+The Nozar That what I thought when I driving the IS-3 but as soon as I step out, "bail out, this vehicle is had it" (someone one shot ammo racked me :p)
In 2002, I had the chance to examine a JS-3 up close in Minsk at the Museum of the Great Patriotic War. It was overwhelming. I've been a fan ever since.
The Design of this tank was crazy ahead, the soviets really were the first to understand the crucial influence of angles on armored parts. You can see how the Panther and King tiger front hulls were inspired by soviet designs and how the Germans changed their point of views when you compare them with the early WW2 panzers.
Pretty good actually. Handling wasnn't good (like in most Soviet tanks), but IS-3 did suprisingly well in difficult terrain. It weight was only 46 tons (Tiger I was 10 tons heavier), tank itself was very compact, and had good balance (like all IS-3 to IS-10(T-10) tanks).
The advantage of the IS3 was the way it used very thick armor that was very heavily sloped and angled combine with the massive 122mm main gun. This vehicle could still be used in a modern day conflict today. Most modern light anti tank weapons wouldn't be able to penetrate this vehicle from the front and this vehicle could also most likely even engage and destroy a modern day tank like an Abrams or Challenger, Leopard or T14 Armata with more modern ammunition.
The Russian designers must have had time machines or something, they just seem to have been way way ahead of their time when compared to other nations tanks! Question from Stalin to the Red Army)...... "Tell me than comrade, What exactly do you need?" Reply from the Red Army)..... "Well isn't it obvious! Tanks that are Reliable, well armed, very low, very sloped, with a big simple powerful diesel engine, and lots and lots of 'em, common sense really, in other words, the total opposite of what everyone else is building!"
+jiggermast Exactly, I believe Stalin said that when he visited one of the biggest army battalions to raise moral. The army just wanted more of the good stuff, Stalin and the government delivered in fact they delivered too well because a lot of the better weapons and tank designs where ignored or put on the shelves in favour of focusing more resources in making what already is there and improving on it. T-44 and AK47 were among the designs that survived the onslaught and became building stones for modern combat weaponries.
That big Diesel was ineffective as h... way to large compared to contemporary Gasoline engines. Hence the Russian off set turrets. The Gun and Turret that far ahead made the tank very nose heavy and cumbersome. The low silhouette came at a price. Low ground clearance, which ment less off road capability compared to eg. the Panther. The form and armor was well sloped and angled, but that huge shot trap under the gun was madness. One 75mm shell and that turret was stuck. Welded to the hull. The huge gun could penetrate all German tanks, but it was inaccurate, had a fire rate of 1-1½ shots per minute when introduced, compared to the Panthers 6 per minute, very few shells due to the shear lack of space and large shells, and the sights were not very good on the late Russian tanks. Driver had a hard time seeing out the vision slot on the IS-3. Commander had poor sights and the Russian armoured doctrines left the overall effectiveness of the tanks lacking. And the reliability was 160km before engine overhaul. hmm.. Still. Was a good tank for it's role. Being a assault tank and not fight tank vs tank, and it helped pave the way for the later insanely good T-54/55.. But the few Elite Guards that got them, were really mostly to waltz into Berlin for the Parade and show off the new equipment for the Allies to fear.
The separate loading type of the IS3, where u had to load projectile and charge as separate pieces, explains the very few rounds it carried. Due the loading type, the charged had a high tendency to cook-off exposed to flame of shrapnel since the IS3 was totally lack of sealed metal casings. Even the gun itself had a tendency to EXPLODE...a well known incident: Marshall Kliment Voroshilov who got seriously injured when his IS3 tube exploded.
Guess the Soviet Union preferred to call their tanks in honor of their leaders, except the T-series which still exists. But they sometimes give their aircraft such names. For example the KA-50 "Black Shark", the KA-52 "Aligator" or the concept SU-47 "Berkut" which means Golden Eagle.
My favorite tank of all time. I'd like to own one if I could. Despite being from 1944/1945 this could still technically fall into a modern day tank category. These were used by the Russians well into the 1970's before being phased out and they were amazingly kept in reserve service into the 1990's.
Tim Waldron The Tiger I is completely outclassed. Even the IS-2 outclassed it. The Tiger II is somewhat better, but the IS-3 is smaller, lighter, fires a better HE shell, and has similar armor and gun performance. Also, IS-2 gun (which was the same as IS-3) had better accuracy than the Tiger II's gun.
unknownexia Tests show it was. Muzzle velocity has little to do with accuracy, and in fact some long guns had accuracy issues due to barrels warping, etc. The Tiger II's gun had an average deviation (50% shots landed within this radius) of 2.6cm at 100m, while the D-25T has 2.4cm at the same distance.
FawfulDied As far as I know, only Russian sources claim that. They had similar accuracy according to my sources(Western). Also another reason why I think 88(or 90mm US) is superior is because of 122's reloading method. Separate shell and charge.
122mm gun, which was actually an artillery piece put inside a turret, had horrendous accuracy, used two piece ammunition and had to reset the breach every time after firing it because otherwise you couldn't reload it. The tank had a 4 man crew which decreased situational awareness and had poor visibility. Against the vehicle which had the thickest armor (not counting maus, only two were made) and strongest gun which could engage anything beyond 3000 meters. Good luck.
@Dreachon Very interesting information! I would not have expected that but it would have taken a very brave anti tank gunner to hang around waiting for that coming directly at him!
Yeah the IS 2 saw combat and the prototypes of the IS3 did as well but it wasnt meant for tank on tank engagements especially with a wopping 2 rounds per minute and it wasnt even guarenteed to penetrate the Panthers armor so it was only used as a breakthrough weapon on bunkers and entrechments
Pierre Morand The fact that most resupply was still done by horse means the KT would have been useless on the russian steppes. It couldn't even make a difference in the ardennes. Again like HovercraftHoliday states, the germans were so hopelessly low on raw materials that they could only make about 500 KTs. Compare that to the reported near 4000 IS-2s which even if infalted by 50% is still 4x the number of KTs. Take the Tiger I for example. One tiger could knock out 30 allied tanks before destroyed, yet it still would be a bigger loss to the germans then the 30 tanks to the allied. The germans would have been better off sticking to the panther and revising it then ever making the Tiger and KT. But Hitlers obsession with large machinery and his ability to meddle with such things as vehicle design meant the germans were screwed,
Pierre Morand, turret is the most vulnerable part of all tanks. They may shoot staying behind some obstacles when enemy may only see and attack their turret.
Pierre Morand, may be that wasnt a correct word, that's not my language. I mean that turret is a part of a tank which suffers from enemy shells most than any other. You may shoot at enemy while your tank will be partially in cover, in that situation your enemy will be able to shoot in your tank's turret only. And the situation when enemy can shoot in yours tank hull but not in turret - thats an insane situation to me (almost impossible one). ;) You may fight in 2 situations: when enemy can shoot at your tanks turret only and when he can shoot at both turret&hull. So, your tanks turret will have higher chanse to get a shot than hull. Thats what I mean.
@wun1gee I'm curious - what is your favorite tank of WWII? And how did the IS-2 compare to the T-34/85 tank? I mean given the A19 M1931/M1937 wasn't as good as many AT guns - but how would an A19 fare compared to the 85mm ZiS 53? I personally reckon the T-34/85 has a slight edge over the Panther - what do you think? I like Jagdpanther the best though - the 88mm PaK 43 in a mobile chassis that solved the Elefant's slow speed and the Nashorn's high profile/poor protection :D
@ostormbringero Actually since the end of Summer 1943, the Soviet Union was on the offensive from then on, and the Soviets accomplished that on their own, thank you very much.
it's probably going slow, because it's on a display show, and also it probably has the original engine, and it can cost a lot of money to rehabilitate these tanks, so the drivers doesn't want to stress the engine and cause a mechanical breakdown.
The IS-3 was pretty lightly armored. It didn't have wet ammo stores (In fact, it didn't really have ammo stores at all...), it didn't have a turret basket, the D-25T was relatively underpowered (Especially when compared to the D-10T)..The IS-3 never saw combat against enemy armor, and it was quickly replaced by the IS-4, which was a failure, and was quickly phased out by a series of failures until they reached the T-10, which was the last Russian heavy tank, and was inferior to the M103.
Well the JS-2 had 2 versions - the obr 1943 which was pretty much the same like the JS-1 tank - the 'stepped hull' glacis whilst later versions the obr 1944's had the sloped glacis plate at 60 deg to the vertical worth of 100-120mm armor. The JS-3 as we know it had the angled 'PIKE' front at 56 deg to the vertical with 110mm of armor. Also the JS-3's armor concept was actually derived from the armor philosphophy of the '34'. However the JS-3's advantage in armor was it was RHA rather than cast
well, that turned out to be the right strategy. what good were german super engineered tanks if you could only build a small number of them. Stalin axed all complicated designs and stated that "you have to be able to fix a tank with a sledgehammer and wrench"
The IS-3 had an intimidating appearance. It looked huge and heavy with massive armor and apparently frightening weaponry. Thats why Stalin wanted it while he delayed the development if the famous T-54. Actually the IS-3 was nothing more like a Pitbull without teeth and the red army was happy to finally get rid of that useless garbage. (Thats what i tried to explain to a random idiot for almost 1 month...ur comment once again pulls it all together..thank you for that and ure ofc absolutly right.)
It had a 122mm gun and between 20 and 200mm of armour, due to it being heavily sloped. The only vehicle to be armed with the 152mm was the SU-152 self propelled gun :)
We're both wrong the IS-3 never saw action against the Germans, although (according to internet sources) it was deployed against the Japanese in Manchuria. Wartime production resulted in many mechanical problems and a hull weld line that had a tendency to crack open. The low turret also limited the maximum depression of the main gun, since the gun breech had little room inside the turret to pivot on its vertical axis. Those are some major faults in this ex soldiers book. Still, fearsome machine
Russian wiki clearly says (and there are documentary sources) THat IS-3 wasn't used in warfare. First batch of 52 tanks reached Berlin _after_ victory and joined only parade, but it was used later, in Hungary. Unlike IS-4,7 it wasn't a prototype, dual slope "nose" used new multi-phased current welding technology and wasn't so weak as if it used classic one-arc welding. It had electrical motors for turret and gun motion. It was most advanced tank developed DURING war.
@r8wing Tank engines are not my subject so maybe this is not worth much. Most Soviet tanks were petrol until (I think) the BT7 was brought out in both petrol and diesel. You use the word designed (not produced) and I think that you are correct on them all being diesel. Having said that I am not convinced by the colour of the smoke nor the sound of the engine at this distance although you may know more than I!
Apart from world of tanks bullshit, the IS-3 armor design and protection is one of the best, if not THE best, amongst the WWII designs and anyway one of the best of 20th century. And it weighted only 46 tons, which is basically the same weight of Russian T-90, instead of a massive (and less protected) King Tiger.
I remember seeing a black and white photo of this one when a teenager, this beast semi submerged in a shoreline surf, it's turret and barrel pointing inland. It may've been photo enhanced, but ominous.
Who mentioned that? The only thing that I've stated is that IS-3 was the sole Allied tank of the war which could resist German 75 and 88mm guns, which is true. Panther's 75mm KwK-40 L-70 using APCR Pz.Gr.43 could penetrate only 150mm at 60° at 100m Tiger's 88mm KwK-36 L-56 using same shell could penetrate only 130mm at same distance and sloping. King Tiger's 88mm KwK-43 L-71 using same shell could penetrate 210mm at same distance and slope, which is all insufficient to penetrate it's armor.
very true. the shermans with their standard guns. had howitzers placed near the end of WW2 due to the fact of how they needed something to kill the tiger and panther.
@another505 IS-3 was designed to be impenetrable from a frontal shot from a 88mm L/56 at 500m like from a Tiger I. 88mm L.71 could still penetrate. IS series main guns were slow to reload, were intended as assault tanks to defeat defensive positions, not kill tanks. Want to kill tanks look to SU series.
Its true...the IS3 had a gun depression of 2 degrees. It also had a very limited ammo supply and the Gun/Barrel itself was dangerous for the crew and the tank itself. There are known stories about exploding barrels. I guess the IS3's appearence may scared the shit out of the western allies...but the soviet tank crews actually feared it more than anyone else. Too bad....what ever Stalin wants, the soviet Army ALWAYS gets. Stalin dead -> IS3 abandoned. But the the design was pioneering.
Sure seems that way. In reality, I think both the T-34 and Sherman were both meant primarily for infantry support (which is why they initially had short, low velocity guns). Both these tanks were very useful against infantry targets, they were just terrible against the German armor (anything above a Panzer IV, to be sure).
The 88mm KwK 43 L/71 was the best cannon in WW2 history. A Tiger for example was able to penetrate anything in its way from a distance of maximum 3 Km. It was even more devastating in shorter Range...Sherman Tank driver often survived just because the grenade which penetrated the tank broke threw a second time, left the tank and didnt explode inside. Even the later NATO standards of tank grenade/shells were based on the german 88mm gun. The russian 122mm crap was pretty much unnecessary...
Sometimes comments are more education than video though people agressive like then do not deserve trust (even if they might be partial right). I'm russian, my job related to military and my hobby - history of warfare. I'm wargame fan as well. I'm collecting literature and miniatures, and pretty much aware of history of each tank developed during WWII
The reason why german tanks broke down so often was because of the people who made the tanks those people were most often prisoners of war forced to work in the tank factories and those people made flaws in their work on purpose so the tanks would break down as soon as they saw the battlefield
@THEIRA21 The IS-2 most certainly did, they first saw action mid-late april 1944 if I recall at the Proskurovo-Tchernigovskaya and Umansko-Botochskaya operations.
No it's distinctly an IS3. The T-10 uses a soup bowl turret similar to an IS-8 which is essentially the same tank. The most notable feature being the rounded front around the barrel creating a shell trap which was removed in the newer tanks. The turret is also massive overhanging the outside edge of the tank hull, T-10 doesn't have this. The IS3 also only uses 6 road wheels and the T-10 uses 7 road wheels, another obvious feature. Please know what you are talking about prior to posting. Thanks
Well u either dont care or are simply courageous to still comment after reading it all. Anyways , thx for commenting. And ure right...there never was any evidence of even a single IS3 joining the Battle of berlin. Well he actually claimed the IS3 to been there and wont fcking understand...it was there at the voctory celebrations...but not in the battle itself. He also declines every statement about the horrible disadvantages of the tank itself..but hey "it has a 220mm armour..."
Je voudrais le même pour les manifestations du Samedi, a 19 ans j’ai piloter un Chermane de la 2em D B ,très intéressant. Le T 34/85 me plairais bien ,le problèmes ces de faire le plein !
Thank you this the best film I have ever seen of an IS 3 tank it has a 152mm gun and over 150 to 200 mm of armor it was slow and underpowered but it had the largest gun of any tank in WW2. but it only carried about 23 rounds and was mainly for destroying bunkers and hardpoints. Nice post
@williamblair11 Plus during it's time it had few rivals, it could pop a king tiger from four times the distance the king tiger could even damage this tank. Theres a reason why two of these retook manchuria. This tank is what began the production of MBT and moved armies away from heavy tanks, medium tanks, and light tanks.
IS3 had few child diseases because of haste in development. But aside that it would have been the most fearsome machine on the battlefield, had it entered one of course :). + It had some really revolutionary ideas implemented though, such as supersloped armour, barracuda nose frontal plate and waterdrop shaped turret.
The IS had a few problems. Limited ammo supply, very limited crew space and almost no depression of the main gun. That being said it scared the bejaysus out of Brit and American observers at the Victory Day parade. Not a flat surface for an antitank round to impact against.
The hull is clearly an is-3 from the sloping in the front. IS-1's had an 85mm and a turret much like a 34-85. IS-2's had the a 122 and a convex upper hull instead of a concave one like the IS-1.
I am German and i say "THIS LADYS AND GENTLEMEN ARE A FINE RUSSIAN MACHINE AND IT HAVE DONE WHAT IT WAS BUILT 4 NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS" My Respekt Russia not only nummbers this Tank was a very god Tank
@ostormbringero IS3 was a revolution in armor, a 50 tonnes class tank (like panther) with more than twice it's armour, Nothing could destroy this monster, exept the 105mm L7, first used at him in 1967 war. Not too bad for a tank designed in 1945. IS3 suffered reliability and mobility problem though, which made the IS-2 a better all around tank, IS-2M was used till 1990 in reserve and chinese border...
![Kodak Black - Catch Fire [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A4ch-olIuZo/mqdefault.jpg)
"We didn't even scratch them" "That one bounced" "We didn't penetrate their armor" "Ricochet"
+The Nozar That what I thought when I driving the IS-3 but as soon as I step out, "bail out, this vehicle is had it"
(someone one shot ammo racked me :p)
Ghosteriz hahahaha same here. 30 secs into a game, a bulldog goes batshit crazy on me and 2 shot racks me from full health. gotta get tht safe stowage
world of tanks?
Too gaddamn true. XD
***** they look like gas tanks to me
WW2 tanks just are beautiful...
+ThisIsSATA thats what she said
*****
post WW2, god damned. all tanks up to the 90s are. after that, only a few unfortunaly.
*****
they still looked great though.
+galaxiesaver Yes it is, it was used aginst Japanise army in 1945. Although it hasn't seen battle it is WWII tank.
+galaxiesaver it is seeing combat now in syria
In 2002, I had the chance to examine a JS-3 up close in Minsk at the Museum of the Great Patriotic War. It was overwhelming. I've been a fan ever since.
Before every WoT players ask again... IS-3 had no BL-9 gun, because it's damaged the turret after a few shots, so used the D-25T gun.
D wonder anything else on jgpanther than 7,5 is a lie, so well :D
who cares ?
You with a tiny brain
Just as the 4202 with the l7a1
That one bounced!
***** We just dinged em'
Ricochet
Rachid Khamlichi We didn't even scratch 'em!
+ryushev2000 :v lol, it's wot
you are defining a "bunch" as zero
"We just ding them".
Why would a black hole comment on an IS-3 Tank video 9 years ago
Hello. Am I famous now?
I feel like i found the rarest commment in the internet
Back in the day when u weren’t famous
Lol
The Design of this tank was crazy ahead, the soviets really were the first to understand the crucial influence of angles on armored parts.
You can see how the Panther and King tiger front hulls were inspired by soviet designs and how the Germans changed their point of views when you compare them with the early WW2 panzers.
Pretty good actually. Handling wasnn't good (like in most Soviet tanks), but IS-3 did suprisingly well in difficult terrain. It weight was only 46 tons (Tiger I was 10 tons heavier), tank itself was very compact, and had good balance (like all IS-3 to IS-10(T-10) tanks).
Is 8*
The advantage of the IS3 was the way it used very thick armor that was very heavily sloped and angled combine with the massive 122mm main gun. This vehicle could still be used in a modern day conflict today. Most modern light anti tank weapons wouldn't be able to penetrate this vehicle from the front and this vehicle could also most likely even engage and destroy a modern day tank like an Abrams or Challenger, Leopard or T14 Armata with more modern ammunition.
Красота-страшная сила. :)
I just love the sound when i play it in WOT and i hear a bounced shot and in the distance there is a guy screaming why it bounced
Love that Turret!
A beautifull Beast!!
Absolutely. ♥️♥️👍👍
The Russian designers must have had time machines or something, they just seem to have been way way ahead of their time when compared to other nations tanks!
Question from Stalin to the Red Army)...... "Tell me than comrade, What exactly do you need?"
Reply from the Red Army)..... "Well isn't it obvious! Tanks that are Reliable, well armed, very low, very sloped, with a big simple powerful diesel engine, and lots and lots of 'em, common sense really, in other words, the total opposite of what everyone else is building!"
+jiggermast
Exactly, I believe Stalin said that when he visited one of the biggest army battalions to raise moral.
The army just wanted more of the good stuff, Stalin and the government delivered in fact they delivered too well because a lot of the better weapons and tank designs where ignored or put on the shelves in favour of focusing more resources in making what already is there and improving on it.
T-44 and AK47 were among the designs that survived the onslaught and became building stones for modern combat weaponries.
+SMGJohn
The T-44 never saw combat service.
+jiggermast
Reliability is questionable. Concerning most Soviet tanks until the T-54.
That big Diesel was ineffective as h... way to large compared to contemporary Gasoline engines. Hence the Russian off set turrets. The Gun and Turret that far ahead made the tank very nose heavy and cumbersome. The low silhouette came at a price. Low ground clearance, which ment less off road capability compared to eg. the Panther. The form and armor was well sloped and angled, but that huge shot trap under the gun was madness. One 75mm shell and that turret was stuck. Welded to the hull.
The huge gun could penetrate all German tanks, but it was inaccurate, had a fire rate of 1-1½ shots per minute when introduced, compared to the Panthers 6 per minute, very few shells due to the shear lack of space and large shells, and the sights were not very good on the late Russian tanks. Driver had a hard time seeing out the vision slot on the IS-3. Commander had poor sights and the Russian armoured doctrines left the overall effectiveness of the tanks lacking.
And the reliability was 160km before engine overhaul. hmm..
Still. Was a good tank for it's role. Being a assault tank and not fight tank vs tank, and it helped pave the way for the later insanely good T-54/55.. But the few Elite Guards that got them, were really mostly to waltz into Berlin for the Parade and show off the new equipment for the Allies to fear.
Konig Tiger is a good looking tank, not as beatiful as IS3, but still nice as compared to British or Aerican tanks...
When u going up against the German with thier bullshit futuristic tank design Stalin had to pull an equal futuristic bullshit design lol
Definitely one of the best (and intimidating) tanks the Russians ever conceived!
watching this video again and again always amazing IS series was masterpiece
The separate loading type of the IS3, where u had to load projectile and charge as separate pieces, explains the very few rounds it carried. Due the loading type, the charged had a high tendency to cook-off exposed to flame of shrapnel since the IS3 was totally lack of sealed metal casings. Even the gun itself had a tendency to EXPLODE...a well known incident: Marshall Kliment Voroshilov who got seriously injured when his IS3 tube exploded.
Даже сейчас танк выглядит очень внушительной не смотря на то что был выпущен много лет назад.
Мне кажется что он опередил свое поколение!
if german name his tank tiger tank why russian not name his tank a bear.
Omfg
yeah thats should be lol
In honor of the ruler
Guess the Soviet Union preferred to call their tanks in honor of their leaders, except the T-series which still exists.
But they sometimes give their aircraft such names. For example the KA-50 "Black Shark", the KA-52 "Aligator" or the concept SU-47 "Berkut" which means Golden Eagle.
robocop there’s the TU-95 “bear”
That front side hull is such a signature characteristic! :)
Welcome to Czech :D
Thats a very nice tank. Very nice sloping, and it was a very difficult target.
Stalinium
With the shape of its turret and with its slow speed, Josif Stalin IS-3 looks very much like a giant turtle.
ЛАйк не глядя за ис 3))))))
My favorite tank of all time. I'd like to own one if I could. Despite being from 1944/1945 this could still technically fall into a modern day tank category. These were used by the Russians well into the 1970's before being phased out and they were amazingly kept in reserve service into the 1990's.
If you were a WW2 German Tiger tank Driver, this would be an absolute nightmare for you,...
this shit looks more dangerous than Tiger 2 in my opinion
Looks can be deceiving.
Tim Waldron The Tiger I is completely outclassed. Even the IS-2 outclassed it. The Tiger II is somewhat better, but the IS-3 is smaller, lighter, fires a better HE shell, and has similar armor and gun performance.
Also, IS-2 gun (which was the same as IS-3) had better accuracy than the Tiger II's gun.
unknownexia Tests show it was. Muzzle velocity has little to do with accuracy, and in fact some long guns had accuracy issues due to barrels warping, etc.
The Tiger II's gun had an average deviation (50% shots landed within this radius) of 2.6cm at 100m, while the D-25T has 2.4cm at the same distance.
FawfulDied As far as I know, only Russian sources claim that. They had similar accuracy according to my sources(Western). Also another reason why I think 88(or 90mm US) is superior is because of 122's reloading method. Separate shell and charge.
FawfulDied
Oh you mean those russian propaganda shows that little soviet fanboys love so much?
that's an amazing tank if i've ever seen one, i love how the treads are just packed full of mud, and it doesn't have any effect. Tanks are awesome.
Wasn't the IS-3 the first tank to use a "pike nose" at the front of it?
The Broad Street Bully yep your correct
Jay T Cool.
+The Broad Street Bully Correct
yeah a pike nose that didnt work....is3 was already obselete if you take a look at the westorn tanks
+Notsofamous one (TNSF1)
But what about british Valiant?
is 3 was the apex of heavy tank design for that time period,Im a tiger 2 fan,but these machines outclassed every other tank of that era.
Unsinkable Sam 1611 the Sherman kills this tank easily
It's actually Isoif Stallin
Isn't it Iosif Stalin?
Karl Anthony Adonis yes it is in Russia unfortunately no one can get it right
122mm gun, which was actually an artillery piece put inside a turret, had horrendous accuracy, used two piece ammunition and had to reset the breach every time after firing it because otherwise you couldn't reload it. The tank had a 4 man crew which decreased situational awareness and had poor visibility. Against the vehicle which had the thickest armor (not counting maus, only two were made) and strongest gun which could engage anything beyond 3000 meters. Good luck.
stock IS-3 :P
Its fully upgraded here.
Not rly turret is not and gun is not but hall is maxed
@Dreachon Very interesting information! I would not have expected that but it would have taken a very brave anti tank gunner to hang around waiting for that coming directly at him!
Monster !!!
IS 3 is very beautiful, the design was practical
Jéé .. Chtěl bych to vidět naživo :(
In that case - yes. First IS was driving tomb for soldiers, but it's normal. It was very innovative design, 180 turn after KV serie.
World of Tanks!
@Dreachon Fair enough. I have a mini Roden IS-3 - I just opened it today and the little baby is just classic :D
У нас в Новоросе стоит такой в музее под открытым небом. Красивая машина, хоть у нас и не воевала :)
It is a beast!
I love ammoracking IS-3s with my Isu 55 ;)
I love flipping over ISU with my IS-3 :V
+Karl Anthony Adonis I love penning the front of is3's with ease in my tiger 2
I love raping tank asses
Karl Anthony Adonis 😂😂😂😂
I love killing tanks with my arty!
I'm pretty pissed that I'm studying in Prague and I only learned about the Lesany museum after September! After it closed! AUGH!
Stronk tank!!
Yeah the IS 2 saw combat and the prototypes of the IS3 did as well but it wasnt meant for tank on tank engagements especially with a wopping 2 rounds per minute and it wasnt even guarenteed to penetrate the Panthers armor so it was only used as a breakthrough weapon on bunkers and entrechments
What a beautiful tank! On contrary all these german tanks were so ugly..
Vitaly Danilov ugly areu kidding ??????????????????????????????????????????????? German have fcking good + pretty tanks
+A Dz panzer III and IV and sexy
But look at kv serious, they look so ugly
+LetsPlayCZ1 ... german tank is soo ugly that the soviet rekt them
Germany had the sexiest tanks kid... no way those ugly russian tanks could be sexy...
lol WRONG
1:06 That massive helicopter flying at the back 🤤
war thunder :FF
The good old IS-3, year for year probably the best tank ever mass produced.
i prefer the king tiger ;)
Pierre Morand The fact that most resupply was still done by horse means the KT would have been useless on the russian steppes. It couldn't even make a difference in the ardennes. Again like HovercraftHoliday states, the germans were so hopelessly low on raw materials that they could only make about 500 KTs. Compare that to the reported near 4000 IS-2s which even if infalted by 50% is still 4x the number of KTs. Take the Tiger I for example. One tiger could knock out 30 allied tanks before destroyed, yet it still would be a bigger loss to the germans then the 30 tanks to the allied. The germans would have been better off sticking to the panther and revising it then ever making the Tiger and KT. But Hitlers obsession with large machinery and his ability to meddle with such things as vehicle design meant the germans were screwed,
Pierre Morand, better armor? Are you sure that 180mm front turret of PZ 6 is better than 230mm front turret of IS 3? Completly sure? ;)
Владимир Бабичев For the turret okay, but don't for the front shield.
Pierre Morand, turret is the most vulnerable part of all tanks. They may shoot staying behind some obstacles when enemy may only see and attack their turret.
Pierre Morand, may be that wasnt a correct word, that's not my language. I mean that turret is a part of a tank which suffers from enemy shells most than any other. You may shoot at enemy while your tank will be partially in cover, in that situation your enemy will be able to shoot in your tank's turret only. And the situation when enemy can shoot in yours tank hull but not in turret - thats an insane situation to me (almost impossible one). ;) You may fight in 2 situations: when enemy can shoot at your tanks turret only and when he can shoot at both turret&hull. So, your tanks turret will have higher chanse to get a shot than hull. Thats what I mean.
@wun1gee I'm curious - what is your favorite tank of WWII? And how did the IS-2 compare to the T-34/85 tank? I mean given the A19 M1931/M1937 wasn't as good as many AT guns - but how would an A19 fare compared to the 85mm ZiS 53? I personally reckon the T-34/85 has a slight edge over the Panther - what do you think? I like Jagdpanther the best though - the 88mm PaK 43 in a mobile chassis that solved the Elefant's slow speed and the Nashorn's high profile/poor protection :D
One of the ugliest tanks ever created. Easy tank to destroy
Model T-5/5 Easy to destroy? In real life in 1945?
Dafuq
+panssari1981 u kidding right? the IS-3 was one of the most dangerous tank in 1945
what ugly ? you say the armor is ugly?
Steve Slayer Yes, mainly because of that huge turret, just look at it 0:36 Everything else looks good.
@ostormbringero Actually since the end of Summer 1943, the Soviet Union was on the offensive from then on, and the Soviets accomplished that on their own, thank you very much.
it's probably going slow, because it's on a display show, and also it probably has the original engine, and it can cost a lot of money to rehabilitate these tanks, so the drivers doesn't want to stress the engine and cause a mechanical breakdown.
The IS-3 was pretty lightly armored. It didn't have wet ammo stores (In fact, it didn't really have ammo stores at all...), it didn't have a turret basket, the D-25T was relatively underpowered (Especially when compared to the D-10T)..The IS-3 never saw combat against enemy armor, and it was quickly replaced by the IS-4, which was a failure, and was quickly phased out by a series of failures until they reached the T-10, which was the last Russian heavy tank, and was inferior to the M103.
Well the JS-2 had 2 versions - the obr 1943 which was pretty much the same like the JS-1 tank - the 'stepped hull' glacis whilst later versions the obr 1944's had the sloped glacis plate at 60 deg to the vertical worth of 100-120mm armor. The JS-3 as we know it had the angled 'PIKE' front at 56 deg to the vertical with 110mm of armor. Also the JS-3's armor concept was actually derived from the armor philosphophy of the '34'. However the JS-3's advantage in armor was it was RHA rather than cast
Boy o boy have I seen so many is3's in WoT but never have I seen one move in real life. I think I just jazzed myself.
The IS -3 is a beautiful armored combat vehicle. It would have been a good match for a Tiger 2
The IS-2 was used in combat, it was used in the attack on berlin, i would also have to say the IS-3 wasnt but the turret did inspire the T-54 tank
well, that turned out to be the right strategy. what good were german super engineered tanks if you could only build a small number of them.
Stalin axed all complicated designs and stated that "you have to be able to fix a tank with a sledgehammer and wrench"
The IS-3 had an intimidating appearance. It looked huge and heavy with massive armor and apparently frightening weaponry. Thats why Stalin wanted it while he delayed the development if the famous T-54. Actually the IS-3 was nothing more like a Pitbull without teeth and the red army was happy to finally get rid of that useless garbage.
(Thats what i tried to explain to a random idiot for almost 1 month...ur comment once again pulls it all together..thank you for that and ure ofc absolutly right.)
It had a 122mm gun and between 20 and 200mm of armour, due to it being heavily sloped. The only vehicle to be armed with the 152mm was the SU-152 self propelled gun :)
We're both wrong the IS-3 never saw action against the Germans, although (according to internet sources) it was deployed against the Japanese in Manchuria. Wartime production resulted in many mechanical problems and a hull weld line that had a tendency to crack open. The low turret also limited the maximum depression of the main gun, since the gun breech had little room inside the turret to pivot on its vertical axis. Those are some major faults in this ex soldiers book. Still, fearsome machine
Russian wiki clearly says (and there are documentary sources) THat IS-3 wasn't used in warfare. First batch of 52 tanks reached Berlin _after_ victory and joined only parade, but it was used later, in Hungary. Unlike IS-4,7 it wasn't a prototype, dual slope "nose" used new multi-phased current welding technology and wasn't so weak as if it used classic one-arc welding. It had electrical motors for turret and gun motion. It was most advanced tank developed DURING war.
She may be old but she still amazing and still the very mean machine. ♥️♥️👍👍
@r8wing Tank engines are not my subject so maybe this is not worth much. Most Soviet tanks were petrol until (I think) the BT7 was brought out in both petrol and diesel. You use the word designed (not produced) and I think that you are correct on them all being diesel. Having said that I am not convinced by the colour of the smoke nor the sound of the engine at this distance although you may know more than I!
Это самый красивый танк из всех существовавших и существующих.
После меня, конечно🤗
Apart from world of tanks bullshit, the IS-3 armor design and protection is one of the best, if not THE best, amongst the WWII designs and anyway one of the best of 20th century. And it weighted only 46 tons, which is basically the same weight of Russian T-90, instead of a massive (and less protected) King Tiger.
Potatoes and vodka built that machine
I can't believe they still have a functioning specimen! This is awesome!
This thing is a BEAST in World of tanks btw
I remember seeing a black and white photo of this one when a teenager, this beast semi submerged in a shoreline surf, it's turret and barrel pointing inland. It may've been photo enhanced, but ominous.
Man, that tank looks huge, heavy, and really low to the ground.
and its a horrific vehicle t obe inside of :D
I mean, it's a tank, not a limo
Who mentioned that? The only thing that I've stated is that IS-3 was the sole Allied tank of the war which could resist German 75 and 88mm guns, which is true.
Panther's 75mm KwK-40 L-70 using APCR Pz.Gr.43 could penetrate only 150mm at 60° at 100m
Tiger's 88mm KwK-36 L-56 using same shell could penetrate only 130mm at same distance and sloping.
King Tiger's 88mm KwK-43 L-71 using same shell could penetrate 210mm at same distance and slope, which is all insufficient to penetrate it's armor.
very true. the shermans with their standard guns. had howitzers placed near the end of WW2 due to the fact of how they needed something to kill the tiger and panther.
@another505
IS-3 was designed to be impenetrable from a frontal shot from a 88mm L/56 at 500m like from a Tiger I. 88mm L.71 could still penetrate.
IS series main guns were slow to reload, were intended as assault tanks to defeat defensive positions, not kill tanks. Want to kill tanks look to SU series.
@r8wing who knows. mabye original engine died long time ago, so the museum engineers put in it something gasoline.
Its true...the IS3 had a gun depression of 2 degrees. It also had a very limited ammo supply and the Gun/Barrel itself was dangerous for the crew and the tank itself. There are known stories about exploding barrels. I guess the IS3's appearence may scared the shit out of the western allies...but the soviet tank crews actually feared it more than anyone else. Too bad....what ever Stalin wants, the soviet Army ALWAYS gets. Stalin dead -> IS3 abandoned. But the the design was pioneering.
Sure seems that way. In reality, I think both the T-34 and Sherman were both meant primarily for infantry support (which is why they initially had short, low velocity guns). Both these tanks were very useful against infantry targets, they were just terrible against the German armor (anything above a Panzer IV, to be sure).
that is the coolest looking tank i have ever seen
looks and seems not bad, respect from germany!
The 88mm KwK 43 L/71 was the best cannon in WW2 history. A Tiger for example was able to penetrate anything in its way from a distance of maximum 3 Km. It was even more devastating in shorter Range...Sherman Tank driver often survived just because the grenade which penetrated the tank broke threw a second time, left the tank and didnt explode inside. Even the later NATO standards of tank grenade/shells were based on the german 88mm gun. The russian 122mm crap was pretty much unnecessary...
Sometimes comments are more education than video though people agressive like then do not deserve trust (even if they might be partial right). I'm russian, my job related to military and my hobby - history of warfare. I'm wargame fan as well. I'm collecting literature and miniatures, and pretty much aware of history of each tank developed during WWII
me to.
My favorite Tier Tank in World of Tanks and realy the best T8 Tank in the game.
The reason why german tanks broke down so often was because of the people who made the tanks those people were most often prisoners of war forced to work in the tank factories and those people made flaws in their work on purpose so the tanks would break down as soon as they saw the battlefield
@THEIRA21
The IS-2 most certainly did, they first saw action mid-late april 1944 if I recall at the Proskurovo-Tchernigovskaya and Umansko-Botochskaya operations.
No it's distinctly an IS3. The T-10 uses a soup bowl turret similar to an IS-8 which is essentially the same tank. The most notable feature being the rounded front around the barrel creating a shell trap which was removed in the newer tanks. The turret is also massive overhanging the outside edge of the tank hull, T-10 doesn't have this. The IS3 also only uses 6 road wheels and the T-10 uses 7 road wheels, another obvious feature.
Please know what you are talking about prior to posting. Thanks
Well u either dont care or are simply courageous to still comment after reading it all. Anyways , thx for commenting. And ure right...there never was any evidence of even a single IS3 joining the Battle of berlin. Well he actually claimed the IS3 to been there and wont fcking understand...it was there at the voctory celebrations...but not in the battle itself. He also declines every statement about the horrible disadvantages of the tank itself..but hey "it has a 220mm armour..."
Je voudrais le même pour les manifestations du Samedi, a 19 ans j’ai piloter un Chermane de la 2em D B ,très intéressant. Le T 34/85 me plairais bien ,le problèmes ces de faire le plein !
Thank you this the best film I have ever seen of an IS 3 tank it has a 152mm gun and over 150 to 200 mm of armor it was slow and underpowered but it had the largest gun of any tank in WW2. but it only carried about 23 rounds and was mainly for destroying bunkers and hardpoints. Nice post
There's no prodlems with this tank. It's great and the best of WW2. And if you have some problems with understanding it, just try to remember.
@williamblair11 Plus during it's time it had few rivals, it could pop a king tiger from four times the distance the king tiger could even damage this tank. Theres a reason why two of these retook manchuria. This tank is what began the production of MBT and moved armies away from heavy tanks, medium tanks, and light tanks.
Omg nice tank , now i know what i want for christmas .
IS3 had few child diseases because of haste in development. But aside that it would have been the most fearsome machine on the battlefield, had it entered one of course :). + It had some really revolutionary ideas implemented though, such as supersloped armour, barracuda nose frontal plate and waterdrop shaped turret.
this tank was built to handle the king tiger problem because of it's massive gun and thick front armor
Dobra prace!
The IS had a few problems. Limited ammo supply, very limited crew space and almost no depression of the main gun. That being said it scared the bejaysus out of Brit and American observers at the Victory Day parade. Not a flat surface for an antitank round to impact against.
The hull is clearly an is-3 from the sloping in the front. IS-1's had an 85mm and a turret much like a 34-85. IS-2's had the a 122 and a convex upper hull instead of a concave one like the IS-1.
I am German and i say
"THIS LADYS AND GENTLEMEN ARE A FINE RUSSIAN MACHINE AND IT HAVE DONE WHAT IT WAS BUILT 4 NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS"
My Respekt Russia not only nummbers this Tank was a very god Tank
@ostormbringero IS3 was a revolution in armor, a 50 tonnes class tank (like panther) with more than twice it's armour, Nothing could destroy this monster, exept the 105mm L7, first used at him in 1967 war. Not too bad for a tank designed in 1945. IS3 suffered reliability and mobility problem though, which made the IS-2 a better all around tank, IS-2M was used till 1990 in reserve and chinese border...