General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Rich46yo on March 28, 2017, 08:31:21 PM
Title: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Rich46yo on March 28, 2017, 08:31:21 PM
How effective were they ? While used in what way ? What was the best ones ? Any good books on them ?
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Arlo on March 28, 2017, 10:01:13 PM
90 mm Gun Motor Carriage, M36
"Combat use
The first 40 M36s did not make it overseas until September 1944, and entered combat in October 1944. The First and Ninth US Armies used M36s to reequip battalions attached to armored divisions. The 703rd Tank Destroyer Battalion began reequipping on September 30, 1944. The Third US Army used them to reequip towed battalions. The 610th Tank Destroyer Battalion (Towed) began retraining on September 25, 1944.[7] The first tank destroyer battalion to actually receive the M36 in early September, The 776th, was in transit from Italy to Europe at the time and did not use them in combat until October 1944. The M36 was well-liked by its crews, being one of the few armored fighting vehicles available to US forces that could destroy heavy German tanks from a distance. Corporal Anthony Pinto of the 1st Platoon, Company A, 814th Tank Destroyer Battalion knocked out a Panther at 4,200 yards. Another 814th gunner, Lt. Alfred Rose, scored a kill against a Panther at 4,600 yards, the maximum range of the telescopic sight. However, the Panther's glacis plate could deflect certain shots from the 90 mm gun at just 150 yards, and the front armor of the Tiger II could not be penetrated at all.[8] By the end of 1944, seven tank destroyer battalions had converted to the M36. The M36 had mostly replaced the M10 by the end of the war."
On September 19, 1944, in the Nancy bridgehead near Arracourt, France, the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion was attached to the 4th Armored Division. Lt. Edwin Leiper led one M18 platoon of C Company to Rechicourt-la-Petite, on the way to Moncourt. He saw a German tank gun muzzle appearing out of the fog 30 feet away, and deployed his platoon. In a five-minute period, five German tanks of the 113th Panzer Brigade were knocked out for the loss of one M18. The platoon continued to fire and destroyed ten more German tanks while losing another two M18s. One of the platoon's M18s commanded by Sgt Henry R. Hartman knocked out six of the German tanks, most of which were the much-feared Panthers.[23]
The M18 Hellcat was a key element during World War II in the Battle of the Bulge.[24] On December 19–20, the 1st Battalion of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment was ordered to support Team Desobry, a battalion-sized tank-infantry task force of the 10th Armored Division assigned to defend Noville located north-northeast of both Foy and of Bastogne just 4.36 miles (7 km) away. With just four[25] M18 tank destroyers of the 705th Tank Destroyer Battalion to assist, the paratroopers attacked units of the 2nd Panzer Division, whose mission was to proceed by secondary roads via Monaville (just northwest of Bastogne) to seize a key highway and capture, among other objectives, fuel dumps—for the lack of which the overall German counter-offensive faltered and failed. Worried about the threat to its left flank in Bastogne, it organized a major joint arms attack to seize Noville. Team Desobry's high speed highway journey to reach the blocking position is one of the few documented cases[25] in which the top speed of the M18 Hellcat – 50 miles per hour (80 km/h) – was actually used to get ahead of an enemy force.[25]
The attack of 1st Battalion and the M18 Hellcat tank destroyers of the 705th TD Battalion near Noville together destroyed at least 30 German tanks and inflicted 500 to 1,000 casualties on the attacking forces, in what amounted to a spoiling attack. A Military Channel historian credited the M18 destroyers with 24 kills, including several Tiger tanks, and believes that in part, their ability to "shoot and scoot" at high speed and then reappear elsewhere on the battlefield, confused and slowed the German attack, which finally stalled, leaving the Americans in control of the town overnight.[25] However, actual German combat records show that no Tiger tanks were in operation in the area at the time and that the nearest Tigers were some 20 km to the south east, still in Luxembourg.
Combat tactics
The average combat range noted by the Americans for tank vs. tank action was around 800 to 900 m (2,600 to 3,000 ft). The Hellcat had a gun that could penetrate roughly 3.5 in (88 mm) of armor at 2,000 m (2,200 yd), which was enough to penetrate a Panzer IV medium tank frontally. However, against the Panther, a Hellcat would be facing a tank with roughly 5.5 in (140 mm) of line-of-sight armor frontally that could not be pierced at any range, with a 3.9 in (100 mm) mantlet that could be pierced only at extremely short ranges unless using the exceedingly rare HVAP ammunition.[13][14] The 76 mm gun could knock out the Panther with relative ease from the flanks and rear, as the turret and side armor was weak and the quality of German armor plate declined in the last two years of the war. While Panthers in defense were formidable, Panthers in the attack had great difficulty in not exposing their vulnerable large side profiles. A common tactic for any AFV is employing the use of Hull down firing positions, which allows it to remain mostly behind cover while engaging the enemy."
The Jagdpanzer designs followed on from the more lightly armoured Panzerjäger ("tank hunter") designs, which took an anti-tank gun and mounted it on top of a tank chassis with supplementary armour fitted around the gun crew, but due to its generally open rear and top, almost never providing the crew with full protection from the elements. Also, a lot of experience was gained from the Sturmgeschütz series of assault guns for infantry support, which already used heavily armoured casemates, completely enclosing the vehicle's crew—although they were associated with the artillery, they were very often used in the anti-tank role.
Tactical use
On the battlefield, the Germans sometimes had to retreat, or try to feign one. Their line of retreat would then preferably pass the location of their anti-tank units, who would use their superior firepower to stop the enemy, perhaps even make possible a counter-attack. Due to the lack of a turret and the armour being concentrated at the front, the ideal combat situation for Jagdpanzer units was in the planned ambush, and the skill of the commander of such units lay in correctly choosing and preparing such places long before needed."
The Jagdpanzer 38 fit into the lighter category of German tank destroyers that began with the Panzerjäger I, continued with the Marder series and ended with the Jagdpanzer 38. The 75 mm Pak 39 L/48 gun of the Jagdpanzer 38 was a modified version of the 75 mm StuK 40 L/48 used in the StuG III and StuG IV assault guns. With this gun the Jagdpanzer 38 was able to destroy nearly all Allied or Soviet tank types in service at long ranges (except heavy tanks) and its fully enclosed armor protection made it a safer vehicle to crew than the open-topped Marder II or Marder III series.
The Jagdpanzer 38 was one of the most common late-war German tank destroyers. It was available in relatively large numbers and was generally mechanically reliable.[9] Like some other late-war German SPGs, the Jagdpanzer 38 mounted a remote-control machine gun mount which could be fired from within the vehicle. This proved popular with crews, though to reload the gun a crewmember needed to expose himself to enemy fire.
Also, its small size made it easier to conceal than larger vehicles. A self-propelled gun such as this was not intended for a mobile, meeting engagement or the typical Wehrmacht blitzkrieg style of warfare. Instead, a light self-propelled gun like the Jagdpanzer 38 excelled when emplaced along pre-determined lines of sight where the enemy was expected to approach and when used in defensive positions to support a prepared ambush. The Jagdpanzer 38 is similar in its dimensions and vertical profile to the minuscule and undergunned Panzer II, a prewar tank. However, by 1944 the majority of tanks were dramatically larger and heavier, making a Jagdpanzer 38 waiting motionless in ambush a very small target to detect, much less hit. Its main failings were comparatively thin side armor, limited ammunition storage, poor gun traverse, poor internal layout that made operating the vehicle difficult, as well as leaf springs and drive wheels that were prone to failure due to the increased weight.[10] Using the Jagdpanzer 38 and similar vehicles according to a defensive doctrine would offset some of the disadvantages of poor side armor and limited gun traverse.
Operational history
The Jagdpanzer 38 first entered service with the Heeres Panzerjäger-Abteilung 731 in July 1944. This unit was sent to Army Group North on the Eastern Front.[11] One report from the Eastern Front described that a company of Hetzers destroyed 20 enemy tanks without any losses.[12]
How effective were they ? While used in what way ? What was the best ones ? Any good books on them ?
The Tank Killers - A History of America's World War II Tank Destroyer Force (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0041D8342/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1). It goes into detail on the training and doctrine of the TDs in addition to war time service.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Rich46yo on March 29, 2017, 01:07:07 PM
So were they mixed with regular tanks during advances? Apparently Americans used them as flanking vehicles because of their speed, I'm wondering if the Soviets and Germans did the same. The German ones strike me as more defensive in nature. How involved were they at Kursk?
I guess I really have some reading to do. I know a little about American TDs but very little about the other ones. Framkly when it comes to armor reading I'm more interested in the Eastern front. Thanks.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 29, 2017, 01:56:54 PM
So were they mixed with regular tanks during advances? Apparently Americans used them as flanking vehicles because of their speed...
TDs were supposed to deal with any armored threat, while the tanks supported the infantry. However, in reality the TD doctrine was rarely followed and the TDs found themselves being used as infantry support and as mobile artillery at times.
Also, TDs weren't just vehicles, TDs included towed anti-tank guns.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Rich46yo on March 29, 2017, 02:10:16 PM
My interest is in the vehicles and the doctrine. And how they meshed in actual armored battles.
For instance the TD appears to me more dependent on infantry support. I dont see it as a "break thru type" vehicle. Dont get me wrong, I love ATGs too. In those I think the Germans had everyone beat. Most of all the 75mm one, was it the L40?
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Rich46yo on March 29, 2017, 02:17:31 PM
Good ole Achtung Panzer http://www.achtungpanzer.com/sturmgeschutz-iii-sturmgeschutz-iv.htm (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/sturmgeschutz-iii-sturmgeschutz-iv.htm)
So the Germans designed them and their tactics for offensive purposes but reality made them very effective entrenched weapons. However...
Quote
Quote
Ps.531-19 in action !Ps.531-19 commanded by Lieutenant Mauri Sartio destroyed 4 enemy tanks in a very short period of time. Gunner was Corporal Olof Lagus (he was a son of commander of Finnish Armour Division Ruben Lagus). On June 14th of 1944, Finns attacked to retake the village of Kuuterselkä. It was the first time when Finnish Stugs were used in action. It started near midnight (in the Summer it is not dark at night in Finland). First Stugs destroyed some machine guns and anti-tank guns. Suddenly, Sartio’s Stug saw Soviet T-34/85 just 15 meters left to their Stug. As fast as a lightning, driver turned Stug 90 degrees to the left, and Corporal Lagus fired. T-34 started to burn immediately. When it started to burn, Sartio’s crew saw numerous other soviet tanks. Young Corporal fired again and two other T-34 tanks were destroyed. Two other T-34 tanks tried to escape, but Lagus destroyed one of them and second T-34, which managed to drive 70 meters, was destroyed by other Stug. All this had taken only 1 to 2 minutes. All Soviet tanks were T-34/85 tanks and ready for action, but fast reaction of Finnish tankers spoiled their opportunity. Amount of enemy tanks destroyed by Stugs in this attack was 11 T-34/85 tanks, 2 ISU-152 assault guns, 1 IS-2 tank and 1 KV-1 tank.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Oldman731 on March 29, 2017, 02:31:03 PM
Apparently Americans used them as flanking vehicles because of their speed, I'm wondering if the Soviets and Germans did the same.
That was the theory - fast tank destroyers running rings around enemy tanks, while the Shermans shot up the infantry positions. Obviously that notion didn't work so well in places like towns, the Ardennes, or any other location where racing around was not an option.
Russians and Germans went the other way, with heavily armored, big-gunned and un-turreted vehicles that could be produced in large numbers.
- oldman
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 29, 2017, 04:51:58 PM
My interest is in the vehicles and the doctrine. And how they meshed in actual armored battles.
For instance the TD appears to me more dependent on infantry support. I dont see it as a "break thru type" vehicle. Dont get me wrong, I love ATGs too. In those I think the Germans had everyone beat. Most of all the 75mm one, was it the L40?
The book I linked in my first post is what you're looking for in regards to the TD doctrine used by the US and goes into detail on actual engagements of US tank destroyers. It really doesn't separate vehicles and towed AT TD units since the TD doctrine encompassed both types of units. It's a really good book and pretty much details how the TD doctrine failed for the most part.
An interesting part of the TD's history, for me at least, was their training. Members of TD units were given extensive training, especially in the use of explosives and recon. IIRC, TD training included some elements of commando training and were considered specialized, elite troops.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Arlo on March 29, 2017, 05:24:09 PM
The book I linked in my first post is what you're looking for in regards to the TD doctrine used by the US and goes into detail on actual engagements of US tank destroyers. It really doesn't separate vehicles and towed AT TD units since the TD doctrine encompassed both types of units. It's a really good book and pretty much details how the TD doctrine failed for the most part.
An interesting part of the TD's history, for me at least, was their training. Members of TD units were given extensive training, especially in the use of explosives and recon. IIRC, TD training included some elements of commando training and were considered specialized, elite troops.
German TDs went to elite formations too didnt they?
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Ack-Ack on March 29, 2017, 08:57:12 PM
German TDs went to elite formations too didnt they?
I'm not sure, not familiar with the German's TD doctrine or the training they had to undergo.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Bushmills on March 29, 2017, 09:09:04 PM
German tiger crews had to know how to use scuba equipment and do the backstroke as part of their training for deep wading.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: FBKampfer on March 29, 2017, 09:53:23 PM
Ostensibly, high performance vehicles like the Tiger, Tiger II, Jagdpanther, etc were supposed to go to veteran units. However the SS generally got first crack at things, regardless of unit quality or combat record. Not to say that the SS crews were poor quality, only that an outstanding Heer unit might be passed over in favor of a very good SS unit.
However at the end of things, there weren't enough veteran crews to go around. There are anecdotes of newer, less disciplined crews losing Tiger II's and Jagdpanthers and Elefants because they lost their nerve under fire and turned around instead of reversing.
The Tigers were supposed to serve in independent heavy tank battalions (sPzAbt, sHPzAbt, or sSSPzAbt in abbreviations for heavy panzer battalion, army heavy panzer battalion, and SS heavy panzer battalion respectively), and for the most part did so. However they also were allocated to individual battlegroups, or attached to other units, rarely below the company level.
Additionally, per German TOE, the tank destroyers were supposed to serve in the infantry antitank arm, which is why one will often find pictures of tank destroyers and StuGs, particularly the lighter units late in the war, crewed by men wearing feldgrau uniforms, instead of black Panzertruppen uniforms.
However they were used as tank substitutes with increasing frequency later and later in the war. It was rare to issue different vehicles below the company level for the purpose of unit cohesion, though it wasn't uncommon to see a Panzerkompanie issued with StuGs or Jagdpanzers in a Panzerabteilung comprised mostly of Panthers.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 29, 2017, 10:23:41 PM
https://youtu.be/c_PSS1-GUv0
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Denniss on March 30, 2017, 04:04:57 AM
StuGs were always part of the artillery arm, tank hunters may have belonged to infantry AT arm, TDs belonged to armor although the Jagdpanzer 38 may have belonged to infantry AT arm. The Jagdpanzer IV was first supposed to be another StuG class vehicle but General Guderian intervened and claimed it for the Panzertruppen (Armor arm).
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 30, 2017, 08:39:15 AM
Yes the U.S. doctrinal use of DTs were very different from the Germans and Soviets. American doctrine used tanks for infantry support and DTs as highly mobile AT platforms to support the tanks. In Germany the tanks were designed primarily for tank on tank combat and the DT's grew out of the infantry support artillery role: The StuG assault gun. Soviet doctrine mirrored the German. The British played with the idea, but never really developed the TD concept, preferring an all-tank force. Although their cruiser-tank concept was reminiscent of the U.S. TDs. (Or perhaps the other way around.)
https://youtu.be/08wP9JODO78
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Rich46yo on March 30, 2017, 10:16:45 AM
Yeah its interesting and not known by many that when the west gave away Czechoslovakia they gave away what was probably the Industrial Jewel in the Crown of tank development and manufacturing. That 38T was the best light tank of the early war tho I didnt know it was the base for such a good TD.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Zimme83 on March 30, 2017, 10:37:44 AM
A lot of the german TD:s were just a way to increase AT capability by using obsolete tank chassis and add a bigger gun by not having any turret. StuG III is a perfect example, PzKw III where pretty much obsolete as a tank by 1942 but as a StuG it was an effective weapon even in -45.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 30, 2017, 11:09:07 AM
That's not entirely correct Zimme... The StuG III was developed alongside the Pz.Kpfw. III with the first prototypes being built in 1937. The Pz.Kpfw. III was also still in the prototype stage of development at this time and didn't enter service until 1939. The StuG followed it in 1940. While some other German TDs like the Panzerjäger and Marder series were conversions of obsolescent tanks (and were largely unsuccessful), the StuG series were purpose built from the best tank chassis the Germans had at the time. The Germans made TD versions of all their best tank chassis even the Panther and Tiger II.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Rich46yo on March 30, 2017, 12:01:45 PM
How about some info on the Soviet TDs ?
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Zimme83 on March 30, 2017, 12:10:43 PM
Yes, OK, the Stug III wasn't the perfect example after all, i admit that. A better example would have been the Panzerjägers like Marder I and III (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Marder-I-Saumur.jpg)
But to sum it up: German TD:s can in general be divided into 3 groups: - the "Panzerjägers", - converted tanks with often open superstructure and fitted with a heavy anti tank gun, developed into the: -"jagdpanzers" purpose built tank destroyers with both good protection and armament. And the -"StuG:s" "assault guns" intended as infantry support but eventually became AT weapons due to the situation.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 30, 2017, 12:54:07 PM
The Soviets became interested in assault guns following the success of the StuGs being used against them. As a result from 1942 onward the Soviets developed an impressive range of excellent assault guns and TDs mostly based on the T-70, T-34 and IS tank series. They mimicked their German counterparts in both design and tactics.
The late-1944 SU-100 is my favorite. T-34 mobility, Panther class frontal armor and Tiger class gun (same 100 mm gun that would later be used on the T-54/55). It even kinda looks German... So much so that it was used as a stand-in for German TDs in one of my favorite B war movies. :aok
https://youtu.be/NFAEzCuGfis
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Rich46yo on March 31, 2017, 09:33:03 AM
I'd like to see the SU-100 in the game. That was a hell of a gun on it.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 31, 2017, 11:12:59 AM
Yes it's right up there with the JagdPanzer IV/70 and JagdPanther. If not for the typical crummy Soviet optics I would consider the SU-100 the best TD of the war.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Arlo on March 31, 2017, 03:12:45 PM
.... of the last 4 months of the war (in Europe). ;)
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 31, 2017, 03:31:17 PM
More like the last six months. Production started in September 1944. By July 1945, 2,335 SU-100s had been built. They saw extensive combat in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Germany itself.
Interesting fact: Last known SU-100 to see combat was in Yemen last year.
"The ISU-152 could also operate as an effective heavy tank destroyer. Though it was not designed for the role, the vehicle inherited the nickname Zveroboy ("beast killer") from its predecessor, the SU-152, for its ability to reliably kill the best protected German fighting vehicles; the Panther tank, the Tiger and King Tiger tanks, and even the rarely fielded Elefant and Jagdtiger tank destroyers. The sheer weight of the 152.4 mm shells resulted in an extremely low rate of fire, only one to three rounds per minute, and were not as accurate at long range as high-velocity tank antitank guns. However, the massive blast effect from the heavy high-explosive warhead was capable of blowing the turret completely off a Tiger tank. A direct hit usually destroyed or damaged the target's tracks and suspension, immobilizing it. While the low-velocity 152mm shell did not generally penetrate heavy armor, it frequently killed or severely wounded the crew through spalling (splintering) inside the hull as well as injuries caused by blast concussion. Surviving crew were often left with an immobilized vehicle which had to be hurriedly abandoned before being destroyed. For anti-tank operations following the Battle of Kursk, armour-piercing ammunition was developed, with an eye towards giving the howitzer a more traditional anti-tank capability. However, these rounds were expensive, in short supply, and only moderately more effective than the standard non-penetrating high-explosive round. As a howitzer the ML-20S exchanged velocity and accuracy for throw weight and distance, and was not intended to compete with true anti-tank guns."
"The ISU-152 was not a true purpose-built tank destroyer. It had a very low rate of fire compared with specialised tank destroyers such as the German Jagdpanther or the Soviet SU-100, which could manage a brief burst of 5-8 rounds per minute. However, prior to the introduction of the SU-100 it was the only Soviet armored vehicle capable of tackling the German heavy tanks with any kind of reliability, and its ability to satisfy multiple roles meant it was produced in far greater numbers than the SU-100. Attention to camouflage, quick relocation between firing positions, and massed ambushes of 4-5 vehicles firing in salvo at a single target's flanks reduced the disadvantage of the low rate of fire. Using these tactics, the ISU-152 became greatly feared by German heavy tank commanders, robbing them of their prior sense of invulnerability to Soviet guns and forcing them to commit their forces more cautiously and sparingly."
Soviet military service
World War II
Eastern Front Continuation War Soviet–Japanese War Manchurian Invasion Hungarian Revolution
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Rich46yo on March 31, 2017, 08:05:02 PM
Whew! I could just picture in my mind those big eastern front tank battles. They must have been something.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Oldman731 on March 31, 2017, 10:03:47 PM
Great find, Arlo. History Channel of Russia. Probably equally accurate.
Some great video, and first time I knew that this spg was introduced so early in the war.
- oldman
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 01, 2017, 01:17:31 AM
1943 wasn't exactly early. It was the third year of the Great Patriotic War and the same year the Panther was introduced.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Zimme83 on April 01, 2017, 06:24:45 AM
Isu-152 was mainly a infantry support weapon but it turned out that its HE shells were effective against tanks as well. But firing 2-3 rounds per minute would not work very well in the game..
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: FBKampfer on April 01, 2017, 10:27:46 AM
It would actually be a pretty bad handicap at anything beyond point blank range, since a Panzer would move almost 250 yards between rounds, and you would have to correct significantly for target movement as well as corrections for initial point of aim.
Effectively, if the target is moving, you'll have to re-aim for each round.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 01, 2017, 12:41:25 PM
Yes, there's a reason the Soviets used groups of several SU/ISU-152 in the TD role, all firing at the same target. So while the SU/ISU-152 was devastating when it hit something it took several vehicles to match the volume of fire of a single purpose built TD like the SU-85 and SU-100. But they used it because it was the only vehicle they had that could take out the Tiger and Panther at range (until the SU-100 showed up).
The SU-85 entered service in August 1943 and had the same 85 mm gun the T-34-85 got in 1944. So that could be a valuable addition to the game for scenario purposes. The SU-100 would be an MA favorite I think, but of little use in scenarios except very late-1944 to VE-day setups.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: save on April 01, 2017, 02:32:15 PM
with Su-152 velocity of its shells, and not that great armor. I guess it would have to close in to get accuracy % on targets. Also reloading time would be thrilling in a battle against enemy tanks, and small ammo load.
Even a PZ4 or Hetzer could penetrate its armor.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: PR3D4TOR on April 01, 2017, 03:31:22 PM
Not really until the PzKpfw IV Ausf. H entered service in late 1943 (after Kursk). The SU-152 had 75 mm of frontal armor, though slope angle wasn't great. The ISU-152 had increased frontal armor to 90 mm.
There's also the ISU-122. Essentially the same vehicle but with a better gun for the TD role.
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Arlo on April 01, 2017, 03:34:27 PM
"The ISU-152's 90 mm of sloped frontal armor, in contrast to the SU-152's 65 mm, provided excellent frontal protection from the 75mm KwK 40 gun of the ubiquitous Panzer IV and StuG family at all but the closest ranges, while also forcing the original Tiger I, with its vaunted 88mm KwK 36 gun, to close to medium ranges in order to successfully penetrate the vehicle, negating its traditional long-range superiority and exposing more of its vulnerable flanks to the 85mm ZiS-S gun of the Soviet T-34-85."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISU-152
(http://bronetehnika.narod.ru/su152/su152_52.jpg)
(http://bronetehnika.narod.ru/su152/su152_43.gif)
"The ISU-152 self-propelled gun combined three battle roles : heavy assault gun, heavy tank destroyer and heavy self-propelled artillery. The 152.4 mm gun used a number of powerful (shell and charge) ammunition. Some of these ammunition had a 43.56 kg high-explosive shell, or a 48.78 kg armour-piercing shell, or the heaviest of all, the 53-G-545 (53-Г-545) long-range concrete-piercing ammunition with a 56 kg shell. The ISU-152 was used for infantry and tank support, and attack on fortified positions in a direct fire role, for support on the battlefield in an indirect fire role, and for fight against tanks with a direct fire."
Title: Re: Tanks Destroyers ??
Post by: Rich46yo on April 04, 2017, 09:13:46 PM