IS-2 M1944 Armor buff

Suggestions
42

Yep. They are greatly overperforming, they easily destroy even Tiger 2s. Realistically, they could probably blow up/damage light tanks and such though.

43

nvm I misread and thought you said underperforming :skull:

Anyway but least it will help change some pro tnt guy’s mind that they need some nerf

44

Here you are using “effective” armor through angle

Here you reduced the power of the L70 AGAIN because of angle.

So the effective armor is 130mm

while Panther has 130mm of effective penetration.

Now you claim:

Which is wrong because you reduced it twice.

130mm effective armor penetration means how well it penetrates against a 130mm thick plate that is angled at 30 degrees. 130mm doesn’t literally turn into 170mm.
Your balistic cap claim is already considered in the 130mm of effective pen.

1 Like
45

Wrong

46

That’s a wild claim.

“When an armor plate is sloped relative to the angle of attack, the relative armor thickness, or line of sight, increases. The armor piercing shot therefore has to penetrate a greater amount of armor than the actual thickness of the armor plate.”

image

1 Like
47

Wild claim… dude, just look at Wehrmacht reports of fighting IS2, it is public knowledge at what distances Panthers could defeat their armor or turret.

48

My last response has nothing to do with IS-2s or Panthers.

My last response was debunking your statement that my claim (Effective armor is line-of-sight armor thickness) is incorrect. That applies to all tanks, not just IS-2 and Panther.

Don’t try to derail the topic to hide your lack of knowledge, so go ahead and respond to what I said.

I will respond to your other dubious claims regarding the IS-2s too.

1 Like
49

How so?

50

I provided evidence that my statement (“effective/relative armor is line-of-sight thickness.”), which you tried to challenge by claiming it’s incorrect, is correct by providing a visual illustration, as well as a credible source, and a quote.

Now go ahead and respond to that.

1 Like
51

Like I said numerous times, line-of-sight thickness/relative armor thickness has NOTHING to do with shell deformation due to sloping, except that they are caused by sloping. Hence you have to take both into account to get a correct result.

This illustration demonstrates effective armor thickness, or line-of-sight thickness, whichever you may prefer.
image

This graph demonstrates decrease in penetration power at angles of the 7,5cm KwK42 L/70.
(Thanks to my friend Slakrrrrrr)

image
image1600×1094 182 KB

They are not the same thing, hence you have to take both into account for a correct result.

Panzergranate 39/42 penetrates 130mm at 30 degrees at 500m.
IS-2s lower glacis plate is 130mm thick and would be impacted at about 40 degrees, which gives 170mm effective thickness.

170mm > 130mm, hence it doesn’t penetrate.

2 Likes
52

Dude, you really dont get it.

Effective armor penetration of 130mm at 30° means it can penetrate a 130mm thick plate that gets angled at 30°.

I dont know how to tell you how you are wrong so that you understand.

If I look at Wehrmacht reports claiming “something like” don’t remember the exact numbers - Panther would defeat IS frontal armor at 600m, while turret at 1000m - then it already proves that my calculations are correct.

I don’t know what your link is supposed to prove.

1 Like
53

Again false, 130mm at 30 degrees at 500m means exactly that and nothing else.

54

I literally provided evidence for my claim, just look at the fucking graph about 7,5cm KwK42 L/70s penetration.

Regardless, I provided sources and evidence, you have provided none. You’re just pulling shit out of ass, won’t respond to you until you show up with an actual source.

55

Citation needed.

57

So you don’t have a source, but you refuse to accept that you are wrong? Hilarious

58

TNT’s are fine honestly, but explosive packs need a nerf.

1 Like
59

No

60

Are you sure that they talk about the same effective armor? If the thickness of the test referes to the same plate but angled it would already factor in the additional relative armor and lose due to the slope.
If the panther can still pen 130mm of plate under that condition then the lower glacis would still be fair game with 130mm aswell.

So depending of how you interpret the study you could get vastly diffrent results which makes comparing the results. If testing A was done under a diffrent set of rules (here tickness before angled) than testing B used the tickness after angling you can get completely diffrent results for effective penetration while doing the exact same test during the study.

I think both of you are generally correct in what you are talking about just disagreeing on how you define penetration at an angle. Do you use relative armor thickness or actual plate tickness when talking about penetration. Unless one can get confirmation on how the number is from a source is to be interpreted I doubt you will be able to come to a conclussion as it all comes down to diffrent definitions applied.

61

The two images I posted are specifically meant to demonstrate the difference between line-of-sight armor thickness and loss of penetrative power due to impact angle.

We already established the penetrative power of the Panzerganate 39/42 at given range and angle.
The issue is that GeneralBrus thinks that, when calculating penetration, you take into account either line-of-sight armor thickness and loss of penetrative power due to impact angle. He thinks that you take account only one or the other, not both. Essentially, he thinks that the two are the same thing.

I use relative armor thickness, and put it against the penetrative power of the shell at a given angle and range (accounting for loss of penetrative power due to sloping).

He just uses relative armor thickness, and puts it against penetrative power of a shell at the given range (not accounting for loss of penetrative power due to sloping).

1 Like
62

Then provide a source.