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?

__________________


"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon

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:

__________________


"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon

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

__________________
For want of a nail the shoe was lost, for the want of a shoe the horse was lost, for the want of a horse the rider was lost, for the want of a rider the battle was lost, For want of a battle the kingdom was lost, and all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Robert,

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!!

__________________
Spec Ops Motto 1=100

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.

__________________


"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon

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?

__________________


"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon

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.

__________________


"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon

I will go with Achille for the western allies It had every thing good speed ,good armament(17 pdr could penetrate Tiger and Panther at 900m and 800m) and It did not need to flank this tanks or to come close of them to win

Sorry Freund But ur Achilles Had less Armour & Speed Than M18-Hell cat ,Although it has more Powerfull Gun=17 Pounder (76.2mm)!!
By M18-Hell cat Could Easly Flank a German Tank ,Nevertheless That Could Make Her Sides Valnurable!!

__________________
Spec Ops Motto 1=100

A lot of M-10 men refused to take the M-18 and could not be induced to do so. One complaint was the 76mm gun barrel was too long which made it hard to drive in narrow streets and limited gun traverse in close-quarters combat in built up areas. The other was the paper thin armor that was highly vulnerable to artillery and anti-tank guns. Battlefield reality was that TDs more often fought as mobile infantry assault guns and must take the to the offensive as tanks.

Do not misunderstand me, I like the M-18 a great deal. It was ideal for mobile warfare and an extremely lethal tank killer. When an Armored Division was pushing 40 km a day there was nothing better than deploying the M-18 at the head of the armor columns, which massively augmented the firepower of the light recce. troopers. But I do not feel that it can be considered one of the best TDs because the draw backs were quite frankly severe. It was not a well-balanced AFV. The M-36 which combined the 90mm, gyro-stabilizer and motorized turret traverse and decent armor was much better, and if it did not resemble the American concept of the TD, that was because the TD doctrine failed to withstand the test of battle.

Triple C,

There are two ways to employ tank destroyers: offensively and defensively. The US tended to stick with the offensive as they were on the offensive when the M18s and M10s came into production. Offensive tanks had light armor, a powerful gun, and were fast. The M18 fit this role perfectly, it was extremely fast, reliable (its engine could be changed in two hours with a trained crew!) and its 76mm proved better than the 3in on the M10 and was certainly capable of penetrating most tanks from the front and almost all from the side. I am not talking about US TD doctrine here, I am talking about the need for an offensive TD and how well the M18 filled that. In terms of armor protected it is lacking. However, as I said before the M10 was also extremely light armor. While it had 39-51 mm in the front on the sides it was no greater than 25 mm. That made the M10 also very vulnerable to artillery fire and to pretty much every tank gun that could threaten the M18. As for the problems you presented, yes those are drawbacks. The M18 and M10 both had a traverse of 360º but in terms of elevation the M10 could elevate 10º higher. And yes the M18's gun was longer making it had to maneuver in a tight city street. I would consider the latter only a minor problem as it was not exactly designed to be maneuvering tight street corners, and I don't see an issue like that arising much anyhow. The M18's gun barrel was not absurdly long, it was essentially on par with th M4A3 (76) and the Pz Kpfw IV. I think, overall that the M18 comes out on top. However, that is not to put down the M10, it was a perfectly capable vehicle. As for the M36, it came into production rather late, and was used more in the assault gun role.

__________________


"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon

Sorry Freund ,that is not true

A quote from JagdtigerI:


:

and that Could Make M18 Sides Valnurable too!

JagdtigerI

for example. In offensive war like desert storm the Abrams destroyed T-72 at 4000m , the Abrams (which have excellent armor ,armament and speed 65 km\hour ) could easily come close or flank T 72
(T 72 could not destroy Abrams even from the side) but they did not do that
because it is suicide mission for the Abrams, they preferred to be far away from the enemy as they could


so a tank had less armament than the enemy tanks ,no armor and had open-topped turretpen-topped turret (a characteristic which it shared with the M10) left the crew exposed to snipers, grenades and shell fragments all that made M18 very vulnerable to artillery , infantry, tank and AT gun fire at any range

though a tank had such disadvantages had to come close and flank the Panther or even a PZ IV

I think it is a crazy and suicide mission

The doctrinal priority of high speed at the cost of armor protection thus led to an unbalanced design While the M18 was capable of high road speeds this attribute was difficult to use successfully in combat

so I think the only reason to be in top 5 that it is simply American

Mountan,

That is an offensive tank destroyer for you . The M10 and M18 were not unlike the Panzerjager, Maurder, Nashorn and other tank destroyers the Germans used in the offensive role. Adding armor adds wieght therefore decreasing mobility and increasing the length of production. If you want a defensive tank destroyer than you got your Jagdpanzer IV, Jagdpanther, Elefant, etc. Each type had it's own perks but a TD with a fixed turret and reduced mobility and reliability is not what the Allies needed in their push across France.

__________________


"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon

It might be surprising to some, but the real threat to American TDs were anti-tank guns, artillery and bazookas. German panzers were not much feared in the TD battalions as the men were well trained and very proficient at tank-hunting.

JagdTigerI,

The problem with the M18 is that it's armour was so thin that 20mm AP rounds could tear straight through it. It offered almost no protection for the crew with the exception of against regular small arms fire. And this quite frankly just wasn't enough, the vehicle was far to vulnerable.

The Achilles on the other hand offered the crew better protection and the powerful gun made it capable of engaging German tanks at long range, something which would've been considered pure suicide in a tank like the M18 or M10.

Still Western Allied TD battalions prefered close range battles where they could utilize their speed & mobility to take out the opposition. They trained a lot in outflanking German tanks and overwhelming them from both sides at the same time. And in general the TD battalions thought a lot more about tactics than the any of the regular armoured units, and it certainly payed off for them.

That having been said the TD battalions were as afraid of the German heavies as were the regular units, reading about many of the accounts it is often mentioned that at no other point was the atmosphere more tense then when hunting one of the German cats. The Pz.IV's were considered equal opponents, and didn't really scare anyone in the TD units, they had dealt with plenty of these before with success, and they felt that they were better at the cat and mouse game than the regular German tank crews.

What are your sources? There were certain M4 75mm M3 armed units that were very adept at knocking out German heavies simply by fighting unconventionally using WP rounds instead of regular HE or AP rounds.