Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

I didn't know Russia was part of Asia...

Are you serious?

[plan_D]

I'm confused now, but Russia is Eurasian it's one of only two countries that are (the other is Turkey). The map of Europe is simply a line drawn around the Medieval civilisations which ended at tribe Rus in and Constantinople in the east, and Sciliy and Gibraltar in the south. Russia is Eurasian because it expanded eastward past the European line, and Turkey is Eurasian because it took Constantinople in the 15th Century - Istanbul.

But, anyway, I'd prefer 100 T-34-85s in open ground but it is a hard decision. Any mention of T-34-76s and I'm going for Tigers.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Are you serious?

Yes I am Adler.

Image:LocationAsia.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Soren]

But, anyway, I'd prefer 100 T-34-85s in open ground but it is a hard decision. Any mention of T-34-76s and I'm going for Tigers.

If the engagement starts at any distance past 1,500m then I'm going for the Tigers and Panthers, and thats regardless of wether its against T-34/76's or T-34/85's. The T-34/85 couldn't lay down accurate fire past 800m and wasn't deadly for the Tiger & Panther past that range either.

[plan_D]

That map shows Russia in Asia, Soren...

There's European Russia and Asian Russia - but it's all Russia. I've had this discussion countless amount of times. I did have an outstanding website the describe the political and geographical positions of countries inside continents, but I lost it.

You make a good point on the tank discussion, Soren, but the problem is the T-34s are racing toward you - and you've got to be able to count on the crews of the Tigers [or Panthers] to be reloading quick enough to knock all ten out in front of them before receiving destructive hits themselves. As I say, it's a hard decision and in reality the Panther did achieve (if I remember correctly) a 9:1 kill ratio against the T-34.

[Soren]

The way I see it the map shows that by far most of Russia is within Eastern Europe. (Or atleast the most civilized Russia)

Well I've always considered Russia to be Eastern European and not Asian, besides the Germans only fought in Eastern Europe, they never fought in Asia.

[plan_D]

Most people do simply consider Russia as European, but it's not, it's Eurasian - politically it's European, but geographically it's Eurasian.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

Yes I am Adler.

Image:LocationAsia.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read pD's post above yours. And if you dont wish to believe him:

"Russia is a transcontinental country extending over much of northern Eurasia (Europe and Asia)."

"Russia is a country located in Europe and in North Asia."

"The Russian steppe has long been depicted as the typical Russian landscape. It is a broad band of treeless, grassy plains, interrupted by mountain ranges, extending from Hungary across Ukraine, southern Russia, and Kazakhstan before ending in Manchuria."

The Ural Mountains are the most famous of the country's mountain ranges because they form the natural boundary between Europe and Asia; the range extends about 2,100 kilometers from the Arctic Ocean to the northern border of Kazakhstan."

Geography of Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Soren]

Adler,

Thats all fine, but the Germans didn't fight in Asia, they fought in Europe. There wasn't any fighting over the Asian steppes between the Germans and Russians.

PS: I can't see where I ever wrote that I didn't believe Plan_D on the fact that Russia is infact Eurasian. Like I said I myself always considered Russia to be Eastern European and not Asian, that might be because thats where the Germans fought the Russians, in Eastern Europe. I never gave it much thought.

[plan_D]

Alright, if it was on the Pontic steppes I would choose the T-34-85s... it's pretty much the same landscape as the Asian steppes.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by plan_D

Alright, if it was on the Pontic steppes I would choose the T-34-85s... it's pretty much the same landscape as the Asian steppes.

Dont worry I understood you the first time....
It was quite clear actually. Oh and I also agree with you.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by plan_D

You make a good point on the tank discussion, Soren, but the problem is the T-34s are racing toward you - and you've got to be able to count on the crews of the Tigers [or Panthers] to be reloading quick enough to knock all ten out in front of them before receiving destructive hits themselves.

Very true Plan_D, that is also why I said any distance past 1,500m, as it wouldn't take the T-34's starting at 1,000m long to reach 800m from which they could start firing on the Panthers & Tigers. At 1,500m the Tigers & Panther would have time to knock out many T-34's before they could reach effective firing range. The Tiger & Panther did afterall feature a near 100% first hit ratio at 1,500m.

As I say, it's a hard decision and in reality the Panther did achieve (if I remember correctly) a 9:1 kill ratio against the T-34.

Yes, but this ratio was even higher during battles which took place over long and open stretches of landscape.

[Civettone]

But the original discussion was about Panthers with Russian crews. I don't see those destroying the SU's in time.

Plus, the Panther is quite weak on the sides. German crews would know how to exploit this as they were experts in manoeuvring...

Kris

[WARSPITER]

civettone- re your question about better crews in lesser tanks - the references I have seen to this are usually in passing and mostly in books. It's almost as if someone came up with it and everyone else just adds it in as a matter of course. It is usually found in overviews or books on campaigns - generally in the form " the allies were fortunate in some ways due to the German practice of putting more experienced crews in older model tanks such as the Panzer IV ". This is what you see on occasion. I know it can't be true of the heavy AFV units as the best crews were put in these and I have never seen anything to qualify the argument. I hope it doesn't become one of those accepted myths just because people keep saying it.

I am also glad to see my question about German and Russian crews in opposing vehicles has sparked such a spirited debate on the geographic features and intercontinental line crossings of the Soviet Union.

[Ramirezzz]

Originally Posted by Soren

I'd feel bloody unsafe in a SU-100 against the German Panzers, even if we outnumbered them 5 to 1, and if it was over flat terrain I'd scatter from the tank emmdiately. The SU-100 was dead meat at long range against the German medium and heavy tanks, the poor optics of the SU-100 only being sufficient up to 800m.

Actually the optics on the 100 was not poor at all, it was better than optics of the SU-85 and far more better than the of the T-34 with its dull triplex glass. It was good enough to hit a moving target at the distances up to 1500 m.
But Jagdpanter had some other advantages over 100: the PzGr 39/43 round gave the Jagpanther a slightly better AP power over long distances, and it carried also more ammuniton.
However, this factor can be count out : even for Jagpanther it would be very difficult to hit a moving low silluette target like Su-100 on the distance more than 1500m.

If a long range engagement was initiated between the two tanks the JagdPanther would singlehandedly take out many of the SU-100's
before having to withdraw to avoid being outflanked, and this is what happened frequently on the Eastern front

Su-100s found only a limited use in combat so I highly doubt that Jagdpanther and Su-100 had much opportunities to meat each other in engagement.

Originally Posted by Soren

The T-34 was more likely the best tank-fodder ever made

well, tell that veterans of the T-III or T-IVC/D tank crews in Russia in 1941/42 - they certainly won't share your sense of humour on that point.