Jump to content


Photo

History of T-54 and T-55


  • Please log in to reply
139 replies to this topic

#121 Blunt Eversmoke

Blunt Eversmoke

    despicable hypocrite with nothing to crow for

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 817 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 04 July 2015 - 0408 AM

Ah, thanks. Now it makes sense.

 

What type of autoloader does Al-Zarrar employ? Not being laid out for caroussel from the get-go, it probably is a conveyor or drum type? Or a small four-rounds drum directly at the breach, a la Merkava?



#122 Sovngard

Sovngard

    Honorary staff member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels city-state, Belgium
  • Interests:various

Posted 04 July 2015 - 0456 AM

Power rammer.



#123 Blunt Eversmoke

Blunt Eversmoke

    despicable hypocrite with nothing to crow for

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 817 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 04 July 2015 - 0608 AM

Like, with one ready round or how?..



#124 TTK Ciar

TTK Ciar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,649 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sebastopol, CA, USA
  • Interests:material engineering, composite armor, GPC, battletank technology

Posted 04 July 2015 - 1047 AM

Found a video showing the Al-Zarrar autoloader operate, briefly, but it unfortunately shows no details of how the rounds are stored for loading:


https://www.youtube....2xlCLjdRRg#t=26

Huh .. the autoloader bit is shown at 0:26, but when I include the url with ...#t=26 it isn't embedded as a video, and when I include the url with ...&t=26 it's embedded but starts at t=0 :-/

Edited by TTK Ciar, 04 July 2015 - 1050 AM.


#125 Damian

Damian

    Crew

  • Validating
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Poland
  • Interests:MBT's, rock music, electric Bass Guitar's :-)

Posted 04 July 2015 - 1142 AM

Al Zarrar autoloader is based on T-64, T-80 and T-84 series autoloader, actually it's identical, probably Ukrainians helped Pakistanis with it.



#126 Nikolas93TS

Nikolas93TS

    Thread necromancer and obscure questions

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 730 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trieste

Posted 06 February 2016 - 2122 PM

I need some corrections and help on T-55 ammunition.

 

Throughout the 1960s, KE ammunition was based on the UBR-412 round, including the BR-412 ABHE projectile, expanded with the ballistic-capped BR-412B (897 m/s) and BR-412D (887 m/s) ammunition accepted into service by 1953. There was also BR-412P APCR, but most likely never fielded.'

 

What I don't understand is how exactly were they distributed in the ammo load? BR-412B and BR-412D replaced BR-412 in Soviet service, or they were all used without distinction? Or a wild possibility, BR-412D being the most performing round, become a principal round in AP share of combat loadout? In part, I am also interested how non-Soviet nations later operated those rounds, as they continued using them well past 1967. It seems all 3 round types were used, even if BR-412 in particular was woefully obsolete.

 

Then in 1964, the NII-24 research bureau started design work on APDS which by 1967 culminated with 3BM8 APDS projectile, with a tungsten carbide penetrator. By 1974/75 it was exported to certain clients like Syria and Egypt, and by 1980s it was relatively common round in DDR stocks and (assuming) Warsaw pact.

 

BM8 was surpassed by BM-20 APFSDS (1430m/s) which was accepted and issued in 1976? How common it was in Soviet combat load? 

In 1978 (?) BM-25 APFSDS appeared, but it was widespread issued only in 1980s? Any information is greatly appreciated. 

 

There were similar advances in HEAT technology, with BK-5/5M HEAT (900m/s, 275mm and 375mm penetration respectively) being introduced in 1960. By 1978 BK-5M was replaced by BK17M (1075m/s, only ~390-400mm?)

 

And final question regards 9M117 ATGM. Was modernized tandem variant fielded during the Soviet Union era? 9M117M was adopted into service in 1993.

 

Thank you for attention!


Edited by Nikolas93TS, 12 February 2016 - 2056 PM.


#127 L.V.

L.V.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Helsinki

Posted 07 February 2016 - 1655 PM

In the late 80's the Finnish Panzerwaffe had the following combat rounds available for T-54 and T-55 tanks.

  • UBR-412D
  • UOF-412
  • UBM6
  • 3UBK4
  • 100-59 psa rj vj K tpp 27K (indigenous APDS with a 59 mm tungsten carbide core)
  • 100-24 psa nj vj K tppb 27K vir (24 mm APFSDS made by PRB, Belgium)
  • 100 tkrv-ps 2MR K tpp 27K (locally assembled SAPHE round with the Soviet F-56 shell)


#128 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 07 February 2016 - 1713 PM

Last one was for coastal defense, right?



#129 L.V.

L.V.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Helsinki

Posted 07 February 2016 - 1738 PM

Last one was for coastal defense, right?

 

The coastal artillery used  the same projectile, but the 100 tkrv-ps 2MR K tpp 27K was really a tank gun round.



#130 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 911 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 08 February 2016 - 0133 AM

do you have  photos of  100-59 psa rj vj K tpp 27K (indigenous APDS with a 59 mm tungsten carbide core),  100-24 psa nj vj K tppb 27K vir (24 mm APFSDS made by PRB, Belgium) ?



#131 Harkonnen

Harkonnen

    Andrei

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,319 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet Arakkis, Dune
  • Interests:Tanks, Art, history

Posted 08 February 2016 - 0642 AM

Al Zarrar autoloader is based on T-64, T-80 and T-84 series autoloader, actually it's identical, probably Ukrainians helped Pakistanis with it.

 

it has no autoloader



#132 Przezdzieblo

Przezdzieblo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,870 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw

Posted 08 February 2016 - 0702 AM

do you have  photos of  100-59 psa rj vj K tpp 27K (indigenous APDS with a 59 mm tungsten carbide core),  100-24 psa nj vj K tppb 27K vir (24 mm APFSDS made by PRB, Belgium) ?

 

 

There is a topic with nice analysis of that APDS by Andrew Jaremkow --> click

I do not know if pic is still available there, my browser display it no more. But miniature could be seen on google graphics.



#133 L.V.

L.V.

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Helsinki

Posted 08 February 2016 - 0820 AM

do you have  photos of  100-59 psa rj vj K tpp 27K (indigenous APDS with a 59 mm tungsten carbide core),  100-24 psa nj vj K tppb 27K vir (24 mm APFSDS made by PRB, Belgium) ?

 

Not at the moment, but I'll try to find some.



#134 Walter_Sobchak

Walter_Sobchak

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 563 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grand Rapids MI
  • Interests:Civilian tank and afv enthusiast. Collects 1/72 scale replicas although terrible at building them. Particular interest in post war US tank engines.

Posted 08 February 2016 - 1708 PM

I thought people might enjoy this old report so I posted it on my site.

 

British/Israeli Assessment of T-55 circa 1970

 

Click here to see the full report (over 100 pages)

 

 

The report summary says:

 

The main points which emerged form the assessment are:

 

Ballistic dispersion of the 100mm gun – this was found to be comparable with western standards, ie intrinsic dispersion applicable to full bore projectiles – AP or HE.

The Weapon System – it is simple and has the basic components of any AFV system but without any sophistication or complexity.

 

The Gun Control System – it is crude.  The hand controls do not operate smoothly and in particular elevation and depression is of a low standard due mainly to excessive gun muzzle preponderance.  The power and stabilizer controls leave much to be desired, this applies particularly to attempts at engaging targets on the move with the 100mm gun.

 

Vision for the Driver and Gunner – it is adequate but, for the commander, the devices provided are, by British standards, inadequate and cupola arrangements are of poor quality.  They do not compare favorably with the equipment provided for the commander in Centurion of the 1958 period.

 

Fuel Stowage – this constitutes a fire hazard.  The forward or hull front tank surrounds 100mm ammunition and other fuel is carried in “Jerry Can” type containers which are plumbed into the system and situated on the right side track guard and are highly vulnerable to aircraft cannon fire.

 

Ammunition Stowage – other than the rounds stowed in the forward hull compartment, some rounds – about 6 – are stowed above the turret ring on the turret walls.  the rounds are secured by rather crudely designed clips.  The total carried is 43.  The rounds are heavy.

 

Armour Protection – for a weight of 6 tons the arrangement of armour is a point in favour of the T-55 tank although it is well known that considerable success against the armour was obtained from attacks with the British 105mm L28 APDS ammunition during the Six Day War.

 

Silhouette – this is similar to that of the FRG Leopard tank.  However, detection of the tank is enhanced by the external fittings on the turret roof.  It is, however, a compact vehicle.

 

Vehicle Generated Smoke – this is extremely effective and simple to operate.  A few tanks employed in creating a smoke screen can accomplish a screen of high density, lacking “windows”, in a very short time – a very good feature.

 

Fightability in General – the vehicle is rugged, the ammunition is heavy and awkward to handle in the cramped crew positions, the gun is loaded from the right side, ie left handed loading, and the result is a very low rate of fire which when combined with the low chance of hit with the first round of an engagement constitutes rather poor fightability characteristics.


Edited by Walter_Sobchak, 08 February 2016 - 1708 PM.


#135 Nikolas93TS

Nikolas93TS

    Thread necromancer and obscure questions

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 730 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trieste

Posted 11 February 2016 - 1337 PM

 

In the late 80's the Finnish Panzerwaffe had the following combat rounds available for T-54 and T-55 tanks.

  • UBR-412D
  • UOF-412
  • UBM6
  • 3UBK4
  • 100-59 psa rj vj K tpp 27K (indigenous APDS with a 59 mm tungsten carbide core)
  • 100-24 psa nj vj K tppb 27K vir (24 mm APFSDS made by PRB, Belgium)
  • 100 tkrv-ps 2MR K tpp 27K (locally assembled SAPHE round with the Soviet F-56 shell)

 

 

Thank you very much, it's very helpful.

 

So it seems Finland opted for BR-412D, while for example Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia went with BR-412B, and certain nations used both (Egypt and Syria, with BR-412B being more common). Makes sense, as far as I understand there is only a slight penetration improvement in the BR-412D over the BR-412B (BR-412B even being capable of penetrating more sloped armor than BR-412D in certain conditions).

 

------

As far APFSDS are concerned, it seems 3BM25 "Izomer" come out from 1972 requirement which also resulted in 3BM24 "Kalach" for T-12, 115mm 3BM21 "Zastup"  and 125mm 3BM-22 "Zakolka". Those rounds were officially accepted in 1977 to 1979 period, but entered production already in 1975-1976. I guess 3BM19 and 3BM20 are part of same wider family as 3BM24, with latter being eventually accepted into service. 



#136 Wiedzmin

Wiedzmin

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 911 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Russia, Leningrad

Posted 11 February 2016 - 1406 PM

 


 

BR-412B even being capable of penetrating more sloped armor than BR-412D in certain conditions).

 

 

what conditions ?



#137 Nikolas93TS

Nikolas93TS

    Thread necromancer and obscure questions

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 730 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trieste

Posted 11 February 2016 - 1414 PM

 

 


 

BR-412B even being capable of penetrating more sloped armor than BR-412D in certain conditions).

 

 

what conditions ?

 

bojan, on 20 Jan 2011 - 09:47 AM, said:
Few tidbits I got (from a student's notes from '60s :) ). My notes bold. Will try to dig out more.

 

-in case of same caliber blunt non-capped projectile (BR-412B) will penetrate more sloped armor then sharp capped projectile (BR-412D), as long as combination of armor hardness and armor thickness is below "critical spot".
So penetration curves for BR-412B and BR-412D vs sloped armor should cross at one point.

 

-so called "normalization" occurs with blunt projectiles and is highly dependent on armor hardness - less hardness of armor more effect of slope will be negated and more hardness less effect of blunt projectile. How much effectiveness of armor is lost depends on projectile but here is rough guide, relevant if projectile is ~of same diameter as thickness of armor plate:

 

350 BHN - 1.25
335 BHN - 1.20
320 BHN - 1.15
305 BHN - 1.10
290 BHN - 1.05
275 BHN - 1.00
260 BHN - 0.95
245 BHN - 0.90
230 BHN - 0.85
215 BHN - 0.80
200 BHN - 0.75

 

This might explain how 100mm BR-412B penetrated M47 glacis at longer range then 88/71 PzGr.39.

Diameter of projectile vs thickness of armor, relation to effectiveness of armor if armor is sloped:

projectile/armor

 

0.50 - 1.50
0.75 - 1.25
1.00 - 1.00
1.25 - 0.90
1.50 - 0.80
1.75 - 0.70
2.00 - 0.60

 

This might explain how 57mm penetrates T-34/85 glacis at much less range then turret?

Hardness of armor and it's thickness effectiveness:

380-410 BHN - 1.20
320-350 BHN - 1.10
270-290 BHN - 1.00
210-240 BHN - 0.90

 

Again not good news for M47?

Cast armor effectiveness vs RHA of same thickness - 0.85-0.95.
Forged armor effectiveness vs RHA of same thickness - 1.1-1.25

 



#138 Pavel Novak

Pavel Novak

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 311 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Czech Republic

Posted 11 February 2016 - 1715 PM

Picture of czechoslovak 100 mm JPSv:

 

100mm_JPSv.jpg



#139 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 11 February 2016 - 1810 PM

....

-in case of same caliber blunt non-capped projectile (BR-412B) will penetrate more sloped armor then sharp capped projectile (BR-412D), as long as combination of armor hardness and armor thickness is below "critical spot".
So penetration curves for BR-412B and BR-412D vs sloped armor should cross at one point.

...

 

 

Note however that is a theory and we don't know how it actually applies to real world. For it to happen armor would need to be soft, at very narrow range of angles and of very narrow thickness variation.

So, in practice, vs realistic expected threat (other T-54/55) BR-412B would be worse than BR-412D.

Reason for keeping BR-412B and not bothering with BR-412D (same for T-34 with more common BR-365 vs newer, but rare BR-367) was that neither was judged to be good enough (D would still probably fail vs T-54/55 glacis or eventually penetrate at short range) and BR-412D was more expensive  (~60% more than BR-412B) and HEAT was main anti-armor round. Ammo loads show that. Tankers were expected to use HEAT vs newer threats, AP vs T-34s or from favorable angles.


Edited by bojan, 11 February 2016 - 1811 PM.


#140 Nikolas93TS

Nikolas93TS

    Thread necromancer and obscure questions

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 730 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trieste

Posted 18 March 2016 - 1537 PM

Is 1K13 BOM* better performing as night vision sight compared to TPN 1? I understand modernized M1 and AM1 variants without missiles kept their TPN 1 sights? 

 

* I am aware there are three different generations of this sight, but I don't know how they were developed chronologically (K variant come before or after fall of USSR?) 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users