Super Pershing vs King Tiger

[khatean]

Interesting read.

http://www.3ad.com/history/news/super.p ... hor2238566

[MG-42]

A good read indeed ! ...

[zdm77]

Awesome read -thanks!

[immeww2]

I enjoyed the read. Thanks for sharing!

[VMF115]

A cool find and good read!!!!

[Rowsdower]

Awesome! Funny as I was just wondering earlier what if the Pershing had gotten to Europe earlier like say right after D-Day.

[Light.Inf.Scout]

What about if we mixed it up with the Russians in late 45 or 46? I wonder how it would have done against the t34/85 or Stalin tank? I imagine it would have been as good or better than the T34 but I don't know about the Stalin

[Rowsdower]

What about if we mixed it up with the Russians in late 45 or 46? I wonder how it would have done against the t34/85 or Stalin tank? I imagine it would have been as good or better than the T34 but I don't know about the Stalin

I'm pretty sure I've read that Perhings chewed up all models of the T-34 during the Korean War.

[Fox Tare-28]

Awesome find khatean.

[Panther F]

By the time WWII had ended, the Soviet Union had the JS series which mounted the 120mm gun and had much more advanced sloped armor which easily was more than a match for the Pershing.


Jeff

[pickelhaube]

They hit the under belly. It would have been nice to know what would have happend had they hit the front glacias or turret.

[75th Ranger]

Really nice article.
thanks.

[ostketten]

The IS-II mounted a 122mm gun which had excellent HE performance, it's AP performance on the other hand was roughly equal to the German 88mm and US 90mm at ranges up to 1000 meters or so, but beyond that it was inferior to both if I remember correctly. The other thing to remember is that quality of Soviet armor during the war varied greatly, some was of generally good quality, and some was of rather poor quality comparitively speaking, owing to a high nickel content which made it overly brittle, and subject to cracking and producing excessive amounts of deadly spall inside the turret under heavy impacts from armor piercing and even high explosive shells. I believe the Pershing was capable of knocking out the IS-II at ranges beyond which the Soviet machine could reliably penetrate the Pershing. The IS-II also had a very slow rate of fire, something like two rounds per minute, not a good thing in combat against other tanks.

[Panther F]

You're right about it being the 122mm gun, I was trying to rely on memory! I was thinking more about the IS-III, being that it was the most advanced heavy tank design of it's time with the much more lower silhouette and improved ballistic shape to it's front hull and a maximum armor thickness of 120mm.

By the way, ostketten is a cool username!


Jeff

[ostketten]

You're right about it being the 122mm gun, I was trying to rely on memory! Laughing I was thinking more about the IS-III, being that it was the most advanced heavy tank design of it's time with the much more lower silhouette and improved ballistic shape to it's front hull and a maximum armor thickness of 120mm.

By the way, ostketten is a cool username!

Jeff, I don't know much about the IS-III except that it was developed very late in the war and saw no recorded action against the Germans, and it formed the foundation for most future Soviet tank designs of the 1950's, 60's, and 70's. The IS-II was designed from the outset as a "breakthrough" tank intended to plow through defense lines and knock out pill boxes and other heavily fortified positions with it's heavy 122mm gun. It was never really intended by the Soviets to go one on one with the German heavy tanks of the day, and was at somewhat of a disadvantage against them at the longer tank engagement ranges (1000 meters+) becuse of it's slow rate of fire and marginal AP performance at longer ranges. That being said, it was a formidable opponent that was much feared by the Germans in any role. BTW, I'm glad you like the Ostketten moniker, it is kind of unique.