German Tanks in WW2 - the wrong conception

[Franconicus]

This thread may sound silly to you. German tanks were one of the best in WW2. Panther, Tiger, Tiger2 and many more outclassed their opponents. On the other side I think they were overdesigned. It took too many resources and menhours to build them. They were too susceptible against technical defects.

[IliaDN]

IMO it was just a part of the war competition.
They had to do it just because of the fact they could't breach several tanks armor with their previous armor.
Also they had to improve their tanks armor not to allow enemies breach it to easily.
Sorry if this is too messy.
P.S. E.G. Soviet IS 1 or 2 breached panther's ( if I am not mistaken) from quit a distance.

[econ21]

Yes, I think you have to look at cost-effectiveness. The Sherman, for example, is often looked down upon because tank for tank it was clearly inferior to the Panther. But technically, the Sherman was a pretty decent tank - for example, compared to the lauded T-34. And some writers have assessed it as more cost-effective than the Panther, if you factor in its lower cost of production.

As IllaDIN implies, I suspect our perception of WW2 tanks is rather influenced by the timing of development cycle in each country. Up until 1942, German tanks were not so superior in hardware. But no one noticed much, because they were used so effectively. What people focus on are the Tigers and Panthers rushed out to counter the T-34. In turn, by 1945 the Allied tanks were starting to benefit from the effort to counter the Tigers and Panthers. But it was pretty much all over by the time they (Pershing, Joseph Stalin series etc) came on in numbers.

[English assassin]

As I may have posted before, the unquestionable superiority of the Tiger over, say, the Sherman or T34 is put into some perspective when you realise that about 1400 Tigers were manufactured compared to more than 40,000 each of the Sherman and T34 (including an incredible 21231 Shermans in 1943, compare peak production of the Panther at 3777 in 1944). Even the British managed to make over 8000 of the not-very-good Valentine tank.

Another factor that can be overlooked is that to be any use you have to get a tank to a battlefield in working order. The T34, for instance, was tolerant of poor maintenance and bad conditions, important factors when it was being operated in a Russian spring thaw by troops and mechanics who may never have seen a motorised vehicle before. Both T34 and Sherman were also easier to transport than heavier tanks.

Final observation is that, possibly characteristic of a gangster regime, armoured vehicle design and production was factionalised. Guderian was most frustrated to find, when he was put in charge of overall design and production of all panzers, that this did NOT include SPGs (these being classified as artillery not as Panzers). Contrast this with the Russians efficient standardisation on two chassis only (T34 and KV, laterly used as the chassis for the JS heavy tanks) or the Americans equally efficient use of the M4.

Finally the tactical conception of the tank was different, in the American army at least. Tank-tank combat was primarily to be carried out with tank destroyers, tanks being used to make advances against enemy positions being held with infantry, AT guns and artillery. So, although this concept too was flawed, it would be a fairer comparison to compare an M10 or M36 with the Panther rather than the (clearly profoundly outclassed) Sherman.

[Kraxis]

I wouldn't say that the Germans did wrong in beginning to dabble with heavier tanks. After all the Tiger was a very old project that got up to speed due to the T-34, and the Panther was a direct counter, simply because the Germans had no counter to the T-34.
True the Pz IV was equipped with the long barreled 75mm, and it could thus do something about it, but that kind of tank wasn't available when the either project when ahead.
Also, the Germans knew they culdn't hope to outproduce the Russians when they were geared for war. Thus a slightly inferior tank was not the answer to countering hordes of enemy tanks.

One could argue that Hitler perhaps jumped the projects too much, and forced changes on both Tiger and Panther production. Initially the Panther was not meant to have been heavier than 30 tons (the same with the Tiger), and the 'T-34' version of the Panther (looks uncannily like a T-34) was in fact much lighter than the resulting Panther, but it was felt it was too obvious it was copied from the Russians.

[yesdachi]

I recently saw the show “Top Ten Tanks” on the military channel (I love TV ). The show ranked the Tiger #3 and noted that the tanks biggest weakness was that it was too complex to produce rapidly and in mass. It also noted that the Tiger was the first tank to have 2 way radios in each one. It would have been pretty tough to organize a good blitzkrieg without them.

There was a small part in the Tiger segment were they talk about the Tigers armor and actually show a Tiger that took IIRC 270+ hits from Shermans and wasn’t destroyed. They were definitely over-designed but what great crew survivability (at least against the shermans ).

Link to #3 of the top 10
http://military.discovery.com/conver...deshow_08.html

[Kraxis]

Odd ranking system... Fear factor included, which is a very strange thing as all tanks are very scary if haven't got the weapons to stop them.
Also, certain tanks are ranked lower because they weren't poduced in large numbers (Merkerva for instance), but that doesn't take into account that those that scored high on that were produced in war, meaning they had a good reason to use more assemblylines for tanks. And it doesn't take into account that the country might not want to build that many tanks, or can't due to limited industry.

While I agree with most of the list I find their way of handling it flawed.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

German Armored Superiority wasn't, for the most part, a product of their tanks.

1939-1942, their real success was in using those tanks in the aggressive and non-stop manner that maximizes the "shock" value of armor.

The Pz-Is and IIs of the Polish campaign were better than Polish tankettes, but not by much. About 25% of German armor were the Czech 35s and 38s, a very limited light tank (albeit a good one in its class).

The Pz-IIs and IIIs of the French campaign were, at best, equal to the French armor, and were inferior to the Char-1. British armor was inferior, except for the Matilda, which was almost invulnerable to German armor.

Soviet armor in '41 was often inferior to the Germans, aside from a handful of T-34a's, but they had something approaching 20-1 numbers.

In all 3 campaigns, the Germans tore their opponents apart because they used their armor en masse and for penetration -- the Blitzkrieg.

From 1942 on, Germany produced good tanks, and sometimes excellent tanks, but the number one factor in their success was the better artillery that they carried. The Long 50, Long 75, Extra Long 75, 88, and 88 Long weapons mounted by virtually every mark of German tank from mid-1942 on easily outclassed almost every tank or tank destroyer gun they faced until late 1944 or 1945, and they weren't really surpassed as tank weapons until the late 1950's.

German tanks were often labor intensive, and the early models suffered from teething problems which, during the press of war, were not ironed out before deploying them. German tank guns, however, whether mounted on an STG or a Pz-Vg, almost always grossly outshot their opponents and allowed the Germans to face ridiculous odds with some hope of success.

Allied tanks were often mechanically more reliable (the M4 and T-34 chasses famously so) and they were much cheaper to produce, but they had to be -- cause they got killed in much worse ratios as well. The First tank to have both a main gun and frontal armor that definitively outclassed the Pzkw-vG was the M-48. The penetration factor (key to a tank kill) of that extra long 75mm weapon was staggering. The Russian 100L and 122L and German 88L's were no better despite their better throw-weight.

Seamus

[Kraxis]

I would say that the IS-2 was better than the Panther in a one-shot situation. Better frontal armour, smaller size (though not much) and a much heavier gun (though not much better for the AP part). And that tank was definately on the scene prior to the M-48.

Also the 88mmL71 was definately superior to the 75mmL70 of the Panther. The L51 of the Tiger I was not much better, and in some cases it was slightly less effective than the 75mm of the Panther.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would say that the IS-2 was better than the Panther in a one-shot situation. Better frontal armour, smaller size (though not much) and a much heavier gun (though not much better for the AP part). And that tank was definately on the scene prior to the M-48.

Also the 88mmL71 was definately superior to the 75mmL70 of the Panther. The L51 of the Tiger I was not much better, and in some cases it was slightly less effective than the 75mm of the Panther.

Okay. I've reviewed some of my materials on this and I must concur with you about the 88L71. Though comparable at point blank ranges, the 75L70 simply didn't have the penetration of the 88 at medium and long range.

However, I would actually favor the Vg in a one-on-one with the IS-2, the Panther's frontal armor was thicker than the shell fired by the IS-2 and hence not prone to the added penetration effect. Moreover, the frontal armor of the Panther was much more sharply sloped than that of the IS-2, giving it an equivalent frontal thickness and a greater capacity to "shrug off" imperfectly placed hits. While the IS-2 was heavily armored, that armor was of inferior quality metalurgically and was more vulnerable to pentration at range than the Panther. While the match is a tight one, I would put the edge the other way.

The IS-2 and 3, as you know, did not remain in Front line service for very long. Had they borne another name, I supsect the Soviets might have switched directions even earlier.

Seamus

[Kralizec]

I don't even think the IS-3 saw actual service in the WWII, to many mechanical problems. Though otherwise Russian tanks were the least prone to mechanical failure.

The Panther btw is not a heavy tank, the Germans themselves classified them as medium tanks and deployed them as such. This tank gets my vote for best WWII tank. It could kill a T34-85 at a range of 2 kilometres, had descent mobility and excellent armour.
T34-85 could destroy a Panther when close enough, but all things considered I think it's outclassed by the Panther. The only other two tanks I can remember that have a fighting chance are the M26 Pershing and the IS-2, wich both fall into the heavy tank catagory.

Costwise though, the Panzer IV w75 is better.

[PanzerJaeger]

It may have already been mentioned, but the emphasis on superiority over production was a concious decision.

Speer and his people knew fairly early on that they could not out produce the allies.

However, the Germans did have a clear superiority in their tank crews.

So they could make a whole lot of relatively poor tanks, even though they still couldnt out produce the allies, and throw away those crews.

Or they could do what they did and focus on a lesser number of highly superior tanks that could be expected to combat several hundred allied tanks and succeed.

When German diplomacy failed, it was a lose - lose situation. However, if I was in Hitler's shoes i would have gone for quality over quantity as well. German crews were far more valuable than their tanks.

[Reverend Joe]

One of the big mistakes of the German industry was to use slave labor to propuce their tanks, so that the able-bodied men could fight at the front- even though this dramatically slowed down their production.

In my opinion, the Germans should have taken a lesson from the Russians and used Penal brigades- this would have countered the Russian human waves to a point, as well as speeding up tank production, and production in general.

[Eaglefirst]

Don't forget that there is more to tanks than how well they are 1 on 1. Would you rather have one Tiger or 10 or so T-34's? Also remember what good is a tank if when it brakes you can't fix it easily? But it seems the germans had no choice because out-producing the russians would be impossible. Still it seems the Tiger gets alot of credit. I'm no tank expert but what good is my tank if it sucks up gas at an amazing clip,is extremely difficult to fix, can't traverse harsh terrain. Seems like it has a bigger ego than use. I'm prolly asking to get ripped by some German fellow who knows what hes talking about eh...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hey, the Tiger was a Porsche, so of course its admirers are fanatics!

Seriously, to address your question, at 10-1 odds, the Tiger was probably toast if up against the T-34/85. Against the T-34-76c, it would all depend upon terrain. Those puppies had to get CLOSE to kill a Tiger. Remember, however, that Tigers were, whenever possible, deployed with Pzkw-IIIs and a batch of infantry as support forces -- precisely to stop the swarming problem you rightly emphasize.

Oh, and by the way, 10-1 in Shermans and/Cromwells all too often ended up 0-10 for the allies.

Seamus

[Kagemusha]

The Jagdtiger with its 128mm cannon was a representative of modern tank,google it.

[Papewaio]

How many planes did it take to finish a Tiger?

[PanzerJaeger]

Don't forget that there is more to tanks than how well they are 1 on 1. Would you rather have one Tiger or 10 or so T-34's?

One Tiger, by a long shot.

Also remember what good is a tank if when it brakes you can't fix it easily?

Thats a bit overblown. All tanks are difficult to fix when they are first introduced. German tanks get a very bad rap because they were constantly being introduced during the war! The russians had a difficult time repairing the T-34 when it was first indroduced too - and it had reliability problems. Mechanincs need to get to know new machinery no matter how simple it is.

I'm no tank expert but what good is my tank if it sucks up gas at an amazing clip,is extremely difficult to fix, can't traverse harsh terrain. Seems like it has a bigger ego than use.

Youre right, but I think your overblowing it a bit. Just like what has happened to the Panther's reputation.

I'm prolly asking to get ripped by some German fellow who knows what hes talking about eh...

You'd have to find a german fellow who knows what hes talking about lol.

Seriously, to address your question, at 10-1 odds, the Tiger was probably toast if up against the T-34/85. Against the T-34-76c, it would all depend upon terrain. Those puppies had to get CLOSE to kill a Tiger. Remember, however, that Tigers were, whenever possible, deployed with Pzkw-IIIs and a batch of infantry as support forces -- precisely to stop the swarming problem you rightly emphasize.

Also factor in the crew experience. I would give that Tiger damned good odds against those '85s. Not because the Tiger was so much better than the '85, but because the Tiger crew was.



Theres a common myth that the German kill ratio vs Russian tanks was due to German armor superiority. As someone else mentioned, the number of "big cats" built was amazingly small. Germans did most of their killing in sub-par or simpy par tanks because they were damned good, not their equipment.

[Colovion]

The Germans are ridiculous at how amazing they are at keeping with their cultural maxim of being excellent at producing quality goods. Their products are usually the kind manifested in the supercars of today: expensive, usually complicated - but of scrupulous quality.

[Franconicus]

I'd like to know more about the ratio performance / cost. I know that during the Kursk battle the soviet lost five times as many tanks as the Germans. However, both sides lost a lot due to air attacks. The Tiger's had a loss/kill ratio of 18.
Has anybody figures about the capacities needed to built those tanks? I mean steel, manpower, money etc.?

http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_3.html
http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/loza/loza1.html

[econ21]

I confess most of my knowledge of tanks comes from wargames, but in those, Tigers are typically far from being all conquering uber-tanks. For example, the idea of 10 T-34s being worth one Tiger would not be true in most cases. I recall an old Squad Leader scenario - paw of the Tiger - or some such, which illustrated such a scenario (based on a historical incident). But the Tigers were in a very favourable position - on a hill, with excellent line of sight and "bore sighting" (i.e. having prepared some kill zones) plus some support. In less ideal set-ups, the 10 T-34s would generally win.

PJ might have a point however, that sometimes the Germans could use 10 Tigers more effectively than the Allies could use 100 T-34s or Shermans.

[English assassin]

Without getting drawn into the "how many T 34's would it take to kill a Tiger" debate (I don't have any data, although like SA I would say from wargaming that Tigers are not the uber-tanks they are sometimes presented as), IMHO we are overlooking the fact that a lot, possibly a majority, of tank losses come from something other than being knocked out by an AP shell from an enemy tank. Artillery will kill a heavy tank (very very nearly) as easily as a medium tank. Driver error can get you stuck in a ditch or rolled just as easily (possibly easier) in a heavy tank as a medium tank. A minefield will immobilise a heavy tank as readily as a medium tank. Air attack has already been mentioned, again, a heavy tank is not that much harder to kill from the air as a medium tank. Engines fail, propshafts break. And so on. So as a (armchair) general, I would take the 10 T34's every time. it spreads the risk of these attritional losses

We are also getting too hung up on tank v tank battles. A lot of the tank's tasks were much more varied; assaulting infantry behind an AT screen, spreading out from a brealthrough, and so on. If you had to assault an AT screen, would you want 10 (fast) targets, 10 76.2mm guns chucking out HE shells and 20MGs, or one slower target, one 88 mm gun and 2 MGs? Seems a no brainer to me. OK, the Tiger or Panther is considerably harder to kill, but not THAT hard. Tigers could be taken out even by the British 6 Pdr (57mm) AT gun, if the gunners kept their nerve and held fire until the Tiger was under 500 yds or so.

Look at it this way. Suppose you have 5 AT guns, and a field and rate of fire that means each gun can fire 10 shots before an assaulting tank it upon it. That's 50 shots to take out the attackers. With ten tanks, each one has to either be missed by or survive only five shots. With one tank, 50 shots. And even an invulnerable tank has tracks, suspension, etc.

IMHO as PJ says if it wasn't for the quality of the German tank crews the quality vs quantity decision the Germans took would have been shown to be mistaken much earlier.

[Franconicus]

There were different scenarios for tanks:
1. Break through the defense
From Guderians original concept this was not the job of the tanks but of the infantry. However, the longer the war took the more tanks and Sturmgeschütze were involved. The Brits had a different point of view and so they had the class of Infantry tanks.
2. Fight enemy tank concentration
3. Make trouble behind the lines
The most important one in the Blitzkrieg conception. Move fast, destroy all supply, command and artillery units behind the enemy lines.

To solve all these tasks a good mix seems to be the optimum. Shermans and T34 were good enough to support the infantry attack. German Sturmgeschütze too. Fighting enemy tanks a some heavy tanks can be helpful. But German Jagdpanzer and mobile Antitank guns would be also sufficient. To rumble behind the lines the T34 was also very good. It was fast and strong enough to break some resistance. And with its big numbers he was able to appear art many different places. One problem with German superheavies was that they consumed a lot of fuel with a relatively small tank. So their range was limited.

[Kraxis]

However, I would actually favor the Vg in a one-on-one with the IS-2, the Panther's frontal armor was thicker than the shell fired by the IS-2 and hence not prone to the added penetration effect. Moreover, the frontal armor of the Panther was much more sharply sloped than that of the IS-2, giving it an equivalent frontal thickness and a greater capacity to "shrug off" imperfectly placed hits. While the IS-2 was heavily armored, that armor was of inferior quality metalurgically and was more vulnerable to pentration at range than the Panther. While the match is a tight one, I would put the edge the other way.

Well, about the metallurgy you are only half right. Beginning in the summer of 44 the German quality of steel was beginning to decline, until about the winter when it rapidly declined until the end. The tanks were still built good enough, but the quality of the materials declined sharply. In fact an internal Russian report of testing against a captured King Tiger showed that its heavy armour was strong but it would crack after a few shots, and then the armour would simply break apart after a few more. It was brittle, the mark of rushed production.
If anything the Russian steel was too soft, but in general it was never brittle. And you can be sure that the IS-2 got the better quality steel (it was still a propaganda weapon).
The only real advantage the Panther had over the IS-2 was optics. The Russian optics were not good, while the German optics were the best to be found (which is part of the German supremacy in tank vs tank battles, they simply hit more).

And it is completely fair to compare the two tanks. Just because the Germans termed the Panther a medium tank doesn't make it such. It was heavy by all standards, even German. I find it applaudable that it was made so well that it could act like a medium tank, but it simply wasn't.
An SUV like the Porche Cayenne can act like a sports car, but is it a sportscar?

I don't get your point about the Panther having heavier armour than the shell fired by the IS-2... In any case that is not right, the IS-2 had a 122mm gun, and the Panther had 90-110mm armour in front. Sloped on the hull. But the IS-2 had armour of up to 130mm in front while the Panther had a 75mm gun. But as we know muzzlevelocity was/is important so I still don't get the point.

And just to point out, the IS-2 was relatively good at cross country because of its realatively low weight. At the same time the Panther was actually superior to the Sherman in cross country, a thing almost always overlooked or directly misinformed about. Sherman tank crews complained that the Panther would cross areas they could not (the Sherman was faster though). No wonder they felt like livestock for the slaughter (outmaneuvered, outgunned, outarmoured).

[English assassin]

Artillery was not used for targetting tanks in the middle of an engagement, artillery was used to soften up the enemy before an assault.

We need Redleg here. Certainly in one battle I have read about in detail (el Alamein) one of the main tasks of British divisional artillery was to shell the forming up areas used by German tanks preparing counter attacks. To the extent that, when successful which they often were, the counter attack could not even be launched.

Firing on tanks heading at speed over open ground, no.

[Kralizec]

I remember a documentary about Montgomery, specificly a part about El Alamein. The way they deployed artillery there was most unusual, though effective in this case. I remember it because I heard a soldier saying that it was the first time that he ever saw artillery being deployed like this, and was astonished that Montgomery wasn't there to witness it himself. He went to bed early and let his commanders handle it

The crew of a tank is indeed as important then the tank itself. Early on the kill ratio of German vs Russian tanks was enormously in favour of the Germans, but later while Germany's more experienced troops got thinned out the rates dropped to almost 1 on 1.
http://pedg.org/panzer/public/website/prod.htm#loses
In the same documentary I mentioned above, it mentioned how British soldiers in north Africa were first outraged that German fighter pilots would kill tank crews as they left their destroyed tanks, later to learn that it was only logical. Tanks could be reproduced easily enough, it took 18 years to grow another batch of soldiers.

About the IS-2, I heard that if the armour got penetrated by a shell the armour would splinter into pieces, often killing the crew. Can anyone confirm this?

[Franconicus]

In the same documentary I mentioned above, it mentioned how British soldiers in north Africa were first outraged that German fighter pilots would kill tank crews as they left their destroyed tanks, later to learn that it was only logical. Tanks could be reproduced easily enough, it took 18 years to grow another batch of soldiers.

Poor British. I do not know about tank crews. However a crew member that left the tank is still able to fight.

I read that during the Battle of England Göring asked his squadron leaders if they would attack enemy pilots that left their planes. He explained too that the pilot is much more dangerous and irreplacable than the plane. They refused and Göring did not insist.

I also read that he Allied fighter were ordered to shoot at German pilots that had to leave the Me 262. They were all experts and killing them was very important.

[DemonArchangel]

I'm not exactly an expert at artillery, but I do know that it is possible to target a tank during the middle of a battle, especially if they are advancing as a dense armored column (fairly easy to hit, fairly linear movement). HE-FRAG shells probably won't do anything to tanks unless they hit directly though, so artillery wouldn't be that effective at destroying the tanks, although fragments would probably force the tanks to button up and sharply limit their movement and targeting abilities as well as take out the optics, radio masts, top mounted machine guns etc.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, about the metallurgy you are only half right. Beginning in the summer of 44 the German quality of steel was beginning to decline, until about the winter when it rapidly declined until the end. The tanks were still built good enough, but the quality of the materials declined sharply. In fact an internal Russian report of testing against a captured King Tiger showed that its heavy armour was strong but it would crack after a few shots, and then the armour would simply break apart after a few more. It was brittle, the mark of rushed production.
If anything the Russian steel was too soft, but in general it was never brittle. And you can be sure that the IS-2 got the better quality steel (it was still a propaganda weapon).

Good point about declining quality. Who knows how well the Germans might have done with a sifficient supply of Tungsten to keep manufacturing APCR rounds. Those were key to their tank-on-tank success in '41 and '42, but they were short on a lot of critical metallurgy components as the war progressed. As to the IS-2, I had read in one source that they were brittle.

The only real advantage the Panther had over the IS-2 was optics. The Russian optics were not good, while the German optics were the best to be found (which is part of the German supremacy in tank vs tank battles, they simply hit more).

Spot on with this comment. Made the Germans a lot more effective in Naval gunnery than they had a right to be given the quality of their Naval artillery. Any gun that hits works better than a mega-gun that won't.

And it is completely fair to compare the two tanks. Just because the Germans termed the Panther a medium tank doesn't make it such. It was heavy by all standards, even German. I find it applaudable that it was made so well that it could act like a medium tank, but it simply wasn't.
An SUV like the Porche Cayenne can act like a sports car, but is it a sportscar?

The Germans attempted to deploy the Panther as a medium, but numbers and constant combat attrition rarely allowed a German Panzer division to have a full battalion of anything during '44 and later. I'd say you're comparison is valid, because any battle tank had a good chance of facing an opposing battle tank. Only recon units might not have been a fair comparison.

I don't get your point about the Panther having heavier armour than the shell fired by the IS-2... In any case that is not right, the IS-2 had a 122mm gun, and the Panther had 90-110mm armour in front. Sloped on the hull. But the IS-2 had armour of up to 130mm in front while the Panther had a 75mm gun. But as we know muzzlevelocity was/is important so I still don't get the point.

WWII pentration shots worked most effectively when the variables create a score of between 260 and 300 on the Brinell Hardness Index (BHN). This score is a product of ammo point hardness, armor angle, armor thickness, armor quality [soft is bad, but so is brittle], effective muzzle velocity, weight and diameter of shell. In general, a shell with a diameter greater than the plate it was facing had an advantage in penetration. The excellent angling of the Panther's armor gave it a greater degree of safety here than the thickness of the plate itself would indicate. This was, of course, less true for the turret than the hull.

And just to point out, the IS-2 was relatively good at cross country because of its realatively low weight. At the same time the Panther was actually superior to the Sherman in cross country, a thing almost always overlooked or directly misinformed about. Sherman tank crews complained that the Panther would cross areas they could not (the Sherman was faster though). No wonder they felt like livestock for the slaughter (outmaneuvered, outgunned, outarmoured).

Russia's emphasis on wide tread was a huge advantage off road. The Germans went to school on that for the Panther, and so did the rest of the world later. Of course, given Russia's road system at the time, designing a tank for maximum road speed would have been a bit dim.

Seamus

[Kraxis]

We need Redleg here. Certainly in one battle I have read about in detail (el Alamein) one of the main tasks of British divisional artillery was to shell the forming up areas used by German tanks preparing counter attacks. To the extent that, when successful which they often were, the counter attack could not even be launched.

Firing on tanks heading at speed over open ground, no.

(not going to you personally here EA)
Take note that the artillery was aimed at the stagingarea for the German tanks. That was a very effective usage of artillery against tanks, and eth Germans used it as well in Russia (late in the war the few shells of the artillery was often used for this rater than bombard advancing infantry). So why was this effective? Obviously the shells weren't too effective against the armour.
Well, in the stagingarea the tanks would be tended to by the mechanics, the crews would be out and help or in the process of loading up fuel and ammo. Lots of trucks or other softer vehicles vital to the tanks would be around. So the artillery would not affect the tanks themselves beyond a few damaged tanks and some others immobilized. But the crews, their mechanics and all the tending vehicles would be hit hard. I think it is obvious why the tanks wouldn't be able to attack right away.

About the IS-2... Hmmm... Interesting that it would be brittle. I expected it to be a continuation of the T-34 in terms of steel. And you can see the pictures of those knocked out have no breaking lines around the penetrations (a captured Jagdpanther from Normandy shows these very clearly in Bovington I think). So I expected it to be perfected with the IS-2, but perhaps the Russians went too far with the hardness, trying to overcome the softness.
So I guess the armour of either side would be fairly equal at the time when they would be expected to meet. I do not think the Panther had a marked advantage in sloping armour.

If one really has to argue about them, I would say the IS-2 has a small advantage in that it's hull is significantly lower and that it is more evenly built (upper glacis the same sice as the lower). But it is very limited how much of a difference there can be.