@@nunyabusiness5075 Actually it was, thanks to huge explosive mass in it's shell and lack of resources in Germany, SU-152 was literally wracking German armor, including Tiger's. However, u are absolutely right, 'Tiger-killer' or 'Zveroboy' ( Something like animal hunter) was ISU-152.
Those top lists are not very useful to begin with since each of the nations had different needs when it came to weapon systems. And yes this channel seems to throw random data at the viewer with randomized outcome. :D Maybe they want to motivate viewers on purpose to have some more intense discussions in the comments. ;)
@@peters972 it's kill numbers were artificially inflated because it fought on the defensive against things that had absolutely no chance of killing it frontally, like the short gun m4. On the other side, it was a fucking nightmare to crew, maintain and just all around use. The engines would catch fire if it went up a slope, the transmission might as well have been made of glass with how often it broke. The only good thing about it was the armour and gun, everything was absolutely garbagio. From the near nonexistent speed to the terrible hull traverse, the garbage internal workings and on top of all that made with shitty rushed 1945 steel out of factories that have been bombed to high hell.
@@loneneotank.5687 its put on the top 10 list because of how iconic it is. It is iconic for being heavily designed useless piece of garbage that breaks down every 5 seconfds.
@@Aunggyi257 M-10 gunners would aim at the gun mantle. It was a shot trap. The shell could ricochet off the round gun mantle and down on the thin upper hull armor by the driver and radio operator. It didn’t work all the time and the Germans built a lip at the bottom of the gun mantle on the late G models to fix that issue. The 17 pounder and the American 90mm was the Allies answer to the big cats.
JagdTiger were soo good that most of them were lost due technical problems, and Panthers were pretty low amount produced and like Ferdinands that were produced only 91
And destroy 320 enemy tanks during Kursk and losing only 13 ferdinand. What a crap tank :\ Until 1943 november the 89 ferdinand destroyed: 582 tank, 103 tank destroyer, 133 arty and 344 AT guns. The remained 50 Ferdinand was sent back to Germany for rebuild/maintence and they modified them to Elefant Tank Destroyer.
@@rolandhunter Which was even worst because that's just make them heavier for a tank that already had troubles propelling himself.The number is that high because they just put them somewhere , fire at everything moving and when they ran out of ammo, they tried to back off and broke the engine because that how 90% of them were lost. Stats and number aren't all. Pros: Gun and armor Cons: Everything else
@@yamato3894 During the war 90 ferdinand destroyed 700 tank from Kursk until the end of the war. That is 7.7 tank/ferdinand. That's not bad. By the way:"The electric motors also acted as the vehicle's steering unit. This "petrol-electrical" drive delivered 0.11 km/l (909 litres/100 km or 0.26 MPG) off-road and 0.15 km/l (667 litres/100 km or 0.35 MPG) on road at a maximum speed of 10 km/h off-road and 30 km/h on road. In addition to this high fuel consumption and poor performance, the vehicle was maintenance-intensive; the sprockets needed to be changed every 500 - 900km.[5] Porsche had experience of this form of petrol-electric transmission extending back to 1901, when he designed a car that used it. " Source: wikipedia/Ferdinand and Elefant Tank Destroyer by Thomas Anderson p.43 and p.158 500-900 km for this overweighted ,WW2 tank absolutely not bad, compared to other 60+ tonnes tanks in that time.
Post Kursk (when ALL armour types suffered against prepared defensive positions) the Ferdinand proved a very effective tank destroyer in the defensive fighting of the Dnieper River bend of late 1943. Many served on through 1944 after being revamped into the Ferdinand and even into 1945 with some making it back to Berlin. They had a very long service life for WW2 standards. The myth that they were failures is just that.... a myth. Overall they justified being transformed from a wasted dead end project into a deadly tank destroyer.
SU 152 and Stug - the best self-propelled guns, tank destroyers! There's not even anything to argue about. Every day I like this channel less and less. And nothing that the yacht panthers and tigers broke from every sneeze? Their percentage of non-combat losses was huge. This is the most powerful failure in the tank construction of the Second World War.
Looks like they even do not recognize that there were ISU-152 and ISU-122 - same concept as SU-152 but on a more advanced chassis - IS tank, not a KV. Both SU-152 and ISU-152 (and ISU-122) were called "Zveroboy" (as a name for a flower Saint-John's-wort in russian language) which means in russian "Beast (animal) hunter or killer" because they was initially not supposed to fight any tanks but were deadly powerful when Soviets strike all those German "tank-animals" with those SPGs even with not anti-tank shells. Oh, and Germans called those steel Soviet beasts as "can opener" (and German tanks were those cans..).
Chieftains myths still alive? The french postwar panthers had that problem, WW2s are not: According to an oral statement from H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654 (currently in Grafenwöhr) Jagdpanther with modified lateral transmission gears (Leutnant Rosenfelder) travelled 400 - 500 km without suffering any damage. However, a great tension has been detected in the sprockets. - Der General Inspekteur der Panzertruppen Nr. 3706/44 g.Kdos. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#Reliability ruclips.net/video/RfyF3m3RjyU/видео.html
@Mateus Stocki Are you sure? "It mounted a 152 mm gun-howitzer on the chassis of a KV-1S heavy tank. Later production used an IS tank chassis and was re-designated ISU-152. Because of its adopted role as an impromptu heavy tank destroyer, capable of knocking out the heaviest German armoured vehicles-Tiger and Panther tanks, and Elefant tank destroyers-it was nicknamed Zveroboy ("Beast Slayer").["
@Mateus Stocki Yeah, you are right: "The ISU-152 could also operate as an effective heavy tank destroyer. Though it was not designed for the role, the vehicle inherited the nickname Zveroboy ("beast killer") from its predecessor, the SU-152, for its ability to reliably kill the best protected German fighting vehicles; the Panther tank, the Tiger and Tiger II tanks, and even the rarely fielded Elefant and Jagdtiger tank destroyers.The sheer weight of the 152.4 mm shells resulted in an extremely low rate of fire, only one to three rounds per minute, and were not as accurate at long range as high-velocity tank and anti-tank guns. However, the massive blast effect from the heavy high-explosive warhead was capable of blowing the turret completely off a Tiger tank. A direct hit usually destroyed or damaged the target's tracks and suspension, immobilizing it." "The ISU-152 was not a true purpose-built tank destroyer. It had a very low rate of fire compared with specialised tank destroyers such as the German Jagdpanther or the Soviet SU-100, which could manage a brief burst of five to eight rounds per minute. However, prior to the introduction of the SU-100 it was the only Soviet armored vehicle capable of tackling the German heavy tanks with any kind of reliability, and its ability to satisfy multiple roles meant it was produced in far greater numbers than the SU-100. Attention to camouflage, quick relocation between firing positions, and massed ambushes of four or five vehicles firing in salvo at a single target's flanks reduced the disadvantage of the low rate of fire. " So yes, I was wrong. Sorry.
Su-152 and Isu-152 wasn't a tank destroyer. They was use like a arty tank. To shoting through bunkenrs. If they had luck could they hit a tank. If they hit the enemy tank and the enemy tank will be gone
JagdPanther "Fast Mobile Panther Platform". Quietly leaves out the part about it lasting only 150km before needing a new gearbox. While most other tank destroyers didn't even need to fuel up at 150km, the JP needed a new gearbox. If that was not a logistical and strategical nightmare, I don't know what was.
Did you know Jadpanther is actually have better reliability from the original Panther series, because it have some major upgrade that make it less complicated and easier to repair
Chieftains myths still alive? The french postwar panthers had that problem, WW2s are not: According to an oral statement from H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654 (currently in Grafenwöhr) Jagdpanther with modified lateral transmission gears (Leutnant Rosenfelder) travelled 400 - 500 km without suffering any damage. However, a great tension has been detected in the sprockets. - Der General Inspekteur der Panzertruppen Nr. 3706/44 g.Kdos. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#Reliability ruclips.net/video/RfyF3m3RjyU/видео.html
Elefant mass produced? They had under 100 surplus Porsche tiger hulls that they needed to do something with, and so decided to make a vehicle that already had an overtaxed power train even heavier...
Just in number of kills: STuG III -> common figure is approximately 30000 tank kills. If true that would make it the most deadly tank killer vehicle of all time.
@@lurkingturkey7882 - Actually, "Hetzer" was a stopgap when main StuG factory was bombed. Skodawerks, tasked with making up the production, had no crane that would handle StuGIII weight, so lighter Hetzer was designed to fit their cranes...
@@coachhannah2403 Yes I have heard that before into a doco- Military History not visualized I think it was. Nevertheless it wasn't a great vehicle by any measure. Still it was better than nothing and could do some damage, if used correctly. Even its mere presence was surely moral boosting to infantry. For all that though it certainly wasn't as effective as the STuG3. While they shared a common weapon- the Pak39- the ergonomics of the hezter were not so good and impeded the function/performance of its crew.
The fact that the Ferdinand/elephant was on the list is kinda sad. It was extremely underpowered and when traveling the engines would blow up. Out of the 90 units built during the battle of kursk about half of them were lost due to engine failure or actually combat
That thing was a total disaster, did little to nothing and I couldn't agree with you more... Additionally, SU-152 was not a TD; it was a self-propelled howitzer! Doesn't mean it never fired a shot at a tank, but it is not a TD and shouldn't be on the list. I mean, look - you can clearly see the howitzer in the photo, not an anti-tank gun!
Sherman wasn’t good per say, it just was in infinite supply lol. It’s like the T-34. Pretty bad from a tank perspective but mass producible. The 76 W versions were good and jumbo was good
IS-2 is not classed as a heavy tank too. But rather a breakthrew tank (not the same for the USSR army) altho the gun was too powerful to knock out any german heavy. But that was occasional and not its objective
Totally agree with Jagpanther Hetzer, and Stug 3 being on the list, although I would have rated the Jagtiger and Elefant much lower or not even included them at all. I would have replaced them with the Jagpanzer 4 and the Achilles. Also I would have put the su-100 higher, as it was finally a vehicle that could take on the big German cats at Long range.
That was true.. if im not mistaken germany has the best tank in world war 2 followed by russian legendary t34... american tanks in world war war are just easy target for german tanks.. but in this channel they make it in no. 2 spot.. funny... 😁😁😁
@@zosimoromero3475 You two armchair generals ignore any and all strategic aspects. The Sherman for example was the easiest and quickest to maintain tank during WW2 which made it a highly dependable vehicle. And as a commander, what would you prefer? A very heavyly armored vehicle witgh a supertb gun and optics thats waiting for spares and takes ages to repair, or a tank that you can actually field in numbers? And in regards to the M18: a tank destroyer is an ambush vehicle. Fire and run, no matter if youre in a Marder I, a Stug III or a Jagdpanzer IV. And the M18 is, due to its turret and very high mobility, superior in that aspect. And again, very high strategic readyness. But i agree in one point with you: This list is a joke, simply for listing the Jagdtiger in the Top 10. That thing was as useful as a Kampfpanzer VII Maus.
Su-100 is the best tank destroyer of the world war II. It's on T-34-85 platform with the most powerful long 100 mm anti-tank gun of WW2. Unlike other models it took active part in almost all war conflicts after WW2, in 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s. It's still in service in some armies of the world.
You are correct, sir. Because it used a chassis based off the T34, it had the benefit of being economical to produce. The 100mm gun was so good, the Chinese were producing it for new tanks in the late 1970s.
The Jageranther was on defense for its entire career It was less mechanically reliable than the panther, those flaws never became an issue because it's life expectancy wasn't long enough for it to become an issue
Bruh best dosent mean powerful Jagdtiger was very good on paper. But was flawed in every way. It even hade to recalibrate its main hun everytime it moves. And if its about the firepower. The ISU-152 will be second if not first. Besides the 152mm is not a howitzer. Its velocity is comparable to the shermans 75mm and T-34s 76mm guns
I can tell you missed a lot of criteria in this evaluation. Putting a JagdTiger on the list proves it. Too heavy, too unreliable, too hard to hide. Oversized guns only mean that it will destroy anything but that does not make a successful design. If a 75mm was able to do the job, then that was a good design. A 100mm is not since it is wasteful of resources. None of the US tank destroyers were that successful. Part of it was that the US was on the offensive, and a tank destroyer is a defensive weapon. An important consideration is cost. If the tank destroyer does not save you much on cost, just use a tank. And it you lose on tank desrroyer for every 10 tank destroyed, but your tank destroyer costs as much as 5 of the tanks you destroy, you are not really doing well. Generally the Hetzer has to be considered high up there because it is cheap, uses minimum resources, light, small, and the long 75mm gun does the job, and STUG III is also a great design for the same reasons. You do not save much over a tank with the US tank destroyers.
The US TDs were extremely good, killing almost everything they would face. The Jagdpanzer 38T “Hetzer” was shit. It was cheap but it was a death sentence to the crew
Even in games as well they take it out. I’m even unsure if you can use Waffen SS in games. Just the way the world is. The world goes on about how evil the Nazis were, but Stalins Russia was worse.
@@kenneththebruce it acutally is not illegal to use it in an artistic context or for the sake of dokumentatries. (I am German ;) ) When they shot Valkyrie they plastered Berlin with Swastikas (see www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/valkyrie-dreh-in-berlin-jetzt-mit-bendlerblock-fotostrecke-24807.html ) And when it doubt its mor precies to use the German flag and replace the Swastica with an Iron Cross wich (at least in my opinion) is more fitting
Just countin off some inaccuracies i saw (Probably got something wrong with what i said so, yeah. I tend to go on about this sorta stuff) - The M10 you had shown was an Achilles, a British modification outfitted with a 17 Pound gun. However the gun listed in it's specs does appear to be correct. - The M18 Hellcat had a 76.2mm M1A1, not a 71mm. Most likely a typo, but still warrants being mentioned - Some of the SU-152 footage you showed was of the ISU - 152, a late war modification of the IS Series fitted with the same cannon as the SU, and later in i believe the 70's was upgunned as part of a project but never saw any use - The M36 Jackson had a 90mm M3. Not a 93mm. Also a typo probably, but still should be said. - Just wanted to throw this out there, since the video doesn't seem to have been clear on this; The Jagdpanzer 38 or Hetzer was built off of the Czech 38 light tank, as a later-war attempt at reducing the cost of producing vehicles as at the time Nazi Germany did not have the supplies to mass produce larger tanks The rest i decided to overlook as i'm not the smartest when it comes to other things I.E German cannons.
- субъективно: перечислены 75мм и 88мм германские пушки на разных шасси, впарены нахрапом американские САУ и всколзь где-то сзади советские - ну и рейтинг - по типу нравится-не нравится!! очень субъективно!! Например орудие Д10с калибром 100мм/56 пробивало броню Тигра или Пантеры с 1500м независимо от точи попадания а впоследствии ещё лет двадцать пять под индексом Д10т служило на самых массовых танках от Т-54 до Т-55А!!
Тут ещё такая штука, не указаны цена таких вундервафель и количество произведённых машин. Хорошая машина здесь и сейчас лучше вундервафли, которая сломалась по дороге. А советские машины были хорошими. Именно поэтому они были лучшими.
Ну что ты хочешь от американского канала? Конечно же штатовские 76мм пукалки на шасси М4 - самые лучшие ))) Я даже удивлен, что не весь топ-5 в звездно-полосатой расцветке. А свалить в одну кучу штурмовые орудия и протиотанковые самоходки - отдельная песня. И нахрена нужны мощность двигателя и дальность хода, если важнее бронепробитие и дальность прямого выстрела?
@@thebuzz4108 the Weimar and BRD National Flag are completely wrong in this instance though. the 3rd Reich used the Black, White Red Tricolore with modifications of the German Empire, Hakenkreuz-Flag and modified Imperial Warflags from the German Empire for the Navy.
There's a whole lot of similarity between the Jagdpanther and the SU 100. The basic operation is very similar. I have heard of SU 100s being used in the Syrian war
Tigger is a character in the Winnie the Pooh children's series. A Tiger is a big, orange and black striped cat that is found in India. It's what some German tanks were nicknamed. Not Tigger.
The Elefant? Are you mental? The thing was a complete waste of resources, would get bogged down and break down regularly, this shouldn't even be on this list.
SU-152 destroying everything that exists within the radius of the projectile's flight: - Well, yes, well, yes. F*ck me. Бред полный! And nothing that the yacht panthers and tigers broke from every sneeze? Their percentage of non-combat losses was huge. This is the most powerful failure in the tank construction of the Second World War.
20k? you sure? i would reduce this amount at least 3 times smaller. How germans counted kills? command just say: we killed 5 tanks today, and it counted no one check, in USSR were other problem you should prove that you destroyed enemy vehicles, and use friendly troops like witness, or better show destoyed vehicle, and still it could happend that it won't be counted, so you can increase soviet kills at least like 1.5x or even more
Trucks, AFV and tanks had racks on them to launch a barage of rockets . They were for an artillery area bombardment role. The only missile (guided rocket) i know of is the V1/V2 and they were not mounted on combat vehicels.
Your M.10 is actually an Achilles, which was an M.10 adapted with a British 17pdr gun, which served in Anglo-Canadian divisions in North-West Europe. US M.10s had a 76mm gun, were far more numerous on the battlefield and were very effective tank destroyers. It's a shame you didn't mention the Jpz IV, with its 75mm L70 gun and low profile. I would have mentioned the Jpz IV over the Stug III, which was not designed as a dedicated tank destroyer, but rather as an infantry support weapon. Other than my minor comments, a great video. Please keep them coming!
Су-152 превосходит ВСЕ представленные ПТ по ПРОБИТИЮ, все, кроме кота по скорости. Гарантированно пробивал все существующие танки того периода, в Ираке даже Абрамсу досталось так, что пришлось бросить. И вы ставите его на 9 место? Смешно
@@magnum6763 actually... "when the Ferdinand did work, it was very good. It was arguably the most successful AFV of the entire war, with an average 10:1 kill to loss ratio" so you see...the elephant being an updated version of the ferdinand was a quite capable tank destroyer.
James Ricker Combat history? Well post Kursk (when ALL armour types suffered against prepared defensive positions) the Ferdinand proved a very effective tank destroyer in the defensive fighting of the Dnieper River bend of late 1943. Many served on through 1944 after being revamped into the Ferdinand and even into 1945 with some making it back to Berlin. They had a very long service life for WW2 standards. The myth that they were failures is just that.... a myth. Overall they justified being transformed from a wasted dead end project into a deadly tank destroyer.
I really like your list, however one problem. When you showed the M10 at the #6 position you weren't showing the American M10 which was called the "Wolverine" in all your photos you showed the British "Achilles" which was using a M10 Body, however it was using the 17 pdr. as it's Main Cannon which was also used in the Sherman Firefly.
Well, the Hungarian Zrínyi 43M wasnt a typical tank destroyer, but it has the highest survive rate number from all tanks and tank destroyers during the war. Survive rate number counted on tank to tank engagement, in avarage King Tiger has the second highest rating, around 7.6 enemy tanks or TD's destroyed before a unit lost. Zrínyi surpass this number with the 7.9 rating.
Jagdtiger and Ferdinand shouldn't even make a place in a top 50. Aesthetically the Jagdpanther is a def 1st place but the combat capabilities were quite limited by production numbers and technical difficulty.
This is just taking popular web WW2 tank killer vehicles and totally disregarding their actual effectiveness while just sting some wiki stuffs with a google translate type voice. Totally shitz!
@@harmdallmeyer6449 in Greatest Tank Battles the narrator said the Stug destroyed 20,000 soviet tanks. That must mean the stug destroyed even more, up to no more than 30,000.
She keeps saying hositzer, but these guns are not howitzers. Howitzers fire at a high trajectory while tank destroyers have a flat trajectory. make sme wonder how much else they got wrong on this.
Putting the Su-152 anead of the Su-100 Someone didn't do their homework The Ferdinand should not be on the list it was mechanically unreliable even by German standards. It was a last ditch weapon made when Germany was on the offensive, it was not fast enough to escape if it didn't win it was dead
I think this channel gathers its “facts” from the stereotype of Hollywood and Computer games?
Yes, that SU-152 Soviet assault gun was definitely a "tigger" killer (2:06). LOL
@@nunyabusiness5075 Actually it was, thanks to huge explosive mass in it's shell and lack of resources in Germany, SU-152 was literally wracking German armor, including Tiger's. However, u are absolutely right, 'Tiger-killer' or 'Zveroboy' ( Something like animal hunter) was ISU-152.
Those top lists are not very useful to begin with since each of the nations had different needs when it came to weapon systems.
And yes this channel seems to throw random data at the viewer with randomized outcome. :D Maybe they want to motivate viewers on purpose to have some more intense discussions in the comments. ;)
I heard the elephant did not actually do well
@@peters972 it's kill numbers were artificially inflated because it fought on the defensive against things that had absolutely no chance of killing it frontally, like the short gun m4. On the other side, it was a fucking nightmare to crew, maintain and just all around use. The engines would catch fire if it went up a slope, the transmission might as well have been made of glass with how often it broke. The only good thing about it was the armour and gun, everything was absolutely garbagio. From the near nonexistent speed to the terrible hull traverse, the garbage internal workings and on top of all that made with shitty rushed 1945 steel out of factories that have been bombed to high hell.
These people obviously don't know what they're talking about considering they put the Ferdinand on a top ten list
that thing is trash.
there are 20 min videos explaining how bad it is on the internet.
idk where did they gather this
"Now advance!"
"Sorry commander the engine caught fire again"
@@heenthousiast383 they searched up "ww2 tank destroyers" and just made a list
I can even smell the smoke coming from the failing engine.. I can hear cries of there being absolutely no gun traverse or deppression.
@@loneneotank.5687 its put on the top 10 list because of how iconic it is. It is iconic for being heavily designed useless piece of garbage that breaks down every 5 seconfds.
Your M-10 is a British M-10 with a 17 pounder gun called Archilles.
Yes right m10 can't destroy tiger1 and panther directly
@@Aunggyi257 M-10 gunners would aim at the gun mantle. It was a shot trap. The shell could ricochet off the round gun mantle and down on the thin upper hull armor by the driver and radio operator. It didn’t work all the time and the Germans built a lip at the bottom of the gun mantle on the late G models to fix that issue. The 17 pounder and the American 90mm was the Allies answer to the big cats.
*Achilles
I actually watched the video just because the thumbnail, where I was confused... M10 with 17 pounder? Then it's an Achilles.
@@IronWarrior86 no no, it's archiles he's quite specific about it
Lol
JagdTiger were soo good that most of them were lost due technical problems, and Panthers were pretty low amount produced and like Ferdinands that were produced only 91
Less than that because some of the Porsche hulls were used as recovery veichles and as a regular tiger
@@casematecardinal it is official data
@@tsugumorihoney2288 sorry, my mistake. I forgot about the preproduction hulls
@@casematecardinal i ve read that at least 2 tigers of porshe were used like they were originally built
@@tsugumorihoney2288 well you have the original protype and the single comqnd veichle
I heard that Winnie sobbed uncontrollably when he heard his best friend was taken out by an SU-152.
lol
I laughed twice; nice comment. After this video I will be picturing Winnie as Sgt. Schulz regularly.
If pronounced in German, it does sound more like tigger.
@@rucussing … and if this video was posted in German, I’d be as silent as a mouse fart.
@@Richaag When an item is German, I pronounce it like it was originally intended. Not an English version.
The fact the ferdinand/elefant is here is just a meme 😂 you have a tank that sets itself on fire at number 8 hahaha
Another channel talks about the ferdinand and they have a picture of one ferdinand being taken out by a flying panzer III
And destroy 320 enemy tanks during Kursk and losing only 13 ferdinand. What a crap tank :\
Until 1943 november the 89 ferdinand destroyed: 582 tank, 103 tank destroyer, 133 arty and 344 AT guns.
The remained 50 Ferdinand was sent back to Germany for rebuild/maintence and they modified them to Elefant Tank Destroyer.
@@rolandhunter Which was even worst because that's just make them heavier for a tank that already had troubles propelling himself.The number is that high because they just put them somewhere , fire at everything moving and when they ran out of ammo, they tried to back off and broke the engine because that how 90% of them were lost. Stats and number aren't all. Pros: Gun and armor Cons: Everything else
@@yamato3894 During the war 90 ferdinand destroyed 700 tank from Kursk until the end of the war. That is 7.7 tank/ferdinand.
That's not bad.
By the way:"The electric motors also acted as the vehicle's steering unit. This "petrol-electrical" drive delivered 0.11 km/l (909 litres/100 km or 0.26 MPG) off-road and 0.15 km/l (667 litres/100 km or 0.35 MPG) on road at a maximum speed of 10 km/h off-road and 30 km/h on road. In addition to this high fuel consumption and poor performance, the vehicle was maintenance-intensive; the sprockets needed to be changed every 500 - 900km.[5] Porsche had experience of this form of petrol-electric transmission extending back to 1901, when he designed a car that used it. "
Source: wikipedia/Ferdinand and Elefant Tank Destroyer by Thomas Anderson p.43 and p.158
500-900 km for this overweighted ,WW2 tank absolutely not bad, compared to other 60+ tonnes tanks in that time.
Post Kursk (when ALL armour types suffered against prepared defensive positions) the Ferdinand proved a very effective tank destroyer in the defensive fighting of the Dnieper River bend of late 1943. Many served on through 1944 after being revamped into the Ferdinand and even into 1945 with some making it back to Berlin.
They had a very long service life for WW2 standards.
The myth that they were failures is just that.... a myth. Overall they justified being transformed from a wasted dead end project into a deadly tank destroyer.
SU 152 and Stug - the best self-propelled guns, tank destroyers! There's not even anything to argue about.
Every day I like this channel less and less.
And nothing that the yacht panthers and tigers broke from every sneeze? Their percentage of non-combat losses was huge. This is the most powerful failure in the tank construction of the Second World War.
Looks like they even do not recognize that there were ISU-152 and ISU-122 - same concept as SU-152 but on a more advanced chassis - IS tank, not a KV. Both SU-152 and ISU-152 (and ISU-122) were called "Zveroboy" (as a name for a flower Saint-John's-wort
in russian language) which means in russian "Beast (animal) hunter or killer" because they was initially not supposed to fight any tanks but were deadly powerful when Soviets strike all those German "tank-animals" with those SPGs even with not anti-tank shells. Oh, and Germans called those steel Soviet beasts as "can opener" (and German tanks were those cans..).
Chieftains myths still alive?
The french postwar panthers had that problem, WW2s are not:
According to an oral statement from H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654 (currently in Grafenwöhr) Jagdpanther with modified lateral transmission gears (Leutnant Rosenfelder) travelled 400 - 500 km without suffering any damage. However, a great tension has been detected in the sprockets.
- Der General Inspekteur der Panzertruppen Nr. 3706/44 g.Kdos.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#Reliability
ruclips.net/video/RfyF3m3RjyU/видео.html
@Mateus Stocki Are you sure?
"It mounted a 152 mm gun-howitzer on the chassis of a KV-1S heavy tank. Later production used an IS tank chassis and was re-designated ISU-152. Because of its adopted role as an impromptu heavy tank destroyer, capable of knocking out the heaviest German armoured vehicles-Tiger and Panther tanks, and Elefant tank destroyers-it was nicknamed Zveroboy ("Beast Slayer").["
@Mateus Stocki Yeah, you are right:
"The ISU-152 could also operate as an effective heavy tank destroyer. Though it was not designed for the role, the vehicle inherited the nickname Zveroboy ("beast killer") from its predecessor, the SU-152, for its ability to reliably kill the best protected German fighting vehicles; the Panther tank, the Tiger and Tiger II tanks, and even the rarely fielded Elefant and Jagdtiger tank destroyers.The sheer weight of the 152.4 mm shells resulted in an extremely low rate of fire, only one to three rounds per minute, and were not as accurate at long range as high-velocity tank and anti-tank guns. However, the massive blast effect from the heavy high-explosive warhead was capable of blowing the turret completely off a Tiger tank. A direct hit usually destroyed or damaged the target's tracks and suspension, immobilizing it."
"The ISU-152 was not a true purpose-built tank destroyer. It had a very low rate of fire compared with specialised tank destroyers such as the German Jagdpanther or the Soviet SU-100, which could manage a brief burst of five to eight rounds per minute. However, prior to the introduction of the SU-100 it was the only Soviet armored vehicle capable of tackling the German heavy tanks with any kind of reliability, and its ability to satisfy multiple roles meant it was produced in far greater numbers than the SU-100. Attention to camouflage, quick relocation between firing positions, and massed ambushes of four or five vehicles firing in salvo at a single target's flanks reduced the disadvantage of the low rate of fire. "
So yes, I was wrong. Sorry.
Su-152 and Isu-152 wasn't a tank destroyer. They was use like a arty tank. To shoting through bunkenrs. If they had luck could they hit a tank. If they hit the enemy tank and the enemy tank will be gone
JagdPanther "Fast Mobile Panther Platform". Quietly leaves out the part about it lasting only 150km before needing a new gearbox. While most other tank destroyers didn't even need to fuel up at 150km, the JP needed a new gearbox. If that was not a logistical and strategical nightmare, I don't know what was.
In 1945 that was not a problem
It usually did not survive long enough to need a new gearbox
Usually didn't have 150km worth of fuel in it, anyway.
Did you know Jadpanther is actually have better reliability from the original Panther series, because it have some major upgrade that make it less complicated and easier to repair
What you are talking applies to the Jagdtiger not the JPanther...
Chieftains myths still alive?
The french postwar panthers had that problem, WW2s are not:
According to an oral statement from H.Pz.Jg.Abt. 654 (currently in Grafenwöhr) Jagdpanther with modified lateral transmission gears (Leutnant Rosenfelder) travelled 400 - 500 km without suffering any damage. However, a great tension has been detected in the sprockets.
- Der General Inspekteur der Panzertruppen Nr. 3706/44 g.Kdos.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#Reliability
ruclips.net/video/RfyF3m3RjyU/видео.html
Elefant mass produced? They had under 100 surplus Porsche tiger hulls that they needed to do something with, and so decided to make a vehicle that already had an overtaxed power train even heavier...
Just in number of kills: STuG III -> common figure is approximately 30000 tank kills. If true that would make it the most deadly tank killer vehicle of all time.
Ranking Hetzer above Stug III-> whomever did this has no idea. Hetzer was a poorer vehicle than the STuG III in almost every respect.
Hetzer was a literal death trap lol. There was no escape
@@lurkingturkey7882 - Actually, "Hetzer" was a stopgap when main StuG factory was bombed. Skodawerks, tasked with making up the production, had no crane that would handle StuGIII weight, so lighter Hetzer was designed to fit their cranes...
if you know how germans counted kills you can make like 30000:5 at least
@@coachhannah2403 Yes I have heard that before into a doco- Military History not visualized I think it was. Nevertheless it wasn't a great vehicle by any measure. Still it was better than nothing and could do some damage, if used correctly. Even its mere presence was surely moral boosting to infantry. For all that though it certainly wasn't as effective as the STuG3. While they shared a common weapon- the Pak39- the ergonomics of the hezter were not so good and impeded the function/performance of its crew.
The fact that the Ferdinand/elephant was on the list is kinda sad. It was extremely underpowered and when traveling the engines would blow up. Out of the 90 units built during the battle of kursk about half of them were lost due to engine failure or actually combat
That thing was a total disaster, did little to nothing and I couldn't agree with you more... Additionally, SU-152 was not a TD; it was a self-propelled howitzer! Doesn't mean it never fired a shot at a tank, but it is not a TD and shouldn't be on the list. I mean, look - you can clearly see the howitzer in the photo, not an anti-tank gun!
If you want to know more about the Ferdinand/elephant check out potential history's video on the td
TANK SHERMAN IS FAIL JAJAJAAJAJAJAJ
Yea, most German casemates were shit. To heavy or just to big. Only the Sturmgeshutz 3 was good
Sherman wasn’t good per say, it just was in infinite supply lol. It’s like the T-34. Pretty bad from a tank perspective but mass producible. The 76 W versions were good and jumbo was good
You mislabeled the m18 having a 71 mm cannon rather than a 76 cannon which it had, also, the jackson had a 90 mill cannon not a 93 mill cannon.
The elephant was a successful mass produced anti tank or something like that... only 91 were made.
One could argue that the SU-152 is not even a tank destroyer but an assault gun meant to destroy fortifications
Sometimes encountered German tanks in built-up areas
In the Russians really did not like German tanks
IS-2 is not classed as a heavy tank too. But rather a breakthrew tank (not the same for the USSR army) altho the gun was too powerful to knock out any german heavy. But that was occasional and not its objective
@@lostinthesauce6409isn't the tiger 1 also a break trough tank?
Totally agree with Jagpanther Hetzer, and Stug 3 being on the list, although I would have rated the Jagtiger and Elefant much lower or not even included them at all. I would have replaced them with the Jagpanzer 4 and the Achilles. Also I would have put the su-100 higher, as it was finally a vehicle that could take on the big German cats at Long range.
I couldn't agree more
Hetzer was decent, but a deathtrap
I read somewhere that the "Tigger" tank was always paired with the fearsome "Winnie the pooh" self propelled gun.
😂😂😂
The wonderful thing about Tigger, is Tiggers a wonderful thing!
Hahahaha, an American tank destroyer in the 2nd place. Lol. This channel is not even being subtle about keeping the Americans happy.
That was true.. if im not mistaken germany has the best tank in world war 2 followed by russian legendary t34... american tanks in world war war are just easy target for german tanks.. but in this channel they make it in no. 2 spot.. funny... 😁😁😁
@@zosimoromero3475 You two armchair generals ignore any and all strategic aspects.
The Sherman for example was the easiest and quickest to maintain tank during WW2 which made it a highly dependable vehicle.
And as a commander, what would you prefer? A very heavyly armored vehicle witgh a supertb gun and optics thats waiting for spares and takes ages to repair, or a tank that you can actually field in numbers?
And in regards to the M18: a tank destroyer is an ambush vehicle. Fire and run, no matter if youre in a Marder I, a Stug III or a Jagdpanzer IV. And the M18 is, due to its turret and very high mobility, superior in that aspect. And again, very high strategic readyness.
But i agree in one point with you: This list is a joke, simply for listing the Jagdtiger in the Top 10. That thing was as useful as a Kampfpanzer VII Maus.
@@schwarziex3563 just anti Americans.
Obviously you were not paying attention. It was made plain at the start that this was not a ranking.
USA GAYS JEJEJEJEEJ
Number 09 awesome looking Zveroboy love it
Su-100 is the best tank destroyer of the world war II. It's on T-34-85 platform with the most powerful long 100 mm anti-tank gun of WW2. Unlike other models it took active part in almost all war conflicts after WW2, in 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s. It's still in service in some armies of the world.
You are correct, sir. Because it used a chassis based off the T34, it had the benefit of being economical to produce. The 100mm gun was so good, the Chinese were producing it for new tanks in the late 1970s.
бред ни чего не имеющий с реальностью.
I can agree about the Jagdpanther but I woul put SU 100 second and the Jagdpanzer third
The Jageranther was on defense for its entire career
It was less mechanically reliable than the panther, those flaws never became an issue because it's life expectancy wasn't long enough for it to become an issue
Yeah sure, even because it’s hard to imagine a turret less veichle going on the offensive
It could knock out "TIGGER"?... I'm done already! Please get an editor! This is ludicrous!
Probably that was a joke. Tiger in Russian sounds exactly like that: 'tigger'.
And in German it sounds 'tiggah' as well, if you think about it. So why do you think this is ludicrous?
@@Freeliner75 Except this narration is supposed to be English.
Лучший истребитель танков СУ100. А истребитель всего ИСУ152.
ну их очень мало было, так что назвать лучшим... ну сомнительно, вот СУ-85, СУ/ИСУ-152, но разве что лучшими советскими
@@tsugumorihoney2288 ИСУ 152 было больше чем Ягд тигров или Ягд пантер.
Bruh best dosent mean powerful
Jagdtiger was very good on paper. But was flawed in every way. It even hade to recalibrate its main hun everytime it moves.
And if its about the firepower. The ISU-152 will be second if not first. Besides the 152mm is not a howitzer. Its velocity is comparable to the shermans 75mm and T-34s 76mm guns
I can tell you missed a lot of criteria in this evaluation. Putting a JagdTiger on the list proves it. Too heavy, too unreliable, too hard to hide. Oversized guns only mean that it will destroy anything but that does not make a successful design. If a 75mm was able to do the job, then that was a good design. A 100mm is not since it is wasteful of resources. None of the US tank destroyers were that successful. Part of it was that the US was on the offensive, and a tank destroyer is a defensive weapon. An important consideration is cost. If the tank destroyer does not save you much on cost, just use a tank. And it you lose on tank desrroyer for every 10 tank destroyed, but your tank destroyer costs as much as 5 of the tanks you destroy, you are not really doing well. Generally the Hetzer has to be considered high up there because it is cheap, uses minimum resources, light, small, and the long 75mm gun does the job, and STUG III is also a great design for the same reasons. You do not save much over a tank with the US tank destroyers.
The US TDs were extremely good, killing almost everything they would face. The Jagdpanzer 38T “Hetzer” was shit. It was cheap but it was a death sentence to the crew
Why did you Use the Sowjet Flag for the Russian/ Sowjet Tank but not the Nazi Flag for the Nazi - Germany Tanks?
RUclips wont allow
Even in games as well they take it out. I’m even unsure if you can use Waffen SS in games. Just the way the world is. The world goes on about how evil the Nazis were, but Stalins Russia was worse.
If this video was made in Germany, its illegal to display the Swastika. I think that is same for the rest of Europe too.
@@kenneththebruce it acutally is not illegal to use it in an artistic context or for the sake of dokumentatries.
(I am German ;) )
When they shot Valkyrie they plastered Berlin with Swastikas
(see www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/valkyrie-dreh-in-berlin-jetzt-mit-bendlerblock-fotostrecke-24807.html )
And when it doubt its mor precies to use the German flag and replace the Swastica with an Iron Cross wich (at least in my opinion) is more fitting
sowiet.
1:41 isn't an SU-100. it's an SU-85M. this video is put together by ignorant people
The SU-100 is still at war, while the other "best" ones have long been scrapped
in poor countries such as Romania
Real nice production !! 👍👍👍
Jagd Tiger was crap, Jagd Panther was good but the best by far were the Stug III+Stug IV when you consider impact, cost and production numbers
It's almost as if the Germans could see videogames in the future and knew that kids would find the JagdTiger "too kewl"
Just countin off some inaccuracies i saw (Probably got something wrong with what i said so, yeah. I tend to go on about this sorta stuff)
- The M10 you had shown was an Achilles, a British modification outfitted with a 17 Pound gun. However the gun listed in it's specs does appear to be correct.
- The M18 Hellcat had a 76.2mm M1A1, not a 71mm. Most likely a typo, but still warrants being mentioned
- Some of the SU-152 footage you showed was of the ISU - 152, a late war modification of the IS Series fitted with the same cannon as the SU, and later in i believe the 70's was upgunned as part of a project but never saw any use
- The M36 Jackson had a 90mm M3. Not a 93mm. Also a typo probably, but still should be said.
- Just wanted to throw this out there, since the video doesn't seem to have been clear on this; The Jagdpanzer 38 or Hetzer was built off of the Czech 38 light tank, as a later-war attempt at reducing the cost of producing vehicles as at the time Nazi Germany did not have the supplies to mass produce larger tanks
The rest i decided to overlook as i'm not the smartest when it comes to other things I.E German cannons.
... I would of thought the Stug models would of been higher. and possible also a Jagdpanzer!.
- субъективно: перечислены 75мм и 88мм германские пушки на разных шасси, впарены нахрапом американские САУ и всколзь где-то сзади советские - ну и рейтинг - по типу нравится-не нравится!! очень субъективно!! Например орудие Д10с калибром 100мм/56 пробивало броню Тигра или Пантеры с 1500м независимо от точи попадания а впоследствии ещё лет двадцать пять под индексом Д10т служило на самых массовых танках от Т-54 до Т-55А!!
Тут ещё такая штука, не указаны цена таких вундервафель и количество произведённых машин. Хорошая машина здесь и сейчас лучше вундервафли, которая сломалась по дороге. А советские машины были хорошими. Именно поэтому они были лучшими.
Ну что ты хочешь от американского канала? Конечно же штатовские 76мм пукалки на шасси М4 - самые лучшие ))) Я даже удивлен, что не весь топ-5 в звездно-полосатой расцветке.
А свалить в одну кучу штурмовые орудия и протиотанковые самоходки - отдельная песня. И нахрена нужны мощность двигателя и дальность хода, если важнее бронепробитие и дальность прямого выстрела?
Никто не заметил посредственный легкий танк Hetzer под видом ПТ САУ
Ратмир Яруллин
Get the flag at the Nazi-German tanks right....
Nazi Germany is one of the nation's dual flag during that time. It can be used in the video so chill
Swastikas will cause censorship issues
@@thebuzz4108 the Weimar and BRD National Flag are completely wrong in this instance though.
the 3rd Reich used the Black, White Red Tricolore with modifications of the German Empire, Hakenkreuz-Flag and modified Imperial Warflags from the German Empire for the Navy.
They don't dare. Someone would have a spazz
@@bestestusername those are Indian religion things swastika symbol which Hitler stole it at that era
Actually the Stug was by far the most effective tank destroyer of ww2.
You missed two, both armed with the British 17-pounder anti-tank gun: the Archer and the Achilles (a Lend-Lease re-gunned M-10.)
The quote on quote "M10" in the video is an Archer. They're fucking stupid
The archer wasn’t that successful, but it was definitely better than the Ferdinand
Dont forget the Skillclutch Game Carrierer aka Churchill Gun Carrier xD
Winnie the Pooh and Tigger approve of this video.
She called it the tigr tank like the winnie the poo character
The pronounciation is just hillarious. jagdtiger became jach-tiger while jagdpanther became yuck-tiger haha!
There's a whole lot of similarity between the Jagdpanther and the SU 100. The basic operation is very similar. I have heard of SU 100s being used in the Syrian war
StuG III: "YOU DARE COMPARE ME TO THESE UNWORTHY MACHINES?"
"The" World War Two. "Tigger." You have to love computer voices.
Tigger is a character in the Winnie the Pooh children's series. A Tiger is a big, orange and black striped cat that is found in India. It's what some German tanks were nicknamed. Not Tigger.
That is how Germans pronounce Tiger
@@oowobelblohumba1745 Except the video is ENGLISH.
@@oowobelblohumba1745 as a german, I can not express how wrong you are
the buzz in war thunder:
imma use the Elefant tank
other guy: same
the buzz brings Ferdinand while other guy brings Elefant mbt
both of them: bruh
The Elefant? Are you mental? The thing was a complete waste of resources, would get bogged down and break down regularly, this shouldn't even be on this list.
SU-152 destroying everything that exists within the radius of the projectile's flight: - Well, yes, well, yes. F*ck me.
Бред полный!
And nothing that the yacht panthers and tigers broke from every sneeze? Their percentage of non-combat losses was huge. This is the most powerful failure in the tank construction of the Second World War.
What a russian myth maker. Even the wikipedia prove your myths wrong :D
stug best WW2 destroyer-20k enem tank destroy
20k? you sure? i would reduce this amount at least 3 times smaller. How germans counted kills? command just say: we killed 5 tanks today, and it counted no one check, in USSR were other problem you should prove that you destroyed enemy vehicles, and use friendly troops like witness, or better show destoyed vehicle, and still it could happend that it won't be counted, so you can increase soviet kills at least like 1.5x or even more
Stug III was the best by far. Many built, many used, reliable, cheap, effective, 20k kills easy, liked by its crews.
It says 20k is a way increased number by the Germans. The accurate number is about 5k~8k. But it is still a lot.
@@sunnybang4575 he's right. It's 20,000 no wonder From 80.000 T34 and 50,000 shermans
Top 2:
Jagpanzer IV
M18 Hellcat
Video over.
Tiggers were bouncy, bouncy tanks.
I was also hoping to see the Hobs tank destroyer.
I'm not completly sure, but there wasn't any tank destroyer in WW2 armed with "missiles".
Trucks, AFV and tanks had racks on them to launch a barage of rockets .
They were for an artillery area bombardment role.
The only missile (guided rocket) i know of is the V1/V2 and they were not mounted on combat vehicels.
The jagtygga should not be there
*Jagdtiger*
Your M.10 is actually an Achilles, which was an M.10 adapted with a British 17pdr gun, which served in Anglo-Canadian divisions in North-West Europe. US M.10s had a 76mm gun, were far more numerous on the battlefield and were very effective tank destroyers. It's a shame you didn't mention the Jpz IV, with its 75mm L70 gun and low profile. I would have mentioned the Jpz IV over the Stug III, which was not designed as a dedicated tank destroyer, but rather as an infantry support weapon. Other than my minor comments, a great video. Please keep them coming!
Су-152 превосходит ВСЕ представленные ПТ по ПРОБИТИЮ, все, кроме кота по скорости. Гарантированно пробивал все существующие танки того периода, в Ираке даже Абрамсу досталось так, что пришлось бросить. И вы ставите его на 9 место? Смешно
LOL she said "Tigger" for the German Tiger tank.
Your M10 is actually the British version of the M36... its called Archilles I believe
Am I the only one with the impression that this ranked list is based on Word of Tanks? 😉
I think Stug Is the best tank destroyer of the war .
During the story about the su-152, you show the ISU 152. These are 2 different cars
5:13 this is British modification of Wolverine, M-10 Archilles. Archilles stands on one step with M-36 Jackson
Why at the start of video, they are showing artillery direct firing. Those are not Tank destroyers.
It's nice to see Team Turtle and Team Hippo represented here.😏😏😏
I'm surprised the elefant made it on here considering how many issues it had
Bruh the Elephant was the worst tank of the war. It barely went 10 feet before exploding due to engine problems
@@magnum6763 actually... "when the Ferdinand did work, it was very good. It was arguably the most successful AFV of the entire war, with an average 10:1 kill to loss ratio"
so you see...the elephant being an updated version of the ferdinand was a quite capable tank destroyer.
@@vasopel but it was a pain in the ass to work on.
Apparently the people who created this video just went by statistics not by combat history
James Ricker
Combat history? Well post Kursk (when ALL armour types suffered against prepared defensive positions) the Ferdinand proved a very effective tank destroyer in the defensive fighting of the Dnieper River bend of late 1943. Many served on through 1944 after being revamped into the Ferdinand and even into 1945 with some making it back to Berlin.
They had a very long service life for WW2 standards.
The myth that they were failures is just that.... a myth. Overall they justified being transformed from a wasted dead end project into a deadly tank destroyer.
Thus earning their name..
Earning the fame...
I really like your list, however one problem. When you showed the M10 at the #6 position you weren't showing the American M10 which was called the "Wolverine" in all your photos you showed the British "Achilles" which was using a M10 Body, however it was using the 17 pdr. as it's Main Cannon which was also used in the Sherman Firefly.
The most Successfull Tank Destroyer of WW2 was the German StugIII.
Had more Kills that all German Tank models and other Tank Destroyers combined.
Pronouncing TIGER as feckin TIGGER, Jeez what is this, an episode of Winnie the Pooh
Facts
So many mistakes in calibers and other stuff... Either do your homework on research or keep your eyes open for typos :| But still a good video
Well, the Hungarian Zrínyi 43M wasnt a typical tank destroyer, but it has the highest survive rate number from all tanks and tank destroyers during the war.
Survive rate number counted on tank to tank engagement, in avarage King Tiger has the second highest rating, around 7.6 enemy tanks or TD's destroyed before a unit lost.
Zrínyi surpass this number with the 7.9 rating.
Nice fact, didn't know that. Hungarian tanks are extremely interesting.
@@harmdallmeyer6449How about Cehoslovakian Tanks used by the many nations,and modified to take down T34 or French Renault R35 with antitank rockets
I never knew the Germans had a Tigger Tank in 2:08. I wonder if Whinnie the Pooh was in the Werhmacht during the war...
Jagdpanther was the best tank destroyer of WWII
The scene used an ISU-152 instead of an SU-152.
This has to be the worst list I’ve ever seen lmaooo, the stug is by far the best tank destroyers
The video is not bad but this is more about the details of the tank and not the kills
the amount of inaccuracy in this video is dissapointing considering its quality
So, a video about Tank Destroyers starts out with video of Self-Propelled Artillery? Fine... I'll find something else to watch.
8:55. The American M18 tank destroyer Main gun was a 76mm . Not. 71 mm .. why they do this misinformation I hate that
Whomever the creator enlisted to read this was absolutely clueless. Way to make your video seem uninformed.
the tiger would have take out the leading tank first, the others would have to stop and then became confused allowing another strike for free (Intro)
Jagdtiger is my favourite
Not a bad video, the computer voice was annoying...TIGGER!....UGH,,, BUT the M18 Hellcat carried a 76mm gun, NOT 71MM.....typo on your part I guess??
Jagdtiger and Ferdinand shouldn't even make a place in a top 50.
Aesthetically the Jagdpanther is a def 1st place but the combat capabilities were quite limited by production numbers and technical difficulty.
very strange top
talking about SU-152 but showing ISU-152
Hey, anybody ever worked on German autos? Then you have an excellent insight into why Germany lost the war.
This is just taking popular web WW2 tank killer vehicles and totally disregarding their actual effectiveness while just sting some wiki stuffs with a google translate type voice.
Totally shitz!
Бред.
The American vehicles you show are tanks with turrets. A tank destroyer does not have a turret and, at best only a few degrees of traverse.
The germans kidknapped winnie the pooh's friend and turned him into a tank
You shown a hellcat with a 90mm gun but you said the armament was a 71 mm arnament
Both aren't even correct. It had the 76mm M1
Why are we looking at SPG artillery?
You should look at kill ratio instead of arbitrary measures.
Stug III Rules!!!!!
That was not the m10 but the achilles
Su 100 in tenth place😂😂😂
The Stug 3 destroyed 25,000 tanks yet it's only in 5th place? Talk about disrespectful.
I have read a lot of different statistics saying similar numbers. Where have you got yours. I believe you, I'm just corious.
@@harmdallmeyer6449 in Greatest Tank Battles the narrator said the Stug destroyed 20,000 soviet tanks. That must mean the stug destroyed even more, up to no more than 30,000.
@@kristelvidhi5038 OK, thank you I will look that up.
She keeps saying hositzer, but these guns are not howitzers. Howitzers fire at a high trajectory while tank destroyers have a flat trajectory. make sme wonder how much else they got wrong on this.
What is a yakpanther?
It's the Mongolian tank destroyer!!!
The person has no knowledge of german language. It is Jagdpanther. German word jagen is in english to hunt. So Jagdpanther is ( Tank)hunting Panther.
She specifically said "yak"
@@shawngore9072 : As a german i think, i can read and speak my language.
She specifically said yakpanther not jagpanther.
My ears work fine.
Omg, the introduction had so many errors in it.
Putting the Su-152 anead of the Su-100
Someone didn't do their homework
The Ferdinand should not be on the list it was mechanically unreliable even by German standards. It was a last ditch weapon made when Germany was on the offensive, it was not fast enough to escape if it didn't win it was dead
Isn't the Ferdinand, a few tiger porsche that got retrofited into Ferdinand ?
Наши оба хороши.