IS-2. How the best heavy tank of World War II was created

172
IS-2. How the best heavy tank of World War II was created
IS-2M in the exposition of the Patriot park. Source: warspot.ru


The heavy tank IS-2 without exaggeration can be called one of the main achievements of the Soviet tank industry. Created during the war years, it borrowed little from the KV tanks, but instead took a number of developments from experienced tanks and showed the capabilities of Soviet engineers. According to its characteristics, the IS-2 was a very compromise and unbalanced tank. On the eve of the war, Soviet and German designers designed completely different heavy tanks, with much more weight and ammunition. But it was the compromise IS-2 that proved to be very successful and became the most massive model of a heavy tank in stories.



79 years ago, on October 31, 1943, the IS-2 was put into service.

Under an unlucky number


Although the IS heavy tank was in many ways a new design, it was not created from scratch. In the spring of 1942, the KV-13 heavy tank program began. As planned, this tank was supposed to combine powerful armor, high mobility and weight at the level of medium tanks. Therefore, it is often mistakenly referred to as a medium tank with heavy armor, although from the very beginning it was played as a heavy tank. Even if weighing about 30 tons, the military had seen enough of how the slow KV-1s broke bridges and mixed roads into impassable mud.

To fit into the requirements, Soviet engineers went for a radical reduction in the armored space. To do this, they reduced the crew to only three people - a driver and two towers. Then, however, the tower became triple. The shape of the frontal part of the hull and the horseshoe-shaped radiator were taken from an experimental light tank T-50 of the Kirov plant. And soon the KV-13 had another designation - IS. Chief designer Nikolai Valentinovich Tseits was a pious and superstitious man. He obviously did not like that the tank was under the "unlucky" number.


Drawing KV-13 with a double tower. Because of the horseshoe-shaped radiator on the roof, a characteristic hump was obtained. Source: warspot.ru

In September 1942, the first prototype of the KV-13 with a two-man turret was put to the test. The tank turned out to be very raw and constantly broke down. But with a frontal armor of 90 mm, it accelerated to 55 km / h! There was a long fine-tuning to the mind, especially since the military demanded a triple tower with a commander's cupola.

The appearance of the Tiger


In December 1942, a draft of the second version of the KV-13 with a triple turret was prepared. Outwardly, it already looked like the serial IS-1 familiar to us, but it weighed only 37 tons and was somewhat smaller. If circumstances had turned out differently, this tank could well have been brought to mind and put into production, and the military would finally have got what they wanted. But in January 1943, the Soviet army captured two Tiger H1 heavy tanks.


IS-1 in the spring of 1943 in the factory yard - a five-roller undercarriage and a three-man turret with a 76-mm gun. Source: warspot.ru

The German novelty made me think. The shelling in Kubinka showed that the 76-mm F-34 and ZiS-5 tank guns were not capable of penetrating the Tiger either in the forehead or on the side from any distance. But on the early IS-1 there was just a 76 mm gun! It turns out that the new tank was outdated even before the start of production. The question of rearmament immediately arose.

The 85-mm anti-aircraft gun 52-K showed itself well during the shelling, it confidently hit the frontal armor of the Tiger from a kilometer. It was decided to take it as a basis. However, it was impossible to install a new gun in the existing IS-1 turret, the shoulder strap had to be increased. And since the tank needs to be redone, the designers at the same time eliminated other shortcomings. The shoulder strap of the tower was increased to 1800 mm. The hull became wider and longer, and a sixth road wheel appeared in the undercarriage. As a result, the IS-1 "recovered" to 44 tons and lost its former mobility, however, the level of KV-1C was sufficient. In this form, the tank went into production in the spring of 1943.

Main argument


From the very beginning, the IS-1 with the 85 mm D-5T gun was considered as an intermediate tank; it did not last long in production. The fact is that the D-5 system included the possibility of installing barrels of different calibers. In May 1943, the design bureau under the leadership of Petrov began a project for a 122-mm tank gun - the future D-25. And already in July, even before the adoption of the IS-1, the first drawing of a heavy IS tank with this gun was ready.


Tiger H1 after being hit by a 122mm projectile. Source: warspot.ru

The new tank gun did not appear by chance. Among other things, the Tiger was fired from a 122-mm A-19 hull gun. With the very first hit from a distance of one and a half kilometers, the tower was torn off the shoulder strap and moved back half a meter, while a piece of armor 58 × 23 cm came off from it. The result, as they say, does not need comments. Additionally, work was spurred on by German novelties on the Kursk Bulge - Panthers and Ferdinands. Against the frontal armor of the Panther, the 85 mm gun was ineffective, which cannot be said about the 122 mm gun. Even in the event of a rebound, the German armor cracked and literally came apart at the seams.

The D-25 was an outstanding weapon for its time. It hit all enemy tanks and could fight field fortifications. In addition, in terms of accuracy, it was on par with the KwK 43 guns of the King's Tiger. However, the installation of such a powerful and large gun on the IS-2 led to inevitable compromises. And if the low rate of fire was improved with a new wedge gate on the D-25T, then a small ammunition load of 28 shots and a declination angle of -3 degrees were unavoidable.


Experienced tank Object 240 - the future IS-2. Chelyabinsk, autumn 1943. Source: warspot.ru

Note that earlier engineers have always tried to provide a large ammunition. On the eve of the war, the KV-220 heavy tank with an 85-mm gun was tested. He had a solid ammunition load of 91 rounds and two loaders. However, the tank itself turned out to be quite large and weighed 63 tons. But on the way there was a KV-3 with 60 shots for a 107-mm cannon, it weighed 68 tons - why not the Royal Tiger in the Soviet way? Yes, and the Germans with their Tigers went the same way. However, this path led engineers to a dead end: tanks weighing more than 50-55 tons were too heavy and impractical. They did not shine with reliability and broke bridges, and their evacuation was troublesome. The creators of the IS-2 proposed a new approach: to keep the tank within adequate weight limits with good armor protection, albeit at the cost of ammunition. This idea paid off.

Myths around guns


The IS-2 inevitably gave rise to myths about its weapons. Say, this tank was specially created to storm enemy fortifications, because a smaller caliber would be enough to destroy enemy tanks. Moreover, there was such an option - we are talking about a 100-mm D-10T gun. Well, let's figure it out. Let's start with the fact that Soviet engineers really created artillery support tanks. One of them was just the IS-2 ... but not the one everyone thought about. Let's go back to the past. KV-13 with a 76 mm gun was passed as IS-1. Paired with it, the IS-2 was created on the same five-roller chassis, but with a 122-mm howitzer in the turret of the KV-9 type. And later this designation passed to the familiar IS-2 with the D-25 gun.


The very first IS-2 was the KV-13 howitzer. Source: warspot.ru

If the Soviet military demanded only an artillery tank with powerful high-explosive fragmentation shells, then they would have adopted the IS-2 howitzer. Why, then, reworking the hull and running gear with inevitable production delays? However, from the very beginning, the military was worried about the defeat of enemy tanks. And here the 122-mm D-25 gun was out of competition. In the correspondence about the choice of guns for heavy tanks, the main attention was paid to armor penetration.

But what about a 100 mm gun? For a while, this option looked very good. Compared to the D-25, the 100-mm guns had the same advantages: a higher rate of fire, less weight, since the shots take up less space, the tank's ammunition load can be increased. In practice, everything turned out to be much more difficult. In total, two experimental tanks were built for 100-mm guns: the Object 245 with the D-10T Petrov gun and the Object 248 with the Grabin S-34 gun. The "Grabinsky" tank is easy to distinguish by its mirrored turret: for ease of loading, the loader's workplace was placed on the left, and the gunner and commander moved to the right.


Object 245, aka IS with a D-10T gun, in the factory yard. Source: waralbum.ru

Tests of 100 mm guns showed very mixed results. Let's start with the fact that it was not really possible to increase the ammunition load. Yes, 122-mm shots were larger, but due to separate-sleeve loading, they were able to be tightly assembled. But it was inconvenient to place 100-mm rounds, so the Object 245's ammunition load was 29 rounds - only 1 more. In Object 248 they managed to put 31 shots, and later 36 shots. But during the tests it turned out that in a combat situation the loader could not get the last 6 shells. It turned out that the difference in the rate of fire was not so big, because it was not easy to work with long unitary shots. The declination angles remained the same modest - only -3 degrees.

Disappointed and armor penetration. On paper, the 100mm guns were almost identical to the D-25. But in practice, the D-10T could not reliably hit the Panther in the forehead, and the D-25T pierced it without problems at distances of 2-2,5 kilometers. So arming the IS-2 with a 122-mm cannon was, as they say in such cases, the only right decision. Alas, 100-mm armor-piercing shells became available only by the autumn of 1944, and their quality was clearly lame.

****


IS-2 on parade in Beijing, 1959. Source: warspot.ru

As a result, the IS-2 became the best heavy tank of World War II. First of all, he was very well armed. While the IS-2s were smashing German tanks, the Americans experienced a shortage of self-propelled guns with 90-mm guns, and the best British anti-tank gun was the 17-pounder, and the accuracy of its sub-caliber shells left much to be desired. The armor of the IS-2 protected against the massive 75 mm KwK 40 and similar PaK 39 cannons, although it was insufficient against the Panther even after the modification of the frontal part. Finally, moderate weight and good mobility facilitated the transfer of tanks. Of course, the IS-2 also had serious shortcomings. Its reliability caused complaints, especially many complaints were made about the survivability of the undercarriage, engine and transmission. The resource was pulled up after the war, during the modernization program, after which the tanks served for a long time. Formally, the IS-2s were in service until 1997, when they were finally decommissioned.

Sources:
A.G. Solyankin, M.V. Pavlov, I.V. Pavlov, I.G. Zheltov. Soviet heavy tanks 1941-1945 - Zeikhgauz, 2006
Articles by Yuri Pasholok on warspot.ru:
First CV under an unlucky number
First Coming IS-2
penultimate step
IS with heavy weapons
Long-term IC
172 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -25
    31 October 2022 04: 01
    It is strange that they started producing the SU-100, and not the SU-122. A self-propelled gun with a 122mm gun would be much more effective than a self-propelled gun with a 100mm gun. And then, after the war, they again stepped on the same rake, arming the T-54 with a 100-mm cannon, and not with a 122-mm cannon. For example, Abrams has a 120 mm gun, modern Russian tanks have a 125 mm gun. That is, if the T-54 were armed with a 122-mm cannon, then the tank of the early 50s would be armed at the level of modern tanks, and if the T-54 were equipped with dynamic protection, an active protection complex, modern fire control and electronics, then the T- 54 would still be relevant today.
    1. +19
      31 October 2022 04: 31
      Quote: Lukachevsky
      It is strange that they started producing the SU-100, and not the SU-122. A self-propelled gun with a 122mm gun would be much more effective than a self-propelled gun with a 100mm gun.

      How did it not start? ISU-122 what do you think? And the SU-100 is a quick and effective modernization of the SU-85, then the chassis simply could not cope.
      The rest about the T-54 with a 122 mm gun is below all criticism ...
      1. -14
        31 October 2022 04: 47
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        How did it not start? ISU-122 what do you think?

        The ISU-122 is actually on the chassis of the IS tank, and the SU-100 is on the chassis of the T-34 tank.
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        And the SU-100 is a quick and effective modernization of the SU-85, then the chassis simply could not cope.

        Read about the SU-122P. A self-propelled gun with a 122-mm cannon on the T-34 chassis was created in metal and successfully tested, but for unknown reasons, it never went into production. There is a version that Kotin used his connections to prevent the SU-122P from being produced, since the appearance of this self-propelled guns made the production of the ISU-122 pointless.

        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        The rest about the T-54 with a 122 mm gun is below all criticism ...

        Read about SU-122-54.
        1. +7
          31 October 2022 05: 26
          Quote: Lukachevsky
          The ISU-122 is actually on the chassis of the IS tank, and the SU-100 is on the chassis of the T-34 tank.
          So what? You didn't specify. Well, an article about the IS-2.

          Quote: Lukachevsky
          Read about the SU-122P. A self-propelled gun with a 122-mm cannon on the T-34 chassis was created in metal and successfully tested, but for unknown reasons, it never went into production.
          Unknown, how! The tightness in the fighting compartment and, more importantly, the overloaded rollers.

          Quote: Lukachevsky
          Read about SU-122-54.
          It’s clear with you ... To cite as an example of the ease of placing a gun in a tank TOWER a self-propelled gun with a CABIN is aerobatics!
          1. -12
            31 October 2022 06: 16
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Unknown, how! The tightness in the fighting compartment and, more importantly, the overloaded rollers.

            On the SU-100, the problem of overloaded front rollers was solved by thickening the springs. On the SU-122P, it was also possible to solve the problem in a similar way.
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            It’s clear with you ... To cite as an example of the ease of placing a gun in a tank TOWER a self-propelled gun with a CABIN is aerobatics!

            An 34-mm gun was installed on the T-85-85 and managed to place a third person in the turret.
            1. +10
              31 October 2022 06: 28
              Quote: Lukachevsky
              On the SU-100, the problem of overloaded front rollers was solved by thickening the springs. On the SU-122P, it was also possible to solve the problem in a similar way.
              The decrease in cross-country ability and the destruction of the bandage of the rollers did not solve this.

              Quote: Lukachevsky
              An 34-mm gun was installed on the T-85-85 and managed to place a third person in the turret.
              Well, actually, the T-34-85 is a separate new tank, and not the T-34-76, and 85 mm is not 100 mm. Aerobatics again?
            2. +1
              31 October 2022 09: 00
              Quote: Lukachevsky
              An 34-mm gun was installed on the T-85-85 and managed to place a third person in the turret.


              True, the tower is already different (it seems like from the T-43 that did not go into the series).
            3. Alf
              +2
              31 October 2022 20: 01
              Quote: Lukachevsky
              managed to put a third person in the tower.

              To the NEW tower.
          2. +1
            31 October 2022 07: 41
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            but for unknown reasons, never went into production.

            The reasons for the refusal to mass production were as follows:
            - first of all, in terms of armor penetration, the D-25S was inferior to the D-10S by about 4-5 mm, but the effect of the action of a high-explosive fragmentation projectile was almost twice as high (in fact, this was the reason for the creation of the Su-100, because the D-25S guns were already massively used on IS-2 tanks);
            — ammunition was reduced to 26 rounds;
            - the rate of fire, due to the separate loading of the gun, was reduced to 3-4 rounds per minute;
            - the recoil of the gun was higher than that of the SU-100, which, when fired "on the move", had a negative effect on the endurance of the undercarriage;
            - the previous problems with the cramped fighting compartment remained unresolved.
            1. -1
              31 October 2022 08: 30
              Hey, you missed the comment.

              [quote = Vladimir_2U] Quote: Lukachevsky
              Read about the SU-122P. A self-propelled gun with a 122-mm gun on the T-34 chassis was created in metal and successfully passed the tests, but for unknown reasons, never went into the series.
              unknown, how! The tightness in the fighting compartment and, more importantly, overloaded rollers. [/ Quote]
            2. +1
              31 October 2022 11: 13
              first of all, in terms of armor penetration, the D-25S was inferior to the D-10S by about 4-5 mm

              Read the article under which you leave a comment. In wartime, the D-25 was the leader in armor penetration. 100-mm armor-piercing shells appeared late and were lame in quality, so the advantage of 4-5 mm was only on paper.
              1. +6
                31 October 2022 11: 42
                Quote from: geraet4501
                D-25 was the leader in armor penetration. 100-mm armor-piercing shells appeared late and were lame in quality, so the advantage of 4-5 mm was only on paper.

                It was fun not only from the side of the shells. German problems with armor resulted in increased fragility. The A-19 or ML-20 projectile did not penetrate the armor, but simply broke through a piece of the VLD, broke the welds, or disabled the turret turning mechanism, knocking it off the shoulder strap.

                So to say, Soviet shells and late-release German tanks found each other. The penetration of the same 17lb with a subcaliber was almost twice as high as the A-19, but the English gun did not give reliable penetration: the low accuracy of the imperfect subcaliber of those years and ricochets.
              2. +2
                31 October 2022 12: 27
                Quote from: geraet4501
                Read the article

                Sorry, but the conversation was about the reasons for not adopting the UralMashevskaya SU-122P, which was just being tested at the end of the war, from June 1944
        2. +5
          31 October 2022 10: 45
          Quote: Lukachevsky
          Read about the SU-122P. A self-propelled gun with a 122-mm cannon on the T-34 chassis was created in metal and successfully tested, but for unknown reasons, it never went into production.

          The reasons are well known - a large reach of the barrel and excessive load on the chassis.
          Even the basic SU-100 with a lighter gun suffered from them:
          The combat weight increased by 85 tons compared to the SU-2, which is even worse, they fell on the nose of the vehicle. As a result, there was an overload of the front road wheels and suspension, from the end of 1944 complaints began to come from the troops. However, this was not the only problem. Whereas the SU-85's forward projection beyond the hull dimensions was slightly less than 2 m, the SU-100's was 3350 mm. This created additional problems in combat conditions. The risk of damage to the gun increased when driving over rough terrain, in the forest and in urban areas. In addition, even during the testing of the prototype SU-100, a gradual subsidence of the suspension of the front road wheels was observed.
          © Yu.Pasholok. Aft alternative.
          As a result, it was decided to develop self-propelled guns based on the ST with 100 mm and 122 mm guns with aft cabin.
          1. +2
            31 October 2022 18: 55
            which failed successfully. And not for nothing. In the short body of the T-44, it is almost impossible to create a fighter with a rear-mounted fighting compartment.
        3. 0
          31 October 2022 18: 06
          You are absolutely right. It was Zh.Ya.Kotin who crushed the SU-122P.
          And so the IS should have become the main one in mind (fortunately it is more technologically advanced than the T-34), and the thirty-four chassis should have become the basis for the SU-122P, SU-152G, BREM, ZSU and other things.
      2. 0
        31 October 2022 07: 55
        Trite in a military setting, ammunition and: the trunks of the marine "hundred" were available, and for the rest of the calibers it was necessary to increase production
        1. +1
          31 October 2022 08: 27
          Quote: Guran33 Sergey
          Trite in a military setting, ammunition and: the trunks of the marine "hundred" were available, and for the rest of the calibers it was necessary to increase production

          It was 122 mm that the production of shells had to be increased ?! However...
          Well, for a hundred BBs, either there was either none at all, or very little, since the caliber is anti-aircraft, maximum anti-mine.
        2. +4
          31 October 2022 08: 30
          Quote: Guran33 Sergey
          Trite in a military setting, ammunition and: the trunks of the marine "weave" were available

          Just armor-piercing for the D-10T appeared only at Balaton.
        3. Alf
          +2
          31 October 2022 20: 05
          Quote: Guran33 Sergey
          in a military setting, ammunition and: trunks of the marine "hundredths" were available

          That's just the BBS for the 100-mm went into production only in the fall of the 44th ...
      3. TIR
        +1
        21 December 2022 00: 39
        There, from a 100mm gun on a self-propelled gun based on the T-34, the front roller could hardly stand it. 122mm if stuck, then the self-propelled guns would not have left the gates of the factory. Comment of course from the category of tank games
    2. +18
      31 October 2022 04: 35
      if the T-54 were armed with a 122-mm cannon,

      I served at the Half-Four, there is no place in the BO anyway, but if you stick this fool in there ...
      if equipped with ................... electronics

      If you mean the stabilizer, then I have to inform you that when firing at once on very rough terrain, the crews simply turned off the stabilizer so that the breech of the gun would not cripple people, they fired from a short one.
      then the T-54 would be relevant now.

      And it is still relevant in its modification - T-55.
      1. -13
        31 October 2022 04: 49
        Quote: Sea Cat
        I served at the Half-Four, there is no place in the BO anyway, but if you stick this fool in there ...

        Have you read the article? The article states that the IS was armed with a 122-mm cannon precisely because, thanks to separate loading, it was more convenient to arrange the ammunition than long 100-mm unitars.
        Quote: Sea Cat
        And it is still relevant in its modification - T-55.

        The 100 mm caliber gun is now irrelevant.
        1. +7
          31 October 2022 05: 33
          Have you read the article?


          We have read the article.

          thanks to separate loading, it was more convenient to arrange the ammunition than long 100-mm unitars.


          But you write about
          if the T-54 were armed with a 122-mm cannon,
          and IS has nothing to do with it.
          By the way, separate loading reduces the rate of fire of a tank gun, unlike a unitary cartridge. In addition, the T-54 is a medium tank and on the battlefield it has slightly different tasks than a heavy IS.
          The 100 mm caliber gun is now irrelevant.

          Well, you tell our Minister of Defense when he will send another batch of T-55s to the war with Ukraine. laughing
          1. -11
            31 October 2022 06: 13
            Quote: Sea Cat
            We have read the article.

            "We" - do you have greatness like Emperor Nicholas II?
            Quote: Sea Cat
            By the way, separate loading reduces the rate of fire of a tank gun, unlike a unitary cartridge.

            Of course, the couch theorist knows better. But tests back in 1944 showed that when the tank was moving, the loading speed with a long, uncomfortable 100-mm unitary was not much faster than loading with a separate 122-mm shot. For your information, the tank in battle is constantly moving, and stops only for a shot, and after the shot immediately starts moving again.
            Quote: Sea Cat
            Well, you tell our Minister of Defense when he will send another batch of T-55s to the war with Ukraine.

            Can I link?
            1. +8
              31 October 2022 06: 25
              Of course, the couch theorist knows better.

              Here I am about the same laughing , therefore, there is nothing to talk about with you, with the "great specialist".
              For your information, the tank in combat is constantly moving,

              Thanks, enlightened. laughing And then everyone wanders in the dark.

              Can I link?

              Read carefully the information about the course of hostilities, everything is there. I mean here on VO.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. +7
                  31 October 2022 06: 49
                  You don’t need to be rude, boy, with your rudeness you will only prove that you are a boor.
                  Which, in general, is already clear.
                  Read more carefully, you are there, a little lower, very well shaved off. laughing
          2. +6
            31 October 2022 06: 50
            Well, you tell our Minister of Defense when he will send another batch of T-55s to the war with Ukraine

            if my memory serves me right, then they sent the T-62, and not the T-54 / T-55. And he is both armored and armed higher than his ancestors.
            1. 0
              31 October 2022 07: 07
              I saw a video with "Half a Five", a week, ten days ago, here, on VO. The text said that the echelon with these tanks was going to Ukraine.
              And there I don't know. There was no talk about the T-54.
              1. +14
                31 October 2022 08: 01
                Quote: Sea Cat
                I saw a video with "Half a Five", a week, ten days ago, here, on VO. The text said that the echelon with these tanks was going to Ukraine

                You are an interesting reader.

                This echelon is coming from the Ukrainian side. Slovenian T-55s with deep modernization.
                1. +1
                  31 October 2022 08: 14
                  Maybe I made a mistake, what to do, we are all sinners. smile

                  The minus to you was not mine, I corrected it.
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. +5
          31 October 2022 06: 39
          Quote: Lukachevsky
          Have you read the article? The article states that the IS was armed with a 122-mm cannon precisely because, thanks to separate loading, it was more convenient to arrange the ammunition than long 100-mm unitars.

          You didn't read the article carefully. Rate of fire Is-2 122 mm. the gun was extremely low and in a battle with the Tiger and Panther tanks, with simultaneous detection, the enemy had an advantage. Another thing is that the hit itself is 122 mm. the shell was fatal to any German tank. But the low rate of fire and small ammo were a serious disadvantage.
          Another omission of yours is the T-54 \ 55, this is a MEDIUM tank, with armor corresponding to a medium tank and requirements for mobility and RATE OF FIRE. Therefore, unitary 100 mm. the projectile and the turret and fighting compartment specially designed for this gun (as well as new ammunition) provided excellent penetration, rate of fire and accuracy for that time.
          Quote: Lukachevsky
          The 100 mm caliber gun is now irrelevant.

          Well, that's how to say. T-55 today corresponds to the category of LIGHT TANK. Compare its armor to the new American tank.
          Want a more powerful weapon?
          There is nothing easier. When upgrading, it is quite possible to install 115 mm. guns from T-62. And if this is not enough, then there were rumors about the installation on the T-55 and 125 mm guns. , but of course without an automatic loader. True, the last one is probably too much.
          Look at the Israeli modernization of the T-55, 28 of these tanks have already been delivered to / to Ukraine. And try to say that in a conflict of attrition, this is not an actual machine. The same (relevant today) can be said about the T-62 \ 62M, which is just another modification of the T-54 \ 55 with bored out to 115 mm. barrel of the same 100 mm. guns.
    3. +11
      31 October 2022 05: 25
      Quote: Lukachevsky
      That is, if the T-54 were armed with a 122-mm cannon

      And if my grandmother had personal belongings, my grandmother would have been a transvestite grandfather. Caliber 122 required separate loading, and this, no matter how you train the loader, is slow. In tank duels, this can be fatal. 125 went only with an automatic loader. And so the main tank gun was 100mm in the USSR and other socialist countries, and NATO had 105. True, Abrams and other modern Western tanks put 120, but this requires a hefty Negro oh sorry, African American in the loader position. In Israel, where the Merkava is armed with the same cannon, they tried to make female crews in the name of equality and political correctness, but the girls could not cope with loading, since there is and will not be equality in physical strength.
      1. -16
        31 October 2022 06: 08
        Quote: Nagan
        In tank duels, this can be fatal.

        Tanks don't fight tanks, this was proved by German generals during the Second World War. The main enemies of tanks are artillery, ATGMs and aircraft. As for separate loading, in Abrams the loading is separate, and this does not at all prevent American tanks from successfully fighting all over the planet.
        1. +5
          31 October 2022 06: 31
          Quote: Lukachevsky
          Tanks don't fight tanks, this was proved by German generals during the Second World War.

          And in 1973, the Israeli tank troops lieutenant Zvi Gringold refuted them by destroying at least 20, and according to some reports, almost 60, Syrian tanks in the battles for the Golan Heights. Tanks fight against everything that comes across to them. If tanks come across, they fight the tanks.
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Грингольд,_Цви
          Quote: Lukachevsky
          As for separate loading, in Abrams, loading is separate

          And what, in Russia there are African Americans, corroded and swayed to completely ambalistic sizes? Yes, and the fourth crew member led to the need for much more armored space and, accordingly, an overall increase in dimensions, armor weight, engine power, and probably something else, in particular prices. Find a photo of Abrams next to the T-72 and compare the sizes. And it is still unknown who has more armor protection and firepower.
          1. +12
            31 October 2022 06: 45

            The text of your comment is too short and in the opinion of the site administration does not carry useful information.
            1. +3
              31 October 2022 11: 27
              Quote: Lukachevsky
              Tanks don't fight tanks, this was proved by German generals during the Second World War.
              Can you explain why all modern tanks are equipped with smoothbore guns?
            2. +3
              31 October 2022 11: 51
              Quote: Nagan
              Yes, and the fourth crew member led to the need for much more armored space and, accordingly, an overall increase in dimensions, armor weight, engine power, and probably something else, in particular prices.

              Controversial assertion. Tank building schools are different, hence the layout and so on.
              Comparison of the sizes of T-72 tanks (3rd crew member) and T-62 (4th crew member),
              Tank hull length mm ---- 6670 ----------------------- 6630
              hull width ---------------- 3370 (on tracks) -------- 3300
              tank height -------------------- 2190 --------------------- -- 2395

              By the way, in the T-62 there is more space in the fighting compartment than in Abrams. During the exercises in the T-62, 4 people slept to their full height on the floor. In Abrams, this is not possible. The height in the fighting compartment of Abrams is 165 cm, so the loader works there half-sitting, half-standing or with an open hatch. There are no problems with this in the T-62 (all Soviet military equipment was calculated on a fighter with a height of 175 ± cm)
          2. -5
            31 October 2022 08: 06
            Quote: Nagan
            And it is still unknown who has more armor protection and firepower.

            Known. At Abrams (since the installation of a smoothbore gun and uranium armor).
            1. +5
              31 October 2022 12: 03
              Quote: Negro
              Quote: Nagan
              And it is still unknown who has more armor protection and firepower.

              Known. At Abrams (since the installation of a smoothbore gun and uranium armor).

              Uranium armor only in front of the turret. The guns are comparable to ours. Abrams side armor is mainly 31mm, in the combat area 56mm. The T-64-72-80-90 board is mostly 80mm in the area of ​​​​the engine 70mm. Abrams stern (where the cooling radiators) gratings break through from a 25mm caliber cannon (there was a case, they accidentally fired from the Bradley BMP, the engine failed)
              1. -2
                31 October 2022 13: 09
                Quote: Bad_gr
                Uranium armor only in front of the turret.

                Aha
                Quote: Bad_gr
                Guns comparable to ours

                Guns yes, shells no.
                Quote: Bad_gr
                Abrams side armor is mostly 31mm

                Don't care at all. An automatic cannon will pierce any side, especially Tou.

                What is characteristic - we do not even remember electronics.
                1. +4
                  31 October 2022 13: 41
                  Quote: Negro
                  What is characteristic - we do not even remember electronics.

                  And what to remember her if the answer was on the topic
                  Quote: Negro
                  Quote: Nagan
                  And it is still unknown who has more armor protection and firepower.

                  Known. At Abrams (since the installation of a smoothbore gun and uranium armor).

                  And after that, on my
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  Abrams side armor is mainly 31mm, in the combat area 56mm.
                  we get an answer
                  Quote: Negro
                  Don't care at all. An automatic cannon will pierce any side, especially Tou.

                  Do you even remember the topic about which you write your statements?
                  1. 0
                    31 October 2022 14: 11
                    We analyzed the controversial thesis about the comparative strength of the tank. Found out that
                    a) The T-72, including the T-90, does not penetrate the front hemisphere of Abrams except for the NLD (and that is in question).
                    b) T-72 and T-90 do not have and will never have, for purely geometric reasons, sub-caliber shells like those of Abrams.
                    c) The combatant Abrams clearly outperforms the combatant T-72 / T-90 of the same year in all electronics - situational awareness, sights, thermal imagers, active protection, etc.
                    1. 0
                      31 October 2022 14: 34
                      Abrams front hemisphere

                      And what is considered the front hemisphere? feel
                      1. +1
                        31 October 2022 15: 00
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        And what is considered the front hemisphere?

                        Usually the VLD is accepted (for Abram it is almost horizontal) and the forehead of the tower. Plus the sides at sharp angles.
                      2. +2
                        31 October 2022 18: 39
                        Quote: Negro
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        And what is considered the front hemisphere?

                        Usually the VLD is accepted (for Abram it is almost horizontal) and the forehead of the tower. Plus the sides at sharp angles.
                        Maximum tank protection is calculated within 30°
                        And the Abrams VLD, which has a fairly large area, has a thickness of 50mm. In the city, a little above, any, even the most ancient anti-tank grenade, is enough for the eyes to disable this tank (under it there is a driver and two fuel tanks with kerosene (left 403,3 liters and right 569,9 liters ))
                    2. +2
                      31 October 2022 17: 41
                      For purely geometric reasons, maybe not. But a turret ammunition rack for long-range BOPSs may well solve this problem. It's not about geometry, but about the desire of responsible individuals.
                      1. 0
                        31 October 2022 18: 21
                        That is, you propose to exchange our native Soviet carousel for the blasphemous French conveyor. And there and close to the knockout panels.

                        Do not go anywhere, the police of tank spirituality have already left for you.
                      2. +3
                        31 October 2022 18: 45
                        Unfortunately, I can't offer anything. But in addition to the carousel, a small stacking for 8-10 shots in a crazy hole can solve the problem of short bops.
        2. +4
          31 October 2022 06: 52
          Tanks don't fight tanks, this was proved by German generals during the Second World War.

          get back to reality. There were plenty of tank duels even in the Ukrainian theater.
        3. +5
          31 October 2022 08: 04
          Quote: Lukachevsky
          Tanks do not fight tanks, this was proved by German generals during the Second World War

          Tanks fight tanks, it was just the German generals who proved it during the Second World War. All German tanks, starting with the Tiger and long-gun threes and fours, have a pronounced imbalance in the AT.
        4. +5
          31 October 2022 10: 54
          Quote: Lukachevsky
          Tanks don't fight tanks, this was proved by German generals during the Second World War.

          Just the Germans knew how to tanks in anti-tank guns. It was for us and the Americans that WWII tanks were a means of fighting infantry.
          But the WWII experience ended with the end of WWII. After the war, tanks began to develop just in the direction of anti-tank - as evidenced by at least the composition of the BC. We even have several TOUR models for this business.
          I still remember the Soviet numbers of the ZVO with calculations of the anti-tank capabilities of the US heavy divisions, where tanks were considered one of the main anti-tank weapons, being one of the three "ATGM-tank-helicopter". And schemes with M60 and M1 firing from reverse slopes and caponiers on negative air-to-air levels at hordes of Soviet tanks rushing through Fulda Gap. smile
          1. +1
            31 October 2022 17: 51
            Just the same TUR is an indicator of the fact that the Soviet school did not want to fanatically hone the anti-tank capabilities of the gun and make a turret anti-tank sau out of the tank.
        5. +3
          31 October 2022 13: 40
          As for separate loading, then in Abrams, loading is separate, and this does not at all prevent American tanks from successfully fighting all over the planet.

          What is on the 105 mm cannon, what is on the 120 mm shots are unitary
        6. 0
          31 October 2022 18: 35
          Michael! I really did not expect a 120-mm unitary was created in length in dimensions along the length of a 105-mm unitary cartridge.
        7. Alf
          +2
          31 October 2022 20: 15
          Quote: Lukachevsky
          in Abrams, loading is separate,

          Yes, what are you? And niggas don't even know, they throw a shell in one grip ..
      2. Alf
        +2
        31 October 2022 20: 09
        Quote: Nagan
        and this, no matter how you train the loader, slowly.

        You can add a second loader to the crew.
        PS But where to stick it in the tank ??? recourse request
    4. +6
      31 October 2022 07: 30
      Quote: Lukachevsky
      It is strange that they started producing the SU-100, and not the SU-122.

      Yes, you are wrong here. Just the release began with the SU-122

      Just the limited capabilities of the T-34 base chassis made it possible to place not the most powerful gun of this caliber there. That is why they later began to produce self-propelled guns based on the T-34 in the anti-tank version of the SU-85/100
      Quote: Lukachevsky
      And then, after the war, they again stepped on the same rake, arming the T-54 with a 100-mm cannon, and not with a 122-mm cannon.

      And again you are wrong. At that time, it was the 100 mm TP that was the best option, since this tank had a large turret shoulder strap that made it possible to operate quickly with 100 mm unitars. That allowed to have a high rate of fire. Separate loading of a 122-mm tank gun did not allow such a rate of fire, even with the use of partial mechanization, as on the T-10
      Quote: Lukachevsky
      then the T-54 would be relevant now.

      Its modification is still relevant now, but with a 105-mm gun, and soon they will be on the battlefield in Ukraine
    5. +1
      31 October 2022 08: 34
      Lord, what the hell are you talking about? Armament is also affected by the presence of trunks. Were there 122 mm guns for self-propelled guns? By increasing the caliber, you need to change the wheelhouse, the weight of the self-propelled guns increases, and the Su100 was made from the Su85, this is the average weight. How much does the IS2 weigh? ISU122 weighed the same. The Su100 was made on the basis of the T34, it is impossible to put 122 mm into it, it will fall apart. Further: Abrams and T72 have smoothbore guns, which allows you to increase the caliber of the gun, although accuracy drops at a distance above 2 km, but the weight of the gun is less with the same caliber. Do you really believe that a 122 mm cannon can be put into a T54/55?
      T54 / 55 are still relevant with a 100 mm gun, including against Abrams or T72, if used wisely, from ambushes.
      1. -3
        31 October 2022 08: 48
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        The Su100 was made on the basis of the T34, it is impossible to put 122 mm into it, it will fall apart.

        Read about the SU-122P. The tests were successful, the 122 mm cannon was quite installed on the T-34 chassis, and the self-propelled guns did not fall apart.
        1. 0
          31 October 2022 18: 49
          There a duplex was developed. SU-122P and SU-D15 (with 152 mm howitzer with M-10 and D-1 ballistics).
          Again:
          Instead of the T-34-85, the main tank of the Red Army in 1944 was to be the IS-3 (prototype machine index) with a high-powered 85-mm cannon. This gave the Red Army a high-tech, well-protected, well-armed vehicle against the Nazi zoo, and, most importantly, a vehicle with sufficient ammunition. A change in the shape of the upper frontal part in the summer of 1944 would naturally follow for this machine.
          The IS tank could be produced at any of the factories producing the T-34, subject to the supply of cast armored hulls.
          At the same time, Kharkov, Sormovsky and Sverdlovsk plants could be transferred to the production of a wide range of self-propelled guns, armored vehicles and AT.
          There would be no need for ISU-122 and ISU-152 in the Red Army, in view of their complete functional replacement of the SU-122P and SU-D15.
          In this case, the production of tanks would be at the level of 12 - 15 thousand per year, and self-propelled guns, armored vehicles and ATs - about 6 - 7 thousand.
          1. +4
            31 October 2022 19: 04
            Quote: Victor Leningradets
            Instead of the T-34-85, the main tank of the Red Army in 1944 was to be the IS-3 (prototype machine index) with a high-powered 85-mm cannon.
            By this time, the T-44 was ready (the first prototype of the T-44 tank was developed in December 1943 - January 1944.) and, in my opinion, it was no worse
            1. 0
              31 October 2022 19: 15
              T-44 is the fruit of the creative work of the brilliant engineer A.A. Morozov. And - the fatal dead end of Soviet tank building. All his life, Alexander Alexandrovich stood for medium tanks with a mountain, not realizing that with the advent of the far from ideal Panther and the M-26, the time of the "middle peasants" was over. And the designers shoved all the T-54, T-55, T-62, T-72, T-80 and T-90 into this Procrustean bed.
              Joseph Yakovlevich duly understood this and, back in 1955, proposed the idea of ​​making the main tank based on a heavy, but highly mobile one. Hence the development of a gas turbine engine for a tank and hydrostatic transmission and a turret with an automatic loader. But it didn't work. We bowed too low to the one who saved us in 1942-1943. thirty-four.
      2. -1
        31 October 2022 08: 51
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        Armament is also affected by the presence of trunks. Were there 122 mm guns for self-propelled guns?

        There were more than enough barrels of 122-mm guns, it was not for nothing that they began to produce ISU-122 in parallel with ISU-152, since there were not enough 152-mm barrels, and 122-mm barrels were in excess, more than required. The front needed much fewer A-19 guns than the powerful ML-20s that were badly needed.
        1. +3
          31 October 2022 11: 06
          Quote: Lukachevsky
          There were more than enough barrels of 122-mm guns, it was not for nothing that they began to produce ISU-122 in parallel with ISU-152, since there were not enough 152-mm barrels, and 122-mm barrels were in excess, more than required.

          The second, almost more significant problem was the output of the A-19 guns. You can often hear the theory that the ISU-122 allegedly appeared due to the lack of ML-20s systems, but you can only smile at it. In May, that is, already in the second month of ISU-122 production, the first interruptions occurred with the A-19. As a result, instead of 100 cars, they passed 90, and ISU-152 turned in 135 pieces instead of 125.
          © Yu. Pasholok. ISU-122 is a heavy tank destroyer.
          Moreover, the situation when the insufficient production of ISUs with 122-mm guns was closed due to overplanned ISU-152s continued into 1945. Even the appearance of the ISU-122S did not save it - there was also not enough capacity for the production of a new gun, as a result of which two heavy tank destroyers with a 122-mm barrel had to be made in parallel.

          And they made the IS-122 on the instructions of the GABTU as a heavy tank destroyer.
      3. 0
        31 October 2022 11: 36
        Quote: Victor Sergeev
        Do you really believe that a 122 mm cannon can be put into a T54/55?

        D-25T Yugoslavs shoved into Sherman. But this is more of a tank curiosity.
        1. 0
          31 October 2022 19: 26
          Did you decide to surpass the Israelis who managed to "shove" a 4mm cannon into the M105 turret?
          1. +1
            31 October 2022 20: 33
            105 mm got up there normally, they also worked on a short rollback. Shoulder strap T-34-85 - 1600mm, Sherman - 1750, IS-2 - 1800.
            1. +1
              31 October 2022 21: 09
              And a more weighty counterweight at the stern of the tower was added. And they built a muzzle brake on the gun.
              1. +1
                31 October 2022 21: 44
                Yes, the Jews did a good job. What should have been Sherman 44th year. There were also lower options.
                1. +1
                  31 October 2022 22: 05
                  It was difficult for them to choose.
                  They didn't have a choice.
                  Or strengthening the weapons of the M4 or into battle against the T-34-85 and Pz.IV with the KwW-48 with the 75mm cannon, which is not the most "winning" in this case.
                  And the French, and it was they who helped in rearmament, had no other suitable tank guns.
        2. Alf
          0
          31 October 2022 20: 24
          Quote: Negro
          Yugoslavs shoved D-25T into Sherman

          Very interesting, can you give me some info?
          1. 0
            31 October 2022 20: 36
            Quote: Alf
            info is possible

            Google SO-122
            1. Alf
              +2
              31 October 2022 20: 58
              Quote: Negro
              Quote: Alf
              info is possible

              Google SO-122

              Thank you, I found it, but the shed ...
    6. +1
      31 October 2022 13: 09
      Quote: Lukachevsky
      A self-propelled gun with a 122mm gun would be much more effective than a self-propelled gun with a 100mm gun.
      More efficient for what? To defeat all sorts of pillboxes and barricades - yes. To fight enemy tanks - no. The Su-100, in comparison with the IS-2, had better rate of fire, armor penetration and flatness, that is, it performed anti-tank tasks more efficiently. The same garbage with the Tiger: if the IS-2 didn’t kill the Tiger from the first shot, then most likely it raked: the optics and rate of fire of the Tiger were better, and the IS-88’s 2-mm armor-piercing projectile was enough. On the other hand, the Tiger turned out to be a poor heavy tank: the caliber for the tasks of a heavy tank was too small, the power of the HE shell was insufficient to effectively support the infantry, and this was with chic armor. So the Tiger became an anti-tank self-propelled gun from a heavy tank.
      1. +1
        31 October 2022 15: 36
        Quote: bk0010
        The Su-100, in comparison with the IS-2, had better rate of fire, armor penetration and flatness, that is, it performed anti-tank tasks more efficiently.

        With the armor penetration of the "weave" is a moot point. Firstly, very often it is taken for post-war shells, the quality and design of which were much better. Secondly, as noted above, by 1944 the quality of the armor of German tanks had fallen so much that 122-152 mm calibers began to penetrate the theoretically impenetrable - simply breaking through the armor.
        ... tests showed that in fact the D-10 armor-piercing projectile pierced the upper frontal part of the German medium tank Pz.Kpfw.Panther at a distance of 1300-1400 m, and the D-25 armor-piercing projectile did the same at a distance of 2-2,5, XNUMX km.
        © Y. Pasholok
        The problem was different - for the T-34 chassis, the "weave" in the wheelhouse of the front location was the ultimate tool.
        Despite the fact that the road wheels were strengthened, and improvements were made to the suspension design of the first pair of road wheels, increased wear was observed. The first pair of road wheels not only destroyed the tires, but also showed cracks in the disks, as well as their welds. This defect turned out to be programmed, similar problems were observed in the German tank destroyer Panzer IV / 70. Strengthening the protection of the frontal part of the hull and a larger gun caused a significant overload of the bow. As a result, in the winter-spring of 1945, UZTM had to simultaneously supply units with new road wheels and develop a reinforced front road wheel and balance beam for it.
        © he
        For the 122 mm, either a new medium tank chassis was needed, or the cabin was moved to the stern, or a ready-made heavy self-propelled gun chassis. The first two options required time to develop, and they did not have time until the end of the war. And the third option had to fight. smile
      2. Alf
        +2
        31 October 2022 20: 26
        Quote: bk0010
        and the 88-mm armor-piercing projectile IS-2 was enough.

        Look where it went...
    7. +1
      31 October 2022 22: 59
      Quote: Lukachevsky
      It is strange that they started producing the SU-100, and not the SU-122. A self-propelled gun with a 122mm gun would be much more effective than a self-propelled gun with a 100mm gun. And then, after the war, they again stepped on the same rake, arming the T-54 with a 100-mm cannon, and not with a 122-mm cannon. For example, Abrams has a 120 mm gun, modern Russian tanks have a 125 mm gun. That is, if the T-54 were armed with a 122-mm cannon, then the tank of the early 50s would be armed at the level of modern tanks, and if the T-54 were equipped with dynamic protection, an active protection complex, modern fire control and electronics, then the T- 54 would still be relevant today.

      I will dwell on two points that you ignored.
      Modern 120-125mm smoothbore tank guns. The exception is the English Challenger.
      The 122mm IS gun is very close to the Gvozdika and D-30 guns. Having a separate loader without an automatic (mechanism) loader, a 122mm gun is less rate of fire.
  2. +6
    31 October 2022 04: 34
    Decommissioned IS-2s were turned into firing points on the Soviet Chinese border and in the Kuril Islands. They drove it into a caponier, removed the engine and unnecessary units, and increased ammunition was placed in the vacated space.
    1. +8
      31 October 2022 05: 13
      Quote: andrewkor
      Decommissioned IS-2s were turned into firing points on the Soviet Chinese border and in the Kuril Islands.
      1. 0
        31 October 2022 15: 22
        Is it just me or is it rotten?

        The text of your comment is too short and in the opinion of the site administration does not carry useful information.
        1. Alf
          0
          31 October 2022 20: 27
          Quote from SincerityX
          Is it just me or is it rotten?

          Rot a hundred millimeters of armor ???
          1. 0
            1 November 2022 14: 13
            Well, hell knows, he looks as if he will never go, from the word at all. And even more dangerous to shoot from it. It is unlikely that his chamber and barrel are cleaned, and the body is left red to heighten the effect.
            Although I think a hundred rusty remote-controlled ISKs (respectively, unaffected by some ammunition) would terrify the chipped ukrov. wassat The sight must have been frightening.
            1. Alf
              +2
              1 November 2022 18: 10
              Quote from SincerityX
              And even more dangerous to shoot from it.

              Agree absolutely! Suicide business.
  3. 0
    31 October 2022 07: 01
    Quote: Lukachevsky
    Quote: Nagan
    In tank duels, this can be fatal.

    Tanks don't fight tanks, this was proved by German generals during the Second World War. The main enemies of tanks are ........

    The tiger had a projectile weighing 10 kg. And the IS is 27 kg. Why? Because with a shell of only 10 kg you won’t gain much if you use a heavy tank for its intended purpose in an offensive.
    The "Tiger" was a tank designed specifically to fight tanks. Light projectile, high rate of fire and range.
    For German generals, self-propelled guns performed the function of a classic heavy tank.
    1. Alf
      -1
      31 October 2022 20: 28
      Quote: ivan2022
      For German generals, self-propelled guns performed the function of a classic heavy tank.

      ??? Which ones ?
  4. 0
    31 October 2022 07: 06
    Quote: Lukachevsky

    Of course, the couch theorist knows better. But tests back in 1944 showed that when the tank was moving, the loading speed with a long, uncomfortable 100-mm unitary was not much faster than loading with a separate 122-mm shot.

    That's why they tried to build a tank with a unitary 122mm throughout the war.
    1. +3
      31 October 2022 07: 31
      Quote from olgherd

      That's why they tried to build a tank with a unitary 122mm throughout the war.

      And then for a long time they would look for the required number of loaders for this unitar
      1. +3
        31 October 2022 13: 16
        you are right, of-462 from m-30 only a grenade weighs 22,5 kg plus a cartridge case with a charge if you combine the weight it will be oily, the English 133mm anti-aircraft guns, despite the high performance, died, including due to heavy unitars
        1. +3
          31 October 2022 15: 41
          Quote: Ryaruav
          133mm anti-aircraft guns, despite the high performance, died, including due to heavy unitars

          Not only. They proved unsuccessful due to a combination of heavy shot and small turret size.
          In the tank, the second drawback is even more pronounced.
          My favorite photo:

          Now fit this shot into the internal dimensions of the fighting compartment and imagine the loading procedure in motion. smile
        2. +2
          31 October 2022 19: 08
          Quote: Ryaruav
          if you combine the weight it will be oily

          And it’s also worth considering that you need to work with him in a limited space, and even in motion, far from flat, like a table
  5. +2
    31 October 2022 07: 11
    Quote: Lukachevsky
    It is strange that they started producing the SU-100, and not the SU-122. A self-propelled gun with a 122mm gun would be much more effective than a self-propelled gun with a 100mm gun.

    Well, they were the first to start producing the SU-122, based on the T-34 with the M-30 howitzer. It turned out to be an assault weapon. And they needed a tank destroyer and began to make the SU-85, then upgraded to the SU-100. These machines have different tasks. This is in addition to all the shortcomings of the SU-122
  6. kig
    +1
    31 October 2022 07: 20
    The history of the appearance of this tank is shown in an interesting way, and the statement that this is the "best tank" .. well, if only in the opinion of the author ..., perhaps, is somewhat debatable. If only because the idiots of choice are not indicated.
    1. -3
      31 October 2022 07: 46
      In World War II, the IS-2 was objectively the best tank. It is clearly better than the Tiger and Panther.
      1. +3
        31 October 2022 08: 08
        Quote: Lukachevsky
        In World War II, the IS-2 was objectively the best tank.

        )))
        No. But for the Soviet tank building, IS / ISU became a success.
      2. +1
        31 October 2022 09: 13
        The best - hardly. But - the most powerful.
        Our allies were not able to create a decent heavy tank at all. They drove out on medium "Shermans", but for the "Tigers" it is just a "lighter on caterpillars".
        1. 0
          31 October 2022 09: 33
          Quote: Illanatol
          Our allies could not create a decent heavy tank at all

          The Allies created several of them. But the Americans made some doctrinal mistakes, there was no place for heavy tanks in the tank forces, and the British used heavy tanks to support the infantry. The USSR had the Su-76 in this role.
          1. 0
            31 October 2022 13: 09
            Negro, bare-assed Ferdinand (Su-76) by no means will replace a tank even a T-70
            1. +2
              31 October 2022 13: 15
              He just replaced the T-70 with more than - a full-fledged 76mm cannon is much better than a 45mm with 78g of a weak Soviet amotol. But this is not the late Churchill, of course. In the matter of propping up infantry with armor, the British were at their best.
          2. 0
            31 October 2022 14: 10
            Not a single fit person capable of doing what the IS-2 is capable of.
            What comes first: doctrine or materiel ... still how to look. More often the doctrine is adjusted to the available possibilities, especially during the war, when the train has already left. For their mistakes, the Yankees suffered considerable losses in their armored vehicles. The British used "Churchilia" in the way they could be used, given the real performance characteristics. According to Sir Winston, this tank had more faults than its own.
            The USSR had a lot to support the infantry. The same IS-2 was suitable for this. With his gun, he quite effectively hit pillboxes and bunkers, clearing the way for the infantry.
            The only tank that participated in art. duel with enemy ships, and won it.
            A real imperial armored vehicle, yeah.
            1. +1
              31 October 2022 14: 52
              Quote: Illanatol
              Not a single fit person capable of doing what the IS-2 is capable of.

              The IS-2, when used correctly, acted as direct fire from the second row of tanks. The allies (and the Germans too) solved his problems with mounted fire.
              Quote: Illanatol
              More often the doctrine is adjusted to the available capabilities, especially during the war.

              Not for the Americans. They just have a purely doctrinal flaw. It turned out that even the Sherman's chassis could be loaded up to 40+ tons - but at the decisive moment, the "cavalrymen" won and the heavy versions of the tanks were considered insufficiently mobile. In fact, the Americans were engaged in infantry support by anti-tank battalions in the form of M10 and M18 - that is, vehicles that are the worst suited for infantry support.

              As for the assault vehicle, the Americans completely missed this idea - although at first the British persistently harassed them.
              Quote: Illanatol
              According to Sir Winston, this tank had more faults than its own.

              Sir Winston was one of those who, for the sake of a red word, would not spare his father. At first, the car was damp, they made a blunder in a year, but by the 44th it was a wonderful, extremely useful car. The only PAK40-resistant allied vehicle.
              Quote: Illanatol
              The same IS-2 was suitable for a similar

              Fantasy. The British tank brigades of the Churchills on an ongoing basis dragged along behind the infantry divisions. No one even thought of attaching the GvTTP to the Soviet rifle divisions. It's not their job, to be honest.
              Quote: Illanatol
              The only tank that participated in art. duel with enemy ships, and won it.

              Hunting stories.
              1. +1
                31 October 2022 20: 35
                Quote: Negro
                The IS-2, when properly used, operated direct fire from the second row of tanks.

                It's true. It's simple - the IS-2 gun made it possible to do this even from a distance of + 300m from the T-34 front line. Yes, and the defense against infantry in the IS was noticeably worse, especially in urban battles - there is no machine gun in the VLD.
                Quote: Negro
                The allies (and the Germans too) solved his problems with mounted fire.

                In what universe is direct fire replaced by mounted fire? How is it, especially with reaction time, and even when shooting at a moving target? But what about in a city with a "mounted fire"? Yes, and in one OGvTTP there were more tanks than everything that fired a "canopy" in the entire German tank division.

                Quote: Negro
                Not for the Americans. They just have a purely doctrinal flaw.

                The Americans had a coherent and very practical doctrine both in terms of supporting ground forces (M4 tank) and in terms of anti-tank weapons (M18, M10).
                Quote: Negro
                It turned out that even the Sherman's chassis could be loaded up to 40+ tons - but at the decisive moment the "cavalrymen" won and the heavy versions of the tanks were considered insufficiently mobile.

                The question arises: why load an M4 medium tank up to 40+ tons? To have forehead protection from PAK40? It won't be enough. It is worth remembering why WWII was called the war of engines. Maybe then, as you put it, the "cavalrymen" will be right? The USSR had its own "cavalrymen". The result is known 23 TVS. T-34-85 and tore to pieces 6 thousand Panthers and 6,5 thousand T-4s. And they broke, I must say ... not without the help of 30 thousand American M4 tanks.
                Quote: Negro
                In fact, the Americans were engaged in infantry support by anti-tank battalions in the form of M10 and M18 - that is, vehicles that are worst suited to support infantry.

                Why use the M18 with a 76mm cannon and a foil instead of armor, if the front is regularly supplied with M4 tanks with anti-ballistic protection and guns from 75 to 105mm "on board"? And they say that even the RS was installed on the M4. Of course, they lie, the "cavalrymen" up to the M4 with 105mm howitzers would never have thought of it. Yes, and how to put it on an M4 medium tank with a turret shoulder strap like the domestic IS-2? The Yankees would never have come to this.
                Quote: Negro
                As for the assault vehicle, the Americans completely missed this idea - although at first the British persistently harassed them.

                Americans in the 40s could not listen to anyone. The level of their engineering thought was of very high quality. A simple example is the "wonderful", "outstanding" lime gun, the same 17-pounder with its "miraculous" armor penetration. The Americans had only one test test of this "super" gun against captured German heavyweights. And that's it ... The Yankees sent the Britons away and immediately went to 90mm. And why not send if from a distance of 400 yards only 57% (!) Sub-caliber shells hit a target the size of a tank turret. The shooter with the M1 Garand rifle fired more accurately from an unstable position!
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. +2
                  31 October 2022 21: 12
                  Quote: DesToeR
                  It's true. It's simple - the IS-2 gun made it possible to do this even from a distance of + 300m from the T-34 front line.

                  Therefore, the most successful Soviet machine, in my opinion, was the ISU-122S. The rejection of the turret, which was not particularly needed in such a situation, was compensated by a significant increase in the rate of fire.

                  The Soviet command agreed with me - in the 45th part of the GvTTP was transferred to self-propelled guns.
                  Quote: DesToeR
                  In what universe is direct fire replaced by mounted fire?

                  Well, they somehow coped, and in general, not bad.
                  Quote: DesToeR
                  The Americans had a coherent and very practical doctrine both in terms of supporting ground forces (M4 tank) and in terms of anti-tank weapons (M18, M10).

                  And then the tank received a cannon from the M-10 with a weak HE, and the M-10 battalions with the same weak HE and weakened armor were actually attached to the infantry divisions. It worked just like that.
                  Quote: DesToeR
                  The question arises: why load an M4 medium tank up to 40+ tons? To have forehead protection from PAK40? It won't be enough

                  As practice has shown - just right. Jumbo made its way only with a length of 88. But the same IS-2 made its way into the tower PAK40 with some luck.
                  Quote: DesToeR
                  Maybe then, as you put it, the "cavalrymen" will be right? The USSR had its own "cavalrymen"

                  The Americans had the opportunity to make equipment not only for cavalrymen. In the 44th, the American BTT set was technically the weakest of the English, German and Soviet versions.
                  But numerous.
                  Quote: DesToeR
                  Of course, they lie, the "cavalrymen" up to the M4 with 105mm howitzers would never have thought of it. Yes, and how to put it on an M4 medium tank with a turret shoulder strap like the domestic IS-2? The Yankees would never have come to this.

                  Sherman 105 has a normal gun, both the British and the Soviets had howitzer tanks. The same T-4 was originally a howitzer tank.
                  The problem of the cavalrymen is not that there are few guns, but that there were not enough armored vehicles.
                  Quote: DesToeR
                  The Americans had only one test test of this "super" gun on captured German heavyweights

                  The trouble is that they conducted this test in the summer of the 44th. At the same time, the British had 17lbs, and the Americans had no 90mm at that time.
                  Quote: DesToeR
                  Why not send it if from a distance of 400 yards only 57% (!) Sub-caliber shells hit a target the size of a tank turret

                  Yes, the sub-caliber was a weapon of last chance in fact. Like the cumul, it was also difficult for them to hit something other than from pistol ranges. For normal situations, the Americans preferred tubeless shells (that is, no explosives at all), but with an increased charge. They showed themselves quite well.
                  1. +1
                    1 November 2022 00: 02
                    Quote: Negro
                    The rejection of the turret, which was not particularly needed in such a situation, was compensated by a significant increase in the rate of fire.

                    Oh yeah! And why today no one refuses the "not really needed" tower. After all, there are some advantages: the caliber can be safely raised to 152mm, the automatic loader can be made like a Leclerc tank (without restrictions on the length of the projectile / cartridge case), more free accommodation of the crew / equipment.
                    Quote: Negro
                    The Soviet command agreed with me - in the 45th part of the GvTTP was transferred to self-propelled guns.

                    That's just not necessary to give out need for virtue. We look at the losses and rates of formation / replenishment of OGvTTP.
                    Quote: Negro
                    In the 44th, the American BTT set was technically the weakest of the English, German and Soviet versions.

                    Wow. And why did they take this Lime Sherman without embarrassment, but in commercial quantities?
                    Quote: Negro
                    But numerous.

                    Already warmer. The truth is somewhere near. It turns out that it is not enough to create a tank that has no analogues in the world ... the military, here are the bastards, they want these "toys" in commercial quantities in the troops. Probably these lampoons know something about logistics and that wars are won by large battalions. But it is not exactly.
                    Quote: Negro
                    Sherman 105 has a normal gun

                    Yeah it was. And for field targets, did this 105 work worse than the 76mm of the M18?
                    Quote: Negro
                    The problem of the cavalrymen is not that there are few guns, but that there were not enough armored vehicles.

                    And in a war, as in a war, cartridges, vodka, shag are worth the price. Do you know the army in WWII where the generals had enough of everything? Me not.
                    Quote: Negro
                    At the same time, the British had 17lbs, and the Americans had no 90mm at that time.

                    Was and what? What is the use of such a gun, which at a distance of 800 yards hit the same target with only every seventh shell (14%)? And this, for a second, is 1944 with its increased ranges of effective firing at a tank-type target. The anti-aircraft gun was adapted to the tank and everything became OK. In general, they went the German / Soviet path beaten before the Americans by adapting anti-aircraft guns to tanks. And they didn't fail.
                    Quote: Negro
                    For normal situations, the Americans preferred tubeless shells (that is, no explosives at all), but with an increased charge.

                    For normal situations, the Americans and the Soviets preferred aviation first, then artillery. The 76mm cannon of the M4 tank was not inferior (to put it mildly) in penetrating the Soviet tank 85mm. For the German T-3, T-4, T-5, T-6, why more? I do not argue more is better than less, more is much better than less. Then it was necessary to immediately go to 127mm.
                    1. +2
                      1 November 2022 01: 06
                      Quote: DesToeR
                      Oh yeah! And why today no one refuses the "not really needed" tower.

                      Because it is no longer required to insert Msta into the body for direct fire. Mounted fire is enough.
                      Quote: DesToeR
                      That's just not necessary to give out need for virtue

                      Are you saying that the production of the IS-2 did not keep up with the losses? What a nuisance.
                      Quote: DesToeR
                      Wow. And why did they take this Lime Sherman without embarrassment, but in commercial quantities?

                      Sherman, of course, was part of the "English set" of equipment. I wrote about technology in the troops, not about production. The British have both a well-armored Churchill and a penetrating Fairfday. The Americans only have Shermans 75 and 76, plus self-propelled guns with the same 76mm gun.

                      Quote: DesToeR
                      Probably these lampoons know something about logistics and that wars are won by large battalions. But it is not exactly.

                      Ultimately not accurate. The Americans in the 44th sharply reduced the production of tanks - it was excessive. But a logical exchange of quantity for quality also did not happen.
                      Quote: DesToeR
                      And for field targets, did this 105 work worse than the 76mm of the M18?

                      Better, of course. Unfortunately, this machine was not attached to the infantry. It was used mainly in tank divisions.

                      For shooting from closed positions.
                      Quote: DesToeR
                      Was and what? The point is from such a gun, which at a distance of 800 yards hit the same target with only every seventh shell (14%)

                      Her caliber is also stronger than the American one. Like a landmine, by the way.

                      And you are not comparing. 17 lbs equivalent to 76mm. The analogue of 90 mm was 3,7 inches, it is also 32 pounds. But the British did not need it.
                      Quote: DesToeR
                      For normal situations, the Americans and the Soviets preferred aviation first, then artillery.

                      About Soviet rachitic art is especially funny, not to mention aviation. The Americans, yes, fired at the panthers from howitzers. It didn't make much sense, but anyway.
                      Quote: DesToeR
                      The 76mm gun of the M4 tank was not inferior (to put it mildly) in penetrating the Soviet tank 85mm

                      Didn't give up.
                      Quote: DesToeR
                      For the German T-3, T-4, T-5, T-6, why more?

                      For early cars, up to and including the Tiger, it is enough - this was the calculation. But for later machines, starting with the Hetzer (Jagdpanzer, Panther, Jagdpanther, Tiger2), this gun is not enough.
                      Quote: DesToeR
                      Then it was necessary to immediately go to 127mm.

                      There are some hiccups, but yes. A Sherman with a 90mm + self-propelled gun with a 4" or 5" naval gun, or a 4,5" hull gun, or a 6" howitzer would be a much better solution.

                      In general, the best solution is to do like the Germans. There is a base of a certain weight, there is a tank on it and several types of self-propelled guns with different balances for different tasks.
                      1. +2
                        1 November 2022 11: 39
                        Quote: Negro
                        Because it is no longer required to insert Msta into the body for direct fire. Mounted fire is enough.

                        You are confusing something. Msta and similar vehicles fire from closed positions. The principle "I see - I shoot" does not work there. The reaction time from the moment of detection to the defeat is unacceptably long. Even with the UAV.
                        Quote: Negro
                        Are you saying that the production of the IS-2 did not keep up with the losses?

                        Do you know a tank that kept up with the losses and the military said: stop, that's enough for now?
                        Quote: Negro
                        Sherman, of course, was part of the "English set" of equipment.

                        Oh, that's soft and so diplomatic. The Sherman was the most massive tank model in service with the British.
                        Quote: Negro
                        The British have both a well-armored Churchill and a penetrating Fairfday.

                        Churchill was a weakly armed machine, and only one thing can be said about Firefly - on board he had that very oblique 17 pounds.
                        Quote: Negro
                        And you are not comparing. 17 lbs equivalent to 76mm.

                        I am comparing something. The Americans decided not to standardize this ridicule and immediately left on their new 90mm tanks.

                        Quote: Negro
                        For early cars, up to and including the Tiger, it is enough - this was the calculation. But for later machines, starting with the Hetzer (Jagdpanzer, Panther, Jagdpanther, Tiger2), this gun is not enough.

                        Well, probably, the Americans were friends with mathematics and its section called "Probability Theory". And yes, building a child prodigy for 500 ... 700 vehicles with frontal armor from 150mm makes no sense from the word at all. By the standards of WWII, the Tiger2, Jagdtigr and Fedya were not mass-produced vehicles, but prototypes in the amount of an installation military batch for testing in the fields. The panther was weakly armored from the forehead (tower + -30gr, and NLD - 60mm). The Jagdpanther was without a turret, and here its sides of 50mm are already a big minus.
                        Quote: Negro
                        In general, the best solution is to do like the Germans. There is a base of a certain weight, there is a tank on it and several types of self-propelled guns with different balances for different tasks.

                        They did the same in the USSR. On the basis of the T-34, two tank destroyers and one fire support were created, on the basis of the KV / IS - two self-propelled guns (122mm and 152mm). They released enough of these cars, especially in comparison with the Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger. When you mention the Germans, you forget that only the Panther was really the mass machine of the new generation among the Nazis. Everything else they released in quantities from a few dozen to several hundred pieces. It was negligible in WWII.
                      2. +2
                        1 November 2022 12: 30
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        You are confusing something. Msta and others like her

                        The gun was meant as an analogue of the ML-20.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Do you know a tank that kept up with the losses

                        It is rather strange that the IS-2 did not keep up with losses, if its production was continuously growing in 1/1 44, in August 44 it reached 250 cars per month and did not change anymore.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        The Sherman was the most massive tank model in service with the British.

                        Naturally. Not only was it a successful car in general (unlike the T20 series), it also had one huge and unique plus - it was free.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Churchill was a weakly armed machine

                        The 75 mm gun of the first Sherman to support the infantry is just right.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Firefly can only say one thing - on board he had that very oblique 17 pounds.

                        You seem to be stuck. You point out the problem of the accuracy of the first sub-calibers, which really existed, but ignore the usual APs, which the British had worse than the panther cannon.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        The Americans decided not to standardize this ridicule and immediately left on their new 90mm tanks.

                        When the Americans learnedthat it’s not enough for the Panthers from the anti-aircraft guns from the First World War - in the summer of the 44th year they found out - they asked for guns from the British and were sent. Naturally, taking an anti-aircraft gun in production was faster than mastering a new gun. Fortunately for the Americans, they took care of the AP for anti-aircraft guns in advance - even at the beginning of the war they took note of the German experience.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Well, probably, the Americans were friends with mathematics and its section called "Probability Theory".

                        No. The Americans actually did not have strategic intelligence and staff dreamers could rub points to the authorities. Say Panther is Goebbels propaganda.
                        And as a result, they received 7000 vehicles with a panther gun (Panther and Jagdpanzer V70) and 1500 vehicles with a length of 88. For comparison, the production of IS-2 and ISU-122 is about 5 thousand.

                        Quote: DesToeR
                        They did the same in the USSR.

                        The USSR had a problem with small series, so the best example is the German platform 3/4. Here is the whole bouquet of self-propelled guns.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Everything else they released in quantities from a few dozen to several hundred pieces. It was negligible in WWII.

                        The production of German vehicles with above-average anti-tank capabilities is given higher.
                      3. 0
                        1 November 2022 14: 46
                        Quote: Negro
                        It is rather strange that the IS-2 did not keep up with losses, if its production was continuously growing in 1/1 44, in August 44 it reached 250 cars per month and did not change anymore.

                        What's strange? Large losses as a result of the offensives of 1944 ... 1945. And far from always from geeks - no one removed the motor resource from the agenda.
                        Quote: Negro
                        The 75 mm gun of the first Sherman to support the infantry is just right.

                        So after all, Sherman with his 75mm, in your opinion, is "not a cake." And what about the armor penetration of this heavy? Panther in the forehead does not pierce?


                        Quote: Negro
                        You seem to be stuck.

                        Ah, how unpleasant it is to hear the truth about WWII myths. Yes, the Americans put on this gun and already in November 1943 they began mass production of the M36 with a 90mm gun. Built more than 2300 machines. What "summer 1944" are you talking about?


                        Quote: Negro
                        And as a result, they received 7000 vehicles with a panther gun (Panther and Jagdpanzer V70)

                        Which made their way into the side armor of the regular allied anti-tank guns. Yes, the heading angles of maneuvering and the rotation of the tower have not been canceled. After the summer of 1943, Panther was no longer interested in anyone, either in terms of armor or in terms of weapons. The number one target was Ferdinand with his 200mm frontal armor and 88mm/L=71.
                        Quote: Negro
                        and 1500 cars with a length of 88

                        This is a minuscule by the standards of WWII, which was located on four (!) Completely different chassis (T4 / 3, Panterv, Tiger 2, Fedya). Moreover, the gun was good in anti-tank capabilities, but in terms of fire support, this gun was not much different from the 85mm on the T-34-85 tank (see issue for 1943 ... April 1945). And if you really like to compare everything in a row with the Germans under 88mm / L = 71, then where in your statistics are 1350 pieces. SAU SU-100 (September 1944 ... April 1945)?

                        Quote: Negro
                        The USSR had a problem with small series

                        More is better than less, more is much better than less. The problem is only in the head. On the basis of the T-34, both support self-propelled guns (SU-122) and tank destroyers (SU-85 and SU-100) were produced.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. +2
                        1 November 2022 16: 38
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        What's strange? Heavy losses as a result of the offensives of 1944 ... 1945

                        With an increase in production, losses should not lead to the transfer of subdivisions to equipment of a different type. However, it is necessary to look at specific cases.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        So after all, Sherman with his 75mm, in your opinion, is "not a cake"

                        Sherman is the best tank of 42, but in 44 the situation is different. It does not penetrate new German technology (unlike IS and Firefly) and is not protected from Pak40 (unlike Churchill). Churchill's cannon is optimal for infantry support. THIS tank really should not fight with tanks. To work against tanks, the Churchills were reinforced by Achilles with 17 pounds.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        started serial production of the M36 with a 90mm gun. Over 2300 machines built

                        I twist and turn I want to deceive. In April, the production of M36 began, as many as 20 pieces. There are none on D-Day; the first units arrived in October of the 44th, when Eisenhower shouted "Polundra!" has been running on the ceiling for three months now. Just after the tests you mentioned.
                        The British have 342 fireflies and about a hundred Achilles in units on D-Day. For comparison, 2 pieces of IS-570 were produced by June.
                        Of your 2300 cars, 724 are post-war, another 835 are from November 44 and later.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        What "summer 1944" are you talking about?

                        About the summer of 44, when the British ended up with such a bad 17lb, and the Americans with their magic 76mm anti-aircraft gun of 1918, aka 3inch M7. The 90mm gun for the summer of 44 was only available in a towed version.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        Which made their way into the side armor of the regular allied anti-tank guns.

                        The regular Allied anti-tank gun, 6 pounds, pierced the Tiger in the forehead. However, there were problems with the front hemisphere of the listed German cars until the saturation of the M36, that is, in fact, until spring.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        became Ferdinand with his 200mm frontal armor and 88mm/L=71.

                        Just Fedya in the fall of the 44th was an endangered beast. The problem was the relatively massive Panther.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        This is a minuscule by the standards of WWII,

                        This is the entire military issue of the ISU-122
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        then where in your statistics are 1350 pcs. SAU SU-100 (September 1944 ... April 1945)?

                        They are not here. The first application is March 45.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        More is better than less, more is much better than less.

                        No. The USSR drove the plan along the shaft, having an acute shortage of specialized equipment. Each barrel plug was not even a T-34-85, but the mentioned Su-76.
                        Quote: DesToeR
                        On the basis of the T-34, both support self-propelled guns (SU-122) and tank destroyers (SU-85 and SU-100) were produced.

                        Yes. But this is only part of the ACS options.
              2. 0
                2 November 2022 09: 30
                Quote: Negro
                The IS-2, when used correctly, acted as direct fire from the second row of tanks. The allies (and the Germans too) solved his problems with mounted fire.


                Tank guns? Was mounted fire equally effective against German heavy tanks and against pillboxes?

                It turned out that even the Sherman's chassis could be loaded up to 40+ tons - but at the decisive moment the "cavalrymen" won and the heavy versions of the tanks were considered insufficiently mobile.


                Even? Did they have other chassis options? And more powerful engines - too?
                Of course, the mobility (and patency) of a tank is an important factor.
                Well, creating more powerful engines and chassis already during the war was stressful. I had to make do with what I had.
                In fairness, the Yankees fought more and more with the Japanese. It was sour for the Japanese with tanks ... so they didn’t bother with the creation of such models of armored vehicles.

                Whether the "Churchills" could compete on equal terms with the T-5 and T-6 is a big question.

                No one even thought of attaching the GvTTP to the Soviet rifle divisions.


                More like they gave it.

                https://arsenal-info.ru/images/img-3_3/tanki-tank-is-2-dvigatel-ves_3.jpeg

                GvTTP and were used for the qualitative reinforcement of units and subunits intended to break through advance and well-fortified enemy lines, as well as storm cities.
                Do you think tanks are able to carry out an assault on fortifications and cities without infantry support?
                A new word in tactics... laughing

                1. 0
                  2 November 2022 10: 56
                  Quote: Illanatol
                  Tank guns?

                  Americans used to have fun. But mostly howitzers.
                  Quote: Illanatol
                  Was mounted fire equally effective against German heavy tanks and against pillboxes?

                  The Americans did not complain about shell hunger and had large calibers in abundance, so the pillbox would not run away anywhere. As for tanks, the main benefit of howitzers was that infantry was cut off from tanks. Without infantry, a tank is much less useful.
                  Quote: Illanatol
                  Even? Did they have other chassis options? And more powerful engines - too?

                  Oh sure. The M6 ​​weighing 60 tons was supposed to go into production for 5 thousand vehicles (I remind you that about 6 thousand Panthers were produced, about 4 thousand ISs), but after discussing the African experience, the order was not forced, like work on ISs, but rather canceled.
                  Quote: Illanatol
                  Well, creating more powerful engines and chassis already during the war was stressful

                  The Americans had no particular problems with 500-700 horsepower engines, as well as with a suspension of 7-8 tons per skating rink.
                  Quote: Illanatol
                  Also how they gave

                  And why did you get the idea that the photo shows a rifle division, and not panzergrenadiers of a tank or at least a mechanized corps? With whom the OGvTTP worked.
                  Quote: Illanatol
                  Do you think tanks are able to carry out an assault on fortifications and cities without infantry support?

                  I believe that the Churchill brigade assigned to the infantry division is one thing, and a separate tank or self-propelled regiment added to the tank corps is another matter. It's all about different things. Su-76 divisions of 12 vehicles each worked with Soviet rifle divisions, but not all divisions had them even at the end of the war.
                  1. 0
                    2 November 2022 13: 27
                    Quote: Negro
                    And why did you get the idea that the photo shows a rifle division, and not panzergrenadiers of a tank or at least a mechanized corps? With whom the OGvTTP worked.


                    What's the actual difference? Infantry is infantry, whatever you call it.
                    Although there were definitely no "panzergrenadiers" in the Red Army. Not our terminology, however.
                    The tanks supported the infantry ... in which units and formations - the fifth thing. Who really needed it - that was given such a "strengthening".
                    And to constantly keep heavy tanks in the infantry division / brigade, even when the division is in the second echelon or in reserve - to smear a valuable resource with a thin layer, using it in an inefficient way.
                    The Soviet practice of using heavy tanks seems to me more rational (fortunately, the circulation of heavy tanks was really small in all the then armies).

                    The M6 ​​weighing 60 tons was supposed to go into production for 5 thousand vehicles (I remind you that about 6 thousand Panthers were produced, about 4 thousand ISs), but after discussing the African experience, the order was not forced, like work on ISs, but rather canceled.


                    You did the right thing, by the way.
                    Why, with all their high technologies, they could not enter the mass of the tank within reasonable limits? laughing
                    1. 0
                      2 November 2022 14: 08
                      Quote: Illanatol
                      What's the actual difference?

                      Quantity difference. Count how many infantry there were in all 24 Soviet such corps of the 45th year.
                      Quote: Illanatol
                      Not our terminology, however.

                      On the other hand, it allows dividing the infantry in the tank corps, 3215 staff members into all three tank brigades of the corps, and the infantry of the rifle division. These are two different infantry. In the first case, the infantry supports the tanks, and not vice versa.
                      Quote: Illanatol
                      The Soviet practice of using heavy tanks seems to me more rational

                      Judging by this dialogue, you do not know her. But yes, 5 thousand Churchills to the English section of the Western Front is one thing, 3800 ISs to the entire Soviet-German front is another matter.
                      Quote: Illanatol
                      could not enter the mass of the tank within reasonable limits?

                      The mass of the first tiger is a relatively reasonable limit. There were also options in the weight of 40-50 tons, of which the only one used was Jumbo. Again, too late.
      3. -4
        31 October 2022 11: 18
        if you look at the characteristics without considering reliability, repairs, etc., but purely performance characteristics, then the tank is clearly better than the Tiger, Panther - the t-62 has already become .. t-55 is approximately at the same level .. IS-2 . Because from 2 km or less - Tiger, Panther also completely pierced the forehead of the IS-1,5, and further than 2-1 km - our sights were still rather weak for a tank battle, and this was only for an open field basically a parameter, mostly up to 1,5 km, the battles went with "mutual penetration" .. therefore, the IS-1,5 is a good tank and powerful, but
        Quote: Lukachevsky
        It is clearly better than the Tiger and Panther.

        not worse, yes, definitely better, no..
      4. +2
        31 October 2022 19: 00
        Absolutely true!
        This is exactly how the Americans assessed it based on the results of tests at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. And the point is not even in the list of advantages (which are full), but also in the absence of shortcomings of the "unparalleled" German Wunderwaffe.
        The main thing is philosophy. J.Ya. Kotin believed that a tank is a machine that implements the principle: "I saw it - I destroyed it!". And what is there in the sight: "Tiger-2", a multi-storey building, a field fortification - it does not matter.
        At the same time, the tank itself should be extremely difficult to destroy.
  7. +1
    31 October 2022 08: 03
    Quote: svp67
    Quote from olgherd

    That's why they tried to build a tank with a unitary 122mm throughout the war.

    And then for a long time they would look for the required number of loaders for this unitar

    Nevertheless, such work was carried out even on the T-44. According to EC-2, there was GKO decree No. 6868, where it was proposed to introduce a unitary. However, experiments have shown that it has become even worse.
  8. +4
    31 October 2022 08: 16
    On the one hand, the author did a good job of drawing attention to the anti-tank capabilities of the A-19. Here I would add that the first IS-2s had an A-19 with a conventional piston breech, that is, the price for this gun was VERY high in terms of rate of fire. However, they made such a decision and, probably, they were right.

    On the other hand, the author is careless. Even leaving aside the Panther, which fans of the Soviet school either write in or write out of heavy tanks, the most massive "ordinary" heavy tank is the Churchill. The IS-2 will turn out to be the most massive only if you also write out an Englishman from heavy to infantry.
    1. -2
      31 October 2022 11: 01
      the most massive "ordinary" heavy tank - Churchill

      You count all modifications as a bunch. If we count one modification, then the IS-2 is the most massive. The preface says so: the most massive model, not a number of models.

      Even leaving out the Panther, which fans of the Soviet school either write in or write out of heavy tanks

      I can't call myself a direct admirer of the Soviet school. And the Germans themselves, despite many empty discussions, did not call the Panther either a medium or a heavy tank. If someone shows the original German document, which would officially call the Panther a medium or heavy tank, there will be a small archival revolution.
      1. +3
        31 October 2022 11: 20
        Found a way to get out.

        The ISs had a lot of upgrades, including the hull and gun. At a minimum, mod 43 with a broken VLD and mod 44 with a straight line are distinguished. But the USSR did not distinguish between modifications by separate indices. The same T-34-76s were made no matter what, but they are all considered one model.
        1. -2
          31 October 2022 12: 40
          Against the backdrop of Churchill alterations, these are minor changes. On the IS-2, the frontal part was straightened. And on Churchill 7 they generally made a new building and tower.
          1. +2
            31 October 2022 13: 11
            Quote from: geraet4501
            Against the backdrop of Churchill alterations, these are minor changes. Frontal part straightened on IS-2

            You are resting in vain. Well, they forgot Churchill and forgot, who the hell needs him.
        2. 0
          31 October 2022 19: 17
          Model T-34-76 is one.
          Only each plant produced it differently!
          "Krasnoye Sormovo" and STZ put up "pie" towers to the end. The rest switched to "hex nuts". Cast or stamped. Then with the commander's cupola.
          Additional tanks were different. They even welded the hulls each in their own way.
          And then "one model" ...
          1. +1
            31 October 2022 20: 39
            Quote: hohol95
            Only each plant produced it differently!

            Not only. Different guns, different engines, different transmissions, different turrets, different hull design. It's like the tank is the same.
            1. 0
              31 October 2022 21: 10
              So one, but there are many samples of this tank!
    2. +3
      31 October 2022 11: 52
      Quote: Negro
      sometimes they enter, then they write out of heavy tanks

      In our opinion, it is measured by weight.
      The Mems seem to have guns.
      So it's heavy.
  9. 0
    31 October 2022 09: 10
    Quote: bayard
    rate of fire Is-2 122 mm. the gun was extremely low and in a battle with the Tiger and Panther tanks, with simultaneous detection, the enemy had an advantage.


    Is not a fact. Only if the tanks were on a collision course. And if the IS-2 turned out to be on the side, from the flank? Here, not only the rate of fire matters, but also the time of rotation of the tower. The "Tigers" did not do well with this.
    In addition, there could be more ISs on the battlefield than Tigers. This is not a one-on-one jousting tournament. So the number of shots per unit of time, in this situation, the Soviet side will have more. With all the consequences...
  10. 0
    31 October 2022 13: 03
    an article like a Soviet-era modeller-designer, yes, the IS-2 would have been the best tank of the Second World War if they had put a gun from the Tiger-1 (Baryatinsky) on it, although the gun from the Tiger-2 is even better, the German designers showed how to work with internal ballistics, and ours followed the path of external ballistics, that is, greatly increasing the caliber, when two is-2 and two tiger-1 met at a distance of 500-800 m, the victory was for the tiger, but it’s good that such duels were rare because the corps and the army are fighting in full force and there was enough to destroy enemy tanks
  11. +2
    31 October 2022 13: 46
    Of the tank builders, only Zeiss is mentioned - how else, Dukhov and Kotin have absolutely nothing to do with it. The author also forgot to indicate outstanding tank builders like the USSR People's Commissar of the Tank Industry Saltsman (expelled from the party - he robbed workers to supply his relatives in Moscow, along with his accomplice Rappoport) and Ginzburg - filling up all the topics for which it was taken.
    1. 0
      31 October 2022 15: 50
      Quote: Vladimir Michailovich
      Of the tank builders, only Zeiss is mentioned, how could it be otherwise, Dukhov and Kotin have absolutely nothing to do with it.

      And what was the contribution of Dukhov and Kotin to the KV-13 and IS? Well, except for the murky story with the death of Zeitz after a tense conversation with Kotin?
      But Shashmurin is not mentioned completely in vain.
      1. +2
        31 October 2022 19: 06
        Zh.Ya.Kotin headed the team and was responsible for all promising developments. And he put forward the idea of ​​\u25b\uXNUMXbinstalling the D-XNUMX in the IS tower, and most importantly defended personally before the Supreme - it was he. And he fell into disgrace when he spoke unflatteringly about the methods of leadership of N.S. Khrushchev.
    2. 0
      1 November 2022 23: 36
      I didn't forget anyone. Zeitz is mentioned only in the context of the new name of the tank, which will later be transferred to a number of iconic vehicles. The article has a certain format, including in terms of volume, it is not rubber. Want all the details - at the end of the list of links.
  12. -4
    31 October 2022 13: 50
    Quote from: geraet4501
    100-mm armor-piercing shells appeared late and limped in quality

    What are you talking about? The technology for the production of armor-piercing shells was the same, regardless of the caliber. There were no secrets between individual industries and engineering teams.
    1. Alf
      +1
      31 October 2022 20: 35
      Quote: Vladimir Michailovich
      The technology for the production of armor-piercing shells was the same, regardless of caliber.

      Remember the epic with 45-mm shells at the beginning of the Second World War? It seems that everything is clear and understandable, the technology is the same, only individual batches of shells turned out to be overheated and corny destroyed when they hit the armor.
      1. +2
        1 November 2022 10: 28
        Quote: Alf
        Remember the epic with 45-mm shells at the beginning of the Second World War? It seems that everything is clear and understandable, the technology is the same, only individual batches of shells turned out to be overheated and corny destroyed when they hit the armor.

        This episode started earlier. They knew about overheated 45-mm BBS back in the late 30s. The documents of that time mentioned that, despite all the orders, defective shells have not yet been withdrawn from the troops.
        And with the 45-mm BBS, the problem was not industrial, but constructive. Even when a high-quality BBS was taken during the tests in 1940, it turned out that it did not give tabular armor penetration for German-type armor (K = 2600). The maximum possible is 40 mm from 150 m at a meeting angle of 30 degrees from the normal. The situation was corrected only in November 1941, when, at the cost of reducing the mass of the projectile penetrating the armor, it was possible to raise the armor penetration to tabular values ​​(Hartz shells with localizers).
        1. Alf
          0
          1 November 2022 18: 12
          Quote: Alexey RA
          when, at the cost of reducing the mass of the projectile penetrating the armor, it was possible to raise the armor penetration to tabular values ​​(Hartz shells with localizers).

          Didn't know, thanks!
  13. -1
    31 October 2022 13: 55
    Quote: Ryaruav
    if they put a gun from tiger-1 (Baryatinsky) on it, although

    What are you talking about - a clown? Do you have problems with arithmetic? The action of a high-explosive projectile weighing 28 and 9 kg does not differ in your opinion? Yes, and the 88-mm Tiger IS-2 cannon with a straight nose did not penetrate, from anyone! distances.
  14. 0
    31 October 2022 14: 14
    Quote: Level 2 Advisor
    if you look at the characteristics without considering - reliability, repair, etc.,


    This is only possible in WoT.
    Forget about "shooters" and get back to reality. In it, these characteristics are still important.
    By the way, how much "Tiger" could drive on a full tank, and how much IS-2?
    This is also of great importance.
  15. +1
    31 October 2022 14: 18
    Quote: Lukachevsky
    Tanks do not fight tanks

    The main weapon against a tank is the same tank! Well, or self-propelled guns.
    That's how it was in World War II...
  16. 0
    31 October 2022 17: 40
    Quote: Alexey RA
    And what was the contribution of Dukhov and Kotin to the KV-13 and IS?

    What does the KV-13 and IS-5 have to do with the IS-2? Zeiss, as usual, wanted to leave on deception, promising from three boxes, and as a result, zilch. In general, the same swindler as Ginzburg, Taubin or Sylvansky (protege of the blockhead Kaganovich) . It's a pity that only Taubin was shot.
  17. +2
    31 October 2022 17: 43
    Quote: Luminman
    The main weapon against a tank is the same tank! Well, or self-propelled guns.
    So it was in World War II.

    No, there wasn’t such a thing, you don’t have to fantasize. Are there statistics, too lazy to look?
  18. 0
    31 October 2022 18: 01
    Through which hatch did the driver take his place in the IS-2?
    1. +3
      31 October 2022 19: 08
      Through the tower He did not have his hatch.
      1. 0
        31 October 2022 21: 39
        It sucks. As in a trap, he is there at home - if something happens, do not pull it out!
        1. +1
          31 October 2022 21: 46
          Then lengthen the body or make it wider.
          And this is a deviation from the given parameters.
          IS-3 received a driver's hatch.
          On the T-64, under certain circumstances, the driver's mechanic and the hatch did not help. And he could not get into the fighting compartment. The loading mechanism "cut off" it from the fighting compartment.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. +2
            1 November 2022 19: 19
            The presence of a hatch on the IS-3 does not simplify the problem of evacuating a wounded driver too much - the hatch is very small, the gun barrel is above it.
            I understand everything - the designers tried their best, cut out a little space for the hatch. "The field for maneuver" was small for them.
  19. +3
    31 October 2022 18: 12
    It should be clarified that by the fall of 1944, the transmission and chassis were pulled up to an acceptable level. Reports from the Baltics and the Balkans in the autumn of 1944 noted that many IS-2s traveled 1200-1500 km without serious complaints about the undercarriage, engine and transmission. Particularly noteworthy are the reports of the 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian fronts, where through Romania the troops went to Hungary on the arc, bypassing the Carpathians, and the ISs wound hundreds of kilometers on their tracks. The reports noted that, compared with the spring, the reliability of the chassis and transmission of the ISs increased dramatically.
  20. +1
    31 October 2022 18: 37
    The article is good, it should be noted, but for some reason the authors of the site in articles about weapons in a circle "grind" mass samples, about which there is already a lot of information and pay very little attention to equipment that was produced in small quantities, but no less interesting in technical terms .
    Who, for example, can name the types of Italian heavy tanks that participated in World War II? And they were.
    1. +2
      31 October 2022 19: 09
      The Italians also had railway armored cars.
      "Hands" will reach them too.
      1. 0
        31 October 2022 19: 12
        "Hands" will reach them too.

        Are you privy to the creative plans of the author?
        1. +1
          31 October 2022 19: 33
          Same as you!
          Just expressing my own "hope" for reading articles about a little known technique or event.
          1. 0
            31 October 2022 19: 37
            Just expressing my own "hope" for reading articles about a little known technique or event.

            Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'entrate

            Dante Alighieri, Inferno, canto 3, stanza 3
            1. +1
              31 October 2022 19: 56
              Wait and see...
              warspot.ru
              Heavy tank in Italian
              WWII tanks Italy
              Yuri Pasholok 22 Oct '18
              "During the Second World War, heavy tanks used in combat operations were mass-produced by only four countries: the USSR, Germany, Great Britain and Italy. At the same time, the English Churchill was officially designated as an "infantry tank" at home, and the Italian Carro Armato P 40 was heavy only on paper. In addition, the Italians themselves did not use their heavy tanks in battles - they went to the Germans. "
  21. +1
    31 October 2022 18: 59
    Quote: Vladimir Michailovich
    It's a pity that only Taubin was shot.

    And even that was shot in vain, as it turned out later.
  22. 0
    31 October 2022 19: 03
    I love reading articles about tankers and gunners! good There are so many comments and links that the article is no longer needed!
    But interesting to read, that's a plus.
  23. 0
    31 October 2022 20: 46
    Thank you, Dmitry, for a good article.
    For many years I walked, and then went to work past our IS-2, installed at the Kirov plant. I was always amazed by the breakthrough design, which combines the utmost simplicity of execution with the combat power packed into this volume.
    The car, as they say, turned out. This is also evidenced by the numbers of the release of 1944 - 1945. And in vain, some commentators are trying to re-compare the Panther and Tiger-2 with the IS-2. The comparison was made for them by the war. Her sentence is final - IS-2 against the backdrop of the defeated Reichstag.
    Of course, the tank had its drawbacks, but an attempt to eliminate them led to completely different vehicles - the crude IS-3 and the T-10A, which was optimal for its time.
    1. +1
      31 October 2022 21: 56
      IS-4 missed or forgotten. And such was.
      Released from 230 to 260 cars.
      1. +1
        1 November 2022 06: 34
        Revenge of Saltzman!
        How, I remember this creation of the team of N.L. Dukhov. Armor - around, protection from KWK-43. And all this was shoved into 60 tons. Indeed, a breakthrough tank for starting a war. The trouble happened during shelling in 1947 from a promising weapon - smoothbore systems with sub-caliber and cumulative projectiles. It turned out that the side projection is absolutely permeable, despite the thickness, and the frontal one has no advantages over the IS-3. Well, why the extra 14 tons?
        And so the car is good! Especially the manual transmission.
        1. 0
          2 November 2022 06: 05
          Just now I thought - but the IS-4 is an ideal infantry tank! He would have replaced the 122-mm cannon with a twin 152-mm howitzer plus VYa-23 or NS-37 - and there would have been no price for such a tank in 1944. Even with a 520 hp diesel engine. and speed not more than 30 km/h. The infantry doesn't need more.
  24. +3
    31 October 2022 21: 39
    Oh my god, I'm old...
    The IS-2 was my regular tank in the army. I spent a lot of time in it. I even slept inside on a cannon on the breech ... as I remember now, the years of production 1944 were stamped there ...
    By the way, the tank had automation. The tower was rotated by electric motors, as well as the gun was raised and lowered. Even surprising. Although there were manual krutilki.
    You really didn't have to shoot him. They were not in that condition. Only with the IS-3. Regular. This tank was already completely different, it was a breakthrough into the future of tank building. Foundation of the basics.
    Therefore, separate loading went by hand on that 122 caliber. On the same gun. And when the gun inside rolls back past you when fired, it's impressive.
    And the sound from the outside from the shot ... even if standing behind the tank, it penetrates to the depths of the soul.
    Although I always thought that the IS-2 was a bloated thirty-four, which was stupidly increased in size, put a big gun and removed one member. Radio operator arrow. Although the members are not so simple. The commander was He had a gunner between his legs, a loader on the other side of the gun.
    The mechanic below was alone in the middle. One, all alone...
    Transbaikal Military District. Border with China. In Soviet times. There were many of these tanks dug into concrete with manholes, both active and in a state of scrap metal. IS-2 and IS-3...
    Now you can see from above everything was communized by the capitalists during perestroika. Fortified areas are long gone. And on this, many may have risen, the property there was unmeasured ...
  25. +2
    31 October 2022 22: 23
    All the same, "the best SOVIET heavy tank of World War II"
  26. 0
    1 November 2022 00: 26
    Quote: Alf
    Remember the epic with 45-mm shells at the beginning of the Second World War? It seems that everything is clear and understandable, the technology is the same, only individual batches of shells turned out to be overheated and corny collapsed when they hit the armor

    What kind of snowstorm is this? Violation of technology equally affects the quality of shells of any caliber - your cap!
    1. +1
      1 November 2022 07: 26
      Don't get excited, Oleg Mikhailovich.
      Scale matters a lot. With the same grades of steel, shells of the 1911 model, 305-mm and 356-mm came out of completely different quality. The first - premium, the second - junk.
      so it was with the 76-mm and 57-mm shells, but in the opposite direction. And there is nothing to say about the 45 mm! The pests drove such rubbish that in 30 1939-mm Krupp armor was an insurmountable obstacle for them. But in 1943 - 60 mm at a time!
  27. +1
    1 November 2022 00: 31
    Quote: wlkw
    And even that was shot in vain, as it turned out later.

    As it turned out later, they were shot late, so the VYa-23 and UB guns would have been adopted earlier, and would not have flown from ShKAS and ShVAK.
  28. 0
    1 November 2022 08: 59
    "the best heavy tank of World War II"
    Are you confusing the author?
    I have been living for 45 years and only now I found out that this is the best heavy tank of the Second World War ..
    I would give the laurels to the tiger ..
    1. +1
      1 November 2022 13: 08
      Quote from Snay
      I would give the laurels to the tiger ..

      Outstanding car, but only won back in about a year. By the 44th year, the saturation of anti-tank guns with strong artillery, in the Soviet case, the Su-85, severely limited its capabilities. Higher development and dead end of the idea of ​​​​circular armor without corners.
  29. 0
    1 November 2022 09: 51
    Quote: Victor Leningradets
    With the same grades of steel, shells of the 1911 model, 305-mm and 356-mm came out of completely different quality.

    And what does the caliber have to do with it? They violated the manufacturing technology and the whole business. Maybe the bar of the required brand for 356-mm shells was not found in the Republic of Ingushetia? Most likely the bar was imported, for 305 mm they managed to get it before the war, but not 356 mm.
    1. 0
      2 November 2022 06: 00
      No, everything here is domestic. Of course, based on Krupp's technologies, but exclusively from the Kaluga and Ural metallurgical plants.
      It’s just that the technology for forging shells, chamber molding, carburizing and hardening turned out to be not identical for two very close calibers.
      Later, in 1939, the same rake was attacked with 406-mm shells.
  30. +1
    1 November 2022 11: 21
    although it was insufficient against the Panther even after reworking the frontal part

    The frontal upper part with a thickness of 100 mm, or even more so 120 mm, was pierced at 30 degrees 75 mm / L70, the Panther gun is incapable from any distance. Another thing is that it is not necessary.
  31. The comment was deleted.
  32. +2
    2 November 2022 12: 52
    Quote from media3
    And therefore, their 88 mm KwK43 tank gun at a distance of 1 km had armor penetration of approximately 125% of the level of 122 mm D-25T.
    And the rate of fire of these guns is ridiculous to compare. If the D-25T missed with the first shot, the KwK43 turned the IS-2 into a sieve without any options.

    Comparing the rate of fire of cannons is ridiculous for you, but your statement is rather ridiculous that after the first miss of the IS-2, the German KvK 43 turned it into a sieve "no options".
    1. On the battlefield in World War II, it was very rare for a tank to fire more than two or three aimed shots per minute. If one tank detected another first, then when it misses, the enemy tank is usually blinded by the explosion and is unable to see the enemy and respond quickly.
    2. During the break between two shots, the tank can change its position or go behind cover.
    3. When a projectile of a smaller caliber, especially a sub-caliber, hits a tank, despite penetrating the armor, it often has an armor effect no more than the effect of an HE shell that does not penetrate the armor.
    4. The duel of tanks is an infrequent event and is obtained only after a mistake of intelligence and commanders. The main target of the tank is enemy infantry in the trenches, and its main enemy is anti-tank artillery. For these purposes, a 122 mm gun is incomparably better than an 88 mm one.
    1. +1
      4 November 2022 09: 50
      In addition to the topic, the material in my blog
      https://drawingstanks.blogspot.com/
  33. 0
    7 December 2022 21: 54
    Su-100 successfully smashed both tigers and panthers, but the fact was the distance. And this is 500 meters, almost point-blank. From ambush completely, but in the oncoming lane? Therefore, they came to 122 mm. When the Germans saw this tank (IS-2 with 122 mm), the mood completely deteriorated. And then came the ISU-152, and then ...
  34. 0
    14 December 2022 23: 47
    And where does the information come from that 122 mm is not inferior in accuracy to kvk 43?