Monday 26 February 2018

SU-152 in Combat

"1836th Heavy Self Propelled Artillery Regiment

The 1838th Guards Heavy Self Propelled Artillery Regiment participated in offensive and defensive combat.

In offensive combat, the regiment fought among the tanks and behind them, destroying Tiger tanks and Ferdinand SPGs in counterattacks and ambushes, as well as enemy fortifications and dugouts.

In defensive combat, the regiment fought from ambushes, by the battery, positioned in locations of likely enemy tank attacks. Ambushes and maneuvers ensured that enemy tanks and SPGs were destroyed while SU-152s remained invulnerable.

The armoured 152 mm gun-howitzer on the KV chassis destroys enemy heavy tanks and SPGs that are difficult to destroy with tanks with its powerful fire. During these battles, it was established that a 152 mm HE shell knocks off the turret from 1200-1500 meters, and, if it hits the hull, destroys the tank's armour. The 152 mm shell destroys any field fortification or dugout.

The regiment began fighting at the Bukrin foothold with 12 SU-152s and one KV-1S. In almost all cases, the regiment was parcelled out by batteries. Batteries were used to reinforce tank brigades in the main direction of the offensive. The regiment's main objectives were: combat against heavy tanks, heavy SPGs, and guns concealed in fortifications.

On October 12th, 1943, during the offensive at Lesser Bukrin, Lieutenant Grinchenko's battery, in cooperation with the 241st Rifle Division and 229th Tank Regiment of the 27th Army, met an enemy counterattack coming from Lesser Bukrin. Lieutenant Grinchenko decided to put his battery ahead of the tanks and deflect this attack. As a result of decisive action, the battery deflected the counterattack, destroying two PzIV tanks and one Ferdinand type SPG, 4 trucks with cargo, and up to 150 soldiers and officers. Grinchenko's battery helped carry out the order to capture Lesser Bukrin.

On October 21st, 1943, Lieutenant Kolotilo's SPG was placed in ambush near height 194.8. Having picked out a convenient location for direct fire and organized thorough observation, he detected two Ferdinand type SPGs that were firing on our tanks, which were advancing towards Hodorov, from a position north-east of Romashki. When the enemy tanks began to change positions, Guards Lieutenant Kolotilo opened fire at 1200 meters, knocked out one Ferdinand type SPG and one Tiger tank.

In the same region, Guards Lieutenant Yavorskiy's SPG destroyed three trucks with cargo, one warehouse, and up to 50 soldiers and officers."


As we know, the "Ferdinand type SPG" could have been anything, but Tigers are easy to check. 8./SS-Panzer-Regiment 2 just arrived at Pii (some 11 km away from Romashki). The company commander was wounded in "mid-October", and the records become very sparse after that, but the fact that the company was down to 3 operational tanks from a total of 16 (out of an authorized strength of 27), it's quite possible that a few of them ran into Kolotilo and his fellow SPGs.

23 comments:

  1. I figure that even if the huge 152mm shell doesn't penetrate the armor of a Ferdinand, the simple impact would knock the crew senseless for a minute or so and bust up the electrical connections. But perhaps more important the SU-152 can smash pill boxes and other fortifications. What's sad is Russia wasted all that time putting it's 152mm gun into a big complex turret on the KV-2 before "settling" on the SU-152.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 152 on the SU-152 was not the same gun as on the KV-2.

      Delete
    2. True but that was because production of the M-10 152 mm gun went out of production in 1941. Generally speaking the ML-20 152mm gun performed the same function of firing a very large medium velocity round. The SU-152 might not of had a turret, but it was far cheaper and easier to produce. Harder to spot and when the job is basically being mobile artillery just as good.

      Delete
    3. 88mm Spgr (HE) hits knocked off T-34 turrets, so it´s reasonable to assume that a turret hit with 152mmm HE isn´t going to be shrugged off easily.

      Delete
  2. Were the two guns not relatively similar in destructive power?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The M-10 was a howitzer, which fired an HE shell at 500 m/s. The ML-20 was a gun-howitzer and fired HE shells at ~650 m/s. The impact velocity has a significant effect on the amount of damage done to armour.

      Delete
    2. I'm not denying the ML-20 had a higher velocity which contributes to penetration. But the primary decision to quit using the KV-2 had less to do with the velocity of it's gun and everything to do with it's high cost, complexity, high profile not to mention the fact that on anything other than perfectly flat terrain the out of balance turret would swing around till it pointed downhill. If in 1943 Russia still had the M-10 instead of the ML-20 then the SU-152 would still of been built.

      Delete
    3. My understanding (which may well be wrong but bear with me here....) is that KV-2 production was halted when factories needed to be relocated at the beginning of the war; because it already had significant problems, and ramping up production of *all* tanks was vital, they decided to drop it and concentrate on building the KV-1.

      The ML-20 was an outstanding gun, very modern and pretty much best in its class, much better than the M-10.

      Delete
    4. The KV-2 was originally built as a breakthrough tank to destroy Finnish fortifications. It was a compromise from the very beginning, as the Red Army wanted a fully fledged 152 mm gun (think Br-2 ballistics) in its bunker buster, but that would have taken much longer to develop. Since there weren't any fortifications left to destroy, the army focused on their ideal bunker buster again, ending up with behemoths like the U-19.

      Delete
    5. My point was the KV-2 even if they used a more powerful ML-20 would of still been a expensive mechanically unsound failure.And the SU-152 even with a less powerful M-10 would of been a cheap reliable success at providing heavy support where the weaker 76mm and thin armor of the SU-76 or even a T-34 just wouldn't do.

      Delete
    6. Still, regardless of whether the shell was fired from an M-10 or an ML-20, if you're in a German tank that's just been hit by a 152mm HE shell from either of those weapons you're probably going to end up having quite a bad day.

      Delete
    7. Exactly Ralph. Though I suspect that 99% of the time the SU-152 was used to destroy German fortified positions.

      Delete
    8. Even the US tank destroyers spent most of their time shooting HE at soft targets so odds are quite high your suspicion is entirely correct. Doubly so as the -152s were primarily assault guns rather than tank-killers - the gun-howitzers not exactly having the best "handling characteristics" for that purpose, which is why they liked to have multiple SPGs simultaneously firing at a single AFV to ensure kill whenever possible.

      Delete
  3. It´s the other way around. The M-10 was fitted in KV2 turret, the ML-20 in Su-152. The idea to use casematte style guns in an armored box wasn´t exactly new but it´s successful use was first demonstrated by the StuG-III and hence, realistically could be reckoned with after the KV-2 design was finalized.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, the Germans definitely invented the idea of putting a gun in a box.

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Artillery_tank_AT-1.jpg

      Oops, I guess not.

      Delete
    2. Peter- which of the following words did You fail to understand?
      "The idea to use casematte style guns in an armored box wasn´t exactly new"

      and
      "but it´s successful use was first demonstrated by the StuG-III"
      or are You silly enough to suggest the casematte was successfully deomstrated by the AT-1 in combat?

      oh boy, please...

      Delete
    3. Show me where you said "combat". Yeah, if you retroactively add more words into your post then it takes on a different meaning.

      Delete
    4. Also if you're looking for a 75 mm class infantry support gun on the chassis of an already mass produced tank in combat, then the SU-5 saw combat at Lake Hasan in 1938, so even if you only accept vehicles that saw combat then the Germans still weren't first.

      Delete
    5. ...didn't the French use a handful of Reno FTs modified to carry short 75's already back in the Great War anyway, or do I remember wrong? They certainly did use the Saint-Chamond which was more or less one big casemate on tracks with guns sticking out, a full-size 75 on the nose... success was mixed due to the questionable trench-crossing qualities of the hull design, but I understand those still around for the Hundred Days turned out to be pretty good (and by period standards fast) de facto assault guns on less obstructed ground.

      Delete
    6. Oh true, I completely forgot about those.

      Delete
  4. You also seem to have forgotten convenienlty that the Su-5 was open top, and did not demonstrate the successful use of a casematte style gun in an armoured box.

    The St. Chamond demonstrates an early use of the concept predating the StuG, but I wouldn´t call it a successful attempt in view of the automotive problems causing it the be relegated to training training rather than combat duties.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you're crediting the Germans with inventing the box? As I already pointed out, the Soviets tried it both ways and found the open top more efficient.

      Delete
    2. Every Great War tank was a barely-mobile heap of chronic automotive problems, that's one reason Estienne and Renault went with the "quality of quantity" principle with the little FT - lesser loss when some inevitably broke down. AFAIK the Saint-Chamond wasn't meaningfully worse than the rest of the lot in that regard except inasmuch that fancy petrol-electric drive required even more maintenance than usual; its main PRACTICAL shortcoming (aside from those shared with every "heavy" tank of the war) was the alarming habit of burying its nose in dirt thanks to the hull well overhanging the tracks, a rather unfortunate trait in a vehicle supposed to cross trenches and ditches. (The placement of the side MGs tended to leave them right over the trench when the tank got stuck so at least they could still sweep that section clear, FWIW.)

      Not sure where the *ever-loving fuck* you're getting the part about the big lugs being relegated to training duty, though; their last recorded combat use was in October '18 which any idiot can readily learn from teh Wikipedia in few minutes. Not to mention that given the quirks of the design - petrol-electric drive and rigid-mounted main gun aimed by turning the entire vehicle, Char B1 style - it's pretty hard to see what they'd have been used as training vehicles *for* if not others of their kind...

      As an aside it also formed the basis of one of the very first operational *artillery* SPG designs. That the engine and generator had to be stripped out to fit the pieces (both 194 mm cannon and 280 mm mortars were used, as well as a 220 mm mortar in the prototype that actually saw combat) wasn't really a problem since electricity for the traction motors could be cabled from another stripped-down Saint-Chamond (compare the envisaged Maus river-fording procedure) which also served as a munitions carrier...

      Delete