Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MrsmilieyfaceC8

IS-3 worst tank RU

Recommended Posts

-3 depression...Good thing we are so strict about tank depression and armor layout :)

 

OMG the IS3 was bad, Chieftain said the same stuff.

 

Just imagine oif it had to use its real ROF+Depression

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What About

 

The IS-2 and -3 were not designed as counters to the Tiger II or even the Tiger I. They were primarily intended to be close-support breakthrough tanks to destroy bunkers, fortified positions, and the like that medium tanks had difficulty dealing with, hence the actually very thick side armor (90mm of armor with 10mm spaced). The primary point of it, from the start, wasn't to destroy enemy armor.

 

The 122mm gun was actually very effective in tests against the Tiger II, being able to break apart the front armor and create significant spalling, not to mention occasionally blowing the armor plate straight off the weld seams.

 

etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While watching this YouTube decided I needed to see an Ad entitled "Taking Stalin Drugs?"

 

Otherwise, my only comment is that this video maker has possibly the most painful sense of style in history. Giant yellow & red text against background stills? My eyes!

 

Also, so many spelling errors. I don't know about you, but I personally don't trust someone who can't articulate their thoughts properly in this day and age of let-the-computer-do-everything-for-you-including-check-you-spelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While watching this YouTube decided I needed to see an Ad entitled "Taking Stalin Drugs?"

 

Otherwise, my only comment is that this video maker has possibly the most painful sense of style in history. Giant yellow & red text against background stills? My eyes!

 

Also, so many spelling errors. I don't know about you, but I personally don't trust someone who can't articulate their thoughts properly in this day and age of let-the-computer-do-everything-for-you-including-check-you-spelling.

ms paint doesn't have spell check yo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What About

 

I hate you for making me watch this fully.

 

 

However the JS-1 and JS-2 had shown themselves to be problematic... caused a by an overemphasis on firepower

 

First of all the IS-1 had a 85mm so I wouldn't call that an overemphasis. Second of all the 100mm of which Sparky like to put on a pedestal is comparable to an 105mm L7 in size and in power so it isn't much better than the 122mm. Also during the war the 122mm had superior AT performance despite claims of Sparky's to the contrary. As evidenced by this:

 

 

The 122 mm D-25 gun (factory #9) has identical ballistics to the 122 mm A-19, D-2, and S-4 guns. Specifically: 780-790 m/s muzzle velocity with a 25 kg shell. This gun could penetrate the front of a Panther at 2500 meters (this is not the maximum distance).

The 100 mm D-10 tank gun has identical ballistics to the 100 mm BS-3 gun, specifically a muzzle velocity of 890-900 m/s with a 15.6 kg shell. This gun can penetrate the front of a Panther at 1500 meters, maximum.

   

 

They were designed in response to the Tiger 1 but the JS-2 fared badly against the Tiger II… which greatly outrange the JS-2.

 

uhh no the IS-1 was based off the IS prototype №1(Object 233) and IS prototype №2(Object 234) which appeared in February 1943, before the Tiger I appeared in great numbers. This is what GABTU actually did in response to the Tiger 1. Also the IS-2 with HE can destroy a Tiger II from any range, so I wouldn't call that outranged.

 

 

This prompted the Red Army to specify for a new Heavy Tank that could fight the Tiger II muzzle-to muzzle. Limitations in cannon and turret technology meant that the Heavy Tank simply be upgunned  

 

The IS-3 began development in spring of 1944 as a modernization of the IS-2, this was before the the Tiger II was first used on the Eastern Front in August of 1944. So unless the Soviets had time travlers this statement is not true. Also what limitations? The IS-2 could hold the IS-7 turret and 130mm S-70. The IS-3 could probably do the same as well, though the Red army never saw the need.

 

 

After WWII the planners of the Red Army began to lean towards a new model of tank that could replace both Medium and Heavy Tanks, with Firepower and Protection halfway between the two. This forumla eventually produced the T-54; the very first purpose built MBT

 

Sparky here falls into a trap that is common of Western analysis of the T-54, calling it an MBT. No one in the red army regarded the T-54 as a MBT(the first tank that the Soviets fielded that they regarded as a MBT was the T-64A) nor did they intend for the T-54 to replace the heavy tank role.

 

Joesph Stalin(The JS-3 namesake) was fond of heavy Tanks and what Stalin wants, the red army always gets

 

I have seen nothing to suggest that Stalin was fonder of heavy tanks than he was of tanks of other classes.

 

Thus, development of Heavy Tanks continued , and the fielding of an MBT was put off for a whole decade.

 

They built 16,000 T-54s plus another 8,000 T-55s in the 1945-1965 period, a lot more than the amount of heavies tank they did built in the same period. Also there was never a conscious effort to develop an MBT by the Soviets.

 

 

From Isreali M48 Patton(with 90mm) and Centurions (with 105mm) that fired old fashioned AP rounds.

The L7 never fired AP. Also it's not the tank's fault that the Arabs are bad@tonks.

 

 

… because in practice the JS tanks were must effective in infantry support, bunker-busting and sieges ---Less armor was needed not more.

 

This statement makes no sense as these situations call for more armor, not less.

 

 

The reason for the A-19s huge bore and throw was because it was developed in the days before HEAT, HESH, and Sabot rounds --- these new types of munitions made a 122mm gun largely pointless

 

The IS tanks used the D-25T not the A-19. Also these changes are irrelevant as the D-25T was meant to fire HEAT. Also for some reason Sparky is under the impression that the D-25T can't fire HEAT and APDS, which it can.

 

The A-19 fired 122mm APHE, HE-FRAG, Chemical and anti-concrete rounds --- none of which were effective against the thick, angled RHA steel armor that typified most of the era’s tanks.

 

The D-25T's AT capablity against the Panther and the Tiger II contradicts this statement.

 

No Sabot or HESH rounds were ever manufactured in 122mm bore and it wasn’t until long after the JS-2 that HEAT rounds become available.

 

The M-62T2(which the IS-3 could mount) and D-83(which the IS-3 could also mount) fired APDS, but the red army never saw the need to upgun the IS-3.

 

 

Another issue with the A-19 is that its ammunition was the separate loading type, with the projectile and charge as separate pieces --- this largely explains why the IS-3 only carries 28 rounds

 

I have no idea why you think single piece ammunition is more space efficient, it isn't.

 

 

This was discovered the hard way during trials on the A-19 muzzle brake, in which the tube exploded seriously injuring Marshal Kliment Voroshilov in the process

 

I have not seen this reference in sources other than Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if it actually happened. I doubt it because the Soviets removed the muzzle break on some IS-3s and IS-2s.

naitfJp.jpg

SNEGzfU.jpg

 

 

So furious was the red army brass, that they actually broke rank and protested the of the A-19 development, which didn’t deter Stalin from insisting that the A-19 be fielded anyway.

 

Officers fought for and against the adoption of the D-25T on the IS-2, their arugment had nothing to do with the gun blowing up incident(if it happend at all). It was Beria who made the final decison of the adoption, not Stalin.

 

 

Meanwhile, the 100mm BS-2 tank gun had actually proven more powerful than the A-19 and had s significantly better safety margin.

 

Again, during the war the D-25T had better AT performance than the D-10T.

 

 

Though the Soviet Union still had plenty of JS-2, and medium tanks with greater firepower and protection(but at a lower weight and cost) production of the redundant IS-3 continued anyway.

 

The production of the IS-3 stopped in 1946 due to reason not mentioned in this video. So sparks totally missed the actual problems of the IS-3.

 

 

Though all 3400+ IS-2 were built within 3 years the 2311 IS-3 apparently took as long to build.

 

Only 1430 IS-3s were built and they built between September 1945 to July 1946.

 

 

The JS-3 demise began when Joseph Stalin died in 1951. The Red Army was all too eager to terminate all projected Heavy Tanks. --- only the JS-10 “T-10” as part of De-Stalinization survived the purge.

 

Stalin died in 1953. Also the Red Army did not cancel any heavy tank program and started new ones such as the Object 277, Object 278, Object 279, and Object 770. Also the fact that IS-10 and T-10 have the same number is coincidental, the T-10 got the number it did because it was the tenth heavy tank in production.

 

 

The Red Army all but rid itself virtually all heavy tanks prior to the T-10 by 1960.

 

This has to do with the fact that the T-10 being much better than the IS-3 and IS-2.

 

 

Also by 1960 all Soviet Heavy Tanks had been removed from East Germany --- and by 1965 all Soviet tanks than the T-10 were removed from all of Eastern Europe

 

See above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ms paint doesn't have spell check yo

 

Why on earth would ANYONE use MS Paint unless they're making trollface images?

 

Krita is free.

 

Gimp is free.

 

Paint.NET is free.

 

There is literally no good reason to use MS Paint unless you're lazy or dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://sites.google.com/site/mikesparks4/

 

 

There Is No Gavin Sparky 


The M113 fighting vehicle has never been called a Gavin.   

     Some time ago a psychotic geek tried to change history by creating multiple website proclaiming that the M113 was called a Gavin. This of course is totally bogus. This is the dream of Mike Sparks most likely the retarded child of the Walker family. This nut case has nothing but time on his hand operantly. With little military expertise in the area of armored vehicles he claims to know enough to suggest military reforms. Much information also suggest that Sparky believes in UFO and JFK conspiracies and has created as much useless information on those subjects as he has for the military reforms.

 

    You can recognize this fraud by his numerous screen names. Nomorenarcissism, BlacktailFA, Sam Damon Jr, Carol Murphy, Dynamicpara1-3.

opghostship923tn-large.jpg

 

isobox-large.JPG

 

Everyone please stop posting this lunatic's videos. I've seen his crap thoughtlessly parroted and reposted on many a forum.

Any detailed knowledge of a given specific vehicle / idea he has in any given area is usually shot down and pigeonholed. 

 

I don't happen to know enough about the IS-3, although at least with respect to the IS-3, he in fact picked a tank which didn't have a stirring operational history. More like an abbreviated, checkered one, overshadowed by the nascent MBT's. 

 

His greatest sins in these videos is omission and cherry-picked data. It's his MO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IS-2 and -3 were not designed as counters to the Tiger II or even the Tiger I. They were primarily intended to be close-support breakthrough tanks to destroy bunkers, fortified positions, and the like that medium tanks had difficulty dealing with, hence the actually very thick side armor (90mm of armor with 10mm spaced). The primary point of it, from the start, wasn't to destroy enemy armor.

 

The 122mm gun was actually very effective in tests against the Tiger II, being able to break apart the front armor and create significant spalling, not to mention occasionally blowing the armor plate straight off the weld seams.

 

etc. 

I do remember though, they did want a gun to defeat the Tiger 2. Ensign had a article about it.

 

Also most heavies were "Breakthrough" tanks, I think he meant the IS3 was made in response to the KT not in head to head combat but keeping up with the Jonses. I mean in practical reality it would have been made thinking it was going to face down the KT if it faced heavy tanks.

 

ANyways this doesnt seem to be a huge blunder. I think this part was just pointing out how the IS3 which was built later wasnt much better in many ways.

 

IMO they all sucked Pershing FTW

 

@TA

I think reasonable people think the 122mm was great for what it was, a solid all around gun capable of AT work and Demo. Was it more powerful than the long 88mm? IDK but 122 must have been way better at Demo work as its shell was prob much larger meaning more charge.

 

I do think someone had a hard on for heavy tanks as they kept going long after guns could easily knock out big tanks. Basically it didnt matter if it was 150mm thick or Leo thin guns were more powerful than armor until laminate and reactive.

 

Who is this video maker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...