The Heavy and Graceful (not to mention powerful) IS-7

[Results45 2,200]

Making one of the last Soviet heavy tanks - IC 7 - began in 1944. In the second half of the 44th design team under the leadership of ZY Kotin set out to sum up the experience gained in the combat operation of heavy tanks and to make on its basis a new armored vehicle. However, authorities did not share this enthusiasm: the People's Commissar for Tank Industry VA Malyshev did not support the idea. However Kotin was persistent and began to promote the idea through the head of the NKVD LP Beria. The People's Commissar of Internal Affairs interested in the proposal and has promoted the work top. Moreover, in the winter of the 45th it was deployed three projects, which ultimately led to the creation of the domestic heavy tank IS-7. According to Russian tradition, all new projects were named "object", but different numbers. These were 'Object 257 "," 258 "and" 259 ". Three different tank had both advantages and disadvantages. 

 

After the analysis and selection of projects created useful solutions best achievements were collected in the "Object 260", the development of which began in the summer of '45. Alternative names of the tank was the index JS-7 - this machine was designed to continue the line of heavy tanks, "Joseph Stalin." Using the experience of the recent war ended, the designers led Kotin able to perform all engineering work in a matter of months. Already on September 9 was approved by the full package of working drawings. Much credit for this belongs to the leading designer N. Shamshurin. In addition to the overall coordination of the project, he was one of the initiators of the highly specialized design teams; This approach has allowed to develop to carry out all the work in a relatively small period of time.In addition, the separation of the group helped create and put into the design of IP-7 series of interesting innovations not previously used in the Soviet tank building. 

The least was the original design of the armored corps. Rolled and cast armor plates welded into a single structure. Thus a number of armor plates installed under great angles up to 60 °. At the front and side armor thickness up to 150 mm angles promised significant improvement in the level of protection. The front of the tank, as in the previous heavy tanks, was made on a "pike nose", but, unlike other armored vehicles, was slightly smaller and not protruded. Tower "Object 260" is a further development of the unit to the tank IS-3. Cast tower had a thickness of 50 millimeters to 210 on the roof in the front part. It comes complete with a 350-millimeter gun mantlet. Within the scope of the reserved housed a crew of five. The jobs of four of them were placed in the fighting compartment and the tower. 

During the design of the engine-transmission group and the chassis was also used several of know-how, though not always clearly successful. For example, in the early stages of the project were invited to place inside the engine compartment additional tanks. Due to the tilt board sheets, there was formed no occupied volume which could not accommodate any aggregates. In this regard, the free space under the boards and in the sub pedestal employed fuel. But soon by tanks near the engine had to give up - even before the construction of the prototype revealed that the vibrations from the engine and transmission can break welds tanks and lead to fuel leakage. Under certain circumstances, it is threatened by fire. It is noteworthy that "Object 260" was still interesting innovation associated with the fuel system. The fact that it was the first domestic tank, which used soft fuel tanks. Due to the simplicity of manufacture of complex shape container, increased efficiency of distribution of internal volume and the total amount of diesel fuel has increased from 750 liters JS-3 to 1300 liters in EC-7. In addition, almost two-fold increase in reserve. 

 

As for the engine and transmission, their appearance was formed not at once. Initially, the project "260" once considered four options for configuration and layout of the engine-transmission group. As the diesel engine offers a capacity of 30 CN-1200 hp or two B-12 600 hp each. To interact with each engine offers two options for transmission. In the first case, it was the usual mechanical mechanisms, in the second - the electrical system. So, for the CN-30 engine was intended Spark of two generators of 323 kW each, and for the B-12 - two of 336 kW. Two traction motors in all versions with electric transmission were identical and had the equivalent power of 315 hp Regardless of the applicable transmission, powerful engines require a considerable amount. So much so that at the bottom of the tank is simply no room for torsion desired length. To maintain the required characteristics of the suspension in the first domestic practice were applied the so-calledtorsion beam. Instead of one long rod amortization carried a package of seven, had smaller linear dimensions and cross-section. This positive impact not only on the ride, but at the height of all armored vehicles. Another change in the habits of the original has been associated with road wheels. Unlike previous tank design bureau ZY Kotin, EC-7 was equipped with large-scale rollers that did not require the installation of additional supporting rollers - upper part of the tracks "running" on the right track rollers. It is worth noting the original design of caterpillars. Cast tracks new tracks had a rubber mount, which was due to significantly reduced wear on the tracks and noise while driving. Moreover, cheaper casting shoe pressing, though in that case additional processing required technological holes. Yet the cost of casting and "to file" were significantly less than previously. At the same time, before the launch of the prototype of the tank had to significantly revise an original idea to a cheaper production process does not interfere with the production of mass-produced armored vehicles. 

In early 1946, "Object 260" was significantly modified, but the name of the project remained unchanged, which sometimes causes confusion. The reason was a number of improvements identified deficiencies previously applied solutions as well as problems at subcontractors. Plant №77 could not bring to mind the Spark of the two 600-horsepower engines, which is why it was necessary to look for alternative solutions. Likewise was the case with the specialized tank diesel by 1200 horsepower. Because of such problems, the designers of the Leningrad Kirov factory urgently had to communicate with the plant №500, and in a short time to adapt to the diesel tank Aviation AH-300. Under the name TD-30, this motor has been installed on the first prototypes of IP-7. 

 

September 8, 1946 the first built "Object 260" updated draft was submitted to the test. By the end of that year, he had to pass on the polygon the order of thousands of kilometers. The maximum speed of 66-tonner on the highway more than 60 km / h. On the bumpy road of IP-7 accelerated to half speed. For heavy tank that was more than good. The original torsion bar suspension Beam also earned positive reviews. December 25 the 46th was sent to the landfill second prototype. A few months later, the workers LB collected two hulls designed for test firing. Metal hull and turret stood caliber shells falling all German anti-tank guns to 128 mm caliber. Also, tests were performed with the firing of the 130-mm gun S-70. The test report stating that hit have not affected the condition of the dog is inside the tanks target. Yet there is some doubt that the crew could stay calm and even operation after being hit by a 130-mm shell, even without penetration of armor. 

By the time when the first copies were going to "Object 260" Central Artillery Design Bureau in cooperation with Perm factory number 172 has developed and produced a trial batch of 130-millimeter tank guns C-26. The gun breech and removable slot muzzle brake provides 33-pound projectile speed at 900 meters per second. The laying of the tank shell was placed 31 separate loading. Wedges with a semi-automatic system of follower, and a mechanism chambering allowed to bring guns to the rate of 6-8 rounds per minute. However, for various reasons from the gun S-26 was soon abandoned. In 1946, in the same TsAKB led VGGrabina was created Tank Gun S-70 similar caliber. In the same year, three prototypes were collected guns and by 1948 th put a test batch of fifteen copies. Rifled gun C-70 had a higher performance than the C-26. For caliber armor-piercing shell left the barrel at a speed of 1030 m / s, allowing a distance of one kilometer to 280 millimeters punch homogeneous armor. Piercing projectiles, in turn, had a speed of 1800 m / s and at the same distance pierced 350-millimeter barrier. Inside recomposed under the C-70 crew compartment placed three dozen shells and cartridges. 

 

Beginning with the third copy of the EC-7, C-70 gun was his main weapon. Additional armament at this stage had a total solid number of guns: 14.5mm KPV and two 7.62 mm RP-46 were installed in the same package with gun and coaxial weapons played a role. Four RP-46 machine guns were placed at the sides of the hull and turret, two on the body intended for shooting forward, the other two on the tower - ago. Finally, the eighth gun (CPV) was placed on the tower and was used as an anti-aircraft. Subsequently, all variants of "Object 260" quantitative composition of guns will not change, although some machines are not installed RP-46, and SGMT. At the same time, the design of machine gun units were crude and required a lot of improvements. 

Before production test batch of four machines has undergone further changes powerplant. TD-30 diesel engine replaced the M-50T. This marine diesel engine has 12 cylinders and a maximum power of 1050 hp. Of course, it was less than that demanded doubles, but no choice - the creation of new engines was going very slowly and without much success. It is noteworthy that during the installation of the engine M-50T useful early developments on beam torsion: they can not take much to alter the internal volume of the engine compartment. 

During the 1948 workshop of the Leningrad Kirov factory came four new JS-7, C-70 guns. After some factory test their verifiers passed from the Ministry of Defence. E. Kulchytsky test, which has been entrusted to begin sea trials of new tanks, spoke very positively about the characteristics of "Object 260". According to him, even at the maximum speed of 60 kilometers per hour and heavy tank easy to listen to levers: "Machine completely obedient to the driver." Further runs under the control of the driver Kulchytsky E., and K. V. Lyashko Bucket fully confirmed all comments and helped to raise a number of important information regarding the recommended mode of operation.Trial shooting also took place, in general, successful. The problems began a little later.

 

First, during the shelling of the anti-tank weapon projectile ricocheted down from the board and into the fixing roller. He fell off and bounced on a decent distance.Obviously, like falling into a combat situation is very rare. But only some of those responsible speak maliciously started on "a colossus with feet of clay." Next unpleasant incident led to the loss of one of the prototypes. During the run of the polygon engine caught fire. Automatic fire extinguishing system twice served in the engine compartment quenching mixture to extinguish the fire but could not. Third operation (maximum stock - three portions of mixture) was not. The crew was forced to leave the tank and watch as it burns. When the fire investigation revealed that several fuel tanks tank prototype for weight savings were made of rubber, not metal. For this reason, the capacity to quickly burned and literally poured "oil" in the fire. 

And yet, it seems, are not these incidents caused the sad fate of the JS-7. Running and fighting characteristics "Object 260" were at least not lower than that of foreign armored cars of the same class. Recent prototypes of IP-7 weighed 68 tons, not much liked the military. Not every bridge of the Soviet Union could not withstand such a load. As a consequence, much worse mobility units armed with heavy tanks. The same problem arises with the transport by rail. Weight limit transport infrastructure subsequently affect the development of the entire domestic armored vehicles, primarily for heavy tanks. Admittedly, foreign tank builders too are faced with this problem. In 70 years of English and German designers have developed a promising tank MBT-80 and found a very interesting solution to the problems: 

As the design of "Chieftain". One of the most critical is the problem of mass. Specification General Staff limited the weight of the tank prospective value of 54.8 tons (weight of the tank, "Chieftain» Mk.5), but still in the design study of the project MW-80 British experts came to the conclusion that it is impossible to strengthen armor while maintaining the weight of the new tank level weight "Chieftain» Mk.5. Massa had increased to 60-62 tons, in this case, there is an opportunity to strengthen the book frontal part of the hull and turret, as well as the sides. 

Engineers MVEE as justification for the possibility of increasing the mass of the thesis put forward a slight difference between the 50- and 60-ton tanks. So, at equal power density and pressure on the soil mobility, average speed, throttle response and permeability will be about the same. One of the criteria that limit the weight of the tank, is a load of road bridges. The British conducted an analysis of the distribution in the European theater of engineering structures, limiting the mobility of the tank; it turned out that most of the bridges is designed for a load of 20 tons, that is, they will fail with the same success and a 50-ton tank, and a tank weighing 60 tons and bridges carrying capacity of 50 tons and 60 "smeared" across Europe roughly evenly. As a result of this kind of research and analysis was able to convince the military to raise the bar of the upper limit to the mass of the required 60 62t.

 

Some historians of tank noted that the military from the beginning belonged to the JS-7 with a certain degree of suspicion, and eventually skepticism only increased. Perhaps the reason for this was the failure of the heavy tank IS-4, which had an excellent book, but too much fighting weight and, as a consequence, poor permeability. Another interesting explanation of the refusal of adopting the "Object 260" refers to changes in views on future war. In the late forties and early fifties formed a point of view that the major wars in the near future will need a rapid and massive deployment of a large number of armored divisions. In addition, the nuclear attacks in the first hours of the war could easily knock out a third of all armored vehicles. Obviously, heavy maloprisposoblenny to traffic and road tank, with all its advantages, is not suitable for such conflicts. 

Finally, the production of a new heavy tank could seriously affect the pace of construction cultivated types. Leningrad and Chelyabinsk plants could not cope with this task, with no sacrifice. Therefore, the project "Object 260" was closed. Before our time the most difficult domestic tank lived in only one copy, which is exhibited in a museum in Kubinka tank. 

 

 

IS-7 Specs:

[spoiler]

EC-7. Pilot, manufactured in 1948. Mass - 68t., The crew - 5 people, length - 7380 mm, width - 3400 mm, height - 2480 mm. Armament - 130-mm gun (28 rounds ammunition), 12.7-mm coaxial machine gun with her, six 7.62 mm machine guns (four mounted in front, tracked shelves and sides of the tower, operated remotely), 12,7- mm anti-aircraft machine gun on the roof of the tower (in the stowed position formed in the left side). Reservation - forehead of the tower - 210 mm, forehead body - 150 mm. Engine power - 1050 hp, speed - 59 km / h, range - 300 km. Fig. Mikhail Petrovsky (Historical series "Technology-Youth" in 1990)

 

[/spoiler]

 

Real-life photographs of the IS-7:

[spoiler]

EC-7 on tests

The prototype in 1948 in the yard of the factory. On this machine, there are no guns in the stern of the tower and the anti-aircraft gun. Photo from the collection M.Kolomiytsa

The prototype in 1948 in the yard of the factory. On this machine, there are no guns in the stern of the tower and the anti-aircraft gun. Photo from the collection M.Kolomiytsa

 

A wooden model of the JS-7 in full size. 1946. Photo from the collection M.Kolomiytsa

The prototype in 1948 in the yard of the factory. On this machine, there are no guns in the stern of the tower and the anti-aircraft gun. Photo from the collection G.Petrova

 

 

Representatives GBTU and guide visiting Kirov plant prototype in 1946. Photo from the collection P.Lipatova

[/spoiler]

 

Diagrams of the IS-7 (top, side, front, and back):

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

 

Illustrations comparing IS-7 to the Tiger II & E-100:

[spoiler]

 

 

Fans compare - EC-7 (68 m., The crew - 5 people, height -2600 mm, 130-mm gun, 28 rounds ammunition, forehead body - 150 mm, forehead towers - 210mm) and the T-VIB (68 m., crew - 5 people, height - 3090 mm, 88-mm gun, ammunition shot 72, forehead body - 150 mm, the forehead of the tower - 180 mm) The drawings m.Petrovsko

 

Compare IS-7 and the German E-100

[/spoiler]

 

 

 

Primary source (Google translated): https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftopwar.ru%2Fprint%3Apage%2C1%2C18082-tyazhelee-nekuda-is-7.html&edit-text=&act=url

 

Original source: http://topwar.ru/18082-tyazhelee-nekuda-is-7.html

Edited March 3, 2016 by Results45

[Smin1080p_WT 60,444]

Open for discussion  :salute:​ 

[Results45 2,200]

Poll added.

[Nope 10,634]

No. Hell no. Not happening, ever. The thing's armor is 410mm LoS AT MINIMUM for the UFP. The LFP is also very strong. The sides are also the typical IS-3 style diamond shape with thicker armor. Its mobility is also almost equivalent to a T-54's. Never should this tank be in-game.

[*AceArchangel 909]

There should be a no option on all of the polls. It's a good suggestion, but way to over powered If this ever made it they would have to make the E-100 or other paper tanks a part of the typical tech tree.

[SmartSkull007 2,991]

If this is added, it needs an MM so it NEVER sees WW2 tanks, even the Maus and Jagdtiger (they'd need their experimental APDS to compete) shouldn't be able to see the IS-7. Good thing about the IS-7? No HEAT-FS so no immediate one shots.

[Nope 10,634]

If this is added, it needs an MM so it NEVER sees WW2 tanks, even the Maus and Jagdtiger (they'd need their experimental APDS to compete) shouldn't be able to see the IS-7. Good thing about the IS-7? No HEAT-FS so no immediate one shots.

 

I'm pretty sure HEAT-FS will also not bother it.

[Ruslan_DR 686]

I'mma say no.

 

why?

 

I'm beginning how to hate how the soviets get a new vehicle EVERY update and the Germans haven't seen one for what... 3? 

 

The Kjpz doesn't count because it's a POS.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Ruslan_DR

[SmartSkull007 2,991]

I'mma say no.

why?

I'm beginning how to hate how the soviets get a new vehicle EVERY update and the Germans haven't seen one for what... 3?

The Kjpz doesn't count because it's a POS.

HE 280, ME P.1110 (people can get information for it), VK 16.02 Leopard, Leopard 1A1 (confirmed it's coming), G.91 R-3, IAR 80/81, Laté 229, PanzerkapfWagen VK 30.02 D, Ta 183, etc. And that's off the top of my head.
The list is essentially endless, for both post war and during the war. USSR must have only a few things left right? Edited January 14, 2016 by Shatter12

[Z3r0_ 4,128]

While I can appreciate the effort put into this, I'll have to say "no".  This tank is just so stupidly broken it's not even funny - it's fast enough and has enough acceleration to keep up with medium tanks, it has an autoloading 130 mm main gun, and armor that is so thick that it's impervious to even its own gun, which iirc is SO powerful that in some ways it compares favorably to the 125 mm smoothbore guns on MODERN Russian MBTs (to the point where, iirc, they had considered fitting a 130 mm rifled gun onto a T-80U for testing).  Even in other respects, the IS-7 was so far ahead of its time that if one just fitted it with a modern FCS and some composite armor, it wouldn't be that out of place on a modern battlefield (to put this into perspective, a fully-loaded M1A2 Abrams weighs about as much as an IS-7 does, so logistical support for an IS-7 in a modern war would be quite possible, if not necessarily feasible given Russia's established doctrine of limiting the weight of their armored vehicles).

 

No, the T-10M is good enough for an end-tier heavy tank on the Soviet tree, and don't get me wrong, I really do like the IS-7 (it and the Object 279 are probably tied for my favorite tanks of all time as a matter of fact, though the Tiger II isn't far behind) but alas I just can't in good conscience support this.  Sorry.  :(s

Edited January 14, 2016 by Z3r0_

[Nope 10,634]

While I can appreciate the effort put into this, I'll have to say "no".  This tank is just so stupidly broken it's not even funny - it's fast enough and has enough acceleration to keep up with medium tanks, it has an autoloading 130 mm main gun, and armor that is so thick that it's impervious to even its own gun, which iirc is SO powerful that in some ways it compares favorably to the 125 mm smoothbore guns on MODERN Russian MBTs (to the point where, iirc, they had considered fitting a 130 mm rifled gun onto a T-80U for testing).  Even in other respects, the IS-7 was so far ahead of its time that if one just fitted it with a modern FCS and some composite armor, it wouldn't be that out of place on a modern battlefield (to put this into perspective, a fully-loaded M1A2 Abrams weighs about as much as an IS-7 does, so logistical support for an IS-7 in a modern war would be quite possible, if not necessarily feasible given Russia's established doctrine of limiting the weight of their armored vehicles).

 

No, the T-10M is good enough for an end-tier heavy tank on the Soviet tree, and don't get me wrong, I really do like the IS-7 (it and the Object 279 are probably tied for my favorite tanks of all time as a matter of fact, though the Tiger II isn't far behind) but alas I just can't in good conscience support this.  Sorry.  :(s

 

The IS-7's gun isn't that powerful. Not to mention that 410mm LoS is literally nothing on a modern battlefield given that 550-600mm penetration at muzzle is considered a bit low.

[Panzerzwerg 2,682]

It would literally break the last bits of balance we have in game. The T-10M is enough, by far!

IMO, Gaijin should focus on fixing bugs, improving sounds, gameplay and animations, improve the Damage model and Fragmentation mechanics,
It would literally break the last bits of balance we have in game. The T-10M is enough, by far!

IMO, Gaijin should focus on fixing bugs, improving sounds, gameplay and animations, improve the Damage model and Fragmentation mechanics,

[teo_storm1 640]

Another IS-7 suggestion, alright, this tank works in WoT because of how that game works and how it's balanced there by the things it faces and how they do their numbers. In WT however it'd be OP unless it was facing Leopards with APFSDS that would eventually ignore the effect of the slope (tho this is already late 1970's), until then it'd be impenetrable by just about everything from the front, and you wouldn't often get the side anyway because of its mobility. So, no, again. 

[igeticsu 3,400]

Hhahahah no. no more soviet top tier tanks untill the other nations gets some sort of balance!

[Dinobubba7 4,062]

Seems very interesting, for the moment I like it so

+1

[Ruslan_DR 686]

HE 280, ME P.1110 (people can get information for it), VK 16.02 Leopard, Leopard 1A1 (confirmed it's coming), G.91 R-3, IAR 80/81, Laté 229, PanzerkapfWagen VK 30.02 D, Ta 183, etc. And that's off the top of my head.
The list is essentially endless, for both post war and during the war. USSR must have only a few things left right?

 

That's why I'm very annoyed by all this. I mean come the hell on, you know they're doing it because of the xxxxx-y soviet fanbase, When they run out of vehicles they'll start putting in things like paper tanks, and then the game's going to go STRAIGHT to the drain because we'll only just have our vehicles by then. 

 

Seriously, enough russian tanks for now. Make an update focusing on USA and GER only, next. The brits just got one- but knowing Gaijin they'll just pile on one or two more vehicles for the brits instead of helping us out. We've got so many good, fair vehicles we could use that people complain about as "too op" only because German players can generally kick ****, you only play the nation if you're REALLY good. So, when we're given good vehicles, we'd basically wipe the floor in every match. So, they nerf us.

 

That's just the way things are it seems.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Ruslan_DR

[Dinobubba7 4,062]

That's why I'm very annoyed by all this. I mean come the hell on, you know they're doing it because of the xxxxx-y soviet fanbase, When they run out of vehicles they'll start putting in things like paper tanks, and then the game's going to go STRAIGHT to the drain because we'll only just have our vehicles by then. 

 

Seriously, enough russian tanks for now. Make an update focusing on USA and GER only, next. The brits just got one- but knowing Gaijin they'll just pile on one or two more vehicles for the brits instead of helping us out. We've got so many good, fair vehicles we could use that people complain about as "too op" only because German players can generally kick ****, you only play the nation if you're REALLY good. So, when we're given good vehicles, we'd basically wipe the floor in every match. So, they nerf us.

 

That's just the way things are it seems.

 

That's why I'm very annoyed by all this. I mean come the hell on, you know they're doing it because of the xxxxx-y soviet fanbase, When they run out of vehicles they'll start putting in things like paper tanks, and then the game's going to go STRAIGHT to the drain because we'll only just have our vehicles by then. 

 

Seriously, enough russian tanks for now. Make an update focusing on USA and GER only, next. The brits just got one- but knowing Gaijin they'll just pile on one or two more vehicles for the brits instead of helping us out. We've got so many good, fair vehicles we could use that people complain about as "too op" only because German players can generally kick ****, you only play the nation if you're REALLY good. So, when we're given good vehicles, we'd basically wipe the floor in every match. So, they nerf us.

 

That's just the way things are it seems.

True, all we know is that US and Germany is getting a huge amount of tanks next, I know the USSR is still getting the T-62

[Ruslan_DR 686]

True, all we know is that US and Germany is getting a huge amount of tanks next, I know the USSR is still getting the T-62

 

Good, i'd be happy with at least SOMETHING.

 

even if they're shit at least we'll have the numbers then. 

 

I do hope we get something better than generic leo spam or lend-lease vehicles.

[Nope 10,634]

Another IS-7 suggestion, alright, this tank works in WoT because of how that game works and how it's balanced there by the things it faces and how they do their numbers. In WT however it'd be OP unless it was facing Leopards with APFSDS that would eventually ignore the effect of the slope (tho this is already late 1970's), until then it'd be impenetrable by just about everything from the front, and you wouldn't often get the side anyway because of its mobility. So, no, again. 

 

Fun fact: even WG regrets implementing the IS-7.

 

Good, i'd be happy with at least SOMETHING.

 

even if they're **** at least we'll have the numbers then. 

 

I do hope we get something better than generic leo spam or lend-lease vehicles.

 

Well West Germany didn't really invent much. How about an Indien Panzer?

 

 

Yeah, this should be a change from Leopards. However, this will not be a counter to T-62s. The only other thing is the 90mm Leopard 1, but that's already been passed on to the devs. There's also Porsche's version of the Europanzer, but this is a predecessor of both the AMX-30 and Leopard 1.

 

Not anyone's fault that the Germans simply didn't have that many projects that fit the bill here. That is, unless we're going into composites, and no one wants to go there. It's just so messed up there.

[MoldyThesaurus 680]

I would have no problem adding this tank into the game but the Germans, British, and Americans will need tanks to counter this or tanks that can put up a fight against it.  If Gaijin does fully plan on putting this tank in the game, I will support it only if there are tank counters.

[SGT_Schultz 16]

No -1

[StahlJaeger117 73]

I am all for it, as long as the Germans get this.

[StahlJaeger117 73]

Raketenjagdpanzer 1 This would work Too.

 

It entered service in 1961.

Edited January 15, 2016 by StahlJaeger117

[Results45 2,200]

I am all for it, as long as the Germans get this.

 

 

Hell no, not the Leopard 2!!!

 

It was first delivered in 1978, has an FCS even more advanced than the Leo 1A5/1A6 (likely even better than the M60A3, Chieftain Mk. 5, and AMX-30B as well), and is still being used today by its home-nation -- which makes it an automatic no-no. 

 

 

Raketenjagdpanzer 1 This would work Too.

 

It entered service in 1961.

 

 

This^^ maybe both Rktjpz 1 & 2 (1961 and 1967 respectively) -- as 1st Gen missiles might make it in-game once the devs run out of ideas (maybe in 5 years or so). 

 

Examples:

--- JB-3, Firebird, GAR-1, 

--- 9K11 Mlyutka, 

--- SS. 11,

--- Kramer/Ruhrstal X-4.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Results45

[SMS_Elbing 7,052]

HE 280, ME P.1110 (people can get information for it), VK 16.02 Leopard, Leopard 1A1 (confirmed it's coming), G.91 R-3, IAR 80/81, Laté 229, PanzerkapfWagen VK 30.02 D, Ta 183, etc. And that's off the top of my head.
The list is essentially endless, for both post war and during the war. USSR must have only a few things left right?

ta-183 is paper



and no this is the LAST thing we need