Comments on: IS-3 armor tests

By: Hammerschlag

Hammerschlag — Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:47:34 +0000

Not the calculation of wotarmory, i mean the tests.
IS-7 armor was retested after the normalization nerf. The tester stated that the is-7 armor works like 150mm @65° (300mm effective). Only the +-25% made sure that the tank was penetrated by the 26x mm penetration gun. The website is closed but the pic can be find on google pictures.

IS-3 armor can also be penetrated from the front with 175mm pen guns. Which also suggests that its front works like 110mm at 56°.

Kellomies, the point is that the 2nd angle is not taken into account. You can test that if you dont believe it.

Although (!) the armor gets weaker if the tank is not shot right from the front. That however i dont understand yet. I guess there is a calculation error. Maybe someone can explain that.

By: Vlevs

Vlevs — Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:12:51 +0000

That’s the toughest CD I’ve ever heard of. I’m guessing it’s “Indestructible” by Disturbed.

By: CompanionCav_NA

CompanionCav_NA — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:46:43 +0000

Each angle shows angle for center weld seam for respective tanks.
IS-3 armor acts as it should. I believe Wotarmory calculation is a bit off because if you put in compound angle of 56 and 43, which is about 28 deg, and then add 5 deg normalization, you get about 202mm effective against AP

About Is-7, I think its frontal glacis armor vertical angle is not uniformly 65 deg, hence the “erratic” glacis protection performance.

By: CompanionCav_NA

CompanionCav_NA — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:22:14 +0000

Brave? certainly.
Skilled? seems to vary unit to unit rather wildly
Or maybe I’m mixing other middle east nations with Egypt…

By: CompanionCav_NA

CompanionCav_NA — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:18:48 +0000

I meant in battle conditions. Were you instructed to aim for specific parts of target tank – say, the lower hull – always? I think not.

hitting a static target in near-battlesight range just means that your gun’s mechanical accuracy is good. Besides, when you’re facing bad guys in battlesight range, I reckon that you’d want to think about sending rounds downrange as fast as possible rather than taking time with careful aiming – unless you’re absolutely sure you cannot defeat the target without hitting certain weak parts.

By: Corvi

Corvi — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:15:36 +0000

Be glad you score a hit ? I’ve hit a CD (read compact disc) pinned on a board of plywood at 1500m in the Leopard2A4. Several times.

By: Kellomies

Kellomies — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:46:18 +0000

Seeing as how that would appear to be the listed glacis thicknesses and, more or less, presumably the compound angles of the “pikes” I’m not quite seeing your problem.
Besides chronic faggotry ofc. :v

By: Kellomies

Kellomies — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:42:42 +0000

By the relevant timeframe Stalin had long ago learned to not meddle with trained specialists working in their respective fields you know. Also kind of dumbass reasoning there – if the engineers and testers were selling “the Boss” horse cakes which then proved to be such after thousands of the tanks had been built, how well do you figure they’d have fared when taken to task for such blatant “sabotage”?
Going back to the drawing board would seem like the RATHER safer option…

By: Kellomies

Kellomies — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:37:58 +0000

And the usual shitty leadership one would assume. The Israelis apparently regarded the rank-and-file Egyptian soldiery as brave and skilled enough but the officer corps as mediocre at best.

By: Kellomies

Kellomies — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:35:24 +0000

The JT predates the IS-3 a fair bit however and the Germans ought not have had any idea of the latter’s developement, though if you want to be very generous indeed you might assume a degree of predictive extrapolation from the extant trends of the “tank arms race” in the East.

But then again by the end of the war the Americans were also cramming 120 and 155mm guns in some of their experimental heavies…