СИЛА РОССИИ. Форум сайта «Отвага» (www.otvaga2004.ru)

Информация о пользователе

Привет, Гость! Войдите или зарегистрируйтесь.


Вы здесь » СИЛА РОССИИ. Форум сайта «Отвага» (www.otvaga2004.ru) » Бронетанковая техника » История советского танкостроения 6


История советского танкостроения 6

Сообщений 781 страница 806 из 806

781

armor.kiev.ua написал(а):

Попробуйте поинтересоваться тем же самым применительно к Т-72 и Т-72Б.

Т.к. в СССР требования ГОСТ исполнялись и контролировались на предприятиях службами нормоконтроля, то просто уверен, что коэффициенты конструктивной и технологической применяемости в Т-72Б  были не менее 70% от предыдущей модификации Т-72А! :rolleyes:

782

https://cloud.mail.ru/public/4K49/3zuCay86T
Вообще, некоторое количество западных статей о советских танках я собирал в одну папку (в основном из Armor, а из фото IDR и Wehrtechnik туда пока попала только одна, запощенная выше), там можно найти самые разные предположения

Отредактировано skylancer-3441 (2019-07-04 22:48:40)

783

отрохов написал(а):

Интересно, а сколько, по Вашему, процентов деталей и узлов в конструкции Т-72 конкретно заимствовано от конструкции Т-64? :unsure:


Вы меня иногда поражаете тупизной своих вопросов.

Попробуйте задать этот вопрос западным специалистам, рассматривавшим эти машины на фотках. Ещё, я сам так делаю и Вам рекомендую, попробуйте, если умеете, себя поставить на их место и смотреть на вопрос их глазами.

отрохов написал(а):

Т.к. в СССР требования ГОСТ исполнялись и контролировались на предприятиях службами нормоконтроля, то просто уверен, что коэффициенты конструктивной и технологической применяемости в Т-72Б  были не менее 70% от предыдущей модификации Т-72А! :rolleyes:


А вопрос задавался про Т-72 и Т-72Б :)

Тем не менее Т-72А и Т-72Б по шасси были несовместимы. А у Т-64А и Т-64Б шасси были унифицированы на 100%.

отрохов написал(а):

Интересно, а сколько, по Вашему, процентов деталей и узлов в конструкции Т-72 конкретно заимствовано от конструкции Т-64? :unsure:


Я не подсчитывал специально. Но это многие сотни наименований.

Кстати, есть особо одаренные, доказывающие прямое наследование Т-72 от... Т-62. Да, несколько деталек от Т-62 в Т-72 тоже можно найти.

Отредактировано armor.kiev.ua (2019-07-05 00:38:29)

784

armor.kiev.ua написал(а):

Я не подсчитывал специально. Но это многие сотни наименований.

А к примеру, хоть десяток перечислить можете? :unsure:

armor.kiev.ua написал(а):

отрохов написал(а):
Интересно, а сколько, по Вашему, процентов деталей и узлов в конструкции Т-72 конкретно заимствовано от конструкции Т-64?

Вы меня иногда поражаете тупизной своих вопросов

Но для всех не особо тупых работников нормоконтроля разрабатывающих хоть что-то предприятий, в отличии от Вас, это был вполне обыденный штатный вопрос о степени новизны изделия и его обозначении! %-)

785

armor.kiev.ua написал(а):

Кроме катков и гусениц чем это настолько сильно отличается от Т-64А?

В той же статье есть фото и с кормы, и сверху. Как минимум можно ещё отметить различия в конструкции МТО, которые наводят на мысль, что и двигатели разные. Раз такие пироги, я бы на их месте задался бы вопросом, что из этих двух танков действительно Т-72

786

отрохов написал(а):

А к примеру, хоть десяток перечислить можете? :unsure:


Из тех, которые не подвергались изменениям и остались с обозначениями 432 и 434 по состоянию на 1980 г.:

БКП -- 72 наименования деталей и сборочных единиц
механизм распределения -- 40
бортовой редуктор -- 15

Только по трем механизмам имеем более 120 наименований деталей.

Даже в системах двигателя (!!!) присутствует немало деталей 432 и 434.

Да, Вы так и не ответили, как обстоят дела с коэффициентом конструкторской применяемости деталей и узлов Т-72 на Т-72Б?

отрохов написал(а):

Но для всех не особо тупых работников нормоконтроля разрабатывающих хоть что-то предприятий, в отличии от Вас, это был вполне обыденный штатный вопрос о степени новизны изделия и его обозначении! %-)


Вы таки продолжаете меня удивлять упорным игнорированием контекста разговора. Западным специалистам, по фотографиям изучавшим наши машины и делавших на этом основании выводы, как-то было насрать на мнение работников нормоконтроля и их должностные обязанности.

787

Geronimo509 написал(а):

В той же статье есть фото и с кормы, и сверху. Как минимум можно ещё отметить различия в конструкции МТО, которые наводят на мысль, что и двигатели разные. Раз такие пироги, я бы на их месте задался бы вопросом, что из этих двух танков действительно Т-72


Американские специалисты идиотами не были, поэтому они на примере модификаций М48, М60 и Леопардов прекрасно знали насколько могут отличаться крыши МТО и башни модификаций одной и той же машины. На примере всего мирового танкостроения знали сколько разных двигателей может устанавливаться на одной машине. На примере немцев времен ВМВ знали насколько может отличаться ходовая часть разных модификаций одного танка.

Более того, на личном примере: я в школе очень хорошо знал наши и зарубежные танки. Но вот когда впервые увидел в газете фотку Т-64, то побежал к отцу с вопросом "что это за странная семьдесятдвойка с маленькими катками?!" именно потому, что визуально между Т-72 и Т-64А для неспециалиста разница минимальная и когда я впервые увидел изображение Т-64А, никак иначе как Т-72 я его не воспринял.

788

armor.kiev.ua написал(а):

в газете фотку Т-64, то побежал к отцу с вопросом "что это за странная семьдесятдвойка с маленькими катками?!"

Мне офицеры, показывая на фото Т-64, говорили, что это Т-80 (1985-87 гг). Это я потом понял, что это фото было Т-64

789

Товарищи, подскажите, а есть что-то в доступе из исследований советской БТТ через призму эргономичности, допустим исследования влияния эргономики рабочих мест на автономность, обслуживаемость, боеготовность машин? Сравнения машин разных поколений? Такие исследования вообще проводились?

Вопрос навеян утверждением о значительной доле поломок/проблем, как раз по причине плохой эргономики, от общей массы тех проблем с БТТ.

790

razoom1986 написал(а):

Товарищи, подскажите, а есть что-то в доступе из исследований советской БТТ через призму эргономичности


Теория и конструкция танка. — Т. 7. Эргономическое обеспечение разработки танков / Под ред. д.т.н., проф. П. П. Исакова. — М.: Машиностроение, 1986. —  191 с.

791

Статья "От Т-34 к Т-80. Эволюция советских боевых танков плюс отчёт IDR о тест-драйве Т-62." из International Defense Review 1981-05
https://i.imgur.com/RQGb8cgl.jpg

фото страниц

https://i.imgur.com/5rRGhk3l.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/iBBzboql.jpg https://i.imgur.com/NWbWkqBl.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/XPbwpgrl.jpg https://i.imgur.com/AuBc74ql.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/xqxPbqzl.jpg

английский текст с иллюстрациями - из этой статьи или иных источников если там такие же в лучшем качестве

==1649==
The Evolution of Soviet Battle Tanks PLUS the IDR's T-62 test report
by D.H.C.Jenkins

In recent years, most Western nations have experienced great difficulty in developing and producing new battle tanks that are equal or better than those issuing from Soviet and Warsaw Pact factories. The philosophy has been, and still is, to produces new vehicle winch is a quantum improvement on the previous tank. This, however, is expensive both financially and in time. Western nations are increasingly turning to joint ventures in order to try and cut ultimate production costs but to date, these partnershps have all failed, resulting in further delays. Only one joint project is still alive, and the French and the Germans are attempting to design a tank for the 1990s, although the present indications are that this, too, may be doomed to failure. The result has been that individual countries are "going it alone" and producing ever more costly vehicles in sufficient quantities to provide anything approaching a balance to the vastly superior numbers of modern tanks deployed by the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact allies.

The Soviet Union has not yet subscribed to the "throw-away society" and as such has a different outlook. No old equipment is totally discarded. Effective and proven comportents in one design are generally retained in the succeeding generation of vehicles. Smplicity, effectiveness and numbers are the watchwords. Soviet tank design has, therefore, been evolutionary and could very well continue to be so even with the introduction of the T-80.

Development history
The trend started during World War 2, with the introduction of the T-34. This was a very basic vehicle capable, however, of fulfilling its role. It was cheap to produce, simple to operate, and light. Crew training was minimal and the Soviet Army had no difficulty in finding the number of crews required to man the flood of vehicles being turned out. In battle they were no match for the heavier and more advanced German tanks in a one-to-one fight, but the Germans rapidly found that when their tanks had been expended, the T-34s were still there in quantity. A modified T-34, the T-34/85, entered service in 1944 and although withdrawn from Soviet Army service in the 1960s, it was still in action with the Vietnamese Army in 1973. The successor to the T-34 went into production in 1944, too. This was the T-44, a modified T-34/85. The turret was very similar, the suspension had been changed from the Christie-type to torsion bar and the hull was consequently lower. Unsuccessful attempts were then made to retrofit the T-44 turret with the D-10 100mm gun. A solution was eventually found by fitting a redesigned turret with the D-10 gun, to a stretched T-44 hull to produce a new vehicle designated T-54.

This tank was manufactured in very large numbers and six variants were produced before the introduction of the T-55, first seen in Moscow in November 1961. Subsequently a further three variants of the T-55 were produced. The only major change between the T-54 and the T-55 was the fitting of the uprated V-55 engine. All T-54s were then modified to T-55 standard, resulting in the Western designation of T-54/55 for all vehicles of this type. The tank was, however unpopular in many countries to which it was sold and in his book Modern Soviet Armor Steven Zaloga cites the case of Romania having had "such serious problems with its T-54s that it [has] approached several West German companies for bids to completely re-work the existing vehicles, adding new suspension, track, wheels, engine and other components."

▼ The author at the controls of a T-62A during the IDR test drive. The T-62A can be distinguished from the T-62 by the raised loader's cupola with the 12.7mm Dshk AA machine gun.
https://i.imgur.com/RIwRtgbl.jpg
==1650==

T-62
The same basic design was than used in Ihe production of the T-62, first seen in 1965. The major change was the up-gunnig of the tank from the 100mm D-10T to the 115mm smoothbore U-5T. Many T-55 components are evident in the T-62 and it is conceivable that this was the start of a new trend in tank production — that of putting development vehicles into limited production, producing a number of variants, ascertaining the optimum combination of systems and then fielding a new tank in which all systems have been thoroughly tested, frequently in combat, without incurring the almost crippling test and evaluation expenditure of Western nations.
In its recent T-62 test drive IDR found that the tank was indeed basic in both its design and construction. External components lacked any form of finish and were, for the most part, fiimsily made. This conforms with the Soviet design philosophy that external components are of secondary importance and will be early casualties in battle. Therefore no time, money and effort are wasted in producing a solid, finished product. The tank has, however, been designed to make the maximum use of ground. The turret is small and well rounded, providing maximum protection from glancing shots, and the hull, with its Christie suspension and no top rollers, is low and squat. This gives the tank a low silhouette and make it very hard to spot when concealed in a hull-down position. It also makes the crew very uncomfortable. Inside the turret, space is extremely limited. The gunner sits on the left, below the commander and has little room in which to work. Indeed the commander's and gunners stations combined are hardly bigger than the commander's station alone in most Western tanks The loader, on the right of the turret, does have more room, but unless he is left handed his task is extremely difficult.
The driver's station is on the left of the hull. His seat can be adjusted for driving head-out, the normal driving position, or closed down whenever the turret is in operation.
Normally the T-62 is started using compressed air with a minimum pressure of 50kg/cm2. For IDR's test, however, the tank had to be bump-started as there was insufficient pressure in the air cylinders. The driver checks that the systems are functioning and then starts the engine, having first ensured that the engine oil pressure is between 6 and 7kg/cm2. If an air start fails, an electric starter can be used.
In common with most tanks, first gear it an emergency gear. To begin driving, second is selected and the hand throttle is set at 550-600rpm. It is at this point that the Western tank driver is thankful for the invention of the automatic gearbox. The T-62 has a crash gearbox and the driver has to double-declutch in order to change gear. Changing from second to third presented little difficulty but when it came to changing up into fourth gear, IDR found that the gear lever had to be moved across the complete width of the gate and was extremely stiff. It is no doubt this feature that has prompted reports that T-62 drivers are issued with a sledge-hammmer with which to persuade the gear lever to move into a different position. One user told IDR that training a US Army T-62 driver usually entails replacing the clutch at least twice.
Steering is by means of two tillers. These have three positions. When they are fully forward normal power is transmitted to the drive sprocket. To turn, one or other of the tillers must be pulled up to the first position, i.e. until resistance is felt for the first time. If both tillers are in first position a reduction gear is engaged and the tank slows down. From this position, however, smaller radius turns can be made by pulling a tiller up still further, to the second position. The second position effectively brakes the tracks and care must be taken to ensure that one tiller is not pulled into the second position if the tank is in fourth or fifth gear, since the resultant turn could be too severe. (It is by no means certain that the tank would throw a track in these circumstances, as a correctly tensioned track, i.e. when it hangs 60-80mm above the first roadwheel, is guided throughout its length by centre guides riding over the top and bottom of each road-wheel.) IDR initially felt it strange to have to pull both tillers completely up to the first position before starting a turn by pulling one of them up to the second position. This also required greater acceleration to maintain speed, which in turn led to clouds of black exhaust smoke.
IDR was unable to test the efficacity of the hydro-pneumatic clutch in the T-62 as the compressed-air bottles were being recharged during the drive. This clutch is engaged after moving off by the driver moving a lever, mounted on the clutch pedal, with his foot. It appears that use of this clutch does not facilitate gear changing but it does reduce clutch wear.

▼ An early photo of a T-64 with the characteristically small roadwheels and the IR projector on the left of the main gun. The driver's position is central in the hull. The open hatch is on the commander's station.
https://i.imgur.com/24pKJT4l.jpg

◄ One of theT-62As used by the US Army for training. A fuel pannier can be seen on the rear deck above the gap between the 4th and 5th roadwheels. The long tube on the rear of the turret is for stowing the snorkel and above this is the cartridge-case jettison hatch. An interesting point about the track pins is that they are not held in place at the outer edge of the links, leaving them free to move into the centre. This effect is countered by a raised piece of metal (the pin hammer), welded on to the hull forward of the drive sprocket, which knocks the pins back into position each time they pass over the sprocket.
https://i.imgur.com/QUz5HYGl.jpg

► View, from the commander's seat, of the T-62 gunner's position with the telescope (right) and periscope (left) prepared for right-eye use. Key: 1 - IR power supply; 2 - Traverse handwheel; 3 - TPN1-41-11 infrared monocular periscope night sight; 4 - Gunner's duplex controls with coax and main gun firing switches on left and right handles respectively; 5 - TSh2B-41U primary telescope day sight; 6 - TNP-165 vision block.
https://i.imgur.com/tMSppcAl.jpg

►► The right-hand side of the T-62 driver's compartment. One of the steering tillers can be seen, just to the left of the gear lever and gate. From the left the top three positions in this gate give 3rd, reverse and 4th gears and the bottom row gives 2nd, 1st and 5th. The yellow bands give the US translations for the Russian switch designations. The box below the two vision blocks is the gyrocompass for use when driving submerged on a river crossing.
https://i.imgur.com/U9YXLZWl.jpg

==1651==
Manoevrability is, thus, not one of the strong points of the T-62. Driving the vehicle is tiring and the ride is relatively uncomfortable.
The T-63 is lightly armoured and much of its passive protection is derived from its low silhouette. Active protection is, in some measure, provided by the engine smoke generator. This consumes 10 litres of fuel per minute and produces a smokescreen 250-400m long, lasting for up to 4 minutes, depending in wind strength. When the system is in operation, the driver must fully depress the accelerator to avoid starving the engine of fuel and should not be in higher than third gear.
In the event of operations in an NBC environment, a PAZ (NBC) pack protects the crew from radioactive dust by air filtration and slight over-pressure. It is tripped automatically by an RBZ-1 gamma-ray sensor.
The vehicle is powered by the V-55, V-12 diesel engine, with a maximum power output of 430kW at 2,000rpm, giving a maximum road speed of 80km/h. When driving cross-country, fuel consumption is between 300 and 330 litres per 100km. This is reduced to between 190 and 210 litres when giving on roads. Between 320 and 450km can be covered by the T-62 on its normal fuel tanks. This is increased to between 450 and 650km if the two jettisonable auxiliary fuel ranks, on the back of the vehicle, are used.
Maximum firing range of the U-5T 115mm gun, limited by the sighting range wthe TSh2B-41U gunner's telescope, is 4800m when firing the HE18 round, although it is unlikely that this extreme range would ever be used, except when the tank is in a static firing position (a Soviet speciality). Theoretical maximum effective anti-tank range, therefore, is 2,000m, although Middle East experience indicates that it is nearer to 1600m. Up to 40 rounds of 115mm fixed ammunition can be carried. These are stowed in open racks around the turret and hull and experience has shown that even a glancing blow from an incoming round can detonate them with catastrophic results. Stowage is also provided for up to 2,500 rounds of 7.62mm ammunition for the PKT coaxial machine gun. The T-62A also has a 12.7mm AA machine gun mounted on the loader's cupola with 500 rounds stowed externally.

T-64 and T-72
Before the first T-62 was seen in public, it became known in the West that a new Sowet tank, designated M1970, had been desigrind. According to some sources this design was never produced, but a tank did go into production in the late 1960s. It was totally different from any previous Soviet tank, mounted a 125mm gun in a new turret and had a new running gear. The appearance of this tank led to great speculation by analysts in the West. A new dimension was added to the "threat" and the corridors of power from Bonn to Washington resounded with calls for the production of more powenful and better protected tanks to combat this new vehicle.
For several years Western defense agencies designated this tank the T-72 and it came as something of a shock when a second new vehicle was displayed in Moscow in 1977. At first the second new vehicle was thought to be a new model T-72, but closer analysis revealed significant differences between the two tanks This prompted a change in the Western designations and the earlier vehicle became known as the T-64.
The major differences between the T-64 and the T-72 are the engine and running gear. Photos show that the arrangement of exhaust grills on the rear of the vehicles differs, indicating that a different engine has been used. It it probable that the T-64 has a diesel engine producing a maximum power output of 560kW with a power to weight ratio (kW/t) of 15:1. According to some IDR sources, this engine is a departure from conventional types, being a flat, five-cylinder design, with horizontally-opposed pistons. In contrast, the T-72 has the V-64, an uprated version of the V-55 diesel in the T-62. This produces 580kW, at 3,000rpm and gives a power to weight ratio of 14:1.
The T-64 has six small, stamped, dual road wheels and torsion bar suspension. The double-pin steel track is supported on four top rollers. The T-72 running gear comprises six large, die-cast, dual road wheels, also with torsion bar suspension. The single, dry-pin steel track is supported on only three top rollers.
Modifications to the turret are minor and consist of the re-location of the infra-red searchlight from the left of the main armament, on the T-64, to the right for the T-72. The AA machine gun, too, is different. The T-72 has a new pintle-mounted 12.7mm gun mounted to the rear of the commander s cupola. This can only be operated from the head-out position, in the same way as on the T-62. On the T-64 the AA machine gun is also mounted on the commander's cupola but it appears as if it can be fired remotely.

▼ A column of T-72s, with the new turrets, prior to embarking on a submerged river crossing The new design, full-length rubber skirting pfates have been removed, possibly to prevent them being torn off dunnn the crossing.
https://i.imgur.com/QYFfjHOl.jpg
==1652==
Main and coaxial armament details are identical for both tanks. The main armament is a 125mm smoothbore gun, firing high-velocity APFSDS, HEAT and HE rounds. Muzzle velocity is in excess of 1,600m/s for the APFSDS and 905 and 850m/s for the HEAT and HE rounds respectively. A 7.62mm PKT machine gun, identical to that in the T-62, is mounted coaxially on the right of the main gun. Evidently the commander is responsible for serving the coaxial MG. An automatic loader serves the main armament, although the systems differ in their method of operation. In the T-72, charges and projectiles are stowed in single-round boxes with the charge above the projectile. Up to 40 of these boxes are mounted on a turntable on the inside of the turret. The different types of round do not have to be in specific positions since a computer keeps track of the position of each round. Once the commander has selected the type of round he wishes to fire, the computer indicates the position of the nearest one and the turntable rotates until the box is under the loading mechanism. With the barrel at a 4° elevation datum position, the box is then hauled up until the projectile touches the rear of the breech. A swing-arm rams it into the gun and the box is then lowered slightly, to allow the charge to be rammed in the same way.
The T-64 loading mechanism appears to be more complicated. The projectile is stowed vertically alongside the charge, which means that the projectile has to be turned before it can be rammed, with the charge following it.
Some analysts believe that the T-64 was produced as an interim measure between the T-62 and the T-72. Recent observations may lead to this supposition being contradicted and it is possible that the T-72 is the follow-on to the T-62 with the T-64 being a leap sideways from the evolutionary chain.
First acknowledged western sightings of the T-64 were at the beginning of the 1970s, though it may have been deployed even earlier. Since then, the T-64 has been issued to the Soviet Army in large numbers. In 1979 it was estimated that over 2,000 were in service with GSFG. Little is seen of these vehicles but many photos of the T-72 have been released. For some reason the T-72 is being shown off. This was demonstrated during the visit of the French Defense Minister to Moscow in 1977, where he and his party were shown the T-72, although they were not permitted to see inside it. The T-72 has also been exported to countries outside the Warsaw Pact — IDR sources say that the current purchase price of a T-72 is about $2 million. Pictures have also been released of the T-72 with a new turret showing that the back-up stadiametric rangefinder has been removed. This exposure is a typical Soviet behaviour and leads to the conclusion that another tank, possibly a much-improved version of the T-64, is to become the standard Soviet battle tank. An additional argument has been advanced which states that the original T-64 has experienced many operational problems and that this is being hidden from prying eyes. These problems have been cited as including: inaccuracy oj the powerful smooth-bore gun; a tendenci to shed its tracks; and above all, a disastrous reliability record for the engine, which is also

► Early model T-72s on parade during the West 81 exercises. The light metal thermal jacket on the main armament is held in place by clips along the top edge. (The tank on the right has lost the end section of the thermal jacket.)
https://i.imgur.com/bwjECNRl.jpg
==1653==

Comparative data — T-62, T-64 and T-72

Type

T-62

T-64

T-72

Crew

4

3

3

Combat waight (t)

37.5

38

41

Length gun forwards (m)

9.33

9.10

9.20

Overall width (m)

3.30

3.40

3.60

Height to top at cupola (m)

2.40

2.30

2.30

Ground clearance (cm)

43

37

42

Length of track on ground (m)

4.23

4.10

4.25

Max. speed (km/h)

50

30-50

50

Max. cross country road range (km)

450

450

450

Fuel capeciry (litres)

960

1,000

1,000

Max gradient (°)

30

30

30

Max obstacle height (cm)

80

80

90

Max trench width (m)

2.80

2.70

2.70

Fording depth

with preparation (m)

5.5 (with snorkel)

5.5 (with snorkel)

5.5 (with snorkel)

without preparation (m)

1.4

1.4

1.3

Armament

Main armament, calibre (mm)

115 smoothbore

125 smoothbore

125 smoothbore

Gun designation

U-5T

Fume extractor

Yes

Yes

Yes

Thermal jacket

No

Yes

Yes

Depression/elevation (°)

-5/+18

-5/+18

-5/+18

Type of ammunition/muzzle veiocity (m/s)

HE-Frag FS/700;

HE-Frag FS/850;

HE-Frag FS/850;

HEAT-FS/900;

HEAT-FS/905;

HEAT-FS/905;

HVAPFSDS/1,615

HVAPFSDS/1,615

HVAPFSDS/1,615

Number of rounds carried

40

40

40

Automatic loader

No

Yes

Yes

Secondary armament/type

PKT/Coaxial

PKT/Coaxial

PKT/Coaxial

Calibre (mm)

7.62

7.62

7.62

Rate of fire (rounds/min)

650 cyclic,

650/250

650/250

250 practical

No. of rounds carried

2,000-3,000

3,000

3,000

AA armament/calibre (mm)

T62A only/12.7

12.7

12.7

Designation

DShK 38/46

Rate of fire (rounds/min)

600 cyclic,

600

600

80-100 practical

100 practical

200 practical

Mounted on commander's or loader's station

Loader

Commander

Commander

(remote)

(pintle mount)

No. of rounds carried

250

500

500

Engine smoke generator

Yes

Smoke grenade dischargers

No

Have been seen on GSFG tanks

No

Engine

Type

V-12

Horizontally opposed puston

V-12 supercharged

No. of cylinders

12

5

12

Fuel

Multi-fuel

Multi-fuel

Multi-fuel

Power to weight ratio (kW/t)

11.6:1

14.7:1

14.2:1

Max. power output (kW)

435

560

580

Cooling

liquid

liquid

liquid

Transmisslon

Synchronized

Synchromesh

Synchromesh

Type

constant mesh

hydraulic assisted

hydraulic assisted

No. of gears (fwd / reverse)

5/1

7/1

7/1

Stering system

Clutch and brake

Clutch and brake

Clutch and brake

Suspension and running gear

Type of suspension

Christie torsion bar

Torsion bar

Torsion bar

Road wheels

5 per side

6-dual

6-dual

Top rollers

Nil

4

3

Type of track

Single dry-pin,

Double-pin,

Single dry-pin,

steel

steel, live

steel

Width of track (cm)

58

58

58

Miscellaneous

NBC pack/type

PAZ system

Yes

Yes

Overpressure system

Slight

Crew heater

No

Escape hatch

Yes

==1654==
extremely smoky. Critics of the T-64 say that it was originally intended to become the Soviet MBT, but that its performance and reliability proved so poor that modernized T-55s, and subsequently T-72 export tanks, had to be used publicly in place of it. This view holds that T-64s in GSFG are merely training tanks, with their improved sucessors already stored secretly in forward locations.

T-80
Well over ten years have passed since the introduction of the T-64 and a new Soviet tank is now known to exist. What is this tank? In the West it has been designated, for lack of surer indication, the T-80.
The T-80 has a high-pressure 125mm main gun and fires improved ammunition including HVAPFSDS with, possibly, a DU penetrator. It is said to weigh approximately 48.5t and may have hydropneumatic suspension. Experiments have been carried out in the Soviet Union with the use of gas turbine engines in tanks and two T-80 prototype series were produced, one with the gas turbine engine and one with an uprated diesel similar to that which powers the T-64. It is unlikely, however, that the turbine does power the T-80.
The most significant change is the addition of compound armour to the hull and turret, accounting for the increase in weight, and giving the vehicle the characteristic box-shape of modern NATO tanks. This armour could either be very similar to the British Chobham armour — samples of which have reached Russia from the FRG—or it could be a special, Soviet-designed laminate armour such as is used on the glacis plate of the T-64/72. The T-80 has been described as looking like a T-64 or-72 with add-on armour and this is likely to be the case, particularly since the appearance of the T-72 with a new turret.
A study of the evolutionary chart on p.1652 shows the likelihood of the hull coming from one vehicle, in this case the T-64, and a new turret (or a drastically modified T-72 turret) being mated to produce the new tank. The choice of hull could well be that of the T-64 with its innovative small roadwheels and engine. The T-72 engine will barely fit into its engine well and the possibility of further uprating it, to cope with the extra weight of the T-80, seems remote.

The benefits of evolution
The main aim of Soviet tank designers appears to be to design and produce tanks as quickly and cheaply as possible without diminishing the size of the tank park. The evolutionary concept has enabled them to do so and has also brought other benefits. Firstly a measure of standardization is always present, and time and effort do not have to be wasted in totally converting crews from one type of vehicle to another. The Soviet Army retains many old tanks as training vehicles, thus not risking damage to its prime materiel while still maintaining crews proficient in the skills required to fight their tanks. The concept also provides the designers with the capability of thoroughly testing components and adopting or rejecting them for the successive generation of vehicles.
The last innovative Soviet tank design was the T-64, and this was possibly because the hull had not been prepared in time for the introduction of the T-62. There is thus no reason to believe that the T-80 is also totally innovative and there are already rumours of the T-80 follow-on being ready to go into production.

https://i.imgur.com/FaI6uWXl.jpg
▲ Cut-away drawings of a Soviet T-72 MBT apparently used as training aids and showing the interior layout of the tank from both the side and the rear. Note the rotating ammunition stowage ring at the base of the turret, with the semicombustible charge clipped on the top of each projectile for automatic loading via the hoist (10). The drawings also indicate the thickness of armour on the tank. If they are accurate and if previously published dimensions (see IDR 8/1977, p 1032) are still correct, then the armour thickness on the glacis plate can be estimated at approximately 200mm measured at 90° and approximately 600mm measured horizontally. This glacis armour appears to be made up of three layers although the exact composition is not known. Armour thickness on the turret roof, measured at a point to the rear of 7 in the side view, is estimated at 60mm and the thickness of the bow plate, measured at a point forward of the front roadwheel, is approximately 80mm.
Key: 1 — FG-125 headlights; 2 — Steering tillers; 3 — NBC protection systems; 4 — Gear lever; 5 - Gun elevation drive; 6 — TPD-2 gunner's sight; 7 — TPN1-49-23 gunner's night sight; 8 — Spotlight for TKN-3 commander sight; 9 — AA machine gun; 10 — Ammunition hoist; 11 — Antenna base; 12 — Turret bin for deep-fording equipment and rations; 13 — Engine; 14 — Gearbox; 15 — Supplementary fuel tank; 16 — Projectile and charge containers; 17 — Rotary base; 18 — Gunner's seat; 19 — NBC decontamination; 20 — Driver's seat; 21 — Parking brake; 22 — External stowage; 23 — Manual turret traverse gear; 24 — Traverse indicator; 25 — Breech; 26 — 7.62mm coaxial machine gun; 27 — Commander's cupola episcopes; 28 — Skirt plates; 29 — Machine gun ammunition boxes; 30 — Radio; 31 — Hydraulic turret traverse drive.
▼ An artist's impression of the T-80 which has been described by those who have seen actual photos, as very nearly esact. Of particular note are the small road wheels, typical of the T-64, and the apparent lack of special armour skirting plates. Main armament is a new, 125mm, high pressure gun, developed from that of the T-64 and T-72, firing improved ammunition. The lack of an IR projector is indicative of the use of image-intensifying or thermal imaging night sights. A further point of interest is the provision of two banks of smoke grenade dischargers. Untill recently all Soviet battle tanks used an integral engine smoke generator to provide smoke protection. T-64s in GSFG have, however, beem seem with smoke grenade dischargers. It is possible, that these T-64s have a new engine which is not compatible with a smoke generator, and that this engine is also mounted in the T-80.
https://i.imgur.com/Axp2YBvl.jpg

диаграмма - реконструкция автором эволюции советских танков от Т-34 до Т-80

https://i.imgur.com/ap9RfsL.jpg

(всё кликабельно)

Отредактировано skylancer-3441 (2019-07-24 18:45:39)

792

Статья ув. Пашолока о Т-34-85М

По итогам испытаний в серию Т-34-85М не пошёл, зато с августа 1944 года начался выпуск Т-34-85 с утолщённой башней. Таким образом, усиление защиты танка всё же произошло, хоть и частично.

До етого выпускался танк с башней толщиной 52мм, не знал-так что работы по усилению защиты даром не прошли.

Отредактировано Blitz. (2019-08-06 18:25:46)

793

Т-34-85 с Д-5Т в Будапеште-56
http://www.fortepan.hu/_photo/display/39756.jpg
С венгерского фотоархива

794

Blitz. написал(а):

Т-34-85 с Д-5Т в Будапеште-56

Скорее с С-53 в маске ЗИС-С-53 - там ставили дополнительный груз для уравновешивания, так как ствол и бронировка у ЗИС-С-53 были несколько тяжелее.
Поищу фото, видел такие.

PS
Вот один из вариантов такого балансировочного груза. Встречал и другие, но под руку не попадаются
https://forum-antikvariat.ru/uploads/monthly_03_2018/post-27056-0-83759800-1519911177.jpg

795

Organic написал(а):

Скорее с С-53 в маске ЗИС-С-53 - там ставили дополнительный груз для уравновешивания, так как ствол и бронировка у ЗИС-С-53 были несколько тяжелее.
Поищу фото, видел такие.

Врядли-видно амбразуру пулемета сверху маски, а не по середине как на машинах с С-53
НЯП танк с поздних выпусков, вроде етого
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6d/d5/52/6dd55202162c2e2eb94ababccdcdf395.jpg

796

Показал фото тем, кто копал по различиям всех Т-34 - опознали как Т-34-85 с Д-5Т 3-ей серии выпуска, т.е. почти из последних произведенных с таким орудием.

797

Спасибо.

798

88 лет со дня рождения Н. С. Попова
https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/andrei_bt/18425682/297450/297450_original.jpg
(14 декабря 1931 - 4 февраля 2008)

Генеральный конструктор ОАО «Специальное конструкторское бюро транспортного машиностроения» (КБ «Спецмаш»), создатель танка Т-80, Т-80У и его модификаций, а также ряда опытных машин. Герой Социалистического Труда. Лауреат Ленинской премии.

Отредактировано Andrei_bt (2019-12-14 21:47:48)

799

СУ85, на ствол не обращать внимание, простая труба.
P.S. Кстати а где смотреть номер машины?
http://forumuploads.ru/uploads/000a/e3/16/79/55171.jpg
http://forumuploads.ru/uploads/000a/e3/16/79/69218.jpg
http://forumuploads.ru/uploads/000a/e3/16/79/73632.jpg
http://forumuploads.ru/uploads/000a/e3/16/79/23088.jpg

800

Статья ув. гур Хана о ХТВ на базе танков

801

Blitz. написал(а):

Статья ув. гур Хана о ХТВ на базе танков


ХТВ-72 (1) в начале 1990-х эксплуатировался в учебном центре КВТИУ в Гореничах. Мне на плёнку попал случайно:
http://armor.kiev.ua/wiki/images/4/43/Htv72_1.jpg

Единственные фотографии ХТВ-80БВ (условно будем называть его так), были сделаны на БТРЗ №205 в Уссурийске... Странно, но автору пока не попадалась информация о доработанном таким же образом Т-64.

Аналогичный проект 482 КТЦ на базе Т-64Р в 1989 г. обозначался ХТВ-64, он же в 1991 -- ХТ-64Р. Информация о выпущенных экземплярах отсутствует.

По схеме внешнего вида для шасси 432А использовали чертеж 434сб-3 1968 года (соответствует первой серии Т-64А):

http://armor.kiev.ua/temp/htv64_3.jpg

Первый разработан и собран на базе танка Т-64А — по этой причине, чтобы как-то отличать машины, условно нарекаем его ХТВ-64А.

В соответствии с КД он обозначался "Ходовой тренажер вождения танка Т-64Б". Хотя при имевшей место унификации шасси деление для тренажеров без башен на А и Б особого смысла не имеет, поэтому собрать могли на любом шасси.

В данном случае заморачиваться с искусственной догрузкой машины до боевой массы серийного танка не стали.

Это точная информация? Не знаю как на собранном экземпляре, а по проекту вполне предусмотрен вариант со съемным дополнительным грузом внутри корпуса у днища. Масса машины 38,5 т (т.е. груз частично компенсирует отсутствие башни). По проекту были варианты с вертикальными и наклонными стенками кабины, с несколькими вариантами установки люков на кабине. На собранной машине сделали наклонные.

http://armor.kiev.ua/temp/htv64_2.jpg

На табличке она подписана просто как ХТВ-64, но поскольку была изготовлена с использованием шасси и корпуса танка Т-64Б (серийный № У11ЕТ4033, выпуск ноября 1984 года), то условно поименуем её ХТВ-64Б.

Выводы и предположения неверные.

Не была эта машина изготовлена на базе Т-64Б, поскольку это шасси выпущено не позднее марта 1975 г. Мы имеем несколько признаков, говорящих, что исходный танк выпущен раньше:
1) в ноябре 1984 Т-64Б выпускались с пятислойным ВЛД и иметь как эта машина дополнительный наварной лист не могли;
2) с 1979 г. использовалось 5 упоров балансиров (добавлен упор 4-го балансира), а тут в наличии 4;
3) упоры балансиров 1, 5 и 6 старой формы, заимствованные еще с 432 объектов, они были заменены на новые в марте 1975 г.

Вывод: танк выпущен до марта 75, номер У11ЕТ4033 относится к самому ХТВ.

Отредактировано armor.kiev.ua (2020-02-13 05:00:46)

802

Нет свдений сколько чего успели сделать из ХТВ?

803

armor.kiev.ua написал(а):

Отредактировано armor.kiev.ua (Сегодня 05:00:46)

Огромное спасибо за ценные замечания! Будут учтены в дальнейшем.

804

Gur Khan написал(а):

Огромное спасибо за ценные замечания! Будут учтены в дальнейшем.


Не за что. Насколько я понимаю, там можно вносить исправления. Если по всем пунктам можно считать мою информацию как дополнение, то по последнему уже ошибка, её лучше исправить -- идентификация модификации базовой машины по номеру здесь не работает. В принципе можно посмотреть номер корпуса рядом с люком. С вероятность 99% это должна быть машина между июлем 1973 и мартом 1975.

Отредактировано armor.kiev.ua (2020-02-13 20:20:34)

805

отрохов написал(а):

Т.к. в СССР требования ГОСТ исполнялись и контролировались на предприятиях службами нормоконтроля, то просто уверен, что коэффициенты конструктивной и технологической применяемости в Т-72Б  были не менее 70% от предыдущей модификации Т-72А!

А сколько в нем всего деталек? В смысле тысяч? Вот и посчитайте сколько там своих было.

806

материал из ВБТТ а 1991 год, написан под влиянием войны в Заливе.
Идеи, предложенные в статье актуальны и в наши дни. В этом направлении и пытались развиваться в конце 80-х такие проекты как Объект 490 и 299.

Принципиальные конструктивно-компоновоч­ные решения, характеризующие облик танка в со­ставе комплекса, состоят в следующем. С целью повышения живучести танка и экипажа его внут­ренний объем должен быть разделен на изолированные отсеки, экипаж размещен в сильно защи­щенной капсуле. Одновременно с усилением бро­нирования лобовой и бортовой проекции следует существенно повысить защищенность от высокоточ­ных противотанковых средств, поражающих верх­нюю проекцию, и от мин равного типа. Учитывал напряженность веоовой характеристики броневой

Второй машиной комплекса должна быть тяжелая боевая машина пехоты или боевая машина поддержки танков, основным назначением которой является борьба с живой силой, в том числе танкоопасной.

Еще одной группой машин, входящих в комплеке, являются машины обеспечения. К ним относятся транспортно-заряжающая машина и топливозаиравщик на танковой базе, способные снабжать боекомплектом и ГСМ машины комплекса непосредственно в районе ведения боевых действий…

https://imgprx.livejournal.net/087782935d5aa40ad15aa2b6f2c487c830d37c6b/SVXeQIv_VJz_JRkswTb0B8h6QcH6x_mUvZ7luBMk1SUWZx9NF2Rl-NS5z9gB47xo5U9ACVbWJxJTK2aLpQsWerMB_KROHpKGa4_h75ZRck0Ztbj40FsvldIb-go-H9z7

КОНЦЕПЦИЯ КОМПЛЕКСА БОЕВЫХ МАШИН ПЕРЕДНЕГО КРАЯ
http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt_1991_07_kompleks1.htm
(Вестник бронетанковой техники, № 7. 1991)


Вы здесь » СИЛА РОССИИ. Форум сайта «Отвага» (www.otvaga2004.ru) » Бронетанковая техника » История советского танкостроения 6