The best tank killer of WWII

I'm interested Black6 on what you say about the final drive and transmission of the Jagdpanther were it differs from the Panther could you tell more please

 

I don't have detail right now beyond the Wiki article's reference to an "upgraded final drive" and a later model of the Panther's transmission, there are other mentions of the same info out there on the net. I did notice that 2 of the 3 manufacturers of the the Jagdpanther are different than the Panther. I recall seeing info on the Jagdpanther's final drive in the past and it was described as "reinforced" and did not have the same propensity of failure if abused by an unexperienced driver. Perhaps someone else here has more detailed info on the matter? By most accounts (Allied, Soviet, German) it was an excellent vehicle and very potent weapon when used defensively.

 

Thank you I will look into this in more debth and will no doubt let you know

 

The Panther came out and ran into tremendous problems, mechanical breakdowns aplenty. Right off a campaign began to right the problems of the Panther and by the time the Jagdpanther came about (a year after the Panther) it would have definitely received the upgraded features (there were many more than just the engine and final drive.) The manufacturers should be the same, five in total I believe. I've seen pictures of the chasis of the two side by side in the factories. I thought it interesting that different companies make the turrets of the Panther than the chasis...I'm not sure what is gained by that.

One of the advantages I forgot to point out above was getting the 8.8cm out in a tank destroyer with decent protection for the crew.

 

The Panther, mainly because of it's high velocity 75mm gun

 

That rather implies that you think that that particular 75 is better than say an 88mm gun or a 90mm gun or a 17lb'er or ...
Care to expand on it a bit?

 

I wouldnt say 88 because it was very mobile and the tanks that mounted them wasnt very reliable and didnt the 75mm have higher penetration power? But in my honest opinion the tankers worst nightmare are enemy aircraft it dosent matter how much armor you have or how big you guns are you will always be vulnerable to enemy fighters

 

I've seen the numbers but am not sure if the Tiger I was less reliable than the Panther. The Jagdpanther due to its lack of a turret should have been more reliable than the Panther. As for comparison vs the 88 the Panther's 75 had more penetration than some of the 88s (including the one on the Tiger I) but less than others (including the one on the Tiger II and Jaggdpanther). See German Anti-Tank Gunnery Data, Shell Types and Armour Penetration Capabilities . Post penetration effects and accuracy should also be considered in leathality questions. The Soviets also had some pretty leathal AT guns on tanks and TDs as for that matter did the Western Allies.

 

The Panther's 75mm could take out a Sherman or a T-34 at virtually the same range as the Tiger's 88mm gun. It also had virtually the same killing power as well.

 

Those intermn models between the M 26 Pershing and the M 4 Sherman were not put into service for various reasons. The T 23 for example used an electric drive system that was deemed too expensive and complicated for service use. Others were turned down on the basis of being insufficently better, or for other reason. Many could have been put into serivce in a timely manner but weren't.

Actually, the Germans accepted a far lower standard of reliability and maintainability than the US did. Considerations like ability to change out the transmission or engine were not taken into account at all other than that they could be. For example, to change the transmission and final drive in the JadgTiger (a common problem as it was under-sized for the job) required that the maintenance crew remove the roof of the fighting compartment, remove the main gun, remove the roof of the driver's compartment, remove most of the driver and hull machine gunner's positions, then pull the transmission and final drive. This required the battalion heavy gantry crane several men about a week to a
accomplish.
The M 18, as one of the better US examples, took two men and a wrecker about 4 hours to accomplish either an engine or transmission change. A skilled pair of men could do the job in about half that time. There was nothing in the German inventory that could manage an engine or transmission change in half a day or less with just two men and the occasional use of a light crane / wrecker.
The Germans allowed engines in service that were 'twitchy." That is, more designed for use in high strung sports cars than AFV. The Panther had numerous problems with engine fires, leaking gas tanks, and a plethora of other minor and not-so-minor problems when introduced into service. These would have kept a US vehicle out of service use entirely, if not rejecting it.
I would even counter the last statement. The 6th and 7th Panzer divisions were both suprised and delighed that their newly assigned Pz 35t and 38t tanks were far more reliable than the Pz I, II, III and IV they had been issued. It was observed that on pre-war road marches the Czech vehicles rarely broke down, were generally easy to fix and, suprisingly good mechanically. Both division's men thought the Germans designs were fragile and unreliable.