Tank Duel, Who Would Win ?

Here is how this works, the poster says a match and then gives his opinion on why he thinks that vehicle or tank would win. Others can reply or start a new topic etc.

IS-II VS Tiger 1

Unknown if there were any duels but I think the IS-II would win, big gun. No clue if there were any accounts of it happening, but both tanks would have probably seen each other before the war was over.

 

The one that fired first.

 

True. The sides that saw the other first and shot first usually won.

 

Once upon a time...

The mighty Tiger II, it's 88mm gun swaying slightly, ready for action, as it headed for a conflict it knew in it's Nazi Maybach heart it could not lose.
As much as seven inches of armour would protect it for sure against the puny and rougly made Russian guns, if those inferior optics so much as allowed the untermensch to even get a good shot in.
Crowds cheered as this magnificent new design was unveiled, just as the Fuhrer had smiled on his first glance at the plans. The band of the SS played Erika as a million hopeful hearts knew the war would soon turn for them.

Then it broke down, again, allowing thousands of Russki squaddies to swarm all over it's factories and use it's turret hatches as a toilet.

The end.

 

This is fun, from Archive Awareness. One-sided testing, but fun:
http://tankarchives.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/is-2-vs-german-big-cats.html

 

if each other spotted simultaneously, probably the one with the best trained, experienced, etc crew.....mediocre weapons in skilled and trained hands just as deadly as superior weapons in mediocre trained hands--within range

 

I enjoy posers like this, especially about armor where my knowledge is pretty spotty. In black and white terms, the IS-II could penetrate the frontal armor of the Tiger at 2000 meters, while the Tiger would have to be well under 1500 meters even with the PzGr. 40 shell, considering the 120mm 60 degree sloped armor of the Russian tank.

Yet, as several have said above, it's kind of a truism that the guy who shoots first usually wins even if it's a miss or the shell doesn't penetrate. The shooter already has his ranging shot and is adjusting and maneuvering, while the guy who just had his hair parted is in panic mode.

 

Like who would win an air battle between a Spitfire vs FW. So may variables.
Usually the more experienced crew wins.

 

Of course....

Not forgetting that the Red Army used its Valentines to go Tiger hunting because they were so mechanically quiet on the battlefield that it could manouver for side or rear shots on the supposedly vastly superior Tiger...!

 

It also depends on where the shots hit. The one who fires first definitely has an advantage, but it also depends on where the shots hit the tank. One of the things that the Allies discovered about the German tanks, such as the Tiger tanks, is that they are practically invincible against fire from their front. Their frontal armor was very thick and probably the strongest point of the tank. However the Allied tankers soon discovered that the German tanks, such as the Tiger tanks were a bit more vulnerable on the sides. So instead of aiming for the front, they aimed for the side. But the one who fires first does have an advantage.

 

It's rather sketchy looking for actual encounters between the two. Hardly surprising given the relative scarcity of Tiger II and the late war appearance of IS2. There seem to have been a handful of meetings, but web coverage is dominated by some rather dodgy Nazi sympathisers (lots of '88' & 'Heil' in usernames...). A lot seems to be made of one Alfred Carpaneto and his Tiger during 'Operation Solstice/Stargard', but descriptions thereof seem to mostly reek of idiocy and hagiographic untrustworthiness.

These 'Vs' things are odd really.
Is much ever achieved by straight statistical comparisons? They can be sort of amusing, if taken very lightly, but only ever that.

Eg. Tiger Vs Churchill!!?!! - statistically seems quite clear, but as I've said before (ad. nauseum) Gerry Chester says he and his Churchill-operating comrades did not really fear the Tiger in Italy, as it's slow traverse in such rough terrain meant they had a decent chance of success. They rated the Pz.IV as a far greater threat in that arena.

Normandy: Panther Vs. anything!!!?!!! - great as a hidden machine covering a decent arc. HV gun, Good front armour etc. all fulfilling paper expectations, but it suffered rather badly in the indoctrinally engrained counterattack or more normal type of tank vs tank encounter there, as all of it's perceived or paper advantages were lost in confused short-range fighting exposing it's flanks to theoretically less powerful guns, but guns still more than capable of getting through in those circumstances.

All is in the detail if Tank vs. Tank must be accurately assessed in any sort of real reference to the actual world of crappy red hot death and fear that the WW2 tankie occupied.

 

It's more than just that, even if the first shot misses, the first shooter still has the advantage. You'd have to do some long range shooting to appreciate this, but most of the time tank duels are long range affairs, 1500 or 2000 meters and it's all estimation by eye and experience. The trajectory of the shell is an arc. The gunner shoots and the commander and he both watch for the strike and call it high or low or perhaps more or less lead if the opposing tank is moving. So, even with a miss he's got his ranging shot and is now adjusting for the kill shot.

Meanwhile the other tank is in panic mode. They've just been shot at and unless that shot left a dust cloud it may be some time before they can even spot the shooter who may be a mile away. When they do spot them, they must maneuver and traverse the turret to get their first shot which will only be an estimation of the range. The first shooter has the range and is going to get in a second or third shot before they can expect any return fire.

If it's at close range then all that goes out the window because that first shot isn't going to miss and the other tank is already dead or immobile.

 

Let's just set up an arena on World of Tanks and settle it

 

Armour.
Gun.
Mobility.
Reliability.
On-the-spot repairability.
Crew skill.
Crew Morale.
Crew Injury.
Crew fatigue.
Initial Tactical position.
Angle of shot.
Type of shot.
Range.
Traverse speed.
Elevation.
Optics.
Reload speed.
Weather.
Visibility.
Etc. etc. etc.

How long is this piece of string?

 

Von Poop, your making too much sense

 

Sorry. I am a right boring bastard on these vs things. Should probably keep my mouth shut but it's a Pavlovian response!

Who'd win in a fight?
Pavlov's dogs or Schroedinger's cat?

View attachment 23634

 

Is the cat dead?

 

Aha! You have immediately zoomed in on the most important tactical factor.
It's a leopard by the way. I'm not expecting one small cat to take on a dozen confused dogs.
Though... I suppose Tiddles with the right kind of bell around his neck might have an advantage.

Sorry, sorry. Tank vs tank! Apologies especially to ww24interest!

 

IS-2 wins.

The Tiger crew sees it coming from their right at about 1000 yards. They start to madly crank away at their hand traversing wheel because they've run their batteries down trying to get their finicky engine started so their electric traverse is dead. The Soviet crew now sees the Tiger and notices the painfully slow traverse and realizes there is no need to hurry so they keep closing the distance to see if the crew is going to bail out and give them a chance to capture it.

When they don't, the Soviets center punch it with their 120.