Military Review

EC-7: Unclaimed Power

77
At the very end of the war, in February 1945, in the design bureau of plant No. 100, whose branch at that time was in Leningrad, they began work on a new heavy project tank, which was supposed to be a development of the IS-6 project. By June, a well-developed preliminary design of the future combat vehicle, which received a new index - IS-7, was ready. For its time, it was the most powerful tank and the heaviest among Soviet production tanks, but this power remained unclaimed. Despite the fact that it was not adopted by the Soviet Army, many technical solutions used for the first time on this combat vehicle were successfully implemented in other serial tanks in the future.


The heavy tank IS-7 has never been mass-produced, which did not prevent it from becoming a fairly recognizable fighting vehicle, primarily due to its spectacular and memorable appearance. Numerous popular computer games in which this tank is present have also played their part. When looking at this multi-ton fighting machine and its elegant outlines of a massive tower, the word grace comes to mind, the EC-7 could safely be called a beautiful tank, just as much as this word was applicable to heavy steel monsters designed to instill fear in the enemy on the battlefield.

Variants of prototypes EC-7

In total, in the second half of 1945, the design bureau of Experimental Plant No.100 under the leadership of the famous designer Joseph Yakovlevich Kotin prepared several versions of the projects of the new heavy tank - the 258, 259, 260 and 261 objects. According to Vera Zakharova, an employee of the Museum of Armored Vehicles, the development of Soviet heavy tanks was greatly influenced by the find near Berlin of June of the year of the eroded German monster, the tank Pz.Kpfw.Maus. Given this finding, 1945 June 11, in Leningrad, developed a draft tactical and technical requirements for a new Soviet heavy tank.


Originally it was planned to create a tank with a combat mass of 55 tons, with a maximum speed of 50 km / h, armed with an 122-mm gun BL-13 with an initial velocity of the projectile 1000 m / s. In this case, the frontal armor of the new tank had to withstand hitting the shells of the same gun. Already in June, the set of tactical and technical requirements was changed. The mass of the tank increased to 60 tons, the crew grew to 5 people. The armor was supposed to provide effective protection of the tank against hits of 128-mm cannons. Not only the 122-mm gun, but also the 130-mm ballistic gun from the B-13 ship cannon were considered as standard weapons.

Work on a new heavy tank began already, based on the latest tactical and technical requirements. In September-October, 1945, the designers prepared four versions of the future tank: "Objects 258, 259, 260 and 261." They differed among themselves mainly by power plants and the types of transmission used (electrical or mechanical). Ultimately, the choice fell on the 260 Object project, which was planned to be equipped with a B-16 engine, an electric transmission and a powerful C-130 XAUMB gun mounted in a cast flat-shaped tower, which became a recognizable feature of all experienced tank models. EC-26. Despite the large mass, the tank was quite compact.

This preliminary design of the “260 Object” became the basis for the first version of the EC-7 tank, which was built in metal. However, even then it turned out that the pairing of the B-16 engines was not brought by the Soviet industry, the tests and fine-tuning of such an engine in Leningrad demonstrated its complete design unsuitability. The engine designers turned to the engine two for the reason that the country simply did not have a tank engine of the required power - 1200 hp. Ultimately, for the first prototypes of the EC-7 tank, it was decided to use the new diesel tank TD-30, which was created on the basis of the AH-30 aircraft engine. During the tests, this engine, mounted on the first two prototypes, demonstrated its suitability for operation, but due to poor assembly, it required fine-tuning.


When working on a new power plant for a promising heavy tank, a number of important innovations were partially introduced and partially tested in laboratory conditions:
- fire-fighting equipment with automatic thermal closures, triggered at temperatures from 100-110 ° С;
- soft rubber fuel tanks with a total capacity of 800 liters;
- ejection engine cooling system.

Also for the first time in Soviet tank building, designers used tracks with a rubber-metal hinge, hydraulic double-acting shock absorbers, beam torsion bar suspension, and support rollers with internal damping, operating at high loads. In total, in the process of designing a new tank, about 1,5 thousands of design drawings were manufactured and more than 25 solutions were introduced into the project that had not previously been encountered in tank construction. 20 of Soviet institutes and scientific institutions was involved in the development and consultation on the project of a new heavy tank. In this regard, the EC-7 was becoming a truly breakthrough and innovative project for the Soviet tank school.

The basic one weapons The first variants of the EC-7 tank were the 130-mm C-26 gun, equipped with a new slot-hole muzzle brake. The gun was distinguished by a high rate of fire for such a caliber - 6-8 shots per minute, which was achieved through the use of a loading mechanism. Powerful was also machine-gun armament, which later only increased. The first two prototypes used 7 machine guns: one large-caliber 14,5-mm and six 7,62-mm. Especially for this tank, the specialists of the laboratory of the Department of the Chief Designer of the Kirov Plant produced a remote synchronous-tracking electric drive of the machine-gun unit, built using individual equipment elements with foreign technology. A specially made model of a turret with two 7,62-mm machine guns installed was mounted on the stern of the tower of the experienced EC-7 and successfully passed the tests, ensuring the tank had high maneuverability of machine-gun fire.


In September-December, the 1946 of the year collected two prototypes of the new combat vehicle. The first of them collected 8 September 1946 of the year, before the end of the calendar year he managed to pass on the sea trials 1000 km, according to their results, it was recognized that the tank meets the previously specified tactical and technical requirements. During the tests, the maximum speed of 60 km / h was reached, the average speed of a heavy tank on a broken cobblestone road was 32 km / h. The second sample, assembled on December 25 1946, passed on the sea trials of only 45 km.

In addition to the two experimental tanks that were assembled by workers of the Kirov plant and had time to pass the tests at the end of 1946 and the beginning of 1947, two towers and two armored corps were made separately at the Izhora plant. They were intended for testing by shelling from modern 88, 122 and 128 mm guns. Tests were conducted on the NIBT Range of the GABTU in Kubinka. The results of these tests were the basis for the final version of the reservation of a new combat vehicle.

The whole 1947 year in the Kirovsky Design Bureau was carried out intensive work on the development of a draft of an improved version of the EC-7 tank, improvements were made to the design, including the results of tests of two experimental machines. The new version of the EC-7 tank was approved for the construction of 9 on April 1947. Despite the changes in the design, the tank was still held under the code "Object 260". The project of a heavy tank really saved a lot from its predecessors, but at the same time a large number of significant changes were made to its design.

EC-7: Unclaimed Power

The body of the updated model has become a little wider, the tower is even more flattened. The tank also received new curved sides of the hull, such a solution was proposed by designer N. N. Moskvin. Booking a tank was beyond praise. The frontal part of the hull consisted of three armor plates with a thickness of 150 mm, located at large angles of inclination, was implemented scheme "pike nose", already tested on the serial tank EC-3. Thanks to the proposal of Moskvin, the sides of the tank acquired a complex shape, which also increased the security of the machine: the thickness of the upper inclined sides of the hull was 150 mm, the lower concave - 100 mm. Even the stern detail of the hull had an 100 mm reservation (lower part) and a 60 mm heavily inclined upper part. The cast four-seat tower of very large dimensions, however, was extremely low and differed by large angles of inclination of the armor plates. The turret reservation was variable: from 210 mm with a total tilt in 51-60 degrees in the frontal part to 94 mm in the aft part, with the thickness of the gun mask reaching 355 mm.

The innovation of the 1947 machines of the year has become even more enhanced weaponry. The tank received a new 130-mm C-70 cannon with a barrel length 54 caliber. The 33,4-kg projectile fired from this gun had an initial speed of 900 m / s. The 130-mm C-70 tank cannon was designed at the TsAKB (Central Artillery Design Bureau) specifically for the EC-7 tank. It was a tank version of an experienced 130-mm C-69 case artillery gun created here. The gun had a vertical wedge semi-automatic bolt, and was also equipped with an electric-powered loader, similar to naval artillery. This solution allowed the tank to provide a fairly high rate of fire.

Especially for the removal of gases from the fighting compartment of the tank on the barrel of the gun was placed an ejector, and also introduced a system of purging the barrel with compressed air. A novelty for those years and Soviet tank building was the fire control system. The fire control device mounted on the EC-7 ensured that the stabilized prism was aimed at a predetermined target regardless of the gun, automatic firing and automatic casting of the gun to the stabilized aiming line when fired.


Machine gun weapons became even more impressive. The tank immediately received 8 machine guns: two large-caliber 14,5-mm KPVs at once. One large-caliber and two 7,62-mm RP-46 machine guns (the post-war DT version) were placed in the gun mask. Two more RP-46 machine guns were located in the fences, the other two were turned back and fastened outside on the sides of the tank tower. All machine guns were equipped with a remote control system. On the roof of the turret, a second 14,5-mm machine gun was placed on a special rod. It was equipped with a synchronous-tracking remote electric drive, tested on the first prototype. This system made it possible to effectively fire both ground and air targets, while being protected by the armor of the tower. The ammunition of the EC-7 consisted of 30 separate loading shots, 400 cartridges of the caliber 14,5 mm and 2500 cartridges for 7,62-mm machine guns.

The crew of the heavy tank included five people, four of them were in the turret. To the right of the gun was the seat of the vehicle commander, on the left side - the gunner. The places of the two loaders were behind the tower. They also controlled machine guns, located in the fenders, in the stern of the turret and large-caliber anti-aircraft machine gun. The driver's seat was located in the elongated bow of the hull.

The updated version of the tank EC-7 differed installation of the new engine. As a power plant, we decided to use the serial marine 12-cylinder diesel engine M-50T, which develops the power of the HP 1050. at 1850 rpm The engine was created on the basis of a diesel engine for torpedo boats. The installation of this engine, along with the use of 130-mm guns also with sea roots, turned the new tank into a real land, if not a battleship, then just a cruiser. For the first time in Soviet tank building, ejectors were used to cool the M-50T engine. At the same time, the capacity of soft fuel tanks, which were made from special fabric, was brought to 1300 liters.


From electric transmission refused in favor of the mechanical, created in 1946 year, together with the Moscow State Technical University named after Bauman. The undercarriage of the heavy tank included large diameter diameter 7 rollers (on each side), and there were no supporting rollers. Rollers were made double and had internal depreciation. To improve the smoothness of the tank, the designers used double-acting hydraulic shock absorbers, the piston of which was located inside the suspension balancer.

The fate of the project. Unclaimed power

The first prototype of the X-Numx heavy tank, the 7 of the year, began a factory test on the 1947 of August. Total car passed 27 km, after which it was sent to the ministerial bride. On tests, a tank weighing more than 2094 tons accelerated to 65 km / h. In terms of its mobility, it surpassed not only heavy but also medium tanks of its years. In this case, experts noted the ease of management of the tank. Reservations in the frontal part made the machine invulnerable to the German 60-mm gun, which was supposed to arm the Maus, and could also protect the crew from shelling with its own 128-mm C-130 gun. The use of a special loading mechanism made it possible to bring the rate of fire to 70-6 per minute. For his age, the tank was revolutionary in terms of characteristics; there was simply no such thing in the world at that moment.

Following the results of the tests, the commission concluded: EC-7 meets the specified specifications. It was still built 4 prototype, slightly different from each other, as the project is constantly being finalized. In the autumn of 1948, the prototype No. 3 entered for testing at NIBT Polygon. The talk was about building the first batch of 15 combat vehicles, then in 1949, the order was increased to 50 tanks. However, these plans did not come to fruition. 18 February 1949 of the year on the basis of the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 701-270ss the development and production in the country of tanks weighing more than 50 tons was stopped. This document put a cross not only on the EC-7, but also on another heavy tank EC-4. The main claim was the large weight of the tanks, which complicated their evacuation from the battlefield and transportation, not every road bridge could withstand their weight, and the number of suitable railway platforms was limited. It is worth noting that serial tanks with a battle mass of more than 50 tons are not built in our country so far.


Another heavy tank with the initials of the Soviet leader, the 7-tonne EC-60, which was created and launched into serial production at ChKZ in 4, played its negative role in the fate of the EC-1947 tank, where it was assembled upon completion of the EC-3 production. . The heavy tank IS-4, which at the time of its creation was the most powerful armor among all domestic tanks, was too low in cross-country capacity due to the too high specific ground pressure (0,9 kg / cm²) and was not the most reliable transmission. At the same time, its armament was no different from the EC-2 and EC-3 tanks. However, the greatest disadvantage of this combat vehicle was a large mass. Some believe that the EC-4 in some way discredited the idea of ​​creating tanks weighing more than 60 tons, so for the heavier EC-7, the military initially had some skepticism. It is worth noting that the attempt to provide the tank with the highest level of protection brought the combat weight of the EC-7 to record 68 tons, instead of the planned 65 tons.

Another possible explanation for the abandonment of the mass production of the heavy tank EC-7 was just common sense and pragmatism. The concept of increasing the role of tanks in a possible nuclear missile war, which was emerging at that time, required the country to deploy large tank formations in advance, and therefore to release the maximum possible number of armored vehicles in peace years. It was believed that in the first two weeks of the future hypothetical conflict, ground forces would lose up to 40 percent of their tanks. In such a situation, the adoption of a heavy tank, the EC-7, which had dubious prospects for mass production, was declared inadmissible by the military leadership. The LKZ simply did not have sufficient capacity at that time, and the launch of production at ChKZ was almost unreal.

One of the prototypes of the EC-7 tank, the only 1948 tank of the year built, can be seen in the collection of the Museum of Armored armament and equipment in Kubinka. It can be said without exaggeration that the EC-7 was the best heavy tank ever built. stories tank building, he would not get lost on the background of modern MBT. However, its development was not in vain. Many ideas implemented in the EC-7, were then used to create the tank "Object 730", adopted under the designation T-10 (EC-8).

Information sources:
https://vpk-news.ru/articles/41362.
https://warspot.ru/2263-is-7-titan-opozdavshiy-na-voynu.
http://alternathistory.com/tyazhelyi-tank-7sssr.
Baryatinsky M., Kolomiets M., Koschavtsev A. Soviet heavy post-war tanks // Arm collector. - 1996. - No. 3 (6).
Materials from open sources.
Author:
77 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Persian
    Persian 26 February 2018 06: 40
    +14
    Tank-fortress! Hang up with dyn.protection and all kirdyk, 8 machine guns ...
    1. Army soldier2
      Army soldier2 26 February 2018 13: 34
      +5
      Quote: Pers
      Tank-fortress! Hang up with dyn.protection and all kirdyk, 8 machine guns ...

      Why fortresses engine and tracks?
      Why does a tank have eight machine guns?
      1. svp67
        svp67 26 February 2018 14: 36
        +8
        Quote: Army 2
        Why does a tank have eight machine guns?

        And so that the enemy did not seem a little ...
      2. nikoliski
        nikoliski 31 July 2018 07: 57
        0
        Barmaley to drive!
    2. Setrac
      Setrac 26 February 2018 16: 30
      +2
      And eight machine gunners
    3. Baloo
      Baloo 4 August 2018 08: 43
      0
      Quote: Pers
      Tank-fortress! Hang up with dyn.protection and all kirdyk, 8 machine guns ...

      Still wings and jet engines. Then everything, NATO must surrender.
  2. Olezhek
    Olezhek 26 February 2018 07: 12
    +7
    And yet, his real combat capabilities are interesting ...
    It is a pity he did not succeed in war.
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 26 February 2018 09: 37
      +4
      his brother merkava-60 t
      1. Grafova Irina
        Grafova Irina 28 February 2018 08: 03
        +5
        What side of "Merkava" is his "brother" ???
  3. Strashila
    Strashila 26 February 2018 07: 47
    +4
    Those. hypothetically, we can assume that our railways are designed for the dimensions and weight of the IS7 tank ... for the period 1947-48 ... therefore, in modern conditions it is possible to produce tanks weighing up to 65 tons.
    1. Igor K
      Igor K 28 February 2018 15: 36
      0
      railway yes, no bridges.
      1. Strashila
        Strashila 31 July 2018 08: 06
        0
        order give the military ... they calculated the maximum mass of the tank and gave it to the developers ... a tank that will simply stand no one will order.
      2. max702
        max702 31 July 2018 11: 16
        0
        Quote: Igor K
        railway yes, no bridges.

        C'mon, when on the trawls of a bulldozer across bridges they drag how much all this weighs? And nothing holds bridges .. Apparently they could not give a normal amount, at that time it was important ..
    2. nikoliski
      nikoliski 31 July 2018 08: 00
      -1
      here you’re not quite right - military pontoons are up to 50 tons (it was because of this that the T-14 was shoved into this notorious figure) the IL-76, even a modernized one, will also not raise more than 50 tons
  4. SASHA OLD
    SASHA OLD 26 February 2018 08: 14
    +2
    The Death Star!!
    1. Cxnumx
      Cxnumx 26 February 2018 08: 26
      +2
      no, death star this is it
      https://topwar.ru/7659-obekt-279.html
    2. nikoliski
      nikoliski 31 July 2018 08: 04
      -1
      Judging by the World of Tanks Is-7 miserable cripple, not the death star, he is tortured and offended by everyone there. wink I’m joking of course, but there is some truth, I wouldn’t say that the IS-7 in this game is much better than the T-62 (two medium tanks lightly “bite” it)
  5. Cxnumx
    Cxnumx 26 February 2018 08: 27
    +1
    already kind of like:
    https://topwar.ru/18082-tyazhelee-nekuda-is-7.htm
    l
    although repeat will not be superfluous)
  6. BAI
    BAI 26 February 2018 09: 25
    +3
    Just as since the time of the T-35 they put forward the idea that a tank should fight surrounded by enemy infantry without its support, the idea of ​​fodder weapons continues to move. Thank God that at least IS-2 has already come to understand that there is nothing to hope for the protection of its aviation and that it is necessary to put anti-aircraft machine guns. And if they later abandoned the fodder weapons, then the idea of ​​anti-aircraft weapons (i.e. disbelief in their own cover aircraft) is still alive.
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 26 February 2018 09: 36
      +4
      As subsequent years have shown, it is enough for a modern tank to have two machine guns: a 7,62 machine gun coaxial with a cannon and a 12,7 mm anti-aircraft gun on the turret. All other machine guns are useless.
      1. Glory1974
        Glory1974 26 February 2018 10: 19
        +6
        it’s enough for a modern tank to have two machine guns

        I would not be so categorical. The number of machine guns depends on the tasks. If earlier a tank was driving over a trench and a soldier threw a grenade at the stern, then a stern machine gun was needed. Then the tanks began to hit in another way, the need for a stern machine gun disappeared. But I think in urban battles a machine gun in the stern would not hurt even now.
        By the way, on the BMD, in addition to being paired with a gun, there are still two coursework over the caterpillar regiments. no one complained that they were superfluous.
        1. Army soldier2
          Army soldier2 26 February 2018 13: 43
          +4
          By the way, on the BMD, in addition to being paired with a gun, there are still two coursework over the caterpillar regiments. no one complained that they were superfluous.

          By the way, BMD is not a tank and is designed to solve completely different tasks.
          1. Glory1974
            Glory1974 26 February 2018 15: 18
            +2
            I completely agree with you. Therefore, he indicated
            The number of machine guns depends on the tasks.
            1. 113262a
              113262a 28 February 2018 00: 23
              +3
              By the way, in 84 in the GSVG in 23 TP, the company man in all seriousness ordered the machine gun to be mounted on the 219r in the front right zip with a mechanic's control! By the way, the MV in the tank has the best forward view and the results of firing at targets such as RPGs and growth equipment in BZT tapes are excellent. By BONA it is inefficient!
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 26 February 2018 13: 08
      +5
      Quote: BAI
      Thank God that at least IS-2 has already come to understand that there is nothing to hope for the protection of its aviation and that it is necessary to put anti-aircraft machine guns.

      As the uv. M. Svirin, the installation of the DShK on the IS and ISU was not intended for firing at aircraft. Moreover, the tests revealed the unsuitability of this installation for air defense. However, the installation was recommended for production as an anti-aircraft firing system (that is, for shooting with high elevation angles) to protect the TT and self-propelled guns during battles in cities.
      1. BAI
        BAI 26 February 2018 14: 18
        +1
        I don’t know who Svirin is, but in the section "armament of the tank" everywhere something like this is written:
        Starting in January 1945, the IS-2 began to equip large-caliber 12,7 mm anti-aircraft machine gun DShK with K-8T collimator sight.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 26 February 2018 20: 09
          +4
          Quote: BAI
          I don’t know who Svirin is.

          Do not flaunt it. smile
          It is rather strange to talk about armored vehicles of the temporary detention center era, not knowing the author of the three-volume book on tanks of that time and another volume on self-propelled guns. True, this work is now being criticized, since open archives have provided much more information than that available to uv. M. Svirin at the time of writing his work.
          Quote: BAI
          Starting in January 1945, the IS-2 began to equip large-caliber 12,7 mm anti-aircraft machine gun DShK with K-8T collimator sight.

          In this case, anti-aircraft means intended for shooting at the zenith, that is, with large elevation angles. To solve the problems of air defense installations, these were too heavy and did not have the appropriate sights.
          Here is the installation of the DShK on the self-propelled guns:
          1. wer2
            wer2 2 March 2018 20: 54
            -1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            not knowing the author of a three-volume book on tanks of the time and another volume on self-propelled guns

            Not to Svirin personally, but sometimes it’s more useful to not know all kinds of “work”.
    3. Alf
      Alf 26 February 2018 23: 23
      +5
      Quote: BAI
      even though the IS-2 has already come to understand that there is nothing to hope for the protection of its aircraft

      Do the Americans also rely on their aircraft, according to the presence of Colts on each tank?
  7. realist
    realist 26 February 2018 10: 18
    +2
    for that time a very formidable car, for ours there are still relevant characteristics, that’s what designers could have struck! the problem is in bridges, all automobile bridges are designed for 45 tons of the weight of a single vehicle, therefore there is a risk of collapse of bridges under heavy loads, builders are to blame.
    1. mac789
      mac789 26 February 2018 10: 43
      +4
      Why builders. Built so that Tiger2 did not pass. Well, or Abrams.
      1. uskrabut
        uskrabut 26 February 2018 17: 25
        +2
        We have nowhere to go to Abrams, except on the M-4 and then not everywhere ..... but you still need to get to her somehow
      2. realist
        realist 1 March 2018 19: 10
        +1
        builders build what is designed, and design as prescribed in the standards. but in general, most likely you are right, our roads and bridges are designed for our equipment!
  8. Tevdori
    Tevdori 26 February 2018 11: 31
    +3
    Best of the best of its time! It’s a pity that he didn’t fight, but was useful in the further development of tank building. Short stature with excellent frontal armor and do not forget about the bulwark!
    1. your1970
      your1970 1 March 2018 11: 34
      +1
      Quote: Tevdori
      Best of the best of its time! It’s a pity that he didn’t fight, but was useful in the further development of tank building. Short stature with excellent frontal armor and do not forget about the bulwark!
      Mouse was even prettier fool .
      The tank had poor cross-country ability - how would you like it fought along the railroads or something ??? no bridge could stand it !!!
      he could not physically get to the enemy physically - to show off with his armor ....
      1. Tevdori
        Tevdori 3 March 2018 18: 59
        0
        I understand that perfectly! I meant sorry not tested in battle anyway ...
  9. glum
    glum 26 February 2018 12: 25
    +4
    mdaaaa, the fundamental tank.
  10. mkpda
    mkpda 26 February 2018 14: 11
    0
    A powerful tank, but here's how to use it if it is only supported by railway bridges!
    1. svp67
      svp67 26 February 2018 14: 38
      +2
      Quote: mkpda
      A powerful tank, but here's how to use it if it is only supported by railway bridges!

      And here you can look at how the Germans used their "Tigers" during WWII
      1. mkpda
        mkpda 27 February 2018 10: 31
        0
        The Germans used the Tigers pointwise, except for two large offensive operations and transported them only by rail. The USSR planned to use tanks to a large extent instead of nuclear weapons on the principle, “The best air defense is our tanks at enemy airfields.” At such an offensive pace, the IS-7 would hang in the rear, due to the inability to quickly transfer them to the desired section of the front (except for the initial stage).
  11. philosopher
    philosopher 26 February 2018 16: 35
    +2
    And it was impossible to reduce the final version of the IS-7 in weight to the permitted 50 tons? That is, to slightly reduce the armor where it is not so important, remove one loader, two machine guns, reduce the capacity of the tanks, than reduce the reserved volume and thereby lose weight?
    Well, or at least apply lighter alloys where possible.
    1. faiver
      faiver 26 February 2018 18: 09
      +1
      What light alloys at the end of the 40s?
      1. philosopher
        philosopher 26 February 2018 18: 33
        +1
        Duralumin has already been used in aviation. From it it would be possible to produce non-armored parts, elements of the internal structure.
        It’s just interesting, could one shake off the mass to an acceptable value without reducing combat effectiveness? Suppose not up to 50 tons exactly, at least close. At the same time, after all, 7 machine guns are really, superfluous. Again, with a decrease in mass, there would be less load on the engine, it is possible to safely cut the transported volume of fuel.
        1. faiver
          faiver 26 February 2018 18: 49
          +1
          I'm talking about armored alloys, which part of the duralumin in the tank will survive?
        2. Alf
          Alf 26 February 2018 23: 28
          0
          Quote: philosopher
          elements of the internal device.

          For example ?
          1. philosopher
            philosopher 27 February 2018 01: 51
            0
            And for example, everything except armored hull. Seat frames, the floor of the fighting compartment of the tower, handrails, supports for shells in the combat station, the partition between the fighting compartment and the MTO ... In short, everything that is possible. Well, minus the extra weapons, fuel and ammunition.
            Only now, in those days the tank would not have become gold because of aluminum (sorry for the pun)?
            1. Alf
              Alf 27 February 2018 19: 33
              +1
              Quote: philosopher
              And for example, everything except armored hull. Seat frames, the floor of the fighting compartment of the tower, handrails, supports for shells in the combat station, the partition between the fighting compartment and the MTO ... In short, everything that is possible. Well, minus the extra weapons, fuel and ammunition.
              Only now, in those days the tank would not have become gold because of aluminum (sorry for the pun)?

              Do you have a car? Estimate what happens if everything in it is made of duralumin.
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall 27 February 2018 19: 37
                +2
                Quote: Alf
                Do you have a car? Estimate what happens if everything in it is made of duralumin.



                It turns out Tesla
                1. Alf
                  Alf 27 February 2018 19: 43
                  0
                  Quote: Town Hall
                  Quote: Alf
                  Do you have a car? Estimate what happens if everything in it is made of duralumin.

                  It turns out Tesla

                  It will turn out incomprehensibly that, which is promoted, but not seen anywhere and by anyone.
              2. philosopher
                philosopher 28 February 2018 05: 20
                +4
                Excuse me, are you a troll? I wrote: everything except armored corps. How else to explain?
                Apparently, from the desire to draw my meaning to my words by the ears, a comparison with the car appeared. Like a tank and a car - conceptually a little different ... And yes, imagine, initially in the cars there were quite a lot of cast parts made of aluminum alloys, but later, to reduce the cost, they began to be replaced by stamped from sheet steel or plastic. But it's all in cars, and here we are discussing a heavy tank.
                1. your1970
                  your1970 1 March 2018 11: 38
                  +1
                  Quote: philosopher
                  Excuse me, are you a troll? I wrote: everything except armored corps. How else to explain?
                  Apparently, from the desire to draw my meaning to my words by the ears, a comparison with the car appeared. Like a tank and a car - conceptually a little different ... And yes, imagine, initially in the cars there were quite a lot of cast parts made of aluminum alloys, but later, to reduce the cost, they began to be replaced by stamped from sheet steel or plastic. But it's all in cars, and here we are discussing a heavy tank.
                  -so that's exactly what you offer ("Seat frames, the floor of the fighting compartment of the tower, handrails, supports for shells in the combat station, the partition between the fighting compartment and the MTO") - have been long ago made by stamping from thin steels.
                  It is not necessary to consider the designers of tanks for suckers shoving the tank all the hardest
                  1. philosopher
                    philosopher 2 March 2018 06: 23
                    +1
                    Are you kidding me there? I wrote in the same post you quoted that leaving towards stamping from sheet steel or plastic is an attempt to reduce the cost of production and nothing more. Aluminum is lighter! If a part made of sheet low-carbon steel is replaced by a similar one made of duralumin, which is 1,2 times thicker, then with the same strength the part will turn out to be about 2,5 times lighter. Of course, the exact coefficients strongly depend on which alloys we are comparing, but the message, I hope, is clear.
                    1. your1970
                      your1970 2 March 2018 12: 11
                      0
                      and how much you will save on aluminum -200 -500- yes God forbid a ton with it. This does not do weather. There must be at least 3-5 tons removed
                      1. philosopher
                        philosopher 2 March 2018 19: 47
                        0
                        So that's it! I started from there - how much I could shake off with the IS-7, by all kinds of tricks, among other things - replacing (where possible) steel with aluminum, reducing the reserved volume (removing the second charging, the number of shells and fuel) and five machine guns . If you had given the command from above: “Lose weight!”, Would it be possible with the same gun, engine, frontal and side armor to drive the mass to an acceptable value, or would T-10 inevitably turn out?
                        In general, a similar situation is repeated from time to time. Remember, the 57 mm ZIS-2 gun was developed? So it was even discontinued as overly powerful and too complicated in production. This was a mistake that had to be paid in blood. If, after the death of Stalin, our yesterday’s allies had decided to attack, the T-10 would not have become such a headache for them as the IS-7. And this could be the same mistake as with the ZIS-2. And now we wind circles through the same rake: instead of the T-14, we give priority to the modernization of the T-72, T-80 and T-90.
                        If a step is taken forward, it must be progressive, otherwise it is a step in place.
                      2. wer2
                        wer2 9 March 2018 21: 41
                        0
                        Quote: zombirusrev
                        Citizen do not carry nonsense.

                        I do not have your habits.
                        Quote: zombirusrev
                        Cards in the USSR were canceled earlier than in Europe.

                        That's the trouble. After all, they were canceled because there was nothing to cook them. Therefore, the Bolsheviks simply left the population to their fate. After canceling the cards, everyone survived as best he could.
                        Quote: zombirusrev
                        Since 1943, the USSR began to recall highly skilled workers from the front and transfer the economy back to peaceful tracks.

                        What kind of rails? Who and where was recalled in 1943?
                        You read what tricks the Main Mobility Directorate had taken since the fall of 1943 to maintain the strength of the Red Army.
                        It was then that the wording “... those who turn 18 years old in the year of the draft” was invented. That allowed rowing in the army for 17 years.
                        Quote: zombirusrev
                        We read Mukhin, Isaev, Pykhalov

                        And another post on the post.
                        Quote: zombirusrev
                        "The USSR was a priority for the people of the whole world." (C)

                        Is there any doubt about this? The USSR kept the people of the whole world hungry. Due to the population of the USSR, there was no more source of money for this.
                    2. wer2
                      wer2 2 March 2018 20: 48
                      0
                      Quote: philosopher
                      Remember, the 57 mm ZIS-2 gun was developed? So it was even discontinued as overly powerful and too complicated in production.

                      You are so big, but believe in fairy tales.
                      Actually ZIS-2 arr. 1941 g:
                      1. Was incapable. It was brought to a more or less operational state only by 1943. And this was already in many ways a different cannon. In particular, she weighed 20% more.
                      2. There was nowhere and nothing to produce it. All pre-GAU fantasies in this regard went to the whistle. Only after receiving the imported equipment did it become possible to produce not only ZIS-2, but also many other guns. In particular, 85 mm tank guns.
                      Quote: philosopher
                      If, after the death of Stalin, our yesterday’s allies would have decided to attack

                      Whom and why?
                      1. philosopher
                        philosopher 3 March 2018 07: 50
                        0
                        Apparently, a sign of bad taste now is the provision of evidence of your words when a refutation of publicly available information is built.
                        1. If, by the 2rd year, the ZIS-43 was already SO MUCH different, it would have been given a different name or supplemented by the existing one. So, they did not find the number of modernizations introduced worthy of mention in the title.
                        2. After the manufacture of the prototype (on what?), The remaining 370 pieces simply budged from it. And besides, I wrote above that a qualitative step forward was needed and it should have started (before the war, of course) with the purchase of metalworking equipment (that was being sold) and the development / construction of its own.
                        Quote: wer2
                        Whom and why?

                        Us and for the same reason as before. "Unthinkable", as an example, to help you.
                    3. wer2
                      wer2 3 March 2018 09: 55
                      0
                      Quote: philosopher
                      So, they did not find the number of modernizations introduced worthy of mention in the title.

                      This is generally a common place in the USSR. You can recall the T-34/76 and T-34/85. Officially, it was all called the T-34. Despite the different weapons and performance characteristics.
                      In addition, unlike the T-34, ZIS-2 arr. 1943 was so different that it bore its own name "ZiS-2 arr. 1943"
                      Quote: philosopher
                      After the manufacture of the prototype (on what?)

                      At any decent size plant there is pilot production. And there is serial.
                      Pilot production is the ability to do more complex things. But very expensive. And not enough.
                      Quote: philosopher
                      we needed a qualitative step forward and it should have started (before the war, of course) with the purchase of metalworking equipment (that was being sold) and the development / construction of our own.

                      The fact of the matter is that such equipment was sold only once before the war in the USSR - the Germans sold the “anti-aircraft” factory mounted in Podlipki (Korolev) in the late 30s (before the Nazis). The one that produced the 3-K, 51-K, 52-K anti-aircraft guns. And also forty-five, but this is for another reason. There was another plant in the Urals with similar imported equipment, and that’s it. For no apparent reason, no one else sold equipment for precise deep drilling.
                      And they could not do it themselves - the fate of 57 mm ZIS-2 and 107 mm M-60, a vivid confirmation of this. The technological limit of mass production for the USSR on its equipment was barrels with a cut length of 100 inches. They were massively stamped (M-42, ZIS-3/5, F-34).
                      Quote: philosopher
                      Us and for the same reason as before. "Unthinkable", as an example, to help you.

                      Do not retell other people's nonsense. Nobody needed a beggar of the USSR. In all its history, never. And all the "treacherous plans of the Western imperialists", this is just their invention. Excuses from the shaggy people on the topic of why life is so bad.
                      If for some reason the Anglo-Saxons would need the USSR, they would easily and simply, with one left, get rid of it back in 1945. After the Japanese. Without much loss for its part. With the help of the same defeated Germans. And the Japanese.
                      1. Mihail28
                        Mihail28 7 March 2018 13: 44
                        +1
                        Quote: wer2
                        If for some reason the Anglo-Saxons would need the USSR, they would easily and simply, with one left, get rid of it back in 1945. After the Japanese. Without much loss for its part. With the help of the same defeated Germans. And the Japanese.

                        In May 1945, the Soviet Union was very much needed by the Americans. Just for the victory over Japan, so that the Red Army also fights a bit. Against Japan. And before the victory over Japan, the United States was quite "friends" with the USSR. And after the surrender of Japan, the picture changed a little. And the United States, with England and its atomic bomb, were considering options for continuing the war, but not against the Soviet Union, but against it. They thought, understood that they would not succeed. And we went the other way. To begin with, they arranged the Iron Curtain. This Churchill proclaimed the policy of the Iron Curtain, that is, the separation of Europe from the USSR.
                        At that time, US analysts recognized the power of the USSR, including the military, recognized that it would not work to occupy the USSR.
                        And you are right in saying that after the victory in the Second World War, neither the USA nor England needed the USSR anymore. They needed the USSR FOR victory in the war, and not for cooperation with it after the war.
                    4. The comment was deleted.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Mihail28
      Mihail28 26 February 2018 22: 27
      +2
      There was such an option, this tank was called T10. Read its characteristics on the Internet.
      And lighter alloys - this is lower armor resistance. You can even make cardboard. Or from tissue paper.
    3. mkpda
      mkpda 27 February 2018 10: 31
      0
      And so it turned out the T-10.
  12. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 26 February 2018 17: 40
    +1
    a cruiser and not a tank! Pretty boy hi
  13. Dukat22
    Dukat22 26 February 2018 19: 13
    +1
    Quote: antivirus
    his brother merkava-60 t

    Abrams and Merkavas do not work hard in the desert on hard ground, they were created for this. How will he ride clay in wet Europe? They have not yet reached the WWII through swamps and rivers))) ........ therefore our tanks are the best, you don’t even have to shoot, they will all fail and drown if they reach us.
    1. Alf
      Alf 26 February 2018 23: 32
      +2
      Quote: Dukat22
      How will he ride clay in wet Europe?

      That's it.
  14. Mihail28
    Mihail28 26 February 2018 22: 22
    +2
    1947 year. The USSR industry had no other tasks at that time? Except how to build a super tank.
    1. Comrade Kim
      Comrade Kim 27 February 2018 01: 13
      +4
      Read at your leisure: Operation Unthinkable
      If the industry of the USSR were engaged in the production of lace shorts, instead of tanks, ships and aircraft, the Hitler plan "Generalplan Ost" would seem a humanitarian operation for the USSR and Eastern Europe.
      A source:
      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BF%D0%B5%
      D1%80%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%C2%AB%D0%9D%D0%B5%
      D0%BC%D1%8B%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B5%C
      2% BB
      1. wer2
        wer2 2 March 2018 21: 02
        0
        Quote: Comrade Kim
        If the industry of the USSR were engaged in the production of lace shorts, instead of tanks, ships and aircraft, the Hitler plan "Generalplan Ost" would seem a humanitarian operation for the USSR and Eastern Europe.

        Another dreamer from the past.
  15. sleeve
    sleeve 27 February 2018 04: 40
    +4
    The enemy of heavy tanks is overweight. In principle, from the point of view of logistics, he (weight) is generally the lord of tank arrows on the map. What does the tank "above 50 tons" mean? New pontoon parks, new platforms for railway transportation (at that time, of course) ... Itd. To this are added indirect negative elements: road wear (up to country roads), additional costs for trailer transport. Heavy tanks of World War II-punching sledgehammer offensive. But the T-54 is already comparable in armor protection and armament (i.e., it is capable of hitting the range of targets of the IS-2,3,4 at the same ranges with a comparable effect, even in terms of high explosiveness of 100mm and 122 mm shells in comparison). At this point, rationalism came to power after the war and reigned, reigned .... It is a pity that in the minds of not the highest generals and the Politburo. Where do we otherwise have 65000 tanks ?! The IS-7 is a hand-built limousine that is amazing in its characteristics, but ... heavy, big, expensive. Bad or no that he went into a series we never know. But it happened.
  16. lexx2038
    lexx2038 27 February 2018 15: 27
    +1
    Nice. Deadly beautiful, directly exudes mortal danger. Modern tanks are not so expressive, although no less dangerous.
  17. Aleks Wer
    Aleks Wer 1 March 2018 21: 46
    +1
    And in the game for these earhooks, is7 is much inferior even to the mouse. Igrodelya
  18. Forever so
    Forever so 2 March 2018 22: 36
    0
    True Breakthrough Tank.
  19. DesToeR
    DesToeR 3 March 2018 12: 23
    +4
    Quote: wer2
    Do not retell other people's nonsense. Nobody needed a beggar of the USSR. In all its history, never.

    since 2013 I haven’t read anything funnier at VO.
    Quote: wer2
    And all the "treacherous plans of the Western imperialists", this is just their invention.

    ... as well as permanently developed plans for the destruction of the USSR, so, for the sake of warming up the mind and no more. And they even tried to implement one - of course I could be wrong, but it seems that the plan was called Barbarossa, but that’s not certain ... If for some reason you separate Nazi Germany from the general mainstream of the so-called West, then these are very naive conclusions . Nowhere Hitler would not have “rocked” without a global approver.
    Quote: wer2
    If for some reason the Anglo-Saxons would need the USSR, they would easily and simply, with one left, get rid of it back in 1945. After the Japanese. Without much loss for its part. With the help of the same defeated Germans. And the Japanese.

    Krovushki would have been choked enough for 1 (one) month of highly maneuverable war at the same time in two or three directions by forces not of armies, but of fronts. Well, then they would surprise the “whole world” with the unmatched transport operation in the world codenamed “Dunkirk Mark2”.
    1. zombirusrev
      zombirusrev 9 March 2018 21: 29
      0
      A citizen is an ordinary social racist. The proletarians didn’t get lucky with it. They had the audacity to defeat his amiable capitalists. Moreover, it was not only the Russian holodrots who participated, but the holodrazhts of the whole world. The communist movement of the World even forgave the USSR for the dissolution of the COMINTERN. For it understood that in this situation it was necessary to defeat Nazism, and not sort out the trifles.
  20. philosopher
    philosopher 3 March 2018 18: 39
    +1
    Quote: wer2
    If for some reason the Anglo-Saxons would need the USSR, they would easily and simply, with one left, get rid of it back in 1945. After the Japanese. Without much loss for its part. With the help of the same defeated Germans. And the Japanese.

    Could not, and not what they did not want. But I will not discuss with you about this, it’s already clear from which pipes you are blowing in your ears.
    In general, Mr. wer2as I will see, you are very prolific in terms of comments with the aim of instilling your point of view (whether it is a joke - more than 60 comments per day). Ideological or salary?
    1. zombirusrev
      zombirusrev 9 March 2018 21: 35
      0
      Here a statement like “Mr. Rafael is not a man, this is a firm!” (C) A citizen blows the people’s ears to the ears of a lie refuted in perestroika times in the newspapers “Day”, “Duel”, “Limonka”, etc., as well as on the Internet forums of these and other publications. The appearance of similar characters suggests one thing that the global enemy does not sleep, but cannot pick out new lies besides the one already existing in the State Department manuals.
  21. Kibb
    Kibb 4 March 2018 13: 59
    0
    As people who are more advanced in the topic say: from IS-7 it was possible to make MBT, bypassing two or three links up to 64B, but the transport system would be able to stand it.
  22. Е2 - Е4
    Е2 - Е4 6 August 2018 20: 49
    0
    constantly ammunition is criticized, the NBL is also liquidish