I received some pretty interesting questions last time, so here's another batch! I also got a request for a number of articles, which are coming once I gather the appropriate materials.
Q: I've heard about Object 416, which sounds like it would be a Russian version of the Chinese 121 or WZ 120, but nothing else. Any info would be much appreciated, even if it is just speculation at this point.
A: On the contrary, the 416 was a unique snowflake in a world of T-54 clones. For one, the tank features a rear turret, which looks more like an IS-8 one than a T-54 one. The armour is very weak, 110 mm in the front turret, 70 mm in the front hull. It's not even sloped that much. With a D-10T like gun (4.5 calibers longer, so it might get more than 175 mm of penetration), this is like a T-34-1 with worse armour and less gun depression. At least the driver is in the turret, along with all other crew members, so every shot to the hull won't kill him. This sounds like it's either going to be a tier 7 or a very, very painful tier 8.
Q: What did the "Y" stand for in SU-100Y? Also, is it "SU-100Y" or "SU-100-Y" (as per the RU wikipedia)?
A: The Y doesn't stand for anything. There were three T-100 proposals to answer the requirement for a fully armoured bunker buster: T-100X, T-100Y, and T-100Z. SU-100Y is based on the second one, hence the name. As for the proper form, Soviet numeric indexes are dashed (ISU-122-3), but letter indexes are not (ISU-122BM). However, since in this case the index replaces a number, I would say that the more proper way of saying it would be SU-100-Y.
A: SU-18 was never built, since the T-18 chassis was deemed too weak for a 76.2 mm gun. SU-26 also had a 76.2 mm gun. Considering that only 12 were built (and two more with 37 mm autocannons), they didn't have very much impact on any battles. As for SU-5, it was accepted by the army, but only 15 were built (spread across 3 modifications). With such few numbers, it is hard to judge its combat effectiveness compared to SPGs like the SU-122, which numbered in the hundreds.
As for range, it was pretty low. Keep in mind that SU-5 was developed in the early 30s, and SU-26 got a gun that was even older than that. By the time WWII came around, Soviet artillery could easily shoot at twice the range of these guns.
A: All SU-26es have been lost in battle by 1944.
A: There is a project from 1939 for a heavy Polish tank that mostly matches these characteristics: 130 mm front armour, a 120 mm gun, but projected speed was 25 kph. Yuri Pasholok posted some scans (in Polish), which you can read here.
Q: Was there T-54 /T-55 project with a 122 mm M-62 gun?
A: Not that I am aware of. The firepower of modernized T-55 tanks is increased using ATGMs. The T-55M6 modification upgraded the tank to the T-72B turret, along with its smoothbore 125 mm gun.
Q: Was there gun called 122 mm M-62-C2 ? (used in WoT in SU-122-54)
 |
| Polish 1939 heavy tank project |
Q: Was there T-54 /T-55 project with a 122 mm M-62 gun?
A: Not that I am aware of. The firepower of modernized T-55 tanks is increased using ATGMs. The T-55M6 modification upgraded the tank to the T-72B turret, along with its smoothbore 125 mm gun.
A: Yes, a non-stabilized version of the M-62 gun was built to replace the D-49 gun in the SU-122-54.
Q: The in-game lend-lease Valentine and Matilda both have unique Soviet guns, not their original ones. According to the wiki, this did happen, but there are not much details.
Were they only prototypes?
Did they see service?
Did they try other guns?
Did they change other parts of these tanks (engine, tracks, etc.)?
A: The first thing the Soviets noticed with the Matilda was that the tracks had exceptionally poor traction. Commonly, spurs were welded on, to increase off-road performance.
Were they only prototypes?
Did they see service?
Did they try other guns?
Did they change other parts of these tanks (engine, tracks, etc.)?
A: The first thing the Soviets noticed with the Matilda was that the tracks had exceptionally poor traction. Commonly, spurs were welded on, to increase off-road performance.
As for the gun, a 1942 evaluation of the Matilda to determine if the Soviets should keep buying them does remark that the gun is barely better than the 45 mm gun installed on light tanks, and that someone is looking into installing the superior 76.2 mm Model 1941 tank gun (F-34) to equate it with the KV in terms of firepower. That someone was no other than Grabin's own construction bureau, which developed a ZiS-5 gun and a coaxial DT machine gun combo for the Matilda, indexed ZiS-96 or F-96. It was decided that all Matildas be armed with these new guns, but it is hard to say how many actually were. People's Commissar of Tank Production wrote to the People's Commisar of Armament in March of 1942:
"I remind you that factory #9 is going to throw off the re-armament of Matilda tanks. Instead of the planned 120 guns, they only produced 47. Meanwhile, they over-fulfilled their quota of ZiS-5 guns for the KV tank, which we have plenty of. The re-armament of Matilda tanks should be your problem #1. Take decisive action to correct this production for the 2nd quarter and make up the deficiency for the 1st quarter."
It is not known if any Matildas were armed with ZiS-96 guns at all, since, starting with Spring 1942, the USSR started receiving Matilda CS infantry support tanks, which at least had satisfactory HE shells, unlike the 2-pounder gun. In Spring of 1943, Matilda tanks were no longer ordered by the USSR at all.
The Valentine received a similar treatment. The lack of HE shells for the 2-pounder gun made it ineffective in its infantry support role. The solution to this was a combination of a 45 mm gun and DT machine gun, named ZiS-95. ZiS-95 was installed on one Valentine in December of 1941, but that was it. Much like the Matilda CS howitzer, the Valentine eventually received a 57 mm 6-pounder gun, which was very effective against enemy tanks, to the level that the 45 mm couldn't dream of.
The narrow tracks of the Valentine were also insufficient for winter weather, and received spurs like the Matilda.
A: Tank Grote had one rotating turret, the top one with the 37 mm AA gun. The 76.2 mm gun was not in a rotating turret.
Edit: I realized that you may have meant the heavy Grote tank. That monstrosity came in 3 or 6 turret variants. Obviously none were ever built.
Edit: I realized that you may have meant the heavy Grote tank. That monstrosity came in 3 or 6 turret variants. Obviously none were ever built.
