Restoring a Soviet Tank Destroyer

[routerguy]

Well, self-propelled artillery to be more precise.

The Zveroboi (or "Animal Hunter") was given this nickname by Red Army troops for its ability to destroy all German tanks (Tiger, Panther, Elephant, etc...).

Traditionally it was used as self-propelled artillery to destroy enemy bunkers and entrenched positions. Occasionally it would fill a tank destroyer role. Apparently the HE round that this monster fired simply ripped the turrets off tanks.

Anyway, here is the vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_aDMqFrUV8&feature=relmfu

It looks like it was exposed to the weather during its 70 year period of inactivity.

 

[rudeguy]

does it have an iPod dock?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

World of Tanks must be misrepresenting the SU-152 if it could truely 1 hit almost all German tanks.

 

[WT]

Very rare find !!! This beast sported a 152mm cannon (equivalent to a 5" like you would find on a WWII destroyer ship) and by its sheer explosive force could separate a tank from its turret. Only downside was the slow reload speed, as it required both a shell and a powder charge to be inserted into the barrel.

 

[jagec]

Wow, why can't I have something like that just sitting in my backyard?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

World of Tanks must be misrepresenting the SU-152 if it could truely 1 hit almost all German tanks.

dude, that game and reality have never even heard of each other

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Why the hell did he burn a hole in the gun with a damn oxy-acetylene torch?
@9:24

 

[SirStev0]

that is exactly what I imagine Russia to look like.

"Enjoy Bratislava. It's good you came in summer, in winter it can get very depressing"

 

[TallBill]

Why the hell did he burn a hole in the gun with a damn oxy-acetylene torch?
@9:24

Guessing that they did this when it was decomissioned

 

[dennilfloss]

Here's some info summarized from a couple of my books.

The ML-20S gun in the SU-152/ISU152 was a modified Model 1937 field howitzer not unlike the M-1938/40 L/20 152mm found in the KV-II. Both has slow velocities that made their rounds less suitable for armour penetration. For example, the KV-II gun could penetrate 72mm of steel armour at 1500m. Also the SU-152's fire control was not good for engagements beyond 1000m. What this vehicle was best at was as a well-protected assault gun to support infantry and destroy obstacles in urban situations.

For comparison, the version of the 1938 M-30 122mm howitzer originally fitted in the ISU-122/SU-122 is said too have better armour penetration though I don't have the exact figures. It was followed in subsequent revisions of that assault gun by the more potent 122mm A19 gun and finally by the 122mm D-25S L43 gun which both had slightly better armour penetration.

Also for comparison, the 75mm L/70 KwK 42 gun in the Panther and the 88mm in the Tiger 1 could penetrate 170mm of vertical armour at 1000m. The long-barreled L/71 PaK 43 in the Jagdpanther and Tiger 2 had even better armour penetration. Finally the 128mm PaK 44 L/44 gun in the Jagdtiger could penetrate 230mm of armour at 1000m.

Of course the ammo for guns larger than 88mm was very unwieldy and this led to a much slower rate of fire, something to the detriment of the Jagdtiger and soviet IS-2 & IS-3. Still the larger guns could indeed blow the turret off a tank with explosive rounds if they hit in just the right spot and a 122mm from the D-25T gun in the later IS models did indeed completely pierce the glacis plate of a captured Panther, go through the engine and exit at the rear during a firing test from 1500m. The modified naval 100mm D-10s gun in the SU-100 also possessed slightly better armour-piercing capability than other 122mm soviet guns.

 

[BladeVenom]

If you like that, look up the TV show Tank Overhaul.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Here's some info summarized from a couple of my books.

The ML-20S gun in the SU-152/ISU152 was a modified Model 1937 field howitzer not unlike the M-1938/40 L/20 152mm found in the KV-II. Both has slow velocities that made their rounds less suitable for armour penetration. For example, the KV-II gun could penetrate 72mm of steel armour at 1500m. Also the SU-152's fire control was not good for engagements beyond 1000m. What this vehicle was best at was as a well-protected assault gun to support infantry and destroy obstacles in urban situations.

For comparison, the version of the 1938 M-30 122mm howitzer originally fitted in the ISU-122/SU-122 is said too have better armour penetration though I don't have the exact figures. It was followed in subsequent revisions of that assault gun by the more potent 122mm A19 gun and finally by the 122mm D-25S L43 gun which both had slightly better armour penetration.

Also for comparison, the 75mm L/70 KwK 42 gun in the Panther and the 88mm in the Tiger 1 could penetrate 170mm of vertical armour at 1000m. The long-barreled L/71 PaK 43 in the Jagdpanther and Tiger 2 had even better armour penetration. Finally the 128mm PaK 44 L/44 gun in the Jagdtiger could penetrate 230mm of armour at 1000m.

Of course the ammo for guns larger than 88mm was very unwieldy and this led to a much slower rate of fire, something to the detriment of the Jagdtiger and soviet IS-2 & IS-3. Still the larger guns could indeed blow the turret off a tank with explosive rounds if they hit in just the right spot and a 122mm from the D-25T gun in the later IS models did indeed completely pierce the glacis plate of a captured Panther, go through the engine and exit at the rear during a firing test from 1500m. The modified naval 100mm D-10s gun in the SU-100 also possessed slightly better armour-piercing capability than other 122mm soviet guns.

History buff?

 

[Brovane]

That is incredible they got that thing moving again without more restoration work on it.

 

[waggy]

History buff?

history? naa that was current events to him.

 

[WT]

You really don't get a good idea on the scale of some of those tanks. I collect 1:72 scale WWII armor, have over 20 tanks at this point, and the Russian KV-2 is the largest by far. Its basically a bunker on treads, and mounts the same gun as the SU-152.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-209-0091-11,_Russland-Nord,_russischer_Panzer_KW-2.jpg

The Zveroboi (Animal Hunter) was named as such due to the German tanks names that were common at the time (Tiger, Panther, Elefant). It was built t o hunt and destroy any German armor, or assault large bunkers.

The German heavy was the Elefant, originally named the Ferdinand, which weighed in at 71 tons fully gassed and armed. Classified as a 'tank destroyer' just like the SU-152 due to its gun being mounted not in a turret but in the chassis, it required the tank to turn to engage an enemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefant

Unfortunately for both assault guns, their weakness was always being overrun by shock troops who could either burn them with molotov cocktails on the air vents or disable them with sticky mines tossed onto the treads.

 

[Doppel]

does it have an iPod dock?

fvcking awesome. i loled.

 

[lupi]

so guessing they have so many of these things left around its finders keepers if you can get it running.

 

[sandorski]

Working on something like that would be an awesome project.

What was with the embedded Alien message towards the end?

All hail Zorlan, Emperor from Planet X!

 

[Brovane]

The German heavy was the Elefant, originally named the Ferdinand, which weighed in at 71 tons fully gassed and armed. Classified as a 'tank destroyer' just like the SU-152 due to its gun being mounted not in a turret but in the chassis, it required the tank to turn to engage an enemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefant

Unfortunately for both assault guns, their weakness was always being overrun by shock troops who could either burn them with molotov cocktails on the air vents or disable them with sticky mines tossed onto the treads.

Where do you get that in order to be classified as a tank destroyer the gun has to be mounted in a turret?

 

[Brovane]

so guessing they have so many of these things left around its finders keepers if you can get it running.

Knowing the Russians they might have some storage depot someplace filled up with SU-152, T-34 and KV-1 tanks.

 

[Ronstang]

Where do you get that in order to be classified as a tank destroyer the gun has to be mounted in a turret?

I think you read it wrong, actually backwards. The gun being mounted in the chassis with the vehicle being absent of a turret was what led to vehicles being classified as tank destroyers. That is how I read what he posted. They were lower silhouette so they could hide easier. Their armor was usually thicker and sloped more, especially on the front to better withstand hits from the tanks they were hunting. A turret is a nice feature but it is also a liability due to it's inherent weakness. Another reason most tank destroyers did not possess them, that is except the American M10 tank destroyer which sported an open top turret.

 

[dennilfloss]

Main thing is the absence of a turret made the vehicles easier/cheaper/faster to produce and allowed to mount a heavier gun without overloading the chassis past its limit. It was a nice way to reuse the chassis of otherwise obsolete or damaged tanks. You could keep the production line open just for the chassis of, for example, the Panzer 2 & 3 & the 38(t). The transition could be more rapid and use fewer strategically-scarce materials. It also generally meant one fewer crew member.

 

[Ronstang]

Main thing is the absence of a turret made the vehicles easier/cheaper/faster to produce and allowed to mount a heavier gun without overloading the chassis past its limit. It was a nice way to reuse the chassis of otherwise obsolete or damaged tanks. You could keep the production line open just for the chassis of, for example, the Panzer 2 & 3 & the 38(t). The transition could be more rapid and use fewer strategically-scarce materials. It also generally meant one fewer crew member.

It was actually the main way the Germans used the Panzer 38(t). It was a pre-WWII Czech tank that the Germans inherited when they stole Czechoslovakia. Although initially they used some as actual tanks they were small and under gunned but had a decently rugged running gear so the Germans tore off the tops of the tanks and simply re-purposed the chassis like you stated. There are some very interesting designed tank destroyers and self propelled guns the Germans built around the Panzer 38(t).

 

[Brovane]

I think you read it wrong, actually backwards. The gun being mounted in the chassis with the vehicle being absent of a turret was what led to vehicles being classified as tank destroyers. That is how I read what he posted. They were lower silhouette so they could hide easier. Their armor was usually thicker and sloped more, especially on the front to better withstand hits from the tanks they were hunting. A turret is a nice feature but it is also a liability due to it's inherent weakness. Another reason most tank destroyers did not possess them, that is except the American M10 tank destroyer which sported an open top turret.

Yeah my wording came out wrong. However the Americans used turreted open top tanks for their tanks destroyers, M10, M18 Hell Cat and M36 Jackson. Just the US and Germany had different doctrines for how they used their tank destroyers.

 

[Brovane]

It was actually the main way the Germans used the Panzer 38(t). It was a pre-WWII Czech tank that the Germans inherited when they stole Czechoslovakia. Although initially they used some as actual tanks they were small and under gunned but had a decently rugged running gear so the Germans tore off the tops of the tanks and simply re-purposed the chassis like you stated. There are some very interesting designed tank destroyers and self propelled guns the Germans built around the Panzer 38(t).

I always liked the Hetzer. Packed a lot of firepower in a small vehicle that was only around 7 feet tall. The Hetzer was even placed back into production after the war ended for the Swiss.