Weak JS tanks?

mellon · Post by **mellon** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 10:24 pm

In my current PBEM game I'm playing as Russians against Germans, late-war, high visibility.

I had previously thought that JS-II's were tough tanks, had heavy armor etc., but all this changed when Panther rounds from 20-30 hexes started penetrating without difficulty.

I agree that Panthers are good tanks and so on, but nevertheless it seems quite unrealistic that mere medium german tanks kill the heaviest russian tanks without breaking a sweat. Tin foil would have given the same protection for those poor Josifs.

In in other WWII tanks games (SP1, Tank Commander) Josifs are truly formidable enemies. Even Konigstigers had difficulties penetrating their frontal armor at a distance. Also, the few historical references I have read (sorry, can't point them out right now) talk about JS being a very tough nut to crack.

So is this only my private whining about unexpectedly large-scale losses in a PBEM game, or do I have point here. Please tell me your opinions!

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 10:30 pm

JS-II tanks had very strong frontal armor (IIRC, 120mm sloped at 60 degrees) However the turrets could not be heavily uparmored due to size constraints coupled with the huge gun and ammo loadout problems so it was little improved over the preceeding KV series and could be penetrated at range by 75L70 and 88L56 and even 75L48 using Pzgr40 ammo.

The III varient is more controversial and the concensus is that the frontal turret rating is correct however i personally disagree due to the small size of the "front" portion of the turret. I think the sloping smooth sides of the side to front turret connection warrent a better rating (and does for my personal set of OOB's)

the II though.....well you'll have to content yourself with that awesome gun and good front hull protection. Try to present oblique angles, it helps.

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Tue Aug 14, 2001 11:36 pm

Check out

http://history.vif2.ru/is2_1.html

THe straight IS-2 in the game has the "flawed" front plate configuration (shown in the first two crosssectional drawings) 120@30. The IS-2M in the game has the "impenetrable" front (120 at 60) though in teh new OOBs the effects of the cast natrue giving less than RHA performance is portrayed. Tigers could penetrate the "poor" front at ranges as great as 1500m, though usual penetration ranges were under 800. The "improved" version proved quite a problem, with turet hits the prime mode of frontal defeat.

The interaction of roud type and armor type is quite interesting and significant, but unable to be fully portrayed in SP:WaW's limited (ie teh "6-slab") armor model.

Try IS-2M s next time <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

The IS-3 in general is bear to model the armor of...ask 3 people what it should be and you 5 different answers!

[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]</p>

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Wed Aug 15, 2001 12:26 am

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Check out

The IS-3 in general is bear to model the armor of...ask 3 people what it should be and you 5 different answers!

[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]

Worse than the Tiger I mantlet controversy Paul?

<img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Wed Aug 15, 2001 3:28 am

It makes the Tiger mantlet look cut and dried <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Tommy · Post by **Tommy** » Wed Aug 15, 2001 4:22 pm

Originally posted by Nikademus:
JS-II tanks ... could be penetrated at range by 75L70 and 88L56 and even 75L48 using Pzgr40 ammo.

In the "Last of the Teutonic Knights" this shows up very clearly. The Panthers & Tigers are popping the JSII at 30 hexes with ease. The 1 & 2 shot return fire from the JSII rarely lands on the german tanks. The Russian fire control & gunner skill are terrible! And those tank-buster Stukas are stinging us like horseflies <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

Tommy

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Wed Aug 15, 2001 6:09 pm

I took another look at crunching the numbers on teh IS -23 front turret and gave it a few more degrees of slope protection (47 now)...

Though in the latest OOBs the Tiger FT has bee reduced to 158 I thnk based on info in Lorrin and Roberts book (that has a good anaysis fo the Tiger and Panther Mantle issues and problems with quality of late war thick German armors

orsha · Post by **orsha** » Thu Aug 16, 2001 8:59 pm

"I took another look at crunching the numbers on teh IS -23 front turret and gave it a few more degrees of slope protection (47 now)...

One question, as the IS-2 and IS-2-m used cast armor for front glacis plate and front turret, why are the armor values being compared as equal to tanks that used higher resistance RHA armour.
ie. 120mm cast armour = 100mm rha armor.
Does the cast armour also explain the IS-2 only weighing 46tons.

Alexei · Post by **Alexei** » Thu Aug 16, 2001 10:08 pm

I remember reading somewhere the exploits of PzIV crew that managed to destroy half a dozen JSII in early 1945 (ok it was urban fighting so maybe close range).
BTW I read in the same book that actually, elite crew that have achieved large number of kills were to keep their PzIV whereas novice received King Tigers or panthers at the end of the war. Is that true?

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Thu Aug 16, 2001 11:27 pm

The new oobs have updated all the armor values based on "national characteristics" for armor quality in various "thickness bands". So the armor values are now adjusted to be more consistent with the penetration values (ie both are now normalized to equivilant 240BHN US test plate.)

Arralen · Post by **Arralen** » Thu Aug 16, 2001 11:30 pm

Originally posted by Alexei:
BTW I read in the same book that actually, elite crew that have achieved large number of kills were to keep their PzIV whereas novice received King Tigers or panthers at the end of the war. Is that true?

Maybe. Heard of a directive from the Great Marshal <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> that units which had been beaten back several times where to 'bleed out' ( = go along without or minimal reinforcements/equipment ) and be replaced by newly raised units .. think this would fit ?!

A.

orsha · Post by **orsha** » Fri Aug 17, 2001 12:47 am

"The new oobs have updated all the armor values based on "national characteristics" for armor quality in various "thickness bands". So the armor values are now adjusted to be more consistent with the penetration values (ie both are now normalized to equivilant 240BHN US test plate.) "

I presume this means the IS-2 will have reduced armour values because of its cast armour construction and based on Lorrins new book saying soviet armour is of high hardness and brittle, being a lower quality than US 240BHN. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Fri Aug 17, 2001 4:07 am

Lower thickness, but I have increased to the slope to account for the weird angles.

Vio · Post by **Vio** » Fri Aug 17, 2001 7:37 am

ASL did an armor study a while back and I read that the JS-2's, while heavily armored, had a realitivly thin gun shield. German gunners would try to aim for the gun shield whenever possible. Penetrations with the 75L4x were not that uncommon. That same article mentions that there is a documented kill of a JS-2 from like over a mile away by a Nashorn.

I'll see if I can dig up the copy of The General that it was in and give exact quotes.

[ August 17, 2001: Message edited by: Vio ]</p>