Best Tank Destroyer...

We havenet had a silly best tank for while, so all things considored, inc ease of manufacture, ease of use, flexability, cost, speed, manavourability. What was the best AFV tank destryer of the war.

Heres a few to get your juices going.

ISU 122
What machine. Compact for its main arnament, modern torsion bar suspension, stong, easy to make based on standard componants. Let down my medicore performance and desgin of its main gun.

Elephant
Just out of control, the rumour of a T34 being taken out ar 2 miles away might not be true but I wouldnt like to find out. Almost invulrunable to all known guns and whith a gun that could sink a battleship.

Hellcat
Small, light and amazingly fast, modern looking AFV with a fighting record that speaks for itself.

Hetzer
Take simple well proven chassis and turn it into a cheap mass produced
machine, thats easy to make, use and hide, with gun plenty good enough to see off virtually any allied vehicle. This must be what tank destroyers are all about.

StugIII
gotta be up there!


Kev (off sick and bored!)

 

Well, certainly the Hetzer should not be on the list. As an expedient using an available chassis it certainly was a worthy try. But, as an operational vehicle it had far too many short commings to rank anywhere near "best."
It was extremely cramped. The crew arrangement was anything but efficent. The loader had to reach over the gun to get rounds while the commander was isolated in the right rear corner of the vehicle from the rest of the crew.
There were almost no vision devices making the vehicle essentially blind to anything that was not right in front of it.
The small amount of traverse on the gun was a major problem in laying and tracking targets.

 

I'm going to cast my vote for the Jagdpanther. It combined the mobility and protection of the Panther with the L71 88mm firepower of the Nashorn/Hornisse. I can't think of any other tank destroyer that united these attributes as successfully as the Jagdpanther. The JUS 122 and the Jagdtiger had more powerful main guns, but both had a slower rate of fire and the Jagdtiger was mechanically unreliable and used very smoky propellant for the cannon, making it easier to target return fire.

tom

 

ISU 122...

But what about other Soviet machines - SU 100, ISU 152?
Well, they are more powerful than Stug III, aren't they?

 

Yes, those would put any StuG to shame

 

I would say that the SU100 was probably more useful as a tank destroyer than the JSU122.


tom

 

Yeah, I agree with you Tom. SU-100 was based on the construction of T 34-85. But probably ISU 122 was the most useful because it had IS-2 as a base construction.

Also I would include to the list some German ones, like Jagtiger (based on the famous Pz Kpfw VI Ausf B - "Royal Tiger" ) Jagpanther, and maybe Nashorn, instead of Hetzer...

Cheers.

 

There are two ways to go here:

The first is putting a big gun on a lightly armored chassis for good mobility and firepower. The second is putting a big gun on a heavily armored chassis for protection and firepower.
I would say the choice is going to be based on the doctrine and tactical / operational position of the army using the equipment.
The light mobile big gun tank destroyer is preferable when on the offensive. It is less capable defensively. The better protected version is more useful defensively. One can see this evolutionary track take place with the Germans. Their early tank destroyers were all lightly armored vehicles with big guns (Marder, Nashorn, etc). These were followed by a second generation of heavily armored defensive vehicles like the Hetzer and Jagdpanther.
The US only had the first type of which the M 18 was the most successful.
For the Soviets the picture is less clear as many of their self-propelled guns were dual purpose. For most their primary role was as self-propelled artillery. The SU 76, SU 152 and ISU 152 are in this category. These vehicles had a secondary role as tank destroyers but, the Soviets really did not build alot of purely designed vehicles as such with the SU 85 and SU 100 fitting this role closest. Both were again choices of firepower and mobility to protection.
Of the bunch, I like the M 18 best. It is outstandingly mobile. A true hit and run vehicle.

 

There are two ways to go here:

The first is putting a big gun on a lightly armored chassis for good mobility and firepower. The second is putting a big gun on a heavily armored chassis for protection and firepower.
I would say the choice is going to be based on the doctrine and tactical / operational position of the army using the equipment.
The light mobile big gun tank destroyer is preferable when on the offensive. It is less capable defensively. The better protected version is more useful defensively. One can see this evolutionary track take place with the Germans. Their early tank destroyers were all lightly armored vehicles with big guns (Marder, Nashorn, etc). These were followed by a second generation of heavily armored defensive vehicles like the Hetzer and Jagdpanther.
The US only had the first type of which the M 18 was the most successful.
For the Soviets the picture is less clear as many of their self-propelled guns were dual purpose. For most their primary role was as self-propelled artillery. The SU 76, SU 152 and ISU 152 are in this category. These vehicles had a secondary role as tank destroyers but, the Soviets really did not build alot of purely designed vehicles as such with the SU 85 and SU 100 fitting this role closest. Both were again choices of firepower and mobility to protection.
Of the bunch, I like the M 18 best. It is outstandingly mobile. A true hit and run vehicle.

If I was given the choice to be in an M-18 or a Jagdpanther in a battle against each other, I'd pick the Jagdpather.

tom

 

There are two ways to go here:

The first is putting a big gun on a lightly armored chassis for good mobility and firepower. The second is putting a big gun on a heavily armored chassis for protection and firepower.
I would say the choice is going to be based on the doctrine and tactical / operational position of the army using the equipment.
The light mobile big gun tank destroyer is preferable when on the offensive. It is less capable defensively. The better protected version is more useful defensively. One can see this evolutionary track take place with the Germans. Their early tank destroyers were all lightly armored vehicles with big guns (Marder, Nashorn, etc). These were followed by a second generation of heavily armored defensive vehicles like the Hetzer and Jagdpanther.
The US only had the first type of which the M 18 was the most successful.
For the Soviets the picture is less clear as many of their self-propelled guns were dual purpose. For most their primary role was as self-propelled artillery. The SU 76, SU 152 and ISU 152 are in this category. These vehicles had a secondary role as tank destroyers but, the Soviets really did not build alot of purely designed vehicles as such with the SU 85 and SU 100 fitting this role closest. Both were again choices of firepower and mobility to protection.
Of the bunch, I like the M 18 best. It is outstandingly mobile. A true hit and run vehicle.

Anyway, they (Soviet machines) fought very very well... :m6:

 

The best tank destroyer has to be the hellcat none of the others come close in my opinion

 

Glam, you've given your opinion. What do you base it on?

 

The Jadgpanther would only be a first choice for me if it were a defensive situation that called for limited movement between positions. On the offensive I think the German SPs would be very vulnerable. In a fluid defense a Jadgpanther is, likewise, too vulnerable to surprise from a non-frontal arc to make it desirable. The fixed gun is just too much of a limitation regardless of its firepower.
That is what makes me prefer the M 18. It is fast, very reliable, and has a gun sufficent to penetrate most tanks frontally and virtually anything from the flank where, given its mobility, would normally be engaging.

 

I would feel very vulnerable in the Hellcat. It had no more than 1" of armor anywhere and 1/2" almost everywhere, most of it only slightly sloped and with only 3/4" at the mantlet. The Jagdpanther, on the other hand had at least a minimum of 1.57" sloped at 55 degrees (rear), 2" on the sides at 60 degrees, with the frontal superstructure armor of 3.15" sloped at a very effective angle of 35 degrees and the mantlet thickness of almost 4".

The Germans had extensive experience with turretless armored vehicles and had excellent crew training and communication which mitigated to a large extent the cons associated with the lack of a turret. The 76mm weapon of the M-18 was only able to penetrate the frontal armor of the JP at a range suicidal for the Hellcat.

The Hellcat's speed is always mentioned as a huge plus, but over anything other than smooth terrain this speed is limited to the crew's ability to handle being tossed around in an armored can. The only real hope for the Hellcat was to survive long enough to try to get a flanking shot on the JP.

tom

 

So now he have a M-18 vs. Jadgpanther situation... :indexCANAHAIH: :p

 

Here is an interesting thought. I wonder how an M-18 would have fared on the Eastern front in the same situations as the Jagdpanther or Hetzer?

tom

 

Watched an M18 roaring at top whack round a very muddy field filled with Hillocks and banks last weekend. The crew seemed to be hanging on just fine and that amount of grunt and maneuverability really did look like a massive tactical advantage for an SP AT gun.

But as we've got a US machine versus a German machine here, even though I'd actually probably choose the M18... I'm going to go for an Archer... Just because (completely disregarding a variety of strange limitations).... they're so damned stylish.



Could be said that the Jagdpanthers thick armour begins to negate the SPATG concept, leading to more of an SP bunker than a really mobile mount for the gun? They are, after all, simply carriages for the weapon.

Odd or interesting design, depending on your opinion, with the gun mounted to the rear.

 

BTW, has anyone seen the "Band of Brothers" episode that featured a real Jagdpanther? It also had what looked like Stugs made from Chaffee chassis. I'm not sure but I think the episode was named "Carentan".

tom

 

Odd or interesting design, depending on your opinion, with the gun mounted to the rear.

Methinks that if I was in an Archer and saw a Tiger or Panther coming my way, I'd be running one way and shooting the other..........

:p

tom