Tiger II vs IS-2 WW2 Tank Comparison

  Рет қаралды 300,603

RedEffect

RedEffect

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 2 400
@RedEffectChannel
@RedEffectChannel 7 жыл бұрын
*For all the people who love German tanks:* You just saying this video is biased or "propaganda" doesn't help anyone. How about instead of that you point out where you think I am wrong and give sources for your information so we can all benefit. Posting comments like "bias" and "propaganda" makes you look immature and biased yourself. Let's help each other uncover the truth. If you have valid sources that prove some of my points wrong, don't hesitate to post them.
@stefanussmuller5367
@stefanussmuller5367 7 жыл бұрын
RedEffect I have looked at your sources and most of them doesnt even show an author which nakes them really unrealiable seriously when there isnt even a name of an author and so many comments under some of these artivles point out things that are wrong then i would auggest to delet this video and make a new with reliable proofed and quality sources!
@KitKatBeste
@KitKatBeste 7 жыл бұрын
RedEffect the tiger can crack the Canon Iris in 2300 m the Front plate in 2600 m now you fucked up bro
@RedEffectChannel
@RedEffectChannel 7 жыл бұрын
Stefanuss Müller Most of the information is taken from the first two sources, which are two books by credible authors. Other sources are firing trials conducted by Soviet Army translated to English, what author do you need for that? Yes the guy who translated the documents put some of his own comments which are rather biased, but you can choose to ignore them and focus on what is actually happening in the trials
@RedEffectChannel
@RedEffectChannel 7 жыл бұрын
Consumer Droid It better be good, and not one of those trolling videos.
@RedEffectChannel
@RedEffectChannel 7 жыл бұрын
John Cornell Those are documents from archives which were secret and have been released to public in more recent years, during ww2 they were reserved for officials only, it would be extremely stupid to warp them at all since if something was wrong they needed to make improvements. And it is absolutely possible for the shell to go thru the Panther because it has enough penetrating power to pierce the front and still have enough power to exit the thin rear armor
@HappiKarafuru
@HappiKarafuru 4 жыл бұрын
Soviet munitions manufacturers - Comrade, how much kaboom you want in this shell? Stalin - Da!
@CallMeRito
@CallMeRito 4 жыл бұрын
I love German tanks but i also like a tank that doesnt require Hans to repair it every 10 minutes.
@aati63
@aati63 4 жыл бұрын
😂😂 Hans is drunk I recommend klaus
@Jrez
@Jrez 4 жыл бұрын
What about Fritz? Is he alright?
@CallMeRito
@CallMeRito 4 жыл бұрын
@@Jrez Fritz ist tot
@Jrez
@Jrez 4 жыл бұрын
@@CallMeRito Fritz Todt ist tot? Ich nehme an.
@CallMeRito
@CallMeRito 4 жыл бұрын
@@Jrez Entschuldigung, ich spreche ein bisschen Deutsch, ich bin aus der blaue Division, ich spreche nur Spanish und English.
@LongVu-lh9el
@LongVu-lh9el 4 жыл бұрын
People said Tiger II is more comfortable. But for me drive a tank that will be break down every 10 km is never close to comfortable.
@PalmettoNDN
@PalmettoNDN 4 жыл бұрын
It then becomes a very comfortable stationary air target.
@andrewwu1527
@andrewwu1527 4 жыл бұрын
Personally I think it would be quite comfortable to get out of the tank and stretch your legs every 10km
@streetfighter2471
@streetfighter2471 3 жыл бұрын
Eh russian tanks tended to be ass from the beginning anyway.
@andrewwu1527
@andrewwu1527 3 жыл бұрын
@@streetfighter2471 At least they have consistency then
@streetfighter2471
@streetfighter2471 3 жыл бұрын
@@andrewwu1527 I guess so.
@binaway
@binaway 6 жыл бұрын
3,854 IS-2 built. 492 Tigers II built and split between Eastern and Western fronts.
@lounickerson6002
@lounickerson6002 5 жыл бұрын
That has to do with the circumstances of the war and, largely, contribution of Soviet allies in disrupting German supply and isn't relevant to a 1v1 video. Still interesting to note though, thanks
@Yury5576
@Yury5576 5 жыл бұрын
@@lounickerson6002 Allies? Who only appeared in WEurope after the balk of the Wermaht was demolished by the Red Army? It has everything to do with the fact that Stalin managed to rebuild russian industry before the war, and then move it whole-sale to the Urals where they were working in open air if they had to to churn out more equipment then anyone. That was called an industrial miracle by Churchill and one of the reasons the west hated Stalin
@Yury5576
@Yury5576 4 жыл бұрын
@BULL SCHEIST Nazi propaganda again. My family was a part of the effort. Old and women worked 16hrs/day making tanks . Men fought and some took part in wiping your nazi swine at Stalingrad and Kursk. 3 fought in Bagration wiping out 38 divisions of the nazi virus. America didn't have enough industry or ships to produce 200000 tanks. Even for themselves. Your grandparents probably was a part of the orc horde who murdered 18 million civilians in USSR.
@Yury5576
@Yury5576 4 жыл бұрын
@General Guisan Quai i Considering they were alone till later '44, they done quite well. And it was Europe, not just Germany. Which LOST. Just managed to murder 19 million civilians in USSR
@Yury5576
@Yury5576 4 жыл бұрын
@General Guisan Quai i Support till '44? Rubbish, small fry just to keep talking. Plus the "allies" equipment was comparatively rubbish. Except from later US planes. They just waited until USSR and Germany/Europe bled each other first.
@towarzyszbeagle6866
@towarzyszbeagle6866 4 жыл бұрын
The final clip of the video says it all. The IS-2 excelled at what it was designed for, a heavy break through tank which could smash a hole in the enemy line allowing the T34-85's to move through and exploit. The fact that it's gun turned out to be capable of dealing with Germany's heaviest vehicles was really just a bonus. People always fixate on paper stats and try to downplay it's effectiveness because of the stated penetration capability. However when the round hits so hard that even without penetrating it causes fist size shards of armor to fly around internally, then it's kind of moot. It's had the desired effect anyway.
@raketny_hvost
@raketny_hvost 7 ай бұрын
tbh it's wrong, D-25 was anti-tank by design
@komradekat3557
@komradekat3557 6 жыл бұрын
IS-2 is a very respectable tank. But ask any tanker, and they'll tell you it's the crew that determines which tank is best, and I'm inclined to agree with them.
@bololollek9245
@bololollek9245 5 жыл бұрын
Well that wont help the germans, by the time Germany could deploy Tiger 2 in combat most of the crews were not well trained, som were aces, yes, but they were few.
@topmemes7925
@topmemes7925 4 жыл бұрын
Bobolgob Olle Kohanovskij Both Tanks was very good but The Tiger was a little bit better Both can penetrate the other
@aleglibert8630
@aleglibert8630 4 жыл бұрын
no need to ask anyone. The result of World War 2 showed which tankers and tanks were better!
@topmemes7925
@topmemes7925 4 жыл бұрын
Ali Olibert no You cant match this 😂 The Allies had millions of Soldiers more and bombers and a lot of things more but it give one thing at that Germany was 100% better and that was Build Tanks !!! The T34 was the best tank in year 1940-1941 but then Germany still had better tanks at the War !!!!
@aleglibert8630
@aleglibert8630 4 жыл бұрын
@@topmemes7925You PC Gamer. Ok !
@Jack-fw1by
@Jack-fw1by 5 жыл бұрын
Damn the comment section on this video is about as bad as stepping on a LEGO
@arisushimada8724
@arisushimada8724 5 жыл бұрын
Yes , but it's even worst
@tanquesdeww2-espanol158
@tanquesdeww2-espanol158 5 жыл бұрын
Yoooo my mannn dude remeber mee
@jeltje50
@jeltje50 4 жыл бұрын
Ww2 tanks brings out the weirdest people. Especially when talking about German tanks. Wehraboos are weirdddddd people.
@Tales41
@Tales41 4 жыл бұрын
@@jeltje50 what's with WW2, people known as wehrabos praising Nazi tech as the finest without any critical thinking, and dismissing Soviets as just sheer mass numbers and and crap tech.
@jeltje50
@jeltje50 4 жыл бұрын
@@Tales41 we kinda know why wehraboos are the way they are. It's pretty blatant.
@mikejohansson6711
@mikejohansson6711 7 жыл бұрын
In many ways the Russian tank looks far more modern as much as we in the west don't want to admit that the Russians had good stuff, they did in fact have good designers.
@wulfheort8021
@wulfheort8021 2 жыл бұрын
no
@cumstantin_semen98
@cumstantin_semen98 2 жыл бұрын
@@wulfheort8021 yes
@wulfheort8021
@wulfheort8021 2 жыл бұрын
@@cumstantin_semen98 no it's just not true. Your worthless opinion does not change facts.
@stormtrooper8420
@stormtrooper8420 2 жыл бұрын
If they had the best then why so many loses on their side.
@cumstantin_semen98
@cumstantin_semen98 2 жыл бұрын
@@stormtrooper8420 ты не знаешь потерь с российской стороны, если ты веришь цифрам в 36 тысяч, то ты просто идиот.
@VRichardsn
@VRichardsn 6 жыл бұрын
First off, forget the "bussian rias" accusations. I do think that you tried to present a fair and objective analysis. With that being said, I would caution you about a couple of things: -It is dangerous to trust captured equipment tests as the absolute truth. Historians of the caliber of Jentz and Doyle disregard them due to its inaccuracies. -Accuracy tests are not directly comparable unless being done under the exact same conditions and criteria. -German armor quality remained up to standards (with relative up and downs, of course) until the final two months of the war. There were variations in the formula, due to to substitution of certain rare materials, but the plates always passed the quality control tests and no significant reduction of quality was present. -Early Tiger IIs were unrealiable, that is for sure. But pretty much almost all new tanks have severe reliability issues. The first Panthers burned themselves to death. Early T-34s could not drive more than 100 km without busting. And so and so on. Once teething problems were corrected, the Tiger II was as reliable as a Panzer IV.
@VRichardsn
@VRichardsn 6 жыл бұрын
Thank you very much, kind sir.
@beeterracing7024
@beeterracing7024 6 жыл бұрын
The Tiger 2 always had issues but not to the extent of the panther which was plagued with them throughout the war. Yes the early t-34’s were bad.
@Em-yd9jn
@Em-yd9jn 5 жыл бұрын
@Lynex Mass produce? You mean they actually got to field some before the war ended?
@mr.waffentrager4400
@mr.waffentrager4400 5 жыл бұрын
Every one said the apposite of whatever this guy said Do I need to BELIEVE ??
@mt1885
@mt1885 5 жыл бұрын
Tiger 2 was a pile of JUNK it was never reliable and had terrible metal quality and built by force labor with plugged oil lines. Germany did horrible acts but no surprise they no longer exist today they are now a middle east country.
@cedricceddy4697
@cedricceddy4697 Жыл бұрын
A member of my family was German, and he told me: our men had order to avoid to confront IS-2 because of their powerful gun and shell, because even if the Tiger I and 2 was not destroyed by their shell, the shock could knock out the crew easily, and destroy the tank with the next shell...
@blubbblubb.7867
@blubbblubb.7867 Жыл бұрын
you played to much war thunder my dude
@cedricceddy4697
@cedricceddy4697 Жыл бұрын
@@blubbblubb.7867 i mentioned what à German member of my family said. By the way: I don't play War thunder, and I'm not "your dude"
@blubbblubb.7867
@blubbblubb.7867 Жыл бұрын
@@cedricceddy4697 yes def
@blorb32
@blorb32 11 ай бұрын
Totally real story.
@mynameisdominichughes3142
@mynameisdominichughes3142 4 ай бұрын
@@blorb32 Bruh, I believe him, My gf's grandpa said the same to me. The is2 was insane, if it broke through. t34s would swarm through. Crazy to think about it. Also my grandma told me about the is2s rolling through
@kan8155
@kan8155 4 жыл бұрын
laughs in Tsar Tank
@PatriotRepublikeBiH
@PatriotRepublikeBiH 4 жыл бұрын
It‘s a shit tank that get lost at the first driving
@dkm4338
@dkm4338 4 жыл бұрын
@@andrastoth82 xD. Tsar Tank will drive over both tiger 2 and IS2.
@dominikconrad280
@dominikconrad280 4 жыл бұрын
@@dkm4338 No the Bob semple tank XD
@PatriotRepublikeBiH
@PatriotRepublikeBiH 3 жыл бұрын
@MUHAMMAD FARHAN BIN MOHD AZAM Moe yes
@PatriotRepublikeBiH
@PatriotRepublikeBiH 3 жыл бұрын
@MUHAMMAD FARHAN BIN MOHD AZAM Moe You need good gun good armor good mobility thats the 3 direction you must go
@thenasiudk1337
@thenasiudk1337 5 жыл бұрын
Still Tiger II is nothing if the transmission broke
@texanboi4138
@texanboi4138 5 жыл бұрын
Don't subscribe please They wouldn’t worry about that If they didn’t have any fuel
@Capodecamper
@Capodecamper 5 жыл бұрын
@Carnivorus he didnt fight in WW2 you dunce
@Capodecamper
@Capodecamper 5 жыл бұрын
@Carnivorus texan boi
@Capodecamper
@Capodecamper 5 жыл бұрын
@Carnivorus you lost this many tanks to tigers with broken transmissions and empty fuel tanks...you .... you as in he texan boi had command responsibility and somehow was responsible for the loss of those tanks and AT guns lmfao
@Capodecamper
@Capodecamper 5 жыл бұрын
@Carnivorus im saying your an idiot, but an idiot among countless thousands who believe they know everything about a war from over 70 years ago...but your not alone so dont feel bad
@doggy4721
@doggy4721 Жыл бұрын
Here's a fun fact about Soviet heavy guns during WW2: 122mm guns were in general known to blow off turrets off of German heavy tanks with their HE shells. In fact, artillery guns like A-19 and M-30 were easily able to destroy German tanks like Panther or Tiger I during battle of Kursk (IS-2's gun, in fact, is based on the A-19). But these are 122mm guns, 152mm guns were even more deadly (such as the D1). SPGs like SU-152 and ISU-152 were called beast-killers because of their effectivity against even the heaviest of German tanks. That's for the reddit trolls who talk about IS-2 not being able to penetrate Tiger-II's armor. You don't need to. Mechanical shock and explosion from HE shells is enough to put these tanks out of service. Have a wonderful day ^^
@gilanbarona9814
@gilanbarona9814 4 жыл бұрын
One cannot argue with success. IS 2 was a good tank. More than anything, however, was the motivation of the men using them. By late 1943, it was clear to most Germans that they were on the back foot. To the Russians however, they knew they had turned the tide. This knowledge has a significant impact on morale and the motivation to fight.
@Boiled_Prawn
@Boiled_Prawn 7 жыл бұрын
Nope tiger 2 does not have an effective thickness of 200 it's 233
@RedEffectChannel
@RedEffectChannel 7 жыл бұрын
Yeah, you are right, although I did say *around* 200, I wasnt very specific :/
@Boiled_Prawn
@Boiled_Prawn 7 жыл бұрын
RedEffect oh sorry my bad
@PilotTed
@PilotTed 5 жыл бұрын
Dont forget that when a round hits sloped armor the round loses effectiveness as well as the round tries to curve with the slope making it go through more armor than the effective thickness of that sloped armor.
@PilotTed
@PilotTed 5 жыл бұрын
@@หนังหมาว่ะ-ษ3ฏ 175mm pen from what? Both the Is 2 and Tiger II was recorded having higher pen that 175mms
@PilotTed
@PilotTed 5 жыл бұрын
@@หนังหมาว่ะ-ษ3ฏ never said it was the same. Record show the tiger could pen over 230mm of armor with its aphe round while the IS 2 was around 202. That was recorded and even estimated through certain math equations.
@joelh3030
@joelh3030 6 жыл бұрын
that tiger 2 footage is some kid playing with his RC tank looking to bait views
@gomezgomez6299
@gomezgomez6299 4 жыл бұрын
You have to remember, IS-2 had to lower gun to load. That action would make the gunner losing sight of enemy.
@gomezgomez6299
@gomezgomez6299 4 жыл бұрын
Oh and ...that terrible loading time.....
@Gopter2901
@Gopter2901 3 жыл бұрын
@@gomezgomez6299 the turret Would crack when Shooting sometimes
@gomezgomez6299
@gomezgomez6299 3 жыл бұрын
@@Gopter2901 true I forgot about it
@Lehr-km5be
@Lehr-km5be 3 жыл бұрын
Yeah that was really a problem with it's two piece ammunition. Combined that with the cramped interior (meaning the mentioned need to lower the gun) was a really nasty thing - I would really hate losing the firing solution on the enemy every reload. Thats why building 5 T-34/85s for the cost of one IS-2 is in my opinion a much better choice - just leave the long range firing and foritfication busting to ISU-152s.
@th3kgbdog385
@th3kgbdog385 3 жыл бұрын
that issue was patched in the 1944 version, that featured a faster reload time
@treyriver5676
@treyriver5676 6 жыл бұрын
The Tank that shoots first, most often wins, given the 88L71 and the 122mm either one makes the first hit the opponent is NOT going to be in the best fighting stance. The 122 can do " assault " work a little better than the 88, the 88 may have a better extreme range accuracy.
@Grim-hr3km
@Grim-hr3km 5 жыл бұрын
is2 was designed to take down fortifications, meanwhile the tiger 2 was designed to take on other tanks, in my opinion the tiger would have the upper hand, especially if its a long range engagement, even if it wasnt the tiger two has far more effective armour to counteract the even less effective penetration of the soviet 122mm gun, (spalling aside obviously)
@xigrus
@xigrus Жыл бұрын
88mm is better in every way then 122mm better apcbc and range round and faster reload speed and small breached that does not cramp the crew unlike the is2
@PyromaN93
@PyromaN93 Жыл бұрын
​@@xigrusin fact, most your points is bullshit. Tiger II suffered same problem, as Panther - very long recoil way of the gun, potentially dangerous to the crew. 122mm has in fact better penetration at all ranges, just because it have a lot more energy in th 2 times heavier shell. It is have same accuracy as 88mm. Just 2 cons - 122mm has obviously lower fire rate and is kinda mire difficult to shoot in long ranges, because fly path of the shell was more curved due lower initial shell speed
@discordtian32
@discordtian32 6 ай бұрын
​@@PyromaN93bro is smoking weed wdym better penetration? Tiger 2 has better penetration in every way except is2 had better kinetic power meanwhile if I would choose to I would choose 88mm over scrumpy 122mm also have you heard about crew training? Bro cannon recoil are of course lethal that's why crew are trained to handle that. Also is2 gun is big that the poor is2 crew have to rotate and elevate the gun to a certain angle to reload and aim back which is very time consuming during battle tiger 2 can fire 3 rounds before is2 can fire 1 round also tiger 2 has higher shell velocity making it suitabl for long range combat which combat range is 1000m
@PyromaN93
@PyromaN93 6 ай бұрын
@@discordtian32 by better penetration I mean better penetration. Yes, in ideal conditions kwk43 has better penetration, but in fact - d25t often just cracked armour. Can it be technically called penetration - no. Did it in fact penetrate armour - yes, just with big chunk of armour travelling with shell. You can google images, how looks results of such hits on Panthers, for example.
@crimsonadder6313
@crimsonadder6313 7 жыл бұрын
Actually the results of engagement between IS-2 and Tiger II always depended on the circumstances. Both of this tanks suffered losses in offensive and would effectively kill enemy tanks in ambush. Very nice video, btw.
@valyasochka9950
@valyasochka9950 7 жыл бұрын
*Crimson Viper* "[Both of these tanks] would effectively kill enemy tanks in ambush." I think this goes without saying and applies to all tanks regardless of make and class. :P
@Alte.Kameraden
@Alte.Kameraden 7 жыл бұрын
Yes but it kind of ignores the high lost rate of IS-1 and IS-2 in the field generally vs German Heavy Armor but issue being it's true it's completely circumstantial. Pointing out a few major success is like dismissing the entire war itself for pointing out two battles. It is like when people point out one battle in which the US Army using the M4 Shermans on a hill side decimated an advancing German battalion of Panthers, Panzer IVs and Tiger I tanks... well of course, the Shermans were almost impossible to hit on the top of a hill in which they could barely crest it to fire down on the advancing German tanks. Some people have the audacity to use it as an example rather than an exception. For example, it's also idiotic to point out loses in "destroyed." Including the Sandomierz Bridge Head battle he even pointed out in the video. This battle the Soviets lost only 4 IS-2s but 7 were damaged, damaged as in not lost, but recoverable. Issue being how many of the Tigers lost during this battle were damaged but couldn't be recovered because the Germans had to fall back? In turn those Tigers who were damaged but not destroyed would of had to been abandoned and also count as "Loses" officially. So you have to often take all loses included damaged vehicles in total loses in an engagement when it comes to estimating effectiveness. This is why Kursk loses very so much counting on side. A lot of Soviet tanks were knocked out, repaired, and re-serviced, when German tanks that were damaged/knocked out but not destroyed couldn't be recovered.
@raymondkisner9240
@raymondkisner9240 7 жыл бұрын
Kameraden many t34 and American Shermans fought in the battle Russians were told to recover damage Shermans first they valued them very highly the Russian crews prefer them over the t34 t34 had many issues with how they manufacture them putting them out as fast they could lead to many short cuts that caused engine problems electrical problems etc
@Alte.Kameraden
@Alte.Kameraden 7 жыл бұрын
T-34s were expendable, M4 Shermans were not, it was quite simple. Plus, I heard the conditions inside a T-34 were absolutely horrible. Definitely the T-34-85.
@stewartmillen7708
@stewartmillen7708 7 жыл бұрын
Most of those losses were actually due to hand-held infantry weapons, as the video says. The biggest killer of the IS-2 was not the King TIger or any "cat" but humble "Faustniks". But the poster is correct, most of the FEW (some say fewer than 10) KT vs IS-2 engagements the IS-2 at least holds its own if not more.
@danzervos7606
@danzervos7606 6 жыл бұрын
The IS-2 is probably the least mentioned WWII tank. About nine times as many IS-2 tanks were made as Tiger 2's and a bit better than twice as many as Tiger1's and 2's combined. It appears the standard anti-tank round for the Tiger 2 was 22 lbs vs. 55 lbs for the IS-2. The Tiger fired its round at about 3300 fps vs 2600 fps for the IS-2. That gives a comparison of difference in weight of about 2.1 and 80% for its velocity IS-2 vs Tiger 2.. As muzzle energy is related to weight times velocity squared you get that the IS-2 round has about 130% the energy of the Tiger 2 (not 150% as claimed in this video, although maybe at longer ranges). The Tiger 2 also had lighter rounds that fired at higher speeds and the IS-2 had a much more powerful HE round than the Tiger 2 as it carried more explosive. From this video I would think the high volume of smoke the IS-2 created when fired would be a big detriment, if not the major one. It would give away its position and hinder follow up shots. As far as appearance, the IS-2 does look more modern than the Tiger 2, attractiveness aside. As far as armor, the Tiger 2 carried more armor and was thicker in most places. The IS-2 had a smaller frontal silhouette (about 25% less) so in head to head engagements it would be harder to hit, although it was substantially longer and from ambush would be easier to hit. The Russian tank used a diesel engine vs gasoline for the Tiger 2. Diesel engines have become the standard for tanks, gasoline abandoned after WWII. The German tank carried twice as many rounds as the Russian tank which could help offset their numerical inferiority.
@ericloeschmann3258
@ericloeschmann3258 5 жыл бұрын
122mm very slow rate of fire ranging shot.reload your times up
@jonsafuhto9220
@jonsafuhto9220 2 жыл бұрын
Stalin bettet
@georgeking6356
@georgeking6356 7 жыл бұрын
Very interesting indeed. I would be interested in seeing something about the IS-3 tanks that were fielded by the Egyptian army and that engaged Israeli M-48 (90mm) and M-51 Shermans (105mm) during the 1967 war. I've never been able to find any battle narratives regarding that. I know that the Israelis ended up capturing a number of the IS-3s but tank against tank info seems lacking. Thanks. Again, very informative stuff, thanks.
@lostinthesauce6409
@lostinthesauce6409 6 жыл бұрын
George King welp i have something for u here is 1967 . IS-3 vs 105mm APDS IS-3 wins www.google.com.lb/search?q=IS-3+vs+105mm+APDS&client=ms-android-samsung&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4gOjYk67aAhWMchQKHYVXC18Q_AUIESgB&biw=360&bih=560#imgrc=ypSDUFNHBvkdeM:
@Cheezymuffin.
@Cheezymuffin. 7 жыл бұрын
The is-2 had a shot trap, making the 88 able to bounce a shot into the upper plate under a angle which the shell could penetrate, the shel could also just get stuck in the turret ring. You keep talking about all the great stuff of the IS-2 but not the disadvantages. Only the reloading. You show Russian test which can be influenced for propaganda, and fire test that show a crap ton of shells hitting so many times that any armor would shatter. You don't talk about Russian manufacturing standard but only bash on that of the tiger 2. You compare 2 tanks but you are quite biased. You don't talk about Russian tanks being cramped, or their armor also being prone to spalling. You don't talk about the fight in which a company of fricking hetzers destroyed several IS-2s without suffering any losses. You don't talk about countless IS-2s being destroyed by tigers, but only talk about the victories of the IS-2. You complain about the reliability of the tiger 2, but don't mention that it has a 59% reliability rate, which is pretty damn high for a country that lack materials and production means. You don't talk about visibility of the tank, turret rotation speed, and neutral steering. You say that the tiger has more penetration, better reload, is faster, has better sights, then show a Russian source saying that the Russian gun is more accurate which is highly doubtable. Whenever you say "the tiger has this advantage over the IS-2" the next sentence is "But it this is not a good one because blablabla". While you don't do the same with the IS-2. You basically took an IS-2 and a tiger 2 and compared which looked like an IS-2 the most... guess who will win?! If you make such a video, alsways look at it from the standpoint of "why does this tanks suck" for both the tiger 2 and IS-2. Tiger 2, bad armor quality, heavy weight, high profile, transmission problems, overlapping road wheels, underpowerd engine, bad HE-shell when compared to IS-2. IS-2 long reload, lots of smoke when firming, shot trap, bad rear armor, lower plate weakspot, less crew than tiger 2, mostly HE loadout, no neutral steering (one track goes back, other forward) cramped crew compartment, external fuel tanks are vulnerable. Without those it can't drive as far as a tiger 2. Slower than tiger 2, some mechanical problems because in those days all vehicles had those. This is way more objective.
@Cheezymuffin.
@Cheezymuffin. 7 жыл бұрын
Daddy Vladi yeah right, like I am going to accept such a statement from someone with a username that calls vladi daddy... I take you for one of the guys that shouts that communism is the best in every comment section where someone says even something remotely related to politics. Bet you can't take it that I call this video which is calling your communist tank better that a fascist one biased. Simply because of the sources and attitude of the maker of this video.
@chancedavis6216
@chancedavis6216 7 жыл бұрын
cheezymuffin It's ovengineered and very complex to manufacture unlike the IS-2 which many were built in prewar tractor factories for agricultural purposes. The USSR used their best steel they had to manufacture the IS-2 unlike Germany who mixed different metals to compensate for the lacke of iron and steel. The Tiger II also broke down due to engine malfunctions and other mechanical failures. Germany also lacked skilled crew members and often put fresh recruits into their new tanks. Not to mention that they where made in jewish labor camps who often sabatoged thier tanks decreasing it's quality even further. You can say all those factors don't matter but you're wrong. Those factors effect the overall reliability of the tank. The IS-2 is a better tank in combat while the Tiger II sounds good on paper, it was not that effective in combat. I'm not saying it was the best tank in the war but it was better than a Tiger II simply because it was easy to manufacture and got the job done. Sure the IS-2 had some issues with transmission and crew comfort but in the end those issues are justified by the other advantages it has to offer. Why did you bring politics into this? My political views are irrelevant here. Nice try. www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=180&Itemid=88&lang=en www.battletanks.com/is-2.htm
@chancedavis6216
@chancedavis6216 7 жыл бұрын
Should I mention the fact that Germany gave little to no actual training for new tank members? Usually they just gave them a field manual and moved on.
@Cheezymuffin.
@Cheezymuffin. 7 жыл бұрын
Daddy Vladi we are talking about the vehicles. I evaluate both with a crew that fully understands the tank and is able to operate it. It's not about the crew. Because we can both agree that in the beginning of the war the german crew where well trained and well equipped, and in the late war, many of them where not. Early war soviet crews also lacks training, but I'm not sure how much the training changed in the Soviet Union.
@Cheezymuffin.
@Cheezymuffin. 7 жыл бұрын
Daddy Vladi best steel? One of the links you provided literally says it splintered when hit. All Soviet tanks had very hard steel. The upside of this is that shells can fracture on impact, but it also has the tendency to spall. And yes you can say "oh the tiger 2, they where sabotaged" but when a tank is so over engineered, sabotaged, made with bad materials, and still has a 59% reliability rate. Then I say it's an amazing design, and well thought out tank. That was simply the best heavy tank of ww2. Tell me, what is the reliability rate of the IS-2, and provide links to websites, that aren't Russian. No hate to Russians, but old document can be biased for propaganda. Field reports of battalions to report the status of their tanks are reliable. But tests conducted by officials are simply not reliable sources. We both know that the Soviet Union used a lot of anti german propaganda to boost morale.
@charliemorris2338
@charliemorris2338 5 жыл бұрын
This is excellent!It answered my questions about everything as for as comparisons between the 2 beasts.Couldn't have asked for more detail.Thank you.
@desto1468
@desto1468 4 жыл бұрын
is that ok, yeah? me: alone at home: yes
@D_U_N_E
@D_U_N_E 4 жыл бұрын
I love it when people try to say "Hur dur crew matter" Best crew in best tank. Videos a comparison of which tank is better. At the end of WW2 many german soldiers were no longer the elite of the early war. In that argument it's easy to say that any other faction likely had better trained crew, cause they were under the same pressure/attrition.
@user-ll7py5cv3x
@user-ll7py5cv3x 3 жыл бұрын
hi
@D_U_N_E
@D_U_N_E 3 жыл бұрын
@@user-ll7py5cv3xi
@hessherman717
@hessherman717 4 ай бұрын
Even at the end of the war the Germans were still more efficient than their enemies, managing to maintain their superior K/D. What is your point?
@h0st_le960
@h0st_le960 6 жыл бұрын
At least one of them doesn't destroy it self trying to cross a hill or break down after 100km
@charris5700
@charris5700 5 жыл бұрын
This tank had higher Stalinium content, that is the secret reason for #1 reason why it is the best #1 tank. Nikolai Slavicnikov(#1 Soviet scientist and hero of Soviet union) had the tank material tested and the strongest parts were 95% Stalinium.
@TheDutchMitchell
@TheDutchMitchell 7 жыл бұрын
I'm not convinced by the firing trails of the guns. They were executed by russians. I'd love to see a firing trail with a properly trained german crew for the 88 and a russian crew for the 122.
@stewartmillen7708
@stewartmillen7708 7 жыл бұрын
I'm not sure I believe the penetration values the Germans cite of any of their guns, given their testing protocols (they used pre-vetted ammo for testing their weapons, but not for their opponents weapons) and the discrepancy between what others got in tests on their guns. German weapons look way better when they are doing the tests then when others do them. Case in point. The Germans cite a value of 250 mm penetration at zero degrees for their 88/L71 at 100 meters, and the Russians cite 168 mm under the same conditions. Now, the Russians defined what was a "penetration" much more rigorously than did the Allies or Germans, which explains most of this difference, but even when you try to correct for that you get something like 215 mm at most, not 250 mm. The Russians and others testing German weapons didn't have a supply of special pre-vetted ammo the Germans used, they just used what was in the ammo racks of what they had captured. But I think 215 is actually a closer match to the reality of what was achievable on the battlefield.
@stewartmillen7708
@stewartmillen7708 7 жыл бұрын
As a fact I do believe the other tests (including the Russians) were honest. They don't always agree with each other (indeed, the testing definitions and protocols differ, but even when the tests are performed identically, there can be significant variation in results--which is why people quibbling over a few mm this way or that is silly). The information gleaned from weapons testing was to be used not for propaganda purposes, but for building better weapons and combat training. It makes no sense to falsify the data. However, the more you read about the WWII German military, the more you realize how "political" and career-oriented it was, right down to the bitter end. On the Eastern front in particular, but also elsewhere, there are examples of German commanders covering up their losses in order to make themselves look good to superiors. This careerism had strategic consequences, I believe; Hitler's decision-making thus wasn't as idiotic as it German commanders later made it out to be in their memoirs; it was largely a consequence of him being fed bad data. If the Germans were really inflicting 5:1 or more losses on the Soviets, which was what he was being told, then the Germans would indeed be winning, not losing, the battle of attrition. Then Hitler's decision-making is from a military perspective, perfectly sound. But they weren't inflicting such losses; the Soviet manpower and material advantage kept growing instead of shrinking.
@vanguardactual1
@vanguardactual1 7 жыл бұрын
Mitchell, to do that, truthfully, you would need a time machine, because there's no honest way to do that now?
@hyp77
@hyp77 7 жыл бұрын
IS 2 was not even made for tank on tank combat.Imagine the reload time on that gun, is 2 was a breakthrough tank and it was good at that.Against a "King" it would be penetrated with first shot.
@0Turbox
@0Turbox 7 жыл бұрын
IS II crews got the order to not engage Tiger I's if possible.
@marcuslundgren1880
@marcuslundgren1880 7 жыл бұрын
Why did you even include a firing trail on a tiger H1 when you where comparing the tiger 2 and is-2? "Shot #1. The shell passed through a previously made opening in the front armour, went through the tank, and penetrated the rear. The entrance hole is 140 mm in diameter. The exit hole is 225 mm in diameter. Three cracks formed at the penetration point, 240 mm, 300 mm, and 220 mm in length. Three bolts holding armour screens were torn off. Shot #2. The shell tore off a piece of armour off the turret 580 mm by 230 mm. The turret was torn off its turret ring, and displaced backwards by 540 mm. Shot 3. Shell ricocheted off the turret roof. A dent 25 mm deep formed. Cracks spanning the thickness of the armour formed, 330 mm, 230 mm, and 210 mm long." So this is where Russia gets the top accurate statistics huh? by shooting an already shot up tank. and on the firing trail for the tiger 2 they mostly talked about cracks forming in the weldings and armored plates denting how many times was that tank hit before the did that test? and why did they jump from "Shot #7. to "Shot #34. Did nothing noteworthy happen or what?
@RedEffectChannel
@RedEffectChannel 7 жыл бұрын
Tank wasn't shot before, it was abandoned by the crew because it got stuck, I have entire report on that tank, if you are interested let me know. And I put not only Tiger, but other German tanks, because I said in the video that I'll put trials of IS2 against different German tanks to prove that, unlike some people say, it's gun was not bad
@awnikRaihan
@awnikRaihan 4 жыл бұрын
A relevant note, Otto Carius and a fellow Tiger (just 2 tiger) knocked out 8 IS-2 in the village of Malinava. He was able to do so in such short time because in IS-2 the barrel had to be lowered to allow a new shell to be inserted into the breach which took time. And in such crucial knife fight , every sec counts.
@attollo674
@attollo674 4 жыл бұрын
Who told you this? Reichsminister Goebbels?
@weaponizedautism6589
@weaponizedautism6589 4 жыл бұрын
@@attollo674 Nooo! you can't tell facts about my Soviet tank that makes it look worse!. Thats propaganda!
@danielendresz338
@danielendresz338 3 жыл бұрын
We all know russian tanks have no problems. A simple t34 could destroy the entire german land force on its know , but Stalin wanted the war last more becouse it was fun for him.
@xigrus
@xigrus Жыл бұрын
​@@danielendresz338nah Soviet had bad going through the German Soviet had higher casualties then the German
@HomercidalOne
@HomercidalOne 6 жыл бұрын
I clicked on the first link of your sources and the author doesn't know that dispersion is not the same as accuracy. Dispersion is only one component of accuracy. Accuracy is a result of many factors. Also, it is really difficult not to claim bias when you use a single source that only has one point of view. You should provide both sides of an argument and then show evidence how one side is correct and how the other side is incorrect because one side being correct does not automatically make the other side incorrect. You should stay away from comparison videos because you will not find enough information that you need to arrive at an accurate conclusion.
@Robert53area
@Robert53area 5 жыл бұрын
You dont measure a tank round in dispersion, you measure artillary in dispersion. You measure a tank the same as a rifle, the grouping. So since you didnt have a clue what your talking about. You bias and comment might as well be null and void
@fivenightsofrandomness9224
@fivenightsofrandomness9224 4 жыл бұрын
Dispersion isnt used with tanks. That is some Wargaming shit
@jackattackplaysgames1442
@jackattackplaysgames1442 4 жыл бұрын
Good vid, but I think you missed the fact the IS2 had to lower the gun to reload, so German tanks could reposition or escape much easier in long range engagement. Also, I remember from a Greatest Tank battles episode on the near Russian encirclement of germans in the baltics that 2 tiger 1s took out like 12 Is2s in a small village as well as a few T34s.Good vid though
@rationalconscience
@rationalconscience 7 жыл бұрын
4:30 This is complete nonsense. You took this from Peter Samsonov's biased blog. Peter Samsonov likes to present fragments of documents and then mislead his audience with his own, biased conclusions. The document at 4:46 (btw 10 shots is a low sample size) does neither show a date, nor reveal what shell was used. On top of that this document does not proof much about accuracy, it merely shows that an unknown shell of an unknown date had good precision. However during WWII fineness was much more important for accuracy, than precision. Kwk43 has a much better better fineness with its higher muzzle velocity, it also had better precison as shown by firing tables: 50%-zones(h x v)@2km: Kwk43+PzGr39: 0.7m x 0.9m D-25 + БР-471(Б): 1.2m x 1.2m www.panzer-war.com/img39.gif 3.bp.blogspot.com/-jAvwqqHOykA/UhbonkRhf7I/AAAAAAAABLQ/2KAQ3s6zZC8/s1600/d25-1.png www.panzer-war.com/img40.gif Conclusions: KwK43 had better precision, fineness and accuracy. Tankarchives is not a proper source.
@rationalconscience
@rationalconscience 7 жыл бұрын
Depends on the range estimation error. for 100m(2.5m x 2m target, 2km distance): KwK43+PzGr39: 26.4% D-25 + БР-471(Б): 10.4% more than twice as good in terms of accuracy.
@Vlad_-_-_
@Vlad_-_-_ 6 жыл бұрын
Wehraboo spoted.
@opairsoft8100
@opairsoft8100 5 жыл бұрын
Nikola Poiukov what??? That’s not even close....there was one tiger 2 that had 100 confirmed tank kills before being disabled.
@Vlad_-_-_
@Vlad_-_-_ 5 жыл бұрын
@@opairsoft8100 Yeah right.
@Vlad_-_-_
@Vlad_-_-_ 5 жыл бұрын
@DarthBlooBlahBlee What is sure to be accurate is that their kill ratios were highly inflated, just like the Wermacht is highly overated as well.
@Sturmv0gel
@Sturmv0gel 4 жыл бұрын
Can you make a video about when 7 Tiger 1s destroyed 17 IS-2s in the battle of Berlin in under 30 minutes ?
@trololoev
@trololoev 4 жыл бұрын
only in world od tanks. In reality tiger can pen IS from 500m, while IS-2 destroy tiger from 2000m
@oisin3495
@oisin3495 4 жыл бұрын
trololoev no that happened
@trololoev
@trololoev 4 жыл бұрын
@@oisin3495 where and when? they are very rarely meet each other. 14 August 1944 in Oglenwood KX meet king tiger. there was destroyed 13 german tanks (10 was king tiger) and 3 IS-2 tanks (10 was damaged and repaired).
@IdkMman919
@IdkMman919 4 жыл бұрын
Well, let's not say that the tigers were DEFENDING so they were on position waiting for something to get in there sight and the is-2 had to push
@trololoev
@trololoev 4 жыл бұрын
@@IdkMman919 "had to push"? why? IS-2 have range advantage, they didn't have to push.
@rullangaar
@rullangaar 4 жыл бұрын
I found this video a bit biased in favor of the IS2, but one important trait that does speak in favor of the Soviet tank was not mentioned at all. It was cheaper and faster to produce.
@Gopter2901
@Gopter2901 3 жыл бұрын
He also doesnt mention the Cast Steel of the is-2 wich was inferior to the tiger2
@fulcrum2951
@fulcrum2951 3 жыл бұрын
@@Gopter2901 inferior to the incredible brittleness of the tiger 2
@bellator11
@bellator11 6 жыл бұрын
Redeffect you're using only Russian sources, which very far from being objective and a big no no for any historian. 1. When assessing the accuracy of the main guns you should use the German figures, not Soviet figures using a captured gun and vice versa. Had you done this you see an advantage for the KwK43 & sight combination in terms of tested dispersion. 2. When assessing combat performance you need to look at accounts from both sides, not just the Soviet side. On the German side there are accounts of single Tiger II's knocking out 10-12 IS-2's in a single engagement. Furthermore the 503rd heavy tank battalion maintained a 15:1 kill/loss record, and overall the kill/loss record among Tiger II units is overwhelmingly positive. 3. German tank units kept an accurate account of every own tank lost, and most do not agree with Soviet claims such as the ones you presented in your video. Infact in many cases Tiger II's weren't even present in the area the Soviets claimed to have met them.
@infantjones
@infantjones 5 жыл бұрын
He used German figures alongside Soviet figures, such as the "250mm penetration at 500 meters" claim for the 88, which is nonsense. On the German side there was a massive issue of exaggeration regarding kill to loss ratios. The Soviets kept accurate records of tank losses too, which typically don't line up with German claims. Most German claims, including the 15:1 kill/loss record, should be taken with a huge grain of salt. The 15:1 ratio actually contradicts German records themselves, which recorded a 6.75:1 ratio for the 503rd, self-reported within a system that encouraged overestimation. This systematic overestimation was beyond the fact that it is common in any war, still into today, to overestimate. It was quite common to claim basically any hit as a kill in ranged engagement on any side in the war. Something common, both then and now, is also to claim any abandoned vehicles you discover as kills. This was a major factor in the ratios reported by the US military at 73 Easting, for example, where most armor that was taken out was hit by nighttime airstrikes and sabotage from US special forces, leading to most surviving Iraqi armor being abandoned by morning, the crew fleeing seeing as they had no night-fighting capabilities. The Germans were recording, on average, a 5:1 kill/loss ratio for all organizations, whether grenadier or mechanized or heavy armor battalions. This is obviously absurdly false, and examination of all the data in the decades since has come out with an actual kill/loss ratio on average of about 1.4:1, so it's safe to assume the same reduction can be applied to claimed armor performance.
@MrBirdonawire
@MrBirdonawire 5 жыл бұрын
bellator11 Thank you for pointing this out. It is very true. Just started seeing all this. It happens with all his videos. Apparently, the Abrams is basically obsolete but the T-72 is pretty much on par with most modern tanks. He takes all the Russian sources at face value and then estimates or uses Russian sources to determine things like armor thickness on the Abrams, not taking into account the armor make up, which says everything. Thank you for this comment.
@infantjones
@infantjones 5 жыл бұрын
I extrapolated 1.4 : 1 from the fairly widely accepted broader combat casualty ratios excluding POWs, which is 1.4 Soviet casualties for every 1 German casualty in combat. It's not an unfair assessment to estimate the ratio in armored combat was somewhat similar to this, especially seeing as German statistics claimed a fairly uniform ratio across all unit types, that claim being 5 : 1. A ratio of 5:1 is vaguely possible if captured equipment from factories, warehouses, etc. alongside POWs from early-war mass surrender, etc. are included but it is not a measure of combat casualties. Still then there's a fair gap between plausible reality and German estimates. German estimates were no more reliable than your idea of Soviet estimates. Also not sure where you're getting the idea that the Germans physically didn't have enough for that ratio to be possible, unless you think every tank produced on either side saw combat and was destroyed. Nazi Germany produced some 50,000 tanks and SPGs, some >40,000 of which served on the Eastern front. The USSR produced some 120,000 tanks, assault guns, and tank destroyers up to the end of 1945, so thousands of these never even saw combat (A few hundred SU-100s, the 350 or so IS-3s, between 500 and 1000 T-44s, several thousand 1945 production T-34s, etc.) not to mention not all of them were positioned on the front but in strategic areas such as the Caucasus and Iran, and some in the East where Germany did not have the luxury of letting some sit in reserve. By May of 1945 virtually every tank, assault gun, and tank destroyer the Germans had of those 40,000 had been destroyed, while the same could not be said about the Red Army and the 120,000, who had an immense armor advantage at that point and considerable reserves. By German estimates, they had lost 33,324 tanks and SPGs in the East by November of 1944, though Paul Winter asserts this was a low-ball estimate, while the Soviets estimated after the war that total German losses by May of 1945 stood at some 42,700 for the East, which is very reasonable even were we to take the 33,324 number for over 6 months earlier at face value. The USSR, on the other hand, is believed to have lost some 96,500 tanks and SPGs in the same June of 41 to May of 45 timespan. Seeing as Soviet non-combat losses (abandoned equipment, breakdowns, etc.) were considerably higher than German non-combat losses, especially when you take into account the seizure of abandoned factory yards and warehouses by the Germans, it is not at all unreasonable to find a 1.4 : 1 combat casualty ratio is plausible. Especially seeing as /half/ of all Soviet armor and aircraft losses during the war from 1942 onwards were non-combat, which while the Germans had plenty of issues themselves, their ratio wasn't that bad by any estimate I can find. When all equipment losses are considered, no distinction between combat and non-combat the ratio was 1:7 in 1941, which does line up quite well with what we know regarding non-combat equipment capture and so on, but only 1:1.2 by 1945.
@frenchsoldier8485
@frenchsoldier8485 5 жыл бұрын
You do know that many of the tank kills that were recorded for German tanks were wrong right? German ace kills were often as off as 30-50%
@stilpa1
@stilpa1 5 жыл бұрын
Dude do you even play war thunder
@chinglegitrdx6135
@chinglegitrdx6135 4 жыл бұрын
The IS-2 is better because it can drive off the flatbed without breaking it's transmission 3 times.
@sumonesumwhere6351
@sumonesumwhere6351 7 жыл бұрын
Only using russian sources makes it a very one sided result doesn't it? And at the upper glacies you have the drivers port wich didnt have armor and was a flat spot on the front armor.
@ricktheman9595
@ricktheman9595 7 жыл бұрын
Yeah because David higgins and Steven Zaloga are Russians :'D As for drivers port you obviously think of IS-122 which indeed had almost flat driver's port, IS-2 had front armor completely sloped with driver's port of same thickness as the main armor, did you even watch the first 30 seconds of the video when he explained what is IS-122 and what is IS-2???
@jamesmortimer4016
@jamesmortimer4016 7 жыл бұрын
+ it´s one hell of a task to shoot that specific spot
@tobiaszistler
@tobiaszistler 7 жыл бұрын
RickTheMan you mean is2 mod 1944 the earlyer models has flat amor on the front that can almoust be penetrated by Panzer4
@ricktheman9595
@ricktheman9595 7 жыл бұрын
Tobias Zistler How about you? Did you watch first 30 seconds of the video? There is no "mod 1944" IS-2... IS-2 is IS-2. You are fooled by Soviets if you adress IS-122 as "early model IS-2" because Soviets refered to IS-122 as IS-2 in "easily accesible files" so if Germans got their hands on it they would assume that Soviets had more IS-2 than they really do. The thing you and many others call "Early IS-2" is IS-1 with 122mm gun AKA IS-122. IS-122 is closer to IS-1 than to IS-2. So everything what I said in my prvious comment is true :P
@jamesmortimer4016
@jamesmortimer4016 7 жыл бұрын
Bamboozled again
@AthruZGaming
@AthruZGaming 6 жыл бұрын
Doesnt matter.. We all know KV-2 is the best and stronkest
@pokemon1093
@pokemon1093 6 жыл бұрын
wut dont kv2 kill? xD
@AthruZGaming
@AthruZGaming 6 жыл бұрын
Maybe another KV-2? very stronk and breeky
@pokemon1093
@pokemon1093 6 жыл бұрын
maybe the only thing that can fight a kv2 iz another kv2? :3
@PilotTed
@PilotTed 5 жыл бұрын
Nope, bob semple is actually the best ta k ever and cant be killed by anything and can kill eveytank in the world even the best mbt.
@Hartahim
@Hartahim 5 жыл бұрын
If not meme kv 2 is like heavy slow and it can not hit infantry if he is not climbing true the cannln
@2ndkombat
@2ndkombat 3 жыл бұрын
122mm HE is very dangerous. Sheer explosive impact is enough to disable even a modern MBT such as Leopard 2A6 or M1A2.
@maxkronader5225
@maxkronader5225 3 жыл бұрын
I dont think there any real doubt that, from a practical battlefield sense of the term, the Soviets made the best tanks of WWII.
@maryellaopara7188
@maryellaopara7188 3 жыл бұрын
Not really lol
@poldi2233
@poldi2233 Жыл бұрын
Gotta say the Americans weren't behind either, especially when you keep in mind their tanks had to be designed to be shipped across oceans
@echo-ip3mv
@echo-ip3mv Жыл бұрын
Any wise commander would rather pick a squad of 6 IS-2 for the same price than a duo of Koenigstigers. Much more mobile , much more easy to repair , replace (crew included), maintain etc etc. Oh and way much more easy to produce , since you have everything you need at home. Bigger armies have an higer tendencies to win wars, history proves it. "Quality" , over quantities, not good in the long run. Rusticity, simplicity ftw ! Btw , both steel monster looks wonderfull.
@Analitique
@Analitique 2 жыл бұрын
The tiger had no problem to pen the IS 2. I don’t remember what the battle was called but it was around Romania. The Germans used an offensive Tiger assault on a IS 2 assault and the Tigers shredded the IS 2s. Of course this was a long range engagement but this shows how the German tanks excelled in open, wide and plain area.
@Analitique
@Analitique 2 жыл бұрын
@estadiofifa10lol 1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpXVommcfKZsoJo if you want more I can find some but it’ll take time.
@xahmadx6442
@xahmadx6442 Жыл бұрын
seems interesting can you give me the name of this battle ?
@Analitique
@Analitique Жыл бұрын
@@xahmadx6442 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_T%C3%A2rgu_Frumos If I am not mistaken it is this one, at 1500m the tigers could penetrate the IS2.
@xahmadx6442
@xahmadx6442 Жыл бұрын
@@Analitique the wiki says During the battle, Hasso von Manteuffel, commander of the Grossdeutschland division, first encountered the new Soviet Stalin tank, "It was at Târgu Frumos that I first met the Stalin tanks. It was a shock to find that, although my Tigers began to hit them at a range of 3,000 metres, our shells bounced off, and did not penetrate them until we had closed to half that distance. But I was able to counter the Russians' superiority by manoeuvre and mobility, in making the best use of ground cover."[10] Manteuffel also noted that the Stalin tanks had several "disadvantages: slow, not manoeuvrable enough; as well, in my opinion their crews were not sufficiently familiar with the tank."[11 maybe you confused it with another battle
@Analitique
@Analitique Жыл бұрын
@@xahmadx6442 I believe this is the good one because the Germans won many victories with their tiger 1 tanks against the IS-2s. In this battle the tigers fought in on urban or mountainous terrain so it showed the tiger was superior to the IS 2 in these areas. However I’m pretty sure the IS 2 would be superior in urban environments both against infantry but also against the tiger 1 itself because of its larger caliber.
@Finkeren
@Finkeren 6 жыл бұрын
The real question should be: Who would win in a fight of 492 Tiger IIs vs. 3854 IS-2s?
@__n_lupan__5333
@__n_lupan__5333 5 жыл бұрын
T-34-85 would win ofc ,
@JamesVDBosch
@JamesVDBosch 7 жыл бұрын
Minor mistake on the armour, only the initial prototype model of the IS-2 featured the 120mm upper glacis, this was changed to 100/90mm on the production models.
@milos371
@milos371 7 жыл бұрын
Where did you get idea m8? In both books by David R. Higgins and Steven J. Zaloga that Red mentioned in description they state that front hull armor was 120mm. Where did you get that info from? Wikipedia?
@briskxd1093
@briskxd1093 5 жыл бұрын
@@milos371 He saw it on the Warthunder view model LUL
@raymondkisner9240
@raymondkisner9240 7 жыл бұрын
is2 had many problems too the barrel had to lower it to load then lift the barrel also the engine had issues with over heating causing failure in the inside
@martinpetrovsk9725
@martinpetrovsk9725 7 жыл бұрын
nooo thats is IS-122 you are talking about the IS-2 never had to lower the gun,and since when did the V-2 had overheating issues?
@iaminyourwalls479
@iaminyourwalls479 3 жыл бұрын
The reason why I will say you are bias towards IS2 is that you counted crew training. Crew training is not tanks fault. German crew were kids and russians were true comrades. The video is tiger 2 vs IS 2. Not german army vs soviet army.
@jorritpolder3409
@jorritpolder3409 6 жыл бұрын
That last fragment is just blatantly incorrect. Although the IS-2 served in breakthrough regiments, it was (although partially) designed to kill tanks. The Object 237 project was initiated after encountering Tiger tanks. It was decided that a tank had to be created which could withstand an 88mm (kwk 36) hit. It also had to have a larger gun than the T-34. The first IS tanks that were created to this specification were equipped with an 85mm D5T gun, not really a breakthrough gun. Only after the Soviets succeeded in putting the same gun in the T-34 did they decide to upgun the IS with the 122mm D25T, but not after comparing it with the 100mm D10T. In short, the Russians didn't really know themselves what they were designing the IS-2 for. So it was not just a breakthrough tank.
@martinr1031
@martinr1031 4 жыл бұрын
The Königstiger has a beautiful sound!
@dapperfield595
@dapperfield595 4 жыл бұрын
German guns have beautiful sounds, reminiscent of Prussian artillery.
@bololollek9245
@bololollek9245 3 жыл бұрын
@@dapperfield595 If you believe sound of death is beautiful, and that warmongering prussia is something to be prout of then it was truly wrong to let germany become united country.
@roskcity
@roskcity 3 жыл бұрын
@@bololollek9245 true
@bclaverenz1
@bclaverenz1 6 жыл бұрын
It’s difficult to compare these 2 tanks because by the time they actually saw each other in combat in late 1944 the material and manpower quality was clearly on the Russians side. This being a FACT and not opinion makes a reasonable comparison almost impossible
@alamore5084
@alamore5084 2 жыл бұрын
Agree!
@vinisardagna
@vinisardagna 4 жыл бұрын
Königstiger: *NOOO!!!!!!!* YOU CANT JUST USE HIGH EXPLOSIVE FOR EVERYTHING TANKS ARE TOO ARMORED!!!!!!! IS-2: ha ha big shell go boom haha
@stewartmillen7708
@stewartmillen7708 7 жыл бұрын
Good post. Agree with most of your points. However: 1) Lower glacis is generally listed as 100 mm, not 120 mm (your other youtube on the IS-2 lists the lower frontal plate as 100 mm, so I think this was just a mis-entry on your part). 2) Your diagram on the IS-2's turret armor ballistic performance and tendency to ricochet shots is pretty good, but I'd note the side armor of the front turret casting extends well into the front of the turret. The relatively flat, weak, 100 mm area in front of the loader is actually quite small, as one can see from interior views of the tank, and is not an easy target to hit. 3) There is also a 200 mm-plus bracket (may have been 230 mm) around the main gun (where the bolts are) which would be difficult for any WWII gun to penetrate. 4) One poster went to an IS-2 in the Czech museum and did thickness measurements using an ultrasound device, finding that the mantlet armor was more like 120 mm (outside the bolts, around the gun). This 120 mm extended to the edge of the mantlet on the loader's side, but thinned out in front of the gunner to about 80 mm. So there is a 'thick' edge of the mantlet near the loader, and a 'thin' edge in front of the gunner. There have been other sources that said the base turret armor behind the mantlet on the IS-2 model 1944 was 80 mm, not 100. So the combined mantlet + armor thickness would range from 200 mm (120 + 80) to 160 mm (80 + 80). The latter is probably why you saw "160 mm" listed as the front turret thickness in older sources. 5) Maybe a mention of the ideas to improve the IS-2, the IS-2U? Basically it involved a) balancing the turret (unbalanced by the substitution of the 122 mm D25 gun for the 85 mm), b) increasing the base turret armor to 130 mm, and c) sloping the lower glacis armor to 55 degrees. Given the IS-2's superior mechanical reliability and good ergonomics compared to its successor, the IS-3, maybe that would have been a more fruitful route to have taken.
@mystictomato9466
@mystictomato9466 7 жыл бұрын
Tiger 1 and Panther 1 = IS-1 Tiger 2 > IS-2 IS-2 > Tiger 1 and Panther 1 IS-2 = Panther 2 Tiger 2 < IS-3 (slighty) Jagdtiger = IS-4 Maus > IS-7 (also slighty) This is my opinion not backed up by historical evidence.
@-APTX
@-APTX 6 жыл бұрын
how can u compare a standard tank to a casement tank destroyer. tactical flexibility alone makes the comparison pointless.
@youngrody2386
@youngrody2386 5 жыл бұрын
IS 3 was better than the Tiger 2
@arisushimada8724
@arisushimada8724 5 жыл бұрын
@@youngrody2386 best armour but same gun as the IS-2 .
@danielzhan86
@danielzhan86 5 жыл бұрын
Mystic ToMato IS-1Tiger II IS-3> any German tank from WWII
@youngrody2386
@youngrody2386 5 жыл бұрын
@@danielzhan86 habe to disagree with the second comparison, Tiger 2 was more reliable than the IS 2
@GeneralZkar
@GeneralZkar 4 жыл бұрын
i like both tanks but you forgot to mention the shell trap on the front of the is-2 between the turret and hull wich is something the tiger 2 did not have(atleast not the production verision)
@justmonty6723
@justmonty6723 6 жыл бұрын
Oh no the poor M3 stuart got fliped by the tiger :D
@davidallen2026
@davidallen2026 4 жыл бұрын
Very informative and interesting. Thank you.
@Amai-Kurvi-Tasch
@Amai-Kurvi-Tasch 5 жыл бұрын
There aren‘t any russian biases in the real life. Long 88 on tiger2,jagdpanther can destroy allies tanks in the range 2000m with advanced Zeiss sight while IS2 can‘t barely hit anything out of the range 1000m.
@gom2573
@gom2573 4 жыл бұрын
Just to add fuel ……….. World must never forget that the soviets suffered 80% of total allied casualties, undertook 80% of the fighting and achieved 80% share of final victory in Europe !! Not forgetting their success against the Japanese in Manchuria. Also the Germans and Russians were in partnership in developing pre war tanks. The Panther design came about by the Germans Copying the attributes of the T34 after it had given them a hard time in the East. It was a little comical that in last years End Of WW2 celebrations, the German government had representation there but the Russians weren't invited. ? WTF. RUSSIA BAD
@sateayyam3192
@sateayyam3192 4 жыл бұрын
@John Cornell at least a kv2 stoped the german 6th army for a day But just a day though
@braunebrowning4946
@braunebrowning4946 5 жыл бұрын
Has he ever rated a Soviet tank inferior?
@Gopter2901
@Gopter2901 3 жыл бұрын
Nope
@nobody4248
@nobody4248 6 жыл бұрын
The combat data might not be most accurate due to low kvality materials used for armour.
@leinad3305
@leinad3305 5 жыл бұрын
I like how he goes into further details about the Tiger II trials by the Soviets, but at the same time does not mention any reports of the IS-2, like the cast hull and turret, that are structurally weaker than RHA, or the 122mm recoil system, or rather, lack of one, that was deafening to the crew, or the incredibly cramped interior.
@russman3787
@russman3787 Жыл бұрын
The IS-2 didn't have an incredibly cramped interior. It was one of the least cramped soviet tanks, and was even relatively spacious compared to many other nations' tanks.
@zorkwhouse8125
@zorkwhouse8125 4 жыл бұрын
I actually think a bigger problem for the Tiger II by the time it would be facing something like the IS-2 was the lack of fuel the Germans were dealing with. If a tank can't make it to the battle it doesn't matter how good its main gun is - and that was a problem that plagued the Germans by 1945. I will say though - penetrating at 600m is good, but ranges on the eastern front could be much further than that distance - and the higher muzzle velocity of the 88 in the Tiger II allowed it to penetrate at further ranges than the 122 on the IS-2 could (if I remember correctly). At 500m both tanks were above average chance to knock each other out. Also, I'm not sure about the instances you mentioned about the IS-2s knocking out the Tiger IIs, I'll have to look that up elsewhere (simply b/c people *claimed* to have done all sorts of things that don't necessarily pan out in the end. For instance American tank crews claimed to have knocked out many Tiger II tanks that upon deeper examination turned out to have been misidentified and not actually Tiger IIs. So, you have to be really careful when assessing people's personal claims of victories - as exaggeration proved to be a problem as well) but, if they ran into each other at close enough range it was likely whoever saw the other first and fired would have knocked the other out. So its certainly not out of the question that the IS-2s could have done that. But Sherman's armed with the 76mm gun (and probably even the 75mm if they ambushed one at close enough range) could knock out a Tiger II also if they caught it at close range and particularly from the side or rear, so comparing the IS-2 and TIger II in that fashion doesn't necessarily determine the IS-2 to be the better tank. Each tank had its pluses and minuses. I would imagine the Russians also made way more IS-2s than the German's made Tiger IIs - and that limited the actual impact the Tiger II had on the war as a whole and it can't be separated from the rest really. I still liked the video though, so good work all the same.
@valeryberia9324
@valeryberia9324 3 жыл бұрын
Exaggereted claim are usually on both side, Its hard to find proven, reliable alternate source from the start.
@parrot849
@parrot849 7 жыл бұрын
Outstanding video, best one I’ve seen on cursory comparison studies related to opposing WW2 AFV’s. And meaning no disrespect to gamers, comments that say, because World Of Tanks battle results differ from your video analysis, prove errors in your conclusions, these comments should really not be taken seriously. All that indicates is the current gap between reality and the world of hobby and recreation
@frankwhite3406
@frankwhite3406 7 жыл бұрын
The King Tiger was a far better tank killer than the JS 2 for the following reasons . 1 it had thicker and as good frontal armour than the JS 2. 2 The Kings 88 had far better penertration performance , was more accurate, had better sights , fired 4 × as fast and 3 x as much ammunition! 3. It was faster than the JS by 5 mph . 4. It was far less cramped and each crew member had his own escape hatch , total of six . 5 . The King had better radios / internal communications. 6. It did not have a shot trap on the 185 mm thick front turret plate unlike the JS 2. The Elite Tiger crews were better trained and had a kill ratio of 10 / 1. The maximum thickness of The JS 2 frontal glacia plate was 100 mm . Rounded turret front 100 / 115 mm which would crack and brake off the front of the turret when hit due to inferior welding and twist off to one side. vertical sides were 90mm and rear 60mm thick . Armour Thickness readings of JS 2 m taken by Ultrasound reading. The JS 2 was a very cramped and uncomfortable tank to fight in and only carried 28 rounds of split case very slow to reload ammunition. It also had steering problems which caused fatigue. The huge Soviet tank armies won because of their sheer weight of numbers of up to 20 to 0ne in 1945 ! The King is The King and always will be ! ;-)
@HellDog331
@HellDog331 7 жыл бұрын
and one tiker kill 10 russ taks when russ tank kills just on german tank . that is reall statistiks of ww2 grman army was beter and if we chek lozes of war we see thet russians was two times mor klilled wiacles and man bui germas, its make sence !!!!!an dont forgoot rusians was used massiv atacks agenst german army . german army was two times lower army and make two times lozes mor to sovjet junjons . yes king tiger was beter thet for shor !!!! if the german army was big laik a sovjet army sovjets never get victory....
@JamesVDBosch
@JamesVDBosch 7 жыл бұрын
1) IS-2 used 120mm of cast steel sloped back at 60° for it's glacis armour, this was superior to the Tiger II's glacis, furthermore, the Tiger II used a flat 185mm turret, which due to poor quality steel was effectively much lower than that, The IS-2 had 100mm of cast steel on the left turret cheek and 200mm on the right, this was further increased by the sloping utilized, again, making for a stronger turret. 2) Penetration wasn't even that much higher: KwK 43 L/71 penetration @ 1000m: ≈170mm i.imgur.com/jqVMieq.jpg D-25 penetration @ 1000m: ≈162mm i.imgur.com/ZiLs788.jpg?1 3) Tiger II was certainly not faster off-road, besides, crews were adviced not to push the engines and thus I highly doubt Tiger II's were ever doing 40 km/h. 4) I'd love to see your sources that show a comparison between the ''cramped interiors'' of the two tanks, my guess is that the Tiger II is just as difficult to move around in. 5) But far worse visibility, Germans still didn;t have the common sense to give the gunner any optics besides the ridiculously narrow field-of-view main gun sights, whereas the Sovjets and most allied nations in general atleast placed periscopes on the top. So, another major design flaw on the Tiger II compared to the IS-2. 6) Perhaps not a shot trap, but the turret front was still susceptible to shattering when struck anyways. 7) Again, I'd love to see some sources on those ''10-1 K/D ratio'' claims. 8) IS-2 side armour is not 60mm/90mm, it's 90mm/130mm, higher than what the Tiger II had. www.flickr.com/photos/136792894@N05/23080585144/in/album-72157662273049116/ 9) Might've carried less rounds, but was certainly far more capable of dealing with a tank's main adversary (which isn't another tank), namely fortified positions and infantry.
@19Koty96
@19Koty96 6 жыл бұрын
Turret front and lower plate. Meaning half of its profile.
@Hyper_1989
@Hyper_1989 6 жыл бұрын
Frank White Too bad the "king" lost the war to superior allied tanks!
@treyriver5676
@treyriver5676 6 жыл бұрын
Given the enegry of 122mm gun penetration may well not be required as was proved by IS122 and IS152 . Now the rate of fire for them is not speedy though...
@ivicakokan4828
@ivicakokan4828 7 жыл бұрын
mate german 88 mm kwk gun is more powerful then 122 mm because AP shell got biger speed and kin. energy on distance 1000 -1500 m and i think your problem is that you look to much times russian movie White tiger
@RedEffectChannel
@RedEffectChannel 7 жыл бұрын
Come back when you learn ballistics
@DD-jn3ol
@DD-jn3ol 5 жыл бұрын
ivica kokan is 2 granate was heavy watch how many kilos that have
@Bowyerma
@Bowyerma 6 жыл бұрын
Theres no way in hell that 122mm cannon had accuracy as good at the 88mm.
@PilotTed
@PilotTed 5 жыл бұрын
It really depends on the quality of the barrel. But typically a larger gun can be less accurate especially combined with lower quality sights and such.
@Yury5576
@Yury5576 5 жыл бұрын
Why?
@Yury5576
@Yury5576 5 жыл бұрын
Basic Physics : Bigger gun fires a HEAVIER projectile at similar velocity - much more momentum, more penetration - bigger hole, ie dead tiger tanks. At a distance a light projectile loses momentum faster, even if its trajectory is flatter INITIALLY. So its actually harder to hit with a smaller gun. And to cause DAMAGE. So the gigger gun with a proper sight is more accurate at a distance
@Ropetor
@Ropetor 4 жыл бұрын
@@Yury5576 This isn't about round drop it's about accuracy or how much a round is offset from the aiming point center and while the is 2 has a heavier shell with more momentum the 88 having a higher velocity offsets this and helps with accuracy and the 88 has more penetration the 88 has around 1000mps of muzzle velocity and the d25t around 800mps that's a 200 mps difference. And if we talk about penetration the is 2 had around 201 mm of pen at 100 meters and 108 at 3000 the kwk 43 has a penetration at 100 meters of 230mm of steel at 90° and 153 at 3000m i.imgur.com/ZiLs788.jpg?1 is2 penetration archive.org/details/TM9-1985-3/mode/2up for the kwk 43
@Yury5576
@Yury5576 4 жыл бұрын
@@Ropetor Go back to school. A much heavier 122mm round would maintain its energy over a much longer distance nd have alot more power then a shitty 88, which will loose its velocity much quicker and due to light projectile have no penetration at long distance. We are talking sloping tank armour not paper homes.
@mhrthx
@mhrthx 6 жыл бұрын
You're right "punisher", the tiger 11 was superior in all aspects. Remember, this is a Russian guy talking about "his" Tank." German gun 88 millimeter was the best for its time.Yes the Russian gun was bigger but slow loading time because it was a two piece operation!! I'm not saying it was a bad tank! But by the time the IS- 2 was introduced, the german army was doomed! Most tiger 2 tanks were not destroyed by Russian or American tanks, but the lack of fuel or mechanical breakdowns! The crew just left them or destroyed them!!!
@willhart4435
@willhart4435 5 жыл бұрын
Very informative. Thank you for the video. I do believe IS2 is most under rated tank of the war. It strikes me to see how little is written aboit it in Western accounts of the war.
@nelsonsham2368
@nelsonsham2368 5 жыл бұрын
Actually one of the most overrated tank that can consider a soviet bias
@nelsonsham2368
@nelsonsham2368 5 жыл бұрын
@@victoriaishihara156 I forgot to comment this but... The Super Pershing has better armor than the IS-3(it also beat a lot of soviet tank like german's Tigers I during Cold War) , also I think IS-3 is pretty much pointless for soviets because they just jump to IS-8/T-10 after WWII, they are mostly propaganda tank like M6 of US, but they did participate the Cold War unlike M6
@nelsonsham2368
@nelsonsham2368 5 жыл бұрын
@@victoriaishihara156 Sarcastic? Sarcastic is a Bob Semple can beat the shit out of IS-3 without sweat, that's sarcastic, I don't get that sarcasm cuz actually people talk a lot about how BS is IS-3 with only knowledge of a tank simulation game, but not about IRL, you get it?
@nelsonsham2368
@nelsonsham2368 5 жыл бұрын
@@victoriaishihara156 yeah, I think Germans are not using it because is not the real armor value you have and you can get penned easier from different angle than the real armor, but both has it pros and cons, exchanging the weight, hardness and mobility
@nelsonsham2368
@nelsonsham2368 5 жыл бұрын
@@victoriaishihara156 Maybe the soviets drank to much vodka before they design the armor, maybe they did believe in Stalinium or maybe they just try to surprise their high command such an "innovation", and yeah the practice shows the true, but fk, they don't care that much thought, mass production is good to cover all that shit tons of dead body pile, if their tanks are obsolete they can just sell it to son idiots or threw them in to the sea
@Rynnakkosampyla
@Rynnakkosampyla 6 жыл бұрын
Is there any additional information about the development history of IS-2? I for one would like to hear about it's development, the issues they encountered and how they worked around those.
@majalca03
@majalca03 7 жыл бұрын
Given the choice I'd rather be in the Tiger ll, 11 times out of 10.
@Yury5576
@Yury5576 5 жыл бұрын
Yes it was a decent pillbox, until an IS2 got in range. Those 122 mm guns were known to shoot right through the Tiger 2 :-)
@skdKitsune
@skdKitsune 4 жыл бұрын
Black Pearl Studios And with "in range" you mean planting the barrel through the front plate and shooting the back from inside the Tiger? Russian guns were shit mate, just accept it. The 88 would have eaten any driving garbage can aka russian tanks for breakfast at a measly 2km
@CommonCanc
@CommonCanc 4 жыл бұрын
@@skdKitsune its all stukas and strudels till 10 is2 charge at you
@Bandit_Sudo
@Bandit_Sudo 4 жыл бұрын
@@skdKitsune Russian guns were solid; The 122 was a beast. Not as good as their competitors but still got the job done really well.
@CharcharoExplorer
@CharcharoExplorer 4 жыл бұрын
@@skdKitsune The wehraboos are talking shit again lol.
@jberry1982
@jberry1982 5 жыл бұрын
Plus the German crews knew to target between turret and lower hull which killed t34 kv1 and most Russian tanks
@snakeplissken1754
@snakeplissken1754 3 жыл бұрын
IS-2 with the 88mm kwk 43.. just give it a thought.
@xmeda
@xmeda 4 жыл бұрын
That D25-T 122mm gun of IS-2 can seriously damage even most modern tanks today with ease. Well.. it was used on T-10 heavy tanks deep into 80".
@harry9509
@harry9509 7 жыл бұрын
Tiger II: mobile bunker. IS-2: *BUNKER BUSTER*
@RedEffectChannel
@RedEffectChannel 7 жыл бұрын
nice one, gave me a good laugh
@harry9509
@harry9509 7 жыл бұрын
John Cornell, well pillboxes and trenches don't move, you gotta remember the IS-2 is a breakthrough tank, although it could fight other vehicles it wasn't intended to do so
@Roice-ht7rc
@Roice-ht7rc 6 жыл бұрын
No its not the real Bunker Buster is the Communist of all Stronk Tonks And thats is the *KV 2*
@harry9509
@harry9509 6 жыл бұрын
Roice 8888, couldn't agree more my friend, when Stalin's refrigerator is about, the little nazi's scream and shout.
@Roice-ht7rc
@Roice-ht7rc 6 жыл бұрын
GULAG GAMING DA )))
@fulcrum2951
@fulcrum2951 6 жыл бұрын
The comment section be complaining about how you use "propaganda" when talking about the tank whilst at the same time ironically believing everything about the german tank being so "powerful". Its not like nazi germany officers would deliberately put misinformation
@Winthropede
@Winthropede 5 жыл бұрын
Because soviet tests of captured equipment isn't very accurate at all because russians are good propaganda to this day
@matthewvillarde5601
@matthewvillarde5601 6 жыл бұрын
Well we all agree that a tiger 2 is far better than an IS2. But you can make more IS2's than Tiger 2's in the same span of time.
@GeorgiaBoy1961
@GeorgiaBoy1961 4 жыл бұрын
"Better" is highly-subjective. In the King Tiger/Tiger II and the IS-2, we see the contrasting philosophies of German and Soviet/Russian design, as well as their doctrinal differences and similarities in how armor was to be used in combat. Moreover, the comparison isn't an apples-to-apples one, since the King Tiger was a heavy tank, and the IS-2 more of a medium tank by German standards, even if called a "heavy" by the Russians. An IS-2 was much closer to a Panther or Tiger I in weight, than a Tiger II. The Soviets, in designing the IS-2, had the opportunity to examine and study German employment in detail of their heavy tanks, tank destroyers and self-propelled guns. They observed that the Tiger (when on the offensive) was often used as a breakthrough weapon, used to knock holes in the most-heavily defended sectors of the lines, so that lighter and faster-moving AVFs and motorized units could exploit the gaps. Although it fought other tanks a substantial amount of the time, it was also highly useful as a general-purpose weapon. The Red Army ended up using the IS-2 in a similar manner a lot of the time. It's 122mm HE shell was devastatingly effective against soft/lightly-armored targets and field fortifications. And in such use, its relatively slow rate of fire was not as much of a detriment as it might have been. The King Tiger was the better anti-armor weapon, all in all, due to its superb main gun, advanced optics and sights, and the fact that their crews were usually fighting from a defensive position. Because of its massive size, bulk, weight and voracious appetite for fuel, the King Tiger was better as a defensive weapon anyway. The IS--2, being lighter and somewhat more compact than its German counterpart, was more mobile, and more bridges and roadways could handle it than the King Tiger. Although it was crude in certain respects in comparison with the Tiger II, the IS-2 continued the proven Russian emphasis on pragmatism in weapons design: Design a durable, tough, and hard-hitting weapon which is good-enough to get the job done, and make it in superior numbers to those of the enemy. It may have been crude in comparison, but it got the job done and that's all that was asked of it. In other words, while the Germans were building the armor equivalent of a fine Swiss watch or a Rolex, the Russians were turning out millions of Timex watches - T34s, IS-2's, and so on. Quality, as the Russians say, has a quantity all its own. Just as the Americans and British could sacrifice multiple Shermans to knock out one Panther or Tiger, so could the Russians sacrifice multiple T34s, KV1's,IS-2's, etc. And as the Germans learned with Panzer ace Michael Wittmann, even the best tank commander can be killed if his luck runs out.
@828enigma6
@828enigma6 6 жыл бұрын
No criticism, just a question. It seems the tanks on both sides smoked very badly. Is this due to wear, poor quality control, or is just the nature of the best?
@magnusjohansson295
@magnusjohansson295 5 жыл бұрын
Wow! A thoroughly researched comparison it seems.
@nickryan6787
@nickryan6787 4 жыл бұрын
14:11 where do you get that image? I want to have a HD version of it
@chebb3699
@chebb3699 4 жыл бұрын
The smoke looks photo shooped
@namesurname624
@namesurname624 4 жыл бұрын
@@chebb3699 it's hdr
@pbjones1275
@pbjones1275 6 жыл бұрын
Most of the WW2 Historians rank the Tiger 1 and Panther in the Number 1 Or 2 spot among WW2 Tanks.Tiger 2 will show up in the top 10 But IS2 hardly ever. Both IS2 and Tiger 2 had their short comings. It always comes down to tank crews and training.At the end of WW2 I’m sure most German Tiger 2 tank crews were very young and inexperienced. I’ve read some German tank crew members were as young as 14 years old.
@ДинМожетБыть
@ДинМожетБыть Жыл бұрын
Did the Russians have space marines with over 200 years of experience?
@RedVRCC
@RedVRCC 4 жыл бұрын
*"How dare you say such a degrading thing about the elite crews of the German Reich? They were the best of the best!!~"*
@dominusnoobus1589
@dominusnoobus1589 4 жыл бұрын
Ironic because you appear to be communist 🤭
@omriyetanl3915
@omriyetanl3915 3 жыл бұрын
Nah he just making "wehraboos when people saying that tiger 2 has bad crew"
@BesoffenerIslamist
@BesoffenerIslamist 3 жыл бұрын
Better than hungry communist ones, even at late stages. No doubt.
@Ralphieboy
@Ralphieboy 4 жыл бұрын
Excellent film, not just statistics, but also battle reports and historical context.
@thedarksage328
@thedarksage328 3 жыл бұрын
2-3 rounds per minute vs the Tiger's 5-8 rounds per minute is an important metric.
@dailypunch6249
@dailypunch6249 2 жыл бұрын
Yea but the ability to actually move is pretty important too
@yufka3247
@yufka3247 7 жыл бұрын
Just no in normal/fair conditions a tiger II would still be victories
@anushmikael2540
@anushmikael2540 5 жыл бұрын
Yufka 32 bulshit is 2 is a fucking monster
@soundbust1164
@soundbust1164 5 жыл бұрын
Did you miss the... uhhh... *entire video?*
@Capodecamper
@Capodecamper 5 жыл бұрын
@@anushmikael2540 did you watch the video or are you another slav armchair general
@frenchsoldier8485
@frenchsoldier8485 5 жыл бұрын
@Solar Warden And the Tiger II wasn't? Atleast the IS-2 could run and not break it's transmission before entering a battle
@skankhunt446
@skankhunt446 4 жыл бұрын
@@frenchsoldier8485 The battel readiness of soviet tank battalions was even lower then german tank battalions , but yeah soviet engineering is superior to all , thats why today everybody buys russian tvs microwaves xD
@rosehip_desu_wa4773
@rosehip_desu_wa4773 4 жыл бұрын
Soooo.... Tiger II - superior in antitank combat, IS-2 - superior in quality and general purpose
@davidgoodchild9229
@davidgoodchild9229 4 жыл бұрын
Superior in quality? 😂😂😂
@flexprime2010
@flexprime2010 4 жыл бұрын
@@davidgoodchild9229 it is more reliable.
@messerschmittme2628
@messerschmittme2628 4 жыл бұрын
Tiger II - Superior in EVERYTHING. IS-2 - Superior in amount* lol
@flexprime2010
@flexprime2010 4 жыл бұрын
@@messerschmittme2628 nah, the 122mm canon of the is-2 is more versatile to help the infantry and to destroy pillboxes and such. Also it can pierce the king tiger. On the other side the tiger 2, is unreliable. Due to his extreme heavy weight, it consumes way to much fuel on a country running low on it. On paper the tiger 2 is superior but it is made for tank and tank battle, not the is-2.
@weaponizedautism6589
@weaponizedautism6589 4 жыл бұрын
@@flexprime2010 "also it can pierce the King Tiger" Barely. and only on the frontal turret under 800M. meanwhile the Tiger II could penetrate Frontal turret of IS-2 from 1500M. same goes for the lowerplate. i agree on that the IS-2 is a better overall support tank.
@georgecurl6350
@georgecurl6350 6 жыл бұрын
Tiger 2 is better
@lorrainesebastian959
@lorrainesebastian959 5 жыл бұрын
George Curl its gun was better and it's armor so yeah Tiger 2 is better
@Bajicoy
@Bajicoy 6 жыл бұрын
How does using triangles in the sight of the tiger II require more time to aim in?
@Grim-hr3km
@Grim-hr3km 5 жыл бұрын
hes not taking into account that the crew from germany at the time were actually trained and could aim the gun like they would aim a rifle, the russian is2 on the other hand, while dumbed down because during that period they just threw soldiers into mass produced tanks with little actual training still had to do extra work on finding the range so their dumbed down sights could be of any use, meanwhile the german gunner just shoots efficiently, and also accurately without the risk of human error from estimating distance like the russian tankers
@putinhimself347
@putinhimself347 3 жыл бұрын
Red" is nit a russian, i believe hes Serbian cuz when he makes video about m84, he said hes gonna visit the tanks himself ,, it was in serbia
@valentinmihalescu608
@valentinmihalescu608 7 жыл бұрын
Is2 was supposed to fight TIGER 1, not the TIGER 2
@JamesVDBosch
@JamesVDBosch 7 жыл бұрын
Both the IS-2 (which is referredto in this video) and Tiger II are 1944.
@codenamehalo9847
@codenamehalo9847 6 жыл бұрын
IS-2 was made because of the Soviet German tanks race which is also why the Tiger II was made
@Loup-mx7yt
@Loup-mx7yt 5 жыл бұрын
Valentin Mihalescu The is-2 never was meant to be created to destroy tiger tanks, it is possible to find Soviet document on "counter measures" program for both the tiger 1 & 2 and neither had the is-2.
@PilotTed
@PilotTed 5 жыл бұрын
@Nikola Poiukov that's because they rushed and were able to get to the sides of the tiger IIs. Now if the armor shattered and such the tiger II was doomed from the front but if the quality was good, the is2 wouldn't do anything to it. Of course another reason the is2 was able to knock out a king tiger was because Germany had very few tiger IIs so it would often be swarmed and easily knocked out. In Berlin a single King tiger was able to knock out around 40 to 50 tanks. A king tiger, with good quality armor, and good support, and good crew and no reliability issue, it could easily take out the is2 with the same support.
@mikec8086
@mikec8086 5 жыл бұрын
@@PilotTed even good quality armor would shatter and spall from a hit from the 122mm gun. I don't think you understand the massive amount of kinetic energy hitting the front plate.
@isopod365
@isopod365 6 жыл бұрын
So the german does use airsoft back in WW2 Sounds legit..
@dezeekat
@dezeekat 5 жыл бұрын
you forgot to mention quality of optics, which was better on German tanks since it often was made in Dresden by Zeiss
@soundbust1164
@soundbust1164 5 жыл бұрын
Ah yes, Dresden, the city which absolutely wouldve survived long enough to make a contribution to Tiger II production
@tnix80
@tnix80 5 жыл бұрын
Dresden didn't make much of anything, by the time it was incinerated it was a city for refugees and wounded soldiers.
@tnix80
@tnix80 5 жыл бұрын
I have a pair of WW2 tank binos by zeiss, very nice. Better than most modern ones
@bocktordaytona5656
@bocktordaytona5656 3 жыл бұрын
I was searching for the IS 3 and i found gold! Well that phrase dont work well here but anyway. PD could you make one of the IS 3? I love that thing !
@nguyenquocnguyen3354
@nguyenquocnguyen3354 2 жыл бұрын
The Tiger II is the Winner. In the Night of April 19th, 1945 during the Battle of Bollersdorf, Karl Korner and his fellow Tiger IIs ambush and destroyed 105 Soviet Tanks when they are Refuel ,11 are lS 2 tanks, many of them can't fight back because their barrel is struck to nearby trees. In Battle of Danzig,March 1945, 2 Tiger IIs destroyed 6 lS 2s and support to captured the 7th vehicle. Tank duels in Hungary from March 6th to March 24th 1945, the Tiger IIs destroyed 14 lS 2s ,Eventually there are 6 lS 2s destroyed at Distance of 2 km, and several T-34s with the loss of 8 German tanks. Arccoding to the Germans on theory, the long 88 on Tiger II can Penetrated the lS 2's Turret Armor beyong 3 km.
@CMDRFandragon
@CMDRFandragon 5 жыл бұрын
IS2 as or more accurate? Fired by Russians not really well trained in the use of the FCS.
@tnix80
@tnix80 5 жыл бұрын
Even with a top crew, that gun is not accurate for shit, certainly not compared to a kwk 43
@Yury5576
@Yury5576 5 жыл бұрын
By the time of IS2 russians were not only better trained but had better tactics. Not many well trained German crews were left alive. Read what the germans were saying about russians. Thats why there was a flag on top of Kremlin in '45.... Oh sorry it was on top of reichstag in berlin.
@edisonfrisbee6345
@edisonfrisbee6345 4 жыл бұрын
Red Effect - thanks for including small arms used by the tankers! Is it true that Russian tankers preferred the Nagant revolver to the Tokarev pistol? (Supposedly b/c the Nagant emitted less smoke into the tank when fired from inside). Thanks!
@Belsen85
@Belsen85 3 жыл бұрын
the main reason for Nagant used by tankers is simply the size of the barrel -- as it was smaller, it was easier to use through the special handgun portholes in the turret.
@edisonfrisbee6345
@edisonfrisbee6345 3 жыл бұрын
@@Belsen85 Thank you...that answer makes more sense!
@russman3787
@russman3787 Жыл бұрын
@@edisonfrisbee6345 I've heard that the Tokarev also suffered from terrible stopping power.
@MrAlsfan5
@MrAlsfan5 6 жыл бұрын
I'd rather be in a Tiger ll than IS ll. I still think though, that the T34 and the Panther tanks were the best of the war.
@frenchsoldier8485
@frenchsoldier8485 5 жыл бұрын
Personally I'd rather be in a KV-2 in 1942, thing was fucking invincible as long as artillary or a 12.7cm AA gun didn't spot it
@frenchsoldier8485
@frenchsoldier8485 5 жыл бұрын
@Bleagle KV-2 is not bothered by nuke
@frenchsoldier8485
@frenchsoldier8485 5 жыл бұрын
@Bleagle Pah, KV-2 is stronkest weapon in world
@frenchsoldier8485
@frenchsoldier8485 5 жыл бұрын
@Bleagle I don't know how to change language settings :(
@frenchsoldier8485
@frenchsoldier8485 5 жыл бұрын
@Bleagle Phone
@joshmeads
@joshmeads 3 жыл бұрын
Comparing the two tank guns we need to take into account the rate of fire and the optics. The IS 2's main gun was extremely slow to load and fire, two rounds per minute is mostly given. The Tiger could shoot far faster and had a better change of hitting its target. If you can't fire and hit with your gun then it's not worth much. Eight rounds to two rounds is a huge gap.
@calibetzeal7114
@calibetzeal7114 4 жыл бұрын
In all reality the downfall of Germany was the complexity of its machines and its refusal to stick with a universal model like America’s m4 and soviet t-34 they wasted 2 much on projects that got abandoned the end result was most king tiger tanks did not have the same thickness of armour as they were suppose to basically like bubbles in the armour and the lack of ammo did if you put a properly constructed tiger 2 with the correct ammo and with the planned hardened armour it would have preformed much better but the IS-2 or IS-3 still would have preformed about the same as the tiger 2 basically it all came down to numbers and the customization of Soviet and American tanks example the Sherman remained largely the same design with improvements allows for minor factory upgrades to build a new model the t-34 could also be upgraded a lot without creating brand new factory’s but germany needed to reequip its factory’s in a process that might as well build special factory’s and new tools in order to build the tanks the closest thing Germany had to the Sherman or t34 was the Panzerkamfwagen IV or panzer 4 that was also getting complex to keep on the field and they replaced it with with the Panzerkamfwagen V or panther that was much harder to manufacture then the t-34 and from the info I got from my history book the panther was based on a captured t-34 where they wanted a rank similar but they ended up making a much more complex machine in the search for simplicity
@calibetzeal7114
@calibetzeal7114 4 жыл бұрын
John Cornell the German tanks were more prone to malfunction then allied tanks the German navy lost when the allies decoded the Germans cyphers the Germans lost air from poor strategy Battle of Britain Germans should have targeted the British radio towers and the factory’s but the Germans hit the airfields instead
@MackieLevyn
@MackieLevyn 4 жыл бұрын
When your Tiger II hull breaks.
How Bad Was The Tiger II?
4:53
Spookston
Рет қаралды 463 М.
Tiger vs IS-2: A Dumb Comparison?
23:53
Military History not Visualized
Рет қаралды 25 М.
The evil clown plays a prank on the angel
00:39
超人夫妇
Рет қаралды 53 МЛН
T-80 vs Leopard 2 Main Battle Tank Comparison
17:10
RedEffect
Рет қаралды 150 М.
King Tiger: Over- or Underrated?
28:30
Military History Visualized
Рет қаралды 210 М.
Victim of German Engineering, FCM 36 SPGs | Cursed by Design
9:24
Joseph Stalin's Heavy Break Through Tank (Epic Battles of History)
10:21
How Bad Was The IS-2?
4:27
Spookston
Рет қаралды 528 М.
T-14 Armata vs K2 Black Panther - Tank Arena Episode 3.
16:47
RedEffect
Рет қаралды 330 М.
The Last Tiger: Final Stand in Berlin | World War II
13:26
HistoryAtWar
Рет қаралды 339 М.
The Tiger Tank That Wouldn't Die
5:22
Mark Felton Productions
Рет қаралды 2,5 МЛН
The Horrible History of Russian Fighter Jets: Beginnings
2:18:00
Animarchy History
Рет қаралды 274 М.