Finn T55 Question

[Gman]

Wiedzmin, you think that T55 is not much worse in layout than comparable M60/ Leo1/ Chieftain ?   Really ?

 

[Wiedzmin]

read again what i wrote, especially if you try to discuss layout itself

but as for some "food for thought"

Centurion turret height(internal) max is 910mm

Chieftain turret height(internal) max is 825mm

T-55 turret height(internal) max is 730mm

T-62 turret height(internal) max is 700mm

and when you realize that there "you see! i was right! the numbers!" mindblowing difference in 125-200mm height 

 

try to get height of turntbales/loader level floor for each tank and some other dimensions...

 

and so on

 

 

you can also try to research all these magnificent handcranks(especially right one) on each tank 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2021 by Wiedzmin

[Stuart Galbraith]

What about the size of the turret ring? I would have thought that would have been more significant as far as room for the loader and reloading.

[Rickard N]

I've only briefly been in a T55 (might have been a T62) at a showing during my training and my memory of the loaders place is that it isn't that cramped. Not near the vast open space of the Centurion ball room and the Leo2 was also larger but it wasn't a catastrophe in any way

[Wiedzmin]

28 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

What about the size of the turret ring? I would have thought that would have been more significant as far as room for the loader and reloading.

Centurion 1880 diam(over ring, diam over ring guard is lesser, free space with stowage bins much lesser )

Chieftain  2159 diam

T-55 1825

T-62 2245(ring itself is 2350 but turret botom is 2245)

 

but turret ring itself not best "number" because there is a lot of stuff in tank what "eats" free space 

[Stefan Kotsch]

The world looks a little different when the T-55 is fully ammunitioned. That is a bit cramped. But as has already been said, it is by no means dramatic.
The APFS is always in the front right hull and is easy to handle. The longer APFSDS fits into the same rack in the hull without any problems.
During the training, the loading was trained exclusively with training rounds HE-FRAG. This is the longest cartridge. And the times for the loading process were 5 to 7 seconds (from the rack in the hull). Comfort is different, but it works. All in all, I can confirm that the designers generally left the space they needed for work of the crew. And I am 1.8 m tall! In Leopard 1 and 2 I found the situation for the loader to be the best solution. BIt's really tight at the Centurion. On the other hand, the commander's seat is really extremely uncomfortable. So I often stood on the turret floor. The gunner sits similarly uncomfortably in the long time. As a driver, I actually sat pretty well in Russian tanks. With the Leopard 1 it was again very uncomfortable for my long legs. The one picture above immediately reminded me of it.

@edit And not forget, the M60 is really a huge ship.

(yes, I had already been misled by my memory regarding the T62 ...)

 

100 mm: - BM8 - BM21*- BK5M 
*( BM21 from Photoshop

Edited November 15, 2021 by Stefan Kotsch

[Rickard N]

20 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

The world looks a little different when the T-55 is fully ammunitioned. That is a bit cramped. But as has already been said, it is by no means dramatic.
The APFS is always in the front right hull and is easy to handle. The longer APFSDS fits into the same rack in the hull without any problems.
During the training, the loading was trained exclusively with training rounds HE-FRAG. This is the longest cartridge. And the times for the loading process were 5 to 7 seconds (from the rack in the hull). Comfort is different, but it works. All in all, I can confirm that the designers generally left the space they needed for work of the crew. And I am 1.8 m tall! In Leopard 1 and 2 I found the situation for the loader to be the best solution. BIt's really tight at the Centurion. On the other hand, the commander's seat is really extremely uncomfortable. So I often stood on the turret floor. The gunner sits similarly uncomfortably in the long time. As a driver, I actually sat pretty well in Russian tanks. With the Leopard 1 it was again very uncomfortable for my long legs. The one picture above immediately reminded me of it.

@edit And not forget, the M60 is really a huge ship.

(yes, I had already been misled by my memory regarding the T62 ...)

 

100 mm: - BM8 - BM21*- BK5M 
*( BM21 from Photoshop

Funny, I'm 185(,2)cm tall and I had no issues in any of the positions of the Leo2, I couldn't stand straight with the tanker's helmet on in the loader's position, but then again, you rarely would.

/R

[Stefan Kotsch]

Right, that's why I wrote:

21 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

In Leopard 1 and 2 I found the situation for the loader to be the best solution.

[Interlinked]

Uncomfortable driver's seat of the Leo 1 was also noted by Dmitry from Battlefield Vegas. T-62 was more comfortable for him, and he is over 6'.

 

[Rickard N]

5 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Right, that's why I wrote:

Ah, I read it as you found the loader's position to suit you best. My bad.

/R

[Stefan Kotsch]

Ah, Rickard, do you have any more detailed information about this ominous gunners primary sight DNNS-1 or -2? That's from Bofors.

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 11/15/2021 at 8:50 AM, Wiedzmin said:

Centurion 1880 diam(over ring, diam over ring guard is lesser, free space with stowage bins much lesser )

Chieftain  2159 diam

T-55 1825

T-62 2245(ring itself is 2350 but turret botom is 2245)

 

but turret ring itself not best "number" because there is a lot of stuff in tank what "eats" free space 

Thats very interesting. Perhaps a better way would be to calculate cubic feet. Im not sure how you would do that, other than create a 3d model and subtract the space that isnt used. Even that wouldnt necessarily give you useful space.

I can only relate what ive seem from the Centurion sectioned at Bovington did not look like it is limited in space.These are not great photo's admittedly. it would be good to have a photo directly from above to compare.

[bojan]

4 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Ah, Rickard, do you have any more detailed information about this ominous gunners primary sight DNNS-1 or -2? That's from Bofors.

There are some differences between original Bofors FCS, SUV-T-55 (DNNS-1), SUV-M-84 (DNNS-2), Polish Merida (which used copy of DNNS-1 sight) and Pakistani one. There was also similar looking, but different Iskra/Fotona FCS that is used on Slovenian M-84s and also on some Iranian modernizations (Iranians also used original DNNS-1).

[Stefan Kotsch]

Oh, I didn't know that the DNNS was used in so many tanks.

[bojan]

Even more. Some Indian T-55 and Vijayanta, Iranian Zulquifar (prototypes, but well..), some of the Peruvian and Egyptian modernized T-55s. IRK however how many were supplied in total, India modernized only small part out of the planned 1000 Vijayanta and T-55s. IDK also how many Peruvian modernizations were actually made, if any.

[Stefan Kotsch]

I have this manual:
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF TANK T-69 IIG (GUNNERY PORTION)

Does this gunners primary sight belong to the "DNNS family"?

[bojan]

I don't know. Cooperation with China* is one of the largest "unknowns" of the former Yugoslavia arms industry. Formally nothing happened, but there are some wild stories that  can not be proven, some of them happening in the "troubled times" of the '90s. It is also possible they have acquired some stuff via Romania, since DNNS sight series was considered for their TR-125 (IDK if TR-125 prototype had that or something else however).

*Also with North Korea.

[Doom_Pyramid]

 

57 minutes ago, bojan said:

I don't know. Cooperation with China* is one of the largest "unknowns" of the former Yugoslavia arms industry. Formally nothing happened, but there are some wild stories that  can not be proven, some of them happening in the "troubled times" of the '90s. It is also possible they have acquired some stuff via Romania, since DNNS sight series was considered for their TR-125 (IDK if TR-125 prototype had that or something else however).

*Also with North Korea.

The TR-125 that is available for public viewing has the TPD-K1. All other TR-125 photos seem to have the same sights. However I couldn't tell you if they're of the same prototype or not. At the very least the TR-125 has the markings "SZ-3" on the front of the turret which might stand for the third prototype built in 1986 or might be 'series zero 3' 

[Sardaukar]

While this is from War Thunder forum, it does list major improvements for FDF T-55M:

The Finnish T-55M upgrade on the T-55A/K variants brings to the table multiple different things, ill list them as bullet points.

- Thermal sleeve around gun barrel
- New MECAR 100mm APFSDS-T ammo
- New FCS from Bofors (FCS-FV/K) with passive day/night (II-) sight for Gunner with LRF
- New loaders hatch with AAMG (12.7mm NSVT with new Norwegian sights)
- 1 million cd's IR-light
- 8x 76 mm Wegmann smoke grenade discharcers
- 1x 71 mm Bofors Lyran illumination grenade mortar
- New storage and equipment boxes (also acting as "standoff armor")
- New RMSh tracks (similar as T-72M1's)
- Hull's new side skirts (also acting as "standoff armor")
- Abilty to deep-wading taken off (air intake tubes taken off)

- Commanders infrared sight

[Wiedzmin]

42 minutes ago, Sardaukar said:

New MECAR 100mm APFSDS-T ammo

[bojan]

1 hour ago, Doom_Pyramid said:

 

The TR-125 that is available for public viewing has the TPD-K1....

I know is that two DNNS sights (most probably single example of DNNS-1 and DNNS-2) were supplied to Romania, as those were considered for upgraded TR-85 and TR-125. Nothing more unfortunately.

[Doom_Pyramid]

50 minutes ago, bojan said:

I know is that two DNNS sights (most probably single example of DNNS-1 and DNNS-2) were supplied to Romania, as those were considered for upgraded TR-85 and TR-125. Nothing more unfortunately.

Wow that's very interesting. Making me rethink of the true nature of Ciclop-SCF. Information on Ciclop-M is easy to obtain while Ciclop-SCF has alluded me. I was of the opinion that both DNNS and Ciclop originated from the same source, that being some Swedish FCS (which Romania was offered in the early 80s) or that Ciclop was derived from DNNS but what little I could obtain of Ciclop-SCF doesn't support that 

[Rickard N]

22 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Ah, Rickard, do you have any more detailed information about this ominous gunners primary sight DNNS-1 or -2? That's from Bofors.

Sorry, none.

/R