StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Good ol' MKSheppard always full of useful information.

BTW would you rather have, and American made tank or Russian made tank(latest models)? just curious

Mr. B wrote:Good ol' MKSheppard always full of useful information.

BTW would you rather have, and American made tank or Russian made tank(latest models)? just curious

Why, the M1A2 Abrams with it's Rheinmetall-licensed smoothbore!

You just can't beat a good german gun!

Some more info:

Albert Speer (Reichsminister for the Weapons and Munitions production) wrote about the Tiger's first appearance in his memories:

[...] In the beginning of Summer 1942 he [Hitler] personally ordered to put in action the first six Tiger tanks ready from which he awaited, as succeded to the appearance of every new weapon, sensational results.

He explained us, using his rich imagination, that the soviet 76,2mm AT guns - the same that pierced our Panzer IV on long ranges - would have unusufully discharged their projectiles on the Tigers to which nobody could oppose in reaching and overruning the ATs. Nevertheless the Army Staff noted that Hitler's chosen ground would not be able to let the heavy tank operating well due to the swamp-back road. Hitler repulsed the objections and the test was pressed on. [...]

The Russians let the Tigers going over an AT position and then placed hits to the sides of the first and last tank (where they were logically less armored than front). The others four, between them, could not advance nor retreat nor move sideway, bacause of the soft swamp terrain, and were rapidly knocked out. Hitler heard about this defeat in silence and never said anything about this.

MKSheppard wrote:

Mr. B wrote:Good ol' MKSheppard always full of useful information.

BTW would you rather have, and American made tank or Russian made tank(latest models)? just curious

Why, the M1A2 Abrams with it's Rheinmetall-licensed smoothbore!

You just can't beat a good german gun!

Definitely the M1A2, myself. It has the best protection, firepower, and electronics.

Some more info:

Albert Speer (Reichsminister for the Weapons and Munitions production) wrote about the Tiger's first appearance in his memories:

The Germans were good engineers and good soldiers, but they could still fuck up pretty badly. Other examples include using the King Tiger as an attack tank in one of its early appearances and failing to equip the Ferdinand with a defensive machinegun.

There is a small possibility that the IS-3 will be modelled in the game.....
let us all hold our fingers and PRAY!

MKSheppard wrote:There is a small possibility that the IS-3 will be modelled in the game.....
let us all hold our fingers and PRAY!

Oh Jesus. I just peed myself

Pablo Sanchez wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:There is a small possibility that the IS-3 will be modelled in the game.....
let us all hold our fingers and PRAY!

Oh Jesus. I just peed myself

Considering that these are the guys who put in the T64E4 Super Pershing
into the first game, when ONLY ONE was sent to the entire ETO.....

I'd say 50/50 chance.......

BTS has said that it might be in depending on whether they have the time to do it. They apparently already had an IS-3 model/skin so it probably wouldn't take much work. Since the SturmTiger will be in CMBB, there is a good chance that the IS-3 will be as well.

So far though, BTS hasn't said yea or nay either way.

MKSheppard wrote:BTS has said that it might be in depending on whether they have the time to do it. They apparently already had an IS-3 model/skin so it probably wouldn't take much work. Since the SturmTiger will be in CMBB, there is a good chance that the IS-3 will be as well.

So far though, BTS hasn't said yea or nay either way.

The Sturmtiger? With the 380mm mortar? Hahahahah.

The IS series was such an effective series of tanks that they are still in use today and the Israeli army found the IS-2 hard to kill as of the 1970s!

Wrong. Israel faced T-10's, not IS-2's or IS-3's. The T-10 looks similar but in reality everything about it was vastly improved from the engine to the armor thickness to the main gun. They Russians did a lot of improving with the IS-4 through 9.

The T-10 was such a huge improvement that both America and the UK built new tank types specifically to combat it, the M103 and Conqueror

Egypt had about 50 IS-3's deployed with its 4th armored division in 1967, they were defeated and destroyed easily by 90mm gunned Patton's, though I believe a number were captured.


The big problem with every IS series tank up to the T-10, was they could only carry 25-30 rounds of ammunition. That’s enough if you face a handful of uber tanks like Tiger II's, but against a larger number of targets or a lot of infantry positions, you're screwed. In Normandy Sherman's often shot through their entire load out of over 100 rounds in a couple hours.

The T-10 had 44 rounds IIRC, and a much better fire control system that could make em count.

The much beloved IS-152 was worse, 21 rounds maximum. If they were deployed in a pure AT role, that might have been okay, but as close support they really suffered from it. Anything but armor was almost always going to be just as dead, be the round 100, 122 or 152mm. But with the smaller guns, you can make more things dead.

I'd rather have a Stug III with a 150+ rounds of 75mm then 21 rounds 152mm

Sea Skimmer wrote:

I'd rather have a Stug III with a 150+ rounds of 75mm then 21 rounds 152mm

How convient.......CM: Barbarossa to Berlin will have the early StuGs!

http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmb ... tug3-b.jpg

{changed from image to LINK to prevent scrolling)

Sea Skimmer wrote:The much beloved IS-152 was worse, 21 rounds maximum. If they were deployed in a pure AT role, that might have been okay, but as close support they really suffered from it.

The SU-152 was only used to destroy hard targets, and always operated in support of other units. In such a situation the low ammo count and long reload time was not too big of a handicap, and the effectiveness of the 152mm gun in destroying single targets cannot be denied.

Anything but armor was almost always going to be just as dead, be the round 100, 122 or 152mm. But with the smaller guns, you can make more things dead.

As I've said before, the SU-152 is my second favorite. I prefer the SU-100 for the gun's excellent performance in both anti-tank and anti-infantry work.

I'd rather have a Stug III with a 150+ rounds of 75mm then 21 rounds 152mm

That's your opinion. But let's say that your StuG-III comes up against an IS-3 with the frontal armor facing you. You're a dead man, but if you'd had the big 152, then you could have cracked the tank in half at long range and continued on your merry way.

Every weapon of war has it's place. The SU-152 takes the position of destroying hard targets, like heavy tanks and strongpoints. The StuG-III takes a different place, just like the T-34 or the BT-7 or the King Tiger.

1. If you want to compare the IS-2 to something, compare it to the Panther since an IS-2 weighed and cost about the same.

2. Red Steel? Where is that site? I thought it was lost forever!

3. Shep, what's all this about displaying the Soviet tank teething problems but blaming the Nazi tank deficiencies on lousy production? What have you been doing, watching the first half of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" over and over again? The Nazi tanks did lose quality, but their teething troubles were just as bad if not worse than the Soviet tanks. In both aircraft and tanks, Nazi Germany wasted valuable resources on developing exotic tanks and aircraft while the Soviet Union focused on proven designs and produced them in quantity.

Doomriser wrote:1. If you want to compare the IS-2 to something, compare it to the Panther since an IS-2 weighed and cost about the same.

IS-2 advantages
Thicker armor
Better HE from main gun
Can kill Panther from longer than the Panther can kill it
(sometimes) superior Reliability

Panther Advantages
Mobility
Reload speed
Ammo Capacity

For combat capabilities, I'd put them about equal (Panther's mobility and big magazines counterbalance the IS-2's armor) but I'd rank the IS-2 as superior in design and execution, because it is dirt cheap for a tank of that power.

What have you been doing, watching the first half of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" over and over again?

LOL!

Low quality but......well......