IS2 tank is low on defence (underpowerd)

IS2 tank is low on defence (underpowerd)

thad what i think about it.

Last edited February 20, 2011 at 2:29 PM by firefox126

I think Devs know how IS-2 was  ;D

Anyway, personally I've never seen IS-2 UP.

Realism doesn't count worth a damn for balance. If you think you have an argument to make then you should make it comparing the prices of the units, the time they hit the field and their respective roles. If you then can explain why the IS-2 should wtfpwn Panthers then do so.

ATM it stands like this: Cost and deployment time are somewhat comparable, Panther is a dedicated AT tank, IS 2 can do both AT and AI work. Therefore it's justifiable that the IS 2 is a tad weaker vs a pure AT tank.

Besides your historical facts are completely wrong, the IS-2 is okay as it is, i dont think its good as it is, but its okay.

From the historical side, which is the reason for your issue: The IS-2 main gun couldn't penetrante the panthers glacis plate at all. Not even mentioning a King tiger. A tiger, which was placed right ("mahlzeit stellung") - rotated through ~ 30-50° - was a hard target as well, since that made the armour being sloped as well.

Nevertheless, besides having a very bad penetration, the 122mm A-19 had SIZE. fighting tigers and panthers, a hit on the turret could damage the tanks so much (even for in the case, that it doesnt penetrated it) simply by its kinetic energy (Ek = 1/2*m*v²).

Well, since this tank, we're talking about, isn't gonna make it to be the backbone of soviet army in the game, it could be the case, when balance issues could be set back a bit in favor of realism.
I mean: change the stats of the tank, so it would be more fitting into it's RL prototype description, and change it's cost and requirements respectively.
Maybe it's time to finally make it a doctrinal call-in, but a really powerful one. 

nah it only needs a bit more armor.
but its my favo tank after all :)
i can live with it thad its inst so Strong as it in real is.
and i never saw thad Realism doesn't count ^^

and Venoxxis on every site i read something els mate so u and i dont know how strong it really was. if we really wand to know how strong it was we have to go to Russia ^^

and IJoe why make it a call in tank .....
what tank the Russia then have to breach trough the tank traps ???
none thad they can build then

i take away my concern over the IS2 tank
and the reason why i posted here is thad every one can post here there concerns about balance.


so admin u can close this topic

There is a lot of nonsense going around about 'historical facts' which contradict each other depending on the source. Trust me, I know more about WW2 tanks than most.

Original soviet testing is reported to have shown that the IS2 gun could penetrate the panther through and through from 1500m. After all, that was the whole purpose of the tank.
The same gun was able to knock out Israeli M48s some decades later, so I'd say that's a safe bet.

Some german records state that it wasn't able to penetrate the Panther's frontal armour, yet strangely enough both Tigers and Panthers were ordered not to engage them. If that were the case they wouldn't be feared that much.

A hit from the IS2 gun, even if it did not penetrate completely could rip off a tank's turret on impact or would cause massive spaling of the armour that would kill and destroy the crew and interior of a tank. There are ample stories from german crews. The quality of steel used in german tanks by 44 had also declined considerably making the armour more brittle, prone to cracking and spaling.

There were very few instances where IS2s met KTs but in those engagements both vehicles were able to knock each other out. Soviets thought the KT faired poorly...no doubt the Germans reported the whole thing the other way around. You have to understand that in war time reports on enemy weapons can be...very missleading....with each side praising their vehicle over the others....be it for morale or not giving bad news to your boss Stalin/Hitler.

The truth is usually in the middle and its generally accepted by all parties that in 1v1 battles an IS2/Panther/Tiger were generally equal with the result depending on the crew's ability, battlefield situation(+luck) and combat tactics.

Alas, this is game balance where historical fact have  no place. We've made the IS2 roughly equivalent to the Panther/Tiger and inferior to the one off KT. They have roughly the same impact as a Panther in game which is supposed to show the soviet's ability to matchand overcome the german heavy armour, unlike the allies. Infact tank terror was first mentioned by german troops facing the soviet KV1/T34s who until 43' had the same impact as the Tiger/Panther had when they appeared.

IS2 is a good heavy tank that works well in EF. If you expect to build one and trample all over your opponent well then that's not balance (remember IS in 1.00?0Yuck!)

Realism stands in this mod behind the balance. Balance > everything and even realism, and that is just right the way the EF team does it right now.
I agree to you that we dont know exactly how good the tank was, but for the reason of propaganda and simply physics, the testings data of the germans is more believeable than USSR's.

Simply taking a phisical look at the A-19, which was compareable short for its caliber - giving it a poor muzzle velocity (~800 m/s) - hence less kinetic energy (Ek=1/2*m*v²).

But the great mass of the projectile gave it still a huge kinetic load. But mass, is created by size, and size means less armour penetration - this counts especially for sloped armour, because more volume and therefore more impact-area makes a energy apsorption easier.
Note: the armour penetration of armour sloped at 90° was still awesome because this way the projectile couldnt be reflected and hit its target with its all kinetic energy.

Making this neutral physical look at this gun, its performance can be valued pretty well and therefore - after seeing the physical side - its easy to say which data is more believeable.


Nevertheless i would like to see the IS-2 as a real breakthrough tank as well. making it a call-in with great anti-infantry and anti-emplacement abilities.


best regards from the physial side


edit: ah zerstörer was fast as well  8)

"a real breakthrough tank ... call-in with great anti-infantry and anti-emplacement abilities."

Nah - there's already KV-2 for that kind o' things.
On the historical side, I would say (IMO), IS-2 was the best mass produced heavy tank of the entire war.

Last edited February 20, 2011 at 2:17 PM by IJoe

there was documented instance of Is 2 penetreting Panther frontal armor during battle of Berlin shell get through tank and exploded outside. Realism Kills Gameplay  im ok with the tank in game

Last edited February 20, 2011 at 2:19 PM by Kashchei

Don't edit the title pls...leave the original one  :)

sorry but i dont want to cause problems
this is what i thougt about the IS2 tank.

it was the best mass produced heavy tank of the entire war.

and thad it is.

Zerstörer  Dont remind me of Is2 from 1.00 :'( :-\ if i remember he had hull down abbility  that was imba.

Last edited February 20, 2011 at 2:28 PM by Kashchei

It had 1600 hpts...that was the imba...and a very piss poor gun

Zerstörer
thx for the information about the IS2 tank.

ps how do u know so much about the IS2 tank and other tanks ?

Zerstörer wrote:
It had 1600 hpts...that was the imba...and a very piss poor gun

Funny times ;D

Zerstörer wrote:
Original soviet testing is reported to have shown that the IS2 gun could penetrate the panther through and through from 1500m. After all, that was the whole purpose of the tank.
The same gun was able to knock out Israeli M48s some decades later, so I'd say that's a safe bet.

The IS-2's purpose wasn't to kill Panthers, it's a breakthrough tank, used for assaulting fortified positions. It just carried a mighty punch, but the gun was far from perfect for an AT role.
What do you mean with "through and through"? Front Hull and exit at the back? Because what I have read is (courtesy of tanknet):

"BR-471B and distance 1400 meters:

Panzer-IV Ausf H: shot went through hull frontal and rear armour.

Panzer-V Panther: impact in front hull penetrated causing a 150×230mm and a crack in the welding. Impact in front tower caused a 180х240 hole and displaced turret by 500mm. Side shot in the turret caused a 130х130 mm hole and penetrated the other side.

Panzer-VI Tiger: 122mm proyectile hit same spot where a 85mm had previously been fired. The round detached rear armour after going through the inside of the tank. Turret was hit in the roof (80° inclination) leaving a 330mm path. When front turret hit a piece of armour was detached (580×130mm) and displaced turret by 540mm.

Ferdinand: First plate in full front armour was penetrated (120×150mm penetration) but round bounced on second plate. In the turret the impact did not penetrate, creating a 100mm depth hole.

Tiger-II front hull armour was penetrated from 600 meters. "

So the Panther was penetrated in the turret side with a "through and through" penetration from 1400m, which isn't an outstanding feat considering the weak side armour.

Contrasting this with the IS-2 vulnerability:
"Front (cast) hull components can be penetrated by 88mm Tiger's AP shell from 1000-1200m, 75mm Panther's AP shell from 900-1000m and 75mm T-IV shell from 300-400m. Penetration is usually accompanied by armor spalling and cracking of armor and weld seams. Due to reduced resistance in the area of front idler wheel this area is even vulnerable to 28/20mm ATR projectile.
Side sloped (cast) armor can be penetrated by Tiger from 1200-1500m, T-IV from 600-700m and 20mm gun of Ju-87 - from 75-100m."

Note that (IIRC) the test carried out on German armor weren't exaclty scientific as some of the tanks had suffered prior penetration and the latter source is from combat reports, not from actual testing.

Breakthrough tank, is a heavy tank. Heavy tanks are used to make breakthroughs and deal with other enemy heavy tanks. It's like saying a Tiger is a breakthrough tank so wasn't meant as a tank killer which is wrong.
ISUs are the assault guns that deal with emplacements and AT guns and you're confusing the two terms.

IS2 was created as a counter the german panther/tiger and hence why the 85mm was replaced with the 122mm which was the only mass produced gun(100mm gun wasn't produced in sufficient quantities) to reliably defeat both tank at long combat ranges.

Steven Zalonga quoted the STAVKA tests which showed the first 122mm round hiting the frontal armour of the panther in the test range from 1500m which then went through the combat compartment, the engine and punched out the rear armour. And as I also note the same gun killed M48s which had considerably better armour than a Panther at normal combat ranges of about 1000m.

It also clearly stated that the IS2m(like in EF) front armour was invulnerable to both the 88 and 75mm of the panther, except the small nose part where the tracks hang(which isn't really likely to be hit at long ranges anyways)

As I said above, we can all bring about 6000 different conflicting quotes and data, but it generally agreed that all 3 tanks were roughly equal.

Alas, this thread doesn't have anything to do with balance and once again lacks a freaking tag. So its locked.

Cheers

Last edited February 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM by Zerstörer