Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Jim Warford

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Jim Warford last won the day on March 16 2020

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. It's one of four "T-80UDs" (actually T-84s or something close to that) that were supplied to the US by Ukraine. They arrived at Aberdeen in Dec 2003, first publicly shown in the summer of 2004...
  2. The guy in the grey suit seen to the right of TC's MG is North Korean...
  3. The info I've seen on the BR-412D says 170mm max penetration (at zero degrees) at 1500m...and 185mm max penetration at 1000m. So that one's a close call... Also, T-72s were never deployed to the GSFG, SGF, or NGF...only the CGF. The interesting issue is really about the high priority units in the western Soviet Union...in some cases, they had different and better equipment than the forward groups.
  4. Just to clarify...the M60's hull armor (according to unclassified test reporting from 1958), was designed specifically to defeat the 100mm gun at 1500 yards. The 100mm BR-412, BR-412B, and BR-412D were not really a threat to the frontal armor of the M60 and M60A1. It also isn't a given that the 100mm gun could penetrate the M48 in every case: "Domestic 100mm and 122mm guns are effective measures against the American M48 tanks. Out of the two types of 100 mm shells (blunt and sharp tipped), the blunt tipped is more effective. However, neither the 100mm blunt tipped shell with a muzzle velocity
  5. My response wasn't "emotional" at all...it was simply a reply to some BS that was posted regarding the performance of a tank that I know by personal experience, is a high performer. By the way, how much personal experience do you have on the M60A3...or any tank for that matter? Just curious... Clearly, the Austrians conducting the live-fire test knew the capabilities of the tanks firing the NP105 rounds...if the parameters were set above the capabilities of the tanks being used, the tests were bogus anyway. In other words, if they were "expecting firing performance closer to th
  6. I'm calling BS on this one...the M60A3 is a very accurate weapon system, day or night. In fact, when it first appeared, it was probably the most accurate night-fighting tank on the planet. I was a qualified tank crewman on the M60A3 TTS (along with the M60A1 RISE (Passive) and M1 (105mm) tanks), and I know the 105mm gun and fire control system on the M60A3 very well. Actual proof the M60A3 was to blame here simply doesn't exist...the generalized conclusion reported here missed the point. The reality is that the round was under-performing and something else had to be blamed.
  7. It's true that not everyone can successfully use stereoscopic rangefinders...but they were still used around the world (M48, M103, Type 61, etc.), and selected for the SU-122-54. It still gave the vehicle a significant accuracy advantage... You're also right about the interior of the Krasnodar SU-122-54 (see photos below); but for me, it's still better than nothing. I'm still hoping that one or two more SU-122-54s will be uncovered some day...
  8. heretic88; first of all...the quote I included above regarding the performance of the 122mm gun is from official Soviet sources...that's not my opinion. As far a performance against the M48 is concerned, I've dug-up reports that claim that the bow (or lower glacis), and the turret front can be penetrated by the D-25...also, a lot of the reporting available on the performance of the D-25 relates to testing of the BR-471 APHE and BR-471B APBC rounds, not the more capable BR-471D APCBC round. It's important to remember that according to authoritative Israeli sources, IDF M48s were knocked out by
  9. heretic88; there are a few different issues here: first, comparing the SU-100 to the ISU-122 isn't a good comparison...the SU-100 is a tank destroyer, the ISU-122 is an assault gun. The ISU-122S with the D-25 successfully combined the abilities of both a tank destroyer and an assault gun, giving it significant advantages over the SU-100. According to documented discussions in 1944, a key factor in the Soviet decision not to use the 100mm gun on "JS" tanks was the significant advantage 122mm HE had over 100mm HE ammo. This decision was based on several factors to be sure, but they included the
  10. You're making my point for me...the ISU-122S served until the 1960s...the SU-122-54 (my favorite), served until at least 1969/1970. The SU-122-54 was the first truly combined Soviet assault gun/tank destroyer that had clear advantages over any other Soviet assault gun or tank destroyer. It was killed by the anti-gun/pro-missile mafia, not because of any performance issues. It was accepted for mass production and for upgrading to the M62T-2 gun from the T-10M. The numerous SU-100s weren't preferred, there was just a lot of them around and they were cheap...so they survived for (maybe) a few yea
  11. It's true that the ISU-122S didn't stay in service as long as the ISU-152...my point is that it not only served in East Germany after the war, but it also was a key development in bringing a dual-purpose assault gun/tank destroyer to the field. 122mm-armed assault gun companies (more tank destroyer companies really), were an important part of the Soviet Army until the late 1960s or early 1970s.
  12. I think it's important to remember that the D-25 122mm gun was not only very successful in WWII, but it also served well into the Cold War. In fact, the ISU-122 didn't get much attention in the West until it was fitted with a "tank gun" and became the ISU-122S. The ISU-122S fitted with the D-25 (known as the Object 249, SU-249 and JSU-249 while it served with the GSFG in East Germany after the war), got a lot of attention. It was as close to a truly combined assault gun/tank destroyer that had been developed up to that point. Finally, regarding the D-25, fitted to Egyptian IS-3s, it was knocki
  13. Wow...as many of you know and may remember from various discussions over the years, there has always been a series of myths and legends in the armor community. Most have been resolved over the years...like the myth that the French used Panthers in Indochina. Historically, the rumor regarding T-64s in Angola has lingered-on for quite some time. Most people and reliable military sources continued to disregard this rumor immediately, considering it a case of poor vehicle ID, etc. Reports that very specifically identify T-64s in Angola and specifically name Ukraine as the source, continued to appe
  • Create New...