Best Tank/Anti-tank gun

What 'side' does your chosen favourite belong to?


  • Total voters
    9

schwarzpanzer

Senior Airman
662
2
Aug 8, 2005
What nationality does your chosen favourite belong to?

What is it and why do you like it?

Mines the 17pdr BTW
 

reddragon

Airman 1st Class
As far as the best anti-tank gun, I'm impressed with the German 88. Overall, I believe it to be the best weapon of the war. With tanks, I'm kind of leaning toward the German Mark V Panther. I'm under the impression that it was built to offset the Russian T-34 and had early teething problems but overall, I believe it to be a very impressive weapon. The King Tiger is also a fine tank but I believe it to be underpowered, too slow to be used as an offensive weapon (I've heard it had a speed of about 25 miles per hour), and consumed too much fuel.
 

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel
11,643
20
Apr 1, 2004
The Germans produced more quality anti-tank and tank cannons than any other country. However, the OQF 17pdr was a remarkable cannon and was punching in the same weight ranges as any German cannon. Including anti-tank guns though, the Soviets had some impressive artillery in that area.

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

Glider

Captain
8,190
3,217
Apr 23, 2005
Lincolnshire
I think we all agree that the choice is between the 88L71 as mounted in the King Tiger and the Jadgpanther and as a ground mounting for the Germans and the 17pd for the allied.
Personally if I had to chose one it would be the 17pd. The only reason being that the 88 was larger than ideal when mounted on the ground. The 88L71 was more powerful but this was almost overkill as the 17pd was more than sufficient at battle ranges. Being lighter also enabled the British to use the 17pd in lighter tanks than would have been possible had we had to use the 88.
 

Gnomey

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

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

Glider

Captain
8,190
3,217
Apr 23, 2005
Lincolnshire
Fair point. The L56 was the versitile version mounted on the Tiger 1 and was more than good enough for dealing with the USA and UK tanks. It only started to struggle with the larger USSR tanks at long range where it started to be outgunned.
That said the 17pd would also have had problems in that situation. However as a general Tank and Anti tank gun we will have to agree to differ.
 

me262

Airman 1st Class
265
0
May 8, 2005
what about the nashorn?
mounting a PaK 43/1 L/71, capable of dealing with the is2 at 2,000 plus meters, although thin armored, but used as a sucesfull long rage AT weapon
 

Erich

the old Sage
12,376
59
May 20, 2004
Platonic Sphere
short lived, much too high for a serious AT weapon as it needed space due to the long barrel and much camo either natural or buildings. In fact even the low ride wheeled 8.8cm AT was much too heavy to turn and get into position for it's crew
 

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel
11,643
20
Apr 1, 2004
The Tiger I was not out-gunned by the IS-2. The OQF 17 pdr was an impressive cannon and while not as versatile as the FlaK 18 8.8cm it had an equal punch and was more than capable at battle ranges.
 

Glider

Captain
8,190
3,217
Apr 23, 2005
Lincolnshire
The IS 2 had a maximum armour of around 160mm and at the end of 1944 the JS3 was coming into production with up to 230mm.
At 2000 meters the L56 could penetrate 110mm sloped at 30 degrees and at 1,500 meters 123mm. These distances could be reached on the Russian Steppes and there is little doubt that the L56 would have a tough time at these distances against the larger russian tanks.
 

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel
11,643
20
Apr 1, 2004
The IS-2 had 120mm armour on the front and it was poorly casted. It was proven in combat that the IS-2 was vulnerable to the Tiger I up to and including 1000 metres.
 

Glider

Captain
8,190
3,217
Apr 23, 2005
Lincolnshire
Well my sources say 160 and I admit others say 120, but it doesn't matter as we both agree that the IS2 is vulnerable at up to 1000.
My argument was that the L56 would struggle at long range and 1000m isn't that long which I tried to back up with the figures at 1,500 and 2,000.
 

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel
11,643
20
Apr 1, 2004
The standard combat ranges being 500-600 metres would make 1000 metres a good, long range advantage. As I have said in another thread, 3000m and closing the KwK36 could cause sufficient damage to the crew moral at around 3000m due to the heavy impact of a large shell. At around 2000m the KwK36 will start shocking the crew and has the possibility of collapsing the armour after a few hits (not highly unlikely due to IS-2M poor casting), it also could strike vital areas such as between turret and chassis. At 1,500m the KwK36 certainly would be doing damage to the IS-2M, penertration in German terms was 50% or more. At 1,500m I reckon a fair few shell splinters could well have entered the IS-2M.
 

schwarzpanzer

Senior Airman
662
2
Aug 8, 2005
This thread is going the way I thought, the 88 for it's versatility and the 17pdr for pure anti-tank work.

I agree with Gliders points.

The KwK36 would struggle to destroy a Churchill though.

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

The IS 2 had a maximum armour of around 160mm

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

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

Correct.

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

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

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

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel
11,643
20
Apr 1, 2004
At 1,500 - 2,000 metres the KwK36 would struggle destroying a Churchill X with 152mm of frontal armour, yes but most guns would!
 

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel
11,643
20
Apr 1, 2004
At 1,500 - 2,000 metres? I don't think so. To 152mm they'd all being doing OK at best.

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

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

syscom3

Pacific Historian
14,320
8,068
Jun 4, 2005
Orange County, CA
I found something that the Sherman could actually beat!

An old Ford LTD! hehehehehe

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

:lol:
 

Attachments

  • mvc-584x_357.jpg
    mvc-584x_357.jpg
    89.5 KB · Views: 386

Users who are viewing this thread