Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun

[Juha]

This is bit silly but anyway
Ack-Ack means AA generally
2) Allied pilots usually thought that heavy German AA fire originated from Flak 36s and many times told being fired at by 88mm AA etc.
3) good that you changed ALWAYS to almost always I doubt that you have read all the reports and besides British were many times aware that they fought against 88mm AA guns crewed by LW troops.
4) IMHO after all it doesn't matter what Allied called them. I'm so oldfashioned that IMHO if a PzIV stopped an enemy advance or was knocked out it was a PzIV even if GIs, Tommies or Ivans claimed that they were stopped by or have knocked out a Tiger. Maybe you have accepted one of those post-modern philosophies and think that if Soviet claimed to have knocked out 5 Elephants (most of the Elephants Soviet claimed to have knocked out were in reality StuG IIIs) so they got at least some Elephants but IMHO if they were StuG IIIs they were StuG IIIs no matter what Soviets say.

I know at least one book wrote by Ian V. Hogg but haven't met him. So would you then be nice and give the percentage of Flak36s equipping Heer's AT units vs those used by LW and KM units, please. And would you be so nice and give also the title of the book and the page(s).

Juha

[glen]

One of my friends has the proof that there was no Flak18 L56 88mm unit at the time when Jumbo was knocked out in the battlefields.

[Soren]

Juha,

No percentages are ever given in any of the books I have, mainly as such is irrelevant as both the LW groundforces & Wehrmacht were working closely together on both fronts. You can read about this in Ian V. Hogg's book: "German Artillery of World War Two".

The 88mm Flak 18/36 was used extensively as an AT gun on all fronts, laying waste to huge amounts of Allied tanks & vehicles. Another role in which the Flak 18/36 operated extensively was that of field artillery, bombarding Allied infantry with coordinants given on by forward observation posts. This was esp. frequent through France, Belgium & Holland.

Glen,

I know you're just spewing out another lie but by all means lets see that supposed evidence your friend has.

Fact is that Jumbo was hit by a Flak 18/36 AT gun, I've seen the picture before and so I know this.

Besides if you look at the picture its in a Urban area and was engaged at rather close range, and considering that a AP projectile from a PaK43 would've cut right through both sides of the turret at 2,000m it clearly couldn't have been such a gun.

At Aberdeen the 88mm KwK43 L/71 was after-all capable of penetrating the same amount of armor as that of the M4A3E2's frontal turret at beyond 3km.

So just use your logic.

[Juha]

Soren
thanks for the title, probably the book I looked at the library of our War Academy in 70s, or maybe the book was on artillery of WWII, after all a read parts of it some 27-35 years ago

"Another role in which the Flak 18/36 operated extensively was that of field artillery, bombarding Allied infantry with coordinants given on by forward observation posts. This was esp. frequent through France, Belgium & Holland."

Thats well known, have seen much of film on that and that was nothing extraordinary, also US 90mm and British 3,7" AA guns were often used that way in NW Europe. Also British tankers often mentioned 88 airbursts, especially tank commanders hated it. As you see at least British tankers understood what the 88s were.

Juha

[MacArther]

Wait, wasn't the 88mm 18/36 the one that was low to the ground, had a larger powder charge, and was optimized for the AA role more than anything? Or am I thinking of a different variant?

[Soren]

You're thinking of the FlaK 41.

[ralphwiggum]

I know that the Su-152 had a HUGE gun and was nicknamed "Animal Killer" But was it a good tank destroyer? I'm kind've skeptical about it because I know so little about it

[plan_D]

When it managed to hit its opponents then it would do some serious damage but the Su-152 was not a tank destroyer - it was a self-propelled gun; an artillery piece on tracks. Because of that the round was low velocity and it's armour was relatively weak. The ISU-152 was an improvement when facing enemy armour but the fact always remained that it wasn't built for taking on enemy tanks.

[Soren]

The low velocity howitzer it featured was also a really poor armament for taking out tanks at anything but close ranges.

[Juha]

Hello
I would not call the 152mm gun-howitzer of SU-152 as a low velocity weapon, in fact its muzzle velocity was more or less same than the mv of Sherman's 75mm gun or T-34's 76,2mm gun, so not particularly high velocity weapon but also not really a low velocity weapon either. It's main drawback in tank combat was its low rate of fire due its separate ammo.

Juha

[MacArther]

Plus velocity doesn't factor in terribly when you have a 152mm shell hitting something. If I recall correctly, even if the round failed to penetrate, the shear force of the explosion/impact was usually enough to knock out enemy armor encountered by the ISU-152. That being said, I would still prefer an Archer or an M-36 over a ISU-152.

[Soren]

The velocity matters allot, esp. as range increases. A higher velocity makes it allot easier for the gunner to hit his targets, esp. if they're moving.

Low velocity guns aren't good for AT purposes simply because it takes them longer to reach their target and the high trajectory makes it hard to estimate range correctly - And the poor russian optics didn't make life any easier.

[Lucky13]

I'd feel much safer in a Jagdpanther than in a T-34/85 or any of the JS tanks, one reason being the gap between the turret and the body itself, THAT is one h*ll of a shell trap isn't it, one of the reasons why they redesigned the turret for the Kingtiger....I don't don't see many "traps" on a Jagdpanther do you?

I haven't seen much discussion about Hummel, Nashorn/Hornisse.....etc. how come?

What do you think about these claims..?

"Some Nashorn crews reported that they were able to knock out Soviet T-34 tanks at distance as great as 4000 meters. Nashorn crews also reported numerous kills of KV and IS-2 tanks as well as SU-152, ISU-122 and ISU-152 assault guns.

Nashorn from 2nd Company of schwere Heeres Panzer Jaeger Abteilung 93 was also responsible for the destruction of the only M26 Pershing, destroyed in Europe. Pershing from the 3rd Armored Division was knocked out at the distance of 250 meters with a single shot. This engagement took place in the town of Niehl, north of Cologne on March 6th of 1945."

And....

Penetration of Armor Plate at 30 degrees from Vertical.
Ammunition: 100m-500m-1000m-1500m-2000m
Panzergranate 39: 203mm-185mm-165mm-148mm-132mm
Panzergranate 40/43: 237mm-217mm-193mm-171mm-153mm


Pzgr.39 (APCBC) - Armor Piercing Composite Ballistic Cap
Pzgr.40/43 (APCR) - Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (Tungsten Core)

[Soren]

The Nashorn is great but it offers too little protection for its crew. The Jagdpanther adds both good protection and mobility to an extremely powerful gun, a winning combination.

PS: 3 M26 Pershings were knocked out in Europe by the Germans, one by a Nashorn (The one you mentioned) but at 400m (not 250m) with a clean peneration of the frontal hull armor. The others were knocked out by Tiger Ausf.E's, one where the Tiger's round first went throught a building after which it penetrated the left side of the Pershing's turret. The last Pershing was taken out in a frontal engagement with a Tiger.

[starling]

comet tank,great not just as a t/d,brilliant afv all round,wonderful.lee.