Tanks/Vehicles Object 279; The FINAL Soviet Heavy Tank

[ChrisXD62365 520]

ooh Shrapnel!

[Ruslan_DR 686]

ooh Shrapnel!

we already have it in game, the T-28 comes equipped with shrapnel rounds. most other tanks don't though.

[Daddo2 328]

we already have it in game, the T-28 comes equipped with shrapnel rounds. most other tanks don't though.

 

all Russian 76.2 mm guns have them

[Results45 2,200]

all Russian 76.2 mm guns have them

 

What's the round-type called? HE, ADPS, HESH, APCR, APCBC? (or something else?)

[Daddo2 328]

What's the round-type called? HE, ADPS, HESH, APCR, APCBC? (or something else?)

 

Sh-353 or Sh-354T Shrapnel shell. It's basically something between an APHE and a HE round. It has thicker shell and thus lover amount of explosive filler. The meaning of this is to make as many fragments of the shell (shrapnel) as possible to fly around once the fuse goes of. It is ammunition against "soft-skinned" targets.

[ChrisXD62365 520]

we already have it in game, the T-28 comes equipped with shrapnel rounds. most other tanks don't though.

i know, but i meant that i am excited to know that this kind of rounds where used in that cannon.

[Results45 2,200]

Found another tank to counter Obj. 279 and IS-7: 

 

 

The T110: it was a bit lighter in weight, faster in speed, and had better armor protection (in terms of placement & slope, not thickness) than its cousin the M103.

 

 

Document source (access costs $9): http://www.scribd.com/doc/136049879/Presidio-Firepower-a-History-of-the-American-Heavy-Tank#scribd

 

Articles:

--- http://blog.tankpedia.org/2013/05/30/the-t110-120mm-heavy-tank-project/

--- http://thearmoredpatrol.com/2015/07/04/chrysler-t110-heavy-tank/

--- http://survincity.com/2011/03/how-the-dinosaurs-became-extinct-the-last-languid-4/

 

 

Comparison of M103 vs. T110E5 vs. Conqueror Mk.II (WoT tank-compare): http://tank-compare.com/en/compare/t110e5/m103/conqueror#T1=66I50I43I80I116&T2=57I50I39I71I115&T3=113I95I79I135I134

 

Comparison of T110E5 vs. Conqueror Mk.II vs. IS-7 (WoT tank-compare): http://tank-compare.com/en/compare/t110e5/is-7/conqueror#T1=66I50I43I80I116&T2=367I307I263I459I182&T3=113I95I79I135I134

 

I know these values aren't reliable not credible, but it gives a ballpark idea of how the compare to each other.  ;)s

Edited February 17, 2016 by Results45

[Cryptocurrency 1,197]

Definitely needed to be added +1

[Choogleblitz 10,205]

279 is better in every way in comparison (unless the T110 gets HEAT). The Object 279 can easily penetrate it, whereas the T110 cannot penetrate the Object 279. Not even close to fair. 

[Daddo2 328]

Found another tank to counter Obj. 279 and IS-7: 

 

 

The T110: it was a bit lighter in weight, faster in speed, and had better armor protection (in terms of placement & slope, not thickness) than its cousin the M103.

 

 

sources:

--- http://blog.tankpedia.org/2013/05/30/the-t110-120mm-heavy-tank-project/

--- http://thearmoredpatrol.com/2015/07/04/chrysler-t110-heavy-tank/

--- http://survincity.com/2011/03/how-the-dinosaurs-became-extinct-the-last-languid-4/

 

 

Comparison of M103 vs. T110E5 vs. Conqueror Mk.II (WoT tank-compare): http://tank-compare.com/en/compare/t110e5/m103/conqueror#T1=66I50I43I80I116&T2=57I50I39I71I115&T3=113I95I79I135I134

 

Comparison of T110E5 vs. Conqueror Mk.II vs. IS-7 (WoT tank-compare): http://tank-compare.com/en/compare/t110e5/is-7/conqueror#T1=66I50I43I80I116&T2=367I307I263I459I182&T3=113I95I79I135I134

 

I know these values aren't reliable not credible, but it gives a ballpark idea of how the compare to each other.  ;)s

 

Except it is only a paper project and it's ridiculously buffed in WoT in comparison to real project so you can't compare WoT models... Also IS-7 is so over-nerfed in WoT, that it's almost unplayable especially due to its gun handling characteristics there. Also penetration values in WoT are mostly not real due to balance reasons...

[Results45 2,200]

Except it is only a paper project and it's ridiculously buffed in WoT in comparison to real project so you can't compare WoT models... Also IS-7 is so over-nerfed in WoT, that it's almost unplayable especially due to its gun handling characteristics there. Also penetration values in WoT are mostly not real due to balance reasons...

 

Speaking real-world terms.....it might  :Ps

[Kazumi_ 6,575]

Speaking real-world terms.....it might  :Ps

Not.

If it was never built how in hell could you compare it?

[Results45 2,200]

Not.

If it was never built how in hell could you compare it?

 

Same way some naval vessels would be modeled because many of them were scrapped leaving only sections and individual components for museums, in-storage for reference, and educational purposes.

 

In other words, official physical and performance specifications as well as components like the engine and similar parts from the M60 & M103 can be modeled in to create a near-accurate realistic model in-game (at least better that WoT's nerfed & buffed models for balance).  ;)s

Edited February 17, 2016 by Results45

[Dinobubba7 4,062]

I still love this tank, my main issue is with the community seeing his, they will mostly say no since its a USSR tank

[kev2go 5,112]

I know this is going to probably make a lot of people rage that this is even a suggestion, but frankly I have my reasons.
 
This will probably degrade into anarchy in about five seconds but what the hell. Let's see how far we can go.
 
 
Object 279; the last of the giants
 
It has more armor than a maus
It has a better gun than a maus
It's a lot faster than a maus
It's got vertical and horizontal gun stabilization
It has no flat armor to shoot at
It's russian.
 
It's also never been a driveable vehicle in any game that I know of.
 
 
 
 

 Specifications and data;
 Being the last of the heavy tanks, Object 279 was only built in a grand total of 2 vehicles, and at that time the USSR decided they did not want big, heavy vehicles anymore. Despite this however, the prototype vehicles proved to perform more like a rediculous T-54 than anything.
 Built; 1959
 
Voila, a-la copypaste from wikipedia (I can't write all this out! It's already there so that would be a waste of time!)
 
 
Weight; 60 metric tons
Length; 6,770 mm
 
length; 11,085 mm (with the gun)
Width; 3,400 mm
Height; 2,639 mm
 
Crew; 4 | Driver | Loader | Gunner | Commander
 
Armor
319 mm - 217 mm (turret front and side)
(at 30° - 50° from vertical)
269 mm - 93 mm (upper hull front)
(at 45° - 75° from vertical)
258 mm - 121 mm (lower hull front)
(at 45° - 70° from vertical)
182 mm - 100 mm (hull side)
(at 45° - 65° from vertical)
Main armament: 130 mm M-65 rifled gun L/60 (24 rounds)


Secondary armament; 14.5 x 114 mm KPVT coaxial machine gun (800 rounds)
Engine 2DG-8M diesel engine 1000 hp
Operational range; 300 km
Speed; 55 km/h
 
Additional information;
 
The gun; The tank was armed with the 130 mm M-65 rifled gun. The secondary armament was a 14.5 x 114 mm KPVT coaxial machine gun with 800 rounds.The weapons were stabilized in two planes by a "Groza" stabilizer. Object 279 carried 24 rounds of ammunition, with charge and the shell to be loaded separately
The gun was provided with a semi-automatic loading system with a rate of fire of 5-7 rounds/min. Firing control system comprised optical rangefinder, auto-guidance system and L2 night-sight with an active infrared searchlight.
An improved variant of the gun was later tested on the experimental tank Object 785 in the late 1970s.
 
The tracks; (which I find hilarious, nice job exposing those fuel tanks!) This unique tank boasted increased cross-country capability. It featured four-track running gear mounted on two longitudinal, rectangular hollow beams, which were also used as fuel tanks. The tank suspension was hydro-pneumatic with complex hydrotransformer and three-speed planetary gearbox. The track adjuster was worm-type. The specific ground pressure of this heavy vehicle did not exceed 0.6 kg/cm². The track chain, running practically along the whole track length provided for increased cross-country capabilities on swampy terrain, soft soils and area full of cut trees, Czech hedgehogs, antitank obstacles and the like.
 
 It also had auto fire-fighting systems, smoke laying equipment and a combat compartment heating/cooling system.
 
 
Yes I know that was mostly copy-paste but I wrote this up at 1 AM.

Russia needs more tanks? I think not.

And the first part gives enough reason why it should never be added.

It's like those gib t64 threads

[Guest]

Russia needs more tanks? I think not.

And the first part gives enough reason why it should never be added.

It's like those gib t64 threads

Again you fail to read.

You see the title and then go apexxxx without reading anything in the thread.

[VSG24 394]

I think it's a very interesting tank and not including it in the game would be a real shame. (We already have Maus and E-100, why not Object 279?)

[kev2go 5,112]

Again you fail to read.

You see the title and then go apexxxx without reading anything in the thread.

 

I didnt fail to read anything

i read it all  and I will  just reiterate what i said before.

 

i said first part is plenty reason enough for not to be added. which i will quote with bold. You havent helped your own case any one bit, and are incapable of seeing what is OP and what isnt.

 

Object 279; the last of the giants
 
It has more armor than a maus
It has a better gun than a maus
It's a lot faster than a maus
It's got vertical and horizontal gun stabilization
It has no flat armor to shoot at
It's russian.
 
It's also never been a driveable vehicle in any game that I know of.

 

Hey if you want this tank might  change the thread to include suggestion package additionally for a T64 in ground forces and a Mig17F for air forces as well? ( sarcasm obviously)

 

Polls speak for themselves.

 

 

Its good to see most of the community  still  have sanity,  and or arent  USSR fanbois. and therefore most still voted no.

 

also russia really densest need any more endgame tanks let alone Protypes that would break balance..Current T10m as heavy, and the confirmed to be added t55 & t62 for medium lineup will be more than enough.

Edited February 17, 2016 by kev2go

[Borotovas 4,500]

I support it.

It's a beautiful tank.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Borotovas

[KKTrain_Springer 19]

Me at first: Object what?

Once I saw the pics: OH! That gigantic mess of tracks I saw while adventuring into the depths of Wikipedia!

 

 

 

 

OMG YES PLES.

[Guest]

as for reasons, my whole ulterior motive is that everyone complained that the Kpz-70 would be too OP. so, I gave them something to counter it with. Both vehicles have comparable statistics.

 

 

[Daddo2 328]

Speaking real-world terms.....it might  :Ps

 

The problem of "paper tanks" is that you don't really know how the armor would look like when built in real life, there might be some detail in armor layout that isn't described clearly enough...

Also sometimes sources give wrong information. For example the famous Hunnicutt's books have many errors, like the thickness of the fun mantlet T29, T30 and T34. Hunnicutt states that it's 12 inches, while it's really only 8 inches.

[Results45 2,200]

I think it's a very interesting tank and not including it in the game would be a real shame. (We already have Maus and E-100, why not Object 279?)

 

Because there's nothing to balance it at the moment. Plus, the sloping on it, makes it even harder to kill than the IS-7.

 

Hierarchy of OP-ness with tanks past T-10M:

[spoiler]

T-10M

    !

Object 777

    !

IS-7

    !

Object 279

    !

Kpz-70 (who's cannon & a few other technologies went into the Leopard 2)

[/spoiler]

 

Some western tanks that might be able to balance with the ones above (though how well I'm not too sure):

--- M103A2

--- Conqueror Mk.IIH (converted Caernavons)

--- T110 (up-armored M60-like chassis & better turret armor than M103)

Edited February 18, 2016 by Results45

[Luwucy 4]

This is the tank they design to survive a nuclear blast, right?

[Results45 2,200]

This is the tank they design to survive a nuclear blast, right?

 

Yeah, and it's pretty OP even again the T-10M and Conqeror Mk.IIH :Ps