the mad lads at factory 100 just designing and building a new prototype, instead of upgrades for the IS-2. Quite interesting and fascinating story as the other videos in this heavy soviet armour series.
Remember, these tanks were being developed during the height of WW2, so money and resource constraints weren't an issue (unless something was literally in short supply). It was also reasonable to assume tanks would continue to grow more powerful as the war progressed and after it had concluded. Stalin had his eye on Europe and tanks would be key to his efforts to seize control of as much of it as possible (both during the war as it unfolded and any potential continuation of the war against the other Allies or shortly after the war ended). So, the USSR invested heavily in developing new taks. It would also be beneficial in light of the above if the other Allies weren't familiar with the USSR's best tanks and one way to maximise this was to produce new tank models. Of course, as the new normal became more entrenched, and after Stalin died, tank development (particularly of new tank models) in the USSR slowed down and the Western world followed suit, as the US and the UK had already made many attempts to avoid developing new tank types. The problem up to that point was the intensity of the arms race, for which each side kept on creating new models in response to each others' developments. The Soviets were, for example, determined to have the biggest main gun and most heavily armoured heavy tank. Every time Western countries introduced a larger main gun calibre, Soviet bureacrats hurried to introduce a larger one (as in the case of the T-62 and T-64). Western countries sought to abandon heavy tanks during Stalin's time (particularly in light of ATGM development and to produce budget savings) but as the USSR kept introducing heavier tanks, the need for new heavies was undeniable and the product (M60 and Chieftain) also fed into the USSR's ongoing development of new heavy tanks - both during Stalin's reign and later. It also was used to justufy the adoption of even bigger main guns on MBTs.
It's due to differences in idea of what constitutes a light, medium, and heavy tank. The Germans equates role to class. A light scouts and supports infantry. A medium fights other tanks and supports infantry. A heavy breaks the enemy line so the other two can exploit the gap. Soviets and US used weight and gun to determine class of tank.
@@LAHFaust The Soviets never used the term "medium tank" - they used "breakthrough tank" for their heavy tanks, "fast tank" or "support tank" for their light tanks, and just "tank" for everything else. Their classification system was significantly more nebulous and less rigidly-defined than most western contemporaries.
I remember when they introduced the IS-6 in War Thunder and the community was (rightly) mad because it was so OP, some guy tried to convince me it was a fake vehicle and all the photos of it were edited from IS-2 and 3
These are perhaps the best tank documentaries on TH-cam. This is excellent delivery of knowledge and I'd say this and the Chieftain's hatch series play an important role in being Secondary and tertiary sources.
The Inside the Hatch series are by definition primary sources - he's literally filming the tank itself, how much more reliable can you get? What do you want, a .pdf of the blueprints or something?
I just love the thought of these old dudes locked in their secret room feverishly brain storming ideas for their secret tank, while telling anyone who knocked on the door to piss off.
This series is taking turns I couldn't have imagined. Like it's actually blowing my mind with how these Soviet tank programs developed and the conflicting naming.
You should've mentioned that the IS-2U design was used by WG to create the fictitious Chinese 110 heavy tank in world of tanks(Stock configuration, the top turret is taken from the IS-8/T-10)
@@yoshineitor well the 112-2 from blitz is the kirovets-1(obj 701-1/ IS-3 early prototype) from pc recolored to chinese color As for the obj 701-II dual barrel tank from pc, that simply used the Kirovets-1 hull, widen the turret to fit two guns and call it a day
I still remember first meeting it Was driving an AVRE Can't deacribe the dumsterfire of a brain i had when i realised out of 4 shots he took he sustaned no damage. Then hebjust shook his barell in disapproval and one tapped me
Its such a typical Soviet tank. Lots of clever ideas, out of the box thinking and engineering and a good bit of political subterfuge surrounding the design proces. And the result looks amazing with the heavy armour, powerful engine and large gun, until you look at the details. So often upon closer examination, Soviet tanks suffer from clear design issues with: -Basic crew comfort. -Poor gearbox and steering systems. -Suspension quality, either weight capacity or poor stability of the suspension. -Engine issues, in part because so, so many Soviet tanks relied on variants of the Kharkiv V-2 instead of more dedicated engines designed for the vehicles. To a degree if the V-2 was too large or not powerful enough, the tank design is in trouble. -View outside of the tank for the crew often being poor. -Lacking hatches in size, design and numbers, both for crew and maintenance. -Emphasis on too large a gun for the turret, complicating ammo stowage and compromising loading and space in the turret. The combination of (some) of these factors, almost always seems to have negatively affected the overal design.
Agreed. It always amuses me how, on the one hand, we are told that when comparing Western Allied tanks the German tanks to forget about the Panzers's impressive numbers because it's the soft stats that matter - crew comfort, ergonomics, turret traverse and rate of fire and that's why western tanks were better. However the Soviet Tankies take the exact opposite track. Who cares about the soft stats? Look how thick and sloped my armour is! Look at the size of my gun! Please overlook the fact that these wonder tanks could barely be operated by their crews at all and were destroyed in quite significant numbers despite the numbers saying it was theoretically impossible. I suspect the exact same problems were the death of the IS-7 - looked great on paper, could only be operated by a dwarf with the strength of Hercules.
@@mattbowden4996 No, the IS-7 was basically as close to the perfect tank as you could get. It was years if not decades ahead of its peers (featuring an auto loader, having armour that made it immune even to the Jagdpanzer, having a 130 mm gun, good speed...) and was unlike many other Soviet tanks a very pleasant tank to drive apparently. It got good reviews across the board. The thing that killed the IS-7 was that it was very expensive to produce (most of the important parts were tailor made so they couldn't just use the same stuff they were using for the other IS types to reduce costs) and was too heavy to be transported by rail nor could it cross most bridges in the Soviet Union as a result. It was essentially the sort of tank you'd get when costs and weight limitations were not really something the engineers had to take into account and they were just told to make the best tank they possibly could.
I am strangely sure crews would prefer armor twice as thick as opposed to comfort. Also, the whole whining about tanks being cramped is stupid, Soviet army deliberately picked shorter soldiers for tank crews unlike the west (taller being sent to paratroopers and specnaz) so the amount of room was pretty adequate, yes, it's tight for modern tall man but it absolutely wasn't the case when the tanks were being deployed. And too big gun? Seriously? Get a clue and look at what they had to fight, would you prefer smaller gun that can do nothing to Tiger II or Ferdinand making the tank completely ineffective and waste of money?
@KuK137 Dude, it's not us in the west saying the IS-6 was too cramped - the Soviets said it was too cramped. All the armour in the world is useless if you physically can't fit inside the tank. As for the rest of their cold war tanks, how well have their design philosophies worked out in practice? The IS-3 was an abject failure in service and the T-72 and it's derivatives aren't exactly covering themselves in glory out in Ukraine...
Thank you for the amazing IS-6 video, sir! Couldn't wink for 15 minutes, didnt want to miss any of it - a lot of messy information, presented in a very clear and understandable manner! Wonderful vid!
Excellent work as always! It's a real pleasure to watch your presentations. I'm always amazed at the footage, documents and other obscure facts you ferret out. Keep up the fantastic work... Thanks again 👍
In short...considering everything about the IS-6, with all it's quirks and features...it just wasn't going to happen, because it had too many faults. Which is why they just stuck with the IS-3 which eventually lead to the T-10 Lenin? Of course, heavies became bleh, and the MBT concept took over with the T-54 and T-64, and all of their later variants and upgrades. (T-55, T-62, T-72, T-80, T-90, and perhaps the best of all time, the T-1000, which is made of liquid metal and can assume any form.)
T-54 wasn't and MBT, it was a medium tank. The 1st Soviet MBT in their own classification was T-64A. Not even T-64, exactly T-64A. Why? Because it featured better than a heavy tank's armour, even a larger and more powerful cannon than that of a heavy tank, but it had the mobility of a medium tank, so it could be classified neither as heavy nor medium tank and thus it became the MBT
@@drunklorry3406 well technically yeah...T-54/T-55 started out classified as a medium, but for all intents and purposes it is like an MBT, having pretty well balanced armor, mobility, and firepower, compared with it's western counterparts.
I'm more curious on the IS-8/9/10 aka the T-10 as it seemed to take a lot of queues from the IS-3 and adding more modern (for the time) equipment on it
IS-5 (IS-8, T-10) - is a lightweight and simplified version of IS-7. IS-7 and IS-4 were competitors in the same competition in which IS-7 almost won. IS-8 corps is exactly the same as the IS-7, only with thinner armor - even the hatches on the roof of the engine compartment
Imagine hiring staff to do upgrades for a product, only to realize that in secret they’ve been developing an entirely new product, and its way better than the original product💀
Very interesting...good work! I've always been interested in the lesser-known Soviet armored vehicles like (my favorite), the SU-122-54. Keep up the good work!
i mean … the IS-7 Wasn’t a bad tank, far from it, it was (by it’s time) the most advanced tank at the time! and it was reliable, but VERY complex and too costly to maintain, so it was unfortenately not approved for service and was shafted, with (if im not mistaken) one prototype still remaining in kubinka!
@@PanzerHistorian The DESIGN of the IS7 was the most advanced tank in the world at the time. Its a question of whether you place more value on what a design bureau says their design could do or what they actual built can do. Unfortunately, Russia doesn't like to release reports of failed prototypes and all we know is that of 7 prototypes, only one survived testing and the vehicle was not accepted into service. To this day, we still don't know the "official" reason as to why is was never accepted, the reports were buried. We have no idea if the auto loader worked, we know the automatic fire extinguisher system didn't work because we know its automotive components were not sufficient and burned. The only thing we do know is that the IS8/T10 WAS accepted because it was a much less ambitious IS7. The Chrysler TV-8 "Nuclear Tank" was an indisputably more advanced design than the IS-7 only 4 years later, but no one looks at what Chrysler promised and claims it would have a dreadnought effect on par with what the IS7 would allegedly have had. I guess what I'm saying is that don't look at what a video game says a vehicle can do because that's an ideal situation where everything works as it should.
@@masonicratit was either the cost or the weight that did the IS-7 in, or a combination of both. Might have been something else, but those problems would have been easier to solve.
Gotta love low weegee and sources made it look as if they had consequencial designs yet at the same time it was multiple factories competing to see wich Obyect would become the next main tank
didnt know the IS-6 was the predecessor to the IS-7, always assumed it was a stupidly bulked up version of the IS-3 that obviously was too heavy for it's stuff and was eventually rolled backed to being an T-10. neat to see the "Pike Nose" layout wernt just limited to the IS-3 family. can i ask about the Obj 703(mounting the fabricated twin gun in wot pc)'s existance? the hull, to be exact- seems like it's the same as the IS-3 prototype(obj.701-1)'s flat upper glasis, and i dont think they'd really separate the testing numbers if all else was the same. turret and the gun was obviously fake so no questions there.
Obj. 703 is the object name for the final IS-3 design, Wargaming just took the Kirovets-1 Widened it a bit and slapped on a second gun, named it the Obj. 703-II
@@thespyfromteamfortress2568 thanks, was confused on the name here. obviously 2 gun is just totally fabricated, but didnt know proper about the obj-703.
After I read the Tank Encyclopedia article on the Obj 252 a few months ago, I couldn't believe that the developers didn't get sent to the fricken Gulag for working on it without permission.
@@kden9772 Well, the main difference is that 770 was built on absolutely new technologies and construction decisions, thus meant to have bigger modernization potential. Despite the fact, that 277 had slightly better characteristics ( 35 rounds against 28, a bit more powerful traditional-type engine, utilization of TPN-1 and etc.), except worse armour, MOD prefered 770. While 277 was heavily based on T-10 & IS 7 decisions, 770 used brand new, raw "future" techs. This exactly was admired by both constructors and members of MOD. 770 was ment to be the next generation, however just like with 277 later Khrushchev refused. P.S. Don't you know by chance if Wrench stopped the Soviet Heavies series? It's bin a long time since this came out.
Me too, but it's understandable in my opinion, their armor layout differed quite a lot to the point we would think it's a different vehicle, as I would always say that IS-6 is a downgraded IS-4, while Obj. 252U is downgraded IS-7 in the past
How about a video about the Sherman M4A4 or should I say the British designation MK V and Firefly, this variant of Sherman saw significant combat in Italy and Normandy with British and Canadian armor divisions
Fun tank in war thunder for sure, despite it being a little power crept and absurdly weak to HEAT compared to some other heavies in the same rank. Can't wait for more from the Soviet Tank series on this channel
You're kidding, right? The IS-6 in War Thunder is a light tank with the armor of a heavy and armament of a TD. It's in no way powercrept, unless your ideal state for the vehicle is being completely immune to anything in its BR bracket, as it was a couple years ago. Even at the current BR it sits, many vehicles can't even pen it from the side, with the only "option" being the rear of the turret.
half the vehicles it meets can't pen it anywhere, the other half can pen it everywhere. that seems fair enough to me, especially since the IS-6 can one tap absolutely everything it sees
@@wallachia4797 "as it was a couple years ago" implies it was powercrept. I dominate IS-6s almost all the time nowadays with how radically the meta has shifted. never gonna say it's a bad tank because it never will be but even you basically admitted it's not the absolute smackaroo of a powerhouse as it used to be
@@jozefdobrovodsky2932 idk as I just mentioned I more often that not see IS-6s bite the dust. to me it seems a little on the short straw especially since it's in the tier where you'll see straight checks to it being all of the IFVs rather than the vehicles that you could have a fun brawl with
Ahh, the Bias-6. To this day it remains as one of the most under-BR'ed tanks in the entire game. If you don't have good angle penning APDS or HEAT-FS it has almost no frontal weakspots outside of the dice-roll that is the mantlet.
However, as it turned out, the 100 mm D-10 did not have superior penetration to the D-25T; in fact inferior. That's why in postwar resistance to the D-25T, not the D-10, became the requirement for armor resistance for Soviet heavy tanks.
I recently discovered your channel and I really love your videos, when you are done with the soviet tank do you mind talking about the t95e1 and variants?
I find the later IS series of vehicles to be some of the most hilarious vehicles in the world and deserve the same amount of ridicule that the maus (rightly) receives. Just too ambitious for the time; but that's never the conversation, its always about how devastating they WOULD have been in some hypothetical universe. "The IS-3 shocked the world and the west feared them until the '70s!!!!" But in real life were so bad that the only thing they could do with them was give them to Egypt in the 50's, where they lost to up-gunned Sherman's. (IS3's in 1956 Hungary get a pass because any tank would have issues with street fighting like what occurred) "The IS7 was so amazing that they would have dominated the battlefield! The west would have nothing to stop them!!!"... So you built them and they weren't just a hypothetical sales pitch?
In fairness, the IS-3s mostly lost to Centurion tanks, but the point stands - these late model IS tanks are all just as absurd as Maus. Maus and E100 show us what happens when you try to build an "invulnerable" heavy tank with enough space inside to fight effectively - the weight balloons out to an absurd degree as you try to armour all that volume. The IS-3 and IS-6 show us what happens if you try to build an "invulnerable" tank whilst keeping the weight under control - the internal space shrinks to the point a human can barely fit inside, much less operate the vehicle.
You have already 1:28 shown the Obj 245 2 times at the very beginning. Obj 244 has a different suspension, when there are already such errors it is a poor reserch.
@@RedWrenchFilms i think he's referring to the Object 244 having a different suspension or at least different track configuration, kinda like the track in world of tanks
None of the soviet heavies should be as quick as they actually are. KV1, IS2, object 279, all with way better acceleration than should be possible, accelerating faster than a couple "light" tanks even, and certainly reversing faster than many main tanks other than a Leo or strv 103
This is the first time I've heard about the object 253 project.. Fascinating.. Perhaps the engineers are really smoking something in the "smoking room" while designing the object 252 (IS-6) 😅..
In the factory: "What have you been doing in the smoking room for so long?" -oh just smoking. "I have heard you talking about impenetrable tanks whit superb speed and Suspension" -Yes, we have been smoking a lot.
Hey red, i got a tank for ya to look at. Well experimentals, the M1 CATTB and the other M1 with the 140mm. Both in the 90s so there won't be much to off of, but i would still like to see anything about it
So is the BL-9 used on the IS-3 in WoT a typo from the actual true name of the canon? If so the canon should be renamed to BL-13. Also in War Thunder the planned BL-13 canon for the IS-6 is named as the D-30. I guess another mistake on Gaijin’s behalf?
Vovk: I thought that this is a state-owned company! Im a representative of the state! So I should have an option to go wherever I please! Kotin: Yes, yes, and yes. Vovk: Ok, can I go into THAT room? Kotin: No.
When Sau Ferdinand appeared, the military command of the USSR needed a tank capable of resisting him. He was supposed to have a gun with a caliber of about 100mm, quick-firing and accurate, capable of hitting the armor of Sau Ferdenand at a distance of 1000 meters or more. The tank was supposed to have frontal and side armor capable of reliably protecting Ferdenand's 88mm guns at any distance. In this case, the tank had to weigh no more than 45 tons. Be fast and reliable, easy to repair and comfortable for the crew. With a large ammunition and range of movement. At the same time, it should be cheap, and produced in large quantities. However, in 1943 Soviet engineers could not perform such a task. They began the development of tanks of the IS series. In the future, it will be possible to create machines with approximate given characteristics. However, by then they will be unnecessary.
It's normal for every nation to develop tanks they don't put into service. This applies to all weapons. You develop the technology in advance in case you do need it.
>Heavy tank with the driver's hatch lid as part of the main strike face >No gun depression >Need to expose hatch more >Soviet production syndrome inevitable >Electric system on fire moving forward >No worry, gun has already gassed you out NICE [insert soviet apple slicer joke]
Object 701 is prototype IS-3 and have no connection with the K-91. K-91 is a real project but the real thing is actually resembalance the Blitz version more than the PC with a middle turret
I’m almost sad that the Soviets were building new tanks instead of the funny Russian upgrade process, imagine funny modernized IS2s with spaced armor, HEATFS, APDS, maybe a little APFSDS, Night Vision and other shenanigans
I want to watch your video but the image of the IS-3 is NOT an IS-3. The IS-3 has a classic pike shape glacis and large low pancake turret. It is one of the most recognisable tanks for even part time tank enthusiasts........so who is doing your research and final proofing?
@@RedWrenchFilms Nope you lost me at that image...If you google IS3 image....bet you don't get same pic as you have, they will all be pike front version..... however I will watch the rest and stand corrected if so. Although perhaps use of a familiar IS-3 image that 99.9% of people are likely to recognise... would avoid confusion.
@@sirfrancis9619 I hope by now you have stood corrected. The IS-3 (as well as 1,2,4 and 5) designation was applied to more than one vehicle, but the others never made it to production. “Avoiding confusion” was the opposite of what I wanted. I’m sure many people, much like you, had no idea there were a series of failed IS tanks that never made it to production.
@@RedWrenchFilms Ok ...I see now. Apologies I definitely stand corrected. It was an IS-3 'precursor' not 'the IS-3' standard production I am familiar with. I have come across many of these historic docos that are full of mistakes and it becomes annoying...so I jumped the gun with this one. I making up for it - I've 'liked' and subscribed!
the mad lads at factory 100 just designing and building a new prototype, instead of upgrades for the IS-2. Quite interesting and fascinating story as the other videos in this heavy soviet armour series.
Lots of soviet construction bureaus were working on some crazy and bizarre projects just by themselves without any hire up orders
In the cliché soviet union they would be shot for wasting government property. Luckily this was most of the time a cliché and not reality.
Remember, these tanks were being developed during the height of WW2, so money and resource constraints weren't an issue (unless something was literally in short supply). It was also reasonable to assume tanks would continue to grow more powerful as the war progressed and after it had concluded. Stalin had his eye on Europe and tanks would be key to his efforts to seize control of as much of it as possible (both during the war as it unfolded and any potential continuation of the war against the other Allies or shortly after the war ended). So, the USSR invested heavily in developing new taks.
It would also be beneficial in light of the above if the other Allies weren't familiar with the USSR's best tanks and one way to maximise this was to produce new tank models. Of course, as the new normal became more entrenched, and after Stalin died, tank development (particularly of new tank models) in the USSR slowed down and the Western world followed suit, as the US and the UK had already made many attempts to avoid developing new tank types. The problem up to that point was the intensity of the arms race, for which each side kept on creating new models in response to each others' developments. The Soviets were, for example, determined to have the biggest main gun and most heavily armoured heavy tank.
Every time Western countries introduced a larger main gun calibre, Soviet bureacrats hurried to introduce a larger one (as in the case of the T-62 and T-64). Western countries sought to abandon heavy tanks during Stalin's time (particularly in light of ATGM development and to produce budget savings) but as the USSR kept introducing heavier tanks, the need for new heavies was undeniable and the product (M60 and Chieftain) also fed into the USSR's ongoing development of new heavy tanks - both during Stalin's reign and later. It also was used to justufy the adoption of even bigger main guns on MBTs.
I can't believe I got this involved in the development there.
@@spolachs1251 Agreed. Soviet/Russia have been real innovators in armoured vehicles over the decades.
I love how Soviet Heavy tank almost have the same weight as German Medium tank
The Currency Conundrum: India's Unexpected Move!
th-cam.com/video/w2kvklT4P84/w-d-xo.html 🤔
It's due to differences in idea of what constitutes a light, medium, and heavy tank.
The Germans equates role to class. A light scouts and supports infantry. A medium fights other tanks and supports infantry. A heavy breaks the enemy line so the other two can exploit the gap.
Soviets and US used weight and gun to determine class of tank.
@@LAHFaust The Soviets never used the term "medium tank" - they used "breakthrough tank" for their heavy tanks, "fast tank" or "support tank" for their light tanks, and just "tank" for everything else. Their classification system was significantly more nebulous and less rigidly-defined than most western contemporaries.
@@LAHFaust But then what about the cancelled KV-13? Didn't that get called a Heavy despite weighting 30 tons?
Soviet tanks are very low while the Panther is a very tall tank. Low silhouettes keep weight down considerably.
I remember when they introduced the IS-6 in War Thunder and the community was (rightly) mad because it was so OP, some guy tried to convince me it was a fake vehicle and all the photos of it were edited from IS-2 and 3
IS-6 in real life: Who am i? …
IS-6 In WOT/WT: DEATH FEAR’S ME
HEATFS shells:
Is6 in wot is pretty meh due to ap shells deducting 5 degrees of sloping.
@@mouth7137its okay but the gun is nowdays really lacking
IS6 in WoT is garbage
@@gunchbandit4422 i manage to play well in it so not so bad imo just not very competive anymore
These are perhaps the best tank documentaries on TH-cam. This is excellent delivery of knowledge and I'd say this and the Chieftain's hatch series play an important role in being Secondary and tertiary sources.
The Inside the Hatch series are by definition primary sources - he's literally filming the tank itself, how much more reliable can you get? What do you want, a .pdf of the blueprints or something?
@@Strelnikov403like every single piece of paper that tank designers scribbled on
I allways thought the IS-6 was the prototype IS-7, and the IS-5 was the prototype IS-8 (T-10)
Lol, I did consider 252 U as a testbed to develop components to 260.
@@w0lfgm world of tanks has corrupted us all
A Russian prototype is an Object is a key takeaway from this series I guess.
@@imnotusingmyrealname4566 Yes, Object is a codename for the Soviet/Russian prototypes.
The IS-5 is actually the T-10A which is an early model of the T-10M
I just love the thought of these old dudes locked in their secret room feverishly brain storming ideas for their secret tank, while telling anyone who knocked on the door to piss off.
This series is taking turns I couldn't have imagined. Like it's actually blowing my mind with how these Soviet tank programs developed and the conflicting naming.
I was actually looking up a numerical list of objekt names and they're pretty crazy.
You should've mentioned that the IS-2U design was used by WG to create the fictitious Chinese 110 heavy tank in world of tanks(Stock configuration, the top turret is taken from the IS-8/T-10)
They really think they will get away with putting IS-3 type turrets on an IS-2 😂
The 701 really looks like the 112-2 too.
@@yoshineitor well the 112-2 from blitz is the kirovets-1(obj 701-1/ IS-3 early prototype) from pc recolored to chinese color
As for the obj 701-II dual barrel tank from pc, that simply used the Kirovets-1 hull, widen the turret to fit two guns and call it a day
And who cares about that? Exactly, nobody. WoT is a trash game.
Gaijin won’t let us have fun stuff meanwhile war gaming is doing this bs
I'm curious about tank armor history, like composite armor, tank skirt, rha steel armor, hha steel armor
The Tank Museum channel has a fairly decent video about this. Leaves a lot of gaps, but covers the basics pretty well.
Is-6 is a really good looking tank,one of the best looking tanks ever
Shame it didn't work...
@@mattbowden4996 yea it is a shame that they scraped the tank
Every war thunder player is feared of IS-6 bias
I still remember first meeting it
Was driving an AVRE
Can't deacribe the dumsterfire of a brain i had when i realised out of 4 shots he took he sustaned no damage. Then hebjust shook his barell in disapproval and one tapped me
*Russian Bias*
and they’ve just started spawning like flies thanks to the summer sale with the IS6 and the Obj. 120
@sashingopaul3111 as a france main, I'm greatful for the AML-90 at 7.0 BR. That Heatfs comes in clutch and is great for hunting IS6s. 320mm of 💥
Ngl facing a IS 6 in tigers and panthers was scary but after getting Leopard 1 cutting through armor was never a problem
Its such a typical Soviet tank. Lots of clever ideas, out of the box thinking and engineering and a good bit of political subterfuge surrounding the design proces.
And the result looks amazing with the heavy armour, powerful engine and large gun, until you look at the details. So often upon closer examination, Soviet tanks suffer from clear design issues with:
-Basic crew comfort.
-Poor gearbox and steering systems.
-Suspension quality, either weight capacity or poor stability of the suspension.
-Engine issues, in part because so, so many Soviet tanks relied on variants of the Kharkiv V-2 instead of more dedicated engines designed for the vehicles. To a degree if the V-2 was too large or not powerful enough, the tank design is in trouble.
-View outside of the tank for the crew often being poor.
-Lacking hatches in size, design and numbers, both for crew and maintenance.
-Emphasis on too large a gun for the turret, complicating ammo stowage and compromising loading and space in the turret.
The combination of (some) of these factors, almost always seems to have negatively affected the overal design.
Agreed. It always amuses me how, on the one hand, we are told that when comparing Western Allied tanks the German tanks to forget about the Panzers's impressive numbers because it's the soft stats that matter - crew comfort, ergonomics, turret traverse and rate of fire and that's why western tanks were better. However the Soviet Tankies take the exact opposite track. Who cares about the soft stats? Look how thick and sloped my armour is! Look at the size of my gun! Please overlook the fact that these wonder tanks could barely be operated by their crews at all and were destroyed in quite significant numbers despite the numbers saying it was theoretically impossible. I suspect the exact same problems were the death of the IS-7 - looked great on paper, could only be operated by a dwarf with the strength of Hercules.
@@mattbowden4996 No, the IS-7 was basically as close to the perfect tank as you could get. It was years if not decades ahead of its peers (featuring an auto loader, having armour that made it immune even to the Jagdpanzer, having a 130 mm gun, good speed...) and was unlike many other Soviet tanks a very pleasant tank to drive apparently. It got good reviews across the board. The thing that killed the IS-7 was that it was very expensive to produce (most of the important parts were tailor made so they couldn't just use the same stuff they were using for the other IS types to reduce costs) and was too heavy to be transported by rail nor could it cross most bridges in the Soviet Union as a result. It was essentially the sort of tank you'd get when costs and weight limitations were not really something the engineers had to take into account and they were just told to make the best tank they possibly could.
@@TheShadowOfZama If you believe that I have a bridge in London to sell you.
I am strangely sure crews would prefer armor twice as thick as opposed to comfort. Also, the whole whining about tanks being cramped is stupid, Soviet army deliberately picked shorter soldiers for tank crews unlike the west (taller being sent to paratroopers and specnaz) so the amount of room was pretty adequate, yes, it's tight for modern tall man but it absolutely wasn't the case when the tanks were being deployed. And too big gun? Seriously? Get a clue and look at what they had to fight, would you prefer smaller gun that can do nothing to Tiger II or Ferdinand making the tank completely ineffective and waste of money?
@KuK137 Dude, it's not us in the west saying the IS-6 was too cramped - the Soviets said it was too cramped. All the armour in the world is useless if you physically can't fit inside the tank.
As for the rest of their cold war tanks, how well have their design philosophies worked out in practice? The IS-3 was an abject failure in service and the T-72 and it's derivatives aren't exactly covering themselves in glory out in Ukraine...
Thank you for the amazing IS-6 video, sir! Couldn't wink for 15 minutes, didnt want to miss any of it - a lot of messy information, presented in a very clear and understandable manner! Wonderful vid!
Excellent work as always! It's a real pleasure to watch your presentations. I'm always amazed at the footage, documents and other obscure facts you ferret out.
Keep up the fantastic work...
Thanks again 👍
In short...considering everything about the IS-6, with all it's quirks and features...it just wasn't going to happen, because it had too many faults. Which is why they just stuck with the IS-3 which eventually lead to the T-10 Lenin?
Of course, heavies became bleh, and the MBT concept took over with the T-54 and T-64, and all of their later variants and upgrades. (T-55, T-62, T-72, T-80, T-90, and perhaps the best of all time, the T-1000, which is made of liquid metal and can assume any form.)
T-54 wasn't and MBT, it was a medium tank. The 1st Soviet MBT in their own classification was T-64A. Not even T-64, exactly T-64A. Why? Because it featured better than a heavy tank's armour, even a larger and more powerful cannon than that of a heavy tank, but it had the mobility of a medium tank, so it could be classified neither as heavy nor medium tank and thus it became the MBT
@@drunklorry3406 well technically yeah...T-54/T-55 started out classified as a medium, but for all intents and purposes it is like an MBT, having pretty well balanced armor, mobility, and firepower, compared with it's western counterparts.
I'm more curious on the IS-8/9/10 aka the T-10 as it seemed to take a lot of queues from the IS-3 and adding more modern (for the time) equipment on it
The IS-5 was designed to be a replacement of the IS-4, mostly to decrease weight and increase engine/transmission reliability.
Cues*
A queue is a line, a cue is a signal
Also the T-10 was the only Soviet post IS-3 heavy to actually see relevant production and service
And the advanced suspension from IS-7
IS-5 (IS-8, T-10) - is a lightweight and simplified version of IS-7. IS-7 and IS-4 were competitors in the same competition in which IS-7 almost won.
IS-8 corps is exactly the same as the IS-7, only with thinner armor - even the hatches on the roof of the engine compartment
tks for proof that WoT Kirovets-1 is actually a real prototype, not a made up version of the IS-3 like many WoT TH-camr stated
It's always been a very real tank. The WOT Community are always just looking for a reason to shit on WG, even while driving others away from the game
Imagine hiring staff to do upgrades for a product, only to realize that in secret they’ve been developing an entirely new product, and its way better than the original product💀
Have missed your weekly videos. Thanks for this.
Very interesting...good work! I've always been interested in the lesser-known Soviet armored vehicles like (my favorite), the SU-122-54. Keep up the good work!
The idea of someone writing letters to command going: 'they're back in their blasted rooms again!' Is admittedly rather comical.
They were certainly smoking something in that room when they were designing the IS 7, that's for sure.
"hey comrade lets mount 7 machine guns onto this tank ya"
i mean … the IS-7 Wasn’t a bad tank, far from it, it was (by it’s time) the most advanced tank at the time! and it was reliable, but VERY complex and too costly to maintain, so it was unfortenately not approved for service and was shafted, with (if im not mistaken) one prototype still remaining in kubinka!
@PanzerHistorian I mean that's true, it's just that it's so crazy of a design.
@@PanzerHistorian The DESIGN of the IS7 was the most advanced tank in the world at the time. Its a question of whether you place more value on what a design bureau says their design could do or what they actual built can do.
Unfortunately, Russia doesn't like to release reports of failed prototypes and all we know is that of 7 prototypes, only one survived testing and the vehicle was not accepted into service. To this day, we still don't know the "official" reason as to why is was never accepted, the reports were buried. We have no idea if the auto loader worked, we know the automatic fire extinguisher system didn't work because we know its automotive components were not sufficient and burned. The only thing we do know is that the IS8/T10 WAS accepted because it was a much less ambitious IS7.
The Chrysler TV-8 "Nuclear Tank" was an indisputably more advanced design than the IS-7 only 4 years later, but no one looks at what Chrysler promised and claims it would have a dreadnought effect on par with what the IS7 would allegedly have had.
I guess what I'm saying is that don't look at what a video game says a vehicle can do because that's an ideal situation where everything works as it should.
@@masonicratit was either the cost or the weight that did the IS-7 in, or a combination of both.
Might have been something else, but those problems would have been easier to solve.
Gotta love low weegee and sources made it look as if they had consequencial designs yet at the same time it was multiple factories competing to see wich Obyect would become the next main tank
I wonder why the Soviet kept choosing IS-4M instead of this "IS-6"
didnt know the IS-6 was the predecessor to the IS-7, always assumed it was a stupidly bulked up version of the IS-3 that obviously was too heavy for it's stuff and was eventually rolled backed to being an T-10. neat to see the "Pike Nose" layout wernt just limited to the IS-3 family. can i ask about the Obj 703(mounting the fabricated twin gun in wot pc)'s existance? the hull, to be exact- seems like it's the same as the IS-3 prototype(obj.701-1)'s flat upper glasis, and i dont think they'd really separate the testing numbers if all else was the same. turret and the gun was obviously fake so no questions there.
Obj. 703 is the object name for the final IS-3 design, Wargaming just took the Kirovets-1 Widened it a bit and slapped on a second gun, named it the Obj. 703-II
@@thespyfromteamfortress2568 thanks, was confused on the name here. obviously 2 gun is just totally fabricated, but didnt know proper about the obj-703.
IS-6 is lighter than IS-3 by a significant margin.
I always imagine is-6 to be a heavier version of the t-34... Maybe it's the armour profile that makes me think of that. Anyways.... Great vid
For me it looks like they squashed an IS-2
After I read the Tank Encyclopedia article on the Obj 252 a few months ago, I couldn't believe that the developers didn't get sent to the fricken Gulag for working on it without permission.
If what you say isn't sarcasm, then you are certainly thinking with own's head and are free from cliché and fox news
Really good video !
Great information, thank you!
Please make a video on the Obj 277. It’s truly the apex of the Soviet mobile heavy tank and packed the mighty 130mm M65 gun.
Not really, Obj. 770 was even more brutal and way closer to enter production.
@@Frikciya I’ve only looked at surface level but they look functionally identical (same gun, engine, armor) what makes the 770 better than the 277?
@@kden9772 Well, the main difference is that 770 was built on absolutely new technologies and construction decisions, thus meant to have bigger modernization potential. Despite the fact, that 277 had slightly better characteristics ( 35 rounds against 28, a bit more powerful traditional-type engine, utilization of TPN-1 and etc.), except worse armour, MOD prefered 770. While 277 was heavily based on T-10 & IS 7 decisions, 770 used brand new, raw "future" techs. This exactly was admired by both constructors and members of MOD.
770 was ment to be the next generation, however just like with 277 later Khrushchev refused.
P.S. Don't you know by chance if Wrench stopped the Soviet Heavies series? It's bin a long time since this came out.
i known about much of its history before but still a good video
O!!!
I actually DO have a "Object 252u".
Together with IS-6,had no idea, that them are the same!!!😂😂
Me too, but it's understandable in my opinion, their armor layout differed quite a lot to the point we would think it's a different vehicle, as I would always say that IS-6 is a downgraded IS-4, while Obj. 252U is downgraded IS-7 in the past
Bringing out some bangers lately mate. Good job keep going!
Could you do a video on The Panzer III or the Mirage series of Aircraft both of these are underrated under looked.
Another great video from Red Wrench Films! Please keep them coming and thanks!
Fascinating presentation.
How about a video about the Sherman M4A4 or should I say the British designation MK V and Firefly, this variant of Sherman saw significant combat in Italy and Normandy with British and Canadian armor divisions
I just loves these videos even my dad loves these videos
Amazing videos. Please keep making these!
"No time for tango girlfriend, a random gentleman just uploaded a video about metal boxes with guns"
Fun tank in war thunder for sure, despite it being a little power crept and absurdly weak to HEAT compared to some other heavies in the same rank. Can't wait for more from the Soviet Tank series on this channel
Not so weak. It can take side skirt shots and survive
You're kidding, right?
The IS-6 in War Thunder is a light tank with the armor of a heavy and armament of a TD.
It's in no way powercrept, unless your ideal state for the vehicle is being completely immune to anything in its BR bracket, as it was a couple years ago.
Even at the current BR it sits, many vehicles can't even pen it from the side, with the only "option" being the rear of the turret.
half the vehicles it meets can't pen it anywhere, the other half can pen it everywhere.
that seems fair enough to me, especially since the IS-6 can one tap absolutely everything it sees
@@wallachia4797 "as it was a couple years ago" implies it was powercrept. I dominate IS-6s almost all the time nowadays with how radically the meta has shifted. never gonna say it's a bad tank because it never will be but even you basically admitted it's not the absolute smackaroo of a powerhouse as it used to be
@@jozefdobrovodsky2932 idk as I just mentioned I more often that not see IS-6s bite the dust. to me it seems a little on the short straw especially since it's in the tier where you'll see straight checks to it being all of the IFVs rather than the vehicles that you could have a fun brawl with
Ahh, the Bias-6. To this day it remains as one of the most under-BR'ed tanks in the entire game. If you don't have good angle penning APDS or HEAT-FS it has almost no frontal weakspots outside of the dice-roll that is the mantlet.
wonderful video man!
However, as it turned out, the 100 mm D-10 did not have superior penetration to the D-25T; in fact inferior. That's why in postwar resistance to the D-25T, not the D-10, became the requirement for armor resistance for Soviet heavy tanks.
Good info, good channel. Thanks
crazy design.. but i do wonder how is with useful interior design?
Hell. Yea
I recently discovered your channel and I really love your videos, when you are done with the soviet tank do you mind talking about the t95e1 and variants?
Did the IS-6 end up getting scrapped or is it in a museum somewhere?
THE MAN IS BACK ! ! !
Comrade Vovk simply loved his snitching to NKVD :D
I find the later IS series of vehicles to be some of the most hilarious vehicles in the world and deserve the same amount of ridicule that the maus (rightly) receives. Just too ambitious for the time; but that's never the conversation, its always about how devastating they WOULD have been in some hypothetical universe.
"The IS-3 shocked the world and the west feared them until the '70s!!!!" But in real life were so bad that the only thing they could do with them was give them to Egypt in the 50's, where they lost to up-gunned Sherman's. (IS3's in 1956 Hungary get a pass because any tank would have issues with street fighting like what occurred)
"The IS7 was so amazing that they would have dominated the battlefield! The west would have nothing to stop them!!!"... So you built them and they weren't just a hypothetical sales pitch?
IS-7 weight 67 tonn, mass limit series soviet tank 50 tonnes
In fairness, the IS-3s mostly lost to Centurion tanks, but the point stands - these late model IS tanks are all just as absurd as Maus.
Maus and E100 show us what happens when you try to build an "invulnerable" heavy tank with enough space inside to fight effectively - the weight balloons out to an absurd degree as you try to armour all that volume. The IS-3 and IS-6 show us what happens if you try to build an "invulnerable" tank whilst keeping the weight under control - the internal space shrinks to the point a human can barely fit inside, much less operate the vehicle.
T-10M is pretty much the best one in the series with good mobility, protection, firepower and reliability but too underrated
T-10M is more an MBT if compare to the Centurion
I love your contents keep it up!
From the smoking rooms to the smoking tank's engine
You have already 1:28 shown the Obj 245 2 times at the very beginning. Obj 244 has a different suspension, when there are already such errors it is a poor reserch.
I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with here…
@@RedWrenchFilms i think he's referring to the Object 244 having a different suspension or at least different track configuration, kinda like the track in world of tanks
sounds like Prokofievs "Dreams" in the beginning of the video
WHAT... before the IS3😮
Learn something new every day😂
Is6 in wt has the wrong model on turret height.
To top it all off, shouldn't be that agile and quick in-game.
None of the soviet heavies should be as quick as they actually are. KV1, IS2, object 279, all with way better acceleration than should be possible, accelerating faster than a couple "light" tanks even, and certainly reversing faster than many main tanks other than a Leo or strv 103
Pure angled Stalinium tractor with gun
Would have been interesting if they interrated on the German gas turbine research instead of electric drive.
This is the first time I've heard about the object 253 project.. Fascinating.. Perhaps the engineers are really smoking something in the "smoking room" while designing the object 252 (IS-6) 😅..
Can u do a vid on the obj140 ?
Tank Encyclopedia has a great video on Object 140/T-62
Next part 3 which i assume is the IS3 and IS4
Can you do a video on IS7
Wew never knew my favorite tank in WoT has this drastic history...
So in WT it's relevant to 7.0 BR since it's development is before IS-3
In the factory:
"What have you been doing in the smoking room for so long?"
-oh just smoking.
"I have heard you talking about impenetrable tanks whit superb speed and Suspension"
-Yes, we have been smoking a lot.
Hey red, i got a tank for ya to look at. Well experimentals, the M1 CATTB and the other M1 with the 140mm. Both in the 90s so there won't be much to off of, but i would still like to see anything about it
It’s such a nice looking vehicle
I just like looking at it
So is the BL-9 used on the IS-3 in WoT a typo from the actual true name of the canon? If so the canon should be renamed to BL-13. Also in War Thunder the planned BL-13 canon for the IS-6 is named as the D-30. I guess another mistake on Gaijin’s behalf?
The BL-9 Cannon did exist but it was mostly used with the ISU-122 which was called ISU-122-1
Can wait for you to talk about is 7
is-7
Vovk: I thought that this is a state-owned company! Im a representative of the state! So I should have an option to go wherever I please!
Kotin: Yes, yes, and yes.
Vovk: Ok, can I go into THAT room?
Kotin: No.
When Sau Ferdinand appeared, the military command of the USSR needed a tank capable of resisting him.
He was supposed to have a gun with a caliber of about 100mm, quick-firing and accurate, capable of hitting the armor of Sau Ferdenand at a distance of 1000 meters or more. The tank was supposed to have frontal and side armor capable of reliably protecting Ferdenand's 88mm guns at any distance.
In this case, the tank had to weigh no more than 45 tons.
Be fast and reliable, easy to repair and comfortable for the crew. With a large ammunition and range of movement. At the same time, it should be cheap, and produced in large quantities.
However, in 1943 Soviet engineers could not perform such a task. They began the development of tanks of the IS series.
In the future, it will be possible to create machines with approximate given characteristics. However, by then they will be unnecessary.
Lol they made an entire IS series that were not the production vehicles xD
It's normal for every nation to develop tanks they don't put into service. This applies to all weapons. You develop the technology in advance in case you do need it.
Basically "everything was going well, until they didnt"
What about aboject 268?
T-10 chasis
Can you do an episode on Stalinium next?
(I, of course, joke!)
how much wt do you play? and you up for a game with subs?
>Heavy tank with the driver's hatch lid as part of the main strike face
>No gun depression
>Need to expose hatch more
>Soviet production syndrome inevitable
>Electric system on fire moving forward
>No worry, gun has already gassed you out
NICE
[insert soviet apple slicer joke]
Where did you find the drawing shown at 6:00 ?
Inside "Stalin's Supertanks: IS-7 And Others" by Maxim Kolomiets!
@@RedWrenchFilms Thank you
Great moments back in the day, during World of Tanks ZENITH. I love Object 252 and Object 253 = IS-6 ❤❤❤
Great favourite tank in world of tanks :)
that was excellent.
still waiting for new video
3:17 is-6 = obj 252u
Object 252U is a fundamentally different vehicle than the IS-6 (Object 252)
I hope for IS-5 video. In basic, just know ita name.
What about the is5
if gaijin put IS-6 with ww2 tank, it become an absolute unit overpower and destroy anything he see (except CAS :/)
They could change the acceleration and not give it the soviet nuclear shrapnel filler and it would probably be about as annoying as a tiger II.
Yo your discord invite link expired
is it just me or is the object 701 the tank K-91 we know from wargaming. it wouldnt make sense but it looks so much like that
Object 701 is prototype IS-3 and have no connection with the K-91. K-91 is a real project but the real thing is actually resembalance the Blitz version more than the PC with a middle turret
WT Players: This tank is OP!
WOT Players: This tank sucks!
Oh, what modeling an interior does to change its performance
War Thunder devs: "im gonna pretend like i didnt see that"
The IS-6 hasn’t been good in WOT for a while now.
I’m almost sad that the Soviets were building new tanks instead of the funny Russian upgrade process, imagine funny modernized IS2s with spaced armor, HEATFS, APDS, maybe a little APFSDS, Night Vision and other shenanigans
The IS-6 is really annoying UNLESS you have heat rounds, then it just melts
I want to watch your video but the image of the IS-3 is NOT an IS-3. The IS-3 has a classic pike shape glacis and large low pancake turret. It is one of the most recognisable tanks for even part time tank enthusiasts........so who is doing your research and final proofing?
It’s an IS-3. Just not the one you are familiar with. Did you even watch the whole video?
@@RedWrenchFilms Nope you lost me at that image...If you google IS3 image....bet you don't get same pic as you have, they will all be pike front version..... however I will watch the rest and stand corrected if so. Although perhaps use of a familiar IS-3 image that 99.9% of people are likely to recognise... would avoid confusion.
@@sirfrancis9619 I hope by now you have stood corrected. The IS-3 (as well as 1,2,4 and 5) designation was applied to more than one vehicle, but the others never made it to production.
“Avoiding confusion” was the opposite of what I wanted. I’m sure many people, much like you, had no idea there were a series of failed IS tanks that never made it to production.
@@RedWrenchFilms Ok ...I see now. Apologies I definitely stand corrected. It was an IS-3 'precursor' not 'the IS-3' standard production I am familiar with. I have come across many of these historic docos that are full of mistakes and it becomes annoying...so I jumped the gun with this one. I making up for it - I've 'liked' and subscribed!
Is-2.5?
the IS-6 in wotb is not that scary to come by since of it's rear like amour in the front
5:39 impregnable? not when im done with it