Military Review

Monument EC-3M in Taganrog

51



IS-3 is sometimes called the “last a tank World War II, although he didn’t have time for the war. His most important battle is ideological: participation in the Victory Parade in Berlin on September 7, 1945 (today it is exactly 70 years since this event!). Then, walking in orderly rows along Berlin
Square, 52 newest heavy tank "Joseph Stalin 3" literally shocked the military experts around the world.

Tank EC-3 was a transitional vehicle, like most vehicles of the first post-war years (including airplanes). He himself served for a very short time, but the design solutions laid in it formed the basis of everything domestic, and indeed world, tank building for decades to come.



The reason for the appearance of the new Soviet heavy tank was the fact that the EC-2, armed with the Red Army, could successfully fight the German Tigers and the Panthers, but they themselves served as a rather easy target for them. The whole thing was in armor protection - the frontal and side armor of the ISA were sewed with German cannon effortlessly. In addition, our "rigging" had big problems with reliability - numerous complaints from the front indicate that everything that could break was broken in the tank. Exhausted women and children, standing at the bench in wartime, could not ensure the quality of production.

However, there were also complaints about the armament of the EC-2: first of all, it was a small ammunition 122-mm cannon - just 28 shells. The rate of fire in the 2-3 shot per minute also did not suit the military - in combination with weak armor, it literally doomed the "shot out" tank to death.

In February, the 1944 of the year began the design of a new heavy tank to replace the EC-2, and in parallel with the work on the modernization and improvement of the serial EC. On an experimental tank, called "Kirovets-1", a completely new tower was used in the form of tank-building at that time, and the frontal armor plates (both upper and lower) had a strong slope - 60 degrees. This made the tank unrecognizable for all tank and anti-tank guns of the Wehrmacht during shelling into the front of the hull from a distance of more than 1 000 meters. The tower, though it was penetrating 88-mm by German guns, but had the ability very often to send projectiles to ricochet.

The tank was already about to be launched into the series, to replace the produced IP — 2, but here the “competing” Experimental Plant offered its own version of the modernization of the tank - “the 703 object”. He immediately struck the unusual shape of the bow of the body - received from the designers the name “crooked nose”, and later - “pike nose”. Such a constructive solution not only greatly increased the armor resistance, but also reduced the mass of the armored hull.



As a result, it was decided to create a structure that combined strong decisions of both projects.

By 20 March 1945 for conducting State tests was made 5 prototype tank. In a report to Stalin about the new tank, Beria designated the name of the car as “Marshal Stalin”. However, this name was never assigned to the tank - it received the designation EC-3.

According to the results of state tests, the heavy tank EC-3 was accepted into the series. By the end of the war, the tank did not have time - by May 21, only 1945 units had been manufactured by 29, of which only 17 machines had been factory run-in.

The production "life" of the EC-3 was also short - the last copy left the factory floor only a year after the start of production, in the middle of 1946. A total of 2305 serial IC-3 was manufactured.

As soon as the tank began to flow into the line units, the shaft of complaints went back to the plant. The military had so many complaints, and they were so serious that the machine had to be stopped in May 1946. In wartime, the issue of the development of the service life was not - the tank did not live in a war for a long time. In the peace period, completely different reliability requirements were imposed on combat vehicles. And besides, the design flaws of the EC-3 came out, which also demanded elimination. As a result, large-scale work began to finalize the tank. Moreover, the volume of this work was such that the Chelyabinsk Kirov Plant was loaded with work up to the 1953 year! In the late fifties, the IS underwent a regular modernization, with the aim of tightening its level to modern battle tanks. Upgraded machines received an index of EC-3M.



The only fact of the combat use of the EC-3 in the troops of the Soviet Union are the events in Budapest in the year 1956. And besides this, Isa was able to make war in the “six-day war” - the Arab-Israeli conflict 1967. According to its results, the Egyptian army lost the 73 tank EC-3 and EC-3M, more than half of which were abandoned by their crews.

Also interesting is the fact of the "combat use" of the EC-3 in the current conflict in Ukraine. In the course of the armed conflict in the east of Ukraine in 2014, the tank EC-3, standing as a monument in the city of Konstantinovka, was brought to working condition by the rebels of the DPR and removed from the pedestal. According to the reports of the rebels themselves, 30 June 2014, the tank was first used in the battle near Ulyanovka. According to some reports, shot from the pedestal of the EC-3 was "modernized" by the rebels: two machine guns were mounted on it, the NSV and the DShK. In July, the tank left by the rebels was discovered by the Ukrainian army after establishing control over Konstantinovka. It is planned to demilitarize it and return it to the pedestal. Now located in Kiev near the National Military History Museum.

In the USSR, the JS-3M tanks were officially in service until the mid-eighties. After the cancellation, a lot of cars across the country took the place of monuments. And one of them - EC-3M in Taganrog, which I was able to study.

Let's take a look at this copy in detail.

Tank IS-3 in all its glory. Combat weight 46 tons, crew 4 man, the length of the gun - almost 10 meters!



The bow of the hull. It houses the office of management. The driver’s hatch is visible in the roof of the case.





On the front armor plates, towing hooks with spring latches were installed (there are no latches on the monument, only brackets for them), as well as the laying of spare tracks.



Ring turret 12.7-mm anti-aircraft gun DShK sample 1938 year. On the monument it is not, unfortunately.



Armament tank - 122-mm gun. In the same place, in the mask of the gun, there is a DTM machine gun of 7.62 mm caliber paired with it.







The stern bronelist is folded back and has two round hatches for inspection of the transmission compartment.



Between the hatches there should be a bracket for fixing the barrel of the gun in the stowed position (when the tower was turned back by the barrel), but on this monument it is not there either.





The mounting brackets for two hundred liter forage fuel barrels are visible. These barrels are not connected to the fuel system of the tank.



Monolithic tower with numerous handrails.





Front removable sheet tower. It is also the cover of the gun hatch.



The stern of the tower and the roof of the engine compartment of the tank.





Luke surveillance tank commander. Inspection devices removed.



Muzzle brake 122-mm gun D-25T. The greatest range of fire of the tool - 5 000 meters!





Engine cover The tank was installed 12-cylinder diesel engine B-11 power 520 hp



Additional external fuel tanks. Could be dropped without leaving the crew of the tank, with the help of mechanical devices.





Chassis Tank. In general, it is identical to the running IC-2.





Track roller. Dual, diameter 550 mm.







Driving wheel rear location, with removable gear rims.





Well, according to tradition - a few general types in the end.















That's all, thanks for watching, write your impressions in the comments!
Originator:
http://military-photos.livejournal.com/512963.html
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 12 September 2015 06: 27 New
    +23
    Thank you for the nice photo review. good this is not a tank this is a monster and if he had time for war he would have made a lot of noise all the more so with the name Joseph Stalin
    1. DanSabaka
      DanSabaka 12 September 2015 08: 06 New
      +25
      article, of course, is good, but .....
      The IS-2, although they could successfully fight the German Tigers and Panthers, they themselves served as a rather easy target for them. It was all about armor protection - the frontal and side armor of the IS were stitched with German guns without much effort.

      not everything was so sad. In the fascist army, a special award was presented for the destruction of the IS-2 tank.
      1. Aleksandr72
        Aleksandr72 12 September 2015 12: 58 New
        +28
        Let me add on the IS-2 - I often heard references to the fact that German tank crews, including those who fought on the invincible Tigers, were instructed not to engage in direct combat with the IS-2 in order to avoid heavy losses - only an ambush battle , and best of all - the use of anti-tank artillery, minefields and attack aircraft against IS (to which the Luftwaffe also included single-engine dive bombers - “pieces” of the U-87 and the bomber versions of the FV-190).
        As for the IS-3 - the car is certainly impressive and formidable. Not without reason made a splash (if not to say more) among the Western allies at the victory parade in Berlin in 1945. However, the IS-3 was adopted into service in a very raw form, with very many shortcomings. After the war, almost all manufactured IS-3 had to be finalized under the UKN program (elimination of design flaws).
        This tank in its original form did not suit the military, so in the summer of 1946 its production was stopped. In total, 2310 IS-3 units were produced with an average cost of 267 rubles per unit.
        The IS-3 tanks underwent several upgrades. In 1948, the designers strengthened the engine mount, changed the gearbox mount and the main clutch design, instead of the 10-RK radio station, a 10-RT radio station was installed, and the manual oil pump was replaced with an electric one. The cost of upgrading one tank averaged from 190 to 260 thousand rubles, but the reliability of the IS-3 was not brought to the level required by the customer.
        In the early 50s, the IS-3 design was again refined - the hull stiffness was increased by adding stiffeners to the stern sheet and braces in the bottom. The main changes affected the engine, which was replaced by a modernized version of the V-54K-IS with a capacity of 520 hp, equipped with a VTI-2 air purifier with a double degree of air purification and an ejection method of dust removal. For a deeper landing of the checkpoint in the bottom, a technological hole was cut out under it, which was overlapped with a patch on the outside - thus, a niche was obtained, which allowed to improve the fastening of the box. Some changes took place in the armament of the tank - machine guns DShK and DT were replaced by modernized models DShKM and DTM.
        Four 90-liter mounted tanks were replaced by two 200-liter ones, the driver received a new night vision device TVN-2, the seal of the rotating cap of the commander's hatch was changed. A two-wire emergency lighting circuit was introduced into the electrical system, and an external start socket was mounted at the stern. Direct measuring instruments (i.e., mechanical ones) were replaced with electric ones, R-113 radios and P-120 tank intercoms were installed on the machines. Modified tanks received the designation "IS-3M." It is this tank depicted in the photographs.
        I have the honor
    2. Revolver
      Revolver 12 September 2015 09: 49 New
      +9
      write your impressions in the comments!
      The car is impressive, even today.
    3. vodolaz
      vodolaz 12 September 2015 13: 08 New
      +2
      Thank you, interesting article) If I am not mistaken, then the IS-3 stands on a pedestal at the tank museum in Kubinka.
    4. Homo
      Homo 12 September 2015 13: 38 New
      +5
      Quote: Siberia 9444
      this is not a tank this is a monster and if he had time for war he would have made a lot of noise all the more so with the name Joseph Stalin

      This is the answer to the question "could the Soviet army quickly reach Portugal without a second front."
      1. Logos
        Logos 12 September 2015 21: 59 New
        0
        Yeah, homegrown strategists of the present day are much more aware of the futility of the second front than I. Stalin personally, who has been asking allies to cover the second front throughout the war and even asking Churchill to send British divisions to the USSR at especially critical moments for him
        1. xan
          xan 13 September 2015 03: 41 New
          +3
          Quote: Logos
          Yeah, the homegrown strategists of the present day are much more aware of the futility of the second front than personally I. Stalin, who asked the Allies to open a second front throughout the war

          Stalin is not so stupid as to pay for the common victory with the blood of his soldiers. And the allies were well aware that if only the USSR would win Germany, then only the USSR would receive dividends from the victory. On the other hand, Stalin understood that everything had only just begun with the defeat of Germany, and that one had to spare one's strength.
          And the second front had to be opened when Stalin requested, and then the Americans with the Angles would be heroes, and not when the question of victory had already been resolved. Once again for those especially inhibited - the question of victory was decided by the USSR army before the opening of the second front. The whole usefulness of the second front is the saved lives of our soldiers, and not because the allies are so kind, but because otherwise all of Europe except England would have been under the USSR.
          1. Logos
            Logos 13 September 2015 18: 06 New
            +3
            Before the opening of the second front, there was still a North African front, a war in the Pacific Ocean, and Lend-Lease assistance to the USSR. Speaking of Lend-Lease, although the share of Lend-Lease in the total military production of the USSR did not exceed several percent, these were especially valuable "percent", because Lend-Lease supplied the USSR with the fact that he himself in the first devastating years of the Second World War after the loss productions in the occupied territories could no longer produce. (machine tools for plants, rare metals, rubber for rubber, etc.)

            and not because the allies are so kind, but because otherwise all of Europe except England would have been under the USSR

            Each side in that war had its own interest, and placing markers on the sides, such as "good" or "unkind" or "moral" / "immoral" is pretty stupid.

            And it’s especially ridiculous to make complaints about this to the allies of the USSR. Do not forget that before the Second World War the official ideology of the USSR was the ideology of the world proletarian revolution, which the USSR was preparing through the Comintern and to help which it was building up its armed forces. Well, why would the bourgeois ruling circles of England and the United States have good feelings for those who declared them their class enemies? So there were no feelings, there was only a purely practical interest - to pacify Hitler with the hands and blood of Russian soldiers and such a policy cannot but arouse envy and respect, because a government that pits its enemies and goes on it is much better and more honest in relation to its voters, than the one that solves all problems with the blood of only its soldiers.
            Therefore, the allies of the USSR helped with Lend-Lease in order to prevent its complete defeat - and the probability of this defeat was very high in 41-42. It would not be so - it makes sense to help the USSR in general, even if they exhaust each other with Germany to the complete devastation of both countries, doesn’t it?
  2. zp35
    zp35 12 September 2015 07: 31 New
    +15
    Quote: Aspeed
    Is-2 with a straightened nose did not penetrate 88-mm guns in the forehead at all. Even 88mm L71.
    According to landfill tests, the rate of fire of 122 mm Is-2 reached 4-6 rounds per minute.

    Polygon rate of fire is not the same as combat. The combat rate of Is-2 really was 2-3 rounds per minute.
    But the most interesting thing is when they try to compare Is-2 and Tiger I, etc. for ours they indicate combat, and for the Germans, polygon rate of fire.
    So it turns out we have 2-3 Germans from 7 to 10.
    Initially, the IS was created under the 85 mm gun. The tower imbalance reached an acceptable level and made it possible to strengthen the reservation if necessary.
    But later, a 122 mm gun was installed in this tower.
    The tower imbalance reached such a level that it was no longer possible to strengthen the armor. Otherwise, the rotation of the tower at heel angles of more than 15 degrees
    it would not be possible.
    Isa's frontal armor did not penetrate 88 mm shell even at point blank range.
    Zatyk was just in the impossibility of strengthening the reservation of the tower.
    If this problem were solved, the Is-2 could shoot German positions from 400 meters without harming itself.
  3. lilian
    lilian 12 September 2015 08: 04 New
    +5
    I want to ask a knowledgeable question. I believe that so-called stamps (or whatever else) that are so often repeated that they in the eyes of people become an indisputable truth.
    That's about the low rate of fire. All ears buzzed. But in some article I read that there was practically no difference with the same rate of fire of the Tiger. In one case, the crew put a shell and a cap into the breech, in another, a unitary shot more than a meter long in a slightly spacious turret swinging on a bumpy tank. It seems that they didn’t put a 100mm cannon on the Tiger because its unitary shot would be even more difficult to load. Is it so?
    1. family tree
      family tree 12 September 2015 09: 50 New
      +5
      Quote: lilian
      It seems that they didn’t put a 100mm cannon on the Tiger because its unitary shot would be even more difficult to load. Is it so?

      There was a project to put 10,5 cm on the Tiger-2, but separate loading. Here: http://topwar.ru/37451-modernizaciya-korolevskogo-tigra-1945-god.html
      100m with a unitar was placed on the IS-2, D-10. Here: http://topwar.ru/29130-d-25-alternativ-ne-bylo.html
    2. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 12 September 2015 12: 53 New
      +4
      Quote: lilian
      Is this true?

      And our designers tried to install the 34 mm gun on the T-100, but out of 5 attempts to load the gun, the loader hit the fuse three times with the “fuse”. Although there is a T-34 with an 122 mm gun.
    3. gladcu2
      gladcu2 12 September 2015 14: 22 New
      +3
      If we recall the last fight of Wittmann, then there the tiger shot a column of armored vehicles especially and not moving around the area. His gun allowed the fight from a distance when the return fire did no harm. By the way, Wittmann’s last fight was against the Shermans. I mean, that shooting was not immediately used by tankers, so the crew’s overall performance depended on overall fatigue and internal comfort. It should also be noted. That the Tiger’s armored volume for the crew was comfortable. And they carried a lot of ammunition.
      1. Shadowcat
        Shadowcat 12 September 2015 21: 21 New
        0
        In the case of manual loading, it’s very, very sycotic to charge on the go. This is according to the recollections of the tank-loading Abrams, but then it was more difficult
  4. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 12 September 2015 08: 12 New
    +8
    Beautiful car. All Tankers - Happy Holiday! TANKIST - this is not VUS- this is Soul STATE!
  5. provincial
    provincial 12 September 2015 08: 13 New
    +6
    He served in Zabvo in 1986-89, and so along the border with the PRC were VOLTAGE in service with which were the towers of these tanks.
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. ekebastus
    ekebastus 12 September 2015 08: 52 New
    +7
    SEPTEMBER 7, 1945
    1. jjj
      jjj 12 September 2015 10: 59 New
      0
      Impressive Soviet military power
  8. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 12 September 2015 09: 14 New
    +5
    The largest range of guns - 5 meters!
    The author apparently meant sighting range.
    When in RISI he studied at the military department at Zmievka, he was the same in the caponier. There are pictures somewhere.
    1. shasherin.pavel
      shasherin.pavel 12 September 2015 13: 04 New
      +2
      Tank guns did not have a maximum elevation of the gun over 45 degrees, which is why such a range.
  9. provincial
    provincial 12 September 2015 09: 21 New
    +5
    The performance characteristics of the tank IS-2

    Crew: 4 person
    Weight: 46,0 tons
    Armament: 122-mm gun D-25T model 1943, 28 shots; 3 7,62 mm machine gun DT, 2330 rounds; 12,7 mm DShK 38 machine gun, 250 rounds
    Armor (body)
    Forehead, sides, feed: 120-160 mm, 90 mm, 60-90 mm
    Roof: 20-30 mm
    Bottom: 20-30 mm
    Armor (tower)
    Forehead, sides and feed: 100 mm, 90 mm, 60-90 mm
    Roof: 30 mm
    Engine: V-shaped, 12-cylinder diesel V-2-IS
    Power: 600 hp at 2000 rpm
    Fuel capacity: 800 l
    Power density: 11,3 hp / t
    Length: 9830/6770 mm
    Width: 3070 mm
    Height: 2730 mm
    Ground clearance: 460 mm
    Maximum speed: 37 km / h
    Power reserve: 150 km
    Slope: 30-36 degrees
    Moat: 2500 mm
    Wall: 1000 mm
    Wade: 1300 mm
    Ground pressure: 0,80 kg / cm2

    Further improvement of the IS-2 tank led to the emergence of many specialized vehicles. In January 1945, the IS-2 was adopted instead of the IS-3 tank. The Germans heard about this tank on January 12, 1945. The IS-3 tank had an oval flattened tower. In combat characteristics, the IS-3 was noticeably superior to the Tiger. The IS-3 tanks did not take part in the hostilities, but participated in the victory parade among the Berlin ruins.

    The performance characteristics of the tank IS-3 model 1945

    Crew: 4 person
    Weight: 45,8 tons
    Armament: 122-mm gun D-25T model 1944; 7,62 mm DT machine gun; 12,7 mm DShK 38/43 machine gun
    Armor (body)
    Forehead, sides, feed: 90-120 mm, 90 mm, no data
    Roof: no data
    Bottom: no data
    Armor (tower)
    Forehead, sides and feed: 200-230 mm, 75-115 mm
    Roof: 30 mm
    Engine: V-shaped, 12-cylinder diesel V-2-IS
    Power: 600 hp at 2000 rpm
    Fuel capacity: 780 l
    Power density: 11,3 hp / t
    Length: 10000/6670 mm
    Width: 3200 mm
    Height: 2440 mm
    Ground clearance: 430 mm
    Maximum speed: 40 km / h
    Power reserve: 190 km
    Slope: 30-36 degrees
    Moat: 2700 mm
    Wall: 1000 mm
    Wade: 1300 mm
    Ground pressure: 0,79 kg / cm2
  10. Grif
    Grif 12 September 2015 09: 22 New
    +16
    The Wehrmacht to destroy the IS-2 had only one recommendation, to pour a bucket of gasoline on the tank and set it on fire. For this relied two weeks vacation. But there was not a single such case. You can also recall that Soviet tankmen sometimes put a bucket on the trunks of their thirty-four. From afar it looked like an IP. The Germans panicked.
    1. Logos
      Logos 12 September 2015 22: 07 New
      +2
      Of course it wasn’t, and the recommendation itself is more like a joke. The Is-2 made a good way into the side (badly on the forehead) with 88 and 75mm long-barreled guns, 105mm in the forehead, suffered greatly from mines (low ground clearance + thin bottom armor).
      On the whole, there was a very good tank, and at first the Germans fought it with the same methods as ours did with the first "tigers", and no exotic with the pursuit of the tank with full buckets of gasoline in hand
  11. ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 12 September 2015 09: 27 New
    +4
    It looks very impressive!
  12. sergant89
    sergant89 12 September 2015 09: 29 New
    +10
    And here He is in Kubinka.
  13. dmit-xnumx
    dmit-xnumx 12 September 2015 09: 36 New
    +5
    Power and grace at the same time! Impressive!
  14. Zheka40
    Zheka40 12 September 2015 10: 00 New
    +3
    And the rollers are lubricated smile
    1. Walking
      Walking 12 September 2015 11: 21 New
      +3
      Just in case. As they say, our armored train is on the siding. wink
  15. LMaksim
    LMaksim 12 September 2015 10: 06 New
    +9
    The reason for the appearance of the new Soviet heavy tank was the fact that those who were armed with the IS-2 Red Army, although they could successfully fight the German Tigers and Panthers, they themselves served as a rather easy target for them. It was all about armor protection - the frontal and side armor of the IS were stitched with German guns without much effort.

    The frontal armor of the IS-2 was: forehead of the hull, upper armor plate-120mm, lower-100mm. The IS-2 could not increase the thickness of the lower frontal part to 120mm, so it was rather weak. On the other hand, it still had to be successfully hit. In general, armor protection was quite on the level. Thick and ricocheted.
    The IS-2 gun had a low rate of fire, but with one and only hit in an enemy tank, this was enough. When meeting with the IS-2, the German tank crews had to rely only on the fact that the crew missed and then they would have a few seconds to go around the tank and hit the IS in vulnerable places. For example, feed is only 60mm, but at an angle of 49 degrees.
    Regarding the reliability of the IS-2. At first, there really were a lot of complaints. However, in the process of troubleshooting and improving the design of the tank, its reliability increased and in the troops it was considered a reliable and undemanding machine.
    It's a shame that this IS-3 is in poor condition. The commander’s observation device is missing, and the hole is not covered by anything. But it is possible sometime we will have to remove it and use it for its intended purpose.
  16. 16112014nk
    16112014nk 12 September 2015 11: 08 New
    +2
    Powerful car! In Victory Park on Poklonnaya Hill, the same IP costs!
  17. kot stepan
    kot stepan 12 September 2015 11: 40 New
    +6
    As a kid, I climbed into the IS-3. Outside, of course, I was impressed by the size. But, when he got inside ... If he suffered from claustophobia, he would die right away.
  18. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 12 September 2015 14: 57 New
    +1
    The armor is strong and our tanks are fast!
  19. k_ply
    k_ply 12 September 2015 15: 15 New
    +2
    Quote: zp35
    So it turns out we have 2-3 Germans from 7 to 10.

    Shooting from a cramped turret of a tank with 122 mm rounds of ammunition with separate loading is not the same as shooting out of an 88 mm Pak 43 gun with unitary ammunition (count, trap shooting).
    Quote: shasherin.pavel
    And if you consider that the IS-3 had the world's first automatic projectile rammer, then how?

    The IS-3 was equipped with a D-25T gun, an electromechanical surcharge of shells and shells was available for the D-25TA modification (T-10 heavy tank).
  20. The comment was deleted.
    1. family tree
      family tree 12 September 2015 17: 34 New
      +1
      Quote: puchkov57
      Glory to the Armed Forces of the USSR and the Russian Federation!

      Somewhere in the 82nd, or in the 83rd, at the May Day demonstration, on Naberezhnaya, an instructor from the regional committee, vyakl into the microphone, supposedly let the Soviet people go wild, building communism forever what
      Damn, I’m ready to these Slavs, to tap on the face, regardless of surname.
      1. gladcu2
        gladcu2 13 September 2015 17: 19 New
        0
        perepilka.

        Would return in those days and tell the instructor. You this, defend your communism for another hundred years. To be enough for several generations. And then maybe it will go into a permanent state. At least as many fates will remain and peace and balance in the world.
  21. ingenera
    ingenera 12 September 2015 17: 17 New
    +7
    Here I am a tanker myself. He served a long time, far from the center. The most “modern” that I had to shoot from is the T-55. In the training. He served (just in case) on the T-34-85. 1971-1973 No one for all the past years has ever managed to explain why the loader in our tanks was to the right of the cannon and had to lift and send the projectile with his left hand. Historians, ay! By the way, the IS-3’s tower is not so cramped, it’s been there. Of course, this is not a "barn", like the ISU-152, but still ... And yet, here is a "Rheinmetal" 120mm caliber, blacks can charge, but our men will not lift our 122mm well. Always interested in the "twists" of design thought. I don’t know how it was before the modernization, but in the training we didn’t bring the IS-3 from firing or towing. The car is quite reliable. And here is the T-34, although I’ll tear it all away (I love it very much), often, after the “jumps” that people like to show in the movies, they came, though by themselves, but either with a broken balancer of the first roller, or without bearings of the same roller . And also breaks of dyuritic hoses and as a result of 90 liters of oil are not in the engine, but on the floor of the power compartment. Therefore, they were cherished, and future commanders and gunners drove the T-55. And at thirty-four only their future fur-water learned to drive. Something like this, through life and not through books and the Internet.
    1. Aleksandr72
      Aleksandr72 12 September 2015 19: 06 New
      +1
      I am not a tanker, but a border guard (and before that, a cadet of an aviation engineering school). But in our Ucharalsky border detachment, the MMG included T-72 tanks (I can’t name the modification, because I served urgently for a long time and I do not remember how long ago), but when I (foolishly) tried to jump into the tower hatch famously of a tank, it was robustly stupid about the edge of the tower aperture (I don’t know what it’s called, tankers - I apologize!), it had a headset on it (in the sense of the head). Later, after serving in the army, I was lucky enough to get into the museum IS-3M (the same as in the photo) and then it struck me that the tower (or rather the fighting compartment) inside this old tank was much larger in internal volume than in the T-72. And at the same time, there was no lining, and on the armor of the tower inside there was a noticeable flash and a sickly sized cavity in the metal - most likely the tank was the first releases, i.e. military production, when the quality of the finish did not pay much attention. But the height of the tank inside was such that when I was 168 cm tall, standing on the floor of the tank I hardly got to the top hatch (in my opinion, even standing on tiptoe). So the IS-3 tower is not at all cramped. If you messed up something, do not judge strictly, I'm not a tanker, and quite a lot of time has passed since then.
      I have the honor.
  22. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 12 September 2015 17: 42 New
    0
    IS-3 also stands on a pedestal near a museum in Priozersk, Leningrad region. - The former city and fortress of Korela, one of the former centers of ancient Karelia and the site of long-standing wars of Karelians and Novgorodians with the Swedes.
  23. B- 3ACADE
    B- 3ACADE 13 September 2015 05: 16 New
    0
    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh - - - -
    - In our 299th regiment of the “Drunken” Division we had only two tanks and one tanker.
    Used them as tractors well bmdeshka in Kursulak gets stuck or
    the old Romanian stables fell ... One day a kettle arrived with
    well, after the friendly breakfast-- everyone went to check.
    And the entot officer used to serve somewhere in tanks. Well, I got to the bottom of the cap; Let me drive. Give me the drive. Well On the wheels. In short, they harnessed a tankman’s type of Kolka
    accompany yourself hto to the tank hto to UAZ - they directly sprayed the "Liberation" episode
    not included in the film epic. How long are short good fellows gortsyuvaly.
    But they drove the tanker At Drygva to the very Gogels. The tank was stalled and not at all
    I wanted to come to life. The "dragoons" were crap around and sat in the UAZ.
    Kolka assault rifle remaining ammunition-type protect the fighter. We will send help for a moment.
    - They’re happy at once.
    Lunch for guest inspectors was a solid and productive failure check
    I did not find the fighting efficiency at the height .....
    --After six days, a shepherd came to the checkpoint of the regiment. The old Gagauz did not speak Russian. He was babbling without a mouthful and gesturing violently .. (to be continued.)
  24. B- 3ACADE
    B- 3ACADE 13 September 2015 05: 48 New
    +4
    _part two-
    Finally, with the help of a local Komsomol asset, it was possible to understand that some kind of soldier is guarding a lone combat unit alone. What happens in such cases at the headquarters; can’t be described with any pen. Only Hollywood can shoot. Scream. The cry of a dozen military merged as one shot- TANKMAN!!!
    Well, here, of course, the crowd is called salvation. Marked like moose on corn
    We found it. We drove the second tank. Grandfather-turnip and the second sat down .. AAA .. drove with
    BAT artillery division pulled out the second. Then two pulled out the first ...
    I lower the kukarachchu with tow.
    For heroism in the protection of military property and the shooting of gophers
    who tried to take possession of these properties. The tanker was personally awarded the head of the garrison, Colonel Tsimbalaru = 10 days of leave
    Commander 98VDD Guards Colonel Chindarov-10 days of vacation and a medal.
    Glory to the Airborne Forces.
  25. m262
    m262 13 September 2015 13: 38 New
    +2
    Thank you for the interesting review, we have such glory on the Mound, there is no hatch in the bottom, and my daughter and I climbed there yesterday! It was a pity there was no camera, but the general impression is POWER !!! The main volume of the tower is occupied by a gun, although in principle it is possible to turn around. Comfortable only in place of the driver, but the armor is impressive!
  26. perevozthikov
    perevozthikov 15 September 2015 22: 10 New
    0
    Now, if only the author had learned to photograph normally. Look at photos where the gun is two times longer than the body, does not deliver pleasure. And all that was needed was to move away, especially since the front is full of free space.
  27. kravch67k
    kravch67k 17 September 2015 19: 58 New
    0
    There probably would have been a good tank, but the story turned out differently, I had a little time. In our Maryina Gorka (Minsk region) this one stands on a pedestal, GRANDIOZEN and BEAUTIFUL !!