Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

This shall be the general thread for all things soviet tanks. I shall start by posting an article I just wrote for my blog. I would recommend Archive Awarness which is an excellent blog about Soviet tanks and their experiences with other nation's tanks.

In the 2nd half of 1957 at the suggestion of Chief the Armored troops of the Soviet Army Colonel General P.P. Poluboyarova suggested that a new tank be developed on the basis of the Object 140 but uses the chassis of the T-54B to ensure maximum part compatibly. The tank was designed at factory №183 under the leadership of Leonid Karcev. One prototype was built and underwent testing in the fall of 1958.

0Xo1Oxu.jpgThe Object 142 was armed with the 100mm D-54TS. The tank contained 50 rounds of ammunition for the main gun. The D-54TS was two plane stabilized with the “Blizzard” stabilizer. The gun was aimed with a TSH2A telescopic sight while night sighting was used with the TPN-1. Gun traverse of the main gun was -5 to 16 degrees. Unlike the Object 140 the Object 142 lacked a mechanism for spent shell ejection. Due to removing the AA gun that was on the Object 140 spaced was freed up for more ammunition (3,500 rounds) for the 7.62mm SGMT machine gun. The armor layout was mostly the same as the Object 140.

WS64kzH.jpg

The Object 142 was powered by the 580hp B-55. Top speed was 50km/h. The transmission was essentially that of the T-54B. Most of the parts from the Object 142 power system were taken from the Object 140 except for the heater and fuel tanks. The Object 142 carried 715 liters of fuel plus 285 on external tanks. This gave the Object 142 a range of 500km.

KXAtAQG.jpg

Armor layout of the Object 142

The Object 142 was canceled with the start the start of production of the T-55 at Factory №183 and research being undertaken to improve the fighting capability of the T-55.While the Object 142 was short lived it did form the basis for the T-62A and thus the T-62. The Object 142 would mark the start of Nizhny Tagil's move to improve tank capability of it's future tanks with older ones. It should be noted that the Object 142 is commonly misidentified as the T-62A, you can tell the difference by seeing if it has a Object 142 turret and hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question for  you.  It seems that on a lot of the Soviet tank designs in the 50's and 60's, they have uneven spacing between road wheels.  I seem to remember reading that on the T54/55, the gap between the first and second road wheels was to create space between the torsion bars for an escape hatch.  Is this true?  Also, why on later models like T-62 did the gap move back between the third and forth, and forth and fifth roadwheels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question for  you.  It seems that on a lot of the Soviet tank designs in the 50's and 60's, they have uneven spacing between road wheels.  I seem to remember reading that on the T54/55, the gap between the first and second road wheels was to create space between the torsion bars for an escape hatch.  Is this true?  Also, why on later models like T-62 did the gap move back between the third and forth, and forth and fifth roadwheels?

 

The gap was changed on the T-62 was changed due to weight distribution reasons. You can see this on the Object 140 despite it having a T-54B suspension as they changed it as well for the same reason.

WS64kzH.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will write an article about it tomorrow but anyway here is drawing of the IS-2U.

 

Apparently the original armor scheme suggested would've required replacing the torsion bars with something smaller.

Apparently the Chinese 110 was a project based on IS-2U plans given to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned to The_Warhawk at the Wargaming player meetup that The_Chieftain needs to do an inside the hatch of the IS-7.  He said he'd definitely pass it along.

 

I think we all want a nice, long four-parter describing in indulgent detail all the bells and whistles on everyone's favorite communist techno-death-chariot.

 

 

Also, prepare y'allselves for some Russian Bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that the mechanism at 0:50?

 

 

I knew the T-10 had a loader-assist rammer, but not the IS-3 too

 

Those concepts looks great. I want them in WoT. Those old Soviet archives are giving more and more interesting stuff. 

 

IS-2U already exists in the game...just not as a Soviet tank

 

sLZLTuA.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this appears to be something entirely new. Though it wouldn't surprise me if the loading mechanism used that as well.

This is rammer. Soldier is pressing button that reads "досылка", which suggest that it is nothing more than a rammer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FTR has a look at object 777.

 

The part that stuck out to me was the mention of hydraulic suspension.  Ob 770 and Ob 279 both had hydropneumatic suspension, so it seems that for a time the Soviets were quite keen on non-torsion bar suspension, at least in their prototypes.

IIRC Object 770 and 279 had unadjustable type of hydraulic suspension. They also were testing short "sheaf" torsion bars at different prototypes. IIRC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC Object 770 and 279 had unadjustable type of hydraulic suspension. They also were testing short "sheaf" torsion bars at different prototypes. IIRC. 

 

"Sheaf" torsion bars sound like what IS-7 and T-64 have; a bunch of small bars inside a large tube.  You get a better ratio of surface area to volume and hence better work capacity per kilogram of torsion bar.

 

279 pretty much can't use torsion bars because of the four track setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sheaf" torsion bars sound like what IS-7 and T-64 have; a bunch of small bars inside a large tube.  You get a better ratio of surface area to volume and hence better work capacity per kilogram of torsion bar.

 

279 pretty much can't use torsion bars because of the four track setup.

     Torsion bars became standart type of suspension today. Is there any other type of suspension that we can see in the future that could replace tb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Torsion bars became standart type of suspension today. Is there any other type of suspension that we can see in the future that could replace tb?

 

Hydropneumatic seems superior in my opinion, since it is a little lighter and does not take up room inside the hull.

 

Most of the very recent tank designs, like the Korean K2, Turkish Altay and Japanese type 10 have hydropneumatic suspension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that it doesn't seem to work?

 

At least it doesn't copy the early Leo 2 turret design, and at least they didn't waste time and money developing their own gun which merely duplicated the performance of designs they could have easily license-produced.

Share this post


Link to post
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.


  • Similar Content

    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
       
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
       
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
       
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
       

       
      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
       
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
       
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
       
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
       
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
       
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
       
       
    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
    • By LoooSeR
      I want to show you several late Soviet MBT designs, which were created in 1980s in order to gain superiority over NATO focres. I do think that some of them are interesting, some of them look like a vehicle for Red Alert/Endwar games. 
           
           Today, Russia is still use Soviet MBTs, like T-80 and T-72s, but in late 1970s and 1980s Soviet military and engineers were trying to look for other tank concepts and designs. T-64 and other MBTs, based on concept behind T-64, were starting to reaching their limits, mostly because of their small size and internal layout. 
       
      PART 1
       
       
      Object 292
       
         We open our Box of Communism Spreading Godless Beasts with not so much crazy attempt to mate T-80 hull with 152 mm LP-83 gun (LP-83 does not mean Lenin Pride-83). It was called Object 292.
       
       
       
          First (and only, sadly) prototype was build in 1990, tested at Rzhevskiy proving ground (i live near it) in 1991, which it passed pretty well. Vehicle (well, turret) was developed by Leningrad Kirov factory design bureau (currently JSC "Spetstrans") Because of collapse of Soviet Union this project was abandoned. One of reasons was that main gun was "Burevestnik" design bureau creation, which collapsed shortly after USSR case to exist. It means that Gorbachyov killed this vehicle. Thanks, Gorbach!
       
          Currently this tank is localted in Kubinka, in running condition BTW. Main designer was Nikolay Popov.
       
          Object 292, as you see at photos, had a new turret. This turret could have been mounted on existing T-80 hulls without modifications to hull (Object 292 is just usual serial production T-80U with new turret, literally). New Mechanical autoloading mechanism was to be build for it. Turret had special Abrams-like bustle for ammunition, similar feature you can see on Ukrainian T-84-120 Yatagan MBT and, AFAIK, Oplot-BM.
          Engine was 1250 HP GTD-1250 T-80U engine. 152 mm main smoothbore gun was only a little bit bigger than 2A46 125 mm smoothbore gun, but it had much better overall perfomance.
          This prototype was clearly a transitory solution between so called "3" and "4th" generation tanks.
       
          Some nerd made a model of it:
      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
       
       
      ........Continue in Part 2
×
×
  • Create New...