Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun

[Lucky13]

Sorry to butt in like thise Soren and Schwarz and the talk about the Jagdpanther and SU-100. I haven't really fully read your comparison between so I don't know if I missed it. BUT, I think that you have missed out on the quality of the STEEL in the armour.....
My favs/best are hands down the above mentioned Jagdpanther and the M-36 btw.

[Civettone]

I've often read about the Russian steel being less hard than the German or allied steel. I have no reason to doubt that.

But I have a gut feeling this only applies to the own Russian production. The allies delivered 2.3 million tons of steel to the Soviets. Like the late-war Russian aircraft could once again be built out of aluminium, perhaps the steel quality of the Russian tanks also increased?

Kris

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Civettone

would have used the JagdTiger as a Sturmtiger for longer range.

And about its 250mm armour, no WW2 gun could penetrate it. The same applies for the frontal armour of the regular Tiger II.

That isn't true though Civettone, cause if you've noticed the German and Allied penetration tables list penetration at 30 degree's from vertical - thats std. German procedure.

The JagdTiger's top piece frontal armor of 250mm was vertical.

Tests done at Aberdeen USA against vertical 240 BHN RHA armor gave these results:

8.8cm Kwk43 L/71 (APCR): 100m = 304mm / 500m = 282mm / 1000m = 257mm
7.5cm Kwk42 L/70 (APCR): 100m = 265mm / 500m = 234mm / 1000m = 199mm
12.8cm Pak44 L/55 (APCBC): 100m = 267mm / 500m = 253mm / 1000m = 237mm

The British 17pdr managed to penetrate 275mm of armor at 100m using its APDS Sabot round.

Note: Compared to APCBC rounds the effectiveness of APCR & APDS rounds decreases dramatically as slope increases.

[nosta3824382]

Stug3 because it cost effective. Many tank destroyer were too good .But a lot of Stug3 can do best against T34 and M4 .

[delcyros]

If the issue is steel quality, I have to interfere.

-Soviet armour hardness:

1. -Cast armour.
-unlike other nations the SU made extensive use of cast armour, which was easy to produce, very strong but a bit to brittle. Scaling effects should be worrisome.
up to 1942 are no data´s avaiable.
1942-45 was the average armour hardness 450 BRH for plates up to & including 60mm; 340 BRH for plates 61-80mm, reducing to 300 BRH for plates over 80mm thickness.

2. - rolled hardened armour
up to 1942 are no data´s avaiable.
1942-43: 480 BRH for plates up to 60mm thickness & 300 BRH for thicker plates.
1943-45: 420 BRH for all plates

Elongation for cast armour is ~5%; elongation for RHA typically was 12%.
Improvements in the treatement of the steel, esspeccially the tempering of the back made the progress for RHA-plates possible after 1943.
THAT IN ANY EVENT IS VERY HARD. HARDER THAN COTEMPORARY GERMAN PLATES:
1. cast
220-266 BRH for plates 55mm-200mm
2. rolled hardened armour
1942: 435-465 BRH for thin plates (5-15mm); 324-370 BRH for light plates (16-30mm); 309-353 BRH for medium plates (31-50mm); 294-338 BRH for thicker medium plates (51-80mm); 279-309 BRH for thick plates (81-120mm); 266-302 BRH for very thick plates (125-150mm) and ~250 (estimated) BRH for the thickest plates (up to 200mm).

Elongation was typically 20% but the lowest acceptance limit was 18%.

[Soren]

As you know delcyros its not only how hard the armor is which matters, and USSR armor tended to be too hard and brittle for most of the war.

The tank with the absolute best armor of WWII is the Tiger Ausf.E with its 255 - 260 BHN RHA armor of very high quality.

[delcyros]

I agree. I only wanted to be specific in this event. Plate toughness is not hardeness. The harder surfaces of soviet armour (esspeccially cast) is prone to cracks from high velocity projectiles, which otherwise would not defeat the plate. The soviet armour plate is harder but not tougher. One should keep in mind armour production technicques. Very hard surfaces, which are not treated minutely tend to produce bubbles, which are not much of a problem in cast plates but in rolled ones they are flattened out over a much wider area and thus act as laminations (gaps between layers), which tend to snap the plate into two if hit.
It would- however- be totally superior against any form of uncapped projectiles, which shatter against them but by then all had hard capped APCBC´s. Still, the SU tested their plates on the trial ground still at wars end against their UNCAPPED projectiles, hence the preference for extreme hardeness. Had they tested against capped APCBC rounds, they would soon see the problem...

[comiso90]

jagdpanther firing at Military Odyssey Show:

YouTube - German Tank Firing

.. aHHHH... MUSIC!

[Joe2]

What i meant was:

can a good mathmaticion please work out the size of a gun needed to pierce 150mm of armour

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by Joe2

What i meant was:

can a good mathmaticion please work out the size of a gun needed to pierce 150mm of armour

A mathimaticion could test the feasibility but anything is a guess until practically applied.

Too many factors... slant, type of armor, veloity, range, energy, weather, density etc, etc

[delcyros]

can a good mathmaticion please work out the size of a gun needed to pierce 150mm of armour

Can do. 150mm are easily pentrable if that armour is VERTICAL by many ww2 high velocity AT-guns.
However, if You go for the 150mm DECLINED front of the King Tiger it´s getting harder. The declination of the plate presents the projectile a more difficult angle of attack and hence only the 128mm/55 PAK 44 and 128mm/60 PAK 41 have a reasonable chance to defeat that plate using "normal" APCBC rounds (from close distance). I am not sure about the US 90mm gun (long) used in the Super-Pershing as I have no datas regarding muzzle velocity and projectile properties but I give that gun SOME possibility to achieve full penetration at favourable circumstances.

Compare:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2...guns-4193.html (Tiger-II front glacis vs AT guns)

[Soren]

The long 90mm T15 (which its called IIRC) doesn't stand a chance against the Tiger Ausf.B's glacis plate, and with a normal APCBC round it surprisingly (Considering the MV) doesn't perform as well as the 88mm Kwk43 L/71.

[delcyros]

The long 90mm T15 (which its called IIRC) doesn't stand a chance against the Tiger Ausf.B's glacis plate,

You are correct. The 90mm T 15 with 3227 fps striking velocity fails to hole the sloped upper frontal hull (glacis) by more than 200 fps. Altough it may pierce the lower frontal hull from close distance (<400 yards) and may also defeat the turret face (if it doesn´t hit the mantlet) at reasonable distance (<750 yards).

[falcon from sweden]

My choice must be the Jagdtiger

Not the nicest but one of the most powerfull

[Soren]

The JagdTiger was way too cumbersome... A famous German Tank-commander (can't remember the name) called it a complete waste of resources and meant that producing this beast instead of producing more Panthers was a crime towards the soldiers at the front considering the situation they faced. Had it been a war which was fought over long range on huge grassy plains then it would've been perfect, but thats not how the fighting took place.