Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun (1 Viewer)

[schwarzpanzer]

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]

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]

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]

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

Except, of course, the SU100.

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

I assume you know that though.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

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

 

[Soren]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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


Hi Soren,

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.

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Soren]

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]

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]

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 !