 | Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun| WW2 General Discuss Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun in the World War II - General forums; Definitely Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger . . . in terms of "practicality", it would be the Jagdpanther; possibly the best all-around ... |
|
06-19-2007, 01:09 PM
|
#91 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Pine Mountain Lake, California
Posts: 804
Country:  | Definitely Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger . . . in terms of "practicality", it would be the Jagdpanther; possibly the best all-around tank destroyer of the War.
But ya gotta love a 128mm cannon that'll destroy almost anything at extreme range. Yes, the Jagdtiger wasn't very manueverable; but by the end of the War, the Germans didn't need manueverability, just armor & firepower, which the Jagdtiger had in spades. Most of the Jagdtigers "lost" during the War were abandoned by their crews due to lack of ammunintion, lack of fuel, or both. One Jagdtiger was abandoned on a road and held up an advancing American armored column until they could cut a path around it through the bordering forest. Even abandoned, the Jagdtiger did it's job. | 
|  | |
07-04-2007, 12:33 AM
|
#92 | | Member
Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: B.C.
Posts: 61
| I have always liked the hetzer.Small but strong,easy to conceal too.
__________________
sorry I'm a newbie | |
| | |
08-15-2007, 07:59 AM
|
#93 | | Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1
Country: | They don't get much more impressive than this.
The SturmTiger | |
| | |
08-15-2007, 09:51 PM
|
#94 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: In WW2 Land, CODUO, SWON
Posts: 710
Country: | Yeah, and they don't get any more useless. First off, the thing weighed more than the King Tiger if I remmber correctly. Secondly they had something like 12 280mm rounds on board, and once that was exausted, the crane at the back had to be used to load more rounds. Good weapon for blowing up fortifications and bunkers, but in close combat against more manueverable and numerous tanks, its going to be over run very quickly. | |
| | |
08-18-2007, 07:51 PM
|
#95 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 114
Country:  | The Sturmtiger weighted about 5t less than the Königstiger. The crane was always needed to reload the mortar shell.
It is rumored that a Sturmtiger destroyer or disabled three Shermans with a single shot. Round hit between the tanks and destroyed one and heavily damaged at least two others, probably flipped over from blast. | |
| | |
08-19-2007, 10:54 PM
|
#96 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Pine Mountain Lake, California
Posts: 804
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Denniss  The Sturmtiger weighted about 5t less than the Königstiger. The crane was always needed to reload the mortar shell.
It is rumored that a Sturmtiger destroyer or disabled three Shermans with a single shot. Round hit between the tanks and destroyed one and heavily damaged at least two others, probably flipped over from blast. | Entirely possible, but the Sturmtiger was anything but accurate; you have to remember the thing was originally designed to take out fortifications and troop concentrations, not pinpoint targets, like tanks. The Sturmtiger mentioned was probably aiming at something else when it took out those Shermans. | |
| | |
10-11-2007, 11:02 AM
|
#97 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg
Posts: 871
Country:  | That last bit I doubt. If a Sturmtiger (or any tank) would have come across three Shermans it would have fired at those, unless it was looking for its own destruction. I can hardly believe they would disregard Shermans at close range and carry on with taking out some kind of fortification.
Kris
__________________   | |
| | |
10-17-2007, 03:13 PM
|
#98 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg
Posts: 871
Country: | I would also like to make a case for these two projected tank destroyers. Not only would they have been very effective, they were also a lot easier to produce than their predecessors.
The E-10: 
and the E-25: 
Kris
__________________ | |
| | |
10-17-2007, 04:25 PM
|
#99 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Pine Mountain Lake, California
Posts: 804
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by Civettone I would also like to make a case for these two projected tank destroyers. Not only would they have been very effective, they were also a lot easier to produce than their predecessors.
The E-10:
and the E-25:
Kris | I was always partial to the E-100 myself . . . 
__________________  | |
| | |
10-17-2007, 04:50 PM
|
#100 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,562
Country: | I like the E-10... u cant have a silhouette much lower than that. German Tank Destroyer E-10
reminds me of a cross between a Hetzer and a Swedish S tank
.
__________________ “Despite the threat of SAMs and increasing visibility on 31 January 1991, one gunship opted to stay and continue to protect the Marines. A SAM subsequently shot down this AC-130H, call sign Spirit 03. All 14 crew members of Spirit 03 perished."  www.NewMediaPerspective.com  | |
| | |
10-17-2007, 05:05 PM
|
#101 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,028
|
__________________  We have built a total of about 1250 of this aircraft (Me-262), but only fifty were allowed to be used as fighters - as interceptors. And out of this fifty, there were never more than 25 operational. So we had only a very, very few.
- Adolf Galland | |
| | |
10-17-2007, 11:42 PM
|
#102 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,562
Country: | That looks funny next to the M-24 tank in the top photo. looks like u could park 2 Chaffees inside the E-100.
.
__________________ “Despite the threat of SAMs and increasing visibility on 31 January 1991, one gunship opted to stay and continue to protect the Marines. A SAM subsequently shot down this AC-130H, call sign Spirit 03. All 14 crew members of Spirit 03 perished." www.NewMediaPerspective.com | |
| | |
10-18-2007, 08:19 AM
|
#103 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,061
Country:  | Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that's a Valentine - not a M24.
__________________ "When you go home tomorrow, don't expect anyone to know what you have been through. Even if they did know, most people probably wouldn't care anyway. Some of you may get the medals you deserve, many more of you will not. But remember this, all of you are now members of the front-line club, and that is the most exclusive club in the world." - Lt. Col. Matthew Maer CO 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment. Camp Abu Naji, Oct. 2004 To those in that club. | |
| | |
10-18-2007, 08:56 AM
|
#104 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg
Posts: 871
Country: | A Valentine with an American star on top?? 
Anyway, about the E-series. This is the most comprehensive site about them. A real eye opener: E-Series Panzers
Kris
__________________ | |
| | |
10-18-2007, 09:19 AM
|
#105 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,061
Country: | How did I miss that Allied star used by all Allied forces for recognition by Allied air forces. I might be wrong about the tank type, but since the British captured the E-100, that tank looks lower than a M24, and the commander hanging out the top looks like a British tanker...it's all pointing to Valentine to me.
__________________ "When you go home tomorrow, don't expect anyone to know what you have been through. Even if they did know, most people probably wouldn't care anyway. Some of you may get the medals you deserve, many more of you will not. But remember this, all of you are now members of the front-line club, and that is the most exclusive club in the world." - Lt. Col. Matthew Maer CO 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment. Camp Abu Naji, Oct. 2004 To those in that club. | |
| | | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:51 AM. | | |
