Monwar Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 The 100 mm gun - it's damn powerful. Why didnt the Soviets used it more? Also, had to say, those German 75 mm guns are DAMN accurate. Is it my bad or are they really very accurate?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddington Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 Moonwar, first of all please do not spam the forum whit multiple threads You can write all of your questions in one thread... If I remember correct the soviet 100mm gun came in so late that they didn`t have the time to produce them in large numbers. And they wouldn`t really have needed them that much, the war was allready ending. The german 75mm gun is accurate, because of good optics. Also the training that german soldiers got was usually superior. [ November 25, 2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Paddington ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted November 25, 2003 Share Posted November 25, 2003 I think you can find more information on the 100 mm on the russian battlefield. They have lots of information! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardaukar Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 Soviet 100 mm was originally naval destroyer gun, and it was alway in short supply too. Simply, manufacturing shortages. Cheers, M.S. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 No, not really - they evaluated the 100mm vs the 122mm and there are translatinos of some of the documents at the Russian Battlefield web site - see http://www.battlefield.ru/library/archives/index.html Basically it wasn't needed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 Plus, the Soviets had a historical tendency to favour guns that had better HE effect on infantry (even if at the slight expense of penetration values) when deciding on which weapons to adopt en masse. This is in contrast to the U.S. which adopted the 76mm gun for its Shermans as soon as possible because of its armour penetration abilities despite it being inferior against infantry compared with the ol' 75mm gun. Mind you, an eminently sensible decision IMO as well. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 Yep, it would appear that the Soviets weren't too concerned about German armor when the decision to choose the 122mm guns over the 100mm variant was made. Obviously the HE potency of the shell was an important factor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted November 26, 2003 Share Posted November 26, 2003 Soviet late-war doctrine did not really feature all-out tank battles. If German tank formations were detected, it was usually recommended to go over to the defensive in the sector where they were operating, and reinforce that sector with independent AT brigades and SPAT regiments. The main problem faced by the Soviets in late war was the delivery of HE at the point of their advance, against dug-in Germans. In order to understand the choices made for particular weapons equipment, it is necessary to understand the doctrinal role of the AFV it is fitted on. The IS series of tanks took over the role of heavy breakthrough (actually assault would be more fitting) tank from the KV series. It operated in conjunction or parallel with the heavy assault guns to provide direct fire support in the assault. Tanks would probably only be encountered in a counter-attack to seal the breach, and one would expect AT guns brought forward immediately behind the assault troops (or indeed supporting them in the assault) to take on any armoured counter-attack. The T34 with its perfectly alright, but not great, 85mm gun was the tank for exploitation and pursuit. In this type of operation, tank on tank fighting was again not desired. But when it was necessary, the T34/85 could hold its own, especially by making up with numbers for lesser individual quality. I am working on a series of scenarios for Red Army studies that will show how this doctrine was implemented on the ground. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rum Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 Originally posted by Monwar: The 100 mm gun - it's damn powerful. Why didnt the Soviets used it more? The price issues. Soviet war economy tended to be as optimal as possible (even thought the things were not always going as planned). SU-100 tank destroyers and BS-3 100mm cannon were large, very expensive, and were overkill for 99% of all the targets they could met then they were produced. It was much more "money-effective" to produce 2 SU-85 instead of one SU-100, or to produce 5 ZIS-3 76mm cannon instead of one BS-3. The same reason (price) resulted the withdrawin of ZIS-2 cannon in 1941 from production. This 57mm high-velocity ATG have the 125mm penetration at 100 meters or so. It was able to penetrate both frontal and back armor of any german vehicle it could met in the 1941, and was 200% overkill. Thats why it production was halted and resumed only then Red Army met Tigers and Panthers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted November 27, 2003 Share Posted November 27, 2003 Originally posted by rum: It was much more "money-effective" to produce 2 SU-85 instead of one SU-100, or to produce 5 ZIS-3 76mm cannon instead of one BS-3. The phrase is "cost effective". 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.