I am being pissy here but, any veteran tank commander would drop head down into their Cupola before their main gun would fire for protection from blast effect. And as so many others have mentioned here and elsewhere, engagements are much too close, Tigers would stand-off at great distances whenever possible. I realize this makes for interesting viewing but according to historical combat reports, close encounters such as these were extremely rare........
@@RickGamer123 Hi Rick, thank you for your reply, I fully understand the problems you are faced with in creating these videos and the limitations of the medium. Regardless, I enjoy and respect what you are doing and look forward to each new upload, Panzer vor!!!!!!!!.......
At the distance of firing, the first shot of 88 mm german was able to penetrate frontal armor of IS-3 and the turret with no dub. IS-3 has the oportunity to destroy King Tigers if the shoot first and at least less than at 750m.
Is 3 had armor greater than tiger 2 and could, with he rounds, lift the turret from king tiger or kill crew from inside even if round did not penetrate ( from shrapnel ) 122 d 25t gun was overkill
@Vuk3 Sorry to say, but you're completely wrong about everything you just said. The king tiger by far had much better armor than the is3 for a number of reasons. One, the king tiger had 152mm of frontaly sloped armor compared to the is3 only having 110mm frontaly sloped armor. Not to mention that the is3 armor was extremely brittle and would crack easily, spalling was a big problem on most soviet tanks, meaning even if a round didn't penatrate the tank. Shrapnel from the armor spalling would kill the crew anyway. 122mm gun on the is3 wasn't "overkill" The 122 gun was extremely inaccurate, especially at long ranges. The HE shell of the 122 was relatively good for the most part, the AP shell wasn't. Test conducted by the Germans and even Americans found that the 122 AP was absolutely horrible a penetration. And could only penatrate about 180 to 185mm or armor. Compared to the king tigers long 8.8cm gun, which could on average, penatrate up to 238mm of armor. Not to mention how problematic the us3 was, it was pledged with problems and was even more problematic the the king tiger.
@@Izyaslavdabes 110mm frontal plates were giving IS3 the same(if not better) level of protection as 150mm(not 152) of the Tiger II thanks to the greater angles. Soviet late war armor had better quality than German late war armor.
Due to the load on the welding surface, it easily cracked due to the impact, so it could not participate in the actual battle. The impact of the shell cracked the turret like porcelain. So Stalin had no chance of winning in actual combat.
Plagued by defects, brittle armour, this is exactly why Tiger II sucked as a tank. Even the IS-2 tanks owned them when encountered. IS-3 is pure overkill to Tiger II, given its superior armour and firepower. Well done for the video @Rick Gamer. Tiger II's as in real life, likewise in this recreation, never stood a chance, despite the Panzer apologists saying otherwise.
The IS series had close to 0 perceptive capabilities, as is soviet tradition. soviet armour was also over-hardened and spot-welded, which meant it spalled and cracked whenever anything bigger than 75mm touched it. A 122mm gun sounded cool, but in reality it created huge barrel wear and limited the ammunition that could be carried. In the 1940s, that also meant it was cumbersome and tiring to load and train onto the target In reality, it was terrible, and if it wasn't, it wouldn't have been replaced as the workhorse within 10 years. In contrast, the Sherman had a long and illustrious career in Europe, the Pacific and Israel, despite being an earlier design, and there are clear reasons for that
German tanks always stopped to fire. The 122mm round didn't have to penetrate the armour, it had such a large high explosive effect. However, it had to be loaded in separate parts, so it had a slower rate of fire. As others have said, you were unlikely to get such a short ranged gun fight but as it is late war perhaps it's due to lack of training. There were instances of short ranged fights happening due to fog or terranin, so they couldn't see each other at first. This looks unrealistic, the Russian tanks should be advancing and the German tanks waiting in a good firing position, since the Germans would be defending unless its Budapest. The IS3 didn't appear until just after the war but was built during the war.
Да, в реальном бою всё было бы именно так. Только гораздо короче. У ИС-3 пушка калибром 130 мм. С такого расстояния, у Королевских Тигров с одного либо максимум с двух попаданий, попросту бы посрывало башни.
Is3 has was made during ww2, the first who go out of factory was in May 1945 so this was in ww2. The Tiger 2 are a tank from 1944. So they are both ww2 tank
KT no chance. Even the side armor of the IS-3 is invulnerable to the Pak 43. This was written in the terms of reference when designing the tank. Its frontal armor is not penetrated by the early 105 mm L7 gun. D25T did not pierce the forehead of the hull, but the forehead of the Porsche turret pierced like a nutshell. Learn the materiel, dreamers.
That was disappointing. Before Barbarossa, during the temporary peace, Germany sent it’s machine tool for sloped armor to Russia as part of the agreement. Bad idea.
En mi opinion hubiera sido una batalla de titanes, los Alemanes en la vida real ganaban en opticas pero los Sovieticos en blindaje, potencia de fuego y masa. El IS-3 se mostro practicamente invulnerable contra proyectiles de 105mm APCR, por lo que un 88mm problemente ni le hubiera hecho cosquillas, pero en la segunda guerra mundial algunos Tiger 2 salian horriblemente feos debido al daño en la infraestructura Alemana en la segunda mitad del conflicto, si los Tiger 2 se hubieran hecho con la industria de 1941 la historia seria diferente, ya que hay pruebas fotograficas de blindajes de Tiger 2 que se desquebrajaban al disparo de un 122mm HE, eso es otro tema, el HE de los Sovieticos era por mucho mas poderoso que el Aleman, por lo que un solo disparo explosivo bastaria para aniquilar a varios tripulantes por la onda de choque.
In range of 500m tiger could posibly destroy is 3. Pak 88 L/71 have enough fire power to punch trough is3 110 mm sloped armor. In other side 122mm D 25T mounted on is3 will have a problem to penetrate 150mm sloped armor of tiger 2, unless it loaded with apcr or heat round.
Nope an angled IS-3 will have around 200mm LOS armor on its frontal plate, which is already equal if not greater than the penetration of the 8.8cm KwK 43 at point blank. And yes the Tiger II's hull is immune to the 122mm D-25T, but the turret front and sides are vulnerable at close range
Незгоден з результатом! У ІС з топлевні баки ззовні ,по бокам, вони повинні були здитонувати ,як і масляні баки теж. ІС3 дуже гидкий танк і Центуріони їх товкли і Шермани , у Арабо-Ізраїльській війні, а Тигр 2Б негірше Центуріона!
В бою в реальности они конечно не встречались, но если по правде 88 пушка тигра уже не брала бы в лоб ИС3 с 500 метров. Тогда как одного попадания в лоб 122 болванки уничтожала Тигр с первого раза. ИС 2 имели уже это орудие и с километра уничтожали все танки немцев с одного выстрела
First off. Neither of these tanks went face to face. IS3 wasn't in full scale production. IS2 was the one that went face to face with some king tigers and panthers. IS3 was unreliable. Broke down alot.
the fact is IS-3 was destroyed by M48 patton of 90mm (Israel version) in middle eastern war and even by molotov cocktail in hungarian revolt. too slow rate of fire, poor accuracy of long distance firing, poor engine performance, poor dwelling ability caused by hemispherical turret, no faster than that tiger2 at a lighter weight......
My dude, the M48 is a cold war era tank that can fire HEAT-FS ammo which will defeat any WW2 tank frontally. No WW2 tank is immune to Molotov Cocktails either, if it gets in your engine or crew compartment you're very screwed. The earliest IS-3s did have a long list of problems that massively outweighed their advantages, but at least the Soviets made that sacrifice so they can build them as fast as possible. Panthers and Tiger IIs produced after 1944 were both poorly manufactured and built in smaller numbers.
hi@@arandomfinnin1941 are you a british or american or russian?? glad to meet you. i am south korean majored in mechanical engineering. it looks like you are a russian holic or seem to have a fantasy in russian weapons.. to some degree i agree with you. some german tanks in a late ww2 war time had many mechanical problems and lacked the valuable resources such as manganese to make their armor strong enough. unfortunately soviet era tanks in ww2 were made only for short term use in a battlefield. IS 3 WAS THE SAME. they focused on mass production not for high performance or continuous use along with good maintenance. if any problems in a vehicle, russians used to abandon their weapons. is3 and tiger2 had never met each other in war time, i think in a long range firing, tiger 2 was superior but as for short range, is3 was superior. you mentioned the 90mm heat amo, T30E16( tungsten penetrator ) HVAP of M26 PERSHING TANK 90mm could spear the armor about 250mm at 1000m. M48 could also pen the armor egyptian IS3 frontly with more developed AP by israel at that time not even using HEAT amo. to tell you more i also studied the ergonmic design in a college. my professor joined the project of korean k1 tank development in 1988. he said the design of K1 tank was fully influenced by the outer design like very low profiled rounded turrets of typical russian tanks. this can bring a less chance to be hit and noticed by enemy. however it should bring a more chance to make crews to be fatigued in a small compartment easily and to confine the number of armors regardless of other disadvantages. did you hear the news about the duel between M2 bradley and T90M in ukrainian war? T90M was destroyed by the 25mm cannon gun of M2.........russian weapons are mostly exaggerated which are proved in this russo ukrainian war. i am not a germanholic. but i just want to tell you russian weaspons are not so reliable. specially the above combat situation is not conventional thing. the range is too short between tanks.
@@user-ekyyetyeydu-bvmbmvb-ff4I'm not a Russian holic or propagandist as you think. In fact I am the exact opposite. I will gladly talk shit about anything Soviet/Russian, especially after Russia revealed to the world on more than one occasion how bad its equipment actually is compared to how they look on paper. I totally agree with you that Soviet armour was more often than not just as unreliable as German armour. My point here is that the Soviets could mass produce thousands of these poorly built, unreliable tanks in a relatively short period of time, while German tanks were both unreliable AND incredibly hard to produce. For comparison, the Soviets built around 900 IS-3s in 1944 alone, more than twice the number of Tiger IIs built during the entire war. You don't have to tell me how bad the crew ergonomics of Soviet tanks are, because I've been inside a few (T-34/85, T-55, T-72) and had seen it beforehand. Crew comfort and survivability are words you will not find in the dictionaries of Soviet/Russian tank designers, and they are definitely not factors that will be considered for a design to be approved. That is the Soviet doctrine of designing AFVs, it's still in place today, and it's the reason why both their tanks and tank crews have absurd mortality rates. The M48 vs IS-3 scenario took place during the Six Day War in 1967, a good 20 years after production of the IS-3 ended. A large portion of the IS-3Ms Egypt had were all wartime productions with terrible armour quality, while the Israelis were using newer M48A3s, which were superior in every aspect except for armour. The IS-3 was also not the type of tank suited for fighting in the desert, and this combined with inexperienced crews led to them being used in close quarters, where the M48 would be superior, and getting destroyed. As for the T-90M vs M2 Bradley incident, the T-90M technically was not destroyed by the Bradley, it was knocked out. A round from the Bradley damaged the turret controls and caused the turret to spin uncontrollably. This basically took away the T-90M's combat capability and its crew abandoned the tank, which was finished off by a drone later that day. It's quite similar to how Tiger 131 was knocked out by a round from a Churchill's 6 pounder gun, which also impacted the turret ring. No matter how you look at it, the T-90Ms armour is nearly invulnerable to the Bradley's 25mm cannon, unless if it was firing the M919 APFSDS-T at point blank. I always find it funny how Russia is rejoicing over the loss of 10 or so Leopard 2s in Ukraine, while they themselves have lost 5-6000 tanks, more than half of which are the most modern variants (T-72B3M, T-80U, T-80BV, T-90M).
That's very interesting. I didn't know that about the Stalin 3 heavy tank. I don't think the King Tiger was that bad either. Both were too heavy for their chassis and had their own mechanical issues. The skill of the crew plays a big part in the success of the tank. Given a choice I would rather be with the German tanks in battle. The Russian are still struggling with their tanks and crew training.
