Jump to content

Great IS-2 vid, but


Recommended Posts

You'll want to throttle the reporter! Terrific look outside and inside a drivable IS-2. Really conveys the massiveness and power of this beast, but the reporter doesn't shut up, so between him and the music, you can't hear what the IS-2 sounds like. Even so, it's quite impressive. Anyone interested in the whole bow MG debate is invited to look at 3:39, in which the keyholed socket (matching the exterior armored shroud) for the DT MG is clearly visible below and to the right of the manual traverse hand crank. The keyhole is there because the DP/DT family has a gas piston below the barrel, requiring a more complicated opening than the round barrel of the MG-34.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vark's link doesn't make the tank look 'massive', it makes it look downright petite! Sherman and Tigers are monsters in comparison. When IS-2 first showed up in the Beta testers were asking if the scale was off somehow. IS-2 is like Churchill. Its reputation causes you to expect more, somehow. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its the heavy frontal armour and even bigger gun that made it's reputation. Your right though, I'm always surprised at how 'small' the IS-2 is, in Duxford's Land Warfare museum, not much bigger than their T-34 85.

Don't also forget, the tankers standing next to/on their IS-2 tanks were often picked for their small stature, which accentuates their relative 'size' and is often ignored when talking about the cramped interiors and poor ergonomics of Soviet tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vark,

Thanks for this. Talk about a low exhaust note! Bet the Germans could hear that from a long way off. When a 1000+ guns weren't firing. You might wish to rethink that whole Russian ergonomics thing. I had to. Suggest you read: Ergonomics over at Archive Awareness. Let's just say surprises await.

MikeyD,

One of the points Valeri makes is that a German medium tank, the Panther, weighs about what a Stalin tank weighs, so that the Russians are inherently at a disadvantage in comparisons made on a tank class basis, rather than one of tank tonnage. An IS-2 is very much the product of the same design imperatives driving Russian tank design to this day. Low profile to minimize target and maximize terrain protection for steppe warfare. Smallish size to fit railway tunnels. Relatively light weight to fit low weight class bridges. Armor proof against designed threat and a gun heavy enough to defeat designed range of threats. Since in engineering, nothing is free, tradeoffs have to be made. One is that in minimizing vertical profile, considerable gun depression is lost. Another is that the armor envelope is smaller, driving a need for shorter tankers, but not as short as once thought. Believe it's about 5'7", not 5'5". Finding such men is easier in a nation in which not only does the basic body type generally skew shorter, but because of a generation of population raised in conditions of food shortage and even famine.

Did you notice that at 3:57 and shortly thereafter there was a great look at the bow MG port? Am fairly certain this is the tank Amizaur photographed in Poland.

Regards,

John Kettler

P.S.

The whole link policy thing continues to annoy me and my fellow gamers. It's now been almost two months since I first raised the issue. Please advise on how to get the requested guidance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MikeyD,

Correction re Vark IS-2 vid: DT external shroud clearly visible from 3:53-4:00. BTW, brother George has now conceded defeat. It took his resorting to Milsom's Soviet Tanks: 1917-1970 to convince him the IS-2 did indeed have a fixed bow MG. Now, of course, he's arguing it had no tactical utility!

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been in most Soviet era MBTs and a couple of BMPs. At 5'10" I felt like the Jolly Green Giant trying to fit into one of his cans of corn. I could not fight in a T-54 without having a few discs removed from my spine. And a BMP's rear section is OK for two men lying down. I do better in US AFVs of the time, but the few German ones I've been inside were no picnic either. Swedish S-Tank... now THAT was a comfortable experience.

I can't even imagine what 6'3" would be like.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard somewhere that the effective range of a T-34 was limited not by how much diesel was in the tank, but rather by how much oil was in the crankcase! Watching the vid posted by Vark and seeing all that blue smoke blowing out of the IS-2 diesel engine I'm thinking there may be some truth in what I heard. Granted that is a 65+ year old engine cranking in the back there but it must have seen an overhaul or two in its time, so still...

Also, I loved how it showed the flywheel spinning up to get the engine started. Must have been the best way to do it at the time for some reason. Made me think of the starting routine for BF-109s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...