Amedeo Posted March 15, 2021 Share Posted March 15, 2021 4 hours ago, Thewood1 said: I haven't been aboe to find the source on the 2000m limit. I am pretty sure it had to do with limitations on fire control not ammo. The statement had been that the ballistics on the APFSDS round was flat out to 1500m, but beyond 2000m, the T-55 fire control so inaccurate as to be almost useless. As far as I know the T-55 we're speaking of has no sophisticated fire controls of any sort. It doesn't sport the Volna FCS of the later (1983) T-55M with a ballistic computer etc. It basically has a sight, a (crappy-sh) stabilizer, a retrofitted laser rangefinder and that's it. Here are the range scales on the TSh3B-32P sight: As one can see, the max. range for the shaped charge shell (BK) is 3000 m and the max range for the sabot rounds (podk.) is 4000 m. Of course, I don't expect they will be hitting anything at those ranges, but it's just to say that I do not see anything related to the FCS per se that should prevent engaging a tank sized target at 2000m or so. Moreover, if we are talking about engaging a stationary target from a stationary T-55, considering also that a non hull down M48 towers at 3m above the ground, and that the point-blank range for a 100mm 3BM20 APFSDS is about 2040 m, I don't see getting first round hits in this situation as something strange or exceedingly rare. 4 hours ago, Thewood1 said: As to the new fire control for the AT-10, Osprey's T-55 book stated that the design motivations was tanks like the M-60 and Chieftain being able to fire accurately at 3000m. It was developed specifically to extend the life of the 100mm gun as a useful antitank weapon. Fair enough. Anyway, if, as you say, the ATGM wit a 4000 m range was intended to give an edge to the T-55 against NATO tanks firing up to 3000 m, I dare to say that the problem wasn't at the 2 km mark but way above it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amedeo Posted March 15, 2021 Share Posted March 15, 2021 1 hour ago, MikeyD said: If the next module goes '83-86 the game's going to undergo a sea change. Everything changes, from Humvees to body armor to ERA blocks to 120mm guns. Basically it pushes us towards CMSF2 territory. The decade 1979-1989 was one of the most "dense" in regard to the introduction of new weapon systems. Hey, it was the cold war! As someone said: between 1941 and 1981 the US Navy went from the Wildcat to the Hornet, between 1981 and 2021 it went from the Hornet... to the Hornet! 1 hour ago, MikeyD said: I have a chart at my elbow giving T-62 a first round kill probability against a fully exposed M60A1 as 30% (which isn't that far from M60A1's numbers vs T62). That doesn't mean it can't happen. That means when you do experience a first round kill from that range you can be surprised but not too surprised. I completely agree. Moreover, the chart you are referring to, explicitly states that the hit probability is for a tank using stadiametric rangefinding. With a LASER rangefinder, hit probability should increase substantially. Of course, this when pitting a stationary T-55 vs a stationary M48. If the T-55 is firing on the move, advancing against a hull-down M48, I wound't expect frequent hits at 2000 m. Well, actually I wouldn't expect any hits. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted March 15, 2021 Share Posted March 15, 2021 I think what I might have seen is Syrian units being told not to fire beyond 1500m-2000m due to ammo wastage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amedeo Posted March 15, 2021 Share Posted March 15, 2021 11 minutes ago, Thewood1 said: I think what I might have seen is Syrian units being told not to fire beyond 1500m-2000m due to ammo wastage. Oh, in that case, if you are referring to the 1967 or 1973 war, I agree it's perfectly reasonable. Arab armies had no access to the new 3BM8 APDS round for the D-10 gun of their T-54/T-55 tanks until early '80s, at best, not to speak of the newest 100mm APFSDS ammo. And lobbing APBC or APCBC rounds (BR-412B or BR-412D) at more than 1500 m against Centurions and M48s would have been almost useless, not only for the low PH, but also for the low PK. Yes, they probably had HEAT ammo at the time, but with a mere 5 rounds loadout, it wouldn't have been wise to waste them in long range fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 15, 2021 Share Posted March 15, 2021 Quote I think what I might have seen is Syrian units being told not to fire beyond 1500m-2000m due to ammo wastage I recall reading German Tiger I tank units in Tunisia were issued the same orders for the same reason. So they'd sit there as long range allied tank fire rained down on them like raindrops. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IICptMillerII Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 6 hours ago, Amedeo said: Hey, it was the cold war! As someone said: between 1941 and 1981 the US Navy went from the Wildcat to the Hornet, between 1981 and 2021 it went from the Hornet... to the Hornet! Heh ok, I'll bite on that one! Its important to remember that the F/A-18A that came out in the early 80s is a very different F/A-18E and F Super Hornets we have now. You don't always need a new airframe to revolutionize equipment! Although, the Super Hornets do have modified airframes to allow for larger engines and some other goodies as well. Great info on the T-55 by the way! The T-55A is definitely an outclassed vehicle by this point in the Cold War, and we are just shy of seeing the T-55AM (and T-62M) being introduced. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amedeo Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 6 hours ago, IICptMillerII said: Heh ok, I'll bite on that one! Its important to remember that the F/A-18A that came out in the early 80s is a very different F/A-18E and F Super Hornets we have now. You don't always need a new airframe to revolutionize equipment! Although, the Super Hornets do have modified airframes to allow for larger engines and some other goodies as well. Great info on the T-55 by the way! The T-55A is definitely an outclassed vehicle by this point in the Cold War, and we are just shy of seeing the T-55AM (and T-62M) being introduced. Yes, of course I know that the Super Hornet is a different beast. But the point of my pun stands: the difference between a Wildcat and a 40 years older Hornet (but hey, even with a 20 years older Phantom) is abyssal. The difference between a Hornet and a Super Hornet is minimal, in comparison. It's a fact that, during the last 30 years, military R&D stagnated. Cold war (as any hot war) was a powerful driving factor in this regard. P.S. Yes, you're right about the T-55 being outclassed before the introduction of the T-55M/AM variant. Anyway, thanks to the introduction of LRFs and APFSDS rounds in the mid '70s, Soviet and Warsaw Pact T-55A tanks were not as hopelessly outclassed as they would have been fighting with full bore ammo and stadiametric rangefinders only. 0 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.