Why were Super-Heavy Tanks designed?

Some attachment to back up Miguel B
View attachment 5080
This tank was destroyed by 75mm Sherman(s) the crew (some anyway) seems to have escaped.
View attachment 5081
The tank was destoyed by heavy shells probably 122mm through the turret side causing an explosion lifting the turret off. Photo was taken much later possibly a re-enactment of the re-taking of Karchov.
View attachment 5082
This is a IS2 with an IS3 in the background at Minsk war museum (wiki) looks really cute doesn't

 

wow very bad looking tank and not to mention very scary.

 

well... Super Heavy tanks might also have been designed as a sort of demoralizer, since looking at a hunk of metal destroy the building next to you is always fun, why not have shell shock from 50 + feet away as well.

 

In my post about 'ripping' the turret of was never meant to be taken as a common occurrence, but merely a possibility and the fact that the IS had the ability to do that.

 

I have in fact seen a photograph on tank net provided by IIRC Vasily Fofanov of a decapitated Panther. To my amateur eyes there are no visible penetrations, but the panzer looked like it was a steel squirrel ran over by a freight train.

 

the tanks themselfs are great for defemsive postions and un like simple gun enplace ments they can move and also they can take a beating in addition to this the physco impact of these monsters would be huge

 

Wolfy,

Actually this only applies to IS-2 M43. The IS-2 M44, misidentified by German sources as the IS-3, is invunerable to the 75mm L/70 to ranges beyond 600 meters. The confusion is caused by the improved glacis of the M44. Whereas the M43's glacis is several pieces of plate put together like a step similiar to early German tanks, the M44's glacis is one solid peice of steel sloped like the Panther. As could be imagined, its powers of resistance was much stronger than its predecessor. The Tiger I's L/43 [correction: should read L/56] would have no effect on the IS-2 at any range.

This is found in the Panther field manual in which it says, An IS-3 is dangerous to you at 1,200 meters... Your gun can destroy an IS-3 begining at 600 meters.

 

IS-2 M43, whose glacis could be penetrated by 88mm L/43 at 1,000 meters.

 

IS-2 M44, the improved model that was significantly more resistant. Mark the one-piece, heavily sloped glacis.

 

The Tiger I's 88mm can't defeat the IS-2 44' anywhere?

 

Not frontally, according to Gunnery Table 03 in this website, which comes from Jentz's Germany's Tiger Tanks.

PzKpfw VI TIGER I

The table says that in frontal engagements, Tiger I won't be able to penetrate JS-122's frontal armor out of 100 meters, except the "nose" which could be penetrated at 300 meters. Since we know that IS-2 M43 had been engaged successfuly at 1,000 meters and IS-3 had never been met in combat during WWII, the JS-122 here refer almost definately to IS-2 M44.

 

I agree with the analyse of Triple C in the last few posts.

There are one point that has to be made regarding the nose of the IS2 The model M43 nose was a hang over from the original IS1(85mm D 5 T) production. it was cast with a fillet to take the visor welded in and the glasis was only! 60mm thick as opposed to 70mm in the later production of this type which also eliminated the visor fillet. the original nose was made until the turn of 1943-44. Thereafter the 70mm glacis nose section was produced until June 1944. In May 1944 UZTM factory started to produce the modied single slope hull front in a welded form This was followed by Factory 200 cast form in June 1944, for a while all three types were produced together, until the Factory 200 cast type predominated.

The soviet designers were aware that the lower hull ideally should be at a more actute angle but could not be altered except by completely redesgning the hull front and it was perceived as comparatively less likely to be hit.

The turret was a weakness. Being only 100mm thick on the front, however the turret was already out of balance and thickening the front and mantlet would further aggravate the problem.