@AdamSavage88 Are you sure that your figures are correct there. I have read about the elephants and it is always noted that the were easily overran by Russian infantry since it had no machine gun to use against them.
And that is nothing more that soviet propaganda, in reality only 1 Elephant was lost to enemy infantry during Kursk and that was due to the infantry that were assigned to protect it ran away during the night without informing the crew.
And yes it did have a MG34 stored internally that it could use against infantry, it could also shoot HE shell at soft targets which is actually recorded.
@AdamSavage88 I could have sworn they stopped making elefants because they had already converted all of the porsche tiger hulls that existed into elefants
i say that german lost the war of folliwing reasons (not inqlude all of the reasons) : german didnt produce its war machines by its full power until 1942. their foolness in stalingrad. didnt invade great birtain which made the invasion of normandy possible. hitler didnt take the invasion of normandy serioysly. reason number .1: hitler started to take action to military strategy. (here is not all reasons and this is only my opinion)
soviet S.P.Guns on the T-34 chassis SU-122 1,148 SU-85 2,050 SU-100 1,675 Soviet S.P. guns on the KV chassis SU-152 704 ISU-122/152 4,075 German S.P. gun on Panther and Tiger chassis Jagdpanther 425 Jagdtiger - - 79 Do the math production of the ISU-122/1562 alone was more than the total of the Jagd panther and Jagdtiger. This does not include almost 10,000 S.P. guns Pz 3 , PZ 4 chassis.
The German pak44 / 128mm was the most powerful AFV mounted cannon in World War 2. The Su100 was a very capable tank destroyer, it's 100mm cannon was on par with the much dreaded German 88 / L71 found on the KingTiger.
Although the 122mm main gun on the IS2 / 3 series had it's advantages with HE, a 100mm D10 mounted on a IS2 tank would have been a very deadly opponent for the Germans.
I read somewhere (I think on Wikipedia) that the Su-100 used the same hull as the T-34/85 and the Su-85 the T-34/76 one.
Basically, again according to wiki, the T-34/85 hull was an improved version of the T-34/76 one and it was slightly bigger.
Now, is that true ? 'Cause I can't believe that soviet redesigned the T34 hull just to fit the turret for the 85mm... But Su-100 hull actually looks a bit longer !
@Iamtheheadhunter1 yeah well the jagdtiger could vaporize that thing from miles away and let's not even imagine what the sturmtiger would do to that cookie :P
@Iamtheheadhunter1 yes but you say it could rip off tigers turrets so you're also talkin german tanks :)
but the 128 mm canon on the jagdtiger would absolutely vaporize all russian tanks. such a shame germany didn't produce more of those beautiful monsters ... btw i'm not saying russian tanks suck but i just love the overal looks, performance and technologie of the german tank designs. i gotta admit the T-34 was an awesome and smart design with it's sloping armour and awesome tracks :)
@HansFriedrichKammler The Red Army commanders exactly did this tactic - using massed ISU-152's at close range to spam shot HE with a Tiger I or Panther. It worked due to sheer HE kinetics but otherwise the ML-20 wasn't an ideal AT-gun, just like the 122mm gun on the IS-2.
@HeirofGojira91 well knowing that Soviet battle log data was influenced by the party
and by their record they have destroyed more German tanks that were actually build
i will estimate that no more then 15 vehicles total has fallen prey to that tactic
and still germans could easily kill them from 2 or 3 km away/and that was their tactic-shoot from distance-there r so many cases-2 german Tigers devastated a soviet IS or IS 2 mixed with T34s and KVs or what ever division/ Zergs with guns = USSR
@HansFriedrichKammler Yep - I was only making the point up close and such in masses could the Zveroboy use the 53-OF-540 HE shells otherwise if they missed and given reload time ijs freaking painfully long - you could naturally have Germans happily picking off - YES - the battle in May '44 a Panther and TIger I squad nailed a bigger force of IS-2's and T-34/85's. Superior German tactics and superior accuracy with thier guns in the defensive meant otherwise...
@Iamtheheadhunter1 Indeed! The 53-OF-540 shells were extremely potent in tank busting and also Bunker busting. However the ISU-152 on the other hand didn't have range or good accuracy - it was said Red Army commanders concentrated masses and massed HE shells. Sometimes, even 53-G-545 - CONCRETE busting shells were used against German tanks under extreme circumstances. The reason was although the ML20 M1937 Gun-howitzer had slow ROF and slow traverse the sheer HE was enough to knock a tank out
@Iamtheheadhunter1 Plus the ZVEROBOY had like 90mm frontal sloped armor and a reasonable gun mantlet - as it was based on the IS-2 tank's chassis hence the standard 75mm PaK 40 guns had trouble with it. The 88mm though - it depended on who shot first and the whatnots...And the 53-OF-540 HE shells are still used by the Russians today :)
Nope, it's an SU-100 based on the T-34 chassis and components, the SU-152 was based on the KV-1s chassis and components.
You can see the difference by the size of their guns and most easily the chassis, T-34 has 5 large roadwheels and no return rollers, KV-1s has 6 small roadwheels and 3 returnrollers.
@harry4468 88 Was enough anyway.. It penetrated 150+ mm of armor efficiently at 1000 meters. You'd be glad to hit efficiently at that range with a russian cannon. Not to mention the 250mm front armor vs the 75mm on SU-100.
@Slotty Possibly, but what i meant was, that in performance and being good enough to take out the heaviest tanks of tanks while it self being a fast and with fair armor, so overall jagdpanther is considered the best (not strongest (jagdtiger) or fastest (which could be the stug III that was also very good for its time destroying nearly anything) just the most balanced one, having a Pak 43 8.8cm cannon with fairly fast reload, and it could penetrate most anything, and it was quite fast.
No, SU-100, SU-122, ISU-152 were not howitzers. Their barrels elevation angle was about 10 degree maximum. The primary goal of the САУ or СУ самоходная артиллеристcкaя установка, self propelled artillery system, was the closest support of tanks and infantry in their offense and defense. IS in ISU-152 is to honor Iosif Stalin. Like Is-1, Is-2, Is-3 heavy tanks.
1.ISU stands for Istrebitelnaja Samokhodnaya Ustanovka.
2. SU-152, ISU-152, ISU-122 were self-propelled howitzer-guns, SU-122 was a sp howitzer (SU-152, ISU-152, ISU-122 elevation angle was lower becouse of the guns hull).
The was a SU-122 that mounted a 122mm howitzer using the same vehicle as the SU-85. But these weren't in service for very long. Using the same vehicle as the ISU-152 was the ISU-122 which mounted a 122mm tank gun, the same used on the JS-2. Like the ISU-152, the 122 was used more as an assault gun. Some were used by Soviet client states into the 1970s.
The length of the barrel has nothing to do with them being a howitzer. A howitzer is an indirect fire weapon" Cannon." Which instead of being fired directly at a target it is fired at an angle to lob its projectile at an angle to hit its' target. t the guns on tanks and anti-tanks are "direct-fire" you aim them directly at a target using a sighting system. The same concept a a rifle.
Miserable for you do not нашQлся the projectile, has run down see from soviet retribution. The Soviet machine(vehicle) was rolled and on(over;along;down;under) Europe, but SS and other faschi flock run(escaped;fleed) running(on the double) azh heels sparkled(glared). Now hiss quietly as snake(kite) from(of;out of) burrow!
I'm a 1st SS Panzer Division man myself. But the Su100 is one vehicle I would consider flanking instead. It was a fine tank destroyer. One-on-One, the Jagdpanther was better. It would be interesting to watch the two slug it out. Jagdpanthers front armor was 1/2in thicker and had a better gun, and better engine. But the Su100 was faster i believe. and as always, easier to build. Damn Russians. I swear you kill one and two appear out of thin air. lol
was the 88 in the jagdpanther better? i know the long german guns had a fairly ridiculous amount of penetration and such but the 100m d10 was a very powerful gun indeed. it surpassed the 122mm d25t in penetration plus the shells would deal out considerably more kinetic energy on hitting over the 88. just wondering is all. and i do know that the d25 wasnt built as an anti tank gun.
yes, signifigantly. the 88mm on the Tiger I was a Kwk 36. but the Jagdpanther and the Tiger II was equiped with a Pak43/3 L/71 88mm gun. the Tiger I was given a slightly modified AA gun. but the Jagdpanther and King Tiger was given a full fledged anti-tank gun with ridiculous penetration capabilities. im not sure on the numbers but there was a huge difference in muzzle vilocity. the Kwk 36 pushed around 1000m/s while the Pak 43/3 pushed around 1100m/s. thats 900fps improvment.
The 43 was alot more powerful than the 36. so was the kwk 42 in the panther tank. I would like to see the kwk 43 compared with the d10t in muzzle velocity armor penetration at various ranges and projectile energy. I might have a look. Thanks for your help.
Yeah it did. It looks about right. I had expected the jagdpanther and tiger to have the same stats. Its strange that they don't because i always assumed it was exactly the same gun. God, 226mm of steel is a bloody lot, they really knew what they were doing. Having said that, i still think that the big Russian guns like the 122 and 152 could still knock out tanks without penetrating, the mechanical shock involved would have been horrendous. Thanks alot for taking the time to share your info.
@tanker1408 ISU152-2 prototype with BL10 had the biggest gun in WW2, 152mm and almost length of tank itself. the 12.8cm Jagdtiger comes second and KWK43 from King Tiger third
@Dreachon Are you aware that BL10 was a test gun put on ISU152 developed in Factory No. 100 in USSR in April 1944? Penetrating 200mm armor at the testing sights. Problems with the muzzle break and incorrect sights forced the developers to redesign the gun, b4 which the war was over
@Dreachon The BL10 was too much for the suspension, and they had problems aiming the thing, it weighed a shitload and really affected the turning radius. It says that 203mm was successfully penetrated at 2000m
The date gives a penetration of 132mm of armour sloped at 30 degree at a distance of 2000m for the 8.8cm L71 gun using it's standerd Pzgr. 39, it becomes 152mm if it uses the rarer Pzgr. 40.
That 200mm of you Bl-10 was against a flat plate, no slope at all, that 132mm is against a plate sloped at 30 degree from vertical, that means it's penetration is even higher against a flat plate.
For a gun of that szie i find it's performance poor compared to a much smaller calibre weapon.
@Dreachon What u want, the BL10 wasn't even designed properly lol. They tried to fix it b4 the end of the war but it turned out useless, thts why tanks are now small and quick :D
@MultiAREE what is your point dude? I never even said the 8,8cm was the biggest gun, I only said it was the most powerful in penetration.
ISU-152-2 was only a rare prototype which never went into series production, it was never used in combat anyway and the project was cancelled shortly after. the 12,8cm gun of Jagdtiger was still inferior to the 8,8cm kwk because of less penetration.
So yeah, the 8,8cm still was the most powerful tank gun to see service in ww2 ever, fact. deal with it.
@tanker1408 what is your point? having a powerful tank gun does not == winning a war. Any country/person/thing is capable of pushing a shell to high velocity.. Roy Weatherby made that a fact.. A "good" gun in a too heavy of a tank with zero mobility -- and -- without air supremacy only means you will lose any and all ground assets.. keep sucking Hitlers balls, but there is a reason no tank after WW2 looked like a tiger or panther..
@hwoods01 funny how you completely missed my point, when i was actually comparing anti-tank guns , and not talking about how to win a war. i won't even bother responding to the childish lines in ur comment. just my advice to you, grow up.
@tanker1408 Correction it is the 12.8cm PaK 44 built for the Jagdtiger and Maus. Penetration at 2,000 yards is 148mm for the PaK 44. PaK 43- Penetration is 132mm.
@tanker1408 I believe the Kwk43 and the 12.8cm Pak44 were very similar in performance at short ranges, but the 12.8 prevailed at the longer engagements.
похоже он до сих пор на вооружение у арабов
2097Username 4 days ago
ну да конечно танк надо покрасить в цвета и знаки проклятых масульман и арабов!
это советский танк там должны быть красные звезды!
chapaay 5 days ago
@AdamSavage88 Are you sure that your figures are correct there. I have read about the elephants and it is always noted that the were easily overran by Russian infantry since it had no machine gun to use against them.
YambidiBlamBlam 3 months ago
@YambidiBlamBlam
And that is nothing more that soviet propaganda, in reality only 1 Elephant was lost to enemy infantry during Kursk and that was due to the infantry that were assigned to protect it ran away during the night without informing the crew.
And yes it did have a MG34 stored internally that it could use against infantry, it could also shoot HE shell at soft targets which is actually recorded.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@AdamSavage88 I could have sworn they stopped making elefants because they had already converted all of the porsche tiger hulls that existed into elefants
SpenzOT 3 months ago
i say that german lost the war of folliwing reasons (not inqlude all of the reasons) : german didnt produce its war machines by its full power until 1942. their foolness in stalingrad. didnt invade great birtain which made the invasion of normandy possible. hitler didnt take the invasion of normandy serioysly. reason number .1: hitler started to take action to military strategy. (here is not all reasons and this is only my opinion)
9antsa6 4 months ago
Легендарный танк !
UnlimitedB1adeWork 4 months ago
scottduncan44 4 months ago
and the biggest gun for heavy tanks was on e-100 15cm gun
drymtym01 5 months ago
@drymtym01 It would be, but E-100 was never built so it dosen´t count :P
Evangelinger 5 months ago
The German pak44 / 128mm was the most powerful AFV mounted cannon in World War 2. The Su100 was a very capable tank destroyer, it's 100mm cannon was on par with the much dreaded German 88 / L71 found on the KingTiger.
Although the 122mm main gun on the IS2 / 3 series had it's advantages with HE, a 100mm D10 mounted on a IS2 tank would have been a very deadly opponent for the Germans.
Oso1G 5 months ago
Yop thanks ! :)
I fond that out today 'cuz I bought 2 model kits 1:72 of Su-85 and Su-100 and they have they same identical hull. And T-34/76 does too :)
KonigTigerPorsche 6 months ago
Wait a sec...
I read somewhere (I think on Wikipedia) that the Su-100 used the same hull as the T-34/85 and the Su-85 the T-34/76 one.
Basically, again according to wiki, the T-34/85 hull was an improved version of the T-34/76 one and it was slightly bigger.
Now, is that true ? 'Cause I can't believe that soviet redesigned the T34 hull just to fit the turret for the 85mm... But Su-100 hull actually looks a bit longer !
Who's right and whose wrong ?
KonigTigerPorsche 6 months ago
@KonigTigerPorsche they used the same hull. Length 5920, width 3000.
T-34-85 and Su-100 used slightly more powerful engine (520 hp instead of 500) and 5-speed transmission(instead of 4-speed on T-34-76).
MajorDumai 6 months ago
@AdamSavage88 The Stug line has the best kill to death and was used wayyyy more.
ThePooppantsman 7 months ago
на таком сейчас гамаю, норм танчик.
arzy2008 7 months ago
This is like World of Tanks but in real life!
KamiKaZantA 8 months ago
But how about the American T-95, that was an pretty effective tank destroyer i thought, I'm not saying it is, just asking, plz answer ;D
Teewan100 8 months ago
@AdamSavage88 Except that they were used on different front and only about 50 were made, and that theyr accuracy was pretty weak.
Iamtheheadhunter1 10 months ago
Isu-152 was most powerfull, could rip off tigers turret with a HE shell :-)
Iamtheheadhunter1 1 year ago 17
@Iamtheheadhunter1 yeah well the jagdtiger could vaporize that thing from miles away and let's not even imagine what the sturmtiger would do to that cookie :P
halfpipefreak 4 months ago
@halfpipefreak
Im talking about russian TDs, and sturmtiger never seen eastern front :D
Iamtheheadhunter1 4 months ago
@Iamtheheadhunter1 yes but you say it could rip off tigers turrets so you're also talkin german tanks :)
but the 128 mm canon on the jagdtiger would absolutely vaporize all russian tanks. such a shame germany didn't produce more of those beautiful monsters ... btw i'm not saying russian tanks suck but i just love the overal looks, performance and technologie of the german tank designs. i gotta admit the T-34 was an awesome and smart design with it's sloping armour and awesome tracks :)
halfpipefreak 4 months ago
Comment removed
Iamtheheadhunter1 4 months ago
@Iamtheheadhunter1 yeah..but tigers gun knock him off 2 km away. ;)
Oreicos 4 months ago
@Iamtheheadhunter1
yes an with 90mm armor, sloped or not any 88 or long 75 could rip it to peices as well..
1ownjoo2 3 months ago
@Iamtheheadhunter1
1 st of all ISU 152 is a howitzer so basicly it has zero anti tank capabilitys
/maybe if u got 5 of them shooting on 1 target that is not more then 500 m away/
and just for your personal information the german tanks can engage on distances that
the russians can only watch with their binos
HansFriedrichKammler 3 months ago
@HansFriedrichKammler The Red Army commanders exactly did this tactic - using massed ISU-152's at close range to spam shot HE with a Tiger I or Panther. It worked due to sheer HE kinetics but otherwise the ML-20 wasn't an ideal AT-gun, just like the 122mm gun on the IS-2.
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@HeirofGojira91 well knowing that Soviet battle log data was influenced by the party
and by their record they have destroyed more German tanks that were actually build
i will estimate that no more then 15 vehicles total has fallen prey to that tactic
and still germans could easily kill them from 2 or 3 km away/and that was their tactic-shoot from distance-there r so many cases-2 german Tigers devastated a soviet IS or IS 2 mixed with T34s and KVs or what ever division/ Zergs with guns = USSR
HansFriedrichKammler 3 months ago
@HansFriedrichKammler Yep - I was only making the point up close and such in masses could the Zveroboy use the 53-OF-540 HE shells otherwise if they missed and given reload time ijs freaking painfully long - you could naturally have Germans happily picking off - YES - the battle in May '44 a Panther and TIger I squad nailed a bigger force of IS-2's and T-34/85's. Superior German tactics and superior accuracy with thier guns in the defensive meant otherwise...
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@Iamtheheadhunter1 Indeed! The 53-OF-540 shells were extremely potent in tank busting and also Bunker busting. However the ISU-152 on the other hand didn't have range or good accuracy - it was said Red Army commanders concentrated masses and massed HE shells. Sometimes, even 53-G-545 - CONCRETE busting shells were used against German tanks under extreme circumstances. The reason was although the ML20 M1937 Gun-howitzer had slow ROF and slow traverse the sheer HE was enough to knock a tank out
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@Iamtheheadhunter1 Plus the ZVEROBOY had like 90mm frontal sloped armor and a reasonable gun mantlet - as it was based on the IS-2 tank's chassis hence the standard 75mm PaK 40 guns had trouble with it. The 88mm though - it depended on who shot first and the whatnots...And the 53-OF-540 HE shells are still used by the Russians today :)
HeirofGojira91 3 months ago
@Iamtheheadhunter1 object 704 was strongest
DuelNexus 3 months ago
@DuelNexus Lol, ur playing too much WoT. Only one prototype of Object 704 was ever made.
Iamtheheadhunter1 3 months ago
@Iamtheheadhunter1 lol ur so right i do play it alot, the jagdtiger was good, unless only 1 of them where made too =(
DuelNexus 3 months ago
the kv2 also had a huge gun
joegoestodanville 1 year ago
that tank looks like its been telling a few lies...
OisinDeBrun 1 year ago
T 34 on steroids :P...oh wait that would be t 34-85......
pkersoul 1 year ago
Holy Smokes!
234jari234 1 year ago
is this a su152?
nolifemerc 1 year ago
@nolifemerc
Nope, it's an SU-100 based on the T-34 chassis and components, the SU-152 was based on the KV-1s chassis and components.
You can see the difference by the size of their guns and most easily the chassis, T-34 has 5 large roadwheels and no return rollers, KV-1s has 6 small roadwheels and 3 returnrollers.
Dreachon 1 year ago
jeah.. jagdpanzer copy
Goder1488 1 year ago
@Goder1488 su-85 copy
32167BD 1 year ago
@Goder1488 I would say it looks more like a hetzer
AirDB23 1 year ago
Not what I call pretty..
kaupunkimoukari 1 year ago
You'll find LOTS of these in the Egyptian desert and Sinai. Destroyed of course.
thegoosebrain 1 year ago
this was one of the best tank killers used by the red army in world war two.
bombarderoazul 1 year ago
The German's most powerful anti-tank gun in WW2 was there 128mm mounted on the Jagdtiger.
MBguy2008 1 year ago
@MBguy2008 some of these only had 88s cos there werent enough 128mm available
harry4468 1 year ago 4
@harry4468 128mm was a great long range AT gun but all in all its endurence and penetration was not as good as KwK 43.
Flueeeee 1 year ago
@harry4468 lolwut
These used the D-10 tank gun, they were Russian...
redreaper2020 7 months ago
@harry4468 88 Was enough anyway.. It penetrated 150+ mm of armor efficiently at 1000 meters. You'd be glad to hit efficiently at that range with a russian cannon. Not to mention the 250mm front armor vs the 75mm on SU-100.
Hockexx 5 months ago
@MBguy2008 it was also germans biggest flak caliber.
the 12,8 flak 40, the biggest flak in ww2
sdkfz162kingtiger 1 year ago
@MBguy2008
They had a tank, 3 were build, they were used in The Invasion of poland and the Eastern front.
And it shot a 600 MM shell.
Massive
TheRpc1 1 year ago
@TheRpc1 guess ya talking about Mörser Karl with its 60cm caliber. it was never used in poland and not really a tank. "jus" self a propelled mortar.
PzAufklaerer12Btl 1 year ago
@MBguy2008 ISU-152 russian anti-tank (152,4-мм)
32167BD 1 year ago
@MBguy2008 most powerful, yes, most successful, hellz no, the best WWII self-propelled tank destroyer of the Germans was probably the jagdpanther.
icecremer 1 year ago
@icecremer I´ve think it was the StuG that was the most Successful SPG.. scoring the most tank kills in the whole war. but i could be wrong
Slotty 1 year ago
@Slotty Possibly, but what i meant was, that in performance and being good enough to take out the heaviest tanks of tanks while it self being a fast and with fair armor, so overall jagdpanther is considered the best (not strongest (jagdtiger) or fastest (which could be the stug III that was also very good for its time destroying nearly anything) just the most balanced one, having a Pak 43 8.8cm cannon with fairly fast reload, and it could penetrate most anything, and it was quite fast.
icecremer 1 year ago
@Slotty No, you are right. Tank for tank the Stugs took out more armour that their turreted counterparts. A fact.
4shacks1house 10 months ago
The longest tank gun barrel that I've seen.
ghostrider0749 2 years ago
@ghostrider0749
Pretty much the same 100mm gun used on the T-54 and T-55. Just mount so far forward it looks much longer. Nevertheless it is a long tank gun.
MBguy2008 1 year ago
SU 100 was anti Tiger/Panter self prop gun.On Balaton lake SU 100 shoyed all power of tank distroy.
m741ex 2 years ago
The cool thing is that you could even use it on a modern day battlefield.
peepeevagi 2 years ago
No, SU-100, SU-122, ISU-152 were not howitzers. Their barrels elevation angle was about 10 degree maximum. The primary goal of the САУ or СУ самоходная артиллеристcкaя установка, self propelled artillery system, was the closest support of tanks and infantry in their offense and defense. IS in ISU-152 is to honor Iosif Stalin. Like Is-1, Is-2, Is-3 heavy tanks.
izchicago 2 years ago
1.ISU stands for Istrebitelnaja Samokhodnaya Ustanovka.
2. SU-152, ISU-152, ISU-122 were self-propelled howitzer-guns, SU-122 was a sp howitzer (SU-152, ISU-152, ISU-122 elevation angle was lower becouse of the guns hull).
Paciat 2 years ago
@izchicago
The was a SU-122 that mounted a 122mm howitzer using the same vehicle as the SU-85. But these weren't in service for very long. Using the same vehicle as the ISU-152 was the ISU-122 which mounted a 122mm tank gun, the same used on the JS-2. Like the ISU-152, the 122 was used more as an assault gun. Some were used by Soviet client states into the 1970s.
MBguy2008 1 year ago
Its the big brother of the Hetzer ^^
SuperNikkkes 2 years ago
The length of the barrel has nothing to do with them being a howitzer. A howitzer is an indirect fire weapon" Cannon." Which instead of being fired directly at a target it is fired at an angle to lob its projectile at an angle to hit its' target. t the guns on tanks and anti-tanks are "direct-fire" you aim them directly at a target using a sighting system. The same concept a a rifle.
DTBroad 2 years ago
su-100 is the best soviet tank destoryer
in ww2 !
it can destory tiger I and pz.V in 1000m !
jackycck2222 2 years ago
Pizdets vsemu..
TheFlossMan 2 years ago
Dear harry4468, I know it that both founded on a base t34.:-)))
romiksoldat 2 years ago
Miserable for you do not нашQлся the projectile, has run down see from soviet retribution. The Soviet machine(vehicle) was rolled and on(over;along;down;under) Europe, but SS and other faschi flock run(escaped;fleed) running(on the double) azh heels sparkled(glared). Now hiss quietly as snake(kite) from(of;out of) burrow!
romiksoldat 2 years ago
is that some old tank crew song
harry4468 2 years ago 8
@harry4468 Well I thinks its some kind of a weird translator :D
Sunshrine2 1 year ago
I'm a 1st SS Panzer Division man myself. But the Su100 is one vehicle I would consider flanking instead. It was a fine tank destroyer. One-on-One, the Jagdpanther was better. It would be interesting to watch the two slug it out. Jagdpanthers front armor was 1/2in thicker and had a better gun, and better engine. But the Su100 was faster i believe. and as always, easier to build. Damn Russians. I swear you kill one and two appear out of thin air. lol
PanzerAce88mm 2 years ago
was the 88 in the jagdpanther better? i know the long german guns had a fairly ridiculous amount of penetration and such but the 100m d10 was a very powerful gun indeed. it surpassed the 122mm d25t in penetration plus the shells would deal out considerably more kinetic energy on hitting over the 88. just wondering is all. and i do know that the d25 wasnt built as an anti tank gun.
SuperTelecom 2 years ago
yes, signifigantly. the 88mm on the Tiger I was a Kwk 36. but the Jagdpanther and the Tiger II was equiped with a Pak43/3 L/71 88mm gun. the Tiger I was given a slightly modified AA gun. but the Jagdpanther and King Tiger was given a full fledged anti-tank gun with ridiculous penetration capabilities. im not sure on the numbers but there was a huge difference in muzzle vilocity. the Kwk 36 pushed around 1000m/s while the Pak 43/3 pushed around 1100m/s. thats 900fps improvment.
PanzerAce88mm 2 years ago
The 43 was alot more powerful than the 36. so was the kwk 42 in the panther tank. I would like to see the kwk 43 compared with the d10t in muzzle velocity armor penetration at various ranges and projectile energy. I might have a look. Thanks for your help.
SuperTelecom 2 years ago
I got these stats from the best most detailed book I had on WW2 tanks:
L/56 KwK 36 88mm gun on Tiger 1. Muzzle velocity 2,600fps, ap 112mm of 30 degree sloped armor at 500 metres.
L/43 122mm on JS2. 2,525fps. 145mm of sloped at 500.
100mm gun on SU-100. 160mm of vertical armor at 1000 yards.
L/71 Pak 43/2 88mm on King Tiger. 3,220fps. 182mm of 30 degree sloped at 500.
L/71 Pak 43/3 88mm on Jagdpanther. 3,708fps. 226mm of 30 degree sloped at 500.
Hope that helped!
Panzer4fan 2 years ago
Yeah it did. It looks about right. I had expected the jagdpanther and tiger to have the same stats. Its strange that they don't because i always assumed it was exactly the same gun. God, 226mm of steel is a bloody lot, they really knew what they were doing. Having said that, i still think that the big Russian guns like the 122 and 152 could still knock out tanks without penetrating, the mechanical shock involved would have been horrendous. Thanks alot for taking the time to share your info.
SuperTelecom 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
SU-100 has the most powerful a-t gun ever built, the BS-3 a-t gun.
davebestmusic 2 years ago
No you are wrong. The SU-100 was armed with the D-10 tank gun, not BS-3. the BS-3 was a field gun mounted on two wheels.
and no, the BS-3 was not the most powerful anti tank gun, neither was the D-10.
The most powerful anti tank gun from WW2 was the 8.8cm KwK 43 from the King Tiger.
tanker1408 2 years ago 4
the D-10 was pretty close, however.
And the ISu 152's 152ml ML20 was also VERY powerful and could kill by sheer HE force
Guynumber7 2 years ago
can a SU-100 take out a King Tiger?
SweStuff94 2 years ago
yep,, he can,,
Fleax1973 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
""can a SU-100 take out a King Tiger? ""
Almost all AFVs could take out others in the right circumstances. Little Hetzers even took out IS-2s.
FredFoswell 2 years ago
@SweStuff94
This thing would drill front armor on King Tiger from over 1km. It would knock out Panthers and Tigers from over a mile.
83ls 1 year ago 3
@83ls epic :)
SweStuff94 1 year ago
@83ls But a tiger or later could easily kill from a distance of 2 miles (3 km), su-100 was outclassed!!!
BigAndTall666 1 year ago
@SweStuff94 yes, it can. Even front armor of KT can't save it from SU-100
MajorDumai 1 year ago
what about SU-152?
clouster75 8 months ago
@clouster75 It wasn't pure tank destroyer.
Su-152 was used as artillery and as assault tank because of realy goddamn heavy gun.
But Su-152 had one problem as tank destroyer. It was a little bit too slow and also had not the biggest penetration power, because of short gun.
So USSR had Su-100 and Su-122 as pure tankdestroyers, which have enormous power.
siaever 8 months ago
@clouster75 Oh, my bad. Su-122 wasn't tank destroyer. Sorry
siaever 8 months ago
@tanker1408 ISU152-2 prototype with BL10 had the biggest gun in WW2, 152mm and almost length of tank itself. the 12.8cm Jagdtiger comes second and KWK43 from King Tiger third
MultiAREE 7 months ago
Comment removed
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon Are you aware that BL10 was a test gun put on ISU152 developed in Factory No. 100 in USSR in April 1944? Penetrating 200mm armor at the testing sights. Problems with the muzzle break and incorrect sights forced the developers to redesign the gun, b4 which the war was over
MultiAREE 7 months ago
@MultiAREE
Yes I've found a little info on it but sadly nothing at all on it's penetration values, though it does seem they had problems with the guns.
God more info on it's penetration data?
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon The BL10 was too much for the suspension, and they had problems aiming the thing, it weighed a shitload and really affected the turning radius. It says that 203mm was successfully penetrated at 2000m
MultiAREE 7 months ago
@MultiAREE
Found a bit myself, seems like it only managed this at a flat armour plate, if so then I can't really find this gun that impressieve given it's size.
The 8.8cm L71 would penetrated 132mm of armour sloped at 30 degree so it's considerable more at a flat plate.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon At 2k kilometres?
MultiAREE 7 months ago
@MultiAREE
Yep.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon Like it actually said that the penetration of the long 88 was at 2000 metres?
MultiAREE 7 months ago
@MultiAREE
The date gives a penetration of 132mm of armour sloped at 30 degree at a distance of 2000m for the 8.8cm L71 gun using it's standerd Pzgr. 39, it becomes 152mm if it uses the rarer Pzgr. 40.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon 132mm vs 200mm :D
MultiAREE 7 months ago
@MultiAREE
That 200mm of you Bl-10 was against a flat plate, no slope at all, that 132mm is against a plate sloped at 30 degree from vertical, that means it's penetration is even higher against a flat plate.
For a gun of that szie i find it's performance poor compared to a much smaller calibre weapon.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@Dreachon What u want, the BL10 wasn't even designed properly lol. They tried to fix it b4 the end of the war but it turned out useless, thts why tanks are now small and quick :D
MultiAREE 7 months ago
@MultiAREE
True tanks are becoming smaller and smaller these days.
Dreachon 7 months ago
@MultiAREE what is your point dude? I never even said the 8,8cm was the biggest gun, I only said it was the most powerful in penetration.
ISU-152-2 was only a rare prototype which never went into series production, it was never used in combat anyway and the project was cancelled shortly after. the 12,8cm gun of Jagdtiger was still inferior to the 8,8cm kwk because of less penetration.
So yeah, the 8,8cm still was the most powerful tank gun to see service in ww2 ever, fact. deal with it.
tanker1408 6 months ago
@tanker1408 fuck that shit, to the Petercopter!
MultiAREE 6 months ago
@tanker1408 what is your point? having a powerful tank gun does not == winning a war. Any country/person/thing is capable of pushing a shell to high velocity.. Roy Weatherby made that a fact.. A "good" gun in a too heavy of a tank with zero mobility -- and -- without air supremacy only means you will lose any and all ground assets.. keep sucking Hitlers balls, but there is a reason no tank after WW2 looked like a tiger or panther..
hwoods01 5 months ago
@hwoods01 funny how you completely missed my point, when i was actually comparing anti-tank guns , and not talking about how to win a war. i won't even bother responding to the childish lines in ur comment. just my advice to you, grow up.
tanker1408 3 months ago
@tanker1408 Correction it is the 12.8cm PaK 44 built for the Jagdtiger and Maus. Penetration at 2,000 yards is 148mm for the PaK 44. PaK 43- Penetration is 132mm.
Normacly 6 months ago
@tanker1408 I believe the Kwk43 and the 12.8cm Pak44 were very similar in performance at short ranges, but the 12.8 prevailed at the longer engagements.
YesOfficer 6 months ago
@tanker1408 8.8cm, wow thats 6 times larger then most modern tank guns.
Grimdopple 5 months ago
I filmed it with a older digital camera i have since got a new one which i used 4 the steam engines and catalina videos
harry4468 3 years ago
Comment removed
KINGD1991 3 years ago
SAU-100 is the best tank destroyer of SSSR TD
tankman13p66 3 years ago 19
there is also JSU-152, he can destroy a tiger without any problem
KINGD1991 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thats a howitzer, not a tank destroyer.
davebestmusic 2 years ago
no, it is a tank destroyer, the barrel doesn't elevate high enough for a howitzer
harry4468 2 years ago 2
I was talking about ISU - 152
davebestmusic 2 years ago
@harry4468 Yeh its an assault gun.
ZEDZOR2 1 year ago
@tankman13p66 i'd preffer ISU 152 zveroboy :-D
btw ...which museum this SU100 belongs to?
PetrW72 1 year ago
@PetrW72 don't know. ;)
tankman13p66 1 year ago
Bovington tank museum, same for all the videos
harry4468 3 years ago
nice video. where was it?
alainwalter 3 years ago