The Pershing, IS-2 and Tiger 2

Lyndon, first I want say that I´m no IS-2 aficionado. I dont´have any agenda, not regarding the IS-2 or any other tank for that matter ( I have a couple of pet projects though, like the Valentine and the PzKpfw I ). I´m just trying to be a counterweight to the enormous enthusiasm for German tanks which flush over the forum from time to time.

I agree with you when you say that the only advantage the IS-2 had over the Tiger II was it's mobility and not much else. But in my opinion it is exactly the mobility which is the determinant when judging the Tiger II and the IS-2 against each other. The Tiger II had better firepower and protection, but the firepower and protection of the IS-2 was adequate enough, even against the Tiger II ( just for the record : The IS-2s rate of fire was initially 2-3 rounds per minute. However, this was improved with the introduction of the D-25T gun in 1944. It carried 28 rounds, not much when compared to the Tiger IIs 84 rounds, but sufficient enough for most situations ). I´m sure the Tiger II killed more IS-2s than vice versa, but ( like Ricky pointed out above ) the Soviets were on the offensive and ( here we agree ) the Tiger II had an advantage over the IS-2 when used in defensive operations.

 

Fair enough Skua but it was beginning to sound as if you and a few others were as guilty of the same kind of IS-2 'love in' as us German armour fans are often accused of.

 

Be that a fair accusation - you can't deny it Lyndon!

 

No denying neccesary Roel. I love WW2 German armour and freely admit it. Much of their amour was superior. The Tigers are my personal favourites. No other tank of WW2 (perhaps in history) made as much impact and out of all proportion to the numbers produced.

If you can't admire a tank for that then ya might as well give up. :smok:

 

Theres two types of people in the WW2 Tank fanatic community -

1: People who believe the tank to be a part of a larger picture. People like me, Greg Pitts, and others choose to admire tanks according to their actual functionality as a strategic weapon of war. No, this doesn't just mean "Ok, so we like mass produced stuff." It means we respect tanks that are useful for more than killing. Most people think this means sacraficing all quality for quantity. No, thats not it. A tank needs to boarder a fine line between quality and quantity, something most Allied tanks do.

2: People who believe the tank to be a stand-alone killing unit.

 

Well, be that as it may. I also appreciate German armour of WW2 for their fine lines (Jadpanther/ Panther/ King Tiger) or it's brutal looking menace (Tiger I).

I also have a particular fascination for German camouflage schemes and the fact that German armoured units fought in the most varied terrains and theatres possible. For example a Panzer IV G could just as easily serve in the North Africa desert or the snows of the Ukraine, the mountains of Italy etc.

German armour and the units which made use of them are of more interest to me because of this variety.

All the same it's not as if I don't have an interest in Soviet or western Allied armour (less so in the latter). I do but just not to the same extent.

 

Well when were talking about the KingTiger And Pershing, im affraid that is what they were built to be...

Regards, KBO

 

KBO,

It never ceases to amaze me that talk and debate of a 'particular' tank v another 'particular' tank always seems to end up as a numbers game. This is ridiculous and is totally irrelevant to the point. In these particular debates we try to establish the various merits of one against the other not how many were built and it was therefore a better tank simply because there were more of them. :roll:

 

Don't try to justify it to me. I could care less. In fact, your jumping on the issue shows me some insecurities. My post was made to show you that respect for a tank based on a kill ratio is not the one and only reason to respect a tank. Thinking that is very narrow minded.

*sigh*
No, KBO, the Pershing was not designed to be a killing machine. The United States armored corp. put a limit on the size and weight of the tank. They had allot of criteria restricting the tank from being a pure killing machine. They did not want something like the King Tiger which could not cross German bridges. They wanted a tank that was fairly light in comparison that was able to serve as an anti-thesis to heavier German designs. It was still to be part of a larger Military frame. The King Tiger was just a stand-alone end-all-be-all behemoth that obviously wasn't able to win the war by itself.

 

Danyel any tank carrying a powerfull AT gun and a rotary turret is ment to be a Killingmachine, I mean come on that says itself...

The Pershing was ment to be an killingmachine, it was built to counter the TigerI's and Panther's had these not existed the Pershing wouldnt have been built, and then the U.S. would have just relied on thier trusty Shermans instead.
But at the time of the Pershings arrival the KingTiger had been built, and the Pershing was without doubt the "Underdog" when compared to the KingTiger.

Best regards, KBO

 

But it was still more useful, because it was twenty tons lighter than the King Tiger with some sacrifice in armour and firepower but gains in speed and mobility.

Also it could be argued that the KT has an overkill of firepower, which really isn't very necessary, and that the 90mm gun is really more of a good average.

 

Hmm, what to pick! Do we have aircover and open terrain? Then the Tiger! If not, then the Pershing.

Just out of curiosity, wasn't the M26 reclassified as a medium tank? I believe the true heavies were the M6 series, the gigantic 95 tonnes T28 and the T29!

Hmm, I btw tend to view the heavy tanks vs. medium tanks as a discusssion related more to what approach the various generals take to mobile warfare than a question of production philosophy as all nations strive for the right mix of quality and quantity.
The Allies, especially the US, favoured medium tanks because they were versatile and rather nible, while the Germans and Russian with their lessons from the vast and open Eastern Front in mind wanted killing power and protection from same. All things considered I'd say that the heavier tanks won in the end as tanks today are powerfull as well as rather heavy with their 60 to nearly 70 tonnes.

Best regards!

- Mr.B.

 

The Pershing might have been twenty tons lighter but it also had 200hp less than the TigerII, and the Pershing was not able to tackle the same type of terrain as the TigerII would do..
The TigerII weighed alot more but it still had better offroad abillity's believe it or not.
And The Kingtiger's new L 801 steering mechanism by Henschel allowed the TigerII to turn on the spot.

Regards, KBO

 

Well the 88mm L/71 gun was actually needed if the Germans wanted to Knock out IS-2's at ranges that the 122mm gun couldnt return fire.

You must remember the IS-2 could allready take out a TigerI frontally at 1800m(allthough it wasnt able to hit much after 1200m), whereas the TigerI had to be within 1500m to knock out the IS-2.
The new 88mm L/71 dramaticly changed this so that the IS-2's now could be knocked out frontally well over 2200m away.

So i would say the great firepower of the 88mm L/71 was actually needed if the Germans wanted to be ahead of the Russians.

Regards, KBO

 

KBO, going by your Logic, any tank with a turret was nothing more than a stand-alone defensive unit.

 

I'm going to go with Danyel here, KBO. You may be right about the IS2 making a more powerful gun required, but the fact is that Tigers and Panthers could perfectly well take it out. Thye were just in a little bit more danger when doing so. Therefore, what the Germans needed were more experienced crews, and there were none.

 

Roel,

The frontal plate of the new IS-2M was so thick and sloped(120mm 60*) that the 88mm L/71 gun was needed if you wanted to stay out of the lethal range of the 122mm D25 gun...

The 122mm gun was only usable up to around 1200m, but still the Panther had to get within 600-700m if was to have a chance of knocking out the IS-2M frontally. The 88mm L/71 allowed the KingTiger to Attack and destroy the the IS-2M at extreem ranges, so i would say it was needed if the germans should have a chance of repelling the Russian forces, there just wasnt enough KingTiger's and Jagpanther's to do so.

But yes i do agree the biggest problem the germans had was the lack of experienced crews.

Best regards, KBO

Editet by Moderator

 

Okay. But then, the Germans already had the Elefant and the highly mobile Nashorn tank destroyers with that 88mm L/71, and also had it in service with infantry AT units. And of course there were tens of thousands of small ambush TDs that were able to dispatch the IS2s safely simply because they weren't detected before it was too late and the enemy got into range.

 

But the Nashorn didnt have a turret, in a close tank engagement that could be crucial, plus the fact that the IS-2 could take out the nashorn at any range.....

By putting the 88mm L/71 on a rotating turret was a way to seriusly upgrade the weapons effectivness....

You must admit that the 88mm L/71 was a far more lethal weapon on the TigerII than on the Nashorn...it was needed if the germans wanted a answer to the IS-2...

And remember alot of tank engagements in russia was on wide open plains, where the small TD's werent effective against the IS-2.
The only TD that really could beat the crap out of the IS-2M was as you mensioned the Jagpanther, but just like the TigerII, to few were made.

Regards, KBO

 

The frontal RHA plate on the Pershing (102mm 44.5* slope) could be pierced by the 88mm L/71 gun at 2500m when using normal APCBC (Pzgr.39).
When using APCR (Pzgr.43) it would be able to pierce the front of the Pershing at ca.3300m.

The 90mm M3 gun on the pershing would be able to pierce its own frontal plate at only 400m when using APBC.
When using HVAP it would be able to pierce its own front at ca.2500m.

When using APBC the 90mm M3 gun would not even be able to pierce the frontal armor of an panther at point blank if using APBC, so it only had a chance if it used HVAP where it would be able at 1700m. The Panthers 75mm L/70 gun would be able to knock out the Pershing frontally with APCBC at 550m, and at 1550m when using APCR.

So you see the Pershing was allready outmatched in every way (exept in cost) when it came to europe. The Pershing was outmatched by the Panther in mobillity and reliabillity, while they both had equal guns. Now when comparing the Pershing with the KingTiger, they both had bad reliabillity while i would say the KingTiger had an edge in Mobillity because of its steering mechanism. The guns on the Pershing and KingTiger are not comparable, the 88mm L/71 gun by far outmatches the 90mm M3 gun, and in armor the KingTiger was also the heavest.

Plz excuse my faulty spellings....

Regards, KBO :smok: