"Plans for experimental design and scientific research work of the Ministry of Transport Machinebuilding of the USSR for 1946
Item
|
Description of work
|
Factory
|
Cost
|
Heavy tank (Object 701)
|
Finishing technical documentation for mass production
|
Chelyabinsk Kirov factory
|
100
|
IS-6 heavy tank with an electric transmission
|
Trials and finishing of the
experimental prototype
|
Factory #100 branch
|
1500
|
New heavy tank with improved armour (IS-7)
|
Technical project development, prototype production, conducting
trials
|
Ditto
|
7000
|
Artillery SPG on the chassis of the new heavy tank (IS-7) with a
fully rotating turret
|
Development of a technical project
|
Ditto
|
150
|
New heavy tank with a mechanical transmission
|
Development of a technical project
|
Chelyabinsk Kirov factory
|
Approved by the board January 22nd, 1946."
Hey what is the SPG based on the IS-7 that has a turret? None of the ones I know of come to mind.
ReplyDeleteNo idea, Yuri Pasholok writes that it existed but I don't even know a number for it. It's unlikely that it ever got off the drawing board.
DeleteWhat is the cost units? Political dissidents? :)
ReplyDeleteKeep up the great work!
1000s of rubles.
DeleteJanuary 22nd, 1946 is the date of this document. So the potential adversary would be the West for these vehicles, not Nazi Germany.
ReplyDeleteHow much was Soviet design driven externally (say, here, by what capability the West had) and how much was driven internally (by what improvements Soviet engineers thought was achievable). Quality-wise what the Soviets had in 1946 (T-34/85s, IS-2s, SU-100s and ISUs on hand, T-44s and IS-3s coming off the assembly line, with IS-4s to follow in 1946) coupled with already-investigated designs (high-powered gunned ISUs) was as good if not better than what anyone else had.
So why the need for an IS-6 or IS-7? The IS-4 by itself was almost unkillable. Even its side armor was formidable.
I mean. The Soviets eventually (rather soon even) asked the exact same question and duly axed all the obviously oversized, budget-breaking and/or overkill projects...
DeleteOne imagines the expenses of postwar reconstruction and catching up to the Yanks in nukes rather helped sharpen focus on more economically rational "Boring But Practical" designs like the T-55 and the more restrained kinds of IS.
The IS-4 was built to combat the Ferdinand, the IS-7 to fight the Maus. When it turned out that the West didn't want to build huge monster tanks anymore both were canned.
Delete