind.It was not built withfor the Germany of 1944-45 in mind; a country on the defensive and retreating on all fronts , chronically short of fuel, under constant bombings/disruptions of production, spare parts and transportation facilities and manned by crews that were deteriorating in quality and experience.Had this tank been fielded in early to mid 1943 it would have been a devastating weapon.It was designed withand by the Germany of early to mid 1943 which did not yet face all these odds. It suffered from excessive weight which put a strain on the suspension( the transmission problem was solved in autumn 1944), required constant and careful maintenance( not always possible in the disastrous war situation of 1944-45) was underpowered (although this was going to addressed in early 1945) and it could not always use standard bridges and was restricted to large avenues.Its high fuel consumption only became a problem because of Germany's accute fuel shortages after May 1944.

That being said I think the Panther was a much better design and the Panther II equipped with the Kwk 43 L/71 of the Tiger II would have probably been the ideal mix between the 2 tanks giving the Panther II the better ratio between power and weight and the reliability of the Panther ausf.G and the formidable offensive punch of the KwK43 with the armour to boot. As for the JS3 we will never know what they(Panther II and JS3) would have made the mid 1945 battlefield look like....


The JS2 was not a bad tank but aside from being easier to maintain and more reliable mechanically (because of simpler design and lighter weight) it did not have anything that made it into an icon. The gun was powerful but had the JS could only carry 28 shells, had a painfully low reload rate, it was cramped  and while it had thick armour from rweports that I read the quality of the armour of its turret may have been of unevenl quality and prone to cracks and brittleness.However it had one major advantage; the Soviets had no shortage of fuel, could mass produce their JS, had the advantage of being on the offensive with increased supremacy in the air, the ability to recover their damaged armour and to easily replace their material and human losses.The JS2 would not have been a good idea for the Soviet army of of 1942 until mid 1943 but it was great for the Soviet army of later 1943 onwards.

Finally quote" You seriously think that official archive documents were written for propaganda?

Remember that that tank bore the name of Josef Stalin and the dictator was not one to be contradicted or angered or his reputation slighted.He read or had knowledge about everything or almost that went on in the Red paradise. He had had people executed/purged/gulaged for the slightest pretext or because they displeased him etc( The story of imposing Lyssenko's scientific views despite evidence to the contrary is one example).

While Hitler was a raving, murderous, maniac,  Stalin was much more dangerous: he was a cold, calculating, murderous, psychopathic paranoiac...That being said I would not dispute official archives documents but simply read them with what I said above in mind.

Cheers

[Mistwalker]

Yes, propaganda, it happens now, and most certainly did back then. One had the right to ignore it if one likes.  I being American, know the P51 Mustang was not the best or near the best fighter of the war. Yet you here propaganda all the time, USAAF pilots back in WW2 were often told it was the best aircraft on earth... then swear it was the best after flying it. when they never tested most other planes.

Of course the Soviets had this kind of propaganda too - for example  lieutenant Jerohin that knocked out 6 Ferdinands and Oskin that knocked out 3 King Tigers in T-34-85. And of course that never really happened - in case with Jerohin that could be Stugs and/or Marders and in case with Oskin he could (or could not) knock out 1 Tiger from the ambush but others were destroyed by surrounding units. You can count in "the best of the best T-34" here too.
However you have to distinguish between pamphlets that were made for morale boost and real research data with exact numbers that examined real strengths and weaknesses of the enemy tanks. Even propaganda never said anything like "soldiers, you can kill Tiger with your 76mm AP front-to-front, so get up and fight!" On the contrary - soldiers were given correct and detailed reccomendations of how to take out enemy tanks: http://img832.imageshack.us/i/picturede.jpg/
And if you cant trust research data then what can you trust? EVERYTHING might be propaganda.

More than a single case.

Ok, then if something like this will happen again, post screenshots here and we'll look at it.

By the way, Instead of modifying armor I recommend  to change bb_round from 5 to 10 for better AI maneuvering.

Even if only 3395 JS2 were produced and discounting the 400 that did not make it to the battlefield the 3000 fielded would still make it more than twice as many produced as Tiger Is

And if you add Tiger 2? 

This is the reason the Allies supplied a lot of optics to the Soviets through the land-lease agreement.

Right. And what optics and equipment you think they used  in the later years of war for tank sights production?

They was both good tanks, Face to face at 1500 meters, I'd say the king Tiger would have the big advantage..

Frinik, even by looking at SF you can tell that such situation (2 single tanks face to face at 1500) is a rarity an exception.

The comparison between the JS2 and the Tiger II ( the word Koenigstiger in German refers to the Bengal tiger reknown for its ferocity and large size) to me seems irrelevant.

I completely agree. Each tank was good for it's purpose.

incidentally in SF the JS reloads way too fast.I left it as it is but....

It's 25 or 24 seconds AFAIR. Average _combat_ fire rate was lower, but just for reloading there was a 20-second rule in non-moving vehicle.

It was meant to be used against fortified positions,pillboxes, artillery and AT emplacement, MG nests , bunkers, etc.

That's almost exactly what I said earlier.

Remember that that tank bore the name of Josef Stalin and the dictator was not one to be contradicted or angered or his reputation slighted.

And for what purpose could he order something like test report falsification? And what names 100mm gun and 122mm A-19 field cannon had? 

[scottyd2506]

Mistwalker,


Late soviet sights were copied from pz3 sights and allowed 4x magnification (like TSH-15 and TSH-17).
Quote.They copied the design however the quality of manufacturing and workmanship( polishing and cristallisation of the glass used ) is not something you can easily copy as they are the result of a long tradition and dedication to quality and require the use of a sophisticated and skilled workforce and machinery. I have a relative who worked for Leitz in Switzerland and also represented Schott AG, a German manufacturer of glass and optics for astronomy,aeronautics, cameras( NASA and ESA use their lenses in their space cameras and telescopes) and industrial purposes. He told me for example that it took the Japanese camera and optic makers no less than 30 years of hard work, investment and dedication to reach the quality level of German optics before they were able to wrest the photographic and camera optics market from them . He told me that it was easy for the Taiwanese, Koreans and I assume today's Chinese top copy German or Swiss designs( binoculars, magnifying glasses. Swiss army knives) and sell their "copies" at a fraction of the price of the real thing but they were unable to replicate the quality of the optics because they lacked the know-how and were more focussed on mass production than craftsmanship.I am fairly certain that this is exactly what happened with Soviet copies of German optics.They were able to successfully copy the German designs and probably produce a better quality of optics than their own designs but they lacked the expertise, specialised labour force and machinery( which btw the Germans used to supply then with until 1941) to reach German quality and sophistication. Interestingly enough, as soon as they were able to ,the Soviets rebuilt Zeiss's Jena factory in the GDR  (refraining from pillaging or dismantling the machinery) so it could supply them with quality, military optics which it did until the Wall collapsed in 1990.This is the reason the Allies supplied a lot of optics to the Soviets through the land-lease agreement.

How very True, optics are indeed something that is not learned in quick time.. I've done some Target practice as well as long range hunting out to 500-1000 yards, and good optics are something that is rare.. the cheap scopes you buy at the local stores do not apply.
   Germans have and still make top brand scopes, very high money, Names like (above) Zeis and
 Schmidt-Bender are big Quality optics, as well as US brands like Leupold, Japan makes the lenses for Nightforce scopes, considered equel or better than Leupold in clarity/brightness.
  out of the 100's of scope makers, only the big 6-7 make really good scopes, good quality glass is only part of it.
   Having optics that hold a zero through massive recoil is something that takes MANY years to master. Leupold is top on this.. the German scopes like Zeis and S&B are really high money and seldom bought.
   
         Good Leupold, Nightforce scope are like $1000-$2000.. While the German ones are twice that.. Quality is about the same..  Nikon (Japanese made) scope are darn near as good as the others, but 1/2 to 3/4 the price.   Today optics are coated to give better light transfer.
    I would have to agree with your statement , the Russians might have copied the German optics from the Panzers, but the qualify would not be NEAR as good.. better than the Russians had at the time maybe,

 
   
 

The comparison between the JS2 and the Tiger II ( the word Koenigstiger in German refers to the Bengal tiger reknown for its ferocity and large size) to me seems irrelevant.( As for the JS2 being faster to escape an aircraft I think that  whether  a tank goes at 15 or 35 kmph is not going to escape a strafing aircraft flying at over 300 kmph

   

True, but you know how everyone seems to pit Those 2 tanks vs each other... a "clash of the titans" so to speak I guess..
     Also speed of a tank could make or break the deal.. if a tank crew sees a aircraft coming from far away at them, they may have time to spring to the woods in time. They may have a chance... out in a huge open field, you are right, no difference.

The JS2 was not primarily conceived to fight the Tiger I nor the Panther( the T34/85, the JS1/KV85, SU85 and 100 on the other hand were designed with those heavy tanks in mind).It was to be used as a replacement for the KV-1 and KV-2 which were either outdated or had proved to be a disappointment. It was meant to be used against fortified positions,pillboxes, artillery and AT emplacement, MG nests , bunkers, etc. At 45 tons I am not sure it could either use every bridge in Eastern Europe.

The JS-2 weighed the same as the panther tanks.. I know it was best used for fortified positions, but still it was the best they had for going up against the Big German tanks head to head. tank wise.. I'm sure the SU-100 was better suited, but was not a true tank. The T-34-85 was probably better.

The Tiger II contrary to the legend was not slow actually it's top speed was a good as the Panther's( however it was prevented from using its top speed because the transmission would not have been strong enough for its weight).It's turret's rotation rate was as a good as the Sherman's, its wide caterpillars gave it good cross-country abilities and its ground pressure ratio was almost the same as the Panther's.It had outstanding optics, an excellent gun, could carry up to 86 shells and was well armoured.

 

It was 70 tons, even wide tracks didn't help that much, with only the panthers 500-600 hp engine, it could not climb most hills without weaving.. it might have did good speed on roads, but out in the off road suffered.

 Yes I agree- there is no debate over it's outstanding optics and excellent L71 88mm gun.

That being said I think the Panther was a much better design and the Panther II equipped with the Kwk 43 L/71 of the Tiger II would have probably been the ideal mix between the 2 tanks giving the Panther II the better ratio between power and weight and the reliability of the Panther ausf.G and the formidable offensive punch of the KwK43 with the armour to boot. As for the JS3 we will never know what they(Panther II and JS3) would have made the mid 1945 battlefield look like....

  The Panther II would still have a better gun L71-88mm, but the Is-3 might have been a better design.
There were other tanks coming into the war, the Centurion, there was a conflict after WW2 where some other Nations used Centurions vs JS3, and the Centurions literally tore the JS-3 into shredded Wheat
 I believe it was Israel vs Egypt war in the 1950's.. the Centurion was the first to penetrate the frontal armor of the Is-3 at long range. 

[frinik]

 They was both good tanks, Face to face at 1500 meters, I'd say the king Tiger would have the big advantage..

Frinik, even by looking at SF you can tell that such situation (2 single tanks face to face at 1500) is a rarity an exception.


Sorry Mistwalker but this is not my quote I think it's Scotty's.!

But speaking of SF;I made a mini mission on the Petrovka map pitting 3 Tiger II against 18 JS2 model 1944.It was no contest; the 18 JS were destroyed( I destroyed 14 of them ) at ranges of 1150 to 1467 metres.I lost one T|iger, mine was mauled (I Iost the driver and radio man) and the 3rd one was severely damaged I played that mission 5 times and same result.I also did one with  a handful of Panthers, Jgdpanthers against JS2s, SU 122 and 152s and T34/85 again no match except that German losses were much higher and I my own tank was killed a couple of times....

I only counted the Tiger I as I tought the JS2 wasdesigned with them i n mind as the Tiger II did not appear on the bttlefield until May 1944 well after the JS 1 and 2 were introduced?Any 492 Tiger II produced probably 400 made it to the East Front still Tiger I and II put together make up only 50 to 60 % of JS2s produced ( I am discounting both JS1 s and KV85) and accepting your lower production output for the JS2.

Re the archives they are documents eventually intended for public consumption not those that were given to J Stalin.But you're right I am playing the Devil's advocate not really disbelieving them.

Peupold a fine company was incidentally founded by a German immigrant using German optical tarditoons and skillmaking.

Re the US and Uk optics provided through the landlease they were primarily intended for airplanes and gun sights but as far as I know the supply was never sufficient and by the time the J|S was under production the landlease had run its course.Iit is unlikely that any were used for the JS2 but  I'll have to research that....


Re the JS3 they were saying on battlfield.ru that it had terrible ergonomics and the field of vision for the commander was not so great.Again we will never know but it would have been a formidable opponent with the traditional Soviet flaws( slow reload, limited shell complement , poor ergonomics and vision but tough armour, good AT gun, mass produced and with the Soviet never facing fuel shortages and enjoying numerical superiority at ever level it s qualities would have mattered more than its defects.

Re the optics for the JS2 I am not saying they were bad but simply nowhere near as good as the German one particularly those of the Tiger II .Add this a a low rate of fire and and only 28 shells to play with and quickly you realise that the JS2 was not meant to take the Tiger II head-on nor to go on the hunt for German armour at long range.The JS crew would have tried to conceal themselves and wait for targets of opportunity but at ranges not exceeding 1200 to 1300 metres in order to make sure that their shot would succeed in disabling heavy German armour.Anything beyong that would have been suicidal unless they had an advantage of 5 or 6 to 1 and air or artillery coverage.Reversely A Panther or Tiger I or II crew would try to spot the JS2 at very long ranges to try disable the tank( tracks or engine) and once a sitting duck then use their optic s and higher rate of fire to hit it at its weak points.

[Mistwalker]

But speaking of SF;I made a mini mission on the Petrovka map pitting 3 Tiger II against 18 JS2 model 1944.It was no contest; the 18 JS were destroyed( I destroyed 14 of them ) at ranges of 1150 to 1467 metres.I lost one T|iger, mine was mauled (I Iost the driver and radio man) and the 3rd one was severely damaged I played that mission 5 times and same result.

Although yes, as a tank killer Tiger 2 is much better, but it heavily depends not only on tanks used, but on which side the player is and mission itself (contours, scripts, units positions). For example I've seen the situation when Pz3 has met T-34 in a village, fired at it from 30-m distance, then made 180-degree turn and drove away despite the fact that T-34 wasn't even damaged. I thought "WTF?" and launched mission editor. It showed to me that position of the T-34 was just outside attack contour for Germans, and for Pz3 priority of clearing the contour was higher than destruction of the target outside it.

Any 492 Tiger II produced probably 400 made it to the East Front still Tiger I and II put together make up only 50 to 60 % of JS2s produced

Appr. 1 to 1.7-1.8 ratio. Not very high advantage as I said earlier.

Re the archives they are documents eventually intended for public consumption not those that were given to J Stalin.But you're right I am playing the Devil's advocate not really disbelieving them.

There aren't any secret documents that were given directly to Stalin and public documents. It's all the same and at first wasn't intended for public use. Most of those documents are in Central Archive of Ministry of Defense and strangers (i.e. civilians not related to this in any way) could receive access and work there only after Soviet Union's collapse.

Re the JS3 they were saying on battlfield.ru that it had terrible ergonomics and the field of vision for the commander was not so great.Again we will never know but it would have been a formidable opponent with the traditional Soviet flaws

You can say that JS-3 is JS-2 with improved armor and less durable. I'm more interested in JS-7. That was a real juggernaut with 150-mm sloped armor on all sides (except 100 mm lower side hull), 130-mm naval cannon with reloading mechanism and fire rate of 6-8 shots per minute (+5 machineguns), 1050 hp engine, and maneuverability and average speed surpassing that of medium T-34-85. Some of those machines were created and tested in 1948-1949 but never made it to the serial production, because they were too heavy (68 tons) and expensive by Soviet standards.

the optics for the JS2 I am not saying they were bad but simply nowhere near as good as the German one particularly those of the Tiger II.

Here's information from the author of books about armor and archive worker M. Svirin. Some lines from russian translation of the captured document, written by Finnish specialists about T-34-85. Сollection of Special Documents of the Academy of Missile Forces and Artillery, fund 3404, inventory 11, case 345, sheet 6:

"...аrticulated telescopic sight has a great advantage if compared to the sight of T-34 made in 1942-1943 years. Sight transparency is the same as in german sight of 75-mm tank cannon of 1940 year model. Field of view increased by 15%..."

I think that pretty much closes the matter.

Add this a a low rate of fire and and only 28 shells to play with and quickly you realise that the JS2 was not meant to take the Tiger II head-on nor to go on the hunt for German armour at long range.

Sure,  JS-2 wasn't tank killer. You can see that by looking at AP/HE shell ratio - 8 to 20. AT artillery, SU-85, SU-100 and JSU-122 were better suited for that role. Although that doesn't change fact that 501 Abt. equipped with King Tigers twice suffered heavy losses against the same T-34's and JS-2's. First time near Oglenduv (12 tigers were lost, not a single russian tank was knocked out) and second time near Lisow (heavy losses from both sides,  battalion disbanded soon after that).

The JS crew would have tried to conceal themselves and wait for targets of opportunity but at ranges not exceeding 1200 to 1300 metres in order to make sure that their shot would succeed in disabling heavy German armour.

According to the one of the surviving german tankers there were ruissian tactics for destroying german heavy tanks in ambush: one russian tank was used as a bait and drove fast in the open space. Germans, feeling safe with superior armor and cannon fired at it from a long distance (usually with first miss because of high speed of the target) revealed themselves an received 122-mm shell from JS or JSU that was already in position and ready to open fire. He said his Tiger in 1944 was destroyed the same way, and only survived crew members were him and commander, who lost his leg.

[frinik]

It seems thta the topic of the respective merits between the JS2 and the TIger II are one of the favourite topics of various fora.I have googled the issue and I found and read no less than 4 different threads in which that topic was extensively debated.

One topic dealt with the qaulity of the JS2 and Tiger II  armour.One guy said that the JS2 - even the late JS2-m model - suffered from unequal quality in its armour because it was not tempered as this allowed a faster production rate and Soviet planners has decided that having more of them was more important than improving their resilience at the expense of production( in other words the tanks and their crews were expendable).TYhis made the armour prone to cracing under repeated hits and greatly increased the incidency of spalling.This would also indicate that the JS2 despite its nominally thick armour would be vulnerable to long range hits from the Kwk 36 L56, KwK 43 L71 and Kwk 42 L70. I remember reading an interesting thread about the respective manufacturing processes for WWII armour( German and Soviet) but that was 2 years ago.I can't remember the name of the website but one guy quoted Soviet sources in which concerns were expressed about the inferior or uneven quality of the steel used for the production of Soviet medium and heavy tanks.

The problem the Soviets were faced until late 1944( when it was obvious to all that the war was definitely lost for Germany) with was to keep their output high in order to replenish their losses( they lost between 93 000 to 112 000 tanks and armoured vehicles from 1941-1945).Without the help provided by the British and Americans in 1942-1943 the Soviet army would have faced a crisis as their losses those years greatly exceeded their production.Only armour supplied by the Allies managed to keep them afloat. In fact only in the first half of 1945 did Soviet output manage to exceed losses.Therefore their choice was clear; since they had an ample supply of manpower and a huge labour force( whether free or slave labour) they could afford to produce flat out and crew their tanks and hope to beat the Germans but outproducing them and outn umbering them on the battlefield.It worked but only because - thanks to Hitler's stupidity - Germany found itself fighting on more than one front and having to divert increasingly scarce resources away from the East front.Stalin had the luck of the Devil; he was saved form oblivion by Hitler's racist and brutal policies which alienated the Soviet populace against German occupation although initially the Germans had been acclaimed as liberators from Soviet tyranny.Then Hitler again saved him by declaring war on the USA and did not finish off the British thus providing Stalin with a lifeline( the landlease) that saved the SU from collapse and distracting German resources starting in mid 1942 that eventually allowed the Red Army to gain superiority on the ground and in the air.

Moving on to another topic why don't we post our best SF pics every week?
That would be nice to share ?Just an idea...

Cheers

[starnon5]

Very interesting discussion. I remember reading on LoneSentry a Russian report on a Jadgtiger that was evaluated. They found that the armour, despite its thickness, suffered from severe spalling on shell impact. I imagine in the final stages of the war Germany was under severe strain to maintain production and material availability (especially to construct incredibly material-heavy vehicles) and were forced to accept lower standards of material grade while keeping up defensive appearances with very thick armour.

Comparing Late-war Russian and German tanks generally, having been granted a visit to the Polish Museum of Armour in Poznan's army base (it took 2 months for my passport to clear their controls before I was allowed access!) where they have a large stock of running Soviet tanks from T26's all the way through to the IS-3, you can see how the bloodline carried through to postwar tanks and to modern tanks. Whereas German tanks, latewar particularly, are very visually impressive and seem to act also as an icon for their ideals (adopting an almost medieval lancer on horseback silhouette) their contribution to postwar tank development seems minimal, particularly having gone down dead-ends like front wheel drive.  I find that this extinction of German tank lineage, almost like the dinosaurs, actually makes them even more fascinating!

Also, the Museum of Armour in Poznan recently uncovered a Stug IV in a river, almost completely preserved in the bog and have restored it to full operational condition.  And last year, they discovered a Jagdpanzer buried deep in an old lady's back garden (but only after digging up her neighbours garden by accident..!)


edit> Ah, I see spalling of TigerII's has been raised already!

Also, creating a screenshot thread, as per other sims, would be a great idea.

[frinik]

Comparing Late-war Russian and German tanks generally, having been granted a visit to the Polish Museum of Armour in Poznan's army base (it took 2 months for my passport to clear their controls before I was allowed access!) where they have a large stock of running Soviet tanks from T26's all the way through to the IS-3, you can see how the bloodline carried through to postwar tanks and to modern tanks. Whereas German tanks, latewar particularly, are very visually impressive and seem to act also as an icon for their ideals (adopting an almost medieval lancer on horseback silhouette) their contribution to postwar tank development seems minimal, particularly having gone down dead-ends like front wheel drive.  I find that this extinction of German tank lineage, almost like the dinosaurs, actually makes them even more fascinating!

gibson this issue of the decline in the quality of late war German armour has been debated on several fora.The conlusions based on reports form specialists in that field is that yes German armour manufatcurers had to cope with shortages of crucial allows which they relied on to make quality armour.There may have been also disruptions due to constant bombings particularly in late 1944. However  based on Thomas Jentz's research and an extensive ( 260 pages thick and based on inspections of German manufacturing facilities,captured German armour and the interrogation of German engineers and production foremen) 1946 British report on the quality of WWII German armour, there's no evidence that the quality of German armour deteriorated significantly up until the spring of 1945 when the country was being invaded and the war was practically over.I am not discounting the tests conducted by the Soviets in Kubinka however what is not clear is what was the condition of the tanks they tested ( were they captured intact? Had they been damaged by their crews prior to beign abandoned?Had they been in heavy battles with resulting pre testing damage to the armour? In what condition were they transported to Kubinka and how long after their capture were they tested?).

To lay rest to these arguments once and for all, I think the best way to know would be for a team of experts consisting of metal and production engineeris to inspect and test the armour of the surviving German afvs such as : Panzer VI ausf. B(Tiger II),Panzer V ausf.G (late Panther), Jagdpanzer Tiger( or Jagdtiger), Jagdpanther etc which are found in the various museums in Europe and North America.However this is unlikely to happen unless funding is provided.

There's a very good discussion about WWII armour quality by 2 American experts John W. Schaefer and Robert Livingston which 12 pages long and which I recommend reading.The link is http://yarchive.net/mil/ww2_tank_armor.html

Take the time to read it it's very informative and enlightening in many respects for all WWI buffs and WWII tank sim gamers.

Re your comment about the extinction of the German tank lineage I disagree with it. The Panther which was adopted by the French army until 1950 and provided by the Soviets to Rumania, Bulgaria and other satellites inspired the French to dvelop their own heavy tank the AMX50 which they decided not to put into production( a decision they later regretted).They used the Kwk42 L70 gun of the Panther to manufatcure their own 75 mm gun which their provided to the Israelis and others. The Panther in fact was in many respect the prototype of the MBT of the 60 s, well armoured, mobile, and with a powerful main gun. The German team that created the Leopard 1 in the late fifties consisted largely of engineers and experts who had worked for Porsche and Henschel on the Panther and Tiger II designs and they borrowed quite a bit on what they had learned when they designed the first post war German tank and in itself one of the most influential and successful MBTs of the first generation.In the 1950s the German developed the Jagdpanzer for the newly created Bundeswehr which looked eerily like a twin of the Jadpanzer IV L70 except that it had a 90 mm gun.It remained in sevrice until the 70s.

I would also strongly argue that the German Flakpanzer Gepard and Marder were direct descendants of the WWII Flakpanzer vierling and Marder III.They were very successful and sold to many NATO countries as well.

The Soviets pursued the lineage of the JS and T34s until the mid fifties JS7 and 10 and T54/55 but with the advent of the T62 in the late fifties the concept of the Mbt changed the world of armour with doing away with the old system of ahving light, medium and heavy tanks with a unique concept that would capture the qualities of all 3 categories into one design.The antitank missile spellt the death of the SPGs and that concept was abandoned altogether by all sides in the late sixties.

The Panther ausf. G is in my opinion( biased and personal I totally agree) the best balanced tank of WWII. Had it been put into production in mid 1942 like the Tiger I  - well before Germany experienced fuel and manufacturing disruptions and a marked decline in the quality of crews due to losses and lack of sufficient training - it would have been devastating to the Soviets. Producing 3 to 500 Panthers( ausf A and D ) a month, not an impossible feat, it means that by the Summer 1943 there would have 4 to 5000 of them available with teethings problems under control and ready to be used against the Soviets at Kursk .The Soviets had nothing to oppose them( only T34/76s and KV1s which were outclassed and a handful of SU122 which were not a real threat).By the time the T34/85 and JS1/KV85 came to the battlefield in late 1943 they would have been on the run.

WE ARE BEING SPAMMED TO DEATH AGAIN!!!!I WISH I COULD UNLEASH VIRUSES ON THE SPAMMERS!!!!

[Mistwalker]

It seems thta the topic of the respective merits between the JS2 and the TIger II are one of the favourite topics of various fora.I have googled the issue and I found and read no less than 4 different threads in which that topic was extensively debated.

I think that's pretty much useless comparison. For each side their own vehicle was clearly better. JS-2 better for Soviet army and Tiger for Wehrmacht.

One guy said that the JS2 - even the late JS2-m model - suffered from unequal quality in its armour because it was not tempered

That's some nonsense, sorry. I don't know where he heard this stuff. All armor was tempered to medium hardness at least. Even problems with spalling happened on cast armor parts because they wanted to increase overall armor hardness. Bad idea - they "overincreased" it. 
 I've already said everything here about this moment. There were problems with quality of casting (turret and front hull were made by casting) and mostly on early vehicles. For example rolled upper front hull part on some late vehicles could withstand a hit from KwK 36 at point-blank range.

I can't remember the name of the website but one guy quoted Soviet sources in which concerns were expressed about the inferior or uneven quality of the steel used for the production of Soviet medium and heavy tanks.

There were some real problems with armor, but only in 1942. And yes, SOME of T-34's produced at that time didn't have tempered armor. But number of those tanks wasn't high and problems ended after Stalingrad.

The problem the Soviets were faced until late 1944( when it was obvious to all that the war was definitely lost for Germany) with was to keep their output high in order to replenish their losses( they lost between 93 000 to 112 000 tanks and armoured vehicles from 1941-1945).

That gives us approximately 1:3 loss ratio in armored vehicles on East front (I'm not counting over 20000 of German APC's). High, yes, but not too impressive.

However  based on Thomas Jentz's research and an extensive ( 260 pages thick and based on inspections of German manufacturing facilities,captured German armour and the interrogation of German engineers and production foremen) 1946 British report on the quality of WWII German armour, there's no evidence that the quality of German armour deteriorated significantly

By the way, what _exactly_ does Jentz say about that?  Does he quote any documents? And where I can look at report details? I want to see it myself, because I have some doubts about that.

I am not discounting the tests conducted by the Soviets in Kubinka however what is not clear is what was the condition of the tanks they tested

As I said tank's condtition doesn't matter at all here. Armor composition won't change even if you shatter it to pieces.

Producing 3 to 500 Panthers( ausf A and D ) a month, not an impossible feat, it means that by the Summer 1943 there would have 4 to 5000 of them available

I'd say it's impossible. They produced 380 Panthers/month at production peak (according to Jentz and Muller-Hillebrand). Besides tanks alone won't change anything. Germans didn't have many tanks in 1941, but they defeated, one can even say - destroyed old Red Army with over 20000 tanks (more than 2000 of those were T-34 and KV) in months.

The Soviets had nothing to oppose them( only T34/76s and KV1s which were outclassed and a handful of SU122 which were not a real threat).By the time the T34/85 and JS1/KV85 came to the battlefield in late 1943 they would have been on the run.

The Soviets had antitank guns. Many antitank guns. Tankers rarely fought German machines - it was strongly recommended to avoid tank-to-tank combat in directives. Those who broke panzerwaffe's neck were Soviet AT-gunners.

[frinik]

I´ll have to peruse through my T. Jentz´books to find the chapter related to German armour manufacturing , his conclusions and the sources he used.However the Britsh report can be bought for a few dollars and there are links where you cna read excerpts from it.

I disagree with you 93 000 to 112 000 armoured vehicles lost is impressive.Especially considering that it happened in 4 years and that for 18 months the Germans were on the retreat and outnumbered in every aspect and with 25% at least of their resources tied up either in Italy, in Germany( 20 000 flak 36 which could have been useful on the East front to fight off Soviet armoured thrusts were tied up defending the Reich against Anglo-American ari bombings) and later in France etc...