Military Review

Draft heavy tank "Object 752"

68
Towards the end of the forties, Soviet tank builders faced an unpleasant problem. Further increase the level of protection and firepower of heavy tanks It was connected with the growth of the combat mass, which, in turn, imposed serious restrictions on various aspects of the operation of equipment. Exceeding the conditional threshold of 50 tons threatened with a sharp reduction in strategic and tactical mobility, as well as other troubles, at least hindering the operation of equipment. For this reason, all new heavy tanks were developed with such limitations in mind. The new approach resulted in several new projects: “Object 730” (future T-10), “Object 752” and “Object 777”.


The creation of a promising heavy tank that fits into existing limitations on combat weight began in June 1952 of the year on the initiative of the Ministry of Transport Engineering. The developer of a promising armored vehicle was appointed SKB-2 of the Chelyabinsk Kirov Plant. Initially, the work was led by M.F. Balzhi, but later he was replaced by PP Isakov. Requirements for the new project were logical and expected. It was necessary to increase the level of protection and firepower of weapons, but it was necessary to meet the established limits in size and weight.

Already by the end of 1952, Chelyabinsk engineers completed the creation of the first draft design draft. In the middle of 53, the project was ready for demonstration to industry leaders. It is noteworthy that by this time a single project was divided into two "branches". As part of its development, different ideas were proposed that could not be implemented during a common project. As a result, one development was divided into two. So there were projects with indexes "Object 752" and "Object 777". Consider the first of them in more detail.


Side view and cut of the 752 Object


When creating the 752 Object project, it was proposed to use various new ideas and developments with which it was possible to provide the required characteristics, but to keep the mass at the level of existing samples. From the point of view of weight, the heavy tank EC-3 with its 46,5 T was taken as a kind of standard. Such limitations led to the need to use different original ideas, with which the EC-3 could be surpassed by characteristics, but not by weight.

Analysis of different ideas showed that the most promising and convenient for use in practice is the proposal to use the original differential booking. Installation of armor parts of various shapes and thicknesses has long been used in tank building, but the staff of SKB-2 decided to rework this concept. Prospective tanks should have not just different parts with different thickness. In order to optimize performance, all major parts had to have a complex shape with variable thickness. Only in this way it was possible to ensure high characteristics of homogeneous armor without a significant increase in its weight.

When developing the 752 Object project, it was decided not to use other revolutionary new ideas besides the original differentiated booking. From the point of view of the layout and other main features, it was a typical Soviet post-war tank of a heavy class. In front of the hull, behind a powerful frontal armor barrier, there should have been a driver. Behind him housed the fighting compartment with a swivel tower. Fodder, as in other Soviet tanks, was given under the engine-transmission compartment.

It was proposed to assemble the hull of a promising tank from cast and rolled parts of various sizes and shapes. Through the use of casting, it was possible to manufacture a number of parts of complex shape and variable thickness. With the help of the correct combination of thickness and shape, first of all, the angles of inclination to the vertical, it was proposed to provide a sufficiently high level of protection. Thus, the frontal part of the body had a curved parabolic shape (in a section along the vertical plane) and a thickness from 90 to 215 mm. Relatively thin parts of the parts were located at large angles of inclination, which is why they hardly differed from the thicker ones in terms of protection.


Chassis reservation scheme


The middle part of the body had a V-shaped section with collapsed sides. The thickness of the upper side parts reached 125 mm, which in combination with large installation angles ensured a high level of protection. According to reports, a similar design of the sides allowed to withstand a hit of German-made 88-mm anti-tank guns. The lower parts of the sides were thinner - only 60 mm. The proposed design of the sides allowed not only to increase the level of protection, but also to maintain sufficiently large internal volumes available for crew accommodation, weapons, ammunition, etc.

The tank tower "Object 752" in its design resembled the aggregates of the previous domestic heavy tanks. Its basis was a molded part that performed the functions of the forehead and sides. It was joined by an additional upper section, which increased the volume of the fighting compartment. The thickness of the frontal part of the turret reached 260 mm, the sides and the stern - from 115 to 150 mm.

The power plant of the tank was proposed to be built on the basis of the B-12-6 diesel engine, already used on some heavy armored vehicles. This engine developed power up to 750 HP. and could provide sufficient mobility for a heavy tank. With an estimated combat mass of 45,3 t, the maximum speed on the highway was to reach 50 km / h. Cruising on the highway with additional tanks, according to calculations, was 250 km.

The main elements of the tracked undercarriage of the “752 Object” were road wheels with an individual torsion bar suspension, six on each side. The guide wheels were mounted in the front of the hull, the drive wheels - in the stern. There is information about the development of alternative chassis with other units. In this case, the tank had to be equipped with a hydraulic suspension.

Draft heavy tank "Object 752"
Cutting machine, rear view


The heavy tank "Object 752" could become the first domestic combat vehicle equipped with the latest M-62Т2 (GRAU 2А17 index) caliber 122 mm. This gun received a rifled barrel and hydropneumatic anti-recoil devices. Due to the relatively long barrel (about 46 calibers), a high initial velocity of the projectiles was achieved. Thus, the armor-piercing shells left the barrel at a speed of the order of 950 m / s, and the initial speed of the sub-caliber reached 1500 m / s.

The project offered several options for placing ammunition and a number of versions of mechanisms that facilitate the work of the loader. In the base project “Object 752” could carry 40 shots of separate loading, which were to be located in several layouts of the fighting compartment. Mechanisms were also envisaged for feeding ammunition to the line for discharging and loading the gun. At the same time, they were not a full-fledged automatic loader and only facilitated the work of the loader.

Another version of the mechanized ammunition with an automatic loader was also proposed. In this case, 28 shells of various types should have been placed in a special device around the perimeter of the fighting compartment. Automatics was supposed to deliver the selected ammunition to the gun, but feeding the liner remained the task of the loader. The load on the tank crew was reduced, but the ammunition was also decreasing.

The use of a powerful gun and some specific layout solutions led to the fact that the promising tank did not get a machine gun paired with a gun: there was no room left for it. However, the project envisaged the use of auxiliary weaponsIn which quality the anti-aircraft machine gun KPVT of caliber 14,5 mm was proposed. The turret for this weapon was located on the loader's hatch.


Option "752 Object" with swinging tower


Separate consideration deserves an alternative version of the swinging tower, also worked out in the framework of the project "Object 752". In order to determine the prospects and to work out the main features of the structure, a tower consisting of two parts was proposed. The lower unit was a rotating platform, and the upper one could swing relative to it and served for pointing the gun in a vertical plane. In addition to the guns, there were three tankers inside such a tower, including a loader, ammunition and ammunition delivery mechanisms. According to reports, in the version with a swinging turret, the tank was supposed to use automatic equipment for loading shells and manual feeding of shells.

When developing a swinging turret, it was decided to abandon the anti-aircraft machine gun on the roof, and the release of internal volumes allowed the use of a machine gun paired with a gun. The latter was proposed SG-43 rifle caliber.

The crew, regardless of the type of tower, was to consist of four people: driver, commander, gunner and loader. The driver was located in front of the hull, the rest of the crew - in the tower. Places gunner and commander were at the left side, charging - at the right. The driver had his own hatch, the rest of the tankers would have to use two hatches in the roof of the tower. The hatches were equipped with optical instruments to monitor the situation.

The original design of the hull and the tower, consisting mainly of cast parts of complex shape, allowed for a high level of protection with a relatively small mass. In addition, to reduce the weight of the machine, it was decided to use the most dense layout of the internal units. As a result, the length of the “752 Object” with the cannon forward was 9,745 m, with the cannon backward - 8,925 m. The width of the tracks was equal to 3,4 m, the height of the tower roof was only 2,3 m. In the version with the swinging tower, the height did not exceed 2,15 m. note that the clearance of the machine in this case was 510 mm. A promising heavy tank could become the most compact machine of its class of domestic development.


Automatic loading with manual feed sleeves


Due to the unusual hull design and size reduction, the combat mass of the promising tank was brought to 45,3 T. Thus, the 752 Object should not differ from other domestic heavy tanks, including later ones, in size and weight. At the same time, there were notable advantages in terms of protection, firepower and other characteristics.

In June, SKN-1953 of the Chelyabinsk Kirovsky Plant 2 sent documentation on the 752 Object and 777 Object projects to the Ministry of Transport and Heavy Engineering. At the end of July, the Technical Department of the Ministry ordered the reworking of the tank with the “777” index, changing its layout, and then building a mock-up on the scale of 1: 10. What was planned to do with the project "Object 752" is unknown. The last known references to him refer to June 53, when the documentation on the two projects went to the leadership of the industry.

For some time after sending the documents, Chelyabinsk engineers continued the development of the 777 Object project, and the development of the 752 Object was apparently stopped. This project remained on paper and was not even implemented in the form of a layout. Probably, in the course of comparing two new developments, “grown” from general requirements, the leaders of the tank industry decided to develop only one project, which was of the greatest interest. It turned out to be the “777 Object”, and the less successful “752 Object” was closed.

A promising project has not left the design stage, but still it is of great interest. In the course of the development of two new projects, SKB-2 ChKZ engineers applied a number of original ideas that were used in one form or another in new projects. Thus, even without reaching tests or mass production, the 752 Object was able to contribute to the development of domestic tanks to a certain extent.


Based on:
http://alternathistory.com/
http://warspot.ru/
http://krasfun.ru/
Pavlov M. Pavlov I. Domestic Armored Vehicles 1945-1965 // Technique and weapons, 2014. No.10
Author:
Photos used:
"Equipment and weapons", Warspot.ru
68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. D-Master
    D-Master 20 January 2016 06: 51 New
    12
    Cyril is another respect for an excellent article. The history of the creation of heavy Soviet tanks in the postwar period is generally extremely interesting from the point of view of engineering. At that time, when a real engineering school and the richest experience of the great Russian one appeared, huge production capacities, on the other hand, military service went away and it became possible to analyze and develop units and circuits. Then tank designs were born that would look decent in the 80's with some refinement and modernization. And the t-10 (IS-8) was in service until the 90's in the Trans-Baikal Military District. Of course, then he could no longer confront European tanks, but he could well fight the Chinese army of that level of development.
    1. Kars
      Kars 20 January 2016 11: 18 New
      +1
      So to the topic of tanks
      Gurk Khan (hlopotov) posted a link to a cool calendar with Armata
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 20 January 2016 19: 21 New
        +1
        What a thin hatch in the photo ... smile

        PS I feel that soon the phrase "thin hatches" will be perceived at the level of the epic megabyan "grandfather laid a chicken testicle".
        demolished ... and carefully looked at the moderator. smile
        1. crazyrom
          crazyrom 22 January 2016 05: 31 New
          0
          there is no one in the tower. There is no point in making a super reservation, from Hellfire and Javelin it will not save anyway, but will make the construction heavier. If the active defense fails and something hits the tower, well, no luck, the car with a dead cannon quietly drives to the repair base (I wanted to write it turns around and leaves, but at first, it’s dangerous to show the enemy to the rear the same 5-6 speeds, and since the control is electronic-computer, it will not be difficult for the mechanic to go home backward, substituting the enemy's forehead and not aft, at full speed)
    2. Amurets
      Amurets 20 January 2016 13: 59 New
      +2
      Quote: D-Master
      And the t-10 (IS-8) was in service until the 90s in the Trans-Baikal Military District.

      In the Amur Region, along the bank of the Amur, heavy IS-30 tanks were stationed to reinforce the old machine-gun pillboxes of the 2s; the IS-3 was exactly what I saw myself, but I heard from friends about the fact that they were standing on a nearby fortified site .
  2. viktor_ui
    viktor_ui 20 January 2016 08: 30 New
    -14
    I didn’t understand, but where is the “Variant” of Object 752 “with a swinging tower” in World of Tanks ??? Fucking EGAIS tired, I want him with a swinging tower.
    1. viktor_ui
      viktor_ui 20 January 2016 12: 47 New
      -6
      And sick of EGAIS ??? Or from the Option "Object 752 ??? Minusky, what do you say in response?
    2. oborzevatel
      oborzevatel 20 January 2016 13: 41 New
      13
      Quote: viktor_ui
      I didn’t understand, but where is the “Variant” of Object 752 “with a swinging tower” in World of Tanks ??? Fucking EGAIS tired, I want him with a swinging tower.

      How many fights do you have? hi
      1. viktor_ui
        viktor_ui 20 January 2016 18: 10 New
        +1
        more than 17 pieces ... in his spare time from work and other matters ... winked And who and for what puts cons, for EGAIS chol, And ???
  3. Free wind
    Free wind 20 January 2016 08: 45 New
    +3
    the engine is located along the tank, I wonder why? After all, the T-44 was already produced, where the engine is across, this scheme is better and more compact. the swinging tower is straight like in the French, the vertical angle is small, in a cannon with such a tower. But the V - shaped bottom of the case deserves respect
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 20 January 2016 09: 45 New
      +5
      The answer to your question is hidden in your post ...
  4. tchoni
    tchoni 20 January 2016 09: 37 New
    -8
    In all post-war projects, the focus on the domestic tank-building school on a tight layout is striking. As almost the main criterion for the quality of armored vehicles, minimization for the armored volume and height often appears ... I will not say that this is not right, but, it seems to me, there should be a sense of proportion in everything. In particular, why have they always tried to minimize the armored volume rather than the vertical booking surface? Why did the convenience of the crew sacrifice the same volumes?
    P.S. showers fell from apologists of the patrimonial Soviet school of tank building ..
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 20 January 2016 09: 47 New
      +8
      We were chasing not for volumes, but for mass, the smaller the mass of armor the less mass of the tank, but the armor is needed thick and the only way is to reduce the area.
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 20 January 2016 10: 19 New
        -3
        So the criterion has always been not the area, but the armored volume. This is what strikes ...
        1. pimen
          pimen 20 January 2016 10: 39 New
          +4
          well, and the reserved volume is very strong and related to the surface area, and we always tried very hard to lick the surface
          1. tchoni
            tchoni 20 January 2016 10: 49 New
            -1
            The volume of the disk and the ball may be equal ... And the area will vary significantly.
            1. pimen
              pimen 20 January 2016 11: 34 New
              +1
              Quote: tchoni
              The volume of the disk and the ball may be equal ... And the area will vary significantly.

              Well, firstly, ours never aspired to the ball, and secondly, such a pancake will also increase dimensions - only on the area, and thirdly, the crew’s accommodation conditions will again not improve, fourthly, possible weight wins can be leveled by an abundance of weapons attacking from above
              1. tchoni
                tchoni 20 January 2016 11: 55 New
                0
                So the disk is precisely the ideal of our tank builders, or rather, not the disk, but the spindle. As low as possible, as long as possible, and preferably narrow. Remember the t-10. A ball, on the contrary, has a maximum ratio of volume to surface area. Tanks of German (T-4) and American (Sherman and M60) designers are more likely to meet this ideology.
                1. pimen
                  pimen 20 January 2016 12: 02 New
                  0
                  I'm sorry, I'm braking, so what's better?
                  1. tchoni
                    tchoni 20 January 2016 12: 22 New
                    +4
                    And hell knows. In my opinion, we must look for a middle ground, trying to minimize the dimensions and mass of equipment, but not to the detriment of the crew’s work efficiency in particular and combat effectiveness in general ...
                    1. pimen
                      pimen 20 January 2016 12: 50 New
                      -3
                      so they are all trying, with some differences. Our tanks have always been balanced to the detriment of the convenience and survival of the crew. At the armature, we moved away from this vector and it is not yet clear how successfully. In my opinion, with such a length of the car, it was better to put the engine in the center and make 4 tracks, and move the tower back for greater compactness and ease of combat service
                      1. Alf
                        Alf 20 January 2016 23: 26 New
                        0
                        Quote: pimen
                        it was better to put the engine in the center

                        Engine in the middle, rear-wheel drive, transmission through the entire fighting compartment = extra half a meter of height.
                      2. tchoni
                        tchoni 21 January 2016 06: 05 New
                        0
                        So he talks about 4 goose dogs - it means two transmissions - one to the front two, the second to the rear. One immediately in front of the engine, the second immediately behind.
                        And further. Each solution has both pros and cons - so the rear engine and front transmission, although it increases the height of the car, but reduces the length. Which leads to increased maneuverability of the machine. The front arrangement of the drive wheels reduces the likelihood of the track falling off the guides when turning. The combination of the combat and transmission compartment has a very good effect on the dimensions of the first and the dimensions of the entire machine, and, consequently, on weight.
                  2. uwzek
                    uwzek 20 January 2016 18: 12 New
                    0
                    Quote: tchoni
                    And hell knows. In my opinion, it is necessary to look for a middle ground, trying to minimize the dimensions and mass of equipment, but not to the detriment of the crew’s work efficiency in particular and combat effectiveness in general ..

                    Atomic bomb in a motorcycle stroller Is your ideal?
                    1. tchoni
                      tchoni 21 January 2016 06: 06 New
                      0
                      Is your ideal a colossal?
              2. uwzek
                uwzek 20 January 2016 18: 10 New
                +3
                Quote: tchoni
                As low as possible, as long as possible, and preferably narrow.

                The width of the tank was always determined by the standards of railway platforms and truck trailers (this is preferably a narrow tank). And, having fixed the width of the tank, we immediately obtain the limiting values ​​of the length and height of the structure. Otherwise, body deformation under its own weight will affect the characteristics of the machine ...
                1. tchoni
                  tchoni 21 January 2016 06: 30 New
                  0
                  The width of the tank is often determined by the artillery system, or rather the epaulette under it is necessary. And the railway gauge - limits. But not always. There, the sons of Israel do not need to carry anything on the railway - and voila merkava is four meters wide ... And the hot Argentinian guys do not hold bridges for more than 35-40 tons, and, and bitte, the Hera Germans passed the order to remake the BMP in the tank.
      2. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 20 January 2016 10: 44 New
        +7
        So the reserved volume should not be less than the permissible one, otherwise the tank will not be able to fight, because the tank is a compromise of armor of mobility weapons, we were looking for a middle ground, but actually it remains, there is no extra space in our tanks, this is not an Israeli merkava with a “trunk”, it’s severe fighting machine where there is no superfluous, but only that which brings victory ... Just as the political officer wrote)
      3. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 20 January 2016 19: 12 New
        +1
        tchoni
        "almost the main criterion for the quality of armored vehicles is often minimization of the armored volume"
        "So the criterion was always not the area, but the armored volume."
        Give a Textbook, a guide, the circular on the basis of which you affirm it.
        If you do not, you are either an ignoramus or a provocateur.
        1. tchoni
          tchoni 21 January 2016 06: 10 New
          0
          Take on the Internet any book by Soviet authors on tank layout issues. Read articles comparing our and foreign tanks ... And if you don’t, you will understand everything ...
  5. Forest
    Forest 20 January 2016 11: 37 New
    +2
    Firstly, even in a small volume with the correct arrangement of instruments and assemblies, it is possible to achieve the comfort of the crew. Secondly, then the main anti-tank weapon were guns and other tanks, where the dimensions are critical for the accuracy of guidance. For example, the large and sedentary Royal tiger was struck by means of VET, which could knock it out, more often than small Pz IVs. Thirdly, ease of transportation - smaller dimensions mean less weight, the ability to drive or transport the tank to more places.
  6. tolancop
    tolancop 20 January 2016 12: 17 New
    +2
    The tight layout is a consequence of a decrease in the overall dimensions of the tanks. And weight and size characteristics are also not from the bulldozer: taking into account the possibility of transportation by railway transport, passing over bridges, etc.
    T.ch. it’s not a matter of fixation, but the logic and validity of the decisions made. The flip side of the tight layout - the tightness and work of the crew in uncomfortable conditions, was to some extent offset by the fact that smaller people were sent to tank troops (I remember the chairman addressed to me on the draft board: "... such ... is assigned to the tank troops. .. Hm ... dear, what a ... stupid person you have written down in tankers? .. ").
    In the museum in Kubinka, the difference between Soviet tanks and Americans is striking: American whoppers and relatively compact Soviet cars.
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 20 January 2016 12: 45 New
      0
      You see, I am familiar with the common truths of Soviet tank construction, but I do not always agree with them ...
      We have a very strange logic: a person (crew) is seen as an appendage to the car. Do you understand? You yourself say that you tried to compensate for the design flaws due to the Anthropometric characteristics of the crew ... But this is not correct. On this site they savored and blamed the Americans for the f35 catapults breaking the neck of the pilot ... But what turns out to be excusable to our tank is that it is not excusable to the American fighter?
      Thank God, at least they stopped referring to the well-known maximum that the tank lives in battle for three minutes.
      Indeed, if you think about it, the ultimate indicator of a tank is not security and not the caliber of a gun, but combat effectiveness. What is the use of a gun if you don’t see who to shoot at? What is the use of frontal armor if you missed a firing point on the flank due to a lack of visibility?
      Take at least our t34-76. Great tank, great armor, great gun ... But. For the commander is a gunner, who has no time to look around. And all .. The tank lives 3-4 attacks. The same t-4 indicator is 10-12. We can say that the facts are false, that tactics and application strategies are of great importance ... Everything can be. But it may not be
      1. mkpda
        mkpda 20 January 2016 13: 15 New
        0
        You (for some unknown reason) combine different Russian design schools into one, which is fundamentally wrong. Compare the T-28 and T-34, it is day and night, the machines are completely different in ergonomics. If the T-28 had a large margin for modernization, then the T-34 was tried to be replaced already at the development stage of the series ...
        1. tchoni
          tchoni 20 January 2016 14: 32 New
          0
          We are talking about a post-war school of tank building, which took shape and formed largely thanks to the T-34 and the experience of its modernization. And here is the t-28?
          1. mkpda
            mkpda 20 January 2016 18: 29 New
            0
            For the T-28 went KV and other heavy tanks with well-designed jobs. And only the famous 80 is made in the spirit of the T-64, but in a completely different way. And the ergonomics of the T-80 are better ...
            1. Forest
              Forest 20 January 2016 18: 58 New
              0
              The HF has nothing to do with the T-28 in design, and its ergonomics are even inferior to the T-34, although the reserved volume is higher.
              1. mkpda
                mkpda 21 January 2016 10: 32 New
                0
                KV retained the basic solutions of the T-28, only introduced simplifications. They abandoned the tower’s suspended policeman, which really greatly affected the usability of the “towers”, but the usability of the surveillance equipment was higher than on the T-34. The driver kept the plug-hatch with a viewing gap with triplex, which was much better than the perversion on the T-34.
            2. tchoni
              tchoni 21 January 2016 06: 37 New
              0
              Eight dozen is a very cramped car ... In this regard, worse than seventy-two
      2. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 20 January 2016 13: 28 New
        +1
        Comfort and ergonomics are different things, t-shki are quite ergonomic, although not comfortable. It’s just that the tank is a fighting vehicle and you can neglect the comfort in order to improve combat performance, it’s impossible to stay in our tank for a long time, but you have everything at hand during the battle, and you can get out of the T-90 hellishly tired, with a aching back, but the main thing this tank will give you the opportunity to get out of it, though tired, but whole.
        1. tchoni
          tchoni 20 January 2016 14: 29 New
          -2
          I have news for you! Comfort and ergonomics are the same thing. If the thing is comfortable - it is ergonomic. It is convenient to use. Ergonomics is a multifaceted concept. The tank should be comfortable and ergonomic not only in battle, but also on the march, and in service ...
      3. tolancop
        tolancop 20 January 2016 14: 19 New
        +3
        "... We have a very strange logic: a person (crew) is seen as an appendage to the car. Do you understand? .."
        And in my opinion, the logic is quite normal.
        What is the tank created for? To carry a gun that shoots. The main thing in the tank is the cannon.
        What is a bomber made for? To carry bombs. The main thing in the bomber is the bombs. And what is the task of the tank crew? ride comfortably and survive in battle? No. Its task is to transport the gun and ensure its firing. So who is the main one and who consists of whom: a cannon with a carriage or a crew with a cannon?
        Of course, when the crew created comfortable working conditions, one can only rejoice. But if there is a choice between improving the performance characteristics of the tank (aircraft, etc.) due to the comfort of the crew or improving comfort due to the performance characteristics, the choice will be obvious.
        1. tchoni
          tchoni 20 January 2016 17: 59 New
          0
          Try to remove the handle from the hammer and hammer it with a nail. Or wear shoes a size smaller and walk at least a day. They assure you that in the first case, you will think not about the nail, but about your fingers. And in the second, not about the goals and objectives of the day, but about his numb legs.
          So with the gun and crew. When the crew does not distract anything from the combat mission (whether it is an uncomfortable seat, fatigue after the march or severe cold or heat in the battle), then the crew acts clearly and coherently. If the crew is formed in such a way that none of its members is overloaded with functions - it’s also effective
      4. max702
        max702 20 January 2016 15: 05 New
        +1
        Quote: tchoni
        Take at least our t34-76. Great tank, great armor, great gun ... But. For a commander a gunner, whom there is no time to look around and nothing.

        Well, as for nothing, you got excited .. I once agree on the account .. Here is a link to a comparison of the monitoring and aiming devices of our tanks and German http://otvaga2004.ru/tanki/tanki-concept/suo-sovetskix-i-nemeckix-tankov/ I will tell you frankly not everything is so simple .. The myth about the wretchedness of the means of observation and aiming of our machines is debunked by it ..
        1. tchoni
          tchoni 20 January 2016 17: 52 New
          0
          You know, turning the commander’s observation device around the commander’s side is also hemorrhoids. Peripheral vision does not work ...
          Conduct an experiment: put a cardboard box on your head, cut a hole in it against your eyes five to fifteen centimeters and try to drive a car anywhere in a deserted place ... What will happen? .... And now, complicate the experiment. Take and ask your friends while you pass the test track, whatever you change on it .. And make an effort to remember who changed what. This, by the way. The issue of ergonomics.
          When does a poor 34ki commander keep an eye on the battlefield? He needs to shoot ... So they didn’t use the particular panorama. More and more gunner’s scope was used. And the VET on the flanks are not seen. And the German was sitting in the commander’s cupola with several triplexes and could look around the battlefield simply by turning his head. If this was not enough, he could also lean out a little from the hatch. He, except for the battlefield to inspect and distribute tsu especially had nothing to do.
          1. Alf
            Alf 20 January 2016 23: 34 New
            0
            Quote: tchoni
            When does a poor 34ki commander keep an eye on the battlefield? He needs to shoot ... So they didn’t use the particular panorama. More and more gunner’s scope was used. And the VET on the flanks are not seen. And the German was sitting in the commander’s cupola with several triplexes and could look around the battlefield simply by turning his head. If this was not enough, he could also lean out a little from the hatch. He, except for the battlefield to inspect and distribute tsu especially had nothing to do.

            T-34-85. The main task of the tank commander is to control the tank. Gunner shoots. The commander-commander’s turret with triplexes in different directions, the commander also peered out in battle.
            1. tchoni
              tchoni 21 January 2016 06: 38 New
              0
              Thank God they thought of it at the end of the war.
              1. Alf
                Alf 21 January 2016 20: 04 New
                0
                Quote: tchoni
                Thank God they thought of it at the end of the war.

                T-34-85. Adoption in December 1943. The end of the war?
                1. tchoni
                  tchoni 25 January 2016 17: 42 New
                  0
                  And in the army this device was only in the summer of 44 in commodity quantities
        2. mkpda
          mkpda 20 January 2016 18: 46 New
          0
          The article is good, but with errors. For example, the commander’s panorama on the T-34 (1940/1941 / partially 1942 - all tanks with one large hatch in the turret) was located almost above the gunner’s place, so it was inconvenient to use and the real viewing angles were artificially limited. The driver’s observation device was practically unsuitable for use, so the tanks moved even in battle with ajar hatches of driver mechanics. Compare with the T-28, the commander sits to the right of the gun (like on modern tanks) in a comfortable seat and has a panorama in front of him, he can stand for viewing in the opposite direction on the tower hanging shelf and is distracted only by the machine gun in the frontal sheet of the tower. The driver is sitting in a booth, in front of him is a hatch with a wide viewing gap covered by triplex, in battle a sufficient field of view was provided.
      5. Forest
        Forest 20 January 2016 18: 56 New
        +1
        The survivability of the German and our vehicles in terms of the number of battles the tank took was taken from a report at Headquarters in 1942. Stalin also noticed this and asked why it was so, were our tanks worse. The answer is that in 41-42 the Germans usually left the battlefield and they repaired the equipment using their great repair capabilities. Ours used the equipment that survived or was taken away from the battlefield before its capture. In addition, the striking ability of the shells of the beginning of the war was low, so that a damaged tank, if it did not burn out, had a great chance of a successful repair. By the end of the war, the defeat of the 75- and 88-mm shell guaranteed to destroy our tank, as well as the defeat of our 85- and the more monstrous 122-mm German vehicles. But due to the imprisonment of the Tigers and Panthers, to fight from the extreme distances, these tanks also lived more attacking 34-ok, tk. often the Germans managed to drag these tanks to the rear.
  7. Alf
    Alf 20 January 2016 23: 22 New
    0
    Quote: tchoni
    Why did the convenience of the crew sacrifice the same volumes?

    Because it’s more difficult to get into a tank with a height of 2,3 meters than a tank with a height of 2, 7 meters.
  • cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 20 January 2016 09: 43 New
    0
    An interesting car, but was the game worth the candle?
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 20 January 2016 09: 59 New
    +1
    An interesting article. Thanks to the author. The machine is interesting, but the MBT era has begun.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 20 January 2016 10: 13 New
      +1
      10 years before life was 53 years old, and the t-64 was put into service in general only in 68 years.
  • Bredovich705
    Bredovich705 20 January 2016 11: 16 New
    +1
    There are few references to this project, even among the most famous authors who write about military equipment. Thanks Cyril, I collect your articles!
  • Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 20 January 2016 15: 12 New
    +2
    Quote: pimen
    it was better to put the engine in the center and make 4 tracks, compactness and ease of combat service

    Yeah, the ease of maintenance of the inner pair of tracks would have led the tankers into a rave delight :))) I'm afraid that they lynched the designer as soon as possible :)
    1. pimen
      pimen 20 January 2016 15: 24 New
      0
      4 caterpillars are not a pair, like a truck, but instead of two long ones - two in length, on board
      1. Bormanxnumx
        Bormanxnumx 20 January 2016 15: 57 New
        +1
        And the meaning of this decision? Kinematics for driving two pairs of drive wheels and two pairs of track tensioners does not contribute to simplicity and ease of use.
        1. pimen
          pimen 20 January 2016 16: 30 New
          -2
          Well, how can I say ... Tightening a short track should be easier than a long one, when turning on such a "long" track, the resistance of the shifted soil in the center of the leading sprockets disappears, with a hypothetical damage (front?) of the track, the machine retains the ability to move
          1. Bormanxnumx
            Bormanxnumx 20 January 2016 16: 52 New
            0
            But at the same time, at least the internal volume occupied by the complicated transmission is growing. Probably the lack of combat vehicles with such a chassis arrangement proves that there are bottlenecks in this idea.
            1. pimen
              pimen 20 January 2016 17: 09 New
              0
              Well, what complication is there - a common drive to two adjacent outer stars - seeds. More importantly, servicing a modern engine with an "unskilled" user takes much less time and effort than, say, replenishing a tank’s ammunition. Compare, open the aft swing wings, like the BMP-1 and charge the carousel, or do it, I can’t even imagine how, through the upper hatches of the tower
      2. Alf
        Alf 20 January 2016 23: 36 New
        +1
        Quote: pimen
        4 caterpillars are not a pair, like a truck, but instead of two long ones - two in length, on board

        Double transmission. Lavrenty Palych would send his eagles already on the day the project was defended.
  • Bormanxnumx
    Bormanxnumx 20 January 2016 20: 23 New
    +1
    Quote: pimen
    Compare, open the aft swing wings, like the BMP-1 and charge the carousel, or do it, I can’t even imagine how, through the upper hatches of the tower

    It seems to me that you are slightly exaggerating the difficulty of delivering ammunition to a tank of 40-50 years, the practice of delivering ammunition through a tower hatch was common. The Germans completely coped with the supply of unitaries
    in tanks T-V and T-VI, while the unitars had a length of 875-931 mm and a weight of 10,5-16 kg. For the D-25TA tank gun with separate loading: a 14-16kg sleeve with a length of 785mm and 7,4-27kg shells with a length of 480-565mm.
    1. Alf
      Alf 20 January 2016 23: 38 New
      0
      Quote: BORMAN82
      Quote: pimen
      Compare, open the aft swing wings, like the BMP-1 and charge the carousel, or do it, I can’t even imagine how, through the upper hatches of the tower

      Take a look at tank biathlon. Nothing prevents the crew from loading BZ through tower hatches.
      1. Cat man null
        Cat man null 20 January 2016 23: 51 New
        0
        Quote: Alf
        Look tank biathlon

        Itself loaded repeatedly in the T-64b. Nothing much military, standard - 13 minutes "excellent", EMNIP.

        Such a routine operation as installing / removing the battery is much less “pleasant”. Although the battery in the tank is much smaller than the shells in the Ministry of Health laughing
        1. Alf
          Alf 21 January 2016 00: 11 New
          0
          So I am about the same.
          1. pimen
            pimen 21 January 2016 08: 30 New
            0
            we are talking about the fact that if shells are loaded into the armature through the upper hatches, then, in the armature, "extra" armored volumes are created, both in the tower and in the hull. Could, by the way, it would be better to point out the increased (especially vertical) displacements of the turret located behind, which should impair the accuracy of firing on the move and the lower the inclinations of the gun forward. As for the two transmissions - in my opinion, you imagine something terrible. The box is the same, only the “on-board gear” spins not one “gear” of the drive wheel, but two at once, located side by side. (it turns out three in one block. That's all. The unlocking mechanism of any of the four is more complicated)