The T-64's smaller design presented a problem when selecting a suitable engine. 434 was accepted into Soviet Army service in May 1968 as the T-64A. 434 in Moscow, preventing rival developments and ideas from being discussed. Problems with the early production run were evident from the start, but a strong lobby formed around Morozov who advocated for Ob. ![]() 432 (later serialized as the T-64) into production, dooming Kartsev's tank. In December 1962, the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union ordered Ob. 167 jeopardized the future of the Kharkiv tank. Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union Dmitry Ustinov, believed the parallel development of Ob. Okunev and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, who believed the tank was more affordable. 167 was favored by Uralvagonzavod director I.V. 434, in which the former proved its superiority to both the T-62 and T-55. In 1964, the tank underwent comparative testing with the Ob. Prototypes used the turret from the T-62, and a manual loader. Unlike the Kharkiv tank, it eschewed the state-of-the-art. 165 were readied as the T-62 and T-62A respectively. This suggestion was rejected, and the Ob. 166 for production, Kartsev disagreed and instead offered to prepare the Ob. 166, and was also Kartsev's favored model. 167 was designed based on an Object 140 rebuilt by Kartsev and Valeri Venediktov. To do this, the crew was reduced to three soldiers, removing the loader by introducing an automated loading system. Under the direction of Morozov in Kharkiv, a new design emerged with the hull reduced to the minimum size possible. ![]() 434 was a technically ambitious prototype. To improve on the T-62, two designs based on the tank were tested in 1964: Nizhny Tagil's Object 167 (T-62B) and Kharkiv's Object 434. Uralvagon KB was led by Leonid Kartsev in Nizhny Tagil. Morozov KB was led by Alexander Morozov in Kharkiv. The T-72 was a product of a rivalry between design teams. Production and development of various modernized T-72 models continues today.ĭevelopment Development from the T-64 The Russian T-90 introduced in 1992 and the Chinese Type 99 are further developments of the T-72. It has been widely exported and has seen service in 40 countries and in numerous conflicts. About 25,000 T-72 tanks have been built, and refurbishment has enabled many to remain in service for decades. The T-72 was a development of the T-64, which was troubled by high costs and its reliance on immature developmental technology. Nevertheless it looks great in my opinion and if you can manage it, it would look fantastic in a battle scene.The T-72 is a family of Soviet main battle tanks that entered production in 1969. I know this is extremely subtle, and in a render with a muzzle flash I added a slight particle effect to illustrate the hovering.Īwesome It looks great About the battle scene, if you can do it go for it, but I think it looks nice and clean the way it is As Nasarog said, hovering tanks are most likely the way of the future, and if you look very closely at the picture, you may notice that there is a distance between the tank itself and it's reflection. Thanks for the compliments! Yeah I probably should have explained how the tank's propulsion system worked first. Standard mines and IED's become obsolete. I'd think they would use hover technology, I know that once we develop it, we'll use it. Would tanks like that be used in invasions of planets with difficult terrain such as lava or jungle? At this point and in all other similar combat situations, it is up to the infantry to protect the flanks and guard the tank.īut to be sure there is a problem with shells that could land under the tank and destroy it, so I'll be sure to give that some thought anything else you guys can see that might need fixing? The British forces in WWII did this quite a bit.ģ) As for when a tank is stopped on a hill and providing fire support, it *should* almost always have infantry that it is shielding from fire. The main concern when your tank is idling should be a sneak attack by another tank division or some other large enemy movement.Ģ) As for when the tank is unmanned and idling at a base behind friendly lines (making it vulnerable to a trained spy/saboteur) there is almost always a system where a crew member of the tank has to stand guard over the tank. tanks are practically useless in that kind of combat. If your main concern when your tank is stopped is that someone might plant a bomb under it, then the tank should not be fighting that war. Tbh there are three suitable answers that come to my mind about the question.ġ) Tanks are not used in wars vs insurgents/guerilla warfare. ![]() Wow, nice discussion! Sophon tanks vs Vaulter insurgency.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |