 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
The Apologist
|
|
Wellington, New Zealand
Aug 1999
time: 17:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
Germany is hurting, no need to beef up North Africa, Britain has plenty of armor quite close.
|
 Considering that, on the eve of Pearl Harbour, the 8th Army was busily attacking towards Benghazi, and would take the city before their offensive petered out, one might suggest that the Axis position in North Africa is "quite favourably" represented already. While it might be suggested that if the Axis is on the back foot, they'll never recover, some might say that Crusader never should have faltered in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by FMK
Tiger I Tank, nil, 0, 2.,0, 12a,9d, 4h,3f, 11,0, 0, Ldr, 000000000000000
IS-2 Heavy Tank,nil, 0, 2.,0, 13a,10d, 4h,3f, 11,0, 0, Med, 000000000000000
Does this accomplish what you are talking about? They cost the same, but the attack and defense are both +1 for the IS-2.
Main gun: 88mm / 122mm = +1 attack for the IS-2.
Armour: 25-100mm / 20-160mm = +1 defense for the IS-2.
|
Number-crunching has its disadvantages. As loath as I am to put in a good word for the Tiger, it's worth noting that Russian weapons, steel, and muntions sucked. That 122 gun has a ridiculously low velocity and very dubious quality ammunition. It's very bad at tank-killing (though that's not its role - the IS-2 generally carried HE ammo, being intended to create break-throughs). Likewise, the armour is built using (at best) poor-grade steel, with indifferent attention to hardening processes. I'd hate to stake my life on the WWII Soviet manufacturing techniques, unless I was only gambling on numbers produced!
By comparison, German production was painstakingly slow. In compensation, German equipment was finely (perhaps overly) engineered, and though this failed to give them concrete advantages against the Western Allies (who were able to mass produce high-quality equipment), it certainly contributed to their successes on the Eastern Front.
To sum up, the IS-2 shouldn't cost anywhere near what the Tiger does, but neither should it have the same combat performance.
Still, this sort of argument overlooks the scale of CivII - what, exactly, does this "Tiger I" represent, in a grand strategic sense? With all due respect to Nemo, the methodology for unit labelling in 2194 is deeply flawed - on the less crowded Red Front map, the different units had a chance to shine in their own way, and in Second Front's tactical battlefield it was worth the effort to represent individual pieces of hardware. I don't think the same can be said for a scenario representing the entire Second World War.
YMMV.
Edit: Left off in mid-thought.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Marko
|
|
Tartu, Estonia
Sep 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
I disagree about the IS-2.
IS-2 has equal weight with Panther but exceeded Panther in armor penetration and protection abilities (IS-2 could penetrate the Panther's frontal armor from 1100-1200 metres, while the Panther could penetrate the IS-2's armor from only 600-700 metres).
Only drewback was that heavy armoring constrained by low weight let less internal space for the IS-2's crew and ammo - IS-2 had only 28 shells (the Panther had 81).
Compared with the Tiger, the IS-2 was slightly better protected even though it was ten tons lighter. Both tanks could penetrate each other's frontal armor from ~1000 metres. The IS-2 had thicker armor, thus it had a better chance at distances over 1500 metres. On the other hand, the Tiger had better optics and thus had a better chance of hitting the IS-2.
King Tiger was only German tank superior to IS-2. It had thicker armor and its 88 KwK gun has better AP ability. The IS-2 could only successfully fight against the King Tiger at short distances, where the difference in AP ability was not so big.
Also, when comparing armor penetration values of German and Soviet guns you must take account that they are calculated by different methods. By Soviet methodology the armor is counted to be penetrated if at least 75% of a projectile's fragments happened to be found behind the armor plate. Most of Soviet armor penetration tables are based on this value. By the German way of calculation the armor penetration was based on 50% penetration.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Apologist
|
|
Wellington, New Zealand
Aug 1999
time: 17:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Marko
I disagree about the IS-2.
IS-2 has equal weight with Panther but exceeded Panther in armor penetration and protection abilities (IS-2 could penetrate the Panther's frontal armor from 1100-1200 metres, while the Panther could penetrate the IS-2's armor from only 600-700 metres).
Only drewback was that heavy armoring constrained by low weight let less internal space for the IS-2's crew and ammo - IS-2 had only 28 shells (the Panther had 81).
|
Granted, but we're looking at the Tiger as compared to the IS-2.
I'm not exactly sure why, though...
quote:
Compared with the Tiger, the IS-2 was slightly better protected even though it was ten tons lighter. Both tanks could penetrate each other's frontal armor from ~1000 metres. The IS-2 had thicker armor, thus it had a better chance at distances over 1500 metres. On the other hand, the Tiger had better optics and thus had a better chance of hitting the IS-2.
|
Consider: The ~3500 IS-2s produced during the Great Patriotic War were built between April 1944 and June 1945 (give or take). The ~1300 Tiger I's built during Zweiter Weltkrieg were manufactured between July 1942 and August 1943.
quote:
King Tiger was only German tank superior to IS-2. It had thicker armor and its 88 KwK gun has better AP ability. The IS-2 could only successfully fight against the King Tiger at short distances, where the difference in AP ability was not so big.
|
The slightly less than 500 Tiger II's were built at about the same time as the IS-2. OTOH (as you might gather from their small numbers) they were never a considerable portion of German Panzer strength.
quote:
Also, when comparing armor penetration values of German and Soviet guns you must take account that they are calculated by different methods. By Soviet methodology the armor is counted to be penetrated if at least 75% of a projectile's fragments happened to be found behind the armor plate. Most of Soviet armor penetration tables are based on this value. By the German way of calculation the armor penetration was based on 50% penetration. |
I must apologise, I was dimly recalling reports of German field tests with captured Soviet equipment as compared with their own. Of course, I dispute the value of Soviet testing on the basis of their own poor quality control for munitions.
I still wonder why there's an IS-2 in this Scenario at all. Just to quote some more important numbers (to go with those I gave above):
PzKpfw IV's produced 'til the end of the war: ~8000
PzKpfw V (Panther)s produced Jan 1943 - end of the war: ~6000
In this rather limited pool, the Tiger can be considered to make up a significant number of combat vehicles - though it's phased out of production as the Panther enters the war. 2194 reverses this order, oddly enough. I suspect the reasoning was that the Tiger I was a better tank because it had more armour and a bigger gun.
 Maybe the combat performance of units equipped with the tank should be used as a bench-mark for their CivII stats?
T-34/76s produced 'til mid 1943: ~24000
T-34/85s produced 'til the end of the war: ~18000
KV-1s produced 'til 1942: ~3000
Lend-Lease to Russia:
Shermans: ~3600
Valentines: ~3500
Note that the Valentine is available in slightly greater numbers than the KV-1, and the Sherman bears a similar relation to the IS-2. Again, 2194 doesn't give the Soviets either vehicle - why? I'll grant that the map would conspire to make the Sherman a bit of a waste of time, but OTOH, the Soviets surely wouldn't be building them with their own production...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-03-2002 13:58
)
(I can almost hear FMK screaming "Gaah! Shut up!" at the screen)
|