Mad Russian Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 I can find no instance where JS-1's with the 85mm gun were used in combat. My sources tell me that the JS-1's were all regunned with the 122mm gun before going into combat. Does anybody have a relieable source that states the JS-1 went into combat with the 85mm gun? Panther Commander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_2.html Don't know how reliable this is, but it's a start! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexei Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Great JS-II anti-HEAT skirts on that page ! I doubt there were many of them... (sorry for being out of the topic) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted March 30, 2004 Originally posted by stikkypixie: http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_2.html Don't know how reliable this is, but it's a start! There is only one picture of a JS1 on that page but it shows the tank armed with an 85mm gun. Steven Zaloga, and he normally very reliable, states that the JS1 was rearmed with the 122mm gun before being sent to combat units. He also states that the JS1 may not have seen combat. The Russians may not have known if they were JS1's or JS2's if they had the same gun. If that is the case there should be no JS1's armed with 85mm guns in the game. Panther Commander [ March 30, 2004, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Panther Commander ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Analyzing the results of those battles, the <FONT COLOR="#800000">GBTU</FONT> came to the conclusion that the armament and protection of the JS-1 didn't correspond to its intended tasks and was inferior to the German heavy tanks. GBTU recommended increased armor protection and rearming the JS-1 with a more powerful weapon. </P> The JS-2 tank happened much more dangerous to German tanks because the 122 mm D-25T gun had better armour-penetration than the 85 mm D-5T. Furthermore, its fragmentation and high explosive ammunition was also quite effective against armored targets. Like the JS-1, the JS-2s had their "baptism of fire" during the final stage of liberation of the right-bank Ukraine. </P> You should read the text once in a while . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Again off the Russian Battlefield site, here's a picture of a destroyed IS-1 from Byelorussia, summer '44. http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/ussr/is1_01.jpg 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cessna Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Originally posted by Alexei: Great JS-II anti-HEAT skirts on that page ! I doubt there were many of them... (sorry for being out of the topic) I seem to recall reading that during the final attack on Berlin the Russians put mattress springs on their tanks to protect against shaped-charge weapons like Panzerfausts. I don't know how true this is, but it would make for a cool mod... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 MikeyD...that looks like an 85mm gun.....85mm long!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 The Russian Battlefield discussions indicate that the initial IS-1 tanks had a narrow mantlet cause it was designed for the 85mm gun. A vision slit close to the gun barrel would still allow acceptable viewing cause the 85mm is fairly narrow, was just the right length and did not have a muzzle brake. Whan the IS-1 tanks got 122mm guns, the same mantlet was used and it caused vision problems for the gunner (longer, thicker gun barrel with a giant muzzle brake on the end, compared to the 85mm gun). http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_1.html shows a picture of a production IS-1 tank with 85mm gun, and indicates when the last 85mm armed IS-1 tank was produced (January 1944). Only a small number of 85mm armed IS tanks were produced. While Mr. Zaloga states that 85mm armed IS tanks did not see combat, the Russian Battlefield info suggests otherwise. Perhaps the design team might wish to indicate what info swayed their decision (when did Zaloga's book statement come out?). That problem was cured by installing the wider mantlet where the gunner vision slit was moved further from the 122mm gun. There were IS-1 tanks with narrow mantlets and 30 degree from vertical driver plates. The Russian Battlefield discussions mention that the 85mm gun was found to be a failure against Panthers and Tigers and was replaced with the 122mm. [ March 30, 2004, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: rexford ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 There's a whole laundry list of Russian tanks that people have argued over the years whether or not they saw combat during the war. The IS-1 (IS-85), the T-44, the IS-3. with the release of a growing amount of original source material from Russia a lot of reference works printed pre-1986 have proven to be less than 100% accurate. No knock on the pre-86 stuff. They were as good as their best available source material. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted March 30, 2004 Originally posted by stikkypixie: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Analyzing the results of those battles, the <FONT COLOR="#800000">GBTU</FONT> came to the conclusion that the armament and protection of the JS-1 didn't correspond to its intended tasks and was inferior to the German heavy tanks. GBTU recommended increased armor protection and rearming the JS-1 with a more powerful weapon. The JS-2 tank happened much more dangerous to German tanks because the 122 mm D-25T gun had better armour-penetration than the 85 mm D-5T. Furthermore, its fragmentation and high explosive ammunition was also quite effective against armored targets. Like the JS-1, the JS-2s had their "baptism of fire" during the final stage of liberation of the right-bank Ukraine. You should read the text once in a while . </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Originally posted by Panther Commander: I read the text on more than just the Russian website. SO what does that say? That they were rearmed. BUT were they used? And apparently the JS1, as is in the game, is a tank that did not exist. Panther Commander From my reading of the text on page 2, it does say that the IS-1 with the 85mm gun saw action. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 "...apparently the JS1, as is in the game, is a tank that did not exist." How precisely is its existance in the game so wrong? It was produced in quite limited numbers and soon retrofitted with a bigger gun. But there's at least one photo (see above) of a 85mm IS-1 apparently wrecked in combat. Zaloga's line "...the JS1 may not have seen combat" should proably emphasis the equivocal word 'may'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted March 31, 2004 Author Share Posted March 31, 2004 The information about the 13th Guards Tank Regiment going into combat doesn't say if the JS1's had been rearmed or not. The drawing of the JS1 of 1st Guards Breakthrough Regiment isn't a photo of a tank in combat. The photo of the tank with 3rd Belorussian front could easily have the wrong caption, as often happens. I am aware that the Russian Armor website is sometimes guilty of that. Besides which that tank could be on trials and never went into combat with the gun. So once again, is there any proof that a JS1 was ever in combat with an 85mm gun? So far I am not convinced that there is. I am still convinced that there is a question as to whether it was or not. Panther Commander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s3333cr333tz Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 "So once again, is there any proof that a JS1 was ever in combat with an 85mm gun? " So once again, is there any proof that a JS1 was ever not in combat with an 85mm gun? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 I have a JS1 doing combat right now on my computer. He's survived several turns against a Panther even. Would a screenshot be proof of JS1 85mm in combat? Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted March 31, 2004 Author Share Posted March 31, 2004 Originally posted by s3333cr333tz: "So once again, is there any proof that a JS1 was ever in combat with an 85mm gun? " So once again, is there any proof that a JS1 was ever not in combat with an 85mm gun? Proof that a JS1 was not in combat doesn't get me any CMBB Scenarios now does it? If I have the proof I need I can make a scenario that has the JS1's in them. Otherwise, I will look at other vehicle types for my scenarios. :mad: Panther Commander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Originally posted by Panther Commander: The information about the 13th Guards Tank Regiment going into combat doesn't say if the JS1's had been rearmed or not. Yes it does. As stikkypixie has pointed out: After the 13 Guards combat experiences, GBTU advocated up arming the JS-1. Why would they advocate up arming 12,2cm IS-1? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 That is exactly how I read it. Why would they advocate re-arming the IS-1 12.2 armed version with the IS-1 12.2 gun if that gun had been insufficient? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted March 31, 2004 Author Share Posted March 31, 2004 Well how can they both recieve their baptism of fire at the same time if the JS1 has been previously in combat and been uparmed from that experience? _________________________________________________ Like the JS-1, the JS-2s had their "baptism of fire" during the final stage of liberation of the right-bank Ukraine. _________________________________________________ Just a question I have. Panther Commander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 The liberation of Ukraine was not over in one week. It started in summer 1943, and ended in Summer 1944. So even 'the final stage' would probably be the half-year from November to May. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted March 31, 2004 Author Share Posted March 31, 2004 Originally posted by Andreas: The liberation of Ukraine was not over in one week. It started in summer 1943, and ended in Summer 1944. So even 'the final stage' would probably be the half-year from November to May. But the inference is that both took place at the same time. After reading these passages over and over, I am inclined to believe that the JS1 did go into combat with the 85mm and that was when they decided to rearm it. But the conflicting statements are often what you run into. Along with people telling you that you should learn how to read. Thanks to everyone for their comments. Panther Commander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zitadelle Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Originally posted by Cessna: I seem to recall reading that during the final attack on Berlin the Russians put mattress springs on their tanks to protect against shaped-charge weapons like Panzerfausts. I don't know how true this is, but it would make for a cool mod... Actually, the mattress spring anecdote is incorrect. Recently, Zaloga and others have provided research indicating that the Russians developed either off-mounted steel plates or spring-mounted screens to serve as offset panzerfaust protection. These were not ad-hoc field developments, but designed and engineered in rear echelons. Furthermore, studies indicate that a typical bedspring would provide insufficient resistance for a panzerfaust/schrek round and would not result in premature detonation of the round. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Russian Posted March 31, 2004 Author Share Posted March 31, 2004 Originally posted by Zitadelle: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cessna: I seem to recall reading that during the final attack on Berlin the Russians put mattress springs on their tanks to protect against shaped-charge weapons like Panzerfausts. I don't know how true this is, but it would make for a cool mod... Actually, the mattress spring anecdote is incorrect. Recently, Zaloga and others have provided research indicating that the Russians developed either off-mounted steel plates or spring-mounted screens to serve as offset panzerfaust protection. These were not ad-hoc field developments, but designed and engineered in rear echelons. Furthermore, studies indicate that a typical bedspring would provide insufficient resistance for a panzerfaust/schrek round and would not result in premature detonation of the round. </font> 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.