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

@limescaleonetwo3131

4 жыл бұрын

you should go ahead and start a second gofundme for the inevitable logistical requirements 😉

@johnsmith-yj2cn

4 жыл бұрын

have you see object 279 it old but interesting look en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_279

@jussayinmipeece1069

4 жыл бұрын

ok, so here is what i was thinking. Ehem!! so you take a scaled down railgun....

@simond6050

4 жыл бұрын

I just cant get over the fact that the turret ring is angled slightly i mean why would you do somesting like that

@conscript900

4 жыл бұрын

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.

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"

@Starfireaw11

4 жыл бұрын

Except the crewie also has to turn spanners on it. Can you imagine trying to service those engines or tension those tracks?

152mm is the best way to move forward...and a bit backwards from the recoil

@georgyorlov6723

4 жыл бұрын

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!

@halthammerzeit

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@randallpetroelje3913

4 жыл бұрын

Got that right. That’s like the tigers tanks. That would have a hell of a kick to it 🤣👍

@biko9824

4 жыл бұрын

Halt Hammerzeit they wouldn’t do that for another minute though, since the reload process takes very long. However, every tank gone = win right?

@andyduhamel1925

4 жыл бұрын

@@biko9824 autoloaders

13:00 "your crew can NOT lift such a round" KV-2 Crew: are we a joke to you?

@bryanmartinez6600

4 жыл бұрын

The shell for the gun weighed between 60 to 115 pounds so moving such a heavy shell in a cramp box was a nightmare

@teddyhailey3035

4 жыл бұрын

You know them Russians are cocktail strong... lifting no problem. ..

@hobbyman47

4 жыл бұрын

Strum tiger crew crying on the sidelines. What about me I am also a joke to you

@dposcuro

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@Rivenexta

4 жыл бұрын

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

That looks like something that fits right into Warhammer 40k.

@elusive6119

4 жыл бұрын

ob. 195 assumed the presence of a Commisar to activate tactical projectiles 152mm. It's not a joke)

@willrogers3793

4 жыл бұрын

Kind of an odd fusion of Imperium and Tau aesthetics, in my opinion.

@brothermelikyit2554

4 жыл бұрын

@@willrogers3793 HERESY

@willrogers3793

4 жыл бұрын

Brother Melikyit that’s why I said it was “odd”, you silly person. 😉

@elrondmcbong467

3 жыл бұрын

For the Emperor... Uh hehem, i mean Stalin!

I both love and hate how the Russians call everything 'Object'

@Exchiefboy

4 жыл бұрын

they objectify everything :(

@komradekat3557

4 жыл бұрын

Объект generally means prototype or means it's still experimental. Once it goes into production it recieves normal designation.

@Exchiefboy

4 жыл бұрын

@@komradekat3557 da, tovarish!

@komradekat3557

4 жыл бұрын

@@Exchiefboy , да друга 👍

@devilishwolfie6975

4 жыл бұрын

Its the same way Britain calls everything FV

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!!!

@knightlypoleaxe2501

Жыл бұрын

@@tomashausner7097 Pilsner!

@I_am_looking_for_GF

7 ай бұрын

It would probably be more of a defensive weapon, like the strv 103

@taelorpickel2830

6 ай бұрын

Literal modern landship.

Russia : Object 490 super tank Germany : *heavy breathing*

@adisura9904

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the like Matsimus, Thanks to you guys as well!

@ravenouself4181

3 жыл бұрын

Britain: I do say good chap, that is a splendid tank but nowhere near as good as my Tortoise

@adisura9904

3 жыл бұрын

@@ravenouself4181 haha agreed

@chris_sndw

3 жыл бұрын

Germany: Hetzer 2

Sweden: designs Strv 103 Russia: "hold my Vodka"

"Tank Destroyer reporting."

@mr.normalguy69

4 жыл бұрын

Lol, this thing is not only a tank destroyer, it's also a tank destroyer destroyer.

@onca4130

4 жыл бұрын

jonathan smith This was a C&C RA2 quote actually..

@MazterHuntR

4 жыл бұрын

"No armor's too thick"

@C1pher187

4 жыл бұрын

@@MazterHuntR "No armour's too tough"

@shinrei5748

4 жыл бұрын

@@onca4130 this is a CQC Vehicle, F You

"A weapon to surpass Metal Gear."

@Nnneemo

3 жыл бұрын

@@rudolfhess8342 Yeas it is. There is place under front armor plate for nuclear reactor. And more place for RAILGUNS!

@antoniomoreira4469

3 жыл бұрын

Uma máquina muito grande se não tiver uma blindagem que garanta os seus tripulantes nao vale de nada só um caixão de ferro retorcido.

This is clearly the early stages of the feared mammoth tank ....

@user-kt3qs9ki8p

4 жыл бұрын

'Unrivaled'

@bosaciousbagginocious7475

4 жыл бұрын

Mason Byrne give it two cannons with railgun upgrades should tech go far in the future and we can officially name it mammoth tank

It looks a scary and most formidable tank. The main armament at 152mm is more reminiscent of a mobile gun

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.

@Kastev30

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@winstonsyme7672

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@synapsisflame9721

4 жыл бұрын

@@Kastev30 not to mention the MBT-70/KPZ-70 and the XM-803

@MaskedVengeanceTV

4 жыл бұрын

@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.

@samuelmorales2344

4 жыл бұрын

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.

*wargaming smells object and comes running*

@ryanc00p3r3

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@m4albino201

4 жыл бұрын

Seems WG is taking Sekrit Dokumints again

@lehonwhale8070

4 жыл бұрын

Dont move!

@vojtechpribyl7386

4 жыл бұрын

Too far in the 20th century. Maybe as a 15th level tank.

@dougwayne4548

4 жыл бұрын

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.

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 :/ )

@sergiokhrystyuk2441

3 жыл бұрын

You can always have fuel tanks purged with nitrogen or argon to keep them oxygen-free.

@iceshadow207

3 жыл бұрын

This sounds so interesting. Any luck with those sources?

@andrewlee-do3rf

3 жыл бұрын

@@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

@andrewlee-do3rf

3 жыл бұрын

@@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.*

@andrewlee-do3rf

3 жыл бұрын

@@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).*

Does anyone else appreciate the amount of prior knowledge and research that goes into these videos? Keep it up!

@chaz8758

4 жыл бұрын

Armoured warfare did a big article about this tank before adding it as a tier 10 reward on the last battle path

@scudb5509

4 жыл бұрын

Looks like you haven’t watched Red Effect...

@enimapodopamine6009

4 жыл бұрын

Of course! That's why I subscribed to this channel. Thanks Matsimus !

looks like a russian strv 103

@SonsOfLorgar

4 жыл бұрын

More like a Frankentank of an Strv 103 mated with an M60A2 "Starship"

@SFCKNZSD

4 жыл бұрын

SonsOfLorgar lol

@jeffreytan2948

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@YugoslavGamer

4 жыл бұрын

considering it has turret it reminds me more of a british excalibur tank

@SonsOfLorgar

4 жыл бұрын

@@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

6:51 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.

Overlord moving. Nothing in our way. They are puny. I will finish this.

@albertog70

4 жыл бұрын

RA ?

@morbidklown7139

4 жыл бұрын

Soviet power SUPREME.

@flyingsubmarine8334

4 жыл бұрын

@@albertog70 Generals.

@popeofpain6904

4 жыл бұрын

And then came the Russian Sentinel and the Euro Manticore.

@harrybalanovsky2169

4 жыл бұрын

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...

So this is literally the second generation kv 2..... They really liked the 152 communism launcher

@jasskeeper8152

4 жыл бұрын

Ultimate commie caliber

@Ddnmddnn

4 жыл бұрын

YES

@kakakiri2601

4 жыл бұрын

Basically this is SU152

@armindgreguri2723

4 жыл бұрын

Да, это так друг

@armindgreguri2723

4 жыл бұрын

Yes that what it is friend

The Russian Tank design team motto: More Dakka.

@Elenrai

4 жыл бұрын

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

@A.Lost.Astronaut

4 жыл бұрын

hahaha yesssssssssssssssssssssssss

@AutismIsUnstoppable

4 жыл бұрын

@@Elenrai It needz more dakka ya pile of grot spunk. - ork dakka industry lobbyist

@gordonlawrence1448

4 жыл бұрын

"moar dakka" surely?

@user-wg1gg4yz4i

4 жыл бұрын

@@gordonlawrence1448 What is "moar dakka"???

I've been waiting all my life for this, I just changed the like button from 8.9k to 9k

I think this looks great! I really like the separate area in the front with it's own tracks.

I prefer the name "Low boi"

@manny_the_weeb

3 жыл бұрын

"sLOWpe boi"

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

@gustaveliasson5395

2 жыл бұрын

A turretless TD... that has a turret, isn't turretless.

@andrewlee-do3rf

2 жыл бұрын

@@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

@gustaveliasson5395

2 жыл бұрын

@@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).

No word of a lie, my first impression was "My god who gave Mat a copy of Photoshop?"

The design concept of this tank seems to resemble the Israeli Merkava a lot

@Burboss

4 жыл бұрын

nothing in common, 'cept for the front engine compartment. which is one of the reasons why the project was scrapped

@twilightzone7824

4 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@Burboss

4 жыл бұрын

@@twilightzone7824 you dont need exact blueprints to get idea about design and concept. layouts for all merkava variants are publicly available.

@tylerdurden629

4 жыл бұрын

@Greg The turret looks very similar to the merkava’s

@Burboss

4 жыл бұрын

@@tylerdurden629 Like two cars may look similar? 😂

Imagine an HE from that monster hitting that thin top layer protecting abrams and challengers drivers

@scudb5509

4 жыл бұрын

Even if that thing hit the front, the gun would probably be finished and the optics and probably the driver with it.

@kristijanmedved6066

4 жыл бұрын

Concussion would obliriste crew

@StoneCoolds

4 жыл бұрын

@@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

@GOD719

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@StoneCoolds

4 жыл бұрын

@@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

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.

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*

@Tuning3434

4 жыл бұрын

+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!

@AthensStudios

4 жыл бұрын

*N O, PLACE IT ON THE S I D E*

@ItsARandomDragon

4 жыл бұрын

@@AthensStudios also the radio and escape hatches?

@AthensStudios

4 жыл бұрын

@@ItsARandomDragon *PLACE THE MF TANK ON THE S I D E*

@ItsARandomDragon

4 жыл бұрын

@@AthensStudios *YES*

I'm taking notes for this stuff for my own fiction story. This design is just too good not to take inspiration from.

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.

@SonsOfLorgar

4 жыл бұрын

The strv 104 is an upgraded centurion mk10. The wedge tank is Strv 103

@huntermad5668

4 жыл бұрын

T-14s have already used unmanned turret. Tech advances allowed for that. Not like anyone in Cold war years could do unmanned turret anyway.

@yuhongzhu2168

4 жыл бұрын

SonsOfLorgar sorry，my bad

@yuhongzhu2168

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@politenessman3901

4 жыл бұрын

@@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 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!

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.

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.

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

@pablobaggins5590

4 жыл бұрын

And why is that?

@MrNebelschatten

4 жыл бұрын

@@pablobaggins5590 double the problems. It doesnt give you an advantage compared to just having one long track per side.

@m4albino201

4 жыл бұрын

@@pablobaggins5590 transmission

@scudb5509

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@montys420-

4 жыл бұрын

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!!

It’s an amazing bit of kit, as you’d say. 👍🏼

I love crazy Russian projects, it's even a pity that such a country has ceased to exist

@chaz8758

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@guardsman2474

4 жыл бұрын

@@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

@watermelonfarmer6728

4 жыл бұрын

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

@skoll_5682

3 жыл бұрын

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 ;)

@user-yf8rz8ym8m

2 жыл бұрын

@@chaz8758 USSR!!!

As a Russian and also former armor operator you get my support for your 40k personal tankette!

reminds me a bit of a smaller brother of the imperial baneblade from wh 40k, is baneblade actually possible? :0

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.

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.

War Thunder new premium Ussr 5.7 br

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.

Simply incredible, thanks for the video, greetings from Mexico City

152mm shells : im heavy Russian designer : IK, thats why we are making a autoloader just for you

grinding for this tank on AW was too much... I wanted to die lol

@chaz8758

4 жыл бұрын

Lol some missions were a pain, got it but rarely play it as I prefer the progression tier 10's

i can already hear the groaning of German player in the war-thunder servers.

It's a big jump from the t34 my old dad drove. It looks good

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!

There is only 1 view.....it’s me it’s me. I should get a prize!

---- The creators of the vehicle, Bazhenov and Shomin The vechicle was designed by Mazurenko and Evgeniy Morozov.

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

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...

This thing reminded me of the YMT-05 Hildolfr from Gundam.

@rays5073

4 жыл бұрын

Can I still fight... Hildolfr?

Swedes: Creates STRV 103 World: Impressive Russia: *laughs in vodka, comrade witch optional 125mm squat stick or 152mm Slavcanon.

Where do you draw the line between a tank gun and artillery?

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.

Looks like the STRV 103

@edmundscycles1

4 жыл бұрын

That was my thought too

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 absolutely love out of the box designs like this.

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.

@Oleg111222333

4 жыл бұрын

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.

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!!!

This looks like the tank from Halo

@pawe6473

4 жыл бұрын

Damn i wonder why Kojima didn't have seen this. It would be ideal to deploy in Afghanistan in MGS V.

@synapsisflame9721

4 жыл бұрын

The object 490 would make the scorpion look like a APC

@wastedangelematis

4 жыл бұрын

Scrolled down just for this comment

@scudb5509

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@pawe6473

4 жыл бұрын

@@scudb5509 Like giant metal gears had sens in real world, few shoots from 125mm and entire robot is down.

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.

An amazing design and spectacular presentation, but why did you place it in the Wiley E. Coyote/ Roadrunner set?

I was wondering, what if the tank needs to turn around and run away? Having the crew so far in the back, wouldn't that be a hugr vulnerability? Then I learned that you don't turn around the tank. You turn around the *driver*. The whole tank is now behind you to offer protection. That's genius.

@scudb5509

4 жыл бұрын

Not a single bloody tank in the world turns around and runs. If the tanks have to retreat, they go in reverse. And keep firing. Or put up smoke and turn around.

Next: the TESLA tank!

@_XPEHOPE3_

4 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/X5Zoj9mFgLiqfZs.html

@mrpoool1015

3 жыл бұрын

@@_XPEHOPE3_ english please

For your information or in case you guys haven't heard about it, yet: The T-14 wasn't cancelled. So yes, it's official that the T-14, T-15 and T-16 are currently in serial production. The first batch might be delivered to the 2nd Guards Motor Rifle Division this year. A total of around 130 pieces were ordered, additional to the ~20 T-14 tanks which go through tests right now. Not sure what happens to those ~20 T-14 tanks though...might also enter service.

A split track is an exelent solution, giving you the capacity to back of and seek protection after hitting a mine.

They tried to copy the Strv.... Well its not bad......

@edi9892

4 жыл бұрын

Looks like the Srv and Merkava had a baby...

@scudb5509

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@edi9892

4 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@nikolaizetrov617

4 жыл бұрын

Much better with a traversable turret

@skunkjobb

4 жыл бұрын

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.

Sounds like an SCP.

Thanks and Best Regards!

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.

Sweden - We have an S tank Russia - Laughs in Russian

@udorechner6846

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@de0509

4 жыл бұрын

@@udorechner6846 So... "we had the S tank" then?

@petrsukenik9266

3 жыл бұрын

Russia "we have better flat boi... Teoreticaly... I mean... We could"

When you stretch an MBT on photoshop

The two engines seems like the rear ones would be for retreating if you took a hit. Maybe the front one is more precise and is used to aim?

Matsimus hi your saying its a good concept, I, am looking at the track layout, I don't think this will work, the larger set will over power the small set if it turns sharp it will rip off the track at the front, what's your thought?

''Overlord reporting" "They are...puny!"

@davidherron9151

4 жыл бұрын

If you play c&c rise of the reds generals the this tank is in it

@hobbyman47

4 жыл бұрын

It’s the sentinel in C & C rise of the reds it can 2 or 3 shot an overlord tank

Are widths has positive effect?are the bluit directing by ultra high waves or electrons equipments

13:28 Funny thing actually. Like the Object 490 (well at least I think the 490 has hull mounted blow out panels), the early versions of the M1 Abrams did have hull-mounted blow out panels

remember the overlord in the genereals

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."

@ravenouself4181

3 жыл бұрын

Now bring the Vodka, some paper and some pencils

This thing is both a psychological and physical weapon, brilliant.

Why have four sets of tracks? There must be a reason for it but I can't think of one. There's a sodding great gap between the forward and aft tracks that could be providing more flotation.

NATO reporting name: "Mein-Gott"

Never been this early lol.

Wonderful. Thank you.

It has really big gun on it....very impressive!

Soviet is not Russian

@belthesheep3550

Ай бұрын

Kind of is tbh

@C00ch13Munch3r

Ай бұрын

Same people, same land, same culture, same shit everything, same dictatorship, literally just a different name, flag and official political allignment

@andrejjjj2008

22 күн бұрын

@@C00ch13Munch3rHe means that this tank was designed in Kharkiv. It’s Ukraine.

@dark_messenger

21 күн бұрын

​@@andrejjjj2008, nah, he didn't

@A_Crying_NSX

20 күн бұрын

@@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 not the fuel that is explosive, it's the ammunition.

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

These Quad tanks, remind me of the Halo Scorpion tank. Really awesome.

The omnissiah is pleased

4 threads and made in russian.... Apocalypse tank in RA3

@chaosdude0878

3 жыл бұрын

Exactly what i was thinking

Next up driving battleships :D Ps what is the software used for the 3d model @9:40 ?

This video is one of my favourites, wish the object 490 would get more attention

@matsimus Sherman's gas tanks were much less explosive than T-34's diesel gas tanks. Diesel vapors are not a joke. Stop reading pop-history please.

@_Matsimus_

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah ok my friend. For all those T-34’s and Shermans you used and drove around and have extensive experience on....... Stop reading out of your ass and I’ll stick to my “pop history”. Have a merry Xmas 🎅🏼🎄

@Staryanuke

4 жыл бұрын

@@_Matsimus_ hey bud, have a read www.panzer-war.com/Pdf/Russian%20Exploding%20T-34%20Study.pdf I'm sure if you want to find more info on this you can.

@Staryanuke

4 жыл бұрын

Bear in mind that T-70s that's quoted in the text is powered by gasoline engine.