Models and pictures of Soviet MBT designs from 80s. Object 477A, Object 490 Buntar and Object 299.

[Renegade334]

5 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Engines slides down from the bottom of this thing AFAIK.

 

That servicing aperture would be a rather inconvenient weak spot, especially if a mine detonates under the front part of the hull.

[LoooSeR]

14 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

 

That servicing aperture would be a rather inconvenient weak spot, especially if a mine detonates under the front part of the hull.

Front part of the hull is occupied by fuel tanks.

[AssaultPlazma]

Do you believe that it would have been a good idea for the Russian military at the time to adopt Object 187? 

[That_Baka]

Yes it is ready to adobtion and only  things that need update is thermal sight.

[heretic88]

8 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

Do you believe that it would have been a good idea for the Russian military at the time to adopt Object 187? 

 

No. I think the only sane option was to finish the 477, with somewhat simplified FCS. Objekt-187 didnt have enough improvements over existing tanks, especially the T-80U.

[That_Baka]

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 

No. I think the only sane option was to finish the 477, with somewhat simplified FCS. Objekt-187 didnt have enough improvements over existing tanks, especially the T-80U.

I really doubt that stuffing tanker into kharkovite deathtrap is good idea. For all its incredible parameters crew still encapsulated by ammo such solutions are acceptable in 1970-80 but not now.

[LoooSeR]

10 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 

No. I think the only sane option was to finish the 477, with somewhat simplified FCS. Objekt-187 didnt have enough improvements over existing tanks, especially the T-80U.

Ummm... That was probably the only insane option if we don't take into account 490B. 477's autoloader that was loaded by another autoloader with level of sophistication of a tesseract, each round apperently was some sort of special shell with variable shape propellant charge.

   Object 187 was a less... strange option but not as low energey as 188 in terms of upgrade potential. 

 

19 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

Do you believe that it would have been a good idea for the Russian military at the time to adopt Object 187? 

   Yes, it would be a little less pain in the ass to upgrade. Vehicle was generally less dense layout of components AFAIK, that would allow easier time with upgrades, higher wight wouldn't be much of a problem for small number of vehicles, better layout of frontal armor that would allow easier time to actually upgrade it. 187 wasn't THAT much better than 188, but it was a more reasonable option if we take into account vehicle capabilities more into account than real politicians did.

[Molota_477]

8 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

each round apperently was some sort of special shell with variable shape propellant charge.

Wasn't it only the ob.490A intended to use the variable shape propellant charge?

[Andrei_bt]

9 hours ago, Molota_477 said:

Wasn't it only the ob.490A intended to use the variable shape propellant charge?

 

This was 490A from late 1984 which was  intended to use the variable shape propellant charge. It was also intended for 152 mm 477.

[LoooSeR]

Paralay continue to work on his 3D model

 

[LoooSeR]

One of Object 187 models on the move. Note new frontal hull design and new ERA.

[heretic88]

16 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

One of Object 187 models on the move. Note new frontal hull design and new ERA.

4th prototype?

 

BTW, a while ago there were rumors that UVZ wants the prototypes back for restoration and eventually exhibition in their own museum. Is there any news about this? Would be good to save these tanks from rusting away.

 

[Molota_477]

10 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

4th prototype?

It should be the 5th prototype with wedge ERA in front of hull nose. 

[LoooSeR]

Nice family drawing (same as one of our member's signature, but with names over them this time). Lacking Nota, though.

[heretic88]

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

Nice family drawing (same as one of our member's signature, but with names over them this time). Lacking Nota, though.

Обькет?

[Molota_477]

1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

Nice family drawing (same as one of our member's signature, but with names over them this time). Lacking Nota, though.

Of course dude, it's drawn by me, I post it about years ago in this thread, I still remember someone informed me that the spelling of its text are wrong 

[LoooSeR]

9 minutes ago, Molota_477 said:

Of course dude, it's drawn by me, I post it about years ago in this thread, I still remember someone informed me that the spelling of its text are wrong 

I vaguely remember that version of it was posted here, but i thought it didn't had numbers on it for vehicles.

[LoooSeR]

11 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Обькет?

Yes, but it is not like majority-english speaking forum members will pay any attention to that. Numbers are more important for them.

[heretic88]

36 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Yes, but it is not like majority-english speaking forum members will pay any attention to that. Numbers are more important for them.

Or rather the drawing itself. Which is really awesome!

[XDrake]

@Molota_477 Really well done! I like the stylization.

[LoooSeR]

Mock up of chassis for Burlan tank (Object 299-based)

 

And Object 299 tank schematics from Andrey's LJ

[Andrei_bt]

Some updates -

 

http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/object299.htm

 

 

 

[LoooSeR]

 

 

   So this thing was supposed to have autoloaded 76 mm (?) AC, and 2 ATGMs on top turret... with 4 RCWS, 2 of them armed with AGLs and 2 with 7.62 GPMGs. That is rather hot load for IFV by early 90s standarts. Although second variant had 8 dismounts, while first was for 11 (?)

 

 

[Andrei_bt]

hat is rather hot load - to make the crew and dismounts busy shoting in some directions.

[skylancer-3441]

On 7/13/2018 at 11:55 AM, skylancer-3441 said:

It appears to be much more spacious than another 299-based heavy IFV, one which was mentioned earlier in this thread:

which apparently (well, assuming that it had same armor thickness as 299-based tank itself, and assuming that it had constant roof thickness) was almost as low on the inside as BMP-2

 

barrel lenght of main gun at this new pic is some 2 feet 2 inches, or about 66cm, shorter than on that older pic. Also hull turned out to be somewhat higher. Though not by mach, as this comparison with BMP-2, aligned by bottom, clearly shows:

height on the inside is about 4 feet (120 cm). Shoulder width of 22,5 inches (57 cm) per person - about as mach as US designers provided for dismounts in Bradley - fine if one does not wear much gear or body armor or winter clothing. But with any of that - anyone higher than 5'11 would not fit properly. Considering that apparently they planned to produce it in like early-mid 00s, and that by this time average russian male conscript (in real life Russia) was about 5'10 - that makes it uncomfortable for half of the manpower of would-be-Soviet-Army-of-00s. And all that - not even including forearms.
BTW, when measured excluding tracks width - lower part of hull of this thing is also narrower than same part of BMP-2's hull, even when measured on the outside, let alone on the inside. Although to be fair BMP-2 spends allmost an entire feet of width on fuel tank and storage space, which are located between seats of dismounts.

comparison with tank: