So which one is a better heavy tank, considered all pros and cons?

>>32030222

There is no such thing as "the best".

It all comes down to what parameters you consider the most valuable/what scenario you intend the tank to preform in

At least the IS worked. Kind of.

>>32030222
The King Tiger was less of a trainwreck from a technical standpoint. On paper, however, the IS-3 had superior capabilities.

So, in the real world, the Royal Tiger was going to give more consistent results that could be relied upon. The IS-3 would have the potential to be technically superior, provided the Soviet Union had its shit together at the time.

>>32030337
The IS-3 had shit optics but the gun was superior. In fact a direct hit by the 122mm would penetrate a tiger 2s front armour.

>>32030303
The KT also worked. Kind of.

Most of them just ran out of fuel

>>32030347
>the gun was superior

Any source?

>>32030222
>tiger 2
broken engine
>is3
broken chassis

>>32030368
Here ya go. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_gun_M1931/37_(A-19)
IS-3 If <2000m range would have a penetration of 110mm (sloped) whereas the tiger 2 had only 100mm of frontal armour.

>>32030437
The tiger ii had 150mm of sloped frontsl armour, and 180mm of frontal turret armour.

>>32030453
Which at a 40 degree angle is relative to ~233mms.

>>32030453
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II
No that's the turret armour. I'm talking about the hull armor.

>>32030471
Yeah, so the 122/mm couldn't penetrate at 2000mm, or even at closer ranges.

>>32030480
You're talking of the lower armor that's found way below. The upper frontal armor is 155mm thick, with an effective thickness of ~233mms at a 40 degree angle.

>>32030480
The upper frontal plate of the tiger ii was sloped 150mm.

>>32030368
more he for more spall

>>32030222
I'd say that the tiger ii is superior. The is 3 was shit erganomically, had low ammunition capacity and an awful rate of fire. It was only superior in terms of armour, which could probably still be penetrated by the long 88mm. The tiger iis 88mm gun was similar in terms of penetration, but had a much higher rate of fire, helped by it using single piece ammunition.

File: M26Belgium.jpg (1MB, 1600x1071px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1071px

What about this ""heavy"" tank?

>>32030407
this. i recall some imgur album that showed how shitty IS-3 welds are

>>32031035
At least post the t29 or the doom turtle

Jacques Littlefield had an IS-3 that had never been touched by his mechanics (it was sold as a non-runner). A film crew came out (well, sound crew) to get the sound of a running Chieftain and some other tanks. His mechanics were having a bitch of the time keeping the piece of shit British Leyland engine in the Chieftain running for more than a few minutes. While fucking around on a break that afternoon, they decided to poke around the old Soviet tank. They had it started within 15 minutes. Shit welds, uncomfortable as fuck, but they work and they keep on working (AK-47 style engineering).

On paper the IS-3 was better, but like most slav shit on paper isn't exactly how it really is.

>>32030222
IS-3. KT has only frontal armor, with flank shots it could be defeated by "standard" guns. Side armor of IS-3 could rival many heavies front. It makes IS-3 much more suited for defense breakthrough role of heavy tank.

>>32030222
Heavy tanks are breakthrough tanks.

I believe that IS-3 does the job better since it has better shells against bunkers and fortifications.

>>32030558
>which could probably still be penetrated by the long 88mm.
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/10/21/is-3-armor-tests/

>>32032466
No bunkers or fortifications can stand tank shells of 75mm and high caliber.

>>32032474
>Russian source

>>32032499
not at kilometres away

and if 75mm are already effective then there is no practical use for heavy tanks

>>32032582
>not at kilometres away
>he doesn't know how Maginot Line was BTFO by acht-acht

>and if 75mm are already effective then there is no practical use for heavy tanks
>what is armor protection against AT and tank guns
>what is anti-armor capabilties

>>32032787
>maginot line
>BTFO by 88s

haha, what game lets you do that?


>what is armor protection against AT and tank guns

You can have a good armor whilst not a so heavy tank gun.

>what is anti-armor capabilties

Role filled by Anti-Tank vehicles.

Heavy tanks are break through tanks, f/am.

There's a reason why IS-2 had 122 not 100. And KTs (and vehicles that share the same chassis) are a mistake, Germany by that time already had a hard time with resources and these 69~ ton vehicles are a logistical nightmare.

>>32032931
>haha, what game lets you do that?
You should read some history books m8.

>Role filled by Anti-Tank vehicles.
Heavy tank is such ultimate antitank vehicle. Best firepower. Best protection.

>Heavy tanks are break through tanks, f/am.
Yep and during breakthrough they have to deal with enemy tanks in defense positions and counter-strikes.

>There's a reason why IS-2 had 122 not 100.
Yes. This reason is that 100 mm gun did't have AP round in mass production when IS-2 was designed. So 100mm was not option, it didn't exist .