Talk:SU-122

I would like to propose that the SU-100, SU-85 and SU-122 be merged into a single article. The vehicles are basically the same differing guns. Oberiko 15:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This image is grossly incorrect for the SU-122. It is quite obviously an SU-85. The name of the image even calls it an SU-85. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.91.69 (talk • contribs)

Whoever named the file misidentified the vehicle. Click on the big picture and have a close look—the gun barrel is no more than two metres long. The SU-85's gun is much longer. —Michael Z. 2005-11-30 04:04 Z

Whoever made the image photoshopped it. Look at the mantlet, it is clearly the ball shaped mantlet of the Su-85. The Su-122's gun mantlet was brick shaped. Look: http://www.2iemeguerre.com/blindes/images/su122_PHOTO.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by USMA2010 (talk • contribs)

Like many other things on Soviet AFVs, I think the new mantlets were phased in, and possibly retrofitted to older vehicles during repair or refurbishment. I think I may be able to find a specific reference for the SU-122's mantlet; stay tuned. —Michael Z. 2006-02-08 19:02 Z

Zaloga (1984), p. 160–61 has pictures of SU-122s with both mantlet styles, including the caption for photo 233: "Late production batches of the SU-122 used the same ball socket mantlet of the SU-85." —Michael Z. 2006-02-08 20:22 Z

"Whoever made the image photoshopped it"—please assume just a bit of good faith before making unfounded accusations. —Michael Z. 2006-02-08 20:31 Z

Here is my rather solid proof:

http://wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tank_destroyers/su85/su_85_01.jpg

Su-85, exact same image. Note the long barrel, not to mention the fact that the cannon shown in ::the current image is both too long and too narrow to be based on the 122mm M-30 series. Compare ::that to what we can all identify to the Su-122 III.

http://www.weapon.df.ru/tanks/sovsau/medium/su122m.jpg --USMA2010

It's not photoshopped, it's just such a contrasty, over-jpegged scan that the white weather-cap on the muzzle completely disappears. But I think you are correct that it is an SU-85.

It is interesting what a difference a few degrees of angle makes in the apparent length of the gun, e.g. photos #2 and #3 at wwiivehicles.com. Also note the minor differences in the mantlet of the 122M and 122-3 at weapon.df.ru; I think the M was only a prototype; only the 122-3, with mantlet resembling an SU-85's, was built. —Michael Z. 2006-02-08 21:18 Z

The weather cap was a possibility that I considered at first, but then I noticed the next AFV down the line, definatly a Su-85. Its barrel was uncapped, so I didn't really think that one would have it on and the other wouldn't. When I found the exact same picture upon doing a Google image search for "Su-85 1944" I became suspicious.

Thanks to whoever removed the image. I'm still fairly new to the whole Wikipedia editing experience, so I still need some practice before I can go off and do anything like that. Now, seeing as how the majority of Su-122 examples did in fact have the boxier style mantlet, I think it would be best if the next image to be displayed is an earlier production example. ---USMA2010

That was me. Feel free to edit whatever way you judge to be appropriate, but it's always a good idea to explain why you are doing something in the edit summary. If you are changing something that seems well established, it can be a good idea to leave a note in discussion first, but don't worry about making mistakes—they can be corrected or reverted.

It would be good to have photos of both types to explain the variation, but unfortunately there don't seem to be any scans of SU-122s on Wikipedia or the commons at all. —Michael Z. 2006-02-09 04:35 Z

Wrong image

There was a wrong image, added by Megapixie. SU-100 SPG is pictured on it. I replaced it by correct image of SU-122. LostArtilleryman 05:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

SU-122 Variants

There are some incorrect facts in this section. According to my native Russian AFV experts book A.G.Solyankin et al. "Soviet medium self-propelled guns 1941-1945", there were four subvariants of SU-122:

• Prototype of SU-122 (or U-35 vehicle) - upper front armour from two plates under different angles, uncomfortable gun mount
• Series SU-122 - single front armour plate, improved gun mounting. During production period there were some minor variations (number of ventilators, crew downsized from 6 to 5 men)
• Prototype SU-122M with D-11 howitzer in ball mounting
• Prototype SU-122-III with D-6 howitzer

There was not any SU-122s on the SU-100 base - it is quite obvious confuse with SU-85M variant. LostArtilleryman 05:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikip article length & writing style

This article does not need to begin with the story of why tanks were invented or the Red Army's experiments with SPGs in the 1920s....nor should it invent new terms like "SPH". A link to History of the tank will do that quite well.

This is what the web is about - give the content that is relevant to the immediate subject and use links for anything that might be supplemental or related. A user who wants info on some of this background stuff should be offered the chance to easily get to it - but should not be forced to wade through peripheral material and run-on sentences.

If an article on Red Army self-propelled artillery of the 1920s and 30s is needed, great, let's write it. But not here.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If the material also exists in the SU-57-2 article that is all the more reason to not re-create teh same error here. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please show me the article that has this information. Just show it to me. Nothing? So lets keep it here until such an article will be created.

SPH stands for Self-Propelled Howitzer. See SPH if you don't believe me.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You are getting precisely the same feedback from other editors on other articles. if you see the need for a separate article on this important content, create it. It doesn't belong here. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources

English-language sources on this vehicle are plentiful. In accordance with wikipedia policy please use those unless nothing else is available. DMorpheus (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We're using model kit instructions as encyclopedia sources now? DMorpheus (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please guard against copyright violations

Please do not quote from sources unless the text is shown in quotes and credited. Cut-and-paste from other sources is a no-no. Thanks. DMorpheus (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Examples:

1. http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=50: “In April 1942, the GAU ordered several design bureaus to develop an assault guns with 122 mm armament or even greater. “

SU-122 article: “GAU ordered several design bureaus to develop an assault gun armed with 122 mm gun or even greater.”

2. http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=50 Battlefield.ru: "The crew of five men was placed as follows: driver's station at the left front hull, gunner's station at the left behind the driver, commander's station was at the right front and the two loaders (the M-30 loaded separately) were behind the howitzer's breech."

SU-122 article: "The five crew members were stationed as follows: driver on the left hand side of the front of the hull, gunner behind the driver, commander on the right hand side of the front of the hull and two loaders (the M-30S was loaded separately) behind the howitzer's breech."

3. http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=50 Battlefield.ru: "It was based on the new concept of total unification of basic elements and parts of Soviet tanks. "

SU-122 article: "It was based on the new concept of total unification of basic elements and parts of Soviet tanks."

4. http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=50 Battlefield.ru: "This is a quotation from the original report written by Major Gomille, commander of the III.(Tiger) Abteilung/Panzer Regiment (Panzer-Division Grossdeutschland):

"...Hauptmann von Villerbois, commander of the 10.Kompanie, was severely wounded during this action. His Tiger was hit eight times by 12.2 cm shells from the assault guns on T-34 chassis. One hit penetrated the hull side. The turret was hit six times, three of which resulted only in small dents, while two hits caused fractures and small pieces to break off. The six hit broke out a large piece (about two hand widths) from the turret armor that flew into the fighting compartment. The entire electrical firing circuit for the main gun was knocked out by the hits and several vision blocks were destroyed or broke out of the weak holders. The weld seam on the hull was sprung open for about 50 cm from the location of the penetration, so that it wasn't possible for the Werkstatt-Kompanie (maintenance company - Valeri Potapov) to repair it".

SU-122 article: "According to a report from 31 August 1943 written by Major Gomille, commander of the III.(Tiger) Abteilung/Panzer Regiment (Panzer-Division Grossdeutschland), a Tiger that belonged to Hauptmann von Villerbois, commander of the 10th Company (who was severely wounded as a result of this attack) was hit eight times by 122 mm shells fired from assault guns based on the T-34 chassis. One shell penetrated the Tiger's side armour while six shells hit the turret. Three of them made small dents in the armour and two of them caused fractures and small pieces to break off. The last shell to hit the turret caused a big piece to break off (about two hand widths) which flew into the fighting compartment.

The attack knocked out the entire electrical firing circuit for the main gun and destroyed several vision blocks or broke them out of the weak holders. The weld seam on the hull was sprung open for about 50 cm from the location of the penetration, so it wasn't possible for the Werkstatt-Kompanie (maintenance company) to repair it.[1]"

DMorpheus (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a rewritten version:

On 31 August 1943 Major Gomille, commander of the III.(Tiger) Abteilung/Panzer Regiment (Panzer-Division Grossdeutschland) filed a report according to which, a Tiger commanded by Hauptmann von Villerbois, commander of the 10th Company received eight hits from assault guns armed with 122 mm howitzers based on the T-34 chassis. One of the said shells managed to penetrate the Tiger's side armour. The six other shells managed to hit the turret. The following damages were done to the turret: Three shells made small dents and two shells caused small pieces to fall off. The sixth shells made a bigger fragment fall off (it was about two hand widths big). It flew into the fighting compartment most probably causing injures among the crew members.

As a result of this attack the following happened: entire electrical firing circuit of the main gun was knocked out, several vision blocks were either destroyed or broken off and Hauptmann von Villerbois was severely wounded. The shells that hit the hull caused the weld seam to sprung open for about 50 cm from where the shell penetrated the armour, therefore the Werkstatt-Kompanie (maintenance company) wasn't able to repair it.

Is this ok or do you still see a problem with it? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is merely my opinion, not wikipedia policy, but I think the new version is both an example of poor writing and thinly-disguised plagiarism. So it doesn't fundamentally address the problem. But let's let an administrator or other editors decide because I am not neutral. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Look all you do is say things like "this is a copyright violation" and "this is an example of poor writing". If that's the case than why won't you try to help. It seems as if you're spending more time on letting the world know about the copyright violation than actually helping the article get rid of it. It's just my opinion. Regards - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I tagged the article is to invite others into this conversation. I don't feel I can be objective because I have edited behind you so frequently. I would not have taken the step of tagging the article if this was your first time skirting up against the copyright issue, but it isn't. An administrator will be much more skilled at this stuff than I am. DMorpheus (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So you want me banned? Because basically that's the theme that I sense from you each time we meet. I don't know why you hold such a grudge against me, is it only because of me sometimes taking shortcuts in my additions to Wikipedia (coping the text from sources instead of rewriting it) or because you hate me in general. Anyway all I want to do is improve Wikipedia and I admit that, as I said already, I've taken a few shortcuts a few times when adding information from an English source but if it is really such a big of a deal that you have stop all works on an article just for an admin to get here and restart those works than I'll make sure to rewrite everything I add from English sourced from now on. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Also I would like to know why you tagged the entire article (except for the infobox) as copyright violation? I thought that only that one paragraph in Service history section was a copyright violation. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I did not received an answer for two days during which user DMorpheus was active as shown by his talk page I decided to move the Copyviocore template to the specific paragraph a dispute is here about. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to wait and see what an administrator's guidance on this may be. DMorpheus (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a fifth example:

From the cited source: http://www.jedsite.info/tanks-tango/tango-numbers-su/t-34_series/su122/su122-intro.html

"They first saw combat on the Volchov Front in the winter of 1942-1943, and it took part in the Battle at Kursk. It proved to be effective as an assault gun, delivering direct fire during attacks on strongpoints. However the guns armour penetration was less than expected and therefore a HEAT projectile was developed, but it was only accurate at short ranges and its penetration was still disapointing."

From the article: "The SU-122 did reasonably well in combat against the Wehrmacht, although the HEAT round for its gun didn't perform up to expectations. The SU-122 proved effective in direct fire on strongholds. The armour penetration value of the 122 mm howitzer was less than expected, so the new BP-460A HEAT projectile was developed and used from May 1943. However, this also didn't perform up to expectations as it was only accurate at short ranges and its penetration was still disappointing.[1][5]"

Not verbatim but awfully close. DMorpheus (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The part about doing "reasonably well in combat against the Wehrmacht" was here before I even touched the article. I also believe that it can't be considered as copyright violation because it is not exactly the same. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I rewrote the sentence so it no longer infringes on copyright (not that it did before). Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about you, it's about the article. I haven't taken the time to see who inserted that paragraph. It doesn't matter that much; the point is for any editor who is copying content to stop doing it. As for whether it's a violation, an administrator can decide. When I see text copied almost verbatim from another source I tend to get cautious, especially since I can recall older versions that were even closer to a cut-and-paste job. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

←Thank you for locating this issue. I have revised infringing or derivative text that I have identified at the identified source at [1]. If there are additional infringements remaining from other sources, please note these or re-tag the article and relist it at the copyright problems board. I have some concerns that the source in question, battlefield.ru, though evidently an impressive site, may constitute a "self published source". I note that the referenced page offers no clarification on where it draws its information. The article would likely be improved by the location of better sources to substantiate this information. I have tagged it {{self-published}} accordingly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Soviet tank production

Soviet tank and AFV production never stopped in 1941-42 and not every factory moved (STZ for example did not move, and not all of the Kirov plant moved). This is another example of content that, if referenced properly, belongs in another article, not the SU-122 article. Perhaps soviet tank production article? Not here, because the issue is not unique to or owned by the SU-122. DMorpheus (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It is related to SU-122 because after some of the factories finished moving east it became possible to again start working on SPGs. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that your original research or do you have a source on that? Is it relevant to this article or more to Soviet AFVs in general? DMorpheus (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for subdividing this article.

This page is filling up and is in danger of getting too long.

I suggest creating a new article called "Development of the Soviet Self-Propelled Howitzer in World War 2" and moving much of the information here to that.

Any objections?--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A part about early SPG development in Soviet Union was already deleted. All the information here directly concerns the SU-122. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem--I won't, then.  :)-S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not so, the original suggestion is quite a good one. There is a lot here in this article that more properly belongs elsewhere. DMorpheus (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You already deleted a part that had a small relevance to SU-122. Isn't that enough for you? Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Service history

I deleted the uncited, unsourced claim that any SU-122s entered Wehrmacht service. There is no source to back this at present. Two sources previously cited include one low-quality self-published site, and one with a photo of a single vehicle. This SU-122 is unquestionably in German hands; whether it is in operational service is a different matter. There is no way to tell. Although I suspect it is under evaluation, my suspicion is no more a credible source than any other speculation. Therefore, all we can say is that the Germans captured at least one SU-122. What they did with it, we don't know. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I just did a quick re-write to address some of the tagging concerns raised over the last couple months. I eliminated all self-published references and references to plastic model kit instructions. I did an extensive copyedit. I shortened what I felt was undue weight given to prototypes and variants that never reached production (some of which was duplicative anyway). I took out some content that is questionable in terms of copyright. I slightly reorganized the article so that all variants are in a single section. I think the article still needs some better referencing but it is hopefully in better shape than it was. DMorpheus (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never done this before, looking for a little help. The close range commentary about the effectiveness of the HE round for the 122mm gun violates the basic principles of how HE penetration works, versus AP shot. I've rewritten this, along with a link to a US Army publication at the University of Nebraska with copies of Soviet provided information on the Mean Variance on this SU-122. Please note the vehicle involved is not clear, however a 122mm armed SP gun in 1943 must be the SU-122 as there is no other vehicle in production at that time. My cite format is terrible, and one of the two cites didn't copy on the main article. I was editing the last full paragraph of the "Service Hitory" secton. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164&context=usarmyresearch

Soviet table are different than other countries tables in what numbers they use reference 50% dispersion values and means. A very good web-published page on how to compare these tables is my second reference. Again, this is a simple understanding of statistics and math, and I included the cite so people can explore the issue by someone who has already written an excellent exposition. http://www.panzer-war.com/page34.html

Shawnmmcc (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking through the article, I came across this comment and have a couple of questions:

Trials ran from 30 November to 19 December 1942, and uncovered various faults in the design, including insufficient elevation, a flawed shell transfer mechanism, poor ventilation for the crew compartment, and the fact that the commander had to assist in operating the gun, which made him unable to successfully carry out his other duties.

First of all, did the commander have to give ALL his attention to this at the expense of his other duties or was this merely a distraction which he didn't need in combat? Secondly, was this aspect one of the things which was fixed with the re-design of the fighting compartment? Flanker235 (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

German SU-122

I just happened to be flipping through Zaloga 1984, and my eyes lit on one of the photos of an SU-122 with German markings. FYI: Zaloga's caption reads in part “This particular SU-122 was captured by the Germans and sent to Prague for trials.” Page 160, in case it's needed for a reference. —Michael Z. 2008-08-27 00:13 z

I thought that photo might be the BMM plant in Prague where the Hetzer was built...but with all the unsourced stuff in the article at the time I didn't think it was a good idea to add yet more speculation. DMorpheus (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)