Premium EU tank destroyers – part III

Part 1:
Part 2:

Hello everyone,

part 1 and 2 of these series deal with the background of the whole situation, so if you are interested, please read them first. This will be the last part… for now anyway. We’ll have a look at the SD-100.



The SD-100 is, simply put, Czechoslovak license-built SU-100. The license rights for it have been acquired in 1951 and the production itself ran from 1953 to 1957. Between 1953 and 1954, the vehicles were produced by ČKD Praha (130 pieces), but after that, the production moved to Slovakia (a partial reason for this – apart from the attemt to fully industrialize Slovakia Soviet-style, was strategic: Slovakia was much further from possible frontlines than Prague) to J.V.Stalin factory in Martin (641 pieces). The production ended in 1957, 771 vehicles were made in total.

460 of these vehicles went straight to the Czechoslovak People’s Army (ČSLA), where they temporarily served as “tanks” on paper, as there has been a shortage of T-34/85 vehicles at that time. The rest went for export. In ČSLA they served until the 60′s, when the army decide to phase them out and sell them to “allied” regimes all around the world. They were only partially successful (lot of those vehicles stayed in the army reserve warehouses for a long time), but some were sold to Morocco and some to Syria and Egypt. Egyptian and Syrian SD-100′s took part in the Suez Crisis (1956), Six Day War (1967) and the Jom Kippur War (1973). The main users and export destinations were:

Bulgaria, Egypt (148 newly made between 1955-1957, further 100 in 1967), Ethiopia, Yemen (50), possibly Cuba, Morocco, Romania, Syria (36 between 1955-1957).


As far as I know, these vehicles were not seriously modified compared to their Soviet counterparts, there was a modern radio station (RM-31T) and different roadwheels.

But that’s just the “stock” SD-100… what about the improvement?



During the meeting between Škoda and ČKD representatives on 13. to 14.12.1950, it was proposed to arm the SD-100 with Czechoslovak-developed experimental 100mm A20 cannon (the picture above is how it might have looked).

The A20 was a 100mm universal cannon, developed in two variants: the A20 anti-tank gun and the R11 anti-aircraft rapid fire gun. The development of this gun started in 1947 and in November 1948, first drawings were made by Škoda Pilsen. The AA version was constructed from the beginning with an autoloader (inspired by the one developed by Germans for their 88mm FlaK guns), capable of 25 rounds per minute (with a 5 shell refillable cartridge).

The gun was supposed to use the same specially developed Czechoslovak ammunition, that would be used for the experimental AK1 tank gun, intended for the TVP tank. This gun was projected to fire a special tracer AP round, capable of penetrating 160mm at 1000m (30 degrees), which – counted in WoT terms – would give it cca 220-230mm penetration. However, there were some delays in development (lafette, targetting systems) and in the 50′s, both the AT and AA versions were cancelled (some of their elements were used to improve the Soviet guns) – prototype was however built and tested. Note that the A20 (unlike the AA version) was later modified to fire the standard Soviet 100mm ammo (for D-10 guns).

R11 (A20) AT gun (the lower numbers in bracket goes for the AT version with shorter barrel)

Caliber: 100mm
Muzzle velocity: 1050 m/s (940 m/s)
Penetration at 1000m (30 deg): 160mm (150mm)
Rate of fire: 25 rounds per minute (both)
Maximum range: 24km (21km)

Anyway, as you can see, the gun could mount an autoloader in both versions. Would it be possible to mount it into the SD-100? The Czech engineers thoughts so (otherwise they wouldn’t have proposed that). Personally, I don’t know. The autoloader mechanism doesn’t seem too big on the photos, but the interior was cramped. I am pretty sure the gun itself could be mounted (with the powerful ammo, having a 220 pen SU-100 could be fun). Perhaps the interior could be modified to handle the autoloading mechanism at the expense of some traverse and elevation/depression.

I will look into this in a bit more in the future.

58 thoughts on “Premium EU tank destroyers – part III

      • But unfornately he is right how much more soviet tanks do we need, soviet has nothing to do with EU, NOTHING its the direct opposite, especially when we see cold war era.

        We have the Soviets we have the Chinese (Soviets 2.0) and now u want even more soviet vehicles, I cannot see that its czech u say it by urself its licensed so now own created tank these recycled tank should only be necessary to fill gaps when no other candidate can be found!

        Even now we have World of T54, just count all the T54 copies and T54 impressions ingame…

        • I’m counting like four; T-54/55 itself, Type 59, WZ-120 and 121. WZ-131 and -132 *might* count being something like “Type 59 lites”, but that’s still not exactly “World of T-54″…
          Hyperbole? Naaaaaaaahhhhhh…

          • That was not the point of my post only the last sentence… the core was that it has nothing to do with EU and its the total opposite.

            But in fact u say it at least 6 vehicles but you can add to them T62A, Obj. 140 both successors of T54, T-34-2, T-34-3, Type 62, maybe 59-16 too as lightweight version/ T54 impression which makes at least 11 max 12 in total.

            T54/55, T-62A, Obj. 140, Type59, Type62, WZ-120, 121, WZ-131, WZ-132, T-34-2, T-34-3, 59-16 -> 11 vehicles plus Type59Gold LoL… 13…

            Hyperbole?! I dont think so… it comes very close to world of T54 in my opinion.

            • Cmon The T-34-1/2/3 are not T-54 copyes, the light tanks ONLY LOOK like T-54 but they havent got any armor or good penetration. Problem closed: Only T54, Type59, 121,WZ120, T62A and Obj 140…this makes them only 6….and i can call the same number Shermans going to be ingame: Jumbo, regular M4, Premium M4A2E4, E8, Firefly and as far as i remember one or two more shermans coming as British or Premium/Lend Lease tank….So what now? World of Shermans? I dont think so! Stop that anti T-54/Anti Soviet/Anti Wargaming/Anti everything crap- if you dont like it, dont play it!

            • I stand corrected on the T-62A and Obj. 140, remembered wrong about their lineage. Otherwise what the guy above said – plus I’d point out the Type 62 is so vanishingly rare in the wild as to be practically irrelevant anyway. And the relevance of the Chinese lights to the question is so-so in the first place given their very different playstyle.

          • But those tanks are only cosmeticly related and perform really diffrently in the game. It’s also not the only example as many tanks are related. There is really no reason to reinvent the wheel every time a new tank is designed, so the layout of tanks are often reused with some scaleingup or down, changed armor, engine or guns. It still makes a new tank as the performance is diffrent. Just consider the Lorraine 40t vs the Tiger II, it’s the same hull design, but it would be difficult to argue against including the Lorraine 40t in the game because we already have the Tiger II.

        • “But unfornately he is right how much more soviet tanks do we need, soviet has nothing to do with EU, NOTHING its the direct opposite, especially when we see cold war era”

          EU as in mixed European tree and not as European Union (Not all European countries are members of European Union…..)

      • What confuses me is why there is a “Premium” in the title? Considering that these are copy-paste tanks so are they unlikely to show up in the game, unless needed to fill out a branch. So they will either be normal tech tree tanks or not present in the game. So why the “Premium”?

        • Because they have a low tier chassis only with stronger gun. Something like the SU-100Y, Dicker Max, PzIV Stflxhgyr … the tier 6 premium. They won’t be balanced TDs at the tier where their chassis would belong but would be fun premium TDs because of the good guns.

    • Boo Hoo we have like 7 FT-17 derived tanks and nobody is whining about that. Not to mention the Japanese line adds another FT-17 and the Euro tree will more then likely add another FT-17. Just deal with it.
      Don’t like the tank? Don’t play it.

  1. What purpose do you see in that AP tracer round? Besides being visible as fuck?
    It could go as improvized incendiary in game, Polish army used smaller tracer calibers that way.

    • Tracers were pretty common in period cannon shells AFAIK, eg. wartime US sources often mention them. I gather the point was to help the gunner observe the “fall of shot” even at long ranges and correct as necessary.
      Also IIRC Japanese tankers found that when shooting at night the muzzle flash tended to kill the gunner’s night vision and basically made it impossible to observe the trajectory properly – but if he closed his eyes upon firing and opened them immediately afterwards this was avoided.

      On the “fortuitious side effect” front since the tracer element was, and AFAIK still usually is where used, basically a lump of burning phosphorous at the base of the shell it gave additional incendiary effect until it burned out…

  2. I really have no interest in any of these euro tanks (or Japanese tanks either). The tank we need is the Chieftain.

    • AFAIK, the Maresal had crew of 2. It would be bit tricky to use it for crew training ;) But yes, romanian TD’s were very interesting.

      • Also, NOT premium tanks but make a branch … leaf whatever, of Romanian TDs. Tier 2-5 maybe but still, to many to make them into premiums.

    • Since there was no Czech Republic nor Slovak Republic during those times (at least acting on their own, disregarding the unfortunate period during the War), all should be designated as Czechoslovak – regardless of the real nationality of the engineers/designers or place of manufacture.

  3. If that thing with 220 penetration manages to get on tier 6 I demand the 8.8cm L/71 for the jagdpanzer IV. That thing is undergunned compared to all other T6 tanks (not even TDs, even some mediums outgun it) while offering nothing to compensate, quite the opposite with its fragile engine and glass armor (which never ever is 80mm front, Pz IV with L/48 can reliably put shots through at long range). And then such a soviet copy is supposed to pop up and have a gun which is even better than that of the Churchill gun carrier, ARL V39 and a normal SU-100, which are the best-armed T6 TDs? Yeah, right.

    • This is more like a t7 or 8 TD if it’s premium. Think 250 dmg x5 with 220 mm pen with a 1.5 sec delay and 30 sec clip reload, it might be fun.

      I wouldn’t expect it to have much in the way of armor or mobillity though.

    • one word: Hellcat
      that is the best tier VI TD
      also, I don’t think this sould be tier VI premium, more like tier VII
      it would still have above average pen in tier 7, but you have IS, Tigers, T29, KV-13, SU-152, Jagdpanther etc …
      so what we are looking at here is SU-100 mobility/armor and upgraded long 8.8cm Jagdpanther gun with similar pen (my guess is be that the AP tracer round would be gold shell and some 180pen as standard ammo – the 122mm guns have normal ammo/gold pen at 175/217; T71′s top gun has 175/220 pen; Dicker Max’s gun has 169/227 pen -> noone is whining about their pen, yet ist’s very similar to what we have here with SD-100/A20)

  4. I realy liked the SU-100 ingame, so this one sounds interesting, but a 220 – 230 pen 25 shots/min autoloader sounds like a ridiculously OP TD, especially for a premium. It has to be balanced with low alpha Dmg en must be tier 7/8 with poor handling i guess. Nice article!

    • Built in Czechoslovakia and with different gun options. Truly horrible. Who wants more diversity here ?
      Let’s stick to 4,5 iconic tanks and that is that.

      P.S. Glad that they weren’t spgs or the shitstorm would have been epic …