Project VT1. Tank nicknamed "The Leopard 3"
Creating a new military equipment is simply unthinkable without the introduction of new ideas. Most often - this requires large-scale production - you have to do with relatively simple innovations that can not significantly complicate the design. However, sometimes as an experiment, designers and the military still decide on serious amendments to classical solutions and create unique systems. One of them was an experimental pilot tank VT1 or Leopard 3 (unofficial name), developed in Germany in the seventies of the last century.
Along with the development of a new tank Leopard 2 began work on the topic of a combat vehicle designed for the longer term. In the very beginning of the 70s, the company Maschinenbau Kiel (MaK) proactively began to consider the prospects of modern tanks. It was understood that the machine under development would be ready by the time its Leopard 2 peer began to become obsolete. In the analysis of existing designs, MaK analysts and engineers concluded that the existing tank layout with a turret and only one gun was no longer able to provide the required fire indicators. In addition to this, the success of the Swedish turretless Strv 103 tank, in which it was possible to combine sufficient firepower (a 105-mm gun) and good performance, maneuverability and protection, was reflected. True, the rigid fixing of the gun required significantly complicating the suspension: vertical aiming was carried out by skewing the entire body. German engineers decided to adopt the idea of a tank without a tower, but at the same time not to be wiser with a cannon tip. At the same time, a group of engineers led by Wolfgang Matos came to the conclusion that it was necessary to install two guns on a promising tank at once. According to the designers, to achieve a significant increase in combat qualities by other means was not possible.
An experimental tank MBT-70 was chosen as the basis for the new experimental design. For mass production of this armored car was not good, but liked for use in the experimental work on the topic VT1. In accordance with the reckless layout of the future tank, the chassis was shortened, due to which, instead of six road wheels, there were only five onboard. The hydropneumatic suspension was modified accordingly. The native Continental AVCR-1100-3 diesel engine of the MBT-70 tank was replaced with the MV873-500 diesel engine. The new engine could constantly work, giving out a power of one and a half thousand horsepower, and within a short time “accelerate” to 2175 hp. In this emergency mode, the 38-ton tank had a power density over 50 HP. per ton of weight. This is about twice as high as most modern tanks. One of the reasons for the high power density was the relatively small mass of the structure. Given the experimental nature of the project, MaK engineers made experienced tanks not from special armored steel, but from lighter “conventional” grades. This saved about 2-4 tons of weight. Armored cabin was installed on the modified chassis of the MBT-70 tank. It is noteworthy that with a relatively large internal volume, it had not too large dimensions. The overall height of the VT1 was a little over two meters, which was more than centimeters smaller on the 80 of the original MBT-70.
In 1972, the assembly of the first prototypes of the VT1 tank was completed. The first copy with the index VT1-1 equipped with two 105-millimeter rifled guns L7. Both guns had automatic loaders. The tank VT1-2, in turn, received 120-mm smooth-bore guns Rh-120. However, only one gun was equipped with an automatic loader. The fact is that during the development of a new tank, designers Maschinenbau Kiel could not produce a mirror version of this unit. Therefore, one gun was charged automatically, and the crews and shells were fed manually into the second one. An interesting design of gun mounts on the VT1-1 and VT1-2 tanks. On both machines, the guns had the possibility of only vertical guidance. Moving guns in the horizontal plane was not provided. In addition, they were installed with a small vanishing angle: the aiming lines intersected at a distance of 1500 meters.
Tests of the two prototypes continued until the 1976 year. During this time, tanks drove thousands of kilometers over the range and fired hundreds of shots. First of all, it became clear that VT1, due to its very concept, is not capable of firing more or less accurate fire on the move. When firing from a single weapon, the recoil slightly turned the tank around a vertical axis, which it was necessary to fend off by turning the entire tank. This problem was only aggravated by the absence of sights from the driver. Periscopic sights Carl Zeiss PERI R12 were only the commander and gunner. Naturally, in combination with the lack of a horizontal aiming of guns, this greatly hampered the firing. In addition, restrictions on the strength of the design is not allowed to simultaneously shoot from both guns. Thus, the only way to somehow eliminate the turn of the tank when firing was "prohibited" by the design itself. It is noteworthy that in the above-mentioned Swedish tank Strv 103, the aiming was performed by the driver. To do this, he had a scope and body tilt controls.
The impossibility of stable shooting on the fly has caused many doubts about the prospects of the design. But in defense of the tank, accuracy was said when firing from the spot and from short stops. The standard NATO target for tankers (size 2,3х2,3 meters) from a distance of a kilometer was struck with a probability of about 90%. For the mid-seventies, this was considered a very good indicator. In addition, two guns with automatic loaders significantly increased the rate of fire of the tank. However, in 1976, the VT1 project was abandoned. Leopard 2 went into service, and the need for a two-gun combat vehicle disappeared for a while.
At the beginning of the 80-s many responsible persons in the field of German tank building and the command of the ground forces became supporters of the idea that the second model adopted by the Leopard had no prospects. In their opinion, this tank, although it was modern and almost the best in the world, was too closely connected with previous combat vehicles and, as a result, did not have sufficient potential in terms of modernization. How later will show story, they were wrong. But at the beginning of 80's project VT1, as the most unusual and interesting, was resumed. It was at this time that the unofficial nickname Leopard 3 finally got behind him. In connection with the problems with the alternate firing of two guns, the MaK designers, when creating a new version of the VT1 (GVT), increased the width of the hull. In addition, the guns were moved closer to the center of the cabin, which resulted in a change in the shape of the latter. As a result of these improvements, it was possible to achieve a reduction in the unfolding moment when firing. But, unfortunately, the two new experimental tanks in their fighting qualities could not come close to the existing equipment. Finally, the leadership of the Bundeswehr came to the conclusion that it was necessary to continue upgrading the Leopard 2 tank. Because of this, by the middle of 80, the GVT project was first suspended and then closed.
In fact, VT1 and GVT were not tanks, but anti-tank self-propelled artillery mounts, and not the most successful ones. An interesting idea with two guns in practice turned out to be low stability while moving and the inability to shoot while on the move. Also on the fate of the project affected its positioning. VT1, actually being a tank destroyer, was initially submitted as a new tank. Naturally, the design of the machine did not allow to fully comply with the generally accepted requirements for the latter, and it seems that no one began to promote it as an anti-tank self-propelled gun. Therefore, the development of Maschinenbau Kiel could not become a serial tank or SPG.
On the materials of the sites:
http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/
http://military.cz/
http://raigap.livejournal.com/
http://whq-forum.de/
http://btvt.narod.ru/
The first prototype of Leopard-3 VT1-2
Along with the development of a new tank Leopard 2 began work on the topic of a combat vehicle designed for the longer term. In the very beginning of the 70s, the company Maschinenbau Kiel (MaK) proactively began to consider the prospects of modern tanks. It was understood that the machine under development would be ready by the time its Leopard 2 peer began to become obsolete. In the analysis of existing designs, MaK analysts and engineers concluded that the existing tank layout with a turret and only one gun was no longer able to provide the required fire indicators. In addition to this, the success of the Swedish turretless Strv 103 tank, in which it was possible to combine sufficient firepower (a 105-mm gun) and good performance, maneuverability and protection, was reflected. True, the rigid fixing of the gun required significantly complicating the suspension: vertical aiming was carried out by skewing the entire body. German engineers decided to adopt the idea of a tank without a tower, but at the same time not to be wiser with a cannon tip. At the same time, a group of engineers led by Wolfgang Matos came to the conclusion that it was necessary to install two guns on a promising tank at once. According to the designers, to achieve a significant increase in combat qualities by other means was not possible.
An experimental tank MBT-70 was chosen as the basis for the new experimental design. For mass production of this armored car was not good, but liked for use in the experimental work on the topic VT1. In accordance with the reckless layout of the future tank, the chassis was shortened, due to which, instead of six road wheels, there were only five onboard. The hydropneumatic suspension was modified accordingly. The native Continental AVCR-1100-3 diesel engine of the MBT-70 tank was replaced with the MV873-500 diesel engine. The new engine could constantly work, giving out a power of one and a half thousand horsepower, and within a short time “accelerate” to 2175 hp. In this emergency mode, the 38-ton tank had a power density over 50 HP. per ton of weight. This is about twice as high as most modern tanks. One of the reasons for the high power density was the relatively small mass of the structure. Given the experimental nature of the project, MaK engineers made experienced tanks not from special armored steel, but from lighter “conventional” grades. This saved about 2-4 tons of weight. Armored cabin was installed on the modified chassis of the MBT-70 tank. It is noteworthy that with a relatively large internal volume, it had not too large dimensions. The overall height of the VT1 was a little over two meters, which was more than centimeters smaller on the 80 of the original MBT-70.
In 1972, the assembly of the first prototypes of the VT1 tank was completed. The first copy with the index VT1-1 equipped with two 105-millimeter rifled guns L7. Both guns had automatic loaders. The tank VT1-2, in turn, received 120-mm smooth-bore guns Rh-120. However, only one gun was equipped with an automatic loader. The fact is that during the development of a new tank, designers Maschinenbau Kiel could not produce a mirror version of this unit. Therefore, one gun was charged automatically, and the crews and shells were fed manually into the second one. An interesting design of gun mounts on the VT1-1 and VT1-2 tanks. On both machines, the guns had the possibility of only vertical guidance. Moving guns in the horizontal plane was not provided. In addition, they were installed with a small vanishing angle: the aiming lines intersected at a distance of 1500 meters.
Tests of the two prototypes continued until the 1976 year. During this time, tanks drove thousands of kilometers over the range and fired hundreds of shots. First of all, it became clear that VT1, due to its very concept, is not capable of firing more or less accurate fire on the move. When firing from a single weapon, the recoil slightly turned the tank around a vertical axis, which it was necessary to fend off by turning the entire tank. This problem was only aggravated by the absence of sights from the driver. Periscopic sights Carl Zeiss PERI R12 were only the commander and gunner. Naturally, in combination with the lack of a horizontal aiming of guns, this greatly hampered the firing. In addition, restrictions on the strength of the design is not allowed to simultaneously shoot from both guns. Thus, the only way to somehow eliminate the turn of the tank when firing was "prohibited" by the design itself. It is noteworthy that in the above-mentioned Swedish tank Strv 103, the aiming was performed by the driver. To do this, he had a scope and body tilt controls.
The impossibility of stable shooting on the fly has caused many doubts about the prospects of the design. But in defense of the tank, accuracy was said when firing from the spot and from short stops. The standard NATO target for tankers (size 2,3х2,3 meters) from a distance of a kilometer was struck with a probability of about 90%. For the mid-seventies, this was considered a very good indicator. In addition, two guns with automatic loaders significantly increased the rate of fire of the tank. However, in 1976, the VT1 project was abandoned. Leopard 2 went into service, and the need for a two-gun combat vehicle disappeared for a while.
At the beginning of the 80-s many responsible persons in the field of German tank building and the command of the ground forces became supporters of the idea that the second model adopted by the Leopard had no prospects. In their opinion, this tank, although it was modern and almost the best in the world, was too closely connected with previous combat vehicles and, as a result, did not have sufficient potential in terms of modernization. How later will show story, they were wrong. But at the beginning of 80's project VT1, as the most unusual and interesting, was resumed. It was at this time that the unofficial nickname Leopard 3 finally got behind him. In connection with the problems with the alternate firing of two guns, the MaK designers, when creating a new version of the VT1 (GVT), increased the width of the hull. In addition, the guns were moved closer to the center of the cabin, which resulted in a change in the shape of the latter. As a result of these improvements, it was possible to achieve a reduction in the unfolding moment when firing. But, unfortunately, the two new experimental tanks in their fighting qualities could not come close to the existing equipment. Finally, the leadership of the Bundeswehr came to the conclusion that it was necessary to continue upgrading the Leopard 2 tank. Because of this, by the middle of 80, the GVT project was first suspended and then closed.
In fact, VT1 and GVT were not tanks, but anti-tank self-propelled artillery mounts, and not the most successful ones. An interesting idea with two guns in practice turned out to be low stability while moving and the inability to shoot while on the move. Also on the fate of the project affected its positioning. VT1, actually being a tank destroyer, was initially submitted as a new tank. Naturally, the design of the machine did not allow to fully comply with the generally accepted requirements for the latter, and it seems that no one began to promote it as an anti-tank self-propelled gun. Therefore, the development of Maschinenbau Kiel could not become a serial tank or SPG.
GVT-04 Double-Barreled Tank
On the materials of the sites:
http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/
http://military.cz/
http://raigap.livejournal.com/
http://whq-forum.de/
http://btvt.narod.ru/
Information