Tank Chats #54 JS III | The Tank Museum
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 07. 2018
- Tank Chats playlist • Tank Chats from The Ta... The JS III or IS III was debuted by the Soviet Union at the Second World War Victory Parade, in September 1945.
This particular JS III was at The Tank Museum temporarily, for its appearance at TANKFEST 2018, and has now returned home to The Belgian Royal Military Museum.
Tickets are now available for TANKFEST 2019 tankmuseum.org/whats-on/events...
SUBSCRIBE to The Tank Museum CZcams channel: ► / @thetankmuseum
Support the work of The Tank Museum on Patreon: ► / tankmuseum
Or donate tankmuseum.org/support-us/donate
Visit The Tank Museum SHOP: ►tankmuseumshop.org/
Press the little bell above to enable NOTIFICATIONS so you don’t miss the latest Tank Museum videos.
Follow The Tank Museum on FACEBOOK: ► / tankmuseum
Follow The TIGER Tank Collection on FACEBOOK
: ► / tigertankcollection
Twitter: ► / tankmuseum
Tiger Tank Blog: ► blog.tiger-tank.com/
Tank 100 First World War Centenary Blog: ► tank100.com/ #tankmuseum #tanks #tankchats The Tank Museum E-Newsletter sign-up: mailchi.mp/e6fae2ac8bee/newsl...
I may or may not be slightly irritated about the fact that when I visited Belgium they had just relocated this tank to Bovington and that when I visited England it had just been moved back. Who knew Stalin could be so elusive?
my condolences, you lead an uncharmed life. gives you an excuse to visit Belgium again, maybe for the celebration of Armistice Day?
Just go to Kubinka (near Moscow). One is there all the time as far as I know :)
This is russian bias for you.
NATO hiding just how badass these things were, LOL.
Nato still does lol
"You're off finding mines with your feet on the Eastern Front." A phrase worthy of David Fletcher. :D
MrCordycep what happened to him?
Gen Scinmore
He's finding mines...
With his feet
On the eastern front
And his mustache.
I really do love how the IS-2 and IS-3 look. When I think "tank", it's usually something that looks similar to these.
Agreed.. they are a classic tank design.. that leads to the IS7, which, in my personal opinion, is probably the most beautiful classic looking tank of all time.
@@skraf883the IS-7 is a real Tank and it's actually the most successful heavy Tank design, massive firepower from a 130mm cannon and really good and heavy armor with piking nose design, weighing approximately 68 tons and still achieving the speed of over 60km/h
But the tank fails to enter production
@@wcrcqdc2dvcr3c2rxr Yes, I know. I know all of this. And it failed to enter production because it was way too expensive for Russian industry to build, and it was too heavy for Russian roads, rails and bridges.
When I think of tank it’s t54 and that exactly what I drew as a kid , the shape is just so simplistic
That turret is a casting masterpiece.
I wouldn't call extremely crude typical Russian casting a masterpiece, although it was better made than the T-34........ The Tiger and the Panther were engineering masterpieces, Russian tanks were not.
@@gooner72One reactivated 80 years later, the other notoriously unreliable to the point some consider it a failure. Which was the engineering masterpiece again?
@@gooner72 The Panther was kind of a nightmare from an engineering point of view though. As far as medium tanks goes, they should be reliable and move great distances on their own. The Panther always struggled with that. Even though it had some of the best mobility of any tank in WW2. But it bought this mobility in the field trough the complex nature of the suspension and transmission which also gave the tank a relatively high profile. The crew layout of the Panther was also not very ideal. Particularly when it comes to the gunner and commander. A Panther crew would have a considerably worse ergonomic compared to the Sherman for example.
You can see it here in great detail where The Chieftain (CZcamsr) goes over it while showing the inside of a Panther :
czcams.com/video/9xKYicir_i8/video.html
@@gooner72 Sherman tanks were engineering masterpiece in comparison to this two junks that were literally constantly broken without even seing any action.
Panther transmision was on avg good for 120-130km if the driver was skilled and was able to save it for that long, then you needed to remove the turret and use special crane able to take out the transmision from the front of the tank->"engineering masterpiece" for a crew of technicians during winter and -40 deg C outside.
Tigers so often were unloaded from train and unable to even leave the train station on their own.
Germany lost the war for a reason and production of "engineering masterpieces" do not sound to me like a good reason to lose the war...
Later when they ironed out some of the fault the quality of the steel droped -> it was never a masterpiece...
Masterpiece that could not handle it's weigjt do to the problems with transmition and engines.
That’s a real Beautiful Beast! A Soviet masterpiece!... Hard to believe it was made at the end of WW2.
same as the centurion and the patton, which were finished by the end of ww2. appearently, they all thought quite modern for the ww2 era, and its appearent that tank design advanced more during those 6 years of ww2 than it did in the period of 1915 to 1939.
@@sollitdude1 M46 Patton didn't enter service until '49.
@@thekinginyellow1744 It's basically an upgraded version of the m26. But the later pattons were all designed after the war.
@@sollitdude1 centurion was a pretty poor design armour efficiency wise, 50 tons and can't stop a King tiger gun. The Pershing had the same level of protection frontally and even more in the sides but 10 less tons of weight.
@@sollitdude1 You mean the Pershing
One of the meanest looking tanks ever made.
Yes of course your choice tank-sofa
It looks like an mbt imo
That would be the King tiger
And the most elegant!
it doesn't look mean. it looks like it's been melted.
I can only imagine the looks on the "Allied" commanders faces when they were watching the parade and these things come rolling by
Me too
......nothing but smiles. Another reason trades people/engineers will make another house payment & afford a lifestyle this representative example & those who manufacture could only dream of. We rule out of right; not might. Oppressed pussies never fight 100%
@@robervin4384 "another house payment" ... and you think oppression isn't universal xD
@@robervin4384 might makes right, your point is null, taxation is theft and usa is an oppresive state
@@krzysztofbroda5376 if taxation is theft, then the US of A is one of the less oppressive countries these days. (And it most certainly is one of the least oppressive countries)
I imagine that they thought:
"Good that they're on our side....Right?"
A crude beast by today's standards, but it is easy to see why it caused great concern among those using Pershings, Sherman M4E8s and early Centurions.
They sure put couple of big holes in our Budapest apartment in November 1956..
Wow.
Thanks to this Russian Tank along with the rest of its armored division, I've ended up in the USA. .
@@orgami100 we're glad to have you
I hope your life in the USA has been well :)
Oh man, you should look at the 100mm holes the upgraded Sherman did here in Argentina back in 1976
When I was young, our country was part of Soviet Union and I must been to go through army service. My place of service was in Far-East, Primorye, near Pogranichny, where not far away was Chinese border. So I was year and half in mountains, where we had 10 tanks IS-3 without engine. They placed on concrete pillars and engine room was filled with ammunition. But this was more than 35 years ago, so I'm sure, such things not existing anymore... but hey, this is Russia, all weird things are possible.
Sounds like part of the plot for The Bear and the Dragon. You should read it
Sounds like a traitor coping
So from what I’ve read, the development of the IS-3 is rather interesting. Two factories were working on the newest iteration of IS/JS tanks, those factories being Leningrad, Kirov(LK) and the Chelyabinsk, Kirov(CK) plants, in which they had a rivalry of sorts. Both of their iterations had some unique concepts, LK developed the pike nose with an IS-2 style turret, and CK developed the low profile turret with a IS-2 type hull. After some testing was made with both prototypes, the strange decision made was to combine the two promising factors of each prototype, that of course being the pike nose of LK and low profile turret of CK. Thus making the IS-3
Quick clarification: Putting the 85mm gun on the KV-1 did not make it an IS-1.
There WAS a KV-1 with an 85mm gun, but the IS-1 was a completely new tank. The KV-1 with the 85mm gun was a KV-1S (lighter version of KV-1) with the turret of the Prototype object 237 (which became the IS-1) mounted on it. So the KV-85 was essentially a KV-1S (with modified chassis) with an IS-1 turret.
The IS-1 was initially named IS-85 but later renamed IS-1 when the IS-2 was introduced.
I know these tank chats are slightly simplified, but please don't get details like that wrong. People tend to get confused.
Also the "early" model IS-2's are actually called IS-122. The IS-2 is actually the version with the sloped upper glacis.
No, the IS-2 was only called IS-122 during testing. When full production started, it was renamed IS-2.
The sloped upper glacis version made in late '44 was not called anything different.
Only the prototypes were called IS-122. The IS-2 with the sloped glacis was Obr. (basically "model of") 1944, while the stepped glacis production was Obr. 1943.
I remember from several sources that the first IS-2 prodution variant was called the IS-122 and later models were called IS-2. There was no IS-2 Mod. 1944, only the IS-122 and the IS-2.
Then your sources are wrong ;)
Love Soviet tanks. That pike nose makes it look so futuristic.
You're right, the look is great... but about protection that pike nose is not a good idea, it's too complex to be strong.
@@BFVK "it's too complex to be strong" wtf? Either its casting or two plates welded together, how is this complex?
Sander169 and since when has complexity been directly proportional to a decrease in strength?
@@BFVK Mate Soviet tanks were the complete opposite of complex.
@@neonknight-1522 Mate, I talk about the diamond form of the nose. It's a complex form for a front hull. I didn't about the tanks in general
*"WHAT THE BLOODY HELL IS THAT?"* - Squire
Oh yeeeeees
SPaMuRai GRaNaTaBRu what video was that from?
Atomic age I belive
*kalinka intensifies*
WT Ground Forces in a nutshell
DT-20? Thats a russian tractor from 1958. The gun is called the D-25T!
ZIS i s a Zavod imeni Stalina (Factory named after Stalin) and the produced both a gun and a truck
@Communism isn't that bad it's a soviet union tractor, to be more precise. You know, Kharkov plant became ukrainian only after 1991, long after the abolition of DT-20 production.
@Arnold Schwarzenegger If it's from 1960 then it's definately not Ukrainian, it's Soviet.
That triggered me, but still great channel
@@slavap4963 Ukraine was a Republic of USSR, that's like saying something made in London isn't English because it is British.
This tank wasn't really designed to kill Panthers and King Tigers as much as break through heavily fortified German defensive positions. There were simply too few Panthers and King Tigers to give Soviets too much worry, so Soviets didn't need a specific tank-hunter for its heavy tank, but German defenses around East Prussia and Eastern Germany were extremely deep with a lot of reinforced concrete bunkers. IS-2s and IS-3s were meant to break down those bunkers and allow infantry to gain ground.
Bull
American historians: The cold war was settling it, the tensions between the two super powers are at an all time high and are locked in an ideological conflict lasting for decades and threatening to end THE ENTIRE WORLD through nuclear destruction!
British historians: "The cold war is starting and the soviets and the west arent really getting on"
I dont understand what you are you saying?
Balls. It was always a monetary ruse. NPI. Went both ways. Lol.
Yeah, threat of nuclear destruction. Sounds familiar.
@@antoniogomes4975 I think what they're trying to convey is how the Americans interpreted saw the Cold War as the two most powerful nations in the world locked against eachother with the fate of the whole world at stake while the rest of the world looks on in awe and horror. While to Britain it may have been seen more like two children bickering. Either way, I think its a commentary on how American historians tend to exaggerate the importance and tones of "savior of the free world" when they talk about their own country's history. For something similar, the war of 1812 is seen by some Americans as being another gut punch to their former oppressors and a great symbol of American victory for freedom. While for Britain is was very much more like "Whatever. Let America have whatever it is they're fighting over here, we have more important things to worry about *eyeballs France*". Or WW1 where by the time America even got over to Europe, the war was already ending. Doesn't stop them from parading that they helped end the Great War. Or the war in Iraq where Americans will no doubt emphasize how necessary it was, but there's a good reason Canada decided not to go along with it despite fighting alongside them in Afghanistan. While American influence has nonetheless been an aid in many conflicts, the more patriotic among them tend to overstate their contributions and importance.
Edit: And to be entirely fair to the US, they're not the only country that does this. There are those in Canada that push that if the US military and the Canadian military fought on equal footing, Canada would somehow make up for the sheer numbers disadvantage with better trained soldiers. While there is some truth that your typical Canadian soldier is probably better trained than a typical American one, America would wipe the floor with us on numbers alone. Plus the majority of our production, resources and population are right on the American border so it'd likely be a quick smash and grab in America's favour.
Possibly the best looking tank of all time. So mean and purposeful.
ew
Professor Pesca lol no. everybody knows its tigers, challenger 1,2s, panthers, centurions
Professor Pesca I prefer the King Tiger, but I can see the appeal
I know... Looks actually compact for such a big boy. Pikefaced killer...
not a fan of pike nose personally
Has to be my favorite thing to watch on CZcams. GREAT JOB GUY'S THANKS
Thanks for doing a video on the JS-III! Coincidentally, I just dusted off my unfinished 1/35 Trumpeter IS-3M. This gave me even more motivation to finish it.
I've been spoiled by the nick, the chieftain's overviews over other armor. Thank you for covering this piece of history, I was just waiting and waiting for you to clamber up the side and show us the interior or what the 'view from the mast' looked like. Thanks again!
The IS3 made the first, seamingly ahead of it's time, Tiger tanks look ancient.
They are weak compare to the boss tiger..
Jeth Smith then the IS-4M comes and rekt the Tiger II and leaves
@@zzzzxxxx341 This is the last boss of werhaboos
@@KJ-is5ug Is-2 comes and rekt the tiger 2 and leaves too
@@zzzzxxxx341 Yes the stronk Tiger... made of metal so shoddy in quality an HE blast would often just make it fall apart.
Great video! Glad you guys keep making these!
FINALLY!
I LOVE THIS SERIES!!
Sadly I couldn’t see it at Tankfest but I will finally see it on my visits to numerous museums
I really enjoy these chats. It's always nice to learn something while viewing these videos.
What a beast!
(The IS3, not Mr Willey)
Him too though. Very tall chap.
Lol:)
@@catfish552 the tank actually looks smaller with Mr Wiley right next to it
Thank you Belgium Military Museum For Letting the Tank Museum Having it and The Tank Museum For Putting this Tank Chat Up.
David Wiley you are absolutely thee best narrator! outstanding! pleasure to listen too and learn. Thank all of you at the museum for this content. Thank you David.
I have seen that tank a lot when i visited the museum in my youth. It had in comparison with the other tanks that stood there a menacing look. Monsterlike. Kind of terminator. We always wanted to take it home:p
Absolutely love that you took the opportunity to make this great video while you had the chance. Good description of the vehicle. I do want to point out I feel like there are some gross over-simplifications in the developmental history of the IS series. The first mass production to put the 85mm gun on the KV chassis was in fact the KV-85, and was not strictly part of the IS series of tanks. This turret with 85mm gun later became the standard turret for the IS-1 tank. The IS-1/2 and KV share very little in common apart from a passing similarity in the running gear; almost every single part was of entirely new design.
The IS tank chassis has a very unique and interesting heritage of its own. It descends from the KV-13, which originally was a sort of competitor to the KV-1S for a new class of "light-heavy tank". KV-1S was obviously the one preferred for service, and the new and expensive KV-13 which still at that point had a 76mm gun was for reasons stated in the video seen as redundant. The indexes IS-1 and IS-2 also originally belong to KV-13 derivatives, one of which with a short barrel 122mm howitzer in a turret similar to KV-9. These were not accepted for production of course, and development then lead to the larger chassis that would bear the KV-85's turret, creating the IS-1 tank as we know it.
Another point; I'm very confused by the designation "DT-20" for the 122mm. I have only seen it as D-25T. If somebody can inform me more on the DT-20 designation please let me know
Magnificent sir. there is nothing better in the morning than listening to a person with extreme knowledge on an interesting subject
Wooo! Been waiting for this since I heard it was going to be at the museum :)
At BR 7.7 the IS-3 sucks. ...Oh wait, this is The Tank Museum channel!
Yeah, and the 20pdr can't scratch the IS-3, its immune to all AP rounds past 500m.
SsiolisP but isn t it on 7.3 in rb?
It actually doesn't. Sure you won't kill as much as an T-54, but you can do work helping your team push forward.
Try playing it. Most of the time it's uptiered, and even if it's not uptiered lots of tanks will kill you from the fron, even from vast distance. At 7.3 IS-3 is just like a slower version of IS-2 with totally useless armour.
"Try playing it", mine is spaded with over 70% win rate. Git gud son.
David’s got one hell of a tan on in this video. And that matching trouser and shoe combo is brave
As always, excellent information. Thank you.
I love these videos!
Good job!
I'd rather have a leg cramp than my head blown off.
How about an amputated leg??? I'm sure you could be accomodated. You'd bleed out in the cozy comfort of your own tank. Something to be said for that.
@@haroldfiedler6549 hey, don't need leg space if you don't have legs!
Or you could have a tank with plenty room and plenty armor instead of that coffin comrade.
If your height is between 160-170 you would be comfortable in the IS-3
@@The_sound_Of_Thunder Yeah, but since the average life expectancy in a russian tank on the Eastern Front was less than a day of combat (hours), you don't need to make it confy, just make it work so it does move and it doesnt catch fire. If you end up killing two or three tanks then you have a "profit" in terms of production and resources, since the boches couldn't replace them as fast as the ruskies.
Bear in mind that the germans had a reserve of thousands of tanks (Their own tanks, french sardine cans, czech 38t, some captured KVs...), but either the fuel problem or the logistics made it impossible to have them all deployed
Quite possibly my favorite tank. Intimidating looks with a gun to match.
Really cool review! The Tank Museum/VCC is my number one vacation destination.
Been waiting for this one.
Worth watching, just for the hilarious names of 'the producers' at the end! LOL
Sir I Fist must say I spit my beverage across the room when u said"if you don't like the conditions in the tank you can go to the eastern front and find mines with your FEET" BRILLIANTLY funny..I Truly love your videos..GREAT JOB !!!
Beautifully explained and great video, as usual.
Cannot get enough tank history. Thank you
That gun is a lot bigger than pictures make it look.
There are evidences that IS-3 did see some action at the very end of the European part of the WWII. I've seen a photograph, dated by May 16th, 1945, featuring Soviet and American soldiers posing in front of a IS-3. The tank has a number of marks left by bullets, shell fragments, armor-piercing projectiles and so on -- but no penetration of course: it was not that easy to penetrate its 120 mm frontal, double-sloped armor, as well as almost 200 mm of the turret's armor.
All this leads to a conclusion that there was a number of IS-3s (rather limited, though) that did see action during the very last weeks of the war in Europe.
I know for sure that at least a battalion of IS-3s was sent to the Russian Far East to fight the Japanese Kwantung Army in August of 1945. But whether or not that battalion had ever reached the front line still remains unclear.
Do you have the picture?? Or at least do you know where can I see it??
@@mexicobasado8177
Sorry, it was about 20 years ago. I was doing my research at the LOC (Library Of Congress) when I came across of this photograph. There's a chance it was digitized, but I haven't seen it online yet.
I've often seen the claim that the IS-3 fought in Manchuria, but I never saw much direct evidence of it myself. I would very much like to see more specific information on that.
@@philipped.r.6385 "deployed to Manchuria" could easily be understood as "saw combat in Manchuria"
EG. The early Centurion prototypes were deployed to Germany in April/May 1945 but didn't reach the front in time to see any combat.
Was great to see at Tankfest. What a beast!!!
Thank You !
If i could marry a Tank, it would definetely be the IS-3 xD
That's a big girl you got there
@@billmatson8711 Girl named Josef.
"Being uncomfortable in the turret is better than being dead because of lack of armour" - bad argument
"Dictatorship, dictatorship, GULAG, dictatorship" - good argument
In a parallel universe: "Russians made their tanks so much comfortable because dictator Stalin cared not about armor protection".
Dictatorship had anything to do with requirements by Red Army for mew tanks led to these desigm choices?
@@huntermad5668 no, naturally. Requirements were based on overall weight of the vehicle, size limits (for tanks to be easely transportable by train platforms) and desired protection, which led to reduction of internal space
The West holds quality of life at a higher standard than Russians ever since the Russian Nobility bred any desire for dignity out of the serfs. There are still a lot of Russians who retain that lack of dignity or the desire for it. Obviously this is a problem everywhere as just about every civilization had a noble class and underclasses which were abused. It was always easier to keep your head down, take what you're given and pump out kids. In the West, at least in England, the people who wanted more and were willing to work for it weren't decimated like they were by the Bolsheviks and then by the Communists. There were certainly rebellions and crack downs but if you look at those populations which lost rebellions they tend to be more hedonistic and less dignified. Not to make any judgement, just pointing out the difference.
The result of all this is the English starting with a higher non-negotiable level of dignity expected at any given time. To be expected to go any lower than this is to rather be dead. While this trait may seem a bit self destructive and maladaptive, in practice it means that the English will fight for their dignity as if it were their life. The Russians won't do this and they will just stuff themselves in a box if that's what their Lord says to do. If they didn't they would be sent off to die because we can't have that kind of attitude in Soviet Russia.
@@user-tc9sk4ei9y Funny thing that they could have learned from the original t34 turret design. Space inside turret is important because it allows faster fire, better ability for crew to move and see etc. Not to mention having so few rounds is a huge handicap. Question is why was rate of fire not set as requirement. Same tank with a bit thinner armour, a bit smaller gun and bigger internal turret would be a terrifying thing. Sure somewhat worse survivability but you would get a lot more rounds, a lot faster firing, crew can work better etc.
I saw this JSIII at the Belgium museum about 2yrs ago, impressive for its time.
What a beauty!
I just assembled a KV1 and IS3 in 1/35 scale. Amazing tanks.
Actually lol'd at the finding mines with your feet 😂
well, i
I'd laugh too if it weren't half true...
Alex Wade Thats definitely a method of de-feeting your critics in a spectacular fashion....
hahahahahahaha
I've heard sweeping mines with a hammer is far more entertaining......
for some at least ;)
Alex Wade stalin loved killing his own almost as much as killing germans
Both, IS-2 and IS-3 had the DT-25T (ДТ-25Т) gun, not a DT-20 one, as the host keeps on referring to. In fact, there was no such a tank gun as DT-20...
The D-20 in fact was a 152mm howitzer produced since 1946. So yes, no tank gun.
The DT-20 is a soviet tractor
Thanks BTM !, my next kit build is a JS-3, the pics will be most helpful.
Wow I had the chance to touch this tank in Bastogne in 2016. Nice to see it is available to the visitors of the tank museum. :)
FV214 Heavy Tank, 120 mm Gun ‘Conqueror’ tank chat pretty please?!?
The rotating cupola and the whole fire control system with rangefinder was revolutionary - precursor of the modern day targeting computers and ‘hunter killer’ capability.
Plus it looks awesome with a curvaceous turret of its own.
And it was, apparently, surprisingly good cross country (Churchill pedigree probably) despite its weight and resulting mechanical unreliability.
But what I really want to know is: does it have a boiling vessel?
I know the bivvie was introduced as standard equipment with the Centurion (which is the same time period as the Conq, as mentioned in this video) and has been ever since with the Chieftain and Challengers. But did they put one in the Conq? Important questions must be asked!
Internet Entity pretty sure conqueror has one. Even WWII era vehicles had some form of boiling equipment, just not the standard BV we know today
As far i know, British Groind vehicles are always equiped with tea making facilities (water boiling for example)....
@@stureremilthestuborn128mm5 most vehicles have one if you're brave enough....
It would be funny if you said “Tank you” to our new patrons😁
nice video thx 💯👍
I actually saw this tank at the Bastogne Barracks museum only a couple of months ago and they had a ISU-152 which sent me a bit giddy lol
You can clearly see where the future designs of the T-54/55 comes from.
not really, this guy (narrator) talks BS. The T-54 looks comes from T-44 (which is much older then IS-3), just the later T-54 got newer turret that is inspired by the IS-3. What he said about IS-3, IS and IS-2 development is a complete nonsense, he even mismatched the gun name of IS-2. ...And this is a tank museum curator OMG.
Im so disappointed that i didnt make tankfest this year. I had no idea that they had an IS3 and M103 running. I would have LOVED to see that.
Thank you!
Beautiful machine. It moves so smoothly.
Really is a menacing looking tank.
IS-3 was also an engineering disaster to happen. Due to strict weight limit, there was plenty of cutting around corners, that included even welding used to keep hull together. This resulted in engine compartement and gearbox case cracking from vibrations, sometimes sending tanks to repair straight from factory. This was patched up during first modernization effort in 1948, and finally fixed in 50s by adding 3 tons worth of reinforcing. Other issue was obsolete gearbox, and supercharged engine that lacked sufficient cooling, which was eventually fixed by replacing engine with unit from T-54.
kireta21 exactly, people actually over estimate this tank when actually it was a disaster waiting to happen. dont forget its aweful gun dynamics, low speed, turret rotation
You mean the Panther did a much better use of its 45 tons?
I'd actually argue that the Panther was a better tank, although not really comparable.
First of all the IS-3 has less horsepower in the engine department, around 90 hp less, while weighing a bit more.
This was later made worse by adding an additional 4 tons to the vehicle.
It also had reported faults in the quality of the armor where it would crack open due to poor welding.
The 122 mm gun used had both lower muzzle velocity and lower penetration at the same ranges as the Panther tank.
The reason being that the IS-3 like the IS-2 used the same gun which was built to fire large high explosive rounds at bunkers.
A good comparison for the D-25T is actually the 12,8 cm KwK 44 L/55 which also fired two piece ammunition but had much better performance.
All in all the IS-3 doesn't look like a good vehicle, it looks like a rushed project that was pushed into production before all the bugs were worked out (like the Germans had a habit of doing).
Also the IS-3 came into production 2 years after the Panther tank, which for these times was a lot of time, for the sake of comparison the Tiger 2 and Jagdtiger were rolling around when the IS-3 was a thing.
Poor welding, that's also the case for the Panther _However, in the summer of 1944, the Germans experienced a shortage of manganese and had to switch to using high-carbon steel alloyed with nickel, which made armor very brittle, especially at the seam welds. The performance of the 122 mm AP shells of the IS-2 against the Panther improved considerably_ As for the the Tiger II and the Jagdtiger, those are 75 ton heavy tanks, I hope they perform although the power ratio is a lot less
Well it makes sense in case of the Germans, not that much in the case of the Russian IMO.
In 44 Germany was losing the war, was getting bombed to oblivion and had to deal with landings.
Most of the Russian industrial base was in the Urals, safe from attack, so the problems in the IS-3 are most likely due to it being rushed into production so they can be shown to the Allies during the Berlin victory parade, who had thrown two nukes at Japan a month earlier which were the first weapon of this type to be used.
The IS-3 is a bit of an oddball in that way.
Also if I recall correctly the reason why the 122 mm AP did better against the Panther was because the armor on the Panther became similar to the armor used on the T-34, high carbon brittle steel that shatters when hit, I'm not sure it was because of welds.
The Jagdpz IV had similar issues I think.
Awesome.. thanks mate 👍🇳🇿
It was nice to meet you the week before last (Love what you've done with the place bloke here :)) Great video as always.
It looks as intimidating as a King Tiger, but it is even lighter than a Panther. That's amazing. And look at all the tankrider bars welded to the turret, cause the whole tank is so well sloped.
3:55 t-34 captured and rebranded by the Finns.
we call that bad boy the demonetization tank
Always loved the look of this tank.
One of my favorite tanks tbh!
Amazing Russians huilt IS 2 and 3s with 122mm guns on same weight as Panther with 75mm
This tank needed a column of support vehicles a mile long to keep it going
Thank You
My favorite tank of all time along with the T10. This vehicle could still be a worthy opponent on a modern battlefield today.
No it couldnt
You're off finding mines with your feet on the Eastern Front."
in other words...
''If you complain, you end up lame''
According to Western propaganda, most notably Nazi propaganda.
Its IS-3 not JS-3. IS-3 stands for josef stalin 3, but the russian pronunciation of Josef is iosef
(yo-sev)
Wow you're dense...
ИС-3
I love this design. That glacis plate shape is really distinctive and futuristic. A menacing low profile turret and whacking great big gun.
Very, good show. Extremely interesting good job well done thanks 👍✌️
A group of rebels reactivated a memorial tank ?! Vladimir better take down all those T-34 statues in Moscow if a rebellion pops up.
Can be knocked out by soldier with a RPG29 that can damage an Abrams.
"Rebels" or Russian special ops?
@@dugclrk Rebles even the Ukrainian goverment says only 2,000 Russian servicemen are actually in the reble army of around 50,000
"and if you dont like it then you're off finding mines on the Eastern front with your feet...."
This is a proper looking tank!!
Was great seeing this one live at Tankfest this year. It seemed rather small compared to the M103 and other heavy tanks.
M103 was just big can with armor thicknes almost the same as M60
It slightly bothers me that you titled this “JS-3.”
indeed ! It's Iosif Stalin !
Bookhead714 that's the name of the tank
the guy I’ve always called it the IS series, and JS just sounds strange to me.
Joseph versus Иосиф (Iosif). I agree, "J" looks strange :)
In some languages actually JS is accurate.That vermin wasn't even russian. He renamed himself. So this is no issue in the first place.
when aliens comes to earth i will show them this tank and ask how did they find this kind design
Having spent some time in an IS3 at the Littlefield collection I was amazed how cramp the crew and fighting compartments we're, anybody over 5ft.4"was in trouble and the loader had a back breaking time handeling the massive 122mm projectile and propelling charges, I spent a lot time in the M103s in the Marines raming & jamming as both the number 1 and 2 loader humping 120 mm rounds into the breach.
Beautiful tank.
wait....KV85 is not IS1....i'm confuzzled now....what?
3:44 'DT20' i believe D25T good sir
The kv85 was still considered part of the kv family of heavy tanks despite the fact that it looks similar to the Is 1. The Is 1 came shortly after the kv85.
Similar but not the same
Also my guess is the museum guy knows a bit more about tanks than the average WoT player. I think his version may be wright :).
In this page is picture of IS-85 prototype [www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet_IS-I.php]
There is probably nobody in Europe who seriously calls this "JS 3" since it's real name and identification form are "IS-3"
ИС-3 can be translated either way.
From what I read the IS-85/IS-1 turret production was ahead of schedule but the hull and drivetrain was delayed. This led to a supply of turrets and no hulls.
The turret ring of the IS tank was too wide to fit the KV-1S hull but fillets could be added to the side of the hull to support the IS turret ring and install the early IS turret KV-1S hulls. 148 were built and entered service before end of 1943. All were consumed in combat by end of 1944.
Thats an awesome looking tank!
Btw, next time you should name the IS-3 in Hebrew for extra confusion:
יוסף סטאלין-3
It is D-25T gun not "DT20"
I visited Bastogne yesterday, mainly for seeing the IS-3. Had I only known it was in Bovington, I would have waited with my visit...
YAY! NEW TANK CHATS!
Russians: we have thick armour and big guns
Britain: pulls the sheet of the conqueror
is-3 actually fought in ww2. it has been used against japan in august 1945 in kuril islands!
They used a cheat code
Quality Channel Cheeki Breeki fun fact. It there is no evidence of it participating in the invasion of the Kuril Islands or Manchuria.
...It left no witnesses
Those hulls of IS-3s were brought to Kuril islands in 1983 to act as static artillery positions
The israelis used captured egyptian IS-3´s the same way, because the engine didnt perform well in the desert sand. Dat gun, though!:)
Thanks.
Seen them at Kubinka tank museum, it's a bit rough & ready but they have a great collection, Including a Maus!!