Chapter 2460 The Future Steel Torrent 2

? As for the Soviets in history? To be honest, the attitude of the Soviet people is relatively pragmatic. There is basically no concept of so-called assault guns or tank destroyers. There is a saying on later military networks that ISU represents tank destroyers and SU represents assault guns. In fact, This is a completely wrong understanding. The so-called ISU's Soviet letters begin with NCY. It means self-propelled artillery produced using Stalin tank chassis. For example, everyone knows that ISU122 and ISU152 are like this, and the so-called Soviet letter logo of SU is CY, which means self-propelled artillery. For example, everyone knows SU100, SU122 and SU85.

In fact, it is easy to expose this misunderstanding. For example, the SU100 uses the D10T artillery, which is obviously for anti-tank use, while the ML20 used by the ISU152 is obviously a howitzer. It cannot be dedicated for anti-tank use! And the most obvious problem is that the main guns of ISU152 and SU152 are the same! Well, here comes the question, how is it possible that two vehicles using the same artillery are called assault guns and tank destroyers respectively? Therefore, the correct explanation can only be that the ISU is a self-propelled artillery using the Stalin tank chassis, nothing more! The Russians did not even consider distinguishing between assault guns and tank destroyers at all...

But in fact, assault guns and tank destroyers still need to be distinguished. The reason is very simple. Cost-effectiveness issues. Assault guns are mainly used for infantry support operations and also take into account anti-tank tasks. Therefore, its defense requirements do not need to be too high. At the same time, artillery We should tend to use larger-caliber howitzers. For example, the No. 3 assault gun has a version using a 105MM howitzer. As for the reason? On the one hand, the cannon is more expensive and heavier. On the other hand, the weight of one 105MM howitzer shell is equal to two 75MM grenades...

And at the same time, because assault guns generally do not have to undertake professional anti-armor tasks, the armor defense can be appropriately weakened. In this way, the overall weight of the assault gun using lighter armor and howitzers will be reduced, thereby reducing production costs. Its essence is a direct-aiming self-propelled artillery that has a certain degree of defense and can accompany infantry forward. It is more efficient than tank destroyers or tanks of the same level when killing infantry and destroying general bunkers. Moreover, the amount of ammunition and cost are more advantageous! As for what to do if you encounter an enemy tank? Then we can only make do with armor-piercing bullets. Anyway, the power of armor-piercing bullets for a 105MM caliber artillery launcher is not too tragic...

Therefore, in general, the cost and weight of assault guns used to deal with infantry and bunkers should not be too high. Low-end ones are similar to the No. 3 assault gun, and high-end ones can be compared to SU122 and SU152.

As for tank destroyers? This also has to be divided into grades. The lowest grade can be compared to the stalkers in history. Such a vehicle would be light enough, cheap enough to build, and would have sufficient firepower. And the most valuable thing is that it has gained strong frontal defense capabilities. Coupled with its low profile, this tank destroyer has certain advantages when facing most enemy tank assaults.

As for the Soviet SU76 and the German Rhino tank destroyer in World War II, they are similar. Ruprecht did not appreciate it;

Because this thing is almost a makeshift chassis with an open-top warhead. The defense is too low. The so-called holding a sharp blade and wearing no armor is what I mean. Although there may be a cost advantage, the so-called cost advantage is greatly reduced if it can be destroyed by one cannon and even shrapnel. For example, if the T34-85 on the opposite side is hit by a shell, the stalker has a high probability of surviving, while the convertible is almost certain to be killed.

As for the higher-end tank destroyers, they are similar to the Cheetah. As for the necessity of tank destroyers in World War II, it is easy to say that under the same chassis, tank destroyers can generally have stronger weapons than tanks. Face combat effectiveness, such as stronger firepower, or larger ammunition reserves.

For example, let’s talk about the historical Cheetah tank destroyer. At a similar weight to the Leopard, its artillery was increased to 88MML71. Far surpassing the 75MML70 of the Panther tank. The Panzer IV tank destroyer also uses the 75MML70 gun, which is more than one level stronger than the 75MML48 on the Panzer IV! (Note that the firepower of the so-called long-barreled Panzer IV is not as good as that of the towed PAK40. Regardless of the fact that the former is 48L and the latter is 46L, German tank guns of the same caliber and similar barrels have smaller cartridges than anti-tank guns, so The muzzle velocity will also be lower. The same is true for Tiger's 88MM gun.)

(In addition, let me talk about a particularly funny thing about the No. 4 tank. When the Germans designed the No. 4 tank, they actually installed a 75MML43 cannon on the No. 4 F tank and a 75MML48 cannon on the No. 4 H tank... ..The author really can’t understand why the Germans simultaneously developed two artillery pieces with little difference in power and both can be mounted on the same tank--!)

And in this dimension, the Germans will still build heavy tank destroyers to deal with the opponent's existence that has appeared in history, as well as those that have not appeared in history but may appear in the future! For example, the Russians’ IS2M, IS3 and IS4. As well as the American M26 and various variants. The original trajectory of this world has been disrupted by time travellers. Who knows what will happen next? So you must make arrangements in advance!

Of course, the 88MML71 can no longer be used against armor with a high inclination. Its power and long production time make this artillery very useless. 105MM or larger caliber artillery is what this tank destroyer needs to be equipped with. Of course, the weight must be strictly limited, it can be up to 50 tons, but there must be no tonnage like the Tiger King and the Hunting Tiger!

Well, now, some people may have said, will the German Army do these things in the future? Historically, the Soviet Union had the T34 as its backbone, and the Americans had the Sherman as their backbone. Didn't they eventually push away the German Tigers and Leopards? Quantity and productivity take precedence over everything else.

How to say this question? Ruprecht can only say that the main force of offensive armored units in World War II was indeed medium tanks. This is true. This is just like the staple food at a meal. Without this thing, you will not be full. Tanks, assault guns and tank destroyers are also indispensable. These are all kinds of meals. And both the Americans and the Russians made a good choice, that is, their medium tank chassis chose the 30-ton level! The Germans made a mistake on this issue. The Germans chose 20+ tons!

And this tonnage was very embarrassing. It was too small to ensure that the tank had sufficient performance. Then, under various stimulations, the Germans gave up the original 30-ton tank research plan and built a Tiger tank in pursuit of performance. However, it is too heavy and difficult to produce!

Here comes the second update~~~! Please subscribe and reward~~~! !