Discussion in 'Tank Warfare of World War 2' started by tj, May 14, 2004.
Yes, the IV/70 had a notoriously long gun for its size. See:
Yes, it had a perfectly long barrel but I wouldn't say it was the best tank destroyer. I'd go for the Jagdpanther because it had an ever beter gun and even better armor. The only problem is that it's silhoutte is hingher than the IV v/70's.
Still, while the Jagdpanther was certainly potent, it was extremely tall (see my height comparison charts). The 7,5 cm Pak 42 L/70 was able to cope with all Allied tanks, most of them at ranges beyond what was common.
I'm really surprise that the germans never make the L70 into an anti-tank gun.
Even though the 88 was better (both versions - 56 and 72), they were a beast to handle, and big as a barndoor (which was their unofficial nicknames).
The 7,5 cm Kw.K 41 L/70 had much better armour penetration ability than the 8,8 cm Kw.K 36 L/56.
The 8,8 cm Pak 43 L/71 also came with a small-sized gun shiled too, much like the 7,5 cm Pak 39 L/48, although an enlarged version.
Actually the difference was only slight, the main advantage of the 75mm was that the projectile was much lighter and therefore the gun was more easily fired. In penetration, it only beats the 88mm L/56 by a few millimetres.
The 88mm L/71 is a whole other matter; this gun outclasses the other two by a considerable margin. To the L/70 gun, indeed capable of destroying any Allied tank in the field, it adds the quality of range in killing enemy tanks; at the range of a possible kill for the Jagdpanther, its size is of little disadvantage.
The well-sloped armour the Jagdpanther had on all sides made it so hard to kill that the height of the design didn't matter much anyway; hit the top and your round would just bounce off.
The German tests gives a difference of about 10-15%, depending on range, however the German test underestimated the performance compared to real-life tests.
It was also more accurate within normal combat ranges.
A request for knowledge here...
A book I was reading mentioned that by the end of the war, M10 TDs were being phased out, and American crews were awaiting the M18 (Hellcat) or M38 in replacement.
What is the M38?
The closest I can find is the M36, which was basically an advanced M10.
Or is my book just totally and completely wrong?
This was the best anti tank gun the Soviets had fitted to an AFV (better than the IS 2's 122 D-25T) but it still wasn't compatible to the German 88/L71, especially when taking into account accuracy at longer ranges. No Soviet or Allied tank gun was.
Christian makes a very valid point here. For the numbers made and the life sevice of these Ferdinands/Elephants, they took a very impressive toll on enemy armour. They clung on in action for ages. It's a misconception that most were destroyed at Kursk. See my thread for further information.
I would guess on the M36 with a type, in the case of the 'M38'...
I would say Stug 3.
Because it's the only tank destroyer to see combat throughout ww2.
and very effective. I recall reading somewhere that in a certain stage in russia , russian tank crews where strictly forbidden to engage in a fight with a stug 3
It's estimated that the Stugs destroyed around 30,000 allied and Soviet armour during WW2.
JagdPather is the best Tank Destroyer in WWII.
The biggest problem with the german army in WW-II was the lack of effective AT weapons in the infantry divisions. Tank Destroyers were much better at this than towed ATguns and the only Tank Destroyer that could have been built in sufficent numbers the equipe all the infantry divisions would have been a E-10/Hetzer model. The soviets even thought the Hetzer was deadly cause they never saw it until it was too late.
THat would have been the best Tankdestroyer if it had been build in sufficent numbers [tens of thousands per year].
Still, the Stu.G. III isn't a tank destroyer, but an assault gun...
That's true, technically it was an assault gun but the second half of the war saw it used pretty much like tanks and tank destroyers, particularly the last year when Germany was being squeezed from both sides.
The StuGIII entered service during the invasion of the Netherlands in 1940, with the LAH motorized regiment, as an assault gun with the short-barreled 75mm L/24 gun. Only from late 1942 onward was this thing equipped to deal with enemy armour, even though its capacity to do so was discovered much earlier.
Ferdinand of course
The Jagdpanther had better sloped armour, better top speed and mobility, the same gun and therefore equal firepower, it never lacked a close-combat MG, had a better suspension system, weighed less and was therefore overall more manoeuverable... It was simply a better tank destroyer than the Elefant or Ferdinand.
But then Lyndon kicks in with his kills/losses ratios... Won't you Lyndon?