[DS] Why tank destroyers?

I guess I am a bit confused about ecological niches.

What is the advantage of a tank destroyer over using a tank for the same
purpose?

Cheaper and faster to make, also if you have to upgrade your guns and don't
have
time to re-engineer a new tank you can take existing chassis throw a
bigger gun into it and box the crew compartment in (instead of using a
turret). real life example Germany during W.W.II turned obsolete tanks into
tank destroyers with bigger guns than they could fit into then present tank
production. Just a quick and dirty explanation.

[quoted original message omitted]

[quoted original message omitted]

> On 5-Sep-01 at 16:28, Damond Walker (dwalker@syncreticsoft.com) wrote:

That's what I wanted to know. It bothered me because it looks like a tanks
main purpose in life is to destroy other tanks, so why a different vehicle for
destroying tanks?

> From the other responses I take it that justification is a little

> > What is the advantage of a tank destroyer over using

Well, not exactly--TD's came about before missiles did.  You can use a
larger gun and/or a smaller hull because there is no turret.  Also due
to the lack of turret, you have a lower silhouette, so harder to see, harder
to hit. And because the whole thing is probably a good deal smaller than a
tank with the same gun, it should be cheaper. On the other hand, it is more
mobile and better armored than a towed antitank gun would be.

> I guess I am a bit confused about ecological niches.

Personally, I give tank destroyers a free level of stealth. It seems to make
sense, and it gives a reason to create them.

That's just a house rule, though.

> Well, not exactly--TD's came about before missiles did. You can use a

Or some kid with a flaming jar of gas...

German TDs of WW2 are a good example of this...look at the Hetzer or various
Stugs (though I think most Stugs were classified as assualt guns instead of
TDs...I could be wrong though). Though the Germans did have a few *very* heavy
TDs.

    The US used a half-track with a 75mm as a TD early on didn't it?
Later
they had their M-10?  Wolverine?  Eh..I'm into the modern stuff.  :)

> Of course, the current version is "Toyota with TOW"

More bang for the buck...though the idea of using a TOW against anything would
scare the heck out of me...what with having to sit with the launcher and all.

            Damo

Good discussion of the "why" behind the tank destroyer...

The way I use them is as a means of putting a heavier gun system into action
then a tank could carry. In short it is a means of economy nothing more in my
case, in fact without support they die rather badly.

> At 3:54 PM -0400 9/5/01, Roger Books wrote:

As some have said its a combination of Cost and what size weapon can be
carried. Some also lies with Doctrine and Mobility.

As far as mobility goes, since a Tank destroyer wasn't supposed to be armoured
like Tanks were, they tended to be lighter than a similar design of tank. That
allowed for a higher mobility with a larger calibre gun.

For the US, tank destroyers grew out of the Anti-Armour corps need
for something that was self mobile and capable of carrying a larger
weapon. The earliest were med trucks (3/4ton Dodge weapons carriers
w/ a 37mm) with a towed gun permanently mounted. The British used
these extensively during the Desert Campaign. Later on, M3 Halftracks with
75mm guns mounted were used, but were still found to be wanting. Next was the
M10 series of vehicles with minimal armour and larger guns (3" or 76mm) than
their M4 Sherman Brothers. The final form as far as the US army was concerned
was the M18 with a 3". Later on the M10 was upgraded to a 90mm.

The general idea of the Tank destroyers was that they were to seek out enemy
armour and destroy those. Tanks were supposed to be used as cavalry. They were
supposed to exploit gaps and get into the rear areas. When tank forces were
able to do this, the opponents always suffered. Typically on a defense,
infantry units had attached or
organic anti-tank units attached. Sometimes they had Tank Destroyer
units attached as well.

In the German sense, the ease of production of an assault gun (no turret ring
and associated production times for the turret) was used to make two types of
weapons, Assault guns and Tank Destroyers. Both were used effectively in the
same roles as the US tended to be vulnerable to both, but they had different
roles in an ideal sense. The German TD's tended to have very stout armour on
the front aspect compared to US TDs.

While the idea is great, it tended to be problematic in getting the Tank
destroyers to meet up with the red force tanks. Keeping the Blue Tanks away
from the Red tanks tended to be hard too.

Operating TD's as armour sometimes worked when used en masse (or due to US
overwhelming force on attacks [1]), but they tended to suffer
to certain tactics. For example the M10/36 types had open turrets and
were vulnerable to over head air bursts of shells. The Germans due to supply
constraints used TDs and Assault guns in the attack roles vs their intended
defensive roles.

With modern missiles, Anti-tank has gained range and destructive
power in a very portable form. Infantry units have more power at
their disposal for anti-tank uses. As stated, the ability to convert
a general purpose armoured vehicle to an anti-tank role is very well
liked. The multiple versions of TOW enabled Wheeled and tracked vehicles
demonstrates this.

See
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/usarmy/tanktypes.htm

http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/SPEC/tank/German_anti_tank_1.htm

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Trackless.asp

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/eto-ob/etoob-toc.htm

1. The use had a tactic where Artillery, tanks and Tank destroyers would be
used all together to perform bombardments at times all in direct fire or
indirect fire.

> At 5:32 PM -0400 9/5/01, Damond Walker wrote:

Yep, the Sturmgeshutz'es were armed with a low velocity weapon where as the
Jagpanzer's were armed with Higher velocity weapons.

> The US used a half-track with a 75mm as a TD early on didn't it?
Later
> they had their M-10? Wolverine? Eh..I'm into the modern stuff. :)

Aye. M3 Half Tracks with a 75mm. Trucks with 37mm's, the British did these
too, Portee's as they were known...

> > Of course, the current version is "Toyota with TOW"

Newer weapons are getting to the point where yu can place them remote from the
user. Some are nice in that they don't require that you shoot direct at the
target, but rather they allow an upwards shot and an arc down to the target.

> > > Of course, the current version is "Toyota with TOW"

The dreaded Somali death mobile..

> > More bang for the buck...though the idea of using a TOW against
It does take more nerve than I've got....

> Newer weapons are getting to the point where yu can place them remote
In it they had a M920 a Hellfire AT HAMMER HEAD Launcher on a Bradley. I think
the only thing stopping this one is the price tag, DOD is squeamish about
giving a million bucks a shot to a
E-2 to play with ...)

> At 6:14 PM -0700 9/5/01, Don M wrote:

Well, technically (sorry [1]) those actually had all sorts of guns rather than
missiles.

Take a look at this US Army Captain's (I think) page of pictures from Somalia.

http://membres.tripod.fr/France40/techphot.html

Don said:

> > Have you seen the old Twilight 2000 US Army Vehicle Guide?

Just wondering, but what exactly is the "M920 Hellfire AT Hammer Head"
mentioned above?

This is exactly the same problem with North Korea. The NK Navy is listed as
having zillions of ships, and the vast majority of them are tiny fishing boats
and such fitted with missiles. In theory, they could duke it ou with South
Korean DDs and such, losing one or two fishing boats in return for a rather
expensive destroyer... for obvious reasons, they have to use missiles and not
guns.

> Ryan M Gill wrote:

> At 9:25 PM -0400 9/5/01, Z. Lakel wrote:

A theoretical arrangement of a launcher for Hellfire missiles. If you look at
a photo of a M901 ITV
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m901.htm), that funny
looking part on top is capable of firing 2 TOW missiles. The Hellfire idea is
to mount a longer ranged missile on a small package. Tow goes for about 4
klicks, Hellfire will go out to about 8. Well beyond visual so you're going to
be handing the missile off to someone else
to get it to land at that range on   a real target.

Hellfire
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/agm-114.htm

TOW
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/tow.htm

> At 10:25 AM +0900 9/6/01, Edward Lipsett wrote:

Sort of. Modern Naval warfare is entirely different from land warfare in a lot
of respects. Granted if the SKs don't use any recon they'll likely get
smacked, but, small FACs with minimal defensive systems and poor sensors will
have to spend several units as sacrificial lambs to get targeting data. The
SK's likely would use a helo to scout and locate the FAC's and provide their
targeting data for their missile before the NK's are able to launch there own.
The battle wouldn't be that of attrition, but of who got the first missile
launch in.

There's a book about this stuff that is bloody interesting. Fleet Tactics and
Coastal Combat by Capt Wayne P Hughes Jr.

Have to check that out... thanks. In addition to who got the first missile in,
though, the DD is spending a rather expensive missile to knock out one fishing
boat equipped with a few missiles and a few crew members. The dozen fishing
boats only have to make one fairly small hole in the DD to take abig chunk out
of South Korea's defensive capabilities.

> Ryan M Gill wrote:

That's why most first-rank navies (US, UK, etc) equip their shipborne
helicopters with short range SSMs such as Penguin or Sea Skua. If I recall
correctly, the Sea Skua was designed from the beginning as an anti-FPB
weapon. These missiles allow the helicopter to engage an FPB from beyond the
range of most of the onboard guns and shoulder-fired SAM's likely to be
found on such ships. I believe I read that the South Korean Navy was actually
building a helicopter carrier, and in any case those helicopters
could be shore-based as well for South Korea's purposes. If the South
Koreans operate numbers of SH-60's for instance, those fishing boats
would go from threat to sitting duck real fast.
[quoted original message omitted]

On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 15:54:44 -0400 (EDT) Roger Books
> <books@mail.state.fl.us> writes:

Roger,

Despite my majority of war games being pre-'firing pin' I think I have
an angle (pun intended) on why American WW2 TDs made such poor Tanks but were
loved by the Infantry they were supposed to support...

Back when Tractics was new and micro-armor was also  I played a WW2 game
with American TDs, ATG's and Infantry versus German counterattacking armor
force. Used TDS as tanks and was seriously creamed. A younger friend who was a
true war history type took me aside then using his
guidance we re-ran the scenario and we won.  How?

American TDs in WW2 were *not* even Light Tank capable opponents in mobile
(God Forbid you get stuck with them in a meeting engagement) battles! We used
the fact that the German player was a linear thinker and that the key position
(held by Infantry and ATG's) was in a valley with several good hills, ridge
lines and structures behind and to the left and right rear of the 'direct
approach' and one flank was secured
by a river/marsh and the other side was where the 'cavalry' (Allied
Tanks)  was supposed to arrive - but it never was scheduled to arrive
except in the 'intel' brief the German player received pre-game.  Evil
GM kept rolling the dice (plural) but our combination 'never came up.'

Basically the US TD's were thin skinned, fast and open topped. BUT they
could get *way* down behind cover and only have the /very capable of
being depressed/ gun and a sliver of the turret showing in defensive
positions. A carefully thought out series of ridge lines or other covering
positions allowed them to be difficult to see until they fired and sometimes
even then, allowing them to get the opportunity for a
'first shot' attack and a decent chance of a follow-up shot before a
shot back was fired, and they had guns as good as or better then many Shermans
(main US Tank for most of WW2) had at various parts of the war. Those early
tanks with 75mm's hung around until the tanks were destroyed or a
new unit with new toys arrived from the states/UK to replace the unit
and even then....

Re-engineering a turret is complicated but sticking the new 'whiz bang'
gun on a cheaper hull with an open top turret was quicker and (in theory)
cheaper. The ability for increased (what is the word?) 'negative depressed
angle' of the gun on American TD's as a result made for an
Excellent TD in defense/support of infantry (most of the armies in WW2
were some form of infantry - Airborne, Glider, 'Leg', Motorized,
Mechanized, Armored but still Infantry.) And Bazookas only go so far...

And if the tanks are *that* close you are in deep trouble. As long as they
didn't have to manuver in view of German Tanks or attack they were 'beautiful'
to the average American ground pounder. A smart German player learned to use
manuver against American TDs in our games once this usage of TDs became common
in our games. The 'slow' ones usually made negative 'trades' in attacks and
afew never did get the idea that the smarter American players tried to not use
the TDs in the attack like true tanks (which they were never designed to be.)

Showing my complete ignorance, did the UK have TD designs? How were they
applied/used?

My dos centavos.

Gracias,

> At 11:21 5/09/01 -0400, you wrote:

The Deacon, a 6 pdr mounted in the back of a truck, also used a 2 pdr portee
in the Western Destern. these 'trucks with guns' were pressed into service
because of a lack of suitable armoured vehicles.

From 1940 onwards there was a stream of experimental gun carriers armed

with 2, 6 and 25 pdrs but these were unsuitable. One example was the Churchill
3in gun carrier (late 1941), while the 3in gun would have preformed the
churchill chassis was slow and ponderous.

More successful was the Archer, a Valentine chassis mounting a 17 pdr facing
to the rear (shoot and scoot), introduced in 1944. Initially a interim measure
the Archer was so successful it remained in service until the 1950s

The A30 Challenger was also adapted for the TD role, but due to develpment
problems it didn't make it into the war. 230 were delviered to the RA in 1946.

The British also took delivery of some lend-lease M10s Wolverines, and
they replaced the 3in gun with the local 17 pdr and renamed it the Achilles.
this also remained in service after 1945.

Guess what I've been reading:)

On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 13:53:48 +1000 Derek Fulton
<derekfulton@bigpond.com> writes:
> At 11:21 5/09/01 -0400, you wrote:

That was an allied constant in the early years. Wonder how you might apply
that fact in DS2...

> From 1940 onwards there was a stream of experimental gun carriers

Should it have been called the "Matilda III"? DS2 doesn't allow you to
try being super slow and super armored.   In fact the lack of reason
(benefit) of using open topped vehicles or lighter (or heavier) armor is one
of the failings (yeah there are a few) of DS2. Heavy armor (with decreased
mobility, lost capacity and higher cost) and lighter armor are not options the
system takes into consideration. Not that I am sure that would be used very
often...

> More successful was the Archer, a Valentine chassis mounting a 17 pdr

Heard reference to it but never came across a picture/write up (never
looked that hard to be honest.) Now that does make me want to try one in a
game... chasing one could be the worst thing to do? No benefit in that design
in DS2? Might be interesting in SG2?

> The A30 Challenger was also adapted for the TD role, but due to

Lot of that late in 1945 - everything was slowing down research
development wise even if not intentional as it became clear the war was going
to be over sometime soon. Of course the Battle of the Bulge kind of kept
complacency from growing too powerful. How many times do you build in
complacency in a scenario?

> The British also took delivery of some lend-lease M10s Wolverines, and

Um, guess it's not the wars with the Maori, huh?

Gracias,

> At 06:41 6/09/01 -0400, Glen wrote:

When fired the gun 'recoiled' back to where the driver's head would be,
Archers didn't fire on the move:) they'd back into position and the driver
would get out of the way. Once the 17 pdr fired the driver would quickly

get back in and they would 'scoot'.

> A theoretical arrangement of a launcher for Hellfire missiles. If you

4 klicks with a dainty wire connecting missle to launcher...which is rather
sucky. Shoot...Pause...*blam*...Scram...

The hellfire doesn't have that problem as far as I know.
Shoot..Scram...*blam*...

> At 11:21 PM -0400 9/5/01, Glenn M Wilson wrote:

> Re-engineering a turret is complicated but sticking the new 'whiz bang'

The open top also gave the crew more room to work with the larger ammunition
and a better view for the commander and crew.

> Showing my complete ignorance, did the UK have TD designs? How were

They used the US M10 as the Achilies. Its my understanding they swapped out
the 76mm for their preferred 17 pounder in some cases.

Aye, one was a stop gap for the 17 pounder that was later fitted to the
Sherman Firefly. It was a Calentine chassis with the gun fitted in a rear
facing non turreted arrangement. The Valentine was a relatively good chassis.
As it tended to be used as a highly mobile and somewhat armoured defensive
weapon, it worked well in the defense or to bolster a taken position against
counter attacks.

http://www.magma.ca/~tracks/archer.htm

> Glenn M Wilson wrote:

> >More successful was the Archer, a Valentine chassis mounting a 17 pdr

The archer was not as great as you might think, because it could not fire

> Roger Books wrote:
wrote:
> >

For what it's worth, you might want to ponder if a tank's main purpose in life
*is* to destroy other tanks. Reductio ad absurdum would lead to solving the
problem of the enemy's tanks... by simply not bringing any tanks for them to
shoot at, which would dramatically devalue their expensive tank fleet.

Tanks started off life in WWI by being infantry-crushing monsters
which were as invulnerable to artillery and infantry weapons as technology
then allowed. Has this really changed?

> >From the other responses I take it that justification is a little

Fixed mounts consume less space than turrets, thus potentially
more/larger weapons or extra systems.

David Brewer said:
> For what it's worth, you might want to ponder if a tank's main

Lesser value is not zero value, and about the time the enemy tanks got to your
logistics train, you might begin to doubt whether your bargain was quite as
good as you'd thought

***
Lesser value is not zero value, and about the time the enemy tanks got to your
logistics train, you might begin to doubt whether your bargain was quite as
good as you'd thought.
***

Yes, Chris, we got that with his 'Reductio ad absurdum' reference. ;->=

> At 12:07 AM +0100 9/7/01, David Brewer wrote:

Thats one of the odd things about tanks. When they have an option for firing
HE rounds, they make a great shock force. They are fast, heavily armed and
armoured. The End run around the Iraqi forces that the US and allies did
during the Gulf War was a classic armoured thrust. Monty and Rommel would have
been pleased I think.

The tank is not for fighting other tanks. Its job is to get around the enemy.
Its bloody good at fighting tanks now if you look at the front line forces the
US, the British and Germans use. Against inferior tanks they win hands down.
Against each other, it's less of an easy guess.

> Tanks started off life in WWI by being infantry-crushing monsters

Tanks that get bracketed by an artillery barrage of the right type are just as
dead now as they were during WWII. German tank formations had heavy problems
trying not to be pummeled senseless before they could get into combat. They
may not have been completely destroyed, but if 60% of your force is some how
damaged (radios, fire control, damaged suspension, wounded crew) then you're
going to have a hard attack.

> At 4:31 PM -0400 9/6/01, Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
The
> problem was that with the limited amount of space, the breechblock

Probably really means Shoot then Move. Since they were intended to be used in
the defense (local or area) they worked well. Think of them as a nice heavy 17
pounder AT gun on tracks and partially under armour with plenty of ammo.

In the Attack, the infantry attack with their armoured support and once
they've advanced a certain point, you bring up the AT guns. If they are towed
great, if they are on tracks, all the better as they'll have better cross
country mobility and won't be confined to roads and fairly level ground like
many wheeled vehicles would be.

In the defense, you'd be placing them for ideal blocking and ambush positions
if you have time and they'd all take a shot or two at a target them move out
of that firing position to the next fall back. You plan on covered escape
routes (wadi's, dry gulleys, behind
hills/woods/etc) from those fighting positions the next.

In a message dated 9/6/2001 7:29:09 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> dwalker@syncreticsoft.com writes:

<< The hellfire doesn't have that problem as far as I know.
 Shoot..Scram...*blam*... >>

As long as SOMEONE has a laser painting the target:o)

> << The hellfire doesn't have that problem as far as I know.

MMW Hellfire apparently self-homes. No need for laser designation.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Andrew Martin wrote:

> > << The hellfire doesn't have that problem as far as I know.

I'm quite sure hellfire is laser homing. What do you mean by
self-homing?
IR?

Cheers,

> Derk Groeneveld wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Andrew Martin wrote:

MMW - MilliMetric Wave radar - a very short wavelength active radar
seeker. Known as Brimstone in the UK?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Tony Francis wrote:

> Derk Groeneveld wrote:

Okay, I did a brief search on the web. As far as I can tell, the Hellfire
(AGM-114)  missile is laser guided only. Two more variants exist, the
Hellfire II, which is further optimized, and the Longbow Hellfire, which
features the MMW radar that you mention. Or have I just managed to completely
mix things up?

"HELLFIRE is an air-to-ground missile system designed to defeat tanks
and other individual targets while minimizing the exposure of the launch
vehicle to enemy fire. HELLFIRE uses laser guidance and is designed to accept
other guidance packages. It is used on helicopters against heavily armored
vehicles at longer standoff distances than any other Army missiles now in the
inventory. The HELLFIRE II is the optimized version of the laser family of
HELLFIRE missiles. The Longbow HELLFIRE Modular Missile System is an
   air-launched, radar aided, inertially guided missile that utilizes
millimeter wave radar technology."

Cheers,

Try this link

www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jalw/jalw001013_1_n.shtml

> Derk Groeneveld wrote:

> At 3:15 AM -0400 9/7/01, ShldWulf@aol.com wrote:

The newer version has a Millimeter wave guidance with the Long Bow
Apache. The version is AGM-114L. It is fire and forget.

> At 11:17 AM +0200 9/7/01, Derk Groeneveld wrote:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/agm-114.htm

Two versions of guidance. Laser with the AGM-114 A/B/C/F/K. MMW Radar
with the L model. The laser versions have issues with cloud layers interfering
with seeker locks.

In a message dated 9/7/2001 3:33:58 AM Mountain Daylight Time,

> << Derk Groeneveld wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Andrew Martin wrote:

> MMW - MilliMetric Wave radar - a very short wavelength active radar

> and rmgill@mindspring.com (Ryan M Gill) writes:

> The newer version has a Millimeter wave guidance with the Long Bow

WILL be. As of the present it's been tested but not put into service as far as
I can tell from the posted articles. As of 2000, (when I retired) it was not
an active munition. Service Hellfires are laser guided. Now WHEN they actually
put these on line, they will still have to go active to lock onto target prior
to firing. Thus giving any vehicle with a radar detector time to activate
counter measures. Same difference actually, since laser sensors can detect a
painting laser and gives a chance to shoot off smoke or laser "fairy" dust.
The nice thing about the laser is the laser could be coming from anywhere up
to 90deg, off the Hellfire's flight path. So even if you detect it, your not
sure where the missile is at the time.

Opps I'm wrong. According to Jane's:

"The first trial firing of an active MMW radar-guided AGM-114L Longbow
Hellfire 2 missile was carried out in early 1994, this version was developed
for the AH-64D Longbow Apache helicopter. Low rate initial production
was authorised in December 1995 and the Longbow Hellfire 2 entered service in
1998. The US Army plans to purchase 12,905 AGM-114L missiles."

Which might explain why I never ran into them. The Apache units we worked with
most of the time were just using standard (laser guided) Hellfires.

I don't recall working with any Longbow units.