Bottom line… because they could. The Soviet war machine was truly huge and the T-55 was still required to equip the numerous Cat C formations. So infantry support - yup. Furthermore, the export market was still pretty lucrative for those countries that couldn’t afford the more modern MBTs.
Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 3
- Thread starter Claymore
- Start date
- Status
Bottom line… because they could. The Soviet war machine was truly huge and the T-55 was still required to equip the numerous Cat C formations. So infantry support - yup. Furthermore, the export market was still pretty lucrative for those countries that couldn’t afford the more modern MBTs.
The Australia Army undertook the arming of an M113 with a minigun in 1966. They were criticised by infantry commanders who felt that it was superfluous, having the firepower of six GPMGs approximately and they abandoned the idea. Their vehicle featured a small turret and an ammunition race across the roof of the troop compartment. Personally I think it was an opportunity lost but can understand why they abandoned it.
I have an idea for a recoilless armed light tank with a rotation reloading mechanism. Most probably a 120mm Rheinmetall frangible base system like the WOMBAT Rcl. The American system with all it's frangible ports along the length of the shell makes it an unnecessarily complicated reloading system with the barrel having to travel forward for the spent round to reloaded. The Rheinmetall system with it's frangible base is much simpler and can use a revolving chamber. I would base it one the AMX-13 oscillating turret with a large reserve of shells in the space behind it. It's venturi would be angled upwards slightly to protect any infantry behind it. It would have been very useful in Vietnam. Anybody care to give a diagram a try?
@Claymore can I push the friendship and also get a SPAT variant of the Valentine tank to compliment the StuG?
Of course my good man, although the OTL Archer might be an option…
I'd forgotten about the Archer... damn it's like someone has already taken all the good ideas & turned them into reality.
Was this ever done in practice during Cold War ? Or retrofitted later
Because they still didn't have enough of the 125mm triad to fill all the active units they wanted. This is why a modernisation program was launched to upgrade a few thousand T-55s and T-62s.
It was done on most Soviet modernized T-55AMs and 62Ms yes, as early as 1983.
To add onto Claymore's point, you've also got to consider what said T-55s would be fighting. In the event of a general all out war (which hasn't gone nuclear for whatever reason), it isn't like said T-55s are going to be the tip of the spear, they're the reserves of the reserves at this point. The general expectation would be that by the time you actually need to send in the T-55s, the enemy would have probably exhausted most of their more modern hardware already while trying to deal with more modern vehicles like the T-72/T-64. If that's the case, than even an old tank is better than no tank at all, and whilst the T-55 would certainly be showing its age by that point in time, it would still be useful in dealing with APCs, IFVs and other vehicles like that, along with any older NATO tanks that might've came out of reserve dumps as the war went on, which could very well be of a similar age to said T-55 in the first place. That's the main thing to remember here: the T-55s were the bottom of the barrel, but they'd also be expected to deal with bottom of the barrel opposition. If they're up against more modern tanks like, say, the early Abrams, then something has gone terribly wrong in the planning room somewhere.
And as old as it might be, there's worse things to be driving if you happen to be in the middle of World War 3:
To some degree yes, because of the asymetric recoil mechanism and the extra air in the hydraulic recoil buffer. That wasn't necessarily excessive compared to other guns, and is offset by the oustanding velocity which vastly reduced lead and ranging errors. The L11's recoil system also worked in an uneven way, and the 2A46 fixed the recoil buffer issue in 1970 on T-64A (installed in 1975 on the T-72 after a small run), and was largely the main 125mm variant in the 70s. By then it wasn't special.
In comparison, you have the US still getting wildly inconsistent dispersion on some lots of M392A2 APDS in the 70s after a decade of experience with that projectile...
Driftless
Donor
Rubber mats? anti-magnetic or what???To add onto Claymore's point, you've also got to consider what said T-55s would be fighting. In the event of a general all out war (which hasn't gone nuclear for whatever reason), it isn't like said T-55s are going to be the tip of the spear, they're the reserves of the reserves at this point. The general expectation would be that by the time you actually need to send in the T-55s, the enemy would have probably exhausted most of their more modern hardware already while trying to deal with more modern vehicles like the T-72/T-64. If that's the case, than even an old tank is better than no tank at all, and whilst the T-55 would certainly be showing its age by that point in time, it would still be useful in dealing with APCs, IFVs and other vehicles like that, along with any older NATO tanks that might've came out of reserve dumps as the war went on, which could very well be of a similar age to said T-55 in the first place. That's the main thing to remember here: the T-55s were the bottom of the barrel, but they'd also be expected to deal with bottom of the barrel opposition. If they're up against more modern tanks like, say, the early Abrams, then something has gone terribly wrong in the planning room somewhere.
And as old as it might be, there's worse things to be driving if you happen to be in the middle of World War 3:
- Status