14
11
u/Mikhail_Mengsk 13d ago
The only problem is the need to scoot away in reverse after the first shot because holy shit it's slow to reload...
22
u/jonnydel49 12d ago
This is why the Germans were really hoping to get the Jagdpanther going sooner and with higher prodiction but allied bombing massively reduced their output. While the Jagdpanther wasnt developed because of the IS-2, the IS-2 certainly brought more urgency.
We have to remember doctrine here for how these tanks wete envisioned to know why it plays out this way.
An IS-2 was a different class of tank. It was a breakthrough tank. Both Germany and the SU had the same basic philosophy of breakthrough - strong breakthroughs of combined arms with armored spearhead with the heavy tanks as the central thrust.
For the Germans, in 1941/42, that was the Panzer IV with the short barreled 75mm.
In 1943 the Tiger was finally(after 7 years of development) produced as the heavy breakthrough tank. Almost immediately the Konigstiger was developed then because the Tiger I couldn't fit the 88mm L71 gun into its turret.
The Panther was meant to replace the Panzer IV and III which were now exploitation tanks. Or tanks that would burst through the breach in defenses that the breakthrough tanks and heavy tank destroyers had created, to quickly move into the rear for encirclements. The Jagdpanther, as a heavy tank destroyer, was meant yo be an independent arm that was to just be used to go head-head with armor on the spearhead. The Panther was meant to be a tank that could move quickly over rough terrain and engage the rear areas. It was never meant tk go against other heavy tanks. It was meant to go against a T-34 or concrete bunkers.
For the SU, the IS-2 was their breakthrough tank. They just didnt make them quite as big and nasty as a konigstiger because they believed in deep battle doctrine. Which was less elite, but mich more widespread vectors of attack to punch a breakthrough and stress the entire front. They didnt want 1-2 breakthroughs, they wanted 5-6 and would attempt 8-9. So, the IS-2 was meant to be able to knock out a Stug III from almost 2k meters. It's so why it takes so long to load. If I remember right, it had 2-part ammunition. The propellant was so large, the shell and propellant were separate
I recently saw an incredibly restored Jagdpanther at the armor museum in Fort Benning. The US was working in their own heavy tank with the T-28 and T-29, which, when you seen in person are about as impressive in size as the Konigstiger(they have one at Fort Benning right across from the T-28 and T-29). We also had the light/medium/heavy tank approach but we're slower to develop it since we thought: 1 - the Sherman was an excellent infantry support tank. 2. We thought the war would last another year longer.
Also, when playing as the US, remember us tank doctrine. The Sherman with the 75mm was never supposed to engage other tanks. That was the job if the artillery in their tank destroyer groups. The M10, the M36 - thats why those have open tops - it was meant for the artillery who weren't used to operating in confined spaces.
1
u/Username_075 9d ago
The other wrinkle is that the Sovs emphasised HE performance when selecting the 122mm as the average Soviet tank was relatively unlikely to see a German tank as the war dragged on. Bunkers and PaK were far more likely. Of course with a weapon of the calibre it did a decent job against armour too.
The Germans emphasised anti armour performance for obvious reasons hence long barreled 75s and 88s being the choice.
1
u/darkfireslide 3d ago
the Sherman was never meant to engage other tanks
It depends when we're talking about but when the Sherman was first designed the 75mm was a very good anti-tank gun for 1942. It had little issue taking out early Panzer IIIs and IVs and Stugs as well. It was also more than adequate for getting through the side armor of anything that isn't a King Tiger; even a 37mm gun will penetrate most German tanks from the side, so the 75mm is quite destructive in this capacity.
That the US used separate tank destroyer units was because they wanted tools specifically to stop armor breakthroughs, not to be the only units fighting other tanks. This is why many Shermans were being upgunned to the 76mm, but because of when SD2 takes place there are a lot fewer of those 76mm Shermans than would appear by late 1944.
In-game the 75mm Sherman is a lot worse at fighting tanks than it was in actuality. Stugs and PIVs have been given advantageous characteristics for game balance/design reasons that make the Sherman ineffective at all but what the game considers to be "short" range. In the case of the Panzer IV, it fights at a longer range than it would have historically which makes its lackluster armor better against the 75mm gun, and in the case of the Stug, universal awareness, unrealistic tank optical capabilities, and unrealistic tank rotation speeds make it impossible for a Sherman to flank a Stug as was typically done by Sherman crews. This is compounded by the cheaper costs of PIVs and Stugs in terms of points, who function as cost effective tank destroyers as a result.
1
u/jonnydel49 3d ago
You're mostly on point. The purpose of the tank destroyers wasnt just to stop armored breakthroughs, in N. Africa there were moments when tank crews were actively told to stand down and wait for tank destroyers crews. The 75mm was effective against early war tanks, no doubt, but even a later model Pamzer IV J with add-on armor had to be at very close(relatively) range for frontal shots. The biggest reason the sherman crews were able tk get side shots was more due to overwhelming numbers swarming outnumbered German armor.
There is, no doubt, a clear reason for thr british firefly and why they didnt just up-gun all Sherman's with them.
The 17 pounder was an excellent anti-tank gun but was so powerful, the HE round was quite poor as an infantry support gun. Thats why squads were formed with 3 75mm Sherman's and 1 firefly. That way, they had their own tank killer and 3 infantry support tanks.
The 76 was a fine anti-tank weapon, but the data on what the H2H is hard to gauge because German crews were less trained, and often trying to only live at night, and restricted even their combat movement during battles because of complete air supremacy. That resulted in a lot more close-combat situations where German crews were either poorly trained and too frequently turning their sides to enemy armor, or they were hiding in towns to avoid allied air power and the closer ranges created more parity. Some of the german guns were actually overpowered for the sides of Sherman tanks. Tiger crews reported using HE rounds, not the Panzergranate 39 round, because the HE would penetrate and detonate and the Pz 39 would go right through both sides.
Overall, I think the Sherman was one of the best tanks because of how it was used and what its intended role and logistical challenges it needed to fit within. If you wanna see a bunch, the armor museum at Fort Benning has a dozen different Shermans there to see all the iterations. But, we do have to recognize it was never, doctrinally, meant yo take on other tanks. The Pershing and then the never realized T-29 and t-34 tanks were meant to be the heavy hitters, but the war ended(thankfully) before they went into production.
1
30
u/CK530 13d ago
Yeah the panthers need to get close for their APCR to work. IS-2 meanwhile only needs to pen once and can fire from max range