"Maresal" tank destroyer vs. Soviet armour

[Geto-Dacul]

It is said that the Maresal tank destroyer was better than the German Stug III, due to it's very good mobility and firepower... But it was a light tank. Could the Maresal destroyer have a chance against a T-34/85 or an IS-2?

Did the Hetzer (based on the Maresal) performed well as a tank destroyer?


Getu'

[dragos]

The advantages of Hetzer/Maresal were low profile and speed. Low profile or small shape make it harder to spot and aim by enemy. Another advantage was that they were relative cheap to produce, but this was no more an advantage at that time.

Looking at specifications, in theory the 75 mm gun of Maresal was capable of penetrating the front armor of T-34/85 and the side and rear armor of IS-2.

[Geto-Dacul]

Thanks marshal Dragos for your answer!

For Romania, it was very important that the tank destroyer be relatively cheap to produce... I read somewhere that it costed 7 times less to build a Maresal, than to make a Stug...

QUOTE

Looking at specifications, in theory the 75 mm gun of Maresal was capable of penetrating the front armor of T-34/85 and the side and rear armor of IS-2.

It seems that the archives of the 75mm Resita gun performances against the Soviets were lost.

BTW, in the game "East Front II" the Hetzer has "10" in "defense" (armour) just like a T-34/76, which is very impressive if realistic). In exchange a Pz IV has just "7" in defense. (The Tiger had "12", the Pather "13" and the IS-2 "16").


Best regards,

Getu'

[Dr_V]

The Hetzer was a very successful tank destroyer, but it came a bit too late in the war. For what I know, it was capable to destroy a T-34/85 but only at close/medium range and had to be very precise to hit its vulnerable spots. I’ve read that against the IS-2 a Hetzer was less useful, as only a close hit in the rear or in the tracks could have a chance to disable it.
Certainly the advantages of the Hetzer were low profile and maneuverability. It could easily maneuver around soviet heavy tanks to get in a more useful position, as the IS-2 was relatively slow and not easy to handle in tight spaces. The T-34/85 was more maneuverable, but less well armored.
Hetzer’s main problem was its relatively light armor. Its angled shape improved its defense, but not much, as at that time soviet tank (and AT) guns were much powerful than at the beginning of the eastern campaign. Plus, a soviet heavy artillery shell was a real danger for a Hetzer if it would come as a direct hit. That’s why the Hetzer was less successful in frontal assaults, was more appropriate to repel enemy attacks or as a support for panzer and combined assaults.
The Hetzer was more successful against American tanks, in the rare occasions that it had engaged such tanks. In west though, the allied air supremacy drastically reduced the use of tank-destroyers, as their AA defense was almost nil (the armor offered little protection from bombs).

[dragos]

There were significant differences between Hetzer and Maresal. Hetzer was bigger (height 2.17m Hetzer, 1.54m Maresal) and heavier (weight 15t Hetzer, 10t Maresal) as he had heavier armor. The gun of Hetzer was 75mm PaK39. The chassis were quite similar.

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/tfhetzer.htm

Hetzer had a turning radius of 4.5 m (probably the same of Maresal), while T-34/85 had a turning radius of 7.6 m and IS-2 probably bigger!

[leonardus]

>It seems that the archives of the 75mm Resita gun performances against the Soviets were lost.

Did anybody have weapon characteristics/specification about above ?
I read many times about this romanian Resita gun but never encountered some details.

Leo. :?:

[dragos]

Leo, have you visited the site www.worldwar2.ro ? It's in the weapons -> artillery.

http://www.worldwar2.ro/arme/?category=gun...e=4&language=en