Restoring a Soviet Tank Destroyer

[Ronstang]

I had to check my armor book to make sure the Hetzer was indeed 6'-10" in height. It looks MUCH shorter than that. The Hetzer was arguably the second best tank destroyer the Germans had, only bested by the StuG III. They were cheap to build, offered good performance and the 75mm gun offered adequate penetration. They were not so nice for their crew ... imagine 5 guys jammed into that sloped armor coffin.

The Sturmgeschütz III (StuG III) was not a tank destroyer, it was a self-propelled artillery platform designed for close infantry support. Early versions had a low velocity short barreled 75mm gun that was later upgraded to a longer high velocity 75mm gun when better enemy tanks began to be encountered on the battlefield because although it was not a tank destroyer nor was battling enemy tanks it's primary role it had to engage enemy tanks as they were unavoidable.

 

[dennilfloss]

They put in the longer 75mm gun and added protection on the StuG III later expressly to turn it into a tank destroyer. The L/24 75mm had been perfectly adequate for infantry support just as it had been on the Panzer IV in its initial role as an infantry support tank. The StuG III was forced to engage enemy armour after a while because the Wermacht needed more vehicles to replenish some tank divisions that had been mauled in the first few months of Barbarossa. Using tank destroyers to shore up tank division numbers and bring them to 'full strength' was an expedient the Wermacht employed until the end of the war. Smaller crews and easier to produce with diminishing resources because of Allied strategic bombing.

 

[WT]

^^ Correct. Altho it was meant as an assault gun, the numerous battles against superior numbers on both the eastern and western front pressed it into service as a TD, not its intended role.
Even the German SDK251 halftrack was pressed into service near the end of the war as a TD, mounting the Pak40 75mm into its crew area and receiving the number designation 251/22.

 

[Mermaidman]

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.

I've wondered: Even if a hit doesn't penetrate the armor or "blow the turret off," what effect does it have on the crew? I would imagine some sort of incapacity caused by the sound and/or concussion. Mythbusters?

 

[Scotteq]

I've wondered: Even if a hit doesn't penetrate the armor or "blow the turret off," what effect does it have on the crew? I would imagine some sort of incapacity caused by the sound and/or concussion. Mythbusters?

A glancing blow - no problem, aside from hearing loss. But you don't have to penetrate fully to knock armor pieces from a casting. In such a case...

...for the crew, I'm quite sure the end results would be similar to being locked in a closet with a claymore mine....

 

[Daverino]

Tanks and tank destroyers are not differentiated by whether they had the gun mounted in a turret or casemate. They were differentiated by role.

At the time of WWII, tanks were intended to be mobile anti-infantry weapons. They were capable of breaking through enemy defenses that didn't have anti-tank weapons and then exploit the breakthroughs with their cross country mobility. In defensive roles, they could crush infantry led attacks by being rushed to the scene of a breakthrough. Tank destroyers were vehicles designed to destroy tanks, but otherwise not support infantry. Two basic philosophies were held with tank destroyers. Heavily armored, low field of fire TDs were fielded by the Russians and Germans (Ferdinand, ISU-152, etc). These weapons often doubled as assault guns, designed to close on fixed fortifications and destroy them with frontal assaults. The Americans chose lightly armored, extremely fast turreted designs for TDs. The Wolverine and Slugger TDs, for example, were designed to race to, engage, and choke off any potential breakthroughs by enemy armor.

By 1942, though, the whole tank vs tank destroyer doctrine was falling apart. Tanks encountering each other on the battlefield became much more common as armor became a more integrated part of warfare instead of specialty units applied only at certain places in certain conditions. German tanks were inadequate against the Russian T-34s and KVs and the Germans rushed production of the Tiger I and spurred the design of the Panther and Tiger II designs. In turn, the appearance of these tanks spurred the introduction of the Soviet IS and T-34-85s.

Americans, experiencing some embarrassing tank combat in Africa and limited tank fighting in Italy held onto their doctrine until the very end of the war, with Shermans being 'tanks' and Wolverines, etc being 'tank destroyers.' American tanks were woefully undergunned until the very end of the war. American tank destroyers, being designed around a defensive philosophy that was rarely used in the attack of Europe usually functioned as light tanks. In few cases, such as Bastogne, was the American TD's high speed and mobility a real factor.

By the end of the war, heavy tanks, medium tanks and tank destroyers were being merged into the idea of the 'Main Battle Tank.' The Soviet T-54 was probably the first true example. This has been the predominant philosophy since the late 50s and continues today.

 

[Rudee]

Didn't really "restore" it. They just got it running.

 

[BladeVenom]

A glancing blow - no problem, aside from hearing loss. But you don't have to penetrate fully to knock armor pieces from a casting. In such a case...

...for the crew, I'm quite sure the end results would be similar to being locked in a closet with a claymore mine....

Modern tanks have layers of kevlar to stop shrapnel from a hit.

There was one type of ammo, squash head round, that was specifically designed to cause a shock wave and spalling inside the tank.

Older tank that used rivets, a hit even from a heavy machine gun could turn the rivet into deadly shrapnel.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Didn't really "restore" it. They just got it running.

Its amazing how well those soviet machines held up.
Makes me think of another video where they pulled a T-34, that had been captured and then dumped by the Germans, out of a bog and with a bit of fiddling got it to run on 70 year old fuel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7boxp1Sk2w