Jump to content
ChrisWerb

Soviet T-62 based ATGW vehicle

Recommended Posts

I had read about this, but I had never actually seen it in the flesh. I thought you might find it interesting. It's at 2.10.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT-1 Drakon or Истребитель танков – 1 (Tank Destroyer - 1) Dragon.

 

It was not very successfull design and served very shortly between 1968 and 1970, later vehicles were converted to ARV's.

 

It's kinda a funny story because T-62 originally was also developed under Истребитель танков program as a tank destroyer but during development cycle was changed to medium tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the missile used with the IT-1?

 

Seems to me like it could have been easily developed into an analog to the BRDM based tank destroyers, while still being more survivable due to having armor instead of tin foil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Missile was 3M7 Drakon:


Guidance: Radio SACLOS.
Weight: 54 kg
Warhead: 5.8 kg
Diameter: 180 mm
Wing span: 860mm
Length: 1240mm
Range:
300 m to 3300 m (day)
400 m to 600 m (night)
Speed: 217 m/s
Penetration: 250 mm versus RHA at 60 degrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

What was the missile used with the IT-1?

 

Seems to me like it could have been easily developed into an analog to the BRDM based tank destroyers, while still being more survivable due to having armor instead of tin foil?

Making ATGW carrier with tank armor is tactically and economically unreasonable, and IT-1 was best proof of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Damian90 said:

Missile was 3M7 Drakon:


Guidance: Radio SACLOS.
Weight: 54 kg
Warhead: 5.8 kg
Diameter: 180 mm
Wing span: 860mm
Length: 1240mm
Range:
300 m to 3300 m (day)
400 m to 600 m (night)
Speed: 217 m/s
Penetration: 250 mm versus RHA at 60 degrees

 

Interesting to see how such a huge missile could have so little penetration in the early days, while just a few years later tiny little infantry portable things did much better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

Making ATGW carrier with tank armor is tactically and economically unreasonable, and IT-1 was best proof of this.

 

I would think that how reasonable it was would depend on how well it performed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, when it comes to tank destroyer role,  BRDM-2-based 1P133, 1P137 and 1P148 can do exactly same job as IT-1(just because tank destroyer is not supposed to operate in   single formations with MBTs) , but with much  unit cost, and much lesser logistics,  maintenance and training requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading comrade chairman Khrushchev had a say in its development he had a fascination with missile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Marko said:

I remember reading comrade chairman Khrushchev had a say in its development he had a fascination with missile.

Actually  idea of  creating   tank with missile-only  armament belongs   to  Konev and Malyshev ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still feel like some armor would be preferential.

 

Not because I expect the tank destroyer to operate with or alongside MBTs, but because you can light up a BRDM with an M2, a 60mm mortar, let alone 155mm artillery, and immolate it and it's crew.

 

I see something like the Jaguar as being a pretty ideal ATGM carrier.

It's fast, light, mobile.  It has thick enough armor that you can't shoot it up with small arms, and it should be somewhat resistant to artillery.

It can deal with attracting tank main gun fire by positioning behind a ridge line, or by leaving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were many more projects of tanks armed with ATGM's only, like:

1024px-Object_775_in_Patriot_park.jpg
Object 775

Object_287_%28on_the_basis_of_T-64%29.JPObject 287

And there were some more like:

Object_757-1.jpg
Object 757
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2016 at 10:32 AM, Maj.Hans said:

just a few years later tiny little infantry portable things did much better!

Which is why it had a 2 year service life

 

On 9/13/2016 at 10:59 AM, Maj.Hans said:

 

It can deal with attracting tank main gun fire by positioning behind a ridge line, or by leaving.

 

This is how a BRDM-2AT "Deals" with Tank Gun Fire. :)

Edited by Hedgehog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hedgehog said:

This is how a BRDM-2AT "Deals" with Tank Gun Fire. :)

 

FV432_passes_a_burning_Iraqi_9P133_%22Ma

This is how a BRDM "deals" with any kind of incoming fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...