Cate's Research-Investigation Bureau

The introduction of larger calibre cannons in the Soviet Union during the 1950s created a major problem, being that long barrels would tend to strike the ground in front and get either damaged or fully blocked by debris, this obstruction could cause barrel bloating or even catastrophic failure. This problem was primarily associated with the lack of vertical stabilization for cannons at the time. This became apparent with early production T-54s fielding the D-10T, which at the time was not stabilized and when traversing terrain with various dips, would often strike the ground.  From 1952 up until 1957, various muzzle protectors were designed and tested for the T-54. One of the designs was a device that was mounted on the end of the D-10T and had open slits, which prevented the barrel from being directly blocked by stuck debris.  T-54 barrel strikes the ground during the obstacle course. The barrel was shortened to 855mm. 1957.  T-54 with experimental muzzle protector....

 R&D "Dilemma" was the last "Akatsiya" modernization program carried out by "Transmash". Due to domestic artillery modernizations lagging behind western SPG systems in various aspects like unified munition types, improved targeting systems and mainly SPGs functioning in fire-support groups for armed forces. "Burevestnik" design bureau was chosen to lead the program and was responsible for bringing together various other bureaus for joint program development.  "Transmash" took the position of the co-lead bureau and worked on technical solutions for "Burevestnik" based on a deal made on 13.07.2004. The main goal of the "Dilemma" R&D program was improving the firing range. OKB-9 was tasked with modernizing the 2A33 using various methods; increasing barrel length to 6000mm or improving the existing barrel with the standard 4240mm with improved recoil absorbers, modern efficient muzzle device, and enhanced or new ...

R&D "Vydelka" was a modernization proposal drafted by "Transmash" (formerly known as OKB-3) for the Russian Ministry of Defence. The modernization focused on improving the firing range along with internal vehicle changes. The modernisation would be done by "Uraltransmash" during major vehicle repairs since the 2S3M and M1 variants were no longer produced. The initial plan to increase the firing range was to integrate newer 2S19 munitions like 3OF45, and 3OF64 but that was impossible due to the rifling count and length of the 2A33, which caused instability. As a solution, the barrel length was increased by 1760mm, this was enough for the aforementioned munitions. The estimated ranges with these changes are as follows: 19,7km for 3OF45, 21,5km for 3OF64 and 25,1km for 3OF61.   The ammunition stowage inside the vehicle did not undergo significant changes and was based on the 1985 layout. For fire-control solutions, it was proposed to install the 1V519, re...

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 amm...

  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',...

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 c...

 The loss of an AFV's ability to move based on the traction characteristics of the engine/chassis is characteristic when moving vehicles on bases with low load-bearing capacity (weak soils). The ability of the vehicle to move on terrain with a low load-bearing capacity is estimated using supporting patency indicators of AFVs.  Terrain passability is determined by the ratio of resistance forces to the AFV's movement, over a given terrain, its traction capabilities and coupling qualities under given conditions. In the presence of sufficient traction forces, movement is possible whenever the forces of adhesion exceed the forces of resistance to movement, and movement ceases as soon as the forces of resistance to movement exceed the force of traction, even by a minimal amount.   When testing a vehicle's ability to drive on soft soils, it is expected to move without any additional support. In extreme circumstances, however, spare parts such as spurs, wideners, snow grabbers ...