Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun

[schwarzpanzer]

Originally Posted by reddragon

The British Firefly also looks like an interesting weapon.

I love the Firefly, but is it a tank or SPG? IMHO it is a tank.

Originally Posted by PlanD

StuK40 Ausf F/8

You mean StugIII?

The one I think was the greatest, really, was the M18 'Hellcat' because it suffered less loss than any other tank destroyer in the war. It was a capable machine, well within the ability to destroy other tanks because it could out-manuvre them.

A good point there PlanD, your Comet was good there too.

I see how you think now, but I usually prefer heavier stuff.

Except for the Stuart, of course!

The only pictures of a King Tiger's frontal armour being penertrated are from post-war tests. The King Tiger in question had been through battle, had many tests conducted on it then was blasted time and time again by an A-19 122mm cannon that eventually smashed it's way through a remarkably weakend Tiger II.

The Kubinka K Tiger was destroyed in WW2, if that's what you're meaning?

The pic I'm meaning was destroyed in combat.

And P-38, at least choose the M-36 it was far superior to the M-10.

I'd go with the Achilles there.


The Elefants not a bad choice P38, but had very bad mobility.


Maybe the GMC M12 155mm wasn't so bad?

[P38 Pilot]

I know, I know! But the Elefant was very good when it came down to destroying a Russian T-34.

[Douglas Jr.]

Hi,

I really enjoy the Jagdpanther. That 88m gun was something very impressive!

Douglas.

[plan_D]

No, I mean the StuK40 F/8 - it was no longer an assault gun. It had a SturmKanone (StuK). Look it up.

If the Kubinka King Tiger was destroyed in World War II, why is it still in one piece. Until you find this picture of a destroyed King Tiger with frontal penertration, frankly I'm not going to believe you. I've seen pictures of a King Tiger's front plate being penertrated, it was used as a target as I described.

P-38 is a patriotic American - he'd go with the U.S M36 rather than the British improvement of it.

[HealzDevo]

I think the Germans designed some magnificant heavy tanks as well as tank-destroyers. The US ones were a bit too light on in terms of armour.

[schwarzpanzer]

PlanD:

No, I mean the StuK40 F/8 - it was no longer an assault gun. It had a SturmKanone (StuK). Look it up.

Alright, I know what you mean now, but that's really a misnomer. It was StuG F (stop-gap) but was called what you say by a lot of German troops so OK.

SturmKanone means Assault Cannon BTW.

If the Kubinka King Tiger was destroyed in World War II, why is it still in one piece.

There were more than 1 captured in the 1st engagement alone, this example I'm on about was totally destroyed.

Until you find this picture of a destroyed King Tiger with frontal penertration, frankly I'm not going to believe you.

The site is down, but apparently it's only being refurbed.

I've seen pictures of a King Tiger's front plate being penertrated, it was used as a target as I described.

Was that at Kubinka? If so, I know the one you mean - not that one.

P-38 is a patriotic American - he'd go with the U.S M36 rather than the British improvement of it.

I think it's good when we collaborate; P51, Firefly, Achilles, Corvette LT1, AC Cobra etc.

HealzDevo:

I think the Germans designed some magnificant heavy tanks as well as tank-destroyers.

They all had major flaws though.

The US ones were a bit too light on in terms of armour.

Well, considering the M4 Sherman lacked protection, mobility and firepower from '42 on - the M10 at least had the last 2, also it's sloping armour and speed probably made it better protected in certain ways.


The Russians had it right IMHO.

[Soren]

The JagdPanther, no doubt.

With great mobility and reliability, as-well as excellent armor and firepower, this TD definitely takes the poll.

Also there was never to be developed any Soviet or Western Allied equal to this Tank Destroyer during WW2.

[schwarzpanzer]

Originally Posted by Soren

Also there was never to be developed any Soviet or Western Allied equal to this Tank Destroyer during WW2.

Except, of course, the SU100. :P

[Soren]

Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer

Except, of course, the SU100. :P

Schwarzpanzer, the SU100 falls awfully short compared to the JagdPanther.

I assume you know that though.

[schwarzpanzer]

It's actually superior in almost every respect, except for gun performance.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer

It's actually superior in almost every respect, except for gun performance.

Name just 'one' department where the SU-100 is superior !

The JagdPanther is both much better armed and armored, and is faster as-well.

Both have good reliability, so they're even there, only in the SU-100's ease of production is it superior.

[schwarzpanzer]

Soren:

The JagdPanther is both much better armed

I've agreed that (though maybe some wouldn't)

and armored

No, I wouldn't say that, the only way to explain this is point-by-point:

The SU 100 gave away 5mm to the JagdPanther on the front glacis yes, but the SU 100's armour was better sloped.

The front hull was 15mm short of the JgdPanthers, @ the same angle (but was a smaller target).

The mantlet was 25mm shy, but wouldn't likely be penetrated.

The side/rear armour of the SU 100 was actually 5mm thicker and better sloped (except for the superstructure).

There was little between the top armour as well (16-25mm JgdPanther, 20mm SU 100)

The cupola on the SU100 could be vulnerable though.

and is faster as-well.

Same top speed, much quicker acceleration on the SU100.

Both have good reliability, so they're even there

The heavy-duty gearbox was more reliable than the feeble Panthers, but the Henshel suspension and Maybach engine were not, unlike the sturdy V2 diesel and Christie suspension of the SU100. (Though early SU100's suspensions were overloaded)

only in the SU-100's ease of production is it superior.

Yep.

The crew quality and numbers would be what it'd boil down to in the end...

[Soren]

I've agreed that (though maybe some wouldn't)

Those who wouldn't, don't know what they're talking about.

The 88mm Kwk43 was inherently more accurate than the SU-100's 100mm D-10S gun, as-well as having much better optics and penetration power.

No, I wouldn't say that, the only way to explain this is point-by-point:

The SU 100 gave away 5mm to the JagdPanther on the front glacis yes, but the SU 100's armour was better sloped.

The front hull was 15mm short of the JgdPanthers, @ the same angle (but was a smaller target).

The mantlet was 25mm shy, but wouldn't likely be penetrated.

The side/rear armour of the SU 100 was actually 5mm thicker and better sloped (except for the superstructure).

There was little between the top armour as well (16-25mm JgdPanther, 20mm SU 100)

The cupola on the SU100 could be vulnerable though.

Schwarzpanzer, the SU-100 wasn't nearly as well armored as the JagdPanther !

The JagdPanther's front upper hull was 82mm thick and sloped 55 degree's from vertical, while the SU-100's front upper hull was 75mm thick and sloped 50 degree's from vertical.

Front lower hull: JagdPanther = 60mm/55. SU-100 = 45mm/55.

Side upper hull/Superstructure: JagdPanther = 50mm/30. SU-100 = 45mm/20.

Side lower hull: JagdPanther = 40mm/0. SU-100 = 45mm/0.

Rear upper hull/Superstructure: JagdPanther = 40mm/35. SU-100 = 45mm/48.

Rear lower hull: JagdPanther = 40mm/25. SU-100 = 45mm/45.

So the only places where the SU-100 is better armored is on the side lower hull, and the rear, both places which are rarely hit. In every important place the Jagdpanther is better armored, making overall better armored.

Same top speed, much quicker acceleration on the SU100.

The SU-100's max speed was 48km/h, while the JagdPanther would run at up to 50km/h.

And no, the SU-100 would not out-accelerate the JagdPanther, the JagdPanther would out-accelerate the SU-100, as the Maybach HL230 P30 engine has alot more torque pr weight unit than the W-2 engine. (I can't believe we're actually discussing which tank accelerates the fastest ! )

The heavy-duty gearbox was more reliable than the feeble Panthers, but the Henshel suspension and Maybach engine were not, unlike the sturdy V2 diesel and Christie suspension of the SU100. (Though early SU100's suspensions were overloaded)

No, the Panthers gearbox was more than adequate for it, and proved very reliable after the first few teething problems had been worked out. Only when used in the much heavier Tiger Ausf.B did the Panther's gearbox prove to be inadequate.

As to the Panther's Maybach engine, it was much superior to the W-2 diesel of the SU-100 !

[schwarzpanzer]

I wouldn't say the D10 was very far behind the Pak43.

The RoF and ammo sizes though...

Well I never! The glacis/superstructure of the JagdPanther is actually 5 degrees steeper than that of the SU100!

Still, only 5 degrees and 5mm seperates them, though that could be decisive...

The upper-side superstructure I knew (and said) was better protected.

As you said, both places most likely to take a hit.

So the only places where the SU-100 is better armored is on the side lower hull, and the rear, both places which are rarely hit.

Yes, but these are exactly what is aimed for. At close range with an AT gun of 50mm or more they are likely a gonner anyway, however the T34's sloped armour may deflect AP and HEAT rounds here (but not he Pak43's APCBC, oh no ).

The (Jgd)Panthers road wheels were protective of the side lower hull, as was the T34's to a much lesser extent. The gap between the sponson and the top of the tracks was a vulnerable spot for the (Jgd)Panther as it was on the other German heavies.

Both sometimes fitted Schurzen, though the SU100 also often carried Tankovy-Desant - very effective against Panzer-Shrecks/Fausts.

The point I made, as did you was that they were almost identical in combat performance, but the SSU100 was a lot better logistically (cheaper and sturdier, yes it was! )

The SU-100's max speed was 48km/h, while the JagdPanther would run at up to 50km/h.

I've heard 55kph for JgdPanther, 50 for SU100 (damn metric!). Even so, 2-5 kph is no real difference:

With this in mind the 'soft specs' such as the ride quality and ergonomics might be an issue?

Also the Henschel suspension made for a better gun platform, and wasn't overloaded (though it was prone to clogging & freezing solid and just as difficult to maintain)

The ground pressure for the SU100 was nearly 2psi better too (11psi vs 12.9) so it was probably better cross country?

And no, the SU-100 would not out-accelerate the JagdPanther, the JagdPanther would out-accelerate the SU-100, as the Maybach HL230 P30 engine has alot more torque pr weight unit than the W-2 engine. (I can't believe we're actually discussing which tank accelerates the fastest ! )

I consider this very important actually.

I wouldn't think a V12 diesel powering just over 31 and a half tons (with lower ground pressure) would be out-dragged by a V12 Petrol weighing 45 and a half tons?

Anyway the V2 was an aluminium Diesel, which should easily beat the torque/weight figure of the Maybach? You sure you aren't talking about bhp figures?

- I have been looking for torque figures for ages! Could you please provide a source? - I'd be very interested!

The V2 was more reliable than the Maybach and had an advantage in range/flammability.

No, the Panthers gearbox was more than adequate for it, and proved very reliable after the first few teething problems had been worked out. Only when used in the much heavier Tiger Ausf.B did the Panther's gearbox prove to be inadequate.

The JgdPanther & Panther G shared a gearbox (heavy duty). The AusfD's was certainly not reliable! (think Kursk) According to PlanD, neither were the AusfA's.

[Soren]

I wouldn't say the D10 was very far behind the Pak43.

The RoF and ammo sizes though...

The 88mm Kwk43 was alot more accurate and would penetrate thicker armor than the 100mm D-10S, as-well as having a faster RoF and better optics. All of this makes the 88mm kwk43 a much better gun than the 100mm D-10S.

Well I never! The glacis/superstructure of the JagdPanther is actually 5 degrees steeper than that of the SU100!

Still, only 5 degrees and 5mm seperates them, though that could be decisive...

Considering that the JagdPanther also has a much better main gun, then yes, that could be VERY decisive !

As you said, both places most likely to take a hit.

The most common places hit were the front glacis, front turret, front hull and the side upper hull/Superstructure. For TD's this was different story though, as these would always try to face their opponents head on, never exposing their flanks, so most hits on them were obviously on the frontal armor.

Yes, but these are exactly what is aimed for. At close range with an AT gun of 50mm or more they are likely a gonner anyway, however the T34's sloped armour may deflect AP and HEAT rounds here

Schwarzpanzer in reality the SU-100 was just as vulnerable in these places as the JagdPanther. You see by the time of the SU-100's service debut in 44 most German AT gun's were high velocity 75mm guns, all of which could easily penetrate the SU-100's side from ranges beyond 2000m, and some would even penetrate the front at those ranges and beyond. And up close there was always the threat of the Panzerfaust, which could easily penetrate the SU-100's sides and rear.

The (Jgd)Panthers road wheels were protective of the side lower hull, as was the T34's to a much lesser extent. The gap between the sponson and the top of the tracks was a vulnerable spot for the (Jgd)Panther as it was on the other German heavies.

That is why the schürzen were put on many of them, however as the JagdPanther was mainly intended for long range anti-tank warfare this was of little importance.

The point I made, as did you was that they were almost identical in combat performance, but the SSU100 was a lot better logistically (cheaper and sturdier, yes it was! )

No that was not at all my point !

The JagdPanther was much more effective in combat than the SU-100, being both better armed and armored than the SU-100 ! Hence the Jagdpanther's excellent combat record.

In reliability they were equal.

Only logistically does the SU-100 have an advantage over the JagdPanther, being simpler and more easily mass produced, as-well as being more fuel efficient.

I've heard 55kph for JgdPanther

Yes, it ranges from 50-55km/h, I just chose the lowest number for comparison.

The ground pressure for the SU100 was nearly 2psi better too (11psi vs 12.9) so it was probably better cross country?

Such a small difference in pressure means nearly nothing, its only 90 grams of difference pr sq.cm.

And no, the SU-100 was not better cross country, the JagdPanther clearly holds the advantage there with a superior capability for overcoming steeper and larger obstacles, as-well as having a deeper max fording depth.

I consider this very important actually.

You can't name 'one' good reason for that Schwarzpanzer ! I guarantee it !

I wouldn't think a V12 diesel powering just over 31 and a half tons (with lower ground pressure) would be out-dragged by a V12 Petrol weighing 45 and a half tons?

Outdragged ?! Come'on these aren't racing cars, they're tanks !

Anyway the V2 was an aluminium Diesel, which should easily beat the torque/weight figure of the Maybach? You sure you aren't talking about bhp figures?

Hmm I made a mistake, I was mixing "Nm" figures with "lbs/ft" figures, the W-2 actually has the advantage in torque. However for petrol engines at the time the Maybach had very high torque for its displacement, higher than any Allied petrol engine of the same size. On the other hand the W-2 engine is rather inefficient for its displacement;

23L HL230 P30 V12 gasoline, 700hp and 1400lbs/ft.

38.88L W-2 V12 Diesel, 500hp and 1600lbs/ft.

So it looks like the SU-100 might win this little Drag-race But lets face it, these are tanks, and their time from 0-30mph is of zero importance.

However something which is of considerable importance is the fuel consumption of the engine, and here the SU-100's W-2 Diesel engine holds a clear advantage over the Maybach petrol engine. This also strenghtens the SU-100's logistical advantage.

- I have been looking for torque figures for ages! Could you please provide a source? - I'd be very interested!

Yes, for German engines you should check out "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two" by Peter Chamberlain, Hilary Doyle and tech editor Thomas L. Jentz - ISBN:1854095188.

The V2 was more reliable than the Maybach and had an advantage in range/flammability.

No, they were both pretty equal in reliability, although the Maybach engine was more reliable in the long run. The Maybach engine was built to last for ages, which was one of its faults, as tanks ain't expected to last very long on the battlefield. It was simply to expensive in the long run, and resulted in less engines and spare parts being built than otherwise could've been achieved. The W-2 engine was simpler and easier to produce, although a little less reliable, but this wasn't a problem as the there were plenty of spare parts and they were easily aquired. (This wasn't so for most German engines)

The AusfD's was certainly not reliable! (think Kursk) According to PlanD, neither were the AusfA's.

Yes, thats right.