Military Review

Tank "Object 219РД" and engine 2В-16-2

A few years ago, an unremarkable tank stood in the back of a tank firing range in Kubinka. From the characteristic outlines of the hull, tower and chassis, it was possible to recognize the T-80, which had been in mass production since the mid-seventies. However, this particular instance was of great interest to people interested in Soviet armored vehicles. A closer look at the armored vehicle showed that the engine exhaust pipes were located not on the stern, but on the port side. In fact, only this sign said that there was a non-standard serial T-80 at the test site.

The abandoned and rusting machine was a prototype of the Project 219RD project, which appeared at the very end of the seventies. Adopted shortly before the T-80 had good characteristics, which were provided by a gas turbine engine with a capacity of 1000 horsepower. However, the cost for a relatively high speed and ease of use in winter conditions was too high fuel consumption. The power reserve of the T-80 was significantly less than that of other Soviet main tanks that time. In addition, a gas turbine power plant cost an order of magnitude more than a diesel engine of similar power. Therefore, already in the late seventies, the Ministry of Defense initiated the development of a tank modernization project, the purpose of which was to maintain the driving performance of the armored vehicle, while simultaneously increasing fuel efficiency and reducing the cost of the finished tank.

At this time, the designers of the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant were working on creating a family of tank diesel engines 2В. It was planned to make several four-stroke X-shaped engines with power from 300 to 1600 horsepower. It was the engine of the 2B family that was chosen as a power plant for a new modification of the T-80 tank, called the “219РД Object”. With the development of new engines was remarkable история. Initially, in the 1976-77, at ChTZ, an 16-cylinder diesel engine with a capacity of 1000 hp was designed. However, by the time the design work was completed, it turned out that the defense industry does not need such an engine. All tanks in which he could work, were already equipped with other types of engines. Therefore, based on the resulting 2B-16-1, they began to create more powerful 2В-16-2 with maximum power up to 1200 hp.

Using the 2B-16-2 engine, Chelyabinsk engineers created the MTU-2 engine-transmission unit, which was an engine and transmission assembled into a single unit. This approach to design was used for the first time in Soviet practice. Of the other features of the installation should be noted hydrodynamic transmission, electro-hydraulic control system, the original cooling units, as well as air filters. A monoblock propulsion system occupies a total volume of 3,6 cubic meters.

In the early eighties, one of the production tanks T-80B underwent alteration, bringing to the state "Object 219РД". He was removed from the original power plant with a gas turbine engine, which took the place of the unit MTU-2. The monoblock engine transmission showed itself well at the installation stage. During the check of maintainability of the tank with him, a team of four repairmen was able to replace the engine and transmission in just 65-70 minutes. It is worth noting that not only Leningrad designers from the Kirov factory who created the “Object 80РД” were engaged in the modernization of the T-219B. At the same time, the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant was designing the tank “Object 785” with a similar power plant. A characteristic feature of the new Chelyabinsk experimental tank has become a longer hull with seven support rollers on board. Only one instance of such an armored vehicle was built, mass production did not start.

The “219РД object”, which received the new power plant units, turned out to be slightly heavier than the original T-80B and weighed almost 44 tons. Due to the fact that power in 1200 hp was the maximum for the engine 2В-16-2, the driving characteristics of the new tank were slightly lower than the base model. The maximum speed of the “Object 219РД” decreased to 60-65 kilometers per hour, which, however, was compensated by a large power reserve. Because of the less voracious diesel, he was able to overcome at one gas station about 500 km.

The 219РД Object converted from the standard armored car corresponded in all respects the T-80B, not counting the units of the engine compartment. The tank retained the combined armor based on rolled sheets. Due to a slight increase in engine power, the undercarriage also did not change: the former six track rollers with a torsion bar on each side remained. Complex arms "Object 219RD" consisted of a gun-trigger 2A46-2 installation with antitank missiles launching complex 9K112-1 "Cobra", two guns (zenith NSVT 12,7 mm caliber and coupled with the gun 7,62-mm FCT) and smoke grenade. The use of armaments was provided by the 1А33 fire control system, coupled with an armament stabilizer, a ballistic computer, a laser rangefinder, etc. In general, the weapons and electronics of the pilot tank corresponded to the set of equipment installed on the T-80B of the early series.

Tank "Object 219РД" and engine 2В-16-2

The remains of the Object 219РД in Kubinka

In the mid-eighties, several samples of the 2В-16-2 engines underwent interdepartmental tests, during which each of them worked over 700 hours. At the same time, the ground tests passed the prototype of the “219RD Object”. During the trips to the tankdrome, the armored car almost completely consumed the resource of the engine installed on it. Feedback from testers and customers was generally positive. The lower maximum speed was more than offset by a large power reserve and a significantly lower cost of the diesel engine. However, the fate of the project decided not technical and non-economic features.

The project “Object 219РД” was primarily affected by the views of the military. This tank was considered only as a replacement for the T-80B in case of the need for rapid deployment of mass production. In addition, the relevant departments were not in a hurry to prepare the industry for the production of the new 2В-16-2 engine, and the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant itself could not master its mass assembly due to its capacity utilization. The end of the history of this engine, and with it the project "Object 219РД" became a few documents issued by the leadership of the defense industry. In 1988, the 2В-16-2 diesel engine and the MTU-2 installation were recommended for serial production, after which all the documentation went to the archive.

Soon after, the customer, represented by the Ministry of Defense, attempted to preserve the 2В engine family and, possibly, the “Object 219РД” tank. Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant ordered the development of a unified power plant for all existing tanks. The 12 X-cylinder 2В-12-2 engine, whose power was brought to the level of the previous 2В-16-2, was taken as a basis for it. However, in the future, the military abandoned these engines. Updating the fleet of armored vehicles was considered unprofitable, as a result of which all the documents on this project also went to the archival shelf. The 2B engine family still exists, but even after 25 years after those events, it was not widely spread.

The tank “Object 219РД” was sent to storage as superfluous. A couple of years ago, photographs appeared in free access, in which the state of the useless experienced armored vehicle was captured. The abandoned tank made a sad impression: some parts were missing, while others were covered with rust. Thus ended one of the attempts to equip the T-80 tank with a diesel engine. It is worth noting that this idea further bore fruit in the form of the main battle tank T-XNUMHUD "Birch". However, this development was not destined to serve for a long time. By the end of the nineties, all the “Birches” of the Russian armed forces were decommissioned due to technical problems.

On the materials of the sites:
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mikhado
    Mikhado April 25 2013 09: 06 New
    Yes, perestroika hit the 2B family hardest, the X-samples were stuck in oblivion for a long time. I understand that only Armata will finally receive them. We are waiting, sir.
  2. egor1974
    egor1974 April 25 2013 11: 09 New
    The technical problems of the t-80ud - this is the reluctance of the Russian leadership to buy Ukrainian engines led to the fact that hundreds of tanks were cut and the towers went to the t-80 which will also soon become victims of the Ural lobby.
    1. pinachet
      pinachet April 25 2013 13: 02 New
      I don’t want to buy engines in Ukraine for real reasons. A country can be one foot in NATO (read unnecessary bookmarks in dviglo), plus quality is not it, and there are still a lot of problems that will pop up at the wrong time. Look not one thing with Ukraine (gas, an 70, btr4 for iraq some kind of haemorrhage, etc.)
      and towers with a complex of weapons from t80ud are put on the modernized t80bv.
      plus the desire to at least somehow unify the fleet of tank military. why should we produce variants of diesel tanks t80ud, t72 (a bunch of options and the number of pieces), t90. when almost all tth are equal.
    2. Mikhado
      Mikhado April 25 2013 15: 42 New
      Quote: egor1974
      The technical problems of the t-80ud - this is the reluctance of the Russian leadership to buy Ukrainian engines led to the fact that hundreds of tanks were cut and the towers went to the t-80 which will also soon become victims of the Ural lobby.

      What kind of stream of consciousness?
      Even such a powerful country as the USSR, and even with difficulty dragged THREE different cars, this is an inadmissible luxury.
      As a result, the most adequate machine remained - the continuation of the T-72, and even that was done in the amount of "chickens to laugh."
      Both turbines and two-stroke engines are expensive capricious toys, the situation was not just constantly considered that during the threatened period there will be traditional proven diesel engines on the stream. They (turbines and 2T) have advantages, of course, but the production price is excessive.
      Today's Ukraine simply has no choice - only TDFs are made on their territory, and it puts them in everything that moves and is sold.
      The prospect of Russia - X-models, tragically stuck in time for political reasons.
      1. Alekseev
        Alekseev April 27 2013 21: 14 New
        Quote: Mikhado
        Both turbines and two-stroke engines are expensive naughty toys.

        Quote: Mikhado
        Today's Ukraine simply has no choice - only TDFs are made on their territory, and it puts them in everything that moves and is sold.

        Not in the eyebrow, but in the eye! good
    3. Alekseev
      Alekseev April 28 2013 09: 46 New
      Quote: egor1974
      unwillingness of the Russian leadership to buy Ukrainian engines

      Yes, the stupid one, the management, the mediocre motor, did not want to buy, it does not want to fall into dependence on the state conducting the policy “both yours and ours”. lol
      Here Saakashvili, that fellow, bought everything in Ukraine (or took it for nothing), then shot at Russian troops. A true Ukrainian friend, wah, a horseman. laughing
  3. egor1974
    egor1974 April 25 2013 11: 13 New
    interestingly on a kubinka pulled off all the titanic caps MTO?
  4. Mohomax
    Mohomax April 25 2013 12: 46 New
    Designers looked into the future. Increased maintainability of the tank; turning the MTO into a monoblock is a very interesting undertaking, from which there are more pluses than minuses
  5. _KM_
    _KM_ April 25 2013 15: 55 New
    The engine is curious, but in a real combat situation it is difficult to predict how it will behave. Even from the point of view of theory, the upper and lower cylinders work in different conditions. After movement and prolonged sludge, oil and fuel residues can accumulate in the lower cylinders. At the same time, access to the lower cylinders is difficult.
    1. family
      family tree April 25 2013 22: 05 New
      Well, the conditions are generally the same and the oil drains into the sump. This is 2V-12-3, it looks like it is stuck on the "Armata", but I could be wrong
  6. tank64rus
    tank64rus April 25 2013 17: 19 New
    interesting thing
  7. kirpich
    kirpich April 25 2013 19: 54 New
    V-shaped, X-shaped, in-line, gas turbine. Each has its own advantages, just explain to me why boxer engines are not put on tanks? After all, they have more advantages over other internal combustion engines. Itself worked on a steamboat where there was a counter-opposed engine, so the mechanics almost prayed for it. No, I understand in advance that tanks and ships are two different things, but why do designers ignore these engines?
    1. family
      family tree April 25 2013 21: 30 New
      laughing Woke up? Good morning! Kharkov, starting with T-64, on all two-stroke counter-opposed diesel engines, families 5TD and 6TD, with a horizontal arrangement of cylinders.
      The steamboat, generally with a steam dvigl, well, and on ships air purification is not critical, there is no dust in the sea, and two-stroke air needs a lot of clean air. Second, large ship two-stroke engines are low-speed, and while the piston is walking, it is possible to arrange a not-so-weak draft in the cylinder, in contrast to the tank draft with its 3000 rpm.
      1. Argon
        Argon April 26 2013 04: 17 New
        Well, I think that no more than a gas turbine engine, but on 80ke this problem was solved, replace the ejection cooling system with a drive (more compact and efficient) then there is a place for air filters. Dear perepilka, take a word to ensure optimal efficiency The “purge-charge” cycle with an operating range of 180-220 rpm (the bulk of marine diesel engines) is much more complicated than with 800-6000 rpm.
  8. Simon
    Simon April 25 2013 21: 00 New
    An interesting car, it is a pity that I did not go into the series. hi
  9. uzer 13
    uzer 13 April 25 2013 22: 10 New
    Engine building has gone so far forward that it will soon be created
    a diesel engine similar to the one on the T-34. Pozor. At the car factories, they already understood this and began to buy foreign-made motors.
    1. Argon
      Argon April 26 2013 04: 00 New
      And where does the kindly pessimism actually come from, uzer13, ships need their own diesel engines, specific ones are there. And imported engines for passenger cars are just a cut of money and a desire to eliminate a strong competitor from the market.
      1. uzer 13
        uzer 13 April 26 2013 16: 06 New
        A compact motor is harder to make than a large one, such as marine diesel, since the load on the mechanisms is much higher and other technologies and materials are required. One can not do with one cast iron.
    2. uzer 13
      uzer 13 April 28 2013 21: 54 New
      So where can you see the modern high-tech tank or car diesel engine. (Russian-made)? What they put on the tanks is a 20-year-old design. But for cars there are none at all. They tried to do it but failed. And where are the Wankel engines , Stirling, or working on the Carnot cycle? Or do you not know such words, Russian engineers?
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr April 28 2013 22: 51 New
        Quote: uzer 13
        So where can one see a modern high-tech tank or automobile diesel engine. (Russian-made)?

        Inside link there are links to a number of articles on diesel engines for armored vehicles, including recently created from scratch (Engines of the "T" family)

        Quote: uzer 13
        And where are the Wankel, Stirling engines, or working on the Carnot cycle? Or do you not know such words, Russian engineers?

        Wankel engines we put on the Lada and sports Kamaz. But for objective reasons they were abandoned, like the rest, not technically weak countries. The Japanese company Mazda puts them on its sports (and only on them) cars, but something is not heard about the rest.

        Stirling engines are now remembered as an engine for submarines. In the United States, relatively recently, they were still placed on army generators, but perhaps now this is no longer practiced. Again, like the previous engine (Wankel) in the world, it’s rather exotic, and not a role model.

        And engines working on the Carnot cycle, can you give an example of where it is all implemented and in which countries?
        1. uzer 13
          uzer 13 3 May 2013 15: 25 New
          All this is true, brother, and I know it. People with a specific sense of humor just angered me. The Wankel engine asks for production, but I couldn’t make good seals for it. I work on a different profile, just the basics of heat engineering once studied. You, as a specialist, better than me understand these matters.
  10. _KM_
    _KM_ April 26 2013 12: 38 New
    Quote: perepilka
    Well, the conditions are generally the same and the oil drains into the sump.

    No, the temperature conditions are different. The lower cylinders are heavier.

    Oil flows into the pan only partially. With the X-shaped arrangement of the cylinders in the lower cylinders, part of the oil flows down the parts of the connecting rod-piston group and the walls of the cylinders and enters the combustion chamber. As a result, dirt accumulates there and the nozzle clogs / fills. This affects the starting properties of the engine, can cause failures and loss of engine power, increase engine power, etc.

    In aviation, this was somewhat easier. The motor was unkempted, the candles were turned out and all this rubbish was drained. In the tank, it is more difficult to approach the lower cylinders, and the operating conditions are more severe.

    Quote: kirpich
    No, I understand in advance that tanks and ships are two different things, but why do designers ignore these engines?

    Do not ignore, but rarely use. Compared to a conventional in-line engine, the opposed engine has a number of disadvantages: 2 timing drives, increased intake and exhaust piping sizes, larger dimensions, layout complexity, increased maintenance labor, etc.
    1. Alekseev
      Alekseev April 28 2013 09: 54 New
      Quote: _KM_
      As a result, dirt accumulates there and the nozzle clogs / fills. This affects the starting performance of the engine,

      What dirt? Dirt in the combustion chamber is not permissible ...
      As for oil, the “miraculous” 5tdf even has an oil injection system in the cylinders. Just to improve starting properties. (This is diesel, candles are not there) Another unit without oil injection do not even try to start. And the "fast and the furious" can be given (but I do not advise getting carried away, otherwise the dvigun will fall apart wink )
  11. _KM_
    _KM_ April 26 2013 15: 01 New
    Quote: _KM_
    increase engine power, etc.

    Sealed up. Increase fuel consumption.
  12. Bad_gr
    Bad_gr April 26 2013 23: 17 New
    Maybe I missed, but the article does not say who the developer of "Object 219RD" is.
    Two hundredth object numbers at the St. Petersburg Design Bureau.

    Who cares, the rest of the numbers:

    100 - Sverdlovsk Transport Engineering Plant; Leningrad Experimental Engineering Plant; Uralvagonzavod.
    200 - Leningrad Kirov Plant.
    300 - Uraltransmash.
    400 - Kharkov Heavy Engineering Plant.
    500 - Omsk plant? 172; Mytishchi Engineering Plant; Rubtsovsky Engineering Plant.
    600 - Omsk Transport Engineering Plant; Kurganmashzavod.
    700 - Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant.
    800 - OKB-1, OKB-585, etc.
    900 - Volgograd Tractor Plant.
  13. 31rus
    31rus 16 December 2014 01: 07 New
    yes you missed the article indicated Chelyabinsk, although Peter is listed as a developer