Wednesday, June 8, 2016


This is coolbert:

"pissy: 2. inferior, nasty, or disagreeable."

Surely I have made a goodly number of blog entries recently the topic of which was tanks and armor.

Here with more. The perspective of the Soviet era defector Victor Suvorov. The man a tank officer whose observations most profound.

That Soviet era tank T-72 [1972] as now being refit, refurbished and improved upon by the Russian army originally as envisioned to be an EXPORT version only but evidently large numbers also taken in the Soviet arsenal.

The T-72 merely a variation of the T-64 [1964] of which Suvorov has some acerbic comments:

"Never before, at the introduction of a new tank into t service, had young officers been kept back for re-training, which was formerly at the divisional level as part of everyday service. This is understandable : all previous tanks from the T-44 to the  T-62 [T-44/T-54/T-55/T-62], represent the continuation of one line of development, in that each, each successive model retained, in its construction many elements possess by the previous model, and therefor re-training was a comparatively uncomplicated process. Now this line of development had been exploited to the full and the new T-64, was based on entirely new principles. everything in it, from its general lay-out, to stabilizers, optics, signals and drive, was  unusual and completely new, and it turned out later, also totally unreliable."

The T-64 described by Suvorov and his fellow tank officers as a "pissy" tank:

"from the very first look, we all liked the 125 mm gun. It was the most powerful gun in the world and no tank  had ever had anything like it before. Because of its amazing initial velocity, its shells could tear away the turrets of tank-targets and hurl them a distance of about ten meters [thirty-three feet], [a tank turret weighs eight or even twelve tons]."

"But now, upon closer acquaintance, our delight with the T-64's had begun gradually to fade . . . the gun [was] . . . smooth-bored . . . and this immediately adversely affected it accuracy. In fact, it was an all-powerful gun, which always missed the target."

"The tank's tracks were also based on entirely new principles. . . . The only trouble was that they constantly fell off."

"And finally, the engine itself was not 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, try as they might."


Well, that was over fifty years ago now. Perhaps the deficiencies have been worked out? I wonder.


No comments: