@@janikhochenberger8522 it was a breakthrough tank, it wasn't made to go 70+ kmh, it's just a tank that was produced to face any armor with the 122mm, mobility wasn't the concern
Which kind tiger that you mean? IS-2 couldn't penetrate tiger 2 (front armor of course, but can penetrate side armor). But if it face tiger 1, IS-2 could wreck that tank from distance about 1.400 meter, while tiger have to get closer to 600 meter to kill IS-2. In battle of Lvov-Sandomierz, IS-2s from 72nd Guard Heavy Tank Regiments managed to destroyed 5 tiger1 and 10 panther. And to kill tiger 2, T26E4 super pershing can do it.
This is a beast truly a success when designing this tank and a true replacement for the kv series it’s also Nonnas tank I salute all the shoulders who fought in this beast
@@lapantony Stalin had many more years to commit atrocities against his political enemies than Hitler did. Google "Stalinist Gulags", "Stalin's Great Purge" and the "Holodomor" for an insight on his evils.
1:51 here we see an IS-2 heavy tank shedding it's addon armor in an active warzone in an effort to reduce weight and increase speed and maneuverability
Usually, children and adults with children's brains imagine a war on tanks like this - I shoot some tanks at others. Accordingly, the logic says that the thicker the armor, the more powerful the gun, the better the tank. Well, and accordingly the best tanks can be considered the Royal Tiger! and Mouse, if only they had time to release it. BUT! This is idiocy! Tanks very, very, very rarely fight other tanks. The main enemy of tanks is anti-tank infantry guns, mines, anti-aircraft guns, and sometimes tanks. It makes sense to shoot at infantry from a tank gun, if only there is a lot of explosive in the shell. Shooting anti-tank blanks is pointless. The IS-2 cannon had outstanding qualities both in shooting at infantry, cannons, buildings, fortifications, tanks, ... albeit due to a decrease in the rate of fire. The IS - 2 could successfully destroy enemy infantry, houses, fortifications and much more, ... the panther with its funny projectile, it simply could not do this. Cannons of panthers and tigers - high projectile speed, with a minimum amount of explosive ... it worked only against armored vehicles of the enemy and only ... But, tanks with tanks fought very rarely ... Another "outstanding" property of panthers and tigers is it is their design that does not allow them to be mass-produced. If there are few tanks, in fact they are useless. Somewhere, sometimes, a lucky panther or tiger, from an ambush, could knock out several enemy tanks. So this is still no use, because in another place the T-34 and IS-2 have already broken through the defenses, they are advancing unstoppably ... You just have to throw tigers and panthers so as not to get surrounded ...))) Do you want to lose the war - build a lot of panthers and tigers, and even better than royal tigers, though you still can't get a lot, the design is idiotic. Do you want to win - t-34.44, is - 2.3 !!!
Ace i would prefer the beast hunter isu 152 :V , soviet didnt need a supa high penetration , all they need to do was put more tnt explosive into the shell , the power of mightly invisible hammer would shred the bad kitten's armor :V
@@Ace-wg3sk it had same as Tiger I and II but if it was around 0.5km or more shell of Pak 8.8 will lose pennetration and it will not pen the IS-2 210mm effective frontal armor
Imagine how loud it must have been in that city street with 200 barely muffled diesel tank engines and steel roadwheels on steel tracks, steel drive wheels and return rollers, driving on pavement, all the noise echoing between the buildings? Even the whole army of BA-64s would have made a racket by themselves. I do like the IS-2, although the T-34 did more overall to win the war. And it's dumb to argue over what's the "best tank" because that totally depends on how you want to define it. Is it the one that's most deadly to other tanks? Because that's only a part of what a tank needs to do. Are you measuring one vs one, or does the ease with which thousands were made count, since it overwhelmed the enemy? That's good design. Is it useful all over the battlefield, can it get TO the battlefield without half the fleet breaking down? You can have a super tank but if half of them are eliminated before you even get there, it's not as good as a tank. Or if it's too heavy for the bridges, or gets stuck and can't be recovered without special equipment. Them it doesn't matter if it can kill ten tanks in single combat. And most tanks spend way more time doing infantry support, driving around from place to place. I read that the machine guns were by far the most used weapons on WW2 tanks, so your Panther being really killer at destroying other tanks in duels doesn't really make it "the best tank". Sadly, same applies to the IS-2. The T-34 is just more useful all around, unless you are spearheading a break through.
*Ahem* The 122 mm D-25T had the best accuracy of heavy tanks of the time, getting even 100% accuracy over 2500 meters, The crew was cramped but the improved commander's cupola that came in the IS-2 was excelent at doing it's job, it had better visibility than the Stug III and Panzer III, in war analysis made by the soviets is that the Tiger II front Hull could be shattered by the 122 HE shell, depending on the quality of the steel used and weldings, and the FLAK 88, one of the proud german anti-tank weapons, was useless against the 120 mm angled at 60° IS-2 hull, making the turret cheeks the weak spot, that most of the times were covered with tracks or soldiers. About the KV-2 is very wrong, most of the KV-2s were abandoned in combat because of shortage of fuel and ammunition or frequent mechanical problems, no tank could penetrate the KV armor at the time, even the Panzerjäger with it's 7.5 cm Pgr 40 (APCR) could not penetrate it's hull, that was famous in the battle of raseiniai, where a lone KV-2 stood it's ground in a strategic bridge, and no german anti-tank weapon could penetrate, they only took it down by a FLAK 88.
...WOW!!!!!!!! GREAT FOOTAGE...BAD-TO-THE-BONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) LOVE THIS TANK!!!
It had a slow rate of firing, 3 shot per minute. 120 mm ammo was heavy, mostly used HE shells against defenses. The tank was very expensive, Stalin didn't like to use them much , other than on victory parades!
What do you mean, "didn't like to use them much"? IS-2s were quite popular with their crews and in demand. You also must weight the admittedly slow RoF against the fact that with the 122 mm, one hit was pretty much a sure kill against anything. So just ineffectually 'plinking' your opponent with smaller caliber rounds until you get lucky is better?
Great accounts of this tank getting it's ass handed to it in" the last panther" book by the time they loaded this thing a panther can get 2 or 3 shots off at it. It had 2 part ammo .The details are great about these things getting hit by kings and panthers.
They very quickly developed a drop down breech to replace the screw type for the main gun and improved rate of fire. Panther's and Tigers could fight IS-2's. But plenty of big cat's got their ass handed to them by IS-2's as well. Usually depended on circumstances, and who fired first and hit first.
You are beyond insane. The last panther by Wolfgang Faust is a piece of fiction, the author didn’t actually fight in WW2 (he was born after the end of the war). In real life, panthers were absolutely creamed by IS-2s
Which action was this? I do know of an action, in April 1944 in the Ukraine, where a kampfgruppen formed from 17th Panzer Division with a Tiger battalion attacked a position defended by 11th Guards tank corps. In one part of the battle, *30 Panthers* attacked 10 defending IS-2s, at 1500 meters. The result? 20 Panther's KO'ed (15 irrecoverable) versus 1 IS-2 burned-out and 1 damaged. And yes, this data is confirmed by German records.
@@stewartmillen7708 he wouldn’t be able to tell you, because the book “the last panther” is a fake memoir written by a German ultranationalist. The “memoir” provides no dates or locations nor does it say with whom did the author serve with
The fire control system was severely flawed. It created a scenario for the gunner that was like taking your hands off the driving wheel while driving fast on a winding road. It broke your rhythm, feel, and connection to the battle field. If, after firing a shot, you had to elevate your gun off the immediate view, you would then need to recalibrate and re-capture the "feel" of the battlefield again and again, taking one out of the efficiency of rhythm and losing the feel of the last shot completely.
Have you been in an IS-2? It was a popular tank with Soviet crews, and moreover Soviet tactics for this tank was to engage at 1500-2000 meters. Soviet tactics wouldn't have recommended this range if there wasn't a good chance of hitting/killing targets, especially considering the limited ammo supply. Insofar as moving, no WWII tank really fired and moved well.
@@johnjacobsen1915 Well, there IS one now in the American Heritage Museum at Stow, MA. :P There was a Quora post comparing the optical sights on several WWII tanks. It judged the optical sights by five criteria, I recall, and that on the Tiger I (?) had all five, including the ability to 'set' a position and be able to return to it. The sights on every other tank covered lacked this feature; most tanks met at least 3 of the five criteria. The T-34/85, which one might assume would have a similar sight to the IS-2, met four of the five criteria and only lacked the 'set position' ability. So if you're talking about the ability to 'store' a position and return to it, yep, the IS-2's sights did not have that. Neither did any other tank in WWII, including Allied tanks. Only the Tiger, and maybe the Panther, had it. However, the author of the post stated that this feature was an incremental advantage and that indeed all the sights he/she covered were perfectly functional and capable of doing their job.
Interesting that the Russian soldiers all seem solemn and businesslike while the Germans always seemed happy and eager to go into battle. At the end of the war the Russian Army was frigging magnificent
@@rusmorpeh3314 indeed. I thought they were only around more as a show toy in Berlin. Looks as though they saw action from late 44 until wars end. The attritional focus employed by the Soviets is so critically overlooked (as are most conversations of political economic strategy surrounding war): planned obselescence and the prioritisation of high numbers of 'good enough'
@@markushuber214 well to produce tank you need resources and industrial capacity something that germany did not have bombing was costly and in most cases germans would repair their industry fast peak of the bombing was in 1944 by that point germany produced hell of a lot of tanks over 18 k it was not until late 1944 and 45 that german industry collapsed bombing was very difficult back then and it had no effect on some things and on some it had minimal effect there is reason why germany who had manpower and oil issues and also lack of resources like iron ore could not produce that many tanks their economy was also not war economy in 1942 by late 1943 to 1944 they changed this allowed for bigger production in 1942 germany produce over 7 k tanks by 1944 it was over 18 k so its simply not a bombing that stoped their production
я знаю где стоит IS-2 и IS-3 у нас на Курилах,I know where IS-2 and IS-3 stand in our Kuril Islands Танки острова Шикотан. РТОТы. Брошенные ИС-2, ИС-3, Т-54. Курильские острова. Shikotan. 千島列島 色丹島 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eS4tvo7RkFo.html
