Tank guns

[Robinhood01]

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/what-was-the-most-lethal-tank-of-wwii.html

A very good article on WW II tanks

[JimmyD3]

Excellent article.

[PR3D4TOR]

It used the movie Fury as a reference... 

[Jabberwock]

It used the movie Fury as a reference... 

Ja.

Its a horrible "article". Its not even that really, its a cobbled together compilation of opinions from an 'ask wiki'.

[Oldman731]

Ja.

Its a horrible "article". Its not even that really, its a cobbled together compilation of opinions from an 'ask wiki'.

Agreed.  If that.

Some nice pictures, though.

- oldman

[mthrockmor]

All things considered I would guess the German PNZ IV was likely the most lethal when you considered kill to loss ration. They fought most of the war and certainly the 75mm gunned version killed literally thousands of T-34s, M-4s and the rest. While the Panther and Tigers made headlines the Pnz IVs did most of the work.

While under armored and smallish gun by 1945 standards overall...the winner.

My two cents.

boo

[bangsbox]

All things considered I would guess the German PNZ IV was likely the most lethal when you considered kill to loss ration. They fought most of the war and certainly the 75mm gunned version killed literally thousands of T-34s, M-4s and the rest. While the Panther and Tigers made headlines the Pnz IVs did most of the work.

While under armored and smallish gun by 1945 standards overall...the winner.

My two cents.

boo

Article says stug had the most kills.

[PR3D4TOR]

The StuG series would be my guess for the deadliest series of vehicles, culminating in the frighteningly effective Panzer IV/70 (still a StuG/Jagdpanzer in all but name). Arguably the best gun of the war, and on a low silhouette chassis with a heavy 80 mm sloped front plate equal to that of the Panther.

[SmokinLoon]

That article was written by someone not very knowledgeable on the abilities of WWII tank main guns.

The T34/85mm was on par with the Panther's 7.5cm in AP???

As always, have multiple sources and be sure and think outside of the box. Black and white print (and certainly the History/Military Channel) isn't absolute because it can rarely present all the facts needed. Likewise, few things are absolute.   

[Denniss]

Not to mention the depicted "IS-2" is an IS-3 in reality.

[save]

The StuG series would be my guess for the deadliest series of vehicles, culminating in the frighteningly effective Panzer IV/70 (still a StuG/Jagdpanzer in all but name). Arguably the best gun of the war, and on a low silhouette chassis with a heavy 80 mm sloped front plate equal to that of the Panther.

The best tank gun in WW2 was the Jagdtiger's 128mm cannon.
In the Summer of 1945, US Army tested captured Jagdtiger, which was able to penetrate frontal armor plate of M26 General Pershing at 2100 meters.
Combat reports verify MBT kills extending to 4000 meters.

Much of that AFV sucked though, even though they had some spectacular kills, killing tanks by shooting though all walls of a house destroying the tank.

The morale must be quite low in the tanker when he see his friends been blown up at 4k range, knowing he has to go to the side or rear of the bad guy to be able to do more than scratch the paint off that thing.

[PR3D4TOR]

The most powerful gun is not always the best. Not when you need a 70 ton monster to carry it.

[save]

As an defensive tank, range and penetration in open country is everything. the only snag with the 128mm gun on the Jagdtiger was that you had to put the bullet and the gunpowder case separately, making reload slower. Its 250mm front armour made it nothing short of a uber tank destroyer used in the right conditions.

[Jabberwock]

The 128 mm was too much gun for the period. Apart from hurling a bigger HE shell, there was nothing that the 12.8 Pak 44 could do that the 8.8 Pak 43 L/71 couldn't.

The 88mm meets or exceeds the 128 mm gun in penetrative capacity and betters it in rate of fire and accuracy, at about 40% of the weight. The Pak 44 with carriage was about 10.2 tonnes. The Pak 43 with carriage was 4.4 tonnes.

If I was designing a WW2 tank destroyer, I'd opt for the 88. You'd save about 4-5 tonnes in weight, which you can spend on armour if you want. The 8.8 also takes up less internal volume, as does its ammunition - which is single piece rather than two piece - so you can design a smaller, lighter vehicle for the same amount of armour protection, or design a larger vehicle to haul a larger combat load.

If the Russians or the Western Allies had been fielding tanks in the 50-60 tonne range, the 12.8 mm might have been justified. Even the heaviest Russian tanks of the period, the IS-2 and IS-3, topped out at about 48 tonnes and the Pak43 was sufficient to deal with them.

For me, the size and weight of the 12.8 and the logistical issues associated with a vehicle of the size/weight needed to haul it around discount it from being a great gun.

[FBKampfer]

Of course, the Germans were also designing for the future (which isn't necessarily wise given their situation).

I will say that the Germans seem to have been the most  forward-thinking military in the world at the time. Ballistic missiles, cruise missile, ALCM's, SLBM's, ICBM's, SAM's, IR night sights, intermediate caliber assault rifles, revolver cannons, intercontinental bombers, the first practical military helicopters, guided A2G missiles, guided bombs, MANPADS.

Looking at what they tried to do, it's like looking at a diesel-punk version of the modern US military. From a technological standpoint, it's a shame Germany have the time to develop these furthers. Though it's inarguably better for the world that they didn't.

Thinking on it, I suppose it also shows the driving force of desperation, since many of these also came about in the lady few months of the war.