Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

On 6/10/2018 at 6:53 AM, Jim Warford said:

 

The SU-122-54 is a very interesting vehicle...one of my favorites. It was a big deal back in the 1960s and was almost completely missed by the US/NATO intel agencies. Had it been given a chance, it could have been a very important weapon for the Soviet Army during the Cold War. 

I don't understand what is special about it. It looks like WW2 dead end TD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Anyone have anything on the Georgian T-72SIM-1?  What was it before the upgrade, it looks kind of like a T-72AV to me, but I'd be interested to hear from someone who knows?

 

02442de2f70b2c61bf5954e94ed448e7.jpg

 

Quote

   In the course of the modernization, new communication systems were installed on the T-72 tanks, the "friend or foe" system, GPS navigation equipment, two thermal imaging cameras (in the driver vision optics and in the gunner's sight). The fire control system was modified to provide the ability to fire a guided missile through the barrel bore.

   When upgrading to tanks, a new command and control system was installed. This is a computerized system that allows the commander and the crew to receive information about the battlefield.

   The T-72 SIM-1 has an "friend or foe" system, which in case of aiming on a friendly tank warns the crew about a potential error in an alarming sound.

   Regarding the communication system, the old R173 was replaced by the digital tactical radio communication system FALCON manufactured by HARRIS Corporation. It has a frequency hopping, which reduces the possibility of decoding and provides encryption of negotiations.

   The radio station is able to communicate within a radius of up to 20 km and operates at microwave frequencies. The possibility of sending SMS-messages is also available.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

I don't understand what is special about it. It looks like WW2 dead end TD.

LoooSeR; good question...first of all, it was right in the middle of the two most significant Soviet Army events of the 1960s: exercise Dnepr in 1967 and Operation Danube (the invasion of Czechoslovakia), in 1968. These two events shaped the Soviet Army of the Cold War and provided very real rehearsals for WWIII. You're correct, the SU-122-54 was the product of the Soviet Army experience in WWII...especially during the Manchuria campaign against the Japanese. The Soviets developed tactics for combined-arms organizations known as "Assault Groups," "Storm Teams," and "Forward Detachments," with assault guns/tank destroyers at their core. After the war, the SU-122-54 (probably known as the SU-122 (M1954) by the Soviets), was secretly fielded in companies/batteries that were organic to select/high-priority MRRs and TRs. As mentioned above, the SU-122-54 was deployed for both Dnepr and Operation Danube.                 

 

Since it wasn't forward deployed in the Groups, it was almost missed by Western intelligence through it's development, short life, and death (at Khrushchev's hand...guns bad, missiles good). The first mention of the SU-122-54 in an official US military reference manual was in a USMC MCIA manual in 1996...that's 41 years after it was fielded by the Soviet Army. There was limited intel available on this vehicle as early as 1958 but most of it was Top Secret so it didn't reach many folks in the field. The CIA gave it the designation SU-100 (M1968).

 

I could go on...the SU-122-54 truly made the D-25 122mm main gun (versioned for the SU-122-54 as the D-49), what it was meant to be...etc.

 

SU-122-54_Operation%20Dnieper_1967_1.jpg

     

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

LoooSeR; good question...first of all, it was right in the middle of the two most significant Soviet Army events of the 1960s: exercise Dnepr in 1967 and Operation Danube (the invasion of Czechoslovakia), in 1968. These two events shaped the Soviet Army of the Cold War and provided very real rehearsals for WWIII. You're correct, the SU-122-54 was the product of the Soviet Army experience in WWII...especially during the Manchuria campaign against the Japanese. The Soviets developed tactics for combined-arms organizations known as "Assault Groups," "Storm Teams," and "Forward Detachments," with assault guns/tank destroyers at their core. After the war, the SU-122-54 (probably known as the SU-122 (M1954) by the Soviets), was secretly fielded in companies/batteries that were organic to select/high-priority MRRs and TRs. As mentioned above, the SU-122-54 was deployed for both Dnepr and Operation Danube.                 

 

Since it wasn't forward deployed in the Groups, it was almost missed by Western intelligence through it's development, short life, and death (at Khrushchev's hand...guns bad, missiles good). The first mention of the SU-122-54 in an official US military reference manual was in a USMC MCIA manual in 1996...that's 41 years after it was fielded by the Soviet Army. There was limited intel available on this vehicle as early as 1958 but most of it was Top Secret so it didn't reach many folks in the field. The CIA gave it the designation SU-100 (M1968).

 

I could go on...the SU-122-54 truly made the D-25 122mm main gun (versioned for the SU-122-54 as the D-49), what it was meant to be...etc.

 

SU-122-54_Operation%20Dnieper_1967_1.jpg

     

 

With my respect Jim Warforď. It seems that there misunderstanding i think Looser meant that from technological perspective Su-54-122 is not that interesting (i agree with him).

In my humble opinion M-62-T2S is much better representation of peak 122mm .And from technical standpoint post-war dead end self-propelled guns Object 268,261 and 263 is much more interesting especially if Object 268 would receive planned autoloader mid life retrofit .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, That_Baka said:

Object 268 would receive planned autoloader mid life retrofit .

 

Both A.G. Karpenko and Baryatinsky say that the Object 268 already had a tray type auto-loader which is why they were able to get away with a four man crew.

 

2 hours ago, That_Baka said:

And from technical standpoint post-war dead end self-propelled guns Object 268,261 and 263 is much more interesting

 

Object 261 is really fucking obscure. What many people don't realize is that it actually three different designs and the wooden model that is everywhere on the internet isn't actually the Object 261:

Quote

During work on perfecting the IS-7 design in 1947, OGK LKZ and Experimental Factory #100 developed projects for high power heavy SPGs.

Object 261-1, closed type, with a forward fighting compartment and a 152 mm M-31 gun with a 880 m/s muzzle velocity (later re-designated Object 261)

Object 261-2, half-open type, rear fighting compartment, 152 mm M-48 gun with 1000 m/s muzzle velocity (later re-designated Object 262)

Object 261-3, half-open type, rear fighting compartment, with a 180 mm naval MU-1 gun with a muzzle velocity of 920 m/s.

 

 

Object 263 is even more obscure. The only person who has written at length on the Object 263 is A.G. Karpenko  who says that the Object 263 uses parts from both the IS-8 and IS-7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T___A said:

 

Both A.G. Karpenko and Baryatinsky say that the Object 268 already had a tray type auto-loader which is why they were able to get away with a four man crew.

 

 

Object 261 is really fucking obscure. What many people don't realize is that it actually three different designs and the wooden model that is everywhere on the internet isn't actually the Object 261:

 

 

Object 263 is even more obscure. The only person who has written at length on the Object 263 is A.G. Karpenko  who says that the Object 263 uses parts from both the IS-8 and IS-7.

Oh thanks new info .I based my expression on chieftain hatch object 268 episode

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, That_Baka said:

With my respect Jim Warforď. It seems that there misunderstanding i think Looser meant that from technological perspective Su-54-122 is not that interesting (i agree with him).

In my humble opinion M-62-T2S is much better representation of peak 122mm .And from technical standpoint post-war dead end self-propelled guns Object 268,261 and 263 is much more interesting especially if Object 268 would receive planned autoloader mid life retrofit .

 

Baka; here's a quick overview of the technology successfully built into the SU-122-54 - many of the identified issues/problems associated with previous Soviet assault guns and 122mm-armed tanks were solved:

 

  • First Soviet production tank or assault gun fitted with a main gun bore evacuator (advantage over all previous Soviet assault guns and tanks) 
  • Vertically stabilized main gun (advantage over T-10, same level as T-10A) 
  • Two (human) loaders (advantage over all other Soviet 122mm-armed assault guns and tanks) 
  • Mechanical rigid-chain rammer (advantage over all IS-series of tanks)
  • First and only Soviet production assault gun or tank fitted with a stereoscopic rangefinder (advantage over all previous Soviet assault guns and tanks until the fielding of the T-64)

From my perspective, the combination of lessons-learned from WWII and new (at the time) technology, make the SU-122-54 very interesting. We also need to remember that the Soviets thought it was interesting as well...the SU-122-54 was approved both for mass production and upgrading by fitting the M62-T2 122mm main gun (with its 3BM11 APDS ammo)...the upgraded vehicle was designated SU-122L. Also, just to clarify, I said that the D-49 made the D-25 (series) 122mm main gun what it was meant to be...which doesn't include the M62-T2. The T-10M had a more powerful main gun to be sure...but it was less accurate and had a lower rate of fire. Finally, while Kubinka is full of interesting prototypes, the SU-122-54 was produced, deployed, and would have seen combat had things gone differently in Czechoslovakia.         

 

 

      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

Baka; here's a quick overview of the technology successfully built into the SU-122-54 - 

 

Yeah but that's mostly because of the timing of the SU-122-54 more than anything. Omsk didn't trail blaze on anything mentioned. The IS-7 has everything you mentioned and more and that came in 1947. 

 

10 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

many of the identified issues/problems associated with previous Soviet assault guns and 122mm-armed tanks were solved:

 

They didn't which is why only 77 were made. The problem is that a 122mm spg is fundamentally nonsensical after 1944.

 

Come on, the SU-100P is more relevant to Soviet tank technology development than the SU-122-54.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, T___A said:

 

Yeah but that's mostly because of the timing of the SU-122-54 more than anything. Omsk didn't trail blaze on anything mentioned. The IS-7 has everything you mentioned and more and that came in 1947. 

 

 

They didn't which is why only 77 were made. The problem is that a 122mm spg is fundamentally nonsensical after 1944.

 

Come on, the SU-100P is more relevant to Soviet tank technology development than the SU-122-54.

 

T___A; well, the IS-7 is interesting, I'll give you that...but, how many test vehicles were actually built (4 or 5)? How many were deployed with Soviet forces? Zero... As I mentioned above, there are a lot of interesting test vehicles and prototypes at Kubinka (I know, I've been there), but most weren't fielded and ultimately became dead-ends. It's a mistake to criticize the SU-122-54 based on the numbers produced...we know that 95 D-49 main guns were produced and while some sources report a total production run of 77 vehicles, the actual number could be higher. I disagree with you regarding a 122mm "spg" being nonsensical after 1944. In fact, the SU-122-54's primary tactical role wasn't even fully developed until 1945. After the war, this new assault gun/tank destroyer successfully combined the capabilities of both the heavy and medium assault gun/tank destroyer...think "Storm Teams." 

 

In the end, the problem the SU-122-54 ran into was all about timing...the total number produced wasn't a statement concerning it's qualities or capabilities; on the contrary, it was accepted for mass production. This impressive vehicle was clearly killed by the pro-missile/anti-gun lobby....       

 

SU-122-54%20Displayed%20at%20Krasnodar_3

             

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   PDF was found from 21st Russian scientific-practical conference "Problems of defence and security", speaking about combat robotics - projects, Uran-9 perfomance in Syria (will cover that in separate post), integration and so on.

https://ppt-online.org/361075

 

List of R&Ds

- ÐÐР «ТаÑанка л РÐÐРÐÐÐТÐÐ ÐÐÐÐÐРÐÐÐТРÐÐÐЭÐÐÐÐÐÐÐРРÐÐÐТÐÐÐРÐÐÐÐÐÐРУÐÐРÐÐÐ ÐÐÐТФÐРÐЫ ТЯÐÐÐÐÐÐ ÐÐÐССРÐÐ ÐÐÐÐ ÐÐÐÐÐÐЯ Т-14

another slide with pics of some of those vehicles:

Spoiler

slide-6.jpg

 

  • R&D Tachanka-B - creation/project of heavy chassis for creation of heavy assault robots, using T-14 as basis. Probably this:

900e4ccbf0d9.png

Second slide notes versions with 125 and 152 mm guns.

 

  • Armata project - vehicles on universal heavy chassis that can work as basis for other R&Ds.
  • R&D Gruppirovka (Grouping) - research of autonomous movement and control of groups of medium and heavy class robots
  • R&D "Shturm" (Assault) - automated system of coordination of robots during execution of tasks of ground forces, including assault operations

Medium class of robots from that presentation:

d4c8b34b4032.png

Slides also notes 2 versions - with 57 mm autocannon or 30 mm. 

 

Command vehicle:

72ba72d8c8ca.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That presentation also speak about Uran-9 combat use in Syria.

ÐедоÑÑаÑки, вÑÑвленÑе в Ñоде боевого пÑÐ¸Ð¼ÐµÐ½ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐÐРР«УÑан-9» в СÐР

 

Quote

   Disadvantages revealed during the combat application of the BRMK "Uran-9" in the SAR

   Control
   In the performance of combat missions, the average range of sustainable control from the control point was 300-500 m in the conditions of a settlement with low-rise buildings (17 short-term (up to 1 min) and 2 long (up to 1.5 hours) control losses were recorded)

 

   Mobility
   When moving by its own motion, the low reliability of the running gear elements - supporting and main rollers, suspension springs was revealed.

 

   Firepower
   Unstable operation of 30 mm automatic gun 2A72 (6 delays and failure of the gun). Untimely triggering of ATGMs (8 cases). Failure of the thermal imaging channel of the optical sighting station (2 cases). BRMK Uran-9 provides fire only from stationary position, which significantly reduces its combat capabilities (armament, sighting and reconnaissance devices are not stabilized).

 

   Reconnaissance and observation

   During the exploration of reconnaissance capabilities, it was revealed that the optical stations allow reconnaissance and identification of targets at a range of no more than 2 km. Fields of view from sights on the screens of the operators are monochrome and have a low resolution. The OSN-4 optical station does not allow detecting optical observation and targeting devices of the enemy and gives out multiple interference on the ground and in the airspace in the surveillanced sector.

Well, not that surprising taking into account that company behind Uran-9 have no experience with robots and combat vehicles. Uran-9 is kind of POS. :(

 

Conclusions

Spoiler

slide-9.jpg

 

Quote

Conclusions:
1. The combat capabilities of the OMBRs will not change after equiping it with RTKs ["Robotic technical complex"].
   Robots operate under the control of operators who are far away from them and are controlled through cameras, audio communication and other signals, so on the battlefield the robot is seriously limited by the operator's ability to understand what is happening around and make quick tactical decisions. It is this gap that makes the RTK ineffective in combat, solving problems requiring rapidity in highly maneuverable actions of combined arms formations.

 

2. At the present time and in the next 10-15 years, the combat RTKs are not able to carry out the assigned tasks in the classical types of combat operations, acting in the combat formations of the combined arms units. Until the appearance of more advanced RTKs, existing ones are advisable to use when storming objects and fortified areas.

 

3. Given the low control capabilities, it is advisable to use the RTK from the prepared firing positions, for a short time and once. Service points should be placed as close as possible to fire positions, in such a way as to ensure their servicing, reloading and dispatch to firing positions, if necessary, in a short time.

 

4. Existing and developing combat RTKs should be used to accomplish certain tasks in interaction with maneuverable short range weapons (units of ATGMs, engineering units, combined-arms divisions operating on the frontline, detachments, ambushes, etc.) for the destruction of armored and enemy weapons.
   Independent application of RTK units, in case of loss of control or failure of control posts, may lead to non-fulfillment of the assigned task by combined-arms divisions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...