Cate's Research-Investigation Bureau

"Уральский Букет" Ural Bouquet written by Bobkov A.V and Ustyantsev S.V is the 3rd instalment of books published by Uraltransmash. This collection of books is focused on the development and production of various Soviet SPGs derived variants and prototypes produced by Uraltransmash and its associated bureaus, factories and others.  These books aim to provide anyone interested in Soviet SPG development with a timeline of how said vehicles were developed, occurring problems and how they were solved along with a plentiful amount of visual aid to help the reader understand.  A short summary of the book.  Prologue: The prologue in this book covers the development of counterpart SPGs by the United States in the 1950s and 60s. This created the necessity for the Soviet Union to revive its SPG development program. Various US systems are mentioned like the M107 (175mm), M108 (105mm), M109 (155mm) and more obscure design proposals like the "SELF-PROPELLED HEAVY ARTILLERY FAMILY

A 1:10 scale model of a proposed tank destroyer design for the Austrian Armed Forces. This was a 1960 proposal to use a SPz Saurer (APC Saurer) hull and a French AMX-13 oscillating turret.   

Due to the 2S3 "Akatsiya's" inability to traverse water obstacles using fording equipment, VNIITransmash was tasked with developing 2 different floatation package kits. One design was based on a hard frame body and the other was a pontoon-style kit, both of which could be mounted and unequipped. VNIITranshmash also carried out model tests using the PST-63M pontoon flotation package.  Floatation package No.1 mounted on 2nd pre-production 2S3 prototype Two experimental hard frame body packages were created by VNIITransmash together with СЗТрМ (Sverdlovsk Transport Engineering Plant). The 2nd 2S3 pre-production prototype was retrofitted to equip the aforementioned kit and was tested in 1970.  The design was made using a hard frame body, which consisted of tubes, mounted to the hull and turret of the vehicle. A rubberized tarp was attached to the frame and mounted to hermetically sealed mounting points. The driver had a special opening in the front of the package but directio

 The "Uspekh" research and development program was conceptualised in the late 1960s by OKB-3 based on a request made by the Military-Industrial Commission of the USSR in 1968 to perform R&D to create a new prospective artillery system between the 1971-1975 and its further development through 1976-1980.  This program's first stages focused on comparative analysis of domestic and foreign artillery systems and their relative performance. In 1969, the first proposed schematics were presented by OKB-3, featuring 122mm and 152mm artillery systems. The proposed design choices followed certain criteria; improving ammunition capacity, firing range and rate of fire, improved survivability in scenarios when nuclear weapons are used and improved mobility. The designs were based on unmodified 2S3 "Akatsiya" hulls aiming to preserve the engine transmission bay, and the main armament was to use  obturation with  caseless munitions to reduce excess fume accumulation inside

In the 1960s, the Perm Machine-Building Plant named V. I. Lenin (now known as PJSC Motovilikha Plants) conceptualized the installation of a 240mm mortar on a BMP-1 and MT-LB chassis. The preliminary design did not utilize either chassis but instead used an Object 132 hull which at the time was in a similar weight range. Additionally, PMBP already looked into using the Object 132 hull to mount the "Uragan" MLRS system.  3 different mortar mounting options were considered.  The mortar system is mounted in the centre of the hull and positioned to fire forward.  The mortar system is mounted in the rear of the hull. The base plate is hard-mounted to the chassis and lifts the hull when moved into the ready position. Mortar can only fire backwards.  The mortar system is mounted in the rear of the hull. The base plate is connected to the hull and can be lowered into the firing position. Mortar can only fire backwards.  With the 3rd design option chosen, various ammunition-loading des

  These are the locations where the T-80 MBT was tested consisting of 87 tanks, fitted with 119 engines with 33000 operating hours and traversed 573000km. RSFRS:  Leningrad Oblast (Kamenka, Tikhvin, Sertolovo, Rzhevka, Zelenogorsk, Gorelodo,  Cheremykino, Priozersk, Ladoga ) Moscow Oblast (Kubinka, Novo-Moskovskaya, Zagorsk, Noginsk, Kolomna) Pskov Oblast (Strugi Krasnye) Smolensk Oblast (Dorogobuzh) Orenburg Oblast (Totskoye) Amur Oblast (Blagoveshchensk, Zavitinsk, Bureya, Tryokhrechye) Murmansk Oblast (Luostari, Kandalaksha, Pechenga, Rybachy Peninsula) Zabaykalsky Krai (Chita, Olovyanka, Mirnaya, Tsugol, Dosazhu) Gorky Oblast - Nizhny Novgorod Oblast (Gorohovets) Kemerovo Oblast (Yurga) Saratov Oblast (Shihan') Ukraine (Dnepropetrovsk, Rovno, Chuguev, Novomoskovsk, Ihnatpil', Skvyra, Bila Tserkva, Asepovichy) Belarus (Baranovichi, Obuz-Lesnovskyi, Kalinkavichy, Asipovichy, Urechcha) Turkmenistan (Mary, Gökdepe, Kelete, Tejen, Turkmenbashy 'Krasnovodsk', Gyzylarbat)

Over half a year ago, I promised to write an article about T-80 rubber flaps and their purpose, which would have completed the trifecta article collection: T-80 aerodynamic features and  T-80 MBT engine air filtration and dust prevention systems . This article builds up on the T-80 aerodynamic features topic and will conclude this series.  Unfortunately, I have come across zero primary sources, that directly mention the purpose of these rubber flaps, which makes it difficult to write an article with primary sources. There are 2 disputed arguments on this topic; one argument states that the flaps on the T-80s are meant to redirect airflow and reduce air contaminants like sand and dust from entering the engine. The other argument is that these flaps are used as additional protection to prematurely detonate HEAT warheads. I will discuss this topic by only talking about the presence of the flaps on T-80s. Firstly the rubber skirt, present on the lower frontal plate of T-80s. Its primary f

Special climatic simulation chambers allow institutes to perform full-scale tests on AFVs by testing their components and performance in Arctic and subtropical climate zones.  The arctic climate chamber can simulate temperatures ranging from -15 °C to -55 °C, while the tropical chamber can achieve temperature ranges from 5 °C to 60 °C. Other varying climate factors can be simulated; air humidity and effects of frost and dew.  Data from the simulation is collected and processed using an automated computing system. Climatic chambers allow engineers to study the effect of various climates on the preservation and operability of vital parts. Engine performance and fuel efficiency are also studied since they are heavily reliant on surrounding conditions. The simulation of climatic zones also allows scientists to perform vital tests for microclimate research for the combat compartments.  I have decided to kickstart 2024 on this blog with a simple informative piece about Soviet climatic simula

This is an introduction to noise characteristics of Soviet/Russian armoured fighting vehicles.  Vibrations, moving parts, and suspension all contribute to the internal noise level of a vehicle. These factors create oscillations that propagate through other modules increasing noise levels. To measure noise characteristics inside tanks, the driver's position and the turret crew's positions are measured separately. Units of measurement used for this are dB, dBA, octaves and Herz along with 2 different spectrums of sound; Level of sound pressure (LSP) "УЗД (Уровень звукового давления)" and level of sound (LS) "УЗ (Уровень звука)".  Unspecified variants of T-64, T-72 and T-80 and a T-80UD were chosen. The charts below show the dB/dBA levels for the different crew positions relative to the speed at which the tanks are moving. Tests were carried out on a concrete track. Lines 1-4 indicate LSP values for T-64/T-72/T-80 and T-80UD, while lines 5-8 indicate LS val