Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: JSII Performance in World War II
Tanknet.org > Discussion Forums > AFV Forum
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
GiantSpaceLaser
This has probably been discussed before but whats the general concensus here on the combat performance of the Josef Stalin II tank as well as with other Soviet heavy tanks of this era? How successful were they when employed against German Panther and Tiger tanks? How frequently were they knocked out by Panzerschrecks, Panzerfausts, and other hand-held AT weapons? Lastly, how did they compare against the later American tanks, most notably the M-26 Pershing?
Paul F Jungnitsch
IIRC they were great vs fortifications and infantry but had limitations vs tanks. Deadly when they hit but hitting was difficult due to problems with optics, slow ammo loading, and limited ammo supply. Generally hard to knock out although earlier models had problems with brittle armour and shot traps.
GiantSpaceLaser
QUOTE(Paul F Jungnitsch @ Wed 27 Jul 2005 1508)
IIRC they were great vs fortifications and infantry but had limitations vs tanks. Deadly when they hit but hitting was difficult due to problems with optics, slow ammo loading, and limited ammo supply. Generally hard to knock out although earlier models had problems with brittle armour and shot traps.
*


Hmm, thats interesting (although I can't say I'm really surprised), I guess the JS-2 suffered from some of the same problems faced by the the JSU-152 and some other large-calibre assault guns in terms of ammo and accuracy. Now in terms of ammo loading and supply, how does the 122mm JS2 rounds compare to the 128mm rounds employed by the German Jagdtigers, or even currrent the 120mm rounds employed by M1s and Leopard IIs? I'd imagine that (at the very least) the M1s could carry more ammo but how does the weight (per round) compare?
Solid_Snake
They fought a brutal fight in Hungary, during the Siege Of Budapest, back in late 1944. King Tigers and JS-II engage themselves on a brutal fight in a place called Tsiza bridgehead. Both sides sustained heavy casualties. Could someone give a more deatiled info about this encounter please. Thanks.
Gavin-Phillips
Other Soviet heavy tanks of WW2 would have included the KV-1 of various models (including the cast turret KV-1, up-armoured KV-1E and the "speedy" KV-1s), KV-2 and the 150 or so produced up-gunned KV-85.

During 1941 and early 1942, the KV's with their 76mm guns were a capable match for any Panzers deployed on the Eastern Front. Most of the losses that are mentioned in Zaloga's books seem to stem from poor training and the awareness by the tank crews of the general area of operations (marshes etc). The KV's were immune to the 37mm and the early 50mm AT guns although improvements in ammunition meant later 50mm guns had more luck when facing the 43ton monsters. The 76mm gun could take on the PzKpfw III and IV at most decent combat ranges but again as with all Soviet tanks of the period had problems with the optics. The glass in the sights was bullet roof but very poor quality being full of air bubbles! A low rate of fire and problematic turret layout didnt help crew cohesion much either (commander had to load the gun). The 76mm gun was still a somewhat capable weapon in 1943 against flank & rear hits of Tiger & Panther. KV-85 has revised turret with conventional 3 man crew stations: loader, gunner and commander.

It is worth noting that these tanks were very new to the armed forces when Barbarossa began in 1941, little time to train tankers as well as major Army level change (Mech Corps formations etc). There are some stories about KV-2 tanks having been issued no ammunition at all and relied on MG fire and being able to squash German tanks and other vehicles under their treads.

Someone must have recognised the problems with turret cohesion & layout in KV-1 as an experimental tank known as KV-3 was drawn up with a long barrel high velocity 85mm cannon as the main armament, the vehicle would have weighed around 63tons..........major problems for bridges etc!

At its time the KV-1 was a formidable opponent at least on paper with thick armour and a decent dual perpose gun, decent mobility too if you managed to avoid breakdowns, but by late 42 or early 43 with was undergunned compared to the new long barrel Pz 4's that were making their appearence felt.
gnocci
QUOTE(GiantSpaceLaser @ Wed 27 Jul 2005 1726)
Hmm, thats interesting (although I can't say I'm really surprised), I guess the JS-2 suffered from some of the same problems faced by the the JSU-152 and some other large-calibre assault guns in terms of ammo and accuracy. Now in terms of ammo loading and supply, how does the 122mm JS2 rounds compare to the 128mm rounds employed by the German Jagdtigers, or even currrent the 120mm rounds employed by M1s and Leopard IIs? I'd imagine that (at the very least) the M1s could carry more ammo but how does the weight (per round) compare?
*


The IS-2 had separated ammo loading.
What i find interesting is that the Soviets evaluated the posibility of installing 100mm guns (as the one in the SU-100), but found it unnecesary. Tough the 100mm was single shot, the rate of fire was only marginally better, and the ammo load increased very little.
Also, tough on paper the 100mm had better penetration figures, the 122 behaved better against the german heavies of the day (something to do with overmatching, armour technology and slopes). And off couse, the 122 had more HE bang in it, a fundamental thing for a breaktrough tank as they devised it. Poking a hole in the enemy front lines, for the T-34 to pour into.
gnocci
QUOTE(Gavin-Phillips @ Wed 27 Jul 2005 1730)
Someone must have recognised the problems with turret cohesion & layout in KV-1
...
*


Interestingly, the soviet were already building prototypes of the T-34M, with 3 man turret and tosion bars suspenssion as the war broke. The inspiration was a Pz-III they evaluated pre-war.
The development was abandoned due "major force reasons", but it prefigured the T-44.
Gavin-Phillips
QUOTE(gnocci @ Wed 27 Jul 2005 2143)
Interestingly, the soviet were already building prototypes of the T-34M, with 3 man turret and tosion bars suspenssion as the war broke. The inspiration was a Pz-III they evaluated pre-war.
The development was abandoned due "major force reasons", but it prefigured the T-44.
*


At least one complete hull was made of the KV-3 before production order was cancelled. A standard KV-1 turret with 76mm gun was mounted on it and as far as the Russian Battlefield site says, it seems to have been used like the American's used their JUMBO Sherman tanks, to route out the enemy using its heavier armour to counter AT guns etc which would destroy or disable lesser protected afv's.
KingSargent
QUOTE(gnocci @ Wed 27 Jul 2005 2037)
The IS-2 had separated ammo loading.
What i find interesting is that the Soviets evaluated the posibility of installing 100mm guns (as the one in the SU-100), but found it unnecesary. Tough the 100mm was single shot, the rate of fire was only marginally better, and the ammo load increased very little.
Also, tough on paper the 100mm had better penetration figures, the 122 behaved better against the german heavies of the day (something to do with overmatching, armour technology and slopes). And off couse, the 122 had more HE bang in it, a fundamental thing for a breaktrough tank as they devised it. Poking a hole in the enemy front lines, for the T-34 to pour into.
*


The 122mm gun was chosen for JS-2 because barrels and shells were available in quantity. The only 100mm gun at the time was a Navy piece that did not have existing facilities to manufacture in large quantities.

If they had gone with the 100mm gun, they would have had to switch to 122mm pretty soon anyway, just as JSU-122 was born because the Sovs ran out of 152mm barrels for JSU-152. Apparently one thing the Sov factories were never short of was 122mm tubes and shells.
nitflegal
QUOTE(KingSargent @ Wed 27 Jul 2005 2200)
The 122mm gun was chosen for JS-2 because barrels and shells were available in quantity. The only 100mm gun at the time was a Navy piece that did not have existing facilities to manufacture in large quantities.

If they had gone with the 100mm gun, they would have had to switch to 122mm pretty soon anyway, just as JSU-122 was born because the Sovs ran out of 152mm barrels for JSU-152. Apparently one thing the Sov factories were never short of was 122mm tubes and shells.
*


Yup, that's how Zaloga puts it. They tested them and realized that the 100 mm was a slightly better antitank weapon but that the 122mm guns were already in production, they had lots of them, and 122mm ammo was plentiful. So, they decided to go with 122 for ease of production and logistics.

Beyond that, it actually would fare well against a Panther front to front. According to German manuals, a Panther needed to be 600 meters to penetrate a IS-2 from the front while a IS-2 could penentrate the Panther at 1000 meters. So, a Panther would have to close to kill the Stalin, which seems to have lowered the importance of the JS-2's less capable optics. The Panther did carry a lot more ammo, but apparently it was felt that armor was more important than internal volume for the IS-2. It also appears to have been a fairly reliable tank.

Zaloga also makes the point that most rounds that a tank fires are not for antitank use. In this area, the Stalin had a huge advantage. One of it's shells carried 25 kg of HE to the Panther's 7 kg. Appears to have made it one heck of a breakthrough tank.

Matt
tankerwanabe
I recalled reading that it had a nasty weak point in the driver's hatch, which can be penetrated by medium AT guns. I was surprise the Soviets didnt remove the driver's hatch completely.

The other weakness as someone had already mentioned was the weak optics and slow reloading time. Couple together, this may be disasterous.

I also recall seeing external fuel tanks carried on the hull side towards the back. But I am unaware if this was a combat liability. It may have been emptied out prior to entering a combat zone.

One interesting note was a machine gun in the turret rear. Did the Soviets anticipate an urban environment for this tank?

I won't mention the benefits as there were too many.
Xonitex
QUOTE(gnocci @ Wed 27 Jul 2005 2037)
Also, tough on paper the 100mm had better penetration figures, the 122 behaved better against the german heavies of the day (something to do with overmatching, armour technology and slopes). And off couse, the 122 had more HE bang in it, a fundamental thing for a breaktrough tank as they devised it. Poking a hole in the enemy front lines, for the T-34 to pour into.
*

Soviet AP ammunition for the 122mm had less penetration than the 100mm but using APBC, the 122mm could negate the slopes of enemy armor through normalization and its diameter was large enough to give it enough mass to punch through. Another benefit of the 122mm was that its huge HE shell could rip apart enemy armor plating at weld seams, weak points, etc. (for example, there was once a battle in city streets where a JS-2 faced off against a Panther at several hundred meters - the JS-2's shot ripped the Panther's turret off the hull and back a distance...I'm guessing that was an HE round). Poor quality late-war German metallurgy also contributed to this.

As said before, the concave glacis of earlier JS-2's led to problems. Once the upper frontal hull armor was increased to a one-piece 120mm plate and sloped accordingly, the JS-2's protection was superb (especially against German cannon fire). However, the reload rate was very slow, thanks to the two-part ammunition, and the optics were poor. It was only 40 tons, comparable to the Panther, but was probably cramped inside.

I don't know how this thing would compare to a Pershing. IIRC, the Pershing was more of a medium tank...both were similar in weight. The Pershing was less armored but its 90mm cannon had a higher rate of fire and a better "FCS". The 90mm was less powerful but adequate for taking on the German heavies. Top speeds qwew similar but I don't know much about their mobility; both were supposedly underpowered. You could say that both were better suited to their respective roles - the IS-2 as a heavy breakthrough tank and the Pershing as a main battle tank.

I suppose the best word to sum up the IS-2 would be that it was a beast - unrefined but effective and devastating.
Chris Werb
QUOTE(nitflegal @ Wed 27 Jul 2005 2215)
One of it's shells carried 25 kg of HE to the Panther's 7 kg. 
Matt
*


Are you sure that's kilos and not pounds Matt? These are huge kilo figures for their respective calibres.
Jussi Saari
QUOTE(Chris Werb @ Thu 28 Jul 2005 0758)
Are you sure that's kilos and not pounds Matt?  These are huge kilo figures for their respective calibres.
*


That'd be huge amount of HE content even if it was pounds.. I think he meant the weight of the whole shell, not the HE in it.
Vasiliy Fofanov
1) 25/7 kg figure is total mass of shell. Mass of HE is something to the tune of 3.8/0.9 kg IIRC.

2) IS-2 had perfectly fine optics, copied from a German Tzf-5 if memory serves, and with adequate-quality optic glass. The problem was that it was initially too close to the gun and the massive muzzle brake restricted vision.

3) Front armor on late-war IS-2s was 90mm rolled or 100mm cast at 60 degrees, not 120mm. More than enough in any case... smile.gif
Vasiliy Fofanov
QUOTE(tankerwanabe @ Thu 28 Jul 2005 0447)
I recalled reading that it had a nasty weak point in the driver's hatch, which can be penetrated by medium AT guns. I was surprise the Soviets didnt remove the driver's hatch completely.


Actually they did remove it, IIRC there was no driver's hatch on IS-2 smile.gif You must be mistaking it with T-34.
Martin M
QUOTE(nitflegal @ Wed 27 Jul 2005 2215)
snip...
Beyond that, it actually would fare well against a Panther front to front.  According to German manuals, a Panther needed to be 600 meters to penetrate a IS-2 from the front while a IS-2 could penentrate the Panther at 1000 meters. ......  snip..
snip...
Matt
*



The fibel manuals do not compare penetration objectively, IIRC.

The wording is like " the JSII can be dangerous to you beginning from 1000meters " . " You can be certain of KO damage to him at 600 meters " .

Other than that the P IV / JS II encounters are mentionable in that the P IV didn´t always get clobbered.

Regards
Xonitex
QUOTE(Vasiliy Fofanov @ Thu 28 Jul 2005 0848)
3) Front armor on late-war IS-2s was 90mm rolled or 100mm cast at 60 degrees, not 120mm. More than enough in any case...  smile.gif
*

Is that the lower or upper front hull? I always read that the upper front hull was 120mm, but the lower front was 100mm...
nitflegal
QUOTE(Chris Werb @ Thu 28 Jul 2005 0758)
Are you sure that's kilos and not pounds Matt?  These are huge kilo figures for their respective calibres.
*


Y'all are right, of course, the kilo weight is the total weight of the shell, not the HE load.

Matt
nitflegal
QUOTE(Martin M @ Thu 28 Jul 2005 1133)
The fibel manuals do not compare penetration objectively, IIRC.

The wording is like " the JSII can be  dangerous to you beginning from 1000meters " . " You can be certain of KO damage to him at 600 meters " .

Other than that the  P IV / JS II encounters are mentionable in that the P IV didn´t always get clobbered.

Regards
*


True enough. Reading between the lines I get the impression that the Germans considered it to be at least in the Panther's class and maybe having a small edge. It certainly seems to be one of the few Allied tanks that the Panther manual doesn't imply "you can stand off and beat the crap out of the tank, so just try not to do something stupid!!"

Matt
nitflegal
QUOTE(Vasiliy Fofanov @ Thu 28 Jul 2005 0848)
2) IS-2 had perfectly fine optics, copied from a German Tzf-5 if memory serves, and with adequate-quality optic glass. The problem was that it was initially too close to the gun and the massive muzzle brake restricted vision.


Could you elaborate? The English language stuff on IS-2 optics is pretty skimpy and I can't read the Russian stuff that I have on the tank. One day I'll get literate enough in Russian but that day isn't here yet!

Matt
Fritz
During the early '30s IIRC the soviets bought an entire optics factory from Zeiss (which then used the money to build a new, next-gen one smile.gif ), so you'd imagine they could build decent quality glass.

Then during WW2 they copied the Pz.III sights and put them on the T-34/85 and the IS.

But I remember reading somewhere that the soviet sight couldn't show clear image over 2km.
bojan
QUOTE(Xonitex @ Thu 28 Jul 2005 1138)
Is that the lower or upper front hull?  I always read that the upper front hull was 120mm, but the lower front was 100mm...
*


Upper. It is one of the common miths about IS-2 that glacis was 120mm... But unlike some other miths this one is often repeated in Russian sources.
Solid_Snake
The JS-II frontal turret armor equivalent is 120mm, but it was an 80mm plate at 60 or so degrees. The hull equivalent is 60mm at 60 degrees equivalent to a 80mm plate. The JS-II crew used a lot the HE shells. It seems their armor piercing rounds were not as good, and the HE damaged the tank as a "whole", what I mean is that the whole tank would receive an impact, a massive impact; quite damaging. AP round focus in panetrating a tank's portion, if you call it that way. I read the german plates tended to "crack" with 4-5 rounds of HE. I might also be due poor welding of late german industry workings. Yet the JS-II wasn't invincible. it could resist AP and SP rounds, but eventually it succumbed to it.
Vasiliy Fofanov
QUOTE(Xonitex @ Thu 28 Jul 2005 1138)
Is that the lower or upper front hull?


I am talking of the glacis (i.e. upper front hull). The thickness 120mm was only present on initial IS-2s (with a "step"), but there it was inclined 30 degrees, not 60. The reconfigured glacis had, as I say, 90/100mm. Statements to the contrary are pretty well spread but are nevertheless incorrect.
Vasiliy Fofanov
QUOTE(Solid_Snake @ Thu 28 Jul 2005 1630)
The JS-II frontal turret armor equivalent is 120mm, but it was an 80mm plate at 60 or so degrees. The hull equivalent is 60mm at 60 degrees equivalent to a 80mm plate.


blink.gif I probably didn't understand a single word here as not a single figure is correct... huh.gif

QUOTE
It seems their armor piercing rounds were not as good


Do tell huh.gif
kaptkirk
I found a few things about the IS II here...,and a few other places.
http://pedg.org/panzer/public/website/map.htm
In April of 1945, SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Körner (platoon commander from the 2nd Company) was supporting an infantry counterattack in the Bollersdorf area (east of Berlin), when he encountered two Soviet JS-II heavy tanks at a distance of 200m. He quickly destroyed the first one and second one trying to reverse in order to take a firing position drove into an anti-tank ditch and was abandomed by the crew.
On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg, Körner observed additional 11 JS-II tanks and around 120 to 150 enemy tanks in the process of being refuelled and re-armed on the egde of the village. He then fired and destroyed all 11 JS-II tanks on the road and attacked the rest of the tanks and their suprised crews. Number of fuel and ammunition trucks exploded causing even more panic among the Russian tankers, while Körner fired all 39 rounds he had left and knocked out 39 enemy tanks before he withdrew. Following this action, sSSPzAbt 503 and other units were falling back to defend Berlin. On his way to Berlin, Karl Körner destroyed over 100 Soviet tanks and 26 anti-tank guns in total.

There are no records or photographs to prove that the Tiger II's frontal armor was ever penetrated in combat. Its side armor was easier to penetrate by existing Allied armor (e.g. Sherman Firefly, T-34/85, JS-II).
*******
It seems to me that the Tiger II's "88" could pretty much do in a ISII at close range,head on,but the ISII could return the favor only with flank shots,however IS2 is a heavy tank that can both take and hand out punishment.
It has thick well-sloped armor capable of fending off most anti-tank rounds,fast for its size and except for when the Tiger II's shows up...it dominated the battle field.
Vasiliy Fofanov
Hmm... It would appear Herr Korner destroyed about 10% of what we lost in entire Berlin operation smile.gif Pity he "withdrew" and had nothing but the word of a Teuton Knight to back his claim laugh.gif

QUOTE
There are no records or photographs to prove that the Tiger II's frontal armor was ever penetrated in combat.


Indeed. King Tiger was definitely a very tough target when it got lucky to break down in a good firing position smile.gif

Although photos from Kubinka trials show that front turret *is* vulnerable to multiple 122mm hits, after 3 impacts it's in a pretty pitiful shape... so it is possible that even though no evidence exists this did occur.
Christian Ankerstjerne
In a report of 1944-03-23, The Panther was rated as being superior to the JS-122 for frontal fire, and inferior for side and rear fire (i.e. engagements), the Tiger was (not surprisingly) rated inferior to the JS-122 and the Tiger II was rated as far superior to the JS-122.
Ken Estes
QUOTE(Vasiliy Fofanov @ Sun 31 Jul 2005 1128)
Hmm... It would appear Herr Korner destroyed about 10% of what we lost in entire Berlin operation smile.gif Pity he "withdrew" and had nothing but the word of a Teuton Knight to back his claim 
*

Now Vasiliy, April45 is a big month, most of which did not include the Battle of Berlin. This illustrates my point about the fighting around Berlin deciding the day and probably where most of the losses occurred on both sides. Thus the final battle in the streets with 50,000 German defenders -- some fanatic others less so -- was really an anticlimax...already decided on the Oder and the surrounding pincer ops, including the Halbe Pocket to the South. Cheers, Ken
FormerBlue
QUOTE(Vasiliy Fofanov @ Sun 31 Jul 2005 1128)
Hmm... It would appear Herr Korner destroyed about 10% of what we lost in entire Berlin operation smile.gif Pity he "withdrew" and had nothing but the word of a Teuton Knight to back his claim  laugh.gif
Indeed. King Tiger was definitely a very tough target when it got lucky to break down in a good firing position smile.gif

Although photos from Kubinka trials show that front turret *is* vulnerable to multiple 122mm hits, after 3 impacts it's in a pretty pitiful shape... so it is possible that even though no evidence exists this did occur.
*

Battlefield.ru had some data on Tiger IIs. Showed a lot of information on wrecking them. As I recall, the Soviets were surprised at the poor quality of the armor. Lack of vandium maybe? I find the "shot 39 rounds and destroyed 39 tanks" a little odd. Not a single miss? No tank needed 2 rounds?

In the battlefield.ru page, and I have no way of verification that it's accurate either, the JSIIs in that case tore up the Tiger IIs pretty good. Since the page in question had pictures of the Tiger IIs I guess validity is more on their side.

Frankly I like the JSII. A tank has 2 roles and killing other tanks is 1. The JSII, unlike the Tiger II, had very useful HE. Doubles the value of the tank. I say it again and again, it wasn't Tiger versus allied tank. It was much more commonly German infantry against allied tank as the Germans focused on small numbers of expensive tanks.
yak_v
QUOTE(FormerBlue @ Sun 31 Jul 2005 1036)
Frankly I like the JSII.  A tank has 2 roles and killing other tanks is 1.  The JSII, unlike the Tiger II, had very useful HE.  Doubles the value of the tank.  I say it again and again, it wasn't Tiger versus allied tank.  It was much more commonly German infantry against allied tank as the Germans focused on small numbers of expensive tanks.
*


Not to mention tha fact that Tiger II weighted 68 tons while JS-2 weighted 46 tons.

Vladimir
Vasiliy Fofanov
QUOTE(yak_v @ Sun 31 Jul 2005 1957)
Not to mention tha fact that Tiger II weighted 68 tons while JS-2 weighted 46 tons. 


To be fair, IMO the tank was pretty hamstrung by such a small weight. I think we should have used 7-wheel chassis and upped the weight 8-10 tons. Granted it would have made the tank less maneuverable, but IS was not about maneuvering anyway wink.gif
Mobius
QUOTE(Vasiliy Fofanov @ Sun 31 Jul 2005 1128)
Although photos from Kubinka trials show that front turret *is* vulnerable to multiple 122mm hits, after 3 impacts it's in a pretty pitiful shape... so it is possible that even though no evidence exists this did occur.
*

Especially if the mantlet is removed along with the gun and the 88 fired back at the front turret.
Vasiliy Fofanov
QUOTE(Mobius @ Wed 3 Aug 2005 0513)
Especially if the mantlet is removed along with the gun and the 88 fired back at the front turret.


I couldn't decypher this, can you elaborate a bit what you meant?
Mobius
QUOTE(Vasiliy Fofanov @ Wed 3 Aug 2005 0951)
I couldn't decypher this, can you elaborate a bit what you meant?
*

The 88mm gun along with its mantlet were removed from the captured Tiger II before test firing guns at the front of the turret. So the front turret consisted of only the 180mm@9° plate. (It might have measured a little more than the specs.)
Besides the 122mm and 100mm being fired into the front of the turret the 88 was fired at it too. The 122mm didn't penetrate but the 100mm did. Then the 88 was fired at the front turret. It not only penetrated the front of the Tiger II turret it went through the back of it too.
Vasiliy Fofanov
QUOTE(Mobius @ Wed 3 Aug 2005 1455)
The 88mm gun along with its mantlet were removed from the captured Tiger II before test firing guns at the front of the turret.


Okay, yes, I agree that the trials were not fair, though I frankly don't see what effect could the mantlet have had on major cracking and distortion of the weld seams that was observed along the perimeter.
blackhorse
GiantSpaceLaser,

Janes shows the 122mm BR-471 AP round as 25.23kg and the Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two (Chamberlain and Doyle) shows the 12.8cm Pzgr as 26.4kg.

Cheers

BH

QUOTE(GiantSpaceLaser @ Wed 27 Jul 2005 1526)
how does the 122mm JS2 rounds compare to the 128mm rounds employed by the German Jagdtigers, <snip> but how does the weight (per round) compare?
*
Christian Ankerstjerne
Vasiliy Fofanov
The armour plates and weld lines would have been severey damaged by the many repeated impacts (80-some altogether I believe), especially from high explosive rounds.

Blackhorse
The German 12,8 cm Pak 80 L/55 had much better penetration capabilities than the 8,8 cm Kw.K.43 L/71, though.
Paul F Jungnitsch
What happened when the Stalin's shell hit a Stug:

QUOTE
Before the battle that nearly took my life, we were informed of a new Russian tank, the Josef Stalin III, that weighed forty-six tons and fired 122 mm projectiles. Because of its thick (120 mm), sloping armor, our 75 mm rounds would simply bounce off its skin unless we hit it from the side at a very close range. When I fired at the T-34 in the valley, I wasn't aware that there were a number of those monsters waiting two kilometers away at the edge of the forest. No sooner had I pulled the trigger than the Russian behemoth began firing. For once, the Russians struck our tank with their first round. The projectile hit our vehicle between the barrel and the barrel sleeve of our cannon. It tore our cannon off where it struck and, incredibly, entered the exposed chamber where it detonated, causing our loaded round to detonate as well. This tremendous explosion caused our waiting rounds, though not the magazine, to instantly explode as well. Eyewitnesses stated that our welded assault gun's armored roof was propelled from its position by a sheet of flame that rose about 100 meters into the air. I am sure this must have been an exaggeration, the force necessary to wrench that massive steel roof away from our tank and fling it through the air had to be considerable. Apparently, my training in mounting and dismounting in Bamberg as well as in Rastenburg paid off for I must have subconsciously crawled off the tank and sought cover behind it. Since our assault gun was totally destroyed and our crew miraculously lived through the ordeal, it became known as the "Miracle Tank of the Eastern Front." Our driver, who had survived the incident relatively unscathed, would not talk for five days.


http://www.feldgrau.com/interview6.html
Martin M
egads,

a bunch of miracles in THAT tale

- 2000 m first hit
- cannon removed
- chamber entered
- round explodes
- additional rounds explode
- complete crew survives

could be
Paul F Jungnitsch
QUOTE(Martin M @ Wed 3 Aug 2005 1549)
complete crew survives
*


They did, but it wasn't fun:

QUOTE
My fourth and final wound occurred on August 8, 1944 on a beautiful summer day about two miles south of Raseinen, Lithuania. Our tank was detailed to investigate, as the lead tank of the Company, the activities of the Russians in the vicinity of Raseinen. As we pulled up behind some bushes on a hill, I spotted a Russian T-34 tank diagonally crossing the valley in front of us. I had fired my first shot at the Russian tank when, at that instant, I sensed a shiny object approach our tank at a tremendous speed from the direction of eleven o'clock. Describing the event takes time, but this was an instantaneous occurrence. All I knew that danger was approaching and before I could shout, "Aufpassen!" (watch out!), there was a bright flash and then nothing - no sound no following explosion. I subconsciously crawled out of the tank.

I regained consciousness when kneeling on the ground behind the tank. I saw my driver, also kneeling, in front of me. "What happened?", I asked him and he replied, "We got hit!" When I asked him where the other members of our crew were he replied, "They are dead." As the tank engine finally sputtered and died, I heard a moaning and told the driver, "I think one of them is alive, let's help." As we both leapt up onto the rear of the tank, we found the loader alive but he had a gun in his hand and was preparing to shoot himself. This was often the reaction of a tank crew member who, when his tank was hit and he seemed unable to exit the vehicle, he preferred to commit suicide rather than go through the agony of slowly burning to death or to be captured by the Russians. I immediately knocked the weapon out of his hand and told the driver, "Help me pull him out." We tried but found that we could not budge him for there was considerable debris throughout the tank's interior which had his legs trapped. At that moment, we heard our commander begin to moan. We moved over to the left side of the tank where we found him as securely caught in the wreckage as the loader. At that moment, Russian machine gun fire began strafing our disabled vehicle so, following our trained reactions, we jumped off the tank and went behind it.

Following this, my eyesight was getting progressively worse, so I asked the driver, "Do you see anything?" - meaning, "Can You still see?" He obviously thought that I was asking him if he saw any Russians for he replied, "No." Well, I concluded, in that case I better go back for help, but when I informed of my intentions he said, "You look like a mess, your arms and face!" It was only then that I realized that I was indeed wounded. Both of my arms were burned - the right one so severely that the skin was rolling up. My shirt was completely burned off on the right hand side, and when I touched my face and head, all I could feel was a gooey mess. Moreover, my hair was totally burned away and blood poured over my face. Considering the extent of my injuries, it was incredible that someone had to tell me that I was wounded before I realized that I was injured! With comprehension came pain and I found that the only way I could relieve the excruciating condition of my arms was to raise them above me.

It was like this that I stumbled my way back down the hill, barely able to see the track marks our tank made in the grass, to the gravel pit where help and safety awaited. By this time, all that I could see was a milky blur in front of my eyes, and a voice called out, "who is that?" "Rudi, from Tank 541!", I replied. "Oh, my gosh," he exclaimed, "is anybody else alive?" "Yes," I answered, "the other three are hurt, but we can't get them out and they need help." "Alright," he said, "we are getting help for them!" My sight, by this time, was almost completely gone, so I called out, "I am blind!" "You just stand there, help is coming," he replied. I was told later that one of the tanks broke away from the battle formation and towed my tank and crew back to safety. I went into unconsciousness for all I remember was that someone was speaking to me while I was lying on a cot most likely on the ground. Whatever he was saying seemed to me incomprehensible. According to my Verwundetenkarte (a tag with medical and other information that accompanies the wounded soldier), I was given the Last Rites by the Chaplain. My loader's and my conditions were considered grave enough that they had given us up as beyond help and, expecting us two to die shortly, they left us in the Field Hospital rather then ship us back to Germany.

After about two weeks during which time I was still unconscious, my health began to improve and I recall gaining consciousness just as I was being unloaded from the troop train in Dresden, Germany.
Mobius
QUOTE(Martin M @ Wed 3 Aug 2005 1549)
egads,

a bunch of miracles in THAT tale
- 2000 m first hit
- cannon removed
- chamber entered
- round explodes
- additional rounds explode
- complete crew survives


Pity we nothing but the word of a Teuton Knight to back his claim .

Anyways the russian battlefield is undergoing work so the test on K2 is at the webarchive.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041030153728/...s/weapons7.html
Solid_Snake
How did it fair vs machines llike the Jagdpanther? And how badly damaged it was after receiving a Panzerfaust charge?
Mobius
QUOTE(Solid_Snake @ Wed 3 Aug 2005 2039)
How did it fair vs machines llike the Jagdpanther? And how badly damaged it was after receiving a Panzerfaust charge?
*

I think most of the Jagdpanthers were used on the western front along with most of the Jagdtigers.
How many tanks survive a Panzerfaust hit?
One anecdotal thing I read was during the battle of Berlin most tanks locked down their hatches to prevent Germans climbing on top and throwing in a grenade. A JSII was hit by a faust and friendly infantry tried to rescue the wounded crew they could hear inside but weren't able to get the hatches open before they burned up.
Solid_Snake
And whta about a Hetzer? Does anyone here jnows what Hetzer means?
GiantSpaceLaser
QUOTE(Mobius @ Wed 3 Aug 2005 1928)
I think most of the Jagdpanthers were used on the western front along with most of the Jagdtigers.


Thats a pity, I would imagine that a couple of well-positioned Jagdtigers guarding a few chokepoints would've caused quite a bit of havoc in something like the Battle for Berlin.
yak_v
QUOTE(GiantSpaceLaser @ Wed 3 Aug 2005 1756)
Thats a pity, I would imagine that a couple of well-positioned Jagdtigers guarding a few chokepoints would've caused quite a bit of havoc in something like the Battle for Berlin.
*


And why would that be a good thing? You seem somehow disappointed that more people were not killed rolleyes.gif ...

Vladimir
Xonitex
QUOTE(Solid_Snake @ Thu 4 Aug 2005 0038)
And whta about a Hetzer? Does anyone here jnows what Hetzer means?
*

The word or the vehicle?
Solid_Snake
The name given to the tank destroyer.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.