Soviet IS-3

[ArtistsRifles]

Got my copy of CMV through today - and there is a nice article in there on the Soviet IS-3 - or Josef Stalin 3 tank. This has been a long time favourite of mine despite being a vehicle I have never seen in the "flesh". I can recall my Dad telling me of the uproar it caused when it made it's first appearance at the Berlin Victory parade (although he would never tell how HE came to be there!). According to him Patton nigh on wet himself when the Guards Regiment equipped with them passed by! :-)

 

If I could have the choice of any vehicle - the IS-3 would be in the top 2 of the list - despite it's mechanical flaws it's a wicked looking piece of kit and you can see where all the Soviet tank designs that followed got their inspiration from. There is a head on photo in the CMV article of an IS-3 beside a T-34 - the difference is startling!!!

[Eastblock]

I've seen the pillaged remains of a IS-2 next to a T-34 in Ukraine. It's a bit of a beast!

[ArtistsRifles]

Yes - the IS-3 was ahead of it times though whereas the IS-2 was a product of it's time if you see what I mean! :-)

 

IS-2

 

IS-3

[schliesser92]

The IS-3 wasn't all that good. Heavy, well armoured and with that saucer-shaped turret and large gun it looked formidable. It was, however,seriously underpowered and unreliable - but nobody in the Soviet system had the guts to get rid of , or cancel, something associated with Josef Stalin's name.

 

I should imagine it did cause a shockwave through the then establishment.

 

True to the theory that the Soviets never threw anything away, some IS-3 turrets were to be seen as static defences on the Sino-Russian border defence line.It was said that the thing was more reliable in that role, and probably moved faster (Soviet humour!)

 

A friend of mine, a former NVA senior officer, said that up to the T-62, all Russian tanks were absolute crud - and that the new turret design first introduced with the IS-3, meant that all Russian tankies couldn't be taller than 5ft 4in !

[AlienFTM]

The British were upset when the Russians displayed IS-3 at the Berlin parade becaue we thought we'd been clever keeping Centurion quiet, only to get trumped.

 

However poor IS-3 was, we were very quick to develop Conqueror to keep apace.

[berna2vm]

In fairness the Centurion quickly eclipsed the JS3 and outlived it by a considerable margin.

[ArtistsRifles]

The IS-3 wasn't all that good. Heavy, well armoured and with that saucer-shaped turret and large gun it looked formidable. It was, however,seriously underpowered and unreliable - but nobody in the Soviet system had the guts to get rid of , or cancel, something associated with Josef Stalin's name.

 

I should imagine it did cause a shockwave through the then establishment.

 

True to the theory that the Soviets never threw anything away, some IS-3 turrets were to be seen as static defences on the Sino-Russian border defence line.It was said that the thing was more reliable in that role, and probably moved faster (Soviet humour!)

 

A friend of mine, a former NVA senior officer, said that up to the T-62, all Russian tanks were absolute crud - and that the new turret design first introduced with the IS-3, meant that all Russian tankies couldn't be taller than 5ft 4in !

 

As with all designs anything new will have it's share of defects that appear in service and the IS-3 was no exception. The comments about not wanting to upset Stalin - and stay alive - are also true. Fortunately we never had that problem. :-)

The IS-3M, the last of the type, was also the best of the type and the Egyptians fielded IS-3M's in their first dust-up with the Israelis - but poor crew quality led to a lot of them falling intact into the Israelis hands (i.e. they got out and legged it!). The Iraelis put them to use against their former owners with some good effect. All this is in the CMV article.

 

Bear in mind that the Russian philosophy was the "swarm" effect - overwhelm the enemy by numbers and not quality such that you get the same result as attributed to a German artillery officer after D-Day "We ran out of shells for the 88's - the Allies did not run out of Sherman tanks!".

 

The British were upset when the Russians displayed IS-3 at the Berlin parade becaue we thought we'd been clever keeping Centurion quiet, only to get trumped.

 

However poor IS-3 was, we were very quick to develop Conqueror to keep apace.

 

In fairness the Centurion quickly eclipsed the JS3 and outlived it by a considerable margin.

 

All true - BUT - as we all know normally the first weapon onto the battlefield is the winner. And the IS-3 did predate Centurion - even if only just - into active service if not development. It would be interesting to read the Israeli reports of Centurions vs IS-3's. Also - I believe - it was not until Chieftain that UK armour really adopted the rounded turret profile and "Pike nose" effect on the bow.

 

End of the day though - to me at least - the IS-3 was one hell of a good looking vehicle and one can only wonder how much it would have achieved had it entered service earlier and seen action against the Tigers and Panther. It's rare that something devoted to destruction can also manage to appear aesthetically elegant too - for me the IS-3 does. :-) :-)

[steveo578]

schliesser92

The IS-3 wasn't all that good. Heavy, well armoured and with that saucer-shaped turret and large gun it looked formidable. It was, however, seriously underpowered and unreliable - but nobody in the Soviet system had the guts to get rid of, or cancel, something associated with Josef Stalin's name.

 

It was a fairly innovative design in particular the inverted pyramid shape of the hull and the development of the front hull of the later style IS2 into the advanced "pike style". It was not seriously underpowered both IS2 and 3 were in the same power/weight category as the much applauded Panther but in the Is3 case with far better armour layout and the automotive system was reasonably reliable albeit that the suspension had a fairly high rolling resistance, which made all the IS series slow but it was specifically a breakthrough tank and it did what was required.

 

some IS-3 turrets were to be seen as static defences on the Sino-Russian border defence line.It was said that the thing was more reliable in that role, and probably moved faster (Soviet humour!)

 

 

That joke was often said by West German troops with regard to the Chieftain, but would the same people want to go up against it in a Leo1? Even Churchill used the same joke about his namesake in 1941.

 

A friend of mine, a former NVA senior officer, said that up to the T-62, all Russian tanks were absolute crud - and that the new turret design first introduced with the IS-3, meant that all Russian tankies couldn't be taller than 5ft 4in !

 

Everyone entitled to their opinion, but IMO I can't see how anyone can draw a line at T62! The T54-55 was a far better tank than the T62 the U5-T of the T62 was better on paper than a D10-T but the dispersion was poor and the loading-firing cycle of a T62 was ridiculous for a modern weapon system and I cannot see how anyone can say a T62 is roomier than any other Soviet design if anything the large ammunition made life more cramped for the turret crew and more difficult for the loader added to the perpetual problem of the dangerous auto-eject system. The weakness for IS2 and 3 all Soviet tanks until T64 was poor ammunition stowage which was evident in the Mid East wars, when especially IS3 and T62s were found vulnerable to hits to the rear of the turret- in the case of T62 even a none penetrating hit could cause the stowed rounds to explode. Even the T64 and subsequent tanks have a poor reputation for catastrophic ammo explosions.

 

ArtistsRifles

As with all designs anything new will have it's share of defects that appear in service and the IS-3 was no exception. The comments about not wanting to upset Stalin - and stay alive - are also true.

 

 

There is a possibility that political and bureaucratic interference caused over hardening of the frontal armour on the IS3 in particular which led to brittle failures of armour plate.

 

The IS-3M, the last of the type, was also the best of the type and the Egyptians fielded IS-3M's in their first dust-up with the Israelis - but poor crew quality led to a lot of them falling intact into the Israelis hands (i.e. they got out and legged it!). The Israelis put them to use against their former owners with some good effect. All this is in the CMV article.

 

IS3M was not the final IS tank that was the T10, there were also a batch of IS4 which was a progression of IS2 toward a final form. The IS2M and 3M were rebuilds of existing tanks for reserve and export stock in the 1950s.

 

The CMV article give me reservations, AFAIK the Israelis did not use IS3M except as OP-For training and Observation Posts in Sinai. There is film of one or two IS3M in the 1968 Independence Day parade. Many of the 72 IS3M reported captured included destroyed vehicles, many having lost their turrets after internal ammo explosions, many to tank gun fire but at least one to a rifle grenade fired into the open turret hatch.

 

While it is possible that T54 motors were fitted to replace failed IS3M motors it would not give any automotive advantage V2 T of Is3M was 600hp whereas the T54-55 V54-55 were 520-580HP motors.

 

Photos note the position of ammunition racks around turret, and the crude machining of the hull wall which seems to be to allow gun clearance at elevation when the turret is at 3 and 9 o'clock.

Edited February 21, 2010 by steveo578
quotes

[ArtistsRifles]

I stand (or more likely sit) corrected sir! :-D Thanks for the internal photo's too, rare to see those for an IS3.

 

Would stilil have one as my first choice of vehicle though........... But I think there is more chance of Osama Bin laden becoming Pope!! :-D :-D :-D

[steveo578]

ArtistsRifles

I stand (or more likely sit) corrected sir!

 

 

now now you shouldn't call me sir- you'll give me ideas above my station,:-D:-D

 

a few other photos including drivers switches and although a bit blured the cicuit etched on the fuse cover there are also etched circuits on turret fuse/junction boxes.

phots of the 2 budge Is3Ms taken 1988.

 

steve

[ajmac]

crude machining

 

Wash your keyboard Steve.... that is quality Soviet workmanship, also known as expediant use of an oxyacetelene torch :-D

 

You have really got to hand it to the 1940s production engineering in the USSR, if the Germans had understood it then things could have been very different.

[ArtistsRifles]

Wash your keyboard Steve.... that is quality Soviet workmanship, also known as expediant use of an oxyacetelene torch :-D

 

You have really got to hand it to the 1940s production engineering in the USSR, if the Germans had understood it then things could have been very different.

 

Indeed - virtually the exact opposite to the German approach of precision engineering everything.... Wonder how much some thing like a Tiger or a Panther would have cost if built using Soviet methods - and how many more would have been on the battle field???

 

Thanks for the additional ISM3 photos Steve - any idea where the two Budge ones went in 1988???

[steveo578]

 

ajmac

Wash your keyboard Steve.... that is quality Soviet workmanship, also known as expediant use of an oxyacetelene torch :-D

 

 

 

 

 

 

absolutely I think Britain too could have benefited from the soviet rough and ready precision only were necessary approach.

 

ArtistsRifles

any idea where the two Budge ones went in 1988???

 

 

The tank with turret reversed went the swiss museum of intruments of justice and then to Jacques Littlefield where it is presently, where the second tank (photo) went is anyones guess, there is a black hole which swallows afvs perhaps

 

Edited February 24, 2010 by steveo578

[ArtistsRifles]

 

The tank with turret reversed went the swiss museum of intruments of justice and then to Jacques Littlefield where it is presently, where the second tank (photo) went is anyones guess, there is a black hole which swallows afvs perhaps

 

Wish I could find it and rescue that IS3M!! :cool2: :cool2:

[John Pearson]

Bovington has what is probably the best collection of tanks in the world but the one, serious gap is the IS3. This could be said to be the tank that started the Cold War and caused great fear in all western governments when it appeared.

I saw the Budge one and was astounded how tiny it is (I am sure it was smaller than a T34) and how quite a lot of the armour goes 'ping' if you hit it because it is actually tin sheeting to give the sloping shape of a lot of the hull: not the 'pike' shaped front that is solid but the sides are certainly not the excellent ballistic shape they appear to be.

[ajmac]

It has always surprised me that the IS-2 never made it much passed the end of WW2, on the face of it, it is a good vehicle, yet the T34/85 eclipsed it post war....the same goes for the IS-3. Perhaps I am refering more to 'in the eye of the public', I'm not sure.

[steveo578]

ajmac

It has always surprised me that the IS-2 never made it much passed the end of WW2,

 

 

misperception, I don't have a figure for IS2 production but probably as many as 4000 built by the end of the war in europe with about 50% loss rate! After WW2 they were refurbished as IS2M, see the IWM tank these and un modified IS2m were used by other warsaw pact forces, but not in great numbers, although the czechs had quite a few (some appear as scrap tanks in the movie Skřivánci na niti - Larks on a String a 1969 Czech film directed by Jiří Menzel released in 1990 after the fall of the Communist regime.).

 

Most IS2M and IS3M went into reserve in the late 1950s and some IS2Ms were exported to China, in addition to IS2m, which had arrived shortly after the Maoist takeover and were actually seen as a major threat to the French forces in Indo-China hence deployment of M36B2s to I.C. Some IS2Ms went to Cuba and some can now be explored as coral reefs or diving targets for tourism.

 

The reason why both tanks were only apparent in the nightmares of western inteligence was simply it was easier to train on medium tanks, less costly on infrastructure, logistics crews and the tanks themselves, the IS3 in particular had undergone two costly (as perceived by the Soviets) rebuilds since production was completed in 1946. As an aside with regard to unreliablity of the IS3M, a heavy tank company ran at full speed 350miles from Rumania to Buda-Pest to put down the Hungarian uprising in 1956 without loss (unfortunately)- a feat many Western Tanks would be hardly able to match.

 

There was a political reason why all the heavy tanks (including the 8000 T10s) fell out of favour and were largely held in reserve, Khrushchev hated anything that reminded him of Stalin.

 

 

Steve

Edited February 25, 2010 by steveo578
addition/correction in italics

[steveo578]

John Pearson

Bovington has what is probably the best collection of tanks in the world but the one, serious gap is the IS3. This could be said to be the tank that started the Cold War and caused great fear in all western governments when it appeared.

 

 

Don't know about causing the cold war but it certainly could be classed as the impetious for almost all of the British, American and most other nations designs after Centurion and M47. Even French AMX50 and Swedish KRV were heavily influenced especially in the hull armour layout. It is a pity Bovington could not have made a deal for either a IS3M or a T10M or both, possibly a T44 and T34/76 as well.

 

I saw the Budge one and was astounded how tiny it is (I am sure it was smaller than a T34)

Could be perception because I got the opposite impression, allowing for the lack of hull floor ammo boxes I found the Stalin more comfortable, the amount of space in the turret for the comander and loader is quite tight in the T34/85 - the Czech post war T34/85 have shaping inside the turret at the midpoint to relieve the tightness. Although I never driven either I get the impression of a need to stoop or crouch forward in the T34 to see through the hatch either closed up or open. (I'm only 5'8-9" so it not that I'm oversize). The Stalin 3 having a bit more room with the inverted vee shape hull allowing a wider turret ring than either T34/85 or even th IS2M.

 

and how quite a lot of the armour goes 'ping' if you hit it because it is actually tin sheeting to give the sloping shape of a lot of the hull: not the 'pike' shaped front that is solid but the sides are certainly not the excellent ballistic shape they appear to be.

 

I think you missed the logic of the layout, only when damaged does the advanced hull layout become apparent, the sides are thin stowage boxes with the main hull wall sloping downward to the lower hull walls, see photo 3,3 1 armour layout (very naval armour belt style) the green line shows the main armour.

 

The triangular sections on the front plate that 'ping' cover the ends of the stowage boxes see photo 3,3 2 armour layout in red. The stowage boxes would have been valid against first generation RPG and bazookas.

 

See also previous posted interior photos of the inverted vee area of hull

 

Steve

 

Edited February 25, 2010 by steveo578
addition in italics

[ArtistsRifles]

Looking at those last two photo's - the driver looks like he'd be in for a headache if the turret rotated 180 deg from forwards to aft and he had his head out of the hatch. Is that just an optical delusion from the angle of the photo?

 

Was not the majority of Soviet/Warsaw pact armour designed to move large distances under it's own power - hence the odd design of the BMP-1's rear doors as fuel tanks, it not being possible to follow standard procedure and have the cylindrical quick release tanks on the sides of the rear hull??.

[ajmac]

With all these Russian million / Billionaires around over the last 10 years and the homegrown interest in Russian heritage I am surprised that there are no well known Russian AFV collectors around. I would have though having pots of cash and a few connections could soon set you up a quite expensive 'cold war' collection. Which I guess beggers the question IS there such a chap?

 

Back in tha days when I recieved 'tracklink' there was a back page photo (they used to have a glossy cover so you only got nice B&W photos on the front an back) there was a photo of an IS-3 dug in on the Chinese boarder as mentioned before.

Edited February 26, 2010 by ajmac

[paulob1]

if you are a billionaire in Russia you keep your head down these days...the government is slowly winning the war against the mafia and the very rich who got rich mostly by exploiting the peoples assetts are now beign reeled in...why do you think they have brought all their money out of Russia...there are a lot of people in Russia with very dodgy backgrounds.

 

if they do own militayr stuff it is likely to be live and in use keeping them safe from the government or from the mafia...

[steveo578]

ajmac

I am surprised that there are no well known Russian AFV collectors around.

 

 

When the Bulgarian stuff was dug out of the "turk line" about 2 years ago one Russian oligarch offered a substanical sum for the vomag L/70. Museums in Romania found it very difficult to retain exhibits because of offers and bribes being made from very rich Russians and to be fair both some German (you don't hear much of mega rich German collectors) U.S. and British citizens are just as bad.

 

Technically the ownership of tanks and armoured vehicles in the Russian Federation is resistricted. As it says on one site "if you want a tank join the army" -it also says "or be very rich"

 

paulob1

if you are a billionaire in Russia you keep your head down these days...the government is slowly winning the war against the mafia......

 

 

Touble is Putin is reeling in his enemies I am sure an oligarch who pays his tribute to Czar Putin can have as many tanks- ikons or whatever he likes.

 

Steve

[Stek]

No details but found this on www.englishrussia.com said to be in abandond tank base, lot of other interesting looking stuff there.

[ArtistsRifles]

Lovely find - now how do we get it back to the UK??? :cool2: :cool2:

[Stek]

 

http://englishrussia.com/?p=1910 Here is the link