 | Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun| WW2 General Discuss Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun in the World War II - General forums; That is correct MacArther, the 17pdr was plenty accurate with the normal APC, APBC & APCBC rounds.... |
|
10-26-2007, 08:01 AM
|
#121 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,027
| That is correct MacArther, the 17pdr was plenty accurate with the normal APC, APBC & APCBC rounds.
__________________  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 | 
|  | |
10-26-2007, 10:55 AM
|
#122 | | Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 31
Country:  | Since everyone is worried about full armor protection....My answer will be against most opinion:
I like the Tiger Jagdpanther
Russians: IS2. and IS-152mm...
Brits: Churchill tank...Even though I hate that tank...I love it???
For Americans: M10...Oh yes...(I bet I'll get an AP round shot at me for that one.)
__________________  (IL2: Combat Simulations Group - CSG: 5./JG52_Enven)
Up there the world is divided into bastards and suckers. Make your choice. - Derek Robinson
Last edited by enven : 10-26-2007 at 11:00 AM.
| |
| | |
10-26-2007, 10:55 AM
|
#123 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: In WW2 Land, CODUO, SWON
Posts: 710
Country: | Ok, just checking... | |
| | |
10-26-2007, 12:50 PM
|
#124 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,562
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by enven 
For Americans: M10..
| Why not the M18 it was faster...
__________________ “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  | |
| | |
10-26-2007, 01:30 PM
|
#125 | | Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 31
Country: | M18 Hellcat is an awesome tank...
The reason why I like the Wolverine: It was used in Africa in the mid-war...the M18 was faster...and did a smashing job, but the M10 did just as good against the German tanks.
All American tanks lit up like a Rognson anyway...(Referenced from Hitlers Army (Book) lol)
__________________ (IL2: Combat Simulations Group - CSG: 5./JG52_Enven)
Up there the world is divided into bastards and suckers. Make your choice. - Derek Robinson | |
| | |
10-26-2007, 02:25 PM
|
#126 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,562
Country: | The thread isn't about favorite.. it's "best"..
Why is the M-10 better than the M18 or the M36?
__________________ “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
Last edited by comiso90 : 10-26-2007 at 02:31 PM.
| |
| | |
10-26-2007, 03:25 PM
|
#127 | | Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 31
Country: | I like the M10 more since it has a sunroof.
__________________ (IL2: Combat Simulations Group - CSG: 5./JG52_Enven)
Up there the world is divided into bastards and suckers. Make your choice. - Derek Robinson | |
| | |
10-27-2007, 12:08 AM
|
#128 | | Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 64
Country: | Hmm as a newcomer, looks like I missed all the fun with the earlier discussion ...
The late Ian Hogg wouldn't believe me when I first told him that there was one thing that the M3 90mm gun did better than the excellent 17-pdr. That was penetration of the sloped glacis of a Panther at greater range.
The standard M82 APC, especially the early ones were not performing to specification. (The M82 had a ballistic cap but the US Army dispensed with the BC suffix). Even when they did, they had difficulties penetrating sloped armor except at dangerously close ranges.
The higher velocity, tungsten core T30E16 HVAP (APCR - later standardized as the M304) had better penetration at lower angles of incidence but did less well against the highly sloped (55 deg from normal) Panther glacis.
The US Army Ordnance solution came in the form of the T33 AP shot (with ballistic cap). Substitute standard M77 90mm AP shots had their tips heated treated and a ballistic cap added. The new shot penetrated the Panther glacis at over 1,000 yd.
US tests of the 17-pdr Mk1T APDS produced conflicting results with the second set of trials at Isigny in 1944 showing that the APDS did not perform well against the Panther's sloped glacis. However, the problems encountered in the tests which included poor accuracy may have been due to the particular batch of rounds used. (The batch had not having been proof fired). | |
| | |
10-28-2007, 06:18 PM
|
#129 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,538
| I find poor performing shells a possibility but not more.
US BuOrd(Army) had the perhaps most strict quality controll of projectiles.
A projectile not passing a proof test is a VERY serious issue but it is possible that the quality of this particular batch was somehow messed up.
Still I believe more in quality differences on the Panther glacis, which varied more widely over the years in quality controll.
__________________
---delcyros--- | |
| | |
10-30-2007, 12:07 AM
|
#130 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,027
| Yes, the Panther's armour in general contained many faults by late 44 to 45, hence the US results with the T33 round - against a Panther with good quality armor the T33 would've done pretty poorly against the glacis plate, having to get as close as 300y. Still the turret face, and esp. the sides & rear of the Panther were very vulnerable spots.
US testing also revealed the German 75mm Kwk42 L/70 to be superior to the 90mm M3 in armor penetration.
__________________ 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 | |
| | |
11-05-2007, 12:22 AM
|
#131 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 252
Country: | Quote:
Originally Posted by WARSPITER Interesting points from all. Thank you.........
........Maybe in practical terms the JagdPanzer IV/L70 was one of the best ? | The problem with the JagdPanzer IV/L70 was that it was very front-heavy with the L70 gun. It was unwieldy and had trouble negotiating soft terrain.
tom
__________________
The problem with neighborhoods these days is not enough neighbors and too many hoods. | |
| | |
11-05-2007, 11:49 AM
|
#132 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: In WW2 Land, CODUO, SWON
Posts: 710
Country: | Any information on the Italian tank destroyer with the 90mm gun? Supposedly less than 100 were made because the gun was also the main anti-aircraft weapon in cities. I would imagine the gun would do some serious damage to most Allied tanks, although the fact that the tank destroyer (if memory serves) had NO armor, could be a limiting factor. | |
| | |
11-05-2007, 11:53 AM
|
#133 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: In WW2 Land, CODUO, SWON
Posts: 710
Country: | Quote: |
Hmmm, stuck between the Archer, with its good gun and ability to rapidly get out of trouble spots because of the gun position
| Did anyone else besides me think the Archer was a sound design? | |
| | |
11-06-2007, 06:27 AM
|
#134 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,027
| The Archer featured a great gun but was way to thinly armored, which means its main job, taking out tanks, was an overly dangerous job. The JagdPanther on the other hand can dish out extremely lethal and accurate firepower out past 3km, and it can afford to engage multiple enemy AFV's at very short range by virtue of its excellent armor protection. As long as the front was pointing towards the enemy the JagdPanther was safe from any Allied tank back to point blank range.
__________________ 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 | |
| | |
11-07-2007, 06:10 PM
|
#135 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Limburg
Posts: 871
Country:  | Quote:
Originally Posted by machine shop tom The problem with the JagdPanzer IV/L70 was that it was very front-heavy with the L70 gun. It was unwieldy and had trouble negotiating soft terrain.
tom | No, that was quickly remedied. They replaced the front wheels by steel wheels.
The JagdPz IV was a cheap tank destroyer with an excellent gun and had better frontal armour than the Tiger I tank. It was also lower than a Hetzer. As such it had it all. At least better than the JagdPanther which was far too big and expensive to build.
Kris
__________________   | |
| | | 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 01:44 AM. | | |
