Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun

[MacArther]

Dunno if we've already discussed it, but what was both the Allied and Axis verdict on the anti-tank capabilities of the Semovente M 41M da 90/53?

 

[Burmese Bandit]

The quality of a tank lies not only with its armour, engines, and guns...areas which have been well covered by the excellent posters in this thread...but also in a area often neglected: its GUNSIGHTS and RANGEFINDERS.

And here the germans were - no other word for it - fricking excellent.

 

[m kenny]

swallow your national prides guys. The germans were the tank bulder par excellance, and the TD builders par ecxcellance as well. For the allies and the Soviets, this particular part of the war was just all about the numbers. We couldnt match em for quality, not in a month of Sundays

Apart from the lead given by the Tiger and the Panther in late 1942 I see no prior evidence of this superiority. As is well known the whole German tank arm was rendered obsolete in June 1941. In 1944 the IS series put the Russians back in the game. In terms of cost effectiveness the IS was the best tank of WW2.
The only way Germany stood out was in the engineering standards of her late war tanks and this aspect-though much lauded here-proved fatal to her ability to field enough bread and butter designs.
It should be remembered that TD's were in effect ersatz tanks built so as to avoid the complications of a turret. It was a choice dictated by circumstance rather than free will. They were makeshift responses to an inability to field enough tanks. If you have enough tanks you do not need TD's. The Allies only used TD designs so as to get bigger guns into action than could be fitted in a current tank turret.

 

[Kurfürst]

Apart from the lead given by the Tiger and the Panther in late 1942 I see no prior evidence of this superiority.

A good source for that would be 'Changes in the borders of European countries, 1939-1942'.

As is well known the whole German tank arm was rendered obsolete in June 1941.

By what? BTs?
T-26s?
T-40s perhaps?
Highly mobile, well armed and armored T-34s, which's overall fighting potential in practice was reduced to nil by non-existant internal and external communications? Commanded by an overloaded tank-commander/gunlayer, in the extremely cramped turret - shared with a loader who was supposed to load the gun from ammo boxes he was standing on, while running around as the turret traversed as no turret basket was provided - who was supposed to aim to gun AND observing the terrain which latter task he simply could not perform from inside because the utter lack of a commander cupola or any suitable observer devices? Or alternatively, having to expose himself for observation (meanwhile he could not operate the gun), which as an added bonus gave him means to communicate with the rest of his tank platoon via hand signals and flags, provided they were unbuttoned too?

No wonder the hulks of burned out Soviet tanks marked the Wehrmacht's way from the Polish border to Moscow, sharing the same fate as the well-armored, decently gunned and from the command and control view, hopelessly flawed French tanks had received a year before.

In 1944 the IS series put the Russians back in the game. In terms of cost effectiveness the IS was the best tank of WW2.

To me the IS 2 seems to be a rather compromised tank for a special purpose, with some major limitations, namely very limited ammunition, cramped internals and a chassis that was rather outdated already in the KV series, and was never considered reliable. It was crude but sufficiently effective, overall having roughly similar combat potential, fire power and armor as the Panther, without the refined technology - ie. running gear - offered by the latter.

As for its costs, I don't think I have seen evidence that the IS 2 was particularly cost effective - certainly not from you.

The only way Germany stood out was in the engineering standards of her late war tanks and this aspect-though much lauded here-proved fatal to her ability to field enough bread and butter designs.

The German approach - trying to outweight quantity with quality - was a reasonable one, given that Germany could not hope to match the production of its enemies. Say if the Germans would start producing the T-34 or Sherman, they would be still hopelessly outproduced in sheer numbers.

The only sensible approach, followed by the post-war NATO as well, was to try to rely on quality, rather than quantity.

Also a fact needs to be mentioned, the Germans were not particularly lacking in the number of tanks being available, as a matter of fact, like in the case of the aircraft, they never had as many tanks in the war than they had by late 1944, the number fielded constantly increased.

It should be remembered that TD's were in effect ersatz tanks built so as to avoid the complications of a turret. It was a choice dictated by circumstance rather than free will. They were makeshift responses to an inability to field enough tanks. If you have enough tanks you do not need TD's.

It should be noted that all this is rubbish and that the Sturmgeschützen were a pre-war German concept to provide the infantry with direct armored support.

The Allies only used TD designs so as to get bigger guns into action than could be fitted in a current tank turret.

Well, the several thousand of Sherman-chassis based American M 10s etc. mounting the same capacity 76mm gun as the later Shermans seem to argue with that as well. Not to mention Soviet SU 85s, ISU 122s etc.

It is somewhat true to the re-using of the older British tank chassis, but those were generally quite hopeless - see ie. Matildas, various Cruiser designs - when it came to their upgradeability.

 

[m kenny]

By what? BTs?
T-26s?
T-40s perhaps?
Highly mobile, well armed and armored T-34s, which's overall fighting potential in practice was reduced to nil by non-existant internal and external communications? Commanded by an overloaded tank-commander/gunlayer, in the extremely cramped turret - shared with a loader who was supposed to load the gun from ammo boxes he was standing on, while running around as the turret traversed as no turret basket was provided - who was supposed to aim to gun AND observing the terrain which latter task he simply could not perform from inside because the utter lack of a commander cupola or any suitable observer devices? Or alternatively, having to expose himself for observation (meanwhile he could not operate the gun), which as an added bonus gave him means to communicate with the rest of his tank platoon via hand signals and flags, provided they were unbuttoned too?

No wonder the hulks of burned out Soviet tanks marked the Wehrmacht's way from the Polish border to Moscow, sharing the same fate as the well-armored, decently gunned and from the command and control view, hopelessly flawed French tanks had received a year before.

By the same token the trail of blackened and burnt out Panthers,Tigers and Tiger II's littering the landscape from Moscow to Berlin are indicators of the superiority of the German tanks?
The T-34 was a great shock to the Germans. I am sure you aware of the reports filtering back about how the German shot bounced of the new tank. It is all documented and easily available to interested parties.
I presume your T-34 views are culled from that great impartial book 'T-34 Mythical Weapon'?

To me the IS 2 seems to be a rather compromised tank for a special purpose, with some major limitations, namely very limited ammunition, cramped internals and a chassis that was rather outdated already in the KV series, and was never considered reliable. It was crude but sufficiently effective, overall having roughly similar combat potential, fire power and armor as the Panther, without the refined technology - ie. running gear - offered by the latter.

A simple cheap and effective Panther. An example of Soviet ingenuity and ability to concentrate on the essentials.

As for its costs, I don't think I have seen evidence that the IS 2 was particularly cost effective - certainly not from you.

A gun that was big enough to disable (at the very least) anything it hit? To me that is effective

The German approach - trying to outweight quantity with quality - was a reasonable one, given that Germany could not hope to match the production of its enemies. Say if the Germans would start producing the T-34 or Sherman, they would be still hopelessly outproduced in sheer numbers.

There was never any chance that Germany could outproduce her enemies nor any chance she could overcome them with invulnerable monsters. The next stage of her tank designs would have put her deeper in the hole

The only sensible approach, followed by the post-war NATO as well, was to try to rely on quality, rather than quantity.

This was never tested by NATO The Germans attempted it and lost-the overwhelm with numbers approach was tried (in WW2) and it worked.

Also a fact needs to be mentioned, the Germans were not particularly lacking in the number of tanks being available, as a matter of fact, like in the case of the aircraft, they never had as many tanks in the war than they had by late 1944, the number fielded constantly increased.

The German Tank Park in June 1941 was some 5300 vehicles. The assault gun total was around 500. By the middle of 1944 the tank park climbed to 7,500 whilst SP totals rose to 4,200. The summer 1944 tank losses shrank the Tank Park to 1941 levels and it never rose above 6000+ again. Stug figures kept rising until they reached 6500 by the start of 1945. A major advantage the SP had over the tank was its readiness rate. Stug. service rates of 85%+ were the norm when tanks veered between 55-90%. At the end of the war they still had some 4000 tanks in service so I know the numbers. However they never managed to marry up the unsexy support vehicles with the sexy tanks/Stugs. Short answer is too little and too late. The last year of the war gained Germany nothing but utter destruction Smarter Generals would have surrendered in the summer of 1944.

It should be noted that all this is rubbish and that the Sturmgeschützen were a pre-war German concept to provide the infantry with direct armored support.

and this is why Stug. and JgdPz's were issued to tank Abteilung in Panzer Divisions instead of tanks-because they performed better than tanks!
The US attached Tank Battalions to their Infantry Divisions as well as TD's. In some cases US Infantry Divisions had MORE armour than a German Panzer Division. UK practice usualy had a Tank Brigade (Churchills)working with their Infantry. If you have enough tanks you do not have to rely on TD's/SP's

Well, the several thousand of Sherman-chassis based American M 10s etc. mounting the same capacity 76mm gun as the later Shermans seem to argue with that as well. Not to mention Soviet SU 85s, ISU 122s etc.

The M10/36/18 TD's were turreted vehicles (and thus not 'cheap' fixed gun types like German SP's)and made so as to be llightly armoured tanks with bigger guns. SU's were again larger gunned vehicles (for their time) than the T34's/KV's/IS tanks they were basesd on. In no case where they substitute for a tank. Stugs were used in place of tanks in Panzer Divisions.

It is somewhat true to the re-using of the older British tank chassis, but those were generally quite hopeless - see ie. Matildas, various Cruiser designs - when it came to their upgradeability.

UK SP's were usualy used for 25pdr tubes. The only other Sp's were for the 17pdr gun when Sherman hulls were in short supply. A second best option -like all the German SP's

 

[Soren]

As is well known the whole German tank arm was rendered obsolete in June 1941.

Oh my god, you're just a complete joke M_kenny.

Anyway, you have given people here a thurough demonstration of your truly biased and fairytale imagination, and I frankly find it hard to believe that any intelligent person would listen to you again after that post.

 

[tomo pauk]

JagdPanther was the best SP AT gun, the shortcoming being low production numbers (circa 730?).
Best for general purpose were SU/ISU-152 vehicles, since those could be used against anything encountered on the battlefield. Shortcomings: crude finishing, low ammo count.
If one wants numbers, then SU-85 later the -100 is the answer. Further down scale were the StuG-III vehicles, and I've read that russkies were afraid to attack those with tanks.

 

[Yozimbo]

My vote will have to go to the JagdPanther.... (Typhoons and Ju-87G aside )

 

[imalko]

The jagdpanther, no question about it. More agile than the Jagdtiger and more deadly than a Tiger 1.

Couldnt agree more. Jagdpanther was the best tank destroyer of WW2, its only shortcomming is that it wasn't available in greater numbers.

 

[parsifal]

The panther derivative was also much cheaper to build. All of which makes it difficult to understand why only 430 were produced during the war

 

[MacArther]

The panther derivative was also much cheaper to build. All of which makes it difficult to understand why only 430 were produced during the war

From the various books I've read, it would seem that the reason for the low production count was because the Western Allies were focusing a good portion of bombing and fighter bombing missions to taking out the Jadgpanther's production sites.

 

[Mobius]

Glen, you are still clueless about which you talk. You're a gamer, I had that figured out from the start.

First of all your criteria citings are completely wrong.

These are the true criterias used by each country:

German test criteria
2/3rds (66 %) of the projectiles fired must penetrate the plate completely, ei. 100% of the projectile.

German test data actually required that the best quality round penetrate the plate five times in a row in a condition where the HE was capable of detonating properly. When you see that the Tiger 88mm Pzgr 39 penetrates 120mm at 30 degrees and 100m, that means that the best quality 88mm ammo penetrates 120mm/30 degree five times in a row at the velocity associated with 100m within a velocity of 10m/sec.

"The effect of the projectile inside the tank and the probability of hitting the target are not considered in these graphical charts;thus only the COMPLETE PENETRATION WITH THE TOTAL EFFECT INSIDE THE TANK IS CONSIDERED. As a rule, this effect is of annihilating power when using armor-piercing shells with a high-explosive charge. When using hard core projectiles, steel or soft iron core projectiles, or hollow charge projectiles, completely annihilating effect cannot always be expected with a single shot, because the crew, located in the dead space of the tank, cannot be hit under certain conditions. A LIMITED EFFECT, WITHOUT PIERCING THE TANK BY THE PROJECTILE (effect produced by back-spalling of armor plate and punching holes (Stanzpfropfen) is frequently achieved with plates that are 10% thicker than the thickness presented in the graphs."

This usually is considered to be 80% criteria.

Glen, you are still clueless about which you talk.
British test cirteria
50% of the projectiles fired must completely penetrate the plate, ei. 100% of the projectile.

British Criteria seems to be 80% too.

 

[Mobius]

Again quit posting bullsh*t Glen.

At Aberdeen the penetration performance of the 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 against vertical 240 BHN RHA armor at 100m was as follows:

8.8cm KwK36: 162mm
8.8cm KwK43: 232mm

Is this Aberdeen data from documents you obtained from Aberdeen or from a book that quotes it being from Aberdeen? I'm just curious as to why Aberdeen posted tabular data in meter ranges in the 1940s while all other original documents I have are in yards. But there is one book that seems to have mixed up yards for meters for Aberdeen German gun data.

 

[PJay]

I must admit I haven't read all the posts.
How about the Brit Archer? 17 pdr gun and it can retreat in a hurry. Served post-war for a while.

 

[Juha]

Hello PJay
Archer is one of my favourites. Not that it was the best, but it was so British. It had good points. It was compact with very heavy punch, 17 pdr was a very effective A/T gun, as you pointed out the rearward pointing gun had its merits. The rearward pointing gun also made it difficult to misuse the vehicle. Many TDs had the problem that because they had tracks and gun, infantry officers often thought that they could be used like tanks.
Bad point was that it was too compact, driver could not be on his seat when the gun was fired, otherwise he would loose his head, that was a tactical handicap.

Some 655 was made and used in NWE, but IIRC units prefer Achilles (M10 regunned with 17 pdr) but Archer wasn't a bad A/T vehicle.

Juha

 

[Soren]

The German criteria demanded that atleast 2/3rds (66.6%) of the same type of rounds fired at the target had to completely penetrate the plate in order for it to be considered as the mean penetration performance for that type of projectile at said range. By comparison US criteria only demanded that 50% were partial penetrations while the British demanded that only 50% of the rounds fired had to penetrate completely.

The Soviets demanded 2/3rds of the rounds to penetrate the plate, but wether it was completely or just partially is unlcear, and the fact that the Soviet couldn't manufacture good quality steel also had an impact on the results.

As for the Aberdeen results, they were all converted into results by meter range, which is easily done if you got the penetration performance of the round at 4 different ranges with 500m intervals.

 

[vinnye]

Elefant!
Though relatively small numbers were produced and it was not perfect mechanically / reliability speaking. On a flatish landscape you would not want to be within 2000m in any other vehicle.

 

[Soren]

Then why not pick the JagdPanther vinnye? It had the same gun and better mobility.

If you're only thinking about the armour then the JagdTiger is even better, plus it's armed with the gigantic 12.8cm L/55 Pak44.

 

[vinnye]

Yes it had better armour and a bigger gun - but didn't that made the JagdTiger even heavier and could not carry a large ammunition load.?
I believe that the engines/ transmissions on the Tiger and other German heavy armour were not powerful enough or reliable.
The Ferdinand and laterly Elefant was a compromise using the hulls already made for the heavy tank trials and as such became a very potent weapon. They could take out even the heavy JS1 tanks at long ranges - whilst being impervious (nearly) to counter fire unless at suicidal ranges!.
The Elefant (- even though limited in number) acquited itself quite well on the Eastern front - where its weakness in not having a machinegun to protect itself from Russian troops with sticky bombs became apparent. The Russians also recognised the Ferdinand as a high value asset for the Wehrmact and as such made it a prime target for destruction.

The JagdPanther and Hetzer were very effective tank killers - but the Ferdinand / Elefant was a bit special!

I did also see some tests done by the Russians and they were not that impressed with the quality of steel armour and build quality on the latter KonigsTiger etc. They commented that it was inferior to that of the Panther and Tigers produced earlier. This may be propoganda or the result of the attrition on German infra structure and armaments production due to Allied bombing?

 

[Soren]

But the Elefant's reliability record wasn't too good either vinnye, hence why I mentioned the JagdTiger. Given regular maintenance the JagdTiger Elefant would've been just as reliable. The problem plagueing all German tanks in the 1944 to 1945 period was the lack of regular maintenance; The reliability of a tank such as the Pz.IV, which had served admirably for the previous 4-5 years and proved very reliable, did from 1944 onwards suddenly drop to a truly appauling level no better than that of the heavy tank battalions. And this because spare parts oil were getting scarse and the amount of time between maintenance sharply increased. This affected all German tanks.

People who don't know this continue to claim that the German heavy tanks such as the KingTiger were unreliable without any evidence what'so'ever to back it up. In reality these tanks weren't unreliable at all, they simply suffered from the lack of spare parts oil which started to affect the German army from 1944 onwards.

It is true that the final drive on the Tiger Ausf.B wasn't fully suited for a vehicle of such weight, but it wasn't so bad that it couldn't easily be worked around by simply having an experienced and well educated driver behind the controls. Unknown to many is that fact that the Tiger Ausf.B was infact a very mobile tank, esp. for its size bulk. It was capable of negotiating larger obstacles and steeper gradients than most Allied Axis tanks, including the Sherman tank. And as long as it recieved regular maintenance and was commandeered by a trained driver, the Tiger Ausf.B was a reliable tank. And the same goes for the JagdTiger.

But to get back to the selection you made, you would be much better of with a TD like the JagdPanther by comparison to the Elefant. And the frontal armour of the JagdPanther was also heavy enough to ensure that any enemy would have to close to suicide range before having a chance to punch a hole in it. On top of this the JagdPanther featured much better mobility than the Elefant, and better protection against infantry as-well as better reliability.