uruguayopoderoso 0 Report post Posted June 17, 2017 now i`be heard that there is no evidence of is-3 tanks fighthing in ww2 but there are is one is-3 left in the kuril islands. now how did that tank got there ?acording to this page https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/amazing-pictures-of-abandoned-soviet-tanks-left-behind-on-shikotan-island-xb.html there is one there. wouldnt that mean that those tanks where used against the japanese in ww2? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter12396 3,520 Report post Posted June 17, 2017 there are rumors one group of IS-3s was deployed against the Japanese, but theres no real proof 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PettyblueBird43 8 Report post Posted June 18, 2017 (edited) Well, yeah but technically they didn't fight against any enemy armour, and the soviet offensive in the summer of 1945 in Manchuria barely had any resistance so it's pointless to say they fought in WW2. Edited June 18, 2017 by I_love_nightcore 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josephs_Piano 7,044 Report post Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) On 6/18/2017 at 0:05 AM, ImanolFuentes said: now i`be heard that there is no evidence of is-3 tanks fighthing in ww2 but there are is one is-3 left in the kuril islands. now how did that tank got there ?acording to this page https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/amazing-pictures-of-abandoned-soviet-tanks-left-behind-on-shikotan-island-xb.html there is one there. wouldnt that mean that those tanks where used against the japanese in ww2? It would mean nothing more than a tank was shipped there at some point - the presence of it there provides exactly ZERO evidence of it being in combat. Given that the tanks in the photos are obviously in prepared positions (eg on concrete pads, with berms in front and to the sides) it is possible to conclude they were probably put in those positions after the war as part of the fixed defences of the islands. ETA - the sites are visible in google maps on the other side of the inlet the village is on, to the SW. Edited June 19, 2017 by Josephs_Piano 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blastedryan 967 Report post Posted June 19, 2017 It could equally have been sent there after the war to deter any American attack on Eastern Russia(which they did during the Russian Civil War). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uruguayopoderoso 0 Report post Posted June 26, 2017 On 2017-6-18 at 11:46 PM, Josephs_Piano said: It would mean nothing more than a tank was shipped there at some point - the presence of it there provides exactly ZERO evidence of it being in combat. Given that the tanks in the photos are obviously in prepared positions (eg on concrete pads, with berms in front and to the sides) it is possible to conclude they were probably put in those positions after the war as part of the fixed defences of the islands. ETA - the sites are visible in google maps on the other side of the inlet the village is on, to the SW. thenks that makes more sense yeas Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurretHead 331 Report post Posted November 22, 2017 I don't know if it saw combat but the allies knew that the Russian had "something". England started the programme that became the conqueror based off rumours, and the first Is3 showed up in a parade just after the war in Berlin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StripeS 27 Report post Posted November 22, 2017 It would be in the same criteria as the M26 Pershing. Just a bit too late to count as a combatant of WWII. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TT33a 5,404 Report post Posted November 23, 2017 http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.2002.ja/4RedStar02.pdf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
VRPilot 949 Report post Posted November 23, 2017 On 11/22/2017 at 8:33 AM, StripeS said: It would be in the same criteria as the M26 Pershing. Just a bit too late to count as a combatant of WWII. The Pershing did fight and got killed in WWII. What you mean the the Centurion MK. I. That tank got to main land Europe just a little too late to see combat, but technically still a WWII tank. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StripeS 27 Report post Posted November 23, 2017 9 hours ago, vollautovolker said: The Pershing did fight and got killed in WWII. What you mean the the Centurion MK. I. That tank got to main land Europe just a little too late to see combat, but technically still a WWII tank. Sitting next to a burning Sherman and getting hammered without shooting or fighting back? That wouldn't count in my books. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tzalafim 695 Report post Posted November 23, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, TT33a said: http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.2002.ja/4RedStar02.pdf That report is not very precise, I have already made a post that demonstrate this report as almost propaganda! Edited November 23, 2017 by Tzalafim 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tzalafim 695 Report post Posted November 23, 2017 12 hours ago, TT33a said: http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.2002.ja/4RedStar02.pdf 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
