Armored Fighting Vehicles version M4 - are we going with that? Sure, man.

[chanman]

Tank destroyer. Assault guns are meant to engage fortifications and dug in positions in direct support of Infantry. The S-Tank is meant as an Anti-tank unit.

Yeah, I agree. Conceptually, I don't know if it differs that much from the SU-85/100 or the Elefant/Ferdinand/Jagdpanther, all of which were attempts to get more protection and heavier AT guns onto a smaller chassis. Certainly, assault guns would be served by guns that fired slower rounds with better HE capacity.

As far as I can tell, the main advancements for the S-tank are to move the gun way into the hull and adding an autoloader to reduce overall length. Well, and it being called the S-tank because it didn't have a catchy name of its own.

No one called the Kanonenjagdpanzer a tank as far as I know

[Matti]

Something that came to my mind: if St Charmond is a tank, why S-Tank wouldn't be? Likewise M10 isn't necessarily a tank destroyer if it isn't assigned for that combat role. Or whatever Nicholas Moran said...

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Basically the difference is that the St Charmond was grandfathered in.  The distinction between tanks, tank destroyers, and SPG wasn't codified until later.  As was already stated earlier, none of the original "tanks" would actually count as tanks based on the modern usage of the word.

[Matti]

Here we go

A tank destroyer is not a piece of hardware per se. It is a mode of use.

Can't same apply to tanks regardless of whether main armament is on rotating turret or not?

[Sabelkatten]

"Tank" today is really a shorthand for "Main battle tank", and any AFV intended to be used that way (typically, mobile offensive warfare) can arguably be called a tank.

In using that definition, the 103 is a tank. AFVs like the Hetzer and the SU-85 were intended to be used against fixed positions (assault guns) or in fixed (defensive) positions (tank destroyers), thought during WWII they sometimes ended up being used as tanks anyway.

[Kidd]

"Tank" today is really a shorthand for "Main battle tank", and any AFV intended to be used that way (typically, mobile offensive warfare) can arguably be called a tank.

In using that definition, the 103 is a tank. AFVs like the Hetzer and the SU-85 were intended to be used against fixed positions (assault guns) or in fixed (defensive) positions (tank destroyers), thought during WWII they sometimes ended up being used as tanks anyway.

Good one.

Then there's the Sturmgeschutz III. Used as an assault gun and infantry support tank, but armed and armoured just like any other tank. Initially classed as an assault gun simply because it wasn't organised with the Panzer Corps, but often filled the tank role as the war carried on. Eventually became one of the Wehrmacht's most prolific tanks. A tank in all but name really.

[ANS Kamas P81]

StuG IIIs were the most produced vehicle they had, certainly.  Supposedly they had the best kill ratio for the wehrmacht, and the 75mm was a good gun.  It's one of the few German panzers I actually like, admittedly, and I can't say the thing isn't humble and effective in its role.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Actually, I think the Jagdtiger and Elefant beat the Stug III's kill ratio, but that was because they were rare, had frontal armor that was impenetrable to Allied anti-tank weaponry, and generally got taken out by infantry or mechanical failure.  At least I've heard that claimed a few places.  In terms of overall effectiveness, though, the Stug was superior by an extremely large margin.

[ANS Kamas P81]

On the topic of casemates...there's something you don't see every day.





It's a Jagdchieftain!

[kato]

Then there's the Sturmgeschutz III. Used as an assault gun and infantry support tank, but armed and armoured just like any other tank.

The original StuG III (versions A to E) used the 75mm StuK 37 L/24, same as on the Pz IV and not really considered a tank gun - but an infantry support gun.

With later versions from 1942 on they split the role that the StuG III and Pz IV had with new variants, creating a dedicated anti-tank version with the 75mm StuK 40 L/48 (twice as long barrel) and a dedicated infantry support assault gun with a 105mm StuH 42 (a converted artillery gun).

Armor on the StuG III was the same as on the Pz III because it was the same chassis and effectively production of the chassis was directly switched entirely over from the then outdated Pz III to StuG III around late 1942. Concurrently produced actual tanks - except for the Pz IV H (which was basically the "turreted tank version" of the Pz III by armor and armament) - all had much better protection.

[Istal_Devalis]

Here we go
Can't same apply to tanks regardless of whether main armament is on rotating turret or not?

Depends? Tank Destroyers are called that because their primary role was to kill tanks, usually in a defensive role. Tanks were offensive units, and meant to kill anything in their way. (Someone's bound to bring up Infantry Tanks but...well, that's a specialised role on top of things.)

The S-tank, from all I've read, was always meant to be a defensive AT vehicle as its primary function, so I have qualms with calling it an actual tank, no matter how Sweden considers it.

Now, what a vehicle was used for, and what they were designed for are two separate issues. One of the reasons we dont really design specially purposed vehicles like this anymore is because, in practically, the people using it in the field didn't really care. If you have a hardened position at point X, and a tank destroyer right next to you, they're going to send in the tank destroyer, even if it's not an optimal platform for the job. So why design something so hyperspecialised when you can just make a better general purpose vehicle...and that's the tank.

[Kidd]

The original StuG III (versions A to E) used the 75mm StuK 37 L/24, same as on the Pz IV and not really considered a tank gun - but an infantry support gun.

With later versions from 1942 on they split the role that the StuG III and Pz IV had with new variants, creating a dedicated anti-tank version with the 75mm StuK 40 L/48 (twice as long barrel) and a dedicated infantry support assault gun with a 105mm StuH 42 (a converted artillery gun).

Yes, but the infantry support gun was still quite an effective tank-killer for its time, and later on even more so.

[kato]

The 75mm KwK/StuK 37 L/24 ?

Not really. It relied virtually entirely on HEAT for anti-tank effect fired at low velocities and was pretty inaccurate firing them too beyond low ranges. Up till halfway into the war the performance of these HEAT shells was also pretty lackluster (as in you could've barely scratched a T-34 with them).

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

There's a reason there are stories of lone KV-1s and Char B1-bis taking on entire companies of Panzers and winning in the early war.  Germany just didn't have a good anti-tank gun until they developed the Kwk 40 7.5 cm.

[Smegish]

Good anti-tank gun in a tank anyway. 88s did a number on just about everything for the duration of the war

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

That was an anti-aircraft gun that was pressed into service as an anti-tank gun due to the fact that nothing else the Germans had in Africa was able to penetrate the frontal armor of a Matilda.  It was only after they realized how good it was at taking out tanks that a modified version that was a dedicated anti-tank gun was built.

[HobbesHurlbut]

That was an anti-aircraft gun that was pressed into service as an anti-tank gun due to the fact that nothing else the Germans had in Africa was able to penetrate the frontal armor of a Matilda.  It was only after they realized how good it was at taking out tanks that a modified version that was a dedicated anti-tank gun was built.

Who knew a high velocity made for excellent penetration power? :D

[Kidd]

The 75mm KwK/StuK 37 L/24 ?

Not really. It relied virtually entirely on HEAT for anti-tank effect fired at low velocities and was pretty inaccurate firing them too beyond low ranges. Up till halfway into the war the performance of these HEAT shells was also pretty lackluster (as in you could've barely scratched a T-34 with them).

Well, T-34 and KV-1 excepted, but nothing in the German army could deal with them anyway.

Against the lighter tanks of the early war it was fine.

[Matti]

Who knew a high velocity made for excellent penetration power? :D

Americans. They considered using 57 millimeter gun to replace 75 mm ones. Then they realized that 57's shell velocity drops more rapidly and isn't fast enough for efficient penetration at ranges over 500 yards.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

That's because 57mm guns were being used by the Soviets as a replacement for their 76mm guns, because the Soviet 76mm was a fairly terrible gun.  And the Germans were using a 50mm gun at the time as well.

[Kidd]

That's because 57mm guns were being used by the Soviets as a replacement for their 76mm guns, because the Soviet 76mm was a fairly terrible gun.  And the Germans were using a 50mm gun at the time as well.

Said 57mm gun aka the Ordnance QF 6 pounder was practically the only effective anti-tank gun the Soviets had, and one of the most numerous items sent under Lend-Lease.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Yup.  So the Americans actually had battlefield data showing that a 57mm gun was effective, since the Germans weren't fielding anything with terribly thick armor at the time.  They went with the 75mm because it had a good HE round, which the 57mm unsurprisingly lacked, something they wanted for supporting infantry and taking out enemy fortifications.  Then Germany started upgrading the armor on the Panzer IV and fielding Tigers and other more heavily armored vehicles, and the small guns like the 57mm became obsolete.

[Kidd]

Apparently the US didn't have any other 57mm rounds besides AP though the Brits had HE and (limited quantities of) canister. Plus probably by that time they figured theyd want something bigger.

I think 57mm APC could punch through even up-armoured Panzer IVs, but I'm not sure. Anyway the Brits were already moving on to the 17pdr by the time the Panthers started coming out.

[CDAT]

Apparently the US didn't have any other 57mm rounds besides AP though the Brits had HE and (limited quantities of) canister. Plus probably by that time they figured theyd want something bigger.

I think 57mm APC could punch through even up-armoured Panzer IVs, but I'm not sure. Anyway the Brits were already moving on to the 17pdr by the time the Panthers started coming out.

According to what I can find the best 57mm round the US had at 1000 meters could penetrate up to 91mm, the best the Pazer IV had was 80mm, and even the Panther had some spots on the front that were 80mm or less.

[DoctorMonkey]

There's a reason there are stories of lone KV-1s and Char B1-bis taking on entire companies of Panzers and winning in the early war.  Germany just didn't have a good anti-tank gun until they developed the Kwk 40 7.5 cm.

Most of those Panzers were probably, certainly in France, Panzer Mk1 and Mk2s


Driving home today, I passed by the sole Elefant on the back of a low-loader heading back to the USA from Bovington. As you do.

[Matti]

That's because 57mm guns were being used by the Soviets as a replacement for their 76mm guns, because the Soviet 76mm was a fairly terrible gun.  And the Germans were using a 50mm gun at the time as well.

Soviet Union had great many different 76(,2) mm guns. Some were infantry guns, others were anti-tank guns, some were short (compare to Germany's short 75), and others were long (compare to Germany's long 75). With that said, not all of them were terrible, and T-34 & KV-1 with long 76,2 mm kicked serious ass.

[edit]
I recall reading from somewhere that Soviet long 76,2 mm ATG was so good that Germany used captured ones to arm their tank destroyers against T-34.

[edit2]
Oops! It's not ATG but something called divisional gun. And yes, Germany used captured ones in their tank destroyers, like Marder III.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

The 76.2mm gun the Soviets used kicked ass against Panzer IIs and Panzer IIIs.  Germans used captured 76.2mm guns early in the war when they'd been using 37mm and 50mm guns, but after the Pak 40 gained wide deployment they kept using the 76.2 guns only because they had them and any AT gun is better than no AT gun.  Once German vehicles started gaining more armor its stopping power dramatically decreased and the Soviets upgraded to using 85mm guns and a 122mm on the IS-2.

[kato]

The Soviet 76mm guns were actually reworked before they were used in German AT vehicles - basically to increase commonality in production and to improve performance (because it wasn't all that great) they simply put the shells on the cases of the German 75mm PaK 40 which was considered equivalent, and slightly lengthened the chamber of the 76mm F-22 field guns to accept these. The Soviets had previously similarly adapted the gun to fire Model 1900 cartridges left over from earlier 76mm gun models.

The reason why Germany adopted this was mostly that they captured literally half of the 76mm F-22 ever produced, and that converting them was a whole lot cheaper than building more 75mm PaK 40. They performed about equally (slightly lower penetration, heavier weight).

[Garrand]

The Soviet F-34 76.2mm cannon was only an L/40, & had performance similar to the US M3 75mm cannon in the Sherman. The Soviet gun gets a better rep because they were in-use as early as 1941, whereas the Sherman or Lee/Grant didn't get into combat until late '42 (with the British). Also the Soviet gun had an APCR round that was really "hot" but only at shorter ranges (IIRC performance at 500m was worse than a normal APC round), whereas the US gun never had one developed for it.

Both the Sherman & the T-34/76 did perfectly well against panzers when they only had up to 50mm frontal armor. But once you started deploying Panzer IVs with 80mm frontal armor, or Panthers with 120mm (not to mention Tigers), both tanks are going to have to use "tactics" to achieve kills. In addition, the US 76.2mm M1A1 cannon had better AP or similar performance per the information I've seen as compared to the 85mm D-5 cannon (in Korea, the M4A3E8 was mostly comparable to the T-34/85 IMHO). The biggest problem I've seen with Soviet guns is poorer performing ammunition... If they had access to ammo the quality the Germans had, they might have had a bit better performance from their weapons.

Damon.

[CDAT]

....
Both the Sherman & the T-34/76 did perfectly well against panzers when they only had up to 50mm frontal armor. But once you started deploying Panzer IVs with 80mm frontal armor, or Panthers with 120mm (not to mention Tigers), both tanks are going to have to use "tactics" to achieve kills. In addition, the US 76.2mm M1A1 cannon had better AP or similar performance per the information I've seen as compared to the 85mm D-5 cannon (in Korea, the M4A3E8 was mostly comparable to the T-34/85 IMHO). The biggest problem I've seen with Soviet guns is poorer performing ammunition... If they had access to ammo the quality the Germans had, they might have had a bit better performance from their weapons.

Damon.

The Sherman gets a bad rep, that is not deserved and actual figures show it to be mostly Hollywood. Below are stats that I have been collecting and refining as I find more information. There are lots of urban myths about the Sherman that like I said mostly come from Hollywood, for example that it took five Sherman's to kill a Panther, not true once we got an gun with a decent AT round . Now when we sent Sherman's out we sent them in platoons of five tanks but it does not take five to one odds to kill a Panther. For example in the movie Fury when the tanks are driving down the road and attacked at close range by the German's starting at the rear tank, Fury an M4A3E8 should have been able to kill it from where it was, with out having to close, it did not need to get to the side/rear to get a killing shot, but that did not tell the story they wanted. (Still a good movie and I suggest you see it if you have not even with the Hollywood story telling.)

Just some clarification on the states below the length is tank body - to gun muzzle when over the front. The numbers after the Tiger in [] are for the longer 88mm on the Tiger II, as the Tiger kind of has a short barrel as far as lots of German tanks go, making the longer 75 on the Panther better at most distances. I also have not been able to find any penetrations for any German gun at 1750 meters. 

Unit         Sherman (75)         Sherman (76)                         Panther                   Tiger
Weight      35.5 Tons            37.1 Tons                               45.5 Tons                  62.8 Tons
Length      20’7”-24’8”          19’3”-24’8”                              21’11.5”-29’1”            20’9”-27’9”
Width      8’9.5”                     9’9”                                        11’3”                           12’3”
Height      9’3”                       9’8”                                       10’2”                           10’4”
Crew         5                         5                                             5                                 5
Turret Armor   Front/Side/Top
87.9mm/50.8mm/25.4mm   88.9mm/63.5mm/25.4mm   110mm/45mm/16mm   120mm/80mm/26mm
Hull Armor      Front/Side-rear/bottom-top
90.8mm/38mm/25.4mm      108mm/38mm/25-19mm     80mm/40mm/16mm     100mm/80mm/26mm
Main Gun      
75MM 40 Cal (97rds)      76MM 52 Cal (71rds)               75mm 70 Cal (79rds)     88mm 56 Cal (92rds)
Penetration
         60mm@3000m         88mm@3000m                    105mm@3000m           115mm@3000m   [177]
         65mm@2500m         104mm@2500m                  124mm@2500m           128mm@2500m   [194]
         72mm@2000m         124mm@2000m                  145mm@2000m           143mm@2000m   [213]
         75mm@1750m         135mm@1750m
         79mm@1500m         147mm@1500m                  170mm@1500m          160mm@1500m   [234]
         82mm@1250m         160mm@1250m                  184mm@1250m           170mm@1250m   [245]
         86mm@1000m         175mm@1000m                  199mm@1000m           179mm@1000m   [257]
         90mm@750m           191mm@750m                    216mm@750m             190mm@750m   [269]
         95mm@500m           208mm@500m                    234mm@500m             200mm@500m   [282]
         102mm@250m         227mm@250m                    253mm@250m             212mm@250m   [296]
         109mm@100m         239mm@100m                    265mm@100m             219mm@100m   [304]
Ammo Types   
HE, Canister, Smoke, WP,    HE, APCBC, HVAP           APCBC, HVAP, HE       APCBC, HVAP, HEAT, HE
   AP, APCBC-HE         
Secondary      
2X.30 Cal MG (4,750rds)   2X.30 Cal MG (6,250rds)   2X7.92mm MG (4,200rds)    2X7.92mm MG (5,850rds)
Penetration
          2.5mm@500m         2.5mm@500m                   3mm@500m                      3mm@500m
          7.6mm@200m         7.6mm@200m      
         11mm@100m           11mm@100m                    13mm@100m                     13mm@100m
Secondary      
1X.50 Cal MG (300rds)   1X.50 Cal MG (600rds)
Penetration
          11mm@1250m         11mm@1250m
          21mm@500m           21mm@500m
          25.4mm@200m         25.4mm@200m
          28mm@100m          28mm@100m      
Power/Weight   
13.49 HP/Ton                     13.49 HP/Ton                   13.77 HP/Ton                     12.9 HP/Ton
Fuel Capacity   
175 Gallons                       168 Gallons                      190 Gallons                         141 Gallons
Range      
130 miles                          155 miles                          120 miles                               68 miles
Speed      
30mph                               26mph                              29mph                                  24mph
                     




Edit: Worked on spacing to make it readable. (What was readable here was not once posted, and what is now unreadable hopefully is once posted.)