"Project 101": T-74 and rival 70s Soviet tank projects (Object 450, 480, 225, 226, 780)

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,674
Reaction score
7,923
T-74

Designed in 1971 as the successor to the T-64 by Kharkov, however resistance from the army, the retirement of Morozov and the replacement of Andrei Gretchko as Minister of Defence by Dimitry Ustinov (who favoured the gas turbine powered T-80) ended this project. Kharkov continued to refine the turretless concept through the Buntar, Bokser to the Molot (Object 477). Molot used an elongated hull and a 152mm 2A83 gun in an external armoured pod with the two turret crew in the hull underneath. The Molot could carry up to 34 rounds of ammunition with a maximum rate of fire of 14 rounds per minute.

Source:
Steven J Zaloga, T-80 Standard Tank (Osprey, 2009)
 

Attachments

  • T-74-Object450.jpg
    T-74-Object450.jpg
    34.7 KB · Views: 1,405

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,549
Reaction score
318
The T-74 is one of my favourite Soviet unrealised projects. As Morozov said “(T-74) caused the big boom”… and if it had been the Soviet medium tank of the 1980s then the NATO leadership would have had puppies. No doubt in such a case we would have seen external turret M1 and Leopard 2s being rushed into production.

Webpage http://btvt.narod.ru/index.html has Morozov’s diary from the T-74 (in Russian) some of the highlights of this diary I have provided below. Please note these are the opinions of Morozov, not mine, and I have added no facts to his commentary.

He summarised the advantages of the T-74 crew in hull (CIH) design as:
dimensions and weights of the tank within the limits of Т-64А2М (weight no more than 40 tons)
higher density configuration
improved operating conditions of crew
simplified design, operation and manufacture
decreased expenses for manufacturing and operation
improvement in protection
improvement of battle readiness
duplication of work of crew

A “classical” tank configuration only divided the tank into two compartments: one for the powerpack (engine and transmission) and fuel and the other fighting compartment for everything else. The CIH design of the T-74 changed this to five compartments: powerpack, ammunition, crew, fuel and weapons. The simplification of the design resulted in a reduction of 1,300 components, 3,500 technical drawings and a reduction in weight of 4,980kg compared to a classical design (ie T-64).

The location of the crew is lowered and they can change their places within their compartment and carry out multiple roles from their positions (drive, shoot, etc). They also have an inflatable mattress, a work table and a water/food heater. Their compartment is also water, dust and sound proof and during operation of the tank can talk to each other without the use of headsets. The roof of the tank rearwards of the crew compartment is aluminum. The gun can train from -10 degrees to +12 degrees (considerable depression for a Soviet tank).
 

Attachments

  • t74vl4.jpg
    t74vl4.jpg
    67.5 KB · Views: 1,560

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,549
Reaction score
318
Some T-74 stats:

Weight: 38.5 tonnes
Armament: main gun (125mm or 130mm), 30mm AA gun, 2x 7.62mm MG
Ammunition: 60 all ready to fire
Glacis armour: 700mm
 

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,104
Reaction score
240
overscan said:
Indeed, it makes some sense of the FST speculations and the T-74 designation that cropped up in the West I think.

FST Topic: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3097

No, that T-74 designation was purely a Western invention, which came about because of a mis-indentification of one of the T-72 subtypes as a completely new vehicle.
 

Andrei_bt

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
72
Reaction score
88
Thó T-74 designation was Morozov personal designation and his buero designation for future tank for "topic 101" programm -
image003j.jpg

Written by hi own hand data on T-64A, T-64BM and T-74.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,549
Reaction score
318
Great to see you here at secretprojects.co.uk Andrei. Any chance you could translate (to English) all of Morozov's T-64, T-64B and T-74 comparative metrics table?
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,549
Reaction score
318
rickshaw said:
No, that T-74 designation was purely a Western invention, which came about because of a mis-indentification of one of the T-72 subtypes as a completely new vehicle.

This tank was formally called the T-74 by its designer and the rest of the Soviet tank industry. Because its chief designer was Alexander Alexandrovich Morozov he had the moral power within the Soviet tank industry to allocate the prototype a T-XX name. Officially its project name was “Object 450”. Morozov replaced the late Mikhail Ilyich Koshkin as chief designer of the T-34 bureau after his death and was responsible for all of the subsequent Soviet medium tank designs (T-44, T-54 and T-64).

Outside of the Soviet tank industry the DIA and western commentators may have allocated the name T-74 to other tanks or concepts but that in no way invalidates the actual use of the name by the Soviets.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,674
Reaction score
7,923
Its entirely possible that the T-74 designation become known to the West. After all the T-74 *was* intended to be the next Soviet tank until 1976, when it was supplanted by the T-80.
 

Andrei_bt

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
72
Reaction score
88
Abraham Gubler said:
Great to see you here at secretprojects.co.uk Andrei. Any chance you could translate (to English) all of Morozov's T-64, T-64B and T-74 comparative metrics table?


Here -
 

Attachments

  • 74-3.jpg
    74-3.jpg
    121.5 KB · Views: 1,096

Andrei_bt

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
72
Reaction score
88
In 70s USSR design bureaus from Leningrad (Kirov Plant DB), Chelyabinsk and Kharkov (Morozov Machine Building DB) made attempts to crate a new perspective tank.
The Kharkov worked on T-74 (Object 450) turretless tank, while Leningrad - on "Object 225" and Chelyabinsk on "Object 780", here are their models.

Leningrad-designed tank has rather conventional design, while Chelyabinsk was "all-in-turret" design, like that one used for MBT-70 later.
Some info (in russian) - http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/26087.html
 

Attachments

  • 55733072.jpg
    55733072.jpg
    11.4 KB · Views: 153
  • 57632990.jpg
    57632990.jpg
    22.7 KB · Views: 160
  • 85594426.jpg
    85594426.jpg
    7.7 KB · Views: 189
  • 74344271.jpg
    74344271.jpg
    21.2 KB · Views: 1,032

Rickshaw

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,104
Reaction score
240
Interesting. Do you have a date on the Chelyabinsk design? What was the turret seating arrangement? I assume the driver occupied the central front hatch?
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,549
Reaction score
318
More great stuff Andrei!

As "101" concept tanks these designs were prepared before mid 1972. The Chelyabinsk Object 780 was quite heavy compared to its rivals with a weight of 49.8 tonnes. With the crew behind the breech the turret would be very different to the MBT-70.
 

Andrei_bt

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
72
Reaction score
88
rickshaw said:
Interesting. Do you have a date on the Chelyabinsk design? What was the turret seating arrangement? I assume the driver occupied the central front hatch?

88053605.jpg
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,549
Reaction score
318
Great stuff! Do you have any more of these interior configuration diagrams for other "101" tanks?
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,674
Reaction score
7,923
05/26/1972. Report of the Chief Designer KMDB AA Morozov on the T-74:
- Present material is the work of the initiative at the Kharkov KB "Malyshev Plant". TTZ at work on "Topic 101" we have not been issued. Submitted material is a technical proposal that reflects our vision for future tanks. He does not pretend to practicing design in the amount of conceptual or technical projects. The main goal and focus of our work is the dramatic increase in all indicators of the tank, describing not only its military but also operational and manufacturing quality as compared to the T-64A, as well as prospective foreign samples, "XM-803", "Kyler".
In accordance with the general ideology of "Topics 101", basing its decision was based on the "Main Line", which are reflected in the submitted materials and are:
- maintaining the size and weight of the tank within the T-64A2M (weight not exceeding 40 tonnes);
- more compact layout;
- improving the working conditions of crew (habitability);
- simple design, operation and production;
- reducing the cost of construction and operation;
- ensuring high protective properties;
- increased combat readiness in all conditions (start, store ammunition, batteries);
- duplication of work the crew;
- ensuring the autonomy during long marches in all combat and climatic conditions.
All of our positive experience and expertise have been applied in this project. Our analysis of the recent work of leading CB industries, as well as the available materials of foreign design study shows that while maintaining the existing "classical scheme" tank any further increase its tactical and technical characteristics is impossible without a significant, sharp increase in its size, weight and cost of manufacturing and operation, not in proportion to provide improved its performance characteristics. An example is the MBT-70, "Chieftain" and "Kyler", the weight of which exceeds 50 tons, at a very moderate increase in TTH. Clearly deteriorated at the same issues of mass, cost and increased complexity of production and operation, have worsened the conditions the crew and many other indicators. To some extent, this is not without sin, and my projects are "brothers in arms" from LKZ and CTZ, which a slight increase in TTX promising samples are buying, in my opinion, the prohibitively high cost of design, construction and operation.
All these circumstances led us to strongly reject "the classical scheme" of the tank and look for other, better layout, allowing within the existing weight and size of the T-64A2M a possibility of a sharp increase is not certain, but all indicators of performance characteristics of a new medium tank. At the same time, new demands that had never found a use in tanks and were not even considered in the TTZ on future tanks.
One of the principal, in our opinion, the shortcomings of the existing "classical scheme" of the tank, basically create any obstacles to further improve its tactical-technical properties, is the imperfection of the layout of its crew compartment. It recalls a very close one-bedroom apartment or a soldier's duffel bag in which the crew jammed weapons, tanks, ammunition, various mechanisms, rods, wires and numerous other devices and items, some of which are in transit logistics. In addition, all moves, rotates, smoking is a source of noise and injuries, is explosive and fire hazard, creating disunity of the crew, makes it difficult to evacuate him from a tank does not provide the basic conditions for working, living and much more.
In the arrangement represented by the so-called, the fighting compartment tank subjected in the first radical change by splitting it into separate isolated from each other, separate compartments: fuel, ammunition, weapons, crew and the logistics department.
Thus, if the layout of the modern tank "classical scheme" is essentially a tank into two separate compartments: logistics and the fighting compartment, it seems the layout scheme provides for 5 watertight compartments: logistics, ammunition compartment, crew compartment, fuel separation, weapons.
Such an isolated location within the tank: the crew, ammunition, fuel and weapons will also radically improve and re-address the conditions the crew. At the same time increased Ammunition, fuel capacity, improved weaponry, at the expense of installing additional automatic gun fire30 mmand second coaxial machine gun 7,62 mm. All this, in practice, could be solved without increasing the interior volume and dimensions of the tank. On the contrary, the frontal silhouette and an internal volume of the new tank, even decreased slightly compared with the T-64A (T-64A - 5,55 m 2 , -10,3 m 3, T-74 - 5.26 m 2 5% - 9,5 m 3 7,5%).
The proposed new layout of the main and crucial node of the tank, of course, is - issued weapons. It is in itself not new, in some degree is a type of aircraft and missile installations without direct contact with the operator. For tank conditions issued weapons used for the first time and, of course, require much work and sharing solutions to many technical issues with the developers of the guns, optics, stabilizatorschikami, armored cars, electricians and other specialists.
Solve this problem - would be a good tank, can not solve - no tank will not. At one time, when you create a T-64, and not only the T-64, also had similar "problems": 5TDF, MP, MH, stabilizer, dry air cleaner, ejector cooling system, chassis and more.
Let me now highlight the immediate preliminary results are presented in the materials.
I beg you once more to take into account that these materials, the extent of their mining, represent only a "technical proposal" and, of course, very far, even to the level of conceptual design, so I'll be deprived of the opportunity in detail to illuminate, much less answer all the issues that may interest students.
As noted earlier, the main goal of our work is the dramatic improvement in all indicators of the tank compared with all known our existing and prospective samples, as well as TTT given on future tanks.
Improving the tank equally concerned military, operational and performance indicators. All of them are closely related to each other and only their sum determines the ultimate practical value of new weapons. Therefore, the development of NST T-74 along with the basic tasks to be other issues to ensure high quality of the machine as a whole.
These issues include:
Simplicity of design with a minimum number of parts. Reduced number of parts for 1300 units, production of which requires 3500 labor times, which makes 22% of the time spent on the entire machine.
Reduced weight and dimensions of parts and components (~ 4980 kg).
Nothing more, is not working in your car, do not have the "right irrelevance."
Unification, the economy, simplify everything and everywhere.
The maximum density of the layout (fuel, logistics, Tower).
Achieved a significant improvement in working conditions and habitability of the crew in any region of the vehicle. In the tank design incorporated the increased demands on reliability, resources, autonomy, duplication of the crew, ready for battle, the stock of military activity fuels, ammunition, food, recreation, maintenance, etc. Ensured the possibility of prolonged storage tank with Ammunition and fuel supply in any climatic conditions, which reduces maintenance costs and labor costs for maintenance.
A new technique is promising, if it gives a new quality, cheaper manufacturing and operation, not only entails a new flaws, difficulties and increased costs.
I'll start with the fighting qualities.

1. The main performance characteristics in comparison with other samples, are shown in the table. The crew is extremely lowered. Provided overlapping functions of the crew and the change of crew stations. To improve working conditions for the crew of his section was removed: weapons, ammunition, MH, a conveyor, a rotating floor, chase tower, fuel tanks and pipelines, HLF, batteries, solar heating and the boiler, cylinders and the OPS air-start, thermal sensors and pipes, a fan of combat offices, transit propulsion, piping, wiring and so on. Section neat and greatest. This allows the rest of the crew in the car on the floor on an inflatable mattress. There is a table to work with the card, you can warm up food, water, heat the section. The convenient location of controls and machine monitoring and fire (front and sides). The crew is extremely protected from noise. The possibility of internal communication of the crew without TPU, working walkie-talkie in a helmet. All instruments and apparatus ERA hermetically protected from water and dust.

2. Issued weapons allowed to increase the line of fire, reduce the "utykanie" gun (it was 220 320), the MH can simultaneously accommodate the unitary and separate ammunition, without restrictions on their length, and missiles. Floor area of the fighting compartment is more3.0 m2. Provides stabilization of the gunner with a gun. Isolation of members of the crew of weapons and ammunition to prevent the unit from the gas concentration, rollback, and swing the breech, ejection, after-burning shells after firing, return fire, the danger of a protracted shot, damage and contamination of ammunition.

3. Fuel, as well as ammunition, is completely isolated and can be stored in the car constantly. This reduces the time for refueling and to provide winter heating fuel and heating the crew compartment at the expense of retaining the engine cooling system (100 = 15 000 cal)

4. MTO is 1 / 5 body length (was 1430 mm - Was 1130mm). It was the least from the outside there is nothing. Reduced length of all routes rods, pipes, wires in the MTO.

5. Preserved the continuity of T-74 and T-64A on MTO, the undercarriage and the MOH.

6. The design is widely used aluminum: the roof of the crew compartment and power pack, partitions, interior equipment, higher education, an oil tank, MOH, external tanks and stacking boxes.

7. In a tank used an iron-nickel batteries, which are sealed, have more resources and do not require heating.

8. Design documentation will conduct pouzlovoy assembly.

9. The chassis of the T-74 can be used as a base for self-propelled guns, flamethrower, and engineer vehicles, missiles, anti-aircraft and other equipment.

 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,674
Reaction score
7,923
Object 225 and Object 226 differed only in engine- 225 with a gas turbine and 226 with diesel.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,674
Reaction score
7,923
Object 450 model pics


http://andrei-bt.livejournal.com/195981.html


Note suspended seat for gunner under the turret. It was supposed to traverse with the gun, including in elevation, to simplify the design of the optics & fire control system.
 

Attachments

  • 22b68685cc9d.jpg
    22b68685cc9d.jpg
    19.6 KB · Views: 991
  • 40287_original.jpg
    40287_original.jpg
    208.4 KB · Views: 140
  • 40563_original.jpg
    40563_original.jpg
    169.7 KB · Views: 126
  • 40058_original.jpg
    40058_original.jpg
    224.9 KB · Views: 141
  • 39711_original.jpg
    39711_original.jpg
    169.1 KB · Views: 586
  • 39429_original.jpg
    39429_original.jpg
    228.8 KB · Views: 611
  • 39235_original.jpg
    39235_original.jpg
    169.2 KB · Views: 621
  • 450-6.jpg
    450-6.jpg
    74.2 KB · Views: 597

tround

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
149
Reaction score
22
I think that the t74 is blind .
The problem with the turretless tanks ( crew in hull ) is that it has a bad vision at short range . Bad vision for the tank commander .
The FRG is highly urbanized . Already that , the classical tanks are vulnerable in urban combat .
OK , Soviets will try to avoid the urban areas but that limits seriously their access roads .
Maybe virtual épiscopes can be built today , but in the seventies , i'm septic .

The Chelyabinsk design is like many design of soviet tanks .
If a projectile reach the crew compartment , the tank explodes or become an incinerator ( combustible cases ) .
It's less reparable than the western tanks .

The T74 is easier to produce. maybe the number can compensate for the quality , like the T34 .
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,549
Reaction score
318
tround said:
I think that the t74 is blind .

It has four three different optical sights so is not blind.

tround said:
The problem with the turretless tanks ( crew in hull ) is that it has a bad vision at short range . Bad vision for the tank commander .

No different really to a turreted tank in which the commander is operating below closed hatches. In this case the central crewman has access to a 360 degree unobstructed sight system at turret roof level and the two hull crewmen have trainable sights covering forward, rear and their side. Frankly this is better closed hatches observation than any pre digital tank.

tround said:
The Chelyabinsk design is like many design of soviet tanks .

It’s completely different in that the ammunition is in a separate compartment to the crew. Also this tank can use a gun with conventional cased ammunition so there is no need for fully combustible propellant.
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,674
Reaction score
7,923
I think its an excellent design from a theoretical standpoint, designed with close attention to protection of crew, and achieving the maximum possible firepower in the smallest possible package.

However I also think it really required supporting systems that were beyond the capability of the optical / electronics industry of the Soviet Union.
 

tround

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
149
Reaction score
22
Even modern turretless tanks with video sights ( the Falcon turret ) have this problem of direct panoramic vision .
The principal defect of the turrets in superstructure is that they deprive the commander of a high panoramic vision .
the sweden used CCD cameras on the UDES 20 but it was not enough .They put a kind of caspucle in the station of the commander who can rise of 1 meter .
Today I don't know .

It’s completely different in that the ammunition is in a separate compartment to the crew. Also this tank can use a gun with conventional cased ammunition so there is no need for fully combustible propellant.

he T74 yes , but the Chelyabinsk design ?
It's a low height turret and the crew is on the carrousel. Like the T34 that lacks space .
if the crew is separated from the ammunition, they must be seriously compacted or Soviet employed children .
this tank will use combustible cases like the others , it's historic .

All is compacted in the Soviet tanks ( T64/72/80 ) . Practically , systematically if a projectile perforates the armor , it's a Kill .
the defence budget of the USSR is 5 times lower than that of the USA .
How do they make to have 3 times more tanks than NATO ? They " cheat " with the design and the crew paid the price .
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,674
Reaction score
7,923
Object 225 design


http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14200&page=185
 

Attachments

  • RioEv.jpg
    RioEv.jpg
    337.4 KB · Views: 160
  • XSDge.jpg
    XSDge.jpg
    483.9 KB · Views: 208
  • 7xaOS.jpg
    7xaOS.jpg
    335.5 KB · Views: 159

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,674
Reaction score
7,923
Here is the Object 480, Morozov's conventional alternative to the radical Object 450. Turret shape is quite similar to T-64B.
 

Attachments

  • 9.jpg
    9.jpg
    457.3 KB · Views: 72
  • 8.jpg
    8.jpg
    514 KB · Views: 55
  • 7.jpg
    7.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 44
  • 6.jpg
    6.jpg
    936.5 KB · Views: 48
  • 5.jpg
    5.jpg
    516.4 KB · Views: 57
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    558.3 KB · Views: 59
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    676.5 KB · Views: 51
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    311.7 KB · Views: 54
  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    457.3 KB · Views: 68
  • image002.jpg
    image002.jpg
    27.7 KB · Views: 74

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,674
Reaction score
7,923
More. Source is http://btvt.narod.ru/3/480/480.htm
 

Attachments

  • 16.jpg
    16.jpg
    510.4 KB · Views: 50
  • 17.jpg
    17.jpg
    524.1 KB · Views: 46
  • 18.jpg
    18.jpg
    359.7 KB · Views: 45
  • 19.jpg
    19.jpg
    465.2 KB · Views: 49
  • 15.jpg
    15.jpg
    564.3 KB · Views: 42
  • 14.jpg
    14.jpg
    357.3 KB · Views: 37
  • 13.jpg
    13.jpg
    217.4 KB · Views: 42
  • 12.jpg
    12.jpg
    217.4 KB · Views: 43
  • 11.jpg
    11.jpg
    631.3 KB · Views: 43
  • 10.jpg
    10.jpg
    536.8 KB · Views: 55

Hot Breath

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 12, 2014
Messages
196
Reaction score
4
For the Object 480, what is the purpose of the silver cylindrical object rising out of the hull, just behind the turret? A snorkel of some kind for shallow wading?
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
13,674
Reaction score
7,923
Looks like a snorkel, yes. The model probably doesn't show the full extension in height.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,803
Reaction score
2,308
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Any idea of the calibre of the secondary (AA?) gun on the Object 480? It is also similar in general appearance to the 20mm secondary gun on the Leo 2 prototypes.
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
2,081
Reaction score
248
From the ammo box I would *guess* it is a 12.7mm on the 480.

What I'm more curious about is the rationale for the two coaxial (?or single-axis/elevation only?) machine guns mounted one the 450. Perhaps they were intended to alternate - so as to allow suppressing fire without barrel overheating (much as is the case with the BMP-T)?
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,549
Reaction score
318
PaulMM (Overscan) said:
Looks like a snorkel, yes. The model probably doesn't show the full extension in height.

To extend further it would need an externally stored pipe to be fitted. But still at the turret top height it provides the advantage of being able to induct air while the tank is fording in water as deep as the commander’s position. Enabling river fording to the full depth the tank can handle without adding a deep fording kit.

Avimimus said:
What I'm more curious about is the rationale for the two coaxial (?or single-axis/elevation only?) machine guns mounted one the 450. Perhaps they were intended to alternate - so as to allow suppressing fire without barrel overheating (much as is the case with the BMP-T)?

More likely that two MGs are fitted to provide a backup to a jam or other mechanical failure in a single MG taking out their self-defence fires. Because these guns are externally mounted unlike a conventional tank COAX MG if it fails the crew does not have ready, under armour access to the MG to bring it back into action. Simple solution to this problem is mount two MGs and hope they both don’t jam at the same time.
 

Avimimus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
2,081
Reaction score
248
Ah, that is an excellent observation. It makes sense and satisfies my curiosity. Thank you!
 

Similar threads

Top