Object 490 - 152mm RUSSIAN SUPER TANK!
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- Object 490 (Russian: Объект 490А Бунтарь) was a Soviet experimental main battle tank developed between 1981 and 1982. Only two prototypes were ever produced, neither of which were capable of firing due to time constraints. Neither of the vehicles were completed before their production was ceased.
The Object 490A was created as an alternative variant for the Object 490. The 490A Buntar was suggested in order to provide the vehicle with one more crew member as well as an externally mounted gun. The biggest change from the Object 490 to the 490A was the completely redesigned turret as well as minor changes to the chassis. The project was cancelled at the end of 1984 due to the newer Object 477 Molot program beginning. The tank is considered to be a vehicle ahead of its time, as it utilized multiple new technologies in order to stay ahead of the competition.
The vehicle sported a fire-control system (designated as "Argus"). Argus was the main computer to which the radar, thermal imager and cameras were linked to. The gun was mounted externally. The creators of the vehicle, Bazhenov and Shomin, debated over what caliber of gun should replace the previously planned 125mm 2A66M smoothbore. A 130 mm was suggested, but a 152 mm 2A73 gun would instead be the gun implemented on future models.
Hope you enjoy!!
💰 Want to support my channel? Check out my Patreon Donation page! www.patreon.co...
Matt’s DREAM: www.gofundme.c...
👕 Check out my Merch: teespring.com/...
📬Wanna send me something? My PO Box: Matthew James 210A - 12A Street N Suite
#135 Lethbridge Alberta Canada T1H2J
🎮 Twitch: / matsimus_9033
👋DISCORD: / discord
📘 Facebook: www.facebook.c...
🐦Twitter: / matsimusgaming
⛔️ (DISCLAIMER: This video is for informative and entertainment purposes only. The views and opinion come from personal experience and not that of others or other organizations. This content and information is there to provide information from public accessible sources.)
Object 490 - 152mm RUSSIAN SUPER TANK!
Want to support my own super tank project! Check out my crowdfund for a CVRT for sale here in Canada that I want to buy for the channel! Thanks to everyone who has supported me and this channel! It means so much!! www.gofundme.com/f/matt039s-cvrt-tank-dream-fund?+share-sheet
you should go ahead and start a second gofundme for the inevitable logistical requirements 😉
have you see object 279 it old but interesting look
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_279
ok, so here is what i was thinking.
Ehem!! so you take a scaled down railgun....
I just cant get over the fact that the turret ring is angled slightly i mean why would you do somesting like that
it aint the baneblade but this was a wonderful review Mastimus, i was NOT familiar with this things existence at all. and when i saw it i was like oh its like the STRV.... still just wow. Thank you for this one.
152mm is the best way to move forward...and a bit backwards from the recoil
If your tracks are gone, your fuel tanks are busted and your engines are toast, then you can use recoil to get back to the base!
During trials of SU-152 it was suppose to shot captured panther from 1,5 km. Shell entered frontal plate and threw engine out of tank's back.
Got that right. That’s like the tigers tanks. That would have a hell of a kick to it 🤣👍
Halt Hammerzeit they wouldn’t do that for another minute though, since the reload process takes very long. However, every tank gone = win right?
@@biko9824 autoloaders
When looking at the internal design of the damn thing ... all I can say is this:
"A crewman's dream is often a mechanic's nightmare"
Except the crewie also has to turn spanners on it. Can you imagine trying to service those engines or tension those tracks?
152 mm almost 6 in. This tank is literally a mobile cruiser turret.
And that's cruiser as in warship that's just smaller than a battleship.
I mean, the US had actual 152mm armed tanks produced like the Sheridan and Starship (which is a fucking awesome name for a tank) but stepped away from it for the 105mm and 120mm. The velocity though was terrible and accuracy wasn't good, not to mention the Shillelagh missile they had for it was a piece of garbage.
It's a large destroyer gun or light cruiser. If you're thinking heavy cruiser, we'd be looking at 8 inch or bigger. And the 152mm guns the US used were basically mortars/howitzers instead for a slow HE shell against infantry. Not full fledged cannons intended to push anti-tank rounds.
@@Kastev30 not to mention the MBT-70/KPZ-70 and the XM-803
@keith moore yeah when I saw the 152 MMG automatically thought of the traditional 6 inch cruisers typical of the 1900-20s. When I think cruisers I think the Emden or one of those British chonks of the period. I like girls with curves, not those brick house ships.
It is 6 inches. Russians use to have the British Imperial Unit System. 122mm is 4.8 inch, 0.4 ft, 121.92mm. 152.4mm is 6 inch, 0.5 ft. The caliber didn't physically change, just the unit system did to the metric system. Calling it 152mm is just a lazy way of calling it in the metric system. In the old system, they were simply called 6 inch howitzers. The British Empire use to export howitzers and guns to Russia using their own unit system. 1 foot divided by 4 is 3 inches or 76.2mm. 0.1 feet is 1.2 inches or 30.48mm. The .50 caliber is half an inch or 12.7mm in the metric system. British Imperial Unit System to Metric System conversion.
13:00
"your crew can NOT lift such a round"
KV-2 Crew: are we a joke to you?
The shell for the gun weighed between 60 to 115 pounds so moving such a heavy shell in a cramp box was a nightmare
You know them Russians are cocktail strong... lifting no problem. ..
Strum tiger crew crying on the sidelines. What about me I am also a joke to you
1: This thing was intended to used FIXED 152mm, IE: Like a cartridge. Like 120mm NATO ammunition. The shell is fixed to the propellant case. The 152mm M10 gun of the KV2 used separate loading 152mm shells, and bagged charges. The shell for the KV2, alone weighed ~40 kg (~90 lbs). Now add a case, and propellant, which would probably add another 20-30 kg. So no, no human loader is going to be moving around a 60-70 kilo (130-150 lb) high explosive object, in a confined space, safely, or with any speed.
2: I know this is a joke, I am just tired of this meme.
The round in question is not a typical 152mm like a howitzer used. This round and case was well over 1.3m long, hence the outoloader
I both love and hate how the Russians call everything 'Object'
they objectify everything :(
Объект generally means prototype or means it's still experimental. Once it goes into production it recieves normal designation.
@@komradekat3557 da, tovarish!
@@Exchiefboy , да друга 👍
Its the same way Britain calls everything FV
Russia : Object 490 super tank
Germany : *heavy breathing*
Thanks for the like Matsimus, Thanks to you guys as well!
Britain: I do say good chap, that is a splendid tank but nowhere near as good as my Tortoise
@@ravenouself4181 haha agreed
Germany: Hetzer 2
With this Tank the Crew can retreat with full Speed, while showing the Enemy 4000mm of relative Armor and basically a heavy Artillery Gun... I think this should compensate the Problem of the Tank isn't able to fire backwards to a certain Degrees.
US Tank Designers are like, meh, didn't look like an Abrams, so it must be Crap. But Russian Tank designers are like, Straping a Naval Gun on to a nearly impenetrable Hull? Sounds ridiculous... LETS DO IT, BLYAT!!!
@@tomashausner7097 Pilsner!
It would probably be more of a defensive weapon, like the strv 103
Literal modern landship.
That looks like something that fits right into Warhammer 40k.
ob. 195 assumed the presence of a Commisar to activate tactical projectiles 152mm.
It's not a joke)
Kind of an odd fusion of Imperium and Tau aesthetics, in my opinion.
@@willrogers3793 HERESY
Brother Melikyit that’s why I said it was “odd”, you silly person. 😉
For the Emperor... Uh hehem, i mean Stalin!
"Tank Destroyer reporting."
Lol, this thing is not only a tank destroyer, it's also a tank destroyer destroyer.
jonathan smith This was a C&C RA2 quote actually..
"No armor's too thick"
@@MazterHuntR "No armour's too tough"
@@onca4130 this is a CQC Vehicle, F You
Sweden: designs Strv 103
Russia: "hold my Vodka"
"A weapon to surpass Metal Gear."
@@rudolfhess8342 Yeas it is. There is place under front armor plate for nuclear reactor.
And more place for RAILGUNS!
Uma máquina muito grande se não tiver uma blindagem que garanta os seus tripulantes nao vale de nada só um caixão de ferro retorcido.
It looks a scary and most formidable tank. The main armament at 152mm is more reminiscent of a mobile gun
Does anyone else appreciate the amount of prior knowledge and research that goes into these videos?
Keep it up!
Armoured warfare did a big article about this tank before adding it as a tier 10 reward on the last battle path
Looks like you haven’t watched Red Effect...
Of course! That's why I subscribed to this channel. Thanks Matsimus !
This is clearly the early stages of the feared mammoth tank ....
'Unrivaled'
Mason Byrne give it two cannons with railgun upgrades should tech go far in the future and we can officially name it mammoth tank
*wargaming smells object and comes running*
Aw shit pls stop giving a WG a another idea of adding a broken pay to win T10 stealthy snipe camper.
They almost destroy World of Warships and now they going to ruined World of Tanks, just stop demanding a broken tank again pls.
Seems WG is taking Sekrit Dokumints again
Dont move!
Too far in the 20th century. Maybe as a 15th level tank.
Lmao
One advantage of having the tracks split in a forward and rear pair is that it's hard to knock out the tanks' mobility. Running over a mine or getting hit from the front could take out one of the forward tracks but the tank can still drive, at least if the ground isn't too soft.
So this is literally the second generation kv 2.....
They really liked the 152 communism launcher
Ultimate commie caliber
YES
Basically this is SU152
Да, это так друг
Yes that what it is friend
6:51 Engines are pretty buff, in terms of giving additional protection to the crew. I think that it's estimated that a single engine is capable of providing around 100-150mm RHA of protection. But, combined with the transmission pack, it could be around 200mm RHA of protection (but depends on the size of the engine, and its transmission unit). That may be a relatively small value, but that's a significant fraction of what sabot rounds can penetrate (which is around 700-800mm RHA). Also.....considering that the penetrator is significantly weakened by the composite armour array, the engine block may have an easier time of absorbing the damage.
looks like a russian strv 103
More like a Frankentank of an Strv 103 mated with an M60A2 "Starship"
SonsOfLorgar lol
Looks like it has a turret. Can probably turn the gun side to side but cant turn it farther enough to fire to the rear.
considering it has turret it reminds me more of a british excalibur tank
@@YugoslavGamer check the images of the M60A2 Patton "Starship" it's basically an identical turret with a longer gun. The M60A2 had an unmanned turret with a 155mm gun/launcher
6:23 Fuel is actually pretty decent as armour. If I recall correctly, the ballistic mass efficiency of fuel (compared to RHA steel) is around 7:1 (or was it 3:1 ???) against shaped charge warheads. In fact, it's pretty effective to the point that a significant majority of tank designs (the M1 Abrams included) put fuel at the front as "additional protection" (the only caveat is that the front fuel tanks get drained last......so as to prevent the likelihood of an explosion when your front fuel tanks get hit).
Also. Fuel is remarkably safe when it gets hit. Well at least when compared to getting hit in the ammunition rack. I've read a report a long time ago, about the Soviets testing fire hazards (by shooting at a T-34 tank). Apparently they shot at a tank with ammunition, and fuel. Every time they hit it, it caught on fire. So, in the next round of tests they took the fuel out (but kept the ammo in). Every time it hit, the tank caught on fire (despite there being no fuel inside). After that, they took out the ammo, and put the fuel back in........surprisingly, the tank failed to catch on fire. And when it did, it was only on rare occasions.
(I will try to get the source for that info, if I remember where I found it from :/ )
You can always have fuel tanks purged with nitrogen or argon to keep them oxygen-free.
This sounds so interesting. Any luck with those sources?
@@iceshadow207 I will try scrounging up where I got those sources for you. But, it's been a really long time since I looked back at those sources. So, it may take some time
@@iceshadow207 Ok. So I found those sources you were asking me about. I will try to explain them as best as I can:
1) You remember that whole thing about me saying that the Soviets were testing their T-34 tanks in specific scenarios (by removing their ammunition in one test. And removing their fuel in another test. After removing the mentioned materials, the tanks would be fired upon)???
Well......it seems I have made an error. It wasn't actually the Soviets that have done these tests. But, it was actually the Americans that did these tests with M4 Sherman tanks (not with Russian T-34 tanks).
www.tankarchives.ca/2019/03/wet-ammo-rack-effectiveness.html?m=1 (an article from "Tank Archives". The author of which is Peter Samsonov)
So, I guess I misremembered a little bit. Heh heh. Whoops.
*But, anyways, there are some weird things about this link that I would like to talk about:*
*A) So, in this article, there are pictures of US army documents from 1943. Anyways, I've read what's contained in them. It does 100% state that the Americans removed fuel from their M4 Sherman tanks, and shot at them. In over 90% of the cases, the projectiles penetrated the tank, struck the ammunition, and caused the whole tank to go up in flames.*
*However, those pictures fail to mention about the scenario about the ammunition being removed from the Sherman tanks (but they do mention wet ammo racks plenty of times). Like none at all. And I read those pictures multiple times to triple check. So, I have no idea what Peter was talking about when, "the Americans removed ammunition from the Shermans".*
*But, I don't think he is making this (particular) scenario up from nowhere. It could be possible that there were actually tests done with Sherman tanks having their ammunition removed. But, it may be from the full document (and not what's listed inside the pictures), or even maybe from another document. But, I have no way to check, because I don't have full access to those documents. So maybe I could question him about that*
*B) So, even though we don't know anything about the other tests (done on the Sherman tanks with their ammunition removed), we could extrapolate a few things. So, according to the pictures (about the US army documents from 1943. Linked in Peter's article), it states that a majority of Sherman tanks caught on fire, because their crew compartments got hit.*
*Which is interesting, because I am 90% sure that all the ammunition is located in the crew compartment of the Sherman tank. On the other hand, all the fuel is located away from the crew compartment, and located in the rear hull portion of the tank (beside the engine). So, this may explain why ammunition frequently gets set on fire (when the crew compartment gets hit), more so than the fuel catching on fire. At least in the case of the Sherman tank.*
@@iceshadow207
2) So, we know that when ammunition gets hit, there is more than a 90% chance that it will go up in flames. But, what about when the fuel tanks get hit? Well, I am not exactly sure, but I could make some educated guesses.
www.tankarchives.ca/2013/07/gas-tanks-fires-and-explosions.html (so another article from "Tank Archives". Yes, it's that same Peter guy)
*A) So, according to this link, the Soviets were examining their own tanks, and the hazards of their fuel tanks. In their report, it states that they examined 72 destroyed (Soviet) tanks that were recovered after the battle of Kursk. According to them 68% of these tanks were destroyed by the un-sealing of fuel tanks, and subsequent ignition of the diesel fuel (keep in mind that ignition may either mean an explosion of the fuel tanks, or just the fuel catching on fire without exploding).*
*Anywhoo, going further into the report. Only 8% of these wrecks had signs of both internal explosions, and fires (because the fuel ignited). A third, or 24% of them had internal explosions, but with no fire (fuel ignited). Apparently, the ammunition racks weren't damaged.*
*So, 24%, and 8% minus 68% leaves the rest for other scenarios. So I am guessing that (68-24-8=36) 36% of the tanks may have been destroyed due to the fuel catching on fire, but with no explosion of the fuel tanks (the 36% figure is just a guess of mine). So, pretty much 68% of these cases are related to fuel ignition, so that must mean that the rest (100-68=32) of the 32% may have been destroyed due to ammunition fires (again, this 32% figure is just a speculative guess of mine)*
*B) So, you may be wondering to yourself. Hey!!! Wait a minute, I thought that being hit in the fuel is more "safe" than being hit in the ammo racks!!! Shouldn't damaged ammo racks be the most likely cause of a tank's death??? The Soviet report states that 68% of their (72 tanks) were destroyed due to fuel related issues, and the rest of the 32% are probably destroyed from damaged ammo racks!!! So, surely fuel tanks are more dangerous than ammo racks!!! Right???*
*Well, it depends. First of all, in this report, the Soviets only examined 72 tanks recovered from the battle of Kursk. I am no expert, but I am pretty sure that the Russians lost more than "just" 72 tanks during that particular battle. So, this means that the sample size of 72 is way too small. This means that out of all the tanks the Russians lost in Kursk, the percentage of what caused them to be destroyed may be different (We known that the examination of 72 tanks resulted in 68% being destroyed due to fuel issues, and the remaining 32% being destroyed due to ammo issues. But, it could be possible that out of all the Soviet tanks lost in Kursk they could have a 50% lost to fuel issues, and 50% lost to ammo issues. Just as a hypothetical example).*
*And secondly, think of it this way. The only reason the report mentions such a high percentage of tanks lost due to fuel issues is this......the fuel tanks are the things that get hit first (or at the very least, the most likely things to be hit). Not the ammo racks. If you look at a cross section of a Russian T-34 tank, the crew compartment is constructed like the following. The fuel tanks are in front of the ammo racks (when looking at the tank from the side). So, since the ammo racks are behind the fuel tanks, they will be less likely to be hit.*
*And lastly, think of it this way. In the Sherman tank experiment, in over 90% of cases, the ammunition went up in flames. However, in the Soviet report (about the 72 tanks), there was a 68% probability that the fuel resulted in the tank being destroyed, and hurting/killing the crew. So, think about it 90% probability of death, compared to 68% probability, which would you prefer. Also there are some things that are inherently safer with fuel tanks. According to the American report, ammunition fires are notoriously difficult to extinguish. While a fire extinguisher could have a good chance of putting out a fuel fire, it is almost impossible to extinguish an ammunition fire (with a fire extinguisher). In addition to this, if you read the Soviet report further, you will notice that the engineers will comment that the fuel provides good protection against spalling, and shell fragments (fragments that form when the penetrator perforates the main armour). Anyways, that's how I interpreted it. But maybe my interpretation is flawed??? In fact, now that I think about it, I could be wrong. So I am warning you*
*But, as for what determines whether fuel, or ammunition causes the most destruction? Well, I am not quite to sure, but it may depend on the arrangement of the fuel, and ammunition inside the tank (for example, the Sherman tanks has all their ammo inside the crew compartment. While all its fuel is located at the rear hull. For the T-34 tank, both its ammo, and fuel is located inside the crew compartment).*
The Russian Tank design team motto:
More Dakka.
So the weapons industry consists of Ork Meks, with rare Ork Lobysts in suits smoking cigars while arguing to the warboss regarding the dakka quota?
This is now how I percieve the ar-- Dakka* industry
hahaha yesssssssssssssssssssssssss
@@Elenrai It needz more dakka ya pile of grot spunk. - ork dakka industry lobbyist
"moar dakka" surely?
@@gordonlawrence1448
What is "moar dakka"???
Overlord moving.
Nothing in our way.
They are puny.
I will finish this.
RA ?
Soviet power SUPREME.
@@albertog70 Generals.
And then came the Russian Sentinel and the Euro Manticore.
Armageddon is here
The instrument of doom
Be patient
It is day of judgement
It will soon be a wasteland
Bringing down the "hammer"
They will roam in fear
Taste your mortality
I cast a deadly shadow
The apocalypse has begun...
I've been waiting all my life for this, I just changed the like button from 8.9k to 9k
I prefer the name
"Low boi"
"sLOWpe boi"
Russian: sir, we have no place for a cannon on top!
Other russian: *P U T I T I N T H E F R O N T*
+Martijn Dingenouts
A N D T H EN T H E F R O N T F E L L O F F !
very unusual, chance O F A M I L L I O N!
*N O, PLACE IT ON THE S I D E*
@@AthensStudios also the radio and escape hatches?
@@ItsARandomDragon *PLACE THE MF TANK ON THE S I D E*
@@AthensStudios *YES*
Imagine an HE from that monster hitting that thin top layer protecting abrams and challengers drivers
Even if that thing hit the front, the gun would probably be finished and the optics and probably the driver with it.
Concussion would obliriste crew
@@kristijanmedved6066 i think it will blow the tank out of existence, it will pen the top part and probably set on fire fuel tanks and ammo near the driver, and lets not forget as the guy said earlier, it will crush your optics and main gun even if it doesn't penetrate
This Isn't War thunder. Tanks can survive HE blast on top of them. In fact, there is a video showing a missile detonating above it. It lived.
@@GOD719 do you have a link for it? But i still think a 152mm HE will blast through the driviers roof, its a naval 6 inch gun, thats cruicers territory lol
No word of a lie, my first impression was "My god who gave Mat a copy of Photoshop?"
Russian government : we said needed a new tank.
Tank designer: oh that makes more sense... we thought you said you wanted a skate ramp with a big ass gun on it.
Interesting fact, the T-14 Armata was meant to have a 152mm gun and honestly, it should have had it. If not for anything else, to be the spiritual successor of the KV-2.
Edit: The T-14 Armata is still being produced, the rate of production is lower than what they expected, but it's still produced.
Armored Warfare！
I have to say this is a Genius plan but lack of technology support for it. For example，Russian did not have reliable optic sensor and FLIR system for such project. The unman turret and “Strv-104”like design is not so realistic in soviet union. Perhaps Russia and China could make it come true right now，but it may still be unreliable.
The strv 104 is an upgraded centurion mk10.
The wedge tank is Strv 103
T-14s have already used unmanned turret.
Tech advances allowed for that.
Not like anyone in Cold war years could do unmanned turret anyway.
SonsOfLorgar sorry，my bad
Huntermad but why do Russian still want a supertank？Fight against China？I mean T-14 is already enough to counter Leopard and Abrams and either US nor EU countries have plan for “4th generation MBT” yet. There is almost no motivation.
@@yuhongzhu2168 The problem is Russia can't afford to put T-14 into series production. you also assume that the marketing BS is accurate, which is a gutsy call given the noted combat inferiority of Russian tanks post WW2.
I think this looks great! I really like the separate area in the front with it's own tracks.
The design concept of this tank seems to resemble the Israeli Merkava a lot
nothing in common, 'cept for the front engine compartment. which is one of the reasons why the project was scrapped
@@Burboss well... neither of us has seen a detailed blue print for these two tanks but just look at it. As far as I am concerned the first thing that instinctually comes to mind when I do is "Merkava"
Also just to be clear I'm not implying this similarity is a result of industrial espionage.
@@twilightzone7824 you dont need exact blueprints to get idea about design and concept. layouts for all merkava variants are publicly available.
@Greg The turret looks very similar to the merkava’s
@@tylerdurden629 Like two cars may look similar? 😂
15:45 Having a maximum reverse speed of 90 km/h is pretty useful in open terrain. Would help somewhat in preventing your tank from being flanked. Especially considering the 490 is almost like a turretless TD
A turretless TD... that has a turret, isn't turretless.
@@gustaveliasson5395 Yeah I know that the 490 has a turret. That's why I said "almost"
Sorry for the the confusion, but let me explain. We can all agree that a turretless tank is criticized for not being able to move, and shoot in a 360 degree arc at the same time right?
In contrast, conventionally-designed turreted tanks have no problems moving, and shooting in a 360 degree arc.
But for the Object 490, it's a bit different. Sure it has a turret, your right about that. And it can both move, and shoot at the same time. But, it can engage ground targets from its rear arc (the gun is pointing up at the sky, because of the inclined turret platform. And also, because the crew compartment is in the way). Basically meaning it can't engage ground targets in a full 360 degree arc, while moving.
The Object 490 incorporates a turret, but it doesn't fully utilize the advantage of a turret (i.e engaging targets in a 360 degree range). And the weird turret design, has some drawbacks of a turretless design (i.e can't engage targets from the rear, sort of like a turretless tank).
That's the reason why I said the Object 490 was "almost" turretless (and also, because the turret design sort of reminded me of the T-28 HTC concept tank destroyer). Sorry for the confusion
@@andrewlee-do3rf Fair point, as the "limited traverse" criticism is a bit muddy in terms of how it's defined. My own interpretation was/is that it becomes a problem when the traverse limits force you to reposition the hull just to be able to continue firing at the enemy, thus revealing your position (firing the gun obviously lets the enemy know approximately where you are, but moving the hull makes it far more obvious, especially if they're already looking in your direction). I'm not entirely sure about the 490B's firing arcs, but let's say that the inclined turret ring and tilting suspension allows for firing across a 180-degree forward arc. If the target moves outside that arc, you'll already be repositioning because you're obviously at risk of getting flanked, so the firing arc of the gun itself is no longer the limiting factor.
When retreating to a new firing position, you'll generally want to be doing that using the cover of terrain or dense foliage, meaning that you wouldn't be able to shoot at the enemy even if you could physically point the gun in their direction while you're running away. As the enemy is probably hauling ass towards your last position to catch up with you before you settle down again, you'll also want to perform the maneuver at or close to top speed, meaning that a conventional tank would be driving with its nose pointed away from the enemy anyway, hoping to reach its new position before the enemy breaks through/over whatever cover is separating them from the tank in question.
All in all, I think we're just speaking in different languages. You're absolutely correct in that the tank can't fire at targets behind itself at realistic ranges and height differences, and I'm fairly certain that the practical firing arcs are wide enough that they're not realistically going to be the limiting factor in terms of what's going to force the crew to move their vehicle.
More important, I think, would be the use of a hull-mounted autoloader, as it looks as though it would require that the turret return to a 0-degree azimuth when reloading.
Other objects (477, 477A) used hull-mounted autoloaders as well, but in these cases the hull autoloader(s) fed a "ready rack" autoloader inside the turret itself, allowing the tank to fire up to 8 shots before needing to re-align the turret with the hull. I see no such "ready rack" on the 490B. Idk how fast you could turn the turret (probably faster than a manned one), but the re-alignment process might slow things down enough that it becomes a limiting factor in terms of rate of fire (as opposed to how it is now, where it's limited by how fast the gunner can aquire and range new targets).
I'm taking notes for this stuff for my own fiction story. This design is just too good not to take inspiration from.
I love crazy Russian projects, it's even a pity that such a country has ceased to exist
Russia still exists, the old Soviet political union has gone (CCCP or USSR) to be replaced by the Russian Federation incorporating some of the previous states that made up the USSR.
@@chaz8758 but there is no the might and training which had Soviet Union, Have current Russia problems with finances, that makes army already not such powerful as above
guardsman Well yes, remember that Russia collapsed 30 years ago and has to recover having in mind the Western countries are doing everything to stop its development
An Ex-KGB head has installed himself as President till 2036, annexed a country without interruption and journos like jumping off roofs. Russia is till live and well ;)
@@chaz8758 USSR!!!
No quad tracks are just a bad idea, I know both sides tried this during the Cold War and that’s where this comes from. Just know that they aren’t a good idea
And why is that?
@@pablobaggins5590 double the problems. It doesnt give you an advantage compared to just having one long track per side.
@@pablobaggins5590 transmission
Lordo'destractnan'mssry It does.
Considering this thing had 2 engines. If 1 engine breaks down or gets damaged, the other can still move the tank. Even if it’s only forward or backwards. I think this is a feature on BTR-60.
And If 1 track gets blown up on a mine, the one behind it or in front can keep the tank rolling, because the wheels themselves might still be functional.
But, I agree. This is complex mechanism, thus too expensive to produce and difficult to maintain. I think if this tank was to see further development it would have a single track. And that tank is called Object 490A.
Twice as many tracks and rd wheels to deal with with in combat and suffering dmg knock a track off and the tanks disabled for the most part not a good idea in my view either!!
152mm shells : im heavy
Russian designer : IK, thats why we are making a autoloader just for you
In a tank vs tank engagement that thing would be a beast!
152mm high velocity dakka, would be brutal and it would probably be close to immune to return fire!
Epic Tank destroyer.
I agree with you about the track configuration. I do have everything it suggests that if one engine and track system were knocked out (especially on only one side) the other might still be able to drag it along on tracks that were functioning. Thanks for such an informed reprise of a strange, strange vehicle!
As a Russian and also former armor operator you get my support for your 40k personal tankette!
I think it would be great as long as you can ensure that your sides and rear are protected by some sort of cover, since the sides and rear aren't sloped at all and don't look like they contain armor that is particularly thick. But definitely, a hit from the front is extremely unlikely to penetrate all the way back to the crew compartment. I think its cool to see that 152mm gun. I think someone else mentioned it previously, but the Russians had an armored vehicle (tank of a sort) during WW2 that also mounted a 152mm gun. I think it was called the SU-152 (or something close to that). Cool video.
Swedes: Creates STRV 103
World: Impressive
Russia: *laughs in vodka, comrade witch optional 125mm squat stick or 152mm Slavcanon.
Now that is a freaking tank!!! I saw something similar when I first started writing my sci-fi novels that I have been working on. Very similar, but man that thing is pretty! I want a model kit.
grinding for this tank on AW was too much... I wanted to die lol
Lol some missions were a pain, got it but rarely play it as I prefer the progression tier 10's
I am a retired U.S. Army Master Sergeant (E8)(1972-1993). Just a few problems with it: (1) Turret cannot traverse through the normal full 360 degree range which means they are dead if someone is in their rear quarter, (2)Turret is so low that taking advantage of protective berms is probably not possible while leaving the main gun still capable of attack - the same problem many WWII assault guns had, (3) more tracks = more maintenance and replacement, (4) larger caliber means less main gun ammunition can be carried and increased barrel wear.
In my opinion, this is not a tank, it is an attempt to repeat the success of self-propelled guns from the Second World War. The ISU-152 did not have a turret, the rotation of its guns was only a few degrees, but it had a very powerful gun. Self-propelled guns have their advantages over the tank, heavy weapons mean increased returns, in order for the tank tower to withstand such returns, it must be made very heavy, in order for the tank to be able to transport such a tower, it needs to greatly strengthen the chassis. For example, the KV-2 tank also had a 152-millimeter gun, but it could not use shells from the ISU-152, if the projectile from the ISU-152 was loaded into the KV-2, then at best the KV-2 tower would simply jam. For kv-2 used shells with a reduced charge of gunpowder. In World War II, the Russians called ISU-152 an animal killer. The Germans loved to call their heavy tanks Panther, Tiger. I believe that the name ISU-152 is fully deserved. Proper use of the ISU-152 is the protection of infantry in defense against enemy tanks. German heavy tanks could not get close to him at the range of a successful shot. ISU-152 fired further, had more muzzle pressure and a larger projectile. The misuse of the ISU-152 was to send him on the attack like a regular tank.
i can already hear the groaning of German player in the war-thunder servers.
Today's technology might enable it to see if another tank is coming up from behind and the 490 can then maneuver to defend itself. But it still is a disadvantage especially if the terrain does not easily afford a quick turnaround. Good video and narration, thank you.
War Thunder new premium Ussr 5.7 br
It's a big jump from the t34 my old dad drove. It looks good
There is only 1 view.....it’s me it’s me. I should get a prize!
Except, the T14 is the opposite. Place all three members at the front of the tank with no engine block/fuel storage in front of them. I think this is a great tank, but the T14, has a lot to learn from this tank design. Keep putting out great videos!
---- The creators of the vehicle, Bazhenov and Shomin The vechicle was designed by Mazurenko and Evgeniy Morozov.
This thing is both a psychological and physical weapon, brilliant.
This thing is just F!@#!NG awesome, it's not practical in so many ways but by god I think someone said to the designer: "Comrade Mikael, for this project you must think outside the box"! So the designer went outside the box, caught a bus to the train station, travelled to La La Lanoski, booked himself into a shady motel, smoked half a Kilo Marijuana, lost consciousness, and when he awoke 4 days later he found sketched on the arse cheek of a 350 lb prostitute an image of this Monster Of A Tank!!!
Thank you AW and Matsimus for letting me know how batshit insane soviet super science is
This looks like the tank from Halo
Damn i wonder why Kojima didn't have seen this. It would be ideal to deploy in Afghanistan in MGS V.
The object 490 would make the scorpion look like a APC
Scrolled down just for this comment
Paweł J Tanks in the mountains is a very bad idea.
Soviets deployed T-34s,55s and 62s to Afgan only. And this was only just in case. Because, they knew tanks will still be fucked up there.
@@scudb5509 Like giant metal gears had sens in real world, few shoots from 125mm and entire robot is down.
2:02 The T-80 has a fairly large turret ring diameter (around 2500mm wide), so it could accept a cannon with a caliber of 140-152mm. However, what's surprising to me is that the Object 292 is able to mount the 152mm gun.......without a muzzle brake.
As a side note, I think the M1 Abrams is sort of able to up gun to a 140mm cannon (definitely possible if a muzzle brake was used....but I don't think its necessary, because the M1 CATTB didn't need a muzzle brake), because I haven't been able to find any information on the M1 CATTB having its turret ring diameter enlarged from the original size of the standard M1 Abrams (which is around 2160mm). It could be possible that the turret ring diameter of the M1 CATTB could've been enlarged.........but a turret ring diameter of 2160mm seems a bit too large for a 120mm cannon. I mean, I think the South Africans, and Chinese experimented with putting 120mm guns on their Olifant, and Type 59 tanks, respectively. And those tanks have like only around 1820-1880mm wide turret rings........soooooo IDK
This thing reminded me of the YMT-05 Hildolfr from Gundam.
Can I still fight... Hildolfr?
Russian guy here, about ARMATA, we didn't have no updates on it since initial "presentation" neither which probably means that SOME production problems have place, probably with high-end electronics and stuff, we... well... can't make those things ourselves all that good yet, and as it seems our supplies bought from other countries are lacking at the moment.
Looks like the STRV 103
That was my thought too
These Quad tanks, remind me of the Halo Scorpion tank.
Really awesome.
12:55 I guess so.....1400 mm is pretty long, but........most 120mm tank shells are almost 1000 mm long (above, or below 950 mm in length)
I would love to see that Split Track design tested. If it does what I think it does it will still allow the Tank a limited level of mobility even with a track blown off.
Next: the TESLA tank!
czcams.com/video/-b4-wLPUDM8/video.html
@@ХРЕНОРЕЗ english please
Having four tracks instead of two is pointless. The US Army studied this in the past and came to the conclusion that there was a negligible difference from the conventional two track design.
Soviet is not Russian
Kind of is tbh
Same people, same land, same culture, same shit everything, same dictatorship, literally just a different name, flag and official political allignment
@@C00ch13Munch3rHe means that this tank was designed in Kharkiv. It’s Ukraine.
@@andrejjjj2008, nah, he didn't
@@andrejjjj2008 It's Soviet, dingus, it was designed in SOVIET Ukraine, which is a part of the Soviet Union, and most of the time people use "Soviet" they refer to the Soviet Union as a whole. It seems you don't know the slightest shit about geopolitical lol. also he meant that the Soviet Union and Russian are 2 different countries and thus can't be used interchangeably with each other.
It’s an amazing bit of kit, as you’d say. 👍🏼
reminds me a bit of a smaller brother of the imperial baneblade from wh 40k, is baneblade actually possible? :0
6:08 Speaking of diesel (engine) fuel.........it isn't the only energetic substance that can act as "armour". I think gun propellant can also act as armour too. I think, one of the earliest designers of ERA armour, Dr. Manfred Held noticed an unusual phenomenon with ammunition when he examined knocked-out tanks. Apparently the ammunition, when hit by a projectile, acted to nullify the strength of the projectile in very strange ways.......and thus that's where the idea of ERA armour came to be.
Well anyways, gun propellant surprisingly can act as a form of armour material. I know that gun propellants are sometimes used as a gas generators for SLERA, or NxRA armour arrays
During the board meeting...
"So we have the 152mm and the-"
"-Mm yeess big gun make abram go bye-bye."
"You haven't even heard the other options."
"Big gun. Make Abram. Go. Bye. Bye."
Now bring the Vodka, some paper and some pencils
8:58 Actually, that's pretty reasonable. The British were experimenting with their idea of a Chieftain-based, casemate, tank destroyer. And apparently they were able to get a total armour weight of around 30 tons (the actual total weight of the tank would be around 40 tons). And for that weight, they were able to get their upper frontal plate to have around 1400mm RHA.
So......with an extra 10-15 tons of weight (and maybe better armour materials???), the Soviets could reach 2000mm RHA for the "passive" armour on the Object 490's upper frontal plate. Although that 4500mm RHA part seems redonculous........that value may come from the additional protection provided by the ERA armour (maybe heavy ERA armour??? I seem to vaguely recall that heavy ERA is capable of shredding off around 200mm RHA of penetration from APDSFS shells)
***Edit***
Sorry I think I made a few mistakes. I think the 2000mm RHA value is only against KEPs (Kinetic Energy Penetrators like APDSFS). And this value is probably from the protection afforded by the passive armour, and reactive armour combined (earlier, I said that 2000mm RHA was achieved without using reactive armour. But, now I realize that was stupid of me to assume so). It is most likely that the 4500 mm RHA value is against shaped charges.......because, honestly, I think it's literally impossible to have any armoured area having 4500mm RHA against KEP (hell even with today's armour materials, that's not achievable)........so, sorry my bad.
They tried to copy the Strv....
Well its not bad......
Looks like the Srv and Merkava had a baby...
jugganaut33 Official reason for STRV lacking turret is because Sweden has a lot of forests, and turning a turret in the forest is not a good idea. But, I actually believe that this is a bit off as a reason.
And I don’t think you guys know, but the first Soviet vehicle to feature hydraulic suspension was the BMD-1.
@@scudb5509 The concept of a tank destroyer is that you can mount a bigger gun, reinforce the front and still have smaller silhouette than a regular tank and you can do it even cheaper. Just the ATGMs ruined it.
Much better with a traversable turret
Strv is just the Swedish abbreviation for stridsvagn which means tank (direct translation battle wagon) so there are many types of "strv". What you think of is Strv 103, a.k.a. Stridsvagn S.
This thing is so fascinating, almost like it was from another planet.
Imagine being the gunner of an M60A3 tank, driving trough a war torn town in West Germany, only to see that thing advancing towards you while tanking every hit you manage to score on it, only to respond with a massive 152mm annihilator.
''Overlord reporting"
"They are...puny!"
If you play c&c rise of the reds generals the this tank is in it
It’s the sentinel in C & C rise of the reds it can 2 or 3 shot an overlord tank
The split track is a good idea because if the front track hits a mine and damages the track they could still move forward.
Sweden - We have an S tank
Russia - Laughs in Russian
The swedish S-Tank is phased out and no longer in regular service. As a new standart MBT they chose the German Leopard 2 A5 (Stridsvagn 122) The Tank was introduced in 1997. The S-Tank now is history.
@@udorechner6846 So... "we had the S tank" then?
Russia "we have better flat boi... Teoreticaly... I mean... We could"
Where do you draw the line between a tank gun and artillery?
When you stretch an MBT on photoshop
I don’t know, I don’t think tanks like this are the future. Not being able to fire in a 360 degree arc is a huge disadvantage, and the Abrams has Depleted Uranium panels that make it nearly impenetrable to APFSDS rods. So, I doubt it. But hey, it looks super cool!
Sounds like an SCP.
GREAT Video - this is the tip of the iceberg who knows what else they had in development and we will never know as SECRECY was what the USSR was about.
NATO reporting name: "Mein-Gott"
I would spend my sparse savings on a gofundme campaign to see this produced!! Omg so cool. Why are all my favorites cancelled!
remember the overlord in the genereals
correct me if I'm wrong:
1. rotation axis of the turret is not exacly vertical, but tilted to the front? (so probably canon has to move up and down when rotating to keep the same level?)
2. to reload it has to point barrel straight forward?
another thing: what might be the purpose for that split-track design? I see no real gain here...
Even though it looks weird the concept makes sense. The layout will give the crew absolute protection and the cannon would penetrate anything like hot knife through butter. If they make it the tank would redefine armored warfare
It's not the fuel that is explosive, it's the ammunition.
*We're slowly moving towards the aesthetic of the 40K universe without even realizing it...*
This thing was designed decades ago...
beastly, beguiling, bulky, brazen, baffling, belligerent, barbaric, bombastic, brutal, bad and brilliant Russian tank designs.
bloody wankers
edit: *T* ankers
Check out Object 299 - This tank was made as part of the same Research program, but by a different design bureau. It is much more realistic and practical, still would be considered a beast even nowadays.
Never been this early lol.
Reminds me of the Tank Destroyer from Red Alert 2 and Yuri's Revenge....
Speaking of which....
"Tank Destroyer Reporting!"
- TD Rolling out of War Factory
"Not a Tank, We/I Can't Break!"
- TD Selected while Being Idle
"You Call *that* Armor?"
- TD Engaging Vehicles
Crew members are valuable, laughs in soviet union
Just to add one thing I found very neat: hydraulic suspension and size of the engine block was such that you could “lover” one engine and drive off to a new one. Engine blocks were lover profile vs tank clearance. Making it very ease swap job in a field condition.
So basically an strv 103 with a 152mm on a turret, a shitton more armor and weird tracks.
You totally should make video about Object 299
Two thousand millemetres of armour ?? TWO METRES ??
That looks like something I would draw when I was 5
4 years later we learn that a 200$ drone droping shell from above destroy best tanks in the world like nothing