The Atomic Tanks of the 1950s - Object 279 and Chrysler TV-8
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 02. 2023
- As the Atomic Age dawned in the late 1940s, both sides of the iron curtain look towards nuclear power to revolutionise their military hardware and even their way of life. Two very different designs emerged with very different purposes, but both of these 1950s vehicles were shaped unmistakably by the atom.
DISCORD: / discord
Sources:
Firepower - A History Of The American Heavy Tank, R.P.Hunnicutt
Abrams - A History Of The American Main Battle Tank, Volume 2, R.P.Hunnicut
QuestionMark III. Ordnance Tank Automotive Command, Detroit Arsenal, 1954.
tankhistoria.com/cold-war/obj...
All content is presented in historical context for educational purposes. All footage is owned by it's copyright holder and is used in this channel under "fair use".
Music by Epidemic Sound - Věda a technologie
Obj. 279: “Where do you work out?”
TV-8: “The library”
Obj.279: Ohhhhh, so that's why they call you an "armored dictionary" 😏
666th thumbs up GET!
The factoid that the Object 279 was shaped that way to "prevent rollover" from a nuclear blast is almost certainly an internet myth. I have a few older Russian books about tank design and engineering, several of which dedicate at least 1 page to Object 279, and one of which has a 7 page section about Object 279, covering its design and engineering - the purpose of the curvature was to get the maximum possible level of protection with plain steel armor while maintaining the smallest volume (and thus - reducing weight). The design of the 279 showed the limit of protection that steel armor could offer and was one of the motivations for Soviet engineers to start designing composite armor with ceramics. None of the older published books say anything about the shape being designed to "prevent rollover" - that was only a "fact" that I have seen quoted in online forums, which eventually made its way to the English language Wikipedia. So I'm pretty sure that part is a myth that someone pulled out of their hat in the early 2000's, and everyone has been repeating since. The Object 279 did have internal overpressure NBC protection, but so did every Russian tank designed after the T-54 (NBC protection was the defining difference between the T-54 and the T-55, for instance).
That’s very interesting - you’re probably right! The only thing is, why would they bother with the hollow “points” on the side of the vehicle? I don’t really understand the purpose of those if not aerodynamic.
@@RedWrenchFilms The hollow triangles on the side served as an experiment in spaced armor against HEAT rounds. Since the side armor was thinner than the massive chunk of steel at the front, and the superplastic jet of a HEAT round begins to particulate and loses its capacity for penetration over a defined distance regardless of what it goes through, the air gap effectively doubled the thickness of the side armor against HEAT with negligible increase in mass.
On a related note - the first experiments in ceramic composite armor that followed - and which ultimately led to the T-64 carrying Combination K composite armor - were also primarily focused on padding the thickness against HEAT, since the early APFSDS developed at the time didn't have the same kind of penetration depth that modern APFSDS offer, and thus, as far as absolute thickness was concerned, HEAT was a much more significant concern in the 1960s - 1970s
Very impressive… may i know the name of the book? Would like to get one too
@@OlegMilitaryHistory Do these books mention anything about a sabot shell for the 279s gun? I have seen a single mention of it online but I cannot find anything else.
@@OlegMilitaryHistory can u pls tell the name of the book is where u got all the information regarding tanks?
The Object 279 is one of the coolest designs ever seen. Add a second 130mm gun, and it'll be perfect for 'Command & Conquer', 'Warhammer 40,000', or any other wargame we know of.
It's part of arsenal of Russian subfaction specialized in Advanced Weaponry in Rise of the Reds, unofficial sequel to the C&C Generals: Zero Hour. It's called Golem Tank, it's little bit bigger than real life counterpart, it has two AA machine guns, and SHTORA and ERA protection. It's main gun can be replaced later on with a rail gun via upgrade. It's amphibious and can't be affected by radiation, toxins or nerve gas.
flight of the navigator czcams.com/video/1G13KzEJqBw/video.html
@@Dembilaja yo c&c generals is of my favorite games of all time im going to check rise of the reds out for sure thank you so much dude
@@Meatrocket69 I hope you will. I'd really like you to join our community. ROTR and most of other ZHs long running mods have loyal following. ROTR is IMHO one of very few that surpasses original, while at the same time manages to stay both true to it, and expand on it. It also looks and feels like an official product. And all of that while not yet being finished, 2.0 version is a big version that is supposed to add three new generals each to original factions, and three each for Russia and European Continental Alliance newly introduced sides that are focus of the story in the aftermath of what happened in Generals and ZH.
@@Dembilaja have you already tried the 1.87 version as well as Hanpatch add on? They're great
"Let's put a nuclear reactor on the frontlines, I mean what can ever go wrong?"
Cant have radiation poisoning if the air around you is already irradiated from the nukes.
@@dudududu1926 fallout
america wouldve wiped its own army out before they even saw a single soviet tank
Pros: if your enemy blows you up they might get radiation sickness
Cons: literally everything else
Ah yes, 1950s when US and USSR tried to either put nukes on everything or make it nuke-proof so they can still fight each others.
Cut to US nuclear bazooka which didn’t have enough range for the soldier firing it to clear the blast zone
Just fire it out of a helicopter like in MGS3.
@@alphastronghold715
1)take M50 Ontos;
2)replace its M40A1C 105mm rifles with M29 155mm ones;
Enjoy having light tank armed with 6 nuclear shots with effective range of 4km.
I can't imagine the nuclear power concept for the Chrysler TV-8 would have been given much serious consideration by the designers even before the design process began, but they were given a task to design a nuclear powered tank, so they did.
honestly less safe than what the Russians came up. The american tank wouldve edended up into a nuclear bomb
Dude they built and flew a nuclear jet plane before they decided it was a bad idea to spread radiation all over the place.
@@oldleatherhandsfriends4053 If you mean the B-36 conversion (NB-36H) to carry a nuclear reactor testbed, I was aware of it. But such a large aircraft would have had much greater capacity (than a tank) for "buffer space" to provide crew safety separation from the reactor, in addition to the lead shielding surrounding the reactor.
Although the B-36 reactor project was deemed "feasible", the project was cancelled, due to the risk of radioactive contaminants dispersed in the event of a crash. Probably a wise choice, I think.
Obj. 279 had awesome look! Very glad its in good condition now, splendid work!
And it still runs
That tank is the most well i cant say its just so gofy looking
Metal Gear Solid 3 had some Object 279's parked in a military base.
That was a cool detail, I noticed while playing it again. Makes sense...
This man is a powerhouse. Glad hearing about some of the Astron series! Although I’d still love a deep dive! But this is a great video! Keep it up!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I remember first seeing the Object 279 in the Metal Gear Solid 3 and thinking how strange, but captivating design it had. At that time I was not sure if it was a real tank or just a product of the game
TV8: Airtight to keep out radiation to protect the crew
Also TV8: has internal reactor that irradiates the crew
WHAT!?
At 25 tons the shielding would have had to be absolutely minimal, even if such a reactor could be designed
God the 279 is such a cool looking design.
Its incredible how the soviets knew how to built the perfect tank for all the environments
Not in Ukraine obviously. Terminator being terminated currently. No double feed! 😂
Apart from modern combat. Even in the 80’s the ATGM tech wasn’t far off from what it is today. They built great tanks for wars they had already fought
@@deeacosta2734 You obviously don't know any history, Ukraine was one of the founding country of Soviet Union.
@@1ndragunawan founding lol. After they were invaded and starved to death. Russians sniff butts.
As we can see, Ukraine environment doesn't compatible with Soviet tanks😆
There aren't many tank videos which have made me laugh out loud several times but this one did. Love the approach.
The video is straight and to the point
Without bloat or artificial lengthening
It has interesting information at a natural pace and density
And relevant video footage to back it up
My faith in youtube increases ever so slightly thanks to your videos 👍🏻
i feel like bringing a nuclear powered tank to a battlefield is saying "if we lose, you lose"
Great stuff as always, I still can’t believe you only have 12000 subscribers, with the quality of your content and a bit of luck I’m sure your channel will boom. May the algorithm bless you.
god's fastest working CZcamsr
Archie stop simping
@@germanpanzer38t change your name and I will
God *
@@archiebotten4061 In before he changed it to SovietM4Sherman
Criminally underrated man, glad you've had some vids that popped off, but man ya deserve more success lol
Doin a great job tho fam
Great video. Probably my favorite channel to watch about tanks
Good stuff as usual Wrenchie! Greatest idol ever
being a military vehicle designer in the cold war must've been a hell of a expencience. you had to design vehicle that were supposed to literally outlast the end of the world. no wonder they came up with all these crazy stuff back then.
glad to have found this channel, you'll deffo blow up, i mean some of your videos have 200k views already
Hot. Obj is one of my favourite tanks, thanks for this
Good work you do. Thannks
Thank you :)
Another good video
The specific shape of the Object 279 was meant to disable the fuzes of the HEAT rounds, not withstand nuclear blast.
he actually mentioned it @6:09 mark.
@@hang_kentang6709 Not really, the author of this video talk about the notion of void to protect against shaped-charges and enhancing the aerodynamic effect of the armour beneath, which is completely wrong.
What a fascinating subject, your research is superb! When I first saw the title I thought of Indiana Jones in that refrigerator! 😂 👍
Hahah thanks Phil - I'll do a video on that nuke proof fridge for next week!
Wow, how do you make such good videos so fast?
Because I love it!
The object 279’s hull reminds me of the M48, but without fenders
All comments below about the shaping not having been done for the atomic blast protection have one major flaw. The rim is very thin and the chance of a projectile hitting it just there thus low. that leaves deflection as an argument but this would increase the chance of projectiles getting trapped between the shell and the turret on the Sovjet design and tearing apart the drive system on both, at least turning the vehicles into static bunkers. I’d say the blast theory is still a strong contender. About things being mentioned in literature in the past. An example: Nobody ever mentioned radar stealth when discussing the Blackbird spy plane at the time. Everybody explained it’s shape on the basis of speed requirements. Still the stealth shaping rings through once one knows. I for one never understood those rudders being canted inwards. Now I do.
They both are beasts!
Both ideas have their special strengths, but execution proved they're over the board. Well, good thing is that they're nice technical curiosities.
it's nuts that it was being put into the shot loki seriously that's nuts
Knowing that some vehicles actually became nuclear like battleships and submarines, you should cover what would happen if one were to be sunk or destroyed. What aftermaths would play out and could it be as bad as Chernobyl
Sometimes I wonder what other outlandish designs would be conceived if the Soviet Union was still around
The TV-8 in Loki means that in some timeline, this design hit production, but it wasn't the true timeline so the tank was thrown to wolves. xD
sorry, *what* ?!
Or it was a nod to the TVA in the series.
I like how rather than go with the new style of power or a new oscillating turret technology, they just slapped a better engine and transmission into the M26 Pershing and called it the M48 Patton.
It sure be nice to movie into the fusion age.
this looks like some thing in fallout
Talk about japanese MBTs I don't see anybody talking about them
Neither of these tanks ever withstood a nuke going of I their face. But an aussie centurion tank did
Obj 279 was just one heavy tank out of three proposed (there were also 277 and 770, the latter having the most chances of being adopted as ultimate Soviet heavy tank).
A gasoline powered tv8 with a hydrogen fuel cell might be an interesting idea. Floatation is provided by air-tight hull and might mean bio,chemical immunity. I wonder if an old design with a new eltric tesla batter/hydrogen fule cell combo might be an interesting drone tank. To gather intelligence unmanned?.
How do you change the inner track of Obj.279?
If you unpin it you can just drive forward and it'll get left behind. The road wheels are narrower than the track, so they can probably be removed laterally like a car wheel if necessary.
That's what new guys are for.
Haul it back to the factory
when your design makes the object 279 look sane in comparison you really ought to rethink your life decisions
Pls make a vid about the heaviest of the IS family (4and7) and compere there specific data with each other and the western countr parts........I was requisting this for too long....best of future for you
How about VK 16 02 leopard?
Can you tell us why the machine gun equipped tank never made it to production and it's flaws ,advantages,dis-advantages and other stuff about it plese
VK16.02 were never planned to have a 2cm gun mounted, instead a 5cm gun the same mounted on a Panzer 3 and it was designed to be a Mini Panther but was cancelled in favour of producing more Panther tanks
is there a Conquerer video?
Now we need amphibious tank that are successful at ww or cw.
Rarely seen these type of tank
You feel that American low effort design from 1930-60 then when the 70s came everything became smooth designed
People imagine the Object 279 being the size of like a Tiger tank, but people easily forget that this is a Soviet tank we're dealing with here. It was shorter and much smaller than most people imagine it and you'd be lucky if you could fit inside.
It is sub 7 foot tall
Wild how with Cummins, we’re finally maybe getting a hybrid tank.
I thought it was a war thunder video and skipped 1 minute not understanding where the gameplay :)
But it was interesting and i stayed to wath the video
It were crazy times back then.
Are you using the term nuclear and atomic interchangeably between the mentioned bombs?
No (at least I don’t think I do) - all atomic bombs are nukes but not all nukes are atomic bombs.
Have you ever heard about sleep? New vids all the time 🤯
No rest for the wicked!
except that 279 was actually built, where as tv-8 never left a pipe dream stage
7:09 bro glitched
"could survive a nuclear blast, but nothing can withstand the bureaucracy"
- quote of the year-
I love how Chrysler a car company could just use it's regular name to build weapons back then. That would never fly today, could you imagine the Lockheed Town & Country? Lmao
So did ford, Cadillac, GMC, Mitsubishi and many others. Hyundai and Mitsubishi still build tanks.
@@oldleatherhandsfriends4053 first of all you're talking about a cultural difference between the US and Japan. No American car company does or would build weapons under their brand name today, most sold off their defence divisions when the cold war ended anyway
It seems like many videos default to the most optimistic performance of sloped armor. It may be of some help of course, but the reality is heavy shells don't impact horizontally except in rare cases.
On the weight side the sloped panel is usually longer/wider than a non-sloped panel covering the same profile area and enclosed volume (In about the same proportion as the ideal "effective thickness".). The real protection comes from a deflecting action, though deflection action is not as pronounced at shell speeds as it would seem from subsonic human experiences.
Much of the sloping is really more about mechanical concerns like gun depression angle while also maintaining a low vehicle height.
I wouldn’t want to repair the inner tracks in the field.
As for "A tank weighing 60 tons would sink into the ground" - tell that to modern tank designers and they'll laugh. Both the Leopard 2 and the M1 Abrams in their most modern configurations clock in at more than 60 tons. And they work just fine, with the standard drive train configuration of two tracks (and not the complex mess of 4 that Object 279 used).
Not sink fully into the ground like quicksand. But it meant the Obj. 279 could operate in much muddier conditions and had much better off-road performance than, say, an M1 Abrams would.
I kinda forgot the 279 was actually made
The biggest problem with the first Nuclear powered ship's was that people did not Trust them. The Ship SS Savannah could only dock in pre-determined places and had to get permission from nation's to even be near the ship. Which took months to do.
Thanks ma'am, the guys aka men appreciate you....
We almost became a real life Fallout video game.
These tanks look so uncanny
"The R32" I think thats how Nissan got the idea to make the GTR😮
It's as if Red Alert units came alive :)
Umm Super heavy tank T-8 at the Armor museum Ft. Benning GA has 4 tracks
Anyone else just see the video with the Obj. 279 running then this video came up
I hear a snail coming for your TV
I'm surprised world of tanks hasn't added this TV series of tanks yet.
the object 278 is in war thunder.
The TES-3 looks like a nuclear barn on tracks!
If we ever get to make wars on the Moon, I expect to see nuclear powered tanks up there... Probably, fully automated and autonomous.
the soviets developed 152mm nuclear shells which could be fired from their normal artillery units, the kv-2 had a 152mm cannon, we need to develop a time machine just to see a kv-2 fire nuclear artillery.
Something to do with nukes = tank has to look like it came out of Fallout
I might just have to *become* a 279
I was a Cold War m60 tanker
Gaijin, TV-8 when?
wait that's what that was in Loki lol
It's a good thing we got Sokolov out when we did. Oh wait..
I gotta hand it to Russians for almost always building one to few complete ones even for their most ridiculous designs and saving them.
3.28 "...the Gap was filled whith air..." but the draw has Oxygen symbols. Probably air was correct because O2 chemical risks.
looks like a shrunken Mous 1:55
This feels like something from fallout.
I mean ..there s a little difference between nuke powered and nuke proof
ic ant believe the thumbnail wasnt photoshopped
"Nuclear powered" vehicles seems kinda silly and scary at the same time
I love how th TV-8 would not even be a good tank even if it didnt run the risk of producing micro meltdowns on the battlefield.
There is a reason why modern tanks try to minimize vital parts in the turret and even put all the crew into the hull, cause the turret is the part that is gonna get shot the most. So even when hull down this thing exposes the entire crew and powerpack. Not only that but with the gun mounted this load it has to expose basically everything but the tracks to get a shot off.
Imagine this thing getting shot down in the middle of a street and you are now tasked with getting past it without having your hair fall out.
Meanwhile the Swedes bringing back the hull mounted gun in style
Seems like at some point there was this obsession with anything radioactive. I remember reading about the case of Eben Byers.
He gained notoriety in the 1930's because he died after consuming some sort of "medicine" which contained the radioactive material Radium.
There's a picture of him depicting how his entire jaw had just disintegrated and fallen off.
Which is just a "jawdropping" thing to happen.
I'm sorry. But i'm also not sorry.
Chrysler looks like a tick full of blood, change my mind
If our modern AFVs ended looking like the TV-8, I would seize up and die
R32 looks like Maus ?
The object looks 1000x times better then the usa
did they not want a lay in?
They never put nuclear reactors in tanks for the same reason they never put them in aircraft - because we live in our universe and not the Fallout universe. Reactors are astoundingly expensive, even more so when miniaturized, and one typically does not marry an astoundingly expensive and dangerous power source to a set of caterpillar tracks carrying a 95mm slug thrower that has a battlefield lifetime measured in hours. It's fantasy to think we ever had the kind of manufacturing capability to churn out thousands of tiny reactors a year during a nuclear war scenario.
Miniaturizing reactor technology to the point where it could fit on a 4000 ton submarine was a massive achievement that took decades and trillions of dollars, and a submarine is obviously much roomier than a tank or plane.
(and this is without the radiation shielding considerations in so small a space as a plane or tank, which were also unsolvable and unsurvivable at the time. Subs can afford many tons of shielding to keep the crew's exposure minimal, tanks and aircraft can't.)