The best tank killer of WWII

In interested, I think this is quite a good site for StuG III action in WW2 in Finland as well as incl where the StuG´s are ( that have survived ):

http://www.andreaslarka.net/sturmi.html

Finland lost 8 of the 1943 batch StuG's. (Ps.531-1, Ps.531-2, Ps.531-3, Ps.531-5, Ps.531-17, Ps.531-23, Ps.531-24 and Ps.531-29). The Soviets lost 87 tanks and an uncounted number of anti-tank guns, anti-tank rifles, trucks etc. thanks to our StuG's and their crews. Quite a remarkable result for such a small force!

PS. Actually the tank mostly pictured ,
Ps.531-33, could be seen from my window ( right behind the tank ) when I served in the army in 1996...

 

Too many variables, here: do you mean the vehicle type which killed most tanks? Or the one which was most successful in terms of tanks killed per tank-killer? Or the one which achieved the best exchange ratio (ie wins v losses)? Or what was technically the best at the end of the war, even if it saw little action?

I suspect you would get four different answers to these questions!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

 

The best American Tank Killer was Staff Sergeant Lafayette G. Pool of Odem, Texas. He acounted for over 250 German armored vehicles detstroyed from his landing in Normandy on D-Day to his severe wounding after his unit reached German soil.

BTW, this man lived only 10 miles from me.

 

250 "kills" ?Suppose he did that with a Sherman[firefly?] Were any of those 250 shooting back[ie. tanks]?

 

Lafayette G Pool commanded an M4 Sherman - not a Firefly.

He was undoubtedly an aggressive and resourceful commander ; he lost a leg as a result of his final engagement. But most sources cite his tank's tally as being '258 German vehicles ' and so far I can't find a listing of vehicle types.

 

Just read Harry Yeide´s Tank killers-very interesting.

A US army study of 39 TD battalions of all types indicates that they, on the average ( per battalion I trust ), destroyed 34 tanks, 17 towed guns and 16 pillboxes.

Total losses as measured by replacements in the entire ETO were 539 M10´s 215 M18´s 151 M36´s and 228 towed guns.

Notice there were figures for "on the attack".

Not bad?

 

I have that book somewhere. But from memory of another book, I thought replacements were 'only' necessary after a burn or a hit in the turret ring gear?
Anything else could be field-fixed.

Will have to dig those books up.

 

Tough question,
You'll either have to;
plan "A"
hide...
M-10 (hull down), Hetzer (anywhere), anti-tank guns (75 & up)(omnipresent), infantry (and all their "goodies")all nations.
swarm/smother...
Infantry (again), M-18 (speed), Katusha/artillery, "Big" mortars, ships (preferably cruisers) off shore, or axel to axel T-34s/Shermans/Cromwells/Pz IVs.
come from another direction...
Jabo's, mines.
prevent movement...
swamps, wadi's, forest/mountains, blow bridges up, destroy fuel supplies.
Be virtually bullet-proof...
Jadg/King Tiger, Jadg Panther, SU-152, KVs early on, JS series period, Jumbo Sherman.
snipe...
Ferdinand/Elephant/Tiger I/II/Jadg, Nashorn, Panther/Jadg Panther, Firefly, Pershing, SU-100/122/152, JS II.
be good at what you do without a specific advantage...
StuG III. (well, low profile)
plan "B"...
bomb the factories/roads/bridges/rail-line/fuel supplies/ammunition dumps/food & water & manpower, from 30,000 feet.
plan "C"...
get them to surrender, by dropping "leaflets" advising them of the hopelessness of their situation.

 

I have to go with the M36 and the M36B1. The 90mm M3 gun on the M10A1 chassis and the Sherman chassis made for a fomidable tank destroyer that could take out the German heavies. The British never bought into the tank destroyer doctrine, so there was little room for comparison there. Tank destroyers fell under the control of the artillery componenets and so the British concentrated on big guns on tanks.

A lot depends on the doctrine of the country. The U.S. failed to see tank on tank as being the way of the battlefield. They expected mass assualt by Panzers along a narrow front. The battles made fools of that concept, but then it does to all soldiers and tacticians.

I would vote the Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer the best German tank killer even though it was hard on the crews nd had a lot of faults. It was made in enough numbers to practical to maintain. Despite its faults, it made a significant impact.

Along the same line, the SU-76 would be my choice for the Soviet tank killer. It was made in significant numbers to make a real impact. All of these tank killers were built on obsolete tank chassises and allowed for a quick way to get more firepower into action.

 

Of the US vehicles, the M18. I prefer the speed-firepower mix. For the Germans, the StuG III. The Hetzer was simply a dog. Yes, they made quite a few but, if you examine its combat record the vehicle usually ended up a burning wreck without accomplishing much. That tends to argue that its cramped nature and poor side and rear armor were greater liabilities than any assets it possessed.
For the Soviets, the SU 152 / ISU 152. It exemplifies what the Soviets do best...brute force with no frills.

 

Also interesting is , as said in the book mentioned above, that the US prepared with towed At guns for the continental European warfare and they did not create much havoc against the German tanks, even the contact time against German panzers was quite low/ towed AT gun.
The results did not mean anything in the end and the TD battalions were ordered to be removed from the army once the war ended in Europe.

 

Hmm, Seadog and TAG, the (I)SU-76; 122; 152 were primarily support vehicles, albeit with a significant AT capability. The same could be said of the M-10; 18 conversely, they were conceived as AT platforms and ended up as support vehicles

Soviet vehicles conceived for the AT role were tge SU-85 and later SU-100.

 

Yeah, I do remember reading that the 122 and 152 had relatively poor penatration (compared to guns designed as AT guns) and couldn't carry much ammo.

 

Tank doctrine took several turns during the war. Tactics adapted to the weapons at hand and the opposition. No matter what it is called, it involves getting the most effective firepower at the most advantageous position, and getting back out alive. The difference between the M36 tank destroyer and the M4 Sherman is mostly in the turret. So you get the choice of a knockout gun, or more top side protection. Over simplification, I know, but not without reason

 

When an investigation of Allied and German tank casualties in Normandy was carried out it confirmed the most pessimistic views about Allied armor. The statistics showed 60 per cent of Allied tank losses were due to a single round from a 75- or 88-mm gun. The stats also showed that 2/3 of all tanks brewed up when hit.

German armor-piercing shells almost always penetrated and disabled a tank. In fact, the armor on our tanks offered such little protection that the only way to survive was to avoid being targeted. The contrast with German tank casualties was especially striking. Only 38 per cent of hits from the Sherman 75-mm or six-pounder-anti-tank gun penetrated German armor. What’s more, German Panther and Tiger tanks often survived one or two hits. The sloping frontal armor of the Panther and the German self-propelled guns prevented penetration of 3/4 of all direct hits.

http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/canadianmilitaryhistory/98-09.asp

 

From what I read its basic payload had almost as many AP shells than HE shells, so it really was used in both roles.

 

Chocapic, the problem here is rather arcane. Panzers etc naturally belonged to the Panzerwaffe, but assault GUNS and anti-tank GUNS belonged to the artillery arm of service. This caused great controversy as Guderian when Gen.Inspektor der Panzertruppe tried to bring the assault guns into his province (they had tracks therefore they were similar to tanks, right?).

In practice, the StuGs were used in assault gun brigades and in anti-tank detachments, and in some cases they were used (mainly StuG IVs) as tank replacements in late war depleted tank units.

So rationally speaking there is a strong case for them to come under the Panzer chain of command and supply but who says the Reich was rational?

 

Back to Harry Yeide´s "Tank killers".

I was actually surprised to read that using HE rounds you might set a Panther or a Tiger on fire. It seems to require quite many rounds but anyway...or was it just luck? I always thought trying the HE against a tank might not be a very good idea?!

 

A little belated but, Gunter Viezenz was an Oberleutnant in the Heer. He eventually scored 19 kills single handed on Russian tanks, armed with Panzerfausts, concentric charges and bundle charge grenades, quite a bad bloke!

 

A US tanker favorite was to fire a WP (white phosphorus) round into the German tank first. This had two useful qualities:

1. It was a virtual certainty that the tank would be blinded and unable to return fire because of the smoke.

2. The WP almost inevidably got sucked into the tank by the ventilation fans and would choke the crew rendering them unable to function momentarily.

The usual follow up was for the US tank to pump another half dozen rounds in quick succession into the tank destroying it.