Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.




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

Kris
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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
 

Attachments

  • Jagdtiger.bmp
    27.2 KB · Views: 167
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Stug3 because it cost effective. Many tank destroyer were too good .But a lot of Stug3 can do best against T34 and M4 .
 
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%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Z
Best tank engines of WWII
15 16 17
Replies
335
Views
20K
Reluctant Poster
R
A
Rolls Royce Tank Engines
Replies
2
Views
446
Reluctant Poster
R
P
Which tank is this ?
Replies
2
Views
669
programa
P
M
The D-Day Naval Gun Battle
Replies
0
Views
702
MIflyer
M
WWII Destroyers?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
937
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register