Soviet use of ISU-152 assault guns during the CMCW timeframe

[Amedeo]

It's widely known that, after the end of WW2, the Soviets continued to use the ISU-152 in their armed forces. Modernized versions, like the ISU-152K (1956) and ISU-152M (1959) served with first line units well into the early 1970s, when modern self propelled guns, such as the 2S1 and 2S3, were introduced.

What is, perhaps, not so widely known is that the introduction of the new generation SPGs didn't decree the instantaneous and complete disappearance of these assault guns from Soviet inventories... and units!

Here are a few photos I recently found on the net, depicting the use of ISU-152 assault guns in Soviet Army/Navy units during the late '70s and the early '80s.

331st OSDAN, 55th Naval Infantry Division (Pacific Fleet) 

1974-1978

1980-1981

207th Training Regiment, 24th Tank Division (Baltic MD)

1983

 

22nd Tank Division (Kiev MD)

1986

Some of these vehicles were also used by "liquidators" after the infamous Chernobyl' nuclear accident. 

[Sequoia]

Liquidators? Nice photos.

[IICptMillerII]

Great shots!

Unfortunately the ISU-152 is not included in Cold War at the moment. Out of curiosity, were there any units deployed in East Germany equipped with ISU-152s? Non-naval infantry units that is. 

[purpheart23]

Anyone know if that's an Alligator class LST, it looks similar. ISU 152's still in service in the early 80's? Did they just serve as Mech Arty or the traditional direct infantry support? Or both?

[Amedeo]

21 hours ago, Sequoia said:

Liquidators? Nice photos.

Yes. The "liquidators" were the people (military and civil) tasked with "dealing with the consequences" of the 1986 nuclear accident. Among other things, it was deemed necessary to drill a large hole in a wall to let a large draining pipe pass. Using "normal" devices to drill the hole would have been too time consuming, given the level of radiations, hence they thought an ISU-152 could approach and rapidly "blow" a hole in the wall with a 152mm anti-concrete round, limiting crew exposure. They tested this concept with a wall distant from the contaminated site and it worked well. Unfortunately, they found that the hole was too small to let the pipe pass, and they dropped the idea althoghether. However the assault guns were not sent back but were used as bulldozers.

 

19 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Great shots!

Unfortunately the ISU-152 is not included in Cold War at the moment. Out of curiosity, were there any units deployed in East Germany equipped with ISU-152s? Non-naval infantry units that is. 

 

5 hours ago, purpheart23 said:

Anyone know if that's an Alligator class LST, it looks similar. ISU 152's still in service in the early 80's? Did they just serve as Mech Arty or the traditional direct infantry support? Or both?

Well, as far as I know, until the late '60s early '70s, ISU-152 were still to be found in frontline units in the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany. I mean tank and motorized rifle divisions, as one can see in this 1971 photo depicting an ISU-152 column of the 16th Guards Tank Division:

I presume that their role was mainly direct-fire support. Indirect fire was possible (as it was already during WW2) but the peculiarities of the gun installation (closed top, relatively cramped space, limited elevation, few ammo etc.) clearly made this AFV suboptimal in the SPG role limiting range and sustained fire capacity, although one has to say that ammo capacity was increased already with the ISU-152K (from a 20 rounds to a 30 rounds loadout, IIRC).

Later (from the mid '70s) ISU-152's in units near the German border, were typically found in separate tank and tank-destroyer regiments and training units, as can be seen here in this video from a GSGV veteran (1972-1974):

Reading a few veteran's comments on the net, my understanding is that these independent units stationed near the Inner German Border equipped with obsolete or obsolescent AFVs were assigned the task of driving to nearby prepared positions, in case of a surprise NATO attack (!), and basically die in place there, buying time for the mobilization of their comrades. The explicit "not a step back attitude" was confirmed by a former company commander that said that in its unit, equipped with IS tanks, the machine were crewed by a three (and not four) man team, because, once in place, the driver simply had to stop the engine and go into the turret to act as loader. 

And yes, there were still IS-2M tanks in Germany until the mid '70s in these "blocking" units. According to some veterans of the 119th Separate Tank Regiment, IS-2s were discontinued (i.e. shipped back to the USSR) in 1976 and the unit acquired T-55s that were, in turn, replaced by T-62s in 1979.

I don't know whether during the 1979-1982 timeframe there still were ISU equipped units with the GSVG in East Germany. For sure, there were units in the Soviet Union still using them, as the previously posted photos show. It's confirmed also by a table contained in a 1982 CIA report:

I might add that I remember reading somewhere that the remaining ISU assault guns were intended to be used in special urban assault support units in the second echelon, tasked with reducing pocket of resistаnce in bypassed West German urban areas, but I can't give you a reliable source now.

Speaking about the LCUs, yes they are "Tapir" (NATO: Alligator) class ships. One is the Aleksandr Tortsev (bort 399) the other is the Tomskii Komsomolets (bort 072).

 

 

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by Amedeo

[MikeyD]

I had to look it up. M1981/3 (SMT) tank is T72A in the game. 

[IICptMillerII]

1 hour ago, Amedeo said:

Yes. The "liquidators" were the people (military and civil) tasked with "dealing with the consequences" of the 1986 nuclear accident. Among other things, it was deemed necessary to drill a large hole in a wall to let a large draining pipe pass. Using "normal" devices to drill the hole would have been too time consuming, given the level of radiations, hence they thought an ISU-152 could approach and rapidly "blow" a hole in the wall with a 152mm anti-concrete round, limiting crew exposure. They tested this concept with a wall distant from the contaminated site and it worked well. Unfortunately, they found that the hole was too small to let the pipe pass, and they dropped the idea althoghether. However the assault guns were not sent back but were used as bulldozers.

 

 

Well, as far as I know, until the late '60s early '70s, ISU-152 were still to be found in frontline units in the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany. I mean tank and motorized rifle divisions, as one can see in this 1971 photo depicting an ISU-152 column of the 16th Guards Tank Division:

I presume that their role was mainly direct-fire support. Indirect fire was possible (as it was already during WW2) but the peculiarities of the gun installation (closed top, relatively cramped space, limited elevation, few ammo etc.) clearly made this AFV suboptimal in the SPG role limiting range and sustained fire capacity, although one has to say that ammo capacity was increased already with the ISU-152K (from a 20 rounds to a 30 rounds loadout, IIRC).

Later (from the mid '70s) ISU-152's in units near the German border, were typically found in separate tank and tank-destroyer regiments and training units, as can be seen here in this video from a GSGV veteran (1972-1974):

Reading a few veteran's comments on the net, my understanding is that these independent units stationed near the Inner German Border equipped with obsolete or obsolescent AFVs were assigned the task of driving to nearby prepared positions, in case of a surprise NATO attack (!), and basically die in place there, buying time for the mobilization of their comrades. The explicit "not a step back attitude" was confirmed by a former company commander that said that in its unit, equipped with IS tanks, the machine were crewed by a three (and not four) man team, because, once in place, the driver simply had to stop the engine and go into the turret to act as loader. 

And yes, there were still IS-2M tanks in Germany until the mid '70s in these "blocking" units. According to some veterans of the 119th Separate Tank Regiment, IS-2s were discontinued (i.e. shipped back to the USSR) in 1976 and the unit acquired T-55s that were, in turn, replaced by T-62s in 1979.

I don't know whether during the 1979-1982 timeframe there still were ISU equipped units with the GSVG in East Germany. For sure, there were units in the Soviet Union still using them, as the previously posted photos show. It's confirmed also by a table contained in a 1982 CIA report:

I might add that I remember reading somewhere that the remaining ISU assault guns were intended to be used in special urban assault support units in the second echelon, tasked with reducing pocket of resistаnce in bypassed West German urban areas, but I can't give you a reliable source now.

Speaking about the LCUs, yes they are "Tapir" (NATO: Alligator) class ships. One is the Aleksandr Tortsev (bort 399) the other is the Tomskii Komsomolets (bort 072).

 

 

 

Great info! Thanks for posting this. Like I said ISUs are not currently in CW, but who knows, maybe they’ll be added in the future?

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

Great info! Thanks for posting this. Like I said ISUs are not currently in CW, but who knows, maybe they’ll be added in the future?

This beast could be fun in an urban infantry support fight but I think they would be dead meat outside of that.  ATGMs and tanks would make pretty quick work of them way outside their range to spot and hit back.

[IICptMillerII]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

This beast could be fun in an urban infantry support fight but I think they would be dead meat outside of that.  ATGMs and tanks would make pretty quick work of them way outside their range to spot and hit back.

Completely agree. I'm still not sure how much use it would have actually seen in anything resembling combat. Maybe as an engineering vehicle?

Likely beyond the scope of CM battlefields, but could still be a fun addition later on. 

[MikeyD]

BFC had mentioned eventually expanding the timeframe around the title. I don't know what that means but they may be as likely to jump back to 1973 as forward to 1986. Since they've been impossible to predict lately maybe they'll do a time jump to 1960! Then we can call up post-war IS-2s, IS-3s and ISU-152s. 

[LukeFF]

The Soviets also sent ISU-152s to Egypt in the 60s and 70s, which in turn were captured in their wars with the Israelis. One interesting conversion was where they removed the main gun and converted them into BTT-1 recovery vehicles:

(The tank museum in Latrun, Israel is one awesome place, that's for sure):

Edited April 21, 2021 by LukeFF

[nik mond]

Nice pictures, is that an AMX13 turret on a Sherman chassis in the back there? Who woulda thought.

[Baneman]

and is that an IS-3 next to the ISU-152 in the 2nd pic ?

[Amedeo]

On 4/19/2021 at 11:17 PM, The_Capt said:

This beast could be fun in an urban infantry support fight but I think they would be dead meat outside of that.  ATGMs and tanks would make pretty quick work of them way outside their range to spot and hit back.

Yes, maybe it could be considered for a later addition mainly because the model is already done (actually the modernized variants differ from the wartime vanilla ISU-152 in some details, but that's it). Just increase the loadout to 30 rounds and add HEAT ammo.

On 4/20/2021 at 2:17 AM, MikeyD said:

BFC had mentioned eventually expanding the timeframe around the title. I don't know what that means but they may be as likely to jump back to 1973 as forward to 1986. Since they've been impossible to predict lately maybe they'll do a time jump to 1960! Then we can call up post-war IS-2s, IS-3s and ISU-152s. 

I presume the timeframe expansion will be just that, an expansion of the existing 1979-1982 timeframe. So, going into the mid 80's could be interesting for the new variants of existing tanks and ammo (new Abrams versions, Soviet tanks with ERA new APFSDS rounds for both contendents etc.). I doubt they are going back in time that much... maybe 1977-1978 just to have Sheridans in the Armored Cavalry units!  

3 hours ago, Baneman said:

and is that an IS-3 next to the ISU-152 in the 2nd pic ?

It is. BTW, going back a few years could justify adding also heavy tanks as the IS-2M, IS-3M and the T-10 series (the T-10M would be something interesting to play with in the '70s).

[LukeFF]

22 hours ago, nik mond said:

Nice pictures, is that an AMX13 turret on a Sherman chassis in the back there? Who woulda thought.

Yes, it is! definitely a weird one.

8 hours ago, Baneman said:

and is that an IS-3 next to the ISU-152 in the 2nd pic ?

Sure is - yet another of the relics the Soviets offloaded on its Arab clients:

[Haiduk]

Last GSVG's ISU-152 of 221st separate tank regiment of 2nd Guard Tank Army were moved back to USSR in October 1976. The regiment have received T-64A instead.

In European part of USSR these SP-guns were been moving in reserve since begining of 70th, but on Far East ISU-152 delayed up to the end of 70th. And in Marines units too. But you should know, Far East defense system and units TO&E had own specific

Edited April 22, 2021 by Haiduk

[Amedeo]

2 hours ago, Haiduk said:

Last GSVG's ISU-152 of 221st separate tank regiment of 2nd Guard Tank Army were moved back to USSR in October 1976. The regiments have received T-64A instead.

Of course it was not a coincidence that 1976 is the same year in which also the 119th separate tank regiment sent back in the USSR its IS-2M tanks, as I wrote above.

According to Maksim Kolomиets book "Top secret T-10", in September 1976 the General Staff issued a directive that ordered the disbandment or re-equipping of separate "border defense" tank units.

Speaking of T-10, I wonder when the last T-10M was retired from GSVG. The aforementioned book says that T-10Ms were first transferred to tank training units in Germany and then shipped back to the Soviet Units, where they were concentrated mainly in the 5th and 42 Tank Divisions (in Belarus and Ukraine, respectively). T-10s.

For sure, heavy tanks and assault guns of various kinds were still present in many units stationed in Western USSR during the early '80s. Here's an excerpt from a declassified CIA 1982 document:

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Amedeo

[Haiduk]

54 minutes ago, Amedeo said:

Speaking of T-10, I wonder when the last T-10M was retired from GSVG.

In the end of 1976 also. There were about 20 "border defense tank battalions" in GSFG at the end of 60th, but this is unofficial name. Each had 70 T-10M. Also were units with mix of T-10M /IS-3M/ ISU-152. 

Officially T-10 were decomissioned only in 1993, but in real they finished own combat duty at the end of 70th. Some of them used for training purpose, but mostly they just awaited when it would be remelted or moved on firing ranges as targets. Some sources say some number of T-10 up to begining of 90th used on Far East with the same purpose like in Germany - for the border "last stand covering", but who knows this is correct or not.   

Edited April 22, 2021 by Haiduk

[MikeyD]

Its hard to justify keeping an IS-3 around when a T64 has much thicker armor equivalent and a bigger gun. Plus deploying IS-3 would slow down the entire Division the same way lumbering KV tanks slowed Russian armor formations in 1941. Though admittedly, IS-3 is apparently faster than M60A1 cross-country.

[Vacillator]

22 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Yes, it is! definitely a weird one.

Sure is - yet another of the relics the Soviets offloaded on its Arab clients:

 

Great pictures, apart from the rust going on.  I'd keep them indoors, if I had an endless garage .

EDIT: Rust never sleeps

Edited April 22, 2021 by Vacilllator

[Erwin]

If the climate is dry rust is not a problem.  I spend most of my time in a very dry desert and one of my vehicles is 22 years old and looks like new. 

[Haiduk]

12 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Its hard to justify keeping an IS-3 around when a T64 has much thicker armor equivalent and a bigger gun.

If we say about 70th, separate tank battalions/regiments, equipped with heavy tanks or ISU-152 had completely other tasks and other subordination - as a rule they belonged to Army level, though some tank divisions had own battalion with heavy tanks. They were in constant readiness and stood in the boxes with loaded ammunition. In the cause of war, they had to move to the border immediately with the task "last stand" in order to win the time for other tank divisions, equipped with modern MBTs. GSFG's T-10, for example, even hadn't loader in own crew. Afer arriving on position, the driver left own place and became as loader - the tank turned out into armored bunker.

Thus, using of heavy tanks had own specifics and didn't slow down other units. IS-3M at all were in small number - they partially remained after disbanding of heavy tank divisions and gradually were turned back to USSR. This tank finished own active service in 1973 - probably all useful IS-3 were gathered in 80th reserve cadre tank division of Transbaikal Miliatry District, were they kept to the end of 80th.

This district also had reserve tank division equipped with T-34-85. So, you can see, that old tanks were moving to perifery, so if you discover the photos of some rarity armor in service in 70-80th it is not a sign they could use throughout all Soviet army.  

Edited April 23, 2021 by Haiduk

[Amedeo]

12 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Its hard to justify keeping an IS-3 around when a T64 has much thicker armor equivalent and a bigger gun. Plus deploying IS-3 would slow down the entire Division the same way lumbering KV tanks slowed Russian armor formations in 1941. Though admittedly, IS-3 is apparently faster than M60A1 cross-country.

Well, Haiduk already answered your question: basically by the mid '70s obsolete and obsolescent heavy tanks were used only in Army level battalions/regiments with the very specific task of manning the first line of border defense in case of a NATO surprise attack. 

What surprises me is that, after the early '70s, basically T-10 tanks were treated the same way IS tanks were. I mean, a T-10M, although well past its prime, was a very different beast when compared to a IS-3M. Better armour and mobility, better firepower (way better, since the 122mm M-62 gun on the T-10M has a longer barrel than the older D-25 and was provided also with APDS ammo) and other niceties (i.e. power loading, stabilizer etc.). I mean, a T-10M should be a more formidable opponent than an non-modernized T-55, so I expected them not to be considered in the same league of other older heavy tanks. Heck, the Soviets also retained the IS-2M along the IS-3M because, although lesser protected, it was considered more reliable mechanically. OK, OK, I admit it: I'd like to see the T-10M included in CMCW sometime in the future! 

And now, we're ready to investigate if there remain some SU-122-54 tank destroyer somewhere...  Although I suspect they were among the first to go, considering they had no particular advantage over a T-10M or an ISU-152.