Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, That_Baka said:

@T___A Do you think that Khrushchev was right when cancelling heavy tank development?

 

If Khrushchev was right it wasn't because of any foresight on his part. The man clearly had no aptitude and knowledge for both armored warfare and tank design. I'm not sure if you're familiar with why the T-62 has the 115 but he was involved and the whole affair was dumb.

 

If they weren't canceled either the Object 277/8 Object 770 or would've been produced*. Probably with the 140mm smoothbore. Maybe the Object 292 would also be produced as a hold over until 277/8 or 770 gets rolling. After that its impossible to say the if the later designs would be worthwhile. I think pure institutional inertia from the SA would keep heavy tanks going at least until the collapse of the USSR. Again I don't know if  the later designs would be good and therefore worthwhile. All the heavy tanks designers threw in the towel after the decision but I don't know what happened to their protégés after the infamous order. So I don't know if they were any good. I presume they kept working in the industry. 

 

 

*Probably with the name T-11 since it would've been the 11th heavy tank produced by the Soviet Union. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, T___A said:

 

If they weren't canceled either the Object 277/8 Object 770 or would've been produced*. Probably with the 140mm smoothbore. Maybe the Object 292 would also be produced as a hold over until 277/8 or 770 gets rolling. After that its impossible to say the if the later designs would be worthwhile. I think pure institutional inertia from the SA would keep heavy tanks going at least until the collapse of the USSR. Again I don't know if  the later designs would be good and therefore worthwhile. All the heavy tanks designers threw in the towel after the decision but I don't know what happened to their protégés after the infamous order. So I don't know if they were any good. I presume they kept working in the industry. 

 

*Probably with the name T-11 since it would've been the 11th heavy tank produced by the Soviet Union. 

 

Would have been interesting to see what they did with their heavy tanks once composite armor made the scene. I wonder if they would have used the same steel / STEF / steel array in the hull and cast turret with insert like the T-64s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lord_James said:

 

Would have been interesting to see what they did with their heavy tanks once composite armor made the scene. I wonder if they would have used the same steel / STEF / steel array in the hull and cast turret with insert like the T-64s. 

 

IIRC they actually already had paper designs using composite armor in '60. They're just buried in the archives somewhere; we'll see if Pavlov and Pavlov dig it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pavlov-and-Pavlov's article about object 279 in Technika i Vooruzhenie 2015-06 does mention some studies of 1955-1958 on the subject of non-metallic filler for composite armor, and it also has this picture of what appears to be an proposition on use of composite armor in frontal part of 279's hull. 
Apparently it went no further than that, and remained a paper design. (Though maybe i'm misunderstanding what's been said in that article.)
KKmkQO0.jpg
In lower part of this image there is a spreadshit on the right, located  allmost inside cross-section #4, and it shows - for all 4 cross section variants - numbers for surface, and numbers for weight of 1cm thick slice of given composition. And also it shows which part of this area and weight refers to steel and which part of this weight refers to armor filler. 
I've divided numbers of given filler weight on given filler area, and got density of about 3.2 kg/cm3, same for compositions 2-4


...
Speaking of heavy tanks, one may remember Chelyabinsk's object 780 of early 70s, which was described in "Morozov's diary" as a 49,8 tonnes vehicle, 9-11 tonnes heavier that Leningrad's 225 and Kharkov's 450.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, T___A said:

 

If Khrushchev was right it wasn't because of any foresight on his part. The man clearly had no aptitude and knowledge for both armored warfare and tank design. I'm not sure if you're familiar with why the T-62 has the 115 but he was involved and the whole affair was dumb.

 

If they weren't canceled either the Object 277/8 Object 770 or would've been produced*. Probably with the 140mm smoothbore. Maybe the Object 292 would also be produced as a hold over until 277/8 or 770 gets rolling. After that its impossible to say the if the later designs would be worthwhile. I think pure institutional inertia from the SA would keep heavy tanks going at least until the collapse of the USSR. Again I don't know if  the later designs would be good and therefore worthwhile. All the heavy tanks designers threw in the towel after the decision but I don't know what happened to their protégés after the infamous order. So I don't know if they were any good. I presume they kept working in the industry. 

 

 

*Probably with the name T-11 since it would've been the 11th heavy tank produced by the Soviet Union. 

 

Do you have any idea why the Object 777 went nowhere despite development being largely done before the stupid bulk cancellation of Khrushchev? That seems to be IMHO, the best overall of the soviet heavy tank designs, and was worked on for quite some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

Do you have any idea why the Object 777 went nowhere despite development being largely done before the stupid bulk cancellation of Khrushchev? That seems to be IMHO, the best overall of the soviet heavy tank designs, and was worked on for quite some time.

 

Politics mainly. The Object 277/8 and Object 770 were designed on the orders of the Sovet Ministrov so every other design was unsolicited and for some reason the Soviets had weird hangups about unsolicited designs. Also the Object 777 only had a manually loaded M-62 which was not gonna fly. The Soviets right after the war decided  that the next generation of heavy tanks was going to a use an auto-loaded 130mm. The only reason the IS-4 and T-10 didn't get the 130mm was they were meant to be quick and easy replacements for the disaster that was the IS-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, T___A said:

 

The only reason the IS-4 and T-10 didn't get the 130mm was they were meant to be quick and easy replacements for the disaster that was the IS-3

I'm curious why you think that way about the IS-3.  I'm used to it receiving (uneducated) acclaim at best and being called a pig at worst.  If anything, it's the IS-4 I see put down. I've not read too much into either one myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scolopax said:

I'm curious why you think that way about the IS-3.  I'm used to it receiving (uneducated) acclaim at best and being called a pig at worst.  If anything, it's the IS-4 I see put down. I've not read too much into either one myself. 

 

I get the impression that the sentiment you're echoing is mostly a western thing. Every contemporary source I've seen on the IS-3 has been negative. They just didn't like it. For good reason: There was just a lot of problems with it. At one point they had to return literally every IS-3 to the factory to fix the welding which was falling apart. Notice that their response  to the IS-3's problem wasn't "wait for the IS-7" it was "oh my god resurrect that heavy tank program we canceled years ago and get it ASAP". The IS-3 was that bad. The problem with the IS-4 was just weight, otherwise they were enthused with it. To the point that when the designing of the T-10 was ordered the government demanded IS-3 shape and size but with IS-4 technology. And I would say the result was pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, T___A said:

 

I get the impression that the sentiment you're echoing is mostly a western thing. Every contemporary source I've seen on the IS-3 has been negative. They just didn't like it. For good reason: There was just a lot of problems with it. At one point they had to return literally every IS-3 to the factory to fix the welding which was falling apart. Notice that their response  to the IS-3's problem wasn't "wait for the IS-7" it was "oh my god resurrect that heavy tank program we canceled years ago and get it ASAP". The IS-3 was that bad. The problem with the IS-4 was just weight, otherwise they were enthused with it. To the point that when the designing of the T-10 was ordered the government demanded IS-3 shape and size but with IS-4 technology. And I would say the result was pretty good.

If my memory service me right, wasn't IS-3 just IS-2 parts in new body and with new turret? Why it would have more problems than IS-2s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

If my memory service me right, wasn't IS-3 just IS-2 parts in new body and with new turret? Why it would have more problems than IS-2s?

 

As far as I know, yes, the suspension and running gear of IS-2 and IS-3 were basically the same.  However, IS-3 was heavier, so those parts would have been pushed harder.  Also, the pike nose was a bit of a problem.


I have read several sources that say the pike nose welds could fail, but I have also read that this was eventually fixed.  It makes sense though; welding armor steel as thick as the armor on the IS-3 is difficult.  Welding steel that thick without screwing up the microstructure of the steel and compromising the armor protection is even harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my memory, T__A's comments on the IS-3 ring true. They did have serious welding issues, the mechanical systems tended to overheat, and some of the crew positions were ergonomically unacceptable. This is not so much due to any major weight gain, but was rather due to a number of design flaws caused by the extreme haste in which IS-3 was developed and put into production (under a year from the start of development to production starting).

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.
       
×