The best tank killer of WWII

That sounds like it could be easily adapted to work elevation as well - simultaneously. So I expect that would have been the next development.

 

Pretty much. The M60 version looks alot like a control wheel in an aircraft. two grips and controls both traverse and elevation. Instead of being to the right front of the gunner like the M26/46 grip it is directly in front of him in the M60.

 

That makes a lot of sense.

Turret technology is quite interesting, in its own right.

 

On what page(s) in Hunnicut is this written about the M26 in particular?

Anyway hydraulic motor design = similar

And both are connected to main engine.

Regarding wether the Pershing had variable speed powered turret traverse like the German cats, well that we will see.

 

Hunnicut wrote Pershing.

Don't you think that's somewhat simplistic? You can have all sorts of hydraulic motors. Same concept can have very different executions with corresponding results.

 

Taken from the Squadron/Signal 'M26 Pershing Walk Around' by David Doyle

 

I fail to see any relevance there. All hydraulic motors and pumps are similar. The almost all work on some version of positive displacement. That is necessary to build high pressure. Most use multiple pistons on a swish plate. That is common even today.

 

Anyone know how to find the 601st TD BN? My grandfather was in the ETO area and need any additional information as possible. I have a extensive history "family" project and hope to find advise from everyone.

NARA was checked.

thanks...Vince

 

The german 88mm AA gun.Rommel used it to great effect in north africa against the british armour,using his panzers to lure the british tanks on to this deadly anti tank screen.

 

Panzerjager Panther, with close to 200 rounds of 88mm KwK 43, at least eight or nine-thousand rounds of 7.92mm ammunition, enough fuel to carry it 1,000 miles, a crack tank crew, the engineer from TF2, and a nice entrenched area right in front of a US Army Corps.

 

If you are going to set things up like that I'll choose a US DD or possible CL with the Germans on the move under 6,000 yards.

 

OK, I just got here, but this whole thread seems to lack focus because the OP never defined his terms.
What, exactly, did he mean by "tank killer"? I don't think he meant an infantry weapon, or an aeroplane. Or another tank.
So "Pershing" wouldn't even qualify, nor would Stuka. And what did he mean by "best"? Best armour penetration? Best production numbers? Most cost effective? Range? Rate of fire? Greatest number of tank kills per shots fired? BTW--I'm very suspicious of these putative "record" kills, whether by aircraft, tank, or footman. Most of them were simply propaganda used to boost morale.
Maybe "best tank killer" should mean the one self-propelled gun design directly responsible for the largest number of enemy tanks disabled or destroyed. That's a statistic, albeit one not so easily or reliably retrieved from existing data.
I'm surprised how few votes were cast for the SU-100. A good argument could be put forward to make this one the "best tank killer" of WWII. But if "looking good" is a criterion, I personally like the Jagdpanther V. (;o ]

 

Has anyone mentioned mines yet? Torpedos work pretty well to if the tanks are packed in a cargo ship.

 

What about the bombing of tank factories that would do the job

 

Or what about Hitler's decision to send Ferdinand's Elefants into the Kursk salient? That would make him a very efficient
tank killer killer.

 

Well if you are looking at individuals responsible for the destruction of the most tanks and not at any single place/time I think I'd agree that a very strong case can be made for Hitler. Since he gets credit for most if not all the tanks killed on both sides in both the East and West and at least an assist in the Pacific. Stallin probably comes next as he only gets an assist on the Western Front.

 

The Ferdinands did a sterling job a Kursk though, achieving a 10:1 kill ratio. The problem occured once the Russians got up close and the Ferdinands found themselves without support, their lack of a machineguns allowing Russian infantry to overrun them. When the engagement ranges were long however, as they were initially at Kursk, the Ferdinands were in their prime habitat and did extremely well.

Still it was quite a mistake not arming the thing with a machine gun to begin with..

 

I belive I read somwhere that the surviving ones and the ones they could get were sent back to Germany for a refit wich included the mounting of the MG

Just read this
During the Kursk offensive until November 1943 Ferdinands of the sPzJagAbt 653 destroyed some 320 Soviet tanks and lost 13.

Thats not bad if you ask me

 

Yes, the Ferdinands were refitted with both hull machineguns and top mounted ones after Kursk.

 

I don't know how that would qualify as "sterling." This is an armored vehicle, it is supposed to be mobile and defend itself in fighting. This sterling performer's numbers were reduced by half in days. It broke down excessively and was barely mobile. It's weight prevented its effective use in many combat situations. If this tank destroyer were developed in American it never would have gotten through testing and of course never in to battle. Germany, being desperate for armored vehicles on all fronts, is in the habit of sending fighting vehicles to the front whether they are battle worthy or not. Focusing simply on a kill ratio should not be criteria for rating and praising any weapon, IMO. A stationary gun could have achieved similar numbers with much less cost.