Now for some thing entirely different - Revived ISU-152 Zveroboy

[Bob Riebe]

[darkgael]

Bob: That was great. Thanks. It had to be a thrill for those guys when that beast finally kicked over.
Pete

[ironglow]

.
   The tank destroyer plays an effective role as a defensive tactic.  Germany produced an effective model which they called the "Stug"..

        They often carry a heavy gun tube, but lack a couple salient features, those being speed/agility, and a pivoting turret.  Just differing philosophies...
  Our WW2 tank destroyers usually carried a lighter gun, but were more speed capable and with rotating turrets.

   Our M36 "Jackson" and the  M18 "Hellcat"TDs were quite effective,.  The M36 was built on the Sherman chassis
  and carrying a 90mm gun tube, while the M18 carried a 76mm tube.

  That 90mm could take on any tank on the WW2 battlefield.. while the M18 could do so, but the Tiger or Panther,  the TC woud have to maneuver for a side or preferrably, a rear shot.

      The M18was however, capable of it, since it jhad a top speed of 55 mph..fastest armor in WW2...plus our turrets all had power rotation, while most German tanks had only the muc, much slower, manual rotation.

  More on the Russian TD..  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEn3jOXS5p4

  Note those cylindrical tanks on those WW2 Russian tanks...those were their fuel tanks, which are less prone to burning...but still...a few rounds from a machine gun, may drastically reduce their driving range.
 

[Mule 11]

That was cool. Hated to see that tube destroyed.

[oldandslow]

Great video. Thanks for posting and thanks to IG for his tank knowlege. I wonder how many tons that thing weighs.

[Mule 11]

I could not believe it was driven out of there. Thought for sure the drive train would be seized. It was built like a tank...

[Bob Riebe]

I could not believe it was driven out of there. Thought for sure the drive train would be seized. It was built like a tank...

RIM-SHOT

[darkgael]

.
   Th etank destroyer plays an effective role as a defensive tactic.  Germany produced an effective model which they called the "Stug"..

        They often carry a heavy gun tube, but lack a couple salient features, those being speed/agility, and a pivoting turret.  Just differing philosophies...
  Our WW2 tank destroyers usually carried a lighter gun, but were more speed capable and with rotating turrets.

   Our M36 "Jackson" and the  M18 "Hellcat"TDs were quite effective,.  The M36 was built on the Sherman chassis
  and carrying a 90mm gun tube, while the M18 carried a 76mm tube.

  That 90mm could take on any tank on the WW2 battlefield.. while the M18 could do so, but the Tiger or Panther,  the TC woud have to maneuver for a side or preferrably, a rear shot.

      The M18was however, capable of it, since it jhad a top speed of 55 mph..fastest armor in WW2...plus our turrets all had power rotation, while most German tanks had only the muc, much slower, manual rotation.

  More on the Russian TD..  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEn3jOXS5p4

  Note those cylindrical tanks on those WW2 Russian tanks...those were their fuel tanks, which are less prone to burning...but still...a few rounds from a machine gun, may drastically reduce their driving range.
 

Where did the Sherman Firefly fit in -  was it one of those that you mentioned?

[darkgael]

Just an FYI. The Sherman Firefly was fitted with the British 17 pounder cannon (76.2 mm). This was quite different than the 75mm standard for the Sherman.

[Lloyd Smale]

must be a bugger to line up a target without a turret that moves.  Today you could have a computer control the tank probably precise enough to aim it but back then stearing with brakes it must have took some real talent

[darkgael]

The Russian gun probably was a handful in that respect. The Shermans, however, had power operated turrets.

[ironglow]

Just an FYI. The Sherman Firefly was fitted with the British 17 pounder cannon (76.2 mm). This was quite different than the 75mm standard for the Sherman.

    The Sherman Firefly, was a British development.  Their 17 pounder was roughly equivalent ro our 90mm...but not quite!  The Sherman was fitted with a 75mm and later 76mm gun tube, and could not successfully engage either a Tiger or Panther head on..their tactic was to maneuver for side or rear shots..and with their higher speed and power turret, it was not hopeless.
  Patton's plan..and the armored divisons were developed under his guidance, was to have tank destroyers take on the enemy tanks, while the Shermans were to cut through the lines and raise all kinds of havoc, along with cutting off enemy supply lines.

Since the Sherman turret was developed around the smaller round, the Brits had to give up speed of reloading in exchange for the larger round..and often, folllw up shots were very necessary.  It has been estimated, from stats that when it is tank-to-tank engagement, the one who gets in the first effective shot...usually prevails..because even if that first shot is not  kill shot, the receiving crew is having a "significant emotional episode"..enough so the first shooter can often get in a quick second shot.

  The US  did introduce a tank near the end of the war, which could take head on, the best the enemy had to offer.  This tank, the M26 Pershing was introduced late enough, so it saw little action.  Thee Pershing was the forerunner to the Patton series M47 and M48, the ones I served in.

  That said, here is a WW2 film which shows how a Sherman couldn't do it..but the Pershing could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6LqB-RYUvY
 

[ironglow]

.
  As I said earlier, the British 17 pounder was not the equal of our 90mm..compare the rounds DarkGael posted, with this picture of myself..as a 19 year old stripling..holding an HE round for my M47 Patton tank..

[ironglow]

.
   The gunner in the M26 Pershing, on that day in Koln.in 1945..
   
       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt5bJQOkI1g