Military Review

1970's floating tanks

Story about tank PT-76 would be incomplete without mentioning two floating combat vehicles, although formally and not structurally related to it, but, nevertheless, continued this direction in the domestic tank building.

In the middle of the 1970-ies, marines and airborne troops expressed their interest in a well-armed and adequately protected floating combat vehicle. So, to the requirement of buoyancy added and the requirement of aerotransportability. Apparently, the airborne troops, dynamically developing in those years both quantitatively and qualitatively, became the main developer of tactical and technical requirements.

In accordance with them, in 1975, on VgTZ under the supervision of Chief Designer A.V. Shabalina designed and manufactured a prototype of a light airborne amphibious tank under the symbol “934 object”. Its welded hull and turret are made of aluminum alloy, which provides protection against armor-piercing shells of 23 mm caliber at a distance of 500 m. Steel linings are installed in the frontal part of the tower. Combat weight is 17,5 t, the crew - three people.

The turret houses a 100-2, a lightweight 48-mm rifled gun stabilized in two planes of guidance, equipped with a two-chamber muzzle brake, an ejection device for purging the barrel and a loading mechanism. 7,62-mm PKT machine gun is paired with a gun. Ammunition consists of 40 artillery shots (19 of them in the loading mechanism) and 2000 ammunition. A portable Strela-3 air defense missile system and four missiles to it fit inside the tank. The gun is equipped with an 2-43 electro-hydraulic two-stage stabilizer. For firing from a cannon and a machine gun, a laser sight is used - a TPD-K1 range finder and a ballistic computer. The car has a full range of night vision devices, an automatic software system and an ESD system.

The floating tank "object 934". Above: s self-scraper type self-hopper lowered into working position, below: self-hopper in traveling position

934 object

The four-stroke multi-fuel diesel 2В-06 with turbocharging and air cooling in the heat exchanger is installed in the engine-transmission compartment located in the aft part of the hull. Engine power - 400 HP Transmission - manual, with a two-line mechanism for gears and turns. Suspension - pneumohydraulic, provides variable ground clearance ranging from 120 to 530 mm. A water jet is used for driving on water.

Installing a powerful engine (power density - 22,8 hp / t) and modern transmission provides the maximum speed of movement on land 70 km / h, and on water 10 km / h. Cruising when driving on land reaches 600 km. The “934 object” is equipped with built-in equipment for self-digging with a hydraulic drive. The design of the tank is adapted to airborne parachuting.

In 1976, a prototype KSHM “934 object” was made on the basis of the “940 object” at VgTZ. In the armored wheelhouse, located in the forward part of the body, there are three isolated compartments - control, command-staff and communications. An 7,62-mm PKB machine gun was installed on the cabin roof, on a swivel, and on its stern wall were smoke grenade launchers of the 902В “Tucha” system. In general, the layout of the "940 object" strongly resembles the BTR-50PU.

In parallel with the “934 object” on the same technical task in 1975, at Kurganmashzavod under the direction of the chief designer A.A. Blagonravov designed and manufactured a prototype of a light amphibious tanker, the “685 object”.

The 16,5 t tank has a steel welded hull and turret welded from titanium alloy. Armor provides protection against 23-mm projectiles. Armament: 100-2 48-mm gun (2-48-1), stabilized in two planes, PKT machine gun and Strela-3 SAM system. The ammunition consists of 40 shots, 2000 cartridges and four missiles. The tank is equipped with a loading mechanism, a laser range finder, a night trailer, an air conditioner, PAZ and PPO systems, and a P-123M radio station.

934 object. Back view. The water cannon valves are open. At the stern of the turret two blocks of smoke grenade launchers are clearly visible

The 934 object is afloat. Because of the large departure of the gun barrel, the tank was kept on an “even keel” only in the position with the cannon forward. When turning the turret, the car acquired a noticeable roll on board and trim aft

Multi-fuel 6-cylinder diesel 2В-06-2 with gas turbine supercharging and intermediate air cooling and manual transmission are located in the rear part of the hull. Individual torsion bar suspension. Water jets are used as a water propeller. The maximum speed when driving on a highway is 70 km / h, afloat - 10 km / h. Cruising on the highway - 600 km.

Tanks - "934 objects" and "685" - were tested, but they were not accepted for service and were not launched into mass production. Being, in fact, representatives of the group of combat vehicles for the so-called rapid reaction forces, they anticipated the appearance in the West of such tanks as the American M8 and Stingray. At the same time, the latter, with the same combat mass and similar weapons with Soviet machines, are not able to swim.

The hull design and the undercarriage of the tank - the “685 object” were subsequently used to create the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle (the “688 object”).

Currently, both prototypes of the last Soviet amphibious tanks are in the Military History Museum of Kubinka armored weapons and 8 equipment. There you can see the KSHM - "940 object".

A prototype of a floating tank "object 685" is now in the exposition of the Military History Museum of armored weapons and equipment in Kubinka. You can also see the “934 object” (in the background)

685 object

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Civil
    Civil 24 November 2012 09: 14
    2V multi-fuel diesel engine 06B-XNUMX with turbocharging and air cooling in the heat exchanger.

    wow, i.e. intercooler

    The tank is equipped with a loading mechanism, a laser range finder, a night trailer, air conditioning

    fully equipped, even air conditioning
  2. Mikhado
    Mikhado 24 November 2012 09: 49
    Yeah, another domestic armored tragedy (((
    For 60 years they will not find a replacement for the PT-76, which has already been taken out of service, they made an excellent Octopus - and they did not accept it "safely" (Serdyukov-style).
    Landing, Russian troops, sea and air, with bare w ..., without light tanks, pah.
    1. predator.3
      predator.3 24 November 2012 09: 58
      Also, I'm thinking why the Octopus was not adopted?
    2. alex86
      alex86 24 November 2012 20: 25
      I support, it’s also not clear to me why to disarm the T-76 if there is nothing equivalent to replace it with.
  3. predator.3
    predator.3 24 November 2012 10: 03
    Also, I'm thinking why the Octopus was not adopted?
    1. sniper
      sniper 24 November 2012 18: 50
      Quote: predator.3
      Also, I'm thinking why the Octopus was not adopted?

      Somewhere it sounded: ... if you have paranoia, then this does not mean that you are not being watched ... So, I’m a complete paranoid and I have paranoid delirium ... The most combat-ready troops we have are the Airborne Forces, Georgians confirm ... So all the activities of the furniture team was aimed at disarming this kind of troops, here and leapfrog with military transport aircraft, and BMD4, and Octopus ... In a word, a very effective management ....
      1. alex86
        alex86 24 November 2012 20: 30
        To justify the stool dealer (as well as his predecessors), I can only say that special "sabotage" measures are not needed in our country, we will do everything ourselves better than any saboteur ...
      2. Speedy
        Speedy 25 November 2012 10: 36
        Well, why only the Airborne Forces ... The tank troops in general counted to cease to exist (2 brigades and battalions in the small and medium business aren’t counting), SpnGRU .... Artillery regiments of divisions ... Yes, they reduced a lot of different things and needed to a minimum indicating the presence of a presence ...
      3. T-130
        T-130 25 November 2012 17: 41
        It seems that someone ordered these managers to finish off what has not yet collapsed!
    2. Ilyukha
      Ilyukha 27 November 2012 12: 17
      Powerful anti-tank gun. The enemy’s tanks are not visible on the horizon))
      The armor is thin, like that of an armored personnel carrier.
      Why is it needed?
  4. AK-74-1
    AK-74-1 24 November 2012 11: 05
    The ability to overcome water obstacles is one of the main requirements for technical equipment for light crews. I am very much amused by the latest news about the development of modern BMD, light tanks. Our "Sprut" and BMD-4M have no analogues in the world. And this means directly necessary for such mobile and light units as the Airborne Forces and the Marines. Even to some extent, such a weapon could be in the GRU special forces brigades to solve "power" reconnaissance tasks. In addition, now there are sets of attachments that enhance passive and active safety (Shtora, Arena, DZ, etc.). The rejection of the "Sprut" and the BMD-4M and their absence in the troops, personally, in me causes vague doubts and "dirty" assumptions.
    1. predator.3
      predator.3 24 November 2012 13: 11
      I also think, why not create light brigades armed with amphibious military equipment (bmp-3, octopus, nona, btr-90, "vodnik")
      1. Artem6688
        Artem6688 25 November 2012 23: 28
        Because they are developing new platforms, but they don’t want to order junk
    2. Civil
      Civil 24 November 2012 18: 17
      AK-74-1believe that there are enough funds for transportation
  5. Normal
    Normal 24 November 2012 23: 06
    Perhaps very good cars. Why not adopted? I think that this is clear to everyone.
    But it would be even better if instead of the possibility of parachute landing and to a lesser extent swimming, the protection would be strengthened.
    At our distances, it is necessary to create airborne rapid reaction troops based on the Airborne Forces. Need an airmobile tank and a heavy armored personnel carrier.
    Amphibious tanks only in the Marine Corps. BMD is a past century and an outdated concept. A floating, parachute-landing airborne combat vehicle is an attempt to embrace an immense. Less versatility, more specialization.
    1. Alexei-
      Alexei- 25 November 2012 16: 55
      and landing in the rear with a naked woman ... is this a narrow specialization or what? (have you heard of company / battalion tactical groups, raiding actions?) .... The whole world is dragging equipment into planes / helicopters (by the way, the Germans and Chinese also have airborne equipment), but we have our own "way", right? Back, back to the Rambo knife in the teeth and on all fours ..... more versatility, modularity, modifications !!
      leave the specialization out for heavy brigades and for .... Airborne Forces (more specialized than BMD and difficult to imagine))))
      1. Normal
        Normal 25 November 2012 21: 58
        Quote: Alex-
        (more specialized than BMD and hard to imagine)
        And what is her specialization? In what is parachuted? That's all, this is where the specialization ends. Next is one universalization. BMD is an armored personnel carrier by division, but much worse than a real armored personnel carrier. This is also a "light tank" but a real tank or anti-tank vehicle is not a rival. It is also a fire support vehicle, but worse than even a landing NONA, and much worse than a normal SPG.
        Quote: Alex-
        . The whole world drags equipment to airplanes / helicopters (

        And I drag. It’s not necessary to throw it with a parachute only, well, unless there are special groups for capturing airfields and landing sites. Further, like everyone else, in a landing way.
        Quote: Alex-
        (by the way, the Germans and Chinese also have airborne equipment)
        Well, the Chinese are famous warriors - they never fought, they did not defeat anyone. After Crete, the Germans did not carry out airborne operations. Why did it happen?
        Quote: Alex-

        and to land in the rear with a bare well ... is this a narrow specialization or what?
        And why landing in the rear with equipment? To quit her when the fuel runs out?
        Quote: Alex-
        have you heard anything about company / battalion tactical groups, raid actions?)

        No, I have not heard, but that such was carried out by parachute dropping of equipment? How successful? Or maybe you mean the training film "Actions of the PD unit behind enemy lines"? I could be wrong in the name, after all, so many years have passed. So many such films were shot in the 60s and 70s. Only this, sorry, movie. And I tell you about the real fighting.
        1. Alexei-
          Alexei- 26 November 2012 13: 14
          Well, they themselves answered - "... unless only special groups to seize airfields and landing sites")))
          By the way, the BMD-4 still does not have a parachute system. Directly, the question of adopting equipment and air transportable and airborne-50 to 50 is being worked out. I heard that they are already talking about a ratio of 70 to 30, respectively. I think the most optimal solution. All exercises with by airborne equipment, this is working out the actions of the RTG and BTG (this is me about your question about the DB "by parachute dropping of equipment." And in general, were there ever conditions (the situation required for the landing of equipment. I think not yet. But, for example, look to our North, along the Northern Sea Route is still bare)? BMD is maneuver and fire for the landing. Maneuver and fire, these are captured objects (bridgeheads), destroyed communications. Moreover, in the rear, as a rule, regular units with powerful weapons are not kept. Today, partisanism is doomed to defeat (in the light of the network-centric concept), IMHO, BMD are needed, but not as poor as today
          1. Normal
            Normal 26 November 2012 16: 09
            Quote: Alex-
            .All the exercises with the landing of equipment is the development of the actions of RTG and BTG

            I doubt very much. In Soviet times, exercises of no less than regimental were needed to drop equipment. A massive landing of equipment was carried out at large, district exercises.
            Now they don’t spend such money, it’s a pity, and there are already so many specialists and technicians. So they do not-do exercises, but motivate them with the fact that they say we will fight RTG and BTG. Nothing to do in the rear units the size of a battalion. Cover and cover MLRS. It is necessary either much less, 1-2 platoon, sabotage task and urgent evacuation. Or much more, regiment brigade. then there is a chance for a serious operation with a subsequent breakthrough or connection with the advancing main forces.
            And the actions of RTG and BTG are partisanship, only with equipment
  6. mark021105
    mark021105 25 November 2012 01: 37
    Quote: Normal
    Less versatility, more specialization.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but with modern means of destruction of armored vehicles, which are constantly evolving, it is impossible to create a super-duper protected BMP (BMD, BTR, etc.). "Sprut" and BMD-4M are needed primarily as mobile means of fire support for the landing force and infantry. And no one in the world has been able to create anything worthy like ours (landing + floating). And the fact that many bow their heads before Western models ... Do you really believe that their technique is "unkillable" ???
    1. Normal
      Normal 25 November 2012 09: 44
      Good morning.
      Quote: mark021105
      Do you really believe that their technique is "indestructible" ???
      Of course not. "What one person has done, another can always break" But the degree of "non-killability" is different for everyone. Any example is known to be "lame" and even so; BT and T-34. The first has the ability to wheel travel, crazy power reserve and speed, bulletproof booking. The second has anti-cannon armor, which the Germans soon learned to pierce and only tracked. And of course a 76 mm gun is not a 45 mm gun. So which is better? Practice has put everything in its place.
      Now back in our time.
      Quote: mark021105
      And no one in the world was able to create anything worthy like ours (landing + floating).
      But is it necessary? No one in the world massively parachuted equipment in a parachute manner in combat conditions. Nobody and never. We are including. So why is this needed? That's right, only as a hypothetical possibility and a means of psychological influence before the beginning of the database. As soon as the hostilities begin to become clear that such a technique to its destination:
      Quote: mark021105
      mobile fire support for the landing and infantry.
      the tank, the normal armored personnel carrier and a self-propelled gun of a serious caliber are not fully and better.
      All of the above applies to the floating technique. Yes, in the jungles of Southeast Asia, the PT-76, they say, showed itself not bad, but again as a light tank, and not as a floating tank. In our country, even at exercises to overcome a previously prepared reservoir with specially cut congresses and exits from the water, several BMDs (not all of them) were prepared for a day, and then, as a rule, there was an emergency. So there can be no question of overcoming water barriers "on the move". In general, the forcing of water obstacles throughout the world is solved primarily at the headquarters, operational and tactical levels, and only then at the level of technical capabilities.
      This is about the technique of the Airborne Forces. The Marine Corps has its own specifics and I am not familiar with it in practice. But the problems are similar, and not just the ability to sail, but "seaworthiness" is needed, which even more affects the decrease in the combat capabilities of equipment directly on land.
      1. Belo_ticketnik
        Belo_ticketnik 25 November 2012 10: 03
        I completely agree7 with Normal, I just want to add that airborne forces now, as airborne rapid reaction forces, most often fall into the thick of fire and they need well-protected armored vehicles with good firepower ... I think that with money and effort you can create a platform for the Airborne, reaching a compromise of security-weight-firepower.
        I think that the new BMDs presented now are more likely "weight-firepower", but the protection is lame.

        PS: although this platform has not yet been developed, it makes sense to buy (upgrade) what is, tomorrow the stream of dough for modernization may run dry wink IMHO
      2. MakSim51ru
        MakSim51ru 25 November 2012 13: 21
        That is true, but these vehicles may be in demand for reconnaissance and patrol. Moreover, they will be able to replace OBT, for example, when maintaining a database on wetlands or in river deltas.
        1. Normal
          Normal 25 November 2012 13: 29
          Quote: MakSim51ru
          these vehicles may be in demand for reconnaissance and patrol

          I do not agree. For intelligence, you need a specialized machine. For patrolling, a caterpillar mover is not the best option. The possibility of parachute landing for anything for reconnaissance or for patrolling
          1. Belo_ticketnik
            Belo_ticketnik 25 November 2012 14: 09
            Quote: MakSim51ru
            That is true, but these vehicles may be in demand for reconnaissance and patrol. Moreover, they will be able to replace OBT, for example, when maintaining a database on wetlands or in river deltas.

            I dare to object ... I think they are the least suitable for patrolling and reconnaissance, especially in forests and swamps. A well-organized ambush will turn these patrols into charred skeletons of iron, here something counter-guerrilla on wheels will work better. In MBT, it is also not suitable without DZ, and with such armor the target is notable.
  7. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 25 November 2012 12: 48
    I don’t know how anyone, but personally to me these two "Objects" seemed very, very nice. It's a pity that none of them entered service ...