King Tiger vs IS-2 (2019)

[ww2armchairhistorian]

I have read about veteran Panther group knocking out IS-2s but wondered if it was just an exceptional situation. Stugs knocking out IS-2s now thats really surprising!

What is the problem? Side armor could be penetrated by Stug's gun from good distance and good angle, not to say about the rear armor. Anyway, as commented above those "Ferdinands" could be actually "Nashorns". Given the tendency of Soviet tankers to call any German assault gun or tank destroyer "Ferdinand" you would never tell.

Well if Tigers had to get to 500m close to an IS-2 i imagine how much more difficult it must have been for Stugs since their armor and gun is weaker. Btw Ferdinands are just armored Nashorns....with an engine that easily breaks down, whats important here is the gun being used.

[Cult Icon]

Sturmgeshutz by Anderson has an 1945 AAR of Stug L/48 vs IS-2s and T-34s contesting an important village held by a recon battalion.-- a Stug company ambushed these forces and reported 9 x T-34 kills and 5 x IS kills in a few engagements.

ISs knocked out 300-400 meters away:

-left side turret
-rear turret

600 meters

-turret side

Also:

-frontal hits did not penetrate
-report features the tendency for certain IS crews to bail out after ineffective hits (bailing out despite their armor)- this was also reported in the Spring 1944 Targu Frumos engagement.
-fire sack tactic worked- the typical splitting of AFVs to fix and flank used since the early war.

pg. 238:

" Proof of that it is possible to destroy
the JS by fire from the 7.5cm StuK 40 with PzGr 39 at ranges of up to 700m. "

During the combat it became obvious that the JS catches fire as easily as
the T-34. In rough terrain, the JS lacks the mobility and agility of a T-34, so
that it can be attacked and destroyed by two Sturmgeschütz with well-trained
and aware crews. It is important to change position after two or three rounds
are fired. The JS has a low rate of fire that should be always exploited.

The bureau of the Generalinspekteur of the Panzertruppe gave a telling comment:

The success of this StuGKp again shows that the Josef Stalin, the heaviest
Russian tank, can be defeated by the 7.5cm L/48 gun. The prerequisites for a
successful attack are thorough camouflage, best possible usage of the terrain,
and hit-and-run style deployment at favourable combat range.

[critical mass]

After initial engagement, the official instructions also reported that PzIVlang could frontally penetrate the IS2 with, what owing to the time in question had to be stepped bow design. This would have been impossible with the later introduced, straight glacis variant.

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.

Art,

I don´t understand the Tiger2 graph. It indicates that the M3 Lee, M4 Sherman, Cromwell, Chruchill can penetrate the front out to 500-800m? Do I read that correctly? How so, they did not had a projectile which could penetrate the 18.5cm turret front. I am not convinced that the M3 with its MV 75mm gun firing M61 could penetrate the TIGER2 even at the 80mm sides from 800m. Is there more context to how the graph was compiled? I.e. which prior presumptions were used?

[critical mass]

Here are the evaluations from the Heeresversuchsanstalt Kummersdorf (Verskraft) from 1945.

Why does the PzIVlang have a better frontal protection than the TIGER E in this graph?

[Art]

I don´t understand the Tiger2 graph. It indicates that the M3 Lee, M4 Sherman, Cromwell, Chruchill can penetrate the front out to 500-800m? Do I read that correctly? How so, they did not had a projectile which could penetrate the 18.5cm turret front. I am not convinced that the M3 with its MV 75mm gun firing M61 could penetrate the TIGER2 even at the 80mm sides from 800m. Is there more context to how the graph was compiled? I.e. which prior presumptions were used?

They assumed that the minimal sickness of the turret front armor was 80 mm. I don't understand where, gun mantlet probably?
It was also assumed that penetration of M3/M4/Cromwell guns was equivalent to the German 75-mm L48 gun. Ranges were determined not from actual tests but based on penetration tables and armor sickness. I can't give a more comprehensive on this, unfortunately.

[ww2armchairhistorian]

Sturmgeshutz by Anderson has an 1945 AAR of Stug L/48 vs IS-2s and T-34s contesting an important village held by a recon battalion.-- a Stug company ambushed these forces and reported 9 x T-34 kills and 5 x IS kills in a few engagements.

ISs knocked out 300-400 meters away:

-left side turret
-rear turret

600 meters

-turret side

Also:

-frontal hits did not penetrate
-report features the tendency for certain IS crews to bail out after ineffective hits (bailing out despite their armor)- this was also reported in the Spring 1944 Targu Frumos engagement.
-fire sack tactic worked- the typical splitting of AFVs to fix and flank used since the early war.

pg. 238:

" Proof of that it is possible to destroy
the JS by fire from the 7.5cm StuK 40 with PzGr 39 at ranges of up to 700m. "

During the combat it became obvious that the JS catches fire as easily as
the T-34. In rough terrain, the JS lacks the mobility and agility of a T-34, so
that it can be attacked and destroyed by two Sturmgeschütz with well-trained
and aware crews. It is important to change position after two or three rounds
are fired. The JS has a low rate of fire that should be always exploited.

The bureau of the Generalinspekteur of the Panzertruppe gave a telling comment:

The success of this StuGKp again shows that the Josef Stalin, the heaviest
Russian tank, can be defeated by the 7.5cm L/48 gun. The prerequisites for a
successful attack are thorough camouflage, best possible usage of the terrain,
and hit-and-run style deployment at favourable combat range.

Interesting read. It's nice to read these reports where big tanks get surprisingly knocked out by smaller ones. Btw why is the 7.5 Stuk 40 interchangeably also called 7.5 KwK 40?

[Stiltzkin]

Why does the PzIVlang have a better frontal protection than the TIGER E in this graph?

Yes, this is something that bothered me. This is an excerpt from a report by Oberst Diplom Ing. Willi Esser (dated 7. Feb 1945), which factors in more than just mere armour ratings, but the overall ability to withstand frontal assault and to effectively engage a target. AFVs are more than mere armour thickness and gun caliber, usually discussions revolve around these topics.
One explanation might be that he mixed up the Tiger E and Panzer IV lang or perhaps he was referring to the late war (based on the Panzer IV chassis) variations, although they are listed on the other chart. There are of course more flaws in this evaluation. Perhaps someone is in possession of the entire report, this might give us better insight (I do not always trust Spielbergers et al. translations). This would fit the late war combat reports of german tankers though, in which they stated that even lighter vehicles could be successful (e.g. superior awareness, firerate, precision etc.). Only careless behaviour on the battlefield would lead to losses.

Anyway, a solid amount of IS-2s were not destroyed in combat but had mechanical issues, somewhat complicating any comparison. There is so little on the introduction of the series, yet literature focused so hard on the teething problems of the Panther.

don´t understand the Tiger2 graph. It indicates that the M3 Lee, M4 Sherman, Cromwell, Chruchill can penetrate the front out to 500-800m? Do I read that correctly? How so, they did not had a projectile which could penetrate the 18.5cm turret front. I am not convinced that the M3 with its MV 75mm gun firing M61 could penetrate the TIGER2 even at the 80mm sides from 800m. Is there more context to how the graph was compiled? I.e. which prior presumptions were used?

That is lab data, based on calculations and assumptions that the interaction of plate and projectile must have been similar. What is of greater importance here is the mentality. They assume that the M4 is a greater threat, which makes it interesting and is more in line with what was experienced in post war engagements between proxy forces armed with Shermans and Communist forces with T-34s. Note that the Verskraft chart claims the opposite and understates the combat worth of M4s (especially variant Vc).

minimal sickness

Did they give it some antibiotics?

[ww2armchairhistorian]

Pointless thread. Arguing which tank is "the best" on the basis of who would win in a heads-on engagement is the reason why these threads never get anywhere.

I didn't ask which tanks is "the best". I was asking what conclusion was the most accepted by ww2 history fans for which tank would win in a duel; and also if the KT would be able to penetrate the IS-2 at long range without the need of the APCR before the IS-2 could penetrate it.

[critical mass]

I don´t understand the Tiger2 graph. It indicates that the M3 Lee, M4 Sherman, Cromwell, Chruchill can penetrate the front out to 500-800m? Do I read that correctly? How so, they did not had a projectile which could penetrate the 18.5cm turret front. I am not convinced that the M3 with its MV 75mm gun firing M61 could penetrate the TIGER2 even at the 80mm sides from 800m. Is there more context to how the graph was compiled? I.e. which prior presumptions were used?

They assumed that the minimal sickness of the turret front armor was 80 mm. I don't understand where, gun mantlet probably?
It was also assumed that penetration of M3/M4/Cromwell guns was equivalent to the German 75-mm L48 gun. Ranges were determined not from actual tests but based on penetration tables and armor sickness. I can't give a more comprehensive on this, unfortunately.

The mantlet is of variable thickness, 50 to 150mm, depending on where you measure with virtually all of the thicker elements of the mantlet, which does not cover the gun tube itselfe, also overlaps with the turret front. There are two turret plates visible frontally which are 80mm, the right and left turret sides, respectively. They cover roughly half of the hittable frontal profile of the turret. However, frontally, they are placed at extremely acute angles. vertical angle is 17.5 deg and horizontal angle is 71 deg, measured from engeneering drawings. So the minimum angle to hit the plate when attacked frontally is a compound of 72 deg, which is proof against all known ww2 period AP threats (up to 128mm Pzgr43).

A standart consideration placed in german firing effect tables to enemy targets of the period, however, assumes an additional 30° horizontal angle. Assuming the turret is turned away from the attacker by 30 deg, then the turret side plate exposed most directly to the attacker is exhibiting a compounded netto impact obliquity of just 44-45 deg.
Using the german official 75mm Pzgr39 RHA penetration curves for 45° published in Lilienthalreport 166 (1943), 80mm RHA are penetrable at 850m/s. Because the 75mm Pzgr39 fired from KWK40 drops below 700m/s at 500m, penetration of this plate is excluded even under this condition.
However, updated Pzgr.39 with 45° proof obliquity were about to be issued in late 1944 (some specimens tested at the USAPG in january 1945). I haven´t come across one official penetration graph of these projectiles but the data I have suggest an improved mid oblqiquity behaviour due the general absence of projectile break up when striking within the 40deg to 50deg obliquity bracket (depending on target material hardness) with no difference in performance at lower (0-40 deg) or higher (60 deg and up) obliquities alike compared to the older model Pzgr39. While it might very narrowly be just within the performance envelope necessary here, it doesnt strike me as probable that they based the M3 and M4 AP performance on such a rather recent development in AP-technology, all things considered.

[critical mass]

Sitzklin,

The graph is in an ordinal scale level, there is no datapoint in the field between the intervals, as would be expected in a metric scale level. This makes it unlikely, in my opinion, that it was a product of multivariate data.

[Stiltzkin]

The graph is in an ordinal scale level, there is no datapoint in the field between the intervals, as would be expected in a metric scale level. This makes it unlikely, in my opinion, that it was a product of multivariate data.

The original document states that it is based on firepower, armour protection, mobility and means of communication, and inherits most likely averaged figures. Perhaps it can be even seen as nothing else than a late war, propaganda effort. In the Kubinka trials the Soviets assigned a final combat rating, after torture testing the AFVs to evaluate the traits as well.

[critical mass]

I cannot see where the TIGER1 is inferior in any of the involved aspects, such as firepower, armor, visibility, radio communication to the Pz IVlang.
The only area, a late war PzIVJ holds an advantage over the TIGER-1 is off road and road range.

However, it is clearly differentiated between PzIV and PzIVlang. For 1945, this, at least to me, does not make any sense. Is it possible that they mention the PzIV/70(A) instead? It´s often differentiated from the Jagdpanzer IV/70 in german primary sources.

[I have questions]

so I suppose this means the Tiger-2 could, generally speaking, knock out an IS-2 at long distances? No offense, but it looks as though this thread has gone a bit far, it seems with all the information here that it was very possible for Tiger-2 to destroy an IS-2 at long distances. Of course there are different scenarios where one could kill the other, the question kind of needs to receive a generalized answer, so wouldn't it just make sense, after all this discussion, to come to the reasonable conclusion that, yes, generally the Tiger-2 could kill an IS-2 at great ranges.

-Max

[critical mass]

That’s not a reasonable question, to begin with. It’s possible to penetrate turret or nose plate frontally at very long range for 88/71. in turn, its possible to penetrate the commanders hatch frontally from long range, too.
Possibility doesnt correlate with feasibility, let alone probability...

[Alejandro_]

so I suppose this means the Tiger-2 could, generally speaking, knock out an IS-2 at long distances? No offense, but it looks as though this thread has gone a bit far, it seems with all the information here that it was very possible for Tiger-2 to destroy an IS-2 at long distances.

If the IS-2 version is the 1943 one (obr 1943) then Tiger II can knock out IS-2 from long distances. It will struggle with the upper front plate of the 1944 version, which was 90-100mm at 60° slope.

IS-2 would also be able to penetrate Tiger II from long distances except upper front hull. Tiger II also has better protection in the front turret, but not comparable to it's upper front hull.

Tiger II has a higher ROF and carries more ammunition, but after first combats it was requested not to carry ammunition in the tower, as it led to detonations when hit. I am not sure if this request was followed (*) but it would have affected ROF.

In the Kubinka tank evaluations, they assigned combat ratings to various AFVs and the Panther scored significantly higher than a IS-2M.

Which evaluation is that? IS-2M is a postwar upgrade, it cannot be that variant.

I any case the only comparison I have read is that of a IS-2 obr 1943 and a Panther Ausf D:

The IS-122 tank possesses a more powerful D-25 122 mm gun. The two-piece shell and screw breech lower the rate of fire to 1.5-2 RPM. The higher caliber reduces the ammunition capacity to 28 rounds.

...

The IS-122 is significantly superior to the Panther tank in its side, rear, and turret armour. The side armour of the IS-122 tank is only slightly less than its front armour, unlike the Panther, which makes the IS-122 tank more tactically adaptable. The Panther uses advantages of sloped armour more fully in the front than the IS-122.

4. The Panther no longer has a large amount of observation hatches like on the PzIII and PzIV, in order to increase protection. The Panther is equivalent to the IS-122 in observation quality. The commander and driver can see well. The visibility of the radio operator is satisfactory. The lack of observation devices for the gunner and loader reduce the observation quality of the Panther compared to the PzIII and PzIV.

5. The use of a gasoline engine on the Panther tank reduces its usage characteristics compared to the IS-122 tank, which has a diesel engine. Despite the higher hp/ton, the Panther has little advantage over the IS-122 in speed. The fuel economy of the Panther tank is greatly inferior to the IS-122 tank. The Panther has identical operational range as the IS-122 when using internal gas tanks, and 50-60% less if external fuel tanks are used.

...

The Panther's size is a disadvantage. It is longer than the IS-122 by 130 mm, wider by 360 mm, and higher by 180 mm.

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2014/0 ... rials.html

(*) A Tiger II captured by US Army on a later date had ammunition in the tower.