Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Soviet SU-152 damage to Nazi Tanks (during World War II)
EnglishRussia.com ^ | 7apr17 | tim

Posted on 05/06/2019 5:27:48 AM PDT by vannrox


SU-152 was a legendary Soviet howitzer canon. It was called a “Heavy Tank Destroyer” because of severe damage it caused to German “Panther” and “Tiger” tanks. Let’s see why Nazi tank drivers were so afraid of it:

Those are examples of the German tanks being hit by SU-152.

There was very small chance for survival for the crews.

7098552d0f53108823f1d29286ba62cf 079878dcb57efb88f3d8b0d5910e0183

Panther tank front armor – completely crashed by SU-152.

Hope you liked this story!


TOPICS: History; Military/Veterans; Society; Travel
KEYWORDS: damage; nazi; tank; treadhead; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last

We like weld a 90mm pipe on the side...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=58&v=nC4lVoCFZvk


21 posted on 05/06/2019 6:19:41 AM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Audey Murphey won his CMOH holding off a platoon of those to allow an overnight regroup/reinforcement. I walked that ground a few years ago. There’s a nice little WWII museum in Colmar.

https://www.historynet.com/audie-murphy-one-man-stand-at-holtzwihr.htm


22 posted on 05/06/2019 6:23:46 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Of course in comparison the US Army TD was unimpressive.


23 posted on 05/06/2019 6:30:46 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Yeah but it had a turret. A 76mm could kill almost anything in the German arsenal.
And we had a Sherman with a 105mm on it.


24 posted on 05/06/2019 6:37:06 AM PDT by AppyPappy (How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe

Yet, in sticking a reliable howitzer onto a tank chassis, the Russian engineers deserve credit for a practical and effective innovation in desperate circumstances. It sure made an impression on German tankers.


25 posted on 05/06/2019 6:37:45 AM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dljordan
Canon

Maybe it was designed by Pachebel ...

26 posted on 05/06/2019 6:39:00 AM PDT by BlueLancer (Orchides Forum Trahite - Cordes Et Mentes Veniant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
It gets a mixed review.

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 82 to 85mm thick glacis plate[5] could deflect certain shots from the 90 mm gun at just 150 yards, and the 150mm thick front armor of the Tiger II could only be penetrated in a few hard-to-hit places.[6][7] 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.

27 posted on 05/06/2019 6:39:29 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham

this gun was also used on ships of the Soviet Navy. It’s performance is only slightly less than the 6” 45cal guns used on our Navy’s light cruisers.


28 posted on 05/06/2019 6:44:23 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Had the Germans employed diesel instead of gasoline engines.....and had they not had supply problems because of the latter......The advent of the Mk. V Panther (fast and powerful), the Tiger II (even more powerful) and the known power and agility of the Jagdpanther would have at the least elongated the war. Even the Jadgtiger made a play, but Carrius himself found it to be poorly designed, despite its high velocity gun.

I agree the SU-152 and the IS main battle tank were fearsome, but they didn’t change tank warfare like the Tiger I did. They were necessary evolutionary steps to keep pace. The US never really got there, so they went the quantity over quality route. A winning move given the circumstances.


29 posted on 05/06/2019 6:45:45 AM PDT by Reagan Disciple (Peace through Strength)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: central_va

The M18 was the 76mm version. Any solid shot will get deflected at the right angles.
It would be easier to kill it at 3,000 yards rather than 150 yards.
For a Tiger II, you would almost be better off with an HE round for a front shot and hope the trauma disabled the crew for a while.


30 posted on 05/06/2019 6:49:28 AM PDT by AppyPappy (How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: central_va
...150mm thick front armor of the Tiger II could only be penetrated in a few hard-to-hit places...

"You've got to hit point-blank and you've got to hit it in the ass ..."


31 posted on 05/06/2019 6:50:58 AM PDT by BlueLancer (Orchides Forum Trahite - Cordes Et Mentes Veniant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Disciple

Even though Jap tanks sucked big time they had great optical sights and diesel engines. WWII had many weird twists...


32 posted on 05/06/2019 6:51:37 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BlueLancer

Always with the negative waves.


33 posted on 05/06/2019 6:52:45 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: vannrox

Nice.


34 posted on 05/06/2019 6:53:26 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

jagdpanther.


35 posted on 05/06/2019 6:54:44 AM PDT by QualityMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: QualityMan

The bravest of the brave were US tankers fighting in the pathetic Sherman tank.


36 posted on 05/06/2019 6:58:33 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: central_va

the Sherman was a capable medium tank. It held it’s own against the German MK IVs. At the time the Sherman was designed the German MK V and MK VI did not exist. In Korea, the Sherman’s handled the Korean T-34/85s (could also attribute to crew quality)


37 posted on 05/06/2019 7:20:53 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe
The Sherman was called the Ronson lighter for a good reason.

There is a reason there is this saying about Shermans and Panthers. "A Panther can take out five Shermans... but there is always a sixth Sherman." That references the fact that basic tactics for Shermans against a Panther or other high-grade German tank... was for most of them to attack it head on to keep it distracted... while the last one goes around and shoots it in the back. Any other tactic against them was worthless because your cannon just bounced off their frontal and even side armour.

38 posted on 05/06/2019 7:26:01 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: central_va

When the Sherman entered service, its mission, as assigned by the Army planners, was infantry support. Anti-tank was the mission of the anti-tank battalions. There is no doubt that the Sherman was not capable against the German MK V & VI tanks. Neither was the Soviet T-34. But in the quantities produced these armored forces were able to defeat the German armored forces.


39 posted on 05/06/2019 7:35:52 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe

At their best, the Russians show a capacity for clever adaptation and innovation to make up for limited resources. Few developed countries though have suffered from such chronic misrule that it seems an aspect of their national character.


40 posted on 05/06/2019 7:50:10 AM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-89 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson