Project T-64-55: an interesting hybrid without a future

91
The international market for armored vehicles has some interesting features. Success among buyers can be achieved not only by the newest vehicles with the highest characteristics, but also by “used” or modernized armored vehicles. Not all countries wishing to renew the park tanks or other machines, can afford big expenses. As a result, there is a noticeable number of potential buyers on the market who want to purchase equipment with the most favorable price-performance ratio.

Project T-64-55: an interesting hybrid without a future


Seeing the similar needs of potential customers, the designers of armored vehicles create new projects. At the beginning of the two thousandth, employees of the Kharkov Armored Repair Plant (HBTRZ) began developing a new project aimed at meeting the needs of poor customers. The “target audience” of the new project was to become numerous countries, which still carry the Soviet-made T-55 medium tanks. With a profound modernization of this technique, it was proposed to use the aggregates of the main tank T-64 in the most extensive way. A large number of such equipment went to Ukraine during the collapse of the Soviet Union. By the name of the two tanks that served as the basis, the new project received the designation T-64-55.

In recent years, there has been a steady demand for modernization projects for outdated T-55 tanks. Different countries offer projects to upgrade this technology, involving the use of various new units. First of all, the power plant and electronic equipment are replaced. Nevertheless, even such an upgrade does not significantly improve the characteristics of an outdated armored vehicle.

In the course of creating the T-64-55 project, Kharkov engineers determined that the replacement of the engine and transmission units does not make sense. Such a modernization requires updating the mass of the aggregates of both the power plant and the undercarriage. In addition, this approach to updating the tank involves the use of the old hull with insufficient protection characteristics. As a result, updating the T-55 due to the installation of new components and assemblies has dubious prospects.

After analyzing the prospects of various ways of modernization, the HBTRZ staff proposed a more than original project. They offered to keep the turret and the fighting compartment of the medium tank T-55. In this case, the tower was to be installed on a slightly modified chassis of the main battle tank T-64. It was argued that this update method has several positive features. Thus, the chassis of the T-64 tank is already equipped with all the necessary units, and their interaction has been fully worked out during testing and operation. In addition, such an upgrade does not require any refinement of the armored hull, which could adversely affect its protection characteristics.

It was argued that the modernization by completely replacing the chassis will significantly improve the protection performance and mobility of the updated machine. The T-64 was newer and better than the T-55, which should have reflected on the characteristics of the new T-64-55. In particular, the 5TDF 700 hp engine, featuring high power density, was among the advantages of the updated machine. At the request of the customer, the upgraded T-64-55 could be equipped with forced versions of the 5TDF engine with horsepower up to 850.

According to the developers, replacing the entire chassis allowed you to get a noticeable gain in weight. The turret of the T-55 tank is significantly lighter than the turret of the T-64, since it has a less complicated booking structure. When installing the turret of the medium tank on the main chassis, it was possible to get a machine, the combat mass of which was approximately 7 t less than the corresponding parameter of the original T-64. Even after installing a set of new T-64-55 equipment, it turned out much lighter than the base T-64. According to official data, the combat weight of the T-64-55 tank is just 33,8 tons.



Saving weight allowed to increase the specific power of the machine and reduce the load on the engine. In addition, the load on the undercarriage was reduced and, accordingly, its resource was slightly increased. The developers have promised and increased permeability by reducing the specific load on the ground.

It has been reported that weight saving is used to increase the level of defense of a tower with homogeneous armor. To do this, it was proposed to install brackets with mounts for blocks of dynamic protection on the cheekbones of the tower. In the existing photographs of the T-64-55 pilot tank, two “batteries” of dynamic protection units are visible, covering the side of the tower’s forehead. At the same time, however, its central part with the mask of the gun did not receive additional protection.

With the proposed retrofit of the T-64 tank chassis, there should have been some improvements related to the design of the turret used. Thus, the difference in the diameter of the shoulder strap (1816 mm in T-55 and 2245 mm in T-64) forced the designers to take some measures to refine the roof of the hull. In addition, the lack of an automatic loader in the used tower led to some rearrangement of the combat compartment. So, at the starboard side, in front of the turret, a tank rack and additional mounts for 12 shells appeared.



Being a "hybrid" of two tanks, the proposed T-64-55 in its characteristics should have resembled both the T-55 and the T-64. The mobility of the machine was at the level of T-64, and the fighting qualities - at the level of T-55. In its dimensions, the new tank corresponded to the base T-55: length around 9 m, width 3,27 m and height 2,2 m. Combat weight (with a minimum set of additional components) - 33,8 t. The crew was still four people.

The T-55 tank had an upper front hull detail in the form of an 100-mm steel plate. The T-64 was equipped with a more advanced protection, consisting of an external 80-mm steel sheet, two sheets of fiberglass in 52 mm and an 20-mm rear steel sheet. Thus, the replacement of the entire chassis together with the hull has significantly increased the level of frontal projection protection. The installation of dynamic protection on the forehead of the hull and the cheekbones of the turret further enhanced the characteristics of the tank.

Due to the more powerful 700-powerful engine 5TDF T-64-55 tank had a specific power at the level of 20,7. This allowed him to accelerate to the highway to 65 km / h, and to overcome at one refueling to 600 km. In terms of overcoming obstacles, the T-55, T-64 and T-64-55 tanks have similar characteristics. They are able to climb the slope of the 32 ° steepness, move with a heel to 30 °, climb a wall of 80 cm height and overcome ditches up to 2,7 m wide. Wading through water obstacles up to 1,8 m forged and underwater driving equipment was provided.

Having a tower of the medium tank T-55, the new T-64-55 retained its weaponry. The main weapons This machine remained threaded gun D-10T2 caliber 100 mm. In the turret and front tank-rack, 55 unitary shells of the 100 caliber mm were positioned. The range of ammunition remains the same. The T-64-55 could use the entire range of ammunition for the D-10T cannons. Additional armament - 7,62 caliber mm machine gun coupled to a cannon.



According to the developers, the upgraded T-64-55 tanks could receive various additional equipment that enhances their combat performance. The tank could be equipped with optoelectronic suppression systems for protection against various anti-tank systems, the Zaslon active protection system, the Knife dynamic protection system and even a mobile radio-electronic suppression system for protection against radio-controlled explosive devices. At the request of the customer, the updated tanks could be equipped with mine trawls of various types and a camouflage system with the Contrast network, hiding the machine from various enemy detection devices.

In the production of the upgraded T-64-55 tanks, the towers of the T-64 tanks and the T-55 chassis were to be freed. Kharkiv designers took this into account and proposed projects for the use of unnecessary units. Thus, the T-55 tank chassis was proposed to be converted into heavy infantry fighting vehicles BMP-55. The freed turrets of T-64 tanks with weapons could be re-designed according to the BM-125-64 project. The result was an automated combat module suitable for use in the construction of fortified areas or coastal antiamphibious defense. In the course of such modernization, the tower received a set of remote control equipment and could be controlled by an operator located at a great distance from it.



First news about the construction and testing of an experienced T-64-55 tank appeared in 2007 year. In the future, HBTRZ repeatedly published articles and news on the progress of the project, which described its positive aspects. However, the T-64-55 tank has not yet become the subject of a contract for the modernization of armored vehicles. At the end of the last decade, there were reports that Kharkov specialists had no right to present their new development at international exhibitions of weapons and military equipment. Thus, for a long time, the T-64-55 project actually remains unknown among potential foreign customers.

Due to certain specific reasons, the T-64-55 tank modernization project did not lead to real results. It was built one (according to some, more) experienced tank, which was used in the tests. Due to the lack of orders from potential buyers, further production of such tanks was not conducted.

Even at the level of the basic concept, the project for the modernization of T-55 tanks with extensive use of T-64 units is of great interest. The used approach to modernization really allowed to significantly improve some characteristics of the new machine in comparison with the basic T-55. According to some estimates, the mobility of the tank increased by 40%, and the protection of the hull forehead - 3 times. In addition, there was a marked reduction in the cost of work. Installing the T-55 turret on the T-64 chassis should have cost a quarter less than installing a new engine and other units on the T-55 chassis.



Nevertheless, the positive qualities of the T-64-55 project were accompanied by a number of specific drawbacks. The first is the need to find the use of the T-64 towers and the T-55 chassis remaining after the upgrade. If there were orders for BMP-55 or BM-125-64, this would not be a problem, however, such equipment needed to be promoted in the market. Otherwise, Ukrainian enterprises risked acquiring unclaimed products that occupy space in warehouses and storage sites. In addition to the advantages of the T-64-55, “inherited” a whole range of problems inherent in both base tanks. Finally, despite the increased security, the firepower of the upgraded machine remained at the level of the outdated T-55.

As a result, the T-64-55 tank might really interest some foreign buyers who need to upgrade their fleet of outdated armored vehicles. Several dozen foreign countries still exploit T-55 tanks, and some of them could well become HBTRZ customers. Nevertheless, an interesting new project faced bureaucratic problems. The developers had no opportunity to advertise their project and promote it on the international market, as a result of which all efforts were wasted. As a result, a large number of T-55 are still in need of modernization in foreign countries, and unclaimed T-64 continue to stand idle at Ukrainian storage bases.





On the materials of the sites:
http://otvaga2004.ru/
http://alternathistory.org.ua/
http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/
http://btvt.narod.ru/
http://vestnik-rm.ru/


91 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +19
    April 27 2015 06: 04
    It’s a pity that the project didn’t work out. They would cut all their tanks, now for the ATO the towers from T-64 would be screwed onto trucks, as in the former Libya
    1. +30
      April 27 2015 08: 54
      It's just something: as I understand it, to modernize the T55, the whole T64 is disassembled into a tower and a casing - the T64-55 hybrid is sold cheaper than the T64, but more expensive than the T55. And the fact that the T64 tank with obviously better characteristics is lost than the T64-55 is considered ukry_ normally. This is a business!
      1. +8
        April 27 2015 09: 34
        That's it. In complex schemes of pulling suckers on tanks, a careful buyer always has a fear that they want to breed him.
        In this case, there is not fear, but reinforced concrete confidence in the divorce of the headstock.
        1. +5
          April 27 2015 12: 50
          Or maybe everything is easier? Before the war, Ukrainians stubbornly tried to sell their thousand sixty fours from storage for at least some money. And the demand was minimal because her reputation was so-so. So they came up with the option of selling stale goods for the poor.
          1. +3
            April 28 2015 01: 12
            Aha! The ingenious work of thought of modern Ukrainian "tank-makers": "Shroud from daddy's overcoat, bottom - from grandfather's caftan, and lining - from grandmother's shawl!" fellow wassat
            At the same time, it is firm confidence that the most experienced tank designers, having tried hundreds of different experimental models, taking into account the experience of not only World War II, but also a heap of local conflicts and military tests, would never have thought of such a "castling" at the level of "changed three for a hat". .. lol belay
            The logic of "effective managers", however ... fool request negative
            Something like this! hi soldier
        2. +4
          April 27 2015 14: 56
          Train !!!
          As stated in one famous movie:
          -Ho-ho.
          -Not ho-ho, but O-GO-GO !!!
      2. +3
        April 27 2015 15: 02
        And instead of the engine 5tdf steam boiler. laughing
        To ensure continuity, so to speak, of historical memory.
        I remember HBTZ has its pedigree with the engine. Yes
        1. +4
          April 28 2015 01: 19
          Yeah. Another "mabutno" sideways sprinkle decommissioned jet engines from the MiG-21 and powder boosters from them! good Yes tongue
          Bdyyyshchischsch! And all rushed! fellow lol wassat
          And behind the turret on the "engine compartment" - an 82-mm mortar !!! belay
          And on the sides, on top of the "reapplnnyh engines with kerosene running" - wattle from reliable Galician brushwood, as "anti-cumulative screens" !!! WOW!!! fellow
          This is how many discarded equipment and obsolete spare parts can be put into circulation from warehouses? fellow Dream ensign zavskladom! lol
          1. +2
            April 28 2015 02: 46
            Quote: Aqela
            Yeah. More "mabutno" sides ...

            I approve the flight of thought !!!
            Take off before hi you hat
      3. +7
        April 27 2015 16: 10
        Quote: Malkor
        it ukry_ consider normal. This is a business!

        We combined for modernization the old (T-55 tower) and the horseradish (T-64 chassis)
        Do you think they (Kharkov modernists) do not understand this? wink
        They understand everything ... But they allocated some money for the work, and the old buildings and towers have not yet died at all in the warehouses and bases.
        For example, the more powerful and almost native to 55-ka engine V-46, or V-84 in an independent one does not produce. but their two-wheel drive, though not quite good, etc.
      4. +2
        April 28 2015 01: 04
        It seems that in Ukraine there is an excess of engines for the T-64. I will take the liberty of reminding the people that it was precisely because of problems with the engines and the T-64 chassis that they tried to not send anywhere from Ukraine (unlike the T55, T-62, T-72, and the T-80 - there’s how many were in the GDR!). Whereas precisely because of the high reliability and excellent price / quality ratio, the T-54 / T-55 sold around the world in such a frail amount.
        In short, a strange concept comes out - a good "head", but with a weak, by today's standards, cannon and without updating the aiming systems, for an unreliable, but "brilliant zho.pu" ... feel
        Typical such "divorce of suckers for bablosy" ... bully
        Attempts to put on the T-55 a modern new cannon and a new sighting system, as I understand it, is a hefty expensive business, and it is difficult to "cram", taking into account its dense layout and the appearance of a full-length question: "What to do with 100-mm ammunition , citizens! " fellow
      5. +2
        April 28 2015 02: 50
        Quote: Malkor
        It's just something: as I understand it, to modernize the T55, the whole T64 is disassembled into a tower and a casing - the T64-55 hybrid is sold cheaper than the T64, but more expensive than the T55. And the fact that the T64 tank with obviously better characteristics is lost than the T64-55 is considered ukry_ normally. This is a business!

        Right.
  2. +6
    April 27 2015 06: 05
    English shipbuilders, after countless alterations of Admiral Fischer's "cats" said: "Better to lay down a new ship than to alter the old one." The death of "Hood" itself is the clearest picture of the fate of the "alteration"
    1. +10
      April 27 2015 07: 16
      All Admiral Fischer's "cats" are originally problem ships, remake them or not. A good rework will not spoil a successful ship design, especially when it saves time and money, and even more so when there are no other options. Almost all aircraft carriers that entered the Second World War are reworked from dreadnoughts or battle cruisers, it is difficult to say that the Japanese Kaga from the Akagi or the American Saratoga are unsuccessful ships here, and it must be admitted that such an alteration was logical and reasonable ... Italian battleships of the Giulio Cesare class underwent modernization, which, in fact, was their conversion from old dreadnoughts to modern battle cruisers. Throughout the Second World War, civilian ships were converted into convoy and escort aircraft carriers. All German self-propelled guns, in fact, alterations, using chassis from tanks, many of these German self-propelled guns are very successful. The Israelis, guys are not stupid, converted captured T-54 / T-55 and outdated British Centurions into heavy armored personnel carriers, and you can't say it's stupid. We have stocks of old T-72s, which can also be converted into BMPTs or heavy armored personnel carriers. Alteration to alteration - strife. As for the case of crossing the T-55 turret with the T-64 hull ... Honestly, it would make sense if there were a lot of such hulls without turrets, but if there were turrets. Otherwise, I would like to complain that the remaining T-55 towers need to be attached to the T-64 towers left without hulls. The latter would be even more logical, since the T-64 hulls are suitable for a good conversion into a heavy infantry fighting vehicle.
      1. +2
        April 27 2015 12: 56
        Quote: Per se.
        Almost all aircraft carriers that entered World War II, alterations from dreadnought or battle cruisers

        Enooh ... well, not almost all, and the first normal naval ABs are alterations from LK or LKR. Next we went AV special buildings.

        IJN has reworked "Akagi" and "Kaga". "Soryu", "Hiryu", "Shokaku", "Zuikaku" and "Ryujo" - a special building (but then there was a series of former liners and seaplane vehicles and even a super LK).

        USN has reworked "Sarah" and "Lex". "Ranger", "Big E", "Yorktown", "Wasp", "Hornet" - a special building (but then a series of former cruisers started).
        1. +2
          April 27 2015 13: 25
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Enooh ... well, not almost everything, and the first normal naval ABs are alterations from LK or LKR. Next we went AV special buildings.
          Yes, I do not persist in statements, we are talking about alterations, as such. However, if you take Great Britain, it has only two special buildings out of seven pre-war aircraft carriers - "Hermes" and "Arc Royal", it turns out - almost everything. If you go further, France has its only "Bearn", converted from an unfinished superdreadnought of the "Normandy" type, that is, "everything" is here. However, thanks for the addition.
          1. +4
            April 27 2015 13: 56
            Quote: Per se.
            However, if you take Great Britain, it has only two special buildings out of seven pre-war aircraft carriers, - "Hermes" and "Arc Royal", it turns out - almost all

            Yes, that's right, I somehow forgot about RN.
            But their lordships bribed themselves. They were so active in getting rid of Fischer's White Bishops and so wanted AB "as soon as possible" that they used up almost the entire contractual tonnage:
            Article VII of the Washington Treaty allowed Britain to have aircraft carriers total displacement of 135 thousand tons. Over the next decade, the Furies converted from the battle cruiser, laid down as a battleship and completed as the Eagle aircraft carrier and the first Hermes special-purpose ship, entered service. The last to be converted into aircraft carriers of the same type as the Furies were the battle cruisers Koreges and Glories. Thus, by the beginning of the 30s, the British fleet had six ships of this class with a total displacement of about 115 thousand tons.

            So it turned out that the limes had only 20 kt left on the second AV special building. Therefore, their lordships decided not to rush anymore.

            And France is yes ... fleet that was not. smile
      2. +6
        April 27 2015 18: 54
        The battleships "Giulio Cesare" after modernization can hardly be called successful ships. Suffice it to recall that the former 320-inches, raked down to a caliber of 12 mm, gave a monstrous spread of a salvo at long firing distances. And also these ships had a very strong hull vibration at full speed, almost like the German "panzerschiff" of the "Deutschland" type. The American "Lady Sarah" ("Saratoga") and "Lady Lex" ("Lexington") had a very large turning radius - ie. no maneuverability inherited from unfinished battle cruisers. "Akagi" and "Kaga" went through not one, but a whole cycle of modernizations and alterations, the cost of which was equal to the cost of building a new ship. These ships had a significant drawback, however, typical for most aircraft carriers of the 20-30s - I mean the "open" nose, which was "wet". In general, all these "modernizations and alterations of unfinished ships of the 1st World War were a forced decision, allowing to save from" sending to the needles "unfinished ships doomed to destruction or to bring up more or less to the level of modern requirements rapidly aging ships, especially with a ban on construction of new ones.
        As for this Ukrainian "Miracle Tank", the attitude towards it can be expressed in one phrase - "neither fish, nor meat." I do not imagine that someone can covet and acquire this shushpanzer in any significant quantities. Unless for a private collection, as an armored curiosity of almost antique value. However, like the country in which this hybrid of a snake and a hedgehog was born.
        I have the honor.
        1. +1
          April 27 2015 22: 58
          Quote: Alexander72
          Suffice it to recall that the former 320 inches, dislocated to the caliber of 12 mm, gave a monstrous spread of volley at long range firing.
          If we talk about the "monstrous spread", then this rather refers to the new 381 mm cannons of Ansaldo (for "Littorio" and "Impero") and "OTO" (for "Vittorio Veneto and Roma"). 381 mm guns were forced to the limit (the maximum range obtained by 824 kg of a high-explosive projectile at the Kottrau range was 48269 meters.) their gross production (first of all, the mass tolerance limits). As for the guns "Giulio Cesare", with "Conte di Cavour" and the second pair of modernized battleships "Cai Duilio" with "Andrea Doria." "Armstrong" (305 mm with a barrel length of 46 calibers), which were distinguished by powerful ballistics and good accuracy. The safety margin of the barrels made it possible to bore them up to 320 mm without compromising their qualities. The muzzle velocity of 320 mm barrels was yes lower than at 305 mm (for the armor-piercing 320 mm 800 m / s versus 840 m / s for 305 mm, and for the high-explosive 830 versus 840, respectively). The increase in the firing range was mainly due to the increase in the vertical guidance angle (for the first pair of battleships up to + 27 degrees, for the second up to +30), naturally, the weight of the shells increased, and, accordingly, the weight of the main battery salvo. In other respects, whatever you may think, the modernized "Giulio Cesare" is better than the not modernized one, and when it became "Novorossiysk", it turned out to be much stronger than our "Sevastopol", in fact, its historical contemporaries. To alter (or modernize) something or not is a matter of a historical moment, economic and technical possibilities. The result, from the inherent potential of technology and the talent of the "modernists".
          1. +2
            April 28 2015 01: 25
            Thanks for the interesting discussion! love
    2. +2
      April 27 2015 12: 47
      Quote: blizart
      English shipbuilders, after countless alterations of Admiral Fischer's "cats" said: "Better to lay down a new ship than to alter the old one."

      It's good to be healthy and rich ... smile
      All this saga with "Perestroika" and "Alteration" is a consequence of one document signed in Washington in 1922. It was because of him that the old LKR had to be repeatedly sent to the shipyard - first due to the fact that there will be no new ships for the next 15 years, and then due to the fact that the situation in Europe is getting worse and worse, and the new "KGV" 1940 the fleet will not receive.
      Quote: blizart
      The death of "Hood" itself is the clearest picture of the fate of the "alteration"

      The death of "Hood" itself is the most graphic picture of fate English battle cruiser in battle with a full-fledged battleship. As LKR do not modernize - and he will remain anyway cruiser.
      Look, the Japanese have also modernized-modernized their four "Congo" - and renamed the LC. So what? In the very first battle with real LK, the enemy of the Japanese - "Sodak" - hit the Japanese 14 ". But" Kirishima "did not survive the response of" Washington ". However, her sister" Hiei "was even 8" from the American SRT ...
  3. sims2000
    +6
    April 27 2015 06: 40
    Some kind of nonsense ... Article is a plus, but a minus is developed. Full, fucking nonsense !!!! Why should people with a T-55 and who want to upgrade this tank get not up to the T-64? It’s easier to just buy a T-64, remove the turret from the T-55 and make everything out of a BMP-55 tank !!!
    1. +3
      April 27 2015 11: 03
      Quote: siMS2000
      Some kind of nonsense ... Article is a plus, but a minus is developed. Full, fucking nonsense !!!! Why should people with a T-55 and who want to upgrade this tank get not up to the T-64? It’s easier to just buy a T-64, remove the turret from the T-55 and make everything out of a BMP-55 tank !!!


      Well, for example, then, that the combat properties of the 55-th are quite satisfactory, and the overhaul of the engine / chassis is already difficult due to the ancient times of the shaitan-arba. But the weapons still have a resource, there are a lot of shells in warehouses, spare parts ...

      And here is an inexpensive upgrade, and tankers don’t need to retrain much, the armament is the same - it means the RAV service (or whatever the customer has) can not bother. Ammunition stock in warehouses remains relevant, etc. There are many positive aspects.

      Well this is for countries of a very third world ...
      1. Elk
        Elk
        +5
        April 27 2015 11: 28
        And here - inexpensive modernization, and tankers don’t really need to retrain

        Yeah. Here are just 5TDF and some cocoa butter. With its operation and in the SA there were very significant problems, which, in fact, led to an absurd situation when 3 types of main tanks were in service. So retrain, and retrain specifically, have to.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. +4
          April 27 2015 12: 24
          Yeah. Here are just 5TDF and some cocoa butter. With its operation and in the SA there were very significant problems, which, in fact, led to an absurd situation when 3 types of main tanks were in service. So retrain, and retrain specifically, have to. [/ Quote]

          In CA, a negligent driver mechanically overheated the engine easily, with the ensuing consequences. Where the hybrid was supposed to be delivered, the 5TDF ejection cooling system could not cope. The operating countries of the T-55 are not rich, relying on the fact that they will incur additional costs for the maintenance of the new base, at least not seriously. Moreover, the combat qualities will remain unchanged (KUV old from the T-55, not even from the T-64).
          1. +3
            April 27 2015 15: 34
            Quote: bolat19640303
            Where the hybrid was supposed to be delivered, the 5TDF ejection cooling system could not cope. The operating countries of the T-55 are not rich, relying on the fact that they will incur additional costs for the maintenance of the new base is at least not serious. Moreover, the combat qualities will remain unchanged (KUV is old from the T-55, not even from the T-64).


            Well, they wanted to earn money, not to do good to Afrikans. There are no other tanks in Ukraine. What is, they sell.

            Perhaps, if we take it from scrap metal, it is easier to restore only the engine with the transmission than to reassemble the weapons complex. These 64-k on the Kharkov tank repair like garbage are still lying around.

            Well, then - if the running gear is usually consumed faster than weapons. There may well be a situation where the tower is still alive, and the chassis and engine already do not even make sense to repair.
            It is clear that the native is simpler, but in Ukraine there are no 55's. And 64-ki - is.
          2. Elk
            Elk
            0
            April 28 2015 06: 26
            Where the hybrid was supposed to be delivered, the 5TDF ejection cooling system could not cope.

            Not only. There, a fairly complicated setup is required due to the two-shaft scheme.
        3. 0
          April 28 2015 01: 30
          Exactly! There will be such garbage: a turret with a gun for tankers of a "very third world country" is quite accessible and understandable, but the chassis with an engine is "hellish darkness"! am
          There, with a Soviet secondary, albeit sometimes "very secondary" education, the engines were stuck at once, and only "in a very third" - there would be a continuous "diesel fall" ... fellow laughing
      2. sims2000
        +1
        April 27 2015 18: 35
        Why do they need tanks then? Tayota with DShK is quite enough for such countries.
    2. +5
      April 27 2015 13: 22
      Quote: siMS2000
      Article plus
      I also put a plus, and was scared. Suddenly, someone would come up with the idea of ​​making a T-72-55.
      Although, the T-54-55 cars are unpretentious and a lot has accumulated in warehouses in the districts of the Russian Federation. Put in order, and for export to poor countries with an option.
    3. +3
      April 27 2015 21: 05
      What nonsense ... Article plus, but development minus. Full, fucking nonsense !!!! Why should people with a T-55 and who want to upgrade this tank get not up to the T-64? It’s easier to just buy the T-64, remove the turret from the T-55 and make everything out of the BMP-55 tank !!!
      By the way, the Omsk factory also tried to cross a snake and a hedgehog, and with a similar result ....
  4. +11
    April 27 2015 06: 40
    For Ukraine (we discard bile and mockery in the answer, leaving only logic and real analysis), the solution is perhaps interesting, which allows solving several issues at once. 1. Using the chassis is available. 2 Use of large reserves of T-55 in reserve. 3 The resulting tanks can be considered as support tanks and are quite suitable for a deep, rapid breakthrough into the enemy's rear due to the reduced weight and high power by 1 ton of about 21 hp. and a significant range for a tank - 600 km. In general, the solution (from an engineering point of view) is quite suitable, allowing you to get a very interesting car. Do not forget that the Kharkov school was one of the leading tank schools in the USSR and Kharkov has always been a truly Russian city - not suffering from "Svidomism" with a very developed engineering school. IMHO naturally.
    1. 0
      April 27 2015 13: 10
      I will add that Ukraine itself can offer a lot of chassis from the T-64 even after losses in the ATO. I will not upload photos, so there are a lot of them on the site.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  5. +10
    April 27 2015 06: 44
    The result was a modernization on the contrary. Usually, when they want to upgrade old tanks (airplanes, ships), the emphasis is on increasing firepower - in other words, they put a more powerful gun. Here, a good 125mm cannon is exchanged for a known less powerful 100mm, which, like a tank gun, became obsolete 50 years ago.
    1. +9
      April 27 2015 06: 56
      Colleague - how are you against 125 mm in the T-55 turret? And the tower is very useful - it is practically "reinforced concrete". It is very difficult to penetrate it even with a 125 mm gun. On the other hand, the resulting hybrid is much better than the base T-55. Read the article carefully. Nobody was going to take this tank into service - they were going to modernize it for African and possibly Asian countries. Which is very logical and would allow the plant to be loaded for many years. The solution is very interesting and I would say it is extremely non-trivial.
      1. +7
        April 27 2015 07: 18
        In general, I’m ready to agree with you, but ... All one, the tank comes out of date. Lack of
        automatic loader, the placement of ammunition in the same volume as the crew, very
        "wonderful" two-stroke diesel engine, which fucking works under conditions of factory technical support,
        what can we say about Africa ... The only thing is mass is less and mobility is better.
        IMHO - it is better to upgrade and sell the T-64.
      2. +7
        April 27 2015 07: 39
        Quote: D-Master
        Colleague - how are you against 125 mm in the T-55 turret? And the tower is very useful - it is practically "reinforced concrete". It is very difficult to penetrate it even with a 125 mm gun. On the other hand, the resulting hybrid is much better than the base T-55. Read the article carefully. Nobody was going to take this tank into service - they were going to modernize it for African and possibly Asian countries. Which is very logical and would allow the plant to be loaded for many years. The solution is very interesting and I would say it is extremely non-trivial.

        Did I say anything about taking this tank into service? I carefully read the article, I even read it from other sources (for example, the Chobitka website), no one needs this modernization even in Africa because does not increase the firepower of the tank, and this is a priority for the tank. Put yourself in the place of an African general with T-55 tanks and think about whether to change the hull of the tank if it doesn’t shoot further and more efficiently.
      3. +4
        April 27 2015 09: 12
        You carefully read the article. Nobody was going to take this tank into service - they were going to modernize it for African and possibly Asian countries. Which is very logical and would allow loading the plant for many years.
        From the point of view of the Kharkov plant, everything is logical to perfection.
        The main question is what is the logic of such witchcraft on tanks from the perspective of a potential customer.
        1. +1
          April 28 2015 01: 36
          Cheating on grandmas! What is the logic here?
      4. +4
        April 27 2015 09: 13
        Quote: D-Master
        It is very difficult to pierce even from a 125 mm gun.

        200 mm? difficult - Yes, not an expensive question. Even the PG-7V and Vlob.
        Quote: D-Master
        On the other hand, the resulting hybrid is much better than the base T-55.

        But much worse than the base T-64 ....
      5. The comment was deleted.
      6. +7
        April 27 2015 14: 34
        And the tower is very useful - it is practically "reinforced concrete".
        But what’s there, she’s practically not vulnerable ...
      7. +1
        April 28 2015 01: 35
        Why not put the T-55 turret on the MTLB chassis or, say, PT-76, BMP-1? By this logic - quite a "engineering solution"! wassat
    2. +12
      April 27 2015 09: 09
      Even at the basic concept level, the T-55 tank modernization project
      What is the modernization of the T-55? According to this logic, if I put the wrench on the Lada kit inside the F-1 car, then I will get the F-1-Lada car.
      Judging by the number / proportion of parts from T-64 and T-55 in this hodgepodge, this is not an upgrade of T-55, but a downgrade of T-64.

      And then, suppose:
      - I (a certain country) have the T-55 in service and have no money to buy new tanks.
      - I want to upgrade them for inexpensive.

      For this upgrade, I have to pay:
      - the cost of T-64
      - the cost of reworking one tank of two.
      - increased cost for further operation and maintenance of two tank models, instead of one initially.

      Question: what will be the savings?
      Maybe it would be easier then to buy used tanks of a newer design.

      In general, it is extremely doubtful both in terms of modernization and in terms of cost savings.
      1. +2
        April 27 2015 13: 05
        And if you do not want to change the caliber and exploit the capricious automatic charging device? And while the full body of the T-64 offer cheaper than the new power unit on the T-55?
        1. +2
          April 27 2015 15: 40
          And while the full body of the T-64 offer cheaper than the new power unit on the T-55?
          And if the total cost also includes the cost of maintenance in good condition in the future? That is, after such an alteration itself. And components for this period, etc.?
  6. +6
    April 27 2015 07: 52
    Quote: AlNikolaich
    IMHO - it is better to upgrade and sell the T-64.

    The key word is sell. And there, even though the grass does not grow, let them go to other offices for maintenance, the T-54 / 55 is not a Ruin development.
    In short, there are ideas, but implementation is slowed down. In the current situation, the Ruin is good, although the development of the hybrid was carried out 3 years ago. Let’s better deal with such toys, there will be benefits for everyone, but no harm.
    1. +5
      April 27 2015 08: 10
      Quote: inkass_98
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      IMHO - it is better to upgrade and sell the T-64.

      The key word is sell. And there, even though the grass does not grow, let them go to other offices for maintenance, the T-54 / 55 is not a Ruin development.
      In short, there are ideas, but implementation is slowed down. In the current situation, the Ruin is good, although the development of the hybrid was carried out 3 years ago. Let’s better deal with such toys, there will be benefits for everyone, but no harm.

      Right You noticed the keyword sell. This modernization is a purely Ukrainian invention of a bicycle, when there are a lot of tanks made since Soviet times, and there is nowhere to put them, so we decided to sell scrap metal in this way. Although back in the 80s, following the results of the war in Afghanistan, the Union upgraded its T-55s to the level of modern tanks by making the T-55M and T-55AM. These machines could be sold to Africa and Asia or the existing tanks could be modified to their level, and this Ukrainian venture is more like an adventure than a serious matter.
  7. +3
    April 27 2015 07: 56
    Thanks to the author for the article. Actually, we solve the lack of firepower by developing new ammunition (it would probably be easier to stick 125 mm into the t-55 tower), but as mentioned above, for African countries where the confrontation is between the 50-80 technology, such a modernization would be in place. Good ideas often go under the cloth, but nowadays it is just not the point.
    Question to the author: What was the reason for stopping the implementation of the project?
    1. +11
      April 27 2015 08: 07
      Quote: Terminol
      Question to the author: What was the reason for stopping the implementation of the project?

      I do not know what the author will answer you, but I suspect that this "hybrid" turned out to be useless to anyone.
    2. +4
      April 27 2015 09: 25
      Actually, the lack of firepower is solved by the development of new ammunition
      Are you sure the African poor countries had in mind?
      where the confrontation is between the technology of the 50-80s a similar modernization would be appropriate
      The question is its price. In fact, instead of upgrading the customer’s T-55, the purchase of the T-64 is veiled, with its additional disarmament-exchange of a 125 mm gun for a 100 mm gun.
      At the same time, the plant has a gesheft with the most modernization and possible further maintenance.
      The customer has the purchase of an additional (for him) model of the tank, a major change in the logistics of operation instead of the worked out one, additional expenses for happily (from his own stupidity) of the newly acquired counterparty for technical support in the person of the Kharkov plant.
      1. +1
        April 27 2015 16: 21
        Meant UkrProm.
        It is unlikely that not so rich countries would begin to conclude contracts for those. support, well, unless of course you meant delivery of app. parts.
        Purchase t-64 ... vryatli in full, taking into account the remaining chassis from the t-55. I think it would be cheaper to buy than t-64, although who knows ...
    3. +2
      April 27 2015 13: 15
      Quote: Terminol
      stick 125 mm into the t-55 tower

      I wonder what will fly away: a shell or a tower?
      1. 0
        April 27 2015 16: 22
        I would not be so critical ... this is a technical issue rather than a hypothetical one.
        1. +2
          April 27 2015 21: 54
          Quote: Terminol
          I would not be so critical ... this is a technical issue rather than a hypothetical one.

          if it were not for the acquisition of brisality by the ballistic flashes as the ammunition was aging, it was in Ukrainian warehouses.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. +1
      April 27 2015 14: 54
      The article says that the plant had no right to enter the international market, for this there is "UkrOboronProm" or something like that. It's simple - they didn't give a "kickback" or they offered little.
      1. +1
        April 27 2015 16: 22
        Is it your speculation or fact?
        "Developers were not able to advertise your project and to promote it internationally, with the result that all efforts were wasted "...
  8. +4
    April 27 2015 08: 09
    We take the most complicated curved chassis and put on it an ancient tower. The only question is, who could have come up with such nonsense?
    1. Elk
      Elk
      +3
      April 27 2015 11: 32
      The only question is, who could have come up with such nonsense?

      Our clever "not brothers".
  9. 3axap
    +5
    April 27 2015 08: 25
    Purely from a point of view of an article, plus +++++. Purely from a practical point of view, I’m not a specialist and I won’t be clever. that everything went through their asses. And our Sovdepov auto industry is fighting against the DPR and LPR, and not something new and more perfect. Well, and probably soon the tanks of the state tanks UkroAryev will appear in the tanks. I’m still amazed that they still have this they don’t require it. And then their speeches at the beginning of the battle are already sick. hi
    1. +4
      April 27 2015 09: 42
      And against the DPR and LPR our Soviet auto industry is fighting and not, something new and more perfect.
      You are wrong exactly the opposite. Thank God that just something newer is fighting against New Russia notperfect, not Sovdepovskiy "auto industry". If this very "auto industry" of the 80-85 model had fought, if not hours, then certainly the days of Novorossiya would have been numbered very quickly.
      Well, probably soon the tanks will see the tree of the development of tanks of the state of UkroAriyev.
      I don’t know about the tree of armored vehicles, but it is very likely that soon the tree will appear in the very construction of this very Ukrainian armored vehicle. In the form of bars, beams, curtain boards from sleepers. Or what else ...
      1. 3axap
        +1
        April 27 2015 12: 07
        abrakadabre SU I don’t know about the tree of armored vehicles, but it is very likely that the tree will soon appear in the very construction of this very Ukrainian armored vehicle. In the form of bars, beams, curtain boards from sleepers. Or what else .. Thank you, smiled. laughing
      2. +1
        April 28 2015 01: 41
        Well yes. The year 1968 is a good illustration in this regard.
  10. +5
    April 27 2015 09: 05
    Being a “hybrid” of two tanks, the proposed T-64-55 in its characteristics should have been similar to the T-55 and T-64. The mobility of the car was at the T-64 level, and the combat qualities were at the T-55 level.
    In my opinion Ukrainians finally moved. Otherwise, how can one explain that to get one unsuitable tank, they mutilate a 1-year-old tank (and the T-64 machine, though obsolete, is quite suitable both in terms of LMS and in terms of head protection superior to T-55) + 1 small-sized tank (T-55 although it’s old, but as a block or ersatz self-propelled guns is quite imagined) The explanation I see is generally 2:
    1) The black lord forbids having a modern army.
    2) The educational and industrial level does not allow to maintain in working condition a rather complex robotic complex of the T-64 tower (FCS, AZ, etc.)
    Most likely, both reasons have a place.
    1. +4
      April 27 2015 09: 45
      The explanation I see is generally 2:
      Offhand I see at least one more thing:
      3) Dilute a poor customer for big expenses, both at the same time and in the long run, driving through the ears with supposedly modernization for supposedly little money. And replacing the aforesaid, something dubious, but obviously more expensive. Effective management of the era of wild capitalism in action.
      1. +3
        April 27 2015 10: 17
        The liberated turret of the T-64 tanks with armament could be converted according to the design of the BM-125-64. The result was an automated combat module suitable for use in the construction of fortified areas or coastal airborne defense.


        what the nations did with success, in WWII, in 1944-45 .....
        interesting now, uk-ry, are carrying out this project, during the construction of fortified areas in the Donbass ???

        "Atlantic Wall" tower T-V "Panther"


        клик
        1. +3
          April 27 2015 11: 13
          With Natsik everything was clear. The production of towers was slightly ahead of the production of the chassis - here you have a stock ... But here ....
          If the chassis is normal ... Why send a tower that is modern and efficient enough ... and replace it with an ersatz?
          Or in Hohland excess hodovok? Then the question about the use of towers is not clear ...
          It would be understandable if, say, production of the undercarriage was established, and the turret was manufactured, well, say in Russia ... The conflict, all that, the supplies stopped and we put the output as it is ... In the war, they shoved the same forty .....
          So the conclusions suggest itself ..
          1. +2
            April 27 2015 13: 15
            They themselves wrote about the robotic tower complex. Now remember that the tank is for the Papuans. 5TDF is also not very suitable for the Papuans, but there were no extra 72s for Ukrainians wink
            1. +2
              April 27 2015 14: 44
              Quote: MooH
              but the Ukrainians did not find the extra 72s

              So why are you tormented? to capitalize the T-55 and sell ... For good luck, change the engine (to commercial) (at least), the transmission and goose (this is already chic and show-off, but nice) and add 3 pairs of night-glasses to the kit, see all the lights and sell ..
              But apparently this is difficult for the Kharkov plant.
              1. +2
                April 27 2015 16: 02
                In hohland, apart from the tdfs, tank engines are not produced. Damn Moscal order for the engine or spare parts for kapitalki give zapadlo. MTU is significantly more expensive than a freshly repaired T-64 assembly. Accordingly, there is a certain logic. Another thing is that the logic is rogue and apparently even the Papuans realized that Kroilovo leads to the popalov and did not begin to buy this hybrid.
                1. +2
                  April 27 2015 16: 15
                  Well, why is a tank needed? The same KRAZ pomnitstso collected engines under 500 hp
                  Quote: MooH
                  Accordingly, there is a certain logic. Another thing is that the logic is rogue and apparently even the Papuans realized that Kroilovo leads to the popalov and did not begin to buy this hybrid.

                  Yes, this logic is somehow perverted ... the 64 ki hodovka is not much simpler than its tower ...
                  1. 0
                    April 27 2015 17: 42
                    I don’t own the issue of KRAZ motor production, I suppose that there are some nuances in the installation and operation. Why tank? So the requirements are completely different: multi-fuel, boost, army fuel and lubricants and maintenance ...
                    1. +1
                      April 28 2015 09: 19
                      Quote: MooH
                      So the requirements are completely different: multi-fuel, boost, army fuel and lubricants and maintenance ...

                      A lot of tayot and Mercedes and other MANs are running around Africa. What is the problem of taking the Mercedes or Manov engine for half a thousand forces? Fortunately, the line is quite imagined. Everything will be more modern than native
                  2. +1
                    April 27 2015 18: 33
                    Quote: tchoni

                    Yes, this logic is somehow perverted ... the 64 ki hodovka is not much simpler than its tower ...

                    that’s the whole answer ... T-64, they can only operate, be / technically competent soldiers + rem ... a base where specialists are even more technically savvy ...
                    cross the chassis of the T-64 and the tower from the T-55 - equivalently, cross the snake and the hedgehog ...

                    supplied the USSR, to Africa to our swarthy brothers T54 / 55, the Africans completely mastered them and performed quite good combat missions ... although they lost a lot, and often not damaged ...
                  3. +2
                    April 27 2015 19: 52
                    At KrAZ, NEVER engines were assembled, with the memory of you ...
                    1. 0
                      April 28 2015 09: 13
                      Right Got excited.
                      But in any case, engines can be found in the bourgeoisie ... What are they doing at KRAZ right now ... Although until recently, the YMZ was shoved.
          2. +1
            April 27 2015 19: 15
            Quote: tchoni
            .. In the war over on 34, the same forty shoved .....

            here's the photo, in the subject ... they write that the 43 year, the gun is clearly not 76 mm ((rare photo))

            клик
            1. +5
              April 27 2015 19: 26
              cosmos111
              A fighter tank equipped with a 57 mm cannon was produced in a limited series. T-34-57.
              1. +2
                April 27 2015 19: 29
                Quote: vladkavkaz
                fighter tank armed with 57 mm cannon. T-34-57.

                vladkavkaz
                You are right ((the photo is not clear)) but it seems he is the most ...
                1. +1
                  April 27 2015 20: 14
                  The photo is not very clear. But it seems to me that in the photo there is a T-34-85 with a D-5T cannon manufactured by the Krasnoye Sormovo plant. There was a very limited series of these tanks in 1944, and these tanks were tested in the fall of 1943. True, they had an antenna input characteristic only for this model on the right side of the hull and a commander's cupola strongly displaced forward. This is not visible in the photo. But in any case, the turret does not have the 57 mm ZiS-4 cannon. This gun was made in an amount of 30 pieces and was installed on a limited number of fighter tanks in 1941 with a conventional "pie" turret and commander's cupola (which began to be installed on the T-34 only in 1943) on them could not be, by definition. 45-mm guns were not installed on the T-34, these tanks were armed with a 76,2-mm gun: early releases - the L-11 cannon (total from 452 to 458 combat vehicles, according to various sources) or the F-34 - all other T tanks -34 before re-equipping with 85 mm tank guns (D-5T in limited quantities or ZIS-S53 - all other machines).
                  Although, perhaps the photo captures an even more rare modification of the T-34 tanks with a 57-mm ZiS-4M cannon. In the spring of 1943, when the question arose about the fight against well-armored German tanks and self-propelled guns (primarily the Tiger heavy tank), the production of the ZIS-4 was restored. Already in May, Plant No. 92, using the reserve of 1941, shipped 5 guns, 4 of which were installed on T-1943 tanks with a tower-nut in July 34. After conducting field tests, three tanks from August 21 to September 5, 1943 were tested at the front, which passed satisfactorily. Accurate data on the mass production of these machines, as well as their combat use, are not available.
                  I have the honor.
                  1. 0
                    April 28 2015 09: 04
                    for this photo
                    They remembered the 57-mm guns ZIS-2 and ZIS-4 in 1943, when the 57-mm guns became the only mastered artillery systems capable of withstanding the new German heavy tanks.
                    In May 1943, the T-34 tank-fighter and KB tank-fighter, armed with a 57 mm ZIS-4M cannon, were again adopted by the Soviet army. The new gun differed from the ZIS-4, produced in 1941, in a number of simplifications introduced into the design of the F-34 in 1941-43, namely:
                    based on materials from the site http://tank.uw.ru/ article "Forgotten thirty-fours"
                    Regarding 45 ki from the memoirs of the commander’s platoon of the 166th tank brigade of Young Lieutenant A. Zhuravlev
                    "In Gorky, these guns were not released, but 45-mm anti-tank guns were made. The plan was asked strictly from Moscow, and these 34-mm guns were put on some T-45s. Of course, less powerful than the three-inch ones. Besides, there were no Many guys refused such tanks, although we were convinced that the guns were good, and we would get the sights "on the spot." And, so to speak, the picture. But I'm not sure about the picture ...
            2. +1
              April 27 2015 19: 55
              Most likely a 57 mm gun, they were put on some T-34s
          3. +1
            April 27 2015 21: 59
            magpies in T-34 shoved only in the books of V. Pikul. And tanks did not make boiler iron.
  11. +4
    April 27 2015 10: 19
    The next stage is the installation of t-34 towers (taken from the monuments) at base 64.
    1. +3
      April 27 2015 10: 27
      And be sure to call it all the modernization of the T-34
  12. bright
    +2
    April 27 2015 11: 00
    There is no this craft buyers. If only APU.
    From the remnants of the Soviet past from warehouses, they are trying to mold something military and sane.

    On the old building, the new tower is promising.
    On the contrary - downgrade.
  13. 0
    April 27 2015 11: 10
    "I blinded him from what was ..."
  14. +3
    April 27 2015 11: 43
    What is everyone so pounced on the car?
    The article is clearly stated. Weight with all the bells and whistles of 33,8 tons. This is quite a light tank for the jungle and swamps.
    Few buyers? Won Vietnam is the same Argentina to replace them there. By the way, this device for protection will be better than the same Tam born from the marder.
    As for the caliber, 100mm is enough for some, although I like the L7A3.
    As for the MOH / AZ, the first shells can fly faster, and then the commander with his left hand charges 12-18 shells, the average total plus or minus the same. Moreover, the loader shoves 100mm shells that weigh less. It depends on the application concept - to leave quickly shoot 22-28 soldiers and run away or systematically iron someone's position with 50 shells.
  15. +2
    April 27 2015 11: 54
    64-k in Ukraine as dirt, but most of them will never go anywhere, and the chassis is easier to repair than an entire tank, hence the project. In general, I think we need to go further! Tower from the T-34 in the T-80 chassis! Such weapons certainly do not and will not have world analogues.
    1. +1
      April 27 2015 15: 53
      Can immediately, bypassing all subsequent stages of modernization, add shafts with a clamp to the front eyes? And dviglo will be very readily available for replacement.
  16. 0
    April 27 2015 12: 31
    Hehehehe ... looking at the installation of DZ on the tower in the area of ​​the gun - and these people blamed the T-72B3. smile
  17. 0
    April 27 2015 14: 04
    The military revealed the secrets of “Almaty” “The machine is very unique in its own way. It has a different layout from what we know and have now. Information systems for controlling the movement of the machine, fire control of the machine. The machine is equipped with technical vision. Previously, it was planned to supply a locator, but they refused the locator, ”said Sergey Mayev, head of the main armored directorate of the Russian Ministry of Defense in 1996-2004.

    in general, the refusal of the locator, as on the "chrysanthemum s" killed me, that is, the differences from previous tanks are now not so significant, the same Korean newest tank has a radar, the tank is stupid only with a thermal imager can aim in the fog, and earlier it could have launched on the radar missiles ...
    1. -1
      April 27 2015 15: 15
      What are you saying, the most advanced tank!
      Again a reduction in price, again a good development in ... ooo, like "Black Eagle" ...
      Generals and other defense ministers do not go into battle, do not risk their lives.
      Could at least five hundred make fully equipped machines, one per platoon, at least.
      And in general, it’s better to upgrade the T-72 — cheaper and easier with a mobile reserve — it scored tractor drivers and went into battle (as they think in the Russian Defense Ministry, there were already articles).
      With regards to this article - try to teach a monkey to use modern (even relatively) SLA. They are the T-55 just right ... And the BMP-55 is an excellent development of KhBTRZ - how many lives it could save.
      P.S. For those who are especially smart, TDF diesels have proven themselves perfectly in Pakistan and China, therefore, a pistol is good, "experts" ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +3
        April 27 2015 16: 10
        Quote: REZMovec
        What are you saying, the most advanced tank!
        Again a reduction in price, again a good development in ... ooo, like "Black Eagle" ...
        Generals and other defense ministers do not go into battle, do not risk their lives.
        Could at least five hundred make fully equipped machines, one per platoon, at least.
        And in general, it’s better to upgrade the T-72 — cheaper and easier with a mobile reserve — it scored tractor drivers and went into battle (as they think in the Russian Defense Ministry, there were already articles).
        With regards to this article - try to teach a monkey to use modern (even relatively) SLA. They are the T-55 just right ... And the BMP-55 is an excellent development of KhBTRZ - how many lives it could save.
        P.S. For those who are especially smart, TDF diesels have proven themselves perfectly in Pakistan and China, therefore, a pistol is good, "experts" ...


        The situation with the T-14 seems to be the same as with the ACS "Vena". Easier and cheaper. It turned out to be expensive and difficult for my army.
        You can teach a monkey how you say everything, even riding a bicycle. Just whom do you mean by a monkey? If our soldiers were conscripts, then they in the SA perfectly mastered the "relatively" modern OMS of object 219RV. It is even easier for a soldier than outdated. You don’t even need to think - the gun itself will stand on the aiming line (teach me to turn on the AZR, stabilizer, measure the range) and you don’t need to use the thousandth formula.
        About 5TDF. He studied and met in the army. I know firsthand. There is no capricious engine. You won’t start in winter, even with oil injection, in summer it’s heated, oil is eating in buckets (according to the design features of the 2-stroke engine). It requires a very careful attitude. For Pakistan, the T-80UD was supplied with another -6TD engine, adapted to operating conditions. If you choose from the T-80 or T-64 that have the same armament control system, you would choose a T-80 with a gas turbine engine.
        1. +1
          April 27 2015 20: 02
          Bolat, I clearly wrote about the "monkeys" - for the owners of the T-55, Africa, it's clear.
          The difference between 5TD and 6TD in the number of "pots", the essence of the engine itself does not change.
          About the quality of TD - give a fool a glass of horseradish, he will break it, and cut his hands.
          Normal engine, if not sheep for leverage and in the commander’s place.
          1. 0
            April 28 2015 09: 16
            In Armata - you should wait for the device to fail. He has not yet been released ....
  18. +1
    April 27 2015 17: 16
    As a result, in terms of efficiency, something like the Romanian TR-85M1 would have turned out
    1. 0
      April 27 2015 23: 17
      Is not a fact. The chassis of 64-ki is at least much more perfect than 55-ki, but moody.
  19. bright
    +1
    April 27 2015 18: 17
    According to T-14, what will happen without a radar proof?
    Sergey Maev - he has not been engaged in defense orders for 6 years now.
    There is no serial production yet, so I see no reason for disappointment.
  20. +1
    April 29 2015 02: 13
    On a vacant chassis from the T-55, place a tower from 34-ki (remove from pedestals), and use the chassis from 34-ki as tractors for towers from T-64. Then it’s already nonsense to become complete and complete.