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

heretic88

Contributing Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    458

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by heretic88

  1. heretic88
    Comparing it with wartime photos, yes, it is complete. Yes, he has a seat, and it is removed in combat. T-34/85 has ammo in turret, yes thats easy to reach, but /76 has ammo only in hull, in difficult to reach positions, cannot be done seated. (btw, Pz.III loader also has seat, again removed in combat conditions). I wouldnt say that nobody rotates the turret during loading. Stress can do "interesting" things to people... Or inexperienced crew... Hilary Doyle is not just a "famous book writer", he is probably the greatest expert of ww2 german AFVs. T-34 gearbox, no matter what type 4 or 5 gear, is an unbelievably primitive (and unreliable) piece of junk. Spur gear transmission, without synchronizers... Every shift results in metal fragments breaking off gear teeth, this comes with extreme wear, very short life and high probability of failure. Fragments can also jam in the internal components, thats where sledgehammer is required to shift. Early shermans had poor optics, true. But it got significantly better soon, 76mm versions were among the best in the world, and crew visibility was THE best. As for reliability... I do not buy it that they were on the same level. 1941-42 versions of T-34 were among the least reliable tanks of WW2. They improved, yes, but even the T-34/85 wasnt reliable at all. It had two major problems, frequent transmission failures, and also engine failures caused by not having a functional air filter. Even the "multicyclone" filter was totally inadequate. This problem was only fixed post war, in 1955 with the introduction of the VTI-3 filters. The "reliable T-34" myth comes from these post war overhauled tanks, which were uncomparably better than those in ww2.
  2. heretic88
    Yes, but for some reason I didnt encounter any reports about serious ergonomic problems with Panzer III/IV... Wonder why... Also, the chieftain's hatch video of the Panzer IV was filmed in a relatively empty, poorly restored tank but on the other hand, Bovington's Panzer III is complete. Ammo is located in bins, and all bins are present. So Moran's conclusion is very valid. And as he pointed out, the ready rack is in quite convenient position. (btw, PzIII didnt have a single round in engine compartment...) In Pz.III the lack of rotating platform isnt a big problem, since the turret is manually traversed. In Pz. IV, again not a problem, since it had a platform. In the T-34, it is a real problem, since it didnt have platform, the loader had an uneven footing, and the power traverse was very fast, with big risk of injury. Correctly pointed out by Moran. You can also read this in a post war CIA report. Watch Pz.IV video. Closed hatch, "commander" (Hilary Doyle) present. No serious complaints. Bigger gun is worthless if the commander/gunner cant see a damn thing out of the tank. Which was a real and crippling design fault of the T-34/76. The often quoted case, when a german 37mm AT gun hit the tank more than 20 times perfectly illustrate this problem. And also other combat reports. Again, I didnt read complaints of Sherman crews about this... 5 speed gearbox wasnt common in WW2. The old 4 speed unit was still frequently installed in 34/85s, evidenced by the reports of polish units who received them in late 1944, by hungarian reports (we had lots of T-34s post war), and also by the CIA report of a captured korean tank. The new gearbox helped only to increase the speed of the tank (finally it had some real speed advantage over Pz IV and Stug III in combat conditions). It was still extremely hard to operate, and was still an immensely primitive design. Clutch is also extremely heavy. Together with the bad suspension, result = crew fatigue, low combat effectiveness. Its not about creating new myths. T-34 was not a bad tank, but wasnt good either. An average. Far, far inferior to the Sherman, and also markedly inferior to Pz IV until /85. The sole reason: as I said, the utter disregard of ergonomy. Even the soviets were perfectly aware of this. IS-2 was already a huge improvement. T-54/55, even better. I have a very positive opinion about these tanks, when sitting in these it becomes totally obvious that designers learned a LOT from the problems of T-34. Nicholas Moran also had a very good opinion about gunner and loader positions. Commander's place is not that great though, and for him drivers place was also uncomfortable, although he is too tall to fit. For a smaller person, like me, driver's place is quite good.
  3. heretic88
    Looks like they never sat in their own T-72... It is quite comfortable actually. Especially the driver's seat. At least for me.
  4. heretic88
    Panzer III was very ergonomic, check video with Nicholas Moran. Panzer IV wasnt much different. T-34/76 was absolute horror for its crew. Tank was designed with utter disregard of crew comfort. Driver's place is quite okay, until you start driving the thing. Everything you do needs huge amounts of physical force. Gearshifting is another thing. Yes, sometimes it indeed needs a hammer to do it. Not a myth, fact, talked about old tankists about this. Terribly exhausting to drive. Bow gunner's place is also OK, comfortable, but... well, chieftain's hatch video, he explains. Turret is exceedingly cramped in 1940/41 variants, somewhat got better in 1942 but still very bad, since commander also had to fire the gun. Loader's place again extremely bad, horrible ammo placement, no turret basket and absolutely no headroom. With the T-34/85, things got significantly better for commander, and also the gunner's place was quite acceptable, but the rest remained just as bad as before. And finally, add to this the horrible, bumpy, jerky ride of the tank. And I personally have experience to compare it with another tanks, namely the T-55. I've driven a VT-55 many times, and also rode on a T-34. T-55, even with its quite stiff suspension is luxury car compared to T-34 where I felt every bump on the road! American report also stated that it greatly contributes to crew fatigue. And exactly these ergonomic problems were the cause of the low combat effectiveness of the T-34 in any wars it fought in.
  5. heretic88
    "Like other soviet tanks, the inside of T-62 is very cramped" Quite pathetic from a serious museum... Yes, the T-34 was miserable inside... But that doesnt mean that other soviet tanks were also that horrible. Stupid generalization. I actually felt the T-55 driver's place quite comfortable. Including driving the thing (ok, except the overly heavy clutch). Nicholas Moran also found the gunner's place quite good. And while I didnt drive a T-72, I tried all crew places in an exhibited tank, and it also wasnt bad at all. Anyway... Yes I know that this myth about the case ejection system a complete BS. But what is the reason of the system is usually disabled by the crews? At least this is what I saw in videos from Syria. Do they want to use the casings later?
  6. heretic88
    Interesting talk about the Tiger. It has some good points, I can easily believe that it was far more reliable than british tanks, or even the T-34, but I do not buy it that it was better or just as good as the Sherman...
  7. heretic88
    This would be immensely useful for Mastermilo (the dutch guy who restores a Type-69 tank)... (if someone is interested in this particular type of tank, his channel is massively useful. He took it apart almost to the last bolt. Hull restoration is nearly complete. https://www.youtube.com/user/mastermilo82/videos)
  8. heretic88
    Very, very unlikely. Most were converted to prototypes (BTS-600, Objekt-610), MTP-3 ARVs, BMR-1 mine clearing vehicles. Small number of BMR-1s are still in service in the ukrainian army and maybe one or two in DNR/LNR militias. These are the longest serving SU-122/54 variants, and they were quite successful in their new role.
  9. heretic88
    Yes, it is definitely true. The problem is, that the TKD-09 was a stereoscopic rangefinder. As I read in numerous sources, unlike coincidence rangefinders, not everybody is able to use them. Yes, thats why I said only a single Su-122-54 remains in good condition. The one in Krasnodar is sadly nothing more than an empty shell. Too bad in russia restoring stupid T-34s is always more important than bringing back these awesome beasts to life. I'd love to see the SU-122 in running order, or a T-10M, maybe the Objekt-770... Well, maybe one day...
  10. heretic88
    Is it possible that they didnt take into account the actual quality of the T-54 armor, and they made the calculations for this diagram with a generic armor steel plate? The yugoslavs tested the M-47 Patton too, in theory the results would be the same as the T-54, same 100mm plate at 60 deg, but while the BR-412B couldnt do anything even at PB against the T-54, it penetrated the M-47 UFP at 750m. And it turned out that the armor of the T-54 was not only harder (290 vs 210 BHN), but much better quality too.
  11. heretic88
    Fully immune, at least against BR-412B. Confirmed by Yugoslav tests. In Hungarian tests it also proved to be ineffective, although it was tested only at 800,1200 and 1600m.
  12. heretic88
    I think it was somewhat a wishful thinking. Im not convinced that the 122 (especially its AP shells) was really that effective against Tiger II. But since it was a rare type, it didnt really mattered. But it soon changed after WW2. M48 tanks had very similar protection, and they were manufactured in significant numbers. According to a soviet document, the hull was completely invulnerable, even at point blank range. It is true that the same applies to the D-10, but it had a significant advantage compared to D-25: rate of fire. Im not entirely sure how ISU-122s were used in the cold war period. Heavy tank regiments which used assault guns had ISU-152s only as far as I know. Some medium tank regiments had a SU company, but they used SU-100s if Im not mistaken. ISU-122 actually fits to neither. If used as a tank destroyer, it has zero advantage over T-54/55 tanks. If used as an assault gun, it is significantly inferior to its big brother, the ISU-152. Probably this is t he reason why was it eliminated from service so early. On the other hand, SU-122/54 with M-62 would be a good companion to T-54/55. It had significantly better AT performance, and also had parts commonality with the tanks. Sadly this didnt happen. (btw, Im also a fan of this interesting vehicle! A pity there is only a single survivor remaining in reasonable condition) Any sources indicating this? As for the D-10, it was a quite accurate gun, as I heard from old tankists.
  13. heretic88
    Yes it is true. Also the Objekt-268. Not just that. They used the same D-10 guns as the T-54/55, with the same ammo, this greatly simplified logistics. ISU-122 didnt have many advantages over the SU-100. The D-10 gun had better rate of fire, and had more advanced rounds than the D-25. BR-412D had higher penetration than BR-471D and had flatter trajectory. Also the D-10 had HEAT, which wasnt available for D-25. The 122mm gun's only advantage was the more powerful HE shells.
  14. heretic88
    True, the low magnification had a relatively wide field of view, but still, an unity periscope, like in the Sherman was better. Soviet testing of the KT was a joke. But aside that, the 122mm guns were indeed very accurate, and the quality of soviet sights was quite good, almost reaching the german level.
  15. heretic88
    I may be wrong, but as far as I know, ISU-122 was withdrawn in early 60s. Even the more modern SU-122/54 left service in the second half of 60s. For tank destroyer role, the SU-100 was preferred, and retained much longer (early-mid 70s).
  16. heretic88
    After WW2, soviets thought differently. They found the ISU-122 much less useful, and began converting them to ARVs and missile platforms in the 1950s. On the other hand, ISU-152 was modernized twice, and served well into the 1970s. There was no need for ISU-122. The army had plenty of tanks with the D-25 gun.
  17. heretic88
    15 sec @ 3000rpm, 18 sec @ 2500 for Panther. Traverse became impossible at 20 degrees according to french report.
  18. heretic88
    Target acquistion wasnt much different in cold war. No panoramic or thermal sights. (except Leo-1) It is primarily the TC who is responsible for target detection. Of course it is nice if the loader has a periscope to look out, but not that important. If it were, why was this periscope dropped from the whole M48/60 family? Gunner side vision slits were dropped even from later ww2 tanks from all sides. German tanks had only one problem with visibility: lack of unity periscope for gunner. And this isnt even a target detection issue, but a target hand off difficulty. Even the french report on the Panther noted the near perfect visibility from the TC's cupola. Additionally, while this cupola was flawed in terms of escaping the tank, it offered an open protected hatch position which enhanced visibility further. But lets compare the Panther, with lets say, the T-34/85. Driver: 2 periscopes forward for T-34/85. One periscope forward, one about 45 degrees to left for Panther. - slight Panther advantage Radio operator/bow gunner: small telescope for MG in T-34/85. small telescope for MG, and one periscope to 45 degrees for Panther - clear Panther advantage Gunner: Primary sight + MK4 periscope for T-34. Primary sight only for Panther - slight T34 advantage for target detection, big advantage for target hand off process Loader: MK4 periscope for T-34, fixed periscope for Panther - slight T-34 advantage Commander: cupola with vision slits + MK4 periscope for T-34, cupola with periscopes and hatch with open protected position - clear Panther advantage. I fail to see how "far superior" the visibility is from T-34, especially because the vision from an MK4 periscope is quite poor. (I checked it personally) The slits in the T-34 cupola are also greatly inferior to periscopes. As for KwK43 rate of fire, another german report says 8rpm
  19. heretic88
    Yuri Pasholok has many good articles, but I think this isnt one of them. Turret ring diamter increase problems This is OK SU-76M is bad SU-76M wasnt bad but wasnt good either. Yes, it is true that the SU-76 was a huge improvement over the towed ZIS-3, the importance of added mobility is especially true. But the problem with this vehicle was that it was designed as a light assault gun, so it suffered greatly thanks to its thin armor. Comparing it to the Marder III, and especially the Jadgdpazer 38t doesnt make sense. These are tank destroyers, not assault guns. About ISU-122 existance: myth and reality. OK, although it is a fact that the ISU-122 was still a stopgap vehicle. The ISU-152 had a long career after WW2, even received two serious modernization packages. The 122 was neglected, didnt receive any modernization, its chassis was rebuilt as ARVs and missile launcher platforms. About IS tanks IS tanks were built for a breakthrough role. No doubt the 122mm gun was very useful against german tanks, and it played a role in its adopting. But its power against fortifications was also a key factor. Also it looks like the author tries to marginalize the low rate of fire. It was a BIG disadvantage! First shot kills were exceedingly rare in WW2. You needed to fire several shells to destroy an enemy tank, there were lots of causes, wrong range estimation, stress, not perfectly zeroed sights, etc. This applies to any tank of WW2, IS-2 is not an exception. MHV made a good video about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpe7qhWu76c According to original german documents, rate of fire was 6-10 for KwK43. Even in the worst case, its more than double rate of fire compared to IS-2. Massive advantage. Then the author compares the ISU-122 to the Jagdpanther. Again, a mistake. Apples to oranges. The ISU-122 was an assault gun, the Jagdpanther a tank destroyer. Optics Yes, it is a trend to bash german tanks for their alleged "visibility problems"... "even on Pz.Kpfw.IV, which initially had a lot of viewing devices, by 1944 there was only a commander’s turret was avaliable for viewing of the flanks. Loader became completely blind, and the gunner looked only forward. " Hmmm... Isnt it the case with almost every cold war, or even modern tank? I think this alone defeats this "german tanks blind" myth. The M-60, probably the best tank of the early 60s is now suddenly bad, because the loader is completely blind and the gunner can only look forward... And finally: " By 1944, the Germans were no longer superior, but inferior to Soviet tanks and self-propelled guns, and problems were identified as early as the summer of 1943. The same "Panthers" from the very beginning of application often fell victim to flanking fire. German heavy tanks also suffered from flanking fire - for example, at the Sandomierz bridgehead, most of the casualties occurred precisely from fire against the sides of the Pz.Kpfw.Tiger Ausf.B. It would seem that in such a situation it would be logical to introduce instruments of the MK-IV type, but the Germans did not even make such attempts (something similar can only be found on some self-propelled guns). Amazing shortsightedness on the part of those who at the beginning of the war had tanks with the best visibility." This is nothing more than propaganda. I could also tell stories when soviet tanks, with "superior visibility" fell victim en masse to german tanks. And this is from 1944, so nobody can play the "poorly trained soviets" card.
  20. heretic88
    Maybe its only me, but I think these photoshopped pictures are freakin ugly. Sooo damn unnatural.
  21. heretic88
  22. heretic88
    In the video Nick Moran also says it used primarily HEAT and HEP. 90mm AP was already useless vs T-54. What I find quite interesting, is that the vehicle is remarkably ergonomic. Except the gunner's place, if he needs to use the gun. T-34 level misery over there... Germans couldnt develop an articulated telescope, like the soviet TSh series? The Kjpz would greatly benefit from that. Also a swiveling seat, like in the WW2 Jagdpanzer IV? Overall seems like a nice vehicle, probably quite useful in ambushes.
  23. heretic88
  24. heretic88
    After some digging in the subject, a little update to my last post here about hungarian T-72s. The small numbers of T-72M1 actually means only 5 tanks. 3 T-72M1 and 2 T-72M1K command variants, they all came from Czechslovakia, not Poland. 4 of these went back to Czech republic, 1 remains here, in unknown condition.
  25. heretic88
    Not so simple. First we bought 30 or 31 T-72 from SU in 1978. In the early 80s, T-72M began to arrive from Poland and Czechslovakia, and a second batch some time after 1985. T-72M1 appeared only in small numbers, in the late 80s (from Poland). Total number: 138 And now comes the crazy part, where most of the confusion originates. In 1996, we bought another 100 tanks, from Belarus. 96 T-72A and 4 AV. And for some stupid reason, these are also called T-72M1 here! Now the fate of these tanks: T-72: all destroyed and/or used for parts, except one or two in museums in extremely bad condition. T-72M and the few M1: In 2004, the liberal regime in power back then donated 77 of these to iraq, for free. (a huge crime against the country, since our economy was about to collapse. What is even worse, that the regime do not only donated these tanks, they even refurbished them to perfect condition) T-72A: In 2014, government sold 58+22 tanks to Czech republic (to the firm "Excalibur Army"). Most were T-72As, + the remaining few Ms In the army we still have about 80 tanks, but only 25-30 of them are combat ready. The rest were cannibalized for parts.
×
×
  • Create New...