Best Tank Destroyer

But it helps if you're able to fight if you have to. No tank has ever been used strictly in its intended role, I reckon.

Then again, light and fast tank destroyers have been very succesful throughout WW2... I don't exactly know what to think right now. :-?

By the way, your IP shows that Baron and you are the same person.

 

O yaaaaaaaaa I think I did come here once but I must of forgot LOL . I feel stupid right now

 

Hetzer

I remeber reading an account on line of a German tank commander who fought in a Hetzer. I don't remember the details and am trying to find this account somewhere on the web but from what i remember the Hetzer was far from loved by many crews.
Issues were the very limited traverse of main gun (the point is that in reality the traverse was apparently smaller then in theory sice the crew had to be somewhere in the tank.) Overly cramped conditions inside. The loader was sitting at the wrong side of the gun and had to reach over it to load it, or something like that (!). The suspension was overstressed and all mechanical components prone to breakdown. The commander had a very bad view.
Most damning error i remember was that the traverse of the maingun was in practice mainly restricted to one side (for reasons i don't remeber) . The result was that the tank had to be turned somewhat sideways to the enemy for a good engagement thus exposing its very thin side armor.

Anyhow this guy really didn't like the Hetzer for reasons which are not visible from the stats to us. I would love to find that account again since i was amazed that a design that looks so good on paper and has been universally praised in literature was quite bad according to its users.

Aglooka

 

The best way to counter a tank is with a tank (some proud US tanker said this, when talking about the A1M2 tank).

I guess that the best way to counter a Tiger is with a Tiger. Jagpanzers have a big advantage, but also a big disavantage. By dispensing of the turret, a bigger gun could be mounted, and more armour, but reduced the efectiveness of the weapon. No doubt that Jagpanther was a deadly opponent, but only when confronted head on. Sideways, is just as easy as any other Jagpanzer. A tank could swing it's turret at you, so sideways is just as dangerose.

But from the point of view of armour, I think that the Stug III from model F2 onwards were the ones that destroied most of the enemy armor (from german point of view). The US army tanks had little or no chance to destroy late german armour, and their M10 could hardly be called a TD. The gun was powerfull against light and medium armour, but just that. When confronted with Panther or Tiger, could hardly make a mark.

The ISU models altough better in armor protection when compared to the german early Jagpanzers, were lacking enough ammo, and some targeting optics, so their impact is due to the large number present on the battle field.

I guess the rocket firing Typhoon, or the Ju87 with 2 37mm AT guns, or a Hurricane with 2 40mm At guns would do the job too. Or a land mine.

Too many weapons could be called on if the need to destroy a tank arisen, but I think that everybody will agree that the quality of the german late designs are far superior of that of other nations involved in WW2.

 

I think you'll find this is very much debated around here, Selesque! Welcome to the forum.

Not really, because all tanks have thinner side than frontal armour, making them easier targets from the side than from the front at all times. This is also why tank crews would often turn the whole vehicle towards the target instead of just the turret, negating the advantage of a movable turret and making full use of the tank's frontal armour thickness.

I don't believe the question of this topic is how to counter a Tiger, but there were definitely ways for the Allies to do this, and they didn't just involve AT aircraft.

The Americans also had M36 Jackson tank destroyers, with a much more potent 90mm gun; Also you seem to be underestimating the 76mm, which with the right ammunition could definitely destroy Panthers and Tigers at range. The British had plenty of vehicles able to do the job, especially those armed with the magnificent 17pdr gun (such as the Archer, Challenger and Firefly tank destroyers). For the Russians, the ISU-122 and 152 did the job quite nicely, as well as the superb SU-100.

 

Thanx everyone!

I know that the Wittman used to turn his Tiger at a target, but that was because he initially served on Stug III. But... In WW2, there was little chance to hit your target if the vehicle moved. Thus, some german tanks (Again the example is the Tiger), had specified in their operation book that the vehicle should be stationary when engaging. Plus, when swinging the whole vehicle, you just risk throwing off a track. The last thing you want on the battlefield is to became stuck.

The next text is just about Wittman and does't cencern the actual question of this topic (I just bumped in it and don't know if many know this - I just find out)

There was somewhere on the net an article (can't find it right now) in witch a german jurnalist (for propaganda purposes) went in his Tiger in action. And it never metioned that Wittman was stoping and shooting at the russian tanks. This would sugest that not all tankers of the WW2 were opposing the thickest armour to their opponents, and neither they were stopping and shooting all the time. Besides, turning a tank sideways is slower then turnig the turet.

I don't think that I bolster when I say that more then 50% of german armour in WW2 was destroied by Alied (not russians) aircrafts. And from the half that remains, maybe 20% were destroied by their crews when they run out of gas. So, yes, the allies had the weapons to destroy the german armour, but really, their ground weapons made little impact on german aroured forces when compared to their airforces.

We know of a story that an american At gunner shot his 76mm ATG at a king tiger and destroyed the beast on a bridge, thus blocking the bridge for the rest of the column. Destroied is not the right word. The tank didn't blew up. It was just immobilised.

Countering a MkIVG with an M10 is working, but on paper. In Normandy, most of the MkIV were considered Tigers by the untrained soldiers, so I don't know of many german tanks destroied by allied M10, M36, Archer or Firefly. The the magnificent 17pdr gun is at this stage entering production on large scale. Still, it was a weapon with poor acuracy when firing Sabot.

As design, the Jagpanther was superior to any other SPATG, but ... It was a pain to do maintenance on it, since you had to stay in odd positions to work on the engine, sometimes without even seeing what you were doing, and the cogwheels were just too many and too damm time-consuming to chance. The StugIIIG and the StugIV were not as good as designs, but were more succesfull.

Any one has any informations about the popularity of Jagpanther with the crews?

 

Ps: Sorry forthe long post!

 

Not a problem at all. I do believe, however, that the statistics you give on the impact of air attack are completely wrong. I have no concrete evidence to support my claim but I've seen it written around here that actual losses asrcibed to air attack are never more than 10-20% of all losses, and that actual losses were inflicted by a wide variety of weapons including artillery, tanks and infantry AT weapons in a balance much more like that inflicted upon the Allies by the Germans. After all, the idea that the German armies wielded indestructible supertanks against the weak and undeveloped Allies is a myth.

The M10's 76mm gun is actually the equal of the Panzer IV's 75mm L/48, which was also used on the StuG III and IV. Therefore it had no trouble dispatching said tanks, which didn't have phenomenal amounts of armour in any version; never more than for example the Sherman. The thought that Panzer IVs were considered Tigers is no doubt entirely due to the similarities in their appearance.

The Firefly, wielding a 17pdr gun, was available in mid-1943. By then, the most common British tanks were equipped with the excellent 6pdr gun which was in fact capable of dealing with Tigers and Panthers at most average combat ranges in the West.

 

Selesque
Wittmann's Tiger wasn't destroyed by a fighter-bomber, but by a Firefly. It is impossible. No fighter-bombers were operating in the area at the day Wittmann was killed, and there were no claims. Furthermore, there is no evidence to the contrary - only the statement from a farmer, with no knowledge of the difference between rocket and grenade impacts.

It is nonsense to say that more than 50 % of all German tanks were destroyed by Allied aircrafts. To use the largest piece of statistic that I know of, 5 % of all Tigers on the western front were destroyed by air attacks of one kind or another. In addition, a further 6 % ran out of gas.

Your reasoning is also severely flawed. The M10 was certainly capable of disposing of German armour, including the Tiger, and to say that the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.G was difficult to destroy with an M10 because it was mis-identified as a Tiger is rediculous. 4.3 % of the Tigers on thw western front are known to have been destroyed by US tanks, and an additional 4.6 % were destroyed by British tanks, in total 9.6 %. The number of M10s in service was quite low, though. The situation was improved when the Sherman was equipped with the 76.2 mm., though. The 76.2 mm. gun was about equal to the 7,5 cm Pak 40, and as such was an excellent gun.

 

My claims about this are not facts. I just felt that the impact of air attacks on german armour was that great, because some elite german units actally lost more then 50% of their armor to air attacks. (not sure if it was 1SSPz Liebestandarde during their march towards normandy, from start to first battles)


Who shot the Red Baron?

Certainly, for propaganda reasons it is more plausible that a Firefly destroyed the Tiger.

I'm afraid I don't understand this? To mistake a plane for a firefly, that would be a first. A firefly to shoot grenades, that would be a first too.
Certainly, that was his oppinion. Maybe it was an artilery shell.

My reasoning involves not paper calculations, but field tactics, the actual terain the fighting was taking place onto, the quality of the crew, suport weapons, etc. Besides, british, american and russian guns were mass produced, and they had larger tolerances then the german ones. This will affect the accuracy of the first shot at long ranges.

However, I do have to appologise to everyone, because I have't checked the facts. Not that I look at your opinions, and compare the relative numbers of german armour against the relative number of alied anti-tank weapons, 50% is farfetched.

I didn't ment that. But the Mk4 was mistaken for the Tiger.

This myth was largely believed by Hitler too in 1940.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the Allied guns being mass-produced. The German ones were too AFAIK, so that is really irrelevant,

As for tolerances unless you have the documents from the factory or have seen a reliable source that has quoted them, you cannot honestly say that German factories worked to higher tolerances than Allied ones, and to lump in Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States all together is too much of a sweeping statement since the quality and durability of equipment manufactured between the three varied hugely.

Did Hitler really have such delusions about German armour as far back as 1940 when both Britain and France fielded comparable machines?

Who shot the Red Baron? How is that relevant? According to a documentary I watched a while back that attempted to settle the story once and for all by recreating the engagements as far as possible, the conclusion they came to was that it was a lucky shot from an unknown Canadian infantryman.

 

It probably came from here:
http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/ ... ttman.html

Interestingly the article makes no reference to Mr Varin's credentials (Was he an expert on damage to AFVs? How extensive was his knowledge?), it also refers to damage from a bomb then changes to damage from a rocket.

I also cannot understand how he can tell from a wrecked tank the exact make and model of aircraft that attacked it. How from a burnt out wreck did he know it was a Typhoon that fired the Rocket/Bomb?

 

That was the article I bumped into.

If this is true, they found Wittman. I think Mr.Varin assumed that it had to be a Typhoon, because after de invasion, they were prowling the french countryside and shot anything that move. I guess it could have been any other aircraft that fired rocket/launched bomb at this tank. Still, I heard that in WW2, after the tank was hit, there were a few seconds to get out of, and live to fight once more. Not many tanks were destroyed the way we imagine them, like beeing blown up. Also, german tanks had blastproof dors on their ammo magasines, thus a reduced chance for a piercing shell to ignite amunition on board. I know that Stugs used to deposit amunition on the floor of the vehicle, just so that they could stay more in action. Maybe tankers did that too, so Wittman could have died by his own hand... I would like to be there, then...

 

Selesque

I would like to see some evidence of this.

I would consider the differences between a World War I aircraft and a World War II tank quite significant, so I fail to see the point in this.

He didn't see the Firefly, and he didn't see any aircrafts either. He wasn't on the scene at the time. A Firefly would certainly fire grenades, though. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the Sherman VC Firefly, the British version of the M4, mounting the potent 17 pdr. anti-tank gun? Since all guns are basically artillery, then it was an artillery grenade, but it was a firefly, not conventional field artillery.

As mentioned before, no fighter-bombers were operating in the sector of the day Wittmann was killed.

No they didn't - the ammunition racks were stored in plain view.

Simon
Varin was a farmer, and had no knowledge about armoured warfare whatsoever.

 

So it is entirely possible that Varin may have missed something that was an actual shell hit, or that the shell penetrated somewhere not so obvious?

 

Most definately, and he would also be unqualified to evaluate the type of ammunition used.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong but does'nt the Jaguar ( post war tank for the budwher ) look alot like the jagdpanther.

 

*Thread Hijack*

Latest theory is that it was a couple of bods with a Vickers who shot at him from his left hand side.

*Back on topic*

Jaguar? I've never heard of it.... Anyone know anything about this AFV?

 

I have to vote for my personal favorite, the M10 Wolverine! Ok, Ok, it may not have been the best at anything, but can you imagine the smiles on the guys faces when they found out they would be getting M10's instead of M3 halftracks with 75mm gun rigged to it?

I imagine they were pleased that now they could actually get into the fight with a reasonable chance of getting out alive! :bang:

 

Answered my own question:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/jaguar1.htm