There's also the M901 ITV ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M901_ITV[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M901_ITV[/url])) based on the M113.
PT-76 with AT-3 Sagger mounted over the gun in similar style to the BMP (this is another one which I find it hard to believe hasn't been tried for real).
Put "local" versions of any early ATGW onto any of the following platforms, chosen for their post-war availability:
M8 Greyhound
PT-71: PT-76 fitted with 'Malyutka' anti-tank guided weapons system.
NAPCO M8 TOW: The Colombian M8 TOW is equipped with the M220 launcher on top of the open turret. The 37mm gun is replaced by a .50 calibre M2. There a three missiles inside the vehicle, one on the turret rear and one in the launcher. The tripod is carried on the right side of the hull, towards the rear. Colombia has some 6 vehicles of this type.
1. ATGWs on a Main Battle Tank.
1. ATGWs on a Main Battle Tank.
The fact that Taiwan actually copied the Malyutka ATGM gave me an idea of a M48 turret with a bustle that actually serves as a compartment for Malyutka-copy launcher(s) à la BRDM-1 ([url]http://www.desura.com/groups/ifv-lovers-group/images/brdm-11[/url]), possibly providing the missile system some protection against elements and hostile actions.
Is it practical to incorporate mechanism associated with top-attack capability into the Malyutka missile?
That's interesting - didn't know about that. :)
Top attack involves mounting a shaped-charge warhead facing downwards in a (usually) tube-shaped missile which is not a very efficient "fit". In a modern, relatively fat missile airframe, you can get a top-attack warhead that's still a decent size, but I'm not sure about in a Malyutka, which is really, really small.....
Top attack involves mounting a shaped-charge warhead facing downwards in a (usually) tube-shaped missile which is not a very efficient "fit". In a modern, relatively fat missile airframe, you can get a top-attack warhead that's still a decent size, but I'm not sure about in a Malyutka, which is really, really small.....
Also according to Wikipedia FGM-148 has a body diametre only 2mm wider than that of Malyutka (125mm) but packs a warhead more than twice as heavy as that of Malyutka...... of course I do not know if Malyutka's warhead can have the same diametre as its body, and I reckon that a warhead too much heavier than initially specified is bound to bring forth other problems......
4. Your main gun's no good against armor
This one's very situational, but I can think of a few extreme examples where this could be the case. Two that come to mind are the cases where the gun is tailor made for high explosive work. This was far more popular before and during WWII, but a more modern example would be the Centurion AVRE. While that HESH round does nasty things to tanks, it's neither high velocity nor very accurate. At long ranges, it would have very poor AT performance. Need the engineering capability, but don't want to make it a liability in tank combat? Put a couple of ATGMs on it.
Somehow make a tank's main armament nearly useless against enemy armor. Maybe all prewar stocks are found to have fatal quality flaws and tend to break up against enemy armor instead of penetrating. These are things that have happened in wartime before, just usually before the time of ATGWs.
I can actually think of a few other reasons why you may want to do this, though--like you--that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with any of them.
4. Your main gun's no good against armor
This one's very situational, but I can think of a few extreme examples where this could be the case. Two that come to mind are the cases where the gun is tailor made for high explosive work. This was far more popular before and during WWII, but a more modern example would be the Centurion AVRE. While that HESH round does nasty things to tanks, it's neither high velocity nor very accurate. At long ranges, it would have very poor AT performance. Need the engineering capability, but don't want to make it a liability in tank combat? Put a couple of ATGMs on it.
Somehow make a tank's main armament nearly useless against enemy armor. Maybe all prewar stocks are found to have fatal quality flaws and tend to break up against enemy armor instead of penetrating. These are things that have happened in wartime before, just usually before the time of ATGWs.
6. Intimidation
Iran's probably working on this one already. Obsolete tank + obsolete missiles = innovative doom tank! This is the kind of stuff they do all the time. Combine two obsolete things and suddenly it's new! The more intimidating it looks, the better. Effectiveness isn't the point.
You have to admit Iran has made Wiffing a national priority, they have the back story and the various bits and pieces, now they are just churning out master piece after master piece.
Of course another path to take with this is to imagine that perhaps future tanks give up on the main gun as their primary tank killing weapon (say that after 120mm/125mm designers say enough is enough - we're not going to 140mm/152mm). Instead, in the LeoIII/Challenger 3/M1A3/T-XX etc the conventional gun becomes the secondary weapon (say something around the 50mm size) for dealing with secondary targets and that the primary anti-tank weapon becomes the ATGW. In this case, you end up with something more akin to a heavy IFV but without the troop carrying requirement. Maybe even akin to the CV-90 series?
Hypervelocity missiles have been flirted with by the US but they never reached any fruitition. LOSAT has come and gone, morphing into HATM, so obviously simply making a much faster missile is a little more difficult than one supposes. While it has the advantage of being recoilless, such a weapon needs to be fly a line-of-sight course, like a gun so they lose the advantage of being able to utilise full defilade which many normal missiles can.
The US FOG-M and the European Polyphen systems, utilising fibre-optic cable, rather than traditional wires for guidance are IMHO an excellent solution. They allow firing from full defilade, have no "gather" times and can even be utilised for immediate reconnaissance if necessary, utilising their TV cameras to report back on what is occurring on "the otherside of the hill" as Wellington termed it. However both have been abandoned unfortunately.
Hypervelocity missiles have been flirted with by the US but they never reached any fruitition. LOSAT has come and gone, morphing into HATM, so obviously simply making a much faster missile is a little more difficult than one supposes. While it has the advantage of being recoilless, such a weapon needs to be fly a line-of-sight course, like a gun so they lose the advantage of being able to utilise full defilade which many normal missiles can.
LOSAT would be a nightmare in the field. It had a huge firing signature like an MLRS and would basically be a way of saying to everyone on the battlefield here I am over here under this giant plume of white smoke and behind the searing streak of white light.
The US FOG-M and the European Polyphen systems, utilising fibre-optic cable, rather than traditional wires for guidance are IMHO an excellent solution. They allow firing from full defilade, have no "gather" times and can even be utilised for immediate reconnaissance if necessary, utilising their TV cameras to report back on what is occurring on "the otherside of the hill" as Wellington termed it. However both have been abandoned unfortunately.
This capability is basically the RAFAEL Spike sytem. Thanks to advances in radio technology longer range missiles can safely use wireless like Spike-NLOS and as was planned for the NLOS-LS PAM and LAM weapons. Lots of other weapons have similar capabilities like Griffon and Delilah.
You could use an elevating mount which while it wouldn't prevent retaliation it would decrease the likelihood of losing the vehicle.
Wireless can be jammed or even hacked.
Any high-performance missile is going to have a large IR, visual, and radar launch signature, the last because the best high-performance solid rocket fuel burns aluminum with amonium perchlorate and that generates quite a reflective plume. We had fun getting the folding vertical fin of ground-launched TSSAM to unfold through that booster plume and retain it's low-observables characteristics; Northrop ended up doing a bunch of testing with the booster maker to find suitable materials and I got involved as the responsible engineer at Northrop for the boosters and was involved in designing the test fixture.
You could use an elevating mount which while it wouldn't prevent retaliation it would decrease the likelihood of losing the vehicle.
Not really. The position of the vehicle would still be betrayed. Mast mounted weapon stations are just the same as hull down vehicles except it increases the terrain conditions you can be hull down in.
Wireless can be jammed or even hacked.
Partially true. They do tend to ensure that the launcher is both harder to spot and harder to eliminate.
One should never assume that a radio signal cannot be jammed or hacked. Such hubris has, upon several occasions in the past ended up with lots of red faces and invariably dead people. Be it Tannenberg to the "battle of the beams", Window and through to the recent hacking of drones' video feeds in Iraq, it all started with people making assumptions about the security of their radio systems.
I've often wondered whether you could add anti-armour KE capability and anti-aircraft capability to a low-velocity gun by using it to launch a ramjet-powered hyper-velocity missile. The propellant charge would get the thing up to ramjet ignition speed and a solid fuel ramjet (like the Spark missile) would them take over. Guidance could be laser beam riding or semi-active laser.
I've often wondered whether you could add anti-armour KE capability and anti-aircraft capability to a low-velocity gun by using it to launch a ramjet-powered hyper-velocity missile. The propellant charge would get the thing up to ramjet ignition speed and a solid fuel ramjet (like the Spark missile) would them take over. Guidance could be laser beam riding or semi-active laser.
You would need to rely upon a kinetic kill. One of the problems with ramjet or rocket powered shells is that they lose an appreciable amount of their filling to fuel for the ramjet/rocket. They also tend to, unless guided, to have often erratic trajectories compared to true guns.
I've often wondered whether you could add anti-armour KE capability and anti-aircraft capability to a low-velocity gun by using it to launch a ramjet-powered hyper-velocity missile. The propellant charge would get the thing up to ramjet ignition speed and a solid fuel ramjet (like the Spark missile) would them take over. Guidance could be laser beam riding or semi-active laser.
You would need to rely upon a kinetic kill. One of the problems with ramjet or rocket powered shells is that they lose an appreciable amount of their filling to fuel for the ramjet/rocket. They also tend to, unless guided, to have often erratic trajectories compared to true guns.
The whole point would be to achieve a kinetic kill from a low-velocity gun, and yes, it would definately be guided.
The idea came from a real 1980s missile project called Spark which was essentially a ramjet-powered HVM. I can't recall the exact spec (and can't find it on line) but I do remember that it was small enough to launch from a tank-size gun (i.e. under 155mm) although that wasn't the intention and it's sustainer ignition speed was within the muzzle velocity of a howitzer. It had a solid rocket booster packed inside a solid ramjet grain, so if that booster was replaced by a propellant charge, there'd be room down the middle for quite a bit more gubbins.
([url]http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d12/veltro_28/DSC_0113.jpg[/url])
What I mean by this is not single-purpose ATGW vehicles on a tank chassis, but rather a vehicle (we'll allow wheels too) that has a turret with a substantial gun in it AND an ATGW capability. Most of these proposals were never built for obvious reasons to do with reloads and reloading, but they were mostly workable and so would make an interesting What If, if a suitable backstory could be concocted.Hi,i just love missiles,rockets on tanks or otherwise,heres a few of mine
I think they fall into two categories:
1. Gun-launched ATGWs:
Sheridan with Shillelagh (service)
M60A2 with Shillelagh (service)
MBT-70 with Shillelagh prototypes only)
T-55 with 9K116-1 "Bastion" ATGW (service)
T-62 with 9K116-2 "Sheksna" ATGW (service)
T-72/80 etc with 9M119 "Svir/Refleks" ATGW (service)
BMP-3 with 9K116-1 "Bastion" ATGW (service)
Israeli LAHAT missile used from various 105/120mm gun-armed tanks
AMX-30 with ACRA (a 142mm gun/launcher: abandoned due to cost):
([url]http://maquetland.com/v2/images_articles/amx30acraex7.jpg[/url])
2. Separate guns and ATGWs
AMX-13 with SS-11. One of the few such designs that actually went into service. 2 x twin SS-11 on open rails on front of turret, either side of gun barrel.
([url]http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu38/kilomuse/Tanks/FrAtMissiles3.jpg[/url])
AMX-13 with HOT. Proposed replacement for above. 2 x triple HOT boxes on either side of the turret. Close to adoption, but the French Army changed it's ideas on ATGWs and bought the VAB Mephisto instead.
([url]http://www.servir-et-defendre.org/archives_du_dinosaure/blindes/amx_13/13-75-hot/bis_x_amx13-75-hot_1.sd.jpg[/url])
The early version had 2 x quad HOT launchers:
([url]http://i60.servimg.com/u/f60/12/90/38/00/amx_1320.jpg[/url])
Vickers Mk.2 MBT with Swingfire. This was a Mk.1 fitted with 2 x twin Swingfire boxes on either side of a modified turret bustle. Mock-up only.
([url]http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-victor/victor-vickers/vickers-mbt_series/mk2-swingfire/mk2swingfire_001.jpg[/url])
M47 with Swingfire. Similar proposal to above, fitted with 2 x twin Swingfire boxes on either side of a modified turret bustle. Mock-up only.
([url]http://pics.livejournal.com/elven_tankmen/pic/0012r213/s640x480[/url])
Saladin with Swingfire. Standard armored car fitted with 2 x single Swingfire boxes on either side of the turret. Mock-up only.
([url]http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/SaladinSwingfire.png[/url])
Centurion with Swingfire. Seems to be basically the same system as the one on the Vickers Mk.2 Mock-up only.
([url]http://jedsite.info/tanks-charlie/charlie/centurion_series/mk5swingfire/mk5swingfire_001.jpg[/url])
4. Your main gun's no good against armor
4. Your main gun's no good against armor
Early Soviet 125mm gun tanks carried gun-launched missiles to compensate for the poor long-range accuracy (?) of early 125mm guns.
Western 105mm L7 gun doesn't seem to have the same reputation; if I want to put ATGMs on a 105mm gun tank, then, how far should the missile's effective range be in order to be useful?
Something in the TOW/HOT/Swingfire category.
Something in the TOW/HOT/Swingfire category.
Excellent ;)
"Olifantization" of Vickers MBT Mk.II is a go ;D
Could Swingfire be refitted with warhead from Spike-ER though? Or would Spike-ER's warhead be too big? Or is Swingfire's warhead better than I think?
Something in the TOW/HOT/Swingfire category.
Excellent ;)
"Olifantization" of Vickers MBT Mk.II is a go ;D
Could Swingfire be refitted with warhead from Spike-ER though? Or would Spike-ER's warhead be too big? Or is Swingfire's warhead better than I think?
I wonder why no one has mentioned Malkara. While it was big and a bit clumsy, it did have a 26lb HESH warhead. Enough to make the day of the crew of any AFV it managed to hit rather short.
Something in the TOW/HOT/Swingfire category.
Excellent ;)
"Olifantization" of Vickers MBT Mk.II is a go ;D
Could Swingfire be refitted with warhead from Spike-ER though? Or would Spike-ER's warhead be too big? Or is Swingfire's warhead better than I think?
If the warhead is heavier on the Spike than the existing warhead on the Swingfire, you'll find all sorts of aerodynamic problems with it, including perhaps most significantly, decreased range. The Swingfire's warhead was perfectly adequate when introduced but wasn't updated as the threat changed.
I wonder why no one has mentioned Malkara. While it was big and a bit clumsy, it did have a 26lb HESH warhead. Enough to make the day of the crew of any AFV it managed to hit rather short. Interestingly, it was developed into a SAM the Seacat/Tigercat.
I wonder...what about Kramer X-7 Rotkäppchen missiles added to a Panzer IV?
Something in the TOW/HOT/Swingfire category.
Excellent ;)
"Olifantization" of Vickers MBT Mk.II is a go ;D
Could Swingfire be refitted with warhead from Spike-ER though? Or would Spike-ER's warhead be too big? Or is Swingfire's warhead better than I think?
If the warhead is heavier on the Spike than the existing warhead on the Swingfire, you'll find all sorts of aerodynamic problems with it, including perhaps most significantly, decreased range. The Swingfire's warhead was perfectly adequate when introduced but wasn't updated as the threat changed.
I wonder why no one has mentioned Malkara. While it was big and a bit clumsy, it did have a 26lb HESH warhead. Enough to make the day of the crew of any AFV it managed to hit rather short. Interestingly, it was developed into a SAM the Seacat/Tigercat.
Yeah, but the thread is about missiles on gun tanks: how would you mount Malkara on a tank? It barely fitted on a Humber Pig.
Something in the TOW/HOT/Swingfire category.
Excellent ;)
"Olifantization" of Vickers MBT Mk.II is a go ;D
Could Swingfire be refitted with warhead from Spike-ER though? Or would Spike-ER's warhead be too big? Or is Swingfire's warhead better than I think?
If the warhead is heavier on the Spike than the existing warhead on the Swingfire, you'll find all sorts of aerodynamic problems with it, including perhaps most significantly, decreased range. The Swingfire's warhead was perfectly adequate when introduced but wasn't updated as the threat changed.
I wonder why no one has mentioned Malkara. While it was big and a bit clumsy, it did have a 26lb HESH warhead. Enough to make the day of the crew of any AFV it managed to hit rather short. Interestingly, it was developed into a SAM the Seacat/Tigercat.
Yeah, but the thread is about missiles on gun tanks: how would you mount Malkara on a tank? It barely fitted on a Humber Pig.
Tanks are much larger than the cut down Humber which was used to mount it for airborne use. I'd expect two of them on the turret rear would work quite well. An armoured box launcher perhaps?
It would be a big box. :-\
Weight 93.5 kg (206 lb)
Length 1.9 m (6 ft 3 in)
Diameter 203 mm (8.0 in)
Anyone know what an R-8 is?
([url]http://news.youxiping.com/uploads/article/2013-08/20130808152910_9.gif[/url])
Anyone know what an R-8 is?
([url]http://news.youxiping.com/uploads/article/2013-08/20130808152910_9.gif[/url])
Does anyone know of a 1/35 (or 1/48) kit of the FV 1620 Humber "Hornet"?
Does anyone know of a 1/35 (or 1/48) kit of the FV 1620 Humber "Hornet"?There was way back in the 1970s a 1/40 Midori model. There are no 1/35 scale models that I'm aware of. I've been looking periodocally for several years now. I am thinking about creating some Malkara missiles in Shapeways.
I am thinking about creating some Malkara missiles in Shapeways.
I am thinking about creating some Malkara missiles in Shapeways.
Very interested. I will take a couple...in both 1/48 and 1/35.
4. Your main gun's no good against armor
This one's very situational, but I can think of a few extreme examples where this could be the case. Two that come to mind are the cases where the gun is tailor made for high explosive work.
4. Your main gun's no good against armor
This one's very situational, but I can think of a few extreme examples where this could be the case. Two that come to mind are the cases where the gun is tailor made for high explosive work.
I am just wondering...... I know nowadays when one speaks of demolition guns, people think of Royal Ordance L9. But would 105mm howitzer remain viable as a vehicle-mounted demolition weapon? How do, say, its HESH/HEP rounds perform compared to HESH rounds used by the L7?
The major difference between the 105mm HEAT and the 165mm HESH is the way in which the blast is directed into the target. The 105mm HEAT round is much more localised than the 165mm HESH round. The 165mm will cause considerable collateral damage whereas the 105mm HEAT round won't.
Depends on the target. If you're just slinging HE around, though, a 105mm howitzer would be just as good as an L7 in everything but accuracy, really. Heck, a 105mm howitzer likely has more HE content than an L7 HE round. The big advantage of a 105mm howitzer over an L7, though, would be in weight reduction—in no small part due to a much lower recoil. The advantage of an L7-type gun, obviously, is its versatility. It's useful against more than just one type of target.
Now, you can put a 105mm howitzer on platforms that can't take an L7-type gun (such as a 5 ton truck or a C-130), but if you can use an L7 on a platform, you may as well, because not all targets are houses.
Cheers,
Logan
Now, you can put a 105mm howitzer on platforms that can't take an L7-type gun (such as a 5 ton truck or a C-130), but if you can use an L7 on a platform, you may as well, because not all targets are houses.
The secret in achieving the desired effect is in the design of the ammunition. Do you need it to penetrate or explode on impact, what does it need to penetrate, steel, concrete, brick, mud brick? Do you need to apply an external force to push something over, punch a large hole, or rather penetrate and then shatter a wall or even punch into a building or room and explode it through over pressure.
You could make a case that a tank-like versatile fire support vehicle with ATGW, arty and demolition capabilities is more relevent in 120mm than 105mm. 105mm-armed MBTs generally carried a decent number of rounds so they could afford some non-anti-tank ones, but the 40-odd rounds carried by 120mm-armed MBTs seems to be at the lower limit of what tacticians consider acceptable. Pre-Iraq, the US Army went through a phase of not issuing the M1 with ANY HE round.
Hum...... I wonder if that is why North Koreans install ATGM launchers on their Chonma-Ho and Pokpung-Ho MBTs.
The major difference between the 105mm HEAT and the 165mm HESH is the way in which the blast is directed into the target. The 105mm HEAT round is much more localised than the 165mm HESH round. The 165mm will cause considerable collateral damage whereas the 105mm HEAT round won't.
I am actually asking if there is any appreciable difference between 105mm howitzers and 105mm anti-tank guns in demolition roles (it seems like both have HESH/HEP rounds in their ammunition lineups)......
(...... before contemplating any scenario of firing LAHAT out of a 105mm assault howitzer......)
I'm curious. Is the ammunition for 105mm tank guns and howitzers interchangeable? The above information on velocity suggest different chamber pressures. So, I'm guessing... Probably not?
I'm curious. Is the ammunition for 105mm tank guns and howitzers interchangeable? The above information on velocity suggest different chamber pressures. So, I'm guessing... Probably not?
Actually there is a 120mm demolition round used by M-1s issued to armoured engineering units.
"120mm M908 HE-OR-T Ammunition
Orbital ATK's M908 HE-OR-T, a high-explosive, obstacle-reduction ammunition with tracer, is one of the eight rounds in our line of 120mm conventional tank ammunition, which is the most advanced such ammunition in the world.
All rounds are fully compatible with 120mm smooth-bore weapons on M1A1 and M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks and the Leopard 2 main battle tanks with L44 and L55 smooth-bore cannons. The 120mm training ammunition designs provide low-cost, live-fire training to the tank crew.
The M908 round was developed to destroy obstacles and barriers (concrete, rock, dragon's teeth, etc.) that are set up to stop tanks. The round is a modification of the M830A1 (commonly known as the MPAT) where the front fuze is replaced with a steel nose. This provides penetration into the obstacle before detonation.
The M908 has demonstrated performance better than the 165mm M123A1 HEP."
The full list of ammunition types is here
https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/armament-systems/120mm/ (https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/armament-systems/120mm/)
Basically if suitable munitions can be provided for standard calibres this makes things much easier logistically, as well as for training. This particular round means armoured engineering units can operate almost standard tanks along side their more specialised Breachers and AEVs etc.
105mm-armed MBTs generally carried a decent number of rounds so they could afford some non-anti-tank ones, but the 40-odd rounds carried by 120mm-armed MBTs seems to be at the lower limit of what tacticians consider acceptable. Pre-Iraq, the US Army went through a phase of not issuing the M1 with ANY HE round.
The Indian gun, is IIRC based on the German 120mm gun with the usual "Indian" flavours which of course will make it incompatible with the German gun! :o
How did this thread go so long without this classic being shown?
([url]http://i59.fastpic.ru/big/2013/1029/23/770bd37b0a95d2d35ad10f816cece623.jpg[/url])
Hum...... I wonder if that is why North Koreans install ATGM launchers on their Chonma-Ho and Pokpung-Ho MBTs.
That is more than likely because of the unacceptable dispersion their main guns suffer from at longer ranges. ATGWs are usually more accurate above 2,000 metres than most MBT guns, particularly Eastern Bloc ones of the type that the North Koreans have access to. With the advent of more precise machining and fire control systems and computers on MBTs, the West and eventually the Russians overcame that problem. Its one of the reasons why the development of the US Shillelagh died in the mid-1970s - the standard 105mm/120mm guns were simply too good. North Korea has been reliant for a long time on aged milling machines, invariably purchased second-hand from the fUSSR.
Does this count?
([url]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1HuQObH55hw/VaP0bI7kBTI/AAAAAAAAEVc/H-Yn6k35ek8/s640/6541.png[/url])
In AMX-13 equipped with SS-11, who fires and aims missiles, commander or gunner?
Is Iran faring any better for their Zulfiqar MBT project? Or do they simply have more-open access to OEM Russian 125mm gun than North Korea?
Though I have heard that PRC is exporting new gun barrels as upgrade to early 125mm guns as well......
What about Iran's ability to procure quality 105mm guns to upgrade their T-54s? And if they want to go with the "intimidation" route, they can put Kornet missile launchers on those upgraded T-54s, North-Korean-style, too......
Does anyone know of a 1/35 (or 1/48) kit of the FV 1620 Humber "Hornet"?
These images might help:
([url]http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/Samochd_pancerny_Hornet.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/1264588786_hornet_draw2.gif[/url])([url]http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/1264588767_hornet_draw1.gif[/url])
([url]http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/uk_fv1620-001z.jpg[/url])
([url]http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/IMG_1604.jpg~original[/url])
([url]http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p110/GTX_Christmas/IMG_1609.jpg~original[/url])
Object 614A- T-54 with a triple Malyutka missile launcher, which elevates when in use, at the back of the turret.
Source page HERE (Russian Only!) ([url]http://www.dogswar.ru/oryjeinaia-ekzotika/bronetehnika/6622-opytnyi-tank-lobekt.html[/url]).