Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun

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:

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

- and Chris Foss (2 sources).

Can't you just believe me in future?

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

Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun

Senior Airman

Brigadier General

the old Sage

Brigadier General

1st Lieutenant

Banned

Airman

Lieutenant Colonel

Brigadier General

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Airman

Airman

Airman

Senior Airman

Banned

Senior Airman

Tech Sergeant

Airman

Airman

Attachments

Tech Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads