Lack of traction: problems facing domestic tank engine manufacturing

The pipe dream of domestic tank building: the A-85-3A diesel engine

1500 horsepower

One of the undeniable advantages of the Soviet tank-building school was its competitive environment. By the late 80s, there were three heavy combat vehicles: from Nizhny Tagil (the T-72 series), from Omsk (the T-80 series), and from Kharkov (the T-64). All Tanks To varying degrees, they were comparable to world-class standards and, relatively speaking, interchangeable on the battlefield. Their main difference was the powerplant. Putting aside other aspects, dispersing resources across three very different engines led to nothing good.

Neither the Soviet Union nor Russia were able to concentrate resources on developing a tank engine with a long service life, such as the V-2 model of 1939. The domestic military-industrial complex still uses the cylinder block of this well-deserved diesel engine to build modern tank engines. To be fair, engineers have significantly improved the performance of the pre-war diesel engine. The most modern version, the V-92S2F, has increased its power by 2,26 times compared to its predecessor, and its torque by half, while its specific fuel consumption has even decreased. There's no guarantee that the latest reincarnation of the T-34 and KV-1 engines won't celebrate its centenary on the production line.

Even less inspiring stories Other Soviet-era tank engines—the 6TD and GTD-1200—were similar. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Kharkiv engine builders remained abroad and were never able to perfect the unique 6-cylinder diesel engine with counter-rotating pistons. With the proper attention and modernization efforts, this engine promised a great future. It could have become the successor to the V-2, just as the gas turbine GTD-1250, found in the newest Russian T-80BVM, failed to do so.

Kaluga Engine JSC is producing the GTD-1250 for the first time in many, many years.

None of the above is a revelation, and regular readers of "Military Review" have encountered similar materials time and again. Why is it time to once again recall the problems of tank engine production in Russia? There are two reasons. First, the enemy is expanding its military-industrial complex. I'm talking about NATO. An example is the Eurosatory 2026 exhibition in Paris, which demonstrated European interest in new tanks. As well as in modern powertrains. One such example is the Liebherr D9612, producing 1800 hp. This is a 12-cylinder V-shaped diesel engine with a displacement of 29,4 liters, designed for the advanced MBT Vision 2032 tank. Liebherr didn't design the engine from scratch; it is a military version of a civilian heavy-duty diesel engine used in construction equipment. Many foreign companies are now looking to cash in on defense contracts, and Swiss Liebherr is no exception.

Liebherr D9612

The D9612 competes directly with established European brands, primarily the German MTU-883 (Motoren- und Turbinen-Union Friedrichshafen), which produces 1630 hp in the Ka-501 variant. This engine powers the Merkava Mk.4 and the export Leclerc. The Leopard 2 currently uses the less advanced MB 873 Ka-501. But that's not all. In the coming years (if not months), the MTU 10V199, a 10-cylinder tank diesel, will appear on the horizon. It is more compact than all its predecessors and is part of a hybrid powertrain, with a combined output of up to 1900 hp. The 10-cylinder diesel engine's own "mechanical" output is approximately 1500 hp. The engine is expected to be installed in the Leopard 2 and the prospective European MGCS (Main Ground Combat System).

MTU MB-873 Ka-501

Given the will and resources, this is entirely possible – 6- and 8-cylinder diesel engine modules are already used in light European armored vehicles. The MTU 10V199 is largely unified with its smaller variants. A 12-cylinder 12V199 variant is also planned, but its platforms appear too heavy, even for a tank. Incidentally, the modularity of a V-shaped tank engine is not a German innovation. It's a traditional practice in civilian and military engine design – the B-2 series was designed from the start to be modular. For example, half of a tank engine, the six-cylinder V-shaped B-6, appeared in the 50s and was installed in the PT-76 tank and BTR-50P.

It's time to act

The second reason to seriously consider the prospects of tank engine manufacturing is the experience of the special operation. Despite the fact that heavy combat vehicles, to put it mildly, do not fully perform their functions, the importance of their evolution cannot be denied. Some things are simply impossible without increasing the power of the power plant. Take, for example, barbecue grills, without which any assault on Ukrainian positions would be a tragedy. Good homemade protection, capable of withstanding up to 40-50 FPV hits,drones, weighing 7-10 tons. Tankers on the front line claim that only gas-turbine T-80 tanks can handle the increased load more or less. Only they have a small power reserve. The other combat vehicles—the T-72B3 and T-90M—are noticeably slower.

Unless something fundamentally new is invented in armored vehicle protection in the near future, the next-generation vehicles will become significantly heavier. They will require several additional tons to thicken the armor on all sides and to provide some kind of anti-drone grill. For now, this is precisely the future. For Russian vehicles, it is uncertain. The potential for modernizing the V-2 design has already been exhausted – further increases in power are associated with a critical reduction in the service life and reliability of the diesel engine.

The Armata platform and the T-14 tank immediately come to mind. However, this vehicle is not in active service, not even in the minimum quantities required for combat use. Nor is there a production version of the new tank's powerplant—the X-shaped A-85-3A with 1500 hp. Interestingly, the first prototypes of a tank diesel engine appeared back in the 70s, but the design was never fully finalized. This raises the question: will it ever be possible to get the unit operational? So far, all that is known is that the Chelyabinsk developers have been experiencing persistent problems with the engine.

The X-shaped design has many advantages, but also many technological challenges. For example, in such a densely packed cylinder-piston group, it's difficult to ensure cooling of the inner cylinders—they are squeezed on all sides by hot neighbors. And the crankshaft design of such a diesel engine is comparable in complexity to space technology. Today, mastering the production of an X-shaped, high-performance tank engine can be compared to the drama of mastering the 5TDF engine in the 60s. Soviet engineers spent several years perfecting it, under the conditions of serial production and military use, which exposed all the defects and shortcomings of the unit. The A-85-3A has neither.

A-85-3A

Little is heard about "Product 39," the name behind the promising GTD-1500. The name suggests the engine's power: 1500 hp. News The project's development was announced almost two years ago, but nothing concrete has been released about the engine since then. There are several challenges. The T-80BVM transmission isn't ideally suited for such a powerful engine (even if it retains its current dimensions). Current final drives can handle up to 1250 hp without critically reducing their service life. Kaluga Engine is developing a 1500 hp engine with a short-term boost to 1800 hp. Such a powerful engine could simply destroy the tank's transmission. And the second question is: does PAO Kadvi still have the personnel capable of such complex and responsible work? The plant hasn't designed tank gas turbine engines for decades, let alone produced them.

It must be said that there wasn't much positivity. But there's hope that the mere recognition of the problem is already half the battle. Or at least a quarter. All that remains is to wait for the ideas voiced to find a response from those in power.

Comments

[Victor Leningradets]

Given the realities of modern warfare, the concept of the main battle tank should simply be abandoned, along with all requirements for mobility, point-blank range, and, especially, the combat vehicle's range. And along with it, the entire concept of deep tank penetrations. Most likely, the future lies in the movement of shock troops and firepower by air with appropriate support, while ground forces will be suitable only for clearing terrain and finishing off an encircled enemy unwilling to lay down their arms. And for this, the dynamics of combat vehicles achieved in the 60s are sufficient. The main focus is on protection and the effectiveness of weapons.

[Civil]

Stop clinging to ancient developments; objectively, in light of the latest databases, we need to move straight to the next level:
1. An unmanned tank. This will reduce weight, lower costs, and, most importantly, save scarce manpower.
2. Hybrid propulsion. The assistance/full operation of a compact electric motor(s) will help increase power without sacrificing the life of the diesel engine and reduce the cost of the powertrain.
3. Due to the lack of space behind the armor for the crew, the tank's protection can be significantly increased.
4. Make the tank completely autonomous within the network.
This way, the tank can be made much cheaper and perhaps survive on the modern battlefield.

[EpIvIaK]

Plus, if powerful automatic turrets/lasers and other UAV-based weapons appear in tank columns, then tank breakthroughs will become relevant again.

[Alekseev]

Quote: EpIvIaK

if powerful automatic turrets/lasers and so on appear

That's right!
But the article is not about turrets and lasers, but about tank engines!
Just a couple of comments on the subject... But the article is full of empty words.
It’s not a specialist who writes, it’s just a retelling of narratives from the media.
The struggles of the two-stroke TD-6 diesel engine... We see few two-stroke engines on wheeled and tracked vehicles. Before writing an article, we should consider why.
X-shaped diesel successfully was tested back in the 80s in the USSR.
But it can’t be simply shoved into the MTO of existing vehicles; the dimensions need to be changed, that is, a different body.
A different transmission is needed. The Armata platform seems to exist, but new requirements for MBT protection have emerged. And for its armament, too. The Armata's gun is almost identical to the T-90M's, but the price of the tank itself is vastly different. And neither has an anti-drone combat module. How can you replace a proven and inexpensive model with a new, more expensive one during a war if its combat effectiveness is not significantly better?
The tank engines in service generally meet the requirements of war.
Anti-drone defense systems are not fully adequate. There are no munitions or devices for more effective engagement of targets with ZOPs.
This is what should be the first thing on the minds of the GABTU and defense industry enterprises.

[parma]

Where did you get that idea? You shouldn't measure everything by the realities of the air defense system! The prevalence of drones stems from the inability of either side to impose air superiority. NATO isn't intentionally abandoning tanks and heavy equipment. Why? Because they have a well-developed air component—wild weasels for suppressing air defenses, modern fighters with flying radars for destroying aircraft, and strike aircraft for suppressing logistics and ground forces. If it's possible to disrupt enemy logistics from the air, no drones will stop units with heavy equipment, since FPV and similar drones simply won't reach their operators. And small groups of operators with cover, without ammunition or heavy equipment, will be destroyed by larger combined arms units.
Thus, drones will likely remain a feature of this conflict, as "rich" countries can afford air superiority, while poor countries cannot afford mass production of drones. Note that even the various "baba" (big guns) are trying to slap armor plating on their pickup trucks made from scrap metal and all sorts of larger ZPU/SPG systems, thus compensating for the lack of proper equipment.

[Machito]

Quote: parma

Where did you get that idea? You shouldn't measure everything by the realities of the air defense system! The prevalence of drones stems from the inability of either side to impose air superiority. NATO isn't intentionally abandoning tanks and heavy equipment. Why? Because they have a well-developed air component—wild weasels for suppressing air defenses, modern fighters with flying radars for destroying aircraft, and strike aircraft for suppressing logistics and ground forces. If it's possible to disrupt enemy logistics from the air, no drones will stop units with heavy equipment, since FPV and similar drones simply won't reach their operators. And small groups of operators with cover, without ammunition or heavy equipment, will be destroyed by larger combined arms units.
Thus, drones will likely remain a feature of this conflict, as "rich" countries can afford air superiority, while poor countries cannot afford mass production of drones. Note that even the various "baba" (big guns) are trying to slap armor plating on their pickup trucks made from scrap metal and all sorts of larger ZPU/SPG systems, thus compensating for the lack of proper equipment.

Look at the actions of the Israeli-fascist army in Lebanon. Israel has complete air superiority, while Hezbollah is taking out tanks with drones.
Tanks should be equipped with anti-aircraft machine guns equipped with radars, including ultrasonic ones, which will automatically shoot down drones.

[parma]

The Greens' strikes are sporadic and rather troubling. Compare this to the SVO: while the Hez have one drone for every 20 tanks, in our conflict the situation is the opposite.

[bayard]

The theater of operations there is much denser, less mountainous. So Hezbollah has enough drones to disrupt the advance of ground forces. That's why they're now relying on air strikes to demolish cities and villages. The example of the war in Lebanon only underscores the drone revolution that has occurred. And this is precisely the direction that will now progress, including in aviation. The only solution is to break the conventional impasse, but that's a completely different quality of conflict. Once you embark on this path, you'll need to follow it to the end, without hesitation or warning. The entire leadership of the collective West has completely lost its mind and is a gang of suicidal maniacs. The world must be cleansed of this infection.

[parma]

The "greens" haven't caused any collapse, nor will they be able to, as evidenced by the IDF's response – there are no barbecues, nets, or shotguns, meaning the enemy's use of drones is rare. Israel is creating, so to speak, an exclusion zone in Lebanon, stating outright that there will be no residents there, and I'm afraid no one will do anything about it.
There is only one way out of any positional impasse: either by depleting the enemy's economy so that he simply has nothing to transport to the front, or by destroying logistics so that nothing reaches the front.
Regarding the talk about the "crazy West"—you shouldn't listen to propaganda excesses, but to real-life statements. Look at China's reaction; even they're making every effort to signal that they won't tolerate the use of nuclear weapons or escalation to other European countries.

[bayard]

Quote: parma

There are no barbecues, nets, or shotguns, meaning that the enemy is rarely using drones.

Every misfortune starts with a vengeance. The Turks and Persians will throw in some troops, and the war will become even more exciting.

Quote: parma

Israel is creating, so to speak, an exclusion zone in Lebanon, which it directly states will not be inhabited by a single person, and I'm afraid no one will do anything about it.

Lebanon has no air defense, Israel controls the skies and faces no air threat. But Hezbollah has missiles, so does Iran, and the Persians aren't abandoning Lebanon, including including Lebanon's security and inviolability in the ceasefire. And more than just everyone has seen what Iranian missiles are doing to Israel. The US will likely back off in the next stage, having already tried and gotten a beating. But even if they do, they'll get a beating again, but harder this time.

Quote: parma

There won't be a single resident there, and I'm afraid no one will do anything about it.

The Persians will try to do exactly the same to Israel. And they will.
Will Israel use nuclear weapons?
And this will be the last thing he'll have time to do. The Persians have very well-developed means of guaranteed delivery, and nuclear warheads for such remarkable missiles will always be available. In situations like these, they're always found quickly. And the fatwa prohibiting it is outdated. And it's the only thing holding him back. You don't doubt, of course, that the DPRK has such nuclear warheads, and already in sufficient quantities?

Quote: parma

There is only one way out of any positional impasse: either by depleting the enemy's economy so that he simply has nothing to transport to the front, or by destroying logistics so that nothing reaches the front.

No, what you're describing is the dead end itself. And the Gordian Knot is always resolved with the Sword.

Quote: parma

about the "crazy West" - you should hear not propaganda excesses, but reasonable things.

I don't need the opinions of primitive propaganda; I have enough knowledge and analytical experience to form my own opinion. I also have enough friends who are doctors, so this is a purely medical verdict.

Quote: parma

Look at China's reaction

Does he have any reaction other than Leopold the Cat's mantra? He's the beneficiary of everything that's happening, so he's "sitting on the branch" and reaping all the benefits. He's building a fleet, ICBMs, collecting nuclear warheads for them, and he's quite happy that all the other players are busy with their own agendas and are plunging into crisis and chaos. He won't be against it, just as he won't be for it. He'll simply pick up the pieces after someone else's fight. Whatever he can and whatever his capabilities and circumstances allow him to.
But he won’t be able to interfere and won’t want to.
The positional stalemate of WWI was overcome by new tactics and new types of weapons—the massive use of tanks and aircraft. The Germans had far fewer of these new weapons of war, and they naturally broke down after colossal attrition.
Russia has a solution to the West's deranged problem—quickly, radically, and reliably. Without the US, Europe has no chance at all. And with the US, their demise is guaranteed. But if the US gets involved, we'll get it badly, too. They still have the means, even though their strategic nuclear forces are as old as a mammoth's dung.
Europe has neither its own missile defense nor a high-quality air defense system, and its air force is built exclusively on light fighters with all their limitations (radar, missile defense, and combat radius). A global disarming and decapitating strike against Europe and its neighbor is not only possible, it is practically inevitable. They, like a herd of pigs possessed by a demonic legion, are racing toward the abyss, and this is their choice. No one will try to persuade or save them. We will simply be obliged to burn them for purely sanitary purposes. Anyone who wants and tries to destroy us WORTHY OF DEATH. And they have already earned this right and fate.

Quote: parma

he won't tolerate it.

China?
He will smile.

[Pimply]

Don't judge the war by pretty videos and pictures. Hezbollah has lost over 1000 fighters since March, Israel 20. How many real, confirmed losses of equipment has Israel suffered? That's it. In reality, there aren't any; the equipment is being repaired and returned to service. The main losses are in the parking lot. Hezbollah has lost most of southern Lebanon. Only Trump's memo is saving them.

[rytik32]

Quote: parma

because "rich" countries can afford air superiority

The US and Israel were unable to defeat Iran in this way.
Or are they not rich enough?

[ZeeD]

So, did they suppress Iran's air defenses? What about air superiority, please remind me...

[parma]

They suppressed it, effectively leaving Iran with only MANPADS and light, radar-less SAMs—things like that can't be detected from the air. Need I remind you that Israeli and American aircraft flew freely over Tehran and destroyed whatever they wanted?

[ZeeD]

Should I remind you about the downed helicopter? And the downed drones? Then why didn't they continue bombing? Maybe because they couldn't suppress them?

[Pimply]

They didn't just suppress it, they took it out. And they took whatever they wanted. Compare that to Desert Storm in terms of casualties.

[hostel]

Well, well, the undertakers buried the concept of barrel anti-aircraft artillery, and now they don’t know how to fight off primitive drones with characteristics on par with aircraft from the 30s.

[Konnick]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

The main thing is protection and effectiveness of weapons.

The first anti-tank was the T-34-57, built in Kharkov...how useful it would have been against Tigers and Panthers at the Battle of Kursk, where this menagerie, designed primarily for anti-tank combat, appeared. The next generation of tanks were outright anti-tank. Now, there are many other anti-tank weapons, and it's time to return the tank to its original purpose—fighting infantry entrenched in trenches and shelters. And we need to move away from smoothbore guns to rifled, more accurate barrels. Moreover, a larger caliber and the ability to place shells on reverse slopes at close ranges

[Netl]

Quote: Konnick

And we need to move away from a smoothbore gun to a rifled, more accurate barrel.

Then we're no longer talking about a tank, but a self-propelled howitzer on tracks. Perfect for reverse slopes and long ranges. However, we still need a vehicle that, in some cases, could take out a strongpoint with direct-fire HE shells. And at the same time, be able to withstand dozens of drone hits.

[Pimply]

There were about 350 Tigers and Panthers there in total, the Germans' main tank was the Pz.Kpfw. IV, about 850 of them, and the Troika - there were over 600 of them.

[highlight]

Since tanks have been converted into self-propelled guns, perhaps we should initially build a heavy self-propelled gun with a 152-caliber 52-60 caliber gun, or even a 160 caliber smoothbore gun, spaced armor (super-barrel), and hybrid electric propulsion? Designed to fire precision-guided munitions.

[Victor Leningradets]

Possible.
Experience with the ISU-152 seems to point in that direction. And since ATGMs are more effective against tanks, it follows that a smoothbore with high ballistics and low accuracy is irrelevant. What's most likely needed is an ATGM/howitzer system and an AI-controlled rapid-fire anti-aircraft gun for upper-hemisphere defense.

[Revolver]

If engineers are paid less than couriers, the strange thing isn't why they can't do what's desirable, but why they even exist at all. Under Stalin, even a young specialist was paid more than a skilled worker. Yes, of course, there was demand (though usually it was those of much higher ranks who were held accountable), but there were results, too—some are still milking the diesel V-2.

[Novel_]

Under Comrade Stalin, any party worker could be investigated and arrested by the state services, but afterward, more and more bureaucrats acquired immunity. Today, with zero accountability, bureaucrats profit from couriers and other "service" characters in see-through lace lingerie from their "partners."
And how many "kids" of diplomats or generals serve in a strange military operation (not for six months in the bushes, but from the bell until victory?), why do those in power need engineers, they are doing well as they are!
Leopold the Cat will survive on Soviet assets for another couple of years, and then he'll be a superstar and head off to Baden-Baden or somewhere else to retire, to his partners—they're his own people, after all, and they won't abandon him. And the Russia project, like the silent dog Moo-Moo...

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Roman_

Under Comrade Stalin, any party worker could be investigated and arrested by government agencies.

Comrade Zaltsman smiles condescendingly—he was severely punished for regularly falsifying documents, backdating tank deliveries, and producing obviously incompetent vehicles for a year and a half, being appointed Deputy People's Commissar of the Tank Industry. He even survived the Mekhlis Commission without repercussions.

[Revolver]

Quote: Alexey RA

Comrade Salzman smiles condescendingly

Look at the dates of his tenure as People's Commissar of the Tank Industry. July 1942 – June 1943. The Germans were pushing toward Stalingrad, and there was nothing to stop them, specifically a shortage of tanks. STZ, not the smallest tank factory, was lost. And by November, there were enough tanks to form a pincer movement to encircle the Germans. And the fighting at Kursk was also largely accomplished under his watch. He was transferred from minister to director of the Kirov Plant of the People's Commissariat of the Tank Industry in Chelyabinsk, which united ChTZ, the Kirov Plant evacuated from Leningrad, and Motor Plant No. 75 evacuated from Kharkov. It's still unclear which was more responsible and complex: the entire ministry or this production behemoth. He was transferred when it became clear that the existing tanks were no match for the Tigers and Panthers. The result: the IS-2 was sent to the front in 1943.
In 1949, when he refused to testify in the Leningrad Affair, he was expelled from the party. However, on Stalin's personal orders, he was not repressed; he was merely sent to manage a provincial factory. In 1955, he was reinstated in the party, with credit for his seniority.

[Gennady_but_not_a_crocodile]

Was the IS-2 used against Tigers and Panthers? Could you tell me how often these tanks actually fought? Is it just me, or is it never?

[Victor Leningradets]

Intervening.
The IS-85 was developed on the IS-1 chassis (an experimental vehicle weighing as much as a medium tank with five road wheels per side) specifically to combat the Tiger. When the battles at Kursk demonstrated the ineffectiveness of 85mm guns against the new German tanks, Zh. Ya. Kotin had the courage to report to I.V. that the solution was to arm the tank with a 122mm gun with the ballistics of the A-19 and assured him that the Kirov Plant would fulfill this task. In fact, they had the necessary foundation in the form of the experimental IS-2 tank, also with five road wheels, armed with a 122mm howitzer, a carryover from the experimental KV-9 tank.
As a result, the teams of Zh. Ya. Kotin and F. F. Petrov brilliantly solved the problem, and in December 1943, production of the IS-122 tank with the D-25 gun began.

[Gennady_but_not_a_crocodile]

As far as I know, the IS-2 was used as a breakthrough tank. Because of this, there were no head-on tank battles between the IS-2 and the Tiger. If I recall correctly, there was one tank battle in 1945, and that was it.

[Victor Leningradets]

There have been.
We have been to Bessarabia, the Baltics, Poland, and Hungary.
The funniest thing is that the one who saw the enemy first won. The terrifying force of the 25 kg projectile or the fantastic 8,8 rate of fire played no role. Essentially, he saw, fired, and destroyed (if he hit).
The IS-2 had the advantage of much higher mobility, which allowed it to maneuver around the Tigers' flank.

[highlight]

It seems like Karius had an episode where an IS-2 knocked out his outer roller from 1500 meters and a tiger made a sea bass.

[Victor Leningradets]

Karl Bormann similarly describes a head-on encounter with an IS-2: the IS-2 missed, but he hit the base of the turret from 1700 m. That was enough.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

When the battles at Kursk demonstrated the ineffectiveness of 85mm guns against the new German tanks, Zh. Ya. Kotin had the courage to report to I.V. that the solution was to arm the tank with a 122mm gun with the ballistics of the A-19 and assured him that the Kirov Plant would fulfill this task. In fact, they had the necessary equipment in the form of the experimental IS-2 tank, also with five wheels, armed with a 122mm howitzer, a carryover from the experimental KV-9 tank.

According to documents unearthed by Mr. Yuri Pasholok, initial studies for installing a 122mm gun in a new heavy tank began even before the Battle of Kursk.

On May 5, 1943, Stalin signed GKO Resolution No. 3290, "On the restoration of production of 122-mm corps guns of the 1931/37 model and the manufacture of experimental light corps guns." At the same time, discussions began about installing the A-19 in the SU-152. It was also then that the discussion of mounting the D-2 barrel on the D-5 cradle was first raised. It should be noted right away that the D-2 is not exactly the A-19. They differed in design (the D-2 has a monoblock barrel), and the A-19 had a barrel length of 5650 mm, while the D-2 had a barrel length of 5484 mm. The gun on the M-30 carriage also received a muzzle brake, necessary to compensate for the increased recoil force.
Initially, development of the gun, which later received the designation D-25 (D-2 barrel on D-5 carriage), proceeded in the background. However, stories that work began following studies of the battles at Kursk are untrue. The preliminary design for "mounting a 122mm tank gun in the IS tank turret" was prepared by the Design Bureau of Plant No. 100 on July 17, 1943, before the first information about the results of the defensive battle at Kursk was received. Moreover, July 17 is the date Shashmurin and Kotin signed the design, while other signatures are dated as late as July 14.

The possibility of installing a 122 mm gun in the IS was already laid down in the autumn of 1942, when the design bureau of plant No. 8 (Petrov's design bureau) made an experimental "light triplex", which included the same D-2, and the related design bureau of plant No. 9 made a tank duplex D-5, designed "with a reserve".

One of the two gun carriages used as a base was the 122mm M-30 howitzer, produced by Plant No. 8. It was proposed to mount the barrels of the 152mm M-10 howitzer (this variant was adopted as the D-1), the 122mm A-19 corps gun (the D-2 experimental system), the 107mm M1910/30 gun (the ZIK-30 gun project), and the 107mm M-60 divisional gun (the 9S-1 experimental system) on this carriage. The subtlety of this point is that the design bureau of Plant No. 9 (split from Plant No. 8 in the fall of 1942) had designed the D-5 tank/self-propelled gun based on a similar system. Initially, it was intended to mount a 122mm howitzer with the ballistics of the M-30 and an 85mm cannon with the ballistics of the 52-K anti-aircraft gun. But in reality, minimal modifications to the cradle allowed for the installation of everything proposed in the fall of 1942.

© Yu. Pasholok. Large caliber for IS.

[VlK]

But wasn't this work initiated based on the evaluation of the latest German Tiger tanks captured on the Volkhov Front? And even earlier projects—based on intelligence about the development of promising thick-armored heavy tanks in Germany? So, the increase in tank gun caliber was driven by a desire to improve their armor penetration, while the high-explosive effect of 76mm shells in 42-43 was generally satisfactory for the Red Army?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: VlK

But weren’t these works started based on the results of the evaluation of the latest German Tiger tanks captured on the Volkhov Front?

Dear Pashalok wrote that Work on an 85mm gun with the ballistics of the 52-K anti-aircraft gun began even before the Tiger was fired upon.In other words, they were working for the future. Or, more precisely, they were resuming the pre-war project of increasing the power of tank guns, which had been interrupted for a year and a half.

Quote: VlK

So, the increase in the caliber of tank guns was caused by the desire to improve their armor penetration; the high-explosive effect of 76 mm shells in 42-43 generally satisfied the Red Army?

If the Red Army's only requirement had been to increase the armor penetration of tank guns, the 76mm S-54 "hole puncher" would have been adopted. It would fit into the standard T-34 mount. And paired with it would have been the 57mm ZiS-4.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Nagan

Look at the dates of his tenure as People's Commissar of Tank Production. July 1942 – June 1943. The Germans were rushing toward Stalingrad, and there was nothing to stop them, specifically not enough tanks. STZ, not the smallest tank factory, was lost. And by November, there were enough tanks to form a pincer movement to encircle the Germans. And much of the fighting at Kursk was also done during his tenure.

And the result of Comrade Zaltsman's actions as People's Commissar was his dismissal and demotion. And not just dismissal, but the return of his predecessor, People's Commissar Malyshev, to that post.
That's not how successful performance in office is rewarded. It's more like the situation with the Black Sea Fleet commanders: Oktyabrsky, Vladimirsky, and then Oktyabrsky again.

[Pimply]

Under Comrade Stalin, a deliberate number of those same engineers, not just party workers, were forced into hiding. And a huge number of ordinary scribblers rose to prominence through denunciations.

[ohka]

I don't know what it was like under Comrade Stalin; I didn't live there. But in 1985, my father-in-law (a mechanic, 6th category, personal stamp) earned around 300 rubles. He couldn't compare with a fully experienced engineer, let alone a young one (at the same company).

[belost79]

Well, that's how it was. A skilled worker in the late USSR earned much more than a scientific and technological worker. The coining of the word "inzhenerishko" (engineer) best characterizes the situation that developed then.

[AlexSam]

Quote: belost79

The word "engineer" best characterizes the situation that developed at that time.

Has anything changed since then? Engineering and technical workers in production, and everywhere else, remain penniless nobodies. New engines? Well, let the mechanics invent them. And the engineer will go find a place where at least he won't be looked upon as a slave and a powerless nobody. I'm an engineer myself, I know what I'm talking about.

[vitaliy20091959]

There's no need to pull the wool over your eyes. Nowadays, management from the foreman up gets paid no less than the highest-paid worker (of course, there are exceptions, but that's the case for the most part, especially at state-municipal enterprises).

[Konnick]

Quote: belost79

Well, that's how it was. A skilled worker in the late USSR earned much more than a scientific and technological worker. The coining of the word "inzhenerishko" (engineer) best characterizes the situation that developed then.

Khrushchev, himself semi-literate, devalued the engineer's work. As a result, the "little engineers" simply stopped giving their all... I'm the same way, although in the USSR I earned 300 rubles, but only when I was the head of a design bureau at age 27.

[vitaliy20091959]

Konik, then how did we fly into space and industry grow along with new technologies, and who designed and built numerous naval ships?

[Konnick]

Quote: vitaliy20091959

Konik, then how did we fly into space and industry grow along with new technologies, and who designed and built numerous naval ships?

Out of habit... muscle memory

[alexoff]

So, under Stalin, there was a system of incentives that allowed engineer Bruns and academician Kurchatov to live like nobles, but there was also demand. Khrushchev discovered that the academics were earning more than he was, and he cut everyone's salaries by nearly an order of magnitude. And the rest, too. And somehow the country stopped achieving scientific and industrial feats.

[vitaliy20091959]

Are you too young? Who was in charge of Sputnik and Gagarin? What about the S-75 air defense missile system?

[alexoff]

Korolev and others were organized back under Stalin. Progress has a significant inertia—funding has been cut, but they still keep coming to work, even if you charge admission! Many people are still trying to make something happen. But the peak was 1961, and then stagnation and slow decline set in.

[Revolver]

Quote: ohka

I don't know how it was under Comrade Stalin.

My grandfather, admittedly not an ordinary engineer but the head of a mid-level plant's engineering department, gave my mother a wedding gift not a watch or a tea set, but a two-room co-op apartment on Tikhoretsky Prospekt. This was during Khrushchev's time, but he earned most of that money under Stalin. He earned it, not just by grabbing—those were not the times for grabbing.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Nagan

Under Stalin, even a young specialist was paid more than a skilled worker.

So... what can you do? Back in the 30s, if you don't pay, the specialist will leave for another plant. And who will fulfill the plan?
Moreover, this specialist will leave without a formal notice—he'll simply stop coming to work. And by law, the only thing that can be done to him is to fire him for absenteeism. And at his new place, they won't even look at his work record—they're also on a tight schedule.
This loophole was closed only in 1940, when it became possible to resign only with the director's permission, and for unauthorized absences they began not only to fire people, but to bring them to court - and this applies to both the workers, and the director of their enterprise (in the case of concealment), and the director of the enterprise to which the workers transferred.

[Zaurbek]

First, you need to be able to set specifications and correctly determine the winner. In the USSR, the T64, T72, and T80 all became winners... With the right approach, there needed to be a competition for the best chassis and the best BO.
And then three factories would produce one tank. And the mobile version would have to be unified with it.
Even in the USSR, this problem was not solved by wages.

[Whishmaster]

I fully support.
Six months ago, the employment center gave me a referral to a major defense plant: "Design Engineer, salary 36000 rubles," my specialty, but I naturally declined. Now I'm working security for 39000 rubles, spitting through the roof, and on the side, developing my own projects and taking on private commissions...

[igorra]

After the Civil War, Lenin focused primarily on developing personnel and industry; after the Great Patriotic War, Stalin did the same. Putin, what has he developed? The number of oligarchs? Even the pseudo-communist Zyuganov spent years talking about developing industry; for 30 years, Putin has let the market decide everything. As a result, there are no personnel, and by and large, no industry. But there are more than enough lawyers and managers.

[snow mountain]

But there are more than enough lawyers and managers

Why do we need lawyers? Everything is decided by the rules anyway.

[AlexSam]

Quote: Schneeberg

And why do we need lawyers?

Legally enshrining market transactions and drafting tricky contracts that allow you to a) fall out of love with your partner and b) not be loved by them. Basically, they're no longer needed.

[Ponimatel]

By and large, they are no longer needed.

They're absolutely necessary! The enraged Printer churns out thousands of laws that no manager can possibly understand. And he's the one who's in jail first. So they have to spend money on lawyers and private security guards.

[alexoff]

Incidentally, in the age of the internet and AI, lawyers are useless. They charge a lot of money, but are useless in court. It's almost always easier, faster, and cheaper to Google everything yourself in the evening and write a proper statement that the court will easily accept and consider.

[lubesky]

Quote from alexoff

Incidentally, in the age of the internet and AI, lawyers are useless. They charge a lot of money, but are useless in court. It's almost always easier, faster, and cheaper to Google everything yourself in the evening and write a proper statement that the court will easily accept and consider.

I'm currently testing Google's search engine AI. It's making interesting and rapid progress. I'm modeling complex scenarios for it, including how monopolies violate citizens' rights, for example, in one of the most complex areas—electric power, Federal Law No. 35, PP 354, 442, and 861. The AI ​​is doing a very good job, including providing in-depth analysis and counterplans for energy industry lawyers. It calculates strategies, writes competent complaints, and drafts very good lawsuits! Among its weaknesses are the AI's hallucinations with specific clauses and articles of PP and Federal Laws (which need to be double-checked), its tendency to "take your side" with numerous introductory statements, and its lack of experience in legal proceedings—a weak analysis of the Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code—which is logical, since it draws its analysis from practice, where our judges have ignored the Civil Procedure Code.
Conclusion: AI advances will further deprive lawyers of much of their bread and butter.

[alexoff]

I think 90% of lawyers weren't needed for free before, masterfully entering client information into standard forms and grumbling at meetings, demanding money for adjourning the meeting without discussing the matter due to the lawyer's complete passivity. It's just that AI has made searching easier.
By the way, it's also not very clear why realtors were needed before and why they are needed now

[Severok]

Given the current social structure and vertical power structure, there's no point in expecting any technological development in the country. All government activity is focused on fine-grained reports and empty talk.

[snow mountain]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

And at the same time the whole concept of deep tank breakthroughs

Everyone has long forgotten about this.

[Zaurbek]

First, you need to learn how to conduct tenders and ultimately come up with one machine.
The T-14 "cart" is progressive; improve it with both a gas turbine engine and an X-diesel engine.
Is the T-90M's BM the most advanced? Put it up.
"Otherwise, we're making a super tank and a super self-propelled gun with new features in both the Telegram and the BM, and we're ending up releasing two old tanks, the T80 and T90, etc." It's good that the 404 separated; they should have also produced the T64.

[Konnick]

Quote: Zaurbek

The T-14 "cart" is progressive; improve it with both a gas turbine engine and an X-diesel engine.

Hitler dreamed of a tank with an air-cooled diesel engine back in 32, but German industry "couldn't"

[Zaurbek]

Whether it could or not, that's her question. Considering that Diesel himself was German and their engine engineering, to put it mildly, was on par with ours.

[Konnick]

Quote: Zaurbek

Whether it could or not, that's her question. Considering that Diesel himself was German and their engine engineering, to put it mildly, was on par with ours.

Although the diesel engine is a German invention, there were objective reasons. The problem with tank engines is the difficulty of cooling, armor gets in the way, and a powerful, and therefore extremely heat-sensitive, engine is limited in power by the cooling system's capacity. The cramped layout also plays a major role. It's unlikely that a tank could be made smaller, and thus increase its power density, thanks to unmanned technology. The only solution is gas turbine engines. It's said that arming a tank designed for 30 minutes of combat with an overly expensive engine makes no sense. A gasoline turbocharged one is cheaper...it's possible, but why bother? And the Germans used gasoline-powered Maybachs, which, incidentally, are less of a fire hazard than our diesel engines, with their diesel fumes emitting from every crevice and fuel oil coating the engine compartment walls.

[Zaurbek]

Overall, the T14 is the best solution so far. It has seven rollers and a crew capsule. The only thing more advanced was the two-man crew of the Jews.
The issue lies in the tank's concept itself. The previous tank, the pinnacle of which was the T14, was obsolete before it even appeared. Drones require all-round protection. And the overall weight of up to 60 tons remains.

[Revolver]

Quote: Konnick

It is unlikely that it will be possible to reduce the tank's size and, consequently, increase its specific power using unmanned technologies.

Of course it will. A person needs a volume of breathable air and room to move their arms and legs. Compare the dimensions of a T-90 to an Abrams or Leopard. The difference is largely due to the replacement of the loader with an automatic machine gun. Furthermore, without a crew, armor protection can be significantly reduced, thereby reducing the cost. During a major war, a tank is simply a consumable.

[Konnick]

Quote: Nagan

Quote: Konnick

It is unlikely that it will be possible to reduce the tank's size and, consequently, increase its specific power using unmanned technologies.

Of course it will. A person needs a volume of breathable air and room to move their arms and legs. Compare the dimensions of a T-90 to an Abrams or Leopard. The difference is largely due to the replacement of the loader with an automatic machine gun. Furthermore, without a crew, armor protection can be significantly reduced, thereby reducing the cost. During a major war, a tank is simply a consumable.

Why have a drone tank if there's a UAV-based missile carrier? The savings on tanks are enormous. Powerful self-propelled guns are needed, yes, but a tank with its direct fire is finished.

[VlK]

As soon as the "near sky" is inevitably covered from loitering munitions with the help of modified APS and anti-aircraft or universal turrets with auto-guidance on equipment, the principle of massing forces and resources in the most important area and breaking through the defensive line to reach operational space to achieve a decisive result will inevitably return - remember how Ukrainians Collapsed our front near Izyum? And what's better suited for such operations to seize and control territory than armored vehicles, especially under the influence of WMD? No aircraft, piloted or unmanned, can handle this on their own. Neither can infantry on foot, buggies, bikes, or vehicles.

[shocktrooper]

Because quickly launching projectiles from a cannon at close range is regularly required, at least for direct infantry support during an assault, and at medium ranges, with the constant expansion of the kill zone, serious projectile-resistant armor becomes increasingly necessary. And barring a miracle involving at least energy storage methods, a ground platform with chemical projectiles will remain the most energy-efficient and cost-effective in terms of firepower.

[stankow]

Where are those 30 minutes of battle? Tanks have been fighting for years. In both WWII and the Soviet Military District. Tales from Lenin's room.

[Maxim Davydov]

There were few engines in the USSR either.
Firstly, we need technologies that we have had problems with for centuries.
Secondly, to recoup investments in development and production, volumes are needed, and volumes require markets and buyers, military and civilian.

If we return to engines (tank, aircraft, automobile, and so on), there were very few different engine families in the USSR, compared to the "collective West."

And, obviously, after the collapse of the USSR and the loss of production, expertise, and markets, the situation only worsened. This very shortage is the key cause of problems with light helicopters, UAVs, cars, ships, and much more: we have a catastrophic shortage of our own engines.

And, frankly, there's no reasonable way out in sight. We'll need a couple of generations of personnel, our own machine tool industry, materials science, electronics... We're talking about half a century. If we try. If not, then no.

[Zaurbek]

YaMZ, KAMAZ, and TMZ have only just begun using modern diesel engines in civilian industry in Russia.
The YaMZ850, a 24-liter, 1050-hp engine, has already entered production. The YaMZ 6-cylinder, 12-liter, 450-650-hp engine is in the process of being launched, and the KAMAZ 13-liter, 450-560-hp engine (750-hp) is in production. A TMZ tractor based on it is also in the process of being launched.
I think B12 will also be added to the tank version, with a capacity of up to 40 liters.

[vitaliy20091959]

I completely agree with you, it seemed like they were making an engine for a passenger car, but no, they made an engine that guzzles fuel and oil, and then we don't even consider old Italy, the only thing is that our Yaroslavl guys seem to be catching up

[Alexey RA]

This is a traditional technique in civilian and military engine building—the V-2 series was designed from the outset to be modular. For example, half of a tank engine, the six-cylinder V-shaped V-6, appeared in the 50s and was installed in the PT-76 tank and BTR-50P.

Half of the B-2 appeared before the war—the B-3 and B-4 engines. But the B-4 didn't make it into production before the war, and during the war, it was effectively "devoured" by its older brother, which was required for medium and heavy tanks. This killed the pre-war T-50 and forced the development of light tanks by gradually adapting the amphibious T-40 to a light tank.

[Sergey824]

I wanted to know if the author had seen that half of a tank engine, a six-cylinder V-shaped V-6, which appeared in the 50s and was installed on the PT-76 tank and BTR-50P. "In real life, obviously not, since it is a INLINE half, not a V-shaped one."

[hostel]

It seems to me that the SVO experience is worthless. It's simply food for thought and consideration of certain realities.

[VlK]

Why not? At the very least, the conclusion that any non-strategic military equipment can't be too expensive, as it's ultimately a consumable, should be reiterated. And regarding personnel conservation, the absolute necessity of camouflage and dispersal under any conditions, the need for constant measures to enhance stealth and deceive the enemy, a revision of modern troop command and control principles, and so on (just off the top of my head)—many useful conclusions could be drawn, if desired.

[hostel]

These are the conclusions of the Great Patriotic War, nothing new. Moreover, the scale of the events you mentioned back then was enormous. Today's generals couldn't even dream of it.

[VlK]

You weren't talking about new findings, but about the experience of a specific company. This whole thing has long been described in classic works, but peacetime armies, and even engineering schools, tend to periodically forget it in quiet times.

[Grossvater]

For those interested in the topic, I can recommend: Zubov, "Tank Engines" in 2 parts, Moscow, Scientific and Technical Center "Informtekhnika", 1991.

[Andriuha077]

To efficiently move a tank on a level road at cruising speed (approximately 30–40 km/h), only 25% to 40% of its power plant's maximum output is required. The remaining 60–75% of power is allocated by designers to overcome difficult off-road conditions, steep climbs, acceleration, maneuvering, and powering onboard systems. Modern tanks (using the T-72/T-90 as an example)
For a 45-ton tank to simply maintain a stable speed of 30–40 km/h on smooth asphalt, the friction force in the tracks and air resistance must be countered by about 250–350 hp.

Starting the diesel engine using a gas turbine in severe cold on the Strv 103 tank was one of the main technical advantages of its twin-engine design. In the harsh Scandinavian winter, when a conventional diesel engine would freeze and be unable to be cranked, the unique physics of the gas turbine engine (GTE) came to the rescue.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/8UscRGEwTGjw
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1804.html
The process took place in several stages through a unique system of motor interaction:
1. Easy start of the turbine itself
Unlike a piston diesel engine, a gas turbine engine handles extreme cold conditions fundamentally differently. The Boeing (and later Caterpillar) turbine started easily in any freezing temperature using a standard electric starter powered by the factory batteries.
2. Warming up and “kindling up” the transmission
3. Mechanical cranking of a diesel engine
To start a frozen Rolls-Royce diesel, an electric starter was no longer required.
4. Transition to normal mode
Once the diesel engine started and stabilized its speed, the mechanical forced-start linkage was released. The engines returned to standard operation via overrunning clutches.

For road travel, marches, and maneuvers, only the 240 hp Rolls-Royce diesel engine was used. This constituted exactly 44% of the total power of the unit (540 hp).
The 300-horsepower gas turbine engine was idle on asphalt. It was only engaged on rough terrain or for sudden acceleration.
In later modifications (Strv 103C), the diesel power was increased to 290 hp, and the Caterpillar turbines to 490 hp.

The Swedish Strv 103 (known as the "S-tank") became the only serial tank in the world with such a unique twin-engine design.
Both engines were connected through a common gearbox to the drive wheels:
The Rolls-Royce K60 diesel engine (two-stroke, multi-fuel) was in constant operation. It was responsible for starting, maneuvering, aiming (hull rotation), and fuel-efficient cruising.
The Boeing 553 gas turbine was only activated when the tank needed to reach maximum speed, overcome difficult off-road conditions, or quickly escape from under fire.
Both engines are located at the very front of the tank. A Rolls-Royce piston diesel engine is mounted on the right (in the direction of travel), and a compact Boeing gas turbine engine is mounted on the left. On the one hand, they protect the crew from frontal penetrations, and on the other, they are connected to a common reduction gear and gearbox, which are offset toward the very front of the vehicle.

[Justme]

I've been working on turbochargers and diesel boost. I've described this in a soft article and a more serious one.
"The history of the attempt to create the Hyperbar system in Russia"
https://topwar.ru/222170-istorija-popytki-sozdanija-sistemy-giperbar-v-rossii.html
More rough
"Sabotage as a long-term strategy for success in engineering"
https://aftershock.news/?q=node/1586296

[stankow]

A favorite mantra of liberals. Western ones at that. Embraced by the locals. Like, unwashed Russia. And where are those wonderful engines of theirs? Superior by a whopping 20%, yeah. By every measure. Unrivaled in marketing presentations. Where are they, on the battlefield? In the steppes of Ukraine, in forested areas. We've seen them – Leopards, Loclercs, Abrams, what else. Ruthlessly destroyed. Honor and glory to Russian anti-tank guns. Hit the engine compartment – ​​with ATGMs, drones, HEAT, sub-caliber, or just a hefty HE shell. They don't care about their horsepower!
Honor and glory to Russian engine manufacturers, who provided the troops with four different types of engines—one for every taste. The military has plenty to choose from. Honor and glory to Russian manufacturers who provided the units and formations with armor. And especially to the repairmen who, under the harshest conditions, bring underpowered tank engines back to life!

[Zufei]

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Kharkiv engine builders remained abroad and were never able to perfect the unique 6-cylinder diesel engine.

So 600 Al-Khalid and 150 Al-Khalid-2 in the Pak are riding on the non-existent 6TD-2?

[Barero]

How long have they been making the A85 for? 15-20 years? Maybe it's time to do it, or is another 20 years necessary? How long have they been making the Motor 2 for the Su-57? Same thing. Maybe the reasons are common and far from technical?

[Motorist]

The design of the crankshaft of such a diesel engine is comparable in complexity to space technologies.

What, aren't there two connecting rods with connecting rods on a single crank pin? Author, please clarify.

[Fangaro]

Two development options...
The engine is for a tank, but it could also be installed for civilian vehicles to recoup some of the costs.
The engine is for civilian vehicles, but it can also be installed in a tank, because it's cheap, tested, there are plenty of spare parts, every driver is almost a mechanic, and out of 100 drivers, at least 2 can be involved in servicing a tank engine.

[Fangaro]

Quote: Motorist

The design of the crankshaft of such a diesel engine is comparable in complexity to space technologies.

What, aren't there two connecting rods with connecting rods on a single crank pin? Author, please clarify.

Maybe a typo?

[deddem]

Quote: Konnick

Quote: Zaurbek

The T-14 "cart" is progressive; improve it with both a gas turbine engine and an X-diesel engine.

Hitler dreamed of a tank with an air-cooled diesel engine back in 32, but German industry "couldn't"

Not "couldn't do it," but "Maybach lobbyists and the eggheads from the 6th Directorate sabotaged the whole way."

Both the post-war Tatra and the Deutz are precisely the use of previous developments in the field of airborne weapons.

[Dzungar]

For decades, the plant not only did not design tank gas turbine engines, but did not even produce them.

Your information is incorrect. The engine was in production, and its production was maintained and even improved.

[Grossvater]

The X-shaped design has many advantages, but also many technological challenges. For example, in such a densely packed cylinder-piston group, it's difficult to ensure cooling of the inner cylinders—they are squeezed on all sides by their hot neighbors. And the crankshaft design of such a diesel engine is comparable in complexity to space technology.

What's so complicated about it? The cooling is no different from a V-type. It's liquid, not air-cooled. With sufficient coolant flow, the cylinder wall temperature won't rise above boiling point.
The phrase about the crankshaft raises serious doubts about whether the author even knows what he's talking about. The classic design is one main connecting rod with three connecting rods per crankpin. Another option is a star design, with four connecting rods attached to the main connecting rod. The design of the connecting rods and oil distribution system must be a bit of a joke, but it's all been tried and tested since the time of King Pea on aircraft stars.

[Grossvater]

Quote: Motorist

The design of the crankshaft of such a diesel engine is comparable in complexity to space technologies.

What, aren't there two connecting rods with connecting rods on a single crank pin? Author, please clarify.

The classic version is one main gear with three trailing gears on one crank pin.

[the same doctor]

There's no traction shortage. The new tanks must be unmanned and remotely controlled. As a result, their size and weight are reduced by a third, and the existing engines will be quite sufficient.
.
You are calling for spending money in the wrong place.

[Broad flag]

We've really had a problem with engines for everything since we switched from sails and horses.