Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

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


LoooSeR

Recommended Posts

To clarify, this is a T-72 testing an Obj. 477 turret, yes?

It should be the 2A83 Gun TestBed,which would be mount on obj195. As we can see the two sides of this turret were covered by steel plates as clump weight. This construction only reflected in the obj 195's unmanturret.

Moreover,AFAIK there is not any exact information about the obj477A1 had equiped with 2A83 gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, great drawing!

I don't understand the whole "Armata doesn't have a real capsule" discussion, namely because I don't read Russian. Is the argument that it would require spacing in every direction?

 

T-14 have a real capsule, and it's crew is very good protected. Even better then M1 or other known now tanks, couse there is no contact between crew and ammo in any way. This idea was taken form LKZ from end of the 70s'.

 

In one think Armata is trully the best now - this tank was project to overcome top-attack anc NLOS and BLOS anti-tank munition. Armata protection from the top is glorious:

 

be871da9a291.jpg

 

and it consist 3 "layers" based on Afganit APS:

 

1st - multispectral granades in IR, thermal, and radar viev to "hide"tank (VLS luncher) 

2th - hard kill granades from this VLS luncher)

3th - EMP generator

All this together give a chance to defeat BONUS, SMART, CSS, and other "top attack" artilery  munition, the sam in case Javelin and Spike. 

What is important - Aramat APS have sensor based in UV and IR base, not radar active.

But form the other side - second APS efector - thos under turret can defeat APFSDS-T but they use acitve radar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) LKZ stuck whit "heavy universal chassis"in those years. It was needed to use GTD1250 turbine for lightweight resons. And looking for postong on Chlopotows blog armour idea- it was not so impresive:

6ZO7yC0.jpg

Only 228mm in main part and circa 780mm LOS in slopped upper-part. Of course - gas turbine and torsion will be aditional protection placed befor this, the same - slopped ERA blocks, but still - how can this be comparable whit 1300mm armour block in Molot/Nota or 1100mm thick in Boxer-Molot?

 

2)

477 was not enought becouse UWZ lobby in end of the 80's forced two smal changed:

-other 152mm gun (longer)

- posibility to use unitary 152mm ronuds (fucken imposible).

all was forced to delay Charkiv project. And it's important to notic that after Utinov ded and Roamnov fail LKZ was downgraded - the same stroy like after Breżniev ded and CHzTM downgraded. UWZ due to political conetion have a flow in and of the 1980's, but the most interesting projects where developed in ChzTM and LKZ.

 

BTW - You propably know that Ob.477A2 Nota was common Ukrainian and Russian project between 1993 and 2001. One form 3 final Nota prototypes and full documentation went to UWZ. And Ob.195 as again UWZ try to made their own IV gen tank - first prototype in 1999 second one in 2001 as I know. And Nota as common project was canceled in 2001...After that was started "Biala" (The "White") project - pure Ukrainian tank, and it was facked up doe to lack of money. 

What is the Biala project?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@UP

 

"Biala" ("The White") project (propably Ob.477A2/A3) was sucesor of the Nota (Ob.477A2) - so after colapse common Ukrianian-Russian tank in 2001 (Nota) Ukrianian industry start to developed pure Ukrainian IV gen tank - "Biala" (The White). IMHO it was just ended Nota without Russian componenets - nothing more. This tank is top secret now, and reson wyhy whole family Ob.477A1 Molot, Ob.477A2 Nota and Ob.477A3/(or 477A2b) Biala is secrest is that is the same tank whit diffrent aditional equipment.

Ask Ukrianian about "Biala" and wacht reaction - a lot of fun guaranteed! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) LKZ stuck whit "heavy universal chassis"in those years. It was needed to use GTD1250 turbine for lightweight resons. And looking for postong on Chlopotows blog armour idea- it was not so impresive:

6ZO7yC0.jpg

Only 228mm in main part and circa 780mm LOS in slopped upper-part. Of course - gas turbine and torsion will be aditional protection placed befor this, the same - slopped ERA blocks, but still - how can this be comparable whit 1300mm armour block in Molot/Nota or 1100mm thick in Boxer-Molot?

 

2)

477 was not enought becouse UWZ lobby in end of the 80's forced two smal changed:

-other 152mm gun (longer)

- posibility to use unitary 152mm ronuds (fucken imposible).

all was forced to delay Charkiv project. And it's important to notic that after Utinov ded and Roamnov fail LKZ was downgraded - the same stroy like after Breżniev ded and CHzTM downgraded. UWZ due to political conetion have a flow in and of the 1980's, but the most interesting projects where developed in ChzTM and LKZ.

 

BTW - You propably know that Ob.477A2 Nota was common Ukrainian and Russian project between 1993 and 2001. One form 3 final Nota prototypes and full documentation went to UWZ. And Ob.195 as again UWZ try to made their own IV gen tank - first prototype in 1999 second one in 2001 as I know. And Nota as common project was canceled in 2001...After that was started "Biala" (The "White") project - pure Ukrainian tank, and it was facked up doe to lack of money. 

   You posted just a crew capsule schematics. Also, that tank was not finished in any kind of working prototype, so it is hard to be sure what kind of protection it would had. But again, vehicle had separated crew from machinery, which allow to make autoloader (for example) more compact, or upscale it for bigger rounds without changing overal size much. In Boxer/Molot that was not a case, as autoloader was made in such way, that seriously complicated futher upgrades. Which mean that those tanks would have become obsolete relatively fast. While part of Object 299 design is still alive in Armata UTHP.

   Basically, i think that Kharkov tanks would have been less impressive than T-64 when it was accepted to service and will run out of easy-to-upgrade-for-good-effect options even faster than T-64. 

 

T-14 have a real capsule, and it's crew is very good protected. Even better then M1 or other known now tanks, couse there is no contact between crew and ammo in any way. This idea was taken form LKZ from end of the 70s'.

 

In one think Armata is trully the best now - this tank was project to overcome top-attack anc NLOS and BLOS anti-tank munition. Armata protection from the top is glorious:

 

be871da9a291.jpg

 

and it consist 3 "layers" based on Afganit APS:

 

1st - multispectral granades in IR, thermal, and radar viev to "hide"tank (VLS luncher) 

2th - hard kill granades from this VLS luncher)

3th - EMP generator

All this together give a chance to defeat BONUS, SMART, CSS, and other "top attack" artilery  munition, the sam in case Javelin and Spike. 

What is important - Aramat APS have sensor based in UV and IR base, not radar active.

But form the other side - second APS efector - thos under turret can defeat APFSDS-T but they use acitve radar.

   It depends how you look at what is "real capsule" as there is no clear official definition/requirements to which we can compare and declare capsule to be "real" or not.

 

   If you look at crew capsule as just a crew not having HE rounds between their legs and their pants being not drenched in fuel, than Merkava and Abrams have crew capsules. If you think that crew capsule should provide certain level of protection from all directions, that Armata probably fails at having "real capsule", as rear plate is likely to be 5mm thick. Compare T-14's capsule to Object 299's - difference is noticeable.

 

   Armata protection would have been better if it had APS that could intercept top-attack ATGMs.

 

 

@UP

 

"Biala" ("The White") project (propably Ob.477A2/A3) was sucesor of the Nota (Ob.477A2) - so after colapse common Ukrianian-Russian tank in 2001 (Nota) Ukrianian industry start to developed pure Ukrainian IV gen tank - "Biala" (The White). IMHO it was just ended Nota without Russian componenets - nothing more. This tank is top secret now, and reson wyhy whole family Ob.477A1 Molot, Ob.477A2 Nota and Ob.477A3/(or 477A2b) Biala is secrest is that is the same tank whit diffrent aditional equipment.

Ask Ukrianian about "Biala" and wacht reaction - a lot of fun guaranteed! :)

Almost nobody knows about this project, so they will not deliver the fun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   You posted just a crew capsule schematics. Also, that tank was not finished in any kind of working prototype, so it is hard to be sure what kind of protection it would had. But again, vehicle had separated crew from machinery, which allow to make autoloader (for example) more compact, or upscale it for bigger rounds without changing overal size much. In Boxer/Molot that was not a case, as autoloader was made in such way, that seriously complicated futher upgrades. Which mean that those tanks would have become obsolete relatively fast. While part of Object 299 design is still alive in Armata UTHP.

   Basically, i think that Kharkov tanks would have been less impressive than T-64 when it was accepted to service and will run out of easy-to-upgrade-for-good-effect options even faster than T-64. 

 

   It depends how you look at what is "real capsule" as there is no clear official definition/requirements to which we can compare and declare capsule to be "real" or not.

 

   If you look at crew capsule as just a crew not having HE rounds between their legs and their pants being not drenched in fuel, than Merkava and Abrams have crew capsules. If you think that crew capsule should provide certain level of protection from all directions, that Armata probably fails at having "real capsule", as rear plate is likely to be 5mm thick. Compare T-14's capsule to Object 299's - difference is noticeable.

 

   Armata protection would have been better if it had APS that could intercept top-attack ATGMs.

 

 

Almost nobody knows about this project, so they will not deliver the fun. 

 

1) In Ob.299 there was the same problem like in other tanks whit poer-pack in front of the vehicle - mass balnace. To heavy front whit engine and armour. In result gas turbine (lightweight) must be placed and...not very impressive main armour. In case autoloader in Ob.299 - LKZ choose this abnormal hight one-line casttes: 

0010.jpg

tank_009.jpg

OK - bonus is obvious - two times more 152mm ammo. But there is sucht disadvantage of sucht solution - end of catrige is placed above vehicle hull and rurret need very big and thick protection to cover this part. It was obvious problem.

 

2) I have Boxer-Molot autolader plans and ok, it was complicated but really? Part placed in turret between Tk and Gunner was in shape and idea like AZ autolader but on only 45 degree angle and ~8 rounds capability. It wasn't mucht more complicated the typical AZ. Main part in saparate compare was like two Leclerc autolader one aboe second - top whit round bottom whit aditional charge.  Of course this autolader have flaws -in fact it was 3 separate autoloaders in one system. This project was rejected couse GRAU needed new longer gun and posibilities to use unitary 152mm rounds or rounds whit much longer penetrator (sources are diffrent here - Apuchtin claims ones, other guys from Charkiv -others)...

 

3). Yes, definition of the "capsule" can be fluent, but in fact T-14 have crew completly separate form flammable factors. In Abrams you have gunner and open turret bustle rack whit 18 rounds for 4s during loading the gun. It is always danger for crew. In Merkava is even worse - you have this stupic ammo conteiner in whole crew comparment, and even in MK.IV you have 4 rounds in conteinter after the bulkhead between anegine and crew comparment. OK, those conteiners are fireproof and scharpnel proff but you know this photo:

http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/26.1.jpg

ATGM hit in rear main ammo rack.

No, defiently i would preffer to sit in T-14 or at least Abrmas then in Merkawa or other tank - like Leopard-2, or T-72 :)

 

4) Armata APS can NOW intercpet top-attack ATGMS and others. It's more then sure.

 

5) In case asking about "Biala" project - I was thinking about asking ChzTM un Ukrspecexport seales on internatinal exibiotion and others. Really - fun guaranteed :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view,the autoloader of 477A/A1/2 which was consisted by three carousels is incomprehensible .

The crews in tank should be very unsafe....

So,I think the original 477's AZ was better than the later one,at least the most of ammunitions were separated from crews..

By the way,I am very curious about the loading system's structure of 477,especially the part in the turret basket. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   1) The reason for rear-placed unamanned turret/gun mount was gun barrel, it is too damn long to be mounted in the center of this vehicle. Also, this general schematics doesn't show armor very well, espeically for vehicle that didn't got trhough all design work, but i am sure that LKZ would left it without armor. Rear part was pretty heavy because of turret ring protection, gun breach and big autoloader. 

 

   2) So if you need to upgrade it, you need to change parts of 3 autoloaders... I don't even speak about how reliable this chain of mechanized ammorack-8 shot autoloader-gun loading mechanism would have been... And even GRAU saw how limited upgrade of this system was. 

 

   4) No, it can't hard-kill top attack ATGMs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In turret comparment autoloader looks like oversized T-72 style autoloader whit two "arms" to lifted up amunition:

one for catrige only and second for aditionall propelant  charge. In fact those 8 rounds (in 16 parts) was separated too, only two "lifted" arm for amunition was in open space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT:

 

@

Lightning

 

better way to explain - this is Ob.477 casette:

az477.jpg

 

Upper for aditional propelant charge, bottom -for catrige.

Imagine AZ autoloader mechanism but not whit upper partf from bottom carusele but whit "cran" (rader metal  "frame") who lift it from upper part of autoloader.

It looks like AZ mehanism but roled :)

 

edit -circa like this:

U0nIaGY.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW- to reload "redy autoloader" turret must be in "0" position and both chain autoloader in both rack (upper and down) are in the same time loaded one casette in "ready autoloader". After reload all 8 casettes turet can be "free" in andy position couse separate autoloader is used to chose casette and loaded gun.

 

And in normal work this "redy autoloader" have 8 casettes whit propelant charge (up) and round (down). And autoloader arm can "rotate" from edge to edge of this rack in turret comparmetn to "chose" casette whit chosen type of round and after that lift it to loading position. And thats all :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember an Armata dev. (or MOD official) claiming the crew could survive ammunition detonation. I take their word with a grain of salt but it would suggest more than 5mm.

Detonation and propelland fire are different things  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is better ones:

 

erYe9KL.jpgAs you can see - I marked better both chine type main rack whit ammo - uper one whit propelant charge and bottom whit round. Both are in the same separate comparment whit blow-out plate in top. This rack must be slighty higher then in turret couse reloding process. The redy use atuloader in turret have eight casettes on bottom of the turret floor -as on draw beloow - idea of the placment is like in AZ in T-72. But... to reloade casette is raise slightu up to have one level whit both chain main rack (autoloaders). I marked all 3 position of casettes - top for gun loading, middle for reloade redy autoloader (frist use) and bottom - when this 8 casettes are placed. The "elevator" for casettes is like rolled AZ autoloader arm, and it cane rotate from edge to edgge of the first use autoloader (rack) to "chose" casette whit propper round.

I hope this draw can explain most of You questions :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...