Talk:Iosif Stalin tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russia Portal
Iosif Stalin tank is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.


Who keeps deleting my posts abnout Heinz Guderian forbidding his crews to engage IS-2 in open tank duel? I am providing a link by the way. And someone keeps adding a claim without reference that IS-2 was destroyed 4600 meters away. Could we please take care of it? 99.231.63.253 (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov, 4 January, 2008.


Contents

[edit] Name

It should be "Iosif Stalin" - in Russian it is Иосиф Сталин, with "i" in Iosif. Pibwl 18:33, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian, but I find that most resources call this vehicle the Iosef Stalin, which a google test agrees with. I do, however, think that accuracy is better. If you're quite certain that Iosif Stalin is a more correct name, then you have my vote to move the page.
Please update the template and add in the opening paragraph the various English translations if do though. Oberiko 00:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The en Wikipedia is English-language, so it's not really so important how a word is spelt in Russian. Going by Google hits, we have:

  • "Iosef Stalin tank" [1] 243 hits
  • "Joseph Stalin tank" [2] 30 hits
  • "Iosif Stalin tank" [3] 1 hit
  • "Josif Stalin tank" [4] 0 hits

I would not object if "Iosif Stalin tank" was made a redirect to this page -- Cabalamat 15:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But "Iosef Stalin" is not an English name. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which says If there is no commonly-used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. I would prefer to see it at either at the English Joseph Stalin tank, or preferably at Iosif Stalin tank, matching the transliteration in the article on Joseph Stalin. Transliterated according to the Wikipedia standard Transliteration of Russian into English, it would be Yosif Stalin tank, but I don't think anyone wants to see that. Another possibility would be simply Stalin tank.
But I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue if anyone opposes a move. —Michael Z. 2005-03-29 07:29 Z

I've now added Josif Stalin tank as a redirect. On a more general note, it would be nice if WP had a standard way of transcribing words in languages that don't use the latin alphabet. -- Cabalamat 15:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean a standard method, like the one described in Transliteration of Russian into English? See Romanization for more languages, and there are some specific guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Or do you mean automatically transcribing? That wouldn't work, because there are many exceptions and judgement calls to be made. —Michael Z. 2005-02-1 04:31 Z

I read somewhere that (russian?) troops nicknamed IS-2 and/or IS-3 "The pike" because of its/their very sleek shape. Sorry to be so vague but I don't recall what was the source, so it's better in Discussion isn't it? ...--69.157.129.29 03:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The IS-3 saw limited action during the final weeks of the war in Germany, and was quickly nicknamed Shchuka (Pike) after its pointed bow.
P. 176 of Steven J. Zaloga and James Grandsen, Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two, 1984. Arms and Armour Press, London. ISBN 0-85368-606-8

Although Mr. Zaloga is at or near the top expert on Soviet armor, his more recent work is more accurate and does not claim that the IS-3 saw any WW2 combat. It's just about certain that it saw no combat in Europe in WW2, and there is only a slim chance that it was used in combat in Manchuria in Aug 1945. DMorpheusNov 10 2005

—Michael Z. 2005-02-1 04:37 Z

[edit] Duplicate

A duplicate of this article (I think) has been made at T-10. I'm no expert on tanks but from what I gather these are the same things. One should be merged into the other. I reccomend the stalin tank be moved to T-10, but what do I know. (cross posted to the other article) BrokenSegue 04:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The T-10s were a continuation of IS heavy tank series, which was a direct continuation of the KV series, but the three are virtually always treated separately. The distinction also neatly divides them into WWII and Cold War models. They should remain as they are. If someone did a lot more general writing, then maybe a separate article on Soviet heavy tanks, or Soviet independent tank units could be warranted (which might even cover the T-64 and T-80, MBTs that were later employed in place of the heavies). —Michael Z. 2005-03-29 07:16 Z
okay then thanks. The T-10 article made it sound like they just renamed it. BrokenSegue 23:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They are two separate vehicles that happen to look a lot alike. DMorpheus

[edit] IS-1 photo

ChrisO, that's a great photo, but unfortunately it's not an IS-1. Two points that are confusing:

  • It has a splash guard on the glacis plate between the fenders. This could be confused with the stepped glacis of the IS-1 and early IS-2. But the glacis is flat and protruding, indicating that this was not a converted IS-1, but a later-production IS-2.
  • It is missing the muzzle brake on the end of the gun. But it is the looong 85mm gun, not the short one of the IS-1.

I'm pretty certain that there are no IS-1s remaining, because they were all factory upgraded to IS-2s before going into service. I'm guessing this is a tank that stayed in service a long time, and saw some minor modernizations. It has well-maintained driving lights, so I'm guessing it sat in war stores and was driven straight to the museum.

Have a close look at the two black-and-white IS-1 and IS-2 photos to compare the differences in the hull front and gun length.

This image would be useful in an article on AFV recognition, demonstrating why it's important to use primary features to identify a vehicle. —Michael Z. 2005-10-11 05:43 Z

Hmm. I take your points, but I should note that the sign you see in front of the tank identifies it as an IS-1. It's a bit much if a war museum doesn't know what kind of tank it's displaying! -- ChrisO 06:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
That's correct, it is a late (Model 1944) IS-2 with postwar modifications - the wraparound fenders, hull-side stowage boxes, and headlights are all post-1945 features. Since it has the wide mantlet used in 1944-45, it can't be an IS-1's 85mm gun. Maybe it is the standard 122mm with the muzzle brake missing? At any rate a different photo would be better. DMorpheus Nov 10, 2005
Alot of museums sadly don't. Very nice photos BTW. Oberiko 11:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Yep and yep. I take perverse pleasure from correcting the photo captions in respectable AFV books. Confusing T-54, T-55, and possibly T-62 could be forgivable, but I've seen a photo of a Vickers Vijayanta labelled as a Canadian Leopard 1 in a book. The tank was heavily cam-netted, and surrounded with infantrymen carrying FN FAL rifles. Since the tank wasn't shaped like anything in British service, the author had assumed the rifles were Canadian. Talk about using secondary recognition features.... —Michael Z. 2005-10-11 15:34 Z

[edit] DT Machineguns

Didn't the IS-2 have three DT machineguns?

- The coax
- the ball-mounted MG in the turret rear
- the fixed gun on the right of the driver

The table says 2 X DTs. The hull gun is hard to see but I think all IS-2s had it. User: DMorpheus

The reason is simble. There were a coaxial DT and a second DT on rear of the turret to protect the rear of the tank against infantry attack without turning the slow turret. There is no hull MG. User: Kovlovsky

Yes, there is a fixed MG to the right of the driver. DMorpheus 02:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you give sources on that, i have never seen anything that i could positively identify as a hull mg in IS-2. No reliable sources mention it and i cant even see it in blueprints. --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the tank in the piuc might be one of the 1944 prototypes whihc used the 100 gun that was later installed on T-55's. the gun was good but they never quite managed to fully reconcile it with the turret so this varient never saw mass production (actually there were two variants with slightely differgin turrets) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Henrylee100 (talk • contribs) .

So was it superior to the Panzer? T-34? Tiger? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.0.198.72 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] IS-2 vs Tiger

How was the IS-2 tank compared to the Tiger I?

The IS-2 was superior to the german Tiber I in most parameters. The Tiger I was designed before the first encounter with the T-34. So it didn't have a sloped armor, which highly improve the armor protection by deflecting the shots and by increasing the real thickness of the armor. By example, the Tiger had a front armor of 100mm both for the turret and the glacis) but it was inferior to the german Panther, who had a 80mm sloped front armor. The IS-2 had a sloped front glacis of 120m m and the turret armor thickness was of 100mm. The 88mm gun of the german Tiger was also inferior in both armor penetration and in explosive power (against infantry) than the 122mm D-25T. On the other side, the german tank had some advantages like better optics and a better mobility.

For further information you can visit this web site :http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=50&lang=en

Kovlovsky 17:33 30 april 2006


The web site battlefield.ru was updated and the previous links were dead so I fixed them Kovlovsky 17:45 30 april 2006

Also, the IS-2 had a very slow rate of fire, which could be a majore disadvantage. Also it could only carry 28 shells at a time (it was a TYPO guys, sheesh) , which meant it would run out of amunition really quick. --84.208.76.45 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Rate of fire advantage was noticeable only at close range. Using Tiger's rangefinder at targets over a kilometer was complicated and rather slow operation, so practical rate of fire would be much lower than gun reloading time. And at these ranges 88's chances for successful penetration are very slim, best possible outcome would be "critical hit" - immobilisation or main gun damage. 195.98.64.69 03:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect. The Tiger was not designed before the appearance of the T-34.
"Henschel & Sohn began development of the Tiger in spring of 1937. After various side-tracks, in 1941 Henschel and three other companies (Porsche, MAN, and Daimler-Benz) submitted designs for a 35-ton tank with a 75 mm main gun."
Well, they had to redesign it! :)
The IS-2 ammunition stowage was 28 rounds. This is still substantially less than a Panther (78 to 81 rounds depending on the model), Tiger, or T-34. But it's not 18. The rate of fire was lower because the ammunition was two-part, in contrast to the single-piece Tiger ammunition.
Tiger I frontal armor was 102mm and was nearly vertical. Sides were about 80mm and were vertical.
IS-2 turret face was 160mm; hull front was 120mm; turret side was 110mm. DMorpheus 02:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you DMorpheus! The IS-2 is better protected than I thought. And yes I forgot to mention the very slow loading time and the low quantity of ammunition. Kovlovsky

DMorpheus where did you get those armor values. Nearly all drawing have show turret sides to have been 90-100mm and front as ~100mm, and the turrets armor protection was never improved, actually IS-2 had thinner turret sides and rear than IS-1. From :http://www.battlefield.ru "As for the tank's turret, it turned out to be impossible to increase its armour protection. Designed for the 85 mm gun, it was completely balanced. After installing the 122 mm weapon, the turret became very unbalanced. The Design Requirements intended for an increase of its frontal armour thickness to 130 mm which would have unbalanced the turret even further and would have made a new traverse mechanism necessary. SInce all these changes required a complete redesign of the turret, they were all cancelled." --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If the soviets would not have been expecting heavy german tanks, probably less than 50% of the ammunition in an IS-2 would be AP, also the Germans Tiger I crews almost always had superior training and probably optics. Mieciu K 10:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The optics of IS-2 were copied optics of Pz-IV on lend lease resources - they were more than good - 1500m engagement were standart in their AT tactics.

The tiger would be SOL against an IS2 at normal engagement ranges. The hull was invulnerable to the 88mm, and so was the turret unless the 88 shell managed to land a shot right on a thin strip of armor at both sides of the barrel where the mantle was flattest. Otherwise the front was invulnerable to the 88mm, and usually a shot for the turret ring was the best option.

All in all, the IS2 could take out the tiger from way beyond 1000m, as long as it hit, while the same could not be said of the tiger. Tiger had some advantages, but in reality it would be best for it to withdraw rather then fight it. German Tactics discouraged a tiger going toe to toe with one. Wokelly 02:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Wokelly

Remember that the IS-2 lower front hull is only 100mm thick at 30 degrees from vertical, so even Pzgr.39 from KwK 36 could penetrate it from quite afar, (~1000 meters away). --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Another general way to look at it: partly due to the design differences in these tanks, the Soviets built twice as many IS-2 (each consuming 80% of the resources) as the Germans built Tigers. Any Tiger crew would have to use their skills and advanced optics to hit the vulnerable parts of two Soviet heavy tanks to even the odds. An IS-2 crew delivering a solid hit anywhere on a Tiger would be taking out a disproportionately large tonnage of enemy armour.

But the Soviets didn't build these tanks to joust head-to-head with the heavy German beasts. While they were certainly capable, the Soviets also filled the battlefield with ten times the number of T-34s, as well as numerous effective self-propelled guns.

Even with greatly superior resources at their command, the Nazi's obsession with über-machines turned out to be the loser strategy where getting the most firepower to any particular schwerpunkt was the objective. And an obsessive comparison of individual machines also misses the larger point today. —Michael Z. 2008-04-28 18:06 Z

[edit] Gun Performance

This site - http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=50&lang=en - provides a source for the claim that the 122mm gun penetrated both sides of a Panther. However, this article says it was side-to-side, not front-to-rear penetration, at 1500 meters.

Also, Zaloga and Grandsen, Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of WW2, 1984, P 172: "A captured Panther was used as the target and a 122mm round crashed through the frontal armour and clear through the rear armour as well."

Also, Zaloga, Kinnear, Aksenov and Koshchavtsev, Stalin's Heavy Tanks, 1997, P. 9, cites German sources instructing Panther crews that they were vulnerable at 1,000 meters. DMorpheus 02:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[Quote] An engagement at 600 metres (660 yd) coupled (...) to 1,000 metres (910 yd) [/Quote] 600 metres = 660 yd and 1,000 metres = 910 yd? Unless the yd is somekind of progressive unit this can't be right.

[edit] Recent additions

Some recently-added statements need to be backed up by a source:

  • The heavy tank was designed with thick armour (which however was of poor quality)
  • ...a gun that was ineffective against the new German Tiger and Panther tanks.
  • Mainly because the gun's poor performance with anti-tank rounds and the poor optics which ment it could not hit anything at more then 1200m
  • Although the IS-2 had reasonable armor protection (the armor was thick but of poor quality), the A-19 122mm gun had poor performance in armor penetration and had poor optics (couln't hit any target at more then 1200m), which ment it was extremely difficult to hit another tank.
  • Despite being a poor anti-tank tank...
  • However the overall performance against the Tiger was poor.
  • The Tiger could destroy an IS-2 at a range of 2,000 m.
  • The weak antitank performance of the 122mm gun of the IS-2 meant that it could only penetrate the sides and rear of a Tiger or King Tiger.
    Zaloga (1984:172) reports that the 122mm gun's penetration was 160mm of armour at 1,000 m—more than enough to penetrate the Tiger's hull front (100mm at 24°), turret front (100 mm at 8°) or mantlet (120mm flat).

And why compare the 46-tonne Soviet tank to the 57 and 70-tonne Tigers, when the 45-tonne Panther is a more comparable machine? —Michael Z. 2006-10-21 21:33 Z

For the same reason that you would compare a Corsair to a Spitfire rather than to a Whirlwind, even if Whirlwind is closer to Corsair in weight. Tigers and IS tanks are heavy tanks by definition and occupied somewhat similar roles, while Panther is a medium tank used in a different role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk • contribs) 15:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Bullshit. The IS-2 was much better than these two panzers. Quality of his armor was much better than quality of late german armor (after losing resources in Norway and Ukraine). His AT rounds were able to penetrate Pz-VI front armor at 1500m, and his optics (copy of Pz-III optics on lend-lease resource) allowed it. In german instructions there was note, that "russian tigers" open fire already at 1500 meters (and it was valid so). Don`t forget direct orders for german tankers to not enter with tanks IS-2 the open duel in private, and to operate from ambushes, number not less than two.

It's simply not that useful to compare these machines one-to-one. After Kursk, the Nazis were forced to make every shot count against an increasingly more numerous enemy, hence the emphasis on individual tank gunnery. Meanwhile the Soviets filled the battlefield with more steel and diesel, and gun tubes and shells, while steadily improving their operational and tactical skills.

In the big picture, Hitler had more resources but made less of them. Some of his tanks were cool in theory, but to obsess over their superiority while ignoring the desperate German situation at the end of the war is creepy. —Michael Z. 2008-04-28 18:28 Z

[edit] Infobox

What is a IS-2 model 1945 ? A postwar version or just a typo ? Shouldn't it be better to use the model 1944 instead ? --Denniss 17:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the post war version was called IS-2M.
The specifications in the infobox come from Zaloga & Grandsen (1984:176), called "IS-2 Model 45" in Zaloga's table. This is what Zaloga calls IS-2m, the late/post-war version with modified glacis armour. What the Soviet Army calls IS-2M was a 1950s modernization program. —Michael Z. 2006-11-25 15:07 Z
Hmm I thought the version with modified frontal armor was the model 1944 with the IS-2M as the 1950's modernization version. Do you have other references to the IS-2 model 1945 ? At least such a tank should be clearly visible and marked as "our best tank" or "german tank killer #1" at the well known very nationalistic site battlefield.ru but nada (see article weblinks).--Denniss 15:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not being quite clear. You're right, IS-2m (lower case m) is another name for IS-2 tanks built starting in 1944, with the modified glacis design. Model 1945 isn't a new tank model, just a reference to the same tank built the following year—differences are probably in the details only, but that is what the specs are provided for. IS-2M (upper case m) is indeed, a '50s modernization program. —Michael Z. 2006-11-25 16:57 Z
But look at what [5] website says to the mystery IS-2m/IS-2M designation. The IS-2 model 1944 has the redesigned glacis plate, no sign of a model 1945 and a clear statement that a IS-2m or IS-2M did not exist until the 1950's modernisation. And they cite quite a lot sources. --Denniss 10:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Zaloga cites quite a lot of sources, too. The Soviet army didn't have these model names officially designated on paper; Russian-language publications just refer to a particular tank by the year of its construction. Where we write "IS-2 Model 1944", Russian publications write "an IS-2 of the year 1944". See what I wrote about the Model 1945 above.
Furthermore, many of the model names were originally created speculatively in historical publications, rather than coming from any official Red Army documents. As the article says, some authors use "IS-2m". That means that some others don't. The prevailing usage in English-language publications comes from the many written by Steven Zaloga. Recently, some Russian-language publications have become a bit more prominent, thanks to globalization and the Internet, and they tend to name some things differently from Zaloga. Battlefield.ru is from Russia. —Michael Z. 2006-11-26 18:46 Z