Military Review

Tank gauge

76
It is known that a tank, as an armament system, is based on “three pillars”: armament, defense and mobility. It is also known that the firepower of tank weapons is determined by many factors, one of them is the caliber of a tank gun. Caliber guns of our modern serial tanks is 125 mm.


"KLIM VOROSHILOV"

The first tank with a high-caliber gun was a machine called the KV-2 ("Klim Voroshilov" - the second model).

Heavy tank KV-1 arr. 1941 g. With 76,2-mm gun

It all began like this. As you know, in November 1939, the Soviet-Finnish war broke out. The troops of the Leningrad Military District under the command of K.A. Meretskov immediately came across a powerful system of pillboxes and other fortifications, forming the famous Mannerheim line of defense.
It was decided to send the first experimental heavy QMS tanks (Sergey Mironovich Kirov) and KV (Klim Voroshilov), which were then undergoing tests, to help the troops. Moreover, since the troops did not yet have specialists trained in controlling these machines, they included factory testers into the crew. Looking ahead, we say that the tests in a combat situation were quite successful, and in December the tank was already put into service under the designation KV-1. At the same time, the idea appeared to equip a new car with a powerful gun.

Prototype heavy tank KV-1 arr. 1940

The task to develop a combat vehicle with a more powerful weapon, the design team received in January 1940. Moreover, it was proposed to do this in a short time. Chief Designer Z.Ya. Kotin and plant manager I.M. Zaltsman understood what the "smell" of non-compliance with the orders of Comrade Stalin was. All developers of the new tank were transferred to the barracks position and placed in the plant management. Every evening, the director and chief designer reviewed the drawings that were developed during the day and approved them. We chose a powerful X-NUMX-mm howitzer M-152 as a weapon. From the KV-10 new machine differed by the increased size of the tower. Ammunition consisted of 1 armor-piercing and concrete-breaking shots.

Tank KV-2 arr. 1940

There were many skeptics who claimed that when fired, the tank would tip over, and the undercarriage would not stand. However, the tests showed the complete working capacity of the machines, and four tanks were immediately assembled at the Kirov factory. The task of the government was completed before the deadlines. Continuation of the test was already on the front line. Junior Lieutenant Z.F. Glushak, the commander of the KV-2 tank No.2, recalled: “The obstacles on the Mannerheim line were made thoroughly. But in order to make the passage width 6-8 m, we needed only five shots. The enemy fired at us all the time. When we got out of the fight, we counted 48 dents on the armor, but not a single hole. ”

At the same time, the KV-2 tank was adopted by the Red Army. Among those awarded the Order of Lenin were the chief designer J.J. Kotin, engineer NL. Dukhov, test driver N.A. Varlamov.

Heavy double tank mounted SMK

"JOSEPH STALIN"

50 years ago, in 1947, in the design office of the Kirov factory under the leadership of the chief designer J. Ya. Kotin developed the first post-war heavy tank, which received the index EC-7 ("Joseph Stalin" - the seventh model, "the object 260").

The prototype of the tank EC-7 in the yard of the plant, winter 1948 g. By car there are no machine guns in the stern of the turret and anti-aircraft installation

The general management of the design work was entrusted to the deputy chief designer A.S. Yermolaev and the artillery system designers G.N. Rybin and N.V. Chicken As the main armament used 130-mm cannon C-70, which is a modification of the naval gun, adapted to the requirements of a tank gun. This powerful gun was capable of firing a 33,4 kg projectile with an initial speed of 900 m / s.



During 1948, four prototypes of the EC-7 tank were made at the Kirov Plant and conducted their factory tests. Soon the cars were presented for state tests. As a result of a number of identified defects during the tests, mainly due to the imperfection of the power unit, chassis, the machine did not receive the approval of the state commission and work on it was soon ceased.

However, despite the failures in the design and testing of the EC-7 tank, the designers learned a lot by working on this project.



On subsequent models of tanks developed in the design bureau, one could see many components and assemblies tested on the EC-7. But those who were refused, also served, because a negative result is also a result.

292 OBJECT

In this regard, it is necessary to tell about one more pilot work of the tank builders of the design bureau of the Kirov factory and the scientists of VNIITransmash fifteen years old. In the course of research work on the chassis of the T-80 tank, mass-produced then at the plant, a new turret was designed for the installation of a gun of increased caliber 152 mm. At the same time, the geometry of the aft part of the tower was changed and an additional series of improvements were made. The machine received a cipher - "292 object".
In September 1990 the tank was completely ready, and in 1991 the firing tests of the object began at the Rzhevsky range.

Tank gauge
Tank "292 object" based on the T-80 with 152,4-mm gun

All work was carried out under the direction of General Designer N.S. Popov. His deputy, twice State Prize winner A.K. Dziavgo, said: “We have agreed with the director of the Central Research Institute Nikolai Nikolayevich Hudkovysh on the implementation of the idea of ​​developing a six-inch rifled gun, caliber 152,4 mm. We liked this idea not only because it is one of the main calibers of land and naval artillery, and, therefore, in the future highly unified, but also because it made it possible to use a projectile of increased power to fight tanks, helicopters and infantry . But soon it was necessary to correct the intended plan - the supporters of the smooth-bore cannon “won”. However, this only increased the pace of work. ”

An active participant in the development of the leading designer Yu.N. Novikov recently recalled how selflessly worked for the designer board-gunsmiths G.S. Shpagin, A.V. Konokotin and N.N. Solovyov.

The firing tests at the site showed high stability and reliability of all the gun and tank units of the “292 object”. The main thing was to make sure that, despite the previous length of rollback, the guns were preserved and did not exceed the required standards for accelerations and loads at crew workplaces, and, therefore, the idea of ​​installing a gun of increased power in the T-80 tank was vital and not in doubt. However, the lack of funding slowed down further work to improve this unique experience at that time. But the invaluable experience was not lost, the intellectual achievements and findings remained. There is no doubt that this design reserve will be in demand.
Author:
Originator:
http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/
76 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 19 August 2013 08: 39 New
    11
    The article is good, but too short! I would like more information about the "family" of ISs during the war, as well as the experience of the combat use of heavy tanks.
  2. Tuzik
    Tuzik 19 August 2013 08: 51 New
    +2
    152 mm on tanks is universal, but you need to forget about sub-caliber rod shells, this gun will not accelerate to operating speeds, so only thermobaric and cumulative. And as practice shows, tanks are now used to support infantry, and in urban areas, such a caliber is very useful there.
    1. svp67
      svp67 19 August 2013 09: 32 New
      +3
      Quote: Tuzik
      152 mm on tanks is universal, but you need to forget about sub-caliber rod shells, this gun will not accelerate to operating speeds, so only thermobaric and cumulative.

      If we talk about "rifled", then of course, but "smoothbore" will be able to ... And there is no doubt that the transition to caliber 152 will be carried out, it's just a matter of time ...
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 19 August 2013 09: 54 New
        0
        125mm left IMHO due to the huge number of old shells in the warehouses. And the unavailability of the ammunition industry for the mass production of 152mm.
        1. svp67
          svp67 19 August 2013 09: 58 New
          0
          Quote: leon-iv
          125mm left IMHO due to the huge number of old shells in the warehouses. And the unavailability of the ammunition industry for the mass production of 152mm.
          125 mm - the bulk will be shot from the existing barrels. And the production of shells is still easier to organize than the production of "barrels", so this issue will be resolved.
        2. Genry
          Genry 19 August 2013 11: 22 New
          +1
          Quote: leon-iv
          125mm left IMHO due to the huge number of old shells in the warehouses.

          Just shells of the 152nd cal. fit 1,5-2 times less in the same tank volume. There will not be enough of them there.
          For a 152-gun, a specialized chassis (without a turret) is better, like the ISU-152 "St. John's wort" self-propelled gun.
          Yes "Msta-S" is already there, it's easier not to do it.
      2. bask
        bask 19 August 2013 11: 35 New
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        If we talk about "rifled", then of course, but "smooth-bore" it can ... And the fact that the transition to caliber 152 will

        It is more logical to combine two calibers on MBT, 152 mm and 125 mm. Here you need to add a cassette shell cal. 152 mm.
        MBT with 152 mm should be used as assault tanks, for battle in the city, for the suppression of very strong points, on the line of direct contact, with the enemy (direct fire_
        In Chechnya and Dagestan, the 90s and 2000s, there was always a caliber of 152 mm, while the ureprains were being stormed in settlements.
        Well, Lopatov, he will come and tell what is necessary and what is not ... soldier
      3. Mih
        Mih 25 January 2015 21: 53 New
        0
        And the fact that the transition to caliber 152 will be carried out

        Somehow not even funny.
    2. Genry
      Genry 19 August 2013 11: 27 New
      +4
      Quote: Tuzik
      152 mm on tanks is universal, but you need to forget about sub-caliber rod shells, this gun will not accelerate to operating speeds


      A school physics course says that this gun will accelerate the projectile 1,478 times heavier, to the same speed as 125mm, with the same gas pressure and barrel length.
  3. 6216390
    6216390 19 August 2013 10: 06 New
    +3
    KV-2 There were many skeptics who claimed that when fired, the tank would tip over and the chassis could not stand it.

    Nevertheless, firing at full charge was strictly forbidden, since due to large recoil and recoil it could jam the tower, components and assemblies of the motor-transmission group could suffer from a concussion. For the last reason, shooting was allowed only from the spot, which increased the vulnerability of the tank in battle.
    1. ruslan207
      ruslan207 19 August 2013 19: 54 New
      0
      t-xnumx also shot with a short stop
      1. svp67
        svp67 19 August 2013 20: 28 New
        +2
        Quote: ruslan207
        t-xnumx also shot with a short stop
        No, he shot from different positions, including on the move, here are the high chances to get somewhere or really he only had when shooting from a place or from short stops ...
    2. Mih
      Mih 25 January 2015 21: 56 New
      0
      a rollback could jam the tower,

      That's for sure - the tower is wedging.
  4. chenia
    chenia 19 August 2013 10: 32 New
    +2
    I think the 152 mm gauge for the tank is excessive, almost all the main tasks can be solved with 125 mm. Moreover, this increase creates a bunch of problems (the main decrease in BC).

    And for cases when a larger caliber is needed, you can have a separate unit of such tanks (battalion, company) of army submission.

    That’s what you need to do seriously, it's ammunition.
    1. Flooding
      Flooding 19 August 2013 10: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: chenia
      That’s what you need to do seriously, it's ammunition.


      Of course, ammunition needs to be dealt with. But in the end, in terms of rubles, I think that changing the barrel seems to be a more economical option, implying the use of existing ammunition.
    2. Iraclius
      Iraclius 19 August 2013 10: 56 New
      +1
      And for cases when a larger caliber is needed, you can have a separate unit of such tanks (battalion, company) of army submission.

      Also not an option. The main thing is unification, which will have to be abandoned. We still lacked multi-sized tanks.
      And for other tasks there are already powerful self-propelled guns.
      About ammunition - I agree.
      In my opinion, it is necessary to engage in machine-gun weapons of the tank and improve its firepower for combat in urban conditions. The 12,7-mm machine gun on the turrets with remote control and a modern sighting and review system - that's it. Better yet, a couple. And the 125-mm guns perform their tasks perfectly.
      1. Flooding
        Flooding 19 August 2013 11: 03 New
        0
        Quote: Iraclius
        In my opinion, it is necessary to engage in machine-gun armament of the tank and improve its firepower for combat in urban conditions. A 12,7 mm turret machine gun with remote control and a modern sighting and review system

        It seems to me that in this case, the 14,5 mm system is undeservedly bypassed.
    3. svp67
      svp67 19 August 2013 11: 06 New
      +1
      Quote: chenia
      And for cases when a larger caliber is needed, you can have a separate unit of such tanks (battalion, company) of army submission.

      That is, the rejection of MBT? It is not logical, and no matter how we would like, but 152 mm is the next stage in the development of our tank guns ...
  5. Iraclius
    Iraclius 19 August 2013 10: 51 New
    +4
    IS-7 generally deserves a separate article. A unique tank, a real Soviet land battleship! And the rifled gun is a modified marine 130 graph paper C-70, and the first caterpillar with rubber metal. hinged. And a fantastic amount of machine guns - 8 pieces !!! Of which two - KPVT 14,5-mm. And with remote electromechanical descent.
    1. bask
      bask 19 August 2013 15: 51 New
      +3
      Quote: Iraclius
      The IS-7 generally deserves a separate article. A unique tank, a real Soviet land battleship! And a rifled gun - a modified marine 130 graph paper S-70, and the first caterpillar with rubber metal. hinged.

      I agree, the tank ahead of its time.
      If we hadn’t cut off the line of heavy IS tanks, in tank building we would now be at a different technological level. And not some abrams and carrots were not competitors.
      1. svp67
        svp67 23 August 2013 22: 00 New
        0
        Quote: bask
        If we hadn’t cut off the line of heavy IS tanks, in tank construction we would now be at a different technological level

        The IS7 tank, which of course can be called "interesting", but of this family, the IS10 was undoubtedly the best, especially in the T10M variant
        1. Kars
          Kars 23 August 2013 22: 11 New
          +2
          Quote: svp67
          The IS7 tank, which of course can be called "interesting", but of this family, the IS10 was undoubtedly the best, especially in the T10M variant

          The only reason the T-10 is better is that it was built. And with the IS-7, he didn’t worry about it, even without taking into account the possible improvements of the IS-7 in the process of development and Syrian production
          1. svp67
            svp67 24 August 2013 00: 43 New
            0
            Quote: Kars
            so he didn’t bother with IS-7, even without taking into account possible improvements of the IS-7 in the process of development and syrian production
            The IS7 is an excellent experimental tank, since it was created according to "extreme parameters", but it would be a bad production tank - again due to the fact that it was created according to "extreme parameters"
            1. Kars
              Kars 24 August 2013 10: 44 New
              +1
              Quote: svp67
              but it would be a bad production tank - again due to the fact that it was created according to "extreme parameters"

              I don’t believe it - in the process of fine-tuning, everything .. roughness .. would be deleted. Would the number of machine guns be reduced etc. It would get the number that (to look for laziness) the license plate plant could not finish before the tests.
              1. svp67
                svp67 24 August 2013 19: 59 New
                0
                Quote: Kars
                I do not believe it - in the process of fine-tuning all .. roughness .. would be deleted.
                The history of T64 suggests otherwise, as does the less extreme T10 ...
                1. Kars
                  Kars 24 August 2013 20: 01 New
                  +1
                  Quote: svp67
                  The history of T64 suggests otherwise, as does the less extreme T10

                  The story of the T-64 says that there is no need to dissipate power and nothing more. This is not to mention that the T-64 has most of the problems from artificially set weight limits, which now can be seen as harmful and unreasonable.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 25 August 2013 00: 35 New
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    The story of the T-64 says that you don’t need to spray power and nothing more.
                    Yes, no more - the whole saga of this tank is directly related to the relative weakness of Soviet industry ... It's one thing to come up with and turn it into metal ... It was always great with the first, but with the second ... not always.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 25 August 2013 00: 55 New
                      +1
                      Quote: svp67
                      . It’s one thing to come up with and turn it into a completely different metal.

                      T-10 more or less pounded, t-64B is also a good car.
                      Therefore, I am certainly convinced that the serial production and modernization of the IS-7 (well, the absence of Khrushchov0 would give the Soviet tank industry a push in the more correct direction to MBT than successive evolutions from the T-44 through the T-55, to the MBT.

                      Even now, the IS-7 can be compared quite well with the 2 Challenger (unless of course we conditionally accept the progress in electronics and combined armor)
                      1. svp67
                        svp67 25 August 2013 11: 47 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        T-10 more or less pounded, t-64B is also a good car.
                        T10, or rather - "tortured", and to a more or less acceptable state of the T64 was reached 15 years after the start of production, and this was achieved on more "simple" machines and at a later stage in the development of Soviet industry. At the time of the creation of the IS7, the Soviet industry was even weaker, and hence the option of being left without a tank, or rather with a mass of non-combat-ready tanks, was very real.
                        Quote: Kars
                        push in a more correct direction to MBT than successive evolutions from T-44 through T-55 to MBT.

                        So the T64 is a very "reasonable compromise", it is actually a "hybrid" of the "T" and "IS" tanks. From a pair of T64-T72, the first is more IS ...
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 25 August 2013 12: 09 New
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        T64 status reached years through 15,

                        This is due to the mass limitations that were applied at the beginning of the design.
                        Quote: svp67
                        about the times of the creation of IS7 Soviet industry was even weaker

                        Your IS-7 is, in your opinion, such an unbearably technical unit that it becomes scary. For experimental tank design after abandoning the IS-7, you probably spent so much money that a couple of hundred IS-7 could be blazed up with pressure. And all because of the weight limit of 50 tons.
                        Quote: svp67
                        So the T64 is a very "reasonable compromise", it is actually a "hybrid" of the "T" and "IS" tanks.

                        Well, here I completely disagree, there is nothing from the IS in the T-64, it is the evolution of the T-44 / T-55 that is, getting MBT from the MEDIUM tank, I think that MBT from the IS-7 would be faster and more efficient.
                      3. svp67
                        svp67 25 August 2013 12: 15 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, here I completely disagree, there is nothing from the IS in the T-64
                        I will not prove for a long time, at the expense of the chassis and the presence of loading mechanisms, you just take a look at the body of the first T64 - it still has a semblance of a "pike nose". Show me this on tanks of the "T" series ...
                      4. Kars
                        Kars 25 August 2013 12: 19 New
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        Just take a look at the case of the first T64s - it still has a "pike nose" look.

                        I don’t know, I don’t know.
                        Quote: svp67
                        the presence of loading mechanisms

                        In the T-10 there was MZ, there was a loader, I remember exactly.
                      5. svp67
                        svp67 25 August 2013 12: 25 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        In the T-10 there was MZ, there was a loader, I remember exactly.

                        "Tray" on which the loader threw the selected type of ammunition, that is, half MZ.
                        Yes here is the predecessor of T64 - about430
                        Here, even the muzzle brake is still present, and in general the general layout is like on the T10M, but now the T64
                      6. Kars
                        Kars 25 August 2013 12: 32 New
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        "Tray" on which the loader threw the selected type of ammunition, that is, half MZ.

                        If honestly - this is too loudly said, and does not mean anything special.
                        Quote: svp67
                        Yes here is the predecessor of T64 - about430

                        There is no pike nose in sight.
                        Quote: svp67
                        There’s even a muzzle brake

                        The muzzle brake is also not an indicator.
                      7. svp67
                        svp67 25 August 2013 12: 40 New
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        There is no pike nose in sight.
                        For you, everything is only "black" and "white". Is the word "similarity" familiar to you? And you do not see the form of VLD ob430 and T64, in the area of ​​the mech.water hatch? From the complete "pike" had to be abandoned, due to the introduction of multilayer armor, it turned out too technologically inconvenient, mass production was not ensured. But they tried to leave in the area of ​​the hatch, but then, for the sake of manufacturability, they refused it on the T64A ...
                      8. Kars
                        Kars 25 August 2013 12: 44 New
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        You do not see the VLD form of the 430 and T64, in the area of ​​the mechanical water hatch?

                        I see well the reception with the T-55. And I don’t see the reception with heavy tanks. Even if there is something remotely similar in the area of ​​the driver’s hatch.

                        Either they will have to admit that the T-64 is just a new tank, or that it is a close relative of the Soviet medium - but not heavy at all.
                      9. svp67
                        svp67 25 August 2013 13: 32 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        I can clearly see the succession with the T-55. And I don’t see the succession with heavy tanks
                        leave to each his own.
                        If you do not see similarities between these machines

                        and desperately prove that the main "dad" is this
                        then ... Then I can say one thing that would be strange that Morozov, starting with ob.430 to create a fundamentally new tank, of course, in the future, I would not use the solutions that worked successfully on his previous ones to solve the problems that arise vehicles, but it was a necessary measure, initially the enormous influence of our heavy tanks on the design decisions of the promising MBT is very visible ...
                      10. Kars
                        Kars 25 August 2013 13: 37 New
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        If you do not see similarities between these machines

                        no, I don’t see - I see a gradual increase in the caliber of the gun from 85-100-115 to 125 mm, with the mobility characteristic of a medium tank. The increased protection on the T-64 was achieved due to the combined armor
                      11. svp67
                        svp67 25 August 2013 14: 07 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        no, I don’t see, I see
                        I feel sorry for you ...
                        Quote: Kars
                        I see a gradual increase in the caliber of the gun from 85-100-115 to 125 mm, with the mobility characteristic of a medium tank
                        This is the general concept of MBT. Specifically, though. The designers of the Malyshev plant tried to solve it - relying on the experience of creating heavy IS tanks - the chassis, hull shape, fenders, gradual revision and adoption of decisions previously used on medium tanks, that is, an attempt to take the best from all models and reduce the cost of production .. Along the way, the evolution of a medium tank was just followed by the "unloved" Tagilians, in whose tanks the roller recognizable from the T34 is still used ...
                      12. Kars
                        Kars 25 August 2013 15: 50 New
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        The designers of the Malyshev plant tried to solve it - based on the experience of creating heavy IS tanks

                        Well, what can I say - give a proof (links, text)
                      13. svp67
                        svp67 25 August 2013 15: 55 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        Well, what can I say - give a proof (links, text)

                        Why look for a long time - just type "tank object 430" and read, at least this
                        The case was made of rolled steel sheets. The upper part was made by analogy with the T-10 from monolithic armor plates with a thickness of 120-mm with an angle of rotation of 45 degrees and an inclination of 60 degrees.
                      14. Kars
                        Kars 25 August 2013 16: 07 New
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        The upper part was made by analogy with the T-10 of monolithic armor plates with a thickness of 120-mm with an angle of rotation

                        Well, yes, monolithic armor plates are the hallmark of heavy tanks


                        http://flibusta.net/b/237761/read
              2. Kars
                Kars 25 August 2013 20: 16 New
                +1
                Quote: svp67
                initially, the huge influence of our heavy tanks on the design decisions of the promising MBT is very visible.

                Well invisible and that's it.
                just skating rinks - and that’s non-defining, I gave a link to Chobitka’s book - for some reason there’s not a hint how to miss a huge influence.
        2. svp67
          svp67 25 August 2013 13: 09 New
          0
          Quote: Kars
          If honestly - this is too loudly said, and does not mean anything special.
          According to the "primer" this unit has a name - "chambering mechanism" and that says it all. Something similar was later applied on our "artillery self-propelled guns" - self-propelled howitzers, for example, on the 2S1 "Carnation", produced in Kharkov. It is very similar ... although the SG has separate loading ...
        3. Kars
          Kars 25 August 2013 13: 20 New
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          According to the "ABC book", this unit has a name - "chambering mechanism" and that says it all

          Exactly - the SENDER, but not the loading mechanism. If you make concessions, then the recharger is a quarter automatic,)) a quarter of the MZ. And these units have been used in ship artillery a long time ago, we can start to conduct a pedigree from there.
        4. svp67
          svp67 25 August 2013 13: 24 New
          0
          Quote: Kars
          These units have long been used in naval artillery, we can begin to conduct a pedigree from there.

          And no one does not hide it. The first MZ, and this is the beginning of the 40s, for 107mm tank guns were created on the basis, or rather, using the experience of naval MZ ..., and in the future this was also so.
        5. Kars
          Kars 25 August 2013 13: 39 New
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          rather, with the application of the experience of ship MZ

          all the same
        6. svp67
          svp67 25 August 2013 13: 44 New
          0
          Quote: Kars
          all the same
          You so want to cling to terms. So they change their values ​​over time. Initially, the "machine gun", as a type of small arms, is not what we understand now. So it is with the mechanism for accelerating the loading of a tank gun. What in the 40s and 50s was proudly called the "loading mechanism" is now only a part of it - in the form of a "discharging mechanism" ...
        7. Kars
          Kars 25 August 2013 13: 48 New
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          You so want to cling to the terms

          Although not terms, you can consider how much work on loading is carried out by the Ministry of Health and the rammer.
          I already agreed to a quarter of Mz, but even this does not provide evidence of the T-64's succession with heavy tanks.
        8. svp67
          svp67 25 August 2013 14: 27 New
          0
          Quote: Kars
          I already agreed to a quarter of Mz, but even this does not provide evidence of the T-64's succession with heavy tanks.
          Show me at least one medium tank, in which there was at least a "rammer"
        9. Kars
          Kars 25 August 2013 15: 52 New
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          Show me at least one medium tank, in which there was at least a "rammer"

          But why? Does it prove something? The rammer is not the Ministry of Health, and he did not lead to a reduction in the crew.
  6. svp67
    svp67 25 August 2013 13: 12 New
    0
    Or here on the Ural 2S19 "Msta", but here is a more interesting mechanism, and I honestly do not know why the "Tagilians" do not want to put something like that on their cars, especially since there is a fully automatic version of such a MZ ...
  7. Kars
    Kars 25 August 2013 12: 33 New
    +1
    The case of the T-62 is also very similar
  8. svp67
    svp67 25 August 2013 12: 46 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    The case of the T-62 is also very similar

    On T44 - Yes
  9. svp67
    svp67 25 August 2013 12: 06 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    Even now, the IS-7 can be compared quite well with the Challenger 2
    You can compare it, but is it worth it ... The IS7 is a bunker moving slightly along the battlefield, requiring in order to deliver it, at least the reconstruction of the entire railway network and all the automobile bridges of the USSR ...
  10. Kars
    Kars 25 August 2013 12: 16 New
    +1
    Quote: svp67
    IS7 is a bunker moving slightly along the battlefield, requiring, in order to deliver it, at least restructuring the entire railway network and all the automobile bridges of the USSR ...

    Well, it’s you who has bent. Something that Germany used to carry the Kingtiger in battle, although the CT engine was too weak. Yes, and the IS-4 was not much smaller.
    And now for some reason, the Abrams, Merkava, Challengers carry and move.

    And for fun
    T-72 body width
    3460
    IS-7
    3400
  11. svp67
    svp67 25 August 2013 13: 01 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    Well, it’s you who has bent. Something that Germany used to carry the Kingtiger in battle, although the CT engine was too weak. Yes, and the IS-4 was not much smaller.
    And now for some reason, the Abrams, Merkava, Challengers carry and move.
    You touch on a topic that you understand even less. Have you been to Germany, have you seen road bridges there? If not, then I will tell you - they are made of stone and mostly old, with a carrying capacity of at least 30 tons, according to the signs, and that means they can withstand up to 40 tons. Honestly, when driving single tanks, we used this, the main thing was to "persuade" the German police to drive around the corner of the forest, so that they would not know anything ... But this is particular. For a long time, our automobile bridges were wooden, with a carrying capacity of about 20 tons, only in the 60s they began to build reinforced concrete bridges, but even then ... storage bases, and so back in the 80s, the ISUs stored there, ISs were driven across the bridge, across the railway one by one and not when not in a column, since the bridge really "walked" under the tank. The show is not for the faint of heart ...
    Quote: Kars
    Something Germany carried the King Tiger, used it in battle - even though the CT engine was too low-powered.
    We drove. On railway platforms, especially when crossing water barriers, as more than one road or pontoon bridge would not have stood them. Why they were thrown during the retreat, reaching the rivers, they didn’t have a chance to cross on their own to that bank, as often and time for preparation, loading and transfer - and this is about 2 hours ... So, in that situation, it was in the 50s that our command and leadership was right, abandoning the IS7. The country would not just pull it economically ...
  12. Kars
    Kars 25 August 2013 13: 30 New
    +1
    Quote: svp67
    Have you been to Germany, saw automobile bridges there?

    CT-68 tons, Tiger -56 tons were used not only in Germany.
    Quote: svp67
    Our automobile bridges for a long time were wooden, with a carrying capacity of about 20 tons,

    Well, they were planning to use the Soviet breakthrough tanks across the Soviet hinterland, especially considering that the Soviet troops were in Germany and Hungary, and the war was planned in Europe.
    Quote: svp67
    Why they were thrown during the retreat

    More often they were thrown out because of mechanical breakdowns and lack of fuel, than because of the inability to force a water barrier.


    As with the design of иiften. one of the most critical was the problem of the masses. The specification of the general staff limited the mass of the prospective tank to 54,8 tons (the weight of the tanker Chiften Mk.5), but during the design of the project MBT-80, British experts concluded that it was impossible to reinforce the body armor while maintaining the weight of the new tank at the mass level " Chiften ”Mk.5. It was necessary to increase the mass to 60-62 t, in this case there was an opportunity to strengthen the booking of the frontal part of the hull and the tower, as well as the sides.

    MVEE engineers, in order to justify the possibility of increasing the mass, advanced the thesis about the insignificant difference between 50- and 60-ton tanks. So, with equal specific power and pressure on the ground, the mobility, average speed, acceleration and throughput will be about the same. One of the criteria that limits the weight of the tank, is the carrying capacity of road bridges. The British conducted an analysis of the distribution in the European theater of war of engineering structures that limit the mobility of tanks; It turned out that most of the bridges were designed for 20 tons, that is, they would equally fail under the 50-ton tank and under the 60 t tank, and the bridges with a load capacity of 50 and 60 t were “spread” across the territory of Europe approximately evenly. As a result of this kind of research and analysis, it was possible to convince the military to raise the bar of the upper mass limit to the required 60-62.
    Quote: svp67
    The country would not just pull it economically ...
    Well, the economy should not be affected. The USSR made a lot of unnecessary multimillion-dollar expenses - starting with ten prototypes of heavy tanks weighing in 50 tons, ending feeding the socialist Negroes.
  13. svp67
    svp67 25 August 2013 13: 56 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    CT-68 tons, Tiger -56 tons were used not only in Germany.
    The battalions of heavy tanks that existed in the German army inflicted huge losses on the armored and mechanized forces of the Red Army. When defending designated areas of land or objects, battalions of heavy tanks sometimes remained cut off from their troops, pressed against water barriers. For example, the 507th heavy tank battalion was defending in the area of ​​Grudusk-Mlaviy-Brodniki-Grudets. A large number of Pz.VI N tanks remained on the eastern bank of the Vistula, without bridges of sufficient carrying capacity. Therefore, the Germans, so that the tanks did not fall into the hands of our troops, were forced to destroy the 22 "Tiger". This is much more than the battalion’s combat losses over the entire period of its existence, given the fact that during the battle the battalion lost the maximum 2-3 tank. Similar cases occurred with the 3th company of the 506th heavy tank battalion near Zloshchev, with the 502th SS heavy tank battalion in August 1944 on the Sekwan River.
    http://www.tinlib.ru/transport_i_aviacija/tehnika_i_vooruzhenie_1999_03/p10.php
  14. Kars
    Kars 25 August 2013 14: 00 New
    +1
    and? this is a privacy. if Porytsa I find where T-34 threw themselves in front of water barriers, and bridges broke under them.
  15. svp67
    svp67 25 August 2013 15: 22 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    and? this is a privacy. if Porytsa I find where T-34 threw themselves in front of water barriers, and bridges broke under them.
    I have been trying for an hour to prove that the road network of the USSR was weak and the adoption of even the KV and T34 tanks required its reconstruction, not to mention the adoption of IS7 ... And this is such money that even the "lunar program" will seem like child's play ...
  16. Kars
    Kars 25 August 2013 15: 43 New
    +1
    Quote: svp67
    I’m trying to prove to you that the road network of the USSR

    There are always railways, and somehow 50 ton tanks were used.
    And money in infrastructure is a capital investment that needs to be done for anyone.

    Heavy bridge fleet TMP is a service ferry used for the construction of bridge and ferry crossings with a carrying capacity of up to 70 tons.
    Quote: svp67
    required its reconstruction,

    Is it so ubiquitous? Even in the darkness of thoracic?
  17. svp67
    svp67 25 August 2013 14: 46 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    Well, they were planning to use the Soviet breakthrough tanks across the Soviet hinterland, especially considering that the Soviet troops were in Germany and Hungary, and the war was planned in Europe.

    And you think - who needed tank avalanches of "supertanks", themselves stopping at each water barrier, waiting for them to be ferried, for lighter tanks this problem also exists, but to a much lesser extent, since for them bridges of suitable carrying capacity are still on the way you come across movements more often .., otherwise here's a picture
    will not be uncommon ...
  18. Kars
    Kars 25 August 2013 15: 48 New
    +1
    Quote: svp67
    And you think - who needed tank avalanches of "supertanks" themselves stopping at every water barrier,

    And for whom did they come up with OPVT? Pontoon parks? T-64, by the way, despite its 38 tons, didn’t swim either, and sorry, any less experienced opponent would blow up anyway, both capital and 20 tunnels.

    unfortunately, these photos were also not uncommon.
    And forcing it is not a fact that there the T-34 would have shown itself better.
  19. svp67
    svp67 26 August 2013 01: 08 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    and bridges, sorry any less experienced opponent will blow up in any case, both capital and 20 tunnels.
    But let’s tear ... for this we have GSP in stock


    56 tonnage ...
    or here's a new Omsk joint venture based on T80
  20. Kars
    Kars 26 August 2013 09: 53 New
    +1
    Quote: svp67
    But let’s tear ... for this we have GSP in stock

    I also mentioned pantone crossings with carrying capacity in 70 tons.
  21. svp67
    svp67 27 August 2013 00: 55 New
    0
    Quote: Kars
    I also mentioned pantone crossings with carrying capacity in 70 tons.

    GSP - a means of the first cast, a floating ferry bridge is already some of another ... more serious
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 19 August 2013 11: 03 New
    +3
    Interesting material, but really - not enough.

    And the IS-7 is generally a unique machine. This is a kind of concept idea. If we went for its development, the domestic tank building would be completely different.

    The existing guns of the 2-46 family are quite good, but upgrading it without changing the size of the projectile and charge is quite problematic, and changing the transporters of AZ and MZ will cost a pretty penny.

    We’ll come to increase the caliber anyway.
    It seems the "nine" of the gun is riveting to us, Good luck to him!
    1. svp67
      svp67 19 August 2013 18: 28 New
      +3
      Quote: Aleks tv
      The existing guns of the 2-46 family are quite good, but upgrading it without changing the size of the projectile and charge is quite problematic, and changing the transporters of AZ and MZ will cost a pretty penny.

      So it is already in the plans to upgrade the old T72, T80 and T90
      Here is about.187,
      we can say "unlucky", because apparently it will remain an "object" and never "T", but it's a pity he was better suited for the role of T90. So it has a 125mm 2A66 (D-91T) installed. More "tough", more "punctual" and allowing the use of BOPS of increased power ...
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 19 August 2013 22: 55 New
        +2
        The 187 is a worthy rival to the T-90. Even too much ...
        Factories always have several options.
        All questions to the Ministry of Defense and politicians. The first order the "music" that they consider correct, the second - pay in the amount that they consider possible.

        And we serve on what they ultimately do.

        As soon as I saw the drawing of this car, I wanted to try it at the tankodrome - I wonder what it feels like to be a mehan? what's his review?
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 22 August 2013 22: 55 New
          0
          Quote: Aleks tv
          187 object

          A similar shape of the bow first appeared on the Chelyabinsk object 785.
          187 object
        2. svp67
          svp67 24 August 2013 00: 52 New
          0
          Quote: Aleks tv
          As soon as I saw the drawing of this car, I wanted to try it at the tankodrome - I wonder what it feels like to be a mehan? what's his review?
          Judging by this photo is normal,
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 24 August 2013 10: 19 New
            0
            Quote: svp67
            Judging by this photo is normal,

            smile If the driver is sitting on a camping trip, then the review is like on a motorcycle.
            Interestingly, he sees through the triplex, sitting on the battlefield. The most advanced versions of the object 187 (No. 5 and No. 6) had the optics of the driver behind the hatch, under the tower itself (as in my photo).
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 24 August 2013 10: 37 New
              0
              Quote: Bad_gr
              had the optics of the driver behind the hatch, under the tower itself (as in my photo).

              I think the review of the driver 187 is comparable to the review of the driver of the BMP.
            2. svp67
              svp67 24 August 2013 17: 56 New
              0
              Quote: Bad_gr
              If the driver is sitting on a camping trip, then the review is like on a motorcycle.
              Interestingly, he sees through the triplex, sitting on the battlefield. The most advanced versions of the object 187 (No. 5 and No. 6) had the optics of the driver behind the hatch, under the tower itself (as in my photo).

              In this photo you can clearly see that the VLD is of a broken type, has different angles of inclination, and as a result, the overview is m. through the triplex, and they are exactly under the head of the MV, nothing is blocking ... And I think it is somewhat better than on BMP 1,2, in which the VLD is straight and quite long ...

              It is likely even higher than that of BMP 3 (presumably)
              , somewhere at the level of PT 76
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 24 August 2013 19: 00 New
                0
                Quote: svp67
                In this photo you can clearly see that the VLD is of a broken type, has different angles of inclination, and as a result, the overview is m. through the triplex, and they are exactly under the head of the MV, nothing is blocking ... And I think it is somewhat better than on BMP 1,2, in which the VLD is straight and quite long ...

                The layout of the hull for the layout of the tank "Object 187"

                The layout of the hull for the layout of the tank "Object 187A"

                Schematics took from here http://rosinform.ru/2013/08/05/istoriya-sozdaniya-russkogo-perspektivnogo-tanka-
                kak-delali-abrams-kaput /
        3. svp67
          svp67 24 August 2013 18: 23 New
          0
          Quote: Aleks tv
          As soon as I saw the drawing of this car, I wanted to try it at the tankodrome - I wonder what it feels like to be a mehan?

          Yes, I would like to ride a lot and try it out in shooting, for example, at such an object 287
  • chenia
    chenia 19 August 2013 11: 56 New
    +2
    What kind of corporal approach? Many assume that the solution to all combat missions will occur exclusively through this technique, and they don’t take into account the whole range of weapons of the unit and compound.

    And hence the exorbitant requirements for a separate technique.

    Quote: svp67
    That is, the rejection of MBT? Not logical


    In the combined arms army there are more than a thousand tanks, in a separate TB no more than 40. Well, where is the rejection of the MBT concept?

    Quote: Flood
    And for other tasks there are already powerful self-propelled guns.


    I agree, but we must immediately solve the problem of covering the direct-fire self-propelled guns (self-propelled guns units). And this may require significant effort and money.
    1. svp67
      svp67 19 August 2013 18: 43 New
      0
      Quote: chenia
      In the combined arms army there are more than a thousand tanks, in a separate TB no more than 40. Well, where is the rejection of the MBT concept?
      In the tank armies of the Red Army there were three corps and another brigade equipped with T34 and similar medium tanks of about 1000 units, but if necessary, either a heavy tank regiment or a breakthrough brigade, on ISs and similar heavy tanks, could indulge from the "front kit" of the army. So the regiment consisted of 25 vehicles ... Does this remind you of anything?
  • Yon_Silent
    Yon_Silent 23 August 2013 19: 41 New
    +1
    There has already been an article about object "292" on topwar at http://topwar.ru/657-obekt-292-takim-dolzhen-byl-byt-t-95.html. And everything is also very concise. The most tsimes-words of the chief designer Popov about the subject. I quote "We liked this idea not only because it is one of the main calibers of land and sea artillery, and, therefore, in the future to a high degree of unified, but also because it made it possible to use a projectile of increased power to combat tanks, helicopters and infantry. "
    The main look at the root! Caliber matters, of course. But where you get from this caliber is much more important. Does anyone have any idea how you can even get from a tank on a maneuvering helicopter? In fact, it is very simple to imagine if the firing is carried out with a guided munition, like "Cobra" or "Reflex". And for this, the tank's gun must be smooth and have as large a caliber as possible.
    1. svp67
      svp67 23 August 2013 19: 45 New
      0
      Quote: Jon_ Quiet
      And for this, the tank’s cannon should be smooth and have as large a caliber as possible.
      In general, a "smooth" or "rifled" barrel has little effect on the possibility of launching a controlled projectile, it is more on the speed of the BPS and the survivability of the barrel affects ...
      1. Yon_Silent
        Yon_Silent 23 August 2013 20: 44 New
        +1
        You can't shoot with a rifled BOPS) And so, yes, if we want to raise the muzzle velocity, then either the pressure must be increased (and this is barrel wear), or the length of this barrel is also not an option. But please note that all domestic tanks with KUV (this is "Cobra" on the T-64B and T-80, "Reflex" on the T-72 and T-90) - have just a smooth-bore gun. And it’s a very tempting idea - not to leave the tank defenseless against helicopters.
        1. svp67
          svp67 23 August 2013 20: 55 New
          0
          Quote: Jon_ Quiet
          ... But please note, all domestic tanks with KUV (this is "Cobra" on the T-64B and T-80, "Reflex" on the T-72 and T-90)
          But the 9K116-1 "Bastion" - shot with a RED 100 mm TP T55.
          Not to mention the corrected artillery shells "Centimeter", "Krasnopol", "Kitolov" ...
      2. Yon_Silent
        Yon_Silent 23 August 2013 21: 10 New
        +1
        Ah, great))) it is very nice to chat with a knowledgeable person. Yes, it was, the designers had to make a rotating belt on the bottom of the throwing device.
        But the meaning of my first post is still a bit away from the discussion of these things, although this is interesting to me. For a six-inch caliber, you still have to fire a guided shot. Moreover, its application lies within the framework of the current concept of "smart weapons"
        1. svp67
          svp67 23 August 2013 21: 17 New
          0
          Quote: Jon_ Quiet
          For a six-inch caliber, you still have to make a guided shot
          The question of the types of ammunition used will be decided at the moment when the question of TRANSITION to the new caliber of tank guns will be decided. And by then there is a lot that could change ...
          1. Yon_Silent
            Yon_Silent 23 August 2013 21: 31 New
            +1
            And what, in your opinion, can fundamentally change in order to require a thorough review of the assortment of existing types of shells?
            1. svp67
              svp67 23 August 2013 21: 36 New
              0
              Quote: Jon_ Quiet
              And what, in your opinion, can fundamentally change in order to require a thorough review of the assortment of existing types of shells?
              The appearance of weapons using other physical principles ...
              1. Yon_Silent
                Yon_Silent 23 August 2013 22: 17 New
                +1
                to weapons on the NFP is still quite close) while everything comes down to problems with batteries. And in truth, I don’t really want to make a choice, from which to die, from a laser beam or from a line from AK.
                In addition, they do not like to introduce fundamental innovations in us until something like this starts up at the adversary.
  • svp67
    svp67 25 August 2013 16: 19 New
    +1
    Quote: Kars
    Well, yes, monolithic armor plates are the hallmark of heavy tanks
    You somehow look and read it is somehow strange. No, the use of MONOLITHIC armored plates is not a hallmark of heavy tanks, it is - the methods of their connection and the applied form of the hull ...
    Well, okay, but how do you like this "Object" numbered 227 of 1957, for me it is better than IS 7 ... So here are applied:
    - Track rollers of small diameter with internal cushioning were structurally similar to the rollers of the first KB tanks and gave savings in machine weight,
    - On the extreme supports provided hydraulic shock absorbers of a telescopic type.
    - placed on the sides ejectors cooling systems
    - A semi-automatic cassette loading mechanism was installed. The shells were placed vertically in a closed chain conveyor located in the rear of the fighting compartment on a rotating floor outside the gun’s recoil, and the shells were stacked horizontally on a special conveyor installed in the tower’s recess. The projectile automatically rotated to a horizontal position and fed to the line of sending. Next, the projectile on the tray was connected to the sleeve, after which the whole shot in one move of the rammer was fed into the chamber of the gun.
    Doesn't this remind you of anything?
    1. Kars
      Kars 25 August 2013 16: 26 New
      +1
      Quote: svp67
      Well, okay, but how do you like this "Object" No. 227 of 1957, for me it is better than IS 7.

      That's just the difference in almost 10 years.
      The 277 object was developed on the basis of components and assemblies of the IS-7 and T-10 heavy tanks.

      All cool buns could turn out to be on the IS-7 in the process of refinement and mass production.

      Quote: svp67
      A semi-automatic cassette loading mechanism was installed.

      This is closer. But all the same, succession with strands does not follow from this. The Soviet MBT is the gradual improvement of the MEDIUM tank.
      1. svp67
        svp67 25 August 2013 16: 47 New
        +1
        Quote: Kars
        But still

        Well, once again I’m convinced that in disputes you simply cling to some, not always important facts, I don’t notice more important and obvious, but contrary to your theory.
        Show me on which medium tank were installed:
        - rollers of small diameter with internal cushioning,
        - ejection cooling system,
        - telescopic shock absorbers,
        - connection of armor at angles in two or more planes ...
        And I agree with you ...
        1. Kars
          Kars 25 August 2013 19: 33 New
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          - rollers of small diameter with internal cushioning,
          - ejection cooling system,
          - telescopic shock absorbers,
          - connection of armor at angles in two or more planes ...

          And what are the hallmarks of heavy Soviet tanks?

          And in all tanks, the armor is connected at an angle in at least two planes.
          1. svp67
            svp67 25 August 2013 19: 38 New
            0
            Quote: Kars
            And what are the hallmarks of heavy Soviet tanks?

            Post-war - yes.
            Quote: Kars
            And in all tanks, the armor is connected at an angle in at least two planes.

            And in our post-war HEAVY tanks, at least in three, as in the prototype and in the first production MBT ...
            1. Kars
              Kars 25 August 2013 20: 14 New
              +1
              Quote: svp67
              Post-war - yes

              I never thought that a shock absorber, even a telescopic one, could determine the category of a tank.
              Quote: svp67
              And in our post-war HEAVY tanks, at least in three, as in the prototype and in the first production MBT ...

              by the way, and on prototypes I also did not see any pike nose, VLD is a little not even and that’s it.
              1. svp67
                svp67 25 August 2013 20: 54 New
                0
                Quote: Kars
                I never thought that a shock absorber, even a telescopic one, could determine the category of a tank.
                So do not try to look dumber than you really are.
                To begin with, we had a debate over which medium or heavy tanks were the primary basis for the creation of MBT, in our history it is T64. You prove that it is T54, but I mean that it is our heavy post-war tanks ... But now you are trying to transfer the conversation it is not clear which plane.
                But even so, I will tell you that our medium tanks also had shock absorbers, but "bladed", but "telescopic" ones, those that are still on the T64 and T80 - were put on heavy ones ...
                1. Kars
                  Kars 25 August 2013 21: 21 New
                  +1
                  Quote: svp67
                  You prove that it is T54

                  I do not prove the T-55, I argue that the T-64 aka MBT was a continuation of the concept of a medium tank which increased firepower. At the same time, the T-64 is EXISTINGLY a new tank, while it was ORDERED in the framework of 36-38 tons without any justification for this weight, when the British rather calmly used the 48 ton centurion from Korea to Vietnam and the Middle East.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 25 August 2013 22: 28 New
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    36-38 tons without any justification
                    Yes, who told you. There was only one justification - facilitating the maneuver of tank formations using the capacity of the existing and existing automobile and railway networks ... And besides, the possibility of further modernization.
              2. svp67
                svp67 25 August 2013 21: 08 New
                0
                Quote: Kars
                by the way, and on prototypes I also did not see any pike nose, VLD is a little not even and that’s it.
                There is still no "full pike nose" there, I called it a likeness for a reason, because if you mentally continue the configuration of the upper part of the nose, then you can calmly see it (pike nose). Even then, knowing about the experimental work on multilayer armor barriers and in order to increase the "manufacturability" from its full version, in the future, again, again in order to increase the "manufacturability", the nose was completely straightened. By the way, at our training ground in the school there were several dozen T64 corps, and so on the frontal sheet some of them had additional armor "welds", which made the nose shape even more like a "pike"
                1. Kars
                  Kars 25 August 2013 21: 16 New
                  +1
                  Quote: svp67
                  about similarity, because if you mentally continue the configuration of the upper part of the nose, then you can calmly see it (pike nose).

                  Well, if it were a frontal part, or the corners weren’t even on the VLD, but on the roof of the hull.
                  Quote: svp67
                  a few dozen T64 hulls, and so on the frontal sheet, some had "welding"

                  I could not see such people.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 25 August 2013 22: 01 New
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    I could not see such people.
                    Of course I don’t know if they are standing there right now, but when I was at home, I’ve studied at the KhvvTKU training ground near the village of Podvorki, Kharkiv Oblast
              3. svp67
                svp67 25 August 2013 21: 20 New
                0
                Quote: Kars
                tank category.
                And most importantly, there is an explanation why the Morozov Design Bureau chose the solutions of heavy tanks as the primary basis. Morozov set himself the overwhelming task - to create a MBT, which in its combat qualities - armor protection and firepower was equal to heavy, and in terms of maneuverability and weight - medium. Namely, similar tasks were more acute for the designers of heavy tanks, so they found and applied more risky solutions. So everything is natural ... from where on the first MBT there are small rollers and a nose piece of complex shape and everything else.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 25 August 2013 21: 26 New
                  +1
                  Quote: svp67
                  . So everything is natural ... from where on the first MBT there are small rollers and a nose piece of complex shape and everything else.

                  Well, small rollers with an openwork caterpillar went from weight restrictions, the nose part, well, I already spoke about the nose part.

                  Quote: svp67
                  Morozov set himself the task of creating MBT

                  for a start, he could not pose such a task - the term MBT did not exist yet, but the task was to create a medium tank capable of holding the English L7
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 25 August 2013 21: 32 New
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    Well, small rollers with an openwork caterpillar went from weight restrictions, the nose part, well, I already spoke about the nose part.
                    So on heavy tanks - the same problem - all the weight in the armor and the cannon, and he is also not unlimited, so they looked for solutions to reduce weight ...
                  2. svp67
                    svp67 25 August 2013 21: 35 New
                    0
                    Quote: Kars
                    for a start, he could not pose such a task - the term MBT did not exist yet, but the task was to create a medium tank capable of holding the English L7
                    The term comes when it becomes necessary. MBT explains everything I want to say at the moment. And it was precisely this shape of the nose that made it possible to increase the armor resistance, without increasing the thickness of the armor ..., and also mean weight
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 26 August 2013 09: 52 New
                      +1
                      Quote: svp67
                      MBT explains everything I want to say at the moment

                      But the fact remains - the order is for the medium tank.
                      Quote: svp67
                      And it was this shape of the nose that increased the armor resistance

                      There is no pike nose there, only if the geometry is changed very much. The standard two plates are VLD and NLD, small rumps of the roof of the hull. And the armor resistance is increased not due to the form, but due to the combined armor.
    2. Yemelya
      Yemelya 25 August 2013 16: 45 New
      +1
      Quote: svp67
      - A semi-automatic cassette loading mechanism was installed. The shells were placed vertically in a closed chain conveyor located in the rear of the fighting compartment on a rotating floor outside the gun’s recoil, and the shells were stacked horizontally on a special conveyor installed in the tower’s recess. The projectile automatically rotated to a horizontal position and fed to the line of sending. Next, the projectile on the tray was connected to the sleeve, after which the whole shot in one move of the rammer was fed into the chamber of the gun.
      Doesn't this remind you of anything?


      Wow, but I thought that there was a T-10, a rammer and that’s all. A good mechanism should have been if it worked normally. In my opinion, it is better than both AZ and MZ, which, however, requires recharging, but there are no problems after the exhaustion of the battery in the conveyor or other emergency situations caused by the breakdown of the conveyor. I think no problems installing such a mechanism about. 167 would not have arisen, then it would be possible to install 125 mm or 122 mm.

      What about the case, in the 40-50s. TsNII-48 was actively working on the creation of promising armored corps. The developments on these projects were used later in both heavy and medium tanks.
  • svp67
    svp67 25 August 2013 19: 34 New
    +1
    The picture is pleasant for the tanker's eyes and hearts ...

    1. Kars
      Kars 25 August 2013 19: 37 New
      +1
      I agree. Now there are few countries that mass produce tanks. Who are riveted?

      These are something to whom.