IS-2: More Armor than a Tiger and almost as light as a Panther
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 чер 2024
- » IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
The Soviet Heavy Tank IS-2, has a stronger frontal armor than a Tiger, a bigger gun than the King Tiger and at the same time was just 1 metric ton heavier than a Panther. So how was this possible?
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
00:00 Intro
00:29 Soviet Weight Watchers
04:24 Width
05:45 Variable Thickness Casting
06:18 Turret
06:48 KV-13 (1942)
7:39 Lessons KV-1
8:31 Panther Hull & Engine
9:19 Ruthless Priorities: Equipment
11:49 Command Economy
12:44 Summary MHV
14:18 Small & Ergonomics
16:28 M3 Lee the APC
#IS2 #ww2 #soviettanks
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
Easy answer the IS-2 carried 28 rounds VS Tiger H carried 92 rounds. Basically Tiger H had far more internal volume and 1 more crew.
12:29 "Arguing about requirements 80 years ago is as exciting as today". As someone who works in Army Headquarters, I can vouch for that. :)
Peter was comparing the IS-2 mostly to the previous KVs in terms of weight savings since that's what he focused on in his book and articles, but other factors he left out is that German big cats had a front transmission and less transmission elements integrated in a single unit, which bloated the weight and hull size further compared to the IS-2.
They also carried a greater volume of ammo in total, and if restowed could probably carry more 122mm ammo than the IS-2 could. An acceptable tradeoff for the Soviet tank given his highly specialized employment which limited ammo expenditure and gave more time to restow, compared to German tanks which were used more frequently. In fact all big cats carried an unusually high volume of ammo by WWII standards, they have both big rounds (compared to Allied 75/76 calibers in particular) and a very high quantity of ammo (70-80+).
The huge 85/107mm KV projects would be closer to Tigers than the IS series in terms of total ammunition capacity and weight inefficiency.
No. Its just that the older generation of KVs were on par with the Tiger. But the Tiger was completely outclassed by the IS-2. Simple
@@parallax9084Wait what? TF You talking? The KV Series was heavily outclassed by the Tiger and Panther Tanks. This led to the fact that the soviets only had a real heavy tank on par with German ones in 1944 with the IS2
@@wallnusschef6526 IS 2 was on par on paper. in reality it rated somewhere between a Panther and a T-34/85, at best. It would not surprise me if crews said they preferred the T-34 for tank versus tank combat. IS 2 was better suited for pillbox busting.
@@wallnusschef6526 The Tiger and panther were the german response to the T-34 and Kv series. But the Tiger and Panther failrd to fulfill this role. And they were ultimately worse than their Soviet equivalent in many different ways.
@@wrathofatlantis2316 people severely underestimate how good the IS-2 actually was. That thing would blow open the hull of a Tiger II with an HE shell. A tiger couldnt even compare.
The Soviet Union recycling names, I'm certain every historian who deals with the interwar and the WW2 period for the United States military will have a "hold my beer" moment and recite about the m1...
USA have to be concerned and resume work over their mainland security issues, if not they will have to fight invader hordes on USA soil.
Seriously, I wanted to see a clearer difference between the M4 Sherman (A1, A2, A3) variants and it showed the carbine (I forgot to put sherman). Then there's the Abrams. I forgive the USN though. Have to keep the Enterprise legacy going on ofc.
@@shadowconquer-yv5yda self-loading carbine, a self-loading rifle for full-sized rifle&mg cartridge, a hand grenade, a submachinegun, an RPG, a numerous amount of artillery pieces...
@@shadowconquer-yv5ydthe differences lie in the engine and suspension systems on the vehicles though I don’t remember what they are off the top of my head. I believe the A2 got a radial engine over a V style engine, then the A3 got an upgraded suspension over the Christie suspension.
Smaller internal volume. Case solved.
and the Soviet tank designs continued this trend to modern times.
"You see comrade, if you fold the crew twice and then make them choke on exhaust, you get very effective tank"
"Can they perform in combat even remotely as good as they did during testing? Can the gun in such tank have the same accuracy and rate of fire as towed variant?"
"Absolutely!"
"Are you sure? Can you provide any..."
"Trust me, bro"
@@TheArklyte cope
@@TheArklyte "You see, mister, in the land of freedom and democracy we can't rail against people's wish to be tankers, especially if Uncle Sam wants a lot of tankers!"
"But won't this cause inefficient use of interior space, making our tanks more vulnerable to anti-tank weapons, especially if they are obsolete one way or the other?"
"Never in a thousand years. Just look at Nicholas "Chieftain" Moran."
"Are you sure about this?"
"I swear to God. Trust me, bro!"
@@Ailasher >obsolete
>doesn't use Christie suspension in 1945
Great talk. Super informative on the design decisions that went into the IS-2 and how those decisions compared to the opposition tanks.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Actually - You can find IS-2 "war model" in museum. Check Armour Museum at Poznan, Poland. They have it in collection - fully operational. More - in this museum you will find fully operational original StuG IV.
Posen
I also want to add that the V2 had a cast aluminum block while the HL230 did not. How much this can save can be illustrated with the HL210 (little bit smaller bore, cast aluminum block, 650hp) which weights only about 1050 kg while the HL 230 (little bit bigger bore, cast grey iron block, 700hp, basically a bored out HL 210) weights at about 1300kg. Why did they switch from cast aluminum to cast grey iron blocks? Because aluminum is scarce and expensive while grey iron is readily available and cheap (from the perspective of the German armament industry). Weight saving is not just a matter of smart design, it is also important to consider situation one is in and what is actually affordable.
Exactly. Resource allocation is an important part of planning and conducting a war.
Some historians even say, that had the Germans and Soviets had the same philosophy on quality/quantity in their war material. Instead of the "Trope" of Germans over engineering, and the Russians making minimum viable products, with improper quality control. The war might have had a different conclusion.
Resource allocation is even an important thing in a capitalistic society, during peace time. The big difference though is, that it's mostly a question of, how much are we willing to pay for resources, rather then not being able to source them at all.
Can we make a profit.
The HL230 was to become the HL234 by adding direct fuel injection thereby achieving 850-900hp. With a supercharger some 1100-1200hp was expected. These would have found themselves on the Tiger II first however it was only a matter of time they would be integrated into the Panther. That would require the replacement of the final sprocket drives with a planetary unit as on the Tiger II. (not point in adding more power if the transmission can't take it, this was planned on the slightly heavier Panther II anyway) .
-The Panther Ausf F with the Tiger II like Schmalturm (narrow turret) turret allowed not only a 30% increase in Armour thickness but the fitting of the 8.8cm L71 gun.
-I suspect that a panther with the Schmalturn Turret, 8.8cm L71, HL234 900hp engine, new transmission, the stabilized optics and stereoscopic range finder planed would be formidable and eventually I think might see the upper front glass increased by cm from 8cm Armour to 10cm.
@@soul0360 I don't know if I understand you well, but if you're refering here to "germans should produce cheaper and lighter vehicles (PzIII/IV/StuG) in bigger numbers" then it's completely wrong myth stemming from not understanding German situation in WWII, from both military and economic standpoint. Even if they switched solely to lowest quality to ensure highest possible quantity, German industry would absolutely *never* reach levels of US or Soviet output in sheer numbers, while also losing the only strength they had over adversaries, the technological one: higher protection, higher firepower, higher survivability. The biggest problems of Germans was also manpower shortage, and survivability of crews was of absolute highest priority.
Not to mention that production and designing of heavy tanks, like IS-2, on side of Soviets also very distinctly shows that battles can't always be won by sheer numbers alone.
_Because aluminum is scarce and expensive while grey iron is readily available and cheap (from the perspective of the German armament industry)_
I don't think this is a plus from the Soviet side. The USSR was more starved for aluminium than Germanay. Remember, the USSR had to get almost _half_ of their aluminium from Lend Lease, and they still were very short on it, to the point that they had to build a large number of fighters out of wood (think the LaGG-3, the La-5)
@@VRichardsn Russia is not lacking in any raw material resources. Any metal, mineral, oil, coal was available in large quantities. The Russians also had vast manpower. Russia was however industrially under developed and lack a consumer pull driven economy that evolves high tech so it was left far behind in some areas. Aluminium is abundant in Russia but it’s processing was not. Germany was short of all raw materials except magnesium. Oil, tungsten in particular. Germany tried very hard to substitute (eg coal to oil) but such substitutes are very expensive. The additional iron and steel required to make synthetic fuel in Germany was equal to 25% of the tonnage of the USN. For each 10 ton truck, tank or half track that was operated about 2-3 tons of iron on a coal to oil plant was needed. Then we need to add such things as natural rubber etc. The allies did not suffer from this and Russia always had western supplies.
Another factor I have seen noted is that the Red Army quickly dropped the pretense that anything made for the Great Patriotic War had to last after the war.
This allowed under-building of systems with much shorter lifespans and smaller safety factors to save weight.
Simple things like thinning cylinder walls in engines, replacing steel with aluminum, and such made for engines that would break down sooner, but they just planned to only run the tank less time than that.
Germany, conversely, maintained full service-life requirements on most everything. A Panther made in 1943 was expected to serve the same time a Panzer IV of 1938 was intended to, so they built everything to do that even as the war went sour.
Very true and very under rated comment.
Given the attrition rate of armored vehicles, it made sense.
Simply put, the Soviets are engineers and the Germans are artisans.
@@fsdds1488look where that got them
funnily enough, i think with the stg44 (or was it the vg?), the Germans went the other way and didnt care a bit about the bullets corroding the barrel, knowing those things would not have to survive years to come... took them long enough..
That's a thought; an M3 with redesigned doors to allow infantry to rapidly embark and disembark, and an oddball armament that tries to combine AT and infantry support efficiency. A possible BMP-1 in the second world war?
11:33 While German tanks had too many ball bearings, the design of DB605 was switched from ball bearings to plain bearings which, when combined with increasingly poor grades of lubricants, led to serious problems in service, including engine fires. (wiki) Is it just inefficient resource distribution, or just another WWII myth?
The DB605 was based on the DB601 but was a new engine so trouble was to be expected. Apart from bearings, lubricants the new high pressure lube system froth the lubricants and needed to have an de-aerator added. There were also issues with alloying elements such as lack of iridium for spark plugs and lower octane fuels..
The original spark plug on the DB605A was the Bosch DW250ET 7 and this
sometimes caused pre-ignition at 1.42ata MAP for the DB605A meaning
the Me 109G frequently had to be restricted to 1.3 ata
(atmospheres or Barr of pressure) as fuel quality was also a problem.
New spark-plugs were needed to the end of the war for each increase in
manifold pressure.
1.42ata - Bosch DW250ET 7/1.
1.80ata - Bosch DW250ET 7/1A and 10/1.
1.98ata - Beru F280 E43. (Driving the DB605DCM and ASCM to 2000hp)
The 1.42ata capable DW250ET 7/1 sparkplug came in on the the summer of
1943 and helped to restore the original boost from 1.3 ata to 1.42 ata (10%) and also Me 109G6
speed from 387mph to 397mph (almost catching up with the
1942 Me 109G2 which did 401mph)
@@williamzk9083 Thank you for your additional information, but this still doesn’t explain why the German engineer “fixed” a working bearing design. That report would bring up many questions against the old narrative.
@@oscartang4587u3 I think it was to save on roller bearing production.
@@williamzk9083 That is the problem If the old narrative of DB 605’s issue was 100% true.
No reasonable man would think ensuring any tank parts would work properly on the field is more important than ensuring fighters' engines would work properly in the sky.
@@oscartang4587u3 The DB605 had some very early problems with breakdowns in the air but these were solved fairly quickly. The impact was higher maintenance frequency and reduced power due to boost restrictions. The boost restriction was raised from 1.3 to 1.42 ata in October 1943 increasing power from 1300 to 1420 hp. In may 1944 boost was raised to 1.7 ata by introducing MW50.
I was looking up information on the HL230 the other day and I saw that it uses a tunnel bore crank so that it can use roller bearings for the main bearings, which I found fascinating.
IS-2 also was carring a quite limited amount of ammo, to save internal space and weight.
Well, given that on anti infantry role each 122mm shot was 8 times more effective than a 75mm one, seems was an ok tradeoff.
Excellent! Thank you both very much.
I think ammo quantity in comparison to the German cats is worth mention, but what really needs to be mentioned is the use of a forward mounted transmission and the associated height increases and therefore armour and internal volume increases this design choice has as opposed to the choice by the IS-2 designers. I would also be curious to know how much lighter the IS-1 was than the IS-2 with its smaller main gun which is closer to the size of German weapons
yeah, I forgot to bring that up, it is my IS-2 video, the difference is extreme.
The engine block of the Panther and Tiger the HL 230 with 23 Liters of Displacement was over 30cm shorter compared to the giant 38 Liter W2/V2 engine.
The engine compartment was significantly shorter in both german cats. By placing the transmission between Driver and Radio operator, they fruther reduced the length of the tank and gained more room in the fighting compartment.
The Tigers hull was 6.31m long ( with gun 8.45m)
and 3m wide (with tracks 3.54m)
The IS 2s hull had a length of 6.77m long (with gun 9.83m) and was 3.07m wide.
The Tiger had the bigger and better Transmission, 5 men instead of a 4 men crew. 92 rounds of main gun ammunition and almost 6000 rounds for the mgs, while IS 2 had 28 main gun rounds and just 2800 mg gun rounds, while being 46 cms longer than the Tiger. ALMOST HALF METER WHILE HAVING ONE CREW MEMBER LESS AND ONLY 1/3 OF THE AMMUNITION!!! !!
The Tiger was faster, accelerated better (IS needed to stop for switching from the lower ranger to the higher range, 4 speed transmission split in low and high range) and the Tiger could endure fire fights much longer. Bernhard and Chieftain discussed the number of rounds needed on average for a successful engagement of a target during WWII. They said depending on the range bewteen 5 to 10 rounds were needed. So German, US and British Tanks both carried between 70 and 90 Shells in general. The outliner were the soviets in this case with 28 shells.
Just look at m26 or Centurion.
Given that the accuracy of the 122mm gun was similar to the short 88, the number of targets witch could be enganged with just 28 shells is rather low.
At to that the massive gun overhang of 122mm, because the turret is sifted forward while the transmission was put in in the back. A center mounted turret was not possible because of taht. It further reduced the IS2 to safely clear steep crests, ditches, trenches and hills aswell as towns and trees. Add to that the poor gun depression of just - 3°, which is just 1/3 of what tanks should have.
The hull mg gunner is also essential for suppressing enemy infantry and At-teams on the move, because the main gun and the coax MG did not had a stabilizer. The IS2 did not had that ability.
One of the biggest issues of the T64 were its light weight and small roadwheels. All other Russian T tanks had big roadwheels, just like the German cats or the Centurion, Comets or pretty much every modern tank.
But now I should buy the fact, that the small roadwheels of the IS2 were a great idea?
When every physical aspect, like rolling resistance, clearing gaps, climbing obsticals and ground contact area are in favor of big wheels. Or even better big and many wheels.
Small and fewer wheels is the exact opposite I you should aim for. T64 being the bad example! T72 the good example!
Furthermore the rate of fire 2
Additionally the rate of fire. IS2: 2 to 3 rounds a minute, Tiger 8 rounds a minute.
The IS2 only had better armor protection for a given weight and a lower profile by few centimeters going for it.
Every other important aspect of making a tank effective in combat, was put to a disadvantage by the two advantages it offered. And all that is sold to me as a great and superior design compared to western tanks. Sorry I don't buy that.
Even IS3 performed miserable against Israel using western tanks, for the exact same reasons.
M48 was also 2 tons heavier while offering less armor protection.
Peters approach is confusing and wrong on so many levels...
IS 1 56 rounds of ammunition and still 44 tons.
@@HaVoC117X found a wehraboo
@@phunkracy except an argumentum ad hominem, try proving me wrong!
Second question - USSR produce 2 times more IS-2 that Germany produce tigers, but people keep compare t-34 with tiger and not is-2.
1/3 of those IS-2s were produced after the war.
@@TTTT-oc4eb No, 3395 IS-2 were produced during the war, with a total of 3483 IS-2 produced.
There is no need to spread false information.
Cause none cares about shitty sovjet stuff lmao
@@BananaRama1312 is-2 was strongest heavy tank of ww2, t-34 was strongest middle tank. Much better that anything other produce.
Thank you gentlemen. Another excellent collaborative video.
Glad you enjoyed it.
Great job! It is super that are returning to historical subjects.
The three most important things about the US Tank Medium M3 Lee/Grant were
1) The M3 went from drawing board to production in less than 18 months, and in 21 months the M3 was available in numbers;
2) Slapdash as it might have been, the M3 in May of 1942 still could take on any German tank and was the most capable tank the British had until the US gave the British the M4 Sherman;
3) The M3 provided a starting point for the Tank Medium M4, GMC M10, GMH M7, the Sexton, and other vehicles.
Basically, as stated: we need a "modern" tank ASAP , so put in something, and fast.
Technically, M3 was not the starting point for M4. Rather, M3 and M4 Medium tanks were concurrently developed from the Medium Tank M2 and other armored vehicles of the US Army. M3 Medium was developed because it was identified that it would take around two years to properly develop the turret to mount a 75mm gun, while a hull-mounted 75mm system could done within about a year. Thus, Medium Tanks M3 and M4 were both green-lit for development within a few weeks of each other, but M3 was expected to enter production ideally a year sooner than M4 and to only serve while M4 remained incomplete.
This is one reason the original US Army order was only for a few hundred M3s, enough to arm the planned armored divisions of the still-at-peace US Army in 1941, and it is mostly the demand from the British Empire and USSR that saw the production rise to the thousands in the end.
Now, experience from M3 was used to inform M4 development, but M4 nonetheless was not a direct result of M3.
The sex tank
The Panther went from drawing board to production in 12 months and first delivery in 15 months. I suspect any extra 3-6 months would have removed most of the bugs of the tank. The early engine fires came from a leaky perforus fuel hose and the fact that the engine was placed in a sort of aquarium to allow deep river crossings. This also caused cooling problems. Though quickly fixed the engine fire problems is still used against the Panther to this day. The only other major problem was the weakness of the two final drive reducer gear boxes that drove the sprockets. These were simple straight cut pinion and main gear rather than planetary (as in Tiger and T-34) or Herringbone (as in Sherman) needed in this position.
@@williamzk9083 Regarding the engine fires, it could potentially have something to do with the gasoline fuel they used. The flashpoint for gas is very low, so fumes could build up and leak, potentially catching fire from a spark of the exhaust.
Although I think the more likely culprit was the engine itself, because such a large engine typically requires strong cooling, but as you mentioned, they don't get adequate amounts and tend to overheat. Since engines can get hot enough to cook an egg even with proper cooling, it's possible that the rubber fuel lines could melt and cause a fuel leak in the engine compartment. Because as far as I'm aware, engine fires were rather prevalent on not just panthers, but all of the big cats in general.
M3 was a suboptimal tank produced at the right time to participate in important battles where it performed well.
I once heard this comment about soviet engineering. "If you look at every subsystem of their weapon, they are almost all evidently inferior to their western counterparts, some even by significant margin or half a generational gap. However, if you see the whole system after integration, they achieve incredible combat efficacy if consider how restricting their resource and technology in sub-systems are." This comment was on cold war era soviet weapon systems such as Su-27 but today I back-traced it a bit further
This is what I called Soviet magic,somehow the Soviet engineers are managed to make incredible things from many inferior,substandard components
You have written lighter than a Panther but the IS-2 was one ton heavier.
Thanks, fixed, was an initial error.
The main purpose of the IS-2 was bunker busting something that the T-34 was not well equipped for, while the medium tanks overran enemy lines, hence the huge gun and long reload times not being the big problem many see it as. but it worked GREAT against anything else it could hit too.
Lies. D-25 was specially produced to remove tigers and even bigger threats. Development of 122mm for heavy tank was started even before Kursk and biggest threat later was considered Ferdinand. (Not even KT). Even 100mm couldn't give such effectiveness on multiple targets
@@raketny_hvostthat is not true. The 122mm was selected specifically because it was able to handle BOTH tanks and fortifications well. The gun was not made to kill tigers and other heavy armor; in fact, it is actually a modified artillery gun. The 100mm is also objectively superior against armor, hence why it was chosen to arm the T-54/55 series of tanks.
@@russman3787 lmao. 100mm was worse against armor in 43, as it handled Panther about twice worse than D-25. Soviets started to work on strengthening anti-tank capabilities before Kursk. One who said that D-25 wasn't made against tanks, may kill itself with physics book
@@raketny_hvost love how you use the word "LIES" as if i am somehow deliberately offending you specifically. i said " but it worked GREAT against anything else it could hit too" .D-25 was selected because it was available and could do the job much like the Firefly Sherman conversion, where they shoved a gun far to big for the Sherman's turret in sideways the famous 17 pdr and just made it work as one of the best tank killers of the war. it was originally a DP naval gun and at the time you may recall the Soviet Navy basically didn't exist which is one of the reasons it had separate shell and charge and therefore needed two loaders and that was the main reason it took so long to reload in addition to the cramped space. It was never intended for use in a cramped tank turret space like the IS-2. But the IS-2 was a break through tank and needed a big gun that could crack just about anything so a 122mm naval gun that could fire good HE and other rounds worked fine for the job.
@@raketny_hvost "may kill itself with physics book" you are acting as if this is a personal insult to you and not a technical or historical debate.
Wow, I never expected someone I knew personally to show up here. Way to go Peter!
Love your channel...subscribed!!
Welcome aboard!
Whatever you're building, engineering is ALWAYS about compromises.
M3 was sort of like Arduino electronic prototype these days... Basically take all parts from various sources and quickly assemble them together. And M4 was then "production model". Mind you, USA had huge experience in automotive production by that time, so they know how to design heavy gear which will work on first try.
In my opinion, the IS-2 biggest negative was the 2 piece main gun ammunition. This required the gun barrel (in most cases) to be lowered after firing to load the next shell and the seperate powder charge. This usually required the gunner to re-aim and adjust the barrel elevation if the previous shot did not destroy the target. German tanks, and most other Russian tanks had single piece rounds that made loading, aiming and firing faster. Thank you!
Mr. Samsonov mentioned regarding late and postwar IS-2M’s, the Soviets removed the “…rear-hull machine gun.”
( 9:45 )
Was this an narration error and he actually meant to say: The rear-TURRET machine gun?
Yes, thank you.
That's an mg mount at the back of the turret, similar to ones used on a frontal hull in many other tanks. It originates from the interwar period when it was assumed that heavy tanks could roll over enemy's trenches before friendly infantry reach them
Simple-
Tiger interior: Luxury hotel
IS2 interior: A tool shed
The Tiger 1 actually had better front turret armor than the IS-2. Effective 140-225+ mm (90-150mm mantlet, where all thicknesses 125mm and less were backed up by heavy bars of 100mm turret armor ). There are drawings online. The IS-2 had only 100-115mm front turret armor. There's a picture of one IS-2 that has a clean turret penetration, performed from 2600 meters from a Nashorn, but even a Tiger 1 or Panther could penetrate the front turret at normal combat ranges.
"a Tiger 1 or Panther could penetrate the front turret at normal combat ranges."
Yeah the IS-2 knocked out by a Tiger I at Tarnopol in April 1944 has a clear penetrations right through the turret front.
I never thought about what a trap a schachtellaufwerk is from an engineering standpoint, but yeah, it means more roadwheels, which means more torsion bars, which both add weight, torsion bars need space->bigger hull->more weight, which means you need a bigger engine for the same mobility->more weight
and all just because your tank already was too heavy
That for me was the most interesting part
Funny - I was looking inside a fully-kitted M3 Grant at the Australian Armour and Artillery Museum and was thinking "how the heck do they fit 6-7 crew in there?". The 75mm loader position looks especially uncomfortable.
Thank you.
Soviet tanks were on average 30 cm lower as far as hull goes - this saves weight. And it comes from the fact V-2 engine at 90cm tall was 40cm shorter vertically than HL2xx series of engines. German tanks were build to fit the engines they had, as most tanks since are done with the engine being starting point in the hull development. So yeah, they were heavier because they did not had any engine short enough to cut the hull in size but still put up enough power to make the tank mobile.
I really enjoyed that. The ball bearing reference made perfect period-German thinking.
as a fellow computer engineer the phrase "we usually think a lot before doing" is not applicable in many projects that I saw at work.
Is2: smaller internal volume for crew, sloped armor, different gunmountdesign. Tiger: bigger internal volume for crew and ammo almost nonexisting slopes and a former antiairgun as a primary weapon.
Tiger I lower glacis was sloped at 24 degrees.
Question for the engineer in the video: was the IS-2 chassis purposely overloaded in weight or torsion bar strengths made lighter? Virtually every WW2 era picture of a well worn/broken in IS-2 tank or Howitzer and/or tank destroyer looks as if there is a real dramatic sag in track tension which could be an indication that the torsion bars were prone to lose their resilience/tension strength(?)
No, that's intentional. The tracks were not supposed to be taut like a guitar string. They were supposed to be loose enough to allow the suspension to move up and down when operating on uneven terrain. The manual tells you to loosen them more if you're on worse ground or tighten then more if you're on good even ground.
>Question for the engineer in the video
Computer Engineer
Appreciate your response and ultimately the KV series, for all if its more aesthetically appealing looking characteristics was impractical due to its exaggerated length and sponson-less hull design and unlike like the comparable hull concept in the Panzer lll, it could not be adapted to a long term production conversion as a Soviet version of a Stug although several assault gun designs came to be before the IS superseded it
@@lambrosstambolitis5053 most tanks didn't have sponsons, that is literally the worst possible thing to criticize the kv-series for. as for production volume, over 5.000 of the things were built, for a heavy tank - those are massive numbers. as for it's lenght, the kv-tanks are more or less identical to the t-34 in that regard, while being a bit wider. the kv-series could be adapted for long-term production, it was just that the t-34 was much cheaper to adapt while providing the same firepower and sufficient armor protection.
@@ravenouself4181 not a criticism of the KV at for not having sponsons. If it did however it would have been better suited for upgrades in main armament by virtue of a wider turret race set in a potentially wider upper hull a la Pz IV or T-34. Just saying…
Why was the 600hp V-2K engine switched to 520hp V-2IS? Was the earlier one just so unreliable or was the new cooling system inadequate for higher horsepower?
2IS was designed to run all the way at 650, but it was underclocked for reliability reasons. 2K was a KV engine and it had many reliability problems there due to both being overclocked and KV's weight issues.
Cast armor is less strong. At least for under 100mm.
Probably back then.
@@King.LeonidasCast armor is still worse as they are inherently less even and uniform. But since you can make very weird geometry and maximize slipung, it was useful for the time. Nowadays long rod APFSDS mostly neutralize these advantages
Very interesting Video again. Whilst looking at soviet tank design I got the feeling that they were often more willing to make compromises then western tank designers.
Thank you, "Comrade, in Soviet Russia you are the comprise."
With the IS-2 the Soviets actually achieved a true breakthrough heavy tank.
It was tough, had excellent firepower and importantly was mobile enough to achieve its intended purpose.
Its drivetrain was basically a slightly upgraded KV-1, so mobility wasn't exactly first class. And it carried only 28 rounds of main gun ammo.
@@TTTT-oc4eb Based that guns were mostly used against infantry and fortifications:
IS-2 had 3.8kg of explosive per shell = 106,4 kg of explosive for 28 rounds
Pather had 0.65 kg per shell = 51.35 kg of explosive for 79 rounds
There is another topic which you can cover: how did the soviets fit that 122mm gun inside a turret smaller than tiger II (and tiger I?)?
The D-25 was very compact for a 122 mm caliber. The gun was the result of an earlier project to put a gun with the ballistics of the A-19 corps gun on the carriage of an M-30 howitzer. Since the M-30 was much lighter, the modified 122 mm gun had to be much lighter as well (and therefore smaller). The towed gun was never finished, but the prior work came in handy when the need came to put it in a tank.
The fitting in that space meant the gun had to be depressed below 0 to reload. Any firing above 0 degrees required lowering the gun to load the 2 piece ammo. In a smoke infested space...
@@wrathofatlantis2316 an often repeated myth that doesn't actually turn up in any period sources. In fact, the restriction in the angle of the gun when loading is listed as a point against experimental fixed ammunition, leading the testers to conclude that the ordinary separated ammunition results in a faster rate of fire.
@@TankArchives Lack of mention is not necessarily a proof of absence. Lt. Wolfang Kloth of the 2nd Panzer division mentions it. Maybe it was not an issue of space, but of the shell remaining properly seated while the propellant was added? The IS-3 addressed this very problem, in that holding the trigger depressed will delay the fire until the gun is automatically raised back to re-couple with the sight. Ironically, some of the later Soviet autoloader systems also required a slight barrel lowering, but this time to align with the loader between each shot,
@@wrathofatlantis2316 how many IS-2 tanks did the 2nd Panzer Division employ? I have not seen this feature mentioned in either IS-2 or IS-3 manuals.
HE shells by IS-2 could also easily kill any German heavy tank, that's an important fact people forget. They didn't need subcaliber ammo to kill Tiger 2s.
You stopped caring about the crew comfort
the finest of soviet engineering
The bar is pretty low, though.
@@TTTT-oc4ebstill managed to beat the crap out of their enemies
@@Rorschach7012well that's not surprising if you heavily outnumber your enemy
@@bluefox9436 it's the enemy's fault, war is not a fair game
@@Rorschach7012 and what does this have to do with the point mr TTTT made?
Peter parker knows a lot about tanks gotta give em that
He (Tankarchives) is also very biased when it comes to German tanks.
@@TTTT-oc4ebI agree I’ve noticed this as well he is very biased to Russian tanks
JS-2 on English. And if we recall origynal Stalin's surname "Jugashvilli" we get "JJ-2".
The interesting tank to mention here too would be IS-3 as it's basically new hull front and turret for same components as IS-2. So there is no way they would screw up engine mounting or oil pan or electric system or welds or roof of engine compartment, right? And yet post war IS-3 created with less hurry and higher budget then wartime IS-2 were infamously bad tanks that were falling apart and declared obsolete by soviets themselves in just two years with revival of IS-5 project. They also have an honor of being the only trophy tanks that IDF didn't want to use as tanks. Meanwhile captured T-55 still serve in IDF to this day as basis for several APCs and recovery vehicles.
So maybe, just maybe, those things were falling apart the whole time?
this is just so wildly ahistorical lol
@@phunkracy tell that to Yuri Pasholok then. And to IDF, who used IS-3 as stationary guns until ammo ran out and abandoned them unlike T-55. T-55>IS-3. Cope harder:P
@@TheArklyte tell what? your absurdly ahistorical reaching conclusion regarding IS-2? and yeah IS-3 was made obsolete by T-55 but I have zero idea how your brain came up with a conclusion that it retroactively makes IS-2 worse. this is a definition of cope.
@@TheArklyte Maintanence on heavy tanks is always more demanding then on medium ones, Is-3 is not an outlier. Also, Israel captured far fewer Is-3s than T-54s to use them in bulk.
@@phunkracy you have better sources? IS-3 is "forced marriage" of IS-2U modernization project with Kirovetz-1 turret. You have proof that it isn't? Be my guest.
This is great but did you do any investigations on Panther/Tiger/King tiger Vs IS-2 tank engagements? Design is great until it gets into battle.
Germans would try to avoid the thing entirely, so that should mean something.
Well, the if we just look at losses, it can seem that tigers were better. But in fact, in that moment, soviets were attacking, what means much harder job for their tanks. IS-2 and Tiger 2 are close to equal opponents. But IS-2 was much more reliable, was lighter and had bigger gun. Soviets were good at understanding why do they need tanks. IS-2 was effective against infantry and heavy fortifications (in the combined battle, where infantry, tanks and aviation have important roles). German, in opposite, created masterpieces, that suited to their late-ww2 strategy - lone hunter planes and defending the positions
My takeaway: The Lee had a really big gun for an APC.
Does anyone know how did they go about weighing the tanks in WW2? The question popped up in my mind, and i cant find the answer online lol.
Good one, I sent out a few questions.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized please do let us know if you get an answer :D
ps. Love your videos.
@@thesayxx The answer is very likely scales at train stations: More info here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_scale
The same reason why modern Russian tanks weigh less then western tanks with a bigger gun and a ton of add on armor
Because they are smaller internally, leading to worse ergonomics for the crew, but a smaller profile
Love IS-2 sure it have few problems like reloading when you need put gun down for easyer reload,2 part ammo,not much space inside,accuarci problem..
But its waayyy smaller than Tiger with better mobility and more armor.
Same for my favorite SU-152 same problems but it can one shot any tank in those days.
Better mobility? Better armour? Tiger I armour quality was superior and the turret front is thicker.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Both have same 13 Hp/t but IS-2 is way lighter.
Tiget have 100-130Mm flat armor IS-2 100mm under 60 angle.
Same for turret its rounded not squere 100mm rounded,120mm Gun mantlet rounded too.
IS-2 have way more effective armor you have better chance bounce or no pen.
@@joe125ful
Tiger I turret mantle over 200mm in places, including around 150mm at the gun sight.
Lower glacis angled at 24 degrees.
Tiger I armour nickel steel of 265 Brinell Hardness. Extremely high quality and circa 12% stronger than the best allied steel of the same thickness according to British tests.
@@lyndoncmp5751 This is why IS-2 was maded 3X more...quantity win war in those days.
@@joe125ful
Yes quantity eventually wins. Absolutely. Very true. 👍
Less shells I think, plus transmission layout wasn't weird.
Iirc Germany needed a certain amount of shells in each tank and that didn't go down as shells got bigger
plus less comfort for the crew and harsher requirements for recruitment of tankers. Best tanker was 150 cm tall, anybody taller 170 was prohibited from recruitment as tanker. Thats why Chieftain youtuber always have a troubles stucking in soviet tanks with his enourmous for proper tanker height
Is 1 was enough it had both speed and armour. The 85 mm gun was also great shot
Much better engine and transmission packaging
看了一大推的論述，講很多很多，前世今生、設計延續，我怎麼就聽不出來到底哪裡省下的重量
就不能簡單一些，把"傳動系統"、裝甲重量、砲塔+火炮+彈藥重量、車組空間內的重量裝載、引擎+油量，一個一個拿出來對比 就好了嗎?
還是說，單純的就是因為德軍的鐵比較重 ?
還是說，這又是蘇大林的魔法，磅秤就可以比較強壯一些
9:55 ? wait theres a modernized IS-2 after the 1944 model with night vision ? wtff
Isnt soviet steel also a bit softer and lighter than German RHA?
It is in fact
Specification creep is always the killer of any great engineering. Bigger than sheet, you'll get a note from upstairs to add something or replace something that completely destroys the entire philosophy of the build and you're now just looking to be done with this mess than trying to create the best solution.
"Where you are going Ivan, you don't need crew ergonomics - whatever that is" - Soviet Union, probably
literally in the video: "soviets put a lot of effort into ergonomics" (15:33) - jesse, what the F are you talking about. didnt even watch the video
@@phunkracy putting effort doesnt equal "actual results", i cant think of a single soviet or Rus weapon system that has first class ergonomics, from rifle to a Fighter its always and afterthought on SoV/Ru designs.
@@DD-qw4fz tell that to the guest star of the video loser
@@DD-qw4fz what about the ak 74?
@@ushiki2212 ok i give them credit for the 5.45 ak 74 especially the all black ak 100 series and the ak 105
You get a ball bearing, and you get a ball bearing, and You get a ball bearing! Everyone gets a ball bearing!
"It only matters what you do with the space that is given to you" - Russian Tank Gandalf
IS 2 for ur knowledge brought me depression after IS 1
Thought assault guns or SP
A heavy tank that can cross bridges doesn’t exi-
Most smaller bridges had a weight limit of 25 tons.
Panzer III and IV did not max out by chance at this weight limit. And Panthers and Tigers were designed with deep wading in mind. Like water proof engine compartments or snorkels.
@@HaVoC117XHe mentioned heavy tanks.
@@artificialintelligence8328
T34 and sherman were all ready above the weight limits of most bridges.
Fording depth of a Sherman was just 100 cm, a Panther had almost twice as much and Tiger equipped with right gear could also do deep wading with a snorkel.
When it comes down to water obsticals those heavy tanks had a better tactical mobility than most mediums.
And less ammunition carried on is2.
I have read that Russian Tank Crews had to be no taller than 5ft 4inches as Russian Tanks were so low profile, any tank crew taller than 5ft 6inchesvrisked having their head taken off by recoil of the main gun
It's not about loosing a head by a recoil, rather than an ergonomics issue. Tall people couldn't stand/sit straight in those tanks, so they will be extremely tied after even a short ride
That guy needs a redbull😮
People who talk of crew comfort as the all trumping factor in tanks of WW2 (of which the most important theatre was the Eastern Front) are people that not only spend most of the time outside of physical work, but also have completely lost adequate preconceptions of those experiences as well and since they get tired out mostly by sitting down they think that the comfort of sitting in a tank is the most tiring and thus most important factor.
IS 2's slow rate of fire 2-3 per minute made it too vulnerable in a close fight.
it makes sense because it wasnt utilised in close fight.
@@phunkracy you dont get to choose if you head into urban areas or being flanked
@@kamingleung3792 yeah when you go head into extremeley undesirable for tanks of all sorts terrain you dont get to choose. brilliant. havent thought of it, ever.
@@phunkracy
Stop making yourself look even dumber.
I mean that is true but the military is made up than just more than is2s. This isn't a universal tank, it had a particular goal. For close range combat, no tank really does too well, but a t34 would be a better call.
IS-2 was the best heavy tank design of the war. Not perfect but the most reliable, easier to build AND the second most powerful (after the Köenigs). If the soviets had the 100mm gun operational back then it woudl have made it the perfect tank (since it needed less internal space and coudl match the 122 in performance)
It looked great on paper, but nearly always underperformed in combat. It was blind like the T-34, and the two piece ammo was a disaster in practical terms: The tank was filled with smoke after one round, and the dust kicked up outside blinded it further for minutes on end... The IS-3 looked even better on paper, and was, in theory, world class right up to the 1970s, but it was in fact even worse... In actual combat performance, the IS-2 was little better than the T-34, and far below a Panther or Tiger. The Russian SP guns probably did better against German armour just because of better internal space, lower silhouette and one piece rounds.
@@wrathofatlantis2316 All tanks were effectively blind back then. The superior optics of the germans did not made that much difference in real combat back then. The 2 piece ammo created the slower reload.
The IS2 was strategically wise far better than the panter simply for being reliable, having a good reverse that did not #!@!@# the sproket (that is important when you can easily get stuck in mud ). it did its work, while being cheaper and reliable. That is what a tank must do . The KT was a failure, becuse it was too expensive to build and keep and even if it did defeat the IS2 nearby, it could nto stop the other tons of them that were simply everywhere else due to their easy of production and sufficient reliability.
My understanding is that this was tested on IS-2 using either the same gun or a derivative of the BS-3 AT gun or D-10 as was used on the SU-100. The tests were considered successful but production of a 100mm IS-2 was not pursued because the big 122mm gun was more effective for the intended use of a breakthrough tank - basically hit something as hard as possible, not necessarily as fast as possible. If IS-2 had been intended for a more strictly anti-tank role they probably would have used that gun on it, but that ended up going to the SU-100.
@@tiagodagostini Read from people with actual first hand experience with the IS-2. It was a serviceable bunker buster, but not very useable versus other tanks. The KT had a superior kill ratio to the Tiger I, at a much lower production cost. At 485 built, it hardly got out of what was the test phase production of other tanks. It did tend to jam one drive sprocket with close range glacis hits, which was a flaw, but those hits would have pulverized all other tanks anyway... As to vision, the German cupola was a perfect design for protected 360 degree vision, and a massive German tank advantage. So much so, the Germans even welded those cuppolas on captured T-34. The big decline in German armor quality began in October-November 1944, and this is what is often referred to as a blanket statement on the entire late War production, or even concerning something wrong with their basic design.
@wrathofatlantis2316 isn't it true though, that technically lost is2-s were quite easily put back into service in field repair shops?
yea now a days requirements are have this turret shape cuz shells will not pen the turret or they just slide off n u get the enemy shooting the turret ring sending the turret flying 10 meters up in the air clean off 😂 or do what I do n hit the Tank between the welds of the plates cuz it tends to be a weaker spot
Give a PanzerII the armor of a Tiger and you'd bet it be lighter to.
Underrated comment.
This vido completely skipped IS-1 and IS-2 and went straight to IS-2 (1944)
Put the IS2 hull into a CAD program like inventor from Autodesk , only the Hull and you get 48t, Russian Magic Secret Papers Bullsh1t. Inclusive Gun and Engine you can calculated a min from over 60t for this piece of votka magic.
And best Arguments again the Papers of the IS 2 is the Space in the turret for the Recoilsystem. German Tanks have the best space safe Recoilsystems inventet in this Time. The Russians use Feldcannon Recoilsystems for ther Guns, its the problem of space you need behind the Gun for the Way the gun move backwarts. The t34-85 cant work if you see the Papers more or equal Firepower than a Panzer4 75mmL48 Cannon in a shorter length and lesser room. Na its impossible. After War t34-85 can have the Advantage of taken over German engineers and imporv ther Technology, the same for the IS2
so you don't know how to use CAD bravo
Не забывайте что ИС это танк прорыва, а не толстая ПТ с башней. И у ИС бронебоных было меньше, чем фугасных.
Kinda like a Matilda 2. Except bigger.
STALINIUM power
Yet is slower than a Pershing.
And actually present before 1945
If the Lee could fit ten armed soldiers, why nobody thought of using it as an proto-IFV?
Nobody wanted to get rid of the ping-pong table.
@@captainnyet9855 Legit and relatable
After the war, the german ball bearing mafia claimed to been in the resistance all the time.😂
I kind of think this sounds like stats-hunting. yes they increase the Armour and decrease the weight. This makes pretty much all the stats much better.
Of cause, lower weight is better if they dont sacrifice anything. And of cause just doing good work will help. But it sounds like they actually sacrifices features. Of cause removing the radio operator for instance saves literal tons of weight (due to the hull being narrower). But well, there is a reason why Germans tanks did have radio operators.
Stuff like general crew protection, ergonomics, reliability. Now i have not seen a IS-2 in real life, but a T34 is really quite cramped on the inside to the degree that it hampers the work of the crew. This of cause make the tanks smaller, in turn making it lighter.
But you then have to ask if you making it lighter or having thicker armor, becasue you making the tank better or because you hunting a stat.
Gun depression - 3 for IS-2 -8 for tiger. Lower gun depression allow the roof of the tank to be lower and flatter, decreasing weight or increasing Armour. But again, having gun depression is very useful. This is the diffrance from firing behind a ridge and firing on the ridge.
It don´t matter if you have 120mm armor compare to say 60, if you have to expose the whole tank every time you fire. Tiger could carry 80 shells, IS-2 28. Again, that makes it possible to make the tank smaller.
Casted Armour allow for more armor flexibility, again allowing for less weight or more armor. But again, its a compromise. Germans didn´t have forged armor because they didn´t know about casted. They had it due to quality and quality control.
One could of cause argue that the German panzers was sort of overbuilt in this regards. But the quality over quantity made great sense considering lack of fuel.
By the point in mid 1944 when the IS-2 actually engage the Germans, its questionable if it even made a diffrance anymore.
And to be really clear, the question is if its ever did. Tank on tank combat is very rare. Outside the battle of kursk there been very few large scale tank on tank engagement. I´m not saying tanks are useless. But my point is, making a tank specifically for taking out other tanks may not be the best aproch. There is a reason why a lot of countries use special tank killers
This is true and it's really annoying how it's almost never brought up. This is approach that stayed like this to this day in modern tanks, and there was a reason why both German, as well as US and British tanks were "too tall" and bigger than Soviet ones. Taking into account only armor, weight and size is video game style of assesment. Amount of carried ammo, fuel, equipment, radio, visibility (visors, periscopes etc) and space and ventilation allowing crew functioning on consistent level for prolonged time were just as important and remain even more important to this day.
I can tell you that your prediction on IS-2 is accurate, and in fact it's even worse than T-34 due to the massive gun than this tank was not exactly optimised to handle. I saw inside of IS-2 and had privilege of talking to crewmen of that tank (both during war and in 1950s), what they always recalled was that after firing the gun the inside was filling with toxic smoke due to insufficient ventilation, while outside a huge cloud of gasses raised up creating basically a smoke screen - cutting off visibility of the gunner. So the RoF was further limited not only by mass of shells and increasing fatigue of loader, but also filling the inside with gasses and smoke outside which had to diffuse.
Therefore this tank was not able to observe target after firing and make corrections for follow-up shot, observe the damage or even see at all if target was hit, not to mention to carry out prolonged fire, shelling, or participating in longer tank battles. The crew also had to limit RoF further than what speed of reload would allow for so the gasses dissipate. So IS-2 was more of a turreted assault gun, good enough for shelling stationary employments, bunkers and installations, while remaining safe due to it's armor, but it was not able to keep up with normal tanks in armored battles or rapidly changing environment. Therefore it can not be compared to Panther, Tiger or M26 which were much more universal and consistent designs.
So yeah, experiencing this issue makes it very clear why western tanks were so much bigger - they were structured to employ actual proper ventilation, observation equipment, high ammo allocation and radio, and were actually spacious enough to not negatively affect crews during ongoing battles. So much more important aspects than what video game "hard stats" set would suggest.
Stalinium 😏
This was the most aggressive tank in the world of war zwo.
Sounds like a bad idea if you can only shoot once every minute.
One Tiger 1 unit reported that the crews of the IS-2 would often bail out after the first hit. The IS-2 had major problems with internal armor spalling. This, together with the low ROF, probably made the crews somewhat cautious.
Nah most aggressive tanks were P4 J and T34-85
To bad the is 2 didnt have a better gun the 122 took way to long to reload that two piece ammo
There were constant problems with AP rounds quality in the ussr, so mounting a big gun was the only way to achieve high penetration over long distances
lend lease materials, munitions, factories, fuel and specialist personnel.
Smaller inside, hauling 122 shells around. I'm betting RoF and crew ergonomics were the tradeoff.
people dont know how important space inside a tank is , the t34 at its trails had around 10 seconds reload time on its 75mm gun while not moving while the tiger had around 6-8 seconds depending on how experienced the crew were even tho the tiger had 88mm gun and thats why the is-2 has around 20 seconds reload time and carry less ready to load(raacked) shells
Through the magical Soviet technology called lying and cutting corners.
They simply stripped out everything to do with crew ergonomics such as seats, handles, safety rails, suspension, ventilation, etc and then shrunk the internal space of the tank by about 20%.
Turns out it’s easy to make a tank lighter when you completely disregard the crews ability to actually operate the vehicle.
it was also a failure of a design, too cramped for a crew to freely operate
No sit hvyawier en a Tiger and sals a King Tiger and a panter tank
And less gun depression 😔
The turret was poorly designed to save weight. You couldn't get a new shell into the breach if the gun was at any elevation above 0 degrees. So you had to take the gun off target to get a new shell in, and then completely restart the aiming process.
If the Soviets could develop a 45t tank that could mount a 122mm gun, then why couldn’t the Germans have eliminated the tiger program, mass produced the panther and mounted the 88 on it.
If they could mount the 105 on both the Pz III and Pz IV then why the need for such waste?
Did the Germans just ignore weight restrictions?
The 88 was way heavier than the 75 and the 75mm was ultra high velocity it shot super straight and accurate and up until the IS2 nothing could stop it even IS-2 s could go down with a turret hit by the 75mm high velocity gun
A Panther was also able to destroy a Pershing
What I discern over Soviet tanks is, the turret is brought to the front over the hull, which biases the tank to stick the cannon into ground when the steep descend is proceeded. On the contrary the turrets of tigers are mounted up on the middle of the hull, that makes them stable and reduces bias to be capsized. Though woodenheaded Soviets always claimed of having developed the best armor in the world.
"tiger 2 joins the chat"
But loading ammo is fvcking long