Jump to content

IS-3 is it the equal of the Panther and Tiger ?


Recommended Posts

After taking the IS-2 up against forces containing Panthers and Tigers and getting beat pretty consistanly .I decided to try the IS-3 out .While you still have the problem of the slow reload and low ammo supply .The extra armour makees a big difference .Also I my be wrong but they seem to stand their ground more and not back away like the IS-2 seems to do .It was fun taking on King tigers and beating them in my IS-3 .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since IS-2 turret front is vulnerable to 75L48 shots, I dislike them as tank killers. Majority what Germans have can take them out. Superior optics and rate of fire will make you regret you got IS-2s. They usually don't get killed outright, but tend to get "hail fire" from even AI tanks, resulting to lot of partial penetrations from long range.

Cheers,

M.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the IS-3, I got curious about the question of how it ranks vs. the Panther & Tiger and set up a QB to find out. Set up a pure armor 1500 pt. ME QB w/o rarity and picked 7 reg IS-3s (3 platoons + 1) and a T-34/76. Let the AI pick and it took 5 Panthers, 4 Pumas and a PzIVG.

Net result: Total victory for the IS-3s, 94-6. The IS-3 frontal armor can survive a frontal hit at 350 meters, yet its gun can kill a Panther at 900 meters. I lost the T34 but no IS-3s (one was gun damaged, I think by a Puma.) All German tanks were killed. W/o rarity, a platoon of two IS-3s costs less than 400 points (I think 389). That makes it cheaper than the Panther, and it seems to me a real bargain. W/o rarity it costs only a little more than an IS-2, but the extra frontal armor makes it much more valuable.

I'm guessing it would stack up quite well vs. the Tiger, though I haven't tested that. I'm not sure about the KT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a recent game I played a Flak 88 I had kept pinging shells off its side and then its front from less than 500 metres until the IS3 decided it had had enough of that nonsense and then simply blew away my gun. This was after it had already dispatched my Panther and wiped out most of my infantry force as well. :(

From experience, they're absolutely deadly.

Regards

Jim R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried a head to head battle with Vet 6 KTs and 6 Vet JS-3s at 1000 meters. What I ended up with was 12 tanks sporting damaged gun barrels.

Edit: As for JS-2s. I wouldn't bother using them on PZIVs when the T-34/85 will do just as well. However, the JS-2 can get through the front armor of the Panther at 1000m or less. Reg or Vet JS-2s with the shoot and scoot command can give the German heavy kitties a real head ache.

[ May 05, 2003, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Nippy ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IS-3 was one of those tanks that looked better on paper (or in-game) than they performed in real life.

Well, that's the conventional wisdom. During the Cold War years the flaws of Russian tanks were often magnified in the press while NATO armor only had its positive qualities highlighted. The few times the IS-3 was used in the manner for which it was designed (long range cover fire for infantry at the start of the Yom Kippur war for example) it could prove to be a real headache for its opponents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reality the IS-3 suffered from severe mechanichal problems, because it was rushed into production to fast.

The IS-3 glacis armor also had severe problems as the weld seams tended to crack open, exposing the inner hull, when the IS-3 traversed rough terrain or after repeated fireing of the main gun. The engine mounts & final drive also had severe problems. The Soviets attempted to rectify these problems in several programs from 1948 - 1952.

The IS-3 turret front armor was designed to defeat the KwK.43 L/71 & & the glacis armor was designed to increase effective ressistance w/o increasing weight.

The IS-3 incorperated all the data from Soviet tank loss studies conducted in 1944 that showed the main cause of loss was turret front penetrations followed by glacis penetrations.

Regards, John Waters

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.

×
×
  • Create New...