Jump to content


Object 760 hover tank is a beast!

USSR tank object cold war soviet 760 scout light hover

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
26 replies to this topic

Proskov #1 Posted 28 April 2014 - 06:26 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6963 battles
  • 16
  • [MASH] MASH
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

I once heard about a Russian hover tank project during the cold war, I failed to find any good info whatsoever in English, but, I recently found out its Russian name was Object 760 and thanks to the miracle of google translate I can finally give you the stats, and it still looks awesome too.

Soviet Hover TankSoviet Hover Tank

Object 760


 Classification :  light amphibious tank

 Combat weight, t   5.86 
 

The layout   Classical 
 

Crew , pers.   3

 

 Manufacturer  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics  Cheblayinsk Tractor Plant 
 Year of production   1961 
 Years of operation   1961 - 1963 
 Number of issued, pcs.   1

 

 Measurements

 Length of body   mm   ≈ 7000
 Housing width    mm   ≈ 3400
 Height           mm   ≈ 1750

 

Armoring   bulletproof (housing)  (that means virtually nothing)

 

Prototype had no functioning gun.

 

 Cross-country speed, km / h   <45 (in swamp)
 

Type of suspension   individual torsion 
 

 Ground pressure, kg / cm ²   0.35 (on tracks)
                              0,033(with ventilators)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Object_760.pngSoviet Hover Tank

the tank is a lot bigger then expected, it has a low profile, but it is longer and wider than a KV.

despite the size it weighs less than a ELC Bis (wrongly named ELC AMX in WOT) but that is without gun.

Speaking of guns, lets think what guns it could have had; at its low weight I doubt it could be anything above 57mm cannon, 75mm low-pressure gun or  85mm howitzer/mortar.

testing results state that it had unprecedented agility and cross country performance with the hover engines on, it could float over rivers and swamps with ease, and was immune to pressure mines.

top speed of 45km/h in swamps means that this tank was a true speed devil, on paved roads I believe it's speed could easily reach 75km/h considering the fact that it would get better traction if the hover engines were disengaged.

also this was the first prototype of the tank, so it would probably become a lot faster and more agile if the project was continued.

I think the main downside of the hover tank is the fact that it needs to be big, you need those hover engines and enough empty space for the air cushion.

 

 

if we ever plan to put it in the game:

 

I suggest that it will be given either a 45mm gun with very high rate of fire and good penetration or maybe even a 45mm autocannon

with a small clip (6rounds?) or a 85mm howitzer/mortar.
possibly a low caliber howizer like a 75mm or a 37/45 gun with lower pen as stock grind (vt-42 or 37mm automatic SH).

top speed was 45km/h in a swamp so make it fast, it had unprecedented agility so make it a good turner with good acceleration.

with its 5.85 tonnes it will have very bad ramming abilities, even an ELC AMX is heavier and it is very long and wide so not easy to miss while ramming.
it should have very low hitpoints.

we all know that making this tank float on water won't happen, so just give it very good terrain resistance stats (it had 0,033kg/cm²) so that it can still go very fast through water and swamps.

this will make it a very good scout, perhaps too good? no, it is quite huge for a light tank, being longer and wider than a KV-1, so low camo value and quite an easy target, not too easy though, after all it does have a low profile(1,7 meters), but still easy.

its armor is crap, it has bad camo, but it is a speed devil with a decent to good gun.
view range may vary depending on how good it will be in game with other stats.

Soviet Hover Tank



vorlontank #2 Posted 28 April 2014 - 06:59 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20932 battles
  • 522
  • Member since:
    05-29-2011
awesome, although any hit at the back would make a right mess of the engine i would think. perhaps the hover engine as a seperate module?

Judqment8 #3 Posted 28 April 2014 - 07:00 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 16922 battles
  • 3,974
  • Member since:
    09-21-2011
Now that's a fat duck. Guess that's AMX 40's fat cousin.

Edited by Judqment8, 28 April 2014 - 07:00 PM.


Proskov #4 Posted 28 April 2014 - 07:05 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6963 battles
  • 16
  • [MASH] MASH
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

View PostJudqment8, on 28 April 2014 - 07:00 PM, said:

Now that's a fat duck. Guess that's AMX 40's fat cousin.

the amx is an armor reliant tank, this is a scout tank.

that makes it even worse.

it is the size of a t-150 yet it weights less than an ELC AMC(actually the ELC bis), it would also be as fast as an ELC.

 

it sucks that the project was scrapped, i can only imagine how awesome hover MBT's would be.

 

but yes, it does look like an obese AMX40.

 


Edited by Proskov, 28 April 2014 - 07:09 PM.


Proskov #5 Posted 28 April 2014 - 07:08 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6963 battles
  • 16
  • [MASH] MASH
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

View Postvorlontank, on 28 April 2014 - 06:59 PM, said:

awesome, although any hit at the back would make a right mess of the engine i would think. perhaps the hover engine as a seperate module?

i think that would be too much to ask from WG.

but it would have a huge engine hitbox, the actual engine was in the rear to keep the weight balanced, and i think that the rotors would also count as engine hitbox, making more than half the penetrations hit hit the engine area.



Etova_Kala #6 Posted 28 April 2014 - 07:09 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8568 battles
  • 451
  • Member since:
    05-24-2011
Interesting find. Those engineers came up with all sorts to justify their paycheck, didn't they?

Proskov #7 Posted 28 April 2014 - 07:26 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6963 battles
  • 16
  • [MASH] MASH
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

View PostEtova_Kala, on 28 April 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

Interesting find. Those engineers came up with all sorts to justify their paycheck, didn't they?

this one was actually good, this is one of the first tanks to defeat the most feared opponent of all tanks, muddy ground.

 

well, that and anti-tank mines.

 

i wonder why it was discontinued, it exceeded expectations.

and gave tanks superb agility.

 

in the end the russians turned out to be more interested in hover battleships.

 HoverShip.jpgZapad-2009_military_exercises.jpg


Edited by Proskov, 28 April 2014 - 07:29 PM.


Ohaithar #8 Posted 28 April 2014 - 07:32 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 358 battles
  • 1,918
  • Member since:
    01-15-2014

View PostProskov, on 28 April 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

i wonder why it was discontinued, it exceeded expectations.

and gave tanks superb agility.

 

Because it was freakishly expensive, didn't have competitive enough firepower (maybe not), and is unreliable even to Soviet standards?

 

Also, this reminds me of the turbine tanks the Soviets were making. They had afterburners.



HugsAndKisses #9 Posted 28 April 2014 - 07:58 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 24022 battles
  • 3,062
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

WoT needs more clown cars.

 

I say: Rockets ago-go!



2Tee2 #10 Posted 28 April 2014 - 08:23 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 20611 battles
  • 3,401
  • Member since:
    02-20-2014
https://www.youtube....N0Z4Cl0U#t=1415

chaplainDMK #11 Posted 28 April 2014 - 08:27 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5009 battles
  • 397
  • Member since:
    06-29-2013

View PostProskov, on 28 April 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

this one was actually good, this is one of the first tanks to defeat the most feared opponent of all tanks, muddy ground.

 

well, that and anti-tank mines.

 

i wonder why it was discontinued, it exceeded expectations.

and gave tanks superb agility.

 

in the end the russians turned out to be more interested in hover battleships.

 HoverShip.jpgZapad-2009_military_exercises.jpg

 

What about the problem with the hover engines probably being as loud as a cargo airplane? 

Also I have a hard time seeing this as a good gunnery platform, considering it floats lol. 



2Tee2 #12 Posted 28 April 2014 - 08:38 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 20611 battles
  • 3,401
  • Member since:
    02-20-2014

View PostOhaithar, on 28 April 2014 - 08:32 PM, said:

unreliable even to Soviet standards

 

thought the popular opinions quite the opposite -- working in any conditions



indipuk #13 Posted 28 April 2014 - 10:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 33486 battles
  • 917
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013

View Post2Tee2, on 28 April 2014 - 10:38 PM, said:

 

thought the popular opinions quite the opposite -- working in any conditions

 

Indeed. Recently found this video. They get up and running ISU that was rusting in field for several decades. 

 



Ohaithar #14 Posted 28 April 2014 - 11:13 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 358 battles
  • 1,918
  • Member since:
    01-15-2014

View Post2Tee2, on 28 April 2014 - 09:38 PM, said:

 

thought the popular opinions quite the opposite -- working in any conditions

 

Not really. Soviet designs frequently had unreliability mixed in. The T-34 liked breaking down, especially the first ones, and the KV-1 required you to use a hammer to shift gears sometimes. The IS-7 was rejected for being both expensive and hard to make and being unreliable. Let's not talk about the KV-2.

 

Yep, Soviet tanks actually had one of the worst problems in reliability sometimes. About on-par with Germany.



Woody1999 #15 Posted 28 April 2014 - 11:39 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12676 battles
  • 6,475
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011
Please WG, please! Replace our fat T-50-2 thing with this, and give us a proper active scout again!

-

Woody



Proskov #16 Posted 29 April 2014 - 12:06 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6963 battles
  • 16
  • [MASH] MASH
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

View PostOhaithar, on 28 April 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

 

Because it was freakishly expensive, didn't have competitive enough firepower (maybe not), and is unreliable even to Soviet standards?

 

Also, this reminds me of the turbine tanks the Soviets were making. They had afterburners.

first, soviet tanks were very reliable, excluding the pre-war models (also stated by Ohaithar), and Indipuks video proves that yet again.

 

Second, It was a prototype, so it being unreliable can be solved by making a better one, it was intended as a scout tank for artillery so it did not need a big gun, it was a test of the concept of the hover tank, and it worked better then expected.

 

You might be right about the price but i doubt it as it weighed less than 6 tonnes and therefor it needs few resources and making a turbine was one of the few things that might bump up the production cost but 2 rotary engines do not break the bank either (i believe).

View PostWoody1999, on 28 April 2014 - 11:39 PM, said:

Please WG, please! Replace our fat T-50-2 thing with this, and give us a proper active scout again!

-

Woody

I would love to see this replace the MT-25, but you do realise this thing has a hitbox comparable to a KV-1 minus the turret, so it would become even fatter.

 

 

 



Proskov #17 Posted 29 April 2014 - 12:12 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6963 battles
  • 16
  • [MASH] MASH
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

View PostchaplainDMK, on 28 April 2014 - 08:27 PM, said:

 

What about the problem with the hover engines probably being as loud as a cargo airplane? 

Also I have a hard time seeing this as a good gunnery platform, considering it floats lol. 

the hover tank does not float, it has tracks but uses a hover engine to decrease ground pressure and to make it capable of "swimming" through rivers.

 

they are not as loud as cargo airplanes either, they are not turbojet engines, they are simply fans, its like a propeller airplane engine with reduced noise, as it is probably electrical.

also, the hover engines could be turned off, for things like driving on hard ground, where the need for traction outweighs the need for low terrain resistance, and maybe firing too.



Woody1999 #18 Posted 29 April 2014 - 12:22 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12676 battles
  • 6,475
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011
I don't care if it is bigger than a KV. It travels at 75kph on roads. I want it nao! :P

-

Woody



Proskov #19 Posted 29 April 2014 - 12:24 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6963 battles
  • 16
  • [MASH] MASH
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

View PostWoody1999, on 29 April 2014 - 12:22 AM, said:

I don't care if it is bigger than a KV. It travels at 75kph on roads. I want it nao! :P

-

Woody

MT-25 travels around 70km/h

and that was just a guess, it might just go 65



Woody1999 #20 Posted 29 April 2014 - 12:27 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12676 battles
  • 6,475
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011
MT-25 goes 70kph my arse. I've beaten them things in a straight race with a Chaffee and M5 Stuart. It's also the size of a house, has crap view range and camo value, and doesn't have too good a gun.

-

At least the hover tank is fast!

-

Woody







Also tagged with USSR, tank, object, cold, war, soviet, 760, scout, light, hover

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users