And none of which substantiate it… Not a single mtnion of Kaktus existed before 1997, in which it was snatched up by Zalog and passed off without citation in nothing more than a paragraph without reason.
Kaktus does not exist beyond publishers and blogs. It was a name given initially given to soft mounted Relikt fixtures, such as the current 4S24U bags we see on current MBTs… Which of course, didn’t exist in 1988.
Oh my god, really? It looks outlandish and frankly non-practical??
It’s almost as if the turret of the 640 is quite literally a facade!
They’re bolt-on panels made to look cool. It had never undergone protective trials, therefore it didn’t need armor on a firing testbed. It’s nothing more than a gun, a hilariously underdeveloped autoloader, and a turret made to look somewhat like what the plans intended.
You mean K-5 and K-1? Yeah, pretty groundbreaking.
There was no theory behind it… The program served to do nothing more than add a bustle loader to currently outfitted 125mm cannons. A 152mm was never “in theory”, it was a fabricated thought trying to rationalize the '640 against 4th generation competitors.
Even the '195 had more armor in front of the crew compartment than the program baseline T-72B '89’s turret and hull combined. Crew being “spaced out” isn’t a good thing.
Its a prototype from way back in the day, most probably it did not even have explosive fillers when undergoing initial trials. As for the Zalog news outlet I know nothing about, never trusted magazines or published articles in the first place.
As for the autoloader how can you be this certain it is “hilariously underdeveloped” sounds a bit Zalog to me. I never truly expected this tank to be something great since it was just a prototype. However, it was never fully refined. Had it been developed further, it would have been given different reactive armor than what it had back in the day. Most probably the autoloader would have been refined and it would have been able to fire significantly more powerful kinetic rounds that standard T-series tanks.
This is of course in the realm of speculation, tank in reality remains at the same level it once was. But there is another version that might have been developed due to some of the features used in object 640 that is the burlak tank.
As for object 195 it also falls in the same category, under development prototype. It should have more armor than 72b 89 version it is suppose to be an improvement.
From what it looks like the turret wasn’t intended to have any explosive elements to begin with. It looks nothing more than a welded turret meant to encapsulate what the tank was envisioned as while still staying minimalistic and supporting the systems needed for trials.
Making fun of Zaloga, as is correct to do.
I prefer not to trust them either, but when straight up fiction is spread around via them and becomes the mainstream word, things get worrying.
That’s my point. The tank was designed as it should have been, with a lot of thought.
The issue came down to procuring that design while struggling with funds and losing to Ural. I won’t fault late-stage Omsk for… Being Omsk?
The autoloader itself is VERY unrefined.
Most definitely.
As from what I can see now, 3VBM19 is the best that it could fire for its time… And at the moment, that still holds true. Almost all succeeding penetrators follow around the same dimensions.
This is by no means the most academically rigorous claim (take it with a mine of salt) but IIRC this was part of a brochure for a related (probably earlier) vehicle called the T-80AT. The turrets should be identical in any case I think.
Yes that is what I thought when I first looked at it, but then I saw the panels and I thought about their intention to insert explosive reactive armor in them. For me it is extremely hard to find credible sources about tanks such as Object 640 and in fact any T-series tanks for that matter. There are pictures online but those just show the existence of these machines in real life.
I use a lot of superlatives such as “big daddy griffel” but I know that these rounds are in test phase and there is almost no info on griffel/vaccum1, 2/3bm-69/3bm-70) rounds. These are labels that have been added to them, I am well aware of that as well.
We will see what gajin–vagon zavod produces for us and how it performs in our mega-battles vs the big cats in “ground realistic mode”.
Well the 90a and 90m are actual tanks this is a prototype. The turret armor values are probably lower, however the hull armor is T-80U . I mean 90ms turret especially turret cheeks with relikt on should have much higher values against kinetic and heat rounds.
From what it appears, the only thing the panels could support at their thickness is a squashed kraft single… It wouldn’t be able to hold a single px element.
None really exist, it’s down to speculation and what you see. Effectively all projects (even the ones in the process of digging their graves) are held close to the parent company until they’re commissioned, and if they aren’t then they simply slip away and are forgotten. Even to this day, the Su-75 ground demonstrator is being towed around with full drapery.
Big daddy Grifel ~w~
Object 195 gimme gimme gimme I need I need
Yeah, as to my knowledge 3BM69/70 hadn’t started its development until the late '90s. Even at that, it’s hard to tell when that development ended or if either are produced in any relevant amount. Hell, some of the first speculated images only came out a few years ago at an expo.
