Jump to content


Photo

Ultimate "super Sherman"


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 2220 PM

Posted Image

Yugoslavia, 1961, gun is 122mm A-19 but modified with vertical sliding breachblock.
520HP V-2R engine. No.19 radio station instead of SCR-528
33.5t.
Max speed changed from 42km/h to 50km/h. Fuel consummation lowered from 400 to 211l per 100km.Maneuverability on difficult terrain was somewhat reduced.

Gunsight was modified TSh-15 from SU-100.
In tests during 1962. gun showed lower penetration then 100mm D-10S and vehicle was reclassified from anti-tank vehicle to infantry support one, but it was not suitable for that role due the inability to use indirect fire (elevation was only +10/-2deg).
In 1966. development was officially stopped and prototype scrapped.

Edited by bojan, 08 September 2012 - 2232 PM.

  • 0

#2 JW Collins

JW Collins

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,285 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 08 September 2012 - 2236 PM

Wow. And the suspension had no problem with all of that extra weight?
  • 0

#3 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 08 September 2012 - 2241 PM

Same suspension on Jumbo handled 38t, s probably it could handle 33.5t.
  • 0

#4 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 08 September 2012 - 2324 PM

WTF over, this is the most bizzare thing I have seen I guess... bojan, can we find more somewhere, please (preferably some book)? Gotta send this through the channels for WoT :ninja: Sherman with A-19, gotta have it in my garage :)
  • 0

#5 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,798 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 09 September 2012 - 0314 AM

We could end seeing a Yugo tree in WoT...
  • 0

#6 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 09 September 2012 - 0556 AM

Tuccy, it is not my find, and it already found way to WoT developers. Credits go to Predrag Popovic, who found and forwarded pic and stats to developers.
Sunday, it will be part of European tree "when it happens" AFAIK.

Edited by bojan, 09 September 2012 - 0559 AM.

  • 0

#7 Max H

Max H

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,656 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dorset

Posted 09 September 2012 - 0645 AM

Reposted to the "suggestions" bit of the US forum anyway, hope you don't mind bojan
  • 0

#8 AdmiralB

AdmiralB

    Technical Janitor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Central Indiana

Posted 09 September 2012 - 1144 AM

Was the D10S ever tried in the Sherman?
  • 0

#9 BP

BP

    Kulak

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charleston, SC, USA
  • Interests:Tanks. No shit.

Posted 09 September 2012 - 1146 AM

Interesting!

It looks like a King Tiger raped a standard Sherman.
  • 0

#10 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 10 September 2012 - 0104 AM

I guess that with D10 you won't have enough space to load the gun, the separate loading 122mm was better in this aspect.
  • 0

#11 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 11 September 2012 - 1417 PM

Few more data:
27-30 rounds of main gun ammo
1 x M1919A5 MG with 2250 rounds coaxial to main gun (not actually coax, it was capable of +20/-10 elevation/depression when uncoupled from main gun).
Bow MG was removed and storage used for ammo.
12.7mm AAMG with 300 rounds
Turret armot - 100mm front, 45-50mm sides.
  • 0

#12 Sebastian Balos

Sebastian Balos

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2012 - 1452 PM

I've heard of this one, but never saw a pic. Do you have dome other pics by any chance? Great find, thanx!

Lower penetration than 100 mm and deemed unsuitable as a tank-hunter? What a stupidity! Why they didn't compare it to the regular 76 mm? Or with a SU-100 in attack "mode"? t34 mafia again! We kept buying a long obsolete tanks just to fulfill crazy general dreams of being strong in numbers.

A great opportunity for our industry was lost, for both our own armed forces and export.

Edited by Sebastian Balos, 11 September 2012 - 1453 PM.

  • 0

#13 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 11 September 2012 - 1813 PM

I've heard of this one, but never saw a pic. Do you have dome other pics by any chance? Great find, thanx!

Nothing more unfortunately, as I noted it was not even my find. BTW, there was another SO-122 however, that used 122mm M38 howitzer on turretless Sherman chassis and looked pretty similar to Israeli M50 SP arty...

Lower penetration than 100 mm and deemed unsuitable as a tank-hunter? What a stupidity! Why they didn't compare it to the regular 76 mm? Or with a SU-100 in attack "mode"? t34 mafia again!

T-54 scare after tests of it's armor. Even 100mm AP was marginal and there was no good solution until decent amount of HEAT was introduced to service (late '60s).

We kept buying a long obsolete tanks just to fulfill crazy general dreams of being strong in numbers.


T-34/85 and SU-100 were a condition to get T-54/55... :( Don't forget that original plan was M48 but it did not work for a whole lot of reasons.

A great opportunity for our industry was lost, for both our own armed forces and export.

I am not sure if there was export potential in this one, but there was possibly some in other that combined 90mm from M47 and improved turret with Sherman's hull. O the other hand by the time that one was developed French already fid their 75mm HV conversion (Israeli M50).
  • 0

#14 Sebastian Balos

Sebastian Balos

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2012 - 0154 AM

@Bojan

I thought we're speaking about the '60s, right? HEAT from 122 mm would be attractive even today. Imagine the next version with 125 mm. If they squeezed 122 mm in Sherman, 125 mm (with separate ammo) could be made to work as well. Engines, transmissions and suspensions would be in terrible condition by then, though.

T-54/55 was the best solution back then (better than M47), but M320 could do probably 80 % of T-54/55 work (it wasn't finished, but it was an interesting project, see the armor scheme). I was under impression that even SU-100 was not as available as T-34. Hack, the majority of T-55 came in the '70s... I know, M320 was far from the execution, but by relying on e.g. the French, a help in casting technology (e.g.barrels) could be expected.

What about M48? Was it tested and found better than T55?

Where was that picture from? It shows the tank pretty well, especially the size of the gun and modified turret...
  • 0

#15 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 12 September 2012 - 0221 AM

Bow MG was removed and storage used for ammo.


Thanks a lot.
Removed bow MG = crew of 4?

EDIT: Sebastian, what tank is that in your diagram? Leo?

Edited by Tuccy, 12 September 2012 - 0231 AM.

  • 0

#16 Przezdzieblo

Przezdzieblo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,892 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warsaw

Posted 12 September 2012 - 0413 AM

It is one of the Yugoslavian tank projects, see --> http://stef124.tripod.com/tip-636.htm

Edited by Przezdzieblo, 12 September 2012 - 0417 AM.

  • 0

#17 Sebastian Balos

Sebastian Balos

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2012 - 0442 AM

No, its M320:

Combat weight: 34 t
Dimensions: length-hull 6.05

length-overall 9,026 m

width 3 m

height to turret top 2,49 m

Crew: 5 members

Armament: M-1 90 mm L/52 main gun with 50 rounds, two 7.9 mm MG-42 machineguns with 2000 rounds, one anti-aircraft 12.7 mm Browning M2HB machinegun with 1500 rounds

Oklop: hull-glacis 75 mm/60o

hull-front lower plate 55 mm/55o

hull-side above track 30 mm/40o

hull-side behind road wheels 40 mm/0o

hull-side lower plate 25 mm/60o

hull-rear 20/45o-30/30o mm

hull-floor 15-25/90o mm
hull-top 25-30/90o mm
turret-front 105 mm/23o to 42 mm/65o
turret-side 52 mm/23o to 25 mm/65o
turret-rear 50 mm/30o to 25 mm/65o
turret-roof 25 mm/90o
Engine: V-2R 520 KS (386 kW)
Performance: maximum speed 50 km/h
range 300-400 km
ground pressure 0,915 kg/cm2
trench 2,5 m

vertical obstacle 0,9 m

fording 1,1 m
gradient 32o
side slope 25o
  • 0

#18 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 12 September 2012 - 0606 AM

I thought we're speaking about the '60s, right? HEAT from 122 mm would be attractive even today.

Yes, '60s. Problem with HEAT is that other then 250 BK-5/5M acquired with T-54s and mostly used for testings no other HEAT ammo was actually available until 1969. and local production of improved BK-5M as M69...

Imagine the next version with 125 mm. If they squeezed 122 mm in Sherman, 125 mm (with separate ammo) could be made to work as well. Engines, transmissions and suspensions would be in terrible condition by then, though.

No way to cope with recoil, Soviets had to make test stand for 125mm from 203mm howitzer carriage, they could not use previous that was based on ML-20/A-19 carriage...

I was under impression that even SU-100 was not as available as T-34.

65 were acquired, enough for 4 Bdes (12 vehicle Bde SP-gun group) and training vehicles, which was a minimum quantity Soviets required for us to acquire...

Hack, the majority of T-55 came in the '70s... I know, M320 was far from the execution, but by relying on e.g. the French, a help in casting technology (e.g.barrels) could be expected.

Doubt that French would help, they were deep in Europanzer project* at that moment. I know that at one moment we wanted to get new gun that French were developing (105mm F1), but French flat out refused and then required that we first acquire AMX-13s (that were already tested and found wanting).

What about M48? Was it tested and found better than T55?

No, idea predated acquisition of T-54/55, technical delegation was sent to US in IIRC 1955. Team was generally satisfied, with main problems being that tank was expensive, US did not have a lot available to spare (and insisted on us getting more M47 first) and fuel consummation was horrible. Talks prolonged then were suspended in 1957. and finally T-54s (later T-55s) were acquired.

Where was that picture from? It shows the tank pretty well, especially the size of the gun and modified turret...


Found it on WoT livejournal community, one of developers credited it to Predrag Popovic, librarian from Senta who sent it to them. I found additional data by asking some contacts.

*Which M-320 quite resembles actually... I would have to check but it is quite possible there was technical delegation in France when whole Europanzer project was being developed. Quite possible they hoped we would purchase it once it was finished (they sure tried to sell us AMX-30 later).

Edited by bojan, 12 September 2012 - 0926 AM.

  • 0

#19 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,516 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 12 September 2012 - 0805 AM

M320 reminds me a bit of the early Japanese post war tanks.
  • 0

#20 Sebastian Balos

Sebastian Balos

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2012 - 0234 AM

Be it '69, or '71. Sheram 122 mm could reach operational status by then. 122 mm HEAT or even APDS could be made in SFRJ. A great force multiplier, much better than T34/85.

What's the difference between 122 and 125 mm? 25 kg + 800 m/s and 23 kg 850 m/s... Pretty the same league, 122 mm had a more powerful recoil. The only fundamental difference would be that 122 mm had a muzzle brake. 125 mm could have been mounted with one as well.

I was talking about help in barrel production,not buying French tanks. I don't know what doet that have to do with europanzer... They or Swedes could have been the only one to help SFRJ in this area - the French might have some reserves due to SFRJ support to Algerian struggle for independence against French.

M320 was terminated at about the same time europa panzer project begun, 1956., so I don't see any influence here.

The problem with SFRJ and tank production was the lack of collaboration with foreign countries. As we saw, France and GErmany, with a much more advanced tank production collaborated. SFRJ was all alone and actually did pretty well with M320 - some help should have been acquired for a 90 mm gun, but what about 122 mm on M320? I don't have firm data, but turret ring seemed more along the lines of Sherman than T34/85. This way, field guns could be mounted on obsolete tanks and no casting problems would have been encountered.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users