Talk:ISU-152

Proposed merge with ISU-122

I would like to merge ISU-122 with ISU-152. The latter is more of an upgrade to the former then an entirely new vehicle. Oberiko 15:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The ISU-152 was introduced first in November 1943 under plant designation "Object 241". ISU-122 was developed in December 1943 as "Object 242". The changes were only connected with replacement of primary gun from 152.4-mm ML-20S to 121.92-mm A-19S. In mass production ISU-152 was launched immediately after testing, in November 1943, but series ISU-122 were produced only in April 1944. The producing of ISU-122 has a very simple cause - there were not enough tubes of ML-20S gun-howitzer for equipping newly built hulls. But Soviet arsenals had a big stocks of A-19 cannons. So after very minor upgrade to A-19S variant they were installed in incomplete hulls of ISU vehicles.

Alright, but my point is still valid. It's basically the same vehicle with a different gun. For most other articles we lump those together (the various types of Shermans etc.) Oberiko 10:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Sherman Firefly has its own article ... since it has a different main gun.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed partially. These vehicles shared the same chassis, hull but differs in historical aspects, armament and combat use (although Soviet instructions for crew did make any difference between them). So the technical data, history and tactics description is better to divide into separate page for each type of the ISU vehicle.

Merging sounds reasonable to me, too. The article at ISU-122 is very measly right now, and a lot of material here applies to it. In the long run, it's probably more efficient to mention the few differences in one article, rather than duplicate the commonalities in both.

The gun carriage and recoil were identical, only the barrel and ammunition storage differed between these vehicles, although the 122 had a minor variant with a different gun produced later. According to Zaloga, "There was no tactical distinction between the ISU-122 or ISU-152. Both types were kept concurrently in production simply because of the availability of 122mm tubes and ammunition, even though the ISU-152 was preferred for most assault roles because of its larger, high-explosive rounds. The better anti-tank performance and longer range of the ISU-122 were seldom taken advantage of because of the type of tactics used by these units." Zaloga & Grandsen, Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two, 1984, page 179. These vehicles are covered in a single section in his book. —Michael Z. 2005-10-18 16:38 Z

Additionally, we can always add headings which are specific about each vehicle to discuss the differences between them. What exactly does ISU stand for anyway? Oberiko 16:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Since there's some support, I've added the merge tags. —Michael Z. 2005-10-19 18:04 Z

Since LostArtilleryman has done some good work there, ISU-122 now looks more like a stand-alone article, or at least a very substantial section for this one. —Michael Z. 2005-10-22 20:35 Z

Even if the 152 is just an upgrade of the 122 it doesn't mean they should be in the same article, for example there are different articles for the Panzerjager 1 and the Panzer 1 even though the they are the same except for a bigger gun on the jager. You would have to merge dozens or even hundreds of articles if you follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion. I think we should leave the articles seperate, if you have a problem with the ISU-122 article you can add to it. [unsigned by User:Julian Diamond]

This is a matter of judgement, and it's up for discussion here. I'm not ruling that this MUST be done.

I proposed this because 1) the ISU-122 article was a tiny stub (which has changed since then). 2) The material at ISU-152 mostly applied to that vehicle. These are essentially the same vehicle with a different calibre gun barrel (not even the whole gun); they were employed by the same types of units with the same tactics and probably the only reason they had different names is because they needed different ammunition.

And you should be able to find better examples to support your argument than the Panzerjäger I self-propelled anti-tank gun, which is not an "upgrade" of the Panzer I light tank: it is a vehicle built for a different role, used by different units with different tactics. No one is proposing merging ISU-122 with IS-2 because they share the same drive train and suspension. —Michael Z. 2005-11-3 17:32 Z

I would vote for merging them; the vehicles had very similar designs *and* tactical roles. An analogy would be the suggested merging of the SU-85 and SU-100 pages. DMorpheus 19:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I dont like the mergeing idea because soner or later someone will delete information from the merged article saying that there is to much information there, and therefore before anyone says there is to much info lets just keep the 2 articles apart.(Deng 06:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

On the contrary, I think a merged article helps prevent duplication of material and content forking, and makes it easier for the reader to find relevant material in one place. If it grows large, then large sections or more specific and detailed material can be split off into one or more specialized articles. —Michael Z. 2006-10-22 21:11 Z

Since the question of merging has been open for a long time, and the articles have changed since it was brought up, I'll re-propose it with a vote at the bottom of this discussion page, so we can resolve this. —Michael Z. 2006-10-22 21:11 Z

ISU abbreviation

Istrebitelnaja Samokhodnaya Ustanovka. What does "Istrebitelnaja" mean? —Michael Z. 2005-10-18 17:39 Z

I'm not sure. It's something I've seen associated with the vehicle and is the only expansion to ISU that I've seen which doesn't propose the I and S to be Iosef Stalin. Oberiko 20:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"ISU" means simply self-propelled gun based on the IS tank chassis. "SU" (Samohodnaya Ustanovka, Self-propelled gun) was already used in designations of early vehicles, such as SU-152 and SU-122. New abbreviature was introduced for better differentiation between vehicles. Istrebitelnaya means destroyer in this context. However this word is used only for mnemonic purposes such as "Save our souls" for SOS abbreviature. Primary Russian sources never use this word (I'm native Russian and have read some documents and books about ISU vehicles).

Lost Artilleryman

I got that from ISU-122. Google finds other examples. —Michael Z. 2005-10-18 20:44 Z

To all contributors in ISU-152 page

Great thank you for enhancing the article and supplying it with a photo.

There are some remarks about ISU-152 which were rejected from the article by Oberiko, but I think these are still worthy to include. Of course, my own English is quite ugly, may be someone tries to put following facts in the article in a proper manner.

1. Many people thinks that ISU-152 was a minor upgrade of SU-152. This is incorrect. ISU-152 had completely new hull with better armour protection then SU-152. The front armour thickness of ISU-152 was 90-120 mm vs 60-75 mm of SU-152. Due to better equipment layout this armour improvement did not increase the overall weight of the vehicle. Both ISU-152 and SU-152 weigh near 46 metric tons. The ISU-152 was equipped with new modification of V-2 diesel engine, V-2IS. It had reduced power to 520 hp in comparison with SU-152 V-2K engine (600 hp). This reducement improves general reliability of the V-2IS engine. ISU-152 was also equipped with completely new gearbox. This unit was quite unreliable in SU-152.

2. SU-152 and ISU-152 looks quite similarly. The distinguishive features are the idlers and the rear armour plate. ISU-152 has identical idlers and road wheels, while SU-152 has special idlers, non-compatible with road wheels. ISU-152 has rear armour of two flat plates, but SU-152 has one cylindrical-shaped plate. These features are light to recognize, other is not so viewable. Note: Presense of DShK machine-gun is not a ISU-152 unique feature. After repair some SU-152 were also equipped with it.

3. ISU-152 was the base for ISU-122 design. ISU-122 prototype had designation "Object 242" and was built in December 1943. It was launched into mass production at April 1944 due to lack of ML-20S tubes for arming ISU hulls.

4. There was another ISU-152 vehicle, called ISU-152 model 1945. This was a single prototype on the IS-3 tank base with much more strong armour and with ML-20SM gun-howitzer without muzzle break. Now it is a piece of Kubinka tank muzeum exposition.

With best wishes to all of you, Lost Artilleryman

Indirect fire capability?

I see the article mentions the ability to use the ISU-122/152 in the indirect fire role. I wasn't sure this was possible with these vehicles? Can someone confirm whether they were equipped with artillery-type sights? DMorpheus 19:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

ISU-122/152 had two sights: telescopic for direct fire and panoramic (so called Hertz's panorama, I don't know the right English term) for indirect fire. The left forward hatch was made specially for panoramic sight visor, not for crew members. Some photos in Russian history military magazines show ISU-152 firing with closed position, with stocks of projectiles and charges nearby the vehicle. The vehicle itself has small hatch on the left side for loading ammunition from the ground. LostArtilleryman 15:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge ISU-122 into ISU-152

Voting is closed —Michael Z. 2006-11-04 00:20 Z

Please see the discussion at the top of the page, and review the two articles since they've changed since the original proposal. Let's leave this vote open for ten days, to allow everyone to find it again, and then merge or remove the notices.  —Michael Z. 2006-10-22 21:14 Z

Support

1.  —Michael Z. 2006-10-22 21:48 Z
2. Oberiko 02:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
3. DMorpheus
4. Daniel.Bryant 00:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. LostArtilleryman 04:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Attilios --Attilios 23:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
3. 190.49.163.156 00:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm haven't voted yet myself: I want to read through the articles again first. —Michael Z. 2006-10-22 21:14 Z

Voted. The two articles are largely redundant. The differences between these two vehicles are what is important about them, and it would be much easier for the reader to compare them if it was merged. The net result will be clearer, but require less reading. —Michael Z. 2006-10-22 21:50 Z

Results

I'm closing the vote now, since it's been longer than the proposed ten days. A two-to-one majority is in favour of merging these articles, but in light of LostArtilleryman's major contribution to ISU-122, I propose we don't merge the article's without including him in the consensus. What do you say, Lost? Would it be acceptable to go with the majority and merge these into a single good-quality article, or are you strongly opposed? —Michael Z. 2006-11-04 00:20 Z

Well, I'm strongly opposing the merge of ISU-152 and ISU-122 articles. My reasons are:

• The card in upper right corner shall be ambiguous if ISU-152 & ISU-122 articles will be merged. The general data of ML-20S, A-19S and D-25S guns are not the same so table rows about caliber, ammunition, sights and so on will be cumbersome and not clear to understand what value corresponds particular vehicle.
• Analogy with articles about M7 HMC and Sexton SPGs: they have very similar drive train from M3 Grant/Lee but differ in armament. There is no proposition to merge this articles
• Please look to ru:ИСУ-152 (now it is a candidate to FA in ruWiki). There are information only about ISU-152 and in future I want with Bukvoed possible assistance translate it to English. As a result combined article about ISUs will be cumbersome and not easy to read.
• Also I want to expand article about ISU-122. Do you hear about ISU-122-1 and ISU-122-2 variants? Unfortunately I have no much spare time an it must be shared between my own site and ruWiki where three articles with my participance now is a candidates to FA. Also my knowledge of English is not so great to free expression of my ideas about articles expanding.
• ISU-152 and ISU-122 differs in some aspects of their combat use. E. g. the Russian enthusiasts about ISU-152 history dig out from the archives two facts and a photo of its indirect fire usage (along with many memoirs mention about this) but no such proves were found about ISU-122 - only direct fire usage. ISU-152s at the end of war relatively rare fought with German heavy AFVs but ISU-122s did. Once again explanations of this circumstances will make the merged article cumbersome.

So I'll be defend this point of view as Breat Fortress heroes :-) LostArtilleryman 08:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose one of my main arguments for merging, the common employment of these vehicles, probably also applies to the earlier SU guns too, so a lot of the common information could someday find itself in articles about the Soviet Mechanized Corps, Soviet armoured doctrine, or Soviet antitank guns. Wikipedia has a lot of technical articles about individual AFVs, but is lacking overview articles like these. —Michael Z. 2006-11-05 02:55 Z

Why isn't this considered a tank?

It's got loads of armour, an obscenely large gun, and range/speed/engine specs reminiscent of a tank. It looks like a tank, it works like a tank... what gives? Aadieu (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A tank must have a turret. Jonathan Chin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.42.90.5 (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Technically a tank, in it's most basic form, does not have to have a turret to be considered a tank. A tank is any armored fighting vehicle that is fully enclosed in "heavy" armor ( a light tank doesn't have heavy armor but is still considered a tank, so yeah), carries a Gun, and runs on a continuous track system. However I do agree that the ISU 152 and 122 should not be considered tanks because there intended role is different from that of a tank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.164.22 (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

ISU-152 found in Ukrainian village is started after 65 years and hauled away

Here is a video http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1e2_1365795228

B4Ctom1 (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

High-velocity variant

Experimental apparently. I don't recognize the gun. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"Military"

I know it's in vogue these days but is it necessary to refer to say, the Polish Army as the "Polish military" or the Red Army as the "Soviet military"? It's very clumsy. Yes, I know it is possible that some weapons were used by more than one service but this was far less likely in the period this piece was used. Flanker235 (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Lockman?

The article uses the term "lockman" several times without explanation. Any chance someone can add such, or a link to a page that explains? Graham.Fountain | Talk 13:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it means a second loader who presumably operates the screw breach. Another loader would actually handle the ammunition. Honestly the entire article reads like a bad translation and I have never heard the term 'lockman' used in english for any artillery staff position. Rather than link to this nonexistent term the whole article should be copyedited. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Beast Killer

This content: " "Beast killer", a propaganda invention intended to create the idea that the Red Army had a solution to the Ferdinand and Tiger tanks." is exactly copied from the source, without quotes, and is thus plagiarism. I reverted. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Ah now its plagiarism? How sneaky, you left no note (here and on your talk page) until today when I have reverted it, while you called it on your talk page: "This is unnecessary nonsense" on my response. Instead to remove it, how about to rewording the sentence? The statement made by historian Robert Forczyk, is highly uncontroversial. But, guess you simply wanted to get ride of it, right? Seems like you have now completely followed the same path of the IP that wanted to remove "Wehraboo tears" gotcha! GrapeJamDeluxe (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Kindly stop with the personal attacks; this is my second request.

I didn't post here because we were discussing it on my talk page. I posted here fr the benefit of other editors who might rightly wonder what is going on with this content.

Superficial language changes do not change the fact that this is plagiarism. Please see WP:PLAG DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You keep reverting, despite it has been reworded and thus do not plagiarise anymore. GrapeJamDeluxe (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -- who is Robert Forczyk and why does material cited to him needs to be in the lead? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Forczyk is alongside Zaloga a very acclaimed military historian. The lead summarize the body, previous you had nothing against it when you edited the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISU-152&oldid=745708975 now, when the nickname finally got its recognition, we should get ride of it, because some have a different personal view of the things? GrapeJamDeluxe (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't question Forczyk's ability; he is a former US Army armor officer; PhD, and author of multiple popular historical works. I think he easily qualifies as a RS.

The issue is that the original edit is plagiarized word-for-word from the citation. The minor alteration of wording now does not eliminate the plagiarism. Finally, I find the whole thing to be very POV and thus perhaps given undue weight. Weapons systems are given silly nicknames all the time. There is always an element of propaganda to it. If you doubt that, ask yourself why the brits has fighters with names like 'Spitfire' or 'Hurricane' or why the US had a 'thunderbolt'. It's all designed to evoke positive feelings on "our side". So what? Not sure why it is so damned important here and not every other article about a piece of equipment that has a silly nickname. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

More specifically, using the term 'propaganda' is part of the problem here. 'Propaganda' is a pejorative term, thus not NPOV and thus probably not something to put into the introduction. It throws NPOV away in the second sentence of the article. The intro is already tagged as being too short. Thus there is way too much weight given to slamming the nickname.

In my opinion, leaving the term in, and labelling it an unofficial nickname, is a reasonable solution. I am not attempting to complete delete the content, just the commentary around it, the undue weight, and the POV. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The ISU-152 did not earn its nickname because it excelled in knocking out numerous Tiger and Ferdinands. The ISU-152 severed a big time in propaganda purposes as Forczyk pointed out and thus the nickname "Beast Killer" was created to give the ISU 152 a mythical combat reputation as an animal slayer. Or do you are still beliving those silly stories of 250 Tiger and Ferdinands were knocked out at Kursk, or that one ISU 152 knocked out 10 Tiger and Ferdinands in one attacking attempt?

The use of the word "propaganda" is appropriate, don't try to whitewash and fall into revisionism. I also urge you to stop making those silly semantics and comparison in order to mislead others from your personal view of the things. The nickname "Beast Killer" was a propaganda invention and served as such. To label it now as an unofficial nickname is as bad as your suggestion that "propaganda" is a filthy word for such a beautiful tank. GrapeJamDeluxe (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's a similar approach on another article, the wiki page on the US A-10 close-support aircraft:

The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II is a single-seat, twin turbofan engine, straight wing jet aircraft developed by Fairchild-Republic for the United States Air Force (USAF). Commonly referred to by its nicknames Warthog or Hog, its official name comes from the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, a World War II fighter

The names are referred to as 'nicknames'. We do not call them "US propaganda". Hope this is helpful. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. You are comparing apples and oranges. The Thunderbolt didn't get his nickname for its well established combat reputation, instead, it refers to its appearance: ugly, slow, well armed etc. The ISU-152 nickname in contrary, (whose combat records are highly inflated by propaganda) was created, to give it an unparalleled combat reputation, which served propaganda purposes. Therfore, this is a highly dishonest comparison to a such unique and fabulous aircraft. GrapeJamDeluxe (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I am comparing apples and apples. Hardware gets named or nicknamed (beast killer was never any kind of official designation). Your argument seems to be that when the USSR did it, it was propaganda, but when anyone else does the very same thing, it is just a nickname. Unless you intend to label every weapon's unofficial name as 'propaganda' (which I oppose) I suggest that word not be used here either. It is POV. I don't know what else can possibly be said on this subject. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

No, you don't. You are being dishonest and making silly comparisons. Every nickname tells its own story, its qualities as a weapon, its appearance to the pilot who flew or drove them, and only a few were strictly invented to serve the propaganda narratives at time, irrespective of whether being Nazi, British or Soviet origin. None of your used examples comes in the slightest close to idea behind the creation of the ISU 152's nickname. You are simply grasping at straws and you probably know it.

The nickname "beast killer" as military historian Robert Forczyk pointed out, was solely a propganda invention, to underline its ability and to gave it an unparalleled combat record against Tiger and Ferdinand tanks. Forczyk also states, that some ISU-152 claims were either highly exaggerated or outright fictional. Even if its nickname was inofficial, that does not change the fact for which purpose it served. GrapeJamDeluxe (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Have others described the nickname as serving solely propaganda purposes? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Zaloga, referred to above, has referred to it in exactly the terms to which GrapeJamDeluxe now opposes (i.e., a term coined at Kursk because the SU-152 could knock out Tigers etc). I have not seen that nickname used with the ISU-152 specifically although one could argue it carries over. This discussion has gone on long past its productive value. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Zaloga would have certaintly differentiate the term further when he could have had access to the combat records in 1984, for his work "Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two" as the Soviet archives were not declassified until 1995.

The book is extremely aged, contains a lot of guesswork and estimates on Soviet side, he does also not support that the nickname "Zvierboy" was like any other nickname, nor does he support your argument against to label it as a propaganda term. That the ISU-152 could have knocked out German heavy tanks, is out of the equation as I never have argued against that. Instead, I said, that military historian Robert Forczyk has found that the kill claims of some ISU 152 crews against Tiger and Ferdinands were highly exaggerated or outright fictional and that the creation of the nickname origins from propaganda. However, I'm not aware that Zaloga has ever used that nickname again in his newer works such as the Red Army Handbook (2003) and Armored Champion (2015).

Yep, this discussion has reached its end and I'm going to restore the statement by historian Robert Forczyk soon. The only argument you could brought up against his well made examinations of the events and combat records, were you own weak personal view of the things and nothing more. If you still insist to appeal the restore, than I will find a way to report you and I will give that nickname finally that recognition which it deserve, namely being a propaganda invention.

At any rate, be wise, let's come to an agreement and end this. Whishing you a happy new year and see you on the other side of the calendar. GrapeJamDeluxe (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ISU-152. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100531064930/http://www.aviarmor.net/TWW2/tanks/ussr/isu-152.htm to http://www.aviarmor.net/TWW2/tanks/ussr/isu-152.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.aviarmor.net/TWW2/tanks/ussr/Object_704.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

"Lack of turret"

Why does the description make it sound like the lack of a turret was some severe handicap which prevented it from engaging in anti-tank warfare or direct combat, when it is well-known that the Germans and others made extensive use of similarly-designed vehicles as tank destroyers, assault guns, etc. A person reading this comes off feeling like this is some especial drawback and that this was the only reason it was mostly used as SP artillery. This is obviously not the case. If this is true...and I have my doubts...it was a matter of Soviet policy. They needed SP artillery/assault guns more than they needed tank-destroyers. Although I was under the impression that the ISU 152 was used quite extensively to hunt tanks. I know the SU 152 was, another thing that gives the lie to the statement that the layout "prevented" it from serving in combat roles.

64.222.158.24 (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is mediocre

This article is bad :

A) There is not even mention of the weight of the tank, and overall technical issues.

B) Do you really think that 1-3 shells per minute is an extremely low firing rate ??? Yes that is written in this article. It is just impossible : 1-3 shells per minute is an extremely HIGH firing rate, and absolutely impossible to achieve with this huge gun.

C) there is no information about real combat locations.2A02:A03F:6599:5B00:3115:A4F3:F209:D5B4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)