The Soviet Amphibious Spearhead | PT-76 Part 1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 сер 2024
- The PT-76 is a Soviet amphibious light tank designed in 1948 which saw service from 1952 up until its gradual retirement from 1967 onwards, partly replaced by the more versatile BMP-1 APC. Characterised by a wide hull and water jet propulsion, the PT-76 offered excellent amphibious capabilities. It was, however, plagued by a large silhouette, weak armor protection and an underpowered 76 mm gun. Despite these flaws, the PT-76 enjoyed a long service life within the Soviet and Russian armed forces, which only placed it into its reserves in 2006. Comparable to other Soviet Cold War vehicles, it has seen combat in several wars and is still in use within smaller armies. Russia is attempting to replace them with BMP-3F amphibious APCs.
If you liked this video, please consider donating on Patreon or Paypal!
Patreon: / tankartfund
Paypal: www.paypal.me/...
Article: tanks-encyclop...
Sources:
PT-76B manual
PT-76 Light Tank They All Float | Medium
Tankograd: PT-76 (thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com)
수륙양용 전차 PT-76 (1) : 네이버 블로그 (naver.com)
«Объект 907» и «Объект 906». Проекты развития ПТ-76 (topwar.ru)
www.history.co...
ARMOR: July - August 2012
Aresdifesa.it
Domestic Armored vehicles 1946-1965
Armor in Vietnam, Jim Mesko
PT-76 amphibious tank, Mikhail Borisovich Baryatinsky
Otvaga2004.ru
Kubinka tank museum
And many more, full list on our website!
Reddit: / tankencyclopedia
TE Shop: www.tanks-encyc...
Our website: www.tanks-encyc...
Gaming News Website: www.tanks-encyc...
Facebook: / tanksencyclopedia
Twitter: / tanksenc
Discord: / discord
Email: tanks.encyclopedia@gmail.com
An article by Pavel Carpaticus Alexe
Narrated by Stewy
Edited by Pavel Carpaticus Alexe
Sound edited by Kraiger
The PT76 actually did pretty well in Vietnam, simply because blowing a bridge didn't stop them. If it was the only tank that made it to the battle it was devastating, simply because the US forces in Vietnam never expected to have to fight tanks. For blowing up a sandbag bunker a 76mm was more than sufficient, Of course if a real tank showed up, or they got caught out in the open by US air assets they were screwed. Basically this was an amphibious fire support vehicle, rather than a tank. It might look like a tank, but if you tried to use it like one the results were going to be bad.
It’s true. This thing is a scouting vehicle for infiltrating the enemy front and collecting info about their positions. Gun has a heat rounds too, which I think are more for a tank self defense against other tanks in a way of shooting and driving away.
Other factor lower fuel consumption than heavier t54 or even t34/85.
But the Russian made PT-76 Light Amphibious Tank have a limited action because of ragged terrain and muddy road so it was intended for night action just in the Battle of Hue . Four of these PT76 have been knock down by a US M48 Patton tanks with his 100 mm guns while the Russian PT-76 only have 76.2 mm guns as if Rift like a Paper bag
@@ee214verilogtutorial2 even as a scout it kinda sucks. It's loud, it's big (for it's weight), it's slow, it's not very good on rough ground. It's a boat with tracks and a gun. It can take you from the sea over the beach just far enough to secure the landing area. It can mimic a tank where nobody expects one. If you play top trumps with it, you'd only win against an opponent without any cards.
@@Darilon12 idk about that:
1. It’s low clearance. You can hide behind the hills and scout, which is a sufficient advantage
2. 2 plane STAB is a huge advantage. You can aim through the binoculars and have a superior accuracy on far distances. Adding to that are your HEAT rounds. They don’t care about the distance, as long as you hit the target.
3. HEAT rounds make it quite useful against any armor on its BR. Not much can stop the heat. Also it can one shot no armor vehicles like itself, huge advantage comparing with armor piercing projectiles.
Indian army made good use of it in 1971 war against Pakistan , its amphibious capability was suitable for the Bangladeshi terrain filled with rivers, canals and padsy fields
Pippa
Will India Be the Next China?| An Indian's Take | OVERLAP
ua-cam.com/video/XRwZp1DLjgc/v-deo.html
stewie good. clear voice doesnt ramble
Thanks mate!
8:38 I have a photo where I'm sitting on this gun's barrel - that's how we celebrated our school graduation.
ZiS means "Zavod imeni Stalina", "Factory named after Stalin". Now it's a part of the Almaz-Antei concern, producing AA missile systems. Also it is located in the same district as S(Sormovo)TZ and Sokol factory.
In 1952 this was so futuristic. The battle record from NVA shows it was a worthy opponent. 76 HE is most devastating to infantery. No western nation have come close to this amphibious light tank. Thanks for showing all the variants of PT-76.
well, that's largely due to the fact, that western allies dis not invest any means into amphibious warfare
@@Mastah2006 us marine lvtp7a1 is for amphibious warfare. Armanent is a machinegun. No hydrojet. Plenty of room for infantery . Came into service 20 years later.
West german Luchs a recognisiance vehicle with propellers and 2cm gun.
But nothing in comparison with PT-76.
couldn't Sheridan swim with preparations
@@igoryst3049 Yes . You are right. Swim slow with only tracks and 14 years later. Full-scale production on the Sheridan by the Allison Division of General Motors did not commence until 1966.
You just sound so oddly eager to make this out to be some kind of miracle that inferior Western bipeds could never have dreamt of which it isn't. The Sheridan was not delayed because of technical incompetence but due to delays in defining the light tank CONOPS and requirements. The US even knew about the waterjet system (which is nothing technically impossible or terribly innovative) and deliberately decided not to use it on the M551, preferring to swim with tracks and not add a second propulsion system when the existing one can do both jobs. Their water speed difference wouldn't lose or win you any fights. Remember you're talking about the same side that was putting propellers on tanks in WW2. The West practically _invented_ swimming armor. And the LVTP-7 has positively nothing in common with the PT-76 except that they both swim.
I do recall this tank being used by the NVA on an American base during an attack in a Vietnam war video. I wish I could remember which video but..
Tank battle of Lang Vei?
One m48 tank was hit by HE rd.fire from pt76.while the round do not destroyed m48 neverthess one crew was killed.
That was Battle of Hue near the Khe Sanh
The point of this tank was to bring a big gun where none could reach. In that role it succeeded. 76mm is gonna fuck up anything that isn't a Medium tank.
The PT 76 nicknamed Pippa by the Indian Army was used extensively in the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war. Our troops used the PT 76 extensively in the war and we won
45 Cavalry
(I am no Indian but I read the story)
@@lukejohnston4666 another fun fact, Pippa means Tin can in our Punjabi language as far as I know, because the PT76 could float in water like a tincan, Pippa was the nickname given by our army to PT76
@@aarchiksinha9673 i learned something new
Superb diligence and detailed presentation. The PT76’s notorious appearance in the Vietnam war was against the US Special-forces manned out post at Lang Vei in February 1968 as part of the larger, country-wide ‘TET’ offensive by the North Vietnamese and Vietcong. The Lang Vei camp,was overrun with significant casualties among the defending Americans and Laotian forces.
Details here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lang_Vei
Interestingly, the US answer to amphibious armored fighting vehicles in Vietnam was generally the M113 armored personnel carrier, which could ‘swim’ but carried nothing more powerful than either the .50 Cal heavy or 7.62mm medium machine guns. The US did rush into deployment in Vietnam the M551 Sheridan, a 17 ton light tank with aluminum hull and armor and a steel turret. The Sheridan also carried a 152mm gun-launcher which could fire conventional ordnance as well as the Shillelagh missile. The M551 could swim, but proved problematic in a number of ways in Vietnam. It’s armor, as was that of the M113, was particularly vulnerable to enemy anti-tank weapons such as the shoulder-fired RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) with its armor-piercing shaped-charge warhead.
Most M551's - as indeed M113's were destroyed by mines.
True. Remember seeing troops riding on top of the M113s because of mines, which pretty much defeats the purpose of the vehicle, although it could still be called an ‘armored personnel carrier’: it was armored, and it carried personnel, but they rode exposed atop due to their fear of being killed or injured inside. Hmm.
Welcome Stewy, great job.
Still I'm gonna miss the guy who don't like saying "Nahverteidigungswaffe".
Stan. Nice guy, always took care to pronounce things properly and mostly succeeded. Stewy does a good job too.
It may look like a tank, but practically it's a landing boat with tracks and a gun.
True.. more like amphibious armored personnel carrier... with gun.
@@Cyan_Nightingale I'd agree, but... It's has effectively no armor and can't carry troops inside.
So we're back at amphibious... with a gun. 😅
@@Darilon12 well I confused it with BMP-3F..
Thank you soo much for taking the time and effort to record narration for this video! I really appreciate it!
Excellent narration!
I don't really see the choice of gun as a serious complaint. If you are fighting enemy MBT's in a PT-76 something has gone horribly wrong. For just about everything else the 76.2mm works just as well as an 85mm and in many cases just as well as a 100mm.
then howcome the chinese upgraded them to 85mm in the type 63? and why bother with a weapon of 76.2mm if you aren't going to try and take out tanks? might aswell have gone like the french and used a gun-mortar of ~60-80mm.
also remember its ment to cross bad terrain, what happens when it inevitably crosses that terrain and then comes across heavier enemy tanks (which what do you know is precisely what happened). its a specialist tank and thus expecting it to be supported by non-specialist tanks is stupid.
You should expect that things might go wrong, you never know what's around the corner, especially when YOU are the recco tank. The 76mm was very good against some tanks it met, like Pakistani Chaffees, but useless against American Pattons in Vietnam.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 - Ask the Chinese. They have their own priorities which are not necessarily the same as their Soviet counterparts.
The French used 60mm gun-mortars in the AML armored cars because they needed a weapon that could be brought rapidly into action in ambush situations at both short range in direct fire and at high angles to deal with the mountainous terrain of Algeria. Not really a problem the Soviet's were facing in 1950. With the Algeria campaign ending and French cavalry units changing to a role of interdicting Soviet airborne units dropping behind NATO front lines and bringing with them light armor such as the ASU-57 and later the ASU-85 the French switched to procurement of AML's fitted with the 90mm F1 gun.
If one is conducting a river crossing where the likely opposition is dug-in machine guns, recoilless rifles and mortars, 76.2mm will do the job just fine in neutralizing such positions. I am reminded of ARVN analysis of the relative merits of the M41 vs. M48A3 tanks where it was concluded the extra lethality of the 90mm gun on the M48 was largely irrelevant. Any target likely to be encountered could be dealt with as well using either gun. Essentially made no difference.
People obsess too much about hot, sexy tank-on-tank action IMHO. The vast majority of the time tanks are not shooting at other tanks. For a light recce vehicle like the PT-76 ideally one would never engage enemy tanks unless there was no other option. For reducing road blocks, engaging machine guns and RCL's or dealing with your opponents light armored scout vehicles the 76 gets the job done.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT well clearly it didn't work well agienst patton's cuz they didn't unlock the heat rounds yet smh
The chinese think to use this type of tank aganist Taiwan in an amphibius action from the sea. they needed a larger caliber to shoot from the sea during the amphibious assault, so the Chinese made other modernized versions of this tank
this channel brings some nice narrators. keep it up lads
I would suggest that the PT-76 were mainly to be used in Finland and Sweden thus made because - the water and rivers in man europe are nonexistant compared to the water in the nordic countries including Norway
Could even have destroyed Norwegian Leopards 1 with heat from the front or with Ap from the sides
Good job, Stewie.
"Plavuishie" Tank translates as swimming tank not floating tank :)
Technically "плавающий" translated as both floating and swimming but in this case, the tank doesn't just float :)
Very nice video and very well narrated. Thank you very much.
Well done. Keep going.
Hi Stewie... Good debut! Well done.
Hi Stewie!
Great videos, the PT76 used heat rounds to combat tanks I believe.
Yes, heat fin stabilized
Hello Stewie 🍻
I'm surprised it was considered as too tall. Profile looks kinda squished.
It was almost as tall as the T-55. Mind you with less armor, less crew, less equipment and smaller gun
Compared to MTLB without the small turret or BMP1, it was quite high.
It's not too tall. It has a comparable, if not lower profile than all its contemporaries. It's lower than an M24, M41, AMX 13, even early APCs such as an M75.
@@HanSolo__ Compared to US light tanks, it was about 40 cm lower and about as wide.
it has a large overall volume to aid with buoyancy so proportionally it looks normal but it's rather tall, yes
Russian use it also in Chechen war with the T-62 of the MVD units.Aganist chechens fire units that celing in the building it was devastating ! The 76mm of PT-76 was more powerful of BMP-1 gun and it could hit higher floors of buildings in grozny
Thanks Dude you're a good narrator with soothing clear voice. I hope they keep you permanent the narrator before has an irritating weird english accent. Don't get me wrong ,David Attenborough is a great narrator. Keep up the good work!
Stan is not British
I'm getting you wrong, George.
Narrators are either good or not - a bigoted attitude is a bigoted attitude even if you play your 'I'm not racist, I like one black person' card.
very well done
stewie griffen from fammy guy
Great video! Was wondering how would the PT-76 fare against a M24 Chaffee on a 1v1 ground fight?
It sucked. That was proven in the 1971 Indo-Pakistani war when those two faced off. The M-24 had great superiority in speed, with about equal armor and armament. However the Pakistani M-24s were defeated because the Indian PT-76s were backed up by T-55s which were far superior to either, and because the Indian forces simply swamped the Pakistanis with numbers.
couldn’t tell them apart back in the early 80s
240mm = about 9½” 🤔
I think they still use them in airborne units
In top trumps it should be the only card made of plastic. It loses every time but if you happen to play in a lake, a river or the sea... It's the only card.
Stating that an amphibious scout vehicle needed to be designed with a 76mm gun to handle enemy armor is a totally incorrect premise to begin with.
1) Tanks in general do a lot more shooting at defensive positions in support of infantry than they do shooting at other tanks (real life combat has NOTHING to do with war thunder or any other game). That requires an HE shell, and around 3"/76mm is about the smallest shell that can be effective against non concrete defensive positions.
2) The effectiveness of a HEAT round for AT use is dependent on diameter, and 76mm had been made obsolete by ineffectiveness due to its small diameter long before the PT-76 was designed.
3) Prior to the introduction of IFVs with ATGMs, no scout vehicle was ever expected to take on MBTs, any more than a new and better moped is expected to take on a Harley. Recon vehicles are not meant to engage main armor forces; they are meant to see them, report them, and get the hell out of the way.
4) Nothing amphibious can ever be as effective in combat as a vehicle of the same type or class that is not amphibious, because steel doesn't float. If you have to make something out of steel that is light enough to float, then it has nowhere near as much armor as something the same size that doesn't float.
5) Plain and simple, the only tanks that the PT-76 could be realistically expected to engage with any effectiveness, from the time of its introduction, would be early WWII relics. And Soviet designers and military leaders were not too stupid to know this. It was designed to be a recon vehicle with the optimal size gun that could effectively use an HE shell against infantry AT teams, towed weapons, MG nests, jeeps or trucks it happened to come across, the occasional building with some enemy troops in it, and things of that nature. The only reason it was given HEAT rounds was to defend itself from real tanks in desperate situations that it should never have gotten into.
And this is just what the narrator proceeds to explain throughout much of the video, so I don't see why that opening statement about getting the gun to take on tanks was even included.
These were used to varying affect in Vietnam.
If I was infantry lacking anti armour ordinances then any light armoured vehicle would be a major issue.
A chinese version was produced in China as t60 tank.but use different turrent design and 85mm gun.it has no gun stabilizatiom.but it can fire apdsfs round
Was there a Western equivalent of pt-76 ever made?
M551 Sheridan.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT Was it really an 'equivalent; or more of a 'counter'?
@@davidjames1068 equivalent. Countering the PT-76 was not the M551's job
There was no NATO doctrine for a vehicle like the PT-76. Probably the closest comparison would be the Swedish IKV-91 although that vehicle was designed specifically as a tank destroyer and assigned to anti-tank companies of infantry brigades, so in terms of doctrinal employment quite different.
The American M551 Sheridan was amphibious (with preparation) mostly because the U.S. Army of the 1960's thought everything short of a MBT should swim. It was also a recce vehicle. Unlike the PT-76 it was designed specifically for air transport (another U.S. Army obsession of the time) so again, direct comparisons are difficult.
Beyond that, the French messed around a bit with amphibious tanks in the 1960's and 70's culminating in a prototype of what was for all intents and purposes a tracked AMX-10RC. Nothing came of it.
@@mirandela777 not only were the T-37A and T-38 not the first amphibious tanks in the world (and by decades), but that they were direct copies of British Vickers designs.
my guess that it was a Russian riflemen on a bear wasnt that far off ......
I mean the pt-76 pretty much slaughtered m-24 chaffees in 1971
Vietnam army still use this amphibius tank today
Indonesia even still use pt 76
PT76 had a stabilizer, BMP-1 which replaced it, did not? Man i dont understand why russians always go 2 steps forward 1 step back
Hi Stewie
So how could this thing be made much better in 1950s within realm of reasonable expense? Should they design a new gun for it? Would 85mm be that much better - it was clearly heavier. It is easy to criticize a design but a bit harder to make it better.
An 85mm gun was feasible. After all, the Chinese managed it. Worth the effort? Probably not.
STEWEEE!!
Major error at 9:45. ' A v6, inline engine'. An engine is either shaped like a v, or in line. On a positive note, this narrator is a lot nicer to listen to than the other guy.
Nope, we are correct. The engine was named the V-6 and was an inline engine. Nothing we can do about how the Soviets named their engines.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT well than its named/called v6, with am inline layout. Not a v6 inline engine.
why do you keep saying "..named V-6, but.."?
where from does this "but" come from&
From the fact it was called V-6, but was not a V6, but an inline 6. That confuses people.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT oh, you were talking about "V"-shaped motors, but it would be "В" in cyrillic, so this way of naming just doesn`t make sence in russian, so i just didn`t think about it before.
No problem. We never knew that V-6 and V6 are actually written with different letter in Russian.
@@TanksEncyclopediaYT yep, "v" doesn`t exist in cyrillic and the same sound is written with "в".
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Imagine being in a " tank " and a 50cal can turn you into Swiss Cheese.
50 cal machine gun cannot penetrate the PT/76 from most angles
The mexican marines should have adopted this tank
this tank was a bad idea. incompatible with existing doctrines (amphibious tank = recon) and unable to preform its intended support role without support from heavier tanks, something it would be unable to do if it had just crosses hard terrain and kind of nullifies its purpose in good terrain (why bother with the barely armoured support tank that needs a medium/MBT, why not just have MBTs?).
the soviets should have use either recoilless rifles (which the soviets had pre-ww2, and many of the issues with such systems had been mostly ironed out during ww2) or a high-low pressure gun (which the germans had developed in ww2).
->the former would have required an oscillating turret or exposed loader (and thus is more understandable due to lack of NBC protection, but still weird it didn't seem to be even considered).
->the later is really weird that they didn't try it. the german 10.5cm 10H64 of 1945 weighed about the same as the 76mm (infact slightly lighter) and had similar if not lower recoil, while useing cheap ammunition and had the potential for greater AP and AT effect (due to larger bursting charge and diameter). a soviet copy of the concept would have solved the PT-76's firepower issue as 10.5cm HEAT was a primary anti-MBT system untill composite ceramic armours in the 70s (its only drawback compaired to regular cannon shells would have been shorter range, but still able to deal with upto 1km against tanks with ww2 tech so later improvements could have reduced this issue)
its very much worth it to bother with a barely armoured support tank that needs 3 minutes to cross a river, while a MBT takes 30 minutes. It was a great idea, just not very well executed.