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

JagdAlex · Post by **JagdAlex** » 08 May 2006 19:37

Hi everybody,

I am just wondering if the King Tiger got the upper hand over the IS-2? The KT was better armored than the IS-2 but in a duel let say were the 2 tanks were under 300m appart from each other, with the power of the 122 mm gun of the IS-2, could the KT armor wistand that kind of power at such close range. Was it only pure luck like who shot first and who it first? The IS-2 in close combat got probably less chance of survival than the better armored KT since if he miss his first round with the 2 parts round the KT was probably able to nail him 2 rounds while the IS-2 was reloading and I suppose that 2 hits from that dreaded 88 mm gun means a K.O IS-2, maybe even only 1 round for that matter.

Since I am really not an expert and I am really guessing, so it would be nice if somebody can help me on this.

Many thanks!

TISO · Post by **TISO** » 08 May 2006 20:37

I don't know if you know this links, but they make fascinating reading.
King tiger from Soviet angle:
The Royal Opponent
Testing the King Tiger at Kubinka

Something on IS-2:
Report about Operations of the 71st Independent Guards Heavy Tank Regiment, Jul.14 - Aug.31, 1944

main site is:
http://www.battlefield.ru/

JagdAlex · Post by **JagdAlex** » 08 May 2006 21:43

Interesting indeed, thanks very much!

But this site seems to be a bit biased clearly showing the favoritism for the IS-2 in a battle that was clearly a fiasco for the Germans. The article: "Was the King Tiger really King" seems to be clearly biased also just by looking at the amount of holes that were punch in that KT the steel would probably offer no resistance whatsoever after so much hit and the round were probably go though it like in butter. In a real fight the KT would have never face so much hit during an encounter.

Do you have another study or article that put more both tanks on equal ground. Because if I read only this article I would think that the KT was pure garbage. There is another story also when an Hauptman Karl Kroner I think destroy 38 IS-2 in one engagement with his KT. This we do not hear about it on Russian armor sites HEHE. So I guess you can see where I am going. A neutral article would be great!

But maybe they are hard to find

weiss · Post by **weiss** » 08 May 2006 21:58

Please, dear god, just use the search function before someone like Igorn gets in here...

There has already been several drawn out threads on this stuff, what tank was better, blah, blah, blah. Some individuals from the two sides, russian and german armor enthusiast, become WAY to combative over events that happened sixty years ago, and it becomes some weird extension of national, or enthusiast, pride where neither side will concede that the other is right. Probably because if they did concede anything to their opposition it would somehow completely invalidate their love, and belief in the superiorityof, either german or russian armor, and then their little world would collapse!

It might not happen here, but consider yourself warned!

Jan-Hendrik · Post by **Jan-Hendrik** » 08 May 2006 22:02

I just can imagine the headaches our dear moderator will get when he stumbles over this topic

Jan-Hendrik

Universal the God of War · Post by **Universal the God of War** » 08 May 2006 23:57

Of course the is-2 because its blast from its gun was so powerful enough it would go through the tigers hide like me going through sourkraut.

Huck · Post by **Huck** » 09 May 2006 01:07

Universal the God of War wrote:Of course the is-2 because its blast from its gun was so powerful enough it would go through the tigers hide like me going through sourkraut.

Tiger's (I and II) side armor was vulnerable to late war medium tank guns, it wasn't intended to offer this kind of protection, no tank did that. Tiger's side armor, which offered much better protection than the cast armor used on IS-2, was dimensioned so that it could resist any weapon used by enemy infantry - Tiger was a breakthrough tank.

F/PAUL · Post by **F/PAUL** » 09 May 2006 13:10

The superiority of the tank would be determined by the crew. If you read Jentz's books you can see that the JS-II was vulnerable to the Tiger-II's gun at ranges where the Tiger-II was immune from the JS-II'a main armament (russian kubinka crap aside). Only 485 Tiger-II's were manufactured as against 2600 JS-II's. About 279 Tiger II tanks actually saw service in the east. From all the discussion in this forum, they have made quite an impression.

Christian W. · Post by **Christian W.** » 09 May 2006 13:36

King tiger from Soviet angle:

Something on IS-2:

main site is:

I refuse to accept battlefield.ru as reliable source. The site even claims that human waves (eg) are nothing but Cold War propaganda.

Igorn · Post by **Igorn** » 09 May 2006 13:49

F/PAUL wrote:The superiority of the tank would be determined by the crew.

Agree. The crews of Oskin, Udalov, Golub or Wittman really made difference

F/PAUL wrote:If you read Jentz's books you can see that the JS-II was vulnerable to the Tiger-II's gun at ranges where the Tiger-II was immune from the JS-II'a main armament

If you check http://www.battlefield.ru and read books of Zheltov, Pavlov, Suvorov or Katukov you will see that Tiger II was vulnerable to the JS-2 122mm gun at the ranges where JS-2 was immune from the Tiger II.

F/PAUL wrote:(russian kubinka crap aside).

What is wrong with the The Kubinka Proving Ground, the main proving ground of USSR/Russia tank forces for the last 65 years?

F/PAUL wrote:(Only 485 Tiger-II's were manufactured as against 2600 JS-II's.

This also confirms that Tiger II was much more expensive and more complex in production compared to JS-2 and USSR economy clearly outperformed Nazi Germany in production of heavy tanks

F/PAUL wrote: From all the discussion in this forum, they have made quite an impression.

But not on Soviet Generals and tank designers of WW2 who were working on JS-3, which by all parameters superceeded Tiger-II.

Best Regards from Russia,

Christian Ankerstjerne · Post by **Christian Ankerstjerne** » 09 May 2006 13:56

This also confirms that Tiger II was much more expensive and more complex in production compared to JS-2 and USSR economy clearly outperformed Nazi Germany in production of heavy tanks

The production numbers by themselves doesn't prove that the production was more expensive or complex. I agree that a higher amount of raw materials were required, but the production numbers themselves are not proof of this. The price doesn't really matter in itself, as Germany had tons of money, including large gold reserves.

But not on Soviet Generals and tank designers of WW2 who were working on JS-3, which by all parameters superceeded Tiger-II.

I disagree. The JS-3, while certainly a potent tank, had a very low rate of fire and low ammunition storage capacity. The 8,8 cm Kw K 43 also had better anti-tank performance than the 122 mm. D-25T. In mobility, the JS-3 and Tiger II were quite similar.

Igorn · Post by **Igorn** » 09 May 2006 13:59

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,

F/PAUL · Post by **F/PAUL** » 09 May 2006 14:04

IGORN WROTE: If you check http://www.battlefield.ru and read books of Zheltov, Pavlov, Suvorov or Katukov you will see that Tiger II was vulnerable to the JS-2 122mm gun at the ranges where JS-2 was immune from the Tiger II.

I doubt it. You have your sources, I have mine.

JagdAlex · Post by **JagdAlex** » 09 May 2006 14:54

I was looking on different website and found that regarding the IS-2:

Major shortcomings included a slow rate of fire, storage for only 28 rounds and internal splintering of the armor when hit.

taken from: http://www.battletanks.com/is-2.htm

This kind of splintering seems to be really bad for the crew even Carius talked about that kind of effect in "Tigers in the Mud" that he faced with previous tanks but not with the Tiger praising the incredible hard yet elastic armor of the tank. Was it the same thing for the Tiger II? Or there was case of armor splintering of the armor? And with only 28 rounds stored a group of let say 4 Tiger II against a group of 4 IS-2 could wreak a lot more havoc. The IS-2 got to be in pretty big units if they carried only 28 rounds compared to 86, 88mm rounds for a Tiger II

More than 3 times more in only one tanks! and I read also that reloading the IS-2 when he got no rounds left take about 40 min which seems a lot of time.

Laslty I am wondering how many rounds the Tiger II could fire in a minute compared to the IS-2 with a 2 parts ammo? I think that in an ambush position were the IS-2 got the chance to shoot first like the story mentionned on http://www.battlefield.ru. The Tiger II got no chance at all (for that matter, the IS-2 would probably had no chances either against a well ambushed Tiger II waiting for him). But on an open field face to face when you know where your opponent are, at more than 1000m I would prefer be sitting in an Tiger II: better frontal armor (including better front turret armor) so basically the largest part exposed in a frontal duel, a lot more rounds and a better rate of fire. Seems to be a win hands down for the Tiger II. I don't know how those guys feel in their IS-2 but I would have been pretty nervous in going into battle with only 28 rounds in my tanks!

MadderCat · Post by **MadderCat** » 09 May 2006 15:16

84 round on Porsche turret version of the TII and 78 for the Henschel turret version (Production version)

MadderCat