Michael Dorosh Posted August 26, 2002 Share Posted August 26, 2002 Just read an interesting snippet at lunch in a panzer history. A Panther crew fired several shots at a IS-III frontally that penetrated the turret - the turret crew baled out, but the hull crew remained at their posts! The IS obviously couldn't return fire, but the driver (and I presume wireless operator or hull gunner, if the IS had one) continued on merrilly; more rounds from the Panther failed to destroy the vehicle. Would it be too much to hope.... But seriously - would this likely be a result of the communications in the IS III being damaged and the driver not getting the "bail out" order from the commander? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted August 26, 2002 Share Posted August 26, 2002 Or sitting there smiling and drooling, with blood trickling out of their ears, blissfully ignorant of the reality of their situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightningWar Posted August 26, 2002 Share Posted August 26, 2002 I cant imagine. I mean the tank isnt that big. Could it be possible the hull crew was killed by the penetration with the drivers foot on the gas? -LW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hensworth Posted August 26, 2002 Share Posted August 26, 2002 Depends on the circumstances. Could be the guys in the turret were being fried by an electrical fire or something and decided to brave the elements rather than be toasted. Quite possibly their exit provoked some agonized screaming and a hail of bullets pinging off the armor, motivating the remainder of the crew to take their chances inside the tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted August 26, 2002 Share Posted August 26, 2002 Or it could just be a difference of opinion: The hull crew might decide they had a better chance of survival trying to drive the damaged tank out of the line of fire rather than hopping out and risking getting cut down by MG fire. A thought: can the turret crew bail out of an IS-III more easily, or in a more protected manner than the hull crew? If so, this might explain the hull crew's preference to stay with the vehicle and try to drive out of trouble rather than trying to worm their way out of the hatch while under fire. Also, if the turret was the point of penetration it might have been full of hot metal shards and the like and therefore uninhabitable, while the conditions in the hull might have been more bearable (although I'm sure not very comfortable). Whatever the case, interesting story. Cheers, YD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 26, 2002 Share Posted August 26, 2002 The first thought that came to my mind was that no order was given. The TC simply bailed, with the gunner and loader right behind him out the hatch. The hull crew drove on, not knowing that they alone were left in the tank. Would the layout of the tank permit that? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 26, 2002 Author Share Posted August 26, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: The first thought that came to my mind was that no order was given. The TC simply bailed, with the gunner and loader right behind him out the hatch. The hull crew drove on, not knowing that they alone were left in the tank. Would the layout of the tank permit that? MichaelThat was similar to my thought - the intercom was damaged and the driver never heard the order, if one was given. I have no idea of the layout though. I will try and post the whole quote tonight if I remember, it was from the German POV, so may not be too helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 26, 2002 Share Posted August 26, 2002 I'm unclear what you mean by "would the layout of the tank allow for this"?? Umm....perhaps I'm missing something, but of course it would - the hull crew can stay put while the turret crew evacuate. Oh and I presume you mean IS-2, not -3! Here's a pic on the Russian Battlefield: http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_5.html [ August 26, 2002, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Mike ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 27, 2002 Author Share Posted August 27, 2002 Originally posted by Mike: Oh and I presume you mean IS-2, not -3! My mistake - the reference says "Stalin JS 122", whatever that means... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 The IS-122 was the IS-2, and the IS-85 was the IS-1 - the larger numbers were early designations and refer to the gun calibre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 Originally posted by Mike: I'm unclear what you mean by "would the layout of the tank allow for this"?? Umm....perhaps I'm missing something, but of course it would - the hull crew can stay put while the turret crew evacuate.No, what I meant was that in some tanks the driver's compartment was isolated from the turret to such an extent that the turret could be evacuated and the driver (and co-driver if present) would not know it. In other tanks, there was no barrier between the driver's compartment and the turret, so that the latter could not be evacuated without the driver knowing as long as he was conscious and in possession of his senses. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 27, 2002 Author Share Posted August 27, 2002 Thanks for the tip on nomenclature, Mike - I thought maybe it might be shorthand for an assault gun version of the IS 2????? The more I look at the quote, the more I realize it ain't worth posting. It is a one sentence throwaway, and very likely any of the possibilities mentioned here could have been the cause of the turret crew being seen to evacuate; another is faulty veteran's memory/after action report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallybob Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 Think about it. A tank is a VERY noisy environment. Add the stress of combat. Poor Comrade Lippschitz the driver probably would not notice anything not in his field of vision. As a driver it...should...be forward. (I have had drivers on M1's who couldn't use the road like a coloring book, that is to say keep it between the lines). If the Comrade was looking forward, with the great Soviet technology intercom, it is quite possible for him to be blissfully ignorant of the bailout of his crew. That also applies for his engineer/MG gunner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 Originally posted by Mike: The IS-122 was the IS-2, and the IS-85 was the IS-1 - the larger numbers were early designations and refer to the gun calibre Correct, but I'm wondering if there is any possibility that it is a mistaken identification of a JSU-122 heavy TD. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 Maybe - but if the book specifies a "turret" then it seems unlikely (althoug fixed superstructures are often referred to as fixed turrets) - and irrelevant anyway - IMO it could probably happen in any AFV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 I just tracked down my copy of Stalin's Heavy Tanks 1941-1945 by Zaloga et al and on page 45 there is a photo of the interior of the example at Duxford. Clearly the driver should know if the turret has been evacuated. BTW, looking at all the pictures of the IS-2 I could not find unambiguous evidence of a hull MG. Does anyone know about this? The driver is centrally seated and the armor sweeps back and to the sides from his position, so a side by side seating arrangement, such as existed for most other tanks of the war, is not possible. On the other hand, there is a protrusion with a suspicious opening in the hull on the right side and to the rear of the driver. But if this is an MG, a means to aim it eludes me. Furthermore, the interior photos of this area not only do not show an MG, there doesn't even appear to be a place where one could be fitted. Which leaves me wondering what that odd protrusion could be for. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 It is a machine gun - you can see it clearly here. It appears to be fixed, so would be aimed by pointing the tank - only any good for general suppressive fire directly ahead I guess. Some later soviet AFV's had similar - IIRC teh BMD (airborne MICV) had 2 fixed MG's - one in each corner of the hull front. As for the driver - well, yes, he COULD turn around and see if anyone is in the turret - but that doesn't mean he did!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Carrot Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 My cheap and nasty books say it only has a crew of four - so if the commander, gunner and loader bail, then there should only be a driver left. (Unless it is one of those clown IS-2 ). Also they say that it only had two MG's. I assume one is co-axial and the other AA ,being 14.5mm. My two cents Cpl Carrot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 No - the 2 MG's are the co-axial and the rear turret. Any AAMG would be 12.7mm DShK, or the rear turret MG dismounted and remounted for use by the commander (there's a photo of apparently that on the Russian Battlefield web site). also a lot of the photos are unclear but appear to show only the fitting for the hull MG with no barrel protruding - I wonder if that was an alternative mounting for the rear turret ball MG?? [ August 27, 2002, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Mike ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Carrot Posted August 27, 2002 Share Posted August 27, 2002 Mis-read. Should be a 12.7 DShK and a 7.62 DT or DTM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts