King Tiger vs IS-2 (2019)

Discussions on WW2 in Eastern Europe.
ww2armchairhistorian
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 08 Jul 2019 21:04
Location: Canada

King Tiger vs IS-2 (2019)

Post by ww2armchairhistorian » 08 Jul 2019 21:25

I know this question has been asked to death but forumers never come to a conclusion, it turns into a statistics war that contradict each other.
So today in 2019, I bring this parley to find out if we have come to a conclusion.

I assume both could annihilate each other at certain distances but would the KT have an advantage from long range without the need of an APCR round?
Last edited by ww2armchairhistorian on 09 Jul 2019 21:19, edited 1 time in total.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: King Tiger vs IS-2 (2019)

Post by Stiltzkin » 09 Jul 2019 02:07

I know this question has been asked to death but forumers never come to a conclusion, it turns into statistics war that contradict each other.
So today in 2019, I bring this parley to find out if we have come to a conclusion.

I assume both could annihilate each other at certain distances but would the KT have an advantage from long range without the need of an APCR round?
That would require a thorough analysis, which usually takes a long time. There is a large compendium of literature and articles on both AFVs (Jentz and Spielberger are considered the experts on German tanks, while you can find decent articles on the IS-2 on the warspot.ru site https://warspot.ru/12831-malaya-moderni ... hogo-tanka).
It would be rather complicated to measure their effectiveness based on the little information we have (lab vs field conditions, paper characteristics can be somewhat artificial), as you will not find many occassions in which they met on the battlefield. Afterall, tanks did not really joust. The image of dashing and dueling tanks is not WWII, that is just the image of the war you know from movies and games, war assets have various tasks. It depends on the interaction of all other arms of the forces. You would have to make an analysis of crew performances, mobility/automotive performances (MMP, step, gradients, revs, torque, ranges, average and top speeds, turn radii etc. even the crew comfort is often ignored) and protective layers (from firing trials), optics, projectile qualities, firing methods (stadimetric based battlesight aim), first strike penetration and destruction capabilities (maintenance and repair services should be mentioned as well).
With that said, (Solistice) comes into my mind. Hit and kill probabilities are also two different things, just because a tank has the (theoretical) potential to knock out another tank at large distances, this does not necessarily translate into the ability to reliably engage the enemy on equal terms (FCE, RoF, initiative etc.). The IS-2 was a slow firing, fortification buster.
There are reports on engagements between Hornets and IS-2s, as well as tests conducted for the OKW.
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=221644&p=2084692&h ... t#p2084692

Paul_Atreides
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: 09 Sep 2008 08:05
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Re: King Tiger vs IS-2 (2019)

Post by Paul_Atreides » 09 Jul 2019 15:19

Stiltzkin wrote:
09 Jul 2019 02:07
The IS-2 was a slow firing, fortification buster.
It's simplification. IS-2 in the Red Army were an anti-(heavy)tank device.
There is no waste, there are reserves (Slogan of German Army in World Wars)

ww2armchairhistorian
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 08 Jul 2019 21:04
Location: Canada

Re: King Tiger vs IS-2 (2019)

Post by ww2armchairhistorian » 09 Jul 2019 21:00

I understand that most tank engagements were mostly not tank vs tank battles. My question is, from all the information we have (where contradictions occur) what's the general consensus amongst ww2 enthusiasts? is it still split 50/50 or do most agree that the KT: as a tank hunter that has a faster firing rate, enough power to pierce the IS-2 at 1000m, better accuracy and basically the better gun, would defeat most of the times the IS-2 which is a breakthrough tank meant for destroying fortifications?

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: King Tiger vs IS-2 (2019)

Post by Stiltzkin » 09 Jul 2019 21:08

It's simplification. IS-2 in the Red Army were an anti-(heavy)tank device.
Of course, but thats by the distribution of the primary targets.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: King Tiger vs IS-2 (2019)

Post by Stiltzkin » 09 Jul 2019 21:10

I understand that most tank engagements were mostly not tank vs tank battles. My question is, from all the information we have (where contradictions occur) what's the general consensus amongst ww2 enthusiasts? is it still split 50/50 or do most agree that the KT: as a tank hunter that has a faster firing rate, enough power to pierce the IS-2 at 1000m, better accuracy and basically the better gun, would defeat most of the times the IS-2 which is a breakthrough tank meant for destroying fortifications?
In the Kubinka tank evaluations, they assigned combat ratings to various AFVs and the Panther scored significantly higher than a IS-2M. We would need to quantify the Royal Tiger, to say something about its worth.
Last edited by Stiltzkin on 09 Jul 2019 21:13, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 1505
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: King Tiger vs IS-2 (2019)

Post by Cult Icon » 09 Jul 2019 21:11

There are combat reports/combat accounts among the Tiger tank/PzWaffe literature- the IS-2 was not superior to the Tiger II in tank to tank combat due to its extremely low rate of fire.

+

https://www.amazon.com/King-Tiger-2-Ope ... way&sr=8-1

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: King Tiger vs IS-2 (2019)

Post by Stiltzkin » 10 Jul 2019 00:36

better accuracy
Here is the data on dispersion.
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=228421&hilit=accuracy&start=30

ww2armchairhistorian
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 08 Jul 2019 21:04
Location: Canada

Re: King Tiger vs IS-2 (2019)

Post by ww2armchairhistorian » 10 Jul 2019 03:22

Stiltzkin wrote:
10 Jul 2019 00:36
better accuracy
Here is the data on dispersion.
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=228421&hilit=accuracy&start=30
Nice graph, backs up my claim.

ww2armchairhistorian
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 08 Jul 2019 21:04
Location: Canada

Re: King Tiger vs IS-2 (2019)

Post by ww2armchairhistorian » 10 Jul 2019 03:30

Cult Icon wrote:
09 Jul 2019 21:11
There are combat reports/combat accounts among the Tiger tank/PzWaffe literature- the IS-2 was not superior to the Tiger II in tank to tank combat due to its extremely low rate of fire.

+

https://www.amazon.com/King-Tiger-2-Ope ... way&sr=8-1
Not surprised that reports show the KT performed better in tank to tank combat, it is a tank hunter. It's disappointing to see when forumers say that IS-2 is equal in tank to tank combat because of that famous Russian testing on a KT, where's pierced all around.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 5339
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: King Tiger vs IS-2 (2019)

Post by Art » 10 Jul 2019 07:51

German evaluation from July 1944 stated that in terms of armor protection and penetration Tiger I with KwK 36 was inferior to IS 122 whereas Tiger II was far superior. Which was, however, based on theoretical penetration tables rather than actual trials. Also this superiority was only present at longer distances.

Art
Forum Staff
Posts: 5339
Joined: 04 Jun 2004 19:49
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: King Tiger vs IS-2 (2019)

Post by Art » 10 Jul 2019 08:06

A graph of comparative armor penetration:

Image

German evaluation is quite consistent with Soviet trials where turret front of the Tiger II was penetrated by a 122-mm round from a distance of 1000-1500 meters.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: King Tiger vs IS-2 (2019)

Post by Stiltzkin » 10 Jul 2019 17:06

Here are the evaluations from the Heeresversuchsanstalt Kummersdorf (Verskraft) from 1945.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Paul_Atreides
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: 09 Sep 2008 08:05
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Re: King Tiger vs IS-2 (2019)

Post by Paul_Atreides » 10 Jul 2019 18:16

Stiltzkin wrote:
09 Jul 2019 21:08
Of course, but thats by the distribution of the primary targets.
Primary targets for IS-2 were german heavy tanks/SP guns (if it appears in a battlefield). The IS-2 heavy regiments in tank/mech. corps served as anti-tank reserve.

Characteristic argument from Fedorenko about formation new heavy tank brigades (20th November 1944):

For the best and reliable organization of the struggle against the enemy’s heavy tanks, it is possible to additionally complete another four tank brigades in the month of December.

Full document in Russian.

Докладная записка Народному комиссару обороны И.В. Сталину

Докладываю:

Во исполнение Вашего приказания к 5 декабря с. г. будет готова одна тяжелая танковая бригада ИС в составе двух полков по 21 танку ИС в каждом и одного полка ИСУ-122 - 21 установка.

Всего в бригаде - 65 боевых машин.

Для лучшей и надежной организации борьбы с тяжелыми танками противника имеется возможность дополнительно укомплектовать в декабре месяце еще 4 танковых бригады.

Таким образом, к 1 января 1945 г. в резерве Ставки будет состоять 5 тяжелых танковых бригад ИС - 15 полков.

Прошу вашего решения.

Командующий БТ и МВ КА
маршал бронетанковых войск Я. Федоренко
There is no waste, there are reserves (Slogan of German Army in World Wars)

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: King Tiger vs IS-2 (2019)

Post by Stiltzkin » 10 Jul 2019 18:54

Primary targets for IS-2 were german heavy tanks/SP guns (if it appears in a battlefield). The IS-2 heavy regiments in tank/mech. corps served as anti-tank reserve.
Well the document can state what it wants, do you have the distribution of engaged targets by heavy regiments (or alternatively their munition expenditure)?

Return to “WW2 in Eastern Europe”