HOME | DD

Yaskolkov In reply to SovietChekist [2018-12-01 09:41:45 +0000 UTC]

Харьковские проекты тогда были приоритетными, так что просуществуй СССР подольше или не зачахни Украина, "Белку" или что-то не менее инфернальное довели до серии. А так - пришлось доводить до ума "линию" объекта 195. "Чёрный орёл" загнулся по совершенно неясным причинам (может, боекомплект защитить не сумели). Ещё видел картинки плохого качества с танком, у которого 2 ГТД в надгусеничных полках, электротрансмиссия и очень толстые лобовые детали. Кто это проектировал - не знаю.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ololoid In reply to Yaskolkov [2019-01-19 14:48:03 +0000 UTC]

Танк с турбинами в надгусеничных полках - это эскизный проект Лосика и Брилева из статьи "имеют ли танки будущее". А Объект 640 загнулся по очень прозаичной причине - его проектировало периферийное чахнущее КБ, у которого уже не было полноценного будущего. Собственно, тот "Черный Орел", который катался на полигоне, был чрезвычайно далек от того, что планировалось в проекте.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Yaskolkov In reply to Ololoid [2019-01-19 14:57:18 +0000 UTC]

Спасибо! Нашёл ту статью btvt.narod.ru/1/brilev/brilev.… Компоновка для боевой техники мертворождённая и жуткая, (он, "Азовочка", "Рысак") конечно. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Yaskolkov In reply to Airborneleaf [2018-04-20 14:17:20 +0000 UTC]

In 1980s Kharkov engineers had a alternative and weird opinion otvaga2004.ru/tanki/istoriya-s…

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Airborneleaf In reply to Yaskolkov [2018-04-21 14:41:49 +0000 UTC]

Two engines and two transmissions isn't an advantage, so I have no clue where they got that idea. All this does is increase the likelihood of having a mechanic failure, increases the size and weight of the vehicle its complexity, and increase ground pressure significantly. Quad tracks never became a thing because of all these downsides, and zero upsides.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Yaskolkov In reply to Airborneleaf [2018-04-22 06:35:57 +0000 UTC]

But it was not enough for them and they designed    

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Yaskolkov In reply to Airborneleaf [2018-04-22 06:35:18 +0000 UTC]

 Two engines is an advantage and uses on T-70/SU-76, BTR-70... and about a mechanic failure if one engine/transmission/track breaks, the vehicle will still go. Ground pressure of soviet tanks is small compared with +60 tonns Abrams and Leoperd 2. Quad tracks became a thing in tracrors, ATVs, road machinery. 

The size, weight, complication and cost is huge minus nullifying all advantages. But with soviet / ukrainian engines 5TDF or 6TDF these problems were mostly solved. Engines are small, powerful, have simpliest transmission.


 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Airborneleaf In reply to Yaskolkov [2018-04-22 16:08:47 +0000 UTC]

You can't cite something like the Viking as proof that a solid hull quad tracks MBT is at all functional. The Viking has quad tracks because the second pair are on what is essentially a trailer that isn't fixed to the front hull. There is literally no point to having quad tracks on a solid hull, especially when it's a tank. Even the people who designed that said it's needlessly overly complex and stupid. Multiple engines driving one transmission works because at the time that's how you got the power you needed when a larger engine wasn't available. You don't take that concept and throw it in a new vehicle, just with the engines powering their own sets of tracks for no reason.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Yaskolkov In reply to Airborneleaf [2018-04-22 17:07:28 +0000 UTC]

Excluding two-part and conditionally / former wheeled vehicles, I can not give real examples of serial quad tracked ones. There are only different concepts of such MBT (R.P. Hunnicutt "A History of the American MBT" - chrysler four tracked tank), Malyshev Factory experimental chassis,  soviet 'light tank' from a photo or small robots. With the use of electric transmission it is more real.  

👍: 0 ⏩: 0