IS-2: When 85mm is not enough

The Soviet heavy tank IS-2 is barely covered in English or German literature so we looked a bit into Russian sources as well, for this Jens Wehner from the Militärhistorische Museum (MHM) der Bundeswehr Dresden and Peter from Tank Archives helped out. Additionally, we also have some nice footage of the IS-2 Model 1944 from the MHM Dresden from 2019.
Disclaimer: I was invited by Militärhistorische Museum der Bundeswehr Dresden in 2019. www.mhmbw.de/
Tank Archives Channel:
/ tankarchives
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon - see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» KZbin Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
М. Барятинский [Baryatinskiy]. Тяжёлый танк ИС-2 [IS-2]. 1998.
Heavy Tank. Manual. Publisher of the People's Commissariat of Defense, 1944.
ТЯЖЕЛЫЙ ТАНК. РУКОВОДСТВО. Военное издательство Народного Комиссариата Обороны, 1944.
Pöhlmann, Markus: Der Panzer und die Mechanisierung des Krieges: eine deutsche Geschichte 1890 bis 1945. Ferdinand Schöningh: Paderborn, Germany, 2016.
Hill, Alexander: The Red Army and the Second World War. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2017.
Zaloga, Steve; Ness, Leland S.: Companion to the Red Army, 1939-45. History: Stroud, 2009.
Higgins, David R.: King Tiger vs IS-2: Operation Solstice 1945. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2011.
Zaloga, Steve: IS-2 Heavy Tank 1944-1973. Osprey: London, UK, 1994.
Zaloga, Steven: KV-1 & 2 Heavy Tanks 1939-45. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2014.
Zaloga, Steve; Grandsen, James: Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two. Arms and Armour Press: London, UK, 1984.
Sharp, Charles C.: The Soviet Order of Battle. World War II. An Organizational History of the Major Combat Units of the Soviet Army. Volume III: “Red Storm”. The Mechanized Corps and Guards Armored Units 1942 to 1945. George F. Nafziger: no location, 1995.
Samsonov, Peter: Moderniziation on Paper. Tank Archives, March, 2019. Accessed: 18th May 2021. www.tankarchives.ca/2019/03/m...
Samsonov, Peter: D-10 in the IS-2. Tank Archives, November, 2018. Accessed: 18th May 2021. www.tankarchives.ca/2018/11/d...
Samsonov, Peter: Object 240 Ergonomics . Tank Archives, June, 2018. Accessed: 18th May 2021.
www.tankarchives.ca/2018/06/o...
Samsonov, Peter: World of Tanks History Sections: Tank Guards Strike Force. Tank Archives, October, 2015. Accessed: 18th May 2021.
www.tankarchives.ca/2015/10/w...
Amizaur: IS-2 - front turret and gun mantlet armor - measured. War Thunder Forum: December, 2015. Accessed: 25th May 2021.
forum.warthunder.com/index.ph...
Interview with Boris Petrovitsch Sacharov, 13th Guards Heavy Tank Heavy Regiment, iremember.ru/memoirs/tankisti..., last accessed: 19th May 2021
www.militaertechnik-der-nva.de...
panzerworld.com/relative-armo...
#IS2,#StalinTank,#AnswerToTheTiger

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Want to see more videos with content from museums? Additionally, you get AD-FREE early Access? Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible. More info here: » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv - » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv

[@nottoday3817]

May I ask, at 20:32, what is that giant thing with fins behind the IS-2?

[@BenitoakaDuce]

12:25 wrong tigers turret was 185mm + angle 190mm

[@Daddo22]

I'm a bit surprised not to see the gun precision comparison between Tiger II and IS-2 (or at least a reference to some other video). They were very similar, which is quite unexpected, given the hype around German guns. Of course, the IS-2 had lower muzzle velocity, which would decrease the real hit rate for several reasons, but given a known distance (well set-up defense position, known enemy pillbox etc.)... Anyway, great video, m8. Thanks.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@@Daddo22 haven't come across any information on that and this video took almost two times as long to a regular video to make, since the information available in English books is extremely thin.

[@keppscrossing]

@@nottoday3817 looks like a mini submarine.

[@talknight2]

As an artilleryman who used multi-part ammunition I confirm the memoirs of the IS-2 commander. Even with 4 loaders per gun, 4+ shells per minute is only possible in short bursts when you're in a controlled environment and had time to prepare the needed ammunition in advance. Also taking into account the loader's fatigue, 2 shells a minute in the cramped conditions of a tank is very realistic.

[@rumblejungle5590]

As an artilleryman, do you feel that tanks are mobile?

[@talknight2]

@@rumblejungle5590 I guess...

[@haroldfiedler6549]

So the ugly duckling was also a piece of junk to operate?? 2 part ammo??? Are you freaking kidding me?? The Russians just can't help themselves. They are incapable of designing something both beautiful and functional.

[@rumblejungle5590]

@@haroldfiedler6549 You're nuts dude

[@MacHamish]

Also those tanks probably had zero ventilation inside for the gun gasses so the crew could have been breathing some hellacious stuff.

[@bairtcybikov9167]

It is funny that designer of T-34 was Koshkin, designer KV and IS was Kotin. Both names meens "cat". But "cat" tanks be used by Germans: Tiger, Leopard, Pantera

[@jakobc.2558]

I would like to add that a big reason for the low weight of the IS tanks is the rear mounted transmission. It allowed for the hull to be much smaller since there was no need to have additional space for a driveschaft below the hull (like on any of the german tanks) and since the hull is the largest part of the tank with the most ammount of surfice area, reducing the size saves segnificant ammounts of surface area and therefore requires less armor. The IS tanks are still pritty tall, but this is mainly due to the unusualy large turret. However since the turret still has much less surface area then the hull, the increase in weight due to the bigger turret is very small. The same thing applys to the british tanks like the churchill which were also rather light even though they had extremely thick armor.

[@chefchaudard3580]

The trade off is that all the weight, turret, gun and thick front plate, are placed on the front half of the tank, leading to a " nose heavy" tank.

[@ivankrylov6270]

@@chefchaudard3580 placing the transmission in the rear helps balance out the tank by placing more weight in the rear

[@kimjanek646]

It’s really more the internal volume. The IS-1 could only carry around 50-60 85mm shells while the Panther had space for around 87 75mm shells which were of similar size. The IS-2 prototype with a 100mm gun could also only carry 30 shells. The space for the radio operator also increases weight. The T-44 had only 4 crews compared to the T-34-85 and almost twice the armor all around the hull, while weighing practically the same. The autoloader of later Soviet tanks also allowed the tanks to have a better armor to weight ratio, even if that meant lower RoF compared to human loaders.

[@chefchaudard3580]

@@ivankrylov6270 not really. The hull was designed for a lighter gun and turret. Using the 122mm in a well protected big turret unbalanced the tank. The T34 85 hull front armor remained the same 45mm throughout the war for the same reason. Using a bigger gun and turret had already overweight the front.

[@scratchy996]

The Panther and Tiger1 also had a lot of weight in their numerous interleaved wheels.

[@crazywarriorscatfan9061]

IS-2 is a beautiful tank. Quite a chonker

[@brimstone1355]

Quite a bonker as well

[@Mitch_N_Monty_get_fuked]

Tiger 1 cooler

[@mr.monhon5179]

@@Mitch_N_Monty_get_fuked Not enough with big guns tho~~

[@slickninjadude9165]

@@Mitch_N_Monty_get_fuked King Tiger (Tiger 2) Is Best :)

[@Mitch_N_Monty_get_fuked]

@@slickninjadude9165 thats your opinion i think 1 looks nicer

[@syariffadilah2949]

SU/ISU-152 appearing from the corner of road : "oh ? Did you forget about me comrade ?"

[@worldoftancraft]

«komrad», then, our dear lover of phoreign(foreign) lexics.

[@itsnerfornothing7554]

@💋 Sweety Hotgirl • Vlogs the bots like tanks now?

[@pavelslama5543]

17:50 The Königstiger was faster due to having one additional gear for high speed, but as many crews recalled, going so fast for (IIRC) 2 minutes would cause the gears to overheat and melt into a shape of smooth wheels, immobilizing the tank.

[@cursedcliff7562]

_"It hurt itself in its own confusion!"_

[@Ixtzalit]

Well, Soviet tanks didnt even have proper air filters in their engines. For them going fast was only possible on paper, because the engines were starved of oxygen due to exsessive intake of dust.

[@optionalcoast7478]

classic panzer transmission

[@jellyfrosh9102]

@@optionalcoast7478 Meanwhile with the classic hammer-shifter Soviet transmission in the T-34 and KV-1

[@siegbraud4658]

@@Ixtzalitright that happens very often in KV2

[@davidca96]

The IS-2 was a beast. While it was slow to fire, the 122mm rounds were huge and even if they didnt penetrate theyd blow the welds out on the armor half the time and still kill crew or take them out of the fight.

[@zhuangsaur227]

And not to mention the HE punch of the 122mm was way superior to the 88mm or 75mm gun cannons....

[@robertalaverdov8147]

The 122mm caliber was not their first choice, the designers had access to a 100mm gun with better penetration and which would wind up on the T-54. But the 100mm was relatively new and in short supply. And so in typical Russian fashion they went with what they had available for mass production. Keep in mind they built around 3800 IS-2 tanks compared to 1300 Tigers and 500 or so King Tigers, more than double. And by the end of the war had begun IS-3 production, which was impenetrable from the front by the dreaded 88mm.

[@tkasprzak]

122 mm had much better HE shell. Taking into Account breakthrough role of the IS tank, it was very important factor.

[@Anlushac11]

The IS-1 was tested with the 100mm gun but it was decided the 122mm was a better choice for the breakthrough role due to its devastating HE round and the AP was still pretty good.

[@robertalaverdov8147]

@@tkasprzak Per shot the 122mm had better HE damage. But considering that the 100mm can fire 3 times for every 122mm round the amount of damage done is 245% greater. Besides they already had bunker busters like the SU-122 and SU-152. And later the ISU-122/152 based on the IS chassis.

[@thezeitos469]

Tbf thats comparing Soviet and German industry at the time, which are considerably different scales.

[@scratchy996]

There were 2 versions of the 88mm. King Tigers and Jagdpanthers with the 88/L71 could penetrate the IS3 from the front from about 1500m.

[@tacklengrapple6891]

I love how tough and also cartoony the IS-2 looks. That oversized gun is hilarious and awesome!

[@slickninjadude9165]

looks awesome with a big gun up until an 88mm flak gun blows the big gun and turret clean off the hull.

[@Kalashnikov413]

@@slickninjadude9165 but don't forget that the 122mm is also hella powerful

[@juh2445]

@@Kalashnikov413 the 122 could kill a tiger crew by the shockwave alone soo

[@Kalashnikov413]

@@juh2445 i know that

[@haroldfiedler6549]

And grossly ineffective and inaccurate.

[@WildBillCox13]

The percentage of armor protection as a fraction of total weight comparison was most informative.

[@thiagorodrigues5211]

It's also mentioned in Tiger's in the Mud, Otto Carius encountered the IS-2 two times. First one he saw it from the side. And not knowing what tank it is, he had to rely on check how the tracks were bult to understand it was Soviet. Second time his Tiger got hit and the drive sprocket was completely ripped off from the tank. He shot at the IS-2 but he said that at that distance and angle, it would be impossible but the IS-2 crew reversed totake cover behind a house and he didn't see it again.

[@Spaibo]

Germans sort of had an IS panic which led to them confusing T-34s' with fake muzzle brakes for IS-2s'. This might have been the case there.

[@thiagorodrigues5211]

​@@Spaibo The Tiger shot it, it didn't go through. Otto says that at that distance it wouldn't be possible so he was surprised it reversed and didn't come back to finish them

[@Spaibo]

@@thiagorodrigues5211 huh, he was probably correct then.

[@thiagorodrigues5211]

@@Spaibo It's a great book, Otto almost died so many times, it makes you wonder how can someone survive the war and live peacefull till 2015

[@noldo3837]

Maybe the strange difference in engines power, weight and speed could have been caused by different specifications for Germans and Russians what "road" and "cross country"means :D

[@jefffreeman8905]

It's probably different gearing on the transmission.

[@billd.iniowa2263]

Speed is all in the transmission. You can have a million horsepower but if the transmission isnt set up to utilize it properly, your machine wont keep up with an elderly anemic sloth.

[@ravenouself4181]

Yes, what Germans consider to be cross-country, Slav see as roads

[@watcherzero5256]

Also it doesnt matter what how powerful the engine installed in a vehicle is, its how much of that power you can transmit to the road. A heavy gearbox is reliable but loses ponys, a lighter gearbox is more efficent at transmitting the engine power to the road but is more fragile and prone to breakdowns and part wear.

[@thenevadadesertrat2713]

That makes a lot of sense. I should have thought of it. At that time in Russia there were very few what we would call roads. Probably for strategic purposes. It worked for them.

[@peterrobbins2862]

All things considered it is a rather bueatiful tank

[@user-if4zv5nj5m]

it`s not correct to compare KV1 and KV1-S with KV2. KV2 was developed and used as self-propelled howitzer, not as heavy tank. It was organised in batteries, not companies and supervised by artillery commad. Also KV2s were replaced by SU152 self propelled howitzer, not by heavy tanks. Rare battles when KV2s were used like heavy tanks, were acts of desperation when everythung that looked like a tank was used like a tank

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

there was a plan to mount the 107mm gun in the KV-2 to create a proper heavy tank, this idea was scrapped though. this is probably what they meant.

[@fulcrum2951]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 still concern about the turret, would it be properly balanced?

[@thewotblitzfellow7022]

@@fulcrum2951 it had problems dude the tank was not balanced properly.. It's excessive weight with a underpowered engine caused it many problems!

[@PyromaN93]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 it was scrapped due to problems with gun and KV-2 design flaws

[@user-if4zv5nj5m]

@Louise 22 y.o - check my vidéó that's a bad criteria. Panther has higher percentage of armor than tiger and tiger 2, but it's medium tank while tigers are heavy ones. T34 has around the same percentage as is2, but first is a medium tank, while is is heavy

[@ralphhofmeier8840]

My father was with the Leibstandarte at the Spring Awaking offensive in February 1945 . Because of lack of equipment and soldiers they did have to drive with the Panther (which they used successfully at the battle of the Kursk) to scout the enemy movements and positions. They encountered two fast movements of T34/85 on the right and left flank of the SS unit. The T34 approached very fast and opened fire on the Panther at 1,500m . The Panther took on the fight and they destroyed all 11 T34 in 15 minutes without an single hit . They were ordered to stay in position and wait the u it catch up. Shortly after two IS II approached which my where as support for the approaching T34 but to slow to follow the higher speed attack. The IS opened fire from 1,800m but both IS missed the Panther. The Panther moved forward and aimed on the first IS. The anti tank round at 1,500m bounced of and they used at 1,300m an full core round, which hit the IS perfect between turret and chassis. The Turret went off . The second IS managed to hit the Panther on the front of the turret with one round. But it bounce off . The second IS was taken out with another anti Tank round and exploded after the perfect hit like the first one . Bottom line, the gun of the IS II was powerful but without good optics and the low firing rate of two rounds/minute not very good against an well trained crew in a German Panther. The two Sturm Tiger took out more IS II from 3,000m same day .

[@GlaDi02]

122mm HE was quite efficient when it comes about destroying bunkers and buildings. More explosives, more fragmentation which are handy when fighting against infantry and their PAKs or 88's. And as noted, even HE was enough to destroy Tiger or panther. IS was true heavy tank, not "heavy breakthrough tank" like tiger. It was meant to break the enemy line and keep on going.

[@zhuangsaur227]

That 122mm HE had up to 3 kg of HE filler or TNT content... contrast that to a Tiger I 88mm which had about 0.8 to 0.9 kg of HE content ...

[@Warmaker01]

I remember when playing the tactical game "Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin" in the early-mid 2000s, playing the German late war scenarios and encountering these IS-2s were bad news for any of my Panzers. They were popping my Panthers like pimples. Also MHV, it's interesting about the video talking about armor quality. I remember Combat Mission simulated that. Couple that with improving Soviet weapons like the 85mm and 122mm, it was bad news. Thanks also for covering the IS-2 because when people talk about Soviet WWII armor, the T-34 gets all the attention.

[@Schleppschlauch]

Guess why they where not covered

[@dimasakbar7668]

@@Schleppschlauch why if i may ask?

[@daniellxnder]

@@Schleppschlauch is it because of lower production number or it has the name Stalin in it?

[@Schleppschlauch]

@@daniellxnder more than 3300 where built until 1945.

[@daniellxnder]

@@Schleppschlauch yes but compare to the T-34 variants maybe it's just 10% of them

[@Doug_R1]

It's worth noting that the gun mantlet has a degree of overlap with the turret face, which makes the areas where you would normally say it's 100mm smaller than you might think. That, and some time ago I remember someone bringing up that using single piece ammo in the IS would have been significantly less ergonomic, due to it's length and the weight, a 25kg shell and a 25kg propellant charge adds up to 50 kilograms. And that in testing they found that using single piece ammo was more detrimental.

[@raulduke6105]

A visiting professor at the University of Illinois was a 18 yo tiger 2 driver. He said the hated the 122mm as it hit like a locomotive and if it didn’t penetrate it would usually knock the turret out of alignment

[@night7185]

trust me bro

[@Sigrid_Von_Sincluster]

18:55 THIS this is one of the most important aspect when talking about the eastern front that a lot, A LOT of historyans seam to either not know or not bring attention to there viewers. alltho the soviets and the germans used the same names in there military organization structure THEY USED DIFFERENT SCALES FOR SAID STRUCTURES, when compareing (ESPECIALY EARLY ON INTO THE WAR) how many div/battalions were fighting it's allmoust pointeles to compare div vs div as far as numbers go, i'ts like saying a 200 km/h car speed is faster than a 180 mp/h car speed, wile the first number is ofc bigger and both numbers messure speed they are not the same unit mesurment another thing i think is also important and need a mention is the population demographic, wile it is true that the interior of the russian tanks were a lot more cramped than other nations, we need to take into consideration that a lot, not all ofc, but a lot of soviet tankers were euro-asians witch means that they were not as tall as many of you western historyans ( witch for some reason many of you seam to be :)) ) so that's also something we need to keep in mind, ofc the tankers themself would have liked a more spaceios interior (the reports from the the few land lees tanks showed as much) but none the less due to there size it was not as big of a problem as more modern reports tend to make of it. that poor loader tho 25 kg .... F

[@artificialintelligence8328]

I also heard they selected smaller men to be tankers, which frankly seems more appropriate.

[@Sigrid_Von_Sincluster]

@@artificialintelligence8328 yep, that is also true (alltho tbh idk if this was also something practiced by other nations, so it might be more of a standard practice at the time than we think, BUT since i don't really hear about this practice for the western armys it might not be the case

[@PyromaN93]

Due to different troubles, what Soviet Union survived - in average people of war generation was short, and also slightly weaker. This also was reason, why all firearms in soviet union was made light as possible - for example, weight problem of SVT-38 rifle, what was not get into service because it was just too heavy to carry, in opinion of soviet high command. And this effect was relatively long. For example - Yuri Gagarin was 157cm. Or personal example, my grandfather was born in 1937, and was 163cm tall, I was born in 1993 and 196cm tall.

[@looinrims]

Doesn’t matter how big they were, see the chieftain (an actual tanker) the tank is your office, your work space, your home And even if you’re 4ft tall, 122mm rounds aren’t small

[@nicholasdiaz9424]

Let me also point out that the Russian's answer to knock out German Tigers and Panthers would be the SU-152/ISU-152. The 152mm was a devastating artillery gun.

[@looinrims]

“Or other late war problems” *Shows a ATG munition*

[@looinrims]

@@Tom_Quixote it’s…an air to ground munition…

[@richardcutt727]

Great analysis. Wow that 122mm gun was a beast.

[@UnreasonableOpinions]

That is a quite impressive tank considering the speed at which they had to put it together, and that they managed to outproduce the King Tiger by a factor of six.

[@mirandela777]

The russians were way ahead of the germans on tank designs... In 1939, when the KV1 was fielded and battle tested (against the finns) the germans do not even have a heavy tank ! Hell, even the french gad better tanks than the germans at the start of ww2 !

[@d4r1us58]

Still got clapped lmao

[@mirandela777]

@@d4r1us58 - obvious, one thing the germans were clearly superior was the level of the experience of the crews, and on top of that, the coms... the russians took a painfully long time to realize the importance of a radio set inside a tank.

[@spinosaurusiii7027]

@@d4r1us58 In the early war yes, but not by the time the IS-2 was on the field.

[@ushiki2212]

Awesome I am looking forward to watching this! The IS 2 and T 34 85 are definitely my favorite tanks. Maybe the British Comet and Centurion too.

[@isiaharellano3789]

WoT player?

[@ushiki2212]

@@isiaharellano3789 former and I haven't played it in 3 or 4 years.

[@NorceCodine]

The simple cast-steel armor had no chance against high velocity rounds, might as well they used butter. It became buttery soft upon impact, as it melted under the huge pressure of the tip of the round. The Krupp-armor of the German heavy tanks was tempered steel, hard on the outside but soft in the inside, which was hard to penetrate, and absorbed and dissipated the kinetic energy of the round that hit it.

[@SweatyFeetGirl]

thats on paper, in reality, german armor shattered completely when shot at with high explosive rounds.

[@Ypog_UA]

0:51 The first K in Kharkov is silent (comes from Russian Х letter)

[@neilwilson5785]

To me, in England, it sounds like another, strange sound is inserted before the 'h' Not a 'K', but a khah? Interesting.

[@abbc5156]

@@neilwilson5785 kh is just a digraph for the Russian 'h' which is pretty different to the English one and I don't think it consists of two sounds

[@dallesamllhals9161]

Then again the letter H is like 'Xrrrh' for you guys/gals :-O Da! Menja Sjavout: Henning from Denmark! And YES I didn't get GREAT grades during my 2 years of Russian in late 90's... B Gymnasie ;-)

[@WildBillCox13]

Thanks. Americans, especially, don't understand the difference between the Cyrillic "X" and "K".

[@user-jm3xm1sh5d]

О, славяне! Слава Украине!

[@sueneilson896]

Always exceptional graphics... with a hint of humour.

[@Cragified]

122mm is pretty much the only reason development continued. Like the earlier KV-1 if a T-34 could carry the 85mm a lot of the incentive of producing a much more resource intensive heavy tank and associated heavy tank problems becomes questionable if it's not bringing more firepower to the table.

[@nottoday3817]

Not really. A heavy tank also brings more armour to the playing field, which means a nasty surprise for lightly armed AT units used to deal with medium tanks.

[@KPW2137]

I had a chance to talk to some people who served in the IS-2 in late war or immediately after the war. They said that IS-2`s interior easily filled with smoke after first few shots due to mediocre ventilation and sheer size of the propellant charge. Therefore, effective rate of fire would drop quite a bit during action. One of the guys stated that after few shots they had to either open hatches, or put gas masks on. Take it with a grain of salt, but it might be a reason for the discrepancy in rate of fire mentioned.

[@mchrome3366]

Thank you for your research and this informative video. Answered a lot of questions I had.

[@raylast3873]

Finally, a video about the IS-2. So happy.

[@MilBard]

That was a very nice & informative video on the IS-2. Good Job!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Glad you liked it!

[@alamore5084]

The quality of these tank videos is staggeringly good!

[@armyvet8279]

Very interesting. Thanks for your work and time!

[@adamfrazer5150]

Thanks very much for covering this mammoth tank ! Cheers man 👍🍻

[@michimatsch5862]

Just won a game with the 29-ya Tankovy Korpus. Wish they had some more ammo in the JS-2.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Steel Division 2?

[@michimatsch5862]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Yes.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@@michimatsch5862 If you haven't, you might want to try the Autobahn zur Hölle Scenario with the Soviets, there I usually get real problems with ammo for my IS-2s.

[@tzeentchnianexaltedsorcero2041]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized the voice acting for the German armed force is pretty good

[@michimatsch5862]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized yeah. I See what you mean. Had to hide my supply trucks in light cover and do some dangerous resupply missions and had to dodge close mortar fire.

[@pat0652]

A Serious video on the IS-2 was SORELY needed on KZbin. Well Done!!!!!

[@qorryksatria5924]

changing tank more faster than reloading

[@MisteriosGloriosos922]

*Thank you! well done! all perspectives should be explored*

[@2Links]

Awesome, another video!

[@Kyle-gw6qp]

In his memoirs, Otto Carius specifically mentions how he would _not_ have wanted to be in an IS-2, the reason he gives us the the two part ammunition.

[@Athrun82]

Germany had build two tank destroyer vehicles called "Sturer Emil"(i think those were the ones) They had a 12.8 cm gun and the rate of fire was extreme slow because the ammo was two part. Officially those two vehicles were to to used as bunker busters but were also used to fight tanks.

[@bloopero]

Fantastic review.

[@pathfinder3754]

I was waitin for such comparison

[@xyz6170]

8.5 cm may not sound impressive, until you realize it's the diameter, not length.

[@happyspaceplumber840]

Good one :D

[@SatelliteYL]

Very interesting thank you for the great information rich video, the graphics and design of these videos are always very impressive!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thank you very much!

[@glengearhart5298]

I always enjoy your videos! I learn so much!!

[@JohanKlein]

One shouldn't forget about KV-85 which was a stop-gap tank before the IS chassis (which was used for a number of fighting vehicles) was ready.

[@TheArklyte]

During development of IS they have gone through testing of several 85mm, 100mm, 107mm and 122mm guns. They chose 122mm solely because it had highest armor penetration and retained good accuracy at long ranges(despite WoT creating a myth that it's a shotgun, the A-19 is a descendant of 120mm Canet naval guns that were supposed to penetrate moving cruisers from miles away). Why? Because appearance of Ferdinand forced their hand:D IS-2 exists solely because at the same time germans fielded Ferdinand and this USSR expected that it would be encountered en masse. In fact not only was the choice of the gun forced by its appearance, but first muzzle brake on D-25 was a copy of one from Ferdinand's Kwk43(Stuk43? Pak43? I don't care, it's same gun) due to similar forces in play. It blew off from the gun during testing though. P.S.: alongside a WoT myth people also mention a Discovery channel one created back in 1990's a lot - that A-19/D-25 can only be reloaded if the gun is brought down into ideally horizontal position after each shot. Suffice to say I was unable to find a single reliable(and even unreliable too) source that mentioned that.

[@TheArklyte]

122mm was chosen because it simply was a more powerful gun. No ifs or buts about that. That's why it stayed on IS-3 and even T-10. And no, D-25 wasn't available in infinite numbers either, in fact it was a more expensive gun. Production of IS-2 caused shortages in production of ISU-122 and ISU-122s(even if only the latter uses D-25) whenever IS-2 had an above average monthly production. As a result in those months ISU-152 production was going up as well. Guess why? Because they used only different guns so any finished vehicles waiting for the gun was simply equipped with 152mm cannon-howitzer and added to those production numbers. There were even tests to put A-19(aka original without muzzle brake) onto IS-2 later one because D-25 wasn't produced in high enough numbers. D-10 *maybe* had a value as gun option for commander tanks, but that's mostly it. P.S.: You people are also forgetting that D-10 is actually harder to reload in IS-2 turret. It has comparable recoil distance to D-25 due to lack of muzzle brake and also as it uses single piece ammunition, the round is very long and heavy. D-25 takes longer to reload, but is actually easier. If you understand basics of geometry, take IS-2 blueprints available online and just look at the amount of space behind the breech you need when you use single piece ammo. And if you can reload D-10 at all once the axis of the breech crosses the back of the turret ring when the gun is elevated at certain degrees. This is why proposed 105mm gun on Tiger B had to be switched to two piece ammo to even fit in the turret. Same thing with 100mm gun on IS-2. It isn't much lighter, isn't recoiling less and definitely isn't easier on the loader to operate.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@TheArklyte the 100mm armed IS prototypes were only tested after the 122mm had entered service. the 122mm was chosen over the 107mm but not the 100mm. the IS-100s were intended to replace the 122mm intially due to a number of reasons but the biggest being the space reduction allowing for a stabiliser aswell as higher rate of fire (especially since the space was also considered large enough to allow for a loader assist mechanism). there was also an arguement that the 100mm S-34 had superior penatration (although the 122mm had superior penatration against sloped targets at range, but the 100mm S-34-1B was superior to even this) and was more accurate. the reason the 100mm upgrade was canceled was due to the IS-2's combat performance, the 122mm was considered good enough. while haveing lower accuracy. it was accurate enough and while its reload was slower this was not considered a major issue by this stage of the war (although something to be improved apon in future tanks). the benefitts of the 100mm were not considered good enough to justify the costs of replacement. but its entirely possible if the IS-100 was tested before the IS-122 entered mass production that the IS-100 might have been the tank chosen instead.

[@CalgarGTX]

Useless anecdote here : Actually even in WoT it was brilliant for many years because it had more than enough pen and overmatch capabilities to get through a lot of things it met and the IS-2 is probably the tank I pulled the most super long range arcing shots kills with overall ( before all the powercreep and so on )

[@luisnunes2010]

This also shows how overstated the Tiger I's mobility problems are. The Tiger II is still insanity, though.

[@EternalModerate]

what does that make the Maus then? :P

[@luisnunes2010]

@@EternalModerate How many maushen were completed, again? 😏

[@MalikCarr]

Tiger I's mobility problems were mostly due to it having a broken automotive component. When the things worked they were surprisingly agile for how big they are.

[@Kyle-gw6qp]

The Tiger was actually pretty fast. The Tiger's mobility problems were due to unreliable automotive components.

[@luisnunes2010]

@@Kyle-gw6qp And there's reason to believe that those were just as normal for a heavy tank of the era, being always on retreat and lack of effective avre making it look worse.

[@pabloseykata6930]

Excellent video. Danke Schoen Herr MHV!!

[@jeroenverzijl8596]

3 clips i'm hooked will for sure gonna see all

[@beachboy0505]

This tank is the basis of all Russian tanks: T54, T55 T64: T72 and the T80 and some later tanks. Just like the Centurion is the basis of all British tanks.

[@mikehoncho1005]

Thank god the Sherman isn't the basis for American tanks lol

[@Insert-Retarded-Reply-Here]

@@mikehoncho1005 that title would probably go to the Chaffee light tank actually

[@ushiki2212]

@@Insert-Retarded-Reply-Here I think the Pershing would be it.

[@heckinmemes6430]

"I carry 4 times your ammunition!" "I brought five friends."

[@drakonna6281]

Thank you for making this video it was super interesting

[@Kompressor594]

Great overview, thsnks!

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Thank you Jens for your contribution. Another good case of "did it work as intended?" vs "OMG it is OP/UP in WoT". The only factor I didn't see covered (but I am usually wrong) was that the 122mm gun was at first an interrupted screw breech artillery piece but eventually got a semi auto breech like most AT or tank guns. Please discuss and correct me as always, and keep safe everyone. Love from England!

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

Thanks Bernhard. I hadn't seen such a comparison of the IS tanks and the German tanks before. .

[@davidhouston4810]

Thank you for this Video, I have seen many Pictures of IS 2's rolling into Berlin, but little information of this Design.

[@WildBillCox13]

A tank must be able to keep up with the standard lorry or it bogs down the roads. Also, no lorry can keep up with a tracked mover or tank/SPG off road. A sustained road speed of about 18-22mph (roughly 30-35kph) is vital for tanks meant to advance along roads also traveled by friendly supply and transport wheeled vehicles. The persecution of war is as follows: Logistics, logistics, logistics . . . bowel shivering terror . . . logistics.

[@MadMax-bq6pg]

To the warrior, his arms

[@tomcox6429]

How about we use a 122mm gun? "There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable application of high explosives" Scott Adams

[@jayklink851]

Thank you for taking the time to produce this brilliant video for your subscribers. Personally, I love this content, I honestly couldn't ask for a better subject to explore.

[@331SVTCobra]

your videos are excellent.

[@thebigone6071]

Great video!!! I learned a ton!!!! You’re the best Bernhard!!!

[@dylanmilne6683]

Some facinating figures here, good accounts and sources too. Great video!

[@delandel5496]

I wonder what the numbers are?

[@dylanmilne6683]

@@delandel5496 probably 4

[@HRHtheDude]

Danke, nice presentation.

[@Kanovskiy]

First encountered by Tigers of the Grossdeutschland Pz.Gren.Div. at Targul-Frumos in Romania April-May 1944. The commander, Hasso von Manteuffel reports having been fired by them over 3km away, a huge round he says (must have made quite the whizzing sound!) he thought his own Tigers were firing at him (he was at the front commanding the Pz.Rgt. "GD") then realized it was a new type of soviet tank. Tigers were told to fire but their round bounced off! They got closer at about 1200m and they finally managed to kill some of them, the others were finished by II./Pz.Rgt "GD" (battalion of Panzer IV) at close range while the IS-2 tried to flee.

[@fiucik1]

To think that at the start of the war in 39' typical gun used in tanks was 37mm, and by the end of the war only six years later they already had 122mm guns, which is a caliber still used to this day. Crazy and scary how war advances technology...

[@woofkaf7724]

With already existed kv-1 i think that the bigger gun is not so long to wait.

[@freddythefriendlygiant3856]

I want to thank you for this video. As I am a huge fan of the IS-2 and it’s design.

[@Ralphieboy]

Another outstanding film!

[@koenvangeleuken2853]

excellent video.

[@MlTGLIED]

17:36 No surprize here. The Königstiger gets his speed from his Benzin Maybach Engine. Benzin Engines were made for speed unlike Diesel powerd Motors, they were made for torque. Like some (I forgot the name) WehrmachtsGeneral said: "we dont need a fast horse, we need versatile donkey." 🧐

[@polygondwanaland8390]

That sounds close to Kurt Tank's description of the Fw 190 design philosophy

[@CalgarGTX]

Mostly it had a fancier (I'm not gonna say 'better' because reliability and all that..) transmission with a sixth gear, and let's be honest it probably reached that only on a slight downward slope with a tail wind if you didn't want to destroy said transmission

[@strongpoke]

The Königstiger was faster due to having one additional gear for high speed.

[@stc3145]

You should cover the Comet tank next if you havent already

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Might happen once travel restrictions are gone, yet, I am not sure if I can add much about that tank, unless I find something the German archives about it.

[@johnburns4017]

The Comet was the equivalent to the Panther. The Finnish Army still have about 40 Comets in reserve.

[@chrisproost7290]

Yay for the 'Super-Cromwell'. Blighty finally got really good at tanks but a bit late. However, we couldn't be great at everything under the circumstances.

[@kokuta1941]

"IS-3 : When IS-2 Is Not Enough"

[@spinosaurusiii7027]

IS-3: When you realise the IS-2 is better

[@Sleepy.Time.]

love my IS in world of tanks, such a great tank

[@princeofcupspoc9073]

You don't have an IS. You have some game mechanics that displays an IS video. Please do not confuse the two. In the 70s it would have been, "I love the IS. It's my favorite plastic model because it was so easy to build." Do you see how idiotic you sound?

[@johneeleknee8228]

Sometimes I wish you were my history teacher

[@MGB-learning]

Great video

[@tutored2today438]

Good breakthrough assault tank

[@T33K3SS3LCH3N]

I always found the dramatic weight difference at fairly comparable "hard stats" in terms of firepower and tank-on-tank capability very convincing in favour of the IS-series when it comes to a pure paper comparison. Nonetheless it seems to me that the German tendency to more "high quality" tanks had good reason, as they were already lacking qualified crews despite their low heavy tank numbers. Maybe a lighter, cheaper tank could have freed up a few more potential recruits from production, logistics, and maintenance, but I doubt that would have made much of a difference. Interestingly the IS seems to have ultimately fulfilled the role that the Germans had intended for their heavies: the "focal point" weapon that could outgun practically anything and enable a breakthrough for combined arms at critical locations. I believe the Germans had the right idea when they began the "heavy era" with Tiger, but it were the Soviets who had the actual manpower to truly realise it.

[@ODST6262]

The German Tigers came out in Nov 42 with 502 Bn to Leningrad, 501 and 504 to Tunis. 503 at Kursk with 505. 4 Coy Tiger I at Kursk - GD, 1-3 SS PG Divisions. In all engagements Tigers were deployed in companies whether defensive or offensive. The only deployment by Bn was in 1945 by 501st SS and 503 SS Tiger 2 to eliminate a Soviet bridgehead before the German 1945 Hungarian offensive. The Soviets did the same with IS Regiments equivalent to German companies - 21 IS to 14 Tiger. But by 1945 the Soviets were using IS in brigades of 65 IS for offensive operations. IS were the right heavy tanks for breakthrough attacks provided just as the Soviet drive to Berlin picked up steam. German use of Tigers in penny packets made sense in defense. 2-3 Tigers could stop an attack as well as 14. Concentrating Tigers in battalions in defense just meant the Soviets would bypass the Tigers forcing them into a battle of movement. Movement was not the Tiger's best quality.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The low ammo load would probably have been unacceptable for Western forces - and especially by the outnumbered Germans. The US Army considered 70 rounds the lowest acceptable ammo load, and they had to "delete" the turret basket on the M26 Pershing to enable it to carry 70 rounds. The Tiger 1 could carry up to 130 rounds if necessary. Interestingly enough today's giant super tanks carry only some 40+ rounds of main gun ammo.

[@twentyrothmans7308]

Thank you, and please give a big thanks to Herrn Wehner and I hope to see the MHM when they let me out/in.

[@redarmy1544]

This is my favorite military history channel you do better then anyone else in my opinion and they need to give you a tv show i love all your videos and i hope you always keep the good work and quality up like you do theres not many like you and i wish i could shake your hand out of respect and love for the way you portray history in a way that anyone can watch and still learn something new and fascinating

[@redarmy1544]

P.S. ive never been good at grammar so sorry and its also 4 am here where i live i just got off from a 12 hour shift

[@donfrandsen7778]

Great video !! Appreciate the videos on German , Soviet , US Armor from WW II I have a suggestion could you do a video about how many Panzer Grey Tiger I tanks were used late 1942 /early 1943 Great videos love the graphics too!!

[@Sadend]

Seeing as the IS-2 does not have a hull machine gun, you should have gone over the third cursed DT machine gun that is fixed in place and somehow operated by the driver.

[@strellettes8511]

it actually has a fixed hull machine gun I believe that either the driver or loader fired.

[@fulcrum2951]

@@strellettes8511 checked and no they dont The driver sits in the center front hull, cant find a good location for its hull machine gun if they were ever to install it

[@petarjukic7973]

It does have a hull mounted machine gun at 7:45 if you look at the left side of the tank you can see a hole where the machine gun was mounted

[@benlowe7089]

Genuinely surprised that Germany manufactured more heavy tanks than USSR.

[@matthewrikihana6818]

I'm a bit taken aback at the production numbers if the IS2 versus the KV1. But now I know. Cheers dude.

[@GaryArmstrongmacgh]

There were Guards units (XXXX=Army sized) around since 1941. Not many. But increasing in number and variety as the war went on.

[@501Mobius]

I use Amizaurs numbers as he tested the armor thickness with an ultrasonic device. The Model 1943 had a mantlet of 110mm per the German captured report. Though they didn't use an ultrasonic. The front turret of both models was 100mm. My Soviet tank production numbers are somewhat different from yours. 122mm is very good if your tank game includes shock effect.

[@glennedgar5057]

I believe is3 fought m48 in the 67 mid east war. The engagement occured on the northern coast road in sinia. The m48 losses untill they could be out flanked.

[@RussianThunderrr]

Thank you, Bernard for good IS tank history/overview. The rate of fire earlier IS-2 was slower then later IS-2 due to gun bridge redesign. So it went from 1-1.5 round per minute to 2-3 round per minute.

[@jimhenry6844]

Brilliant. Technically, Accurate. Jeez it is awesome.

[@uegvdczuVF]

Something to consider. Those 28 shells give you the same amount of firepower as about 68 of Tigers shells. Volume increases by cube which makes the 122mm HE shell three times more powerful than the one on 88mm. It is 3,5 times heavier with 4 times larger explosive charge. With AP it doesn't really means that much but for what this tank was primarily used the difference is drastic. Also, i did serve on 122mm SPG irl and the claim of "AT MOST 2 shots per minute" seems unlikely, unless the loader is very inexperienced. With a well trained loader 3-4 shots seems easily doable. Well, easy for everyone in the tank who is not the loader, because he is going to work his ass off...

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

> i did serve on 122mm SPG irl and the claim of "AT MOST 2 shots per minute" seems unlikely, yeah, cause since 1944 technology etc. did not improved at all.

[@JimIBobIJones]

The IS series of tanks started life as the next iteration of KV tanks (the "IS-85" started off as "KV-85"), but because Voroshilov was falling out of favour with Stalin, the moniker was changed to IS more to strip Voroshilov of prestige than to praise Stalin.

[@PalleRasmussen]

Source?

[@JimIBobIJones]

@@PalleRasmussen can't remember the primary source but it's mentioned by quite a few historians. Definitely remember that Robert Service mentions it in "Stalin".

[@vasiliymedvedev1532]

Voroshilov performed badly in finland campaign so understandable

[@PalleRasmussen]

@@JimIBobIJones thank you. Good to se someone source their comment. The primary source would be in Russian, so a secondary must suffice. Good on you.

[@JimIBobIJones]

@@vasiliymedvedev1532 The KV renaming was the result of a different instance Voroshilov fell out of favour. Interestingly he regularly fell in and out of favour with Stalin and always seemed to get back in good graces without ever being purged or facing any serious consequences. He fell out of favour after the war with Finland, then got back in favour and then fell out again after performing badly in Leningrad - only to be back in good graces after the war. Stalin had a thing for his cavalry commanders from the civil war. Budyonny arguably got treated even better despite being much more incompetent (as opposed to Voroshilov, who got scapegoated for Stalin's own short-sightedness in purging the army of experienced officers).

[@MarkSynthesis]

Great to see you Baryatinskiy as a source--there's something about English-speaking presenters on KZbin, talking about Soviet tanks, desperately trying to avoid using Soviet or Eurasian literary sources. "I can't read Russian," as an excuse only goes so far (especially when authors like Baryantinskiy are widely translated into English)--imagine if, for example, a Taiwanese presenter was looking at the ROCA's collection of American light and medium tanks in National Revolutionary Army service, but never once used American literature. Good job as usual!

[@davidmeek8017]

Aloha; well done! Danke!

[@garyhill2740]

I really appreciate the specs given on the armor thickness of the IS tank. Many sources do not distinguish between actual thickness and effective thickness, which make the IS appear massively more heavily armored than it was. In reality, the frontal armor on the IS appears quite similar to the U.S. Pershing, though with slightly heavier side armor. Both tanks, IS and T26E3, seem to have settled on armor on similar scale to Tiger I, improving protection through sloping and shaping rather than heavier thickness. I can't help but wonder what it would have been like if Tiger II had taken this approach? A Tiger II with armor on the scale of Tiger I but better shaped and sloped, with a long 88 and good mobility would have been impressive.

[@TheStugbit]

I understand the Soviet engineers by considering the KV a failed design, but I think the KV-1 turned to be a failed design only in the spring of 42, when the 75mm longer gun was introduced. Before that, only the 88mm flak gun was able to defeat it. From what I have seen on that matter the PAK 38 was not enough. If you make a comparison between the KV-1 and the early versions of the T-34 in 1941, the KV-1 was a better tank even with all the problems. That tank hold the German advance towards Leningrad in 1941.

[@nottoday3817]

I think it was considered a failure because it was more cumbersome than the T-34 while having the same firepower. T-34 also had sloped armour which gave it protection levels similar to the KV-1.

[@TheStugbit]

@@nottoday3817 I would say because of upgrades the T-34 was better. But both the KV and IS-2 look similar in some aspects. In terms of design it might not have been a complete lost.

[@alexsveles343]

I love going to Europe exploring world War and cold War stuff. But my special interests are German and Russian tanks.especiaky 5he heavys I know 5h3 Russians were somewhat disappointed whit is2 that they build the larger is3 in 44. The is3 was a 47tons ment to take on the panthers When we come to the end of the war whit king tiger and Is7 .(both over 70t) wich was truly pushing the limit 9f what tanks are

[@s.31.l50]

Interestingly, around 2400 ISU-122/ISU-122S and around 2800 ISU-152 were also built, which outnumbers IS-2.

[@Vlad_-_-_]

It always annoyes me to no end seeing people praise german heavy tanks to silly levels, despite not achieving much on the large scale of things, but so few know about the IS2 that proved itself and was present in enough numbers to truly make a difference. As the Red Army was on the offensive and doing breakthrough all the time, the IS2 fit in perfectly with their doctrine and the design although with its drawbacks was good for what it had to do. The IS2 is a far more succesfull tank than any german heavy, one cannot deny it.

[@Vlad_-_-_]

I know its hard for German tank fanboys to imagine a Russian tank being better but it was. It was made in enough numbers and unlike German heavy it was reliable enough to do its role and did it well, all the German ones did was very limited local success which is useless as world wars are won at operational and strategic level where the big cats were non relevant. The IS 2 was actually reliable too and could and did man handled any German heavy. As for the panther it was the next work horse medium tank to replace the mark 3 and 4 but it too was too expensive and unreliable and ended up being a turreted tank destroyer, thus failling big at its intended role. All big cats were failed designs that were good for propaganda and impressing legions of German army fanboys. Nobody used German cats after the war they were dead ends and waste of resources. Allied tanks on the other hand...

[@ihtfp01]

@@Vlad_-_-_ The French certainly used panthers for a time after WW2...

[@Vlad_-_-_]

@@ihtfp01 Right you are and they soon saw just how terribly unreliable they are. Even the french that had no tanks used them for a bit and said " Fuck it, we can do better ". And they started developing the AMX series, which spanned a long list of proper tanks that saw service for a long time, unlike the panther.

[@joperamod5760]

@@Vlad_-_-_ aha