Steve (BTS): ROF of ISU-152

[Paul Lakowski]

Russian penetration figures are 80% certified penetration figures...that means that 80% of the projectiles have to penetrate the plate inorder to achieve the penetration figure. In most cases other armies use 50-50 ballistic limit value.The difference could easly be 10% penetration improvement for Russian guns...when compared to others....they may also use harder plate as targets as there are still some discrepance after the above adjustments are made.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

One of the things that make this forum fun is that so many of us disagree. It makes for far more interesting discussion.

I disagree with what Roksovkiy said about the armour penetration of Soviet guns and armour quality of Soviet AFVs. My sources come mainly from the archives of the Bovington Tank Museum and the normal analysis of penetration using the Milne-de-Marre formula.

In 1947 the British Board of Ordinance estimate of the armour penetration of the 122mm D25 gun was 179mm at 0 metres range and 168mm at 500 metres, against 30degree plate. Combat experience also showed that the D25 “could” penetrate the upper front hull of the Panther, certainly after May/June 44. This means that in terms of equivalent millimetres of vertical plate it must have been able to penetrate over 160mm-170mm.

The general rule of thumb is that “official” Soviet penetration figures understate penetration by about 20% when compared to German and Western figures. The reason for this is the different way in which the Soviets defined/measured penetration.

It will be “very” interesting to see what figures Charles comes out with. We will just all have to be patient, not easy.

From the way Roksovkiy spells “armour” I assume he is British. “If” you have time visit the library at the Bovington Tank Museum and ask for the “Record of Foreign Weapons and Equipment” Volume 1 USSR. It is 700+ pages long and was produced in 1947 as “the” document on the weapons of the new enemy. I have a photocopy of it and you will not be disappointed. (That is if you do not already have the document, I cannot be the only one.) There is also a report on a T34/B delivered to the British by the Soviets during the war. (In return for all those obsolete tanks we sent them.) It specifically comments on the high quality but “poor appearance” of its armour.

Anyway, we will never all agree, greatly looking forwards to CM2.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Paul, it has happened again, we post at the exact same time, clearly have the same habits. Will be getting back to you about the document. This is un-nerving, twice in a week.

[Roksovkiy]

-I think you may want to head over to the Russian BAttlefield.

I have nothing against the russian battlefield but a lot of the information contained is at the very least questionable,

such as the sources.

-There are various AAR by Soviets units that have taken out Ferdinands (although they may have mistaken StuGs for Ferdinands) and Tiger 2s as well.

Ferdinands were only knocked out with rear and side shots. There is no evidence that a Tiger II was knocked out by a frontal hit. Ofcourse some were knocked out from side and rear hits.

Tigers were so rare that the soviets often claimed tigers and ferdinands killed when PZIV were the tank in question.

-Anyway, engagements between IS-2's and King Tigers were rare because the Germans seldom used them on the Eastern Front. On 12 November 1944, not far from Budapest, a skirmish occurred between IS-2's and King Tigers of the 503rd PzAbt. Both sides lost several tanks.

The combat losses filled by the 503rd PzAbt show a loss of 2 Tigers, 1 destroyed by the crew. The offical Russian report of this incident show 24 IS-2 losses filled and caused the Russians to forbid their units from conducting any major combat where Tigers were located, until air and artillery could be brought up. Souce Glantz When titans clash.

-It had thicker armor and its 88 KwK gun was slightly superior in AP ability, though inferior in HE ability.

The 88L71 was a far superior anti tank gun the the russian 122L43. The 122L43 is comparable to the panthers 75L70 upto 1000m, then it is marginally better.

Visit http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/

for good gun value figures gained from many sources.

The russian bettlefiled web-site, info about about the Tiger II has no reliable sources other than a few russian reports dated during the war(could be propaganda), and contradict all german engineer document data, like the russians showing a tiger II front being penetred, when no russsian gun feilded during WW2 could.

-German armor quality also deterioated as the war lengthened so Russian penetration ability improved without them having to do anything.

Hmm, the early Panther ausf D had a higher incidence of flaw's in the 8 cm galcis

armour due the Face Hardening process. These flaw's resulted in the Russians

believing that the 122 mm gun could penetrate the Panther's galcis

armour at ranges in excess of 1500m when in reality it had problems

penetrating the galcis of the later ausf G's at 600m. The german quality control went up as the War progress.

[offtaskagain]

I doubt any of the Russian guns could take on an Ferdinand/Elefant. Over on the thread Steve started about Elefants, http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=019294, there is a picture on page 2 that shows chips in the front armor, hull &superstructure, from a 152. They don't look like they did a whole lot of damage, but I bet the crew would've rather been somewhere else.

[Freak]

Ok, I had retracted what I had said earlier about considering the source when viewing information form sites such as the Russian Battlefield. Now I am putting forth my advice again. In the case of the Tiger II report from above, I can only take that with a severe grain of salt, mainly because there is no official documented evidence to help this claim. Also one must consider that Russia was keen to use propaganda to sway its people that they had better (ie: tanks). Not that Germany and all countries do this to some degree (they do). In short the saying goes: Consider the source.

[killmore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak:

Also one must consider that Russia was keen to use propaganda to sway its people that they had better (ie: tanks). Not that Germany and all countries do this to some degree (they do). In short the saying goes: Consider the source.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think people on this board consistently underestimate true performance of anything Soviet/Russian.

If I would believe you guys then in every battle soviets would have 10:1 advantage in numbers. Thats is just not possible considering Soviet population numbers...

We probably need to add about 20% to penetration values. There probably was some truth to them being able to penetrate Tigers ot KT front armor.

Frequently it is also mentioned that 152s were ripping the turrets off the Panter and Tiger. (See same links)

[ 06-04-2001: Message edited by: killmore ]

[ASL Veteran]

I certainly hope you didn't take my comments about raising all ROF as an attack of some kind. I was simply continuing the discussion within the confines of what you stated. I think the question is valid because when you stated that a crew loading separate charge ammunition could crank out 5 RPM in a pinch, I figured it would be good to compare the max ROF that you provided with the max rate of some of the other guns represented in CM. That way, you can compare apples to apples. So, if you say that a max sustainable ROF is 5 then we should compare that to the max sustainable ROF for other guns - which in the case of the PAK 43 was on the order of 20. I don't think it equitable to compare the max rate for separate charge ammunition to the comparatively low (non max) ROF that other CM weapons use. Compare max to max, and average to average.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:

Howitzer size weapons fire more slowly because of seperate loading ammunition, ramming of shells, and a more involved loading procedure overall. But that "slower" is on the order of 3-4 rounds per minute.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In CM, the Tiger has a ROF of 6 per minute (at least, that's what it was when I tested it on the CM range I built). Accepting your comment that the ROF would be three to four RPM slower, then that would give you a CM ROF of 2 to 3 RPM - which really seems like it is right in the ballpark being discussed (if on the high side IMHO)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Until you get up to shells too heavy for a man to lift on the one hand, or down to semi-automatic loading on the other hand, there just isn't that much difference, because the human task just isn't that much different. Seperate loading is twice as long as the medium rate, and one handed is less than twice as fast as that medium rate, maybe half again as fast.

That is it. People want to read dramatic tech-dominance implications into tech-spec minutae beyond that, simply because they worship at the shrine of tech-spec minutae groghood, and it is in a manual somewhere. The human reality of loading and firing artillery pieces just doesn't vary that much, with liftable shells loading one at a time, that is.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure what prompted this rant (or what looked like one anyway), but the reality of the situation is that BTS uses hard data to make their game. I know how seriously they take this cause I've debated numerous issues with Steve . So, (at the risk of speaking for BTS - which I absolutely do not) BTS is obviously not going to just 'wing it' when it comes to ROF and pick some number that sounds nice. If all the documentation says the ROF is between 1 and 2 per minute, then that's what it's going to be. If other documentation contradicts that, then there can be a discussion about which is the correct figure. If that approach is too grog tech worshipping for some, then I don't really know what else to say. Personal question Jason, (and please don't take this as an attack) I thought you were an academic - I have to admit that I'm a bit puzzled by your disdain for primary and secondary source data (uber grog tech worshipping). I seldom see you cite anything in your discourses though - the one in this thread is actually the first citation I've ever noticed (not that you have never done it other times). Just curious since this approach seems at odds with your academic position (whatever it may be).

BTW, for comparison, the T-34s ROF is rated at between 5 and 7 RPM IIRC.

[Commissar]

Well, then that is a problem isn't? The Russians could falsify reports for propaganda reasons but so can the Germans. Are we supposed to believe that everything the Soviets reported was inflated and incorrect? Are we supposed to just simply believe the report of every German commander as being objective and totally honest? Even if they were, can we really be sure the reports weren't "modified" for whatever purposes to be more palatable for the higher ups? I really don't know. It works both ways. Soviet reports can be suspect for propaganda reasons. German reports can be suspect as well for the same reasons or as an excuse. I personally don't know enough about armor manufacturing/physics to say one way or another. One thing is clear however, BTS was impressed enough with Valera and his website to make him part of the CM2 beta team. I am presuming it's not just because his website is pretty. However, anyone can be wrong. What exactly is it about Valera's sources that makes them suspect other than they are Soviet? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, but I want to know what the real facts are (if such a thing can really be known). Quite frankly it seems to me that both Soviet and Western /German sources have good reasons to be less than accurate or truthful but how can one tell the difference? Cross-referencing I guess

Also, can you tell me where exactly you are quoting from "When Titans Clash"? I have the book but I don't recall the passage you cite. Valera claims that the Germans purposely avoided areas with IS-2s, not the other way around.

Concerning German quality control, are you also taking into account the assertion that German armor quality decreased from lack of necessary materials to make the armor up to high quality standards? Supposedly the lack of maganese sources prevented forced the Germans into producing armor that was less than optimal. Valera assert this accounted for the 122mm AP performance 'suddenly' becoming better. My studies have been mainly strategical theory and not tank engineering/development so I'm not really clear on this.

I am not saying Valera's word is law or anything but I'm not going to simply take any German report or impression as gospel either (not that I'm accusing anyone of doing this). How does BTS sift through all this??

[Skipper]

Roksovkiy:

If your nick is after Marshall of Soviet Union K.K.Rokossovskiy, check your spelling. Then we'll talk.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

In the 1947 document I mentioned above the British give the rate of fire of the ISU and SU 152 at 2-3rpm. This seems to me to be far more realistic. “If” a guy can lift a given shell and afterwards a given charge it is not going to take more than 20-30 seconds per round. If BTS have really said 1-1.5 minutes per round they have got me worried. Can not believe Steve and Charles would reach such a conclusion, must be making some strange assumptions.

Once again we will just have to wait and see but as I say I would be worried if they are really going for such a low rate of fire.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. German test firings of the 76.2M1942 AT gun, specifically using the standard Soviet BR350A APC round, give it the same penetration one would have expected from a German round of the same dimensions and velocity. To assume that most Soviet AP ammunition was a low quality and Soviet armour of low quality I do not believe is correct. Most of my sources are British reports on items of equipment that had either been given to them by the Soviets or fallen into their hands, often in Korea.

[offtaskagain]

ASL Veteran, since when does a tiger have a howitzer size weapon?? JasonC was talking about his personal experience in firing M109 155mm SP artillery pieces, not tanks. The Tiger uses single piece ammo which probably weighs around 50 pounds, whereas a 155 shell is 100 pounds without the propellant bag.

[ 06-04-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar:

Well, then that is a problem isn't? The Russians could falsify reports for propaganda reasons but so can the Germans. Are we supposed to believe that everything the Soviets reported was inflated and incorrect? Are we supposed to just simply believe the report of every German commander as being objective and totally honest? Even if they were, can we really be sure the reports weren't "modified" for whatever purposes to be more palatable for the higher ups? I really don't know. It works both ways. Soviet reports can be suspect for propaganda reasons. German reports can be suspect as well for the same reasons or as an excuse. I personally don't know enough about armor manufacturing/physics to say one way or another. One thing is clear however, BTS was impressed enough with Valera and his website to make him part of the CM2 beta team. I am presuming it's not just because his website is pretty. However, anyone can be wrong. What exactly is it about Valera's sources that makes them suspect other than they are Soviet? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, but I want to know what the real facts are (if such a thing can really be known). Quite frankly it seems to me that both Soviet and Western /German sources have good reasons to be less than accurate or truthful but how can one tell the difference? Cross-referencing I guess

Also, can you tell me where exactly you are quoting from "When Titans Clash"? I have the book but I don't recall the passage you cite. Valera claims that the Germans purposely avoided areas with IS-2s, not the other way around.

Concerning German quality control, are you also taking into account the assertion that German armor quality decreased from lack of necessary materials to make the armor up to high quality standards? Supposedly the lack of maganese sources prevented forced the Germans into producing armor that was less than optimal. Valera assert this accounted for the 122mm AP performance 'suddenly' becoming better. My studies have been mainly strategical theory and not tank engineering/development so I'm not really clear on this.

I am not saying Valera's word is law or anything but I'm not going to simply take any German report or impression as gospel either (not that I'm accusing anyone of doing this). How does BTS sift through all this??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Commissar, if this is aimed at me (which some of it does look like), that is fine. However, what I said earlier in my post about being somewhat skeptic of sites like the Russian battlefield is basicaly because accounts which give stories such as "...we knocked out 6 panthers in a hailstorm" are just not convincing enough to be taken as hard evidence. (this does not discredit the fact that I believe other sites do the this as well). It has been said here before (on the BTS forums) that using such information as hard facts can be the poorest of source.

I would like to see rexford weigh in on this.

[ASL Veteran]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

ASL Veteran, since when does a tiger have a howitzer size weapon?? JasonC was talking about his personal experience in firing M109 155mm SP artillery pieces, not tanks. The Tiger uses single piece ammo which probably weighs around 50 pounds, whereas a 155 shell is 100 pounds without the propellant bag.

[ 06-04-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you look at the context within which I made that comparison, you will note that Jason said that a Howitzer ROF would be 3 to 4 RPM lower than a 'normal' gun. Therefore, I picked a Tiger out of the blue because I know what the ROF of the Tiger is in CM and subtracted 3 to 4 RPM from it and ... Walla!! You get 2 to 3 RPM.

[ASL Veteran]

Okay, I am now in front of my source "Russian Tanks and Armored Vehicles 1917 - 1945" by Wolfgang Fleisher and he has the following ROF:

152mm Tank Howitzer 1938/40: 2 RPM

76mm 1940 and 1942 Tank Gun (F-34): 5 RPM

76mm 1938/39 Tank Gun (L-10): 4-5 RPM

76mm 1927/32 Tank Gun (KT - 28): 2 RPM

45mm 1938 Tank Gun: 12 RPM

122mm 1943 Tank Gun (D-25 T): 2-3 RPM

85mm 1944 Tank Gun (ZIS-S-53): 4-7 RPM

So it would seem that Kip and I are in agreement on the ROF for the 122, 2-3 RPM. Incidentally it just gives ROF data for the gun without regard to the platform.

[Grunto IV]

in advanced squad leader, the is/2 is a better tank (without considering range) than the panther.

the 75LL (Panther, Jgdpz IV/70) has penetration of 23.

the 122L (IS/2) has penetration of 25.

the 88LL (tiger II, Jagdpanther, Elephant, Nashorn) is 27

Frontal kill numbers (at range 7-24):

all frontal, hull/turret hit

122L versus:

panther 7/11

kt -1/7

elephant 7/7

75LL versus IS/2 -3/5

88LL versus IS/2 1/9

this shows that the IS/2 was more formidable at intermediate ranges than some here are willing to give it credit for.

i hope this will be modelled in cm2.

andy

[Roksovkiy]

For a complete neutral, Valera's web-site, sadly reads of a biase to the russian side. If you don't care about nationality and seriously want to find out the true performnace of german/russian tanks you cannot take his work as truth.

If he is part of the CM2 team then I fear the game will not be historically accurate.

The Steel Panthers World tA War game testers had a lot of complaints because they used the true armor values of soviet vehicles and the low ammo capacity/rate of fire of soviet 122+ guns.

His web-site is almost a complete contradiction of Achtung Panzer and vice versa. If Russian tanks were this good, with the germans largely outnumbered in tanks as they were, the germans would have no tanks left by late 1943.

-I personally don't know enough about armor manufacturing/physics to say one way or another. Concerning German quality control, are you also taking into account the assertion that German armor quality decreased from lack of necessary materials to make the armor up to high quality standards? Supposedly the lack of maganese sources prevented forced the Germans into producing armor that was less than optimal.

Germany armour for medium+ tanks used rolled homogeneous nickel-steel plate, with electro-welded interlocking-plate. British and US sources agree that this was the best armour produced during WW2. And rigorous quality control procedures ensured it stayed that way, even up to 1945. When reserves of nicked and maganese were exhausted tank production slowed and then ceased in early april 1945. Soviet armour, RHA and cast armour was rated at 30% less effective than german armour by the U.S and noted it tended to be very brittle.

-What exactly is it about Valera's sources that makes them suspect other than they are Soviet? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, but I want to know what the real facts are (if such a thing can really be known).

The main problem is the lack of other soviet sources available to compare to Valera's sources. German combat reports documents are ignored.

Unfortunately his writings go into a 'my tank is better than yours' mentality. An writings such as the soviets saying they destroyed 11 king tigers and the german combat records show that 2 were lost, then valera argues the germans modified there reports.

Can you tell me where exactly you are quoting from "When Titans Clash"? I have the book but I don't recall the passage you cite.

The kills are credited to SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Korner and SS-Untersturmführer Karl Bromman, who both received the Knights cross.

-Valera claims that the Germans purposely avoided areas with IS-2s, not the other way around.

Again, this is a opinion and a contradiction to the russian order of Nov 1944 in budapest of "forbiding all tank units from conducting any major combat where Tigers were located."

[Stalin's Organ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grunto IV:

in advanced squad leader, the is/2 is a better tank (without considering range) than the panther.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry - but quoting wargames rules to prove a historical point is like F**king for virginity!

Regardless of how good you think the rules are, they are still utterly irrelevant unless you can show the figures that went into them, and if yuo can do that then why bother mentioning the rules in the first place?

[Dan Robertson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kipanderson:

Hi,In 1947 the British Board of Ordinance estimate of the armour penetration of the 122mm D25 gun was 179mm at 0 metres range and 168mm at 500 metres, against 30degree plate.

Combat experience also showed that the D25 “could” penetrate the upper front hull of the Panther, certainly after May/June 44.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take it we are both taking about

WO 291/1143, "Effectiveness of British and Russian tanks."

The only problem about this is that these figures were extrapolated from the penetration of the 17pdr. Which is generally thought to fire shells of a higher quality, in addition the 17pdr rounds were solid shot, which performs better than APC HE.

The 17pdr round was also quite a bit longer, than the 122 in proportion to it diameter. In all not the best round to extrapolate from.

The Wargamer.org site estimates that Russian figures should gain about 5% when compared to British figures.

As for the Panthers Glacis test there were many tests done, the problems being that their results appear to be conflicting, in one (which is always quoted) the Panther Glacis totally failed from a 122 impact at 2500yards, in another the Panther Glacis resisted the 122mm 100mm and 88mm guns at closer ranges of about 700yards.

I believe Lorrin Bird it the guy to talk to about these tests.

Personally I would like to see their being a far greater variance in the rounds and armour, these test show that this does happen in practice, ocasional vehicles should have armour so flawed that it barely works.

APDS is under modeled in the current game, subcaliber rounds do have terrible performance angainst slope as a whole but not quite as bad as the game makes out.

APDS rounds that work properly should out perform the current figures for the game. Ones that don't should either miss or perform exeptionally badly.

A similar variation in quality should also apply to the Russian ammo, as was the case in reallity

[ASL Veteran]

I managed to dig up some stuff in “Panzertruppen Vol 2” about Tiger II vs Joseph Stalin tanks from a report written by Hauptmann Fromme, commander of schwere Panzer-Abteilung 503.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Experience that Russians build up strong anti-tank gun positions directly behind his forward elements was proven again. Up to now, happily, the employment of American 9.2 cm and conical bore (7.5 cm reduced to 5.7cm) anti – tank guns has led to only two Tigers lost as total write – offs. These weapons can also penetrate the gun mantlet at ranges under 600 meters. Penetrations of the rear of the turret cause the stowed ammunition to explode and usually result in the total destruction of the Tiger.

In tank vs tank combat, the 8.8 cm Kw.K.43 gun is effective in destroying all of the types of enemy tanks, including the Stalin, at ranges up to 1500 meters. Under favorable conditions, the T34 and T43 tanks can also be knocked out at ranges up to 3000 meters. As previously experienced in the West with Allied tanks, it was often observed that the Russian tanks declined to fight Tigers or turned and fled after their first tank was knocked out. The same thing applies to the Russian assault guns as to the Stalin tanks. Kills at over 1500 meters have not yet occurred.

In summary it can be said that the Tiger II has proven itself in every way and is a weapon that is feared by the enemy. The concentrated Tiger – Abteilung correctly employed tactically will always bring success. But most of the higher commands that were encountered did not perceive the technical and tactical importance of a Tiger – Abteilung.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don’t really know which American guns this guy is referring to in the first paragraph. Maybe the 90mm on the Pershing?? The conical bore is a mystery to me too.

[Wolfe]

Thanks for the info on the SU-76 TDs and ZiS-30. And just to correct one other AFV, the SU-76P carries the really short 76mm M1927 regimental gun, not the L-10 gun.

- Chris

[Freak]

Nevermind again.

[ 06-04-2001: Message edited by: Freak ]

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

ASL Said: “I'm not sure what prompted this rant (or what looked like one anyway), but the reality of the situation is that BTS uses hard data to make their game. I know how seriously they take this cause I've debated numerous issues with Steve. So, (at the risk of speaking for BTS - which I absolutely do not) BTS is obviously not going to just 'wing it' when it comes to ROF and pick some number that sounds nice. If all the documentation says the ROF is between 1 and 2 per minute, then that's what it's going to be.”

Excellent rebuttal. Obviously the games database has to be founded on something solid. My personal opinion is that the historical techno-minutia must be blended with personal experiences. However personal experiences will vary from individual to individual even if they are talking about the same issue. Seemingly they will vary with the particular point one is arguing as well.

The ROF number we typically pick out in our Techno-Minutia manuals is the resultant of test firing a particular weapon. That’s what some folks do for a living at places like Aberdeen Proving Grounds. Tech reports for firing tests can consist of complex engineering formulas and graphs and the like describing or modeling what was occurring during test firing. But ultimately this information doesn’t go to other engineers or scientists to look at. It all has to be rolled into simple, convenient numbers (or preferably one number) so technocophiles are not overwhelmed (Technocophiles Defined: Heathens that do not worship upon the idol of techno-minutia). With the M30 I suspect tests indicated some crews fired at about 1 rpm during tests; most crews fired at 2rpm; and some crews fired 3rpm. The resultant we see in in watered down Techno-Minutia manuals is 2rpm. Should CM’s database be founded on recollections of what someone thinks a good ROF should be, or should it be based upon weapons testing in which data was recorded at the time of the test with the specific intent of determining a weapons capabilities?

[Username]

These Su's dont have hull MGs and AA mgs are about useless against close infantry; would they be any better off than Elephants trying to breakthrough? With an even slower rate of fire, I would guess that these monsters would avoid infantry like the plague (maybe they could roll a grenade down the barrel).

They also had a restricted weapon depression of a few degrees. With such a high set weapon, it would have been possible to only hit infantry that were beyond panzerfaust range.

A final note is that the gun really is vulnrerable. The armored box under the gun protecting its recoil etc, would not give much protection. Again, the barrel is huge and stands a good chance of catching rounds and even being targetted.

Lewis

PS Its hard enough discussing rates of fire but does anyone know of any reliable info on range finding and/or optical quality of russian guns/tanks?

Since these behomeths are really stand off destroyers; how good were they at ranging and sights?

[Stalin's Organ]

I think we often forget that "in real life" most battles involving tanks were againt infantry, not other tanks.

In this context a mobile 6" gun throwing 100 lb lumps of HE and steel around the paddock probably seems like an unfair advatage to anyone on the opposing team! v And minor disadvantages like a big barrel and large recoil mechanism that might get hit were largely irrelevant!

Any time a German tank encountered 1 of these things chances are it was part of a break-through force with anotehr 19 from the regiment lurking about somewhere and hordes of T-34's swarming about covered in SMG infantry and/or IS-2's in overwatch.

I suspect they won't appear much in ME's.....but then ME's were a fairly uncommon occurrence "in real life", and anyone with balls should try dfefendign against a Sov asault that fields a couple or 3!

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

Any time a German tank encountered 1 of these things chances are it was part of a break-through force with anotehr 19 from the regiment lurking about somewhere and hordes of T-34's swarming about covered in SMG infantry and/or IS-2's in overwatch.

!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say you are wrong.

The su-85, su-100, su-122, and these bigger types all lacked MGs and would not be in the breakthrough force but rather the overwatch second echelon.

Lewis