Author Topic: NATEDOG:  (Read 1027 times)

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
NATEDOG:
« on: May 31, 2000, 11:26:00 AM »
Pyro mentioned in his Dogfighter interview about introducing more 'Self-propelled Artillery..."

Here's a Soviet SU-152, could also be used as a tank killer too.  If you need more info, I have a good link to a website with more Russian stuff, just hollar.

This would be a nice addition to the current vehicles we have.

 

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
NATEDOG:
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2000, 11:46:00 AM »
Rip..
How many 152mm rounds did it carry..
15?
boy that would be fun

Offline RAM

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
NATEDOG:
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2000, 11:46:00 AM »
Ummm...Rip sorry to correct you in this one. But Su152 was an assault gun, not SP artillery. While this may seem a stupid pointing, in fact it isnt. Assault guns were uncapable of indirect fire, so they could't do standard artillery bombardment, only direct firing with the 152mm gun.

Pongo, Standard loading was 17 rounds. I believe some of them were certainly AP rounds (as SU152 was quite good Panther killer), but I have no exact data on the % of rounds of each kind.



[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 05-31-2000).]

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
NATEDOG:
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2000, 11:55:00 AM »
I stand corrected on the name, still considered a "self-propelled gun", however...

The ML-20 cannon had 655 m/s muzzle velocity                                    and was capable to penetrate 110 mm vertical                                    armor from distance of 2000 metres. The weight of the AP shell for this cannon was 48.78 kg, and 43.6 kg for the fragmentation shell. Although the SPG was developed for close infantry support, it could be used as a tank destroyer. In early February  1943 the works on project of KV-14 was finished.
Cannon had a rate of fire only 2 shots per minute because of multi-part loading shot. Cannon was equipped with panoramic sight (for indirect fire) and telescopic sight ST-10 (for direct fire). Range                                    of direct fire - 700 metres. All KV-14 assault guns  were equipped with 10-RK-26 radio and internal  phone TPU-3. KV-14 was based on KV-1s tank  chassis that was still in production.



[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 05-31-2000).]

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
NATEDOG:
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2000, 12:10:00 PM »
The ISU-122 which was an improvement on the above vehicle, was also used as an artillery platform.

Time to time, ISU's used for artillery missions  because they were able for both direct and indirect fire. In particular, during the Sandomir-Silesia offensive operation, the 368th Guards OTSAP of                                    the 1st Ukrainian Front was assigned for artillery  mission and for 107 minutes the regiment fired 980 shells.

Maybe  the ISU-122 would be a better choice?

Offline RAM

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
NATEDOG:
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2000, 12:14:00 PM »
ummm...well I knew about ISU-122 indirect fire equipment. I had no info,tho, that confirmed its use as artillery, as soviets had more than enough artillery tubes by themselves  . Seems you have that info   where did you find it? any book?

About SU152, first time I hear that it could do indirect fire...again, where did you read that?...FEED ME FEED ME!!!  


Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
NATEDOG:
« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2000, 12:16:00 PM »
I am by no means an expert on this subject, you certainly are more informed than I am, however I did get this data (without permission, oops..) from this website:
 http://www.history.enjoy.ru/index.html

You can find these guns under the Artillery section.

Offline RAM

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
NATEDOG:
« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2000, 12:26:00 PM »
WOW!!! wonderful link! ty Ripsnort!!  

I see the paragraph you quoted...seems that ISU-122 was used as artillery in 1945 attack on Silesia. Well I didnt knew that.

What I never understood in Soviet army were two facts.

1-they never developed a SP artillery gun, AFAIK the SU-versions were only close support howitzers.

2-they never developed an armored troop vehicle. Their halftracks were both lend-leased or captured. It is really surprising because by strapping the turret in early T-34 tanks they could have done a quite nice troop carrier.

Sorrow[S=A]

  • Guest
NATEDOG:
« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2000, 08:18:00 PM »
Ram, AFAIK, a SP artillery gun would have been a waste of time for them. Standard infantry in the GPW had access to close and long range mortars. This in fact was their classic attack. 105mm, 90 and 80mm mortars pounding a target from long range then infantry moving in with smaller calibres for close range. Who needs a tracked 105 mm howitzer when you have the same calibre firing mortars? Especially when you have LOTS of them?  

The troop carrier baffles me too. I think they just figured trucks were good enough. The ground troops were more of a slow dedicated and thorough advance mindset than a blitzkrieg one, hence they saw no real need to produce an armored troop transport to move small amounts of troops quickly. <shrug>

Offline leonid

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 239
NATEDOG:
« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2000, 01:12:00 AM »
One of the Soviets' main concerns was to insure that production was not impaired.  In late 1941, when much of their heavy industry was moved to the Urals, it took 3-6 months before production was even approaching prewar levels.  This was a very difficult time, because it meant that replacements from fall of 1941 to spring of 1942 were very sparse.  Once production stabilized, it became of utmost importance that production be maintained and, if possible, increased.  In fact, this was one area that Stalin was very, very concerned about.

Thus, when any prototype was posed before the Red Army for approval, one very big factor was how much would it impact on present production (retooling of machinery, etc.), and in such an event would it's combat effectiveness be worth the disruption to production?  When it came to the question of manufacturing an armoured personel carrier, the answer was 'no', because it would have impacted on tank production.  This was the same reason trucks were lend leased, rather than built.
ingame: Raz

Offline RAM

  • Parolee
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
NATEDOG:
« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2000, 05:11:00 AM »
in 1943 T34 production was, how much?...30000?...

Germany's was less than 5000.

I understand the concern of Stalin in 1941, but not in 1943. I regard the lack of a troop carrier to a lack of interest for his men's lifes. USSR in the attack was innefective, and only won battles because manpower, never because intelligent use of resources.

I guess it was their culture, or the soviet code...or whatever.

Offline pzvg

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
NATEDOG:
« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2000, 06:54:00 AM »
Can the red tide can you say Hummel?  
Note: HTC still waiting for my namesake

------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
NATEDOG:
« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2000, 07:34:00 PM »
Without thier prey(Panthers and Tigers) the heavy soviet asault guns would be wasted polygons. If you had the Panther and tiger the only tanks really good against them would be panthers and tigers..


------------------
"Stupids are like flies. they are everywere, but are easy to kill"
RAM

Offline fdiron

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 697
NATEDOG:
« Reply #13 on: June 01, 2000, 09:14:00 PM »
From what I have read about Soviet attacks by German soldiers, the soviets main attack strategy was mass.  This may sound unbelievable, but the Soviets actually used there own soldiers to explode German mines.  I know some of you wont believe it, but I do.  They would send men and tanks over known mine fields and let them get killed in order to clear the way for the others.  In this way they were very wasteful.  This is probably why high production levels were so important.

Sorrow[S=A]

  • Guest
NATEDOG:
« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2000, 11:07:00 PM »
fdiron thats a load of crap.
It's typical western mindset ignorance as well, based on misinterpretation of the eastern front due mostly to the predominance of only german information.

BTW Ram the Russians had many many tactically brilliant generals as well as strategic brilliants as well. Read up on the "backhand blow" strategy and how incredibly well it fit with the system of supply and force makeup of the russian army. They also had idiots. So did germany as well.

  Leo, can you repost that link about research and western information on the GPW?

BTW Ram, those battles were won by and large on manpower...  but on purpose not accidently. Russian forces specialized their supply routes to attack in "echelon". This means that when they attacked they moved an enormous amount of men, resources and support into an area and dominated it. This may not have been your definition of "brilliant" but it sure as hell worked. Plus it had the pleasant side effect that once the army was mobilized and actually fighting the German Blitz attack was useless. Break through one Echelon..  and you run into the next. then the next. then the next. Ad infinium. There could be no breakthrough.. there was nowhere to break into. Once your attack runs outta steam the russians just rolled up the slack and kept moving.

BTW if we get a russian tank I want the Kv-1a.
hehehehe.....

More of those in the beggining of the war is a lovely "if only" scenario. Hell one of them held up an entire German mechanized division until it ran out of ammo. Then the crew bailed!