Jump to content


Photo

How Good Was The Su 76M.


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 Inhapi

Inhapi

    Wielder of the Unicorn Hat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Tanks, warships, polar exploration, ancient history,astronomy and space exploration,Ancient Egypt, harpsichords, Baroque and Classisist music, buying far too many books.

Posted 05 September 2017 - 0751 AM

Hello group,

 

I wonder how good/bad the Su 76m was.

 

It seems to me a reasonable vehicle IF used in an infantry support verhicle, and not a s a "true" AFV in assaults. The Infantry seem to have liked it in the firepower it brought to the frontline. The tankers themselves seem to have been dissapointed by its light armour when used as an assault gun in stead of a lightly armoured support gun.

 

To me the vehicles (with all its shortcomings) seems to be a reasonable attempt to built a usable vehicle for the support role using non vital resources (truck engines, light armour, guns and ammo well established in service and produced in great quantities. Also it could be produced in factories that could not produce mediums and heavies, so otherwise this production capacity would not have been used.

 

Any toughts ?

 

Inhapi


Edited by Inhapi, 05 September 2017 - 0757 AM.


#2 Hakka

Hakka

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tropical paradise

Posted 06 September 2017 - 0304 AM

It was definitely a very useful strategic tool as a self propelled gun, which was probably its most important trait anyhow, since the Red Army didn't have anything self propelled before the SU-76M. Having the SU-76M enabled the army to move fast and strike fast, which really helped during breakthrough attempts and encirclements.



#3 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,903 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 06 September 2017 - 0643 AM

Comparable to the British Archer 17pdr but on a slightly earlier timeframe?



#4 Inhapi

Inhapi

    Wielder of the Unicorn Hat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Tanks, warships, polar exploration, ancient history,astronomy and space exploration,Ancient Egypt, harpsichords, Baroque and Classisist music, buying far too many books.

Posted 06 September 2017 - 0838 AM

It seems to me that the problem with the SU 76m might have been that its users saw it as a full fledged tank hunter/assault gun, rather than a "shyish" arty support vehicle and thus used it in roles where its very light armour became a severe disadvantage.

 

Inhapi.



#5 Calvinb1nav

Calvinb1nav

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 445 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lexington, SC
  • Interests:military and aviation history, wargaming, shooting, travel, geography

Posted 06 September 2017 - 0848 AM

IIRC its users had a rather unflattering nickname for it but as you say, it may have been that they were using it in a role for which it was not intended, and wholly unsuitable for.   


Edited by Calvinb1nav, 06 September 2017 - 0848 AM.


#6 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 06 September 2017 - 0926 AM

The gun was not ideal- too small caliber for infantry support at long range and lacking the penetration required for a dedicated TD. The 105 or 57mm would both have made more sense. IDN maybe they could have even shoehorned the Ziz-4 into a BT chassis to get a dedicated light TD which is fast enough to shoot a few rounds and scoot if outmatched.


Edited by KV7, 06 September 2017 - 0928 AM.


#7 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,020 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 September 2017 - 0938 AM

Comparable to the British Archer 17pdr but on a slightly earlier timeframe?

Khm... Not really. Archer was purely anti-tank SPA. Su-76M was more like support gun with worse anti-tank abilities, but MUCH better anti-infantry/fortifications.

#8 billman

billman

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:new york

Posted 06 September 2017 - 1315 PM

I feel that the open top would lead to it geting shredded by artillery. Though I dont have a source on this. I would imagine that this issue would extend to all open top afv's

Edited by billman, 06 September 2017 - 1317 PM.


#9 alejandro_

alejandro_

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,945 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oxfordshire, UK
  • Interests:History, cinema, football, aviation, armour, military history.

Posted 06 September 2017 - 1327 PM

Perception has changed in the last few years. Initially it was not supposed to ve very popular because of open top and weak armour, but if used properly crews appreciated it. Mobility in mud was very good, also, it was produced in truck/car factories, not affecting tank output.



#10 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,420 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 06 September 2017 - 1349 PM

Perception has changed in the last few years. Initially it was not supposed to ve very popular because of open top and weak armour, but if used properly crews appreciated it. Mobility in mud was very good, also, it was produced in truck/car factories, not affecting tank output.

 

The alternative would have been truck or horse (sic) drawn artillery pieces. A self-propelled gun is very attractive in comparison.



#11 Inhapi

Inhapi

    Wielder of the Unicorn Hat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Tanks, warships, polar exploration, ancient history,astronomy and space exploration,Ancient Egypt, harpsichords, Baroque and Classisist music, buying far too many books.

Posted 06 September 2017 - 1437 PM

The gun was not ideal- too small caliber for infantry support at long range and lacking the penetration required for a dedicated TD. The 105 or 57mm would both have made more sense. IDN maybe they could have even shoehorned the Ziz-4 into a BT chassis to get a dedicated light TD which is fast enough to shoot a few rounds and scoot if outmatched.

I cannot  find any reference to the Ziz-4. Do you mean the ZIS-2 ?

 

As for the BT 7 based support tank: a short 76 mm gun was shoehorned into a fullly traversing turret on the chassis. OTOH, the BT 7 needed a specialised 450 hp tank engine, while the SU76m used two 85 hp truck diesels. Given the scant information i have on these vehicles, i wonder whether the BT 7 was better armoured than the SU76m anyway. Also the fighting compartiment of the SU76m was  much roomier than the cramped BT artillery support types with short barreled 76 mm guns.

 

The BT 7 also had the overly complicated track-cum wheel drive. The SU76 afaik used production lines for (useless) light tanks, the BT for medium tanks.

 

just some toughts,

 

Inhapi



#12 Inhapi

Inhapi

    Wielder of the Unicorn Hat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Tanks, warships, polar exploration, ancient history,astronomy and space exploration,Ancient Egypt, harpsichords, Baroque and Classisist music, buying far too many books.

Posted 06 September 2017 - 1440 PM

I feel that the open top would lead to it geting shredded by artillery. Though I dont have a source on this. I would imagine that this issue would extend to all open top afv's

 

I read somewhre that the open top made communication with the infantry they were supposed to support much better. OTOH , indeed they were very vulneralbe to all weapons coming in overhead, down to handgrenades.



#13 Hakka

Hakka

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tropical paradise

Posted 06 September 2017 - 1512 PM

 

I feel that the open top would lead to it geting shredded by artillery. Though I dont have a source on this. I would imagine that this issue would extend to all open top afv's

 

I read somewhre that the open top made communication with the infantry they were supposed to support much better. OTOH , indeed they were very vulneralbe to all weapons coming in overhead, down to handgrenades.

 

 

I don't think that it would be easy getting near an SU-76M if the three guys at the back had PPShes to spray you with. Plus, I suppose that it would be easier to escape if the crew was in a bad situation or something. The most dangerous threat would be artillery and air attacks, but at least the Germans didn't have air bursting fuses  :)



#14 Al

Al

    aka Al

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,474 posts
  • Location:North Central USA
  • Interests:Military history, wargames, tanks, planes, trains, etc.

Posted 06 September 2017 - 1522 PM

I had read that one of the reasons the SU-76 was not liked was because of the two engine arrangement.  Something about getting them synchronized correctly.  Wasn't it built on the T-70 chassis?



#15 billman

billman

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:new york

Posted 06 September 2017 - 1715 PM

I had read that one of the reasons the SU-76 was not liked was because of the two engine arrangement.  Something about getting them synchronized correctly.  Wasn't it built on the T-70 chassis?

is a longer version of the t-70 chassis.



#16 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 07 September 2017 - 1336 PM

 

The gun was not ideal- too small caliber for infantry support at long range and lacking the penetration required for a dedicated TD. The 105 or 57mm would both have made more sense. IDN maybe they could have even shoehorned the Ziz-4 into a BT chassis to get a dedicated light TD which is fast enough to shoot a few rounds and scoot if outmatched.

I cannot  find any reference to the Ziz-4. Do you mean the ZIS-2 ?

 

As for the BT 7 based support tank: a short 76 mm gun was shoehorned into a fullly traversing turret on the chassis. OTOH, the BT 7 needed a specialised 450 hp tank engine, while the SU76m used two 85 hp truck diesels. Given the scant information i have on these vehicles, i wonder whether the BT 7 was better armoured than the SU76m anyway. Also the fighting compartiment of the SU76m was  much roomier than the cramped BT artillery support types with short barreled 76 mm guns.

 

The BT 7 also had the overly complicated track-cum wheel drive. The SU76 afaik used production lines for (useless) light tanks, the BT for medium tanks.

 

just some toughts,

 

Inhapi

 

ZiS-4 is the tank gun version of ZIS-2. The BT series had far inferior armor to T-60 T-70 light tank series, and ditched the removable track thing early on.

There was an experimental T-50 modification with the M1 57mm in a turret, but it did not go into service.


Edited by KV7, 07 September 2017 - 1340 PM.


#17 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 07 September 2017 - 1424 PM

I wonder how good/bad the Su 76m was.
 
 
Any toughts ?


Almost 14,000 were built, so no way it was bad. It looks like the only AFV built in even larger numbers was the T-34. The -76 looks pretty good now, doesn't it?

#18 Inhapi

Inhapi

    Wielder of the Unicorn Hat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Tanks, warships, polar exploration, ancient history,astronomy and space exploration,Ancient Egypt, harpsichords, Baroque and Classisist music, buying far too many books.

Posted 07 September 2017 - 1554 PM

 

I wonder how good/bad the Su 76m was.
 
 
Any toughts ?


Almost 14,000 were built, so no way it was bad. It looks like the only AFV built in even larger numbers was the T-34. The -76 looks pretty good now, doesn't it?

 

It indeed does



#19 Calvinb1nav

Calvinb1nav

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 445 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lexington, SC
  • Interests:military and aviation history, wargaming, shooting, travel, geography

Posted 07 September 2017 - 1923 PM

 

 

Almost 14,000 were built, so no way it was bad. It looks like the only AFV built in even larger numbers was the T-34. The -76 looks pretty good now, doesn't it?

 

It indeed does

 

But aside from the Korean War, was it used anywhere else in combat?  Seems to have been discarded fairly quickly otherwise whereas T-34s and Su-100s are still seeing combat.



#20 Inhapi

Inhapi

    Wielder of the Unicorn Hat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Tanks, warships, polar exploration, ancient history,astronomy and space exploration,Ancient Egypt, harpsichords, Baroque and Classisist music, buying far too many books.

Posted 08 September 2017 - 0008 AM

 

 

 

Almost 14,000 were built, so no way it was bad. It looks like the only AFV built in even larger numbers was the T-34. The -76 looks pretty good now, doesn't it?

 

It indeed does

 

But aside from the Korean War, was it used anywhere else in combat?  Seems to have been discarded fairly quickly otherwise whereas T-34s and Su-100s are still seeing combat.

 

 

Might have to do with the shift of divisional arty from 76mm to 122 mm guns ?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users