Jump to content

History of Soviet tanks


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

YqGH9v41wmA.jpg​

AA8Lt-KhKso.jpg​

BwFjTMBV6vg.jpg​

 

https://videos.sapo.pt/9SCTzIGNJwZGJ52qVKZE

 

video at 3:54. T-64 in Angola...

 

Wow...as many of you know and may remember from various discussions over the years, there has always been a series of myths and legends in the armor community. Most have been resolved over the years...like the myth that the French used Panthers in Indochina. Historically, the rumor regarding T-64s in Angola has lingered-on for quite some time. Most people and reliable military sources continued to disregard this rumor immediately, considering it a case of poor vehicle ID, etc. Reports that very specifically identify T-64s in Angola and specifically name Ukraine as the source, continued to appear...but interestingly enough, through political and diplomatic reporting. I've posted a few of these reports here over the years.

 

These photos (finally) confirm that T-64s were present...thanks for posting the link and sharing the photos...great stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ukraine offered to sell T-64s to Croatia in 1993. and again in 1996., it was rejected both times.

 

I guess it did not make sense if they already had M84s and did not need more tanks. Any other reason mentioned at the time?

 

In the 1990s it was also offered to Afghanistan, but they were turned down because T-55/62 were good enough and more simple to maintain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it did not make sense if they already had M84s and did not need more tanks. Any other reason mentioned at the time?

Too complex with no logistics to maintain it. They acquired Mi-24 helicopters instead. For tanks they acquired some T-55s from former East German stocks.

Ukraine offered T-72s to Yugoslavia also in mid '90s, and also 2S7 SPGs, buth of which were rejected.

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe somebody could help with correct translation ?

 

Test report no. 976/58-501 Motor vehicle technical measurements. Page 65 (260) [- 75 (270)]

6th interim report

 

Class. Secret

Log no. A 42/77

2nd copy

Kept secret by official instigation

SECRET

 

6.2.2 Fuel consumption on level paved course.

 

[...]

 

6.2.3 Fuel consumption on level hard sand ground with constant speeds.

 

[...]

 

6.2.4 Fuel consumption on loose sand ground with different sppeds and Vmax

 

[...]

 

6.2.5 Fuel consumption in acceleration from 0 - 40 kph on level concrete paved road.

 

[...]

 

6.2.6 Maximum cooling water temperature was 116°C at full-load output with 50 kph on loose sand ground. Ambient temperature was +29°C.

For ambient conditions see pt. 6.4.7 (no original condition).

 

 

6.3 Test setup

 

6.3.1 Test execution

 

A 3-way-switchvalve was inserted into the fuel fore- and return flow of both vehicles respectively and connected to a 40 l fuel gauge tank with calibrated fuel indicator.

 

In the IFV Marder, the fuel foreflow had to be mounted between draft container and the foreflow of the electric feeding pump.

 

The return flow was connected at the seperation point before the engine space bulkhead partition. The fuel switchvalve was mounted on the left ahead of the driver, so that it could be easily reached by him. The gauge tank was fixed on the hull roof plate behind the commander's hatch.

 

In the ET 07, which possesses a mechanical fuel feeding pump directly on the engine, the connections for the fore- and return flow could be mounted in the engine space at the level of the commander's seat.

 

The gauge tank and the fuel switchvalve were also fixed on the hull roof plate behind the commander's hatch (s. image page no. 73), and operated by a passenger who stood in the commander's hatch.

 

Defined courses with start and end well-visibly marked were driven. The course length was 2 km respectively and driven with the same speed in both directions.

 

The content of the gauge tank was always measured at the same point in the terrain. The orientational variations of the vehicle occurring in this were compensated for by the adjusting screws pos. 6 page 73. The strictly vertical orientation of the gauge tank was checked by an applied bubble level. Measurement was in and laterally to driving direction respectively.

 

The starting point of the measuring section was driven towards with constant speed by the onboard tank. As soon as the vehicle was at the level of the marking, fuel supply was switched to the gauge tank by switching the fuel switchvalve. At the end of the measuring section the onboard tank was switched back to.

 

By this way no fuel had to be refilled during a measurement series; the fuel level had only to be read from the gauge tank.

 

Ambient conditions:

 

Fuel [...]

Motor oil [...]

Wind speed [...]

Atmospheric temperature [...]

Atmospheric humidity [...]

Atmospheric pressure [...]

Turret in position [...]

 

 

7. Driving on undulating courses and comparison measurements with IFV Marder.

 

7.1 Task

 

Two different undulating courses are to be driven with different driving speeds. The spring range of the 1st roadwheel and the acceleration at the driver's seat are to be recorded.

 

7.2 Short result

 

The specially constructes undulations were driven up to the occurrence of 3 g vert. accl. at the driver's seat. In this, the two vehicles reached the following speeds:

 

Marder V = 30 kph amax = 36 ms-2 = 3.6 g at f = 90 % of positive spring range

 

ET 07 V = 25 kph amax = 50 ms-2 = 5.0 g at f = 100 % of positive spring range

 

The naturally existing undulations could be driven with both vehicles at a maximum of 50 kph to to the engine performance limit.

 

Marder V = 50 kph amax = 16.8 ms-2 = 1.7 g at f = 86 % of positive spring range

 

ET 07 V = 50 kph amax = 12 ms-2 = 1.2 g at f = 71 % of positive spring range

 

 

SECRET

Class. Secret

Kept secret by official instigation

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
​
T-55 shelling in Germany, 1971.
turret
105mm APDS DM13 (aka L28 / M392 / L36)
hit 42:
- thickness at the point of impact 119mm
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 30g
- impact speed 1471 m / s (v25), range 200 meters
- penetration
hit 43:
- thickness at the point of impact 140mm
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 30g
- impact speed 1473 m / s, range 200 meters
- bulging with a crack
hit 44:
- not taken into account, because the projectile hited into the embrasure of the sight.
hit 45:
- thickness at the point of impact 160mm
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 44 gr
- impact speed 1460 m / s, range 200 meters
- penetration
hit 13:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 24g
- impact speed 1437 m / s, range 100 meters
- bulging with a crack
hit 14:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 24g
- impact speed 1438 m / s, range 200 meters
- bulging with a crack
hit 15:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 26g
- impact speed 1333 m / s, range 1000 meters
- penetration with a plug
hit 16:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 26g
- impact speed 1331 m / s, range 1000 meters
- penetration
hit 17:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 25g
- impact speed 1287 m / s, range 1500 meters
- bulging without crack
hit 18:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 28g
- impact speed 1280 m / s, range 2000 meters
- penetration
Hull
105mm APDS DM13 (aka L28 / M392 / L36)
105mm HESH
90mm HESH
hit 1:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm - VLD
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 65g (the body was apparently specially tilted to a larger angle)
- impact speed 1427 m / s (v25), range 200 meters
- bulging with a crack
hit 2:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm - VLD
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 62g (the body was apparently specially tilted to a larger angle)
- impact speed 1436 m / s (v25), range 200 meters
- penetration
hit 3:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm - VLD
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 66g (the body was apparently specially tilted to a larger angle)
- impact speed 1433 m / s (v25), range 200 meters
- bulging with a crack
Hit 10 (HESH):
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm - VLD
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 60g
- scab with a diameter of 200mm and a thickness of 20mm
Hit 18 (90mm HESH):
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm - VLD
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 60g
- nothing
hit 4:
- thickness at the point of impact 80mm - board
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 70 gr (course +20)
- impact speed 1427 m / s (v25), range 200 meters
- bulging with a crack
hit 5:
- thickness at the point of impact 80mm - board
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 68 gr (course +22)
- impact speed 1427 m / s (v25), range 200 meters
- penetration
hit 6:
- thickness at the point of impact 80mm - board
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 70 gr (course +20)
- shock speed 1397 m / s (v25), range 200 meters
- bulging without crack
hit 7:
- thickness at the point of impact 80mm - board
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 50 gr (course + -40)
- impact speed 1416 m / s (v25), range 200 meters
- penetration
hit 8:
- thickness at the point of impact 80mm - board
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 60 gr (course + -30)
- impact speed 1416 m / s (v25), range 200 meters
- penetration
hit 12:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm - VLD
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 60g
- shock speed - m / s (v25), range 1000 meters
- hit the tow hook
hit 13:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm - VLD
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 60g
- shock speed - m / s (v25), range 1000 meters
- penetration
hit 2:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm - VLD
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 60g
- shock speed - 1332m / s (v25), range 1000 meters
- penetration
hit 9:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm - VLD
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 62.5g
- shock speed - 1341m / s (v25), range 1000 meters
- penetration
hit 10:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm - VLD
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 62.5g
- shock speed - 1353m / s (v25), range 1000 meters
- bulging with a crack
hit 4:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm - VLD
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 60g
- impact speed - 1292m / s (v25), range 1500 meters
- penetration
hit 8:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm - VLD
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 62.5g
- shock speed - 1278m / s (v25), range 1500 meters
- bulging without crack
hit 11:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm - VLD
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 61.5g
- impact speed - 1296m / s (v25), range 1500 meters
- bulging with a crack
hit 6:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm - VLD
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 60g
- impact speed - 1274m / s (v25), range 2000 meters
- bulging with a crack
hit 7:
- thickness at the point of impact 100mm - VLD
- angle (Aufschlagwinkel) 60g
- impact speed - 1260m / s (v25), range 2000 meters
- bulging with a crack

 

Edited by Wiedzmin
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Yes, quality content, as always.

 

 

Anyone got information about D-85/85DG gun? It is said to be experimental high-pressure gun for Object 473. Gun used stubless ammunition and got new "spherical breech". I suppose that breech block face was semispherical but I would love to see scheme of it. Picture of D-85BG is here.

Edited by Przezdzieblo
Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a family of caseless guns started in 1968 for the object 434 alongside with rifled 122 and 130 mm guns.

mAB2zNu.jpg

It had V0= 1900...2000 m/s

Edited by Harkonnen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thx, Andrei. Any further details on that specific guns? On it's breech, ammunition (my guess so high velocities would need a bit more sophisticated sabot)?

 

D-89 (2A49?) also looks interesting. Massive breech totally different from D-81's, vertical breechblock, even numbers of recoil cylinders and recuperators in diagonal array. It is similar to Armata's 2A82, it is same line of development?

Link to post
Share on other sites

These BG design was very long in development up to the end of 80s, planned for future tank. They indeed made longer sabot, which reduced total T-64A ammo load which was considered not acceptable by KMDB.

Another problem was different charges for HE and APFSDS rounds which was also considered as a problem at that time.

D-89 was planned for object 480 future tank design, also remaining experimental design. Changing projectile size and making them non compatible with previous rounds was a huge problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really Soviet, but still. Can anyone give me a simple answer on what's the current roadmap in Russia for medium cannons? Seeing the Epoch with a short 57mm and then Derivatsiya with a long 57mm, and the various 30mm turrets really confuses me.

It is AFAICT roughly a four tiered system that has been developed:

 

(1) The lightest armed vehicles get a HMG (BTR-80 level)

 

(2) The next lightest turrets get the 30 mm cannon (BMP-2 level)

 

(3) The next tier adds either a 100mm or 57mm low pressure gun for improved firepower vs infantry and crew served weapons. (BMP-3 level)

 

(4) The heaviest armed vehicles get a 57mm high velocity gun which can defeat armored IFV, and has some additional capability vs helicopters. (eg. Baikal turret)

 

At each tier there is some option to add ATGM. The only thing that is new is adding the fourth tier.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks KV, for the answer. Now, I have a follow-up question if you don't mind.

 

Tiers 1, 2, and 4, I understand. A heavier gun with more of its larger ammo on a vehicle that was designed to be bigger in the first place, or for a dedicated AA vehicle. Makes total sense.

It's the 3rd tier that's bugging me. It seems totally redundant. But first, I'd like to say the 100mm plus 30mm duo is not equivalent to the low pressure 57mm, and the BMP-3 used it because it was an evolution over the BMP-2.

 

A low pressure 57mm has good capability against infantry at close to medium range, but lacks any sort of anti-armor capability beyond ATGMs, and naturally also lacks proper anti-material (e.g busting reinforced concrete) and might be quite terrible in urban environment.

The 100+30 duo, on the other hand, has great anti-infantry, anti-material, and anti-armor capabilities in each gun. But each gun delivers the same capability in a different scale. It seems to me the low pressure 57mm gun that shoots basically grenades, doesn't really fulfill the conventional roles of IFV armaments.

 

The impression I get is that it's more of a company's pitch, with all sorts of companies throwing whatever idea they have at the army and hope they'll choose theirs. Meanwhile, if all of them are bought, they fail the doctrine test.

What's the actual doctrinal requirements?

 

I really hope it's not another case of government corruption mixed with corporate lobbying as was with the tank industry (3 distinct models of tanks bought simultaneously) or now with the air defense market.

Edited by Mighty_Zuk
Link to post
Share on other sites

The rational way to proceed (and this cannot be assured) is that at tier three you get one or more of the following:

A 30mm coax (BMP-3)

A tube launched ATGM (BMP-3)

An ATGM pod

If the main gun is the medium velocity 57 mm it will either get eg. a 7.62 mm coax and maybe a 12.7 RWS and fall to 'tier one +' (due to lacking very good capability to engage other vehicles) or it will get an ATGM pod and be considered tier three.

Perhaps relevant to this is a prospective project for a compact and affordable command guided missile which can be used against vehicles or helicopters, using a HEAT-Frag warhead. If this then fully covers the anti-vehicle and anti-helicopter requirements, then the main gun can sensibly be a more specialised HE thrower.



Edited by KV7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think retractable micro Bulat ATGMs are following that idea.

Yes but there is also the option to add also Kornet to cover the AT requirement. It is perhaps overkill vs APC and IFV but no one will complain if you take either out at the cost of one or two missiles.

 

Here is Kurganets B-11 with both Kornet and Bulat:

 

dhYMAvl.jpg

 

 

Edited by KV7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...