The SU 152/ISU 152 range was originally designed to be used as mobile howitzers to destroy enemy fortifications such as bunkers. As the war went on the tank crews realized that the 152mm gun also had potential as an anti-tank gun. These tanks were never specialist tank destroyers like the SU 100 but they were used in that capacity. The sheer blast effect of a shell from the main cannon was enough to disable an enemy tank even without using anti-tank shells, just due to the weight of the shot.
@Dreachon You are correct about not dragging trailers behind them. That was the job of one or two horses. Apparently, while talking "gass", "petrol" and diesel, the Germans got it confused. They all enjoyed Shermans catching on fire after one shot and calling them "Zippo's" though... Fuel trucks did not have to be close to the tanks. All that needed to happen was to stop one on the road and you efectivelly solwed down a couple of tanks.
@Dreachon For the soviets at Kursk. On 7th July 1943, in one 20 minute period it has been claimed IL-2s destroyed 70 tanks of the 9th Panzer Division. It actually turns out that close to the start of the battle on 1st July 1943, 9th Panzer Division had only one tank battalion present with only 83 tanks and assault guns of all types in the Division.
@Dreachon The mounting o bombs under the FW-190 and ME-262 was a big mistake these aircraft were purebred fighters. The 37mm did help to lenghten the service of the stuka but as you said yourself it's design was already outdated by other more high performing ground atatck aircraft.
@Dreachon The 17th Panzer Division was not even in the main attack sector for the Kursk battle, but further south with 1st Panzer Army’s 24th Panzer Corps. The 17th Panzer did not register any abnormal losses due to aircraft in the summer of 1943, and retreated westwards with Army Group South later in the year still intact.
@hetmanbasza a matter of time. Notice this however: Blitzkreig tactic of lightning fast advance depended on the ability of Luftwaffe to dominate over the front line with "ground support" such as Stuka dive bombers. Unopposed, they were devastating because thay did delivered large bombs with surgical precision. If you notice, none of the German advances in the east was longer than 200km. That is the furthest practical range of loaded Stukas flying behind enemy lines.
@Dreachon As was to be expected, no tanks or self propelled guns were recorded as having been knocked out by machine gun or cannon fire from the air. extracts from Air Power at the Battlefront: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1939-45. Frank Cass (London 1998)
@hetmanbasza except in reverse: Luftwaffe claimed hundreds of Russian planes destroyed (mostly on the ground). Goring did not believe a word of it and demanded heads but, once Wermacht covered the ground and Germans counted the dammage it turned out initial pilots reports were quite conservative. In the West, once the Normandy landing started, it was all over for Germans. With a few bright spots like Ardens, they lost initiative and because of the overwelming air power situation became just
@Dreachon The design specs for Russian heavy tanks come out of the pressing need for a way to penetrate large German ground installations with lots of bunkers. Heavy tanks were never to duel it out with heavy German tanks. Thus, no fancy optics and simplistic design. Crude yet effective. Just because they did meet each other and managed to take a shot is a bonus. The worst enemy of any tank is an aircraft.
@Dreachon Perhaps the most extraordinary claim by the VVS’s IL-2s, is that over a period of 4 hours they destroyed 240 tanks and in the process virtually wiped out the 17th Panzer Division. On 1st July the 17th Panzer Division had only one tank battalion (the II./Pz Rgt 39) with a grand total of only 67 tanks.(19) This time only 173 less than claimed destroyed by the VVS!
@tanker1408 No I am not kidding. The best way to disable a Tiger was to shoot up the truck or trailer near it that hauled all of its diesel. Stractually, No tank was armoured everywhere for all eventualities.... Engine compartment and top of a turet had scant protection. 50 cal was an overkill in most cases. Also, this is the time when US realized that fast moving projectiles (50 cal or larger) had a unusual quality of squirting its core inside of a crew occupied space killing them.
@Dreachon 9th Panzer Division doesn’t record any such loss in July (it registers an air-attack referred to as heavy strafing), and 9th Panzer Division continued in action for over 3 months after this so called ‘devastating attack’, with most of its initial tanks still intact.
Seems like this isn't an SU 52 based on the KV-1s chassis but an ISU 152 based on the IS-2 chassis, it's becomes when the rear of the machine comes into view.
@Dreachon From a smaple of 385 armoured vehicles. 14 - 3.6% rockets 4 - 1.1% bombs 21 - 5.3% MG or Cannon from the air 148 - 39.5% destroyed by crew to prevent capture 121 - 31.5% abandoned undamaged 77 - 20% other causes The 21 vehicles knocked out by machine gun or cannon fire from the air were lightly armoured scout cars or half tracks: 87 of these vehicles were examined, of which the 21 represented just over 24%.
@Dreachon Armour piercing performance was adequate against anything but tanks. As described in Chapter 4, the .50" M2 AP, .50” M8 API and the 20 mm SAP/I could all penetrate up to 20 mm of plate at short range, but the oblique striking angle resulting from a typical diving attack would have reduced this significantly - and by then most German tanks had roof armour of at least 25 mm thickness
@Dreachon Then the germans did not call the sherman zippo, it as called tommycooker or ronson. 1 or 2 horses can drag a fuel trailer, you need a truck for the fuel, fueltrucks stayed well behind the frontlines and for that matter do you actually believe that the wreck of a 3ton truck will stop 56ton tank from moving over it, it won't.
@Dreachon You have never talked to surviving German Tiger crew who runed into one for the first time right? There is nothing more teriffying to a kid in a Tiger who confidently aims his 88, hits it and watches his best round bounce right off at 3000m. Fear grows untill "it" gets to 600m and you do see results. But by then, "It "punches holes through your frontal armour. You are now siting in a 60t Volkswagen.
@hetmanbasza Truck and trailer, diesel fule, what have you been reading, all german tanks used petrol, fueltrucks didn't get anywere near the front line, tigers didn't drag fueltrailers with them. .50 were also rather poor for usage against armoured vehicles.
@hetmanbasza According to the German gunners, Tiger HAD TO stop, travers, aim, LOCK the 88 and then fire. If you ask me it had more to do with the recoil of this big ass gun and possible damage it might cause. Up close, a Sherman could outrun its travers mechanism and get away or get on its butt (key word here: relatively thinly armoured)
@Maloross Maloross, you had to read the same books than I did. How come Tiger fanatics never mention some flaws in tigers: Could not shoot on the run, Sherman could outrun its travesing mechanism at point blank range, to knock it out all you needed was a few 50 cal's bouncing off of the road bed and hitting the floor. Most Tigers broke down at 100km intervals and needed more maintenence on their tracks that other tanks.
@hetmanbasza For the US, during the German counterattack at Mortain (7th to 10th August) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 140 assault guns and 112 tanks, respectively. It turns out that only 177 German tanks and assault guns participated in the attack, which is 75 less tanks than claimed as destroyed! Of these 177 tanks, 46 were lost and only 9 were lost to aircraft attack.(6) This is again around 4% of those claimed.
@Dreachon You mean Maximum of 25mm (Tiger), 17mm Panther. Exception being King Tiger with 40mm but since there were so few of these this point becomes a bit of trivia. At last, I must say: You are on a roll!! 4 responses all neatly presented with indisputable factual information derived from British observations. The only problem here is they are British... What did Germans, Russians and Americans write about the subject?
@hetmanbasza Sorry but if your way of showing an example includes bringging a automatic weapon with a RoF of 4200 RPm firing 30mm DU armour piercing shell to prove a point about how aircraft were against tanks during WW2 this discussion is clolsed as that is absolutely ridiculious. Tanks are not stationary targets or large surface vessels that can't hide on the open ocean. Aircraft kills during ww2 of ground targets, especially tanks are often overrated by over 200%.
@hetmanbasza According to the German gunners, Tiger HAD TO stop, travers, aim, LOCK the 88 and then fire. If you ask me it had more to do with the recoil of this big ass gun and possible damage it might cause. Up close, a Sherman could outrun its travers mechanism and get away or on its butt.
The trouble was HITTING the target with that wildly inaccurate cannon at anything other than point blank range. JagdPanther vs ISU 152 at 1 kilometer JagdPanther all day!!!
@nurmiar tanks ran away from it the beast hunter its called becouse of the german panzer names like panther tiger/ elephant only slow driving/slow shooting but an verry strong tank
@hetmanbasza All that ended when Stukas got thined out absoleted by new designs. Mounting bomb racks on anything that flew was counter productive to the original design. FW 190, Me 262 were not suited for the task but the Furher ordered it and that's that. Germans did modiffy Stuka with some ingeniuos weponry in order to knock out Russian tanks but the design was so far obsolete it become suicidal to fly it. In the reports you cited earlier, do they come with gun camera footage from the
@Dreachon The ISU-152 had better chances as it's frontal armour was 90mm sloped at 30 degree but the tiger could still penetrate this at 1000m. Adding to that the superieur optics and a much higher RoF the tiger will come out on top should they face off in a direct confrontation.
@hetmanbasza Russian planes? German regulation on claims were the most severe and many kils were never properly credited. Reading personal flight log would be more believable. Do you disagree?
@hetmanbasza It's hard to say how accurate the german reports are but my take is on knocking out tanks that they had they same problem as all the other countries, aircraft at the time just weren't equipped with the right weapon for taking down tanks, either they were to inaccurate, to weak to do real damage or in the case of some weapons to dangerous for the plane itself, example would be the 75mm for the hs129B3, not too mention the considerable losses caused by AA ground units.
@hetmanbasza Seems more like you have no idea what a tiger can do, besides very few tanks can hit a target at 3000m, soviet tanks certainly didn't. The SU-152 had 75mm of frontal armour sloped at 30 degree, the 8.8cm kwk 36 L56 could penetrate 84mm of armour sloped at 30 degree at a range of 2000m, at a 1000m this would be a 100mm, more than sufficient to knock out a SU-152.
@hetmanbasza Have you ever seen what one .50 can do? Than add the other 7 and really there was no contest. GI's always enjoyed ground support from P-47's. Chances were high that after one was called in and did it's thing there will be a Tiger laying on its side. 57ton tank did not have a chance once you throw a 250lb bomb beside it.
@nurmiar Nah, the heviest german tanks like the konigstiger, jagdtiger and elefant could take a direct from one as long it it didn't anything vital like the tracks but their armour could withstand the hit, besides like all russian tanks it had poor optics so german tanks could engage at longer range.
@Dreachon Go to any site that has pictures of a top of a Tiger for example and see how many holes there are right over the engine grill. 7 years old boys knocked out many tanks with small Molotow coctails. Are you actually disagreeing with the entire experience of Gremany & US using "aerial altilery" as Germans have put it? Dive bombers eradicated Japanese fleet and instalations. Stukas raigned supreme in 40-41 untill there was competition. And today, there is no vech.
@hetmanbasza Use your head for a chance, the aircraft is moving too fast to make the bombs accurate enough for knocking out the small target, in most cases they will land within 50 to 70m of the tank at which point their firepower is wasted, only a direct hit from a bomb can disable well enough to keep it out of action and bombs from ww2 were as inaccurate as hell. As for the .50 debate, here is a conlcusion from the british after the battle of falaise regarding ground attack.
@hetmanbasza that can survive a pass from A-10. Reading one study does not proove anything. Brits could not hit a city in broad daylight from high altitude. That's why they moved to nights and lower alt. Hitting a moving target like a tank with a Lancaster/Halifax is a joke. It took them a while to disable parked Tirpitz!
@hetmanbasza WW2 .50 were not able to do damage against medimu and heavy tanks, modern .50 can but the rounds are far more these days. Bombs are even worse as the cahnce of hitting was terrible, do you know that the british made a study after Falaise about the effectieveness of their rocket firing Typhoons, they found that the rockets had less than 6% chance of knocking out a tank, the same went for bombs. In short ground attack aircraft kill are overrated by a huge margin that is a fact.
@Dreachon You do assume the most perfect conditions of a test range. If you go to battle with just that knowledge you will do things that will kill you. My knowledge comes mostly from men who lived through it. No range or and egghead sicientist gets any where close to this. Range info is only good for theoretical RUclips arguments. Try hundreds of Russian tanks running for you and then tell me how much range expertiese is worth.
@Dreachon Not if you are in one of them. As far an Stuka pilot they were (I hope I do not have to convince you mathematically how much faster diving plane is from a 37t or heavier tank "hauli'n ass" trying to "escape"!) From the instant the piolt saw the veh. It was, for all practical purposes, stationary. OK! I am game for some intelectual exchange of ideas & like you, am tired of ridiculious examples. Go ahead, make an inteligent statement.
This video is perfect for anyone who is building a scale model of this vehicle - the details are very clearly shown - thanks for posting!
The SU 152/ISU 152 range was originally designed to be used as mobile howitzers to destroy enemy fortifications such as bunkers. As the war went on the tank crews realized that the 152mm gun also had potential as an anti-tank gun. These tanks were never specialist tank destroyers like the SU 100 but they were used in that capacity. The sheer blast effect of a shell from the main cannon was enough to disable an enemy tank even without using anti-tank shells, just due to the weight of the shot.
Trzeba przyznać, że sprzęt wspaniały. Gdyby go tak jeszcze odremontować to mógłby być ozdobą, a tak to szpeci okolicę...
@Dreachon
You are correct about not dragging trailers behind them. That was the job of one or two horses. Apparently, while talking "gass", "petrol" and diesel, the Germans got it confused.
They all enjoyed Shermans catching on fire after one shot and calling them "Zippo's" though...
Fuel trucks did not have to be close to the tanks. All that needed to happen was to stop one on the road and you efectivelly solwed down a couple of tanks.
My 152mm shell went thru a T-34 and T-44 in WoT like buuutter.
In the words of Ali G, "Respect"
@Dreachon For the soviets at Kursk.
On 7th July 1943, in one 20 minute period it has been claimed IL-2s destroyed 70 tanks of the 9th Panzer Division.
It actually turns out that close to the start of the battle on 1st July 1943, 9th Panzer Division had only one tank battalion present with only 83 tanks and assault guns of all types in the Division.
@Dreachon
The mounting o bombs under the FW-190 and ME-262 was a big mistake these aircraft were purebred fighters.
The 37mm did help to lenghten the service of the stuka but as you said yourself it's design was already outdated by other more high performing ground atatck aircraft.
@Dreachon
The 17th Panzer Division was not even in the main attack sector for the Kursk battle, but further south with 1st Panzer Army’s 24th Panzer Corps. The 17th Panzer did not register any abnormal losses due to aircraft in the summer of 1943, and retreated westwards with Army Group South later in the year still intact.
@hetmanbasza
a matter of time. Notice this however: Blitzkreig tactic of lightning fast advance depended on the ability of Luftwaffe to dominate over the front line with "ground support" such as Stuka dive bombers. Unopposed, they were devastating because thay did delivered large bombs with surgical precision. If you notice, none of the German advances in the east was longer than 200km. That is the furthest practical range of loaded Stukas flying behind enemy lines.
@Dreachon
As was to be expected, no tanks or self propelled guns were recorded as having been knocked out by machine gun or cannon fire from the air.
extracts from Air Power at the Battlefront: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1939-45. Frank Cass (London 1998)
@hetmanbasza
except in reverse: Luftwaffe claimed hundreds of Russian planes destroyed (mostly on the ground). Goring did not believe a word of it and demanded heads but, once Wermacht covered the ground and Germans counted the dammage it turned out initial pilots reports were quite conservative.
In the West, once the Normandy landing started, it was all over for Germans. With a few bright spots like Ardens, they lost initiative and because of the overwelming air power situation became just
@Dreachon
The design specs for Russian heavy tanks come out of the pressing need for a way to penetrate large German ground installations with lots of bunkers. Heavy tanks were never to duel it out with heavy German tanks. Thus, no fancy optics and simplistic design. Crude yet effective. Just because they did meet each other and managed to take a shot is a bonus.
The worst enemy of any tank is an aircraft.
@Dreachon
Perhaps the most extraordinary claim by the VVS’s IL-2s, is that over a period of 4 hours they destroyed 240 tanks and in the process virtually wiped out the 17th Panzer Division.
On 1st July the 17th Panzer Division had only one tank battalion (the II./Pz Rgt 39) with a grand total of only 67 tanks.(19) This time only 173 less than claimed destroyed by the VVS!
@tanker1408
No I am not kidding. The best way to disable a Tiger was to shoot up the truck or trailer near it that hauled all of its diesel.
Stractually, No tank was armoured everywhere for all eventualities.... Engine compartment and top of a turet had scant protection. 50 cal was an overkill in most cases.
Also, this is the time when US realized that fast moving projectiles (50 cal or larger) had a unusual quality of squirting its core inside of a crew occupied space killing them.
@nurmiar
That is true, at short range that gun packed one hell of a punch, having a 48kg shell hitting you is not gonna be pleasant.
@Dreachon
9th Panzer Division doesn’t record any such loss in July (it registers an air-attack referred to as heavy strafing), and 9th Panzer Division continued in action for over 3 months after this so called ‘devastating attack’, with most of its initial tanks still intact.
Seems like this isn't an SU 52 based on the KV-1s chassis but an ISU 152 based on the IS-2 chassis, it's becomes when the rear of the machine comes into view.
@Dreachon
From a smaple of 385 armoured vehicles.
14 - 3.6% rockets
4 - 1.1% bombs
21 - 5.3% MG or Cannon from the air
148 - 39.5% destroyed by crew to prevent capture
121 - 31.5% abandoned undamaged
77 - 20% other causes
The 21 vehicles knocked out by machine gun or cannon fire from the air were lightly armoured scout cars or half tracks: 87 of these vehicles were examined, of which the 21 represented just over 24%.
@Dreachon
Armour piercing performance was adequate against anything but tanks. As described in Chapter 4, the .50" M2 AP, .50” M8 API and the 20 mm SAP/I could all penetrate up to 20 mm of plate at short range, but the oblique striking angle resulting from a typical diving attack would have reduced this significantly - and by then most German tanks had roof armour of at least 25 mm thickness
@Dreachon
Then the germans did not call the sherman zippo, it as called tommycooker or ronson.
1 or 2 horses can drag a fuel trailer, you need a truck for the fuel, fueltrucks stayed well behind the frontlines and for that matter do you actually believe that the wreck of a 3ton truck will stop 56ton tank from moving over it, it won't.
a question, what is difference of isu 152 and su 152?
@Dreachon
You have never talked to surviving German Tiger crew who runed into one for the first time right? There is nothing more teriffying to a kid in a Tiger who confidently aims his 88, hits it and watches his best round bounce right off at 3000m.
Fear grows untill "it" gets to 600m and you do see results. But by then, "It "punches holes through your frontal armour. You are now siting in a 60t Volkswagen.
@tanker1408 I agree but the tiger could not fire and move thats what I saw on tv and had many problems with the motor in rocky/heavy terrain
@tanker1408 how many the M4A3E2 Sherman "Jumbo" was near Reichstag and at Berlin streets when Reich fall down at 9 may?
@hetmanbasza
Truck and trailer, diesel fule, what have you been reading, all german tanks used petrol, fueltrucks didn't get anywere near the front line, tigers didn't drag fueltrailers with them.
.50 were also rather poor for usage against armoured vehicles.
@hetmanbasza
According to the German gunners, Tiger HAD TO stop, travers, aim, LOCK the 88 and then fire. If you ask me it had more to do with the recoil of this big ass gun and possible damage it might cause.
Up close, a Sherman could outrun its travers mechanism and get away or get on its butt (key word here: relatively thinly armoured)
@Maloross
Maloross, you had to read the same books than I did.
How come Tiger fanatics never mention some flaws in tigers: Could not shoot on the run, Sherman could outrun its travesing mechanism at point blank range, to knock it out all you needed was a few 50 cal's bouncing off of the road bed and hitting the floor. Most Tigers broke down at 100km intervals and needed more maintenence on their tracks that other tanks.
That thing is a BEAST!!
@hetmanbasza
For the US, during the German counterattack at Mortain (7th to 10th August) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 140 assault guns and 112 tanks, respectively.
It turns out that only 177 German tanks and assault guns participated in the attack, which is 75 less tanks than claimed as destroyed! Of these 177 tanks, 46 were lost and only 9 were lost to aircraft attack.(6) This is again around 4% of those claimed.
@werkzeug0 who is J.B?
@Dreachon
You mean Maximum of 25mm (Tiger), 17mm Panther. Exception being King Tiger with 40mm but since there were so few of these this point becomes a bit of trivia.
At last, I must say: You are on a roll!! 4 responses all neatly presented with indisputable factual information derived from British observations. The only problem here is they are British...
What did Germans, Russians and Americans write about the subject?
@vladimirmilojevic1 In real life it is almost impossible for a howitzer to hit a tank. That's why artillery weren't used as anti-tank weapons
this was a tank destroyer right
@hetmanbasza
Sorry but if your way of showing an example includes bringging a automatic weapon with a RoF of 4200 RPm firing 30mm DU armour piercing shell to prove a point about how aircraft were against tanks during WW2 this discussion is clolsed as that is absolutely ridiculious.
Tanks are not stationary targets or large surface vessels that can't hide on the open ocean.
Aircraft kills during ww2 of ground targets, especially tanks are often overrated by over 200%.
su-152 was based on kv-1s and isu-152 was based on IS
@hetmanbasza
According to the German gunners, Tiger HAD TO stop, travers, aim, LOCK the 88 and then fire. If you ask me it had more to do with the recoil of this big ass gun and possible damage it might cause.
Up close, a Sherman could outrun its travers mechanism and get away or on its butt.
The trouble was HITTING the target with that wildly inaccurate cannon at anything other than point blank range. JagdPanther vs ISU 152 at 1 kilometer JagdPanther all day!!!
@addictedjun yes it was a tank destroyer.
@nurmiar tanks ran away from it the beast hunter its called becouse of the german panzer names like panther tiger/ elephant only slow driving/slow shooting but an verry strong tank
to jest ISU 152 - nazywany Zwieroboj - niszcyl tyrysy i pantery , jak to trafilo w niemiecki czołg to wieza mogła sie kilka mrtrów dalej znaleść
z tego co się orientuje to właśnie SU-152 był nazywany Zwierobojem co nie zmienia faktu , że na powyższym filmiku jest przedstawiony ISU - 152
w sume to tak ale na isu tez tak mówlii , a na su 100 mówili suka, pozdrawiam
dzięki za wyprowadzenie mnie z błędu :)
nie ma sprawy :D
niszczyl niszczyl ....
@hetmanbasza
All that ended when Stukas got thined out absoleted by new designs. Mounting bomb racks on anything that flew was counter productive to the original design.
FW 190, Me 262 were not suited for the task but the Furher ordered it and that's that.
Germans did modiffy Stuka with some ingeniuos weponry in order to knock out Russian tanks but the design was so far obsolete it become suicidal to fly it.
In the reports you cited earlier, do they come with gun camera footage from the
@Dreachon
The ISU-152 had better chances as it's frontal armour was 90mm sloped at 30 degree but the tiger could still penetrate this at 1000m.
Adding to that the superieur optics and a much higher RoF the tiger will come out on top should they face off in a direct confrontation.
great propelled guns, could easily knock out the heaviest german tank of its time.
Thats a ISU-152 Not a SU-152
i always thought that the su 152 was based on Kv-1 chassis and the isu152 on the Kv-1s chassis isnt it then
@hetmanbasza
Russian planes? German regulation on claims were the most severe and many kils were never properly credited. Reading personal flight log would be more believable.
Do you disagree?
@Hans792 what?
@hetmanbasza
It's hard to say how accurate the german reports are but my take is on knocking out tanks that they had they same problem as all the other countries, aircraft at the time just weren't equipped with the right weapon for taking down tanks, either they were to inaccurate, to weak to do real damage or in the case of some weapons to dangerous for the plane itself, example would be the 75mm for the hs129B3, not too mention the considerable losses caused by AA ground units.
@hetmanbasza
Seems more like you have no idea what a tiger can do, besides very few tanks can hit a target at 3000m, soviet tanks certainly didn't.
The SU-152 had 75mm of frontal armour sloped at 30 degree, the 8.8cm kwk 36 L56 could penetrate 84mm of armour sloped at 30 degree at a range of 2000m, at a 1000m this would be a 100mm, more than sufficient to knock out a SU-152.
@hetmanbasza
Have you ever seen what one .50 can do? Than add the other 7 and really there was no contest. GI's always enjoyed ground support from P-47's. Chances were high that after one was called in and did it's thing there will be a Tiger laying on its side. 57ton tank did not have a chance once you throw a 250lb bomb beside it.
This is not SU-152(prototype designation KV-14)!!!! This S-gun is Joseph Stalin JSU-152
@nurmiar
Nah, the heviest german tanks like the konigstiger, jagdtiger and elefant could take a direct from one as long it it didn't anything vital like the tracks but their armour could withstand the hit, besides like all russian tanks it had poor optics so german tanks could engage at longer range.
Isu 152 or su 152
ISU152だねこれ
this is not SU-152 but ISU-152
@Hans792 Did u know thats the names of russian tanks got different names based on the gun equipped on the russian TD's
It's ISU-152
@9394JP731 to bad i didnt see this video till now i would have loved to talk about tanks and their weaknesses with you, even the german ones.
@Dreachon
Go to any site that has pictures of a top of a Tiger for example and see how many holes there are right over the engine grill. 7 years old boys knocked out many
tanks with small Molotow coctails.
Are you actually disagreeing with the entire experience of Gremany & US using "aerial altilery" as Germans have put it? Dive bombers eradicated Japanese fleet and instalations. Stukas raigned supreme in 40-41 untill there was competition. And today, there is no vech.
to jest ISU 152 bo jest na podwoziu IS 2 a nie SU 152
ISU-152 World of Tanks czegos uczy :P
ISU 152 NOT SU 152
that helped liberate Eastern Europe and replace it with Communism (hardly much of a liberation then!)
@nurmiar I prefer tyger if T34 comes in King tiger if I saw the beasthunter
ISU-152 IS Hull Not KV-1
@hetmanbasza
Use your head for a chance, the aircraft is moving too fast to make the bombs accurate enough for knocking out the small target, in most cases they will land within 50 to 70m of the tank at which point their firepower is wasted, only a direct hit from a bomb can disable well enough to keep it out of action and bombs from ww2 were as inaccurate as hell.
As for the .50 debate, here is a conlcusion from the british after the battle of falaise regarding ground attack.
actually called the Object 249
To jest ISU-152
@hetmanbasza
that can survive a pass from A-10.
Reading one study does not proove anything. Brits could not hit a city in broad daylight from high altitude. That's why they moved to nights and lower alt.
Hitting a moving target like a tank with a Lancaster/Halifax is a joke. It took them a while to disable parked Tirpitz!
@hetmanbasza
WW2 .50 were not able to do damage against medimu and heavy tanks, modern .50 can but the rounds are far more these days.
Bombs are even worse as the cahnce of hitting was terrible, do you know that the british made a study after Falaise about the effectieveness of their rocket firing Typhoons, they found that the rockets had less than 6% chance of knocking out a tank, the same went for bombs.
In short ground attack aircraft kill are overrated by a huge margin that is a fact.
@IcyFreshHALO "Don't teach grandfather how to cough"(c)...
ISU-152. not SU.
@Hans792 srry i just found out myself that day D:
To ISU-152
Toto je ISU-152 a ne SU152
isu152* from title
to jest ISU 152, a nie SU 152!!!
king tiger ftw
@Dreachon
You do assume the most perfect conditions of a test range. If you go to battle with just that knowledge you will do things that will kill you. My knowledge comes mostly from men who lived through it. No range or and egghead sicientist gets any where close to this.
Range info is only good for theoretical RUclips arguments.
Try hundreds of Russian tanks running for you and then tell me how much range expertiese is worth.
Ису Ису, прально подсказывают.
опять вы всё перепутали это ису152
@IcyFreshHALO Thank you, Captain Obvious.
MONSTER
это ису-152 автор нубадрот ))))) в простонародии зверобой!!!!!
это ису-152
@Dreachon
Not if you are in one of them.
As far an Stuka pilot they were (I hope I do not have to convince you mathematically how much faster diving plane is from a 37t or heavier tank "hauli'n ass" trying to "escape"!) From the instant the piolt saw the veh. It was, for all practical purposes, stationary.
OK! I am game for some intelectual exchange of ideas & like you, am tired of ridiculious examples.
Go ahead, make an inteligent statement.
World of tanks
это ису
Zwieroboj
Thats a ISU-152 Not a SU-152