Ouch...Slopped armor?

[Migalex]

I was talking to SS-Kommando and he sayed and showed me on a program which i will let link that calculates armor sloppe with armor...
Very wierdly its, That looks extremely powerful, at least for me, that i tough the T-34 had 70-80mm of front armor with angle and in here says 90
Its te following:

T-34 series hull: Armor:45mm Angle:30 =90mm

IS2 front armor hull:120mm Angle: 30 = 240mm!

PzVI B (Tiger II)(kingtiger) Front Hull armor:150mm Angle: 40 = 233mm

PzV series front hull:Front:80mm Angle:35 =139

IS3:Front Hull:120mm Angle:30 = 388mm (note he has horinzontal and vertical slopped armor)

This is what gave me on the calculater and what SS-Kommando told me (The Angle)

Link:http://www.panzerworld.net/armourcalculator.html

[Rafo]

:lol:
M4A3E2 "Jumbo" has about 4" of amour on front (as Wiki states) which is roughly 102mm and on the angle calculator says (I think Jumbo has 30º angle on front yes?) it has about 204mm of amour with angle.
Now that's why your T-34/85's were getting slaughtered by my Jumbo's that could not be penetrated by your shells, go figure. :D :lol:

[HrcAk47]

And how come IS2 and IS3s get penetrated from the front with ease? :P

[Zeke Wolff]

I was talking to SS-Kommando and he sayed and showed me on a program which i will let link that calculates armor sloppe with armor...
Very wierdly its, That looks extremely powerful, at least for me, that i tough the T-34 had 70-80mm of front armor with angle and in here says 90
Its te following:

T-34 series hull: Armor:45mm Angle:30 =90mm

IS2 front armor hull:120mm Angle: 30 = 240mm!

PzVI B (Tiger II)(kingtiger) Front Hull armor:150mm Angle: 40 = 233mm

PzV series front hull:Front:80mm Angle:35 =139

IS3:Front Hull:120mm Angle:30 = 388mm (note he has horinzontal and vertical slopped armor)

This is what gave me on the calculater and what SS-Kommando told me (The Angle)

Link:http://www.panzerworld.net/armourcalculator.html

No no no!!! This isnt correct...

The Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf. H --- front hull 80 mm thick with a angle of 10 degrees (equivalent roughly 90mm)

King Tiger front hull --- 150mm angled 50 degrees (lower front hull 100mm thick angle 50)
King Tiger front turret --- 180mm angle 9 degree...

You better check the other figures as well...

~Zeke.

[coRDHA_Jeff JN]

I was talking to SS-Kommando and he sayed and showed me on a program which i will let link that calculates armor sloppe with armor...
Very wierdly its, That looks extremely powerful, at least for me, that i tough the T-34 had 70-80mm of front armor with angle and in here says 90
Its te following:

T-34 series hull: Armor:45mm Angle:30 =90mm

IS2 front armor hull:120mm Angle: 30 = 240mm!

PzVI B (Tiger II)(kingtiger) Front Hull armor:150mm Angle: 40 = 233mm

PzV series front hull:Front:80mm Angle:35 =139

IS3:Front Hull:120mm Angle:30 = 388mm (note he has horinzontal and vertical slopped armor)

This is what gave me on the calculater and what SS-Kommando told me (The Angle)

Link:http://www.panzerworld.net/armourcalculator.html

This is just relative armor thickness!
"Why the cosine-rule is not always wrong, but why it is not very accurate the vast majority of the time.

The following figure compares the ratios of velocity required for the 90mm M82 APC projectile to perforate a plate inclined at 0-degrees to that of a plate with the same line of sight thickness (LOSt) when the plate is inclined. So LOSt is being held constant between the zero degrees inclined plate and the plate inclined at either 30-degrees or 55-degrees. When this ratio of limit velocities is equal to 1 for a specific t/d value, than it can be said that the cosine rule accurately predicts the level of ballistic protection the plate provides against 90mm M82 APC. When the ratio is less than 1, or more than 1, than it can be said that the cosine rule does not accurately predict the level of protection provided by the plate at the given inclination.

As the figure shows, except for a couple of very discreate points, the cosine rule doesn’t accurately portray the level of ballistic protection provided by an inclined plate in the majority of situations considered. These discreate points are indicated by the two arrows on the graph. For all the t/d values considered for the plate inclined at 55-degrees, the plate is providing much more resistance than the simple cosine rule would imply. For 55-degrees inclination, you’re always better off with the inclined plate.

For the 30-degree inclination, when the LOSt t/d ratio is near 1, the cosine rule is pretty accurate. But for t/d less than 1, and 30-degrees inclination, you’re better off going with vertical armor. For t/d greater than 1, and 30-degrees inclination, you’re better off going with the inclined plate.

The cosine rule can be used as a sort of ballpark figure for plate inclinations of about 30-degrees or less (depending upon the projectile type). But for greater inclination – such as 55-degrees – it can be said that the plate is providing a much greater level of ballistic protection than the simple cosine rule would predict.

Ratio of Limit Velocity Required to Perforate LOSt at Inclination vs. Same Thickness of Plate at Zero Degrees Inclination. 90mm M82 APC vs. RHA.
http://kepfeltoltes.pirateclub.hu/thumbs/image3ratioofimpactveloim0.jpg (http://kepfeltoltes.pirateclub.hu/pics/image3ratioofimpactveloim0.jpg)
And finally – just for grins – below is a sequence of images of a projectile perforating an inclined plate. As you can see the projectile does not follow a straight line path through the plate. The projectile is subjected to several direction changes as it passes through the plate. Each direction change is resulting in rather large amount of stress developing within the projectile. But as you can see, the projectile does not follow the straight LOSt path through the plate. "
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/6154/image4picturesequenceprvn0.th.jpg (http://img110.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image4picturesequenceprvn0.jpg)

.....and what about the impact angle of the shell? because what thickness u calculate with the cosine-rule is always show u the same 90degree impact angle's armor thickness.

[Migalex]

Great, I had feeling something was incorrect, that could not be possible, anyways Thxs COrdha, Zeke Wolf
And HrcAk47 for its funny comment xD
About rafo -.-

:lol:
M4A3E2 "Jumbo" has about 4" of amour on front (as Wiki states) which is roughly 102mm and on the angle calculator says (I think Jumbo has 30º angle on front yes?) it has about 204mm of amour with angle.
Now that's why your T-34/85's were getting slaughtered by my Jumbo's that could not be penetrated by your shells, go figure. :D :lol:
Hmm, funny, i knocked out 2 of your sherman with 85 in front in tthe lower hull cuz sherman has that round, Dont you remember? And i flanked i kncked out many, And i win he match cuz i had more points, You had more tanks then me killed but still i won.
No one ordered you use big and pricy monster? I even knocked out a M26 without even he did something. Flank boom!
Wow, T-34/85 is great cuz of cheapness good armor agains medium cannons, and geat cannon.
Dude dont transform this topic in a war.

By the Way, Zeke, Im confused, shouldn t it be 90 degrees? Straight armor, but looks like your cacluating from 0? and achtung panzer as well

[Zeke Wolff]

By the Way, Zeke, Im confused, shouldn t it be 90 degrees? Straight armor, but looks like your cacluating from 0? and achtung panzer as well

No, the drivers front plate is tilted back 10 degrees, it isnt a 90 degree angle. The front hull is also a 80mm thick armor plate, but this one is tilted back 14 degrees.

~Zeke.

[SS-Kommando]

This has had me a bit confused. But am I correct in thinking that?

80mm at 80° is 90mm thick
80mm at 35° is 135mm thick
45mm at 30° is 105mm thick

/SS-Kommando

[medbrat]

The Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf. H --- front hull 80 mm thick with a angle of 10 degrees (equivalent roughly 90mm)
~Zeke.
How come 80 mm at 80 degrees from horizontal is equivalent to 90mm? The cosine rule says it's 81.23mm. Don't forget the cosine function is quite convex.


And how come IS2 and IS3s get penetrated from the front with ease? :P
Re: IS2, it's not the upper plate which is impenetrable with one shot (as it's effectively thicker than KT's), but the lower plate which is sloped only 60 degs from horizontal, and moreover it is 100mm thick which makes the effective armour only 115m equivalent (in reality relatively few hits would be in the lower plate due to the landscape irregularities, in game though chances are quite high).

We should not also forget that there are a few model errors in the game, such as holes or slight angle irregularities at the joints. This is one more task for the beta-testers to accomplish, to weed out as many model errors before the release as possible.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/IS-2_scheme_of_armour.jpg/500px-IS-2_scheme_of_armour.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/IS-2_scheme_of_armour.jpg

[medbrat]

This has had me a bit confused. But am I correct in thinking that?

80mm at 80° is 90mm thick
80mm at 35° is 135mm thick
45mm at 30° is 105mm thick

/SS-Kommando

The answer to all three is "no" :)

[Rafo]

I don't get why do they put the armour reading with the angle in the in-game encyclopaedia like this: X/X (i.e. 30/90 or something)
Like why is the slash there? The " * " that says on bottom makes no sense also.
This is confusing. o_O

[Migalex]

hmm wierd, im confused, I also read like 3 times, on acthung panzer and other 2 of my books, that the IS2 was inferior to panther at front combate...Seriously, i can t imaginate the IS2 upper hull be impenetrated since i read so many historys of such being penetrated

[medbrat]

hmm wierd, im confused, I also read like 3 times, on acthung panzer and other 2 of my books, that the IS2 was inferior to panther at front combate...Seriously, i can t imaginate the IS2 upper hull be impenetrated since i read so many historys of such being penetrated
Combat reports are notoriously unreliable. If you add up the number of tanks destroyed by all sides they will exceed by far the number of tanks produced and repaired by all sides.

Many a tank have been claimed to be killed by different troops, Wittmann's tank is one such example (according to battle reports it must have been destroyed at least 4 times).

Finally, germans feared IS-2 so much that they abandoned artillery pillboxes upon seeing it (no offense to germans, it just makes sense). Knowing this, soviet soldiers would make pretend IS-2 from T34-85 by making a false muzzle brake on the gun with pipes. As a result, when, say, a Nashorn destroyed this T34-85 easily from distance, it could be counted as an IS2.

In an IS2 vs Panther fight D25-T would not even need to pierce Panther's armour, it would break through it, tearing away the front plate at the joints.

[coRDHA_Jeff JN]

IS-2 can't penetrate the Panther's glacis with normal AP (BR-471)! IS-2 isn't a good AT weapon it had bad optics, inaccurate gun ,low fireing rate (2-3/min) and bad gun Elevation :+20° / -3° .

If u fight against a Panther aim its turret thats the only weak point in real world and in game.

[HrcAk47]

IS-2 can't penetrate the Panther's glacis with normal AP (BR-471)! IS-2 isn't a good AT weapon it had bad optics, inaccurate gun ,low fireing rate (2-3/min) and bad gun Elevation :+20° / -3° .

If u fight against a Panther aim its turret thats the only weak point in real world and in game.

Yea, but a HE shell like that is certain to stop it in its tracks. ISU 122 used mostly HE shells for tankhunting, and with great effect :)

[medbrat]

IS-2 can't penetrate the Panther's glacis with normal AP (BR-471)! IS-2 isn't a good AT weapon it had bad optics, inaccurate gun ,low fireing rate (2-3/min) and bad gun Elevation :+20° / -3° .

True about low fire rate and the fact that IS-2 was not an AT weapon (and most WWII tanks were not). But it can kill panther frontally without even piercing armour, by simply breaking the hull. At the very least, it will damage transmission, optics, and kill the crew. And D-25T was not at all inaccurate, in the tests it often did better than German 88mm.

[Migalex]

I agree with coRDHA_Jeff JN, The D-25 (And also A-19 that was the earlier gun) were but terrible, the bullets were cheap, and wen the hit a slopped armor they just dissintagrate, and as coRDHA_Jeff JN he could not penetrate panther front with normal ammo.
And IS2 was innacurated yes.
But what i post here was about IS2 glacie, and what im reading here in Osprey book, the Kingtiger can penetrate IS2 glacie at 2100m
Also the shooting was 2 rounds per minute
And even if no tank can kill is glacis, pff, hit the belly, its a very huge and bad belly, i just killed in mow a IS3 in belly xD with a panther and also rafo killed a IS2 with a elefant or what.
And by the way, using he to kill a tank its probaly possible, but he need be alive to do it. German tanks had excellent optics

[HrcAk47]

I agree with coRDHA_Jeff JN, The D-25 (And also A-19 that was the earlier gun) were but terrible, the bullets were cheap, and wen the hit a slopped armor they just dissintagrate, and as coRDHA_Jeff JN he could not penetrate panther front with normal ammo.
And IS2 was innacurated yes.
But what i post here was about IS2 glacie, and what im reading here in Osprey book, the Kingtiger can penetrate IS2 glacie at 2100m
Also the shooting was 2 rounds per minute
And even if no tank can kill is glacis, pff, hit the belly, its a very huge and bad belly, i just killed in mow a IS3 in belly xD with a panther and also rafo killed a IS2 with a elefant or what.
And by the way, using he to kill a tank its probaly possible, but he need be alive to do it. German tanks had excellent optics

Yea sure... I am surprized you didnt say Kingtiger can skewer 6 IS2s with one shot at 900000 meters, at the factory line...

There is NO chance of that kind of kill. And EVEN if it happened, exception doesnt make it a rule. Geez, people "read somewhere" some obscure and unverified piece of data and start claiming the whole game needs to be set to fullfill that exception...

I just wonder how did the IS2s and other russian tanks claimed so many German tanks... :laser:

[Zeke Wolff]

This thread is just getting more and more ridiculous... The reason to why Germany lost the war is none other than... the fact that they had a mad man as a leader who didnt listen to his generals, and who was simply too stupid to understand the basics behind tactics, and the rules of supplies. Germany produced some 8000 Pz.Kpfw. IV of all types (Ausf. A - J), 10.000 STuG III´s of all types (Ausf. A - G) and if you count all other tank types as well, the total number of tanks produced ends up somewhere around 30-35.000 of all types. Add to this number selfpropelled tank destroyers like the Nashorn, Jagdpanther, Jagdtigers etc, and you might be able to end up at some 40-45.000 tanks/tank destroyers. Russia alone produced more than 55.000 T-34´s during the war, add to this number JS1, JS2, Su-85, Su-100, Su-122, KV1, T-70, T-60 etc etc and you will notice that Russia have the upper hand in both tanks, man power and later on, aircraft as well. In fact, the so called "Lower race of Russians" managed to outproduce Germany in every single field, except for perhaps submarines. Add to this some 25-30.000 tanks produced by the British Empire (Britain and Canadia as tank producers) and then when the United States entered the war, some 50.000 Shermans of all types were added to the Allies tank force. To this number you can also add a significant number of M3 Stuarts, M5 Stuarts, M36 Jackson, M18 Hellcats etc etc and it is pretty easy to see why Germany lost the war.

Still we need to remember that for each STuG III lost by the Germans, the enemy forces lost about three tanks. For each Panther, 3-5 tanks etc etc. But in the end the side with the most tanks available won the war.

King Tigers were perfectly able to knock out JS1´s, JS2´s etc pretty much with ease, but less than 500 of these mighty tanks were produced compared to how many JS1 and JS2´s? Also the Russian T-34´s and US Shermans could be produced a lot quicker than a King Tiger and thus, the Allies were able to quickly replace a lost tank, whilst a lost King Tiger were lost forever for the Germans, this is especially true in the last months of the war.

Also remember that the Germany war industry were never put of full war alert. Even during the last months of the war, the German industry was still producing luxury items for the wealthy etc and unlike the Allied side, the leaders of Germany was very reluctant to allow women to work in the industry, in their view women should stay at home taking care of the children instead of getting their nails dirty in some factory.

When studying tank vs. tank combat, don´t just read "A King Tiger could knock out a JS2 from a distance of more than 2000 metres" - think behind the numbers. OK, the King Tiger maybe knocked out two JS2´s, but was in return knocked out by a third JS2". I don´t have access to a correct number of JS2´s produced but a lot more of these powerful tanks were produced than King Tigers.

I´ve read eye witnesses reports from the war, where the veterans tells the reader how they were amazed to see perhaps two or three well hidden German tanks which had obviously knocked out more than twenty to thirty Russian tanks before being knocked out in return. But we all know who entered Berlin in 1945, right? Just be happy that the war ended the way it ended and stop the silly arguing that a King Tiger could knock out a JS3 with ease. This is something that we´ll never know, since the two tanks never met each other in a real combat situation (the JS3 entered service to late to see action in the European theatre of war). And the pictures of Panthers and King Tigers seen online where quite obviously 122mm shells fired from the JS2 and JS3 tanks have penetrated the armor with ease, are pictures taken after the war, and the shells are shells of more modern types developed after the war. Don´t take everything you see online as the truth... by the way... Elvis is alive... I´ve read it online... :realbig:

~Zeke.

[Zeke Wolff]

This thread is just getting more and more ridiculous... The reason to why Germany lost the war is none other than... the fact that they had a mad man as a leader who didnt listen to his generals, and who was simply too stupid to understand the basics behind tactics, and the rules of supplies. Germany produced some 8000 Pz.Kpfw. IV of all types (Ausf. A - J), 10.000 STuG III´s of all types (Ausf. A - G) and if you count all other tank types as well, the total number of tanks produced ends up somewhere around 30-35.000 of all types. Add to this number selfpropelled tank destroyers like the Nashorn, Jagdpanther, Jagdtigers etc, and you might be able to end up at some 40-45.000 tanks/tank destroyers. Russia alone produced more than 55.000 T-34´s during the war, add to this number JS1, JS2, Su-85, Su-100, Su-122, KV1, T-70, T-60 etc etc and you will notice that Russia have the upper hand in both tanks, man power and later on, aircraft as well. In fact, the so called "Lower race of Russians" managed to outproduce Germany in every single field, except for perhaps submarines. Add to this some 25-30.000 tanks produced by the British Empire (Britain and Canadia as tank producers) and then when the United States entered the war, some 50.000 Shermans of all types were added to the Allies tank force. To this number you can also add a significant number of M3 Stuarts, M5 Stuarts, M36 Jackson, M18 Hellcats etc etc and it is pretty easy to see why Germany lost the war.

Still we need to remember that for each STuG III lost by the Germans, the enemy forces lost about three tanks. For each Panther, 3-5 tanks etc etc. But in the end the side with the most tanks available won the war.

King Tigers were perfectly able to knock out JS1´s, JS2´s etc pretty much with ease, but less than 500 of these mighty tanks were produced compared to how many JS1 and JS2´s? Also the Russian T-34´s and US Shermans could be produced a lot quicker than a King Tiger and thus, the Allies were able to quickly replace a lost tank, whilst a lost King Tiger were lost forever for the Germans, this is especially true in the last months of the war.

Also remember that the Germany war industry were never put of full war alert. Even during the last months of the war, the German industry was still producing luxury items for the wealthy etc and unlike the Allied side, the leaders of Germany was very reluctant to allow women to work in the industry, in their view women should stay at home taking care of the children instead of getting their nails dirty in some factory.

When studying tank vs. tank combat, don´t just read "A King Tiger could knock out a JS2 from a distance of more than 2000 metres" - think behind the numbers. OK, the King Tiger maybe knocked out two JS2´s, but was in return knocked out by a third JS2". I don´t have access to a correct number of JS2´s produced but a lot more of these powerful tanks were produced than King Tigers.

I´ve read eye witnesses reports from the war, where the veterans tells the reader how they were amazed to see perhaps two or three well hidden German tanks which had obviously knocked out more than twenty to thirty Russian tanks before being knocked out in return. But we all know who entered Berlin in 1945, right? Just be happy that the war ended the way it ended and stop the silly arguing that a King Tiger could knock out a JS3 with ease. This is something that we´ll never know, since the two tanks never met each other in a real combat situation (the JS3 entered service to late to see action in the European theatre of war). And the pictures of Panthers and King Tigers seen online where quite obviously 122mm shells fired from the JS2 and JS3 tanks have penetrated the armor with ease, are pictures taken after the war, and the shells are shells of more modern types developed after the war. Don´t take everything you see online as the truth... by the way... Elvis is alive... I´ve read it online... :realbig:

~Zeke.

[Zeke Wolff]

Egads... sorry for the double post... I´m tired... :)

~Zeke.

[PantherV1990]

wow zeke I must say I am impressed :)

you not only posted alot of valuable info, but you managed to quote yourself in a timely manner in order to occupy the next slot :P Well done!

JK dude I need to find something interesting to do in this station at nightshifts in the guardpost :sick:

[SS-Kommando]

This thread is just getting more and more ridiculous... The reason to why Germany lost the war is none other than... the fact that they had a mad man as a leader who didnt listen to his generals, and who was simply too stupid to understand the basics behind tactics

Saying the German army lost because of Adolf Hitler is an exaggaration. Leaders and generals of all nations made plenty of military mistakes, and of course Adolf Hitler was no exception. The one big mistake he did, though, was to chose to side with Japan vs the USA. While it was honorable, the Japanese did not deserve it because of their non-aggressionpact with Russia (which allowed the Sibirian divisions to head west in late 1941...).

It is also worth taking note of that it was in late 1942 and afterwards that the bulk of military defeats came. But at that time it was necessary to take risks; while Germany could have taken a purely defensive stance and held out for a year or so longer, such a policy would have made a German victory in Europe impossible, due to the enemy's superior amount of manpower and equipment at that time, as you mentioned yourself. So while for example Zitadelle turned out to be a major defeat, it was a necessary gamble.

/SS-Kommando

[Zeke Wolff]

Seriously if A.H. had allowed Manstein, Rommel, Guderian and the other great German generals to fight the war the way it should have been fought, then Russia would´ve been out of the war in no time. But since he just had to put his nose into every single decision that the generals wanted to make, they lost. His famous "Stand and fight to the last man" was the nail in the coffin for the German Army. No army has ever won a war if they are forced to stand still whilst being encircled etc. He just repeated the same mistakes over and over again, just like the Russian did during the beginning of the Russo-German war. Stalin and the Russians learned from their mistakes... unlike someone else...

Look what happened when the Generals dared to deny his orders and fight the war that it should be fought - they won almost every single battle. But especially after the 20th of July murder attempt, they were so afraid of him, that they didn´t dare to deny his orders and thus, the war was lost.

Also, if he had allowed the M262 "Schwalbe" to act as the fighter as it had been designed to be, instead of insisting it to be redesigned as a fighter-bomber, Germany would probably have regained the air superiority over Germany instead of being bombed back to the stone age by the USAAF and RAF all day and night. If this had happened, German ground forces would have been able to move during the day without the fear of being knocked out by enemy fighterbombers and thus, could have reach the critical areas earlier and also, their supply columns could actually have reached the units which was running low on petrol, ammunition etc instead of being burned to cinders.

You can blame the loss of the war to many people, including Goering etc, but the main brain behind the defeat, was the "great" leader himself. And I do think that we should be grateful for this.

~Zeke.

[medbrat]

but the main brain behind the defeat, was the "great" leader himself

Let's stay on-topic, Zeke. We are talking armour, ain't we?
BTW, surely A.H. wasn't personally responsible for the Oglendow fiasco? :yes:



And even if no tank can kill is glacis, pff, hit the belly, its a very huge and bad belly, i just killed in mow a IS3 in belly xD with a panther and also rafo killed a IS2 with a elefant or what.

So you judge whether hitting the lower plate is realistic by having seen this in MoW?? :woah:
Talk about virtual reality.... Think a bit about landscape and the fact that the earth is round. This makes it quite unlikely to hit the lower plate from any decent distance (in reality).

Where did you read about inaccurate IS2 (in reality)? The official Soviet test reports say otherwise. You can't dismiss this as propaganda, well, some tests might have been chosen to IS2 advantage but they had to be factually true to avoid a swift punishment.

FInally, guys, you all need to remember inferior armour quality of German tanks in the last year of the war when they ran out of manganese. So, it's not the post-war rounds that showed better penetration against Panthers, it's the fact that the armour on the mid-1944 Panthers (when they finally became half reliable :) ) was crap.

[coRDHA_Jeff JN]

Fact is the IS-2 122mm D25-T gun was a 'really' poor shot beyond 800m.
Beyond 800m the 122mm D25-T is worth nearly nothing as a AT gun, and can only really be used as an Anti-Personnel gun.

[varlo]

i read that a su122 hit a panther turret on the front and the whole thing flipped off onto the street without an interior explosion just with the kinetic energy, not kidding. also that there is no real evidence of a deterioration of steel quality in tank armour in germany (this may have been only for tiger). i know though in u boats they used pot metal for unimprtant stuff so i can see them using the crap metal for things that cannot endanger the tank if they fail. fun topic guys

[coRDHA_Jeff JN]

I don´t have access to a correct number of JS2´s produced but a lot more of these powerful tanks were produced than King Tigers.

About 3475 IS-2 built. The biggest problem with the german tank industry is that they built so many different type of tanks than all there enemys together. Most of the german Super tanks are complex and not that easy to repair. About 80-90% of T-34 are ready to fight because of the easy repair but if we see the Panther the numbers it is about 35% it's a huge difference. They never/too late realize that a cheap easy to maintain tank would be much more better than a Super Tank.

[SS-Kommando]

[quote="Zeke Wolff":2nlekdzr] I don´t have access to a correct number of JS2´s produced but a lot more of these powerful tanks were produced than King Tigers.

About 3475 IS-2 built. The biggest problem with the german tank industry is that they built so many different type of tanks than all there enemys together. Most of the german Super tanks are complex and not that easy to repair. About 80-90% of T-34 are ready to fight because of the easy repair but if we see the Panther the numbers it is about 35% it's a huge difference. They never/too late realize that a cheap easy to maintain tank would be much more better than a Super Tank.[/quote:2nlekdzr]

But it is also worth to take note of that German tanks in general were more complex than their Russian counterparts, which meant the Germans required more well-educated tank crews. Obviously if Germany had produced lots of PzKpfw IVs instead of Panthers, there would be a greater need for more tank crews and more oil, which Germany lacked. And because of the PzKpfw IV's inferiority in comparison to the Panther, it is reasonable to assume that more tank crews would have died, and the need would have become even greater.

Projects such as Maus were definately a waste of time, but the Panthers were definately not, I would say.

/SS-Kommando

[coRDHA_Jeff JN]

Pz-4 is much more reliable than the Panther. German army have no tank crew problem during the war and remember about 65% of the Panthers was sitting in a repair station while the Pz-4s number are close to the T-34s. Also StuG are an excelent weapon too and it is on the same chassis so less building capacity and time needed. Pz-4 with sloped armor hmmm?! the chassis can handle it Pz-4G-H have 80mm frontal armor so it can be easily changed to a highly sloped one.

[SS-Kommando]

Pz-4 is much more reliable than the Panther. German army have no tank crew problem during the war and remember about 65% of the Panthers was sitting in a repair station while the Pz-4s number are close to the T-34s. Also StuG are an excelent weapon too and it is on the same chassis so less building capacity and time needed. Pz-4 with sloped armor hmmm?! the chassis can handle it Pz-4G-H have 80mm frontal armor so it can be easily changed to a highly sloped one.

65%? Is that the number throughout the war, or during a specific year? The Panthers had mechanical problems at first, but later they were fixed. As for PzKpfw IV with sloped armor, I doubt it would have been as easy to make as you think; if it was an easy change, the Germans would most definately have carried it out.

/SS-Kommando

[Zeke Wolff]

The Panther was a very good tank, however it had a long manufacturing time, cost was about two to three times higher than the cost of a Pz.Kpfw. IV, but later in the war, it proved to be more reliable than the Pz.Kpfw. IV.

However, the Pz.Kpfw. IV and STuG III assault tank were the two vehicles that is considered to be the main T-34 killers. No other vehicles of the German Armed Forces claimed more T-34 kills than these two. Tigers and Panthers are the one who got the fame, but it was the lesser known Pz.Kpfw. IV and STuG III that got the work done. Both types were perfectly capable to knock out T-34s, including T-34/85s and also IS-1 tanks. However, when the better armed IS-2 showed up on the battlefield, both types were outgunned and were only able to take out this heavily armed and armored beast by flank and/or rear hits.

Sloped armor was considered and some experiments took place, but then Hitler forbade any tests etc that might reduce the number of tanks produced each month. He prefered to have the old tank types doing what they did best and instead design new tanks that would eventually replace the older types. If the war hadn´t ended in May 1945, the Pz.Kpfw. IV production was planned to be terminated in the Autumn of that year and replaced with a new tank design, probably the Panther Ausf. F. Another big reason for sloped armor not appearing on the Pz.Kpfw. IV design was that it would have forced a total redesigning of the front part of the tank, and also force the hardpressed German tank industry to develop new machine tools for producing the new armor plates etc.

~Zeke.

[coRDHA_Jeff JN]

[quote="coRDHA_Jeff JN":3pi747vs]Pz-4 is much more reliable than the Panther. German army have no tank crew problem during the war and remember about 65% of the Panthers was sitting in a repair station while the Pz-4s number are close to the T-34s. Also StuG are an excelent weapon too and it is on the same chassis so less building capacity and time needed. Pz-4 with sloped armor hmmm?! the chassis can handle it Pz-4G-H have 80mm frontal armor so it can be easily changed to a highly sloped one.

65%? Is that the number throughout the war, or during a specific year? The Panthers had mechanical problems at first, but later they were fixed. As for PzKpfw IV with sloped armor, I doubt it would have been as easy to make as you think; if it was an easy change, the Germans would most definately have carried it out.

/SS-Kommando[/quote:3pi747vs]
That's a 1943 data and i found it in a book (Panther vs. T-34 Robert Forczyk). I will search for later data first i tought he write a common data my memory tricked me :pang: later Panthers have to be better but iam not sure about they are more reliable than Pz4 i still think that Pz4 was mechanicaly more stable than the late Panthers but i will search data. Iam pretty sure that reparing a Pz-4 is much more faster than a Panther

[SS-Kommando]

That's a 1943 data and i found it in a book (Panther vs. T-34 Robert Forczyk). I will search for later data first i tought he write a common data my memory tricked me :pang: later Panthers have to be better but iam not sure about they are more reliable than Pz4 i still think that Pz4 was mechanicaly more stable than the late Panthers but i will search data. Iam pretty sure that reparing a Pz-4 is much more faster than a Panther

Okay. That's not very surprising then. In 1943 the Panthers had lots of mechanical problems...

/SS-Kommando

[Migalex]

Wow wow, calm down people i dont come to this post for ages knowing there was gonna be a arguing, Zeke, if you were saying stuff of KT Kills IS3 and sayed that i said, well i was talking about is2 and the book at least says so, second, I sayed that i killed is3 in mow and bla bla bla, It was for joke -.- every body knows you can t trust a game-.-
A so long theres probaly posts countering stuffs that i said, god! This post was supposed to be about slopped armor, Please, i just want to know if actually 30 degrees with 45mm of armor its 90mm actually and those kind of stuff, DONT ARGUEE, just tell me that
And by the way, Thanks for the alot info zeke, but about hitler, i think every body who said whos fault as a bit of right in the end.
But now no more offtopic

And again by the way, someone as told about the claimings, I actually belive more in paper stuff than dudes that claim killing, its hard to proof stuff from 60 years ago. But if you want Claims theres also claims of kings killing Is2s with 1 shot one kill(groups of them)...lol again getting out of topic, im gonna shut up now