255 replies to this topic

[The_Chieftain]

It occurs to me that I'm probably not giving SEA quite as much attention as it deserves. Some of you folks who started back when SEA was serviced by the NA office have continued hopping over to and partaking in two threads that I'm known for bantering in, my NA Random Musings Thread, and The Epic Thread (4,000 pages long, so don't try to catch up), but I may as well set up proper shop here. Standard forum rules apply, but topics can be whatever comes up.

I'll start off with some silliness we've currently got going on over on the NA side of the house.



So, what's on your mind?

[IJN_Amatsukaze]

So The_Chieftain

Whats your opinion on the [][][][][][][] 555+

Ok im bored

[The_Chieftain]

Kayneth, on 19 May 2013 - 02:25 AM, said:

Two of our threads were well on their way to beat the 'Legendary Thread' but we got a bit out of hand and both had to be locked. I daresay we could've surpassed 4000 pages in a month or two on either of them.

What were the topics? If any?

[IJN_Amatsukaze]

well it seems like the Original Thread got Unapproved or something like that

Sooooo yeah we use to have like around 2K Pages in total

[armoredpenguin]

Hello Chieftain!

Have you ever been to the China Tank Museum? (they say its near Beijing, in YangFang, ChangPing county) Do they have a good collection? There is a dire shortage of tank museums in my country and I'm thinking it might be a worthy detour on a trip to China.

Does anybody here have any other recomendations on particular sites to visit for tank fans in SE Asia? (Generally speaking, it is a lot easier and more affordable to visit sites in the asean region than, for example, Bovington, etc)

[The_Chieftain]

I have not. It seems that the best tank collection in the PacRim is Melbourne, but the War Memorial in Seoul has a reasonable collection.

[Horseoftheapocalypse]

Good to see you here Cheftain

[VanPelt]

Chief, in a couple of your videos (and written in general on some web pages), the IS-3 is written as being a bit of a failure of a tank. Although it scared the [Content removed] out of the Allied nations and forced them to develop new tanks like the Conqueror it is still not that highly rated. I have a few rough ideas why that's the case but can you elaborate? Also, would it be possible to do a video on the IS-3, KT or Tiger in some upcoming ones? (Not asking for much!   ) I'd imagine it would be more fun doing the quirky, different tanks but not all of us have had the opportunity to jump inside an armoured vehicle and the reason why I got into this game is because of those tanks.

Also, great to see you're still floating around here. Was fantastic meeting you last year at Puka and a thoroughly enjoyable day.

Profanity. Content removed.

Please note the 13+ nature of the forums.

~Mick42.

[The_Chieftain]

The main problem with IS-3 was the power train, particularly the transmission. There were a number of attempts to fix it, but it never truly worked out right. The IS-2 stayed in service longer than IS-3 did, it was that much of a disappointment. I have also heard second-hand from users that the welds on the bow were weak, but I have not had that independently confirmed.

[Yekaterina]

The_Chieftain, on 20 May 2013 - 02:31 AM, said:

The main problem with IS-3 was the power train, particularly the transmission. There were a number of attempts to fix it, but it never truly worked out right. The IS-2 stayed in service longer than IS-3 did, it was that much of a disappointment. I have also heard second-hand from users that the welds on the bow were weak, but I have not had that independently confirmed.

Not the ones Egypt used against the Israelis, which managed to shrug off 84mm and 90mm cannon fire from Centurions and Pattons at normal combat ranges. I recall Israel tested a number of captured ones and found the engine had significant problems running in desert environments as well. And that fire control was terrible, but I dont remember reading anything about weld quality.

Edited by Yekaterina, 20 May 2013 - 02:45 AM.

[Mick42]

Yekaterina, on 20 May 2013 - 02:43 AM, said:

Not the ones Egypt used against the Israelis, which managed to shrug off 84mm and 90mm cannon fire from Centurions and Pattons at normal combat ranges. I recall Israel tested a number of captured ones and found the engine had significant problems running in desert environments as well. And that fire control was terrible, but I dont remember reading anything about weld quality.

I genuinely hope this thread just turns into a Yeka v Chieftain battle of the minds...

[Yekaterina]

It wont. Chieftain is far more experienced than I am, and has easier access to better sources. (Im also not entirely sure on armament of the Centurions, since that wasnt really talked about either. I just recall the first batch of Israeli Centurions had the 20pdrs and the L7 guns came some time after. Western tanks are admittedly not my specialty. But I am pretty sure the IS-3 managed to avoid being easily knocked out at range.)

Edited by Yekaterina, 20 May 2013 - 05:16 AM.

[Bigben221]

Wooo The_Chieftain hits SEA, I must say The Chieftain Hatch are good reads and Inside the Chieftain's Hatch are quite interesting to watch.

[DanLBob]

I  was only aware of Patton's being involved in the engagement against Egyptian IS-3's. The Israeli's may have used 20pdrs against captured tanks though. Wrt to the nose welds, they may not have been poor quality per se but a weld is potential point of failure. Hit the plate with enough energy and the weld can give way. Possibly shooting HE could have caused failures. The pike nose is certainly sticking out there asking to be hit.

Dan

[Yekaterina]

Possibly test ones. Combat in that region would have been with 90mm Armed Pattons that I know of, but the literature on it involved mention of 'being able to deflect the guns of Centurion tanks at normal engagement ranges.' I'll have to go dig around text again.

And yes, admittedly any joint is a potential point of failure.

Edited by Yekaterina, 20 May 2013 - 01:02 PM.

[The_Chieftain]

DanLBob, on 20 May 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

I  was only aware of Patton's being involved in the engagement against Egyptian IS-3's. The Israeli's may have used 20pdrs against captured tanks though. Wrt to the nose welds, they may not have been poor quality per se but a weld is potential point of failure. Hit the plate with enough energy and the weld can give way. Possibly shooting HE could have caused failures. The pike nose is certainly sticking out there asking to be hit.

Dan

Bizarrely, the quote was that repeated firing of the 122mm would cause the welds to break, not impact from enemy tanks. This came from a colleague at a museum who had a former IS-3 crewman on a tour, who claimed that to extend the service lives of the hull, they'd never fire more than a couple of rounds on an exercise.

Again, I have no independent confirmation of this, but I can't discount it either.

[notsonooby]

so youre saying that IS-3's gun was its biggest weakness in itself? The recoil of the gun was so great, causing it to vibrate and have the pike nose welds break from metal fatigue?\
Makes the Russians sound bad at precision designing

[IJN_Amatsukaze]

Wasn't the D-25T also unreliable?

[notsonooby]

according to some preliminary internet research, the gun was not the only unreliable thing, the whole tank was rather unreliable.
Quote: While it represented a revolutionary design in armour configuration it suffered from, even by Soviet standards, poor crew accommodation and “fightability”, while its engine and drive train were apparently unreliable (weaponsandwarfare.com)
More quoting: The slow rate of fire, poor engine performance (the engine was not well suited to hot-climate operations), and rudimentary fire control of the IS-3s proved to be a significant handicap  (wikipedia.com)

Then again, from what i've read, the IS-3 scared the **** out of the Allies during the victory parade of WWII (pike nose & HUGE 122mm gun)and prompted the Americans to develop heavy tanks

[Yekaterina]

The_Chieftain, on 20 May 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

Bizarrely, the quote was that repeated firing of the 122mm would cause the welds to break, not impact from enemy tanks. This came from a colleague at a museum who had a former IS-3 crewman on a tour, who claimed that to extend the service lives of the hull, they'd never fire more than a couple of rounds on an exercise.

Again, I have no independent confirmation of this, but I can't discount it either.

That's actually rather interesting, and I likewise have never heard of that issue before.

notsonooby, on 20 May 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

Then again, from what i've read, the IS-3 scared the **** out of the Allies during the victory parade of WWII (pike nose & HUGE 122mm gun)and prompted the Americans to develop heavy tanks

The Brits as well, resulting in everyone's (well mine, at least) favourite giant gun platform.