"Tiger vs IS" Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article On the Kokoda Track at Council of Five Nations.
Featured Book Review
|
The Membership System will be closing for maintenance in 9 minutes. Please finish anything that will involve the membership system, including membership changes or posting of messages.
| Tango01 | 30 Nov 2017 4:30 p.m. PST |
"I've had so many articles about IS-2s shooting up Tigers, it's only fair to do one on the other way around. This IS-2 was lost by the 72nd Independent Guards Heavy Tank Regiment on May 1st, in Khotymyr. Judging by the amount of impacts on its armour, it didn't give up without a fight
Main page
link Amicalement
Armand |
 Legion 4  | 01 Dec 2017 7:27 a.m. PST |
Let there be no doubt the Tigers' 88mm, either I or II could kill tanks. As we see here. |
| Blutarski | 01 Dec 2017 8:11 a.m. PST |
Herr Jentz ("Germany's Tiger Tanks – Tigre I and Tiger II: Combat Tactics") is a useful resource for quantifying relative combat power. There appears to have been a considerable difference in armor penetration performance for the 8.8cm L/56 and the 8.8cm L/71 versus the IS-2. Based upon the German standard of basing test result on 30deg striking obliquity, the IS-2 was vulnerable to the 8.8cm L/56 frontally only under 300 yards and at ranges under 1500 yards from the side (Pzgr 39) projectile. For the 8.8cm L/71, the respective vulnerability limits were 1800 to 2600 yards frontally and 3400-3500 yards from the side (Pzgr 39/43 projectile). BIG difference. B |
| Legion 4 | 01 Dec 2017 9:55 a.m. PST |
Yes, the Tiger II's L/71 was considerably longer and an overall newer, better design. As the stats noted, and an attack on flank armor was the preferred choice … But yes, the Tiger II's 88 was very much superior to the Tiger I's. However most AFVs would not generally fare well again either Tiger, especially M4s, etc. |
| Mark 1 | 01 Dec 2017 12:14 p.m. PST |
why is there German writing on the Soviet tank?? Because the unit that knocked it out, sPzAbt 506, had it marked. They wanted the wreck preserved and sent to OKW. Or at least that's what they marked on it. My interpretation is that it was more of a snarky photo-op -- "Hey OKW here's a present from sPzAbt 506!" -Mark
(aka: Mk 1) |
| mkenny | 01 Dec 2017 1:18 p.m. PST |
It got to Kummersdorf
[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/pnXqlSz7j]
[/URL] [URL=https://imageshack.com/i/pobSKZQ9j]
[/URL] [URL=https://imageshack.com/i/pnD83hNXj]
[/URL] [URL=https://imageshack.com/i/poGithlSj]
[/URL] |
| Legion 4 | 01 Dec 2017 2:14 p.m. PST |
Many forces on all sides captured enemy AFVs. And most of those were sent to the Intel guys for obvious reasons. The Germans were probably the most "prolific" for using them against their former owners. |
|
