# Best Tank/Anti-tank gun



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 20, 2005)

What nationality does your chosen favourite belong to?

What is it and why do you like it?

Mines the 17pdr BTW


----------



## reddragon (Aug 21, 2005)

As far as the best anti-tank gun, I'm impressed with the German 88. Overall, I believe it to be the best weapon of the war. With tanks, I'm kind of leaning toward the German Mark V Panther. I'm under the impression that it was built to offset the Russian T-34 and had early teething problems but overall, I believe it to be a very impressive weapon. The King Tiger is also a fine tank but I believe it to be underpowered, too slow to be used as an offensive weapon (I've heard it had a speed of about 25 miles per hour), and consumed too much fuel.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 21, 2005)

The Germans produced more quality anti-tank and tank cannons than any other country. However, the OQF 17pdr was a remarkable cannon and was punching in the same weight ranges as any German cannon. Including anti-tank guns though, the Soviets had some impressive artillery in that area. 

I believe the KwK43 L/71 8.8cm to be the supreme tank weapon, it punched beyond all other weapons. Even at 2000m it was punching through 132mm of armour.


----------



## mosquitoman (Aug 21, 2005)

Has to be the 88, if just for versatility- it could be anti-tank, part of a flak battery or on a U-Boot


----------



## Glider (Aug 21, 2005)

I think we all agree that the choice is between the 88L71 as mounted in the King Tiger and the Jadgpanther and as a ground mounting for the Germans and the 17pd for the allied. 
Personally if I had to chose one it would be the 17pd. The only reason being that the 88 was larger than ideal when mounted on the ground. The 88L71 was more powerful but this was almost overkill as the 17pd was more than sufficient at battle ranges. Being lighter also enabled the British to use the 17pd in lighter tanks than would have been possible had we had to use the 88.


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 21, 2005)

The "88" for me, a very versitile gun which could be mounted in many different ways (In a tank, flak battery, AT battery or U-boat).

Though the 17 pounder was also a good gun it didn't have the versitility of the "88" and as result in my opinion it is not the best (but a close second)


----------



## Glider (Aug 21, 2005)

Fair point. The L56 was the versitile version mounted on the Tiger 1 and was more than good enough for dealing with the USA and UK tanks. It only started to struggle with the larger USSR tanks at long range where it started to be outgunned. 
That said the 17pd would also have had problems in that situation. However as a general Tank and Anti tank gun we will have to agree to differ.


----------



## me262 (Aug 21, 2005)

what about the nashorn? 
mounting a PaK 43/1 L/71, capable of dealing with the is2 at 2,000 plus meters, although thin armored, but used as a sucesfull long rage AT weapon


----------



## Erich (Aug 21, 2005)

short lived, much too high for a serious AT weapon as it needed space due to the long barrel and much camo either natural or buildings. In fact even the low ride wheeled 8.8cm AT was much too heavy to turn and get into position for it's crew


----------



## plan_D (Aug 21, 2005)

The Tiger I was not out-gunned by the IS-2. The OQF 17 pdr was an impressive cannon and while not as versatile as the FlaK 18 8.8cm it had an equal punch and was more than capable at battle ranges.


----------



## Glider (Aug 21, 2005)

The IS 2 had a maximum armour of around 160mm and at the end of 1944 the JS3 was coming into production with up to 230mm. 
At 2000 meters the L56 could penetrate 110mm sloped at 30 degrees and at 1,500 meters 123mm. These distances could be reached on the Russian Steppes and there is little doubt that the L56 would have a tough time at these distances against the larger russian tanks.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 22, 2005)

The IS-2 had 120mm armour on the front and it was poorly casted. It was proven in combat that the IS-2 was vulnerable to the Tiger I up to and including 1000 metres.


----------



## Erich (Aug 22, 2005)

include this on the IS-2 and 1, poor optics, in fact terrible and slow loading


----------



## Glider (Aug 22, 2005)

Well my sources say 160 and I admit others say 120, but it doesn't matter as we both agree that the IS2 is vulnerable at up to 1000. 
My argument was that the L56 would struggle at long range and 1000m isn't that long which I tried to back up with the figures at 1,500 and 2,000.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 22, 2005)

The standard combat ranges being 500-600 metres would make 1000 metres a good, long range advantage. As I have said in another thread, 3000m and closing the KwK36 could cause sufficient damage to the crew moral at around 3000m due to the heavy impact of a large shell. At around 2000m the KwK36 will start shocking the crew and has the possibility of collapsing the armour after a few hits (not highly unlikely due to IS-2M poor casting), it also could strike vital areas such as between turret and chassis. At 1,500m the KwK36 certainly would be doing damage to the IS-2M, penertration in German terms was 50% or more. At 1,500m I reckon a fair few shell splinters could well have entered the IS-2M.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 23, 2005)

This thread is going the way I thought, the 88 for it's versatility and the 17pdr for pure anti-tank work.

I agree with Gliders points.

The KwK36 would struggle to destroy a Churchill though.

The Nashorn is a good point, the gun made it!



> The IS 2 had a maximum armour of around 160mm



That was the IS2M, it was also well sloped and better quality than that of the IS2



> The IS-2 had 120mm armour on the front and it was poorly casted. It was proven in combat that the IS-2 was vulnerable to the Tiger I up to and including 1000 metres.



Correct.

The D-25T and D-10 (and it's variants) just do not have the performance of the 17pdr as A-T guns.

The D-10 was AA, Naval and antitank, like the '88' a good candidate for the versatility vote.

I don't want this thread to be all about TigerI vs IS2, so I'll start a new one.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 23, 2005)

At 1,500 - 2,000 metres the KwK36 would struggle destroying a Churchill X with 152mm of frontal armour, yes but most guns would!


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 23, 2005)

The 75mm/L70 would do OK.

The Pak43, 17pdr, D-10 and 90mm would do better.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 23, 2005)

At 1,500 - 2,000 metres? I don't think so. To 152mm they'd all being doing OK at best. 

The KwK43 was only punching 132mm at 2,000m. Although that is at 30 degrees and the 152mm on the Churchill was slab-sided. If the KwK43 was hitting at 90 degrees it would have no problem. 

At 1,500 all those you mentioned could deal with it in some degree of effectiveness but I think the KwK36 wouldn't be ineffective at 1,500m.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 15, 2005)

I found something that the Sherman could actually beat!

An old Ford LTD! hehehehehe

This was taken at Chino airshow intermission. It was a real crowd pleaser.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 17, 2005)

Well I voted for Axis even though it is not a country. German made the best anti tank guns and my vote goes for the 88. Just look at what it did at Kesserine.


----------



## Dac (Sep 18, 2005)

The 88mm Flak was the most versitile gun of the war and in the early years of WW II could easily deal with any tank with the exception of the KV-1c.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 19, 2005)

It could cut through Shermans like they were Butter.


----------



## Dac (Sep 19, 2005)

The Shermans were way too vulnerable. I knew a WW II Sherman crewman and he was still angry about the quality of the tank 30 years after the war. When his tank was hit, he was the only one of the crew who escaped.


----------



## trackend (Sep 20, 2005)

The 88 was definitley the best alround fieldpiece of WW2 Adler I agree with you 100% the best anti tank weapon field piece the allies had was the 17 pounder as an anti tank gun it was nice and low so concealment was much easier than the 88 yet it had good hitting power.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 20, 2005)

Yes, DerAdler, but I doubt anyone will vote for anything Italian/Japanese? sorry.

I'd have to put the 17pdr ahead of the 88.

The 88 was eventually devoloped to make the Pak43 anti-tank gun:

http://www.german-soldiers.com/Bilder2/Normandie/pak43.jpg

This was hovever not too popular, the 75mm/L70 would have been better?

Also there was an L100 model 88mm.

Also the Pak44/L61 128mm proved it's woth in Berlin against T34's.

I think one was fitted to a Maus turret along with a 75mm/L70 co-axial!

- That would have made it worthwhile huh PlanD?


The best gun for pure penetration is probably the 32 pounder from the TOG Tortoise heavy tank, only 2 were made though IIRC (it was another AA gun conversion).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 22, 2005)

Well if the Japs had had decent anti tank guns then maybe someone would vote for them.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 22, 2005)

The Maus was too heavy to be effective. I know all the technical details of the Maus and I know what Hitler hoped for the Maus but the fact is, it was too heavy and clumsy to work. Hitler would have liked you schwarz, you're a fantasist like he was. 

It's a dream, the thing would not work!


----------



## Dac (Sep 22, 2005)

Even the Tiger tanks were too heavy to be effective. The engines at the time didn't provide enough power and both tanks were prone to breakdown. Even modern tanks like the M1A2 have problems due to weight. When they get stuck, they truly get stuck, and that isn't a good thing in the middle of a battle.


----------



## plan_D (Sep 22, 2005)

The Tiger's were perfectly capable of being effective. The mere fact that they were effective proves so.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 23, 2005)

Dac said:


> Even the Tiger tanks were too heavy to be effective. The engines at the time didn't provide enough power and both tanks were prone to breakdown. Even modern tanks like the M1A2 have problems due to weight. When they get stuck, they truly get stuck, and that isn't a good thing in the middle of a battle.



There we go smoking crack again!   The Tiger was one of the most effective tanks of WW2 and was proven again and again in battle.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 25, 2005)

> Well if the Japs had had decent anti tank guns then maybe someone would vote for them.



Decent (75mm) but not great or in numbers.



> Hitler would have liked you schwarz, you're a fantasist like he was.



Like he was??  No mate, I'd have a million ton Gerbil tank made!  

It would be useful for Berlin etc, that's if it didn't fall into sewers!

The engines were faily decent on the Maus and I'm pretty sure the tracks had the highest % of the hulls width of any tank, ever!

The Tiger was a great tank, but flawed and usurped by the Panther/IS2.

I'm a fan of the KonigsTiger under certain situations though and given the choice, would probably take the KT.


----------



## trackend (Sep 26, 2005)

Agreed Adler D I have spoken to a few guys who where in amoured units and they always said the Tiger was their most feared opponant by a mile.
The best they could hope to do with a 75mm shooter was too remove a track.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 26, 2005)

And with a destroyed track any tank is lost and with that they could take out a Tiger.


----------



## trackend (Sep 26, 2005)

Not the biggest of targets is it Adler and I dont suppose the Jerry is going to sit there for too long letting you take careful aim  
Speaking of aiming I have seen some real naff propergander clips showing tanks firing on the run WW2 tanks couldnt hit the side of a barn on the move but they look good on film firing as they advance.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 26, 2005)

> Agreed Adler D I have spoken to a few guys who where in amoured units and they always said the Tiger was their most feared opponant by a mile.



Yeah, same here, not much said about the Panther though, seems odd that Tigers seemed more common??

Then again, the Panther was more vulnerable than the Tiger flank-wise.



> And with a destroyed track any tank is lost and with that they could take out a Tiger.



The Tiger was probably at it's deadliest when stationary!  

Have you heard the 'command post 506(?) story DerAdler?



> Not the biggest of targets is it Adler



Yes, actually, it is!  



> tanks firing on the run WW2 tanks couldnt hit the side of a barn on the move



The Tiger was bigger than a barn door!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 27, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> > And with a destroyed track any tank is lost and with that they could take out a Tiger.
> 
> 
> 
> The Tiger was probably at it's deadliest when stationary!



Yeah but not when it is dead in its tracks and cant go anywhere. Then you just pick it off. If a Tiger's Tracks were destroyed I dont care how good of a tank crew you were, you were dead, you had to get out of there.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 27, 2005)

A good point to remember is the Henschel suspension froze together, sticking the roadwheels together.

The Russians often attacked at dawn (the coldest time) so that the Panthers and Tigers would be sure to be immobile - very clever!

Also if the engine was gone on the Tiger, the turret was even harder to turn! (had to be done manually)


Some people say the Tiger was not suited for the purpose it was designed (breakthrough tank) but more as a mobile pill-box, firing from cover/camouflaged position.


I've tried finding 'command post 506' (what the Russians called it) on the 'net DerAdler, but no joy.

Anyway, it was an abandoned Tiger that was found by some Panzergrenadiers who hid in it as the Ruskies swept by.

Then they decided to attack infantry, tanks etc with it even though it was immobile!

It was hard to destroy, the Russians tried everything (incl swarms of tanks) until eventually flamethrowering it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2005)

Then they were just dumb because a staionary tank (atleast one that is imobalized for good because its tacks or engine is gone) is just a big target.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 28, 2005)

Yeah, they did end up getting burnt, but they took a hell of a lot with them!

Its knowing when to scarper really?


----------



## Erich (Sep 28, 2005)

I'll be a wee bit different and say the German 7.5cm pak 40 can opener. the 17 lb and 8.8cm were much too heavy, especially the latter in the AT role. the Pak 40 was very low and easy to move. drawback was the long rod that had to be heavily camo'd. great range, ease of movement and could be hauled by almost all 4wheeled vehicles and even tracked vehicles to it's destination. Standard fit as the usual 3./Kompanie AT weapon in a Panzerjäger Abteilung. proven equipment on the West und Ost fronts through Battle of Berlin.


----------



## Soren (Sep 28, 2005)

The British 17pdr and German 88mm Kwk43 gets my vote for sure. 

However the most impressive for its size has got to be the 17pdr, a truly remarkable AT gun for its size.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 29, 2005)

Im for the 88 also. It was very versatile and cut through most allied tanks like butter.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 29, 2005)

I think the Pak43 with PzGr44 (APFDS) had the best penetration of the war?

I think it equalled the 20pounder, though IIRC someone here said that the latter wasn't too hot vs the IS3?

IIRC an '88' L100 was fired with APFDS?  

Either that or the 32pdr with SVDS! 8) 

Any more contenders?



You know Erich, that's not a bad choice.  


Mobility for infantry is good.

I have been looking at this last year and found that the SU-76 (Suka/bitch)

was useful as it could get where water couldn't!

For mountain troops etc, that was important.


The German guns aren't so hot there.

The 37mm was mobile and was used in the Stuka I think? - but it did not have good penetration and in the Stuka used up precious Tungsten supplies. It was the 1st true anti-tank gun though?

A lot of Pak40's were abondoned in Russia too for being too heavy.

The Pak43 88mm was absolutely hated for this and called 'the barn door'.

The best would be the 50mm L60, very low silhouette, could destroy any tank in an ambush and was quick-firing.

The 6pounder was also good, fitted to a Mosquito IIRC?

In the 1st encouter with Tigers, it came out on top!

Also with SVDS/APDS rounds in '44, it was still pretty lethal. 8) 

The 2pdr 'LittleJohn' wasn't too bad either!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Just about everything had to be abandoned in Russia that does not make it a bad gun.


----------



## puckett (Aug 19, 2014)

the German 88 mm, I feel is the best anti-tank gun in ww2.


----------

