Jump to content


Photo

How Much Did The Ussr Know About The Abrams And Did It Worry Them?


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 TOW-2

TOW-2

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 655 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0040 AM

Are there any declassified reports from the (f)USSR on intel gathered about the XM1 project and the fruit it bore?  Were Soviet planners and military experts worried about the M1 should a shooting war happen in Central Europe?  Did its adoption and deployment upset their plans?  Were they able to conduct comprehensive espionage and gather data on it?



#2 demosthenes

demosthenes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 621 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0155 AM

I don't know about the armament side of things, but when it comes to armor they already had protection estimates drawn up in a study by 1979.



#3 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 875 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0333 AM

I don't know about the armament side of things, but when it comes to armor they already had protection estimates drawn up in a study by 1979.

Which as discussed was not too far off in protection level, their mock up probably was ~400mm vs. APFSDS.


Edited by KV7, 12 August 2017 - 0334 AM.


#4 JasonJ

JasonJ

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,689 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0342 AM

I think some Soviet armor and gun firepower was still a much for the early M1. But maybe concerns about the techie stuff and night vision?



#5 Hakka

Hakka

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Palm trees and pearly white sand
  • Interests:Obscure facts about common tanks

Posted 12 August 2017 - 0906 AM

 

I don't know about the armament side of things, but when it comes to armor they already had protection estimates drawn up in a study by 1979.

Which as discussed was not too far off in protection level, their mock up probably was ~400mm vs. APFSDS.

 

 

Tankograd says that 3BM42 was tested against 3 different mock ups. These were:

 

7-layer array at an angled of 60 degrees (630mm LOS)
 
7-layer array at an angle of 30 degrees (620mm LOS)
 
3-layer spaced array at an angle of 65 degrees (1830mm LOS)
 
 
They found that the 1st 7-layer array could be defeated at 3.3 km, 2nd at 3.8 km, and 3-layer array could be defeated at 2.7 km. From what we saw in the declassified armor arrangement of the M1 Abrams, I would even say that the USSR overestimated a bit...


#6 demosthenes

demosthenes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 621 posts

Posted 12 August 2017 - 1336 PM

 

I don't know about the armament side of things, but when it comes to armor they already had protection estimates drawn up in a study by 1979.

Which as discussed was not too far off in protection level, their mock up probably was ~400mm vs. APFSDS.

 

 

No, not the test target mockup. That was several years earlier.



#7 Harkonnen

Harkonnen

    Andrei

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,347 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet Arakkis, Dune
  • Interests:Tanks, Art, history

Posted 15 August 2017 - 2203 PM

it's 1975 article

image004.jpg

 

and it is close to initial M1 in terms of armor

 

basically not more than 400 mm, close to original

http://btvt.info/5li...75_01_mbt80.htm

 

 

 

And in 1979 USSR still did not had firm info   - http://btvt.narod.ru...vanie_m1_l2.htm

 



#8 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,177 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 16 August 2017 - 1858 PM

That line drawing is of the GM XM1 prototype, not that of the winning submission, the Chrysler XM1 prototype.



#9 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,819 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 18 August 2017 - 0229 AM

it's 1975 article

image004.jpg

 

and it is close to initial M1 in terms of armor

 

basically not more than 400 mm, close to original

http://btvt.info/5li...75_01_mbt80.htm

 

 

 

And in 1979 USSR still did not had firm info   - http://btvt.narod.ru...vanie_m1_l2.htm

 

 

Looks a dead ringer for the tank out of 'Battlezone'. :P



#10 alejandro_

alejandro_

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,962 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxfordshire, UK
  • Interests:History, cinema, football, aviation, armour, military history.

Posted 18 August 2017 - 1330 PM

Tankograd says that 3BM42 was tested against 3 different mock ups. These were:

 

This round was deveped much later though, when several Abrams versions had already been developed



#11 Blunt Eversmoke

Blunt Eversmoke

    despicable hypocrite with nothing to crow for

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,017 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sellin them conre durgs to kid,s in a school near YOU, sport! I culd go onand on!!
  • Interests:Trollin'. Get'n paided. No bonuses, tho.

Posted 18 August 2017 - 1506 PM

 

it's 1975 article

image004.jpg

 

and it is close to initial M1 in terms of armor

 

basically not more than 400 mm, close to original

http://btvt.info/5li...75_01_mbt80.htm

 

 

 

And in 1979 USSR still did not had firm info   - http://btvt.narod.ru...vanie_m1_l2.htm

 

 

Looks a dead ringer for the tank out of 'Battlezone'. :P

 

Oh, monsieur sont un conoisseur... What was your poison - the ancient Atari Battlezone, or one of the remakes? 



#12 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,819 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 19 August 2017 - 0726 AM

The original, the old fashioned Cabinet Atari Battlezone.. I think it was probably where my interests in Tanks came from actually. :)


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 19 August 2017 - 0727 AM.


#13 Tim Sielbeck

Tim Sielbeck

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Tanks, Steel Beasts, WW1 aviation, Epees

Posted 19 August 2017 - 1024 AM

I hated that game.  I could gun.  I could drive.  I could not do both at the same time.



#14 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,323 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 19 August 2017 - 1420 PM

Loved that game too, although I only ever played the online java-based version.  But still, good for a chuckle.

 

I guess that unlike the often discussed incident of a BRIXMIS team getting scrapings and armour thickness measurements from a T-64; there was never a chance for the Russian equivalent to do that with an M1 Abrams?



#15 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,819 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 20 August 2017 - 0408 AM

I hated that game.  I could gun.  I could drive.  I could not do both at the same time.

 

Yes it took a knack. It was easier when you realised if you shot when you turned you could effectively curve your shot. You could go slow track left and fast track right and turn and move, rather than most did turn neutrally making yourself a static target. But I digress, it probably warrants another thread. :)

 

 

 

Loved that game too, although I only ever played the online java-based version.  But still, good for a chuckle.

 

I guess that unlike the often discussed incident of a BRIXMIS team getting scrapings and armour thickness measurements from a T-64; there was never a chance for the Russian equivalent to do that with an M1 Abrams?

 

I can only speak for the British perspective, apparently when Challenger had any of its armour damaged, it had to be covered immediately to not allow SOXMIS or indeed the general public realise what the composition of it was. I dont think SOXMIS ever took the kind of risks BRIXMIS did. For one thing they only had 2 man crews, which meant like the USMLM teams they had one man driving and another on foot. They lacked the advantage of BRIXMIS teams in having another pair of eyes who could act as lookout.

 

Not that it could never have happened. I recall seeing a photograph of a Bradley IFV with '22 SAS' painted on it, by way of example.....



#16 Jim Warford

Jim Warford

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,874 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 August 2017 - 2151 PM

I know I've told this story before, but...back in 1985 when my M1 tank company and another from our battalion (1-66 AR), was on it's way back to Fort Hood at the end of the SGT York OT-II Test at Hunter-Liggett, California, one of the front hull skirts was knocked-off one of the tanks from the other company during our rail movement back to Fort Hood. Luckily, just as we were about to start walking the tracks all the way back to California looking for the damned thing, one of our OH-58s found the missing skirt laying on the ground in Arizona...safe and sound. Apparently, the swing-out plate wasn't secured properly by the tank's crew prior to the train pulling out towards Texas.

Back in those days, the skirt armor was a very big deal, and any damaged skirts had to be protected from view and only repaired by approved welders.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users