IS-7 "Autoloader"
Дата: 20.12.2013 13:33:40
Vlevs, on 20 December 2013 - 12:04 PM, said: No denying that. One estimate I've seen is that IS-7
would've cost about five times as much as T-54 had it been taken
into production. In my previous post I contested that it would've
been obsolete in few years as TheFuzzyOne said. Just saying the
cost would've actually bought something useful - not more useful
than five T-54s, but still. Arguably, transporting and supplying
five compact MBTs is more demanding than one big heavy tank.
I don't see IS-7 as a folly on the level of Maus. Size-wise it's
quite comparable to Conqueror, which is big not cripplingly big,
never having heard it was a pain to get around in Western Europe. I
don't know much about 1950s infrastructure in East vs West Europe,
but I can suppose Red Army had a reason when they decided that
they're not interested in a tank of over 50 tons. This would imply
that Conqueror and M103 would've been a liability had NATO ever
decided to push into WP.TheKroo: I think the main reasons of IS-7 never going into
mass-production were its cost, the relative heaviness and thus
problematic with Soviet terrain and infrastructure, and the fact
that for the same amount of money, you could get a more numerous
amount of other tanks, in this case T-55 - which went down the wind
with old Soviet WWII doctrine of numbers and mass-production being
a key factor for the victory. Mass-production of IS-7 would
be far more difficult.
IS-7 "Autoloader"