So there are a decent number of these kicking around, what to do with them? Besides the intended role could they be altered to be more useful? If you took out the gun it actually has a decent amount of space.
My ideas were:
>Breeching Vehicle:
Replace gun with Breech loading 120mm mortar, extra armor, mine plow.
>Frick off assault Vehicle:
Same as above but no plow ands a NONA. Drive up, blast stuff. For shits and giggles put a motorized ZPU-4 with a camera on a platform over the engine and make it Orky.
>Heavy APC:
Replace the gun with nothing but troops. Problem is there is no easy way for them to get out. Add a armor sheet over the engine so they can go out the back under cover? It could be about 20mm thick with a new engine and no gun, would act like spaced armor. You could even put ERA bricks on it.
>Discount Terminator:
Remove gun, add a slab of extra armor to the front, add turret.
use them for target praxis
Further thoughts: By removing the gun mount you could easily add modern composite armor slabs to the box that would let it resist fire from a modern tank, especially if it had a upgraded engine. Something over the engine would be really good as well.
NATO and it's allies could probably scrap together a few hundred, even if they are in junk yards since you are replacing engine/gun/drivetrain they should be fine.
>Target praxis
>praxis
The whole purpose of the thread comrade!
Everyone talks about using tanks as mobile bunkers, any SU-100 modernization without the gun would effectively be a purpose built mobile bunker. As mentioned that box could probably be up armored to be the equivalent of the frontal armor on a modern tank.
But how to arm it? I'm somewhat inclined to say ZUR-23-2S Jod, fully automated Polish ZU-23-2 with radar and AA missile options, maybe add a couple of Stugas for a AA capable terminator.
entrenched weapon
How many of those kicking around have engines running. What would be the mean failure rate of the engines you manage to get running.
We were talking yesterday had Romania had around 50 working ones in storage.
Might be a few more in Yugoslavia that need repairs and are sitting in some Slovenian junkyard.
Really though Assault guns are still guns,
Like for Ukraine they'd be great poor man's artillery especially on the Kherson front.
Park them on one side of the river and make pot shots at Russians on the other side.
Since they don't have a turret it'd be fairly easy to fit an anti-drone cage over them so they'd effectively be lancet immune
please don't give this shit to ukraine
they have a better army than you Dacian freaks now
>Really though Assault guns are still guns,
Why do dumb Black folk think this? They will get good men killed. They do not have modern FCS, modern armor, modern mobility. They are deathtraps. They do not have a use.
The men are the most expensive part of any system, bad equipment is not useful.
As mentioned replacing the engines and drivetrain is no big deal, there is a whole industry built around putting American engines into old commie junk. There are entire corporate division sub oriented around putting Cummins engines in everything from BMPs, T-55s, SU-100s, ect.
The thing is that armored box can already tank most AC fire all day long, without the gun(and with a new bigger engine) it would be really easy to armor it to modern MBT levels. I know about the Romanian ones, i was thinking that since you would be replacing the engine and drive train anyway the hundreds of rotting hulls lying around could be recycled.
With a 20mm slab over the engine you would have a good mounting platform for all sorts of stuff.
Sadly my personal anti drone/IFV/people obliterating option is Iranian:
>So there are a decent number of these kicking around
There is not. Aside from some museum prices and static memorials and one or two in Yemen, there isn’t many if any. The Soviet Union scrapped large swathes of WWII era armor and equipment into the 1960s and 1970s. Anything that wasn’t destroyed was sent as military aid abroad.
Russia doesn’t even have that many T-55s lying around. Hell, they had to import CZECH manufactured T-34s from Laos for their annual parades as they didn’t have enough functioning T-34s at hand.
Still functioning: 50 in Algeria, 25 Morocco, 100 Vietnam
Mothballed: 150 in Egypt
Czechs alone had 200. Even if they are just rusted hulls sitting in junkyards since the proposed use involves removing the gun and replacing the engines and drive train as long as the hull is intact they can be used as a heavily armored box.
>Russia doesn’t even have that many T-55s lying around.
Funny since as mentioned in a previous thread some company in CA has 119 of them with the drivetrains rebuilt in the exact way being discussed here.
Duh, I have the dumb: probably a bunch of hulls in Ukraine.
Buy them, restore them. Remove guns. Make ghetto apcs. Send to Ukraine.
As a APC they would be pretty good if you removed the gun, you could fit at 6-8 guys (really cramped) in there. The problem is there is no practical way for them to get out under fire. As mentioned above (
) you could make it into a really tough mobile bunker but it would be also be really slow.
Without the gun you could put a weapon on top, armor the shit out of it and dig it in really deep to make it a pretty damn tough target. However it would be slow.
We haven't yet talked about the obvious thing: Leaving the gun on and using it as it was intended to be used when it was made. The issue there is that leaving the gun prevents it from really digging in and exposes it to potential MBT (125mm) fire. Even with a bigger engine the gun and mount are 6+ tons, you can have the gun or extra armor, you can't have both unless you want a top speed of 25-30Kph.
The gun also can't kill a modern MBT and all other theoretical weapons options can kill anything besides a modern MBT so besides ghetto artillery there is no point to keeping the gun. Also there are far lighter weight weapons options when it comes to ghetto artillery, breech loading 120mm mortars come to mind.
Personally i'd deal with it being slow as shit if you armored it up, i'd bolt some sort of twin/quad AA gun with a few ATGMs to the roof, and use it as a mobile bunker.
Moving is better, if you could mass a brigade or two of them equipped as i've suggested you would have a mobile bunker unit. Basically siege machines. Since the gun can't kill a MBT and there are better options to it the gun really isn't needed in the grand scheme of modern war.
(continued)
My concept is this:
A decent number (50-60) organized in a 'siege brigade' would act as mobile bunkers using roof mounted AA guns as anti drone and infantry deletion weapons. They would move in to the second line when there was risk of enemy break through then either shore up the second line or act as a trap. Your forces pull back in the face of overwhelming enemy infantry/light armor, focus on the enemy MBTs and their Infantry/APCs/IFVs run into a wall of these fricking things.
The Ukraine war is reaching WW1 levels of mobility, maybe armoring it with so much basic composite armor that it can only move 25-30kph isn't that bad. It moves slowly but it does move.
>museum prices and static memorials
Isn't that...Alot?
Russia more or less lied about scrapping their T-55 fleet because it's not actually very economical to melt down a tank for the return in scrap you're getting. Melting removes all the properties in the armour which makes it sturdy and bulletproof, which is why you more often see tanks disassembled and their components used in projects like fortifications.
>Russia doesn’t even have that many T-55s lying around.
they had about 2000 t54/55 condition unknown and how many went to ukraine unknown(many, destroyed many). Initially at least they were using them as static emplacements and even artillery on earth ramps but tank ammo is high velocity and the barrels (not great metal in Russia) on even a western tank only lasts a few hundred shots. This means many will have been shot to shit. Rece nt offensives now have T54 in assault with first line troops as the russian military vanishes
The T-55s and T-62s that Russia has are maintained and reactivated through boneyards, buying back stuff they sold to the 3rd world 50 years ago or sucking North Korean dick.
2000 scrap T-55s? Wow, that's a stockpile equal to East Africa, Egypt, Israel, Ethiopia or the DPRKs Workers Guard 3rd tier civil defense units.
Wait, you meant functional ones? No.
remove the gun and make them engineering vehicles
That would be the quickest use; a new engine, added armor and dozer/mine plow. You could gut the cab, isolate it and put an internal armored box on shock mounts inside it to ensure a really high rate of crew surviorability.
Worth noting that the people who do these upgrades usually add a steering by wire system so a isolated internal cabin is easy enough, it could even be rigged so fire suppression floods the space between the cabin and inner hull.
The amount of cope thinking these things could take an AT4
Without the gun and with a 400mm composite armor slab with ERA welded to the front it could shrug off a 125mm APFSDS round. The gun and mount alone weigh 6 tons, add in a new engine and transmission and it would have enough power to add a shitload of modern armor.
Would be the other good way to use them, i am pretty sure there is a whole family of recovery vehicles based on it.
It would be slow as hell due to the gearing needed but in theory you could make a combined engineering/recovery vehicle.
This is moronic
I was thinking the same thing
all you need is 0.4 m of composite armor and reactive armor, then a soviet POS can resist modern weaponry
ok
That's literally every non western armored system on earth anons, it is a universal standard practice these days. I don't mean to surprise you but guess what is under the add on armor and bricks of a T-90?
As a further surprise, are you aware that the actual turret of a Merkava without the add on armor can be penetrated by 40mm grenades?
A 400mm composite slab will not be enough to shrug off 125mm APFSDS, in fact it would have trouble with third gen 105mm APDS. If you want frontal protection from even semi modern 125mm APFSDS you're going to need 700mm of composite or more
>add in a new engine and transmission
Simple as. Why not new tracks while we are there.
That is a standard refurbishment made with every restored tracked vehicle on earth silly. And yes, new engine and transmission really are simple as, Israel has done it with every reused Soviet vehicle they ever captured.
Would you like your drive by wire electrically driven Cummins powered BMPs with new tracks in BMP-1 or BMP-2 flavor?
https://www.generalequipment.info/BMP-1.htm
Its what, a 2-1 or 3-1 weight ratio for composite vs steel? Plausibly could move it but slow, way too slow. Got me there, too heavy. So no tanking 125mm.
Do you think we're selling Cummins engines to the fricking Russians?
Wouldn't surprise me, tbh.
Anon the idea wasn't for Russia to use them but the other guys....
And actually Russia should be able to source them, at least a few anyway. They are sold 'over the counter' as it were on 3/4ths of the planet which is why they are the most popular engine for these types of conversions besides being the first ones used for this sort of thing. Also they are very, very good engines.
Jerry rigging composite armor out of cheap materials would be trivial for applique, and not all that heavy. Probably ought to be doing that for the top decks anyways against the drones.
At least once
Recovery vehicles.
Use it as an artillery gun, like the pozzians are doing with their T-54s.
Are you moronic? It is a great weapon against T-34, IS-8 and T-55/54, gib more
Ask Vietnam
You shouldn't use them in combat but if you absolutely needed to the best way to do it would be to probably just convert them into static emplacements. Bury the hull and casemate in a hillside or something, rip out the engine and give the engine comparment access to the crew compartment and you've basically got a pillbox with a 100mm gun.
I present my humble submission, take that shit off the front, put a remote 25mm turret up top. Slather the front in ERA, your crews will do it given half a chance anyway. Protect yourself from drones with a top down attack protective cage. Add wood, everyone knows javelins are 90% less effective against birch logs.
Basically what i've been thinking. Get rid of the 100mm, add as much armor as you can while still being able to move and put a remote autocannon/AA gun (same thing really) on top.
With 1-2 crew you could completely isolate the crew compartment, add a interior compartment (about 1/2 meter space between the inner hull and the interior compartment) mounted on springs with a fire control system that floods the space in between with halogen. Most upgrades for these sorts of vehicles use drive by wire steering and cameras so you can just have a few wires going to the internal crew compartment. Crew survivability would be important since you want someone to actually do it.
I mean a actual breech loaded infantry120mm mortar, the 100mm and mount weigh 6 tons.
1000mm (500mm on the sides, 250 roof) of layered aluminum carbide, Lexan and porcelain sheets. One big slab held together by layers of sheet steel and bolted to the front/sides. It would degrade and shatter under any sort of sustained fire but it would be cheap and easily replaced.
Layers of it, we are trying to invent a mobile version of Heinrich Severloh's best day.
>birch armor
>sandbags ON the copecage
excellent touch anon, I appreciate the effort on this. remote crow style 25mm sounds like a neat setup and would have the space post gun removal but that'd be way too much effort.
This is the only viable option imo, I don't know much about the su100 but it probably has the powerplant to pull some bmps and maybe some lighter t series.
OP here. Without rebuilding too much (engine is a given) the most cost effective use would probably be as a armored recovery vehicle. Mine clearing/armored bulldozer is second.
I was most looking for theoretical uses, some of which i think might work as siege machines. This guy:
hit the nail on the head, if your didn't have like 200+ of them it would not be cost effective to try it.
That said,
as a dug in mobile bunker would be useful if you could find anyone insane/suicidal enough to man it where it was needed.
Agreed, also
>suicidal enough
Anon, come on now, the past few years have shown the lack of self preservation lmfao.
We've seen these homies riding in scoobydoo vans, this shit is like fort knox in comparison.
Honestly I'm more surprised we haven't seen psuedo stationary emplacements outside of the wiggle anti-drone TM shitboxes(webmrelated). But more of like was
is referring to. More than likely due to lack of industry or capability for things not inline to quick kitbashes.
>inb4 tanks is a tank posters
They already have used old t models for indirect fire roles, it's just another logical step for them imo.
I'm curious what heinous concoctions of Black personrigging we'll see in about another year or two's time.
>We've seen these homies riding in scoobydoo vans, this shit is like fort knox in comparison.
Umm...I started the thread thinking of how Ukraine could use them not Russia. It's why i thought up stuff like:
>With 1-2 crew you could completely isolate the crew compartment, add a interior compartment (about 1/2 meter space between the inner hull and the interior compartment) mounted on springs with a fire control system that floods the space in between with halogen. Most upgrades for these sorts of vehicles use drive by wire steering and cameras so you can just have a few wires going to the internal crew compartment. Crew survivability would be important since you want someone to actually do it.
I care alot about crew survivability and human life, Russians not so much.
100 of them, they could probably sell them to someone like General Equipment in exchange for a minor US trade concession and say they had no idea where they were going.
Pro Ukrainian anti Russian Norktard actually.
Use for IDF with 1-man crews to reduce manpower losses when the inevitable counterbattery fire arrives.
I wish a knowledgable anon would do a thread on the Soviet "Triplex" SPG concept, including such famous pieces as the SU-100, SU-76, SU/ISU-152. They were pretty nifty back then
Lots of ERA. 120mm shells are BIG. The 100mm is fine at a higher fire rate. Probably tolerates cope cages and troops on the back better weight distribution wise with the placement of the gun.
lmfao, turn it into a remote controlled suicide "breecher" that simply drives in to the mine fields one after the other, eats the mines untill a road is cleared
Vietnam still has them in active service
there is a 0.000000000000000000000000001% chance this is some Russian general actually asking for advice and it makes me giggle
Nothing, they suck. They sucked fifty years ago when they were used in actual combat, and most assuredly would be woefully shitty unless it's just putting down a mob of civilians.
>https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2016/07/03/su-100-tank-destroyer-post-wwii-use-in-the-middle-east/
The way this war is being fought, these things wouldn't even be that bad of a vehicle. I mean it's not either side is applying too much tactics these days. Just sit it somewhere and point it at the enemy.
Does just make me wish that Ukraine got those S tanks though.
>Does just make me wish that Ukraine got those S tanks though.
Scrapping the S-Tanks was one of the greatest mistakes in military history, they would be one of the MVP of this war.
Exactly, that's why i started the thread to try and figure out if there was a non suicidal way to use them. Please note i'm not the person you were responding to.
How do you think the S-tanks would hold up against drone attacks? I dunno much about their top armour, but the tank is kind of all top. Not sure if it's designed to be taking attacks from that angle though.
Station them in pillboxes overlooking the beaches of Odessa as decoys/last resort weapons. That’s really all they could be good for.
Yes, because an amphibious invasion of Odessa is something that might actually happen.
I'm sure some Ukrainians wish it would but i doubt even Russia is that stupid. Unfortunately, strategically a Russian amphibious invasion attempt would basically win the war for Ukraine so they will not try it.
You are right probably, a few dozen unmodified Ukrainian SU-100s in Odessa would be highly useful in the case of a dime store D-Day. It makes sense, Norks have all their SU-100s assigned to units intended to prevent a landing on their East Coast so the idea might have some merit. There is a technological bottleneck involving making an amphibious vehicle that can take a 100mm round to the face.