Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Maj.Hans

Which T-55 for the Finns? Also T-72 Q's

Recommended Posts

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 :D  

 

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?  

 

  811323015_100TK.thumb.jpg.7867c3d02f51aaed047fda2b9a9378af.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

55924332_507489813115490_742152379265478

54800744_2024380874355268_84050420592037

56405596_363685844241103_719502343531129

56380333_311719792857338_801416376098143

56328814_164522574552250_608146963628326

 

Would be interesting to know if someone can identify  if this thing still has  mechanical loading or not?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Maj.Hans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

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.

Guest
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...