What's your favourite WWII Tank Destroyer?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

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

MikkoLn RE:What's your favourite WWII Tank Destroyer? 9/21/2004 7:53:19 AM

I must go slightly disagreeing with the virtues of the Jagdpanther. Not that it wasn?t a fine TD but it?s one of the vehicles that is very generally woefully overestimated in common literature. It was a powerful vehicle no doubt, but for a real TD role it was rather big, tall and cumbersome (neat looking though, must admit), and for a vehicle of it?s class, still not particularly better protected than other better designs. It was mobile to some extent, but had some mobility problems too. Jagdpanther had probably the finest combination of optics, gun and munitions to appear in WWII to allow long range a/t gunnery, but that?s about it. In shorter ranges it?s nothing a light/medium TD?s can?t do, for many occasions it?s massive bulk even becoming a hindrance in the role it was made to fulfill. In a time when Panther dominated the battlefield and was needed in ever increasing numbers, building a highly sophisticated and expensive tank destroyer less capable than a Panther in all ways albeit pure gun power was insanity. There are many points some literature fail to see as they praise the Jagdpanther, which no doubt appears highly successful in paper. One of my favorites is Jagdpanzer IV, which had about everything that can be hoped for a good TD. It was notably small and easy to conceal thus giving it a big edge, had good frontal protection, wasn?t too small to be unpractical and cramped but not too massive either to be cumbersome and had reliably powerful armaments suite, especially after fitting of 75L70. Apart from these it was built on a hull of PzIV which was becoming obsolescent as a new built tank. I think it would have been a wise decision to opt for full priority Panther production, with increased amounts of Jagdpanzer IV?s and no Jagdpanthers, existing PzIV lines still making older tanks in decreasing numbers while going for TD production. StuG III is a success story and another similar example, though it belonged to a rather different class than purpose built TD?s. Still, it?s possibly the number one success in overall turretless vehicles class. If there was any need for the Jagdpanthers best field ability, extreme long range gunnery, Nashorns proved themselves to be highly successful in that too and could have been used entirely to fill the place of self moving 88-calibre a/t gun. There was no point in building them in bigger numbers, but I think German decision to go for a low priority production run was well justified. Other very top end TD of the war must have been SU100, combining again perfect size, and possibly the best combination of firepower, protection and mobility found in any TD during the war. Their war record speaks about great success of the vehicle although the way they were used - at least on some occasions - leave much to be desired. Larger counterparts, JSU152/122 were fine, but for another kind of work. And though by all means JSU122 should have appeared as the best tank killer, it didn?t do so at least if compared with SU100. It?s rather like the thing with Jagdpanther versus Jadgpanzer. Conceptually US TD vehicles were so different that I wouldn?t try to compare them with fixed gun examples at the first place.

Quote Reply

MikkoLn RE:JS Tanks 9/21/2004 8:01:43 AM

Well to continue with the small nitpicking of details?JSII didn?t have the same gun as SU122. Original SU122 was a T34 hull mounted (like SU85) field howitzer of 122mm caliber, introduced in mid war years. It was not a good vehicle to go after tanks, as the howitzer generally lacked accuracy in ranges and firepower, and the vehicles also often had merely HE ammunition. With the tank destroyer you probably meant later war JSU122, but again, it had different main armament to JSII ? the gun most commonly employed being of 121.9mm caliber (there were also others). JSII was the third type to carry 122mm caliber weapon. Sorry for the lack of correct designations of the guns, I?m writing this again at work so don?t have literature at hand.

Quote Reply

evlstu RE:Two favorites 9/24/2004 12:30:17 PM

My two favorite "tank destroyers" are the P-47 and/or 155mm howitzer with Time-on-Tartget fire control. Now lest you think I'm joking about the 155; more armored assaults were broken up artillery than any other single cause and at Batonge ALL BUT 2 german armored assaults were stopped by artillery alone. The P-47 is just plain cool.

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:Two favorites 9/24/2004 2:38:08 PM

I think it was those 8 50cals and those rockets that made the P-47 "cool"..

Quote Reply

MikkoLn RE:Two favorites 9/28/2004 3:41:06 AM

I think it was those 8 50cals and those rockets that made the P-47 "cool".. Maybe so, but in reality 50cal MG?s were too ineffective and rockets too inaccurate to make a truly formidable a/t asset. Concerning the effectiveness of air power in WWII against armored vehicles the image grand public has been provided is woefully inaccurate and overestimate. Effectiveness of aircraft vs. tanks was nothing like it is today. More recent studies appearing are more and more critical towards some of the older literature, which has been regularly based blindly on direct assumptions of individual air forces. It has became very clear that apart from some cases on Eastern Front, air power generally accounted for surprisingly small amount of tanks destroyed and especially western allies Air Force branch made considerable overestimations about their successes to make their record look good. Apart from that, pilots often weren?t in position to tell what kind of damage had been occurred with the tanks they attacked on but reported of destroyed tanks (another problem was identification, as more often all sorts of tracked vehicles were classified as tanks by pilots). The role of air force can?t be still underestimated as they were in a big role as harassing element, preventing free movement, and more effective against rather soft skinned vehicles, like supply columns. But count of permanently KO?d tanks isn?t particularly high. I think WWII made it more and more obvious that the best tank destroyer was another tank. Dedicated a/t forces were fine, but couldn?t cope with flexibility of armor, and were losing their sharpest edge towards the end of the war (especially the towed gun sector). Heavy artillery was in theory effective, however, occasions where armor was successfully engaged with heavy barrages weren?t too frequent either, as long as some level of flexibility in the line was present. Nowadays advanced technology has allowed enemy to be engaged with long range weapons - artillery, aircraft and missiles - with effectiveness that grants very good likelihood of success, and in optimal situation traditional line troops would be more in occupying than hammering role. That certainly wasn't the case 60 years ago.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 NEXT