What's your favourite WWII Tank Destroyer?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

boris the romanian RE:What's your favourite WWII Tank Destroyer? 9/12/2004 7:38:31 PM

The Jagdpanther looks really cool. I also happen to like the StugIII, but its nothing compared to the Jagdpanther.

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:What's your favourite WWII Tank Destroyer? 9/12/2004 8:36:47 PM

For hull mounted guns, definitely the Jagdpanther with its 88mm gun. (the Jagdtiger with its 128mm gun was just too big for its own good: 70 tons.) Second to that, the Russian SU-85 and SU-100. I think the little German Hezter (Czech 38t hull armed with 75mm PAK 39) would have been too crowded for its 4 man crew and 41 rounds of ammo. As for turreted tank destroyers, definitely the fast M18 Hellcat. The M10 was really nothing a late-model Sherman couldn't do. Better was the M36: an M4-similar hull lay-out, but armed with a 90mm gun: certainly more than a match against Axis armor. As for British tank destroyers, the first Challenger tank, a cruiser-type built on a lengthened Cromwell chassis and armed with a 17pdr gun , although technically designed as a tank, performed more ideally as a tank destroyer, typically supporting 3 Cromwells (but only 200 of these were built.) The Archer, a modified Valentine chassis mounting a 17pdr gun firing over the tail end was probably the most ill-designed tank destroyer (the gun recoiled over the driver's position, so the weapon could only be used in the static fire role: more of an artillery support gun like the also-poorly-designed Bishop 25pdr SP gun), but 665 were built and served the British until about 1952. More practical was the Avenger: yet another stretched Cromwell chassis, lower in height than the Challenger and with an open-topped turret, and also mounting the 17pdr gun in a fully rotating turret. Although designed in 1944, of the 230 built, few were finished in time to see action in WW2. But certainly they were a better design than the Archer. Certainly, the worst British SP (anti-tank) gun was the A39 Tortoise. Although its 32pdr gun (a modified 3.7inch AA gun) would have stopped any known battle tank with its APDS ammo (even tanks up through the early 1970s), its design was totally outdated and inept in capabilities by the time the first prototypes were completed. Fortunately for the British, none of the 12mph 79 ton beasts served in WW2..

Quote Reply

count von moltke RE:What's your favourite WWII Tank Destroyer? 9/14/2004 6:50:36 AM

ok i go for a cute look ... hetzer ...... is the one

Quote Reply

Heorot RE:What's your favourite WWII Tank Destroyer? 9/14/2004 4:02:38 PM

Yep. For cuteness the Hetzer wins it for me every time.

Quote Reply

TriggaFingaz Jagdpanther 9/14/2004 4:10:05 PM

Although the long barrelled StuG III was effective against tanks, it was more of an infantry assault gun rather than a TD. Fave TD has to be Jagdpanther. This was the third and best attempt to mount the 88mm PaK 43 L/71, after the poorly armoured, open air Nashorn and unreliable, overweight Ferdinand/Elefant. Does anyone like the Marder II and III? If memory still works, they were 75mm Pak 40 L/46 guns mounted on the PxKpfw II and Czech Pzkpfw 38T carriage.

Quote Reply

TriggaFingaz Big monster 9/14/2004 4:11:28 PM

As for biggest, baddest TD/assault gun, have to vote the Soviet ISU-152!!!!

Quote Reply

JJHippo RE:What's your favourite WWII Tank Destroyer? 9/15/2004 10:58:47 AM

Do you think that IS-152 was a tank destoryer or rather than a self-propelled howitzer (Artilery)?

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:What's your favourite WWII Tank Destroyer? 9/15/2004 11:42:25 AM

The archers gun did not recoil into the drivers position, it just recoiled near his head so he had to be careful. No tank could move and fire accurately anyway.

Quote Reply

doggtag ISU-152, Archer, awards for cuteness, practicality 9/15/2004 1:55:52 PM

ISU-152 was definitely more assault gun than TD. A low elevation mounting would make it undesireable for a longer-ranged artillery piece, or as a direct fire TD with its sheer bulk. But I understand it was the ideal building leveler when the Russians took Berlin. As for the suggestion the Archer recoiled over the driver's compartment: I've never been in one to see it: I was just borrowing from a couple of the war books I have (Illustrated Encyc of Military Vehicles, c1988, ISBN 0 90628 675 1, by Ian Hogg and John Weeks; and Illus Encyc of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare, c1978, by all the best and brightest contributors of the day.) Both these encycs implied the gun recoiled in very close proximity to where the driver's head would be, and he needed to vacate his seat before the gun was fired. Back in WW2 era (1940-1950 timeframe), there weren't any decently effective stabilization systems available. But with the modern electronics and servo actuators of the last couple decades, gun stabilization is truly impressive. Still, firing over the vehicle's tail end, the Archer was a poor TD design: I suggest it was more of an artillery support weapon with a useful secondary anti-tank function, like the Russians' SU-76 (which fired over the front, like it should), which is a far better machine, and perhaps the best 76mm SP artillery of WW2. As far as "cutest" going to the Hetzer, ceratinly. But "cute" and cramped go hand in hand. Cutest tank I pin on the M24 Chaffee, also cramped for 4-5 people. In its early days, the German 88mm-armed Nashorn was referred to as "Hornisse" (Hornet.) 473 were built. And certainly this was of a better design than the Archer (as per vehicle lay-out), even if inferior in protection to the Jagdpanther. The Brits had the right idea (17pdr gun on older Valentine chassis), but the gun should always point ahead, not at the guy following behind you. They would have done better putting the 17pdr into the Bishop SP gun. Heavier and higher, yes, but the Bishop did not have to "back in" to a firing position. Although official listed as a tank destroyer, the Archer was more of an artillery support gun. It seems only the US had the right idea: guns belong in turrets, not fixed in hulls. Even if the Jagdpanther was probably the best hull-mounted gun platform for its mission, the turret, or at least a wide-traverse in the forward arc, was the way to proceed..

Quote Reply

Provost RE:Jagdpanther 9/15/2004 6:17:57 PM

<> The Marders were stopgap TDs and mounted a variety of AT guns including the Pak 40, the Russian 76 and French ATG, mounted on the Czech chassis. Overall, for hull mounted TDs the Jagdpanther has to be the best of the war. Of turreted TDs, the M-36.

Quote Reply

eon RE:Jagdpanther/Su-152/Etc. 9/16/2004 9:51:21 AM

Jagdpanther was probably the best all-round TD of the war, even allowing for its vulnerability to flanking attacks when in a set-up ambush position (its usual SOP). Next up was probably the British Sherman Cruiser MK V, aka the "Firefly", with its 17-pdr. gun (developed just in time for D-Day, and very useful it was, too). The American analogue, the M36B1 (M36 turret and 90mm gun on an M4A3 hull), was also good, and (IMHO) better than the "real" M36 due to having the better armor of the standard Sherman welded hull (something lacking on the M10/M36 members of the family). Naturally, only 50 or so were ever built. As for the SU-152, early on, it was the only AFV the Red Army had that could kill the German heavies and live to tell about it. Hence its nickname, "Stiveboy" (I think, my Russian isn't too swift), or "Animal Hunter", due to its ruputed ability to take down Panthers, Tigers, and Elefants..

Quote Reply

AchtungLagg RE:Jagdpanther/Su-152/Etc. 9/17/2004 8:52:20 PM

eon, its zveriboi-and i believe this name applises to the Joesph Stalin 2/3

Quote Reply

doggtag Stalin tanks 9/18/2004 12:46:52 PM

Most likely, it is referring to the JS tanks, as it is doubtful the fixed-traverse ISU-152 could maneuver itself adequately enough in a timely manner to engage a Panther or Tiger without itself being detected and engaged by a turreted tank first. Certainly, the Stalin tanks, with up to a 100mm gun in the IS-2 or a 122mm gun in the IS-3, were the most heavily armed MBTs of the Second World War, and more than a match for any German armor..

Quote Reply

Artfull-Bodger RE:ISU-152, Archer, awards for cuteness, practicality 9/18/2004 2:56:19 PM

doggtag wrote: Still, firing over the vehicle's tail end, the Archer was a poor TD design: I suggest it was more of an artillery support weapon with a useful secondary anti-tank function, like the Russians' SU-76 (which fired over the front, like it should), which is a far better machine, and perhaps the best 76mm SP artillery of WW2. the archer was a stopgap design to get as many self propelled 17pdrs into service quickly, it may look a little odd but as a tank destroyer is really an ambush predator it actually had a few rather good points; 1. the rear facing gun meant it had no barell protruding out in front limiting maneuverabilty in urban or wooded in the way the jagdpanther /stug /su100 did. 2. when in position the vehicle had its rear armour the engine and transmission between the crew and the enemy giving them better protection than any of the other allied tank destroyers. 3.its sihllouette was much lower than any of the other allied TD's. 4.in shoot and scoot actions (as it was supposed to be used) once the firing was complete it could be driven off at full speed by the driver to it's next position much faster then it's contemporaries. interestingly there is mention of sherman crews reversing into ambush positions for exactly the same reasons as in 2 and 4 . it was'nt replaced when the M10 achillies 11c came into service either, it had good rough ground mobility and was reliable, and popular with it's crews ! all in all not bad for a poor design!!!

Quote Reply

Desertmole JS Tanks 9/20/2004 4:03:12 AM

IIRC the JS-2 also had a 122mm gun. There was also an SU-122 that used the same 122mm gun and was employed as a TD at the end of the war. Call me crazy, but I liked the Elephant/Ferdinand, once they had MGs added. I got to climb all over one at Kubinka, the Russian equivalent of Aberdeen Proving Grounds. I also got to see the only surviving Maus there. Boy, was she a big sucker!

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - March 19, 2010
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us