They didn't fact check this.
From the T-34 at Kursk thread.
SU-152 "Beasts Killer" (24 TANKS)
Not ISU-152.
Don't disagree with the facts, but I'm not sure this is fair as a criticism of the linked article.
From the article:
Following the development of its predecessor―the SU-152―which was fitted on the chassis of the already outdated KV-1 tank, the ISU used the platform of the newly-developed IS tank series. … its offensive role proved pivotal during battles in urban areas such as Berlin, Budapest, and Königsberg …
After first rolling off the factory tracks in December 1943, it went into mass production, eventually leading to 1,885 units manufactured by the end of the war. …
I would agree that the article is not particularly explicit and clear that it was in fact the SU-152 that played the much-storied (and more correctly minimal) role at Kursk, but it is not for lack of fact-checking.
On the facts they have it about right. On organization and writing they fall a bit short…
I wonder, though, at this particular statement:
…the ISU used the platform of the newly-developed IS tank series. This gave way to a vehicle practically immune to most of the German anti-tank arsenal.
Immune to most German AT arsenal? Immune? I might give it credit for being more resistant than a T-34-85 to the most often-faced weapon(s), but not "practically immune", and not to most of the arsenal (which implies most of the variety of weapons, not just the one or two most common weapons).
It was built on the chassis of the IS tank. And the IS-2m hull was indeed "practically immune" to most of the German AT arsenal. But the ISU-152? I don't think it had anywhere near the protection of an IS-2m hull.
Do I have this wrong?
-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)
bases up the start of his 1:72 scale WWII Russians.
