tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post3922832185091538585..comments2024-03-28T14:35:30.147-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: Optimal ModernizationPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-32643752070093332102020-01-21T10:52:53.327-05:002020-01-21T10:52:53.327-05:00From what I've read the precision was unsatisf...From what I've read the precision was unsatisfactory, particularly from the high pressure eroding the rifling in the barrel very quickly. The barrel was also incredibly long, which introduced mobility issues. Experiments continued until June of 1945, by which point it was very clear that the SU-100 was a much more promising design.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-41781079370097651732020-01-20T17:59:46.010-05:002020-01-20T17:59:46.010-05:00I have read that the high-velocity 85 mm (1050 m/s...I have read that the high-velocity 85 mm (1050 m/s) failed in the IS series b/c of insufficient barrel strength. I suppose that too was the reason it wasn't selected for the SU-100? Lacking data on its weight, I don't know if it would have been a friendlier solution in terms of making the SU-100 front-heavy.<br /><br />(I would have wanted the 122 mm anyways for its HE power for a heavy tank, but for a tank destroyer like the SU-100, it could have been a fit).<br /><br />Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.com