The Atom wheeled IFV project was a collaborative effort between Russian and French industries, but unfortunately, this partnership proved to be a hindrance to its progress. The project was led by the Russian Central Research Institute Burevestnik, which partnered with Renault Trucks Defence to create a heavy wheeled armored vehicle. The result was a mock-up model that was showcased at the Russia Arms Expo 2013 exhibition, where it received much attention from specialists and the public.
The Atom project boasted several impressive features, including a modern chassis with high mobility and protection, as well as a combat module with a 57-mm automatic cannon. However, despite the initial excitement surrounding the project, progress soon came to a halt. In April 2014, Renault Trucks Defence suspended joint work with Uralvagonzavod Corporation due to sanctions imposed by the French government on Russia.
The suspension of joint work dealt a severe blow to the Atom project, and it remains unclear whether or not it will ever be completed. Despite the setback, the Atom wheeled IFV project remains an intriguing example of international cooperation in the defense industry. While the future of the project is uncertain, it is clear that it has already made an impact on the world of military technology.
The ATOM heavy wheeled IFV with a 57-mm automatic gun is a joint development of UVZ (OJSC TsNII Burevestnik) and the French company Renault Trucks Defense, one of the world’s leading manufacturers of a wide range of tactical vehicles, wheeled armored vehicles and power units for armored vehicles.
The ATOM IFV is designed for transporting motorized rifle units, fighting from a vehicle and providing fire support to dismounted riflemen. The combat module with 57-mm automatic cannon provides detection and defeat day and night from the ground and on the move: lightly armored and unarmored targets, tank-endangering manpower, aerial targets such as UAVs, UAV elements, aircraft and helicopters and allows increasing the firing range up to 16 kilometers.
At the moment, the work has been discontinued, all copies remained with Russia
The main advantages over the 2s38 will be improved mobility, as well as a much larger ammunition of 80-100 vs. 20.
Russia already has plenty of vehicles which fit this description and play style. The 2S38 comes to mind, as does the PT-76E. France has far fewer vehicles overall, and an IFV like this would be a great squadron vehicle for France, as it would offer something different. Since this was a joint venture, and Russia is already loaded with options like it, let’s give this one to France.
All the prototypes stayed in Russia and I think never even went to France, so no.
No one is introducing tanks for the ussr for indirect reasons (read my post about centauro), so russia should not give up its tanks (which are not infinite).
France shares a lot of development with European countries, let it get them.
Good for both France and USSR. It would have made more sense than the ItO 90 for France and SK-105 for Germany. Most of the suspension and engines are from France, the gun is from the USSR (literally the same gun as the PT-76-57) but on a super chassis.
If this thing’s armed with a laser rangefinder, I can see this thing at 9.7 (if it does not have access to a 57mm APFSD/APDS rounds. As far as I know, there are no records of any Russian 57mm APFSDS round).
Overall, good addition for both France and the USSR. Finally, France has something IFV and stabilised at 9.0+, while the Soviets get something wheeled at 9.0+ and has 8 degrees of depression. Hooray, significantly more than average Russian tank depression. Hey, it’s like the ItO, but France has far far more involvement in this thing.
After doing a bit of a research, there seems to be a contradiction here. One source said that the turret is a 2 manned turret, while another stated that the turret is unmanned.
Maybe in this prototype, the used the earlier PT-76E turret. The unmanned turret seemed to be planned, but scrapped due to the programme’s cancellation ((the Baikal gun module). Data and facts about the Atom is very hard to come by, mostly because it never took off.
The chances of the Atom receiving the Baikal module is non-existent. There are no further data on the Atom post 2016, from both Russian and International sources. The only Atom IFV ever built was this mockup, with fully furnished interior. Yet, even then, we do not know if this mockup is even drivable or could fire its gun. The Maus was at least drivable, but we can’t be sure about the Atom.
Whilst the driveline is that of the VBCI-2, that seems to be where the French contribution mostly ends. The chassis is definitely a Russian design, you can see the differences between the VBCI and the Atom chassis (look at the frontal shape of the two chassis’ and headlights):
@JamesPond1200 France cooperated with a lot of countries on their vehicle development. For example, using the same reasoning the PT-91 Twardy has a stronger argument for being in the French TT and that’s a rather trivial prospect. Besides, France has plenty of IFVs that can go from 8.7 to top-tier, having the Atom is pretty unnecessary.
@Nathan0075 The Atom should definitely be driveable since it’s just from a VBCI-2.
While you may argue that the French had backed out, therefore making the vehicle fully Russian, we are talking about the thing that Gaijin will accept, something that was made in real life. In real life, the only thing built was the prototype, designed by the French, engine by France, gun and turret by UVZ. Even the fire control system was French.
While made by the Russians, the IFV was French designed. This is exactly like the ItO 90. The gun was French, the chassis was Finnish. However, both nations get the AA. The same should go for the Atom. Designed in France, made by UVZ to beat those dastardly people at AMZ.
The PT-91 Twardy, on the other hand, has absolutely 0 reasons to be in the French tech tree, as the French had no direct involvement in the tank design. With the Atom, France is the one that actually designed it, with UVZ being the manufacturer. They’re basically making a French design with their own twist. Even if it is not VCBI’s actual chassis, it is still Renault’'s design, not UVZ’s design. UVZ, by that point, had 0 experience with 8x8 vehicles. This is why they went to Renault and ask them to teach them, and maybe offer an alternative to AMZ’s BTR series.
And while France has a bunch of Vextras and VCBIs, we are taking what is rightfully ours. Even if it looks different, it remains a Renault chassis. It remains a Renault engine. It remains Renault. This makes it a better candidate than the ItO could have ever been, because France’s contribution is only the Crotale. Here, it’s the entire basis of the IFV and engine.
But it’s not a Renault chassis. Do you have proof of it being a Renault chassis?
For the PT-91 Twardy, most of the internal components are French. Some examples I can think of off the top of my head:
Gun drives are all French
FCS is all French
Transmission is French
Even the Slovakian modernisation programs for the T-72s, French companies were the “prime co-operation partner” and supplied a lot.
Spoiler
ItO 90 is a bad example. Crotale NG is a 100% French design and the only reason France got it on a Finnish chassis is because the devs couldn’t be bothered modelling a seperate French chassis.
