ChrisWerb Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jartsev Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 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! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jartsev Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 I remember reading comrade chairman Khrushchev had a say in its development he had a fascination with missile. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jartsev Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian90 Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 There were many more projects of tanks armed with ATGM's only, like: Object 775Object 287 And there were some more like: Object 757 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 (edited) 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 September 19, 2016 by Hedgehog 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 2 hours ago, Hedgehog said: This is how a BRDM-2AT "Deals" with Tank Gun Fire. This is how a BRDM "deals" with any kind of incoming fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehog Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 No, that's when it fails to deal with tank fire, which is the inevitable outcome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.