Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

   Heh, only now noticed that Object 195 had HMG (?) mounted co-axially with 30 mm AC. Also, i feel that protectice cover above APS launchers is not for a sight, but probably for an optical sensor.

rNbdQ.png

Share this post


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

Heh, only now noticed that Object 195 had HMG (?) mounted co-axially with 30 mm AC. Also, i feel that protectice cover above APS launchers is not for a sight, but probably for an optical sensor.

A pity that this tank didnt get to serial production. As for the cover, maybe laser warning receiver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

A pity that this tank didnt get to serial production. As for the cover, maybe laser warning receiver?

Big one - no. Right next to it you can see smaller device, which looks very much like laser sensors of Shtora system on T-80UK/90s.

oU4Zqqz.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5c154835b2d87b00acb731f7/unificirovannye-tipovye-shassi-okr-odnotomnik-5c1bda1855f3da00aa81a727?from=channel

GurKhan artice about pre-Armata work on unified chassis vehicles.

 

Quote

/.../

...in 1995, work was under way on the creation of a T-95 tank. Naturally, the military wanted to develop this theme in the direction of creating a whole family of vehicles, mainly of an auxiliary purpose. In November, the GABTU issued a technical assignment T.218-95 to conduct development work under the code “Odnotomnik”, and it was given at the same time to two design bureaus - Nizhny Tagil and Omsk.

 

   At the technical project stage, the development of five machines using parts of T-95 tank was assigned. UKBTM developed 1UTSh1 and 2UTSh3, KBTM - 3UTSh5, 4UTSh4 and 4UTSh5.

 

   Such a strange name had the following decoding:

UTSh - unified standard chassis

 

   The first digit meant:

1 - rear arrangement of engine compartment

2 - front arrangement of engine compartment

3 - front arrangement of the engine compartment with a "remote" cabin

4 - rear arrangement of the engine compartment with a "remote" cabin

 

   The number at the end is the category of protection of frontal and lateral projections at probable angles of attack, in order of decreasing levels pf protection. Those were five:

  • 1st category of protection - from armor-piercing sub-caliber shells of modern tank guns and guided anti-tank missiles with HEAT warheads;
  • 2nd category of protection - from armor-piercing sabots of small-caliber automatic cannons and anti-tank grenades with HEAT warheads;
  • 3rd category of protection - from armor-piercing cartridges of large-caliber machine guns;
  • 4th category of protection - from armor-piercing bullets of 7.62mm caliber and fragments of high-explosive fragmentation projectiles;
  • The 5th category of protection is not exactly known to me, but presumably it indicates the absence of protection.

   It was assumed that the UTSH can be used to create on their base:

  • 1UTSh1 - a BMPT tank support fighting vehicle, the Niva control vehicle, a BMLO laser weapons fighting vehicle;
  • 1UTSh2 - BREM, Caterpillar-1 type bridge-laying machine, the Kort engineering mine sweeper, a remote-controlled engineering minesweeper TIMT of the "Kardenit-K" type;
  • 1UTSh3 - IMR-type engineering vehicle "Robot-2";
  • 2UTSh2 - a heavy armored personnel carrier BTR-T, a combined-arms command and command vehicle OKSHM, a ammunition carrier of a heavy flamethrower system TOS, an armored flamethrower fighting vehicle OBBM, a mobile telecontrol station “Kardenit” for a engineering complex for overcoming mine-explosive obstacles;
  • 2UTSh3 - an armored workshop for maintenance BMTO, ammunition carrier vehicle for a heavy flamethrower system TOS, a combat vehicle for collective protection against high-precision weapons BMZ VTO, a universal mining and demining system for UMZ;
  • 2UTSh5 - SPG and TZM (ammunition carrier/reloading vehicle) of 152mm of the Msta-SM;
  • 3UTSh4 - MTM multi-purpose transport machine, TM trench machine, KM trenching machine;
  • 3UTSh5 - landing craft ferry of the type PMM-2, machine for ferries;
  • 4UTSh4 - Derrick-type track planter;
  • 4UTSh5 - alas, until I know what it is

   Total weight of the chassis should not exceed:

  • 1UTSh1 - 42t
  • 2UTSh3 - 38t
  • 3UTSh - 34t 
  • 4UTSh - 36t

/.../

 

Quote

/.../

   The work was carried out in close cooperation between the two design bureaus. After reviewing the results of the first Chechen campaign, it generally received priority status. At the same time it was assumed, by analogy with heavy UTSh, to develop on a similar chassis tracked vehicles of medium weight.

 

   I managed to find a mention of this in one of the “tasty” documents of the Combined Arms Academy of the RF Armed Forces. I will quote: “In order to eliminate the deficiencies in the development of weapons and military equipment of the Ground Forces identified during the fighting, the ordering departments of the Ministry of Defense, together with industry organizations, need to:

   - to carry out a detailed analysis of the failure of weapons and military equipment in the zone of the Chechen conflict for combat damage and technical reasons and to prepare an action plan to eliminate the identified deficiencies;

   - analyze the R&D Plan for 1996 and the draft Plan for 1997 with the aim of making the necessary adjustments to the technical documentation for developed and modernized AFV samples of the Ground Forces in terms of maximally taking into account the experience of combat use of equipment. Consider the possibility of staging new works and the termination of works that have lost their relevance;

   - to transfer the work on the creation of a highly-protected tank support vehicle (R&D "Frame"/Ramka) into the priority category;

   - to intensify work on the creation of a single chassis for a family of combat and auxiliary machines weighing 30–60 tons on the nodes and assemblies of the new tank (code “Odnotomnik”). Expand work on the track unified chassis for machines weighing 10 - 25 tons;

/.../

 

Quote

   After reconciliation with Chechnya, Russia has no money for new armored vehicles, especially as an auxiliary one. In the early 2000s, the R&D was discontinued.

Unfortunately, for several reasons, I can’t show how real-designed vehicleslooked like. However, illustrations here are from patents.

 

scale_2400

 

Spoiler

scale_2400

 

scale_2400

 

scale_2400

 

scale_2400

 

scale_2400

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this comment by Yuri Pasholok on otvaga to be interesting.

Quote

   IS-3 has never been a revolution at all. This is an upgrade of the IS-2, and not fully implemented. And the reasons for "not taking off" there are not at all those that are usually advertised. In practice, the IS-3 was more reliable than the IS-2, but the first one went immediately to the unit where a number of the jambs were repaired, and the IS-3 basically went to the long-term storage warehouses. And the production of the IS-3 was discontinued, not because it was bad, but because they wanted to start up the IS-4 series. /.../

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, LoooSeR said:

Found this comment by Yuri Pasholok on otvaga to be interesting.

 

 

Yes, that is very interesting.  But Pasholok has a lot of access to the Soviet archives, right?  I am curious to know how he developed this view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2018 at 4:02 AM, Collimatrix said:

 

Yes, that is very interesting.  But Pasholok has a lot of access to the Soviet archives, right?  I am curious to know how he developed this view.

 

He have articles on IS modernisation efforts in which he explains why IS-3 is modernisation rather new revolutionary tank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IS-3 was a massively flawed design. At least its chassis. It was very weak (had low stiffness), so the hull welds and engine mounts often cracked and snapped apart. This design flaw was so severe that they were never able to truly fix it, despite numerous strenghtenings. Cant say anything specific now, didnt read yet the excellent article about the IS-3M modernization in отечественные бронированные машины 1945-1965.

Share this post


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

Laos brought back 30 T-34s to us, they also purchased new tanks.

l8nj7jysha921.jpg

"Perspective tanks are already entering the army" (с) mass media
so already joking?:D

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.
       
×