History of Soviet Tanks.

[Damian90]

@dejawolfindeed, there are some other videos but in Russian, tough it's funny how Russians confused welded steel blocks on MBT-70 prototypes as ERA, or Leopard 2 heavy ballistic skirts also as ERA.  It shows how little they know and understand about western military technology, and it's not only TV, that mistake about ERA is actuall mistake done by NII Stali engineers.

 

Here are videos.
 

That one is interesting, it have interview with Rototayev, chief engineer of NII Stali at that time.
 

And here they show one of these ERA models for lightweight vehicles in... rather curious test, consider it mainly as typical propaganda reated around slogan наше лутше и нет аналога в мире.

 

 

[Damian90]

As for Soviet tanks, I strongly recommend this articles as lecture (translation needed!).

 

http://btvt.narod.ru/morozov/soderzanie.htm

http://btvt.narod.ru/morozov2/soderzanie.htm

 

Here are aviable memoirs of Alexander A. Morozov, chief engineer of KB-60M/KMDB, creator of T-34/76 improvements, T-43, T-34/85, T-44, T-54, T-64 and many other designs. Very fascinating lecture.

 

http://btvt.narod.ru/3/450_480.htm

http://btvt.narod.ru/bokser/bokser_1.htm

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t-80u.htm

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t-80ud/t-80ud.htm

 

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/history/_45_2006.htm

 

This one is very interesting as it's describing political fight between design bureaus.

 

Especially this quote.

 

Quote

Интрига Костенко по расколу отечественного танкостроения
Ю.П. Костенко - один из влиятельных кремлёвских чиновников, курировавших танковую промышленность в качестве заместителя начальника профильного отдела комиссии президиума совета министров СССР по военно-промышленным вопросам.
Читателям он может быть известен как автор ряда книг “Танки (тактика, техника, экономика)”, в 1996 г. “Танки (воспоминания и размышления)”, в 1997 г. “Танки (воспоминания и размышления), часть II”, в 2000 г. “Некоторые вопросы развития отечественной бронетехники в 1967-1987 годах (воспоминания и размышления)” и в 2001 г. “Танк (человек, среда, машина)”.
Книги Ю.П. содержат много любопытного и малоизвестного фактического материала о танковой промышленности опубликованного впервые.  Написаны интересно и для своего времени являлись уникальным материалом. Произвели большое впечатление на многих интересующихся вопросом танкостроения в СССР. Недавно книги были переизданы в рамках серии «Боевые машины УВЗ». Стоит напомнить, что вся серия книг «Боевые машины УВЗ» посвященная танкам Т-34, Т-54, Т-72  и Т-90 полна фальсификаций исторических событий и технических данных.
Но нас этот человек интересует в другом аспекте, описанном в двух недавно вышедших книгах «Николай Кучеренко. 50 лет битвы за танки СССР» Л. Васильевой (Кучеренко), И. Желтова и «Моторы и судьбы. О времени и о себе» главного конструктора двигателей 5ТДФ и 6ТД Н.К. Рязанцева.
Кто же такой Костенко и какое о нем мнение? 
12 мая 1970 г. Постановление ЦК КПСС и СМ СССР «О мерах по созданию мощностей для выпуска танков Т-64А». В тексте постановления речь, на первый взгляд, идёт лишь об отработке танка Т-64А с двигателем В-45 вместо двигателя 5ТДФ. На самом же деле под указанным в постановлении в скобках «Объектом 172» в завуалированной форме предполагается создание видоизменённой конструкции танка Т-64А с двигателем В-45 и новым бескабинным автоматом заряжания. К моменту выхода этого постановления уже шли испытания танка «Объект 172М» — это «Объект 172» с элементами ходовой части от опытного танка «Объект 167". О целесообразности создания этой модификации танка Т-64А см. заключение по испытаниям опытного образца танка «Объект 172M» от 18 октября 1969 г.».
Этот неожиданный документ нарушал логику технического развития процесса танкового производства и логику работы многих заводов с их КБ и цехами, а также логику нескольких серьезнейших министерств.
Костенко, зачинщик и технический исполнитель интриги, в то время зам. начальника отдела ВПК в СМ СССР, в своей книжке «Танки», саморазоблачаясь, цинично подробен.
Накануне, с интервалом в 1-2 дня, ушли в отпуск Устинов (Секретарь ЦК КПСС), Зверев (Министр оборонной промышленности). Дмитриев (Зам. заведующего отделом оборонной промышленности ЦК КПСС), Кузьмин (начальник отдела вооружения сухопутных войск ВПК) и Ильинский (старший референтуры УД СМ). Отсутствие первых лиц имело в ситуации с проектом постановления особое значение.
Таким образом, было проведено постановление, которое противоречило генеральной линии в танкостроении, определённой постановлением ЦК и СМ от 15 августа 1967 года и жёстко проводимой Устиновым - ориентация на единый танк Т-64.
Правда, в это время вероотступник мог не опасаться за свою свободу и жизнь (как это было во времена Сталина), но Дмитрий Фёдорович такого не прощал. Был слу­чай, когда один строптивей, осмелившийся возражать Дмитрию Фёдоровичу, по указанию Устинова был лишён (по линии КГБ) допуска к секретной работе, после чего бедняга сам вынужден был уйти из системы ВПК. И, тем не менее, сторонники «Объекта 172» появились и в Минобороны, и в Миноборонпроме, и в Госплане (в ВПК и ЦК - тоже). Их было не­много, в каждой «конторе» их можно было пересчитать по пальцам на одной руке. Но эти люди на первое место ставили интересы дела, а интересы личной служебной карьеры.
Разделение в танковой политике, которое подтолкнули интрига­ны, произошло задолго до раздела СССР. Сегодня потомки «Объекта 172» - танка Т-72 - жи­вут на Уралвагонзаводе, а потомки «Объекта 432» — танка Т-64 - живут в Харькове. Россия и Украина тремя движениями шариковых ручек превращены в разные «независимые» госу­дарства. Россия продаёт плоды развития Т-72 в Индию. Украина — плоды развития Т-64 в Пакистан. По иронии судьбы эти страны тоже были разрублены надвое взмахами шарико­вых ручек.
После войны в высших эшелонах власти нередко стали появляться люди, явно запрограммированные сеять рознь между КБ, среди директоров и главных инженеров разных заводов, выпускавших аналогичную продукцию. Насекомоподобные «сеятели», типа Ко­стенко, исподволь ссорили людей, наговорами и сплетнями поворачивали малые и немалые рули, получая наслаждение от того, что крохотный винтик способен изменить серьёзный процесс.
Интриган - древнейшая профессия, далеко не последняя по значимости влияния на жизнь государства.
Интрига Костенко по расколу отечественного танкостроения подробно описана в книге «Николай Кучеренко. 50 лет в битве за танки  СССР».
В своей книге «Моторы и судьбы» создатель двигателя 6ТД Н.К. Рязанцев пишет по поводу интриг Костенко: «От такого признания я содрогаюсь. Выходит, что любой чиновник мог обвести вокруг пальца секретаря ЦК КПСС и министра?»

 

http://btvt.narod.ru/3/bmpt_future/bmpt_future.htm

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t84vst90skr2.htm

http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/semlanskiy1/seml1.htm

http://btvt.narod.ru/istoria_t64/istoria_t64.htm

http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t-64_t-72.htm

 

Cheers!

Edited September 29, 2016 by Damian90

[Maj.Hans]

On 9/29/2016 at 11:10 AM, Damian90 said:

Интрига Костенко по расколу отечественного танкостроения
Ю.П. Костенко - один из влиятельных кремлёвских чиновников, курировавших танковую промышленность в качестве заместителя начальника профильного отдела комиссии президиума совета министров СССР по военно-промышленным вопросам.
Читателям он может быть известен как автор ряда книг “Танки (тактика, техника, экономика)”, в 1996 г. “Танки (воспоминания и размышления)”, в 1997 г. “Танки (воспоминания и размышления), часть II”, в 2000 г. “Некоторые вопросы развития отечественной бронетехники в 1967-1987 годах (воспоминания и размышления)” и в 2001 г. “Танк (человек, среда, машина)”.
Книги Ю.П. содержат много любопытного и малоизвестного фактического материала о танковой промышленности опубликованного впервые.  Написаны интересно и для своего времени являлись уникальным материалом. Произвели большое впечатление на многих интересующихся вопросом танкостроения в СССР. Недавно книги были переизданы в рамках серии «Боевые машины УВЗ». Стоит напомнить, что вся серия книг «Боевые машины УВЗ» посвященная танкам Т-34, Т-54, Т-72  и Т-90 полна фальсификаций исторических событий и технических данных.
Но нас этот человек интересует в другом аспекте, описанном в двух недавно вышедших книгах «Николай Кучеренко. 50 лет битвы за танки СССР» Л. Васильевой (Кучеренко), И. Желтова и «Моторы и судьбы. О времени и о себе» главного конструктора двигателей 5ТДФ и 6ТД Н.К. Рязанцева.
Кто же такой Костенко и какое о нем мнение? 
12 мая 1970 г. Постановление ЦК КПСС и СМ СССР «О мерах по созданию мощностей для выпуска танков Т-64А». В тексте постановления речь, на первый взгляд, идёт лишь об отработке танка Т-64А с двигателем В-45 вместо двигателя 5ТДФ. На самом же деле под указанным в постановлении в скобках «Объектом 172» в завуалированной форме предполагается создание видоизменённой конструкции танка Т-64А с двигателем В-45 и новым бескабинным автоматом заряжания. К моменту выхода этого постановления уже шли испытания танка «Объект 172М» — это «Объект 172» с элементами ходовой части от опытного танка «Объект 167". О целесообразности создания этой модификации танка Т-64А см. заключение по испытаниям опытного образца танка «Объект 172M» от 18 октября 1969 г.».
Этот неожиданный документ нарушал логику технического развития процесса танкового производства и логику работы многих заводов с их КБ и цехами, а также логику нескольких серьезнейших министерств.
Костенко, зачинщик и технический исполнитель интриги, в то время зам. начальника отдела ВПК в СМ СССР, в своей книжке «Танки», саморазоблачаясь, цинично подробен.
Накануне, с интервалом в 1-2 дня, ушли в отпуск Устинов (Секретарь ЦК КПСС), Зверев (Министр оборонной промышленности). Дмитриев (Зам. заведующего отделом оборонной промышленности ЦК КПСС), Кузьмин (начальник отдела вооружения сухопутных войск ВПК) и Ильинский (старший референтуры УД СМ). Отсутствие первых лиц имело в ситуации с проектом постановления особое значение.
Таким образом, было проведено постановление, которое противоречило генеральной линии в танкостроении, определённой постановлением ЦК и СМ от 15 августа 1967 года и жёстко проводимой Устиновым - ориентация на единый танк Т-64.
Правда, в это время вероотступник мог не опасаться за свою свободу и жизнь (как это было во времена Сталина), но Дмитрий Фёдорович такого не прощал. Был слу­чай, когда один строптивей, осмелившийся возражать Дмитрию Фёдоровичу, по указанию Устинова был лишён (по линии КГБ) допуска к секретной работе, после чего бедняга сам вынужден был уйти из системы ВПК. И, тем не менее, сторонники «Объекта 172» появились и в Минобороны, и в Миноборонпроме, и в Госплане (в ВПК и ЦК - тоже). Их было не­много, в каждой «конторе» их можно было пересчитать по пальцам на одной руке. Но эти люди на первое место ставили интересы дела, а интересы личной служебной карьеры.
Разделение в танковой политике, которое подтолкнули интрига­ны, произошло задолго до раздела СССР. Сегодня потомки «Объекта 172» - танка Т-72 - жи­вут на Уралвагонзаводе, а потомки «Объекта 432» — танка Т-64 - живут в Харькове. Россия и Украина тремя движениями шариковых ручек превращены в разные «независимые» госу­дарства. Россия продаёт плоды развития Т-72 в Индию. Украина — плоды развития Т-64 в Пакистан. По иронии судьбы эти страны тоже были разрублены надвое взмахами шарико­вых ручек.
После войны в высших эшелонах власти нередко стали появляться люди, явно запрограммированные сеять рознь между КБ, среди директоров и главных инженеров разных заводов, выпускавших аналогичную продукцию. Насекомоподобные «сеятели», типа Ко­стенко, исподволь ссорили людей, наговорами и сплетнями поворачивали малые и немалые рули, получая наслаждение от того, что крохотный винтик способен изменить серьёзный процесс.
Интриган - древнейшая профессия, далеко не последняя по значимости влияния на жизнь государства.
Интрига Костенко по расколу отечественного танкостроения подробно описана в книге «Николай Кучеренко. 50 лет в битве за танки  СССР».
В своей книге «Моторы и судьбы» создатель двигателя 6ТД Н.К. Рязанцев пишет по поводу интриг Костенко: «От такого признания я содрогаюсь. Выходит, что любой чиновник мог обвести вокруг пальца секретаря ЦК КПСС и министра?»

 

 

[Lt DeFault]

Translation (as well as Google can do):

 

Quote

Kostenko intrigue to split the domestic tank building
YP Kostenko - one of the most influential Kremlin officials who oversaw the tank industry as the deputy chief of department of the profile of the USSR Council of Ministers of the Presidium of the Commission on Military-industrial issues.
Readers, it can be known as the author of several books "Tanks (tactics, technique, economy)," in 1996. "Tanks (memory and thinking)," 1997 "Tanks (memory and thinking), part II of" in 2000. "Some issues of domestic armored vehicles in the years 1967-1987 (memories and reflections)" and in 2001 "Tank (people, the environment, the machine)."
Books JP It contains many interesting and little-known factual material on the tank industry published for the first time. Wrote an interesting and is a unique material for its time. We made a great impression on many people interested in the question of tank development in the Soviet Union. books have been reprinted in a series of "Combat vehicles Uralvagonzavod" recently. It is worth mentioning that the whole series of books, "War Machines Uralvagonzavod" dedicated to the T-34, T-54, T-72 and T-90 full of falsification of historical events, and technical data.
But we are the people interested in another aspect, described in two recent books, "Nikolai Kucherenko. 50 years of the Battle of tanks of the USSR "L. Vasilyeva (Kucherenko), I. Zheltov and" Motors and destiny. About time and about himself "chief designer 5TDF engines and 6TD NK Ryazantsev.
Who was Kostenko and some opinion about it?
May 12, 1970 Resolution of the CC CPSU and the USSR "On measures for creation of capacities for the production of T-64 tanks." The text of the resolution we are, at first glance, but is a question of working out the T-64A engine with V-45 engine instead 5TDF. In fact, under the judgment given in brackets in the "Object 172" in a veiled form is supposed to create a modified design of the tank T-64A with an engine B-45 and the new beskabinnym autoloader. By the time this decision were already testing the tank "Object 172M." - This is the "Object 172" with elements of the chassis from an experienced tank "Object 167" On the feasibility of establishing this tank modified T-64A, see the conclusion of the testing of the prototype tank "object. 172m "from October 18, 1969."
This unexpected document violates the logic of technological development process tank production and the logic of many factories with their design offices and workshops, as well as the logic of several major ministries.
Kostenko, the instigator and the technical performer intrigue, while the deputy. MIC chief of department in the USSR, in his book "Tanks" samorazoblachayas cynically detailed.
The day before, at intervals of 1-2 days, went on vacation Ustinov (Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee), Zverev (Minister of Defense Industry). Dmitriev (Zam. Head of the Defense Industry Department of the Central Committee of the CPSU), Kuzmin (Head of Land Forces weapons MIC) and Ilyinsky (Senior referantur CA SM). The absence of the first persons had in the situation with the project decisions of special importance.
Thus, the resolution was carried, which was contrary to the general line in tank, a specific decision of the Central Committee and the CM dated August 15, 1967, and carried out strictly Ustinov - focus on a single tank T-64.
However, at this time apostate could not fear for their freedom and life (as it was in the times of Stalin), but Dmitry Fedorovich not forgive this. There was a case when one of the Shrew, dared to object Dmitry Fedorovich, for Ustinov's instruction was deprived (KGB line) access to secret work, and then the poor man he was forced to withdraw from the MIC system. And yet, advocates of "Object 172" appeared in the Ministry of Defense and Defense Ministry, and the State Planning Commission (in the MIC and the Central Committee - too). They were few in each "office" they can be counted on the fingers of one hand. But these people in the first place put the interests of business and personal interests of the service career.
The separation tank in politics, which pushed the mischief occurred long before the partition of the USSR. Today the descendants of "Object 172" - T-72 - live at Uralvagonzavod, and the descendants of "Object 432" - T-64 - live in Kharkov. Russia and Ukraine are the three movements of ballpoint pens made into various "independent" state. Russia sells the fruit of the T-72 in India. Ukraine - the fruits of the T-64 to Pakistan. Ironically, these countries were also chipped in two strokes of pens.
After the war, in the higher echelons of power are often the people began to appear, explicitly programmed to sow discord between the Bureau, among directors and chief engineers of various plants producing similar products. Insect "sowers" type Kostenko, gradually people quarrel, slanders and gossip turned small and a lot of controls, getting pleasure from the fact that a tiny cog can change a serious process.
Schemer - the oldest profession, not the least most important influence on the life of the state.
Kostenko intrigue to split the domestic tank building is described in detail in the book "Nikolai Kucherenko. 50 years in the battle for the Soviet tanks. "
In his book "Engines and fate" of the engine maker 6TD NK Ryazantsev writes about the intrigues Kostenko: "From this recognition, I shudder. It turns out that any official could cheat Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and the Minister?

 

[Damian90]

@Maj.Hans I assumed everyone will just use google translator, while providing also the original text.

In any way it's a good source of information confirming what I wrote previously about the development of T-72, that it was done contrary to orders given by Marshal Ustinov and in general by the Soviet MoD, to focus simply on T-64. It also shows the levels of corruption in the Soviet Union, and how much political influance UVZ/UKBTM achieved.

[Maj.Hans]

46 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

@Maj.Hans I assumed everyone will just use google translator, while providing also the original text.

In any way it's a good source of information confirming what I wrote previously about the development of T-72, that it was done contrary to orders given by Marshal Ustinov and in general by the Soviet MoD, to focus simply on T-64. It also shows the levels of corruption in the Soviet Union, and how much political influance UVZ/UKBTM achieved.

 

I know, I did googletranslate it, but so much Cyrilic "wall of text" makes my head spin lol.

[Damian90]

Just now, Maj.Hans said:

 

I know, I did googletranslate it, but so much Cyrilic "wall of text" makes my head spin lol.

 

Haha, don't worry, cyrillic is not that difficult when you get the basics.  I learned it on myself in few months, I might not be able to speak in russian, but reading is understanding more or less what they speak is rather easy.

 

And being Polish does not help me here, slavic languages are very different especially between western slavs like Poles and eastern slavs like Russians, Polish is actually very different than Russian, I think closest relative language would be Czech.

 

But I digress.

 

Returning to subject, I find it actually interesting what would be the possibility of exporting a simplified, perhaps export version of T-64, if T-72 would never be created. It's especially interesting considering 5TDF engine being more compact, with simpler connection to planetary gearboxes, and a possibility for faster engine replacement in the field compared to older technology with V-45 or V-46 engines, where replacement takes around 2 days.

[Maj.Hans]

57 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

 

Haha, don't worry, cyrillic is not that difficult when you get the basics.  I learned it on myself in few months, I might not be able to speak in russian, but reading is understanding more or less what they speak is rather easy.

 

And being Polish does not help me here, slavic languages are very different especially between western slavs like Poles and eastern slavs like Russians, Polish is actually very different than Russian, I think closest relative language would be Czech.

 

But I digress.

 

Returning to subject, I find it actually interesting what would be the possibility of exporting a simplified, perhaps export version of T-64, if T-72 would never be created. It's especially interesting considering 5TDF engine being more compact, with simpler connection to planetary gearboxes, and a possibility for faster engine replacement in the field compared to older technology with V-45 or V-46 engines, where replacement takes around 2 days.

 

If we're going to turn this into a big slav-fest, I'm going to need some Pierogies and Borscht first!

 

An export version of the T-64 (or even T-80) would be an interesting vehicle, if only because of how closely it seems to have been held within the Soviet Union.  Of particular interest to me personally is a "what if" scenario involving the T-64 or T-80 as the primary Iraqi MBT instead of the T-72.  It's something I gamed out in Steel Beasts back before ProPE came out.  Of course back then the T-80 had thermals and it was a very different result than I think you'd get in Pro PE.

 

Your write up on the T-64 upgrades in Ukraine was particularly interesting.  It seems like at least from the western perspective the T-64 became a forgotten tank of the Cold War.  Never exported, replaced by T-72 and T-80 in Soviet/Russian use, and then later left to rust while the huge family of T-72 vehicles got the bulk of of the upgrades following the end of the cold war...

 

But from the Ukrainian perspective, I guess it stayed much more important?

[Damian90]

Quote

An export version of the T-64 (or even T-80) would be an interesting vehicle, if only because of how closely it seems to have been held within the Soviet Union.  Of particular interest to me personally is a "what if" scenario involving the T-64 or T-80 as the primary Iraqi MBT instead of the T-72.  It's something I gamed out in Steel Beasts back before ProPE came out.  Of course back then the T-80 had thermals and it was a very different result than I think you'd get in Pro PE.

 

IMHO if Soviet Union would start exporting T-64's, these would be T-64A's and later T-64B1's without 9K112 Kobra guidance system and 9M112 missiles. Might be possible that they would also export them with Kontakt-1 ERA at some point.

 

As for T-80's, they never received thermal sights on large scale. T-80U's and T-80UD's initially would receive Agava thermal sight, but it was not very successfull, both in Agava-1 and Agava-2 variants. In fact, initially T-90's were also evaluated with TO1-PO2T Agava-2 but it was not accepted in to service and initially T-90's used passive/active TO1-KO1 TPN-4 Buran-PA system.

 

Only in somewhere around 2000's, some T-80U's in Russians service, received new PLISA thermal sight based on french Catherine thermal camera. Similiar sight called ESSA was used in T-90A's.

 

As for export T-80, there are rumors that in late 70's or early 80's Polish Army was evaluating a "T-80" tanks, it's not certain what variants, but it was considered as too complex and expensive for Polish industry, and state itself.

 

Also T-72S (export variant of T-72B/B1) was evaluated but Soviet Union and WarPact collapsed before license could be obtained.

 

Quote

Your write up on the T-64 upgrades in Ukraine was particularly interesting.  It seems like at least from the western perspective the T-64 became a forgotten tank of the Cold War.  Never exported, replaced by T-72 and T-80 in Soviet/Russian use, and then later left to rust while the huge family of T-72 vehicles got the bulk of of the upgrades following the end of the cold war...

 

Well KMDB in the late 70's early 80's planned to further develop T-64 in form of Object 476, in general it had a new armor for turret and hull, turret design was also new, as well as new components like FCS was evaluated.

 

In general Object 476 was ancestor of T-80U and T-80UD, actually Object 476 turret was reused in T-80U/UD, and some other components as well. You can consider that KMDB development of Object 476, initiated later cooperation between KMDB and LKZ in development of T-80U/UD.

 

 

 

Quote

But from the Ukrainian perspective, I guess it stayed much more important?

 

It's still their primary Main Battle Tank model. T-72A and T-72B tanks in Ukraine are minority and most were sold for other customers.

 

While there are still huge numbers of T-64 avaiable in storage in various variants, and it's cheaper for Ukrainians to refurbish and modernize them, compared to manufacturing T-84 series like newest T-84BM Oplot.

 

However recently Ukrainians started refurbishing T-84's of the initial production run from late 90's that they had in storage, these vehicles will be then moved back in to service, I also seen photos of T-80UD's take out of storage, and even some rare T-64BM2's.

 

 

There is around 10 T-84's being refurbished.

 

T-64BM2 with Kontakt-5 ERA instead of Knife ERA.

 

BREM Atlet ARV based on T-84 series.

 

A new modification for T-80UD, it's uncertain what exactly is that box welded to hull rear.

 

 

One of the newly builded T-84BM Oplot, some says that Ukrainians might actually start purchasing small batches for their own armed forces.

 

 

T-80B refurbished and upgraded to T-80BV standard by no.115 BTRZ repair facility.

[Maj.Hans]

42 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

However recently Ukrainians started refurbishing T-84's of the initial production run from late 90's that they had in storage, these vehicles will be then moved back in to service, I also seen photos of T-80UD's take out of storage, and even some rare T-64BM2's

 

Well, given their current situation...You know...Being, uhm, not invaded by Russia?  It seems only logical to get everything they can ready.

47 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

T-80B refurbished and upgraded to T-80BV standard by no.115 BTRZ repair facility.

With the availability of Kontakt-5 and similar armors, why would they decide to only apply Kontakt-1?

 

 

Back on the subject of exports, I understand that 3BM-15 was the most modern ammunition exported to WP countries like Poland, Germany, etc.  What was the Soviet logic between providing such a limited round to their allies?  How were they supposed to be effective shooting at an M1A1/HA or Leopard2A4 with only BM-15?

[Damian90]

Quote

Well, given their current situation...You know...Being, uhm, not invaded by Russia?  It seems only logical to get everything they can ready.

 

True, also remember they lost some substantial numbers of T-64BV's and T-64BM Bulat's.

 

Quote

With the availability of Kontakt-5 and similar armors, why would they decide to only apply Kontakt-1?

 

Kontakt-1 modules are cheaper and easier to manufacture, however it's uncertain if they contain old 4S20 reactive elements, Ukrainians claimed, and actually done that, they replaced 4S20 elements with Knife ERA reactive elements.

 

Such combination is less effective than Knife i it's dedicated modules, but more effective than pure Kontakt-1.

 

Quote

Back on the subject of exports, I understand that 3BM-15 was the most modern ammunition exported to WP countries like Poland, Germany, etc.  What was the Soviet logic between providing such a limited round to their allies?  How were they supposed to be effective shooting at an M1A1/HA or Leopard2A4 with only BM-15?

 

Yes, officialy 3BM15 was the most modern round exported, however at some point Poland obtained also 3BM22, dunno about other member states.

 

What was the rationale? Probably combination of various reasons, mutual distrust (in reality Soviets were no popular among WarPact members nations, and that's a very delicate way to describe people feelings and opinions about this subject), lack of money for better munitions, you must understand that economies of WarPact members were in tragic condition, there was no toilet paper avaiable in enough quantities for civilians, so in many cases even military upgrade programs were neglected, for example Poland was able to purchase only 62-64 BMP-2's before Soviet Union and WarPact collapse, and we never purchased license either for BMP-1 or BMP-2.

 

Of course you also need to consider one more thing, in Soviet/WarPact doctrine, tanks carried very little APFSDS ammo, majority was HE and HEAT. And there was a good reason, before M1, Leopard 2 and Challenger 1 were fielded, NATO tanks used simple homogeneus steel armor or simple spaced steel armor, so HEAT was good enough, and in general provided greater penetration than APFSDS ammo of that era. Soviets more seriously started development of more modern APFSDS ammo, somewhere around mid 80's.

 

And how we were supposed to fight efficently with such threats? Haha, I seen even what some armor officers were saying about... their probability of survivability against for example Leopard 2's, of course official propaganda was "yeah, we have the best soviet technology avaiable", in the military however competent officers had very grim thoughts about this subject, in general conclusion was "we gonna get slaughtered both in offensive and defensive action".

Edited October 1, 2016 by Damian90

[Maj.Hans]

14 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

(in reality Soviets were no popular among WarPact members nations, and that's a very delicate way to describe people feelings and opinions about this subject)

I recall reading somewhere that there was some kind of conspiracy among the East Germans to start "the war" by promptly turning all of their tanks around 180 degrees to face east, and then taking on the Soviets instead of fighting NATO.

 

The problem is I don't remember if that came from former East German sources who would have been in a position to know or if it was just the grumblings of some people in the west.

 

18 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

Of course you also need to consider one more thing, in Soviet/WarPact doctrine, tanks carried very little APFSDS ammo, majority was HE and HEAT. And there was a good reason, before M1, Leopard 2 and Challenger 1 were fielded, NATO tanks used simple homogeneus steel armor or simple spaced steel armor, so HEAT was good enough, and in general provided greater penetration than APFSDS ammo of that era. Soviets more seriously started development of more modern APFSDS ammo, somewhere around mid 80's.

 

This is an interesting subject you touch on, not just from the Soviet perspective.

 

If I understand correctly, in Steel Beasts the doctrine simulated has always been (and still is) that KE/Sabot is the primary anti-armor round and HEAT is used against lighter targets.  However, historically speaking I understand that for some vehicles HEAT was to be the primary anti-armor round, with KE/Sabot filling some kind of strange secondary role.

 

When did this change among WP countries?  Were there ever exports of more modern HEAT rounds at least?

[Damian90]

Quote

I recall reading somewhere that there was some kind of conspiracy among the East Germans to start "the war" by promptly turning all of their tanks around 180 degrees to face east, and then taking on the Soviets instead of fighting NATO.
 
The problem is I don't remember if that came from former East German sources who would have been in a position to know or if it was just the grumblings of some people in the west.

 

East Germany was probably the most pro Soviet WarPact member actually... sometimes they were more Soviet than Soviets, as we like to joke here.

 

The most anti-Soviet were Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians and Baltic Nations (Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians). Other were mixed I believe.

 

Quote

This is an interesting subject you touch on, not just from the Soviet perspective.
 
If I understand correctly, in Steel Beasts the doctrine simulated has always been (and still is) that KE/Sabot is the primary anti-armor round and HEAT is used against lighter targets.  However, historically speaking I understand that for some vehicles HEAT was to be the primary anti-armor round, with KE/Sabot filling some kind of strange secondary role.
 
When did this change among WP countries?  Were there ever exports of more modern HEAT rounds at least?

 

As I understand, APFSDS in WarPact/Soviet doctrine was for closer range engagements (up to 2500m at max if I am not mistaken), where a faster, flat trajectory round can be benefitial, HEAT was for mid-long range engagements.

 

As for WarPact, it did not changed before collapse, back then everyone strictly followed (or was expected to follow) doctrine and orders from Moscow.

 

I can't speek about the others, but in Poland at the moment everything is based on NATO model, so APFSDS is primary, HEAT is secondary, however HEAT kinda gets neglected in favor of HE, for example soon there won't be any HEAT for our Leopard 2's, replaced by HE and later programmable HE, similiar to US, perhaps also Germany and other NATO members.

There are still HEAT for 125mm armed tanks tough, simply because they are avaiable, they are less abusive on main gun barrel, and it's better to use them instead of APFSDS that are kept for war time emergency most of the time.

 

In former Soviet Union? AFAIK Russians, Ukrainians and Bellarussians still use the old concept where tank is primary loaded with HE, then HEAT and APFSDS.

[Damian90]

Speaking about T-64's. Here is video made by Ukrainian soldiers, near the front line.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yct2ECShmOk

 

And some more stuff.

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2016 by Damian90

[Damian90]

@Maj.Hans Some playlists worth to watch.

 

Yes it's partially propaganda, but there is a lot of unique video and photo materials worth to see.

[Maj.Hans]

@ Damian have you considered doing a separate write up on ERA?

 

It seems like, with all of the developments and heavily ERA based armor found on Soviet/Russian/derivative vehicles it almost deserves it's own page.  It's hard to track all the variants, Kontakt-1/5, Nozh, Relikt, Kaktus, etc

[Damian90]

18 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

@ Damian have you considered doing a separate write up on ERA?

 

It seems like, with all of the developments and heavily ERA based armor found on Soviet/Russian/derivative vehicles it almost deserves it's own page.  It's hard to track all the variants, Kontakt-1/5, Nozh, Relikt, Kaktus, etc

 

I will think about it, thanks for suggestion.

 

Another interesting design tough, the Object 640, and yes it existed as at least partially functional vehicle.

 

 

[Damian90]

Ok time to write about another interesting concept, vehicles called БМПТ/БМОП - Боевая машина поддержки танков/Боевая машина огневой поддержки (BMPT/BMOP - Tank Support Fighting Vehicle/Fire Support Fighting Vehicle.

 

In general the concept was born from experiences of Afghanistan and 1st Chechnya wars, where it was observed that MBT's need support of a vehicle armed with typical IFV armament but with grater protection than typical IFV, and not necessary able to carry infantry.

 

Several design bureaus started work on their BMPT/BMOP vehicles.

 

One of the less known and more interesting projects was the one made by ChTZ design bureau, based on a T-72 MBT chassis.

 

 

The first variant Object 781 is armed with armament system similiar to BMP-3 and BMD-4/4M consisting off 100mm low pressure gun/launcher 2A70, 30mm 2A72 automatic cannon, 30mm AGS-17 GMG's and 7,62mm PKT machine gun serving as coax + probably 12,7mm machine gun remotely controlled and installed on commander cupola,  second variant Object 782 have similiar armament in hull, but instead of single turret, two remotely controlled weapon stations armed with 30mm 2A72 autocannons and Konkurs-M/Kornet ATGM's launchers.

 

However a direct predecessor of these two vehicles, was a simply rebuilded T-72AV.

 

Vehicle was armed with two 30mm automatic cannons (2A72 variants?) and what appears to be unguided missile launchers, there should also still be left old coaxial machine gun port.

 

A much better known BMPT/BMOP was designed by UKBTM design bureau.

 

Object 199 also known as Ramka-99 or Terminator, initial variant was armed only with a single 30mm 2A42 automatic cannon, 7,62mm coax machine gun, Kornet/Ataka ATGM's launcher and two 30mm AGS-17 GMG's.

 

 

However quickly project was revised, turret was redesigned to take much lower profile, instead of a single 2A42 automatic cannon, two were mounted, and ATGM's launcher was split in to two modules with 2 missiles each.

 

 

These vehicles are builded as completely new, not rebuilded old tanks, and chassis represents the standard of a T-90 or T-90A tank. However protection is vastly improved because Kontakt-5 ERA was replaced with newer Relikt ERA, also slat armor is installed.

 

 

Vehicle have a modern FCS comparable in capabilities with T-90AM/SM tank.

 

Another proposal is BMPT-72 Terminator-2, however this vehicle is designed as a rebuild of older existing tanks, this is why it lacks two additional crew members manning 30mm GMG's.

 

 

Another vehicle currently in development is BMPT/BMOP Terminator-3 but it's based on universal heavy tracked chassis "Armata", which I will write about in next post. So stay tuned.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Damian90

[ChrisWerb]

Damian, are any of the Terminator variants in service?

[Ssnake]

Has Skynet been switched on already?

[Damian90]

1 hour ago, ChrisWerb said:

Damian, are any of the Terminator variants in service?

 

Not in Russian Army, tough someone, I think Kazakhstan purchased few, maybe 6?

[mpow66m]

didnt the USA  have a prototype like the BMPT awhile back?

[Damian90]

8 hours ago, mpow66m said:

didnt the USA  have a prototype like the BMPT awhile back?

There was a concept for similiar vehicle based on M1 chassis, bu it was a combination of BMPT concept and SPAAG with guns and missiles. Drawings can be seen in my History of US Tanks thread -> 

 

 

 

[Damian90]

Ok gentlemen, big time, now it's time to shed some light on the Russian programs for the new families of vehicles... but again we start with a bit of history.

 

So the entire genesis of these program can be traced up to the second half of the 80's, and the program codenamed Совершенствование-88 or Perfection-88 (can also be roughly translated as Improvement-88).

 

This program led to prototype known as Object 195 also improperly called T-95, improperly because vehicle never passed state trails and was never standarized by GABTU.

 

Object 195 was a very ambitious UVZ program for development of heavy armored, heavy armed and mobile Main Battle Tank. The tank is designed with crew capsule in front behind massive composite armor supplemented by ERA, turret is unmanned, and powerpack compartment is in the rear.

 

Main armament was 152mm smoothbore 2A83 gun, suplemmented by 30mm 2A42 automatic cannon and most likely 7,62mm coaxial machine gun.

 

Engine was A-85-3 in X configuration capable to provide various degrees of power ranging from around 1200HP up to 2000HP (higher power output however meant that service life was reduced).

 

For a long time Object 195 was kept in tight secret, however somewhere 2010 and beyond more informations started to leak untill photos of one of prototypes kept in Kubinka were also leaked.

 

 

The tank had FCS with thermal sights, full hunter killer capability, and also besides a laser range finder, had radar system.

 

Additional protection was provided by active protection system, from the looks of it further development of Drozd system, and direct predecessor, maybe even a prototype variant of Afganit active protection system.

 

However this vehicle was too large, too heavy and too complex to be accepted by Russian Army, so further development was cancelled in 2010, this however didn't meant that experiences and technology from this program were wasted. Russian Army realized than further upgrades to T-90 are not enough, and new tank is still needed.

 

This is where the concept of families of universal unified chassis was born. There are several programs.

 

Heavy Tracked Chassis codename "Armata".

Medium Tracked Chassis codename "Kurganets".

Medium Wheeled Chassis codename "Boomerang".

Light/Medium Wheeled Chassis codename "Typhoon".

 

We will focus only on the first three at the moment.

 

So "Armata" is a codename for heavy tracked chassis which aims at developing new MBT, heavy IFV, SPH chassis, ARV, BMPT/BMOP etc.

 

The idea is however realized in a different way than most previous programs in the west, instead of a single type of chassis, each vehicle receives a chassis dedicated for it's role, but every chassis type shares exactly the same components like suspension, transmission, engine, control systems, electronics and so on.

T-14 photos in detail -> http://otvaga2004.ru/tanki/tanki-fotogalereya/tank-t14-armata-fotoobzor/

 

The best way to present the currently known versions of "Armata", the T-14 MBT, T-15 IFV and T-16 ARV is through program Военная приемка, however take a note, Военная приемка is a direct tool for Kremlin propaganda just like majority of TV stations in Russia, what ever you see there, take with a grain of salt.

 

 

 

So few things.

 

Armor protection is provided for new type of homogeneus steel armor 44-sv-Sh which is most likely new type of high hardness steel developed by NII Stali, from the front turret crew capsule is protected by massive front hull composite armor module, with effective thickness that can reach up to 1000+mm, from the sides crew capsule also have thicker armor than the rest of the hull, probably reaching 100+mm. Vehicle is also protected by new explosive reactive armor Malachit.

 

 

Besides vehicle is equipped with Afganit active protection system, it's soft/hard kill system, it's hard kill component is based on Drozd active protection system philosophy with large fixed launcher tubes firing large interpectors with blast warheads, soft kill component is probably a further evolution of Shtora with two rotating lauchers and one fixed vertical launcher for smoke granades. Active protection system uses both radar and IR/UV sensors.

 

Armament of tank is placed in small, lightly armored unmanned turret, the main armament is 125mm smoothbore 2A82-1M gun, and a 7,62mm or 12,7mm coaxial machine gun, additional armament is 7,62mm or 12,7mm machine gun in remote weapon station integrated with commander panoramic sight. The main armament is loaded by autoloader, max ammo storage is 40 rounds with 32 rounds in autoloader and further 8 stored in armored box bolted to the turret rear.

 

Ammunition is two piece ammo with separate projectile and propelant. The main gun can use older types of ammunition, but primary ammunition will be new one, designed specially for new tank, and only a new tank can use it. For the moment we only know codenames for new APFSDS ammo, the DU Vaacum-1 and WHA Vaacum-2.

 

Turret itself have only very lightweight protection to reduce it's size and weight, most likely made only from homogeneus steel armor (44-sv-Sh high hardness steel?) with protection against automatic cannons only, while the turret real size and shape is hidden behind a shroud made from some sort of plastic material or thin sheet metal.

 

 

The tank is powered by further evolution of A-85 X type diesel engine, have a gas turbine APU, and new type of transmission system, comparable to western MBT's.

 

T-15 photos in detail -> http://otvaga2004.ru/fotoreportazhi/vystavki-vooruzheniya/tyazhelaya-bmp-t15-armata-2/

 

Another variant is T-15 heavy IFV, it uses the same components as T-14 but in the purpose build chassis. It have a crew of 3 just like T-14 but carry 8 dismounts in the rear compartment, engine, transmission and APU are in the front. It is unknown if T-15 have a composite armor protecting crew compartment from the front, but uses exactly the same ERA and active protection system.

The turret itself is unmanned, armed with 2A42 30mm automatic cannon with 500 rounds (same ammo storage pattern as in BMP-2), 7,62mm coaxial machine gun, and 4x Kornet ATGM missile launchers.

Final presented variant is T-16 ARV.

 

It also uses the same components as T-14 and T-15, but does not have APS, uses same ERA, and have a remote weapon station for 7,62mm or 12,7mm machine gun.

 

Also in future new 2S35 "Koalitsia-SV" spelf propelled hotizer will be installed on "Armata" chassis however at the moment, it's installed on interim chassis derived from T-90A tank.

 

2S35 photos in detail -> http://otvaga2004.ru/fotoreportazhi/vystavki-vooruzheniya/2s35-koaliciya-sv-fotoobzor/

 

It also uses unmanned turret with crew isolated in their own compartment in front of the hull.

 

 

Of course there are more vehicles planned, like heavy flamethrower system TOS based on "Armata" chassis to replace TOS-1 and TOS-1A based on T-72 chassis, and many more different vehicles.

 

Another vehicle is Medium Tracked Platform "Kurganets". It's an amphibious platform with base weight of 25 metric tons.
 

 

Again many variants is planned to be made, but at the moment there is only IFV, APC and ARV variants in development.

 

What is important to note is that vehicles first presented during parade were early pre production vehicles with transversly installed powerpack, one could name them test beds, while final variant of the chassis like these models will have engine mounted in longitudinal configuration and driver on the left of it, while commander and gunner behind the engine compartment.

 

Kurganets photos -> http://otvaga2004.ru/fotoreportazhi/voyennaya-tehnika/bmp-kurganec-25-hi-res/

The IFV will use exactly the same unmanned turret as T-15 heavy IFV, while APC and other variants can use new unified RWS shared by many other vehicles.

 

Protection will be provided by base homogeneus armor, but also by addon armor, also including ERA, inside large buoyancy elements on the hull sides. Also some variants will be equipped with Afganit active protection system.

 

Final vehicle is Medium Wheeled Chassis "Boomerang", this one is in development for some time but have a lower priority than the others. One can say it repeats in general, western school of designing such vehicles, of course it's amphibious.

 

Boomerang photos -> http://otvaga2004.ru/fotoreportazhi/voyennaya-tehnika/btr-bumerang-hi-res/

 

Not much can be said about it at the moment, again main armament are unmanned turret and RWS known from other vehicles, and only two variants at the moment are known, IFV and APC. In future more variants will most likely be developed.

What is important to note is that these vehicles break from the former Soviet AFV design school are clean sheet designs, and they are in many aspects more similiar to western vehicles, like for example emphasis on greater vehicle protection, crew protection and crew survivability, as well as greater ergonomics and comfort for soldiers.

However these vehicles will be more expensive than their predecessors, and it can be expected that production will be slow and in small batches, per analogy to T-90 and T-90A production, probably no more than 30-60 per year. Especially considering poor state of Russia's economy.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Damian90

[Marko]

Excellent posts Damian 90.

I always considered the BMPT as a good concept not just because it looks cool and has a cool name which it does. LoL

As you correctly stated the Soviets/Russians learned the hard way Tanks and city's towns don't mix there older generation of IFV,s were to lightly Armoured.

 there tanks could not elevate the main guns enough. if the TC.s tried to use there AA guns snipers picked them off.

  I have read the Russians used ZSU-23/24 to great effect in Grozny they placed them at the front of there armoured columns to provide very effective support fire. 

 

Edited October 26, 2016 by Marko