JAGDPANTHER VS SU 100 PDF

Bundle Offer! Add to Basket About our eBooks About this Product As World War II in Europe reached its end, armour development and doctrine had experienced several years of massively accelerated change, especially within the crucible of the Eastern Front. The Jagdpanther represented a well-balanced solution and an excellent use of limited resources, while the SU was a natural progression of the SU, where numbers produced compensated for rudimentary construction, poor crew comfort and limited optics. Biographical Note David R.

Author:Kagajinn Malagami
Country:Turkey
Language:English (Spanish)
Genre:Personal Growth
Published (Last):4 May 2007
Pages:351
PDF File Size:16.77 Mb
ePub File Size:18.10 Mb
ISBN:751-5-66931-596-1
Downloads:32128
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader:Braramar



This is about the historical vehicles, not the in-game ones. Glad you enjoyed the SU in-game though, I found it pretty fun as well. It is known that German armour had as much as twice the strength to thickness as allied armour, including the Russians. Also, Russia did not give "superb" optics either. EVERY thing was made to be cheap.

Plus Russian doctrine called for closing to as close to the enemy as possible. Why put sights to hit over m when you want to be within 20m.. Not saying either one is better. It comes down to combat which frankly there isnt enough data from actual combat So, basically there are three claims here: German armour is superior to Soviet steel of the same thickness Soviet Optics were bad Soviet doctrine called for closing to the closest range possible.

First: Before the war, the Soviet Union was sent a Pz. They tested a 30 mm thick section of its armour by firing a 45 mm shell at it. This was the result: The Soviet testers were surprised by this as they expected a 30 mm plate to withstand a 45 mm shell at such a low impact velocity, so they had a local factory build them an identical test plate. They carried out the same test: Certainly not twice as strong as Soviet steel of the same thickness.

Furthermore, after operation Barbarossa, consideration was given to copying the T Guderian writes: "In November of , high ranking engineers, industry representatives, and armament directorate officers came to my tank army in order to familiarize themselves with the Russian T tank. Frontline officers suggested that we should build tanks exactly like the T in order to correct the unpleasant position of our armoured forces, but this position did not receive support from the engineers.

Not because they were opposed to imitation, but because it was not possible to rapidly set up manufacturing of important components, especially the diesel motor. Guderian, "Memories of a Soldier", page Emphasis mine It seems completely contrary to evidence to suggest that German steel was at all to steel produced by the Soviet Union. Secondly, the claim that Soviet optics were bad: As I mentioned above on this very page, American examiners of the T and KV-1 sent to them by the Soviet Union declared of the optics, "Consensus: the gun sights are the best in the world.

Incomparable to any currently known worldwide or currently developed in America. Most effective fire is from meters" Now, obviously an SU is neither an IS-2 nor an ISU, however the DS has similar ballistic performance to the DT, so there is no reason to think that the SU could not also be effective opening fire between m.

KeystoneCops, on 14 June - PM, said:.

FINALREPORT FASB PDF

Jagdpanther vs SU-100: Eastern Front 1945 by David R. Higgins (Paperback, 2014)

As World War II in Europe reached its end, armor development and doctrine had experienced several years of massively accelerated change, especially within the crucible of the Eastern Front. The German Jagdpanther and Soviet SU, both The culmination of big-gun German and Soviet tank destroyer design can be found in their clashes in Hungary in the spring of The Jagdpanther represented a well-balanced solution and an excellent use of limited resources, while the SU was a natural progression of the rudimentary but numerous SU As the role of tanks broadened from essentially infantry support to anti-tank, armor thickness and armament increased to enable AFVs better to survive such encounters. Expensive and hard to upgrade with larger armament owing to the constraints imposed by turret-ring size and suspension, turreted tanks gave way in some contexts to new designs.

FOUNDATIONS OF PRACTICAL MAGIC ISRAEL REGARDIE PDF

Jagdpanther vs SU-100: Eastern Front 1945

.

LAUREN DESTEFANO SEVER PDF

Jagdpanther vs SU-100

.

Related Articles