Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Syrian tanks at war. Some pictures and words between them.

Recommended Posts

So I can contribute something to this thread, have this budget terminator, apparently built by government forces.





Have any more photos or information about the "Sherman Moderna" shown up?

Both bumping and "answering" this I guess.  Also found out why that youtube video wouldn't embed.  Instead of using the short link, it seems that I'm supposed to just copy/paste the address bar.


I've had no luck finding any other pictures or videos of the thing.  I tried googling some of the words from the youtube title, as well as looking at photos from around the time of that specific battle, but no luck.  I of course am not the best at searching for stuff like this either.



I don't know if you've seen it already, but the post is here in this spoiler:



I can't say I'm entirely sure it's a Sherman either, but I can't really think of anything else that may be, and the general shape seems about right.  It makes for a really interesting thought too.  It doesn't seem to me like it's the turretless M4A1 from the OP at least.





Watching it again, there's a few (color-coded) details I've noticed.



Red:  There's something I guess is sheet metal that they've dressed the thing up with.  There's a clear X shaped indent on the forward one and a single panel over the side around where the crew would be behind.  The blue dot is what looks like the floppy remains of other sheet metal stuff, and the forward one with the X indent is missing on the other side.  I'm guessing it's been shot at before by someone.  I don't think the Sherman would have so much space over the tracks either.


Yellow:  What looks to be a set of periscopes, so I'd assume driver's still on the same side


Green: Some sort of lamps or cameras or something I think.  About where you'd find the hull MG for the co-driver.


Absolutely Fabulous Fuschia: The dot itself seems to be a recessed area or something.  There also appears to be plates behind it, certainly not how'd I'd expect it to look from a Sherman.




This would help explain the whole thing with a T-55 turret working on an M4 hull, but I have to wonder if it's even more of a frankentank than meets the eye. 


The hull above the tracks seems wrong for a Sherman with there not being as much stuff over the tracks or the odd engine deck.  The rear hull still looks like a Sherman, though I'm unsure about some of the engine deck.  On the side hull above the tracks (this is what you call the sponson, yes?) the bottom looks like it bends up, unlike just staying flat for the entire length like it should. 


The parts covered in highlighter look about right to me, but the red mark is this bend I'm talking about.  The angled engine deck area between the side hull and the roof proper looks like it ends sooner than it should, but that could be due to what I marked earlier in the Absolutely Fabulous Fuschia.  Check the first frame of the youtube link to see it not murdered with the snipping tool.





Perhaps they had some busted T-55, saw the still working Sherman, and put the big gun on the working tank hull?  Maybe cut off a bit of the T-55 roof, and glued it to the whole deal?  Dunno if that's even possible, but it sounds like something you'd try if you really wanted a tank.  The gun barrel looks like it's painted in the colors of the old Syrian flag too, not the rebel one.

Google hasn't been much help (other than probably putting me on more watch lists), but I did find what I guess is a T-72 with cage armor on the sides and the turret replaced with a quad 23mm in a metal box turret instead.  I figure there's other threads for that.

Despite how much I'd like this to be a Sherman, it's probably some boring recovery vehicle or something else that no one likes.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I've been running to photos showing maybe some kind of new electro-optical device on SAA tanks and IFV's. The word out is that the stuff is at least mostly seen in Northern Aleppo. 

Any clue, what is the devices function and origins? 

A T-72 seen with such device at 0:48:








Share this post

Link to post
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.

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.

  • Similar Content

    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:

      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.

      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!

      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
    • By Darjeeling
      Greetings, I have been studying in the battle of Afrin since it started. Yet I still lack some information that can clearly analyse the opposite plan, war progress and order of battle of both side (Turkey army clear but YPG isn’t).
      I am spectacular interested in the process of the battle as it revealed the true strength of the 2nd largest NATO army. Also, the performance of YPG/YPJ militant against the regular modern army is meaningful to modern warfare study too.
      Hence, any kind man can help me on this field or even just give out a reading list?
    • By T___A
      In 1944 the Red Army began looking for a replacement for the battle proven T-34. Their initial action was to simply up-gun the T-34 again, this time with the 100mm D-10T from the SU-100. However deficiencies in the transmission prevented this plan from coming to fruition. As a result the Red Army turned to the T-44. Relying on experience gained from the T-44's own up-gun project they created what was called the T-44B. Given the major changes compared to the current T-44 they later changed the name to the T-54. Designed by A.A. Morozov between October 1944 and December 1944 it had reached sufficient development by November 1st 1944 that People's Commissar of Tank Industry of the USSR V.A. Malyshev ordered Factory №183 to produce a prototype. The factory built the original prototype by January 30th 1945 where until mid-February it underwent testing. On February 22nd it was sent to a NIBT training ground to undergo government testing. Despite identifying several flaws such as a lack hydraulic shock absorbers for the road wheels the T-54 was deemed superior to all existing domestic designs and recommended for eventual adoption.

      T-54 (first prototype)
      They had reason for their claim; with a transverse mounted engine and a torsion bar suspension the T-54 was much smaller than the T-34. This size decrease allowed the Soviets to significantly up-armor the tank without greatly increasing the weight. The front hull was 120mm thick angled at 60 degrees, the turret was 150mm thick. Despite the armor increases the T-54 only weighed 35.5 tons. Despite the wishes of of the Soviets (who wanted a 700hp engine on their T-34 replacement) the venerable V-2 sill powered the T-54. With an output of 520hp the T-54 was capable of 43.5 km/h. In addition to the increased armor the T-54 was armed with the 100mm D-10T-K gun which was capable of 7-4 rounds a minute. Like other Soviet tanks the turret design limited gun depression with only -3. So despite only being 35.5 tons the T-54 had comparable firepower and armor protection to the 45 ton IS-2.

      Armor of the T-54 (first prototype)
      In response to the deficiencies identified by the Red Army Factory №183 created another T-54 prototype. Still designated T-54, though by this point in time it would receive it's GABTU designation of Object 137. The tank was produced in July 1945 with government testing beginning in July and ending in November of that year. The T-54 second prototype had many changes, the hull and turret were redesigned, the transmission was replaced with a different one, the gun was replaced with the 100mm LB-1, among other changes. The new turret was up-armored to 200mm thick. In combination with the new gun and turret the T-54 second prototype had increased gun depression compared to the original with -5. All of these modification caused a weight spiral to 39.15 tons, which with the same V-2 engine as before the speed was reduced to 42.5 km/h. As before the Soviet Government recommended it for Red Army service along with the corrections of some defects.

      T-54 second prototype (Object 137) 
  • Create New...