"Best" antitank weapon of WWII.

What is the opinion of the forum on what is the "best" anti tank weapon of wwII. It is of course impossible to choose one best weapon but maybe we can make a ranking based on:

1. performance
2. availability
3. ease of use (refers especially to size and weigth)
4.....

i would consider the 6pdr: very good performance (for its size) while it was a small and easily transported/concealed gun

toughts ?

aglooka

 

Do you mean the best anti-tank "weapon", or a very specific type of weapon such as AT guns, infantry AT weapons or tank destroyers?

When comparing economics and availability to effectiveness I think the Panzerfaust is by far the best anti-tank weapon of World War II. Anyone could use it, it was dirt cheap and discardable, one-man operated and could be hidden anywhere. Within its effective range it was almost guaranteed to destroy its target.

 

dont forget the magnificent 88

 

Which "88" do you mean, AL AMIN?

 

At least try to be objective when praising up German equipment Al Amin, a quick google search puts the weight of an 88mm cannon and trailer at around 7 tons, hardly "Portable". Even accepting that lighter versions (Cannon and mount only) were developed this hardly counts as a "Portable" weapon.

 

Was the 88 not a bit of overkill ? For all its legendary performance it was an expensive and bulky piece of equipment. I wonder wether a larger number of PAK 40's iso the 88's allocated to AT defence have been abetter deal. Maybe upgrade to the 75mm L70 later on.

The comment on the panzerfaust is very valid, good "bang for the buck" but i think an infantery division with only fausts as at defence would have been in trouble.

Aglooka

 

D'oh, just realised this thread wasn't particularly about portable AT weapons...

 

Hee hee!

Well, the 6pdr is a good call.

How about the PAK 40?

 

Definitely, but are we looking for a universal AT weapon or for the best match between economics, size and power?

If we're looking for the former, I agree that the 6pdr is the best; much more powerful than its size would suggest.

 

Depends upon what you need. When you need an 88mm L71(long range, heavy frontal armor) then a 6 pounder wouldn't do the job.When you need a lighter more mobile gun and only face light armor then a 6 pounder or a 76.2mm or even a high velocity 37mm will do.
Many military historians regard the 88 L71 to be the best anti armor gun of the war.
As with the Tiger the 88mm would probably qualify as the most feared gun of the war if interviews with former allied soldiers are believed.

 

It was certainly the most powerful anti-tank gun to see service, but that dosn't necessarily make it the best (the 80 cm Gustav was the most powerful artillery piece ever, by a very wide margin - but no-one would argue that it was the best).

The 17 pdr could penetrate almost everything using conventional shot, and with APDS its penetration was equal to the 88mm L/71 firing APCBC - but it was only half the weight.

An afterthought: which was the best depended on the time-frame. The best choice in 1941 would have been inadequate in 1944.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

Equal on paper but it never seemed to perform to the same level in practice. I seem to remember reading about some definite issues with the 17 lber...Sabot separation issues that screwed the accuracy, poor performance in the infantry support role using HE (at least compared to the *88mm) high barrel wear, shortages of special ammunition and the failure to penetrate as advertised seemed to plague the gun until very near the end of the war IIRC. Besides even if performed as advertised, I conceded that the 88mm L/71 was best for use against heavies. If faced with King Tigers or the equivalent then the 17 lber would be too light.

 

I believe that I noted in my previous post that it depends upon what you need it for. If you need to light up Mk IV A-13 cruisers then a 50mm gun (even a 37mm) will do just fine. Matildas I would rather have a 75mm L48 or larger. For Jumbo Shermans, Comets, Pershings or IS2s then 88mm L71 would do nicely.
Artillery and anti tank guns aren't the same though. As to most powerful or sheer size The Russians used the 122 for instance yet it didn't perform as well as the 88 L71 in the Russians own tests. Plus the rate of fire was much slower with multi part ammo and less ammo loaded out due to stowage limitations. I think a good case can be made for the 88 L71 being the best all round heavy anti tank gun of the war for sure.

Equal on paper but it never seemed to perform to the same level in practice. I seem to remember reading about some definite issues with the 17 lber...Sabot separation issues that screwed the accuracy, poor performance in the infantry support role using HE (at least compared to the *88mm) high barrel wear, shortages of special ammunition and the failure to penetrate as advertised seemed to plague the gun until very near the end of the war IIRC. Besides even if performed as advertised, I conceded that the 88mm L/71 was best for use against heavies. If faced with King Tigers or the equivalent then the 17 lber would be too light.

ps I may be wrong but I rather suspect that had I chosen the 17 lber you would be arguing for the 88mm (or anything else but )

 

Best heavy, yes. But then it falls down on the availability and ease of use criteria.

How could you think such a thing?

 

For germans it was easy to use. A trained crew could bring the gun in action in under 2 minutes.

The Flak 88 was a big gun, and was powerfull, and was acurate. It scored more kills then any other ATG when compared to how many were involved in action. It was mobile (some movies show them beeing fired from their weel cariage, and not deploied in fixed position). And if we take in consideration the skill of german crews, and that you should actually see the gun before it sees you, it is a the best, the most feared, and the most reveared ATG of the WW2. This gun saw action as any thing on the battlefield: it was artilery, it was Flak, it was ATG. Unless I am wrong, this gun and the soviet 76.2mm ATG were the only 2 guns to actually fill in any role.

 

Hi.

The japanese type 88 75 mm aa-gun and the type 99 88 mm aa gun were also used in aa-, artillery-, at- and anti-ship-role.

As the type 88 gun was a late-20th design it was inferiour to most compareable aa-guns but very good (and feared) especially as artillery and anti-ship-gun.





It was also mounted on several japanese merchant ships.



The type 99 gun was a copy of the german naval 88 mm C/32 gun with also good artillery- and anti-armour abilities.





Yours

tom!

 

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Panzerfaust.
Cheap, easy to use, capable of taking out almost any tank of WWII (140-200mm penetration).
The 30-100m range required a little "paitence" from the user.
They were in use from the summer of 1943 to the end of the war. The majority of Allied tank loses in the last months of the war were due to Panzerfaust. Sorry Tiger and 88 fans,

 

Unless of course someone like Roel had already covered the Panzerfaust

Thanks Oli!

 

And there is also the Panzershreck.
I have a question here. Was the panzerfaust used against infantry just like against armor, or just used against armor? From a training movie I saw, it looked like it could be used against entranched infantry, especially in city areas.

This is natural, since by this time the germans were really in trouble fielding any tanks. After the battle of the buldge, the wermacht was only in defence, and thus priority was given to self-propelled anti-tank guns and assault guns, and by this time there was really no way for german industry to produce AFV at a faster rate then they were destroied. Let's consider that Germany was fighting on 2 fronts, and their loses were really high. Add to this the large number of different models of AFVs that were produced, and we can imagine why panzerfaust took such a heavy toll on alied armor (and on russian armor) in the last months of the war. Still, I think that in the battle of Brelin there were some 88s involved. I do not know this for sure, but I know that Berlin was protected by quite a lot of Flak88s in anti-air defence role. Yet, this also shows that the german soldier was a very adaptable soldier, and no less courageos.

 

After the Ardennes Offensive the Germans still mounted two offensive operations, one in the Alsace and one in Hungary. However, the switch of production from tanks to SP guns was made as early as September 1944 when it was estimated that the production cost and time needed to build enough tanks to replace losses would be too much. SP guns were cheaper and therefore more easily made; this was not done to suit the changed needs of frontline units.

The Battle of Berlin involved several full-fledged tank units, equipped with anything from Panzer IVs and StuH 42s to Tiger IIs.