Heavy IS-3 (series) Tanks

[GermanSoldier]

http://i18.tinypic.com/2ylpizd.jpg
A group lead by N.Dukhov redisned IS-2 lowersilhouette and pointed hull. It's hull was made of rolled plate and the turret was carapace shape . Most reports say it didn't make it to the front by VE-Day. It did appear publicy at the Berlin Victory Parade in Septemember 1945. Delivered to very small numbers to heavy guard tank regiments in January.
http://i19.tinypic.com/3yhwzgj.jpg
Crew 4
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
[/IMG]http://i9.tinypic.com/2hp28hc.jpg[/IMG]
Weight 100,972 lbs.
Length W/ Gun 32.75m
Length W/ O gun 6.81m
Height 2.93
Width 3.44 m
Ground Clearance 0.43m
ARMAMENT
Main 122mm
Secondary
MG DSchK38/44 AA MG
QUANTITY
Main 28
MG &.62: 1,000
Armor Thickness (MM) 230
Hull Front Upper 90-120
Hull Sides 90
Turret Front 200-230
Turret Sides 75-115
Turret Rear 75-115
Turret Top 30

[GermanSoldier]

IS-3 Heavy Tank Pictures
http://i3.tinypic.com/44vul3q.jpg
http://i3.tinypic.com/2q3y9zl.jpg

[Flammpanzer]

yes, I have also read that they did not see combat action, but you can imagine what effect this BEAST would have on the german armor. even tiger II would have faced a dangerous enemy, which is superior in many points. interesting:
mostly the whole shape of the tank and especially the turret shows clearly the new design of all latter soviet tanks like the T 54, T 55, T 62 and so on.

jens

[Polar]

http://i18.tinypic.com/2ylpizd.jpg

This is not IS-3

[Cojimar 1945]

The IS-3's stats suggest fairly thick armor for a tank of such weight. The tank was the same weight as a Panther but supposedly it had thicker armor.

[Shin_OBI]

The IS-3's stats suggest fairly thick armor for a tank of such weight. The tank was the same weight as a Panther but supposedly it had thicker armor.
It is because IS-3 was smaller in inside volume than Panther. It was very hard to operate three man turret of IS-2 and IS-3 tanks especially if you count caliber of shell it was 122mm.

And IS-3 wasnt build for tank vs tank. It was break-trough tank and it is clear if we look what was dominant round inside this beast it was high explosive round (70% shells were these) It primary targets were dig-in AT guns, bunkers and trenchs. Platoon of IS-2 or IS-3 would make hole in enemy line for company of T-34.

Using IS-3 for AT fight is very stupid which Egypt learn in 1967.

[Shin_OBI]

[QUOTE=GermanSoldier;94864]http://i18.tinypic.com/2ylpizd.jpg

Is this M-103?
Last US heavy tank?

[PLT.SGT.BAKER]

From far away It would look like the Pershing, or the super pershing.

[GermanSoldier]

I have also read that they did not see combat action
They actually only saw a little action on the Eastern front. I believe they were starting to be manuafactured in 1945. Some of the IS-3 tanks saw action in Berlin in the final days of Nazi Germany. I believe that is the only battle is was used. The IS-3 probably put a heavy tole on German casualties in Berlin.

[Cojimar 1945]

The Soviets apparently did not employ the IS-3 in Europe during the war.

[Shin_OBI]

Wiki say:
"A Regiment of IS-3s may have been deployed in Manchuria in 1945"

What was Japs think when they saw this steel beast, Type series of medium tanks had weight around 15 to 18 tones and now they face with 50 tone monster.

[Dani]

Russian battlefield says:

The first test group of JS-3's left the factory gates in mid-May 1945. Despite western opinion (usually I hear about JS-3's seen on the streets of Vienna), JS-3 tanks weren't involved in battles on the Eastern Front. The participation of JS-3's in Far Eastern Front battles (in August 1945) is still unverified: at least one tank regiment of JS-3 tanks was sent, but Soviet combat records don't confirm any actual combat.
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=50

[Egorka]

Hi,

I already mentioned in the thread about KV-1 the interview of one of the Soviet tank designners Mr. Nikolay Shashmurin (http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/shashmurin/). Here is a short quote from his interview about IS-3:
...the war was ended by the "rough looking" IS-2 and not by "handsome" IS-3 which came into production from the beginning of 1945 and immediatly started to suffer mechanical failures with the sad regularity of KV-1.

[Eoin666]

The name of the "British M103" was Conqueror, it also had an 120mm gun. A tank destroyer with 183mm gun was projected, but not produced. The Conqueror was phased out as soon as the Chieftain (also 120mm) was on the horizon. This example has been used for target practice.
I saw one at a museum in England, it´s 4m wide and left a greater visual impression the the Jagdtiger.

The Soviets were also ready to "go one bigger" if the need arose, contemplating more powerful 122mm and naval 130mm weapons for their ISU´s in a tank hunting role.

The Russian's progressed through the IS series, the IS7 had a huge domed turret and mounted a 130mm naval gun with pepper pot muzzle break

2017

2018

2019

2020

however, none of these saw operational service, the IS3 was further upgraded into the IS10 (T10 after Stalin's death)

[General Zod]

Wow, imagine one of those coming down the path shooting at you... But how thick is the armour on one of those?
I could be wrong (probably am ) the armor on the IS 3 could shrug off the 88mm L/71 that was on a Tiger 2 or Jagdpanther Plus the IS 3 had a lot of mechanical problems Too much weight for the engine
George

Thank you for the Pershing info:cool:

[Eoin666]

I could be wrong (probably am ) the armor on the IS 3 could shrug off the 88mm L/71 that was on a Tiger 2 or Jagdpanther Plus the IS 3 had a lot of mechanical problems Too much weight for the engine
George

Thank you for the Pershing info:cool:

I know this is a Pershing thread so sorry to harp on here about the IS tanks...but its semi-related ;)

The armour on the IS3 was around 250mm for the mantlet and around 200mm for the glacis/hull plate. The IS2 was around 45ish tons, the IS3 although it had thicker armour was actually lighter (43 tons) than the IS2 it largely replaced. However the IS2 remained on reserve right through until the 1970s whereas the IS3 was phased out much earlier (dug into static bunkers in the far east). Main downside was lack of space in the cramped turret and huge 122mm rounds meant only around 30 rounds could be carried at max, plus above the gun mantlet there is/was effectively a sheet steel cover, so it appeared to sacfrice general armour for the heavy frontal armour coverage.

2021

2022

On a personal note I think we in the west completely over estimated the Russian IS2, IS3, T10s by producing the super heavy M103 and Conquerors, when the Pershings, M48s and Centrurions would have been more than capable....all in hindsight of course :)

[snebold]

Now I´ll bother you with even more non M26 stuff.

Next in the line from the IS-3 was the IS-4, which might be seen as a Tiger II-scare reaction, whereas the IS-3 was born from a desire to improve existing designs based on an analysis of combat damage to Soviet tanks (prototype October 1944).
It weighed 60ton, had an extra road wheel pair to carry that weight and the same armament as the IS-3. Frontal hull armour was in the order of 240mm. ("in the order of" since my old PC, which the only source I have to that piece of information is terminally ill :evil:)

This picture claims a 1944 prototype for the IS-4, which I doubt, but I have nothing at hand to contradict it.
However 250 were built 1947-49, saw service 1947-49, when the red army apparently got so disgusted with their inreliablity that they could stand seeing them anymore (normally chassis´s would find secondary uses and enjoy long afterlives in the USSR).