1G46TT – a chimera sight for domestic tanks

8 833 18
1G46TT – a chimera sight for domestic tanks
1G46 reticle


Generally speaking, the range of mass-produced products tank We don't have a huge selection of gunner's sights right now. Essentially, we only have the good old Sosna-U, which has become an essential feature of all T-72B3 tank modifications, as well as the T-80BVM and T-90M, and the simple 1PN-96MT-02, which is installed on the modernized T-62M tanks.



There's nothing else, but another product may soon be added to this list. It has been patented as an industrial design by JSC Vologda Optical and Mechanical Plant, or simply VOMZ. It's worth noting that this scope, while being considered a novelty if it goes into production, will have certain limitations.


1Г46

The fact is that the 1G46 sight was used as a basis for it - an old "base" for T-80U tanks and their modifications, as well as the T-90 and T-90A. The sight is Soviet, optical, with a laser rangefinder and a laser channel for controlling anti-tank missiles. rocketsThis thing is pretty good even by today's standards.

But its internals were significantly modified. And they assigned it a corresponding index—1G46TT, where TT is an abbreviation for "tele-thermal imaging" or "television-thermal imaging." The result was a sort of chimera with the body of a hare and the antlers of a deer.

Images from the patent


The patent contains no text description of the prototype. There are only images, which allow for quite clear conclusions. First and foremost, it's noticeable that the scope lacks a conventional eyepiece. This means that the standard, and previously only, optical observation/aiming channel is no longer provided.

Essentially, they decided to turn what was once an optical sight into an electronic sight.


Source: Patent No. RU 154483 S

To achieve this, most of the optical path, including the lens, light filters, zoom system, scale illumination optics, plates with movable and fixed grids, and other components necessary for reproducing the image in the eyepiece, was apparently removed.

Instead, they plan to install a television and thermal imaging matrix, receiving images from the standard 1G46 stabilized mirror system. The former is designed for observation and targeting during daylight conditions (at least at dusk) with good visibility. The latter is for nighttime and daytime operation in poor visibility conditions.

The image from these devices is displayed on a multifunctional display, which is installed in place of the standard 1G46 eyepiece. Its frame contains buttons for controlling viewing modes (TV or thermal imaging), brightness, contrast, and other settings.


Source: Patent No. RU 154483 S

Judging by the images from the patent, the 1G46TT sight retains the ability to measure range using a laser rangefinder and guide anti-tank guided missiles launched through the gun barrel - the laser rangefinder unit and the information and control unit of the guided weapons system are in place.

Strengths and Weaknesses


It's hard to say why such a "mutant" was developed. But it's likely due to the cost of modernizing older tanks being taken out of storage. The Sosna-U is still quite expensive, but there are already sights on hand that can be relatively inexpensively retrofitted, installing a thermal imager and television sight on an existing stabilized platform. So, that seems to be a plus.

Another advantage is the location of the sight display directly in front of the gunner's eyes; on the Sosna-U, for example, it is located rather inconveniently to the side, requiring one to turn one's head to operate the thermal imager.

However, the display location of the 1G46TT can also be considered a disadvantage, since it will be located almost right next to the gunner’s face, making it quite straining for the eyes.

The main drawback of the sight is its relative simplicity. Considering that if such a sight goes into production, it will replace the Sosna-U. This means the gunner will lose the optical observation/aiming channel. At the same time, he will no longer have the full range of automated shot preparation functions available on the Sosna-U.
18 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -18
    28 August 2026 05: 31
    In a time when it takes an entire drone, or even two (to finish off) a single soldier, to destroy him, writing about tanks and anything for tanks is bad form.
    1. + 15
      28 August 2026 06: 52
      This isn't the first time tanks have been destroyed. However, they remain the most resilient combat platform, even in the dawn of the drone era. And every year, more and more of these new tanks are needed to disable one.
      Let me remind you that in 22, near Ugledar, a dozen FPV drones stopped an entire column of combat vehicles and disrupted their combat mission. Nowadays, dozens of the same drones are needed to destroy a single tank. In a couple of years, active defense systems will completely or 99 percent mitigate this threat.
      The battle between sword and shield has been going on for thousands of years.
      1. +3
        28 August 2026 17: 17
        In a couple of years, active defense systems will completely or 99 percent neutralize this threat.

        everything will be in a complex
        will establish a symbiosis of different KAZs
        12 inclined Arena-M launchers and 20 horizontal Afganit mortars against ATGMs and RPGs
        From FPV drones to 100 mortars with 3-4 VOG-30 or GO-50 shots (still being tested)
        + automated DPU for a 7,62 machine gun with multi-bullet cartridges against drones at long distances
        + Electronic warfare suppression of UAV communication channels
        + EW for detonating IEDs
        + aerosol curtain grenades
        1. 0
          29 August 2026 02: 40
          Why do you need so many mortars? A remote-controlled automatic grenade launcher with canister rounds or a regular anti-tank gun would shoot down 99% of drones at a hundred meters with an adequate guidance system.
          1. -1
            31 August 2026 15: 34
            100 is not even enough; we need 200 3-charge mortars for GO-50 instant-action shots (10 microsecond delay, at a shot speed of 180 meters/sec., triggering at 1,8 meters)
            Why 200 mortars and 600 shots (?)
            so that there are at least 25 mortars per corner, i.e. 75 shots from FPV drones
            The survivability of equipment will be measured in hours, and this means a breakthrough of up to 50 km
            Mortars are quickly replaced with loaded ones when retreating to replenish the landing force
            The Kurganets-25 is equipped with 20 KAZ Afghanit mortars, which is normal against ATGMs.
            If desired, it is possible to place 400 mortars in the fields, the main thing is that the factory workers have foreseen this possibility and laid cable routes along the armor
    2. +4
      28 August 2026 11: 41
      The tank's potential is not being fully utilized. On the battlefield, there is no more protected and maneuverable "barrel" for directly supporting infantry than a tank, i.e., one capable of operating autonomously. Drones are not a panacea, but merely a tool. When the machine gun appeared, the frontline came to a standstill, and everyone began to say that wars were over. This has always been the case. Strategy, tactics, combat support, and so on will change, as is already happening, and the drone will become as commonplace as the machine gun, aviation, and so on. This is precisely what the operational departments, intelligence and analytics centers, military educational institutions and research institutes were doing, which were so cheerfully and enthusiastically destroyed by our hucksters under the Vertical. That's why we now have to rewrite combat regulations, manuals, and textbooks with the blood of our soldiers and officers, not in the quiet of offices and training grounds.
      1. +1
        29 August 2026 02: 52
        When the machine gun appeared, the front stopped, and everyone also started talking about the wars being over.
        Incidentally, the tanks performed poorly back then, and for some reason they weren't buried immediately at the Somme. And the front broke down when the Allies, instead of preparing artillery, when the Germans only had to wait out the shelling and then emerge to greet the guests, launched a barrage of fire with simultaneous infantry and tank attacks, constantly shifting their positions deeper into the lines, and also shelled previously scouted key defensive points. Maybe someday they'll figure out that operations can be planned and a wave of drones can be sent ahead of the tanks to suppress the enemy. And not the usual—give the soldiers a wonderful tank and let it win without leadership—after all, these generals are appointed to sinecure positions, not to headquarters.
    3. 0
      28 August 2026 18: 31
      Tell that to the IDF. They're still not giving up on the Merkavas...
  2. -5
    28 August 2026 08: 39
    They've made everything so complicated, yet it's no use. Watching tank shooting at biathlons, I was simply amazed at how they could miss at such a distance with such "super-duper" sights. But it turns out shooting a smoothbore gun is a real circus—the shell is too sensitive to all kinds of winds, humidity, and pressure... And then there are those suitcase-sized warheads. Just make good optics and a rifled gun, and leave the tanks to UAVs and ATGMs. A tank is needed to fight infantry on the defensive, but with sights like those, it won't even get close to the trenches... they'll smash all that electronic crap. In WWII, the turret armor's sighting holes were up to 4-5 cm wide, while today a good TV has a diagonal of almost half a meter. Look at the poster of the Tiger's weak points, which easily hit tanks at a range of 2 km, and in the photo of the Armata, the anti-tank gunners were simply licking their chops with anticipation of the accessible firing points. Snipers and machine gunners would have worked hard to blind the Armata in 3 seconds... compared to a tank from the mid-20th century.
    1. 0
      28 August 2026 09: 08
      Yes, yes, "our great-grandfathers fought with the MK4, and nothing happened."
      Tell me more that drones are a stupid Pendekh toy, good only for chasing Papuans.
      And at night and in the twilight Ukrainians They won't attack out of their inherent chivalrous politeness, remembering that we are panicky afraid for the virginity of the sighting devices, yeah right.
      1. -3
        28 August 2026 09: 12
        Quote: deddem
        And at night and in the twilight the Ukrainians will not attack out of their inherent chivalrous politeness, yeah right.

        A tank? At night? On the defensive? Are you, by any chance, from our General Staff?
    2. -1
      28 August 2026 12: 56
      We need to pay less attention to biathlon. laughing This was not a research or experimental event, but rather an effort to popularize military service.
      But... The idea that electronics should be duplicated by simple optics is correct.
      True, "blinding" a tank with small arms isn't exactly easy. God forbid a sniper hits the head of the tank at a distance of 400 meters... And the sighting window also fluctuates as the tank moves.
      But, of course, all the windows of the aiming and observation devices should be as small as possible.
      The smoothbore gun is debatable. For direct fire, there's little difference between a smoothbore and a rifled barrel. But a smoothbore is better not only for APFSDS and BK, but also for ATGMs. The muzzle velocity of BPS is higher, and the BK produces a better shaped-charge jet. The guidance system is simpler for a projectile that doesn't spin much.
      In general, we need to take a serious look at the tasks for the MBT artillery system.
      In some conditions a rifled barrel is better, and in other conditions a smooth barrel has advantages.
      1. -1
        28 August 2026 14: 36
        Quote: Alekseev
        But smoothbore is better not only for APFSDS and BK, but also for ATGMs. The muzzle velocity of APFSDS is higher, and the BK produces a better shaped-charge jet.

        Well, here we go again about anti-tank weapons. Modern tanks, saturated with electronics, become deaf and blind even after being hit by a high-explosive fragmentation shell or a couple of bursts from a small-caliber automatic cannon.
  3. +2
    28 August 2026 11: 57
    Without a direct optical channel, this is nonsense. I'm not sure even a 4K video camera-monitor combination can replace direct optical channels. When looking through triplex glass, any dirt gets in the way, even the factory adhesive. And a video camera will have a small lens, so dirt will be a big hindrance.
  4. -1
    28 August 2026 11: 58
    Everything is fine, interesting news, but why indicate the developer and manufacturer?
  5. 0
    28 August 2026 12: 58
    Quote: Konnick
    Quote: deddem
    And at night and in the twilight the Ukrainians will not attack out of their inherent chivalrous politeness, yeah right.

    A tank? At night? On the defensive? Are you, by any chance, from our General Staff?


    So far it looks like you are planning to fight strictly according to a schedule and in pre-prepared positions, since you think it is better to have a tank that is blind-sighted than to have godforsaken panoramic sights sticking out of it that offend your sense of beauty.
  6. 0
    28 August 2026 14: 42
    Simpler is always better! Especially for a tank. In today's reality, digital wins over optics.
  7. 0
    30 August 2026 19: 01
    Apparently, the problem isn't the Sosna's high price, but rather that they can't ramp up production. Sights are needed, so they're using whatever can be manufactured. There's no guarantee the 1G.46 will be inferior. It's better than nothing.