How Bad Was The IS-2?

I made the failings of the Soviet KV-1 heavy tank clear in my video on it, so I figured I would talk about a Soviet heavy tank that actually lived up to expectations. The IS-2 was very impressive, especially for a World War II heavy tank, but just how well did it perform?
Check the channel "About" section for the link to the creator of my profile picture.
Sources:
King Tiger vs IS-2, Operation Solstice 1945 - David R. Higgins
IS-2 Heavy Tank 1944 to 1973 - Steven Zaloga, Peter Sarson
Soviet T-10 Heavy Tank and Variants - James Kinnear, Stephen Sewell
The IS Tanks: IS-1, IS-2, IS-3 - Mikhail Baryatinskiy
Armored Champion - Steven Zaloga
Songs used (in order from first to last):
Subnautica - Into the Unknown
Halo 3: ODST - Rain (Deference for Darkness)
Sound mods:
Epic Thunder (Pre-release)
Armored Warfare Crew Voices
Sponsor: apexgamingpcs....
Second channel: / @spookstoon
Patreon: / spookston
Twitter: / spookston
Reddit: /u/spookston
Discord: See my Patreon page.
Twitch: / spookstonwt
Steam: goo.gl/BYQjC9

[@MistahFox]

"If it managed to score a hit, chances were it didn't need another." That is a great quote

[@Kiblyk15]

What people dont realize, is that 122 and 155mm shels have so much volume, you dont even need to penetrate. The impact shock is so big that it breaks at the time poor quality german steel and welds. And even if you dont knock out crew, they would be out of battle for few minutes.

[@coreymoore1186]

@@Kiblyk15 yeah after getting hit by that bfg crew might bail even without pen

[@FearlessLeader2001]

@@Kiblyk15 Can you imagine how much force would be behind a 122mm shell? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe even a ricochet would be a rather poor experience, considering late war german steel and weld quality. Would probably warp armor lol

[@darklysm8345]

@@FearlessLeader2001 late war bad armor is an alliboo myth

[@codemy666]

@@Kiblyk15 Also i'm pretty sure they could dislocate the turrets on Tiger 2s

[@An0beseGiraffe]

It's such an underrated tank tbh, for roughly the same weight as the panther you get a bigger gun, thicker armor, and decent mobility. Great content as always, The Chieftain and Sofilein actually did a good video on this tank as well 😊

[@whocares435-z9v]

To be fair, it was developed years later. Technology and design advanced so fast that most things became obsolete within a year or two.

[@ChugLifePodcast]

And 3x the reload....

[@jammygamer8961]

And more cramped crew conditions and less mobility

[@An0beseGiraffe]

@@whocares435-z9v True, but in contrast the Tiger II was also designed later in the war and you could argue didn't really push things further in terms of technology/ design over IS-2. Especially considering they stuck with a front mounted transmission etc

[@frank3222ful]

The reload was a hassle, and it sucked versus moving targets, especially at range, unless the gunner was very good at his job. To reload that big ass cannon, they had to crank up the elevation to +15, or down -5 to reload it(due to 2 part ammo, and cramped conditions), thus after each shot/reload, the gunner had to find the target, and recalibrate the gun again. In hindsight the SU-100 was FAR more effective at engading tanks, the IS2 mains role was just to blast soft targets at close range, and soak up damage, so the t34s could do the rest of the job. Ofc our fav gay furry forgot the most important part again, but whatever, we are used to it, arent we? :)

[@gabornemes6932]

How bad was the IS-2? My answer: it was reliable Spooks answer: it was reliable My reaction: a suprise to be sure but a welcome one

[@kirishima638]

Star Wars memes? I have a bad feeling about this.

[@fionn7631]

@@kirishima638 only a sith deals in absolutes

[@eth_saver]

russian propaganda

[@mfquandary]

@@eth_saver wehraboo

[@ΤαξιαρχηςΣταγιας-δ6β]

@@eth_saver IS power.. Like or not.. Hi from Greece.. Not russian

[@m1a1abramstank49]

This is a godsend. There isn’t a ton of talk of the IS-2 out there so this was needed imo

[@felipenunes5240]

What's imo?

[@homosapien4229]

@@felipenunes5240 in my opinion

[@BigCroca]

@@homosapien4229 in your opinion what? 😂

[@m1a1abramstank49]

@@BigCroca He was telling him what ‘imo’ meant, he never made an opinion

[@m1a1abramstank49]

@ThyPeasantSlayer In my experience, there is little talk about IS-2s. It’s moreso revolved around German cats, Sherman’s, or T-34s. If you search up IS-2 the only thing you’ll see is stuff from war games

[@Jilve69]

You make very good content, more educational than most history channels while still focusing on games and other stuff.

[@emescub]

But where are the aliens?

[@Jilve69]

@@emescub maybe they are among us

[@sausageroll2695]

but thinks the PT76 suffers and the pe8 is op

[@JustAnotherRandomPersonOnline]

@@sausageroll2695 PT76 needs to stay behind, it really isn't a "tank" tank. Popping rounds into enemy tanks, damaging them and repairing friendlies is where the PT76 (and B) shine).

[@anhvule9009]

@@sausageroll2695 Agreed, here in Vietnam we give the PT-76 the nickname "Iron Buffalo" since it can run on land and in the water, and perform support roles and only support roles well.

[@kobeh6185]

Most underrated thing about the IS2 is the independent gunners periscope which is a vast improvement over basically any German tank

[@vukashin88]

All Russian tanks had that, and a lot of them even fitted one for the loader as well! People give the Russians grief about situational awareness/ optics without really knowing much about the actual vehicles.

[@tntproductions1996]

@@vukashin88 To be fair, T-34 didn't have a coupla in its early years and the commander had to pull double duty as a loader. Two man turrets are not ideal for WW2 tanks :/

[@cameronporter5137]

@@tntproductions1996 *Gunner not loader

[@admiraltroll5255]

@@vukashin88 the chieftain illustrated this nicely with his panther walk around

[@lyndoncmp5751]

German gunners did need one otherwise they would have got one. Loaders were given periscopes later on in Panther and Tiger runs but there was no requirement for gunners to have one, as the gunner was on the same sight line as the commader and tge commander in the Panther and Tiger had superior all round vision to allied tank commanders. It was the commander who picked targets.

[@Avionicx]

The IS-2 is my favorite tank of all time. I don't think it would be wrong to call it the best heavy tank of the war (from most tank experts and historians I've heard, Churchill is an Infantry tank, not a heavy). Reliable, well liked, and was used until the 50's. Also, dear god it's beautiful.

[@shadowraven3253]

Even if it wouldn't be called an infantry tank I would say that the IS-2 is better than the Churchill.

[@cartermorris4339]

@@shadowraven3253 that’s why it’s a infantry tank the IS-2 is a breakthrough tank therefore needs a big gun while the Churchill shot mostly smoke shells and HE but design wise you would want to be in a Churchill. ( Sorry if this sounds very aggressive)

[@Melthornal]

infantry tank and heavy tank are the same thing…

[@mikeg8876]

is3 and 4 look cooler imo

[@kaustuv5682]

@@mikeg8876 The best metric to judge a tank with.

[@StrvB-ng8kb]

The last phrase is kind of hitting the spot. Y'know, living in the post-USSR, our armor have quite clear stereotypes: Early T-34 and KVs, bouncing billions of German inferior 37mm T-34-85, tank so successful and mass-produced that it is rightfully synonymous to "victory", even called "Victory tank" sometimes in official media. Then for fortification and tank busting with heavy shells you got SU/ISU-152. And so, there is little notable left to IS-1 and IS-2, even though how much importance they had and in fact stayed most massively produced soviet heavy tank, staying in service and reserve until 1990s. Of course, later designs like Object 730 aka IS-5 and its later renditions named IS-8/T-10 surpassed the IS-2, but they did never outphase it completely, until the era of heavy tanks was completely over. That's a big credit this tank sometimes doesn't receive.

[@raketny_hvost]

Thx to anti-soviet trends, while people watching dry information can find much interesting. Also don't forget explosives' volume in soviet AP shells making them ultimate crew-destroyers

[@StrvB-ng8kb]

Then again, it is something 152mm shells of ISU/SU-152 are better known for. Smashing Tigers since summer 1943, y'know, they weren't dubbed "Зверобой" for nothing.

[@The_Crimson_Fucker]

I imagine some of that might have to do with the politics around the IS series of tanks and the not-so-hot public image they had after WW2.

[@StrvB-ng8kb]

Splendid. Although, again, it isn't fault of the tank themselves, which is sad. I, however, prefer the soviet prototypes designations. Object 730 sounds extremely cool to me.

[@shermanfirefly5410]

@@StrvB-ng8kb I mean, especially during cold war Many soviet prototype designs are almost 1 decade superior to its nato counterparts

[@Angstbringer18B]

If my memory serves me right, the IS-2/JS-2/whatever was more than capable of knocking out any tank in service beside the king tigers with the HE shells alone. Even then I read a document from Bundesarchiv which was a damage report from an Oberleutnant commanding a king tiger who claimed his gunner killed from spall as a Soviet 122mm HE shell struck the front of the turret and caused total separation of the welds but failed to physically penetrate the turret.

[@DerDop]

Spalling worked like that on almost all artillery shells, not only with IS-2. Also, the steel quality on Is-2 was really bad.

[@pdr_2703]

@@DerDop or on any soviet tank

[@tirpitz177]

I think it could knock out a Tiger 2s front plate do to late war German steel being crappily made

[@phunkracy]

@@DerDop you got it wrong, soviet steel quality in ww2 was actually great (better than British according to germans) but late war Germans had terrible steel, very brittle because they lacked manganese

[@phunkracy]

@@AryanAkane only initial batches of IS-2 had this problem, Soviets quickly caught up and made their steel less brittle, finally making it fully resistant against german 75 and 88 mm guns

[@TARmeow]

Just coming to say hope your doing well Spook, have a nice week!

[@blu5021]

You too!

[@noneofyourbusiness2107]

@@blu5021 and you!!

[@bossbingus7457]

2 war thunder youtubers that I subcribed too in one video. I say I struck gold here.

[@TARmeow]

@@blu5021 Thanks man!

[@blu5021]

@@TARmeow no problem!

[@cursedcliff7562]

imo the IS-2 is one of the best tanks in the whole of war thunder, if you have decent aim nothing you can face can really resist the gun, and if they can, the insane reverse speed can get you out of trouble in a hurry

[@ushikiii]

I love the shell velocity. You don't need to compensate for shell drop as much when engaging tanks from afar.

[@golucid745]

Just dont get uptiered lol

[@dave_sic1365]

Yes is2 and tiger 2 have incredible reverse speed/acceleration.

[@cocowarrior211]

Garbage when it gets uptiered to BR 6.7 and above

[@kit6818]

IS-2: comes round corner Entire Enemy Team: "Why Hello There" IS-2: *dissapears with scooby doo sound effect*

[@daag1851]

Based on Panter being medium tank while being 44,8 metric ton, and IS-2 being 46 metric ton, I would call it the best medium tank of WW2 /s.

[@admiralfloofz658]

No medium tank with such an insanly low rate of fire will ever be the "best medium tank". The Panther G was by far the best medium tank of ww2

[@TheSchultinator]

I believe the Soviets considered the Panther a type of heavy tank; this may also be more a case of what role do you plan to use the tank for.

[@gitgood8509]

@@admiralfloofz658 by far most unreliable and plugged with technical problems. Even on G variant transmission is still prone to breakdown, final drive is only somewhat more reliable, and tank itself is a maintenance nightmare. M4 is lot better (but that's kinda expected from a tank that had proper development time in safe conditions and could be built with proper quality control and with proper materials)

[@erwinc.9117]

/s aside, I think weight class isn't the only consideration, the IS-2 is a breakthrough tank, meant to tank hits and destroy tough targets, fulfilled the role of a heavy tank, while the Panther honestly is a bit of a TD in its role. The Pershing was also classified as a heavy tank because of it was tasked with dealing with tough targets.

[@daag1851]

@@erwinc.9117 I also heard the Soviets called Panter heavy tank

[@caseybennett7264]

Playing steel division 2 in any of the bagration campaigns, it really puts into perspective how good is2s were. They were very effective at being multipurpose and hard to kill when all you got is pak 40s half the battles

[@nolategame6367]

Yeah and the 122 is good at breaking bunkers as well

[@phunkracy]

Yeah, also IS-2 shoots at you with a huge ass gun that has good ballistics from 2,5 km away and you cant penetrate them

[@Boss_Man1371]

Unfortunately the IS2 in multiplayer is hot garbage 90% of the time lol

[@LeMeowAu]

@@Boss_Man1371 sadly so

[@jamessteale805]

Was playing the Orsha campaign today: They’re only deadly when engaging with Flak 88s at 2km. Within 1500m they an get picked off by Pak 40s as well

[@Gurren813]

Interesting that you bring up how the IS-3 was a rather poor tank, even though it scared the allied powers shitless at the time. You should definitely cover it next. This video also reminds me of that image of an IS-1 crew playing a piano next to their tank, markings clearly visible, and looking really chill and happy, then another image emerged of the same tank with the same markings engulfed in flames :(

[@tntproductions1996]

I think I found the picture on r/DestroyedTanks with the post titled "Feels good" Is that the image? ( I can't post the link because KZbin seems to delete for some reason :( )

[@werrkowalski2985]

@@tntproductions1996 Except that is not an IS-1 tank. IS-1 has the same turret as KV-85 and T-34-85.

[@worldoftancraft]

@The Expat Dodo And those guys don't actually have TANKS since AMX-30 and tanks like it and the era of 105mm guns. why? Well, how should I tell you... Accordingly to possessed by me information, 120mm guns hadn't got any proper HE shell before the former decade happened, which is '2010s.

[@Conserpov]

He is simply wrong about IS-3 - it was far superior to IS-2. Both IS-2 and IS-3 were equally considered "bad" in late 1940-s - by postwar peacetime standards, since they were built as "wartime rugged" tanks. This is a typical case of uncritical reading of sources by Spookston.

[@paullakowski2509]

@The Expat Dodo that's what happens when academics have to explain to Politicians about what most tankers already suspected. with the 120mm HE question ....the 120mm HEAT round doubled as HE since it had blast fragmentation effect which was most important....due to the expectation of facing thousands of commie tanks coming over the hill.

[@theholyromanemperor6275]

i understand now why IS-2s are actually good tanks; before i was not a fan of long reload guns but ever since i got the hang with the T-10A, ive started to like the "fire, wait for a while then repeat" strategy, so i started to use vehicles with longer reload and i actually enjoy them (i might get hate on this one but i still dont get the hang with KV-2s so im not a big fan of them :>)

[@ausaskar]

I cut my teeth on the KV-2 back when it was godmode before the huge 152mm APHE shell nerf. So slipping into the peek and delete playstyle was natural and made even easier with the IS2's great reverse gear.

[@ajamcan7264]

@@ausaskar that makes two of us. I still didn’t really like playing the KV2, but I still used the skills gained from the KV to use on the IS2s. The IS2 is about my favorite Soviet tank, the simple gameplay of peek and delete is fun, especially while working in a pair or other tanks as support. Oh, your friends can’t kill this tiger? Then poke out and send him back to Berlin, then hide away

[@yashjoshi7853]

@@ajamcan7264 let me give u ranges 0 to 100 m - CQC 100 to 400/500 m - medium range 500 to 1200 m - long range For IS2 - I find rocks that are about 900 meters away from the general location where the enemy groups will come... Preferably either slightly higher ground or atleast a flattish surface. Use binoculars for range, peak, slap, reverse. So prefered combat is long range, proceed to medium range if atleast 1 flank has been cleared or when enemy isn't focusing on your side. For Kv 2 - I use it mainly in dense hard cover areas.... Like cities.... Or places where it takes a little time to drive and get to you. Try to stay behind atleast 1 group of mediums or heavies..... Peak when enemy has already fired a shot, slap, reverse. So I use it as a CQC/medium range tank. And ofcourse find a dense hard cover with the most irritating access points.... Routes that are painful and slow for the enemy to drive through. These spots will help with the reload.... And remember you are a kv 2... So anyways anyone trying to get a hit on you will be double minded..... Use that.

[@ajamcan7264]

@@yashjoshi7853 yeah. ive become much more fond of the KV-2 ever since i learned the ins and outs of IS-2 gameplay. they're really similar actaully, just one can be used easily at long range

[@yashjoshi7853]

@@ajamcan7264 yep, I unlocked my kv2 after my is2.... Both the is 2 infact. The is2 1944 experience did help loads. Kv 2 in close ranges just need a bit more work in moving around compared to other tanks.... Enough moving around to give you those extra seconds to reload. 🙂

[@theaverageace546]

“How bad was the IS-2” *Proceeds to destroy every wheraboo in a Tiger*

[@bleedinactionman8578]

Its shiet in real life, not in the game

[@critrawkets]

​@@bleedinactionman8578 the video literally says that it was actually effective and reliable

[@PrometheanGOld4]

My favorite tank in game and in WW2 second to the T-34-85, thanks Spookston!

[@lebien4554]

Literally the first time I've ever seen anyone play the IS-2 Revenge

[@ODST_Parker]

The IS-2 has honestly become one of my favorite tanks in War Thunder. I've only recently researched the later versions with sloped frontal armor in both Russian and Chinese tech trees, but after spading both early IS-2s, I'm looking forward to playing more of them. It's just so fun to bounce a shot and then stare down a Panther like, "My turn." as you fire straight through their front plate and use that fantastic reverse speed to back off and reload.

[@gamerdrache6076]

panther was a medim tank tho and was made against t 34 and kv1 bur probaly king tiger would be the same

[@jacksteel1539]

I really don’t get why people praise the big cats so much and ignore the IS2, for a couple more tons than the panther it had better armour everywhere, enough to stop 88 from a tiger reliably past 500 meters and it’s gun would usually disable any tank it shot with or without penetration while also being great at dealing with infantry and basically anything other than planes. Low production cost with good reliability and it had a good acceleration and top speed on top

[@slazen2800]

THEY R CUTE UwU

[@Welterino]

3:20 you mentioned it only carried 8 AP rounds and that would be bad but... If I'm not mistaken I heard on another documentary that even the HE could severely damage panthers because it had so much explosive filler and german steel was brittle at this point in the war, the steel plates would break and spall everywhere even on HE hits. Great video, made my day better 😊

[@frankpolly]

Pretty much this. HE could be used as an anti-armor round. Not only would 122mm HE create spalling inside the tank, the massive HE blast would concuss the enemy tanks crew.

[@kden9772]

I’ve heard the HE worked in the Tiger 2 as well, a result of the poor steel quality on German tanks later on in the war

[@darklysm8345]

"german steel was brittle at this point in the war, the steel plates would break and spall everywhere even on HE hits." Myth and false

[@kden9772]

@@darklysm8345 I’ve seen post war reports on late war German armor that detail this extensively. Where are you getting your information from?

[@lebien4554]

The sheer explosive force alone is enough to turn anything inside into mush, let alone the spalling and structural damage.

[@lamri13uk]

Yet again an excellent video spooks! keep up the good work, i honestly look forward to seeing you pop up on my notifications :)

[@juanconstenla1171]

Well apart, from the reload speed and traditional problems of any soviet tank, the only other weakness I find in the is2 its name giving a bad reputation. Also mainly from game experience, it's a pleasure to drive a heavy that can actually rush instead of playing the late game, and being able to go in reverse very quickly just to be extra sneaky beaky.

[@colobopsis5685]

What is bad w/ a name? As a russian, I really like the fact, that one of our most capable tanks were called after our great leadee

[@juanconstenla1171]

@@colobopsis5685 nothing directly actually, just that there isn't much info as spokeston says, probably because the Western countries didn't wanted to research expecting some positive bias of propaganda, or maybe they could had a negative bias just for spite.

[@worldoftancraft]

@@juanconstenla1171 the entire crush of the civilization of the local ethnos began with blackpainting of the Georgian. Then they continued with Ljenin. Then with debunking of Pljehanov, which didn't really happen because it largely wasn't needed anymore. Quotation of Aljeksandr Jakovljev, one of the main ideologists of local process called "rebuilding": «A group of true, not selfproclaimed reformers have developed (of course, verbally) the following plan: with Ljenin's authority strike Stalin, Stalinism. And then, if we are successful, Pljekhanov and social democracy will beat Ljenin while liberalism and "moral socialism" - revolutionism in general.»

[@yagdtigercommander]

It was like a similar concept to the SU 152 and ISU 152 SPGS. It wasn't intended to fight other tanks just deal with fortifications and defenses. But its Anti Tank capabilities were an added bonus when ever it did come across even small pockets of German armour. I could only imagine how Panzer 4 crews felt if they had an encounter with an IS-2 having to pray to rngesus that their 75mm round got lucky and hit a weakpoint on the IS-2. Because if it didn't and bounced of the angled front armour then IS-2 would just need to look at the panzer 4 and it might cause the crew to wave the white flag lol.

[@kremzeekatk8301]

Nope, the IS-2 was designed exactly as an "anti-tank". When the Kursk battle was over, soviets examined destroyed german vehicles, and it turned out that the most effective AT weapon at that moment from the soviet side was 122mm A-19 cannon. It vaporized everything it hit, penetrating thick armor plates from distances and angles no other cannons could. So the decision was made to put in into the IS tank to improve it's anti-tank capabilities. It's breech and recoil system were redesigned slightly in order to fit the turret, and that's how the field A-19 artillery turned into D-25T tank cannon.

[@sb_io9704]

"Bagration, one of the more effective Soviet operations of the war" Cries in Army Group Center and North

[@ГеоргийМурзич]

ONE of

[@colobopsis5685]

More like, the second biggest defeat in german military history. Ehhehehe

[@weierlowe9891]

@@colobopsis5685 Good that the soviet Union collapsed you will never rise again hehehehe

[@johnfrancisterne1072]

Rokossovsky was the world's greatest magician. He made an entire army group vanish

[@ГеоргийМурзич]

@@weierlowe9891 we're not germany to have problems with comebacks. Now be so kind to stfu and return to your turkish owner

[@justv7536]

"It not only went through the Panther's upper front plate, but the rest of the tank too." *Nails Sturmpanzer with primary cannon*

[@CrhisLulz]

Finally, a video acknowledging the true image the IS-2 deserves. To say it was the Soviet King Tiger would mean to not understand the issues of the King Tiger. Unlike it, it was reliable, with its only very major downside being that it used 2 piece ammunition which took more time to reload. Nonetheless, with its HE shells, it could easily knock out tracks or even knock out a King Tiger if it scored a direct hit. Good content, good video, thank you Spookston.

[@wallnusschef6526]

The IS 2 was not the Tiger 2 of the Soviet Union. The Tiger 2 had advantages in every aspect if you overlook the pool of spareparts

[@tntproductions1996]

Not really. IS-2 had a lower profile, better HE shell for destroying fortifications, better power to weight ratio, is lighter, and is cheaper.

[@wallnusschef6526]

@@tntproductions1996 every Point you tell has literally nothing to Do with overall Combat effectivness

[@tntproductions1996]

@@wallnusschef6526 Lower profile helps to make your tank less easy to see. More powerful HE lets you destroy bunkers more easily and deal more damage. Better power to weight ratio allows you to get over higher hills and deeper ditches without getting stuck. Lighter weight means your tank can cross more bridges where heavier tanks can't. Cheaper cost makes it easier to field more tanks. How does all this not factor into combat effectiveness?

[@beans6255]

@@wallnusschef6526 lolwut

[@Salvothegamer]

Calling Operation Bagration "one of the more succesfull soviet operations of the war" hurts as bad as the reports from army group center.

[@DavidPT40]

Literally destroyed an entire German army group. I'd say it was the best Soviet Operation of the war.

[@cicciopasticciopatrozzi1907]

@@DavidPT40 maybe even one of the best of the whole war, but that would be a close call since there are so many other ones that are also very important

[@SuperLeosid]

@@cicciopasticciopatrozzi1907 Operation Bagration was instrumental to all of history and the present world as we know, rivalling Operation Barbarossa, Normandy landings and Operation Ichigo in the same category, don't you think?

[@dakiler2028]

I also find it very funny that literally nobody knows about Bagration. The Soviet armies roflstomped a whole army group which effectively ceased to exist, managed to take all of Byelorussia within a couple of weeks, was the only big operation in which the Germans had severely more casualties than the Soviets, took all of the aspects of Blitzkrieg and did a big no u to the Germans(concentrated armored pushes on weakpoints, effective artillery usage, Shturmoviks melting German supply lines and tanks, efficient logistics, and flanking/bypassing large static enemy formations)

[@SnackerWolf]

@@dakiler2028 What you talked about isnt exactly what we can say "Blitzkrieg", but most precisly "deep operation", who was a military doctrine from the soviet army during 20's/30's, but never really was trully efficiently used before Bagration, mostly because of the officers purges from Staline, where the army lost 90% of the officers who were trained to deep operation doctrine. When Blitzkrieg is about surrounding an ennemy army with concentrated armored divisions and breakthrough operations, Deep operation is about isolating ennemy armies and strong points to each others and their logistics, to reach strategic targets such as logitics hubs and cities, all that after several breakthrough with armored vehicules, planes and artillery. The means are the same as Blitzkrieg, but the objectives arent the same at all. By doing that, they dont have to fight a war of attrition against a well fortified ennemy, but waiting them to not being able to even stay in defensive positions any longer. Soviets HQ had their owns military doctrines, not only germans :p

[@MPdude237]

I would like this series to go beyond the main iconic designs of WW2, since you had covered most by this point. I would like to see some coverage of light tanks, including mid and post war designs like the M24 Chaffee, M41 Bulldog, PT-76, and the AMX-13.

[@overvieweffect9034]

I really love this series, they way you look at these tanks with impartiality makes them sooo informative! I think a cool tank to do next if you want is the M26 Pershing

[@g.williams2047]

The reason it isn’t talked about that much is because the IS-3 has that gourgeous pike.

[@freshdachs6200]

I really like these compact videos on tanks and topics surrounding tanks, no matter if I play WT right now or having a break. You do a great job at conveying some neat knowledge without dragging it out unnecessarily.

[@TheArklyte]

"Doesn't get enough praise." Tank ALREADY known as most powerful mass produced Allied heavy tank isn't praised enough? The only downside to IS-2 was that there was no reverse Lend Lease to send first 50-100 to UK for D-Day preparations.

[@badgermcbadger1968]

I dont think is2 can be transported on boats

[@JaM-R2TR4]

@Pommy Pie yes, and IS2 was 46ton heavy...

[@toasty5605]

ahh yes, the DD IS-2

[@ГеоргийМурзич]

@@beautifullifeform4360 khem, Great Britain received help from US and sent help to the USSR

[@TheArklyte]

@@badgermcbadger1968 1)and how do you think it was transported irl? How had it crossed thousands of rivers and swamps from western Russia all the way to western Germany? It doesn't somehow force the molecules of water to fall apart near itself just because it's called heavy tank. 2)compare its mass to Pershing and Panther 3)D-Day haven't stopped on the beaches. There is an infamous american prediction that turned out to be a grim mistake - "Panther won't make up more then 20% of enemy tanks encountered". Thankfully brits were putting 17 pounder into everything that could carry it, everything that barely could(Firefly) and into everything that couldn't(Archer). 4)landing ships can carry thousands of tons depending on the model. Don't mistake infantry troop carrier you've seen in movies for the only type existing(it's not even a ship, ships were deploying those boats).

[@devendoffing7004]

I wish you talked a little about the difference between the is-2 and the is-122. But still absolutely great video, i always look forward to your uploads, keep it up!

[@kamov52510]

What is the is122?

[@deanmilos4909]

Kv-122 ?

[@deanmilos4909]

@@kamov52510 refers to the 122 milimeter cannon

[@devendoffing7004]

@@deanmilos4909 nope, is-122. The difference is the is-122 is an is-1 hull with an is-2 turret

[@deanmilos4909]

@@devendoffing7004 oh , didn't know about that one , thanks !

[@blumpfreyfranks8863]

My great grandfather was a mechanic driver in one of these, from the end of 1944 until Berlin.

[@WarthogCy]

I believe they also had problems with early shells for the 122mm. I don't remember where I read it. The early shells were fracturing before penetrating the panthers Armor and quickly fixed it

[@drinkyourwater1039]

This problem was mostly from the first IS-2 variants which used the A-19 cannon, which was not very good in an anti-tank role, after the mass adoption of the D-25T, this problem disappeared

[@kobeh6185]

Something of note is that the IS-2 was also considered to have the 100mm D10, which was without a doubt the best AT gun the allies produced during the war. It had superior accuracy, rate of fire, and armor penetration over the 122mm D25. However the 122 was selected for much greater HE performance. This is for fortifications obviously, but there are a lot of reports of the HEs massive energy being able to knock out tigers and panthers by shearing the turret ring off or partially jamming it.

[@wirdnichtverraten9432]

Best allied AT gun was clearly without any doubt the QF 17Pdr

[@worldoftancraft]

Guy. War is not about AT capability. It's about a better choice, and if it "took place" that the main round of artillery there is 122mm, then it's a great accompaniment for such a big turret.

[@kobeh6185]

@@worldoftancraft what the fuck did you just say I feel like I'm having a stroke reading this

[@kobeh6185]

@@wirdnichtverraten9432 Do you think this because of the APDS ammunition? Without that ammunition the 17 pounder is not any better than the gun of the Panther (7.5cm KWK42 L/70). Please consider it wasn't issued this ammunition for the majority of the war, only well after D-Day. The 17 pounder had a superior rate of fire over the 100mm D10 but when put in the turret of a Sherman firefly is most certainly did not. Also consider that not long after WW2 the 100mm D10 was issued with all sorts of ammunition including APDS among others, which vastly outperformed any ww2 era guns or ammunition save for the 12.8cm.

[@omni3406]

Fun fact; In War Thunder if you drive the IS-2 backwards your survivability will increase. The driver will never be hit by any shell coming from the front (or in this case the back). The Engine and Transmission will almost always eat the shells. Though the engine may catch fire it has less chance to with the transmission in the way. There is also a less chance of a fuel fire/explosion duel to the largest fuel tanks on either side of the driver. Even with the thin back armor it can be angled to deflect (sometimes) 88 mil shells and sometimes larger ones, though I wouldn't place my bets on angling it. Most, not all, enemies when encountering a backwards facing IS-2 will panic fire and either ricochet off the hull, turret or just take out a track. As long as you point your gun mantlet at their barrel, you will be fine. And remember it's best to have at least one or two teammates to help you out if something goes wrong. I've done the Backwards IS-2 in WT before and it works so well. You may get less gun depression than usual and have a risk of engine fires as well as transmission damage but your survivability will increase as long as you keep your eyes peeled and have a squad mate with you. P.S Remember to stay low and get to a sniping position on open maps. You can drive forward faster than you can reverse so facing backwards gives you a tactical advantage in regards to retreat and repair. And don't immediately charge head into the battle backwards, drive normally and when your halfway to where you wanna go (with someone around you) turn around. And take 10-15 shells as to not get easily ammo- wracked. And make sure never to let anyone see your sides our front.

[@ArrangedKarma]

Very cool and informative Spooks, it was indeed interesting to learn how it was a decent and dependable tank. Since you know, with all your historically accurate videos pretty much all heavy tanks just die when it comes to transmission and engine problems. Also one thing that made me chuckle: "Operation Bagration, one of the more successful soviet operations of the war..." Thats quite the understatement.

[@worldoftancraft]

And "ba-gra-TION" instead of "ba-gra-ti-ON"

[@dogdrivedrifts]

The old sound of the IS-2 you brought back in this video, man it gave me nostalgic feelings.

[@danysainz-gootenberg7809]

Despite carrying only 8 ap rounds, HE could still be effective in anti armor roles for at least a mobility kill and at most cracking or extreme spalling after hitting a frontal plate. Although, this was definitely helped by mediocre German armor quality later in the war.

[@B52Stratofortress1]

It would definitely rattle the enemy crew, the shockwave wouldn't do kind things to them. Then spalling happens as you said and the enemy vehicle is absolutely mission killed.

[@worldoftancraft]

I will tell you more, it could easily damage the muzzle brake of 8,8mm guns. With the all devastating consequences following from the shot with such a condition of the gun.

[@lordderpington8021]

Good vid, I remember back when ground forces just released and I rushed for the IS2 as fast as possible. One of my favorite tanks today with the M36 and M103 topping it

[@mrs9935]

The is-2 mod 1944 is actually really good in game. It's very fun.

[@kimjanek646]

Feels a bit outclassed at 6.3. At 5.7 it's good against Panthers but at 6.3 you face German heavies and various fast bois that can outplay it quite easily.

[@nedreiss5639]

It confuses German mains so much when they see the words non penatrasion

[@Szpareq]

From what I remember, not really. It gets penetrated from the front from most of the tanks on its BR (even some lightanks) whereas it cannot reliably kill King Tigers + has horrible rate of fire.

[@halfmemes4686]

@@Szpareq As an IS2 mod1944 player, you are extremely correct, it is unplayable at 6.3 but it becomes incredibly unplayable when there is uptier and basically your tank will be in the same tier as T-54, and BMP both German variant and Soviet.z

[@mrs9935]

@@Szpareq 88/75s: Nooo, you can't just bounce all my shells! Is-2 mod 1944: haha reverse side scrape go brrrr

[@jonathankemp8496]

Interesting comments, but a couple of things you should all remember: first, the British used artillery against tanks in the Western Desert (it was all they had as regards to effective anti-tank weapons at the time) and found that the 25-pdr gun-howitzer was effective in direct fire against the Tiger - a hit of HE on the turret would blow it clean off. The 25-pdr was approx a 93mm gun, so it is not surprising that a 122mm HE round should be able to knock out any tank in 1944; second, research has shown that on average it took about 8 to 12 shots to kill a tank in any combat (one-shot kills were EXTREMELY rare). Computer games have given a very inaccurate impression of how 'clean' tank combat was from the point of view of how quickly and effectively a hit could be both scored and kill an enemy tank. That is not to say it didn't happen on several occasions (when Whittman took out an entire squadron of British tanks in France, for example) but it was very rare and required the right conditions, usually at close range, with highly-experienced crews and with the firing tank stationary. Military History Visualised has a couple of very interesting videos on the subject (plus one on the IS2)

[@MemeMarine]

That's very interesting. All we hear about is how tanks like the Sherman Jumbo, Tiger, Tiger 2, M8, Maus, KV-1, etc. suffer from being overweight. Interesting that the IS-2 can be heavy and reliable.

[@gamerdrache6076]

its called Königstiger

[@AFT_05G]

It wasn’t that heavy,only 46 tons.

[@spamuraigranatabru1149]

Did they not replace the rear machinegun and make other major improvments to the design post war with the IS-2M? Used till the 80's?

[@casematecardinal]

Sounds like the most useless tank that could have been kept in service to the 80s

[@nesyboi9421]

@@casematecardinal there are still T-34s being used in some countries, it happens.

[@Bagheera2]

It got improve hull armor i believe. The is always had a few issues with its frontal hull metal quality.

[@phunkracy]

@@casematecardinal it has a big ass gun and considering that average lifespan of a soldier on battlefields ww3 was supposed to be no more than 30 minutes on average, at some point one of the sides is going to run out of tanks. And at this point if you have a tank with a big ass gun and your enemy doesn't- you've won

[@casematecardinal]

@@nesyboi9421 doesn't mean that they are any good. But yeah, you use what you got

[@Sadness45678]

Love your content man!

[@the7observer]

122mm HE shells (at the same time or followed by one after the other) could displace armor plates of tanks like the tiger II according to some sources

[@locrian7th886]

It's a cool story. Why produce AP then?

[@HaydenLau.]

@@locrian7th886 Just because it could doesn't mean it can in every case. Ap is more reliable.

[@locrian7th886]

​@@HaydenLau. maybe it could after 10 shots?=) You can say, that 45mm gun could destroy Tiger 2 upper plate.. but after 500 shots.

[@m10lover]

The reload on this tank is 30 seconds plus because of two part ammo like a ship

[@emilebr5580]

Thx for this video ! You should do a video on the IS3 to continue the series ! I love the chonky style of this tank, but idk a lot about his history :/ Hi from France, and keep continue doing videos ;)

[@TheForgottenBrigade]

Biggest problem with the IS2 was that they had to elevate the barrel to reload. Germans found that out and used it. And when they had to fire again they need to reaim everything, and back in WW2 it was not uncommen to miss the first shot.

[@SelfProclaimedEmperor]

A small problem when your armor can deflect 88mm rounds even at medium range.

[@TheForgottenBrigade]

@@SelfProclaimedEmperor yes and no. The IS2 was not immune to the 88mm at all. Yes it could deflect if they hit wierd spots or at long range but the short 88 was able to pen the front hull from 450M. And ill go back to the issue with the IS2 if they did not hit the first shot, and as we know. It was rarely what happend with russian tankers on medium to long range. With that said. Its not a bad tank it just got that flaw that make it worse than it could have been

[@SelfProclaimedEmperor]

@@TheForgottenBrigade The IS-2 model 1944 had a 90mm thick front hull sloped at 60 degree angle. That gives protection equivalent to 180mm armor. The 88mm mounted on the Tiger I could only penetrate ~150mm at 500m. And only 162mm penetration at 100m. Meanwhile the IS-2s 122mm could penetrate the Tiger Is armor at 2000m.

[@TheForgottenBrigade]

Im not taking "tank vs. Tank" im taking general use of it. And the long 88 used as a AT gun was effektiv vs the IS2. Also im not saying it was a super bad design. Bit it did have a flaw with the reload disign. (If you really want to put it as a tank vs tank i could just say the model 1944 should be put against the tiger 2 not 1) so thats why i dont use it like that.

[@SelfProclaimedEmperor]

@@TheForgottenBrigade Well the Tiger II entered service after the IS-2, so it wouldn't be perfectly fair to compare them, that being said, the 122mm was still dangerous against the Tiger II, its HE shells could destroy the turret ring, dislodge the turret, and cause spalling inside the Tiger II. Tiger IIs were much rarer than IS-2s, seeing as how the Tiger II only had 450 made, vs over 3854 IS-2s. But If we talk about general combat use, the IS-2 is far superior, its 122mm high explosive shell can do a lot more damage to fortifications and infantry than the 88mms high explosives can.

[@Henry-zb1ep]

I'd find a video on the ISU-152 or just the SU series in general pretty interesting, because in my opinion it was a very unique tank which isn't as well known to most people. It's a cool vid too tho as usual :)

[@erixon2012]

IS2: approaches the battlefield Panther's frontal plate: Ah, finally a worthy opponent!

[@billwilson-es5yn]

The IS-2 was vunerable during reloading. The big gun had to be elevated in order to be reloaded. Raising the gun took a little time and loading took 30 seconds. Then it had to be depressed so the gunner could aim it at the next target.

[@Predator20357]

IS-2 be like: “You are the nail, I’m the Sledgehammer”

[@haf_blind_piratehaha4344]

cool out all of the tanks you've done so far the IS-2 is the one I knew the least about I thought the suspension would've been a big reliability issue thank you for the video

[@edim108]

Honestly one of the best tanks of the 2nd World War. It had it's issues, but overall it was much better designed than most tanks Germans used, and supremely reliable compared to pretty much anything Germany had.

[@matijasedmak8056]

That's because of all of the material rich asian countries they had conquered...

[@footballbasketball182hi5]

Facts bro

[@syncmonism]

Part of the reason it doesn't get more praise is likely because by the time it first saw operational service, the Soviets were already overwhelming the Germans, and able to maintain a significantly larger and steady supply of troops, artillery shells, etc.. and the Soviet generals and officers were becoming increasingly competent and sufficiently well organized. The Soviets were going to overwhelm the German military with or without the IS-2. The IS-2 undoubtedly reduced the number of Soviet casualties, and probably helped to speed up the conclusion of some operations, but the Soviets didn't exactly depend upon it.

[@Loup-mx7yt]

You say that the reload was due to cramped condition. I disagree, the loader had average room compared to other ww2 tanks, the main problem was ammunition placement and the fact they were 2 piece shells. Also, fun fact. The IS-2 had an air suction system that could be activated which would suck in air from the crew compartiment, this could cool down the crew compartment if an hatch was opened to make an air flow (this could also suck up dust in the engine tho. The system could be put in reverse, pulling out air from the engine, which could work as heating in the winter.

[@Kabir911]

its big brain engineering

[@ChrisS-fh7zt]

Fun fact more JSU-122's was built than IS-2's as it was found out that the extra room in the casemate made servicing and operating the A-19/ D-25S-T a lot more bearable and faster to get the next shot off over the smaller room in the IS-2 turret.

[@worldoftancraft]

yet they both are SPG. But JS-2 is a turret possessing one.

[@brandonsarsland-brunner3390]

The is2 was so good it was in Soviet/ Russian reserves till the late 80s early 90s as an infantry support vehicle (might be wrong in that, I can’t remember where I read it but I do know I read it somewhere. If I’m wrong correct me pls so I know and will delete the comment)

[@mixnmatchflavourbleach2313]

The M1 Garand and the IS-2 shake hands *PING*

[@erwinc.9117]

Operation Bagration (Багратион) is pronounced like Ba-gra-ty-on in Russian, IMO it was a terrible transliteration choice to not make it "tyon" because English tion is pronounced in a very specific way.

[@michaelbaker8284]

Operation Bag Rations

[@calessel3139]

Yeah, in English it's pronounced Bag-ra-shun which, to me, certainly doesn't sound like a Russian word - LOL!

[@worldoftancraft]

@@michaelbaker8284 Pjotr Ivanovich: I'd never thought that my family's name is "bag rations"!

[@Warmaker01]

Way back in the early 2000s, when playing the strategy game, "Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin" I had no idea what the IS-2 tanks were. I was familiar with the 76mm and 85mm armed variants of the T-34s I encountered through the various eras of the game. But in a late war battle I encountered IS-2s that were simply popping open my Panthers and Tigers like beer cans. I had gotten used to dealing with the upgunned T-34/85s but I later found out the IS-2 had a 122mm gun mounted, huge for WWII standards. I had run into 122mm armed Russian vehicles not that much earlier in the campaign, ISU-122s, and had to give them a healthy amount of respect.

[@gamerdrache6076]

just use maus or king tiger

[@s-400triumf9]

Its my favorate ww2 tank. But im not Dissagreeing with these points

[@ace7843]

[@resolute2307]

He never said anything bad about the tank?

[@ace7843]

@@resolute2307 that’s the point he’s saying it’s a good tank

[@CipherGalmTeam]

You... buddy

[@alekseybabulin4884]

Gas evacuation was also an issue (fixed later in production).

[@Russão000]

My favorite tank, the Iossif Stalin 2, It had everything to be the best tank of the war but the problem its with the ammunition, The Projectile and the gunpowder are separated, it's not like a Capsule with a Projectile as we see in the T-34 and other armored vehicles, they are placed one by one individually like a Howitzer, first comes the projectile and then something like a gunpowder bag

[@gamerdrache6076]

it was good but not the best either maus or sherman since sherman made 50000 and could peetrate al german amour on the sides most of the time

[@AFT_05G]

@@gamerdrache6076 Wdym 57,000 T/34s were made during WW2 and 85 variant could easily penetrate side armors of all German tanks too.

[@gamerdrache6076]

@@AFT_05G yeah but how did the soviets lose double the tanks then seems like the mighty t34 did´t penetrate everytime

[@itaybron]

He really should go to a tank museum and talk about tanks that are in front of him.

[@garbagebeans6939]

"So what are your plans for this new IS series?" "T-34, but *B I G* "

[@konnigkratz]

Since this video I've unlocked the IS-2 and it's now one of my favourite tanks. Useful mobility, not the best armour at its BR but enough, but the gun ❤️ consistent one shots especially against panthers upper front plates

[@OoZeD]

played a shitton of IS2 during the crafting event as i was grinding the Russian tree and this just dropped, amusing coincidence.

[@savagedogg134]

One of my favorite tanks that always gets forgotten, thanks for the great vid.

[@Losingsince]

Despite many of its shortcomings, the IS-2 was in some ways superior and technologically ahead of western heavy tank designs of World War II. It had good armor that was well-sloped and its 122MM gun was the most powerful on the battlefield, capable of dealing with any German tank frontally except the Tiger II, and unlike German or western designs, it used a diesel engine, which would not become standard in the west until the early 1960s. It proved to be more than a match for the Tiger I and Panther in most cases and did its job well

[@liviuganea4108]

It wasn't technologically ahead and nobody but idiots claims that. The armor wasn't really sloped. It was in steps. That was one of the main reasons for the development of the trash IS-3. Also, the most powerful gun would be the 128 on the Jagdtiger. Get your shit str8.

[@worldoftancraft]

@@liviuganea4108 Oh, so you compare 70 tons tank destroyer/SPG crap with an almost not produced gun and 44 tons serial machine? I guess your relatives weren't burned in a closed barn so you speak that harshly. Also, get f-ing rid of pacifiers, newborn.

[@heuzame6198]

Arent they reports thats those IS-2s were penetraded by the PaK 36 who used the HEAT bomb?

[@Swat_Dennis]

The 100mm gun was also tested. (the same as the Su-100) They found the gun to be better for AT duty but felt that the HE performance of the 122 was needed for fortifications and shrapnel over the TD duty of the 100

[@worldoftancraft]

Guy. Was is about economics. Tell me what is the main calibre of field and other kinds of soviet artillery during WWII? 122mm. That's it. While almost nothing did use the 100mm.

[@henrique2456]

you can make a coffee, chat with friends, have dinner, take a bath and travel from u.s. to india while the is-2 is reloading

[@boomerang2293]

I think the fact that a 4 minute video makes everyone so happy is an achievement, well done.

[@Baelgun]

Question : What is truth or myth. I've heard in some document(time ago sadly) that IS-2 actualy had to raise it's barrel fully UP, so the crew could reload the main gun. Because the breech was too long, for the turret. That's why their fire rate was so poor.. Since the gunner had to re-aim on the target again.

[@phunkracy]

Its true, but most large caliber guns had this issue as well

[@gitgood8509]

Not only that, but gun also had a separate loading, while having just 1 loader (in comparison, King Tiger had 2 loaders and single-piece ammo)

[@Baelgun]

@@phunkracy That is and isnt true. Heh, sorry. I would say i think half truth. I remember Germans were actualy quite "revolutionary" with being able to mount the 88 into Tiger's turret. Also i think for IS-2 it was a massive hinder. Especialy since it was a tank to fight on frontline. For Selfpropelled artilery its no issue. Im just a bit surprised Spook didnt mentioned it as a problem. :)

[@phunkracy]

@@Baelgun 88 is comparable to soviet 85. German sturmgeshutzens had to raise their guns and iirc firefly/m26 had this issue as well (??). Have to check steven zaloga for that. But raising your gun up isn't as much of a hindrance if you dont fight mobile enemy. And IS-2 by design didnt fight tanks, but rather antitank guns and entrenched infantry.

[@Baelgun]

@@phunkracy I mentioned it mostly because in memoir of Otto Carius. He mentions that the IS-2 if it missed. It had incredible hard time to take aim again, while they could shoot repeatedly. And the 88 is not that comperable to 85, i would say not even closely. In terms of how much dampening it had to be made for 88 and how little for 85. And ofc we can talk about what tanks were first designed to fight. But we are obviously talking about "if they had to fight other tanks" Also the Firefly didnt had that problem i think, but they had problem with ventilation i believe. The smoke from the gun was overfilling the turret. Leading to poisoning i believe.. but thats different topic. Anyway, point i wanted to make is : I was surprised it was not mentioned. Thats all :) We dont have to drag this discussion any further.

[@Kievaer]

Bruhhhhh I miss that 122mm gun sound. Absolutely og and distinct imo.

[@ignotumperignotius630]

In short: not bad.

[@WelcomeToLaMatanza]

Nice, i was waiting for your IS-2 video for months

[@timvlogtv512]

IS-2 is more accurate than JS-2 imo

[@worldwar2historyandgear970]

Keep it up man! I love it when you upload!

[@Arkus-Duntov]

I remember watching a military history channel show and they stated one of the draw backs of the IS-2 was that it had to elevate the gun after firing to give the loader room to work. Is there any truth to that?

[@phunkracy]

Yes

[@billytheshoebill5364]

Almost every tank have to elevate guns in order to help the loader to load the guns, key word here is help. So to an extend the answer is yes

[@sydneypalenge5982]

I have 3 words for this tank 1.scarry boi 2.big gun boi 3.strong boi This tank is a nightmare for tigers and Panthers

[@snazzydazzy]

I know Japanese tanks are bad, but I'd like to see some info on such tanks!

[@ShaggyGotSauce]

honestly, a good effort for a country that didn't have a great industry and was under blockade, while the other military branches were constantly at each other's throats

[@muhammadakhmalsabianag8870]

Japanese tanks are good for Pacific war doctrine actually, but very bad if they are required to fight in the Blitzkrieg style that is common in Europe. Japanese tanks are very light, easy to maneuver and a success as an infantry killer in the Pacific war. Their small size also makes them easy to distribute to various islands in the Pacific. So in other words the Japanese tank specs were terrible, but they were really doctrinally successful. it's a shame there's so little discussion I can find on the internet about Japanese tanks, because most people are more interested in the specifications of the tank than the doctrine used for the tank (Sorry my English is not good, I still have a lot to learn)

[@ShaggyGotSauce]

@@muhammadakhmalsabianag8870 People also forget that just maintaining tanks as a part of the military was a huge luxury back then and the mere presence of armored vehicles was overkill in many ways against the nations in the Philippines and the East Japan would go on to invade.

[@Deathbomb9]

I feel like a lot of people play these tank games and believe that all tanks from prewar era and during WWII were reliable and all that because they never breakdown in the game and some like the KV-1 when being top tier in the matches can be the hardest to kill. Yet they dont consider what it would be like if that tank acted like it's real life example. The coding would be huge in the sense that they would have to code for random events like transmission failures and things like that for each individual tank and that's just unrealistic. I love that you tend to do your research and if you are wrong or misspeak you correct it when you have the chance. You also seem to really enjoy sharing what you learn and know and I think it can help people to understand these vehicles a bit better. Haven't played war thunder but plan to eventually. Also would love an update on GHPC if you have any news about when that might be coming out or a possible beta date.

[@Zorro9129]

The USSR's equivalent of the Tiger 2 wasn't nearly as good as it in a number of departments, but made up for it in firepower and numbers. Had Allied tanks faced the IS-2 it would have ripped them to shreds.

[@iv477_]

Hi spook, I said I'd comment bc I was in that Mozdok game. You killed me at 1:22

[@no-wl9xx]

''RuSaiN BiASs'' this is a joke

[@worldoftancraft]

For claw-handed people, this is not a joke.

[@neromastic4512]

Awesome Now I am in the mood to play the IS-2 again. Love the Vids,Short yet full of Interesting History.

[@conordevery2306]

The best tank of WW2 by some distance.

[@PilotTed]

I wouldn't say the best tank, but one of the best heavy tanks for sure.

[@admiralfloofz658]

Not even remotely close. The problem is it isnt versitile. The rate of fire is FAR too low to be effective in actual combat, especially tank on tank combat. The late model Panthers like the G was by far the best tanks of WW2.

[@conordevery2306]

@@admiralfloofz658 The IS2 is a superior design to the Panther. The reload rate was never considered a significant drawback by the crews mainly due to the effect of the gun on target and the utilisation of tanks in groups. It was also a far more versatile tank than the panther with greater operational range and capacity to deal with opposition forces whether infantry, armour or fortification.

[@admiralfloofz658]

@@conordevery2306 the Panther could fire 6-7 shells by the time the IS2 could fire one. So yes, the fire rate is a drawback, especially since you have to re aim every time youve fired because you cant load the gun unless its elevated to its max. A Tank like that isnt versitile, the Panther was, it had good HE and AP and had a quick rate of fire. It also had significantly higher muzzle velocity so hitting things at range was easier. The operational range between the two are very similar, 265 for the Panther and 290 for the IS2. And I dont know if that is with the external fueltanks the IS series always had.

[@conordevery2306]

@@admiralfloofz658 Those fire rates you are providing are pure theory, if even that. In reality the panther could fire 3-4 shots for every 1-1.5 shots fired by an IS2. Again the fire rate was never considered a drawback in combat and was fully acceptable to Soviet command. I can't find any document to support your claim that the gun had to be elevated to it's max to reload either so I'd like to read where you've gotten that from. You've also substituted 5km range from the IS2 and given it to the Panther. 35km is alot in a battlefield. The combat record of both tanks demonstrates the IS2 to be the more versatile design.

[@giabaoly1381]

“Do not get involved in a fight with a “Stalin” without overwhelming numerical superiority in the field. I believe that for every “Stalin” we must account for an entire platoon of Tigers.” Any attempts by a single “Tiger” to fight a “Stalin” one-on-one can only result in the loss of a priceless war machine.” -Heinz Guderian

[@Doomer35]

If they put the D-10T gun on it would have been better against armor but the soviets probably intended it to be used against fortifications primarily.

[@worldoftancraft]

Deliver the ammo to the fronts firstly, mister AT capabilities. The economy is the war. And the war is logistics.

[@Doomer35]

​@@worldoftancraft Well considering the D-10 gun was originally designed for coastal defense guns there was ammo readily available for it. Also that gun was used in the Su-100 tank destroyer in service concurrent as the IS-2 and there is no record I know of for ammo supply being a problem for it.

[@worldoftancraft]

@@Doomer35 because it was produced in small numbers. But for a hammer, it's mandatory to have a developed supply chains.

[@Doomer35]

@@worldoftancraft Yeah, the IS2 was also produced in "small numbers" by soviet standards.

[@slamgamming]

Good Content I love it so much keep up the work also Love the Profile pic so fluffy

[@Gideonthestargazer]

For those interested in a good read, Tiger 2 vs. IS 2 by Osprey , is a great book if you like to analyze both tanks more. I do not regret buying this book. This video makes me want to read it.

[@Smiley575]

I´m glad to hear that the IS-2 is actually a good Tank, specially since a friend said that Rank IV with the Soviets is no fun at all... only funny thing is, that the IS-2 (1944) is his most used Tank... not sure if he just was joking... as always a great video Spookston, i´ve been watching your videos for awhile now. 😃

[@christopherbrent5168]

When I played the 1944 version in downtiers, or would only spawn it second in 6.7 matches (any higher and it was last), people gave me lip for even to play like...well, a heavy tank, saying "Oh, reload bad, armor bad, nOt MeTa", and funnily enough, they're not really wrong (entirely). The armor is pretty good, not invincible, the reload is, uh..., but on the other hand, does it really even matter? And the "NoT mEtA" thing: I don't care. It's a fun heavy tank. Its mobile, it hits like a literal Star Destroyer and I could literally just cockblock entire teams with just the armor alone, thanks to a solid side armor profile letting me abuse building walls. Normally, even in the best of circumstances, I get 3-4 kills, *MAX*. Why? Because I spent most of the match repairing, blocking off access to a capture point and trying my best to help my teammates (I even blocked off an entire path with my corpse when I failed to ohk a Tiger II, saving a T26 in the process), and not prioritizing kills. The tank, yes, it's a breakthrough tank, but you gotta think about more than kills. It has great armor, an amazing gun that's *worth the wait* and mobility to die for on a heavy tank. You have to use this tank not as some kill-hungry behemoth, but as an extremely inconvenient obstacle to the enemy force. You're not invincible, but until you die, you can bully them just by existing....assuming it's a 6.3 game. That's how played it, I know people tend to hate this tank because they can't just rapid-fire from behind a hill at the back of the map and zoom around like its the 3rd lap of Rainbow Road, but I still like heavy tanks, and I adapt to each one that I get. Sorry for the depressing comment

[@connorgormly3236]

Learning more every time you produce one of these videos

[@Diego-zz1df]

Title: How Bad Was The IS-2? Video: The IS-2 was one of the best heavy tanks of the war, an overall great armored combat vehicle.

[@Scrogan]

I’d like to see some of the history behind the Soviet casemate SPGs, particularly the 152mm ones.

[@Bagheera2]

Especially the 152mm ones