Military Review

Heavy tank IS-5 ("Object 730"). The hard way to t-xnumx

63
P 'RїSЏS,RoRґRμSЃSЏS,S <RіRѕRґR ° C ... C ... RЅR ° RІRѕRѕSЂSѓR¶RμRЅRoRμ SЃRѕRІRμS,SЃRєRoS ... SЂRѕRЅRμS,R ° F ± RЅRєRѕRІS <C ... C ± RІRѕR№SЃRє P <P "RїSЂRoRЅSЏS, S,SЏR¶RμR" С ‹Р№ тР° РЅРє Рў-10. R 'RґR ° R »СЊРЅРµР№С € ем РѕР ± стоятел ьствР° СЃР »Рсжил РёСЃСЊ тР° Рє, С З С‚Рѕ РјР ° С € РёРЅС ‹Рў-10 Ryo Ryo ... РјРѕРґРёС „РёРєР ° С † РёРё стР° Р» Рё РїРѕСЃР »РµРґРЅРЅРёРјРё РѕС‚РµС З РµС‚С‚РІРµРЅРЅС‹ РјРё тяммлР» tanks. РџСЂРѕРµРєС ‚Рў-10 РІРѕР ± СЂР ° Р» РІ сеР± СЏ РІСЃРµ Р »СѓС ‡ С € РёРµ РЅР ° СЂР ° Р ± отки СЃРѕРІРЅРЕРєРЕР‚РЕР‚РЕЂкннннннннннннннннннЁннЁЁРЕР ± R »P ° сти тяжел С ‹С ... тР° РЅРєРѕРІ, РѕРґРЅР ° РєРѕ его СЂР ° Р · СЂР ° Р ± откР° Р · Р ° тянул Р ° СЃСЊ РЅР ° несколько Р» РµС ‚. RџRμSЂRμRґ RїRѕSЏRІR "RμRЅRoRμRј RїRμSЂRІS <C ... RѕRїS <S,RЅS <C ... RѕR ± SЂR ° F · C † RѕRІ S,R ° RЅRєR ° F RЎ-8 RїRѕR · R¶Rμ SЃS,R ° RІS € RμRіRѕ Rў- 10, Р ± С ‹Р» СЃРѕР · РґР ° РЅ РїСЂРѕРµРєС ‚В" РћР ± СЉРµРєС ‚730В", РІ С ... РѕРґРµ которогоЁРСиеинеееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееееиР»Ryo Ryo РѕРїСЂРѕР ± РѕРІР ° Р» Рё СЂСЏРґ РІР ° Р¶РЅС ‹С ... СЌР» ементов перспективного тякжжР° Р


Heavy tank IS-5 ("Object 730"). The hard way to t-xnumx


The project with the factory designation "Object 730" was also called EC-5. It is worth noting, the designation with the number 5 already met in the domestic nomenclature of heavy tanks. However, the “Object 248” project, also called the EC-5, did not reach mass production. Work on the new EC-5 started in the last months of 1948. The aim of this project was a deep modernization of the heavy tank EC-4 with an increase in a number of characteristics. It was proposed to replace a number of components and assemblies, as well as lighten the machine to 50 tons. The reduction in combat mass in combination with the use of new units promised a tangible increase in combat qualities.

In the spring of 1949, the group of designers of the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant, headed by J.Ya. Kotin has developed a preliminary version of the 730 Object project. The prospective tank was significantly different from the base EC-4. He received an updated design of the tower and the hull, in which the developments of the EC-3 and EC-7 projects were used; two options for the new transmission; updated suspension; loading mechanism, etc. The layout of the internal volumes of the corps and the combat compartment has undergone major changes.

Perspective tank received a new tower of the original design. Cast unit with variable wall thickness had a shape close to spherical. With this, it was possible to eliminate the so-called. Zaman between the lower part of the tower and the turret sheet of the hull, and also slightly increase the internal volume of the fighting compartment. The tower mountings on the case were strengthened, and a number of other new solutions were applied. In particular, the tool installation system has changed. The new design was stronger, but it also facilitated the installation of the gun in the tower.

As the main weapons the “Object 730” tank was supposed to use the 122-mm D-25T rifled cannon mounted on new brackets and equipped with an updated lifting mechanism. In addition, the gun was equipped with an electromechanical ammunition discharging system. The mechanism was relatively small and light, which made it possible to place it on the cannon fence.



At the beginning of April, 1949, the technical documentation for the EC-5 / “730 Object” project and the wooden layout of the tank went to Moscow. The military and industry leadership reviewed the project and made a list of necessary improvements. The improved project was approved in mid-May. After this, the preparation of drawings for plants began. It is noteworthy that in the first place documentation was prepared for the most difficult parts of the combat vehicle, requiring relatively long preparation for production. Thus, the drawings of the hull and the tower were transferred to plant number XXUMX and Izhora factory 200 in May 18, and the preparation of the remaining documents was completed only in the twentieth of June.

Work on the construction of experimental tanks EC-5 was delayed, because of what it was decided to use for testing the modified machines model EC-4. In order to have time to carry out tests on time (before the beginning of August), two EC-4 tanks were taken, the mass of which was brought up to the required 50 tons. To do this, they removed the tower and installed additional loads. The power of the B-12 engines during the tests was limited to 700 horsepower. At one of the modified IC-4, the B-12-5 engine was later tested. A number of future units “Object 730” were tested on two EC-7 tanks of the 1947 model of the year, modified in the same way as the EC-4.

In the summer of 1949, several companies developed and tested various units for a promising tank. As an example of such work, one can cite the efforts of the VNII-100 to create an ejection engine cooling system. In total, about 4000 experiments were carried out, in which 50 variants were used to accommodate various parts of the ejector. According to the results of these studies, a straight-through ejector and individual outlet pipes and nozzles were selected. No less intensive studies were conducted by other organizations.

July 30 Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant received the first ready hull of the tank "Object 730". The hull for the second experienced tank entered 9 August. The assembly of prototype tanks was delayed. Some units were not ready, while others were still in the testing phase. However, in the middle of September the assembly of the first prototype was completed. The power plant of the first tanks "Object 730" had a fan cooling system (ejection was not yet ready) and a six-speed planetary gearbox, distinguishing them from other machines built under this project.



In September, passed the factory tests of tanks, which ended in failure. Unfinished transmission did not allow the vehicles to go the kilometers required by the customer 2000. The result of this was the decision to install an eight-speed planetary gearbox on the 730 Object tank, which in its characteristics was superior to the unit used. Soon, the transmission department of the VNII-100 transmission completed the technical documentation on the new gearbox, and the Leningrad Kirov Plant collected three prototypes. Comparative tests of both transmissions under load showed eight-speed advantages.

Tests conducted at the end of 1949 of the year allowed adjustments to the 730 Object project. In January 1950, the creation of updated project documentation began. Now it was planned to equip the new tank with an ejection cooling system, an eight-speed planetary gearbox, a new gun installation system and a number of other units.

In March, 1950, the fleet of prototype EC-5 vehicles was replenished with three more tanks. This technique was equipped with new design gearboxes and new onboard gearboxes. In mid-April, one of the three tanks was sent to the Leningrad Rzhevka training ground, where they tested the mechanisms of the fighting compartment and weapons. After that, all three tanks went to the state tests. For the tests, in which the armored vehicles had to pass 2000 kilometers, a training ground was chosen near the city of Lomonosov. The track of the landfill turned out to be rather difficult for passing: there were swampy and rugged areas with a large number of ditches, funnels and sharp turns. Two test tanks passed 200 kilometers every day during tests, and the average daily mileage of a third car exceeded 280 kilometers. Thanks to this, the test program was completed in just a week and a half. Representatives of the factories and organizations involved in the project closely followed the course of the tests.

According to the conclusion of the commission, all three experimental tanks "Object 730" fully meet the requirements. The reliability of the new machine exceeded that of existing medium tanks. In addition, the project had a certain potential for subsequent modernization. From May to June, the 1950-th three tanks passed the bulkhead and repair, and then participated in the 200-hour engine tests in high temperatures and high dust content of the air. During the repair, some changes were made to the design of the tanks, aimed at improving the reliability of various units. Thus, the drive wheel seal, ventilation of the fighting compartment, brake bands, etc. were modified.

In the summer of 1950, the Chelyabinsk designers, together with colleagues from related organizations, once again refined the project, after which ten EC-5 tanks were built for military testing. In the fall, the tanks of the installation batch, divided into groups, were tested at several test sites in different conditions. At this point, the 730 Object tanks still did not get rid of some of the shortcomings of the transmission and undercarriage, however, in this form, they were able to confirm compliance with the technical requirements.

However, the tank EC-5 was not adopted. At the end of 1950, the military and the Ministry of Transport Engineering compiled a new list of comments and recommendations for finalizing the project. The main work on the next improvement of the project "Object 730" began in 1951 year. The logical result of the improvement of the EC-5 project was its “transformation” into the EC-8 with preservation of the factory index. Work on the project EC-8 dragged on for several years. Only at the end of 1953, this tank was adopted under the designation T-10. Tank EC-5 did not reach the stage of mass production. However, this project allowed creating and testing a number of important units and technical solutions, a little later applied in the EC-8 / T-10 project.


On the materials of the sites:
http://dogswar.ru/
http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/
http://armor.kiev.ua/
http://sa100.ru/
Author:
63 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NOMADE
    NOMADE 5 December 2013 08: 14
    10
    Thanks for the article1 It was interesting to read. All the same, the IS-3 and its modifications, beautiful cars. And the IS - 5 in the photo above is generally beautiful. It seems that it is painted with car paint (previously smoothed all the seams and tinned) and polished))
  2. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 5 December 2013 08: 23
    17
    IS-3, IS-5 (8) with serial machine T-10, T-10 ...
    Giant IS-7 ...

    What a BEAUTIFUL car.
    Graceful dinosaurs ...

    With my own eyes I saw how in the middle of the 80's, in one of the units, the IS was removed from armament.
    The tank regiment, lined up in line ... I have never seen such beauty and formidable power.
    These tanks looked like they really were - THREATING TANKS.
    And one of the cars, directly under its own power, was driven onto the pedestal of the division’s park ...

    Thank you, Cyril, for the article on the history of the prototypes for creating the T-10 (by the way, this is the IS-10). They were only taken out of service at the beginning of the 90's.

    Handsome T-10m:
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 5 December 2013 13: 17
      +1
      In fact, the IS-2, also in the 93, was only taken out of service, then they simply took up this issue and began to write off the junk in fact from the warehouses.
    2. svp67
      svp67 5 December 2013 20: 18
      0
      Quote: Aleks tv
      Handsome T-10m:

      And here is his English "visa-a-vi" "Conqueror" and who can say that it is our "influence" ...
      1. Kars
        Kars 5 December 2013 20: 29
        +3
        Quote: svp67
        and who can say that it is our "influence" ...

        ?
        1. svp67
          svp67 5 December 2013 20: 38
          +1
          Quote: Kars
          ?

          I'm sorry, the phrase should have sounded like this

          ... and who can say that it is NOT our "influence" ...
          1. Kars
            Kars 5 December 2013 21: 15
            +4
            Quote: svp67
            ... and who can say that it is NOT our "influence" ...

            Well, I don’t know what kind of influence there is in Conqueror? Besides what it was done to confront the Soviet tanks. And so the obvious succession with Centurion.
            1. svp67
              svp67 6 December 2013 23: 04
              +1
              Quote: Kars
              Well, I don’t know what kind of influence there is in Conqueror? Besides what it was done to confront the Soviet tanks. And so the obvious succession with Centurion.

              Yes, yes, of course, especially with the size of the skating rinks and the shape of the tower, well, the "flying out" "Centurion" ... Let's compare the silhouettes ...

              1. Kars
                Kars 6 December 2013 23: 23
                +1
                Quote: svp67
                Yes, yes of course, especially the size of the rollers and the shape of the ba

                And what is the shape of the rollers similar to the IS-3?

                The tower as a tower is closer to the Pershingovs. Yes, and it is not so different from the Tsinturionovskaya tower.
                Precision Centurion Forehead


                And Is-4 was not introduced to the British by IS-6 of the British)))
                1. svp67
                  svp67 7 December 2013 09: 06
                  0
                  What, but the intelligence of the British has always been excellent. Do you know what type of diesel was in the Chieftain? Two-stroke diesel - Does that remind you of anything? The British very closely followed the development of our tank building and what they considered useful for themselves was used on their vehicles.
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 7 December 2013 11: 20
                    +1
                    Quote: svp67
                    Do you know what type of diesel engine was in the Chieftain? Two-stroke diesel - Does that remind you of anything?

                    German aviation diesel?
                    Quote: svp67
                    The British watched the development very closely

                    And when did they feel the T-64?
                    Quote: svp67
                    Well, straight one to one, so "similar" ...

                    Type on the IS-3 one to one)))
                    Quote: svp67
                    , with your European integration, you don’t notice obvious things already

                    I don’t know about Euro-integration, but you start to see what did not happen, and it does not matter.
                    Quote: svp67
                    and who can say that it is NOT our "influence" ...

                    no, the general trends in tank building and no more.
                    1. svp67
                      svp67 7 December 2013 11: 33
                      +1
                      Quote: Kars
                      German aviation diesel?

                      Well, if you recognize German leadership, then so be it ...
                      Quote: Kars
                      And when did they feel the T-64?

                      You are a very naive person, in many things ... Their specialists, of course, would have given a lot to "touch" Soviet novelties, but alas, they had to use only what intelligence was getting them, and she reported that successful work was underway in the USSR on the creation and use of a two-stroke diesel engine in tank building. Having such information and evaluating the advantages that this engine promises, they also went this way ...
                      Quote: Kars
                      Type on the IS-3 one to one)))
                      There is such a concept "trendsetter". The USSR in those years was exactly like that in the field of tank building ...
                      Quote: Kars
                      no, the general trends in tank building and no more.

                      Someone finds and sets these "general tendencies" ... in this case, the merits of our designers are undeniable ...
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 7 December 2013 11: 43
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        Well, if you recognize German leadership, then so be it.

                        But wasn’t the Germans the first to make push-pull diesel engines?

                        Quote: svp67
                        a, and she reported that successful work was underway in the USSR to create and use a two-stroke diesel engine in tank building. Having such information and appreciating the advantages that this engine promises, they also went this way ...

                        ?? So they should have heard about successful work on the gas turbine engine, but for some reason they didn’t make a tank with the same engine. You are trying to find the right one with the sinful one. The engine was copied for Chieftain, but there is no combined armor, too, MZ.
                        Quote: svp67
                        There is such a concept "trendsetter". The USSR in those years was exactly like that in the field of tank building ...

                        Only this is not particularly visible, especially in the British tank building. And not a mod, but rather limit parameters. Like any countries, they take into account the characteristics of tanks to counter which they build their own.
                        All right, Conkeror would have pike us.
                        Quote: svp67
                        Someone finds and sets these "general tendencies" ... in this case, the merits of our designers are undeniable ...

                        You just want it, and no more. And it is not clear why?

                        By the way, Chieftain has a very ordinary story, and his appearance was most affected by the military exploitation of Centurion again.
                      2. svp67
                        svp67 7 December 2013 11: 57
                        0
                        Quote: Kars
                        ?? So they should have heard about successful work on the gas turbine engine, but for some reason they didn’t make a tank with the same engine. You are trying to find the right one with the sinful one. The engine was copied for Chieftain, but there is no combined armor, too, MZ.

                        the British are very interested in evaluating the successes and failures of others ...
                        Somehow, having seen our BTs in the exercises, they were so fascinated by their fighting qualities that they also decided to buy his tank from Christie, as a basis, for their own and what happened ...
                        And this is having a finished sample in hand ...
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 7 December 2013 14: 29
                        +1
                        Quote: svp67
                        Somehow, having seen our BTs in the exercises, they were so fascinated by their fighting qualities that they also decided to buy his tank from Christie, as a basis, for their own and what happened ...

                        Can we get to the king of peas? Remember where the legs grow from the T-26?
                        And according to the results of the laurels, Christie will leave, and the Americans with the Liberty engine.
                        Quote: svp67
                        And this is having a finished sample in hand ..

                        Something then they did not rush to copy the T-34 and put on their diesel tanks?

                        but it turned out with Christie first it
                    2. Michael_59
                      Michael_59 12 December 2013 19: 11
                      0
                      Quote: Kars
                      Only this is not particularly visible, especially in the British tank building. And not a mod, but rather limit parameters. Like any countries, they take into account the characteristics of tanks to counter which they build their own.
                      All right, Conkeror would have pike us.


                      How would a feeling be created - you are not objectively evaluating the agglitz tank building, but treat the Soviet with prejudice. Calm In the mid-40s, the Anglo-Saxons piled TOG-1 & TOG-2 - this is a diagnosis, and the Soviet school of tank building had nothing to do with it - it is ahead for decades ... 8))
            2. svp67
              svp67 7 December 2013 09: 48
              0
              Quote: Kars
              The tower is like a tower - closer to the Pershingovs.
              Well, straight one to one, so "similar" ...

              You look there at all, with your European integration, you don’t notice obvious things already ...
          2. Kars
            Kars 6 December 2013 23: 25
            +1
            ____________
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 5 December 2013 08: 47
    10
    T-10m:
    122mm 2A17 gun with an initial armor-piercing projectile speed of 950m / s.
    Two-plane stabilizer 2E12 "Rainfall".
    Surveillance devices: commander - TKN-1T, gunner - TPN-1-29-14 (Moon-2), mechanics - TVN-2T.
    Dvigl: B-12-6.
    And this is in the 50's !!!
    One of his indicators is it was not exported.

    A wonderful tracked armored train ...
    In my opinion, a more or less worthy replacement for him appeared since the T-64.
    This is IMHO. It's just that the line of IS tanks is always amazing.
  • Crang
    Crang 5 December 2013 09: 25
    +4
    T-10M car beast. Russian Abrams. The world's first full-fledged main battle tank and simply the best tank in the world of the 50-60s. It is a pity that the Tens did not begin to modernize according to the T-62M type. And he looks handsome. Powerful 51,5-ton monster. Its 122mm M-62T2S gun is more powerful than the 125mm 2A46 gun and much more accurate. She fired heavy 7,4-kilogram BOPs ZBM-11 with Vn = 1650 m / s.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 5 December 2013 13: 04
      0
      1) Battle tank = oil.
      2) The T-10 was a heavy tank, the T-54 was then medium. For some time the SU-122-54 still existed, the last in its class, but they were quickly converted into tractors.
      1. svp67
        svp67 5 December 2013 20: 21
        +2
        Quote: EvilLion
        Battle tank = oil.

        You think so? How do you feel about the fact that there is a "fuel tank"? Read the history of this term and everything will become clear to you.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 5 December 2013 21: 59
          +1
          In Russian, a tank is an armored combat vehicle with a tracked propeller and, as a rule, cannon armament. In the meaning of the tank, it does not apply. Therefore, tracing paper from English. MBT is simply illiterate, we don't give a damn what else this word means in English. Similarly, the word "fighter" always means a combat aircraft and can take on a different meaning only in the phrase "fighter <target of destruction>". If the tank is a training one, then they say a training tank, if they mean a wheeled combat vehicle with heavy weapons not intended for the transport of goods or people, then it can again be clearly designated as a wheeled tank.
    2. Kars
      Kars 5 December 2013 13: 19
      +2
      Quote: Krang
      7,4 kilogram BOPs ZBM-11 with Vн = 1650 m / s.

      Exactly BOPSami? Maybe BPSmi?
      1. Prohor
        Prohor 5 December 2013 14: 28
        0
        Clear business - BPS-s. I wonder if anyone saw a real document (or a "scan" of it) at that speed?
      2. Crang
        Crang 5 December 2013 21: 16
        0
        We must think that all the same BOPSami. When separating the WU, the projectile must somehow stabilize. At least the British NP 105mm L7 and 120mm L11 shoot exactly with BOPs. Here I did not make a reservation.
        1. Kars
          Kars 5 December 2013 21: 29
          +2
          Quote: Krang
          Need to think

          ?Like this?
          Quote: Krang
          Here I did not make a reservation.
          1. Crang
            Crang 5 December 2013 21: 38
            0
            This is some kind of shit
            1. Kars
              Kars 5 December 2013 21: 42
              +2
              Quote: Krang
              then some shit.

              Well, why are you like that.
              but in the picture
              3BM11 projectile with tracer No. 2 (53-CHR-022)





              Projectile 3BM11 1975 release.
              1. Crang
                Crang 5 December 2013 22: 17
                0
                Well, that's another matter Kars. At least showed a normal photo. For the first time ever. How much does such a thing weigh in full?
                The diameter of the active part is 50mm. Against 30mm and 23mm in modern BOPS.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 5 December 2013 22: 21
                  +3
                  Quote: Krang
                  For the first time ever.

                  Well, well))))






                  Quote: Krang
                  This is some kind of shit
                  )))))))))))
                  What in the pictures is something different))))
                  Quote: Krang
                  We must think that all the same BOPSami. When separating the WU, the projectile must somehow stabilize. At least the British NP 105mm L7 and 120mm L11 shoot exactly with BOPs. Here I did not make a reservation.

                  Need to think))))
                2. Vadivak
                  Vadivak 5 December 2013 22: 39
                  +1
                  Quote: Krang
                  For the first time ever.


                  In vain. He has the pictures he needs.
              2. Vadivak
                Vadivak 5 December 2013 22: 17
                +4
                Quote: Kars
                [Shell 3BM11 1975 release.


                Andrey, why is it so rusty, I suppose from a personal collection?
                1. Kars
                  Kars 5 December 2013 22: 25
                  +2
                  Quote: Vadivak
                  probably from a personal collection?

                  If I had. I had 115 mm BOPS - I thought something was a rocket))) I changed it to the commander’s watch, now I'm trying to get it - that it’s not lucky.


                  The same, only new, familiar father brought from Zaporizhstal. Even the tracer was whole.
                  1. Crang
                    Crang 5 December 2013 22: 35
                    0
                    I can imagine what will happen if such an ass is stuck. We must deal with the enemies of the USSR in this way.
                  2. Vadivak
                    Vadivak 5 December 2013 22: 37
                    +2
                    Quote: Kars
                    I had 115 mm BOPS - I thought something was a rocket))) I changed it to a commander’s watch,


                    Damn yourself, here you are, what kind of modeller-designer, I suppose life-size tanks in the garden
                    1. Crang
                      Crang 5 December 2013 22: 41
                      +1
                      He glues them. On a scale of 1: 35. Well, Ukraine has problems with the military budget.
                      1. Vadivak
                        Vadivak 5 December 2013 22: 45
                        +2
                        Quote: Krang
                        He glues them.


                        Thank you I am in the know, not the first year I communicate with him.
                    2. Kars
                      Kars 5 December 2013 23: 03
                      +2
                      Quote: Vadivak
                      I guess life-size tanks in the garden

                      it didn’t come to that. but all that comes across I grab, just in case.
        2. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 6 December 2013 03: 15
          0
          Quote: Krang
          We must think that all the same BOPSami.

          Be careful with the expression "BOPS" (below wrote in the comment).
          They appeared in their pure form in the USSR in the mid-70s with the appearance of "Hairpins" (ZBM22).
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 6 December 2013 04: 47
            0
            Quote: Aleks tv
            They appeared in their pure form in the USSR in the mid-70s with the appearance of "Hairpins" (ZBM22).

            Damn, I forgot that in the 60 years on the T-62 they still began to apply to 2A20.
            But not before.
    3. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 5 December 2013 14: 32
      +7
      Quote: Krang
      Russian Abrams

      Gregory, I was already shaken up ...
      Well, why so belittle the T-10m? Calling him some nasty thing?

      Quote: Krang
      Its 122mm gun M-62X2 is more powerful than the 125mm gun 246 and much more accurate than it. She fired with heavy 7,4-kilogram BOPs ZBM-11 with Vn = 1650m / s.

      It would be interesting to know the details.

      By the way, M-62T2 is 2A17 with the T2-S sight (according to GRAU).
      But there are no BOPSs, as Andrei (Kars) noted below. But BPSs with an initial speed of 1575 m / s did not immediately enter the 2A17. If not mistaken, then 1966-67g.
    4. svp67
      svp67 5 December 2013 20: 48
      +2
      Quote: Krang
      T-10M car beast. Russian Abrams.

      There is no need to "offend" our tank. It is a full-fledged tank, unlike the "Abrams", which is more "heavily armored self-propelled anti-tank gun", which makes it akin to the German "Tiger"
    5. Michael_59
      Michael_59 12 December 2013 19: 22
      0
      Quote: Krang
      Russian Abrams


      Also, they found a landmark for me ... negative

      Well, at least not "Russian abram" wassat
  • Dimon-chik-79
    Dimon-chik-79 5 December 2013 10: 37
    +5
    Nice car!
  • NOMADE
    NOMADE 5 December 2013 10: 43
    +1
    Quote: Krang
    T-10M car beast. Russian Abrams. The world's first full-fledged main battle tank and simply the best tank in the world of the 50-60s. It is a pity that the Tens did not begin to modernize according to the T-62M type. And he looks handsome. Powerful 51,5-ton monster. Its 122mm M-62T2S gun is more powerful than the 125mm 2A46 gun and much more accurate. She fired heavy 7,4-kilogram BOPs ZBM-11 with Vn = 1650 m / s.


    Krang, questions also arise.
    I'm certainly not special, but why did I refuse to use rifled guns? Yes, they have significant disadvantages - weight, the problem of using rockets to launch .. But they have high accuracy. As an example, I read somewhere that there were cases when the Centurions fired accurately at distances of 4,5 km. and hit the target. Tankers called them sniper guns .. (I could be wrong).
    So it is with the analogy of naval artillery, for example, the AK-130, it seems to shoot 32 km.
    Who understands, please clarify.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 5 December 2013 13: 07
      +5
      Smoothbore guns allow you to increase the pressure in the bore more strongly, but the accuracy of the models of the last decades is quite acceptable, so even non-missile tanks switched to a smoothbore, only the Britons with the cut remained.
      1. Poppy
        Poppy 5 December 2013 13: 27
        +5
        even the barrel is less worn out than the rifled + allows you to make more caliber with the same external dimensions, i.e. made of 100 mm rifled 125 mm smoothbore
      2. mvg
        mvg 6 December 2013 01: 47
        0
        yes leopard, abrams, leclerc, and all the rest, such as Korea, Japan, China, Swedes, have smooth trunks. although, if I understand it, the L44 is originally British and based on it the Rh-120 is made. conservatives, mlyn. there are no places in Europe where you need to shoot for 4-5 km, and 500-2000 m, this gun gives 95-98% of the hit in the tank target. if you don’t look at tank biathlon, then we have no more Ukrainians.
  • Old warrant officer
    Old warrant officer 5 December 2013 11: 01
    +4
    Isa are generally beautiful cars! At the beginning of the two thousandth, I had to take part in the cutting of the IS-3, standing in the caponiers along the banks of the Ussuri River. Tears came to my eyes when this beauty was cut with autogenous! They stood for so many years, and all the mechanisms worked like a watch, there were only no engines. True power was felt next to them!
  • Crang
    Crang 5 December 2013 11: 07
    +9
    Quote: NOMADE
    Krang, questions also arise.
    I'm certainly not special, but why did I refuse to use rifled guns?

    The fact is that in the 50-60s of the 20th century there was a so-called boom of cumulative shells. When it seemed that conventional armor-piercing shells had already exhausted their capabilities and were not able to reliably overcome the powerful armor of modern tanks. Then it was believed that the future belongs to cumulative projectiles because their armor penetration does not depend on the distance, and the tanks of the 50-60s did not yet have effective protection against cumulative ammunition. That's why we switched to a smoothbore. It is much easier to create a powerful cumulative projectile for a smoothbore cannon that has a limitation on flight speed and rotation. In addition, as you correctly noted, the process of launching a rocket through the barrel of a cannon is simplified. Cumulative 125mm shells from GP 2A46 (T-64, T-72, T-80) had armor penetration by 20% higher than cumulative 122mm shells ZBK9 of the T-10M tank. But only 30-40 years have passed and in the light of the invention of powerful anti-cumulative tank protection (DZ, KAZT, CHOBKHEM), BOPS became the main and most effective means of engaging armored targets. In this discipline, the long-forgotten T-10M completely covers the T-62, the T-72, the T-80, and the T-90. The 122mm M-62T2S rifled cannon of the T-10M tank, coupled with a 2E2 "Liven" 12-plane stabilizer and a T2S-29-14 amortized sight, had deadly accuracy - an experienced crew on a well-pumped T-10M would easily hit the target from a distance of 3000 -3500m with the first or second shot (especially with a radio range finder). And this is without ASUO! A pair of 14,5mm KPVT machine guns made it possible to cut in half enemy light armored vehicles and pierce the walls of houses, hitting the grenade launchers hidden behind them. Powerful, rebound armor (up to 250mm forehead) withstood blows well. At a speed of 50 km / h, the T-10M did not differ from the medium tanks T-55/62, which allows us to rightfully call it the first MBT. This is the kind of cool technique made by the ChTZ plant. Tankers loved the T-10M very much. He was big, comfortable, powerful and fast.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 5 December 2013 13: 12
      -1
      M-62-T2 (good barrel, now 258 penetrations, 440 damage :)) actually did not have AZ, on all Soviet tanks with it, the projectile has a relatively small elongation 2A46, in general, somewhat weaker than the same reinmetal gun on Leo-2 and Abrams.

      2 KPVT IMHO the idea was just excellent, the Americans in Iraq did this, removed anti-aircraft guns from the roof and mounted guns with a small alteration of wiring on the barrel, but the KPVT has muzzle energy almost 2 times higher.
      1. Prohor
        Prohor 5 December 2013 14: 42
        0
        What is better against infantry - one 14,5 mm bullet or a dozen 7,62 mm bullets is a moot point, and the ammunition load for these machine guns in a tank differs by a factor of 5-10.
        By the way, were the "big ones", which have been presented as anti-aircraft from the 40s to our time, at least once really and effectively used as such?
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 5 December 2013 22: 06
          -2
          Infantry 12.7 mm is guaranteed to knock down even if there is a bulletproof vest made of impenetrable material, just the force of the blow beats off all the guts. At the same time, large-caliber bullets are capable of piercing even trees, and in Afghanistan, the Mi-24 from a three-barreled machine gun simply scattered local flimsy fences, that is, without using a gun, you can hit the enemy even in light shelters and light armored vehicles, ammunition is not such a big problem, "Abrams", for example, carries 10k rounds of ammunition to the twin. X)
          1. smirnov
            smirnov 6 December 2013 01: 49
            +1
            On "crocodiles" four-barreled ...
            1. EvilLion
              EvilLion 6 December 2013 14: 40
              0
              Right YakB-12.7 4-barrel.
  • svp67
    svp67 5 December 2013 11: 46
    +2
    Thanks to the author. Some designed and developed elements of the IS-5 indicate that the article could be called -
    Heavy tank IS-5 ("Object 730"). The hard way to T-10 and T64
    wink
  • Cruorvult
    Cruorvult 5 December 2013 12: 26
    +1
    For now, shaves are like one of the few who still use rifled guns on the challenger2. Well, the smoothbore has another big plus - barrel survivability.
  • amigo1969
    amigo1969 5 December 2013 12: 40
    +2
    I repeat again, but once again I am amazed at the design of the tanks of those years: formidable laconicism, perfect forms! The car really inspires fear! And the quality of performance was appropriate. Ehh, damn it, where are you those structural engineers ...
  • rennim
    rennim 5 December 2013 13: 28
    +1
    In 1995, the T-10M was removed from service. the development of the idea of ​​these tanks would bring many interesting ideas for creating new designs. And so they actually chopped off a whole branch of tanks.
    1. Crang
      Crang 5 December 2013 21: 14
      0
      Well yes. It was possible to upgrade by type T-62M. GTD put. T-10M is healthier than Arams in size. And riveted a dozen 8000pcs.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 5 December 2013 22: 10
        -3
        When is the T-72 abundant? At the same time, the pike nose in principle does not allow making composite armor there. Size, just minus, is an empty mass loss, in this regard, the T-10 is an unusually long tank by Soviet standards. GTE has not been set for a long time. The sense of the compactness of a gas turbine engine, when it is necessary to allocate a cubic meter of volume for additional fuel, the Americans recently introduced an 1680-strong diesel engine, they plan to throw the gas turbine engine away, for it has already lifted up.
        T-10 is a good car of its time.
        1. Crang
          Crang 5 December 2013 22: 24
          +1
          Quote: EvilLion
          When is the T-72 abundant?

          But the T-55 and T-62 were modernized when the T-72 was in excess.
          Quote: EvilLion
          At the same time, the pike nose in principle does not allow making composite armor there.

          Allows.
          Quote: EvilLion
          Size, just minus, is an empty mass loss, in this regard, the T-10 is an unusually long tank by Soviet standards.

          The size is just a plus. Firstly, it allows you to strengthen protection, incl. and onboard. Secondly, a powerful engine of 1500hp can be placed in the side niches and spacious MTO. (during the modernization of the T-10M, the tank would have become heavier from 51,5 tons to ~ 60 tons) and, which is important, an auxiliary power unit. That would not drive the main engine in the parking lot and be combat-ready at the same time. This cannot be done in the T-72. An auxiliary power unit was attached to the back of the T-90MS. Such a locker hangs, hefty and almost unprotected. As if the vocational school-shniki "modernized". On the T-10M, he would have come under the protection of armor. Well, for electronics, you need space. And for the normal placement of tankers and the subject of their bypass.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 5 December 2013 14: 07
    -4
    At 8 lvl it’s true, the IS-6 is absurd there.
  • NOMADE
    NOMADE 5 December 2013 17: 14
    0
    Quote: EvilLion
    Smoothbore guns allow you to increase the pressure in the bore more strongly, but the accuracy of the models of the last decades is quite acceptable, so even non-missile tanks switched to a smoothbore, only the Britons with the cut remained.


    The fact that the pressure rises is understandable. But field artillery, fleet, self-propelled guns, do not abandon the rifled barrel. I could be wrong, but I suppose that the following advantages have smooth-bore artillery:
    1. higher initial projectile speed.
    2. Lighter barrel weight.
    3. lower cost (relative to the course rifled barrel)
    4. more optimal projectile parameters for cumulative penetration.
    5. It is easier to organize the launch of a rocket through the barrel.
    6. the best survivability of the trunk.

    As far as I understand, point 1 is acceptable for short distances (shooting with almost direct fire), but due to the aerodynamic tail of the stabilizer, at longer distances, due to the increased resistance (caused by the stabilizers), the initial speed begins to drop rapidly. As a consequence, short range and accuracy problem. For a rifled projectile, due to the fact that the initial torque was transmitted through the rifling of the barrel (and the "belt" on the projectile), it does not need aerodynamic stabilizers. As a result, much less aerodynamic drag and drop in speed (as well as rotation of the projectile), which has a positive effect on accuracy and range.

    On account of the higher pressure (as previously described) .. I do not know. But the adherence of the projectile to the walls of the barrel due to the grooves and "grooves" on the projectile should create greater resistance to gas leakage, as a result, and higher pressure than that of a smooth-bore barrel. As a confirmation, the smooth-bore gun has thinner barrel walls (and as a result, lighter weight).

    So why, there is no return to rifled tank guns?
    After all, as they wrote earlier, point 4 in connection with the development of armor and technology has become less priority.
    According to paragraph 5, it seems like rockets were made for 105 mm. chopped guns.
    Point 6 is controversial, since field and ship guns are designed for more than 1000 rounds, and 125 mm. tank smoothbore gun (replaceable tab) for 400 shots.

    In general, your opinion is interesting.
    PS Please do not throw "slippers" (especially with terms and numbers)), as not special in this matter.
    1. Alekseev
      Alekseev 5 December 2013 20: 48
      +1
      Quote: NOMADE
      As far as I understand, paragraph 1,

      You got it right.
      Smoothbore guns are used only on tanks and artillery. (i.e., as you rightly noted at relatively small distances, as a rule, for direct fire)
      Mainly, due to the higher initial velocity of the armor-piercing projectile, which due to this property (and not only, but mainly) penetrates a rather thick armor protection, it is also insignificant due to its very high speed and, therefore, extremely gentle flight path to errors in determining the range, correction for wind, etc.
      The advantages here are only for BOPS, the feathered HE shell is inferior in accuracy, and a little in power. Cumulative ammunition penetrates armor somewhat better than its rapidly rotating counterpart for a rifled gun, but the accuracy is lower.
      At the same time, rifled artillery is much more accurate, especially at those ranges for which it is intended for firing.
      True, there is an opinion that a rifled gun would not have prevented the tank.
      It is not so much inferior in terms of initial speed to smooth-bored BPS and has its undeniable advantages. But, I don’t know for sure, maybe for technological reasons, maybe for reasons of price, maybe because it’s easier to use the barrel to launch ATGM, while a smooth-bore gun dominates.
      1. Alekseev
        Alekseev 5 December 2013 21: 13
        0
        But p. 6 is not quite a point.
        The barrel resource of TP D-81 (2A26, 2A46) is about 800 rounds, but ... provided that only 50 of them are BOPS.
        This is quite enough, it is unlikely that they are procured for tank life.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 5 December 2013 22: 13
      0
      T-72 has long pulled 1000 shots, as far as I know. The gun is worked out. Higher beg. speed is the result of higher pressure.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 5 December 2013 18: 12
    +5
    Here is a copy of the T-10 in Kiev in the Great Patriotic War Museum. A serious unit :)
    1. Crang
      Crang 5 December 2013 21: 25
      +1
      All kinds of ensigns have already been dismantled. There is no crazy box-niche and IR spotlight gunner’s night sight.
  • Crang
    Crang 5 December 2013 21: 08
    +1
    Quote: Aleks tv
    Well, why so belittle the T-10m? Calling him some nasty thing?

    Abrams is a good tank. You shouldn’t be so.
    Quote: EvilLion
    M-62-T2 (a good barrel, now 258 penetration, 440 damage :)) actually had no AZ,

    T-10M had no AZ, but had an automatic rammer. The charger had only to put a shot in the tray, and sending it to the breech occurred automatically. This facilitated the work of the loader and slightly increased the rate of fire.
    Quote: EvilLion
    Smoothbore guns allow you to increase the pressure in the bore more strongly, but the accuracy of the models of the last decades is quite acceptable, so even non-missile tanks switched to a smoothbore, only the Britons with the cut remained.

    And they don’t complain about the power of their 120mm NP L11 and its clones. As for comparing the T-10M with 122mm NP M-62-T2S (2A17) and T-64A with 125mm GSP D-81TM (2A46-1), there is a good formula: E = mv2 / 2. The picture is as follows:
    T-10M with 122mm NP M-62-T2S (2A17):
    1. BOPS ZBM-11 7,4 kg (without a pallet), Vn = 1620 m / s, I can’t calculate it, because there is no mass of ZBM-11 with a pallet. From a distance of 1000m it breaks through 354mm / 0g, from 2000m - 308mm / 0g and 115mm / 60g.
    2. BS BR-471D 25,1 kg, Vn = 960 m / s, E = 25,1 * (960 * 960) / 2 =11.57MJ. From a distance of 1000m it breaks through 170mm / 0g, from 2000m - 145mm / 0g.
    3. BS BR-482 30,7 kg, Vn = 1035 m / s, E = 30,7 * (1035 * 1035) / 2 =16,44MJ. From a distance of 1000m it breaks through 240mm / 0g, from 2000m - 210mm / 0g.
    4. OFS OF-482M 30kg, Vn = 950m / s, E = 30 * (950 * 950) / 2 =13,54MJ.
    5. KS ZBK-9 18,3kg, Vn = 920m / s (limited), E it makes no sense to consider since initial speed is limited. Punches 400mm / 0g and 200mm / 60g at any distance.

    T-64A with 125mm GSP D-81TM (2A46-1)
    1. BOPS ZBM-17, 3,9kg (without a pallet), Vn = 1780m / s, I can’t calculate E there is no mass of ZBM-17 with a pallet and WU. From a distance of 2000m breaks 110-150mm / 60g.
    2. OFS ZOF-26, 23kg, Vn = 850m / s, E = 23 * (850 * 850) / 2 =8,31MJ.
    3. CS ZBK-18M, 29kg, V = 905m / s, E = 29 * (905 * 905) / 2 =11,87MJ. Punches 550mm / 0g from any distance.
    4. CS ZBK-29M, 28,4 kg, Vn = 915 m / s, E = 28,4 * (915 * 915) / 2 =11,94MJ. Punches 700mm / 0g from any distance.
    So look whose gun is more powerful. The muzzle energy of 122mm NP M-62-T2S (2A17) of the T-10M tank is approximately 30% higher than the 125mm GSP D-81TM (2A46-1) of the T-64A tank. In terms of battle accuracy, 122mm of Dozens is also given by at least 125mm GSP T-64/72/80, at least 115mm GSP T-62, at least 100mm NP T-54/55. The only superiority of the MBT smoothbore over the T-10M is in their cumulative and missiles. In fairness, it is worth noting that the ammunition ZBK-18M and ZBK-29M belong to the 80-90th years, so comparing them with the ammunition of the 60s from the Top Ten is not entirely fair.
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 5 December 2013 21: 56
      +2
      Quote: Krang
      Abrams is a good tank. You shouldn’t be so.

      And I do not belittle the enemy.
      Just jarred the comparison, and THROUGH the abrashka, as a reference.

      Quote: Krang
      Regarding the comparison of T-10M with 122mm NP M-62-T2С (2А17) and Т-64А with 125mm ГСП Д-81ТМ (2А46-1)

      A lot of information in koment, you need to read it.
      Thanks for the dumped material, Gregory.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 5 December 2013 22: 58
      +3
      Well, for this, a heavy tank is designed to enslave everyone on the battlefield. Another thing is that the difference between 122 mm and 100 D-10T on the T-54 is one thing, and the difference with 2A46-1 is different, with the advent of comparable weapons in the junior class, they could decide to sacrifice power for the sake of unification and reduction of hemorrhoids with transportation and bridges. And frankly, the T-64 with all its drawbacks, in terms of formal parameters and technological innovations was breakthrough in terms of protection, the monolithic T-54 and T-10 there is simply nothing to oppose. In principle, it would be possible to rivet a monster weighing tons in 60, develop a gun with M-62-T2С and AZ ballistics, and then suffer with it like with the IS-4, but why if 125 mm guns in the class 10 MJ was enough? In general, in the 70s the situation was such that it was considered enough to get into the tank, at least Leo-1 and AMX-30B are natural one-shots, M60 is basically the same monolith, which means that the hole is cumulative. Accordingly, the release of T-10M stopped. T-54 was produced for a long time, in the end it was 2 times cheaper than T-72.
      In general, when the limit of 72 was transferred to the T-41, Morozov was simply enraged. The weight limit is an important parameter, and one heavy tank drowned along with the bridge can do more harm than its powerful cannon of good.
  • Crang
    Crang 5 December 2013 22: 09
    0
    Quote: Aleks tv
    Just jarred the comparison, and THROUGH the abrashka, as a reference.

    I have never considered the standard of Abrams. But the fact that this tank is one of the best representatives of the Western school of tank building is an absolute fact. The level of development of technologies and industry in the United States is such that, even with great "diligence", they cannot create a completely unsuccessful project. The same goes for its predecessor, the M60. Not the best, but with a certain skill he could fight any tank of his time.
    1. Borneo resident
      Borneo resident 5 December 2013 23: 09
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      even with great "diligence" they cannot create a completely unsuccessful project

      As shown by the M60A2 and, in general, a circus with a shileila, they can.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 7 December 2013 01: 10
      0
      What's good about the Abrams? All Western countries prefer Leo-2.
      1. Crang
        Crang 7 December 2013 19: 24
        -1
        Abrams M1A2SEP is better than any Leo-2. Abrams is better booked and more tenacious because he has the entire BC separated from the crew and moved to separate protected areas. At Leo-2, the main part of the BC is located in the combat compartment along with the crew. And according to the SLA, mobility and firepower, these tanks are almost the same.
  • Crang
    Crang 5 December 2013 23: 26
    +3
    Quote: EvilLion
    And frankly, the T-64, with all its shortcomings, in terms of formal parameters and technological innovations, was breakthrough in terms of protection, the monolithic T-54 and T-10 there simply is nothing to oppose.

    Breakthrough yes. For protection. Lobeshnik T-64 is certainly more powerful than the T-10M. But the barrel and feed of the T-10M is better protected than the T-64 twice as much. In urban combat, this is important. In terms of armament, the main and auxiliary T-10M surpasses the T-64A and makes the T-64 utterly equipped with an even weaker and inaccurate 115mm GSP. In terms of engine power, the T-10M is stronger than the T-64 (750hp vs. 700hp), but the speed of the much lighter T-64 is greater. But the T-10M has a seven-way suspension - up to 60-65 tons of armor loading Chob-Ham with DZ can be safely. The living conditions and comfort of the T-10M are much better. The nose of the T-10M body is designed in such a way that although the driver is sitting in the center, it can come out through its hatch even if the gun is turned straight and lowered to the limit. +100500 in front of the T-64 and T-80 where the drivers are sitting in a capsule from which they can not get out. At the same time, the T-10M driver’s sunroof remains invulnerable from BOPs (extreme tilt angle). The auxiliary power unit can be crammed under the armor of the T-10M. In the T-64 is impossible. At best, on the fenders. Dimensions:
    T-10M
    10560mm / 3582mm / 2585mm / 51,5t.
    T-64A
    9225mm / 3415mm / 2170mm / 38,5t.
    Such pies. Now when more and more powerful and large-caliber guns are being developed, more and more long and heavy BPSs, more and more advanced and dimensional instruments, the dimensions of which the hulls of the T-64/72/80 tanks are made, are beginning to be gradually missed. As a way out - they begin to place outside what should be under the armor. The large size of the T-10M here would come in handy. After all, they riveted 8000pcs! Her - it was necessary to radically modernize them and make of a dozen MBT in the class of 60 tons.
    1. Prohor
      Prohor 6 December 2013 08: 39
      0
      If the dimensions of the T-64/72/80 in the 21st century are not enough - this is not a reason to upgrade the T-10 (you can agree on a Mendeleev’s tank), but a reason to create a new tank.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 6 December 2013 14: 44
        0
        If the sizes are not enough, then lengthening the base of these machines is quite possible.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 6 December 2013 16: 02
      -2
      In front of the T-10 there was already an IS-4 weighing 60 tons, a total of 200 machines that actually exiled to the Far East, where they quickly became bunkers. Of course, the IS-3, IS-4, as well as the western heavy tanks, were bad machines in themselves, and when developing the IS-8, the designers had just taken concrete work, so the car was made from spent units and then upgraded only to used ones, but all the same, it is surprising why the Soviet army, having the experience of the T-35 and having seen enough of the HVs breaking everything and breaking into any dirt, got in touch with the IS-4 and brought the 68-ton IS-7 to metal in the metal. But in the end they were full, and even now the weight of the T-90MS is only 48 tons. So, nobody even thought about building a heavier tank in the 60, on the contrary, bridges were built so that only our relatively light tanks could pass.

      In terms of side armor, the IS-4 had a circular armor of 160 mm, maybe it was worth reducing the thickness of the sides to 120-130, saving a lot of weight, the T-10 has a 80 mm side, a path and with an inclination, the same for the T-64 / 72/80, for a 100 mm cannon this is generally monopenisual. In fact, without remote sensing, the side armor protects only against automatic cannons (on the Abrams, and this is not) and outdated guns of about 75 mm, so where is the advantage in side-to-side protection I don't see.

      The size of the tank is determined by the size of the units, if on the T-34 the diesel engine required to allocate half of the hull for the MTO, then the crew was cramped. At T-10, I think, the length is due to the size of the MTO. So you can only push something into it if you push a modern, more compact motor, and sometimes they do it with old tanks convertible into armored personnel carriers. If in the 60s any compact motor on the 800-1000 l suddenly became available. with. and it would be decided to build on its base a new tank weighing 50-55 t, then its length would be reduced, and only due to this would gain an increase in booking.

      In general, the T-64 is a diagnosis, it was originally designed so that the mouse had nowhere to settle, and didn’t have to stick something in the modernization stock in terms of anything else.

      We’ll not see new guns soon, the Britons seem to have stopped production of tanks at all.
  • Crang
    Crang 5 December 2013 23: 44
    +1
    The advantageous location of the driver is visible in this excellent photo. And do not turn the cannon away from the blunt side. In Belarus, this is generally banned for the sake of ethics. The guns on the Belarusian T-72 on marches and parades are turned straight, despite the inconvenience to the mechanics. And that would not crush him, but puts a frame with a windshield in front of him. As an emphasis for the gun.
    1. Prohor
      Prohor 6 December 2013 08: 42
      0
      Krang, the photo is just a masterpiece! Thank! good
    2. Alekseev
      Alekseev 6 December 2013 18: 53
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      And that would not crush him, but puts a frame with a windshield in front of him. As an emphasis for the gun.

      Do not make people laugh. laughing
      For information, the "frame" made of 1 mm duralumin cannot be a support for a gun weighing 2,5 tons.
      And the gun is turned "sideways", not only to facilitate access to the hatch m / v. This very gun was used to cripple tankers on the towers of tanks in front of them in a column in conditions of dustiness, limited visibility, etc.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 6 December 2013 21: 20
        -1
        Ideally, a gun on a march in peacetime should generally be turned back, because the length of the column must be reduced, and in the field just hurt when the trunk draws the ground, and then opens with a flower.
        1. Sinbad
          Sinbad 4 February 2014 15: 32
          0
          My colleague, just under the gun on the march, and hit. The tank commander, sat on the hatch, to the machine-gun turret and pressed. So sorry for the guy, badly crippled.
    3. Sinbad
      Sinbad 4 February 2014 15: 30
      0
      Actually, during oscillations (if not fixed), the gun does not even notice this frame.
  • NOMADE
    NOMADE 6 December 2013 02: 02
    +1
    Alekseev and Krang, thanks for the clarification!
  • sasska
    sasska 7 December 2013 17: 43
    +2
    Quote: Krang
    T-10M car beast. Russian Abrams. The world's first full-fledged main battle tank and simply the best tank in the world of the 50-60s. It is a pity that the Tens did not begin to modernize according to the T-62M type. And he looks handsome. Powerful 51,5-ton monster. Its 122mm M-62T2S gun is more powerful than the 125mm 2A46 gun and much more accurate. She fired heavy 7,4-kilogram BOPs ZBM-11 with Vn = 1650 m / s.

    Abrams didn’t lie there and there in the ditch negative
    1. Crang
      Crang 7 December 2013 19: 26
      -2
      Lying around, not lying around. And the old T-54/55, T-62 and the first T-72, he easily soaks.
  • sasska
    sasska 7 December 2013 23: 03
    +3
    Quote: Krang
    Lying around, not lying around. And the old T-54/55, T-62 and the first T-72, he easily soaks.

    and if you put him in the opponents of BT-7, the results would still be stunning lol
  • Crang
    Crang 7 December 2013 23: 13
    0
    Quote: sasska
    and if you put him in opposition to the BT-7, the results would still be stunning

    But, in his opponents was not BT-7. In his opponents was the T-72 and T-72M. You must admit that this is by no means the most driscovy tank, which we still use where. The result is known. And why smile?
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 8 December 2013 01: 55
      0
      T-72 of the first releases and T-72M makes its way easily, although it is not a fact that the hole will be fatal.
  • sasska
    sasska 8 December 2013 00: 09
    +3
    Quote: Krang
    Quote: sasska
    and if you put him in opposition to the BT-7, the results would still be stunning

    But, in his opponents was not BT-7. In his opponents was the T-72 and T-72M. You must admit that this is by no means the most driscovy tank, which we still use where. The result is known. And why smile?

    if the T-72 uses ammunition with uranium, Abrams will be very sad.
    however, Abrams is taught as the best TANK. by and large, this is a heavily armored SELF-PROPELLED WEAPON with the task of fighting against tanks.

    By the way, do you take into account the year of production of these military vehicles?

    IMHO, no more.
    1. Kars
      Kars 8 December 2013 11: 10
      +1
      Quote: sasska
      By the way, do you take into account the year of production of these military vehicles?

      And in the war, is anyone interested in this?
  • Crang
    Crang 8 December 2013 00: 37
    0
    Quote: sasska
    if the T-72 uses ammunition with uranium, Abrams will be very sad.
    however, Abrams is taught as the best TANK. by and large, this is a heavily armored SELF-PROPELLED WEAPON with the task of fighting against tanks.

    By the way, do you take into account the year of production of these military vehicles?

    IMHO, no more.

    Why is the "Abrams" MBT a self-propelled gun? Firstly, its caliber (120mm) is even smaller than that of our tanks. Secondly, ACS have a completely different balance of protection and weapons. And their rifled guns have excellent outer ballistics with a modest inner one. Abrams is never an SPG. And how do you know that if the T-72 will use ammunition with uranium, then the Abrams will be sad? Is the armor penetration of a shell the only parameter of a tank's firepower? But what about the range of vision and target detection, information exchange, shooting accuracy and response time to the target?
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 8 December 2013 01: 59
      0
      Any tank is, in principle, a self-propelled weapon. There is a cannon, it moves itself => a self-propelled gun. "Abrams" was really created from the calculation to fight tanks, it does not even have a normal land mine in ammunition and, in terms of the structure of protection, is more focused on kinetics, the Soviet doctrine assumed, if possible, the destruction of tanks by ATGMs, which is correct, since this is not an attempt to be measured by numbers, and the use of counterunite.
  • sasska
    sasska 8 December 2013 00: 58
    +3
    What is the only parameter of a tank’s firepower?

    guys, this is a joke: no. the main factor of armor penetration is the fatigue of the Negro who throws shells at Abbars breech
    But what about the range of vision and target detection, information exchange, firing accuracy and reaction time to the target?
    why not mentioned air strikes and other factors affecting the "longevity" of the crew and the tank itself? the very same Abrams burns very confidently from the RPG-7 and is guaranteed to be disabled by intensive shelling from machine guns of an additional power plant, which rotates the tower (it has already been tested in Iraq, do not argue).
    Fire in the common fuel system (and it is common for the DDM with the main engine) extends to the main engine and the entire engine compartment lights up already. It’s already impossible to be in the tank from complete smoke and temperature rise and the whole crew jumps out of it shouting “Sucking cunts and assholes !!!”, which cultural people don’t use, and Muslims go into complete fury, for sacrilege. In short, the fate of the crew is unenviable. Which conclusion follows from this?

    In any environment, you can and should be a polite and well-mannered person. If the American tankers peacefully left the tank with their hands up and culturally said “Salam Aleikum,” no one would have touched them, because, according to Sharia, to shoot an unarmed surrendered enemy is an unworthy cowardice for a jihad warrior.

    http://udivitelnay-zhizn.mirtesen.ru/blog/43592260600/Kak-podbit-%C2%ABAbrams%C2
    % BB

    But back to the tank. The fire spreads throughout the tank, the temperature reaches a critical point and an ammunition explosion occurs - 40 large-caliber shells. From such an explosion the agronomic tower flies off tries ... sorry, a few meters - for we are cultured people.

    Apparently, this is a different matter (the text color should turn out to be orange): American is the BEST for ... (well, it’s clear to anyone)
    1. Crang
      Crang 8 December 2013 01: 30
      -1
      sasska are you in yourself? Only Abrashka then FSUs on it. It sends both smart and "funny" to hell alike.
      Quote: sasska
      why not mentioned air strikes and other factors affecting the "longevity" of the crew and the tank itself?

      Abrashka's horizontal defense is really not so hot, but this is not a reason to write him off. In principle, it makes sense to discuss the protection of the upper hemisphere only when it comes to the impact of cannon fire from helicopters and aircraft. But as a rule, powerful ATGMs, special aerial bombs, air-to-ground missiles, etc. are used to destroy tanks by aircraft. In this situation, talk about a slightly better defense of the T-72 "from above" becomes meaningless.
      Quote: sasska
      Abrams very confidently burns from RPG-7

      And the T-72 or T-72M will not burn from being hit from an RPG-7? What are you happy here? Well, yes - any tank can be burned, but the question is at what cost.
      Quote: sasska
      and it is guaranteed to be disabled by intensive shelling from machine guns of an additional energy installation, which turns the tower (in Iraq it has already been checked, do not argue).

      Guaranteed ??? !!! Actually, ONE is the only known case of such a defeat. Well - I’ll give you optimism - our tanks now don’t have an auxiliary power unit at all. There are only mounted ones - outside the main protection circuit.
      Quote: sasska
      The fire spreads throughout the tank, the temperature reaches a critical point and an ammunition explosion occurs - 40 large-caliber shells. From such an explosion, an agromad tower flies off.

      By the way, in your photo, the tower at Abrashka is in place. Maybe not, and often she flies off with him? In comparison with ours.
      1. Kars
        Kars 8 December 2013 11: 14
        +1
        Quote: Krang
        sasska are you in yourself?

        The weather will change - it’s hardly the first time I agree with you)))
        The funny thing is that I used to hear from you the same argument.
        Quote: sasska
        additional power installation, which turns the tower (

        In fact, it not only turns the tower))) it provides the tank with electricity when parked.
        Quote: sasska
        Guaranteed incapacitated by heavy machine gun fire
        In Chechnya there are facts of incapacitation of T-72 by KPVT fire
  • sasska
    sasska 8 December 2013 01: 33
    +3
    I will add a quote from vorobey:
    Why didn’t the Abrams come into direct conflict with the Teshki? Why did the coalition troops urgently modernize their abrams and put a more powerful cannon? All the praises do not give a direct answer, they leave. Well, how do you admit that Abrams was inferior in terms of armament power and go directly into the battle vigilantly. here they hit the teshes from inaccessible ATGMs and aircraft.
  • Crang
    Crang 8 December 2013 02: 03
    0
    Quote: sasska
    Why the Abrams did not confront the Tashki

    It was written with a bunch of mistakes in the Russian language, which at least does not inspire confidence in the author, but oh well. What does it mean to "enter into a direct collision"? The Abrams destroyed the Iraqi T-72s from the position and distance from which they could and from which it was convenient for them. What else do you need from them? As Kutuzov used to say - "The enemy's actions are not provided for by our plan."
    Quote: sasska
    Abrams and put a more powerful gun?

    120mm gun Abrams got heer knows how many years ago. On the model M1A1. And what?
    Quote: sasska
    . Well, how do you admit that Abrams was inferior in terms of armament power and go directly into the battle vigilantly.

    From this absolutely idiotic phrase, I can say that you or your friend are 20 years old, no more. What do you mean "inferior in power of weapons"? What does it mean? In general, the "firepower" of a tank consists of the following parameters:
    1. The gun.
    2. Ammunition.
    3. Devices for review, detection and aiming.
    4. Fire control system.
    In order to hit someone with his "powerful weapon", his first thing is to at least увидеть. So? How are you doing with this T-72 do not remind?
    Quote: sasska
    beat teshes from inaccessible ATGMs and aircraft.

    Of course, more Iraqi armored vehicles were destroyed by aircraft. Most of them are abandoned technique that was drenched simply for "number". But the Abrams also filled a lot of Iraqi (read our) tanks. According to the 1991 Desert Storm, the coalition forces lost several tanks. Most of them were destroyed by mines, RPGs and "friendly fire". Only two Abrams are reliably known, which were destroyed by the Iraqi T-72M.
  • sasska
    sasska 8 December 2013 10: 55
    +2
    For this completely idiotic phrase, I can say that you or your friend is 20 years old or less.

    drain is counted. on that and finish.
  • tinibar
    tinibar 27 March 2017 01: 24
    0
    Quote: Aleks tv
    IS-3, IS-5 (8) with serial machine T-10, T-10 ...
    Giant IS-7 ...
    What a BEAUTIFUL car.
    Graceful dinosaurs ...
    With my own eyes I saw how in the middle of the 80's, in one of the units, the IS was removed from armament.
    The tank regiment, lined up in line ... I have never seen such beauty and formidable power.
    These tanks looked like they really were - THREATING TANKS.
    And one of the cars, directly under its own power, was driven onto the pedestal of the division’s park ...
    Thank you, Cyril, for the article on the history of the prototypes for creating the T-10 (by the way, this is the IS-10). They were only taken out of service at the beginning of the 90's.
    Handsome T-10m:

    Especially striking is the IS-7. And beauty, and power, and technical excellence ... Even today it does not look hopelessly outdated!
  • tinibar
    tinibar 27 March 2017 01: 38
    0
    Quote: sasska
    Quote: Krang
    Lying around, not lying around. And the old T-54/55, T-62 and the first T-72, he easily soaks.

    and if you put him in the opponents of BT-7, the results would still be stunning lol

    And even better, ms-1 "freedom fighter Comrade Lenin", and then BT-7 will not be washed for an hour yet - smart, bastard! laughing