Guest Mike Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 According to this the IS-2 has 3 MG fitted, so the one in the hull to the right of the driver seems to have been a normal fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 Curiously, it doesn't show up in the profile drawings that accompany the specs on that page. I am looking once more at the interior photograph of the example that has been preserved at Duxford that was reproduced in the Zaloga book and comparing it to the cutaway that somebody found in the other thread. Not only is there no MG in that position in this pic, there doesn't even seem to be a place where one could be mounted. There is something on the interior front of the hull in that location that looks like a ventilator duct. It is covered by what appears to be a rotating valve to admit fresh air. I suppose that by removing the two bolts that secure it, one could point the muzzle of an MG out, but it would in this case have to be hand held as there are no brackets visible to which it could be attached. THEREFORE, what occurs to me is that this mounting may have varied depending on which production run a particular tank came from. Some may have had it, others not. Puzzling. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tools4fools Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 Interesting as well that both tanks (122 gun and 85 gun) do have the same engine and same speed but the 122 gun version is 2 tons heavier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 Yeah - well the drawings on that page aren't all that detailed!! I'd suggest that there's no such thing as a ventilator duct in front armour!! lol A MG doesn't actually require much to mount AFAIK - a couple of clips to hold the weapon and a hole for the barrel, so that discrepancy is probably the mount without the MG fitted. I've found a couple of other sources - one is the Zaloga co-authored Airfix Magazine Guide #22 that says they had 3 MG's and shows a small hole in the right place in a frontal line drawing (pg 46). also Janes World Armoured Fighting Vehicles (MacDonald's and Janes 1976) by Chris Foss - he states "very early models ahd a further 7.62mm DTM machine-gun in a sponsoon on the right side of the hull." (pg 75 if you can find a copy) I'm satisfied it is supposed to be there, at least for "early" tanks, which probably means all of WW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zitadelle Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 The later IS-2s did have three MGs, and I am not counting the versions that had the externally mounted 12.7mm DsHK machine gun on the commanders cupola. These are: 1) The typical co-ax MG with the 122mm gun. 2) A MG mounted in a flexible mount at the rear of the turret. 3) A fixed MG mounted next to the driver's station. This was similar to the MG mounts found on the M3 Grant/Lee series; it was a fixed forward facing MG, and intended for use by the driver. The latter two (2-3) can be seen in this image: IS-2 detailed interior view-2 Further views of the fixed mount can be found on subsequent detailed views on this site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomo Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 I don't see any evidence of a fixed hull mg for the driver, either in the diagrams you linked to or any IS-2 photos...and i've seen a lot.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotte Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 Look to the left of the yellow tubes in the linked diagram..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 Originally posted by Jotte: Look to the left of the yellow tubes in the linked diagram.....Man, it must have been a pain in the @ss to change the ammo drum on that MG!! It doesn't look like there's very much clearence above the receiver to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 I had forgot all about that mg placement! I do believe the post-war T44 and initial T54 also had fixed mgs in the bow, and early Stuarts had a pair of fixed .30 cals too. It looks like it'd come in handy if you were planning to mow down peaceful protesters on cobblestone streets (as was done so often post-war). Not sure about its utility in combat though, except maybe for a last ditch defense if the turret gets jammed and you're being mobbed by enemy soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSword Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 JS-2 Lovers, the JS-2 had only the Driver in the Hull and NOWHERE a MG Mount in the Fronthull, just check out the huge Load of pictures on www. jagdtiger.de (The guys there have picture of about every JS-2 still around...) Btw: The Driver sat comfortably between two fueltanks On the Russian battlefield site you can find interviews of Russian tankers, one contemplating over the fact that Russian tanks always exploded when burning while the german and US/Brit. did not. He accounts that to the fact that Russian gunpowder was more aggresive or something like that... Greets Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotte Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 TSword, You better check those pics on jagdtiger.de again because they all DO show the hullmounted MG in exactly the same position as in the diagram.... Or maybe your post was an ironic one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Now be fair here - the one at the Moscow memorial has a toolbox obscutring the positoin it would be in on page 2! But it's as clear as day on page 3 and 4. The shot on page 1 shows it, although it's quite dark and indistinct. TS - the MG is fixed - it has no traverse and would probably be fired by the driver by way of a mechanical cable - probably a foot pedal or a trigger on one of his steering bars. Quite useful for spraying suppressive fire at obstacles straight ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Originally posted by Zitadelle: The latter two (2-3) can be seen in this image: IS-2 detailed interior view-2Right. And what I am saying is that in my photo that space is occupied by other equipment. Most of the external photos I have do show what appears to be an MG in that position, but some do not. So either they were modified in the field, or it was a "factory option". Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The ol one eye. Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 This may be a foolish question, but if the IS-2 has a rear turret mount MG, would it be possible for the gunner to fire the coaxial MG while the commander or loader fires the rear mount MG ( In CM:BB )? I've heard that they have a hard time with multiple weapons from one unit ( Like how bunkers have three MGs but only 'use' one) so how do you think this will work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Originally posted by The ol one eye.: This may be a foolish question, but if the IS-2 has a rear turret mount MG, would it be possible for the gunner to fire the coaxial MG while the commander or loader fires the rear mount MG ( In CM:BB )? I've heard that they have a hard time with multiple weapons from one unit ( Like how bunkers have three MGs but only 'use' one) so how do you think this will work?I don't see any problem. In CMBO a tank can in the same turn fire its coax, hull, and AAMG. Sometimes at different targets. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Michael it appears it was removed or no-longer manufactured in later productoin IS-2's. I don't see it as an optional extra, rather a later modification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Originally posted by Solomo: I don't see any evidence of a fixed hull mg for the driver, either in the diagrams you linked to or any IS-2 photos...and i've seen a lot....The literature I have on the IS2 makes no mention of the hull mounted MG, and there is no evidence of it on the IS2 1944 variant. Could it have been a field fitting (if so, it must have been a pain to produce)? Mace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 What literature is that Mace?? ALL the literature I have (as listed in posts above) mentions 3 MG's fitted, not including the AAMG. Several of them mention a hull mounted MG specifically. The fact that it is not mentioned somewhere is not evidence for anything at all, let alone useful "against" specific evidence that it was there from reputable sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Originally posted by Mike: What literature is that Mace?? ALL the literature I have (as listed in posts above) mentions 3 MG's fitted, not including the AAMG. Several of them mention a hull mounted MG specifically. The fact that it is not mentioned somewhere is not evidence for anything at all, let alone useful "against" specific evidence that it was there from reputable sources.Yet the Russian battle field http://www.battlefield.ru/specific.html does not mention it in its Tank stats page. Actully the only pics I've found on the site with a fixed hull mounted 7,62mm are of post war JS-2m's. Here is a pic from the above sight of a destroyed early cast hull Js-2 with what appears to be a fixed MG port. http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/ussr/is2_03.jpg [ August 31, 2002, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Jeez Bastables - sort your story out will ya!! lol The only ones with it fitted were the post-war "M's, and yet the WW2 pic shows one?? Do you mean the only ones without it were the "m"'s?? the Russian Battlefield gives 3 MG's for the IS-85 (IS-1) HERE. Also the link you give to the Russian battlefield er..well it isn't - it's to an old battlefront page!! Anyway - HERE is a 4-view drawing of hte IS-2 from the Russian Battlefield - the port is shown on hte front view - well somethign is - it's a little small for any great detail! [ August 31, 2002, 07:14 AM: Message edited by: Mike ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Originally posted by Mike: Jeez Bastables - sort your story out will ya!! lol The only ones with it fitted were the post-war "M's, and yet the WW2 pic shows one?? Do you mean the only ones without it were the "m"'s?? the Russian Battlefield gives 3 MG's for the IS-85 (IS-1) HERE. Also the link you give to the Russian battlefield er..well it isn't - it's to an old battlefront page!! Anyway - HERE is a 4-view drawing of hte IS-2 from the Russian Battlefield - the port is shown on hte front view - well somethign is - it's a little small for any great detail! Some what. You'll note that the IS-1 had it as well as apparentlly some of the older cast hull IS-2. Then the welded IS-2 did away with it until it starts turning up in post war IS-2ms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Originally posted by Mike: Anyway - HERE is a 4-view drawing of hte IS-2 from the Russian Battlefield - the port is shown on hte front view - well somethign is - it's a little small for any great detail! And it's located a little too far down and is drawn in the wrong shape and size as nearly as I can tell. I don't think we can take it as proof of anything one way or the other. I notice that the headlight and what I take to be the horn is mounted on the right side in contradistinction to all the other pics I've studied, which show them on the left side of the driver. The horn also has a different shape. Of course, I may be mistaken about this one being a horn; it might be an auxiliary light. For my part, I don't need convincing that the wartime tanks carried the hull gun, I have too many pictures in my own collection to doubt that. I was just wondering why they were absent on some models, and the one interior photo I've seen so far doesn't even have provision for mounting one. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Originally posted by Bastables: You'll note that the IS-1 had it as well as apparentlly some of the older cast hull IS-2. Then the welded IS-2 did away with it until it starts turning up in post war IS-2msA-ha! Now we are starting to get somewhere...maybe. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSword Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Ok, ok, took it down my throat... But what do you expect from a fixed MG in the Hull ? Greets Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denizen Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Here is what Zaloga says about the mg in the new vanguard book on the IS-2: [describing a picture of an IS-2 model 1944]"The IS-2 adopted a hull configuration which remained standard until the 1960's. The previous KV heavy tank series had two crewman in the front of the hull, a driver and a machine gunner/radio operator. The second crewman was dropped to save space and permit a better armored bow. The radio was moved to the commanders staion in the turret and the hull machine gun was made fixed and operated by the driver. Although a fixed machine gun might not seem very accurate, tankers who used it insist that they could easily hit a target the size of a fuel drum with a single burst." :eek: [ August 31, 2002, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Denizen ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts