did anyone else notice that the "holes" were in the zimmerit anti-magnetic paste? although i am also quick to point out that late war russian tanks, ie JS 2/3, were superior to Tiger 2s in many aspects.
Let's compare the IS2 and the KT ourside of FH:
The IS2 has a crew of 4, the KT one of 5. That makes the IS2 have less need for place for the crew to sit, but it also has one guy less to repair, and one of the others has to be radioman and frontgunner.
Size and weight are in the IS2 favour, smaller target and less ground pressure.
In gunnery the 88L71 of the KT is way superior, with a max penetration of 217mm at 500m 30° and 153mm at 200m 30°. The ammosupply is 85 shells.
The 122 mm 1943 D-25 T L/43 of the IS2 comes with 140mm at 500m 30° and 110mm at 2000m 30°. It's ammosupply is only 28 shells.
Mgs: The IS2 comes with 3x 7.62 and 1x12.7 mgs. The ammosupply is very short with only 2330 and 250 shots. (Also there is the question of who manned 4 mgs with a crew of 4...) The KT comes with the default 3x 7.92 mgs, one for the radioman, one AA and one coax. The ammosupply is 5850 shots (more than double the amount of the IS2)
The IS2 front armour is 160mm max and 90mm min, opposed by 180mm max and 100mm min of the KT, advantage for the KT. The sides of the IS2 come with 160mm-90mm (160mm is a part of the turretside, everything else is 100mm-90mm), while the KT features 80mm everywhere. Advantage for the IS2. The rear of the IS2 has 90mm-60mm, while the KT has 80mm. About even. Top/bottom The IS2 only has a top armour of 30mm, making it vulnerable to airattacks, while the KT comes with 40mm. Overall the KT is better armoured, especially due to it's advantage at the most important part, the front.
Speed: On the road, the IS2 does 37km/h, while the KT does 38mh/h. Offroad, the IS2 does about 22km/h, and the KT comes with 17-20 km/h. advantage for the IS2. Range: on roads, IS2 can go 150km, and the KT 170km
Overall the KT is the better tank to have in combat, it is superior to the IS2, but in production the IS2 is probably cheaper.
Major HartmannI'll think about equipping all tanks with extra power for the fist 100m... .[/QUOTE]
Are we getting semi-realistic now?
[QUOTE=FreakNasty]Yes, they had. Pretty well armour and armament. But nevertheless, it's a question of the distance. You can trust me if i say, the british 6pdr was able to penetrate a Tiger I's side armour at ranges up to 500meters.
But you will never come that close so give it up.
the_moveAre we getting semi-realistic now? But you will never come that close so give it up.
Good, now that the nasty freak has fallen asleep, the men can continue serious talkings.
"The 8.8cm high velocity gun, comparatively thick, well sloped armour and more than average speed, make it a very formidable proposition as a tank destroyer, and it is believed that that Germans intend, as soon as Panther production is well enough advanced to bring it into service on a considerable scale." - British Intelligence Report (DRAC Tech Int Digest No.3 Appendix E).
The outstanding firepower of the 88mm gun, excellent mobility and low elegant silhouette made Jagdpanther a formidable opponent when correctly employed. Its combination of protection, firepower and mobility made it a superb tank destroyer. Overall, the Jagdpanther was probably the best tank destroyer produced during the World War II, but it was introduced too late to have any serious impact on the situation.
Just some outtakes of http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz15.htm#jagdpanther
"On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg stood a further 11 Stalin tanks, and away on the egde of the village itself were around 120-150 enemy tanks in the process of being refuelled and re-armed. I opened fire and destroyed first and last of the 11 Stalin tanks on the road....My own personal score of enemy tanks destroyed in this action was 39."
SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Körner, schwere SS Panzer Abteilung (103) 503 / III SS Panzer Corps, East Germany, April of 1945.
And this is http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm
About the King Tiger:
So I think even the introduction of the IS-2 along with other allied tanks won´t turn the tides too much.
the specs for a KT do look temptingly good on paper--however, production cost/reliability/availability of spare parts/practical design are factors which should be included in the analysis--although some of these are abstarct they should be considered.
Bottom line, German tanks rules! :) :dance:
Who cares about the Jagdpanther when you can have a real tank like Tiger, IS2 or KT?
Beast of WarHow painfull the truth is eh ? Haven't even started about it's weak engine ( same as in Tiger I ) breaking down ALL the time due to the way to great weight for eingine output.....
If FH would be realistic, it would break down all the time, only go 1/4 of the map and then stop becuase it has no more fuel, and be shot up by late war Russian tanks easy.
But i agree, the legend sounds much better then the truth, as always....
BTW : I like german machinery much better then allied ones......but i am not oblivious to what happened for real......
It did not have the same engine as the Tiger I
the_moveAre we getting semi-realistic now?
But you will never come that close so give it up.
The King Tiger could kill any tank on the battlefield at that time at distances of 2km. Not even the JSII or the Firefly could hurt one at those ranges.