How the last Soviet tanker Boxer / Hammer was built (477 object) Part of 1. Stages of creation and layout
Development of the last Soviet promising tank “Boxer” has always been of interest to many, since in Soviet times this work was seriously classified. Little is known about her. After the collapse of the Union, everything remained in Ukraine. The groundwork for the tank was not transmitted anywhere, and there are a lot of legends and speculations about its continuation, the joint work of Russia and Ukraine on this project, the creation of the Molot tank and the even more mythical Nota tank.
The design of the tanker "Boxer" was developed in Kharkov. I was one of the project managers from the beginning of the development of the tank concept in 1979 to the end of work at the beginning of 1990. Considering that after more than thirty years this work continues to evoke genuine interest, I decided to nevertheless tell about the stages of development, the layout of the tank, the main technical characteristics, its advantages, disadvantages and the reasons for the termination of work.
The work was carried out in several stages: in 1979-1982, there was a search work on the concept of a promising tank, in 1983-1985 - research work "Rebel", the development of proposals for a new generation tank, in 1986-1991 - experimental design work " Boxer ”(477 object), development, production and testing of tank prototypes.
Work on this tank began as an initiative-driven search for the concept of a promising next-generation tank and did not ask for any documents; T-34 and T-64 were also created in Kharkov, which became the basis for their generations of tanks.
The search work later, in 1980, received the code “Topol” by order of the ministry, the Rebel research and development work in 1983 was asked by the military-industrial complex, and the OCR “Boxer” in 1986 by the decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR.
In the process of performing OCD, the layout of the tank was changed several times, and the documentation began to wear the “477A object” index. At the end of 80's, in one of the organizations, the subcontractors lost a completely secret meeting protocol in the ministry in which I participated (apparently the document was accidentally or intentionally destroyed). As a result, the development cipher had to be changed, and the tank became known as the “Hammer”. This work did not have any other cipher and indexes, the object 477А1, “Note” - these are all speculations that are not related to this tank.
There are many legends about this tank on the Internet. Some claim that it was closed due to an unsuccessful project, others, on the contrary, that in 90-s this work was continued, up to a dozen tanks were made in different cities, tests were conducted, Russia and Ukraine worked together, and Ukraine developed tank "Note". All this is speculation, there was nothing like that, I worked in the design office until 1996, and as one of the project managers, I knew everything that was being done on this tank.
In fact, this tank was drawn too closely attention of the leadership of the defense industry and the military. During the years of development of the tank, the state of work and its characteristics were repeatedly considered at scientific and technical councils of various levels, collegiums of ministries, and at meetings of the military industrial complex, the Military Technical Council of the Ministry of Defense was held specifically for this tank.
With all the problems that arose during the development and deadlines, the project was not only not going to close, on the contrary, not having begun serious tests, in the 1989 year it was ordered to begin preparations for the production of an installation batch of fifty tanks.
For consideration of the state of work and tank samples, secretaries of the Central Committee, ministers, leaders of the military industrial complex, high-ranking military officials, and defense ministers of Sokolov and Yazov came to Kharkov. I repeatedly had to report to these commissions on the status of work on the tank control complex, and I saw how much interest and importance they attached to this development.
Dozens of organizations of various ministries and departments involved in the development of new weapons, ammunition, materials, electronics, communications and navigation equipment, instrument complexes, and the most complex cooperation throughout the country were organized to work on the tank. Unfortunately, the development of the tank came in the period of "perestroika". Glaring irresponsibility at all levels did not allow to complete the work.
At the stage of research "Rebel" to test the technical solutions was made full-scale wooden mock-up and undercarriage of the tank. At the stage of the ROC "Boxer" two prototypes were made and their tests started, the assembly of the third sample, which is fundamentally different in layout and ammunition, was not completed by the time of the termination of work.
No other models and tanks in the KMDB and the subcontractors, including VNIITransmash, were made and were not transferred anywhere. The photographs and drawings of the “Boxer” tank, shown on the Internet, for some reason based on the T-64 undercarriage, have nothing to do with this tank. Works on the tank were seriously classified, the samples were never photographed, only under the heading "SS" for senior management, so there are no reliable photos.
I managed to find on the Internet only one not entirely successful photograph of this tank (the gun was turned back), which, apparently, was made much later after years at the KMBM test site in Bashkivka, where this tank was under a canopy. The tank has recognizable features, a high body, a small angle of inclination of the front armor plate and an armored “pencil case” above the turret, covering the semi-elevated cannon.
Photo tank "Boxer"
There was no question of joint work between Russia and Ukraine, they became competitors, and Ukraine categorically refused to transfer the reserve to this tank. In addition, in the 1996-1998 years in the KMDB, the Pakistani contract for the supply of T-XNUMHUD was being implemented, and there was no place for promising tanks. Perhaps at the beginning of 80-x, on the basis of the hurt “Boxer” tank, studies were conducted on the so-called “Nota” tank, but these are nothing more than spotlights on paper with the inability to implement them due to the lack of the necessary cooperation of subcontractors.
The widespread opinion that the development of a promising tank was also given to Nizhny Tagil and Leningrad is not true. Above this tank of three tank design bureaus, work was carried out only in Kharkov, in Leningrad they tried to promote T-80U, and Nizhny Tagil somehow completely dropped out of all promising works.
For all the years of the development of the tank, I do not remember a single case, so that on any issues we contacted with Leningrad and Nizhny Tagil. At the beginning of the OCD "Boxer" they presented their variants of promising tanks to the NTS of the Ministry, but these were projects for the further development of T-80 and T-72 that did not meet the specified requirements. The leaders of the ministry and the military did not even consider them seriously.
Of course, search works in these design bureaus were conducted, but without any connection to the work of the developers of weapons, ammunition and other components, they could not lead to success. Attempts were repeatedly made to substantiate the participation of these design bureaus in the development of a prospective tank by carrying out parallel work on the topics “Improvement”. Such works were actually carried out, but they had nothing to do with the development of a promising tank, since it was a cycle of works to improve the efficiency of the existing generation of tanks.
Layout of the tank
At the design stage of the tank concept, up to two dozen different tank layouts were considered. Initially, the VNIITM options were considered, but nothing acceptable was found there. The variants of arrangements being developed were considered and discussed at the meetings of scientific and technical councils with the invitation of specialists from VNIITM, GBTU, GRAU and Kubinka.
After a detailed study, two variants of the tank emerged: with two and three crews and an 125-mm cannon. The first option was a continuation of the work on the topic "Swan" (490 object), which at the beginning of 70-s A. A. Morozov, one of the creators of T-34, conducted to search for the concept of a new-generation tank, and now continued by his son, Yevgeny Morozov.
The crew of two people was placed in the tower, the movement was controlled through a television system on the tank hull. The main ammunition was located in the tank hull in the compartment between the fighting compartment and MTO, consumable in the aft niche of the tower. The main and consumable ammunition units were isolated from the crew by armored partitions and “expelling plates” that are activated when the ammunition load is detonated.
The second option was with the crew of three people, the driver in the case to the left of the gun, the commander and the gunner were next to the tower under the half-raised gun. In the tower on the left was one hatch, ammunition located on the right of the gun. In this version, the commander and gunner were in the tower below the level of the roof of the hull and were well protected. During the transition to the caliber of the 130 mm cannon, it was not possible to place the ammunition in the allocated volume, there was not enough volume to accommodate the equipment. The layout in 1983 was changed, the gunner and the commander were placed on the left one above the other, the entire volume on the right was given for ammunition.
Options for isolation of the crew from ammunition or the creation of armored capsules, as well as the use of "kick plates" at the beginning of development were considered, but they led to the non-fulfillment of other characteristics of the tank, and as a result they refused. When considering these options, the question arose whether it was possible to save the crew when the ammunition was detonated, when the tank turns into a pile of metal, which has not yet been proven.
In the choice of a crew option, two or three people, the principal issue was the workload of the crew members in carrying out the tasks assigned to them. In the study of this issue, it was proved that the combination of the functions of searching for targets and firing by one member of the crew is impossible. It was also impossible to entrust the functions of controlling one’s own and subordinate tanks to the gunner or driver, these functions were by their nature incompatible. After repeated examinations of this issue, it was decided at the councils of the chief designers and at the NTK of the GBTU in 1982 to develop a tank with a crew of three people.
In this arrangement, serious questions arose with a half-raised gun, which was located in a bed on the roof of the tower. When loading the cannon, it went down into the turret, which led to everything that was on the tank getting into the turret: water, mud, and branches. As a result, I had to book a cannon, so a “pencil box” appeared on the tower. Such a layout of the tank required a great periscopicity of the gunner’s sight, and especially the panorama of the commander, whose field of view was blocked by the gun’s protection.
With further development of the concept of the tank in 1984, it was decided to install a more powerful 152 caliber mm gun without reducing ammunition in the automated ammunition. With the adopted layout it was impossible to implement.
The layout of the tank was changed, the main ammunition unit was placed in the armored compartment in the hull between the combat compartment and MTO, and the expendable was in the niche of the stern of the turret. A commander's hatch appeared on the turret, the crew accommodation in the turret changed, the gunner was to the left of the gun, and the commander to the right.
With this arrangement, the machine began experimental design work and prototypes were made. In the process of finishing and testing of tanks, serious shortcomings of the automatic loader were revealed, the customer set more stringent requirements for ammunition, which again led to a re-assembly of the tank.
On the basis of the unitary ammunition, a new design of a drum-type automatic loader was adopted with the placement of the main ammunition in the hull and a consumable in the turret. This version of the layout of the tank on prototypes was never implemented due to the cessation of work, and the automatic drum-type loader was tested only on the stand.
In the process of carrying out the work, the layout of the tank was changed several times both for additional customer requirements and in connection with the impossibility to implement the adopted technical solutions. As far as it meets today's requirements, it is difficult to say, at least, then it was ensured that the specified requirements for separation from the generation of tanks and their means of destruction existing at that time were ensured.
To be continued ...
Information