Most powerful tank of WWII

stikpusher

Oh no, weapon size alone is a terrible criteria with which to judge an AFV. That was why I responded as such to the KV-2. You have to look at the "triangle" of AFV basic requirement features- firepower, protection, and mobility, as well as automotive reliability, production ease or difficulty, and doctrine for use.

 

I don't have the stats in front of me, but I thought the 88 mm had a better penetration then the Russian 122mm?

Oh no, weapon size alone is a terrible criteria with which to judge an AFV. That was why I responded as such to the KV-2. You have to look at the "triangle" of AFV basic requirement features- firepower, protection, and mobility, as well as automotive reliability, production ease or difficulty, and doctrine for use.

The Sturmtiger wasn't a tank, nor intended for tank-tank combat. It was designed to level the blocks of the Warsaw ghetto by taking down the buildings with its massive artillery mortar. The ISU-152 on the other hand, WAS an actual "tank destroyer" and its gun was formidable.

If everyone's judging this based upon gun size, you have to look beyond the rather banal definition of "tank" per se and include tank destroyers like the ISU and Jagd-series AFVs.

I'm still supportive of Tamiya's statement.

I don't think the Doorknocker is an AFV, is it?

My father was in an M40 unit in the Guard in 50-52. I have one of those in the stash, plus some decent photos.

Yeah but the KV-2 was a POS with a poorly balanced overweight turret and overly high silhouette. The M12 GMC with a 155mm gun was far mor effective in the same role of direct fire, even though it was far more exposed. Even the M4 105mm was a far more successful design than the KV-2.

While the IS-2's 122mm gun had great blast effect and throw weight due to its' large projectile, other late war tank guns such as the 17pdr, KwK 43, and 90mm M3 had better armor piercing ballistics, especially at longer ranges. Not to mention a higher rate of fire.

So if we set the definition of tank as a self propelled vehicle with tracks and a turret the biggest calibre i can think of is on the KV-2 which in some cases had a 152mm howitzer. Thats the biggest gun, best penetration on a tank as per the definition I think would be the IS-2 which had a 122mm gun

Phil

I may be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that the Jagdtigers on the western front where never taken out by allied tanks.  They were either destroy by aircraft or by the crews.

Marcus McBean

The gun on the Jagdtiger was so powerful that even if the shell did not penetrate the armor the shockwave from the explosion would injury or kill the crew.  At the end of the war the allies did not have a weapon that could prenetrate its frontal armor.  

 

That's funny that you mention that. They said about +/- 90 were produced but most had to be abandoned due to mechanical and maintanence issues. Not surprised there as the Germans over engineered damn near everything they made. It didn't state that any were left behind because they got taken out in combat, and no surprise, it had 250mm of frontal armor and 80mm side armor. The allies had nothing whatsoever that could penetrate that front armor and they would need their more potent weapons to punch through the side I'm assuming. Geesh, that thing was a monster. 

It sounds like Tamiya used the term AFV, not tank.

Yup... it's a large slow rocket propelled round with a serious punch good for an area target. It needed all that armor to get it close enough to destroy a point target.

I think the projectile on the Sturmtiger was more like a Scud, just fire it and it will explode somewhere downrange.

I doubt if the Sturmtiger have the accuracy to hit any moving or standing tank unless it got really close to it. 

Well, neither the Jagdtiger, nor the Sturmtiger are tanks. They are AFVs, and each was designed for a seperate role.

The Jagdtiger took a heavy anti aircraft gun mounted on a heavily armored chassis in a fixed superstructure with limited traverse, for use as a long range heavy precision fire defensive weapon. According to Cornelius Ryan's "The Last Battle", some were even equipped with night vision gear during the Battle of the Oder. It was underpowered, overweight, not particularly mobile, and if well sited in proper position and terrain could do some serious damage in the defense.

The Sturmtiger took a similar role in mounting a rocket propelled mortar, again in a fixed heavily armored superstructure mount with limited traverse. But it was a weapon designed primarily to smash defensive postions and was of limited use in defensive warfare. Which is usually what the Germans were fighting during the time that the Sturmtiger was in service. Aside of course from local counter attacks and use in situations like the Warsaw uprising. It was not quite so overweight and underpowered as the Jagdtiger, but its' designed role rarely existed on the battlefield.

Could well be. The Germans did field about 50 of them so it's a legit candidate. There are a couple of combat histories where they destroyed American armor.

The 152 was not a direct fire weapon and the ISU-152 never was an effective AT piece, more mobile artillery.

But I'd choose three P-47s with rockets any day.

If your looking at total penetration it would be the Strumtiger which fired a 380mm rocket shell and could penetrate 8 feet of reinforced concrete and I'm not sure any modern tank could do that. They made less than 20 on the Tiger chasis and it wasn't much use really as a tank but I bet when it rolled up it only had to fire once!

Phil

The gun on the Jagdtiger was so powerful that even if the shell did not penetrate the armor the shockwave from the explosion would injury or kill the crew.  At the end of the war the allies did not have a weapon that could prenetrate its frontal armor.