No Soviet Autoloaders...

[MacCaulay]

...yeah. I'm starting this again. But with good reason! I was researching for Soviet Invasion of Iran, 1981, and I found an interesting passage in Osprey's T-72 Main Battle Tank 1974-93:

In the early 1960s, an Iranian army officer defected to the USSR by driving over the border in a brand-new M60A1 tank recently delivered from the United States. The armour of the new tank as well as its 105mm gun convinced the Soviet Army that the choice of the 115mm D-68 gun on the T-64 had been a mistake. As a result, the T-64 was rearmed with a new 125mm D-81T gun which entered production in 1969 as the T-64A. The UralvagonKB decided to develop a mounting for this weapon on the T-62 tank, which would also be adaptable to the Obiekt 167 (the future T-72). In addition, they developed an autoloader for the weapon, since the gun breech of the 125mm gun was so large that it would be necessary to cut the turret crew from three to two.

So...there you go.

No defecting Iranian tanker, possibly no Soviet autoloaders. At least not until the T-80. Just something I thought was interesting.

 

[Stalker]

Don't think it's that simple.
The experience of WWII showed that without autoloading (remember JS-2 with its 122-mm gun) the shell totally weighed 24 kg (over 50 pounds) and thus consisted of two parts: a warhead and the charge loaded separately . That dicreased the loading speed dramatically (the trained crews could thus produce no more than one aimed shot per minute and if caught within 800 m distance from the embushing Panther they would surely be shot by the German panzer because between the 2 shots they could make they would get four or five shots from the Panther and from the range 800 meters 75-mm Panther's Kwk was able to penetrate JS-2's armour) and increasing the rate of fire of the guns of such a calibre was the task No 1 for afterwae tank designers.

 

[MerryPrankster]

If the Soviets can figure out a way to have manually-loaded guns that fire quickly and well, this could be a good thing for the Soviets themselves (fewer tank crewmen with missing arms) and for the people who buy their export models.

IIRC, one of the many reasons the Iraqis got destroyed in 1991 was they were slow between shots and the way the gun moved clued Coalition tankers in to the fact the gun was being reloaded (the barrel would dip or something).

 

[BlairWitch749]

Don't think it's that simple.
The experience of WWII showed that without autoloading (remember JS-2 with its 122-mm gun) the shell totally weighed 24 kg (over 50 pounds) and thus consisted of two parts: a warhead and the charge loaded separately . That dicreased the loading speed dramatically (the trained crews could thus produce no more than one aimed shot per minute and if caught within 800 m distance from the embushing Panther they would surely be shot by the German panzer because between the 2 shots they could make they would get four or five shots from the Panther and from the range 800 meters 75-mm Panther's Kwk was able to penetrate JS-2's armour) and increasing the rate of fire of the guns of such a calibre was the task No 1 for afterwae tank designers.

But the Soviets used those big 122mm guns because they couldn't achieve the refinement in terms of muzzle velocity that the German 75's and 88's had. Even the Germans with the Jagdtiger which had a 128mm gun had to load it in two stages. A good potential POD would be for them to capture several panther and tiger aces and compel them to help with crew layout and tank design (Whitman, Bix, Bolter, Carrius or some combination of super high scoring aces)

 

[Workable Goblin]

You better believe I'm taking notes from this for my Soviet TL...

BlairWitch749 seems to have it right, to me. If the Soviets can build better (= higher muzzle velocity) guns, then they can use smaller-bore ones. If they can use smaller-bore ones, then manual loading can achieve acceptable performance. If they can achieve acceptable manual loading performance, then they won't need to use autoloaders.

 

[MacCaulay]

But the Soviets used those big 122mm guns because they couldn't achieve the refinement in terms of muzzle velocity that the German 75's and 88's had. Even the Germans with the Jagdtiger which had a 128mm gun had to load it in two stages. A good potential POD would be for them to capture several panther and tiger aces and compel them to help with crew layout and tank design (Whitman, Bix, Bolter, Carrius or some combination of super high scoring aces)

Exactly. That's why the NATO countries didn't need the larger gun sizes that the Soviets had. Take the Abrams for example: it probably could operate the L7 105mm gun to this day and still have the same battle record, because it's a well designed gun that's able to stand up.

And besides: is there anyone here who really thinks the Soviet tanks got better performance after their guns, breaches, and ammo got bigger? That's just more weight and parts to break.

A T-72 with a manual loader (i.e. a 115mm gun) would be able to conceivably match the rate of fire of the western tanks. That's a great asset.

The Soviets needed to do what the West did: find one or two main gun types, and stick with them instead of diddling around.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Exactly. That's why the NATO countries didn't need the larger gun sizes that the Soviets had. Take the Abrams for example: it probably could operate the L7 105mm gun to this day and still have the same battle record, because it's a well designed gun that's able to stand up.

And besides: is there anyone here who really thinks the Soviet tanks got better performance after their guns, breaches, and ammo got bigger? That's just more weight and parts to break.

A T-72 with a manual loader (i.e. a 115mm gun) would be able to conceivably match the rate of fire of the western tanks. That's a great asset.

The Soviets needed to do what the West did: find one or two main gun types, and stick with them instead of diddling around.

Basically they need to follow the more western track from 45 on. To add to my idea of having them capture and impress Bolter (Tiger Ace) and Bix (Panther Ace) into their service it would help them if they obtained the models and mockups of the Panther II and Panther F which featured the Rheinmettall KwK 44 75mm gun (third generation high velocity 75mm) This excellent gun could penetrate over 100 mm's of rolled armor sloped at 30 degrees from over 1500 meters (amazing for such a small shell)

The Syranians used a batch of modified Panzer MK 4's that were equipped with this gun in the 60's and they killed Centurions and other western tanks despite the design being more than 20 years old

 

[Stalker]

But the Soviets used those big 122mm guns because they couldn't achieve the refinement in terms of muzzle velocity that the German 75's and 88's had. Even the Germans with the Jagdtiger which had a 128mm gun had to load it in two stages. A good potential POD would be for them to capture several panther and tiger aces and compel them to help with crew layout and tank design (Whitman, Bix, Bolter, Carrius or some combination of super high scoring aces)

You see, even in condition of lack of necessary raw materials in early war the Soviets were capable of designing high-velocity field-guns, the brilliant example of which was 57-mm Zis-2 of Grabin's design (1940, later returned to production in 1943). Its muzzle velocity for sub-calibre shells was 1250 m/sec and the main reason for its being put out of production in 1941 was its... extra-penetrative power. According to multiple accounts in 1941, it simply holeв through German panzers - often without much damaging them. But when in 1943 Panthers and newest modification of PZkw-IV arrived on the field the production of that gun was resumed.
So the Soviets COULD industrially produce high velocity guns, the reasons why they coud not produce longer-barreled guns for tanks to achieve bigger muzzle velocity needs separate research on my side. Seems like it was initially prevented by the basic layout of the Soviet tanks with their turrets moved forth and both engine and transmission back in the tank's carcass.
But in after-war period nothing prevented Soviets to produce whatever tank guns they wanted. There was no shortage of any raw-materials they needed both for barrels and armour and for armour-piercing shells. Soviet tank guns were quite a match to those of West.
The bigger calibres seem to be the general trend in tank industries of all developed countries - especially after a concept of a main battle tank was adopted instead of division into light, mid and heavy tanks. The Soviets did the same. So to reach faster rate of fire for calibres after 100 mm the autoloader looks like the only option. Soviets simply could not miss it.
Moreover, I'd be critical to that info of Osprey's because as far as I know the Pattons were not equipped with the auto-loaders.

 

[MacCaulay]

The bigger calibres seem to be the general trend in tank industries of all developed countries - especially after a concept of a main battle tank was adopted instead of division into light, mid and heavy tanks. The Soviets did the same. So to reach faster rate of fire for calibres after 100 mm the autoloader looks like the only option. Soviets simply could not miss it.

The L7 and L11 were or 105 and 120mms respectively and neither of them needed an autoloader. The obvious problem here is what held the Soviets back all along with everything: poor engineering.
They couldn't make an engine as powerful as the West did, so they made smaller tanks with lower profiles. They couldn't make a breach as small as the West did, so they made an autoloader. Sure, they're thinking their ways around problems, but eventually you have to think through a few of them.

Moreover, I'd be critical to that info of Osprey's because as far as I know the Pattons were not equipped with the auto-loaders.

I've got their book on the M-47/48s, and I've never read that. Are you sure you're not misunderstanding something that was posted?

 

[BlairWitch749]

You see, even in condition of lack of necessary raw materials in early war the Soviets were capable of designing high-velocity field-guns, the brilliant example of which was 57-mm Zis-2 of Grabin's design (1940, later returned to production in 1943). Its muzzle velocity for sub-calibre shells was 1250 m/sec and the main reason for its being put out of production in 1941 was its... extra-penetrative power. According to multiple accounts in 1941, it simply holeв through German panzers - often without much damaging them. But when in 1943 Panthers and newest modification of PZkw-IV arrived on the field the production of that gun was resumed.
So the Soviets COULD industrially produce high velocity guns, the reasons why they coud not produce longer-barreled guns for tanks to achieve bigger muzzle velocity needs separate research on my side. Seems like it was initially prevented by the basic layout of the Soviet tanks with their turrets moved forth and both engine and transmission back in the tank's carcass.
But in after-war period nothing prevented Soviets to produce whatever tank guns they wanted. There was no shortage of any raw-materials they needed both for barrels and armour and for armour-piercing shells. Soviet tank guns were quite a match to those of West.
The bigger calibres seem to be the general trend in tank industries of all developed countries - especially after a concept of a main battle tank was adopted instead of division into light, mid and heavy tanks. The Soviets did the same. So to reach faster rate of fire for calibres after 100 mm the autoloader looks like the only option. Soviets simply could not miss it.
Moreover, I'd be critical to that info of Osprey's because as far as I know the Pattons were not equipped with the auto-loaders.

That 57mm had a huge profile for such a small gun caliber. If the mechanics and scale where drawn from that into a main battle tank gun you would be looking at Jadg Tiger size ! for a 100mm gun it would be over 122 calibers in length (over 7 meters long for a 100mm gun)

The previously mentioned superb KwK 44 75mm was the same length yet double the armor piercing ability and the ammunition wasn't that much bigger

 

[wormyguy]

The L7 and L11 were or 105 and 120mms respectively and neither of them needed an autoloader. The obvious problem here is what held the Soviets back all along with everything: poor engineering.
They couldn't make an engine as powerful as the West did, so they made smaller tanks with lower profiles. They couldn't make a breach as small as the West did, so they made an autoloader. Sure, they're thinking their ways around problems, but eventually you have to think through a few of them.

Well, I think you are beginning to beg the question - if you were a Soviet tank designer with the same resources as OTL, how would you design the tanks differently? (Keeping in mind that they must at least appear competitive with the latest Western designs).

 

[MacCaulay]

Well, I think you are beginning to beg the question - if you were a Soviet tank designer with the same resources as OTL, how would you design the tanks differently? (Keeping in mind that they must at least appear competitive with the latest Western designs).

Simple: don't put in autoloaders.

The combat in the Middle East during the '67 and '73 wars showed that the 115mm and 125mm guns had about the same type of ability as far as damage against Western tanks like the Centurion and M-60.

Just stick with the 115mm on the T-62 and T-64, and try and make an actual smaller breach for the 125mm that you can fit into the turret of the T-64A or M and the T-72 along with a loader.

That gives the Soviets time to work out the kinks in the 125mm gun: to properly develop a good system and better APFDS, etc., so that when the 125mm gun comes onto the scene it comes out swinging and with a higher rate of fire.

Worst case scenario: we're looking at a bigger gun later, but with a higher rate of fire. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Well, I think you are beginning to beg the question - if you were a Soviet tank designer with the same resources as OTL, how would you design the tanks differently? (Keeping in mind that they must at least appear competitive with the latest Western designs).

In 1945 I would take apart the Hindenburg armaments factory in Austria after I captured it and bring it back to Russia. Scale up the high velocity/flat trajectory 75's and 88s to main battle tank size 100mm to start and take it from there.

 

[Stalker]

I've got their book on the M-47/48s, and I've never read that. Are you sure you're not misunderstanding something that was posted?

Ah, well you didn't say that, I simpy coud not switch from autoloaders - mea culpa.

The L7 and L11 were or 105 and 120mms respectively and neither of them needed an autoloader.

So, the key word should be higher rate of fire and making crews smaller. But the radial autoloader of T-64 was far from being perfect. T-72 used casette auto-loaders.

Simple: don't put in autoloaders.

And make turrets bigger?

 

[BlairWitch749]

And make turrets bigger? [/QUOTE]


they are allready underpowered and slow don't add to the madness

 

[Joseph K.]

IIRC, one of the many reasons the Iraqis got destroyed in 1991 was they were slow between shots and the way the gun moved clued Coalition tankers in to the fact the gun was being reloaded (the barrel would dip or something).

I'd be interested in your source on that, the "main" reasons I've seen are:


-Poor gunnery
-Lack of thermal imagers + adequate ammunition
-Tanks "protected" by loose sand berms

And most importantly of all:

-Most tanks UNOCCUPIED at time of battle.

 

[Joseph K.]

they are allready underpowered and slow don't add to the madness

Are you talking T-72? They are faster and more powerful than any equivalent western tank, especially the M60 behemoth.

 

[MacCaulay]

Are you talking T-72? They are faster and more powerful than any equivalent western tank, especially the M60 behemoth.

Actually...the engine in the M60's better, which has been proven in field tests in the desert out in Texas and California.

Better mileage, longer range between tuneups, etc. It's just a better made engine. The T-72's engine doesn't have the pulling/pushing or torque, which is why it's silhouette is so small.

And since I know you're wondering...the source is me when I was at Fort Hood for training before being sent to Afghanistan. But since I know you probably wouldn't want that: Dragons At War: Land Battle in the Desert, by Daniel Bolger. That one provides a good overview.

 

[Joseph K.]

The L7 and L11 were or 105 and 120mms respectively and neither of them needed an autoloader. The obvious problem here is what held the Soviets back all along with everything: poor engineering.
They couldn't make an engine as powerful as the West did, so they made smaller tanks with lower profiles. They couldn't make a breach as small as the West did, so they made an autoloader. Sure, they're thinking their ways around problems, but eventually you have to think through a few of them.

I've seen you consistantly make these claims. Do you have any credible source that says smaller tanks were symptoms of smaller engines as opposed to the other way? Or that the breech on the 125mm was unnescissarily large compared to ones used in other countries?

At any rate, it is clear from the performance you get that less crew is better, which is why so many countries, have gone that way, with their new tanks, not just ex-soviet ones, but Countries like ROK, Japan, France. If you look at the best new and upcoming tanks that are being introduced today such as the Type 10, Oplot-M, and K2 they all have decided to go with the 3 man crew. On the other hand, the US army is currently scratching its head over how they're going to trim 15 tons off the M1 for the next upgrade.

 

[BlairWitch749]

I've seen you consistantly make these claims. Do you have any credible source that says smaller tanks were symptoms of smaller engines as opposed to the other way? Or that the breech on the 125mm was unnescissarily large compared to ones used in other countries?

At any rate, it is clear from the performance you get that less crew is better, which is why so many countries, have gone that way, with their new tanks, not just ex-soviet ones, but Countries like ROK, Japan, France. If you look at the best new and upcoming tanks that are being introduced today such as the Type 10, Oplot-M, and K2 they all have decided to go with the 3 man crew. On the other hand, the US army is currently scratching its head over how they're going to trim 15 tons off the M1 for the next upgrade.

One idea to lower the weight on the M1. Stop putting multiple hard points on the top of the turret. The tankers get modification happy and put 4 or 5 machine guns up there like they are a ww1 british rhomboid tank