LongLeftFlank Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 The "Zvierboy" (Animal Killer) nickname for the SU-152 is quite evocative (and the Tamiya model I built in childhood, complete with Cyrillic slogan on the side looks like one bad*ss fighting machine) but, propaganda aside, how would the independent ISU/SU brigades actually have operated on the battlefield after Kursk. More to the punkt, how would they have gone about actually stalking and nailing German big katz for a living given their many inferiorities in ROF, optics, muzzle velo, etc? (Keeping in mind the immortal words of OddBall "The only weakness of a Tiger is its ass") 1. Are there any historical info/refs I could use in designing a relevant scenario? 2. What was the SU organization at company and below level? What support units would one expect to see operating with them vs. armor? 3. In spite of the Guards designation, would their crews have been elite relative to other Soviet tank units? 4. Any tank killer aces known on the Soviet side, given the occupational hazards of this work? I've searched through various threads here, which led me to the following link -- http://www.battlefield.ru/isu122_152.html -- which gave me the impression that the 1944+ SU/ISU brigades were basically mobile assault arty that would also occasionally be called upon to knock out some stubborn dug-in panzers, or occasionally to repel a counterattack.... implying that the vaunted "animal killer" role was more incidental than deliberate for these brigades (and that their antitank tactics would be similarly ad hoc and situation-dependent). Anybody have any illum rounds to shed on this (large) target? Many thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Check out Panzer Aces. More pulp fiction than good history, but there is one account of being on the recieving end of a ISU 152, IIRC. WWB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Originally posted by LongLeftFlank: -- which gave me the impression that the 1944+ SU/ISU brigades were basically mobile assault arty that would also occasionally be called upon to knock out some stubborn dug-in panzers, or occasionally to repel a counterattack.... implying that the vaunted "animal killer" role was more incidental than deliberate for these brigades (and that their antitank tactics would be similarly ad hoc and situation-dependent).I think you have it about right. I think their designated tank killer, when there were enough of them around, was the SU-100 with the ISU-122 doing some of that as well. I think the SU-122, the SU-152 and the ISU-152 were primarily used for bunker busting and similar activities. But consider, no tank is likely to survive a direct hit by a 6" shell. Even if it is only HE it's going to hurt. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted September 1, 2003 Author Share Posted September 1, 2003 Just found this additional info on Soviet SP tactics (if you can call them that), with the SU-76: http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/ulanov/ulanov1.html "The same day we were instructed how to engage Tigers. 2 SPs work together. One SP opens fire, and, backing up, serves as bait for a Tiger. When the Tiger has his side exposed, the second SP opens on him at 300m or less. The trick was so simple!..." "...I thanked him and asked, when I can get a command of SP. The answer was quite simple - when some SP commander gets killed." "....When adjusting the gun, I was first using the periscope, which was not too comfortable, as it shook together with the vehicle when we fired our gun. Migalatiev recommended me to forget this piece of iron and look at the targets directly without any optical devices. First my eyes would close from the blast wave coming from the muzzle brake, but later I got used to it and could make adjustments more precisely." Based on this kind of evidence, I'm starting to suspect that the Germans lost far more Tigers to miring and mechanical failure than they ever did to the "animal killers." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Remember too that there weren't that many Tigers in the first place. If the Germans actually had as many Tigers and Panthers as the Allied soldiers thought they did they probably would have won the war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Originally posted by LongLeftFlank: Just found this additional info on Soviet SP tactics (if you can call them that), with the SU-76: http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/ulanov/ulanov1.html "The same day we were instructed how to engage Tigers. 2 SPs work together. One SP opens fire, and, backing up, serves as bait for a Tiger. When the Tiger has his side exposed, the second SP opens on him at 300m or less. The trick was so simple!..." "...I thanked him and asked, when I can get a command of SP. The answer was quite simple - when some SP commander gets killed." "....When adjusting the gun, I was first using the periscope, which was not too comfortable, as it shook together with the vehicle when we fired our gun. Migalatiev recommended me to forget this piece of iron and look at the targets directly without any optical devices. First my eyes would close from the blast wave coming from the muzzle brake, but later I got used to it and could make adjustments more precisely." Based on this kind of evidence, I'm starting to suspect that the Germans lost far more Tigers to miring and mechanical failure than they ever did to the "animal killers." Based on this evidence, I want BFC to class the optics for SU76's with regular or above crew as "Eyeball". Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amedeo Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 The SU/ISU-122/152 were mainly intended as direct fire weapons against soft targets. Well, the adoption of the SU-152 was propted by the debut of the german heavies, but it was intended for direct fire supporto of infantry. The actual TDs were the SU-85/100 series AFVs. And consider that of all the SUs, only the SU-85M and the SU-100 have a frontal protection that allows them a chance to stand in a frontal firefight against Tigers and Panthers (the Tiger II was actually a tougher nut to crack, but if you have the skills of Lt. Oskin a single T-34-85 will suffice to force a whole battalion of them to retreat ). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 @LongLeft... If i understand him right, he was told how to engage Tigers...but he didnt mentioned that he did it actualy!? Those fantasies from alone, single Tigers (or anything else in this category) isnt the norm, if it happend at all. If you know something about Tank tactics, you will see on the Field at least two Tanks, one does mostly give cover from behind....(no, i doesnt mean on the ...parade :eek: ). Another question is, how long the "bait" lifes after he comes into the firelane of an ennemy tank? If he survive a second shot, he must be a lucky one. Not really enough time for the "catcher" to reach a possible 80-90 degree position to a Tiger for a sure penetration. The single story sounds like..."...Hands up, you are surounded, we are two..." Maybe the last they heard, was laughter.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGONZOM Posted September 1, 2003 Share Posted September 1, 2003 Medium assault gun regiment, (TO 10/192) from April 1943 Reg. HQ - 40 men with 20 pistols, 11 carbines, 28 smg.. 1 BA-64 AC, 1 T-34, 5 motorcycles, 1 car Four Batteries each - 28 men with 8 pistols and 20 smg... 4 SU-122 Medical Section - 7 men with 4 pistols and 3 carbines... One Truck trains elements - 60 men with 9 pistols, 30 carbines, 31 smg... 36 trucks and 2 tractors The above is from "The Red Army Handbook" page 93. [ September 01, 2003, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Mr_Gonzo_The_Rooster ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted September 2, 2003 Author Share Posted September 2, 2003 Thanks for the responses, all. On reflection and further reading, it looks like my personal perception of Soviet heavy SU capabilities and doctrine is distorted by Tamiya model kits and a misleading Soviet propaganda nickname, not to mention the not insignificant fact that the original AH Squad Leader put a bunch of SU-122s and SU-152s into their counter mix at the expense of far more historically common and significant AFVs. (God bless the AH/SL team, but they gave me some wacky ideas about WWII arms and tactics-- and I'm probably not the only one that's true for on this board ). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted September 2, 2003 Share Posted September 2, 2003 One important thing to keep in mind is that the SU-152 gains its reputation as an "Animal Killer" in 1943, when it was one of the only Russian AFVs that had a reasonable chance of KOing a Tiger with anything less than a point-blank side or rear shot. As such it probably gained the nickname because of it's *relative* effectiveness against Tigers and Panther compared to everything else in the Russian inventory, not because it was actually tactically superior to the German animals in any respect. As already noted, by 1944 there are a variety of other Russian AFVs armed with 85mm (often with tungsten), 122mm and eventually 100mm guns, that are substantially more effective against German Heavy Armor than the SU/ISU-152, which as the penetration, but not the ROF to be a really effective tank killer. Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.