"What's the consensus on JS-IIIs operating in WW2? Yes / no?" Topic

If I'm not mistaken the general view is that the 'III never made it into action and that sightings of it are actually of the JS-II, with its bows that can similarly be described as "pike-fronted".

Is that about right?

Airfix thought so… That was good enough for a much younger me

no real proof they made it into combat

On May 24, 1945, all 29 IS-3 tanks built at that time were still at the ChKZ plant.

I believe they took part in some parades, but no actual fighting. Rather like the Centurians.

I converted my Airfix IS-IIIs into ISU-122s, which was easy enough to do (make big plastic box, stick gun on the front).

Zaloga says no , but bring on a Patton invasion across the Oder and carry on the fight in 1946 .

IS-3M participated in the battles as part of the Egyptian army against Israel in the "Six Day War" of 1967. The Egyptians had about 100 tanks.
About 10 tanks were destroyed by the Israelis and several dozen captured by the whole and intact, with full ammunition and fuel in the tanks. Egyptian crews just ran away.

Now that's what I call divots!

Jim

Yea, never made it into action from what I've read, but did participate in WWII post-surrender parades.

Apparently, the turret traverse was appallingly slow on the IS-III, leading to many losses in the Middle East. Don't know if their Egyptian crews were up to snuff either, which could also have been a factor in their heavy losses.

Certainly looks like it can take a good beating from the front.

By 1967, the tank was significantly outdated. The IS-3 had a perfectly acceptable turret speed, but it had other problems.
Low mobility by the standards of the 70s.
He did not have a modern barrel stabilizer, so he could not conduct accurate firing on the go.
He had a low rate of fire and low ammunition.
In a desert setting, the engine quickly overheated.
And the Egyptian crews had poor training and even less motivation)))
However, in that war, the Israelis lost about 20 tanks. Surely some of them are on the account of the IS-3.

Ah, I see, I misremembered. It was the slow ROF as you correctly point out. Only 2 – 3 rounds a minute is pretty appalling.

For what it's worth, you could set up this scenario, just for grins. Should make for an interesting exchange, even if it didn't really happen:

"Since the IS-3 differed in many points from the previous designs, for the first time a major retooling was needed. This took time, and only in May 1945, the first three pre-series vehicles rolled out of the factory, to be thrown immediately into action in Germany, in the hands of an independent Guards Battalion. However, when they arrived, peace had already been signed. Rumors of a fighting en route with an isolated Abteilung of Jadgpanthers after the surrender is left unconfirmed by most sources".

According t an article in ARMOR magazine the first several of the production line were so poorly built that they had to be run through again.

Another problem with the JSIII was the undercarriage was lightly built, due to the need to save weight that when traveling over rough country it had a tendency to crack across the bottom.

No

The article(s) in ARMOR go over the history of the IS-3 and T-10, showing how quickly they were shoved out of the front line.

"About 10 tanks were destroyed by the Israelis and several dozen captured by the whole and intact, with full ammunition and fuel in the tanks."

"In a desert setting, the engine quickly overheated."

In other words, there may have been good reasons to abandon the tanks. Could have dropped grenades into them, though.

Yes, the same reasons that forced them to leave several hundred tanks, including the modern then T-54 and T-55)))

In the Israeli army, captured IS-3s were used until the 70s))) Moreover, the engines were replaced with them. Motors from captured damaged T-54 tanks were used. So the Israelis did not consider the IS-3 useless.

IS-3 in the Israeli army:

An article in Russian on the use of captured equipment in the Israeli army. You can use the translator from Google to read or just see the photo.

link

@ cuprum

That's useful to know re where the JSIIIs were in late May, thanks.

That picture of the multiple strikes on the frontal armour of a JSIII is most impressive. Not one penetration I admit.

But what did a strike like that do to the inner surface of the armour and to the unfortunates manning the thing? I ask out of profound ignorance I must stress…it may be they were not hit by metal fragment splash…maybe.

The other residual impression is just how badly modelled was the Airfix kit's turret. Even as a kid I thought "Naw"

the only served in the victory parade. No chance they made it to combat.

The IS-3 in Israel was still used in battle in 1973, but already as a fixed firing point dug into the ground. At this point, it was already a hopelessly outdated tank.
And, nevertheless, the modernization of the tank (replacing the engine) was done, which means the tank was considered as a combat unit.

Keep in mind that the role of the IS-3 wasn't to slug it out with enemy tanks, but as a breakthrough vehicle. It was meant to assault fortified enemy positions, & while the 122mm had AP shells for when needed, its real role was tossing HE shells at enemy bunkers & troop concentrations: direct-fire artillery on wheels, moreso than the medium tanks used. So its low rate of fire probably wasn't as great a hindrance compared to tanks that were expected to engage enemy tanks in combat. The real nail in the coffin for tanks like this wasn't their deficiencies IMHO, but the fact that the medium tanks of the day became SO much better. Why invest in deploying heavy tanks like this, when a T-64 had just as much -- if not better -- armor, a 125mm cannon that could toss HE just as well or even better, AND be able to fight enemy tanks at the same time?

Damon.