Jump to content

Talk:IS tank family/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Name

It should be "Iosif Stalin" - in Russian it is Иосиф Сталин, with "i" in Iosif. Pibwl 18:33, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian, but I find that most resources call this vehicle the Iosef Stalin, which a google test agrees with. I do, however, think that accuracy is better. If you're quite certain that Iosif Stalin is a more correct name, then you have my vote to move the page.
Please update the template and add in the opening paragraph the various English translations if do though. Oberiko 00:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The en Wikipedia is English-language, so it's not really so important how a word is spelt in Russian. Going by Google hits, we have:

  • "Iosef Stalin tank" [1] 243 hits
  • "Joseph Stalin tank" [2] 30 hits
  • "Iosif Stalin tank" [3] 1 hit
  • "Josif Stalin tank" [4] 0 hits

I would not object if "Iosif Stalin tank" was made a redirect to this page -- Cabalamat 15:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But "Iosef Stalin" is not an English name. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which says If there is no commonly-used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. I would prefer to see it at either at the English Joseph Stalin tank, or preferably at Iosif Stalin tank, matching the transliteration in the article on Joseph Stalin. Transliterated according to the Wikipedia standard Transliteration of Russian into English, it would be Yosif Stalin tank, but I don't think anyone wants to see that. Another possibility would be simply Stalin tank.
But I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue if anyone opposes a move. —Michael Z. 2005-03-29 07:29 Z

More talk

I've now added Josif Stalin tank as a redirect. On a more general note, it would be nice if WP had a standard way of transcribing words in languages that don't use the latin alphabet. -- Cabalamat 15:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean a standard method, like the one described in Transliteration of Russian into English? See Romanization for more languages, and there are some specific guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Or do you mean automatically transcribing? That wouldn't work, because there are many exceptions and judgement calls to be made. —Michael Z. 2005-02-1 04:31 Z

I read somewhere that (russian?) troops nicknamed IS-2 and/or IS-3 "The pike" because of its/their very sleek shape. Sorry to be so vague but I don't recall what was the source, so it's better in Discussion isn't it? ...--69.157.129.29 03:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The IS-3 saw limited action during the final weeks of the war in Germany, and was quickly nicknamed Shchuka (Pike) after its pointed bow.
P. 176 of Steven J. Zaloga and James Grandsen, Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two, 1984. Arms and Armour Press, London. ISBN 0-85368-606-8

Although Mr. Zaloga is at or near the top expert on Soviet armor, his more recent work is more accurate and does not claim that the IS-3 saw any WW2 combat. It's just about certain that it saw no combat in Europe in WW2, and there is only a slim chance that it was used in combat in Manchuria in Aug 1945. DMorpheusNov 10 2005

—Michael Z. 2005-02-1 04:37 Z

Duplicate

A duplicate of this article (I think) has been made at T-10. I'm no expert on tanks but from what I gather these are the same things. One should be merged into the other. I reccomend the stalin tank be moved to T-10, but what do I know. (cross posted to the other article) BrokenSegue 04:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The T-10s were a continuation of IS heavy tank series, which was a direct continuation of the KV series, but the three are virtually always treated separately. The distinction also neatly divides them into WWII and Cold War models. They should remain as they are. If someone did a lot more general writing, then maybe a separate article on Soviet heavy tanks, or Soviet independent tank units could be warranted (which might even cover the T-64 and T-80, MBTs that were later employed in place of the heavies). —Michael Z. 2005-03-29 07:16 Z
okay then thanks. The T-10 article made it sound like they just renamed it. BrokenSegue 23:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They are two separate vehicles that happen to look a lot alike. DMorpheus

Infobox

What is a IS-2 model 1945 ? A postwar version or just a typo ? Shouldn't it be better to use the model 1944 instead ? --Denniss 17:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the post war version was called IS-2M.
The specifications in the infobox come from Zaloga & Grandsen (1984:176), called "IS-2 Model 45" in Zaloga's table. This is what Zaloga calls IS-2m, the late/post-war version with modified glacis armour. What the Soviet Army calls IS-2M was a 1950s modernization program. —Michael Z. 2006-11-25 15:07 Z
Hmm I thought the version with modified frontal armor was the model 1944 with the IS-2M as the 1950's modernization version. Do you have other references to the IS-2 model 1945 ? At least such a tank should be clearly visible and marked as "our best tank" or "german tank killer #1" at the well known very nationalistic site battlefield.ru but nada (see article weblinks).--Denniss 15:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not being quite clear. You're right, IS-2m (lower case m) is another name for IS-2 tanks built starting in 1944, with the modified glacis design. Model 1945 isn't a new tank model, just a reference to the same tank built the following year—differences are probably in the details only, but that is what the specs are provided for. IS-2M (upper case m) is indeed, a '50s modernization program. —Michael Z. 2006-11-25 16:57 Z
But look at what [5] website says to the mystery IS-2m/IS-2M designation. The IS-2 model 1944 has the redesigned glacis plate, no sign of a model 1945 and a clear statement that a IS-2m or IS-2M did not exist until the 1950's modernisation. And they cite quite a lot sources. --Denniss 10:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Zaloga cites quite a lot of sources, too. The Soviet army didn't have these model names officially designated on paper; Russian-language publications just refer to a particular tank by the year of its construction. Where we write "IS-2 Model 1944", Russian publications write "an IS-2 of the year 1944". See what I wrote about the Model 1945 above.
Furthermore, many of the model names were originally created speculatively in historical publications, rather than coming from any official Red Army documents. As the article says, some authors use "IS-2m". That means that some others don't. The prevailing usage in English-language publications comes from the many written by Steven Zaloga. Recently, some Russian-language publications have become a bit more prominent, thanks to globalization and the Internet, and they tend to name some things differently from Zaloga. Battlefield.ru is from Russia. —Michael Z. 2006-11-26 18:46 Z

Old talk

I gonna put this one here because it is a constructive critic. It isn't clear for me which IS-2 the main article refers to: is it the IS-2 early models/war models or the IS-2 "modernized" (IS-2m)? There seems a confusion about it. Reading the given link (www.battlefield.ru) makes dubious some statements made on Wikipedia (i didn't found the IS-2 was "invulnerable" to the 88 gun, it was on some points but not entirely). Also, none mentioned that tons of different spec. IS-2 where launched. Could someone with more knowledge do a standpoint (battlefield.ru, Zalonga and other sources)? - PHWeberbauer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.119.23.11 (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Who keeps deleting my posts abnout Heinz Guderian forbidding his crews to engage IS-2 in open tank duel? I am providing a link by the way. And someone keeps adding a claim without reference that IS-2 was destroyed 4600 meters away. Could we please take care of it? 99.231.63.253 (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov, 4 January, 2008.

Gun Performance

This site - http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=50&lang=en - provides a source for the claim that the 122mm gun penetrated both sides of a Panther. However, this article says it was side-to-side, not front-to-rear penetration, at 1500 meters.

Also, Zaloga and Grandsen, Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of WW2, 1984, P 172: "A captured Panther was used as the target and a 122mm round crashed through the frontal armour and clear through the rear armour as well."

Also, Zaloga, Kinnear, Aksenov and Koshchavtsev, Stalin's Heavy Tanks, 1997, P. 9, cites German sources instructing Panther crews that they were vulnerable at 1,000 meters. DMorpheus 02:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[Quote] An engagement at 600 metres (660 yd) coupled (...) to 1,000 metres (910 yd) [/Quote] 600 metres = 660 yd and 1,000 metres = 910 yd? Unless the yd is somekind of progressive unit this can't be right.

But Zaloga & et alii, forgets that at the soviets test grounds, the same tank was subject to fire test several times, and that some German tanks series suffered from lack of quality raw material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.64.214.4 (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions

Some recently-added statements need to be backed up by a source:

  • The heavy tank was designed with thick armour (which however was of poor quality)
  • ...a gun that was ineffective against the new German Tiger and Panther tanks.
  • Mainly because the gun's poor performance with anti-tank rounds and the poor optics which ment it could not hit anything at more then 1200m
  • Although the IS-2 had reasonable armor protection (the armor was thick but of poor quality), the A-19 122mm gun had poor performance in armor penetration and had poor optics (couln't hit any target at more then 1200m), which ment it was extremely difficult to hit another tank.
  • Despite being a poor anti-tank tank...
  • However the overall performance against the Tiger was poor.
  • The Tiger could destroy an IS-2 at a range of 2,000 m.
  • The weak antitank performance of the 122mm gun of the IS-2 meant that it could only penetrate the sides and rear of a Tiger or King Tiger.
    Zaloga (1984:172) reports that the 122mm gun's penetration was 160mm of armour at 1,000 m—more than enough to penetrate the Tiger's hull front (100mm at 24°), turret front (100 mm at 8°) or mantlet (120mm flat).

And why compare the 46-tonne Soviet tank to the 57 and 70-tonne Tigers, when the 45-tonne Panther is a more comparable machine? —Michael Z. 2006-10-21 21:33 Z

For the same reason that you would compare a Corsair to a Spitfire rather than to a Whirlwind, even if Whirlwind is closer to Corsair in weight. Tigers and IS tanks are heavy tanks by definition and occupied somewhat similar roles, while Panther is a medium tank used in a different role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk • contribs) 15:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Bullshit. The IS-2 was much better than these two panzers. Quality of his armor was much better than quality of late german armor (after losing resources in Norway and Ukraine). His AT rounds were able to penetrate Pz-VI front armor at 1500m, and his optics (copy of Pz-III optics on lend-lease resource) allowed it. In german instructions there was note, that "russian tigers" open fire already at 1500 meters (and it was valid so). Don`t forget direct orders for german tankers to not enter with tanks IS-2 the open duel in private, and to operate from ambushes, number not less than two.

It's simply not that useful to compare these machines one-to-one. After Kursk, the Nazis were forced to make every shot count against an increasingly more numerous enemy, hence the emphasis on individual tank gunnery. Meanwhile the Soviets filled the battlefield with more steel and diesel, and gun tubes and shells, while steadily improving their operational and tactical skills.

In the big picture, Hitler had more resources but made less of them. Some of his tanks were cool in theory, but to obsess over their superiority while ignoring the desperate German situation at the end of the war is creepy. —Michael Z. 2008-04-28 18:28 Z

More resources that Soviet & USA? I think that´s a lack of knowledge. Since 1943 German industry suffered severe bombing campaign by Allies (Not mentioning the Romanian oil refineries). Not mention that the USA was heavy supplying the URSS war machine (some of the first rocket artilery (Katyuscha) were build on American trucks), which remained, after the great industrial move in 1941-42, unharmed (Germany didn't had long range bombers like the Allies). Also, people tend to forget on dealing with soviet weaponry that: (1) they heavily outnumbered their German counterparts; and (2) the "testing grounds" were conducted under suspicious manners (one tank being hit several times until the result was attained, picking up test results to avoid Commissariat wrath, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.64.214.4 (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Germany had more resources than the USSR, but had a much lower tank output, despite the fact that the Soviets lost most of their tank production cities. —Michael Z. 2008-10-04 04:52 z
Let´s add some words: Lend-Lease Act, Tankograd, industralization on the Ural, and Allied bombing campaign. Btw, i could resume that Germany had, also, more figthing grounds that USSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.65.9.31 (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Recent research showed that allied bombings did almost nothing to stop german production, in fact, in terms of numbers, you see growth in german production of artillery guns and mortars, as well as tanks in 1944. The problem for Germany was that they couldn't put their country and economy on war footing, while soviets had what people call "war communism", when everything is tightly controlled and msot of country's resources support war effort. Lend-lease amounted to mere 7000 tanks during a 5-year period, plus tanks were of poor quality. If we are talking about lend-lease in general, compare numbers that soviets allready had, produced during the war to what was shipped (and don't forget to subtract those cargo ships that were sunk by german submarines) and you will see that things in which lend-lease helped were soldier boots, trucks and some trains. Now, I am not saying these are useless things, no, they are useful, all I am saying is that they are in no way strategic and critical.--99.231.50.118 (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.
"War communism" was twenty years before WW2, under Lenin. Allied bombing probably slowed German production; it would have indeed risen even faster, and probably in slightly different ways, were it not for Allied bombing. That is not to defend it (that's a debate for another day). What's any of this got to do with the IS series of tanks? Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
And was communism under Stalin less "war" than that under Lenin? I don't know what it has to do with IS tank debates, but someone stated some incorrect facts and I decided to respond. 99.231.50.118 (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.
"War communism" was a specific program under Lenin early on and has no conceivable connection to IS-2 tanks. The place to debate Lend-lease is elsewhere. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I see, we are confused. What I was reffering is that all soviet economy and country in general was structured very similar to war communism, as a system, not as a programm. If you look at Marx's model, it differs greatly from what soviets had all time along. But that is more of a political science/philosophy debate. 99.231.50.118 (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.
Everytime i see wikipedia i wonder what i read here... 7.000 tanks are useless (wtf???), some "trucks, trains" which actually carried the Syberian troops in 1941-42 to save Moscow... God, the other one forgets that the Red Army "divisions" were in numbers and equipment different that the German Army "division" concept, as example the Red Army was the first (and maybe only) army to emply ARTILHERY DIVISIONs at WW2 (See more in Manstein. Lost Victories). About the IS-2, the main problem again on this article are: Lacking comments that the A-19 was a artilhery, so it is expected to have higher HE capacity that a Anti air gun based like the 88 series. Also, the IS-2 production part is "go to war and on style", there could be a subdivision saying IS-2 production on WW2 and IS-2 production after WW2. Also i get discussion were the 122mm gun could open a german tank at 1,500m but forgets to mention, that for soviet army standard, over 1,000m hits at that time were more lucky shots that "normal event". But overall, the last time i saw the article it improved a whole bunch. - PHWeberbauer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.11.202 (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo and edit notes

I saw these: IS-2 and IS-3

At the Kiev open air armoured vehicle exhibit, near their war memorial almost under the shade of the Iron Maiden. I'm using this as a source, for now, while there is nothing else for updating the 'surviving examples' list.

The location; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_the_Great_Patriotic_War%2C_Kiev

Another person who visited the same location; http://mindlesswanderings.com/2010/05/kiev-ukraine/

There was a bunch of more unique / rare stuff there. Could be a good source to get some fair use photos, especially if someone forwards a request to a Ukrainian wikipedia editor.--Senor Freebie (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

IS-2 vs Tiger

How was the IS-2 tank compared to the Tiger I?

The IS-2 was superior to the german Tiber I in most parameters. The Tiger I was designed before the first encounter with the T-34. So it didn't have a sloped armor, which highly improve the armor protection by deflecting the shots and by increasing the real thickness of the armor. By example, the Tiger had a front armor of 100mm both for the turret and the glacis) but it was inferior to the german Panther, who had a 80mm sloped front armor. The IS-2 had a sloped front glacis of 120mm and the turret armor thickness was of 100mm. The 88mm gun of the german Tiger was also inferior in both armor penetration and in explosive power (against infantry) than the 122mm D-25T. On the other side, the german tank had some advantages like better optics and a better mobility.

For further information you can visit this web site :http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=50&lang=en

Kovlovsky 17:33 30 april 2006

The web site battlefield.ru was updated and the previous links were dead so I fixed them Kovlovsky 17:45 30 april 2006

Also, the IS-2 had a very slow rate of fire, which could be a majore disadvantage. Also it could only carry 28 shells at a time (it was a TYPO guys, sheesh) , which meant it would run out of amunition really quick. --84.208.76.45 23:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Rate of fire advantage was noticeable only at close range. Using Tiger's rangefinder at targets over a kilometer was complicated and rather slow operation, so practical rate of fire would be much lower than gun reloading time. And at these ranges 88's chances for successful penetration are very slim, best possible outcome would be "critical hit" - immobilisation or main gun damage. 195.98.64.69 03:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect. The Tiger was not designed before the appearance of the T-34.
"Henschel & Sohn began development of the Tiger in spring of 1937. After various side-tracks, in 1941 Henschel and three other companies (Porsche, MAN, and Daimler-Benz) submitted designs for a 35-ton tank with a 75 mm main gun."
Well, they had to redesign it! :)
The IS-2 ammunition stowage was 28 rounds. This is still substantially less than a Panther (78 to 81 rounds depending on the model), Tiger, or T-34. But it's not 18. The rate of fire was lower because the ammunition was two-part, in contrast to the single-piece Tiger ammunition.
Tiger I frontal armor was 102mm and was nearly vertical. Sides were about 80mm and were vertical.
IS-2 turret face was 160mm; hull front was 120mm; turret side was 110mm. DMorpheus 02:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
All the sources I have seen show max armour of IS-2 between 120-132mm. Perhaps the quote for 160mm references the IS-2M, which was an upgrade in the 1950s and thus would never have encountered a King Tiger? Split Decision (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you DMorpheus! The IS-2 is better protected than I thought. And yes I forgot to mention the very slow loading time and the low quantity of ammunition. Kovlovsky

DMorpheus where did you get those armor values. Nearly all drawing have show turret sides to have been 90-100mm and front as ~100mm, and the turrets armor protection was never improved, actually IS-2 had thinner turret sides and rear than IS-1. From :http://www.battlefield.ru "As for the tank's turret, it turned out to be impossible to increase its armour protection. Designed for the 85 mm gun, it was completely balanced. After installing the 122 mm weapon, the turret became very unbalanced. The Design Requirements intended for an increase of its frontal armour thickness to 130 mm which would have unbalanced the turret even further and would have made a new traverse mechanism necessary. SInce all these changes required a complete redesign of the turret, they were all cancelled." --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If the soviets would not have been expecting heavy german tanks, probably less than 50% of the ammunition in an IS-2 would be AP, also the Germans Tiger I crews almost always had superior training and probably optics. Mieciu K 10:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The optics of IS-2 were copied optics of Pz-IV on lend lease resources - they were more than good - 1500m engagement were standart in their AT tactics.

The tiger would be SOL against an IS2 at normal engagement ranges. The hull was invulnerable to the 88mm, and so was the turret unless the 88 shell managed to land a shot right on a thin strip of armor at both sides of the barrel where the mantle was flattest. Otherwise the front was invulnerable to the 88mm, and usually a shot for the turret ring was the best option.

All in all, the IS2 could take out the tiger from way beyond 1000m, as long as it hit, while the same could not be said of the tiger. Tiger had some advantages, but in reality it would be best for it to withdraw rather then fight it. German Tactics discouraged a tiger going toe to toe with one. Wokelly 02:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Wokelly

Remember that the IS-2 lower front hull is only 100mm thick at 30 degrees from vertical, so even Pzgr.39 from KwK 36 could penetrate it from quite afar, (~1000 meters away). --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Another general way to look at it: partly due to the design differences in these tanks, the Soviets built twice as many IS-2 (each consuming 80% of the resources) as the Germans built Tigers. Any Tiger crew would have to use their skills and advanced optics to hit the vulnerable parts of two Soviet heavy tanks to even the odds. An IS-2 crew delivering a solid hit anywhere on a Tiger would be taking out a disproportionately large tonnage of enemy armour.

But the Soviets didn't build these tanks to joust head-to-head with the heavy German beasts. While they were certainly capable, the Soviets also filled the battlefield with ten times the number of T-34s, as well as numerous effective self-propelled guns.

Even with greatly superior resources at their command, the Nazi's obsession with über-machines turned out to be the loser strategy where getting the most firepower to any particular schwerpunkt was the objective. And an obsessive comparison of individual machines also misses the larger point today. —Michael Z. 2008-04-28 18:06 Z

THat is actually wrong. Stalin demanded that IS-2 be able to take on any german AFV, and it could, esopecially the 1945 version. IT was in fact Heinz Guderian who ordered his tank crews not to go head on against IS-2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.46.37 (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I smell a tendency in this article to forget that the IS-2, as all soviet weaponry production, heavily outnumbered the German production. For each Tiger II there were, at least, 4 or more IS-2. And it reflected on 2WW battlefield. So, if you start making battle orders or engagements comparison between equipments, take in mind that numbers have a strong influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.64.214.4 (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is no tendency, it is done purposely, to compare vehicles i nterms of technology and design. No tactics or crew training, or numbers should be considered at all.--99.231.50.118 (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

It should be taken into much consideration that German tanks suffered a great loss in quality in production towards the end of the war and that is only because of Allied bombing raids on Eastern German production facilities. Had these not been successful, more tanks, of higher quality, would've easily of been produced by Germany. German AFV's did after all have the highest kill/loss ratio of the entire war, just look at the Elefant as a prime example, was the single most successful tank destroyer in WW2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.70.64 (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The experience of Otto Carius

I have read the book by Otto Carius.

  • Based on his experience the statistics were more or less 50-50, with both sides winning and losing some tank to tank battles, but the war was decided by the germans having been out numbered like 20 to 1.
  • The training and experience of the crew and commanders (not just the ones in the tank, but those who command entire units) could change the effectiveness of tanks by multiple times.
  • He emphasized a lot that tank units should always be closely supported by infantry. That made a big difference in all his battles.

My point is that the differences on paper (when they're this similar) are not as important as most people think. GMRE (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

IS-1 photo

ChrisO, that's a great photo, but unfortunately it's not an IS-1. Two points that are confusing:

  • It has a splash guard on the glacis plate between the fenders. This could be confused with the stepped glacis of the IS-1 and early IS-2. But the glacis is flat and protruding, indicating that this was not a converted IS-1, but a later-production IS-2.
  • It is missing the muzzle brake on the end of the gun. But it is the looong 85mm gun, not the short one of the IS-1.

I'm pretty certain that there are no IS-1s remaining, because they were all factory upgraded to IS-2s before going into service. I'm guessing this is a tank that stayed in service a long time, and saw some minor modernizations. It has well-maintained driving lights, so I'm guessing it sat in war stores and was driven straight to the museum.

Have a close look at the two black-and-white IS-1 and IS-2 photos to compare the differences in the hull front and gun length.

This image would be useful in an article on AFV recognition, demonstrating why it's important to use primary features to identify a vehicle. —Michael Z. 2005-10-11 05:43 Z

Hmm. I take your points, but I should note that the sign you see in front of the tank identifies it as an IS-1. It's a bit much if a war museum doesn't know what kind of tank it's displaying! -- ChrisO 06:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
That's correct, it is a late (Model 1944) IS-2 with postwar modifications - the wraparound fenders, hull-side stowage boxes, and headlights are all post-1945 features. Since it has the wide mantlet used in 1944-45, it can't be an IS-1's 85mm gun. Maybe it is the standard 122mm with the muzzle brake missing? At any rate a different photo would be better. DMorpheus Nov 10, 2005
Alot of museums sadly don't. Very nice photos BTW. Oberiko 11:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Yep and yep. I take perverse pleasure from correcting the photo captions in respectable AFV books. Confusing T-54, T-55, and possibly T-62 could be forgivable, but I've seen a photo of a Vickers Vijayanta labelled as a Canadian Leopard 1 in a book. The tank was heavily cam-netted, and surrounded with infantrymen carrying FN FAL rifles. Since the tank wasn't shaped like anything in British service, the author had assumed the rifles were Canadian. Talk about using secondary recognition features.... —Michael Z. 2005-10-11 15:34 Z
Just mentioning that this very same photo is again the subject of confusion. All IS-1s had the "broken" nose, that is, the stepped nose with the openable driver's vision hatch. IS-1s also had the narrow mantlet, as did early IS-2s. Even early IS-2s with 122mm guns had the narrow mantlet. This tank has both the wide mantlet and the smooth nose without a hatch, obvious features of an IS-2. DMorpheus2 —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

DT Machineguns

Didn't the IS-2 have three DT machineguns? 

- The coax
- the ball-mounted MG in the turret rear
- the fixed gun on the right of the driver

The table says 2 X DTs. The hull gun is hard to see but I think all IS-2s had it. User: DMorpheus

The reason is simble. There were a coaxial DT and a second DT on rear of the turret to protect the rear of the tank against infantry attack without turning the slow turret. There is no hull MG. User: Kovlovsky

Yes, there is a fixed MG to the right of the driver. DMorpheus 02:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you give sources on that, i have never seen anything that i could positively identify as a hull mg in IS-2. No reliable sources mention it and i cant even see it in blueprints. --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This photo in wikipedia commons shows the hull MG, to the right of the driver: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IS-2_lipiec_2007_RB3.JPG. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the tank in the piuc might be one of the 1944 prototypes whihc used the 100 gun that was later installed on T-55's. the gun was good but they never quite managed to fully reconcile it with the turret so this varient never saw mass production (actually there were two variants with slightely differgin turrets) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Henrylee100 (talk • contribs) .

So was it superior to the Panzer? T-34? Tiger? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.0.198.72 (talk • contribs) .

Individual articles for the tanks

These tanks are completely different machines. Why information about them is not allocated to individual articles (see IS-1, IS-2, IS-3 and de-facto superheavy IS-7 in the Ru-Wiki for the example)? Vade Parvis (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Due to the fact that several of them appear to be little more than prototypes (IS-1, 4, 5, 6 & 7) for which there isn't likely to be a great deal of information available. There is no need for there to be 8 different pages. I might support individual pages for the IS-2 and or IS-3, however. And the IS-10/T-10 is irrelevant because it already has its own article.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You are not quite right. I will answer point by point:
  • IS-1 is a serial machine, with all ensuing consequences.
  • IS-4 is a serial machine.
  • IS-5 is a project, and IS-6 is an experimental machine, but at least in the russian reliable sources you can find enough information about these tanks to write a fairly detailed article. In this sense, they are not worse than, for example, "Maus" or E-100.
  • IS-7 is unique in its parameters and a well-known tank (described in reliable sources in sufficient detail). In addition, this machine is actually was not quite experimental, because before of rejection of this tank it was released on a small series (approximately 50 tanks).
Vade Parvis (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Support with comments. Rename the existing article to IS-2 to preserve the edit history (attribution). For the rest of the articles, nobody on Wikipedia will stop you from creating them, and you are allowed to cut&paste the text from the current article. All articles can become WP:articles for deletion but the ones you describe are notable enough and have some future potential, so they wouldn't be deleted. There is no other policy, process, or procedure governing the thing you call "splitting". You really don't need nobody's confirmation, so WP:be bold. Just please, don't create the unhelpful stubs. For example if you'd really like to have IS-3, please do develop it into a decent article (you can use the approach that was used by someone for T-10 already - known here as WP:summary style), before you proceed with IS-4 tank, etc, etc. --Kubanczyk (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Keep this page, but create new articles if you have more info A hub article is essential - it could be renamed JS tank series. template:main links could be made to separate articles. Section "operational history" would probably be better split.
Something like this DB V 160 family would be much preferrable to a disambuation page.
also support a de-merge of JS2 right now - there appears to be enough for a separate article right now, I can write an abstract of that if wanted for this article. (let me know)Oranjblud (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
At present, this article is nowhere near large enough to require splitting. It is a coherent article. Given how long the discussion has been dead and no concensus was reached then I think the tag should be removed. If you think an individual mark is separately notable then by all means create an article and reduce the section here to a summary. Op47 (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Problem is, we're not talking about splitting up a large article here, but rather about articles being currently incorrectly merged. First of all, there is a clear consensus in en-wiki that tanks (like other military equipment) with clear notability are normally discussed in separate articles. Like Vade Parvis already said, there is more than enough data on each of these tanks (up to IS-7), (with the possible exception of IS-5, yet including IS-1) to bring each of these articles to FA quality. The argument concerning the length of this article is invalid, for it is partly due to the current abnormal state that this subject is so poorly developed. The second problem is much more current (since it appears that there is little opposition now to creating individual articles) — it is that this article lacks a subject. It makes about as much sense as the thankfully inexistent Infantry series tank (Mk.I~IV), since with the exception of IS-1 and IS-2 each of these tanks was a separate development program and featured little in common. So, this article should either be made into disambiguation page pointing to separate articles, or remade into Soviet heavy tank development — a perfectly viable article (with reliable sources specifically discussing it as a separate subject) that, given the amount of published data, could itself well require splitting. --Saə (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

When was this tank first used?

The article says The Iosif Stalin tank (or IS tank, also known as the Joseph Stalin tank), was a heavy tank developed by the Soviet Union during World War II and first used in the Kursk area in September 1943 and later The IS-2 tank first saw combat in the spring of 1944

Was it 1943 or 1944? Montalban (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Either a c&p error or the source has it wrong - there was no IS tank in 9/43 (unless there was a prototype tested in live action). --Denniss (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


Also, same for the IS:

"The Iosif Stalin tank (or IS tank, also known as the Joseph Stalin tank), was a heavy tank developed by the Soviet Union during World War II and first used in the Kursk area in September 1943.[2] The tanks in the series are also sometimes called JS or ИС tanks."

But then further down in the design section it says:

"However, the German employment of substantial numbers of Panther and Tiger tanks at the Battle of Kursk in the summer of 1943 changed Soviet priorities. In response, the Soviet tank industry created the stopgap KV-85, and embarked on the KV-13 design program to create a tank with more advanced armour layout and a more powerful main gun. The IS-85 (Object 237) prototype was initially accepted for production as the IS-1 heavy tank."

So was the IS in full production by 1 month after the battle of Kursk?--> I thought that they had to build the KV-1S, the KV-13 and then the KV-85 before they got to the IS....which seems to me would have taken longer than a month! Can we verify with the IS was first used operationally, and not just the IS-2... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.22.44 (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"The IS-85 (Object 237) prototype was initially accepted for production as the IS-1 heavy tank." This indicates that the first appearance might well indeed be at the battle of Kursk, while the JS-2 was first fielded in early 1944. Regardless, the only source given allegedly says Battle of Kursk so it should stand until a better source is found. /BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The sources already listed such as Baryatinsky and Zaloga will back up the fact that the IS series first operational use was in the spring of 1944. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"The first part of production JS-1 tanks was delivered in October of 1943, and the JS-2 - in December. " "In January of 1944 the last 40 JS-85s were manufactured at the ChKZ." "In March 1944, the "German-type" muzzle brake was replaced with a better design from the TsAKB. At the same time, the JS-85 was renamed JS-1, and the JS-122 was renamed JS-2." "At this stage, the issue of the JS-2's armament was not completely resolved. " This clearly indicates that the JS-1 got into service before the JS-2, which in turn was operational in the spring of 1944. /BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

sure about no use of the IS-3 against Germany?

I know only a few had been produced but I am pretty sure I've read here or there they did have a couple at the front? HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It is virtually certain no IS-3s were used in the German war. Some older books make tentative claims otherwise but over the last 20 years it has become clear they were not used against Germany and probably not against Japan either. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, even though the whole situation is rather confusing due to many contradictory claims, that much can be said with certainity. The second IS-3 prototype was still undergoing trials from 16 March to mid-April, and only then the tank was cleared for production. To 1 May only 25 IS-3 were manufactured, with only a few of these already accepted by the army, and by 24 May this improved merely to 17 accepted out of 29 produced. (M.Svirin, Танковая мощь СССР, 2009, p. 554, ISBN 9785699317004 & I.Zheltov, I.Pavlov, M.Pavlov, A.Sergeev, Танки ИС, 2009, p. 66) And according to the latter, no heavy tank regiment was employed against Japan, except for 48th, still with KV tanks. --Saə (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Please add this info to the article to counter the myth of IS-3 vs Japan. --Denniss (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Quoted from Russian Tanks of World War II - Stalins Armoured Might, by Bean and Fowler, ç2002, p.142: "The first production models appeared in the early months of 1945, and it is reported that some saw action towards the end of the fighting in Berlin." There is also a photograph on the same page of several IS-3's in the Allied victory parade in Berlin in 1945. Not claiming this is more authoritative than other sources - Tank might of the USSR - by M. Svirin is only in Russian and I cannot access/read it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Bean and Fowler are wrong. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Repeating a myth over and over does not make it true. AFAIR some IS-3 were at a victory parade in Berlin 45 but that was in late summer or autumn 45. --Denniss (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Technical data

  • Why is there a "models" section inside the "operationl history" section?
    • Why does it contain more detailed info than the larger models secton above the history section? Example IS-7.
  • Why does it say at one point that the IS-7 was developed in 1948 and in another place that the first prototype existed as early as 1946? Like what, did the u.s.s.r. have a time-machine and send the prototype back by 2 years?

GMRE (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right about "models". I guess this section could be merged into the upper ("design"). Could you please fix it? --Kubanczyk (talk) 11:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The development of the IS-7 began in 1945 and lasted through to 1948, during this time two versions were named which are called the IS-7 model 1946 and IS-7 model 1948(bit of a mis-name as the model 1948 built in 1947). Sources tend to leave out the model 1946, which why. Pharoahjared (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

IS 8 or is10

Is a IS8 or Is10 , What does Wikipedia mean by IS10108.46.69.93 (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)gho2t1

It's IS-10, IS-8 was just the first prototype. Admins, Please revert this editions as it is removal of sourced content.--Kmaster (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no horse in this race, but I've seen this go back-and-forth enough already. I have two books by the same author (see below) that both identify the T-10 as having initially been the IS/JS/ИС-10 rather than -8.
Miller, David The Great Book of Tanks pp 384 (Salamander Books, 2002)
Miller, David Tanks of the World pp 250 (MBI Publishing, 2000)
The latter of the two also acknowledges the existence of an IS-8 and -9 (though offers no details), presumably different prototypes during the evolution of the IS series.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


According to domestic armored vehicles 1945-1965 the first prototype of the T-10 was called the IS-5. Pharoahjared (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge from T-10

The T-10 started life as the IS-10, and was essentially a redesigned and over-engineered IS-3. It saw no action and is only interesting as the conclusion of the story of Soviet Heavy tanks after 1944. If there is no objective, I will merge that article into this one and continue to improve it. —Michael Z. 2008-10-16 20:12 z

I would advise against that...following your line of logic you should also merge the articles about the M-46, M-47 and M-48 u.s. tanks together.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.208.36.84 (talk • contribs)

Huh??? The situation with those tanks is completely different. The T-10 has no combat history and no significant export history. That cannot be said of the M47 and M48. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think the same logic applies, and no one is suggesting merging the Patton tank articles. But is there a problem with setting a precedent? We usually have an article for each tank in service.
In favour of the merge, the T-10 was a dead-end development of the IS, and there are a few prototypes in between them. The T-10 on its own is uninteresting, but the whole series makes an story about the politics and secrecy about Soviet tank production, and constitutes the ending of the saga of Soviet heavy tanks (the middle of it being the KV tanks). —Michael Z. 2008-10-30 05:42 z

I agree that there's no reason to merge the articles, just because the tank didn't see any combat. It is very different from the IS tanks, with virtually every major part redesigned or replaced - the hull, wheels, gun, turret, etc.Jellyfish dave (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

But that line of reasoning would lead to separate articles IS-1 and IS-2, IS-3, IS-4, IS-7, and T-10. The T-10 was only renamed for political reasons, and remains part of the same series of tanks, serving in the same role, and with a common history. Splitting it up into stubby articles just waters down the story. —Michael Z. 2008-11-09 18:45 z

I'm suggesting starting with a comprehensive article on the history of the IS tank series (including the IS-10/T-10). Then, when there's enough specific and technical material on each model, it can be broken off into a stand-alone article anyway. I think the T-10 article is somewhere around that threshold. —Michael Z. 2008-11-09 19:55 z

To be honest, there's no reason why we couldn't have separate articles for each version of the tank, if the author was willing to make them comprehensive articles. Should we merge Leopard 2 with Leopard 2E, or AMX-30 with AMX-30E? The T-10 article could be made into a very comprehensive stand-alone article if it was properly expanded. I do actually plan to expand this article at some point. JonCatalán(Talk) 09:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess that would be the eventual outcome, sooner or later. Perhaps I will add a brief summary of further heavy tank development here, and refer to the main article T-10. —Michael Z. 2009-01-01 16:49 z
Once this article is expanded, ideally T-10 would have its own section and there would be something along the lines of main page: T-10 JonCatalán(Talk) 01:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


The Russian Wikipedia has all the IS tank separated into different articles, which I think is the way to go. Pharoahjared (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Missing tanks

We are missing the IS-1,(Object 233) IS-2,(Object 244) IS-3(Original IS-1 prototype) IS-4(IS-1 with a 107mm gun) IS-5(new experimental vehicle)IS-5(original prototype of the T-10) Pharoahjared (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on IS tank family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on IS tank family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

I find this sentence a bit confusing "Compared to the older F-34 76.2 mm tank gun, the A-19 delivered 5.37 times the muzzle energy and had similar accuracy to that of the 88 mm gun mounted on the Tiger Ausf B."

This is because it tries to compare the A-19 with both the F-34 and the 88 mm guns at the same time, and the comma is placed so that I have no idea which of these the A-19 has 5.37 times the [kinetic?] energy of. It is possible that someone who knows which it is, and is presumably not so confused by the way it is put, put this a bit better?

Graham.Fountain | Talk 10:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I find the sentence rather clear, the muzzle velocity is compared with the F-34, and the accuracy with the 88mm. BP OMowe (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

IS-7/130mm S-70

I'm too lazy to go do the actually do the "How to request an article" process but I really think we should have a little more on the gun this article describes as the IS-7's main armament. This "130mm S-70" is only vaguely described here. We have "thickly armoured and armed with a 130mm S-70 long-barrelled gun" and "Its armour was not only immune to the Jagdtiger's 12.8 cm Pak 44 but was even proof to its own 130mm". Other than that, I can't really find any information on Wikipedia regarding this weapon. Widgetdog (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

IS-2 Model 44 driver's vision / bow plate

I just reverted an edit regarding the driver's vision aperture on the IS-2. Early vehicles with the 'stepped' nose had an opening much like the KV-1 with direct vision provided for the driver. The later 'roman' nose casting still had an aperture, but it was a small slit without any ability to open. On both noses, the driver also had two periscopes. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Blast

I have moved the following united paragraph from the article to the talk page:

The IS-2 proved to have surprisingly good anti-tank capabilities due to the D-25T's extremely heavy HE projectiles. Standard doctrine for purpose-built anti-tank guns of the period universally relied on small, dense solid projectiles propelled to high velocities, optimized for punching through armor. However, the 122mm HE round produced a massive blast that did not rely on velocity for its effectiveness, making them effective against German heavy tank by sheer blast effect alone. Performed on captured Tiger Ausf-B tanks in Kubinka in 1944 showed that the IS-2 was able to destroy them at any range with a fair degree of reliability (the only tank then in Soviet service capable of doing so) by simply blowing the vehicle through sheer blast effect, which killed the crew and destroyed the vehicle's interior via concussion and spalling without harming the ammunition supply or chassis.

It needs citations and it needs to use the right technical words in the English language. In a military context, "blast" is an airborne shockwave; a similar shockwave transmitted through the earth is called "earth shock".-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I've done a quick overview, and stumbled upon quite a few self-published and unreliable sources, such as achtungpanzers.com, bronetehnika.narod.ru, russianbattlefield.com etc. Any objection how to go around with those? Dircovic (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree they're unreliable. If I'm not mistaken, there was some discussion of that years ago (or maybe that was on another page, but same sources). And its not as if there is a current lack of good English-language sources nowadays. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Unexpected quick response. Thanks. So you would endorse a complete clean up? I just tagged a few in order to see if I can come up with better citations. Dircovic (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh yes. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see a gallery at the bottom, so one could structurize the article much better. Any other objections? Dircovic (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Just added a gallery, improvements welcome Dircovic (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Reliable source candidates

I suggest this site, which provides English-language translations of Russian (Soviet) language documents, would be good to use: http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2015/10/world-of-tanks-history-section-122-mm.html

There is also M Baryatinsky's book.

DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I really like Peter Samsonov's website, but aren't we heading to WP:ORIGINAL if we start making citations to it? Do we really want to rely on translated articles published by a wargaming site? Don't know, mabye some other colleagues can step in to figure it out.Dircovic (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
It seems pretty solid to me. That particular article I linked to is one of the weaker ones on the site. He often provides scans of the original documents. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
My concerns are mainly because of verifiability. It happens that on a previous discussion with MPS1992, Kges1901, Buckshot06, and K.e.coffman, that those translated articles were deemed to be unreliable, as no footnotes are presented and that the content should be supported by reliable secondary sources, not primary. Regards Dircovic (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Split Article

If there aren't any objections I'm going to split the article into individual parts and create a disambiguation page. Split involves the IS-1/2 IS-3 IS-6 IS-7. For several reasons: Wikipedia:Splitting

  • Page is now over 50kb (Size reason)
  • The T-10 has it's own article
  • Pretty radical changes comparatively between many of the series with almost a 50% weight increase between the IS1/2 and the IS-7. The IS-7 even had it's own unique track made. (Content reason)
  • The IS-3 like the T-10 was in major production and should have it's own article (Content reason)
  • Page has confusing language talking about a single tank (IS-1/2) in the introduction (Language clarity) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 23:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I also plan on bolstering the reliability of the articles with stats from Nicolas Moran who has done video breakdowns in person with the tanks. - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IS_tank_family/Archive_1&oldid=1089668617"