Death of the Tank Destroyer

[punishment 1]

You know the tank destroyers (Big tank , big armour , big gun) that almost every side had during WW2. Like the Stug3 and that SU76 or somthing for example .Where did they all go , even in modern warfare an updated tank destroyer would be a good idea. Do any countries still use some form of them?

The only reason i can think of that they are no longer made is that helicopters and "tank buster" plains were invented.

[jakerod 254]

I think sweden still uses a certain type of Assault Gun. I don't really know if it is really a tank destroyer though. I think they were probably taken away because they were too slow and could probably be taken out by aircraft quite easily.

[scary 0]

We've got them in the UK. I think we sell them to Belgium as well.

Striker.

And very nice they are too.

[EiZei 0]

I think the ATGM vehicles fill that role today.

[stgn 39]

The best tank killer is another tank.

STGN

[scary 0]

The best tank killer is another tank.

STGN

Second best.

The best tank killer is a tank hunter, it's what they're made for. Tanks have a more general role.

[Gollum1 0]

The best tank killer is a tank hunter, it's what they're made for.

Explain to me why a tank destroyer is better at destroying tanks than tanks themselves (Medium-Heavy tanks or MBTs), with examples, please.

edit: assuming you mean "tank destroyer" by tank "hunter", I've never even heard that term before.

edit2: After reading up, apparently the Ferdinand's designation was "panzerjäger", I wonder if the English equivalent has ever been used as a term in English-speaking militaries though.

[Ares1978 0]

Explain to me why a tank destroyer is better at destroying tanks than tanks themselves (Medium-Heavy tanks or MBTs), with examples, please.

Depends on the definition of a tank destroyer.

Well, in theory, dedicated tank destroyers can be built much lighter and smaller than MBT's yet still pack the same punch. Lighter vehicle essentially means better mobility, making it possible for it to outmanoeuvre any MBT unit. By doing so, it could perform more effective ambushes and traverse terrain that is inaccessible to MBT's. A wheeled tank destroyer can move from A to B on-road twice as fast and is much more economic. The only advantage the MBT has over tank destroyers is its ability to take a punch, which is why it would be insane to try to use tank destroyers against medium tanks in a "fair fight". Examples would be almost pointless to try to give. There are a number of engagements between tank destroyers and medium tanks in history, but I doubt anybody here is qualified to use them as examples to prove a point.

You could ask the essentially the same question, comparing MBT's to heavy tanks. The MBT is a good compromise, a jack-of-all-trades. You probably know the rest of that saying.

EDIT: never mind, I missed the part about "Big tank , big armour" in the first post and I got confused by the StuG and SU76 that were mentioned after that.   Well anyway, it's pretty much the same although it's to the MBT's advantage over the heavy tanks.

[kakagoegie 0]

A bit of information about the tank destroyer can be found here.

I think they are mostly gone because of the role the tank destroyer forfills. Tanks are an offensive weapon. Tank hunters are mostly a defensive weapon. ATGM can also forfill that defensive roll now. They are smaller and cheaper. So countries will buy ATGM instead of tank hunters.

[Messiah 2]

what happened to them? Helicopters, Fast Jets, Anti Armour specific weaponry (SABOT, HOT, MILAN, HELLFIRE, JAVELIN to name a few)

[EiZei 0]

Of course you have to factor in how many atgm-wielding light wheeled vehicles you can buy for the price of a single modern main battle tank..

[Messiah 2]

indeed, and also how advanced Infantry carried AT weapons have become...

[scary 0]

Explain to me why a tank destroyer is better at destroying tanks than tanks themselves (Medium-Heavy tanks or MBTs), with examples, please.

Tank hunters are smaller, lighter, faster and more maneuverable than tanks. This gives them many advantages over a tank.

They can move quickly into position, and due to their small size and comparatively light weight, perhaps a position that a tank would be unable to access, use their low profile/low radar signature to hide in ambush. The tank hunter will see a tank long before the tank is capable of seeing see the tank hunter, even if the hunter isn't that well hidden.

Most hunters use guided missiles as opposed to the unguided artillery shells of tanks. A tank fires at a point in space, if the target the tank is firing at moves from that point in space it misses. A hunter fires at a target, the only way for it to miss is if the target moves out of range or into the shadow of another object. If a tank fires on another tank the apfsds shell may kill the tank, it may immobilise the tank, it may knock out the turret or it may just give the crew a headache. That is if it hits it, which isn't even nearly guaranteed, especially at range. If a hunter fires at a tank, the missile/missiles will kill it.

After destroying a tank the hunter can move with the speed and grace of a thousand gazelles to evade any slow and lumbering supporting tanks.

[Zerg 0]

I think the ASU-85 http://www.desert-storm.com/VetPages/SMcDonald/ASU-85.html was probably the last classical Tank Destroyer of the WWII STUG/M36/SU-85 style.

It was built for Air Assault troops because it carried the barrel of a much larger calibre than a tank of its weight and size could (weight of course being the deterimental factor in wether a vehicle can be deployed by air) thus provided the soviet paras (that acctually more resembled the mechanised than light infantry units) with a solid anti-tank weapon (for its time).

Why are TDs not present in the armies of the world anymore? Good question. Personaly I think they are not outdated at all and would do good provided they would be used in the role they had always meant to be used in which is of course strictly defensive. A tank destroyer in an ambush is more effective than either a tank or immobile anti-tank cannons. More effective than a tank because it is more easily concealed and more effective than a recoliess cannon because it can retreat into safety much more easily.

So again why are they not present in any today`s armies? Well part of the reason might very well be in the fact them being very much a defensive weapon. And a defensive weapon is simply not very popular with the generals. They are much more of a fans of more romantic and offensive weapons like paras, tanks and bombers.

And the second part of the reason is in that tank destroyers were very much an improvisation that was born out of neccesity to replace thousands of destroyed armor pieces quickly and cheaply which is not the case in today`s peaceful times. Say in WWII theese kind of vehicles were built in numbers to some degree comparable even to tank numbers. However at the start of the war the concept of such a weapon was unheard of in my nations and in the rest the numbers of such weapons was only symbolical when compared to the number of tanks.

[Garcia 0]

Quote[/b] ]A tank fires at a point in space, if the target the tank is firing at moves from that point in space it misses.

As far as I know modern tanks have high tech computers and lasers and all kind of shit so it's shit easy to hit a target if they just spot it and lock on to it. Most tanks can lock on to a target, and then the computer takes care of keeping locked on. If the tank drives on some bumpy terrain, the barrel still keeps locked on the target. If the tank does a 360, the barrel still is locked on the target. So I guess the computer also keeps the barrel in the right position if the target moves, so the shell will hit the target.

[echo1 0]

ATGMs killed the tank destroyer, and helicopters too.

[miles teg 1]

These days what used to be tank destroyer type vehicles now take on the role of recon vehicles or IFV's.  The BMP-3 for example mounts both a 30mm and 100mm cannon, except that the 100mm cannon is more of an assault gun (like for taking out bunkers).  Its ATGM's serve the purpose of taking out tanks.  The British Scorpion with its 76mm cannon is used more for recon work with armored units.  While its HESH rounds can destroy older T-55/T-62 tanks, it isn't capable of destroying more modern tanks.

For the most part ATGM's are far more effective against tanks then most sub-100mm anti-tank guns.

However with that said, it would not be foolish I think to create a new generation of tank killer based on a turretless design like the Swedish "S" tank.  If it mounted a cannon larger then any typical tank (like a 140mm cannon) and if it had a low profile and good speed, it could find a very important niche.  Add on a few ATGM's for good measure and it could dominate a battlefield with superior speed, mobility, low profile, and lethality.  A 140mm cannon firing SABOT round would likely outdistance and out penetrate both Western 120mm and Russian/Chinese made 125mm cannons.

In addition such high powered cannons have three advantages over ATGM's.  One is that they can fire SABOT rounds and the second is that ATGM's often have a fairly lengthy flight time to their targets.  The thrid advantage is that some can also be jammed (including some wire guided variants).  Tank cannons can't be jammed and their tank rounds travel at a faster speed and thus less time for a tank to maneuver out of the way.

Another related form of armored vehicle that is sadly lacking is the assault gun.  The US Army retired its last two vehicles that had "Demolition Guns".   This was the Sheridan light tank and the M60 based M728 Combat Engineering Vehicle.  Both of these tanks share the same massively powerful 152mm demolition gun capable of placing extremely powerful high explosive shells into enemy fortifications and for leveling buildings.

In Iraq, the M1A1/2 tanks largely take up this role and while the 120mm HE/HEAT rounds are effective, they are not nearly as effective as the larger assault guns.  In addition the long tank guns are not ideal for urban warfare operations in which the crew may not be able to fully rotate the turret without the cannon hitting something.  The snub nosed cannon on the Sheridan and M728 were much better suited for urban combat.

Airborne units especially are seriously lacking an airborne deployable assault gun.  There is a 105mm Stryker being tested, however it is questionable whether it would be air droppable.  However if the US Army adopts it, it will essentially become a highly mobile tank-destroyer as well as a form of assault gun.  However against Western made MBT's it wouldn't be quite as effective and it suffers the problem of its long barrel in the urban combat role.

So at any rate, the tank-destroyer and assault gun concepts, as you can see are not dead.  They will probably eventually be revisted.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Messiah 2]

The British Scorpion with its 76mm cannon is used more for recon work with armored units.

This has been retired from service since the last gulf war, although other nations bought them off the MoD...

[miles teg 1]

Ah I forgot about that. Although I could have sworn I saw one in Iraq in a picture from last year. Maybe it was just a scimitar. But yeah I know Jordan still uses it.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[scary 0]

As far as I know modern tanks have high tech computers and lasers and all kind of shit so it's shit easy to hit a target if they just spot it and lock on to it. Most tanks can lock on to a target, and then the computer takes care of keeping locked on. If the tank drives on some bumpy terrain, the barrel still keeps locked on the target. If the tank does a 360, the barrel still is locked on the target. So I guess the computer also keeps the barrel in the right position if the target moves, so the shell will hit the target.

The fire control computer aims the barrel at the point in space it believes the target will be in when the shell reaches it. The shell itself is unguided. If a moving target changes speed or direction or a static target moves after firing the shell will hit the intended point in space but will miss the target.

This isn't a problem at shorter ranges, but over distance, when there are a few seconds between a shell being fired and reaching the intended target, it is. If the target is another tank you don't want to be waiting for the range to close, as this works in both directions.

Of course, this all depends on the ability of the gunner to keep the target on sight, which, even with stabilised sights is much easier from a static tank hunter than a moving tank, especially if the hunter has a remote deployable sight.

[Major Gripe 0]

And a defensive weapon is simply not very popular with the generals. They are much more of a fans of more romantic and offensive weapons like paras, tanks and bombers.

Which generals would those be? Secondly I have never heard weapons of destruction referred to as romantic (especially paras, have you seen British squaddies?!!.

[hellfish6 7]

In WWII there was a general consensus, especially in the US and other Allied powers, that tanks were not designed to fight other tanks - they were to effect and exploit breakthroughs into enemy rear areas and wreak havoc amongst support units.

Seeing the success of the German panzers in France, the US rushed to counter them, creating tank destroyer battalions. These were essentially infantry and artillerymen trained as anti-tank commandos in addition to crewing the heavy weapons. Since the US believed that towed AT guns were more useful than self-propelled ones, more than half of all US TD battalions were initially towed.

Kasserine Pass changed all that, though, but the US was still reluctant to give up the Sherman's 75mm HE capability - the 76mm guns that eventually began to show up actually had very bad HE rounds. In fact, most US tank units spent their time supporting infantry, so tank killing capability wasn't that important (of course this idea changed over time).

After WWII was all said and done, the US pretty much adopted the 90mm gun as standard, and the 75mm was considered obselete as the threat had changed from limited numbers of German tanks to the vast numbers of superior Soviet tanks. It also turned out that most US tank destroyer units spent their time supporting infantry as opposed to fighting tanks (only something like 10% of all engagements were against armor for the average TD unit). There just wasn't a need for them anymore.

A good history of the tank destroyers in American service and the reasoning for their eventual demise can be found in:

Weapons of the Tankers, which also covers US tank and ampbibious armored development in the war with lots of great pictures and also in:

The Tank Killers: A History of America's World War II Tank Destroyer Force by the same author.

[chris330 0]

In WWII there was a general consensus, especially in the US and other Allied powers, that tanks were not designed to fight other tanks - they were to effect and exploit breakthroughs into enemy rear areas and wreak havoc amongst support units.

Fascinating concept. Does this also apply to things like the Tiger and Panther though? Surely they were meant to tackle other tanks?

Just one question, is it true that the Tiger (even though no-one dared mention it to Hitler) was actually a copy of what is generally considered the best tank of World War II - The Russian T-36 (or T-35 can't remember which).

Furthermore I know one one enormous engagement where huge amounts of German and Russian tanks just ran into each other one-time totally unexpected and unprepared. Apparently the ensuing fight was dreadfully bitter. Does anyone know anything about dates and where this happened?

[jakerod 254]

In WWII there was a general consensus, especially in the US and other Allied powers, that tanks were not designed to fight other tanks - they were to effect and exploit breakthroughs into enemy rear areas and wreak havoc amongst support units.

Fascinating concept. Does this also apply to things like the Tiger and Panther though? Surely they were meant to tackle other tanks?

Just one question, is it true that the Tiger (even though no-one dared mention it to Hitler) was actually a copy of what is generally considered the best tank of World War II - The Russian T-36 (or T-35 can't remember which).

Furthermore I know one one enormous engagement where huge amounts of German and Russian tanks just ran into each other one-time totally unexpected and unprepared. Apparently the ensuing fight was dreadfully bitter. Does anyone know anything about dates and where this happened?

Are you refering to the Battle of Kursk?

[chris330 0]

T-34 it is:

I think you're right it might have taken place during Kursk, but the encounter I'm on about was too small scale to be called a battle. When I say ran into each other I don't mean they faced off over a battlefield I mean they quite literally bumped into each other whilst moving from one place to another, hence the carnage that ensued.