Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: IS-3M, Part 2 

Yes, they all fell of the train cart as soon as they left the tool factory. Oh, shift stashina's new car just arrived, let's drink to that!

Good one ! I was just shaking my head as I saw the turret opening for the gunner's periscope. "Wassilij, get blowpipe and cut hole somewhere in turret roof !"

I like how every hole seems like it was just hand cut with a torch in whatever shape the operator decided.

because that takes time, resulting in fewer tanks produced. Makes sense to cut down on unneeded operations when producing war machines for total war.

@@timberinternational2377 I was impressed with the poor and uneven casting pour in the turret.

Trusty german battery brand selling to all war parties 😛

Just got to this part of the video. Came here to make similar comment. Defer to your genius.

Weird Al Yankovic you aren't, but it was still funny as hell!!

They had these Bosch batteries in 1945? Amazing!

@@stefannaumann4010 Part of the late-war advanced German technology that was under development and confiscated by the Soviets, like the turboprop, StG 44 etc 😆

Powerlifting at least can be learned on the job

Vladmina was her name 😂😊

😂

Angry short blokes with massive chips on their shoulders? One of those is in charge of all of Russia _right now!_

@@Cancun771I'm looking around there, and I think the loader would definitely want to wear a shirt. As I recall, that's a dealbreaker for our man in Moscow, when he's doing his stunts.

5:20 It's OK the Russians figured out a solution for this. They would not install the turret basket so they could shorten the crew by turning the turret unannounced...

​@suspicionofdeceitcertainly less than an Irish giant 😂

If he keeps doing Soviet tanks he'll soon discover what spinal discs can do to you when you mistreat them bad enough ;)

One of this days he will get stuck in to some vehicle and will require the local firefighters to pry him out :)

​@suspicionofdeceitin Soviet Union you cannot be a tanker if you are higher than 175cm.

That only applies to non-western tanks or anything pre-Sherman.

​@@naamadossantossilva4736in modern tanks you're pretty much good up to 6ft, anything past that might be "cozy"

В далёкие школьные году удалось залезть в Т-54. И я сразу понял,что танкистом не буду НИКОГДА.

@@comradeurod9805 Depends a bit on the position. 6'4" feels almost like the perfect size to drive a Leo2, but you'd have an aweful time as a gunner.

The IS3 later that evening: "Back for more, Chieftain?"

I thought I was watching Jeremy Clarkson for a moment

You can take the man from Ireland. You cannot take Ireland from the man.

you must recall playing the WWII tanker is a young man's game by necessity

Military life will do that for you. I had the knees of a 40 year old when I was 25.

@@whitephosphorus15 The Vulcan comes into mind for one of the worst examples of him trying to get into something xD

Most IS-3s in Russia are in scrap metal quality. A decade or so ago perhaps there was a driveable model but they aren't preserved much aside from maybe Kubinka.

Junk is the term I would use too. It's the unrefined, dysfunctional product of a failed communist mess.

It's a beautiful mother bridge! Positive vibes!👍😜👍

@@leonardtreadway7082 you know me. Always with the negative waves 🤷‍♂️

Exactly the same thought

The thing is - compared to a Sherman - there were a lot of tanks that - mechanically - were junk. .

The rough, tough boiler suit uniform probably helps with less ripped clothes, too.

Soviet Union: Do you think we're Capitalist, Fascisti pigs? Cyka, who needs comfort?! US: We must maximise crew crew comfort so they can fight with optimal efficiency! Britain: What were we doing again?

This one

Easy. Americans have them. The brits have their stupid water heater because MA T! The Russian have 'shut up and do job comrade or die'.

@@CallanElliott In defence of the British, they did get the kettle in the tanks the fastest.

Is there a word for, or even a concept of, ergonomics in the Soviet vocabulary.

I believe that the T34-85 had a turret basket

​@@ahmedvawda1282IIRC initial 85 still had no basket. Soviet tank designs really like/prefer having full access to the hull space and a basket gets in the way of that in theory

Is it to much to ask for a small shield just at the foot area to give you somewhere to rest the things? :s

@@Marc83Aus I agree, Object 416 had it so it's not like the concept was alien. In fact I think T-43 also had some leg support/safety

Only to the point that it was required to disassemble it to get in in the first place. Fortunately, the steering wheel on universal carriers comes off easily.

There was that one time in both the Stuart and the Locust thro

@@ericzaiz8358 Comet (?) was pretty bad too

​@@racernatorde5318 British tank have questionable space tho.

@@jamesedwardladislazerrudo137815 cwt CMP truck: Amateurs.

What would actually happen? (I'm new to tanks)

​@@thebulgarianbudgiedepends you could Blow a track off or even send the turret sky high

300 pounds?? What a porker.

Well those are the two ways to do it unless you can develop some newer, more advanced kind of armor. If you need a given thickness of armor, if you make the interior larger that means making the whole tank larger, which requires more area of armor, which increases weight. The thicker the armor the more rapidly weight increases for every inch larger in dimensions.

I did, tankettes are designed for people to use. IS-3 was designed for armor and feature creep first, people second.

​@willyvereb to be fair people would drive this tak werent more than 5'6

@@陈凯文-n1h I don't think a particularly skinny loader at 5'6" was anywhere near comfortable doing his job for the tank. I also wonder if they conscripted dwarves to drive the tank.

@@willyvereb who said that those 5'6 were skinny And yes the shorter you are the better but to be a loader you needed to be fit If anything the skinny one are gonna be riflemen

This is because in the USSR he would never have joined a tank crew with his height.

If soviets could read they'd be very upset

HEY! their manufacture is bad ok! give the children some credit. XD tbh if you look at the engineering aspects of it though there's a LOT that is good and can be taken, and even more that has propaganda out the gastric ward's wazoo against almost all of it post ww2.

@@duke0salt717 we are not upset I assure you =)

Мы то можем прочитать. А ты?)

@@CatEatsDogs I don't read Third-Best Superpower.

Russia rules!

That would be a giveaway, all right.

it has two stroke Diesel thats interesting

@@Schlipperschlopper chieftain is two stroke, m113 is two stroke, m4a2 is two stroke. and two stroke diesels were very common place at one point for heavy industry stuff such as cranes, trucks, mobile generators, ect

​@@Driver-dg9lw the biggest manufacturer in the US of two strokes for on road trucks, Detroit Diesel, made them until something like 2006 when emissions laws finally killed them, though they hadn't been a "common" engine for OTR trucks for decades at that point

Most Soviet tanks didn't have a turret basket, even things like T-64 or T-72...they simply didn't need one. Its solved differently...supported by the fact that nobody from the crews complained about lack of a basket...(and no, it wasn't because they weren't allowed to complain....they were allowed but didn't)

In Soviet Union there is only Turret Monster in service of State.

'The angriest garage door'

It's not been the same for a long time :(

They might have the same engine? They both look imposing for sure.

@@Djamonja Yes, they do: the same diesel that debuted in T-34, with some mods. It proved to be a very long-lasting design, too: pretty much all Soviet tanks that went into production since WWII had been powered by that engine. It gradually evolved in reliability and power, but the core design remained the same. I think the only two exceptions to date have been T-90 (turbine powered) and T-14 Armata.

@@Alex_Shishkin_1962 Do you know if they added more cylinders? The IS-3, T-54, T-62, T-72, etc. must weigh much more than a T-34

@@Djamonja No, this has been a V-12 engine over its entire life cycle. There have been smaller derivatives, used in lighter vehicles, but the version used in tanks has always been a V-12. BTW, I was wrong: the engine debuted in a BT-7, not a T-34. Look up a Wikipedia article 'Kharkiv model V-2', it has a fairly comprehensive list of this engine's variants, and differences between them. As to it being underpowered for the larger, heavier tanks: yes, it was. Among other things, this was the reason why Soviet tanks, up to and including T-72, have been smaller, lighter, and more cramped (to the point that crewmen had to be selected from shorter, smaller-sized conscripts) than their Western counterparts. Engines have consistently been among the weakest aspects of Soviet equipment, both military and civilian. And it has not been limited to land vehicles: Soviet aircraft engines, both piston and later jet ones, have always, consistently, been worse than their contemporary Western counterparts. There are areas where one can compensate for lack of quality by increasing quantity. Engine design and manufacture is not one of them, as shown conclusively by the Soviet 70+ years of consistently trying, and failing, to catch up to the West in this area.

​@@Djamonja I wrote a detailed reply, but youtube, in its infinite wisdom, deleted it. So I am going to censor a few things. 🙂 Search for 'Kharkiv model V-2', and look for W***a article by the same name. You'll find a comprehensive list of this engine's modifications and of tanks it was used in. BTW, I was wrong, the engine debuted in a BT-7, not a T-34. The engine remained a V-12 throughout. And yes, it was underpowered for larger, heavier tanks. This was one of the reasons the tanks using it, up to and including T-72, were made lighter and smaller (and cramped to the point of impairing functionality) than their Western counterparts.

The rhino scene from Ace Ventura

Joke was also made about the MPF.

It was good like 6 years ago, almost every popular tier 8 heavy is now better than it

It was strong back then. Same most played along with Lowe. I loved the look of the is3.

Mine too, and I gave up on WoT before it become completely out-classed. Got tired of high-tier lights out-gunning mediums, and they killed off my scouts to make room for armoured cars.

​@@rupertboleyn3885 RNG killed the WoT.

@@jamesedwardladislazerrudo1378exactly why i quit years ago, fully aimed shots going no where near the target just killed the game for me

IS-3 Haynes manual. Who knew?

@@stevem7923 Haynes have a manual for everything, including the Death Star.

The built-in smoke screen generator seems to be working well...

You could probably hear them coming from a mile away. That thing *is* very loud. Come to think of it you might feel them coming from a mile away as a mild earthquake.

The exact parade has been(partially) filmed.

@@markfergerson214550 of them at night ? Probably more than 5 miles, depending on the terrain.

Easy. Just drive around at speed and wait for the IS-3 crew to lose legs as they traverse the turret to follow you. 😊

@@Kevin-mx1vi I hope you're joking

Chally 2 has electronic track tension from inside ....Tech heresy...lol

On the other hand, it won't get clogged with dirt.

@@RustedCroaker ...or ice !

I think its good idea...

BMP-1 and 2 also has it inside.

That was interesting.

You could say that. In one German tanker's diary, he describes one of his buddies getting hit in the turret by a 122. It didn't pierce, but ripped the turret off the tank.

Brutal design indeed, just as painful for the people using it as for the people getting shot by it 😂

​@@viandengalacticspaceyards5135no f'ing way a 60-pound shell at ~2400 feet per second has enough energy to move a multi-ton turret, and the turret is also embedded in the turret ring so you'd have to lift it straight up for multiple inches at the same time. Total bs

It doesn't look like it's made out of concrete. 😂

@@derrickstorm6976 Sorry, can't judge that. But it's what he wrote.

It's raining here in San Diego 😢

@@samholdsworth420Same here in Northeast!

Freezing in Iowa

Pretty sure it was about the T72 likewise being extremely cramped, and the legend of the autoloader having a tendency to tear arms off.

Don't know about the hands part, but they really were _tiny._ Back in the day, when mandatory service was still a thing, short guys were automatically sent to tank units. Though, I know a 6ft guy that I still have no ideea how he used to fit in a T-55.

But why? If you make your tanks for normal sized people and not for little Goblins you have a greater pool of people to put in said tanks

@@gimmedat5541 What's the point in having greater pool when you can design tank to fit shortest 25 percentile of population and still have millions of potential tankers? While benefits for making tank smaller and lighter are obvious.

germans did the same during WW2

​@@gimmedat5541Universal Conscription is one hell of a drug.

and the tall strong guys went to spetznaz and para troops. natuaral to select recruits

I mean, he's comparing it to a Sherman, an even earlier design.

It's a matter of priorities. If you want a 122mm gun, lots of armour, a reasonable speed with an engine that's not as powerful as you'd like, a lot overall height, and a weight that lets you use most bridges, ergonomics is going to suffer (along with a number of other things, like maximum ammo capacity). Making the interior bigger means less armour or a bigger overall size (which means thinner armour for a given weight). As it turned out, this was probably not the best set of priorities, but then again, western heavy tanks of late WWII and immediately thereafter weren't so great either.

I just hope it didn't smoke as much when it was new haha

At least one. One of the classic ww2 tanker helmets!

Considering how many people commented on the last video about how I missed out, I think my point was proven!

@@TheChieftainsHatch I will admit I am included in those people..