Lumituisku Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 In the book there was mention that Russia didn't even offer never better heat rounds for sale. They offered only those with up to same penetration as offered sabot rounds. Also. Finland actually did try to buy equipment from pretty much everywhere. It was our major policy at the time to purchace things internationally from any country that would have equipment that would fit to our needs and conditions and most importantly... bugged. For example we wanted to buy British centurions but those were not sold for us. And when we bough Charioteers and comet's instead.. hoping to be able to upgrade those with better guns later on. Such gun was not for sale for us. In short... we bough from where we could, and what we could. trying to get best that would work for us and fit our bugged. For long time.. it ended up to be Soviet union, but it was never meant to be only source. I will likely read these books and after that I hopefully will be able to tell better why things ended up being as it was. 6 hours ago, Ssnake said: Last time I visited a barracks in Finland, I was shown a StuG III. I don't believe you throw anything away. Hah... you would be amazed how long those lasted in service According to books... I saw mention that usually we purchased some extra vehicles to cannibalize for spare parts. And we did try to do as much repairs and upgrades ourself as possible. Even for Stug we tried to re-rubberize those roadwheels.. but that didn't work out so in the end those were considered for wartime service because those road wheels would not have lasted in "training" As towards end.. when vehicles start breaking up.. more and more will be cannibalized for spares. As long as ammunition is capable to kill expected enemy targets. When that is no longer true, vehicles will be tried to find secondary roles.. as recovery vehicle or platform for anti aircraft guns. When that no longer is possible.. vehicles will end up to be targets on shooting range and later melted for scrap metal. Some will likely be saved for museum or memorials "statue like" roles. Usually empty hulls. Our Museum though has plenty of vehicles that can be driven on their own power. BTW... I found really interesting piece of text from our museum... This 100 TK is T-55 Turret... intended for our coastal defense. And what makes this even more interesting is.. that same Depot that did T-55 Modernisation and maintenance also did all these and maintenance to these.. So... I kind of wonder. Was reloading in our T-55s changed from mechanical to manual as well? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumituisku Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 And here are some photos of a T-55M from training grounds.. I suspect that it may end up being practice target at some point. (Link may not be safe! Photos are linked below) https://pikdo.biz/p/finlandatwar/2018454920006430337_1350437717 Would be interesting to know if someone can identify if this thing still has mechanical loading or not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted February 11, 2020 Author Share Posted February 11, 2020 14 minutes ago, Lumituisku said: Would be interesting to know if someone can identify if this thing still has mechanical loading or not? I think that museum has incorrect "information"! T-54, T-55, and T-62 never had an auto loader in the original design! All loading on those vehicles was manual! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumituisku Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Maj.Hans said: I think that museum has incorrect "information"! T-54, T-55, and T-62 never had an auto loader in the original design! All loading on those vehicles was manual! I have understood that it was manual loading mechanically assisted or something of sort... Hence on t55 and T62 turret will stop turning and (if I don't remember wrong) gun will point up when loading. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted February 11, 2020 Author Share Posted February 11, 2020 (edited) In the T-55 I think that had more to do with the cramped conditions inside the turret than anything else. The world of tanks guy who goes around to various museums did a tour in a T-55 and mentioned nothing about mechanical assist for loading. In the case of the T-62, there was a spent case ejection system which required the gun to elevate to a certain angle before it could eject the spent case. Loading was again 100% manual, but again, i think the power traverse cutout there is for loader safety. It's quite possible that they may have been pulling rounds out of hull storage slots to load directly into the gun in a fight, so you wouldn't want the turret to traverse while doing that... That particular 100 56 TK turret seems to have had some modifications compared to a standard T-55 turret... I'm not sure the spent case catcher and recoil guard are original equipment. Coaxial MG seems deleted. No shells stored on clamps on the turret walls, etc. Edited February 11, 2020 by Maj.Hans 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumituisku Posted February 11, 2020 Share Posted February 11, 2020 Chees that is cramped from inside. I guess this is video you refer to? And As said. I had no knowledge, I just read the text and assumed too much, sorry about that I'm glad that I was corrected right away. I gotta ask the museum staff about it next time when I visit there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj.Hans Posted February 12, 2020 Author Share Posted February 12, 2020 14 hours ago, Lumituisku said: Chees that is cramped from inside. I guess this is video you refer to? And As said. I had no knowledge, I just read the text and assumed too much, sorry about that I'm glad that I was corrected right away. I gotta ask the museum staff about it next time when I visit there. Yes! That's the one! Makes you really understand that, especially historically, there had to be trade offs for every feature of a vehicle. The T-55/T-62 designers and users made propaganda films talking about the small size of the vehicle reducing it's target profile, thick armor and mobility providing protection, etc. But at what cost did that come? The M60 series had lots of room inside for the crew, and decent armor for it's time, and we know the cost that came with that...It's big like a house! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenInt Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 (edited) On 2/11/2020 at 2:25 PM, Maj.Hans said: I have to admit, I thought about that for a while, and I have wondered why we don't see newer HEAT rounds for the 100mm, 115mm, the NATO M68/L7 105mm, etc... Part of me suspects that it simply hasn't been well documented. For example, some while ago the ATK Systems website talked about 105mm MPAT rounds for use with the M68 as mounted in the M1, IPM1, M60, Stryker MGS, etc. But there were little to no real details. On the other hand, sometimes I wonder if upgrades to those weren't simply left behind as unnecessary. Even the oldest 100mm HEAT round is more than enough to whack an M2 Bradley, and HEAT has fallen out of favor for use against MBTs, so why bother with upgrades? This doesn't surprise me.,, My memory is fuzzy but if I recall correctly for the T-72, 3BM9 was an all steel APFSDS, 3BM12 had a tungsten nose plug, 3BM15 was a longer 3BM12, and 3BM17 was an all steel export version of 3BM15... Did the Soviets allow anything more modern than 3BM9/3BM17 to be exported? Did they even export 3BM12/15 with the tungsten plug? I have to admit I don't really understand this policy entirely. On one hand they equip countries like Hungary, Poland, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia with T-72s so that their "allies" can help them fight against NATO in the Warsaw Pact. On the other hand, those T-72s would have been almost entirely helpless against modern NATO armor... In a way these facts might really help explain things. The T-55M FIN armor and the T-72M armor was equally worthless against modern anti-tank weapons. The T-55M FIN had better FCS and optics, and due to it's metal cased ammo possibly better survivability for the crew, easy to obtain spare parts from all over the world... If you can't upgrade the T-72, why not just stick with the better tank right? That's honestly interesting to hear. I'm familiar with Finland only through modern eyes. Looking back from today, where Finland is commonly depicted as a staunch enemy of the USSR, it seems strange to think about Finland being a risk for leaking things to them. But then again, they did buy Soviet tanks, Soviet planes, etc... Wonder if they could have been kept around for training purposes? Just as a way to offer another vehicle to play as the "bad" guys in exercises? But going back to earlier points I'm sure they would still be more than capable against PC/IFV type targets. Well yes, and no. Those 9 T55s are used as alternative bridge platforms, mine clearers, and similar (according to my findings). The only T55s without those equipment I saw last time I was doing my conscript service at a depot/”warehouse” area. EDIT. I took a deeper check on FDF’s T55s, and they are currently used for training pioneers (combat engineers) in handling mine clearing equipment on heavy vehicles. Edited April 7, 2022 by SenInt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.