The predecessors of the tank "Armata"

126
The predecessors of the tank "Armata"


Since 1945, the Soviet school of tank building held a leading position in the world in the field of creating heavy (IS-3, T-10), medium (T-54, T-55, T-62) and main combat tanks (T-64, T-72). However, in the late 1970s, the United States (M1 Abrams) and Germany (Leopard 2) managed to reach the level of Soviet tanks.

In this regard, in 1980, the Kharkov Engineering Design Bureau (KMDB) was entrusted with the development of a promising tank - the 477 object under the title “Boxer”, subsequently “Molot”. The layout of the tank corresponded to the design solution proposed as early as 1972 by KMDB chief designer A.A. Morozov.



As a result, the design of a promising tank was innovative: the installation of weapons on a gun carriage, a running gear with seven rollers, the placement of the entire crew in the hull, a revolver-type automatic loader with a horizontal arrangement of shots, a regular active defense system with the possibility of intercepting caliber artillery shells. In 1980, the caliber of the gun increased to 152 mm. The weight of the tank was 50 tons with the possibility of increasing in perspective. A two-stroke boxer diesel engine, a four-stroke X-shaped diesel engine or a GTE with power up to 1600 hp were considered as a power plant.



The layout of the hull included a fore fuel tank, a central control / combat compartment with crew positions and automatic loader, and aft engine and transport compartment. In the final form, a turret was included in the tank structure to protect the shots while they were being poured from the automatic loader into the gun barrel, as well as to accommodate television and radar surveillance and aiming equipment.



The large dimensions of the 152-mm shots and the desire to keep the height and width of the hull in the given dimensions caused the use of two main automatic loaders with horizontal axes of rotation (according to the number of types of shots - armor-piercing and high-explosive). The main automatic loaders were interconnected by an additional automatic loader of small diameter, from which the shots were sent to the cannon.

The crew was considered in two versions - from two and three people. In connection with the failure to develop a tank information and control system with the required set of functions, the last option was implemented in the prototype tank. Television observation devices located on the tower were duplicated by optical devices located in the building on either side of the tower.



In the same period, the United States began to develop its promising main battle tank, not inferior in its characteristics to the 477 "Boxer / Hammer". The hull, chassis and powerplant of the M1 Abrams tank were chosen as the platform for creating the new tank. The project was named ASM Block III.



For the first time in the practice of American tank building, a carousel with a vertical arrangement of shots was placed in the tank hull. The armament was used remotely controlled smoothbore 140-mm gun mounted on a gun carriage in the tower of minimum dimensions. The crew of the three-person tank was located in the hull. For the first time in the world practice of tank building, the department of control was separated by an armored partition from the department of management in order to create armored capsules for the crew. Television surveillance devices were located in the tower, optical surveillance devices - in the case.



The prototypes of the ASM Block III tank were successfully tested in the 1983 year, but were not put into service for the following reasons:
- the absence at that time of a tank with similar combat characteristics of potential adversaries (USSR and China);
- the unreliability of television surveillance devices;
- the absence of a circular review of the tank commander in the event of failure of television surveillance devices;
- the ability to install 140-mm guns in the standard tower serial tank M1 Abrams, subject to its refinement, while maintaining the number of crew of four people.

In the USSR, the 477 “Boxer / Hammer” object until 1988 was considered the only contender for the role of the main battle tank. However, in the course of perennial development and testing, the design flaws of its technical solution became clear, first of all, the inoperability of the complicated kinematic loading scheme: three revolving automatic loaders, kinematically connected with each other, were by definition an order of magnitude more unreliable than a single carousel. Over the entire period of development of the tank, the number of shots made on numerous tests, could not exceed a single value.
The level of protection of the crew of the Boxer / Hammer, located in the integrated control unit / combat compartment, was much lower than in the M1 Abrams armored capsule. In addition, the Soviet experimental tank had the same technical flaws in terms of television surveillance devices.

Therefore, in 1988, the Leningrad Special Design Bureau for Tank-Building (OKBT) and the Nizhny Tagil Ural Design Bureau of Transport Engineering (UKBTM) and Omsk Design Bureau of Transport Engineering (KBT) were involved in the development of alternative variants of the Soviet promising tank within the framework of the newly opened R & D theme “Improvement-88”. ).

In connection with the withdrawal of Ukraine from the Soviet Union in 1991, the “Boxer / Hammer” project was completed, the development of new tanks was carried out only in the designated design offices. Ukraine also refused to continue the project unilaterally due to the lack of qualified specialists in the development of large-caliber guns, automatic loaders, automated control systems and thermal imaging surveillance devices.



All Russian versions of the promising tank had a chassis of seven pairs of road wheels and a combat weight of about 50 tons, as well as a smooth-bore 152-mm 2А83 gun developed by Yekaterinburg Plant No. 9. The 16-cylinder 2В-16-2 1600 hp XNUMX-cylinder diesel engine was considered as the main variant of the power plant. Chelyabinsk State Design Bureau Transdizel. On the latest versions of the experimental tanks, modern thermal imagers were installed instead of television observation devices.

As shots for the 152-mm cannon, armor-piercing feathered sub-caliber projectiles Grifel-1 and Grifel-2, as well as high-explosive fragmentation projectile Grifel-3 developed by the Moscow Scientific-Research Institute were used.



St. Petersburg OKBT, transformed into OJSC “Special Design Bureau of Transport Engineering” (“Spetsmash”), for a promising tank under the code “Object 299” (provisional name “Leader 2000-2005”) chose a shell layout used in self-propelled artillery installations, with accommodation engine compartment in the bow of the hull, combat compartment - in the stern. The remote-controlled gun was installed in the stern on a raised carriage. Under the gun there was a carousel automatic loader with a vertical arrangement of shots of increased length. The crew was located in the armored capsule of the control compartment between the engine-transmission compartment and the uninhabited fighting compartment.



Omsk KBTM has developed a promising tank under the code "Object 640" (code name "Black Eagle") of the classic layout with a habitable fighting compartment and placing the gun in the tower. For the first time in the practice of domestic tank building, an automatic conveyor loader was removed from the hull and placed in the aft niche of the tower. The niche consisted of a removable armored container, equipped with expelling panels.



Nizhny Tagil UKBTM for its version of the promising tank under the code "Object 195" (code name "T-95") used the layout of the hull, previously used in an experienced American tank ASM Block III - the front armored crew capsule, the central uninhabited fighting compartment, aft engine-transmission branch, as well as a carousel automatic loader with a vertical arrangement of shots. Unlike the American tank, a full-size turret was used in the construction of the 195 object, the internal volume of which allowed the observation and aiming equipment, as well as radars and launchers of the active protection complex. In addition, in spite of not being uninhabitable, the tower retained a significant amount of free internal volume to ensure loading of shots into the automatic loading and maintenance and repair of equipment of the fighting compartment.



According to the test results, the development of 299 and 640 objects was prematurely stopped due to unrecoverable design flaws in their layout schemes - in the first case, it was thermal interference made to the operation of the aiming system by the engine-transmission compartment, in the second case it was weakened booking of the aft niche.

The development of the 195 object continued until the 2010 year, when the new smoothbore 125-mm 2A82 gun with an elongated barrel and an enlarged charging chamber, whose muzzle energy was at the level of the best Western samples, was at the disposal of domestic tank builders. The dimensions of the gun and carousel loader allow you to place the entire complex in the turret and hull of the serial T-90 tank.



In contrast to this solution, the large size of the 152-mm cannon and the shots to it led to an increase in the 195 object space, which was not compensated for by an increase in armor weight proportional to an increase in the number of road wheels. As a result, the generalizing indicator of the military-technical level of the 195 object practically did not differ from the level of the last T-90MS modification - less security with greater fire power and equal mobility.

In this regard, in 2011, OAO Uralvagonzavod prepared a proposal, and in 2012, the Russian Ministry of Defense approved the project under the title of Armat to develop a new Russian advanced tank and armored platform based on it. The new tank retained the chassis T-90 of six pairs of road wheels, 125-mm cannon and automatic carousel loader. The body of "Almaty" consists of an armored office management, uninhabited fighting compartment and the engine-transmission compartment. A twelve-cylinder X-shaped diesel engine with an HP 1200 power is used as a power plant. The crew size is planned from two to three people, depending on the degree of automation of work on aiming a tank gun.

The Armata project put an end to more than a 30-year-old epic of attempts to create domestic and foreign tanks equipped with large-caliber guns. However, it can be expected that the military-technical competition between the largest tank-building powers will be continued similarly to the situation of the 1980 of the year, but already on a new scientific and technical base. At least for the time being, the US Army TRADOC has been tasked with preparing, by the end of 2013, the concept of creating an airmobile tank with a transport weight within 36 tons (standard 40-foot container) to support the actions of the expeditionary rapid deployment forces.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

126 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +15
    8 July 2013 07: 36
    Even at the military department at the institute, the teachers once said that a good tank is always a compromise between firepower and armor. At that time, they believed that the Russian tank, this figure is the highest.
    Perhaps you should trust this opinion, the opinion of people who have seen many tanks in their lifetime and have gone through the war.
    1. 0
      9 July 2013 21: 04
      "Armata": the history of the creation of a promising Russian tank
      http://www.rosinform.ru/2013/07/08/armata-istoriya-sozdaniya-russkogo-perspektiv
      nogo-tanka /
      1. Andreas
        0
        9 July 2013 22: 30
        Tank prototypes "Armata"
        Military Review - Armament - Armored vehicles - June 29, 2013
        http://topwar.ru/30166-prototipy-tanka-armata.html
  2. +1
    8 July 2013 08: 40
    Ah armata, where are you? Is this not a fiction ((((????
    1. +11
      8 July 2013 09: 06
      Quote: Sirs
      Ah armata, where are you? Is this not a fiction ((((????
      No.
      1. +1
        8 July 2013 14: 34
        Quote: Mechanic
        Quote: Sirs
        Ah armata, where are you? Is this not a fiction ((((????
        No.



        If only a pencil sketch showed ...
        1. +1
          8 July 2013 21: 36
          Quote: Geisenberg
          If only a pencil sketch showed.

          Easy admire wink
          1. Tuareg
            0
            9 July 2013 13: 57
            the name of the project is somehow slurred.
  3. +1
    8 July 2013 08: 55
    That is, if I understood correctly, according to the author's version, "Armata" is a development of the T-72 - T-90 line. The undercarriage remains from the T-90 (hence the weight limit of up to 50 tons and the average speed on the ground), the automatic loader is the same, the booked volume is also unlikely to have changed much (rather, it did not change at all or increased, since 3 people in the capsule + volume an uninhabited tower), hence, the level of passive protection also does not change radically, the MTO, OMS have been significantly changed, KAZs may have been used - well, in general, it looks more like a set of measures to modernize the T-90 (let's call it T-90AM2) .Differs from the information provided earlier. - maybe another "misinformation"?
    1. +7
      8 July 2013 09: 08
      Quote: mark1
      That is, if I understood correctly, according to the author's version, "Armata" is a development of the T-72 - T-90 line. The undercarriage remains from the T-90 (hence the weight limit of up to 50 tons and the average speed on the ground), the automatic loader is the same, the booked volume is also unlikely to have changed much (rather, it did not change at all or increased, since 3 people in the capsule + volume an uninhabited tower), hence, the level of passive protection also does not change radically, the MTO, OMS have been significantly changed, KAZs may have been used - well, in general, it looks more like a set of measures to modernize the T-90 (let's call it T-90AM2) .Differs from the information provided earlier. - maybe another "misinformation"?
      Armata is an independent project. What is common with T90 is that they both have a tower and a cannon. Armata is a universal, heavy platform for MBT and self-propelled guns.
      1. +3
        8 July 2013 09: 20
        Quote: Mechanic
        Armata is an independent project. In common with the T90 there is only that they both have a tower and a gun. Armata is a universal, heavy platform for MBT and self-propelled guns

        Yes, I guess, dear Mechanic, that "Armata" is an independent project. The article puzzled me, and on the basis of what was said in it, I tried to present the product and concluded that Satya in relation to "Armata" is more like not misinformation (and since I use exclusively open publications, maybe I am wrong about something, refute me - but facts)
        1. +5
          8 July 2013 10: 34
          Here Gurk Khan is loved when he talks about the T-64 and the Kharkov Design Bureau. His opinion about the latest news about Armata is interesting.

          Gur Khan: What a puppy delight? What nonsense ??? "Vestnik Mordovii" refers to "Courage" - so if only they looked at the same "Courage" as the crew is accommodated in the 450th - there is no capsule there at all! And this: "Recall that at the very beginning of the 90s, sensational information appeared in the media - in Russia, a new generation combat vehicle was finally created with a completely new layout, new engine, suspension, fire control system, cannon, etc. " - what are they writing about? About the T-95 ??? But its first prototype did not appear in the "very beginning of the 90s", but in 2000! Or is it about 187? If so, then personally I do not remember anything on this topic from publications ... And the fact that "Armata" will not be shown to the people is correct. There is nothing to show yet! Is it just a model to sculpt, which I actually have already spoken about. Forget about "Armata" - she will not be in the Russian Army! This is a dead project and money siphoned from our pockets to the offshore accounts of the heads of state corporations.


          And it's cool that he succumbed to modeling
        2. +4
          8 July 2013 10: 37
          Quote: mark1
          Yes, I guess, dear Mechanic, that "Armata" is an independent project. The article puzzled me and on the basis of what was said in it I tried to present the product and concluded that Satya in relation to "Armata" is more like not a misinformation
          Right, this article is a complete disinformation.
          1. +1
            8 July 2013 11: 25
            You wrote that actually today the work on ARMATE is frozen, is this still the case?
            1. 0
              8 July 2013 19: 48
              Quote: ATATA
              You wrote that actually today the work on ARMATE is frozen, is this still the case?

              While the workshops are being rebuilt from the production of excavators (Echo 90), they have suspended work on reinforcement, but they will start it by the end of summer (at least they promise).
              1. 0
                9 July 2013 11: 43
                Quote: Mechanic
                While the workshops are being rebuilt from the production of excavators (Echo 90), they have suspended work on reinforcement, but they will start it by the end of summer (at least they promise).

                I think they should, since from the high stands they constantly remind:
                ".... The newest Armata tank will be shown in a closed format to the country's top political leadership at the arms exhibition in Nizhny Tagil in September 2013, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said ....."
                http://warfiles.ru/show-34430-noveyshiy-tank-armata-vpervye-pokazhut-v-zakrytom-
                format-rukovodstvu-rf-v-sentyabre.html
          2. Durant
            0
            8 July 2013 12: 57
            quod erat demonstration smile
  4. +2
    8 July 2013 08: 57
    Tank projects at the next round of gigantomania. Tools 140 mm, 152 mm in my opinion - bust!
    1. Tuareg
      +1
      9 July 2013 13: 59
      The best shell - fast flying scrap)))
  5. +9
    8 July 2013 09: 02
    "Armata" is no longer just a "basic tracked chassis", it is already something somewhat more, and not only in tank building, but for Russia in general. We will be able to create something really worthwhile - we are not just "fellows", we are "winners". Therefore, I want to wish everyone who is at least the slightest bit connected with the implementation of this project in life - good luck, success and bright ideas.
  6. +4
    8 July 2013 09: 43
    Ukraine also refused to unilaterally continue the project due to the lack of qualified specialists in the development of large-caliber guns, automatic loaders, automated control systems and thermal imaging surveillance devices.


    I didn’t like this passage. Could it be easier? Not until the new tank - when the T-80UD had not yet exhausted the possibility of modernization, and there was no need for a promising tank of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense.
    And in fact, a 140 mm tank gun, several new automatic loaders, and thermal imaging sights were made.
    1. +3
      8 July 2013 10: 07
      And in the Strongholds of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine does not show any need. Needs are growing from financial opportunities.
  7. 0
    8 July 2013 11: 08
    Interestingly, Armata hasn’t been shown yet (maybe I missed something), but I’m already watching at least some infa appeared)
  8. +4
    8 July 2013 11: 11
    I have a question with an uninhabited tower like a kep, visibility is not a secret that it’s often on a march or already at a training ground (and sometimes really in a battle) the kep climbs almost from the tower to the waist to look around request
  9. Algor73
    +1
    8 July 2013 11: 29
    "... The" Armata "project put an end to more than 30 years of epic attempts to create domestic and foreign tanks equipped with large-caliber guns ...". There is no Armata itself yet, its effectiveness has not yet been proven. So it's too early to put an end to it. It remains to be seen what other developers will throw out in the world.
  10. AVDOTYAKARLOVNA
    +2
    8 July 2013 11: 39
    They invented yet another crap named Armata and saw the loot. As a result, this is not finished at all, the "OBSOLETE" collar will be delivered. Better to develop dynamic and active defense. You might think Armata will not burn.
  11. +3
    8 July 2013 12: 04
    Hello!
    I would like to know. In the case of an uninhabited tower, how is it protected from a variety of RPGs, ATGMs, and enemy tank ammunition? I was interested in such a question only on the basis of those pictures walking on the Internet with a possible view of the tower: it’s too small for them to seriously book the mechanisms of the gun itself, would they be vulnerable to hits ?! But the caliber of 140 mm, I think, is just the thing, judging by the tasks that have arisen for tankers over the past 20 years, a more powerful high-explosive fragmentation charge, and with the function of remote (air) detonation, is simply necessary. And it’s interesting, how, with a crew of two people (just as the supposed or possible version of the crew), did you solve the problem of controlling a remote turret on the tower itself? After all, to control it, you just need to have a third pair of hands ..., a turret is simply necessary in a city battle, turning a 360 gun is complicated. Thanks in advance for your reply! Good day to all.
  12. +1
    8 July 2013 12: 45
    I read the article and all your comments and I will ask a question in essence to Comrade Mechanic and Kars: Will there be Armata or not ??? They say a lot, write even more, but all these versions start to tire a little ... and on our resource of articles it is already above the roof ... They will not show it in September due to secrecy or the lack of something to show ???
    1. +3
      8 July 2013 14: 35
      Quote: silver_roman
      Mechanic and Kars: Will there be an Armata or not ???

      It will be 100%, but whether it will be a breakthrough I can’t say anymore.
  13. +1
    8 July 2013 13: 58
    The article is interesting. And as for Armata, I’ll say this: Our smaller brothers can start copying mushrooms (like a mad printer), but that sounds crazy in my opinion. It can still to obscure all of us and then show something tasty, more perfect than anyone else. And all the more reason for us to freeze such work?
    1. +2
      8 July 2013 14: 39
      Quote: Tan4ik
      Our smaller brothers can start copying mushrooms (like a mad printer)

      Will they just start from the photos?
      1. 0
        8 July 2013 18: 14
        These can do anything. News Siberia watched today? There are just about the Chinese and about the transformers, so the Chinese from auto parts copied several of these and hung them on hooks (so as not to fall good )
        1. DZ_98_B
          +1
          8 July 2013 18: 42
          In Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk it was. It doesn’t seem strange to you that according to Russian television, they talk about the achievements of the Chinese in our country. They invented names for themselves ... Dmitry. Vasily Transmission was Morning of Russia. Honestly, it’s not funny when in the once closed territory of Russian people it is invisible. some Chinese
  14. DZ_98_B
    0
    8 July 2013 15: 48
    Whose tank is it? Chinese or Japanese? Not strong in hieroglyphs. Sorry, but most likely Armata can and will. but a breakthrough ... this is unlikely. Too much absurd in the description of this miracle. And why this Armata to the plant management? Money is coming!
  15. Sirozha
    0
    8 July 2013 15: 54
    There is no Armata yet, and it will not be known whether there will be so many enthusiastic articles about it! .. Is it too early to rejoice?
    1. Tuareg
      0
      9 July 2013 14: 00
      Is it bad?
  16. nick-name
    +3
    8 July 2013 19: 57
    Quote: Kars
    And in fact, a 140 mm tank gun, several new automatic loaders, and thermal imaging sights were made.

    Yah? At the moment, somehow copied (the benefit of all the CD was) 2A46M. And then they shot a whole new gun, and even developed shells for it - strongly. And what kind of miracle cannon is this, which needs as many as AZ?
    Quote: AVDOTYAKARLOVNA
    They invented another crap named Armata and sawing loot

    Hear the truth-maker, you can names, surnames of those who are state. steals money?
    Quote: silver_roman
    I read the article and all your comments and I will ask a question in essence to Comrade Mechanic and Kars: Will there be Armata or not ???

    You can ask the first person you meet on the street, since these two have exactly the same relation to "Armata")))
    Quote: Sirozha
    Is it too early to rejoice?

    It is really early to rejoice, but one thing is certain with certainty - such a throw-in as the T-64 will not happen again.
    1. +1
      8 July 2013 21: 06
      Quote: nick-name
      Yah? At the moment, somehow copied (the benefit of all the CD was) 2A46M. And then they shot a whole new gun, and even developed shells for it - strongly. And what kind of miracle cannon is this, which needs as many as AZ?

      Well, yes. And they didn’t copy, but exceeded 46. As for a few AZs, you are trying to run it, it’s not from that opera ((

      It is produced by the state scientific and technical center of artillery and small arms for the development of promising and modernization of existing tanks. The breech is interchangeable with 120 and 125 mm guns. The barrel length of the new gun is 55 calibres. Muzzle velocity when firing armor-piercing projectiles is 1870 m / s. The pressure in the bore is 5640 kg / cm2.
      1. +5
        8 July 2013 21: 42
        Quote: Kars
        Well, yes. And they did not copy, but exceeded 46.
        Yeah, we developed it ourselves, we set up production ourselves ... A beautiful fairy tale. And the truth is somewhat more prosaic, we recalled that this pipe enterprise has mobilization capabilities for the production of artillery barrels, which were laid down in the days of the USSR, and put it on stream — a small series. And no miracles.
        in order to surpass something from scratch, you need to have a good research and scientific base, which was not good in Ukraine. But there was and still is a rich Soviet legacy that everyone is not embarrassed to use ...
        1. +2
          8 July 2013 22: 10
          Quote: svp67
          in order to surpass something starting from scratch

          Do you need to start this from scratch for respect? Well, tell me how you have surpassed starting with nudity without using plants built during the USSR.
          Quote: svp67
          with which Ukraine was not good.
          Naturally, the drawings of 140 mm guns were pulled which, during the times of the USSR, Motovilikha sent to the pipe-rolling plant.))
          1. nick-name
            0
            8 July 2013 22: 25
            Well, that’s what we’re talking about, they release all the junk left over from the USSR. Do not tell me by the way where did the drawings of 140 mm shells come from? Or isn’t it important for megapush shells? laughing
            1. +1
              8 July 2013 22: 30
              Quote: nick-name
              e tell me by the way where did the drawings of 140 mm shells come from?

              So you really didn’t realize it, they were sent to a pasta factory under the USSR, according to mobilization plans and a bitter fate left it (the factory) in the territory of Ukraine during the collapse of the USSR.
              1. nick-name
                -5
                8 July 2013 23: 29
                Does a Ukrainian cannon shoot pasta? You would start a conversation with this! laughing
                A firing volley of pasta will destroy any enemy, bugag laughing
                1. +1
                  8 July 2013 23: 32
                  Quote: nick-name
                  Bugaga

                  Summary of all your quit and you as a person.
                  1. nick-name
                    -1
                    8 July 2013 23: 41
                    Yeah, did I write that Ukrainians do shells at a pasta factory? No.
                    1. +1
                      8 July 2013 23: 42
                      Quote: nick-name
                      Yeah, did I write that Ukrainians do shells at a pasta factory?

                      Quote: nick-name
                      bouga
              2. 0
                9 July 2013 00: 00
                Quote: Kars
                So you really didn’t realize it, they were sent to a pasta factory under the USSR, according to mobilization plans and a bitter fate left it (the factory) in the territory of Ukraine during the collapse of the USSR.

                Well, why exaggerate there, in Ukraine there were enough enterprises specializing in the production of artillery shells, for example, the Donetsk plant "Tochmash".
                1. +2
                  9 July 2013 00: 04
                  Quote: svp67
                  Well, why are they exaggerating

                  Let the nickname nickname be nice to him - it’s hard for him to stick glue anymore and does not deliver the expected euphoria.
      2. Andreas
        +1
        8 July 2013 22: 54
        Russia, Perm, 1965 - 152-mm smoothbore cannon M-69 with a muzzle energy BPS 18,5 MJ (12,5 kg from 1720 m / s) for the experienced SU-152 "Taran" (object 120). The developer is the Design Bureau of the Perm Machine-Building Plant (former plant No. 172, now OJSC Motovilikhinskie Zavody). Of the 152-mm guns in Russia, there are also 2A73 and 2A83, so you still have a lead in Ukraine.
        1. +1
          8 July 2013 22: 58
          Quote: Andreas
          Russia, Perm, 1965 - 152nd

          Russia? What are you talking about? USSR in capital letters))))
          Quote: Andreas
          Of the 152 mm guns in Russia, there are 2A73 and 2A83

          It is also planned to install a promising 152-mm smoothbore gun on the tank, the achievements on which have remained since the days of the USSR, primarily on the promising Soviet tank of the 1990s - the Kharkov Object 477 Hammer

          probably behind, by the way, like you, the Leningrad Design Bureau that made the tank with a 152 mm gun no longer exists)))
          1. Andreas
            +2
            8 July 2013 23: 15
            Perm is a country of Russia. State entities are changing - RI, USSR, RF - the country is not.

            In the USSR, 152-mm tank guns were developed in three places - Gorky (Central Research Institute "Burevestnik"), Perm (plant number 172) and Sverdlovsk (plant number 9) - all located in Russia. In 1992, Ukraine deprived itself of access to them.
            1. +1
              8 July 2013 23: 23
              Quote: Andreas
              Perm is a country of Russia. State entities are changing - RI, USSR, RF - no country

              What are you)) but at least you were?
              Quote: Andreas
              In the USSR, 152-mm tank guns were developed in three places - Gorky (Central Research Institute "Burevestnik"), Perm (plant number 172) and Sverdlovsk (plant number 9)

              Do you know that the USSR had a planned economy? And the locations of the artillery factories were not tied to administrative divisions?
              Quote: Andreas
              In 1992, Ukraine deprived itself of access to them.
              Well, let’s say it deprived not of their own free will, but the will of the leadership of the Russian Federation, who wanted to disrupt the Pakistani contract and refused to sell tank guns. But this did not stop the help of the Miltoviliha workers from setting up their own Ukrainian production. After cooperation with Swiss companies in creating 120 mm guns to the NATO standard So they didn’t lose anything much, especially UVZ and the Russian Federation decided to leave a 125 mm caliber gun on the promising tank.
              1. Andreas
                +3
                8 July 2013 23: 45
                This refers to access to promising 152-mm guns.
                The impossibility of using Russian large-caliber guns predetermined the fate of the Boxer / Hammer in Ukraine.
                If the Harkovites worked more efficiently under the USSR, now both you and we would sell seven-pack tanks with six-inch guns to all sorts of Pakistan and India laughing
                1. Yemelya
                  0
                  8 July 2013 23: 49
                  Quote: Andreas
                  The impossibility of using Russian large-caliber guns predetermined the fate of the Boxer / Hammer in Ukraine.


                  He, and without 152 mm, had advantages over the T-80UD - the absence of a weakened zone in the VLD, a fully mechanized combat station, etc. Electronics just lagged.
                  1. Andreas
                    +1
                    9 July 2013 00: 08
                    If it was only in electronics, then they would have acted in a simple way - they transferred the commander and gunner from the hull to the tower (as in the T-80 and T-72) and the tank could be rolled out for state testing.

                    In Russia, there were no problems with the lack of a 152-mm gun, but the "Boxer / Hammer" project was not implemented here either - the mistake of the Kharkov developers in choosing the circuit diagram of the automatic loader, consisting of as many as three revolving transporters, affected. For the entire period from 1980 to 1991, the AZ could not squeeze out more than one shot per test.

                    The only workable schemes are one roundabout with horizontal or vertical arrangement of shots (respectively T-64 / T-72 with variations and ASM Block III M1 Abrams).
                    1. +1
                      9 July 2013 00: 20
                      Quote: Andreas
                      In Russia, there were no problems with the lack of a 152-mm gun, but the "Boxer / Hammer" project was not implemented here either

                      Are you sure that it was generally implemented in independent Russia to draw any conclusions at all?
                      Quote: Andreas
                      The only workable schemes are one carousel with horizontal or vertical shots.

                      strange why do you just drop the horizontal charging mechanisms?
                      1. Andreas
                        +1
                        9 July 2013 00: 40
                        The question is not clear - we are talking about the same thing - "Boxer / Hammer" was not implemented in Russia.

                        It’s not me who discards the conveyor automatic loader - it is discarded by the Kharkiv and Tagil people combined.
                        As far as I understand:
                        - when placing the conveyor in the tower, its reserve volume and the reservation surface area increase too much, i.e. the degree of protection of the tank decreases;
                        - when placing the conveyor in the casing, each time it is loaded, it will be necessary to rotate the massive armored turret in the same position, which is clearly slower than twisting the light carousel trunnion carrier to align the selected shot with the barrel.
                      2. +1
                        9 July 2013 00: 50
                        Quote: Andreas
                        The question is not clear - we are talking about the same thing - "Boxer / Hammer" was not implemented in Russia.

                        Quote: Andreas
                        In Russia, there were no problems with the lack of a 152-mm gun, but the "Boxer / Hammer" project was not implemented here either

                        You really decide.
                        Quote: Andreas
                        it is discarded by the Kharkiv and Tagil people combined.

                        Kharkovites did this in the distant 80s, when the level of servomechanisms like that of self-propelled guns .. Donar .. in the USSR, no one dreamed of. (Threat Donar is just an example of mechanization, otherwise you will begin to crypt)
                        Quote: Andreas
                        As far as I understand:

                        Quote: Andreas
                        the tower’s reserve volume and reservation surface area increase too much, i.e. the degree of protection of the tank decreases;
                        The volume is growing, but not much especially compared to tanks with a loading one, the reservation surface grows in the side projection, where it and the tank hull are not much different.
                        Quote: Andreas
                        when placing the conveyor in the housing
                        and about the turn - there is an opportunity to avoid this, on the boxes it has already passed.

                        A carousel conveyor in the hull --- an on-board projection is nothing less than in a recessed niche, while the detonation of the BC leads to the unambiguous destruction of the tank without HOPE for repairs and crew survival even in an armored capsule, well, it is very doubtful.
                      3. Andreas
                        +3
                        9 July 2013 11: 51
                        There is a fact of the inoperability of the AZ of the three conveyors installed on the Boxer / Hammer. Nobody denies that Kharkiv previously developed a workable AZ with one conveyor for the T-74 / T-80.
                        ACS Donar is 2008, i.e. 28 years after the start of the Boxer / Hammer project, 25 years after the creation of the ASM Block III tank and 20 years after the start of the Improvement-88 program, within the framework of which objects 299, 640 and 195 were created. The developers of the Donar ACS had a full opportunity to study / apply / improve any AZ solution previously used in these samples of armored vehicles.

                        In the case under the tower there is already a natural volume for placing the AZ, in the tower it has to be created as an additional one (in the aft niche). Therefore, in the first case, the reservation surface and, accordingly, the weight of the armor does not increase, in the second case, the opposite is true.

                        The low density of the layout of ship artillery systems allows the use of the overall mechanism for feeding the projectile into the gun without turning the turret into a single loading position, the high density of the layout of the tank does not.

                        AZ in the building is the use of free volume under the tower, which:
                        - already protected by body armor (so to speak, free of charge);
                        - additionally protected by side screens;
                        - partially protected by track rollers;
                        - partially protected by a terrain screen.
                        In addition, now most of the hits are in the tank tower.

                        The survival of the crew located in the armored capsule is provided by a set of technical solutions:
                        - the maximum approximation of jobs to the most powerful protective barrier - the frontal block of composite armor, which screens the crew during firing in a significant angular sector, especially at ranges of one and more than a thousand meters;
                        - removal of fuel and ammunition from the control department;
                        - isolation of the control compartment from the rest of the hull using an armored partition;
                        - the compact size of the tower without a feed niche that does not overlap the hatches on the roof of the control compartment;
                        - the presence of two hatches on the roof of the control compartment, allowing you to leave the tank at any turn and the vertical position of the gun.
                        This set of solutions allows the crew to leave the tank when ignition of propellant charges occurs in an uninhabited fighting compartment for a period of time (several tens of seconds), until combustion causes heating and detonation of explosives in cumulative and high-explosive fragmentation shells.
                        Modern explosives themselves, as a rule, do not detonate from penetration by a cumulative jet or penetrator. Fuses - yes, they fire, but the probability of an accurate hit in them is a few percent. In the case of vertical placement of shells with fuses down (as in the AB Abrams / object 195), the probability of their operation is generally close to zero.

                        I agree - detonation of shells in a corps AZ will lead to the cancellation of the entire tank, detonation of shells in a turret AZ will lead to the cancellation of the tower and repair of the tank. But - the detonation frequency of a turret AZ will be several times higher than the detonation frequency of a corps AZ (see modern statistics on hits in tanks).
                      4. +1
                        9 July 2013 13: 47
                        Quote: Andreas
                        There is a fact of inoperability

                        CEP?
                        Quote: Andreas
                        AZ in the building is the use of free volume under the tower, which:

                        KEP again? At the same time, the frantic warheads, both mechanized and not, have been used for a long time.
                        Quote: Andreas
                        announced - detonation of shells in the corps AZ will lead to the cancellation of the entire tank, detonation of shells in the turret AZ will lead to the cancellation of the tower and repair of the tank.

                        At the same time, with a feed AZ it is quite possible to return to the base on its own, or to conduct combat operations with auxiliary weapons. Repair with a modular system will take several days.
                        Quote: Andreas
                        The survival of the crew located in the armored capsule is provided by a set of technical solutions:

                        http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/226442.html
                      5. +1
                        9 July 2013 13: 52
                        Quote: Kars
                        http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/226442.html

                        Nonsense. The figure refers to the possible placement of the crew in the "SV Coalition" when it was still double-barreled



                        andrei-bt completely lied.
                      6. +1
                        9 July 2013 13: 59
                        Quote: Spade
                        The figure refers to the possible placement of the crew in

                        And what is the picture from the coalition? Maybe you have the best armata? But the crew’s placement is planned as in the picture. You can mentally put the engine in front and it will be one to one.
                      7. +1
                        9 July 2013 14: 08
                        The fact is that in 2006 it was a question of using vol. 195.

                        Maybe you have the best armata?

                        Andrei-bt also has no tank layout. However, he is trying to discuss and condemn her.
                      8. +1
                        9 July 2013 15: 04
                        Quote: Spade
                        The fact is that in 2006 it was a question of using vol. 195.

                        what is it? A capsule with a crew shoulder to shoulder is assumed or not? on this all your claims are running out. I certainly understand that it was nice to say - this is a picture from the Coalition, but essentially nothing has changed.
                      9. +1
                        9 July 2013 15: 27
                        Quote: Kars
                        Of course, I understand that it was nice to say - this is a picture from the Coalition, but essentially nothing has changed.

                        Is it pleasant to criticize "Armata" in a splash, based on a schematic representation of the "Coalition-SV" seven years ago, in no way related to the tank being created?

                        -AN-148 is an outdated aircraft, it has only one piston engine.
                        -Why?
                        -And you look at the photo of An-2. Of course, I understand that it was nice to say, this is a picture from the "cornman", but in fact nothing has changed.
                      10. +1
                        9 July 2013 15: 32
                        Quote: Spade
                        Is it pleasant to criticize "Armata" in a splash, based on a schematic representation of the "Coalition-SV" seven years ago, in no way related to the tank being created?


                        Really? No boom? Means you deny information about the placement of the crew of the Armat tank of three people, in an armored capsule in the tank’s body, shoulder to shoulder?
                      11. +2
                        9 July 2013 21: 09
                        Quote: Kars
                        then you deny information about the placement of the Armat tank crew of three, in an armored capsule in the tank’s body, shoulder to shoulder

                        Are you saying that the crew is located exactly that way? Based on what data? Even on the old "Coalition" there were two placement options - shoulder to shoulder and triangle.
                        And you followed andrei-bt hit the predictions.
                      12. +1
                        9 July 2013 14: 03
                        Quote: Andreas
                        ACS Donar is 2008, i.e. 28 years after the start of the Boxer / Hammer project, 25 years after the creation of the ASM Block III tank and 20 years after the start of the Improvement-88 program, within the framework of which objects 299, 640 and 195 were created. The developers of the Donar ACS had a full opportunity to study / apply / improve any AZ solution previously used in these samples of armored vehicles.


                        I’m shocked)) it turns out the documents on perfection 88 were leaked to the Germans)) well, probably Ukraine and the United States gave the Germans a copat in their projects)))
                        but sorry this does not contradict
                        Quote: Kars
                        Kharkovites did this in the distant 80s, when the level of servomechanisms like that of self-propelled guns .. Donar .. in the USSR no one dreamed.
                      13. Andreas
                        +1
                        9 July 2013 14: 40
                        What exactly are you talking about in terms of developments in the "distant 80s"?

                        Nobody leaked anything to anyone:
                        - Germany inherited Soviet tanks along with the MH and AZ;
                        - there are patent drawings, in the case of American and German solutions are very detailed;
                        - there is evidence that in the early 1990s, the Ukrainian side was officially satisfied with the interest in the "Boxer / Hammer" facility on the part of the United States and Germany;
                        - the principle of operation of AZ of object 640 corresponded to AZ "Abrams" in the ATAC version, the principle of operation of AZ of objects 299 and 195 corresponded to AZ "Abrams" in the version of ASM Block III.
                      14. +1
                        9 July 2013 15: 06
                        Quote: Andreas
                        Nobody leaked anything to anyone:

                        )))))))))))
                        Quote: Andreas
                        and during this time, the Donar self-propelled gun developers had the full opportunity to study / apply / improve any AZ solution previously used in these samples of armored vehicles.

                        Quote: Andreas
                        - there is evidence that in the early 1990s, the Ukrainian side was officially satisfied with the interest in the "Boxer / Hammer" facility on the part of the United States and Germany;
                        Where?
                        Quote: Andreas
                        the principle of operation of AZ of object 640 corresponded to AZ "Abrams" in the ATAC version, the principle of operation of AZ of objects 299 and 195 corresponded to AZ "Abrams" in the version of ASM Block III.
                        Why did you decide? And where do they go to Donar?
                      15. Andreas
                        +1
                        9 July 2013 15: 21
                        A drain is when someone secretly passes something to a third party. Unlike plums, you learn patents or inherited equipment yourself.

                        In the mid-nineties, Russian media covered the process of exchanging technical information between the United States and Ukraine. It was said that the latter acquainted foreign partners with experimental developments in the field of tank building, and in response they provided information on the development of 120- and 140-mm guns.

                        I don’t know how in Ukraine, but in Russia as well in Germany, before developing something new, they study the experience of their predecessors.

                        Can you still get at least some information in addition to your intriguing statement about the special developments of AZ in the 1980s on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR?
                      16. +1
                        9 July 2013 15: 26
                        Quote: Andreas
                        In the Russian media in

                        Well of course
                        Quote: Andreas
                        and they responded by providing information on the development of 120- and 140-mm guns.

                        Ukraine implements guns with Switzerland
                        Quote: Andreas
                        and here in Germany, before developing something new, they study the experience of their predecessors.

                        But only they vryatli for self-propelled guns donar studied what, in principle, did not do.
                      17. Andreas
                        +1
                        9 July 2013 15: 54
                        Clarification - the United States provided information on the design of existing 120- and 140-mm guns with a view to installing them on Ukrainian tanks.
                        You are right - at present Ukraine is collaborating with Switzerland in the development of new western-caliber guns.
                        At the same time, evil tongues slander that Switzerland has developed a turnkey 140-mm gun "Bagheera" and handed over technical documentation to Ukraine laughing
                      18. +1
                        9 July 2013 17: 44
                        Quote: Andreas
                        At the same time, evil tongues slander that Switzerland has developed a turnkey 140-mm gun "Bagheera" and handed over technical documentation to Ukraine

                        I personally will survive it. Especially the opinion of long languages.
                      19. Andreas
                        +3
                        10 July 2013 19: 14
                        As part of the NATO FTMA program in the 1980s, a 140-mm cannon was created with a standardized charging chamber and a muzzle energy of 18 mJ. The gun was tested on the Abrams (XM291) and Leopard-2 (NPz K-140) tanks.

                        The Swiss company "K + W Thun" (later Swiss Ordnnance Enterprise, now RUAG Land Systems) in the 1980s, on its own initiative, created a 140-mm gun with a shortened charging chamber and a muzzle energy of 15,74 mJ. The gun was experimentally installed on an outdated modification of the Leopard-2 tank, which is in service with the Swiss army. Due to the non-compliance of the gun with NATO standards, the proposal of the developer company was rejected by the command of the army.

                        Documentation and production rights for the Swiss gun were transferred to Ukraine in the 1990s, where it was presented under the title L55 "Bagheera" (Kiev Design Bureau "Artillery Armament" - State Enterprise KBAP).
                      20. +1
                        10 July 2013 19: 37
                        Quote: Kars
                        I personally will survive it. Especially the opinion of long languages.
                    2. Yemelya
                      0
                      9 July 2013 00: 24
                      Quote: Andreas
                      If it was only in electronics, then they would have acted in a simple way - they transferred the commander and gunner from the hull to the tower (as in the T-80 and T-72) and the tank could be rolled out for state testing.


                      Then the meaning of manufacturing a new car was lost - after all, they wanted to improve the reservation, saving on the tower. However, in about. 187, probably, it was possible to put 152 mm.

                      Quote: Andreas
                      The only workable schemes are one roundabout with horizontal or vertical arrangement of shots (respectively T-64 / T-72 with variations and ASM Block III M1 Abrams).


                      Here I agree. And the point is not in the inoperability of the Hammer's drums (for the first time, by the way, I hear it), but in the fact that such a scheme makes it possible to create an isolated capsule for the crew and, unlike the turret, is not so vulnerable.
                      1. Andreas
                        +3
                        9 July 2013 00: 50
                        If you put 152-mm guns in a tank, you are forced to put AZ as well, since the weight of the shells doubles — up to 40 kg or more. In the carousel of the object’s AZ 187, a 152-mm projectile longer than one meter in length will not physically fit.

                        The performance of the AZ is determined by the simplicity of its design - the less mechanical parts, the greater the reliability. Therefore, AZ from one drum / carousel is always more efficient than AZ from three drums / carousel.
                        The AZ operability is the main criterion. If the AZ is triggered, so to speak, "one time" or even wedges after each shot, then the tank will not live long on the battlefield
                      2. Yemelya
                        0
                        9 July 2013 01: 00
                        Quote: Andreas
                        In the carousel of the object’s AZ 187, a 152-mm projectile longer than one meter in length will not physically fit.


                        It would be crazy, like about. 640, if 152 mm really wanted.


                        Quote: Andreas
                        The performance of the AZ is determined by the simplicity of its design - the less mechanical parts, the greater the reliability. Therefore, AZ from one drum / carousel is always more efficient than AZ from three drums / carousel.


                        Here the question is whether there are fewer parts in the machine about. 195. One can only speculate. It's just that in the Hammer, the drum in the turret played the same role as in ob. 195 a unit designed to extract the projectile and charge and feed them into the gun.
                    3. 0
                      10 July 2013 17: 06
                      Quote: Andreas
                      In Russia, there were no problems with the lack of a 152-mm gun, but the "Boxer / Hammer" project was not implemented here either - the mistake of the Kharkov developers in choosing the circuit diagram of the automatic loader, consisting of as many as three revolving transporters, affected. For the entire period from 1980 to 1991, the AZ could not squeeze out more than one shot per test.
                      Back in the mid-80s, not only the Hammer, Boxer and Buyan were tested at the proving grounds near Kharkov, but also an articulated tank, but no one ever wrote about it, but it would be interesting to know .. ...
                      1. Andreas
                        0
                        10 July 2013 17: 29
                        Not "Buyan", but "Rebel" - the predecessor of "Boxer", developed by KMDB in the 1970s. Was not brought to the stage of a running layout.

                        The articulated tank project was conceptually worked out at the KhKBM in the 1980's and also remained on paper:
                        P.F.Gnedash, L.I. Mazurenko, E.A.Morozov. POSSIBLE OPTION OF A NON-CONVENTIONAL LAYOUT SCHEME OF THE TANK. "Bulletin of armored vehicles", No. 7 for 1991
                        http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/vbtt_1991_komponovka.htm
                      2. 0
                        10 July 2013 17: 50
                        Quote: Andreas
                        The articulated tank project was conceptually worked out at the KhKBM in the 1980's and also remained on paper:
                        It is interesting then that for an articulated miracle covered with a tarp, it was crawling along our training ground in 1983, under the guise of two T64?
                      3. Andreas
                        0
                        10 July 2013 18: 30
                        I have no other information. Address to Kharkovites.
                      4. Andreas
                        0
                        12 July 2013 11: 58
                        According to the administrator of the Otvaga2004 forum, Vitaly Ivanovich (PQ), the articulated tank project in the 1980s in Kharkov was brought to the stage of a chassis layout.
                        For details, you can contact him personally.
                      5. Andreas
                        0
                        12 July 2013 12: 45
                        Experienced articulated chassis
                        I.F. GNEDASH, A.I. MAZURENKO, E.A. MOROZOV. TANK POWER PLANT WITH TWO ENGINES. Bulletin of armored vehicles, No. 10, 1990
                2. +1
                  8 July 2013 23: 55
                  Quote: Andreas
                  This refers to access to promising 152-mm guns.

                  You yourself do not use it.
                  Quote: Andreas
                  The impossibility of using Russian large-caliber guns predetermined the fate of the Boxer / Hammer in Ukraine.

                  Soviet? And why it is not possible - in theory at least a couple of samples and those documentation should be on the territory of Ukraine.
                  Quote: Andreas
                  If the Kharkivites under the USSR worked more efficiently,
                  Well, in independent Russia we also see how they work efficiently, so the Kharkovites under the USSR did what they could.
                  1. Andreas
                    +4
                    9 July 2013 00: 26
                    Used - made from scratch three experimental tanks object 299, object 640 and object 195.

                    "Boxer / Hammer" was made in about 10-15 copies, although each of them was different compared to others. Most of them, along with the guns, remained in 1992 in Ukraine.
                    But the technical and technological documentation, as well as professional developers of the same tools, remained in Russia.

                    I was joking, of course, but every joke contains a grain of joke - under the USSR Kharkiv citizens worked on "Boxer / Hammer" for 11 years with generous funding.
                    The St. Petersburg and Omsk design bureaus worked in Russia in the 1990s on objects 299 and 640 with beggarly funding, and yet they did what Kharkov citizens could not do under the USSR.
                    Tagilians in the 2000s with somewhat more funding (but still not comparable with the Soviet one) managed to bring the object 195 to a workable model, again, unlike the Kharkiv people.
                    1. Yemelya
                      0
                      9 July 2013 00: 30
                      Quote: Andreas
                      "Boxer / Hammer" was made in about 10-15 copies, although each of them was different compared to others. Most of them, along with the guns, remained in 1992 in Ukraine.
                      But the technical and technological documentation, as well as professional developers of the same tools, remained in Russia.


                      In the late 90s, in the TV program "Ameysky Magazin" (the one with Dana Borisova, if anyone remembers) it was reported that Russia and Ukraine intend to jointly develop a 4th generation tank. I have not heard of this anywhere else.
                      1. +1
                        9 July 2013 12: 14
                        Quote: Emelya
                        .... it was reported that Russia and Ukraine intend to jointly develop a 4th generation tank. I haven’t heard about it anywhere else.

                        After the collapse of the Union, the Russians proposed to continue work on the tank, but Ukraine refused categorically (they planned to finish it on their own). They didn’t pull it on their own, they turned to the Russians. And now the Russians have refused.
                    2. Yemelya
                      +1
                      9 July 2013 00: 33
                      Quote: Andreas
                      again, unlike the Kharkovites.


                      They simply put a bolt on the Hammer.
                    3. +1
                      9 July 2013 00: 35
                      Quote: Andreas
                      object 299,

                      In the second half of the 1980s. A large volume of tests was developed, manufactured, and passed to justify and select the design of a traveling mock-up of a semi-support chassis with an MTO front location - “Object 299”

                      the USSR
                      Quote: Andreas
                      640 object
                      not from scratch but cut the T-80


                      Quote: Andreas
                      195 object

                      failed

                      Quote: Andreas
                      But the technical and technological documentation, as well as professional developers of the same tools remained in Russia

                      the developers could well have moved to nm who couldn’t be - you cannot know this, just like me.
                      Those documentation most likely was sent to the Morozov Design Bureau; you just can’t just insert a gun.

                      Quote: Andreas
                      The St. Petersburg and Omsk design bureaus worked in Russia in the 1990s on objects 299 and 640 with beggarly funding, and yet they did what Kharkov citizens could not do under the USSR.

                      and what did they do? where are the tanks adopted for service? what went further than the running layout?
                      Quote: Andreas
                      Agileans in the 2000s with somewhat more funding (but still not comparable with the Soviet one) managed to bring the 195 object to a workable model, again, unlike the Kharkiv people.

                      where? who? when? a couple of photos is not clear why? and financing is of course important - but also new technologies in the era of rapid development of computer technology and cooperation with the west.
                      1. Andreas
                        +2
                        9 July 2013 12: 06
                        Object 299 started in the USSR, but completed in Russia.

                        No matter how good or bad objects 299, 640 and 195 were, but they were. Each of them had a seven-wheeled chassis and a 152-mm gun. Plus an armored crew capsule on the 299th and 195th.

                        The point is that over the past 21 years, Ukraine, for its part, has not done anything like this, although it had a team of designers, with the exception of the developers of the 152-mm gun, and the "Boxer / Hammer" object (about a dozen machines, documentation, production base, etc. etc.)
                      2. +1
                        9 July 2013 13: 49
                        Quote: Andreas
                        The point is that over the past 21 years, Ukraine, for its part, has done nothing of the kind.

                        But she said she was going to? Representing the United States over the past 30 years, they have also done nothing, and they are going to operate Abrams for at least another 30 years.

                        Quote: Andreas
                        Object 299 started in the USSR, but completed in Russia.
                        Completed? How is it? Started mass production? neither 299 nor 640 reliably had a 152 mm gun.

                        this object 292 had it, and they did everything under the USSR, but under the Russian Federation everything was just ...
                      3. Andreas
                        +1
                        9 July 2013 14: 50
                        No need to roll a barrel to the USA - over the past 30 years they have made three experimental tanks - ASM Block III, ATAC and FCS (as well as Russia for 21 years).
                        But we got ahead of them anyway - in September of this year we have there will be the fourth - "Armata" am
                        Serial production is scheduled for 2015, then the United States will catch up.
                      4. +1
                        9 July 2013 15: 02
                        Quote: Andreas
                        but we still got ahead of them - we have in September this year. there will be the fourth - "Armata"

                        Of course
                        Quote: Andreas
                        Serial production will be implemented in 2015

                        And if not?
                      5. Andreas
                        +1
                        9 July 2013 15: 34
                        The body of the object 187 was lengthened back in 1987, an X-shaped diesel engine with GOP was installed in 1989, the 125-mm A282 gun was worked out in 2011 (if I'm not mistaken).

                        What is the problem of welding an armored bulkhead between the control and fighting compartment in the case, as well as installing an uninhabited tower and a more capacious carousel automatic loader according to the type of 195 object?
                      6. +1
                        9 July 2013 15: 52
                        Quote: Andreas
                        What is the problem of welding in the body

                        If so simple, why so long?

                        The unified heavy platform of the Armata cipher [1] (GBTU Index - Object 198?) Is a promising fourth-generation Russian heavy tracked platform developed by the Uralvagonzavod from 2009 - 2010.


                        I'm not talking about expensive.

                        We also have a chassis.
                      7. Andreas
                        +1
                        9 July 2013 16: 16
                        Since 2009, Armata has been developed on an initiative basis (ie slowly). Only in March 2012, the Russian Ministry of Defense officially approved the ROC plan and opened budget funding. From that moment on, everything accelerated.
                        As I understand it, the problem now lies in the concept of "platform" - it is necessary to develop not only the missing parts of the new tank, but also to link all technical solutions for the tank, BMPT, ACS, ARV, IMR, etc., including options with a front MTO.

                        On the seven-skating Kharkov chassis - offset, definitely. I even dragged his photo to dogswar.ru portal. Do not tell the chassis designation?
                      8. +1
                        9 July 2013 17: 42
                        All that remains is to wait.

                        Quote: Andreas
                        On the seven-skating Kharkov chassis - offset, definitely. I even dragged his photo to dogswar.ru portal. Do not tell the chassis designation?


                        not in the know.
                      9. Andreas
                        +1
                        10 July 2013 14: 11
                        Chassis 203 mm ACS 2S7M "Pion / Malka" based on T-80.
                        Developer - OKBT, Leningrad, 1983.
                        As of 2012, the Ukrainian Armed Forces consisted of 99 2S7M installations.
                      10. +1
                        10 July 2013 14: 38
                        Quote: Andreas
                        Chassis 203 mm ACS 2S7M "Pion / Malka" based on T-80.

                        And what? This is not it. Unequivocal. But the fact that based on 80 is natural. There is also based on T-64
                      11. Andreas
                        +1
                        10 July 2013 14: 51
                        The title of the drawing (ACS 2S7 "Python") made a mistake - the ACS 2S7M "Malka" is correct.

                        The reason is that the diameter of the road wheels shown in the drawing (670 mm) corresponds to the diameter of the road wheels of the T-80 undercarriage and differs from the diameter of the road wheels of the T-64 undercarriage (555 mm) used as a base for the 2S7 Python ACS.
                      12. +1
                        10 July 2013 14: 53
                        Quote: Andreas
                        a - the diameter of the road wheels shown in the drawing (670 mm) corresponds to the diameter of the road wheels of the T-80 undercarriage and differs from the diameter of the road wheels of the T-64 undercarriage (550 mm) used as a base for the 2S7 Python ACS.


                        What are you talking about? and for what reason?
                      13. Andreas
                        +1
                        10 July 2013 15: 54
                        Regarding the discrepancy between the name and content of the drawing, presented in the message dated 10.07.2013 14-38.
                      14. +1
                        10 July 2013 16: 59
                        Quote: Andreas
                        Regarding the discrepancy between the name and content of the drawing, presented in the message dated 10.07.2013 14-38.



                        the drawing is not 203 mm self-propelled guns Peony? And similar. And if not a secret, where does the self-propelled guns?
                      15. Andreas
                        +1
                        10 July 2013 17: 34
                        I mentioned the Leningrad self-propelled artillery unit "Malka" as the donor of the chassis of an unnamed Kharkiv object, shown in the photo in a message dated 9.07.2013/15/52 XNUMX-XNUMX.
                      16. +1
                        10 July 2013 17: 37
                        Quote: Andreas
                        I mentioned the Leningrad self-propelled artillery unit "Malka" as the donor of the chassis of an unnamed Kharkiv object, shown in the photo in a message dated 9.07.2013/15/52 XNUMX-XNUMX.



                        In vain mentioned.
                        Quote: Kars
                        this is not it. unequivocally. And the fact that based on 80 is natural. There is also based on T-64
                      17. +1
                        10 July 2013 18: 00
                        By the way, are you the author or re-poster of bestsellers Vulnerability Merkava 4?
                      18. Andreas
                        +1
                        10 July 2013 19: 55
                        "Merkava" is no longer relevant:

                        24.06.2013

                        Large-scale layoffs in the tank-building industry began in Israel due to the termination of funding for the production of new Merkava Mk.4 tanks
                        Director General of the Israeli Defense Ministry Udi Shani, speaking at a special meeting of the Knesset Committee on Social Issues, said that despite the reduction in state budget spending, the military department does not support the decision to abandon the production of tanks "Merkava Mk.4".
                        Shani reminded the audience that “Merkava” is a national project and in no case should it be closed. Otherwise, this may lead to the dismissal of almost ten thousand workers, technicians and engineers, but, even worse, it will seriously damage the defense ability of the Israeli army. Therefore, the military department will fight for the Merkava.
                        This position was fully supported by the Deputy Minister of Defense, the Knesset deputy from the Likud party, Dani Danon: “Production technologies of this level are unique and unrecoverable if work on them is interrupted in full swing.”
                        The annual financial cost of maintaining the Merkava Mk.4 project was over one billion shekels per year.
                        At the same time, the situation is very far from the former. Efraim Malka, one of the leaders of the tank-building enterprise in the city of Kiryat Shmona, said that a large number of workers laid off to reduce are now loitering around the city, not knowing what to do with themselves, but those who remained at the factory (with the goal of repairing previously released tanks ), receive 4 and a half thousand shekels a month. “There is no work, we just put gloss on silent machines,” Malka said.
                      19. +1
                        10 July 2013 19: 58
                        Quote: Andreas
                        Large-scale layoffs in the tank-building industry began in Israel due to the termination of funding for the production of new Merkava Mk.4 tanks
                        with which I congratulate them feel When there is no money, then you still have to refuse such a thing ...
                      20. +1
                        10 July 2013 20: 06
                        Quote: Andreas
                        "Merkava" is no longer relevant:

                        Is it yes or no? Author or copy pasteur?
                        Quote: Andreas
                        for the production of new tanks "Merkava Mk.4"

                        But how much does Merkav need for Israel? By the way, the Leclercans do not produce either, the British close the plant for the production of challengers (if they have not yet closed) so that this information does not characterize the program of the national tank of Israel.

                        cool shush)))
                      21. -1
                        10 July 2013 20: 19
                        As far as I know, it is planned to release the MK-4 to two more brigades. The problem is that the small factories contractors have already produced everything that they ordered for a long time to come. For the name, which they were supposed to produce in Israel, in the end it turned out to be more profitable to produce American military aid in the USA from which 75% should still be spent in America. And since Namer was created on the basis of MK 4, everything that was prepared for its production was transferred to the MK4 line and the order was reduced.
                      22. Andreas
                        0
                        10 July 2013 21: 28
                        How does the project of the new Rakia tank fit into the process of preserving jobs in the Israeli tank industry?
                      23. +1
                        10 July 2013 22: 34
                        Quote: Andreas
                        How does the project of the new Rakia tank fit into the process of preserving jobs in the Israeli tank industry?

                        Massad leaked? Or computer fakes?
                      24. Andreas
                        0
                        10 July 2013 23: 29
                        According to the open press, of course.
                      25. +1
                        10 July 2013 23: 53
                        Quote: Andreas
                        about open print data naturally

                        And they saw Merkava on YouTube 5))))))))))))))
                        Is Rakia not from this opera?
                      26. Andreas
                        0
                        11 July 2013 00: 43
                        Thanks, I saw.
                        But we are not talking so much about the design of the "Rakia" (the Israeli Defense Ministry is still writing TK for it, at the end of the year a tender for R&D is planned), but about the completion of the tender and the beginning of development work as such, again according to the open press.
                      27. -1
                        11 July 2013 00: 48
                        Quote: Andreas
                        How does the project of the new Rakia tank fit into the process of preserving jobs in the Israeli tank industry?

                        like nonsense of journalists.
                      28. Andreas
                        0
                        11 July 2013 01: 20
                        Got it - go to "Abrams" laughing
                      29. -1
                        10 July 2013 17: 47
                        Quote: Andreas
                        What is the problem of welding an armored bulkhead between the control and fighting compartment in the case, as well as installing an uninhabited tower and a more capacious carousel automatic loader according to the type of 195 object?
                        "It was smooth on paper ..." And even the slightest change can lead to negative consequences. At one time, an oil tank of the T80 type was installed on the T64UD, but slightly increased in size, and this led to the failure of the first 10 tanks, since the designer left the same number of partitions in the tank as in the old one and when the oil remained less than a third, then the effect of oil starvation arose, but everything was decided when the number of partitions was increased ...
                      30. Andreas
                        0
                        10 July 2013 18: 34
                        The hull of the tank, unlike the tank, is not yet planned to be filled with oil laughing
                      31. 0
                        10 July 2013 18: 36
                        Quote: Andreas
                        The hull of the tank, unlike the tank, is not yet planned to be filled with oil
                        But no one will leave him empty either, but these are questions of rigidity, weight distribution, mass ...
                      32. Andreas
                        0
                        10 July 2013 20: 15
                        Agree that in order to block off an armored capsule and install a new turret with a cannon and an AZ over an uninhabited fighting compartment, it’s better to have a hull, chassis and MTO (object 1980) run in for several years (the end of the 187s) than to do everything from scratch.
                      33. +1
                        10 July 2013 20: 49
                        Quote: Andreas
                        than to do everything as a whole from scratch.

                        But how to master the finances for the development of a universal chassis (which is Armata)
                      34. Andreas
                        +1
                        10 July 2013 21: 24
                        I think that all the layout issues for the creation of a platform (a set of combat vehicles with aft and bow layout of a single MTO and the same chassis) will be settled by September 27 this year. - the day of the official opening of the exhibition in Nizhny Tagil.
                        Further, the parallel design of combat vehicles using the backlog of accumulated over more than 20 years with the simultaneous implementation of the most costly measures - the technological preparation of production.
                        Already there, finance will "master" in full laughing
                      35. +1
                        10 July 2013 22: 16
                        Quote: Andreas
                        have time to settle until September 27 this year

                        it’s not so long to wait - only the bad thing is that they will show there and whether we (I certainly) will show it at all. And the money will be mastered in any case.
                      36. Andreas
                        +1
                        10 July 2013 23: 46
                        It has long been known that they will show mock-ups of the main combat vehicles that make up the Armata platform: at least MBT (full-scale mock-up), as well as, at least, ACS, BMPT, ARV and IMR (mock-ups to scale).
                        There are no problems at all to demonstrate MBT - it is enough to overtake the finished building of object 187 from Kubinka, clean it of rust and install a tower model on it.
                      37. +1
                        10 July 2013 23: 55
                        Quote: Andreas
                        To demonstrate MBT generally problems

                        Ie do you offer a forgery?)))
                        Quote: Andreas
                        It has long been known - will show the layouts of the main combat vehicles

                        How has long been known? And that for this we need so much PR))))
                        Quote: Andreas
                        as well as, at a minimum, self-propelled guns, BMPTs, ARVs and IMRs (scale models).

                        Well, of course))) I wonder where they announced it?

                        Layouts, panimaES)))
                      38. +1
                        9 July 2013 13: 53
                        ___________
                      39. Andreas
                        +1
                        9 July 2013 15: 02
                        You show a photo of the stern niche of the tower of the Leningrad object 292, which really was designed for the future installation of the conveyor AZ.
                        But in the end, the Petersburgers have come to their senses and in their next facility 299 used a carousel AZ in the tank body.
                      40. +1
                        9 July 2013 15: 12
                        Quote: Andreas
                        But in the end, the Petersburgers have come to their senses and in their next facility 299 used a carousel AZ in the tank body.

                        Are you sure you thought better of it?
                        And let us show you a photo of object 299? With a tower with a 152 mm gun.
                      41. Andreas
                        +1
                        9 July 2013 16: 01
                        There is no photo with the gun on the carriage, but there is a photo of the object’s body 299, drawings, a patent for the tank of the limit parameters, where the carousel AZ with vertical placement of shots is clearly visible.

                        By the way, according to the photo of the appearance of the tank, it is impossible to determine the type of its AZ - only according to the drawings.
                      42. +1
                        9 July 2013 17: 47
                        Quote: Andreas
                        patent for a tank of limit parameters, where a carousel AZ with vertical placement of shots is clearly visible

                        You can draw anything, he can stand the paper.
                        Quote: Andreas
                        By the way, according to the photo of the appearance of the tank, it is impossible to determine the type of its AZ - only according to the drawings.

                        You can try it - all the more see what is in the metal
                      43. +1
                        10 July 2013 19: 21
                        Quote: Kars
                        failed

                        It is not FAILED, and for various reasons it IS NOT ACCEPTED ... The experience, as well as the experience of its experimental operation, has not been done anywhere ...
                      44. +2
                        10 July 2013 23: 10
                        Quote: svp67
                        for various reasons DO NOT TAKE ARMS ..

                        By the way, during the tests, 2 vehicles (195) were shot and blown up, in contrast to the same "Oplots", which all ten are available (now, however, another one has appeared, under the Thailand contract).
                        The 195th passed the state tests completely. Excuses why it was not adopted: from "too expensive" to "the concept has changed" - in general, a lot sounded, but never once that it did not meet its terms of reference (that is, all the requirements set for industrialists were met).
                      45. +1
                        10 July 2013 23: 18
                        Bad_gr RU ​​Today, 23:10 | The predecessors of the Armata tank
                        Quote: svp67
                        for various reasons DO NOT TAKE ARMS ..
                        By the way, during the tests, 2 vehicles (195) were shot and blown up, in contrast to the same "Oplots", which all ten are available (now, however, another one has appeared, under the Thailand contract).
                        The 195th passed the state tests completely. Excuses why it was not adopted: from "too expensive" to "the concept has changed" - in general, a lot sounded, but never once that it did not meet its terms of reference (that is, all the requirements set for industrialists were met).


                        Naturally, there are confirmations of passing state tests 195 in an independent source? On the website of the Russian Defense Ministry?

                        And not one but a minimum of three under the Thai contract is already visible.
                      46. +1
                        10 July 2013 23: 23
                        July 15, 2010 in Nizhny Tagil at the exhibition "Defense and Defense 2010", according to press reports, for the first time there was a closed display of the promising main battle tank T-95, also known as the "Object 195". According to the deputy director of the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation Konstantin Biryulin, the list of persons who have gained access to the display of new equipment,



                        By the way, does the situation resemble anything?
                      47. Andreas
                        +1
                        10 July 2013 23: 53
                        In 2010, the situation was exactly the opposite - at the closed show, the finish of project 195 was presented.
                        This year the start of the "Armata" project will be presented.
                      48. +1
                        10 July 2013 23: 57
                        Quote: Andreas
                        In 2010, the situation was exactly the opposite - at the closed show, the finish of the project 195 was presented

                        Is there any certainty that they showed something?))) And that they will show something?

                        And so one to one.

                        Isn’t the answer about authorship of articles about the Merkavas?
                      49. nick-name
                        +2
                        10 July 2013 21: 10
                        Quote: Kars
                        195 object

                        failed

                        Where did the firewood come from? Didn’t Andrew bring on the tail for an hour? laughing
                      50. +1
                        10 July 2013 22: 17
                        Quote: nick-name
                        Where did the firewood come from? Didn’t Andrew bring on the tail for an hour?

                        and that he went into the series? passed the state test? there is somewhere besides a couple of fuzzy photographs.
                      51. nick-name
                        +1
                        12 July 2013 20: 16
                        Did not go into the series, so failed? Why did he suddenly fail the GI? We have a new car with a CC secrecy gif, and despite the fact that nowadays everyone has a camera in their phone, only a few bad photos got into the network.
                        Despite all this min. should the defense officially announce the progress of the tests and their completion?
                        All the same, when you read Tarasenka, try to analyze what this miracle writes
                      52. +1
                        12 July 2013 20: 31
                        Quote: nick-name
                        Did not go into the series, then failed

                        Funds spent and wasted - failure.
                        Quote: nick-name
                        Why did he suddenly fail the GI?

                        And he started them? There is evidence? There is a decree of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on acceptance into service, on the successful passage of the GI? If not, it means that it was unsuccessful or not exhibited.
                        Quote: nick-name
                        We have a new car with SS secrecy gif,

                        You have nothing)))
                        Quote: nick-name
                        Despite all this min. should the defense officially announce the progress of the tests and their completion?

                        of course.
                        Quote: nick-name
                        All the same, when you read Tarasenka, try to analyze what this miracle writes

                        and where does Tarasenko? he chtoli Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation? There are no cars and everything. And I read nonsense when I see your comments.
                      53. nick-name
                        +1
                        12 July 2013 22: 33
                        Oh! Stubborn they are)))
                        But the desire is that the MO announces in the newspapers about each SS development, as it delivers. But what am I talking about ... tanko egsperd from Ukraine)))
                        Quote: Kars
                        and where does Tarasenko? he chtoli Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation? No cars and everything

                        The hammer, the boxer - he drank it all, there are no cars. Money down the drain. In short, HKBM leech on the body of the USSR!
            2. nick-name
              +2
              8 July 2013 23: 25
              This is all so! It's just that in Ukraine they pulled themselves up ... how they improved the characteristics of art. systems! ))) (apparently they are not really distinguishable from Soviet art. systems, but the filling is all kosher, gives a bonus to attack)))
              1. +1
                8 July 2013 23: 30
                Quote: nick-name
                x apparently the truth from the Soviet art. systems not distinguish

                Well, you have already shown that you can’t determine the differences, so just silently accept the fact. Especially considering that the KBAZ allows you to shoot high-power BPSs belonging to the Pakistan Army Tanks.
                1. nick-name
                  +3
                  8 July 2013 23: 38
                  BPS of increased power of the Pakistani army? - Man, stop abusing the "Moment" laughing
                  I don’t know where I showed you what ... but so far the stories about the great Ukrainian developers are not coming from me)))
                  1. +1
                    8 July 2013 23: 41
                    Quote: nick-name
                    BPS increased power of the Pakistani army?

                    Learn the mat part if you are interested, of course, something other than
                    Quote: nick-name
                    Bugaga

                    think about the close cooperation of Pakistan and China in the tank theme and do not project your vices and weaknesses with the moment on others.
                    1. nick-name
                      +2
                      8 July 2013 23: 51
                      Quote: Kars
                      Learn the mat part if you are interested, of course, something other than

                      Valuable advice of the great connoisseur of the mat part))) Etozh current in the Ukrainian tank, you can push a mega-projectile (of unknown origin) and then still get them somewhere))) So Great Expert, learn yourself)))
                      Quote: Kars
                      think about the close cooperation of Pakistan and China in the tank theme and do not project your vices and weaknesses with the moment on others.

                      I thought. But raving like you, without dope it still doesn’t work laughing
                      1. +1
                        8 July 2013 23: 52
                        Quote: nick-name
                        Valuable advice from a great connoisseur of mat parts

                        In vain, you could use it. But you can see your bar
                        Quote: nick-name
                        Bugaga
                      2. nick-name
                        +1
                        9 July 2013 00: 01
                        What to use then? Communicating with you just gives me a laugh before bedtime))) By the way, you wouldn’t be really distracted from reality ... otherwise in the Russian Federation soon 2A46M will be removed from production, and you will surpass and surpass it laughing
                      3. +1
                        9 July 2013 00: 02
                        Quote: nick-name
                        What to use then?

                        Advice checkmate part.
                        Quote: nick-name
                        Communication with you just gives me a laugh at bedtime)))

                        What glue no longer sticks in?
                      4. nick-name
                        +1
                        9 July 2013 08: 00
                        Quote: Kars
                        What glue no longer sticks in?

                        And I kept waiting, when did the translation of the arrows begin laughing Looks like a point hit)))
                      5. +1
                        9 July 2013 21: 56
                        Quote: nick-name
                        Looks like a point hit)))

                        About the glue? Well, it's not my fault that he will not take you, but wait for nothing.
                      6. 0
                        11 July 2013 00: 01
                        Quote: Kars
                        Kars (2) UA July 8, 2013 23:52 p.m. ↑ New

                        Quote: nick-name
                        Valuable advice from a great connoisseur of mat parts

                        In vain, you could use it. But you can see your bar
                        Quote: nick-name
                        Bugaga
        2. Yemelya
          0
          8 July 2013 23: 00
          Quote: Andreas
          152-mm smooth-bore gun M-69 with a muzzle energy of 18,5 MJ BPS (12,5 kg from 1720 m / s) for the experimental SU-152 "Taran" (object 120).


          M-69, however, rifled.
  17. Yemelya
    0
    8 July 2013 20: 13
    In contrast to this solution, the large size of the 152-mm cannon and the shots to it led to an increase in the 195 object space, which was not compensated for by an increase in armor weight proportional to an increase in the number of road wheels. As a result, the generalizing indicator of the military-technical level of the 195 object practically did not differ from the level of the last T-90MS modification - less security with greater fire power and equal mobility.


    What for "the increase in the weight of the armor in proportion to the increase in the number of road wheels" - the author of the law, perhaps, brought a new one?

    "In contrast to this decision, the large size of the 152-mm cannon and the shots to it led to an increase in the armor volume of the object 195" - the gun should not be so big - it could freely fit into the T-80U tower.

    What is the "generalized indicator of the military-technical level"? request

    "less defenses with more firepower and equal mobility." what's behind these conclusions?
    1. 0
      8 July 2013 20: 20
      Quote: Emelya
      the gun should not be so big - it freely intermeddle with the T-80U tower.
      The gun is yes, but what about the ammunition, to keep it within reasonable limits, you don’t want to, but for 152 mm you need to increase the volume ...
      1. Yemelya
        0
        8 July 2013 20: 25
        Quote: svp67
        The gun is yes, but what about the ammunition, to keep it within reasonable limits, you don’t want to, but for 152 mm you need to increase the volume ...


        BK, it seems, should be in the case, and how many shots are 152 larger than 125?
        1. 0
          8 July 2013 20: 34
          Quote: Emelya
          BK, it seems, should be in the case, and how many shots are 152 larger than 125?
          Not a lot, but two or three shells minus, and them anyway, either 22 (AZ) or 26 (MZ). At one time, the transition from 115 mm to 125 mm reduced b / c by two shells from 28 to 26 ...
          1. Yemelya
            0
            8 July 2013 20: 46
            Quote: svp67
            Not a lot, but two or three shells minus, and them anyway, either 22 (AZ) or 26 (MZ). At one time, the transition from 115 mm to 125 mm reduced b / c by two shells from 28 to 26 ...


            At ob. 195, the automatic loader, logically, should be different from the previously used, there should be the whole BC - at least 30, at least. Theoretically, the place for a more capacious machine should be freed up after the crew is transferred from the tower to the capsule.

            The T-64, by the way, had 30 rounds in the MH, and the T-64A had 28.
  18. 0
    8 July 2013 20: 17
    Quote: Emelya
    What for "the increase in the weight of the armor in proportion to the increase in the number of road wheels" - the author of the law, perhaps, brought a new one?

    This is an attempt by the author to explain how, with increasing weight, to keep the pressure on the soil within reasonable limits ...
    1. Yemelya
      0
      8 July 2013 20: 23
      Quote: svp67
      This is an attempt by the author to explain how, with increasing weight, to keep the pressure on the soil within reasonable limits ...


      So here the author put the cart in front of the horse - the weight of his armor depends on the number of rollers.
  19. Yemelya
    0
    8 July 2013 20: 21
    In addition, despite being uninhabited, the tower retained significant free internal volume to ensure loading shots into the automatic loader and to carry out maintenance and repair of the equipment of the fighting compartment.


    Here I don’t see logic at all. What kind of internal volume for loading shots and repairs is this, right during the battle, or what, should be done while sitting in an uninhabited tower? request
  20. nick-name
    +1
    8 July 2013 21: 35
    Quote: Kars
    Well, yes. And they didn’t copy but surpassed 46

    And yes, sorry, I forgot))) In Ukraine, they do not copy anything, they only surpass laughing (off. compare 2A46M and KBA3, and find the differences))) well, if you master it, look at 2A46M5 to the heap)
    1. +1
      8 July 2013 22: 12
      Quote: nick-name
      (off. compare 2A46M and KBA3, and find the differences))) well, if you master it, look at 2A46M5 to the heap)

      Well, of course, you have RenTgen in your eyes and you see everything under heat-insulating covers)))))
  21. nick-name
    +1
    8 July 2013 22: 35
    Sarcasm? Cool))) Detective artilleryman! laughing
    I would recommend to pay attention to the cradle and the breech of the gun, and look at the pipe ... good luck, look)))
    (Off: well, as I see, I still didn’t manage to compare 2 identical guns ...)))
    1. +1
      8 July 2013 22: 48
      Quote: nick-name
      Off: well, as I can see, I still haven’t mastered comparing 2 identical guns ...

      Well, well))) everything is the same for you. And probably the cradle and breech of the 46M and M5 are very different))) and probably the charging chamber has changed somewhere)))) and all the characteristics say more due to the stiffness, etc.)) ) for fun, I'll throw you a Chinese plush))))

      Smoothbore gun is a processing of the Russian tank gun 2A46. Chinese experts claim that the cannon is superior in performance to its existing counterparts - the German RH-120 (Mounted on Leopard 2A5 and Abrams M1A1 tanks) by 30%. And the Russian 2A46M-1 by 45%.

      As the main means of fighting enemy tanks, the tank's armament includes BPS, the cores of which are made of depleted uranium.

      Apparently, Chinese experts received this technology from Israel, the M711 BPS was also supplied from Israel, designed for 125mm guns; IMI BPS has a length to diameter ratio of 20: 1. Core length - 678mm, Diameter - 33,9. The initial speed of 1700 m / s. Penetration of about 600 mm).

      Themselves even though you artillery?
      1. nick-name
        +4
        8 July 2013 23: 20
        Quote: Kars
        Well, well))) everything is the same for you. And probably the cradle and breech of the 46M and M5 are very different))) and probably the charging chamber has changed somewhere)))) and all the characteristics say more due to the stiffness, etc.)) ) for fun, I'll throw you a Chinese plush))))

        Bugaga laughing Ukrainian Internet tankers! Such funny))) To prompt due to what on 2A46M5 improved accuracy? Or freshly torn 2A46M in Ukraine produces worse results? )))
        Chinese plop ... and really plop. Some crap is written. By the way, BK of Soviet tanks also includes BPS with a core of uranium, so what?
        1. +1
          8 July 2013 23: 25
          Quote: nick-name

          Quote: nick-name
          Bugaga

          This is the maximum level available to you.
          Quote: nick-name
          Suggest why due to 2A46M5 increased accuracy? Or freshly torn 2A46M in Ukraine produces worse results? )

          really due to the cradle and breech?
          By the way, on our 125 and 140 mm breech parts are interchangeable)))
          But Motovilikha’s website isn’t hard to come by))) everything is written there, all that remains is to BELIEVE as the Chinese.
          1. nick-name
            +4
            8 July 2013 23: 45
            Quote: Kars
            really due to the cradle and breech?

            Really)))
            Quote: Kars
            By the way, on our 125 and 140 mm breech parts are interchangeable)))

            And when it on 2A46M breech became interchangeable with a certain gun caliber 140 mm ??? belay Are the trunks at least different? laughing
            Quote: Kars
            And it’s not hard to visit Motovilikha’s website))

            What am I supposed to find there? Maybe Better on the site of nine, they are after all a developer
            1. +1
              8 July 2013 23: 57
              Quote: nick-name
              And when it on 2A46M the barrel became interchangeable with a certain gun with a caliber of 140 mm ??? Are the trunks at least different?

              Quote: nick-name
              Bugaga

              Quote: nick-name
              What am I supposed to find there? Maybe Better on the site of nine, they are after all a developer

              well or there, it may well be
              Quote: nick-name
              Really

              2A46M-5 for the T-90 tank
              new models of 125 mm tank gun
              Increased rigidity of the console part of the barrel and dynamic balance of the gun
              Improved barrel fixation on guides of the cradle and trunnions of the gun in the tank turret
              Tightened barrel geometry tolerances
              Adopted in 2005
              Compared to the 2A46M and 2A46M-1 guns of the 1980 model
              Increased fire accuracy by 15-20%
              Reduced total dispersion when shooting outright at 1.7 times


              Probably KBAZ just caught up and then not completely.
              1. nick-name
                +4
                9 July 2013 00: 13
                Quote: Kars
                Probably KBAZ just caught up and then not completely.

                Yeah ... business. Can you reveal the secret, why if various junk is produced in Ukraine, it immediately becomes unparalleled? )))
                1. +1
                  9 July 2013 00: 17
                  Quote: nick-name
                  why if different junk is produced

                  would you rather discover on the basis of what data do you draw such conclusions?

                  though not i know
                  Quote: nick-name
                  Bugaga
                  1. nick-name
                    +1
                    9 July 2013 07: 53
                    Quote: Kars
                    would you rather discover on the basis of what data do you draw such conclusions?

                    Based on the fact that the 2A46M was developed in the mid-80s, it is very difficult to call this a novelty, is it? fellow
                    1. +1
                      9 July 2013 21: 57
                      Quote: nick-name
                      Based on the fact that the 2A46M was developed in the mid-80s, it is very difficult to call this a novelty, is it?

                      And? You actually asked for conclusions about KBAZ, but you can see that you got a replacement for glue somewhere.
                    2. Donetskiy
                      -1
                      10 July 2013 01: 14
                      Quote: nick-name
                      Based on the fact that the 2A46M was developed in the mid-80s, it is very difficult to call this a novelty, is it?

                      And with what fright did you decide that KBAZ is the equivalent of 2A46M? The barrel is made using autofreting and chromium plating, as in the case of 2A46M-4/5. Claimed crash pressure at the same level.
                      1. +1
                        10 July 2013 01: 28
                        Quote: Donetskiy
                        And with what fright did you decide that KBAZ is the equivalent of 2A46M? The barrel is made using autofreting and chromium plating, as in the case of 2A46M-4/5. Claimed crash pressure at the same level.

                        That's for sure: the Ukrainian gun is equivalent only in appearance, but the production technologies are completely different. If my memory serves me right, then our guns have forged trunks. In addition, the latter have a stiffer barrel + a slightly different design, and as a result they raised the accuracy of the shooting by a quarter. The life of the barrel is comparable with the best Western counterparts and it can be changed without removing the tower.
                      2. nick-name
                        +2
                        10 July 2013 21: 04
                        Taak, it started, Kars can’t calm down everything about the glue, there’s another one ... Donetsky, although you’re covered with chrome all the way to the ears, this will not increase accuracy. This will give something else.
                        And now again, for the especially stubborn - take photo 2A46M-1 photo KBA3 try to find the differences. Then we take photo 2A46M-4, and compare again (special for Kars, do not try to make out the tolerance field for the manufacture of the barrel, it will not work laughing )
                      3. +1
                        10 July 2013 22: 19
                        Quote: nick-name
                        now again, for the especially stubborn - take photo 2A46M-1 photo KBA3 try to find the differences. Then we take photo 2A46M-4, and compare again (special for Kars, do not try



                        here you go and upload a photo here and we will compare. at the same time we will learn from the photo how the barrel is made.
                      4. nick-name
                        +1
                        12 July 2013 20: 23
                        Quote: Kars
                        here you go and upload a photo here and we will compare. at the same time we will learn from the photo how the barrel is made.

                        Well, what for so hopelessly stupid ... What, accuracy depends only on the trunk?
                        Kars, don’t be drawn, especially in those matters where you don’t understand anything.
                      5. +1
                        12 July 2013 20: 28
                        Quote: nick-name
                        What, accuracy depends only on the barrel?

                        Well, some here say so, they say on the manufacturer’s website.

                        Quote: nick-name
                        Kars, don’t be drawn, especially in those matters where you don’t understand anything.

                        ))))))))) as I understand it, you can’t make photos and don’t explain the differences, well, or identity if we are talking about KBAZ. so from KABZ you just got closer to the gun that you installed on the MS. from you)))
                      6. nick-name
                        +1
                        12 July 2013 22: 46
                        Kars, and you're funny))) The truth is not very smart)) Well, it doesn’t matter.
                        I’ll tell you one clever thing, and you try to remember - accuracy, not only depends on the trunk.
                        Quote: Kars
                        ))))))))) as I understand it, you can’t make photos and don’t explain the differences, well, or identity if we are talking about KBAZ. so from KABZ you just got closer to the gun that you installed on the MS. from you)))

                        I won’t bring it))) I just don’t need it, just like explaining to you where you sat in a puddle. If you don’t understand the thick hints, medicine is powerless.
                      7. +1
                        12 July 2013 23: 01
                        Quote: nick-name
                        I won’t bring it)))

                        Then you can’t justify yourself, you’re just a balabol)))
                        Quote: nick-name
                        The hammer, the boxer - he drank it all, there are no cars. Money down the drain. In short, HKBM leech on the body of the USSR!

                        Yes, this is a failure, but there are objective reasons for mitigating it. But you have not been given to understand, you are not too far a toxicomaniac.
                      8. +1
                        12 July 2013 23: 07
                        Quote: nick-name
                        and you try to remember - accuracy, not only depends on the trunk.

                        And you bring the words MY where I said that the accuracy depends ONLY on the barrel))) it is clear that you are in the parishes, you are imagining something.

                        For example, about the object 195))) here is the order to adopt the T-90 in service. Will you bring something similar to that secret tank that you have?)))
                      9. nick-name
                        +1
                        13 July 2013 19: 18
                        Quote: Kars
                        For example, about the object 195))) here is the order to adopt the T-90 in service. Will you bring something similar to that secret tank that you have?)))

                        what
                        Uncle, and you say that you do not indulge in glue what
                        Since when did the T-90 become a griffon SS?
                        But for trying to catch, pin - laughing
                      10. +1
                        13 July 2013 22: 02
                        Quote: nick-name
                        Since when did the T-90 become a griffon SS?
                        But for trying to catch, pin -

                        Well, of course, the T-90 is never a military object, probably never even had any secrecy.

                        So I'm waiting for the 195 object, at least the start of the GI, and not in some cheap newspaper.
                      11. The comment was deleted.
                      12. The comment was deleted.
                  2. 0
                    11 July 2013 00: 03
                    Quote: Kars
                    Quote: nick-name
                    why if different junk is produced

                    would you rather discover on the basis of what data do you draw such conclusions?

                    though not i know
                    Quote: nick-name
                    Bugaga
  22. Andreas
    +1
    9 July 2013 10: 48
    July 8, 2013 - RIA Novosti.

    The Armata tank will be shown for the first time in a closed format to the country's top political leadership at the arms exhibition in Nizhny Tagil in September this year, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on Monday on the Echo of Moscow radio station.
    The newest Armata tanks should be serially supplied to the Russian army from 2015. Several samples will be demonstrated at the exhibition in Nizhny Tagil this September, "Rogozin said.
    He emphasized that in terms of scale the exhibition will surpass all previous ones, including Armored vehicles, drones and automated battlefield control systems will be presented.
  23. Donetskiy
    -2
    9 July 2013 19: 00
    it's all fine, but what happened to the gur-khan? no matter what the article, then the break of the template for the p-oscreots.
    1. Andreas
      0
      9 July 2013 19: 30
      Aleksey Khlopotov is primarily a fan of heavy tanks of the "Boxer / Hammer" type and he strongly disagrees with the decision of the Russian Ministry of Defense to create a unified Armata platform based on a six-wheel chassis and a 125-mm cannon.
      1. 0
        9 July 2013 22: 19
        And who is Aleksey Khlopotov ???
        It’s just an IMPOSTER who calls himself an expert!
        What he finished, where he worked, look at the site "Courage2004".
        He did not even serve in the army, what kind of expert he is .....
        Modeller - yes, keen on tanks - yes, but not special.
        And it’s just silly to refer to him.
        Although the T-90 project, he also dismissed it, although the model from Meng is good, but requires improvements.
        1. +1
          9 July 2013 22: 26
          Quote: Tankomaster
          Although the T-90 project, he also dismissed it, although the model from Meng is good, but requires improvements.

          It’s strange to me personally from the photos that I saw, and so it seems that Mengovskaya is already complicated up to the stop. And there are dorobotki. What, if not a secret, flaws? And what about the price? I have not seen in Ukraine yet.
          1. 0
            10 July 2013 11: 38
            Well, one can argue about complexity, there is no limit to perfection.
            The caterpillar is stacked, the design is original, although you have to sweat over it.
            I received the model through my channels, how much it will cost I will not say.
            It was done well, but the cannon stationary is motionless.
            There are some minor flaws, but the most noticeable is the opening of the MV hatch, so close the hatch and everything seems to be normal.
            And in more detail about the model we will analyze later in a separate article.
            1. +1
              10 July 2013 12: 56
              Quote: Tankomaster
              It was done well, but the cannon stationary is motionless.

              I have all the Soviet ones except the T-62 with a fixed gun. It's not scary for me. But that's what made me personally uncomfortable to the limit, I like to watch more on the shelf than to saw.

              thanks for the answer.
      2. Donetskiy
        -4
        10 July 2013 01: 24
        Until recently, troubles had been a fan of everything related to uvz, but okay, the project of armata, but with respect to the terminator, for the first time I see criticism from him, it feels like he somewhere found his previously lost brains.
        1. +1
          10 July 2013 11: 39
          And he has them - brains then ??? :)))
  24. The comment was deleted.
  25. 0
    14 July 2013 17: 38
    Well, it's less clear with the predecessors! But with the "platform" itself, it is still a continuous FOG, i.e. SECRET!!
  26. +4
    15 July 2013 19: 24
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Quote: svp67
    for various reasons DO NOT TAKE ARMS ..

    By the way, during the tests, 2 vehicles (195) were shot and blown up, in contrast to the same "Oplots", which all ten are available (now, however, another one has appeared, under the Thailand contract).
    The 195th passed the state tests completely. Excuses why it was not adopted: from "too expensive" to "the concept has changed" - in general, a lot sounded, but never once that it did not meet its terms of reference (that is, all the requirements set for industrialists were met).

    More precisely, 1 building 195 was shot and the second (there was a complete machine) and was blown up and shot to the state of a colander, while they somehow managed to bring it to the state of a colander only with the same 152mm that was installed on 195! And then sweat! They say, all the same, there is a fifth building (machine), which the uvz CONTINUES to adjust already under the TTZ of Armata .. Titanium is true and there is a lot of it! Possibly it will be shown in September to "members" together with Armata, like the difference between them is only the size, the presence of titanium and down 152mm! TTX - ?????
    KARS and your last name is not accidentally Tarasenko ?? And calm down, we already know that Ukrainian tanks are the best in the world !!!))) This is an axiom — like Kiev — the mother of Russian cities and Kharkov are the father of Russian tank building! At that time, the Fatherland was one without dividing into Russian Ukrainians and further on the list ..
    Just answer me the question if in Ukraine everything is so good with tank building why in the list below I don’t see the differences CARDINAL from T-90MS? OR DO WE KNOW SOMETHING?

    "From the previous KMDB tanks (T-80UD, T-84) BM" Oplot "is significantly improved:

    firepower:

    new digital SLA and TVP (thermal imaging sight)
    barrel bending accounting system
    combined panoramic sight of the commander with independent day and night (thermal imaging) channels, and a laser range finder

    protection:

    welded-rolled tower of a new form
    large side screens that provide additional protection for the sides of the hull and chassis from manual anti-tank grenade launchers
    built-in DZ "Duplet" ("Knife-2") of a new generation, providing better protection against modern armor-piercing shells and tandem cumulative ammunition
    KOEP (complex of optical-electronic counteraction) "Warta" (Russian. "Sentinels")

    mobility:

    new integrated tank control system that provides automatic gear shifting and smooth turning while driving
    6TD-2E engine with a capacity of 1200 hp with reduced smoke and exhaust toxicity
    diesel APU (auxiliary power unit) with a capacity of 10 kW
    new digital board (on-board computer) of the driver, modern navigation system, new radio communications "


    Attempts to make a virgin newlywed out of a hundred-year-old grandmother by inserting an artificial jaw of silicone injection and other plastic make-up tricks led to the fact that the "young" died on the operating table (or, optionally, the second option, on their wedding night!)))
    And most importantly, why these stupid Russians don’t buy the T-90MS, but they’re batting with some Armata ????
    On the issue of state tests 195 you will be separately OFFICIAL sent a report, you most importantly wait !!))
  27. 0
    5 July 2014 17: 48
    Here is another interesting solution!

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"