+The Nozar That what I thought when I driving the IS-3 but as soon as I step out, "bail out, this vehicle is had it" (someone one shot ammo racked me :p)
In 2002, I had the chance to examine a JS-3 up close in Minsk at the Museum of the Great Patriotic War. It was overwhelming. I've been a fan ever since.
Pretty good actually. Handling wasnn't good (like in most Soviet tanks), but IS-3 did suprisingly well in difficult terrain. It weight was only 46 tons (Tiger I was 10 tons heavier), tank itself was very compact, and had good balance (like all IS-3 to IS-10(T-10) tanks).
The advantage of the IS3 was the way it used very thick armor that was very heavily sloped and angled combine with the massive 122mm main gun. This vehicle could still be used in a modern day conflict today. Most modern light anti tank weapons wouldn't be able to penetrate this vehicle from the front and this vehicle could also most likely even engage and destroy a modern day tank like an Abrams or Challenger, Leopard or T14 Armata with more modern ammunition.
The Design of this tank was crazy ahead, the soviets really were the first to understand the crucial influence of angles on armored parts. You can see how the Panther and King tiger front hulls were inspired by soviet designs and how the Germans changed their point of views when you compare them with the early WW2 panzers.
The Russian designers must have had time machines or something, they just seem to have been way way ahead of their time when compared to other nations tanks! Question from Stalin to the Red Army)...... "Tell me than comrade, What exactly do you need?" Reply from the Red Army)..... "Well isn't it obvious! Tanks that are Reliable, well armed, very low, very sloped, with a big simple powerful diesel engine, and lots and lots of 'em, common sense really, in other words, the total opposite of what everyone else is building!"
+jiggermast Exactly, I believe Stalin said that when he visited one of the biggest army battalions to raise moral. The army just wanted more of the good stuff, Stalin and the government delivered in fact they delivered too well because a lot of the better weapons and tank designs where ignored or put on the shelves in favour of focusing more resources in making what already is there and improving on it. T-44 and AK47 were among the designs that survived the onslaught and became building stones for modern combat weaponries.
That big Diesel was ineffective as h... way to large compared to contemporary Gasoline engines. Hence the Russian off set turrets. The Gun and Turret that far ahead made the tank very nose heavy and cumbersome. The low silhouette came at a price. Low ground clearance, which ment less off road capability compared to eg. the Panther. The form and armor was well sloped and angled, but that huge shot trap under the gun was madness. One 75mm shell and that turret was stuck. Welded to the hull. The huge gun could penetrate all German tanks, but it was inaccurate, had a fire rate of 1-1½ shots per minute when introduced, compared to the Panthers 6 per minute, very few shells due to the shear lack of space and large shells, and the sights were not very good on the late Russian tanks. Driver had a hard time seeing out the vision slot on the IS-3. Commander had poor sights and the Russian armoured doctrines left the overall effectiveness of the tanks lacking. And the reliability was 160km before engine overhaul. hmm.. Still. Was a good tank for it's role. Being a assault tank and not fight tank vs tank, and it helped pave the way for the later insanely good T-54/55.. But the few Elite Guards that got them, were really mostly to waltz into Berlin for the Parade and show off the new equipment for the Allies to fear.
The separate loading type of the IS3, where u had to load projectile and charge as separate pieces, explains the very few rounds it carried. Due the loading type, the charged had a high tendency to cook-off exposed to flame of shrapnel since the IS3 was totally lack of sealed metal casings. Even the gun itself had a tendency to EXPLODE...a well known incident: Marshall Kliment Voroshilov who got seriously injured when his IS3 tube exploded.
Guess the Soviet Union preferred to call their tanks in honor of their leaders, except the T-series which still exists. But they sometimes give their aircraft such names. For example the KA-50 "Black Shark", the KA-52 "Aligator" or the concept SU-47 "Berkut" which means Golden Eagle.
My favorite tank of all time. I'd like to own one if I could. Despite being from 1944/1945 this could still technically fall into a modern day tank category. These were used by the Russians well into the 1970's before being phased out and they were amazingly kept in reserve service into the 1990's.
Tim Waldron The Tiger I is completely outclassed. Even the IS-2 outclassed it. The Tiger II is somewhat better, but the IS-3 is smaller, lighter, fires a better HE shell, and has similar armor and gun performance. Also, IS-2 gun (which was the same as IS-3) had better accuracy than the Tiger II's gun.
unknownexia Tests show it was. Muzzle velocity has little to do with accuracy, and in fact some long guns had accuracy issues due to barrels warping, etc. The Tiger II's gun had an average deviation (50% shots landed within this radius) of 2.6cm at 100m, while the D-25T has 2.4cm at the same distance.
FawfulDied As far as I know, only Russian sources claim that. They had similar accuracy according to my sources(Western). Also another reason why I think 88(or 90mm US) is superior is because of 122's reloading method. Separate shell and charge.
122mm gun, which was actually an artillery piece put inside a turret, had horrendous accuracy, used two piece ammunition and had to reset the breach every time after firing it because otherwise you couldn't reload it. The tank had a 4 man crew which decreased situational awareness and had poor visibility. Against the vehicle which had the thickest armor (not counting maus, only two were made) and strongest gun which could engage anything beyond 3000 meters. Good luck.
Pierre Morand The fact that most resupply was still done by horse means the KT would have been useless on the russian steppes. It couldn't even make a difference in the ardennes. Again like HovercraftHoliday states, the germans were so hopelessly low on raw materials that they could only make about 500 KTs. Compare that to the reported near 4000 IS-2s which even if infalted by 50% is still 4x the number of KTs. Take the Tiger I for example. One tiger could knock out 30 allied tanks before destroyed, yet it still would be a bigger loss to the germans then the 30 tanks to the allied. The germans would have been better off sticking to the panther and revising it then ever making the Tiger and KT. But Hitlers obsession with large machinery and his ability to meddle with such things as vehicle design meant the germans were screwed,
Pierre Morand, turret is the most vulnerable part of all tanks. They may shoot staying behind some obstacles when enemy may only see and attack their turret.
Pierre Morand, may be that wasnt a correct word, that's not my language. I mean that turret is a part of a tank which suffers from enemy shells most than any other. You may shoot at enemy while your tank will be partially in cover, in that situation your enemy will be able to shoot in your tank's turret only. And the situation when enemy can shoot in yours tank hull but not in turret - thats an insane situation to me (almost impossible one). ;) You may fight in 2 situations: when enemy can shoot at your tanks turret only and when he can shoot at both turret&hull. So, your tanks turret will have higher chanse to get a shot than hull. Thats what I mean.
It had a 122mm gun and between 20 and 200mm of armour, due to it being heavily sloped. The only vehicle to be armed with the 152mm was the SU-152 self propelled gun :)
Yeah the IS 2 saw combat and the prototypes of the IS3 did as well but it wasnt meant for tank on tank engagements especially with a wopping 2 rounds per minute and it wasnt even guarenteed to penetrate the Panthers armor so it was only used as a breakthrough weapon on bunkers and entrechments
The IS-3 was pretty lightly armored. It didn't have wet ammo stores (In fact, it didn't really have ammo stores at all...), it didn't have a turret basket, the D-25T was relatively underpowered (Especially when compared to the D-10T)..The IS-3 never saw combat against enemy armor, and it was quickly replaced by the IS-4, which was a failure, and was quickly phased out by a series of failures until they reached the T-10, which was the last Russian heavy tank, and was inferior to the M103.
Well the JS-2 had 2 versions - the obr 1943 which was pretty much the same like the JS-1 tank - the 'stepped hull' glacis whilst later versions the obr 1944's had the sloped glacis plate at 60 deg to the vertical worth of 100-120mm armor. The JS-3 as we know it had the angled 'PIKE' front at 56 deg to the vertical with 110mm of armor. Also the JS-3's armor concept was actually derived from the armor philosphophy of the '34'. However the JS-3's advantage in armor was it was RHA rather than cast
@Dreachon Very interesting information! I would not have expected that but it would have taken a very brave anti tank gunner to hang around waiting for that coming directly at him!
it's probably going slow, because it's on a display show, and also it probably has the original engine, and it can cost a lot of money to rehabilitate these tanks, so the drivers doesn't want to stress the engine and cause a mechanical breakdown.
We're both wrong the IS-3 never saw action against the Germans, although (according to internet sources) it was deployed against the Japanese in Manchuria. Wartime production resulted in many mechanical problems and a hull weld line that had a tendency to crack open. The low turret also limited the maximum depression of the main gun, since the gun breech had little room inside the turret to pivot on its vertical axis. Those are some major faults in this ex soldiers book. Still, fearsome machine
I remember seeing a black and white photo of this one when a teenager, this beast semi submerged in a shoreline surf, it's turret and barrel pointing inland. It may've been photo enhanced, but ominous.
@THEIRA21 The IS-2 most certainly did, they first saw action mid-late april 1944 if I recall at the Proskurovo-Tchernigovskaya and Umansko-Botochskaya operations.
@Cosmin1511 In fact only the tank core was asking the OKW for the Panther, whereas other units wanted the Stug as it was robust (unlike the Panther), and the Panther was not that great for close combat anyway. Swinging a Panther gun 360 also takes an eternity, and its more work to hide it somewhere due to the increased height. But it looks fantastic for a WW2 tank, and if built to spec, it's really dangerous to allied tanks that's true.
Russian wiki clearly says (and there are documentary sources) THat IS-3 wasn't used in warfare. First batch of 52 tanks reached Berlin _after_ victory and joined only parade, but it was used later, in Hungary. Unlike IS-4,7 it wasn't a prototype, dual slope "nose" used new multi-phased current welding technology and wasn't so weak as if it used classic one-arc welding. It had electrical motors for turret and gun motion. It was most advanced tank developed DURING war.
@ostormbringero Actually since the end of Summer 1943, the Soviet Union was on the offensive from then on, and the Soviets accomplished that on their own, thank you very much.
Sure seems that way. In reality, I think both the T-34 and Sherman were both meant primarily for infantry support (which is why they initially had short, low velocity guns). Both these tanks were very useful against infantry targets, they were just terrible against the German armor (anything above a Panzer IV, to be sure).
@HONORGUARD308 Or they could be right, the IS-3 had serious teething problems. In 1946-47 it had to be subjected to a UKN program (Fixing Construction Faults) which affected engine, gear box and hull elements. At the end of the 1950s it was subjected again to another modernization.
well, that turned out to be the right strategy. what good were german super engineered tanks if you could only build a small number of them. Stalin axed all complicated designs and stated that "you have to be able to fix a tank with a sledgehammer and wrench"
@williamblair11 Plus during it's time it had few rivals, it could pop a king tiger from four times the distance the king tiger could even damage this tank. Theres a reason why two of these retook manchuria. This tank is what began the production of MBT and moved armies away from heavy tanks, medium tanks, and light tanks.
IS3 had few child diseases because of haste in development. But aside that it would have been the most fearsome machine on the battlefield, had it entered one of course :). + It had some really revolutionary ideas implemented though, such as supersloped armour, barracuda nose frontal plate and waterdrop shaped turret.
The IS-3 had an intimidating appearance. It looked huge and heavy with massive armor and apparently frightening weaponry. Thats why Stalin wanted it while he delayed the development if the famous T-54. Actually the IS-3 was nothing more like a Pitbull without teeth and the red army was happy to finally get rid of that useless garbage. (Thats what i tried to explain to a random idiot for almost 1 month...ur comment once again pulls it all together..thank you for that and ure ofc absolutly right.)
@AcePilot590 Well, they're basically in the same family. The IS-7 eventually became the T-10/T-10M, the last example of the Soviet heavy tank family and served in East Germany until 1969.
@another505 IS-3 was designed to be impenetrable from a frontal shot from a 88mm L/56 at 500m like from a Tiger I. 88mm L.71 could still penetrate. IS series main guns were slow to reload, were intended as assault tanks to defeat defensive positions, not kill tanks. Want to kill tanks look to SU series.
@ostormbringero IS3 was a revolution in armor, a 50 tonnes class tank (like panther) with more than twice it's armour, Nothing could destroy this monster, exept the 105mm L7, first used at him in 1967 war. Not too bad for a tank designed in 1945. IS3 suffered reliability and mobility problem though, which made the IS-2 a better all around tank, IS-2M was used till 1990 in reserve and chinese border...
@Tririnity You should know that T/D coeficient applys only to ww2 era AP and APC/APCBC . Also there are report that IS2s were distroyed in ww2 at ranges up to 4600 m . In March 1945 , a Nashorn from Schwere PanzerJager Abteilung 88 , with the less effective 88mm L71 gun , distroyed an IS 2 near Marzdorf at 4600 m.
The 88mm KwK 43 L/71 was the best cannon in WW2 history. A Tiger for example was able to penetrate anything in its way from a distance of maximum 3 Km. It was even more devastating in shorter Range...Sherman Tank driver often survived just because the grenade which penetrated the tank broke threw a second time, left the tank and didnt explode inside. Even the later NATO standards of tank grenade/shells were based on the german 88mm gun. The russian 122mm crap was pretty much unnecessary...
Je voudrais le même pour les manifestations du Samedi, a 19 ans j’ai piloter un Chermane de la 2em D B ,très intéressant. Le T 34/85 me plairais bien ,le problèmes ces de faire le plein !
@wun1gee I'm curious - what is your favorite tank of WWII? And how did the IS-2 compare to the T-34/85 tank? I mean given the A19 M1931/M1937 wasn't as good as many AT guns - but how would an A19 fare compared to the 85mm ZiS 53? I personally reckon the T-34/85 has a slight edge over the Panther - what do you think? I like Jagdpanther the best though - the 88mm PaK 43 in a mobile chassis that solved the Elefant's slow speed and the Nashorn's high profile/poor protection :D
The IS had a few problems. Limited ammo supply, very limited crew space and almost no depression of the main gun. That being said it scared the bejaysus out of Brit and American observers at the Victory Day parade. Not a flat surface for an antitank round to impact against.
True that. Actually first main battle taks appeared after war used elemnets developed for Is-3 and Is-7. Actually IS-3 was in army till 1958 year, I think. At least, as I said, mutiny in hungary was supressed with those, and it was 1956. That doesn't matter much, our army had some land lease trucks in use yet in 90s, and tanks of WWII long time were used as utility vehicles. Truth is that many asia countries as well.. You can find Shermans fitted with AMX13 90 turret, for example, in Israel
@HeirofGojira91 My favorite tank of WWII was probably the M26 Pershing. Of every tank to serve in WWII, the Pershing had the longest-lasting impact on future tank design. The M60, which was basically an evolution of the Patton, saw service with the US armed forces until the mid-1990s. M47s and M48s, which were another evolution of the Pershing, are still in service with numerous nations today.
Apart from world of tanks bullshit, the IS-3 armor design and protection is one of the best, if not THE best, amongst the WWII designs and anyway one of the best of 20th century. And it weighted only 46 tons, which is basically the same weight of Russian T-90, instead of a massive (and less protected) King Tiger.
Most impressive was IS-7 with its electrical controls and remotely controlled 7 heavy machineguns, but it never went out of prototype stage as with development of antitank ifnatry such build became obsolete and excessive, although later tanks were using elements developed for IS-7.
@rekifps Nope; Couldn't cross bridges, couldn't fight in towns or villages as the gun was too long, meaning it got caught on the buildings and meant it would 'kinda' get shot up the arse. It was also too wide for most roads-Sucky. Broke down in the winter - the tank crews had to literally light fires under the tank to warm up the engine (Same goes to the other german tanks) I think that the best tank of WWII was the British Cromwell MK VII or the Russian T-34. But the King tiger does look cool
very true. the shermans with their standard guns. had howitzers placed near the end of WW2 due to the fact of how they needed something to kill the tiger and panther.
The hull is clearly an is-3 from the sloping in the front. IS-1's had an 85mm and a turret much like a 34-85. IS-2's had the a 122 and a convex upper hull instead of a concave one like the IS-1.
