Help on Tele2, tariffs, questions

Soviet researchable heavy tank of the eighth level of World of Tanks - IS 3. According to its tactical and technical parameters, the IS-3 is considered a heavy breakthrough tank.

For a more in-depth understanding of the Soviet heavy aircraft IS-3, it is necessary to fully analyze all the capabilities. IS 3 has good dynamics for a heavy weapon, devastating damage per shot - 390 units, excellent armor and shielded sides.

These features allow you to feel comfortable in any situation on the battlefield. Depending on the position in the team's list, the tank can be used in different ways. With classmates - the IS-3 can break through the direction, confidently taking out damage.

With high-level opponents, the tank can support the attack of teammates. In addition, the heavy can quickly change flanks, performing the function of a medium tank.

Of course, even the famous “pike nose”, which is the hallmark of the third IS, is not without its drawbacks. When placed in a diamond shape, the risk of breaking through the VLD increases. In addition, criticism is caused by the safety margin, the small viewing radius - 350 meters and weak vertical pointing angles of the gun.

The crew of the IS 3 tank consists of 4 people. The choice of pumpable perks for the IS-3 is typical for any heavy tank in the game. For personal skills, you can use the following set:

Sixth Sense is a must-have skill for a commander.
“Smooth rotation of the turret” - useful for the gunner.
“The King of Off-Roads” will help the driver-mechanic.
“Non-contact ammo rack” is ideal for the loader.

Among the required perks, the following skills are pumped out: “Repair Speed”, “Combat Brotherhood”, “Disguise”. Please note that the choice of skills should be a recommendation.

For example, instead of “Disguise” for a driver, you can pump out the “Off-Road King” perk. This will make the tank more visible, but will increase its cross-country ability on difficult soils.

To hide the shortcomings of the machine, it is necessary to choose the right additional equipment. The main task of IS-3 players is to maximize the damage dealt, which, by the way, is 390 units per shot.

In addition, we must not forget about mediocre accuracy, not the best convergence and stabilization times. Therefore, the optimal set of modules will look like this:

• Rammer.
• Ventilation.
• Stabilization of vertical guidance.

It should be clarified that some players prefer to use strengthening the aiming drives, reducing aiming time, against improving all the characteristics of the vehicle. However, such a choice is often unjustified.

The fact is that ventilation gives an additional bonus to all characteristics, including convergence speed. If you level up the “Combat Brotherhood” skill for all crew members, you get a full-fledged bonus, equivalent to using an additional ration. In addition, this reduces the reload time of the gun, which allows you to feel confident in close combat.

Equipment selection

Here, too, everything looks pretty standard for this class of equipment. In particular, the choice for the IS-3 will be as follows:

1. Fire extinguisher (manual).
2. Repair kit (small).
3. First aid kit (small).

Instead of a fire extinguisher, you can opt for an additional ration to get an additional bonus to the tankers’ skills.

The most important question for beginners is where is the easiest way to break through IS 3 in battle. Everything is very simple, a pike nose can easily be penetrated if you know the penetration values ​​of your weapon; the image below shows a detailed designation of the penetration zones of IS 3.

Main places, lower armor plate, shooting in the VLD is advisable only if penetration is more than 205 mm. And the main thing is not to get into the fixed caterpillar track, because it adds 20 mm of armor.

How to play on IS 3

To determine combat tactics on the IS 3, you should start with the fact that the machine is very easy to master even for inexperienced players. In addition, let’s not forget that the “troika” is a first-line vehicle, so there is no need to shoot damage at someone else’s light while hiding in the green.

The tank should be in front, making maximum use of the power of its gun. At the same time, it’s clearly not worth throwing yourself into a pile of enemies in splendid isolation: fireflies and sts will easily “peck” any heavy enemy. In addition, the low accuracy and long aiming times characteristic of the “Soviets” are not conducive to firefights at a distance. Therefore, the ideal conditions for the IS-3 are city maps.

To fully enjoy the high potential of a vehicle, you need to learn how to play armor wisely: stay in cover, substitute a turret, and tank with side screens. By the way, the screens absorb hits not only from classmates, but also from high-level opponents.

If there is a need to leave cover, you should not drive out in a diamond pattern, hoping for a rebound. In this position, the VLD becomes flat, so if it hits, there is guaranteed to be a penetration.

The IS-3 is one of the few tanks in the game that catches ricochets at right angles: the “pike nose” fulfills its function. At the same time, do not forget about dancing: tilting the body from side to side at angles of 5-10 degrees. This technique makes it difficult to target weak points, increases the likelihood of non-penetration and gives time to reload the weapon.

The IS-3 feels good in the clinch, but only with opponents of equal silhouette. When approaching tall vehicles, the IS exposes the roof of the turret, which has only 20 mm of armor. Always remember one important nuance: any tank tanks well with a full safety margin. Therefore, sitting out in the bushes in such a car with 100% health would be simply the height of madness.

IS 3 video

A Soviet heavy tank from the Great Patriotic War, which was put into mass production in its last days and did not have time to take part in it. Therefore, this combat vehicle is often considered one of the first post-war Soviet tanks. The abbreviation IS means “Joseph Stalin” - the official name of the series of Soviet heavy tanks produced in 1943-1953. Index 3 corresponds to the third production model of the tank of this family. Due to the characteristic shape of the upper frontal part of the hull, it received the nickname “Pike”.

History of creation

The design of a new heavy tank, codenamed Kirovets-1, began in the late summer of 1944. The first experimental batch of IS-3 heavy tanks left the factory floor in May 1945. The gun was equipped with a two-chamber muzzle brake and a horizontal wedge breech with semi-automatic mechanical type. Rate of fire 2-3 rounds/min. The gun's ammunition consisted of 28 separately loaded rounds, including 18 with high-explosive fragmentation shells and 10 with armor-piercing shells. An anti-aircraft 12.7-mm DShK machine gun was equipped on the turret roof. Power reserve - 340 km. The IS-3 tank continued to remain in mass production until mid-1946 (in 1945, for some time, together with the IS-2). The IS-3 entered service with the heavy self-propelled tank regiments of the Soviet Army.

When creating the project for the IS-3 tank, the conclusions of the commission were taken into account, which examined combat damage received by tanks during the Battle of Kursk in front-line conditions. The massive damage to the frontal elements of the hull and turret was noteworthy. Therefore, it was decided to create a new design for the turret and hull on the basis of the IS-2 tank to give them a streamlined shape and sharply differentiate the armor protection. As a result of the design work, the inclination of the welded sheets, especially in the front part of the hull, was brought to the maximum possible. Thick 110-mm plates of frontal armor were placed in such a way that a three-slope, cone-shaped, elongated forward bow was formed, called the “pike nose.” A hatch was equipped in the roof above the driver, which was not the case in the IS-1 and IS-2 tanks. There was no longer a need for a through viewing slit in the frontal armor in front of the driver - it was replaced by periscope viewing devices. New structural forms of armor provided better protection against projectiles. The new, flattened turret design was subsequently used in both the IS-7 and T-10, and also provided significantly better projectile resistance compared to previous versions of the turrets equipped on Soviet tanks.

Description of design

The IS-3 had a classic layout, with the engine and transmission compartment located in the rear, the control compartment in the front, and the combat compartment in the middle. The tank's crew consisted of four people: a driver, a gunner, a loader and a commander.

Armored hull and turret

The IS-3 had very powerful and highly differentiated armor protection for its time, specifically designed primarily to protect against the fire of the most powerful modern tank and anti-tank guns in the frontal plane and from the fire of most tank and anti-tank guns - primarily from German 88- mm rifled tank guns 8.8 cm KwK 43 and 7.5 cm KwK 42 and at the same time providing virtually absolute protection from the most common towed 75 mm anti-tank guns 7.5 cm Pak 40.

The armored hull of the tank was mounted by welding from rolled sheets of homogeneous armor steel with a thickness of 20, 30, 60, 90 and 110 mm. The frontal armor of the tank was made of armor plates 110 mm thick according to the pattern known as the “pike nose”, and consisted of two left and right upper plates that converged like a wedge, placed at an angle of 56 degrees. to the vertical and with a turn of 43 degrees, the bottom plate, placed at an angle of 63 degrees, and the roof of the control compartment, placed at an angle of 73 degrees. The sides of the hull consisted of two armor plates 90 mm thick: the top, located at an angle of 60 degrees. and forming a side niche, and a vertical bottom one. In addition, the upper part of the sides was covered with 30-mm screens placed at an angle of 30 degrees, along with unarmored fenders, which formed additional side niches, accessible from outside the tank. The rear part was mounted from 60-mm armor plates: the lower one, located at an angle of 41 degrees, and several upper ones, which had an inclination of 48 degrees. The roof of the hull was made of several 20-mm armor plates. The bottom of the hull, flat in the area of ​​the transmission compartment and “trough-shaped” in the rest of the hull, was stamped and also made of 20-mm armor plate.

The IS-3 turret was a one-piece shaped casting made of homogeneous armor steel and had a nearly flattened hemispherical shape, teardrop-shaped in plan. The thickness of the turret walls at the sides and rear ranged from 220 mm at the bottom to 110 mm at the top, while in the frontal part it reached 255 mm. In general, the tilt angles, ranging from 8 to 35 degrees, were selected in such a way that at any point of the tower walls their horizontal thickness was at least 160 mm. The front part of the turret was equipped with embrasures for a gun and a coaxial machine gun, covered by a cast armored mask attached to the gun barrel, the thickness of which reached 250 mm.

Armament

The main armament of the IS-3 was a 122-mm rifled tank gun D-25T model 1943, which had a barrel length of 48 calibers / 5852 mm and an initial armor-piercing projectile speed of 800 m/s. The D-25T gun had a horizontal wedge breech with semi-automatic mechanical type, electromagnetic and mechanical triggers. The gun's recoil devices consisted of a hydraulic recoil brake and a hydropneumatic knurler, located above the gun barrel on the left and right, respectively. The gun was mounted in the front part of the turret on axles in a coaxial installation with a machine gun, which allowed it to be aimed in a vertical plane using a sector-type mechanism in the range from -3 to +20 degrees.

The twin installation was aimed at the target using a telescopic articulated sight TSh-17, which had a magnification of 4x and a field of view of 15 degrees. In addition, for firing from closed positions, the gun was equipped with a side level and an azimuth indicator.

The gun's ammunition consisted of 28 rounds of separate-case loading with armor-piercing and high-explosive fragmentation cannon steel long grenades. 25 shells were located in trays along the sides of the turret, another 3 were on stands in the fighting compartment. Of the cartridges, 6 were located in stowages on both sides of the driver, 4 were placed on the upper sheets of the hull fender liners, 5 were placed in stowage on the floor of the fighting compartment, the rest were located in clamp stowages: two - on the partition of the engine compartment and another one - on the starboard side housings. Since high-explosive fragmentation shells were large in size, only armor-piercing shells could be placed in 11 of the ammunition stowage locations.

The mount paired with the cannon contained a 7.62 mm DTM machine gun. The machine gun's ammunition capacity was 2,000 rounds: 1,200 with a light bullet, 200 with an armor-piercing incendiary bullet, and 600 with a tracer. Of these, 756 rounds were in 12 disc magazines of 63 rounds each, the remaining 1244 were stored in standard closures, not loaded into magazines.

On the roof of the turret, on a ring turret, there was a 12.7-mm anti-aircraft heavy-caliber machine gun DShK or DShKM, which had all-round fire at vertical angles from -4 to +84 degrees. The machine gun was equipped with a K-8T collimator sight, designed for fire against air targets moving at speeds of up to 400 km/h at an altitude of up to 400 m. The machine gun could also be used to fire at ground targets, but its use was fraught with great risk for the shooter, who had to lean out of the hatch to his waist to do this from under the protection of armor. In the stowed position, the machine gun was removed from the turret and secured on the right side of the turret. The machine gun's ammunition capacity was 300 rounds in 6 belts of 50 each. Of this number, 225 rounds were equipped with B-32 armor-piercing incendiary bullets, and 75 with BZT armor-piercing incendiary tracer bullets. Also in the crew compartment there were 25 defensive F-1 grenades or offensive RG-42 grenades and two 7.62 mm PPS-43 submachine guns and 1000 rounds of ammunition for them.

Surveillance and communications equipment

In non-combat conditions, the driver observed the terrain from his hatch, but in combat he used the MK-4 periscope viewing device - a copy of the British Mk.IV, providing all-round visibility. The device was made easily removable and had to be removed before opening the driver's hatch cover. Tanks upgraded to the IS-3M standard also had the TVN-1 passive night vision device, which could be mounted in place of the MK-4 or on a separate rack when driving with the hatch open. The driver's viewing instrument has also been redesigned, eliminating unnecessary all-round visibility from the driver's seat. The tank commander, gunner and loader also each had one MK-4 device, which was located on the roof of the turret. When upgrading to the IS-3M standard, the commander's MK-4 was replaced by the TPK-1 binocular device, which was more suitable for this purpose, providing 1x or 5x magnification.

For external communications, the IS-3 had a simplex telephone-telegraph radio station 10RK-26, located in the tank turret to the left of the gun and equipped with a whip antenna 1 to 4 m long. 10RK-26 provided telephone communications at a range of up to 35-40 km from a standstill and 20-25 km while moving. For internal communication, the tank was equipped with a TPU-4-bis-F telephone tank intercom for all crew members, connected to a radio station.

Engine and transmission

The IS-3 was equipped with a V-shaped 12-cylinder four-stroke liquid-cooled diesel engine model B-11, which developed a power of 520 hp. With. The engine power system included four fuel tanks with a total capacity of 425 liters, located in the engine compartment on the sides of the engine and in the internal fender niches, as well as four external cylindrical fuel tanks located on the roof of the engine compartment, with a capacity of 90 liters of fuel. The engine cooling system consisted of two plate-tubular radiators placed in a semicircle above the main clutch, on the shaft of which fans were mounted. To facilitate starting in the cold season, the engine was equipped with a heating device.

The IS-3 transmission included:

Multi-disc main dry friction clutch (steel on ferodo) with servo drive;
-mechanical four-way four-speed gearbox with reduction gear;
- two onboard turning mechanisms, consisting of a planetary gear set, stopping drums, a multi-disc dry friction clutch (steel on steel) and a band brake;
-two planetary final drives.

Chassis

The IS-3 chassis on each side consisted of a drive wheel, an idler, six twin cast non-rubberized support rollers with a diameter of 550 mm and three twin rubber-coated cast support rollers with a diameter of 385 mm. The suspension of the road wheels is individual, torsion bar, without shock absorbers.

IS-3 caterpillar - 650 mm wide, steel, fine-linked, pinion gear, with an open metal hinge. The caterpillar of each side consisted of 86 tracks, at first - of 43 ridge and 43 flat, but since 1947, tank tracks began to be assembled only from ridge tracks.

Modifications

IS-3M - a modernized version of the IS-3.
-IS-3K - command version of the IS-3 tank, equipped with an additional R-112 radio station and an AB-1-P/30 charger.
-IS-3MK - command version of the IS-3M tank with the same equipment as on the IS-3K.

Vehicles based on IS-3

-ISU-152 model 1945 (Object 704; not to be confused with ISU-152 model 1944, designed on the basis of IS-2)

An experienced self-propelled gun, with a 152-mm howitzer-cannon ML-20SM as the main weapon. 1 prototype produced.

-Object 757

Soviet experimental heavy missile tank

Operating countries

USSR
-Egypt - 50 IS-3 units were supplied from the USSR in the period from 1955 to 1956, 60 IS-3M units were supplied from the USSR in the period from 1962 to 1967
-Israel - captured Egyptian
-Iraq - 25 IS-3 units delivered from the USSR between 1959 and 1961
-PRC - 200 IS-3 units delivered from the USSR between 1955 and 1958
-DPRK
-Poland - 2 tanks
-Syria - 35 IS-3 units delivered from the USSR between 1959 and 1960
-Czechoslovakia - 1 tank

TTX

Classification: heavy breakthrough tank
-Combat weight, t: 46.5
-Layout diagram: classic
-Crew, people: 4

Dimensions

Case length, mm: 6900
-Length with gun forward, mm: 9850
-Case width, mm: 3150
-Height, mm: 2450
-Clearance, mm: 465

Booking

Armor type: cast and rolled steel
-Body forehead (top), mm/deg.: 110 / 72 deg.
-Hull forehead (middle), mm/deg.: 110 / 55 deg.+43 deg. (Double tilt)
-Body forehead (bottom), mm/deg.: 110 / 63 deg.
- Hull side (top), mm/deg.: 90 / 60 deg. +30 / 30 deg.
-Hull side (bottom), mm/deg.: 90 / 0..60 deg.
-Hull stern (top), mm/deg.: 60 / 48 deg.
-Hull stern (bottom), mm/deg.: 60 / 41 deg.
-Bottom, mm: 20
- Housing roof, mm: 20
-Tower forehead, mm/deg.: 110
-Gun mask, mm/deg.: 250
-Tower side, mm/deg.: 110…220 / 0…60 deg.
- Tower feed, mm/deg.: 110…220 / 0…60 deg.
-Tower roof, mm: 20 / 82…90 degrees.

Armament

Caliber and brand of gun: 122 mm D-25T mod. 1943
-Gun type: rifled gun
-Barrel length, calibers: 48
-Cannon ammunition: 28
-Sights: telescopic articulated TSh-17, Hertz panorama, side level
-Machine guns: 1 x 12.7 mm DShK, 1 x 7.62 mm DTM

Mobility

Engine: Brand: V-11-IS3; Type: diesel; Volume: 38,880 cc; Maximum power: 520 hp; Configuration: V12; Cylinders: 12; Fuel consumption in the urban cycle: 165-180 l. l/100 km; Cylinder diameter: 150 mm; Piston stroke: left group - 180, right group - 186.7 mm; Compression ratio: 14-15; Cooling: liquid; Clock (number of clock cycles): 4; Recommended fuel: diesel fuel (summer and winter).
-Highway speed, km/h: 40
-Speed ​​over rough terrain, km/h: 17
-Highway range, km: 185
-Specific power, l. s./t: 11.2
-Suspension type: individual torsion bar
-Specific pressure on the ground, kg/sq.cm: 0.87
- Climbability, degrees: 32 degrees.
-Overcome wall, m: 1.0
-Ditch to be overcome, m: 2.5
-Fordability, m: 1.4

Modern battle tanks of Russia and the world photos, videos, pictures watch online. This article gives an idea of ​​the modern tank fleet. It is based on the principle of classification used in the most authoritative reference book to date, but in a slightly modified and improved form. And if the latter in its original form can still be found in the armies of a number of countries, then others have already become museum pieces. And just for 10 years! The authors considered it unfair to follow in the footsteps of the Jane’s reference book and not consider this combat vehicle (very interesting in design and fiercely discussed in its time), which formed the basis of the tank fleet of the last quarter of the 20th century.

Films about tanks where there is still no alternative to this type of weapon for the ground forces. The tank was and will probably remain a modern weapon for a long time due to its ability to combine such seemingly contradictory qualities as high mobility, powerful weapons and reliable crew protection. These unique qualities of tanks continue to be constantly improved, and the experience and technology accumulated over decades predetermine new frontiers in combat properties and achievements of the military-technical level. In the eternal confrontation between “projectile and armor”, as practice shows, protection against projectiles is increasingly being improved, acquiring new qualities: activity, multi-layeredness, self-defense. At the same time, the projectile becomes more accurate and powerful.

Russian tanks are specific in that they allow you to destroy the enemy from a safe distance, have the ability to make quick maneuvers on off-road, contaminated terrain, can “walk” through territory occupied by the enemy, seize a decisive bridgehead, cause panic in the rear and suppress the enemy with fire and tracks . The war of 1939-1945 became the most difficult test for all humanity, since almost all countries of the world were involved in it. It was a clash of the titans - the most unique period that theorists debated in the early 1930s and during which tanks were used in large numbers by almost all belligerents. At this time, a “lice test” and a deep reform of the first theories of the use of tank forces took place. And it is the Soviet tank forces that are most affected by all this.

Tanks in battle have become a symbol of the past war, the backbone of the Soviet armored forces? Who created them and under what conditions? How did the USSR, which had lost most of its European territories and had difficulty recruiting tanks for the defense of Moscow, was able to release powerful tank formations onto the battlefields already in 1943? This book is intended to answer these questions, telling about the development of Soviet tanks “during the testing days ", from 1937 to the beginning of 1943. When writing the book, materials from Russian archives and private collections of tank builders were used. There was a period in our history that remained in my memory with some kind of depressing feeling. It began with the return of our first military advisers from Spain, and only stopped at the beginning of forty-three,” said former general designer of self-propelled guns L. Gorlitsky, “some kind of pre-storm state was felt.

Tanks of the Second World War It was M. Koshkin, almost underground (but, of course, with the support of “the wisest of the wise leaders of all nations”), who was able to create the tank that a few years later would shock the German tank generals. And not only that, he not only created it, the designer managed to prove to these military fools that it was his T-34 that they needed, and not just another wheeled-tracked "motor vehicle." The author is in slightly different positions, which formed in him after meeting the pre-war documents of the RGVA and RGEA. Therefore, working on this segment of the history of the Soviet tank, the author will inevitably contradict something “generally accepted.” This work describes the history of Soviet tank building in the most difficult years - from the beginning of a radical restructuring of the entire activity of design bureaus and people's commissariats in general. during the frantic race to equip new tank formations of the Red Army, transfer industry to wartime rails and evacuation.

Tanks Wikipedia, the author would like to express his special gratitude to M. Kolomiets for his assistance in selecting and processing materials, and also thank A. Solyankin, I. Zheltov and M. Pavlov, the authors of the reference publication “Domestic armored vehicles. XX century. 1905 - 1941” , since this book helped to understand the fate of some projects that was previously unclear. I would also like to remember with gratitude those conversations with Lev Izraelevich Gorlitsky, the former chief designer of UZTM, which helped to take a fresh look at the entire history of the Soviet tank during the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union. For some reason today it is common for us to talk about 1937-1938. only from the point of view of repression, but few people remember that it was during this period that those tanks were born that became legends of the wartime...” From the memoirs of L.I. Gorlinky.

Soviet tanks, a detailed assessment of them at that time was heard from many lips. Many old people recalled that it was from the events in Spain that it became clear to everyone that the war was getting closer and closer to the threshold and it was Hitler who would have to fight. In 1937, mass purges and repressions began in the USSR, and against the backdrop of these difficult events, the Soviet tank began to transform from “mechanized cavalry” (in which one of its combat qualities was emphasized at the expense of others) into a balanced combat vehicle, simultaneously possessing powerful weapons, sufficient to suppress most targets, good maneuverability and mobility with armor protection capable of maintaining its combat effectiveness when fired upon by the most massive anti-tank weapons of a potential enemy.

It was recommended that large tanks be supplemented with only special tanks - amphibious tanks, chemical tanks. The brigade now had 4 separate battalions of 54 tanks each and was strengthened by moving from three-tank platoons to five-tank ones. In addition, D. Pavlov justified the refusal to form three additional mechanized corps in addition to the four existing mechanized corps in 1938, believing that these formations were immobile and difficult to control, and most importantly, they required a different rear organization. The tactical and technical requirements for promising tanks, as expected, were adjusted. In particular, in a letter dated December 23 to the head of the design bureau of plant No. 185 named after. CM. Kirov, the new boss demanded that the armor of the new tanks be strengthened so that at a distance of 600-800 meters (effective range).

The newest tanks in the world, when designing new tanks, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of increasing the level of armor protection during modernization by at least one stage...” This problem could be solved in two ways: Firstly, by increasing the thickness of the armor plates and, secondly, by “using increased armor resistance." It is not difficult to guess that the second way was considered more promising, since the use of specially strengthened armor plates, or even two-layer armor, could, while maintaining the same thickness (and the mass of the tank as a whole), increase its durability by 1.2-1.5 times. It was this path (the use of especially hardened armor) that was chosen at that moment to create new types of tanks.

Tanks of the USSR at the dawn of tank production, armor was most widely used, the properties of which were identical in all areas. Such armor was called homogeneous (homogeneous), and from the very beginning of armor making, craftsmen sought to create just such armor, because homogeneity ensured stability of characteristics and simplified processing. However, at the end of the 19th century, it was noticed that when the surface of an armor plate was saturated (to a depth of several tenths to several millimeters) with carbon and silicon, its surface strength increased sharply, while the rest of the plate remained viscous. This is how heterogeneous (non-uniform) armor came into use.

For military tanks, the use of heterogeneous armor was very important, since an increase in the hardness of the entire thickness of the armor plate led to a decrease in its elasticity and (as a consequence) to an increase in fragility. Thus, the most durable armor, all other things being equal, turned out to be very fragile and often chipped even from the explosions of high-explosive fragmentation shells. Therefore, at the dawn of armor production, when producing homogeneous sheets, the task of the metallurgist was to achieve the maximum possible hardness of the armor, but at the same time not to lose its elasticity. Surface-hardened armor with carbon and silicon saturation was called cemented (cemented) and was considered at that time a panacea for many ills. But cementation is a complex, harmful process (for example, treating a hot plate with a jet of illuminating gas) and relatively expensive, and therefore its development in a series required large expenses and improved production standards.

Wartime tanks, even in operation, these hulls were less successful than homogeneous ones, since for no apparent reason cracks formed in them (mainly in loaded seams), and it was very difficult to put patches on holes in cemented slabs during repairs. But it was still expected that a tank protected by 15-20 mm cemented armor would be equivalent in level of protection to the same one, but covered with 22-30 mm sheets, without a significant increase in weight.
Also, by the mid-1930s, tank building had learned to harden the surface of relatively thin armor plates by uneven hardening, known since the end of the 19th century in shipbuilding as the “Krupp method.” Surface hardening led to a significant increase in the hardness of the front side of the sheet, leaving the main thickness of the armor viscous.

How tanks fire video up to half the thickness of the slab, which was, of course, worse than cementation, since while the hardness of the surface layer was higher than with cementation, the elasticity of the hull sheets was significantly reduced. So the “Krupp method” in tank building made it possible to increase the strength of armor even slightly more than cementation. But the hardening technology that was used for thick naval armor was no longer suitable for relatively thin tank armor. Before the war, this method was almost not used in our serial tank building due to technological difficulties and relatively high cost.

Combat use of tanks The most proven tank gun was the 45-mm tank gun model 1932/34. (20K), and before the event in Spain it was believed that its power was quite sufficient to perform most tank tasks. But the battles in Spain showed that a 45-mm gun can only satisfy the task of fighting enemy tanks, since even shelling of manpower in the mountains and forests turned out to be ineffective, and it was only possible to disable a dug-in enemy firing point in the event of a direct hit . Firing at shelters and bunkers was ineffective due to the low high-explosive effect of a projectile weighing only about two kg.

Types of tanks photos so that even one shell hit can reliably disable an anti-tank gun or machine gun; and thirdly, to increase the penetrating effect of a tank gun on the armor of a potential enemy, since using the example of French tanks (which already had an armor thickness of about 40-42 mm), it became clear that the armor protection of foreign combat vehicles tends to be significantly strengthened. There was a sure way for this - increasing the caliber of tank guns and simultaneously increasing the length of their barrel, since a long gun of a larger caliber fires heavier projectiles with a higher initial velocity over a greater distance without correcting the aiming.

The best tanks in the world had a large-caliber gun, also had a larger breech, significantly greater weight and increased recoil reaction. And this required an increase in the mass of the entire tank as a whole. In addition, placing large-sized rounds in a closed tank volume led to a decrease in transportable ammunition.
The situation was aggravated by the fact that at the beginning of 1938 it suddenly turned out that there was simply no one to give the order for the design of a new, more powerful tank gun. P. Syachintov and his entire design team were repressed, as well as the core of the Bolshevik design bureau under the leadership of G. Magdesiev. Only the group of S. Makhanov remained in the wild, who, since the beginning of 1935, had been trying to develop his new 76.2-mm semi-automatic single gun L-10, and the staff of plant No. 8 was slowly finishing the “forty-five”.

Photos of tanks with names The number of developments is large, but mass production in the period 1933-1937. not a single one has been accepted..." In fact, none of the five air-cooled tank diesel engines, work on which was carried out in 1933-1937 in the engine department of plant No. 185, was brought to series. Moreover, despite the decisions At the very top levels of the transition in tank building exclusively to diesel engines, this process was constrained by a number of factors. Of course, diesel had significant efficiency. It consumed less fuel per unit of power per hour. Diesel fuel was less susceptible to fire, since the flash point of its vapor was very high. high.

New tanks video, even the most advanced of them, the MT-5 tank engine, required a reorganization of engine production for serial production, which was expressed in the construction of new workshops, the supply of advanced foreign equipment (they did not yet have their own machines of the required accuracy), financial investments and strengthening of personnel. It was planned that in 1939 this diesel would produce 180 hp. will go to production tanks and artillery tractors, but due to investigative work to determine the causes of tank engine failures, which lasted from April to November 1938, these plans were not implemented. The development of a slightly increased six-cylinder gasoline engine No. 745 with a power of 130-150 hp was also started.

Brands of tanks had specific indicators that suited tank builders quite well. The tanks were tested using a new method, specially developed at the insistence of the new head of the ABTU, D. Pavlov, in relation to combat service in wartime. The basis of the tests was a run of 3-4 days (at least 10-12 hours of daily non-stop movement) with a one-day break for technical inspection and restoration work. Moreover, repairs were allowed to be carried out only by field workshops without the involvement of factory specialists. This was followed by a “platform” with obstacles, “swimming” in water with an additional load that simulated an infantry landing, after which the tank was sent for inspection.

Super tanks online, after improvement work, seemed to remove all claims from the tanks. And the overall progress of the tests confirmed the fundamental correctness of the main design changes - an increase in displacement by 450-600 kg, the use of the GAZ-M1 engine, as well as the Komsomolets transmission and suspension. But during testing, numerous minor defects again appeared in the tanks. Chief designer N. Astrov was removed from work and was under arrest and investigation for several months. In addition, the tank received a new turret with improved protection. The modified layout made it possible to place on the tank more ammunition for a machine gun and two small fire extinguishers (previously there were no fire extinguishers on small tanks of the Red Army).

US tanks as part of modernization work, on one production model of the tank in 1938-1939. The torsion bar suspension developed by the designer of the design bureau of plant No. 185 V. Kulikov was tested. It was distinguished by the design of a composite short coaxial torsion bar (long monotorsion bars could not be used coaxially). However, such a short torsion bar did not show good enough results in tests, and therefore the torsion bar suspension did not immediately pave the way for itself in the course of further work. Obstacles to overcome: climbs of at least 40 degrees, vertical wall 0.7 m, covered ditch 2-2.5 m."

YouTube about tanks, work on the production of prototypes of the D-180 and D-200 engines for reconnaissance tanks is not being carried out, jeopardizing the production of prototypes." Justifying his choice, N. Astrov said that the wheeled-tracked non-floating reconnaissance aircraft (factory designation 101 or 10-1), as well as the amphibious tank variant (factory designation 102 or 10-2), are a compromise solution, since it is not possible to fully satisfy the ABTU requirements. Option 101 was a tank weighing 7.5 tons with a hull. according to the type of hull, but with vertical side sheets of cemented armor 10-13 mm thick, since: “The inclined sides, causing serious weighting of the suspension and hull, require a significant (up to 300 mm) widening of the hull, not to mention the complication of the tank.

Video reviews of tanks in which the tank’s power unit was planned to be based on the 250-horsepower MG-31F aircraft engine, which was being developed by industry for agricultural aircraft and gyroplanes. 1st grade gasoline was placed in the tank under the floor of the fighting compartment and in additional onboard gas tanks. The armament fully corresponded to the task and consisted of coaxial machine guns DK 12.7 mm caliber and DT (in the second version of the project even ShKAS is listed) 7.62 mm caliber. The combat weight of the tank with torsion bar suspension was 5.2 tons, with spring suspension - 5.26 tons. Tests took place from July 9 to August 21 according to the methodology approved in 1938, with special attention being paid to tanks.

Soviet heavy tank IS-3 from the Group of Forces in Germany. October 1947

After the IS-3 tank was put into service in March 1945 and the vehicle was put into serial production in May of the same year at the Chelyabinsk Kirov Plant, it began to enter service with the tank forces of the Red Army (Soviet - since 1946). First of all, IS-3 tanks were transferred to tank regiments in the Group of Forces in Germany, and then to other units. On September 7, 1945, heavy IS-3 tanks marched through the streets of defeated Berlin as part of the 71st Guards Heavy Tank Regiment of the 2nd Guards Tank Army, taking part in the parade of allied forces in honor of the end of World War II. The new IS-3 tanks were shown for the first time at a parade in Moscow on May 1, 1946.

The arrival of the IS-3 tank into the army coincided with a new organizational restructuring of the units. The organizational reorganization of tank forces after the end of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 began with bringing the names of their organizational forms into line with combat capabilities, as well as the names of the corresponding forms of rifle troops.

Guard Captain Shilov assigns a combat mission to his subordinates. In the background is an IS-3 tank. Group of Soviet troops in Germany, October 1947

IS-3 tanks go on the attack during an exercise. Group of Soviet troops in Germany, October 1947

Junior Sergeant Ankhimkov drives a tank over rough terrain for the first time. Part of Colonel S.N. Tarasova. Group of Soviet troops in Germany, March 1948

Commander of the 68th Separate Tank Brigade of the Guard, Colonel G.A. Timchenko. August 1945

The best mechanics and drivers of IS-3 tanks: Guard Senior Sergeant V.F. Privalikhin (right) and P.M. Khalturin, awarded a personalized watch by the Minister of the USSR Armed Forces, Marshal Bulganin. Moscow Military District, October 1948

Mechanic-driver of the IS-3 tank of the Guard, Sergeant Major N.N. Zinnatov. Moscow Military District, October 1948

Excellent crew of the IS-3 tank under the command of ml. Lieutenant N. Plavinsky. From left to right: ml. Lieutenant N. Plavinsky, Guards. foreman I. Tretyakov, sergeant N. Shalygin and sergeant A.A. Kutergin. Primorsky Military District, August 1947

The crew of the IS-3 tank under the command of ml. Lieutenant N. Plavinsky conducts daily maintenance. Primorsky Military District, August 1947

Sergeant Major N. Panteleev and Private Kh. Akhmetshin are preparing a combat leaflet. Group of Soviet troops in Germany, October 1947

In July 1945, lists of states of tank and mechanized divisions were approved, into which the tank and mechanized corps of the Red Army were renamed. At the same time, the brigade level was replaced by a regimental one, and the former regimental level by a battalion level. Among other features of these states, it is necessary to note the replacement of three types of self-propelled artillery regiments, which each had 21 self-propelled guns, with a guards heavy tank regiment (65 IS-2 tanks) and the inclusion of a howitzer artillery regiment (24 122 mm howitzers) in such divisions. The result of the transfer of tank and mechanized corps to the staffs of the corresponding divisions was that mechanized and tank divisions became the main formations of tank forces.

In accordance with the instructions of the General Staff, the transfer of tank divisions to new states began on October 1, 1945. According to the new states, the tank division included: three tank regiments, a heavy self-propelled tank regiment, a motorized rifle regiment, a howitzer division, an anti-aircraft artillery regiment, a guards mortar division, a motorcycle battalion, a sapper battalion, and logistics and technical support units.
Tank regiments in these states retained the structure of the previous tank brigades and were of the same type but in combat composition. In total, the division's tank regiment consisted of 1,324 people, 65 medium tanks, 5 armored vehicles and 138 vehicles.

The motorized rifle regiment of the tank division did not undergo any changes compared to the motorized rifle brigade during the war - it still did not have tanks.

The real new combat unit of the tank division was a heavy self-propelled tank regiment, which had two battalions of heavy tanks, a battalion of SU-100 self-propelled guns, a battalion of machine gunners, an anti-aircraft battery, and companies: reconnaissance, control, transport, and repair; platoons: economic and medical. In total, the regiment consisted of 1,252 personnel, 46 IS-3 heavy tanks, 21 SU-100 self-propelled guns, 16 armored personnel carriers, six 37 mm anti-aircraft guns, 3 DShK machine guns and 131 vehicles.

The organizational and staffing structure of mechanized divisions, regardless of their organizational affiliation, was uniform and corresponded to the structure and combat composition of a mechanized division of a rifle corps.

The mechanized division of 1946 had: three mechanized regiments, a tank regiment, as well as a heavy self-propelled tank regiment, a guards mortar division, a howitzer regiment, an anti-aircraft artillery regiment, a mortar regiment, a motorcycle battalion, a sapper battalion, a separate communications battalion, a medical battalion and a control company.

As is known, during the war years the highest organizational form of tank forces, their operational association, were tank armies.
Taking into account the increase in the combat capabilities of the troops of potential opponents in the post-war years, the Soviet leadership came to the conclusion that it was necessary to sharply increase the combat capabilities of tank force formations and increase their number. In this regard, during the organization of the ground forces, nine mechanized armies were formed instead of six tank armies.

The new formation of tank forces differed from the tank army of the Great Patriotic War by the inclusion of two tank and two mechanized divisions, which increased (its) combat power and operational independence. The mechanized army included various weapons including 800 medium and 140 heavy tanks (IS-2 and IS-3).

Taking into account the increasing role and share of tank forces and the change in their organizational structure, already in the first post-war years attempts were made to clarify the previous provisions on the use of armored forces in the offensive, taking into account the changing conditions of combat operations. For this purpose, in 1946-1953, a number of military and command and staff exercises, war games, field trips and military-scientific conferences were held. These events had a great influence on the development of the official views of the Soviet military leadership on the use of tank troops in the offensive, which were enshrined in the Field Manual of the Armed Forces of the USSR (corps, division) of 1948, the Combat Manual of the BT and MB of the Soviet Army (division, corps, battalion) 1950, the draft manual for conducting operations (front, army) 1952 and the Field Manual of the Soviet Army (regiment, battalion) 1953.

In accordance with this and the adopted documents, the offensive was considered as the main type of combat operations by troops, as a result of which the main goals of the complete defeat of the opposing enemy could be achieved. From the point of view of the sequence of solving combat missions, the offensive was divided into two main stages: breaking through the enemy’s defenses and developing the offensive. At the same time, the breakthrough of the defense was considered the most important stage of the offensive, since only as a result of its implementation conditions were created for the successful development of the offensive in depth. According to the views of the Soviet military leadership, the offensive began with a breakthrough of the defense prepared or hastily occupied by the enemy. Breaking through a prepared defense was considered the most difficult type of offensive, as a result of which it was given special attention in governing documents and the practice of combat training of troops.

When attacking prepared defenses and a fortified area, a heavy self-propelled tank regiment was intended to reinforce medium tanks and infantry. Usually it was assigned to rifle formations. Its heavy tanks and self-propelled artillery units were used for direct support of infantry, fighting tanks, self-propelled guns, artillery and enemy firing points located in fortifications. After breaking through the enemy’s tactical defense to its entire depth, the army’s heavy self-propelled tank regiment was transferred to the reserve of the corps commander or army commander and could subsequently be used, as appropriate, to fight enemy tanks and self-propelled artillery units and formations.

The transition of troops in the first post-war years to a new organizational basis greatly increased their ability to create a stable and active defense.

Tank and mechanized units, formations and formations in defense were supposed to be used mainly in the second echelons and reserves to deliver powerful counterattacks and counterattacks from the depths. Along with this, domestic military theory allowed the use of tank and mechanized divisions, as well as a mechanized army to conduct independent defense in the main directions.

In the defense of the rifle division, part of the units of the self-propelled tank regiment was assigned to the first echelon rifle regiment. Most, and sometimes the entire regiment, was supposed to be used as a tank reserve for the rifle division commander to carry out counterattacks in the event of the enemy breaking through the first position of the main defense line.

A separate heavy self-propelled tank regiment (IS-2, IS-3 and SU-100) in the defense of the combined arms army was intended to be used as a tank reserve for the army commander or rifle corps to carry out counterattacks against the enemy who had penetrated the defense, especially in the directions of action of his tank groups.

In the event of an enemy breakthrough into the depth of the defense of the first echelon regiments, conducting counterattacks with tank reserves was considered inappropriate. Under these conditions, the defeat of the wedged enemy and the restoration of the defense was entrusted to the second echelons of rifle corps, the basis of which, according to the experience of the exercises, was mechanized divisions.

Unlike counterattacks during the Great Patriotic War, which were usually carried out only after preliminary occupation of the starting position, a mechanized division, as a rule, carried out a counterattack on the move, using from its composition parts of tank regiments that were armed with T-34-85 medium tanks at support for heavy tanks IS-2, IS-3 and self-propelled units SU-100 of the heavy self-propelled tank regiment. This method provided a stronger initial blow to a greater extent.

In a frontal defensive operation, a mechanized army usually constituted the second echelon of the front or the reserve of the front and was intended to deliver a powerful counterattack to the enemy and go on the offensive.

Considering that the attacking enemy had the opportunity to create groups of significant strength and impact, saturated with tanks and firepower, the defense was planned to be built in depth and completely anti-tank. For this purpose, units of a heavy tank self-propelled regiment were assigned to a rifle battalion and a rifle regiment of the first echelon to strengthen the anti-tank defense of the infantry in the first position or depth of defense.

To strengthen the anti-tank defense of the rifle corps and rifle division defending in important directions, it was planned to use part of the units of individual heavy self-propelled tank regiments of the combined arms army and the RVGK.

To increase the stability of defense, domestic military theory began to provide for the use of formations, as well as formations of tank forces for defense in the first echelon, not only during offensive operations, but also during defensive operations.
The emergence of nuclear missiles, which became the defining means of warfare, also influenced the development of organizational forms of tank forces throughout the 50s and early 60s, since the first tests of nuclear weapons showed that armored weapons were the most resistant to their effects and technology.

In the early 50s, in connection with the development of methods of conducting combat operations in conditions of the use of nuclear weapons and the entry into the troops of new equipment, activities were actively carried out to improve the regular organization.

To increase the survivability of troops in the face of the use of nuclear weapons, the new states adopted in 1953-1954 provided for a sharp increase in the number of tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery and anti-aircraft weapons in their composition.

According to the new states of the tank and mechanized divisions, adopted in 1954, a mechanized regiment was introduced into the tank division, and 5 tanks were included in the tank platoons of the tank regiment. The number of tanks in the tank regiment increased to 105 vehicles.

In mid-1954, new staff levels were introduced for mechanized divisions of rifle corps. The mechanized division now has: three mechanized regiments, a tank regiment, a heavy self-propelled tank regiment, a separate mortar battalion, an artillery regiment, an anti-aircraft artillery regiment, a separate reconnaissance battalion, a separate engineer battalion, a separate communications battalion, a radiochemical defense company and a helicopter unit.

In the new organization, a tendency has emerged to reduce the proportion of rifle units within formations and units, confirmed by the replacement of tank and mechanized divisions of battalions with motorized rifle companies within heavy self-propelled tank regiments. This was explained by the desire to reduce the number of personnel not covered by armor, and thereby increase the anti-nuclear resistance of units and formations.
As the experience of the battles of the Great Patriotic War and post-war exercises showed, the armies that broke through the enemy’s defenses were in dire need of increasing their striking force, the carriers of which at that time were heavy tanks IS-2 and IS-3.

In 1954, a decision was made to form heavy tank divisions. The heavy tank division included three heavy tank regiments, which were armed with 195 heavy tanks of the IS-2 and IS-3 types. Characteristic features of the organizational structure of a heavy tank division were: a low proportion of infantry (only one motorized rifle company in each of the three regiments), the absence of field artillery, and a reduced composition of combat support and service units.

In the same year, the number of tank (or self-propelled artillery) battalions in the mechanized army was increased from 42 to 44 (including heavy ones - from 6 to 12), the number of motorized rifle battalions was reduced from 34 to 30. Accordingly, the number of medium tanks increased to 1233 , heavy - up to 184.

The number of heavy tanks in the SA tank division remained unchanged - 46 IS-2 and IS-3 tanks. The number of heavy tanks in a mechanized division increased from 24 to 46, that is, in terms of the number of heavy tanks IS-2 and IS-3, it became equal to a tank division.

IS-3 tanks from one of the armored units of the Moscow Military District. Naro-Fominsk, August 1956

Such structures and composition of divisions were determined by their purpose and methods of combat use and provided them with high striking power, mobility and controllability.

The main directions for improving the organizational structure of tank and mechanized divisions were to increase their combat independence, as well as survivability, achieved by increasing their firepower, striking force and capabilities for comprehensive support of combat operations. At the same time, trends have emerged to increase the uniformity of the combat composition of tank formations and units and to reduce the proportion of infantry in their composition.

The need to protect the personnel of mechanized units and formations from being hit by enemy fire was confirmed by the Hungarian events that occurred in the fall of 1956.

Exercises on the territory of Hungary. A heavy Soviet IS-3 tank is visible, which was then very actively used in street battles in Budapest. Summer 1955

A damaged IS-3 tank on one of the streets of Budapest. Hungary, October 1956

An IS-3 tank burned and destroyed by the detonation of its ammunition. Hungary, Budapest, November 1956

IS-3M tank in a trench in a defensive position

IS-3 tank, transferred to the Czechoslovak army. 1950s

During the Great Patriotic War, Hungary fought on the side of Germany. On the Eastern Front, 200 thousand Hungarian military personnel fought against the Red Army on the territory of the USSR. Unlike other allies of Nazi Germany - Italy, Romania, Finland, which, after the defeat of the Wehrmacht in 1943-1944, turned their weapons 180 degrees in time, the overwhelming majority of Hungarian troops fought to the end. The Red Army lost 200 thousand people in the battles for Hungary.

According to the 1947 peace treaty, Hungary lost all of its territories acquired before and during World War II and was forced to pay reparations: $200 million to the Soviet Union and $100 million to Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The Soviet Union, in accordance with the treaty, had the right to keep its troops in Hungary necessary to maintain communications with its group of troops in Austria.
In 1955, Soviet troops left Austria, but in May of the same year, Hungary joined the Warsaw Pact, and SA troops were left in the country in a new capacity and received the name Special Corps. The Special Corps included the 2nd and 17th Guards Mechanized Divisions, from the Air Force - the 195th Fighter and 172nd Bomber Air Divisions, as well as auxiliary units.

Most Hungarians did not consider their country to be to blame for the outbreak of World War II and believed that Moscow acted extremely unfairly towards Hungary, despite the fact that the former Western allies of the USSR in the Anti-Hitler Coalition supported all points of the 1947 peace treaty. In addition, Western radio stations Voice of America, BBC and others actively influenced the Hungarian population, calling on them to fight for freedom and promising immediate assistance in the event of an uprising, including an invasion of NATO troops into Hungarian territory.

On October 23, 1956, in an atmosphere of impending social explosion and under the influence of Polish events, a 200,000-strong demonstration took place in Budapest, in which representatives of almost all segments of the population participated. It began under the slogans of the country’s national independence, democratization, complete correction of the mistakes of the “Racosti leadership,” and bringing to justice those responsible for the repressions of 1949-1953. Among the demands were: the immediate convening of a party congress, the appointment of Imre Nagy as prime minister, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Hungary, the destruction of the monument to I.V. Stalin. During the first clashes with law enforcement forces, the nature of the demonstration changed: anti-government slogans appeared.

The first secretary of the Central Committee of the VPT Gere appealed to the Soviet government with a request to send Soviet troops stationed in Hungary to Budapest. In a radio address to the people, he qualified the incident as a counter-revolution.

On the evening of October 23, 1956, the uprising began. Armed demonstrators seized the radio center and a number of military and industrial facilities. A state of emergency was declared in the country. At this point in time, about 7 thousand Hungarian military personnel and 50 tanks were stationed in Budapest. At night, the plenum of the Central Committee of the WPT formed a new government headed by Imre Nagy, who, being present at the meeting of the Central Committee, did not object to the invitation of Soviet troops. However, the next day, when the troops entered the capital, Nagy rejected the request of the USSR Ambassador to Hungary Yu.V. Andropov to sign the corresponding letter.

On October 23, 1956, at 23:00, the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR, Marshal of the Soviet Union V. Sokolovsky, by telephone HF, gave an order to the commander of the Special Corps, General P. Lashchenko, to move troops to Budapest (plan “Compass”). In accordance with the decision of the USSR government “to provide assistance to the government of the Hungarian People’s Republic in connection with the political unrest that arose in the country,” the USSR Ministry of Defense involved only five divisions of ground forces in the operation. They consisted of 31,550 personnel, 1,130 tanks (T-34-85, T-44, T-54 and IS-3) and self-propelled artillery guns (SU-100 and ISU-152), 615 guns and mortars, 185 anti-aircraft guns, 380 armored personnel carriers, 3830 vehicles. At the same time, the air divisions, numbering 159 fighters and 122 bombers, were put on full combat readiness. These planes, in particular the fighters that covered the Soviet troops, were needed not against the rebels, but in case NATO aircraft appeared in Hungarian airspace. Also, some divisions in Romania and the Carpathian Military District were put on high alert.

In accordance with the Compass plan, on the night of October 24, 1956, units of the 2nd Guards Division were introduced into Budapest. The 37th tank and 40th mechanized regiments of this division were able to clear the city center of the rebels and take under protection the most important points (stations, banks, airfield, government institutions). In the evening they were joined by units of the 3rd Rifle Corps of the Hungarian People's Army. In the first hours they destroyed about 340 armed rebels. The number and combat strength of the Soviet units located in the city was about 6 thousand soldiers and officers, 290 tanks, 120 armored personnel carriers and 156 guns. However, this was clearly not enough for military operations in a large city with a population of 2 million people.

On the morning of October 25, the 33rd Guards Mechanized Division approached Budapest, and in the evening the 128th Guards Rifle Division. By this time, rebel resistance in the center of Budapest had intensified. This occurred as a result of the murder of a Soviet officer and the burning of one tank during a peaceful rally. In this regard, the 33rd division was given a combat mission: to clear the central part of the city from armed detachments, where rebel strongholds had already been created. To fight Soviet tanks, they used anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns, grenade launchers, anti-tank grenades and Molotov cocktails. As a result of the battle, the rebels lost only 60 people killed.

On the morning of October 28, an assault on the center of Budapest was planned together with units of the 5th and 6th Hungarian mechanized regiments. However, before the start of the operation, the Hungarian units received orders not to participate in hostilities.

On October 29, the Soviet troops also received a ceasefire order. The next day, Imre Nagy's government demanded the immediate withdrawal of Soviet troops from Budapest. On October 31, all Soviet formations and units were withdrawn from the city and took up positions 15-20 km from the city. The headquarters of the Special Corps was located at the airfield in Tekele. At the same time, the Minister of Defense of the USSR G.K. Zhukov received instructions from the CPSU Central Committee “to develop an appropriate plan of events related to the events in Hungary.”

On November 1, 1956, the Hungarian government, led by Imre Nagy, announced the country's withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact and demanded the immediate withdrawal of Soviet troops. At the same time, a defensive line was created around Budapest, reinforced with dozens of anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns. Outposts with tanks and artillery appeared in settlements adjacent to the city. The number of Hungarian troops in the city reached 50 thousand people. In addition, more than 10 thousand people were part of the “national guard”. The number of tanks increased to one hundred.

The Soviet command carefully worked out the operation code-named “Whirlwind” to capture Budapest, using the experience of the Great Patriotic War. The main task was carried out by the Special Corps under the command of General P. Lashchenko, which was assigned two tank, two elite parachute, mechanized and artillery regiments, as well as two divisions of heavy mortars and rocket launchers.
The divisions of the Special Corps were aimed at operating in the same areas of the city in which they held objects before leaving it in October, which made it somewhat easier to carry out their combat missions.

At 6 a.m. on November 4, 1956, Operation Whirlwind began on the “Thunder” signal. The advanced detachments and main forces of the 2nd and 33rd Guards Mechanized Divisions, the 128th Guards Rifle Division in columns along their routes from various directions rushed to Budapest and, having overcome armed resistance on its outskirts, broke into the city by 7 o'clock in the morning.

Formations of the armies of generals A. Babajanyan and Kh. Mamsurov began active actions to restore order and restore authorities in Debrecen, Miskolc, Gyor and other cities.

The SA airborne units disarmed the Hungarian anti-aircraft batteries that blocked the airfields of the Soviet aviation units in Veszprém and Tekel.
Units of the 2nd Guards Division at 7:30 am. They captured bridges across the Danube, parliament, the buildings of the Central Committee of the Party, the Ministries of Internal and Foreign Affairs, the State Council and the Nyugati station. In the parliament area, a security battalion was disarmed and three tanks were captured.

The 37th Tank Regiment of Colonel Lipinsky, during the capture of the Ministry of Defense building, disarmed about 250 officers and “national guardsmen”.
The 87th Heavy Self-Propelled Tank Regiment captured the arsenal in the Fot area and also disarmed the Hungarian tank regiment.

During the day of the battle, units of the division disarmed up to 600 people, captured about 100 tanks, two artillery depots, 15 anti-aircraft guns and a large number of small arms.

Units from the 33rd Guards Mechanized Division, without initially encountering resistance, captured an artillery depot in Pestszentlerinets, three bridges across the Danube, and also disarmed units of the Hungarian regiment that had gone over to the side of the rebels.

The 108th Parachute Regiment of the 7th Guards Airborne Division, with sudden actions, disarmed five Hungarian anti-aircraft batteries that were blocking the airfield in Tekla.

The 128th Guards Rifle Division of Colonel N. Gorbunov, through the actions of forward detachments in the western part of the city, by 7 o'clock captured the Budaers airfield, capturing 22 aircraft, as well as the barracks of the communications school, disarmed the mechanized regiment of the 7th mechanized division, which was trying to resist.

Attempts by units of the division to capture Moscow Square, the Royal Fortress, as well as the areas adjacent to Mount Gellert from the south were unsuccessful due to strong resistance.

As the Soviet divisions advanced towards the city center, the armed units put up more organized and stubborn resistance, especially as units reached the Central Telephone Exchange, the Corvin district, Keleti Station, the Royal Fortress and Moscow Square. The Hungarian strongholds became more powerful, and the number of anti-tank weapons in them increased. Some public buildings were also prepared for defense.
It was necessary to strengthen the troops operating in the city and organize training and support for their actions.

To quickly defeat the armed detachments in Budapest, on the orders of Marshal of the Soviet Union I. Konev, the Special SA Corps was additionally assigned two tank regiments (100th tank regiment of the 31st tank division and 128th self-propelled tank regiment of the 66th Guards Rifle Division), 80 1st and 381st parachute regiments from the 7th and 31st Guards Airborne Divisions, a rifle regiment, a mechanized regiment, an artillery regiment, as well as two divisions of heavy mortar and rocket brigades.

Most of these units were assigned to strengthen the 33rd Mechanized and 128th Rifle Guards Divisions.

To capture strong centers of resistance - the Corvin district, University Town, Moscow Square, Royal Square, where armed detachments numbering up to 300-500 people were located, division commanders were forced to attract significant forces of infantry, artillery and tanks, create assault groups and use incendiary shells, flamethrowers, smoke grenades and checkers. Without this, attempts to capture these centers of resistance led to large losses in personnel.

On November 5, 1956, units of the 33rd Guards Mechanized Division of General Obaturov, after a powerful artillery raid, in which 11 artillery divisions, which included about 170 guns and mortars, took part, took the last heavily fortified rebel stronghold in Corvin Lane. During November 5 and 6, units of the Special Corps continued to eliminate individual rebel groups in Budapest. On November 7, Janos Kadar and the newly formed Hungarian government arrived in Budapest.

During the fighting, the losses of Soviet troops amounted to 720 people killed, 1540 wounded, 51 people missing. More than half of these losses were suffered by units of the Special Corps, mainly in October. Units of the 7th and 31st Guards Airborne Divisions lost 85 people killed, 265 wounded and 12 people missing. In street battles, a large number of tanks, armored personnel carriers and other military equipment were shot down and damaged. Thus, units from the 33rd Guards Mechanized Division lost 14 tanks and self-propelled guns, 9 armored personnel carriers, 13 guns, 4 BM-13 combat vehicles, 6 anti-aircraft guns, 45 machine guns, 31 cars and 5 motorcycles in Budapest.

The participation of IS-3 heavy tanks in hostilities in Budapest was the only one during their operation in Soviet tank units. After measures to modernize the vehicle, carried out in 1947-1953 and until 1960, during major repairs, first at industrial plants (ChKZ and LKZ), and then at overhaul plants of the Ministry of Defense, IS-3 tanks received the designation IS-3M , were used by the troops until the end of the 70s.

Subsequently, some of the vehicles were put into storage, some - after the expiration of their service life, as well as replacement with new heavy T-10 tanks - for decommissioning or as targets at tank training grounds, and some were used in fortified areas on the Soviet-Chinese border as fixed firing points . As noted above, the IS-3 (IS-3M) tanks, along with the IS-2 and T-10 heavy tanks with its subsequent modifications, were withdrawn from service with the Russian (Soviet) Army in 1993.

Although the IS-3 (IS-3M) tank did not take part in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, in many Russian cities it was installed as a monument in honor of the victory in this war. A large number of these machines are in museums in many countries around the world. IS-3M tanks in Moscow are on display at the Central Museum of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. on Poklonnaya Hill, at the Museum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, at the Museum of Armored Weapons and Equipment in Kubinka.

During serial production, the IS-3 tank was not exported. In 1946, two tanks were transferred by the Soviet government to Poland to familiarize themselves with the design of the vehicle and train instructors. In the 50s, both cars participated several times in military parades in Warsaw. Subsequently, until the beginning of the 70s, one vehicle was located at the Military Technical Academy in Warsaw, and then was used as a target at one of the training grounds. The second IS-3 tank was transferred to the Higher Officer School of Tank Forces named after S. Charnetsky, in whose museum it is kept to this day.

In 1950, one IS-3 tank was transferred to Czechoslovakia. In addition, a significant number of IS-3 tanks were transferred to the DPRK. In the 60s, two North Korean tank divisions each had one regiment of these heavy vehicles.

Heavy tank IS-3 from one of the units of the Baltic Military District

Heavy tank IS-ZM of the Egyptian army. Most likely the vehicle belongs to the 7th Infantry Division. Sinai Peninsula, 1967

At the end of the 50s, tanks of the IS-3 and IS-3M types were delivered to Egypt. On July 23, 1956, IS-3 tanks took part in the parade in honor of “Independence Day” in Cairo. Most of the IS-3 and IS-3M tanks out of the 100 vehicles delivered to Egypt arrived in this country in 1962-1967.

These tanks took part in hostilities during the so-called “six-day” war, which began on June 5, 1967 in the Sinai Peninsula between Egypt and Israel. The decisive role in combat operations in this war was played by tank and mechanized formations, the basis of which on the Israeli side was the American M48A2 tanks, the British Centurion Mk.5 and Mk.7, the armament of which was modernized in Israel by installing a more powerful 105-mm tank guns, as well as modernized M4 Sherman tanks with French 105 mm guns. On the Egyptian side they were opposed by Soviet-made tanks: medium T-34-85, T-54, T-55 and heavy IS-3. Heavy tanks IS-3, in particular, were in service with the 7th Infantry Division, which occupied the defense at the Khan-Yunis-Rafah line. 60 IS-3 tanks were also in service with the 125th Tank Brigade, which occupied combat positions near El Kuntilla.

Egyptian tank lost during the Yom Kippur War

Egyptian IS-3M tank captured by the Israelis

Heavy tanks IS-3 (IS-3M) could have become a serious opponent for the Israelis, but this did not happen, despite the fact that several M48 tanks were shot down by them. In conditions of highly maneuverable combat, the IS-3 tank was inferior to more modern Israeli tanks. The low rate of fire, limited ammunition and an outdated fire control system, as well as the inability of the B-11 engine to work in hot climates, had an effect. In addition, the insufficient combat training of Egyptian tank crews also had an impact. The morale of the soldiers, who did not show fortitude and perseverance, was also low. The last circumstance is well illustrated by an episode that was unique from the point of view of tank combat, but typical for the “six-day” war. One IS-3M tank was hit in the Rafah area by a hand grenade that accidentally flew into... an open turret hatch, since Egyptian tank crews went into battle with open hatches in order to be able to quickly leave the tank if it was hit.

The soldiers of the 125th Tank Brigade, retreating, simply abandoned their tanks, including the IS-3M, which the Israelis received in perfect condition. As a result of the “six-day” war, the Egyptian army lost 72 IS-3 (IS-3M) tanks. By 1973, the Egyptian army had only one tank regiment, which was armed with IS-3 (IS-3M) tanks. To date, there is no data on the participation of this regiment in hostilities.

But the Israeli Defense Forces used captured IS-3M tanks until the early 70s, including as tank tractors. At the same time, worn-out V-54K-IS engines were replaced with V-54s from captured T-54A tanks. On some tanks, the MTO roof was also replaced at the same time as the engine, obviously along with the cooling system. One of these tanks is currently located at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in the USA.

IS-3M tank, converted by the Israelis. This sample is equipped with a B-54 diesel engine and a MTO roof from a T-54A tank. USA, Aberdeen Proving Ground, 1990s.

By the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, the Israelis removed engines and transmissions from several IS-3M tanks, and placed additional ammunition in the vacated spaces. These tanks were installed on inclined concrete platforms, which made it possible to ensure elevation angles of the tank gun barrels up to 45°. Two such IS-3 tanks were used during the “War of Attrition” in 1969-1970 at the fortified point “Tempo” (“Okral”) of the so-called “Bar-Lev Line” (the northernmost fortified point located along the Suez Canal, in 10 km south of Port Said). Two more tanks of the IS-3 type, equipped in a similar way, were installed in the fortified point “Budapest” (on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, 12 km east of Port Said). After the stocks of captured ammunition for the D-25T guns were used up, these vehicles again fell into the hands of the Egyptians during the fighting.

The development of the IS-3 tank, or as it was also called “Kirovets-1,” began in the summer of 1944. Part of this tank, namely the turret, was designed at the design bureau of the Chelyabinsk Kirov Plant, chief engineer and designer M.F. Balzhi.

A special feature of the tank from Balzhi was a non-standard design solution, based on a study of damage to destroyed Soviet IS-2 tanks, in the design of the turret, namely its low silhouette and shape, which, in combination with strong frontal armor, was a very formidable weapon. Initially, the hull of the IS-3 tank was different from its successor. To this day, only one photograph of the tank designed at the Chelyabinsk Kirov Plant has survived.

Now let's move to Experimental Plant No. 100, headed by Zh.Ya. Kotin. As soon as Kotin learned that a new tank was being created at ChKZ, a decree was issued on his behalf to prepare a project for an experimental tank that could compete with ChKZ.

It was decided to make the body of the future tank from the top two plates of rolled, homogeneous armor at an angle of 56° and a rotation of 43°, and in the middle it was covered with a small roof, triangular in shape (yes, we are talking about the body) at an angle of 73°, in The driver's hatch was located there. The lower armor plate was located at an angle of 63°. Then this arrangement of armor plates began to be called “pike nose” because of their similarity.

Unfortunately, information about the tower produced by Experimental Plant No. 100 has not been preserved; no samples were built.

So, two projects were sent for approval to the People's Commissar of the Tank Industry V.A. Malyshev. After reviewing both, it was decided to take the tower from the design of M.F. Balzhi, and the body from the design of Zh.Ya. Kotin. It should be noted that the director of ChKZ I.M. Zaltsman, when writing a decree on the construction of a prototype, called the tank “Pobeda”, but this name was rejected in favor of the name of the IS-3 tank.

The tests took place under the supervision of Marshal of the USSR Tank Forces P.A. Rotmistrov. At the end of the tests, he personally got into the tank and said the words:

This is the kind of car the army needs!

After the tests, Marshal Zhukov and Vasilevsky presented the project to I.V. Stalin, who signed a document on its adoption and production at ChKZ.

Tank armament

The IS-3 tank was equipped with a D-25T gun of the 1943 model with a 122mm caliber and a coaxial DT machine gun. The gun had a muzzle brake. The initial flight speed of the armor-piercing projectile was 781 m/s.
With the help of a telescopic sight, the aimed shooting range could be 5000 meters.
The gun's rate of fire was approximately 2 rounds per minute, and with a trained crew it reached 3 rounds per minute. The gun's ammunition consisted of 18 high-explosive fragmentation shells and 10 armor-piercing shells, which made a total of 28 (interestingly, for ease of training of loaders, the armor-piercing shell was painted black, and the rest were painted steel gray.)
The first batch of tanks rolled off the assembly line in May 1945.

Service record of the IS-3 tank

IS 3 heavy tanks did not take part during.
The IS-3 was first shown at the Berlin WWII Allied Forces Parade on September 7, 1945. The IS-3 shown then against the backdrop of American Pershings was simply magnificent; the Red Army then made it clear that they were not fools and could once again march around Europe.

The IS-3 heavy tank was actively used by Soviet troops during the suppression of the Hungarian uprising of 1956.
The IS-3 was also used by Egypt in the six-day war against Israel, but even then the IS-3 was inferior in terms of performance characteristics to such tanks as the M48 and Centurion.

IS-3 modifications

Despite the fact that the tank was produced for only one year from 1945 to 1946, several more upgrades of this tank were produced:
IS-3K - Usually in Soviet and Russian armored forces the letter K indicates that the tank is a command tank. In the case of the IS-3K, it is supplemented with the R-112 radio station.
IS-3M - This is a more serious modernization, in which parts were replaced and some errors of the previous version were corrected, namely:

• Strengthened the commander's (rotating) hatch
• Night vision device for the driver
• Replacing the engine with another, more reliable one. Engine power has not been changed.
• The support roller and idler wheel assemblies are reinforced.
• “Electrification” of the tank, from the emergency lighting circuit to the electric heater.
• Replaced the DShK machine gun with the DSh KM, and the DT machine gun with the DTM
• Installation of radios with IS-3K and new intercoms.

IS-3MK - supplemented with another radio station R-112

Vehicles developed on the basis of the IS-3

Object 704, also known as ISU model 1945, was developed on the basis of the IS-3, but did not go into production.

Also, based on the IS-3 heavy tank, a missile tank called “Object 757” was developed. The tank did not pass the test; preference was given to another tank, the Object 772, but it was also not built. Subsequently, it was decided to abandon the concept of creating a heavy missile tank.
A total of 2,311 IS-3 tanks and its modifications were produced. The tank was in service with the regular armies of some countries until 1993