Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Robinhood01 on June 15, 2015, 12:00:01 PM
-
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/military-vehicle-news/what-was-the-most-lethal-tank-of-wwii.html
A very good article on WW II tanks
-
Excellent article. :rock
-
It used the movie Fury as a reference... :uhoh
-
It used the movie Fury as a reference... :uhoh
Ja.
Its a horrible "article". Its not even that really, its a cobbled together compilation of opinions from an 'ask wiki'.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x241/Alanp_photo/WWII/GermanPzIV-70SdKfz162-1.jpg)
-
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. ;)
-
Not to mention the depicted "IS-2" is an IS-3 in reality.
-
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.
-
The most powerful gun is not always the best. Not when you need a 70 ton monster to carry it.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
If the war was just prolonged by 3 months more, allied fielded both the Centurion and and the Super-Pershing heavy tanks, we know when the war endedd, Neither axis not allies did until it actually did.
-
If the war was just prolonged by 3 months more, allied fielded both the Centurion and and the Super-Pershing heavy tanks, we know when the war endedd, Neither axis not allies did until it actually did.
The Pak 43 was still a better hole puncher than the Pak 44 to 2000m, and would have been adequate to deal with these 45-tonne class tanks out to around 1500m. It was also more accurate at long range (~60% hit rate at 1500m compared ~40% for the 12.8 cm).
-
*sigh* The term "best" is so ever used it is a bit of a shame.
No tank or tank gun in WWII was absolute "best". There are far too many factors to take in to consideration. Be sure and specify what category the term "best" is being applied to. The German 128mm may have had the "best" AP ability, but it would be quite low on my list of "most desirable" main guns for a tank in WWII.
Take in to consideration sights, range, AP ability, HE ability, reload rate, maintenance costs, manufacturing costs, etc, etc. Even at the end of the war, the German Panzer IV H with its 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/48 main gun was still highly formidable. One has to wonder what would have happened of the Germans would have upgraded the sights of the H and allowed it to engage enemy tanks starting at 1500m. The Panzer IV H was lacking only in armor, but it was still average.
-
The Pak 43 was still a better hole puncher than the Pak 44 to 2000m, and would have been adequate to deal with these 45-tonne class tanks out to around 1500m. It was also more accurate at long range (~60% hit rate at 1500m compared ~40% for the 12.8 cm).
I suspect the lessons learned in North Africa and on the Steppes of eastern European were of very limited value in western Europe, where the average tank vs tank combat occurred at ranges far less than 1,500 meters. Same for Italy. When the range is close-in, the tank that gets off the first accurate round was often the winner.
Western European terrain cancelled much of the advantage of heavy tanks like the Tiger I and II, most notably their ability to engage at stand-off ranges. Many fights were at close ranges. It wasn't always the case, but it occurred more times than it didn't. The Panther, which was a terrific design for the open plains of eastern Europe, wasn't nearly as effective in France. Adding to this was it's God-awful lack of reliability, where 1/3 of the Panthers could be counted on to break down.
On the defensive, tank destroyers and motor carriages (both Allied and German) usually shot from ambush at short range.
When you look at the tank guns deployed by Britain and the US Army, the M1A1 and M1A2 76mm was probably the best all around gun short of the 90mm. It had a higher rate of fire than the 17 Pounder, and was more accurate. The Firefly conversion was cramped and inefficient, whereas the Easy 6 and Easy 8 Sherman turrets were roomy and far easier to fight in. Combined with the most common terrain encountered in western Europe, the later Shermans proved to be very effective.