Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

JS III

Discussion in 'Armor and Armored Fighting Vehicles' started by gtblackwell, Nov 23, 2012.

  1. gtblackwell

    gtblackwell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,271
    Likes Received:
    676
    Location:
    Auburn, Alabama, US
    I know the various Tigers were pretty fearsome to see and the JS 111 did not really make it into combat, that I am aware of
    but boy it is really scary to see nose on. New definition of sloped armor ! No wonder it caused concern at the Victory parade in Berlin.

    [​IMG][/URL]
     
  2. gtblackwell

    gtblackwell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,271
    Likes Received:
    676
    Location:
    Auburn, Alabama, US
    Sorry, great picture of the JS III did not come up.

    G
     
  3. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,239
    Likes Received:
    1,865
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    I believe this is the pic GTB meant to share (A resident of Belgium now, I think):
    [​IMG]

    Couldn't immediately find the view of the Berlin Parade where it seems you can see a ripple go through the Allied observers as JS3 is rolled out, but at least some good footage here from c.6:43:
    Victory Parade of Allied Troops in Berlin 1945 - YouTube
    [video=youtube;ucHIUuQ-c9I]


    A fine excuse to (again) post the Western counter to these big Russian beasts, intended for a sort of long-range heavy-calibre sniping match, possibly my favourite machine; The Conqueror:
    conqueror.jpg

    Mmmmmm.

    (Previous putative thread on the big immediately-post-war beasts: http://www.ww2f.com/armor-armored-fighting-vehicles/36726-centurion-vs-3-vs-pershing.html)

    ~A
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2019
  4. gtblackwell

    gtblackwell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,271
    Likes Received:
    676
    Location:
    Auburn, Alabama, US
    Thank you for posting the picture. Photobucket is undergoing change and is problematic at present.

    I thought that photo was rather interesting, I have never seen a turret that massive as it meets the hull. A really squat Jabba the Hut looking tank !! Or reminiscent of a bullfrog....LOL, still pretty fearsome to me.

    It's influence did not seem to last as the T 54 is radically different .

    Gaines
     
  5. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    7,725
    Likes Received:
    812
    Ha...It does look Jabba ish...How on earth did you come up with that?...You are the creative type GTB....I'll call it "The Armoured Toad".
     
  6. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    7,725
    Likes Received:
    812
    Nice A on that Conq.
     
  7. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    IMO the JS series were essentially "breatrhough" tanks that sacrificed ammo load and range and AFAIK crew confort/endurance (though the contemporay T34 was no masterpiece in that respect either) for massive armour and firepower,. The Conqueror and and it's US equivalent(s) were more "scaled up" MBTs like the Tiger optimized to achieve local superiority in medium/long range engagements but retaining the capability to perform well in a protracted fight which resulted in a significantly larger vehicle.
    Doesn't make much sense to compare a 46 tonn tank with a 65t one.
     
  8. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,239
    Likes Received:
    1,865
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    While always respecting your views ToS, I think in this case it makes a great deal of sense to compare Conqueror with JSIII.
    Centurion and JSIII developed separately, while both thrusting towards the 'Universal Tank' concept (that separation somewhat simplistically underlined by the shock JSIII's appearance was to the Western allies), but Conqueror was very much a direct response to the Soviet design.

    An underestimation had been made of JSIII's armour thickness, and it dawned on the British (and the US, who followed a similar 'large-gunned heavy' route with the M103) that Centurion, with it's smaller gun, may well find itself being smashed up by the larger Soviet gun before getting within an effective range. This led to something of a panic mentality, and Conqueror (along with assorted other stop-gap oddities like Caernarvon & Conway) was created specifically to support Centurion against JSIII, giving long range cover to the 105s of the main tank.

    Something of a White Elephant though Conqueror was (Entering service in the mid-50s, with T54/55 on the horizon, and effective Missiles beginning to come on stream), it still stands directly related to JSIII's potential supremacy on the German plains.

    Another excuse to post up some favourites, I feel...
    I like this period between the War and the more modern MBTs - lots of variety and uncertainty.

    Conway:
    [​IMG]

    Caernarvon:
    [​IMG]

    And just for fun, as not part of the direct 'BFG' challenge to JSIII, and coming somewhat later, the deeply weird:
    Contentious:
    [​IMG]
    Forgive me that one... I'm a bit funny about it.

    (By the way, If anyone's interested in Conqueror more specifically, Rob Griffin wrote a book on it which I regard as one of the best Armour books I have - well worth hunting down, as is his Chieftain book).

    ~A
     
  9. TiredOldSoldier

    TiredOldSoldier Ace

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    452
    They are related because the Conqueror and M103 were practically direct responses to the JS3 but they were very "asymmetrical" responses as the western powers didn't want to accept the limitations of the "breakthrough" tank concept.
    AFAIK the JS was not designed to be capable to act as a "manouver tank" that role was for the T34/85 and later for the T55 (though by then the T10 was the "heavy" equivalent), the west in the attempt to create something with similar firepower and armour but without the limitations of a "breakthrough tank" came up with significantly larger vehicles.

    In the end Israely Centurions and M48s (with 1960 era ammo) did't seem to have had much difficulty in dealing with JS3s (and AFAIK not all had benn upgunned to the L7 105mm by the time of the 1967 war).

    IMO the huge contemporary M1 / Leopard 2 etc. descend more from the the Conqueror and M103 than from the much lighter M60 / Centurion / Leopard 1, modern engines have allowed even 70t monsters to have good mobility (though the M1 fuel consumption is amazing :D).
     
  10. Skipper

    Skipper Kommodore

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2006
    Messages:
    24,985
    Likes Received:
    2,385
    Gt , you may opt back to the old downloading system at Pb and it works much better that way. It's in your downloading settings.
     
  11. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,239
    Likes Received:
    1,865
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    Which is sort of what makes Conqueror & M103 faintly amusing (though I hate to laugh, as I really do find the Conq curiously pleasing whenever I encounter the Duxford one).
    It's also perhaps informative in that it ain't just the calibre of the gun which counts, but the quality; whether of actual piece, ammunition, strategy, tactics, or crews.

    [​IMG]
    Military History

    [​IMG]
    IDF ARMOR

    (Nice shot which I hadn't seen before on that second page of one of the Syrian Pz.IVs )


    Evolution's always tricky to define, though one little evolutionary nugget which definitely connects Conqueror and Abrams is that a prototype Conqueror chassis was the first 'Tank' to be fitted with a Gas turbine engine. Bovington eventually built a weird shed on that little piece of armoured history, and used it as a commentary box for years...

    ~A
     
  12. gtblackwell

    gtblackwell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,271
    Likes Received:
    676
    Location:
    Auburn, Alabama, US
    Oddly , Skipper, that is the fiirst thing I did. I am working on a solution.....thanks, Gaines
     
  13. Walter_Sobchak

    Walter_Sobchak Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    11
    I believe the 90mm armed M48's did have trouble with the Russian heavy tanks. According to Zaloga in "IS-2 Heavy Tank 1944-73", in reference to the 1967 war, "Even the more modern tanks, such as the M-48A2 Patton with it's 90mm gun, could not easily penetrate [the IS-3M] armor at normal battle ranges. There were a number of engagements between M-48A2 Pattons of the 7th Armoured Brigade and IS-3M regiment supporting the Egyptian positions near Rafah, with several Pattons being knocked out in the fighting. the Israeli tankers were usually able to overcome the armour problem by better training and tactics." So while the Israeli's were able to overcome the Eqyptian Heavy tanks, it was somewhat in spite of their tank armament, not because of it.
     

Share This Page