1

Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts HarperOne John Dominic Crossan, Jonathan L. Reed Rok: 2009 Język: english Plik: EPUB, 439 KB Twoje tagi: 0 / 0

2

The Coconut Ketogenic Diet: Supercharge Your Metabolism, Improve Thyroid Function, and Lose Excess Weight Piccadilly Books Bruce Fife Rok: 2014 Język: english Plik: EPUB, 2.14 MB Twoje tagi: 0 / 0

This Iraqi BMD-1 was destroyed in 2003 during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Iraq was only supplied a small number of these vehicles.





First published in Great Britain in 2015 by

PEN & SWORD MILITARY

an imprint of

Pen & Sword Books Ltd,

47 Church Street,

Barnsley,

South Yorkshire

S70 2AS

Text copyright © Anthony Tucker-Jones 2015

Photographs copyright © as credited 2015

ISBN: 978 178303 296 9

EPUB ISBN: 978 1 47386 274 6

PRC ISBN: 978 1 47386 273 9

The right of Anthony Tucker-Jones to be identified as Author of this Work

has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and

Patents Act 1988.

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted

in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including

photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system,

without permission from the Publisher in writing.

Typeset by CHIC GRAPHICS

Printed and bound by Replika Press, India

Pen & Sword Books Ltd incorporates the imprints of Pen & Sword

Archaeology, Atlas, Aviation, Battleground, Discovery, Family History, History,

Maritime, Military, Naval, Politics, Railways, Select, Social History, Transport,

True Crime, Claymore Press, Frontline Books, Leo Cooper, Praetorian Press,

Remember When, Seaforth Publishing and Wharncliffe.

For a complete list of Pen & Sword titles please contact

Pen & Sword Books Limited

47 Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S70 2AS, England

E-mail: enquiries@pen-and-sword.co.uk

Website: www.pen-and-sword.co.uk





Contents

Preface: Modern Warfare Series

Introduction: The Cold War

Chapter One

T-54/55 Main Battle Tank

Chapter Two

T-62 & T-64 Main Battle Tanks

Chapter Three

T-72 & T-80 Main Battle Tanks

Chapter Four

PT-76 Amphibious Light Tank

Chapter Five

BTR Wheeled Armoured Personnel Carriers

Chapter Six

BMP Infantry Fighting Vehicle & MT-LB Armoured Personnel Carrier

Chapter Seven; 

ASU Airborne Assault Vehicle & BMD Airborne Combat Vehicle

Chapter Eight

BRDM Amphibious Scout Car

Chapter Nine

Self-Propelled Artillery

Chapter Ten

Anti-Tank Missiles

Chapter Eleven

Anti-Tank Helicopters

Chapter Twelve

Soviet Equipment in Combat

Epilogue: Money Not Tanks

Suggested Further Reading





Preface:

Modern Warfare Series

Pen & Sword’s Modern Warfare series is designed to provide a visual account of the defining conflicts of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. These include Operations Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. A key characteristic of all three, fought by coalitions, is what has been dubbed ‘shock and awe’, whereby superior technology, air supremacy and overwhelming firepower ensured complete freedom of manoeuvre on the ground in the face of a numerically stronger enemy. The focus of this series is to explain how military and political goals were achieved so swiftly and decisively.

Another aspect of modern warfare is that it is conducted in the full glare of the international media. This is a trend that first started during the Vietnam War and to this day every aspect of a conflict is visually recorded and scrutinised. Such visual reporting often shapes public perceptions of conflict to a far greater extent than politicians or indeed generals.

All the photos in this book, unless otherwise credited, were issued by the US Department of Defense at the time of the conflict. The author and the publishers are grateful for the work of the various forces combat photographers.





Introduction:

The Cold War

It is difficult today to remember that at the height of the Cold War the possibility of Communist hordes pouring across Central Europe was a very real threat. For four decades Europe stood on the brink of the Third World War, thanks to the heavily-armed standoff between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact. Thankfully it was the war that never was. The Cold War became a historical footnote, sandwiched between the Second World War and the conflicts of the early twenty-first century. It is one of those intriguing ‘what ifs?’ of history.

Washington never allowed its NATO allies to forget the extent of the Soviet threat. Annually throughout the 1980s the US Department of Defense published its Soviet Military Power, which catalogued Moscow’s strategic aspirations and its latest military developments. Anyone reading it was left feeling that war was imminent and woe betide NATO if it was not ready.

By the mid-1980s the Cold War was at its height, with a conventional and nuclear standoff across Europe divided by the Iron Curtain. As part of its forward defence Moscow deployed armies in Eastern Europe with the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany, the Northern Group in Poland, the Southern Group in Hungary and the Central Group in Czechoslovakia. This not only guarded against NATO but also ensured none of the other Warsaw Pact members could defect. These forces were used to stop a repeat of the anti-Soviet uprising in East Germany of 1953, the Hungarian Revolt of 1956 and the Prague Spring of 1968. The following year the Soviet armed forces were involved in a Sino-Soviet border conflict and in 1979 became embroiled in a ten-year struggle in Afghanistan.

After the Second World War with tensions mounting between the Western allies and the Soviets, Berlin remained divided between the American, British and French sectors that made up West Berlin and the Soviet sector that occupied the east. This resulted in the Soviet blockade of West Berlin from June 1948 to May 1949. In response the Allies organised the Berlin airlift and war in Europe was only narrowly avoided. However, the Cold War went hot around the world, most notably in 1950 with the conflict in Korea.

The Warsaw Pact of 1955 brought together eight communist states in Central and Eastern Europe. Moscow argued the pact was a defensive move in light of West Germany being allowed into NATO. The reality was that it bound Eastern Europe’s militaries to the Soviet armed forces. The Soviet Union was divided into military districts, with the key ones being the Baltic, Leningrad, Moscow and Kiev. By this stage the Soviet ground forces consisted of over 200 divisions, down from 500 at the end of the Second World War.

Not only did the Soviets have the numbers, they also had a vast array of weaponry. If there was one thing the Soviet Union was particularly good at it was building tanks. Since the mid-1950s Soviet-designed tanks dominated every single conflict right up until the 1991 Gulf War. Two designs in particular proved to be Moscow’s most reliable workhorses – these are the T-54 and T-62 main battle tanks (MBTs). They are direct descendants of the Soviet Union’s war-winning T-34 and Joseph Stalin tanks. They drew on the key characteristics of being easy to mass-produce, extremely robust and easy to use. As a result they were ideal for the less-well educated armies of the developing world. Having been inside a Czech-built T-54 I can testify that they are certainly no-frills tanks. The finish is not good and there are no creature comforts – clearly a legacy from the Spartan conditions inside the T-34. Nonetheless, they did the job that was required of them.

The scale of Soviet armour manufacturing at its height was immense. The tank plant at Nizhniy Tagil was supported by at least three other key tank factories at Kharkov, Omsk and Chelyabinsk, while other armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) were manufactured at seven different sites. In the 1980s the Soviets were producing approximately 9,000 tanks, self-propelled guns and armoured personnel carriers/infantry fighting vehicles (APCs/IFVs) a year. The Soviet Union’s East European Warsaw Pact allies managed another 2,500.

Moscow sent almost 8,000 tanks and self-propelled guns and over 14,000 APCs/IFVs to the developing world during that decade alone. In effect they exported two and a half years’ worth of production. The Soviets’ ability to manufacture such vast numbers of tanks meant that on at least two occasions they were able to save Arab armies from complete disaster at the hands of the Israelis.

By the 1980s Moscow had a staggering 52,600 tanks and 59,000 APCs in its active inventory, with another 10,000 tanks and APCs in storage. After the Warsaw Pact force-reduction talks in Eastern Europe, in 1990 Moscow agreed to withdraw 10,000 tanks and destroy half of these without batting an eyelid. Warsaw Pact members also agreed to cut tank numbers by almost 3,000. At the same time the Soviets began to field newer tanks such as the T-64B, T-72M1 and the T-80, while retiring older-model T-54/55s and T-62s. They also improved their IFV forces by fielding large numbers of the tracked BMP-2 as well as improving the earlier BMP-1. The net result was a huge surplus of wheeled AFVs available to the developing world.

The British Army of the Rhine (BAOR) was once part of the bulwark that helped protect Western Europe from the threat posed by the Soviet groups of forces stationed across Eastern Europe and their Warsaw Pact allies. At the height of the Cold War BAOR, serving with NATO’s northern army group, represented the largest concentration of ground forces in the British Army. It consisted of the isolated Berlin Independent Brigade and the 1st British Corps in West Germany. HQ BAOR was based at Rheindahlen while HQ 1 (BR) Corps was at Bielefeld, commanding three divisions.

The fate of the American, British and French garrisons in West Berlin had the Cold War gone hot would have been certain. It is likely that the Warsaw Pact would have first cut them off and then overwhelmed them. But this never came to pass, however; West Germany and East Germany along with the two halves of Berlin were reunited on 3 October 1990. The following year the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War came to an end

While the Cold War resulted in an armed standoff either side of the Iron Curtain, Moscow actively supported the spread of Communism, elsewhere most notably in Korea and Vietnam. Tanks with one previous owner, no strings attached (except when that previous owner happened to be the Soviet Union, there were always strings attached). The fact that the tank was ancient, would not meet your operational requirements and leave you heavily indebted to Moscow did little to deter many developing countries desperate for huge quantities of weapons. From the Horn of Africa to Central America, the Soviet T-55 and T-62 MBTs became as ubiquitous as the Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle.

Although the two Superpowers were cautious about coming into direct confrontation, this did not prevent indirect meddling elsewhere in the world. On the periphery, the Cold War became very hot and on a number of occasions almost sparked war in Europe. Time after time Moscow was able to make good its allies’ massive losses. The Soviets conducted a substantial re-supply of Syria in 1982–3 following their military losses in Lebanon. Major re-supply also took place in 1977–9 in support of Ethiopia in its clash with Somalia and during the Arab-Israeli Wars of 1967 and 1973. Prior to that they conducted airlift operations in 1967–8 in support of a republican faction in North Yemen.

At the height of the Cold War the Soviet Union exported billions of dollars worth of arms to numerous developing countries. Intelligence analysts watched with a mixture of alarm and awe as cargo ship after cargo ship sailed from Nikolayev in Ukraine stacked to the gunnels to ports such as Assab in Ethiopia, Luanda in Angola, Tartus in Syria and Tripoli in Libya. Much of this equipment came from strategic reserves and was very old or had been superseded by newer models, as in the case of the T-55 and T-62 MBTs, which were all but obsolete by then. Soviet armoured vehicle exports also included the 4x4 wheeled BTR-60 APC and the tracked BMP-1 IFV.

In many cases Soviet weapon shipments were funded through generous loans, barter-deals or simply gifted, and Moscow’s arms industries rarely saw a penny in return. The net result was that during the Cold War Moscow fuelled a series of long-running regional conflicts that lasted for decades. Ultimately the West was to spend the Soviet Union into oblivion, but the legacy of the Cold War was one of global misery.





Chapter One

T-54/55 Main Battle Tank

On 23 October 1956, elements of two motor rifle divisions from the Soviet garrison in Hungary entered Budapest to forestall Hungarian attempts to throw off Moscow’s domination. Two further divisions moved across the Hungarian-Romanian border to support them. These forces were equipped with the T-34 tank, victor of the Second World War. Their crews came in for a nasty surprise as the T-34s proved vulnerable to Molotov cocktails on the streets of Budapest and, in the face of unexpectedly strong resistance, the Soviet troops were forced to withdraw.

However, Moscow was not deterred in the least. On 4 November 1956 a fresh phase of fighting started when more Soviet troops were committed with the much newer T-54 MBT. The latter was not so easy to disable and the Hungarians were overwhelmed in ten days. The West, distracted by the Suez Crisis, failed to notice the baptism of fire of the Soviet Army’s brand new tank, which was to become an icon of the Cold War.

From the Horn of Africa to Southeast Asia, the ubiquitous T-54/55 and T-62 tanks have been central to numerous regional conflicts fought since the Second World War. For many years they formed the armoured backbone of the Warsaw Pact armies allied to Moscow, and were also dispatched around the world to numerous Soviet client states. The T-54/55 has seen service with well over eighty countries while the T-62 ended up in service with around twenty. No other tanks have ever enjoyed such global success.

T-54/55s were delivered to countries such as Afghanistan, Angola, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iraq, Libya, Mozambique, Syria, Vietnam and Yemen, all of which were involved in numerous bloody wars. In particular, Afghanistan and Iraq became graveyards for thousands of abandoned and rusting T-54s and T-62s. The Israelis ended up with so many captured from the Arab armies that they put them into service themselves.

The Soviet Union’s strategic reserves and production capabilities were such that they could swiftly re-supply its allies at very short notice. This proved vital during the Arab-Israeli Wars when the Arabs tended to lose vast numbers of tanks to superior Israeli tactics and gunnery. On a number of occasions Moscow was able to stave off their defeat by conducting a massive re-supply operation.



During the Cold War a considerable proportion of Moscow’s tank fleet consisted of the T-54/T-55 MBT. Around 50,000 were built between 1954 and 1981 and many were issued to Soviet motor rifle divisions.



T-55s of the Ugandan Army on parade during the 1970s. At this time the Ugandans also fielded limited numbers of T-34 and PT-76 tanks.



T-54/55 tanks captured by the Israelis during the Arab-Israeli wars. Many of these were refurbished and put into service with the Israeli army.



Afghan Mujahideen with a captured T-54. Both the Soviet and Afghan armies used this tank type during the Soviet-Afghan War.



An Israeli-supplied upgraded T-55 known as the Tiran-5 abandoned by the South Lebanese Army.



Ethiopian T-55s outside the presidential palace in Addis Ababa following the fall of the government in 1991. Ethiopia was blighted by civil war throughout the 1970s and 1980s.



Although the T-54 went into production in the late 1940s, it was dubbed the T-54. It is readily identifiable from the subsequent improved T-55 by the frying pan-like ventilator dome on the left-hand side of the turret – clearly visible on these Cambodian Army T-54s.

Originally the T-54 and the T-62 were designed to overwhelm the forces of NATO on the central plain of Germany if the Warsaw Pact armies ever stormed through the Fulda Gap. As a result they were squat, offering the lowest profile possible, the reasoning being they would have to close with NATO’s ground forces as swiftly as possible. In contrast, NATO’s tanks were designed to keep the enemy at arm’s-length, so presented a much higher silhouette to give the tank gunners greater visibility and range. The T-54 and T-62’s low silhouette and therefore much reduced gun depression/elevation was to prove a distinct disadvantage when fighting amongst the sand dunes of the Middle East during the Arab-Israeli Wars.

In the closing years of the Second World War the Soviet Union designed a new medium tank called the T-44 that sought to improve upon the highly battle-proven T-34/76 and T-34/85 which carried the Red Army to Berlin. The T-44 only appeared in very limited numbers between 1945 and 1949, seeing service at the end of the Second World War and then during the Hungarian Uprising in 1956.

It was followed by the T-54, the first prototype appearing in 1946 with production commencing the following year in Kharkov. It had a very distinctive mushroomshaped turret that drew on that of the Joseph Stalin heavy tank, which provided excellent shot-deflection surfaces. The all-welded T-54 hull consisted of three compartments, driver’s at the front, fighting compartment in the middle and engine/transmission in the rear.

The round turret was a one-piece casting with the top comprising two D-shaped pieces of armour welded together down the middle. The commander sat on the left of the turret with the gunner on the same side but in a more forward position. The commander’s cupola could be traversed through 360 degrees, with a single-piece hatch that opened forward with a single periscope on each side. A TPK-1 sight with a single periscope either side was mounted in the forward part of the top of the cupola. The loader sat on the right of the turret and had a periscope and a single hatch that opened to the rear.



An early photograph of the T-54-2 on manoeuvres. It went into production in 1949 and was followed by the T-54A and T-54B. At the time of the Soviet Union’s collapse Moscow was believed to still have almost 20,000 T-54/55s in its inventory. Many have since been scrapped or sold off.



A Soviet AFV crewman in the standard tanker’s padded helmet – the gold CA (for Soviet Army) identifies that he is not a tanker, otherwise he would have a tank symbol.

The driver sat at the front of the tank to the left and had a single-piece hatch that swung to the left. There were two periscopes forward of this hatch, one of which could be replaced by an infra-red periscope which was used in conjunction with the infra-red searchlight mounted on the right side of the glacis plate. To the right of the driver was an ammunition stowage space, batteries and a small fuel tank.

The T-54 engine was mounted in the rear of the hull and the tank used an electrical start-up system with a compressed-air system as a back-up in cold weather. In contrast the subsequent T-55 used a compressed-air engine starter system, with an electrical back-up. This was because, unlike the T-54, the T-55 had an AK-150 air compressor to refill the air-pressure cylinders.

The T-55 appeared in 1958 and was essentially the T-54 with a new turret without the distinctive rooftop ventilator dome. It also had a new stabiliser, the ammunition load increased to forty-three rounds (up from thirty-four), new running gear and a more powerful V-55 diesel engine that gave slightly greater horsepower, though the speed of 50km/h remained the same. The T-54/T-55 series had a torsion-bar suspension that consisted of five road wheels with a very distinctive gap between the first and second road wheel. The drive sprocket was at the rear and the idler at the front. Neither the T-54 nor the T-55 had track return rollers.

Similar to the T-34 tank, the T-54/55’s all-steel tracks had steel pins that were not held at the outer edge and therefore travelled towards the hull. A raised piece of metal welded to the hull just forward of the sprocket drove the track pins back in every time they passed.



A number of bridgelayers employed the T-55 chassis, including the Soviet MTU-20, the Czechoslovak MT-55 seen here and the jointly-developed East German and Polish BLG-60. Such equipment formed an integral part of Soviet armoured divisions.

The T-54 and the upgraded T-55 had frontal armour of just under 100mm and a range of around 500km. The T-54 was produced in at least eight different variants, while the T-55 had up to a dozen variants, though outwardly the differences in appearance were minimal. Engineering variants included armoured recovery vehicles, bridgelayers, dozers and mineclearers. Space does not permit a detailed listing of all the variants and their specifications.

Both were armed with a 100mm gun, with the flume extractor very near the muzzle. It fired ordinary armour-piercing (AP) shells, which give limited penetration at long range. AP is a solid full-calibre steel shot, which dissipates much of its energy before reaching the target. During the Arab-Israeli Wars the Israelis had armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS), and high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) ammunition that provided kills at far greater ranges. The sabot packing around the shell is stripped off by air resistance to reveal an arrow of metal that offers far greater penetration. HEAT, by contrast, uses a jet of molten copper to penetrate through to the interior of a tank with predictable results.

The T-54 gunner had to estimate the range with visual adjustment, dubbed ‘Eyeball Mark I’. In contrast, American-built M48 and M60 tanks had accurate optical-prism rangefinding systems that allowed zeroing in on targets within seconds, while British-built Centurions used machine-gun tracer bullets to correct the main gun targeting.



This T-55 of the East German National Volksarmee is taking part in a river-crossing exercise: note the very long training snorkel. The East Germans ended up with some 2,100 T-54/55s.



This Polish T-55 is also conducting a river crossing; by the late 1980s Poland had amassed 2,700 T-54/55s. Visually, the T-55 is essentially the same as the T-54: for recognition purposes though the two tanks were often grouped together generically as the T-54/55.

The T-54/55 could ford rivers through the use of a snorkel. Two types were available, a thin one for operational use and a thick one for training. They took up to 30 minutes to fit and were blown off once the far riverbank was reached. The combat snorkel was mounted over the loader’s periscope and when not fitted was stored disassembled at the rear of the hull or the turret.

While Moscow never released any official figures for T-54/55 production, it has been estimated that the Soviet Union alone built about 50,000, while those built in China, Czechoslovakia and Poland bring total numbers to around 72,000. This greatly exceeds the number of T-34s, even allowing for post-war T-34 construction by Czechoslovakia and Poland, of about 60,000.



Allies on exercise – the man on the right is a Soviet tanker identifiable by his black overalls and yellow tank patch just visible embroidered on the right breast. The non-Soviet Warsaw Pact allies opted not to deploy the newer T-62 when it became available and instead relied on enormous fleets of T-54/55s seen here. When they did upgrade their tank divisions they selected the T-72.



This is a Czechoslovak-built T-54, which were said to be the best engineered. However, in this example the radio, optics, gauges and most of the electrics are Soviet. Note the gap between the first and second road wheel – on the T-62 there are gaps between the third and fourth and the fourth and fifth wheels.

Remarkably, the T-55 managed to outlast its successor the T-62. Production of the T-55 is thought to have run at the Omsk tank factory until 1981, long after the T-62 had gone out of production. Poland produced the T-54 from 1956 to 1964 and the T-55 from 1964 onward. The East German Army favoured the T-54 over the newer T-62 and declined to accept the latter when it came into service. Instead they waited until the T-72 had been produced before they upgraded.

An interesting example of a Czech T-54 is in the Cobbaton Combat Collection. Although Czech-built, many of the fittings including the radio, optics, gauges and most of the electrics, are Russian. It is still a T-54 specification, having never been uprated to T-55 standard. While the controls are heavy, it is a good tank to drive and it is said that the Czech versions are better-engineered than those built by the Russians.

In the early 1950s Moscow supplied China with a number of T-54s, the Chinese subsequently building a version themselves as the Type 59. Later models were fitted with a fume extractor similar to the T-54A. Subsequent upgrades resulted in the Type 59-I and Type 59-II, the latter being armed with a 105mm rifled gun. A further development of the Chinese Type 59 was the Type 69 that first appeared in public in 1982. Large numbers of both tank types were cynically exported to Tehran and Baghdad during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Pakistan also proved to be a major customer for both models. The differences in appearance between the Type 59 and Type 69 are minimal. Drawing on these designs the Chinese went on to produce the Type 79, 80, 85 and 90 tanks.

Romania produced the TR-85, which is very similar in appearance to the T-55 series. Locally-built Romanian T-55s were first seen in 1977 and were designated the TR-77 by the West. The key difference with the later TR-85 is that it has six road wheels while the T-55 has five. Nor does it have the common exhaust outlet on the left-hand side that is a standard feature of the T-54/T-55. Subsequent Romanian versions of the T-54/55 included the TR-580 and the TN-800, though it is unclear if these went into series production.



An Iraqi T-54/55 or Type 59 photographed during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. Later, Iraq’s Soviet and Chinese-supplied tanks proved to be all but useless in the face of the Coalition’s overwhelming firepower during the first and second Gulf Wars.



A column of Polish Army T-55As on the streets following the declaration of martial law in Poland in 1981. The Polish government managed to head off Soviet intervention by taking matters into their own hands.



A T-55 supplied to the Somali National Army in the early 1980s. The Somali Democratic Republic also fielded the T-34.

In Europe the T-54 drew first blood on the streets of Hungary in 1956 when Moscow crushed the Hungarian Uprising. It first went into action in the Middle East with the Egyptian and Syrian armies in 1967, whereas the T-62 did not see combat until 1973. On the Indian subcontinent the T-54 and T-55 first saw combat in 1971 during the Indo-Pakistan War, serving with the armies of both sides. In Africa the Somalis used the T-54 against the Ethiopians during the 1977 Ogaden War and it subsequently saw action in Angola and Mozambique.

In the event of war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact in Central Europe the T-54/55s would have been of questionable value, despite their vast numbers. Their thin armour and 100mm gun would have proved little threat to such tanks as the British Chieftain, the German Leopard and the American Abrams. Such considerations did not stop the T-54/55 becoming one of the most ubiquitous tanks of all time. Whether NATO could have knocked out the hordes of T-54/55s and other Soviet tanks fast enough before they were overrun remains open to debate.



Civilians pose on a Libyan T-55 after it was captured by rebels in Benghazi in 2011. The Libyan Army had 500 T-55s in service and over a thousand T-54/55s in store.





Chapter Two

T-62 & T-64 Main Battle Tanks

T-62 MBT

The T-62 was designed at Nizhnyi Tagil, based on the T-55, and incorporated a number of its components, but had a longer and wider hull and a new turret. While the engine and transmission from the T-55 were retained, a larger-diameter fan improved the cooling system. The suspension was the same as the T-55 but the mounts were reconfigured to allow for a longer hull. This meant that the spacing for the road wheels on the T-62 was different to that of the T-55, with distinctive gaps between the third and fourth and fourth and fifth road wheels. Likewise a distinctive flume extractor was two-thirds up the barrel of the larger-calibre 115mm gun.



The T-62 was in production in the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia from 1961 until 1975 and was widely exported. This photograph was first published in Soviet Military Power in 1984.

Although there were over a dozen different T-62 variants, including upgrades, the three key production models were the 1962, 1972 and 1975 versions. Although preproduction models of the T-62 were built in 1961, it was not seen publicly until 1965. Manufacture of the T-62 ran from 1961 to 1975 during which time around 20,000 were built, nowhere near the number of T-54/55s. The T-62 was supplied to over twenty countries. Czechoslovakia and North Korea also built it for domestic and export purposes, the Czechs constructing around 1,500 between 1973 and 1978.

As in the T-54/55 the cast turret sat in the middle of the tank with the commander and gunner on the left and the loader on the right. Both had a singlepiece hatch that opened to the rear and could be locked vertically. The T-54 had twin hand rails on either side of the turret, while the T-62 had a single large hand rail either side that could be used by tank riders or for stowing personal equipment.

The commander’s cupola had four periscopes, two mounted in the hatch cover and two in the forward part of his cupola. The commander’s sight, the TKN-3, was a day/night binocular periscope with an integral infra-red capability mounted in the forward part of his cupola. For daylight use it had a magnification of x5 and a 10-degree field of view and for darkness it had a magnification of x4.2 and an 8-degree field of view. The effective range when used with the OU-3GK infra-red searchlight was 400m. The handles of the sight were employed to rotate the commander’s cupola and operate the searchlight and target-designation equipment.



Soviet T-62 tank crews enjoy some refreshment courtesy of the locals. The easier-to-produce T-62 was deployed with the more numerous motor rifle divisions while the newer T-64 was issued to the tank divisions.



The T-62 shared many of the same design characteristics as the T-54/55 but had a longer and wider hull and a new turret. It is readily identified by the bore evacuator two-thirds of the way down the barrel. Though the Second World War tactic of tank desants or tank riders was obsolete, during the Cold War Soviet tanks continued to be produced with turret grab rails.



A rear view of a T-62 that has been fitted with the spare 200-litre external fuel drums to extend its range. All vehicles had three external fuel cells on the right side for diesel fuel with a single tank on the left for auxiliary oil. Normally the driver would first use the drums, then the external fuel cells followed by the main internal fuel tank.



This T-62 is laying down smoke to conceal it from enemy gunners. This was done by spraying diesel oil into the hot exhaust manifold which created thick white smoke that came out of the left-hand exhaust ports. The smoke screen could be up to 400m long, lasting around four minutes, but this consumed 40 litres of fuel.

The T-62’s main armament was a 115mm UT-5TS (2A20) smoothbore gun fitted with a bore evacuator, with a maximum rate of fire of four rounds a minute at a standstill. Mounted coaxially to the right of the main armament was a 7.62mm PKT machine gun that had a practical rate of fire of up to 250 rounds a minute, fed by a belt containing 250 rounds.

Once fired, the main gun automatically elevated for reloading, but the turret could not traverse while the gun was being loaded. An integral spent-shell ejection system activated by the recoil of the gun threw the empty cartridge case out of the turret through a trapdoor in the rear of the turret. The T-62 could carry forty rounds, with two ready rounds in the turret and the rest stored by the driver and in the rear of the fighting compartment. The gunner had a TSh2B-41u telescope with a rotating graticule for super elevation required for different types of ammunition and dual magnification, with x3.5 with an 18-degree field of view and x7 with a 9-degree field of view.

The T-62’s main gun used high explosive (HE), HEAT or armour-piercing fin-stabilised discarding-sabot (APFSDS) ammunition which had a range of 4,000m. The HEAT round had a range of 3,700m while HE reached out to 4,800m. The T-62 could match the guns of Israeli tanks but they were in short supply during the Yom Kippur War in 1973. The Egyptian Army only had about 100 T-62s as opposed to over 1,600 T-54/55s.



An up-armoured T-62M of the ‘Berlin’ tank regiment, 5th Guards Motorised Rifle Division, leaving Afghanistan in 1987.



An Iraqi T-62 knocked out near the Iranian city of Khorramshr, Khuzestan province, during the Iran-Iraq War fought in the 1980s. At the start of the war the Iraqi Army had 2,500 T-54/55S and T-62s.

Basically, Soviet tanks were designed to present the minimum-sized target out in the open. For example, the T-54/55 has a much lower profile than the American M48 or British Centurion. The problem with this immediately became apparent; because of its low turret a Soviet tank gun has very limited depression. During the Arab-Israeli Wars Israeli tanks had a distinct advantage in that they could depress their guns ten degrees below the horizontal, while the T-54 and T-62 could only go down four degrees. This, of course, offered distinct advantages when fighting in sand dunes or on rocky ridges of the Golan Heights, the Negev Desert and the Sinai, as a Soviet-built tank would have to expose itself to engage the enemy. This meant that in many instances Soviet tanks were unable to fight from a ‘hull-down’ position. As a result this presented real problems when fighting from defensive positions.

Despite such limitations, the T-62’s main gun caused a nasty surprise in the West as it appeared at a time when most NATO armies had chosen to standardise on the 105mm calibre. The Soviet 115mm gun was not only larger, but was also a smoothbore, which was a major departure from the accepted rifled bore of the time. Nonetheless, the T-62 was far from perfect: it suffered from thin armour, vulnerable ammunition and fuel storage, a poor gearbox in early models, a tendency to shed its tracks and generally poor operating conditions for the crew.

T-64 MBT

The T-62’s larger cousin, the T-64, appeared in the mid-1960s, but only about 8,000 were built and none were ever exported. The first prototype was finished in 1960 with the second three years later. The first production run was completed in 1966 with about 600 tanks that were all armed with the 115mm smoothbore gun. These suffered problems with the automatic loader, power pack (particularly the transmission) and the suspension. As the T-64 featured an automatic loading system, the crew could be reduced to three men, helping to keep the size and weight of the tank down.

Another innovation on the T-64 that was less successful was the suspension. All Soviet medium tanks from the T-34 on had used five road wheels without any return rollers, so why the change was made to six very small road wheels and four return rollers on the T-64 is not readily apparent, though it was known that the T-62 had a habit of losing its tracks. The T-64’s design features appear to have failed, as the T-72 employed a completely different system, while modified T-62s were seen with the T-72-style suspension, not that of the T-64.

Confusingly the T-64 was very similar in appearance and layout to the T-72. The suspension consisted of six small dual road wheels (though these were notably smaller than the six used on the T-72) and four track return rollers (the T-72 only has three), with the idler at the front and the drive sprocket at the rear. The tracks were narrower than the T-72’s and the turret was slightly different. The driver sat at the front in the centre, while the other two crew were located in the turret, with the commander on the right of the gun and the gunner to the left.

The follow-on T-64A sought to iron out the early design faults and included the 125mm 2A26M2 smoothbore gun fed by an automatic loader. This went into service in 1969 and was first seen publicly the following year during the Moscow Parade. The 125mm gun was stabilised in both elevation and traverse with the barrel fitted with a thermal sleeve and flume extractor. It could fire up to eight rounds a minute and had a sighted range out to 4,000m employing the day sight and 800m employing the night sight. The 2A26 gun had vertical ammunition stowage, while the T-72 and T-80 are armed with a 125mm 2A46 gun with a horizontal ammunition feed system. The gunner selected the type of ammunition he wished to fire by simply pushing a button. This was the separate loading type, in that the projectile is loaded first followed by the semi-combustible cartridge case; all that remains after firing is the stub base of the cartridge which is ejected. The 125mm ammunition is common to the T-64, T-72, T-80 and T-90 tanks.



The T-64 appeared in the mid-1960s and was followed by the improved T-64A and T-64B. This photograph shows the difference between the T-64’s road wheels and those of the T-72 in the background, which are much larger.



This T-64 is in East Germany in the 1980s serving with a tank division of the Western Group of Forces. Its road wheels look decidedly flimsy. Although around 10,000 were produced, T-64s only ever equipped the Soviet Army.

The T-64B’s 125mm gun could also fire the AT-8 ‘Songster’ anti-tank guided weapon, which was kept in the automatic loader in two separate parts like standard APFSDS and HEAT-FS rounds and loaded using the automatic loader. The 12.7mm anti-aircraft machine gun on the T-64 could be aimed and fired from within the tank. In total around a dozen different T-64 variants were produced including command and up-armoured types.



This photograph shows how small the T-64’s road wheels are. These and the suspension proved problematic and were not repeated in the T-72. The complete lack of T-64 exports shows how flawed it was and Moscow decided it was too expensive and complicated to supply to its client states.

Whereas the Soviets had gone for ease of mass-production with the T-54/55 and T-62, the latter’s counterpart was much more advanced. As a result, the T-62 was assigned to the motor rifle divisions while the newer T-64 only served with the armoured divisions. Somewhat ironically, the T-64 entered production only slightly earlier than the T-72, which was intended to replace the T-54/55 and T-62. The T-64, while being a superior tank, suffered numerous teething problems that eventually consigned it to the scrap heap.

Although the T-64 served with the Soviet Groups of Forces stationed in the Warsaw Pact countries, it only ever saw combat against Chechen separatists. Only the Soviet Army employed it and with the break-up of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation kept 4,000 of them while Ukraine ended up with 2,000. By 2013 Russia had scrapped all its T-64s, although Ukraine modernised some and kept them in service. None seem to have ever been exported.

The successors to the T-54/55 and T-62, the T-72, T-80 and T-90 have been produced in nothing like the same numbers nor have they been so widely exported. The T-54/55 and T-62 retain their status as Moscow’s tried and tested workhorses.





Top and Above: Soviet tank crews on exercise with the T-72. This proved vastly more successful than the troubled T-64, which was very similar in appearance.



The T-72 was considered NATO’s true nemesis and was widely exported.





Chapter Three

T-72 & T-80 Main Battle Tanks

T-72 MBT

Due to their shape, from a distance the T-64, T-72 and T-80 all look alike. The T-72 was a progressive development of the T-64 with improved suspension and a slightly different turret. The main difference was that the newer tank featured six large road wheels, whereas the T-64 had six rather small ones that were unlike those on any other Soviet tank. The T-72 has seen combat in well over twenty different conflicts and has served with over forty armies. Two key features of the T-72, and its counterpart the T-64, are its powerful 125mm gun (deployed at a time when most of its adversaries were sporting 105mm guns) and its relatively light weight. The 125mm gun fires APFSDS, HE or HEAT rounds and has an integrated fire-control system. This relieves both commander and gunner of some of their tasks as well as increasing the probability of a first-round hit. This of course is a crucial capability in a tank battle.



A very early intelligence photograph of the T-72, which like the T-54/55 and T-62 was to prove a great success. The spring-loaded skirt plates over the forward part of the tracks are locked in the travelling position.



The T-72 entered service with the Soviet and other Warsaw Pact armies in the 1970s. It was widely exported and was built under license in Czechoslovakia, India, Poland and the former Yugoslavia.



T-72s on parade commemorating the October Revolution in Moscow at the height of the Cold War. Starting with the T-72 (1973), there were in total some fifteen different variants designated by the Soviet Army.

The T-72 came about in part as an attempt to develop a simpler MBT as an alternative to the complicated, expensive and somewhat disappointing T-64. In the 1960s a whole series of prototypes appeared, but the actual T-72 prototype was not completed until 1970. Essentially it drew on all its predecessors. It utilised the hull and turret layout of the T-64 as well as a similar drive train. The engine is an improved version of that used in the tried and tested T-62 and the cooling system is very similar to the one used in the T-55/T-62. All in all it was a successful hybrid that brought together the best elements of all the Soviet Army’s previous tanks.

The driver is seated at the front of the hull and has a single-piece hatch that opens to the right, in front of which is a single wide-angle TVNE-4E observation periscope. As in the T-64, the other two crew members are seated in the turret, with the commander on the right and the gunner on the left. The commander’s contra-rotating cupola has a single hatch that opens forward with two rear-facing TNPA vision blocks. In the front is a combined TKN-3 day/night sight with an OU-3 infra-red searchlight mounted over the top and either side of the combined sight is another TNP-160 periscope.



The T-72A seen here went into production in 1979 and was the fourth variant to enter service. This had the optical rangefinder replaced by the TPDK-1K laser rangefinder sight which greatly improved first-round hit probability. Along with other enhancements it had a significant increase in armour protection. The export version was known as the T-72M.



A Russian T-72 B3 sporting appliqué armour – the B series first appeared in the mid-1980s with the T-72BM appearing in 1992. The various variants included the T-72B, B1 and BK.



A T-72 on a low-loader transporter, the principal method of moving tanks over long distances.

The gunner’s hatch opens forward and has a circular opening for mounting the snorkel for deep fording. To the front of the gunner’s hatch is a TNP-160 periscope, and a TNPA-65 vision block is installed in the hatch itself. In front and to the left of the gunner’s hatch is a panoramic day/night sight, which is used in conjunction with the infra-red searchlight mounted to the left and in front of the sight. The gunner uses the TPD-2-49 day sight and the TPN-1-49-23 night sight.

The suspension on either side consists of six road wheels and three return rollers supporting just on the inside of the track, with the idler at the front and the drive sprocket at the rear. The standard production T-72s were fitted with four removable spring-loaded skirt plates on either side, fitted over the forward part of the track, which were unclipped in action and spring forward at an angle of 60 degrees from the side of the vehicle. These gave some protection against HEAT projectiles.

The T-72 is powered by a V-12 piston multi-fuel air-cooled engine that produces 740hp. It can run on three types of fuel, diesel, benzene and kerosene, with the driver being provided with a dial to set the engine for the type of fuel being carried. Later production models such as the T-72S were fitted with the much more powerful V-84 engine developing 840hp.



A monument to the T-72 in Nizhnyi Tagil, where it was developed and produced by the Ural tank plant. T-72s were also built at Chelybinsk and Kirov tank factories in Russia.



An Armenian T-72 memorial in Nagorno-Karabakh commemorating the war with Azerbaijan. Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, Armenia ended up with about 100 of these tanks, as did Azerbaijan.

The main armament is the 125mm 2A46 smoothbore gun fitted with a light alloy thermal sleeve and a bore evacuator. It fires three types of separate-loading ammunition; APFSDS with a maximum range of 2,100m, high explosive anti-tank fin stabilised (HEAT-FS) with a direct fire range of 4,000m and high explosive fragmentation fin stabilised (HE-FRAG-FS) with an indirect fire range of 9,400m. The T-72 can carry a total of thirty-nine rounds of ammunition.

The tank went into production in 1972 and became fully operational the following year, but it was not seen in public until 1977. Around 20,000 T-72s were produced for both the home and export markets. Some countries were also permitted to set up T-72 production facilities – though these were usually to assemble Soviet-supplied knock-down kits rather than building the tank from scratch. Nonetheless, Moscow gave the T-72 design to a number of Warsaw Pact members so they could build the tank for their own armies and in some cases for export.

As a result, the T-72 has seen extensive service not only with the Soviets but also with numerous foreign armies, most recently in Syria where the Syrian Army fought to quell a widespread rebellion. In fact, Syrian T-72s were first blooded against the Israelis in Lebanon back in 1982. They were also deployed by Colonel Gaddafi’s regime in 2011 in an unsuccessful attempt to crush the Libyan rebels. Iran and Iraq also used the T-72 against each other during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s.

In contrast to the Soviets, the British never quite got tank design right until the Centurion and the Challenger. The Centurion was a bit of an aberration – drawing on all their experience during the Second World War, British tank designers actually came up with a very good tank that proved to be a major export success. The Israelis in particular had great respect for the Centurion’s tough capabilities and adapted it for their needs. Likewise, American tanks always tended to be slightly behind the design curve – the M4 Sherman epitomised this. While the Americans’ range of Patton tanks were good, resulting in the M60, they still had their flaws. It was not until the advent of the Abrams that the Americans produced a truly dominant MBT.

It was the Soviets who got there first with the T-72. Its low silhouette in particular gives it a very sinister air. It was Soviet tank designers who pioneered the low-profile turret – normally the bigger the main gun the bigger the turret. The latter on any tank is the weak point as it is exposed and presents a ready target. The squat turrets of the American Abrams, British Challenger, French Leclerc and German Leopard are taken for granted, but it was the Soviets who pioneered it with the T-72.

During the 1970s and the 1980s, at the height of the Cold War, this tank was seen as NATO’s nemesis in central Europe. The fear was that powerful Soviet armoured divisions would simply overwhelm the NATO armies and pour through the Fulda Gap. This never came to pass, but if it had Soviet T-72s would have been supported by Czech and Polish-built T-72s in the forefront of the fighting.

The T-72 was intended as an affordable way of replacing Moscow’s existing workhorse tank fleet comprising the T-54/55 and T-62. It went into service with the Soviet and Warsaw Pact armies throughout the 1970s and was also widely exported. In total there were at least fifteen Soviet variants. Serving with the Soviet Army, the T-72 saw very limited service in Afghanistan against the Mujahideen. Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, the T-72 saw action with the Russian Army in Chechnya, Georgia and Ossetia. This, though, was in a counter-insurgency role for which it was never intended. The Russian Federation is believed to have inherited around 5,000 T-72s and a smaller number of T-80s. The T-90, a development of the T-72BM, did not go into production until after the demise of the Soviet Union so is outside the scope of this book.

While Poland and Czechoslovakia produced licensed T-72s that were built to a better standard, they lacked the resin-embedded ceramic layer inside the glacis armour and the front turret. The Polish T-72s had thinner armour and the Russian, Czech and Polish versions suffered a lack of compatibility in parts and machine tooling. India undertook local production of the T-72M1 to equip its army in the late 1980s and early 1990s.



An Indian-built T-72M1 Ajeya which went into production at the Heavy Vehicles Factory Avadi in 1987 – the first 175 tanks were built from Russian supplied kits and then the factory went over to local manufacture.

The Yugoslavs also produced their own version, dubbed the M84, which they exported to Kuwait. Likewise, the Iraqis produced a copy known as the Asad Babil or Lion of Babylon – these were really kits put together from Russian spares which evaded UN sanctions. Subsequent versions included the Polish PT-91 Twardy and the Russian T-90.



A Polish-built ‘Wolf’ T-72 on the firing range. Having previously produced the T-34 and T-54/55, by April 1993 Poland had built 1,610 T-72M1s. Polish T-72s were supplied to Iran during the 1990s.



Unlike the T-62, the T-72 proved very popular with the Warsaw Pact armies – this particular one belongs to the Romanian Army. The Romanians built a series of medium tanks based on the T-54/55 and imported limited numbers of T-72s.

T-80 MBT

The T-80, also armed with a 125mm 2A46 smoothbore gun, was accepted into service just four years after the T-72. Like its predecessor it drew on the design features of the T-64 but was greatly improved. The layout of the T-80 is generally similar to the T-64 with the driver’s compartment at the front, two-man turret in the middle and engine and transmission in the rear. There are, however, many differences of detail.

The T-80’s rear hull top is different to the T-64’s in that it has a distinctive oblong exhaust outlet at the back of the hull. Its tracks are also wider. The T-80 reverted to the torsion-bar suspension with six forged steel-aluminium rubber-tyred road wheels and five return wheels either side, with the drive sprocket at the rear and idler to the front. There are distinctive gaps between the second and third, fourth and fifth and fifth and sixth road wheels.

The initial T-80 (1976) utilised the T-64A turret, but this was replaced by the T-80B (1979) which was also equipped with the AT-8 ‘Songster’ missile as featured on the T-64B. This was followed by the T-80BV (1985) featuring the T-64’s explosive reactive armour and the much improved T-80U (1985).



An early intelligence photograph of the T-80 on manoeuvres issued by the US Department of Defense. The T-80 was followed by the T-80B and the T-80U. This tank proved nowhere near as successful as the T-72.



The T-80BV’s explosive reactive armour mounted around the turret and hull that appeared in 1985 posed a challenge to Western anti-armour technology.



The T-80 went into production in the late 1970s and the overall layout was similar to that of the flawed T-64, though there were many detailed improvements. Like the T-64, production of the T-80 was costly and came to a halt in 1990 except for export orders.



Export customers for the T-80U included China and Cyprus but these were delivered after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The T-64 and its successor the T-80 proved simply too costly to produce in large numbers. As the T-80 let itself down badly during the First Chechen War, the T-72 was replaced by the later T-90 (which has also been widely exported). By the late 1980s the Soviet Union had some 9,000 T-72s but just 2,500 T-80s. When the Soviet armed forces finally broke up, the Russian Federation had about 3,500 T-80s and Ukraine 345.



The T-90, a development based on the T-72BM and utilising some of the advanced features of the later-model T-80s, did not go into production until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It featured new-generation explosive reactive armour and the TshU1-7 Shtora-1 jammer fitted either side of the main gun.



By 1996 only 100 T-90s had been built.



A T-90 undergoing a snorkel test. Such capabilities were standard on all previous Soviet tanks.



A T-90A on parade in Moscow in 2013 – this tank has enjoyed nowhere near the level of success of the iconic T-54, T-62 and T-72.



This naval infantryman stands by his PT-76 – this amphibious light tank first appeared in the 1950s and remained in production into the late 1960s. Once open, the oval turret hatch can be locked in the vertical position.





Chapter Four

PT-76 Amphibious Light Tank

During the Cold War the Soviets took their amphibious assault forces very seriously. Although over half a million Soviet sailors had fought ashore during the Second World War, the Soviet fleet did not revive its naval infantry forces until the mid-1960s. These numbered about 20,000, though in the event of war they would probably have been mobilised to three times this number. Moscow considered them an elite force with the men receiving airborne, artic and mountain warfare training.

The Soviets, supported by their Warsaw Pact allies, ensured they had significant amphibious capabilities in the Baltic and Black Seas. Likewise, Soviet naval infantry operated with the Soviet Pacific Fleet and also with the navy’s river flotillas. A typical naval infantry brigade was equipped with medium and light tanks as well as wheeled APCs and were transported by the ‘Alligator’ class landing ship tank and ‘Aist’ class assault hovercraft.



The massive ‘Aist’ class assault hovercraft could carry four PT-76s and fifty troops, two T-54/55s with 200 troops or three APCs and 100 troops. During the Cold War such amphibious assault forces operated in the Baltic Seas and the Pacific Ocean.

At the forefront, supporting their naval infantry, was a distinctive amphibious tank. The Soviets knew that this would have a role in forcing Europe’s major rivers should war break out in central Europe. The PT-76 Plavayushchiy Tank or amphibious tank was first accepted into service in 1950 after being developed by the IV Gavalov OKB Design Bureau as the K-90. Around 7,000 of these light tanks had been built by 1967 when production finally came to an end. While it never saw combat with the Soviets, it was involved in some fierce fighting during numerous Cold War proxy conflicts.

Interestingly, the PT-76 shared its heritage with some illustrious predecessors. The tank was armed with the 76.2mm D-56T gun which was a development of the weapon used by the T-34/76 and the KV-1 tanks during the Second World War. It had a maximum rate of fire of between six and eight rounds a minute with a maximum range in the indirect fire role of around 13,000m. In addition a 7.62mm SGMT machine gun was mounted coaxially to the right of the main armament. Many were also fitted with a 12.7mm DShKM anti-aircraft machine gun.



This grainy propaganda photograph shows a PT-76 coming ashore during a Soviet naval exercise. The tank is propelled through the water by two rear-mounted water jets.



This tank is on display in Kiev’s Museum of the Great Patriotic War. Its 76.2mm D-56T gun is fitted with a double-baffle muzzle brake and fume extractor.

The tank’s hull was of welded steel and was divided into three compartments, with the driver to the front, fighting compartment in the middle and the engine in the rear. Unusually, the driver was seated centrally with a single-piece hatch that swung to the right. The turret was of all-welded steel with the commander, also acting as the gunner, seated on the left with the loader on the right. It had a single oval-shaped hatch that hinged forward and could be locked vertically. To the left of the hatch was a circular cupola which housed three integral periscopes and could be manually traversed 360 degrees by the commander. The commander also had an optical TSh-66 sight to the left of the main gun while the loader had a periscope mounted in the turret roof forward of the hatch. The driver was also served by three periscopes which were mounted forward of his hatch cover.

The first production model was armed with the D-56T gun fitted with a multislotted muzzle brake. The subsequent and more common model was fitted with a double-baffle muzzle brake and a bore evacuator towards the muzzle. The PT-76B was fitted with a fully stabilised D-56TS and also had the benefit of a nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) protection system. The Model V-6 engine used in the PT-76 was one bank of that fitted to the T-54. The manual gearbox had five forward and one reverse gears and steering was of the clutch and brake variety. The torsion bar suspension comprised six road wheels with the drive sprocket at the rear and the idler at the front. The first and sixth road wheel stations had hydraulic shock absorbers and the steel tracks consisted of ninety-six links.



This North Vietnamese Army PT-76 is one of ten knocked out during the Battle of Ben Het by US M48 Pattons on 3 March 1969. The PT-76 was widely exported but only in small numbers, though the NVA were supplied with about 250.



A BRDM-1 amphibious scout car and PT-76 light tank on exercise with Polish naval forces. A key unit deploying this tank was the Polish 7th Coastal Defence Brigade, which at one stage had a complete battalion of sixty PT-76s.

The tank was propelled through the water by two water jets mounted to the rear. To enter the water all the crew had to do was to erect the trim vane at the front of the hull and activate two electric bilge pumps; the later were backed up by an emergency manual bilge pump. Steering the tank whilst in the water was simply done by opening and closing two hatches over the water jets.

A typical 3,000-strong naval infantry brigade was equipped with forty-four PT-76s, a similar number of T-72 tanks (which started to replace the navy’s T-55s in the mid-1980s) and 145 BTR-60/70 APCs. The ‘Aist’ class hovercraft was capable of lifting four PT-76s, one T-72 or 220 troops. A key unit was the Red Banner Northern Fleet’s 63rd Guards Naval Infantry Brigade, based at Pechenga on the Kola Peninsula. Its main role was to spearhead any invasion of Norway or Iceland.

Soviet Army tank and motor rifle regiments’ reconnaissance companies were equipped with five PT-76s and three APCs, while each division had a separate reconnaissance company deploying a further five PT-76s. However, this light tank’s limited utility meant that it was gradually replaced by T-54/55s, T-62s and T-72s and even BMP-1/2s IFVs. Because it was amphibious early models had no NBC protection, night fighting equipment and very thin armour.

Nonetheless the PT-76 saw extensive combat around the world including Africa, the Middle East, in the Indo-Pakistan conflict and during the Vietnam War. In fact, its most iconic moment occurred when the North Vietnamese used it to overrun the US Special Forces base at Lang Vei in 1968. The PT-76 ended up in the service of at least twenty countries, though Vietnam and Iraq were by far the largest recipients, receiving 250 and 100 respectively. The Chinese also produced a version known as the Type 63 but this has a very different cast turret. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Soviet armed forces still had several hundred PT-76s and a number were serving with the Polish 7th Coastal Defence Brigade.

It is believed that the PT-76 was manufactured at the Kirov facility in Leningrad and the Volgograd Tractor Factory. Notably many of this light tank’s components were also used with the BTR-50 APC, the SA-6 ‘Gainful’ SAM system and the ZSU-23-4 self-propelled anti-aircraft gun.





Chapter Five

BTR Wheeled Armoured Personnel Carriers

BTR-152

The BTR-152 6x6 was developed after the Second World War as the Soviet Union’s very first purpose-built APC. It was manufactured in large numbers from 1950 and saw service with African and Asian armies. The all-welded steel hull showed close similarities with American and German wartime designs. Notably, significant numbers of the M3A1 4x4 scout car and M2 and M5 series of American half-tracks were supplied to the Red Army under Lend-Lease arrangements. Likewise the Soviets captured large numbers of the Hanomag-built range of German half-tracks.

As with these earlier vehicles, the BTR had a front-mounted engine and an open top crew compartment for the driver and troop compartment for up to seventeen soldiers. The driver and commander had separate glass windscreens that could be protected by steel hatches with vision blocks. The infantry entered and exited the vehicle either via the open roof or through a single door in the rear plate of the hull. For defensive purposes the vehicle had six firing ports, three either side and two in the rear plate either side of the door.



The BTR-152 was the Soviet Union’s very first purpose-built APC, utilising a truck chassis. It was widely exported throughout Europe, Africa, the Far East and the Middle East.



Known as the Model D or M-1961 the BTR-152K had full overhead armoured protection with two roof hatches over the troop compartment.



The BTR-152 was followed by a number of unproved models, including the BTR-152V which was produced in a number of variants. All of these had an open troop compartment.

Initially the ZIS-1512½-ton 6x6 chassis was used as the basis for the BTR-152, though later models utilised the ZIS-157. The six-cylinder, inline model ZIS-123 was a water-cooled petrol engine generating 110hp at 2,900rpm. The BTR-152’s transmission layout was that of a conventional 6x6 commercial truck with the drive shafts leading to differentials on ‘solid’ axles. The gearbox had five forward speeds and there was a two-speed transfer box. The tyres had a pressure system regulated by the driver to suit the ground conditions. Some BTR-152s also featured a front-mounted winch.

Some versions were fully enclosed, such as the BTR-152U command variant, which has much higher sides to allow staff officers to stand up inside. The normal armament comprised the standard 7.62mm machine gun or the heavier 12.7mm or 14.5mm mounted on the hull top. The BTR-152A-ZPU was an anti-aircraft variant armed with twin 14.5mm KPV machine guns in a rotating turret. Against aerial targets, these were only effective to 1,400m. They also carried AP rounds for use against light armoured vehicles, which could penetrate 32mm of armour at 500m, though the guns had a range of 2,000m against ground targets. Other anti-aircraft variants included the BTR-152D and the BTR-152E.

Some of those supplied to the Egyptian Army were armed with the Czech quad 12.7mm M53 anti-aircraft system. This comprised four Soviet 12.7mm DShKM machine guns on a Czech-designed two-wheel mount. A number of these ended up in service with the Afghan Army. Likewise, in 1982 the Israeli Army encountered BTR-152s being operated by the Syrian-backed Palestinian Liberation Army that were fitted with a twin 23mm automatic anti-aircraft gun in the rear of the troop compartment.



This photograph shows the BTR-152 with the windscreen and door shutters open. The roof over the commander and driver’s position is armoured.

BTR-40

The BTR-152’s smaller cousin was the BTR-40, introduced in 1951. This was essentially a redesigned version of the American-supplied M3A scout car. It was based on the GAZ-63 truck chassis, but with a shorter wheelbase and was a conventional four-wheel drive armoured truck with a frontal engine layout. In the event of chemical warfare one variant of this vehicle was designed for a chemical decontamination role, which included placing flag markers to warn of contaminated areas. A more conventional version was the BTR-40A/ZPU; this had an anti-aircraft role mounting twin 14.5mm KPV heavy machine guns. These were mounted in a manually-operated open turret with a 360-degree traverse and an effective rate of fire of 150 rounds per minute.



The BTR-40 was essentially the BTR-152’s smaller cousin with a 4x4 chassis. This one belonged to the Egyptian Army and was captured by Royalist guerrillas during the North Yemen Civil War in the 1960s.

BTR-60

The requirement to replace the non-amphibious BTR-152 was issued in the late 1950s, and the heavy eight-wheeled amphibious BTR-60P entered service with the Soviet Army in 1961. Since then it has been supplied to armies throughout the world and was built in Romania as the TAB-72. The BTR-60P was powered by two GAZ-49B six-cylinder, water-cooled, in-line petrol engines, developing a total of 180hp. These were mounted in the rear of the welded steel hull and drove all eight wheels, the front four of which were steerable. The BTR-60 series was fully amphibious, propelled through the water by a hydrojet system with a single controllable outlet at the rear. This gave a calm-water speed of 10km/h compared to 80km/h on land. During deployment in water a bilge pump was available, together with a trim vane that was normally carried flat on the nose plate.



The BTR-60 entered service in 1961 and appeared in three main versions, the BTR-60P (seen here), the BTR-60PA and the BTR-60PB.



The drawback with the initial BTR-60 was its open troop compartment meant the occupants were vulnerable to indirect fire



The BTR-60A, which had overhead armour protection, was also known as the BTR-60PK.



The driver’s station in the BTR-60PB. Like those of all Soviet armoured fighting vehicles it is very cramped. The Romanians built the BTR-60PB as the TAB-71.

The troop compartment (initially for fourteen men but reduced in later models) occupied the centre of the vehicle with the driver on the left and the commander on the right at the front. The troop compartment had no overhead protection but this was remedied with the BTR-60PA or BTR-60PK, which was fully-enclosed with roof hatches, installed to supplement access through two small hatches on each side.

The final model, the BTR-60PB, was fitted with a small turret on the hull roof near the front, mounting a 14.5mm machine gun and a 7.62mm machine gun. It is identical to that fitted to the Soviet BRDM-2 reconnaissance vehicle and the Czech OT-64 APC. While the BTR-60PB was built under licence in Romania as the TAB-71, the lack of easy access resulted in the Czech and Polish governments developing the SKOT (OT-64) series for their armies. Production of the BTR-60 series ended in 1976, resulting in around 25,000 vehicles.



The BTR-60PB was essentially the 60PA with a machine-gun turret and other modifications. This version proved highly popular and was supplied to numerous armies, but the Warsaw Pact armies sought to improve on the vehicle by developing their own designs known as the SKOT and TAB.



On the BTR-60 the large forward-opening side hull hatch necessitated spreading out the firing ports. On the subsequent BTR-70 this hatch was placed lower down between the second and third axles with the firing ports clustered above it.



This BTR-60PB was caught in an ambush in Afghanistan in the 1980s. This vehicle only really provided the occupants with protection for from small-arms fire and was easily disabled or knocked out by the Mujahideen.



The rail-type antenna mounted on this BTR shows that it is a command vehicle. The exposed front wheel indicates it is a BTR-60 PU-12 normally associated with air-defence units.

BTR-70

The follow-on BTR-70 first appeared during the November 1980 military parade in Moscow. The hull was of all-welded steel armour with improved protection over its front arc compared to the BTR-60. In addition the nose was wider and the front gave added protection to the front wheels. While the BTR-70 was fitted with the same turret as its predecessor, some were fitted with the BTR-80 turret. Initial models of the BTR-70 were fitted with the same wheels and tyres as the BTR-60.

The two GAZ-49B engines were replaced by two ZMZ-4905 petrol engines, which developed 120hp each compared to just 90hp each in the BTR-60. Both engines had their own transmission with the right engine supplying power to the first and third axles, while the left powered the second and fourth axles. This meant if one engine was out of action the vehicle could still move, albeit at a slower speed. The exhausts were less boxy than on the BTR-60. Whereas the BTR-60 could carry up to sixteen men, the BTR-70’s capacity was two crew and nine passengers. Again Romania produced its own version, dubbed the TAB-77.



A BTR-70 on operations in Afghanistan. It first appeared publicly in 1980 but production actually ran from 1972 to 1982. Large numbers of BTR-60/70/80s were supplied to the Afghan Army.



The lower hull hatch and firing port configuration is clearly visible on this preserved BTR-70.

Although the BTR-70 was an improvement over the earlier BTR-60, it still had its problems, not least the inadequate means of entry and exit for the troops and the two petrol engines which were inefficient and could catch fire. The Soviet Army first took delivery of the improved BTR-80 in 1984.

BTR-80

A key difference in appearance of the BTR-80 was that a new hatch was installed between the second and third axles; the upper part of this opened to the front while the lower part folds down to form steps, permitting troops to dismount much more quickly and with less exposure to enemy fire than in the earlier BTRs.

In addition, while the BTR-70 had three firing ports in either side of the troop compartment, the BTR-80 had its three firing ports angled to fire obliquely forward, thereby giving covering fire into the dead ground towards the front of the vehicle. There was also a single firing port to the right of the commander’s bow position that was also on the BTR-70, plus an additional firing port in each of the two roof hatches.

The two forward firing ports were for the 7.62mm PK general-purpose machine gun, while the three firing ports either side could accommodate the AKMS/AK-74 Kalashnikov assault rifle. Small arms carried by the crew consisted of two 7.62mm machine guns and eight 7.62mm AKMs or 5.56mm AK-74s and nine Type F1 hand-grenades. For air defence they also normally carried two man-portable surface-to-air missiles such as the SA-14, SA-16 or SA-18. Less visible was the replacement of the two petrol engines with a single V-8 diesel engine developing 260hp, which provided a significant increase in power-to-weight ratio. This meant a slightly improved road speed and better fuel efficiency along with reducing the risk of fire.

While the one-man manually-operated turret was similar to that fitted to the BTR-70 and the BTR-60PB, the 14.5mm KPV heavy machine gun had twice the elevation of the earlier models. This meant it could act in an air-defence role against low-flying aircraft and helicopters. Another visual difference with the earlier versions was that mounted on the rear of the turret of the BTR-80 was a bank of six electrically-operated smoke grenade dischargers (81mm Model 902V). This was operated from within the turret and each grenade could generate a smoke screen of up to 30m wide and 10m high.



This BTR-80 was photographed in Afghanistan – it is readily identifiable by the horizontal exhaust on the rear deck (on the BTR-60 and 70 the exhausts sloped downwards). Within the Warsaw Pact, only Hungary took receipt of the BTR-70/80.



This Soviet drawing of the BTR-60PB highlights some of its drawbacks. In the later models the front of the hull was extended to offer greater protection for the front wheels, while the side hull hatch was placed in the lower hull. The upper deck hatches also exposed troops leaving the vehicle and this was only remedied with the advent of the BMP which has a door in the rear.



The smoke grenade launchers are just visible on the rear of this BTR-80’s turret.

Essentially the BTR-80 and its predecessors were little more than armoured ‘battle buses’ that provided protection from heavy machine guns only out to 100m. In the case of the BTR-80, on the frontal arc the armour gave protection against 12.7mm AP rounds at a range of 100m, the upper hull only provided protection against 7.62mm AP at 100m while the lower hull can withstand 7.62mm AP at 750m.

By the mid-1990s the Russian Army was estimated to still have almost 10,000 BTR-60/70/80s. The BTR80A (which has a turret armed with a 30mm 2A72 cannon) did not appear until after the Soviet Union collapsed. The BTR-152 and BTR-60/70/80 range of APCs were widely exported around the world and were involved in innumerable bush wars.





Chapter Six

BMP Infantry Fighting Vehicle & MT-LB Armoured Personnel Carrier

During the Second World War the Red Army lagged way behind its Western counterparts in producing adequate APCs for its troops. While Western armies made use of armoured half-tracks, turretless tanks and de-gunned self-propelled guns to transport infantry across the battlefield, the Soviets had largely relied on unarmoured lorries and infantry riding on the outside of tanks.

BTR-50 APC

In 1973 the Egyptian Army stormed across the Suez Canal to drive the Israeli armed forces from the Sinai desert. Amongst those armoured vehicles photographed rumbling over the pontoon bridges was the Soviet-supplied BTR-50 amphibious tracked APC. This had originally been developed as a hurried response to the first generation of Western APCs, which had begun to appear in Central Europe in the late 1950s. First seen in 1957, the open-topped BTR-50P was based on the PT-76 amphibious tank chassis.

The BTR-50 was designed to transport an infantry section or artillery up to 85mm calibre that could be fired from the vehicle without offloading. The vehicle required two crew and could carry up to ten soldiers. Predictably, the open variant left the passengers exposed and this was quickly followed by a version known as the BTR-50PK that had an armoured roof. Other variants included the BTR-50PA armed with a 14.5mm KVPT or ZPU-1 machine gun, the BTR-50PU command vehicle and some special-purpose versions designed to carry electronic countermeasures equipment.

The BTR-50 was supplied to the Soviet and Warsaw Pact armies and was exported outside Europe including the Middle East. However, the BTR-50 suffered a major shortcoming in that it had no rear doors, which meant that troops had to debus via roof hatches and over the sides with predictable results when under fire. As a result it was replaced by the BMP IFV. Nevertheless it still saw combat with, amongst others, the Egyptian and Iraqi armies.



The initial model BTR-50P amphibious tracked APC had an exposed open-topped troop compartment. This vehicle was based closely on the amphibious PT-76 chassis.



The subsequent BTR-50PK had an armoured roof over the troop compartment created by two large rectangular doors that open to the outside of the vehicle.



The major disadvantage with the hastily-conceived BTR-50 was that the troops it was transporting had to debus through the roof hatches, which made them very vulnerable when under fire.



This BTR-50PK belonged to the East German Army. Although replaced in frontline service by the BMP, thousands of BTR-50s saw service with all Warsaw Pact armies.



The Czechs produced a modified version of the BTR-50PK known as the OT-62 (seen here), which had a revised front compartment plus a longer range and higher road speed. In appearance it is almost identical to the Soviet BTR-50PU Model 2 Command Vehicle.

The Czechs and Poles produced a modified version of the BTR-50PK dubbed the OT-62. This had an improved road speed, greater range and a redesigned front compartment. The standard Polish version was designated the TOPAS 2AP, which along with the PT-76 amphibious tank were deployed by the ‘Polnocny’ class landing ships tank in support of Warsaw Pact naval assault forces.

BMP-1 IFV

One of the most innovative and revolutionary armoured vehicles to emerge from the Cold War was the tracked Boevaya Mashina Pekhota (BMP) IFV; this predated the American Bradley, the British Warrior, the French AMX-10 and the German Marder tracked IFVs. The BMP represented the first true mechanised IFV – essentially a hybrid APC and tank. It was designed as a breakthrough vehicle intended to help the Warsaw Pact cut its way through Central Europe. Its key role was to ensure the swift and mass exploitation of a breakthrough of a lightly-defended point in support of the infantry. In theory the BMP was to charge forward, guns blazing, before disgorging its infantry to seize and hold enemy ground. Its 73mm gun and anti-tank missiles were designed to ensure that it could engage enemy tanks should the need arise.



The BMP-1, which appeared in the mid-1960s, helped revolutionise mechanised warfare. At this stage the Americans were only just beginning to experiment with armoured cavalry by adding machine guns to the M113 APC. In contrast the BMP-1 had a turret-mounted 73mm 2A28 gun. This particular vehicle has the launch rail bracket but no AT-3 ‘Sagger’ anti-tank missile. The ‘casualty’ is being removed via the commander’s hatch.

The BMP-1 first appeared at the November 1967 Moscow military parade, but this is believed to have been a pre-production model. It was followed by the initial production run known as the BMP Model 1966, though the main production variant is thought to be the Model 1970. The BMP first saw combat with the Egyptian and Syrian armies during the 1973 conflict with Israel. Since then it has seen action with the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, with government forces in Angola, with the Iraqi Army and with the Libyan and Syrian armies.

The vehicle consisted of an all-welded steel hull with a distinctive ribbed and sloping glacis plate. The driver was positioned at the front on the left and had a single hatch cover that opened to the right. He was served by three periscopes; the central TNPO-170 could be replaced by the TNPO-350B which was vertically extendable and allowed the driver to see over the trim vane when it was erected for amphibious operations. The troop compartment in the rear could transport eight soldiers seated back-to-back with four down each side. Access was via two rear doors (that each housed integral fuel tanks and a vision device, and the left door had a firing port), or via four roof hatches.

The one-man turret was the same as that on the BMD-1 airborne combat vehicle. The gunner had a single hatch that opened forwards, in front of which to the left side was located a dual-mode 1PN22M1 monocular periscope sight. Four additional observation periscopes served the turret gunner and a white light or infra-red searchlight was mounted on the right side of the turret. Because it had a turret the public and media often mistook the BMP for a tank. This housed the main armament; the 73mm Model 2A28 smoothbore, low-pressure, short-recoil gun which weighed 115kg. This was served by a forty-round magazine located to the right rear of the gunner.



An early intelligence photograph of a BMP-1. The all-welded steel hull provided the crew with protection from small-arms fire and shell splinters.



BMP-1s night-firing their 73mm main armament.



This column of BMP-1s and MT-LBs were photographed somewhere in Central Asia, quite possibly Afghanistan.

The gun fired a fixed, fin-stabilised PG-9 HEAT projectile which employed a small PG-15P stub casing to boost the projectile out of the barrel at an initial velocity of 440m/s at which point the PG-9V rocket motor ignited to supply the main source of propulsion, accelerating the shell to 700m/s. This was the same round as that used in the SPG-9 infantry weapon and had a maximum effective range of 1,300m. The projectile could overcome up to 300mm of armour.

Mounted over the main gun was an AT-3 ‘Sagger’ wire-guided anti-tank missile launcher. A single missile was carried ready to fire with two reloads in the turret, which were loaded via a rail through a hatch in the forward part of the turret roof. Mounted coaxially to the main gun was a 7.62mm PKT machine gun, fed by a continuous belt of 2,000 rounds held in a honeycombed ammunition box mounted below the weapon. The turret traverse and gun elevation were electric, with backup mechanical controls in case of power failures.



Soviet tank crew on exercise. The mechanised infantry they are conferring with are acting in support in the BMP-1 parked directly behind them.



A Soviet Army BMP-1 on exercise – the ‘Sagger’ anti-tank missile is just visible mounted above the main armament. The Soviet Union amassed 70,000 armoured fighting vehicles at the height of the Cold War, which included some 24,000 BMP-1/2s.

The BMP’s torsion bar suspension was made up of six rubber-tyred road wheels either side, with the drive sprocket at the front, the idler at the back and three track-return rollers. The first and last road wheel stations had a hydraulic shock-absorber and the top of the track was protected by a light sheet-steel cover. The track links were the double-pin type with water scoops between the housings. The BMP-1 was fully amphibious and was propelled through the water by its tracks. Variants of the BMP-1 were built by China, Czechoslovakia and Romania.

While the Soviet Army had high expectations of the BMP, they came in for an unpleasant surprise in 1973. During the Arab-Israeli Yom Kippur War the Egyptians used the BMP exactly as the Soviet manual dictated. Soviet theory was all well and good but in the open tank ground of the Sinai the BMP proved ultimately to be too vulnerable to Israeli tanks, anti-tank weapons and jet fighters. The 73mm gun proved to be largely ineffective and the missile was difficult to control. To compound matters, Egyptian crew training was probably not as good as it could have been.



Polish BMP-1s on exercise. By the mid-1980s Poland had about 800 BMP-1s in its order of battle which were supported by about 2,500 wheeled SKOT and TOPAS armoured personnel carriers.



A concealed BMP-1 on exercise with the Soviet Army during the 1980s.

Soviet doctrine had to be rethought, resulting in the infantry dismounting about 300m from their objective, which was to be taken on foot under covering fire from the BMP gunner, supporting tanks and artillery. Despite this doctrinal rethink, in the intervening years the BMP has seen combat in numerous wars around the world. Despite its limitations against enemy tanks, it provided infantry with a welcome force-multiplier and set a trend that NATO followed.

BMP-2 IFV

Lessons learned from the BMP-1 inevitably led to a BMP-2. This first appeared in November 1982 in the Red Square parade, though it is believed to have already been in service for a number of years before that. While visually the BMP-2 is almost identical to its predecessor, a clear difference is the long thin barrel of the main armament that consists of the 30mm Model 2A42 cannon. This is housed in a two-man all-welded steel turret with the commander seated on the right and the gunner on the left. The gunner has a single rectangular hatch, which opens to the front with an integral rear-facing periscope and three fixed periscopes, with two to the front and one to the left side. A total of 500 rounds are carried for the main gun.

In addition the BMP-2 has an AT-5 ‘Spandrel’ anti-tank missile launch tube mounted on the turret roof between the gunner and commander’s hatches. As well as the infantrymen’s small arms, the BMP-2 also normally carried an anti-tank grenade launcher and two surface-to-air missiles. The infantry compartment at the rear only has two roof hatches compared with the four fitted on the BMP-1, though access is normally via the two rear doors. It only carries six infantrymen compared to eight in the BMP-1.

Like its predecessor, the BMP-2 is fully amphibious. Just before entering the water a trim vane stowed on top of the glacis plate is erected, the bilge pumps are switched on and the driver’s centre periscope is replaced by the TNPO-350B. The upper part of the tracks has a sheet metal covering that is deeper than that on the BMP-1 as it is filled with a buoyancy aid.



The follow-on BMP-2 is easily identifiable by the long, thin barrel of its 30mm 2A42 cannon. The larger two-man turret meant that the vehicle carries fewer infantry than the BMP-1 and the infantry compartment only has two roof hatches rather than four.



An Iraqi BMP-1 captured during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. By the mid-1980s Iraq had about 500 BMPs.



This burnt-out Iraqi BMP-1 was destroyed during Desert Storm.

From the late 1980s onwards a number of enhancements were carried out to production BMP-2, most of which were retrofitted to earlier BMP-1 and BMP-2. The latter was supplied to the Iraqi Army and was manufactured in India as the Sarath and in Czechoslovakia as the OT-90. The BMP-3, which features redesigned road wheels and a higher hull profile, appeared just as the Soviet Union was collapsing. This is an upgunned BMP that has a turret-mounted 2K23 weapon system that comprises a 100mm 2A70 gun, a coaxial 30mm 2A72 cannon and a coaxial 7.62mm machine gun.

MT-LB MTV

The versatile MT-LB, by contrast, started life in the late 1960s as an armoured multipurpose tracked vehicle. In all, there have been more than eighty variants but its main roles were as an artillery prime mover, cargo carrier and an armoured personnel carrier. Although slightly smaller than the BMP it carried more men, three crew and ten infantry. Armour protection was, however, rather less and the main armament was limited to one 7.62mm machine gun.



The MT-LB was designed as a multi-purpose fully amphibious auxiliary armoured tracked vehicle that, despite its shortcomings, proved highly successful and was very popular with the Warsaw Pact armies.

The MT-LB’s hull was all-welded steel with the crew compartment at the front and the engine immediately behind and the troop compartment at the rear. As with most Soviet armoured vehicles, the driver sat on the left and had a single-piece hatch in front of which were three periscopes. The commander was located to the right of the driver and was served by a single-piece hatch and two periscopes. When in combat the commander also operated the turret.



The MT-LB was initially dubbed the M1970 by NATO until its correct Soviet designation became known.



Former East German Army MT-LBs were used by the US Marines for training purposes.

The machine-gun turret was mounted above the commander’s position and was armed with a 7.62mm PKT machine gun. Like the turrets on the BRDM-2 and BTR-60PB it did not have a hatch cover. The machine gunner and the driver both had a windscreen in front of them, which when in battle was protected by an armoured flap hinged at the top. An aisle gave access from the front crew compartment to the personnel compartment at the back. The latter had inward-facing folding canvas seats for ten infantrymen. Two hatches over the top of the troop compartment opened forwards. Troops entered and left the MT-LB by two doors in the rear of the hull, both of which had a firing port. On each side of the troop compartment there was an additional firing port and vision block.

The standard torsion-bar suspension consisted of six road wheels with the idler at the rear and the drive sprocket at the front. There were no track return rollers as the tracks rested on top of the road wheels. The vehicle was fully amphibious, propelled through the water by its tracks. Like most armoured vehicles, just before entering the water a trim vane was erected at the front of the MT-LB and the bilge pumps were switched on.



There have been over eighty variants of the MT-LB, including the stretched MT-LBU that has a higher hull, longer chassis and features seven road wheels rather than six. By the early 1990s the Russian Federation and Ukraine still had some 4,000 MT-LBs.



An Iraqi MT-LBU captured in 1991 during Desert Storm. Iraq obtained about 500 MT-LBs, many of them built in Bulgaria.



A Bulgarian MT-LB variant known as the BMP-23 first appeared in the early 1980s. This was armed with a 23mm cannon and was followed by the BMP-30 armed with a 30mm cannon – but only small numbers were ever produced.

The MT-LB was not produced in such large numbers as the BMP but entered service with the Soviet and other Warsaw Pact armies. It was also manufactured in Bulgaria and Poland for many years. Notably Bulgaria built it under licence for both domestic and export markets that included Iraq. Bulgarian variants included the MT-LB mortar carrier which could carry either an 82mm or 120mm mortar in the rear of the hull.



Soviet airborne troops on exercise supported by BMD-1s, none of which are carrying the ‘Sagger’ missile. Such photographs regularly appeared in Red Star, the Soviet military newspaper, and were intended to emphasise the power of Moscow’s seven airborne divisions and eight air assault brigades.





Chapter Seven

ASU Airborne Assault Vehicle & BMD Airborne Combat Vehicle

On 21 August 1968, a vengeful Moscow moved to crush the Prague Spring. Spearheading the 103rd Guards Air Assault Division, transport aircraft disgorged a number of ASU-85 airborne assault vehicles and APCs onto the runway at Ruzyme airport on the north-east outskirts of the Czech capital. These then seized the Presidential palace on Hradcany Hill in Prague; other key locations were also taken. Two regular Soviet motor rifle divisions then reinforced the airborne forces. The ASU-85s were soon on the streets of Prague, cowing the rebellious population. The Czechs were so surprised by their sudden appearance that there was hardly any opposition.



The ASU-85 was air portable and could be dropped by parachute. It was used to spearhead the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Moscow repeated this success in 1979 when elements of the 105th, 104th and 103rd Air Assault Divisions captured the Afghan capital Kabul. The airborne forces allotted to this operation were larger as it was anticipated resistance would be much more widespread. Unlike the 1968 operation, this time the airborne forces were fully mechanised with BMD airborne combat vehicles that were used to occupy Bagram air base outside Kabul. The airborne task force used to assault the Darulaman Palace was reportedly equipped with BMDs and ASU-85s which took on Afghan tanks.

ASU-85 Airborne Assault Vehicle

Following the Second World War the Soviets developed considerable airborne forces, known as the VDV (Vozdushno Desantnaya Voyska – Air Assault Force), which were supported by a series of AFVs that were air-portable and could be dropped by parachute. Key amongst these were the ASU and BMD. The successor to the much smaller and less powerful ASU-57, the ASU-85 (Aviadesantnaya Samokhodnaya Ustanovka – airborne self-propelled mount) appeared in public for the first time in 1962 and was the Soviets main airborne assault vehicle. Only 2.1m in height, the ASU-85 could be transported by air or parachute-dropped. Each Soviet airborne division had an assault gun battalion equipped with thirty-one ASU-85s and the Polish 6th Pomeranian Airborne Division also deployed it.

Based on the PT-76 tank, the ASU-85 had the same engine, transmission and running gear and was roughly the same weight. It was not amphibious, having been adapted to the assault gun and tank-destroyer role. The 85mm 2A15 gun, which fired HE as well as AP rounds, was located just left of centre of the sloping glacis plate and had a traverse of 12 degrees and elevation of 15 degrees. The driver sat to the right of the main gun, the other three crew members, commander, gunner and loader behind. The vehicle carried forty-five rounds for the main gun and 2,000 rounds for the coaxial 7.62mm machine gun. The TShK-2-79 daytime or the TPN1-79-11 night sights directed both the 85mm and the machine-gun.

The only upgrade, dubbed the ASU-85 M1974 by NATO, appeared in the early 1970s. This simply consisted of the installation of a DShk-M 12.7mm heavy machine gun with 600 rounds, to give the vehicle some measure of anti-aircraft defence. This meant that the ammunition load for the main armament was reduced to thirty-nine rounds.



The ASU-85 airborne self-propelled gun was based on the PT-76 amphibious tank and was armed with a 85mm gun mounted in the hull. This particular one belonged to the Polish 6th Air Assault Division.

BMD-1 Airborne Combat Vehicle

The BMD-1 (Boyevaya Mashina Desantnaya – airborne combat vehicle) first entered service with Soviet airborne units in 1969 but was not seen publicly for another four years. Its main claim to military fame is that it spearheaded Moscow’s invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979, helping to secure Kabul. Since then it has been produced in three different variants, though the basic vehicle remained the same.

This small IFV had a crew of three and could carry four other passengers. Its main armament was the same as that on the BMP-1 IFV, the 73mm Model 2A28, loaded from an automatic forty-round magazine to the right rear of the gunner. Traverse and gun elevation was electric with the usual manual controls for emergencies. The gunner was served by a dual-mode 1PN22M1 monocular periscope sight mounted on the left side of the turret. Day mode magnification gave x6 and a 15-degree field of view, while night mode offered x6.7 and a 6-degree field of view.

Above the 73mm gun was a launcher rail for an AT-3 ‘Sagger’ anti-tank missile. Two missiles were carried inside the turret, which were loaded via a rail through a hatch in the forward part of the turret. Controls for the ‘Sagger’ were stored under the gunner’s seat. When needed these were locked in position between the gunner’s legs, who controls the missile using the joystick in the usual manner. Mounted coaxially to the right of the main armament was a 7.62mm PKT machine gun, fed from a continuous belt of 2,000 rounds loaded into an ammunition box below the weapon. To catch the spent casings a cartridge and link collector was mounted in the turret basket.



The BMD-1 airborne combat vehicle was unique during the Cold War, as NATO had nothing comparable in the parachute or air-landing role.



The BMD-1 entered service with Soviet airborne units in the late 1960s and about 3,000 were built. This vehicle is just 5.4m long, 2.6m wide and 1.6m high.

The hull of the BMD-1 was of welded aluminium. The driver was located at the front of the vehicle, seated in the centre just forward of the turret and had a single hatch that opened to the right. Three periscopes were mounted forward of the hatch. The commander sat to the left of the driver and beside the commander’s seat were the radio and gyrocompass. The bow machine gunner sat to the driver’s right and aimed the bow-mounted 7.62mm PKT machine guns using a TNPP-220 periscope sight. The two machine guns were mounted at either side of the front of the vehicle. Two semi-circular hatches were positioned either side of the forward edge of the turret.



This gives a good view of the BMD-1 turret: note the ‘Sagger’ missile mounted on a launch rail on top of the 73mm gun.



The BMD-1’s main claim to fame is that it spearheaded the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.



This Iraqi BMD-1 was destroyed in 2003 during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Iraq was only supplied a small number of these vehicles.

The BMD-1’s turret had a single-piece forward-opening hatch to the left. The gunner had four periscopes; one mounted either side and two forward of the hatch. The rear personnel compartment had a concertina-style hatch which opened towards the front.

The suspension comprised five small road wheels with the drive sprocket at the rear and the idler at the front, plus four track return rollers. The suspension combined a hydraulic system for changing the ground clearance and maintaining track tension with pneumatic springs, enabling ground clearance to be changed from 100mm to 450mm. The BMD-1 was fully amphibious, propelled through the water by two water jets at the rear of the hull. Limited numbers of BMD-1s were supplied to Angola, India and Iraq.

Soviet airborne or air-landing divisions were issued with 330 BMDs per division; three command versions with the divisional headquarters and three regiments with 109 BMDs each (ten command vehicles, nine BMDs without turrets and ninety basic BMD-1s). Initially the BMD-2 was issued at a rate of nine to each of the three airborne regiments.

BMD M1979/BTR-D

This is immediately distinguishable from the BMD-1 by its longer chassis which has six rather than five road wheels and five rather than four return rollers, the lack of turret and different hull top. This vehicle was first seen during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and was dubbed the BMD M1979 by NATO. Development of the BTR-D commenced in 1974 drawing on the automotive parts of the BMD-1. Like the latter it had a hull of all-welded construction. The glacis protection was increased using a dual-slanted angle in the upper plates of the armour at the front.

The BTR-D was designed for a variety of roles including personnel transport, towing support weapons and maintenance support. It could carry ten infantry as well as the three crew, though the bow machine gunners also normally deployed with the infantry. Some early models were fitted with a small one-man turret armed with a 7.62mm PKT machine gun. A number were also armed with a 30mm AG-17 automatic grenade launcher. A command post variant called the BMD-KShM with a ‘clothes rail’ radio antenna was also seen deployed to Afghanistan.

BMD-2 ACV

The BMD-2 that went into production in the late 1980s was essentially a BMD-1 chassis with a new turret equipped with a different main gun. Initially it was assumed that the BMD-2s were simply rebuilds of the earlier model, but they were in fact new-build vehicles. While the chassis is almost identical to that of the BMD-1, the two-man turret has been replaced by a one-man turret with the gunner being seated on the left and provided with a one-piece circular hatch opening to the front. The reduction of the three-man crew to two means the vehicle can carry five passengers instead of four.

The main armament consists of a 30mm 2A42 dual-feed stabilised cannon with a 7.62mm PKT machine gun mounted coaxially to the right. This is the same weapon as that in the BMP-2. The BMD-2 carries 300 rounds of 30mm and 2,980 rounds of 7.62mm ammunition.

On the right side of the turret is a pintle which can take the AT-4 ‘Spigot’ antitank missile, with a range of 2,000m, or it can take the AT-5 ‘Spandrel’ which has a range of up to 4,000m. The BMD-2 only has a single 7.62mm PKT bow-mounted machine gun which is on the right side, while the left weapon port has been removed.

BMD-3 ACV

Just before the Soviet Union collapsed a final model of BMD appeared. In 1990 the BMD-3 entered service with Russian airborne units followed by the naval infantry. This featured a brand-new chassis fitted with the BMP-2 turret. Like its predecessors it is built from all welded aluminium, protecting the crew only from small-arms fire and shell splinters. Also like the BMD-2, it is armed with the 30mm 2A42 Cannon.

2S9 120mm Self-propelled Howitzer

This vehicle really comes under self-propelled artillery but as it is air transportable, can be paradropped and is based in the BMD (BTR-D) it is included here with the rest of the BMD family.

The 120mm SO-120 (2S9) Anona or Anemone self-propelled howitzer entered service in 1981 and was deployed in Afghanistan with Soviet forces fighting the Mujahideen. This was developed to meet the needs of the Soviet air assault divisions by providing an artillery and anti-tank capability. The Anona was armed with a turret-mounted 120mm 2A51 breech-loading mortar that had a 1.8m barrel. This had a fire rate of six to eight rounds a minute. Muzzle velocity was 560m/s for the HEAT round and 367m/s for the artillery rounds. Ammunition was fixed and loading was done manually, although the ramming was automatic. Once the round was in the feed tray, an electric button was pressed and a rammer automatically seated the round in the chamber and closed the breech.

The 2S9 took just 30 seconds to come into combat and a similar time to come out of action. When deployed to a firing position, the suspension was raised to provide a more stable firing platform. The fighting compartment had stowage for twenty-five rounds of ammunition. Mounted below the rear of the turret was an ammunition loading hatch and mounted on top of the hatch was a device for loading ammunition from the ground directly into the fighting compartment. This permits continuous fire without depleting the onboard ammunition supply.



A 120mm 2S9 self-propelled howitzer. This utilises the chassis of the lengthened BMD M1979, and both saw combat in Afghanistan during the 1980s.

Its aluminium hull was a version of the BTR-D airborne ACV. The two-man turret was located above the fighting compartment, and was of welded aluminium construction with 16mm frontal armour. The turret