The Object 268 is a SPG based on the T-10 chassis.
Virtually all Soviet tanks have this weak lower side armor that is 20-30mm depending on the vehicle.
However on the Object 268 the entire lower side, including the angled part conecting to the hull floor is 80mm.
This makes this area even more armored than the upper part of the chassis, which seems weird.
Seems like an oversight to me. Or is it?
Is it possible that it was uparmoured? I find remarkably little looking online.
If it’s a genuine error it’s certainly grounds for a bug report, though I don’t think saying it’s based on the T-10 is enough…
@FlipAllTheTables this sounds like a thread for you.
I’d imagine it’s wrong since the Object 268 is supposed to be on the same hull as the T-10M, but I don’t do much research on Russian vehicles.
Please explain what kind of circus with horses this is???
Wrong. It is 80mm. Proof:
Crosssection “Ж” on the blueprint.
Half width indicated is 40mm, (Overlap with the Bottom plate needed in order to leave room for a Fillet Weld with Leg Lenght of 15mm.
I’m talking about this part here: The sloped lower side that connects to the bottom.
Which clearly does not have the same thickness as the straight side walls:
Also the upper side armor should be 80mm like the lower part, while in the game it’s only 60mm.
YES, my mistake. The cross section I gave is further back! Where the 80mm side armor protrudes all the way down (near the engine bay).
What you are talking about is the Bottom plate (at least I wouldnt call it “side” armor since its angle is closer to the horizontal than to the vertical).
So the cross section we need is “E”. Unfortunately no dimensions are given there but we can assume 30mm of thickness.
“Also the upper side armor should be 80mm like the lower part, while in the game it’s only 60mm.”
You mean the one with the inward slope?
This?
Edit: you are right it should be 80mm. May be tomorrow I will make a bug report about all of this.
I wonder if any of the Russian players that happen to live near the musuem would be able to go measure the armor?
Probably
Hello sorry for the slow reply. It is not that easy to measure armor thickness in enclosed sections, unless there is some existing hole or opening you can use within the same cross-section.
You would have to drill a hole and measure through it and I doubt the museum would allow that. (or may be they would allow a small 2-3mm hole to be drilled, since it can be easily filled with putty and painted).
Still doing this by hand would be pain in the ass, and you cant attach a Magnetic drill everywhere due to shape and other constraints…
I will wrap up the bugreport soon and post it.
@KillaKiwi
OK, a little update.
After fully reviewing the available blueprint, I am almost 100% confident that the side armor should be indeed a single bent piece with uniform thickness.
(Not to be confused with the bottom sheet, as you pointed out, which also consists of single bent piece for the most part)
However, I found an inconsistency in the blueprint: I found a very thick plate welded to aforementioned side armor, at the top where it ends, at crosssection “в”. The piece appears a bit thinner than upper casemate side armor, probably 90 mm in thickness. And sits at 47 degrees tilted in the opposite direction of the upper side armor plate, meaning it is almost parallel with the upper casemate plate. (it is a bit more angled than UCP).
Furthermore, this blueprint appears to be from June 1954, and may not be the actual one used during the final assembly.
After comparing this blueprint with the one from Object 730 variant 4/5, that same plate appears there.
So now I am trying to find (if it even exists) a later variant blueprint or possibly even the one actually used for production.
If you want to see what I found can video call/stream and show you, just send PM first.
And I almost forgot: the arrows pointing the direction of crosssection “в”, are not visible due to the low quality of the image so this further complicates things…
