Soviet secret tank "Object 490"

16
Promising Tanks The USSR has always been a great secret. However, time passes, and the veil of secrecy is slowly rising. More and more often photos of secret "stillborn monsters" appear on the network, writes Messenger of Mordovia.

Soviet secret tank "Object 490"


The tankbuilding historian Alexey Khlopotov published on his blog a photo of a prototype of the forerunner of the 477 machine - the tank “Object 490А”, created under the theme “Rebel”. Unlike the 477, this machine looks more elegant. Perhaps due to the fact that the classic for Soviet 2 and 3 generations gun of the 125 caliber mm was chosen as a weapon.



Now some fans of the products of Kharkov KBM them. Morozov insist that the Nizhny Tagil tanks "Object 195" and "Object 148" simply copy the layout of the 490. In fact, the layout of these machines differs radically.



“So, Russian cars have not just a“ handed down ”gun, but a full-fledged uninhabited combat module. Ukrainian - only the so-called "low-profile" tower, which housed 2 crew member. This decision led to the need to dramatically strengthen the defense of the tower. Thus, the economy of weight, which could be aimed at protecting the habitable compartment in the housing (as in Russian cars) was not observed. Instead, the removed gun, devoid of body armor, proved to be extremely vulnerable, ”the material says.



In general, the “490A object”, despite its “advancement”, turned out to be another unsuccessful project to create a “tank of the future” in the USSR, concludes the publication.
16 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Nasrat Rank
    Nasrat
    +1
    20 November 2017 13: 41
    photos are gorgeous!
    1. Andrey Yuryevich Rank
      Andrey Yuryevich
      +5
      20 November 2017 13: 50
      Quote: Nasr
      photos are gorgeous!

      and that is remarkably rare ... (they took off on slippers)
      1. Dead duck Rank
        Dead duck
        +6
        20 November 2017 14: 52
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        . (removed on slippers)

        pre-lubricating the lens with fat.
      2. Svarog51 Rank
        Svarog51
        +8
        20 November 2017 15: 02
        Yurich, welcome hi I haven’t seen you on the site for a long time.
        On the topic: everything is somehow incomprehensible, the chassis seems to be from 64, but the lengthened 7-roller. The standard tank gun, and rendered for tower defense. What for? They stuck it in the tower. It’s not at all clear what kind of unit it turned out and what does it outperform the usual T-64? Well, it would be clear if the caliber were increased, and so ...
        shot on slippers

        So in those days, all the fotiks were film, from that and such images. It’s interesting whether this object was preserved in the hardware, or already bye-bye.
  2. andrewkor Rank
    andrewkor
    +2
    20 November 2017 13: 43
    A clear dead end in the development of technology based on the T-64 is a weak undercarriage! Although hanging on it, it will not pull further!
    1. Dead duck Rank
      Dead duck
      +6
      20 November 2017 14: 55
      775 also has a similar suspension ... however, another request
  3. Jedi Rank
    Jedi
    +9
    20 November 2017 14: 02
    In general, the “490A object”, despite its “advancement”, turned out to be another unsuccessful project to create a “tank of the future” in the USSR, concludes the publication.

    The one who does nothing is not mistaken. Even from unsuccessful projects, invaluable experience and best practices can be drawn.
    1. san4es Rank
      san4es
      +5
      20 November 2017 14: 51
      Quote: Jedi
      ... you can learn invaluable experience and best practices.

      He would have a 152 mm gun soldier
    2. Dead duck Rank
      Dead duck
      +7
      20 November 2017 14: 58
      Quote: Jedi
      The one who does nothing is not mistaken. Priceless experience and best practices can even be drawn from unsuccessful projects.

      Maksim, hi
      The main thing that would not be carried away, otherwise they will create
  4. Eurodav Rank
    Eurodav
    +4
    20 November 2017 14: 11
    Quote: Nasr
    photos are gorgeous!

    Generally fire! It was as if a teenager was collecting, carving, pasting, and then ... dad swelled and decided to make an article on these clippings, but put it in VO ...
  5. Eurodav Rank
    Eurodav
    +2
    20 November 2017 14: 14
    Quote: andrewkor
    A clear dead end in the development of technology based on the T-64 is a weak undercarriage! Although hanging on it, it will not pull further!

    So that's why the secret ones, that they didn’t go beyond the secrets, were found by designers and scientists in another way!
  6. svp67 Rank
    svp67
    +1
    20 November 2017 14: 50
    "Rebel", could not bring you to mind, the Soviet industry did not have enough opportunities ... or maybe it is for the better.
  7. Couchexpert Rank
    Couchexpert
    0
    20 November 2017 16: 31
    By the same logic, the concept of building the Almaty is far from being so clearly defined: the crew, of course, has become much safer, this is a plus, but who needs a tank with vulnerable (and therefore inevitably damaged) weapons? Although there seems to be a tower, but what level of protection is it now that in the eyes of the designers the “value” has decreased (and the increased dimensions of the platform itself probably required a greater percentage of the mass of armor to redirect to protect the hull)? This is already similar to the trend: for example, the Uralvagonists are not at all embarrassed by the uncovered combat module of the Terminator: yes there are no people there, but now what if you order him to order a new one after each battle? Oh yes, now rockets are installed 2 in bulletproof boxes, then it’s normal ... for equipment that needs to operate in a tank formation at the forefront.
    1. Albert1988 Rank
      Albert1988
      0
      20 November 2017 23: 45
      Quote: CouchExpert
      Although there seems to be a tower, but what is the level of its protection now that in the eyes of the designers its “value” has decreased

      For the next 15 years, at least no one will tell you this, moreover, on the T-14 tower there is Afghanite - KAZ, which provides excellent protection in itself.
      Quote: CouchExpert
      and the increased dimensions of the platform itself probably required a greater percentage of the mass of armor to redirect to the hull

      Anyway, the weight that will be needed to book this "additional" volume of the hull will be several times less than that of a full-fledged well-armored tower.
      Quote: CouchExpert
      This already looks like a trend: the Uralvagonists, for example, are not at all embarrassed by the uncovered combat module of the Terminator:

      In Syria, thermos was driven a little - as a result, even our military, who previously "did not see the point in such a machine," decided to buy it, so this arrangement is justified.

      Py.Sy. Two things must be remembered - the first: no piece of iron can be compared in value to human life; the second - I don’t know how the terminator has it, but the T-2 is essentially a very crude and unrolled car. so it is possible that over time the configuration of its combat module may change ...
      1. Couchexpert Rank
        Couchexpert
        0
        21 November 2017 01: 25
        Quote: Albert1988
        The next 15 years, at least no one will tell you this.

        I agree.
        Quote: Albert1988
        Afghanite - KAZ, which provides excellent protection in itself.

        Against anti-tank and rocket propelled grenades - probably yes, against BOPS - hardly.
        Quote: Albert1988
        Anyway, the weight that will be needed to book this "additional" volume of the hull will be several times less than that of a full-fledged well-armored tower.

        Yes, but he will leave to protect only the crew and what is in the hull and will not affect the protection of weapons. The question is whether there is enough protection left on the tower after the rearrangement. Information about this without combat use really can not wait. And objective - do not wait at all.
        Quote: Albert1988
        In Syria, thermos was driven a little - as a result, even our military, who previously "did not see the point in such a machine," decided to buy it, so this arrangement is justified.

        1. Shot at thermoses from anything in Syria? If so, how did it transfer the combat module, the elements of the OMS placed outside? Well, even if not in Syria, somewhere in the suburbs in the firing range they were shot at even from the DShK / Kord?
        2. "Send X to Syria" on the run-in itself is already becoming a meme. But one must understand that the conditions there are very "specific" and the enemy obviously cannot provide decent resistance, and there is no tactical need to risk "new toys" on the front lines. Take, for example, the Tu-22: are the conditions for its use there very different from the bombing by the FAB of targets at the training ground? Did it give a lot of some “new” experience? Or, for example, when they were occasionally used for the same purpose in Afghanistan? Although, on the other hand, pilots are better at least some practice than none. And for the Caliber created back in the 90s, everyone would have been so buried if it hadn’t for terrorist attacks through every iron in the country. Only sappers can boast of the most full-fledged experience, since they performed exactly those tasks there and exactly as was required of them.
        Quote: Albert1988
        no piece of iron compares in value to human life

        No military piece of iron is created solely for the purpose of preserving the life of the crew (except for drones). They are created to solve some problems on the battlefield. And if the "iron + man" complex cannot fulfill its tasks (due to a broken piece of iron or the death of a person - it doesn’t matter), then obviously it should be of little interest to the military. A war machine with vulnerable weapons means wasted time and resources spent on its production and delivery to the theater (+ time and resources for restoration, if there is still something to restore), as well as the senseless risk to which its crew is exposed (after all, a duel situation is not excluded when "if not you, then you").
        Quote: Albert1988
        The T-14 is essentially a very crude and non-rolled machine. so it is possible that over time the configuration of its combat module may change ...

        I agree. And it is unlikely to become mass in the near future.
        1. Albert1988 Rank
          Albert1988
          0
          22 November 2017 19: 41
          Quote: CouchExpert
          Against anti-tank and rocket propelled grenades - probably yes, against BOPS - hardly.

          It all depends on the characteristics of the ammunition interceptor - pay attention to the sickly size of these tubes - if the charge has sufficient power, then it will simply knock the crowbar off the trajectory.
          Quote: CouchExpert
          Yes, but he will leave to protect only the crew and what is in the hull and will not affect the protection of weapons. The question is whether there is enough protection left on the tower after the rearrangement. Information about this without combat use really can not wait. And objective - do not wait at all.

          Judging by the model from the Zvezda company that I recently assembled - there is enough space under the cover to accommodate quite a decent such protection.
          Quote: CouchExpert
          Shoot thermos from anything in Syria? If so, how did it transfer the combat module, the elements of the OMS placed outside? Well, even if not in Syria, somewhere in the suburbs in the firing range they were shot at even from the DShK / Kord?

          If they showed themselves well (judging by the change in the attitude of our military), they obviously took part in the hostilities, which means that they were shot at from exactly something ...
          Quote: CouchExpert
          Quote: Albert1988
          The next 15 years, at least no one will tell you this.

          I agree.
          Quote: Albert1988
          Afghanite - KAZ, which provides excellent protection in itself.

          Against anti-tank and rocket propelled grenades - probably yes, against BOPS - hardly.
          Quote: Albert1988
          Anyway, the weight that will be needed to book this "additional" volume of the hull will be several times less than that of a full-fledged well-armored tower.

          Yes, but he will leave to protect only the crew and what is in the hull and will not affect the protection of weapons. The question is whether there is enough protection left on the tower after the rearrangement. Information about this without combat use really can not wait. And objective - do not wait at all.
          Quote: Albert1988
          In Syria, thermos was driven a little - as a result, even our military, who previously "did not see the point in such a machine," decided to buy it, so this arrangement is justified.

          1. Shot at thermoses from anything in Syria? If so, how did it transfer the combat module, the elements of the OMS placed outside? Well, even if not in Syria, somewhere in the suburbs in the firing range they were shot at even from the DShK / Kord?
          2. "Send X to Syria" on the run-in itself is already becoming a meme. But one must understand that the conditions there are very "specific" and the enemy obviously cannot provide decent resistance, and there is no tactical need to risk "new toys" on the front lines. Take, for example, the Tu-22: are the conditions for its use there very different from the bombing by the FAB of targets at the training ground? Did it give a lot of some “new” experience? Or, for example, when they were occasionally used for the same purpose in Afghanistan? Although, on the other hand, pilots are better at least some practice than none. And for the Caliber created back in the 90s, everyone would have been so buried if it hadn’t for terrorist attacks through every iron in the country. Only sappers can boast of the most full-fledged experience, since they performed exactly those tasks there and exactly as was required of them.
          Quote: Albert1988
          no piece of iron compares in value to human life

          No military piece of iron is created solely for the purpose of preserving the life of the crew (except for drones). They are created to solve some problems on the battlefield. And if the "iron + man" complex cannot fulfill its tasks (due to a broken piece of iron or the death of a person - it doesn’t matter), then obviously it should be of little interest to the military. A war machine with vulnerable weapons means wasted time and resources spent on its production and delivery to the theater (+ time and resources for restoration, if there is still something to restore), as well as the senseless risk to which its crew is exposed (after all, a duel situation is not excluded when "if not you, then you").
          Quote: Albert1988
          The T-14 is essentially a very crude and non-rolled machine. so it is possible that over time the configuration of its combat module may change ...

          I agree. And it is unlikely to become mass in the near future.

          Why are “specific” conditions quite normal for such conditions of a local war, in which tanks will be used, because in a global war hypersonic cruise missiles will be used, "conventional, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles of all stripes and, accordingly, carriers of all this? But things may not come to tanks with infantry fighting vehicles - everything will end sooner ...
          Quote: CouchExpert
          And for the Caliber created back in the 90s, everyone would have been so buried if it hadn’t for terrorist attacks through every iron in the country.

          Yes. only "suddenly" it became clear that these calibers are flying, it turns out, not 500 km. and at least 1500, which is already quite a serious signal to anyone who needs it. and then - testing weapons in such a war is better than any training ground - on the one hand, it’s the same training ground, only the situation changes in real time and is not staged in advance.
          Quote: CouchExpert
          No military piece of iron is created solely for the purpose of preserving the life of the crew (except for drones). They are created to solve some problems on the battlefield.

          Namely, only now, let it be known to you, now (the last 30 years) there is such a situation as a “platform crisis” - this is when any weapon carrier is extremely vulnerable to all kinds of precision weapons, while the number and prevalence of these weapons is as follows. that any platform - especially armored vehicles - will in any case collide with them, and the effectiveness of these means is such that the probability of surviving the same tank under the fire of such means tends to zero. Look at getting into our T-90 in the same Syria - the armor was not broken. but the tank was disabled, the same can be observed with Turkish leopards and with American abrashas - no half-meter armor from depleted uranium can no longer save from all kinds of cornet-spike-javelino-vampires, and even from modern BOPS it does not save so it is necessary to develop primarily not passive armor, which in most cases is already just overweight, and means of actively intercepting enemy shells - the ships won’t abandon passive armor altogether and feel very good, but the ships are easier - they have room a lot, with armored vehicles more complicated, but still everything - and we and the west are actively moving in this direction. So in the near future passive armor will become an auxiliary defense, in case the enemy manages to break through the active defense of BM. As for the effectiveness of the task, the KAZ in a compartment with some reservations may very well provide the T-14 with the effective fulfillment of all the tasks assigned to it. And I repeat - it is unclear how protected his combat module is - if you exclude the entire volume spent on placing the crew from the turret of the same T-90, the remaining “box” with the remaining thickness of the armor will be quite comparable with the combat module T-14.
          Quote: CouchExpert
          I agree. And it is unlikely to become mass in the near future.

          I will disappoint you - in the near future, a tank as a class of military equipment will cease to be massive - simply thousands of tank wedges are not needed in a modern war, plus the effectiveness of each individual tank has increased many times thanks to electronic systems and modern sights. The same T-14 can destroy a platoon of old T-72 because it will track, heal and shoot them one by one while they try to find it. And yes - in the “duel situation" now everything is decided not by the thickness of the armor, but by the one who first saw the enemy and hit him for sure, and if he missed, then the armor, even from depleted uranium, will not save ...