LoooSeR

How a T-64 is made.
 

T-84-120 "Yatagan"
 

 
    "Yatagan" MBT (Object 478N, also known as T-84-120 and KERN2-120) - tank developed in 1999-2000 by Morozov design bureau. It was  modification of the T-84, adapted to NATO standards with a 120 mm smoothbore tank gun and new autoloader inside of new turret bustle. It was created to participate in the Turkish tender for new MBT.
 
 
   Yatagan was equipped with communication system made by French company Thomson, Belgian MG (FN Herstal), and other components of European manufacturers.    On different photos Yatagan can be seen with at least three different 120mm gun (different barrels are give-away) of various designs, which at various times have been tested on this tank (rumors are speaking about Swiss Ordnance Enterprise Corp. being one of producers of the gun barrels). As the winner of the 2-years long tender was Leopard 2, Yatagan was not produced and currently exists only as a prototype.  
    It had pretty powerfull 1200 HP 6TD-2 diesel engine, wich gived to it good mobility (weight was 48 tons, so ~25 hp/t). But most interesting part of that vehicle was turret bustle mounted new autoloader.
 
 
   Autoloader was created because of one-piece nature of NATO 120 mm tank ammunition. 22 shots were stored inside of turret bustle, with 14-16 rounds in hull autoloading mechanism + small non-mechanized ammorack for 2-4 shots. RoF was up to 10. Ammunition was standart NATO rounds, with addition of Ukrianian-made 120 mm GL-ATGMs. Tank also was armed with coaxial 7.62 GPMG and remotelly controlled 12.7 HMG on a commander hatch.
 
   Vehicle had thermal imagers, stabs and all other sorts of electronics you can expect from 2000-made MBT. But as i said, it didn't won tender, and never was produced. It is possible that Yatagan gave to engineers a basis for creation of the BM Oplot.
 
 
 
 
     Here is albums of this vehicle.
 
Crew compartment photos: http://imgur.com/a/SNsl2
 
Up-close pictures: http://imgur.com/a/EFcdn
 
PR iamges: http://imgur.com/a/UwQ9m

Pictures of the T-64-B1M
 

 
      I picked some photos of the T-64-B1M, which is T-64 modification for Kongo (which Kongo will never receive) because of the better looks (  ). It is largely similar to Bulat.
 

T-64BM Bulat 
 

I don't know why Ukrainian and Russian designers have such love for adding pieces of rubber on turret frontal armor.
 
     T-64BM Bulat is Ukrainian modernization of older T-64A, B and BV models. It was designed by Kharkov design bureau, tanks are modernized at Malyshev plant. Modernization price is around 1 000 000 $ for each tank. Main target for modernization is to bring T-64 to T-80U level (T-80U POWER! #Leningradpride).
 


    
     Modernization consist of adding new FCS 1A45 "Irtysh", new gunner and commander sights, new ERA (Soviet "Kontakt-5" to Ukrainian "Nozh"), some other modification to stabilizers, optics and other parts. Gunner now have day sight "Promin' " with laser rangefinder (9990 meters max, +-10 meters accuracy of range measuring), Buran-E night sight (1,5 km effective range) (Buran-Cathrine thermal imager, similar to T-90A thermal imager, also could have been mounted, but it was too expensive in eyes of Ukrainian MoD). Commander sight "Agat" is not stabilized in horizontal plane, BTW, but it allows to commander to use main gun and coaxial MG in case of emergency.     
 

Turret ERA.
 
    Turret also got new ERA layout, new, faster turret traverse mechanism. Hull is also received additional passive and active protection from th front and side (partially). 
 


 
     Tank also received better engine - 850 HP 5TDFM. After all modification tank weight reached 45 tons. 
 

 
     Overall, that tank reached T-80U level of firepower and, maybe, protection, wich is 1980s level of MBT designs. As was pointed out by Mikhail Borisuk (BM Oplot main designer) - Ukraine should stop working on T-64 modernization and start to work one more advanced vehicles like Oplot and Future MBT. 76 Bulat MBTs were already in service in Ukrainian armed forces by March of 2014. In Ukrainian civil war at least 15 were lost to this moment. Main problem of T-64 - reliability, was not really fixed. As battles showed, Nozh ERA have serious problems with chain detonation of blocks, where one hit can leave almost 30% of turret frontal projection or frotnal hull without ERA protection. Now, when temperature is dropping lower than +5 degr. C another problems of T-64 engine are starting to become visible - 5TDFM (and earlier 5TD diesels especially) is not well suited for working in cold conditions.
    During warming-up procedure engine creates toxic exhaust, which is not very good for your lungs and also creates oily condensate on air filters for maximum lulz. Number of other problems i will try to cover next time in post about perfomance of Ukrainian MBTs in civil war.

Photos of Oplot-M.
 
Albums with Oplot-M photos:
http://imgur.com/a/9XoEk
http://imgur.com/a/hYBOf
http://imgur.com/a/90Uff
http://imgur.com/a/NQ2LX
http://imgur.com/a/lK3WW
http://imgur.com/a/Klv97
http://imgur.com/a/CpeG5
 
Some others:
 
 

 
More:

BM "Oplot"
 

 

Ukrainian designers managed to make biggest panoramic sight i ever saw - overall weight of it is reaching 500 kg.
 
 
       Oplot-M, or BM "Oplot" after addoption to service in Ukrainian army, is Ukrainian MBT based on another Ukrainian MBT - T-84 "Oplot", which is Soviet-designed T-80UD with some modifications. BM Oplot was designed by Morozov Kharkiv Machine Building Design Bureau and produced by Malyshev factory. Chief designer of BM Oplot - Mikhail Dem'yanovich Borisuk (he was born in 1934, BTW).
 
 
       It have several features, separating it from T-80UD, T-90A and T-84. Engine is new 6 cylinder 6TD-2E 1200 HP diesel with lowered smokiness and exhaust toxicity (wich is a problem for Kharkov engines) in new engine-transmission compartment (which is 2 part - lower is for engine itself and upper part is for big airfilters, which are needed because of how much air 6TD "eats"), new sort-of automatical transmission. Tank is equipped with new navigation systems, FCS, panoramic sight for commander with day and night (thermal imager) capabilities, new remotely controlled KT-12.7 12.7 mm HMG for commander, new gunner sights, which bring it to modern level of how tank should be equipped. A lot of that equipment is made not in Ukraine.
 
 
From the side BM Oplot looks different from Soviet T-64-like MBTs.
 
      Main gun is not really different from 2A46 125 mm guns of T-72/ T-80/T-90 series of tanks, 125 mm KBA-3 L48 gun with autoloader for 28 shots (46 in total is carried). Main gun can fire HE, HEAT, APFSDS, GL-ATGMs (Ukrainian "Kombat" missiles). AFAIK part of ammunition is carried outside of the tank, in turret "basket", mounted to the rear part of it. Nothing really fancy here, 5 km range with ATGMs, up to 2.5-2.8 km effective range with APFSDS, which is standart for late Soviet and current Russian MBTs like T-72B3, T-80UE and different models of the T-90. 
 
     Vehicle is also equipped with Ukrainian version/local variant of Shtora system - "Varta", with additional laser-warning sensors on the turret sides. 

 
 
     BM-Oplot use somewhat unusual type of ERA (which is most interesting feature of that tank) - ~layered ERA named "Duplet". It is rumored that it can defeat tandem HEAT warheads like PG-7VR and PG-29V. Vehicle sides are also covered by Duplet ERA. 
 


      Note that the hull UFP is covered by differently shaped blocks of ERA (long and narrow). How much it is effective is unknown, but designers claim that it can defeat tandem HEAT warheads, EFP and APFSDS projectiles.  
 
Upper frontal hull armor layout:
 
Side ERA modules:
 
      Overall, BM Oplot is tank with better perfomance than T-80UD thanks to improvements in electronics and FCS, engine, transmission, driver controls, new ERA and better side armor, and in some areas this vehicle can be superioir to T-72B3 (latest Russian serial produced modification of the T-72 MBT, although it wasn't best proposed modification for it).
      But..., there is always "but" -  it is vehicle that Ukraine can not produce in any serious numbers, as their one and only contract with Thai army showed - out of 95 BM Oplot ordered in 2011 only 5-6 were delivered to this day. During trials in Thailand Kombat GL-ATGMs also showed not very good results - AFAIK out of 5 test firings, 2 missiles exploded before reaching targets. Another interesting fact about that tank is that no BM Oplot MBTs are presented on battlefields of Eastern Ukraine - T-64 and T-72s are primary tanks of the VSU. Seems to me Ukraine is either can't service them, or simply can't produce them in a first place.
 
Oplot-BM on trials in Pakistan. No accurate information on results, rumors say that Chinese VT-4 won that competition.
 
Oplot-BMs for Thai army on prooving ground.
 

Tanknet:

Top secret data on the project retrieved by the CIA.
 

Let's all take a trip back to the late 1970s and early 1980s.  This was the time of punk.  This was the time of despair.
 
Punk was all about minimalism; strip everything down to a few chords, wear clothes you fished out of a garbage can or made yourself and infect yourself with parasitic worms so that when you vomited on some other asshole in a fight, they got parasitic worms too.  It wasn't pretty, but it was cheap and it worked.
 
Punk was about to hit pistol design in a big way.  The aglockalypse was just around the corner.  The glock is the practical application of punk to the art of small arms design.  It's reminiscent of John Browning's early striker-fired design prototypes for the hi-power, only made out of plastic and missing half the parts.  Not pretty, but cheap and it sure does work.
 
The world was very different in the punk era.  Remember that in the United States, violent crime increased dramatically in the late 1960s.  In the 1970s they were still figuring out what to do about that.  They hadn't had a few decades for the idea that gunfights were just something that might happen day to day to sink in, so the art of practical handgun usage was in a pretty sorry state.
 
Or rather, practical handgun knowledge was in a hilariously bad state at the time.  I read through a police marksmanship manual from the late 1960s or early 1970s; it's like an infantry tactics manual written pre-WWI.  It's heartbreakingly naive because they hadn't seriously had to seriously think about the problem before then.  They had come from a more peaceful world, and were still getting their bearings in the grimdark of the 20th century.
 
This police marksmanship manual still taught the FBI crouch.  The FBI crouch is a sort of distillation of the WWII-vintage Fairbairn-Sykes theory of gunfighting, which emphasized speed over accuracy.  The idea behind the FBI crouch is that you crouch down so that you're harder to hit, and you sort of get your dominant arm that's holding the weapon into a repeatable, ergonomically neutral alignment with the rest of your body so that you can aim with your entire body.  As you can see, this isn't a shooting stance that allows you to use the pistol's sights.  In some variants of the stance, you cross your left forearm over your torso so that incoming bullets have that much more flesh to go through before they start hitting your vital organs.
 
Basically, it's the sort of theory of how to gunfighting that you might come up with in a society that, until recently, hasn't been doing a whole lot of gunfighting.
 
Everything was in a more primitive state than it is now.  Nowadays you can go into a gunstore and have dozens of brands and styles of pistol ammunition to chose from; hollowpoints of all descriptions line the shelves, each promising to kill people more dead than the next one.  Oh, and you can buy full metal jacket if you need something cheap for practice.  Back then, full metal jacket was the fancy stuff; the most common ammo was cast lead.  Also, cops weren't totally sold on automatic pistols until about halfway through the '70s, they still mostly used revolvers.  Also, almost nobody owned a handgun.  It was considered weird.  Owning a rifle or a shotgun was perfectly normal; what else are you going to go hunting with?  Owning a handgun was weird because handguns are for shooting people, and why are you even thinking about shooting at people you weirdo?  The laws and court precedent for self-defense cases were a lot different then too.  Formerly peaceful society, still coming to grips with the grimdark.
 
So, secret about Beretta; they basically want to make hunting shotguns and make up-scale hunting apparel.  They can't design automatic firearms actions to save their lives.  Whenever they have to make something automatic they rely on Germans to design the things for them.  The AR-70, for instance, was originally a joint design effort with SIG (SIG's evolved into the SIG-540/550 series).  The ARX-160 was designed by Ulrich Zedrosser, who, as you might surmise from his name is not Italian.  The Beretta 92 is the last in a line of Beretta pistols that started off basically as clones of the Walther P-38.
 
You can imagine it; Beretta in the 1970s doesn't really know what makes an automatic pistol a superior combat piece, although they've been making clones of the Walther action long enough that they can make them work very well.  Cops don't know how to gunfight either; all they know is that these automatics seems a whole lot easier to shoot yourself with than revolvers, so they're going to need some sort of super-duper double safety device.  Some want double action with a decocker, some want a safety as well, someone want a combined safety decocker...
 
So Beretta shrugs their shoulders and tries to please all these cop agencies.  Obviously, they're mainly going to be selling these things to cops and military and a very small number of weirdos.
 
Meanwhile, Jeff Cooper, Jack Weaver and a small but growing number of practical pistol competition shooters are figuring out how to actually fight with a handgun.  Meanwhile, in Austria, long-standing armament maker Steyr is about to get a nasty surprise when the Austrian Army holds a competition for their next pistol.

Here is an article on some of the vehicles at that airshow.
link

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.

These troops are supposedly using AS-44s but I'm not sure if they are.
.

So, missiles are always good.
 

 
Mainly when NATO countries cry about Turkey buying them because their own bids lost and that's potential money COMMUNISM!

By far the best document yet written in favor of the GPC concept. I guarantee you'll learn something reading it, too.

Note: While hosted on his site, it was written by a Frenchman - Emeric Daniau - participating in France's current small arms research program, not Tony Williams.

The IKV 91 is shorter than Sheridan and only .02 m taller than the AMX-13 and Type 62. The PT-76 is about .1 m shorter and the FV101 is .2 m shorter. 
 
The IKV 91 is significantly longer than its contemporaries.I'm pretty sure it's 2 meters longer than all other light tanks of the period. The FV101 is tiny BTW and has the lowest ground pressure by a large margin. 
 
I made a table of light tank characteristics circa 1975. I'm probably off on some of the numbers so don't be surprised by some off info.

Loading mechanisms for the IS-3 and T-10.

Part 6
 
Object 490 "Topol".

Mock up of the Object 490 Topol, probably 2 variant/"late" version
     Well, we are reaching such tank projects, information about which is hard to find. Only some bits and rumors exist about them. One of them is Kharkov project of future Soviet MBT, with several vehicles created under this programm. One of them - Object 490. Source.
 
 
   Overal layout
    Object 490 never got past "test rigs and mock ups", so we are speaking about unfinished project from early 1980s.
   The main features of the tank were:
a crew of two people - the commander-gunner and the driver. Reduced crew of two people were placed in a compact, well-protected "capsule". Depending on the specific layout, this gives a volume saving of up to 1.2 m3. the use of hydropneumatic suspension. In addition to solving the main problem - increasing average speeds by improving the smoothness of ride, it makes it possible to control the clearance and tilt of the hull, increasing effective gun elevation and depression. creation of a special armored refuel and reloading vehicle (BZZM) capable of escorting a tank in the same convoy, overcoming natural and artificial obstacles, passing through contaminated areas, and operating under conditions of using nuclear weapons. In the layout option No. 1 and 2, it was supposed to implement the replenishment of the ammunition and refueling the tank without leaving the crews from the tank and refueling machine.  
 
   Some questions of creating a future tank of the 80s are described in the book by Yu. M. Apukhtin "The last rush of the soviet tank-builders" (diary of the Boxer tank development participant). A number of quotes from the book on the choice of the layout of the tank with two and three crew members:
 
 
   A number of issues related to the maintenance of the vehicle with a crew reduced to two people, the issue of managing the unit by a gunner-commander in the case of a command tank were left unresolved.
   At the same time, it is not correct to consider the possibility of creating a future tank with a conceptually different instrument field and ideology based on the controls of the existing serial tank as described in the book by Yu. M. Apukhtin. Quote:
 
   Reducing the crew to two people and placing them in a compact, well-protected capsule with high degree of automation of the functions performed by tankers. The fundamental ability to manage tank (driving, shooting) by two operators is beyond doubt. Crew stations were equipped with a similar set of instruments and tank controls that ensured full duplication of functions by crew members. Each workplace was equipped with 2 monitors, a unified control panel for fire and movement. Starting with 2 layout variant, the emphasis was on the use of promising solutions to ensure visibility and information transfer - fiber-optic communications, digital computers, television cameras.

 
Object 490 scheme, showing unusual internal design of this tank.
 
   Motion control was supposed to be carried out using a television stereoscopic driving system (STV) installed in the frontal section of the hull, on UFP. For reversing, the television camera was also located on the rear plate of the hull. Reverse speed of up to 30 km/h can significantly increase maneuverability and survivability. Observation of areas around tank was carried out using 8 daytime fiber-optic devices. The system provided a 360 ° view for each of the tankers without the view being blocked by devices on top of the turret (there were no invisible zones). The installation of such devices also eliminated the weakening of the armor and radiation protection caused by cutouts in the roof necessary for the installation of usual periscope devices.
 
   In addition, a television camera was supposed to be installed on an air supply tube (OPVT), which greatly simplifies underwater driving. The camera was also supposed to be used when moving in a column, when visibility drops sharply from dust from other vehicles. In addition, the intake of air for the engine through the air supply pipe from the upper, less dusty layers, can increase the life of the engine. The erection of the air supply pipe on the Object 490 did not required the crew to leave the tank and could be carried out automatically.

TV camera is located on left corner of rear hull.
   Protection
   Important attention when creating the “Object 490” was paid to the density of the layout (refusal to lay torsion bars above the bottom plate of the tank, optimization of the shape and overall dimensions of the equipment placed in the tank), reduction of overall dimensions and increased survivability of the tank. It was supposed that without mass growth (Option 1 and 2 - 41 500 kg) and dimensions to create a tank with a significant increase in combat qualities.
   It is impossible to achieve this solely by increasing the size and weight of the armor packages. Therefore, along with the use of the latest developments in the field of passive armor and active protection systems, the tank protection scheme includes frontal fuel tanks, which allows sacrificing secondary qualities of the vehicle (part of the fuel) for the implementation of the most important ones - crew survival and maintaining tank mobility.
   The first to be hit by incoming fire after frontal plate is the fuel compartment, which is divided by several partitions into sections to exclude significant loss of fuel after armor was penetrated, with a minimum acceptable level of armor protection (100 mm/68 °) from the most common anti-tank weapons. Damage to this compartment and a partial loss of fuel in battle will not lead to the loss of a tank’s combat effectiveness. Behind it, in the center of the tank, there is a crew compartment protected by the main  armor (500 mm combined armor) and shielded by the frontal armor of the hull and fuel (In this case, the fuel served as an additional "filler" of multi-layered "armor").
   Armor of the frontal projection of the turret had a dimension of 780 mm (at an angle of 30°). Side protection - 300 mm. Side of the hull 180 mm with 85 mm screens. The bottom at the location of the crew capsule was equipped with layered protection.
 
   The tank was originally designed taking into account the installation of APS created on the theme of "Shtandard". In the second version, the APS mortars were installed along the perimeter of the hull on the fenders, six from each side. The azimuth of interception of incoming projectiles was provided ± 150°. To counter the projectiles attacking from above, the tank was protected by 6 mortars installed in the side niches of the turret (3 on each side). On the third version of the layout, the installation scheme of APS was changed. To protect the side and top projections, mortars with protective charges of smaller dimensions were used, primarily for intercepting ATGMs and RPGs. In the later version, it was also planned to install "Shtora" on the tank.
 

3 man crew variant of "Poplar". APS launchers are visible near driver's hatch.
 
   It is necessary to pay special attention to the overall dimensions of the tank and, first of all, to its height, which could change due to the hydropneumatic suspension. The effect of height is well known. On the one hand, this is the probability of detection and the first shot in a duel battle, and on the other, the largest contribution to the mass of the tank. According to data from the VABTV them. R. Y. Malinovsky, reducing the height of the tank from 2,400 to 1,600 mm at a speed of about 40 km/h reduces the likelihood of itbeing hit by half.
   At the same time, the mass gain due to each millimeter of the tank’s height with a modern armor level is 15–20 kg, and the mass of 1 mm in length is 2–3 kg. Thus, one should look for ways to reasonably reduce the height of the tank, compensating for its volume by lengthening if needed. This will also increase the number of suspensions and the length of the supporting surface, compensating for the increase in weight by increasing the elasticity of the suspension and lowering the average specific pressure on the ground.

Test rig for hydropneumatic suspension for Object 490 Topol
 
      The tank was equipped with a 6TD engine with hydrostatic transmission. Parts of suspension was unified with the T-64 on the rollers, tracks were 580 mm wide. It is also worth noting that a version of the tank with a crew of three people in which the driver was reclined was also being worked out.
 
   On the other hand, in the variant E.A. Morozov has its drawbacks. Quote:
 
   Weapons and sights
   125 mm gun of increased power (130 mm variants were considered) was planned to be used on "Topol". In the original version, the autoloader is located in an isolated autonomous compartment behind the tank turret, an additional hull conveyor was located in an isolated compartment between the combat-crew and engine-transmission compartments. The permissible projectile length was 800 mm, the charge length was 550 mm. In the automatic loading device located behind the turret (on the tank variant 1 and 2nd variant), shells with a length of up to 1400 mm were allowed, including unitary ones. In subsequent versions, a variant of a dual-flow automatic loader with projectile and separate propellant charge was proposed. The shell and charge were placed in a turret and hull conveyor in series. Autoloader had an electric backup system.
 
   The ammunition in the tank was isolated from the crew. To neutralize the high pressures arising in the event of detonation of charges, blow-out panels were located in the roof of the hull compartment and in the bottom of the compartment of the turret automatic loader. Between the turret automatic loader and the fighting compartment of the tank there was a layered armor barrier to proect crew in case of fire of the ammunition.
 
   The additional armament consisted of a machine gun coaxial with a cannon and two anti-aircraft machine guns located on the sides of the rear of the turret. There were options considred for a tank with automatic cannon (mounted side of the tower, variant 3). The final version of the additional weapons has not been determined.
 
   The sighting system was to consist of two panoramic sights without a night channel and a thermal imager-television panoramic sight, which was located independently with remote transmission of information from it to the crew. The back up sight that used fiber optic was mounted in a gun mask.
 
 
   BZZM (Armored refuel and reload vehicle)

Second variant of the Object 490 Topol tank on the left and and BZZM reloading an autoloader of a tank
 
   To achive a quick and remote reloading of a tank, the autonomous module of the autoloader was replaced. Such a solution required the placement of autoloader drives in a removable module. BZZM could provide replenishment of the ammunition of 5 tanks, also that vehicle carried up to 5 tons of fuel and the volume of ammunition boxes of rations and spare parts in 1000 liters range.
   The battlefield of the 80s could not be imagined without the massive use of tactical nuclear weapons, while the full functioning of cargo trucks and their crews in conditions of radiation pollution was impossible, which could significantly limit the possibility of using tanks. Understanding this situation, as well as trying to reduce the likelihood of severe damage to tanks, even in the case of isolated fuel and ammunition, when developing the “Object 490” it was proposed to create an armored fueling and loading vehicle (BZZM) based on it.
 
   This problem can also be solved by creating a special tracked vehicle. It is advisable to use one machine for refueling and loading ammunition. Armored fueling and loading vehicle should be unified on the chassis with the tank. A cargo platform can be installed on the BZZM chassis, on the inner walls of which is loaded with ammunition containers. To withdraw the containers from the shaft to the swing frame and load the ammunition into the tank’s automatic loader, drive mechanisms must be installed.

   A fuel line with a swivel is fixed along the perimeter of the frame. At the output ends of the fuel pipe, docking devices are installed connecting the fuel tanks of the BZZM with the tank filler "neck". It should be possible to refuel and load the slipper without the crew leaving their vehicles.
   According to preliminary estimates, if a vehicle is supplied with the necessary energy sources, one tank can be refueled in 2 minutes, and a full mechanized ammunition reload in 5 minutes. The transportable stock of ammunition and fuel, which can be implemented at the BZZM in acceptable weight and size characteristics, is sufficient for the full refueling of five tanks.
   BZZM is able to accompany the tank in the same convoy, overcome natural and artificial obstacles, pass through infected areas, function in conditions of using nuclear weapons.
 

 
   In October 1984, the management of GBTU and GRAU arrived at the KhKBM, led by General Potapov and Bazhenov, to familiarize themselves with the development of the project.
   The attitude of the military towards the tank was wary. Shomin reported on the development of the project, a heated discussion began, which caliber should be chosen. A 130 mm gun was installed on the 490A, and talk of increasing the caliber continued for a long time. Disputes began about which caliber to choose - 140 mm or 152 mm. At this point, General Litvinenko, head of the GRAU (Scientific Committee of the Main Artillery and Missile Control) NKT, made a diagram very well and clearly demonstrating how effective the 152 mm caliber for the tank is. From that moment, a 152 mm caliber was adopted for a future project, and no one ever returned to this issue.
 
     Object 490 project later "mutated" into Object 490A Rebel in 1982/83 and in "Molot" (Hammer) project in around 1985.
 
 
Object 490A Buntar' ("Rebel")
 

Mock up of Object 490A Buntar with 125 mm gun
 
   Work on the new Kharkov tank has been officially conducted since the early 1980s under the leadership of N.A. Shomin, chief designer of KhKBM. Initiative work on the new medium tank of the 80s "NST-80" began even earlier, from 08.17.1977, when a group of designers was formed and approved by N. A. Shomin.
   The layout of the future tank was presented by two projects - a two man crewed Object 490 "Topol" designed by E. A. Morozov from the late 70s and the “Object 490A” with a crew of three people, a low-profile turret, the development of which was advocated by Kovalyukh Vadim Romanovich, who headed Design Bureau of weapons systems, deputy chief designer of KhKBM.
   In the Object 490A tank, despite the relative simplicity of the layout, a bet was made on new ammunition-related solutions that were not yet worked out and required time-consuming refinement, related to charges of a variable shape ("ZIF").
 
 
 
   Overal layout
   Tank had a low-profile turret with externally mounted weapons, the driver was located on the left, to the right of him was an internal fuel tank with supply of 1290 liters of fuel. The gunner and commander were placed on the left in the turret one after another. Commander was behind the gunner to the left of the gun, with a hatch for crew.
 


Layout of the Object 490A. Fuel tank to the right of driver is marked, as well as autoloader to the right of gunner and commander.
 
   By 1982, a life-size wooden mock-up of the Object 490A tank was made. Subsequently, a moving test rig and a prototype of the tank were made. 
 
   Weapon systems
   The armament consisted of a 125 mm cannon of increased power. Mechanical autoloader occupied the right side of the fighting compartment. Shots were placed horizontally in 5 rows. The crew was separated from the elements of the loading mechanism by a partition. In future, it was supposed to apply new solutions for the tank’s ammunition - shots with a charge of a variable shape (ZIF). Such shots made it possible to create an autoloader with the maximum possible density, allowing to use the internal volume of the tank more efficiently.
 
   In the "Object 490A", the principle of constructing an FCS based on optical coupled units using fiber-optic devices was applied. The aiming system of the gunner was supposed to be implemented as a 2 sights - separate thermal imaging module located on the right side of the turret and a day sight with a visual channel directly to the gunner's working station. With such arragment it was assumed that the sighting module will contain a thermal imager and television unit, a laser rangefinder, a GL-ATGM guidance channel, which can be paired with an automatic target tracking unit. It also was planned to give both gunner and commander to use this sight and if needed commander could use main weapon systems from his station.
 
   Fiber-optic observation devices were also originally used to provide a static view of surroundings for the tank crew, the advantage of such devices, thanks to flexible optical fiber, is that they could provide a static all-round visibility for the commander without zones overlapped by the external equipment/no blind zones. But at that time, it was not possible to realize the potential of fiber-optic systems - the test results showed that in daylight conditions the devices have a low resolution limit and, as a result of this, a small target recognition range. When designing a new layout option "Object 490A" in 1984-86 and in further developments classic prism devices were used.
 
   On the prototype of the Object 490A “Rebel” a 125 mm high-power gun with caseless ammuniton was mounted, the placement of weapons made it possible to provide a fairly high, by Soviet standards, gun depression angle of 8°. As a perspective of tank weapons at that time, a cannon with caseless ammuniton using variable-shaped charges was considered. Since 1980, development has been carried out by department No. 31 of the Central Research Institute "Burevestnik".
 
 

 
   Armor/Protection
   The turret of the tank had a cast base with installed armor modules with new "filler", in which it was planned to use the most effective materials developed for that period. The use of steel-ceramic filler, which has high efficiency, both from HEAT ammunition and from kinetic, was considered promising. At that time, it was not possible to achieve a stable quality of batches of ceramics (silicon carbide), as a result of which its use in Soviet tanks of the 80s was not widespread. An armored plate made of low hardness material was installed behind the back of the cast base of the turret with a gap to neutralize or localize the residual fragmentation. A similar plate was used in the design of armor modules of the hull. Variants of the use of volumetric designs of ERA were also proposed (it was not installed on the test rig). 
     Protection of the sides in the first versions is three-layer - steel-polymer-steel, armor of the hull bottom is also three-layer using anti-radiation material as a filler.
 
   The fuel is located in the armored compartments isolated from the inhabited compartment of the tank, in the front of the hull to the right of the driver. Also, fuel was acting as a “filler” that reduces damaging effects of penetrations (not implemented on test rig). The hull of the tank and the low-profile turret had practically no weakened zones from frontal projection, structural solutions were implemented to protect the turret ring by placing it deeper into hull roof. Weapons were located in an isolated compartment and were protected from autocannon fire.
   Later models received APS systems, but i will cover them later, on 125 mm gun version of Object 490A Rebel those systems were not placed.
 
   Engine/mobility
   The engine compartment was unified in basic dimensions for the installation of the 495 diesel (6TDF) and a gas turbine (29G) engine (1250 hp). Engine  495 installation was considered using an electro-mechanical or mechanical (with GOPMP on the engine) transmission.
   The main engine option was 1250 hp 6TDF. The option of installing a gas-turbine engine Product 29G with a hydrostatic rotation mechanism, which in the mid-80s for some time began to be considered as the main engine for serial and promising tanks, was also being worked out.
   The final decision on the choice of an engine for a promising tank came only in the late 80s, the collapse of the USSR prevented the implementation of the plan.
 
   From the book "Chief Designer Vladimir Potkin. Tank breakthrough. Digest of articles. 2013."
 
 
   Later version of Object 490A (was developed under "Boxer" program).
   In 1984-86, a new version of the layout of the Object 490A tank was developed in which the crew was placed according to the classical pattern. The gunner on the left and the commander on the right in the low-profile turret.
   For the first time, the armament of the tank consisted of a 152 mm smoothbore gun.

 
   Autoloader was changed, the ammunition was located in two mechanized loaders in the front and rear sectors of the cabin - one on the bottom of crew compartment, like on T-72s, and one in separated compartment between engine and crew. Ammunition in trays were placed horizontally. In the center of the aft part of the crew compartment there was a mechanism for moving shots from smaller autoloader on the floor of crew compartment to external weapon installation through a hatch in the roof of the fighting compartment. From the "stack" between turret and engine sections, ammunition came into a smaller autoloader located under the crew platform. Total ammunition count was 40 shots.
   Such changes in autoloader design and crew positions/layout forced designers to increase tank's hull height.

Layout of autoloader in crew compartment/turret section of Object 490A Boxer
 
 
 
   1984-86 version of Object 490A designed under Boxer designation also received APS, “Arena”, “Rain”, “Shtandard” were considered. APS was supposed to provided protection against ATGMs, artillery shells, kinetic AP rounds and submunitions (means of attack from above). Protective shots were placed around the perimeter of the tank hull. Radar - on the sides of the turret. The likelihood of protection against ATGM; RPG, HEAT shells, and APFSDS were 0.8, 0.7, and 0.5, respectively.

Object 490A Boxer, with 152 mm gun (caseless ammunition with ZIF) and Shtandart APS. Next to day sight an radar sight was planned to be mounted.
 
 
   This version of Object 490A was also supposed to receive radar sight intergrated into FCS, but it was never finished.
   The design of the tank with a 152 mm smoothbore gun with caseless ammunition with ZIF was developed in 1984, but was not made in connection with the final decision on the transition to a new type of autoloader and problems with the ZIF. Thus, the layout of the promising tank underwent further changes, as a result of which the Object 477 tank was created, the layout of which was approved in 1985.
   From the diaries of Yu. M. Apukhtin:
 
 
Izdelie 477/Object 477 Boxer and Molot ("Hammer")
 
     In 1985 new layout and new weapon were approved. Tank was to be armed with 152 mm 2A73 gun, equipped with new FCS (one new part of it was gun muzzle reference system), 50 rounds of ammunition was required by Army.

 
Externally Boxer reminds me T-74/Izdelie 450.
 

Internal layout schematics. Fuel tank is located in the same way as in Rebel, but ammunition/autoloader design was different - 8 round autoloader, isolated from crew, was located in turret, while 32 rounds mechanized ammorack located between turret/crew compartment and engine, was feeding it with fresh rounds.
 

Part of 8-round autoloader. This tray stored a propellant and shell. They also were able to rotate a bit, to make a loading mechanism smaller.
 
    Gun was mounted at hight of 2088 mm, tank leight with gun - 10650, almost a meter longer than T-64, height (measured from turret roof) - 2434 (T-64 was 2170 high). Because of an internal spy scandal, tank design programm received new code name - "Molot"/Hammer. This Boxer/Molot is armed with 152 mm gun and 30 mm autocannon (+ 7.62 coaxial MG).
 

Boxer/Molot with additional 30 mm autocannon.
 
      Tank had substantial armor - more than 1 meter frontal armor, 5 layers armor package on sides, and thick roof/crew hatches armor. There were plans to equip tank with Active protection system and several systems were considered - Arena, Dozhd' ("Rain"), Drozd, Shatyor ("Tent"). About 10 of those were made, a photo of real pre-serial production prototype leaked recently:

Turret is facing rear, thats why we don't see gun and sights. Note open driver's and commander's hatch, they can give idea how protected a roof of this tank was. Turret ring have additional protection.
 

Same vehicle. Tanks near it are most likely from same pre-serial production batch of 8-10 tanks. 30 mm autocannon mount is visible.
 
    After collapse of USSR design programm continued, based on new requirements. Tank design programm received new codename - "Nota".
 

Object 477/477A Nota.
    Titanium was used in armor of this vehicle. Tank was to be equipped with sat nav system, friendly idenification, radiocontrol/remote control of tank and gun (driving and firing) as so on. 2 test rigs/prototypes were made (one in 1992, second is unfinished, 1993, AFAIK).
    This is believed to be Object 477A or 477A1:
 

This tank have much better protected sides compared to any previous soviet MBT. Note that this vehicle use suspension that looks "T-80-like suspension". Rollers are very similar to T-80's, 7 per side. Similar suspension was to be used on Object 299 and more modern version of it was made for Armata.

Part 5
 
Izdelie 480
 

 
      Not much information is known about Izdelie 480, appart from the fact that it was a "back up"/Plan B concept for T-74. As you can see on the model it have Active protection system based on "Drozd" (or early model/proposal of "Drozd").
 


 
      Note a shape of the frontal hull armor - later similar frontal hull part would be used on others Soviet MBT projects.
 
      Here is Object 187 with it:

 
 
 
Object 187
 

It looks very much like T-90.
 
     Speaking about Object 187, it was another project of Soviet MBT which was in development in 1986-1988. Object 187 was under development in parallel with Object 188 (which we will know as T-90). Main goal for this program was to increase protection of T-72 to T-80U level. But UVZ team viewed Object 187 as future Soviet/Russian MBT, so they went beyond simple increase of armor. 
     Engineers changed shape of the frontal part of T-72 hull, which now did not had a famous weakspot, that was jokingly called "cleavage" (weakspot in upper frontal plate becuase of the driver optics, all T-64s, T-72s and T-80s have them).
 
     Object 187 also had new welded turret, which was implemented later in ~2004-2005 in T-90A and new gun mantlet. 
 
 
    Main gun was D-91T (2A66) from Factory N9 in Sverdlovsk, which is believed to be more powerfull gun than 2A46. It was equipped with muzzle brake to decrease recoil.
 
 
     Object 187 was planed to be equipped with new ERA, known as "Malakhit", which later will become Relikt ERA (ERA with 2 opposite moving plates instead of 1 in Kontakt-5). 
 
     6 Objects 187 were build for testing, with prototype number 5 and 6 being most advanced. N1 had 840HP V-84MS engine, N2 was tested ith KD-34 1000 HP V-shaped diesel engine, N3 received engine compartment from T-80U with GTD-1250 gas turbine, developing 1250 HP. N4 got fancy X-shaped 1200HP A-85-2 diesel from Chelyabinsk. Weight of new tank reached 55 tons. Overall, internal layout of the vehicle was made less cramped, which would allow to increase modernisation potential for a tank in the future. 
 
     Object 187 was never adopted to service because new Russian Federation state went with cheaper Object 188. Several prototypes survived in Kubinka museum "sump", in bad conditions.  

Part 4
 
T-74 (Izdelie 450)
 
    Izdelie 450 was attempt to design or at least look at how tank will look like in future by Morozov, a T-64 designer. He wrote about his concept of new tank, which he called NST-74, Izdelie 450 and T-74, in his diary:
 
    http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/1973_komponovka.htm
 
    This vehicle was proposed in early 1970s in Kharkov design bureau, as NST-74 ("New Medium Tank - 74"). It turned to be more a concept than a real design that Soviet industry would be able to build in 1970s. T-74 concept from 1972 was found to be not very good, while 1973 concept had several key improvements over 1972 concept - better gunner position (and later it was futher improved in 1974), gun mount, ammo storage, FCS principles, crew placement. New tank was to be created to surpass new Leopard and XM-801. 
 
 
    Morozov wrote in his dairy that the unmanned turreted tank design will give to engineers ability to improve protection of the crew from enemy fire and radiation without increasing total weight ("weight savings due to the absence of the [conventional] turret is ~5000 kg"). New ammorack would have increased total ammunition number to ~60 rounds for main gun in the future. Also, he made a note about possibility to make modular chassis based on Izdelie 450 for whole series of vehicles because of the internal layout of the proposed tank.
    
    T-74 ('mod.1973') had 34 rounds in his rear ammorack with 8 rounds inside of autoloader. 
 
    Gunner was to be placed just under the turret in 1973 model of the T-74:
 
 
 
    Turret design, especially gun mount and how gunner work would be done with new turret, were pretty serious problems to solve for Kharkov design bureau. From Morozov diary:
 
"2.04.74. Finally, it seems the solution is found for izd. 450 "head". Today looked at Listrovoy proposal. Well done! Found a simple solution, and from his design study would seem to be a good construction. Everything is done properly, the turret ring is on the roof, but a much smaller diameter. The gun 'swings', like a human head, frontal projection of turret is approximately half of serial turret frontal projection, serial produced gun mounts (placed on top). We must now "comb" all that and make prettier. In general, good, finally found a solution." 
 
     Cannon was expected to be 125 mm or 130 mm, D-85-like, stabilized in 2 axis.    
 
     Model, which you saw on the picture, was a present to one of engineers from other organisation by Kharkov tank desginers.
 
 
 
     
 
      Expected "stats" of the T-74:

 
T-64A, T-64BM and T-74 general information.
 
      As we see T-74 was expected to be ~39 ton tank with 23 hp/t engine power/weight ratio, reaching 70 km/h in both ways with 1000 km range on the roads or 400 km while offroad using max fuel tank capacity of 1800 liters of fuel. Gun would have -10 depression and +12 elevation, with stabilized gun and gunner. Up to 60 rounds of ammunition was planned to put inside of NST-74 using new shells design (2 or 1 piece ammunition). Additional weapons were 2 7.62 MGs and stabilized 30 mm autocannon on top of the turret. Frontal armor protection was planned to be increased to ~700 mm in RHA equivalent (150-200 more than T-64A and BM). 
 
      Work on the NST-74/T-74/Izdelie 450 was canceled later in the middle 1970s. Morozov started to work on the NST-80 concept, but he was not able to finish it, leaving short notes in his diary about his view on a new tank.

Part 3
 
Other variants
    As we can see from model and scheme, they could draw that vehicle. Could Kirov factory actually build it? Well, they have build prototype for testing engine and chassis for heavy IFV variant of their "Leader":
 

It can move!
 
 
Kirov factory also have build robotizied vehicle for mine clearing in 1988:
 
    
 
And they were planning to introduce this:
 
Vehicle, based on Object 299 chassis with 30 vertical launching missiles.
 
     In engineers and army thinkers view cannon armed Object 299 should have been supported by those missile tanks. 30 long-range missiles with different warheads, with possible top-attack anti-tank missiles variants, should have increased ability of unit to fight with enemy tanks and long-range ATGM-carrying IFVs. And yes, it have crew of 2.
 
End of Part 3.

Part 2
 
Armata, uhh sorry, Object 299
 
       Our next target is another Leningrad Kirov factory creation, the Object 299, also known as "guys, lets remove shells and fuel from crew compartment this time, okay?".
 
 
    Finally something interesting. This vehicle was part of bigger programm to create unified chassis for severla vehicles, including robotized mine clearing vehicle, heavy IFV, a missile tank with vertical launching ATGMs and etc. 
 
 
Tank variant

 


 
    Object 299 tank was to be created under "Leader 2000-2005" programm, and vehicle should have had several design features:
 
      Mobility
Frontal engine placement; New engine developing 1500 HP at least; 85-90 km/h road speed; Range - more than 500 km; Upgrade potential to increase HP/T to 40 hp/t.        Firepower
New cannon, 140+ mm caliber with potential to upgrade for better ammunition and gun; Vehicle should have up to 40 rounds; Higher chance to hit target at distances less than 2 km (with 0.9 probability) with cannon; Increased distance of searching and spotting of targets, including at night (up to 3.5 km at night);  Fighting in bad weather, in situation of EW and jamming; Deacresed time of ammunition loading;      Protection
New passive, reactive armor; New active protection system, including jammers; Better mine protection; Decreased chance of fire and ammunition explosion; Reduced visibility of vehicle for optical, radar and thermal-scanning devices.        Other
Tank informational-controlling computerized system Crew should have been isolated from ammunition and fuel in protected "capsule" in hull. wich provide all-around protection, NBC protection and give for crew ability to work for up to 72 hours comfortably; unmanned turret and armament systems.     New engine was to be 1500 HP gas turbine engine (Kirov like Gas turbines!) with potentially 1800-2000 HP gas turbine engine upgrade in the future. 
 
 
    Main weapon was to be 152 mm smoothbore gun in unmanned turret. Autoloader, that would feed that gun, was planned to be placed under turret in isolated compartment with verticaly stored shells. 
 
    Those are, AFAIK, ammunition for 152mm cannons:
 
End of Part 2.
 

Our first week here at SH is done. Honestly, this has been a much stronger start than I expected, and I thank everyone who's posted for helping.

There's a lot of good content here already; I can hardly think of a thread that doesn't contribute something to the making of SH into the research center I had in mind when I started it.

So thanks to everyone, and let's keep the momentum up. For now, if you have a question, ask it on the forum! Have a friend that you think has the archive savvy, inquisitive nature, and ritual-sacrifice-obsidian-dagger-blade-sharp wit that would make them a good fit for SH? Invite them! (For now, I ask members to invite only one person a piece; myself and collimatrix are currently working to expand the membership of SH by adding more people we think would be assets to the forum.)

Carry on, gentlemen!

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

It would be interesting to compare this to the Soviet data I have. Until I put up a proper article, have some scraps of info:
T-70s: 
Front hull: 8.5%
Turret front: 5.6%
Total front: 14.1%
 
Hull side: 43.8%
Turret side: 18.4%
Total side: 62.2%
 
Hull rear: 12%
Turret rear: 0.5%
Total rear: 12.5%
 
Hull roof: 2.4%
Turret roof: 5.0%
Total roof: 7.4%
 
About the same side shots, but a lot more rear and top shots. The numbers don't add up to 100% since there are other hits to weird parts of the tank I didn't take into account.
 
T-34:
Hull front: 22.65%
Turret front: 4.86%
Total front: 27.51%
 
Hull side: 50.5%
Turret side: 8.61%
Total side: 59.11%
 
Hull rear: 7.52%
Turret rear: 2.48%
Total rear: 10%
 
Hull roof: 0.19%
Turret roof: 1.11%
Total roof: 1.3%
 
Again, less hits in the front, a little more to the rear, about the same side. 
 
AT artillery calibers (knocked out by)
88: 35.2%
75: 46.2%
50: 12.8%
37: 5.0%
Mines: 0.8%
 
Looks like the Western Front had a hell of a lot more heavy guns.
 
Orel-Kursk Operation (tank types not given)
Turret: 38%
Hull front: 26%
Hull sides: 34%
Rear: 2%
 
Rechitskaya Operation (tank types not given)
Turret: 32%
Front: 23%
Sides: 41%
Rear: 4%
 
The amount of rear shots has fallen to about Western European levels, but the weirdness with counting turret shots as a separate category doesn't allow for a full comparison. 
 
Rogachevskaya operation: 20% of hits are 105 mm HEAT! So much for all the big guns being West.
 
T-34, summer 1944:
Turret front: 15%
Front hull: 16.2%
Total front: 31.2%
 
Turret sides: 23%
Sides: 35.3%
Total sides: 58.3%
 
Turret rear: 8%
Hull rear: 2.5%
Total rear: 10.5%
 
Again, really close to American numbers, but the rear of the turret gets hit a hell of a lot. I guess the Soviets are more inclined to rotate their turret actively in combat?