Most Powerful Tank of WW2

[Spartacus the Irish]

I have seen info. referring to 2 Super Pershings being in Europe, so 1 or 2. I never knew there was 1 Pershing on Iwo, that is interesting. Sorry, no links to data of 2 being in Europe, however I saw it on the web whether it was correct or not.

http://www.3ad.com/history/news/super.pershing.1.htm
The two elusive Super Pershings...

Only two Super Pershings were ever built, and the 3AD had the only one in the European Theater - an experimental version with its remarkably long barrel. Arriving very late in the war (March, 1945), it was field tested and modified inside Germany and subsequently saw about ten days of actual combat action, beginning several days after the Battle of Paderborn and ending with the Battle of Dessau on the Elbe River.

A combat experience - against a PzKpfw VI Ausf. B 'King Tiger'.

At this distance, easily within its capability, the Tiger fired at the Super Pershing. But its infamous high-velocity 88mm shell, of the type that had destroyed so many American tanks and vehicles during the war, went high and was not even close. Gunner Cpl John "Jack" Irwin, only 18 years old, responded almost instantly with a round that struck the Tiger's huge angled glasis, or front plate. But the shot, a non-armor-piercing high explosive (HE) shell, had no effect. Ricocheting off the armor, it shot skyward and exploded harmlessly. The Super Pershing had been loaded with an HE only because Irwin had been expecting urban targets, such as buildings, personnel, and light anti-tank guns. "AP!", he shouted to his loader "Pete," which meant an armor-piercing shell would be next.

Maduri and crew then felt a concussion or thud on the turret. It was never known if this shot came from the Tiger, or from some other anti-tank weapon. In any case, no serious damage was done - probably a lucky glancing impact. In the next instant, Irwin aimed and fired a second time, just as the royal monster was moving forward and raising up over a pile of rubble. The 90mm AP round penetrated the Tiger's underbelly, apparently striking the ammo well and resulting in a tremendous explosion that blew its turret loose. With near certainty, the entire crew was killed.

The sources for the webarticle.

[Note: Sources include the book Spearhead in the West (1946 edition); the book Death Traps by Belton Cooper; and the book Another River, Another Town and personal writings byJohn P. Irwin.]

Obviously, being on the web, I cannot wholly confirm the veracity of this article or it's contents - so if anyone can come across these books, please confirm. But you cannot particularly take too much from a single engagement, especially as the Tiger only got one shot off, apparently. Even if the 'lucky glance' was from the Konigstiger, it cannot be verified, and thus it cannot be said that a Super Pershing did in fact survive an 88mm shell. One engagement does not maketh a tank great, no matter if it's opponent was a Konigstiger.

[czePowerslave]

Panther no doubt. Fast long 75mm gun, high rate of fire, sloped armour, mobile. Definitely my choice. When it came to static, Jagtiger pwnd EVERYTHING anyone could field at tremendous range.

[Tiwaz]

Everyone else mentions TD's such as Jagd Panther and Jagd Tiger etc. Tiwaz so ...

And they are tank destroyers without turret. Not exactly tanks.

Also, Pershings did see considerable action, all about 300 and some odd of them, comparable to the numeric value of about 480 or so King Tigers used in the war.

And this is dealt up there...

Also, the 122mm of the JS series was originally to be the better 100mm that was the forerunner of the 100mm used in the T-54/55 series.

But was not fitted with it.

Yes, the King Tiger had the most powerful gun. Well known and old fact. It's funny to see you get discomboobulated though since it is soooo important to you and your psyche.

Chris

Most powerful gun and heavy armour. 2 things that determine power of tank, ability to dish out pain and take it.

You can always drool about mobility, but if tank dies if someone even looks at it with nasty face it is not going to be saved by mobility. You need more than mere mobility to make succesful concept.

Just do math someday and check how different speed of high velocity AT-shot and tank cross country traverse is.

Difference in speed over shorter ranges simply is too great for tank speed to overcome. At long ranges you are still in bad position if your opponent can take potshots with impunity.

Trusting terrain to save your arse every time is flat out stupid. Enemy is not stupid either and set up their defences every time in such way that you have as much cover as possible. Quite the opposite if opponent can choose.

[czePowerslave]

1.And they are tank destroyers without turret. Not exactly tanks.
2.Most powerful gun and heavy armour. 2 things that determine power of tank, ability to dish out pain and take it.

3.You can always drool about mobility, but if tank dies if someone even looks at it with nasty face it is not going to be saved by mobility. You need more than mere mobility to make succesful concept.
Just do math someday and check how different speed of high velocity AT-shot and tank cross country traverse is.

4.Difference in speed over shorter ranges simply is too great for tank speed to overcome. At long ranges you are still in bad position if your opponent can take potshots with impunity.

5. Trusting terrain to save your arse every time is flat out stupid. Enemy is not stupid either and set up their defences every time in such way that you have as much cover as possible. Quite the opposite if opponent can choose.

1. still fielded and asskicking
2. What about the 122mm on mentioned Jadtiger?
3. Indeed. Bullet is faster then a tank. But shooting at moving target is generally difficult isnt it
4. Aim at the observer or try to take out the aim
5. LOL!

[Rapax]

Also, Pershings did see considerable action, all about 300 and some odd of them, comparable to the numeric value of about 480 or so King Tigers used in the war.

Yeah, as your own later research shows that wasn't the case at all. Tanks issued or in theatre do not equal having seen action.

[czePowerslave]

Yeah, as your own later research shows that wasn't the case at all. Tanks issued or in theatre do not equal having seen action.

depends if you take the thread name for tanks that seen action and acted in battles or just machines introduced into armies within the year span of WWII

[Frostwulf]

After reading the posts from Christof139, FarKenal and others it seems apparent to me that the KingTiger is #1 on the most powerful tank list.
1. It had the most penetration power with its 88mm KwK43 L/71.
2. Best overall armor protection.
3. Best targeting: optics/gun-being able to destroy opponents at range.
4. Rate of fire is an unknown to me, this probably belongs to another tank.

It seems 3 out of the 4 belong to the KingTiger and that would put it on top. Is there any disagreement with this?

[czePowerslave]

As long as you keep Jagtiger out, Königstiger is the best by far. I was also unable to find the rate of fire, but surely lower then the normal 88mm AA gun

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Except the Jagd Panther wan't a tank but rather a heavy Panzer Jaeger or TD.

That's merely a technicality.

OK, it didn't have a turret and was a TD, but I was talking in terms of AFV's in general.

[czePowerslave]

Well, then based on text and video information it would be most likely the toughest thing to field in WW II. HEaviest cannon and heaviest armor for production type vehicle. Frontal unpenetrable and capable of hitting almost at 3,5km makes I think even deadlier then KT II

[czePowerslave]

That's merely a technicality.

OK, it didn't have a turret and was a TD, but I was talking in terms of AFV's in general.

would the railguns and mortars, eventually Sturmtiger count in as well?

[AnthoniusII]

Stalin 3,122mm gun,exelent armor,remained in use until 1950!
Rare but exelent never the less!!

[czePowerslave]

Stalin 3,122mm gun,exelent armor,remained in use until 1950!
Rare but exelent never the less!!

Armor used on IS 3 and its design are truly very good and revolutionary for that time being. But JT would pwn it

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

would the railguns and mortars, eventually Sturmtiger count in as well?

I don't know! The Jagdpanther was capable of defeating most Allied tanks, if not all, and had a very good balance in mobility, firepower and protection, as I mentioned before. The Sturmtiger was more of an assault, SP gun, like the Stupa (or Brumbar), thus I doubt they were very effective against tanks of their generation. The Stupa had a 150mm sFH Howitzer, so it was certainly not, while the Sturmtiger had a rocket gun, and I read rockets were not very effective against armoured targets.

Edit: Correction, the gun in the Brumbar was a 15cm StuH43 L/12, based on the 15cm sIG 33 Infantry Gun and not on the 15cm sFH. It couldn't be counted as SP-Artillery, really.

[czePowerslave]

For STurmtiger
Primary
armament 380 mm RW61 L/5.4 rocket mortar

from what I saw on discovery a single shot could nearly vaporize a farm.
And about the mortars, I had in mind the four BIG ones, or the guns that needed to be transported and could fire only from railways.

Karl Mörser - 60cm o-o . I think head on hit on top of any tank would do the job

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

For STurmtiger
Primary
armament 380 mm RW61 L/5.4 rocket mortar

from what I saw on discovery a single shot could nearly vaporize a farm.
And about the mortars, I had in mind the four BIG ones, or the guns that needed to be transported and could fire only from railways.

Karl Mörser - 60cm o-o . I think head on hit on top of any tank would do the job

Or you could put the Dora railway gun too. But there were less than five.

The reason I chose the Jagdpanthers is that it had a good balance. It was not individually more powerful than, say, a Jagdtiger or even the Karl Moerser, but it had mobility, to quickly explore gaps and holes and to retreat when needed, protection and firepower in the 88mm KwK gun. Plus it could still hide well, while the Dora and other railway guns were made obsolete because they couldn't hide well (thus being easily detected and destroyed by aircrafts), were not practical or flexible and certainly not cost effective.

IIRC, the Sturmtiger was only produced in very small numbers, smaller than the Jagpanther.

[czePowerslave]

Indeed. Jagdpanther, being built on P V chasis had a great mobility, low profile and good punch, only lacking the Panzer turret. And still lacked defense from air attacks, but surely less then the mortars.

[Rapax]

depends if you take the thread name for tanks that seen action and acted in battles or just machines introduced into armies within the year span of WWII

No that wasn't the point at all. The Pershing did see action, but not in the numbers claimed which makes the claim that 300 Pershings saw action in WW2 simply wrong.

[czePowerslave]

No that wasn't the point at all. The Pershing did see action, but not in the numbers claimed which makes the claim that 300 Pershings saw action in WW2 simply wrong.

Then I understand the meaning. Sry for me being wrong

[christof139]

I never claimed 300 Pershings saw action, I claimed that 300 Pershings were in europe and actually it seems 310 actually were issued to the troops, and that means that if the war had went on for a slight bit more of time those 290 Pershings already issued to units would have been in action.

Don't say I said something I didn't. And it is quite possible that more than 20 did see combat. You just have to check with more detailed official US Army documents and some personnel that were there.

Chris