Military Review

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.
Author:
126 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Predator-74
    Predator-74 8 July 2013 07: 36 New
    15
    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. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 9 July 2013 21: 04 New
      0
      "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
        9 July 2013 22: 30 New
        0
        Prototypes of the tank "Armata"
        Military Review - Armament - Armored vehicles - June 29, 2013
        http://topwar.ru/30166-prototipy-tanka-armata.html
  2. Sirs
    Sirs 8 July 2013 08: 40 New
    +1
    Ah armata, where are you? Is this not a fiction ((((????
    1. Armata
      Armata 8 July 2013 09: 06 New
      11
      Quote: Sirs
      Ah armata, where are you? Is this not a fiction ((((????
      No.
      1. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 8 July 2013 14: 34 New
        +1
        Quote: Mechanic
        Quote: Sirs
        Ah armata, where are you? Is this not a fiction ((((????
        No.



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

          Easy admire wink
          1. Tuareg
            Tuareg 9 July 2013 13: 57 New
            0
            the name of the project is somehow slurred.
  3. mark1
    mark1 8 July 2013 08: 55 New
    +1
    That is, if I understood correctly, according to the author, "Armata" is a development of the T-72 - T-90 line. The undercarriage remains from the T-90 (hence the weight limit to 50 tons and average ground speed), the autoloader is the same, the reserved volume is also unlikely to change much (most likely it has not changed or increased, since 3 people in the capsule + volume uninhabited tower), hence, the level of passive protection also does not radically change, the MTO, the LMS are significantly changed, KAZs may be used - well, in general, it looks more like a set of measures to modernize the T-90 (let's call T-90AM2). It differs from the information provided earlier and - maybe another "disinformation"?
    1. Armata
      Armata 8 July 2013 09: 08 New
      +7
      Quote: mark1
      That is, if I understood correctly, according to the author, "Armata" is a development of the T-72 - T-90 line. The undercarriage remains from the T-90 (hence the weight limit to 50 tons and average ground speed), the autoloader is the same, the reserved volume is also unlikely to change much (most likely it has not changed or increased, since 3 people in the capsule + volume uninhabited tower), hence, the level of passive protection also does not radically change, the MTO, the LMS are significantly changed, KAZs may be used - well, in general, it looks more like a set of measures to modernize the T-90 (let's call T-90AM2). It differs from the information provided earlier and - maybe another "disinformation"?
      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. mark1
        mark1 8 July 2013 09: 20 New
        +3
        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. I was puzzled by the article and, on the basis of what was said in it, I tried to present the product and concluded that the satya in relation to "Almaty" is more like no misinformation (and since I use exclusively open publications, maybe I'm wrong about something, refute me - but the facts)
        1. Kars
          Kars 8 July 2013 10: 34 New
          +5
          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: Well, what kind of puppy delight? What nonsense ??? The "Messenger of Mordovia" refers to "Courage" - so even if we looked at the same "Courage" as the crew is located in the 450th - there is no trace of it at all! And here is this: “Recall that in 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, gun, etc. " - what are they writing about? About T-95 ??? But his first prototype appeared not in the "very beginning of the 90s", but in 2000! Or is it about 187? If so, then personally I don’t remember anything on this topic from the publications ... And the fact that “Armata” will not be shown to the people is correct. There is nothing to show then! Unless it’s just a mock-up that I’ve already spoken about. Forget about "Armata" - it will not be in the Russian Army! This is a dead project and money transferred from our pockets to the offshore accounts of heads of state corporations.


          And it's cool that he succumbed to modeling
        2. Armata
          Armata 8 July 2013 10: 37 New
          +4
          Quote: mark1
          Yes, I guess, dear Mechanic, that Armata is an independent project. I was puzzled by the article and on the basis of what was said in it, I tried to present the product and concluded that the satya in relation to "Almaty" is more like
          Right, this article is a complete disinformation.
          1. ATATA
            ATATA 8 July 2013 11: 25 New
            +1
            You wrote that actually today the work on ARMATE is frozen, is this still the case?
            1. Armata
              Armata 8 July 2013 19: 48 New
              0
              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. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 9 July 2013 11: 43 New
                0
                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 latest Armata tank will be shown in closed format to the country's top political leadership at an arms exhibition in Nizhny Tagil in September 2013, said Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin ....."
                http://warfiles.ru/show-34430-noveyshiy-tank-armata-vpervye-pokazhut-v-zakrytom-
                formate-rukovodstvu-rf-v-sentyabre.html
          2. During
            During 8 July 2013 12: 57 New
            0
            quod erat demonstrandum smile
  4. Sars
    Sars 8 July 2013 08: 57 New
    +2
    Tank projects at the next round of gigantomania. Tools 140 mm, 152 mm in my opinion - bust!
    1. Tuareg
      Tuareg 9 July 2013 13: 59 New
      +1
      The best shell - fast flying scrap)))
  5. svp67
    svp67 8 July 2013 09: 02 New
    +9
    "Armata" is no longer just a "basic tracked chassis", it is already something somewhat larger, and not only in tank building, but in general for Russia. We can really create something worthwhile - we are not just "well done", we are "winners". Therefore, I want to wish everyone who is at least a little bit connected with the implementation of this project in life - good luck, success and bright ideas.
  6. Kars
    Kars 8 July 2013 09: 43 New
    +4
    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. Basileus
      Basileus 8 July 2013 10: 07 New
      +3
      And in the Strongholds of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine does not show any need. Needs are growing from financial opportunities.
  7. Hoist
    Hoist 8 July 2013 11: 08 New
    0
    Interestingly, Armata hasn’t been shown yet (maybe I missed something), but I’m already watching at least some infa appeared)
  8. vomag
    vomag 8 July 2013 11: 11 New
    +3
    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
    Algor73 8 July 2013 11: 29 New
    +1
    "... The Armata project put an end to the more than 30-year-old epic of attempts to create domestic and foreign tanks equipped with large-caliber cannons ...". Armata itself is not yet, effectiveness has not yet been proven. So it's too early to put a point. It is still unknown what other developers will throw out in the world.
  10. AVDOTYAKARLOVNA
    AVDOTYAKARLOVNA 8 July 2013 11: 39 New
    +2
    They invented another crap named Armata and sawed loot. As a result, it’s not a finisher, the “OUTDATED” cattle will be delivered. Better develop dynamic and active protection. You might think Armata will not burn.
  11. Good fellow
    Good fellow 8 July 2013 12: 04 New
    +3
    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. silver_roman
    silver_roman 8 July 2013 12: 45 New
    +1
    I read the article and all your comments and ask a question, in fact, to Comrade Mechanic and Kars: to be Armata or not ??? They say a lot of things, write even more, but all these versions start to tire a bit ... and on our resource articles are already higher than the roof ... Will they not be shown in September because of the secrecy or lack of anything to show ???
    1. Kars
      Kars 8 July 2013 14: 35 New
      +3
      Quote: silver_roman
      Mechanics and Kars: To be Armata or not ???

      It will be 100%, but whether it will be a breakthrough I can’t say anymore.
  13. Tan4ik
    Tan4ik 8 July 2013 13: 58 New
    +1
    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. Kars
      Kars 8 July 2013 14: 39 New
      +2
      Quote: Tan4ik
      Our smaller brothers can start copying mushrooms (like a mad printer)

      Will they just start from the photos?
      1. Tan4ik
        Tan4ik 8 July 2013 18: 14 New
        0
        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
          DZ_98_B 8 July 2013 18: 42 New
          +1
          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
    DZ_98_B 8 July 2013 15: 48 New
    0
    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
    Sirozha 8 July 2013 15: 54 New
    0
    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
      Tuareg 9 July 2013 14: 00 New
      0
      Is it bad?
  16. nick-name
    nick-name 8 July 2013 19: 57 New
    +3
    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 ask a question, in fact, to Comrade Mechanic and Kars: to 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. Kars
      Kars 8 July 2013 21: 06 New
      +1
      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. svp67
        svp67 8 July 2013 21: 42 New
        +5
        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. Kars
          Kars 8 July 2013 22: 10 New
          +2
          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
            nick-name 8 July 2013 22: 25 New
            0
            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. Kars
              Kars 8 July 2013 22: 30 New
              +1
              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
                nick-name 8 July 2013 23: 29 New
                -5
                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. Kars
                  Kars 8 July 2013 23: 32 New
                  +1
                  Quote: nick-name
                  Bugaga

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

                      Quote: nick-name
                      bouga
              2. svp67
                svp67 9 July 2013 00: 00 New
                0
                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 Tochmash plant.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 9 July 2013 00: 04 New
                  +2
                  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
        8 July 2013 22: 54 New
        +1
        Russia, Perm, 1965 - 152 mm M-69 smoothbore gun with a muzzle energy of 18,5 MJ BPS (12,5 kg from 1720 m / s) for the experimental SU-152 Taran (object 120). Developer - Design Bureau of Perm Engineering Plant (former plant No. 172, now OJSC Motovilikhinsky Plants). Of the 152 mm guns in Russia, there are 2A73 and 2A83, so that you still have ahead in Ukraine.
        1. Kars
          Kars 8 July 2013 22: 58 New
          +1
          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
            8 July 2013 23: 15 New
            +2
            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. Kars
              Kars 8 July 2013 23: 23 New
              +1
              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
                8 July 2013 23: 45 New
                +3
                This refers to access to promising 152-mm guns.
                The inability to use the 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
                  Yemelya 8 July 2013 23: 49 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andreas
                  The inability to use the 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
                    9 July 2013 00: 08 New
                    +1
                    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 absence of an 152-mm gun, but the Boxer / Hammer project was not implemented here either - the mistake was made by Kharkov developers in choosing a circuit diagram for an automatic loader, which consisted of three revolving conveyors. For the entire period from 1980 to 1991, more than one shot per test could not be squeezed out of the AZ.

                    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. Kars
                      Kars 9 July 2013 00: 20 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Andreas
                      There were no problems in Russia with the absence 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
                        9 July 2013 00: 40 New
                        +1
                        The question is not clear - we are talking about the same thing - Boxer / Hammer was not sold 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. Kars
                        Kars 9 July 2013 00: 50 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Andreas
                        The question is not clear - we are talking about the same thing - Boxer / Hammer was not sold in Russia.

                        Quote: Andreas
                        In Russia, there were no problems with the absence 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
                        9 July 2013 11: 51 New
                        +3
                        There is a fact of inoperability of the AZ of the three transporters installed on the Boxer / Hammer. The fact that Kharkiv previously developed a workable AZ with one conveyor for the T-74 / T-80, no one denies.
                        Self-propelled guns Donar - this 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 self-propelled guns had the full opportunity to study / apply / improve any AZ solution previously used in these 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. Kars
                        Kars 9 July 2013 13: 47 New
                        +1
                        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. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 9 July 2013 13: 52 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/226442.html

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



                        andrei-bt completely lied.
                      6. Kars
                        Kars 9 July 2013 13: 59 New
                        +1
                        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. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 9 July 2013 14: 08 New
                        +1
                        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. Kars
                        Kars 9 July 2013 15: 04 New
                        +1
                        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. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 9 July 2013 15: 27 New
                        +1
                        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 nice to criticize the “Armata”, based on the schematic representation of the “Coalition-SV” seven years ago, which does not relate 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 the An-2. Of course, I understand that it was nice to say, this is the same picture from the "maize", but essentially nothing has changed.
                      10. Kars
                        Kars 9 July 2013 15: 32 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        Is it nice to criticize the “Armata”, based on the schematic representation of the “Coalition-SV” seven years ago, which does not relate 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. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 9 July 2013 21: 09 New
                        +2
                        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

                        Do you say that the crew is located exactly like that? 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.
        2. Kars
          Kars 9 July 2013 14: 03 New
          +1
          Quote: Andreas
          Self-propelled guns Donar - this 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 self-propelled guns had the full opportunity to study / apply / improve any AZ solution previously used in these 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.
        3. Andreas
          9 July 2013 14: 40 New
          +1
          What exactly are we talking about in the development of 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 of satisfaction in the early 1990s by the Ukrainian side officially of interest in the Boxer / Hammer facility from the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany;
          - the principle of operation of the AZ of object 640 corresponded to AZ "Abrams" in the ATAC version, the principle of operation of AZs of objects 299 and 195 corresponded to AZ "Abrams" in version ASM Block III.
        4. Kars
          Kars 9 July 2013 15: 06 New
          +1
          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 of satisfaction in the early 1990s by the Ukrainian side officially of interest in the Boxer / Hammer facility from the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany;
          Where?
          Quote: Andreas
          the principle of operation of the AZ of facility 640 corresponded to AZ Abrams in the ATAC version, the principle of operation of the AZs of objects 299 and 195 corresponded to AZ Abrams in the ASM Block III version.
          Why did you decide? And where do they go to Donar?
        5. Andreas
          9 July 2013 15: 21 New
          +1
          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?
        6. Kars
          Kars 9 July 2013 15: 26 New
          +1
          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.
        7. Andreas
          9 July 2013 15: 54 New
          +1
          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 Bagira gun and handed over technical documentation to Ukraine laughing
        8. Kars
          Kars 9 July 2013 17: 44 New
          +1
          Quote: Andreas
          At the same time, evil tongues slander that Switzerland has developed a turnkey 140-mm Bagira gun and handed over technical documentation to Ukraine

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

          The Swiss company "K + W Thun" (later Swiss Ordnnance Enterprise, now RUAG Land Systems) in the 1980s proactively created a 140-mm gun with a shortened charging chamber and a muzzle energy of 15,74 mJ. The cannon 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 army command.

          The documentation and rights to manufacture the Swiss cannon were transferred to Ukraine in the 1990s, where it was presented under the title L55 Bagira (Kiev Design Bureau "Artillery Armament" - GP KBAP).
        10. Kars
          Kars 10 July 2013 19: 37 New
          +1
          Quote: Kars
          I personally will survive it. Especially the opinion of long languages.
  • Yemelya
    Yemelya 9 July 2013 00: 24 New
    0
    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 the inoperability of the Hammer drums (for the first time, by the way, I hear), but the fact that such a scheme allows you to create an isolated capsule for the crew and, unlike the crazy one, is not so vulnerable.
    1. Andreas
      9 July 2013 00: 50 New
      +3
      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 performance of the AZ is the main criterion. If the AZ fires, so to speak, “once” or even wedges after each shot, then the tank will not live on the battlefield for a long time
    2. Yemelya
      Yemelya 9 July 2013 01: 00 New
      0
      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 in Hammer that the drum in the tower played the same role that the volley at 195 plays the unit designed to extract the projectile and charge and supply them to the gun.
  • svp67
    svp67 10 July 2013 17: 06 New
    0
    Quote: Andreas
    In Russia, there were no problems with the absence of an 152-mm gun, but the Boxer / Hammer project was not implemented here either - the mistake was made by Kharkov developers in choosing a circuit diagram for an automatic loader, which consisted of three revolving conveyors. For the entire period from 1980 to 1991, more than one shot per test could not be squeezed out of the AZ.
    back in the middle of the 80's, at the training grounds near Kharkov, not only the Hammer, Boxer and Buyan were tested, but also an articulated tank, but no one had written about it anywhere, but it would be interesting to know .. .
    1. Andreas
      10 July 2013 17: 29 New
      0
      Not “Buyan”, but “Rebel” - the predecessor of “Boxer”, was developed by KHKBM in the 1970s. It was not brought to the stage of the 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 NON-TRADITIONAL LAYOUT TANK DIAGRAM. "Bulletin of armored vehicles", No 7 for 1991
      http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/vbtt_1991_komponovka.htm
    2. svp67
      svp67 10 July 2013 17: 50 New
      0
      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
      10 July 2013 18: 30 New
      0
      I have no other information. Address to Kharkovites.
    4. Andreas
      12 July 2013 11: 58 New
      0
      According to the administrator of the forum “Courage 2004” Vitaliy Ivanovich (PQ), the design of an articulated tank in the 1980s in Kharkov was brought to the stage of a chassis layout.
      For details, you can contact him personally.
    5. Andreas
      12 July 2013 12: 45 New
      0
      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
  • Kars
    Kars 8 July 2013 23: 55 New
    +1
    Quote: Andreas
    This refers to access to promising 152-mm guns.

    You yourself do not use it.
    Quote: Andreas
    The inability to use the 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
      9 July 2013 00: 26 New
      +4
      Used - made from scratch three experimental tanks object 299, object 640 and object 195.

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

      Of course, I was joking, but every joke has a fraction of a joke - Kharkov citizens in the USSR 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
        Yemelya 9 July 2013 00: 30 New
        0
        Quote: Andreas
        "Boxer / Hammer" was made in 10-15 copies, though each of them was different compared to the others. Most of them, along with guns, remained in 1992 in Ukraine.
        But the technical and technological documentation, as well as professional developers of the same tools, remained in Russia.


        At the end of the 90s, the Ameysky Magazine TV show (the one with Dana Borisova, if anyone remembers) reported that Russia and Ukraine intend to jointly develop a 4th generation tank. I haven’t heard about it anywhere else.
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 9 July 2013 12: 14 New
          +1
          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
        Yemelya 9 July 2013 00: 33 New
        +1
        Quote: Andreas
        again, unlike the Kharkovites.


        There, on the Hammer, they just put a bolt.
      3. Kars
        Kars 9 July 2013 00: 35 New
        +1
        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
          9 July 2013 12: 06 New
          +2
          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 guns, and the Boxer / Hammer object (with a dozen machines, documentation, production facilities, etc. .d.)
        2. Kars
          Kars 9 July 2013 13: 49 New
          +1
          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
          9 July 2013 14: 50 New
          +1
          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 still got ahead of them - we have in September this year. there will be a fourth - "Armata" am
          Serial production is scheduled for 2015, then the United States will catch up.
        4. Kars
          Kars 9 July 2013 15: 02 New
          +1
          Quote: Andreas
          Oh, we still got ahead of them - in September of this year we have there will be a fourth - "Armata"

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

          And if not?
        5. Andreas
          9 July 2013 15: 34 New
          +1
          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. Kars
          Kars 9 July 2013 15: 52 New
          +1
          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
          9 July 2013 16: 16 New
          +1
          Since 2009, Armata was developed on an initiative basis (i.e. slowly). Only in March 2012, the Ministry of Defense of Russia officially approved the OCD plan and opened budget financing. From that moment everything accelerated.
          As I understand it, the problem now is in the concept of "platform" - it is necessary to develop not only the missing parts of the new tank, but also to link together all the technical solutions for the tank, BMPT, self-propelled guns, ARVs, IMR, etc., including front-mounted MTO options.

          On the seven-skating Kharkov chassis - offset, definitely. I even dragged his photo to dogswar.ru portal. Do not tell the chassis designation?
        8. Kars
          Kars 9 July 2013 17: 42 New
          +1
          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
          10 July 2013 14: 11 New
          +1
          Chassis 203 mm SAU 2S7M "Peony / Malka" based on the T-80.
          Developer - OKBT, Leningrad, 1983.
          As of 2012, the Ukrainian Armed Forces consisted of 99 2S7M installations.
        10. Kars
          Kars 10 July 2013 14: 38 New
          +1
          Quote: Andreas
          Chassis 203 mm SAU 2S7M "Peony / Malka" based on the 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
          10 July 2013 14: 51 New
          +1
          A mistake has been made in the name of the drawing (ACS 2C7 "Python") - correctly ACS 2C7M "Malka".

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


          What are you talking about? and for what reason?
        13. Andreas
          10 July 2013 15: 54 New
          +1
          Regarding the discrepancy between the name and content of the drawing, presented in the message dated 10.07.2013 14-38.
        14. Kars
          Kars 10 July 2013 16: 59 New
          +1
          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
          10 July 2013 17: 34 New
          +1
          I mentioned the Malka Leningrad self-propelled artillery as a donor to the chassis of an unnamed Kharkov facility, shown in the photo in a message dated July 9.07.2013, 15, 52-XNUMX.
        16. Kars
          Kars 10 July 2013 17: 37 New
          +1
          Quote: Andreas
          I mentioned the Malka Leningrad self-propelled artillery as a donor to the chassis of an unnamed Kharkov facility, shown in the photo in a message dated July 9.07.2013, 15, 52-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. Kars
          Kars 10 July 2013 18: 00 New
          +1
          By the way, are you the author or re-poster of bestsellers Vulnerability Merkava 4?
        18. Andreas
          10 July 2013 19: 55 New
          +1
          Merkava is no longer relevant:

          24.06.2013

          In Israel, large-scale layoffs began in the tank industry due to the cessation of funding for the production of new tanks "Merkava Mk.4"
          The Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Defense, Udi Shani, speaking at a special meeting of the Knesset Committee on Social Affairs, said that despite the reduction in state budget expenditures, the military department does not support the decision to abandon the production of Merkava Mk.4 tanks.
          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 costs of maintaining the Merkava Mk.4 project amounted to more than one billion shekels a 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. svp67
          svp67 10 July 2013 19: 58 New
          +1
          Quote: Andreas
          In Israel, large-scale layoffs began in the tank industry due to the cessation of funding for the production of new tanks "Merkava Mk.4"
          with which I congratulate them repeat When there is no money, then you still have to refuse such a thing ...
        20. Kars
          Kars 10 July 2013 20: 06 New
          +1
          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. Aaron Zawi
          Aaron Zawi 10 July 2013 20: 19 New
          -1
          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
          10 July 2013 21: 28 New
          0
          And how does the project of the new Rakiya tank fit into the process of preserving jobs in the Israeli tank industry?
        23. Kars
          Kars 10 July 2013 22: 34 New
          +1
          Quote: Andreas
          And how does the project of the new Rakiya tank fit into the process of preserving jobs in the Israeli tank industry?

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

          And they saw Merkava on YouTube 5))))))))))))))
          Is Rakia not from this opera?
        26. Andreas
          11 July 2013 00: 43 New
          0
          Thanks, I saw.
          But it’s not so much about the construction of “Raki” (TK is still being written to it at the Israeli Defense Ministry, a tender for OCD is planned at the end of the year), but rather about the completion of the tender and the beginning of development work as such, again according to the open press.
  • Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 11 July 2013 00: 48 New
    -1
    Quote: Andreas
    And how does the project of the new Rakiya tank fit into the process of preserving jobs in the Israeli tank industry?

    like nonsense of journalists.
  • Andreas
    11 July 2013 01: 20 New
    0
    Got it - go to Abrams laughing
  • svp67
    svp67 10 July 2013 17: 47 New
    -1
    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 entail negative consequences. at one time a T80 type oily tank was installed on the T64UD, but somewhat larger, and this led to the failure of the first 10 tanks, since the designers left the same number of partitions in the tank as in the old one and when the oil was less than a third, then there was the effect of oil starvation, but everything was decided when the number of partitions was increased ...
  • Andreas
    10 July 2013 18: 34 New
    0
    The hull of the tank, unlike the tank, is not yet planned to be filled with oil laughing
  • svp67
    svp67 10 July 2013 18: 36 New
    0
    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 ...
  • Andreas
    10 July 2013 20: 15 New
    0
    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.
  • Kars
    Kars 10 July 2013 20: 49 New
    +1
    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)
  • Andreas
    10 July 2013 21: 24 New
    +1
    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
  • Kars
    Kars 10 July 2013 22: 16 New
    +1
    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.
  • Andreas
    10 July 2013 23: 46 New
    +1
    It has long been known - they will show the models of the main combat vehicles that are part of the Armata platform: at least MBT (full-scale model), as well as at least self-propelled guns, BMPTs, ARVs and IMR (scale models).
    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.
  • Kars
    Kars 10 July 2013 23: 55 New
    +1
    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)))
  • Kars
    Kars 9 July 2013 13: 53 New
    +1
    ___________
  • Andreas
    9 July 2013 15: 02 New
    +1
    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.
  • Kars
    Kars 9 July 2013 15: 12 New
    +1
    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.
  • Andreas
    9 July 2013 16: 01 New
    +1
    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.
  • Kars
    Kars 9 July 2013 17: 47 New
    +1
    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
  • svp67
    svp67 10 July 2013 19: 21 New
    +1
    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 ...
  • Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 10 July 2013 23: 10 New
    +2
    Quote: svp67
    for various reasons DO NOT TAKE ARMS ..

    By the way, during the tests 2 cars were shot and blown up (195), in contrast to the same Oplot, which are available in all ten (now, however, another one has appeared, under the Thai contract).
    The 195th completely passed state tests. The excuses are not taken into account: from "too expensive" to "changed the concept" - in general, a lot of things sounded, but not once that he did not meet his technical requirements (that is, all the requirements set before the industrialists were fulfilled).
  • Kars
    Kars 10 July 2013 23: 18 New
    +1
    Bad_gr RU ​​Today, 23:10 PM | The predecessors of the tank "Armata"
    Quote: svp67
    for various reasons DO NOT TAKE ARMS ..
    By the way, during the tests 2 cars were shot and blown up (195), in contrast to the same Oplot, which are available in all ten (now, however, another one has appeared, under the Thai contract).
    The 195th completely passed state tests. The excuses are not taken into account: from "too expensive" to "changed the concept" - in general, a lot of things sounded, but not once that he did not meet his technical requirements (that is, all the requirements set before the industrialists were fulfilled).


    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.
  • Kars
    Kars 10 July 2013 23: 23 New
    +1
    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?
  • Andreas
    10 July 2013 23: 53 New
    +1
    In 2010, the situation was exactly the opposite - at the closed show, the finish of project 195 was presented.
    This year the launch of the Armata project will be presented.
  • Kars
    Kars 10 July 2013 23: 57 New
    +1
    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?
  • nick-name
    nick-name 10 July 2013 21: 10 New
    +2
    Quote: Kars
    195 object

    failed

    Where did the firewood come from? Didn’t Andrew bring on the tail for an hour? laughing
  • Kars
    Kars 10 July 2013 22: 17 New
    +1
    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.
  • nick-name
    nick-name 12 July 2013 20: 16 New
    +1
    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
  • Kars
    Kars 12 July 2013 20: 31 New
    +1
    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.
  • nick-name
    nick-name 12 July 2013 22: 33 New
    +1
    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!
  • nick-name
    nick-name 8 July 2013 23: 25 New
    +2
    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. Kars
      Kars 8 July 2013 23: 30 New
      +1
      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
        nick-name 8 July 2013 23: 38 New
        +3
        BPS increased power of the Pakistani army? - Man, stop abusing 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. Kars
          Kars 8 July 2013 23: 41 New
          +1
          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
            nick-name 8 July 2013 23: 51 New
            +2
            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. Kars
              Kars 8 July 2013 23: 52 New
              +1
              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
              nick-name 9 July 2013 00: 01 New
              +1
              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. Kars
              Kars 9 July 2013 00: 02 New
              +1
              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
              nick-name 9 July 2013 08: 00 New
              +1
              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. Kars
              Kars 9 July 2013 21: 56 New
              +1
              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.
      2. I am a Russian
        I am a Russian 11 July 2013 00: 01 New
        0
        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
  • Yemelya
    Yemelya 8 July 2013 23: 00 New
    0
    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.
  • Yemelya
    Yemelya 8 July 2013 20: 13 New
    0
    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 is “the increase in the weight of armor proportional to the increase in the number of track rollers” - the author introduced a new law?

    "In contrast to this decision, the large dimensions of the 152 mm gun and the shots to it led to an increase in the object’s storage volume 195" - the gun should not be so big - it freely entered the T-80U tower.

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

    "less security with greater firepower and equal mobility." what's behind these conclusions?
    1. svp67
      svp67 8 July 2013 20: 20 New
      0
      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
        Yemelya 8 July 2013 20: 25 New
        0
        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. svp67
          svp67 8 July 2013 20: 34 New
          0
          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
            Yemelya 8 July 2013 20: 46 New
            0
            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.
  • svp67
    svp67 8 July 2013 20: 17 New
    0
    Quote: Emelya
    What is “the increase in the weight of armor proportional to the increase in the number of track rollers” - the author introduced a new law?

    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
      Yemelya 8 July 2013 20: 23 New
      0
      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.
  • Yemelya
    Yemelya 8 July 2013 20: 21 New
    0
    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
  • nick-name
    nick-name 8 July 2013 21: 35 New
    +1
    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. Kars
      Kars 8 July 2013 22: 12 New
      +1
      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)))))
  • nick-name
    nick-name 8 July 2013 22: 35 New
    +1
    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. Kars
      Kars 8 July 2013 22: 48 New
      +1
      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
        nick-name 8 July 2013 23: 20 New
        +4
        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. Kars
          Kars 8 July 2013 23: 25 New
          +1
          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
            nick-name 8 July 2013 23: 45 New
            +4
            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. Kars
              Kars 8 July 2013 23: 57 New
              +1
              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
                nick-name 9 July 2013 00: 13 New
                +4
                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. Kars
                  Kars 9 July 2013 00: 17 New
                  +1
                  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
                    nick-name 9 July 2013 07: 53 New
                    +1
                    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. Kars
                      Kars 9 July 2013 21: 57 New
                      +1
                      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
                      Donetskiy 10 July 2013 01: 14 New
                      -1
                      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. Bad_gr
                        Bad_gr 10 July 2013 01: 28 New
                        +1
                        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
                        nick-name 10 July 2013 21: 04 New
                        +2
                        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. Kars
                        Kars 10 July 2013 22: 19 New
                        +1
                        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
                        nick-name 12 July 2013 20: 23 New
                        +1
                        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. Kars
                        Kars 12 July 2013 20: 28 New
                        +1
                        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
                        nick-name 12 July 2013 22: 46 New
                        +1
                        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. Kars
                        Kars 12 July 2013 23: 01 New
                        +1
                        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. Kars
                        Kars 12 July 2013 23: 07 New
                        +1
                        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
                        nick-name 13 July 2013 19: 18 New
                        +1
                        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. Kars
                        Kars 13 July 2013 22: 02 New
                        +1
                        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.
                  2. The comment was deleted.
                  3. The comment was deleted.
  • I am a Russian
    I am a Russian 11 July 2013 00: 03 New
    0
    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
  • Andreas
    9 July 2013 10: 48 New
    +1
    July 8, 2013 - RIA Novosti.

    The Armata tank will be shown for the first time in closed format to the country's top political leadership at an arms exhibition in Nizhny Tagil in September this year, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on air of the Ekho Moskvy radio station on Monday.
    The latest Armata tanks should be mass-produced in the Russian army since 2015. At the exhibition in Nizhny Tagil in September this year, several samples will be demonstrated, "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.
  • Donetskiy
    Donetskiy 9 July 2013 19: 00 New
    -2
    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
      9 July 2013 19: 30 New
      0
      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-wheeled chassis and a 125-mm gun.
      1. Tankomaster
        Tankomaster 9 July 2013 22: 19 New
        0
        And who is Aleksey Khlopotov ???
        It’s just an IMPOSTER who calls himself an expert!
        What he ended up, where he worked, look at the site "Courage 2004".
        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. Kars
          Kars 9 July 2013 22: 26 New
          +1
          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. Tankomaster
            Tankomaster 10 July 2013 11: 38 New
            0
            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. Kars
              Kars 10 July 2013 12: 56 New
              +1
              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
        Donetskiy 10 July 2013 01: 24 New
        -4
        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. Tankomaster
          Tankomaster 10 July 2013 11: 39 New
          +1
          And he has them - brains then ??? :)))
  • The comment was deleted.
  • sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 14 July 2013 17: 38 New
    0
    Well, with predecessors it’s less clear! But with the "platform" itself, so far there is a continuous FOG, i.e. SECRET!!
  • alexpro66
    alexpro66 15 July 2013 19: 24 New
    +4
    Quote: Bad_gr
    Quote: svp67
    for various reasons DO NOT TAKE ARMS ..

    By the way, during the tests 2 cars were shot and blown up (195), in contrast to the same Oplot, which are available in all ten (now, however, another one has appeared, under the Thai contract).
    The 195th completely passed state tests. The excuses are not taken into account: from "too expensive" to "changed the concept" - in general, a lot of things sounded, but not once that he did not meet his technical requirements (that is, all the requirements set before the industrialists were fulfilled).

    More precisely, 1 building 195 was shot and the second (there was a complete machine) and blown up and shot to a colander state - at the same time, they somehow managed to bring it to a colander state only with the same 152 mm that was installed on 195! And then sweated! They say, all the same, there is a fifth building (machine) which UZZ continues to customize already under the TTZ of Almaty .. Titan is true and in it is immeasurable! Perhaps in September it will be shown to the “members” together with Armata, the difference between them is only the size, the presence of titanium and fluff 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 KhKBM (T-80UD, T-84) tanks, the Oplot BM 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 shield (on-board computer) of the driver, a modern navigation system, new radio communications "


    Attempts from a hundred-year-old grandmother to make a newlywed virgin by inserting an artificial jaw by injecting silicone and other plastic make-up tricks led to the fact that the "young" died on the operating table (or, optionally, the second option, on the 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 !!))
  • MolGro
    MolGro 5 July 2014 17: 48 New
    0
    Here is another interesting solution!