Jump to content

History of Soviet tanks


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

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.

Not quite right. Cannon in Epoch turret is not same as LShO-57. It has longer barrel and apparently different breech. Can use APFSDS surprisingly. Have airburst capability. Considering non-zero velocity and variable fuze - can penetrate moderate obstacles well (for bigger ones there is ATGM). And funniest thing - total HE load in Epoch 57mm ammorack is bigger than in 100mm+30mm.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't go as far as APC armor (until something of literally cardboard level like M113 sides). But thinner building walls should be well penetrable.

 

PS: as for Kornet - it is not an "option" but part of standart loadout for known Epoch, since they with Bulat doesn't share roles.

Edited by GARGEAN
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't go as far as APC armor (until something of literally cardboard level like M113 sides). But thinner building walls should be well penetrable.

 

PS: as for Kornet - it is not an "option" but part of standart loadout for known Epoch, since they with Bulat doesn't share roles.

Right my language was misleading as I was half way between making a general and specific point and ended up making neither precisely. Let me rephrase - generally it is feasible and within doctrine to include a dedicated ATGM on any turret which gets the medium velocity 57mm gun. As an example, consider the 'Epoch' turret with Kornet.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My first guess is an aerial bomb. Most artillery would be too weak to do that, except for maybe M240 or 2S7 achieving a direct or close hit.

A large IED could maybe be the culprit but if this is on some training range, that seems unlikely.

Edited by KV7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still interested :)

 

BTW, original author said he does not know what caused the damage. The firing range is used by all sorts of vehicles, so it's impossible to say if the damage was done by heavy artillery or a tank. My money is still on 152mm artillery though, simply because of the sheer violence necessary to cause that amount of damage.

Edited by Interlinked
Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like it could be 152mm on a delayed fuse and detonation in the array after partial penetration. There is not much fragment damage on the glacis, and moreover a surface detonation alone should not cause such impressive damage. But the problem with this hypothesis is that the plate is bulging inward in the vicinity of the hit, whereas an internal explosion should have bulged it outwards or ripped it off. And even still I find it hard to believe that 152mm could cause so much damage.

Another more exotic explanation is testing of large HESH rounds (that would explains the limited fragment damage). Maybe they wanted to see if the BDD resisted HESH.

Direct fire drills with 152 mm maybe ?

Edited by KV7
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Great photo...thanks for sharing...now, what is it?

 

T-55AM

 

 

Thanks Wiedzmin...that's what it looked like to me. Interestingly enough, it looks a little different to the exposed BDD array used on training tanks:

 

hViHo9i.jpg

 

Maybe it's a "before and after" photo...or (more likely), it's another example of how production details vary from tank to tank depending on where and when it was made. Some pigs are more equal than others...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe it's a "before and after" photo...or (more likely), it's another example of how production details vary from tank to tank depending on where and when it was made. Some pigs are more equal than others...

 

maybe they didn't used polyurethane, maybe it's just "after hit and years it became that ugly"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Something that turned up when I was looking for video clips of the original trio of Star Wars movies... :blink:

 

https://youtu.be/wgtqtCHmDSs

 

Covering features and a description of the T-90M MBT.

 

Wasn't the T-90M introduced years back when it first featured a welded turret? Or was this some kind of non-official designation at the time, and now T-90M "Proryv" is an official one used by Soviet sources?

 

After recently watching videos covering the updated T-80BVM (56 units ordered supposedly), I wonder if the T-90M Proryv will be produced or older vehicles upgraded to this status in larger numbers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

T-90A/AS featured welded turret.

 

Thanks Bojan

 

I guess we'll have to wait and see just how many of these new T-90 updates are actually built and fielded within the Russian ground forces. It really does look the part and hopefully its enough to keep the tank plants open as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

T-90A/AS featured welded turret.

Tho it's not specifically AS. Just after initial batch of 90S with cast turrets was delivered to India, all 90S have welded turrets (so since around 2000). There is also 90SA, but that's just specific model for Algeria.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess we'll have to wait and see just how many of these new T-90 updates are actually built and fielded within the Russian ground forces.

 

Three contracts were signed between 2017 and 2019 for 160 tanks. The first two for 10 rebuilt and 50 upgraded, and the second for the upgrade of 100 T-90A to M variant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a lot rumors about Tiran 5 with "M68" 105mm gun, chinese version of "M68 or L7" but all i can find is D-10T breech with 105mm barrel, maybe someone have seen real M68/L7 in T-54/55(is it even possible?) ?

 

M55S

VQgTI0VQdLk.jpg

Tiran 5

qi4V5kqI0hs.jpg

Type 59D

fvOoNQelMvI.jpg

 

and btw, chinese 120mm smoothbore also based on D-10T breech, gun cradle and recoil system ?

Edited by Wiedzmin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting M68 or L7 with orginal mount into T-54/55/62 might be difficult. My guess that it is a lot easier to modify gun barrel and fit it to orginal mount than to modify turret. At last this is the way that Royal Ordnance has chosen to convert Egyptian T-'s many years ago.

 

Chinese guns are very interesting. This 120 mm smoothbore gun looks like it indeed use D-10 mount and it is said to be based on technology of 100 mm Type 73 (T-12) antitank gun and 115 mm 2A20 tank gun. Ammunition only looks similar to Rheinmetall's standard, it is said to be bigger and heavier. Much more propellant volume, but pressure at 105-mm level (400 MPa).

 

Another case, so called ZPT-98. It is, probably, family of guns, based on 2A46. Older one is 2A46 clone (but with D-10 trunnions). Newer one, used on Type 99 tanks, is, erm, "a Chinese way to reach 2A46M level", but the starting point is still 2A46, and orginal mount (short cradle) was retained.

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...