He did warn his friends that if their wedding reception was going to be held so close to a tank museum, he would have to excuse himself for some time.

Something I find fundamental to Soviet perceptions and reporting is that they see things by their role rather than the object itself. A T34 with 76.2mm weapon was used in the exact same role as T34 with 85mm weapon, so they don't specify unless the weapon itself was relevant to the report. I see it with discussions of tanks in the 1970s, where T55s were often not specified by type despite their demotion to secondary tanks because T55 was still expected to perform all the same combat missions as the T72 and T64. A tank was a tank and used as such until it was clearly too obsolete, which was a long while in Soviet eyes.

I just love your analytical, clean, precise and understandable approach.

"if you spam fast-moving artillery you win every battle(one way or another)" -Sun Tzu probably

" we need a mobile big gun" " for what purpose exactly?" " mobile big gun"

I spent about 1,000 hours at the USMC Air Ground Museum restoring an SU-76 "donated" by the North Korean Peoples Army in 1950. The vehicle had been captured intact and a large white star had been painted over the red star. At some point it ran over a mine which pierced the hull on the starboard side, just aft of the drive sprocket. The explosion did very little damage except that a piece of shrapnel pierced the oil pan of the forward 6 six cylinder engine which eventually spun a bearing. The vehicle had been stored outside for most of her life and had been stripped of nearly everything not bolted down. The restorations branch curator, Mr. Joe Patan did miracles in scrounging some of the accessory items. Rather than making her a runner we pickled the engines, transmission, and final drive.

Finally the good ol' Su-76M gets some love. It is criminally underappreciated among WW2 buffs. It was one of the most important AFVs of the last 2 years of the war.

So more or less, you could say the SU76 was more of an assault gun that the StuG, since it remained in the primary role of an assault gun through out the war and did not have its primary purpose changed to be a tank killer. Not bad for a cheap way to stick a cannon on tracks.

13:08 "The chassis of the SU-76 was based..." Soviet tenk stronk tenk.

Ustanovka means both an installation (process) and a self-contained machine for doing something, with its ancillary equipment. In artillery, it’s either a self propelled gun along with its chassis, or a ship-mounted gun turret.

When I saw "Artillery spam", I thought "Artillery only".

Thank you for this. I played 'PanzerBlitz' from 1972 on, and the SU-76 allowed me to win many scenario's; using it to 'stiffen' infantry formations and 'leap' forward to small tactical objectives. It could never be a 'true' SPA piece, like Wespe or Hummel. Indirect sustained long-range fire was operationally beyond it(most of the time). Lack of radios and trained FOs(which were drained off to Tank Corps, Mech Corps, Tank Brigades, etc.) mostly limit it to close up engagements. 10 out of 10 if used correctly for infantry support. Once again, great video!

The creation of the Su-76 was dictated by strict necessity, so initially there were many compromises. The Soviet army urgently needed a light and compact self-propelled gun, which would not take up a lot of resources in production (every gram of metal and every man-hour counted). After it turned out that there was little space left in the self - propelled gun for the loader and there was increased smoke in the cabin, a radical decision was made-to cut off the top and rear of the self-propelled gun, thereby making it so to speak a "convertible". It was a forced decision, there was simply no time and effort to develop something else at that time.

9:30 - true, and it`s actual for nearly all artillery in such situations.

Fantastic content -- thanks! Since this AFV had so many roles, I would definitely be interested in learning more details about the different types of shells used. You have provided excellent content of this type for various German weapons systems, such as the Flak 88 and the Nebelwerfers. Were the shells for busting bunkers similar to the anti-tanks rounds? etc.

If your vehicle was built as a training vehicle, it may be a boiler-plate model. You look sharp and sound professional as always!

As a former US Army Artilleryman, I support fire support!

Also, let's not forget about the heavy universal self-propelled installation ISU-152, which was also put into operation in 1943. It proved to be a very reliable and easily repaired machine. And its 152 mm gun perfectly destroyed enemy pillboxes and heavy tanks.

Im surprised that you never spoke of the SU-76s initial steering system, driving each track with its own engine and transmission, and thus turning by running the engines at different RPMs. Its the main reason the SU-76M was made with the new coupled engine and traditional transmission layout.

He seems to have upped his fashion game recently. Really looking professional now

I love the clear, no-nonsense approach here.

Reducing the thickness of the side armor reduces weight more than reducing the thickness of the rear. Also, if the front of the tank is not facing the enemy then you are probably running and the rear is.

It is absolutely fascinating to hear history from another perspective and the sources you are able to get access to are phenomenal. Great job, love all the content. Thanks for sharing!

5:53 - this is a strange statement. What is "the only pre-war Soviet tank designer that had survived the "Great Purge"? For example, Александр Александрович Морозов, one of T-34`s designers and future chief of development of T-64 worked on command positions from 1931, on T-34 from 1938.

4:11 Yuri Pasholok states in his article on the history of SU-76 that the SU-12 name was indeed used for the first design, which was in productuion in early 1943 and later renamed SU-76 in May 1943. 10:20 ...Which indicates this vehicle as the one made by GAZ from December 1944 onwards. Other makes didn't have this feature. 15:38 Side armour was made thinner arcoss the board at the same time as other armour plates were thinned down and roof was abolished in order to save weight - when SU-15 was made into SU-15M in late June and early July 1943 (as per State Comittee for Defense decree №3760ss), prior to SU-76M adoption. The P. Samsonov's quote c. 16:02 is an abridged form of several paragraphs of Yuri Pasholok's article on SU-76M, which provides more context to this topic. 17:58 It has to be remembered, however, that this number includes several hundred postwar-made vehicles.

Bernhard looks like James Bond with that suit!!! A stylish genius!!!!

You could legitimately be a museum curator. You know your subject and your presentation skills are excellent.

I have a pretty long theory as to why the side armor might be thinner on the SU76M, but it's right at the bottom of this essay! skip down to the bottom to get the gist of it. Something you might find interesting. My grandad was an operator of the British 25pdr artillery piece. His piece was not used in any armored vehicle, but towed. As you probably know however, that gun made it into many self-propelled designs, for example, the Bishop. He told me they used to train anti-tank direct fire drills wherever he was based, probably around one of the D-Day landing training camps, as his service was just after the war had finished. I bet you this means that SPG gunners were also trained to fire the Bishop and other 25pdr artillery pieces in direct fire mode. The interesting thing is that he told me a story of when he was ordered to practice shooting a moving tank. The tank was put on rails and started moving back and forth. The first 2 shots his section fired knocked the tank right over onto it's turret, using AP ammunition, not HE. I'm betting other UK crews got this kind of training in SPG, and to the same effect. What I'm getting at is this: All the major powers during the second world war, came to the same conlusion by the end of it, or shortly after. The MBT was the best compromise of firepower and armor that could be mass produced. The Centurion, The Pershing, One of the big cats (or any really), were all the precursor to the MBT from each country. You may well be getting to this, as I'm only halfway through the video, but I think the SU76 was the precursor to a Main Battle Support Infantry tank developed by the soviets, just like the t34 was the precursor to the IS line of tanks, and then the t54. If the war had gone on any longer (luckily it didn't) I strongly suspect the STUG III/IV would have turned into the role the SU76 fills; A pz3 chassis which combines the role of anti tank, direct and indirect artillery, and anti-air. Namely, what you would get would be a SBT, or a Support Battle Tank. It's kind of what we have today with IVF's like the Bradley, but if a major war broke out the Bradley would almost certainly be heavily modified or scrapped for a newer support battle tank platform concept. If you did this, namely created one hull that could fit a package of platforms for engaging in anti-air or anti-tank, or anti-tank and artillery, you basically have the SU76 anyway. If the germans had gone down this same route, you would have ended up scrapping the Pz II models of AAA and the wirblewind, and creating a series of modifications for the PZ III which could do the job of every other tank chassis the german army had at that time. I suspect if this were to happen, the British and americans would have used the m3 Lee hull, or perhaps the Locust or Stuart light tanks. I don't know enough about the subject to know if that was what was already happening or not. But it makes sense to me. Both the Axis and the allies would then only have had to produce two types of Main Battle Vehicles; The Main Battle Tank, and the Main Battle Infantry Support Tank. I'd be willing to bet there is evidence in the literature to back up that claim. Nobody knew at that time the war was over after all. It's far easier to produce just two types of chassis, and then bolt everything you need to fight a war on them afterwards. Once you get the chassis right, anything you put on it becomes a significantly better armored fighting vehicle. Do you think this could be the reason the upper side sections of hull were so much thinner? Because they fully intended on making more designs based directly off the original SU76, and this was just the first one? A SU76 which was dedicated to artillery use, but could be used on the front line as infantry support, wouldn't need such a thick turret on the sides as it would either be facing towards or away from the enemy for it's primary role. Originally, the SU76 was supposed to be much more like a STUG, with the SU76M being used primarily in an indirect fire role. They were looking at BOTH the Stug and the Marder, and trying to combine it in to one chassis. Let me know what you think!

Great title for this video. Interesting look at an "unglamorous" but important AFV. Also interesting that some crews installed improvisational top armor. Makes sense!

Dude, whoever makes the icons (infographics?) is very intelligent and talented in coming up with the ideas that support the message. Well done

As a Company of Heroes 2 player, I feel that title.

This was called by Russian troops as the half-assed Ferdinand because it visually resembled it but had no back armor. Tankers hated it but infantry loved it because they could easily talk to the tank crew not walled off by armor and tankers eventually accepted it because if it was hit by enemy tank or RPG, they could just hop off it and not burn to death vs. regular tank. It was effectively used to support infantry assaults on positions where enemy didn't expect to see any tanks like bogs and flooded or wooded areas. It was good at suppressing lightly defended areas and was also very useful in urban fighting scenarios.

I am so excited for this video. I had to comment before I even watched. This is my favorite Soviet tracked vehicle from WWII.

Bernhard, wie immer eine perfekte Analyse. Ich mag die Aufmachung deiner Clips mit den Piktogrammen sehr. Die Zitate dürftest du jeweils noch ein paar Sekunden länger stehen lassen.

"установка" can be "a device", "a mount" or "a piece", depends on particular purpose of it, like "артиллерийская установка" is not a mount for artillery, it's the artillery piece itself, the whole assembly. As "a device" it's somewhat akin to German "Geräte" or "Zeug", like there can be a big "radio device" - stationary one or on a truck.

6:00 - 32 Tank Brigade, he died on 3 August 1943 near Малая *Томаровка* (everyone, who read about Battle of Kursk know this place).

15:57 - this fragment taken from "Самый массовый самоход Красной армии" by Юрий Пашолок.

Great source of info on a vehicle that is mostly overlooked despite its large numbers.

Daaang! Y’all he upgraded to a fly Ass suit. Good for him! Lookin good

It was good enough for the job,certainly better then infrantry support guns,plus if it went against a run of a mill german infantry division or axis allies divisions,with aduqate infantry support it did a decent job

Great stuff! Really enjoyed this one.

I remember one time being alone in World of Tanks with SU-76, with two enemy players. I sniped one in mid map, while other was taking my base. I had to chase back, and SU-76 was slow as a snail! I arrived at the base, he was firing on me and missed by just an inch, I think life flashed in front of my eyes in that moment.... He was 5-6 seconds away from capturing base... I aimed... terrain was rough and aiming was unstable... I got lock and I just clicked. It felt like time stopped... and then boom! A hit! That was the greatest adrenaline rush ever ! :D

Another Outstanding video and presentation.

the author says that the SU 76 did not have specialized sights for direct fire ... Only now he apparently is not very aware that the ZiS 3 is the last gun in the line of universal guns of 76,2mm caliber and from the very beginning it had armor-piercing ammunition, and standard sights were intended, among other things, for direct fire

"So how many 76mm shells do you want to send at them?" "Yes."

I’ve always kinda just pictured this vehicle as a quick way to throw the over abundant 76 gun on some tracks and get some use out of it. When you got lots of these things acting as a fire support artillery, and occasionally switching to shoot at enemy vehicles, they made a bit of an impact. Of course they were easy to kill but they in return dished out a lot of shells before being destroyed

Thanx Bernhard. I didnt know it was the 2nd most produced. I also didnt know stalin was micromanaging production of AFVs. Can you tell us what the ammo load was? X amount of HE, X amount of AP, etc... That will often give at least an idea of the intended role of a vehicle. This is still one of the best channels on UKposts.

Good analysis. Your assessment in general is correct - the Su-76M was primarily used as infantry support SPG, not the breakthrough or anti-tank one. There were other SPGs for this role, such as Su-85, Su-100 whose primary role was dealing with tanks, or SU/ISU-152 meant to break through the fortified areas. Think of Su-76 as of very mobile division artillery capable of high rate of fire. When used properly, a group of Su-76s could deliver very dense artillery barrage, this is why it was so widely used on Eastern front. Anyways, great content. Keep up the good work!

I saw the same tank you showed in this video when I visited Dresden, Germany few years back

Very informative!

Outstanding video and presentation.

Well done good sir. Any chance for a followup on the SU-76i?

6:59 - no, this is ordinary ZIS-3. ZIS-8 remained as experimental prototype that tested on one SU-12.

Thank you - I always had a soft spot for the suka :)

It would say that the closest German equivalents to the Su-76M are the Sd.Kfz. 251/9 - Schützenpanzerwagen (7.5 cm KwK37) and the Sd.Kfz. 250/8 leichter Schützenpanzerwagen (7.5 cm). The halftracks with the short 75 mm guns that originally armed the StuG's also serve as a lightly armoured assault gun to support (mechanised) infantry.

I love this format of the video! It's like a Detusche chieftan!

5:02 - check out Юрий Пашолок`s articles about that, especially "Роковая самоходка".

Regarding the use against tanks: Consider the Pak 36 video, 15:35, section 84 of the manual which boils down to: "Position change only before engagement and only to previously designated positions. Once you engaged, you stay and fire until you or the tank unit is dead!" The gun was big enough to hurt a tank - even just throw it's tracks. At the same time, tanks would propably target the SPG if they got that close. And the SPG could propably not run. And protecting infantry against tanks is one role for "infantry support gun" systems. And it might even have been the only weapon capable of hurting a tank. So if a tank came into direct fire range, it was of course a priority target. It should not even need mention that they do. 15:30 Something worth considering is that the side had machineguns - the aft did not. Between the formation, security elements and those side MGs, enemy infantry should be much less likely to approach from the sides. The 15mm after would make sense it it should resist the (stronger) tank MG.

I don't really understand this: the designer was punished because it was too bad. But they still produced 10k+ units and used it in East Germany and in Korea as well (a lot after WWII).

1:31 it's kinda both. This word changes meaning depending on context 🤷. Apparently it can even mean "plan of action" sometimes

Great work Sir thank you

This is one of my favorite tanks. Its just a field gun on a chassis. Simple and effective

Slight correction about your pronunciation of Samokhodnaya Ustanovka/Самоходая Установка: in Russian, "kh" (or in cyrillic «х»,) represents the same sound as German "ch", not a hard K. Overall another great and informative video. Soviet assault guns aren't talked about enough, usually ignored in favor of the T-34.

One thing I've noticed is severely lacking from UKposts is any info on the crew experience of maintaining and fighting in the Valentine tank. As the most-produced British tank of WW2, it seems to be a severe oversight! I'd love it if you were to remedy this.

I have to admit, he is quite dapper...

I'm not sure which sight this had. The ZiS-3 gun had the PG 1-M periscope sight 3.7x magnification / 10.25° Field of view. One sources said the SU-76M had a tank periscope sight like the T-34/76 PT 4-7 or PT 4-14. 2.5x / 26° FOV. I would assume a sight with a wider FOV would be better at acquiring a moving target.

First translation is correct: While ustanovka does mean installation when translated literally, the meaning is that the "artillery installation" is now samo-hod-naya (self-walk-ing).

Hey I enjoy your content very much, thank you

Great vid! One question... why is the logo for fishy a chainsword?

Su-76 proved valuable in swampy terrain where it could pass much easier than T-34 while it had comparable fire power. Apparently this helped achieving surprise during operation Bagration. It was well loved by infantry it supported where it helped with cleaning fortified strong points.

Nice great work

I want to visit so bad! Thanks for a great video!

I very much appreciate how you frame the rise of the SU-76 with the demise of the light tank, which should have happened sooner. As a tactical asset, the turret of the light tank was not as valuable as the larger gun of the SPA by even Barbarossa. The SPA with desanting troops also made a better IFV than most light tanks of WW2. The really problem with the light tank as a concept was the development of antitank infantry weapons, which made conventional tank tactics against infantry progressively suicidal.

I _love_ the subtle hint of illustrating "fishy documentation" with a WH40k-chainsword at 14:25.

I always took it at face value, but you're clearly right that it is more flexible than simply a 'tank destroyer.'

clearly a proper soviet solution to the issue of reduced enemy casualty values of continued light tank production A fine vehicle that served with distinction

I would greatly one of you videos on the SU-76i.

I wonder if the armor thickness on the rear could be higher to increase structural integrity, since the sides would need less with the hull roof and superstructure being connected to them. Rear plate at 15mm would be around 300 kg, at 10mm around 200kg... Well i don't really see the use of a 1% (10 ton vehicle) weight increase in the rear for balance purpose, doesn't really seem like enough.

By the way any chance to see a video on soviet war tractors and other improvised heavy vehicles of ww2 era?

Great vid

Another possible translation for "samohodnaya ustanovka": self propelled emplacement. (I'm not Russian, I'm Croatian, but this seems to be in the spirit of the language, despite the obvious contradiction in terms.)

5:19 - this is постановление ГКО №3530 "О самоходных установках СУ-76". UKposts deleted previous comment because of link for scanned original document on special site of РГАСПИ.

1. The thinner side vs rear is a weight issue. The vehicle is 5m in length and yet only about half as wide. Two slightly thicker side plates would have weighed down the vehicle more than adding a roof! 2. Soviet Divisional artillery is really the originating arm of the Su-76M, much like how the Stug was descended from Infantry guns. The difference is, in the German Army they had proper howitzers (105 - 150mm). The Soviet Infantry Division by contrast lost these big howitzer guns in the post-Barbarossa reorganization (they went to Artillery Divisions which supported Corps or Army level formations) which also reduced their manpower to less than 10,000. As a result, the only artillery support most Soviet infantry could expect to have organic to their Division was the 76.2 Divisional guns; which had to do double duty as indirect fire pieces AND infantry guns. 3. The Germans designating the Su-76M as an "assault gun" is a major distinction that proves it wasn't really meant to be a tank destroyer. Contrary to popular belief, Stugs were never fully converted into primarily anti-tank units. Indeed the Stug 1944 manual states that while destruction of enemy tanks is of prime importance, a Stug is not a Panzerjaeger and should resist being used as such. The reason for this is that the role most often ascribed to the Stug - that of an ambush vehicle against tanks - was actually a role that was most often relegated to towed anti-tank units. And note that the Germans called their towed anti-tank guns "Panzerjaeger" too; not just the ones mounted on a vehicle. Stugs and other better armored vehicles were instead saved for counterattack. And while it is a common refrain that "Stugs are so easy to flank because they lack a turret", in reality a flanked tank is also in trouble and would be turning the whole vehicle towards the flanking enemy and not just the turret. Indeed, when you really think about it; having a gun in front of the the vehicle doesn't make it worse at attacking the enemy with a known location (as would be the case in a counter-attack to support the infantry) - you are moving towards the enemy and your main armament is pointed at them already. It is only really problematic if you are advancing without recon and knowledge of the enemy's location. In that regard, the Su-76's lack of armor likely wasn't as big an issue so long as it could hang further back and fire almost indirectly; hence the decision to lighten armor, remove the roof, and add an artillery sight. Contrary to common belief also, tanks and other AFVs actually fired indirectly all the time too; indeed the turreted American destroyers are confirmed to have fired more shots indirectly. Its only really an issue if the Soviets advanced blindly and the Su-76s get ambushed by an undetected enemy... In which case their odds of survival are probably only slightly worse than when a tank gets ambushed. That Su-76 and Soviet tank losses overall were so high is likely more a reflection of this "move forward without proper recon!" mindset more than the actual technical qualities of the vehicles themselves.

Thanks for an interesting video. I wasn't aware that SPGs were that common in WW2. I'm not sure if the British had them & they don't seem to appear in war movies.

Hehe, 14:14, "Documentation is "fishy"". I like the icon used, w40k chainsword! :D

Some people think that Ustanovka means something about emplacement, but it's not. Ustanovka got the parent word of ustanov - part of technological operation executed without re-tooling or dismounting the billet. So the "Ustanovka" means "Technological machine" which performs certain array of tasks without need to be remodeled. This half-factory slang blabber actually runs very deep in Soviet/Russian military. That's why russian weaponry prototypes are called Izdelie (Which essentially means "Hand-crafted thing"), that's why snipers don't hunt, don't kill, just work, that's why you don' "aim" big guns, you "zameryaesh" (Measure) and so on.

The Marder III tank destroyer used captured Soviet 76.2 mm F-22s. So the SU 76M definitely could be used in anti-tank role, suffering the same weaknesses as the Marder III, with one exception. As far as I understand, Germans used captured ammo as well, and would eventually turn into a big problem.

did these type of vehicles have crew heaters? can u do an episode about crew heaters in ww2 since we are talking about some of the coldest weather ever in combat

"Samokhodnaya ustanovka" is short for "smokhodnaya artilleriyskaya ustanovka" which would mean "Self propelled artillery unit" given the context. Abbreviation SAU does exist on its own tho but designated to howitzers and long range artillery as opposed to SU which designated to field artillery.

I liked this video but I think you should use your resources to make the tactical and operational videos about the war. In my opinion you're much better doing that type of videos.

I hope some time you do a video of the rd that came before this. The Su76i. Before all the bugs were ironed out of this Russian TD of which there were plenty, the Russians took captured German Stug tds and made the Su76i. Its a fascinating story. It was beloved by its crews for its excellent automotive qualities, its gun and its wonderful heating system in the winter. It even served in numbers at Kursk. The newer Su76 was a open top arty/Td. It had no such German engineering or creature comforts. It was much cheaper to build and make many of being all Soviet engineering.

I remember this thing from the original red orchestra. great fun bombarding the last cap from out of range of enemy panzerfausts

"What exactly are we building this vehicle to shoot at, comrades?" "That's correct."

“For the sake of clarity, and sanity, the rest of this movie will NOT be in Polish.”

In the Red Army ,the Su-76 SPG had a nickname "голожопый Фердинанд" (the bare-assed Ferdinand) for its general Ferdinand-like appearance and the lack of protection from the rear (and the top).

Love the suit. Just for Visualized right.

Hunh. Didn't know that there was a version they took the top off. .

Best thing to just put behind your lines and just sent to counterbattery. Usually takes care of everything.

Curious, did the Stugs, or STUH 42 have indirect fire system with it? Second question, did the Flak 18, 36, Pak 40, and such have indirect artillery fire capability?

I dunno if you still take comment suggestions, but at least in my opinion I've seen more instances of "heroism" among Soviet, German, and Japanese armies than among U.S and U.K with "heroism" in this case being self sacrifice of extreme kinds namely suicide attacks, the blocking of enemy bunkers with one's own body, and other such acts. Is this just merely a matter of perception, and such incidences were also common in other armies? The prevalence of proper equipment such as mortars or smoke grenades not necessitating the prevalence of such actions in other places?