Chapter 2460: The steel boom of the future

? As for the Soviets in history? To be honest, the attitude of the Soviets is more pragmatic. There is basically no concept of so-called assault guns or tank destroyers. There is a saying on the later military network that ISU represents tank destroyers, and SU represents assault guns. Actually This is a completely wrong understanding. The so-called ISU starts with NCY in the Soviet Union. It means the self-propelled artillery produced with the Stalin tank chassis. For example, everyone knows that ISU122 and ISU152 are the same, 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 pierce this misunderstanding. For example, SU100 uses a D10T artillery, which is obviously anti-tank, while the ML20 used by ISU152 is obviously a howitzer. It cannot be a dedicated anti-tank! And the most obvious problem is that the main gun of ISU152 and SU152 is one! Well, the question is, how can two vehicles using the same artillery be called assault guns and tank destroyers? Therefore, the correct explanation can only be that ISU is a self-propelled artillery using a Stalin tank chassis, nothing more! The Russians didn't even think about distinguishing between assault guns and tank destroyers...

But in fact, assault guns and tank destroyers still have to be distinguished. The reason is very simple. The cost-effectiveness. Assault guns are mainly used for infantry support operations, while taking into account anti-tank missions. Therefore, its defense requirements need not be too high. Should prefer larger caliber howitzers, for example, the No. 3 assault gun has a 105MM howitzer version. As for the reason? On the one hand, the cannon is more expensive and heavier. On the other hand, the weight of a 105MM howitzer is equal to two 75MM grenade...

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 assault guns that use lighter armor and howitzers will be reduced, thereby reducing production costs. Its essence is to have a certain defensive force, and can accompany the infantry forward with a direct-target self-propelled artillery. It is more efficient than tank destroyers or tanks of the same level when killing infantry and destroying general bunkers. And the amount of ammunition and cost are more advantageous! As for, what if you encounter an enemy tank? That can only be done with armor-piercing bullets, anyway, the 105mm caliber cannon, the power of armor-piercing bullets will not be too sad...

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

As for the tank destroyer? This is also divided into grades, and the lowest grade can be compared to the stalker in history. This kind of vehicle is small enough in weight, low in cost, and will have sufficient firepower. And the most valuable thing is to obtain a strong frontal defensive ability. Coupled with a low profile, this tank destroyer has certain advantages when facing most enemy tank assaults.

As for the SU76 similar to the Soviet Union and the German Rhino tank destroyer. Ruprecht doesn't appreciate it, because this thing is almost a makeshift chassis plus a convertible warhead. The defense is too bad. The so-called hand-held blade body without a piece of armor is such a thing. Although there may be a cost advantage, this so-called cost advantage can be greatly reduced if it can be destroyed by a single shot. For example, if the opposite T34-85 shell hits, the stalker has a high probability of surviving, and the convertible is almost bound to hang up.

The more high-end tank destroyers are similar to Cheetahs. As for the necessity of tank destroyers in the 2nd war, it is easy to say that under the same chassis, tank destroyers can generally have stronger than tanks. Face combat power, such as stronger firepower, or a larger amount of ammunition.

For example, in the history of the Cheetah tank destroyer, under the weight of the leopard, the artillery was increased to 88MML71. The 75MML70 far exceeds the Leopard tank. The No. 4 tank destroyer also uses the 75MML70 artillery, which is more than one grade stronger than the 75MML48 on the No. 4 tank! (Note that the firepower of the so-called long-barreled No. 4 tank is not as good as the towed PAK40. Regardless of whether the former is 48L and the latter is 46L, the German tank gun with the same caliber and similar barrel is smaller than the anti-tank gun, so The muzzle velocity will also be lower. The same is true for Tiger’s 88MM artillery.)

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

And on this plane, the Germans will still build heavy tank destroyers to deal with the opponent's appearance in history, and the existence that did not appear in history but may appear in the future! For example, the Russian IS2M, IS3 and IS4. And the American M26 and various variants. This world has been disrupted by the traversers. Who knows what will happen next? So arrangements must be made early!

Of course, the 88MML71 can no longer be used to deal with large-angle armored artillery. The power and long production hours make this artillery very tasteless. 105MM or larger caliber artillery is what this tank destroyer needs to be equipped with~www.wuxiaspot.com~ Of course, the weight must be strictly limited, up to 50 tons, but there must be no tonnage like Tiger King and Tiger Hunting. exist!

Well, up to now, some people may say, will the German army be effective in doing these things in the future? In history, the Soviet Union used T34 as the backbone, and the Americans used Sherman as the backbone. Didn't it end up pushing away the German tiger and leopard? Quantity and productivity are everything.

How do you say this question? Ruprecht can only say that the main force of the offensive armored units in the second battle was indeed medium tanks. This is true. This is like the staple food of eating. You can’t get enough without this food, and you can’t afford the same tanks, assault guns, and tank destroyers. This is all kinds of meals. Both the Americans and the Russians have a good choice, that is, their medium tank chassis is 30 tons! The Germans made a mistake on this issue. The Germans chose 20+ tons!

And this tonnage is very embarrassing. It is too small to guarantee sufficient performance of the tank. Then, under various stimulations, the Germans abandoned the original 30-ton tank research plan and developed a tiger tank in pursuit of performance. But too heavy and too difficult to produce!

The second is more~~~! Please subscribe for a reward~~~! !