"An interesting T-64 Anecdote" Topic

Presumably, most of the T-64s bugs were worked out by 1979, or so I've read.

If this anecdote is correct, that may not be entirely true:

"That is why the vaunted T-64/72/80 series of tanks arrived in GSFG without benefit of an adequate testing program to work out the bugs or discover their design flaws. While many military analysts gave the vehicle good marks for its 125mm high velocity gun, there were human engineering problems as its low silhouette made for a cramped crew space. The Israelis noted the T-62s they had encountered in Arab armies had such poor ventilation some of their tank crews actually suffocated while operating the vehicle.

Similarly, while the automatic loader for the weapon was theoretically an exceptional idea, Soviet production technology was unable to make the device with the precision fit needed for it to work correctly, or rugged enough to withstand the rigors of combat. Indeed, in 1979 the GSFG commander forbade the use of the autoloader on the T-64 because of its disturbing habit of becoming misaligned and reaching back to grab the baggy trousers of the gunner and attempt to stuff him into the breach instead of the selected shell. And though the problem was known on the T-62, the newer tanks still had problems with their automatic ejection system. Instead of tossing a spent shell casing out a small turret hatch in the rear, the ejector sometimes bounced the hot piece of metal around inside the vehicle, much to the terror of its crew. Manual loading of the gun, conversely, dropped the rate of fire from seven to two rounds per minute, given that there was no loader assigned to the vehicle".

link

Not sure how to account for that, if at all, in the rules, but it is interesting, nonetheless.

err no.

This is mainly myth. The autoloader problems were worked out before deployment. It loaded quickly and efficiently.

Now… suspension and engine issues on the T64A… not so worked out.

Joe Collins

If you put those rules in you then have to put in Shilleleigh and Recoiless Rifle cook-offs, electronic failures on M60A2 'Starship' tanks etc. So assume that those tanks are in the rear as spares and the ones that work are upfront. Do like Squad Leader/Cross of Iron/ASL-just have a roll when the vehicle is moving top speed or you roll to hit is excessively poor. just my take on it

I know about the M60A2, but hadn't heard about the RR issues, or the missile cook-offs.

The gun was certainly powerful, but in their endeavour to increase the initial velocity of the shell, the designer had made it not rifled but smoothbore, as in the T-62, and this immediately adversely affected its accuracy. In fact it was an all-powerful gun which always missed its target…The tanks tracks were also based on an entirely new principle…the only trouble was they constantly fell off…..And finally, the engine itself was not only bad, it was disgusting. Several teams of workers and engineers, and a gang of designers, were sent along simply to maintain our one tank regiment. But they could not hope to solve problems arising from the engine's design…

Viktor Suvorov, The Liberators, Inside the Soviet Army. London, 1981, Page 101.

'Viktor Suvorov' was a Soviet Tank officer at Company Command level and graduate of the Kharkov Guards Tank Commander school.

On hearing about the carnivorous auto-loader a US general retorted "Now we know where the Red Army Choir gets its soprano section."

Ok Gennorm, you almost killed my keyboard with that one!

I read the 1966 Marine Corps Manual on the 106mm Recoiless Rifle. They get really hot with continuous firing. The combustible case can cook off from the 6th shot on.

Suvorov is to be taken with a huge amount of salt.

The auto-loader myth is just an amusing myth.

There was no problem with the Soviet 125mm gun.

It is/was tremendously accurate and powerful. There were quite a few problems with Soviet Ammo. The Sovs took an interesting engineering path on ammo design. They required strict manufacturing standards for accuracy at range. The Soviet manufacturers had difficulty with this.

This wasn't really fixed until about 1978 with the fielding of BM-22. That round is still used today.

They had the same issues with their first mono-bloc DU round, the BM-32. It was developed in the late 70s… but saw lots of problems. It wasn't deployed till after 1985.

It was so bad that the folks producing the BM-22 made their own DU round based on that design. I have never determined whether it was deployed or not.

Joe Collins

Last night, I was talking to a Desert Storm vet who gave two examples of a T55 and T62 being KO''d by a 50 Cal Ma duce and another by a 30mm Bushmaster on a Marine LAV. When inspected, no penetration was achieved, but the external armour was pushed in from the impact of concentrated hits. This resulted in the interior side of the armor spauling and thus killing the crew.

We both recounted the rigours the crew must have suffered from in cramped quarters and constant maintenance inherent to just keeping the vehicle and its systems operational. I feel this should be an important factor when rating the effectiveness of Soviet armoured vehicles. Crew fatigue has a major influence on how effective the crew acts as a team. Ditto due to the cramped , heated, smelly and dangers of their working environment inside the vehicle. Remember, guns don't kill, the people pulling the trigger/operating the systems do. Assuming the more time a crew has remained intact (i.e.: without a position being filled by a new guy), the better their chance to remain efficient enough to pose a real threat. But even such a crew's efforts will be affected (to some degree) by their internal environment and fatigue.

The best they will be for a battle is at the start of their being engaged.

Hope this adds to the discussion.

A contemporary book on Soviet equipment issues is 'The Threat' by Andrew Cockburn.

Suvorov is to be taken with a huge amount of salt.

Because…what? His informed opinion differs from yours? He wrote under a pseudonym? Wouldn't you in his shoes? He was a fake he didn't really serve in the Soviet Army as a Tank Company Commander? Come on, give us a clue!

Because much of what he wrote was dead wrong… though some was correct and interesting.

He certainly fit some agendas in the US intelligence agencies.

Joe Collins

No, he even made up a fake assault gun for the Soviets, and sold us the "intelligence" for that (wonder how much the American taxpayers paid for that bogus info). IS-130, or something like that, IIRC.

Sorry, not seeing any concrete and comprehensive evidence here to disregard his testimony – its not like we have loads of inside sources into the Soviet Armoured force of the mid cold war….

One has to look at the dates of Suvorov's service, basically the 70s, he provided some useful insights but his knowledge by the Mid 80s was a little behind the curve.

Tally Ho!

Making up imaginary vehicles seems like pretty concrete evidence to me.

…becoming misaligned and reaching back to grab the baggy trousers of the gunner and attempt to stuff him into the breach…

Sounds like duct tape round the legs would be an essential piece of kit!

Geoff, it would have been had someone thought to put duct tape production into the Plan.

Making up imaginary vehicles seems like pretty concrete evidence to me

Well please share then…I would have thought that admidst the paranoia and intelligence games of the mid cold war, proving that reference to an experimental vehicle project was known to be completely bogus would be a hard thing to evidence, but I await with interest….

The reason I say this is that even in the West no-one could be completely certain what was going on or being developed – on my ship as a bit of a joke when we knew we were going to be overflown we stuck 3 footballs along a broom handle, painted the whole think and wired and earthed it up as an EW aerial – complete random rubbish – but we later got a rocket: How did we know such a design wasn;t on someone's drawing board!

The reason I say this is that even in the West no-one could be completely certain what was going on or being developed – on my ship as a bit of a joke when we knew we were going to be overflown we stuck 3 footballs along a broom handle, painted the whole think and wired and earthed it up as an EW aerial – complete random rubbish – but we later got a rocket: How did we know such a design wasn;t on someone's drawing board!"

Meanwhile on IGB Patrols it was a bent up wire coat hanger stuck through the canopy of the landrover and slowly turned!

Tally Ho!

Look it up, Navy.

Both we and they knew a lot more than either side let on.

Wiki, you mean? I rest my case!!!

Had. It's not like we had. We have access to an awful lot since which has cast doubt on his earlier publications.

"Both we and they knew a lot more than either side let on".

It was an interesting day when I first had access to the "Keep", one set of books will live with me forever – The 6 Company Box Body Guide, 3 volumes of classified reporting and analysis on Soviet Box Bodied Vehicles,thrill city!!

Tally Ho!

One of my compatriots in the SCA, whose shire was aboard an aircraft carrier, told us of several times when the captain ordered medieval weapons fighter practice on the flight deck. A Soviet sub was shadowing them with the periscope not-so-stealthily poking up. The captain of the carrier wanted to blow the minds of the Soviets into thinking this was some advanced form of training!

Coming back to Suvorov…
He was a tank platoon commander for about a year in 1968. From 1969 even that he officially was in the army, he already began his service in intelligence. His education was general army command Suvorov's cadet school & Kiev army command academy. From 1971 he is leaving army for intelligence academy. Not a lot of experience really, about the same as I had ;)

He wrote a lot of stuff that was expected from him, and also to show his value to new masters. I'm still haunted by his colourful concept that any sergeant in Soviet Army was a ruthless killing machine ;)

He wrote a lot of stuff that was expected from him

I suspect there was quite a bit of that going on both sides of the Atlantic at that time.

The problem with the T64/T72/T80 autoloaders may be a myth Joe. But if so, it is a widespread and enduring one. In fact I have had a very similar version of Mako's original post told to me over a couple of drinks years later by a former GSFG armoured officer, along with a gloomy description of a whole list of other critical design and construction flaws with this series of MBTs. In fairness, this was from an AAA specialist- so what did he know? But it's what his colleagues said.

reading on Swedish Centurions the other day, and there is a photo of a loader feeding the round in with his closed fist, "otherwise the loader tended to attempt to load his fingers into the breech as well"

VRC322 250w HF Radio had a roof mount which needed bolt holes in the canvas of the land rover tilt. When said radio didn't deploy it let the rain in so we put a metal wash bowl over it. When asked during a staff visit what it was the answer was "WASH BOWL" told to take it down as it was a security risk

If it was a real problem, it would be reported and corrective actions taken in a new version of the loader/gun.
I was in artillery, so we were using D-30 howitzer. Howitzer had several modifications, one important one was gear system/handles to elevate/aim the gun. Older version had 2 handles you have to turn simultaneously, better done with two operators. There was a rumour/myth that if you're a)standing where you should not stand, b) let the handle loose c) not jumping away
you might get your very sensitive parts hit by loose handle.
We had a couple of such guns, no accidents with them. Still, the elevating system was changed in latest version from gear mechanism to pure hydraulic system with a single non-rotating handle – very easy to operate by single soldier. Of course you can ask the question whether it happened bcs of acccidents with vitals of gunners or bcs new system was a way better in all aspects…

Interesting info, Barin1.

Do you know of anyone who's served in the T-64s, or others that might be able to confirm, and/or dismiss the auto-loader issue for us?

Perhaps a forum for discussion on armored vehicles in Russia, or the old Soviet Union, that could shed more light on the issue?

I would think some sort of modification, or guard could be put into place to keep that from happening, and/or a recommendation to ensure no loose clothing being worn near the breach/loader mechanism.

Don't think I have a friend who can make the issue clear, will check some forums if I can find anything on the subject…

Ok, that's what I've got. Automatic loader was modernized several times, first in 2 years since the tank started its service in 1967. T-64A of 1969 has a different loader model, T-64B (1976) had another version of loader, and Ukrainian version of T-64 "Bulat" has another modification.
I've found some discussions on loader performance, nothing in regards of trousers-catching hazards, but mostly on location of the ammo in loader belt and difficulties in rearming of tank.
T-72/T-80 loader also receiving its dose of critics but nothing in regards to anecdote in question.
BTW, actual tankers uniform is not that baggy anyway ;)

Thank you for the reply, photo, info, and link, Barin1, it is greatly appreciated.