Military Review

Projects tanks "Object 225" and "Object 226"

In the late sixties, the Soviet army adopted the first domestic main battle tank T-64A. Having established the production of this armored vehicle, the defense industry started creating new projects. The new program was supposed to create a main tank, which will be adopted in the eighties. Several leading enterprises of the industry were involved in the development of promising technology: the Leningrad Kirovsky Plant (LKZ), the Kharkov Engineering Design Bureau and the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant. In the early seventies, the designers of the three organizations completed work on their projects.

Leningrad engineers led by N.S. Popov immediately created two promising projects tanks: “Object 225” (not to be confused with the 1941 project, also known as KV-5) and “Object 226”. They differed from each other in some design features and the composition of the units. It was assumed that in the future there will be a comparison of prototype machines, which will determine the best project and continue its refinement. We decided similarly to do with weapons and a power plant. As the main weapons 125 and 130 mm caliber guns were considered, and a diesel or gas turbine engine could be located in the engine compartment of the tank.

In November, 1971, at a meeting with the Deputy Minister of Defense Industry, E.P. Shkurko chief designer N.S. Popov introduced the first version of the 225 Object project. By this time, the main features of the appearance of a promising combat vehicle were identified, which later did not undergo significant changes.

Tank "Object 225" was an armored vehicle with a combat mass at the level of 41-42 tons. The layout of internal volumes was standard for domestic tank building: the control compartment in the front of the hull, the fighting compartment in the middle, and it was proposed to place the engine and transmission units in the stern. The armored hull of the advanced 225 Object tank should have a relatively high level of protection. In the front of it, we provided for a combined armor with a total thickness of up to 550-600 mm. The hull sides are 70 mm. The maximum thickness of the tower armor reached 550 mm.

The project “Object 225” provided for the use of the VTDT-1000T engine that had not yet been developed by that time. All units of the combat vehicle were created taking into account the use of a gas turbine engine with a heat exchanger. At rated power of the HP 1000 power plant. power density of the combat vehicle exceeded 23 hp per ton, which promised good performance. According to calculations, on the highway the tank “Object 225” could reach speeds of up to 70 km / h. Inside and outside the armored hull, the prospective tank had several fuel tanks that could hold up to 2 tons of fuel, which ensured a cruising range of up to 600 kilometers.

The tracked undercarriage of the 225 Object was supposed to have six road wheels on each side, as well as a front guide and rear drive wheel. Some parts of the chassis, including balancers and track fingers, were proposed to be made of titanium.

In the turret of the tank "Object 225" was to be placed gun, loading mechanism and jobs gunner and commander. Depending on the results of future tests, the prospective tank could get an X-NUMX-mm smoothbore gun, the D-125T, or an 89-mm rifled LP-130B gun. The smooth-bore gun was developed by the artillery design bureau of Uralmashzavod (now “Plant # XXUMX”) under the supervision of F.F. Petrova. Creation of a rifled gun engaged in the artillery design bureau staff of the Perm Machine-Building Plant. The main designer of the LP-36В gun was Yu.N. Kalachnikov. Since 9, at a meeting dedicated to the development of a promising main tank, two projects of tank guns began to be considered.

As follows from the available materials, the automatic loading of the tank “Object 225” was supposed to be performed according to the carousel with a rotating conveyor. Since the workplaces of the commander and the gunner were shifted as much as possible downward, the conveyor of the automatic loader was placed under the roof of the hull. The transporter of the machine had 36 cells. Another 14 projectiles could be placed in the styling of the fighting compartment and used after the expenditure of ammunition in the machine.

Projects tanks "Object 225" and "Object 226"

A prospective tank "Object 225" was supposed to hit targets with projectiles of various types, and guided missiles. Since the late sixties, the Gyurza guided weapons complexes (KUV) developed by the Kolomna Engineering Design Bureau and the Kobra developed by the Tochmash design bureau were considered rocket weapons for the tanks under development. At the beginning of 1971, the Gyurza project was closed, although for some time after that, work continued on the creation of a missile system specifically for the 225 Object tank. For searching for targets and aiming weapons it was supposed to use the Morges fire control system with a set of new sights attached to it.

In the tower it was planned to install an 7,62 machine gun of mm caliber with ammunition in 3000 cartridges paired with a cannon. A large-caliber anti-aircraft machine gun and a box of 750 ammunition for it were to be located on the roof of the tower. The possibility of creating a remotely controlled turret for him was considered.

The tank "Object 226", developed simultaneously with the "Object 225", did not differ from him in design, equipment and weapons. All the differences of the projects consisted in the used power plant. The “226 Object” was to receive the 2B16 diesel engine. With similar characteristics, the 226 Object tank was a little heavier than the 225 Object.

Approximately in the first half of 1972, a wooden model of the promising tank “Object 225” was built on the LKZ. Shortly thereafter, both the projects that the Leningrad engineers were working on were closed. Calculations showed that both combat vehicles could not be accepted for service. They had almost no advantages over the existing equipment, but they were significantly more expensive: the cost was affected by the use of titanium parts and a number of new technologies. At the same time, the tanks "Object 225" and "Object 226", according to expert estimates, did not have significant advantages over foreign combat vehicles of the time. Finally, as part of the development program for promising tanks, the Leningrad projects were notably losing to the Kharkov 740 Object.

Both projects created under the direction of N.S. Popov, demanded further refinement. In particular, for an acceptable increase in performance, it was necessary to lighten the tank "Object 225" by about one and a half tons. In the case of a heavier “226 Object” with a diesel engine, even greater reductions in combat weight were required. The relief of both armored vehicles threatened to reduce the level of protection, reduce ammunition, etc. deterioration of various characteristics.

Perhaps the designers of the Leningrad Kirov Plant would continue to improve the projects "Object 225" and "Object 226", but in the early seventies, they were faced with more important tasks. From 1968, the LKZ developed the main tank "Object 219", later adopted for service under the name T-80. Some developments on closed projects were used in the development of new modifications of the “219 Object”. In particular, one of its modernization projects implied the use of the VTDT-1000T gas turbine engine instead of the GTD-1000T gas turbine engine. However, this project was closed due to the lack of advantages over the existing equipment.

On the materials of the sites:
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 10 January 2014 11: 17
    Stages of the BIG WAY "+"
  2. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 10 January 2014 12: 25
    AZ under the roof of the building ...
    I did not know that such a variety was tested.

    Thank you, Kirill for the interesting material on "Objects".
  3. Corsair
    Corsair 10 January 2014 13: 26
    And "Object" is BEAUTIFUL! It's just a Lamborghini among the tanks ...
    It wouldn’t be embarrassing to drive along the European freeways.
    1. prophet190
      prophet190 10 January 2014 15: 29
      Nothing. In the course of the Sadomites play out and go rink armored.
    2. Corsair
      Corsair 10 January 2014 20: 17
      Quote: Corsair
      And "Object" is BEAUTIFUL! It's just a Lamborghini among the tanks ...

      A picture in confirmation of what was said.
      1. Kars
        Kars 10 January 2014 20: 20
        Quote: Corsair
        It wouldn’t be embarrassing

        Soviet soldiers were not shy. Yes, the contingent is becoming smaller, smaller.
        1. Nick
          Nick 10 January 2014 22: 45
          Quote: Kars
          Soviet soldiers were not shy. Yes, the contingent is becoming smaller, smaller.

          In combat, survival is more important than design. Anyone who thought otherwise was doomed ...
        2. svp67
          svp67 12 January 2014 12: 40
          Quote: Kars
          Soviet soldiers were not shy. Yes, the contingent is becoming smaller, smaller.

          I don’t understand why it is necessary to be shy. WISHES TO SURVIVE?

  4. svp67
    svp67 10 January 2014 16: 36
    Depending on the results of future tests, a promising tank could get a 125-mm smoothbore gun D-89T or a 130-mm rifled gun LP-36V.
    And it would be interesting to know the characteristics of the rifled gun ...
    1. Alex 241
      Alex 241 10 January 2014 20: 27
      The 125 mm D-89T tank gun of high ballistics took part in a "competition" between two systems: smoothbore and rifled (130 mm LP-36V cannon). The 125-mm smoothbore gun had variants D-89, D-89T, D-89TM. On tests, a speed of 1820 m / s was obtained at a pressure of 6200 kgf / cm2. Compared to the D-81 (2A46) cannon, the D-89 had differences: for the BPS, an additional SG nozzle about 80 mm high was inserted in the barrel of the sleeve to increase the amount of gunpowder, and for the PF and KUM SG a cover. As a result, the pressure was higher by about 1000 kgf / cm2. The D-89T had a number of significant differences from the existing D-81 cannon (modification 2A46M2): increased ballistic characteristics, new projectiles, symmetrical firing position, extraction delay, automatic transfer of the weapon to the extraction and loading line after firing.
      There was such a mention. Diary of Chief Designer A.A. Morozov. Chapter 20 "Tank T-74 -" swan song "of A.A. Morozov" of the book Tanks and People.
      25.05.72/80/XNUMX. Moscow. MOS. Scientific and Technical Council of the Ministry. Spent Zverev. Theme: “Consideration of projects of promising tanks of the XNUMXs.”
      The chief designer of LKZ N.S. Popov presented two projects: ed. "225" with a gas turbine (weight 41.6 tons) and ed. "226" with a diesel engine (42.5 t). Protection: forehead 550..600 mm, sides 70 mm, tower 550 mm. The bottom sheet of the body is taken from the ed. "434" (T-64A).
      The chief designer of ChTZ P.P. Isakov presented the project “780” product weighing 39,8 tons. Chassis 7265 kg, body 11400 kg, hood 7000 kg, MTO 3730 kg, ammunition 1806 kg, fuel 1525 kg.
      Kalachnikov Yuri Nikolaevich, Chief Designer of Design Bureau of Perm Plant proposed a smooth-bore gun with a caliber of 130 mm (LP-36V), weighing 2500 kg. It pierces while 170 mm of armor. Direct shot range 2100 m.
      Chief Designer Petrov F.F. (Sverdlovsk UZTM) reported on the D-89T gun ...
      Because On the NTS, the tanks "Object 450" (T-74), "Object 225", "Object 226" and "Object 780" were considered, it turns out that these tank guns were intended for use on promising tanks of the 1980s.
    2. Nick
      Nick 10 January 2014 22: 48
      Quote: svp67
      And it would be interesting to know the characteristics of the rifled gun ...

      Resource rifled barrel is clearly lower than that of a smooth bore ...
      1. svp67
        svp67 12 January 2014 12: 22
        Quote: Nick
        Resource rifled barrel is clearly lower than that of a smooth bore ...
        But in the realities of wartime, what will turn out to be more — the barrel’s life or the tank’s life on the battlefield?
  5. datur
    datur 10 January 2014 21: 28
    and what is handsome !!! drinks
  6. coserg 2012
    coserg 2012 11 January 2014 17: 54
    I don’t understand a damn thing in tanks. But in the photo there is an amazing pretentiousness of forms along with pomp. This is probably when the designer and manufacturer were on the verge, poets of their craft.
  7. tchoni
    tchoni 12 January 2014 13: 30
    That is handsome - handsome, only the visibility of the commander is slightly lower than no.
    If we’re scolding 72 yu for a bad review, then this one would definitely be so damaging that your ears would curl up smile
    1. coserg 2012
      coserg 2012 12 January 2014 19: 36
      Thank you, the races were clearly interpreted. hi
  8. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 12 January 2014 19: 16
    An interesting article, thanks to the author and +.
    The machine gun on the tower is interestingly located and it looks like the remote control it has.
    AZ also causes antires (purely technical). A quick-fire thing was developed, with minimal dimensions in height.
  9. anton 51
    anton 51 20 February 2014 22: 35
    So it was, everything was invented in Kharkiv and Leningrad, and new machines always had difficulties in operation, example-5tdf with gas turbine. The problem with the consumption on these machines should be contracted master craftsmen, and then only after 6 months of training on simulators can be resolved approach the car mk is not just tanks like the 72nd, but an armored ground strike complex. For the last 80 years, the last juices have continued from B-2;
    1. Anddy
      Anddy April 28 2014 19: 09
      The whole world is driving V-drives. And on the opposition only Ukrainians and Pakistanis. That’s selavas ... :) Even the Americans ordered a V-spec for Abrams, then, like a turbine, it’s a little expensive today. So we are on the right track ... :)
  10. Blade
    Blade 21 March 2014 22: 44
    Interesting design of the machine, low profile, I can’t even believe that it weighs 40 tons.
    Does anyone know what his "peephole" is on the left?
    1. Anddy
      Anddy April 28 2014 19: 12
      Left "in the direction of travel" or left in the photo?