Top 5 Tank Destroyers

No. According to Jentz the side armor was lower hardness:

Jagdpanzer 38 'Hetzer' 1944-45 - Google Books

 

hi JagdtigerI


what is the difference between Marder and Nashorn?

same protection,therefor the difference is the effective range of the gun
Nashorn's gun was one of the most effective anti-tank guns deployed during the war. Its tungsten carbide–cored sub-calibre round, Pzgr. 40/43, was capable of penetrating 190 mm of rolled steel armour at a 30° angle of impact at a distance of 1,000 m. The gun's tremendous performance enabled Nashorn to engage enemy tanks while they still were out of range themselves.
The Hornisse/Nashorn made its debut during the Battle of Kursk, where they performed well. The ability to engage the enemy at long distances negated the disadvantages of light armour and a high profile and revealed the weapon was suited to the open, flat landscape of much of Russia. Like all German vehicles armed with PaK 43 or KwK 43, Nashorn could punch a hole in the front plating of any Allied armoured vehicle. The Nashorn was one of few German vehicles to destroy an American M26 Pershing heavy tank and to destroy a IS2 +4000m (ww2 record) ,88 mm is the best.
While the Marder series were much more effective than the towed antitank guns they replaced.

 

A total of 494 Nashorns were completed. At their peak about 140 Marder IIIs were being produced a month. From 1942 on the easily produced and converted Marders were filling the gaps in the German's armored units. The PaK 40 was in no means an inadequate weapon, it was potent enough to take out most any tank at normal combat range. The Nashorn had 10-30mm or armor, the Marder III had 50mm. Not much better but, stronger than most German tank's side armor. So essentially it comes down to their impact on the war, the Nashorn is a viable option, but I think the Marder deserves the spot for length of service and usefulness to the Germans

 

What about the Marder II. A nice proven chassis. Excellent main gun.

 

Right, I am specificaly referring to the Marder III as an example as it was the latest model but most of the things I'm saying are true of the entire Marder series. More Marder IIs were produced than Nashorns as well but by a smaller margin.

 

The MarderIII Ausf. M was produced in the largest numbers, some 975 vehicles being manufactured in 1943 and early 1944 It could only carry 27 rounds of ammunition
and what is the difference between 50mm and 30mm against artillery fire.

 

A near miss (say under 20 yards) by a typical howitzer shell of the period (eg., 105mm) would likely produce penetration(s) of armor up to 30 to 50 mm thick in many cases. The largest fragments from such a shell moving at 1000 to 2000 fps and weighing as much as a pound or more could easily go through such armor on simple kinetic energy alone.
This makes artillery dangerous to all AFV not just lightly armored ones.

 

I agree with u.
The combination of a high silhouette and open-top armor protection made them vulnerable to indirect artillery fire
and if the Marder was very useful to the Germans why was it replaced with Hetzer???

 

Could you rephrase that?

 

In the most of the cases the shell did not hit the target but explode near it

 

Well, I'm not sure if this has been said, but I would say the Hetzer is a better TD than the paper-thin armored Marders. Plus, the Hetzer has a lower silhouette.

 

The Hetzer has been brought up before...

A quote from me:

A quote from T.A.Gardner:

 

Although I generally agree with you all about the Hetzer I found this on the web.

I have also seen similar quotes praising the Hetzer on its combat effectiveness despite its many flaws. One in particular was from an American Tank commander who was quoted saying " I hated taking on the Hetzer tanks, you couldn't see them until they fired and by then you could only hope they missed"

Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer

 

I Agree With That ,Sometimes The Explosion could Throw a Tank's Turret or all Of it Away Especially 155 mm ,203 mm or 270mm Shells!!

 

I think the 25 pounder shell is enough to do that

 

Indeed, I have seen similar reports praising the Hetzer myself. I have personally always liked it, and I can understand how it could be successful in some combat situations. However, I think its other setbacks keep it out of the top 5 at least.

 

The Hetzer was a great little vehicle.

The gun was great, remotely operated machine gun easy to handle and very effective, the tank was reliable. The only bad things I can mention are the cramped interior, limited gun traverse and the lack of visibility provided for the commander, other than that it was great.

Not sure wether it deserves a top 3 spot though, IMO it doesn't.

The SturmGeschütz IV surely deserves a spot though, atleast in the top 5, it has an unrivalled service record as a tank destroyer, that thing fed on tanks like no other.

Another tank destroyer which I personally like a lot is the Allied Achilles, that was a great TD.

 

Hi Proeliator,

I agree with your post for the most part

To the best of my knowledge the remote operated machine gun was actually rather difficult to use and reload.

How about the M18?

 

In operation it was considered very effective and was very well liked by the crews. But reloading the gun could be tricky in a hot zone, thats true.

The tank however stayed in use well after WW2 ended, which says a lot IMO.

Also a good TD, very fast. Only issue was the extremely poor protection it provided the crew, and then the gun wasn't always quite up to the task (Although it would deal quite easily with the Pz.IVs armour), atleast not for a dedicated tank destroyer. I believe the Achilles fits this role better. But that having been said the M18 had it merits over the M10, Achilles & M36, namely its high speed and mobility.

 

Proeliator,

The M18 had 13-mm of armor all around. The M10 had armor ranging from 19-mm-51-mm. That is better but still relatively poor. There are not many situations where the M18 would be penetrated but the M10 wouldn't. The 76mm gun on the M18 could penetrate 118-mm of armor at 500m. Perfectly adequate to engage Pzr. IVs and Tiger Is at normal combat ranges, the Panther from the side at all ranges, and the front from a closer range. The 3in Achilles essentially has nothing on the M18 IMO. Now, yes the 17pdr certainly had much more penetrating ability than the US 76mm, so in that respect the 17pdr Achilles does have the advantage. However, the 17pdr Achilles tended to be used in a more defensive role. The M18's speed made it ideal for an attacking role.