Object NordVPN, a silly project to trick the proletariat into buying a fake "security" solution that actually puts your data at greater risk because it's not secure at all.
3:20 "the IS hulls weren't ready yet so the KV-85 would serve as a stop-gap solution" ABOUT TIME somebody cleared up the reason those things exist. Thank you.
Interesting Fact: Some ISU-152 tanks were used in the Chernobyl disaster as ad-hoc demolition vehicles as the thick armor was seen as useful against radiation. Many were abandoned after the cleanup and some of the wrecks are still there with high levels of radiation!
They also thought they might have to use them, and their special concrete piercing shells, to blow holes in the containment building to drain out the pooling water
the western allies had similar massive numbers of variants. It was only much later that countries stopped giving each battlefield modification or minor manufacturing change a different variant designation. For example the M1A2 currently in US service would, had the same naming conventions been in place that were used during WW2, be something like M1A4E3M2A
Actually, the Russian tank zoo was very much smaller than the German one. This has a very simple explanation: the evacuation of industries to the Urals region in 1941. Because of that almost all 1942 the Red Army was on hunger diet in terms of weaponry and ammunition. In 1943 the industry restart mass production but the situation got better only quantitavely, not qualitatively. Suffice it to say that the key Kursk battle Soviet tank troops fought with T-34-76 tanks and even light T-70 tanks which were absolutely no match to German Tiger and Panther tanks, and even to latest modifications of T-IV tanks with long barreled guns. Hence staggering losses of Soviet tanks. They weren't due to some exceptional skill of German tankers but simply due to obsolete tanks. Even the battle for Ukraine succeeding the Kursk battle were won in old models. New Soviet models: T-34-85 with an 85 mm gun and heavy tank IS-1 appeared only at the end of 1944 when the result of the war was more than clear. As to heavy calibers of Soviet tanks: this was due to less effective guns and munitions in comparison to the Germans. Germans used the brilliant 88 mm gun on their Tiger-1 and Tiger-2 tanks and striked Soviet tanks surely on all distances . No wonder: Soviet Union was poor and ravaged country and produced what it could.
@@colder5465 yes and no. There were far greater differences between units produced in different factories than was the case with German (or American and British) tanks because factories tended to use whatever was at hand and change designs to adapt to their available tooling rather than retool.
My dad was part of a 120mm mortar crew. When they were in Germany US tankers were terrified of the Tiger II. He said they would all run away and call mortar crews for help. They came to find everything that even resembled a tank was a Tiger II. Such were his war stories.
That’s because those Panthers and Tigers weren’t destroyed by heavy Soviet tanks / tank destroyers. Those are tank blown up by large internal explosions from demolition charges set off by the crews to prevent capture by the Russians.
This is exactly what ive been waiting for a video about my favorite heavy tank series the IS series! Another thing was in the battle of ogeldow august 1944 the IS2s fought against tiger 2s with incredible succes against the germans. This was an amazing video highlighting the success of the IS2 which many military enthusiasts are not aware of. Looking forward to the next parts.
Yes, all wehraboos fawning over Tiger IIs seem to forget it was clapped by IS-2 almost every engagement they met in while being much more expensive and less reliable. IS-2 hands down best heavy tank of the war.
@@phunkracy That's nonsense. It is true that the extremely small numbers of Tiger IIs available where wholly incapable of holding back the Soviet advance, but in terms of individual performance they were anything but "clapped" by the IS-2. During the Vistula-Oder campaign, Tiger IIs were credited with destroying about 5 times their numbers of Soviet heavy tanks before being overwhelmed. That might have been a losing performance, but it was it was still a creditable one.
@phunkracy Operation Solstice. January 1945. The German attack was ultimately a complete failure, but they did inflict disproportionate casualties on the Soviet heavy armour before being repulsed. As I say, I'm not claiming the Tiger II was a success, I'm saying your statement that the IS-2 "clapped" the Tiger II is false.
@@mattbowden4996After witnessing and testing the IS-2 against contemporary German tanks, Walther Model wrote that German crews should avoid engagements with the IS-series whenever possible and admired the IS-series tanks, particularly the IS-2.
@@maciek19882 Gdzie mieszkam nie powiem, ale sam IS2 stoi na ulicy Mościckiego 23 w Krakowie. Zdemilitaryzowany oczywiście ale nadal ładnie się trzyma.
I just love so much these documentaries. Tanks are my passion and you're a mark of quality. Please continue doing these kind of videos, I'd love to hear about the other IS tanks like is3s 4s 5s etc, maybe some day.
How about a video on the T-64? The design history of the tank, and the version history, can get extremely muddy the deeper you delve into it, and you seem to be pretty good at sorting through long and complex series histories of that kind. Plus, the internet in general is astonishingly lacking in T-64 appreciation, although this extends to a lot of Morozov's design work
I think the IS tanks are some of the coolest looking tanks with that awesome sloped armor and cool front armor belt below that classic Soviet turret design! 😄
One of if not the best channel with video essays about tanks. Giving us quality content with enough details for anyone interested to understand. Sir, you are great! Keep up the good work!
Can you talk about the USSR projects for introducing a tank with remote contrled touret in the 70's and 80's which inspired the armata😊.......i love your content
With out a doubt some of the best tank content on yt. I was really exited for this video since the tease in the KV video, and let me tell you this did NOT disappoint. I can’t wait for the post war IS tanks!!!
The relative mechanical simplicity of the IS series made them difficult to drive (although not as bad as the KV series). The British tested Tiger Is and Tiger IIs post war and the main take away for both vehicles was that their terrain handling was excellent and they were easier to drive than some tanks half their weight. A lot of the complexity and expense of the German heavies was tied up in the transmission and running gear required to get this performance.
@@mattbowden4996 Nope, Tiger I and especially Tiger II had severe drive train shudder and transmission slippage due to loss of traction. Ground pressure level means nothing without traction.
@@BigSmartArmed Do you have some documentation to support this claim because it conflicts with the results of the British testing of both Tigers. The Tiger 1 was specifically called out for lacking such vices and while the Tiger II had problems with the transmission housing distorting under load, that was happening because there "too much" traction and the housing was weakest part of the transmission system and therefore the first to fail when the transmission was put under strain trying to move the thing. Traction was emphatically NOT the problem with either design. We all know the weaknesses of the German heavies, but there's nothing to be gained from pretending they didn't have any strengths unless one is desperately wedded to the Soviet "propaganda myth" that the IS series was without vice.
@@mattbowden4996 There is a collection of documentation on tankarchives site, which so far is the only English language site that hosts Soviet archives. If you want to disregard Soviet archives then don't bother reading facts. If you do care to learn facts, then all you have to do is reason for yourself instead of just absorbing prefab info. Primary factor of tracked vehicle mobility is interaction with different types of soil. While Western front soil is mostly of consistent density and moisture levels, Eastern European soil is diverse in composition and moisture levels. Tiger tank Commanders were given explicit instructions to check soil density level by stick step method. If a specific length of stick was stepped on and it was pushed into the ground all the way, then that terrain was unsafe to cross. If crossing attempt was made it was likely that tracks would get bogged down in softer soil, while high moisture level caused top soil to be torn off and chewed by staggered arrangement of the wheels, and most importantly front drive sprocket wheel. While movement in a straight line could achieve successful crossing of difficult terrain, as soon as maneuvers were needed then during turning top soil would begin to accumulate inside the track. In Tiger II drive train and track problem is even worse due to gross overweight. While transmission suffered from shudder at load due to front sprocket track slack and uneven distribution of the load, traction problem was magnified by low torque and high RPM gas motor. Soft/moist top soil was literary torn off by tracks causing loss of traction which shuddered the entire drive train and put tremendous stress on already over driven transmission. Sand, soft soil, moist soil, inclines, all presented extreme danger of mobility loss for Tiger tanks, especial King Tigers. Most common mobility loss was Tiger tanks was sliding one track from a country type road into soft soil. Due to high weight and narrow roads, recovery was very difficult and if under fire most Tigers that slid off were simply abandoned. Exactly the same is happening in Ukraine right now with Leopard 2 tanks. Mobility loss, followed by drone strikes on stationery target.
Why the hell did these videos dissapear from my upload notifications or recommendations. Just saw now that you followed up the kv lineup with this video. Great video! Didn't know there was so much that I didn't know about the IS tanks. I appreciate you going into details about it :D One of the few people I watch knowing I will learn something new about I subject I thought I was somewhat knowledgeable about.
Another excellently researched video! Fantastic visuals, you have found some very rare photos, great job! Entirely enjoyable... can't wait for the rest in the series...
A good, balanced video. A couple of nitpicks, though. The IS-2M was a post war upgrade. As for Tiger 1 vs. IS-2, the IS-2 had a more effective hull front design, but the Tiger had a much thicker turret front, effectively 140-225+mm (gun mantlet backed up by heavy bars of 100mm turret armor). The IS-2 was also plagued with internal armor spalling. The Tiger 1 probably had the best armor quality of any WW2 tank, and production stopped before the late war problems with German armor started.
The IS-2M was a post war upgrade, yes. I talk about it at 19:45. The 1944 upgrade is sometimes referred to as the IS-2m (lowercase) and I talk about this difference at 19:51.
It is amazing how many folks looks at many WWII vehicles, tanks and other weapons and support and point out its flaws. It is rare for people to think about the fact that the weapon that can be made is better then the theoretical weapon that you can't produce.
@@RedWrenchFilms The second. The comment was based of "The KV85 was produced since there were not IS hulls available yet." It is good to know the flaws but hindsight can be blinding.
@@mikealpha2611 Absolutely! It’s easy to point out flaws but I think very important to understand why those flaws existed in the first place and why it was difficult/impossible to get rid of them.
Did the ISU-152 or SU-152 fight as self propelled artillery (SPA)? In other words, did they 'fire at range'? Or were they only 'direct fire' weapons? Or....did they fight in both roles? Thank you in advance for your time. Keep up the good work.
They were designed as direct fire weapons. Their lack of gun elevation wasn't ideal for indirect fire but I'm sure they were used that way in some situations.
Yes, i've read accounts of them being used indirectly, but the fire rate was low for sustained fire and accuracy suffered greatly. What's more interesting is SU-76M's who were used in indirect fire role, but the High Explosive filling of 76 howitzer shells was obviously not on par with typical soviet field artillery. Side note, read about M10 Tank Destroyers and how much HE shells they fired, opposed to Anti tank rounds. German armor was rarely an issue for Allies after Italy and France invasions that most Tank Destroyer battalions just worked in infantry support roles
Fact is the ISU-152 were used for both direct and indirect fire and the "ML-20" gun mounted on them was called "пушка-гаубица" in soviet classification, wich translates literraly as "gun-howitzer", as its muzzle velosity made it good in both roles, using different gunpowder loads.
@@RedWrenchFilms they were used as artillery more often than you think, there are some lifehacks how you can increase or decrease your elevation angle just use landscape
you know i'm really glad there are other history buff nerds that are actually interested in this level of deep dive on mid-century armored warfare. I could listen to this stuff all day (and often do)
The wider mantlet did upgrade the frontal turret armor, in effect. And the Tiger I and Panther was pretty overmatched by IS-2s; a review done by the Soviets done at the end of 1944 concluded that IS-2s could engage both tanks openly at 1000 meters at small loss to themselves, and that most irrecoverable losses occured at ambushes at 300-400 meters. As for the King Tiger, your reliance on Zaloga (which shows) the IS-2 probably had the advantage against the King Tiger at long range engagements, due to the potency of its HE round. In Soviet testing, even 240 mm of armor encasements were not enough to keep animals (usually rabbits) from being killed or wounded by the shock and concussive effects of the impact of 122 mm HE rounds. Moreover, in firing trials done on a captured King Tiger at the Kubinka, the very first hit was a 122 mm HE round against its 'impenetrable' upper front hull. And indeed, the hull wasn't damaged save for the paint, but the concussion and shockwave delivered by the round was enough to shatter the King Tiger's transmission and set the King Tiger on fire!! One can only imagine the effects on the crew! Note an HE round could have this effect anywhere it impacted, hitting a weak point is not the necessary, and (once again Zaloga is wrong) the IS-2's gun and sights were perfectly capable of hitting targets at long range-- indeed, that was the stated doctrine for IS tanks, to engage enemy heavy armor at 1500-2000 meters. By contrast, the King Tiger would likely prevail in shorter range engagements, especially in ambushes, where its faster-firing gun would likely be decisive. Even then, the IS-2's armor offered good but not absolute protection to the King Tiger's Kwk43 at 1500 meters or more, and even hits from 500-1500 meters were far from sure kills. One of the reasons for this resistance is that the Soviets made strides in producing high-hardness steel that also resisted spalling and cracking. As for the 100 mm vs 122 mm gun, further Soviet testing, testing I believe done on higher-quality Soviet armor, not German, proved that the 122 mm just had superior penetration. That's the real reason it was kept, and indeed, resistance to the 122mm, not the 100 mm became the criteria for post-war Soviet tanks.
Stop quoting Tankarchives, their articles on Soviet tests against anything Western is mostly propaganda. The IS-2 was a a typical Soviet/Russian product; a low quality, crude and primitive beast with a powerful gun that was dangerous to anything it hit, but little else to show for it. Within the restrictions of the Soviet industry (millions of unskilled and semi-skilled workers suffering under poor conditions), it was a good response to the Tiger - but it was overall a much less sophisticated vehicle. Poor armor quality with deadly internal spalling, inferior shell quality, inferior mobility and reliability, cramped interior, poor visibility, extremely slow ROF that would slow down even more after a few minutes of combat, extremely small ammo load. Behind the new armor layout and big gun is was basically just a upgraded KV-1, a vehicle known for poor mobility and awful reliability. If you look at the garbage tanks, the T-72 in particular, the Russians are making today, why should they by some miracle make tanks that were comparable with Western tanks back in 1944? What they had were big, usefull guns - and numbers. USSR produced 110,000 tanks and assault guns during the war - not a single one of them would have passed any western quality control. And without the Western Front and western aid, all those AFVs would have gone extinct by late 1944.
@@TTTT-oc4eb oh yeah western propaganda kid, american tanks were so good that they made almost 50 k since mid 42 to mid 45 (oh yeah you can say that 4k of them were sent to USSR, but it were but they started arrive only in late summer of 44 and actually were changing nothing)
@@TTTT-oc4eb Tank Archives is simply the best source I've found. And what "Western Sources" do you refer to? Are these the same "western sources" that told us: 1) There were tanks called T-34as, T-34bs, T-34cs? KV-1as, KV-1bs, and KV-1cs? 2) That the KV-85 had better armor than the IS-2? And that the Soviets made 4300 of them to boot? 3) That the IS-1 was a Soviet heavy tank with a 122 mm gun and a stepped frontal plate, while the IS-2 was a Soviet heavy tank with a single-piece sloped frontal plate? I have a small library of "Western sources" like these on my bookshelf. Peter Samsonov does use Western sources and cite them. The problem is for you, these "Western sources" (US and British) usually agree with the Soviet sources and reach the same conclusions. The outlier sources are, well, German sources. So what you're really demanding is that only *Nazi* sources be used. You know, like the ones where German AT weapons achieved greater penetration values than were obtained by anyone else testing the same weapons? The problem with Steven Zaloga in particular is that he just includes contradictory material in his books, with no references or citations, and makes no attempt to reconcile the contradictions. Typical Zaloga is that he cites (with no references) that: a) The Tiger could knock out an IS-2 at 1000 meters; b) The Panther had to close to 600 meters to guarantee a penetration (even though that's clearly not 'guaranteed' at that range, even though all references say the Kwk42 on the Panther when tested by everyone had better penetration than the Kwk36 on the Tiger I. So what gives? Why does a Panther have to be closer than a Tiger I? Once you look at the Aberdeen tests (hey, a Western test! Isn't that what you said you wanted??) on the Kwk36 you see that, by a piece-by-piece evaluation of the IS-2 model 1943's armor, that indeed the IS-2's armor was designed to resist the Kwk36 on the Tiger I. The frontal driver's plate, the highly sloped plate below that, and the turret (given the approximate mean angle of impact on a rounded surface) should bounce a Kw36 round at all but the very closest ranges. Only lower-probability near-orthogonal hits on the turret front and mantlet and hits on the lower plate will penetrate (if the lower plate isn't covered by spare tracks, which adds 25-35 mm additional armor; in that case only the small uncovered areas will be penetrated). The lower plate even uncovered will resist the Kwk36 out past 1000 meters. By contrast, the D25-T should blow through the Tiger I's armor, even if angled significantly, at almost any conceivable range (save possibly the 200 mm around the TIger I's gun). So while the Tiger I "could" conceivably take out an IS-2 model 1943 at 1000 meters, it's very unlikely. The IS-2 is almost certainly capable of destroying a Tiger I at any range it can hit it. So at 1000 meters the Tiger I has less than a 10 % chance (the chance of a hit on the lower plate itself is 10 % maximum, by Jim Day's analysis of the IS-2 front, and much of that will be covered by spare tracks) of killing the IS-2 model 1943 while the IS-2 has something like a 95 % or more chance of destroying the Tiger I. So the chances are not equal. BTW, the old "Western sources" I have said that the IS-2 could take out a Tiger I past 2000 meters while the Tiger I had to be within 1000 meters, which is more accurate than Zaloga's rendering. (Though actually, to be fair, there is a chance a Tiger I could take out an IS-2 model 1943 by a very lucky low-probability near-orthogonal hit on the 100 mm rounded turret armor). And this indeed confirms what the Soviets found out in their review of IS-2 actions against German heavies at the end of 1944. Let's move on to the Panther. The Panther and its Kwk42's gun was indeed more of a problem for the IS-2 Model 1943, and the Soviets recognized it. The same kind of analysis done for the Tiger I indicates that the Panther's Kwk42 (again using Aberdeen data) could penetrate the IS-2 model 1943's front at some point beyond 500 meters (turret and mantlet front assuming the same mean angle of impact, driver's plate). The lower front plate uncovered by tracks was vulnerable past 1000 meters but with tracks would be about 500 meters or a bit more). The highly sloped armor below the driver's plate was invulnerable to the Panther's Kwk42 (as indeed, it was invulnerable to even the Kwk43 on the Tiger II). So here, the '600 meters' figure for a Panther's success is about right. And moreover, gosh by golly, it fits the Soviet conclusions from their review done at the end of 1944, that IS-2s at 1000 meters were fairly safe against both Tiger I and Panther. At 1000 meters both German tanks have low-probability chances against the IS-2 while the IS-2's chances are likely over 95 %. And, BTW, British and American testing (more of those 'western sources' I should be relying on; I have the data) indicate that even angled at 30 degrees the Panther's frontal armor will fail against the IS-2's D25-T out past 2000 meters. The only document that says it wouldn't is the German October 1944 WaPuf1 report, purely calculated values that don't take into account overmatching, which gives it NO CHANCE AT ALL at 0 meters! But the Soviets considered even this increased vulnerability to the Panther's Kwk42 something of a problem, which was one of the reasons they developed the IS-2 model 1944. The straightened front plate eliminated entirely that vulnerability to the Kwk42 (and nearly eliminated it for the King Tiger's Kwk43) while the wider uparmored mantlet greatly reduced the vulnerability of the turret to both guns (in fact, even the flattest part of the mantlet between the top and bottom of the 122 mm gun barrel had (using mean angles of impact) an effective thickness of > 160 mm, more than the penetration of the Kwk42 at 500 meters, and resistant to the King Tiger's Kwk43 beyond 1500 meters). The new frontal lower plate also cut the penetration limit for the Kwk42, even if uncovered by tracks, to less than 800 meters. So once you evaluate the data, you can reconcile most everything, and that is not what Steven Zaloga does. BTW, I should add that I have Peter Samsonov's new book on the IS-2 (extensively documented and footnoted, unlike anything Zaloga writes) and it appears that my piece-by-piece calculations (which I DID NOT get from anything on Tank Archives) were confirmed by Soviet engineers, that concluded, yes, the IS-2 model 1944 turret would resist the Kwk43 on the King Tiger past 1500 meters. Finally, some things that Zaloga posts are just flat-wrong. The IS-2's HE round gave it an advantage over the King Tiger in long range engagments. There is a momentum component in the effectiveness of HE rounds against armored vehicles, but given the fact that the 122 mm ML-30 howitzer could take out German heavies with its gun at 500 meters by the blast/concussion effects, and looking at the Aberdeen data I have (which includes round velocity of the IS-2's D25-T at all ranges), I see the D25-T round will impact at a velocity greater than the initial muzzle velocity of the ML-30 (515 m/s) well past 3000 meters. So one would conclude that at any reasonable range the IS-2 can hit a King Tiger (or any other tank) with its HE round, it would likely disable it. All it needs to do is hit, it doesn't matter where the round lands, and the likely result will be that one or more components on the King Tiger aren't working anymore and its crew is not in good shape either.
@@stewartmillen7708 Of course Tankarchives is the best; they, like RT, tell the Russians what they want to hear: Russian hardware is the best (especially compared to NAZI Germany), Russia defeated Nazi Germany on their own, Lada is the best car in the world, Nazi Ukraine planned to invade poor, peaceful Russia, Putin is the greatest leader in the world. Problem is that when you lie as much as "Russian sources" do, very few will take you seriously when you actually once in a blue moon tell the truth. The last one and a half year have taught us that Russians live in their own bubble, a parallel reality. Trying to discuss with a Russian is like discussing with an alien from a different planet.
seeing that Scud (or alternatively R-11 Zemlya) TEL based on the IS-2 chassis reminded me of the TELs for RT-15 and RT-20P both based on the T-10 chassis
I just watched the KV vid and now this one. Then I saw this came out today and the KV one was a month ago. Now I have to wait a month for more of this historical greatness. I am upset, now take this like.
Im getting addicted to these videos and loving them! I know you like to cover tanks that haven't really been represented on youtube but there's a tank im very curious about but only find little info about. Its a modified M50 sherman called "Degem Yud" if thats the correct term for it. The tank looks awesome and is basically a lower profile sherman by having the hull chopped down.
I think this is the best tank channel on youtube right now. great vid after great vid. I hate to be that guy, but do you think youll cover the obj. 704 or obj. 268 in the future?
I absolutely love these videos, they're so informative and entertaining to watch. The IS-2 is one of my favorite tanks of all time, thanks for making this video on it!
Thank you for sorting out the rather complex transition from KV to IS series. Or to paraphrase Frank Zappa: "You are what you IS and you IS what you AMX."
Honestly one of my new favorite channels to watch. If you ever get around to it, it would be awesome to see a video on Hungarian Armor during World War 2. It doesn't get a lot of attention, but I think the Turans and Toldis are some of my favorite tanks. Same with the Zyrini Assault Gun and Tank Destroyer. But love your videos dude!
I love looking at SU-152s and IS-2s (5:08) listening to 'tusk' (Fleetwood Mac - both versions)....- refuelling party at night. 8:27 The IS-5s look so nice 20:53 What a cheery scene. I can relate to that.
IS2 needed a two piece ammo and would have to re-aim the gun after each shot since the barrel had to be raised to access the breech, if memory serves me right. Could also be because of the recoil. I dont remember.
This problem only existed in the IS-122 (otherwise known as IS-2 mod 1943) due to the screw breech design. This problem was remedied with a redesigned breech in the IS-2 mod 1944
I love the IS tank series, these tanks look so beautiful in terms of design...my favorite is the IS-2 model 1944 in the Berlin variant with the white stripes on the turret. For me, simply one of the most beautiful tanks of the Second World War, this large and powerful 122mm D-25T cannon, this design of the hull and turret and the 12 cylinder diesel engine make this tank one of my absolute favorite tanks! I have an IS-2 Berlin 1945 from the Polish terminal block manufacturer COBI with the set number [2577] and the RC IS-2 Berlin from Torro will soon follow ❤☭!Thanks for this nice video!
Interesting that the footage starting at around 6:05 has been sped up in an attempt to make it look like the vehicle is traveling faster than it actually is.
13:50 - There is an article by Yuri Pasholok that describes the history of ISU-122, and it is not related to the abundance of A-19 guns. You have to check the production numbers of A-19 and compare them to ML-20: while ML-20 were produced in thousands (1-1.5k per year during 1940-1943), A-19 was produced on significantly smaller scale in just hundreds at best (~400 each year during 1940-1943, 100-250 during others) TL;DR version is that military command wanted a dedicated tank hunter, and A-19 just happened to be the most effective gun at their disposal in 1943. While there were plans to install A-19 in SU-152, factory that was producing them was busy working on IS tanks, and thus couldn't complete the order. After Battle of Kursk with its big cats and Ferdinands, designers decided to move onto other experimental guns even more effective against German armor, but were stopped by Stalin who had ordered to press the already existing A-19 guns into service as the standard gun of heavy tank destroyers by March of 1944. And, in fact, there was a shortage of these guns rather than abundance, with Chelyabinsk plant reusing unused chassises from production of ISU-122 to produce ISU-152 instead, with alternative vehicles, such as ISU-122s bearing an SPG variant of IS-2 main gun, being created to supplement the production of ISU-122.
I feel like the progression in the head-to-head section of the vid is massively overlooked. IS-2 going from balanced against the Panther, to having the “Big Red Star” advantage against the Tiger, and “Very Scared, Help” against the Tiger 2 lol.
Absolutely love these videos! Ive probably watched every vid 2/3 times by now to just absorb the info! Would absolutely love if you ever find time to scrap up a video about the "concept" tanks etc. Could be from differing nations, tank class etc. Fantastic stuff tho!
That’s actually crazy, the IS 2 and the IS 2 chassis outlasted their replacements, and even outlasted the T-34 in frontline service! (I think) The only T-34s in service today though are for parades and monuments.
yeah it is funny to hear about retirement in 1995, but 122 mm gun is 122 guns with loads of ammo in stockpiles, it is just prove that tank were pretty good made
"Made of Squares" Brother with how calm and quite frankly relaxing (though very educational and enjoyable) this video was being that genuinely made me laugh out loud xD
The Soviets should have used the 100mm cannon that was used on the SU-100 tank destroyers, to arm the IS-2 instead of the much slower reloading 122mm cannon. The 100mm cannon used a powerful fixed cartridge that could reload very fast. The 100mm gun could penetrate the frontal armor of any german tank exept the glacis plate of the King Tiger. The 100mm gun was also much more accurate than the 122mm cannon. The 122mm gun could only hold 28 rounds, which was 20 HE shells ans only 8 AP shells. The 122mm HE shell had 9 pounds of explosive filling, but the 100mm HE shell had 4.7 pounds of explosive filling which was still a large amount of explosive for a tank fired HE shell. The Soviet 85mm HE shell had about 1.82 pounds of explosive by comparison. The 122mm gun essentially made the IS2 an assualt tank, just blowing holes at enemy soft targets with its HE shells. The 100mm cannon would have allowed the IS2 to become better for fighting tanks and also would have had a very good HE shell. 100x696mm is a powerful cartridge, especially with the long barrel. That is what the Soviets ended up using for the T54 and T55 tanks many years later. It was one of the best tank guns of WW2
Original is1,is2 hull protected against tiger 1 flak88 from like 600+ m. But then upgrade was made to protect against panther and long 88 because both exceeded tiger gun
"needed to keep hatches closed to prevent grenades or Molotovs from being droped inside" and "70% of tank loases being from handheld anti tank weapons" are painfully familiar phrases , i guess the more things change the more they stay the same applies go war.
🌏 Get NordVPN 2Y plan + 4 months free here ➼ nordvpn.com/rwf It’s risk-free with Nord’s 30-day money-back guarantee! ✌
Object NordVPN, a silly project to trick the proletariat into buying a fake "security" solution that actually puts your data at greater risk because it's not secure at all.
At world of tanks blitz i have the is tank fully upgrade
25 kg HE shell?
Bro, Howitzers barely get 5 kg worth TNT
@@I_want_White_Cheddar_Popcorn The shell weighed 25kg, the HE filler was only 4kg. Likewise the Panther had a 7kg shell with 0.65kg HE.
@@I_want_White_Cheddar_Popcorn probably he got the numbers mixed up between the entire shell weight and the payload.
3:20 "the IS hulls weren't ready yet so the KV-85 would serve as a stop-gap solution"
ABOUT TIME somebody cleared up the reason those things exist.
Thank you.
Does that also extent to the KV-122?
@@wickendiana8310yes, with a 122mm gun
Glad to know!
I know you from drachinifel's channel
@@wickendiana8310 according to Wiki "KV-122: A KV-1S with short 122 mm S-41 howitzer. One prototype was made in 1943. Not taken into service"
Interesting Fact:
Some ISU-152 tanks were used in the Chernobyl disaster as ad-hoc demolition vehicles as the thick armor was seen as useful against radiation. Many were abandoned after the cleanup and some of the wrecks are still there with high levels of radiation!
I think Mark Felton made a good video on this if you want to learn more!
They also thought they might have to use them, and their special concrete piercing shells, to blow holes in the containment building to drain out the pooling water
“Hey Ferb, I THINK I KNOW WHAT WE’RE GONNA DO TODAY!”
@@cascadianrangers728damn i really want to watch how isu 152 firing and destroying concrete
@@CheekyBreeky77 th-cam.com/video/ii9YO2dZcDc/w-d-xo.html&feature=share9
the russians have a ridiculous amount of variants of what feels like literally every tank they have ever produced
wait until you see the german tanks like panzer 3 or panzer 4
the western allies had similar massive numbers of variants.
It was only much later that countries stopped giving each battlefield modification or minor manufacturing change a different variant designation.
For example the M1A2 currently in US service would, had the same naming conventions been in place that were used during WW2, be something like M1A4E3M2A
@@jwenting i mean more t55/t72 :p
Actually, the Russian tank zoo was very much smaller than the German one. This has a very simple explanation: the evacuation of industries to the Urals region in 1941. Because of that almost all 1942 the Red Army was on hunger diet in terms of weaponry and ammunition. In 1943 the industry restart mass production but the situation got better only quantitavely, not qualitatively. Suffice it to say that the key Kursk battle Soviet tank troops fought with T-34-76 tanks and even light T-70 tanks which were absolutely no match to German Tiger and Panther tanks, and even to latest modifications of T-IV tanks with long barreled guns. Hence staggering losses of Soviet tanks. They weren't due to some exceptional skill of German tankers but simply due to obsolete tanks. Even the battle for Ukraine succeeding the Kursk battle were won in old models. New Soviet models: T-34-85 with an 85 mm gun and heavy tank IS-1 appeared only at the end of 1944 when the result of the war was more than clear. As to heavy calibers of Soviet tanks: this was due to less effective guns and munitions in comparison to the Germans. Germans used the brilliant 88 mm gun on their Tiger-1 and Tiger-2 tanks and striked Soviet tanks surely on all distances . No wonder: Soviet Union was poor and ravaged country and produced what it could.
@@colder5465 yes and no. There were far greater differences between units produced in different factories than was the case with German (or American and British) tanks because factories tended to use whatever was at hand and change designs to adapt to their available tooling rather than retool.
My dad was part of a 120mm mortar crew. When they were in Germany US tankers were terrified of the Tiger II. He said they would all run away and call mortar crews for help. They came to find everything that even resembled a tank was a Tiger II. Such were his war stories.
Every panzer was a tiger!
@@RedWrenchFilms And he and his crew killed all of them!!!!
@@Scrat335he's a brave soldier
And the Germans were terrified IS-3 😂
The M4 was a good tank
this got recommended to me 49 seconds after publication
TH-cam loves me!
@RedWrenchFilms we love you man full homo 😘
@@RedWrenchFilmslol
51 mins for me, not bad
@@RedWrenchFilmsand we love you great content as ever man
I really hope this goes all the way to the IS-8.
It will!
@@RedWrenchFilms I can't wait.😁
IS-2M:
Tavarishch! It's not just 7 more rounds carried. It's a 25% increase in ammo capacity! ⭐
Outstanding job, one of the few channels that never disapoints.
Means a lot!
Those pics of of totally shredded tigers and panthers are amazing. Somehow I had never seen them before.
It’s the way they just shattered, always blows my mind.
No shredded Tigers there. Tiger I never had a lessening of steel quality. It remained high quality to the end of production.
That’s because those Panthers and Tigers weren’t destroyed by heavy Soviet tanks / tank destroyers. Those are tank blown up by large internal explosions from demolition charges set off by the crews to prevent capture by the Russians.
@@haroldfiedler6549Nothing to do with the Russians then?!
@@haroldfiedler6549 Source
I love the Is-series of tanks,they are beautiful
Love the 1944 version it's front hull is amazing
This is exactly what ive been waiting for a video about my favorite heavy tank series the IS series! Another thing was in the battle of ogeldow august 1944 the IS2s fought against tiger 2s with incredible succes against the germans. This was an amazing video highlighting the success of the IS2 which many military enthusiasts are not aware of. Looking forward to the next parts.
Yes, all wehraboos fawning over Tiger IIs seem to forget it was clapped by IS-2 almost every engagement they met in while being much more expensive and less reliable. IS-2 hands down best heavy tank of the war.
@@phunkracy That's nonsense. It is true that the extremely small numbers of Tiger IIs available where wholly incapable of holding back the Soviet advance, but in terms of individual performance they were anything but "clapped" by the IS-2. During the Vistula-Oder campaign, Tiger IIs were credited with destroying about 5 times their numbers of Soviet heavy tanks before being overwhelmed. That might have been a losing performance, but it was it was still a creditable one.
@@mattbowden4996 in what battle exactly did they do that?
@phunkracy Operation Solstice. January 1945. The German attack was ultimately a complete failure, but they did inflict disproportionate casualties on the Soviet heavy armour before being repulsed. As I say, I'm not claiming the Tiger II was a success, I'm saying your statement that the IS-2 "clapped" the Tiger II is false.
@@mattbowden4996After witnessing and testing the IS-2 against contemporary German tanks, Walther Model wrote that German crews should avoid engagements with the IS-series whenever possible and admired the IS-series tanks, particularly the IS-2.
I love IS2, such a nice tank and I can see it whenever I want to, as it stands like a kilometer from my house.
A gdzie mieszkasz, przyjacielu?
@@maciek19882 Gdzie mieszkam nie powiem, ale sam IS2 stoi na ulicy Mościckiego 23 w Krakowie. Zdemilitaryzowany oczywiście ale nadal ładnie się trzyma.
Sounds like my home as well, though in Russia
I just love so much these documentaries. Tanks are my passion and you're a mark of quality. Please continue doing these kind of videos, I'd love to hear about the other IS tanks like is3s 4s 5s etc, maybe some day.
I second this. There's quite a bit of coverage on the IS-3, but not so much on the IS-4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 (T-10)
Ooh I'd love a good comparison of the IS2 and 3, and how much of a downgrade the third variant was. IS2 was a gem
How about a video on the T-64? The design history of the tank, and the version history, can get extremely muddy the deeper you delve into it, and you seem to be pretty good at sorting through long and complex series histories of that kind. Plus, the internet in general is astonishingly lacking in T-64 appreciation, although this extends to a lot of Morozov's design work
+++
I think the IS tanks are some of the coolest looking tanks with that awesome sloped armor and cool front armor belt below that classic Soviet turret design! 😄
The production quality has inceeased so much throughout your videos, just like my excitement when watching them. Keep up the great work!
The ISU-152 in WoT has/had the BL-10 and it was absolutely hilarious fun. Truly a terrifying and absurdly unwieldy weapon!
Looking forward to the next vid on the IS series. I'd love to see a detailed video on the T-54/55 series! ✌️
One of if not the best channel with video essays about tanks. Giving us quality content with enough details for anyone interested to understand. Sir, you are great! Keep up the good work!
Wow, thanks!
Can you talk about the USSR projects for introducing a tank with remote contrled touret in the 70's and 80's which inspired the armata😊.......i love your content
Future video!
@@RedWrenchFilms thank you man for being exited to the Idea and replying fast......its means a lot to me as a fan 😎
With out a doubt some of the best tank content on yt. I was really exited for this video since the tease in the KV video, and let me tell you this did NOT disappoint. I can’t wait for the post war IS tanks!!!
Absolutel top content as always my man. Keep up the good work
Thanks!
Can't wait for the video on the rest of the IS serie
I'm quite surprised the Tiger had better mobility than the IS series of tanks. Fascinating video on the history of the IS tank. Thanks for making it!
The relative mechanical simplicity of the IS series made them difficult to drive (although not as bad as the KV series). The British tested Tiger Is and Tiger IIs post war and the main take away for both vehicles was that their terrain handling was excellent and they were easier to drive than some tanks half their weight. A lot of the complexity and expense of the German heavies was tied up in the transmission and running gear required to get this performance.
Tiger did not have better mobility then IS, it's a propaganda myth.
@@mattbowden4996 Nope, Tiger I and especially Tiger II had severe drive train shudder and transmission slippage due to loss of traction. Ground pressure level means nothing without traction.
@@BigSmartArmed Do you have some documentation to support this claim because it conflicts with the results of the British testing of both Tigers. The Tiger 1 was specifically called out for lacking such vices and while the Tiger II had problems with the transmission housing distorting under load, that was happening because there "too much" traction and the housing was weakest part of the transmission system and therefore the first to fail when the transmission was put under strain trying to move the thing. Traction was emphatically NOT the problem with either design.
We all know the weaknesses of the German heavies, but there's nothing to be gained from pretending they didn't have any strengths unless one is desperately wedded to the Soviet "propaganda myth" that the IS series was without vice.
@@mattbowden4996 There is a collection of documentation on tankarchives site, which so far is the only English language site that hosts Soviet archives. If you want to disregard Soviet archives then don't bother reading facts.
If you do care to learn facts, then all you have to do is reason for yourself instead of just absorbing prefab info.
Primary factor of tracked vehicle mobility is interaction with different types of soil. While Western front soil is mostly of consistent density and moisture levels, Eastern European soil is diverse in composition and moisture levels.
Tiger tank Commanders were given explicit instructions to check soil density level by stick step method. If a specific length of stick was stepped on and it was pushed into the ground all the way, then that terrain was unsafe to cross.
If crossing attempt was made it was likely that tracks would get bogged down in softer soil, while high moisture level caused top soil to be torn off and chewed by staggered arrangement of the wheels, and most importantly front drive sprocket wheel.
While movement in a straight line could achieve successful crossing of difficult terrain, as soon as maneuvers were needed then during turning top soil would begin to accumulate inside the track.
In Tiger II drive train and track problem is even worse due to gross overweight. While transmission suffered from shudder at load due to front sprocket track slack and uneven distribution of the load, traction problem was magnified by low torque and high RPM gas motor. Soft/moist top soil was literary torn off by tracks causing loss of traction which shuddered the entire drive train and put tremendous stress on already over driven transmission.
Sand, soft soil, moist soil, inclines, all presented extreme danger of mobility loss for Tiger tanks, especial King Tigers.
Most common mobility loss was Tiger tanks was sliding one track from a country type road into soft soil. Due to high weight and narrow roads, recovery was very difficult and if under fire most Tigers that slid off were simply abandoned.
Exactly the same is happening in Ukraine right now with Leopard 2 tanks. Mobility loss, followed by drone strikes on stationery target.
Great video as always Wrench, loved every second of it and learned a lot!
21:08 when upgrading the gun just isn't enough...
12:26 how you added “Very Scared” “Help” and “Maybe run away” on the IS-2m characteristics, made it even more funnier
Another awesome video on par with armoured archive hope you will do more like on the Churchill or American tanks
Why the hell did these videos dissapear from my upload notifications or recommendations. Just saw now that you followed up the kv lineup with this video.
Great video! Didn't know there was so much that I didn't know about the IS tanks. I appreciate you going into details about it :D
One of the few people I watch knowing I will learn something new about I subject I thought I was somewhat knowledgeable about.
Another excellently researched video! Fantastic visuals, you have found some very rare photos, great job! Entirely enjoyable... can't wait for the rest in the series...
That was the smoothest transition to an add that i've ever seen
Another banger red whench video btw❤️
The IS-2 tanks are very good tanks in war thunder when you do the reverse engine trick.
A good, balanced video. A couple of nitpicks, though. The IS-2M was a post war upgrade.
As for Tiger 1 vs. IS-2, the IS-2 had a more effective hull front design, but the Tiger had a much thicker turret front, effectively 140-225+mm (gun mantlet backed up by heavy bars of 100mm turret armor). The IS-2 was also plagued with internal armor spalling. The Tiger 1 probably had the best armor quality of any WW2 tank, and production stopped before the late war problems with German armor started.
The IS-2M was a post war upgrade, yes. I talk about it at 19:45. The 1944 upgrade is sometimes referred to as the IS-2m (lowercase) and I talk about this difference at 19:51.
@@RedWrenchFilms Yeah, sorry I commented before I had seen the entire video ;-(
Bro, why comment before watching the video?
It is amazing how many folks looks at many WWII vehicles, tanks and other weapons and support and point out its flaws. It is rare for people to think about the fact that the weapon that can be made is better then the theoretical weapon that you can't produce.
Haha am I the former or the latter!
@@RedWrenchFilms The second. The comment was based of "The KV85 was produced since there were not IS hulls available yet."
It is good to know the flaws but hindsight can be blinding.
@@mikealpha2611 Absolutely! It’s easy to point out flaws but I think very important to understand why those flaws existed in the first place and why it was difficult/impossible to get rid of them.
amazing video! Where do you get your footage from though? You've found some pretty great visuals for this vid!
These have been likely the best tank history videos I've seen in a long while looking forward to the post war IS video
I don't know why but the thumbnail with the little ISU saying "And friends" was so adorable to me
Did the ISU-152 or SU-152 fight as self propelled artillery (SPA)?
In other words, did they 'fire at range'?
Or were they only 'direct fire' weapons?
Or....did they fight in both roles?
Thank you in advance for your time.
Keep up the good work.
They were designed as direct fire weapons. Their lack of gun elevation wasn't ideal for indirect fire but I'm sure they were used that way in some situations.
Yes, i've read accounts of them being used indirectly, but the fire rate was low for sustained fire and accuracy suffered greatly. What's more interesting is SU-76M's who were used in indirect fire role, but the High Explosive filling of 76 howitzer shells was obviously not on par with typical soviet field artillery.
Side note, read about M10 Tank Destroyers and how much HE shells they fired, opposed to Anti tank rounds. German armor was rarely an issue for Allies after Italy and France invasions that most Tank Destroyer battalions just worked in infantry support roles
@@Jotgutwhat are you talking? 76mm was main Soviet Army field gun/howitzer.
Fact is the ISU-152 were used for both direct and indirect fire and the "ML-20" gun mounted on them was called "пушка-гаубица" in soviet classification, wich translates literraly as "gun-howitzer", as its muzzle velosity made it good in both roles, using different gunpowder loads.
@@RedWrenchFilms they were used as artillery more often than you think, there are some lifehacks how you can increase or decrease your elevation angle just use landscape
I was thinking about IS tanks and this just got recommended ...😅
Thank you so much for continuing on!Early signs at your channel flourishing.
The IS armed with the 100mm gun with vertical stab and assisted loading system is dope.
you know i'm really glad there are other history buff nerds that are actually interested in this level of deep dive on mid-century armored warfare. I could listen to this stuff all day (and often do)
The wider mantlet did upgrade the frontal turret armor, in effect. And the Tiger I and Panther was pretty overmatched by IS-2s; a review done by the Soviets done at the end of 1944 concluded that IS-2s could engage both tanks openly at 1000 meters at small loss to themselves, and that most irrecoverable losses occured at ambushes at 300-400 meters.
As for the King Tiger, your reliance on Zaloga (which shows) the IS-2 probably had the advantage against the King Tiger at long range engagements, due to the potency of its HE round. In Soviet testing, even 240 mm of armor encasements were not enough to keep animals (usually rabbits) from being killed or wounded by the shock and concussive effects of the impact of 122 mm HE rounds.
Moreover, in firing trials done on a captured King Tiger at the Kubinka, the very first hit was a 122 mm HE round against its 'impenetrable' upper front hull. And indeed, the hull wasn't damaged save for the paint, but the concussion and shockwave delivered by the round was enough to shatter the King Tiger's transmission and set the King Tiger on fire!! One can only imagine the effects on the crew! Note an HE round could have this effect anywhere it impacted, hitting a weak point is not the necessary, and (once again Zaloga is wrong) the IS-2's gun and sights were perfectly capable of hitting targets at long range-- indeed, that was the stated doctrine for IS tanks, to engage enemy heavy armor at 1500-2000 meters.
By contrast, the King Tiger would likely prevail in shorter range engagements, especially in ambushes, where its faster-firing gun would likely be decisive. Even then, the IS-2's armor offered good but not absolute protection to the King Tiger's Kwk43 at 1500 meters or more, and even hits from 500-1500 meters were far from sure kills. One of the reasons for this resistance is that the Soviets made strides in producing high-hardness steel that also resisted spalling and cracking.
As for the 100 mm vs 122 mm gun, further Soviet testing, testing I believe done on higher-quality Soviet armor, not German, proved that the 122 mm just had superior penetration. That's the real reason it was kept, and indeed, resistance to the 122mm, not the 100 mm became the criteria for post-war Soviet tanks.
Stop quoting Tankarchives, their articles on Soviet tests against anything Western is mostly propaganda.
The IS-2 was a a typical Soviet/Russian product; a low quality, crude and primitive beast with a powerful gun that was dangerous to anything it hit, but little else to show for it. Within the restrictions of the Soviet industry (millions of unskilled and semi-skilled workers suffering under poor conditions), it was a good response to the Tiger - but it was overall a much less sophisticated vehicle. Poor armor quality with deadly internal spalling, inferior shell quality, inferior mobility and reliability, cramped interior, poor visibility, extremely slow ROF that would slow down even more after a few minutes of combat, extremely small ammo load.
Behind the new armor layout and big gun is was basically just a upgraded KV-1, a vehicle known for poor mobility and awful reliability.
If you look at the garbage tanks, the T-72 in particular, the Russians are making today, why should they by some miracle make tanks that were comparable with Western tanks back in 1944? What they had were big, usefull guns - and numbers. USSR produced 110,000 tanks and assault guns during the war - not a single one of them would have passed any western quality control. And without the Western Front and western aid, all those AFVs would have gone extinct by late 1944.
@@TTTT-oc4eb oh yeah western propaganda kid, american tanks were so good that they made almost 50 k since mid 42 to mid 45 (oh yeah you can say that 4k of them were sent to USSR, but it were but they started arrive only in late summer of 44 and actually were changing nothing)
@@TTTT-oc4eb Tank Archives is simply the best source I've found. And what "Western Sources" do you refer to? Are these the same "western sources" that told us:
1) There were tanks called T-34as, T-34bs, T-34cs? KV-1as, KV-1bs, and KV-1cs?
2) That the KV-85 had better armor than the IS-2? And that the Soviets made 4300 of them to boot?
3) That the IS-1 was a Soviet heavy tank with a 122 mm gun and a stepped frontal plate, while the IS-2 was a Soviet heavy tank with a single-piece sloped frontal plate?
I have a small library of "Western sources" like these on my bookshelf.
Peter Samsonov does use Western sources and cite them. The problem is for you, these "Western sources" (US and British) usually agree with the Soviet sources and reach the same conclusions. The outlier sources are, well, German sources. So what you're really demanding is that only *Nazi* sources be used. You know, like the ones where German AT weapons achieved greater penetration values than were obtained by anyone else testing the same weapons?
The problem with Steven Zaloga in particular is that he just includes contradictory material in his books, with no references or citations, and makes no attempt to reconcile the contradictions. Typical Zaloga is that he cites (with no references) that:
a) The Tiger could knock out an IS-2 at 1000 meters;
b) The Panther had to close to 600 meters to guarantee a penetration (even though that's clearly not 'guaranteed' at that range, even though all references say the Kwk42 on the Panther when tested by everyone had better penetration than the Kwk36 on the Tiger I.
So what gives? Why does a Panther have to be closer than a Tiger I?
Once you look at the Aberdeen tests (hey, a Western test! Isn't that what you said you wanted??) on the Kwk36 you see that, by a piece-by-piece evaluation of the IS-2 model 1943's armor, that indeed the IS-2's armor was designed to resist the Kwk36 on the Tiger I. The frontal driver's plate, the highly sloped plate below that, and the turret (given the approximate mean angle of impact on a rounded surface) should bounce a Kw36 round at all but the very closest ranges. Only lower-probability near-orthogonal hits on the turret front and mantlet and hits on the lower plate will penetrate (if the lower plate isn't covered by spare tracks, which adds 25-35 mm additional armor; in that case only the small uncovered areas will be penetrated). The lower plate even uncovered will resist the Kwk36 out past 1000 meters. By contrast, the D25-T should blow through the Tiger I's armor, even if angled significantly, at almost any conceivable range (save possibly the 200 mm around the TIger I's gun).
So while the Tiger I "could" conceivably take out an IS-2 model 1943 at 1000 meters, it's very unlikely. The IS-2 is almost certainly capable of destroying a Tiger I at any range it can hit it. So at 1000 meters the Tiger I has less than a 10 % chance (the chance of a hit on the lower plate itself is 10 % maximum, by Jim Day's analysis of the IS-2 front, and much of that will be covered by spare tracks) of killing the IS-2 model 1943 while the IS-2 has something like a 95 % or more chance of destroying the Tiger I. So the chances are not equal. BTW, the old "Western sources" I have said that the IS-2 could take out a Tiger I past 2000 meters while the Tiger I had to be within 1000 meters, which is more accurate than Zaloga's rendering. (Though actually, to be fair, there is a chance a Tiger I could take out an IS-2 model 1943 by a very lucky low-probability near-orthogonal hit on the 100 mm rounded turret armor).
And this indeed confirms what the Soviets found out in their review of IS-2 actions against German heavies at the end of 1944.
Let's move on to the Panther. The Panther and its Kwk42's gun was indeed more of a problem for the IS-2 Model 1943, and the Soviets recognized it. The same kind of analysis done for the Tiger I indicates that the Panther's Kwk42 (again using Aberdeen data) could penetrate the IS-2 model 1943's front at some point beyond 500 meters (turret and mantlet front assuming the same mean angle of impact, driver's plate). The lower front plate uncovered by tracks was vulnerable past 1000 meters but with tracks would be about 500 meters or a bit more). The highly sloped armor below the driver's plate was invulnerable to the Panther's Kwk42 (as indeed, it was invulnerable to even the Kwk43 on the Tiger II).
So here, the '600 meters' figure for a Panther's success is about right. And moreover, gosh by golly, it fits the Soviet conclusions from their review done at the end of 1944, that IS-2s at 1000 meters were fairly safe against both Tiger I and Panther. At 1000 meters both German tanks have low-probability chances against the IS-2 while the IS-2's chances are likely over 95 %. And, BTW, British and American testing (more of those 'western sources' I should be relying on; I have the data) indicate that even angled at 30 degrees the Panther's frontal armor will fail against the IS-2's D25-T out past 2000 meters. The only document that says it wouldn't is the German October 1944 WaPuf1 report, purely calculated values that don't take into account overmatching, which gives it NO CHANCE AT ALL at 0 meters!
But the Soviets considered even this increased vulnerability to the Panther's Kwk42 something of a problem, which was one of the reasons they developed the IS-2 model 1944. The straightened front plate eliminated entirely that vulnerability to the Kwk42 (and nearly eliminated it for the King Tiger's Kwk43) while the wider uparmored mantlet greatly reduced the vulnerability of the turret to both guns (in fact, even the flattest part of the mantlet between the top and bottom of the 122 mm gun barrel had (using mean angles of impact) an effective thickness of > 160 mm, more than the penetration of the Kwk42 at 500 meters, and resistant to the King Tiger's Kwk43 beyond 1500 meters). The new frontal lower plate also cut the penetration limit for the Kwk42, even if uncovered by tracks, to less than 800 meters.
So once you evaluate the data, you can reconcile most everything, and that is not what Steven Zaloga does. BTW, I should add that I have Peter Samsonov's new book on the IS-2 (extensively documented and footnoted, unlike anything Zaloga writes) and it appears that my piece-by-piece calculations (which I DID NOT get from anything on Tank Archives) were confirmed by Soviet engineers, that concluded, yes, the IS-2 model 1944 turret would resist the Kwk43 on the King Tiger past 1500 meters.
Finally, some things that Zaloga posts are just flat-wrong. The IS-2's HE round gave it an advantage over the King Tiger in long range engagments. There is a momentum component in the effectiveness of HE rounds against armored vehicles, but given the fact that the 122 mm ML-30 howitzer could take out German heavies with its gun at 500 meters by the blast/concussion effects, and looking at the Aberdeen data I have (which includes round velocity of the IS-2's D25-T at all ranges), I see the D25-T round will impact at a velocity greater than the initial muzzle velocity of the ML-30 (515 m/s) well past 3000 meters. So one would conclude that at any reasonable range the IS-2 can hit a King Tiger (or any other tank) with its HE round, it would likely disable it. All it needs to do is hit, it doesn't matter where the round lands, and the likely result will be that one or more components on the King Tiger aren't working anymore and its crew is not in good shape either.
@@stewartmillen7708 Of course Tankarchives is the best; they, like RT, tell the Russians what they want to hear: Russian hardware is the best (especially compared to NAZI Germany), Russia defeated Nazi Germany on their own, Lada is the best car in the world, Nazi Ukraine planned to invade poor, peaceful Russia, Putin is the greatest leader in the world.
Problem is that when you lie as much as "Russian sources" do, very few will take you seriously when you actually once in a blue moon tell the truth.
The last one and a half year have taught us that Russians live in their own bubble, a parallel reality. Trying to discuss with a Russian is like discussing with an alien from a different planet.
seeing that Scud (or alternatively R-11 Zemlya) TEL based on the IS-2 chassis reminded me of the TELs for RT-15 and RT-20P both based on the T-10 chassis
I just watched the KV vid and now this one. Then I saw this came out today and the KV one was a month ago. Now I have to wait a month for more of this historical greatness. I am upset, now take this like.
Man, you still have the highest quality tank shit on this platform
It means a lot that you'd say that :)
I learned a lot about these tanks - mobile guns ! I thought I knew a good bit but was wrong - thanks
Im getting addicted to these videos and loving them! I know you like to cover tanks that haven't really been represented on youtube but there's a tank im very curious about but only find little info about. Its a modified M50 sherman called "Degem Yud" if thats the correct term for it. The tank looks awesome and is basically a lower profile sherman by having the hull chopped down.
I think this is the best tank channel on youtube right now. great vid after great vid. I hate to be that guy, but do you think youll cover the obj. 704 or obj. 268 in the future?
+++
In another IS video!
Found your channel when searching for info on the AMX-30, and im glad I did, you make great videos! 😀
I absolutely love these videos, they're so informative and entertaining to watch. The IS-2 is one of my favorite tanks of all time, thanks for making this video on it!
Great video. I can never get too much info on Russian WW2 tanks. Thank you.
Thank you for sorting out the rather complex transition from KV to IS series. Or to paraphrase Frank Zappa: "You are what you IS and you IS what you AMX."
what IS this tank
Honestly one of my new favorite channels to watch. If you ever get around to it, it would be awesome to see a video on Hungarian Armor during World War 2. It doesn't get a lot of attention, but I think the Turans and Toldis are some of my favorite tanks. Same with the Zyrini Assault Gun and Tank Destroyer. But love your videos dude!
I love looking at SU-152s and IS-2s (5:08) listening to 'tusk' (Fleetwood Mac - both versions)....- refuelling party at night.
8:27 The IS-5s look so nice
20:53 What a cheery scene. I can relate to that.
Glad to have helped. :)
You're the best!
@@RedWrenchFilms 😅
IS2 needed a two piece ammo and would have to re-aim the gun after each shot since the barrel had to be raised to access the breech, if memory serves me right. Could also be because of the recoil. I dont remember.
This problem only existed in the IS-122 (otherwise known as IS-2 mod 1943) due to the screw breech design. This problem was remedied with a redesigned breech in the IS-2 mod 1944
great video!!! super hyped for the post war IS tanks , love your videos
Thanks!
I love the IS tank series, these tanks look so beautiful in terms of design...my favorite is the IS-2 model 1944 in the Berlin variant with the white stripes on the turret. For me, simply one of the most beautiful tanks of the Second World War, this large and powerful 122mm D-25T cannon, this design of the hull and turret and the 12 cylinder diesel engine make this tank one of my absolute favorite tanks! I have an IS-2 Berlin 1945 from the Polish terminal block manufacturer COBI with the set number [2577] and the RC IS-2 Berlin from Torro will soon follow ❤☭!Thanks for this nice video!
Fantastic video, I was really looking forward to this video
Hope you enjoyed it!
Interesting that the footage starting at around 6:05 has been sped up in an attempt to make it look like the vehicle is traveling faster than it actually is.
So you've just never seen old video footage then?
13:50 - There is an article by Yuri Pasholok that describes the history of ISU-122, and it is not related to the abundance of A-19 guns.
You have to check the production numbers of A-19 and compare them to ML-20: while ML-20 were produced in thousands (1-1.5k per year during 1940-1943), A-19 was produced on significantly smaller scale in just hundreds at best (~400 each year during 1940-1943, 100-250 during others)
TL;DR version is that military command wanted a dedicated tank hunter, and A-19 just happened to be the most effective gun at their disposal in 1943. While there were plans to install A-19 in SU-152, factory that was producing them was busy working on IS tanks, and thus couldn't complete the order. After Battle of Kursk with its big cats and Ferdinands, designers decided to move onto other experimental guns even more effective against German armor, but were stopped by Stalin who had ordered to press the already existing A-19 guns into service as the standard gun of heavy tank destroyers by March of 1944. And, in fact, there was a shortage of these guns rather than abundance, with Chelyabinsk plant reusing unused chassises from production of ISU-122 to produce ISU-152 instead, with alternative vehicles, such as ISU-122s bearing an SPG variant of IS-2 main gun, being created to supplement the production of ISU-122.
Yes finnely the IS series
i love your vid man keep it up
Absolutely love your content bro, cant wait for you to cover the shermans and t34s
Informative and entertaining. Good work.
I feel like the progression in the head-to-head section of the vid is massively overlooked. IS-2 going from balanced against the Panther, to having the “Big Red Star” advantage against the Tiger, and “Very Scared, Help” against the Tiger 2 lol.
Thanks for spreading info about these red beasts! Some of my favorite tanks of the war, behind the SU series
Amazing IS series👍
I'd probably give the award for best heavy in WWII to the King Tiger but the IS series is up there
Absolutely love these videos! Ive probably watched every vid 2/3 times by now to just absorb the info! Would absolutely love if you ever find time to scrap up a video about the "concept" tanks etc. Could be from differing nations, tank class etc. Fantastic stuff tho!
Those head to head descriptions had me rolling.
See comrade?! Our tank has big red star! Our tank is clearly superior!
It'd be cool to see an episode for soviet light tanks like the BT series, T-26, ect
That’s actually crazy, the IS 2 and the IS 2 chassis outlasted their replacements, and even outlasted the T-34 in frontline service! (I think)
The only T-34s in service today though are for parades and monuments.
Very good. Do you use JS or IS? Reply.
JS - Joseph Stalin, IS - Iosif Stalin.
@@_b_x_b_1063But which one do you use? (Most likely IS)
Can you do one about the shermans?
At some point! Will need @Eta320 to help!
yeah it is funny to hear about retirement in 1995, but 122 mm gun is 122 guns with loads of ammo in stockpiles, it is just prove that tank were pretty good made
I love your videos always talk about tanks mainstreams forget about, could you do a series on British tank development too
GOD I LOVE THIS CHANNEL ! ! !
"Made of Squares"
Brother with how calm and quite frankly relaxing (though very educational and enjoyable) this video was being that genuinely made me laugh out loud xD
having seen the ISU-152 up close I can understand, why people are so interested in it
still, i think there is a version of IS-2 that isnt covered in this video. ever read it somewhere about IS-2U
Hahaha true! It was never made but I talk about it in my next video.
Highly recommend a visit to the Kubinka tank museum, it has a fantastic collection!
I would love to see another video on the post war Russian heavies !
Hey, i suggest you to make german panzerkampwagen video, from pz.i to the pz.viii
It’s on the radar!
The Soviets should have used the 100mm cannon that was used on the SU-100 tank destroyers, to arm the IS-2 instead of the much slower reloading 122mm cannon. The 100mm cannon used a powerful fixed cartridge that could reload very fast. The 100mm gun could penetrate the frontal armor of any german tank exept the glacis plate of the King Tiger. The 100mm gun was also much more accurate than the 122mm cannon. The 122mm gun could only hold 28 rounds, which was 20 HE shells ans only 8 AP shells. The 122mm HE shell had 9 pounds of explosive filling, but the 100mm HE shell had 4.7 pounds of explosive filling which was still a large amount of explosive for a tank fired HE shell. The Soviet 85mm HE shell had about 1.82 pounds of explosive by comparison. The 122mm gun essentially made the IS2 an assualt tank, just blowing holes at enemy soft targets with its HE shells. The 100mm cannon would have allowed the IS2 to become better for fighting tanks and also would have had a very good HE shell. 100x696mm is a powerful cartridge, especially with the long barrel. That is what the Soviets ended up using for the T54 and T55 tanks many years later. It was one of the best tank guns of WW2
This got recommended to me 18 hours after publication
Original is1,is2 hull protected against tiger 1 flak88 from like 600+ m.
But then upgrade was made to protect against panther and long 88 because both exceeded tiger gun
It would be pretty funny if they pulled the IS-2s of the 1950s into the current conflict, and just slapped ERA on them
Is 2 electric boogaloo
IS-2BV lol. Imagine them putting a 125mm into it and reloading it like an 122mm
"needed to keep hatches closed to prevent grenades or Molotovs from being droped inside" and "70% of tank loases being from handheld anti tank weapons" are painfully familiar phrases , i guess the more things change the more they stay the same applies go war.
You made my morning
Nice work. Excellent content.
Glad you enjoy it!
Seeing all the shots of tanks in Kubinka makes me want to give them all a blanket and a hug T^T
You know, a normal thing to want for war machines...
Awesome Series, keep it up!
Loved the Head-2-Head lol
I was not forgotten :D
I came here from the IS-6 video because you told me to watch that first and now I gotta watch another 20+ minute video first before this one?????
This is what finally got me out of bed today
Loved the funny head to head comparison