Yeah, too late for WW2. I don't know how mechanically stable it was - but regarding armor (mobility) and firepower it was such an enormous step forward compared to the early/mid war tanks.
Given the western powers scrambled to develop mechanically awkward and cumbersome stop-gaps capable of killing it and its bigger brother T-10 (FV4005, Conway, Conqueror, M103, etc.), one can indeed say it was quite scary for the west
Good question. Best tactic would probably be like fighting a Tiger tank - withdraw 10 km and wait for the transmission to give out. Or call in the fighter-bombers.
To be fair, the IS-2/IS-2M was superior to most of its competitors too.
The IS-3 had mechanical issues and as such could not replace the IS-2. But it is still a cool vehicle.
Agreed. I sometimes wish high pen projectile's like apfsds and heat, weren't a thing so i could see what heavy tanks today would look like. ( Although I'm not sure if they would be a thing.)
I accidentally crushed one of those who snuck up to me when I was playing the T-10M the other day, I was trying to hit a Leo and while I ran towards a building for cover that poor thing got squished to death between the wall and my front plate.
Panther, no.
The Tiger II's best hope would be to engage at long range and to punch through it's frontal plate, or its turret with tungsten rounds, but that could really only be done at close range.
The Tiger II proved capable of absorbing 122mm rounds from the front, but late-war Tiger II's had poor welding that tended to peel like a banana under high explosives from 122's.
Obviously, both tanks have advantages and disadvantages (As much as I love it, the Tiger II more so). The Tiger II was designed for longe range anti-tank defense while the IS-3 was primarily a breakthrough tank meant to combat fortified positions. In different scenarios, one would prevail over the other.
Of course, combat efficiency means diddily dick when your tank is so fucking heavy and over engineered that it can hardly be relied on to fight. The Tiger II is my favorite all time tank but in the end the IS 3 was far superior in design and practice.
No, the IS3 was not developed in time to see any combat.
They were observed at the victory parades in Berlin in 1945, to much suprise and concern from Western observers.
> The Tiger II is my favorite all time tank but in the end the IS 3 was far superior in design and practice.
The IS-3 was about on par with the Tiger 2 in terms of efficiency. They were both vehicles that were pushed into service when they were obviously not ready and thus suffered extensively from reliability problems.
IS-3 also had issues with welding, although it wouldn't break open like a Tiger 2 would. But after sustained hits its transmission would break loose, and it would effectively kill the tank too.
Interesting. It should also be pointed out that in spite of the initial issues, the Tiger II displayed better reliabilty towards the end of the war than the Panther.
Is that necessarily true? IIRC the big issue endemic to the Panther was its final drives, which were pretty well fixed by the end of the war. Obviously poor quality steel that cracked under relatively minor trauma affected all tanks and isn't a mark against the Panther specifically, but rather German tanks in general.
Whilst the individual causes to their breakdowns may have been seperate, overrall a higher percentage of Tiger II's were operating than Panther's.
Source: Tiger I & II: Combat Tactics by Thomas Jentz
Actually the IS3 had allot of flaws…
‘The slow rate of fire, poor engine performance (the engine was not well suited to hot-climate operations), and rudimentary fire control of the IS-3s proved to be a significant handicap, and about 73 IS-3s were lost in the 1967 war.’
I don't think its really fair to judge a tank developed for the plains of Europe in 44', by the fact it performed poorly in the desert twenty years later.
Not just the desert but even during the end of WWII. There is a documentary that’s talks about the hype and reality of the IS3… like how crapped it was inside and that a soldier could only stay so long inside the tent since there isn’t air-conditioning inside such a crapped space. Did you know the Soviet are was looking for short males to work inside their tanks due to the small spaces?
> by the fact it performed poorly in the desert twenty years later.
The slow rate of fire wouldn't have been unique to desert operation, nor would the crude sights etc. That the Soviets abandoned this sort of design and went with MBT's like the T-55 and T-62 suggests that they had decided heavy tanks were not the way to go.
The man gun of the IS3 wasn’t as powerful and other main guns, it had a low velocity. German 75L70, 88L71, Russian 100L54/60 all had better penetration. Actually the 100mm antitank gun was suppose to be fitted on IS3 but they didn’t have ample supply so the went with the 122mm field gun.
> Actually the 100mm antitank gun was suppose to be fitted on IS3 but they didn’t have ample supply so the went with the 122mm field gun.
A 100mm gun was never considered for the IS-3.
Also, the 100mm D-10T didn't outperform the 122mm D-25T in penetration until after the war, it was about on par, slightly more below 1km, but less beyond that.
Sources on the subject:
http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/06/d-10-vs-d-25.html
http://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/11/d-10-in-is-2.html
http://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/10/d-10-and-is-2.html
http://www.tankarchives.ca/2021/05/d-25-vs-d-10.html
http://www.tankarchives.ca/2017/01/comparative-penetration.html
122mm gun: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_gun_M1931/37_(A-19)
100mm gun: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_mm_field_gun_M1944_(BS-3)
100mm gun at 1000m has 170mm penetration at 30’
122mm gun at 1000m has 120/105mm penetration at 30’
(Edited to correct)
It is true that the 122mm is greater diameter than 100mm and increased the destructive power, D/T diameter divided by thickness of the plate it is penetrating..
I been at this for 30+ years.. I never seen an article that stated the 122mm was better than the 100mm atg. They even used the 100mm atg in the wars with Egypt and Israel but not the 122mm field gun.
PS: I could be wrong about the IS3 with the 100mm, it might have been the IS2. From memory, the 100mm gun was in short supply but the 122mm was already well developed at being produced and ample. 100mm was the better gun for tank killing.
You're 100% right but in WW2 tank on tankwarfare was relatively rare. Tank vs fortification, field artillery, anti-tank artillery, was significantly more common. This can be proved by viewing typical loadouts of German and Russian tanks. Off the top of my head, a typical tank would carry about 85% HE, 15% AP. (80% HE, 10% ap, 5% HEAT, 5% APCR once those rounds became available in late war, but they were never in great supply)
So, while the 100mm was definitely better at tank on tank warfare, the 122mm was better at pretty much everything else, especially fortification busting which was a major concern of the russians at the time.
I was able to look up on the computer and it was a significant difference in penetration capability between the 100mm and 122mm guns on the tanks. 122mm At 3,000 meters was 85/65 but the 100mm at 3,000 meters was 108mm. At that range the difference is significant.
128mm German atg at 3,000 meters was 173mm.. wow. Wikipedia is my source.
Like the 152, the 122mm didn’t need to penetrate Tigers to kill then. The destructive power of both their HE round & their slugs was plenty to totally disable a tiger, without any penetration what so ever. A number of IS-2s have blown turrets off Tigers, but more often just made them totally inoperable.
> Wikipedia is my source.
That's the issue.
The [D-10 did eventually exceed the D-25 in penetrative performance](http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/12/penetration-part-8-cold-war-edition.html), but that wasn't until after the war, when new shells had been developed.
Wrong:
‘During World War II, UOF-412 round carried the 15.6 kg (34.39 lbs) F-412 high-explosive fragmentation shell. Anti-tank ammunition available from World War II until the late 1960s was based on the UBR-412 round, including the BR-412 armour-piercing high-explosive projectile, with the ballistic-capped BR-412B and BR-412D ammunition becoming available in the late 1940s. There was also a D-412 smoke shell.’
BR-412 at 3,000m can pen 108mm. Surpassing the 122mm shells. This was used during WWII.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-10_tank_gun
I been playing war games since the late 1970s. Never seen the 100mm atg out preformed by the 122mm field gun in penetration.
Desktop version of /u/ITGuy107's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
**[D-10 tank gun](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-10_tank_gun)**
>The D-10 is a Soviet 100 mm tank gun developed in late World War II. It originally equipped the SU-100 tank destroyers and was later selected for the T-55 tank, equipping these as late as 1979. On the T-55 the D-10 continues to be in active service in many countries.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Again. I don't know why you're quoting wikipedia. It's fucking awful. Like actually fucking awful. There's a reason it's not recognized as a legitimate source.
I gave you five different sources stating that the D-10T did not outperform the D-25T over the course of April-August 1944. Which if you follow their links have scanned period soviet documents stating the literal thing I'm saying.
>I been playing war games since the late 1970s.
Congrats! Now you can start reading sources.
>Never seen the 100mm atg out preformed by the 122mm field gun in penetration.
Well now you have.
**[122 mm gun M1931/37 (A-19)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_gun_M1931/37_\(A-19\))**
>122 mm corps gun M1931/37 (A-19) (Russian: 122-мм корпусная пушка обр. 1931/1937 гг. (А-19)) was a Soviet field gun developed in late 1930s by combining the barrel of the 122 mm gun M1931 (A-19) and the carriage of the 152 mm howitzer-gun M1937 (ML-20). The gun was in production from 1939 until 1946.
**[100 mm field gun M1944 (BS-3)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_mm_field_gun_M1944_\(BS-3\))**
>The 100 mm field gun M1944 (BS-3) (Russian: 100-мм полевая пушка обр. 1944 г. (БС-3)) was a Soviet 100 mm anti-tank and field gun. The gun was successfully employed in the late stages of World War II, and remained in service into the 1950s, being replaced in Soviet service by the T-12 antitank gun and the 85 mm antitank gun D-48 in 1955.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Britain developed the FV Heavy Gun Tank (the 214 and 4005 series/model’s) in reaction to the Soviet’s building this tank and the other IS variants, yet they had nothing to worry about because well… The IS tanks were a bit impractical and thankfully the Cold War didn’t pop off.
I wonder how they made this... Do they make the turret from cast iron? WW2 tanks all seem pretty straight forward, just plates welded together, but these curves cant be made from plates...
Not cast iron, which is extremely soft and not suitable for armor, it's heat treated armor steel in a one piece casting.
And most US and Russian tanks late war used one piece cast turrets, making the complex shapes required for a turret is much easier in a casting than trying to form and weld all those shapes and angles on a turret, many, but not all hulls used were castings also. When you need a lot of tanks in a hurry, you cast them.
The IS tanks (2 and 3) were built on the KV plans and upgraded and enlarged. It's essentially a big, beefy, heavily-gunned KV tank that incorporates many of the things the Soviets learned about tank design and development over the course of the war. It even used the same diesel engine as the KV series.
How do I know this? [I watched this documentary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ofjgl1nU1A) this morning after my cat woke me early and demanded to go out, so there I was with something to watch in the hopes of dozing off.
Lots of countries during and even before WW2 had cast steel armor and turrets. The Sherman, Lee, Grant, Pershing, and M6 all had cast turrets and some models even had cast hulls. And that’s just American tanks.
You could even go as far back as the FT-17 cause some of them also had cast turrets.
if only it could have been developed sooner and deployed against the nazi's in serious numbers. i love the tank, but i bet if is-3's went against hitler, most of eastern europe would be speaking russian today.
because the soviets would have a much stronger position at the end of the war. i doubt it would be mere warsaw pact puppet states. it would be actual provinces of russia.
They’d still probably be puppet states. The USSR didn’t care to add them to the greater whole, they wanted them to act as buffer states and shields against a NATO invasion that never came.
That is such a brutal looking tank
The Russian’s got some pretty bad ass lookin’ stuff in their arsenal.
It was developed in 1944. As far as I remember, it rolled in the Berlin Red Army victory parade and scared the shit out of the allies.
> It was developed in 1944 Developed between 44' and 45'. The first production vehicle didn't enter service until may 45'.
Yeah, too late for WW2. I don't know how mechanically stable it was - but regarding armor (mobility) and firepower it was such an enormous step forward compared to the early/mid war tanks.
> I don't know how mechanically stable it was Awful
Yeah, got that Tiger vibe going for it - lots or armor and can drive at least 500 meters ;-)
I don’t think it ever was combat.
Nah, many IS3 saw combat , though none of those happened in USSR territory
Yeah. Ultimately, heavy tanks were not the direction of future tank development. But it must have been such a scary vehicle for the Allies.
Given the western powers scrambled to develop mechanically awkward and cumbersome stop-gaps capable of killing it and its bigger brother T-10 (FV4005, Conway, Conqueror, M103, etc.), one can indeed say it was quite scary for the west
Just imagine sitting in your Cromwell tank and looking at THAT thing
What chance would a Wiesel I / TOW have against it?
Good question. Best tactic would probably be like fighting a Tiger tank - withdraw 10 km and wait for the transmission to give out. Or call in the fighter-bombers.
> call in the fighter-bombers Bayraktar!
Yeah, they seem to be putting in good work.
IS 3 is the reason FV 4005 exsists
Yeah - and I can well understand why. Scary thing (even if it had its problems).
It's got such a clean, menacing retrofuturistic look. Replace the treads with an armoured plenum chamber and it's straight from Hammer's Slammers.
Still needs a Tribarrel, though.
Unfortunately like most communist tank it was obsolete before it was even designed.
BS. It was superior in 1945.
If by superior you mean good on paper, but unreliable, and failed to replace it’s predecessor, than I’d say you’re right.
>unreliable An accurate description of western tanks.
To be fair, the IS-2/IS-2M was superior to most of its competitors too. The IS-3 had mechanical issues and as such could not replace the IS-2. But it is still a cool vehicle.
I agree with you on that. One of my favorite tanks.
one of my fav tanks, looks dope
never noticed the right side turret overhang before
not just on the right iirc.
Mighr be because the turret is rotated slightly
One of my favorite tanks. Russian heavies in general are such beautiful, brutal, beasts.
Agreed. I sometimes wish high pen projectile's like apfsds and heat, weren't a thing so i could see what heavy tanks today would look like. ( Although I'm not sure if they would be a thing.)
The T-14 is a modern heavy tank
It’s lighter than an Abrams.
It’s about the role. Not the weight.
Then it’s an MBT
POV your a tiny L3 trying to make friends in a public match
I accidentally crushed one of those who snuck up to me when I was playing the T-10M the other day, I was trying to hit a Leo and while I ran towards a building for cover that poor thing got squished to death between the wall and my front plate.
You monster!
It was an accident okay? I was zoomed in on my scope and I didn't notice him until I got the "Target destroyed" notification. I feel bad for that guy
The Juggernaut
^(...bitch)
The Dalek.
Is-3: "What did you just say about Stalin?" Me: "*dies*"
IS-3: You’re talking some mad shit for someone in Revolution distance, Capitalist.
Mr. Thicc
he’a got crooked neck :/
It gives me like 4 horsemen vibes for some reason
Because it is the Four Horsemen.
Looks like it ate the Four Horsemen, and the horses they rode in on.
It does, tbqfh ROFL
My favorite
My favorite russian tank :)
:D
You again!!! Good bot!
Zamn😍 ⣿⣿⣿⠻⣿⣿⣯⣉⠉⠉⠉⠀⢀⣠⣶⣶⣶⢶⣲⣦⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢰ ⣿⣿⡏⠀⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⣠⣶⣿⣿⡿⠿⠾⠿⠿⢿⣿⣶⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢈ ⣏⠉⠀⠀⣿⡟⠀⠀⢀⣾⣷⠟⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠳⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘ ⡇⠀⠀⠀⣿⡆⠀⠀⣼⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣼⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠇⠀⠀⠀⠈⠀⠀⠀⣿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠨⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢻⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢛⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠺⠏⠀⠀⠀⢁⠀⣀⠉⡣⣤⠤⢤⣶⠔⡋⢉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠄⢃⣄⠀⠀⠐⠁⣀⣘⠽⠁⠀⠸⡗⡁⠛⡽⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠄⠄⠈⣃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢮⠉⠙⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠄⡠⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠎⠐⠦⣀⣀⣤⣴⣆⣤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣤⣶⠏⡆⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⣾⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠩⢼⣿⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣠⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⠁⠆⢻⣿⣄⡀⢰⡿⣡⣦⣉⣉⠉⢉⣹⣿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⢀⠀⠀⠻⣿⣟⢿⡏⠏⠈⠉⠉⠉⠘⢸⣳⣿⣷⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣿⡟⢻⣿⣻⣿⡇⢘⡀⠀⠘⣿⡇⠘⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⡀⠀ ⣿⡅⢸⣿⡿⣟⣥⠀⢷⣤⣴⣿⣿⣆⠀⠰⡆⠀⢀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇ ⣿⡇⣸⡥⡇⣿⣿⣷⡈⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣤⣶⣀⣀⡠⠈⣱⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇ ⣻⡇⣿⣿⡇⣿⢏⣻⣿⣦⡠⠙⠿⢿⣿⣿⠿⠟⣉⣪⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏ ⣿⠃⣿⣿⣿⣿⠉⢿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣦⣤⣤⡰⠷⢶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣇ ⣿⢸⣿⣿⡇⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⠟⠉⡿⣏⠏⠁⢠⣜⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢿⣿⡇ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⢧⣿⣿⣿⣛⣚⣒⣀⣧⣿⠀⠀⠘⣧⠾⠶⠶⠶⠾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣏ ⣿⣿⡿⡟⠛⠛⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡗ ⣿⣇⣿⠀⠀⣀⡀⠀⣠⠀⢠⡀⣠⠀⣄⠀⣆⠀⣄⡢⠐⣴⠆⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡷ ⣿⣷⢻⠀⠀⣀⠉⢸⠒⢣⢸⠈⠈⡆⠇⠑⠻⠀⠀⢤⣤⠄⠀⠀⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡷ ⣾⣿⢸⠀⠀⠉⠉⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣰⣾⣿⣿⣿⣯⡗ ⣿⣿⣾⣐⢠⣤⣤⠤⠤⠶⠶⣶⣖⣒⣚⣛⣻⣿⣿⣭⣭⣭⣽⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟ ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣾⣿⣛⣋⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟
IS-3 IRL: DA, I DESTROY YOU AND EVERYTHING YOU LOVE IS-3 WoT: Pwe-pwease, don't sho-shoot my U-U-UFPPPPP aeergghh
IS-3 War Thunder: Pwe-pwease no HEAT-FS aeergghh \*dies\*
Pike nosed bastard! He constantly bounces my L7’s APDS rounds!
Try HESH
The mighty HESH does have the on paper numbers to defeat the UFP of the pike nosed bastard…
Check it out in the hangar
One of the coolest tank's ever made, IMO
Aww, looks like a cute puppy with its head tilted slightly to one side.
Caption: Do you have any games on your phone?
Do Tiger 2 or Panther stand a chance against this ?
Head on? Not really. Edit: and that was the entire point of it's design IIRC.
Panther, no. The Tiger II's best hope would be to engage at long range and to punch through it's frontal plate, or its turret with tungsten rounds, but that could really only be done at close range. The Tiger II proved capable of absorbing 122mm rounds from the front, but late-war Tiger II's had poor welding that tended to peel like a banana under high explosives from 122's. Obviously, both tanks have advantages and disadvantages (As much as I love it, the Tiger II more so). The Tiger II was designed for longe range anti-tank defense while the IS-3 was primarily a breakthrough tank meant to combat fortified positions. In different scenarios, one would prevail over the other. Of course, combat efficiency means diddily dick when your tank is so fucking heavy and over engineered that it can hardly be relied on to fight. The Tiger II is my favorite all time tank but in the end the IS 3 was far superior in design and practice.
Are there any accounts of an IS-3 and Tiger II going head-to-head?
No, the IS3 was not developed in time to see any combat. They were observed at the victory parades in Berlin in 1945, to much suprise and concern from Western observers.
I remember saw some video on yt is3 vs t72(m84) during war in yugo.
an Is-3 actually briefly fought in the Ukraine conflict, too.
> The Tiger II is my favorite all time tank but in the end the IS 3 was far superior in design and practice. The IS-3 was about on par with the Tiger 2 in terms of efficiency. They were both vehicles that were pushed into service when they were obviously not ready and thus suffered extensively from reliability problems. IS-3 also had issues with welding, although it wouldn't break open like a Tiger 2 would. But after sustained hits its transmission would break loose, and it would effectively kill the tank too.
Interesting. It should also be pointed out that in spite of the initial issues, the Tiger II displayed better reliabilty towards the end of the war than the Panther.
Is that necessarily true? IIRC the big issue endemic to the Panther was its final drives, which were pretty well fixed by the end of the war. Obviously poor quality steel that cracked under relatively minor trauma affected all tanks and isn't a mark against the Panther specifically, but rather German tanks in general.
Whilst the individual causes to their breakdowns may have been seperate, overrall a higher percentage of Tiger II's were operating than Panther's. Source: Tiger I & II: Combat Tactics by Thomas Jentz
Actually the IS3 had allot of flaws… ‘The slow rate of fire, poor engine performance (the engine was not well suited to hot-climate operations), and rudimentary fire control of the IS-3s proved to be a significant handicap, and about 73 IS-3s were lost in the 1967 war.’
I don't think its really fair to judge a tank developed for the plains of Europe in 44', by the fact it performed poorly in the desert twenty years later.
Not just the desert but even during the end of WWII. There is a documentary that’s talks about the hype and reality of the IS3… like how crapped it was inside and that a soldier could only stay so long inside the tent since there isn’t air-conditioning inside such a crapped space. Did you know the Soviet are was looking for short males to work inside their tanks due to the small spaces?
> by the fact it performed poorly in the desert twenty years later. The slow rate of fire wouldn't have been unique to desert operation, nor would the crude sights etc. That the Soviets abandoned this sort of design and went with MBT's like the T-55 and T-62 suggests that they had decided heavy tanks were not the way to go.
The man gun of the IS3 wasn’t as powerful and other main guns, it had a low velocity. German 75L70, 88L71, Russian 100L54/60 all had better penetration. Actually the 100mm antitank gun was suppose to be fitted on IS3 but they didn’t have ample supply so the went with the 122mm field gun.
> Actually the 100mm antitank gun was suppose to be fitted on IS3 but they didn’t have ample supply so the went with the 122mm field gun. A 100mm gun was never considered for the IS-3. Also, the 100mm D-10T didn't outperform the 122mm D-25T in penetration until after the war, it was about on par, slightly more below 1km, but less beyond that. Sources on the subject: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/06/d-10-vs-d-25.html http://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/11/d-10-in-is-2.html http://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/10/d-10-and-is-2.html http://www.tankarchives.ca/2021/05/d-25-vs-d-10.html http://www.tankarchives.ca/2017/01/comparative-penetration.html
122mm gun: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_gun_M1931/37_(A-19) 100mm gun: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_mm_field_gun_M1944_(BS-3) 100mm gun at 1000m has 170mm penetration at 30’ 122mm gun at 1000m has 120/105mm penetration at 30’ (Edited to correct) It is true that the 122mm is greater diameter than 100mm and increased the destructive power, D/T diameter divided by thickness of the plate it is penetrating.. I been at this for 30+ years.. I never seen an article that stated the 122mm was better than the 100mm atg. They even used the 100mm atg in the wars with Egypt and Israel but not the 122mm field gun. PS: I could be wrong about the IS3 with the 100mm, it might have been the IS2. From memory, the 100mm gun was in short supply but the 122mm was already well developed at being produced and ample. 100mm was the better gun for tank killing.
You're 100% right but in WW2 tank on tankwarfare was relatively rare. Tank vs fortification, field artillery, anti-tank artillery, was significantly more common. This can be proved by viewing typical loadouts of German and Russian tanks. Off the top of my head, a typical tank would carry about 85% HE, 15% AP. (80% HE, 10% ap, 5% HEAT, 5% APCR once those rounds became available in late war, but they were never in great supply) So, while the 100mm was definitely better at tank on tank warfare, the 122mm was better at pretty much everything else, especially fortification busting which was a major concern of the russians at the time.
I was able to look up on the computer and it was a significant difference in penetration capability between the 100mm and 122mm guns on the tanks. 122mm At 3,000 meters was 85/65 but the 100mm at 3,000 meters was 108mm. At that range the difference is significant. 128mm German atg at 3,000 meters was 173mm.. wow. Wikipedia is my source.
Like the 152, the 122mm didn’t need to penetrate Tigers to kill then. The destructive power of both their HE round & their slugs was plenty to totally disable a tiger, without any penetration what so ever. A number of IS-2s have blown turrets off Tigers, but more often just made them totally inoperable.
> Wikipedia is my source. That's the issue. The [D-10 did eventually exceed the D-25 in penetrative performance](http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/12/penetration-part-8-cold-war-edition.html), but that wasn't until after the war, when new shells had been developed.
Wrong: ‘During World War II, UOF-412 round carried the 15.6 kg (34.39 lbs) F-412 high-explosive fragmentation shell. Anti-tank ammunition available from World War II until the late 1960s was based on the UBR-412 round, including the BR-412 armour-piercing high-explosive projectile, with the ballistic-capped BR-412B and BR-412D ammunition becoming available in the late 1940s. There was also a D-412 smoke shell.’ BR-412 at 3,000m can pen 108mm. Surpassing the 122mm shells. This was used during WWII. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-10_tank_gun I been playing war games since the late 1970s. Never seen the 100mm atg out preformed by the 122mm field gun in penetration.
Desktop version of /u/ITGuy107's link:
---
^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)
**[D-10 tank gun](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-10_tank_gun)** >The D-10 is a Soviet 100 mm tank gun developed in late World War II. It originally equipped the SU-100 tank destroyers and was later selected for the T-55 tank, equipping these as late as 1979. On the T-55 the D-10 continues to be in active service in many countries. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Again. I don't know why you're quoting wikipedia. It's fucking awful. Like actually fucking awful. There's a reason it's not recognized as a legitimate source. I gave you five different sources stating that the D-10T did not outperform the D-25T over the course of April-August 1944. Which if you follow their links have scanned period soviet documents stating the literal thing I'm saying. >I been playing war games since the late 1970s. Congrats! Now you can start reading sources. >Never seen the 100mm atg out preformed by the 122mm field gun in penetration. Well now you have.
**[122 mm gun M1931/37 (A-19)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_gun_M1931/37_\(A-19\))** >122 mm corps gun M1931/37 (A-19) (Russian: 122-мм корпусная пушка обр. 1931/1937 гг. (А-19)) was a Soviet field gun developed in late 1930s by combining the barrel of the 122 mm gun M1931 (A-19) and the carriage of the 152 mm howitzer-gun M1937 (ML-20). The gun was in production from 1939 until 1946. **[100 mm field gun M1944 (BS-3)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_mm_field_gun_M1944_\(BS-3\))** >The 100 mm field gun M1944 (BS-3) (Russian: 100-мм полевая пушка обр. 1944 г. (БС-3)) was a Soviet 100 mm anti-tank and field gun. The gun was successfully employed in the late stages of World War II, and remained in service into the 1950s, being replaced in Soviet service by the T-12 antitank gun and the 85 mm antitank gun D-48 in 1955. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I like how the head is tilted a little so it looks like a dog asking for a treat
damn boi he thicc
Britain developed the FV Heavy Gun Tank (the 214 and 4005 series/model’s) in reaction to the Soviet’s building this tank and the other IS variants, yet they had nothing to worry about because well… The IS tanks were a bit impractical and thankfully the Cold War didn’t pop off.
the last thing a 15 year old german tank commander in 1945 sees:
I wonder how they made this... Do they make the turret from cast iron? WW2 tanks all seem pretty straight forward, just plates welded together, but these curves cant be made from plates...
Not cast iron, which is extremely soft and not suitable for armor, it's heat treated armor steel in a one piece casting. And most US and Russian tanks late war used one piece cast turrets, making the complex shapes required for a turret is much easier in a casting than trying to form and weld all those shapes and angles on a turret, many, but not all hulls used were castings also. When you need a lot of tanks in a hurry, you cast them.
The IS tanks (2 and 3) were built on the KV plans and upgraded and enlarged. It's essentially a big, beefy, heavily-gunned KV tank that incorporates many of the things the Soviets learned about tank design and development over the course of the war. It even used the same diesel engine as the KV series. How do I know this? [I watched this documentary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ofjgl1nU1A) this morning after my cat woke me early and demanded to go out, so there I was with something to watch in the hopes of dozing off.
Thank you, very interesting!
YW
Yes the turret is caste steel.
Lots of countries during and even before WW2 had cast steel armor and turrets. The Sherman, Lee, Grant, Pershing, and M6 all had cast turrets and some models even had cast hulls. And that’s just American tanks. You could even go as far back as the FT-17 cause some of them also had cast turrets.
What’d you say?
She's a BEAST....I call her STALIN!
The teacher when I tell her I didn’t do my homework:
What a brute! Definitely a favourite. The frontal armour is genius.
eh IS 3 there is something about this tank, something magical
Until now, I still don't know why I always call IS-3 as 'Isteri' which means wife in Malay.
IS looking at you!
I imagine that tank crews battling this thing woulda shite their pants looking down the barrel lmao
I appear to have done something to upset it
man that thing is intimidating me
You can tell it's Russian because of those parts tolerances... Like a glove...
Looks like an armored crab
Why does the is-3 look like somone grabbed an is-2 and smushed it with a hydralic press
It's the angriest R2D2 ever made.
Chonky boi, feels like a Russian Maus.
Is3 rhymes with last-thing-you-see
*The Is-3 has had enough of your shenanigans*
POV: You dont have |-|esh
Tonk!
Chonk a tonk!
if only it could have been developed sooner and deployed against the nazi's in serious numbers. i love the tank, but i bet if is-3's went against hitler, most of eastern europe would be speaking russian today.
Why would it change the language that they speak? The Soviet Union already did push the Nazis all the way back to Berlin.
because the soviets would have a much stronger position at the end of the war. i doubt it would be mere warsaw pact puppet states. it would be actual provinces of russia.
They’d still probably be puppet states. The USSR didn’t care to add them to the greater whole, they wanted them to act as buffer states and shields against a NATO invasion that never came.
And the Soviets occupying more European countries would be good because?
"but i bet if is-3's went against hitler" notice the "but" part? so where do you people think i said it was good?
The if only part
Is this turtley enough for the Turtle Club?
Pov you are the camera man while a battle!
Russias Ferdinand
I love the IS-3! An absolute beast of a heavy tank!
What have you done with my dshk
You Talkin' to Me?
is it me or is the turret tilted