bojan Posted November 4, 2023 Author Share Posted November 4, 2023 Don't know where else to put this, since it is related to previous post. At the same time when they have offered AML armored car (1964-65), French also offered modernized M24 Chaffee tanks to Yugoslavia. Tanks were supposed to be acquired by French, and Yugoslavia would pay for their overhaul and modernization. Modernization included: - replacement of 75mm gun with 90mm D-921 low pressure gun (same as on AML-90 armored car) which would have enabled M24 to effectively combat any tank in service at that moment. Replacement of gun required minimum changes to a tank. - removal of the bow MG with assistant-driver/bow MG gunner position in order to get more storage space for 90mm ammo (40-45 rounds) -replacement of original engines with French 250hp or US 295hp engine - replacement of radios - drivers IR periscopes and gunners IR sight, enabling ~400m engagement range during moonless night - complete overhaul of the tank and "return to zero" of all wear and tear. Weight increase compared to original tank was only 450kg. Expected price of modernization was ~25-30% price of the new tank (did not specify which one, but probably T-55 which Yugoslavia was acquiring at that moment) and that such modernized tanks could finally enable to spare enough tanks to fil l all infantry brigades. Low weight was especially considered bonus, due the ability of tank to traverse bad roads and small bridges of the heavy hill/mountain terrain in the central Yugoslavia. It was noted that thanks to good transmission despite relatively low hp/t ratio for light tank it is very mobile both on road and off road. As a disadvantage it was noted that both 250 and 295hp engines proposed for modernization are still petrol ones, after which French offered US 238hp diesel engine. There is no official reason for not acquiring those tanks in the documents, but it appears that was connected with acquisition of large number of T-34-85 in USSR for the same purpose (filling infantry brigades with tanks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alejandro_ Posted November 5, 2023 Share Posted November 5, 2023 Very interesting, extra weight of T-34-85 (>70%) was not considered an issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted November 5, 2023 Author Share Posted November 5, 2023 (edited) I have no documents about T-34-85 evaluation for that role unfortunately. Edited November 5, 2023 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now