Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Best Tank Destroyer

Discussion in 'Tank Warfare of World War 2' started by tj, May 14, 2004.

  1. tj

    tj New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    via TanksinWW2
    What do you think is the best tank destroyer
     
  2. johann phpbb3

    johann phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    455
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    via TanksinWW2
    Jadgpanther. Hands down the best. Low silhoutte, excellent gun, very effective in ambushes.
     
  3. Danyel Phelps

    Danyel Phelps Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United States
    via TanksinWW2
    The Jagdpanther wasn't nessisarly low, not in comparison with TDs like the Hetzer.
     
  4. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    7
    via TanksinWW2
    Hetzer. Small, cheap, efficient, capable of handling the vast majority of it's opposition.
     
  5. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Please, please... Do you really believe we haven't covered this intriguing topic? :D

    http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34

    I agree with Johann on this one. The Jagdpanther was fearsome in armour and armament, yet very reliable and even useable for infantry support. The Hetzer's gun was running out of punch by the end of the war, when Allied tanks started carrying more than 100mm of armour. No such thing occured on the Jagdpanther.
     
  6. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    7
    via TanksinWW2
    It all depends on your point of view of what makes a vehicle "THE" best. One on one, I'll take the Jagdpanther too. But they were expensive to build and there were only around 300-400 built. I don't think the individual quality made up for the cost and limited numbers available. If I were in charge of a nation's armaments industry, I'd be looking for something like the Hetzer.
     
  7. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    But I think we all agree that the doctrine of the tank destroyer was a flawed one, do we not?
     
  8. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    7
    via TanksinWW2
    The U.S. tank destroyer (and armor) doctrine was defintely flawed. I think the Germans and Soviets deserve a little more credit since their tank destroyers were basically tanks without turrets and reflected some basic economic problems as much as a deliberate doctrine of their armies.
     
  9. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Precisely. The turretless tanks produced by the German factories from 1943 onwards allowed them to increase their output significantly in spite of incessant bombing. Their effectiveness on the battlefield is perhaps less than that of an MBT but the SP gun still has tremendous killing power, especially since the gun applied is usually heavier than what would fit a turret on the same tank.
     
  10. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Did the Germans ever use their tank destroyers in the infantry support role? To provide artillery fire for their infantry, I mean.
     
  11. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    7
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, they were used in a direct fire mode to support infantry, but for the Jagdpanzers it was definitely a secondary role. Assault guns were all around players, if not almost exclusively infantry support (such as the Brumbar).
     
  12. Ebar

    Ebar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    On a space station in geosynchronous orbit above y
    via TanksinWW2
    Archer

    The British Archer

    The arguements for

    Based on the hull of the obsolete Valentine tank. Allows the British to turn a proven but obsolete hull back into something competitive. This is likely to make it much, much cheaper than the Jagpanther.

    The Seventeen pounder. A weapon with excellent hitting power, better in fact than most American or Soviet contemporaries.

    The Gun. Rearward facing, sounds bloody stupid but it does make the design as compact as possible, useful for moving units to battle zone. British thinking on tank destroyers is to allow the enemy to come to them so no real disadvantage.

    Popular in service by all accounts


    Arguement against.

    Thin armour and opened topped, crew vunerable. A trait share with American tank destroyers

    High profile.

    Can't fire on move. Trait shared with soviet and German Tank Destroyers



    Conclusion

    No single clear advantage but better all rounder in a war of mass production as WW2 was.
     
  13. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Another 'slight' disadvantage of the Archer was that the driver had to leave his seat before it fired, otherwise the recoiling breech would knock his head off! :(

    Therefore it is a rather static tank destroyer compared to others.

    I do agree that it was effective, though.
     
  14. Ebar

    Ebar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,006
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    On a space station in geosynchronous orbit above y
    via TanksinWW2
    True enough but then British thinking on tank destroyers was that the enemy be allowed to come to them. This remained true of the American TD they received. Shoehorning a Seventeen pounder in had left it with only a manual tranverse making it less than ideal for firing on the move
     
  15. Sokal

    Sokal New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Poland
    via TanksinWW2
    Hi.
    Whata about Jagdtiger??, He was high, heavy, slowly, but he had great gun and armour.
     
  16. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Hi Sokal, welcome to the forum.

    The Jagdtiger was simply too heavy. At 72 tons there wasn't a bridge it could actually cross, and in the field it was practically immovable.
     
  17. tankerwanabe

    tankerwanabe New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The SU100 and ISU122 were pretty good too. Too bad the Soviets were on the offensive and couldn't really use them for the TD role.

    I paticulaly like the SU100. It was built on the t-34 chassis with a gun compatible to the German 88/71.
     
  18. Sokal

    Sokal New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Poland
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, of course, but if he had been used on good area, he would have been undestroyed. Maybe he wasn't so nice like Jagdpanther but I think he was pretty good :)
     
  19. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Well, essentially an up-armoured and up-gunned Elephant.

    Good as a defensive tool for holding up an enemy advance, especially if you have a reasonable number in action...

    For any other purpose, nah!
    Better to build a load of Panthers, or even King Tigers! At least they could cross some bridges!
     
  20. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    The most effective in terms of losses vs. kills is the Ferdinand.

    The most effective overall is, in my oppinion, the Panzer IV/70 V. It had the same height as the Jagdpanzer 38 overall, but had better armour and a better gun.

    The only real disadvantage was that it was rather nose-heavy, due to the long gun, and quite long too. These two disadvantages are of second importance to Panzerjäger, though, as these were intended for ambushes rather than attacks.
     

Share This Page