The nonsense of best tank in world

Do any of you guys play computer wargames? They're fun..
For example here's a stock clip from 'Iron Front' of a German assault on a Russki village, they look a bit gung-ho to me,charging like that. Maybe they should have advanced cautiously, but on the other hand maybe the shock and awe impact of a charge was best, what do you think?

[video=youtube;u40GBHnAb3I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u40GBHnAb3I&feature=youtu.be[/video]

 

I play not often ... and if mostly on Playstation Battlefield bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3. Both games make fun, but are not such over realistic. That 2 body hits with a M-95 Barret are necessary to kill is ... well ... you know! But tanks make there fun too, even there is no real difference between the Russian and US models in game.

 

How about the Soviets? Not even they considered it a "Tank Destroyer", that is what they made the ISU-152 "Beast Killer" for. Based on the T34 hull no less.

If they considered it a TD, then why did they modify some for a TD role?

Kinda like how they never considered the Varyag (now Liaoning) an "Aircraft Carrier". It was an "Heavy Aircraft Carrying Cruiser". A very different thing from an Aircraft Carrier in a great many aspects.

 

A bit of history.
This is ISU-152 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISU-152
The monster that you have posted is a post war development and I think it was some prototype.
The war-time ISU-152 (on the picture) is armed with a short barreled, what they call, Howitzer-Gun (a gun with howitzer characteristics). It is 27 calibers it makes 600m/s. The shell weights 45kg with up to 5-6 kg of explosives. The unit carries 18-20 rounds. These characteristics are not ideal to fight tanks (unfit to tell the true). The reload time for a 45 kg shell is huge.
This unit is dedicated to infantry support. But this does not mean that it was newer used against armor or was unsuccessful against it. But again, it is not a dedicated anti armor.
Further more, this is not based on T34 hull. It is based on IS chassis.
T34 chassis – 5 large wheels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34
IS2 chassis – 6 small wheels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS_tank_family

But lets stick to T34 family.
1. First was the T34/76
2. SU-122. In end of 1942, USSR started production of a 122mm howitzer on T34 chassis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SU-122. It is a pure infantry support short barreled gun
This is the period when USSR meets the Tiger. T34/76 – is inadequate to fight Tiger, an upgrade is necessary.
The solution comes in a form of 85mm AA gun which can penetrate Tiger front armor from a 1000m. But the gun does not fit into T34 turret. When the recoil throws the gun back, there is simply not enough space for the shock absorbers to stop it.
The first solution is to install the gun into SU-122, its spacious compartment provides plenty of space.
3. SU-85 was born. Production began Med 1943, it is the very same SU-122 with 85mm AA gun in anti tank role. Success. Immediately it is called the tank destroyer in the literature, in the newspapers, in reality in the official documents it is called SU-85 or “Self-propelled Unit 85”.
4. Feb 1944, a T34-85 rolled out. Same gun as the SU-85. SU-85 immediately losses its tank-destroyer fame and reappears as what it is, an infantry support mobile artillery piece with fine AT capabilities. Fazed out. SU-85 is inexpensive, but T34/85 is way more potent.
But the armor of German tanks is growing, we need to improve!
So the next generation of Propelled Artillery based on T34 chassis does not take long to appear.
5. SU-100. September 1944. What was SU-85 is retooled and upgraded to accommodate a 100mm high ballistics navy gun, it penetrates 125mm from 2000m. 6-8 shots per minute!
This was the last piece as the war was about over. This is why this baby is considered a Tank Destroyer. But in reality, it is the very same Self-propelled Unit 100mm. It is equally potent against tanks of its time and against soft targets. It is not a dedicated tank destroyer, it is simply an upgunned and improved version of self propelled artillery that was created in the beginning of the war.

Same applies to IS family but much heavier… Those are not dedicated tank destroyers as wolverine is. The entire SU family is relatively high caliber, all of them have the capability of supporting infantry with fire. That was their main role when enemy tanks wear not here. The BeastKiller is not an official designation and newer was. This is from films, newspapers, it’s a nick name. Although Anti armor capabilities of ISU-122 is much more potent in tank killing role.

 

The ability to withstand hits was what brought tanks in the first place.

Tigers' low mobility is an urban legend. In fact they had a decen ~13hp/tonn and a lower pressure on the ground than Pz IV. In fact they were pretty mobile, not on par with T-34, but roughtly the same with M4 Sherman.

Nope. The main function of a tank is breaching frontline and eliminating fortified positions, as well as supporting infantry and destroying enemy's tanks. That is the reason behind the concept of a Main Battle Tank. Heavy tanks were excelling at actual fighting, but they were lower on mobility and required higer amounts of fuel, making it harder to maintain them and using them on tactical level. Medium tanks werebetter on mobility and cheaper to maintain, however they couldn't pack a punch hevy tank could. Thus MBTs were developed, which had a mobility of a medium tank along with armor and firepower of heavy tank. And the light tanks...well...they just died out for the reason of weak and useless armor.

Should I reming you what brought T-34-85 in the first place? Or why IS-1 was upgunned and turned into IS-2? Or why SU-152 and ISU-152 were used in AT role at a certain point? Cheap and numeroust stops being a decisive factor, when your tanks stop being effective in one of their roles - fighting tanks.

Riiiigt. You seem to quite overestimate tanks ability to detect who and where is firing into them. And 45 mm sloped armor doesn't matters much, when facing Pak 40 or 88 mm guns. That is the point where you start throwing in your medium tanks into AT position, they get nailed, crews burning alive and other funny stuff.
IS-2 1944 would have lower losses, because they could be destroyed only when hit into certain points of the turret. Something like IS-3 would only have it's paint scratched.

 

You think so?

Watch and learn.

[video=youtube;La9gZ6_ggPQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La9gZ6_ggPQ[/video]

This T55 in Basra was anything but a sitting duck for one tank busting helicopter.


And just wait until you find how easy it is to decoy an Apache Longbow. Helicopter vs tank? My money is on tank.

In the aftermath of the first Gulf war, we found that airpower had not been able to decimate the Iraqi tanks in any way as much as was thought. The ground forces did the bulk of the work. The air campaign had failed. they reported massive kills from the air, but on closer investigation, had failed to produce them.

In the Balklans it was the same. NATO pilots recorded very high amounts of kills but once the ground was inspected it turned out they hadn't hit much.
The power of decoys. The complications of AA tanks. Low cloud cover and good ground cover.
In fact the Serbian tanks were so dangerous that the mighty Apache's were withdrawn from combat missions, not to mention Stealth Bombers!

In defence of your argument it is also true to say that in the Balklans, NATO did not acquire air supremacy.

 

The last part is a new one for me. What was the tank threat to Stealth bombers?

 

In WW2, the lowest life expectancy for any serviceman was tank crew or bomber crew.
Only 1 in every 50 survived the war.

 

The Tunguska shot down two stealth bombers.
(one made it back to the runway shot to crap and was destroyed in landing, the other never made it home.





The key to this one is, a tank can be hidden from the air under a camo blanket or low roof.
But a plane or a helicopter can be seen from many miles away. Because there is nothing to hide behind in the sky.



Tank Decoys.

Inflatables with petrol generators to create both wind to inflate and the heat to attract FLIR targeters.

To make a radar decoy, a giant tank sixed caltrop is used. 3 Steel H beams welded together.

Tank hides in a shed, when his decoys all explode, he moves out and attacks.

 

Ah, okay. Now I see. Thanks for the pic. Must have been coming in pretty low.

 

Guns on the Tunguska have a 4 km range, missiles, 8km. (or so the internets tells me).


Here is an image of the kind of thing that works as a radar decoy. To give you the principle.

Just a metal frame is enough.

3 metal H beams welded together into a caltrop, is a very cheap counter to Apache Longbow radar.



Pretty much all Russian MBT's can fire laser guided missiles with an 8KM range. But a conventional round is enough to take down a helicopter with modern day fire controls. I wouldn't expect them to be able to hit a fast mover however. In the Basra movie posted above the T55 was equipped with flak shells as well as it's anti aircraft machine gun.

North Korean tanks are equipped with Strela launchers on top.

 

I can't find a good image of the ones equipped to soviet tank crews, but the closest I can come up with is this seaborne version of a radar decoy.


Simplicity itself.