Was the IS-2 a Waste of Resources?

» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
Some claim that the IS-2 was a waste of resources and the KV-series could have been just updated. Is this a valid point? For this I talk to the author of IS-2 Stalin's War Hammer Peter "Tank Archives" Samsonov.
Cover design by vonKickass. Photo of the IS-2 of the MHM Dresden, modified.
»» GET BOOKS & VIDEOS ««
» Stukabook - Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber - stukabook.com
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
» Tank Assault - Combat Manual of the Soviet Tank Forces 1944 - stm44.com
» IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
» StuG: Ausbildung, Einsatz und Führung der StuG Batterie - stug-hdv.de
» Achtung Panzer? Zur Panzerwaffe der Wehrmacht - panzerkonferenz.de
» Panzerkonferenz Video - pzkonf.de
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
IS-2 Stalin's Warhammer - www.is-2tank.com
00:00 - Intro
00:42 - KV Heavy Tank Family
07:10 - IS Heavy Tank Development
#IS2 #heavytank #ww2

[@sayerglasgow115]

I'm not sure why someone would be arguing it was a waste of resources compared to the KV-1 when it improved dramatically on it in so many ways. It was more reliable, much better armored, equally or more mobile, and of course had much greater firepower. At the point that you'd upgraded the KV-1 to the point it could match all these capabilities, you would essentially have an entirely new tank... A new tank that would probably look a lot like the IS-2. The KV-1 was good early on in the war but that doesn't mean you should just stop developing tanks. It did well against Panzer IVs but the Tiger and Panther tanks severely outmatched it, a situation the IS-2 reversed (though its real specialty was against infantry and AT guns. 122mm HE is nasty.)

[@papalegba6796]

Negating fixed defences was hugely important late in the war. It was a breakthrough tank primarily.

[@TankArchives]

You would be surprised, there are some who argue that the T-34 was a waste of time and the Red Army should have used an improved T-28 instead...

[@sayerglasgow115]

@@TankArchives Clearly upgrading the T-35 to a 122 and two 85mm cannons would have been the best choice.

[@raylast3873]

The KV-1 was honestly not a great tank. It was servicable, especially in a situation where any tank you could get your hands on was better than none. But a tank is supposed to bring firepower to the field, and a heavy tank with the same caliber gun as your medium tanks is honestly kind of a waste. Sure, it has better armor, but the whole point of tank armor is to protect the firepower it carries and keep that in the fight. If that firepower is underwhelming, there‘s no reason to armor it that much in the first place. So actually, if we‘re talking about a waste of resources, the KV-1 fits the bill a lot more than the IS-2. The IS-2 by contrast does exactly what is needed of it.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

I would normally say that it is a waste of resource when you could use that same manufacturing capabilities for other stuff... EXCEPT the Soviets already have a lot of T-34s, SMGs etc. So having more of the same old has diminishing returns. So a different tank that brings its unique capabilities is worthwhile.

[@the7observer]

KV fanboys: Just upgrade the KV not need for IS KV suspension: *doubt*

[@russman3787]

I mean the IS series is pretty much just a massively improved KV.

[@TheArklyte]

KV-1 fans hate T-34, not IS-1😅 Why? Because KV-1S was better then T-34 and because "T-34 was cheap to produce" is a myth. IS-1 was superior heavy tank in all regards, especially in reliability and cross country performance

[@bololollek9245]

Yeah it is same engine, same suspension, transmission, track design...it basically is an upgraded KV and suspension works much better not because of upgrade but because of lesser weight

[@ArariaKAgelessTraveller]

All the planned variant for KV-1 aside from KV-2 are just as unrealistic or unpractical as Maus with KV-2 is already borderline that

[@spolachs1251]

You forgot the KV-8 and the KV-85 which was mass produced and saw combat but you are correct about the other variants.

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

The thing is that while Germany was not in a position to make and keep up enough Tigers to make a difference, that's not something definitely knowable before hand. Being prepared against something always seems to waste resources when the eventuality it guards against does not come to pass. Still... if you don't do it, and the circumstances do arrive, you have people complaining that no one did anything. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

The Tiger I and Tiger IIs were never meant to be in large numbers. They were supposed to be breakthrough tanks. So you use concentrate them on a the schwerpunkt and breakthrough an enemy defense and then fall back. They were reliable for their weight, it just needed a lot of man hours to maintain which wasn't a problem because they weren't supposed to be maneuvering and exploiting breakthroughs. They can sit back until the next defensive line that needed to be penetrated, so plenty of time to maintain. This also meant they don't need to be that easy to make because Germany didn't need that many. The real flaw was that they ended up being used as the fire fighters of the Eastern front, deploy liked US tank destroyers were meant to. Sent where ever there is an enemy breakthrough and stop it. This put a lot of strain on its logistics and maintenance pipeline in which they were not designed for. Meanwhile the Panther was a problem of ever growing requirements making it overweight. Even then, it could had been much more reliable if Germany didn't cheap out on some design aspects. But as a 'main tank' for the German army, it had to be cheap to produce so they cheaped out when they should have tried to cut down the weight in reality.

[@raylast3873]

The IS-2 doesn‘t become obsolete just because there aren‘t that many Tigers around*. Taking on enemy tanks of your own class is precisely a thing that a tank needs to be able to do while not being limited to that in terms of it‘s capabilities. This is one of the major lessons of WWII tank design. Instead of there being specialized tanks for just fighting other tanks, all your tanks need to be able to do this. Your tank spends most of it‘s time fighting infantry, or bunkers or artillery, but when the enemy tanks do show up, it needs to be at least servicable at fighting them off. And that‘s where the IS-2 comes in. A heavy tank is only really worth constructing if it can pose a threat to the enemy heavy tanks. For the IS-2, that means the Tigers. And at this it does fairly well. It has great armor as well as the largest-caliber gun put on a mass-produced, turreted tank in the entire warm, enough to pose a serious threat to everything the Germans have. For all that it‘s also decently mobile (on par with the Tiger II), and for a heavy tank also unusually light and cheap, which allows it to be deployed in greater numbers. And the thing is that all of this isn‘t only great for killing tanks. It‘s just as effective overrunning infantry defenses or destroying bunkers. If the Tiger I and Panther can‘t penetrate your frontal plate, neither can the German PAKs and that means the Infantry is practically helpless against these tanks. So they‘re actually great for every purpose, which is arguably another tank design lesson: you don‘t need specialized tanks at all. A medium tank with enough firepower to oppose other medium tanks is just as effective at overrunning infantry positions and a heavy tank that can destroy every tank on the battlefield can also destroy bunkers and defensive positions while being nearly invulnerable to infantry. Both are multi-purpose vehicles if they are well-designed. Finally, numerous or not, the Tigers are still the most potent mobile reserve the Germans have, and they‘re going to be deployed the moment you break through their lines. Which means countering them is still a priority for your offensive arsenal. And that‘s exactly what happened on the Eastern Front: the Tigers were constantly used in a fire fighting role and concentrated to stop major Soviet Offensives.

[@tsugumorihoney2288]

@@raylast3873 And again you don't understand soviet tank doctrine, according to it Tanks were made to support infantry and break threw enemy lines, they could fight enemy tanks, but tank fight must be avoided, because for fighting enemy tanks there were antitank batteries. So main role of IS-2 were destroying enemy fortifications, destroying enemy tanks were secondary role which were avoided as much as possible, even if you study IS-2 ammorack, 2/3 of its were HE rounds not AP

[@harrybuttery2447]

Well even the upgraded Panzer IV could defeat the armour of a KV-1, so they had to make something new anyway.

[@fazole]

​@neurofiedyamato8763 Also, slave labor was making the parts for these vehicles which ensured sabotage. I've read books on U-boats and they had a lot of problem with sabotage in the French dock yards too.

[@AddieHittie]

No, it was a great addition to the Soviet tank fleet and proved its worth as the Soviet streamroller headed West. Not only could it destroy German heavy tanks at long range with armor-piercing shells but its heavy high-explosive shell proved extremely effective against fortifications, buildings and even against tanks.

[@SaladofStones]

A steamroller that loses 10 times the lives in every engagement until the end, were it not for Zhukov, the Soviet Union would have folded at Moscow.

[@svenlittlecross]

@@SaladofStones you get your facts straight from Goebbels?

[@NightroxicGG]

@@SaladofStonesthis is what happens when enemy at the gates and NCD form the basis of your whole worldview

[@SaladofStones]

@@NightroxicGG I base it off only the facts, Vatnik, Russia can't even invade a country of Ukrainian peasants, the idea it could invade a first-rate army with less casualties is delusion!!

[@inurmomsbedroom123]

​@@svenlittlecrossNo, just not from the NKVD.

[@comensee2461]

I always found the IS-2 to be a bit of an enigma design. It was not designed to fight other tanks, but instead was built and utilized as a breakthrough tank. They performed the role of assault guns, but with heavier armor, and a turret, and spearheaded attacks to break through enemy defenses. With urban combat being common in 1944-1945 it performed its role well.

[@SilverShamrockNovelties]

A lot of these questions are perpetuated by video games that include fictional paper tank concepts as playable vehicles without any of the mechanical or physical drawbacks that would have existed in an actual attempt to build it IRL.

[@Cabooseforprez2012]

A good pony. Though Imagine just randomly getting your vehicle destroyed because your panther had an electrical fire or you can even join because there’s no spares. Actually that would be funny, let’s make this game.

[@sayerglasgow115]

The KV-220 comes to mind in this case. IRL its engine was basically nonfunctional and they never got around to balancing the gun, so it couldn't be elevated or fired. Basically it was a very incomplete prototype that, unless they could fix the engine, was never going to get off the ground, and was unlikely to enter production even if it did due to its excessive weight. Meanwhile in War Thunder it's an unstoppable monster.

[@cleanerben9636]

IS-6 too

[@OneofInfinity.]

@@Cabooseforprez2012 Funny the first time maybe, would defeat the point of a game: having fun. There are more realistic ww2 games that include tanks in which u have a crew with other players, that can be hilarious.

[@Cabooseforprez2012]

@@OneofInfinity. that comment was a bit tongue and cheek. It would be a bit lame to load into a game and be told you can't play because strategic bombing interrupted the resupply of road wheels this week.

[@brennus57]

Thank you both. An excellent presentation and very informative.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@RussianThunderrr]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized - Thanks Bernhardt and Peter!

[@bacongod4967]

Do people forget that the is series is a continuation of the kv series?

[@johnhudghton3535]

Yep with a politically astute rename.

[@George_M_]

I prefer the armor geometry of the SU-152 over the ISU-152 but the IS-2 was clearly the option to go with for heavy tanks. Massive anti fortification charge, can end any German tank if it connects, and more mobile.

[@chpet1655]

I know this video is NOT Visualized but I think visuals just some silhouette to see what was being talked about would improve this video immensely because he did leave us with loads of very useful info

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Yeah, but my tendons haven’t healed up yet, this video was edited by someone else.

[@MarktheRude]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized carpal tunnel syndrome?

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

No, just "regular" tendonosis / tendonitis.

[@exoticbreadstick8661]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized hope you get well soon :(

[@Flyinghigh3597]

You have got to know the JSII tanks were produced in Ural factories, they were crude and produced under very unfavorable conditions. Their facilities were dismantled taken away, sent to east during the late 1941 German speedy onslaught of western Soviet Union. You cant compare with American tank qualities produced in a relaxed facility from Los Angeles. Post World War2 "Stalin" tanks: JS3 JS4 had better quality but "Dear Father" died in 5th March 1953, so no more Stalin tank produced after 1954.

[@Lesij777]

Ис-8 переименованный в Т-10 и его последующие модернизации.

[@Bobafett-lc2vx]

Waste of resources or not, it brings a smile to my face knowing that the Soviets developed a tank capable of punching through the front plate of tigers and panthers with ease

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

Though about a minute too late😂

[@gustavchambert7072]

It really can't punch through the upper glacis of a panther, though, if memory serves. But the turret front is certainly no issue.

[@forcea1454]

Don't thank the Tank designers for that, thank Fyodor Petrov for designing the A-19 122mm Corps Gun. Of course of the British or Americans had decided to design a tank around their 4.5-inch medium gun, they could have done the same.

[@Duncomrade]

@@gustavchambert7072 yes it can, even the high explosive round could destroy/cripple Tigers and Panthers

[@raylast3873]

@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547not really. They had plenty of them in the late war.

[@pskovca]

You cannot build the IS-3 and beyond without learning the lessons learned from the IS-1

[@Dargesh890]

Currently building a COBI IS-2 as I watch this!

[@sthrich635]

Honestly the people arguing against replacing KV-1 with IS tank sounds awfully familiar with the age-old argument against German Panther replacing Panzer IV tanks. Though keeping a tank design as long as possible throughout the war did has some merits, and successful "exceptions" like T-34 did existed, 95% of the time it usually failed and fall short of its ever-increasing expectation as the war progressed on.

[@tsugumorihoney2288]

T-34 were main workhorse same like Pz IV

[@LafayetteCCurtis]

That line of argument actually has some merit -- the Pz IV design was getting overstrained (50% above the design weight by the time we get to Ausf G and H), but it was still capable of engaging the majority of threats presented by the Allies until about early 1945 or so. There's a fair argument that producing more Pz IV would have been more useful for 1943-early 1944 and would have given the Panther's engineers more time to sort out the teething problems _before_ putting the tank into combat. Of course it's not likely to have produced a German victory either way.

[@Klovaneer]

@@tsugumorihoney2288 on other hand Panther was almost cheaper to produce than unsimplified Pz 4, really a no-brainer for germans that didn't have fuel to field more tanks anyway

[@tsugumorihoney2288]

@xDSqxRazoRx panther had pretty much problems like they had fuel leaking resulting tanks ignite itself and lots others and Pz IV already prove durable, same like why USSR continue to produce T-34 beside there were T-43 and KV-13 prototypes which were lots better, when you need refit fa tory for new tanks it stop making tanks and during war even WWII tanks died pretty fast, that is one of reason why germany lost war, sure it is not main reason but there wer lots other and when you have 1 small problem it is nothing, wgen you have 1000 of them it become 1 huge unsolvable problem

[@kot0472]

The difference is that Panzer IV was still much cheaper, more reliable, less complicated and lighter than Panther. And had the same caliber. KV-1 was not. IN ALL 4 matters.

[@user-ue4fz2lj7c]

The IS2 was clearly a response to the new Tiger tanks which the KV1 could not match Its 122 gun could easily destroy a Tiger and its Armour was sufficient also

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Only if it managed to get off shots quick enough and hit the Tiger. At Targu Frumos, Tarnopol, Malinava etc it couldn't. The Tiger Is outgunned the IS-2s.

[@heckinmemes6430]

KV-2 was the PEAK, i say the PEAK of tank design.

[@Cabooseforprez2012]

This man understands

[@M109_KAWEST]

If only they added an autoloader to the kv2

[@PoltergeistHC4L]

4:27 What did that studie of the Panther conclude? what ratio between chassi and tank is optimal?

[@robertbrodie5183]

something to note is how long the il-2 remained in service was still in use in 80s

[@user-qn3xu5ee3t]

Where?

[@fergusfitzgerald977]

One German general think it was Guderian advised his Tigers not to engage the Is2 unless they had a 3 to 1 advantage !

[@michaelguerin56]

Thank you Bernhard and Peter. Good video.

[@Gungho1a]

Excellent summary, thank you.

[@josephahner3031]

I think the question is not whether or not the KV should have just continued to have been produced instead of the IS-2. Instead I would ask, should they have continued a heavy tank program at all instead of focusing on fixing the problems in the T-34 and just worked towards the universal tank concept.

[@lodickasvlajeckou]

In 1940s the technology wasnt that advanced and also how can you make universal tank concept when you enemy is building heavy tanks it is not like today that 45 ton tank can stop a round from a 60 ton tank, and also T-34 wasnt meant to be perfect but good enought to be mass produced and used heavily to fill tank divisons

[@aymonfoxc1442]

[FYI, this comment is a little bit long. Apologies.] In hindsight, yes, but the universal tank concept wasn't mature during WW2, it was simply the convergence of ideas regarding the ideal medium tank. As such, the universal tank itself did not yet exist. Plus, whilst Panther (or Sherman) was probably the first tank to fulfil the criteria of being a 'universal' tank, the doctrinal concept didn't exist in Germany or the USSR. Even in the case of the Centurion, its development began as a program to create a really good medium tank and evolved into the universal tank concept that would later become the main battle tank concept. Arguably, that was only because Britain found itself lacking suitable indigenous tanks in all categories (light, medium, and heavy) that were both reliable and able to fulfil all these roles to a desirable standard on the battlefield of the mid to late war. The Cromwell's suspension and chassis could only take so much weight and therefore, was limited in firepower and / or mobility serious concessions were made. The Churchill tanks were slow, cramped, underarmed and could not handle the increased weight necessary to keep up with the arms race. Similarly, Britain's best infantry come light tanks (like Crusader) relied on the Chrities suspension system and could not afford to gain weight. So, the first advanced medium tank to bring Britain back to the forefront of armoured warfare evolved into a 'universal' tank that could perform all of these roles and that heralded the first formal main battle tank doctrine and designations. All of this was a reflection of a dire need that the USSR, Germany and to some extent, even the US did not suffer because they all had capable light, medium or heavy tanks (or substitutes for them) in large numbers.

[@sayerglasgow115]

The "universal tank" concept seems to me to be a bit misunderstood. People speak of this as though a main battle tank is some magical vehicle that has all the capabilities of a light, medium, and heavy tank. It's not though, that's not how it works. Like, let's take the Centurion, the archetypal first MBT. If we compare it to other tanks of its era, we can clearly see that it's capabilities in individual categories are decidedly inferior to the specialist tanks. Contemporary heavy tanks like the Tiger II and IS-2 and 3 had much greater armor and firepower. Contemporary light tanks like the M24 and Walker Bulldog were considerably faster and more mobile. In terms of what it actually, physically could do, the centurion was essentially just a medium tank. What a main battle tank really is, however, is not a distinction based on the physical design of the vehicle. It's a doctrinal concept. A main battle tank is a tank that a country has deemed good enough to fulfill all or almost all of the tactical roles that they expect tanks to be able to do. What that tank actually looks like depends on what the country in question wants from it. Technically the maus could be an MBT if a nation for some reason decided to field it as their main armored fighting vehicle. Generally, however, they resemble medium tanks. But it should be noted that should, say, the US decided that the Abrams should be complimented by a larger, more heavily armed and armored but slower tank, to be used in breakthroughs or assaulting heavily fortified positions, then the Abrams would de facto no longer be a main battle tank, at least in the context of the US arsenal. And creating such a tank, a modern heavy, is entirely feasible from a technical standpoint. However, it's not really worth it, because what countries after WWII all converged on is that while specialist tanks are useful, it's rarely worth it to make them when the jack of all trades MBT can usually do their job, if not as well as the specialists can, at least well enough.

[@Tu11iy]

They did both in parallel. Even during WW2 they came up with T-44. This thing was in some ways groundbreaking and paved the way for T-54, the first tank remotely similar conceptually to an MBT and the most numerous tank in the world. So yeah, they did fix the T-34.

[@Kethploy]

I think they tried with T-43 ,The tank that supposed to be replaced T-34 and KV-1

[@pRahvi0]

I think the more important question than if KV-1 could be upgraded, was if T-34 could be upgraded. Because once the weight reduction for KV-1 was done, I'm not sure if there was that much difference between their armor anymore. And I recall they did put the bigger gun on T-34 too. But I don't know. Maybe it suffered from similar issues. Would love to know more anyway.

[@stewartmillen7708]

There were attempts to upgrade the T-34 as well. But with the T-34/85, there was a limit to how much armor that could be added without reducing reliability and moreover getting a gun more potent than the 85 mm was also a problem. Like the KV, the T-34 was nearing its limit of upgradability. There were proposals to upgrade the frontal hull armor to 75 mm, with modest success but that reduced suspension lifetime and came at the cost of thinner bottom and rear armor. Maybe a more realistic upgrade would have been 65 mm hull armor to keep the bottom armor thickness (which protects the tank and crew against mines). 65 mm of hull armor in my opinion was a good upgrade, as it would have made the T-34/85 almost invulnerable to the very common German 75 mm Pak40, but the tank would have still been vulnerable to the Kwk36 and Kwk42 (Tiger I and Panther guns, respectively) albeit at closer ranges.

[@OneofInfinity.]

@@stewartmillen7708 I've always seen the /85 has the final "form" of the T-34, to me it finally got a turret that fitted the chassis size wise and what a looker.

[@looinrims]

T34 couldn’t conduct a breakthrough operation, too lightly armored

[@cherrypoptart2001]

A few years back i saw someone posted a drawing of russian tanks and spgs that a german Tiger II officer made and it said that the front of the IS-2 hull was strong enough to resist the long 88. I also saw a picture of a Tiger II that had its front upper plate tore open completely by an IS-2's HE shell. Really impressive but the most common armor these tanks faced were smaller panzers and stugs which the T-34s and T-34-85s could have handled

[@Klovaneer]

IS-2 weren't meant to face tanks, even less so than T-34. But since a late war german tank didn't differ from a strongpoint that much they had to break them too.

[@harrybuttery2447]

Something to note about the test you are referring to is that the image taken of that Tiger II with the upper front plate torn open is after it had been shot at over 35 times by the 122mm gun. The HE shell that was fired at it first did not tear open the upper plate at all(though it did cause spalling and crack the welds). But the IS-2 was not actually made to fight tanks primarily, it was a breakthrough tank made to defeat fortifications(hence why most of the rounds it carried were HE). The IS 2 frontal plate would not resist a long 88 either, well like anything it would depend on the range and angle, at some angles it would but at some angles it would even be defeated by a Panzer IV(though it would have to be at the exact right angle and hit the exact right spot on the frontal plate).

[@NormAppleton]

@@Klovaneer Yeah they were HE slingers against static defences. If they were meant to fight tanks they would have had the gin the SU-100 had.

[@raketny_hvost]

​@@Klovaneer IS-2 WAS meant to face tanks as well. Those who say it was just a howitzer, should return to 00s when such myth worked. D-25 was made for breaking tanks also

[@raketny_hvost]

​@@harrybuttery2447 122 disabled crew and transmission most times it did hit KT. It's not short howitzer like M-30. It was anti tank gun which was able to pop out Panthers and tigers at giant distances

[@garyhill2740]

I would have enjoyed if this video had been longer. It runs out of time just as we finally get to the IS-2. More examination of IS-2, it's characteristics, and why it was better would be welcome. I certainly would still have watched even if the video were an hour long. On this subject I would prefer a whole meal to an appetizer! I do enjoy the guest speakers comments! :)

[@williamcarey8994]

It seems to me that the T34/85 was more than adequate for the massed armored assaults on the eastern front. The IS 2 was an excellant tank especially for busting fortifications and Tiger tanks. The problem with the KV1 wasn't just it's gun, it was it's Engine and gear box which were notorious amongst soviet tankers...

[@cliffordterry2133]

Excellent general information explanatory.

[@alessiodecarolis]

No, it wasn't. Remember that the russians were fighting a ruthless war against the Nazis and they needed a new, more reliable heavy tank. They didn't have the problems the allies had, Eastern front was pratically on the whole a land front, heavy tanks didn't had the limitations as being carried by LCTs, so an heavy tank could've been more useful against german big Cats, also the powerful 88 was lethal against them only at less than 1500m, so he could engage them at longest ranges. Plus, against infantry and bunkers it's 122 gun was very useful. Don:t forget that its presence obliged the Wermacht to adopt a new AT gun, the,12,8 cm KwK44.

[@user-qo1us9oc7g]

12.8cm was not practical as was very limited, acting more as an artillery gun then a AT gun. 88cm and 7.5cm was fine against the IS-2 under the right circumstances. For close range Panzerfausts did the job.

[@viper2148]

It all goes back to the transmission/gearbox technology of the time, which seems limited to reliably supporting the medium tanks of the era.

[@dansmith4077]

Great video thank you

[@kimjong_un8801]

0:43 “alternative history circle” -My man addressing his weekend larping friends

[@billballbuster7186]

The KV series really morphed into the IS which had improved armour and ballistic shape. The change of name was probably because the guy the KV was named after, Kliment Voroshilov, had fallen from favor by 1944. The new tanks were named after the Party Leader Iosef Stalin. The IS-3 of 1945 was a Cold War boogieman for many years, well worth its cost in propaganda alone.

[@UncleJoeLITE]

USSR was the #2 arms manufacturer of WW2, they had over-capacity vs the Germans, so what better use than the IS-2? Good call imo. Upgrading [cheaper] medium tanks _is relatively easier_ [fewer scaling issues etc.]. Using a decent chassis, upgrading various medium tank/chassis worked very well indeed. And a KV-1 was not a medium tank, so...yeah. I could listen to more, thanks.

[@RMD94]

They were first in tanks, guns, Munitions and vehicles. USA was first in ships and planes

[@nickthenoodle9206]

The KV-1 was a waste of resources, the IS-2 was not.

[@neurofiedyamato8763]

In hindsight, they both were as neither played a important role during or after the war. But at least for the time period, the IS-2 was a pretty good design. And given how much other tanks the Soviets have, a heavy tank provided unique capabilities where as more T-34s had diminishing returns. Nonetheless, doesn't change the fact they never played a particularly important role.

[@nickthenoodle9206]

The IS-2 was reliable. Most KV-1's were not.@@neurofiedyamato8763

[@Klovaneer]

@@neurofiedyamato8763 IS-2 participated in every fortification and city assault they were available for in the last year of the war. Not important, my ass.

[@vantuz8264]

KV-1 was NOT a waste of resources. At the time of its development it was almost invulnerable and was capable of single-handedly stopping the progress of german divisions. T-34 while well defended were not as impenetrable. And unlike Tigers and Panthers it was possible to produce KV-1 in large numbers (2,5x more units produced than Tigers before retirement). Most of the losses due to mecahanical problems were caused by long retreat marches, so if Red Army was more organised and prepared, KV-1 could've stopped Barbarossa. Sure, T-34 was a better all-round tank and KV-1 lost all its benefits when Pak-40 begun to be used, but before that point it was a very good tank. Not a "waste of resources"

[@RussianThunderrr]

@@neurofiedyamato8763-American and British forces had a lot less fortified cities and German tanks to fight.

[@kot0472]

You said that T-220 wasn't finished. But there are pictures of this tank - hull + original turret.

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

Doesn't mean it was a usable tank, just that they built a prototype.

[@Russinh0]

IS-2 tanks was the Responde for the Tiger and Heavier German Tanks that was Being Seen in Soviet Front, so it can smash through panthers, Tiger I, Jagdpanzers and Jagdpanther and Accidentally could work against Tiger II shooting turret, Hull top or the Sides (in a war is rare seen tanks fighting front to front like war thunder) they act more like long range (more than KM) so Tiger II sides are same as a Panther frontal armor but less angled, the 122mm Shell was heavy and can go very far with long 122 gun

[@simondubois3165]

Tiger 2 side armor is 80mm panther is 40mm , tiger had 2x time more armor on and is it the same thing for turret

[@kanestalin7246]

​@@simondubois3165he said tiger 2's side armor is equal to panther's front armor you read it wrong

[@edcliff4627]

This video is about the KV, with hardly a mention of the IS2 series. The IS2's armour was highly resistant to the 75mm L48 guns, which were the main armament of many German vehicles, and the 75mm PAK, when the IS2 was in service 88s were normally reserved as AA guns. After the development experience with the KV series, the IS2 was reliable within it's short life expectancy. Soviet soldiers called the IS2 the 'victory' tank, if nothing else it was good for Soviet morale, and bad for German morale.

[@comradeblin256]

If IS2 is a waste of steel, then Tiger 2 is the most useless thing in entire existence. But of course reality begs to differ as IS2 is good in certain scenario, same as Tiger 2 while being cheaper and more reliable (crew opinion disregarded in the review).

[@rowanyuh6326]

Excellent breakthrough tank

[@PeterGiddens]

FYI, this video wouldn't play for me for a while, until I watched the most recent Tom Scott vide on subtitles and such. IDK what the deal is, but it is annoying to see this delay happen to History channels.

[@michaelperry4308]

The IS was like the Maus, an ego project, just with a star rather than a Hakekreuz on the side. The T34/85 was perfectly adequate for the job but was nat called 'Stalin'.

[@Alsemenor]

Heavy tanks definitely had their place during the second world war. The Soviets were fighting German heavies like the Tigers and needed something that could tussle with them on equal terms. A T-34/85 was not a heavy.

[@michaelperry4308]

Yes, but a IS3 was only any good from ambush as it's fire rate was so bad if it did not hit the Tiger with it's first shot the Tiger would get off four or five rounds before the IS could fire it's second, a few T34/85 could run round and try to outflank a Tiger with a good chance it would only kill five or six before one got it. @@Alsemenor

[@Spaibo]

​@@michaelperry4308 The Germans were so afraid of IS-2 tanks that Soviets would put fake muzzle brakes onto their T-34s' to intimidate them.

[@tacomas9602]

I dont think it was a waste. A good engineering exercise at minimum, definitely considering how light it was and how much in-your-face firepower it carried.

[@dy031101]

Wait, wasn't the IS series precisely an updated KV series?

[@janchovanec8624]

It's like comparing Tiger I with Tiger II.

[@FlorinSutu]

3:41 - - "welding turrets are transitioning to cast turrets, because cast turrets are easier to produce" It is not that easy. The cooling takes long time and it needs to be under carefully controlled limits. The Americans did the opposite, they started Sherman M4 with a cast turret, then they designed options for a welded turret.

[@classifiedad1]

An advantage of cast turrets in terms of ease of production is that you don't need to assemble as many pieces together. Welding is something that can take years of skill to get right, and even then the end product may not be as good as a cast one. Yes, the cooling takes time and must be carefully controlled, but in the end you have to only worry about a whole casting versus many small pieces, each which if flawed can unacceptably compromise the end product. Plus, if you know casting better than welding, then casting would be easier. After all, both welding and casting are techniques with ancient roots, and I reckon casting came first. Of course, welding does have its advantages in that large forges aren't needed, can be assembled more quickly, and is more conducive to the use of composite armor, which is why virtually everyone uses welded turrets nowadays.

[@FlorinSutu]

​@@classifiedad1 - - In those days, they also used a lot of riveting. Oh, the good, old and funny big rivets with round heads! A tank was a bridge in motion (considering the rivets). P.S.: I remember from university, welding copes poorly with vibrations. I always preferred screws and nuts to welding.

[@jamesbuckner4791]

Early take from someone who just pulled the video up, a thing to remember was the Russian front was not as unified as some would think. This was due to how there logistics chain was set up. Remember hearing somewhere where there was factories that were sending out tanks without radios because they couldn't get radio, and dependent on what part of the front you were in dictated what tank was available.

[@901Sherman]

IIRC, that radio shortage stopped being an issue around 1943-44-ish and radio equipment was basically universal for tanks by that point. By 1943, while suffering from a few leftover issues that needed to be ironed out, the Soviet arms industry was leaps and bounds ahead of the dark days of 1941-2.

[@901Sherman]

Also, the Red Army eventually managed to put each of their various tanks (even leand lease ones into roles that suited them. T-34 and Shermans were general-purpose, jack of all traits mounts. KVs, ISs, Matildas, and Churchills were heavy, breakthrough and infantry support machines. T-70s, Valentines, And Stuarts were put in a more recon heavy role. And so forth

[@Tanktaco]

I thought the IS was the improvement on the KV series with the same design goals, same team and factory just name changed for political reasons.

[@dreadlock7604]

Knowing how Germans struggled with Kv-1 doesn't mean it could've been upgraded to be better than making a new Is-2 especially that there was no mean or way to make the Kv-1 more Armored, have a bigger gun, make it lighter and faster with keeping in mind that the Tank needs to remain functional as it was plus the Germans brought bigger guns with more velocity and penetration capabilities so the Is-2 was born, sure it wasn't perfect but it did a much better job at destroying the so called " The beast" of a tiger tank to the allies cuz a Tiger roughly knocked out 11 tanks to losing 1 of their own meanwhile reportedly 20 Is-2 tanks knocked out 40 Ferdinands and 40 Tigers in 1 battle but only 2 Is-2 tanks were destroyed so was it a waste of materials or a breakthrough? I say it made the difference in battle and even in games u do not want to run into the Is-2's 122Mm

[@Cba409]

In the end, yes. But it was a crucial step in modern MBT development.

[@Flyinghigh888]

The Soviet arsenal production plants were moved from West to East in a quicke emergency relocation in a very crude and not a fancy environment, you cannot compare with the Sherman's quality produced in a tidy site like Los Angeles!

[@phil20_20]

Gimme that IS-3! My first model. 😂

[@joshbigz8440]

The tank looks like a good tank for the last phase of the war. Heavy armor to take just anything they throw at you with a big gun to pick them off with while they take pot shots at you from their bunkers.If the Axis had been able to make the war last longer tanks like this would have been very important.

[@Klovaneer]

Lots of times i heard and saw T-34 slander so i became desensitized to it but this is something new.

[@kaamoshaamu]

Didn't engines improve so that the increasee weight later wasn't so much a problem?

[@TNTVK]

better than tiger 1 : Combat history The IS-2 tank first saw combat in early 1944, equipping elite Guards Heavy Tank Regiments of the Red Army. A regiment had 21 IS-2 tanks in four companies of five tanks each and one being used by the regimental commander.[28] The special tank regiments were reserved for important attacks, often to spearhead attempts to break through fortified German positions like anti-tank defence lines and bunkers.[28] The tanks supported infantry in the assault by destroying bunkers, buildings, dug-in weapons and engaging German armoured vehicles. Once a breakthrough was achieved, lighter and more mobile tanks were used for exploitation and mopping-up. The IS-2 tank first saw action in Ukraine in early 1944 and claimed to have destroyed more than forty Tigers and Elefants for the loss of only eight tanks.

[@raketny_hvost]

Clearly don't know who've relaunched myth about D-25 shouldn't fight tanks. It's obvious that tanks mostly made for supporting infantry, not killing each other, but excuse me, what for were two types of AP shell built (even third appeared after war) and why then having numerous devastating calibers from 152 to 305mm? For 80-100mm frontal plates, yes, even 122mm was an overkill, but it did good even against KT's transmision and crew sanity. Poland 1944 would not lie

[@somticlight3712]

realistically the kv family couldve been modernized BUT only until the 50s at best, as the late 50s brought technology to all sides that would make any modernization package they got obsolete.

[@monsieurduquack5440]

Stalin being Stalin, he probably just don't want another tank named after someone else overshadowing him

[@ralts6464]

Not really. They dont really have a tank to deal with Tigers and can survive. T-34-85 and T-34-57 can reliably penetrate Tiger 1 effectively at range but theyre squishy as well to the tiger 1. For tiger 2 well they cant penetrate at range. Thats due to their gun. The KV has kinda better armor but still the gun was an issue. Su100 is better can penetrate Panther easily at 1.5km but probably a bit closer vs tiger 2. Though it isnt good in brawls as no armor and turret. That makes IS better to brawl with tiger 2

[@goodbodha]

I think anyone complaining about the tanks the Soviets produced in quantity are missing the point. At the moment they could tool up for the production run it was a reasonable choice to make the tanks they made. As they got better technology and experience the quality of tank they could produce went up. If you look at practically every tank in WW2 that started the war you will see it easy is set to the side or upgraded to the point where something broke under the weight. Late models of early war tanks were routinely up gunned and up armored. At some point that puts too much stress on the suspension, tracks, engine, and transmission. Sure some of that can be mitigated but only so much before its easier to re engineer the tank from the ground up. The doctrines they used definitely lead their preference in tanks, but they also knew that there was a place for other tanks they had. KV-1 was a great tank in the early war for them. It wasnt perfect. It wasnt terribly mobile, but it was mobile enough and was useful in stiffening some positions. The T-34 was a better tank for a variety of reasons, but the T-34 wasnt a breakthrough tank. The soviets needed a breakthrough tank for the late war and they knew it. The KV-1 wasnt going to cut it by the late war as the Germans had way too many good guns with good optics that could take it out plus the KV-1 was essentially at the end of its development cycle (it couldnt be upgunned enough and uparmored at the same time). The IS-2 was a great choice for that, but it also had major issues. One thing that should be really thought about was it had a limited supply of ammo on board. The gun had 2 part ammunition that was really big. This limited the rate of fire and the ammo storage. Not a good thing for a tank that might have to fight for awhile away from resupply, but not a big deal for a tank that might have a truck following it a mile or two back with plenty of ammo. End of the day Im not a huge fan of the IS-2 but I think it was a good choice for that design path and the Russians reasonably believed they would need tanks like that for the end of the war if things bogged down. Its easier to make a tank you dont need for the last year or so of the war than to get there and find out you dont have the tank you need. We all look back and see the war as being something that has a beginning and an end with definite dates. Imagine in 1942 trying to figure out when the war will be over. If you have to design things for the needs of a military multiple years in advance it gets really hard.

[@mr_ThreeEight_1776]

No because on warthunder it's king tiger proof abd it's fuel tanks in the sides acted as spsced armor that stopped tungsten 88mm shells. Oh and it had a super fast reload, faster than a tiger's 88!

[@greebo6549]

Seems the general rule of thumb is, …. You require a XX ton tank, best start with a chassis designed for XX +20%

[@bololollek9245]

Engine, transmission, suspension, drivewheels and track design is pretty much the same on KV tanks as on IS 2.

[@RussianThunderrr]

No, transmission was with planetary gears on IS-2 was different that from KV series, steering and brakes had hydraulic power assistance. Those was different tanks. IS-2 was also shorter and considerably more agile.

[@Fsttanks]

It was not a waist of resources as it was a long vision project aimed at the end of the war and knowing full well the USSR was not going to give back territory. It's true purpose was to intimidate Western powers US and UK because the Soviets knew the west did not have an equal at the time of introduction. The US and UK quietly understood this and both rushed new "heavy tanks" into the war. The US with the M26 and UK with the Centurion. It could be said of both the M26 and Centurion that these two tanks were also unnecessary as the improvements to the Sherman such as the E8 were proving adequate just like the T34-85. Both were also a message to the Soviets just as the JS was to the west.

[@greatndit]

So what's the conclusion ? I'm too lazy to watch the full video that explain everything from the start of the history of tank .

[@ravenclaw8975]

The guest's knowledge of Soviet tanks is remarkable, though I don't believe that the IS-2 was a complete waste of resources. Thank you sir for this video.

[@JeanLucCaptain]

The IS was essentially a modernization of the KV what are you talking about? It's a direct result of min/maxing the strengths and weaknesses of the KV series

[@whya2ndaccount]

This seems very familiar.

[@yangho8]

most of tanks in ww2 developed ahead the time it deployed and is2 developed after soviet captured a tiger tank early 1943.

[@SD78]

The KV1 was an evolutionary dead end. It had the same gun as a T34 and the turret ring and chassis was too small to accept a bigger gun than the upgraded T34-85.

[@lambrosstambolitis5053]

What I’ve continued to notice about this ongoing commentary on the KV is that expert continuously drones on and about the weight of the tank but doesn’t mention that the KV was a sponson-less vehicle. Literally an oversized Panzer lll in concept. If the lower hull were made narrower and then the upper hull wider built up on sponsons, that could have been a solution that could have saved a lot of time, effort and resources

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

So why was it not done? After all, the KV-1S was a lighter version, but they didn't take that approach. Maybe it was not so easy?

[@lambrosstambolitis5053]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized not asking the question but just saying after the fact. A creative out of the box approach. Heck the Soviets could have done front driven sprocket system to save on length a la Panzer lV

[@j.e.v.5016]

​@@lambrosstambolitis5053 Why on Earth would they have done such a move? Tanks weight comes mostly of its front armor; there was a Soviet study according to which every mm of height increases the weight multiple times more more than mm of width, and mm in length increases the weight of the tank the least. By doing front drive sprocket they should have increased the height of the tank to give room for drive shaft, making it probably heavier than what could have been saved by shortening the tank. And as we can see, drive sprocket at front was way of dodo in tank design after the war.

[@j.e.v.5016]

​@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Sponsons are not very efficient in terms of volume to weight ratio (Soviets did a study on that too) thus you don't see them often in Soviet post-war MBTs. Oversized turret rings (like later in T-54 and beyond) could have been one option. I don't know if they did test that or not.

[@17cmmittlererminenwerfer81]

Is Josef spelled with an I or a J?

[@Spaibo]

The Russian pronunciation is Iosif, but it wouldn't really matter if you said Josef.

[@Fiasco3]

T-34 was too weak, KV series too heavy with transmission problems. The Is-2 had better armor defense a 122mm gun that could double as artillery with high-explosive, and could match and block any of they German heavies. You can only upgrade things so far until you need something new.

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

IS-2 was huge improvement compared to KV-1 and IS-1. Now question is, were heavy tanks in general, a waste compared to medium tanks during WWII? USA and Japan certainly thought so.

[@Klovaneer]

USA made M6 monstrosity, M26 which is almost a heavy tank and don't forget T28 which they planned to break defensive lines with. Japan couldn't afford a heavy tank even if they wanted one, their medium designs are barely that.

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

@@Klovaneer Hardly any of US heavies were ever deployed (I know about shipping problems in that era, and why top brass preferred Shermans). And I know that Firefly Shermans and Tank destroyers could fight against Panthers and Tigers when properly used. As for Japanese, they spent almost all steel for fleet leaving very little for tanks and even artillery.

[@Klovaneer]

@@mladenmatosevic4591 Heavy tanks are for breaking defensive lines, what they made do with are 105mm and Jumbo shermans.

[@sayerglasgow115]

The US didn't avoid heavy tanks because of resources, they did so because of logistics. US supply lines were extremely long. Any vehicle operating in the European theater would need to be shipped across the whole Atlantic, along with fuel, ammunition, and spare parts. As a result the US was very reluctant to introduce any new designs not compatible with their existing supply lines. Germany and the USSR didn't have this problem and as a result fielded more varied and specialized designs, including their iconic heavy tanks.

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

@@sayerglasgow115 I know, 2 Shermans for one Tiger by weight, plus ship's cranes were more limited in that era.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The IS-2 WAS an upgraded KV-1. Or more exactly an upgraded KV-85, which again of course was just a slightly upgraded KV-1. Basically same everything except gun and armor layout. Powerful, but crude and primitive with questionable reliability and mobility. And the Panther wasn't a 30 ton tank ending up being 45 tons. The chosen MAN design was as big as a Tiger. There was no way it would weigh less than 40 tons while still having acceptable armor protection. It was simply the first in a new generation of western standard tanks, followed by the M26 pershing and Centurion.

[@chrisdavis3642]

Was it effective?! How was it used!? Where the right people in the field!? Who was in power that would listen to what made sense!? Lots of things to be considered.

[@infantryattacks]

Even if it was a waste of resources, and I doubt this was the case, the USSR in contrast to Nazi Germany had sufficient resources to produce this tank while the German Army and Waffen-SS combat units struggled to field adequate numbers of antitank weapons to defeat all Soviet tanks.

[@901Sherman]

Indeed. Even in 1944 many German anti-tank units were forced to use 37 or 50 mm guns because they couldn't field enough 75s or 88s to equip everyone.

[@richardque1036]

Js 2 was design well suited for the mid ww2 .

[@lazaroskordas4397]

The correct question is Was the IS-2 the best heavy tank of WW2 ?

[@Lacifex]

in ww2 yes in war thunder: no, its an unpenetrable fortress not even a deathstar can pen its front or side armor

[@genghiskhan7041]

Haben zie hashish bitte?

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

Great video but one thing though... while it does always come done to weight/mass when talking about soviet WW2 tanks with anything else it's more time-costs are your ultimate limits in all the things...Like you can get the weight down but the time and or costs go up which the soveits did not have. Or like the US figured out at the end of the war. Just don't care about weight if you can improve the rest of the logistics chain which again your right the soveits could never have done.

[@donaldgrant9067]

Well it is better than taking an infantry support tanks and telling the men in it to go form a spear head and break through the enemy. Then try to tell everyone that it was a great tank because after the Germans put a hole in it, you could just go back and get another one to get another hole in it. Right, wrong, It don't matter the countries were trying to save their men in the tanks, instead of blowing smoke up their as and saying they just aint using it right.

[@patrioticshitstain]

My controversial, armchair nobody take: Post-war analysis and development made it pretty clear heavy tanks in general just weren't worth it. The entire reason we moved on to the MBT concept was because the most effective designs were the more universal medium tanks. Making things bigger and heavier was dead-end design.

[@user-qo1us9oc7g]

the KVs where slow outgunned deathtraps by 1942.

[@cleanerben9636]

So, basically, they went through tons(haha) of trouble to create a better KV-2.

[@john-lenin]

My favorite WWII tank

[@spyfan62591]

If it was, it was a lesser waste than every German tank after the panther

[@deadmeat8754]

Russian anti-tank weaponry was not the equal of their German counterparts. This necessitated mounting ever larger cannon on ever larger platforms. Additionally, the Soviets, like the Americans, used tank guns to support infantry and as ad hoc artillery. The larger cannon of the IS-2 was advantageous in those scenarios. Finally, by the time the IS-2 was actually produced, the Soviet Union was not in jeopardy and producing a "marquee" tank, like the IS-2 was important for national optics. It was certainly not a waste.

[@samiam5557]

So the IS-III was a even worse waste of time?

[@kimjanek646]

The IS-3 sucked hard. The only thing it accomplished was making the US and UK waste resources on a heavy tank just to counter it.

[@ThatOliveMrT]

Maybe but it was definitely 'dank as hell' so I'll let it slide

[@qihaoliu3631]

IS-2 was arguably the best tank in WW2.

[@user-of6yk5jd2y]

Yes amazing HE power even VS king tiger

[@yurinator4411]

You keep interviewing the same Leopard 2 gunner, as a subject matter expert. Has he been in combat?

[@eddy91604]

Seeing as how he was in the German Army it's highly unlikely he was in combat.

[@chpet1655]

fans of the t--28 ??? nonsense

[@HimSb-vz6he]

No, love all the weird tanks in WW2.

[@Hatsuzu]

My issue with the IS series is the lower frontal plate is so weak compared to the rest of the front, just a huge weakspot

[@rotmistrzjanm8776]

How is tank weight measured?

[@hetman1789]

in tons

[@Cabooseforprez2012]

I think the IS gets a bad wrap because the Russians get developing it well past when it should have been. IS5, 6, and 7 were unnecessary but the earlier models certainly were not.

[@KekusMagnus]

"after all, the KV series could've been upgraded" what do you think the IS-series was? They just changed the name for political reasons, it is a direct upgrade of the KV tanks

[@itzrixis1919]

it was not a waste because now I can play it in war thunder.

[@boobah5643]

You say that as if games are only allowed to offer units that actually existed.