They try to cover up a bluff with the Ukrainian Nota tank with the development of the Soviet Boxer tank

90

I was surprised to read the article on VO "Objective factors against" Nota ". Failure of "Object 477A"... Struck by speculation, innuendo and unrestrained imagination of the author.

Where does this information come from?



It turns out that recently a propaganda article about the so-called Ukrainian tank "Note" (which never existed) and the perspectives of this mythical machine. About this publication and who is behind it - a little below.

And now about the project of the "Boxer" tank, which (according to this article), as it were, became the prototype of the "Nota" tank.

The author writes that by the beginning of the 90s, several variants of the Hammer tank (object 477) had been created in Kharkov, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia and Ukraine agreed to continue this work (object 477A), named "Note", the design was in full swing, and the result was a more advanced object 477A1. It was as if Russian enterprises were involved in the work (!), The customer was allegedly the Russian Ministry of Defense (fantastic!) And financed them, but in the early 2000s, Russia abandoned joint work and began its own development. As a result of the work carried out in Ukraine, six or seven samples of the Nota tank remained, and such a "tank power" as Saudi Arabia even became interested in this project. As a result, it is concluded that the development of the object 477 tank has been going on for about 30-35 years and did not lead to the desired results.

Honestly, I haven't read such nonsense on a topic that I know very well for a long time. Let me emphasize right away that I have the deepest contempt for the premature state of Ukraine and its possibilities to create something worthwhile there, but, as they say, the truth is more expensive.

First of all, it is necessary to separate the two points touched upon in the article: the development in the 80s of the last Soviet tank of the new generation "Boxer" and the advertised work already in Ukraine on the nonexistent tank "Nota".

Development of the tank "Boxer"


I have already written in detail about the development of the "Boxer" tank, even my book on this topic has been published on the Internet, but I will have to briefly recall again what actually happened.

As one of the leaders of the "Boxer" tank project, I participated in it from the first to the last day of these works and, naturally, I had all the information on the tank project. I had to leave the KB in 1995, when there was no longer any chance of its revival.

History The tank began in the early 80s with the "Buntar" research and development project to find the next generation tank concept. According to the results of research work in 1986, the ROC "Boxer" was set, before that a competition was held for three tank design bureaus, their projects were presented by the Kharkov, Leningrad and Tagil design bureaus. After reviewing the projects, the military made the following conclusion: the projects of the Leningrad and Tagil design bureaus did not come close to meeting the requirements and were rejected, they were assigned work on the ROC "Improvement" - the further development of serial T-80 and T-72 tanks.

The Kharkov project "Boxer" was accepted for development, and the development of its design began together with subcontractors. In the process of work, more than a dozen tank layout options were developed and mocked up. As a result, an arrangement was adopted with a 152-mm semi-extended gun on the roof of the tower, the so-called gun carriage installation, the classical placement of the crew, while the commander and gunner, for reasons of security, were located in the turret cockpit and sat at the level of the tank hull, which required a high periscope of the sighting systems ...

The ammunition load was placed in an armored capsule between the fighting compartment and the MTO with the ability to load the gun from this compartment. The power plant was built on the basis of a modification of the 6TD-2 engine with a capacity of 1200 liters. from. The highlight of the tank was the tank information and control system, which made it possible to bring it to a fundamentally different level of control and create a network-centric tank.

In accordance with the decree, dozens of design bureaus, factories and institutes throughout the country participated in the development of the tank, it was the fruit of the labor of thousands of engineers in various branches of technology. The Leningrad and Tagil design bureaus did not take part in the work on this topic, they were instructed to improve serial tanks, although their chief designers participated in all meetings in Kharkov, the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Defense and owned all situations with the development of the tank.

By the end of the 80s, two prototypes of the tank and several mock-ups were made for testing the units and systems of the tank, and testing of the samples began. During the tests, as usual, a lot of technical problems came to light, they were gradually solved. When the tank was reloaded with all the components and systems incorporated in it, it turned out that it fell out far beyond 50 tons, since the powerful protection and placement of 152-mm separate loading ammunition in an armored capsule were too expensive. In addition, the automatic loader was sharply complicated with such a tank layout, and the military demanded an increase in the power of the ammunition, which was limited by the length of the compartment for their placement.

By 1990, the layout of the tank had undergone dramatic changes, the armored capsule was eliminated. The length of the hull was reduced and switched to unitary ammunition with their placement in two drums in the tank hull and a consumable drum in the turret. In order to reduce weight, titanium elements and parts were introduced into the armor protection and chassis. This version of the tank received the index 477A, ​​and later it was renamed into "Hammer", since one subcontractor had lost a secret document, and the development secrecy was very high.

Even before the completion of the tests of the tank samples in 1989, it was ordered to start preparing for the production of an installation batch of tanks. Everyone insisted on the earliest completion of the tests of the tank and launching it into mass production, the inherent characteristics satisfied the military.

According to the developed documentation of the 477A tank, they did not have time to make samples, the Union collapsed, the drum-type automatic loader, pictures of which everyone is now trying to draw, did not reach the tank, it was only successfully tested at the stands. Nobody officially closed the work, she herself quietly died for a prosaic reason.

Ukraine could not carry out work on this tank independently, since almost all the filling was developed and manufactured in Russia: the cannon - in Perm, machine guns - in Izhevsk, the booking structure - in Moscow, sighting systems with laser and heat-TV channels - in Krasnogorsk and Novosibirsk, the stabilizer weapons - in Kovrov, communications - in Ryazan, missiles - in Moscow and Tula, satellite navigation equipment - in Leningrad, a computer complex - in Moscow, a power plant control system - in Chelyabinsk, a state recognition system - in Kazan, etc.

The pitiful attempts to revive all this in Ukraine, naturally, did not lead to anything, moreover, this impoverished state was not able to finance such a costly development, and by 1993 they tried not to remember it.

So the epic with the "Boxer / Hammer" tank (objects 477 and 477A) ended. And not because it was no good, the country that ordered it simply disappeared, and the fragments of the country did not need it.

The myth about the promising tank "Nota"


Now, regarding the development of the promising Nota tank in Ukraine and an even more wild version of the joint Russian-Ukrainian development of this tank.

Before writing about this, one must clearly understand what the relations between Russia and Ukraine have been like since the beginning of the 90s. After the collapse of the Union, Ukraine immediately declared its subordination to all army groups on its territory, demanded that all officers take an oath (I was constantly terrorized with summons to the military enlistment office on this matter) and the subordination of the entire Black Sea fleet, closed access to the development of military equipment on its territory and proved to everyone that it is a great military power and is itself capable of producing weapons.

There could be no talk of any negotiations on the joint development of the Boxer tank, no one started them, almost all the information on this tank passed through me, and I knew the state of affairs in this work.

At the command of Kiev, all contacts with Moscow were curtailed and a ban was issued on the transfer of documentation and any information on this tank.

At this time, Ukraine was making titanic efforts to whom it would sell the most advanced Soviet T-80UD tank, which was put into service in 1984, and in 1995-1998, the plant and the design bureau were implementing the so-called Pakistani contract for the supply of 320 T-80UD tanks, and no one there was nothing to do with a promising tank.

After the successful implementation of the contract in Ukraine, there was an excitement to create your own tank and, apparently, then the idea appeared to revive the Soviet development of the Boxer tank, giving it a new name “Nota” and another index “object 477A1”.

This premature state really wanted to show its importance and greatness. Soviet development, which was carried out by a lot of organizations throughout the country, began to be passed off as a new "Ukrainian" one, demonstrating that Ukraine is capable not only of producing serial, but also developing promising tanks.

I draw your attention to the fact that neither the management nor the KMDB staff stoop to advertising this work, since any competent specialist understands that this is pure bluff.

A powerful advertisement for the non-existent Nota tank is being promoted by a certain Sergei Zgurets, this illiterate schmuck who understands little about technology and even more so about tanks. This noteworthy ukropagandist, who presents himself as a "military expert", raised on Western grants and created an information and consulting company Defense Express with American money, is working out an order to advertise a non-existent "powerful" Ukrainian military-industrial complex. One of its tasks is the promotion of "Ukrainian tank building". For lack of anything better, he promotes the myth of the Nota tank.

In one of the publications on this resource, they even signed me to the "Ukrainian tank builders", referring to my book on the development of the "Boxer" tank. This "information dodging" at one time launched information that a prototype of the Nota tank (and in fact one of the samples of the Boxer tank) will be held at the parade in Kiev in 2017, but among the Ukrainian bogeymen there was no one willing to go for such a cheap provocation.

If in the Russian expert community the "power" of the Ukrainian military-industrial complex will be judged by the "scribbles" of this expert, then one can come to far-reaching conclusions. Still, we need to take a closer look at who writes it and for what purpose.

Returning to the above-mentioned article, it should be noted that it is not appropriate for Russian experts, using the wildest incompetence of the ukropagandists, to cast as a shadow on the wattle fence on Soviet developments, which made Soviet tank building one of the best in the world, out of opportunistic considerations. Such actions have never done honor to anyone.

Regarding the myth about the Nota tank, we can say that such work may have been open, but without the cooperation of allies, it is impossible to create a tank. One of the participants in these works on the Internet described how they drew pictures of the tank without a serious study of the design of nodes and systems and without involving subcontractors in the work, since they simply did not exist. Naturally, no prototypes, let alone prototypes, were manufactured, and besides, it is ridiculous to talk about some kind of tests or comparative characteristics.

The Nota tank never existed.

This is the speculation of the ukropagandist Zgurts, who tried to present the groundwork for the "Boxer" tank by the Ukrainian development of a promising tank.

Continuation of the epic of a promising tank


Modern Ukraine has never had Ukrainian tank building. There was just an attempt to create it on the basis of the Soviet reserve, which ended in complete failure.

Historically, on its territory was the Kharkov Design Bureau, which has been developing Soviet tanks since the 20s with the participation of enterprises from all over the country. And such masterpieces as the T-34 and T-64 came out of its walls, no matter how they tried to forget and distort it now.

Of course, in Leningrad and Tagil they want to forget as a nightmare that the so-called "fundamentally new" T-72 and T-80 tanks appeared as an attempt to improve the T-64, and that the concept of this tank is still embedded in them. It has already been described in detail how these tanks were born and how they pushed their way, including forging government documents (read Kostenko's memoirs).

In the 80s, these two design bureaus again lost to Kharkov in the competition for the development of a promising tank, it was not possible to bring it, not because it was bad, on the contrary - everyone demanded the speedy completion of its development. The question of the unsuccessful concept of the tank or the termination of work was never raised by anyone. The development of the tank came at the time of "perestroika", with its complete degradation and irresponsibility, which led to the collapse of the country. "The times of Stalin's commissars are over," this also affected the military-industrial complex. This tank was simply not needed by anyone.

In the 90s, the concept of the "Boxer" tank was tried to be repeated in Tagil (object 195), and it was not difficult to do this, since all the subcontractors remained in Russia, and the created reserve could be used and developed further. In this project, many ideas from the Boxer tank were used - a 152-mm semi-extended gun, sighting systems, TIUS and a number of other tank systems developed by Russian enterprises. The difference was in the uninhabited turret and the placement of the crew in an armored capsule in the tank hull.

For various reasons, this project did not go, in 2009 it was abandoned, and the Armata project was launched, which has not yet reached the army.

They have been trying to create a promising tank of a new generation for forty years and so far it is not.

Different design bureaus worked on it in Soviet and Russian times, using the rich Soviet backlog in tank building, the country has already lost two design bureaus. Kharkivskoe - ended up in Ukraine and is slowly dying due to the lack of the ability to fully work, Leningradskoe - simply destroyed, strangling a competitor to please the remaining Tagil Design Bureau.

Russian tank building has lost its competition and is marking time. It was not just that after the war, Stalin left three rival design bureaus defending their concepts of tank development, which allowed the military to choose the best of them. Now this is not the case. Good or bad - time will tell and put everything in its place.
90 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +14
    6 July 2021 18: 06
    It was not just that after the war, Stalin left three rival design bureaus defending their concepts of tank development, which allowed the military to choose the best of them. Now this is not the case. Is this good or bad
    It was costly, but quite effective, and taking into account the fact that the tanks were developed for the ATS at least, but most likely for a third or two-thirds of the world, then the cost does not look great anymore.
    1. +9
      6 July 2021 19: 34
      Sleight of hand and no fraud! Ukraine, this is a big top: there is no industry anymore, but there is a tank - it's like a rabbit out of a prestizhitator's hat! Magician in chocolate, fuckers standing ovation! laughing
  2. +9
    6 July 2021 18: 21
    Weren't the Kharkovites the "favorites" under Khrushchev?
    And they spent money on the development of the "super-super revolutionary" T-64, oh, how much.
    But it turned out that we needed "backup" tanks. Due to the impossibility of producing the "Kharkov miracle" at all tank-building plants in the USSR.
    If I am mistaken about something - correct it. hi
  3. Alf
    +22
    6 July 2021 18: 23
    in Leningrad and Tagil they want to forget as a bad dream that the so-called "fundamentally new" T-72 and T-80 tanks appeared as an attempt to improve the T-64

    Not to improve, but to bring it to a normal working condition.
    Mr. Apukhtin, no one has ever called the T-72 fundamentally new.
    The T-72 was put into production for one simple reason - after the T-64 was adopted, such a wave of complaints went from the army that it turned out to be easier to create a new tank, easier, cheaper and more reliable.
    1. +6
      6 July 2021 18: 53
      Alf - so after all, the problems were mostly solved, within almost 10 years. T64 went to the troops, and at the same time began to create T72, "Object Ural", as far as I remember from the documentation. ..
      1. Alf
        +8
        6 July 2021 19: 02
        Quote: Thrifty
        so in fact the problems were mostly solved, within almost 10 years.

        Wow, for 10 years. The tank, created as the basis of the BT troops, was brought to mind for 10 years ...
        1. +3
          6 July 2021 19: 09
          Alf, you know, generally wanted to "close" it, but the tank turned out to be revolutionary in its own way, they gave the command to bring it to mind by any means and means, and quickly. Only, they solved one problem, they got two more at the exit! Therefore, it took so long to bring to mind. ..
          1. Alf
            +5
            6 July 2021 19: 11
            Quote: Thrifty
            Alf, you know, generally wanted to "close" it, but the tank turned out to be revolutionary in its own way, they gave the command to bring it to mind by any means and means, and quickly. Only, they solved one problem, they got two more at the exit! Therefore, it took so long to bring to mind. ..

            Yes, I know, I know. But, God forbid, to fight on what, on a tank with a bunch of problems? And this is what Pan Apukhtin boasts about?
          2. +2
            6 July 2021 21: 46
            And how many millions of Soviet rubles did this tank "revolution" cost the country?
            We made one tank for the whole country, but it turned out that we took 3 tanks from different manufacturers.
            Or did they not suit the army one by one?
          3. 0
            14 July 2021 16: 52
            So, the T-64, brought to mind, relieved of congenital still unsolved vices, and there were T-72 and T-80. Not a single T-64 was exported under the USSR, but the Warsaw Pact countries (Czechoslovakia, the SFRY and Poland ) gave a license to manufacture the T-72.
    2. +4
      7 July 2021 13: 29
      Quote: Alf
      The T-72 was put into production for one simple reason - after the T-64 was adopted, such a wave of complaints went from the army that it turned out to be easier to create a new tank, easier, cheaper and more reliable.

      The T-72 was put into production for one simple reason - Tagil could not enter the simplified T-64.
      The T-64 was too expensive to re-equip an entire army with it. Therefore, we decided to make it a simplified version for the second echelon and the Urals. The release of this version was entrusted to Tagil ... and he in response rolled out his T-72 (another "tank for a specific plant"). And in parallel, he announced the numbers on the modernization of production for the production of even a simplified T-64 - half the cost of the plant and 2-3 years of downtime.
    3. +5
      7 July 2021 21: 53
      The T-72 appeared not as an improved copy of the T-64A, but as a simplified, cheap clone, and getting rid of complaints. Replaced the engine, chassis, loading mechanism. Removed "excess", the electric anti-aircraft machine gun, maybe something else.
      1. Alf
        +2
        8 July 2021 18: 38
        Quote: SKVichyakow
        The T-72 appeared not as an improved copy of the T-64A, but as a simplified, cheap clone, and getting rid of complaints. Replaced the engine, chassis, loading mechanism. Removed "excess", the electric anti-aircraft machine gun, maybe something else.

        And it turned out to be an excellent tank.
  4. -7
    6 July 2021 18: 24
    In general, it is understandable. As soon as Mr. Apukhtin left his job, tank building in the post-Soviet space came to a standstill.
    Moreover, the author convincingly showed that in Russia it did not exist, it turns out that they were remaking the T-64 as best they could, and that was all.
    The author has now opened everyone's eyes and put everyone in their place smile
    1. +2
      7 July 2021 08: 43
      Actually, the author wrote that he left the tank building, since it died in Ukraine. What has Russia to do with it?
      1. -2
        7 July 2021 09: 38
        Where does the author live now?
        1. +4
          7 July 2021 10: 01
          I don't know where he lives now, but in the USSR and in the 90s, judging by the story, he lived and worked in Kharkov.
          1. -7
            7 July 2021 10: 52
            judging by what was written - definitely not in Ukraine, if he is such a specialist why does not he live in Nizhny Tagil, for example. It would be interesting to know.
            1. Alf
              +1
              7 July 2021 19: 49
              Quote: datura23
              if he is SUCH a specialist why does not he live in Nizhny Tagil,

              Intrigues of ill-wishers ... laughing
            2. +3
              8 July 2021 10: 00
              if he is SUCH a specialist why does not he live in Nizhny Tagil, for example.
              Maybe he's just retired a long time ago?
              1. Alf
                +1
                8 July 2021 18: 37
                Quote: abrakadabre
                if he is SUCH a specialist why does not he live in Nizhny Tagil, for example.
                Maybe he's just retired a long time ago?

                Because he is "such" a specialist ...
          2. +1
            14 July 2021 16: 58
            "I don't know where he lives now, but in the USSR and in the 90s, judging by the story, he lived and worked in Kharkov."
            But you still need to give him credit for the fact that he admitted: “Ukraine could not carry out work on this tank independently, since almost all the filling was developed and manufactured in Russia: the cannon in Perm, machine guns in Izhevsk, the booking structure in Moscow , sighting systems with laser and thermal television channels - in Krasnogorsk and Novosibirsk, weapons stabilizer - in Kovrov, communications - in Ryazan, missile weapons - in Moscow and Tula, satellite navigation equipment - in Leningrad, computer complex - in Moscow, power control system installation - in Chelyabinsk, state recognition system - in Kazan, etc. "
  5. +7
    6 July 2021 18: 29
    ANY (political, technical) "\ Monopoly leads to decay".
  6. +7
    6 July 2021 18: 30
    Maybe a little rude, but honest and objective! It's a pity that the T95 did not go into production, we limited ourselves to three pre-production cars, now it would be cheaper than the notorious T14, which they cannot give birth to in our military-industrial complex. ...
  7. -16
    6 July 2021 18: 31
    Dear author, all your rhetoric can be replaced with one picture:
  8. +17
    6 July 2021 18: 54
    Good article. Thank.
  9. +12
    6 July 2021 19: 00
    I can tell nothing to the author except, bravo. Honest article, honest engineer.
  10. +12
    6 July 2021 19: 07
    To the author - bow and deepest respect.
    I just entered VTKU, and he was already making new generation cars
  11. +14
    6 July 2021 19: 18
    The Kharkov plant and its design bureau traditionally focused on new developments of prototypes of medium tanks, the Leningrad Kirov plant, new developments of heavy tanks, the Tagil plant and its design bureau, serial production and modernization of tanks during production. But nobody canceled the competition either. All this made the USSR the flagship of the world tank building for many years.
    1. +20
      6 July 2021 20: 47
      As a serviceman who operated the T-64A, B; T-72; T-80 in different climatic conditions of the former immense homeland (quite a long time ago) I can evaluate objects as cars:
      - eighty is a Mercedes,
      - seventy-two Toyota, and
      - sixty-four Beshka Renderover.
      Whoever repaired or serviced them in the field will understand. And the article is good, although the author correctly describes the situation in tsegabonia, albeit emotionally. I myself drove there to Malyshev sixty-fourth in the early nineties and heard conversations about the second France and about who feeds whom, etc., etc.
  12. +12
    6 July 2021 19: 59
    Like a secret workshop. The gates are wide open, both to the road and to the adjacent workshop. There are two men, in total, the rest of the shop is empty and expensive equipment. One says to the other - are we going to cut or is it gone? To hell with cutting, because they won't pay, and then they will make them guilty that we screwed up. Let's go drink beer and leave. On the table there is paper with drawings of the order number and there is no visa for permission. In a month we arrive, we wanted to order something from the factory for the machine, some cutters for the manufacture of gears. The gate is open to that workshop and half of the machines are missing. Interestingly so. They asked Alexander what happened? Look at our workshop, half of them were removed and taken away somewhere. Go to the toolkit, which cutters you need. Got it out with a margin. We brought them three three-liter cans of beer and gave them a hundred. Thanks, useful for lunch. Six months later, even the gates were gone, and the fences, too, were plundered. Three factories went to hell in six months. This is in Ukraine.
    1. 0
      8 July 2021 14: 46
      That Ukraine, then the whole Union was like that! Kazakhstan, Semipalatinsk, Cable Plant: at first they sold the entire color metal, then they cut the machines and sold them as scrap metal to China, and now they are buying cables for networks in China ...
  13. +9
    6 July 2021 19: 59
    Thank you Yuri, great review. Write more when a specialist writes it is pleasant to read, and when an expert journalist is simply disgusting.
  14. +6
    6 July 2021 20: 45
    Thanks to the author for the article, there are controversial moments on emotions, but without them there would be a dry review of the facts
  15. +1
    6 July 2021 21: 05
    Well, a little emotional, but there is no water that was in that article ... so the emotions are quite understandable
    For information from someone in the topic, it was very interesting to read. Thank you! hi
  16. +11
    6 July 2021 21: 15
    And what no one will remember about the Omsk Design Bureau of Transport Engineering and its "sensational" project ... aka "Object 640" ... aka T-80UM2 "Black Eagle" or "just" ... "Black Eagle" ...?
    1. +6
      6 July 2021 21: 20
      It was their swan song!
      But Tagil hacked down their development, without creating anything intelligible.
      To understand the epic, just look at the time when the eagle and Armata appeared in metal!
      1. +5
        6 July 2021 23: 49
        Quote: dgonni
        But Tagil hacked down their development, without creating anything intelligible.

        Not Tagil, but the military - Tapgil already had a project for an advanced machine ready, the Omsk people only had a layout and big plans for development. The military chose Tagil.
        Quote: dgonni
        To understand the epic, just look at the time when the eagle and Armata appeared in metal!

        Object 640 is not de facto metal - there is nothing inside, no instruments, no new loading mechanism. Just a demonstrator of the appearance of a promising car with the ability to move. Alas, this project was never even born ((((
        1. 0
          17 July 2021 15: 54
          Quote: Albert1988
          Quote: dgonni
          But Tagil hacked down their development, without creating anything intelligible.

          Not Tagil, but the military - Tapgil already had a project for an advanced machine ready, the Omsk people only had a layout and big plans for development. The military chose Tagil.
          Quote: dgonni
          To understand the epic, just look at the time when the eagle and Armata appeared in metal!

          Object 640 is not de facto metal - there is nothing inside, no instruments, no new loading mechanism. Just a demonstrator of the appearance of a promising car with the ability to move. Alas, this project was never even born ((((

          Are you aware that this project was misinformation, an empty shell on purpose? At that time it was already 195th, it was necessary to divert attention from it. The fact that this project did not go any further only confirms that this is a dummy
      2. Hog
        +3
        6 July 2021 23: 54
        Quote: dgonni
        To understand the epic, just look at the time when the eagle and Armata appeared in metal!

        So in Tagil at that time, work was going on on Object 195.
        1. +5
          7 July 2021 00: 00
          Quote: Hog
          So in Tagil at that time, work was going on on Object 195.

          Moreover, technically, the 195th was in a much more goth condition than the 640th ...
  17. -8
    6 July 2021 22: 09
    someone Sergey Zgurets, this is illiterate

    oh among Ukrainian idiots

    To this premature state

    What's this? It is a pity that the cons were canceled. And shame, the moderators of the article of this "level" are posted on the main
    1. -9
      6 July 2021 22: 17
      For Apukhtin, this is not the first time he seems to be writing about technology, but he will not fail to dump his tactlessness and bad manners on public display. You hate Ukraine - so hate yourself in the kitchen in a rag. Why are these insults in a popular science article?
      1. +3
        6 July 2021 23: 54
        Quote: Torvlobnor IV
        For Apukhtin, this is not the first time he seems to be writing about technology, but he will not fail to dump his tactlessness and bad manners on public display. You hate Ukraine - so hate yourself in the kitchen in a rag. Why are these insults in a popular science article?

        The person, apparently, has too many emotions about this. If I'm not mistaken, he even spent time in prison in post-Maidan Ukraine! On the one hand, a person has the right, but on the other hand, in a serious article it hurts the eye, and up to a heap prevents Apukhtin from being objective in some moments. For example, the development of Object 195 began not in the 90s, but in 1988 under the Improvement-88 program, and this program, while the USSR was still alive, was given priority to the relatively stalled development of the "hammer" in Kharkov. Well, about the T-80 and T-72, he is also clearly on emotions - the revolutionary T-64 was so crude and problematic that the Leningraders and Tagilians simply made it more sane versions, eliminating, in fact, promptly all the jambs of the Kharkovites with some of their improvements ...
        1. +8
          7 July 2021 01: 27
          Quote: Albert1988
          ... the revolutionary T-64 was so raw and problematic

          The T-64 can be called revolutionary if it is considered as a development of a medium tank. But I have come across the opinion that if you look at it as a lightweight heavy one, then there is little revolutionary in it. Why lightweight heavy? One of the signs is a lightweight chassis, which is characteristic of heavy tanks, where the weight is redistributed towards armor protection at the expense of the chassis. AZ on heavy ones, it seems, did not stand, but the semiautomatic device, where the loader dropped the projectile and the charge onto the conveyor from which the rammer loaded all this into the gun, was still on the IS-7.
          Pope T-72 (Object -167) was ready for production in 1961, AZ - in 1963 (in 1965 it was finalized), but it was not he who was adopted, but the T-62 (Object-166), as an intermediate option, until brought to mind the T-64. When the decree ordered all three factories to produce T-64, the tank suited only Kharkovites. The Tagilians, having driven the T-64 through their polygons, at the exit received cracks in the bottom (who does not know, the T-64 has short torsion bars attached through the lugs in the central part of the bottom, cracks have started around this creeper). Therefore, the Tagilians changed the chassis to their own, from object 167, which did not have such problems. With the engine, it is clear: it was produced only at one production site, and the number of those produced was enough only for the needs of Kharkovites. Put your own. As soon as they put their own engine on the T-64, it became clear that the chassis did not pull it - they changed the chassis to their own. In general, the only thing left from the T-64 on the tanks of other factories is the hull, the jamb of which has become characteristic of all T-64-72-80-90 - this is a weakened zone in the area of ​​the driver's viewing devices (the so-called "neckline").
          In general, if it were not for the political decision with the adoption of the T-64 into service, other tanks would have been adopted, not at all worse, and perhaps even better than this "revolutionary" one.
          1. +3
            7 July 2021 14: 57
            Quote: Bad_gr
            The T-64 can be called revolutionary if it is considered as a development of a medium tank. But I have met an opinion ...

            On the whole, this is a correct opinion. I will only clarify that when they say "revolutionary" about the T-64, then it is not necessary to understand the revolutionary nature of the technical solutions, but the revolutionary nature of the implemented concept - this is the first full-fledged MBT (there was still a centurion, but it is an MBT more in terms of functions than performance characteristics), that is, mobility is like an average, and protection and firepower are like a heavy one. And the fact that there was a lot of jambs is just a consequence of this very revolutionary, when a fundamentally new concept began to be implemented with the use of a bunch of very controversial and unworked technical solutions. In fact, the T-64 did not need to be produced at all - only its "revised versions" from Leningraders and Tagilians were needed.
      2. 0
        8 July 2021 14: 02
        So the author was put on a parach in UA. That is why I understand and ask for his turn.
    2. +5
      7 July 2021 06: 50
      Andrey, is there even a word of untruth in the quotes you quoted from the author?
      1. -10
        7 July 2021 09: 11
        Quote: snerg7520
        Andrey, is there even a word of untruth in the quotes you quoted from the author?

        If you do not understand that calling Ukraine a "premature state", etc. You put yourself on the level of shouting "who does not jump, that Moskal" - I feel sorry for you.
        1. +2
          10 July 2021 11: 27
          Andrey, have mercy on the Ukrainians, the more "normal Ukrainians" agree with me, I am quoting one of them - "You don’t look that Ukraine is a fascist-Bandera country of cannibals, there are also normal people ..."!
      2. +5
        7 July 2021 15: 01
        Quote: snerg7520
        Andrey, is there even a word of untruth in the quotes you quoted from the author?

        Everything is true, but only such expressions, and even in the mouths of the chief designer of an entire plant and a candidate of technical sciences, are appropriate only in communication with very close acquaintances who are not ashamed to express their pains. Well, or in an article where the author expresses his attitude to what is happening in the country 404. But in a serious technical article it hurts the eye and distracts from the main topic. So somehow ... request
  18. +4
    6 July 2021 22: 37
    Hmm ... the author expressed himself in an eyebrow, without hesitation! I can understand a person who is in the situation! hi
  19. +5
    6 July 2021 22: 55
    Back in '84, I heard about the crazy tank from the plant workers from Leningrad, who in our unit modernized the T-80B. And we believed that it was just about, and they will appear in our lifetime. Tanks in the USSR were designed and brought into production for a maximum of 5-10 years. Because the country needed them and no one shirked, Armatu will be busy for another 10 years. For she is not needed, except to roll the sheikhs in the desert! Yes, and it is not fashionable to go into tankers now, except perhaps in WOT, because the service is really dirty, troublesome and dangerous. ...
    1. 0
      6 July 2021 23: 55
      Quote: 113262
      Armatu will be bullied for another 10 years

      And that is why, starting next year, serial production?
      Quote: 113262
      For she is not needed, except perhaps to roll the sheikhs in the desert! Yes, and it is not fashionable to go to tankers now, except perhaps to WOT, because the service is really dirty, troublesome and dangerous. ...

      And that is why - from the uselessness of armatures, they urgently delivered simulators for training to this very armature of crews to all our tank schools?
      1. Alf
        +1
        7 July 2021 19: 56
        Quote: Albert1988
        And that is why, starting next year, serial production?

        It was said that in the 22nd year the tests will only end. And later production will begin. But when this "later" is not said. And if you take into account the tradition of time shifts to the right in modern Russia ...
        1. 0
          7 July 2021 19: 59
          Quote: Alf
          It was said that in the 22nd year the tests will only end. And later production will begin. But when this "later" is not said. And if you take into account the tradition of time shifts to the right in modern Russia ...

          That's right, but there are a few encouraging points. Firstly, there is already an official order of the Ministry of Defense for a series of 138 vehicles. So it is quite possible to assume that as soon as possible. Secondly, tank schools are urgently beginning to train crews for these very armats, which once again demonstrates that they are preparing for acceptance in the troops))))
          1. Alf
            0
            7 July 2021 20: 01
            Quote: Albert1988
            Firstly, there is already an official order of the Ministry of Defense for a series of 138 vehicles.

            From what date-month?
            1. 0
              7 July 2021 20: 08
              Quote: Alf
              From what date-month?

              Since last year. You can search for information - it was replicated very well. The Ministry of Defense discussed in detail the first order - 80 tanks - T-14, 30 TBMP - T-15 (though it is not known with which module - "epoch" 30 mm or "dagger" 57mm), and 18 BREM vehicles - T-16. Presumably, three battalion kits will be given to the Tamans.
              1. Alf
                0
                7 July 2021 20: 14
                Quote: Albert1988
                Since last year

                You either do not understand what I am saying, or you are pretending.
                I asked a clear question - WHEN will mass production of the T-14 begin?
                Answer one of three options:
                1. I don’t know. Then I do not consider it necessary to further pound water in a mortar.
                2. You name the date. The best way.
                3. The phrase "search the net for yourself" was spoken only by the well-known Zeus-Carbine. Do not disgrace yourself, do not give a reason to level you with him.
                1. +1
                  7 July 2021 20: 20
                  Quote: Alf
                  You either do not understand what I am saying, or you are pretending.
                  I asked a clear question - WHEN will mass production of the T-14 begin?

                  Dear, you will decide what you are asking. If you are asking when mass production will start, then the date is only tentative - from the 22nd year, and hardly anyone will tell you the exact one. This is not the most open infa. If you are asking when the infa came out, that the Ministry of Defense had planned the first batch of armature, then last year. Now I do not have these links, there is no power to search, this infa circulated enough around the network so that an interested person could easily find it.
                  1. Alf
                    0
                    7 July 2021 20: 36
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    Quote: Alf
                    You either do not understand what I am saying, or you are pretending.
                    I asked a clear question - WHEN will mass production of the T-14 begin?

                    Dear, you will decide what you are asking. If you are asking when mass production will start, then the date is only tentative - from the 22nd year, and hardly anyone will tell you the exact one. This is not the most open infa. If you are asking when the infa came out, that the Ministry of Defense had planned the first batch of armature, then last year. Now I do not have these links, there is no power to search, this infa circulated enough around the network so that an interested person could easily find it.

                    In short, there is nothing to say clearly. Verbal fog is coming up. Carbine is happy ...
                    1. 0
                      7 July 2021 20: 40
                      Quote: Alf
                      In short, there is nothing to say clearly. Verbal fog is coming up. Carbine is happy ...

                      You, dear, have much less to say than me in this matter, and you still need to formulate your thoughts clearly and clearly. And Carbine has nothing to do with it - I fought with Carbine at one time and hundreds of comments.
                      On the merits of your question - no one personally will ever tell you the exact date, because the exact information related to weapons can be found on the net only if it concerns "tigers and 34-k", on modern weapons - no. For the published infa always contains distortions, and some aspects, including the exact dates of the start of production of something or the exact amount in general, are very rarely disclosed.
      2. +3
        7 July 2021 20: 57
        Where does the infa come from? For the time being, at least, in the training in Elan, these simulators were not seen in any tank regiment. I will not say about Chebarkul, no information. And about launching into a series, I have been hearing this bike since the age of 14. Just about, everything is already there. And so the eighth year ... And most importantly, when the deadlines are postponed to the right, always ooooochen correct excuses.
        1. 0
          7 July 2021 21: 01
          Quote: 113262
          Where does the infa come from? For the time being, at least, in the training in Elan, these simulators were not seen in any tank regiment. I will not say about Chebarkul, no information.

          You can easily find the info on the same VO - it was published not so long ago. Plus a recent article on VO:
          https://topwar.ru/184473-v-seti-pojavilos-video-ispytanij-rossijskogo-kompleksa-aktivnoj-zaschity-dlja-bronetehniki.html
          The video at the end showed these simulators.

          In general, it is interesting - people are actively commenting on the topic, but they do not follow the development of the topic at all. Although everything is published on VO ...
          1. +5
            7 July 2021 21: 08
            Simulators always entered training sessions together with equipment. This was the case with the T-80, from the very beginning. In the first place, test workers from Omsk and Leningrad were sitting in military camps in hostels, even the BTV Academy was equipped with equipment and simulators. Why is it different with Armata? Although, now these offices-manufacturers are not the same! UVZ does not do their simulators.
            1. +1
              7 July 2021 21: 11
              Quote: 113262
              Although, now these offices-manufacturers are not the same! UVZ does not do their simulators.

              Perhaps for this reason, or maybe the simulators themselves need to be worked out separately. here I can’t tell you anything, alas - I don’t supervise these works request
              1. +3
                7 July 2021 21: 17
                Doing simulators before the final version of the machine appears is stupid and money down the drain! A striking example is the first series of t-80B and serial military. The difference in the layout of the controls is heaven and earth! Practicing automatism in preparing the car for a fight-down the drain! And with a controlled projectile, there was an ambush! The simulators were outdated every six months.
                1. 0
                  7 July 2021 21: 19
                  Quote: 113262
                  Doing simulators before the final version of the machine appears is stupid and money down the drain! A striking example is the first series of t-80B and serial military. The difference in the layout of the controls is heaven and earth! Practicing automatism in preparing the car for a fight-down the drain! And with a controlled projectile, there was an ambush! The simulators were outdated every six months.

                  This is understandable, you are right. But the military is still not stupid, which means a logical conclusion suggests itself - the final appearance of the machine has already been formed, and in the future there will be no noticeable changes. This means that production is not far off. And about the appearance of new "options", as in your example with the T-80, now the situation is easier - the software has been corrected and voila.
                  1. +3
                    7 July 2021 22: 18
                    Even the location of AZR - converter, rangefinder, calculator and MZ - in the early series was different. And these tkmblery should be groped by the gunner. Just like turning on the radio station at the commander and the toggle switches of the loading-permission panel. This is for example. And work in emergency mode, with a complete blackout, on the Armata is not explicitly provided. Software, you know!)))
                    1. +3
                      7 July 2021 22: 58
                      Quote: 113262
                      Even the location of AZRov - converter, rangefinder, calculator and MZ - in the early series was different. And these tkmblery should be groped by the gunner. Just like turning on the radio station at the commander and the toggle switches of the loading-permission panel. This is for example.

                      That's right, but what do we have in Armata? The computer is actually. So the management architecture will be slightly different there. In fact, it is more difficult, but in terms of management, it is easier.
                      Quote: 113262
                      And work in emergency mode, with a complete blackout, on the Armata is not explicitly provided. Software, you know!)))

                      This is a disadvantage, of course. On the other hand, what must happen to completely de-energize such a machine? And another question - how efficient will any modern tank be in such a situation? Although a de-energized armata can simply leave the field if the dvigun is intact.
                      1. +1
                        8 July 2021 15: 14
                        Elementary Watson! At 14 on the T-64bv entrusted to me, a land mine banged right along the axis. Imperceptible to the eye, but enough to shake the VKU. The tower is completely de-energized.
                      2. -1
                        8 July 2021 16: 56
                        Quote: 113262
                        Elementary Watson! At 14 on the T-64bv entrusted to me, a land mine banged right along the axis. Imperceptible to the eye, but enough to shake the VKU. The tower is completely de-energized.

                        I think that the designer, nevertheless, provided for such a scenario) Still, the car is modern - the electronics are everything, which means that it should be protected almost better than the crew, and the crew there, be healthy!
  20. +6
    7 July 2021 10: 13
    Great article. love Kortko and on the case:
    - history of the issue;
    - evaluation of the project "Nota";
    - assessment of Ukrainian tank building and the ability to create a tank;
    - some conclusions for us in the light of current events.
    Oh, I feel the author did not say, although he wanted to, a couple of kind words about the current affairs of "Armata" ...
    If the author found an opportunity it would be great to express your opinion on the T-95, T-14 and others like them.
    1. 0
      8 July 2021 18: 49
      Quote: Mityai65
      Oh, I feel the author did not say, although he wanted to, a couple of kind words about the current affairs of "Armata" ...
      If the author found the opportunity to express his opinion on the T-95, T-14 and others like them, it would be great.

      The author cannot tell about Armata and Object 195 - he worked at another plant, moreover, back in Soviet times and the first half of the 90s. So alas ...
  21. -1
    7 July 2021 10: 59
    It does not look like an article at all, some kind of surge of emotions of the author with an overestimated PSV
  22. +3
    7 July 2021 11: 08
    "The Russian expert community believes". It's already funny.
  23. +4
    7 July 2021 13: 25
    It was not just that after the war, Stalin left three rival design bureaus defending their concepts of tank development, which allowed the military to choose the best of them. Now this is not the case.

    This was not the case after Stalin either. There was no better choice - the army took both Kharkov T-64s, Tagil T-72s, and Leningrad T-80s. Three basic MBT models at the same time.
    1. -1
      7 July 2021 15: 02
      Quote: Alexey RA
      This was not the case after Stalin either. There was no better choice - the army took both Kharkov T-64s, Tagil T-72s, and Leningrad T-80s. Three basic MBT models at the same time.

      Moreover, the T-64 could be safely abandoned altogether, because with the 80th and 72nd it is essentially not competitive.
  24. -2
    7 July 2021 16: 55
    Well, since the author initially confesses his hatred of Ukraine, then the entire article can be safely multiplied by zero.
    1. 0
      7 July 2021 20: 22
      Quote: Mark_Pars
      Well, since the author initially confesses his hatred of Ukraine, then the entire article can be safely multiplied by zero.

      And why love this, as the author accurately and aptly expresses the "premature state", which destroyed everything that could ruin, spoiled relations with the closest neighbors, surrendered itself under external control, heroes Nazism, persecutes and kills its true patriots (one murder Let's remember the elder). So the question is - why love this ridiculous construct, whose flag is a patch of Swedish? (Absolutely real - when Mazepa appeared after an alliance with Karl))))
  25. wow
    0
    12 July 2021 17: 41
    Everything that is read on "Ukrainian sites" must be multiplied by 0.3 or less.
  26. 0
    13 July 2021 06: 58
    for 90% of modern countries, such tanks are superfluous and expensive and technology and electronics make it possible to bring the conditional T72 very close to the conditional Armata.
  27. 0
    13 July 2021 10: 30
    Thank you for the article!!! But, you could write without insults and not get personal
  28. 0
    8 September 2021 01: 04
    Yuri,
    The article is generally interesting. But why do you constantly insert insults like "premature country", etc.? Write on the topic. I am Russian. And for me, for example, it would be unpleasant if some author wrote about my homeland like that.
    It's another matter if the article is ordered, and the customer clearly indicated to you what insults and in what quantity should be used in the text. Then it's better to go to another forum, to Soloviev
  29. 0
    14 September 2021 21: 03
    I remember how they sang the praises of the tank "stronghold" on the Ukrainian TV, there even sounded the phrase "for the first time an automatic transmission was used on a tank." laughing