Object 490 - 152mm RUSSIAN SUPER TANK! 

you should go ahead and start a second gofundme for the inevitable logistical requirements 😉

have you see object 279 it old but interesting look en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_279

ok, so here is what i was thinking. Ehem!! so you take a scaled down railgun....

I just cant get over the fact that the turret ring is angled slightly i mean why would you do somesting like that

it aint the baneblade but this was a wonderful review Mastimus, i was NOT familiar with this things existence at all. and when i saw it i was like oh its like the STRV.... still just wow. Thank you for this one.

If your tracks are gone, your fuel tanks are busted and your engines are toast, then you can use recoil to get back to the base!

During trials of SU-152 it was suppose to shot captured panther from 1,5 km. Shell entered frontal plate and threw engine out of tank's back.

Got that right. That’s like the tigers tanks. That would have a hell of a kick to it 🤣👍

Halt Hammerzeit they wouldn’t do that for another minute though, since the reload process takes very long. However, every tank gone = win right?

@@biko9824 autoloaders

Except the crewie also has to turn spanners on it. Can you imagine trying to service those engines or tension those tracks?

The shell for the gun weighed between 60 to 115 pounds so moving such a heavy shell in a cramp box was a nightmare

You know them Russians are cocktail strong... lifting no problem. ..

Strum tiger crew crying on the sidelines. What about me I am also a joke to you

1: This thing was intended to used FIXED 152mm, IE: Like a cartridge. Like 120mm NATO ammunition. The shell is fixed to the propellant case. The 152mm M10 gun of the KV2 used separate loading 152mm shells, and bagged charges. The shell for the KV2, alone weighed ~40 kg (~90 lbs). Now add a case, and propellant, which would probably add another 20-30 kg. So no, no human loader is going to be moving around a 60-70 kilo (130-150 lb) high explosive object, in a confined space, safely, or with any speed. 2: I know this is a joke, I am just tired of this meme.

The round in question is not a typical 152mm like a howitzer used. This round and case was well over 1.3m long, hence the outoloader

Thanks for the like Matsimus, Thanks to you guys as well!

Britain: I do say good chap, that is a splendid tank but nowhere near as good as my Tortoise

@@ravenouself4181 haha agreed

Germany: Hetzer 2

@@rudolfhess8342 Yeas it is. There is place under front armor plate for nuclear reactor. And more place for RAILGUNS!

Uma máquina muito grande se não tiver uma blindagem que garanta os seus tripulantes nao vale de nada só um caixão de ferro retorcido.

ob. 195 assumed the presence of a Commisar to activate tactical projectiles 152mm. It's not a joke)

Kind of an odd fusion of Imperium and Tau aesthetics, in my opinion.

@@willrogers3793 HERESY

Brother Melikyit that’s why I said it was “odd”, you silly person. 😉

For the Emperor... Uh hehem, i mean Stalin!

@@tomashausner7097 Pilsner!

It would probably be more of a defensive weapon, like the strv 103

Literal modern landship.

I mean, the US had actual 152mm armed tanks produced like the Sheridan and Starship (which is a fucking awesome name for a tank) but stepped away from it for the 105mm and 120mm. The velocity though was terrible and accuracy wasn't good, not to mention the Shillelagh missile they had for it was a piece of garbage.

It's a large destroyer gun or light cruiser. If you're thinking heavy cruiser, we'd be looking at 8 inch or bigger. And the 152mm guns the US used were basically mortars/howitzers instead for a slow HE shell against infantry. Not full fledged cannons intended to push anti-tank rounds.

@@Kastev30 not to mention the MBT-70/KPZ-70 and the XM-803

@keith moore yeah when I saw the 152 MMG automatically thought of the traditional 6 inch cruisers typical of the 1900-20s. When I think cruisers I think the Emden or one of those British chonks of the period. I like girls with curves, not those brick house ships.

It is 6 inches. Russians use to have the British Imperial Unit System. 122mm is 4.8 inch, 0.4 ft, 121.92mm. 152.4mm is 6 inch, 0.5 ft. The caliber didn't physically change, just the unit system did to the metric system. Calling it 152mm is just a lazy way of calling it in the metric system. In the old system, they were simply called 6 inch howitzers. The British Empire use to export howitzers and guns to Russia using their own unit system. 1 foot divided by 4 is 3 inches or 76.2mm. 0.1 feet is 1.2 inches or 30.48mm. The .50 caliber is half an inch or 12.7mm in the metric system. British Imperial Unit System to Metric System conversion.

Lol, this thing is not only a tank destroyer, it's also a tank destroyer destroyer.

jonathan smith This was a C&C RA2 quote actually..

"No armor's too thick"

@@MazterHuntR "No armour's too tough"

@@onca4130 this is a CQC Vehicle, F You

'Unrivaled'

Mason Byrne give it two cannons with railgun upgrades should tech go far in the future and we can officially name it mammoth tank

they objectify everything :(

Объект generally means prototype or means it's still experimental. Once it goes into production it recieves normal designation.

@@komradekat3557 da, tovarish!

@@Exchiefboy , да друга 👍

Its the same way Britain calls everything FV

Armoured warfare did a big article about this tank before adding it as a tier 10 reward on the last battle path

Looks like you haven’t watched Red Effect...

Of course! That's why I subscribed to this channel. Thanks Matsimus !

RA ?

Soviet power SUPREME.

@@albertog70 Generals.

And then came the Russian Sentinel and the Euro Manticore.

Armageddon is here The instrument of doom Be patient It is day of judgement It will soon be a wasteland Bringing down the "hammer" They will roam in fear Taste your mortality I cast a deadly shadow The apocalypse has begun...

Ultimate commie caliber

YES

Basically this is SU152

Да, это так друг

Yes that what it is friend

Aw shit pls stop giving a WG a another idea of adding a broken pay to win T10 stealthy snipe camper. They almost destroy World of Warships and now they going to ruined World of Tanks, just stop demanding a broken tank again pls.

Seems WG is taking Sekrit Dokumints again

Dont move!

Too far in the 20th century. Maybe as a 15th level tank.

Lmao

So the weapons industry consists of Ork Meks, with rare Ork Lobysts in suits smoking cigars while arguing to the warboss regarding the dakka quota? This is now how I percieve the ar-- Dakka* industry

hahaha yesssssssssssssssssssssssss

@@Elenrai It needz more dakka ya pile of grot spunk. - ork dakka industry lobbyist

"moar dakka" surely?

@@gordonlawrence1448 What is "moar dakka"???

+Martijn Dingenouts A N D T H EN T H E F R O N T F E L L O F F ! very unusual, chance O F A M I L L I O N!

*N O, PLACE IT ON THE S I D E*

@@AthensStudios also the radio and escape hatches?

@@ItsARandomDragon *PLACE THE MF TANK ON THE S I D E*

@@AthensStudios *YES*

More like a Frankentank of an Strv 103 mated with an M60A2 "Starship"

SonsOfLorgar lol

Looks like it has a turret. Can probably turn the gun side to side but cant turn it farther enough to fire to the rear.

considering it has turret it reminds me more of a british excalibur tank

@@YugoslavGamer check the images of the M60A2 Patton "Starship" it's basically an identical turret with a longer gun. The M60A2 had an unmanned turret with a 155mm gun/launcher

"sLOWpe boi"

You can always have fuel tanks purged with nitrogen or argon to keep them oxygen-free.

This sounds so interesting. Any luck with those sources?

@@iceshadow207 I will try scrounging up where I got those sources for you. But, it's been a really long time since I looked back at those sources. So, it may take some time

@@iceshadow207 Ok. So I found those sources you were asking me about. I will try to explain them as best as I can: 1) You remember that whole thing about me saying that the Soviets were testing their T-34 tanks in specific scenarios (by removing their ammunition in one test. And removing their fuel in another test. After removing the mentioned materials, the tanks would be fired upon)??? Well......it seems I have made an error. It wasn't actually the Soviets that have done these tests. But, it was actually the Americans that did these tests with M4 Sherman tanks (not with Russian T-34 tanks). www.tankarchives.ca/2019/03/wet-ammo-rack-effectiveness.html?m=1 (an article from "Tank Archives". The author of which is Peter Samsonov) So, I guess I misremembered a little bit. Heh heh. Whoops. *But, anyways, there are some weird things about this link that I would like to talk about:* *A) So, in this article, there are pictures of US army documents from 1943. Anyways, I've read what's contained in them. It does 100% state that the Americans removed fuel from their M4 Sherman tanks, and shot at them. In over 90% of the cases, the projectiles penetrated the tank, struck the ammunition, and caused the whole tank to go up in flames.* *However, those pictures fail to mention about the scenario about the ammunition being removed from the Sherman tanks (but they do mention wet ammo racks plenty of times). Like none at all. And I read those pictures multiple times to triple check. So, I have no idea what Peter was talking about when, "the Americans removed ammunition from the Shermans".* *But, I don't think he is making this (particular) scenario up from nowhere. It could be possible that there were actually tests done with Sherman tanks having their ammunition removed. But, it may be from the full document (and not what's listed inside the pictures), or even maybe from another document. But, I have no way to check, because I don't have full access to those documents. So maybe I could question him about that* *B) So, even though we don't know anything about the other tests (done on the Sherman tanks with their ammunition removed), we could extrapolate a few things. So, according to the pictures (about the US army documents from 1943. Linked in Peter's article), it states that a majority of Sherman tanks caught on fire, because their crew compartments got hit.* *Which is interesting, because I am 90% sure that all the ammunition is located in the crew compartment of the Sherman tank. On the other hand, all the fuel is located away from the crew compartment, and located in the rear hull portion of the tank (beside the engine). So, this may explain why ammunition frequently gets set on fire (when the crew compartment gets hit), more so than the fuel catching on fire. At least in the case of the Sherman tank.*

@@iceshadow207 2) So, we know that when ammunition gets hit, there is more than a 90% chance that it will go up in flames. But, what about when the fuel tanks get hit? Well, I am not exactly sure, but I could make some educated guesses. www.tankarchives.ca/2013/07/gas-tanks-fires-and-explosions.html (so another article from "Tank Archives". Yes, it's that same Peter guy) *A) So, according to this link, the Soviets were examining their own tanks, and the hazards of their fuel tanks. In their report, it states that they examined 72 destroyed (Soviet) tanks that were recovered after the battle of Kursk. According to them 68% of these tanks were destroyed by the un-sealing of fuel tanks, and subsequent ignition of the diesel fuel (keep in mind that ignition may either mean an explosion of the fuel tanks, or just the fuel catching on fire without exploding).* *Anywhoo, going further into the report. Only 8% of these wrecks had signs of both internal explosions, and fires (because the fuel ignited). A third, or 24% of them had internal explosions, but with no fire (fuel ignited). Apparently, the ammunition racks weren't damaged.* *So, 24%, and 8% minus 68% leaves the rest for other scenarios. So I am guessing that (68-24-8=36) 36% of the tanks may have been destroyed due to the fuel catching on fire, but with no explosion of the fuel tanks (the 36% figure is just a guess of mine). So, pretty much 68% of these cases are related to fuel ignition, so that must mean that the rest (100-68=32) of the 32% may have been destroyed due to ammunition fires (again, this 32% figure is just a speculative guess of mine)* *B) So, you may be wondering to yourself. Hey!!! Wait a minute, I thought that being hit in the fuel is more "safe" than being hit in the ammo racks!!! Shouldn't damaged ammo racks be the most likely cause of a tank's death??? The Soviet report states that 68% of their (72 tanks) were destroyed due to fuel related issues, and the rest of the 32% are probably destroyed from damaged ammo racks!!! So, surely fuel tanks are more dangerous than ammo racks!!! Right???* *Well, it depends. First of all, in this report, the Soviets only examined 72 tanks recovered from the battle of Kursk. I am no expert, but I am pretty sure that the Russians lost more than "just" 72 tanks during that particular battle. So, this means that the sample size of 72 is way too small. This means that out of all the tanks the Russians lost in Kursk, the percentage of what caused them to be destroyed may be different (We known that the examination of 72 tanks resulted in 68% being destroyed due to fuel issues, and the remaining 32% being destroyed due to ammo issues. But, it could be possible that out of all the Soviet tanks lost in Kursk they could have a 50% lost to fuel issues, and 50% lost to ammo issues. Just as a hypothetical example).* *And secondly, think of it this way. The only reason the report mentions such a high percentage of tanks lost due to fuel issues is this......the fuel tanks are the things that get hit first (or at the very least, the most likely things to be hit). Not the ammo racks. If you look at a cross section of a Russian T-34 tank, the crew compartment is constructed like the following. The fuel tanks are in front of the ammo racks (when looking at the tank from the side). So, since the ammo racks are behind the fuel tanks, they will be less likely to be hit.* *And lastly, think of it this way. In the Sherman tank experiment, in over 90% of cases, the ammunition went up in flames. However, in the Soviet report (about the 72 tanks), there was a 68% probability that the fuel resulted in the tank being destroyed, and hurting/killing the crew. So, think about it 90% probability of death, compared to 68% probability, which would you prefer. Also there are some things that are inherently safer with fuel tanks. According to the American report, ammunition fires are notoriously difficult to extinguish. While a fire extinguisher could have a good chance of putting out a fuel fire, it is almost impossible to extinguish an ammunition fire (with a fire extinguisher). In addition to this, if you read the Soviet report further, you will notice that the engineers will comment that the fuel provides good protection against spalling, and shell fragments (fragments that form when the penetrator perforates the main armour). Anyways, that's how I interpreted it. But maybe my interpretation is flawed??? In fact, now that I think about it, I could be wrong. So I am warning you* *But, as for what determines whether fuel, or ammunition causes the most destruction? Well, I am not quite to sure, but it may depend on the arrangement of the fuel, and ammunition inside the tank (for example, the Sherman tanks has all their ammo inside the crew compartment. While all its fuel is located at the rear hull. For the T-34 tank, both its ammo, and fuel is located inside the crew compartment).*

Even if that thing hit the front, the gun would probably be finished and the optics and probably the driver with it.

Concussion would obliriste crew

@@kristijanmedved6066 i think it will blow the tank out of existence, it will pen the top part and probably set on fire fuel tanks and ammo near the driver, and lets not forget as the guy said earlier, it will crush your optics and main gun even if it doesn't penetrate

This Isn't War thunder. Tanks can survive HE blast on top of them. In fact, there is a video showing a missile detonating above it. It lived.

@@GOD719 do you have a link for it? But i still think a 152mm HE will blast through the driviers roof, its a naval 6 inch gun, thats cruicers territory lol

nothing in common, 'cept for the front engine compartment. which is one of the reasons why the project was scrapped

@@Burboss well... neither of us has seen a detailed blue print for these two tanks but just look at it. As far as I am concerned the first thing that instinctually comes to mind when I do is "Merkava" Also just to be clear I'm not implying this similarity is a result of industrial espionage.

@@twilightzone7824 you dont need exact blueprints to get idea about design and concept. layouts for all merkava variants are publicly available.

@Greg The turret looks very similar to the merkava’s

@@tylerdurden629 Like two cars may look similar? 😂

Russia still exists, the old Soviet political union has gone (CCCP or USSR) to be replaced by the Russian Federation incorporating some of the previous states that made up the USSR.

@@chaz8758 but there is no the might and training which had Soviet Union, Have current Russia problems with finances, that makes army already not such powerful as above

guardsman Well yes, remember that Russia collapsed 30 years ago and has to recover having in mind the Western countries are doing everything to stop its development

An Ex-KGB head has installed himself as President till 2036, annexed a country without interruption and journos like jumping off roofs. Russia is till live and well ;)

@@chaz8758 USSR!!!

The strv 104 is an upgraded centurion mk10. The wedge tank is Strv 103

T-14s have already used unmanned turret. Tech advances allowed for that. Not like anyone in Cold war years could do unmanned turret anyway.

SonsOfLorgar sorry，my bad

Huntermad but why do Russian still want a supertank？Fight against China？I mean T-14 is already enough to counter Leopard and Abrams and either US nor EU countries have plan for “4th generation MBT” yet. There is almost no motivation.

@@yuhongzhu2168 The problem is Russia can't afford to put T-14 into series production. you also assume that the marketing BS is accurate, which is a gutsy call given the noted combat inferiority of Russian tanks post WW2.

A turretless TD... that has a turret, isn't turretless.

@@gustaveliasson5395 Yeah I know that the 490 has a turret. That's why I said "almost" Sorry for the the confusion, but let me explain. We can all agree that a turretless tank is criticized for not being able to move, and shoot in a 360 degree arc at the same time right? In contrast, conventionally-designed turreted tanks have no problems moving, and shooting in a 360 degree arc. But for the Object 490, it's a bit different. Sure it has a turret, your right about that. And it can both move, and shoot at the same time. But, it can engage ground targets from its rear arc (the gun is pointing up at the sky, because of the inclined turret platform. And also, because the crew compartment is in the way). Basically meaning it can't engage ground targets in a full 360 degree arc, while moving. The Object 490 incorporates a turret, but it doesn't fully utilize the advantage of a turret (i.e engaging targets in a 360 degree range). And the weird turret design, has some drawbacks of a turretless design (i.e can't engage targets from the rear, sort of like a turretless tank). That's the reason why I said the Object 490 was "almost" turretless (and also, because the turret design sort of reminded me of the T-28 HTC concept tank destroyer). Sorry for the confusion

@@andrewlee-do3rf Fair point, as the "limited traverse" criticism is a bit muddy in terms of how it's defined. My own interpretation was/is that it becomes a problem when the traverse limits force you to reposition the hull just to be able to continue firing at the enemy, thus revealing your position (firing the gun obviously lets the enemy know approximately where you are, but moving the hull makes it far more obvious, especially if they're already looking in your direction). I'm not entirely sure about the 490B's firing arcs, but let's say that the inclined turret ring and tilting suspension allows for firing across a 180-degree forward arc. If the target moves outside that arc, you'll already be repositioning because you're obviously at risk of getting flanked, so the firing arc of the gun itself is no longer the limiting factor. When retreating to a new firing position, you'll generally want to be doing that using the cover of terrain or dense foliage, meaning that you wouldn't be able to shoot at the enemy even if you could physically point the gun in their direction while you're running away. As the enemy is probably hauling ass towards your last position to catch up with you before you settle down again, you'll also want to perform the maneuver at or close to top speed, meaning that a conventional tank would be driving with its nose pointed away from the enemy anyway, hoping to reach its new position before the enemy breaks through/over whatever cover is separating them from the tank in question. All in all, I think we're just speaking in different languages. You're absolutely correct in that the tank can't fire at targets behind itself at realistic ranges and height differences, and I'm fairly certain that the practical firing arcs are wide enough that they're not realistically going to be the limiting factor in terms of what's going to force the crew to move their vehicle. More important, I think, would be the use of a hull-mounted autoloader, as it looks as though it would require that the turret return to a 0-degree azimuth when reloading. Other objects (477, 477A) used hull-mounted autoloaders as well, but in these cases the hull autoloader(s) fed a "ready rack" autoloader inside the turret itself, allowing the tank to fire up to 8 shots before needing to re-align the turret with the hull. I see no such "ready rack" on the 490B. Idk how fast you could turn the turret (probably faster than a manned one), but the re-alignment process might slow things down enough that it becomes a limiting factor in terms of rate of fire (as opposed to how it is now, where it's limited by how fast the gunner can aquire and range new targets).

And why is that?

@@pablobaggins5590 double the problems. It doesnt give you an advantage compared to just having one long track per side.

@@pablobaggins5590 transmission

Lordo'destractnan'mssry It does. Considering this thing had 2 engines. If 1 engine breaks down or gets damaged, the other can still move the tank. Even if it’s only forward or backwards. I think this is a feature on BTR-60. And If 1 track gets blown up on a mine, the one behind it or in front can keep the tank rolling, because the wheels themselves might still be functional. But, I agree. This is complex mechanism, thus too expensive to produce and difficult to maintain. I think if this tank was to see further development it would have a single track. And that tank is called Object 490A.

Twice as many tracks and rd wheels to deal with with in combat and suffering dmg knock a track off and the tanks disabled for the most part not a good idea in my view either!!

In my opinion, this is not a tank, it is an attempt to repeat the success of self-propelled guns from the Second World War. The ISU-152 did not have a turret, the rotation of its guns was only a few degrees, but it had a very powerful gun. Self-propelled guns have their advantages over the tank, heavy weapons mean increased returns, in order for the tank tower to withstand such returns, it must be made very heavy, in order for the tank to be able to transport such a tower, it needs to greatly strengthen the chassis. For example, the KV-2 tank also had a 152-millimeter gun, but it could not use shells from the ISU-152, if the projectile from the ISU-152 was loaded into the KV-2, then at best the KV-2 tower would simply jam. For kv-2 used shells with a reduced charge of gunpowder. In World War II, the Russians called ISU-152 an animal killer. The Germans loved to call their heavy tanks Panther, Tiger. I believe that the name ISU-152 is fully deserved. Proper use of the ISU-152 is the protection of infantry in defense against enemy tanks. German heavy tanks could not get close to him at the range of a successful shot. ISU-152 fired further, had more muzzle pressure and a larger projectile. The misuse of the ISU-152 was to send him on the attack like a regular tank.

Lol some missions were a pain, got it but rarely play it as I prefer the progression tier 10's

Now bring the Vodka, some paper and some pencils

The swedish S-Tank is phased out and no longer in regular service. As a new standart MBT they chose the German Leopard 2 A5 (Stridsvagn 122) The Tank was introduced in 1997. The S-Tank now is history.

@@udorechner6846 So... "we had the S tank" then?

Russia "we have better flat boi... Teoreticaly... I mean... We could"

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--b4-wLPUDM8.html

@@ХРЕНОРЕЗ english please

Damn i wonder why Kojima didn't have seen this. It would be ideal to deploy in Afghanistan in MGS V.

The object 490 would make the scorpion look like a APC

Scrolled down just for this comment

Paweł J Tanks in the mountains is a very bad idea. Soviets deployed T-34s,55s and 62s to Afgan only. And this was only just in case. Because, they knew tanks will still be fucked up there.

@@scudb5509 Like giant metal gears had sens in real world, few shoots from 125mm and entire robot is down.

Can I still fight... Hildolfr?

That was my thought too

This thing was designed decades ago...

Looks like the Srv and Merkava had a baby...

jugganaut33 Official reason for STRV lacking turret is because Sweden has a lot of forests, and turning a turret in the forest is not a good idea. But, I actually believe that this is a bit off as a reason. And I don’t think you guys know, but the first Soviet vehicle to feature hydraulic suspension was the BMD-1.

@@scudb5509 The concept of a tank destroyer is that you can mount a bigger gun, reinforce the front and still have smaller silhouette than a regular tank and you can do it even cheaper. Just the ATGMs ruined it.

Much better with a traversable turret

Strv is just the Swedish abbreviation for stridsvagn which means tank (direct translation battle wagon) so there are many types of "strv". What you think of is Strv 103, a.k.a. Stridsvagn S.

If you play c&c rise of the reds generals the this tank is in it

It’s the sentinel in C & C rise of the reds it can 2 or 3 shot an overlord tank

Kind of is tbh

Same people, same land, same culture, same shit everything, same dictatorship, literally just a different name, flag and official political allignment

@@C00ch13Munch3rHe means that this tank was designed in Kharkiv. It’s Ukraine.

​@@andrejjjj2008, nah, he didn't

@@andrejjjj2008 It's Soviet, dingus, it was designed in SOVIET Ukraine, which is a part of the Soviet Union, and most of the time people use "Soviet" they refer to the Soviet Union as a whole. It seems you don't know the slightest shit about geopolitical lol. also he meant that the Soviet Union and Russian are 2 different countries and thus can't be used interchangeably with each other.