Most successful tank buster in the war for both Axis and Allies...

[Siege]

Silly MRE's, I guess it's just the C-Ration generation that truely understood the can busting capability of the mighty P-38. Personally, I'd rather go after the applesauce first, and leave the beenie-weenies for later.

You weren't the only one to get it thankfully.

-Hans

[The_Capt]

Silly bastards,

Landmines=50(+1) percent.....but hey that isn't what CM says?! Minefields are gamey!!

[Bastables]

Originally posted by RobearSun:

Wouldn't the best Allied tank killer be the

T-34?

RobearSun

No, T-34's huge production runs were countred by huge loss rates to enemy fire.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

My vote would go with the 88' Flak/ATG variants.

Perhaps maybe even the Pak 40 as they were more numerous and a very good Anti Tank asset.

Disagree with Kursk, Operation Mars, Krakov counter attack, Goodwood etc where Panzer/StuG units inflicted the most damage on Allied Tank/armour forces.

[Gaylord Focker]

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

My vote would go with the 88' Flak/ATG variants.

Perhaps maybe even the Pak 40 as they were more numerous and a very good Anti Tank asset.

Disagree with Kursk, Operation Mars, Krakov counter attack, Goodwood etc where Panzer/StuG units inflicted the most damage on Allied Tank/armour forces. </font>

[Gaylord Focker]

Also was it not the Soviet Anti Tank Guns that inflicted the most damage on the German armor during Operation Citadel? The Soviets had an intricate and deep defense of AT Guns with great firing lanes that chewed the German Armor to shreds if i remember correctly.

I'm far too tired to expand anymore on this right now as i am on my way to bed.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Also was it not the Soviet Anti Tank Guns that inflicted the most damage on the German armor during Operation Citadel? The Soviets had an intricate and deep defense of AT Guns with great firing lanes that chewed the German Armor to shreds if i remember correctly.

I'm far too tired to expand anymore on this right now as i am on my way to bed.

An intricate defence Anti tank gun/minefield net that only helped in sub 300 Panzer/StuG total losses from all causes... Comparisons can be made with Krivosheyev pointing out that during the 50 days of "Kursk" 121 Soviet tanks and assault guns were total losses per day.

Soviet operational practice was to avoid Pz equipped units in planning offensives because they caused considerable casualties to there own tank equipped units...

German practice was to counter attack Soviet armour offensives and penetrations with there best Anti-tank units, the Panzer/StuG Divs and Tiger battalions...

Italy Panthers examined by PRO teams= no Panthers were lost to frontal penetrations, no Panthers lost to 6pdr/57mm penetrations, the Panthers knocked out by “guns” exhibited 7,5cm holes aka tank guns not antitank….

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

[]This may be true for those particular operations, but we are looking at all fronts/battles during the whole of World War II. Pure Armor vs Armor battles of the scale such as the Kursk salient were never seen before, or since. [/QB]

Tank deployment/losses tend to surprise surprise take place during major operations and axis of advances.

[Caronte]

It seem a question difficult to answer. For germans I agree with any gun above 75 mm and long enough (for me is not so important if towed or not: Panthers and Tigers seem usually used as mobile-long support AT guns).

For the soviets, I mean tactics used in Kursk, and I get the answer about the probably omst worthly soviet tank buster: a combination of terrain, AT mines, hidden ATs, CAS and guns above 85 mm.

But no one says nothing about the Iosef Stalin juggernauts? I know it was ready only at the final act, but at least at CMBB it seems the most lethal soviet tank, if being used correctly and with experienced crew.

Panzerscherk are very knocking when they attack by surprise and get several tanks in a minute (I suffered it right yesterday ). But only under special circumstances.

Pointing out about the 20 mm airplanes guns: It is not only a matter of ammo diameter, but also of kynetic energy: bullets falling at a very high speed could be probably deathly for most of the engine or fuel depot protection.

But also rockets! Plz don't miss the lovely Typhoon!

[tabpub]

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

[]This may be true for those particular operations, but we are looking at all fronts/battles during the whole of World War II. Pure Armor vs Armor battles of the scale such as the Kursk salient were never seen before, or since.

Tank deployment/losses tend to surprise surprise take place during major operations and axis of advances. [/QB]</font>

[Gaylord Focker]

Originally posted by Bastables:

Soviet operational practice was to avoid Pz equipped units in planning offensives because they caused considerable casualties to there own tank equipped units...

Was this more exception than rule though? Soviet Practice did not remain the same from beginning to end, nor did other Allied doctrines such as the British and Americans for example.

Also worth noting was the competitions going on for the "prize" of Berlin which created so much recklessness on the part of the Soviets that Russians were firing on Russians at times!

German practice was to counter attack Soviet armor offensives and penetrations with there best Anti-tank units, the Panzer/StuG Divs and Tiger battalions...

Tiger I production numbers go as follows....

1942 - 82

1943 - 644

1944 - 623

1945 - 0

Tiger 2 production from 1944-45 totaled a meager 489. Fuel not included.

While i do not debate the effectiveness of the Tiger tank, i do debate their vigilance on the front. The truth is that the Tiger was not prowling the battlefield when ever and where ever it was needed.

Italy Panthers examined by PRO teams= no Panthers were lost to frontal penetrations, no Panthers lost to 6pdr/57mm penetrations, the Panthers knocked out by “guns” exhibited 7,5cm holes aka tank guns not antitank….

Just because no Panthers were lost to frontal penetrations in Italy does not mean the tank was invulnerable to such guns as the 57mm. The Panther is well armored up front, but the sides and rear or the tank are armored no better than an up armored Mk III. I do believe with such smaller anti tank guns or any gun for that matter, flank shots would be encouraged.

The Panther was produced in greater numbers than the Tiger, but the Eastern Front alone was very large and again the Panther could simply not be in kill zone position whenever a Soviet Tank platoon was spotted.

Also not every single Panther was located on the Eastern or Italian Front, like the German Armed Forces as a whole itself these heavy tanks(Panther was classified Medium by the Germans) were spread thin.

Armor wise the real workhorse for the Germans would be the Mark IV series panzer. Equipped later with the long '75 this tank was not only dangerous, but more importantly to the Germans more common on the battlefield performing it's job that it was designed to do.

Also remember that we are talking of the entire war on all fronts with all doctrines and under all leaders. My vote still goes to the '88 flak/atg variants, and or Pak40, though you may be on to something with the Stug III/IV series.

[ August 25, 2003, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

[SgtMuhammed]

For the Axis my vote might actually have to go to the PzIII. It was the primary battle tank of the Wehrmacht for the first 3 years of the war, at a time when they were killing thousands of Soviet and British tanks in the east and in North Africa. Considering its length of service and its service during the "good times" it probably deserves consideration.

Of course much the same could be said for the PzIV. After all it was the only tank to be produced during the entire war and fought everywhere.

[Gaylord Focker]

Originally posted by tabpub:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

[]This may be true for those particular operations, but we are looking at all fronts/battles during the whole of World War II. Pure Armor vs Armor battles of the scale such as the Kursk salient were never seen before, or since.

Tank deployment/losses tend to surprise surprise take place during major operations and axis of advances. </font>

[Gaylord Focker]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

For the Axis my vote might actually have to go to the PzIII. It was the primary battle tank of the Wehrmacht for the first 3 years of the war, at a time when they were killing thousands of Soviet and British tanks in the east and in North Africa. Considering its length of service and its service during the "good times" it probably deserves consideration.

Of course much the same could be said for the PzIV. After all it was the only tank to be produced during the entire war and fought everywhere.

The Panzer III had a hard time of it in North Africa though at times(Matilda II etc) and the not uncommon withdrawal of German armor was covered by Anti Tank Guns lines which often stopped Allied counter attacks for Rommel.

[ August 25, 2003, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

[Gaylord Focker]

The Panzer IV did serve from the beginning to end, but remember that it's origin is from an anti-infantry tank in which it was used for at the start and later only up gunned out of necessity that the Panzer III (designated anti-armor role) had hit it's ceiling in upgrades.

I believe it was Guderian who came up with the idea of having the Panzer III used for armor on armor engagements and the Panzer IV was to be used in the anti-infantry role.

[General Bolt]

I'm not sure what could have been the best tank buster. I do remember playing the AH game Tobruck. I can't wait to try CMAK 88 in the desert busting Cromwells, Churchills, and Grants.

[Jarmo]

Well the "most succesful tank buster" would have to be Hans Rudel.

Rudel flew 2,530 missions. He is accredited for knocking out 500 tanks, 800 other military vehicles, 70 landing craft, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 4 armored trains, and an unknown but significantly large number of anti-aircraft guns and artillery pieces. He was shot down more than 30 times by enemy forces. He was directly involved in 6 rescue missions to save members of his own squadron from imprisonment. His official medal, the highest in all of Germany, was officially designated as: “Golden Oak Wreaths with Swords and Diamonds top the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross.”

Read the story here!

I've no doubt the kill claims are bloated, but it should still beat the crap out of most Stug commanders.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

]Just because no Panthers were lost to frontal penetrations in Italy does not mean the tank was invulnerable to such guns as the 57mm. The Panther is well armored up front, but the sides and rear or the tank are armored no better than an up armored Mk III. I do believe with such smaller anti tank guns or any gun for that matter, flank shots would be encouraged.

[/QB]

I think you missed the point that none of the Panthers killed and examined in Italy were killed by Anti tank Guns, but were instead killed by sherman class guns.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Was this more exception than rule though? Soviet Practice did not remain the same from beginning to end, nor did other Allied doctrines such as the British and Americans for example.

[/QB]

Any proof that the Soviets judged Pz/StuGs so poor at killing their armour that they were a planning irrelevancy? Or are you just throwing out unsubstantiated musing in order to confuse?

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Tiger I production numbers go as follows....

1942 - 82

1943 - 644

1944 - 623

1945 - 0

Tiger 2 production from 1944-45 totaled a meager 489. Fuel not included.

While i do not debate the effectiveness of the Tiger tank, i do debate their vigilance on the front. The truth is that the Tiger was not prowling the battlefield when ever and where ever it was needed.

[/QB]

The Advent of German heavy and upgraded armour during Kursk was so shocking to Soviet tank units that the T-34-85 and JS series were developed because the T-34s and KV had faired so poorly in tank to tank clashes. No reference was made to the much larger/effective ubiquitous PaKs/FlaKs because the weapon that caused the most damage was the "new" Panzers, not the PaKs and FlaKs.

[ August 27, 2003, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

The Panther was produced in greater numbers than the Tiger, but the Eastern Front alone was very large and again the Panther could simply not be in kill zone position whenever a Soviet Tank platoon was spotted.

[/QB]

Irrelevent as you'd have to make stuff up to show that the Soviets lost most of their tanks in the previously unheard of reprise of the British WWI "savage rabbits" deployment aka penny packet deployment.

The German attacks/defence/counter attacks only have to be around Soviet tank deployments to kill them and take the lion share of kills.

Even during the Kamenewo 41 combat resulted in 18 T-34s/KVs (8 KVs) destroyed in exchange 10 Pz’s, two 8,8s one 10cm gun and 1 10,5cm howitzer battery. The 88s destroyed 2 Soviet tanks, the 10cm gun destroyed 3 and the 10,5cm battery destroyed 2.

German undergunned/underarmoured panzers scored over 50% of the tank kills. The Soviet T-34 and KV accounted for 100% of dead Panzers and Guns. Here the German Guns should have killed the lion share of Soviet AFV because the Panzers needed 500m and sub500m hits on restricted angles and aspects of the Soviet tanks. Compared with the complete vulnerability of T-34s and KVs even a kilometre away to the big German guns.

[ August 27, 2003, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Bastables]

German Tank kill claims Normandy june 29

Pz= all Panzers, Jadgpanzer and StuG

PaK includes FlaK

17 SS

Pz (8)

PaK (5)

352 ID

Pz (21)

PaK (42)

2 PzD

Panther Battalion only (89 in four days of combat)

PaK (15)

130 PzD Lehr

Pz (103)

PaK (7)

12 SS

Pz (105)

PaK (16)

21 PzD

Pz 52

PaK 41

The Report credits the "Close combat weapons" claims as the second only to "Panzer/StuGs" as the main killer of Allied tanks at 20%, higher than PaKs/FlaK. Panzers/StuGs accounted for over 50% in genral and 70% in Pz divisions (2000 Zetterling pg73-74)

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by DingoBreath:

I can't wait to try CMAK 88 in the desert busting Cromwells, Churchills, and Grants.

I hate to break your heart, ol' buddy, but the Cromwell never made it to the desert. It came along long after the desert fighting was over.

There will, however, be lots of nice Valentines and Matildas you can open up (I do not mention Crusaders as it's almost a waste of ammo to use an 88 on them. They were prey even to the short 50mm.)

Michael

[Bastables]

Originally posted by DingoBreath:

I'm not sure what could have been the best tank buster. I do remember playing the AH game Tobruck. I can't wait to try CMAK 88 in the desert busting Cromwells, Churchills, and Grants.

This is one of the exceptions of Panzers/StuGs claming the lion share of enemy tanks destroyed and only in a limited manner in the Matilda II. There are a host of variables that have to come into play, that the Matilda II was essentially impervious to the 4,7 and 5cm guns of the Panzers and StuGs and perhaps the most important point; the Matildas along with other British tanks in the desert went into action without HE rounds for their 2pdr guns. Meaning that they were on a hiding to nothing when duelling with towed guns.

When the same doctrine was tried versus 7,62cm armed T-34s and KVs sporting HE shells, von Langermannn in the aftermath of 1941 Kamenewo in a report noted "Combating the Russian tanks with 8,8cm FlaK or 10cm guns can never by themselves be sufficient. Both guns are ponderous in comparison to the fast tanks and in most cases are already spotted, taken under fire and destroyed as they try to get into firing position." (1996 Jentz).

The same thing happened in the desert with the arrival of HE chucking 7,5cm guns of the Grants and Sherman?s, the FlaKs and PaKs lost their previous ascendancy. 1944 Normandy was a terrible FlaK hunting ground verus the allied 7,5cm armed tanks and tight artillery support, here the FlaK accounted for less than 5% of German claims of destroyed allied tanks.

Flakkampfgruppen of III Flak-korp in Normandy for instance lost 35 8,8cm guns and 70 leFlak in exchange for 20 allied tanks (2000 Zetterling pg 153).

[ August 27, 2003, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

The Panzer IV did serve from the beginning to end, but remember that it's origin is from an anti-infantry tank in which it was used for at the start and later only up gunned out of necessity that the Panzer III (designated anti-armor role) had hit it's ceiling in upgrades.

I believe it was Guderian who came up with the idea of having the Panzer III used for armor on armor engagements and the Panzer IV was to be used in the anti-infantry role.

I am pretty sure that you don't know what you're talking about.

Guderian in drawing up the proposal of the support Panzer "BW" to equip the medium coys of the Panzer battalions required a dual purpose weapon that would also enable it hold it's own in tank to tank combat and engage targets that the lighter PIII/ZW Panzer could not. Remembering that the 7,5cm kurz gun had better AP performance than the 3,7cm KwK. (1993 Spielberger).

[ August 27, 2003, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]