Top 5 Tank Destroyers

and what part of those Soviet tank losses were due to break downs??? Mines? anti-tank guns? German aircraft? The Soviets had what 20,000 tanks at the start of Barbarossa right?? Alot of these losses you refer to occured way before Tiger I's or II's arrived on the scene .

 

Back to the main topic,

due to criticisms of my earlier lists I have revised mine:

1. Jagdpanther
The jagdpanther mixed the devastating power of the 88mm L/71 with the proven chassis of the panther tank. It had the best anti-tank gun of the war, frontal armor that could not be penetrated by any american or british gun in service, and had a good top speed. It was also more reliable than germanys heavier tank destroyers (elefant, jagdtiger).

2. Su-100
The Su-100 mixed the extremely mobile and reliable chassis of the t-34 with the formidable 100mm d-10. While the d-10 is inferior to the 88mm L/71, it fires a more powerful HE round and outperforms all other german guns in terms of penetration. It also had decent armor protection and it was extremely fast and reliable as it used the chassis of the proven t-34.

3. elefant
While the elefants reliability might not be spectacular, Its armor and firepower definitely were. It used the massively powerful 88mm L/71 and had frontal armor a colossal 200mm thick. In fact, its frontal armor was so thick not even the most powerful Russian AT gun (d-10) could penetrate even at point blank range. In terms of kill/loss ratio the elefant is the most successful TD of the war, with an average kill/loss ratio of 10:1. While its armor and firepower are spectacular, its reliability was poor. Most elefants broke down before even seeing combat, and they had horrible fuel milage.

4. Nahsorn
While the nashorn has thin armor and and an open top, its main gun meant it could destroy any allied tank before it could get in range. After all, thin armor is irrelevant if you cant hit it. The Nashorn also used the reliable Panzer IV chassis and had very good mobility when compared to the heavier german vehicles. Its weaknesses are its thin armor and open top, which mean it is very vulnerable to infantry attacks and return fire.

5. ISU-152
While it was not designed as a tank destroyer, it was very effective in this role. It got the name "animal killer" because its massive gun could destroy any german tank in existence. In fact, its 99 pound high explosive round was so powerful it could blow the turret off a tiger tank. It also had very good armor which could shrug off fire from lighter german tanks and force the heavier ones to move to close range. Its mobility is also good, as it uses the IS-2 chassis. Its drawbacks are its low accuracy, slow reloading time (2 rounds per minute), and low ammunition storage (20 rounds maximum).

 

SSDasReich Back to the main topic,

Nice post, but what I do not "like" because I do not know enough about it, are these statements like

Are you sure that a Pershing firing a 90mm AP projectile could not penetrate the frontal armour. Due to Germany's weakness in material -certain ores or metals missing - the armour tended to blast metall fragments into the compartment - in that case the frontal armour argument becomes a zero.

However I do tend to agree that the Jagdpanter was probably the best Tank destroyer in WWII - why? Hey I just love its design and off course its gun.

Regards
Kruska

 

jagdpanther frontal armor was 80mm thick, but when you count the slop (55º degree from the vertical) the armor is 140mm thick. This could only be penetrated by a 17 at close range, or a 90mm m3 using HVAP ammunition at close range. at normal combat ranges, its armor could not be penetrated by any allied gun in service (exemption is 17 pounder using APDS, but that was ammunition was very rare and had accuracy issues).

 

There are many instances where this was claimed by the Germany military, but untill its confirmed by Soviet records it remains a claim only, not a fact.

 

we have ended the discussion. this thread is about tank destroyers, not tigers.

 

If I didn't know any better, based on most of the posts after my own, I seem to have been talking to myself, so I will make this as clear as possible

GET THIS THREAD ON TOPIC

This topic being tank destroyers of ww2, not the luftwaffe or tiger kills, claims, KD ratio's or any other none related topics

Take the Tiger discussion else where, last warning.

 

I for one don't think that getting off on a tanget so long as it is still appliable to WW 2 and the subject in general is such a bad thing. There is no ad homin attacks going on nor has the subject strayed so far afield that it is no longer appicable. I think it is best we let this run its course and see where it goes so long as we are discussing killing tanks and all that is involved in that.

 

Kurska,

That's a fascinating post! And there I was, scratching my head because in my purportedly realistic war game Steel Panther, my 75mm L43 was having one helluva hard time cracking a T-34-76! Oddly I never heard any trouble the American 76 had in killing T-34-85s. And in test conditions using good ammo German 75 usually did quite well.

What do you think was the problem? Was the ammunition quality poor or some other reason?

 

Where is my beloved Hetzer it maybe wasn't the best armored nor the best gunned nor the best ergonomics but it was cheap...
It was a great tank destroyer just 15 tons and good frontal armor...
So **** your 60kg 152mm shells...xD

From Achtungpanzer about the Hetzer:
Panzer Units Bulletin from October of 1944 - "…Light tank destroyer Jagdpanzer 38 proved itself in combat. Crews are proud of them (Hetzers) and they as well as the infantry have confidence in them. The most praised is the option of all-around fire from the machine gun. Great firepower, low profile and overall shape proved suitability to fulfill two main tasks: fighting enemy tanks and direct support of the infantry in defence and offense. It occurred that single company in short time destroyed 20 enemy tanks without any losses. One unit destroyed 57 enemy tanks (including 2 Stalins at 800m (Soviet IS-2)) without any losses. This same unit arrived in the combat area after traveling during the day the distance of 160km without any breakdowns…Front armor can withstand Soviet 76.2mm gun fire. Current losses are results of side and rear plates being hit…"

"…During one of fire duels of 4 self-propelled guns (Hetzers) from our company (3rd company of H.Pz.Jg.Abt 731) with single IS 122 (Soviet IS-2) at the distance of 1200m it was revealed that 10 rounds fired by the enemy tank at the company commander’s vehicle fell 100m short of their target. Company commander right away ordered one of the guns (Hetzers) to move to the right and use the depression attacking from the side. Six rounds fired from that gun (Hetzer) hit the side armor and set IS 122 (IS-2) on fire…".

 

The opening post is all important in every thread.

 

On the Hetzer, this article that originally appeared in AFV News by a Hetzer commander is probably the best commentary there is on the vehicle.... After all, he had to use one in combat....

http://www.pzfahrer.net/armin.html

 

I have always been fond of the Hetzer and its combat record, despite all of its so called flaws. I think it is one of those tanks that look terrible on paper but is good in reality.

A post of mine earlier in the thread.

 

Hello Tomcat,

sorry to say, but in this matter I wholeheartedly agree with T.A.G. So far it is a very civil discussion compared to previous threads on this issue. All the statements and post are related to the thread as such - Tank destroyers certainly involve the topics of Kill counts, armour, ammo, production, reliabilty, etc. There are no ad homin attacks as T.A.G. said and everything is IMO on a good verbal level.

The closing of threads due to “off topic” has IMHO caused at too many times the result that certain (such as this topic) sooner or later just cause the creation of new thread with the same topic– or at least hinder a tread topic arriving to a certain conclusion.
Please think about it Tomcat, I believe that you can find this agreeable as well

Regards
Kruska

 

Hello Triple C,

Thanks for the compliment.
When I used to be involved in wargaming with some British friends of mine, this 75mm was always a touchy subject. On paper on behalf of the rules it was a real whacker, no matter if as Pak, Pz.IV or Marder - and this really pis..ed of those playing the part of the allies.(including me at times)

Firstly I would agree with you that the ammo did play a good part in regards to the "real" circumstances of war. Vetrans and books always confirm a load of duds flying around.
Another reason is of course the trainig and skill of both parties crews involved. The angle of the Pak or the angle of attack by the AFV is probably the most important issue (including the aiming).

There is certainly also a vast difference between being a Pak or Tank destroyer that usually strikes from a hidden or prepared position, other then a tank under battle circumstances with mostly no idea about terrain and sight. Due to the above reasons the positioning of the 3 paks came into effect - however in many or most circumstances there were no 3 paks to handle a single tank - and this is were IMHO the real value of a pak, regarding its skilled crew, gun and ammo is shown.

To my opinion the Tank destroyers could only proof themselves from a preprepared position of ambush - and this is the reason why it was never considered to be a real main arm or why it was abandoned after WWII - or better to say replaced by anti tank missile carring systems.

A good example of this is the German post war Jagdpanzer Kanone, whose 90mm gun was later replaced with the Hot system (sorry Tomcat its getting modern right now)

The Hetzer from what I have read was liked by the "strategic thinkers" of the Wehrmacht due to the idea of masses rather than a huge fat Tiger.

Based on itsself the Hetzer was no match in regards to a Sherman or T-34 in combat - again it was primarily seen as an ambush weapon - cheaper to produce then a Stug IV and better protected then a Marder.
But once recognized by a Sherman, T34 or a bazooka carring guy, the Hetzer was dead meat - a Jagdpanther or Stug IV if recognized wasn't that easy to get - mainly due to the reason that a Hetzer was usually deployed in urban combat or forrest environment (easy to conceal and move arround) whilst a Jagtpanther or Stug IV was used as distance strikers.

IMHO if one would let the crew choose between selecting a Hetzer or Jagdpanther - well

Regards
Kruska

 

http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-forums-news/18540-wwii-forums-user-guide-version-1-1-a.html

 

Come on Tomcat,

who is going to hop around between 3-4 threads to come to a conclusion regarding a main topic thread.? do you find that feasable?

Regards
Kruska

 

Its not up for debate anymore.

 

Edit. Saw Tomcats post regarding going Off topic

We can continue our discussion here: http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/39247-overclaiming.html#post466268

 

Steel Panthers is hardly "realistic" in any sense of the word. HE rounds have little or no effect on tanks. The game mechanics are crap. Trying to use it to base history or outcomes on historical events won't generally, and most often rarely, happen.

The L43 was also in service with only a very limited number of tanks in German service. Some Pz IV F1 and StuG III F8 had it. Other than that, it was replaced by the L48 which became nearly ubiquitious on German AFV. The L48 as a tank killer was more than adequite and up to the job.
It wasn't quite as potent at the 75 PaK gun but, the difference in performance is negagible.