Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Quote

   Pskov division received 31 BMD-4M and 8 BTR-MDM Rakushka. Combat vehicles entered the 3rd Airborne Assault Battalion of the 104th Guards Parachute Regiment. The subunit commanders and crews of combat vehicles routinely underwent a 2-month course at the base of the junior specialists training center in Omsk.

 

7TQ7AMd.jpg

 

Spoiler

VKhAFat.jpg

 

8DKlP2Y.jpg

 

8FmsOw3.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/1186187.html

Quote

   In accordance with the Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the USSR Council of Ministers dated February 17, 1961 and the order of the USSR Civil Code issued on March 16, 1961, the LKZ began the creation of a medium tank with guided weapons and enhanced anti-nuclear and anti-HEAT protection. The tank was given the designation "Object 287".

6n6OmQBtj13Fhk7V4dHn0JOV1OQi-9r1VsNagQR7ocQ7xMLOdc2cAFu1WxmD0cq7XXbploFB2TjCkYuKS8jNfWRSS0ye7h23m4aJsJCmM5V_zQgqD-2TZnDejXCv9Dee

 

Quote

   "Object 287" was a medium tank armed with the Typhoon ATGM. The technical design of the tank was developed by the LKZ design bureau under the supervision of the chief designer J. Kotin in 1962. A prototype tank was factory tested in April - October 1964. In total, four prototypes of the tank were manufactured for factory and joint tests. In addition, another tank ("Object 288") was made to test two gas turbine engines and Lotos ATGM. One set of the hull and turret of the tank was made for testing protection. The tank was not accepted for service.

   Tests of two prototypes of the tank at the Gorokhovetsky artillery range showed unreliable operation of the missile control system and the unsatisfactory results of firing from 73-mm guns. Resolution of the USSR Council of September 3, 1968. Works on the Object 287 tank were discontinued in connection with the deployment of work on equipping the Object 434 tank with the Cobra GL-ATGM.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2019 at 10:56 PM, LoooSeR said:

Object 287

Very interesting vehicle with impressive UFP LOS armor thickness even at preliminary project stage
NSXO9zK.png
OBM vol.3 p.342 says it was able to withstand some 122mm KE round, and provided protection against 600mm CE.
The thing is - there is a difference between drawings of preliminary project (p.227), and another drawing (p.341), with later having more sloped armor at around 74 degrees
ki364Qw.jpg
which leads to even more impressive LOS thickness of 90,7 cm,
however I wish there was some better source for that than my measurements using those drawings scaled by their T-64 type roadwheels and 5TDF engine.

 

...
This thing also had sight cover doors, unlike some other russian vehicles of not-so-distant-past:
hXVsYM7.jpg
...
It also had some sort of periscopic device for commander (which, obviously, was located in hull and had rather limited observation via perisopes in his hatch)
here, protruding on the starboard side of the vehicle:
KGp14Jq.jpg
inside:
bKum0CM.jpg

Upd:
btw, btvt.info's web version of OBM vol.3 article on 287 has same image in somewhat different quality. Upscaled:
uNZ0A91.jpg


And another thing i should've remembered earlier. Btvt.info's article on soviet ERA development history, among other things, talks about ERA which was tested in 1968 with 3 vehicles in mind - obj. 434 (T-64A), obj 775 and obj. 287. For some reason i've always forgot about 287.
Anyway, that article has this drawing of 287 ERA UFP (as anyone can see,  in very bad quality):
X4rmJ0w.jpg
and it says that shape of composite armor UFP+LFP is also shown, and that it was taken from drawing of obj.287-50-assembly2. And that this ERA-hull configuration was tested against Falanga ATGM (IIRC 500mm CE) and was also able to protect against up to 800 mm CE treats. (Which leads to a question of whether composite armor version was tested, and able to withstand, against same treats or not)
Anyway, it shows that angle in question is 75 degrees,
and that alone would lead to UFP of 90+130+30mm to having a LOS thickness of about 96 cm.


...
Another interesting feature of 287 is that people in 1940s-1960s were not satisfied at all 
with the way all that slat armor and other means designed to increase standoff distance from shaped charge weapons

also increase vehicle's dimensions and could be torn away by obstacles.

So both in US and USSR there were some developments on how to fold those things when there are no imminent danger. Gill armor on T-72 is rather well-known, and described there https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/12/t-72-part-2-protection-good-indication.html in length (in part "GILL ARMOUR")
but there were other things which were proposed, tested, and apparently rejected - and 287 got two of those.

There were some thin presumably metal sheets which look similar to some of the prototypes which were tested in early 60s and later apparently lead to "gill armor"
MRwqfDa.png

and even earlier 287 had some netted armor - made using steel wire -
j6hktek.jpg
which by the way was also proposed for preliminary project of Obj. 432 in 1961

Spoiler

ms08Vgo.jpg


one can compare all that , for example, with netted armor and metal sheets tested on one T-54 in 1962
MUS2MJd.jpg  PFWJM5o.jpg


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

   The arrival of new T-90M tanks in the Central Military District is expected this year. It is planned that they will enter service with the 90th tank division deployed in the Chelyabinsk region. This was announced at a press conference held on March 15, last Friday.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2019 at 4:02 PM, Collimatrix said:

What do we know about Object 420?

 

Checking the GABTU list; such a vehicle doesn't exist. There is an Object 421 which is a bridge laying tank based on the T-54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soooooooooooo many weakspots! Looks like an useless vehicle. A tank is much better in every way, even if the tank is so obsolete as the T-72B3.

All in all, the idea of the BMPT is not bad I think, but not in this configuration. Old Objekt-781 is a much better design, I especially like the prototype with the 100mm gun, but even the twin 30mm turreted versions are better than UVZ's BMPT.

Share this post


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

Soooooooooooo many weakspots! Looks like an useless vehicle. A tank is much better in every way, even if the tank is so obsolete as the T-72B3.

 All in all, the idea of the BMPT is not bad I think, but not in this configuration. Old Objekt-781 is a much better design, I especially like the prototype with the 100mm gun, but even the twin 30mm turreted versions are better than UVZ's BMPT.

 

Agreed.  I think it is telling that no videos of the BMPTs sent to Syria in actual combat have surfaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
       
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
       
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
       
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
       

       
      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
       
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
       
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
       
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
       
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
       
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
       
       
    • 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 LoooSeR
      I want to show you several late Soviet MBT designs, which were created in 1980s in order to gain superiority over NATO focres. I do think that some of them are interesting, some of them look like a vehicle for Red Alert/Endwar games. 
           
           Today, Russia is still use Soviet MBTs, like T-80 and T-72s, but in late 1970s and 1980s Soviet military and engineers were trying to look for other tank concepts and designs. T-64 and other MBTs, based on concept behind T-64, were starting to reaching their limits, mostly because of their small size and internal layout. 
       
      PART 1
       
       
      Object 292
       
         We open our Box of Communism Spreading Godless Beasts with not so much crazy attempt to mate T-80 hull with 152 mm LP-83 gun (LP-83 does not mean Lenin Pride-83). It was called Object 292.
       
       
       
          First (and only, sadly) prototype was build in 1990, tested at Rzhevskiy proving ground (i live near it) in 1991, which it passed pretty well. Vehicle (well, turret) was developed by Leningrad Kirov factory design bureau (currently JSC "Spetstrans") Because of collapse of Soviet Union this project was abandoned. One of reasons was that main gun was "Burevestnik" design bureau creation, which collapsed shortly after USSR case to exist. It means that Gorbachyov killed this vehicle. Thanks, Gorbach!
       
          Currently this tank is localted in Kubinka, in running condition BTW. Main designer was Nikolay Popov.
       
          Object 292, as you see at photos, had a new turret. This turret could have been mounted on existing T-80 hulls without modifications to hull (Object 292 is just usual serial production T-80U with new turret, literally). New Mechanical autoloading mechanism was to be build for it. Turret had special Abrams-like bustle for ammunition, similar feature you can see on Ukrainian T-84-120 Yatagan MBT and, AFAIK, Oplot-BM.
          Engine was 1250 HP GTD-1250 T-80U engine. 152 mm main smoothbore gun was only a little bit bigger than 2A46 125 mm smoothbore gun, but it had much better overall perfomance.
          This prototype was clearly a transitory solution between so called "3" and "4th" generation tanks.
       
          Some nerd made a model of it:
      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
       
       
      ........Continue in Part 2
×
×
  • Create New...