Right. I didn’t know much about the JS’s, so that helps a lot.
I was wondering,…
As people likes to compare the IS2-3 to their heaviest favorites (king tiger, Tiger, Pershing and now,…the brits armor)
I still see IS2-3 is an overly graded weapon in terms of quality, much so, after what explained by one experienced member in this forum, mr Tankgeezer,…
The gun,… people made big fuzz about its gun,… but the 122 of IS2-3 Velocity to the 88 or 90’s US are lower, therefor the penetrating force of its shells are inferior. On the top, the inferior optic of the beast was not a help either.
The first engagement of King tiger and IS2 recorded as the IS2 the victor,.however it was 4 down to King tiger and 3 down plus 7 damaged to IS2, despite, The King tigers are blocking the way of the Russians Advance. this should gave the Russian upper hand situation whereas they should had aim the Ktigers before just jump into action, and reduced their own attrition.
The Germans abandoned their Ktigers as well due to the fact the force behind thos IS2 are overwhelming, and they had no chance in repairing or salvaging their downed armors.
Cheers
G
The 6 pdr didn’t come into service until 42, and was a powerful anti-tank gun for its size ( it could penetrate 81mm of armour at 1,000 yards, the 75mm gun on the Sherman could only manage around 64mm). In May 44 the British introduced APDS ammo for this gun which gave it the ability to penetrate 106mm of armour at 1,000 yards
Does anyone know if the US Army or Marines used the Churchill?
The only British AFV used by the Marines was a small number of Bren Carriers used in one of the Pacific campaigns
The 17 pdr had more penetration power than the 88 L56 fitted to the Tiger I and with APDS ammo was as good as the 88 L71 fitted to the Tiger II, it also had the advantage in that it was lighter and more compact than the 94mm
The discarding sabot round while having better penetration caused less damage due to the smaller hole (sounds odd, better penetrative ability but less damage) it was also more inaccurate than the more common capped AP round, so was therefore used less.
Churchill:
The IS-3 (and previous IS-2) were assault/breakthrough tanks the D-25 122mm gun was really designed to destroy pill boxes and bunkers rather than engage enemy armour, although the sheer weight of shell could knock out most tanks in late WWII/1940’s (a D25 in tests from 1500m fired an AP round through the front glacis plate of a Panther, through the engine block and out through the rear armour), the irony is that the Russians after all the hard fighting on the eastern front had come to adopt the tactics of heavy, slower infantry assault tanks and faster, medium tanks (T-34, T54 etc) the same as the ideas employed somewhat disasterously by the British (infantry and cruiser tanks) thoughout the early part of the war. The Russian D10, 100mm guns fitted to the Su100 and later T-54/55 had a much better anti-armour performance than the 122mm. But the IS-2 and IS-3 still to me, look the most intimidating of all tanks.
As a little aside I found this amusing, the D10 fitted to a T55 can fire the AT10 Stabber missile, however, each missile is reported to cost half as much as the T55 itself.