Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Best Tank Destroyer

Discussion in 'Tank Warfare of World War 2' started by tj, May 14, 2004.

  1. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    The Sturmgesch├╝tz III had a lower profile, more armour and the same gun. I'd know which of the two to choose.
     
  2. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,842
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    How did speed compare?
    Was the armour difference made up by the fact that the Hetzer (sorry Christian) had a good slope?
    Was the Hetzer smaller overall (length & width)?

    Just wondering... ;)
     
  3. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Armour (considering slope) is just about equal on the two tanks, on second thought. The StugIII still had about the same top speed as the Hetzer because of a nearly twice as powerful engine.
     
  4. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,842
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Ah-ha! so the 'Hetzer' is more economical...
    ;)

    Sorry Roel, just choosing a TD on the spur of the moment to drag the topic back on track, then trying hard to justify my choice :D
     
  5. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Well, I'm a fan of the StuGIII so I'm acting subjectively as well... ;)

    I thought it might be fun to reopen this topic for new members to give their opinion, and see if we can get the debate going again.
     
  6. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    via TanksinWW2
    Id say the nashorn is the best tank destroyer all you need to do is put a shell through a tank then run not sit there and fight :smok:
     
  7. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    but the nashorn is to high and thin armored, it was only a temp solution,
    the jagdpanther is better in that, also equiped with the dreded 88 :smok:
     
  8. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    The Jagdpanther was taller than the Nashorn, which was only 15 cm. taller than the Marder III. The armour of the Nashorn was thin, however it was meant for long-range engagements, so it didn't really need thick armour.

    Christian
     
  9. CDN FIRE

    CDN FIRE New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ontario Canada
    via TanksinWW2
    What about the M10 in british service with 17 pdr instead of the US 76mm gun..Achilles
     
  10. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,842
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Not bad, but a bit vulnerable compared to a Jagdpanther ;) .

    Hey, it would have been nice to have a Hellcat (M18?) equipped with a 17pdr...
     
  11. Stonewall phpbb3

    Stonewall phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Army of Northern Virginia
    via TanksinWW2
    That why the M36 Jackson had a 90mm..
     
  12. Stonewall phpbb3

    Stonewall phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Army of Northern Virginia
    via TanksinWW2
    That why the M36 Jackson had a 90mm..

    I believe it was a better AT gun.

    I think I read that.

    prove me:

    right/ wrong?

    I will go look.

    hmmm Tony>?
     
  13. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,842
    Likes Received:
    42
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    It was, IIRC, a slightly worse AT gun than the 17pdr, but better than the US 76mm.

    I'm sure somebody on here can give us a handful of stats to show the real story! ;)
     
  14. Stonewall phpbb3

    Stonewall phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Army of Northern Virginia
    via TanksinWW2
  15. Stonewall phpbb3

    Stonewall phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Army of Northern Virginia
    via TanksinWW2
    Tony Williams , Chritian and KBO on the 17Pndr, 88 L71 & the US 90mm

    http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... c&start=15

    KBO posted this:

    1: 88mm L/71 with Pzgr40 : 1371m (1500y)= 201mm / 1830m (2000y)= 167mm / 2286m (2500y)= 153mm..

    2: 90mm L/53 with HVAP : 1371m (1500y)= 177mm / 1830m (2000y)= 154mm...
    The U.S. never tested thier tank guns at over 2000y....(same goes for the Brits)..
    ...Why...?? because of thier poor optics they were not able too effectivly engage enemy targets beyond 2000y...

    3: 17pdr gun with APDS : 1371m (1500y)= 172-176mm / 1830m (2000y)= 145-161mm...

    4: 88mm L/56 with Pzgr40 : 1371m (1500y)= 124-127mm / 1830m (2000y)= 110mm....



    Tony does not disput this post?



    1st shot counts most at @500m ;)
     
  16. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Fact is that the Jagdpanther had the same gun as the Nashorn, so it would have been able to knock out enemy tanks at equal ranges; however, on top of that the Jagdpanther did have some thick sloped armour enabling it to act as anything up to close infantry support. A Nashorn would be little more than bait in such a situation. Therefore the Jagdpanther is simply better than the Nashorn, the only advantage of which is its gun.
     
  17. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    True, but the Nashorn had theadvantage that it used the chassis ofa vehicle which was plannedtobe fased out.

    Christian
     
  18. Tigger phpbb3

    Tigger phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    The Nashorn was based on a hybred mark 3-4 chassis which was never mass produced, it was also open topped so lacked protection, it had thin armour and was only ever seen as a stopgap untill the fully enclosed version turned up i.e the Jag Panther.
    Su 100 gets my vote better armed, smaller, faster. and still in use today !
     
  19. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    Almost 500 Nashorns were made...

    Christian
     
  20. Sherman phpbb3

    Sherman phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Baron is right all you need to do is put a shell through the tank and go to another spot as fast as you can
     

Share This Page