"IS-3: The Soviet Super-Tank Plagued with Teething" Topic

…Problems That Missed WWII

"When the IS-3 strutted down during the Allied victory parade along with the other 52 new tanks in Berlin on September 7, 1945, it was a stunner. The leaders of the United States and the United Kingdom were left with their mouths wide open, clearly surprised at the far more advanced arsenal of Soviet tanks that they had not seen before. In fact, a very concerned General Dwight Eisenhower was photographed during the ceremony: An indicator that something was up…"

link

More here

link

Armand

Interesting. A very cool looking design.

Glad you like it my good friend…

Armand

The Russians were well-aware of the issues that their tanks had, so from 1948 to 1952, they worked on improving the tank, not for WWII but for the Cold War. … the major upgrade that would become the Cold War version of the tank: the IS-3M.

What is not clear from the article, and what I have seen debated in a variety of fora, is whether the IS-3 that came off of the lines in 1945 was ready to be a useful tank for WW2 purposes, or whether they needed the post-war rebuilds to become useful. ie: was the IS-3 ready for fighting in 1945?

The questions revolve around issues such as weld quality, armor quality, mechanical issues. Was it a kluge that had to go straight into a rebuild, or was it a tank for the times that had to go into rebuild to become a tank for different times.

It is pretty clear that the Soviets were willing to cut many corners to get tanks to the front throughout WW2. Post-war, they had a different set of priorities. IS-2s, T-34s, SU-100s, ISU-152s all went through post-war refurbs to become IS-2Ms, etc. This process can be summarized as the transition from needing a tank to last 6 months, in which time it was expected to be "expended" in combat, to needing a tank that could last 10 years or longer, so that it could be ready for the next war, whenever that might come along.

It should be no surprise that the IS-3 was refurb'd to become the IS-3M. But the very fact it was refurb'd is not evidence that it was unsuitable as built in 1945 -- that question remains in my mind, un-resolved by my readings.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Thanks!

Armand

What tank didn't have teething problems or flaws when first deployed?

Amazingly, it weighed as much as a Panther. The light chassis seems to be the underlying cause of the problems.

IS-3 in combat. Not very impressive:
link

Mark, didn't the US respond by developing the M-103 heavy tank?

Wolfhag

Mark, didn't the US respond by developing the M-103 heavy tank?

It is often stated that the M103 was developed to counter the Soviet T-10 heavy tank, which was its contemporary.

But in fact you don't develop tanks to counter their contemporaries, you develop them to counter the predecessors of their contemporaries (and perhaps in anticipation of their contemporaries).

So it is most appropriate to say that yes indeed, the M103 (and the British Conqueror) were developed in response to the IS-3. And perhaps in response to the IS line overall, as the IS-4, which went into production early in the post-war period looked even more scary in many ways (except for the number deployed in the west … which was nil). The T-10 (originally the IS-8 before the whole "Stalin tank" thing became unwelcome in Red Army vernacular) did not exist even in prototype form until a couple years after the M103 prototype was built and in testing, even though both were deployed in the same timeframe.

Or so I've read.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)