# Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 20, 2005)

What nationality does your chosen favourite belong to?

What is it and why do you like it?

For me, it's a toss-up between the SU-100 and JagdPanther, there's a knat's willy between them.


----------



## reddragon (Aug 21, 2005)

Interesting question. I've never really thought about it, but I also like the JagdPanther a lot. The British Firefly also looks like an interesting weapon.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 21, 2005)

I cannot state the greatest country for tank destroyers but the list of the greatest, in my opinion, are; Jagdpanther, M36 'Hellcat', Achilles OQF 17pdr, Archer OQF 17pdr, M36 'Jackson', SU-100, ISU-152, Elefant and StuK40 Ausf F/8.


----------



## Glider (Aug 21, 2005)

Plan D thats a list, pick one. 
For myself I go for the Achilles. It had speed, and a gun that could knock anything out, but lacked armour. 
If you want armour then probably the best is the Jagdpanther but it lacked flexibility and was only good when defending at a distance. Once it had to move it and any other AT vehicle of that configeration was at a disadvantage. Possible exception being the Hetzer as it was so small.
The M18 Hellcat was very quick but only had the 76mm which would have been limiting in combat and the M36 had the power but a slow rate of fire. 
Hence the Achilles as my choice. All comers feel free to disagree, all comments welcome.


----------



## Erich (Aug 21, 2005)

Hetzer although a small cramped unit was quite succesful in spring of 45 with accomplished crews whom even knocked out Soviet JS I's with it's 7.5cm gun. If anything going for it in the defence role, it could move fast and was small enough to camouflage easily in the surroundings the crews were accustomed to


----------



## plan_D (Aug 21, 2005)

If you have seen the amount of SPGs that served in WWII you would understand my list was picking the best of the bunch. There's no way of stating any of those I listed as being far superior to the other. 

I did miss the Hetzer from my list, it was small but remarkable. A great asset to the Wehrmacht. Perfectly capable of knocking out most Western Allied and Soviet types.


----------



## Glider (Aug 21, 2005)

I am aware of the variety of SPG's and mobile A/T guns in use, but I thought the idea was to pick the one you think is best and supply your thoughts.
We do the same on aircraft so why not these?


----------



## plan_D (Aug 22, 2005)

Because there's really no way I could decide on the best tank destroyer and self-propelled gun. A SPG is an artillery piece. Most of them were howitzers on armoured chassis, which then really is based on how good the cannon is. 

The one I think was the greatest, really, was the M18 'Hellcat' because it suffered less loss than any other tank destroyer in the war. It was a capable machine, well within the ability to destroy other tanks because it could out-manuvre them.


----------



## Dac (Sep 17, 2005)

I'd go with the Jagdpanther. Like with aircraft when they look right they usually fly right, the Jagdpanther looks deadly. Its' got good frontal armor highly sloped. The long 88mm could take out any Allied AFV. It also had the mobility of the Panther, its a good thing they only built about 400 of them!


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 17, 2005)

You've made my mind up Dac, the SU100 it is; due to ease of build, better armour and the fact that it was probably the only thing that destroyed a King Tigers frontal armour. 8)


----------



## plan_D (Sep 18, 2005)

But it wasn't. Nothing ever did. Not one single piece of armour or artillery penertrated the King Tigers frontal armour during the war.


----------



## Dac (Sep 18, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> You've made my mind up Dac, the SU100 it is; due to ease of build, better armour and the fact that it was probably the only thing that destroyed a King Tigers frontal armour. 8)



Glad to help.  

The SU100 is very good too. I think there are some upgraded models still in service in the middle-east.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Sep 20, 2005)

Yes Dac, I can believe it!

It did come late though,  but still caused havoc,  I'm sticking with it!  

I think the JagdPanthers gearbox was far better than the standard one, but I can't remember examples of any (post AusfD) causing problems?



> But it wasn't. Nothing ever did. Not one single piece of armour or artillery penertrated the King Tigers frontal armour during the war.



Yes it did and I'll get the piccy when I find it.

BTW: That 17pdr went through the side.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 3, 2005)

I would go with either the Elefant or M10, The M-10 was also a pretty good tank destroyer.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2005)

No you won't find the picture because there isn't one. The only pictures of a King Tiger's frontal armour being penertrated are from post-war tests. The King Tiger in question had been through battle, had many tests conducted on it then was blasted time and time again by an A-19 122mm cannon that eventually smashed it's way through a remarkably weakend Tiger II. 

And P-38, at least choose the M-36 it was far superior to the M-10.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 7, 2005)

reddragon said:


> The British Firefly also looks like an interesting weapon.



I love the Firefly, but is it a tank or SPG? IMHO it is a tank.



PlanD said:


> StuK40 Ausf F/8



You mean StugIII?



> The one I think was the greatest, really, was the M18 'Hellcat' because it suffered less loss than any other tank destroyer in the war. It was a capable machine, well within the ability to destroy other tanks because it could out-manuvre them.



A good point there PlanD, your Comet was good there too.

I see how you think now, but I usually prefer heavier stuff.

Except for the Stuart, of course! 8) 



> The only pictures of a King Tiger's frontal armour being penertrated are from post-war tests. The King Tiger in question had been through battle, had many tests conducted on it then was blasted time and time again by an A-19 122mm cannon that eventually smashed it's way through a remarkably weakend Tiger II.



The Kubinka K Tiger was destroyed in WW2, if that's what you're meaning?

The pic I'm meaning was destroyed in combat.



> And P-38, at least choose the M-36 it was far superior to the M-10.



I'd go with the Achilles there.


The Elefants not a bad choice P38, but had very bad mobility.


Maybe the GMC M12 155mm wasn't so bad?


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 7, 2005)

I know, I know! But the Elefant was very good when it came down to destroying a Russian T-34.


----------



## Douglas Jr. (Oct 7, 2005)

Hi,

I really enjoy the Jagdpanther. That 88m gun was something very impressive!

Douglas.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 8, 2005)

No, I mean the StuK40 F/8 - it was no longer an assault gun. It had a SturmKanone (StuK). Look it up. 

If the Kubinka King Tiger was destroyed in World War II, why is it still in one piece. Until you find this picture of a destroyed King Tiger with frontal penertration, frankly I'm not going to believe you. I've seen pictures of a King Tiger's front plate being penertrated, it was used as a target as I described. 

P-38 is a patriotic American - he'd go with the U.S M36 rather than the British improvement of it.


----------



## HealzDevo (Nov 6, 2005)

I think the Germans designed some magnificant heavy tanks as well as tank-destroyers. The US ones were a bit too light on in terms of armour.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Nov 9, 2005)

*PlanD:*



> No, I mean the StuK40 F/8 - it was no longer an assault gun. It had a SturmKanone (StuK). Look it up.



Alright, I know what you mean now, but that's really a misnomer. It was StuG F (stop-gap) but was called what you say by a lot of German troops so OK.  

SturmKanone means Assault Cannon BTW.



> If the Kubinka King Tiger was destroyed in World War II, why is it still in one piece.



There were more than 1 captured in the 1st engagement alone, this example I'm on about was totally destroyed.



> Until you find this picture of a destroyed King Tiger with frontal penertration, frankly I'm not going to believe you.



The site is down, but apparently it's only being refurbed.



> I've seen pictures of a King Tiger's front plate being penertrated, it was used as a target as I described.



Was that at Kubinka? If so, I know the one you mean - not that one.



> P-38 is a patriotic American - he'd go with the U.S M36 rather than the British improvement of it.



I think it's good when we collaborate; P51, Firefly, Achilles, Corvette LT1, AC Cobra etc. 8) 

*HealzDevo:*



> I think the Germans designed some magnificant heavy tanks as well as tank-destroyers.



They all had major flaws though.



> The US ones were a bit too light on in terms of armour.



Well, considering the M4 Sherman lacked protection, mobility and firepower from '42 on - the M10 at least had the last 2, also it's sloping armour and speed probably made it better protected in certain ways.


The Russians had it right IMHO.


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2005)

The JagdPanther, no doubt.

With great mobility and reliability, as-well as excellent armor and firepower, this TD definitely takes the poll. 

Also there was never to be developed any Soviet or Western Allied equal to this Tank Destroyer during WW2.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 20, 2005)

Soren said:


> Also there was never to be developed any Soviet or Western Allied equal to this Tank Destroyer during WW2.



Except, of course, the SU100.


----------



## Soren (Dec 22, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > Also there was never to be developed any Soviet or Western Allied equal to this Tank Destroyer during WW2.
> ...



Schwarzpanzer, the SU100 falls awfully short compared to the JagdPanther.

I assume you know that though.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 23, 2005)

It's actually superior in almost every respect, except for gun performance.


----------



## Soren (Dec 23, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> It's actually superior in almost every respect, except for gun performance.



 Name just 'one' department where the SU-100 is superior !

The JagdPanther is both much better armed and armored, and is faster as-well. 

Both have good reliability, so they're even there, only in the SU-100's ease of production is it superior.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 23, 2005)

*Soren:*



> The JagdPanther is both much better armed



I've agreed that (though maybe some wouldn't)



> and armored



No, I wouldn't say that, the only way to explain this is point-by-point:

The SU 100 gave away 5mm to the JagdPanther on the front glacis yes, but the SU 100's armour was better sloped.

The front hull was 15mm short of the JgdPanthers, @ the same angle (but was a smaller target).

The mantlet was 25mm shy, but wouldn't likely be penetrated.

The side/rear armour of the SU 100 was actually 5mm thicker and better sloped (except for the superstructure).

There was little between the top armour as well (16-25mm JgdPanther, 20mm SU 100)

The cupola on the SU100 could be vulnerable though.



> and is faster as-well.



Same top speed, much quicker acceleration on the SU100.



> Both have good reliability, so they're even there



The heavy-duty gearbox was more reliable than the feeble Panthers, but the Henshel suspension and Maybach engine were not, unlike the sturdy V2 diesel and Christie suspension of the SU100. (Though early SU100's suspensions were overloaded)



> only in the SU-100's ease of production is it superior.



Yep.

The crew quality and numbers would be what it'd boil down to in the end...


----------



## Soren (Dec 26, 2005)

> I've agreed that (though maybe some wouldn't)



Those who wouldn't, don't know what they're talking about. 

The 88mm Kwk43 was inherently more accurate than the SU-100's 100mm D-10S gun, as-well as having much better optics and penetration power. 



> No, I wouldn't say that, the only way to explain this is point-by-point:
> 
> The SU 100 gave away 5mm to the JagdPanther on the front glacis yes, but the SU 100's armour was better sloped.
> 
> ...



Schwarzpanzer, the SU-100 wasn't nearly as well armored as the JagdPanther !

The JagdPanther's front upper hull was 82mm thick and sloped 55 degree's from vertical, while the SU-100's front upper hull was 75mm thick and sloped 50 degree's from vertical.

Front lower hull: JagdPanther = 60mm/55. SU-100 = 45mm/55.

Side upper hull/Superstructure: JagdPanther = 50mm/30. SU-100 = 45mm/20.

Side lower hull: JagdPanther = 40mm/0. SU-100 = 45mm/0.

Rear upper hull/Superstructure: JagdPanther = 40mm/35. SU-100 = 45mm/48.

Rear lower hull: JagdPanther = 40mm/25. SU-100 = 45mm/45.

So the only places where the SU-100 is better armored is on the side lower hull, and the rear, both places which are rarely hit. In every important place the Jagdpanther is better armored, making overall better armored. 



> Same top speed, much quicker acceleration on the SU100.



The SU-100's max speed was 48km/h, while the JagdPanther would run at up to 50km/h. 

And no, the SU-100 would not out-accelerate the JagdPanther, the JagdPanther would out-accelerate the SU-100, as the Maybach HL230 P30 engine has alot more torque pr weight unit than the W-2 engine. (I can't believe we're actually discussing which tank accelerates the fastest !  )



> The heavy-duty gearbox was more reliable than the feeble Panthers, but the Henshel suspension and Maybach engine were not, unlike the sturdy V2 diesel and Christie suspension of the SU100. (Though early SU100's suspensions were overloaded)



No, the Panthers gearbox was more than adequate for it, and proved very reliable after the first few teething problems had been worked out. Only when used in the much heavier Tiger Ausf.B did the Panther's gearbox prove to be inadequate.

As to the Panther's Maybach engine, it was much superior to the W-2 diesel of the SU-100 !


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 26, 2005)

I wouldn't say the D10 was very far behind the Pak43. 

The RoF and ammo sizes though...

Well I never! The glacis/superstructure of the JagdPanther is actually 5 degrees _steeper_ than that of the SU100!  

Still, only 5 degrees and 5mm seperates them, though that could be decisive...

The upper-side superstructure I knew (and said) was better protected.

As you said, both places most likely to take a hit.



> So the only places where the SU-100 is better armored is on the side lower hull, and the rear, both places which are rarely hit.



Yes, but these are exactly what is aimed for. At close range with an AT gun of 50mm or more they are likely a gonner anyway, however the T34's sloped armour may deflect AP and HEAT rounds here (but not he Pak43's APCBC, oh no  ).

The (Jgd)Panthers road wheels were protective of the side lower hull, as was the T34's to a much lesser extent. The gap between the sponson and the top of the tracks was a vulnerable spot for the (Jgd)Panther as it was on the other German heavies.

Both sometimes fitted Schurzen, though the SU100 also often carried Tankovy-Desant - very effective against Panzer-Shrecks/Fausts.  

The point I made, as did you was that they were almost identical in combat performance, but the SSU100 was a lot better logistically (cheaper and sturdier, yes it was!  )



> The SU-100's max speed was 48km/h, while the JagdPanther would run at up to 50km/h.



I've heard 55kph for JgdPanther, 50 for SU100 (damn metric!). Even so, 2-5 kph is no real difference: 

With this in mind the 'soft specs' such as the ride quality and ergonomics might be an issue?  

Also the Henschel suspension made for a better gun platform, and wasn't overloaded (though it was prone to clogging freezing solid and just as difficult to maintain)

The ground pressure for the SU100 was nearly 2psi better too (11psi vs 12.9) so it was probably better cross country?



> And no, the SU-100 would not out-accelerate the JagdPanther, the JagdPanther would out-accelerate the SU-100, as the Maybach HL230 P30 engine has alot more torque pr weight unit than the W-2 engine. (I can't believe we're actually discussing which tank accelerates the fastest !  )



I consider this very important actually.  

I wouldn't think a V12 diesel powering just over 31 and a half tons (with lower ground pressure) would be out-dragged by a V12 Petrol weighing 45 and a half tons?  

Anyway the V2 was an aluminium Diesel, which should easily beat the torque/weight figure of the Maybach? You sure you aren't talking about bhp figures? 

- I have been looking for torque figures for ages! Could you please provide a source? - I'd be very interested!  

The V2 was more reliable than the Maybach and had an advantage in range/flammability.



> No, the Panthers gearbox was more than adequate for it, and proved very reliable after the first few teething problems had been worked out. Only when used in the much heavier Tiger Ausf.B did the Panther's gearbox prove to be inadequate.



The JgdPanther Panther G shared a gearbox (heavy duty). The AusfD's was certainly not reliable!  (think Kursk) According to PlanD, neither were the AusfA's.


----------



## Soren (Dec 27, 2005)

> I wouldn't say the D10 was very far behind the Pak43.
> 
> The RoF and ammo sizes though...



The 88mm Kwk43 was alot more accurate and would penetrate thicker armor than the 100mm D-10S, as-well as having a faster RoF and better optics. All of this makes the 88mm kwk43 a much better gun than the 100mm D-10S. 



> Well I never! The glacis/superstructure of the JagdPanther is actually 5 degrees _steeper_ than that of the SU100!
> 
> Still, only 5 degrees and 5mm seperates them, though that could be decisive...



Considering that the JagdPanther also has a much better main gun, then yes, that could be VERY decisive !



> As you said, both places most likely to take a hit.



The most common places hit were the front glacis, front turret, front hull and the side upper hull/Superstructure. For TD's this was different story though, as these would always try to face their opponents head on, never exposing their flanks, so most hits on them were obviously on the frontal armor. 



> Yes, but these are exactly what is aimed for. At close range with an AT gun of 50mm or more they are likely a gonner anyway, however the T34's sloped armour may deflect AP and HEAT rounds here



Schwarzpanzer in reality the SU-100 was just as vulnerable in these places as the JagdPanther. You see by the time of the SU-100's service debut in 44 most German AT gun's were high velocity 75mm guns, all of which could easily penetrate the SU-100's side from ranges beyond 2000m, and some would even penetrate the front at those ranges and beyond. And up close there was always the threat of the Panzerfaust, which could easily penetrate the SU-100's sides and rear.



> The (Jgd)Panthers road wheels were protective of the side lower hull, as was the T34's to a much lesser extent. The gap between the sponson and the top of the tracks was a vulnerable spot for the (Jgd)Panther as it was on the other German heavies.



That is why the schürzen were put on many of them, however as the JagdPanther was mainly intended for long range anti-tank warfare this was of little importance.



> The point I made, as did you was that they were almost identical in combat performance, but the SSU100 was a lot better logistically (cheaper and sturdier, yes it was!  )



No that was not at all my point ! 

The JagdPanther was much more effective in combat than the SU-100, being both better armed and armored than the SU-100 ! Hence the Jagdpanther's excellent combat record. 

In reliability they were equal.

Only logistically does the SU-100 have an advantage over the JagdPanther, being simpler and more easily mass produced, as-well as being more fuel efficient.



> I've heard 55kph for JgdPanther



Yes, it ranges from 50-55km/h, I just chose the lowest number for comparison.



> The ground pressure for the SU100 was nearly 2psi better too (11psi vs 12.9) so it was probably better cross country?



Such a small difference in pressure means nearly nothing, its only 90 grams of difference pr sq.cm. 

And no, the SU-100 was not better cross country, the JagdPanther clearly holds the advantage there with a superior capability for overcoming steeper and larger obstacles, as-well as having a deeper max fording depth. 



> I consider this very important actually.



You can't name 'one' good reason for that Schwarzpanzer ! I guarantee it !



> I wouldn't think a V12 diesel powering just over 31 and a half tons (with lower ground pressure) would be out-dragged by a V12 Petrol weighing 45 and a half tons?



Outdragged ?!  Come'on these aren't racing cars, they're tanks ! 



> Anyway the V2 was an aluminium Diesel, which should easily beat the torque/weight figure of the Maybach? You sure you aren't talking about bhp figures?



Hmm I made a mistake, I was mixing "Nm" figures with "lbs/ft" figures, the W-2 actually has the advantage in torque. However for petrol engines at the time the Maybach had very high torque for its displacement, higher than any Allied petrol engine of the same size. On the other hand the W-2 engine is rather inefficient for its displacement;

23L HL230 P30 V12 gasoline, 700hp and 1400lbs/ft. 

38.88L W-2 V12 Diesel, 500hp and 1600lbs/ft. 

So it looks like the SU-100 might win this little Drag-race  But lets face it, these are tanks, and their time from 0-30mph is of zero importance. 

However something which is of considerable importance is the fuel consumption of the engine, and here the SU-100's W-2 Diesel engine holds a clear advantage over the Maybach petrol engine. This also strenghtens the SU-100's logistical advantage.



> - I have been looking for torque figures for ages! Could you please provide a source? - I'd be very interested!



Yes, for German engines you should check out "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two" by Peter Chamberlain, Hilary Doyle and tech editor Thomas L. Jentz - ISBN:1854095188.



> The V2 was more reliable than the Maybach and had an advantage in range/flammability.



No, they were both pretty equal in reliability, although the Maybach engine was more reliable in the long run. The Maybach engine was built to last for ages, which was one of its faults, as tanks ain't expected to last very long on the battlefield. It was simply to expensive in the long run, and resulted in less engines and spare parts being built than otherwise could've been achieved. The W-2 engine was simpler and easier to produce, although a little less reliable, but this wasn't a problem as the there were plenty of spare parts and they were easily aquired. (This wasn't so for most German engines)



> The AusfD's was certainly not reliable!  (think Kursk) According to PlanD, neither were the AusfA's.



Yes, thats right.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 28, 2005)

> The 88mm Kwk43 was alot more accurate and would penetrate thicker armor than the 100mm D-10S, as-well as having a faster RoF and better optics. All of this makes the 88mm kwk43 a much better gun than the 100mm D-10S.



Yes, and the 88 shells took up less space, say for every 8th 100mm round, you could have an extra 88mm.

APCBC is also much better than APHE.



> For TD's this was different story though, as these would always try to face their opponents head on, never exposing their flanks, so most hits on them were obviously on the frontal armor.



I've seen a JgdPanther destroyed by a Cromwell in the sides. This seems to be common, as they were often used defensively or supported infantry if used offensively.

Like the Tiger, KT Panther though; they were only superior if used in ambush, or in long range frontal attacks (not always the case!) and were pathetic all-rounders.



> You see by the time of the SU-100's service debut in 44 most German AT gun's were high velocity 75mm guns, all of which could easily penetrate the SU-100's side from ranges beyond 2000m, and some would even penetrate the front at those ranges and beyond. And up close there was always the threat of the Panzerfaust, which could easily penetrate the SU-100's sides and rear.



One of the SU100's weaknesses was it came late (though in big numbers). The thing is, the SU100 could get out of an ambush much better, the SU100's sloping 45mm armour could deflect 75mm AP shots, the same might well happen to HEAT rounds. Obviously a 88mm APCBC is going to have a nearly 100% succes rate though...

I had a combat report on the Bazooka, but someone deleted it (didn't they NS!  ) Would you like me to link to it?

Anyway, 'bed springs' Shurzen was sometimes fitted, and then there's the aforementioned tank-riders making Panzerfaust attacks almost pointless.



> Such a small difference in pressure means nearly nothing, its only 90 grams of difference pr sq.cm.



Less likely to get stuck...



> And no, the SU-100 was not better cross country, the JagdPanther clearly holds the advantage there with a superior capability for overcoming steeper and larger obstacles, as-well as having a deeper max fording depth.



Yes, ride quality is also important...



> You can't name 'one' good reason for that Schwarzpanzer ! I guarantee it !



It was what a lot of tankies loved about the M3 Stuart or 'Honey':

Stop! - fire! - fcuk off!  



> Hmm I made a mistake, I was mixing "Nm" figures with "lbs/ft" figures, the W-2 actually has the advantage in torque. However for petrol engines at the time the Maybach had very high torque for its displacement, higher than any Allied petrol engine of the same size. On the other hand the W-2 engine is rather inefficient for its displacement;



Yes, like I said before, I hate metric.  I doubt the Maybach had more torque than the Meteor?

The V2 is just nice, just name me a reliable Western alloy diesel.



> Yes, for German engines you should check out "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two" by Peter Chamberlain, Hilary Doyle and tech editor Thomas L. Jentz - ISBN:1854095188.



Thanks very much for that.  

- I dreaded this would happen though - I actually have tha book!  



> 23L HL230 P30 V12 gasoline, 700hp and 1400lbs/ft.
> 
> 38.88L W-2 V12 Diesel, 500hp and 1600lbs/ft.



Thanks for those figures. I take it I can get the Maybach's torque figures from the aforementioned book? where can I get the V2 torque figures please?



> No, they were both pretty equal in reliability, although the Maybach engine was more reliable in the long run. The Maybach engine was built to last for ages, which was one of its faults, as tanks ain't expected to last very long on the battlefield. It was simply to expensive in the long run, and resulted in less engines and spare parts being built than otherwise could've been achieved. The W-2 engine was simpler and easier to produce, although a little less reliable,



I contest this!  I'll have to provide some evidence...

Any evidence on the Panther AusfA's gearbox problems?


----------



## Soren (Dec 28, 2005)

> Yes, and the 88 shells took up less space, say for every 8th 100mm round, you could have an extra 88mm.



No, actually the kwk43's rounds were bigger and took up more space.  



> APCBC is also much better than APHE.



Schwarzpanzer, the SU-100 fired APCBC rounds, not APHE rounds.  



> I've seen a JgdPanther destroyed by a Cromwell in the sides.



And ? It had probably been hit more than a dusin times on the front before that, but to no avail, as was often the case. 



> This seems to be common, as they were often used defensively or supported infantry if used offensively.



When under attack by enemy tanks or AT guns, the JagdPanther would swing its front at them, not exposing its flanks. Of-cause up close the JagdPanther was vulnerable, and in such scenarios it was most often taken out from the side by either infantry or tanks who had been able to flank it. However the places hit the most were on the frontal armor. It just so happens that the Allies had nearly no weapon that could penetrate the JagdPanthers front, and those who could had to get 'really' close, but that doesn't change the fact that this was the place most often hit.



> Like the Tiger, KT Panther though; they were only superior if used in ambush, or in long range frontal attacks (not always the case!) and were pathetic all-rounders.



What, are you kidding me ?!  

Those are about the best tanks of WW2 ! The Panther being WW2's ultimate allrounder, "The best tank of WW2" to be exact !

The Tiger Ausf.E was "The King of the Battlefield" from early 42 to early 44, and from then on the Tiger Ausf.B took over that title. As "Allrounders" both the Tiger Ausf.E and Ausf.B were good tanks, and performed excellently as infantry support. 

The only bad points of the Tiger Ausf.E-B series was their reliability, but that was solely due to the fact that mech-support was poor and and spare parts were very hard to get hold of. If properly maintained the Tiger's were a very reliable tanks, which was shown in a number of occasions on both the Eastern and Western front.

Long range attacks were common on the Eastern front, the medium ranges of about 1000m being the most common, and in such scenarios the Tiger's and Panther's definitely had the upper hand over any Russian AFV from start to finish. (Close range fighting wasn't rare though)



> One of the SU100's weaknesses was it came late (though in big numbers). The thing is, the SU100 could get out of an ambush much better, *the SU100's sloping 45mm armour could deflect 75mm AP shots*, the same might well happen to HEAT rounds.



I assume you meant "45mm guns" and "75mm armor", right ?

Cause some German 75mm guns in 44 would penetrate even the SU-100's frontal armor at long ranges, the 75mm Kwk42 being one of them.



> Obviously a 88mm APCBC is going to have a nearly 100% succes rate though...



In a long range frontal engagement the PaK/Kwk43 would be 100% effective, even at ranges beyond 3000m.

Haven't seen or heard about any complaining reports from the front ever mentioning an AP round from the Kwk43 failing to penetrate its target. Crews of the vehicles who mounted the 88mm kwk43 were overly happy about the gun, never to see it fail to penetrate any enemy AFV, reporting kills of IS-2's at ranges beyond 4000m.



> Anyway, 'bed springs' Shurzen was sometimes fitted, and then there's the aforementioned tank-riders making Panzerfaust attacks almost pointless.



Those were rare Schwarzpanzer, and up close they were poor as protective means against Panzerfausts because of all the gaps between the protective screens. (Besides, up close even a molotov will do wonders against a tank)



> Less likely to get stuck...



Come on ! If a 90 gram heavier object gets stuck, then so does a 90 gram lighter object !

So if the JagdPanther gets stuck so does the SU-100, the only difference being that since the JagdPanther has better cross country abilities it will have an easier time freeing itself  



> Yes, ride quality is also important...



To some extent yes, and here the JagdPanther is also definitely better than the SU-100 ! 

Driving a SU-100 would get you utterly exhausted in a short space of time, while in the JagdPanther you could go on for much longer, which can be attributed to the excellent suspension and steering mechanism of the JagdPanther.



> It was what a lot of tankies loved about the M3 Stuart or 'Honey':



Are you seriously comparing two medium heavy tank destroyers to a ultra light reconnaissance tank ?



> Yes, like I said before, I hate metric.



Actually I like the metric system a whole lot better than the imperial one, eventhough I grew up with the imperial system. The metric system is so much easier when you get to know it. (Which is also why so many countries have converted to it)



> I doubt the Maybach had more torque than the Meteor?



The Meteor ? 



> The V2 is just nice, just name me a reliable Western alloy diesel.



GM and Chrysler made some reliable diesel engines, as did some German engine manufactures such as the Bayerische Motoren Werke (BMW) and others. (None for tanks though)



> Thanks very much for that.
> 
> - I dreaded this would happen though - I actually have tha book!



Then perhaps you should take a look at it  



> Thanks for those figures. I take it I can get the Maybach's torque figures from the aforementioned book?



Yes.



> where can I get the V2 torque figures please?



Read Steven Zaloga's series of books about the T-34 and its variants.



> I contest this!  I'll have to provide some evidence...



Go ahead, I've seen the difference between these two engines inside out, and the quality of the Maybach engine is definitely superior.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 29, 2005)

> Quote:
> I doubt the Maybach had more torque than the Meteor?
> 
> 
> The Meteor ?



I think he's talking about the Rolls Royce Meteor engine that was used in the Cromwell.


----------



## Erich (Jan 19, 2006)

thought I would try and get some motiviation to the general forum

I believe the Stug Ausf G was a hot commodity attending the ranks of the Stug Brigaden on the Ost and West Fronts


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 4, 2006)

Agreed Erich, there's a whole topic on the Stug and I've posted my comments there.  


Hi Soren,




me said:


> I've seen a JgdPanther destroyed by a Cromwell in the sides.





your reply said:


> And ? It had probably been hit more than a dusin times on the front before that, but to no avail, as was often the case.



If you were in a Cromwell and saw a JgdPanther, you'd try to get up close to his side unseen, wouldn't you?

There were also a few guns capaple of penetrating the JgdPanther's front; 122mm D25, 100mm D10, 17pdr, US 90mm.



> Those are about the best tanks of WW2 !(Panther/Tiger)



Depends how they were used...

True, Germany had the ultimate 'mobile pill-boxes' from '42-'45.



> The only bad points of the Tiger Ausf.E-B series was their reliability, but that was solely due to the fact that mech-support was poor and and spare parts were very hard to get hold of.



They had many achilles heels. Unreliability is partly down to a lack of spares, but mainly because German engineers have always had a tendency to over-complicate things.



> Long range attacks were common on the Eastern front, the medium ranges of about 1000m being the most common, and in such scenarios the Tiger's and Panther's definitely had the upper hand over any Russian AFV from start to finish. (Close range fighting wasn't rare though)



Also true of the NA desert. @ 1000m the JS2 was equual/better than the Tiger/Panther (but not KingTiger). Me and PlanD seemed to concentrate on urban fighting, say about -600m?



> Cause some German 75mm guns in 44 would penetrate even the SU-100's frontal armor at long ranges, the 75mm Kwk42 being one of them.



I was meaning Pak guns and infantry weapons.



> In a long range frontal engagement the PaK/Kwk43 would be 100% effective, even at ranges beyond 3000m.



Now you know that's not true. 



> Crews of the vehicles who mounted the 88mm kwk43 were overly happy about the gun, never to see it fail to penetrate any enemy AFV, reporting kills of IS-2's at ranges beyond 4000m.



You don't think that they may be boasting?



> Those were rare Schwarzpanzer, and up close they were poor as protective means against Panzerfausts because of all the gaps between the protective screens.



I was wondering that. Have you any sources onto incidents when this happened?

I wonder if that's a problem (or upcoming problem) for the 'gappy' Schurzen being used in Iraq today?


The 'fausts rounded noses were ineffective against the T34's sloping armour.


Tank-riders were common practice in the Soviet army, particularly for urban fighting. Not rare at all.

They made 'Panzerknacking' pointless.




> Come on ! If a 90 gram heavier object gets stuck, then so does a 90 gram lighter object !



Suppose one weighs 1 gram, the other 91 grams?




> So if the JagdPanther gets stuck so does the SU-100, the only difference being that since the JagdPanther has better cross country abilities it will have an easier time freeing itself



The SU-100 is lighter, with better mud-plugging ability from it's 'waffle-iron' tracks.

The (Jgd)Panther was meant to be a stable gun platform, the T34(SU100) to be a good 'rough-stuff' performer.



> To some extent yes, and here the JagdPanther is also definitely better than the SU-100 !



I'd say you were right (excluding suspension) as you said driving was tiring in the SU100.

It was more on ergonomic factors though.



> excellent suspension and steering mechanism of the JagdPanther.



Overcomplicated... (BTW it used reverse engineered Merrit-Brown steering, as did the Tiger)



> Are you seriously comparing two medium heavy tank destroyers to a ultra light reconnaissance tank ?



You must remember that at the time it was introduced, the little M3 Stuart was one of the most formidable tanks in the desert IMHO.

This tactic could be (and probably was) used by a Jeep with a Bazooka!

Soviet T34/76's could kill Tigers using this tactic (with difficulty).

Shoot and scoot is particularly useful against SPG's or Tigers with their painfully slow turret traverse, weak flanks and formidable fronts.



> Actually I like the metric system a whole lot better than the imperial one, eventhough I grew up with the imperial system. The metric system is so much easier when you get to know it.



I like to hybridise; I like quarter-pounder, bhp, lb/ft but also mm, cm etc.



> The Meteor ?



Like PlanD said, the de-rated Merlin found in the Cromwell (BTW John Dodd is the friend of a friend!)



> GM and Chrysler made some reliable diesel engines, as did some German engine manufactures such as the Bayerische Motoren Werke (BMW) and others. (None for tanks though)



Yer I know (little Britain). I did say (aluminium) alloy diesel though...



> Then perhaps you should take a look at it



I'll have to, it's amazing what you miss/forget!  

Thanks for the Steven Zaloga suggestion.  
I found 4 by him on the T(-)34, but none on the SU's. 
Which would you recommend?



> Go ahead, I've seen the difference between these two engines inside out, and the quality of the Maybach engine is definitely superior.



Actually the Panther's engines were the victims of penny-pinching. Gaskets were sub-standard etc. Also slaves and saboteurs likely could have built some.

- a chain's only as strong as it's weakest link.


----------



## Erich (Feb 4, 2006)

comments on the Stug ......... where ?, seems like I am the only one posting on the thread I started. c'mon you guys add besides "cool pic's" ....... please !


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 4, 2006)

It's there Erich, 1st page if you look.  

Also a discussion seems to be going now? the ball maybe rolling...


----------



## Soren (Feb 14, 2006)

Oh for Christs sake Schwarzpanzer ! We're running circles here !



> If you were in a Cromwell and saw a JgdPanther, you'd try to get up close to his side unseen, wouldn't you?



No, I would get the hell out of there !!



> There were also a few guns capaple of penetrating the JgdPanther's front; 122mm D25, 100mm D10, 17pdr, US 90mm.



Those guns would only have a hope of penetrating at point blank range ! Heck in actual combat the 122mm D-25T often failed even to penetrate the Tiger Ausf.E's vertical frontal armor at point blank range, the round just had to be off by a slight degree and it would fail to penetrate. (You can thank poor quality russian projectiles for that!) 



> Depends how they were used...
> 
> True, Germany had the ultimate 'mobile pill-boxes' from '42-'45.



 If you just knew how wrong your are.



> They had many achilles heels. Unreliability is partly down to a lack of spares, but mainly because German engineers have always had a tendency to over-complicate things.



Listen Schwarzpanzer, had the spare parts been there, on time, everytime, the Tiger tanks would've been very reliable !



> @ 1000m the JS2 was equual/better than the Tiger/Panther (but not KingTiger). Me and PlanD seemed to concentrate on urban fighting, say about -600m?



Again completely untrue ! Both the Tiger and Panther would smash the JS-2 to pieces in a long range engagement, the JS-2 wouldn't stand a chance! The Tiger and Panther had much better optics, firing systems, ammunition and more accurate main guns, in all they were completely superior in every sense to the JS-2.

Only at ranges within 800m would the JS-2 pose any real and dangerous threat to the Tiger Ausf.E and Panther, beyond that the Panther and Tiger would have an easy time destroying the JS-2 without getting into danger themselves.

The Tiger Ausf.E could successfully engage and destroy a JS-2 at a range of 2000m, while the Panther could do so at even longer distances. A kill was by no means guaranteed at these ranges, but they were very possible.



> I was meaning Pak guns and infantry weapons.



Well PaK guns included, as-well as some of the big panzerfausts. 



> Now you know that's not true.



No, I know its true. I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise ! Every report of an engagement where a hit was obtained the PaK/Kwk43 has been 100% effective. With that having been said, hits at 3000m or more were rare and considered lucky hits, even by the most experienced gun crews.



> You don't think that they may be boasting?



Boasting ?! How, and why ?! Such a thing was severely punished in the German army, and its clearly understandable why ! 

Nearly every German tank or TD holds 5 crew members, so it would be impossible for the gunner to claim and confirm a hit if it wasn't true, as everyone else would be watching at the exact same thing ! Also TD's were hardly ever alone, allowing even more people to see it happen. How can someone get a hit confirmed he really didn't obtain if probably more than 20 men saw it happen before their very eyes ?! Only a fool would ever dare to try and lie about such a thing.

Also what point does it make to boast about your equipment in reports, to waste an opportunity to complain about things which are wrong or should be improved on, perhaps making your life at the front abit easier ?! I wonder what would have happened to the Germans in 41 if every PzIII commander had written a report boasting about how effective their tanks were against the T-34's rolling all over them, how long would the war have lasted then you think ?!  



> The 'fausts rounded noses were ineffective against the T34's sloping armour.



Oh sweet Jesus !  You clearly don't know how a Panzerfaust(Or virtually any other hand held AT weapon for that matter) works !

I suggest you go read about how a Hollow Charge works, then come back and we can discuss this.



> Tank-riders were common practice in the Soviet army, particularly for urban fighting. Not rare at all.
> 
> *They made 'Panzerknacking' pointless*.



- and machine-gun-fire a working wonder ! How stupid are you if your sitting on a tank to prevent the enemy from firing armor piercing projectiles at it ?! Come on Schwarzpanzer, this is getting ridiculous !



> Suppose one weighs 1 gram, the other 91 grams?



Thats what I call a twisted sense of logic ! 

Schwarzpanzer, your suggesting that the JagdPanther is 91 times heavier than the SU-100 !!!! 



> The SU-100 is lighter, *with better mud-plugging ability from it's 'waffle-iron' tracks*.



Untrue.



> The (Jgd)Panther was meant to be a stable gun platform, the T34(SU100) to be a good 'rough-stuff' performer.



Schwarzpanzer, the Panther was alot better off-road than the T-34, it was probably the best tank for negotiating off-road terrain in WWII. 



> Overcomplicated... (BTW it used reverse engineered Merrit-Brown steering, as did the Tiger



 That doesn't deserve a comment. 



> You must remember that at the time it was introduced, the little M3 Stuart was one of the most formidable tanks in the desert IMHO.



 You must be out of your mind !!  



> This tactic could be (and probably was) used by a Jeep with a Bazooka!
> 
> Soviet T34/76's could kill Tigers using this tactic (with difficulty).
> 
> Shoot and scoot is particularly useful against SPG's or Tigers with their painfully slow turret traverse, weak flanks and formidable fronts.



Well you see, the Tiger didn't have these so called weak flanks, and if they couldn't bring the gun to bare quickly enough they'd just swivel the whole tank around ! (Something they did quite often actually, and something you 'should' know) 



> Like PlanD said, the de-rated Merlin found in the Cromwell



Well then yeah, more torque than that too.



> Yer I know (little Britain). I did say (aluminium) alloy diesel though...



Yes, and ?



> Thanks for the Steven Zaloga suggestion.
> I found 4 by him on the T(-)34, but none on the SU's.
> Which would you recommend?



No problem, I recommend all of them.



> Actually the Panther's engines were the victims of penny-pinching. Gaskets were sub-standard etc. Also slaves and saboteurs likely could have built some.



Source ?


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 15, 2006)

> No, I would get the hell out of there !!



Well, I was meaning if you had to destroy it. Even then running is a bad idea, if it sees you trying to scarper, it's gonna plug you as you run. There is a JgdPanther in a museum I saw taken out by a Cromwell in this way.



> Heck in actual combat the 122mm D-25T often failed even to penetrate the Tiger Ausf.E's vertical frontal armor at point blank range



Oh, come on!

True early 122mm ammunition was near useless. In tests performed against Panthers, the 122mm AP rounds failed/or penetrated with difficulty, whereas the HE shells ripped the glacis clean off!

The TigerI was better quality than the Panthers (which, like the KT could be downright shonky) so this could influence my thoughts.

Using APHE was also a stupid Russian obsession, but 'normalised' 122mm AP rounds were very effective.



> If you just knew how wrong your are.



Not all commanders were like Wittman, believe it or not! I wish I could find that photo of the Tiger used by Hitler Jugend - what a state it was in!

Also one was worn out, scorchmarked barell, muzzle brake missing, barrel probably worn out, wheels missing. Suppose you could put that last one down to a severe lack of spares though, there was a reason Russian equipment was easy to produce you know - you think that's a bad thing??



> Listen Schwarzpanzer, had the spare parts been there, on time, everytime, the Tiger tanks would've been very reliable !



What, every 5 seconds! The Tiger was very unreliable, like a 60 ton Austin Allegro.



> Again completely untrue ! Both the Tiger and Panther would smash the JS-2 to pieces in a long range engagement, the JS-2 wouldn't stand a chance!



It's been proven, but ten again 1000m is average overall tank battle range in WW2.

My comparison with the AK47 works here, as it may not be good beyond 400m, but if average combat range is -300m...

Then again, if you had an SLR you would deliberatly engage beyond 500m and avoid close-quarters battles. So a crafty Pz commander would do similar (which they did, yes).



> The Tiger Ausf.E could successfully engage and destroy a JS-2 at a range of 2000m, while the Panther could do so at even longer distances. A kill was by no means guaranteed at these ranges, but they were very possible.



Alright, at this range the Panther and Tiger win, alright!



> Well PaK guns included, as-well as some of the big panzerfausts.



I mean when Pak guns weren't used properly (a frequent occurance in the East Front).

An example is on the film Stalingrad.

I heard the ater PzFausts solved the problem of the warhead bouncing off sloped armour and failing to detonate, so OK.



> Boasting ?! How, and why ?! Such a thing was severely punished in the German army, and its clearly understandable why !



Only if the higher-ups found out... Even then you could become one of Goebels proganda darlings.



> Also what point does it make to boast about your equipment in reports, to waste an opportunity to complain about things which are wrong or should be improved on, perhaps making your life at the front abit easier ?! I wonder what would have happened to the Germans in 41 if every PzIII commander had written a report boasting about how effective their tanks were against the T-34's rolling all over them



Unfortunately warped pride happens often, even nowdays. e.g. GI's in Vietnam were told what to say about their M16's, unsurprisingly - it wasn't the truth! Reports were ignored 'till people like Guderian (and even Hitler!) stamped their feet - even then it took time. The PzIII was near useless against all opponents, though in fainess Hitler originally ordered the 50mm L60 to be fitted.



> how long would the war have lasted then you think ?!



About as long as it did.



> You clearly don't know how a Panzerfaust(Or virtually any other hand held AT weapon for that matter) works !
> 
> I suggest you go read about how a Hollow Charge works, then come back and we can discuss this.



I am well aware how the Munroe effect works, thank you. The warhead on early PzFausts was terrible for bouncing off sloped armour and failing to detonate.



> - and machine-gun-fire a working wonder !



What?? - and risk a HE shell coming your way?? I wouldn't try that with a 122mm!!



> How stupid are you if your sitting on a tank to prevent the enemy from firing armor piercing projectiles at it ?!



It worked - anyone stupid enough to run up would face a hail of PPSh's - DP's and maybe even a cupola DShK 12.7mm!

I have video footage of Tankovy-Desant wielding captured StG44's, I bet they were executed for that.



> Thats what I call a twisted sense of logic !



Theory of Relativity taken too far...



> Schwarzpanzer, the Panther was alot better off-road than the T-34, it was probably the best tank for negotiating off-road terrain in WWII.



Yes, the Henschel-type was good for this, but not as good as the Christie-Koshkin - though not far off, admittedly. Christie suspension does not collect packed snow, the Panther's wheel rubber gave problems, the touching wheel rims often froze together too.

The Churchil, with it's Rhomboidal-type tracks was good at cross-country - unless you wanted to get there fast.



> That doesn't deserve a comment.



Because it's unarguable - it's true after all.



> You must be out of your mind !!



Nope, it was reliable and had a good combination of mobility, firepower and armour for it's day (in that order).



> Well you see, the Tiger didn't have these so called weak flanks, and if they couldn't bring the gun to bare quickly enough they'd just swivel the whole tank around !



Unless the tracks were frozen solid. 

Do you know what happens when a Tiger is turning? - the earth builds up and the tracks snap.



> Well then yeah, more torque than that too.



Well I never, I doubt it's much? - @ what rpm?



> Yes, and ?



If you could make the block, heads, pistons, inlet manifold, carburettor, sump and various anclliaries out of iron/steel or aluminium - what would you choose?



> No problem, I recommend all of them.



Thanks very much. I've now ordered the T34/76 one, thanks again!



> Source ?



"...In closing, I can't get around adding a few words on a very sad story, despite the fact that it was exactly the way I had thought it would be: Panther. There were a great many who expected the decision to come from the new, untried weapon. The initially complete failure therefore had somewhat a depressing effect, particularly since, on the basis of the Fuhrer Order, special expectations had been aroused... So long as one builds such a valuable weapon, one must not build in an unusuable gasoline pump or deficient gaskets. There is no shadow of a doubt that the majority of the technical deficiencies resulted from substitute materials which simply did not measure up to standard." 

Oberstleutnant von Grundherr


----------



## Soren (Feb 22, 2006)

> Oh, come on!
> 
> True early 122mm ammunition was near useless. In tests performed against Panthers, the 122mm AP rounds failed/or penetrated with difficulty, whereas the HE shells ripped the glacis clean off!



You seem to be very fond of these rubbish tests, well they're useless Schwarz, useless ! And its already been explained countless times why, so stop referring to them, alright ! And start looking elsewhere for info than on that truly biased website Battlefield.ru !

And no Schwarz, not just early Russian projectiles were of low quality, also late war ones. Throughout the war Russian quality control was lousy at best !



> Not all commanders were like Wittman, believe it or not! I wish I could find that photo of the Tiger used by Hitler Jugend - what a state it was in!



 No but do you know what, in general they were a hell of alot better than any Russian tank commander, and 'again' that is something you 'should' know. 

And about the picture, well Im still waiting for that picture of a Tiger Ausf.B's frontal armor having been penetrated you promised(Eventhough there isn't one), I wonder if I'll have to wait just as long for this one as-well  



> Also one was worn out, scorchmarked barell, muzzle brake missing, barrel probably worn out, wheels missing. Suppose you could put that last one down to a severe lack of spares though, there was a reason Russian equipment was easy to produce you know - you think that's a bad thing??



Is there something unusual about a worn tank ? And about it missing some wheels and a muzzle-brake, well then its most likely on its way to repair. 



> What, every 5 seconds! The Tiger was very unreliable, like a 60 ton Austin Allegro.



Again let us see some evidence to confirm that, name of source, everything..



> It's been proven, but ten again 1000m is average overall tank battle range in WW2.



Western front included, yes, on the Eastern front alone, no. Go ask a German vet about how the Russian landscape looked, and he'll tell you about the great stretches of landscape that seemed never ending, something that could be very depressing at times.



> My comparison with the AK47 works here, as it may not be good beyond 400m, but if average combat range is -300m...



No it doesn't, Schwarz, we're talking cannons here, not small arms, there's a significant difference in both ballistics and energy loss.



> Only if the higher-ups found out... Even then you could become one of Goebels proganda darlings.



Higher-ups ?  Well Schwarz, they would ! The Germans were VERY strict when it came to making claims, more so than any other country in the war !



> Unfortunately warped pride happens often, even nowdays. e.g. GI's in Vietnam were told what to say about their M16's, unsurprisingly - it wasn't the truth! Reports were ignored 'till people like Guderian (and even Hitler!) stamped their feet - even then it took time. The PzIII was near useless against all opponents, though in fainess Hitler originally ordered the 50mm L60 to be fitted.



We're not talking about what was said to the press here Schwarz !! We're talking about after action reports for Christs sake ! And NO, nomatter how much you want it to be true, they didn't boast about such things in reports, cause what good would that do ?! Please tell me what good that would do ? 

Soldiers at the front didn't give a damn about what Hitler thought of his material, they would speak their heart about their material in their reports, and that was also their duty ! 

How else are you supposed to be able to improve on things, if you don't get any feedback from they guy's who actually use the damn thing.  



> About as long as it did.



 Your very misinformed Schwarz, do you know that ? 



> The warhead on early PzFausts was terrible for bouncing off sloped armour and failing to detonate.



Early panzerfausts ?! Schwarz what year did the SU-100 enter the scene if I may ask ?! 1944 !! Is that early in the war ?!



> What?? - and risk a HE shell coming your way?? I wouldn't try that with a 122mm!!



Schwarz, how will you fire a HE shell at an enemy who is well above you, and out of sight, and btw has just taken you out ??!! Even in an open field a tanks limited vision makes it VERY vulnerable to AT fire ! Ever wonder why AT guns and infantry was Wittmann's worst fear ?

Don't expect me to believe even the Russian's were stupid enough to run into a hostile area with guys sitting all over their tanks to protect them from AT fire ! I can assure you even the dumbest person would only make that mistake once !



> It worked - anyone stupid enough to run up would face a hail of PPSh's - DP's and maybe even a cupola DShK 12.7mm!



Run up ?! You really think thats even considered ?! They'd simply be hiding Schwarz, laying in wait for the tank to pass them !

There's a reason why its considered very foolish to send tanks into Urban area's, as-well as tightly vegetated area's.... They're sitting ducks !



> I have video footage of Tankovy-Desant wielding captured StG44's, I bet they were executed for that.



Huh ? Yeah and I suppose all those Russian tankers who used captured Panther's were all murdered as-well  



> Theory of Relativity taken too far...



Yeah, about 91 times too far  



> Yes, the Henschel-type was good for this, but not as good as the Christie-Koshkin - though not far off, admittedly. Christie suspension does not collect packed snow, the Panther's wheel rubber gave problems, the touching wheel rims often froze together too.



No Schwarz, the Panther had better suspension for negotiating Off-road terrain, maybe not an advantage in the winter, as the many wheels would cause things to freeze together easier, but once on the move it was particularly better than the T-34's ! 



> The Churchil, with it's Rhomboidal-type tracks was good at cross-country - unless you wanted to get there fast.



The Churchill was very good off-road, however too slow, and not in any way better than the Panther.



> Because it's unarguable - it's true after all.



Nope.



> Nope, it was reliable and had a good combination of mobility, firepower and armour for it's day (in that order).



Schwarz you can't be serious ! Even the Pzkpfw.III massively outclassed it !



> Unless the tracks were frozen solid.



 



> Do you know what happens when a Tiger is turning? - the earth builds up and the tracks snap.



First, no, the tracks will not snap. 

Second, thats one of the reasons the steering mechanism in German tanks was so good, cause they used regenerative steering, hydraulically operated, so the separate tracks could be turned in opposite directions at the same time, so they could neutral steer, and completely turn around in a very short distance. This greatly reduced the risk of dirt build-ups and tracks falling off because of it. And since the T-34 and its variants didn't use regenerative steering, they were at a great disadvantage here.



> Well I never, I doubt it's much? - @ what rpm?



Huh ? We're talking the 'max' output here, not the output at certain rpm's. And yes, the Maybach has more torque.



> If you could make the block, heads, pistons, inlet manifold, carburettor, sump and various anclliaries out of iron/steel or aluminium - what would you choose?



Schwarz take a look at the power-displacement ratio of the W-2 engine, and compare that to other Western diesel engines, or the HL230 engine for that matter. There's no doubt which one I would choose. 



> Thanks very much. I've now ordered the T34/76 one, thanks again!



Good, but you need both sides of the story Schwarz, so I recommend buying some of Thomas L. Jentz books about the Panzers as-well. They're excellent.



> "...In closing, I can't get around adding a few words on a very sad story, despite the fact that it was exactly the way I had thought it would be: Panther. There were a great many who expected the decision to come from the new, untried weapon. The initially complete failure therefore had somewhat a depressing effect, particularly since, on the basis of the Fuhrer Order, special expectations had been aroused... So long as one builds such a valuable weapon, one must not build in an unusuable gasoline pump or deficient gaskets. There is no shadow of a doubt that the majority of the technical deficiencies resulted from substitute materials which simply did not measure up to standard."
> 
> Oberstleutnant von Grundherr





Oh thats great, use a quote from the period of the battle of Kursk, the time where the Panther was plagued by teething problems ! 

We're discussing the JagdPanther and SU-100 here remember ?! Both didn't see service until 1944, at which point all the Panther's teething problems had been solved !


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Feb 24, 2006)

> You seem to be very fond of these rubbish tests, well they're useless Schwarz, useless !



They aren't useless. Battlefield.ru even says that the Russian 76mm couldn't penetrate the Tigers side over 200m, whereas Western experts put it @ aprox 1000m. Either the Westerners are being very polite, the Russians are compulsive liars or there is truth in the matter.

I also have countless other sources and am always critical of info, yet open-minded. From there I average it out in my head.

Of course I can be wrong, but I don't think I am here.

Nor do I dismiss your thougts. I'd be stupid to do that as I have learned from you.



> And no Schwarz, not just early Russian projectiles were of low quality, also late war ones.



The Soviets were using APHE, long after other nations had stopped. This may have been because they were Navy supplies?

Anyway APHE shatters on impact, changing to 'normalised' rounds (similar to APCBC) restored the East-West balance. ish - the Soviets didn't use APDS yet, but then again it wasn't too common even in Fireflies.



> in general they were a hell of alot better than any Russian tank commander, and 'again' that is something you 'should' know.



Yes, true. I'm just sick of hearing 'all Ruskie tankers were crap', that's all.



> And about the picture, well Im still waiting for that picture of a Tiger Ausf.B's frontal armor having been penetrated you promised(Eventhough there isn't one), I wonder if I'll have to wait just as long for this one as-well



I want to see them as much as you! If I find them I'll let you know, but the sights are down.



> Is there something unusual about a worn tank ? And about it missing some wheels and a muzzle-brake, well then its most likely on its way to repair.



But it wasn't. A T34 could scrounge parts from a dead T34/KV/JS or BT. It's like going to a scrapyard for a Lamborghini Murcielago cylinder head - it ain't gonna happen!



> Again let us see some evidence to confirm that, name of source, everything..



It's common knowledge!!



> great stretches of landscape that seemed never ending, something that could be very depressing at times.



I find it calming myself. Anyway battles were also fought in Villages/Towns/Cities you know? A smart Soviet tankie would lure a German here - where he had the advantage.



> No it doesn't, Schwarz, we're talking cannons here, not small arms, there's a significant difference in both ballistics and energy loss.



I'm trying to make a comparison. Alright 'sniper duels' were common on the Eastern Front, point taken. Here the Germans AFV's 'above' the TigerI were waay superior, except for Soviet Artillery strikes...



> The Germans were VERY strict when it came to making claims, more so than any other country in the war !



So the air defence of Britain _did_ last only 4 weeks then??



> We're talking about after action reports for Christs sake ! And NO, nomatter how much you want it to be true, they didn't boast about such things in reports, cause what good would that do ?! Please tell me what good that would do ?



You tell me? This is a major bee in my bonnet and I wish it weren't true, but it is.

It's still going on now, I don't understand it but "Anything for a quiet life"?



> Early panzerfausts ?! Schwarz what year did the SU-100 enter the scene if I may ask ?! 1944 !! Is that early in the war ?!



Whoops! I thought you were talking about the T34 in general, sorry.

Anyway the PzFaust 60 was the most common used even in '45, so my point stays.



> Don't expect me to believe even the Russian's were stupid enough to run into a hostile area with guys sitting all over their tanks to protect them from AT fire ! I can assure you even the dumbest person would only make that mistake once !



Yes, they avoided it like the plague, but orders are orders...



> Yeah and I suppose all those Russian tankers who used captured Panther's were all murdered as-well



Panthers were issued as 'rewards'. Perhaps the fact that it was based on a T34 spared them? All I know is, soldiers were vetted and any shining reports on Western equipment, or bad ones on Soviet stuff and off to a Gulag you go.



> the Panther had better suspension for negotiating Off-road terrain




I have: 


*Panther* 

Road speed: 29mph 

Cross-country speed: 15mph

Range: 110 miles

Vertical obstacle: 3ft

Trench: 6ft 3in

Fording depth: 4ft 7in

Gradient: 35 degrees


*T34*

Road speed: 31mph 

Cross-country speed: ?

Range: 186 miles

Vertical obstacle: 2ft 7in

Trench: 8ft 2in

Fording depth: ?

Gradient: 60 %


- and:


*JgdPanther *  

Road speed: 55 km/h 

Cross-country speed: 30 km/h

Range: 250/100 km (on/off road)

Vertical obstacle: 0.9m

Trench: 2.45m

Fording depth: 1.6m

Gradient: 30°

Ground pressure: 12.9 psi


*SU100*

Road speed: 50 km/h 

Cross-country speed: ?

Range: 280+/170+ km (on/off road)

Vertical obstacle: 0.8 m (2' 7")

Trench: 2.5 m (8' 2")

Fording depth: 1.3 m (4' 3")

Gradient: 35°


- Courtesy of here:

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/

- and Chris Foss (2 sources).

Can't you just believe me in future?  



> and not in any way better than the Panther.



Tougher and could access places the Panther couldn't. These are points the SU76 and 6pdr have going for them.



> Schwarz you can't be serious ! Even the Pzkpfw.III massively outclassed it !



Yes, the PzIII Special did, but they were thin on the ground at the time.



> thats one of the reasons the steering mechanism in German tanks was so good, cause they used regenerative steering, hydraulically operated, so the separate tracks could be turned in opposite directions at the same time, so they could neutral steer, and completely turn around in a very short distance.



Thanks to the Merrit-Brown system!  



> This greatly reduced the risk of dirt build-ups and tracks falling off because of it.



Watch the DVD; Wittman - Tiger Ace. It's cheap and shows/explains this happening (sans the snapping).



> We're talking the 'max' output here, not the output at certain rpm's. And yes, the Maybach has more torque.



Well, you revved a Maybach and it usually broke but, OK.

Low-down torque is much more important than peak horse power.



> Schwarz take a look at the power-displacement ratio of the W-2 engine, and compare that to other Western diesel engines, or the HL230 engine for that matter.



Yes, but it's a Diesel, a Diesel!!  It was still more economical, cheaper and lighter. So, apart from compactness, what does it matter?

BTW: Because the T34 didn't fanny about with FWD, the compactness wasn't an issue anyway.

Probably had a lower CG too...



> Good, but you need both sides of the story Schwarz, so I recommend buying some of Thomas L. Jentz books about the Panzers as-well. They're excellent.



I thought it was very biased!  Jentz - that rings a bell... I may have one or more of his books anyway...Thanks again for the suggestion.  



> Oh thats great, use a quote from the period of the battle of Kursk, the time where the Panther was plagued by teething problems !



I was meaning the quality, not the design and you knew it!  



> We're discussing the JagdPanther and SU-100 here remember ?! Both didn't see service until 1944, at which point all the Panther's teething problems had been solved !



Yes, I did lose the plot a little, sorry.  

The JgdPanthers heavy-duty gearbox worked wonders in the Panther G! 8)


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 24, 2006)

God I hate all the quotes....


----------



## Erich (Feb 24, 2006)

no k,idding........

side note the Panzerfaust 100 replaced or I should say overtook the Pz faust 60 in numbers. A good friend in Infantire regt. 43 of the 1st Infantire Division, Unteroffizier Helmuth Reichert was Waffenmmeister in his section and gave me full details on the useage and "their" traps they set with Pzfausts 100's for T-34's trying to negotiate the Ost Preussian swamps. They took quite a bit of pride in their work to put it subtley


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 24, 2006)

> They took quite a bit of pride in their work to put it subtley


Didnt we all...


----------



## Soren (Mar 1, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> God I hate all the quotes....



And I'll have to respond to'em all  (Not for much longer though)



> They aren't useless. .



They're useless Schwarz, useless ! And it has been explained countless times why !



> Battlefield.ru even says that the Russian 76mm couldn't penetrate the Tigers side over 200m, whereas Western experts put it @ aprox 1000m. Either the Westerners are being very polite, the Russians are compulsive liars or there is truth in the matter



 

That is completely and utterly untrue Schwarz, and you know it ! 

Western literature quotes the Russian 76mm gun as being unable to penetrate the Tigers sides from even 100m away !! Infact according to the top western gun experts the 76mm Zis-5's penetration performance peaks at 84mm of vertical armor at 50m ! And thats against armor of inferior quality than that of the Tiger, which btw had best armor of any tank in WWII, and no I'm not exaggerating when I say that. 

Besides comparing a set of penetration figures is not how you find out if someone is biased or not, so your argument that this is the proof that Battlefield.ru is not biased is totally without basis. (Especially since there is so much on that site that points to it being VERY biased indeed!)



> The Soviets were using APHE, long after other nations had stopped. This may have been because they were Navy supplies?



Oh would you just forget about those APHE projectiles already ! 

The JS-2 and SU-100 used AP and APBC rounds for AT purposes, not APHE !



> Yes, true. I'm just sick of hearing 'all Ruskie tankers were crap', that's all.



Well history doesn't care about your feelings Schwarz, it doesn't conform to your wishes or imaginations, what happened happened, so deal with it.



> I want to see them as much as you! If I find them I'll let you know, but the sights are down.



Your totally oblivious to the fact that the front armor of a Tiger Ausf.B was NEVER penetrated during combat, it didn't happen, get it ?!

But alright, give me the link to the site, and I'll check for myself. And I'll find out what was on that site before it went down.



> But it wasn't.



How the heck do you know it wasn't Schwarz ?! Its a photo Christs sake ! 



> A T34 could scrounge parts from a dead T34/KV/JS or BT. It's like going to a scrapyard for a Lamborghini Murcielago cylinder head - it ain't gonna happen!



And a Tiger could borrow parts from a broken Tiger, so whats your point ?



> It's common knowledge!!



It bloody well aint ! Its probably something you've read on the internet.



> I find it calming myself. Anyway battles were also fought in Villages/Towns/Cities you know? A smart Soviet tankie would lure a German here - where he had the advantage.



Lure them ?  Like I told you before Schwarz, it was considered foolish to send tanks into Urban areas alone, without having infantry clear the way first, and the Germans more than anybody else knew this very well ! 

Secondly there was far more bare landscape than there were villages or city's in Russia..



> I'm trying to make a comparison. Alright 'sniper duels' were common on the Eastern Front, point taken. Here the Germans AFV's 'above' the TigerI were waay superior, except for Soviet Artillery strikes...



Schwarz, in a long range engagement the JS-2 was absolutely no match for the Tiger Ausf.E ! 



> So the air defence of Britain _did_ last only 4 weeks then??



Oh would you stop trying to avoid the issue here Schwarz, you knew very well what kind of claims I was talking about !



> You tell me? This is a major bee in my bonnet and I wish it weren't true, but it is.



No you tell me Schwarz ! 



> It's still going on now, I don't understand it but "Anything for a quiet life"?



Haha !  Soldiers lying in after action reports ?! Give me a break Schwarz, your so ignorant it hurts !



> Yes, they avoided it like the plague, but orders are orders...



So now it doesn't seem so clever to you anymore ?  



> Panthers were issued as 'rewards'. Perhaps the fact that it was based on a T34 spared them? All I know is, soldiers were vetted and any shining reports on Western equipment, or bad ones on Soviet stuff and off to a Gulag you go.



Where do you come up with this stuff ??!



> I have:
> 
> - Courtesy of here:
> 
> ...



Re-look those numbers Schwarz, you just re-confirmed what I said  The panther is better off-road.

Some minor corrections about the Panther:

Road speed: 34mph / 55 km/h

Range (Road): 155 miles / 250 km



> Tougher and could access places the Panther couldn't.



Nope.



> These are points the SU76 and 6pdr have going for them.



The 6pdr ? Thats a gun Schwarz..



> Yes, the PzIII Special did, but they were thin on the ground at the time.



No Schwarz, the PzIII Ausf.G was superior as-well.



> Watch the DVD; Wittman - Tiger Ace. It's cheap and shows/explains this happening (sans the snapping).



Schwarz you'd have to pivot atleast 200 degree's for that to happen ! Something the crew were very well instructed about, considering all the turretless TD's the Germans were deploying at the time.



> Well, you revved a Maybach and it usually broke but, OK.



Again that is completely untrue, and you have no reliable source what so ever to back it up ! 



> Low-down torque is much more important than peak horse power.



We're talking max torque here Schwarz, not horse power.



> Yes, but it's a Diesel, a Diesel!!  It was still more economical, cheaper and lighter. So, apart from compactness, what does it matter?



Read what I said Schwarz, "Western Diesel's" !



> I thought it was very biased!  Jentz - that rings a bell... I may have one or more of his books anyway...Thanks again for the suggestion.



I didn't say it was Schwarz, however knowing both sides of the story is always the best.



> I was meaning the quality, not the design and you knew it!



What the heck are you talking about Schwarz ?! The quality of the Maybach HL230 engine was litterally unrivaled in the world of tank engines. It was the lack of spare parts which was the problem, and even despite this lack of parts which meant less maintenance, the HL230 proved remarkably reliable, more reliable than could be expected under the conditions in which it had to operate.


----------



## hellothere (Jul 21, 2006)

The JagdTiger was the tank destroyer version of the tiger, and it had thick armour, and a 120mm gun, but only 77 where built and it was extreamly slow


----------



## CCM von Hausser (Aug 11, 2006)

Maybe I'm stupid, but I say Ju-87G and IL-2M  these are my best Tank Destroyer of WWII


----------



## plan_D (Aug 20, 2006)

They're not SPGs though, are they? And I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the ground units acquired more actual armour kills than air forces.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 20, 2006)

> but I'm pretty sure the ground units acquired more actual armour kills than air forces.


And Ill confirm that...

People of the Membership, I soberly beseech u to remember, THERE IS A FREAKIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAVORITE AND BEST!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 24, 2006)

Those are easily confused Les....

You see it all the time on this forum.


----------



## CCM von Hausser (Aug 28, 2006)

plan_D said:


> They're not SPGs though, are they? And I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the ground units acquired more actual armour kills than air forces.


yes, they aren't... but I'm talking about tank destroyer and I wrote my simple preferences


----------



## CCM von Hausser (Aug 28, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> People of the Membership, I soberly beseech u to remember, THERE IS A FREAKIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAVORITE AND BEST!!!


...it's so wrong to think that my "favorite" may be my "best"  

These my first days here in this forum are really started with a great caos with my posts


----------



## CrazyElf (Aug 29, 2006)

hellothere said:


> The JagdTiger was the tank destroyer version of the tiger, and it had thick armour, and a 120mm gun, but only 77 where built and it was extreamly slow




I have to agree with you there , i adore the Jagd Tiger , it looks fierce and had great firepower and armour , although suffering from many faults which meant most of the 35? used in action often got left in the street


----------



## Desert Fox (Nov 28, 2006)

In my opinion the Germans had the best array of Tank Destroyers....Jadgpanzer, Elefant, Marder, Stumrgeschutz III, the list goes on. But I believe the best to be the Sturmgeschutz III, because a) it was very cheap to produce, b)its armament of 75mm StuK 40 and its 80mm armour were an effective combination. By the end of the war over 10, 500 had been produced.


----------



## Joe2 (Nov 29, 2006)

my Fave TD has got to be Jagd Tiger. Very few where built but it had a 128mm gun and massivly thick armour. Very, very slow and massive shape. I read somewhere about a Jagdtiger that had knoked out an entire regiment of Shermans, but was knoked out itself by a fighter-bomber


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 5, 2006)

A girl who's into WW2 Armour??

Even if it got left it could cause an unshiftable roadblock. Some were actually purposefully destroyed for this purpose. If you like the JagdTiger, you might like the SturmTiger too.

The Stug was also a brilliant TD, but getting a bit long in the tooth in '44. I think the JgPzIV(V) came along when it was needed.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 8, 2007)

According to me that would have to be the JagdPz IV. 

Although the JagdTiger must have been formidable, it was also extremely costly and not always that useful. Economics should be at least as important as technical qualities. 

The JagdPz IV had both in check. It was very low - lower than the JagdPz 38(t), had very sloped armour - giving more frontal protection than a Tiger - and had a decent 75mm gun - first the L/48, later the L/70. Add to that it was reliable and had the chassis of the Pz IV so production wouldn't be hindered. 

But what I like most about it is that it would have been able to replace the StuG III and IV. (Originally the JagdPz IV was also called a StuG.) As a TD it could then use the L/70 gun though that would make it a bit too heavy at the front but still good enough.

Later in the war (1945) on I would go for a combination of the cheap JagdPz 38D Hetzer (not to be confused with the JagdPz 38(t) which usually gets the Hetzer name) and the JagdPanther II (if it would have been developed again).
Kris


----------



## neldot (Feb 14, 2007)

Some fine designs of self-propelled guns in WWII were italians. English writers agree that english tank crews feared these weapons far more than italian tanks in the desert battles. But, as other good italian weapons of the war, they suffered for the scarce production numbers.

However, they are beautiful machines. Look here:  

Semovente da 75/34
Comando Supremo: Semovente da 75/34

Semovente da 90/53
Comando Supremo: Semovente da 90/53

Semovente da 105/25
Comando Supremo: Semovente da 105/25

Semovente da 149/40 (prototype)
Comando Supremo: Semovente da 149/40


----------



## neldot (Feb 14, 2007)

Some pics of italian "Semoventi" tank destroyers.

1) M40 75/18 
2) M41 90/53
3) M42 105/25 "Bassotto"
4) M43 149/40 (italian prototype, built by Germans after Italy's surrender)


----------



## Civettone (Feb 15, 2007)

Hold it! Self-propelled guns are not Tank Destroyers. Only the 90/53 was designed to kill tanks but it was a SPAT not a TD. 




Besides that ... I absolutely adore the Semoventi! 8) 

Kris


----------



## neldot (Feb 17, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Hold it! Self-propelled guns are not Tank Destroyers. Only the 90/53 was designed to kill tanks but it was a SPAT not a TD.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the remark, Kris.
Actually, in the Regio Esercito the "semoventi" self-propelled guns were used often in the role of tank destroyers, but you are absolutely right, they're not properly tank destroyers.


----------



## Guchi (Feb 21, 2007)

Pj IV (Lang).

Good gun
Good protectiion
(Very) low profile...


----------



## Denniss (Feb 21, 2007)

Guchi said:


> Pj IV (Lang).
> 
> Good gun
> Good protectiion
> (Very) low profile...



Are you really sure you mean Panzerkampfwagen IV with long gun?
Or was your intention the Jagdpanzer IV AKA Panzer IV/70?


----------



## Jackson (Mar 7, 2007)

776th Tank Destroyer Battalion Combat History

Photos of a destroyed jagdtiger

courtesy of an M36


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 10, 2007)

Personally,I like the ho-ni.Has a 75 mm gun on a Chi-ha's body.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

Okay that is nice, explain how it was better than lets say US or German Tank destroyers.


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

gotta do more research on the ho-ni first.

well...I do love the jagdpanther!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

And you can post that in one post as well...


----------



## ohka345 (Mar 11, 2007)

What do you mean? oh yeah...nice messerchmitt. Erich Hartmann's,right?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

Here I will show you by merging them into one post. Also once you are done with your research I dont think you will be able to show that it was the best. The US, British and German Tank Destroyers had more armour and better cannons on there Tank Destroyers.


----------



## machine shop tom (Apr 13, 2007)

I cast my vote for the JagdPanther.

tom


----------



## MacArther (Apr 18, 2007)

Hmmm, stuck between the Archer, with its good gun and ability to rapidly get out of trouble spots because of the gun position, and the M18 or M36, the M18 (if I got that designation right, its the lighter one that does NOT look much like a Sherman, and has something like .98 inches of armor maximum) because it has great manueverability and EXTREMELY good speed, and a decent gun. The M36 because it has a great gun, but other than that, I am rather lacking in terms of knowledge about it (my armor books consistently leave out tank destroyers that appeared later on).


----------



## Joe2 (Apr 20, 2007)

schwarzpanzer said:


> A girl who's into WW2 Armour??



Where?
cos if you mean me then your wrong


----------



## Joe2 (Apr 20, 2007)

I know the had a 128mm gun and 250mm Armour but how much armour could the gun get through and how big a gun would you need to pierce it?
And dont say Jabo rockets


----------



## Civettone (Apr 20, 2007)

I think he's talking about Crazy Elf on the previous page.

About the JagdTiger, the gun could get through a couple of millimeters at most. But its shells could penetrate about 20cm at close range and 12cm at a distance of 2 kilometers. Strangily enough ... this is less than the 8.8cm gun of the Tiger II or JagdPanther.
But of the course the size of the shell and the amount of explosives also matters a bit. As such I 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.

Armour penetration table

Kris


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 20, 2007)

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 (Apr 20, 2007)

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 (Apr 22, 2007)

Civettone said:


> 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 (May 10, 2007)

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


----------



## delcyros (May 10, 2007)

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 (May 11, 2007)

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 (May 11, 2007)

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 (May 15, 2007)

jagdpanther firing at Military Odyssey Show:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFeGIm65Pe0_

.. aHHHH... MUSIC!


----------



## Joe2 (May 18, 2007)

What i meant was:

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


----------



## comiso90 (May 18, 2007)

Joe2 said:


> 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 (May 18, 2007)

> 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-general/tiger-ii-front-glacis-vs-guns-4193.html


----------



## Soren (May 19, 2007)

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 (May 20, 2007)

> 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 (Jun 13, 2007)

My choice must be the Jagdtiger

Not the nicest but one of the most powerfull


----------



## Soren (Jun 15, 2007)

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.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 19, 2007)

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.


----------



## RAGMAN (Jul 4, 2007)

I have always liked the hetzer.Small but strong,easy to conceal too.


----------



## Nachtmahr (Aug 15, 2007)

They don't get much more impressive than this.

The SturmTiger


----------



## MacArther (Aug 15, 2007)

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.


----------



## Denniss (Aug 18, 2007)

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.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 19, 2007)

Denniss said:


> 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.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 11, 2007)

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


----------



## Civettone (Oct 17, 2007)

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


----------



## SoD Stitch (Oct 17, 2007)

Civettone said:


> 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:
> 
> 
> ...



I was always partial to the E-100 myself . . .


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 17, 2007)

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


.


----------



## Soren (Oct 17, 2007)

The thing about the E-100 is it was under way being built before the war was over - the chassis amongst other things being ready.



















The end product would've looked like this (The other type being with a Krupp-Turm): tiger3


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 17, 2007)

That looks funny next to the M-24 tank in the top photo. looks like u could park 2 Chaffees inside the E-100.

.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2007)

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that's a Valentine - not a M24.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 18, 2007)

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


----------



## plan_D (Oct 18, 2007)

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.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 18, 2007)

Some interesting info on the E-series:
E-Series Panzers

I'm taking out those parts which show how the E-series would have improved production numbers and maintainability in the field.

*The E-10*
_The combined hydrodynamic transmission and steering unit was to be made by Voith and was also at the rear of the tank, easing removal and servicing. This would also free up space in the fighting compartment. The engine deck and rear plates could all be removed to allow access and the engine and transmission could be removed as a single unit. It was expected that the top speed of the tank would be 65 - 70 km/h. Even though the E-10 designation would suggest a weight of 10 tonnes, the combat weight would probably have been about 16 tonnes.

One feature of the tank was the ability to reduce its height. This was achieved by rotating the pivot points of the suspension units via cranks driven by hydraulic actuators. The vehicle height could be reduced from 1760mm to 1400 mm. The armour was to be 60mm thick on the upper glacis plate, 30mm on the lower glacis plate and the rest all 20mm.

The E-10 did not go into production and its projected role was to be undertaken by the similarly sized but mechanically simpler Jagdpanzer 38(d), based on a re-engined and lengthened version of the venerable Panzer 38(t) chassis._


*The E-25*
_was to be a low, well armoured and agile tank destroyer taking the place of the Jagdpanzer IV Lang which was too large and fairly complicated to build. Armament was to be the 7.5 cm L/70 gun (as fitted to the Panther, Jagdpanzer IV, etc) which was a well proven weapon effective against all Allied tanks of the time. It may have been replaced in service with a new weapon designed by Krupp and Skoda as the 7.5 cm KwK 44 L/70 for the Schmalturm armed Panther F and featured a concentric recoil mechanism. This dispensed with the large cylinders on top of the gun barrel and would have enabled a much smaller mantlet than that of the Jagdpanzer IV Lang's PaK 42 L/70 to be fitted. Skoda were working on an auto loader which would fire 40 rounds a minute and it had been test fired by the end of the war.

Each suspension unit was bolted to the hull side and bottom plate so it could be easily removed if damaged. 

The Spielberger book's data tables show the liquid cooled Maybach HL 230 P30 as fitted to the Panther, but this was probably to be mounted only as a test engine, being in production for quite a while and well proven. The 700 HP available would have given the E-25 a speed of 65 kph. This amount of horse power coupled with the wide track would have made the E-25 extremely agile. 350 - 400 HP would still have given ample reserves of power. 

Even with the low silhouette the E-25 would have had a usefully sized fighting compartment, due to the transmission position at the rear of the vehicle and the external suspension units. It would have had much more internal volume than the Hetzer.

Make no mistake, this was not a fantasy vehicle. Some hulls were completed by 23rd January 1945 and were at Kattowitz ready to be moved to a proving ground._

*The E-50 (and E-75)*
_The basic ideas were to save internal space, save time and effort, standardize parts and carry out research into gun stabilization. Why maximize internal space? A larger gun needs larger ammunition and related systems, and there was no room for further expansion in the current range of vehicles. Gun stabilization would give a degree of fire on the move capability and also alleviate trunnion loads as the tank travelled cross country. The designs were to not use torsion bars as these took up an inordinate amount of room, but have bolt on external suspension units, and preferably have the gearbox and final drive at the rear of the hull. These latter items were to be simplified where possible to minimize machining and gear cutting operations.

If possible plain bearings were to be used in place of ball and roller bearings.

the simplified production requirements of the E-series would have freed up a lot more men from the factories. 

Construction of the existing Panther was a major problem. Although a fine tank it took an extraordinary amount of manpower, time and resources to build

Panther was refined on later models but still gave lots of problems right up to the end of the war. By then it was undergunned as well when compared to its Soviet counterpart the IS-2, taking into account size and weight.

German industry tried to make an improved and simplified version in the Panther II, fitted with the Schmalturm armed with the 8.8 cm gun, but the revised chassis was still too complicated for the Heereswaffenamt, even though the number of torsion bars in the chassis had been halved by using the single bar layout of the Tiger II. It was to have 800mm steel wheels and would have used many components from the Tiger II such as gearbox and final drive as well.

Panther F and Panther II would probably never have reached production because of the work on the E series, but it was decided to keep the Schmalturm as, during tests, it was found to have excellent armour protection, could be fitted with either the 7.5 cm or 8.8 cm gun and was cheaper, taking 30% less time to manufacture than the original turret. Frontal armour was raised from 80 to 120 mm with corresponding increases in the sides and roof armour as well. Note that the turret roof was flat, whereas Panther, Tiger I and Tiger II all had sloping front roof sections to allow the commander to have better forward vision. It had a good stereoscopic range finder made by Zeiss and incorporated a gyrostabilizer, copied from (or at least based on) the stabilizer mounted on the American Lee/Grant and Sherman tanks. 

It was decided that torsion bars were difficult and costly to make, and as the larger factories were getting bombed round the clock something was needed that could be simple enough to hand to small engineering concerns to fabricate under sub- contract. The new bogie carried 800mm steel rimmed "rubber saving" wheels from the Tiger II. This type of wheel is often refered to as "silent bloc". 

The wheels were mounted on geared swing arms suspended against springs made of simple Belleville washers held in tubes, with a hydraulic shock absorber down the centre of each. The suspension unit was designed by MAN of Augsburg, and was small, due to the high loading it could take, and easy to produce. The washers could be churned out on most stamping machines. The axles for the swing arms still needed machining on a lathe, but they were nowhere near the size of torsion bars. The complete bogie was refered to as "Einheitslaufwerk", or standardized running gear. A lesson learned from the American Sherman suspension was that none of the components was handed. The wheels straddled the track guide teeth, but the same length axles were used: the wheels had a bearing spacer on one side which could be reversed, setting one wheel in and one wheel out. An escape hatch could be fitted in the hull floor now, almost impossible with torsion bars. Mine damage would be much easier to fix as the complete unit could be unbolted and replaced, where as mine damaged and buckled torsion bars often had to be removed with a cutting torch, after the interleaved wheels had been removed first of course.

The standard Panther had eight axles per side, requiring eight precise holes in each side of the hull. These had to be cut and machined with the hull in a huge special rig. Add sixteen chrome steel torsion bars, complete with machined bearings, specialist heat treatment, etc. Compare that with six small housings filled with plain steel washers and a couple of shock absorbers, fixed by bolts. I don't have a cost breakdown but a similar exercise was carried out by Porsche on the Jagdtiger and the savings were 50% in material costs and tooling, a 40% weight reduction and 60% on labour time. Another way of saving money was to have only one wheel on each axle - the normal interleaving was two per axle - two axles per bogie and three bogies per side. This arrangement gave the E-50 twelve road wheels as opposed to 32 on the original Panther, alone a massive saving of time and effort.

The E-50 hull was to be longer than the Panther, in fact it was practically identical to the King Tiger in overall dimensions except for the glacis plate layout. This large hull combined with the Schmalturm gives the completed vehicle a somewhat pin headed appearance. As mentioned above the amount of drilling and machining was reduced drastically. The plates would have been interlocked and welded as on other German vehicles, giving great strength and rigidity. Like the Panther and King Tiger hulls, lifting and shackle points were all cut into the flat plates rather than bolt on items like the earlier Panzer IV. 


The hull of the replacement for the King Tiger, the E-75, was going to be almost identical to the E-50, except the armour would have been thicker. Two extra bogies, one each side, would have been fitted to compensate for the extra weight. The bogies were re-spaced as well giving the E-75 a track to ground contact length of 4095mm, compared to 3850mm for the E-50. The whole drive train would have been the same for E-50 and E-75. As they were both to be armed with the same gun, ammunition stowage and overall internal layout was to be identical. 

The engine chosen was an improved version of the Maybach HL230 as fitted to the Panther and the Tiger II. Called the HL234, it developed 900 HP using fuel injection, and was expected to produce up to 1200 HP with supercharging. Maximum speed was to be 60 KPH for the E-50 and 40 KPH for the E-75. The idea was to assemble both types on the same production line, using identical production machinery and brought in sub assemblies. _
Kris


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 18, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that's a Valentine - not a M24.



I guess you're right. I'm used to Valentines with a rounder turret. The chassis does not belong to a M24. The star threw me too. 

see how the turret looks more round?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 18, 2007)

Civettone said:


> A Valentine with an American star on top??





Did this come from a consensus as well?


----------



## plan_D (Oct 19, 2007)

It took me a while comiso; I've never seen a Valentine with a star on it (practically every other British tank I've seen with one) and the angle was throwing me a bit. 

It could have been worse, you could have made an ABSOLUTE fool of yourself and try to mock someone when you were completely wrong - eh, that would have been bad, wouldn't it Civettone? 

It must have been, Chris!


----------



## Civettone (Oct 20, 2007)

ABSOLUTELY! 

Kris


----------



## Soren (Oct 20, 2007)

Plan_D is right, it is clearly a Valentine.


----------



## WARSPITER (Oct 23, 2007)

I don't have an actual vote on the best TD of the war as there are a few contenders with good reasons for each. One thing I noticed from the posts is that the technical arguments don't always cover the real use of these machines. 

Some posts have said that you fire and then get out. This is absolutely correct as the dumbest thing you can do in an AFV is stick around too long in the one spot.

The other thing is that TD's were used to hunt tanks. This meant remaining unseen where possible and firing from concealment ( hopefully first ). Armour strength is less of a factor here than movement.

The JagdPanther had a definite weakness here due to mechanical unreliability coupled with service life of parts - particularly the track system. A lot of servicing on the Panther series required a return to a heavy workshop ( Panthers never numbered more than around 600 in service on all fronts at any time of the war ). This limited the effectiveness of these vehicles as technical / armour / gun superiority is not much use when the vehicle is not on the battlefield.

The SU-100 was far more reliable and easier to service - it also had a good track life like the Sherman. The other aspect of this is that there were a lot of SU-100's available more often as they didn't need so much servicing. Perhaps this makes them better?

The gun on the SU-100 was better than many sources say as German tests on penetration required 30% of the projectile to go through at around 30 degrees whereas most Russian tests required 50% of the projectile to penetrate at the same angle. This makes a difference.

Any TD with a 17lber firing tungsten core was going to do well in a fight.

As for whether a TD could knock out a KingTiger? It didn't really matter as most KingTigers woould knock themselves out mechanically in a very short space of time anyway - a useless an ill-conceived machine with no mobility or reliability, making it a non starter in the first place.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 23, 2007)

Waspiter, welcome! 

I agree with your notion of the role of TDs.

But I would like to add something to the points you make. 
The SU-100 was indeed excellent but let me just add that Russian tanks had lousy optics. Also German tests were done using better steel plates than what was used by the Ruskies.

The 17 Pdr was very powerful but apparently inaccurate. 

There is no such thing as a Kingtiger. It's an allied name given to the Tiger II. There are many stories about it being unreliable but most of it are just stories. It was mechanically the most advanced tank of WW2, and although it did have some problems, statistics show that the Tiger II was more reliable than the Panther. 
Check out panzerworld.net, by far the most accurate and truthful website about German Panzers around, by the great Christian Ankerstjerne.

Kris


----------



## Soren (Oct 24, 2007)

> The gun on the SU-100 was better than many sources say as German tests on penetration required 30% of the projectile to go through at around 30 degrees whereas most Russian tests required 50% of the projectile to penetrate at the same angle. This makes a difference.



That is completely untrue WARSPITER and I have no idea where you have this from - I do suspect Battlefield.ru though, which is rittled with inaccuracies about German armour guns (You can ask Christian Ankerstjerne about that as-well). 

The Germans required atleast 2/3's of the projectiles fired at the test-plate to penetrate completely, which means a clean penetration 66% of the time. You can ready about the testing criteria specifically in some of Thomas L. Jentz books.

Also the JagdPanther was fielded when virtually all of the early teething problems of the Panther had been worked out, so reliability wasn't an issue - infact the actual reliability was quite remarkable considering the inviroments in which it had to operate daily.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 24, 2007)

The reliability of the German panzer units is always brought into question; but from what I've read it always seems to be their conditions and logistical support that brought them down. It's been a while since I've read this but I'll find it again; but I recall one of the heavy Tiger units maintaining a 80% servicability rate while on the march in Russia because the commander made sure he had the parts and recovery vehicles - as well as taking rests for routine maintenance. 

It's the same as the EE Lightning's servicability (it was terrible) but it's barely mentioned because in reality they were kept ready, out of the 14 aircraft in 11 Sqdn. my dad says they always had 11 - 12 ready to fly.


----------



## Soren (Oct 24, 2007)

Very correct Plan_D. 

The main issue bugging the panzers was the scarce supply of spare parts, which meant that when something finally did brake down it was a struggle to acquire the parts quickly. One must remember that German tanks didn't recieve field maintenance as often as Allied tanks, there simply wasn't time or spare parts to do so, so German tanks had to travel longer before each maintenance check up, and considering this they kept them running at a darn high percentage.


----------



## WARSPITER (Oct 24, 2007)

Interesting points from all. Thank you. It's good to get somewhere and see discussion rather than attitude. 

From the contempory accounts I have read it may be that the main problem for the Wermacht was logistic support and crew capability. bothe fell short as the war went on and the later tanks and TD's probably suffered in reputation because of it. 

One example is the crew training at later stages. The larger German tanks did have powerful petrol engines which had to be managed properly. Over revving at the wrong time would cause damage to the gearbox and final drive, so an inexperienced driver could easily immobilise a Tiger or Panther type. This may be why these vehicles have a dodgy reputation mechanically. 

Also, just as clothes maketh the man, crew maketh the tank. A poor crew means a poor tank or TD no matter what optics, gun, or engine specs it has. This is where the Panzer arm really did have it over everyone they came up against. I would still disagree that the KingTiger ( I am not German so that's what I call it ) was anything but useless given the German strategic situation at the time of it's release, but I will agree at all times with the view that the Wermacht of World War II was the best army of the twentieth century. Given that I would also argue that whatever of the TD's mentioned so far would have been especially dangerous. 

Again, given the German position after 1943 perhaps even the JagdPanther was a waste of time ( although the 1/72 scale kit I have in my wargames collection takes pride of place because it just looks so right ).

Maybe in practical terms the JagdPanzer IV/L70 was one of the best ?


----------



## plan_D (Oct 24, 2007)

Call it the King Tiger or Royal Tiger or Tiger Royal or 'Ah, sh*t, it's one them big tanks' (Pz.Kpfw VI Ausf B 'Tiger II') - that's it's name from the Allies.


----------



## WARSPITER (Oct 24, 2007)

Yes! That will do nicely - it was one of them big ones - the one with the PAK 43 and the cool paint job. Ta.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 24, 2007)

> The 17 Pdr was very powerful but apparently inaccurate.



Truly? I thought it only had accuracy problems when using the SABOT rounds.


----------



## Soren (Oct 26, 2007)

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


----------



## enven (Oct 26, 2007)

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 (Oct 26, 2007)

Ok, just checking...


----------



## comiso90 (Oct 26, 2007)

enven said:


> For Americans: M10..



Why not the M18 it was faster...


----------



## enven (Oct 26, 2007)

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 (Oct 26, 2007)

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

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


----------



## enven (Oct 26, 2007)

I like the M10 more since it has a sunroof.


----------



## fer-de-lance (Oct 27, 2007)

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 (Oct 28, 2007)

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 (Oct 30, 2007)

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 (Nov 5, 2007)

WARSPITER said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2007)

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 (Nov 5, 2007)

> 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 (Nov 6, 2007)

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 (Nov 7, 2007)

machine shop tom said:


> 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


----------



## WARSPITER (Nov 8, 2007)

Thanks Civettone. That's more or less what I meant when I said the IV/L70 was a better option in practical terms. Cost and speed of manufacture plus a good performance put it in front of the JagdPanther, especially when you consider the situation Germany faced at the time. Although I still have to say the JagdPanther is my favourite as far as a good looking AFV goes. And the JagdPanther was a deadly machine as well.

Perhaps the very first post in this thread was the closest as to which TD is best. That said something about a gnats' willy between the SU-100 and the JagdPanther. The only way I can answer that is to ask this.

You have 1 unit of well maintained JagdPanthers and one unit of well maintained SU-100. You can choose to use either. You are still in the WWII era.

If you choose the JagdPanthers, you get Russian crews with the level of tactical training as per Russian methods at the time.

If you choose the SU-100s', you get German crews with their training as per the German system. On average, you would expect the German crews to be superior to the Russian. You would also expect the JagdPanthers to be superior to the SU-100 because of the specs on each vehicle.

These units are not to be pitted against each other, but are to be used to hunt tanks.

So, which unit would you choose?


----------



## Civettone (Nov 8, 2007)

Close call but I still think the Panther would have had the advantage because of target ranging and optics. But with Russian tactics and training this doesn't lead to much. So I think the German crew would be able to get more out of their SU-100.

But one thing which should be add: there would have been two SU-100s for the price of one Panther...
Kris


----------



## WARSPITER (Nov 9, 2007)

Two for one is something I didn't factor into this but it makes sense. If that were the case I would definitely go for the SU-100 if I had twice as many in the same unit with German crews. 

I suppose that this is one of those things that will never really be resolved. It's like asking who was the best general of the war as on another post set here. Everyone has their own opinion for whatever reason and most, including me, need to be dragged kicking and screaming to change it.

I still can't really pick between the two for many reasons ( JagdPanther and SU-100 ), so maybe I would rate it as a draw with a number of other vehicles reasonably close behind.


----------



## Soren (Nov 16, 2007)

I'd feel bloody unsafe in a SU-100 against the German Panzers, even if we outnumbered them 5 to 1, and if it was over flat terrain I'd scatter from the tank emmdiately. The SU-100 was dead meat at long range against the German medium and heavy tanks, the poor optics of the SU-100 only being sufficient up to 800m. If a long range engagement was initiated between the two tanks the JagdPanther would singlehandedly take out many of the SU-100's before having to withdraw to avoid being outflanked, and this is what happened frequently on the Eastern front.


----------



## WARSPITER (Nov 19, 2007)

May be so, but my question didn't involve what tanks the SU would be up against, more how good it would be with German crews. I also meant that since we are talking tank destroyers, either unit would be hunting tanks, not each other. The other point of my question was that crews, training, and experience must have counted for a lot.

One thing I have found in many references, book and internet, is the use of experienced crews in lesser vehicles and inexperienced crews in the better ttanks of the Wermacht. I'm not sure whether this occurred across the board and if it did it doesn't really make much sense. Were there any specific orders to this effect or is it something someone made up?


----------



## Civettone (Nov 25, 2007)

I've never heard about this. 

In fact I've heard the opposite, namely that the Tigers had the best crews. 

Can you direct me towards an online source??
Kris


----------



## Hakenkreuz (Nov 25, 2007)

I think that the T-34 was the best tank killer ever made. There`s also a photo of a Jagdpanther front armor with two holes in it on the Imperial war museum london Web site


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2007)

The T-34 was more likely the best tank-fodder ever made


----------



## MacArther (Nov 25, 2007)

> The T-34 was more likely the best tank-fodder ever made



Now, now, lets not forget the good old "Ronson" Shermans....


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 25, 2007)

Soren said:


> The T-34 was more likely the best tank-fodder ever made



I'll take 100 T-34's over 10 Panthers any day!!!!!


I love this photo! If the Jagdpanther had breasts and could make lasagna, I'd marry it... beautiful!!!

.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2007)

I have to agree with Comiso here. I think it is hard to argue that the Panther and the Tiger were not the best tanks of the war however I would rather have 100+ Shermans or T-34s over only a handful of Tigers and Panthers.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 25, 2007)

Depends on the situation; Italian mountains on the defence - I'll have 10 Tigers [and lots of ammo] ... Asian steppes on the offence - 100 T-34-85, thanks.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2007)

I as well Plan_D.

On the Russian countryside I'd rather have 10 Tigers or Panthers as-well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2007)

Actually pD said on the Russian steppes he would rather have 100 T-34s over a handfull of Panthers or Tigers.



plan_D said:


> Italian mountains on the defence - I'll have 10 Tigers [and lots of ammo] ... *Asian steppes on the offence - 100 T-34-85, thanks.*


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2007)

I didn't know Russia was part of Asia...

On the Russian countryside I'd always prefer 10 Tigers or Panthers over 100 T-34's! And seeing that this wasn't an anomally for German Tigers on the Eastern front to be facing and yet come out triumphant, I'd say I have a pretty good argument here.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2007)

Soren said:


> I didn't know Russia was part of Asia...



Are you serious?


----------



## plan_D (Nov 25, 2007)

I'm confused now, but Russia is Eurasian it's one of only two countries that are (the other is Turkey). The map of Europe is simply a line drawn around the Medieval civilisations which ended at tribe Rus in and Constantinople in the east, and Sciliy and Gibraltar in the south. Russia is Eurasian because it expanded eastward past the European line, and Turkey is Eurasian because it took Constantinople in the 15th Century - Istanbul. 

But, anyway, I'd prefer 100 T-34-85s in open ground but it is a hard decision. Any mention of T-34-76s and I'm going for Tigers.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Are you serious?




Yes I am Adler.

Image:LocationAsia.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2007)

> But, anyway, I'd prefer 100 T-34-85s in open ground but it is a hard decision. Any mention of T-34-76s and I'm going for Tigers.



If the engagement starts at any distance past 1,500m then I'm going for the Tigers and Panthers, and thats regardless of wether its against T-34/76's or T-34/85's. The T-34/85 couldn't lay down accurate fire past 800m and wasn't deadly for the Tiger Panther past that range either.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 25, 2007)

That map shows Russia in Asia, Soren... 

There's European Russia and Asian Russia - but it's all Russia. I've had this discussion countless amount of times. I did have an outstanding website the describe the political and geographical positions of countries inside continents, but I lost it. 

You make a good point on the tank discussion, Soren, but the problem is the T-34s are racing toward you - and you've got to be able to count on the crews of the Tigers [or Panthers] to be reloading quick enough to knock all ten out in front of them before receiving destructive hits themselves. As I say, it's a hard decision and in reality the Panther did achieve (if I remember correctly) a 9:1 kill ratio against the T-34.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2007)

The way I see it the map shows that by far most of Russia is within Eastern Europe. (Or atleast the most civilized Russia)

Well I've always considered Russia to be Eastern European and not Asian, besides the Germans only fought in Eastern Europe, they never fought in Asia.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 25, 2007)

Most people do simply consider Russia as European, but it's not, it's Eurasian - politically it's European, but geographically it's Eurasian.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2007)

Soren said:


> Yes I am Adler.
> 
> Image:LocationAsia.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Read pD's post above yours. And if you dont wish to believe him:

_"Russia is a transcontinental country extending over much of northern Eurasia (Europe and Asia)."_

_"Russia is a country located in Europe and in North Asia."_

_"The Russian steppe has long been depicted as the typical Russian landscape. It is a broad band of treeless, grassy plains, interrupted by mountain ranges, extending from Hungary across Ukraine, southern Russia, and Kazakhstan before ending in Manchuria."_

_The Ural Mountains are the most famous of the country's mountain ranges because they form the natural boundary between Europe and Asia; the range extends about 2,100 kilometers from the Arctic Ocean to the northern border of Kazakhstan." _

Geography of Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2007)

Adler, 

Thats all fine, but the Germans didn't fight in Asia, they fought in Europe. There wasn't any fighting over the Asian steppes between the Germans and Russians.

PS: I can't see where I ever wrote that I didn't believe Plan_D on the fact that Russia is infact Eurasian. Like I said I myself always considered Russia to be Eastern European and not Asian, that might be because thats where the Germans fought the Russians, in Eastern Europe. I never gave it much thought.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 25, 2007)

Alright, if it was on the Pontic steppes I would choose the T-34-85s... it's pretty much the same landscape as the Asian steppes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Alright, if it was on the Pontic steppes I would choose the T-34-85s... it's pretty much the same landscape as the Asian steppes.



Dont worry I understood you the first time....
It was quite clear actually. Oh and I also agree with you.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2007)

plan_D said:


> You make a good point on the tank discussion, Soren, but the problem is the T-34s are racing toward you - and you've got to be able to count on the crews of the Tigers [or Panthers] to be reloading quick enough to knock all ten out in front of them before receiving destructive hits themselves.



Very true Plan_D, that is also why I said any distance past 1,500m, as it wouldn't take the T-34's starting at 1,000m long to reach 800m from which they could start firing on the Panthers Tigers. At 1,500m the Tigers Panther would have time to knock out many T-34's before they could reach effective firing range. The Tiger Panther did afterall feature a near 100% first hit ratio at 1,500m.



> As I say, it's a hard decision and in reality the Panther did achieve (if I remember correctly) a 9:1 kill ratio against the T-34.



Yes, but this ratio was even higher during battles which took place over long and open stretches of landscape.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 27, 2007)

But the original discussion was about Panthers with Russian crews. I don't see those destroying the SU's in time. 

Plus, the Panther is quite weak on the sides. German crews would know how to exploit this as they were experts in manoeuvring...

Kris


----------



## WARSPITER (Nov 28, 2007)

civettone- re your question about better crews in lesser tanks - the references I have seen to this are usually in passing and mostly in books. It's almost as if someone came up with it and everyone else just adds it in as a matter of course. It is usually found in overviews or books on campaigns - generally in the form " the allies were fortunate in some ways due to the German practice of putting more experienced crews in older model tanks such as the Panzer IV ". This is what you see on occasion. I know it can't be true of the heavy AFV units as the best crews were put in these and I have never seen anything to qualify the argument. I hope it doesn't become one of those accepted myths just because people keep saying it.

I am also glad to see my question about German and Russian crews in opposing vehicles has sparked such a spirited debate on the geographic features and intercontinental line crossings of the Soviet Union.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Dec 29, 2007)

Soren said:


> I'd feel bloody unsafe in a SU-100 against the German Panzers, even if we outnumbered them 5 to 1, and if it was over flat terrain I'd scatter from the tank emmdiately. The SU-100 was dead meat at long range against the German medium and heavy tanks, the poor optics of the SU-100 only being sufficient up to 800m.



Actually the optics on the 100 was not poor at all, it was better than optics of the SU-85 and far more better than the of the T-34 with its dull triplex glass. It was good enough to hit a moving target at the distances up to 1500 m. 
But Jagdpanter had some other advantages over 100: the PzGr 39/43 round gave the Jagpanther a slightly better AP power over long distances, and it carried also more ammuniton. 
However, this factor can be count out : even for Jagpanther it would be very difficult to hit a moving low silluette target like Su-100 on the distance more than 1500m.


> If a long range engagement was initiated between the two tanks the JagdPanther would singlehandedly take out many of the SU-100's
> before having to withdraw to avoid being outflanked, and this is what happened frequently on the Eastern front



Su-100s found only a limited use in combat so I highly doubt that Jagdpanther and Su-100 had much opportunities to meat each other in engagement.



Soren said:


> The T-34 was more likely the best tank-fodder ever made


well, tell that veterans of the T-III or T-IVC/D tank crews in Russia in 1941/42 - they certainly won't share your sense of humour on that point.


----------



## Soren (Dec 29, 2007)

The optics used on the SU-100 was vastly inferior to the Zeiss optics used by the JagdPanther and other German tanks, and thats fact. 

The SU-100's optics weren't sufficient for accurate fire against enemy tanks at 1500m, infact anything past 1000m was very difficult to hit. You can read about how German tank crews in late 44 felt safe from ANY Soviet tank at ranges passed 800m. German tanks on the contrary could were adviced to start their engagments at 2km range as hit percentages at this range and lower was very high. 



> Su-100s found only a limited use in combat so I highly doubt that Jagdpanther and Su-100 had much opportunities to meat each other in engagement



I was talking against all tanks Ramirezz, not just the SU-100. 



> well, tell that veterans of the T-III or T-IVC/D tank crews in Russia in 1941/42 - they certainly won't share your sense of humour on that point.



Huh ?? What kind of example is that ?! I bet M8 Greyhound M5 Stuart felt the same about the Sherman 

The T-34 was essentially tankfodder from 1942 and onwards, the German tanks taking out 10-12 T-34's for every one of their own!


----------



## glen (Dec 30, 2007)

Many German weapons are vastly overvalued.

For example ,kwk43 comparing kwk36.

same warhead; muzzle velocity: 1000m/s (kwk43) to 780m/s (kwk36).


kwk36's penetration: 120mm (100m 30degree)
kwk43's penetration: 200mm (100m 30degree)

Everytime I see this kind of statistics, I cann't help laughting. 

The author of kwk43's statictics was joking: Is the kinetic energy direct propotional to the penetration? Definitly NOT.I'll bet a cookie.

German amor quality varies during the war, and I have to say that the poor amor quality of kingtiger and jadgepanther (maybe including Kwk43's test amor)is usually ignored by someone.

In 1945 "Spring awake", the German amor troops was beat heavily by 2nd class Soviet army. Soviet 85mm 100mm 122mm showed their strength by FACT.

BTW, it is said that 90% T34 and 70% Js2 were destroyed by other German troops, NOT by German tanks/destroyers. If indian troops vs German amor, the indian's tank kill/lost ratio will be *:0: indian have no tank so their tank lose is zero.....Tank's main task is NOT destroying enemy tank. German tank's high kill/lost ratio is vastly benefited from other arms: infantry, AT gun, Luftwaffe, mine......


If some tanks are used intentively as tank destroyers. the good score of these tanks is natural: some American tank destroyers troops also have excellent ratio of kill/lost.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Dec 30, 2007)

Soren said:


> The optics used on the SU-100 was vastly inferior to the Zeiss optics used by the JagdPanther and other German tanks, and thats fact. The SU-100's optics weren't sufficient for accurate fire against enemy tanks at 1500m, infact anything past 1000m was very difficult to hit.
> You can read about how German tank crews in late 44 felt safe from ANY Soviet tank at ranges passed 800m.


No,Soren, I didn't say it was superior or even equal, but it wasn't THAT inferior like really shitty optics of its predecessor, SU-85 (I saw photos made trough the optics of 85 - you can't even recognize any objects on distances more than 600-800 m - the glass is too muddy! I think though it has to do more with the quality of production rathen than with the construction itself)
SU-100 had a telescopic gunsight Tsh-19 - this is pretty the same gunsight wich was used in IS-2 ,which was based (or,better to say, copied) on the excellent german TZF-5 gunsight but had bigger sight scales up to 2000 m. Moreover , Soren, I have 2 combat reports of SU-100 tankers who destroyed german tanks on distances more than 1200 m , then I have reports of D-10S test in Kubinka with the 20-40% hit percentage on the targets at the distances between 1000 and 2000 m. When I find some time, I'll certainly translate it into English.
And please, as I said in the other post - do not rely so much on a veteran accounts or memoires- there're all subjective and often too inaccurately. For example I wouldnt judge the combat effectiveness of the Panther D solely based on the russian or american vets accounts. This is just too one - sided point of view. 


> German tanks on the contrary could were adviced to start their engagments at 2km range as hit percentages at this range and lower was very high.


how high exactly? Not that I don't believe you on that point  - we're all aware of the superb performance of the Zeiss optics on german tanks, but maybe you have some exact figures like I quoted regarding russian optics just two sentences ago.




> Huh ?? What kind of example is that ?! I bet M8 Greyhound M5 Stuart felt the same about the Sherman


What? Are M8 M5 MEDIUM TANKS?! ))))


> The T-34 was essentially tankfodder from 1942 and onwards, the German tanks taking out 10-12 T-34's for every one of their own!


according to contemporary researches, 5 for every panther and about 7-9 for every Tiger (but these numbers're so relative, actually I don't see much sense in a tank vs. tank comparison)
And T-34 was by no means a cannon fodder like Sherman wasn't it as well - it's all about (lackness) of tactics and your countrys mobile warfare doctrine. Before mid 1942 no german tank was a match for T-34 or KV-1, after 1942 it didn't matter anyway - they were build in too great numbers and they were still excellent from both operational and strategical point of view. 
BTW, the most losses T-34 has suffered until late 1944 were inflicted (up to 75-80% I think) by PAKs


----------



## Ramirezzz (Dec 30, 2007)

glen said:


> German amor quality varies during the war, and I have to say that the poor amor quality of kingtiger and jadgepanther (maybe including Kwk43's test amor)is usually ignored by someone.


ditto. At the late stages of war Germans produced really bad quality armour which was very vulnerable at the points where the armour plates were weld . In fact, there're numerous accounts of completely desintegrated german tanks after 152mm HE rounds hits in a front armour


----------



## Soren (Dec 30, 2007)

*Glen,*

Quit posting bullsh*t. Your percentages are completely made up! German Panzers were infact responsible for most of the Soviet tank losses.

The KwK43 KwK36 are not overrated at all, and any Allied vet will loath you for saying so, esp. those who lost their dear friends to these guns at incredible ranges. 

The performance of the KwK43 KwK36 are as follows:

*8.8cm FlaK 18/36 KwK36 L/56*

Projectile Weight (Pzgr. 39-1 APCBC): 10.4 kg
Muzzle Velocity (Pzgr-39-1 APCBC): 773 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 3107 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 51.09 KJ

*8.8cm PaK43 KwK43 L/71*

Projectile Weight (Pzgr.39/43 APCBC): 10.4 kg
Muzzle Velocity (Pzgr.39/43 APCBC): 1,000 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 5200 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 85.49 KJ


From German after action report:
_March 1945, Lieutenant Beckmann from sPzJagAbt 88 destroyed Soviet IS-2 at the range of 4600 meters near Marzdorf._ 

___________________________________________________



> What? Are M8 M5 MEDIUM TANKS?! ))))



LoL! Now I see, you meant the Pzkpfw. III IV. Now that makes abit more sense. Please, to avoid any confusion in the future, next time use the right designation for the AFV's in question.

The Pz. III IV are just that, Panzers or PanzerKampfWagens - NOT T-3 T-IV.

In 1941 the T-34 was a menace, no doubt, but by mid 1942 it had litterally become gunfodder for the German panzers. The StuG III and Pzkpfw. IV F-2 both were easily capable of handling the T-34, esp. the StuG proved to be an absolutely devastating foe for the T-34.









> Soren, I have 2 combat reports of SU-100 tankers who destroyed german tanks on distances more than 1200 m ,



Err, and so ? Lucky hits are entirely possible. 



> then I have reports of D-10S test in Kubinka with the 20-40% hit percentage on the targets at the distances between 1000 and 2000 m. When I find some time, I'll certainly translate it into English.



I already have them, so no need for any translation.



> And please, as I said in the other post - do not rely so much on a veteran accounts or memoires- there're all subjective and often too inaccurately.



I beg to differ! They are pretty much some of the most accurate info we've got! Up till now I've only been qouting excerpts from in depth after-action reports, date, time, place, distance rounds fired all covered.



> how high exactly? Not that I don't believe you on that point - we're all aware of the superb performance of the Zeiss optics on german tanks, but maybe you have some exact figures like I quoted regarding russian optics just two sentences ago.



8.8cm KwK43 L/71 hit percentage against 2 x 2.5 m targets with Turmzielfernrohr 9d using std. APCBC round (Pzgr.39/43):

500m: 100 %
1,000m: 100 %
1,500m: 95 %
2,000m: 85 %
2,500m: 74 %
3,000m: 61 %
3,500m: 51 %
4,000m: 42 %

Source: Thomas L. Jentz

_____________________________________________________

Moving on..

German test plate quality never fell, it was kept to the highest standards, and so were the AP projectile. To further stress this here are the German British penetration results for the 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 against RHA armour laid back 30 degree's from the horizontal:

Distance: German/British
1,000m: 165mm / 167mm
1,500m: 148mm / 153mm
2,000m: 132mm / 139mm

Note: The British were known for using very hard plates.

Source: Thomas L. Jentz Ian V. Hogg 

The 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 was field tested by the US, UK, Germany, USSR, and all came to the same conclusion, the KwK43 is the best AT gun to see service in WW2.

During the testing done at the Aberdeen Proving grounds USA the 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 demonstrated that it would consistantly punch through 153mm of 240 BHN RHA armor at a distance of 3km with its std. APCBC round (Pzgr.39/43). 






Source: "WW2 armor Gunnery" by Robert D. Livingston Lorrin Rexford Bird.

Note: For the results of some of the other guns tested at Aberdeen you can go read Tank Gun Comparison thread, I posted them there.

In USSR trials against another KingTiger the KwK43 punched straight trough the frontal turret and out the back, which amounts to 285mm of armor penetrated. Not even whilst hitting the very weak point where the gunsight was situated did the D-10 manage to even come close to this.


----------



## johnbr (Dec 30, 2007)

Thanks for the great info.


----------



## glen (Dec 31, 2007)

Soren，in the past, I agreed with you about the performance of Kwk43, but now NOT.Let's discard "subjective factor", just check the numbers. 



> 8.8cm FlaK 18/36 KwK36 L/56
> 
> Projectile Weight (Pzgr. 39-1 APCBC): 10.4 kg
> Muzzle Velocity (Pzgr-39-1 APCBC): 773 m/s
> ...



This data is CORRECT, however, that's just the evidence of my opinion: Kwk36 is NOT overvalued but Kwk43 is.

The ratio of Kinetic Energy=5200 KJ/3107 KJ=1.677

Kwk36 @100m 30 degreee,penetration=120mm

120*1.677=201mm


If you believe Kwk43's penetration is 201mm @100m, 30degree, you will make a very big mistake.

If the the kinetic energy is direct propotional to the penetration, that is to say: two 100mm amor plates=one 200mm plate.This conclusion completely breaches the "theory" and "fact".


With regard to german shells, there are a lot same warheads with defferent muzzle speed, you can compute the ratio of both Kinetic Energy and penetration.

Jacob de Marre formula is the basic penetration formula which is very common in the military technology books:

b=Vc^1.43 *m^0.715 / (K^1.43 *d^1.07) (only for vertical plate)

This formula says: the penetration ability is direct propotional to the Vc^1.43 , NOT Vc^2.





> German test plate quality never fell, it was kept to the highest standards, and so were the AP projectile. To further stress this here are the German British penetration results for the 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 against RHA armour laid back 30 degree's from the horizontal:
> 
> Distance: German/British
> 1,000m: 165mm / 167mm
> ...



The British were known for using very hard plates......What's the defference between 165mm / 167mm or 148mm / 153mm or 132mm / 139mm? What did you want to say? Do you mean the German test plate quality is ALSO very bad?

USSR conclusion? The Russian Battlefield


According to the formula, the kwk43's penetration is [email protected], 30degree, not 201mm.
This explains why kwk43 can only penetrate Panther D glacis 80-85mm/55 degree WITHIN 650 meters. Slope plate penetration formula is quite complex depending on the ratio of T/D and the type of shells(AP.APBC,APCBC etc.)


Another proof of USA: L71 88mm can NOT penetrate the Jumbo's front/side amor @800 meters and more. You can google this story, it's L71 88mm not L56 88mm.........



> During the testing done at the Aberdeen Proving grounds USA the 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 demonstrated that it would consistantly punch through 153mm of 240 BHN RHA armor at a distance of 3km with its std. APCBC round (Pzgr.39/43).



I don't know what crap test plate was used at the Aberdeen Proving grounds. But one thing is confirmed:the front/side amor (152mm) of M4A3E2 must NOT be the rubbish 240 BHN RHA armor and must be better than kwk36 test plate ......


----------



## glen (Dec 31, 2007)

The Russian Battlefield

Cross-sections showing different arrangements for joining the frontal armour plates (JS2)



.











These arrangements are very very different! Tiger and Kingtiger can penetrate the front amor of early JS2 from 1500m even 2000m 3000m...,but they can NOT penetrate that of late JS2 within 100 meters!


----------



## Soren (Jan 1, 2008)

Again quit posting bullsh*t Glen.

You clearly have no clue about KE and its effects on armor penetration or those of armor hardness durability. De Marre's theory is only usefull for penetrations against vertical armor, it goes right out the window as soon as any slope is applied, and like has been explained ALL German penetration figures are against 30 degree sloped plates!

That British test plates were very hard has nothing to do with their quality, the quality of British test plates was infact very good throughout the war. 

The official German penetration figures for the 8.8cm KwK36 KwK43 with the Std. Pzgr.39 APCBC projectile against 260 BHN RHA armor laid back 30 degree's from the vertical:

Range: KwK36 / KwK43
100m: 120mm / 202mm 
500m: 110mm / 185mm
1,000m: 100mm / 165mm
1,500m: 91mm / 148mm
2,000m: 84mm / 132mm

These figures were consistantly achieved against 260 BHN RHA armor plates. Std. criteria demanded atleast 2/3's of the projectiles fired to completely penetrate the test plate, ie. a 100% clean penetration. This is the most strickt critera used by any country during WW2. 

By comparison the US testing criteria for their own rounds demanded only that 50% of the projectiles fired to partially penetrate the test plate. Hence why the 7.5cm KwK42 L/70 was found to outperform the US 90mm M3 in the tests conducted at the Aberdeen proving grounds against 240 BHN RHA armor.

Source: Thomas L. Jentz, Ian V. Hogg and Robert D. Livingston Lorrin R. Bird.

At Aberdeen the penetration performance of the 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 against vertical 240 BHN RHA armor at 100m was as follows:

8.8cm KwK36: 162mm
8.8cm KwK43: 232mm

162 * 1.43 = 231. (Verifiying that De Marres theory was good for estimations against vertical plates only)

The 240 BHN RHA armor used in the Aberdeen tests was of very good quality and by viture of its Brinnell hardness number very durable as-well.

And as to the M4A3E2 on the picture you posted, it was engaged knocked out by a 8.8cm Flak 18/36 L/56 gun, NOT a PaK 43 !

_________________________________________________

Moving on to the late IS-2 type with the 120mm glacis plate laid back 60 degree's from vertical. Again NO, it was not even close to being invulnerable to the 8.8cm KwK43, it was infact very vulnerable even at 3km, YES all the way. And the lower front hull was even more vulnerable to the KwK43, being easily penetrated way past 3.5km. 

But besides this there's the fact that the glacis on the IS-2 made up very little of the frontal area, and that the huge turret was always the no.1 target the German gunners would be aiming at. The turret remained a very vulnerable area on the IS-2, being easily penetrated by the Tiger Ausf.E's 8.8cm KwK36 gun even past 1,500m. Hence how a small Tiger Ausf.E unit managed to massacre 15 IS-2's in a frontal engagement at 1,500m:










Even the Tiger Ausf.E infact remained superior in combat to any Soviet tank till the end of the war.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 2, 2008)

I have to back up Soren on the IS-2 debate. The IS-2 was designed to withstand a direct hit from the KwK36 at 1000 metres and be able to penetrate 160mm at 30 degrees at the same range. In reality the D-25T was unable to penetrate the Panthers glacis above 600 metres. The IS-2 suffered from splintering of its own armour because it was not tempered as this process was deemed too slow and complex which left the IS-2 a lot weaker than the numbers claim. 

The IS-2 was not a lame duck, it's role in the late war period cannot be downgraded - only the Soviet claims can be. In April '44 the IS-2 saw service with the 11th Guards Independant Heavy Tank Brigade in Ukraine. The 72nd Independant Guards Regiment [part of the 11th Brigade] in 20 days of fighting lost 8 IS-2 tanks and claimed 41 Tigers and Elefants (slightly excessive...). One IS-2 did, apparently, withstand five direct hits from an Elefant at 1500 - 2000 metres but was eventually destroyed at 700 metres by another Elefant. 

The IS-2 met its first Tiger II in Sandomierz in August '44. On the 13th the 71st Heavy Tank Regiment met 14 Tiger IIs [of the 501st] with 11 of their own IS-2s. They engaged at 600 metres and four Tiger IIs were destroyed with seven damaged, while three IS-2s were destroyed and seven damaged. A deeper look into the battle could provide a better insight into the Soviet victory (positioning, luck etc.) but post-battle analysis by the Soviets did reveal that the IS-2 was vulnerable to the Tiger IIs KwK43 at well over 1000 metres.


----------



## Soren (Jan 2, 2008)

The 122mm D-25T could penetrate 120mm of armor laid back 30 degree's from the vertical at 1,000m. The gun was effective against the Panther's glacis out to 600m after which it was unable to penetrate the glacis. The 88mm KwK43 L/71 would penetrate the Panther's glacis at up to 1100m with the std. APCBC round.

Still because some late war Panthers featured flawed glacis plates a hit from the D-25T at 700 - 900m could cause the glacis plate to crack, in which case the tank needed substantial repairs. 

So although the 12.2cm D-25T wasn't amongst the most effective AT guns of WW2, such as the 128mm PaK44 L/55, 88mm KwK43/PaK43 L/71, 75mm KwK42/PaK42 L/70 the 17 pdr, it was nonetheless never a pleasant thing to get hit by one of its rounds. 

I will again post the performance of the various guns during the trials at the Aberdeen proving grounds USA, all results against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour:

*88mm KwK43 L/71 88mm KwK36 L/56*





*17 pdr 25 pdr*





*90mm M3 L/52*





*75mm KwK42 L/70*





*122mm D-25T L/46*





Source: "WWII armor Gunnery" by Robert D. Livingston Lorrin R. Bird.


----------



## glen (Jan 2, 2008)

I am glad to see that you are interested in the "penetration" although totally disagreed with you.



> You clearly have no clue about KE and its effects on armor penetration or those of armor hardness durability. De Marre's theory is only usefull for penetrations against vertical armor, it goes right out the window as soon as any slope is applied, and like has been explained ALL German penetration figures are against 30 degree sloped plates!



De Marre's theory is also can be applied on sloped plate, here is the "sloped formula":



> b*K^1.43*secα^n=Ｖc^1.43*m^0.715/d^1.07
> secα=1/cosα



compared with vertical version:



> b*K^1.43=Ｖc^1.43*m^0.715/d^1.07



We can see the "α" factor added, α is the angle from vertical. However, be cautious with the factor "n" which is usually used incorectly by many people.

First, I will ask you why the tank designer is favorite of slope amor? The length of 50mm/60 degree (from vertical) amor is TWICE of 50mm/0 degree amor. So is the weight! So is the straight distance between amor two sides! If the 50mm/60 degree amor can NOT provide MORE THAN TWICE protection of 50mm vertical, the designers will be the most foolish technician in the world: why not put on 100mm vertical amor simply?

For many shells，the sloped "50mm/60 degree" plate has a extra "sloped effect" which provide MUCH MORE than 100mm protection ability, such as 110mm,125mm,130mm,depending on the ratio of thickness to shell diameter(T/D), shell head shape, cap type, shell material ... all is concluded in the facor "n". For steel material(enough hardness)--sharp tip AP, n=[-0.08*(T/D)^2+0.66*(T/D)+0.52]/0.7. Attention, this expression of "n" is NOT suitable for APBC, or APCBC or APCR,which are different from AP in many aspects.

For AP, the sloped effect is quite obvious, that's n>0.7, however, for APCBC, due to the normalisation phenomenon, the n is close to 0.7 when the angle from vertical is not bigger than 30 degree. Therefore, the 30 degree score of German APCBC is very close to their vertical score.　I believe it's the main reason why designers invented APCBC instead of sharp-tip AP. You can find that many APCBC shell (including allied)with same velocity,same quality, same weight to AP could score higher penetration.  



> The vertical armour of a Tiger I, although thicker than that of a Panther, was more easily defeated by the sharp-nosed projectile of the JS-2 Main Gun, whilst it often ricocheted off the sloped armour of a Panther. Later, Soviet designers noticed the blunt-nosed projectiles worked fine against sloped armour. After several tests, designers revealed the effect of "normalisation" (Learn more about ).
> 
> The Russian Battlefield



Nevertheless, the normalization ability of APCBC is limited when facing high oblique plate especialy 60 or 55 degree from vertical ! That explians well why the kwk43 only can penetrate Panther D's 85mm/55 degree within 650 meters, if the normalization is obvious, the 85mm thickness of Panther glacis will be easily penetrate by kwk43 beyond 3000+ meters.Of course, the blunt-nosed projectiles(APBC) also has the normalisation phenomenon, and in my oipnion, APBC's normalisation effct is inferior to APCBC facing 30 degree, but superior to APCBC facing 60 degree.　We can discuss this issue in future.




> That British test plates were very hard has nothing to do with their quality, the quality of British test plates was infact very good throughout the war.



hardness is only one factor of amor's protection ability----"toughness" is another important factor and is usually tied up with ductibility/tensibility. In the De Marre's theory, the factor "k" includes all factors above(hardness, toughness).　After all, we needn't talk too much: the acual performace of british test plate is very close to Germans, that's enough.



> The official German penetration figures for the 8.8cm KwK36 KwK43 with the Std. Pzgr.39 APCBC projectile against 260 BHN RHA armor laid back 30 degree's from the vertical:
> 
> Range: KwK36 / KwK43
> 100m: 120mm / 202mm
> ...



We can see the ratio of kwk43 to kwk36 penetration is a alomost constant:168% within 1000 meters which indicates us that there is also a constant ratio facing sloped amor compared with vertical score. In fact, the De Marre's sloped formular reveal that the penetration ability is also direct propotional to the Vc^1.43 , NOT Vc^2 because kwk36 and kwk43's projectiles have same shape/weight/matirial factors and the only difference is velocity.

kwk36 is of 1936, and kwk43 is 0f 1943. You cann't guarantee german test quality was identical within 7 years espicially noticing germany's embarrassment in late period. However, at the Aberdeen Proving grounds USA, american probably used identical amor when testing both kwk36 and kwk43.



> At Aberdeen the penetration performance of the 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 against vertical 240 BHN RHA armor at 100m was as follows:
> 
> 8.8cm KwK36: 162mm
> 8.8cm KwK43: 232mm
> ...



Thank you very much Soren! You helped me proving the correctness of De Marre's theory because the formular says the ratio of kwk43 to kwk36 is (1000/780)^1.43=1.427. 

Now let's discuss the sploped plate.



　　　　　　 　　 100m 500m 1000m 1500m 
KWK40　L/48 
APCBC 99mm 91mm 81mm 72mm (30 degree plate)

kwk42 　 L/70
APCBC 137mm 125mm 113mm 100mm (30 degree plate)


kwk40's muzzle velocity is 750m/s, and kwk42's is 925m/s. According to de marr formular the ratio of kwk42 to kwk40 is (925/750)^1.43=135%　

The official test score ratio: 137/99=138%　(approximately 100m's score = 0m's)

Therefore, the　De Marre's theory works well under sloped plate condition.My conclusion is that: the kwk43's score is cheating!　kwk43 vaunts it has 168% penetration ability compared to kwk36 whilst it has only 143% actually, furthermore, the normalization effect of kwk43's APBCB is usually ignored by too many people and this enlarges kwk43's vertical penetration farther. This kind of "double cheating" is far beyond my tolerance. That's the reason I've wrote so much.

With regard to the M4A3E2 story, I'll collect my evidence to prove it's L71 88mm not L56 88mm in future.

late JS2's upper front hull---120mm/60 degree is definitely invulnerable to kwk43 and German 128mm, the turret amor of late JS2 is 160mm which is invulnerable to kwk43's APCBC beyond 500m. The pictures you posted is JS2 early version, it's120mm/30 degree sector is very weak facing German APCBC due to "normalization" effect. Let's see kwk36's score:



> Penetration:
> Gun 88 mm KwK 36 L/56
> Ammunition Type Pzgr.39  Pzgr.40 Gr.39HL
> Shell Weight 10.2 Kg 7.3 Kg 7.65 Kg
> ...



kwk36's APCR can penetrate 122mm/30 degree of german test plate at 1500 meters so it's NOT suprising to penetrate JS2's 120mm/30 degree at same distant. To be frank, I regard the early JS2 protection is far inferior to late version, I guess before 1944 mid russian didn't know "normalization" effect, so the crap 120mm/30degree design esxited.

With regard to lower front hull, it's all tanks weakness including kingtiger.


The last but not least, penetration critera.



> These figures were consistantly achieved against 260 BHN RHA armor plates. Std. criteria demanded atleast 2/3's of the projectiles fired to completely penetrate the test plate, ie. a 100% clean penetration. This is the most strickt critera used by any country during WW2.



German 67% probility of amor penetration is NOT the most strict critera because Russia has 80%......



*normalisation　effect　cartoon*


----------



## Soren (Jan 2, 2008)

Glen, 

You still have no clue. And quit relying on battlefield.ru, its one of the most biased websites on the internet. (They don't even note that the German penetration figures are against 30 degree sloped plates!)

Furthermore the site claims that the German criteria for defining a penetration was that 50% of the projectiles fired had to penetrate the plate, which is completely and utter bogus. In reality the std. German criteria for a penetration demanded that atleast 2/3's of the projectiles fired completely penetrated the test plate, ie. a 100% clean penetration.

German test plates stayed the same throughout the war. And to further support my case that you know nothing of what you're talking about you start start talking about that the 8.8cm KwK36 was tested with the Pzgr.39-1 in 1936 !! In reality the gun was first tested with this APCBC projectile in 1941 !!, again against the std. high quality 260 BHN RHA armor. All German guns of 75mm and up were tested against 260 BHN RHA armor plates, below 75mm in caliber and the BHN was raised accordingly, and this standard criteria remained the same throughout the war! 

Also read Robert D. Livingston Lorrin R. Birds book, they use the De marre theory as-well, and guess what, when they apply 30 degrees of slope the penetration figure for the KwK43 reaches ~139 - 142mm at 2km. Now when you factor in that this is against 240 BHN RHA armor then the 132mmm result against 260 BHN RHA plates suddenly sounds very accurate.

Btw, everything else being equal, penetration performance is directly proportional to KE pr. surface area. 

PS: Just so you know De marre's method isn't used anymore for determining armor penetration, it simply isn't accurate enough as slope is applied, but thats not surprising considering how old the theory is..


----------



## Soren (Jan 2, 2008)

You do know that those soviet figures list penetration against 90 degree's 60 degree's from the *horizontal*. The Germans, British Americans all determined slope from the vertical.


----------



## Soren (Jan 2, 2008)

> Therefore, the　De Marre's theory works well under sloped plate condition.My conclusion is that: the kwk43's score is cheating!



You must be joking ! Cheating ??!! They are real life results for crying out loud !

You're obviously a gamer of some sort..


----------



## glen (Jan 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> You do know that those soviet figures list penetration against 90 degree's 60 degree's from the *horizontal*. The Germans, British Americans all determined slope from the vertical.



I've notice that russian score is "30 degree."


----------



## glen (Jan 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> Btw, everything else being equal, penetration performance is directly proportional to KE pr. surface area.
> 
> PS: Just so you know De marre's method isn't used anymore for determining armor penetration, it simply isn't accurate enough as slope is applied, but thats not surprising considering how old the theory is..



everything else being equal, The ratio of KE pr. surface is directly proportional to KE, isn't it? 



> 8.8cm FlaK 18/36 KwK36 L/56
> 
> Projectile Weight (Pzgr. 39-1 APCBC): 10.4 kg
> Muzzle Velocity (Pzgr-39-1 APCBC): 773 m/s
> ...



5200/3107=85.49/51.09 (almost)



> 100m 500m 1000m 1500m
> KWK40　L/48
> APCBC 99mm 91mm 81mm 72mm (30 degree plate)
> 
> ...



ratio of KE pr. surface =(925/750)^2=152%, while actual ratio is 137/99=138%, De marre's method result is 135%......So I still believe De marre when sloped plate applied.



> Also read Robert D. Livingston Lorrin R. Birds book, they use the De marre theory as-well, and guess what, when they apply 30 degrees of slope the penetration figure for the KwK43 reaches ~139 - 142mm at 2km. Now when you factor in that this is against 240 BHN RHA armor then the 132mmm result against 260 BHN RHA plates suddenly sounds very accurate.



Perhaps they didn't use de marre slope formular correctly.

BTW, the hardness is NOT direct proportional to amor quality.

1) If a amor's hardness is "too high", the toughness perhaps will be sacrificed, in the end the quality of amore may be worse!

2) 260 BHN amor's quality will probably be equal to 240 BHN amor because the projectile's hardness is far more 300 BHN, I still remember approximately it's around 500-600 even 700 BHN(17 pdr).


----------



## Soren (Jan 2, 2008)

Believe what you want glen.


----------



## glen (Jan 2, 2008)

Tanks in World War 2 :: View topic - Gun Penetration tables
Now I am also suspecting the battlefield.ru site. BTW，I trust Tony Williams.

However, the conclusion of penetration directly proportinal to HE pr. cm^2 is still rejected by me. Since you believe the kwk43 has a penetration over 200mm vertical @ 650meters, how do you explian kwk43 can NOT penetrate panther D glacis beyond 650 meter? Is the panther D's front protection is equivalent to 200mm+ vertical? Or the ruusian site told a lie or russian kubinka test is mock! If the panther D=170mm vertical (smaller than 200mm due to D25T's big diameter), the JS2 can not penetrate panther D glacis anyway because there was no APCR shell for D25T in WWII. 

I believe panther D glacis is invunlable to M3 L50 90mm gun,soviet L53 85mm and German L56 88mm, but panther G glacis will be penetrated by M3 at very close range.





> 90mm Gun M3
> Calibre 90 mm
> Muzzle Velocity 853 m/sec
> Shell Weight 11 Kg
> ...






> By comparison the US testing criteria for their own rounds demanded only that 50% of the projectiles fired to partially penetrate the test plate. Hence why the 7.5cm KwK42 L/70 was found to outperform the US 90mm M3 in the tests conducted at the Aberdeen proving grounds against 240 BHN RHA armor.



That‘s right. M3 is L50 90mm, it's slightly better than L56 88mm because the projectile's velocity and weight is slightly greater than L56 88mm's. The kwk42's penetration is better than L56 88mm when hitting vertical or low obilique plate. However, the late version of M3 should be equal to kwk42, and T15E2 gun should be better than kwk42, T15E2 gun is equal to kwk43's penetration.


----------



## Soren (Jan 3, 2008)

Glen,

Everything else being equal (External shape, BHN of nose body and internal core shape etc etc) penetration performance is always proportional to KE pr. surface area. Thats a basic law of physics, one which is always used when you're trying figure out the penetrative performance of a particular projectile, it is the very basis upon which any penetration calculation can be made.

Its very simple really when you think about it; For example What object requires the most energy applied to it for it to be able to penetrate your skin flesh, a needle or a soda bottle ?? I'd like you to answer that question and explain why one of these two requires less energy to do the job, when you've done that we can continue this discussion.

This will also help you realize why SABOT rounds are the primary AP arounds used for AT purposes and why the projectiles are shaped the way they are today. The very same principle of high KE pr. surface area is what the APCR APDS projectile relies on for its increased penetration peformance over the std. APCBC projectile.

*Modern APFSDS-T projectile*


----------



## glen (Jan 6, 2008)

Everything else being equal, the more KE per surface, the stronger penetration. That's definitely right. However, is the penetration directly proportional to KE (per surface) or KE^0.715? This is another issue.


----------



## Soren (Jan 6, 2008)

Now you're just not making any sense glen...

Why would physics suddenly change ? 

Also why is it that in actual real life testing the 8.8cm KwK43 manages to penetrate 201-202mm of the same type armor at 100m, ~1.67 times as much as the 8.8cm KwK36 manages at the same distance ? And why is it that this corresponds perfectly well with the ~1.67 times as much KE produced by the KwK43 ?

The answer is simple; Everything else being equal penetration performane is proportional to KE pr. surface area!


----------



## glen (Jan 7, 2008)

Soren said:


> Now you're just not making any sense glen...
> 
> Why would physics suddenly change ?
> 
> ...



I believe the reason is the problem of kwk43's target plate which is inferior to kwk36's, don't you remember that the Panther G's plate quality has declined from Panther D's? 

I suggest you to compute kwk40 vs kwk42 in order to find whether the penetration is directly proportional to KE pr. surface area or not.


----------



## Soren (Jan 7, 2008)

Like I said the quality of the test plate stayed completely unchanged throughout the war. The plates had to go through several quality control tests in order even to be accepted. The accepttance criteria was a BHN of 250-260, if that wasn't achieved the plates were remelded, simple as that.

And OK, lets compare the 7.5cm KwK40 with the KwK42:

*7.5cm KwK42 L/70*

Projectile weight: 6.8 kg (APCBC)
Sectional Density: 1.719
Muzzle Velocity: 935 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 2979 KJ 
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 67.43 KJ 

*7.5cm KwK40 L/48*

Projectile weight: 6.8 kg (APCBC)
Sectional Density: 1.719
Muzzle Velocity: 790 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 2122 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 48.03 KJ

67.43 / 48.03 gives a ratio of 1.40
106mm / 138mm gives a ratio of 1.30

Now this doesn't illustrate anything other than the KwK42 fired a different APCBC projectile, which it did, and the same actually goes for the KwK43 KwK36. When you add extra velocity (ei. energy) to a round you will have to change its material composition in order to be strong enough for this extra energy, either that or you risk shattering effects amongst other things upon impact. The Brinnell hardness levels of various parts of the projectile needs to be both hardened and softened, in effect making a new projectile, hence the different designation between the KwK36's Pzgr.39-1 and the KwK43's Pzgr.39/43, as-well as the KwK40's Pzgr-39-1 and the KwK42's Pzgr.39/42. 

Each gun had is own APCBC projectile which was optimized for that particular guns characteristics. The difference between these rounds was the heat treatments of the various parts of the projectile and different drive band designs, the Pzgr.39/43 for example featured wider drive bands than the Pzgr.39-1 because of the much higher pressures reached in the KwK43/PaK43 barrels.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 7, 2008)

CC, someone here knows the De Marre Nickel-steel armour penetration formula of 1890. There has a lot moved since then but it is very important to know it.

There are a numbers of formulas around these days, I personally prefer Nathan Okuns approach to defeat homogenious armour, even if this is optimized on low velocity impacts:



> The formula for homogeneous armor penetration is "*T = (K)[(0.5)(W/g)V^2]^p*", where "*T*" is the thickness of plate barely penetrated (by whatever definition of "penetration" you want to use), "*K*" is a constant (a "catch-all" that changes with projectile nose shape, projectile size, projectile damage, definition of "penetration," plate type, and obliquity angle of impact), "*W*" is the projectile's total weight, "*g*" is the acceleration of gravity to change weight to mass (inertial resistance) (NOTE: "g" factor is not needed if the weight is in KILOGRAMS, which is already a measure of "mass" and has the "g" division built-in), "*V*" is the striking velocity, and "*p*" is a constant--usually between 0.5 and 1.00--that raises the entire projectile total kinetic energy value "KE = (0.5)(W/g)V^2" to a single power as a unit (p does NOT change with projectile properties (other than nose shape), plate type, or obliquity angle, though). Both K and p are good for only a limited range of plate thicknesses, with up to 5 combinations of K and p needed to handle the entire thickness range from paper-thin plate to bank-vault-door thickness for some projectile designs even with no projectile damage. Note that in this formula the two terms W and V^2 are of equal importance, as in any true KE-dependent penetration formula. [nathan okun]



some other in the park:

A. FAIRBAIRN (ENGLISH, CIRCA 1865)

T/D = (0.0007692)[(W/D3)V2]0.5

Linear increase of T with increasing V nearly correct for thin plates at normal obliquity and/or with projectiles that suffer progressive damage that gradually reduces penetration ability as plate thickness increases (solid wrought-iron round shot, for example). 

B. TRESSIDER (ENGLISH, EARLY 1870'S)

T/D = (0.00003798)(W/D3)0.5V1.5 = (0.00003798)[(W/D3)V2]0.75/(W/D3)0.25

Increase of T with V is close to average value for medium-thickness plates (0.25-0.75 caliber) at low obliquity with a non-deforming projectile. Note that the power of the weight density function is only one-third the power of the velocity, not one-half as a true total kinetic energy function would require, meaning that increasing the projectile's weight has less effect on its penetration than all other armor penetration formulae given here require. While in agreement with my data on penetrating hard, brittle armor, such as face-hardened armor, though much less extreme (see INTRODUCTION, above), this reduced dependency on projectile weight is not evident in any of my data for penetrating homogeneous, ductile armor with tapered-nose (pointed or rounded) projectiles--flat-nose projectiles punching out armor plugs may also show this reduced dependence on weight under some conditions, especially against thin plates. Perhaps the plates were acting in a brittle manner due to poor quality control (dirt and other impurities in the metal and improper crystal structures that could not move or deform freely), forming cracks at or just after initial impact, prior to the entire projectile getting involved in the impact, or perhaps many of the tests were done with flat-nosed projectiles against thin plates. Lack of a scaling term implies that these effects were for all plate thicknesses against all size projectiles more-or-less identically. 

C. KRUPP WROUGHT IRON (GERMAN, EARLY 1870'S)

T/D = (0.00004643)[(W/D3)V2]0.75

Similar to Tressider Formula, but total kinetic energy is used.

D. DE MARRE WROUGHT IRON (FRENCH, LATE 1870'S)

T/D = (0.00002778)D0.1542[(W/D3)V2]0.7695

A slightly revised version of the Krupp Formula of C., above, using the total kinetic energy and having a slightly higher rate of increase in penetration with the striking velocity and/or projectile weight (possibly due to the use of more sharply pointed projectile noses or higher average plate thickness or projectiles that suffer less deformation on impact). Note also the existence of a simple scaling term of the form "Dd" that implies that larger projectiles will more easily pierce plates that are proportionately scaled up in thickness than their otherwise identical smaller scale models of both plate and projectile. Part of this is due to cracking and shearing failure, which occurs on surfaces and thus has a distinct scaling effect compared to the increase in projectile weight (and hence total kinetic energy) with increasing size, but much is probably due at the time to plate quality decreasing as thickness increased.

E. GAVRE (FRENCH, 1870'S)

T/D = (0.00002887)D0.42857[(W/D3)V2]0.71429

Similar to the De Marre Wrought Iron Formula in II.D., above, but the rate of increase in penetration with kinetic energy is slightly less (more in line with later results) and the scaling term is of the same form, but considerably higher , which possibly indicates an extreme plate quality drop with increasing thickness at the French Gavre Naval Proving Ground (N.P.G.) at the time. 

F. DE MARRE NICKEL-STEEL (FRENCH, CIRCA 1890)

T/D = (0.00005021)D0.07144[(W/D3)(V/C)2Cos3(Ob)]0.71429

The variable "C" is the "De Marre Coefficient" that compares the test results for the given plate to the striking velocity required to barely completely penetrate, using the Navy Ballistic Limit definition, under the same conditions an identical Nickel-steel plate of average French 1890 quality. For example, later Chromium-Nickel-steel armors such as STS had normal-obliquity "C"-values of circa 1.2-1.25. The obliquity range Ob was usually restricted to 30o. As usually used later for other homogeneous armors, the "Cos3(Ob)" term was dropped altogether and "C" was used to define the velocity ratio alone. This formula became the "standard" used for many years from which most others were developed. If the value of "C" is properly chosen, this formula works amazingly well for impacts at a fixed low obliquity using a single constant value for "C" when non-deforming pointed projectiles *are used against all kinds of homogeneous ductile iron and steel plates from about 0.1 to 0.75 caliber thick*--above 0.75 caliber, the exponent for the kinetic energy term increases from 0.71429 to nearly 1.0, while below 0.1 the exponent increases actually to a value higher than 1.0. The formula was also applied to face-hardened armor penetration, but value for "C" was restricted to a narrow range of plate thicknesses, requiring a table of "C" values. Note that it has a very small, but significant, scaling term of the "Dd" form that matches homogeneous armor test results reasonably well, which is being caused by the cracking of the armor that occurs with even the best ductile homogeneous iron and steel. 

and finally (and most important when considering german APC´s

G. *KRUPP ALL-PURPOSE ARMOR PENETRATION (GERMAN, 1930'S)
*
T/D = (0.30386)D0.25[(W/D3)(V/C)2]0.625

Note that this is almost exactly the same as the U.S. Davis Harveyized Nickel-Steel Vs Capped AP Projectile, with the addition of the coefficient "C" that acts exactly the same as the De Marre Coefficient of the De Marre Nickel-Steel Formula (even the same letter "C" was used). The value of "C" varied from a minimum of 525 for most Armor-Piercing, Capped (APC) projectiles penetrating unbroken through mild steel, through 655-694 for average APC projectiles penetrating unbroken through German Krupp post-1930 "Wotan Harte" (Hardened 'Wotan' armor steel) (Wh) homogeneous (horizontal and thin vertical) armor, to a maximum of 804 for the weakest APC projectiles penetrating unbroken through KC n/A (the last, post-1930 form of Krupp's own "Krupp Cemented" armor, called "New Type") or tougher thinner plates for tanks, though the specific projectile used modifies this value considerably in most cases, sometimes, but not always, compensating for the large scaling term that does not apply to most forms of homogeneous, ductile armor and for the use of total kinetic energy for the face-hardened armor computations. See the table at the end of this entry for typical "C" values. This formula is for normal obliquity only; oblique impact was handled by a special formula/data table set produced for each projectile separately.

definitions are important.

best regards,
delc


----------



## Soren (Jan 7, 2008)

Excellent post Delcyros!

Now based on what we know about these guns what would say the penetration performance of each is ?


----------



## delcyros (Jan 8, 2008)

I believe it is unjustified to theoretically calculate penetration performances.Prooving ground tests should be the primary source. As Glen has pointed out above, quality differences in plates, caps, projectile bodies and other factors attribute for a wide range of differences in penetrations and one should be careful to study the plate acceptance limits in the first place. Furtherly, the De Marre Nickel steel formula used here is not very good used in the role for comparsion of ww2 projectiles. It was developed in order to get preliminary estimations of the performances of solid AP-shots (APCBC was not invented by the 1870´s) against a large number of armour plates with a thickness / diameter relation of in between 0.1 and 0.75 (= 8.8mm to 66 mm plate thickness in our case). 

The program I use for theoretical penetration calculations does not account for the special properties of the PzGr.39/42 but may return good results of a projectile with basic identic properties in weight and size but different properties in shape (it´s semi pointed, in the middle of in between blunt shaped and very pointed) but without AP-cap. AP-caps as the one in question do slightly enhance the penetration performance at high obliquity impact conditions due to the sombrero shaped shoulder (better normalization prior to shattering), while not detracting from vertical impact condition (cap shatters, revealing the pointed AP-body).

Also keep in mind that thinner plates such as used on the Panther slopes were treated more carefully in production than thicker plates and generally offer more *relative stopping power due to higher hardness while still beeing ductile. Applying any formula here is tricky to say at least, cause You would come in the uncomfortable situation that your basic assumption would be that the effective stopping power euqitations of the thick and thin plates are identic, the difference is beeing defined by thickness alone, which by any means are not!

best regards,
delc


----------



## Soren (Jan 8, 2008)

Very true, however it is worth remembering that German test plates had to meet strickt criteria in order to even be accepted.

But let us assume all guns fired the same shape design projectile of good quality, what would the penetration performance be between the guns ? Now we're just looking at the capability of each gun, not actual performance.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 8, 2008)

The prooving ground trials conducted at Meppen 1943 with 10.2 Kg APCBC PzGr. 39-3 fired from KWK42 at 1000m/s mv are consistent with the prooving ground trials conducted with Flak 41 firing 10.2Kg APCBC Pz.Gr. 39-3 at 980 m/s velocity. The former showed a penetration of 201-203mm, the latter Flak showed a penetration of 197mm (both at 100m, the obliquity condition is unknown, we cannot be sure that it means 30 deg.!!!), which is in the right ballpark of what we would expect according to the difference in mv. It does also match nicely US prooving ground tests which gave a penetration of 7.87" US homogenious at vertical and 1000 yards for the 88mmL71.
The 120mm armour plate tested for the KWK 36 was manufactured according to specifications calling for a BRH of *279-307* Brinell (Specification PP793 and PP7182 for thicknesses of 85mm to 120mm, date unknown. The two specifications were slightly different alloys but had the same BHN). It was of very tough quality compared to the 200mm armour plate of the latter tests
which was manufactured according to a specification (E43 is a bit on the late side but there was a preceeding specification calling for the same BHN) requiring a BRH of *220-265*.


----------



## Soren (Jan 8, 2008)

According to Thomas L. Jentz all German trials were conducted against 30 degree sloped plates, including all those with the KwK43 PaK43, this was std. practice. 





The BHN levels of 279 - 307 surprise me, but regardless such a high BHN isn't as effective against super high velocity projectiles (KwK43) as armor of 265 BHN. The most effective armour has BHN levels around 255 - 265 BHN.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 9, 2008)

I just give only what I have seen so far. The obliquity condition is never mentioned in the german avaiable primary sources.
There is nothing like a most effective BHN level for armour plates. The higher, the more stopping power it has. Diminishing returns for overhard plates exist in manufacturing constraints and britellness (esspeccially hydrogen embrittelment and cast armour) and the ductility against large calibre impacts (large starts with 8" and more), the latter hardly beeing a factor against tank guns.
A 200mm, 260 BHN plate has less stopping power than a 120mm BHN 300 scaled up to 200mm thickness of the same quality, if it would be possible to treat such a plate without quality loss wrt laminations and ductility, which is the limiting factor. Otherwise they would have produced them.


----------



## glen (Jan 9, 2008)

> 7.5cm KwK42 L/70
> 
> Projectile weight: 6.8 kg (APCBC)
> Sectional Density: 1.719
> ...



ratio of KE=140%
ratio of actual penetration=130%

ratio of de marre=127%

De Marre's theory is more accurate.

Other examples:



> 50 mm KwK 38 L/42
> 
> Pzgr 39 (APCBC) 2.06 kg 685 m/s
> 
> ...



De Marre's theory is more accurate.



> 75 mm KwK 40 L/43
> 
> Pzgr 39 (APCBC) 6.8 kg 740 m/s
> 
> ...


De Marre's theory is more accurate.



> 75 mm KwK 40 L/43
> 
> Pzgr 39 (APCBC) 6.8 kg 740 m/s
> 
> ...


De Marre's theory is more accurate.



You can compute more by yourself from this link:
World War II Tanks - Germany's Penetration Tables


----------



## glen (Jan 9, 2008)

> At Aberdeen the penetration performance of the 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 against vertical 240 BHN RHA armor at 100m was as follows:
> 
> 8.8cm KwK36: 162mm
> 8.8cm KwK43: 232mm
> ...


De Marre's theory is more accurate.

Furthermore, the data shows that pzgr39-1 and pzgr39 share the same penetration. The little difference of penetration between these two projectiles can be ignored.


----------



## glen (Jan 9, 2008)

Almost every German gun obeys De Marre's theory except for Kwk43, according to Russian and American test/ battle field performance, the kwk43's official score is quite strange....probably the reason is that German could NOT produce >150mm plate whose quality is as good as thiner ones, neither could Amrican or british or Russian. The thicker the plate is ,the more difficult to retain high quality.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 9, 2008)

Glen, the De-Marre formula assumes solid AP-shots without cap for a very narrow range of T/D ratios and obliquities. Outside this envelope, the De-Marre formula shows results which some times work, sometimes don´t work, just like a monte carlo alike probability step system. You don´t want this condition to apply for Your question.

I fully agree in plate thickness and quality related issues. However, it could defeat 200mm plates. It´s true that 200mm are not "true" 200mm in stopping power but the 200mm it could defeat where usually of the same quality as those encountered in the battlefield. So the difference is of more theoretical interest, as it shows marked problems in calculations when applying the De-Marre formula. Never use it at T/D ratios above 1.0, differences may be fractions, but fractions are important. 

When calibrating on 2420 fps striking velocity at 100m and 30 deg for the KWK 36, and assuming the projectile is with regards of it´s properties like a stand. US M79 AP, without cap and filler, the critical plate thickness at which it achieves full penetration is 4.7" at a relative quality of 1.25.
Comparing to a striking velocity of 3140 fps for the L71, I get a penetration of 7.2" single plate aequivalent of quality= 1.25 or 7.88" single plate aequivalent perforation of quality = 1.14.
BHN value for quality 1.25 = 280, matching requirements for 120mm plates
BHN value for quality 1.14 = 255, matching requirements for 200mm plates

Calculations performed with M79APCLC

best regards,
delc

I see no conflicting datas.


----------



## glen (Jan 10, 2008)

> the De-Marre formula assumes solid AP-shots without cap for a very narrow range of T/D ratios and obliquities.



You are right,and my supplement is that: T/D ratio should be around 1.0, it can be 1.2 while De Marre's result is still quite accurate. The hitting velocity should be less than 1200m/s otherwise both amor and projectile will fall to pieces and the remain part of projectile will continue to penetrate the amor other than "throwing back". That's why modern APFSDS is more effective than WWII AP when facing slope amor.

There is another important concept: When a projectile double its KE, it just can NOT penetrate twice thickness of same quality amor. That is to say, ONE 200mm plate's stopping power is quite bigger than TWO 100mm plates in spite of what type the projectile is (AP,APCBC, APCR etc.)With regard to multi-layer amors, we can't add up each amor's thickness simply in order to get the total stopping power.It's a basic knowledge.

Kwk43's APCBC KE has 67% advantage on kwk36's, therefore, kwk43's penetration must be LESS than [email protected] since 120*167%=200.
Delcyros, I agree that if kwk43 apcbc's penetration is [email protected], the target plate of kwk43 must be different from kwk36's.

I've got the answer! The thick target plates (>150mm even >200mm) are of inferior quality compared to thin plates(<150mm), therefore, those mighty guns' (such as 17 pdr,kwk43 ...)score is overvalued inevitably. This can perfectly explain why those guns are not sufficient when facing Panther D's glacis (80-85mm/55 degree) which is equivalent to "good-quality thick plate"(>150mm).

LOL


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2008)

No Glen, the thicker plates were NOT of worse quality! The BHN level was just lower, which is completely normal. QUALITY DID NOT CHANGE. 

Against WW2 AP projectiles the best armor BHR was 255 - 265 BHN, the level of the Tiger Ausf.E's armor, the same armor which managed to stop 76mm 77mm Allied AP projectiles at point blank range! Yet the 88mm KwK43 L/71 is capable of punching holes in this armor beyond 4 km if the thickness is 100mm! The KwK43 would punch through 100mm of 300 + BHN armor past 4km for crying out loud! The 122mm D-25T can hardly punch through 100mm of VERTICAL 240 BHN armor at 3km, the 88mm KwK36 L/56 being just ~10mm behind it.

And like Delcyros explains De marre's theory DOES NOT WORK for these projectiles! It works for solid shot AP projectiles, NOT APCBC, esp. not when slope is applied! The theory is from 1870 Glen! Not 60 years later when the APCBC projectile was introduced!

Also for the last time, the 88mm KwK43's APCBC projectile was designated Pzgr.39/43, NOT Pzgr.39-1, the 88mm KwK36's APCBC projectile was designated Pzgr.39-1! 

Its time you get this into your head Glen, cause its getting really straining having to repeat it!


----------



## Juha (Jan 10, 2008)

Soren
17pdr was also 76,2mm gun, and its APCBC round was definitely able to brew up Tiger I at medium ranges. Gordon's Firefly knocked out 4 Tiger Is in the battle in which Wittmann was killed and another Firefly brewed up 2 more, modesty claiming only 2 Pz IVs.
I also have seen too many photos of holes made by T-34's 76,2mm gun onto Tigers to take your claim too seriously.
That said IMHO Pz VI E was a good and effective tank but expensive to product.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2008)

I wasn't talking about the 17 pdr's APCBC projectile Juha, I was talking about its APDS projectile failing miserably at close range against the Tiger Ausf.E's armor. The US 76.2mm gun was even worse in this regard, WITH APCBC, as it often just shattered at point blank range. The US had previus to the introduction of the 76.2mm gun promised that it would be able to defeat the Tiger's front armour out to 1,000 yards, in actuality it wasn't even capable at 300m, much to the dismay of the US tank crews. 

Now let me see just ONE single photo of a 76.2mm Zis gun having penetrated the front armour of the Tiger - you'll have a hard time finding one!


----------



## Juha (Jan 11, 2008)

Soren
you wrote "Against WW2 AP projectiles the best armor BHR was 255 - 265 BHN, the level of the Tiger Ausf.E's armor, the same armor which managed to stop 76mm 77mm Allied AP projectiles at point blank range!", so I took that included also side armour. All photos showing soviet 76,2mm penetrations I recall showed holed side armour of Tiger and usually there are a group of hits close to each other of which only one is a clean penetration. So clearly Soviet 76,2mm gun was hard pressed to penetrate Tiger's 82mm side armour. I only wanted to notice you that you made too sweeping claim. After all it's probably that the commonest reason to Tiger loss was hit/hits by 76,2mm AP round(s). Also in your message there wasn't a mention on APDS.
But I think we a not so far each other when we are talking on Tiger I, a very good but expensive AFV.

Juha


----------



## glen (Jan 11, 2008)

Juha said:


> Soren
> you wrote "Against WW2 AP projectiles the best armor BHR was 255 - 265 BHN, the level of the Tiger Ausf.E's armor, the same armor which managed to stop 76mm 77mm Allied AP projectiles at point blank range!", so I took that included also side armour. All photos showing soviet 76,2mm penetrations I recall showed holed side armour of Tiger and usually there are a group of hits close to each other of which only one is a clean penetration. So clearly Soviet 76,2mm gun was hard pressed to penetrate Tiger's 82mm side armour. I only wanted to notice you that you made too sweeping claim. After all it's probably that the commonest reason to Tiger loss was hit/hits by 76,2mm AP round(s). Also in your message there wasn't a mention on APDS.
> But I think we a not so far each other when we are talking on Tiger I, a very good but expensive AFV.
> 
> Juha



Soviet 76.2mm BR-350B projectile can penetrate Tiger side 82mm amor within 100-200 meters (Kursk battle), that's suicide range. With reagrd to more powerful BR-350P projectile, its service was after Kursk battle.


----------



## glen (Jan 11, 2008)

Soren said:


> No Glen, the thicker plates were NOT of worse quality! The BHN level was just lower, which is completely normal. QUALITY DID NOT CHANGE.
> 
> Against WW2 AP projectiles the best armor BHR was 255 - 265 BHN, the level of the Tiger Ausf.E's armor, the same armor which managed to stop 76mm 77mm Allied AP projectiles at point blank range! Yet the 88mm KwK43 L/71 is capable of punching holes in this armor beyond 4 km if the thickness is 100mm! The KwK43 would punch through 100mm of 300 + BHN armor past 4km for crying out loud! The 122mm D-25T can hardly punch through 100mm of VERTICAL 240 BHN armor at 3km, the 88mm KwK36 L/56 being just ~10mm behind it.
> 
> ...




I've shown you the picture in which the Pzgr.39-1 and Pzgr.39 share SAME penetration ability. Kwk43 can also fire Pzgr.39-1 shell.

In spite of what type the projectile is, penetration is NOT directly proportional to KE (per square). The Data has proved this.



> Even the Tiger Ausf.E infact remained superior in combat to any Soviet tank till the end of the war.



JS2 late version(from 44 mid) is much superior to Tiger Ausf.E. Its 120mm/60 degree upper glacis amor is immune to any German tank gun and its 160mm turret front amor can only be penetrated by kwk43's APCR within 800 meters. That's to say, Tiger Ausf.E can NOT penetrate Js2 late front amor at point blank range in spite of what type shell used(APCBC, APCR). Lower glacis amor of any tank is easily to penetrate and seldom to hit, so ignore it.

Believe it or not.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 12, 2008)

All things beeing equal, doubling the velocity will not quadrupel the penetration. It´s actually short of this, in between (roughly) ^1.4 and ^1.7, depending on the projectile in question (the projectile determines specific penetration).

Russian armour usually was very hard (400+ BHN) but typically of very low tensile strength and limited ductility with accompanied manufacturing related deficiancies. Laminations and bubbles were recorded very often in them. Basically, the russians were producing overhard cast plates, which were not as good as high quality plates of lower BHN levels but occassionally very tough and much easier to produce. They would have been superior if they would have been of entirely good quality with regards to tensile strength and ductility. But there was no technology existing to produce 100mm +, 400 BHN plates with these properties. These deficiancies make penetration tests very chancy for the soviets. 

A high velocity, 75mm projectile, impacting an JS-II may not make it through but will throw off enough armour material from the backside of the RAS plate to deliver fatal damage inside on their way. These high velocity "discs" are a serious thread, typical for overhard plates. Another problem with overhard plates is that the projectile, if engaging the armour at high obliquity, may stretch the plate (and in this regard low tensile strength is negative) to it´s limits, if the projectile start enough sideway movement of the plate to "overstretch", the plate will shatter. 
On the other hand, very high velocity projectiles impacting are moving close to the speed, where the filler explodes (if enough deceleration is induced). That´s why just giving more striking velocity will not always asset penetration. Then You will have to move to a larger (=heavier) projectile. The proposed 75mm L100 falls into this category.


----------



## Juha (Jan 12, 2008)

Glen 
I know, IMHO many of the photos were taken to show that it could be done and to show an extraordinally deed. In war one must try to cope with equipment at hand even if that meant rather suicidical tactics. IMHO with closely grouped multiple hits the penetration was possible to achieve a bit farer away. IIRC Soviet tactic was to open fire with all 4 guns of an AT battery against a single Tiger. Only after/if the first Tiger was neutralized the fire was shifted against another target.

Juha


----------



## plan_D (Jan 12, 2008)

_"JS2 late version(from 44 mid) is much superior to Tiger Ausf.E. Its 120mm/60 degree upper glacis amor is immune to any German tank gun and its 160mm turret front amor can only be penetrated by kwk43's APCR within 800 meters. That's to say, Tiger Ausf.E can NOT penetrate Js2 late front amor at point blank range in spite of what type shell used(APCBC, APCR). Lower glacis amor of any tank is easily to penetrate and seldom to hit, so ignore it.

Believe it or not."_

I don't believe it. Read Soviet combat reports, the IS-2M was being knocked out by Panthers and Tigers at ranges up to and including 1,000 metres and it's D-25T could only penertrate the Panthers armour up to and including 600 metres. 

The IS-2M suffered from poor armour quality and the crews suffered as a result. The Soviet industry considered tempering the IS-2M armour too expensive and time consuming so the problem remained until wars end. The numbers look good when studying the IS-2Ms armour, it was designed to be immune to the Tiger at ranges up to 1,000 yards - but it wasn't and that's a fact.


----------



## glen (Jan 12, 2008)

delcyros said:


> All things beeing equal, doubling the velocity will not quadrupel the penetration. It´s actually short of this, in between (roughly) ^1.4 and ^1.7, depending on the projectile in question (the projectile determines specific penetration).
> 
> Russian armour usually was very hard (400+ BHN) but typically of very low tensile strength and limited ductility with accompanied manufacturing related deficiancies. Laminations and bubbles were recorded very often in them. Basically, the russians were producing overhard cast plates, which were not as good as high quality plates of lower BHN levels but occassionally very tough and much easier to produce. They would have been superior if they would have been of entirely good quality with regards to tensile strength and ductility. But there was no technology existing to produce 100mm +, 400 BHN plates with these properties. These deficiancies make penetration tests very chancy for the soviets.
> 
> ...



Good post，I agree with you about "between ^1.4 and ^1.7" and the relationship beteen thickness and hardness/toughness.

<<TABLE OF METALLURGICAL PROPERTIES OF NAVAL ARMOR AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS© >>
by NATHAN OKUN (Revised 10 July 2002



> GERMAN KRUPP "WOTAN STARRHEIT" (Wsh) ("Extra-Hard 'Wotan' Armor Steel")
> 
> Special extra-hard form of "Wotan" armor for use on the spherical anti-aircraft directors used by World War II German heavy warships and in similar lightly-protected areas. Similar in principal to the extremely hard British and American "Homogeneous Hard" aircraft armor of thicknesses up to 0.5" (1.27cm) used to protect fighter and bomber crews, but not as extreme due to its greater thickness. Manufacture was possible because thin metal plates can be hardened (and thus strengthened) to a high level while retaining enough toughness. Similar to tank armor, which is made of higher hardness to protect against close-range, high-velocity projectile impacts, which is also true here since aircraft strafing will be at close range and projectile fragments are moving at a high velocity near the point where their filler explodes. Very low Percent Elongation should result in larger scaling effects than with Wh.
> AVERAGE QUALITY: 1.10 (when hit by projectiles up to 8", dropping off slowly and steadily when hit by projectiles above this size, but at a higher rate than with Wh)



I completely support the words in red.


----------



## glen (Jan 12, 2008)

> The official German penetration figures for the 8.8cm KwK36 KwK43 with the Std. Pzgr.39 APCBC projectile against 260 BHN RHA armor laid back 30 degree's from the vertical:
> 
> Range: KwK36 / KwK43
> 100m: 120mm / 202mm
> ...






> WWII cannon penetration criterion
> 
> Germany
> 
> ...



We can see the hardness IS relative to thickness. Good amor is the excellent combination of HARDNESS and TOUGHNESS while these two factors are usually oppose each other.

(toughness relative to the tensile and yield strengths of the material)


----------



## glen (Jan 12, 2008)

> Glen, the De-Marre formula assumes solid AP-shots without cap for a very narrow range of T/D ratios and obliquities. Outside this envelope, the De-Marre formula shows results which some times work, sometimes don´t work, just like a monte carlo alike probability step system. You don´t want this condition to apply for Your question.
> 
> I fully agree in plate thickness and quality related issues. However, it could defeat 200mm plates. It´s true that 200mm are not "true" 200mm in stopping power but the 200mm it could defeat where usually of the same quality as those encountered in the battlefield. So the difference is of more theoretical interest, as it shows marked problems in calculations when applying the De-Marre formula. Never use it at T/D ratios above 1.0, differences may be fractions, but fractions are important.
> 
> ...



I agree with you. One exmaple: 122mm D25T/AP sharp-tip projectile:BR-471 



> Soviet penetration table
> 
> completely penetrate，probability:80%
> 
> ...



D25T/AP is solid AP-shots without cap, OK for De Marre formular; 30 degree obliquity, OK, T/D is below 1.0,Ok. De Marre's result:
**** 153mm 143mm 132mm 119mm (vertical)
acutal score
**** 152mm 142mm 133mm 122mm (vertical)

Very accurate!

However, I don't know whether the De Marre formular can be applied to 55 degree plates. According to Russian test, D25T/AP can penetrate Panther D's 85(80)mm/55 degree upper glacis @650m away. This fact is acceptable for all of us, isn't it?


> The Russian Battlefield - JS tanks: development history
> 
> Further, after the first encounters between the JS-2 and German heavy tanks, it turned out that the sharp-nosed 122 mm APHE round - the BR-471 - could only penetrate the frontal armour of a Panther up to 600-700 metres


 

For 122mm solid AP-shots without cap(sharp tip), 85mm/55 degree is equalient to 179mm vertical (De Marre's result) BTW, 80mm/55=166mm
85(80)mm/55degree plate has the same weight as 148(140)mm vertical amor, therefore if PantherD's glacis is NOT obvious bigger than 148(140)mm,those Panther's designers will be idiots!

@650 meters, D25T/AP(HE) can penetrate 149mm soviet target plates whlie it can finish 150-166/179mm german amor......

With regard to amor quality, Panther D>A>G (D version is about 20mm better than G version)and D25T/AP vertical penetration @0m is only 13mm bigger than @650m. Now someone is in a dilemma: If the [email protected] is G version , Js2 AP projectile can NOT penetrate Panther D at point blank range! Who will believe that? If the [email protected] is A version, at least, A/G's amor quality is inferior to soviet target plates, my opinion is D version.

If you don't believe German amor is inferior to soviet target plates, let's check the performance of kwk43/APCBC shooting Panther D: 650m! same as D25T/AP.

Apparently,kwk43's APCBC has a much better penetration than D25T/AP, however, that's NOT the truth. Two reasons:

1) APCBC has a normalization effect which makes its 30 degree penetration is very close to its vertical score, therefore, 202/cos(30)=233mm is quite above kwk43's piont blank range ability.

2) Poor quality of thick target plates has given us the fake penetration of kwk43, 17pdr .... 

Delcyros said



> I fully agree in plate thickness and quality related issues. However, it could defeat 200mm plates. It´s true that 200mm are not "true" 200mm in stopping power but the 200mm it could defeat where usually of the same quality as those encountered in the battlefield. So the difference is of more theoretical interest,



I agree with you partially,Delcyros. If rassian produce 200mm vertical amor which is of worse quality than their thiner ones, kwk43's apcbc can penetrate it @100m. However, if they put up 100mm/60 degree which is equal to "true" 200mm+, kwk43's apcbc can NOT penetrate it, I am sure! That's why tank designers love sloped amor; that's why Panther D's upper glacis is stoutness when facing kwk43's apcbc, including 17 pdr's APCR shell which also has >150mm penetration score. 

Furthermore, the APCR shell is also insufficient in shooting Panther's upper glacis because APCR's real caliber is between 40mm and 50mm. That's to say. APCR's T/D ratio is too high and the advanage of APCR's vertical score will be counteracted by the increase of equivalent vertical stopping power. For example, 50mm solid AP-shots without cap(sharp tip), projectile on 85mm/55 degree=260mm vertical, much bigger than 179mm of D25T/AP. 

Kwk43's vertical penetration is 10mm more than D25T at point blank range, and it's advantage is decreasing when the range is longer. At the range of 600-700m, they have same vertical penetration where they can both penetrate Penther D's glacis. It's coincidence: kwk43's has better projectile(apcbc vs ap) and D25T has better caliber(122mm vs 88mm).

Beyond 1000m, D25T has gained the advantage of vertical penetration due to its heavier body=good in retaining velovity.

When soviet APBC shell (BR-471B)is introduced, D25T is obvious better than kwk43's APCBC/APCR when shooting 85mm/55degree. D25T/APBC (D10T)can destroy Panther D beyond 1000m, this is very important for russian, and this achievement is impossible for allied tank gun, only German 128mm could compete with russian. Kwk43? that vaunting gun? impossible! Panther G glacis can be penetrated by APBC(BR471B) beyond 2500m! 

Above is about medium-thickness/high obliquity plate(such as Panther), however, for thin/high obliquity plate(such as T34),the situation is different. APCR's carliber is close to 47mm(T34), so German APCR's 60-obliquity penetration is better than their own APCBC within certain distant. For example, kwk36's APCR can destroy T34 more far away than it's apcbc. Nevertheless, the advantage of kwk43's APCR compared to APCBC is meaningless: APCBC can destroy T34/85 beyond 2000m where the APCR shell's velocity has been consumed a lot and has no advantage.

With regard to larger caliber D10T/D25T, their AP shell ability facing thin/high obliquity plate is equal to kwk43's APCBC/APCR, If APBC is concerned, soviet gun is better: Js2 can destroy T34/85 beyond 3km! 

overall, the penetration of D25T/D10T is eqaul to kwk43(if not slightly better), btw, I believe D10T is inferior to D25T in WWII. Of course, I am not talking about the fire rate, accutare and so on.


----------



## glen (Jan 13, 2008)

plan_D said:


> _"JS2 late version(from 44 mid) is much superior to Tiger Ausf.E. Its 120mm/60 degree upper glacis amor is immune to any German tank gun and its 160mm turret front amor can only be penetrated by kwk43's APCR within 800 meters. That's to say, Tiger Ausf.E can NOT penetrate Js2 late front amor at point blank range in spite of what type shell used(APCBC, APCR). Lower glacis amor of any tank is easily to penetrate and seldom to hit, so ignore it.
> 
> Believe it or not."_
> 
> ...



Give me the proof of the penetration on Js2 late version's upper glacis(120mm/60). You will find it hard to get that just like the proof of Kingtiger's(150mm/50).

The straight thickness of 120mm/60 is 240mm while the 150mm/50=233mm, 240mm>233mm,furthermore, Js2's amor is better due to its smaller thickness and the poor quality of kingtiger amor.

Look,these are Js2 LATE with "straight nose", don't mix up with Js2 EARLY which is far inferior.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2008)

The vast majority of pictures in this world are of IS-2m (Model 1944). The IS-2m was of a simpler build than the IS-2 not a vast improvement of armour quality. In fact, the major difference between the two was the replacement of the A-19 122mm with the D-25T 122mm. The only thing I can think of here is the replacement of the stepped-armour glacis plate on the IS-1.






*IS-1*

Kotin believed that this new armour protection could withstand the KwK36 at over 1,000 metres, whilst the A-19 could pierce 160mm at 1,000 metres. Up-armouring the turret was out of the question because of weight distribution.

The IS-2m ("late version" in your words, and not to be confused with the 1950s IS-2M) replaced the A-19 with the D-25T because of its more efficient breech. Unfortunately for Soviet tank crews it was discovered in combat that the D-25T (nor the A-19) could penetrate the Panthers armour above 600 metres. 

The IS-2 and IS-2m (Model 1944) both suffered from splintering of their armour, throughout. This was due to the complexity and cost of tempering their armour - the problem remained throughout the war. 

I have no pictures at the moment, but I will kindly look. But I do have to leave you with the battle of Sandomierz, the most famous IS-2 battle against the Pz.Kpfw VI ausf B. The Soviet forces lost three IS-2s and seven damaged and in their post battle report they filed that their tanks were vulnerable up to 1000 metres because of faulty casting. 

It'll be more difficult to find picture evidence, since the Germans mostly left the battlefield to the Russians in 1944 - and Soviet propaganda didn't like pictures of wrecked IS-2s albeit I know there are some.


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2008)

Glen, you are still clueless about which you talk. You're a gamer, I had that figured out from the start.

First of all your criteria citings are completely wrong.

These are the true criterias used by each country:

*German test criteria* 
2/3rds (66 %) of the projectiles fired must penetrate the plate completely, ei. 100% of the projectile. 

*British test cirteria*
50% of the projectiles fired must completely penetrate the plate, ei. 100% of the projectile.

*US test criteria* 
50% of the projectiles fired must partially penetrate the plate.

*USSR test criteria*
80% of the projectiles fired must partially penetrate the plate, atleast 80% of the projectile.


The Russianbattlefield website has to no surprise got these figures totally screwed ofcourse, amongst other things claiming German criteria was for 50% of the projectiles fired to penetrate, which is complete hogwash.

Now moving on Glen, you theory is that the 88mm KwK43 does not penetrate 202mm of the same armour at 100m as that used for testing the 88mm KwK36, and you therefore argue that this means that the KwK43 figures are overblown. This however is complete hogwash Glen, cause you see with increased armour thickness a lowering of the BHN is inevitable, and that goes for tanks as-well as test plates. BUT, also notice that at 2.5km the KwK43 manages to consistantly penetrate 127mm 300 + BHN armour plates, the same the KwK36 is just capable of at below 100m. So while it is true that if the 200mm plates were of the same BHN as the 120mm ones then the results would've been different at close range, however the bottom line is that the thicker plates were of 250 - 265 BHN while the thinner ones were at 295 - 307 BHN (And the same was true for all armour of that period, BHN dropped with increased thickness).

SO Glen, if we were to follow your flawed logic that the 17pdr 88mm KwK43's figures were overblown then so is the figures of the 122mm D-25T's, 100mm D-10's, 90mm M3's etc etc ... Fact is however that none are, they were just fired against thicker but lower BHN plates at close range by virtue of their increased power and at hard but thinner plates at longer ranges. 

Ofcourse had to been a serious researcher on the subject you would've known the above.

Moving onwards...

NO glen, the KwK43 did NOT fire the Pzgr.39-1, it fired the the Pzgr.39/43. Or are you seriously trying to suggest that the Germans for some odd reason somehow just put Pzgr.39-1 projectiles in their KwK43 cartridges ??! No Glen, the KwK43/PaK43 had its own ammunition, the projectiles used was the Pzgr.39/43 which was different than the Pzgr.39-1 both in terms of heat treatment and exterior design. The drive bands on the Pzgr.39/43 were wider than those on the Pzgr.39-1 in order for them to withstand the much higher pressure created by the KwK43/PaK43 guns. And the exact same goes for the 75mm KwK42 which ALSO fired a different round than its less powerful littlebrother, the 75mm KwK40, and this round was as explained designated the Pzgr.39/42, and again the difference between the two was the heat treatment and exterior design.

Now you need to get the above into your skull, cause so far you have only demonstrated that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, neither about this nor that of the armour penetration subject.


----------



## glen (Jan 13, 2008)

Soren said:


> Glen, you are still clueless about which you talk. You're a gamer, I had that figured out from the start.
> 
> First of all your criteria citings are completely wrong.
> 
> ...



Weather my criteria citings is wrong or not isn't important, my focus is that, BHN dropped with increased thickness. I even don't care about "hardness" itself, I care about "quality of amor" which is more than "hardness". It is probably that the thicker amor(>150-160mm) has inferior quality compared to thiner ones.





> cause you see with increased armour thickness a lowering of the BHN is inevitable, and that goes for tanks as-well as test plates.



For example, 120mm/60(250 BHN)is equivalent to 260mm(250 BHN) vertical when facing 88mm shell, however, nobody can produce a real 260mm(250 BHN) vertical amor, usually, they can only produce 260mm(200 BHN) etc.



> also notice that at 2.5km the KwK43 manages to consistantly penetrate 127mm 300 + BHN armour plates, the same the KwK36 is just capable of at below 100m. So while it is true that if the 200mm plates were of the same BHN as the 120mm ones then the results would've been different at close range, however the bottom line is that the thicker plates were of 250 - 265 BHN while the thinner ones were at 295 - 307 BHN (And the same was true for all armour of that period, BHN dropped with increased thickness).
> 
> SO Glen, if we were to follow your flawed logic that the 17pdr 88mm KwK43's figures were overblown then so is the figures of the 122mm D-25T's, 100mm D-10's, 90mm M3's etc etc ... Fact is however that none are, they were just fired against thicker but lower BHN plates at close range by virtue of their increased power and at hard but thinner plates at longer ranges.


No, D25T's score is almost below 150mm, and kwk43's is around 200mm，I believe the german 200mm target plates is probably inferior than soviet 150mm ones.

If you find a score of D25T is [email protected]*m，that's a fake score just like kwk43's.

At least, I've prooved the soviet D25T target plates are better than Panther glacis. Since you believe the kwk43 apcbc's 200mm+ is true, how can you explain it only penetrate panther glacis at range of 650m? 

Kwk43's performance in battle field is not so strong. I'll collect more evidence,


----------



## glen (Jan 13, 2008)

plan_D said:


> The vast majority of pictures in this world are of IS-2m (Model 1944). The IS-2m was of a simpler build than the IS-2 not a vast improvement of armour quality. In fact, the major difference between the two was the replacement of the A-19 122mm with the D-25T 122mm. The only thing I can think of here is the replacement of the stepped-armour glacis plate on the IS-1.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



kwk43 apcbc can only penetrate pantherD glacis within 650m, too.



> I have no pictures at thre moment, but I will kindly look. But I do have to leave you with the battle of Sandomierz, the most famous IS-2 battle against the Pz.Kpfw VI ausf B. The Soviet forces lost three IS-2s and seven damaged and in their post battle report they filed that their tanks were vulnerable up to 1000 metres because of faulty casting.



kwk36's APCR can pen. 122mm/30 degree @1500m, one section of js2 early's front amor is 120mm/30 degree.


----------



## glen (Jan 13, 2008)

For example,if Panther's galcis is equaivalent to 180mm vertical facing 88mm apcbc, its performance is quite better than a 180mm verical amor produced by german because panther's amor quality is quite better than the thick vertical plates. If kwk43's @1000m score on target plate(worse quality than 80mm plate)is 180mm vertical, it just can not pen. panther glacis @1000m! It must be within 1000m, such as 650m.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2008)

I'm not talking about test plates or the firing range, I'm talking about real life situations and the true quality of armour. The Soviets recognised that the theoretical ability of the IS-2m armour did not match reality, because in reality the IS-2m armour splintered and shattered when, in theory, it should have been invulnerable. 

Most IS-2 models that saw combat were the IS-2 Model 1944 ("late version") with this slight improvement in armour over the IS-2 model. The faulty casting and the lack of tempering remained - if you wanted to test what really happened you would need a test plate of the same quality casting as the real-life IS-2m.


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2008)

> No, D25T's score is almost below 150mm, and kwk43's is around 200mm，I believe the german 200mm target plates is probably inferior than soviet 150mm ones.



They were NOT inferior ! They were just of a lower BHN, however the quality of German test plates was MUCH higher. Is that really so hard for you to understand ?! 

The BHN has nothing to do with the quality of the armour! Now when the heck will you understand this ?!

Fact is German armour was of much better quality than Soviet armour, and were therefore depsite the different BHN much tougher targets.



> If you find a score of D25T is [email protected]*m，that's a fake score just like kwk43's.



There is NOTHING fake about the KwK43's penetrattion figures, NOTHING! Now get that into your skull for crying out loud!

And to again prove my point that you're just yet another ignorant gamer playing smart; Its not called a "score".



> At least, I've prooved the soviet D25T target plates are better than Panther glacis.



You haven't proved anything Glen, Zip Nada Nothing! Late Panther glacis plates were full of flaws, plus the Panther in question was one which had already been knocked out burned out in action beforehand, so when fired upon by the 122mm D-25T the armour had already been weakened considerably.



> Since you believe the kwk43 apcbc's 200mm+ is true, how can you explain it only penetrate panther glacis at range of 650m?



That result was from Soviet tests, NOT German tests. We don't know the impact angle or anything - the Soviets were never very thurough in their tests. Thus the test is completely invalid. Plus American testing proved the gun (KwK43) to be effective against the Panther's glacis out past 1,000 yards.

Now here's my question: How come the 88mm KwK43 managed to completely penetrate both sides of a Henschel Tiger Ausf.B turret, which equates to 285mm of armour penetrated during Soviet tests at 400m, with its Std. APCBC round while the 100mm D-10T couldn't even leave a dent in the rear turret when hitting a huge weak spot on the turret's front, the gunsight ?? 

Also how come there are numerous accounts of IS-2's being knocked at ranges past 4km by Nashorn, Tiger Ausf.B and other AT personnel ???

Also remember that the 88mm KwK43 L/71 demonstrated superior penetration performance in British trials as compared to the German trials, which matches perfectly well with the fact that German criteria was slightly more strict. And also remember the trials conducted at the Aberdeen proving grounds USA, all demonstrating the huge advantage in penetration performance of the 88mm KwK43/PaK43 L/71 over any Allied AT gun. Or should I take it that you, Glen, believe all these to be "cheat scores" as-well ?? 

Fact is that the 88mm KwK43 L/71's penetration figures are NOT overblown, they were results achieved against very high quality 250 - 265 BHN plates at close range and very high quality 300 + BHN plates at long range laid back 30 degree's from vertical. And std. criteria was 2/3'rds of the projectiles fired had to completely penetrate the plate. 

Against high quality 300 + BHN plates laid back 30 degree's from the vertical the 88mm KwK43 L/71 demonstrated a penetration performance of 127mm at 2.5km. Thats more than than the 88mm KwK36 L/56 achieved at 100m.

The Soviet figures were on the other hand achieved against poor quality brittle plates of BHN's varying from 250 to 350. Std. criteria varied as-well from 2/3'rds to 75% of the projectiles fired to partially penetrate the plate.


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2008)

Oh, btw..

A JS-2 knocked out by a Tiger Ausf.E at 500m with a single shot to gun mantlet:


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2008)

> Kwk43's performance in battle field is not so strong. I'll collect more evidence.



More evidence ??  You've collected absolutely nothing so far glen!

Even the picture you showed me of the Sherman Jumbo is useless as it was one which was knocked out by a 88mm Flak 18/36 L/56 AT gun ! And then you lied about it being a PaK43! For crying out loud glen!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 13, 2008)

That's quite the picture, Soren. Where did you find it ? I assume the penertration ignited the ammo inside.


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2008)

I put this in on my harddrive ages ago, but I think it was from "The Combat History of German Tiger Tank Battalion 503" by Franz-Wilhelm Lochmann Richard Freiherr von Rosen, I'll check. An Excellent book btw.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 13, 2008)




----------



## glen (Jan 13, 2008)

> You haven't proved anything Glen, Zip Nada Nothing! Late Panther glacis plates were full of flaws, plus the Panther in question was one which had already been knocked out burned out in action beforehand, so when fired upon by the 122mm D-25T the armour had already been weakened considerably.


 
For D25T/APHE（BR-471), there are TWO different peroformance

1) penetrate panther glacis @650m



> Further, after the first encounters between the JS-2 and German heavy tanks, it turned out that the sharp-nosed 122 mm APHE round - the BR-471 - could only penetrate the frontal armour of a Panther up to 600-700 metres



2) penetrate panther glacis @2500m+



> However, in the summer of 1944, the problem of the poor AP performance disappeared. The performance of the D-25T gun of the JS-2 against the German tanks improved dramatically. The reports from the front described cases where the BR-471 APHE round 122 mm projectile fired from 2500 metres ricocheted off the front armour of a Panther leaving huge holes and cracks in it.






> The D-25 122 mm tank gun manufactured at the factory #9. Its ballistic characteristics are identical to those of the following guns: the A-19 122 mm, the D-2 122 mm (factory #9) and the S-4 (Central Artillery Design Bureau), giving it a muzzle velocity of 780-790 m/s with a 25 kg projectile. This gun reliably penetrates the Panther's frontal armor at 2500 metres, and that is less than its maximum range.



The difference of penetration between 650m and 2500m for D25T is 35mm-40mm! What does this mean? AS we all known, the Panther D's amor is the best, and G version's is the worst.

Therefore, for BR-471 shell, pen. Panther D @650m, and pen. Panther G @2500m+. I'll bet that.

BTW, Panther galcis, 80mm/55 or 85mm/55, must be stronger than a 150mm vertical amor(same quality as panther 80mm plates). However, D25T [email protected] penetration is below 150mm russian vertical plates! That's why russian target amor is better than panther glacis in spite of which version(D,A,G etc)! With regard to russian tank amor,it's another issue, I'll talk in future.






> Plus American testing proved the gun (KwK43) to be effective against the Panther's glacis out past 1,000 yards.



Which version is the Panther? I'll bet it is Panther G, for Panther D, kwk43's apcbc can only pen. @650m.




> Now here's my question: How come the 88mm KwK43 managed to completely penetrate both sides of a Henschel Tiger Ausf.B turret, which equates to 285mm of armour penetrated during Soviet tests at 400m, with its Std. APCBC round while the 100mm D-10T couldn't even leave a dent in the rear turret when hitting a huge weak spot on the turret's front, the gunsight ??



LOL 

At first, D10T can penetrate Henschel Tiger Ausf.B turret @1000m! 



> 5. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's front turret plate at ranges of 1000-1500 metres.
> 
> The Russian Battlefield - Was the Tiger really "King?"



0m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
D10T *** 155mm 135mm 115mm 100mm
D25T *** 152mm 142mm 133mm 122mm

[email protected][email protected]=around 134mm vertival russian target plates=180mm KT's front turrent!

Kingtiger's amor quality=Panther G, K=1950 whlie russian target plates K=2400. 

Kingtiger's front turrent:180*(1950/2400)^1.43= 180*74.3%=134mm

Kingtiger's rear turrent: 80*74.3%=59mm  Do not notice me the small obliquity of turrent amor ,apcbc shell can handle this small angle.
Oh my god, you don't know how to calculate multi amor at all! Two amor(134mm+59mm) is NOT equal to 193mm! I swear.

let total stopping power is x, there is 

x^1.43=134^1.43+59^1.43 (De Marre's approximately calculation)

x=163mm
Penetration of 163mm vertical .....kwk43's apcbc can achieve that within 500 meters.




> Also how come there are numerous accounts of IS-2's being knocked at ranges past 4km by Nashorn, Tiger Ausf.B and other AT personnel ???



Js2's side amor ? rear amor? 



> Also remember that the 88mm KwK43 L/71 demonstrated superior penetration performance in British trials as compared to the German trials, which matches perfectly well with the fact that German criteria was slightly more strict. And also remember the trials conducted at the Aberdeen proving grounds USA, all demonstrating the huge advantage in penetration performance of the 88mm KwK43/PaK43 L/71 over any Allied AT gun. Or should I take it that you, Glen, believe all these to be "cheat scores" as-well ??



British and American use 200mm+ plates, so the penetration table is cheat! For example, kwk43/17pdr can indeed pen. 260mm vertical plates(bad quality compared with 120mm plates) in spite of made in american/british/rassia, however, they can NOT 120mm/60 which is equivalent to 260mm vertical(good quality as 120mm)



> Fact is that the 88mm KwK43 L/71's penetration figures are NOT overblown, they were results achieved against very high quality 250 - 265 BHN plates at close range and very high quality 300 + BHN plates at long range laid back 30 degree's from vertical. And std. criteria was 2/3'rds of the projectiles fired had to completely penetrate the plate.
> 
> Against high quality 300 + BHN plates laid back 30 degree's from the vertical the 88mm KwK43 L/71 demonstrated a penetration performance of 127mm at 2.5km. Thats more than than the 88mm KwK36 L/56 achieved at 100m.





> Germany
> 
> definition of penetration:
> completely penetrate
> ...



It's probably germany 84mm(kwk36 @2000m pen.) amor has better quality than German 132mm(kwk43 @2000m pen.).



> The Soviet figures were on the other hand achieved against poor quality brittle plates of BHN's varying from 250 to 350. Std. criteria varied as-well from 2/3'rds to 75% of the projectiles fired to partially penetrate the plate.



Don't forget that Roosevelt and Churchill shipped a lot of amor steel to russian. It is said that almost 50% of russian amor steel is from allied. Do you believe russian wasted those strategic material?


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2008)

Relying on Battlefield.ru again are we glen ?? 

I sincerely doubt those Soviet reports, esp. considering that the Soviets never engaged in fights at those ranges.

German tests demonstrated that when hitting at a 30 degree side angle the Panther's glacis was completely immune to the 122mm D-25T, and at a straight angle the Panther had nothing to fear past 600m. 

Against flawed armour many things can happen, including huge cracks being caused on impact.


----------



## glen (Jan 14, 2008)

> Even the picture you showed me of the Sherman Jumbo is useless as it was one which was knocked out by a 88mm Flak 18/36 L/56 AT gun ! And then you lied about it being a PaK43! For crying out loud glen!



The book said it's 88mm AT gun, AT is AT, flak is flak. There was no L56 88mm AT gun at all.





Soren said:


> Relying on Battlefield.ru again are we glen ??
> 
> I sincerely doubt those Soviet reports, esp. considering that the Soviets never engaged in fights at those ranges.


You are completely right Soren. Beyond 1200m, russian will lost their accurate aiming and the hit from 2000m,2500m from russian gun is surely LUCK. However, to measure gun penetration @1000m (for example), the technician will reduce the quantity of powder in order to get a much lower muzzle velocity to simulate the remnants velocity @1000m. Then the tested gun will fire accurately at target amor at a very close distant .

All of the large caliber gun are measured in this way besides those Navy guns. Can you image 460mm gun of battle ship firing at target plates from 30000 meters? Crazy!



> German tests demonstrated that when hitting at a 30 degree side angle the Panther's glacis was completely immune to the 122mm D-25T, and at a straight angle the Panther had nothing to fear past 600m.
> 
> Against flawed armour many things can happen, including huge cracks being caused on impact.



German test is completely right. It must be Panther D. 
For APHE BR-471, Straight angle, 650m pen. Panther D glacis.
30 degree side angle, impossible to pen. it.

There is a formular:



> cos(γ)=cos(α)*cos(β)



For Panther glacis, β=55 degree
30 degree side angle,α=30 degree
y=60.2 deggree

That is to say, BR-471 is hiting a 85mm/60.2 degree amor which is equivalent to 216mm vertical (same quality as 85mm plate ).

85mm/55 is eqaul to 179mm vertical to BR-471, therefore, increasing 55 degree to 60 degree will gain 36mm additional stopping power! However, If u increase 10 degree to 15 degree, the stopping power will be slightly larger.That's funny trigonometric function.

To sum up, in Cold War period, russian and west often oppugn each other's data, however, both of them are NOT so evil as described by opposing side. I am inclined to trust both side's data including Germany. I don't believe there are so many liars in the world.


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2008)

> The book said it's 88mm AT gun, AT is AT, flak is flak. There was no L56 88mm AT gun at all.



Yet another example of how little you know glen!

The 88mm FlaK 18/36 L/56 was used as a dedicated AT gun since the beginning of the war glen! with special chassis and platforms being manufactured for it to fullfill this role, armored shields were even manufactured! And the Allies ALWAYS referred to the 88 as a AT gun, and with good reason seeing that it litterally slaughtered the Allied tanks sometimes at ranges past 3km in the North African desert.

88mm FlaK 18 AT gun (Notice the white stripes on the barrell, each one represents one enemy tank knocked out):


----------



## glen (Jan 14, 2008)

In early period of rassian battle field, L56 88mm AA GUN is almost the only weapon to defeat russian KV tank.

American 90mm aa gun is also very powerful.However, 90mm/88mm (L50-56) is insuficient to penetrate Panther glacis.









> A 90mm anti-aircraft gun on Omaha Beach shortly after the invasion, 6 June 1944.



M2 90MM ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY


----------



## Soren (Jan 14, 2008)

What's your point ?

The 88mm FlaK 18/36 L/56 was a dedicated AT gun, the US 90mm M2 wasn't.


----------



## MacArther (Jan 15, 2008)

If I recall correctly, the 88mm gun was originally used at Arras because Rommel's tanks and anti-tank guns couldn't knock out the Matilda and Matilda IIs coming there way. Therefore, Rommel an ANTI-AIR unit deploy their 88mms against the tanks.


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2008)

Nope, the 88 was used as an AT gun since the Spanish civil war. The 88mm FlaK 18/36 was used as an AT, AA artillery piece and functioned well in all roles, but it excelled as an AT gun, as which it was referred to by the Allies. 

The FlaK 18 was as the name says originally intended as an AA gun however experience with using it as an AT gn in the Spanish civil war proved it massively powerful in this role, and so future pieces were fitted with different chassis, platforms targeting equipment converting them into extremely lethal AT guns.


----------



## Juha (Jan 15, 2008)

Soren
if Flak 18 was a Pak why it was almost entirely used by Luftwaffe not by Heer? And why it was Flak and not Pak 18 or 36. IMHO Wehrmacht knew best what the gun was, so lets call it Flak or AA gun. British 3.7" AA gun was also capable to ground fire as was at least most of AA guns.


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2008)

Juha said:


> Soren
> if Flak 18 was a Pak why it was almost entirely used by Luftwaffe not by Heer? And why it was Flak and not Pak 18 or 36. IMHO Wehrmacht knew best what the gun was, so lets call it Flak or AA gun. British 3.7" AA gun was also capable to ground fire as was at least most of AA guns.



Forget it Juha, the gun would need an entirely new configuration to become a part of the PaK series. That doesn't mean it wasn't an AT gun however, hence its std. use in this area. There's a reason the shield new sighting system was put on it buddy! 

Also the FlaK 18/36 wasn't almost entirely used by the Luftwaffe, I can't even imagine what ever gave you that idea, esp. considering that the Wehrmacht litterally used thousands of FlaK 18/36's almost exclusive in the AT gun role, and with dramatic success, which is how the gun established its fearsome reputation. Undoubtedly the most successful AT gun of WW2.

*88mm FlaK 18/36 L/56 AT gun (Again notice the stripes on the barrel)*


----------



## Juha (Jan 16, 2008)

Soren
have You any info how the 88s were divided between LW, Heer and KM or are you just thinking that you know? IMHO most were used by LW Flak Abtailungen, some by KM Flak units and some by Heer. For ex. all/almost all Flak 88s in Normandy belonged to a Flak Korps ie were LW guns and those fought under 4th PzD in 1941 belonged to I/FlakRgt 11 even if many times used in AT role. I don't have now time to check the histories of 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th PzDs.

On the other hand I remembered today a genuine 88mm L/56 AT gun. That was those 12? Flak guns put on 12t SdKfz 8s half-tranks and used in Poland and France in 1939-40. They belonged IIRC schPzJgAbt 8 and at least some fought in France under 1st PzD.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2008)

Your point being ??

Like I said the 88mm FlaK 18/36 was used extensively by the Wehrmacht for AT purposes, it was modified for this role with an armored shield revised sighting system. And finally it was ALWAYS referred to by Allies as an AT gun, esp. when one of their tanks had been knocked out by one!


----------



## Juha (Jan 18, 2008)

Soren 
my point
Quote: "Also the FlaK 18/36 wasn't almost entirely used by the Luftwaffe, I can't even imagine what ever gave you that idea, esp. considering that the Wehrmacht litterally used thousands of FlaK 18/36's almost exclusive in the AT gun role"

I would like to know from what you based that claim. Please give some numbers/percents how big slice of 88s served in Heer units. So were you get the idea that huge numbers of Flak 18/36 served in Heer units especially in AT units?

"And finally it was ALWAYS referred to by Allies as an AT gun"

Seriously Soren do you claim that all those fliers telling the deadliness of 88 fire claimed that they were fired at AT guns, all stories I have read talk on ack-ack, AA or Flak.

To me the use of Flak 18/36 in anti-tank role shows the tactical flexibility and good co-op between Heer and LW at unit level. But it also showed the old aciom that Germans were good operationally but not always so good logistically. With British it was sometimes opposite. They thought to use their 3.7" AA gun in AT role in Desert but then decided to keep them in rear to protect their logistical bases from LW.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jan 18, 2008)

> Seriously Soren do you claim that all those fliers telling the deadliness of 88 fire claimed that they were fired at AT guns, all stories I have read talk on ack-ack, AA or Flak.



LoL Juha! Allied pilots didn't call them anything ! The pilots had no idea what weapon was firing at them other than it was a heavy Flak piece, it could be anything from 88 to 105 or even 128mm Flak pieces. 

By 1944 the Allied ground would almost always refer to the 88mm FlaK 18/36 as an AT gun, esp. since they lost countless tanks to this gun. 

Btw, its 'Acht Acht' not Ack Ack. 

As to my sources, do you know Ian V. Hogg ??


----------



## Juha (Jan 18, 2008)

This is bit silly but anyway
Ack-Ack means AA generally
2) Allied pilots usually thought that heavy German AA fire originated from Flak 36s and many times told being fired at by 88mm AA etc.
3) good that you changed ALWAYS to almost always I doubt that you have read all the reports and besides British were many times aware that they fought against 88mm AA guns crewed by LW troops.
4) IMHO after all it doesn't matter what Allied called them. I'm so oldfashioned that IMHO if a PzIV stopped an enemy advance or was knocked out it was a PzIV even if GIs, Tommies or Ivans claimed that they were stopped by or have knocked out a Tiger. Maybe you have accepted one of those post-modern philosophies and think that if Soviet claimed to have knocked out 5 Elephants (most of the Elephants Soviet claimed to have knocked out were in reality StuG IIIs) so they got at least some Elephants but IMHO if they were StuG IIIs they were StuG IIIs no matter what Soviets say.

I know at least one book wrote by Ian V. Hogg but haven't met him. So would you then be nice and give the percentage of Flak36s equipping Heer's AT units vs those used by LW and KM units, please. And would you be so nice and give also the title of the book and the page(s).

Juha


----------



## glen (Jan 19, 2008)

One of my friends has the proof that there was no Flak18 L56 88mm unit at the time when Jumbo was knocked out in the battlefields.


----------



## Soren (Jan 19, 2008)

Juha,

No percentages are ever given in any of the books I have, mainly as such is irrelevant as both the LW groundforces Wehrmacht were working closely together on both fronts. You can read about this in Ian V. Hogg's book: "German Artillery of World War Two".

The 88mm Flak 18/36 was used extensively as an AT gun on all fronts, laying waste to huge amounts of Allied tanks vehicles. Another role in which the Flak 18/36 operated extensively was that of field artillery, bombarding Allied infantry with coordinants given on by forward observation posts. This was esp. frequent through France, Belgium Holland.

Glen,

I know you're just spewing out another lie but by all means lets see that supposed evidence your friend has.

Fact is that Jumbo was hit by a Flak 18/36 AT gun, I've seen the picture before and so I know this.

Besides if you look at the picture its in a Urban area and was engaged at rather close range, and considering that a AP projectile from a PaK43 would've cut right through both sides of the turret at 2,000m it clearly couldn't have been such a gun.

At Aberdeen the 88mm KwK43 L/71 was after-all capable of penetrating the same amount of armor as that of the M4A3E2's frontal turret at beyond 3km.

So just use your logic.


----------



## Juha (Jan 19, 2008)

Soren
thanks for the title, probably the book I looked at the library of our War Academy in 70s, or maybe the book was on artillery of WWII, after all a read parts of it some 27-35 years ago

"Another role in which the Flak 18/36 operated extensively was that of field artillery, bombarding Allied infantry with coordinants given on by forward observation posts. This was esp. frequent through France, Belgium Holland."

Thats well known, have seen much of film on that and that was nothing extraordinary, also US 90mm and British 3,7" AA guns were often used that way in NW Europe. Also British tankers often mentioned 88 airbursts, especially tank commanders hated it. As you see at least British tankers understood what the 88s were.

Juha


----------



## MacArther (Jan 19, 2008)

Wait, wasn't the 88mm 18/36 the one that was low to the ground, had a larger powder charge, and was optimized for the AA role more than anything? Or am I thinking of a different variant?


----------



## Soren (Jan 19, 2008)

You're thinking of the FlaK 41.


----------



## ralphwiggum (Mar 28, 2008)

I know that the Su-152 had a HUGE gun and was nicknamed "Animal Killer" But was it a good tank destroyer? I'm kind've skeptical about it because I know so little about it


----------



## plan_D (Mar 28, 2008)

When it managed to hit its opponents then it would do some serious damage but the Su-152 was not a tank destroyer - it was a self-propelled gun; an artillery piece on tracks. Because of that the round was low velocity and it's armour was relatively weak. The ISU-152 was an improvement when facing enemy armour but the fact always remained that it wasn't built for taking on enemy tanks.


----------



## Soren (Mar 29, 2008)

The low velocity howitzer it featured was also a really poor armament for taking out tanks at anything but close ranges.


----------



## Juha (Mar 29, 2008)

Hello 
I would not call the 152mm gun-howitzer of SU-152 as a low velocity weapon, in fact its muzzle velocity was more or less same than the mv of Sherman's 75mm gun or T-34's 76,2mm gun, so not particularly high velocity weapon but also not really a low velocity weapon either. It's main drawback in tank combat was its low rate of fire due its separate ammo.

Juha


----------



## MacArther (Mar 31, 2008)

Plus velocity doesn't factor in terribly when you have a 152mm shell hitting something. If I recall correctly, even if the round failed to penetrate, the shear force of the explosion/impact was usually enough to knock out enemy armor encountered by the ISU-152. That being said, I would still prefer an Archer or an M-36 over a ISU-152.


----------



## Soren (Apr 10, 2008)

The velocity matters allot, esp. as range increases. A higher velocity makes it allot easier for the gunner to hit his targets, esp. if they're moving.

Low velocity guns aren't good for AT purposes simply because it takes them longer to reach their target and the high trajectory makes it hard to estimate range correctly - And the poor russian optics didn't make life any easier.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 22, 2008)

I'd feel much safer in a Jagdpanther than in a T-34/85 or any of the JS tanks, one reason being the gap between the turret and the body itself, THAT is one h*ll of a shell trap isn't it, one of the reasons why they redesigned the turret for the Kingtiger....I don't don't see many "traps" on a Jagdpanther do you?

I haven't seen much discussion about Hummel, Nashorn/Hornisse.....etc. how come?

What do you think about these claims..?

"Some Nashorn crews reported that they were able to knock out Soviet T-34 tanks at distance as great as 4000 meters. Nashorn crews also reported numerous kills of KV and IS-2 tanks as well as SU-152, ISU-122 and ISU-152 assault guns. 

Nashorn from 2nd Company of schwere Heeres Panzer Jaeger Abteilung 93 was also responsible for the destruction of the only M26 Pershing, destroyed in Europe. Pershing from the 3rd Armored Division was knocked out at the distance of 250 meters with a single shot. This engagement took place in the town of Niehl, north of Cologne on March 6th of 1945."

And....

Penetration of Armor Plate at 30 degrees from Vertical. 
Ammunition: 100m-500m-1000m-1500m-2000m 
Panzergranate 39: 203mm-185mm-165mm-148mm-132mm 
Panzergranate 40/43: 237mm-217mm-193mm-171mm-153mm 


Pzgr.39 (APCBC) - Armor Piercing Composite Ballistic Cap 
Pzgr.40/43 (APCR) - Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (Tungsten Core)


----------



## Soren (Apr 22, 2008)

The Nashorn is great but it offers too little protection for its crew. The Jagdpanther adds both good protection and mobility to an extremely powerful gun, a winning combination.

PS: 3 M26 Pershings were knocked out in Europe by the Germans, one by a Nashorn (The one you mentioned) but at 400m (not 250m) with a clean peneration of the frontal hull armor. The others were knocked out by Tiger Ausf.E's, one where the Tiger's round first went throught a building after which it penetrated the left side of the Pershing's turret. The last Pershing was taken out in a frontal engagement with a Tiger.


----------



## starling (Jun 7, 2008)

comet tank,great not just as a t/d,brilliant afv all round,wonderful.lee.8)


----------



## parsifal (Jun 15, 2008)

swallow your national prides guys. The germans were the tank bulder par excellance, and the TD builders par ecxcellance as well. For the allies and the Soviets, this particular part of the war was just all about the numbers. We couldnt match em for quality, not in a month of Sundays

Not the best TD, but a very cost effective, and effective little number just the same was the little Italian Semovente. Eas well suited to Italian capabilities, and still quite useful, even as a TD (which it was not designed for)


----------



## Kruska (Jun 15, 2008)

parsifal said:


> swallow your national prides guys. The germans were the tank bulder par excellance, and the TD builders par ecxcellance as well. For the allies and the Soviets, this particular part of the war was just all about the numbers. We couldnt match em for quality, not in a month of Sundays.
> 
> *What could I possibly add?*
> 
> ...



Regards
Kruska


----------



## starling (Jun 16, 2008)

the comet and firefly were both good td and tanks,probably.i think they both deserve at least a thought imho.starling.


----------



## No_Nickname (Oct 10, 2008)

My pick would be the Jagdtiger in a defensive role.

Why:

128mm Pak 44(80) L/55 2 x 7.92mm MG34/42

The resulting vehicle featured very heavy armor and the 128 mm PaK 44 L/55 gun capable of defeating any tank fielded in World War II, even at long ranges (+3,500 m)



Achtung Panzer said:


> In the Summer of 1945, US Army tested captured Jagdtiger, which was able to penetrate frontal armor plate of M26 General Pershing at 2100 meters.



http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/jagtabe.jpg


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 10, 2008)

The jagdpanther, no question about it. More agile than the Jagdtiger and more deadly than a Tiger 1.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 11, 2008)

Dunno if we've already discussed it, but what was both the Allied and Axis verdict on the anti-tank capabilities of the Semovente M 41M da 90/53?


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 7, 2008)

The quality of a tank lies not only with its armour, engines, and guns...areas which have been well covered by the excellent posters in this thread...but also in a area often neglected: its GUNSIGHTS and RANGEFINDERS. 

And here the germans were - no other word for it - fricking excellent.


----------



## m kenny (Dec 7, 2008)

parsifal said:


> swallow your national prides guys. The germans were the tank bulder par excellance, and the TD builders par ecxcellance as well. For the allies and the Soviets, this particular part of the war was just all about the numbers. We couldnt match em for quality, not in a month of Sundays



Apart from the lead given by the Tiger and the Panther in late 1942 I see no prior evidence of this superiority. As is well known the whole German tank arm was rendered obsolete in June 1941. In 1944 the IS series put the Russians back in the game. In terms of cost effectiveness the IS was the best tank of WW2.
The only way Germany stood out was in the engineering standards of her late war tanks and this aspect-though much lauded here-proved fatal to her ability to field enough bread and butter designs.
It should be remembered that TD's were in effect ersatz tanks built so as to avoid the complications of a turret. It was a choice dictated by circumstance rather than free will. They were makeshift responses to an inability to field enough tanks. If you have enough tanks you do not need TD's. The Allies only used TD designs so as to get bigger guns into action than could be fitted in a current tank turret.


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 7, 2008)

m kenny said:


> Apart from the lead given by the Tiger and the Panther in late 1942 I see no prior evidence of this superiority.



A good source for that would be 'Changes in the borders of European countries, 1939-1942'.  



m kenny said:


> As is well known the whole German tank arm was rendered obsolete in June 1941.



By what? BTs? 
T-26s? 
T-40s perhaps?
Highly mobile, well armed and armored T-34s, which's overall fighting potential in practice was reduced to nil by non-existant internal and external communications? Commanded by an overloaded tank-commander/gunlayer, in the extremely cramped turret - shared with a loader who was supposed to load the gun from ammo boxes he was standing on, while running around as the turret traversed as no turret basket was provided - who was supposed to aim to gun AND observing the terrain which latter task he simply could not perform from _inside _ because the utter lack of a commander cupola or any suitable observer devices? Or alternatively, having to expose himself for observation (meanwhile he could not operate the gun), which as an added bonus gave him means to communicate with the rest of his tank platoon _via hand signals and flags_, provided they were unbuttoned too?

No wonder the hulks of burned out Soviet tanks marked the Wehrmacht's way from the Polish border to Moscow, sharing the same fate as the well-armored, decently gunned and from the command and control view, hopelessly flawed French tanks had received a year before.



> In 1944 the IS series put the Russians back in the game. In terms of cost effectiveness the IS was the best tank of WW2.



To me the IS 2 seems to be a rather compromised tank for a special purpose, with some major limitations, namely very limited ammunition, cramped internals and a chassis that was rather outdated already in the KV series, and was never considered reliable. It was crude but sufficiently effective, overall having roughly similar combat potential, fire power and armor as the Panther, without the refined technology - ie. running gear - offered by the latter.

As for its costs, I don't think I have seen evidence that the IS 2 was particularly cost effective - certainly not from you.



> The only way Germany stood out was in the engineering standards of her late war tanks and this aspect-though much lauded here-proved fatal to her ability to field enough bread and butter designs.



The German approach - trying to outweight quantity with quality - was a reasonable one, given that Germany could not hope to match the production of its enemies. Say if the Germans would start producing the T-34 or Sherman, they would be still hopelessly outproduced in sheer numbers. 

The only sensible approach, followed by the post-war NATO as well, was to try to rely on quality, rather than quantity.

Also a fact needs to be mentioned, the Germans were not particularly lacking in the number of tanks being available, as a matter of fact, like in the case of the aircraft, they never had as many tanks in the war than they had by late 1944, the number fielded constantly increased. 



> It should be remembered that TD's were in effect ersatz tanks built so as to avoid the complications of a turret. It was a choice dictated by circumstance rather than free will. They were makeshift responses to an inability to field enough tanks. If you have enough tanks you do not need TD's.



It should be noted that all this is rubbish and that the _Sturmgeschützen_ were a pre-war German concept to provide the infantry with direct armored support.



> The Allies only used TD designs so as to get bigger guns into action than could be fitted in a current tank turret.



Well, the several thousand of Sherman-chassis based American M 10s etc. mounting the same capacity 76mm gun as the later Shermans seem to argue with that as well. Not to mention Soviet SU 85s, ISU 122s etc.

It is somewhat true to the re-using of the older British tank chassis, but those were generally quite hopeless - see ie. Matildas, various Cruiser designs - when it came to their upgradeability.


----------



## m kenny (Dec 7, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> By what? BTs?
> T-26s?
> T-40s perhaps?
> Highly mobile, well armed and armored T-34s, which's overall fighting potential in practice was reduced to nil by non-existant internal and external communications? Commanded by an overloaded tank-commander/gunlayer, in the extremely cramped turret - shared with a loader who was supposed to load the gun from ammo boxes he was standing on, while running around as the turret traversed as no turret basket was provided - who was supposed to aim to gun AND observing the terrain which latter task he simply could not perform from _inside _ because the utter lack of a commander cupola or any suitable observer devices? Or alternatively, having to expose himself for observation (meanwhile he could not operate the gun), which as an added bonus gave him means to communicate with the rest of his tank platoon _via hand signals and flags_, provided they were unbuttoned too?
> ...



By the same token the trail of blackened and burnt out Panthers,Tigers and Tiger II's littering the landscape from Moscow to Berlin are indicators of the superiority of the German tanks?
The T-34 was a great shock to the Germans. I am sure you aware of the reports filtering back about how the German shot bounced of the new tank. It is all documented and easily available to interested parties.
I presume your T-34 views are culled from that great impartial book 'T-34 Mythical Weapon'?





> To me the IS 2 seems to be a rather compromised tank for a special purpose, with some major limitations, namely very limited ammunition, cramped internals and a chassis that was rather outdated already in the KV series, and was never considered reliable. It was crude but sufficiently effective, overall having roughly similar combat potential, fire power and armor as the Panther, without the refined technology - ie. running gear - offered by the latter.



A simple cheap and effective Panther. An example of Soviet ingenuity and ability to concentrate on the essentials.



> As for its costs, I don't think I have seen evidence that the IS 2 was particularly cost effective - certainly not from you.



A gun that was big enough to disable (at the very least) anything it hit? To me that is effective





> The German approach - trying to outweight quantity with quality - was a reasonable one, given that Germany could not hope to match the production of its enemies. Say if the Germans would start producing the T-34 or Sherman, they would be still hopelessly outproduced in sheer numbers.


There was never any chance that Germany could outproduce her enemies nor any chance she could overcome them with invulnerable monsters. The next stage of her tank designs would have put her deeper in the hole




> The only sensible approach, followed by the post-war NATO as well, was to try to rely on quality, rather than quantity.



This was never tested by NATO The Germans attempted it and lost-the overwhelm with numbers approach was tried (in WW2) and it worked.



> Also a fact needs to be mentioned, the Germans were not particularly lacking in the number of tanks being available, as a matter of fact, like in the case of the aircraft, they never had as many tanks in the war than they had by late 1944, the number fielded constantly increased.


The German Tank Park in June 1941 was some 5300 vehicles. The assault gun total was around 500. By the middle of 1944 the tank park climbed to 7,500 whilst SP totals rose to 4,200. The summer 1944 tank losses shrank the Tank Park to 1941 levels and it never rose above 6000+ again. Stug figures kept rising until they reached 6500 by the start of 1945. A major advantage the SP had over the tank was its readiness rate. Stug. service rates of 85%+ were the norm when tanks veered between 55-90%. At the end of the war they still had some 4000 tanks in service so I know the numbers. However they never managed to marry up the unsexy support vehicles with the sexy tanks/Stugs. Short answer is too little and too late. The last year of the war gained Germany nothing but utter destruction Smarter Generals would have surrendered in the summer of 1944.





> It should be noted that all this is rubbish and that the _Sturmgeschützen_ were a pre-war German concept to provide the infantry with direct armored support.


and this is why Stug. and JgdPz's were issued to tank Abteilung in Panzer Divisions instead of tanks-because they performed better than tanks!
The US attached Tank Battalions to their Infantry Divisions as well as TD's. In some cases US Infantry Divisions had MORE armour than a German Panzer Division. UK practice usualy had a Tank Brigade (Churchills)working with their Infantry. If you have enough tanks you do not have to rely on TD's/SP's





> Well, the several thousand of Sherman-chassis based American M 10s etc. mounting the same capacity 76mm gun as the later Shermans seem to argue with that as well. Not to mention Soviet SU 85s, ISU 122s etc.


The M10/36/18 TD's were turreted vehicles (and thus not 'cheap' fixed gun types like German SP's)and made so as to be llightly armoured tanks with bigger guns. SU's were again larger gunned vehicles (for their time) than the T34's/KV's/IS tanks they were basesd on. In no case where they substitute for a tank. Stugs were used in place of tanks in Panzer Divisions.



> It is somewhat true to the re-using of the older British tank chassis, but those were generally quite hopeless - see ie. Matildas, various Cruiser designs - when it came to their upgradeability.



UK SP's were usualy used for 25pdr tubes. The only other Sp's were for the 17pdr gun when Sherman hulls were in short supply. A second best option -like all the German SP's


----------



## Soren (Dec 8, 2008)

M_kenny said:


> As is well known the whole German tank arm was rendered obsolete in June 1941.



Oh my god, you're just a complete joke M_kenny.

Anyway, you have given people here a thurough demonstration of your truly biased and fairytale imagination, and I frankly find it hard to believe that any intelligent person would listen to you again after that post.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 18, 2009)

JagdPanther was the best SP AT gun, the shortcoming being low production numbers (circa 730?).
Best for general purpose were SU/ISU-152 vehicles, since those could be used against anything encountered on the battlefield. Shortcomings: crude finishing, low ammo count. 
If one wants numbers, then SU-85 later the -100 is the answer. Further down scale were the StuG-III vehicles, and I've read that russkies were afraid to attack those with tanks.


----------



## Yozimbo (Mar 12, 2009)

My vote will have to go to the JagdPanther.... (Typhoons and Ju-87G aside  )


----------



## imalko (Mar 15, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> The jagdpanther, no question about it. More agile than the Jagdtiger and more deadly than a Tiger 1.



Couldnt agree more. Jagdpanther was the best tank destroyer of WW2, its only shortcomming is that it wasn't available in greater numbers.


----------



## parsifal (Mar 15, 2009)

The panther derivative was also much cheaper to build. All of which makes it difficult to understand why only 430 were produced during the war


----------



## MacArther (Mar 15, 2009)

> The panther derivative was also much cheaper to build. All of which makes it difficult to understand why only 430 were produced during the war



From the various books I've read, it would seem that the reason for the low production count was because the Western Allies were focusing a good portion of bombing and fighter bombing missions to taking out the Jadgpanther's production sites.


----------



## Mobius (Apr 3, 2009)

Soren said:


> Glen, you are still clueless about which you talk. You're a gamer, I had that figured out from the start.
> 
> First of all your criteria citings are completely wrong.
> 
> ...


German test data actually required that the best quality round penetrate the plate five times in a row in a condition where the HE was capable of detonating properly. When you see that the Tiger 88mm Pzgr 39 penetrates 120mm at 30 degrees and 100m, that means that the best quality 88mm ammo penetrates 120mm/30 degree five times in a row at the velocity associated with 100m within a velocity of 10m/sec.


from Datenblatten: said:


> "The effect of the projectile inside the tank and the probability of hitting the target are not considered in these graphical charts;thus only the COMPLETE PENETRATION WITH THE TOTAL EFFECT INSIDE THE TANK IS CONSIDERED. As a rule, this effect is of annihilating power when using armor-piercing shells with a high-explosive charge. When using hard core projectiles, steel or soft iron core projectiles, or hollow charge projectiles, completely annihilating effect cannot always be expected with a single shot, because the crew, located in the dead space of the tank, cannot be hit under certain conditions. A LIMITED EFFECT, WITHOUT PIERCING THE TANK BY THE PROJECTILE (effect produced by back-spalling of armor plate and punching holes (Stanzpfropfen) is frequently achieved with plates that are 10% thicker than the thickness presented in the graphs."


This usually is considered to be 80% criteria.



Soren said:


> Glen, you are still clueless about which you talk.
> *British test cirteria*
> 50% of the projectiles fired must completely penetrate the plate, ei. 100% of the projectile.


British Criteria seems to be 80% too.


----------



## Mobius (Apr 3, 2009)

Soren said:


> Again quit posting bullsh*t Glen.
> 
> At Aberdeen the penetration performance of the 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 against vertical 240 BHN RHA armor at 100m was as follows:
> 
> ...


Is this Aberdeen data from documents you obtained from Aberdeen or from a book that quotes it being from Aberdeen? I'm just curious as to why Aberdeen posted tabular data in meter ranges in the 1940s while all other original documents I have are in yards. But there is one book that seems to have mixed up yards for meters for Aberdeen German gun data.


----------



## PJay (Sep 2, 2009)

I must admit I haven't read all the posts.
How about the Brit Archer? 17 pdr gun and it can retreat in a hurry. Served post-war for a while.


----------



## Juha (Sep 3, 2009)

Hello PJay
Archer is one of my favourites. Not that it was the best, but it was so British. It had good points. It was compact with very heavy punch, 17 pdr was a very effective A/T gun, as you pointed out the rearward pointing gun had its merits. The rearward pointing gun also made it difficult to misuse the vehicle. Many TDs had the problem that because they had tracks and gun, infantry officers often thought that they could be used like tanks.
Bad point was that it was too compact, driver could not be on his seat when the gun was fired, otherwise he would loose his head, that was a tactical handicap.

Some 655 was made and used in NWE, but IIRC units prefer Achilles (M10 regunned with 17 pdr) but Archer wasn’t a bad A/T vehicle.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Sep 4, 2009)

The German criteria demanded that atleast 2/3rds (66.6%) of the same type of rounds fired at the target had to completely penetrate the plate in order for it to be considered as the mean penetration performance for that type of projectile at said range. By comparison US criteria only demanded that 50% were partial penetrations while the British demanded that only 50% of the rounds fired had to penetrate completely.

The Soviets demanded 2/3rds of the rounds to penetrate the plate, but wether it was completely or just partially is unlcear, and the fact that the Soviet couldn't manufacture good quality steel also had an impact on the results.

As for the Aberdeen results, they were all converted into results by meter range, which is easily done if you got the penetration performance of the round at 4 different ranges with 500m intervals.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 2, 2010)

Elefant!
Though relatively small numbers were produced and it was not perfect mechanically / reliability speaking. On a flatish landscape you would not want to be within 2000m in any other vehicle.


----------



## Soren (Jan 2, 2010)

Then why not pick the JagdPanther vinnye? It had the same gun and better mobility.

If you're only thinking about the armour then the JagdTiger is even better, plus it's armed with the gigantic 12.8cm L/55 Pak44.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 2, 2010)

Yes it had better armour and a bigger gun - but didn't that made the JagdTiger even heavier and could not carry a large ammunition load.?
I believe that the engines/ transmissions on the Tiger and other German heavy armour were not powerful enough or reliable. 
The Ferdinand and laterly Elefant was a compromise using the hulls already made for the heavy tank trials and as such became a very potent weapon. They could take out even the heavy JS1 tanks at long ranges - whilst being impervious (nearly) to counter fire unless at suicidal ranges!. 
The Elefant (- even though limited in number) acquited itself quite well on the Eastern front - where its weakness in not having a machinegun to protect itself from Russian troops with sticky bombs became apparent. The Russians also recognised the Ferdinand as a high value asset for the Wehrmact and as such made it a prime target for destruction.

The JagdPanther and Hetzer were very effective tank killers - but the Ferdinand / Elefant was a bit special!

I did also see some tests done by the Russians and they were not that impressed with the quality of steel armour and build quality on the latter KonigsTiger etc. They commented that it was inferior to that of the Panther and Tigers produced earlier. This may be propoganda or the result of the attrition on German infra structure and armaments production due to Allied bombing?


----------



## Soren (Jan 3, 2010)

But the Elefant's reliability record wasn't too good either vinnye, hence why I mentioned the JagdTiger. Given regular maintenance the JagdTiger Elefant would've been just as reliable. The problem plagueing all German tanks in the 1944 to 1945 period was the lack of regular maintenance; The reliability of a tank such as the Pz.IV, which had served admirably for the previous 4-5 years and proved very reliable, did from 1944 onwards suddenly drop to a truly appauling level no better than that of the heavy tank battalions. And this because spare parts oil were getting scarse and the amount of time between maintenance sharply increased. This affected all German tanks. 

People who don't know this continue to claim that the German heavy tanks such as the KingTiger were unreliable without any evidence what'so'ever to back it up. In reality these tanks weren't unreliable at all, they simply suffered from the lack of spare parts oil which started to affect the German army from 1944 onwards. 

It is true that the final drive on the Tiger Ausf.B wasn't fully suited for a vehicle of such weight, but it wasn't so bad that it couldn't easily be worked around by simply having an experienced and well educated driver behind the controls. Unknown to many is that fact that the Tiger Ausf.B was infact a very mobile tank, esp. for its size bulk. It was capable of negotiating larger obstacles and steeper gradients than most Allied Axis tanks, including the Sherman tank. And as long as it recieved regular maintenance and was commandeered by a trained driver, the Tiger Ausf.B was a reliable tank. And the same goes for the JagdTiger.

But to get back to the selection you made, you would be much better of with a TD like the JagdPanther by comparison to the Elefant. And the frontal armour of the JagdPanther was also heavy enough to ensure that any enemy would have to close to suicide range before having a chance to punch a hole in it. On top of this the JagdPanther featured much better mobility than the Elefant, and better protection against infantry as-well as better reliability.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 4, 2010)

FWIW, Russkies admired the reliability of captured Pz-III -IV, and didn't like Tigers Panthers due to their 'fragile' transmisions trackworks, at least as it's stated on battlefield.ru site.

JagdPanther really got it all, save for numbers produced. Elephant was created so the hulls don't end up scrapped, not because hulls weren't world-beater ones.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 4, 2010)

I agree with you Soren about the JagdPanther being an awesome TD - but I just thought that the decision to use the (50?) hulls that were not going to be used for Tiger production turned out to be quite a good one!
The Germans could not afford to waste the materials that had already been shaped int these hulls - so an alternative use had to be found for them - and what a use!
I did vote for the Panther as my choice for best tank - and didn't want to be to boring and predictable and go for the JagdPanther as well! But it was a close call! 
I did not realise that the Panzer ii and IV's reliability went down the pan inlate 1944! A lot of the talk seemed to suggest that it was the Heavies that suffered most. But what you said does make a lot of sense - shortages of maintenace materials would affect all vehicles.


----------



## xenogears1978 (Jan 14, 2011)

I GOT TIRED of correcting glen's crap.

crap 1:german penetration is 50% of rounds fired penetrated,russians 80%
conclusion: it's a lie.

Specification and Armor Penetration of the Soviet Tank Guns - BATTLEFIELD.RU - everything about the Great Patriotic War
the russians claim when half-penetrated,the russian standard is 75% part of projectile behind plate as penetration and germans 50%.even though it never gave any source,no name of the document.

crap 2:m26 withstood kwk43's shell at close range
conclusion:misunderstanding, zaloga pointed out in Armored Thunderbolt the crew regarded a IV as a tiger.

crap 3:kwk43 can only penetrate panther glacis at 650m.
conclusion:no source.self-invented stuff.

crap 4:d-25 penetrated panther front at range of 2500m.
conclusion:lie. battlefield.ru states that penetration only at 600-700m.also it states that at 2500m shell can jump off panther glacis leaving "holes(russian poor english,it should be dent)"and cracks.
also a russian website claiming d-25t can ko panther turret front at 2000m,it's also a lie because they shot at the hole on the plate.we can learn more here.


Axis History Forum • View topic - Reexamine the Kubinka king tiger test

crap 5:king tiger was penetrated at kubinka so its armor plate sucks.
conclusion:also lies, specific information here:Axis History Forum • View topic - Reexamine the Kubinka king tiger test


----------



## xenogears1978 (Jan 14, 2011)

russians already confessed they penetrated kt glacis after 3,4 shots.
http://img623.ph.126.net/P44wD-CONe6gwvjXx_431Q==/1678435286127286252.jpg
http://img460.ph.126.net/7zlIHjZoWWZgqy-zqZnGPQ==/2577184886763880347.jpg

as for the turret
http://img533.ph.126.net/7TG6RNYXl-BN5G-08-Y0pw==/2594636335319971622.jpg
http://www.battlefield.ru/images/phocagallery/articles/king_tiger/thumbs/phoca_thumb_l_039.jpg


all of the "penetration"on turret were hit for more than once.


----------



## psteel (Jun 29, 2011)

The Hetzer was a great efficent design, and had it come out a couple of years earlier it might have been something of a game changer, if nothing else because it could do everything a Stug could do but at 2/3 of the tonnage. Given the simplicity of design, it could have supplanted all the Marder/Stug/Jagd Panzer designs....except you would probably end up with 50% more produced [ton for ton] and double the amount when you add 'economy of scale' in the second or third year of production. It also had demonstrated growth potential with the D model able to mount the 75L70 gun and have 80mm Glacis armor @ 60°.

Shows what the Germans could have achieved had they been pushed to do so.


----------



## Juha (Jul 2, 2011)

Now even if I like Hetzer it was not an ideal design, the following sums up its weaker points:
Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer
Quote:”Commander could observe the battlefield using periscoping binoculars, through an open hatch in the roof but overall, his field of view was limited. The low silhouette made it a difficult to spot and at the same time gave Hetzer an advantage of attacking first. 75mm anti-tank gun was mounted far to the right (380mm of centre) what created difficulties for the crew (especially the gunner and loader), since the weapon itself was designed to be loaded from the right, resulting in the low rate of fire. Small space inside allowed only 40-41 rounds of 75mm and 600 round of 7.92mm ammunition to be stored. Later on storage space was increased and 45 rounds of 75mm ammunition were carried.”

And because of already the original design overloaded the chassis, I doubt that D model would have been a great success

Juha


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 3, 2011)

The gun also had a very limited traverse which required the vehicle to turn to bring the gun to bear over all but very limited arcs. This would have been worse with a bigger gun.


----------



## Juha (Jul 3, 2011)

Hello Shortround
yes 6deg to one direction and 11 to other, altogether only 17deg, the most limited of all German JgPzs or StuGs.

Juha


----------



## psteel (Jul 16, 2011)

Well, while all that might be true these are minor tactical issues. The main idea was the replace the vast majority of towed PaK 40 with a tracked SPATthat could be used easily in infantry division mission.... since anything was an improvement in survivability and tactical mobility over heavy towed ATGs. Most ATG were lost during retreats since they were far to heavy to be easily manipulated. Since they could never be as mobile as the attacker, they always have to be deployed more dispersed than any SPAT unit would function. As it was planned the Hetzer would have doubled the annual STug/JagdPanzer production...going along way to solve one of the basic short commings of the HEER. That is the lack of organic effective mobile AT weapon system.


----------



## Juha (Jul 17, 2011)

Hello Psteel
IMHO the problems were more than minor tactical issues, rather rather significant tactical issues but I agree that Hetzer was belate answer to a burning problem of the Heer but in fact Hetzer was more a development of Marders, which had the same functions than Hetzers but there were never enough Marders around to give them to all first line infantry divs, only PzDivs and PzGrDivs usually had them in their A/T battalions plus some selected infantry divs. And Hetzer was better armoured and lower than Marders also less vulnerable to strafing. But because Marders were produced mostly by the same factories than Hetzers the question was the lack of production capacity in the Czech factories in 42-early 44.

Juha


----------



## psteel (Jul 17, 2011)

HI Juha
What I meant was that such limitations can be overcome with training , which is by far the most important factor that determines AFV effectiveness. The Hetzer was a huge leap forward compared to towed ATGs.

But you do touch upon the important issue of mass production. In some senses the Hetzer represented the first mass producable chassie that opened doors to cheap 'Waffentragger" AFV concepts, that could cover the needed selfpropelled gun/howitzer needs that even be expanded to include APCs etc.

Prior to this all such production was either based on a limited run of captured enemy chassie or converting the limited production of prewar tank designs that were not really suitable for mass production since they were designed with 25 year life span in mind.

Hitler was against mass production since he was convinced the war would be over before such mass production programmes could take off. Most of his calculations were based on the war being short and when his gambles failed, he was unsure when to shift gears.


----------

