History of Soviet tanks

[DB]

This is way beyond popcorn, I'm having to break out the peanut butter m&ms, and they're special imported stock.

[Harkonnen]

99% will not study the patent, I made a picture with a brief description and this man of confusion says that I “steel” it. Is this some kind of thesis or scientific research? – no its twitter

Is he mentally normal at all?

https://twitter.com/AndreiBtvt/status/1670449358498562053   

[Jim Warford]

14 hours ago, KV7 said:

This perhaps seems to be a relatively sensible position - i.e. that future TD will be missile based, which is in fact what we saw occur, with the introduction of e.g. 9P122. 

There is still the issue of longer range direct fire support against targets other than armour, which something like SU-122-54 could have done reasonably well, and cheaper than using heavy tanks for this role. But this also is seemingly filled sufficiently by more powerful MBT, with 115 and 125mm guns (which also arguably supplant the need for heavy tanks). 
 

KV7; I agree...there are a few articles (formerly Top Secret, now unclassified), in the Iron Bark archives that discuss the new (at the time) reality of ATGMs and ATGM vehicles. The SU-122-54 was unique in that it was a truly combined assault gun and tank destroyer, and actually had an overall firepower edge over the last fielded Soviet heavy tank, the T-10M. The "54" was equally at home in the close fight in built-up areas and open terrain, and in the long-range anti-tank and HE fight.      

[Harkonnen]

On 6/22/2023 at 10:57 AM, Wiedzmin said:

Oh where to start, i really don't know... maybe from "your" T-44 articles? Which is Yuri Pasholok photo's and reports from CAMO archive, and only part you tried to do is hide very specific artifacts on photo , and even this you failed to do properly, and of course you didn't mention who's report this is, and from who you get it , what next ? Hm maybe Leopard 2AV blueprints which i get from bundesarchive spending my own money and sending this prints to few peoples who asked me about this for their research works on Leopard 2 history, and none of them was you, and of course those prints also hace specific artifacts, what's next ? Your post's from FIPS patent database with your cheap watermarks on it, again with no any source given, you so pathetic that even copied my colours for armor schemes, which is hilarious af, but again your passion for steal, biased delirium through selective quoting and forgery about "greatest Kharkov",public attention and "exclusivity" of information (through stealing and hiding source's) is well known on post soviet part of internet, now you just spreading it worldwide , so good luck to you.

 

 

Absolutely ridiculous statements and falsehood. The archives in question are publicly available. Each individual person is not given his or her own individual Leopard blueprints.
You might as well accuse someone of stealing sunlight or air. 
How can anyone copy the colors, the colors are your property too? These colors have been generally accepted for decades.
I clearly cite sources in all my articles and am 100% accurate when quoting.
All statements are slanderous and dictated by envy.

[Harkonnen]

On 6/22/2023 at 11:29 PM, Jim Warford said:

KV7; I agree...there are a few articles (formerly Top Secret, now unclassified), in the Iron Bark archives that discuss the new (at the time) reality of ATGMs and ATGM vehicles. The SU-122-54 was unique in that it was a truly combined assault gun and tank destroyer, and actually had an overall firepower edge over the last fielded Soviet heavy tank, the T-10M. The "54" was equally at home in the close fight in built-up areas and open terrain, and in the long-range anti-tank and HE fight.      

Undoubtedly recognizing the elegance and beauty of this machine, it is absolutely obvious that at the time of its appearance it had no advantages over tanks. The armor was weaker, the cannon more powerful, but it was possible to install an equally powerful cannon in a tank with a rotating turret. There were no restrictions on the production of turret rings, which made the machine inevitably obsolete.

In those years there were attempts to install powerful flamethrowers with rocket-propelled grenades on a chassis without a turret, the flamethrowers were designed with by Plant #75. It made more sense.

By the way, Morozov also came up with the idea of a tank with no turret on a new technical level when considering the Object 450 project. In essence, it was close to self-propelled units, but on a new tank.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Damian]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

It's normal T-72, just with some frames welded to turret to mount these nets.

[Mikel2]

[sunday]

Oh, back to Stone Age armor!

[Mike1158]

I get the life expectancy of any vehicle being shorter in times of conflict but, how will eneven loading affect the training of the turret/gun right down to the recoil, affect the turret race and training mechanism?

 

Will the stabilisation system be able to manage the uneven loading?

 

Nice lawn ornament though.

[Jim Warford]

On 6/25/2023 at 6:43 AM, Harkonnen said:

Undoubtedly recognizing the elegance and beauty of this machine, it is absolutely obvious that at the time of its appearance it had no advantages over tanks. The armor was weaker, the cannon more powerful, but it was possible to install an equally powerful cannon in a tank with a rotating turret. There were no restrictions on the production of turret rings, which made the machine inevitably obsolete.

In those years there were attempts to install powerful flamethrowers with rocket-propelled grenades on a chassis without a turret, the flamethrowers were designed with by Plant #75. It made more sense.

By the way, Morozov also came up with the idea of a tank with no turret on a new technical level when considering the Object 450 project. In essence, it was close to self-propelled units, but on a new tank.

 

She is a beauty to be sure...while the SU-122-54 eventually became obsolete, it was approved for mass production. The CIA forecasted that 500 would be produced in 1956 and the official Omsk tank plant history reports that 900 were to be produced in 1959. Additionally, the improved variant the SU-122L (Object 620) which added the M62S 122mm main gun from the T-10M, was planned for production beginning in 1960. 

The SU-122-54 had superior firepower over fielded Soviet medium and heavy tanks, as well as a higher rate of fire than the T-10M. The SU-122-54s were organized into assault gun companies that were organic to MRRs and TRs. Depending on the division and the regiment, each assault gun company could bring from 6 to 11 SU-122-54s to the fight. Finally, multiple Soviet sources including a formally classified Iron Bark report from June 1962 referred to Soviet assault guns as “turretless tanks.” A comprehensive US report on Soviet assault guns and self-propelled artillery from Nov-Dec 1952 also reported that these assault guns should not be classified as self-propelled guns, but “more properly classed as tanks.”  

Just my 2-cents…  

              

      

[Harkonnen]

Design of flametrower on Su-122-54 base in Kharkov 1956 

[Perun]

On 7/3/2023 at 8:21 PM, Jim Warford said:

She is a beauty to be sure...while the SU-122-54 eventually became obsolete, it was approved for mass production. The CIA forecasted that 500 would be produced in 1956 and the official Omsk tank plant history reports that 900 were to be produced in 1959. Additionally, the improved variant the SU-122L (Object 620) which added the M62S 122mm main gun from the T-10M, was planned for production beginning in 1960. 

The SU-122-54 had superior firepower over fielded Soviet medium and heavy tanks, as well as a higher rate of fire than the T-10M. The SU-122-54s were organized into assault gun companies that were organic to MRRs and TRs. Depending on the division and the regiment, each assault gun company could bring from 6 to 11 SU-122-54s to the fight. Finally, multiple Soviet sources including a formally classified Iron Bark report from June 1962 referred to Soviet assault guns as “turretless tanks.” A comprehensive US report on Soviet assault guns and self-propelled artillery from Nov-Dec 1952 also reported that these assault guns should not be classified as self-propelled guns, but “more properly classed as tanks.”  

Just my 2-cents…  

              

      

Do you have links for those CIA reports

[Harkonnen]

4 hours ago, Harkonnen said:

Design of flametrower on Su-122-54 base in Kharkov 1956 

 

From the history of Kharkov flamethrower tanks. Flamethrower self-propelled vehicle OSU "Object 483" of Plant No. 75, 1956.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Some really nice colour photos of T64A in the DDR.

 

[shep854]

Including an interview with former E. German tanker--fascinating!  Dag deserves more recognition; I can't help but imagine he and Manic just sitting and swapping stories.

 

[Pavel Novak]

2 hours ago, shep854 said:

Including an interview with former E. German tanker--fascinating!  Dag deserves more recognition; I can't help but imagine he and Manic just sitting and swapping stories.

 

Just minor note - their tank is late T-72M with 16mm addon on front hull but it is not T-72M1.

EDIT: I mean the green one. The yellow one is indeed T-72M1.

EDIT2: And what can be also observed is thicker front hull armor of T-72M1 as it has sort of two bite outs in armor around driver visor while T-72M with addon had just one.

Edited July 21, 2023 by Pavel Novak

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just as a matter of interested, Ive been reading up on Polish T55's and noticed a few variants I dont understand. There is T55L, which I gather is the Polish equlvalent of T55A. But is that T55A with, or without, the laser rangefinder, as I gather the Soviet ones later were equipped? There is also T-55U, of which they seem to have operated 980 in 1980. Any idea what this is?

[RETAC21]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Just as a matter of interested, Ive been reading up on Polish T55's and noticed a few variants I dont understand. There is T55L, which I gather is the Polish equlvalent of T55A. But is that T55A with, or without, the laser rangefinder, as I gather the Soviet ones later were equipped? There is also T-55U, of which they seem to have operated 980 in 1980. Any idea what this is?

The Polish wiki has some answers:

Versions produced in Poland 
T-55 - produced in 1964-1968
T-55A - produced in 1968-1981
T-55M - unification of the T-55 to the T-55A standard
T-55U - unification of the T-54 to the T-55A standard. It was also known under the earlier name T-54AM2
T-55AD1 - command tank
T-55AD2 - command tank
T-55AM - tank with Merida fire control system
T-55AD1M - command tank with Merida fire control system
T-55AD2M - command tank with Merida fire control system
T-55AMS - engineer tank with Merida fire control system

T-55L may be an export variant

Edited to add: indeed it was: "In October 1979, the Rhodesian military received eight T-55 tanks from South Africa , confiscated from the French ship "Astor", which was transporting weapons from Libya for Idi Amin in Uganda. Amin's regime collapsed the day the ship docked in Mombasa . "Astor" was rerouted to Angola . The ship was intercepted by the South African Navy and diverted to Durbanwhere the cargo was confiscated, including ten Polish-built T-55LD tanks (built in 1975). "

Edited July 22, 2023 by RETAC21

[Stuart Galbraith]

The odd thing is, the T55 operators section on Wikipedia says this.

'3,000 T-54, T-54A, T-54AD and T-54AM produced between 1956 and 1964. 7,000 T-55, T-55L, T-55AD-1 and T-55AD-2 produced between 1964 and 1979. Some T-54A upgraded to T-55 standard. 200 T-54 tanks have been upgraded to T-55LD in 1975, 10 of which were later sold to Libya. In 1980 Ludowe Wojsko Polskie (LWP) operated 1,207 T-55L, T-55LD, T-55AD-1 and T-55AD-2, 146 T-55, 986 T-55U and 340 T-54, T-54A, T-54AD and T-54AM. Eventually almost all T-54 and T-55 tanks have been upgraded to T-55AM "Merida" standard (there are some not upgraded ones in the museums).'

Which does not mean that it was correct of course, but it does seem to imply T55L, LD AD1 and AD2 were the main tranche in service. Ive read elsewhere, L is supposedly A made under licence in poland. But there is no explanation of what LD is.

TBH, all I really wanted to know was how many of these would have had a laser rangefinder in 1983, found I had unearthed a confusing bag of worms.

 

[Damian]

Not all T-54/55's were upgraded to T-55AM Merida standard. These were only around 800 in total.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Any idea how many they had in 1983? Did the Poles update any part of the t55 fleet with just laser rangefinders?

[Damian]

37 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Any idea how many they had in 1983? Did the Poles update any part of the t55 fleet with just laser rangefinders?

Good question, I believe I never seen a Polish T-54 or T-55 with LRF in a box mounted on the gun mantlet. However I seen a T-55AM with CDDN-1 day/night sight with laser range finder but without BDD armor. How many we had in 1983, oh I would need to check in books, this might take some time.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well please don't beat yourself up looking, ballpark would be fine

 

 

[Damian]

@Stuart Galbraith Ok so in book "Pancerna Potęga PRL" I found information that in the mid of 1980's, Polish Army had over 2600 T-55 tanks of various versions.

In 1980 Poland had 3490 tanks of various types, in 1985 we had 3499 tanks of various types.

When it comes to T-55AM Merida in 1986-1989 period, 570 T-55's were upgraded to T-55AM Merida standard. So I definately overestimated the numbers earlier, this is what happens when you write from memory not checking sources.