Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

T-70; better as an APC.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Domenic
    replied
    Wasn't the T-26T used as an APC occasionally?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    I can't believe that a whole 2 years went by already, or that I forgot all about this one!

    I drew up one that was an un-modified from the T-70 chassis as a Scout vehicle with one Heavy machine gun and 3 scouts, and another with the SU-76 chassis with room for a full squad of 10 men with side protection up to their helmets.
    And then I lost the drawings...

    Anyhow, the problem with the T-70 was the pair of engines, one on the side, that made a redesign a serious project.
    As soon as the war was over, the USSR came around to the point of view that APCs were more valuable than light tanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • nikolas93TS
    replied
    Bump after almost two years.

    Red Army did some armored personnel carrier projects post 1945,and simplest of proposed designs was K-75 developed in 1947.It was an open topped transporter with capacity of 17 troops and 10-15mm of armor,7,5 tons,developed by Col. A.F. Kravtsov at Moscow Engineers Workshop,and it was essentially based on T-70 with stretched chassis.
    It was not accepted in service,however single prototype can be seen at Kubinka.


    Leave a comment:


  • nikolas93TS
    replied
    Curiously Soviets did experimented with Т-26 and BT-7 before the war in order to create a few APC/IFV in particular ТR-1 and ТR-4 which could accommodate up to 15 soldiers.

    And accidentally I run on something that might interest you.Few guys decided that SU-76 was a better design,due to lengthened and widened version of the T-70 tank chassis.I think they took a bit of inspiration from post war BMP-1.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Yes, the T-70 must ahve seemed like a world-beater compared to the light tanks that came before it, and it LOOKS like a good tank from the outside.
    But then I heard about the one-man turret with a cannon that was not fed from a magazine, and I knew what was coming before I read much further.

    By drawings will have to wait a while, got more work than I had thought. See you weekend after next.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Fraser
    replied
    Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
    I did not pick the T-70 on a lark, its the right weight-class and did not have an impressive record in it's original form. From what I have seen, it is the tank that the Red Army could have done most easily without.
    Everything is relative, I suppose. like the SU-76, they were tempermental, unreliable, cramped, hot, dark and quite toxic to drive around in, what with two engines running inches away.

    Still, it had 45mm sloped armour and a 45mm gun that enough for a little tank or a halftrack. And it was infinitely better than the T-60. If the T-70 was a nasty, the T-60 was ghastly.

    It could be built on the same basis, though, in truck factories rather than in tank factories. Again it goes back to the industrial structure, and making the most of what they could muster. These were simple, extremely simple, in almost every way. Hulls were welded from plate steel, butt joints with little machining, and sent down a truck assembly line to get two truck engines in a cantankerous installation and a gun. I would not want to drive one, myself. I have only respect for the bravery of those who did.

    I knew they had lots of them, but 8200 is more than lots, especially over sixteen months of production. I'm surprised. They were totally outclassed by the 50mm L/60 or the 75mm L/43, and got slaughtered whenever they encountered German tanks, and I don't know that they lasted much beyond 1943. Sticking a decent gun in them may not have been that bad an idea, considering the options.

    There was a very good book published in 2006 by M.Svirin and M.Kolomiets published by Frontline Illustrated (in Russian) reprinted by Wydawnictwo Militaria (in Polish).

    Cheers
    Scott Fraser

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Thanks AMVAS, that was well-timed!

    I will get to work on that as soon as I can, got a busy week coming up, so it might take a little while.

    I did not pick the T-70 on a lark, its the right weight-class and did not have an impressive record in it's original form. From what I have seen, it is the tank that the Red Army could have done most easily without.

    Leave a comment:


  • amvas
    replied



    Blueprints of late T-70M model autumn 1943 GAZ plant production

    Leave a comment:


  • amvas
    replied
    Just a quick reply to your posts.
    why T-70 chassis was not used for APC?
    The question is quite easy - because in the time it was produced a front needed tanks, tanks and tanks. Neither in 1942 nor in 1943 there was no time for making modifications of it. When the tank chassis became old enough to be used for tank production the easiest way to use it was making SP guns based on it.
    Frankly, building APCs on tank chassis was not a good idea, because it is absolutely another kind of vehicles. You could see German case, when having plenty of different chassis they also preferred to make SP guns, antiaircraft vehicles based on the old tank models, but not APCs, which they had lack of.
    It would be better idea to convert T-70's chassis into some prime-mover. Thus Ya-12 was designed with wide usage of T-70's units as far as I can remember. Later it developed itself as an individual vehicle model.
    But it was late enough to make further modifications in APC, because that time wheeled APCs were in favor...

    Regards
    Alex

    Leave a comment:


  • amvas
    replied
    Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
    Thanks, missed that part.
    Lots of great stuff, and blueprints for just about every tank... except the damn T-70.
    And AMVAS is unaware about this state of art...
    Merely I have no enough hands to post every blueprint I have
    Which ones do you need? Early models T-70, or later T-70M or what else?


    Oh well, at least they had production figures... 8,200 of the little buggers!
    Yes, they were better than previous light tanks, but not even a match for the TNPH tanks, tactically.

    Okay, they didn't want to build APCs until they were sure they had enough tanks. I guess the feasibility of the idea ends there.
    But... would the last 6,000 produced have been a better investment as APCs?
    Here are more exact figures for T-70 production


    Regards
    Alex

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by joea View Post
    Well it's here:

    http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/

    But do you see the title bar at the top of the forum under the menu (user CP FAQ/Forum Rules etc.)?
    Thanks, missed that part.
    Lots of great stuff, and blueprints for just about every tank... except the damn T-70.


    Oh well, at least they had production figures... 8,200 of the little buggers!
    Yes, they were better than previous light tanks, but not even a match for the TNPH tanks, tactically.

    Okay, they didn't want to build APCs until they were sure they had enough tanks. I guess the feasibility of the idea ends there.
    But... would the last 6,000 produced have been a better investment as APCs?

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Fraser
    replied
    The Marders were anti-tank guns on an open platform, and used in that role by anti-tank units. The SU-76 was not. The StuGs were originally used much as the SU-76, no doubt, but were fully armoured guns on a medium tank chassis, not quite the same. Their equivalent would be more the SU-122 or SU-85, not the SU-76. That's an important point: There was no equivalent of the SU-76 in the German arsenal, or the British or American for that matter. Think of it as a platoon of big Bren Carriers with a potent 76mm assigned to each battalion.

    As great an idea as APCs may be, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride, and so would Red Army infantry. They certainly pursued the idea after the war, and by 1950 had a PT-76 that swam, had a 76 mm gun in a turret, and carried a squad of infantry. That design was built on the experience of the T-40 and T-70 and the desire for a self-sufficient infantry delivery system, to give it a fancy name.

    The fact of the matter is that APCs were a novel idea first proved by the Wehrmacht at the considerable expense of the Red Army. No doubt they were suitably impressed, but they must have thought the idea of an armoured vehicle to carry infantry, instead of a gun, as a luxury beyond the needs of the time. It's important to remember the time, too. There was confidence in ultimate victory in 1943, but still no light at the end of the tunnel.

    Cheers
    Scott Fraser

    Leave a comment:


  • joea
    replied
    Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
    I will have a look at AMVAS as soon as I get a chance.

    Aw damn... it's not in his signature anymore. Where is it?
    Well it's here:

    http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/

    But do you see the title bar at the top of the forum under the menu (user CP FAQ/Forum Rules etc.)?

    RKKA (The Russian Army) in World War II Discuss the Russian armed forces in World War II. Hosted by our resident Russian expert, AMVAS. Please visit his RKKA in WW2 Website.

    "Website" contains the link.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    I will have a look at AMVAS as soon as I get a chance.

    Aw damn... it's not in his signature anymore. Where is it?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Quit snapping at shadows already, unless you can show hwo I am being so disparaging of the Red Army.
    I did read your whole post, and Shap's too. Good posts, but I am trying to respond to both at once and that is not working very well.

    I am looking at the export figures, and this might be interesting-
    M15; AA halftrack with twin 50 cal and one 37mm- 100 shipped.
    T48, a.k.a. SU-57, 650
    (15 transferred to the Polish People's Army, 7th SP Artillery battery)
    M2, M5, M9 APCs- 1158
    plus a small number of other variants.

    Two thousand Halftracks might sound like a lot, but not really, given the voracious needs of the biggest army in the world. Naturally, they were used by units with special need for them; Recon, HQ, Artillery spotters and so on. Even if all of the weapons carriers were converted back to troop carriers, they could barely have met the needs of a handful of Tank Corps.

    I am trying to be technical here, not political.

    And yes, 12,000 SU-76 were useful, the Soviet equivalent of the Marder, but even by 1943 it's days were numbered, and in no way could it fill the role of the Stug III. They also had a elevation limited to about 15 degrees, so it coudl not provide indirect fire.

    Right into 1945, Russian tanks repeatedly left the infantry behind and suffered badly for that. This is a means to preserve the offensive power of the Tank Regiments, not to make life "easy" for the infantry!

    A T-70 APC would have given the Red Army the best APC in the world in 1942. It would have had better cross-country performance than any Halftrack, a far tougher target to disable and could have been armored to resist 20mm fire. It would have been a worthy companion to the tanks that were being produced at such great effort.... and should have been proposed as soon as it was seen how helpful the Sdkfz. 251 was to the Panzer divisions.

    Yes, I'm not a Russian, I don't have that POV. I will have a look at AMVAS as soon as I get a chance.
    Last edited by The Exorcist; 23 Feb 10, 01:58.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X