Talk:ISU-122

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ISU-122 article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Russian and Soviet military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

I would like to merge ISU-122 with ISU-152. The latter is more of an upgrade to the former then an entirely new vehicle. Oberiko 15:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion is at Talk:ISU-152#Proposed merge with ISU-122. —Michael Z. 2005-10-19 18:02 Z

[edit] "Jagdpanzer" is a generic term

For any german tank destroyer. This line: "with rare exception (only JagdPanzers, JagdTiger, and Elefant were strong enough to resist the BR-471" is vague and inaccurate.

I assume it probably was meant to mean "JagdPanther" or perhaps Jagdpanzer IV, but since I'm not sure, I won't change it. Whoever did the original insertion should clarify/correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SenorBeef (talk • contribs) 19:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

The Jagpanzer IV could NOT resist a direct hit and doubt the Jagdpanther could, altough I have to look into that.

Firing tables of A-19 122mm gun state that armour piercing capability was 155 mm at 500 m under meeat angle 30 degrees with normal direction to the armour plane. German tests state some lesser value of 128 mm under the same conditions but this is probably due to ammunition and measurement methodics differences - Germans had not advanced APCBC projectile BR-471B (they had only standard AP BR-471) and in 1945 when it made first appearance on the battlefield, Germans had no time for writing scrupulous report about captured materiel. But it was quite enough to defeat glasis plate of Jagdpanzer IV and JagdPanther. the link to the Soviet armour penetration tests report (unfortunately in Russian). This report clearly states that front armour of Panther (with approx. same thickness and slope as JagdPanther) was punched by BR-471B at distance 2500 m with significant power to punch at much more distance. In Soviet test only full front projection of Ferdinand/Elefant and JagdTiger superstructure (not hull) was immune to A-19 fire. LostArtilleryman 06:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor anti-armour performance?

"the gun had poor armor performance" Hmmm really? Penetrating (according to battlefield.ru) 100mm at a 30 degree slope at 2 km. AKA outclassing pretty much every German gun except the monstrous ones (i.e. pak 43 etc.) Lack of sub-caliber/shaped charge rounds is a non sequitur as 1.) Zaloga says that there was a shaped charge shell for the gun and 2.) German stocks of sub-caliber were pretty minimal by the implementation of the ISU-122/ISU-152/IS-2 etc. Thus I have edited the offending section. The Sanctuary Sparrow 07:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)