Battle of the tank Killers- M-10 Wolverine vs Jagdpanzer IV vs SU-85 Comparison

[zraver]

M-10 (Wolverine)
29 tons
3" M7 gun w/54 rounds 116mm penetration@1300m
.50 cal AAHMG
32 mph
57mm max armor
open top.

Plus- hard hitting traversing gun, good speed, parts interchangeability.
minus- open top, high silhouette

Jagdpanzer IV
26 tons
75mm/L48 w/55 rounds 92mm @ 1500m
7.62mm coax
80mm armor max
25mph

Plus- small profile, enclosed crew area, heavy frontal armor
Minus- no traverse, slow, nose heavy

SU-85
29 tons
85mm D-5T penetration 93mm@ 1500m
N/A
45mm armor max
34mph

Plus- fast, enclosed crew area, diesel powered
minus- no secondary armament, thing armor, larger profile, no gun traverse.

Three of the premier tank destroyers of WWII excluding the big gunned ones. Each reflects a different design philosophy. So who came closest to the ideal tank killer?

[chakos]

The SU-85 was only ever a useful weapon system until the T34-85 turned up in useful numbers, before that it made sense, after that it had no purpose. If used in a purely AT role and supported by infantry then i dont see the lack of a secondary armament as a huge an issue as the fact that it didn't need to be there outside of a 6 month period between its introduction and the introduction of the T34-85.

The Jagdpanzer IV was in my opinion an excellent vehicle in both design and doctrine. It made sense for Germany, at the time fighting a mainly defensive war to build a low profile, heavily armoured (frontally) tank killer with an excellent gun. The L/48 gun armed version was actually the minority version with approx 1.5 times as many L/70 armed versions. In my eyes the IV/70 (V) version with the long gun is (along with the hetzer and the jagdpanther) one of the best tank killers of the war.

The M10 in my mind is a doctrinal failure. It was nearly as big as a tank, looked like a tank, had the gun the Sherman SHOULD have had and bugger all armour. Put the gun in a Sherman and have a vehicle that could kill tanks as well as possibly take the odd return round, help in assaults and have far better resistance against artillery. The Jackson made far more sense, carrying a gun that a standard Sherman would have struggled with, it at least bought something new to the fight.

[USSWisconsin]

It wouldn't have taken much to correct the 2ndary armament on th SU85, a welder and a HMG pedestal mount. I was never very impressed with the M10, but the 75mm/L70 jadgpanzer was a potent machine. Overall, the SU85 would be my choice for the most powerful.

[chakos]

It wouldn't have taken much to correct the 2ndary armament on th SU85, a welder and a HMG pedestal mount. I was never very impressed with the M10, but the 75mm/L70 jadgpanzer was a potent machine. Overall, the SU85 would be my choice for the most powerful.

The Su-85 had a gun of similar power to the IV/L48 but was totally outclassed by the L70 gun. At short and medium ranges the L/70 was said to have better penetration than the 88mm.

Also the Germans at the time where the only belligerent to have a need for a mobile tank killer. The things generally sucked in offence, you would only build them because a)they can carry a bigger gun than a tank can or b) because your resources are low and you need as many tracks with guns as possible.

As i see it the M10 and the SU-85 ticked none of those boxes, the IV/L48 ticked one and the IV/L70 ticked 2 (yes some German tanks could carry the L70 and even the 88mm but the Mark IV could not).

Concur that the M10 wasn't an impressive piece of kit though.

[S2]

These were some pretty effective designs-





Probably the StuG III killed more tanks than any other non-tank self-propelled weapon in W.W.II

[USSWisconsin]

@ S2 The Jagdpather was one of my all time favorite designs.

@ Chakos, I believe the 85mm/52 had special APCR ammo (BR-365P) which enabled it to outperform the German 75mm/48, and it was a better DP assault gun, for bunker busting - it even had canister ammo. Later versions had 75mm front armor. It also had much better availability, there were more of them built.
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tan...yers/su-85.asp
http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/soviet_guns7.html

But the 75mm/L70 was still a better AT gun than the 85mm/52.
http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/german_guns5.html

The SU85 had a better engine and better speed, and its chassis was less stressed - the 75mm/70 jagdpanzer had some suspension problems (it needed steel rimmed road wheels in front, and these were not enough).

[ArtyEngineer]

The Jagdpanther just oozes a "Lethal Menace"!!! There is one at the Museum at Aberdeen Proving Ground, which sadly is just sitting outside rusting away :( I cannot imagine the carnage a platoon of these would have been capable off lying in wait in defilade all cam netted up just waiting for the Shermans to show up.

Arty

[zraver]

I think you guys are giving short shift to the m10. Of the three it is the oldest. When introduced in mid-1942 before the Tiger was known about, the M10 could outgun anything the German's had. In fact it outgunned anything anyone had on either side of the conflict. The Stug IIIF and PzIVf2 were just getting introduced with the 75mmL/43. So the claim it had the gun the Sherman should have had is I think unfair. The 75mm M3 was the equal of the 76.2mm F-34 gun of the T-34 and superior to the German 50mm/L60 and 75mm/L24 so the Sherman was equipped par for the course.

At the time the m10 was introduced the Russians used an underpowered 76.2mm, the Germans used a 47 or 50mm, the Italians used a 47mm and the British used a 57mm round for anti-tank work. The 3" M7 gun outperformed all of them. It also mounted heavier armor than any then existing dedicated tank destroyer. The Russians, British and Italians used portees at this time and Germany was re-arming old worn out pzI and II, captured French tanks and Pz 35/38 chassis. Only the m10 was built on a then current chassis.

The M10 was also faster and could traverse its gun. It was also intended as a rapid response force that could be deployed in front of advancing panzers. Something it could do much easier than the armies towed 37mm, 57mm and 3" AT gun battalions.

[zraver]

I Picked the jagdpanzer 75mm/L48 over the L/70 to keep gun power roughly comparable to better allow like vs like comparisons.

While I like the idea of a small target with a big gun and heavy armor. I am not sure it worked so well in practice. The slow speed of the track and the fact that it would be fighting outnumbered meant the inability to fight in all directions was a serious handicap it could not simply run away from. As the war ground onwards, Germany's need for an effective tank killer increased, but its ability keep those she had from getting cut off decreased.

This is a problem the SU-85 didn't really face. It could be more selective about a pure frontal only focus since the chances of it being flanked were slim. While it didn't really add anything once the T34/85 was introduced, the T-34/85 wasn't intended as an anti-tank weapon for rifle and motorized divisions.

[1979]

The SU-85 was only ever a useful weapon system until the T34-85 turned up in useful numbers, before that it made sense, after that it had no purpose. If used in a purely AT role and supported by infantry then i dont see the lack of a secondary armament as a huge an issue as the fact that it didn't need to be there outside of a 6 month period between its introduction and the introduction of the T34-85.

not sure about the su-85, but the majority of Russian su series, were used as mobile artillery.

edit to expand :
the mechanized corps ( soviet pzgrenadier div) had 3 mech bde,1 tank bde, 2 su regiments ( i call them battalions with 22 SU), 1 mortar reg ( 36 -120mm mortars ), 1 Guards Mortar Battalion ( 8 kathiusa launchers ).
the tank corps ( soviet panzer div.) had 3 tank bde, 1 mech bde, 2 su battalions with 22 SU each, 1 mortar reg ( 36 -120mm mortars ), 1 Guards Mortar Battalion ( 8 kathiusa launchers ).

basically the same role as wespe or hummel in german units, the AT capability was extra.

[gunnut]

My worthless opinion believes that Jagdpanzer IV would be the toughest in a defense campaign, when it could go hull down from an ambush position. My money would be on the M-10 if the campaign is offensive maneuver warfare.

[USSWisconsin]

The M10 was a potent TD, but its high silhouette in the AT role was a serious disadvantage, it had an edge with its turret, did it have a stabilized mount?

Reliability and availablity (number produced) were also very good.

M10 played a valuable role for over a year, until 76mm Shermans pretty much made it obsolete - they each fired ammo with the same projectiles and very similar specs. The Jackson was much more impressive and made more sense to me. Each of the AFV's clearly reflects the doctrine of the builder, and the relative situations they were in. The US TD doctrine did not seem to pan out, but yielded some good vehicles, the Hellcat and M36 being the best IMO.

[zraver]

not sure about the su-85, but the majority of Russian su series, were used as mobile artillery.

only in the direct fire role.

edit to expand :
the mechanized corps ( soviet pzgrenadier div) had 3 mech bde,1 tank bde, 2 su regiments ( i call them battalions with 22 SU), 1 mortar reg ( 36 -120mm mortars ), 1 Guards Mortar Battalion ( 8 kathiusa launchers ).
the tank corps ( soviet panzer div.) had 3 tank bde, 1 mech bde, 2 su battalions with 22 SU each, 1 mortar reg ( 36 -120mm mortars ), 1 Guards Mortar Battalion ( 8 kathiusa launchers ).

basically the same role as wespe or hummel in german units, the AT capability was extra.

Uhm no.... The SU-85 used an adapted AA gun with a max elevation of 20 degrees, 10 degrees less than the M10 and 22 degrees less than the Wespe which used the 105mm light field howitzer model 1935. I am unaware of any SU other than the SU-76 being used in an indirect role a belief shared by Zaloga. The SU-85/100/122/152 were intended for direct fire support and anti-armor missions not indirect fire.

[chakos]

While I like the idea of a small target with a big gun and heavy armor. I am not sure it worked so well in practice. The slow speed of the track and the fact that it would be fighting outnumbered meant the inability to fight in all directions was a serious handicap it could not simply run away from. As the war ground onwards, Germany's need for an effective tank killer increased, but its ability keep those she had from getting cut off decreased.

The Germans didnt seem to find it too big a problem except for right at the end of the war when they used anything with tracks as a tank. The MkIV was a defensive tank killer, the M10 offensive. Im all for speed in a vehicle but at the time fire control technology was not what it is today, ammunition technology neither. You couldnt guarantee that when you open fire from an ambush position that a) the round would hit or b) the round would kill the target even if it was technically adequate. At some point you would have to slug it out and in a situation like that you would much rather be in an AFV that could withstand some damage.

If you make the tactical error of allowing yourself to become outflanked then all bets are off. It means your AFV is in too much of an exposed position and the covering infantry either isnt there or isnt doing the job of covering your arse for you very effectively.

[zraver]

The Germans didnt seem to find it too big a problem except for right at the end of the war when they used anything with tracks as a tank.

Actually Guderian wanted production of tank destroyers except for the Stug III stopped in favor of more tanks. I think but am not sure the only reason he exempted the Stug III was to avoid a battle with the artillery branch who saw the Stug as its best and only chance to win iron crosses.

The MkIV was a defensive tank killer, the M10 offensive.

Not sure I buy this since the Stug IIIF with the 75mm/L43 shows up when German armies are rolling East through Russia. All follow on German tank destroyers except the marderseries and Nashhorn follow the same basic pattern of the Stug III assault gun.

Im all for speed in a vehicle but at the time fire control technology was not what it is today, ammunition technology neither. You couldnt guarantee that when you open fire from an ambush position that a) the round would hit or b) the round would kill the target even if it was technically adequate. At some point you would have to slug it out and in a situation like that you would much rather be in an AFV that could withstand some damage.

Despite that, the first shot is still likely the first kill since the attacker opens then engagement where thier gun is strongest. The M10 in 1942 was intended to do what the Panther tried to do in 43- act as a long range anti-tank sniper.

If you make the tactical error of allowing yourself to become outflanked then all bets are off. It means your AFV is in too much of an exposed position and the covering infantry either isnt there or isnt doing the job of covering your arse for you very effectively.

Not for the Germans, they were grossly outnumbered and subjected to Hitler. Take a look at the fate of .78 sturm div. It was arguably the strongest non-PzGdr/Pz division the Heer had. Its three infantry regiments were backed by extra artillery and 2 battalions of tank destroyers or assualt guns and it got wiped out in the 2 weeks from 22 June-4 July 1944.

Also look at those Panthers and Tigers the US did knock out with gunfire. The tactic would not be to outflank the big cats and related AFV's unless it was possible to do so. The Germans were so heavily outnumbered that outflanking was the norm. Compare Operation Cobra vs Watch on the Rhine, the US breakout from Normandy had twice the AFV density of the last great German attack.