Paid Advertisement
Historynet/feed historynet feedback facebook link Weider History Group RSS feed Weider Subscriptions Historynet Home page

Could any WWII tank survive a hit by a 155mm shell?

Originally published under Ask Mr. History. Published Online: September 26, 2013 
Print Friendly
2 comments FONT +  FONT -

Dear sir,

To settle an old argument one way or the other we need an expert opinion. Question is this: During WWII was there a tank or armored vehicle that could take a hit from a 155 shell—be it high explosive, armor piercing, etc.—and survive? 

Thank you,

John

? ? ?

Dear John,

The average main battle tank (e.g. M-48 or T-54 and up) would be badly damaged by a 155mm howitzer high explosive shell hit, and a lucky direct hit on the turret may knock it off its race. Wouldn't do the crew any good either, but it would probably not penetrate or demolish the tank. A chart showed the standard 155mm capable of penetrating 68-110mm of armor at 1,500 meters, while its Soviet equivalent of the time, the 152mm gun, could penetrate 66-113mm of armor. The Soviets, however, developed an armor piercing round that gave the 152 the ability to penetrate 185-308mm of armor, a direct hit from which was capable of disemboweling a Panther, Tiger or Elephant—hence the nickname the self-propelled SU-152 got after its debut at Kursk, "Zveroboi" (fighter of wild beasts).

Sincerely,

 

Jon Guttman
Research Director
Weider History Group
More Questions at Ask Mr. History

 


2 Responses to “Could any WWII tank survive a hit by a 155mm shell?”


  1. 1
    Warren Osborn says:

    The only problem with this theory is the neither the M-48 or T-54 was in service during WWII

  2. 2
    Victor L'Esperance says:

    Also, the newly deployed Panthers were vulnerable to side hits so you could rock the socks off it. I believe the Soviets had T-34's and KV-1s with some light T-70s. The Germans actually delayed the offensive to get more Tigers and Panzer Vs (Panthers) to the front. Earlier and lighter models were also deployed. Mr. Osborn is correct therefore.



Leave a Reply

Human Verification: In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Related Articles


History Net Images Spacer
Paid Advertisement
Paid Advertisement
History Net Daily Activities
History net Spacer
History net Spacer
Historynet Spacer
HISTORYNET READERS' POLL

Which of these wars resulted in the most surprising underdog upset?

View Results | See previous polls

Loading ... Loading ...
History net Spacer
STAY CONNECTED WITH US
RSS Feed Daily Email Update
History net Spacer
Paid Advertisement History net Spacer
Paid Advertisement

Paid Advertisement
What is HistoryNet?

The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by Weider History, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines.

If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest.

From Our Magazines
Weider History

Weider History Network:  HistoryNet | Armchair General | Achtung Panzer! | StreamHistory.com
Today in History | Ask Mr. History | Picture of the Day | Daily History Quiz | Contact Us

Copyright © 2014 Weider History. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Advertise With Us | Subscription Help | Privacy Policy