Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Jim Warford

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Jim Warford last won the day on July 25 2019

Jim Warford had the most liked content!

About Jim Warford

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That_Baka: I disagree...Suvorov's T-62-based "IT-130" could have been planned and then cancelled by the Soviet anti-gun, pro-missile mafia, or it could have been built in very small numbers and then hidden away. IMO, the reason that the West eventually got the word on the IT-1 was because it was a modern missile system that the Soviets were happy with, and showed-off...at least initially. Just because the IT-1 is the only known vehicle to use the "IT" designation, doesn't mean it wasn't used secretly or very early in the life of other vehicles. The pattern of medium tank-based assault guns/tank destroyers supporting medium tank equipped MRRs was well established and could have continued (at one level or another), up to T-62 equipped MRRs. In any case, the planned role for these post-war assault guns/tank destroyers was a significant one...it just didn't turn out as planned. Finally, as far as the value of the info provided by Suvorov is concerned...some critics claim that he simply told his new US/NATO buddies what he thought they wanted to hear (mostly fabrications). On the other hand, it only makes sense that the Soviets would label him as a "hack" and his info as bogus...to do otherwise would be to validate the truth and importance of what Suvorov provided to their potential enemies.
  2. The response from Suvorov to his critics in IDR is important for a variety of reasons...not least of which is that he provides his own drawing of the “IT-130” assault gun/tank destroyer. Unlike the now well-known SU-122-54 labeled as the “IT-122” by Suvorov, the mysterious “IT-130” hasn’t been confirmed...in fact, AFAIK, the only references made to the “IT-130” relate directly back to Suvorov. Also, don’t let the “IT-130” designation sway your opinion regarding its existence...we know the “IT-122” (SU-122-54) actually did exist. It’s likely that at some point in Suvorov’s military history he heard this new secretive assault gun/tank destroyer (maybe both 122mm and 130mm vehicles), described using “IT;” we know about the real-world IT-1 after all. For me, the challenge with Suvorov is one of scale and exaggeration...it’s pretty clear at this point that every Soviet Army MRR inside the Soviet Union actually didn’t have a battery of these new assault guns/tank destroyers...but some did. The units that I've confirmed are as follows: 24th Motorized Infantry Division, 128th Guards Motorized Rifle Division, 55th Guards Motorized Rifle Division/30th Guards Motorized Rifle Division, and 66th Guards Motorized Rifle Division...all had batteries of SU-122-54s. For the last several years, most of Suvorov’s critics confidently disregard the reported existence of the “IT-130.” Maybe it was a fabrication...but for me, I’m not quite ready to jump on that band-wagon. Maybe, just maybe, there’s a few of these things hidden away in some storage facility somewhere. Time will tell...
  3. As was discussed previously on this site, the two most important things to keep secret about secret things are not revealing how much you actually know, and the source of what you actually know. Open sources like IDR and Jane's don't always get it right...over the years, they have provided some very good open source info, but they're not all-knowing. Here again, is the previously confidential pic of the T-80 from 1979...2 years before the IDR article. Who knows what the "West" knew at higher and higher levels of classification?
  4. Interestingly enough, the photos shown here in the famous IDR article are from the French delegation visit in October 1977, a month before the T-72's first appearance in Red Square...and over a year after the T-64A was first spotted in East Germany in September 1976. The article confirmed that the US and NATO had incorrectly labeled the T-64A, as the T-72.
  • Create New...