Military Review

"292 Object". New tool for T-80

12
During the Second World War, there was a constant increase in caliber tank guns. All this led to the final formation of the appearance of a heavy tank. An example of this trend is the post-war T-10, which was equipped with a 122mm 2A17 cannon. This tank turned out to be the last Russian armored vehicle of its class. At the time when the T-10 was being mastered by the troops, Soviet tank builders were working at full speed on installing "serious caliber" guns on medium tanks. This ultimately led to the emergence of a new class - the main battle tank. The first domestic machine, which belongs to this class, the T-64A, received a smoothbore gun 2A26 of 125 mm caliber, thus surpassing the T-10 heavy tank in terms of firepower. Since then, in the domestic tank industry for some time there have been no breakthroughs in terms of weapons, or rather, its "iron" part.



In the second half of the eighties, the topic of increasing the firepower of tanks became again relevant. It is this fact that caused the start of work on the 292 Object project. The development of the new tank was entrusted to the designers of the Leningrad Kirov Plant and the VNII Transmash. N.S. Popov. In the early stages of the project, employees of the design bureau and the All-Union Scientific Research Institute worked out the theoretical part of the new weaponry. According to the calculations at that time, the tank could not have a gun of a caliber larger than 140 millimeters. This conditional boundary of the possible was determined by the technological and strength nuances of the production and operation of the gun barrel. When the caliber in 140 was exceeded, the “vitality-power” balance began to move away from the vitality. In addition, the production of such a gun according to existing technologies did not allow for adequate resources - plastic deformations had an effect. Nevertheless, the engineers again recalculated all the parameters of the necessary gun, picked up the necessary sorts of metal and began work on the creation of an experimental tool.

First decided on the caliber. An 152,4 millimeter has been selected. Of all mastered in production, he was optimal in terms of the ratio of power, power, size and weight of the instrument. However, it took some time to argue about the type of gun. First won supporters rifled guns. Arguments about the unification of ammunition with other types of equipment, the development of similar barrels in production, etc. were cited in favor of the barrel with rifling. The management of the Kirov plant has already agreed to develop an 152-mm rifled tank gun with the head of the Petrel Research Institute, but ... This was the end of 80's and the designers were unable to beat out the funding for the development of two guns at once. Therefore, the development of a rifled gun was never launched, and the "292 Object" now had to get a smooth-bore gun. Fortunately, his development had to start before the deterioration of the financial situation.

"292 Object". New tool for T-80


While some designers worked on a large-caliber instrument, others were engaged in its "carrier". The basis for the tank “Object 292” was taken as a serial tank T-80U. All units except the tower remained unchanged. The tower, in turn, had to be redone. The fact is that a larger-caliber gun had corresponding dimensions and, as a result, simply did not fit in the original combat compartment. I had to slightly increase the height of the tower and change its shape in the plan. In addition, significantly repacked the placement of ammunition. She was transferred to a special armor mounted in the back of the tower. In the upper armored panel of the new installation, rectangular plates were placed, fixed in such a way that during the detonation of the ammunition set, a blast wave, hot gases and fragments would go up beyond the limits of the habitable volume. Obviously, an armored door was also provided, covering the crew from a potential threat, but there is no exact information about this. The separate loading shots were fed into the gun with the help of an automatic loader. In view of the new arrangement of the installation, it was necessary to change its design. The final dimensions of the 152-mm smoothbore gun, fortunately, turned out to be slightly more than the 125-mm tank guns and most of the innovations in the design of the tower were nevertheless associated with the new location of the ammunition stack. The new turret with a larger gun was fully compatible with the “seat” of the T-80 tanks of all modifications. It was expected that in the future this fact will help relatively small forces to modernize the existing equipment with a significant increase in its combat performance.



The construction of the experimental “292 Object” was completed in September 1990. An experienced car from the old chassis and the new tower looked both familiar and unusual at the same time. In 1991, test firing was launched at the Rzhevsky range. Documents regarding their progress have not yet been published, but according to the project participants it is known that there were no particular problems with the new gun. Effective recoil devices coped well with their task and sufficiently reduced the shift of the gun when fired. In addition, during testing, it was found that the 152-mm cannon suspension system ensures compliance with all regulations regarding the loads on the crew during combat work.

The 292 Object project naturally had some drawbacks. They are called “childhood diseases” and the presence of these surprises no one. Any project is “ill” with them, but they can all be eliminated in the process of finishing the design. However, the yard was the beginning of the nineties. Our country was no longer up to the new tanks. And without that little funding is constantly cut, until the topic "Object 292" was closed. It was built only one copy of a promising combat vehicle, which today is stored in the armored museum of the city of Kubinka.


On the materials of the sites:
http://otvaga2004.narod.ru/
http://alternathistory.org.ua/
http://btvt.narod.ru/
http://info-rm.com/
Author:
12 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. urich
    urich 26 June 2012 09: 29
    0
    As I understand it, you really need to pump in the loot. With the current development of 2A46 M5 and shells to it, it ensures the defeat of the potential enemy’s MBT and there is no point in fundamentally raising the caliber. Further, the 152 mm smoothbore gun itself has not yet proved itself in any way. The article shows that it can be installed in a tank tower, but no more. The current development of the T-72 is on the path to modernizing the LMS. They have not been developed yet for a machine with 152mm. In fact, having driven a new cannon into an old-new tower, it is still necessary to create a new tank. But Taburetkin generally does not believe that we need new tanks. Well, or if they’re needed, they don’t know what they are needed, they’ll see enough in the West now, then they will buy a production license there. In place of the Germans, I would have painted their prototypes of double-cannon turretless tanks (the article was here a while ago), would have agreed with the Americans to advertise how they know how, 100 pounds of stools would start and we would do something like that! That's how they would spoil the domestic tank building
    1. core
      core 26 June 2012 16: 46
      -5
      Mr. Taburetkin just advocates for a fundamentally new tank, and not for further modernization of the t-72.
  2. M. Peter
    M. Peter 26 June 2012 09: 44
    +3
    125 mm has already exhausted itself, at least in the form in which it is going now.
    It’s time to move on to the new weapon.
    Let's see what Armata offers.
  3. yanus
    yanus 26 June 2012 10: 53
    +2
    urich,
    Well yes. Only there is a small nuance. New tank already design from scratch, and the gun there is not 125, but guess what caliber?))
    1. urich
      urich 26 June 2012 12: 27
      +1
      You probably mean Object 195. Although not much is known about this development. In my previous post, I tried to express the following: even with the availability of funds in this form, Object 292 would not have gone to the troops. It was an intermediate model on which promising solutions were tested and nothing more. Surely these developments are used in new objects. But. You should have noticed that with an increase in the caliber of the gun, the mass of the tank increases (according to preliminary data, object 195 is not less than 55 tons), while there is no evidence of a significant improvement in the armor protection of the new object. With such an increase in mass, the walkway must be well reliable. As well as all other nodes. Isn't that why I still can't finish Object 195? I am not against new developments. But even in this article it is written: When the caliber was exceeded in 140 mm, the balance "vitality-power" began to shift away from survivability. “Some comparative data of NATO ammunition for tank guns in relation to domestic ones show the superiority of their 120 mm shells to our 125 mm. So it’s not a matter of the caliber. Our 125 mm would have been brought to mind, and the difference of 5 mm might have had a positive effect. And so it turns out, the bigger the club, the stronger. Nobody argues that 152 mm is more powerful than 125 mm. Only the machine will be completely different. But to make 46 tons from 125 mm in power are comparable to 152 mm. probably need to strive and plus to this new LMS, increased survivability. How to do it? I don’t know, I’m not a specialist. But I think smart heads in our tank building will go in THIS direction.
  4. Kars
    Kars 26 June 2012 11: 19
    +7
    A promising project was pushed back again.
    Although with such a caliber, one should immediately go further and start using liquid propellant with direct injection into the chamber. Such experiments were carried out quite successfully in the 40's.
    I hope that your Armata will have such a step into the future.
    1. M. Peter
      M. Peter 26 June 2012 12: 32
      +1
      Quote: Kars
      Although with such a caliber, you must immediately go further and start using liquid propellant with direct injection into the chamber

      What is this? Can if not difficult to share the info?
      1. Kars
        Kars 26 June 2012 12: 52
        +2
        for example, you can read it.
        http://pentagonus.ru/publ/materialy_posvjashheny/1970_1990_gg/primenenie_zhidkik
        h_metatelnykh_veshhestv_v_artillerijskikh_sistemakh / 120-1-0-1421

        and so came across infa about the use of kerosene for the 20 mm gun in the war (meaning experiments) when it was hard with gunpowder.
        1. Argentum
          Argentum 26 June 2012 22: 17
          0
          Kars, unfortunately, was rejected not only by 292, but also by a black eagle and a thuja hucha of promising machine guns (AEK-971, A-91 and others not accepted for service). As far as I remember, the Americans dabbled with a 140mm gun, stuffed into abramycha. Such a gun must be put on a new chassis, and not on the old ones from the t72 (it’s the t-90) and t-80
          1. Kars
            Kars 26 June 2012 23: 12
            +2
            Quote: Argentum
            Such a gun must be put on a new chassis

            I can’t argue with this, but in the 90's the T-80U was just a new chassis. But for financial reasons they told me they decided to do the T-90 ---- at least if we give an analogy --- the United States would start to bring Abrams to his level M60
            1. Argentum
              Argentum 27 June 2012 00: 14
              0
              In our country, softly bursting out, it was in * opera, I would not be surprised if the Americans find themselves in such a situation just the same. And modified their m60. Well, wait, let's see what happens with the armature. By the way, it infuriates me that everywhere they shout t-90, t-90. There are only 200-300 of them if I am not mistaken. The backbone of the army is the t-72 and t-80
  5. Diesel
    Diesel 26 June 2012 14: 14
    +2
    A great option, it would extend the life of the t80 for another 20 years, it is a pity that it appeared at the wrong time (
  6. Alekseev
    Alekseev 26 June 2012 14: 34
    +5
    The 152mm cannon is, of course, significantly superior to the 2A46M. especially in terms of the power of PF, ATGM, ammunition ammunition. And BTS too. Anyone who knows not by hearsay a BO 80 with an FCS 1A33 will understand that it is a matter of talented engineers, masters of their craft, to develop and "stuff" such a weapon into a tank, and even create an acceptable AZ. No wonder, all the results are still classified. I am sure this experience will not be wasted, it will be used in the development of weapons for the tanks of the future.
  7. panzer
    panzer 26 June 2012 16: 55
    +3
    I served on the T-80, a driver. My opinion is a great suspension, engine_ song! Yes, the fuel consumption is huge, but I saw how the diesel engineers suffered in the cold! From my personal bell tower, it was necessary to develop it further.
    1. 77bor1973
      77bor1973 27 June 2012 00: 00
      +1
      They not only suffered from diesels, but also ran to bask in the T-80 !!
      1. panzer
        panzer 27 June 2012 06: 55
        +1
        Yes, on the divider it was possible to warm up and dry quickly and warm up. Soak overalls with kerosene, then hold over the divider, and again clean and beautiful!
  8. Dimka off
    Dimka off April 27 2015 10: 04
    +1
    Nevertheless, I hope that such an instrument will be put on Armata.