The Pershing, IS-2 and Tiger 2

Yes the Pershing did feature a radio but, it wasnt of the same quality...

Danyel you must understand that the Pershing actually was very unreliable in 1945, it was underpowered and it had mechanical difficulties....

Regards, KBO

 

All the tanks in question here had radios as well as internal communication systems. There´s no real difference here. American communication systems were in general superiour to the German systems at this point in the war though.

The Pershing was indeed underpowered, just as the Tiger II was, but it was hardly unreliable, not when compared to the Tiger II anyway. It had been rushed into service and suffered from a number of mechanical problems, all minor ones though. No engine fires or broken drivetrains.

 

Well, so did the King Tiger. Especially because it was most often used by inexperienced crews who simply couldn't handle 68 tons of steel with a six meter barrel sticking out.

In this discussion I favor the King Tiger, but I do not see this tank as a perfect thing or a war-winner of any sort. One must remain realistic.

 

Well yes i agree...

The main strong points of the TigerII was its Firepower and Armor protection, but it also totally outmatched every tank in those points...

So i would go for the KingTiger over the Pershing any time...

KBO

 

Certainly. But the numbers count against it: thousands of Pershings and IS2s, but only 492 King Tigers. Also the Allied heavies were a lot more idiot-proof and therefore usable.

 

Im not sure the allied tanks were more idiot-proof, but the allies didnt lack experienced drivers in the way the germans did, wich sometimes was the main reason for a TigerII's engine to overstress.

But if the TigerII have had as much maintanence as the allied tanks, it would have been just as reliable...

KBO

 

Thousands of Pershings?

How many were actually delivered to the Front?

 

I think it was 21 in 1945 for starters...:lol:
I dont know how many pershings initially were there at the end of the war...

btw sry for my lousy english

KBO

 

What lousy English?

 

didnt i spell "initially" wrong ???

KBO

 

Of course, when it suits them, all the German fanatics will claim that every Tank crew was an absolute ace. The elite of the elite. However, when it doesn't suit them, their Crews suddenly become worse than the two-week trained American tank crews.

 

I think what KBO meant is that the Allies had plenty of crews, so that a small difference in quality will matter enormously if you count the great difference of numbers. Also most German tank crews were not as elite unless they were part of an old unit, and had fought for long. King Tiger crews had not.

 

I believe the Tiger II had more maintenance units assigned to it than any other tank in WWII. Why do you think the operational status of Tiger II units sometimes was better than for Panther units. American tanks were in general far more reliable, and durable, than German tanks. And much easier to maintain.

 

About 200 were issued to tank units by VE day. Out of 310 delivered to Europe.

 

To get back to the original topic :

Let´s start over by judging the tanks in question by their qualities regarding mobility, protection and firepower.

1. Mobility : This is a no-brainer to me. There was probably little difference between the strategic mobility of the T26 and the IS-2, but the IS-2 was the superiour tank regarding tactical mobility. I judge the strategical mobility by how easily the tank can be transported or be moved by its own power from one place to another, use brigdes or bridging equipment etc. Tactical mobility is judged by the tanks reliability, durability, range, cross-country abilities etc.

2. Protection : The Tiger II had the thickest armour, but protection is more than armour thickness. Both the T26 and the IS-2 had low profiles, adequate armour and well designed hulls and turrets.

3. Firepower : The Tiger II had the most powerful gun in terms of penetration capabilities. But to only bring up the gun when we are discussing firepower is to tell only part of the thruth. The fire controll systems also has to be brought into the discussion. The T26 had the best fire controll system in my opinion, mainly because it had a gun elevation system ( which the two other tanks missed ) and possessed a higher rate of fire.

The best tank ? I think the IS-2. Because of its tactical advantage, both its protection and firepower are adequate enough.

 

But Skua, the IS-2 had a miserable ammo load and a slower rate of fire. In a prolonged tank v tank engagement against quality German armour the IS-2 was pretty poor. You aren't going to do much with just around a dozen or so rounds of AP. At longer ranges, how many of these rounds will even hit their target seeing as the accuracy of the optics was inferior to the German ones.?

Why else do you think the Tiger Is and Panthers of GD had little trouble taking care of the IS-2s at Tirgu Fromus??

As a breakthrough tank against infantry the IS-2 was superb. Put it up against King Tigers in good defensive postions and it was far inferior. This is all about tank v tank isn't it?

The Seelow Heights anyone? Even Panthers wiped out IS-2s there. The Red Army's final advance along the roads to Berlin? The IS-2s didn't excel themselves there. The King Tigers did and took an ENORMOUS toll of Soviet armour considering the small numbers of KTs that were actually available. This enormous toll also included many IS-2s as well as the obligatory cannon fodder T34s.

For the numbers produced the King Tiger made the biggest impact in terms of enemy tanks destroyed than any other tank of the war. Simple.

 

True, But that was also the only real disadvantage the IS-2 had. You can´t pick out one quality and say that tank "a" had the best gun, therefore it is the best tank. Or tank "b" had a really slow rate of fire, therefore it is the inferior tank. You have to look at the sum of all qualities, and the IS-2 is the best blend of mobility, protection and firepower of these three. How much better was the fire rate of the Tiger II anyway ?

In most cases the ammunition carried by the IS-2 was adequate, but I´ll admit that this wasn´t to its advantage in a prolonged engagement.

The optics and range finders of the IS-2 was good enough, at least for ranges up to 1500m. It could also be argued how much better the German sights were. Oh yes, the sights themselves were of superiour quality, but were they really that much more useful in combat ?

Grossdeutchsland was an elite division. Any kind of factor could have been more decisive than the quality of the tanks involved.

What if we turn the tables and put the IS-2 in a good defensive position and let the Tiger II attack ? What would happen then ? Even T-34/85s could make mincemeat out of Tiger IIs if they were in a good defensive position.

I can think of at least a couple of engagements were 75mm Shermans wiped out Panthers. Does that mean that the Sherman ( 75mm ) was a better tank than the Panther ?

I would like to see some sources on that one. The ratio of German and Soviet tank losses were 1:1.2 in 1945. Still in favour of the Germans, but not that much. The toll can´t have been that enormous.

 

There is a difference between overall German:Soviet kill ratio and specific Tiger 2:Soviet ratio.

Given that there were only a few hundred Tiger 2s around for 1944/45 (how many left by 1945?), even if the have a 20:1 kill ratio, if the 2,000 other German tanks have a 1:1 ratio, that is gonna average it down.
(note - these are not real figures, and I know the maths does not work out here! I'm making an abstract point, rather than a precise one )

Overall, the IS-2 was potentially the better tank (same weight as a German medium but better armoured & lower profile, big gun, etc).
The combat record of the type does not really show this, although this is effected by a number of things, from crew training, to the fact that offensive armies will take more casualties, if the defenders are well-equipped and know their stuff.
The small ammo load was the main disadvantage.

 

I dont know the exact kill ratio for the KingTiger, but it is said to be higher than the TigerI's kill ratio wich allready is 1:10....


KBO

 

Skua,

I would say the only advantage the IS-2 had over the King Tiger was it's mobility and not much else. It's small ammo load was a HUGE factor in prolonged engagements as has been shown. Seriously what use is a mere dozen rounds of AP if your enemy is top quality German armored oppostion (Tiger I, Panther, King Tiger)and hull down with range in between?

With regards to GD being an elite unit, yes that it true but the same can also be said of most Tiger battalions. I remember your referance to the IS-2 v King Tiger skirmish on 13th August 1944. However that incident and the proceeding day was the first time that those KT crews had used their KTs in actual combat so the results are not surprising. It was a baptism of fire for those crews.

T34/85s would make mincemeat out of King Tigers in a good defensive position? You are meaning an 'ambush' position I take it? King Tigers easily outranged and out gunned the T34/85. Well, any tank can make mincemeat out of another if it is in an ambush postion. Even a Hetzer knocked out a IS-2. A King Tiger in a good defensive postion even showing itself head on against attacking Soviet armour would have much more of an advantage than vice versa and this would include IS-2s. It has excellent armour and a better and more accurate gun. By good defensive position I simply mean head on and facing the oncoming enemy with enough ground in between so as not to be overun. You'll be surprised at how many armour attacks just two or three King Tigers (and also Tiger Is)in hull down positions were capable of blunting.

Tiger fans are often accused of talking up the Tigers too much. Well, the same seems to be now happening with the IS-2 afficionados. The IS-2 actually wasn't that great in reality and there is little evidence to suggest it's combat record against top quality German armour was excellent. It was a dangerous opponent for Tiger crews but it certainly wasn't superior.

I posted this before and I'll post it again. This is a head on shot not even from a King Tiger but a Tiger I and it is on the frontal 160mm turret armour (the thickest part of the IS-2's armour)of an IS-2 suggesting this wasn't ambush. The Tigers were not hiding at the time anyway. I don't know the range but it was a head on clash and none of the Tiger Is of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 503 were knocked out. This was at Tarnopol in April 1944. Similar incidents occured at Tirgu Fromus in May 1944 with Tiger Is and Panthers.



:bang: