Jump to content


Photo

How Good Was The Su 76M.


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,944 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 08 September 2017 - 0633 AM

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.

 

 

 
It was a wartime expedient and no longer needed after the war. 


#22 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 08 September 2017 - 0725 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.

 

 

Vietnam?

 

(not necessariy 'Vietnam the American War' but perhaps 'Vietnam the French War')?

 

"The PAVN set up its first tank unit, the 202nd Armored Regiment, on 5 October 1959. The numerical designation of the regiment was derived from the 202 cadre members who had been trained in China and the Soviet Union. The unit was initially equipped with some 35 T-34-85s and 16 SU-76s. In 1964, the 202nd Armored Regiment was expanded to include three battalions, which were equipped respectively with T-54, T-34-85, and PT-76 tanks and SU-76 self-propelled guns. An Armored Forces Directorate was created in the summer of 1965 to coordinate the use of the armored units and to define and employ doctrine."

 

http://grunt-redux.a...VN_armour11.htm


Edited by DougRichards, 08 September 2017 - 0725 AM.


#23 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,421 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 08 September 2017 - 0830 AM

 

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.

 

 

 
It was a wartime expedient and no longer needed after the war. 

 

 

For the soviet army. Handing them over to fellow commie brothers arund the world they were still good enough. Korea, Vietnam Africa maybe? Did China get any?



#24 Walter_Sobchak

Walter_Sobchak

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 592 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grand Rapids MI
  • Interests:Civilian tank and afv enthusiast. Collects 1/72 scale replicas although terrible at building them. Particular interest in post war US tank engines.

Posted 08 September 2017 - 0917 AM

I currently reading the new book on the 1941 Battle of Dubno by Isaev.  One of the things I have noticed is that often he credits German tactical victories during these battles on the fact that they have artillery while the Soviet forces often lack adequate artillery support.  It seems that the artillery tractors available in 1941 to the red army were not really up for the job of supporting fast moving armored units.  So by that metric, I would think the SU-76 would fill a very important gap, providing mobile artillery firepower.  Is it a great system?  Probably not, but It doesn't seem any worse than the myriad German light tank/artillery conversions.  



#25 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 08 September 2017 - 0924 AM

 

...Battle of Dubno by Isaev...

 

He is good, probably best of the new wave of the Russian historians. His "Myths of Great Patriotic War" (IDK if it was translated to English) is great intro to an eastern front.

 


  It seems that the artillery tractors available in 1941 to the red army were not really up for the job of supporting fast moving armored units.

Even worst than that - there were not nearly enough tractors to support even 20% of forces, especially with heavier guns. That was one of the reasons that excelent 152mm M-10 howitzer was considered a failure for divisional artillery - it was too heavy to move by horses and there were no really suitable tractors.



#26 Walter_Sobchak

Walter_Sobchak

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 592 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Grand Rapids MI
  • Interests:Civilian tank and afv enthusiast. Collects 1/72 scale replicas although terrible at building them. Particular interest in post war US tank engines.

Posted 08 September 2017 - 0944 AM

 

 

...Battle of Dubno by Isaev...

 

He is good, probably best of the new wave of the Russian historians. His "Myths of Great Patriotic War" (IDK if it was translated to English) is great intro to an eastern front.

 

 


  It seems that the artillery tractors available in 1941 to the red army were not really up for the job of supporting fast moving armored units.

Even worst than that - there were not nearly enough tractors to support even 20% of forces, especially with heavier guns. That was one of the reasons that excelent 152mm M-10 howitzer was considered a failure for divisional artillery - it was too heavy to move by horses and there were no really suitable tractors.

 

 

From what I can tell, not much of his stuff has been translated into English.  The Dubno book reads fairly well although sometimes the translation seems a bit clunky.  I was amused when the book makes reference to Western researcher "Thomas Yentz."  



#27 Nikolas93TS

Nikolas93TS

    Thread necromancer and obscure questions

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 803 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trieste

Posted 08 September 2017 - 1149 AM

SU-76M was used by East Germans for longer, either to replace missing tanks to fill out the order of battle or in anti-tank companies, until they were eventually replaced by sufficient numbers of T-34/85 and the new T-54 in 1957 and 1958. This is what Achtung Minen from TMP wrote about it, I think it is an interesting read:

 

The HVA (Hauptverwaltung Ausbildung, or "Main Administrative Training"—one of the main state security organs from the early days of the DDR alongside the Volkspolizei) had 19 vehicles which were used purely for training purposes (organized into three "artillery Panzerjäger" schools, which was later reduced to a single Institute by the end of 1950). In May and June of 1952 another 150 vehicles were added, making 169 total. The final 40 vehicles were added to the newly formed KVP (Kaserniete Volkspolizei, or garrisoned people's police, the precursor to the NVA and the first true military formation of the DDR) in August and September of 1952, making 209 total. In 1953, the KVP was organized into two territorial administrations (Pasewalk in the north and Leipzig in the south, which were the precursors to MB V and MB III armies of the LaSK Kdo of the NVA). Each of these policing districts had two "state of readiness" police divisions and one mechanized readiness police division. Each infantry police division had a Panzer/Selbstfahrlafetten-Regiment (with 1 battalion of three assault gun companies) and three infantry regiments each with an assault gun company of 6 SU-76M. The mech (aka Panzer) divisions each had an assault gun regiment as well. Note, the KVP also used 23 SU-100 and 46 SU-85 in the mech divisions.

 

When the NVA was established out of the KVP in 1956, the SU-76M stayed on in the infantry division's tank regiment (which, like the KVP organization, was called a "Panzer/Selbstfahrlafetten-Regiment" and consisted of two SU-76M batteries and five Panzer companies).

This formation only existed shortly as Infanteriedivision was gradually transformed to the  Mot. Schützendivision in 1956. Thus, the SU-76 should have been dropped from the new Mot. Schützendivision's Panzer regiment, which consisted purely of tanks and was not a hybrid tank/SPG formation. However, Kopenhagen (in "Die Landstreirkräfte der NVA") still gives the numbers of SU-76 by 1957 as 98 vehicles in MB V and 106 in MB III (35 of which were in 4. Mot. Schützendivision, 69 in 11. Mot. Schützendivision and 2 lone vehicles in 7. PD). That's a total of 204 out of 209 original vehicles, as it probably took a few years to replace all the SU-76M with new tanks like the T-54, as some numbers were reported as late as 1968.



#28 glappkaeft

glappkaeft

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 08 September 2017 - 1330 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?

 

I can't agree that number built says anything about how good something is. I'm also assuming you're only counting vehicles built by the Soviets during WW2 otherwise the above makes no sense.



#29 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 08 September 2017 - 1416 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?

 

I can't agree that number built says anything about how good something is. I'm also assuming you're only counting vehicles built by the Soviets during WW2 otherwise the above makes no sense.

 

Well the Soviets were not idiots, so if they kept churning them out in those numbers they must have been considered good value.



#30 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,944 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 08 September 2017 - 1506 PM

This and yes I meant second most numerous Soviet AFV.

#31 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,129 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 09 September 2017 - 0134 AM

You can always have a T70 light tank with a 45L46 firing popgun HE instead. I saw some of that ammo when I was in Rus.

#32 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 09 September 2017 - 0608 AM

You can always have a T70 light tank with a 45L46 firing popgun HE instead. I saw some of that ammo when I was in Rus.

 

Or a small APC ?



#33 cbo

cbo

    Crew

  • Validating
  • PipPip
  • 1,108 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2017 - 0641 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?

 

I can't agree that number built says anything about how good something is. I'm also assuming you're only counting vehicles built by the Soviets during WW2 otherwise the above makes no sense.

 

Well the Soviets were not idiots, so if they kept churning them out in those numbers they must have been considered good value.

 

 

Just suggests that it was better than nothing. 

 

Seems to me that Soviet use of the vehicle was in Assault Gun Regiments where it was fullfilling a role similar to that of the StuG in the German Army. I bit like using a Marder as an assault gun. I've read about such practice in the German Army, talking about the "dimwitted company commanders" that allowed it to happen :) For the SU-76, it seems to have been they way it was supposed to be used, whether supporting infantry or backing up tanks. For that kind of work, being thinly armoured and open-topped would not have been an advantage.

 

It fits the bracket "better than nothing" and I'm sure the infantry or armour that had the support of the SU-76 appriciated it.



#34 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,944 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 10 September 2017 - 0754 AM

The Su-76m had three roles. SP-ATG like the Marder, assault gun like the Stug III and SPG like the Wespe. It did the first and the last well but wasn‘t an ideal assault gun because of the thin armour. Ok, but it‘s not like better armoured vehicles like the T-34 were immune from German AT guns. Unless you use an SU 152 but they weren‘t available in sufficient numbers.

 

The designers of SU-76 came up with an AFV that was good in most regards and could be produced in huge numbers in addition to better AFV.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users