Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun - Page 9 - Aircraft of World War II

Soren · 10-26-2007, 07:01 AM

That is correct MacArther, the 17pdr was plenty accurate with the normal APC, APBC & APCBC rounds.

enven · 10-26-2007, 09:55 AM

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.)

MacArther · 10-26-2007, 09:55 AM

Ok, just checking...

comiso90 · 10-26-2007, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enven

For Americans: M10..

Why not the M18 it was faster...

enven · 10-26-2007, 12:30 PM

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)

comiso90 · 10-26-2007, 01:25 PM

The thread isn't about favorite.. it's "best"..

Why is the M-10 better than the M18 or the M36?

enven · 10-26-2007, 02:25 PM

I like the M10 more since it has a sunroof.

fer-de-lance · 10-26-2007, 11:08 PM

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).

delcyros · 10-28-2007, 05:18 PM

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.

Soren · 10-29-2007, 11:07 PM

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.

machine shop tom · 11-04-2007, 11:22 PM

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

MacArther · 11-05-2007, 10:49 AM

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.

MacArther · 11-05-2007, 10:53 AM

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?

Soren · 11-06-2007, 05:27 AM

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.

Civettone · 11-07-2007, 05:10 PM

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

10-26-2007, 09:55 AM	#122
enven Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 31	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 10:00 AM.

10-26-2007, 09:55 AM	#123
MacArther Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 892	Ok, just checking... __________________ http://www.fictionpress.com/u/478009/ Hillary 2012: The world has to end sometime!

10-26-2007, 12:30 PM	#125
enven Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 31	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, 01:25 PM	#126
comiso90 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: FL Posts: 3,528	The thread isn't about favorite.. it's "best".. Why is the M-10 better than the M18 or the M36? __________________ http://www.BOOKSonWAR.com/ . Last edited by comiso90; 10-26-2007 at 01:31 PM.

10-26-2007, 02:25 PM	#127
enven Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 31	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

10-26-2007, 07:01 AM	#121
Soren Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,625	That is correct MacArther, the 17pdr was plenty accurate with the normal APC, APBC & APCBC rounds.

10-26-2007, 11:08 PM	#128
fer-de-lance Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 64	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, 05:18 PM	#129
delcyros Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg) Posts: 1,753	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---

10-29-2007, 11:07 PM	#130
Soren Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,625	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.

11-05-2007, 10:49 AM	#132
MacArther Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 892	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. __________________ http://www.fictionpress.com/u/478009/ Hillary 2012: The world has to end sometime!

11-06-2007, 05:27 AM	#134
Soren Banned Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,625	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.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode