> At 03:31 PM 01/09/98 -0700, Hedglin, Nils A wrote:
Has
> anyone tried making a self-propelled AT gun?
Actually, a Tank Destroyer usually is/was a SP AT gun. This was the
standart configuration of German (Jagd series) and Russian (SU series) (also
British "Archer") tank destroyers during WWII. The only nation that had
turreted TD's was the United States (Hellcat, Jackson). The idea of a TD was
to sit back, out of the main line of battle and attempt to destroy enemy tanks
were engaging your own Main Battle Tank's. This was done by giving the TD a
much more powerful gun than was usually found on one's MBT's (though not
always). TD's always had the best type of gun aveilable though. These vehicles
were not expected to be drawn into a slugging match with an enemy tank, and
that's why they have less armour protection (at least US and British). Speed
has abit to do with it, since the TD should "shoot&scoot", However, most were
as slow as their MBT counterparts. Unlike the British and Americans, the
Germans expected their SP's to be involved in such stuggles, and often
suppelmented MBT formations with SP's due to a lack of MBT's. As for the
Russians, they realized that their SP's would also have to confront long
ranged German Guns such as the 88mm and placed a substanial amount of armour
on most of their SP's. In fact, the SU 152 was created within a very short
time frame specifically to deal with the new German Tiger I's. However, one
of the greatest bonuses, and I don't know if it matters in SG/DS, was
that TD's were usually cheaper and much simpler to construct than MBT's and
therefore more economical and quicker to produce. The big thing to remember is
that TD's are not MBT's and you don't use them like MTB's unless you really
have to ( ie you have no MTB's). Actually, the use of TD's has almost
disappeared at this present date. Most moderen nations have the money and
resources to construct MBT's. Those that don't just buy cheaper/older
model
MTB's from these nations, rather than put money into R&D/construction of
a new TD. Actually, the Russians are presently testing a new gun, that they
are planning to place into a TD role ( not sure what hull, probably a
T-80
or 90). Sorry I cannot recall any specifications, but the articale was out of
a Jane's Defense Weekly from either last or this month. I will check
tommorrow. I don't know why they are doing this, unless cost is now a factor,
and they don't wish to spend it on R&D for a new MBT.
I too have wondered about the role of the Tank Destroyer in DSII. From the
little I know about TDs in WWII, their lack of defensive capabilities was made
up for by their small size & fast speed in comparison to most of the lumbering
MBTs. Unfortunately, I have found that DSII doesn't reflect those abilities
well. Size does matter in DSII to some extent, but speed doesn't.
I have tried running what I think to be an excellent TD, Size 2 w/ Class
3 HEL, but, because of their small size, they get blown apart before they get
2 shots off. The better defense die doesn't make up for the inability to
withstand a hit if it does get through, & maybe it shouldn't. Maybe the TD
is no longer a viable vehicle type, especially with the HMMV w/ a TOW
being able to do the job just as well. I don't remember hearing of any TD
class vehicles in Desert Storm. Or, maybe the HMMV has become the new TD. I
guess it also depends in the terrain. Desert Storm was a war of speed &
manauvering because of the wide open & reasonably flat sands. If something
like that had happened in South America, then I think TDs would have been able
to be more effective since the Abrahms speed would have been worthless in the
jungle or mountains. Then there's the whole AT gun idea, which also seems to
be invalidated by the speed of today's (& tomorrow's) MBTs. Has
anyone tried making a self-propelled AT gun?
Just ranting & raving, Nils
> -----Original Message-----
> Tracked, Wheeled or GEV to mount essentially the same turret/weapon
In general there were two reasons for building turretless TD's: 1) lower cost
and easier production
2) lower profile for easier defensive measures.
> Hedglin, Nils A wrote:
> Maybe the TD is no longer a viable vehicle type, especially with the
I
> guess it also depends in the terrain. Desert Storm was a war of speed
Has
> anyone tried making a self-propelled AT gun?
Currently the only turretless TD or MBT is the Swedish S-Tank. It has
the interesting feature in that it can lower it's profile an additional 18"
when not
moving by virtue of a pneumatic suspension system. There is a tremendous
disadvantage to not having a turret though and most modern designs incorporate
a turret, despite it's weight and complexity demands.
Even in WWII the US fielded the TD's with turrets (i.e. the M10 Wolverine) and
has never really embraced the turretless type. The Soviets and Germans fielded
huge TD's (Elephant, Nashorn, SU-122) which were fine in defensive areas
where attackers could be herded into killing fields, but were extremely
vulnerable
if flanked - they had much thinner armor on the sides and could not
provide defensive fire to the flanks.
Turretless TD's and SP-AT guns were a stop-gap measure used by countries
to field as many armored units as possible with the least amount of material
and
effort. In specialized situations - such as street fighting, a Brumbar
or
SU-152
could be awesome and intimidating but in a fluid and rapidly moving situation,
they are probably at a severe disadvantage. In the future, if the trend of
fewer, more high tech vehicles being the norm, there isn't much place for TD's
except in lower tech worlds or nationalities that want to bulk up the
statistics of their armed forces.
--Binhan
> You wrote:
> made up for by their small size & fast speed in comparison to most of
Eh? US TDs were faster than Shermans, but StuGs and SU-XXs weren't
that fast compared to their respective medium tanks. Small size is not
quite right--lower silouette is better term.
reflect those >abilities well. Size does matter in DSII to some extent, but
speed doesn't. >I have tried running what I think to be an
excellent TD, Size 2 w/ Class 3 >HEL, but, because of their small size,
they get blown apart before they get >2 shots off. The better defense
My militia includes TD which I've used to great effect. Why? 'Coz it's cheap
as all hell. No bells and whistles, only 73 points a pop. Sure, your Heavy
Grav Tank can squash 'em. But you're shelling out 499 points a pop, for which
I've bought a full platoon of TDs.
> able to do the job just as well. I don't remember hearing of any TD
US Army has had Tank Destroyers in service for quite some time. It's
just that we went to an M-113A1 varient with a TOW launcher on top.
> in the jungle or mountains. Then there's the whole AT gun idea, which
MBTs.
Defending restricted terrain, there is still a place for towed AT guns.
<delurk>
I'm going to jump in here. I've always liked TDs.
> You wrote:
Yep. And German TDs (except the Hetzer) usually weren't smaller (i.e. lighter)
than the tanks, just lower. And what about monstrosities like the Jagdtiger
and the British Tortoise? They were huge, tall, slow, massively armored
(without a turret) and had big guns. In the German case at least, I seem to
remember TDs and assault guns being used because it was often easier to take
the turret off an existing tank chassis and use a larger (or longer, or both)
gun than redesign the turret to handle the additional size and recoil.
Buji
...Snip...JTL
> Yep. And German TDs (except the Hetzer) usually weren't smaller (i.e.
Buji, I fear that you have stolen my thunder on this one!
As I was about to say, another of the movating factors in the
advent of the assault gun/tank destroyer saga, is that the AG/TD
was able to carry the 'next generation' of AT gun/MBT gun. This
allowed the deployment of these advanced weapons (with mobility
and protection) not available to the towed TD units. The next
generation of tanks picked these up as main guns after the larger chassis and
turrets were designed to handle them.
The main reason larger tanks w/larger than 130mm weapons do
not exist today is that the road/bridge network cannot support a
further increase in the size/weight of the MBT.
Bye for now,
In a message dated 98-09-01 20:55:24 EDT, you write:
<<
I'm going to jump in here. I've always liked TDs. >>
Same hear, on the defence, on the offence take tanks. Bye Stephen
> On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Hedglin, Nils A wrote:
> withstand a hit if it does get through, & maybe it shouldn't. Maybe
Well, according to what modern armies field today, it isn't (a certain tank
from a certain nation that hasn't been in a war this century doesn't count).
I think this is another case of "realism" interfering with playability.
As the vanilla rules go, it makes practically no sense to build a vehicle with
hull mounted main gun or an open topped vehicle.
Might be "realistic", but Hammer's Slammers stories had both, and not as
obsolete rear echelon crap either. Which do you want to game? Modern warfare
with laser guns added, or your fave scifi story, even though it might be
slightly unrealistic? Would you enjoy having your carefully crafted "Imperial
Hoth Assault Force" slaughtered by a "realistic"
opposing force just because AT-AT isn't a viable design in DSII? Comes
down to personal preference, I think...
Let me tell you about another game. We used to play Mecha! a lot. It was a fun
game. It was a "generic anime giant robot game" that could simulate mecha from
a wide variety of shows. Well, it could in theory. It's just that the way the
system system worked, if you didn't build a mecha with one main weapon, no
smaller backups, a supply of missile packs and a shield, well, you were
screwed against an opponent who did.
Thus, you couldn't easily pit a Valkyrie from Macross against a Gundam. IMHO,
the system failed in this role. It didn't really allow you to use mecha from
any background, you had to conform to their background and philosophy of
combat to be effective. In our case this went as far as
people gluing jury-rigged shields on their Valkyries...
Dirtside's problem, ofcourse, is trying to simulate a vast variety of SF
stories. Instead of being locked down in "one true path", it could use a
couple of optional background modifiers, e.g.
"You don't like GMS/H jeeps ruling the battlefield? Then adjust this and
that..."
I like the proposed free signature shift for turretless vehicles. Maybe their
max armor allowed could also be increased by one...
Murray;
The US Army phased out TD in the 50's in that the main battle tank was to be
strong enough to destroy other enemy tanks and for maneuver behind enemy
front. The M1 fulfills both those roles. Also the cost of having two classes
of tanks would break the war department budget. David
> Hedglin, Nils A wrote:
From the
> little I know about TDs in WWII, their lack of defensive capabilities
I
> guess it also depends in the terrain. Desert Storm was a war of speed
Has
> anyone tried making a self-propelled AT gun?