Unusual appearance. Advantages and disadvantages of “Object 279”

Unusual appearance. Advantages and disadvantages of “Object 279”
"Object 279" in testing, 1960. Photo by Armor.kiev.ua


In 1960, the experimental heavy tank Object 279 was launched for testing. It differed from other machines of its class in its unusual design and characteristic appearance. Subsequently, all this helped tank gain wide fame. Specific design solutions were used to enhance the basic characteristics and provide advantages over competitors. And, as tests have shown, such measures generally justified themselves - although they led to the appearance of specific shortcomings.

Special assignment


Recall история "Object 279" began in 1955-56, when it was decided to create a promising heavy tank. According to the requirements of the army, this machine for protection and armament had to surpass existing models and be distinguished by increased mobility for working on complex landscapes. At the same time, the combat weight was limited to 60 tons.

One of the options for such a tank with an index of "279" was developed under the guidance of L.S. Troyanova in the framework of cooperation of the Leningrad Kirov Plant and VNII-100. Design continued until 1959, and in 1960, the first prototype was launched for testing. Two more prototypes were not completed due to changes in plans.


General view of the tank. Scheme from the book "Domestic Armored Vehicles, XX Century", t.3

Unlike other heavy tanks, the Object 279 was developed from scratch and only based on new original solutions. This affected its design and appearance, and also allowed to fulfill all customer requirements. As a result, the tank received serious advantages over other samples of domestic and foreign development.

Improved security


Specially for the “Object 279”, from scratch, they developed the original armored hull and turret with a level of protection unique to that time. The frontal projection of the tank could withstand the hit of a 122-mm armor-piercing projectile with an initial speed of 950 m / s or 90-mm cumulative ammunition. Reservations accounted for more than half of the tank's combat weight - 32 tons.

The body was welded from four large-sized cast parts of complex curved shape. A non-removable anti-cumulative screen was installed around the perimeter, giving the case a characteristic shape. The frontal part of the hull had the greatest thickness - from 93 to 265 mm in different areas. Due to bends and rational tilt angles, the reduced thickness of the armor increased significantly, providing protection from all relevant and perspective angles.


Reservation of the hull and tower. Scheme from the book "Domestic Armored Vehicles, XX Century", t.3

The frontal and side projections of the cast tower received protection from 305 mm (bottom) to 217 mm (top); the roof was 30 mm thick with a characteristic curved shape. For additional protection, the epaulettes of the tower were slightly sunk inside the roof of the hull. Due to this, the junction of the tower and the hull was covered from shells.

According to the general characteristics of armor protection, the “Object 279” is considered the best among domestic heavy tanks. In addition, in these parameters it was not inferior to the later main battle tanks, including with combined protection.

Firepower


The basic one weapons "Object 279" was a rifled gun M-65 caliber 130 mm, equipped with an ejector and a muzzle brake. It could accelerate an armor-piercing projectile to 1050 m / s, which made it possible to penetrate 2 mm of armor at a range of 245 km (0 ° meeting angle). Also provided firing from closed positions at a distance of more than 12 km.

Fire controls included the TPD-2S stereoscopic rangefinder sight, TPN night sight, and the Thunderstorm two-plane stabilizer, which sharply increased the accuracy of the fire. The sighting complex provided for some automation equipment, which was widely used only in later projects.


The M-65 gun is the basis of the Object 279’s firepower. Figure Dogswar.ru

The ammunition included only 24 rounds of separate-shell loading, which was associated with small volumes inside the tank. In this case, part of the ammunition was placed in a mechanized installation. An electromechanical rammer was also provided. All this allowed to bring the rate of fire to 5-7 rds / min.

As an additional weapon was used KPV heavy machine gun coaxial with a cannon. It could be used against manpower, unprotected and lightly armored vehicles. It also provided for firing for shooting before using a gun.

Thus, the "Object 279" combined the high characteristics of the guns and a successful SLA with wide capabilities. No less effective was the additional weapons. The only drawbacks of the armament complex were the small ammunition load of the gun and the significant departure of the barrel.

Mobility issues


The experimental tank was equipped with a 2DG8-M diesel engine with a capacity of 1000 hp, connected to a single-flow hydromechanical transmission. With the help of the latter, the power “descended” from the body to the driving wheels handed out under the bottom. The tank received four driving wheels at once - one per track.


"Object 279", front view. The special contours of the hull and all four tracks are clearly visible. Wikimedia Commons Photos

The original chassis was based on two longitudinal beams placed under the bottom. They installed 24 road wheels (6 per track) with independent suspension. Initially, an uncontrolled hydraulic suspension was used. Then made and tested pneumatic units. Each set of rollers carried its own track of 81 tracks with a width of 580 mm. It is curious that the chassis of the Object 279, despite its complexity, weighed 10 tons and was 500 kg lighter than the chassis of the T-10 heavy tank.

With a specific power of 16,7 hp per ton tank "279" developed a speed of up to 55 km / h. The unusual undercarriage made it possible to reduce the specific ground pressure to 0,6 kg / cm76 - the PT light tank had about the same characteristics. The distance between the tracks was minimal, due to which the tank did not dare to catch the bottom of the soil. All this positively affected the patency and mobility of the tank on soils with low bearing capacity.

The mobility of the tank increased due to the availability of equipment for underwater driving. It included several means, including 4,5 m high manhole tube for mounting above the loader hatch. With such equipment, “Object 279” could overcome water obstacles several meters deep. Without preparation, fords crossed 1,2 m deep.

Related problems


For all its advantages, Object 279 had a number of significant drawbacks. Some of them could impede production and operation, while others threatened to deteriorate combat qualities. However, these factors hardly affected the real prospects of the project.


Two right caterpillars close-up. Wikimedia Commons Photos

The need to combine a high level of protection and limited mass led to a sharp reduction in the internal volume of the hull and turret - up to 11,5 cubic meters. Of these, 7,6 cubic meters were in habitable compartments and 3,87 in the power department. All this led to difficulties in the layout of the units, and in the future could complicate the modernization of the tank. In addition, due to the tight layout, the defeat of an armored car could lead to more serious consequences than in the case of other equipment.

The armament complex of Object 279 was effective and powerful, but at the same time complex and expensive. Left much to be desired ammunition, the increase of which required serious processing of the entire fighting compartment. When driving on difficult terrain, the flight of the gun turned into a problem. The barrel was almost 3,5 m from the nose of the hull, which threatened to be stuck in the ground.

The four-track chassis was overly complex to manufacture and operate. Any maintenance of the units turned into a complicated procedure requiring special equipment. During the tests, insufficient reliability of the existing suspension was noted. Also, when driving on soft soils, excessive power losses in the propulsion were observed. When turning off-road, caterpillars could bury themselves in the ground, increasing resistance to movement. Finally, the chassis was highly vulnerable to explosive devices - combined with low maintainability.

Thus, a number of characteristic advantages of “Object 279” was accompanied by a number of significant disadvantages. Some of them could be corrected during fine-tuning, but others required serious processing of the entire structure. Already in 1960, some measures were taken, and soon the second and third experimental tanks with a modified design could go on the test.


"Object 279" in the armored museum of Kubinka. You can evaluate the proportions of the structure, including gun length - his muzzle brake was left overs. Wikimedia Commons Photos

However, they did not begin to be sent to the landfill. In the same 1960, the country's leadership decided to abandon the development of new heavy tanks. The future of this class of armored vehicles was in doubt, and this issue was solved in the simplest way. Industries were ordered to develop the medium tank direction - a few years later this led to the appearance of the MBT class.

Idea demonstrator


The project with the “279” index used a number of bold and original solutions aimed at improving the basic tactical and technical characteristics. Some of these ideas were subsequently developed and used in new projects. Other decisions have remained in history, including due to obsolescence and the appearance of more successful ones.

The greatest interest with t.z. further development and application represented solutions in the field of fire controls. The original reinforced reservation design of Object 279 was no longer used. Instead, in new projects used combined armor, which had a high level of protection with limited weight. The four-track chassis also did not get into new projects - due to unjustified complexity.

“Object 279” has remained one of a kind. He did not go into the series and did not become the basis for new technology. However, in such a situation, this unique model could affect the further development of our armored vehicles - showing the advantages of some solutions and the disadvantages of others.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. rocket757 24 February 2020 18: 10 New
    • 14
    • 7
    +7
    The IDEA was super interesting.
    The unit turned out fantastic! It may come in handy even when not.
    1. Mestny 24 February 2020 18: 24 New
      • 21
      • 36
      -15
      The idea is as idiotic as possible.
      For such squandering of national money, it was necessary to drive these innovators into the neck.
      Well, or make them change the caterpillar to their brainchild.
      1. Catfish 24 February 2020 19: 07 New
        • 18
        • 2
        +16
        You are a little wrong, people were looking for options. "Trial and error method". But about the change of caterpillar - for sure, I myself served in a tank, but I can’t even imagine such a "pleasure".
        1. rocket757 24 February 2020 19: 24 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          Anyway, this was not an empty experiment! Who knows where the developments and mechanisms of this tank were used in the future. After all, everything worked!
        2. Maki Avellevich 24 February 2020 21: 11 New
          • 6
          • 2
          +4
          Quote: Sea Cat
          You are a little wrong, people were looking for options. "Trial and error method". But about the change of caterpillar - for sure, I myself served in a tank, but I can’t even imagine such a "pleasure".

          at the stage of understanding that the internal tracks cannot be replaced / repaired by the crew and it was necessary to stop the project.
          besides this a bold approach to problems.
      2. tank-master 24 February 2020 19: 55 New
        • 3
        • 9
        -6
        As money bazaar then, and now ... "Armata" is the same example, the idea is good, but poorly implemented.
        And this miracle-yudo ... was the apogee of heavy tanks and mentally shutting up tank building, thanks for the fact that the "grandfather" (A.A. Morozov) then searched and laid the foundations of the Main Battle Tank (MBT) that we have been using for 50 years (T- 64, T-72, T-80), and so far no one has suggested anything better, they are only modernizing these platforms.
    2. Keyser soze 24 February 2020 19: 09 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      The unit turned out fantastic!


      In capable hands, punishes. In WOT ... laughing
      1. rocket757 24 February 2020 19: 21 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Keyser Soze
        In capable hands, punishes. In WOT ...

        Let it be so ... and then, possibly on dusty paths, distant planets ... !!!
        1. garri-lin 24 February 2020 19: 32 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Are you going to wage aggressive wars on other planets?
          1. rocket757 24 February 2020 20: 05 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Quote: garri-lin
            Are you going to wage aggressive wars on other planets?

            the "good gun" at hand has not yet bothered anyone ... and so, the vehicle is well-protected and with high traffic.
            1. garri-lin 24 February 2020 22: 33 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Passability on what soil? Yes, and differentiated protection. The roof is weak. From volcanic stones is not protected. And on unexplored planets there will certainly be volcanoes. And the swamp. Deep swamps.
          2. lucul 24 February 2020 20: 48 New
            • 4
            • 2
            +2
            Are you going to wage aggressive wars on other planets?

            Why not ? )))
            1. garri-lin 25 February 2020 00: 16 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              The intelligent bear peace and good. And not intrusive.
              1. Alf
                Alf 25 February 2020 18: 23 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: garri-lin
                The rational bear peace and good.

                Do you want to take? Ivanov, charge! laughing
  2. Theodore 24 February 2020 18: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I did not understand about the crew! How much should it be? recourse
    1. mark1 24 February 2020 19: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Theodore
      I did not understand about the crew! How much should it be?

      .......4......
  3. prodi 24 February 2020 18: 26 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Knipkamp is resting
  4. mark1 24 February 2020 18: 58 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Great article! Everything is detailed and exhaustive, with drawings, specifications. I like it. Thanks.
    1. mat-vey 25 February 2020 09: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I’m not quite sure about the “exhaustive” - at least the most basic, form of the hull. The hull was “streamlined” precisely because of aerodynamic considerations, since the enemy expected the use of nuclear weapons, and this form was supposed to facilitate the flow of the tank around the tank by a shock wave. to promote better cross-country ability on moist soils, because it was expected that after the outbreak of hostilities in Europe there will be massive destruction of platinum and dams.
      1. mark1 25 February 2020 12: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: mat-vey
        Not quite sure about the "exhaustive" - ​​at least the most basic, the form of the case.

        Do you have a drawing (section)? You are a thinking person, conceive and supplement everything yourself (and imagine if the article is 100% comprehensive? And it will take up a lot of space and deprive a smart idea of ​​expressing ...)
        Although I believe that the main objective was to increase the armor resistance of the hull with a small reserved volume. The shape of the hull (in cross section) is the development of the line (since 1949) layout A-22, - about. 907- about 279, i.e. they did not think much about resistance to nuclear explosions, but they always thought about protection against shells.
        Quote: mat-vey
        Caterpillars should have contributed to better wet terrain

        I agree - the four-track mover was developed by Troyanov from the late 40s, at the end of 1952, as a result of the joint work of VNII-100 and LKZ, a navigable model was created, and in 1959 an EXPERIENCED heavy tank “Object 279” was made (dedicated to those who are very concerned about the problem of replacing tracks)
        And there was an excellent hydromechanical transmission and many more interesting things that were not developed at that time.
        1. mat-vey 25 February 2020 12: 39 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: mark1
          and imagine if the article is 100% comprehensive?

          9 years ago, VO did not take up much space, and there was less reason left for “smart thoughts to express”.
      2. Alf
        Alf 25 February 2020 18: 25 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: mat-vey
        Caterpillars were supposed to contribute to better cross-country ability on moist soils, because it was expected that after the outbreak of hostilities in Europe there will be massive destruction of platinum and dams.

        Maybe just to ensure that the concept of "clearance" in this tank was absent as a class? She will never sit on her belly.
      3. kytx 1 March 2020 04: 16 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Here, too, a long time ago I read that such a form of the case was chosen precisely to withstand the shock wave of the nuclear weapons.
        1. mat-vey 7 March 2020 07: 14 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Yes, it seemed like a breakthrough tank for special tasks and thought. To be the first on the edge - open and hold the "road" to the next echelons.
  5. Alien From 24 February 2020 19: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    In my opinion, one of the most interesting tanks in history)))
  6. Ros 56 24 February 2020 19: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And why is there no photo of the tank on one track? Like in "Reciprocal Movement". laughing
    1. svp67 24 February 2020 19: 58 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      Quote: Ros 56
      And why is there no photo of the tank on one track?

      YOU ARE WELCOME...
  7. Undecim 24 February 2020 20: 08 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    The idea of ​​a super heavy four-track tank was not new.

    American super-heavy tank T-28. 1945 year.
    1. Alf
      Alf 24 February 2020 20: 49 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Undecim
      American super-heavy tank T-28.

      They, like, classified it as self-propelled. Not ?
      1. Undecim 24 February 2020 21: 06 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Original Super Heavy Tank T28.
        1. Alf
          Alf 24 February 2020 21: 08 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Undecim
          Original Super Heavy Tank T28.

          Actually, yes. Just in the American classification, the devil will break his leg. Reckless self-propelled gun tank, turret M10 self-propelled gun. request
          1. Undecim 24 February 2020 21: 11 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            In those years, designers tried a lot of "original" ideas.

            Chrysler tried this option.
            1. Alf
              Alf 24 February 2020 21: 12 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Undecim
              In those years, designers tried a lot of "original" ideas.

              It was with such “scientific pokes” that optimal designs were developed.
              1. Undecim 24 February 2020 21: 14 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                However, having scientifically poked, they returned for many years to the classical scheme.
            2. Undecim 24 February 2020 21: 12 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5

              And such. The whole crew in the tower.
              1. Alf
                Alf 24 February 2020 21: 15 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Undecim
                And such

                And on the right is a completely classic design in the form of an M-60.
                1. Undecim 24 February 2020 21: 22 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  In general, the Germans are usually blamed for gigantism, but the Americans were also noted on this field.

                  Heavy tank T30. 1945 year. 90 tons.
                  1. Alf
                    Alf 24 February 2020 21: 25 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Undecim
                    Heavy tank T30. 1945 year. 90 tons.

                    Where does 90 come from?
                    1. Undecim 24 February 2020 21: 41 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      I prefer the data of the country of origin.
                      1. Bad_gr 26 February 2020 22: 06 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Undecim
                        I prefer the data of the country of origin.

                        "An American ton (short ton) (eng. Ton; short ton) is a non-metric mass unit used in the United States. In the United States, it is often referred to simply as a" ton ", while for metric and English (long) tons it’s specifically specified which one is used, however, there are some cases where the default is either a long ton (for example, when specifying the displacement of ships) or a metric ton (for example, data on the world grain yield).
                        1 US ton = 20 short handweights = 2000 trade pounds = exactly 907,18474 kilograms. ... "
                      2. Undecim 26 February 2020 22: 38 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Thanks for the tour, I have a question. If you looked carefully, there is also weight in pounds. 190 American pounds equals 000 86 kilograms of European, or 182.536 tons (metric).
                      3. Bad_gr 26 February 2020 23: 18 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Undecim
                        If you watched carefully

                        190 did not pay attention, looked at 86t. Thought that short tons :(
              2. Undecim 24 February 2020 21: 26 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                And the British passed this stage, back in 1940.

                Tank, Heavy, TOG. 1940 year. 80 tons.
                1. Alf
                  Alf 24 February 2020 21: 55 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: Undecim
                  Yes, and the British passed this stage,

                  Well, the British are a separate song. Stuck Matilda in the mid-30s with 3 dm armor and a couple of machine guns ...
              3. Narak-zempo 25 February 2020 13: 31 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Undecim
                In general, the Germans are usually blamed for gigantism, but the Americans were also noted on this field.

                However, they did not come up with 1000-ton Ratte type machines.
  • impostor 24 February 2020 20: 42 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    Respect to the creators. Nice guys, and obviously not effective managers. This thing ... UFO ... should have fought when only cars and cockroaches remained on the ground. Around the modern DZ, equip the OMS and give it to Assad, even Fandorin didn’t do this.
    1. tank-master 24 February 2020 21: 12 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      I would like to see ... how you would change the internal caterpillar on this tank.
      After that ... you wouldn’t write such nonsense.
      1. Alf
        Alf 24 February 2020 21: 26 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: tank-master
        I would like to see ... how you would change the internal caterpillar on this tank.

        How, how .. In a car service I would have stopped on a flyover. laughing
        1. impostor 24 February 2020 21: 42 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Yeah, to the manufacturer wassat
        2. tank-master 24 February 2020 21: 42 New
          • 1
          • 4
          -3
          I would like to see ... how would you look for a flyover in a field ... laughing it’s like you’re from the USSR .. and you didn’t pass the Unified State Examination .. but you write nonsense like the Unified State Examiners ..
          1. Alf
            Alf 24 February 2020 21: 47 New
            • 6
            • 2
            +4
            Quote: tank-master
            I would like to see ... how would you look for a flyover in a field ...

            Master, you see this sign laughing or how ?
            Quote: tank-master
            and you write nonsense, like USEshniki ..

            Dear, the word "Estacada" is written through "a".
            By the way, educated people communicate on "You."
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
    2. impostor 24 February 2020 21: 41 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I would like to see ... how you would change the internal caterpillar on this tank.

      that is, the couple’s inner harp flew to the rinks and the FSE ?!
      1. ANB
        ANB 25 February 2020 01: 53 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I think that if things had come to adoption, then by that time they would have figured out how to change all the tracks by the crew. Rubanul the whole class of heavy tanks. And, of course, no one dealt with the problems further.
        I saw him in Kubinka. Children were taken to the museum. And before that I read about him the same article on VO.
        He, unexpectedly, is quite small. And beautiful. Indeed, it looks like an alien technique. It is strange that they did not shoot him in science fiction films.
        1. prodi 25 February 2020 08: 09 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Yes, there was no need to completely fence such a design, it was enough to make the tracks wider (the tiger had 725 mm), and in terms of exoticness, add a third, on 100 mm rollers, without depreciation, 20 centimeters in total height, for the entire length of the bottom. On hard soils - it would be like everyone else, but if it sat on its belly, then the middle caterpillar would start to row
  • Klingon 25 February 2020 00: 23 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    such a 130 mm gun had to be put on Armata and there would be a slaughter tank, instead of dancing with a tambourine with a caliber of 125 mm which is no longer enough and 152 mm which is of course good but greatly reduces ammunition and the recoil of such a gun strongly affects the entire tank
    PS: the Germans and the French, by the way, are going to put a 130 mm gun on a promising new generation tank
    1. Jcvai 25 February 2020 10: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Meaning? For MBT, it is better to modernize the ammunition, and within the caliber, we have a Coalition based on the T90, giving out 152mm gifts at least direct fire, at least for fifty kilometers by canopy.
    2. Alf
      Alf 25 February 2020 18: 27 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Klingon
      such a 130 mm gun had to be put on Armata and there would be a killer tank, instead of dancing with a tambourine with a caliber of 125 mm which is no longer enough

      The 130s have an initial AP shell velocity of 1050 m / s.
      At Armata-1800, feel the difference.
    3. kytx 1 March 2020 04: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      As far as I enay there, it was originally supposed to grind 152mm, something went wrong
  • Klingon 25 February 2020 10: 11 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: JcVai
    Meaning? For MBT, it is better to modernize the ammunition, and within the caliber, we have a Coalition based on the T90, giving out 152mm gifts at least direct fire, at least for fifty kilometers by canopy.

    there is a physical limit to the modernization of kinetic ammunition of a given caliber, length, mass, etc. Or do you propose to coat them with Chubais nanotubes ?? wassat
    and who will bring the lightly armored howitzer to the direct fire line of fire? it is only for broads
    it will work, provided that they have no anti-tank systems
    1. Narak-zempo 25 February 2020 13: 44 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Klingon
      or offer them Chubais nanotubes to coat

      It would be nice to add Chubais to the United States as Minister of Defense, then you can relax a bit with tanks.
      1. Alf
        Alf 25 February 2020 18: 28 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Narak-zempo
        Quote: Klingon
        or offer them Chubais nanotubes to coat

        It would be nice to add Chubais to the United States as Minister of Defense, then you can relax a bit with tanks.

        Then it would be possible to say goodbye to the state economy.
  • Romka47 25 February 2020 12: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Somehow in the article I did not find such an important moment as counteracting the explosive wave of nuclear weapons, it’s not because of that it looks like a UFO so that the Militians are confused.
    1. Knell wardenheart 25 February 2020 13: 24 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      As for the explosive wave of nuclear weapons, the hull is indeed taking this into account, and there was a knockout inside, and there was an overestimated internal pressure with radar detectors. However, it seems to me that all these efforts would destroy the tracks - they are very flimsy, perhaps the crew would have survived, but the loss of mobility by the tank would be no less critical ..
      1. Romka47 25 February 2020 13: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I agree with you that it would only be impossible to repair it by the crew, well, at least there would have been a toothy bunker .. and the crew .. There’s still such a moment (as I see it): at 50-60 when everyone knew what nuclear weapons were (what they threatened with ) and the fact that nobody would apply it until 2020, then no one could know, I think the moral support was strong for the crews that "their tank (BMP there, remember BMP-1 and T-55) was created with the expectation that fight in conditions .... "that is, just knowing or thinking about it was probably already good.
  • Knell wardenheart 25 February 2020 13: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I remember when I was looking at this tank in Kubinka - it immediately occurred to me that it would have suffered the wildest from mines and possibly even large fragments - specifically because of the peculiarities of the location of the tracks. If you take a closer look, you understand that he would not just suffer from this - a mine explosion would have put him out of order, so that the efforts of field workshops would have been fixed, so that would have had to evacuate this 60-ton carcass far to the rear. Given that up to a third of all tank losses can occur in mines, this is a critical parameter.
  • Klingon 25 February 2020 13: 58 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Narak-zempo
    Quote: Klingon
    or offer them Chubais nanotubes to coat

    It would be nice to add Chubais to the United States as Minister of Defense, then you can relax a bit with tanks.

    then they would say that this is all the tricks of the Kremlin - a hybrid war, you know. drinks lol
  • Klingon 25 February 2020 19: 30 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Alf
    Quote: Klingon
    such a 130 mm gun had to be put on Armata and there would be a killer tank, instead of dancing with a tambourine with a caliber of 125 mm which is no longer enough

    The 130s have an initial AP shell velocity of 1050 m / s.
    At Armata-1800, feel the difference.

    Naturally, I didn’t mean that they put the cannon from the object 279, at first it had to be processed accordingly under modern conditions using 21-century technologies. I meant only the caliber of the gun
  • Nameless 26 February 2020 14: 59 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: tank-master
    As money bazaar then, and now ... "Armata" is the same example, the idea is good, but poorly implemented.
    And this miracle-yudo ... was the apogee of heavy tanks and mentally shutting up tank building, thanks for the fact that the "grandfather" (A.A. Morozov) then searched and laid the foundations of the Main Battle Tank (MBT) that we have been using for 50 years (T- 64, T-72, T-80), and so far no one has suggested anything better, they are only modernizing these platforms.

    Armata, so you know, it is our Russian development, based on the original idea of ​​Spetsmash and the Leningrad Kirov Plant from the mid 80s. This is not another development of the Morozov school. Here is the T-95 - yes, this could be the further development of the failed Kharkov line "Poplar \ Rebel \ Boxer \ Hammer \ Note \ Barrier", which in essence was just the development of the T-80. But in relation to Almaty there can be no word about the continuity with the pedigree of the Ukrainian T-64.
  • Nameless 26 February 2020 15: 25 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Nameless

    Armata, so you know, it is our Russian development, based on the original idea of ​​Spetsmash and the Leningrad Kirov Plant from the mid 80s.

    I forgot to write on the basis of what Armata is based - on the basis of "Object 299", it is most likely also T-99 "Priority" later
  • Andrey Usachev April 29 2020 14: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Object 279 is a miracle. These must be stamped more. Then the military power will be gigantic. And the armor, and speed, and the gun - everything is good in this tank. I do not understand those who do not like him.
  • Andrey Usachev April 30 2020 09: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    This tank was created for nuclear war. He has such a strange look for that. So do not scold him for it.