History of Soviet tanks

[Harkonnen]

10 minutes ago, KV7 said:

It does show the general defeat mechanism of NERA vs long rods reasonably well though.

It is very doubtfull that it is close to reality.

[KV7]

20 hours ago, Harkonnen said:

 

The integral wedge is very interesting, though I am slightly surprised it is empty. Also I wonder why this integral wedge was not incorporated into welded turret.

What is the thin layer ahead of the ceramic plates marked with a purple/blue colour ?
 

[Harkonnen]

5 minutes ago, KV7 said:

The integral wedge is very interesting, though I am slightly surprised it is empty. Also I wonder why this integral wedge was not incorporated into welded turret.

What is the thin layer ahead of the ceramic plates marked with a purple/blue colour ?
 

felting

[KV7]

2 hours ago, Harkonnen said:

felting

Do you know the reason for this ? Is it just to enable a tight press fit or does it play some mechanical role ?

I have seen papers that show that a soft material ahead of ceramics can induce some dwell effect, but not sure how effective that would be here.

[KV7]

On 5/5/2024 at 8:00 AM, Harkonnen said:

It is very doubtfull that it is close to reality.

In respect to assessing actual performance or magnitude of various effect it may not be, in respect to showing some degree of erosion, slot cutting, and tangential forces on the penetrator it is correct.

[Harkonnen]

Probably to distribute the load of a large hard brittle package over possible unevenness.

[Gavin-Phillips]

Just found this by chance on Youtube this morning; posted by the Youtube channel WWII Metal Detecting, they are attempting to open the turret rear hatch of the KV-2 displayed at what I believe is called the Central Armed Forces Museum in Moscow?

Sadly this video is only part 1 and I'm hoping for a part 2 coming soon!  I will be curious to see if pictures I have seen before of a KV-2 turret interior are from this actual example or are misidentified and from another vehicle.  I seem to recall it was in a book written in Polish text and there wasn't any information as to where the vehicle was located.

I bet the turret rear hatch is a heavy lump of steel!

The KV-2, always a favourite of mine. 

[Wiedzmin]

Once i did scheme for oplot, based on assembly photos and some blueprints 

 

 

Now some parts of prints available online, blueprints look like experimental ones with ceramics, real turret's still use cell filler

 

 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2024 by Wiedzmin

[Peasant]

Does anyone know the reason why the early soviet APFSDS rounds were tapered front to back, unlike the modern APFSDS rods? I have a few theories but I wanna know if there is an "official" answer.

Edited May 14, 2024 by Peasant

[old_goat]

I have a question about soviet/russian tank machine guns (SGMT,PKT). As far as I know, most soviet/russian tank gun sights were calibrated for the 7,62x54R heavy bullet, TSh-2 series certainly. But how different is this heavy bullet compared to ordinary steel core LPS, at least in terms of ballistics? I couldnt find any firing tables for it. Even those firing tables that are mentioning the PKT, there is only standard LPS, not the heavy bullet. 

 

[Harkonnen]

Picture - 

Evolution of T-72A and T-72B glacis armor 1973-91.

In continuation of the armor theme (https://x.com/AndreiBtvt/status/1783197900240986343). Until the mid-1980s, the T-72A repeated the solutions of T-64A (see - https://t.me/btvt2019/11830). But since '85 glass-textolite was no longer used, it was replaced by steel, the design did not last long, it was replaced by steel and reflective plates. This design was to be replaced by a modular, which was developed for T-72B and T-80U (different) with a package of high hardness steel and ceramics, it was not realized in the series. By that time the tanks were forgotten for a long time, now T-90M and BMPTs are equipped with the same glacis with plates (see https://t.me/btvt2019/1895).

Edited May 18, 2024 by Harkonnen

[Interlinked]

Did the fourth glacis array design actually end up in any kind of serial production, or was it an early experimental design to test a solution more optimal for Kontakt-5? The one with 2x 68mm plates and a 50mm back plate.

[Interlinked]

4 hours ago, old_goat said:

I have a question about soviet/russian tank machine guns (SGMT,PKT). As far as I know, most soviet/russian tank gun sights were calibrated for the 7,62x54R heavy bullet, TSh-2 series certainly. But how different is this heavy bullet compared to ordinary steel core LPS, at least in terms of ballistics? I couldnt find any firing tables for it. Even those firing tables that are mentioning the PKT, there is only standard LPS, not the heavy bullet. 

 

Not significantly different even at 1.5-2 km.

[old_goat]

16 minutes ago, Interlinked said:

Not significantly different even at 1.5-2 km.

Thx. But then what was the point of having that heavy bullet? Certainly not good for logistics.

[Interlinked]

34 minutes ago, old_goat said:

Thx. But then what was the point of having that heavy bullet? Certainly not good for logistics.

It was an old machine gun bullet, from a time when machine guns were Maxims. Other countries used heavy bullets too. Heavy bullet gave a longer range for indirect fire on area targets for harassment, suppression, area denial, etc. A bit funny now but it was a thing back then. Using light bullets to do that sort of thing would give much worse accuracy and they'd have less lethal energy.

LPS replaced heavy and light bullets (for rifles, because less recoil) alike. Heavy bullet capabilities with light bullet recoil.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I recall .303 was much praised for use in the indirect mode with the Vickers machine gun. Ironically when we adopted the BESA, we ended up using 7.92mm for it...

[old_goat]

20 minutes ago, Interlinked said:

LPS replaced heavy and light bullets (for rifles, because less recoil) alike. Heavy bullet capabilities with light bullet recoil.

Interesting that soviets seemingly used these outdated heavy bullets for quite long. At least even in the 60s, MG scale in tank gunsights was labeled GT/T where T means the heavy bullet. Maybe they had huge stockpiles of this munition and preferred to use them while stocks last?

[Interlinked]

10 hours ago, old_goat said:

Interesting that soviets seemingly used these outdated heavy bullets for quite long. At least even in the 60s, MG scale in tank gunsights was labeled GT/T where T means the heavy bullet. Maybe they had huge stockpiles of this munition and preferred to use them while stocks last?

I think they just didn't bother changing the label. It does, at least, make it clear to use heavy bullets for tank machine guns if you don't have LPS, so that might be a part of the reason why it wasn't important. As long as you don't use light bullets the reticle will be accurate.

[Bichri001]

17 hours ago, Interlinked said:

Did the fourth glacis array design actually end up in any kind of serial production, or was it an early experimental design to test a solution more optimal for Kontakt-5? The one with 2x 68mm plates and a 50mm back plate.

I second this question. As far as I understand the Tweet, the BMPT and T-90M use it. But I'm not sure.

[Harkonnen]

4 hours ago, Bichri001 said:

I second this question. As far as I understand the Tweet, the BMPT and T-90M use it. But I'm not sure.

BMPT and T-90M still use the glacis 2-nd from below.

[Stefan Kotsch]

On 5/19/2024 at 9:00 AM, Interlinked said:

I think they just didn't bother changing the label. It does, at least, make it clear to use heavy bullets for tank machine guns if you don't have LPS, so that might be a part of the reason why it wasn't important. As long as you don't use light bullets the reticle will be accurate.

I started training on the tanks (T-55)  in 1977. Even back then we basically used 7.62 mm LPS (steel core). Nothing else has already been mentioned. In a textbook from back then it was written that the LPS had the same penetrating power as the heavy bullet. But the manufacturing cost of LPS is lower than the heavy bullet. By 1977, we in the East German army had already switched to LPS.
And, the practical shooting distance with the coax usually never exceeded 800 m. The correction of the shooting was done via hit observation anyway. Due to the reduction in weight after the tracer had burned off, the tracer bullet had a significant reduction in velocity from 600 m onwards, which is why it could then be seen lower in the sight field than LPS. Other significant (!) variations of coax ammunition in ballistic properties were not mentioned.

Yes, I also think the designator GT/T is a rudiment of the 50s and 60s. The TSh's  were present and continued to be used. The more modern TPD sights at the end of the 1960s were already labeled with PUL (pulemyot - machine gun) on the scale for the coax.

Edited May 20, 2024 by Stefan Kotsch

[Harkonnen]

Relict ERA in action

 

[Peasant]

Has this been posted here before?

WO 194-2946 A Technical Assessment of the T-55: https://tankandafvnews.com/wo-194-2946-a-technical-assessment-of-the-t-55/

Edited May 24, 2024 by Peasant

[old_goat]

23 hours ago, Peasant said:

WO 194-2946 A Technical Assessment of the T-55: https://tankandafvnews.com/wo-194-2946-a-technical-assessment-of-the-t-55/

Quite infamous tests. There are clues that the tested tanks were worn out and badly maintained. 

[Harkonnen]