Tanks!

Barbas

ExQQxv1D1ns
Oct 28, 2013
33,804
0
0

[HEADING=1]INJUSTICE LEAGUE[br]ASKS [br][small]=*TANKS*=[/small][/HEADING]​


Two fish are in a tank. One turns to the other and says "Do you know how to drive this thing?"

*cough cough*

Ok ...Ever since being introduced to games like Company of Heroes and books like Achtung - Panzer!, I have found that my interest in the various armoured fighting machines of World War II has increased enormously. The beauty of their destructive designs is inspiring. Makes a man want to reach for world domination with an unstoppable tank army of his own...

*ahem* I got carried away. Ignore the evil machinations behind the curtain.

The following are some of the machines I have become particularly interested in during my ongoing investigations. Some are more easily recognizable then others for having been commemorated in various war reels and films:


[HEADING=2]T-34-76[/HEADING]​


This is the T-34-76, one of the most recognizable tanks in the world, thanks in no small part to its sweeping and lasting effect on their design and combat role. It was the most produced tank in the entirety of World War II and the designation 76 refers to its 76.2mm gun, the most powerful tank gun at that time.

When this tank was first encountered by German tank crews, they were stunned to discover that its sloped armour was impervious to any standard anti-tank weaponry in their arsenal. Upon seeing it for themselves, the tank generals von Kleist and Guderian dubbed it "the deadliest tank in the world." Along with its more heavily plated cousin, the KV-1, its effectiveness had a profound psychological effect on the German army and forced them to upgrade their Panzers and begin production of the fearsome Tiger I.

* * *​



[HEADING=2]T-34-85[/HEADING]​

Over the course of the war, despite high and often disastrous losses in manpower, vehicles and equipment, delaying actions fought by the Red Army meant that many factories could be essentially packed up and relocated behind Soviet lines before the advancing Germans could reach them, allowing the T-34 to enjoy a relatively uninterrupted production and upgrade cycle to match emerging German tanks like the Panzer IV. One of its most notable upgrades was the replacement of the turret with a larger, radio-equipped three-man turret, freeing the commander from gunning and loading duties. This also allowed for a larger 85mm gun to be installed.

By May of 1944, over 1,000 of these newer T-34-85 were leaving the factories every month - at increasing numbers and decreasing costs - while the more time-consuming and expensive upgrade methods of the Wehrmacht saw them unable to compete in terms of sheer numbers. In 1945, the T-34-85 saw action in the Manchurian campaign, completely surprising and overwhelming the Japanese Imperial Army.

A testament to the sheer effectiveness of this Russian tank's design was its wide post-war exportation, its continued development into the T-54/55 series of tanks - which in turn was a stepping stone to the T-62, T-72 and T-90 tanks still in use today - and its eventual and inevitable bastardization by the Chinese military.

The future of this family remains uncertain, but the T series may continue as the Universal Combat Platform T-99 in the year 2020.

* * *​


[HEADING=2]ISU-152[/HEADING]​

The ISU-152 was forged into existence to provide a self-propelled alternative to the existing howitzers in use by the Red Army - towed artillery pieces could become stuck in mud or snow and were reliant on their crews, horses or scarcely-available tractors to pull them, while this fearsome gun, which inherited its nickname "The Beast Killer" from its predecessor the SU-152, could advance directly in the face of fire and destroy fortifications at ease with its enormous shells, or perform well enough as an tank destroyer to challenge some of the heaviest of German vehicles - Panthers, Tigers and even the feared Elefant [http://s1.1zoom.me/big3/566/334957-blackangel.jpg?m=1] (or "Ferdinand").

Although the weight of its shells meant a smaller store of ammunition and the potential of an experienced crew to fire a maximum of 3 rounds a minute, while working in groups or under cover of infantry and its own DShK [http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/machine/mg03/dshkm_002.jpg] heavy machine gun, it could reduce pillboxes and fortifications to rubble or fatally shock enemy tank crews with its massive high-explosive warheads.[footnote]Though the high-explosive shells could not penetrate the armour of tank destroyers like the Elefant, their blast alone could cause a concussive effect or pepper the crew with metal splinters, killing them but leaving the vehicle to be towed away with considerable difficulty (a chain of tanks was required to tow an Elefent) and repaired for its return to battle.[/footnote] Along with the IS-2, it proved itself to be invaluable in urban conflicts like the battle of Berlin and went on to be used in theatres across the world after the war's end.

* * *​


[HEADING=2]Katyusha[/HEADING]​


The Katyusha earned its nickname through concerns for secrecy - throughout the course of its development, it had been given several code names and was eventually classed as a Guards Mortar[footnote]The Guards honorific, along with its associated badges and banners, was awarded to those soldiers who had distinguished themselves in combat. Guards units were considered elite among their peers.[/footnote]. Because they were marked with a letter K indicating their factory of origin, Red Army Soldiers affectionately named these vehicles after the popular wartime song Katyusha, about a girl whose beloved had marched away to war.

Katyusha launchers could be mounted onto a variety of different trucks, tractors or even a tank chassis (such as the KV-1[footnote]The KV-1 [http://www.track48.com/shop/images/P/kv1-84813.jpg], named after Kliment Voroshilov (People's Commissar For Defence and "the biggest bag of shit in the Army"), was one of the only Heavy Tanks in the world when it was first encountered by Panzer crews. Its armour was so effective that a KV-1 could often only be destroyed with a shot at very close range, often to the rear. The attached picture depicts a KV Heavy Tank with a machine gun in the rear of its turret.[/footnote], although this was considered to be a waste of heavy armour). As with other artillery pieces in the Soviet arsenal, Katyushas were often amassed to unleash a withering shock effect onto their intended target. To the German infantryman, the distinctive howl of a Katyusha battery, which they themselves had nicknamed "Stalin's Organ", was psychologically battering. The trucks could rain down fire on an area the size of several football fields before relocating and reloading, which could take up to 4 minutes. Due to their relatively simple and inexpensive nature, they could be quickly produced from factories all over the Soviet Union.

Today, the tried and tested Katyusha's nickname continues to live on and is applied to modern vehicles like the BM-21 "Grad" [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Russian_BM-21_Grad_in_Saint_Petersburg.JPG] and derivative vehicles in use in other countries across the world.

* * *​


[HEADING=2]SU-76[/HEADING]​
This infantry support gun was created using a modified chassis taken from the increasingly obsolete T-70 [http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tanks-light/t-70-light-tank/t-70-light-tank-04.png] Light Tank[footnote]The chassis of the T-70 would go on to provide a base for the ZSU-37 [http://serkoff.narod.ru/zsu-37-0004.jpg] SPAAG, or Self-Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun.[/footnote]. Over the course of the Great Patriotic War, it came to replace the T-70 almost completely in the role of infantry support. The open rear compartment of the SU-76M allowed for effective cooperation between infantry and vehicle crews, making it a favoured weapon during city fighting, while it could also traverse problematic swamps, launch close-range flanking attacks and even provide light artillery support due to its outstanding gun elevation among its peers.

The SU-76 saw much action en masse, both during and after World War II[footnote]SU-76s were employed by Communist forces and, after their capture, by the South Korean Army, during the Korean War.[/footnote], for its simplicity and reliability. Despite its cumbersome steering - which earned it its less-than-affectionate moniker - its ease of construction gave it pride of place as the second most produced vehicle in the Red Army's arsenal.

* * *​


[HEADING=2]Tank, Infantry, Mk IV[/HEADING]​


According to Winston Churchill, the name of this tank honoured not him, but rather the memory of Sir John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough and distant ancestor to the acclaimed Prime Minister. The thinking behind its unusual design and shape was similar to that of the KV-1: it was to be a slow, lumbering beast that would advance alongside the infantry, crushing barbed wire and having a relatively light gun for the purpose of destroying fixed emplacements - in short, it was designed for trench warfare and was the antithesis of lighter and more independent cruiser tanks like the Cromwell [http://images.forwallpaper.com/files/images/c/c4a4/c4a484ff/103941/art-tank-cruising-the-tank-cromwell-cruiser-cromwell-british-middle-tank-gauge-and-mark.jpg].

The troubled Churchill went through a multitude of redesigns even before it could be used in combat, and while the KV series of tanks was eventually discontinued after the KV-2[footnote]The KV-2 [http://www.anticsonline.co.uk/l.aspx?k=105734966], being a "bunker buster", was considered too slow and unwieldy for the changing nature of tank warfare, while the T-34 could perform similarly or better in most respects - and was more frequently upgraded and cheaper to produce. Thus, the KV-2 was relegated to being one of the more obscure tanks of the war.[/footnote] in favour of the lighter T-34 and the heavy IS-2[footnote]The IS-2 [http://s1.1zoom.me/big3/542/355412-Berserker.jpg?m=1] (or Iosef Stalin) Heavy Tank was named for the dictator himself after Kliment Voroshilov had fallen out of political favour. While roughly equivalent to the German Tiger I, it could fire less frequently and carry a smaller ammunition load. When firing high-explosive rounds, however, it was extremely effective, particularly in the Battle of Berlin.[/footnote], the Churchill was continually modified into a heavier, slower and more well-armed Heavy Tank as a response to the emergence of later German tanks.

While later models like the Mark VII (or "Heavy Churchill") had improved, welded armour and a heavier 75mm gun, they lacked sufficient firepower to effectively challenge later German tanks such as the Panther [http://s2.goodfon.su/wallpaper/previews-middle/470843.jpg]. Its flat side plating and the decreasing speed of its outdated engine meant that it was increasingly suited to an infantry support role, rather than tank-to-tank combat. It was in this capacity that it went on to serve with considerable effectiveness, particularly when equipped as a "Crocodile", or flamethrower tank.

The Churchill tank saw use in theatres across Europe, with the Mk III fighting in Russia in 1943 while other versions were employed in bridge-laying, mine-clearing and a various other duties throughout the course of the war.

* * *​


[HEADING=2]Churchill AVRE[/HEADING]​

The AVRE, or Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers, was one of a series of modified Churchill tanks designed to combat the problems that amphibious tanks had faced during the costly and largely unsuccessful Dieppe Raid. These were the brainchild of Major General Percy Hobart, the 97th Armoured Division and the Royal Engineers, and were dubbed "Hobart's Funnies".

The AVRE exchanged the usual main gun for a high-explosive Petard Mortar that launched an 18kg "flying dustbin" up to 137 metres in range. This was used for the purpose of destroying concrete bunkers and roadblocks. Descendants of the "Funnies" exist today as modern Combat Engineering Vehicles.


I hope you found some of this information of interest. Please feel free to share any corrections or clarifications you may have! so I may weed out and execute the annoying nitpickers among you I may update the OP with more examples if interest is shown.

Now, dear reader, it is your turn, so go ahead and share any interesting facts and stories you have come across about military vehicles that interest you! This includes tanks, assault and self-propelled guns (and artillery), tank destroyers or anything that was ever welded onto a tank chassis and used in a theatre of war.

I welcome pictures, war stories from crews, newsreels, anything at all that you can share in this celebration of weird and wondrous military designs!



[HEADING=3]-Share your Tank stories, preferences and thoughts-[/HEADING]​
[hr]

[small]-Barbas-[/small]
[small]-Shah of Wishes and Folly-[/small]
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,715
3,598
118
If we aren't just allowing tanks, I'd like to mention the Ontos:


The USMC used them in Vietnam, possibly because they took what they could get, I think the Army turned them down.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0

But I will say the T-34 fascinates me. As in, it wasn't even that "good", it's just that the sheer quantity of them the Soviets could field (because it was cheap to build and easy to replace units) was something the Germans simply couldn't keep up with.
 

Euryalus

New member
Jun 30, 2012
4,429
0
0
Just look at this beauty. The design is so alien and fierce, but also elegant and sleek.

What? Fictional Tanks don't count? Fiiiiinnnnnee, be that way.


The T-34 really was a game changer in many way, the sloped armor provided far more defense than a vertical plate without... really changing a whole lot. All it did was slant the armor diagonally, giving more thickness to the armor, from a shell/bullet's perspective.

When hit straight, the tilt provides more length from entry to exit in the same kind of way turning it from vertical to horizontal would. In that extreme case what was the height becomes the thickness and what was the thickness becomes the height, hence it gets thicker without actually adding any material.

Obviously its not nearly that extreme because its just slanted a bit, but the "added" thickness made a big difference in survivability, and all without adding any cost to the cheap production.

It's simple, but elegant.

I can only imagine what the racist fucks in the Nazi party thought. What? The "lesser" men made this before us? How?

EDIT: Forgot to mention the added deflecting ability in my enthusiasm. See Thaluikhain's post for teh details :3
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,715
3,598
118
T0ad 0f Truth said:
The T-34 really was a game changer in many way, the sloped armor provided far more defense than a vertical plate without... really changing a whole lot. All it did was slant the armor diagonally, giving more thickness to the armor, from a shell/bullet's perspective.

When hit straight, the tilt provides more length from entry to exit in the same kind of way turning it from vertical to horizontal would. In that extreme case what was the height becomes the thickness and what was the thickness becomes the height, hence it gets thicker without actually adding any material.

Obviously its not nearly that extreme because its just slanted a bit, but the "added" thickness made a big difference in survivability, and all without adding any cost to the cheap production.
Er, it's not merely the added thickness, a projectile will tend to glance off it it hits a surface at an angle, and a lot of the energy is wasted. The same substance which stops a bullet at one angle might have the bullet bounce off if you hit it at another...you can skip bullets along roads and hit people hiding behind cars if you do it right.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
Vegosiux said:
But I will say the T-34 fascinates me. As in, it wasn't even that "good", it's just that the sheer quantity of them the Soviets could field (because it was cheap to build and easy to replace units) was something the Germans simply couldn't keep up with.
It wasn't cheapness that defined the t-34, so much as it was cost effectiveness.

It was more reliable, more able to deal with difficult terrain, better armed and better armoured than anything that cheap had any right to be.
 

Euryalus

New member
Jun 30, 2012
4,429
0
0
thaluikhain said:
T0ad 0f Truth said:
The T-34 really was a game changer in many way, the sloped armor provided far more defense than a vertical plate without... really changing a whole lot. All it did was slant the armor diagonally, giving more thickness to the armor, from a shell/bullet's perspective.

When hit straight, the tilt provides more length from entry to exit in the same kind of way turning it from vertical to horizontal would. In that extreme case what was the height becomes the thickness and what was the thickness becomes the height, hence it gets thicker without actually adding any material.

Obviously its not nearly that extreme because its just slanted a bit, but the "added" thickness made a big difference in survivability, and all without adding any cost to the cheap production.
Er, it's not merely the added thickness, a projectile will tend to glance off it it hits a surface at an angle, and a lot of the energy is wasted. The same substance which stops a bullet at one angle might have the bullet bounce off if you hit it at another...you can skip bullets along roads and hit people hiding behind cars if you do it right.
*looks over post*

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply it was xD

I got distracted explaining how the thickness bit worked and forgot to mention it!

I really like the simplicity of it in concept. It may not be as fancy as reactive armor, but damnit it was genius for its time.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,715
3,598
118
Well, the German tanks had other problems. Firstly, Hitler ordered to stop making spare parts, to just make as many tanks as possible, which meant their tanks broke down faster and couldn't be fixed.

Also, they had more tanks running round (I think they increased the survivability), which meant they ran out of fuel faster than anticipated, which meant they had less tanks running around.
 

Euryalus

New member
Jun 30, 2012
4,429
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Well, the German tanks had other problems. Firstly, Hitler ordered to stop making spare parts, to just make as many tanks as possible, which meant their tanks broke down faster and couldn't be fixed.

Also, they had more tanks running round (I think they increased the survivability), which meant they ran out of fuel faster than anticipated, which meant they had less tanks running around.
One of the biggest mistakes you can make is to make your tanks so "good" that you can't make enough of 'em, or repair them as fast as they get damaged.

Germans definitely had this problem in World War Two. Their tanks were the best one on one, but then you'd have like 2 or 3 inferior American/Russian Tanks to their one, which more than even'd the odds.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,715
3,598
118
T0ad 0f Truth said:
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply it was xD

I got distracted explaining how the thickness bit worked and forgot to mention it!

I really like the simplicity of it in concept. It may not be as fancy as reactive armor, but damnit it was genius for its time.
Ah, ok.

I also like the thing they did where they'd get a spring mattress and stick it on the side, so an enemy rocket would hit the springs and detonate a few centimetres away from the armour.

Really, really cheap, but AFAIK, it'd make a difference.
 

Barbas

ExQQxv1D1ns
Oct 28, 2013
33,804
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Indeedy-doody, as demonstrated by the Churchill - its armour was thick and often supplemented by extra plates, but due to its flat sides, much of that armour's potential benefit was negated. Oh, and please feel free to add more examples like the one you mentioned before - I don't recall having seen it before, but it bears some minor resemblance to the SPAAG made from the modified SU-67 chassis. Those sorts of ad-lib or stopgap designs are just what I'm most interested in!

Sleekit said:
why has no one made a film about Kursk yet ?
there's a question...
that could be awesome now...
Well, while on the lookout for those sweet tank paintings for the thread, I found out there's a balls-to-the-wall Russian film called The White Tiger that features modern-day scenes of T34-85s, SU-85s and ZiS divisional field guns firing, as well as the Tiger I. Enjoy!


T0ad 0f Truth said:
Oh yes. The Russian output of tanks outnumbered anything the Germans could field by tens of thousands at one stage, I think. Add to that the Wermacht's decisions to design wholly new tanks while the Russians could simply keep upgrading the same ones, plus unprecedented Partisan harassment, poor road and rail links, the coldest winter in 50 years, narrow German tank tracks that would get bogged down in the snow, a lack of winter clothing, frozen tank wheels and a shortage of machine parts and anti-freeze, and things weren't looking good for the average Panzer crewman on the Ostfront.
 

Hero of Lime

Staaay Fresh!
Jun 3, 2013
3,114
0
41

The scorpion tank is always so satisfying to use, though a little too OP to have more than once or twice in most of the campaigns.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,715
3,598
118
Barbas said:
Oh, and please feel free to add more examples like the one you mentioned before - I don't recall having seen it before, but it bears some minor resemblance to the SPAAG made from the modified SU-67 chassis. Those sorts of ad-lib or stopgap designs are just what I'm most interested in!
Well, the Ontos wasn't really ad-lib or stopgap as such. However, it was designed as a tank-destroyer, and the marines in Vietnam didn't end up fighting many tanks, so they came up with lots of other uses for them.

I also like the Ontos, because it came with spotting rifles, which are sorta cool.

As an aside, in the early days of US armoured warfare, they didn't build tanks to fight tanks. Tanks fought infantry, tank destroyer fought tanks. This led to problems in WW2 when they put their ideas into action.
 

Barbas

ExQQxv1D1ns
Oct 28, 2013
33,804
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Barbas said:
Oh, and please feel free to add more examples like the one you mentioned before - I don't recall having seen it before, but it bears some minor resemblance to the SPAAG made from the modified SU-67 chassis. Those sorts of ad-lib or stopgap designs are just what I'm most interested in!
Well, the Ontos wasn't really ad-lib or stopgap as such. However, it was designed as a tank-destroyer, and the marines in Vietnam didn't end up fighting many tanks, so they came up with lots of other uses for them.

I also like the Ontos, because it came with spotting rifles, which are sorta cool.

As an aside, in the early days of US armoured warfare, they didn't build tanks to fight tanks. Tanks fought infantry, tank destroyer fought tanks. This led to problems in WW2 when they put their ideas into action.
Indeed. It was an example of the old lesson about learning to fight the previous war just in time for the coming one. I think one of the early Churchill models was the last of the old guard of infantry tanks. The Russian T-70 light tank was quick on its treads, but the commander had to aim and fire and load the machine gun as well as the main gun, so they just switched to producing other tanks and tried to stick something else on top of the chassis. It's interested me for quite a while how those old weapons and machines evolved into the ones still used today. If you look back at the old anti-tank rifles, for instance, you can see how they lost their effectiveness against improved tank armour and changed their role rather than become completely obsolete - the PTRD-41 anti-tank rifle could punch right through a concrete wall, which I imagine was quite handy in urban combat.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
The M15A Gun Motor Carriage is the embodiment of "more dakka". It is everything a tank should be, and them some.

 

Redlin5_v1legacy

Better Red than Dead
Aug 5, 2009
48,836
0
0
No Barbas, no! Sponsored threads make Redlin sad! Awwww... D:

Still, the topic is one of great interest to me and is probably why I'm so involved in WoT...

Anyway, let's talk about the T-34 some more shall we?



As one of the very few examples of a weapon that actually won a war (instead of the tactics/bravery of the men using them), I cannot not pick the T-34 as my favorite armored fighting vehicle from history. When it comes to tanks, I just don't have any other that I like more than the T-34 except perhaps the T-54 when it comes to function and aesthetics. Mass produced war machines to be sure but very well designed war machines with interesting silhouettes.

I could talk way more about them but others already are so I'll just leave it at this. The German's had to copy it in their designs. The Germans take great pride in their engineering so to have them swallow their pride and take design elements from their enemies really does say a lot about just how big an impact the T-34 left in the history of tank warfare.

However, when I look into the armored fighting vehicles of the Second World War, I really enjoy the dead ends that the German military invested in. The influence of Hitler and the fact nobody would say no to him led to gigantism in the design of Germany's Panzer Divisions which ultimately was to the determinant of the war effort.

Case in point, the Jagdtiger



The Tiger II heavy tank was the largest, most impractical tank ever put into service during a war. Very difficult to knock out to be sure but limited production, limited mobility and even the difficulty of merely preparing it for battle in the latter stages of the war pretty much negated its strategic influence on the war as a whole.

Doesn't mean it didn't inspire fear and respect.

So, what would be better than an unwieldy heavy tank that outclasses everything on the battlefield in every aspect besides logistics and mobility? Why putting an armored box ontop of that chassis and putting a bigger gun on it of course!

The 88mm anti-tank gun used by the Germans in the Tiger series was a one shot, one kill weapon for their army ever since it was introduced. Only lucky tankers survived an 88mm hit. The idea that a limited supply of even larger vehicles with a 128mm gun could accomplish more is ridiculous and impractical. So clearly it had to be made. Bigger is better right?

The Jagdtiger weighed 71.7 tonnes, featured 250mm of armor on the casemate and 150mm of sloped armor on the frontal glacis plate.

They planned to make over 200 of these things but only managed to put together a little over 70 or so by the time the war ended. It could outfight any armored vehicle on the battlefield in a face to face engagement. Flanked, its lack of turret usually led to the loss of the vehicle. There were so few of them on the battlefield and they were deployed so late in the war that it was a genuine surprise to the allies that Germany could still put out machines such as this.

These things were the largest armored fighting vehicles ever used in battle. They were utterly useless. Once identified, they'd be bypassed. Then they would be destroyed by artillery or bombing/rockets from the air.

So to end this rambling post, the T-34 is my favorite tank. The Jagdtiger, despite its flaws, remains my favorite armored fighting vehicle. It was a step in the wrong direction but it was such a big step that I can't help but admire the damn thing. It's too damn cool.
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
My favorite tank is actually the Crusader Tank, an early cruiser tank that saw heavy use in North Africa, before the Cromwell and Comet light tanks supplanted it. It just looks pretty to me.

It wasn't particularly good as a cavalry tank, its gun couldn't do shit to a Panzer III, and it wasn't as fast as it could be. It wasn't until later, when new high velocity guns were built that it became a great tank killer. The most notable thing about it was its ability to withstand the elements. Fighting in the desert presented harsh challenges for armored vehicles. Dust storms would wreck engines that hadn't received engine filters.
 

gigastar

Insert one-liner here.
Sep 13, 2010
4,419
0
0
Cant have a thread about WW2 tanks without mentioning the Panzer VIII Maus.


The heaviest armored fighting vehicle ever completed, weighing in at 188 tonnes, with an impressive 460mm-190mm of armor, and packing the same 128mm cannon seen on the Jagdtiger along with a 75mm cannon as a coaxial.

Though as we all (should) know by now, only one full prototype was ever completed and the Russians captured what was left of it and the original test vehicle, and its been a museum piece ever since.