Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Anyone have anything on the Georgian T-72SIM-1?  What was it before the upgrade, it looks kind of like a T-72AV to me, but I'd be interested to hear from someone who knows?

 

02442de2f70b2c61bf5954e94ed448e7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2018 at 6:53 AM, Jim Warford said:

 

The SU-122-54 is a very interesting vehicle...one of my favorites. It was a big deal back in the 1960s and was almost completely missed by the US/NATO intel agencies. Had it been given a chance, it could have been a very important weapon for the Soviet Army during the Cold War. 

I don't understand what is special about it. It looks like WW2 dead end TD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Anyone have anything on the Georgian T-72SIM-1?  What was it before the upgrade, it looks kind of like a T-72AV to me, but I'd be interested to hear from someone who knows?

 

02442de2f70b2c61bf5954e94ed448e7.jpg

 

Quote

   In the course of the modernization, new communication systems were installed on the T-72 tanks, the "friend or foe" system, GPS navigation equipment, two thermal imaging cameras (in the driver vision optics and in the gunner's sight). The fire control system was modified to provide the ability to fire a guided missile through the barrel bore.

   When upgrading to tanks, a new command and control system was installed. This is a computerized system that allows the commander and the crew to receive information about the battlefield.

   The T-72 SIM-1 has an "friend or foe" system, which in case of aiming on a friendly tank warns the crew about a potential error in an alarming sound.

   Regarding the communication system, the old R173 was replaced by the digital tactical radio communication system FALCON manufactured by HARRIS Corporation. It has a frequency hopping, which reduces the possibility of decoding and provides encryption of negotiations.

   The radio station is able to communicate within a radius of up to 20 km and operates at microwave frequencies. The possibility of sending SMS-messages is also available.

 

Share this post


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

I don't understand what is special about it. It looks like WW2 dead end TD.

LoooSeR; good question...first of all, it was right in the middle of the two most significant Soviet Army events of the 1960s: exercise Dnepr in 1967 and Operation Danube (the invasion of Czechoslovakia), in 1968. These two events shaped the Soviet Army of the Cold War and provided very real rehearsals for WWIII. You're correct, the SU-122-54 was the product of the Soviet Army experience in WWII...especially during the Manchuria campaign against the Japanese. The Soviets developed tactics for combined-arms organizations known as "Assault Groups," "Storm Teams," and "Forward Detachments," with assault guns/tank destroyers at their core. After the war, the SU-122-54 (probably known as the SU-122 (M1954) by the Soviets), was secretly fielded in companies/batteries that were organic to select/high-priority MRRs and TRs. As mentioned above, the SU-122-54 was deployed for both Dnepr and Operation Danube.                 

 

Since it wasn't forward deployed in the Groups, it was almost missed by Western intelligence through it's development, short life, and death (at Khrushchev's hand...guns bad, missiles good). The first mention of the SU-122-54 in an official US military reference manual was in a USMC MCIA manual in 1996...that's 41 years after it was fielded by the Soviet Army. There was limited intel available on this vehicle as early as 1958 but most of it was Top Secret so it didn't reach many folks in the field. The CIA gave it the designation SU-100 (M1968).

 

I could go on...the SU-122-54 truly made the D-25 122mm main gun (versioned for the SU-122-54 as the D-49), what it was meant to be...etc.

 

SU-122-54_Operation%20Dnieper_1967_1.jpg

     

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

LoooSeR; good question...first of all, it was right in the middle of the two most significant Soviet Army events of the 1960s: exercise Dnepr in 1967 and Operation Danube (the invasion of Czechoslovakia), in 1968. These two events shaped the Soviet Army of the Cold War and provided very real rehearsals for WWIII. You're correct, the SU-122-54 was the product of the Soviet Army experience in WWII...especially during the Manchuria campaign against the Japanese. The Soviets developed tactics for combined-arms organizations known as "Assault Groups," "Storm Teams," and "Forward Detachments," with assault guns/tank destroyers at their core. After the war, the SU-122-54 (probably known as the SU-122 (M1954) by the Soviets), was secretly fielded in companies/batteries that were organic to select/high-priority MRRs and TRs. As mentioned above, the SU-122-54 was deployed for both Dnepr and Operation Danube.                 

 

Since it wasn't forward deployed in the Groups, it was almost missed by Western intelligence through it's development, short life, and death (at Khrushchev's hand...guns bad, missiles good). The first mention of the SU-122-54 in an official US military reference manual was in a USMC MCIA manual in 1996...that's 41 years after it was fielded by the Soviet Army. There was limited intel available on this vehicle as early as 1958 but most of it was Top Secret so it didn't reach many folks in the field. The CIA gave it the designation SU-100 (M1968).

 

I could go on...the SU-122-54 truly made the D-25 122mm main gun (versioned for the SU-122-54 as the D-49), what it was meant to be...etc.

 

SU-122-54_Operation%20Dnieper_1967_1.jpg

     

 

With my respect Jim Warforď. It seems that there misunderstanding i think Looser meant that from technological perspective Su-54-122 is not that interesting (i agree with him).

In my humble opinion M-62-T2S is much better representation of peak 122mm .And from technical standpoint post-war dead end self-propelled guns Object 268,261 and 263 is much more interesting especially if Object 268 would receive planned autoloader mid life retrofit .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, That_Baka said:

Object 268 would receive planned autoloader mid life retrofit .

 

Both A.G. Karpenko and Baryatinsky say that the Object 268 already had a tray type auto-loader which is why they were able to get away with a four man crew.

 

2 hours ago, That_Baka said:

And from technical standpoint post-war dead end self-propelled guns Object 268,261 and 263 is much more interesting

 

Object 261 is really fucking obscure. What many people don't realize is that it actually three different designs and the wooden model that is everywhere on the internet isn't actually the Object 261:

Quote

During work on perfecting the IS-7 design in 1947, OGK LKZ and Experimental Factory #100 developed projects for high power heavy SPGs.

Object 261-1, closed type, with a forward fighting compartment and a 152 mm M-31 gun with a 880 m/s muzzle velocity (later re-designated Object 261)

Object 261-2, half-open type, rear fighting compartment, 152 mm M-48 gun with 1000 m/s muzzle velocity (later re-designated Object 262)

Object 261-3, half-open type, rear fighting compartment, with a 180 mm naval MU-1 gun with a muzzle velocity of 920 m/s.

 

 

Object 263 is even more obscure. The only person who has written at length on the Object 263 is A.G. Karpenko  who says that the Object 263 uses parts from both the IS-8 and IS-7.

Share this post


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

 

Both A.G. Karpenko and Baryatinsky say that the Object 268 already had a tray type auto-loader which is why they were able to get away with a four man crew.

 

 

Object 261 is really fucking obscure. What many people don't realize is that it actually three different designs and the wooden model that is everywhere on the internet isn't actually the Object 261:

 

 

Object 263 is even more obscure. The only person who has written at length on the Object 263 is A.G. Karpenko  who says that the Object 263 uses parts from both the IS-8 and IS-7.

Oh thanks new info .I based my expression on chieftain hatch object 268 episode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, That_Baka said:

With my respect Jim Warforď. It seems that there misunderstanding i think Looser meant that from technological perspective Su-54-122 is not that interesting (i agree with him).

In my humble opinion M-62-T2S is much better representation of peak 122mm .And from technical standpoint post-war dead end self-propelled guns Object 268,261 and 263 is much more interesting especially if Object 268 would receive planned autoloader mid life retrofit .

 

Baka; here's a quick overview of the technology successfully built into the SU-122-54 - many of the identified issues/problems associated with previous Soviet assault guns and 122mm-armed tanks were solved:

 

  • First Soviet production tank or assault gun fitted with a main gun bore evacuator (advantage over all previous Soviet assault guns and tanks) 
  • Vertically stabilized main gun (advantage over T-10, same level as T-10A) 
  • Two (human) loaders (advantage over all other Soviet 122mm-armed assault guns and tanks) 
  • Mechanical rigid-chain rammer (advantage over all IS-series of tanks)
  • First and only Soviet production assault gun or tank fitted with a stereoscopic rangefinder (advantage over all previous Soviet assault guns and tanks until the fielding of the T-64)

From my perspective, the combination of lessons-learned from WWII and new (at the time) technology, make the SU-122-54 very interesting. We also need to remember that the Soviets thought it was interesting as well...the SU-122-54 was approved both for mass production and upgrading by fitting the M62-T2 122mm main gun (with its 3BM11 APDS ammo)...the upgraded vehicle was designated SU-122L. Also, just to clarify, I said that the D-49 made the D-25 (series) 122mm main gun what it was meant to be...which doesn't include the M62-T2. The T-10M had a more powerful main gun to be sure...but it was less accurate and had a lower rate of fire. Finally, while Kubinka is full of interesting prototypes, the SU-122-54 was produced, deployed, and would have seen combat had things gone differently in Czechoslovakia.         

 

 

      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

Baka; here's a quick overview of the technology successfully built into the SU-122-54 - 

 

Yeah but that's mostly because of the timing of the SU-122-54 more than anything. Omsk didn't trail blaze on anything mentioned. The IS-7 has everything you mentioned and more and that came in 1947. 

 

10 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

many of the identified issues/problems associated with previous Soviet assault guns and 122mm-armed tanks were solved:

 

They didn't which is why only 77 were made. The problem is that a 122mm spg is fundamentally nonsensical after 1944.

 

Come on, the SU-100P is more relevant to Soviet tank technology development than the SU-122-54.

Share this post


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

 

Yeah but that's mostly because of the timing of the SU-122-54 more than anything. Omsk didn't trail blaze on anything mentioned. The IS-7 has everything you mentioned and more and that came in 1947. 

 

 

They didn't which is why only 77 were made. The problem is that a 122mm spg is fundamentally nonsensical after 1944.

 

Come on, the SU-100P is more relevant to Soviet tank technology development than the SU-122-54.

 

T___A; well, the IS-7 is interesting, I'll give you that...but, how many test vehicles were actually built (4 or 5)? How many were deployed with Soviet forces? Zero... As I mentioned above, there are a lot of interesting test vehicles and prototypes at Kubinka (I know, I've been there), but most weren't fielded and ultimately became dead-ends. It's a mistake to criticize the SU-122-54 based on the numbers produced...we know that 95 D-49 main guns were produced and while some sources report a total production run of 77 vehicles, the actual number could be higher. I disagree with you regarding a 122mm "spg" being nonsensical after 1944. In fact, the SU-122-54's primary tactical role wasn't even fully developed until 1945. After the war, this new assault gun/tank destroyer successfully combined the capabilities of both the heavy and medium assault gun/tank destroyer...think "Storm Teams." 

 

In the end, the problem the SU-122-54 ran into was all about timing...the total number produced wasn't a statement concerning it's qualities or capabilities; on the contrary, it was accepted for mass production. This impressive vehicle was clearly killed by the pro-missile/anti-gun lobby....       

 

SU-122-54%20Displayed%20at%20Krasnodar_3

             

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   PDF was found from 21st Russian scientific-practical conference "Problems of defence and security", speaking about combat robotics - projects, Uran-9 perfomance in Syria (will cover that in separate post), integration and so on.

https://ppt-online.org/361075

 

List of R&Ds

- ÐÐР «ТаÑанка л РÐÐРÐÐÐТÐÐ ÐÐÐÐÐРÐÐÐТРÐÐÐЭÐÐÐÐÐÐÐРРÐÐÐТÐÐÐРÐÐÐÐÐÐРУÐÐРÐÐÐ ÐÐÐТФÐРÐЫ ТЯÐÐÐÐÐÐ ÐÐÐССРÐÐ ÐÐÐÐ ÐÐÐÐÐÐЯ Т-14

another slide with pics of some of those vehicles:

Spoiler

slide-6.jpg

 

  • R&D Tachanka-B - creation/project of heavy chassis for creation of heavy assault robots, using T-14 as basis. Probably this:

900e4ccbf0d9.png

Second slide notes versions with 125 and 152 mm guns.

 

  • Armata project - vehicles on universal heavy chassis that can work as basis for other R&Ds.
  • R&D Gruppirovka (Grouping) - research of autonomous movement and control of groups of medium and heavy class robots
  • R&D "Shturm" (Assault) - automated system of coordination of robots during execution of tasks of ground forces, including assault operations

Medium class of robots from that presentation:

d4c8b34b4032.png

Slides also notes 2 versions - with 57 mm autocannon or 30 mm. 

 

Command vehicle:

72ba72d8c8ca.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That presentation also speak about Uran-9 combat use in Syria.

ÐедоÑÑаÑки, вÑÑвленÑе в Ñоде боевого пÑÐ¸Ð¼ÐµÐ½ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐÐРР«УÑан-9» в СÐР

 

Quote

   Disadvantages revealed during the combat application of the BRMK "Uran-9" in the SAR

   Control
   In the performance of combat missions, the average range of sustainable control from the control point was 300-500 m in the conditions of a settlement with low-rise buildings (17 short-term (up to 1 min) and 2 long (up to 1.5 hours) control losses were recorded)

 

   Mobility
   When moving by its own motion, the low reliability of the running gear elements - supporting and main rollers, suspension springs was revealed.

 

   Firepower
   Unstable operation of 30 mm automatic gun 2A72 (6 delays and failure of the gun). Untimely triggering of ATGMs (8 cases). Failure of the thermal imaging channel of the optical sighting station (2 cases). BRMK Uran-9 provides fire only from stationary position, which significantly reduces its combat capabilities (armament, sighting and reconnaissance devices are not stabilized).

 

   Reconnaissance and observation

   During the exploration of reconnaissance capabilities, it was revealed that the optical stations allow reconnaissance and identification of targets at a range of no more than 2 km. Fields of view from sights on the screens of the operators are monochrome and have a low resolution. The OSN-4 optical station does not allow detecting optical observation and targeting devices of the enemy and gives out multiple interference on the ground and in the airspace in the surveillanced sector.

Well, not that surprising taking into account that company behind Uran-9 have no experience with robots and combat vehicles. Uran-9 is kind of POS. :(

 

Conclusions

Spoiler

slide-9.jpg

 

Quote

Conclusions:
1. The combat capabilities of the OMBRs will not change after equiping it with RTKs ["Robotic technical complex"].
   Robots operate under the control of operators who are far away from them and are controlled through cameras, audio communication and other signals, so on the battlefield the robot is seriously limited by the operator's ability to understand what is happening around and make quick tactical decisions. It is this gap that makes the RTK ineffective in combat, solving problems requiring rapidity in highly maneuverable actions of combined arms formations.

 

2. At the present time and in the next 10-15 years, the combat RTKs are not able to carry out the assigned tasks in the classical types of combat operations, acting in the combat formations of the combined arms units. Until the appearance of more advanced RTKs, existing ones are advisable to use when storming objects and fortified areas.

 

3. Given the low control capabilities, it is advisable to use the RTK from the prepared firing positions, for a short time and once. Service points should be placed as close as possible to fire positions, in such a way as to ensure their servicing, reloading and dispatch to firing positions, if necessary, in a short time.

 

4. Existing and developing combat RTKs should be used to accomplish certain tasks in interaction with maneuverable short range weapons (units of ATGMs, engineering units, combined-arms divisions operating on the frontline, detachments, ambushes, etc.) for the destruction of armored and enemy weapons.
   Independent application of RTK units, in case of loss of control or failure of control posts, may lead to non-fulfillment of the assigned task by combined-arms divisions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense. Robots are still not an urgent need anyway, so it's not much of an issue until they decide to spend too much money on it for non-developmental purposes.

Better invest in cargo-carrying drones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medium class robot have RPO-2 variant, render of medium class robots shows this (as was noted on otvaga):

Drmjw.jpg

 

Which looks very much like PDM-A

3Y5wR.jpg 

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.
       
×