tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post8323320319244455429..comments2024-03-28T14:35:30.147-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: The Best StuGPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-26552078131118654262020-08-15T11:23:40.193-04:002020-08-15T11:23:40.193-04:00I really don't think it makes much practical d...I really don't think it makes much practical difference to the target whether the shell that comes though the armour is 75 or 88 mm you know. Real AFVs don't have hitpoints and any penetration tended to be the cue for the surviving crew to bail. For effectively identical penetration ability the better accuracy and higher RoF would seem to be more useful for the purposes of "doing unto others before they do unto you".<br />Likewise I doubt the difference in explosive/frag effect is so great as to particularly matter while, say, suppressing AT guns or infantry - not that the bigger bang wasn't self-evidently desirable if you could afford it (in terms of mass and volume) ofc, but it's hardly the priority for what's primarily a tank-killer design.<br /><br />And for extended operations spare fuel is rather easier and safer to carry as external stores than ammo, just sayin'. Especially given the ever-increasing "jabo" harassement - the last thing you want is an otherwise relatively harmless strafing run setting off unprotected shells after all. And the German ability to keep the frontline properly supplied was steadily degrading throughout the later years so there certainly was a practical argument for greater built-in "campaign endurance" esp. as fuel could be to some degree salvaged from the enemy. (Hell they seriously considered trying to get turbine engines fitted in their tanks mostly because those can burn just about any kind of fuel which is valuable when you're increasingly reduced to relying on captured and scavenged supplies...)<br /><br />IDK what you mean about the SU-122, it remained in production until mid '44? SU-85 production stopped soon after as well since the much better SU-100 was nearing production status.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-91707649259770903272020-08-13T17:29:49.029-04:002020-08-13T17:29:49.029-04:00Hmm I concur more with the Soviet counter-argument...Hmm I concur more with the Soviet counter-argument that, "if you can take something out with a single hit, why risk getting the return fire?". I'm also not sold on the advantages of having an AFV stocked with ammo; at the very least I don't see a need for any more ammo in the tank that would outlast my fuel supply (if you have to disengage to get refueled, you can get re-stocked with ammo at the same time). In the Sherman (heaps of ammo) a move was actually done to reduce the rounds it carried to something more reasonable. The advantage of having lots of ammo on hand only really applies to HE and/or smoke rounds, shot against non-armored targets that can't reply back with the same degree of effectivness; with AT ordinance in WWII tank combat at most ranges you're either very quick on the draw or very dead soon. A tank battle is over, won or lost, before you go through all those AP rounds. <br /><br />As for the SU-85 vs SU-122 comparison; I think that's somewhat true, but recall the SU-122 was pulled from service when the SU-85 was introduced. That's a shame, because I think the SU-122 had a role and indeed even for anti-tank purposes, at least fighting defensively if my life depended on it (and it would!) I'd trust my life to a hit from the ML-30 122 mm howitzer against something like a Panther's frontal armor taking it out as opposed to the 85 mm. Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-60231753134580382302020-08-13T10:22:43.197-04:002020-08-13T10:22:43.197-04:00One might also point out that this thing was conce...One might also point out that this thing was conceived and deployed specifically as a Panzerjäger, ie. dedicated tank-killer, rather than a Sturmgeschütz ie. assault gun. The traits emphasised in its chosen armament naturally reflected that intended mission envelope; SU-85 vs SU-122 might be invoked as a more pronounced illustration of the same division from across the battle line.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-7973032799308136462020-08-13T08:21:46.633-04:002020-08-13T08:21:46.633-04:00German design philosophy seems to have generally t...German design philosophy seems to have generally tended towards favoring ammunition capacity and rate of fire over bigger boom - "two smaller shells achieves more than a single somewhat bigger one" kind of logic I suppose, which is valid enough for most purposes.<br /><br />They also had a parallel evolutionary line of Sturmhaubitze (assault howitzers - compare the Allied practice of howitzer-armed "close support" medium tank variants) for when bigger bang was desired, taken to a typically absurd logical conclusion with the Sturmtiger and its ridiculous 38 cm rocket mortar. The early rather ad-hoc ones (cough Sturmpanzer I cough) aside though these mostly entered service in or after '42 when the tide was already turning and the Germans did ever less assaulting on fortified positions as opposed to trying to hold their own ones and contain massive armoured breakthroughs of the same.<br /><br />Small wonder then that the Soviets were the ones putting serious effort into fortress-smashing heavy assault guns (the Democracies seem to have preferred heavy conventional artillery and the occasional artillery SPG for bunker-busting instead) while the Germans mostly let such fall by the wayside as increasingly unnecessary in the wider strategic context and instead prioritised the ability to make holes in hostile metal boxes. (Which was then taken into *another* absurd white-elephant conclusion in the Jagdtiger but that's Nazi Germany for you.)<br /><br />Also pretty sure the 88L56 had no meaningful advantages over the 75L70 in AT work. AFAIK the penetration characteristics were about the same but the latter shot faster and flatter and could carry more ammo in a given amount of space, so.<br /><br />Idle speculation but there may have also been industrial-political considerations involved. The 88 mm was after all primarily an AA caliber and given the bizarre Social Darwinist "feuding fiefdoms" character of Nazi administration it would not surprise me in the least if the Luftwaffe tried to hog most of the production for its flak batteries (one might compare how the IJN literally hoarded all of Japan's welding gear so their Army rivals had to keep making tanks with rivets well past due date); but certainly the land army (Waffen-SS included) was already using the 75 mm caliber for a huge number of things and had the supply chains well established, so both practical logistical considerations and petty interservice rivalry bullshit (including classic "not invented here" prejudices) likely played some part.<br /><br />As an aside regarding the usefulness of armoured close support for infantry one might quote a French general (IDR which one) from the Great War who quipped something along the lines of "there are two kinds of infantry, one has never fought alongside tanks before and the other never wants to fight without them again."Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-24354864691718932072020-08-12T11:54:26.457-04:002020-08-12T11:54:26.457-04:00Even then, Kellomies, Kwk42 round has *slightly* l...Even then, Kellomies, Kwk42 round has *slightly* less HE punch than the Pak40,despite the reduced propellant charge. So all you get is more AT capability. Putting the Kwk36 on this vehicle would increase both the HE and the AT capability.<br /><br />Stugs were distributed to infantry divisions as anti-tank assets, but they were also used to support infantry operations. (Studies have shown that even if you have a few AFV, or even ONE, and the other side does not, in an infantry-vs-infantry contest one's own casualties drop dramatically). One of the things that drove the IS and ISU line of vehicles was that the Soviets found that even their 85 mm HE rounds were insufficient against infantry fortifications. Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-43952708808647617502020-08-12T11:54:08.552-04:002020-08-12T11:54:08.552-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-10591162206298213602020-08-11T14:49:32.891-04:002020-08-11T14:49:32.891-04:00~75 mm WAS pretty general purpose tho (there's...~75 mm WAS pretty general purpose tho (there's a reason just about all the "workhorse" medium tanks of the war carried it), and IIRC the Germans were clever enough to use reduced propellant charges in the HE/frag shells of their high-velocity version so they didn't have to compromise explosive payload with thicker cases, too (unlike eg. the Americans whose 76 mm ended up with a pretty nerfed HE round because of that AFAIK).<br /><br />Also compact enough to fit in an awful lot of stuff and widely used in various towed guns so besides payload considerations there was probably also an economic-industrial argument going for it. The Panther, intended to become the next standard line tank, being fitted with one was certainly one strike in favor of using it more widely in other "standard issue" designs so as to streamline logistics - after all, God knows the insane hodgepodge of trophy kit in the German arsenal was already enough of a raging supply headache.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-68801688059037213502020-08-11T09:42:58.782-04:002020-08-11T09:42:58.782-04:00I guess we differ again. Kellomies. The 75 mm Kwk...I guess we differ again. Kellomies. The 75 mm Kwk42 is such a specialized weapon that the only thing I'd put it on would be a Marder-or Nashhorn-like chassis (to make it a mobile AT weapon). Stugs by contrast ended up being general-purpose weapons in actual usage, so why not a good general purpose gun?Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-6615704811174447152020-08-11T05:52:11.308-04:002020-08-11T05:52:11.308-04:00Purely speculating here but probably internal spac...Purely speculating here but probably internal space considerations? IDK how much size difference there was between those guns at the breech end, but if nothing else you could fit in more 75 mm ammunition and if the vehicle was intended primarily as a tank-killer instead of assault gun the long 75 was probably the better tool for the role.<br /><br />If I were to further speculate as to why the "short" 88 saw no SPG use (or for that matter much AFV use period, the Tiger aside) I'd hazard there probably wasn't much point - any casemate that could comfortably accept it could likely equally take the beefier Pak 43 without too much trouble while the various 75 mm jobs were a better fit for anything smaller. No real reason to take the middle ground there then.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-5159881682847876992020-08-09T18:31:06.236-04:002020-08-09T18:31:06.236-04:00I don't think so, but I'll defer to Yuri&#...I don't think so, but I'll defer to Yuri's much greater insight here.Tiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03812665983374554749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-44893429306711396012020-08-09T13:14:33.410-04:002020-08-09T13:14:33.410-04:00Hmm, the SU-85M's frontal armor protection was...Hmm, the SU-85M's frontal armor protection was superior, as was its mobility and gun, I believe.<br /><br />I know I've been on a 'what if' tear on your blog of late, but to me instead of the 75L/70 Kwk42, was there any notion of sticking the Kwk36 on this vehicle? You'd lessen the overhang issues of the Kwk42, plus the Kwk36 is a nice compromise between AT and HE capability. I wonder why no SPG carried it.Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.com