"IS-2 vs Ferdinand " Topic

"…The Ferdinand is a formidable opponent, even for the powerful D-25 gun. However, we see the flaw in Soviet penetration metrics. The shell that penetrated the Ferdinand penetrated the armour, and produced spalling that would have killed the crew. And yet, the shell itself is stuck in the armour. This does not count as a penetration by Soviet standards. If you look at the table of penetrations, the IS-2, theoretically, cannot penetrate this much armour.

Let's see how these test results apply to real life. An IS-2 from the 71st Guards Heavy Tank Regiment of the 3rd Guards Tank Army encountered a Ferdinand belonging to the s.Pz.Jg.Abt 653 on July 22nd, 1944, near the city of Magerov. From the report:

"At 13:30, the regiment received a new objective: the 53rd Guards Tank Brigade was to move toward Nogortse, Veryny, Turnnko, Dobrosin, Magerov, Shezehts, Yavorov, and must be ready to deflect a counter-attack from the Zhulkev and Nemirov direction…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Interesting find, Tango!

Although the report itself is fairly light on details, it's still cool to read about and wonder. Besides, it gives a cool wargaming scenario if nothing else! Who doesn't want to play IS-2s vs Ferdinands and APCs? :)

It is indeed interesting.

However one needs to read Russian combat reports about engagements with Ferdinands with some care.

The Red Army tended to call any German casemated tank destroyer a "Ferdinand". I have seen, for example, ATR instruction sheets/manuals written giving guidance as to the weak spots to aim for on a "Ferdinand", which from the illustrations clearly are describing the aiming points on StuGs. So also I have read combat reports of engagements with "Ferdinands" that were clearly engagements with StuGs or JgPzr 38Ts.

While the technical report on penetration testing is quite explicit, the combat report leaves some room for doubt. There is little description of the alleged Ferdinand, beyond that it was a vehicle working from an ambush position. If you re-read it, using the words "casemated tank destroyer" to replace the word "Ferdinand", you will see how little additional context is provided as to exactly what tank destroyer was present. May well have been an actual Ferdinand, but it is not certain.

German records should be able to confirm or disprove the loss in that time at that location. Ferdi's were rare enough that the records of every vehicle are fairly complete. Anyone have the Schw. JgPr. Abtl. records?

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Glad you enjoyed it my friends… (smile)

Have you seen this…?

TMP link

Amicalement
Armand

I have the Combat History of 653 by Munch and it makes no mention of this action. Instead the emphasis is on the constant rearguard action the unit had to perform and how they lost 60% of their armoured vehicles in that retreat. The vast majority were lost to breakdowns, fuel shortage or weak bridges, resulting in the Ferdinands being blown up by their crews. Two Ferdinands were reported lost on 22nd July but the cause is not reported. So no confirmation that it happened or didn't happen I'm afraid.

The shell that penetrated the Ferdinand penetrated the armour, and produced spalling that would have killed the crew. And yet, the shell itself is stuck in the armour.

Two problems with the tests.
1. The front driver plate of the Ferdinand in the test was first penetrated twice by 75mm APCR from a Panther. (Yes, this APCR projectile penetrated over 200mm.) Then it was hit in the same area by Soviet heavy shells.
2. Russians incorrectly measured the velocity of their shells at ranges.

After WWII, Aberdeen tested the BR471B at various angles, showing how it perforated US armor plate. While in WWII Russian tests, the same striking velocity per range was incorrectly used for the BR471 and BR471B, thus the Russians operated under false assumptions not abandoned until later . .

link