IS-2 vs King Tiger? Who would win this duel?

[xenogears1978]

Me surmised evidence?Where and when? And what if german test a tank,say IS-2,put a small hole first and a bigger hole in same postion and call it penetration and say 75mm L42 can defeat it 2000m,will you smile and nod and accept it ?

I guess that you have a copy of the testing at Kubinka to make this statement.

And what's your point about those kneeling uttering?Is that a new method of historical research/

Maybe you could explain your "method" of historical research? let us know when you do, I will drink a cold beer while I read it!

I got russian text and I checked it with the russian site and found the problems ,with both the original description and the alternation of the site.

maybe you can find the report then?

All russians need to do to make me believe in 122 penetrating kingtiger is to publish a photo with only ONE hole right through KT front,but they just didn't right?

What did you do all these years then,except repeating its conclusion?

[xenogears1978]

so much double standards.When the test is not utterly overthrown they yell"isn't this the proof that kingtiger sucks?have some ration"and now they say "I'm not the slightest interest in boring numbers",good.

Can you repost the bit where I where I said:


isn't this the proof that kingtiger sucks?

Are you dreaming?

IS-2 armor doesn't sucks then?Can IS-2 hold many rounds and never be penetrated?

[LWD]

so much double standards.When the test is not utterly overthrown they yell"isn't this the proof that kingtiger sucks?have some ration"and now they say "I'm not the slightest interest in boring numbers",good.

Can you repost the bit where I where I said:

isn't this the proof that kingtiger sucks?

Are you dreaming?
IS-2 armor doesn't sucks then?Can IS-2 hold many rounds and never be penetrated?

I think you need to reread that post. M. Kenny's point is that he never said "the kingtiger sucks" thus your statement was a strawman. Please try to understand post you reply to before you post or at least ask for clarification on the points you don't understand.

[perdoller]

and so?

We say that numbers are always exagerated. But is a fact that the number of enemy tanks destroyed by germans is in number of tenth of thousands, and that no Tiger II (in known photographic evidence) is ever shown with a glacis perforation by gun hit.

Zaloga says that russian tank losses 83 500 includes c 3400 KV series . Germans produced less than 50000 tanks in all the war, and lose them on all fronts. Ratio of 5\1 and more are simply mathematics.

I think it is necessary to add a bit of repair in these figures. Average repair in Germany was like 3 times in the USSR 1.5 or 2.
(I mean every tank were in action again in average 3 times after repairs). Only at the Battle of Kursk wehrmacht repaired about 4 times each PzIV like just there and nowere else.
Subtotal 150 thousand vs 150 thousand. Something like that.

[Marcus]

I am locking this old thread as the relevant parts of the discussions has since been continued elsewhere, e.g. at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0&t=151479

/Marcus