Thanks to The Coldest Water for sponsoring this video: Coldest Giveaway: thecoldestwater.lpages.co/1-gallon-giveaway-coneofarc/ Shop The Coldest Water: thecoldestwater.com/?ref=coneofarc Use Promo Code " CONE" to get 10% OFF your entire order.
Logistics is the number one thing determining victory in a war. So many people tend to gloss over the smaller details without realizing how important they actually are. You've built a beastly, nearly unkillable tank? Fantastic! -How are you getting fuel to it? -How are you moving it to and from the battlefield? -How are you going to restock it's ammunition? -How will you get spare and replacement parts to the tanks that need them? -Do you have the manufacturing base to keep these things running, fueled, stocked with munitions, train the pilots, replace and produce more of the tanks? -Do you have a supply chain capable of doing all of this quickly, ensuring they aren't stranded with no fuel or ammo?
@@sebastiangui8599 Yea but some tanks require more help than others. This is the german heavies died off. They were some of the best tanks of their time, but they were incredibly unreliable and were breaking down more than the nazi's could fix them also paired with the fact that US industrialism was pumping out a staggering amount of tanks compared to the germans that they had a saying "A Tiger can beat 10 Shermans on its own, the problem is the Americans always show up with 11!". Supply and logistics are specific to each tank.
@@pollux_id2557 Just to add to this, most German tanks were different out the factory be it by an addition of an extra component or a screw making the parts list longer for specific crews while the Americans had uniformed tanks where ever part of the tank can be swapped to another and it runs fine. So even if a "destroyed" Sherman had a perfectly good transmission, recover it, and pop it into another Sherman with a damaged transmission. TADA! Give em hell. etc etc.
I can't remember where I read this, but IIRC the per-unit cost of the IS-7 was absolutely insane and was one of the bigger reasons why the order was cancelled. It was something obscene like, for the cost of 1 IS-7, you could have had 7 T-54's instead.
@@prestonang8216 not really. The f35 had abhorrent development costs but the per unit price is not that bad and actually cheaper than some other fighters (due to the very high production).
@@Kyle-gw6qp only if those high production numbers are achieved... Same with the B-2. They're on the book for $2 each, but if the total planned number had been built that'd have been less than $300 million each. And same too for the F-22, and every item of military equipment ever that had its planned production numbers slashed.
@@AHSArnulf it would be the best tank in the game if it would face the tanks it would have face in real life but in game it faces tanks that were built 20 years later
@@christian9125abd i see well they have to bqlqnce the game i guess. its unrealistic but it would be kinda boring not being able to shoot it and then get blown to pieces everytime
@@ButchE30M3S14 the IS-7 is impenetrable to the main gun of the E-100/Maus, as shown in the video, it would be a definite IS-7 victory in a 1v1 scenario
IS-7 in real life:The most advanced tank of the time,imprevious to all anti tank guns at the time. IS-7 in war thunder:Gets ammo racked by a moving MBT with a stabilizer and thermals,firing 400mm pen APFSDS 2 kilometers away.
@@alphanomad511 except you can,the leopard can easily lolpen it,the fact the IS-7 faces fully stabilized thermal sight 1980s MBTs is just overkill,its useless.
Just gaijin being horrendous at game balance. I mean the entire IS series, much like the MAUS and other late war tanks consistently face MBTs with heat or even darts and stabilizers. Then again if the devs also beleive that an R3 with a fully automatic 30mm stabilized gun should face early T-34s and shermans, what do you know? Vehicles should be matched based on their performance, and clearly the late war tanks are underperforming (epsecially in regard to their repair cost) compared to the modern vehicles they conistently face.
@@datonecommieirongear2020 Tiger II's only go up to 7.7 mot 8.0, any player with a Tiger II that got up tiered to 8.0 must have been using an M48 which is 7.0.
yeah, it's like miles ahed of anything around. not even german heavies, like the maus. soviet heavy doctrine was beautiful, if MBTs never came to existance, russia would have had the best tanks for sure. speedy, small siloutted, hard hitting, well protected tanks... ma boi stalin knew
It should have had machine guns mounted coaxially to the other machine guns so that it could use the co-ax machine guns to range for the other machine guns...
What was the case in the front...beside the usuall koaxial tracer mg over the main gun, there also were two smaler mg's on the left and on the right side in the gunmantlet.
@@j1998annis But then they'd need more machine guns to be mounted coaxially to those machine guns, you can see the problem here? Before you know it the number of machine guns might get a little ridiculous...
@@j1998annis Oh, sorry I misunderstood your comment and made a joke at first, the immovable mounted machine guns are typically used by the driver in such a configuration for the purpose of suppression fire. The thinking of the time was that a charging tanker could theoretically spray pulses of machine gun fire as the tank, along side other tanks doing the same thing, and have a moving wave of machine gun fire to suppress potential infantry anti-tank weaponry and/or just make them rout in general.
@@nobodyuknow2490 I agree with both comments. And I apologize for my rough german temper. I think te problem was, that this guy forgot to mention 2 mg's (the co-ax ones in the mantlet). And 8 mg's are ridiculous. Hopfully in return, I understood you comments right. Greetings from 🇩🇪
@@j1998annis It's totally fine, there's nothing you need to apologize for ^_^ Your English is far better than my German. It was really my mistake for reading the previous comment too quickly and wanting to continue the joking around. Yes, 8 machine guns is ridiculous for anything other than anti-aircraft weapons, and aircraft themselves, such as the P47 which famously had eight .50 Cal machine guns.
Tanks like IS-7 was more a test bed for new tech and design methods. You see this often with tanks and other things where one machine is record breaking but never put into mass production as its individual bits are copied and put into newer designs or is put in already exsisting designs.
@@PilotTed I'm sure it would've been something like the Maus, had that tank gone into production. It would've instilled absolute, pants-shitting terror in the men who initially faced it, but would ultimately become a non-issue when sufficient anti-tank weaponry and tactics were developed. Remember - Being a big scary box of death is _part_ of the tank's role in warfare.
I doubt it would have seen much service outside of military reserves. When you're that big you tear up roads, destroy bridges, and make your own ponds in soft ground. It's great to have a beast like that, but useless if you can't get it to the battle and can't cross the rivers once there. BUT, as a concept, it is a hell of an experiment.
The west were firing 75mm APDS at the Germans in the closing months of the war. The round had issues for sure, but had the IS7 become known. It's armor could have been defeated relatively quickly, at least sooner than the Soviets could build up a critical mass. Further more. The issue with an extremely well armored behemoth of a tank, such as IS7, Tiger 2, Maus etc. Is that, once it can no longer be relied upon to deflect frontal attacks, it is worthless for anything but target practice.
Makes sense to put the fuel on the outside for it. After all if the fuel catches fire on the outside of the hull or leaks, the crew inside is protected. Moreover fuel is actually really decent at stopping chemical warheads such as heat warheads. Back in 48, the invention of fin stabilized heat wasn't there yet, so heat warheads in their unstabilized forms were rather weak and would not be enough to go through the front, but could asuredly go if they were used on the side of the vehicle. External fuel tanks would act as one time use space armor if that was the case. Obviously this is often not modeled in tank games such as war thunder, where an external fire (far outside anything critical) can still lead to the loss of the vehicle, and where the IS-7 and its predecesors often end up being matched against vehicles far ahead of its own time period, often using sabot or heat rounds to make its armor and armament entirely irrelevant
I definitely think you should cover the 2B1 Oka at one point! It's essentially a stretched KV chassis with a 420mm gun on it... it failed miserably but always wanted to know more about it!
I would also love to see that, crazy bastards put a damn naval gun on a tank chassis. If I remember correctly, it tore the transmission and the drive sprockets clean off of their mounts during test firing.
@@DeathHead1358 reminds me of the S-51. It was basically a B-4 mounted on a Kv-1 hull and when they fired the gun it wrecked the transmission and knocked crew members out of their seats
If this tank had entered service,judging by how they reacted to the IS-3, they would have been utterly terrified, a tank that nothing you have can reliably penetrate and can move at speeds that would make some medium tanks jealous. Honestly it really was the perfect tank, it had everything, heavy armor, high speed and good mobility, and not least of all, a powerful main gun.
A tank that excelled in the hard factors but absolutely sucked in the soft factors. Bad ergonomics, poor, hard to supply, difficult to cross bridges, etc.
The I.S. tanks can still be useful in a war with it's good armor and strong 122 mm gun , just give it a stronger diesel engine, upgrade rotation system, tracker and target finding system with some armor plates too and it can be used in the field damaging tanks, enemy positions and targets etc lol
It was really canceled because when Stalin died Khrushchev canceled everything Stalin had his name on. You could not have the Polit Bureau condemning Stalin but the Soviet Union's main battle tank named after him.
Virgin Nazi Germany: struggling to design the ultimate tank of its time, is seriously considering an underwater river crossing due to its weight. The tank is extremely huge and slow Chad USSR: designed the tank which is fast, insanely armored, and rather small compared to other designs. Throws it into the garbage bin, due to the problems it will cause with logistics
Well the Jagdpanzer 38(t)s top mounted MG could also be fired from inside the vehicle. The real question is how do you aim a MG that is mounted so high up on the tank from inside it?
Nah, it's clearly pantsy kruschev who said "Lol, no more heavy thx cuz someone gonna invent ATGM sometime" RIP Is-7 and Object 279. At least the russians were pog enough to preserve these two.
I find it interesting that ps one included this Tank in it's panzer front game? It was unstoppable and allowed completing several difficult battles once utilized. Thx for sharing this video , I enjoy this type of material.
Wait a minute. 1948? 1948? This things looks 70s or late 60s at least, but 1948? And planning began in 44? To think there was, at least, the slimmest, slightest possibility, that this thing could’ve stormed Berlin, is mind blowing. The fact that in roughly five years, the Soviet Union went from BT-7s to IS-3s is incredible, war truly is the greatest motivator.
@@Kettenhund31 Same with US tankers unlucky enough to face the big cats: Yes, they are cursed men then in their shermans but their Generals knew that the Tigers and Panthers contributed to the massive discrepancy in numbers of tanks on the battlefield between the US and Germany.
The I.S. tanks can still be useful in a war with it's good armor and strong 122 mm gun , just give it a stronger diesel engine, upgrade rotation system, tracker and target finding system with some armor plates too and it can be used in the field damaging tanks, enemy positions and targets etc lol
@@tylersoto7465 How? Making one of these things would be the same cost as 5 normal tanks. If that's how much it costs to make it then the cost to make sure that it's in running condition, has enough ammo and fuel, facilities running to store them in, that their crue are in top condition, etc would be through the roof. Possibly 3× higher atleast. This isn't even counting transportation. It's weight would make it almost impossible to have it travel on any bridge or train. You could just drive it there, but then it'd just end up breaking down multiple times before you reach the battlefield. It's a good vehicle in terms of how a tank needs to work, but it's bad in terms of everything else.
I know I'm seeing this a year after you published it but, Thank you. This was very informative and gave me insight to a tank I was very interested in learning about!
@@khahinmetameta7826 I mean, the M551 wasn't meant to really _be_ a tank in the first place. It was meant to be a recon vehicle, only being pressed into the light tank roll in Vietnam, where it did spectacularly poorly.
@@GoredonTheDestroyer tell me about it the T92 and DELTA 120 programme would have been worth the $$. T55AM1 embarrasses the US gun missile system, in fact the U.S system should have cursed by design on it.
What killed the IS7 was a very simple reason : weight. There was an order to stop development of all tanks exceiding some 50 + tons. And the IS7 did exceed it. Anyway, the era of heavy tanks would be comming to an end in what, 10 years because of the advancements in tank ammo like sabot and HEAT that made armor useless ( pure steel armor that is ).
pure weight doesnt matter that much, the ground pressure does,weight matters mostly for speed, and a little for transport by rail, but i think thats not that bad.
Yeah. The future of tank warfare is going to end up being long-range capabilities with advanced Hard-Kill APS. We're getting exponentially better at chucking metal stuff to kill metal things, than making metal things impervious.
@@darkySpMight be, but this kind of tech would only be for really advanced militaries. Lots of tank fights like we know will still happen in conflicts involving smaller, less well equipped armies.
Tbh, shortly after discovering the channel the first thing I did is going into search in his videos and entered "279", but got this video as a second result instead, heh
Technically, that'd be the Maus. The 279 achieved it's phenomenal protection via angling, not raw thickness. As such, the Maus is more heavily armored.
Still loving this series Cone, really great stuff! Any chance of the cursed talking FCM.36 "cone" turret coming back (perhaps in the intro overview)? I really enjoyed that bit.
Early World War II-era uncapped AP projectiles fired from high-velocity guns were able to penetrate about twice their caliber at close range (100 m). At longer ranges (500-1,000 m), this dropped to 1.5-1.1 calibers due to the poor ballistic shape and higher drag of the smaller-diameter early projectiles. Later in the conflict, APCBC fired at close range (100 m) from large-caliber, high-velocity guns (75-128 mm) were able to penetrate a much greater thickness of armor in relation to their caliber (2.5 times) and also a greater thickness (2-1.75 times) at longer ranges (1,500-2,000 m).
wait, you mentioned the trials with the German 128mm gun. But I heard numerous accounts that the hull was penetrated with ease by the 128mm gun of the Jadgtiger at long and short distances of 1-2 km.
Been to Kubinka tank museum, it's rough and ready but they have some amazing and rare exhibits. Well worth a visit!! I also visited Monino aviation museum, for aviation enthusiast, it's the nuts!!
@@patrickbateman4148 huh? you didn't know that when you manage to critical hit/destroy the ammo rack in the IS - 7 in WoT/Blitz it will ammo rack the tank.
That can always be upgrade, but I think they weren't really thinking about transportation, more of, Hey Ivan! Lets build big, super stronk, fast, and very heavy tonk! It will amaze world!
Experimental platform. Testing limits of what can be done with engine/suspension/armour/armament/shape/etc, if there would be no limits in such basic stuff, as economy/logistics/actual production capacity/etc.
God, i love this tank, it was the better of his era, with a powerful 130mm cannon, a solid armour capable of survive a 128mm german anti tank cannon, decent rate of fire and a fckng speed of 60 km per hour, absolutely a beast nevertheless, his not so light weight made it unviable, such a shame not seeing this beautiful steel beast on service
because it was replaced by the is-10 tank (t10) and now it has already been built 1500 pieces, the IS-7 was a very heavy and expensive machine, and the era of heavy tanks was ending
Meanwhile the hull floor would buckle and crack making the tank unusable. The floor could be thickened to withstand the torque being applied by the weight of the beast, but then the tank would be so heavy as to be unmovable.
@@DK-ed7be ok?? The hull floor was around 40 mm thick, the one planed for the e100 was 30 mm, e100 was almost twice as heavy, it would need more maintenance than other tanks but still wasnt as bad as you think, even Tiger ii had in the most part only 25 mm, with almost the same weight
Back then in USSR russian was equal to soviet, and other republics' people were not offended. Stalin himself, while being georgian, sometimes has been using the word "russian" when referring to soviet things by 1940s.
@@alpharius6206 wrong. First of all, Ukraine and Belarus contributed quite a lot. Second ussr disliked the russian empires imperial ambitions. They were happy to have a new, different name.
@@David-cy5zu literally the most contribution in the war was done by Russians. If I am not mistaken a lot of Ukrainian people joined the Nazi's in the WW2. Belarus wasn't that of a significant country to make a large impact on the war.
Only weight 65 tons, bruh, when the King Tiger 69,8 tons and only have 150mm armor and 88mm cannon. Damm, the Soviet really know how to make a good tank.
This has to be the equivalent of the King Tier, even tough it never saw the battlefield, one could only imagine the terror when coming face to face with this beast lol.
The year is 1948, the war between the Third Reich and the USSR has stalled. To break this stalemate both powers bring out their heaviest and most advanced tanks to date. Maus: "I'm in danger."
You know...only good workers/engineers/scientists could've been able to create such a beautiful piece of machinery as IS-7. And the good worker - is well-fed and educated one. I mean, in reality, almost everyone was provided with food in this commie shithole called USSR. They had food cards back in the day. (just like modern kids have food cards in schools) .
@@lovepeace9727 Yes…because military engineers totally had it equal to Ivan making plumbing equipment. Also it doesn't matter how long they had to wait in food lines, lol.
Thanks to The Coldest Water for sponsoring this video:
Coldest Giveaway: thecoldestwater.lpages.co/1-gallon-giveaway-coneofarc/
Shop The Coldest Water: thecoldestwater.com/?ref=coneofarc
Use Promo Code " CONE" to get 10% OFF your entire order.
ok
Hey cone, I'm not going to stop until you do it, please do sturmtiger next for cursed by design
@@humzaakhtar9208 The Sturmtiger is... Man, is it something.
just get a napkin instead of buying this
ok
Tank designs in a nutshell :
"We built the best tank of the era! It will be unstoppable!"
Weight and economics : *I'm gonna stop you right there*
@Niek Vels ;(
@Niek Vels yes
@Niek Vels says the one from the country that sends its soldier slaves all over the world killing millions in the name of bullshit freedom lmfao
@Niek Vels what is the dude talking about? Wich country?
@Niek Vels Dw bro i know mor ussr history (I'm reading gulag archipelago atm) but i just didn't know what country he was talking about lol
"throughout history there have been tanks all designed to kill"
*Nervously looks at the fish tank in the back of my room*
You can smash it and use the shards as blades
Underated comment comrad
@@phonix4454 thank you
@@MTRBR-mp7wj that is conceivable
Well, tanks also used to capture prisoners who cowered in fear in front of the guns. You are keeping fishes prisoners in the fish tank.
This has so many machine guns, it’s starting to look like an American tank
Looks at m2
@@specificocean7992 *takes the most extreme example of a stereotype*
"They are all like this!"
The universal quest for "Mo' Dakka".
ma deuce?
no tovarish... MORE DAKKA!!! BIG BOOM. BIG STEEL. TRACKS. RUSSIAN RED WOOD SPOILER!!
@@derrickstorm6976 Do you have anything better to do?
6:11
"he was also the same test driver who performed the legendary tank jump in a bt-7"
ofc it was a bt-7
Every WoT player has performed that BT-7 jump at 6:10
MBT-7
Haha baby tank go nyooom
@@crhu319 “TRACK DAMAGED”
@@longyu9336 bt-7 masterrace
Logistics is the number one thing determining victory in a war. So many people tend to gloss over the smaller details without realizing how important they actually are. You've built a beastly, nearly unkillable tank? Fantastic!
-How are you getting fuel to it?
-How are you moving it to and from the battlefield?
-How are you going to restock it's ammunition?
-How will you get spare and replacement parts to the tanks that need them?
-Do you have the manufacturing base to keep these things running, fueled, stocked with munitions, train the pilots, replace and produce more of the tanks?
-Do you have a supply chain capable of doing all of this quickly, ensuring they aren't stranded with no fuel or ammo?
This is the reason why the allied forces won the war.
@@kikert0213 it's the same as every tank?
@@sebastiangui8599 Yea but some tanks require more help than others. This is the german heavies died off. They were some of the best tanks of their time, but they were incredibly unreliable and were breaking down more than the nazi's could fix them also paired with the fact that US industrialism was pumping out a staggering amount of tanks compared to the germans that they had a saying "A Tiger can beat 10 Shermans on its own, the problem is the Americans always show up with 11!". Supply and logistics are specific to each tank.
@@pollux_id2557 Just to add to this, most German tanks were different out the factory be it by an addition of an extra component or a screw making the parts list longer for specific crews while the Americans had uniformed tanks where ever part of the tank can be swapped to another and it runs fine. So even if a "destroyed" Sherman had a perfectly good transmission, recover it, and pop it into another Sherman with a damaged transmission. TADA! Give em hell. etc etc.
Aye, we can tell you've played command and conquere once or twice 🤣
Soviet Automatic Fire Extinguisher: The fire will automatically go out when there is nothing left to burn!
Ha ha ha .... brilliant .... you make my day ¡¡¡¡
Yeah. Only western tanks work well I guess🙀🙀
In Soviet Russia, Fire extinguishes you.
@@innocento.1552 it is joke
xD
Nah they use Vodka :):)
I can't remember where I read this, but IIRC the per-unit cost of the IS-7 was absolutely insane and was one of the bigger reasons why the order was cancelled. It was something obscene like, for the cost of 1 IS-7, you could have had 7 T-54's instead.
For one F35, i could have quite a few other planes, too.
@@prestonang8216 not really. The f35 had abhorrent development costs but the per unit price is not that bad and actually cheaper than some other fighters (due to the very high production).
@@prestonang8216 a tank is not an airplane, the relative lack of mobility means the ability to have as many as possible is more important.
The other reason was this tank weighed 65 tons, too much for the average weight for a Russian tank.
@@Kyle-gw6qp only if those high production numbers are achieved... Same with the B-2. They're on the book for $2 each, but if the total planned number had been built that'd have been less than $300 million each.
And same too for the F-22, and every item of military equipment ever that had its planned production numbers slashed.
IS-7 In RL: Most OP tank at that time.
IS-7 in WT and WoT: Ammo rack go *BOOM!*
Don’t forget wotb
in war thunder its still a beast if you dont get flanked, which i would imagine it would be irl to.
@@AHSArnulf It also costs 1000 dollars.
@@AHSArnulf it would be the best tank in the game if it would face the tanks it would have face in real life but in game it faces tanks that were built 20 years later
@@christian9125abd i see well they have to bqlqnce the game i guess. its unrealistic but it would be kinda boring not being able to shoot it and then get blown to pieces everytime
My grandparents own an appartement in Kubinka. I remember going to the tank museum there as a kid and seeing all this massive tanks including the IS-7
Good thing about about a tank museum near by is that ya are prepared for war with the tanks you need lol
People would DIE for that chance. You truly are a blessed person.
During the time the IS7 was designed, the E100 chassis was ready to be mated with a Maus turret. It would be the battle of the titans...
The Battle of Titans 2
IS7 would win because there would be so Few Maus tanks
@@sigmamalegrindset132 Wa are talking about the E100 vs IS-7, not the Maus :-)
@@ButchE30M3S14 same thing, russia would have so much more tanks produced than germany.
@@ButchE30M3S14 the IS-7 is impenetrable to the main gun of the E-100/Maus, as shown in the video, it would be a definite IS-7 victory in a 1v1 scenario
Lucky to have seen it in the metal, unlucky to have experienced the toilets at the Kubinka tank Museum.....
F
F
G
F
"in the metal" doesnt make much sense unless you are a robot or a cyborg of some sort
IS-7 in real life:The most advanced tank of the time,imprevious to all anti tank guns at the time.
IS-7 in war thunder:Gets ammo racked by a moving MBT with a stabilizer and thermals,firing 400mm pen APFSDS 2 kilometers away.
Xd. Well you can't have it fighting m48 or leopard 1s.
@@alphanomad511 except you can,the leopard can easily lolpen it,the fact the IS-7 faces fully stabilized thermal sight 1980s MBTs is just overkill,its useless.
Just gaijin being horrendous at game balance. I mean the entire IS series, much like the MAUS and other late war tanks consistently face MBTs with heat or even darts and stabilizers. Then again if the devs also beleive that an R3 with a fully automatic 30mm stabilized gun should face early T-34s and shermans, what do you know? Vehicles should be matched based on their performance, and clearly the late war tanks are underperforming (epsecially in regard to their repair cost) compared to the modern vehicles they conistently face.
Well, it was soo invunerable at it's early times at 8.0 Hitting downtier after downtier. Those Tiger II were halpless
@@datonecommieirongear2020 Tiger II's only go up to 7.7 mot 8.0, any player with a Tiger II that got up tiered to 8.0 must have been using an M48 which is 7.0.
"And we also added three more machine guns that we attached to the hull. They fire sideways"
IS-7: *Neutral steers*
Enemy infantry: "I guess I'll die."
Needs two machine guns pointed down.
@@ComradeArthur gotta defeat those AT mines
Now I'm picturing the damn thing spinning in place like Reaper from Overwatch, and I curse you for that mental image
Is-7 is by far my favorite Russian tank. The appearance is intimidating and the spec wise it's amazing for its year.
I like it to I like Maude a lot to
also look at the South American battleships
I remember building a model of this when I was a kid. Still one od the prettiest tanks ever designed.
I’m sorry, 1948?
THIS THING IS FROM 1948?!
I thought it was 60s/70s material!
WHAT?!
Yep dude
The planing began in 44
Its possible to buy a 100terabyte SSD today but it costs 400 000$
@@hytalefanboi7471 20 years from now it'll be much much less, isn't that crazy?
yeah, it's like miles ahed of anything around. not even german heavies, like the maus.
soviet heavy doctrine was beautiful, if MBTs never came to existance, russia would have had the best tanks for sure.
speedy, small siloutted, hard hitting, well protected tanks...
ma boi stalin knew
Cone: “Is7 all but invulnerable” Fv4005: “let’s test that theory”
lul
Cardboard box with boom boom gun on track boi
some random pz II: shut up paper thin turret :v
@@丂几几乇尺 FV4005: *exist*
Any gun with a caliber above 10mm: howdy partner
IS7 heavy machineguns : DA COMRADE, LETS !
It should have had machine guns mounted coaxially to the other machine guns so that it could use the co-ax machine guns to range for the other machine guns...
What was the case in the front...beside the usuall koaxial tracer mg over the main gun, there also were two smaler mg's on the left and on the right side in the gunmantlet.
@@j1998annis But then they'd need more machine guns to be mounted coaxially to those machine guns, you can see the problem here? Before you know it the number of machine guns might get a little ridiculous...
@@j1998annis Oh, sorry I misunderstood your comment and made a joke at first, the immovable mounted machine guns are typically used by the driver in such a configuration for the purpose of suppression fire.
The thinking of the time was that a charging tanker could theoretically spray pulses of machine gun fire as the tank, along side other tanks doing the same thing, and have a moving wave of machine gun fire to suppress potential infantry anti-tank weaponry and/or just make them rout in general.
@@nobodyuknow2490 I agree with both comments. And I apologize for my rough german temper. I think te problem was, that this guy forgot to mention 2 mg's (the co-ax ones in the mantlet).
And 8 mg's are ridiculous.
Hopfully in return, I understood you comments right.
Greetings from 🇩🇪
@@j1998annis It's totally fine, there's nothing you need to apologize for ^_^
Your English is far better than my German. It was really my mistake for reading the previous comment too quickly and wanting to continue the joking around.
Yes, 8 machine guns is ridiculous for anything other than anti-aircraft weapons, and aircraft themselves, such as the P47 which famously had eight .50 Cal machine guns.
Yarnhub: "one german tank can beat 10 American tanks, but they always seem to have eleven"
"What about the Soviets?"
"Those Ivans always have a dozen or so more!"
I believe the real quote is that they can beat 4 american tanks, but they always have 5. Your quote applies more to the eastern front.
@@sumvs5992 in world war 2 for example, 7 shermans were needed to stop one Tiger 1 or Panther. Its crazy :D
@@adnan2299 I am talking about WW2
@@sumvs5992 me too
Tanks like IS-7 was more a test bed for new tech and design methods.
You see this often with tanks and other things where one machine is record breaking but never put into mass production as its individual bits are copied and put into newer designs or is put in already exsisting designs.
Makes one wonder how the Russian tanks and MBTs would have evolved if the IS-7 entered service.
There probably wouldn't be much of a difference, but who knows.
@@PilotTed I'm sure it would've been something like the Maus, had that tank gone into production. It would've instilled absolute, pants-shitting terror in the men who initially faced it, but would ultimately become a non-issue when sufficient anti-tank weaponry and tactics were developed. Remember - Being a big scary box of death is _part_ of the tank's role in warfare.
I doubt it would have seen much service outside of military reserves. When you're that big you tear up roads, destroy bridges, and make your own ponds in soft ground. It's great to have a beast like that, but useless if you can't get it to the battle and can't cross the rivers once there.
BUT, as a concept, it is a hell of an experiment.
Developement of ATGMs made breakthrough tanks an obsolete concept, and entire heavy tank program was scrapped by Soviets in 1960 anyway.
The west were firing 75mm APDS at the Germans in the closing months of the war. The round had issues for sure, but had the IS7 become known. It's armor could have been defeated relatively quickly, at least sooner than the Soviets could build up a critical mass.
Further more. The issue with an extremely well armored behemoth of a tank, such as IS7, Tiger 2, Maus etc. Is that, once it can no longer be relied upon to deflect frontal attacks, it is worthless for anything but target practice.
USSR : put a dog in a tank in live-fire test
John Wick : grab his pistol
Pencil*
Armor Piercing High Explosive Pencil, Cap Ballistic Cap.
The Americans tested the B58 ejection system on bears, do you think there is a subtext ??
Huh?
They should have used criminals , would have made the tests more valid .
Infantry are annoying hey?
IS-7: YES!
"The dogs suffered no ill-effects..."
The dogs would like to offer a rebuttal.
"How you make tank so fast?"
"Put airplane engine in. логика. Just don't ask about the balloons full of fuel all around the hull."
Makes sense to put the fuel on the outside for it. After all if the fuel catches fire on the outside of the hull or leaks, the crew inside is protected. Moreover fuel is actually really decent at stopping chemical warheads such as heat warheads.
Back in 48, the invention of fin stabilized heat wasn't there yet, so heat warheads in their unstabilized forms were rather weak and would not be enough to go through the front, but could asuredly go if they were used on the side of the vehicle. External fuel tanks would act as one time use space armor if that was the case.
Obviously this is often not modeled in tank games such as war thunder, where an external fire (far outside anything critical) can still lead to the loss of the vehicle, and where the IS-7 and its predecesors often end up being matched against vehicles far ahead of its own time period, often using sabot or heat rounds to make its armor and armament entirely irrelevant
The fact that I share a birthday with the 2nd IS-7 is awesome
Me too! Virgo boy
Plot twist u are the 2nd is-7
I definitely think you should cover the 2B1 Oka at one point! It's essentially a stretched KV chassis with a 420mm gun on it... it failed miserably but always wanted to know more about it!
I would also love to see that, crazy bastards put a damn naval gun on a tank chassis. If I remember correctly, it tore the transmission and the drive sprockets clean off of their mounts during test firing.
I think it's an T-10 chassis
@@DeathHead1358 reminds me of the S-51. It was basically a B-4 mounted on a Kv-1 hull and when they fired the gun it wrecked the transmission and knocked crew members out of their seats
@@DeathHead1358 Hot damn! Now that's what I call test firing a gun...
'we don't really know what will happen, but... Here goes!!!'
B O O M
The chassis is Independent and no other chassis of another tank was not used.
Eh, cursed by desgin on the title didn't translated well for portuguese
Oh no, the viewer must be appalled
dumb brasilian translation "amaldiçoado por desenho" is the correct translation
Here it says "Estranho por natureza", which isn't bad, but isn't on point either. "Almaldiçoado pelo design" would be better.
Bom estranho por natureza não é uma tradução perfeita mas ela passa a ideia correta.
If this tank had entered service,judging by how they reacted to the IS-3, they would have been utterly terrified, a tank that nothing you have can reliably penetrate and can move at speeds that would make some medium tanks jealous. Honestly it really was the perfect tank, it had everything, heavy armor, high speed and good mobility, and not least of all, a powerful main gun.
Probably would’ve been worth making 25 just to fuck with NATO.
A tank that excelled in the hard factors but absolutely sucked in the soft factors. Bad ergonomics, poor, hard to supply, difficult to cross bridges, etc.
The I.S. tanks can still be useful in a war with it's good armor and strong 122 mm gun , just give it a stronger diesel engine, upgrade rotation system, tracker and target finding system with some armor plates too and it can be used in the field damaging tanks, enemy positions and targets etc lol
> judging by how they reacted to the IS-3
Didn't give a fuck, enjoying newly built nukes?
@@userlink-12 a very incorrect assumption they sh*t their pants at the sight of the IS-3 when it was shown off at the victory parade in Berlin.
It was really canceled because when Stalin died Khrushchev canceled everything Stalin had his name on. You could not have the Polit Bureau condemning Stalin but the Soviet Union's main battle tank named after him.
Absolutely LOVE this stuff Cone, keep it up! But don’t tire yourself out, your passion for the topics is what makes this special!
TLDR: Tank was fat and thus shot for being anti-Soviet
seems legit
yes ate to much filthy western burger!!!!
Enough food is only for capitalists. Starving is the communist way!
*hides CIA nutritional studies*
@@AgentSmith911 Soviet humor is like food. NOT EVERYBODY GETS IT.
when you are too expensive to build and too heavy to transport
Dj Kalie suffering from success
Virgin Nazi Germany: struggling to design the ultimate tank of its time, is seriously considering an underwater river crossing due to its weight. The tank is extremely huge and slow
Chad USSR: designed the tank which is fast, insanely armored, and rather small compared to other designs. Throws it into the garbage bin, due to the problems it will cause with logistics
Still my favorite tank from history...amazing piece of machinery
"This gun was capable of being remote controlled"
Holy crap the soviets were ahead of their time
Well the Jagdpanzer 38(t)s top mounted MG could also be fired from inside the vehicle.
The real question is how do you aim a MG that is mounted so high up on the tank from inside it?
@@Kuschel_K Periscope
This wasn't new by the time of IS-7. Other countries had already been experimenting with remote controlled weapons.
@@alims6629 tracer rounds. Walk them in and keep shooting.
@@gregwarner3753 it could possibly, or they develope some sort of digital cam/sensor that could help the the gunner to see the target
IS 7: You can´t defeat me!
Conquerer: I know, but he can
*aggressive railroad noises
Nah, it's clearly pantsy kruschev who said "Lol, no more heavy thx cuz someone gonna invent ATGM sometime"
RIP Is-7 and Object 279.
At least the russians were pog enough to preserve these two.
This was cancelled before Khrushchev launched his coup.
Oh so your a wot blitz player like me?
*name all game mode and atgm tanks*
P
Thicc tank with impenetrable armor: I’m a god how can you kill a god
Me: *laughs in HEAT*
This was the first of your videos I ever watched. Still one of my favorites ever. So many machine guns! 😜😎🍀
Man I'm still pissed at myself for not keeping the coupon
UA-cam actually recommend this to me without me having look for it.
Weird.
IS-7: *Called immortal and invulnerable*
FV4005: "...and I took that personally"
IRL it's mostly unkillable at its time to the 40s to the 70s
Also, I tested it and I shot The IS-7 Frontally but it only killed the Driver so you're still going to die even when you are in FV4005
I find it interesting that ps one included this Tank in it's panzer front game? It was unstoppable and allowed completing several difficult battles once utilized. Thx for sharing this video , I enjoy this type of material.
Wait a minute. 1948? 1948? This things looks 70s or late 60s at least, but 1948? And planning began in 44? To think there was, at least, the slimmest, slightest possibility, that this thing could’ve stormed Berlin, is mind blowing. The fact that in roughly five years, the Soviet Union went from BT-7s to IS-3s is incredible, war truly is the greatest motivator.
As a cold war veteran the only thing that I could think to say was "Thank God it was cancelled!"
Aren't you glad didn't go with automation to decrease the work hours and put in the gorbachov perestroika
Or maybe not. If this thing was brought online, every single one that you met meant about 10 T-54s less to worry about.
@@longyu9336 Well that is certainly a more comforting way of looking at it!
@@Kettenhund31 Same with US tankers unlucky enough to face the big cats: Yes, they are cursed men then in their shermans but their Generals knew that the Tigers and Panthers contributed to the massive discrepancy in numbers of tanks on the battlefield between the US and Germany.
@@Kettenhund31 were you near the fulda gap?
Impressive video, I honestly felt sad on this one, such a wonderful machine defeated by its own superiority kinda hurts to think about
Many people are saying it was ACTUALLY defeated by it's coz more than anything else. Was the cost of 7 other tanks.
The I.S. tanks can still be useful in a war with it's good armor and strong 122 mm gun , just give it a stronger diesel engine, upgrade rotation system, tracker and target finding system with some armor plates too and it can be used in the field damaging tanks, enemy positions and targets etc lol
@@tylersoto7465 The thing is that the cost and logistics on how to upkeed, resupply, restock, and transport these things would be insane.
@@trevorphillips8415 ik , maybe we can find a way to make it easier to repair and resupply it
@@tylersoto7465 How? Making one of these things would be the same cost as 5 normal tanks. If that's how much it costs to make it then the cost to make sure that it's in running condition, has enough ammo and fuel, facilities running to store them in, that their crue are in top condition, etc would be through the roof. Possibly 3× higher atleast.
This isn't even counting transportation. It's weight would make it almost impossible to have it travel on any bridge or train. You could just drive it there, but then it'd just end up breaking down multiple times before you reach the battlefield.
It's a good vehicle in terms of how a tank needs to work, but it's bad in terms of everything else.
"designed to kill" but the only thing the ferdinand was designed to kill was its transmission XD
The Ferdinand used an electric drive train, not a transmission
@@InternetStudiesGuy bruhaps
@@silver2k433 berchance?
@@InternetStudiesGuy that still qualifies to be called a transmission!
@@e.s.6275 transmission is gears...
Very good armor design, specially on the turret. It could deflect projectiles coming from any direction and had no shot traps whatsoever.
I know I'm seeing this a year after you published it but, Thank you. This was very informative and gave me insight to a tank I was very interested in learning about!
Rest in peace IS-7 the mightiest stalin tank
One still remains in Kubinka, i saw it in November, was a big ol' heavy tank!
Do one on M103 and M551
Good idea
but they r not curse
@@granit8902 but they were bad or questionable.
@@khahinmetameta7826 I mean, the M551 wasn't meant to really _be_ a tank in the first place. It was meant to be a recon vehicle, only being pressed into the light tank roll in Vietnam, where it did spectacularly poorly.
@@GoredonTheDestroyer tell me about it the T92 and DELTA 120 programme would have been worth the $$. T55AM1 embarrasses the US gun missile system, in fact the U.S system should have cursed by design on it.
How many MGs do you want on this tank Vladimir
*Vladimir after 2 bottles of vodka: Yes
Russians need more than 2 bottles to get drunk. You obviously don't know many east Europeans.
@@OffGridInvestor *Me being eastern European: Wut.
It's a amazing looking tank especially for the time it was built
Who needs infantry support when you have as many machine guns as this tank lol
What killed the IS7 was a very simple reason : weight. There was an order to stop development of all tanks exceiding some 50 + tons. And the IS7 did exceed it. Anyway, the era of heavy tanks would be comming to an end in what, 10 years because of the advancements in tank ammo like sabot and HEAT that made armor useless ( pure steel armor that is ).
Yes , weight and the weak unreliable gearbox, IS7 was reworked later to IS8/T10 which was more down to earth lighter and production ready model
Yet modern MBTs crush that limit hands on.
As heavy as this IS - 7 or Tiger 2 !
pure weight doesnt matter that much, the ground pressure does,weight matters mostly for speed, and a little for transport by rail, but i think thats not that bad.
Yeah. The future of tank warfare is going to end up being long-range capabilities with advanced Hard-Kill APS. We're getting exponentially better at chucking metal stuff to kill metal things, than making metal things impervious.
@@darkySpMight be, but this kind of tech would only be for really advanced militaries. Lots of tank fights like we know will still happen in conflicts involving smaller, less well equipped armies.
Do a video on the Object 279. The most heavily armored conventional (non-composite) tank ever made.
Tbh, shortly after discovering the channel the first thing I did is going into search in his videos and entered "279", but got this video as a second result instead, heh
Technically, that'd be the Maus. The 279 achieved it's phenomenal protection via angling, not raw thickness. As such, the Maus is more heavily armored.
@@liviuganea4108 Eh, fair point
6:00 a tank jumps into a lake. How have I not seen this before
The sight of this Cold War monster on a freshly-nuked battlefield would’ve been pretty awesome.
One of my favorite tanks along with the kv2.
It still has nothing on the bob semple tank
The bob senple has over 2033mm of effective armor on every side of the tank
And weakes part of the bob sample is the machine gun pod which is over 982mm of effective thickness
@@Creppystories123 it's gun could also go through about 5 yamato class battleships before shattering
@@bejaminmaston1347 True
WoTb players:is-7 russias unstoppable heavy tank? You mean ammorack fest?
lol fun to ammorack a full hp IS-7 with a single shot from my 4005
@@potatolord5827 or the jge100
This thing would die the moment it faces a Tank hunter in WoTB, auto Ammorack lol
God that reminds me playing long ago getting is7 ammo racks in the t110e5
Quite sad for you guys that it was buffed and easily is able to kill anything Except for the Obj.268 V.4
Still loving this series Cone, really great stuff! Any chance of the cursed talking FCM.36 "cone" turret coming back (perhaps in the intro overview)? I really enjoyed that bit.
Early World War II-era uncapped AP projectiles fired from high-velocity guns were able to penetrate about twice their caliber at close range (100 m). At longer ranges (500-1,000 m), this dropped to 1.5-1.1 calibers due to the poor ballistic shape and higher drag of the smaller-diameter early projectiles. Later in the conflict, APCBC fired at close range (100 m) from large-caliber, high-velocity guns (75-128 mm) were able to penetrate a much greater thickness of armor in relation to their caliber (2.5 times) and also a greater thickness (2-1.75 times) at longer ranges (1,500-2,000 m).
Imagine how much of a monster it would have been if it went into production
wait, you mentioned the trials with the German 128mm gun. But I heard numerous accounts that the hull was penetrated with ease by the 128mm gun of the Jadgtiger at long and short distances of 1-2 km.
Is7: NO ONE CAN DEFEAT ME
Is4: allow me to introduce myself
HO-RI:i can handle that.
Oh my favorite World of Tanks tank!
Been to Kubinka tank museum, it's rough and ready but they have some amazing and rare exhibits. Well worth a visit!! I also visited Monino aviation museum, for aviation enthusiast, it's the nuts!!
Shoots cheek of the pike nose and gets crit
only war thunder and wot player can understand this comment
😂😂😂😂 and right in the ass
Not WoT players though.
@@patrickbateman4148 huh? you didn't know that when you manage to critical hit/destroy the ammo rack in the IS - 7 in WoT/Blitz it will ammo rack the tank.
@@patrickbateman4148 or you just cant understand what i mean
@@patrickbateman4148 true, so many high tier players that still can grasp how the armor works.
So they made a 70 ton tank and forgot the logistic chain could supoort only 55 tons...
That can always be upgrade, but I think they weren't really thinking about transportation, more of, Hey Ivan! Lets build big, super stronk, fast, and very heavy tonk! It will amaze world!
Maybe they wanted to drive it to the front line.
Experimental platform. Testing limits of what can be done with engine/suspension/armour/armament/shape/etc, if there would be no limits in such basic stuff, as economy/logistics/actual production capacity/etc.
God, i love this tank, it was the better of his era, with a powerful 130mm cannon, a solid armour capable of survive a 128mm german anti tank cannon, decent rate of fire and a fckng speed of 60 km per hour, absolutely a beast nevertheless, his not so light weight made it unviable, such a shame not seeing this beautiful steel beast on service
because it was replaced by the is-10 tank (t10) and now it has already been built 1500 pieces, the IS-7 was a very heavy and expensive machine, and the era of heavy tanks was ending
Meanwhile the hull floor would buckle and crack making the tank unusable. The floor could be thickened to withstand the torque being applied by the weight of the beast, but then the tank would be so heavy as to be unmovable.
@@макслюлюкин is 8, not is 10
@@макслюлюкин even though it was heavy it's around 70 tons, also remember it was in prototypes still, they were more work to be made
@@DK-ed7be ok?? The hull floor was around 40 mm thick, the one planed for the e100 was 30 mm, e100 was almost twice as heavy, it would need more maintenance than other tanks but still wasnt as bad as you think, even Tiger ii had in the most part only 25 mm, with almost the same weight
Thank you for sharing this.
I never would of thought a bout the weight / transportation. Thanks.
ConeOfArc:No anti tank gun could stop it and tanks of other nations would be left in the dust
Also ConeOfArc:Cursed,by design
"Cursed by design" Meaning It was not entered into service due to being too much of it's design.
@@MrTungy Oh ok
They could've saved tons of weight by getting rid of the weird superfluous machine guns.
only a ton...
"Russia's..."
Every other socialist republic: **TRIGGERD**
Back then in USSR russian was equal to soviet, and other republics' people were not offended.
Stalin himself, while being georgian, sometimes has been using the word "russian" when referring to soviet things by 1940s.
@@alpharius6206 wrong. First of all, Ukraine and Belarus contributed quite a lot. Second ussr disliked the russian empires imperial ambitions. They were happy to have a new, different name.
@@David-cy5zu literally the most contribution in the war was done by Russians. If I am not mistaken a lot of Ukrainian people joined the Nazi's in the WW2. Belarus wasn't that of a significant country to make a large impact on the war.
@nicholas loudermilk ok nazis keep eating propaganda.
@@eyeofterra in war yes. Ukraine was overrun. But After war Theo contributed a Lot.
6:12
When a rat sees a KFC deep frier
Sorry not sorry, Reese's
Only weight 65 tons, bruh, when the King Tiger 69,8 tons and only have 150mm armor and 88mm cannon. Damm, the Soviet really know how to make a good tank.
imagine rolling in your patton on west germany and seeing this monstrosity
edit: thanks for the 69 likes lmao
You kill it because you have a patton it can go right trough the front
@@flakka1685 did u jsut not watch the same video as us? Dumb fuck
@@danghj864 fuck the video you dumbass i was talking about the patton here
The Patton would've probably had a 5 to 1 force ratio advantage, a bit like the allied vs German heavies really.
@@jimtaylor294 that is not a good example german heavies were crushing allied tanks
The only reason it didn’t serve in ww2 is because Stalin himself deemed the side armor was too troll
Irl: A beast of a tank and almost invunerable to anything
Wot: Gets destroyed by a light tanks loaded with gold shells
When I saw first "ride clip" I was thinking this is about WarThunder xD
This has to be the equivalent of the King Tier, even tough it never saw the battlefield, one could only imagine the terror when coming face to face with this beast lol.
Another splendid video. Keep up the great work!
"It will take decades for anything to defeat this tank"
FV 183: nope.
IS-7: at least i've been built, while you're not :3
@@Kalashnikov413 haha true )))
@@Kalashnikov413 FV004: are you sure about that.
@@Fluffypancakes-o7q T-64: *say that again?*
@@Kalashnikov413 armada: really.
Imagine what the west would have produced when seeing this tank went into service
damn, a rare case of an army having actual foresight and wisdom in choosing it’s equipment, fascinating
Good looking tank and that gun
Damn, last time I was this early Lenin was still in power.
The year is 1948, the war between the Third Reich and the USSR has stalled. To break this stalemate both powers bring out their heaviest and most advanced tanks to date.
Maus: "I'm in danger."
Hans, why do i hear boss music?
Ivan, Maus, 1 km north, turn up the Soviet Anthem, time to send this cykas to the hell they belong blyat
2:47 You forgot the two 7.62 machine guns mounted on the rear of the turret.
He covers that later on, the war thunder model is the later version where these were added
Thank you for the video!
*without watching*
Unstoppable?
Trench: allow me to introduce myself
0:20 were they? Gosh, I didn’t know tanks were supposed to... kill people.
Ikr, it’s as if they were literally made to fight in wars!
😅😅😅
Imagine how many people would have had to go without even just food, only to cover the cost of production, let alone running and transporting it
A necessary sacrifice to the glory of Communism.
You know...only good workers/engineers/scientists could've been able to create such a beautiful piece of machinery as IS-7.
And the good worker - is well-fed and educated one.
I mean, in reality, almost everyone was provided with food in this commie shithole called USSR.
They had food cards back in the day. (just like modern kids have food cards in schools) .
@@lovepeace9727 Yes…because military engineers totally had it equal to Ivan making plumbing equipment. Also it doesn't matter how long they had to wait in food lines, lol.
American kids straight out of college- "I love communism"
Russian kids - "sit down, shut up. You know not what you ask"
Cursed by khrushchev
and maybe economy
It was cancelled long before Khrushchev's coup.
@@Zorro9129 its happen to soviet heavy tank project especially T10/IS-8 because Khrushchev love missile for tank armament
@@noobepro_7146 I know, thanks for the info
Great work Sir thank you
u are da best at explaining tanks, thx for this amazing vid!!! :)))