These T-55's look to have the NATO 105MM fitted.
Best way to tell T-55 from T-62 is to look at the fume extractor on the barrel. The T-55 has it out towards the muzzle; the T-62 has it closer to the turret.
Walt
Posted on 03/27/2003 4:49:51 PM PST by JudgeAmint
Iraqi armored units have proven to be no match to British main battle tanks.
Officials said Britain's Challenger-2 tanks have easily picked off Iraqi T-55 tanks around the southern city of Basra. So far, they said, scores of Soviet-origin T-55 tanks have been destroyed in battles around Basra over the last two days.
On Thursday, officials reported the destruction of 14 Iraqi tanks, believed to have been T-55s. Iraq first obtained the T-55 in the mid-1960s and some of them were upgraded in the 1980s.
Officials said Iraq appears to have reserved its advanced T-72 tanks for protection of the Baghdad area.
Good point. There is a new book out on the religion of people in the Civil War. The monograph on Lincoln is pretty sympathetic to him. The author makes the point that among the people in the ACW, Lincoln was the only person who suggested that God's purpose might be something other that what either side wanted.
Walt
These T-55's look to have the NATO 105MM fitted.
Best way to tell T-55 from T-62 is to look at the fume extractor on the barrel. The T-55 has it out towards the muzzle; the T-62 has it closer to the turret.
Walt
When they tell that Chellenger can stand after hit of Kornet AT. Then I will be interested.
Not so. T-55A, developed as Ob'yekt 155, was introduced to Soviet Ground Forces in 1958, though design is derived from earlier T54 with a differently arranged turret. But even so, some 350 of the Iraqi T55 tanks [and Chinese T59 copies] have been rebuilt with the 2A46 125mm gun and automatic loader of the T-72, as well as a new fire control system and improved transmission, used to replace Iraqi T-72 tanks lost during the 1991 Gulf War, and known as T72Z in Iraqi service- The Iranians have done much the same thing with their SAFIR-74 T-55 variant.
Even better, the KBM1 125mm main gun of T84U can be fitted, with advantages over the autoloader system that's one major weakness of the T-72. And the Ukranian Morozov Tank company has a complete T-55 upgrade package that can include a refit of a 120mm KBM2 main gun utilizing the NATO 120mm ammunition, also with or without autoloader and full gun stabilization and day/night fire control equipment. Originally meant for the planned OPLOT tank for Turkey, the gun package was also considered by the Indians, who still have some 13 operational regiments [700+ tanks, plus some 200 in reserve, 55 per regiment] of tanks equipped with T-55, though upgraded with 105mm L7A1 guns rather than 120mm- These are to be replaced in the next several years with T90S tanks, but interestingly, the Indians feel that replacing their 2000 T-72M1s should take a higher priority.
I have crewed in T55, both L-version as produced by Poland, and modified Israeli captured Egyptian versions reworked with L7A1 105mm main gun and known as TI-67 or Tiran 6 in Israeli service. Though my preference of Soviet tanks is for T-62 model, I'd far rather go to war again in an upgraded T-55 than in any version of T-72, and the real failure of the Iraqis in a 17-tank head-to-head fightoff was in failure to get off the first shots, suggesting poorly tarined crews and poor leadership and tactical use by their commander. A 6 or 7-tank platoon force meeting the British frontally while two other platoons of 5 each worked onto their flanks might have had very different results, IF they carried the 125mm guns and 6M18 APFSDS SABOT ammunition or 3UBK14 *Kombat* gun-launched 125mm missiles, similar to US XM943 STAFF ammunition for 120mm gun of M1A2 Abrams.
As for 9M133 Kornet missile, it's better suited to its mount on BMP-3 armoured personnel carrier than to a tank-versus-tank fight, though in hands of reconnaisance teams supporting tank movements, it should be a real headache for opposing tank force commanders. And I suppose Kornet-E could also be mounted on turret roofs of T-55 instead of old 12,7mm DShk antiaircraft machinegun, giving that old tank warhorse a better capability against enemy main tanks, especially in ambush, like old tank destroyer or Assault Gun *ambush tanks.*
But best employment of obsolescent if not quite yet useless T-55 tanks is to kill armored personnel carriers, self-propelled artillery and supply convoys, and perhaps for airfield and other strongpoint defense. For that role, it's cheap and effective, but taking on Challenger 2e tanks frontally was suicidally stupid.
Egggzackly, Doc!
And you can learn all you ever need to know about music from The Muppet Show reruns.
NEW STEALTH TECHNOLOGY...
WRAP TANK WITH CANDY CANE ROPE...
Israeli Tanks...
Demonstrating how Baghdad will be conquered....
HOUSE BY HOUSE
A thing of beauty is a joy forever, especially when it kills Baathists.
But too rare, particularly when there are only 400 of them or so in the entire British Army.
Precisely. In modern tank fights, whoever gets off the first shot is increasingly unlikely to need to get off a second one. The first round fired decides the matter and concludes it.
Long ago, Napolean noted that a commander may be forgiven many faults or errors, but not that of having been taken by surprise. Never was that more a true statement than today.
-archy-/-
You can't *just* figure consumption at idle; previous operation can clog the airfilters, cutting fuel efficiency at idle by two-thirds. M1A2 range is 243 miles /391 km, figuring fuel consumption on hard surface, with fuel consumption figured at 1.83 US mi. per gal /4.3 liters per km, assuming clean air filters and fuel used in a turbine in decent condition. Fuel tank capacity of an Abrams is 498 gal/1,885 liters; more can be carried in drums or 80-gallon/300 liter rubber bladders called BRAs, which refuel the tank simply by driving over them to squeeze the fuel out. The old 5-gallon *jerrycan* is hardly worth the trrouble.
A US Army decision to switch from DF-2 diesel to the kerosene-based JP-8 (to standardize Army fuel supplies) further reduced M1 fuel efficiency. In defense of the AGT-1500, Textron Lycoming notes that all automotive engines are affected by the reduced caloric value of each gallon of the less dense JP-8, which typically means a 5% reduction in maximum range. Textron goes on to note that no changes in the AGT-1500 are required to burn JP-8, whereas diesels must adjust fuel rack and other settings or see an even greater relative drop in efficiency.
As for the AGT-1500's fuel consumption at idle, the rate is as much as 16 US gallons (60.6 liters) per hour; the official claim is approximately 10 US gal/37.9 liters per hour. The M1A2 SEP fielded with 4th Infantry division uses a newer Under Armor Auxillary Power Unit, [UAAPU] a small turbine mounted in the back deck that uses 3-5 gallons per hour. It provides enough power to run the turret hydralics at full power so the auxillary pump does not have to be used [the tank can actually engage with just the APU] and it is much more quiet than the bustlerack mounted APUs on the M1A1/M1A2s. This is more than just a matter of fuel economy though; during Desert Storm many T72 kills at night resulted from locations of enemy vehicles with thermal sights because they'd powered up engines for turret power and/or radio watches, making nice clear targets in the Abrams thermal sights. Whether developed as a part of the M1A3 upgrade or retrofitted to all Abrams [about 3000] in the US inventory, the under-armor APU is certainly going to affect fuel consumption for units not actually on the move.
Under the less-than-ideal real world conditions not encountered in the book figures the uparmored and heavier M1A2s may burn as much as 9 gallons a mile /21 liters/km with an M1 was down to 40% of its fuel after 50 mi./ 80 km). Three gallons/mile is a good ballpark figure while moving, but again a lot depends on road conditions, level or hilly terrain, fuel used and the condition of the air filters. One M1A1 had been driven 208 mi./335 km at an average speed of 35 mph/56 km/h over rough terrain before running out of fuel, working out to 2.4 US gal per mile/ 5.6 liters per km. Textron Lycoming points out that M1s operating in Desert Shield/Desert Storm were able to burn any available fuel, whether DF-2 or JP-8, without adjusting any settings and thus allowing overall demand for certain types of fuels to be met by varying the AGT- 1500's diet. Considerations of utilization of allied or captured enemy POL stocks are another advantage with the turbine-engined Abrams, though alternatives are under consideration. -archy-/-
Aye, that will sit in storage for several years, [as 11 out of the 25 already are] and won't be flying until 2007. Meanwhile, the MoD is selling off the eight H.C.III/ MH47E Chinook helicopters operated as SAS delivery aircraft [fitted with terrain-following radar and equipped for aerial refueling] to pay for the Apaches.
And believe it or not are developing a ceramic/plastic tank ;p In tests it survived hits from a challenger 2 .
There are some REAL interesting U.S. developmental programs for robotic tank killers, essentially a ground-based equivalent of the Predator UAVs. And there are possibilities of operating a tank with a one-man crew, also possible with the Swedish turretless STRV-103 *S-tank* of the 1970s-'80s.
But those developments are down the road a ways.
-archy-/-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.