35 Unique Nuclear War Tank

Unique Nuclear War Tank

Posted on May 12, 2015 by team


This tank can be considered a symbol of the nuclear war that never happened. Its construction is optimal for opposing to shock waves, four-crawler track undercarriage - to move in the conditions of a nuclear winter...

Heavy tank "Object 279" was unique and had no competitors. It had an unusual ellipsoidal shape protecting the tank from overturning if hit by a shock wave of a nuclear explosion.

Let's have a closer look at the vehicle.

Object 279 became of the models to replace T-10 tank. It was designed in 1957 by the Kirov factory  according to the requirements of the Soviet Army. It was intended for defence penetration and combat actions in barely passable localities.


Across the network:

loading...

Advertisement


Also see this:

35 Responses to “Unique Nuclear War Tank”

  1. David says:

    That last image looks like something out of the game “red alert”

  2. Nikola P. says:

    Last picture is a self-propelled howitzer “Coalition SV”.

  3. Pedro says:

    Featured in Metal Gear Solid 3!

  4. petrohof says:

    by the time it is ‘nuclear winter’ tank is not needed!!

  5. Darius says:

    There is an expression that sometimes is/was used between Russian or Soviet engineers: this is an example of smashing victory of the engineering over the common sense :)

    A very interesting machine with great ideas that is so useless in practice. So I am not surprised that there never were any analogs for this machine anywhere in the world.

  6. ed brown says:

    Just imagine how much money was wasted on this crap in the time when most of the people of the Soviet Union did not have enough food or normal clothes

    • Andrew says:

      That is very true. I bet that builders of this battle tank were living in shared apartments, one or two rooms for one family. They had no cars and they traveled by crowded buses. They had poor clothes, food and appliances. And they were ready to fight for communism with all other world.

      • Moscow Desire says:

        I see a couple of 5-year-old trolls having fun here again. Tanks like this were designed for the same purpose as elsewhere in the world, from Switzerland to Pakistan, – that is, to catch up with the most developed countries and increase the defensive potentialities of the Soviet Union. Soviet tank designers like Alexander Morozov were regularly awarded with numerous medals, money bonuses and the honorary title of “Hero of Socialist Labour”, were elected as deputies of the Supreme Soviet and had certain privileges – a car with driver, a second home, etc. It goes without saying that top-ranking spacecraft designers like Sergei Korolev, who had closer ties with the government, could have almost everything they wanted.

        • Andrew says:

          Alexander Morozov perhaps had car with driver and a second home. But the common people were living in barracks and had one street toilet for dozen families.

          • Moscow Desire says:

            In case you don’t know, this tank was developed years after the death of Stalin, during the construction boom of the Khrushchev era, when “the common people” lived in apartment buildings or country houses, and old communal apartments (let alone the last remaining “barracks”, built as temporary housing before the 1960s) were being replaced with private ones. It was a time when mass production of household goods, TV sets, radios, refrigerators and furniture, reception and use of technical innovations among the common people, energy development, housing construction and living standards were all on their way up. Of course an extremely large and densely populated country that came through a civil war, a world war and democides in 1917-1953 lagged behind in terms of living standards, but it was not that backward as you expect it to be.

            • Andrew says:

              Moscow Desire, in case you don’t know, about a quarter of russian schools still have street toilets. And Stalin’s barracks are still alive. A lot of them you can find here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVd6ZvlfEvQ

              • Moscow Desire says:

                Andrew, I already know that there is an extremely small and decreasing number of Stalin’s barracks that are still in residential use in Russia – I actually visited one during my stay in Ulan-Ude, the capital of the Republic of Buryatia, – as well as that there is a decreasing number of old schools with “street toilets” located in rural areas. This, however, does not cancel the fact that the vast majority of people in Russia live either in apartment buildings or country houses. And if you find it confusing that a country produces new weapons instead of spending its money entirely on housing construction, then I suggest that you take a look at Brazil: it has a large number of favelas in urban areas and a relatively high poverty rate but still designs and builds its own armoured vehicles, military aircrafts, rocket launchers, machine guns, assault rifles, anti-tank weapons, pistols and has one of the largest ammunition manufacturers in the world. Even Pakistan and India, despite their poor economic status, build their own weapons, have their own space agencies and launch their satellites.

                • Andrew says:

                  What is Brazil to me? I’m living in Russia and I don’t need any weapon. May be only AK-47 for myself, but that is prohibited. At Putin’s time Russia got about 3.5 trillions of petrodollars. And Russians are still living in Stalin’s barracks. Yakutsk city, “diamond capital” of Russia, has a lot of them. What a shame!

                  • Moscow Desire says:

                    What does Putin’s Russia has to do with this old tank, anyway? As I have pointed out, all countries capable of building their own weapons are trying to build them in order to increase their defensive posture. As for the number of the remaining barracks, it is extremely small and decreasing – today, Russia builds more housing than it did in the 1980s and is eradicating the last remaining 2,8% of old and dilapidated houses inherited from the early Soviet times.

                    • Andrew says:

                      What does Putin’s Russia has to do with 3.5 trillions of petrodollars, you meant? Putin’s posture isn’t defensive, it is offensive. Putin had 15 years and 3.5 trillions of petrodollars, but barracks still remain. While at the same time Putin has 20 palaces and mansions. And he has many expensive toys as Armata battle tank or Bulava rocket or T-50 fighter.

                    • Moscow Desire says:

                      Please, stop jumping from one subject to another; this thread is about the Soviet tank of 1957, not your perception of Russia or the last remaining barracks in Siberia. As for the rest of your message, I’ll reply shortly: Putin himself admitted in 2013 that the resettlement of people from the emergency housing is way too slow and urged the government to hasten the pace of work. I’m not denying that there is a problem with it or that this process needs to be significantly accelerated. “Putin’s posture” is defensive and aimed at improving the strategic security of your country – he is merely doing a minimal job of supporting Russia’s allies when they are mistreated by hostile, anti-Russian political regimes and has secured the access to the Black Sea. New weapons are not supposed to be toys – they help Russia to prevent its aging military equipment from becoming obsolete and help your country to have military parity with its potential foes, who are way more active in foreign policy and whose military expenditures are much higher than yours. But all that is a subject for a different essay.

          • Jeff says:

            No, you are not correct. I lived overseas in high school with my family, my father worked in the North Sea on semi submersible oil rigs. I took an Easter holiday trip to USSR with my class in school. While USSR was very different than the USA it was not so very different from a lot of Europe at that time. The apartment buildings were HUGE and there were mile after mile after mile of them in Leningrad and Moscow. I am sure the living was not luxurious but it was not a street toilet for a dozen families either. The Russian students we met at the two schools we visited were well fed although the variety of food may have been missing from their diet. Sure there were problems with distribution and I am sure it was not a great life but you should try to understand it instead of making it some weird story that is not based in the facts.

  7. traderjack says:

    You make the mistake of thinking the money was burned up somehow. All of the funds went for material and labor, and that goes to the public through the factories. they pay the money out for labor and material, none of the money is in the tank

    • ed brown says:

      Yes those who labored to produce this tank received money,
      but they could not buy anything for these money, since tanks
      are not sold in groceries and you cannot eat or wear them

  8. baschka says:

    Soviet Union shit…

  9. anyád says:

    I think if the shockwave is strong enough to flip a 40+ tons vehicle, then you’re close enough for steel to melt.

  10. john says:

    That tank is just way to cool.Thanks for the pic’s.

  11. raderjack says:

    A million dollar tank get sunk in the lake, how many rubles are in that tank? Not one single one as all of the rubles were given to the suppliers of the material and the labor. Unless you believe that the tank was full of paper rubles and they sank with the tank

    • ed brown says:

      They will receive the same amount of paper rubles, but they will be able to buy fewer useful items for these paper rubles, since they spent their time not on producing something that they can consume.

  12. traderjack says:

    A worker laying cement on a parking lot, gets paid for something that lies on the ground and produces nothing except parking space. the worker can spend his salary or payment for everything but parking as he does not have a car.
    Are their rubles worth less then the people who earn rubles producing consumer goods?

    the USA spent billions of dollars to put a man on the moon, and , today, there are no dollars on the moon! Where did the dollars go?

    • ed brown says:

      People produce not only goods but also services, both can be useful or not. The larger the proportion of people who produce useful services and goods, the better the society lives, the stronger the economy. The worker who is laying cement on the parking lot (probably asphalt or concrete, not cement) is providing a useful service, since his service is increacing efficiency of the operation of the business or the individual to whom this parking lot belongs (say, more people can use their cars to arrive to this location, saving their time, thus being more efficient).
      Yes USA spent millions of dollars on space programs and most of these money were wasted. I.e. these money could have been spent on something more useful. There are howerver several excuses. Some of these expenses had unpredicted byproducts in the form of new discoveries and new technologies like GPS that are used now and incerase operational efficiency of the economy. Tanks on the other hand do not increase efficiency of the economy and cannot be consumed thus they are pure waste of limited resources (resources are always limited). USSR collapsed because it had very inefficient economy – too many people were making useless crap like this tank.

  13. trader jack says:

    People have strange ideas. build a tank for $1,000,000 they actually think the money disappeared into the tank. All that is in the tank is electronics and metal, all of which were produced by workers who go paid for their work.
    Build a home for 41,000,000, all that is in the house is the materials and the labor, which were all paid for their work.
    The tank sits and cost nothing unless used. The government pays to store it, and maintain it.

    the house is sold, the purchase price goes to the seller, and the buyer gets to pay taxes , insurance , and maintenance on an on-going basis until it disappears and is scrapped.and the taxes go to maintain the tank!

    Which left the most money in the hands of the worker?

    Why is it better to buy the house for the economy?

  14. Darius says:

    To me it looks like many people here arguing about the “wrong price” of such developments. Yes, the workers got paid for this development. But what benefits did this brought to the country? I mean, they tested it and then very soon it just became a “museum item”. For that price of development you could build some train locomotives, x-ray machines or homes that could be very useful for many people.

    Sure, sometimes you need to do some “throw away” prototypes to test some ideas or technologies. But to me it appear that it was clear from very beginning that this was bad idea. In many WWII movies including Russian/Soviet they were spelling out many times that German Tiger tank had a flaw – the complex chassis that was hard to maintain due to multiple overlapping wheels. And in this tank they hide a second set of tracks inside of the tank!
    I guess it happened like always in Soviets. Some “proud” and influential general decided to push his “genius” idea. Then a factory decided to accept this development because you get money from government to spend. It was common practice those times to burn all money that was given by government. If you would save some money one year (this was very very encourage by the government) then this would mean that the next year you would get a smaller amount of money for your developments. This is because you were supposed each year to perform better than the last year (used money vs. the amount of delivered good) – the communist party’s great ideas behind the soviet plan economy.

    • Moscow Desire says:

      To me it seems that kids like you and the other infants “arguing about the “wrong price” of such developments” should grow up and pay a certain price for their education instead of spamming this and other pages with presumptuous, naïve and ignorant comments that have little to do with reality and add nothing to our knowledge of the subject. Every country that builds armoured vehicles has produced a number of experimental weapons that were considered to be too complicated for mass production or proven to be not effective enough. The United States, for example, built two prototypes of the 100-ton T28 Super Heavy Tank that never went into service but nonetheless served as a good experience for the tank designers that created them.

      “I guess it happened like always in Soviets. Some “proud” and influential general decided to push his “genius” idea”

      It shows how little you know about the Soviets; such things didn’t “always happen” in their country, actually. The new “idea” allowed this tank to be driven quicker through deep snow and wetlands, where other tanks could not venture, easily fight on cross country terrain and have an average ground pressure of only 0.6 kg / cm². To put it in a nutshell, the idea of having a four-track running gear had both advantages and disadvantages, but as usual you have no idea about that. I guess it happened like always: some “proud” and ignorant kid decided to share his “genius” idea and disguise himself like an expert in the field, but ultimately failed. What you little men should really care about is the amount of energy and time you waste on worthless world salad comments here and on other websites, not how much money was spent on building this tank.

      • Darius says:

        The only person who is pretending to be expert is you. The others expressed their opinion, but I did not hear any of them saying that they are experts. So welcome to the sandbox to one more kid – that is you :)

        And I think I know quite well Soviets from my own first hand experience having witness both the official “idealistic” side and the reality of the Soviet life, both good and bad things of those times. But that is only my opinion and I have the right to express it and also to be wrong. If you do not like that – that is only your problem.

        • Andrew says:

          Darius, categorical judgements, offensive behaviour, pro-government viewpoint – these are sure signs of state propaganda staffer. You can never outargue him.

        • Moscow Desire says:

          Oh darling, thanks for taking me to your playground, but I’m afraid I’m a bit too old for that sort of things. :) What I “do not like” is when youngsters are criticizing what they have little knowledge about, that’s all.

          • Maxim E. says:

            Darius, ad hominem arguments, categorical judgements, false and utterly stupid claims, ignorance, anti-government viewpoint – these are sure signs of a anti-Russian propaganda staffer nicknamed “Andrew”. You can never outargue him.

  15. Robert says:

    very different, good design if you don’t have to do the work on it. in the field, impossible, in the well equipped shop, no problem.much like american equipment.. theory-good reality,pain in the ass….

Leave a Reply

  • Popular: