John Kettler Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Nice vid, and look at that hull pivot speed 5.16 into the video 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Feast your ears on Soviet diesel goodness! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 19, 2014 Author Share Posted March 19, 2014 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Oh, I'm sure Russian tanks suffered ergonomically, though being 6' 3" I found both the T-34 and Pz IV a nightmare to be inside, what I am saying is what real impact did it have? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 19, 2014 Author Share Posted March 19, 2014 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 though being 6' 3"... I think you may very nearly be a foot taller than the average WWII tanker. Postwar French tanks had the same issue. Your average 21st century American would have some difficulty shoe-horning himself into an AMX-13 turret. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDog944 Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Well Steve, when I had the chance to climb into a WWII Mk II Humber AC, I got halfway and politely declined. I've been in priest holes that were easier to enter! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 At 5'3, I wish you guys would stop climbing around in my tanks and go back to the infantry where you belong! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.