Guide to the Tier 8 Soviet premium tank IS-6 World of Tanks

Good day, dear friends, aces.gg portal is with you! Now we will talk about one of the most popular premium class vehicles, the Soviet heavy tank of the eighth level, in front of you IS-6 guide

This machine really has a large number of strengths; by and large, this device can even be called comfortable, it will suit many beginners and bring pleasure from the game. In addition, IS-6 World of Tanks

is endowed with a preferential level of combat, making it even more enjoyable to play on it, but for maximum effectiveness and to understand whether it is worth buying, you must know the tank as well as possible.

The tank has a twin brother - the IS-6 Ch. At its core, the Soviet premium TT Tier 8 IS-6 Ch differs from the regular IS-6, only in style, it is all black. The tank is timed to coincide with the annual event at the end of autumn called “Black Friday”.

TTX IS-6

First of all, I would like to say that we have at our disposal a safety margin that is quite standard for a level eight heavyweight, as well as a very modest basic viewing radius of 350 meters, the latter is definitely a disadvantage.

As for the strengths, of course, it is worth noting the good booking. Let's start with the turret and besides the fact that it has a very low silhouette, thanks to the rational slopes in the forehead the IS-6 has characteristics

armor here varies from 156 millimeters (small areas at the edges of the gun mantlet) and exceeds the 500 millimeter mark.
In addition, the gun mantlet of the IS-6 WoT
has a thickness of 332 to 450 millimeters, that is, our turret forehead is very strong and can withstand blows well.

The frontal projection of the hull is somewhat ambiguous and slightly less protected. Let's start with the fact that if you look at the Soviet heavy tank IS-6

exactly, in the NLD it will be pierced by guns with a penetration above 205 millimeters, and the front plate of the VLD can be succumbed to projectiles with a penetration above 180 millimeters. However, with this arrangement, the thickness of the “cheeks” goes beyond 300 mm, that is, they become very durable. Accordingly, to protect yourself, you should turn the body quite a bit so that the adjustment grows slightly everywhere.

As for the sides, they are excellent in our case. Even at right angles IS-6 tank

often takes a hit, because there is a screen, wide harp and a solid slope. Well, if you hide the frontal projection and show the side from around the corner of the building at an acute angle, the reduction will easily exceed 400 millimeters, and you will be able to take the blow perfectly.

In terms of mobility, the Soviet heavy vehicle also did not disappoint. Of course, the maximum speed is the IS-6 WoT

not the best, it is rather weak in maneuverability, but the dynamics for a heavy tank are very good, so you can confidently gain and maintain maximum speed, as well as “kite” the enemy, setting up the shot.

Not included in the amplitude

In 1944, work on Soviet heavy tanks was carried out in two directions. The first was the development of a fundamentally new heavy tank, designated Object 701. The second direction was the deep modernization of the IS-2 heavy tank. Later it was divided into large and small modernization

-
the latter led to the creation of the IS-2 with a straightened hull nose.
Finally, in the spring of 1944, a third vehicle appeared, which received the designation IS-6 , was an initiative of the design bureau of plant No. 100 and became, as they say, the third wheel.

New tank instead of modernizing the old one

In the early spring of 1944, the first results of the combat use of the IS-85 (IS-1) heavy tank became known. It turned out that the armor protection of the tank, as well as its weapons, did not correspond to the realities of the battlefield. The GBTU KA already knew about weapons: already in December 1943, the production of heavy tanks IS-122 (IS-2) with a more powerful 122-mm D-25T gun began. In the case of booking, the news turned out to be extremely unpleasant. It turned out that the German 75-mm KwK 42 L/70 gun penetrated both the front of the hull and the front of the turret. For this reason, design work on modernizing the IS-2 began at the end of March. They were finally legalized by GKO Resolution No. 5583ss “On the production of prototypes of a new heavy tank at the Kirov NKTP Plant” dated April 8, 1944. In addition to the development and construction of prototypes of the Object 701 heavy tank, the resolution discussed the modernized IS-2. Within three months, it was necessary to develop and manufacture an improved version of the tank. The main requirements were strengthening armor protection, as well as increasing the reliability of the chassis and transmission.

IS-2 modernization project developed by the Design Bureau of Plant No. 100 in April 1944. It formed the basis for the design of a new tank, which began to be developed at a pilot plant in April 1944.

The main driving force in the development of the modernized IS-2 was the Design Bureau of Pilot Plant No. 100, headed by A.S. Ermolaev. At the same time, modernization work began even earlier, since the first developments appeared before the State Defense Committee decree No. 5583ss. Moreover, at first, plant No. 100 did not exactly modernize the conventional IS-2. The project, developed under the leadership of N.F. Shashmurin, was created according to the tactical and technical requirements for a heavy tank with a combat weight of 55-56 tons - it was more likely not a modernization of the IS-2, but rather a competitor to the heavier and more protected Object 701. By the way, these requirements implied a crew of 5 people - just This is how it was for Shashmurin’s IS-2 modernization project. Based on developments on this project, they created a more well-known design with a combat weight of 46 tons. From the previous development, they borrowed a hull with rational angles of inclination of armor plates, a chassis with large-diameter road wheels, a turret with a gun recess through a hatch in the roof, and much more.

By the end of April 1944, the Design Bureau of Plant No. 100 had worked out the technical documentation for this modernization project, produced several wooden models, and... that was all. Despite the fact that there was correspondence at the NKTP and GBTU KA regarding the approval of the final appearance of the IS-2 major modernization, the activity of plant No. 100 on this issue ceased. No, the modernization work was not completely ignored; the plant was engaged in the manufacture of elements that were developed by SKB-2 ChKZ. Nevertheless, the own IS-2 modernization project at plant No. 100 was abandoned.

Action-packed production drama “Military Representative Vovk and the Chamber of Secrets.” It eloquently speaks of the fact that already in the second half of April 1944, the Design Bureau of Plant No. 100 was actively working on the creation of a new tank

The first sign that the Design Bureau of Plant No. 100 was engaged in more than one modernization of the IS-2 was a complaint from the new military representative at the plant, Guard Engineer Colonel A. Vovka. On April 18, 1944, he sent a letter reporting strange activities at the plant. At the factory, he discovered a room with a guard posted at the entrance. The new military representative was not allowed in there, citing the fact that one could only get inside with the personal permission of Zh.Ya. Kotina. When asked what kind of room this was, Kotin replied that it was his personal work room.

In fact, N.F. worked in Kotin’s “private room”. Shashmurin, A.S. Shneidman, G.A. Turchaninov and other designers. They had their own version: “This is a smoking room.”

. A scandal broke out, and there was heated correspondence about this with instructions to bring work on current projects and relations with military acceptance back to normal. Nevertheless, activity on “extraneous” topics has by no means ceased. The secret room was the place where work was carried out on a heavy tank, which was supposed to become a competitor to Object 701. Since such work could result in serious problems from the NKTP, the work was carried out in secrecy. Kotin’s patronage of all this is also understandable: he was clearly not happy with the fact that pilot plant No. 100 had turned from a center for the development of new models of armored vehicles into a structure that should work in support. In turn, ChKZ, which was supposed to produce the developments of plant No. 100, acquired its own design bureau, which dealt with Object 701. Relations between plant No. 100 and ChKZ became especially aggravated at the end of 1943 - beginning of 1944. Against this background, the appearance of a competitor to Object 701 looked quite expected.

Better than IS-2, worse than Object 701

The design of the tank, which was to become a direct competitor to the Object 701, entered the practical phase closer to May 1944. Despite the fact that the new project was directly related to the options for the “major modernization” of the IS-2, the Design Bureau of Plant No. 100 only partially used developments on this topic. The fact is that the modernization itself somewhat tied our hands, since we had to use a number of elements of the IS-2. Meanwhile, the requirements for a new heavy tank implied an increase in combat weight, armor protection, and increased armament.

The V-12 engine, which was eventually installed on the IS-6. In the version for this tank, it was derated to 700 hp.

The increase in weight meant that a more powerful engine would be required. There were two candidates - B-11 or B-12, the latter was intended for the heavy tank Object 701. Thanks to the presence of an AM-38 air blower, the maximum power was estimated at 800 hp. In practice, such power could last no more than 10 minutes, so later the maximum power was reduced to 750 hp. However, at first the Design Bureau of Plant No. 100 was counting on a more modest V-11 engine with an estimated power of 620 hp. (taking into account that the combat weight was expected to be 50 tons, this should have been enough). A more interesting fact was that initially it was planned to install an electromechanical transmission on the new tank. This type of transmission was developed by a group of VAMM designers headed by N.I. Gruzdev together with and No. 627 (by the way, the famous science fiction writer A.P. Kazantsev, who held one of the leading positions at plant No. 627, was directly related to these works). In 1944, protracted work led to the creation of an experimental EKV tank, built on the basis of the KV-1s. The electromechanical transmission for the new tank developed by plant No. 100 was based precisely on developments in EKV. Later, as a backup option, the use of a mechanical transmission was implied, while the combat weight was reduced to 48 tons.

An experimental EKV tank, on which an electromechanical transmission for heavy tanks was tested

To provide armor protection equal to or close to that of Object 701, the Design Bureau of Plant No. 100 worked closely with NII-48 located in Sverdlovsk. Specialists of the institute, headed by A.S. Zavyalov, by that time had significant experience both in developing new types of armor and increasing its durability. Most likely, cooperation with NII-48 began during the design of new hulls and turrets for the major modernization IS-2. They came to the conclusion that the durability of armor plates, similar to Object 701, can be achieved through more rational tilt angles. A more powerful gun system was also provided. Like the D-25T, it had a caliber of 122 mm, but was supposed to have an initial speed of 850-900 m/s. True, at that time such weapons were not yet available.

Layout diagram No. 15 with finger jointing of sheets. NII-48 considered this option a priority

G.N. was appointed senior engineer of the new tank. Moskvin, who had extensive experience in developing tanks and self-propelled guns. The already mentioned Shneidman was responsible for the installation of weapons. Ermolaev was responsible for the work as the chief designer, and general management was carried out by Kotin. The project for a new heavy tank was sent to the NKTP in early June 1944. Thanks to a fairly high degree of elaboration, Malyshev gave the green light to further work.

On June 6, 1944, Malyshev signed order No. 379ss for the NKTP. In it, the tank received the designation IS-6. According to the order, UZTM was involved in the work on the experimental IS-6 tank, where the hulls and turrets for this vehicle were manufactured. By July 1, working documentation for the hulls and turrets of the tank with a mechanical transmission was expected to be produced, and by the 15th, drawings of the remaining units were expected. UZTM delivered two sets of hulls and a turret by July 25, and vehicle assembly was completed on August 25. By September 10, the completion of factory tests was expected, and by the 20th a report on them was drawn up. A tank with an electromechanical transmission was expected later. Working documentation was released by August 25, two sets of hulls and turrets - by October 10, construction of two tank samples was planned by November 1, and tests were carried out until December 1.

Layout diagram No. 16. This scheme for connecting IS-6 hull sheets was chosen at UZTM

The GBTU KA assessed the IS-6 in its own way. According to the commission that reviewed the project, this tank in its main characteristics did not represent a step forward compared to the Object 701. On the other hand, it was significantly superior to the IS-2, especially in terms of armor protection. For example, the armor protection of the hull, due to rational angles of inclination, was superior to the IS-2, but at the same time inferior to the Object 701. The situation was approximately the same with the armor protection of the turret - it was clearly superior to the IS-2, having a maximum thickness of 150 mm. On the other hand, the Object 701 turret was not only thicker (up to 160 mm), but also had a smaller gun mantlet armor, and, therefore, less vulnerability. However, during the tests it turned out that the projection under the sight to the right of the mantlet was vulnerable, so the final version of the tank had wider armor for the gun mantlet. The installation of weapons also caused mixed reactions. At that time, the GBTU KA considered the 122-mm S-34 cannon the best option. On the IS-6 it was proposed to install a modernized version of the D-25 with an initial projectile speed increased by 50 m/s. The installation of this weapon was criticized. It was also proposed to install a polyc to improve the performance of the tower calculations. The gun required a rammer and a bore purging system. The chassis with large-diameter road wheels did not arouse much enthusiasm either.

Mock-up No. 15 during fire testing

On June 12, a letter was sent to Malyshev from Marshal Fedorenko, in which he proposed to finalize the design of the IS-6 tank according to the tactical and technical requirements attached to the letter. A lot of questions arose in response to these tactical and technical requirements. In the GBTU KA, the ideal of a new generation heavy tank was a vehicle with a combat weight of 50-55 tons, the hull and turret of which would not be penetrated head-on by a 105-mm cannon with an initial projectile speed of 1200 m/s. No German tank or self-propelled gun had such a gun, but the GABTU decided to be proactive, and this is just the beginning. A 105-mm cannon with an initial speed of 1000 m/s should not have penetrated the sides of the new tank. A 122 mm cannon with an initial speed of 1000-1100 m/s and a rate of fire of 4-6 rounds per minute was also installed in the tank. The maximum speed of the car was estimated at 40 km/h, and the average speed was 24 km/h. An engine with a power of 1000 hp was proposed as a power plant, which worked in tandem with an electromechanical transmission.

Results of hitting the side of the hull. Rational angles of inclination of the upper side sheets significantly increased the durability of the armor

There were exactly two months left before the first battle with the Pz.Kpfw.Tiger Ausf.B near Sandomierz, so it’s not entirely clear who they were going to use such an armored monster against. It was also not clear where to get such a gun and such a powerful engine. The NKTP did not understand this either. Similar requirements were sent from the GBTU of the spacecraft more than once, and they believed that the priority was the electromechanical transmission. The NKTP calculated the desires of the “tankers” for armor, giving an ambiguous result. Based on what the military wanted, and from the angles of inclination of the IS-6 hull and turret sheets, it turned out that the thickness of the hull forehead grew to 130 mm, and the sides - to 170-207 mm. As a result, the combat weight of the tank would be 75-80 tons. Also, the NKTP noted with bewilderment that neither such a powerful gun nor such a powerful engine was even in the project. They also accepted the idea of unitary loading with bewilderment - such a shot would have a mass of 45 kg, not to mention a length of much more than a meter. The debate on this issue went on for months, but in the end the IS-6 was still able to be defended in the form it was originally designed.

Getting into the weld area

While NKTP and GBTU KA were vigorously discussing the “dream tank,” plant No. 100, NII-48 and UZTM were working very fruitfully to create an optimal hull for the IS-6. From the NII-48 side, this topic was supervised by Deputy Chief Engineer G.I. Kapyrin. By the beginning of August 1944, projects of special mock-ups were prepared that imitated the front and front side plates of the tank hull. They were designated as “layout No. 15” and “layout No. 16”.

The hull withstood a 105 mm anti-aircraft gun shell (hit No. 3), but further hits from 88-round Pak 43 guns caused penetrations and cracks

In terms of overall sheet configuration, both layouts were identical. They repeated the hull designed by the Design Bureau of Plant No. 100, or more precisely, its front part. The difference turned out to be in the way the sheets were connected. From the point of view of NII-48, the priority was layout No. 15, which had the sheets connected into a tenon. Layout No. 16 had sheets joined in a quarter, with a “lock” at the junction of the upper and lower frontal sheets. From the point of view of the Design Bureau of Plant No. 100, the option with just such a connection of the sheets of the bow of the hull was more suitable.

Fracture of welds was one of the key problems of the hulls of Soviet heavy tanks during the war period - this was especially true for UZTM products. Layout No. 15 was no exception

The deadlines specified in the order for NKTP No. 379ss could not be met. To a large extent, this turned out to be due to the work on the hull. NII-48 sent the program for testing hull mock-ups by shelling for approval on August 10, 1944, by which time UZTM was already two weeks away from delivering the hulls for a tank with a mechanical transmission, which received the designation Object 252. In practice, the shelling of the mock-ups took place only in early September 1944. The tests were carried out at the testing ground of plant No. 9.

The result of shelling model No. 17. The tests had to be stopped prematurely due to the destruction of the welds

The test results were contradictory. On the one hand, the very concept of the housing with large (65 degrees) angles of inclination of the parts made it possible to significantly improve their durability. If in the case of the IS-2, which had a straightened frontal part of the hull made of 90 mm sheets, the forehead was hit by the 88 mm Pak 43 gun at a distance of about 450 m and closer, then the forehead of the IS-6 was too tough for this gun. The same thing happened when the front of the hull was fired upon by a German 105-mm anti-aircraft gun, as well as an 85-mm Soviet cannon with sub-caliber shells. The same results were obtained when firing at the rear of the mock-ups. The upper side plates of the hull could only be penetrated by 88-mm Pak 43 shells, and only at close range. Another question is that during the shelling, destruction of welded seams was noted. In addition, connecting the sides into a tenon did not show significant advantages compared to a quarter connection.

Final appearance of Object 252 (IS-6), late August 1944

To check the results, in December 1944, mock-up No. 17 was fired upon, which was a variation on the theme of mock-up No. 15 in the bow and mock-up No. 16 in the stern. In this case, the model was assembled from sheets made from experimental I-Z armor. As shelling tests showed, the armor behaved worse than that used on previous mock-ups. As for the seams, they collapsed much faster, and the shelling tests stopped ahead of schedule.

Full-size mock-up of Object 252, autumn 1944

While testing of the hulls continued, the design of the tank itself was underway at Plant No. 100. Its appearance was formed by the end of August 1944. In the external appearance of the vehicle, one can see the influence of both the IS-2, a major modernization, and Object 701. At the same time, the vehicle turned out to be of a very original design, ending up somewhere between the IS-2 and Object 701, as correctly noted at GBTU KA. A somewhat strange decision was to insert the driver's hatch into the upper frontal part of the housing. Its design was, of course, reinforced, but did not at all contribute to improving the durability of the most critical part of the hull. The car turned out to be squat: the height according to the observation instruments of the tower was 2408 mm. For comparison, for Object 701 this figure was 2480 mm, and for IS-2 - 2735 mm.

Engine compartment close-up

In the final configuration, the car received a V-12 engine, the power of which was reduced to 700 hp. The general design of the mechanical transmission turned out to be similar to the IS-2. Similarly, the tank had an 8-speed gearbox with planetary two-stage rotation mechanisms. The cooling system was similar to the IS-2 under a major modernization program. Unlike the serial IS-2, the radiators were located to the left and right of the engine (a similar arrangement can be seen on the Object 701). Four fans installed in the roof of the case were used to blow the radiators. By the way, at the factory the resulting body structure in the area of the engine-transmission compartment was nicknamed the “box” (for its characteristic shape). As for the chassis, it, compared to the major modernization IS-2, has remained virtually unchanged. It also used large-diameter support rollers, which made it possible to eliminate the need for support rollers.

It is the same after dismantling the slabs. For its characteristic appearance, this design received the nickname “box”

Similar to the hull, the development of the turret took into account the experience of the IS-2 under the major modernization program, as well as the Object 701. For example, the lowered commander’s cupola (more precisely, cupolas, of which there were two) was borrowed from previous vehicles, as well as the gun recess through the top hatch. At the same time, the design of the tower turned out to be quite original. In addition, the issue of ammunition placement was worked out differently. If the Object 701 had shells placed longitudinally in the rear niche, then the IS-6 had them placed as on the IS-2, that is, transversely. The total amount of ammunition was 30 rounds, which was equivalent to the Object 701 and slightly more than the IS-2. When working on the fighting compartment of the IS-6, the OKB of Plant No. 100 also took into account the comments of the GBTU of the spacecraft - in particular, a floor appeared under the turret, which improved working conditions in the fighting compartment.

122 mm BL-13 cannon, developed by OKB-172 for the IS-6. It is she who is often confused with the D-30

We should also talk about weapons. According to the project, the IS-6 was equipped with a 122-mm cannon with a coaxial machine gun GVG (SG-43), another machine gun, DShK, was used as an anti-aircraft one. There are a lot of interesting questions regarding the weapon. The weapon usually specified is the 122-mm D-30 cannon - initially it was supposed to be a D-25T with an initial projectile speed increased by 50 m/s. In fact, this weapon was still the same, from the point of view of the initial velocity of the projectile, D-25T, but smaller and lighter. At the same time, it had neither a shell rammer nor a bore purging system.

The muzzle brake was no different from the basic one. The fact is that, in parallel with Plant No. 9, OKB-172 was also working on the development of a gun for the IS-6. This system bore the index BL-13 and was designed in collaboration with the Design Bureau of Plant No. 100. Practical work on the BL-13 began in July 1944; it is not surprising that this particular weapon is in the design documentation and can be seen on the IS-6 mockup. With a full barrel length of 6002 mm, the gun had an initial projectile speed of 850 m/s, and the issue of increasing the initial speed to 900 m/s was also being explored. In a number of elements, the BL-13 was unified with the D-25T. The same mechanized rammer that is attributed to the D-30 was being developed for the gun. The same applies to the system for blowing the barrel with compressed air. According to calculations, the maximum rate of fire reached 8 rounds per minute.

One of the stages of evolution

Despite the delay in the design and production of the IS-6, plant No. 100 began the practical implementation of the ideas implemented in the tank back in August 1944. First of all, this concerned the chassis of the car. In August, large diameter support rollers (750 mm) were manufactured. When developing the skating rink, maximum unification with the parts of the skating rink and IS suspension was of paramount importance. As a result, there were only 7 parts in the design with index 252.

Track roller developed for IS-6

Since there was no prototype of the tank yet, the manufactured road wheels were installed on Object 244. This was the name of the first prototype Object 237, converted to install the 85-mm D-5T-85BM cannon. The larger diameter of the road wheels meant that the sixth, rear road wheel remained old. In this form, the tank covered 1,875 km in August-October 1944, of which 285 were on cobblestone highways, 1,571 along grader highways and country roads, 19 on virgin soil. Of the total mileage, 1,589 km were covered in the tank’s standard configuration, and then the Object 244 was additionally loaded by 8 tons, that is, up to the actual combat weight of the Object 252. Instead of 48 tons, the vehicle actually had a mass of 51.5 tons.

Object 244 with IS-6 road wheels, loaded to a combat weight of 51.5 tons

During testing of the road wheels, they generally worked normally, but loosening of the bolts was noted. This, in turn, led to the beginning of the formation of cracks on the roller disks. As a result, at the 1425th kilometer of the run, one roller completely failed, and the second, at the 1480th kilometer of the run, had a through crack 350 mm long. To prevent such defects, Plant No. 100 strengthened the design of the bolts.

A prototype of the IS-6 heavy tank (Object 252) during testing, November-December 1944

Assembly of the hull and turret of the first (and only) prototype of the Object 252 began at UZTM on September 20, 1944. The hull was assembled from medium-hard rolled armor, and the turret was made from high-hardness 70L armor. The sheet was welded with austenite electrodes; other welding options showed poor results. In October, the hull and turret were sent to plant No. 100, where assembly of the vehicle began. In parallel, at plant No. 100 various elements of the machine were developed, including the cooling system. Assembly was partially completed by November 8, and sea trials began on the same day. From November 8 to 10, the tank covered 319 km (100 along a cobblestone highway and 219 along a profiled highway), and the first 31 km it traveled without a turret. The average speed on the cobblestone highway was 16 km/h, and on the profiled highway - 21 km/h. During the tests, problems arose with the VG-50 generator; the bolts of the track roller disks were loosened. Another unpleasant wake-up call was that design flaws related to the hull and turret of the vehicle were revealed. The turret hatches turned out to be small; with the driver's hatch open, visibility was poor. In addition, the driver rested his head against the upper frontal sheet of the hull.

Tests showed the low reliability of the machine - this was especially true for the road wheels

By December 8, 1944, the IS-6 had covered 825 km, of which 315 were on cobblestone highways, 420 along grader highways, and 90 on virgin soil. The maximum average speed achieved during the tests was 22-24 km/h. True, at high speeds there was strong (90-105 degrees) heating of the gearbox. Considering that this happened in November-December, one can imagine the situation in the summer. When squeezing the main clutch, a force of 60-65 kg was required, however, it was noted that the machine turned easily. However, the gearbox heating was a minor problem compared to the situation around the road wheels. Over 825 km of travel, 14 road wheels failed; the average roller life did not exceed 200-300 km. In this regard, the Design Bureau of Plant No. 100 developed a reinforced roller, however, apparently, it did not become the final solution to the problem. Another serious problem was the operation of the VG-50 generator. There were also complaints about the K-73 DC generator. The capacity of the fuel tanks (480 l) was only enough for 100-120 km.

Object 252 project with a modernized hull bow, late November 1944

In the second half of November 1944, the Design Bureau of Plant No. 100 developed a modernized version of the Object 252. It implemented a new bow section of the hull, developed by V.I. Tarotko. Its characteristic shape earned it the nickname “pike nose.” This made it possible not only to increase the durability of the armor plates, but also to move the driver's hatch to the roof of the control compartment. The upgrade version of the IS-2, designated IS-2U, received a similar design. As for the IS-6, it was sent to Moscow on Kotin’s orders. The preliminary designs of the IS-2U and the modernized IS-6 also went there - however, this could no longer help the IS-6. In December 1944, the Kirovets-1 heavy tank, also known as IS-3, also known as Object 703, was tested at the NIBT Test Site. This tank was not as revolutionary as the IS-6, but was much more reliable (especially with regard to the chassis parts). In addition, the tank's armor protection has significantly increased. Having weighed all the pros and cons, the GBTU KA and NKTP decided to further develop the Kirovets-1, transferring the developments on the IS-2U and IS-6 to SKB-2 ChKZ. In fact, this meant the death of the IS-6.

The result of shelling an IS-6 turret made of 70L steel

Another blow to the IS-6 program came from the shelling of turrets manufactured by UZTM from 70L and 72L steel. The shelling carried out in early January 1945 showed that the side of turret No. 5a, made of 150 mm thick 70L steel, was being penetrated by an 88-mm Pak 43 cannon. Of the 12 hits from different angles, penetrations were achieved in 7 cases. The situation with turret No. 5, made of 72L steel, turned out to be even worse - after five hits, the turret split in two. This meant that the turret did not have sufficient protection from the guns it was supposed to withstand. To make matters worse, the IS-6 turret was given to the design bureau of plant No. 183 as a model when designing the turret of the experimental T-54 medium tank. As a result, they later decided to remake it as an IS-3, without even firing it.

Testing of new road wheels for the IS-6 and the 122-mm BL-13 gun at Object 244, 1945

Such sad results did not mean that work on the IS-6 stopped completely. Various mechanisms were tested on the tank. For example, in the winter and spring of 1945, the hydraulic servo drive of the planetary turning mechanism was tested on it. Work also continued on modernized road wheels - they were increased in diameter to 800 mm, and now the design was more reminiscent of the IS-2 road wheel. The first samples of such rollers were delivered to Object 244 in December 1944, he covered 305 km on them, and managed to cover another 393 km in January 1945. Finally, the 122-mm BL-13 cannon has not gone away - work on it continued, and in 1945 the gun went out for testing. True, these elements were tested on Object 244 and IS-2, and work on the IS-6 was carried out more as a prelude to a new tank. On February 19, 1945, Vovk again complained about the “secret rooms” that appeared at Factory No. 100. With Kotin's approval, the Design Bureau of Plant No. 100 secretly began developing a tank that would later be designated Object 257. It also became the first tank to be designated IS-7.

Longitudinal and cross-section of Object 253. Interestingly, the longitudinal section shows a 122-mm D-30 cannon, with a “Ferdinand-type” muzzle brake

Against the background of the problems identified during the creation of Object 252, the machine, which was supposed to receive an electromechanical transmission, somehow got lost. It received the factory designation Object 253, the leading engineer of the machine was M.I. Kreslavsky. Developments on the topic of Object 253 began back in October 1944, and an alarm bell immediately rang. When testing G-73 generators, their drive heated to a temperature of 119 degrees. However, due to problems that emerged with Object 252, work on its electromechanical brother was delayed. Information about the tests of this tank in October-November 1944 is not true - during this period, Plant No. 100 did not say a word about it. Moreover, there is no Object 253 in the reports of plant No. 100 either in January or February 1945.

Object 253 after testing. Object 252 is visible behind it

Initially, Object 253 was supposed to differ from Object 252 only in its electromechanical transmission. It was developed jointly with, who gained extensive experience in the development of ECV. For example, electric motors DK-302A and DK-302B became a development of the engines of the DK-301 family, which were used on EKV. The general design of the electromechanical transmission also had a lot in common with the ECV. The main advantage of the electromechanical transmission was ease of control - however, this had to be paid for by a significantly higher weight of the vehicle. The combat weight of the Object 253 was 54 tons. Considering the problems that arose with the road wheels of the Object 252, plant No. 100 did not take risks and installed road wheels from the IS-2 on the IS-6.

Externally, the car with an electromechanical transmission had a number of differences

The history of the construction and testing of Object 253 is shrouded in darkness. This vehicle was supposed to be completed in the first quarter of 1945, but there is no more precise information on this issue in the correspondence. The reason for this was the extremely unsuccessful test results, which are known only from the memoirs of the designers who created the tank. As Kreslavsky himself wrote, 10 km after the start of the run, the car lost control due to a fire in the transmission compartment. At this point, testing of Object 253 stopped - at least this is the most common version of events.

During the restoration of the tank in 1946, the upper aft plate of the hull was slightly changed

In reality, the story with Object 253 continued. The reason for this was further work on the IS-7 heavy tank. This tank was developed with several transmission options, including electromechanical. To test this scheme, a test laboratory was required, so in 1946 the failed tank was remembered again. According to the work plans of the Ministry of Transport Engineering for 1946, 1.5 million rubles were allocated for testing and fine-tuning the tank. The contractor was a branch of plant No. 100 in Leningrad - by the way, elements of the electromechanical transmission from the German super-heavy tank Pz.Kpw.Maus were also sent there. The restoration of Object 253 was completed in January 1947, after which the vehicle traveled 34 km. Further tests showed some problems - in particular, the tank was moving to the side. Testing of the tank ended in June 1947, by which time it had covered 1025 km. As a matter of fact, the photographs of this machine known to us were taken after passing these tests.

Both tanks (Objects 252 and 253) were later scrapped. For Soviet tank building they became something of an intermediate model and fell victim to design flaws. In addition, the IS-6 from the very beginning was not considered by GBTU KA as a machine for large-scale production. The “intermediate” characteristics of the vehicle, which placed it between the IS-2 and Object 701, did not contribute to the manifestation of great interest on the part of the military in serial production. The appearance of the Kirovets-1 at the end of 1944 deprived the IS-6 of any chance of serial production.

The author thanks Igor Zheltov (Moscow) and Kirill Koksharov (Chelyabinsk) for their assistance in preparing this material.

Sources:

TsAMO RF
RGAE
Archive of Igor Zheltov
Archive of Sergei Netrebenko
Archive of Kirill Koksharov

IS-6 gun

The situation with weapons in the case of this steel brainchild of Soviet thought is somewhat ambiguous, and looking ahead I will say that a preferential level of fighting is necessary for us, but first things first.

For starters, the IS-6 has a gun

has very good one-time damage and even despite the mediocre reload speed, the ability to deal approximately 2000 units of pure damage per minute should be considered a good result.

The problem lies in the penetration ability of our powerful barrel. The fact is that the armor-piercing projectile of the IS-6 tank

He can’t penetrate everyone, which is why his ability to farm is rather low. Of course, being at the top and targeting weak spots in your opponent’s armor, you can farm, but you will have to use excellent gold sub-calibers often, especially if you want to play comfortably.

In terms of accuracy, everything is also not as good as we would like. The problem is the wide spread of IS-6 WoT

, slow aiming and weak stabilization, which forces us to fight primarily at close ranges.

By the way, the negative elevation angle is only 6 degrees, so in this indicator the IS-6 heavy tank

It’s also not a gift, however, you can get used to it, you just need to be more attentive to the choice of position.

Modules:

Turrets/guns

Lv.	Tower	Armor (mm)	Rotation (deg/sec)	Review (m)	Weight, kg)	Price (credits)
VIII	IS-6	150/150/100	24	350	12 500	33 680

Compatible weapons:

Lv.	gun	Penetration (mm)	Damage (HP)	Rapid fire (rounds/min)	Spread (m/100m)	Mixing (c)	BC	Weight, kg)	Price (credits)
VIII	122 mm D-30	175/217/61	390/390/530	5.13	0.46	3.4	30	2 590	135 140

Engines

Lv.	Engine	Power (hp)	Fire probability (%)	Weight, kg)	Price (credits)
IX	V-12 A	700	15	750	84 000

Chassis

Lv.	Chassis	Max. load (t)	Turning speed (gr/sec)	Rmin	Weight, kg)	Price (credits)
VIII	IS-6	59.9	26	B/2	11 000	27 920

Radio stations

Lv.	Radio station	Communication range (m)	Weight, kg)	Price (credits)
VII	10РКМ	440	100	18 600

Advantages and disadvantages of IS-6

In order to realize the considerable combat potential that lies in this Soviet tank, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of its strengths and weaknesses. In addition, if you know the pros and cons of the IS-6 World of Tanks

, it will be easier for you to build tactics and react to various situations during battle. Pros: •Excellent all-round booking; •Good dynamics for a heavy tank; •Low silhouette and decent camouflage; •Powerful one-time damage and DPM; •Preferential level of battles. Cons: •Very short viewing range; •Mediocre penetration; •Poor accuracy (scatter, convergence, stabilization); •Weak vertical aiming angles; •Frequent crits of the driver (hatch in the VLD).

Pumping and equipment

The IS-6 is a premium tank that comes standard. We will cover the details of pumping up the crew, purchasing special equipment and consumables.

The crew consists of four people, which is not always enough, so leveling up must be approached carefully. First, “Repair” for everyone, then we reset the commander and set “Sixth Sense”. At the second level, the perk for the officer is sure to get “Repair”, because standing on the track for a long time is not comme il faut, for the gunner “Smooth turn of the turret”, for the driver mechanic “Smooth move”, loading the “Non-contact ammo rack”. Third level of perks: choose “Jack of all trades” for the main one, “Sniper” for the gunner, “Virtuoso” for the driver, “Desperado” for the loader.

As for special equipment, we choose the option for close firefights: “Reinforced aiming drives”, “Medium caliber rammer” and “Improved ventilation”. After pumping up the crew, remove the ventilation and install the “Vertical Stabilizer”, which will greatly help with aiming. You can choose your own setup to suit your individual playing style. There is also advanced special equipment and space for pre-battle instructions, but they are only available for bonds. If you have them, I recommend splurging on:

“Wear-resistant aiming drives” (plus 12.5% to the aiming speed),
“Stabilization equipment complex” (minus 25% of the spread when moving and turning the turret),
“Lubricating the stabilizers” (minus 6.20% of the spread when moving and turning the turret),
“Experimental loading system” (minus 12.5% of loading time),
“Rational ammunition rack” (minus 2.80% of the gun loading time),
“No sudden movements” (enhances the “Smooth tower rotation” skill),
“The subtleties of the gearbox” (strengthens the “Smooth running” skill),
“Obstacle Course” (enhances the “Virtuoso” skill),
“Sight adjustment” (plus 2.5% to aiming speed),
“Deploy shells” (improves the “Non-contact ammo rack” skill).

We place the following consumables: “Manual fire extinguisher”, “Large first aid kit” (+15% to protection from injuries), “Large repair kit” (+10% to repair speed). The engine does not burn often (15%), so you can take a chance and instead of a fire extinguisher, take the “Extra Rack”, which will improve the performance of the crew.

Equipment for IS-6

To correctly select and install additional modules, you must evaluate the weaknesses and strengths of the tank, and also understand which characteristics are most important to you. True, in our case the choice is quite obvious; equipment for the IS-6 tank

It’s better to put the following: 1. – having such good one-time damage, you want to implement it as often as possible, and DPM is not the last parameter in the game. 2. – we need to do our best to level out the catastrophic lack of accuracy, so this choice is more than justified. 3. – in this sense, everything is simple, because it’s always nice to get a comprehensive boost of several important parameters at once.

This configuration can be considered optimal, because to some extent we touch on all important aspects of the tank. In addition, there is no point in deliberately trying to correct a terrible view, so if you still lack accuracy, it is better to improve the convergence speed by replacing the third point with.

Armament

The main weapon of the tank was the 122-mm D-30 cannon, which differed from its predecessor D-25 by the presence of a projectile rammer mechanism and equipment for purging the barrel after firing.

The barrel length was 48 calibers, and effective shooting was possible at a target with a height of 1890 mm. When firing a cannon at direct fire, a TBSh articulated sight was used. The gun depression angles were -3/+25 degrees. Also, two machine guns were installed on the tank: the first, a 7.62-mm GVT design, was paired with the cannon, the second, a large-caliber anti-aircraft gun (12.7 mm), was installed on the base of the loader’s hatch.

The tank's ammunition capacity contained 30 armor-piercing and high-explosive fragmentation shells (in any ratio) for the main gun, 1,300 rounds for the GVT machine gun and 250 for the DShK machine gun.

Tactics for playing the IS-6

To realize the potential of a tank, you must not only know its pros and cons, but also be able to use them. Soviet heavy tank IS-6

has good armor, powerful weapons and very decent mobility, so it can deservedly be considered a breakthrough tank.

But at the same time, it is worth remembering that one in the field is not a warrior, which means you need the support of your allies in order to push through this direction. It is also worth remembering the poor visibility, poor penetration and low accuracy of the machine, that is, for the IS-6 tactics

involves conducting combat operations at close range.

Playing on the first line, respectively, highlighting the enemy, the IS-6 tank

He also gets the opportunity to confidently target weak points in the enemy’s armor, and he also perfectly holds back the enemy’s onslaught with his armor. For all this, points are awarded in total, that is, at the end of the battle, you will be generously rewarded with silver credits.

In addition, do not be lazy to load gold sub-calibers, because it depends on victory, as well as on how many IS-6 World of Tanks

managed to cause damage, the equivalent of your profit will depend. This means that even if you shoot gold, but only effectively, you can get a profit.

Of course, you will feel most comfortable at the top of the list, but in any case you need to tank wisely, often setting up a diamond or showing the side at a good angle. And also, IS-6 WoT

He is very afraid of artillery, so when taking a position, make sure that nothing comes at you from above.

Historical reference

“High-power breakthrough tank” - this is what the tactical and technical specifications for the new vehicle were called. The project was developed in 1944. As part of the technical specifications, two vehicles were worked on at once.

The first is Object 253. The first heavy armored vehicle in the USSR with an electromechanical transmission.

The second is Object 252 with a manual transmission.

Both vehicles showed no advantages over the serial heavy tanks of the Joseph Stalin series in service, and the electromechanical transmission demonstrated low reliability.

Not mass produced.

History of changes:

Update 0.7.3

The IS-6 heavy tank has been added to the main server for testing by supertesters.

Update 0.7.4

The IS-6 has become available for purchase to all players.

Update 0.8.0

The cost of camouflage has been reduced by 11.11%.
The turning speed of the IS-6 chassis has been changed from 24 to 26.
The cross-country ability of the IS-6 chassis on hard and medium soils has been increased by 5%.
Durability increased by 50 units.
The dispersion of the 122mm D-30 gun when rotating the turret has been reduced by 15%.
The IS-6 turret traverse speed has been changed from 22 deg/sec to 24 deg/sec.

Update 0.9.14

The tank has been redesigned with a new visual quality.

Ammunition 35% and 55%

Ammunition can be loaded in a ratio of 35% to 55% with armor-piercing and sub-caliber shells. It is better to take this ratio for the simple reason that the penetration of the gun is relatively low, so sub-caliber shells will be more relevant. They will help you effectively fight the IS-3, KV-4 and other equipment with increased armor protection.

Important: You can also report 2-3 land mines for battles involving weakly armored German tanks and a guaranteed shooting down of a base capture.