Main Gun Ammo - Revisited

[Jim Warford]

46 minutes ago, Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo said:

IIRC the Soviets gave a nice tour of one of their armored units  to high ranking French officers in 1974 or so; I recall a picture of a early T-72 with an array of ammo on its glacis behind inspected by a number of French officers. Surely some of these enough knew about what they were being shown to be aware of the protection levels of the tank

That tour and photo op for the French was in October 1977...a month prior to the T-72 being paraded for the first time in Red Square.

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

That tour and photo op for the French was in October 1977...a month prior to the T-72 being paraded for the first time in Red Square.

Thank you, I thought it was 1977.

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo said:

The lack of basic intelligence on the T-64 and later T-72 armor is mind blowing; the latest Soviet tanks in mass production were basically inmune to standard NATO tank ammo well into the 70s. Surely the main body of the Red Army and WP was the T-55/62 but the Soviets had lots of T-64s deployed in the GDR with a very good armor protection, with only the L11 on Chieftain barely capable against it frontally beyond 1000m......

To be fair, if you have a defensive position where you only option to engage them frontally, you probably setup wrong. Yes, sometimes its necessary, but the best position is to put tankes out on the flanks and go for flank shots. You cant always do it, but its the best solution if you can.

I really would like a copy of the Neustraliz document to turn up somewhere. It seems to have been a complete gamechanger in how NATO thought about Soviet armour.

 

You know a thought occurred to me when Jim Warford posted that up. When I was doing the list of when USMLM saw Soviet equipment turn up in East Germany, I made a note by an entry for 1976 which said:-

1976 Date Unknown “Interest, understandably, was the introduction into GSFG of the new T-72 main battle tank. The acquisition of the T-72 by the 6 GMRD and 35 MRD was closely monitored by Tri-Mission assets and high quality technical Photography was expedited to numerous Intelligence agencies“. (My Comments. See September 14th for a fuller description)(7)

At some point (and I had completely forgotten this) I must have talked this over with Dave Clark who told me this.

‘’Now we come to the conundrum of 1976/77 and the introduction of T72s into GSFG! As we now know (what price hindsight!) these were T64s. However at that time neither ourselves at HQ BAOR nor HQ USAREUR knew of the existence of T64s. All the material we had seen referred to T72. As I recall it, the big re-equipment thrust was around Easter. We came back off the long weekend to discover 600 new tanks milling around GSFG and the missions throwing a collective wobbler. It wasn't until the November 1977 parade in Moscow that we realised that there were 2 different tanks out there and that "our" T72 was actually the T64.” So it appears certain that these were in fact a first sighting of T64A.

 

Which supports the idea we really knew damn all about T72 until 1977 and the French were allowed to crawl all over one. I somehow doubt we would have mistook 600 new tanks for an entirely different tank if we had been as well informed as we might wish to think.

Of course, it would be fascinating to learn what FMLM thought about it all.

Edited February 10, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, bojan said:

They shared data with Yugoslavia by the spring 1975. when requirements for new infantry AT weapon (that French were heavily involved in) was changed from 350-400mm penetration to 450-500mm. So I find it strange that they did not share it with British.

We had just joined the EEC and started throwing our weight about. So no, not really so strange.

Edited February 10, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

To be fair, if you have a defensive position where you only option to engage them frontally, you probably setup wrong. Yes, sometimes its necessary, but the best position is to put tankes out on the flanks and go for flank shots. You cant always do it, but its the best solution if you can.

I really would like a copy of the Neustraliz document to turn up somewhere. It seems to have been a complete gamechanger in how NATO thought about Soviet armour.

 

You know a thought occurred to me when Jim Warford posted that up. When I was doing the list of when USMLM saw Soviet equipment turn up in East Germany, I made a note by an entry for 1976 which said:-

1976 Date Unknown “Interest, understandably, was the introduction into GSFG of the new T-72 main battle tank. The acquisition of the T-72 by the 6 GMRD and 35 MRD was closely monitored by Tri-Mission assets and high quality technical Photography was expedited to numerous Intelligence agencies“. (My Comments. See September 14th for a fuller description)(7)

At some point (and I had completely forgotten this) I must have talked this over with Dave Clark who told me this.

‘’Now we come to the conundrum of 1976/77 and the introduction of T72s into GSFG! As we now know (what price hindsight!) these were T64s. However at that time neither ourselves at HQ BAOR nor HQ USAREUR knew of the existence of T64s. All the material we had seen referred to T72. As I recall it, the big re-equipment thrust was around Easter. We came back off the long weekend to discover 600 new tanks milling around GSFG and the missions throwing a collective wobbler. It wasn't until the November 1977 parade in Moscow that we realised that there were 2 different tanks out there and that "our" T72 was actually the T64.” So it appears certain that these were in fact a first sighting of T64A.

 

Which supports the idea we really knew damn all about T72 until 1977 and the French were allowed to crawl all over one. I somehow doubt we would have mistook 600 new tanks for an entirely different tank if we had been as well informed as we might wish to think.

Of course, it would be fascinating to learn what FMLM thought about it all.

Well, when I was a young lad playing Microprose’s Gunship in the mid 1980s the T-72B was still known as T-74..... and I had no idea T-64 even existed. So it’s pretty evident basic intelligence was lacking.....

 

on the issue of “invulnerable” Soviet armor, probably a solid hit by L52/M728 or L15 APDS surely would cause some internal damage. Still, the Soviets could kill NATO tanks at any practical range with a single hit from either APFSDS or HEAT.... scary

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

11 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

That tour and photo op for the French was in October 1977...a month prior to the T-72 being paraded for the first time in Red Square.

Thanks Jim, I thought it was earlier. In any case, around that time they worked feverishly on APFSDS rounds as Obus G was by them clearly obsolescent against modern tank armor

[Stuart Galbraith]

Here you go Gorka, page 63/64. Oh what innocent days those were.

https://archive.org/details/Gunship_1986_Microprose_Software/page/n33/mode/2up

[RETAC21]

Just to chime in, a kind soul posted some time ageo the British Army Staff Officer Handbook that, among other stuff, had the characteristics of the the tanks of the time (I guess to give an idea of what can be expected of them for planning purposes). For the WP it gave the Range of the main armament as follows:

T-55: 1500 m.

T-64/72/80: 2500 m.

Challenger/Chieftain: 2000 m. with APFSDS

Scorpion: 1500 m. HESH (same for tanks using HESH)

So it seems there's a 500 m. gap where the British Army expected the Soviets to have an advantage in long range gunnery. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

37 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Just to chime in, a kind soul posted some time ageo the British Army Staff Officer Handbook that, among other stuff, had the characteristics of the the tanks of the time (I guess to give an idea of what can be expected of them for planning purposes). For the WP it gave the Range of the main armament as follows:

T-55: 1500 m.

T-64/72/80: 2500 m.

Challenger/Chieftain: 2000 m. with APFSDS

Scorpion: 1500 m. HESH (same for tanks using HESH)

So it seems there's a 500 m. gap where the British Army expected the Soviets to have an advantage in long range gunnery. 

Without looking at it,  I think that is saying is effective range, which is probably right. Its probably not talking about how far out the gun can hit accurately. If so, I think thats  a fair assessment, L23A1 was clearly an improvement over APDS, but not as much as hoped.  Hence the reason why the rushed XL26 into service for Operation Granby.

1 hour ago, bojan said:

It was not inaccurate, but T-72M is not inaccurate either in theory. Problem with both is "return reticle on target manually after ballistic solution was achieved", is not that it only slows down engagements, but also made firing at moving targets more problematic. Yes, it could be done, but doing it with any sort of regularity @ 3500m is... optimistic to say at least. Compared to fully automated FCSs of the every new tank at that moment it was, well, not stone age, but early iron age at best.  Hell, even Soviets saw the light, T-64B/B1 had fully automated FCS in 1976, and T-80B also had it. They just could never produce enough of those to afford it for "2nd line" T-72s, so those had same crap as C1. Well, worse one, w/o lead counter, which sucked even more for engaging moving targets.

Yes in theory (if first shot hit is not achieved by battlesight engagement), but it also extends time of engagement, increasing chance that tank will be hit. It was also not w/o other problems (it is not affected the same way as real projectile by the crosswind, temperature, air pressure etc). I come from a position that practically everyone tried it and yet... gave up on it. Except Soviets ironically who installed DShK/KPVT in the T-10 series for exactly the same reason, but those fired much slower AP initially so it was considered a good addition for a while... They (liking simple solutions, and RMG is one of the simplest) considered it for T-64 but found no point in it with APFSDS. So they went with optical RF, same way Americans and Germans went.

There you have it. And it is not gun "accuracy" it is a hit probability at range with fast rounds.

Israelis might have wanted it, but they also promptly removed them when harsh reality hit.

 

Or they have shared it, but it was ignored since it was contrary to a dominant thinking at the moment and would raise a lot of unpleasant questions. Corporate culture (and militaries and DoDs are most blatant examples of it that can be found on the God's green earth) is like that.

Bojan, I suspect you are not one for games, but perhaps give that 'Gunner Heat PC' sim a go sometime. Its a good simulation of exactly that principle you describe (as is Steelbeasts come to that).

Yes, you are right I fully admit. I kick myself not asking Bob Griffin more about their usage of RMG whilst I could. I think it was probably the cheapest, easiest solution to the problem before Laser rangefinders. Its more solid than optical rangefinders, and less requiring of maintainance and training. OTOH, its telling the MOD removed them as soon as they got a good TLS, despite troopers wanting to keep them to use as a secondary Coax. Personally Ive never been keen on optical rangefinders when it was seemingly proven in pakistan how much longer it took to get a solution than it did the 3 round technique in what I think were 20 pdr centurions.

Didnt the Israelis use .50's mounted over the barrel (which they used for training) as a supercoax in Beirut on their Merkava's? so they might have wanted them for more than one reason.

Well, im not going to say bad things about the French. They were good team players in the missions in Germany, which is why im finding it hard to reconcile if we were collectively classifying 600 new tanks arriving as T72 when they were T64. Ill not speculate further other than saying something doesnt quite fit.

 

 

[bojan]

20 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

,,,

Didnt the Israelis use .50's mounted over the barrel (which they used for training) as a supercoax in Beirut on their Merkava's? so they might have wanted them for more than one reason.

They used them for extended range engagements, beyond capabilities of 7.62mm coax, taking advantage of FCS, for a targets that did not warrant the use of the main gun round. There was no reason to use it as RMG since by that time they were actually issuing hand-held LRFs to a TCs of the tanks that did not have LRF integrated into FC computer.

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

Just to chime in, a kind soul posted some time ageo the British Army Staff Officer Handbook that, among other stuff, had the characteristics of the the tanks of the time (I guess to give an idea of what can be expected of them for planning purposes). For the WP it gave the Range of the main armament as follows:

T-55: 1500 m.

T-64/72/80: 2500 m.

Challenger/Chieftain: 2000 m. with APFSDS

Scorpion: 1500 m. HESH (same for tanks using HESH)

So it seems there's a 500 m. gap where the British Army expected the Soviets to have an advantage in long range gunnery. 

Scorpion looks wildly optimistic with no FCS and a really low MV (unless is one of the upgraded 90mm models). The range for Chieftain/CH1 looks quite short for APFSDS.....

[bojan]

32 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

...Well, im not going to say bad things about the French. They were good team players in the missions in Germany, which is why im finding it hard to reconcile if we were collectively classifying 600 new tanks arriving as T72 when they were T64. Ill not speculate further other than saying something doesnt quite fit...

 

I actually think that French made WAG about armor and were proven right by chance. Or they assumed that Soviets improved armor in "revolutionary" steps*, while British looked from the "evolution" perspective*** and assumed that increase in armor would be gradual. Neither is wrong per see, French could have been wrong too. They just guessed more correctly.

*T-34 more than doubled the armor of the previous best armored tanks. T-55** doubled armor of T-34. T-64/72 doubled armor of T-54/55***. 

**T-44 actually, but that one was utterly unknown in the west, in the '60s it was still considered to be early version of T-54 with T-34-85 turret.

***T-54/55/62 were evolution of the T-44, increasing it's base armor gradually (90 to 100mm, excluding early T-54 with 120mm glacis). Turret was increased more, however, from 120mm front to 200mm front. Don't forget that most common figures for T-55/62 armor was "98mm glacis" (which is somewhat incorrect measurement, but w/o ultrasound measuring devices it was good enough) for T-55 and 102mm for T-62. Both were 100mm actually, with 102mm possible, as tolerances for plate thickness of 100mm were -0/+3mm.. This indicates no access to any sort of Soviet primary documents, and I doubt French had it either. Hence my guess that both French and British made WAG, it just turned out that French one was more accurate in hindsight.

Edited February 10, 2021 by bojan

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Here you go Gorka, page 63/64. Oh what innocent days those were.

https://archive.org/details/Gunship_1986_Microprose_Software/page/n33/mode/2up

Those were the good times! “T-74” were mostly harmless, but those Shilkas....

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yeah, that makes me chuckle to think back on it as well.  😄 In fairness they did put T64 in M1 Tank Platoon. What wonderful sims those both were.

I cant find Bobs book now, and ive no reason to doubt him because he knew his onions. OTOH on Page 66 of George Forty's Chieftain book (still worth picking up even though it came out in 1979) the RMG tracer burnout was at 1800 metres (which seems to agree with the Chieftain RMG manual if my memory serves) with a 'recently introduced'  new tracer round that gave ranges out to 2500. Though I suspect witnessing strikes out at that range made your eyes go out on stalks.

I think where RMG worked best was in quick reaction shoots. That was the kind of engagements CAT tended to simulate, and RMG seemed to work quite well on those occasions.

 

 

M1 Tank Platoon was superb, and from time to time l still play it! I remember the horror of M829 bouncing off charging T-80 while BMPs launched volley after volley of AT-5s. Frightening!

On Bob’s book, I can check tomorrow as l’m doing a 24h shift. My memory isn’t what is used to be!

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

7 minutes ago, bojan said:

I actually think that French made WAG about armor and were proven right by chance. Or they assumed that Soviets improved armor in "revolutionary" steps*, while others looked from the "evolution" perspective and assumed that increase in armor would be gradual.

*T-34 more than doubled the armor of the previous best armored tanks. T-55** doubled armor of T-34. T-64/72 doubled armor of T-54/55***. 

**T-44 actually, but that one was utterly unknown in the west, in the '60s it was still considered to be early version of T-54 with T-34-85 turret.

***But T-54/55/62 were evolution of the T-44, increasing it's base armor gradually. This is probably where confusion came. Don't forget that most common figures for T-54/55 armor was "98mm glacis" (which is somewhat incorrect measurement, but w/o ultrasound measuring devices it was good enough), and 102mm for T-62. Both were 100mm actually, with 102mm possible, as tolerances for plate thickness of 100mm were -0/+3mm.. This indicates no access to any sort of Soviet primary documents, and I doubt French had it either. Hence my guess that both French and British made WAG, it just turned out that French one was more accurate in hindsight.

Curiously enough, the “recipe” used to armor the T-64 turret was known and tested in the West, with quartz having been tested on T-95, for example. Probably M60 was considered good enough and cheap enough and never got the planned composite glacis and kept all steel construction.

[bojan]

IIRC at the time of introduction M60 was planned to be upgraded with composite armor at some point. Hence flat glacis vs rounded one on M48.

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

3 minutes ago, bojan said:

IIRC at the time of introduction M60 was planned to be upgraded with composite armor at some point. Hence flat glacis vs rounded one on M48.

Yes, this is discussed by Hunnicutt on Patton, as were the experiments with alternate armor materials and related problems. Probably the quartz plus cast steel wasn’t the best solution but it was more than good enough. Of course, given the size of US tanks, building a turret with similar protection levels using the same technology would be impracticably heavy.

[Jim Warford]

10 hours ago, Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo said:

Thanks Jim, I thought it was earlier. In any case, around that time they worked feverishly on APFSDS rounds as Obus G was by them clearly obsolescent against modern tank armor

You're welcome...

[Jim Warford]

And, this poor quality copy of the first identification of the T-64A in the GSFG (Sep 14, 1976)...

[Gorka L. Martinez-Mezo]

2 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

You're welcome...

The picture I was thinking of was in B&W and taking in front of the tank but, yes, it was taken in this exhibition:)

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

And, this poor quality copy of the first identification of the T-64A in the GSFG (Sep 14, 1976)...

Good find. I dont recall even seeing that in the USMLM report.

[Rick]

Going back in time, did the U.S. develop a, I think it is called armor-piercing composite rigid round, for the W.W.2 37mm gun?

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 minutes ago, bojan said:

Their replacements for Cents were both Vijayanta and T-55s. So nothing can be really concluded by it's replacement.

Well you can conclude their procurement directorate was probably taking backhanders, or unable to make its mind up But fair point.

[bojan]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well you can conclude their procurement directorate was probably taking backhanders, or unable to make its mind up But fair point.

They wanted to produce T-55s locally (like they did later with 72s), but could not (IIRC turret casting was problem), so they acquired acquired Vickers and produced those.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

They wanted to produce T-55s locally (like they did later with 72s), but could not (IIRC turret casting was problem), so they acquired acquired Vickers and produced those.

That's interesting, if not heard that. I'm surprised, I would have thought the T55 would have had an easier shape.