Jump to content


Why isnt there much info on IS4 tank?


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

SkimmedMilk #1 Posted 12 August 2011 - 08:18 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 218 battles
  • 52
  • Member since:
    04-16-2011
Like the real tank not the game one, there isnt much i can find about it. They made 200 and prepped them to slap korea around a bit but it never happened.

The one in game is an absolute beast compared to the IS3, was it really that much better than IS3?

Since this thread is more about history than game, moving it to appropriate section :)

/Tuccy


Mko #2 Posted 12 August 2011 - 08:49 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16137 battles
  • 1,188
  • Member since:
    07-03-2010
considering that the IS4 never ever mounted the 130mm gun...that would already make its "beastness" in real life 50% of what it is in the game.
its hard to get information about the tank because they made just 200, and it was not successfull so the USSR wasnt boasting around with it as with some other almighty stuff. Wikipedia says it had very low mobility, which is extremeli crippling in russian conditions.
You may find sufficient information in some books

anyway, russian tank design in world war 2, and in some time after it, was very good and they made some awesome machines...I hope Im not talking trash here but I think many russian tanks were made obosolete by the technology put into western tanks, mostly in the area of gun stabilisation etc. etc., and russian tanks could not fire on the move (or at least not accurately).
But then, the T62 was the first tank to use a smoothbore gun...according to wikipedia, the american M60 was defeating T54/55, T62, and even T72.

here is a little about the IS-4

http://www.battlefie...eavy-tanks.html

Claymored #3 Posted 12 August 2011 - 09:10 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9224 battles
  • 593
  • Member since:
    08-04-2011
The tanks the M60 fought against where what the Russians called "Monkey models" basically inferior export tanks which are striped down versions of the tanks they use.

Mko #4 Posted 12 August 2011 - 11:24 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16137 battles
  • 1,188
  • Member since:
    07-03-2010
its true they were exports but whether they were any significantly inferior...who knows?
and I dont even care really...its just a waste of steel and fuel

Claymored #5 Posted 12 August 2011 - 11:39 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9224 battles
  • 593
  • Member since:
    08-04-2011
Monkey models had inferior armor and fire control systems they where also supplied with low grade ammo with about half the penetration value of the ammo the Soviets used.

In the late nineties after the collapse of the soviet union the US managed to get hold of proper Soviet T-72's and found that they where almost impenetrable for most of there current tank weapons.

MaximusGR #6 Posted 13 August 2011 - 12:43 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 11151 battles
  • 423
  • Member since:
    06-30-2011

View PostClaymored, on 12 August 2011 - 11:39 PM, said:

Monkey models had inferior armor and fire control systems they where also supplied with low grade ammo with about half the penetration value of the ammo the Soviets used.




I ve been hearing that propaganda line for years.. Soviet military equipment has been inferior to Western counterparts throughout the Cold War, since the Soviets relied on quantity rather than quality. Combine it with diregard for the lives of the crews and the doctrine actually works, just like WW2

zbing #7 Posted 13 August 2011 - 12:44 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 23169 battles
  • 1,332
  • Member since:
    12-24-2010
Soviets were often doing that, keeping their top military technology for themselves only. For example T-64, probably the most revolutionary tank of all times, have never been exported outside USSR, not even to their closest allies.

Claymored #8 Posted 13 August 2011 - 01:18 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9224 battles
  • 593
  • Member since:
    08-04-2011

View PostMaximusGR, on 13 August 2011 - 12:43 AM, said:

I ve been hearing that propaganda line for years.. Soviet military equipment has been inferior to Western counterparts throughout the Cold War, since the Soviets relied on quantity rather than quality. Combine it with diregard for the lives of the crews and the doctrine actually works, just like WW2

In WW2 when the T-34 and KV frist appeared they totally outclassed the current German tanks and did so for about a year until the Tigers and panthers started to appear and the PZ 4 was up gunned, what was bad was crew training and maintenance.

The T-72 armor was so effective when the US tested it it cause them to invent a whole new generation of anti-tank shells for there tanks.

Tuccy #9 Posted 13 August 2011 - 12:11 PM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14486 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010

View PostClaymored, on 12 August 2011 - 09:10 PM, said:

The tanks the M60 fought against where what the Russians called "Monkey models" basically inferior export tanks which are striped down versions of the tanks they use.

[historical excursion]
Actually not true. They were just older models, being sold off (or released for license production) after newer types entered production. Thus when USSR produced T-54/55, it sold off T-34/85, when it produced T-62, it sold T-54/55, when T-64 went in, T-62 was released, when T-64B was produced, T-72 was released, when T-80 and T-72B were built, T-72A was released.
Generally same as a lot of Western countries do, for example Germany selling Leo 1 when it began to change to Leo 2 etc. You won't call Leo 1 or Centurion "Monkey model", no? ;)

The real difference causing poor performance was, rather, the training. Judging from various advisors from both West and Eastern block, Arabian armies have many... Pecularities usually - like informations being weapons in the sense that say in tank battalion, there is one officer who knows how to boresight - and refuses to teach anyone else how to do it, lest he loses his unique power etc. I read an account how US instructors in Egypt handed over maintenance manuals for M1's, translated to Arabic, just to see Company commander to take them back off the crews because that would violate his monopoly of knowledge. Similarily, higher-ups didn't share much with lower officers - that was, for example, the reason that during Yom Kippur war, everything went smoothly as long as Egyptians could stick to carefully trained plans - because everyone knew what to do.  When IDF started to deviate from Egyptian plan, the Egyptians suddenly had to react and due to said barriers and generally not supporting initiative, they got into situation of having half of the army sentenced to surrender or death and only Soviet intervention saved them.
It should be noted that T-54/55/62 was apparently "good enough" to be taken into IDF service and upgraded... Granted, part of it was limited other sources and a windfall of lots of these tanks, but still it would mean they were combat-worthy.
[/historical excursion]

Claymored #10 Posted 13 August 2011 - 12:17 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9224 battles
  • 593
  • Member since:
    08-04-2011
The model that the Russians sold was the 72m a model specially made for export.

crnivuk #11 Posted 13 August 2011 - 01:08 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 5509 battles
  • 2,058
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010

View PostMaximusGR, on 13 August 2011 - 12:43 AM, said:

I ve been hearing that propaganda line for years.. Soviet military equipment has been inferior to Western counterparts throughout the Cold War, since the Soviets relied on quantity rather than quality. Combine it with diregard for the lives of the crews and the doctrine actually works, just like WW2
depends.

You have to make a difference mainly between 3 situations.

1. Export
The Soviets are not dumb. They sure will not deliver the Hindoos or other nations the best possible equipment. Imagine what happens if they ever have to get in war with those nations and suddenly they are facing their own weapons. The US did the same with Pakistan. Selling War planes without last generation of radar technology for example.

2. Usual troops
They dont get access to all the last evolution in technology either. This is not only true for the "Soviets" aka "Russians". Compare it with the production of the Abraham or Leopard 2. Once those units reached the troops only those which would expect some fighting would receive such equipment in limited numbers before the production starts to kick in. It is not like you get a new weapon today and tomorrow all troops have it available. Even once the modern G36 5,56mm assault rifle became a "standart" rifle in the German Army it still took years before the G3 7,62mm was replaced.

3. Elite formations
Those are the troops which usually are the ones to usually get their hands first on the "best" posssible equipment. This is not always limited only to "new" technologies (usually units you expect to see combat get new equipment to test it in the field) but it is more about the standart in equipment high quality to speak so. A small number of people will have access to all kind of expensive tools and advanced training as soon they are available. Like range finders, electronic systems and other equipment of all kind etc. This of course includes usuall equipment but with better and more carefull manufacturing. Anything that is seen as an upgrading but which also requires training. You can compare it like the difference between the United States army, the Marine corps or Rangers. It is not the same! But they are all part of the military. The United States Army is usually not always equiped in the same way like the US Marines for example (see the Uniformed Services of the United States).

There are always differences in equipment and the quality depending on the expected combat situation. Units which are present in large numbers will see a different set of equipment compared to those you send in critical positions for example. Rangers/paratroopers have a whole different tactical setup and training compared to the usual soldier. Infact many times people which join the units like paratroopers either already received extensive military training or have a much longer training compared to usual military forces which make the bulk of the armed forces.

Both the US and Russians have been more or less "even" with certain advantages or disadvantages in one field. For example the US had always an advantage in their maritime forces (ships, carriers etc.). The Soviets had a clear advantage in troops present on the European soil. For example many believed it would not have been possible to stop a Soviet advance in armored forces without nuclear weapons simply because of the sheer number in armored vehicles (of all kinds). Not before aditional forces from the US would arrive in Europe. It was not clear if Soviet troops could reach France or if they would already stop in Germany. Depending on the restiance of the present forces. One of the many issues on the Soviet side was that their equipment required a huge maintenance since the supply lines would be very long and most of the Soviet satelite states had not the economy to support the whole body of the Soviet army in the case those troops would push further in to europe. Of couse those are all just "theories". Luckily there never has been a war between the Soviets and the US. So it all remains just speculation.

But clear is that any military force is a rather huge body. And not all of the equipment is made with the same standart. It is no surprise that sometimes either French, German, British or US equipment can be either very reliable or rather complex and unsuited for combat. Depending on the manufacturer and the designs behind it. Many see the G36 as a good assault rifle. Yet it has not the same reliable concept like the G3. But for that it has other advantages. It simply requires well trained soldiers while the G3 rifle was a rather "basic" concept.

View PostClaymored, on 13 August 2011 - 01:18 AM, said:

In WW2 when the T-34 and KV frist appeared they totally outclassed the current German tanks and did so for about a year until the Tigers and panthers started to appear and the PZ 4 was up gunned, what was bad was crew training and maintenance.

The T-72 armor was so effective when the US tested it it cause them to invent a whole new generation of anti-tank shells for there tanks.
The Panzer III with the upgrades in weapon and armor was more or less on the same level like the T34-76 for 1942 and 43. Both could penetrate each other more or less on the same distance and each had qualities of its own. Not to forget the training of course - but that is a different story. The KV on the other side had no "rival" that is true. But the KV was a rather rare tank and the Germans managed to avoid it very often. Though in situations where they simply had no other chance then to fight it the KV has left a very nasty impression situations where a single KV managed to stop the advance of a whole German tank force. The upguned Panzer IV F2 and G completely outclassed both the KV1 and the T34-76 being able to engange those targets far beyond 1000 meters though those version of the Panzer IV was very rare on the battlefield before the production of the Panzer IV H. Engagements between T34-76 and the Panzer III for example would not start before 600 meters because neither of those two could hope to achieve much past that distance. The 76mm gun of the T34 had not the accuracy for long range fighting and the Panzer III lacked the punch. Though in ranges between 300 and 500 meters both targets had a decent chance to take each other out. At least the 5cm gun had a good chance to penetrate the turret of the T34 on reasonable distance. The T34 had the slight advantage of easier manufacturing. But in the begining of 1941 it still had to fight with its reliability and the lack of training (not just with the troops but by the commanders as well which would not use the tanks effectively from a tactical point of view).

SchurkjeBoefje #12 Posted 13 August 2011 - 01:29 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9486 battles
  • 880
  • Member since:
    02-04-2011
The Soviets never exported their best material, whether it was tanks or aircraft. Like zbing also said, the T-64 was a superior tank compared to the 62 and even the 72, but the Russians basically kept it for themselves, equipping specific armoured divisions (i think it was division size but i might be wrong). The tank never saw real combat against other tanks, which is also true for a lot of top of the line Soviet aircraft. Not many 64s were made, though.

Exported Soviet material were often also used by less capable crew (compared to the Soviet standards) and the export-versions were always stripped down to some degree. The Americans had the "benefit" of the Israeli conflicts (six day war, Yom Kippur) to test their own best stuff (mainly planes) during the hardest conditions in the 60s and 70s. Then later still they fought the Gulf which again was a great testcase for them. But the Soviet-equipped opponents would practically always be of a lesser quality, material wise and crew wise, so it's difficult to really get a proper estimation of balance levels as far as quality goes.


Aaaanyway, concerning the IS4, not many were made and they were overtaken very quickly in terms of design. Don't forget that right after WW2 weapon development was happening very quickly.

The IS-4 was a model that was outdated almost as soon as it hit the streets.

Claymored #13 Posted 13 August 2011 - 02:19 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9224 battles
  • 593
  • Member since:
    08-04-2011

View Postcrnivuk, on 13 August 2011 - 01:08 PM, said:


The Panzer III with the upgrades in weapon and armor was more or less on the same level like the T34-76 for 1942 and 43. Both could penetrate each other more or less on the same distance and each had qualities of its own. Not to forget the training of course - but that is a different story. The KV on the other side had no "rival" that is true. But the KV was a rather rare tank and the Germans managed to avoid it very often. Though in situations where they simply had no other chance then to fight it the KV has left a very nasty impression situations where a single KV managed to stop the advance of a whole German tank force. The upguned Panzer IV F2 and G completely outclassed both the KV1 and the T34-76 being able to engange those targets far beyond 1000 meters though those version of the Panzer IV was very rare on the battlefield before the production of the Panzer IV H. Engagements between T34-76 and the Panzer III for example would not start before 600 meters because neither of those two could hope to achieve much past that distance. The 76mm gun of the T34 had not the accuracy for long range fighting and the Panzer III lacked the punch. Though in ranges between 300 and 500 meters both targets had a decent chance to take each other out. At least the 5cm gun had a good chance to penetrate the turret of the T34 on reasonable distance. The T34 had the slight advantage of easier manufacturing. But in the begining of 1941 it still had to fight with its reliability and the lack of training (not just with the troops but by the commanders as well which would not use the tanks effectively from a tactical point of view).

The Panzer 3 was no match for the T-34 even when it was fully upgraded, when the T-34 frist appeared the PZ3 where armed with the 5 cm KwK 39 L/60 which couldn't penetrate the sloped armor of the T-34 while it could take them out at close to 1000m.

From June 1941 until about April 1942 when the upgunned Panzer 4 and PAK 40 started to enter the eastern front the only reilable way they could take out the T-34 was using there 88 mm Flak guns and the relatively rare PAK 38.

Tuccy #14 Posted 13 August 2011 - 02:52 PM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14486 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010

View PostClaymored, on 13 August 2011 - 12:17 PM, said:

The model that the Russians sold was the 72m a model specially made for export.

[pedant mode]
First T-72's exported were the baseline models along the lines of Soviet T-72. Later on, when Soviets started to produce T-72A with laser rangefinder and composite armor, these changes were gradually incorporated into the export T-72s and license production abroad - first change (technically easier) was changing hull front armor array (since the composite insert stayed the same and changes concerned just the surrounding steel) and laser rangefinder + adding smoke dischargers. This variant was designated T-72M and was produced in multiple different versions (like some of them having "old" T-72 ammo sotrage, some having new T-72A one, carrying more rounds).
Later on, turret armor was also changed to T-72A standard, thus creating T-72M1.

To complicate things furteher, first series of Soviet T-72A were also built using turret withotu composite armor :)

And for example T-72M4CZ upgrade used T-72M and not T-72M1... God knows why :)
[/pedant mode]

Sheepmaster #15 Posted 13 August 2011 - 06:20 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 10172 battles
  • 77
  • Member since:
    07-22-2010

View PostClaymored, on 13 August 2011 - 02:19 PM, said:

The Panzer 3 was no match for the T-34 even when it was fully upgraded, when the T-34 frist appeared the PZ3 where armed with the 5 cm KwK 39 L/60 which couldn't penetrate the sloped armor of the T-34 while it could take them out at close to 1000m.

From June 1941 until about April 1942 when the upgunned Panzer 4 and PAK 40 started to enter the eastern front the only reilable way they could take out the T-34 was using there 88 mm Flak guns and the relatively rare PAK 38.

While we are completely offtopic, my 2 cents:

In the course of 1941 there were nearly as much T34 and KVs on the battlefield as the whole german army could field in all models. But with that they not only managed to kill your precious russian monsters but ten thousands of other russian tanks too. What do we learn from this? Right, stats are not everything.

Manic_Moran #16 Posted 14 August 2011 - 08:18 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    10-23-2010

Tuccy said:

The tanks the M60 fought against where what the Russians called "Monkey models" basically inferior export tanks which are striped down versions of the tanks they use.

[historical excursion]
Actually not true. They were just older models, being sold off (or released for license production) after newer types entered production. Thus when USSR produced T-54/55, it sold off T-34/85, when it produced T-62, it sold T-54/55, when T-64 went in, T-62 was released, when T-64B was produced, T-72 was released, when T-80 and T-72B were built, T-72A was released.
Generally same as a lot of Western countries do, for example Germany selling Leo 1 when it began to change to Leo 2 etc. You won't call Leo 1 or Centurion "Monkey model", no?


Sorry, Tuccy, I'm going to argue that one.

For starters, quoting Jane's:
"T-72M (export models Eh-2, Eh-3 and Eh-4 which corresponded to the domestic T-72A but with different turret armour, ammunition, and collective protection system. T72M1 (Export models Eh-5 and Eh-6), which again corresponds to the domestic T-72A but with different armour in hull and turret."

The extreme version of this is T-72S which effectively is a T-72M1 with T-72B fire control systems jammed into it, but without the T-72B's upgraded turret. Indeed, initial designation was T72M1M

Of course, today, the Russians will sell the top rate stuff to anyone with money, but not always the case. Reportedly, the Iraqis had BM-13 ammo, for example.

Tuccy #17 Posted 14 August 2011 - 09:27 AM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14486 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010

View PostManic_Moran, on 14 August 2011 - 08:18 AM, said:

Sorry, Tuccy, I'm going to argue that one.

For starters, quoting Jane's:
"T-72M (export models Eh-2, Eh-3 and Eh-4 which corresponded to the domestic T-72A but with different turret armour, ammunition, and collective protection system.
These were not "downgraded T-72A", but rather "upgraded T-72" ;) It is like later series of Leopard 1 receiving upgrades stemming from Leo 2 before being sold...
Ammunition is another chapter, but generally T-72M was able to use any ammunition T-72A did, but newer APFSDS ammo was not exported (and, as seen say from Georgia war, wasn't that much widespread even in the USSR - both Georgians and Russians used 1970s vintage ammo, judging from the pics).

Quote

T72M1 (Export models Eh-5 and Eh-6), which again corresponds to the domestic T-72A but with different armour in hull and turret."
To my knowledge armor rarrays on "A" and "M1" were the same, with differences coming only from local QC issues. There was only difference in adding the 17mm HHS plate to glacis after 1982, with some initial Ms and M1s not receiving it.
There were slight differences between USSR-built and license-built tanks - IIRC Russian gun scopes were judged generally to be the best, OTOH Czechoslovakian active IR was supposed to have slightly longer effective range than USSR-built - but it came from different producers, not from different models.

Quote

The extreme version of this is T-72S which effectively is a T-72M1 with T-72B fire control systems jammed into it, but without the T-72B's upgraded turret. Indeed, initial designation was T72M1M

Of course, today, the Russians will sell the top rate stuff to anyone with money, but not always the case. Reportedly, the Iraqis had BM-13 ammo, for example.
AFAIK the best Iraq (and anyone else) got was BM-15, dunno which HEAT model. But as I noted earlier, newer ammo was in short supply in USSR itself and presumably mostly for the units in Germany.
Anyway, it was selling older stuff, not dumbed down stuff.

Kyphe #18 Posted 15 August 2011 - 03:22 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 16253 battles
  • 2,115
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011

View PostClaymored, on 13 August 2011 - 02:19 PM, said:

The Panzer 3 was no match for the T-34 even when it was fully upgraded, when the T-34 frist appeared the PZ3 where armed with the 5 cm KwK 39 L/60 which couldn't penetrate the sloped armor of the T-34 while it could take them out at close to 1000m.

From June 1941 until about April 1942 when the upgunned Panzer 4 and PAK 40 started to enter the eastern front the only reilable way they could take out the T-34 was using there 88 mm Flak guns and the relatively rare PAK 38.

The 50 mm KwK 39 L/60 gun could penetrate the frontal armour of the T34 at 500m, If you are referring to when the pz3 first encountered the T34 it was generally armed with the 50mm KwK 38 L/42, which could not penetrate the frontal armour of the T34 at all.

Toy_soldier101 #19 Posted 06 September 2013 - 05:57 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6568 battles
  • 1
  • [_SHC_] _SHC_
  • Member since:
    03-09-2012
mind sharing where the topic was moved to?

Tankomania99 #20 Posted 20 January 2014 - 11:14 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 1819 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    01-28-2012

Wikipedia

"

IS-4

There are 2 different tanks known as IS-4. One of these (Object 245) was an IS-2 rearmed with a long 100mm D-10T cannon. The other IS-4 was a new vehicle projected by LKZ in in parallel with the IS-3 (Object 703) by the same design and development bureau. For this second IS-4 the IS-2 hull was lengthened, with an extra set of road wheels added and an improved engine. Both hull and turret armour were increased. Several alternative armaments were explored in paper studies but ultimately the IS-2's original 122mm gun was retained. An effort was also made to make use of technical data derived from study of the German wartime Panzer V Panther tank, which influenced the layout of the second IS-4's engine cooling system. The tank was approved for mass production from 1947 to 1949 but due to disappointing speed and mobility only 250 were built. Most of these were transferred to the Russian Far East. In 1949, production was cancelled and later these tanks were removed from service."

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users