Favorite WWII Anti-Tank Gun/Weapon to destroy a Tank?

@CWO-Marc

yea is real surprising King didn’t convoy from the get go. USA did the same thing in WWI, not learning from their allies. A bunch of guys got slaughtered because of it.

Germany had essentially two options here. 1) Capture the city quickly, before the defenses could be built up. 2) Capture it via siege.

I don’t think that creating an urban combat situation, in which Germany attempted to capture the city street by street, would have been viable. In typical combat situations German soldiers had a 3:1 or 4:1 advantage in combat effectiveness over their Soviet counterparts. But in urban, street-to-street fighting the ratio was about 1:1. Germany could not afford anything even remotely approaching that 1:1 ratio, which is why something other than street-to-street fighting was necessary.

Von Manstein wrote that during the Barbarossa operation of '41 there had been a perfectly good opportunity to take Leningrad. But that this was wasted, allowing the Soviets to fortify it.

The other option would have been to do a better job of putting it under siege. This would have entailed tightening the cordon around the city, preventing just about anything from making it through. I think there was a case when Germany attempted exactly that. However, at the same time the Soviets were attempting to break the siege, so each side’s offensive encountered the other’s. From a tactical view there may have been more Germany could have done. But I think the real problem was strategic: the Soviet Union had too much military strength. A discussion on how to address that problem is probably outside the scope of this thread.

@CWO:

Italy didn’t hold on to British Somalia for very long.  Britain recaptured it in early 1941, and likewise liberated Ethiopia and conquered Italian Somaliland.  Germany didn’t save Italy’s rear end in that part of Africa, nor did it even intervene as far as I know;

I believe the Suez Canal was closed  :wink:

My answer is NO!
It was not neccessary, but the people want it!
All the problems could have been solved, but the people stirred it up so that another war was uninevitable.
The Germans never had a need for more Lebensraum, that was A.H’s dream.
The russians never had a need of spreading communism, but Stalin felt the need for it.
The americans never wanted a war but Rosewelt thought it would be better for America to expand the outerim territorys.
Everybody else was just soaked in in this filthy war and joined a side as nation they thought would win.
Are you really hot for war?
Do you think a war today like ww2 would solve all the issues?
Is a war neccessary?

No…

@abworsham4

Any of the Panzer aces-they truly destroyed a lot of tanks.

Seriously though, I would choose the Sturmtiger-I just find it interesting how it launches rocket propelled mortars rather than normal shells, even if the vehicle was never used as intended.

Hehe - good point Miami
No one had mentioned the Italians in this thread yet

As Worsham said, adding jets would have made it too easy: so many of us rank the 262 as the best of the war. He was mixing it up. Made me think a bit.

My first interest in WW2 was planes.

Thank you for your time and effort Worsham.

Cool!!!  Wow, I wonder what kind of damage the Abrams could do going that fast!!!

@Upside-down_Turtle:

Yeah, I saw that show.  It’s partially what inspired this thread.

Tom Clancy said the Abrams can go 70+mph w/o a governor.  Is that really true?  It’s a lot higher than the “official” stats.

Man, 70+ tons going 70+mph…that’s a load going fast!  It’s faster than the Leopard’s “official” top speed.  However, it’s suposidly ad risk of destroying the drive train, but if that’s true, couldn’t you just somehow make it stronger?  I’m no mechanic, but I’m sure it could be done.

A 70 mph tank would kick @$$!  :-D