Best Tank Destroyer

I won't dissagree with you on the Jagdpanther Roel. I think it was the best that any country produced during WW2 and it's easily the best damned looking AFV ever.. I don't know the kill to loss ratio for this though unfortunately.

However, after the initial failure at Kursk(mainly due to mines and close firing anti tank guns) the Ferdinands/Elefants had an excellent kill to loss score. They were a very difficult opponent to overcome in defense. Even the IS-2 had trouble penetrating the front plate. Over 30 were still left on the eastern front as late as the summer of 1944 (Bucsacz area) and a fair few of these were still around in Poland in Jan 1945 when the Soviets launched their winter offensive towards the river Oder.

4 actually ended up in Berlin in April/May 1945. It is a myth that the Ferdinands/Elefants were a total failure. Too many people just refer to Kursk and not the following year and a half of it's combat record.:smok:

 

I wouldn't rate Kursk as a failure for the Ferdinand. At the loss of a small number of vehicles, they destroyed more than 500 enemy vehicles. When used outside its role it was more likely to be in a vulnerable position, but that would go for any vehicle.

Most books refer to Kursk as a massacre of Ferdinands, and one is left with the idea that hundtreds of them were lost, even though only 89 participated in the offensive.

 

I think offhand (though I can find out for sure) that around 30 Ferdinands were total losses at Kursk. This still left around 60 which took a heavy toll of Soviet armour during the rest of 1943 in the Dnieper bend battles. After refurbishing a dozen or more were sent to Italy in early 1944 while the rest went back to Russia and continued to last for a long time and were very effective.

 

Oh yes... Thanks Lyndon, I forgot to take looks into account when I made my point, but this totally tips the scales in favour of the JagdPanther!

I knew you would!!
Indeed the Elefant often gets less credit than it deserves, but you showed me that; that's how thinly spread the knowledge of such facts is. All I ever read on the thing were quotes like "Slow and cumbersome TD. In service 1943-1945. 90 built" and such... Nothing of much educational value.

 

my origanal thoughts were that a tank destroyer was a tank that had less armor and a bigger gun than that army best tank well now i know that thats not always true in both cases :neutral:

 

Good is also M10 Wolverine.

 

The M10 was good for its time. But by the time the War went back to Western Europe it was out dated.

 

Ok, then T28.

 

..which was never fielded.

 

Still favour the British Archer TD. I think one means of determining how good a piece of equipment was is was is popular with its users.

 

It amy have been succesful, but it's gun wasn't as impessive as the German guns and its armour was nowhere near it. On the other hand, the Germans never did less than its mobility. Overall, machines like the Jagdpanther are much better tank destroying machines.

The M10 had an open top and very little armour on all other places. Its gun was okay and mobility as good as the Sherman's, but these characteristics just weren't enough as soon as the Germans fielded the late Panzer IV and the Panther and Tiger.

 

o and what about the stug 3 it was abut 6ft tall had a decent gun good mobility and was one of the main tank destroyers of the whermact even though it was a support tank it was catigoruzed as a tank destorer later in the war

 

Yes, the Stug III was an excellent tank destroyer with a high kill score.

 

Like the Hetzer, this TD relied on small size and a good gun for its kills. It was easily hidden for ambush, and even from normal ranges of tank combat it could dispatch most Allied tanks with the excellent 75mm L/48. It was quickly recongized on the Eastern front as the perfect weapon for dealing with swarms of T34s, being of nimble size and deadly efficiency. Even so, it was still often used in its original role as assault vehicle, such as during the battle for Arnhem and the rest of Operation Market-Garden. With its remote-controlled close defence MG it was perfect for this role, too, and performed marvellously in every other function throughout the war. In short, for a vehicle based on the obsolete PanzerIII it was surprisingly good.

The Jagdpanther was just better.

 

a ha my refrenc book savs rhat the hetzer was 0.4 of an inch higher than the stug

 

So despite all the cheering the Hetzer gets, if you count all of the war then the StugIII has been of more use to the Germans than the Hetzer, and than most other TDs for that matter. And the fact that it was even lower than the Hetzer made it more formidable as an ambush vehicle, too.

 

The Sturmgeschütz remained true to its main role as an infantry support vehicle throughout the war, even though it was also supplied to Panzer-Divisionen. It was never categorized as a tank destroyer, though - throughout the war, it was categorized as a Sturmgeschütz and not a Panzerjäger.

It wasn't exactly the main weapon of the Panzer-Divisionen, either. Below are the percentage of Sturmgeschütze at various dates in the Panzer-Divisionen, Panzer-Grenadier-Divisionen and schwere Panzer-Abteilungen, out of the total of number of Panzers (which are shown after each number):
1943-12-31/West: 21.40 (StuG, PzIII, PzIV, Panther, Tiger)
1944-01-21/Italy: 32.24 (StuG, PzIII, PzIV, Panther, Tiger, PzBef)
1944-05-31/East: 12.66 (StuG, PzIV, Panther, Tiger)
1944-06-10/West: 8.36 (StuG, PzIII, PzIV, Beutepz, Panther, Tiger)
1944-12-15/West: 35.28 (StuG, PzIV, Panther, Tiger)
1944-12-30/West: 35.28 (StuG, PzIV, Panther, Tiger)
1945-01-15/West: 37.55 (StuG, PzIV, Panther, Tiger)
1945-03-15/All: 22,00 (StuG, PzIV, PzIV/70, Flakpz, Panther, Tiger)

By the way, the Panzerjäger 38t was originally a Sturmgeschütz, and the only reason it was classified a Panzerjäger was because Guderian wanted control of the production. It wasn't anything but a stop-gap vehicle either, and was only produced because Alkett's production of Sturmgeschütze was severely damaged by Allied bombs, and BMM didn't have the capacity to make the Sturmgeschütz based on the Pz.Kpfw. III chassis.

 

I've read in more than one place that the rear firing gun was useful in allowing a quick gettaway - presumably knocking your drviers head off would delay that slightly.

 

Anyone know the reasoning behind going to the trouble of putting the gun in a turret and then leaving the top off - if you have most of the turret why not go all the way and put a nice roof on it for the crew?

 

So anyway, I'd probably go for the Hetzer (big enough gun to kill most enemies, small enough tank to hide easily) or the Archer (much the same reasons, but a better gun)