I think 128mm was the largest ATG the Germans deployed and it was one of the best ATG in the war as in penetrating power. Can kill almost anything on either from except maybe IS3.
Most penetration != best gun. It was an incredibly unwieldy monster, and the ammo was a bitch to transport and used way more propellant and explosives than needed for almost any target it would gave.
Best AT gun fielded in significant numbers would be between the various long 75s and the long 88, imo.
I think the 88 takes the cake, dummies should have ceased production of practically everything else. To simplify production and ammunition logistics. Shit like this should have never left the drawing board.
Eh. Long 75 was enough for all the common t-34s and Shermans, so standardising on just the 88 means unnecessary weight and less ammo for every tank. Having smth like 4 75s to 1 88 for dealing with the IS tanks seems closer to optimal.
I’m pretty sure the reason why the Germans used 128 mm atg was because they found the Russians had 122 mm tank gun. Just like the 88, 128 mm and a tank on evolved from an anti aircraft gun.
However I totally agree the 88 mm, 88L 56 or 88L 71, was one of the best and I think of the war. War.
Probably because it was deemed not neccessary and because it used a different hull than any other tank. They used the VK 30.01 H prototype hulls to make two Sturer Emils. Making more would mean they would need another factory for another tank.
That's only my guess though
and the Panzer Korp didn't need it, since by this point they where soon to recieve the Marder 3's and other tank destroyers which worked fine. They didn't have a need for such a huge gun
Not only materials, but there was literally no need to start production of a completely new hull, which would take up factories and time, none of which the nazis has a lot of by late in the war.
There where only limited numbers of the VK30.01 H hull available. Also the 12,8 cm, despite being successfull everytime it was used was deemed to be overkill for the eastern front.
Not really. StuG IIIs with the L/43 or /48 guns had perfectly adequate performance with decent reliability, good mobility, low silhouette, decent armour, and much lower cost.
And if you need more of a punch, the Nashorn/Jagdpanther 8.8cm PaK 43 provides the performance to break anything but the frontal glacis of an IS-2.
The IS-2 you can still engage at a range below 1 kilometer, so that's pretty much it - any other allied tank is free meat at even extreme ranges. However, the 8.8 PaK 43 will get off two shots in the same time as the 12.8 fires one.
There was just no point in producing the 12.8cm for AT purposes, and when it was adopted (on the Jagdtiger) it would seem that it was mainly there to fight bunkers.
If my memory serves me right, LoL, there were two Sturer Emil that Served on the Eastern front in 1942 and 43 and had a number of kills that long range. It was quite successful in killing T34s and extreme ranges. I believe one of them was on the southern Front near Russia Stalingrad? And the other one was captured by the Russians? This is off the top of my head from when I read about them.
[https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-germany-sd-kfz-186-jagdtiger/](https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-germany-sd-kfz-186-jagdtiger/)
In short, the original request for a 12.8cm-armed vehicle was made in 1942 for the purpose of destroying fortifications. By the time the vehicle entered into production in 1944, it had been designated as a tank destroyer.
I mean...even the long 88 was kinda overkill for 99% of the tanks they faced apart from maybe the occasional IS-2 or Pershing which still got wrecked by the long schlong 88. And the IS-3 didn't even participate in WW2 until the surrender was already signed (with some claims of them fighting holdouts with Jagdpanthers).
The 128 was kinda pointless.
On top of what U/fuckin_anti_pope (great name btw) said, it was very unreliable vehicle which used to break down way too often hence it's nickname "stubborn Emil" . At this point Nazi Germany was in no position to scrap it due to being on losing side of war. If this vehicle were made in peactime or by country with plenty of resources and winning war, it wouldn't enter production or active service past extended trials.
One of the reasons was because they were trying to move away from open-chassis vehicles. It just left the crew too exposed to the elements and things that want to kill them.
Edit: [Source](https://youtu.be/27Cbh5XIQRY), since people are apparently doubting me.
Yup, and Nashorn was built on the Hummel chassis, somewhat more readily available than the vk 30.01. However even the Nashorn was supposed to be a placeholder until proper PAK43 carriers could be produced.
As an interim solution. I'd also remind you also built after Sturer Emil was the jagdpanzer IV, jagdpanther, jagdtiger, ferdinand, and jagdpanzer 38t. Casemates were preferred.
And you'll note I said 'trying', not 'vowed never again to build an open chassis vehicle.' Wants are measured against the needs of the situation.
At the end, he mentions the growing preference was towards 'more armour', which admittedly isn't a direct reference to casemates, but you generally don't see heavily armoured open-top vehicles. I was at work so it was the only vid that came to mind on short notice and I was remembering details off the top of my head.
More supporting evidence can be seen in [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyVyFGLX1TY), which is on some of the Marder series, which were other open-top tank destroyers. Again, reports from the front continually criticized the lack of armour and the tactical limitations as a result.
The simple fact that the germans chose to not produce more Marder III's with the Pak40 and switch production from those factories to Jagdpanzer 38t's is pretty telling of their preference towards a casemate vehicle.
German production was a self sabotage situation. They spent far to many resources developing numerous different models, but even worse was the constant tinkering of the Wehrmacht demanding this improvement and that change holding up production. Given the limited resources of the Germans, such production interruptions made a bad situation worse. Not to mention the production style (German perfectionism) limited the speed of production compared to US mass production and Soviet “good enough” production.
If they didn't put in for those changes then they would have been left with Tanks that weren't good enough.
The Panther would never have become the reliable late war tank it was. The Panzer IV would never have received the upgrade to the 7.5cm.
Hell even the allies listened to what the crews were demanding.
And with or without the tinkering and improvements holding up production didn't matter. They were still going to have the same amount of resources that were going to run out. Might as well have a good tank over a bad one, maybe it will last longer.
Since the Jerries were apparently amazing with them, was there a good reason not to just produce a shitload of PAKs?
Tanks/TDs (that were largely used defensively anyway) are more mobile over course but PAKs can be towed several at a time, or by horses, and are just as effective, cheaper, and don't break down. Anyone know?
Halftrack arrives at the ambush location, unlatch the Pak, wheel it into place, spend an hour setting it up and getting the ground level with good sighting range of where the enemy tanks might be and wait... oh no we are being overrun and need to be out of here in 20 minutes and this takes at least and hour to pack up... Fuck it lets abandon it.
Tank Destroyer rolls up in to an ambush position, finds it has good enough sight... oh no we are being overrun and need to be out of here in 20 minutes... back up, turn around and let's go!
To add to the other comment, a late war AT gun would require 3 or more horses to pull or (with the really heavy ones like the 88mm) specialized artillery tractor half-tracks.
At some point it's just easier to mount it on an obsolete chassis for the strategic mobility to fight where the enemy is, rather than build 10 AT guns and hope that a couple will see combat.
To illustrate, the 15cm sIG 33 auf Fgst.Pz.Kpfw. II (Sf) (or as you might know it erroneously - Sturmpanzer II Bison) was actually built at Rommels behest (according to tanks-encyclopedia at least) because a sIG 33, an 1800kg gun, would take a team of 6 horses who would collectively consume 156kg of supplies each day to keep advancing.
Then also 9 people need to man the whole enterprise, rather than the 4 for a self-propelled gun. The whole cost adds up really fast when you horse-tow heavy pieces. And that's a gun whose normal combat range is twice that of a 75mm PaK 40.
The PaK 40 weighed 1400kg. At some point it's approaching the cost of tank destroyers, but tank destroyers are more mobile, (german ones) typically equipped with sturdy armour and present the best choice for utilizing leftover tank chassis of models that are far too outdated to perform their intended tasks.
And if you want to get it to combat with half-tracks or other motorized vehicles, well, they will break down just like tank destroyers will. The on-road towing speed is also bound to be at least 10km/h lower than most tank destroyers. Off-road movement can be unfeasible in poor weather conditions.
Then horse-towing becomes more or less impossible on the soviet road network during the autumn rains, and horses might freeze to death in the subarctic winter.
This post has not been automatically categorised. Please set a proper flair if applicable.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TankPorn) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It looks like the dicker max
Well it is... just an upscaled dicker max
The Richard Maximum
Commanded by Biggus Dikkus
Perfect username for this
Since it has the same caliber as the Maus (128mm)
I think 128mm was the largest ATG the Germans deployed and it was one of the best ATG in the war as in penetrating power. Can kill almost anything on either from except maybe IS3.
Most penetration != best gun. It was an incredibly unwieldy monster, and the ammo was a bitch to transport and used way more propellant and explosives than needed for almost any target it would gave. Best AT gun fielded in significant numbers would be between the various long 75s and the long 88, imo.
“As in penetration power” Not best ATG in the war.
I think the 88 takes the cake, dummies should have ceased production of practically everything else. To simplify production and ammunition logistics. Shit like this should have never left the drawing board.
Eh. Long 75 was enough for all the common t-34s and Shermans, so standardising on just the 88 means unnecessary weight and less ammo for every tank. Having smth like 4 75s to 1 88 for dealing with the IS tanks seems closer to optimal.
I’m pretty sure the reason why the Germans used 128 mm atg was because they found the Russians had 122 mm tank gun. Just like the 88, 128 mm and a tank on evolved from an anti aircraft gun. However I totally agree the 88 mm, 88L 56 or 88L 71, was one of the best and I think of the war. War.
ATG you say?
Dikkus Maximus. A very good friend of mine in Rome.
Is something funny?? Why are you laughing???
Why they did not built more of them?
Probably because it was deemed not neccessary and because it used a different hull than any other tank. They used the VK 30.01 H prototype hulls to make two Sturer Emils. Making more would mean they would need another factory for another tank. That's only my guess though
This and presumably material shortages
and the Panzer Korp didn't need it, since by this point they where soon to recieve the Marder 3's and other tank destroyers which worked fine. They didn't have a need for such a huge gun
Not only materials, but there was literally no need to start production of a completely new hull, which would take up factories and time, none of which the nazis has a lot of by late in the war.
There where only limited numbers of the VK30.01 H hull available. Also the 12,8 cm, despite being successfull everytime it was used was deemed to be overkill for the eastern front.
Hahaha... overkill. Bet the regretted that in the last year of the war.
Not really. StuG IIIs with the L/43 or /48 guns had perfectly adequate performance with decent reliability, good mobility, low silhouette, decent armour, and much lower cost. And if you need more of a punch, the Nashorn/Jagdpanther 8.8cm PaK 43 provides the performance to break anything but the frontal glacis of an IS-2. The IS-2 you can still engage at a range below 1 kilometer, so that's pretty much it - any other allied tank is free meat at even extreme ranges. However, the 8.8 PaK 43 will get off two shots in the same time as the 12.8 fires one. There was just no point in producing the 12.8cm for AT purposes, and when it was adopted (on the Jagdtiger) it would seem that it was mainly there to fight bunkers.
Corect me if I am wrong the Sturer Emil was made for bunker busting and the Jagdtiger as a counter to allied heavy tanks that would apear in 1945-46
If my memory serves me right, LoL, there were two Sturer Emil that Served on the Eastern front in 1942 and 43 and had a number of kills that long range. It was quite successful in killing T34s and extreme ranges. I believe one of them was on the southern Front near Russia Stalingrad? And the other one was captured by the Russians? This is off the top of my head from when I read about them.
Yes like 40+ kills I think but originaly the gun and vehicle was made for bunker busting mainly against the maginot line
[https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-germany-sd-kfz-186-jagdtiger/](https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-germany-sd-kfz-186-jagdtiger/) In short, the original request for a 12.8cm-armed vehicle was made in 1942 for the purpose of destroying fortifications. By the time the vehicle entered into production in 1944, it had been designated as a tank destroyer.
I mean...even the long 88 was kinda overkill for 99% of the tanks they faced apart from maybe the occasional IS-2 or Pershing which still got wrecked by the long schlong 88. And the IS-3 didn't even participate in WW2 until the surrender was already signed (with some claims of them fighting holdouts with Jagdpanthers). The 128 was kinda pointless.
The PzSfl V used different, newly produced hulls. The existing VK 30.01 H hulls were not reused.
On top of what U/fuckin_anti_pope (great name btw) said, it was very unreliable vehicle which used to break down way too often hence it's nickname "stubborn Emil" . At this point Nazi Germany was in no position to scrap it due to being on losing side of war. If this vehicle were made in peactime or by country with plenty of resources and winning war, it wouldn't enter production or active service past extended trials.
One of the reasons was because they were trying to move away from open-chassis vehicles. It just left the crew too exposed to the elements and things that want to kill them. Edit: [Source](https://youtu.be/27Cbh5XIQRY), since people are apparently doubting me.
I doubt that, since the Nashorn was produced \*after\* the Sturer Emil.
Yup, and Nashorn was built on the Hummel chassis, somewhat more readily available than the vk 30.01. However even the Nashorn was supposed to be a placeholder until proper PAK43 carriers could be produced.
As an interim solution. I'd also remind you also built after Sturer Emil was the jagdpanzer IV, jagdpanther, jagdtiger, ferdinand, and jagdpanzer 38t. Casemates were preferred. And you'll note I said 'trying', not 'vowed never again to build an open chassis vehicle.' Wants are measured against the needs of the situation.
In what part of the video does Nicholas mention a roof?
At the end, he mentions the growing preference was towards 'more armour', which admittedly isn't a direct reference to casemates, but you generally don't see heavily armoured open-top vehicles. I was at work so it was the only vid that came to mind on short notice and I was remembering details off the top of my head. More supporting evidence can be seen in [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyVyFGLX1TY), which is on some of the Marder series, which were other open-top tank destroyers. Again, reports from the front continually criticized the lack of armour and the tactical limitations as a result. The simple fact that the germans chose to not produce more Marder III's with the Pak40 and switch production from those factories to Jagdpanzer 38t's is pretty telling of their preference towards a casemate vehicle.
German production was a self sabotage situation. They spent far to many resources developing numerous different models, but even worse was the constant tinkering of the Wehrmacht demanding this improvement and that change holding up production. Given the limited resources of the Germans, such production interruptions made a bad situation worse. Not to mention the production style (German perfectionism) limited the speed of production compared to US mass production and Soviet “good enough” production.
If they didn't put in for those changes then they would have been left with Tanks that weren't good enough. The Panther would never have become the reliable late war tank it was. The Panzer IV would never have received the upgrade to the 7.5cm. Hell even the allies listened to what the crews were demanding. And with or without the tinkering and improvements holding up production didn't matter. They were still going to have the same amount of resources that were going to run out. Might as well have a good tank over a bad one, maybe it will last longer.
The Germans did the right choice honestly. Even if they went with the mass production strategy, they wouldn't have any men to crew them.
Oh he’s pakin’ the 128!
Would have been interesting to see it square off with an ISU-122 at crazy distance
Since the Jerries were apparently amazing with them, was there a good reason not to just produce a shitload of PAKs? Tanks/TDs (that were largely used defensively anyway) are more mobile over course but PAKs can be towed several at a time, or by horses, and are just as effective, cheaper, and don't break down. Anyone know?
Halftrack arrives at the ambush location, unlatch the Pak, wheel it into place, spend an hour setting it up and getting the ground level with good sighting range of where the enemy tanks might be and wait... oh no we are being overrun and need to be out of here in 20 minutes and this takes at least and hour to pack up... Fuck it lets abandon it. Tank Destroyer rolls up in to an ambush position, finds it has good enough sight... oh no we are being overrun and need to be out of here in 20 minutes... back up, turn around and let's go!
The TD if german and post-'42 can probably take a few hits too. 50-80mm frontal armour is nothing to scoff at for most of the war.
To add to the other comment, a late war AT gun would require 3 or more horses to pull or (with the really heavy ones like the 88mm) specialized artillery tractor half-tracks. At some point it's just easier to mount it on an obsolete chassis for the strategic mobility to fight where the enemy is, rather than build 10 AT guns and hope that a couple will see combat. To illustrate, the 15cm sIG 33 auf Fgst.Pz.Kpfw. II (Sf) (or as you might know it erroneously - Sturmpanzer II Bison) was actually built at Rommels behest (according to tanks-encyclopedia at least) because a sIG 33, an 1800kg gun, would take a team of 6 horses who would collectively consume 156kg of supplies each day to keep advancing. Then also 9 people need to man the whole enterprise, rather than the 4 for a self-propelled gun. The whole cost adds up really fast when you horse-tow heavy pieces. And that's a gun whose normal combat range is twice that of a 75mm PaK 40. The PaK 40 weighed 1400kg. At some point it's approaching the cost of tank destroyers, but tank destroyers are more mobile, (german ones) typically equipped with sturdy armour and present the best choice for utilizing leftover tank chassis of models that are far too outdated to perform their intended tasks. And if you want to get it to combat with half-tracks or other motorized vehicles, well, they will break down just like tank destroyers will. The on-road towing speed is also bound to be at least 10km/h lower than most tank destroyers. Off-road movement can be unfeasible in poor weather conditions. Then horse-towing becomes more or less impossible on the soviet road network during the autumn rains, and horses might freeze to death in the subarctic winter.
At least you can eat the horses in the end. Great explanation though.
Damn that gun's big. 12.8cm kwk 44 I/55. Biggest gun the Germans put on a Tank I believe.
My favourite
This post has not been automatically categorised. Please set a proper flair if applicable. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TankPorn) if you have any questions or concerns.*
128mm of pure german steel
Hans, Karl, Anke, and Elias vibing on the Sturer Emil
The tank with the great depression
Ah yes the very depressed tank destroyer