Which WW2 combat TD (ie. can stand up to some return fire without withdrawing so no Nashorns/su-76/Archer or Marder's included) stands out as the best of all time all things considered?
My vote is for the Jagdpanther (thick sloped armour, awesome gun and good mobility)
very close second place SU-100, which really is very similiar to the Jagdpanther in all categories.
third, Hetzer (awesome design: tiny sillouette, quick, good armour, good gun, really cool automated MG system on roof)
Honourable mention: Jagdpanzer IV 75mm L/70 (GUN/ARMOUR), M-36 Jackson (gun), M-10 Wolverine (Nice gun, good mobility), M-18 Hellcat (Gun/mobility!!!), SU-85 (good all around), Jagdtiger (GUN!!! ARMOUR!!! MOVING PILLBOX!)
My choice of Jagdpanther was because of its excellent thick, sloped frontal armour combined with the 88mm makes it the most formidable opponent any AFV could fear to meet upon the battlefied. My second fav is the Hetzer which was just such an excellent design from the ground up. It had a proven skoda chassis, a very good gun in the 75mm L/48 and was quite nimble. Truly a weapon to be feared lurking in the bocage or city street, waiting to brew up an unsuspecting Sherman or T-34/85. The front-heavy SU-100's D10 100mmL/56 could make short work of any german tank with penetration of the 100mm@60deg. from 1500 meters and 125mm@0deg. from 2000m! It could KIA the Tiger I from 2000 meters away (maybe a mantlet hit would save the Tiger?)
Which WW2 combat TD (ie. can stand up to some return fire without withdrawing so no Nashorns/su-76/Archer or Marder's included) stands out as the best of all time all things considered?
That is a very limited view of what tank-destroyers are. The definition in itself favours the German doctrine of the Sturmgeschütz-cum-Jagdpanzer while it disallows those who favoured light and fast vehicles like the US Army.
I'd suggest a simpler definition of "TD" - an AFV designed to combat enemy armour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by panzerboy39
My vote is for the Jagdpanther (thick sloped armour, awesome gun and good mobility)
The Jagdpanthers combat record is not very good:
- It was notoriously unreliable, particularily the earlier versions.
- It demanded effective logistic and technical support, something which the German Army could not provide at the time it entered service
- The Jagdpanther is HUGE.
- The shape of the Jagdpanther ensures that in order to use its weapon, it has to present a big, wide, target to the enemy
- In principle, the chassis had good tactical mobility, but the lack of a turret could reduce its usefullness. Remember how StuGs fared in the close terrain in Normandy, for example. They had a difficult time because they could not engage targets to the sides on the narrow roads.
The Jagdpanther did of course have a powerfull gun and thick frontal armour. But the side armour was not that impressive. The advantage of the thick armour would be that the tank could survive a slugging match with enemy armour, but one may ask if that is the role of a tank-destroyer...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by panzerboy39
third, Hetzer (awesome design: tiny sillouette, quick, good armour, good gun, really cool automated MG system on roof)
Have you ever been inside a Hetzer - or read about its interior layout? It was horrible! The gun was off-set to the right, which meant that there was no room for the loader on the right side of the gun. So he had to load it from the left, something which required some acrobatic skill. Part of the ammo supply was difficult to get to, but worst of all, the commander was boxed in in his own little compartment behind the gun, completely out of touch of his crew. The chassis was overloaded at 16 tons, being designed for about 9 and while the frontal armour was good, the side armour was a joke. The "automated" MG was a standard feature on late-war German StuGs/Jagdpanzers IF it were available. Though its usefullness was limited by the fact that it used a drum-magazine and the loader had to move out of his hatch to change the drum.
The Hetzer was anything but an "awesome design". It was a quick-fix stop-gap attempt at making something usefull in factories that could not handle the preferred article, the StuG III. It was better than the towed guns it replaced and thats about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by panzerboy39
Honourable mention: Jagdpanzer IV 75mm L/70 (GUN/ARMOUR), M-36 Jackson (gun), M-10 Wolverine (Nice gun, good mobility), M-18 Hellcat (Gun/mobility!!!), SU-85 (good all around), Jagdtiger (GUN!!! ARMOUR!!! MOVING PILLBOX!)
The Jagdtiger was a joke. It was notoriously unreliable, its gun was no better than the 8,8cm PaK 43 in anti-tank role and most ran out of gas or fell apart before seeing any action. A true dud. The "Jagdpanzer IV 75mm L/70" came in two versions: The Panzer IV/70 Vomag, which is probably the one you are referring to? It was OK, but the long gun mounted far forward in the hull made it nose heavy, hard on the front suspension and prone to burrying itself when crossing slopes. A vehicle which would likely require a great deal of care manouvering. The Alkett version was perhaps easier to drive around but heavily overweight and too tall. I'd say the bog-standard Jagdpanzer IV was probably the better vehicle all around as its PaK 39 could still deal with most enemy tanks at decent ranges.
The M36 and M10 had the same mobility, basically, both decent, rugged designs but they combined the thin armour of a fast a nimble tank destroyer with a chassis that was neither fast nor nimble. The M36 has the gun going for it, both has the fully traversable turret as an advantage. My winner of this bunch would be the SP 17-pr M10, the British M10, upgunned with the 17pdr Mk V gun. It retained the pros and cons of the M10 but added one of the most powerfull allied anti-tank guns to the mix.
Which leaves the M18, the true representative of the US Army tank-destroyer doctrine. Very fast, paper thin armour, good mobility on accont of low weight and torsion bar suspension and a sufficiently powerfull weapon given the fact that it could run circles around any enemy tank. AFAIK, the M18 was a succes despite its lack of firepower and as the fighting in Lorraine showed, used wisely, it could maul Panthers at will.
As indicated above, I'd suggest the Jagdpanzer IV as the best because it combined the best of the German designs:
- Low height
- Heavy frontal armour
with a decent gun, decent mobility and a generally simple, rugged design. This combination allowed it operate in the dual tank-destroyer and infantry support role which was so usefull for the German Army. The M18 may have been the better tank-destroyer but it was a very specialized vehicle.
I've not considered the Soviet designs as I dont know much about them.
Claus, that was not my 'view' of what a TD is. There are many varying designs of TD's. I set the specs for this thread and that did not include the 'thin skinned' TD's. I want only the 'heavies' included. Simple as that. It in no way shape or form attempts to define my vision of a TD. It was an attempt to lower the numbers of AFV’s involved so as not to get bogged down with a hundred different models to compare. I will do a later one including the light models.
The jagdpanther was not HUGE! The KV-2 was HUGE, the Jagdtiger was HUGE! Just 'big' would suffice! I think it was part of its charm, "look at me, I'm a big nazi tank destroyer, better run away puny Sherman" sorta image! OK, OK, yes, part of a successful TD's portfolio is a small vehicular silouette. A common theme (for German and Russian models anyway) for a TD was to be turretless, so you can't really fault them for that can you? You can fault the whole genre (as it certainly was a disadvantage in some tactical situations) but certainly can’t just fault the Jagdpanther alone for this shortcoming.
Normandy poor for TD's? Where on earth did you get that idea? Bocage hedgerows and sunken lanes are TD HEAVEN! The terrain in Normandy was almost tailormade for the German TD's because the defender chose the point of engagement almost everytime. If your gun was pointed in the wrong direction in Normandy then you were'nt really meant to be a tank commander! It was in this environment that the German TD's were at their deadliest. Ask any Allied tankcrew who survived the terrible fighting in Normandy.
As for the early Jagdpanthers reliability, one could say the same of the Panther, Tiger and I and many other still consider that a great tank. The side armour of any TD was not important, as they certainly were not meant to be engaged in a tactical battle of manouver (where turreted AFV's excelled). The role of a heavily armoured TD is to cheaply (If you can fault the jagdpanther anywhere it is surely here, as it was not cheap economically) replace a turreted AFV in a frontal slugging match, otherwise why would they make them? This the jagdpanther could do quite well and easily. Something a Nashorn or Marder could not do. They were obviously 'shoot'n'scoot' designs. The Jagdpanther could kill any tank on the battlefield from virtually any range (do not include JS models in this equation), withstand large caliber hits in frontal engagements and move to another firing position both quickly and without bogging do to high ground pressure. Truly this was a great design when analyzed through proper heavy TD criteria My final point is this, as for having logistical supply problems for the Jagdpanther, in the later part of the war, every tank company had problem getting it's required parts, fuel, ammo, anything! This was not just a Jagdpanther issue. Jagdpanther parts were moved on the same trucks, trains as those for the ubiquitous Pzkw IV's so it's not a terribly valid discussing point to discount any particular AFV's usefullness in the german arsenal.
Dude! About the Hetzer! You take that back! As an ambush TD, the little Hetzer was a solid, successful model of german TD engineering. Don't have to be inside one to know it was cramped. Tell me one tank that was roomy and comfortable? Ya, loading it was less-than-perfect and it was a little overweight (are'nt we all?) and cramped. I've already discounted the importance of side armour for TD's thing. All-in-all, it was a great little TD. Fits all 4 main Combat TD criteria: Gun, Armour, Mobility, Silouette. A little harsh on the ol' Hetzer are'nt we? Stop-gap designs are usually replaced by a more thoroughly researched model, but the Hetzer (I believe) was producedfrom its inception until the end.
Here's some quotes from our wonderful parent web-site (achtungpanzer.com):
Panzer Units Bulletin from October of 1944 - "...Light tank destroyer Jagdpanzer 38 proved itself in combat. Crews are proud of them (Hetzers) and they as well as the infantry have confidence in them. The most praised is the option of all-around fire from the machine gun. Great firepower, low profile and overall shape proved suitability to fullfil two main tasks: fighting enemy tanks and direct support of the infantry in defence and offense. It occured that single company in short time destroyed 20 enemy tanks without any losses. One unit destroyed 57 enemy tanks (including 2 Stalins at 800m (Soviet IS-2)) without any losses. This same unit arrived in the combat area after traveling during the day the distance of 160km without any breakdowns...Front armor can withstand Soviet 76.2mm gun fire. Current losses are results of side and rear plates being hit..."
And some more from Achtungpanzer:
"Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer was cheap, fast, low and hard hitting and is considered to be one of the most successful tank destroyers of World War II. It was not popular with crews but proved to be a dangerous opponent on the defensive and is considered as one of the best German tank-hunters of the late war period. Hetzer's design is still considered to be a base for some modern tank destroyers, the most notably including Swedish Stridsvagn 103 (S-Tank)."
To hell with the Jagdtiger. It looked intimidating and gave sherman crews nightmares but they only made like what, 50 units? Pretty much a non-factor. I was only being nice to the Uber-tank affectionados!
It was a gut-wrentching decision not to include the the jagdpanzer IV L/70 in my top 3. Great TD, good gun, thick armour and very low silouette. What's not to like about it? About M-18 hellcat. Damn I hate that tank! A tank with no armour is not a tank, its a car with a gun! If the Yanks could have mounted a high-velocity 75mm on a harley davidson they would have! Like my women, I like my tanks to have some weight on them (ie. armour). Admittedly, as part of the Yankee combined arms solution I have to admit the M-18 fills an important role making it a great Yank TD.
Claus, that was not my 'view' of what a TD is. There are many varying designs of TD's. I set the specs for this thread and that did not include the 'thin skinned' TD's. I want only the 'heavies' included. Simple as that. It in no way shape or form attempts to define my vision of a TD. It was an attempt to lower the numbers of AFV’s involved so as not to get bogged down with a hundred different models to compare. I will do a later one including the light models.
If you include the Hetzer, you are hardly talking only "heavies"
Quote:
Originally Posted by panzerboy39
Normandy poor for TD's? Where on earth did you get that idea? Bocage hedgerows and sunken lanes are TD HEAVEN! The terrain in Normandy was almost tailormade for the German TD's because the defender chose the point of engagement almost everytime. If your gun was pointed in the wrong direction in Normandy then you were'nt really meant to be a tank commander! It was in this environment that the German TD's were at their deadliest. Ask any Allied tankcrew who survived the terrible fighting in Normandy.
"Experience reports from Sicily, Italy and Normandy comparing the PzKpfw IV to the Sturmgeschütz unanimously state that when employed on coastal roads, in mountaneous terrain and in the sunken lanes and hedges of Normandy, the Sturmgeschütz is both tactically and technically considerably less favoured than the PzKpfw IV. The terrain makes it impossible or at least severely limits aiming the Sturmgeschütz to the sides. Based on the latest observations reported by general Thomale in Paris and reports from the Panzer-Offizier Ob.West, employment of Sturmgeschütze in the sunken lanes and the hedges of Normandy isdifficult because the gun is mounted too low. In contrast, the Panzerkampfwagen can fire out of the sunken lanes and over the hedges because of the height of the gun and the traversable turret"
Guderian to Hitler, June 29th 1944.
Quote:
Originally Posted by panzerboy39
As for the early Jagdpanthers reliability, one could say the same of the Panther, Tiger and I and many other still consider that a great tank.
Actually, the Jagdpanther appears to have been worse than the others because the design aggrevated some of the problems already present in the Panther.
Quote:
Originally Posted by panzerboy39
My final point is this, as for having logistical supply problems for the Jagdpanther, in the later part of the war, every tank company had problem getting it's required parts, fuel, ammo, anything! This was not just a Jagdpanther issue. Jagdpanther parts were moved on the same trucks, trains as those for the ubiquitous Pzkw IV's so it's not a terribly valid discussing point to discount any particular AFV's usefullness in the german arsenal.
It is very valid. For two reasons.
1. The heavier the vehicle, the larger the logistical foot-print. It generally needs more of everything.
2. The Jagdpanther was braking down a lot, hence it needed more spares, more maintanance, more recovery operations etc.
In a situation where logistics are breaking down, you want reliable vehicles which dont use up too much of the valuable supplies. In that respect, the Jagdpanther was not what you'd want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by panzerboy39
Dude! About the Hetzer! You take that back! As an ambush TD, the little Hetzer was a solid, successful model of german TD engineering. Don't have to be inside one to know it was cramped. Tell me one tank that was roomy and comfortable?
The Jagdpanther is HUGE - also on the inside. And Shermans are quite roomy as well. Panthers may not be roomy as such, but quite comfortable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by panzerboy39
Ya, loading it was less-than-perfect and it was a little overweight (are'nt we all?) and cramped. I've already discounted the importance of side armour for TD's thing. All-in-all, it was a great little TD. Fits all 4 main Combat TD criteria: Gun, Armour, Mobility, Silouette. A little harsh on the ol' Hetzer are'nt we? Stop-gap designs are usually replaced by a more thoroughly researched model, but the Hetzer (I believe) was producedfrom its inception until the end.
Try this link and read what German veteran Armin Sohns has to say about the Hetzer.
Here's some quotes from our wonderful parent web-site (achtungpanzer.com):
Panzer Units Bulletin from October of 1944 - "...Light tank destroyer Jagdpanzer 38 proved itself in combat. Crews are proud of them (Hetzers) and they as well as the infantry have confidence in them. The most praised is the option of all-around fire from the machine gun. Great firepower, low profile and overall shape proved suitability to fullfil two main tasks: fighting enemy tanks and direct support of the infantry in defence and offense. It occured that single company in short time destroyed 20 enemy tanks without any losses. One unit destroyed 57 enemy tanks (including 2 Stalins at 800m (Soviet IS-2)) without any losses. This same unit arrived in the combat area after traveling during the day the distance of 160km without any breakdowns...Front armor can withstand Soviet 76.2mm gun fire. Current losses are results of side and rear plates being hit..."
In Spielbergers "Leichte Jagdpanzer" this report comes just after another one, telling the story about how a company of PzJgAbt 708 lost 9 Hetzers in one day in combat with US forces with nothing to show for it. So it goes both ways in combat
No one is saying that the Hetzer didn't work as advertised. What I'm saying is that it had many flaws compared with other, similar designs like the StuG III or Jagdpanzer IV.
You may also want to consider, that for many of the crews, they replaced either their towed PaK 40s or various stop-gap SP guns like the Marders with Hetzers. In that respect, it was a trade up, despite its flaws. You see something similar with British anti-tank gunners trading up from towed guns to the Archer. Even though the Archer was a silly vehicle, it was much better than towed 17-pdr. But those crews who traded down from M10s to Archers thought it was horrible.
When used properly it was excellent. Great armor, great firepower. Though manuverability was fair, it didn't have to move far or fast on the defensive. Read the users accounts of it.
I used the term 'heavies' a little loosely, however the Hetzer was able to kill any Allied tank on the field, even JS-2's (albiet from the side only I would imagine!) As I stated initially, to be included in this debate the TD in question had to be able to take some frontal fire from large caliber guns, and this the Hetzer could do. Not exactly a King Tiger, but adequate protection when compared to a Marder or Nashhorn and the like.
As for the Jagdpanther's logistical/mechanical problems, yes, it broke down more than your average tank, like the Panther, like the Tiger. Yes, big tanks require bigger components to keep them going, BUT, every tank has roughly the same components: guns, optics, ammo, engines, tracks & wheels. Every tank had to have these components supplied with regularity to operate, no exceptions. Light or heavy. The germans needed the big tanks to combat the russkie heavies, so, whether you like it or not, they were needed. I'm not sure how this is a detraction from a models effectiveness? Should they have concentrated on small, less part hogging designs? Probably. But, using this argument to detract from the Jagdpanthers effectiveness also means that it applies to some other very popular, almost iconic AFV's such as the Tiger and Panther. While they were certainly not perfect, one can appreciate their effect upon the enemy AFV's (and morale). Both models were notoriously unreliable and complex machines, but still survive the war as the superstars of the AFV field, infamous in thier exploits (danke herr Wittman!) and unchallanged in thier superiority. I'm not going to slag the Jpanther just for having the same flaws as it famous cousin! If you slag one, you slag them all!
"In a situation where logistics are breaking down, you want reliable vehicles which dont use up too much of the valuable supplies. In that respect, the Jagdpanther was not what you'd want."
So I guess neither neither was the Panther/tiger/king tiger/elephant....what do you put up against a JS-II? A Stug III? Have fun! If I'm the member of a StugIII crew about to duke it out head to head with the JS-II rumbling around the corner, the knowledge of having superior mechanical reliability to the Jagdpanther would be of little comfort or use!
"The Jagdpanther is HUGE - also on the inside. And Shermans are quite roomy as well. Panthers may not be roomy as such, but quite comfortable."
Tomato, TOMATO: Huge, big; whatever. No tank was fun to be in. (I'm not sure the panther crews would agree with your 'quite comfortable' assertion!) The Hetzer was definately claustophobic in design, but uncomfortable crews still fight just as hard as comfortable ones (maybe moreso, I'm sure with all the xtra leg room in the spacious Jpanther and shermans they crews could fall asleep real easy in their hammocks! Where they supplied with a housekeeper to keep things tidy?) The main detractor from the cramped conditions would be the loading and firing of the gun, a very serious issue which does detract from the combat effectiveness of the Hetzer. This is a very valid point!
"In Spielbergers "Leichte Jagdpanzer" this report comes just after another one, telling the story about how a company of PzJgAbt 708 lost 9 Hetzers in one day in combat with US forces with nothing to show for it. So it goes both ways in combat "
OK, But how where they lost? The yanks were famous for pulling back and having Artillery and/or airpower to take out their opponents. In my examples, it was certainly the Hetzers who knocked out 20 AFV's for no losses! We are comparing tank to tank here, not against jabos and artillery!
"No one is saying that the Hetzer didn't work as advertised."
Thank goodness for that!
On the whole I find it hard to disagree with most of your points, they are all valid and difficult to dispute, but where the problem lies is in the context sometimes of where you use them. A Pzkw IV in ANY combat situation is superior to a Stug III or any other TD for that matter. I do not, nor cannot disagree. However, the fact of the matter is that Normandy's and Italy's terrain was indisputably in favor of the defending force, ergo, in favor of the Stug III. One cannot dispute this fact. It is common knowledge. If ol' Hurrying Heinz could have waved his magic wand and *POOF* transform all Stug's into Pzkw IV ausf H, he would have I'm sure! Not a luxury he or any other Commander had I'm sorry to say! You know as well as I do that the StugIII had an excellent combat record, especially in Italy (where the lions share of them were distributed if memory serves me correctly!)
Well, now that I've wasted the better part of the morning on this, I should get back to work!
As for the Jagdpanther's logistical/mechanical problems, yes, it broke down more than your average tank, like the Panther, like the Tiger. Yes, big tanks require bigger components to keep them going, BUT, every tank has roughly the same components: guns, optics, ammo, engines, tracks & wheels. Every tank had to have these components supplied with regularity to operate, no exceptions. Light or heavy. The germans needed the big tanks to combat the russkie heavies, so, whether you like it or not, they were needed. I'm not sure how this is a detraction from a models effectiveness? Should they have concentrated on small, less part hogging designs? Probably. But, using this argument to detract from the Jagdpanthers effectiveness also means that it applies to some other very popular, almost iconic AFV's such as the Tiger and Panther. While they were certainly not perfect, one can appreciate their effect upon the enemy AFV's (and morale). Both models were notoriously unreliable and complex machines, but still survive the war as the superstars of the AFV field, infamous in thier exploits (danke herr Wittman!) and unchallanged in thier superiority. I'm not going to slag the Jpanther just for having the same flaws as it famous cousin! If you slag one, you slag them all!
That is where you are wrong. Read my post again. The Jagdpanther (and Jagdtiger for that matter) were worse off than their tank predecessors due to their construction. In case of the Jagdpanther, the inherent front-heaviness aggrevated the final-drive problems inherent in the Panther design to a point where the early vehicles could hardly move without braking down.
And just for the record, I dont buy the "icon", "popular" and "superstar" perspective. That approach to armour history is only for the History Channel and Kindergarten .
They were simply machines. Machines with advantages and vices like any other machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by panzerboy39
So I guess neither neither was the Panther/tiger/king tiger/elephant....what do you put up against a JS-II? A Stug III? Have fun! If I'm the member of a StugIII crew about to duke it out head to head with the JS-II rumbling around the corner, the knowledge of having superior mechanical reliability to the Jagdpanther would be of little comfort or use!
Whoops! Didn't you just tell me how the Hetzer dealt with IS-IIs? Sure you did:
Quote:
Originally Posted by panzerboy39
I used the term 'heavies' a little loosely, however the Hetzer was able to kill any Allied tank on the field, even JS-2's (albiet from the side only I would imagine!) As I stated initially, to be included in this debate the TD in question had to be able to take some frontal fire from large caliber guns, and this the Hetzer could do. Not exactly a King Tiger, but adequate protection when compared to a Marder or Nashhorn and the like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by panzerboy39
OK, But how where they lost? The yanks were famous for pulling back and having Artillery and/or airpower to take out their opponents. In my examples, it was certainly the Hetzers who knocked out 20 AFV's for no losses! We are comparing tank to tank here, not against jabos and artillery!
Come on, PzBoy, stop wallowing around in the wet-dreams of Panzer-la-la-land: Allied tanks were perfectly capable of dealing with German tanks in most situations. In the case I referred to, 3 Hetzers fell to US Infantry, 5 fell to US Sherman tanks and one got stuck and was blown up. They were basically overrun by an American tank-infantry team.
Quote:
Originally Posted by panzerboy39
However, the fact of the matter is that Normandy's and Italy's terrain was indisputably in favor of the defending force, ergo, in favor of the Stug III. One cannot dispute this fact. It is common knowledge.
That is a logical short-circuit if I ever saw one. Attack and defence have no meaning here, a StuG was just as much an offensive weapon as a Panzer IV, it was just used in a different type of offensive action. Read what the man said. It had nothing to do with wanting Panzer IVs over StuGs, it was simply a reflection on the fact that the terrain in Normandy did not favour turretless "tanks", because the room to manouver them into position was often lacking. It is no use to have you gun pointing down a narrow, sunken road, if the enemy drives a tank into the nearby field where you cannot make your gun bear on him due to the limitations of the terrain.
You should try to stray away from "common knowledge" because it is just that - common, primitive, unreflected panzer-gossip. Try to move beyond that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by panzerboy39
If ol' Hurrying Heinz could have waved his magic wand and *POOF* transform all Stug's into Pzkw IV ausf H, he would have I'm sure! Not a luxury he or any other Commander had I'm sorry to say! You know as well as I do that the StugIII had an excellent combat record, especially in Italy (where the lions share of them were distributed if memory serves me correctly!)
Lions share compared to what? You are not seriously suggesting that there were more StuGs in Italy than on, say, the Eastern Front.....?
I agree - Jagdpanther for me too, though the discussion has been very interesting. I'm afraid I'm always swayed on how they look and for me the Jagdpanther was the best of 'em......
I must also say that for all it's misgivings, and there are MANY, I also like the Jagdtiger, awesome machine in my opinion.....I know if I was in an allied tank and was looking down it's barrel I'd most likely **** myself!!
M18 and M36 have been found still in combat service within the past decade, perhaps even the past year. The Jagdpanzer 38, often referred to as a Hetzer, in service until the 1980s I recall. Stugs phased out by Syria in the 60s-70s (or perhaps the Israelis phased them out for them!)
If indeed the Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, et al were in fact so superior they would have soldiered on in somebodies army. Large numbers of German vehicles were rounded up postwar. The French used Panthers postwar, for example. None of the components in these vehicles are high-tech. If in fact they were superior fighting vehicles, the needed parts to maintain them would have been manufactured to keep the in service. Indeed, collectors and restorers of armor reproduce rather elaborate components "for fun" much less national security.
As an aside to this, the Army tested a M18 fitted with the M36 turret. The automotive performance was still fast, but now the hard-hitting 90mm gun was mounted. The war ended before this could enter production.
The mechanical deficiencies of the Jagdtiger, etc can't be discounted. If the vehicle can't get to the battlefield, its useless. The USS Iowa (BB-61) makes a fine tank destroyer, its impregnable to tanks and its 16" 45 caliber main guns are lethal against all comers---but it has great difficulty negotiating the terrain of Germany. Hence, though a fine battleship, the Iowa is a piss-poor tank destroyer, despite superb weapons and armor. Note, this is not that far-fetched, there is documentation of US battleships knocking out armor during the Normandy invasion....but the battleships poor mobility (on land) made it impossible to press the attack further toward Berlin.....just like a Jagdtiger or Jagdpanther broken down ten miles from Berlin is ineffectual against a Sherman or T34 20 miles away.....and in the case of these heavies its not a question of IF they break down, rather it is a matter of WHEN they fail.
M18 and M36 have been found still in combat service within the past decade, perhaps even the past year. The Jagdpanzer 38, often referred to as a Hetzer, in service until the 1980s I recall. Stugs phased out by Syria in the 60s-70s (or perhaps the Israelis phased them out for them!)
David,
I just read on another forum (based on a newspaper article) that the Serbian Army have just decided to phase out their remaining M36 TDs. "Just" meaning August 2004.....!
Same old vehicle made in 1944-45, albeit modified.
I guess when you look at it from that point of view these Destroyers and Battleships did make fine tank destroyers!
I cannot argue with anyone's points here on these forums, I come here to offer my 2 cents and read the articles which I find fascinating, I am no armour buff, I do not know a whole lot about the mechanics of these machines and even so much about their reliability etc.
I am a modeller, not a good one either!
I enjoy building the machines and am always swayed by how the model 'looks' as opposed to it's actual field performance.
These forums are an excellent source of pictures and information on models that I am currently building, or have in my collection for future projects.
So, in closing, all I offer to these forums are my opinion on machines, good or bad and none too educated. I do thank you for all the information you all provide in these messages which are quite enlightening.
Assuming that Panzerboy wanted to eliminate really thin skinned TDs...(Nashorns, Marders, Su76s, M18s Hellcats (12mm generally)...we pump into trouble with vehicles like M10s and Hetzers. Their side armor is really really weak. Hetzer's side armor might be angled a bit but it's still a joke. I've seen 20mm and 30mm quoted. But let's differentiate by the front armor. Let's say all TDs qualifying in this assessment must have front armor equal or more than that of Hetzer's (60mm, heavily angled). Why? To make them capable of taking a typical 75/76mm AP round (something that a T34/76 would fire) over a distance of more than 1 kilometer without getting killed in a "guaranteed manner" and the capability to survive nearby HE shells from artillery. So, Hetzer's in. Let's also rule out all turreted AFVs.
Now, let's see. JagdTiger is out of the question. Overkill 128mm gun sacrificing rate of fire (really important) to get unnecessarily high penetration capability. Plus no turret and really really overstrained transmission. JagdTigers had to be jerked around a lot in combat and with more than 70 tons of weight, your transmission won't last long.
What about JagdPanther then? Hmmm...issues with transmission. Good armor up front. Largish silhouette. Killer gun with a high rate of fire. A pretty strong candidate.
Elefant? Hmmm...superb armor and gun. With that thick armor, who needs angles? Rather large. Don't know about reliability.
Hetzer...naaah...a stop gap design. Paper thin on the sides. Nearby HE rounds will cause trouble. 75mm L43 gun will do fine against most targets over most engagement ranges, but is clearly inferior to the 75mm L70 gun and the 88mm guns.
Stugs...naah..clearly not the best, although the workhorse.
JagdPanzer IV. A really good candidate. A lethal enough gun for basically every use. Low silhouette. Very high rate of fire. Armour is a disadvantage compared to JagdPanther. Although late JagdPanzer IV variants pack almost as much armor. Much more reliable than JagdPanther.
US designs. All ruled out due to the above criteria. Same goes for British designs. All either turreted or too weakly armored. Or both.
Soviet designs. Hmmm..things like SU152/122 series and any other Soviet turretless AFVs with similar guns had ridiculously low rate of fire. And bad penetration capability in comparison to the caliber of their gun. Plus a huge silhouette. Plus bad armor when compared their German counterparts. Both in terms of quality and quantity. ISU152/122 series have more armor but same issues with their guns. Rate of fire is mission critical for any TD. In fairness, the JagdTiger had the same problem.
SU100? Worse gun and armor than Elefant, JagdPanzer IV and JagdPanther. Same goes for SU85.
So it's up to Elefant, JagdPanzer IV and JagdPanther. In terms of size, Elefant is huge, JagdPanther is large while JagdPanzer IV is the smallest by quite a margin. As regards gun, well, the differences in penetration betweeen 75mm L70 JagdPanzer IV variants and 88mm gun aren't that big. Plus the 75mm enjoys a slightly higher rate of fire, which negates the edge the 88 may have. I mean both of them will kill almost anything over normal engagement ranges.
Armor? Elefant the best, then JagdPanther then JagdPanzer IV. Reliability? Probablly the same in the other order around. All in all, I would say JagdPanzer IV, as it has the lowest silhouette (almost a third lower than JagdPanther) with the two other close behind. JagdPanzer IV was also less resource consuming to manufacture. Good value. That's my 2 cents. Kustjägare
Best Tank destroyer?
And Shermans are quite roomy as well. Panthers may not be roomy as such, but quite comfortable. 
Where is everyone else?
Hybrid Mode
