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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • 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 Collimatrix
      At the end of January, 2018 and after many false starts, the Russian military formally announced the limited adoption of the AEK-971 and AEK-973 rifles.  These rifles feature an unusual counterbalanced breech mechanism which is intended to improve handling, especially during full auto fire.  While exotic outside of Russia, these counter-balanced rifles are not at all new.  In fact, the 2018 adoption of the AEK-971 represents the first success of a rifle concept that has been around for a some time.

      Earliest Origins


      Animated diagram of the AK-107/108
       
      Balanced action recoil systems (BARS) work by accelerating a mass in the opposite direction of the bolt carrier.  The countermass is of similar mass to the bolt carrier and synchronized to move in the opposite direction by a rack and pinion.  This cancels out some, but not all of the impulses associated with self-loading actions.  But more on that later.

      Long before Soviet small arms engineers began experimenting with BARS, a number of production weapons featured synchronized masses moving in opposite directions.  Generally speaking, any stabilization that these actions provided was an incidental benefit.  Rather, these designs were either attempts to get around patents, or very early developments in the history of autoloading weapons when the design best practices had not been standardized yet.  These designs featured a forward-moving gas trap that, of necessity, needed its motion converted into rearward motion by either a lever or rack and pinion.
       

      The French St. Etienne Machine Gun
       

      The Danish Bang rifle
       
      At around the same time, inventors started toying with the idea of using synchronized counter-masses deliberately to cancel out recoil impulses.  The earliest patent for such a design comes from 1908 from obscure firearms designer Ludwig Mertens:


       
      More information on these early developments is in this article on the matter by Max Popenker.
       
      Soviet designers began investigating the BARS concept in earnest in the early 1970s.  This is worth noting; these early BARS rifles were actually trialed against the AK-74.
       

      The AL-7 rifle, a BARS rifle from the early 1970s
       
      The Soviet military chose the more mechanically orthodox AK-74 as a stopgap measure in order to get a small-caliber, high-velocity rifle to the front lines as quickly as possible.  Of course, the thing about stopgap weapons is that they always end up hanging around longer than intended, and forty four years later Russian troops are still equipped with the AK-74.

      A small number of submachine gun prototypes with a BARS-like system were trialed, but not mass-produced.  The gas operated action of a rifle can be balanced with a fairly small synchronizer rack and pinion, but the blowback action of a submachine gun requires a fairly large and massive synchronizer gear or lever.  This is because in a gas operated rifle a second gas piston can be attached to the countermass, thereby unloading the synchronizer gear.

      There are three BARS designs of note from Russia:

      AK-107/AK-108
       


      The AK-107 and AK-108 are BARS rifles in 5.45x39mm and 5.56x45mm respectively.  These rifles are products of the Kalashnikov design bureau and Izmash factory, now Kalashnikov Concern.  Internally they are very similar to an AK, only with the countermass and synchronizer unit situated above the bolt carrier group.


       

      Close up of synchronizer and dual return spring assemblies

      This is configuration is almost identical to the AL-7 design of the early 1970s.  Like the more conventional AK-100 series, the AK-107/AK-108 were offered for export during the late 1990s and early 2000s, but they failed to attract any customers.  The furniture is very similar to the AK-100 series, and indeed the only obvious external difference is the long tube protruding from the gas block and bridging the gap to the front sight.
       
      The AK-107 has re-emerged recently as the Saiga 107, a rifle clearly intended for competitive shooting events like 3-gun.
       

       
      AEK-971

      The rival Kovrov design bureau was only slightly behind the Kalashnikov design bureau in exploring the BARS concept.  Their earliest prototype featuring the system, the SA-006 (also transliterated as CA-006) also dates from the early 1970s.



      Chief designer Sergey Koksharov refined this design into the AEK-971.  The chief refinement of his design over the first-generation balanced action prototypes from the early 1970s is that the countermass sits inside the bolt carrier, rather than being stacked on top of it.  This is a more compact installation of the mechanism, but otherwise accomplishes the same thing.


       

      Moving parts group of the AEK-971

      The early AEK-971 had a triangular metal buttstock and a Kalashnikov-style safety lever on the right side of the rifle.



      In this guise the rifle competed unsuccessfully with Nikonov's AN-94 design in the Abakan competition.  Considering that a relative handful of AN-94s were ever produced, this was perhaps not a terrible loss for the Kovrov design bureau.

      After the end of the Soviet Union, the AEK-971 design was picked up by the Degtyarev factory, itself a division of the state-owned Rostec.



      The Degtyarev factory would unsuccessfully try to make sales of the weapon for the next twenty four years.  In the meantime, they made some small refinements to the rifle.  The Kalashnikov-style safety lever was deleted and replaced with a thumb safety on the left side of the receiver.


       
      Later on the Degtyarev factory caught HK fever, and a very HK-esque sliding metal stock was added in addition to a very HK-esque rear sight.  The thumb safety lever was also made ambidextrous.  The handguard was changed a few times.



      Still, reception to the rifle was lukewarm.  The 2018 announcement that the rifle would be procured in limited numbers alongside more conventional AK rifles is not exactly a coup.  The numbers bought are likely to be very low.  A 5.56mm AEK-972 and 7.62x39mm AEK-973 also exist.  The newest version of the rifle has been referred to as A-545.

      AKB and AKB-1


      AKB-1


      AKB


      AKB, closeup of the receiver

      The AKB and AKB-1 are a pair of painfully obscure designs designed by Viktor Kalashnikov, Mikhail Kalashnikov's son.  The later AKB-1 is the more conservative of the two, while the AKB is quite wild.

      Both rifles use a more or less conventional AK type bolt carrier, but the AKB uses the barrel as the countermass.  That's right; the entire barrel shoots forward while the bolt carrier moves back!  This unusual arrangement also allowed for an extremely high cyclic rate of fire; 2000RPM.  Later on a burst limiter and rate of fire limiter were added.  The rifle would fire at the full 2000 RPM for two round bursts, but a mere 1000 RPM for full auto.

      The AKB-1 was a far more conventional design, but it still had a BARS.  In this design the countermass was nested inside the main bolt carrier, similar to the AEK-971.

      Not a great deal of information is available about these rifles, but @Hrachya H wrote an article on them which can be read here.
       
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Something I haven't seen discussed on this site before; Soviet/Russian efforts to domesticate foxes by breeding for domesticated behavior. Article in Scientific American here; https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/mans-new-best-friend-a-forgotten-russian-experiment-in-fox-domestication/
       
      Interesting that there were physical changes correlated with the behavioral changes the Russians bred for.

       
      Buy one for only $7,000! https://domesticatedsilverfox.weebly.com/aquiring-a-tame-fox.html
       

      (not entirely unlike a dog I guess)
       
       
      It seems like a pretty cool idea to drunk me, though I don't have a spare 7,000 dollars laying around (thanks student loans!). Also, I don't think my cat would approve.
       
×