Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun

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

That is correct MacArther, the 17pdr was plenty accurate with the normal APC, APBC APCBC rounds.
 
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.)
 
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)
 
The thread isn't about favorite.. it's "best"..

Why is the M-10 better than the M18 or the M36?
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
WARSPITER said:
Interesting points from all. Thank you.........
........Maybe in practical terms the JagdPanzer IV/L70 was one of the best ?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...
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
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
Replies
31
Views
821
EwenS
E
Menu
Log in
Register