Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
T___A

The Soviet Tank Thread: Transversely Mounted 1000hp Engines

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

×