IS2 versus Pzkpfw VI Tiger - who win ??

[Ernst Udet]

The picture is not the greatest and the tank in question certainly looks odd, but I'd say its a JS II. I say this because the commanders cupola on the roof is very distinct and noticeable (the JS III did'nt really have one) and because the JS III had a more rounded turret (the back of the turret on this one looks more rectangular to me). The front of the turret and mantle do puzzle me a bit though, but I think this is the result of the white line painted across the turret in an unusual place. The white line is usually painted in the middle of the turret (like the JS II just behind it), this one however seems to have this line painted much closer to the roof.

[groucho]

answer to question

Its a T34-85 Lots of em in Berlin 45

[groucho]

answer to question

IS II m-1944 Has the turret cupola and the prominent weldseam for the turret cheek

[merdock]

Hi,
groucho it's not a T34 completely different they had Christie suspension

[Paul C T]

As far as the Tiger II vs IS II; I believe Guderian once stated the JS II was the best tank of the war.

The JS tanks were built on a proven drivetrain and were mechanically reliable; the TIger II wasn't. Nor was the Panther.

I am not sure about the optics; obviously German optical gear, by Zeiss, was simply the best, but SOviet optics from the Krasnogorsk factory were celebrated after the war in the photographic community (some of them were straight copies of Ziess equipment). The typical Soviet 40s and 50s lenses were effectively as good as the German ones, at a fraction of the price, and it wouldn't surprise me if the same applied in wartime.

The TIger's best attribute was as a propaganda tool; in comparison to the Soviet vehicles, it was impractical (so was the Panther, which had to be moved by train for long distances).

[Elend]

As far as the Tiger II vs IS II; I believe Guderian once stated the JS II was the best tank of the war.

The JS tanks were built on a proven drivetrain and were mechanically reliable; the TIger II wasn't. Nor was the Panther.

I am not sure about the optics; obviously German optical gear, by Zeiss, was simply the best, but SOviet optics from the Krasnogorsk factory were celebrated after the war in the photographic community (some of them were straight copies of Ziess equipment). The typical Soviet 40s and 50s lenses were effectively as good as the German ones, at a fraction of the price, and it wouldn't surprise me if the same applied in wartime.

The TIger's best attribute was as a propaganda tool; in comparison to the Soviet vehicles, it was impractical (so was the Panther, which had to be moved by train for long distances).

Not a single concrete argument. Just the same old "unreliability" thing going on when speaking of German vehicles. The Russians were so ingenious they produced the same quality armament as the Germans but for 1/10th of the price. Yet it took them 3 years to get to Berlin even though Germany fought a two front war and their industry was bombed regularly. By the end of the war the Germans proved themselves the most effective fighting machine. For every single German soldier killed there was 4-5 Russian soldier. For every tank lost there was 15 enemy tank destroyed. For every tank hunter/self propelled artillery vehicle lost there was 3 enemy tanks destroyed.

By the end of the war the Panther was just about the best medium tank produced, they were constantly improved. T-34 was vastly outclassed (knocked out from 2000m by the unreliable Panther), that's why Russians came about with the IS series of tanks.

One quick note about tank moving. If there is a railroad system, every army would transport the tanks using it. It's much faster, and the tanks would not need repair along the way. Every tank has a lifetime the moving parts have to be changed and eventually the tank has to be replaced. Even today the best tanks can move around 40.000km. That is not much. Trucks can do 800.000km.

If the IS-2 KT duel takes place on open field, in a static position firing at 1000m distance IS-2 has slim chances to defeat the KT. It's not about the optics, the chassis, the engine reliability, it is about firepower, accuracy of the gun and the quality of armor.

[merdock]

Hi,
Happy new year ,
Even today the modern MBT has to be taken to he combat zone ,track life is still limited perhaps no more than WWW2 in battle they still need to be resupplied modern combat is not the same as www2 there is nowhere as near as many targets but it do's not matter weather now or www2 it's still the same the best tank v tank wins ,in ww2 the Germans were outnumbered, but still they overcame the odds a tiger in expert hands would still beat a IS2 just like a Challenger2/Abram's will still beat a T80, perhaps T90 but it will still be overcome by the overall Soviet numerical superiority.
Tank warfare, tank v tank has and will never change it is survival of he fittest take out the modern helicopter/warthog and it is still man and machine/
happy new year Merdock

[tanktalk]

Every body going on about the panther being very unreliable, your right the panther D model's transmission was very unreliable and would break down far too often. But if any one knows anything about just like any okther tank in the worl basically is midifed, or a new model comes out, in the panthers case these problems were realized at the battle of kursk and so a new model of panther was made. The panther A was a whole better tank, it wouldnt make sense would it to make a new model with the same old problems as the first would it? So the panthers transmission problems were fixed, improved ventalation was added to the engine and the turret traverse speed was improved. So in the end the Panther A was just as reliable or almost as reliable as a t34.