Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Models and pictures of Soviet MBT designs from 80s. Object 477A, Object 490 Buntar and Object 299.


LoooSeR
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

Do you believe that it would have been a good idea for the Russian military at the time to adopt Object 187? 

 

No. I think the only sane option was to finish the 477, with somewhat simplified FCS. Objekt-187 didnt have enough improvements over existing tanks, especially the T-80U.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 

No. I think the only sane option was to finish the 477, with somewhat simplified FCS. Objekt-187 didnt have enough improvements over existing tanks, especially the T-80U.

I really doubt that stuffing tanker into kharkovite deathtrap is good idea. For all its incredible parameters crew still encapsulated by ammo such solutions are acceptable in 1970-80 but not now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 

No. I think the only sane option was to finish the 477, with somewhat simplified FCS. Objekt-187 didnt have enough improvements over existing tanks, especially the T-80U.

Ummm... That was probably the only insane option if we don't take into account 490B. 477's autoloader that was loaded by another autoloader with level of sophistication of a tesseract, each round apperently was some sort of special shell with variable shape propellant charge.

   Object 187 was a less... strange option but not as low energey as 188 in terms of upgrade potential. 

 

19 hours ago, AssaultPlazma said:

Do you believe that it would have been a good idea for the Russian military at the time to adopt Object 187? 

   Yes, it would be a little less pain in the ass to upgrade. Vehicle was generally less dense layout of components AFAIK, that would allow easier time with upgrades, higher wight wouldn't be much of a problem for small number of vehicles, better layout of frontal armor that would allow easier time to actually upgrade it. 187 wasn't THAT much better than 188, but it was a more reasonable option if we take into account vehicle capabilities more into account than real politicians did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
16 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

One of Object 187 models on the move. Note new frontal hull design and new ERA.

4th prototype?

 

BTW, a while ago there were rumors that UVZ wants the prototypes back for restoration and eventually exhibition in their own museum. Is there any news about this? Would be good to save these tanks from rusting away.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, LoooSeR said:

Nice family drawing (same as one of our member's signature, but with names over them this time). Lacking Nota, though.

581919_original.jpg

Of course dude, it's drawn by me, I post it about years ago in this thread, I still remember someone informed me that the spelling of its text are wrong :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Molota_477 said:

Of course dude, it's drawn by me, I post it about years ago in this thread, I still remember someone informed me that the spelling of its text are wrong :D

I vaguely remember that version of it was posted here, but i thought it didn't had numbers on it for vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

hifv2.jpg

 

hifv.jpg

 

   So this thing was supposed to have autoloaded 76 mm (?) AC, and 2 ATGMs on top turret... with 4 RCWS, 2 of them armed with AGLs and 2 with 7.62 GPMGs. That is rather hot load for IFV by early 90s standarts. Although second variant had 8 dismounts, while first was for 11 (?)

 

:orgasm:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2018 at 11:55 AM, skylancer-3441 said:

It appears to be much more spacious than another 299-based heavy IFV, one which was mentioned earlier in this thread:

which apparently (well, assuming that it had same armor thickness as 299-based tank itself, and assuming that it had constant roof thickness) was almost as low on the inside as BMP-2

oHjaKIq.jpg

 


LzBUpbk.jpg
barrel lenght of main gun at this new pic is some 2 feet 2 inches, or about 66cm, shorter than on that older pic. Also hull turned out to be somewhat higher. Though not by mach, as this comparison with BMP-2, aligned by bottom, clearly shows:
1HQ8hlY.jpg

height on the inside is about 4 feet (120 cm). Shoulder width of 22,5 inches (57 cm) per person - about as mach as US designers provided for dismounts in Bradley - fine if one does not wear much gear or body armor or winter clothing. But with any of that - anyone higher than 5'11 would not fit properly. Considering that apparently they planned to produce it in like early-mid 00s, and that by this time average russian male conscript (in real life Russia) was about 5'10 - that makes it uncomfortable for half of the manpower of would-be-Soviet-Army-of-00s. And all that - not even including forearms.
BTW, when measured excluding tracks width - lower part of hull of this thing is also narrower than same part of BMP-2's hull, even when measured on the outside, let alone on the inside. Although to be fair BMP-2 spends allmost an entire feet of width on fuel tank and storage space, which are located between seats of dismounts.

comparison with tank:
wEZ6Rwl.jpg

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By T___A
      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.
    • By LoooSeR
      T-14 ARMATA 
      (edited)
              This thread is about glorious russian MBT T-14, known as "Armada", "T-95", "black eagle", "T-99" and other stupid Western names given to Object 148 (T-14 in some recent documents). Here is number of images connected to that vehicle.
       

      Official model of unknown "artillery vehicle". Yeah, Putin, we know that this is T-14. Note Gatling gun on turret right side.
       
      Artist impression of T-14 based on known model, by Fyodor Podporin. 
       

      T-14 will use Relikt ERA, which is considerable improvement over Kontakt-5 in resisting to tandem HEAT warheads and EFPs.

       
      Side skirts would be thicker on a real vehicle, i think. Relikt have AFAIK bigger size than Kontakt-5 ERA build-in blocks.

       
       
       
       
       
      Whole album with renders: 
      http://imgur.com/a/8Tn9b
       
      Video of same render from same artist:

       
       
            People expect that tank would have turret weapon system like what you see on the BMP-3 "Bakhcha-U" turret - a lot of weapons in one turret for one gunner to work with. T-14 is rumored to be equipped with 30 (or even 57) mm autocannon, 4-6 barrel gatling type MG/HMG, new 125 (2A82) or even 152 mm (2A83) smoothbore cannons. Turret is unmanned, crew of 3 would be located in frontal part of hull, behind very serious frontal armor inside of compartment, well protected from all directions. Cannon would be loaded by new autoloading device. I hope that Burevestnik is working on them, those guys managed to make 100 mm Naval gun with RoF of 300 shots per minute.
       
            I really like how turret looks, but i don't understand why there is such a big turret "busket" for unmanned turret with all ammo placed inside of hull in special armored housing. Also, i don't see gunner sight and proposed FSC radar on 3D model (i assume that panoramic sight is for commander). Laser sensors on 3D model are from T-90A variant of "Shtora".
       
            Some officials mentioned works on new active protection system, that consist of powerfull radar station, that can work on "long ranges" and engage incoming projectiles (missiles) with that gatling MG. Will this system survive development stage and be presented on serial tanks is unknown. Although turret for T-15 Armata-based IFV already was shown with new APS "Afganit".
       
            If you pay attention you may see that artist used T-80 rollers for Armata chassis, and this is not a mistake - according to some sources Armata heavy chassis will use T-80 or T-80-like rollers to save weight. And looking at rear part of that tank you may notice a engine deck from gas-turbine equipped version of the T-80, which can be mistake becuase MoD want Armata with new ~1500 HP diesel engine. 
    • 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.
       
×
×
  • Create New...