Hey Guys,

I know we have a bunch of threads about the best/worst tanks and that some of this has been discussed in there but I couldn't find a thread particularly on tank destroyers. And I like to keep them separate in my lists (sorry Kruska )

Feel free to list more than 5, I would love to hear them. I have found that sometimes when listing lists of 10 or more the last few items tend to be almost interchangeable and some are just thrown on.

Also, it is alright to include some self-propelled guns as many were used in tank destroyer roles.

well here it goes.

1. M-18 Hellcat
This was a very quick reliable vehicle with a gun capable of penetrating most all tanks it came across at least from the side. A very good tank destroyer for an attacking role.

2. SU-100
Reliable and heavily armored for a tank destroyer. The 100-mm L/60 gun was one of the best of the war in terms of penetration, barrel life, and design.

3. StuG III
Widely distributed German self-propelled gun which was often used in a tank destroyer role as the StuK 40 L/48 allowed for. However, although it had low profile, it lacked armor and traverse.

4. Marder III
The Marder III and its variants were easy to produce, reliable and saw service on all fronts throughout the entire war. The later models were armed with the very potent 7.5-cm Pak 40/3 anti-tank gun, and built on the sturdy PzKpfw 38(t) chassis.

5. Jagdpanther Clearly a tank with excellent armor and an extremely powerful gun (although not great in terms of barrel life and recoil). But it also lacked a movable turret. Also not the most technically sound vehicle, although its tracked were slightly improved from the Panther, it still experienced some of the Panther's mechanical problems. Then there is the fact that so little were produced and their effect on the war was minimal at best.

__________________


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

Jon

Good choices, in my opinion at least.

hi i am new here
i think the m18 is a wrong choice
it is vulnerable to all german tanks(=1500m for pz4 and stug3)
imy list

1-jadpanther
amost powerful gun in ww2 , good armor and good speed

2-jadtiger
powerful gun very good armor but alarge tank and low speed

3-elefant
like above but no mg

4-su 100
the best from russia (veru good gun)

5-jadpanzer
panther gun and good speed myfav)

jagdtiger and Ferdinand/elephant were a huge waste of resources. Plus, with under 100 of each being built, you can't really say they were that important. The reason for their apparent success is the sheer fact that something as armored as that and with such big gun is more than likelly to cause some damage. Especially in defenseive positions where they don't need to slog around for too long. I'd say the M18 was one of the best for sure. IRRC, a trained crew could change it's engine in 2 hours. that's some major feat let me tell you. For the German side, I think one of the best was the jagdpanzer IV/70 (A). Also, one can't really discount the Hetzer. The Russian ISU-122 is also one of the best in my opinion.



Cheers...

__________________
Battles don't win wars, Logistics do!

My list would include:

- M10/M36: Important vehicles, just based on numbers alone. After being upgunned, a solid performer.

- Jagdpanther: Well-armored and hard-hitting.

- Su85 and Su100: Excellent designs from Russia on a proven chassis.

- StugIII: Although technically not a tank destroyer, worthy of inclusion since that was often the role of the weapon.

- Jagdpanzer IV: Again proven chassis with excellent main gun.

I would say the Hetzer should certainly not be included. It lacked traverse and the crew arrangement was very cramped and disfunctional. The tank was left almost blind to anything in front of them with almost no vision devices.

__________________


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

Jon

Well many were armed with the Pak 39 but I am assuming you are reffering to the Jagdpanzer IV/70.

__________________


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

Jon

However, it was small, with decent armour, fast, reliable and over 1,000 a month were planned to be produced in 45. It consumed less resources than a Stug and it was better protected.
A small, easy to build, easy to maintain and with a respectable punch was the definition of the Hetzer. Also, Switzerland built them as the G13 after the war so, it couldn't be that bad.

(yes I'm an Hetzer fan!)


Cheers...

__________________
Battles don't win wars, Logistics do!

You are pretty much right on that assesment accept there's a couple historical facts to bear in mind - the Elefant was ordered built experimentally and production stopped at 90 of them since thats all that was planned. Since they were heavily armored, tracked and had a good gun they were ordered used at the Battle of Kursk (despite lacking ANY machine guns to defend itself). The Jagdpanther was one of the better self-propelled guns, powerful gun and heavily armored that was very well sloped in the front and sides, making them harder to kill. But alot of them were simply rebuilt Panthers (production about 5,000) that had damaged or wrecked turrets, and rather than change the expensive and complicated turret some were simply converted into a Jagdpanther.

Good choices Jagtiger.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

I would list at least these three in the top 5 (in no particular order at this point):

The Marder in all its variants. These vehicles were widespread, easy to construct, made best use of scarce resources for the Germans and proved on the whole very effective. When Marders mount ex-Soviet 76.2mm guns appeared in North Africa the British were at first stunned and alarmed that the Germans had finally found a way to put an 88 on a vehicle and field it in large numbers.
In the East these vehicles filled a critical gap for the Germans giving them an effective mobile antittank gun in 1942 that remained viable right to the end of the war.

The M 18. America's solution to the problem. Incredibly fast. In fact still one of the fastest, if not the fastest, armored vehicles ever built. The M 18 was also relatively small and had an excellent gun, sight and, control system that allowed it to get on target very rapidly. Coupled with the Self-propelled tank destroyer battalion's reconnissance section these tanks could appear and disappear all-too-quickly against an enemy armored attack.

The StuG III/IV makes the list by virtue of its ubiquity in German service. The early versions (A - F7) with the short 75 are hardly "tank destroyers" in any sense of the word. The late versions proved effective in this role more because these vehicles often had decent crews than because they were really top notch tank killing systems. The late war addition of a commander's cupola was a tact admission that better crew visibility was necessary if this vehicle was to be a tank killer rather than a mobile artillery piece.

Some that shouldn't be included:

The Hetzer. A horrible improvisation. This vehicle was badly flawed in a number of ways: Loading and reloading the gun was difficult to accomplish. The crew layout was really bad. The commander operated almost blind unless he remanied out of the hatch. The use of the remote machinegun on top was hard to use, harder to reload, and if in the wrong position, a clamp on the loader's hatch trapping the crew in an emergancy.
Visibility in general was poor. The gun had a very limited arc of fire. In fact, the worst of any German standard SP gun. All-in-all it was a poor machine.

The Elefant and JadgTiger: While the former did have an impact on the war neither was built in sufficent numbers to really merit inclusion on a best list. Both also had serious problems mechanically that would preclude them on technical merits; the Jadgtiger moreso than the Elephant which proved the better of the two vehicles by a large margin.

Another possibility is the Nashorn. While it has paper thin armor it does have an 88/71 at a time when that gun could reach out beyond anything the Allies had in the field. It saw sufficent service in sufficent numbers to warrant at least a mention and possibly an inclusion.

The Jadgpanther should make the list on its technical merits only. Its performance in the field was brief and proved less than stellar. It had the potential but it never really got to shine showing up so late in the war.

The SU 85 and 100 are likewise good designs. These too likely warrant a spot on this list for their clean lines and good design. The 100/60 is also a very potent weapon.

The Jgpz IV is an overloaded vehicle with marginal performance. It like the Hetzer is built cheap and lacks the necessary refinements to make it really effective in the field. There are at least a few of these vehicles where the crew improvised a cupola by welding on one off of Pz IV or Panther onto the vehicle.

I have come to a decision about my 5 spot and I am actually going to move this vehicle to 4th and the Jagdpanther to 5th.

I was deciding between the Marder III, Nashorn, and Jagdpanzer. The choice I made was the Marder III.

While the Nashorn had an excellent gun it was very exposed to enemy fire with very thin armor and a large open top.

When the Jagdpanzer took on the 70-calibre gun the extra weight of the long gun made the vehicles nose-heavy to the extent that the front road wheels had to be ringed with steel instead of rubber to deal with the extra weight. The gun weight also reduced the overall performance of the vehicle, especially across rough terrain.

The Marder III (and other Marder variants) were easy to produce and reliable and saw service on all fronts throughout the entire war. They were armed with the very potent 7.5-cm Pak 40/3 anti-tank gun, one of the best of the war.

I had to move the Jagdpanther down simply because of inferior numbers and ease of production. As I explained earlier their impact on the war was minimal at best.

__________________


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

Jon

have to agree with the low-downess and effective 7.5cm // the Stug III. ausf G. it's track record was quite impressive

__________________
Rip it up !

Was the Hetzer better protected than the later StuGs?

A bit better up front but was just as weakly armored on the sides and rear.

Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer

Armor (mm/angle)

Superstructure Front 60/60º Side 20/40º Rear 8/70º Top 8/90º

Hull Front 60/40º Side 20/15º Rear 20/15º Top 10/90º

Gun Mantlet 60/Saukophfblende

StuG 40 Ausf G

Armor (mm/angle)

Superstructure Front 50+30/10º Side 30/11º Rear 30/0º Top 11/75º

Hull Front 50+30/21º Side 30/0º Rear 50/10º Top 16/90º

Gun mantlet 50 or 50+30/0º

__________________


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

Jon

I thought I remember reading Jentz saying the Hetzer armor was poorer quality (or maybe less hardening), and the 60mm was equivalent to a lower thickness of "normal" German armor -- I'll have to try to dig up the source.

(Never mind, I found it. Only the sides and rear were made low alloy steel. Front armor was normal hardness.)

Are you referring to the general decline in German armor quality during the later years of the war?

__________________


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

Jon

achillies,cheers.

__________________
"I must have been keen on her,I took her to see INDIA...AT THE OVAL.". thankyou all,4th wilts.

You misunderstood me. I have a problem with the experimental batch. That's what you get when you have a corrupt regime. Giving away contracts before the trials are done and trough and all that. As I said earlier, anything with that gun and that ammount of armour will surelly be an incredible foe on the battlefield. However, one needs to keep in mind that the logistical effort to put this specific batches of vehicles in running condition was probably a waste of resources and surelly a strain in the already overburdened German logistic sistem.



Cheers...

__________________
Battles don't win wars, Logistics do!

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

__________________


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

Jon

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.

__________________


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

Jon