Jump to content


Photo

Is-3 Side Armor


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 ACBelMutie

ACBelMutie

    Crunchie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 August 2017 - 1341 PM

Hello guys! Sorry about my english.

 

I was searching about the IS-3 side armor. It's usually quoted as 90mm and 30mm spaced armor. Let's see a picture about the armor schema.

 

33xa1xv.jpg

However, I was digging about that side armor and found some images with a different armor thickness. For example:

IS-3_Spaced_Armour.thumb.jpg.bf31a21023c

 

As you can see, those 30mm aren't real in that photo. I continued checking about that and found a discussion in a world of tanks forum: http://forum.wotlabs...-spaced-armour/

 

The conclusion is the first IS-3 had a 30mm side armor and after upgrading the tank, they converted the side armor in bins, so the IS-3 lost it's 30mm thinkness in favor of the extra espace for tools. I tried to research about it, but I had little success. I found pictures about IS-3M, the upgrade with the bins, but I found some IS-3 with bins also (called IS-3 instead of IS-3M - Bariatinsky).

 

I need a little help at this point. There are people with a lot of information in this forum, so does anyone know if the side thinckness of the IS-3 was 30mm anytime or if it was always less?

 

Greetings



#2 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 22 August 2017 - 1705 PM

30 until UKN modernization.



#3 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 22 August 2017 - 1852 PM

Using that space for fuel cells would seem more useful. Tools and stuff can go in bins on the turret.


Edited by KV7, 22 August 2017 - 1852 PM.


#4 Hakka

Hakka

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tropical paradise

Posted 23 August 2017 - 0106 AM

Using that space for fuel cells would seem more useful. Tools and stuff can go in bins on the turret.

 

I think they should have left the spaced armor alone. It is needed to de-cap incoming shells, which should make the sloped side armor much more effective, especially against new 105mm APDS with tilting caps.



#5 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 23 August 2017 - 0117 AM

 

Using that space for fuel cells would seem more useful. Tools and stuff can go in bins on the turret.

 

I think they should have left the spaced armor alone. It is needed to de-cap incoming shells, which should make the sloped side armor much more effective, especially against new 105mm APDS with tilting caps.

 

Yes, and that is consistent with filling the gap with fuel.

 



#6 ACBelMutie

ACBelMutie

    Crunchie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 August 2017 - 0449 AM

30 until UKN modernization.

 

What does UKN mean? I know about the IS-3 modernization between 1948-1952 and the modernization to IS-3M in late 1950. Were the 30mm removed during the first modernization?

 

Geetings


Edited by ACBelMutie, 23 August 2017 - 0449 AM.


#7 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 23 August 2017 - 0456 AM

They really wasted a lot of steel on the rear turret armor.



#8 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 August 2017 - 0459 AM

They really wasted a lot of steel on the rear turret armor.

It was heavy tank, thus supposed to have high protection all-around, not only in frontal arc. This turret was really good if tank entrenched.

#9 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,427 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 August 2017 - 0535 AM

The heavy armor in the rear turret might also have served as a counter weight to the big gun, heavy armor in the front turret, and the turret itself being forwardly mounted on the hull.

#10 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 August 2017 - 0559 AM

The heavy armor in the rear turret might also have served as a counter weight to the big gun, heavy armor in the front turret, and the turret itself being forwardly mounted on the hull.

Good point, missed it.

#11 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 23 August 2017 - 1230 PM

 

30 until UKN modernization.

 

What does UKN mean? I know about the IS-3 modernization between 1948-1952 and the modernization to IS-3M in late 1950. Were the 30mm removed during the first modernization?

 

Geetings

 

1st one. UKN - "removal of construction deficiencies".



#12 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,014 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 23 August 2017 - 1514 PM

armor scheme in top of this page incorrect for turret and for hull

 

148246_original.jpg



#13 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 August 2017 - 1547 PM

armor scheme in top of this page incorrect for turret and for hull

 

148246_original.jpg

So up to 250mm near turret ring. Dam... Still wondering why Stuart thinks that it was so shit.



#14 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 23 August 2017 - 1857 PM

The T-10 and IS-4 had a much better armor layout though, shifting a fair bit of mass to the frontal arc.



#15 ACBelMutie

ACBelMutie

    Crunchie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 August 2017 - 0212 AM

Thanks for the replay bojan.

 

The first image is a simplified schema. I have another image about the armor:

 

is-3-armour-1.jpg

 

Greetings






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users