History of Soviet tanks

[Harkonnen]

22 minutes ago, Jim Warford said:

Speaking of the T-64 (after my own tanks back in the day), still my favorite tank...it looks like Morozov was a member of Khrushchev's anti-gun, pro-missile mafia, which put an abrupt end to the SU-122-54. For that, he's still on my sh!t list. 🙂       

 

It is 100% opposite, he and his deputy Baran were only people in 1960-s Khrushev times who spoke about importance of artillery and immaturity of missiles.

[Jim Warford]

Well, the reference and quotes are from the Omsk tank plant history, "Omsk plant of transport engineering. Tankprom Library. - Yekaterinburg: Publishing house LLC Universal Printing House "Alfa Print", 2018. - 188 p.; ill. ISBN 978-5-907080-40-9." That doesn't look like resistance "at all costs" to me...

[Harkonnen]

It is a Tagil trap I told before.

UVZ books on tank history are falsification of history by the most disrespectful lier – Ustianzev.

Morozov made NO single prototype of missile tanks, only technical project and wooden mock up, Tagil and Leningrad believed in Party line and had no weight to argue – they built useless (at that time) missile tanks.

For example  it is report of Morozov deputy - Baran, in this document he is the only one of all designers goes against Party and Khrushev and defends the artillery armament.

[Harkonnen]

Using the books of Ustyantsev and UVZ as historical sources is the same as using Goebbels' quotes, with one exception - Goebbels is more reliable.

Morozov did not decide to stop the production of self-propelled guns from other design bureaus.

Morozov's design bureau and he himself were the only ones who defended the artillery armament of tanks.

Only design bureaus in Tagil and Leningrad built missile tanks - they did not have their own understanding of tank building and they agreed to any absurd trebtops.

 

This is a quote from Morozov's diary about military mistakes following Khrushev -

We are returning to the question of the prospects for tank armament for the second time. Approximately in the same composition discussed in June 1958 with a bias towards the widespread introduction of rockets. They didn’t say anything about barrel artillery and believed that it had already “died”. So that it won't “rise”, they gave a topic with an initial projectile flight speed of -3000 m/s, which, of course, was not realized and the topic was closed.

Three years passed, and the rockts (missles) wrere practically not created and they began to slowly resurrect the cannon artillery.

Thanks for at least someone working on The "Molot" (115 mm gun) and "Rapira" (100 mm gun). In general, the artillery factories did nothing. As a result, the tanks during this period turned out to be “empty flowers” and the general situation with the tanks turned out to be such that the Americans caught up with us by creating the M-60. As I remember now, three years ago, many people gave "promissory notes", the terms were reduced, experimental bases were built, good decisions were made, and so on. As a result, almost all topics on rockts (missles) were closed and left with nothing. There is no tank rockts (missles) capable of competing with a gun yet and is not visible.

For tank weapons, the main thing is the high initial velocity of the projectile, the range of a direct shot and the rate of fire. It is necessary to abandon the duel of tanks at long distances.

These are the tasks of ground-based missles and aviation. A tank is a melee weapon and it is necessary to “squeeze out” a large initial velocity of the projectile from the “Molot” (115 mm) with new gunpowder and new physical principles.

 

....

End of quote/

 

 

I think it is now clear to everyone why the books of Tagil and the writer Ustyantsev cannot be trusted and used. They turned the truth upside down by completely distorting reality.

[KV7]

1 hour ago, Harkonnen said:

Thanks for at least someone working on The "Molot" (115 mm gun) and "Rapira" (100 mm gun). In general, the artillery factories did nothing. As a result, the tanks during this period turned out to be “empty flowers” and the general situation with the tanks turned out to be such that the Americans caught up with us by creating the M-60. As I remember now, three years ago, many people gave "promissory notes", the terms were reduced, experimental bases were built, good decisions were made, and so on. As a result, almost all topics on rockts (missles) were closed and left with nothing. There is no tank rockts (missles) capable of competing with a gun yet and is not visible.

For tank weapons, the main thing is the high initial velocity of the projectile, the range of a direct shot and the rate of fire. It is necessary to abandon the duel of tanks at long distances.

These are the tasks of ground-based missles and aviation. A tank is a melee weapon and it is necessary to “squeeze out” a large initial velocity of the projectile from the “Molot” (115 mm) with new gunpowder and new physical principles.

I do slightly wonder why such emphasis was given to powerful guns using AP at this time, given that around 1960 or so HEAT had much better penetration than APDS, and projecting backwards, this should have been anticipated in experimental work. This is even more so the case for AT guns where high power means a large mass, and so the case for a medium velocity primarily HEAT using AT gun seems quite strong. As a side effect, these solutions would also improve HE capability.  

I would tend to think that using somewhat larger calibre guns with more moderate power and velocity would have been a plausible alternative approach. For example if the T-62 was issued with a medium-high velocity 125-130 mm gun of around equal mass and recoil to the 115 mm gun, this arguably would have given improved performance. Using AP it might have been fractionally worse, but HEAT would be somewhat better and HE would be substantially better. Ammunition load should also be more or less unaffected as the chamber and case volume would remain the same. 

Here there also would be an advantage as when T-64/T-72/T-80 come along, and APFSDS becomes really effective, they could use the same calibre but with a larger chamber volume. 
 

[Jim Warford]

Harkonnen; o.k., o.k., you win... 🙄  geeze. Clearly info from the other Soviet design bureaus and tank plants is all wrong and shouldn't be considered. Historians learn early on not to read just one side of the menu... go team Morozov!      

[Interlinked]

In UVZ books like "Танки 60-х. Боевые машины Уралвагонзавода", Morozov's disintrest and inaction regarding the government's request for missile tanks was noted. Not necessarily criticized, not ignored, just noted.  

[Ssnake]

Well, I think we should not underestimate the lasting effects of Stalin's terror and how that affected the willingness of mid- and even high-ranking managers in the Soviet system to adapt their argumentation and their recollections to put themselves into a better light with the perceived party line.

Whether people maliciously distorted historical records to hurt others and to promote themselves, or whether they did it out of (imagined, or real) fear that arguing against the perceived party agenda would eventually hurt them is of secondary importance. The only reliable record, I suppose, are the actual decisions. When it comes to why and how a decision was formed, being critical of the sources is an obvious caveat for any serious historian, and possibly even more so when Soviet archives are concerned.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Going off on a tangent, during the Skripal poisoning I read a book by the guy (Vil Mirzayanov) who worked at the technical institute that developed Novichok in Moscow. The reason why I mention this, we in the West completely misunderstand the level of political opportunism, counter briefing, and simple backbiting that went on in Soviet military technical insititutes.  And thats just inside them, so you can imagine the briefing and backstabbing that went on in competition with other ones.

Steve Zaloga wrote something interesting about the development of the Soviet missile program, not least the Vladimir Chelomey design bureau that built the UR100 (SS11), who was a magnificent striver of this type, overselling his designs, and briefing against other design bureaus. Im sure much the same trends exended right across the Soviet Defence industry.

[RETAC21]

42 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Well, I think we should not underestimate the lasting effects of Stalin's terror and how that affected the willingness of mid- and even high-ranking managers in the Soviet system to adapt their argumentation and their recollections to put themselves into a better light with the perceived party line.

Whether people maliciously distorted historical records to hurt others and to promote themselves, or whether they did it out of (imagined, or real) fear that arguing against the perceived party agenda would eventually hurt them is of secondary importance. The only reliable record, I suppose, are the actual decisions. When it comes to why and how a decision was formed, being critical of the sources is an obvious caveat for any serious historian, and possibly even more so when Soviet archives are concerned.

Even the decision itself may be poisoned, see D. Ustinov time as Defence minister, when he favored his cronies and the USSR ended up buying armament that it didn't need and couldn't afford.

[Ssnake]

Still, you can't dispute that the decisions were made. There's an infinite space to debate the motives behind such a decision.

[alejandro_]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Going off on a tangent, during the Skripal poisoning I read a book by the guy (Vil Mirzayanov) who worked at the technical institute that developed Novichok in Moscow. The reason why I mention this, we in the West completely misunderstand the level of political opportunism, counter briefing, and simple backbiting that went on in Soviet military technical insititutes.  And thats just inside them, so you can imagine the briefing and backstabbing that went on in competition with other ones.

This goes a long way, even to Stalin. Aleksandr Yakovlev was famous for pushing his aircraft against those of Lavochkin and Mikoyan. He even produced videos showing Yak production in pristine conditions (white overalls, everything tidy) while the Lavochkin seemed from Mordor's dungeons. 

Going back to topic, Obyekt 479DU, proposed by Malyshev to Pakistan instead of T-80UD with classic chassis/suspension. It was rejected.

 

[Stefan Kotsch]

Disregard ... 😉

[[
I was asked a question by email. But with my answers comes a permanent server error. I'll just write it here. In the hope that my answer will still reach the recipient.

[ So, that's that for the V-46-6 engine in the T-72M: The so called steam-air valve is in the expansion tank  and opens in the pressure range from 2.0 ... 2.2 kp/cm^2. And it opens in the opposite direction when there is negative pressure in the cooling circuit, in the range of 0.05 ... 0.15 kp/cm^2.
The water pump itself does not generate any significant pressure.  The cooling water circuit does not contain any constructive bottlenecks that would have to be overcome against pump pressure. With motor oil circuit, on the other hand, it is different.  Therefore, a minimum pressure must be maintained. ]
]]

Edited June 16, 2023 by Stefan Kotsch

[Harkonnen]

In the fake books of UVZ, a myth is constantly created that the Kharkov plant enjoyed privileges and assistance.
Let's look at the document from Morozov's diary for July 16, 1971.
As it was in reality, quote:
We reviewed the results of Shomin and Shukhov's trip to Moscow. On consideration of the program for the upcoming tests 15KN.
The situation is extremely tense and everything is aimed at faking test failure due to any defect.
The director of the plant hesitated about the advisability of conducting tests. They will still overwhelm us.
How to proceed further?
Everyone is against us.
The plant is heavily in debt. There is no money even for salaries.

https://uploadnow.io/f/F4FSpVW

[Harkonnen]

The experience of the war years contributed to the creation of an erroneous idea that, by abandoning 360 degree turret rotation, it is possible, at least with an equal mass with the base tank, to increase the characteristics of armor protection and the power of weapons, to increase the amount of ammunition carried. A detailed analysis shows that the mass of a vehicle with a superstructure is always greater, since when the gun is pointed in two planes relative to the fixed superstructure, a large unused volume of the fighting compartment is “swept out”, and therefore the volume of the superstructure and, accordingly, its mass is significantly larger than that of the tower.
Superstructure has no advantages in terms of the power of the placed weapon. In the past, the caliber of the gun was partly limited by the strength of the turret ring. At present, it has a high bearing capacity and practically does not limit the caliber of the installed gun. The opinion about the possibility of placing guns of a larger caliber was also formed from the erroneous idea of increasing the size of the fighting compartment in the superstructure scheme. The caliber is mainly limited by the width of the machine, which is independent of the layout. 
...
The felling scheme has only one advantage.The height of the machine with the aft location of the motor-transmission installation can be approximately 150-200 mm less than anks with a turret [5]. However, this advantage does not compensate for other disadvantages of the superstructure scheme. To illustrate, consider one example. In 1955, on the basis of the T-54 tank, the SU-122 self-propelled gun was created with a 122-mm gun - more powerful than the 100-mm D-10T gun of the base tank. Its mass did not exceed the mass of the tank with a slight decrease in the level of armor protection. This project seemed to confirm the advantages of the felling scheme. However, in 1958, practically on the same chassis (T-55), a variant of the T-62 (T-62A) tank was created with a 100-mm rifled gun, which, in terms of muzzle energy, dimensions and mass of the breach, was almost equivalent to the gun installed on SU-122 (table).

http://btvt.info/5library/vbtt_1983_01_rubka.htm

[sunday]

Is there any biography of A. A. Morozov in English?

[Harkonnen]

36 minutes ago, sunday said:

Is there any biography of A. A. Morozov in English?

It is not biography but Diary, can be translated from russian 

[sunday]

5 minutes ago, Harkonnen said:

It is not biography but Diary, can be translated from russian 

There is an article on him in the English wikipedia, but looks like one of the worst automatic translations ever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Morozov_(engineer)

Edited June 16, 2023 by sunday

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

This goes a long way, even to Stalin. Aleksandr Yakovlev was famous for pushing his aircraft against those of Lavochkin and Mikoyan. He even produced videos showing Yak production in pristine conditions (white overalls, everything tidy) while the Lavochkin seemed from Mordor's dungeons. 

Going back to topic, Obyekt 479DU, proposed by Malyshev to Pakistan instead of T-80UD with classic chassis/suspension. It was rejected.

 

Yes, there was some interesting  coverage of that in Yefim Gordon's book on Soviet air weapons. Seems unbelievable  now.

 

[Jim Warford]

Interesting wording from the diary, "everyone is against us;" it just breeds confidence, doesn't it? It sounds a bit paranoid to me... Anyway, I found a cool Morozov quote (as well), in the Omsk book which says a lot about what Morozov was thinking in those days. Has it ever been challenged as a fabrication? Or, is it assumed to be wrong because it's from a book we don't like? If so, I'd love to see the reference... Also, the linked article about the SUs is interesting... 

[Harkonnen]

8 minutes ago, Jim Warford said:

Interesting wording from the diary, "everyone is against us;" it just breeds confidence, doesn't it? It sounds a bit paranoid to me... Anyway, I found a cool Morozov quote (as well), in the Omsk book which says a lot about what Morozov was thinking in those days. Has it ever been challenged as a fabrication? Or, is it assumed to be wrong because it's from a book we don't like? If so, I'd love to see the reference... Also, the linked article about the SUs is interesting... 

This is a fabrication, since in the context of the quoted book it is given out as the fact that Moroz was a supporter of rocket weapons. Which is 100% against the truth.
In addition, everything that is published in the UVZ books is a fabrication and manipulation of facts to falsify history. This is their job, for which they get paid.
They did their job perfectly - "Members of Khruschev anti-gun / pro missile mafia".

[Ssnake]

31 minutes ago, Jim Warford said:

Interesting wording from the diary, "everyone is against us;" it just breeds confidence, doesn't it? It sounds a bit paranoid to me...

Those in which the Soviet system didn't breed paranoia didn't live long.

[Harkonnen]

27 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Those in which the Soviet system didn't breed paranoia didn't live long.

Speaking of "I didn't live long" - how long would they live in the USA or Germany if each state built its own main battle tank? The USSR was the most liberal and week in control country at that time.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Harkonnen

[Harkonnen]

I see that so many years have passed, so much new information has appeared, but some remain at the same level of knowledge as 20-30 years ago. I think it will be the same in 50 years as new information hardly fit old cliches.

Data on the situation in the tank building of the USSR is known on the basis of archives. This is described in the materials of the site http://btvt.info

I especially want to note that the documents are cited and this is directly indicated.

The arguments of the design bureau, the plant, the Moscow leadership are given. It also provides test data and statistics from the 70-80s, which allows us to draw conclusions about the disputes of the early 70s, and who was right  eventually.

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by Harkonnen

[Ssnake]

5 minutes ago, Harkonnen said:

how long would they live in the USA or Germany if each state built its own main battle tank? The USSR was the most liberal and weelk in control country at that time.

I think we have radically different ideas about what a "liberal and open" society actually means.