Largest range of a confirmed tank kill?

I've read of tanks (or assault guns, self-propelled guns, etc.) knocking out other armored vehicles at ranges of up to 3000m, but I was wondering if anyone has any stories of confirmed kills from unusually long distances? I've read on a few occasions (although I believe one was possibly Wikipedia) that a Nashorn once knocked out an IS2 at 3000m, anyone have any similar stories?

 

Check this out http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/22821-nashorn-incident.html

 

Walter J Spielberger mentioned in his tiger book in the 1960s that on one occasion an elefant engaged a column of Soviet tanks at just under 3miles about 4.5km. (they were first observed at over 3miles) Elefant was equiped with the same weapon as a Nashorn.

Whether this is verifiable is debatable. The details are at Karatschew near Orel in late 1943 the Soviets lost 8 tanks, Walter J Spielberger was a Technical Officer with the Batalion Panzer Abteilung 654, it might be worth trying to get a hold of the book that covers Pz ABt 654 to see if it mentioned with some other confirmation.

tanks will have been destroyed in WW2 at longer range by Artillery indirect fire.

~Steve

 

I know of the battle at Mairy, France of 8 Sep 1944 where 5 Panthers and 20 half-tracks of the 106th Panzer Brigade were incapacitated by the 949th FA Bn's 155mm Howitzers. The 106th got trapped on a sunken road (my dad described it like a valley, if I recall correctly) behind the lead tank that was either knocked out by a bazooka or direct hit from a 105mm Howie (both occured, just can't recall which took out the lead tank). Battery B's FO watched this unfold and called in the coordinates and 300+ HE rounds later, the rest was history. I don't know the distance involved, but I do have Steve Zaloga's Lorraine 1944: Patton Vs Manteuffel - Google Book Search on order and may be able to figure that out on the maps. On another thread awhile back, Terry Gardner informed me of this book and mentioned a well-detailed "3-D" graphic map it contains. I'll update the distance if I can when it arrives, unless Terry or somebody else has it at hand.

Anyway, this question of artillery v. armor came up on another forum (which sparked me to finally order the book from Amazon!) and along with your question, Steve, has me wondering how often or to what extent this happened? Field Arty was obviously used to devastating effect overall and am certain I've read that it was responsible for >50% of casualties in the war. The mobility of armor certainly played to its defense and the above example was somewhat topographically unique. An interesting fact about the incapacitation of these 5 Panthers was that no shrapnel penetrated the tanks' armor but rather, the tankers were all killed by concussive effects. That then plays to arty favor in not needing direct hits with indirect fire but merely proximity, something the FA was quite good at.

Anybody know of other examples of this or a general sense if this played any significant role? I have to believe an area like the Ardennes with German armor travelling limited roads would be ripe pickin' for coordinated arty. Of course, that would pre-suppose FOs who could call in the coordinates.

And to drag me back on topic, I wonder what the greatest confirmed distance for an artillery knock out of a tank was?

 

If vertical distance counts, a heavy bomber at 33,000 feet could theoretically achieve a kill from 10,000m or more.

 

I have read the insident whit the IS-2 4600 meter hit.

so i uploaded a pic showing the IS-2 armour, and i wonder where could the shell hit it to destroy it?

 

i think i seen a battle stations programe on t.v.a challenger1 destroyed a tank at 5 miles,cheers.

 

Hello 4th

ok,but did they used the Callanger 1 during ww2?

 

You don't mention the type of weapon K/Oing a IS2 at 4600m unless it was a rare 128mm PAK it would probably impossible at that distance, The incident I mentioned earlier of a Elefant destroying 8 tanks did not specify the type and could have been anything T34,Shermans,T70s or SU85, SU76 spgs.

The Nashorn incident is just about possible as the penetration at 2000 is 139mm therefore a side hit at 3000m would be a kill, additionally hitting the known weak spots for example on the gun cheeks would do it.

Yes Challengers did serve in WW2 -the A30 type.

~Steve

 

In Vietnam some M-48's got a (possibly debatable) kill on a PT-76 at very long range. Apparently a spotter plane saw it fording a river. The nearest US base didn't have any artillery but did have some M-48's which had to pull their front ends up on a berm to get enough elevation to hit it.

I've also read of a very long range engagment by Israeli tanks. They had pre zeroed in their guns on a postion on a hill/mountain on the other side of a valley that they were on.

In both of the cases above I'm pretty sure the range was 10,000m+.

 

Is the shell capable to strike thru the hull at the gun sheeks?

 

Is the shell capable to strike thru the hull at the gun cheeks?

 

If you include naval gunfire here it is about 30,000 yards. I can look up several confirmed instances of naval gunfire specifically against tanks at ranges well over 20,000 yards a bit later.

 

LWD

A tank of 3platoon ACoy. 3rd tank Bat. USMC destroyed a PT76 at long range indirect fire with 3 rounds of HE 3rd shot finding its target. The tank was being washed in the Ben Hai River (within the DMZ) by it crew- who fled.

The Israeli incident was at Almagor just north of the Sea of Galilee on the 12th August 1965 when a Centurion troop engaged a Syrian tank troop at about 1000m across the Jordan River, it then opened fire against Syrian earthmoving equipment at which was working on a scheme to dirvert feeder streams of the Sea of Galilee at a range of 11000m, these targets were not amroured vehicle however.

~Steve

 

You mean the hull or the gun cheeks
I don't really see why it wouldn't there is not much difference between the turret and the sides of the IS2 10mm depending on where you measure. Additonally the semi round mantlet as with the Panther and Pershing meant that a richochette on the lower section would go straight through the drivers compartment or into the turret ring. But most of these long range kills seem to been against tanks moving or standing sideways on to the firing tank, crews probably feeling they were at safe distance.

View attachment 6008

A common photo of a IS2 in distress showing the weakness of the mantlet mount. The IS needed improvement to te turret when up graded from the IS85 and IS1 but it was impossible as increased frontal armour would require counterbalancing causing the weight to increase beyond the capabilities of the turret ring and travserse etc.

~Steve

 

I have serched on google and i have found out that a dug-in Hummel had destroyd a T34/85 at a range of 15,000 meters, the Hummel was placed on top of a hill if i understand.

 

Fighter Ace From Sweden

Can you give a refence for this. I would imagine it was indirect fire onto a thin piece of armour such as the roof or decks- however remember that the hull of the T34/85 was never up graded so it is only 45mm thick at the front but with a good slope.

~Steve

 

yes, it was under indirect fire.Do you mean that it had to bee under direct fire

 

Not as far as i'm concerned but it's not my Thread. I'm interested in anything technical.

~Steve

 

I haven't made the calculations but I think a shot at 4500 meters is very likely to hit the top of the tank instead the front/side armour even for a an extremely high velocity weapon like the Pak 43/2 and top armour is usually rather thin so can be penetrated even if hit with a very "flat" angle. A big howitzer or naval gun at an even longer range is also going to hit the top armour, the problem there is hitting not achieving penetration, we are talking about seconds of flight time against a relatively small possibly moving target here.
I have Spielbergers's "profile" on the Elefant and he reports the episode without any mention of what type of soviet tanks were hit. But looking at the very critical tone of his" book" towards the beast I think it's unlikely he made it up, his opinon of the Ferdinand was that it was more of an engineering test bed that than something that should have been issued to an operational unit.