Hi everybody,
the IS-7 super heavy Soviet tank in 1:35 of Trumpeter, plus Voyager and a metal barrel .....
Hope that you like it!
Cheers
Micha
Яusso-Soviэt Forum: Cold War Soviet Armor
For discussions related to cold war era Russo-Soviet armor.
For discussions related to cold war era Russo-Soviet armor.
Hosted by Jacques Duquette
IS-7 (Object 260) Heavy Tank - 1:35 of Trumpe
elmarriachi
Baden-Württemberg, Germany
Joined: December 26, 2009
KitMaker: 813 posts
Armorama: 240 posts
Joined: December 26, 2009
KitMaker: 813 posts
Armorama: 240 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - 04:25 PM UTC
RobinNilsson
TOS Moderator
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - 04:30 PM UTC
That is one mean looking beast.
It looks as if it has been in service for many hard years
Good job on the weathering
It looks as if it has been in service for many hard years
Good job on the weathering
Nito74
Lisboa, Portugal
Joined: March 04, 2008
KitMaker: 5,386 posts
Armorama: 4,727 posts
Joined: March 04, 2008
KitMaker: 5,386 posts
Armorama: 4,727 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - 05:11 PM UTC
I agree Robin.
Very nice work Michael. Congrats
Very nice work Michael. Congrats
PliciPlici
Romania
Joined: February 20, 2018
KitMaker: 11 posts
Armorama: 7 posts
Joined: February 20, 2018
KitMaker: 11 posts
Armorama: 7 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - 05:51 PM UTC
Amazing!
ColinEdm
Associate Editor
Alberta, Canada
Joined: October 15, 2013
KitMaker: 1,355 posts
Armorama: 1,229 posts
Joined: October 15, 2013
KitMaker: 1,355 posts
Armorama: 1,229 posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 - 07:10 PM UTC
Beautiful work, what a monster!
sgtreef
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 - 04:00 AM UTC
That is a great looker, have the same idea for the T-34 I am doing, but don't think they survived that long.What is the barrel size 152MM? What year was this tank in service?
Cheers
Jeff
Cheers
Jeff
RobinNilsson
TOS Moderator
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 - 04:38 AM UTC
First question: 130 mm
Second question: Never, probably
"Object 260 IS-7
The IS-7 heavy tank was developed in 1948.[31][32] Weighing 68 tonnes, thickly armoured and armed with a 130 mm S-70 long-barrelled gun, it was the largest and heaviest member of the IS family.[33] The armour was engineered in a similar fashion to the IS-3, with a pike nose on the upper glacis. When shot at frontally, the extreme angle that the pike nose presents results in a much higher likelihood of a ricochet. Thus, the armour protection could be enhanced without having to use excessive amounts of materials. However, if the pike nose was shot at a sideways angle, it would not have a relative thickness high enough to ricochet the shell. In spite of its weight, it was easy to drive due to numerous hydraulic assists. The loaders noted that the IS-7 was comfortable and that the autoloader was easy to use. It was also able to achieve a top speed of 60 km/h thanks to a 1050-horsepower engine giving it a power to weight ratio of 15.4 hp/tonne, a ratio superior to most contemporary medium tanks. Its armour was not only immune to the Jagdtiger's 12.8 cm Pak 44 but was even proof to its own 130mm. Due to the reasons unknown, most likely because of the considerable issues arising from its mass (bridges, rail transport - no Soviet/Russian tank accepted into service afterwards exceeded 55 t), the tank never reached the production lines.[34][unreliable source?]"
"1946 prototype, only three built. The IS-7 model 1948 variant had a weight of 68 metric tons and it was armed with the 130 mm S-70 naval cannon (7020 mm long barrel). The automatic loader can achieve up to 8 rounds per minute. Other equipment included stabilizers, infrared night scopes, and 8 machine guns. The hull armor was 150 mm placed at 50-52 degree angles. On the turret, the frontal thickness was 240–350 mm at an angle of 45-0 degrees. The IS-7 had a crew of five, with the driver in the hull, the commander and gunner in the front of the turret, with both loaders in the rear of the turret. A Slostin machine gun was to be installed as its AA armament.[33][34]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS_tank_family
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/is-7-object-260
/ Robin
Second question: Never, probably
"Object 260 IS-7
The IS-7 heavy tank was developed in 1948.[31][32] Weighing 68 tonnes, thickly armoured and armed with a 130 mm S-70 long-barrelled gun, it was the largest and heaviest member of the IS family.[33] The armour was engineered in a similar fashion to the IS-3, with a pike nose on the upper glacis. When shot at frontally, the extreme angle that the pike nose presents results in a much higher likelihood of a ricochet. Thus, the armour protection could be enhanced without having to use excessive amounts of materials. However, if the pike nose was shot at a sideways angle, it would not have a relative thickness high enough to ricochet the shell. In spite of its weight, it was easy to drive due to numerous hydraulic assists. The loaders noted that the IS-7 was comfortable and that the autoloader was easy to use. It was also able to achieve a top speed of 60 km/h thanks to a 1050-horsepower engine giving it a power to weight ratio of 15.4 hp/tonne, a ratio superior to most contemporary medium tanks. Its armour was not only immune to the Jagdtiger's 12.8 cm Pak 44 but was even proof to its own 130mm. Due to the reasons unknown, most likely because of the considerable issues arising from its mass (bridges, rail transport - no Soviet/Russian tank accepted into service afterwards exceeded 55 t), the tank never reached the production lines.[34][unreliable source?]"
"1946 prototype, only three built. The IS-7 model 1948 variant had a weight of 68 metric tons and it was armed with the 130 mm S-70 naval cannon (7020 mm long barrel). The automatic loader can achieve up to 8 rounds per minute. Other equipment included stabilizers, infrared night scopes, and 8 machine guns. The hull armor was 150 mm placed at 50-52 degree angles. On the turret, the frontal thickness was 240–350 mm at an angle of 45-0 degrees. The IS-7 had a crew of five, with the driver in the hull, the commander and gunner in the front of the turret, with both loaders in the rear of the turret. A Slostin machine gun was to be installed as its AA armament.[33][34]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS_tank_family
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/is-7-object-260
/ Robin
Klaus-Adler
Campaigns Administrator
Scotland, United Kingdom
Joined: June 08, 2015
KitMaker: 1,505 posts
Armorama: 840 posts
Joined: June 08, 2015
KitMaker: 1,505 posts
Armorama: 840 posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 - 11:06 PM UTC
fantastic work you've done there, it looks amazing.
sgtreef
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 01, 2018 - 05:27 PM UTC
Quoted Text
First question: 130 mm
Second question: Never, probably
"Object 260 IS-7
The IS-7 heavy tank was developed in 1948.[31][32] Weighing 68 tonnes, thickly armoured and armed with a 130 mm S-70 long-barrelled gun, it was the largest and heaviest member of the IS family.[33] The armour was engineered in a similar fashion to the IS-3, with a pike nose on the upper glacis. When shot at frontally, the extreme angle that the pike nose presents results in a much higher likelihood of a ricochet. Thus, the armour protection could be enhanced without having to use excessive amounts of materials. However, if the pike nose was shot at a sideways angle, it would not have a relative thickness high enough to ricochet the shell. In spite of its weight, it was easy to drive due to numerous hydraulic assists. The loaders noted that the IS-7 was comfortable and that the autoloader was easy to use. It was also able to achieve a top speed of 60 km/h thanks to a 1050-horsepower engine giving it a power to weight ratio of 15.4 hp/tonne, a ratio superior to most contemporary medium tanks. Its armour was not only immune to the Jagdtiger's 12.8 cm Pak 44 but was even proof to its own 130mm. Due to the reasons unknown, most likely because of the considerable issues arising from its mass (bridges, rail transport - no Soviet/Russian tank accepted into service afterwards exceeded 55 t), the tank never reached the production lines.[34][unreliable source?]"
"1946 prototype, only three built. The IS-7 model 1948 variant had a weight of 68 metric tons and it was armed with the 130 mm S-70 naval cannon (7020 mm long barrel). The automatic loader can achieve up to 8 rounds per minute. Other equipment included stabilizers, infrared night scopes, and 8 machine guns. The hull armor was 150 mm placed at 50-52 degree angles. On the turret, the frontal thickness was 240–350 mm at an angle of 45-0 degrees. The IS-7 had a crew of five, with the driver in the hull, the commander and gunner in the front of the turret, with both loaders in the rear of the turret. A Slostin machine gun was to be installed as its AA armament.[33][34]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS_tank_family
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/USSR/is-7-object-260
/ Robin
Thanks for that Robin.
I thought never seen one.
Today even at 68 tons , be a smoking pile of rubble from an Apache, and would not even see where it came from.
I heard that the Germans at the end feared most were the Joseph Stalin 2's as few that were around.
RobinNilsson
TOS Moderator
Stockholm, Sweden
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 01, 2018 - 05:49 PM UTC
Every weapon and defense system has their own "time of relevance".
Take the medieval armoured knights as an example.
What use is frontal armour when the attack comes from above.
Soviet heavy artillery vs German heavy tanks: it didn't matter if 152 mm shells didn't penetrate, the blast took off the turrets and/or turned the whole tank upside down.
Could that have been a point to consider when the Soviets designed tanks later?
Everything would have been a lot simpler if the arms race had been stopped when the first cave man who attached a pointy rock to his club showed his weapon to the other clan members
Take the medieval armoured knights as an example.
What use is frontal armour when the attack comes from above.
Soviet heavy artillery vs German heavy tanks: it didn't matter if 152 mm shells didn't penetrate, the blast took off the turrets and/or turned the whole tank upside down.
Could that have been a point to consider when the Soviets designed tanks later?
Everything would have been a lot simpler if the arms race had been stopped when the first cave man who attached a pointy rock to his club showed his weapon to the other clan members
sgtreef
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Sunday, March 04, 2018 - 04:23 AM UTC
Good read there Robin,all makes sense.
Cheers
Jeff
Cheers
Jeff