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

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Locked
Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

#46

Post by Yoozername » 11 May 2006, 14:46

The real expense of a vehicle is in its short battle-life.

Tiger units were notorious for being delivered, typically with 45 afv, and rapidly being reduced to less than half that number in terms of 'runners'. Either through battle damage or mechanical breakdown, the operational vehicles could not be sustained.

Since the Tigers were specialized vehicles, they were naturally used in battalion sized orginazations typically. But they rarely 'showed' more than a company oe so.

So a Tiger can be viewed in terms of its actual number of battledays till it becomes a total write off. The Tigers used in North Africa, Sicily, Italy and even Normandy were very expensive in these terms. A tank that makes it to the front might be used for 2-3 days, be pulled out of line for 3-4 days to do minor repairs, be thrown back in the line and see a few more days, have to be dragged off the line for a long term repair (14+days) and might be over-run and abandoned/blown-up to avoid capture. Thast a very expensive AFV. Its a poor value.

So its not just the actual number of tanks a Tiger can knock out but the actual number of days it can be a battle tank. Its usually the side that has more armor more often that will win a battle of brute force. This is the game the Soviets played on the Germans after Kursk in 1943 till the end of the year 1943. They stuck with the same mass produced tank, with all its shortcomings, and drove the Germans back.

T34s had very short engine life. But many never even made it that far before being knocked out. But these same knock outs, if not captured or burnt/blown-up, could be fixed easier than a Tiger tank. If for no other reason than there were plenty of other similar vehciles to share/swap components with. The Sovietes admitted to quite a large loss of AFV in WWII. But they also fixed quite a few vehicles also. So many German knock out claims, while true, were not total write offs.

So Soviet tank armies could show up for battle more often, sustain large amounts of knock outs/drop-outs, and yet come back sooner and fight more often than the typical German unit with its multi-chassis parts nightmare.

So the bottom line is that the Soviets not only made tanks less expensively, they produced them in rates that allowed re-equipping of formations through replacements, through battlefiled retrieval and salvage and therefore got more battlefield days from the formations.

User avatar
Von Lerner
Member
Posts: 120
Joined: 29 Apr 2006, 05:55
Location: Freie Stadt Danzig. Studying in Amherst, Massachusetts

#47

Post by Von Lerner » 11 May 2006, 16:13

Igorn wrote:
Christian W. wrote:I refuse to accept battlefield.ru as reliable source.
You are free to believe in whatever you want but don't spread lies on the respected http://www.battlefield.ru

Pls. take my sincere congatulations on the 61st Anniverssary of the Victory Day, which is celebrated in Russia today and drink some vodka for the winning Russian Army who crushed the Wehrmacht.

Best Regards from Russia,
I'll bring the Congac! :lol:


User avatar
JagdAlex
Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 29 Mar 2006, 03:40
Location: Montreal, Canada

#48

Post by JagdAlex » 11 May 2006, 17:30

And noone here has taken into account a VERY important aspect. Optics. The JS2's gun MAY have been able to take the Tiger II out at ranges in excess of 1Km, but its optics were crap. It had to close to 600 meters to make an aimed shot.
Indeed it is not something that we heard a lot about but it surely does make a great difference on the battlefield. If the IS-2 was not able of accurate shot at ranges of over 1000m and had to close in dramatically to be able to shot at 1st shot kill. Well...with his especially slow rate of fire...having let say to shoot a KT at 1300m and having to shoot a round in front and another shot behind and finally a 3rd shot that eventually hit the target... :| that is if the KT does not move. The KT would have probably the chance to shoot at least 6 rounds with a really accurate aiming device needless to say that the IS-2 would have been no more.

In range of probably less than 800m the chances of 1 tank having the advantage over the other seems to be quite even. But over 1000m with the better R.O.F and the more precise aiming and the superior KT frontal armor...it seems pretty obvious who would win the duel.

I am wondering if there is that many reports even in memoirs of KT destroyed by IS-2 in ranges over 1500m?

Epaminondas
Member
Posts: 282
Joined: 07 Aug 2005, 18:28
Location: Raleigh NC

#49

Post by Epaminondas » 11 May 2006, 17:54

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?opt ... 50&lang=en

Looking at the 1941 battles most of the T34s and KVs were knocked out due to breakdowns then German action. Look at the tanks falling out due to breakdowns- Soviets and Germans rarely had more then 50% of their tanks on inventory operational. Right before a big offensive was about it.

American standards of operational reliablity in world war II are not world wide standards. Judge German and soviet tanks agaisnt their most likely opponents- other german or soviet tanks.

On those standards, the germans and soviets have nothing from a relability standpoint to suggest either are better then the other.

Look up Soviet reports of maintence of tanks in WWII
http://www.redarmystudies.net/index_sort.htm
http://www.redarmystudies.net/listing.htm

Soviets had just as many problems as the Germans keeping their tanks running in WWII. The average lifespan of a T34 in combat was under a week.

Why build a reliable tank when it is going to be a burning wreck in a week?

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

#50

Post by Yoozername » 12 May 2006, 00:48

http://home.comcast.net/~markconrad/10TD1941.html

TECHNICAL REPORT FROM THE 10th TANK DIVISION, AUGUST 1941

[The original Russian transcript came to me from Mr. Charles Sharp. It is a report signed by the commander of the 10th Tank Division, dated 2 August 1941.)

highorbit
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 10 May 2006, 08:14
Location: Greece

#51

Post by highorbit » 12 May 2006, 08:18

Why should you built a tank with a week's lifespan? Cause there is a war around, have nothing better in your hands, the initiall losses are excesive and finally, cause numbers matter more in a war. The americans showed it better than anyone with their rugged and massed produced shermans, which they knew they could not face the panthers in 1 to 1 fights. They choose it as a good compromise and it proved right.

The failures of the T-34 initially was not due to their technical defficiencies (one should remember that T-34 was a new vehicle when the germans attacked) but more due to the lack of trained personel, the witch hunt of the 30's, the poor state of their mechanical corps, the destruction of their airforce, the fact that they were never used en masse e.t.c. Tanks are not to be used this way as Guderian always insisted. During '42 and early '43 the situation was even worse if you consider that most of the new factories were just beginning to press construction. Tanks where (and still are) delicate and demanding machines.

The L71 75mm of the panther was nearly as good as the 17pdr in medium distances and maybe more accurate over 2km's but it was considerably bigger and heavier. It could not by applied to a sherman or T-34/85 but the 17pdr could and this is what i mean. If the germans had something with this performance in this size, maybe they would be able to develop a smaller and therefore easier to produce medium tank. Or upgun once more the P4. Panthers where supreme machines but they where also big and complex tanks that could never be produced in the scale of the sherman or the T-34.

I also said that the KT was superior to the JS2 in a 1 to 1 fight, especially in great tank battles in big ranges. But tank battles of this kind where not the norm in late 44 and 45. By then the real fighting took place among hills, forests and towns in smaller distances than in was the norm in the russian stepe. And in this terrain, under a hostile sky, the KT was cumbersome. Noone doubts that it could kill many times its own numbers in an ambuce. But in 1944's situation a mechanical problem or a shot in the trucks from the humble 75 of the sherman could (and actually did) prove fatal. If the question for germany was the enormous numbers of the americans and the soviets, then the >500 KT's were not the answer. Even if their front plate was never penetrated.

For the soviets the JS2 was a good answer, even if it was not a KT. It could be massed produced, it could be towed away and repaired, it gave soviet tank crews back their confidence, and it had very good firepower. All of this under a friendly sky make a winner. They had less ammo, much worse optics, much slower rate of fire and their share with mechanical problems but in the kind of battles it took part it was very very good.

Ramming a JS2 with a KT? That would be an interesting spectacle. But i suspect that before the impact some nearby JSU 122 or 152 would have sent the KT back to India. KT was far ahead of its time but it really needed a far more powerfull engine and better transmission to become what the germans hoped.

herrlabe sr1
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: 12 May 2005, 23:19
Location: Reading,Pa

#52

Post by herrlabe sr1 » 12 May 2006, 16:01

[quote="highorbit"]Why should you built a tank with a week's lifespan? Cause there is a war around, have nothing better in your hands, the initiall losses are excesive and finally, cause numbers matter more in a war. The americans showed it better than anyone with their rugged and massed produced shermans, which they knew they could not face the panthers in 1 to 1 fights. They choose it as a good compromise and it proved right.

At the cost of many american lives , thats how big business works . :?

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

#53

Post by Yoozername » 12 May 2006, 18:15

If you read the Tank Maintenance 1984_05.pdf, its apparent that the Soviets had quite an extensive system.

They overhauled units which means they compensated for poor quaility engines by periodically changing out the major comonents. They got units ready for hundreds of hours of engine running in other words. Most US gas engines would last the 'life' of the AFV. The life being 1000+ hours of running. the Soviet system must have had 'fleets' of engines being field rebuilt to swap into tank units. The Germans also did this but reported that field rebuilt engines were not as good as factory ones. The Germans did it on a as needed vehicle basis. Not on a unit basis. So the soviets were aware of keeping whole units at about the same service level it seems.

An interesting T34 claimed issue is that they were not limited by fuel storage but oil storage. They used so much oil that a filled up T34 needed to periodically add lubricant and carry extra. This is indicative of very sloppy sealing in these high compression engines. But they were built in high numbers.

The Soviets had to move the whole repair, salvage, rebuild system forward.

As far as the average T34 lasting a week in combat, that can be challenged. Another pdf mentions that units in combat would not get factory fresh T34s. The replacements had to come from ready-rebuilts (armor units had extras as well as extra drivers) or direct salvage/rebuilds during combat. The units fought till non-combat effective it seems. Typically 50-60% strength depending on the damage it took to its command structure.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1103864

Igorn
Member
Posts: 566
Joined: 10 Dec 2004, 12:13
Location: Moscow, Russia
Contact:

#54

Post by Igorn » 12 May 2006, 19:06

Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:Memoirs are always to be considered with great scepticism. Poor memory and self-glorifications are two very important elements here.
Can you tell me what was the point for Hitler's General Mellentin to glorify the Red Army and their tanks? What poor memory for General Mellentin your are talking when he was writing his memoirs just after the war?
Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:As for the report I quote, it certainly isn't mythical. I have the photocopy right in front of me. I don't see why this should be any worse than quoting from books - sure, you can get the book, but do you have access to the primary sources which they used as well?.
Compared to your mythical report my books are generally available and anyone can check my info. Tell me how someone one can check that your report does really exist?
Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:Besides that, your entire 'defence' in my comments regarding the quote you posted seems to be that since it wasn't you who wrote it, it isn't your fault if the information is incorrect (and you make no further attempt to substantiate your point). However, when you quote a piece of text, you identify yourself with the text. Either you agree with what is writte (in which case you should also stand up for it), or you disagree.
First of all it is you not me who is on defencive. Once again who are you to accuse Christopher W. Wilbeck and his co-author Otto Carius of lying? Even Hitler's panzer ace Carius didn't question facts stated in the Wilbeck's book and I don't see any reasons for Carius to invent Tiger's deficences and lie. Compared to you Carius saw Tigers not only on the pictures and knew what he was saying.

That's why I fully agree with Tiger's deficiencies and flaws highlighted in the Christopher W. Wilbeck's Sledgehammers: Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War II:

The Tigers were very prone to breaking down (mostly because of their weight, which strained the entire mechanical system), could not cross most of the bridges in Europe, and had to be shipped by train to the battlefield (they would break down if they had to be driven for any great distance). They guzzled gasoline, were extremely slow (with an average speed of about 4-9 miles per hour on rough terrain or dirt roads - well below the stated maximum design speed of 25 mph), and had an extremely short combat radius and duration. The high kill ratios when they did engage in combat were offset by their tendency to either run out of gas or break down in combat, which resulted in large numbers having to be abandoned (more than were destroyed by Allied tanks). Also, U.S. and British forces had superior mobility due to widespread mechanization, as well as superior artillery and airpower. Because of the immobility and limited numbers of the Tiger tanks, it was possible to avoid confronting them with tanks, and instead, Allied forces would try to bypass and isolate them, or destroy them with heavy artillery or airpower... Start the day with 45 operational tanks. Drive them 10 miles down a road, and have 6 tanks able to fight...

Best Regards from Russia,

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14028
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#55

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 12 May 2006, 19:28

Can you tell me what was the point for Hitler's General Mellentin to glorify the Red Army and their tanks? What poor memory for General Mellentin your are talking when he was writing his memoirs just after the war?
If he suffered defeats, it if much easier to blame this on the equipment than to admid to having made wrong decisions. As for his memory, thre - four years (or more - I'd suspect that he didn't start to write his memoirs the day the war ended) is a long time for remembering details. Can you recall (verbatim) what you read on 2003-06-08?.
Compared to your mythical report my books are generally available and anyone can check my info. Tell me how someone one can check that your report does really exist?
It doesn't matter wheter the books you use exist. Obviously they do. What you are saying is that you expect me to present scans of the thousands of pages of photocopies of primary documents I have, however you do not expect it from the authors of the books you read. That makes no sense. The report exists, and if you don't want to take my word for it, you'll just have to look through every piece of paper on the planet to prove me wrong (oh, and by the way: I expect you to scan every piece of paper in the world, and post them here, so that you can prove that the report isn't among them).
Even Hitler's panzer ace Carius didn't question facts stated in the Wilbeck's book and I don't see any reasons for Carius to invent Tiger's deficences and lie. Compared to you Carius saw Tigers not only on the pictures and knew what he was saying.
Aha, so your source critisms is basically that veterans can't make mistakes? Take this parts:
or destroy them with heavy artillery or airpower
Considering that only 20 % of the Tiger Is and Tiger IIs destroyed on the Western Front with a known cause of destruction were destroyed by aerial bombardments (including the initial bombardments for Overlord), fighter-bombers or artillery, this seems like a fairly strong statement.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

#56

Post by Yoozername » 12 May 2006, 21:04

Carius writes from battle reports. They are reproduced in the back of the book. Some are his own reports.

The detailed difficulties of retrieving TigerI tanks is in a report. It often led to additional breakdowns in the towing vehicles and the assisting Tigers.

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14028
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#57

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 12 May 2006, 21:23

Perhaps, but Sledgehammers wasn't written by Carius. Carius only wrote the foreword.

I also mentioned one obvious exaggeration above.

Jan-Hendrik
Member
Posts: 8695
Joined: 11 Nov 2004, 13:53
Location: Hohnhorst / Deutschland

#58

Post by Jan-Hendrik » 12 May 2006, 21:24

How could Carius have written reports about experiences with US/Brit Airpower and its consequences for the Tiger when his only deployment on Western Front was in 1945 in the sPzJgAbt. 512 with Jagdtigers ?? :wink:

Jan-Hendrik

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

#59

Post by Yoozername » 12 May 2006, 21:30

Actually he lost Jagdtiger to airpower didn't he? And he had flakpanzer also. So why could he not write a report???

Jan-Hendrik
Member
Posts: 8695
Joined: 11 Nov 2004, 13:53
Location: Hohnhorst / Deutschland

#60

Post by Jan-Hendrik » 12 May 2006, 21:38

Hm , and what is such a report worth for such generalzing about Tiger IIs ? As his only experience concerning western air superiority was 3 or 4 weeks in March/April 1945 ??


And yes , I have some reports concerning the deyployment of this Jagdtiger unit , written by its Kdr. ...

Jan-Hendrik

Locked

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”