Author Topic: Our next Russian tank... (Read 434 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **on:** November 26, 2004, 11:31:44 PM »

http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/other/tsar_szaloga.html

Apparently its not a joke....

1K3 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 26, 2004, 11:44:08 PM »

Now that's USSR under modernization program by STALIN!

Heiliger · « **Reply #2 on:** November 27, 2004, 06:29:54 AM »

How would they have expected to move it??? Roll it down a hill?

It's got to be a joke.

Or based on plans scribbled on a napkin by someone who had a little too much Vodka.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #3 on:** November 27, 2004, 06:57:09 AM »

H.H. Lebedenko's design of a heavy armored tank has got to be one of the most bizarre and curious vehicles in the annals of tank development. The groundwork for this unusual concept was begun in 1917 by Lebedenko and in time, a working prototype was constructed and tested.

The "Tsar Tank", as the Battle Machine was nicknamed, was designed around a reverse tricycle wheel arrangement. The two forward, spoked wheels stood 29ft. tall. They were attached to a tuning-fork shaped hull which tapered to a real mounted wheel which provided the means for steering the tank. Each of the front wheels was likely powered by a gasoline engine rated at 200hp. This engine was probably housed in the sponson on the outside of the wheel itself. It should be pointed out that the exact location of the engines was not made clear and is being speculated on. Support girders connected the sponsons to the central tail. It is assumed that steering lines or cables ran thru the tail to the rear wheel to move it and provide a change of direction. With both engines working, the speed was rated at 20kph..

The "Tsar Tank" stood, from the bottom of the wheels to the top of the turret, 29ft.3in., a bit taller than the front wheels themselves. The "Tsar Tank" was 57ft.7in. long and it was 40ft.6in. wide. A monster tank indeed. In the middle of the tank was the main hull area which probably contained the crew ( an exact number of crewman was not given ). Above the hull area was the turret which was no doubt able to rotate to bring weapons to bear. For all its impressive size, the "Tsar Tank" tipped the scales at 40 tons.

Armaments was never specified for the "Tsar Tank" so it is assumed that none were fitted to the prototype. Proposed weapons included cannon and machineguns. Mountings for these weapons would have been in the turret and, apparently, in a secondary turret located beneath the tank. It might also be possible that some sort of weapon mountings might have been placed in the sponsons. For protection, the armor was simply rated as "resistant". Resistant to what is a question not answered.

When the prototype was finished, tests began and immediately the design showed flaws, the most serious being a lack of maneuverability. With its ungainly propulsion, it had to have been a ponderous machine which, on the battlefield, would have presented a very large target and one which certainly would have attracted unwanted attention and present a most difficult vehicle to camouflage.

Work on the "Tsar Tank" was stopped when it was seen that it would never meet expectations. Then, in 1922, H.H. Lebedenko's "Tsar Tank" ended up on the scrap heap.

from http://members.aol.com/sturmpnzr/rusosiwwi.html

It was to be powered by 2 Maybach engines.

Heiliger · « **Reply #4 on:** November 27, 2004, 07:11:09 AM »

Sonostudmuffinun!

Angus · « **Reply #5 on:** November 27, 2004, 07:11:10 AM »

The flying T34 was wayyyy cooler

Ghosth · « **Reply #6 on:** November 27, 2004, 09:27:29 AM »

You have to remember, tanks back then were primarily designed to cross no mans land & enemy trenches. As such, had they been able to work out the technical difficulties. those huge wheels could have worked.

Although to me it looks a bit underwheeled in the back, I don't think it would have turned well by just the rear wheel. However, If they had decent brakes & throttles on those outboard engines in therory it could have had a zero turning radius. IE 1 wheel forward, one braking or in reverse.

If you'd mounted a pair of cannon, one on each side just underneath where the man is standing.. Each would have a good field of fire to the sides. Judging by the photo there was a fair distance between the wheels. Should have been at least somewhat stable. Top it off with a big gun or 2 pointing forward and it had potential to be a lethal weapon.

Biggest weakness as I see it, is that the wheels would not have stood up to arttillery fire. One good round of HE on the axle hub shattering spokes and its done moving.