Jump to content


Photo

SU-122/54 Revisited


  • Please log in to reply
253 replies to this topic

#1 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,855 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 April 2008 - 2158 PM

Here are some new pics of the still rarely seen SU-122/54. Have we learned anything new about this vehicle in recent years? Is there any new information available regarding its cousin the infamous "IT-130?"

Posted Image
Shot with Canon PowerShot A80 at 2008-04-15

Posted Image
Shot with Canon PowerShot A80 at 2008-04-15

#2 Guest_bojan_*

Guest_bojan_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 April 2008 - 0407 AM

Is there any new information available regarding its cousin the infamous "IT-130?"


Yes.
It newer existed.

#3 Jussi Saari

Jussi Saari

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,231 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 April 2008 - 0724 AM

Here are some new pics of the still rarely seen SU-122/54. Have we learned anything new about this vehicle in recent years? Is there any new information available regarding its cousin the infamous "IT-130?"

Posted Image
Shot with Canon PowerShot A80 at 2008-04-15

Posted Image
Shot with Canon PowerShot A80 at 2008-04-15


I found the whole concept of the vehicle a bit odd, one would imagine the whole point of having a tank destroyer without a turret would be to put heavier gun and heavier armour on it, but it doesn't seem to work out on SU-122-54... First the main gun, D-49 is only marginally longer than D-25T and could probably penetrate M-48 turret but only from 500m range or less, glacis not at all, and there was no decent HEAT round for the 122-mm yet at mid-50's. I wonder if the Russians under-estimated the Patton's armour or did they have Pershings and early-model Centurions in mind when designing it?

Second the armour configuration seems a bit pointless, it's far too thin to protect against 90-mm or 25-pdr hits, yet much thicker and unnecessarily heavy against pretty much everything short of a tank gun. Sure one could get shot at by 40-mm AAA or 75-mm or some such but one would imagine it would have made more sense to either armour it against current and near-future state-of-the-art AT threats, or save weight and protect only against HMG/shrapnel and have an ambush vehicle with which you want to be out of the firing position by the time the target can return accurate fire....

#4 Vasiliy Fofanov

Vasiliy Fofanov

    "Soviet cheering section"

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Paris, France
  • Interests:Computers, Armor

Posted 16 April 2008 - 1022 AM

Yes.
It newer existed.


Prove it! :lol:

#5 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,855 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 April 2008 - 2123 PM

Prove it! :lol:


Well...I agree with Vas. Over the years there have been more than a few Soviet vehicles which were initially thought to be the fantasies of one defector or another, only to find out years later that these things actually exist. The "IT-130" may be a fantasy but I'm not convinced...could it be a vehicle identification problem like the "French Panthers" in Indo-China, or some great mystery like the reported use of Ukrainian-supplied T-64s in Angola, or even still...a reality kept in secret, waiting for pictures to finally hit the street...like those tank turret fortifications along old Soviet borders. We'll see...

#6 yak_v

yak_v

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,514 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fremont, CA

Posted 16 April 2008 - 2235 PM

Good Walkaround of the subject:
http://www.dishmodel...wshow.htm?p=457
http://www.dishmodel...wshow.htm?p=458
http://www.dishmodel...wshow.htm?p=459

Vladimir

#7 Amedeo Matteucci

Amedeo Matteucci

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts

Posted 17 April 2008 - 0714 AM

In the '80s I was fascinated with the elusive IT-130, also because the late Richard Simpkin belived that it was actually a sort of ace-in-the-sleeve for WP forces and I was an avid reader of Simpkin's papers.

But now I am convinced it was a hoax. Never saw a single photo of it, only an artist's impression in a (now) twenty years old booklet by Zaloga. The ARV photos, captioned as a 'defanged' IT-130 , actually showed a SU-122-54 chassis. Never saw it mentioned on a Soviet or Russian publication, nor on Western books after the early '90s.

My brief summary of what, IMHO, led to this intelligence blunder:
(N.B. Bear in mind that the wheels arrangement on the SU-122-54, owing to weight reasons, is more resembling the one on the T-62 than the one on the T-54)

1) Rezun/Suvorov mentioned there was a battery of "130mm heavy assault guns" per rifle regiment
2) Western intelligence assumed it was a follow up to the IT-122 (SU-122-54) based on the T-62 tank chassis
3) Since the only photo available in the West of a SU-122-54 showed the TD deep in the mud (no roadwheels visible) it was assumed that its wheel disposition was the same of the T-54
4) The 'defanged TD', whose Red Square appearances were noted, had the wheels arranged similarly to the T-62 and it was assumed it was based on a T-62 chassis

So, it seemed there was an indirect proof of Suvorov's statement. But they were totally wrong.

If one also considers Khrushchev's fascination with missile armed TD and Rezun's ability to report hearsay information (or plain lies: I'm just remembering his 'contribution' to J. Hackett second volume on WWIII) the absence of this phantom appears logical.

Regards,

Amedeo

Edited by Amedeo Matteucci, 17 April 2008 - 0716 AM.


#8 Ariete!

Ariete!

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,033 posts

Posted 18 April 2008 - 0649 AM

impkin was also the guy who thought the S-tank was the end-all and be-all of tank design...

#9 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,299 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 18 April 2008 - 0712 AM

I read an article of a Russian officer after the cold war in which he claimed that the Russians had kept assault guns as tactical surprise in their arsenals.

#10 Catalan

Catalan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,284 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Espaņa

Posted 18 April 2008 - 1035 AM

impkin was also the guy who thought the S-tank was the end-all and be-all of tank design...


In his book Tank Warfare he just mentions that the S-tank was a successful break-off the 'T-34/Panther type tank' (as he mentions it), but doesn't really glorify it as the 'end-all be-all'.

#11 Przezdzieblo

Przezdzieblo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,878 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw

Posted 18 April 2008 - 1346 PM

Note TC hatch has something what looks like cover for optical range finder. What base? Would it be 1 m?
I am curious what RF it was - read somewhere that some T-10M were equipped with TC co
pulas ( :lol: ) with rangefinders. Maybe it was same type of both RF and cupola?

#12 Vasiliy Fofanov

Vasiliy Fofanov

    "Soviet cheering section"

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Paris, France
  • Interests:Computers, Armor

Posted 18 April 2008 - 1348 PM

Note TC hatch has something what looks like cover for optical range finder.


It *is* a rangefinder. Don't know any specs thoug.

#13 Stefan Kotsch

Stefan Kotsch

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 667 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ludwigslust, Germany
  • Interests:Tanks - fire control, guns, ammo, autoloader

Posted 18 April 2008 - 1432 PM

Some data:

TCs RF: TDK-09, stereoscopic, 4x or 10x, range 500m - 5000m, measuring error 2,64% max
Gunner: TSh-2-23, telescopic, 3,5x or 7x,

End of the development 1951
Release for troop service March 1954
The first four vehicles Dec 1955
Abort of project and production!

Edited by Stefan Kotsch, 19 April 2008 - 0738 AM.


#14 Przezdzieblo

Przezdzieblo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,878 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw

Posted 18 April 2008 - 1448 PM

Danke! :)

#15 George Newbill

George Newbill

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 2,656 posts
  • Interests:Armor, Dark Tshirts if I can get them.

Posted 18 April 2008 - 1842 PM

Man I'd like to have that in my front yard! Kinda sexy don't you think?

Perhapse we are looking at this wrong, maybe the idea is as an infantry assult gun not as a dedicated anti-tank platform? Think early Stug not JadgPanther. What killed it was that it was not really good at either.

Edited by George Newbill, 19 April 2008 - 0026 AM.


#16 Marcello

Marcello

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,204 posts

Posted 19 April 2008 - 1217 PM

Perhapse we are looking at this wrong, maybe the idea is as an infantry assult gun not as a dedicated anti-tank platform? Think early Stug not JadgPanther. What killed it was that it was not really good at either.


The idea that it was an infantry support platform crossed my mind too. That or maybe there actually was an HEAT round in development that was canned at some point? Could it be possible?
Some have described the armor as too little/too much. Any further info on the armor scheme?

#17 gewing

gewing

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,299 posts
  • Interests:Military technology, History, Science Fiction, gaming, fantasy books,

Posted 19 April 2008 - 1809 PM

The idea that it was an infantry support platform crossed my mind too. That or maybe there actually was an HEAT round in development that was canned at some point? Could it be possible?
Some have described the armor as too little/too much. Any further info on the armor scheme?




I was thinking supporting fires also.

are there any advantages of the 122mm HE over say a 130mm?

maybe a higher HE content?

#18 irregularmedic

irregularmedic

    PROVINCIAL POLITICAL STATEMENT!!!

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,934 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 30 May 2010 - 1742 PM

Just came across this pic from Czechoslovakia '68 over at Militaryphotos.net:

Posted Image

Is this a Su-122/54? I had no idea such a thing existed, but a quick google search turns up:

SU-122-54 (Ob'yekt 600) (Samokhodnaya Ustanovka) - Self-propelled 122mm gun, based on the T-54A and sometimes known as IT-122. Between 1955 and 1957, 77 vehicles were build with minor differences between production lots (different commander's cupola etc.). The SU-122-54 had a modified chassis, with small spaces between the first, second and fourth pair of wheels and a large gap between the third, similar to the T-62's and a superstructure, built into the hull, housing the 122 mm M-62-T gun for which the vehicle carries 32 rounds. The secondary armament consisted of two KPVT heavy machine guns, one mounted as an anti-aircraft machine gun near the commander's hatch and the other mounted coaxially with the main gun. The vehicle carried 600 rounds for the machine guns. The main gun has a fume extractor positioned right behind the muzzle brake, some vehicles didn't have the fume extractor. Other variations included a different commander's copula.


And google also lead me to this thread on this grate sight.

;)


Looks different from this baby:

Posted Image

Which an asian language website has listed as a SU-122-54, and sports the characteristic rangefinder on the cupola.
Is that a co-axial machinegun I'm seeing in the second photo?


Aviapress has a couple more photos here:
http://www.aviapress....htm?TKM-200201

#19 hojutsuka

hojutsuka

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,500 posts
  • Interests:military history and technology, fencing, dancing

Posted 30 May 2010 - 1935 PM

Just came across this pic from Czechoslovakia '68 over at Militaryphotos.net:

Posted Image

Is this a Su-122/54? I had no idea such a thing existed, but a quick google search turns up:

No, that is an ASU-85.

Hojutsuka

#20 irregularmedic

irregularmedic

    PROVINCIAL POLITICAL STATEMENT!!!

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,934 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle

Posted 30 May 2010 - 2039 PM

Ah! Another vehicle I wasn't aware of!
Although well versed in WWII vehicles, my knowledge of Cold War vehicles is spotty at best, but improving thanks to this site.

Thanks for the ID!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users