Death of the Tank Destroyer

[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.

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?

No, the tiger was a direct descendant of other earlier German heavy tank projects. It was a response to Soviet heavy armor, though - specifically the KV-1 and KV-2 heavy tanks. Before the Tiger, heavy tanks were considered to by assault units that break through heavily fortified lines in support of infantry, not to fight other tanks.

Look at the only US heavy tank of the war - the M-6, which never actually saw combat. It was hugely armored, terribly slow, and armed with the same 75mm gun as the Sherman because it was designed to fight through fortified lines. It ultimately never got fielded partly because it was unreliable and partly because it was useless - five Shermans could kill a Tiger or Panther and the US tank units in Europe would have preferred five Shermans to a single M-6 (which would have been the rough replacement rate).

There's a legendary story about a single KV-2 tank that stopped an entire panzer division in its tracks (excuse the pun) for a day in 1941 because the Germans didn't have anything to kill it (and the KV-2 had a 152mm howtizer for its main gun, which could wreck a lot of things). IIRC under the cover of darkness the Germans wheeled up an 88mm flak cannon to kill the thing - after everything else, including tanks, engineers, etc. failed.

The T-35 was long known to be a useless tank by the time the Germans invaded in '41. In the '39-40 Winter War with Finland, the Finns had no problem knocking out T-35s, which were poorly armed (relatively), poorly armored and mechanically very unreliable.

The Tiger showed up in early-mid '42, I think, but by that time the KV-1s and -2s were pretty much all gone (mostly because vast numbers of Soviet troops were encircled and the tanks ran out of fuel). The Tiger did, obviously, prove it's worth against later Soviet tanks, though the Tiger was ponderously slow, and also mechanically unreliable. By '44 or so, the Tiger was outmatched by most Soviet tanks (like the T-34/85, SU-85, IS-1, etc.). IIRC most Tigers that fought the US ended up running out of gas or parts rather than being taken out in combat.

The Panther tank was designed as a response to the T-34, as the T-34 was a huge suprise to the Germans. It didn't have particularly thick armor, but it was very sloped armor and had excellent mobility.

Even with the Tiger and Panther, the US didn't break from the idea that tanks weren't supposed to fight tanks. They did concede that tanks more or less "accidentally" fought other tanks, so after Kasserine Pass and the invasion of Italy the US began fielding the 76mm gunned Shermans and started development on the 90mm gunned tank (Pershing) and tank destroyer (Jackson). Even then, no more than 1 in 5 tanks was a 76mm gunned version. Only after the war did this change and tanks became tank killers and the tank destroyer as a concept in the US Army went away. Actually, I think the British Centurion was the first real post-war main battle tank, as the Pershing was still considered inadequate against many threats (especially the Soviet heavy tanks like the IS-3).

I think the battle you're referring to is Kursk, which happened in '43. It was actually a giant battle with many smaller battles where German and Soviet tanks fought each other point-blank. Kursk is usually considered to be the last chance the Germans had to stabilize the Eastern Front but, obviously, they failed. IIRC it's also arguably the largest tank battle in history.

[mechastalin 0]

As many have said before me, They were replaced by fast APC's with large cannons on them and smaller vehicles carrying large ATGMs.

[chris330 0]

Wonderful reply. Makes an awful lot of sense when you think about it. Was the T-34 one of the first tanks to use sloping armour to deflect shells?

Great story about the KV-2 holding up the division. Is there anything on the net where I could read a detailed account of it?

So strictly and traditionally speaking tanks are there mainly for infantry support and to control areas, aswell as knock down the odd building here and there.

Another interesting thing I suppose is that a vehicle designed to kill tanks would have (I presume) a high velocity armour piercing round which would make it not too useful for anything other than tank killing, hence I suppose why it is an independent vehicle class in its own right

[Supah 0]

The best tank killer is another tank.

STGN

Wrong, the best tank killer is a LGB dropped from 10.000 feet while the tanks crew are hiding in the desert at night far away from their vehicle because their obsolete land battle ships have become guaranteed coffins because they attract the attention of aircraft. Besides their role has been taken over as well by tank hunting helicopters like the Cobra, Apache and Hind. As a tank crew today other tanks are the least of your worries, keep an eye on the sky

[EiZei 0]

The best tank killer is another tank.

STGN

Wrong, the best tank killer is a LGB dropped from 10.000 feet while the tanks crew are hiding in the desert at night far away from their vehicle because their obsolete land battle ships have become guaranteed coffins because they attract the attention of aircraft. Besides their role has been taken over as well by tank hunting helicopters like the Cobra, Apache and Hind. As a tank crew today other tanks are the least of your worries, keep an eye on the sky

Or with most of today's wars the worst enemy of the tanker is some nervous looking guy hiding in a spiderhole holding his remote IED detonator..

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

The best tank killer is another tank.

STGN

Wrong, the best tank killer is a LGB dropped from 10.000 feet while the tanks crew are hiding in the desert at night far away from their vehicle because their obsolete land battle ships have become guaranteed coffins because they attract the attention of aircraft. Besides their role has been taken over as well by tank hunting helicopters like the Cobra, Apache and Hind. As a tank crew today other tanks are the least of your worries, keep an eye on the sky

Or with most of today's wars the worst enemy of the tanker is some nervous looking guy hiding in a spiderhole holding his remote IED detonator..

That is one misplaced smiley...

[Gollum1 0]

The best tank killer is another tank.

STGN

Wrong, the best tank killer is a LGB dropped from 10.000 feet while the tanks crew are hiding in the desert at night far away from their vehicle because their obsolete land battle ships have become guaranteed coffins because they attract the attention of aircraft. Besides their role has been taken over as well by tank hunting helicopters like the Cobra, Apache and Hind. As a tank crew today other tanks are the least of your worries, keep an eye on the sky

Hmm, I wouldn't be so quick to make statements like that, I remember a quote by an Iraqi tank unit commander: After the bombing campaign he had about 34 of 40 tanks operational, after one engagement with an Abrams unit he had 4. Especially helicopters can be surprisingly vulnerable to ground units, even units equipped only with small arms. Even a reasonable HMG team can ruin any helo's day. The NATO bombing campaign against Serbian ground forces in Kosovo mostly ended up destroying decoys and some ridiculously small amount of AFVs, Wikipedia says 13.

Sure, shooting rusty Iraqi tincans that have zero training, poor command and no air support or AA in the middle of the desert is easy, but that's just one situation.

[Zerg 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?

Of course. Hellfish was talking about Western Allies, with their cruiser tanks and infantry tanks concepts.

Great story about the KV-2 holding up the division. Is there anything on the net where I could read a detailed account of it?

http://wio.ru/tank/ww2tank.htm#t2

Not that detailed but its something. And more other stories there.

[Jezz 0]

Tank destroyers dead as far as im concerned its still alive and kicking but its form just changed thats all

striker,s-tank,m-113 with tow,italian centaur.french amx/panhard wheeled tank destroyers ect

oh and theres also the 2s-25/sprut-sd, looks like russia's pt-76 replacement

http://afvid.topcities.com/specs/0-9/2s25.html

[Zerg 0]

The best tank killer is another tank.

STGN

Wrong, the best tank killer is a LGB dropped from 10.000 feet while the tanks crew are hiding in the desert at night far away from their vehicle because their obsolete land battle ships have become guaranteed coffins because they attract the attention of aircraft. Besides their role has been taken over as well by tank hunting helicopters like the Cobra, Apache and Hind. As a tank crew today other tanks are the least of your worries, keep an eye on the sky

Hmm, I wouldn't be so quick to make statements like that, I remember a quote by an Iraqi tank unit commander: After the bombing campaign he had about 34 of 40 tanks operational, after one engagement with an Abrams unit he had 4. Especially helicopters can be surprisingly vulnerable to ground units, even units equipped only with small arms. Even a reasonable HMG team can ruin any helo's day. The NATO bombing campaign against Serbian ground forces in Kosovo mostly ended up destroying decoys and some ridiculously small amount of AFVs, Wikipedia says 13.

Sure, shooting rusty Iraqi tincans that have zero training, poor command and no air support or AA in the middle of the desert is easy, but that's just one situation.

I belive that Air power is a great threat to armor while the armor is on the move. An enemy with a complete air supperiority will inflict such loses on an armored formation on the move that for all practical purposes armor is best left immobile (and thus useles) if you have no air presence of your own. (Example can be the Highway of Death.)

However Air power alone without spotters on the ground is almost not a threat to immobile armor as long as they are in a position to hide and camouflage themselves (which can be a bit tricky in a desert and when expecting an offensive by 500,000 troops and thus need to be dugg in on the front lines instead of spread around.). (Example can be the Kosovo War.)

As for the AT helicopters. Yes they can be extremley efficent, but they themselves are also higly vulnerable. (Tank busting planes were sort of WWII equivalents of AT helicopters and while everyone is quick to mention Hans Urlich Rudel and his claimed 500 armored pieces destroyed they tend to forget he himself was shot down 32 times.) Besides AT heli is extremley expensive weapon. Much more so than a tank.

[punishment 1]

You say that the soviet armour was superior to the germans towards the end of the war. But i was under the impression that germany had the advantages over them in tigers and king tigers , one story being a Tiger or Tiger variant being hit 120 times by soviet guns and still going.

That gives me the impression the quantaty overwhelmed the quality of the german panzers?

Yes that was a misplaced smily and i hate hearing on the news about these cowardly and unhounerable tacticts of blowing ones self up to injure others and blowing up people by puting mines on the road

[Zerg 0]

You say that the soviet armour was superior to the germans towards the end of the war. But i was under the impression that germany had the advantages over them in tigers and king tigers , one story being a Tiger or Tiger variant being hit 120 times by soviet guns and still going.

That gives me the impression the quantaty overwhelmed the quality of the german panzers?

A tank surviving 120 hits tells you only about its armor. It tells you nothing about its firepower, mobility, reliability, production costs and operational costs.

And BTW the most numerous German tank of wwII was neither a Panther nor a Tiger, but a Pz-IV.

[GoOB 0]

.....

s-tank ....

Which was a complete failiure...

[CsonkaPityu 0]

Cowardly guerilla wars are the flavor of our time, modern tanks won't fight other modern tanks, simply because uncle A-bomb would handle any serious conflict between serious powers. So i think in the future armored vehicles will serve a role in fighting insurgent types of enemies - less manouverable, highly armored vehicles that provide cover and are usable in an urban envirioment even more. What those Abrams tanks are doing now in Iraq, that is probably the future of what tanks will have to do.

Here's an article about Abrams' modernization i found: http://www.afvnews.ca/cgi-bin....18

[Supah 0]

Cowardly guerilla wars

Cowardly? HAH! Depends whose side your on If you can not win a battle of attrition because of overwhelming enemy numerical superiority adapting a ambush style of fighting is a sound operational practice. If you want people to go in guns blazing head to head like its 1811 you have been watching too much GI Joe.

[hellfish6 7]

You say that the soviet armour was superior to the germans towards the end of the war. But i was under the impression that germany had the advantages over them in tigers and king tigers , one story being a Tiger or Tiger variant being hit 120 times by soviet guns and still going.

That gives me the impression the quantaty overwhelmed the quality of the german panzers?

Yes that was a misplaced smily and i hate hearing on the news about these cowardly and unhounerable tacticts of blowing ones self up to injure others and blowing up people by puting mines on the road

That is certainly not hard to imagine - an old Soviet 45mm AT gun could fire all day at a Tiger and not do any damage (though statistically it would at least be able to damage something - vision blocks, tracks, gun barrel, etc). If it was a 76mm, 85mm or 100mm AT gun that Tiger wouldn't have lasted long.

The Germans and, later, the Soviets, mastered the art of using tanks to effect breakthroughs and exploitations (see France in 1940 - German tanks were largely outmatched by French tanks, but the Germans could maneuver and tear through the French rear areas very effectively). But they also adapted to the reality that tanks will fight other tanks. Essentially all German and Soviet tanks designed beyond 1942 were multipurpose - able to hold their own against enemy armor as well as provide support to the infantry. Even the Tiger and Panther were useful for shelling towns, likewise the dedicated assault/antitank guns like StugIIIs and JgdpzIVs.

The US and Britain instead continued to follow the doctrine that tanks aren't supposed to fight tanks, which ended up killing a lot of British and American tankers simply because - suprise, suprise - tanks often do fight other tanks.

You have to remember, though, that the war the Allies fought against Germany and the war the Soviets fought against Germany were very, very different. Through the very last days of the war the vast majority of German tanks were fighting the Soviets, not the Allies in France. Luckily, as someone pointed out, the main German tank was the Mark IV, which was only slightly better as a fighter than the Sherman tank (though mechanically less reliable). Had the Germans been able to send more tanks to fight the Allies the war could have dragged on even longer or the Soviets would have taken large chunks of western Europe.

Yes, there are still tank destroyers to this day but their role is often limited and they haven't quite been able to prove their worth. Most tank destroyers are assigned to infantry battalions as specialized platoons that are parcelled out to the infantry companies or used as mobile reserves.

I don't know of any battle where the outcome was determined by dedicated tank destroyers after WWII. I know Israel lost a lot of tanks to Sagger ATGMs, but those were/are considered infantry weapons. US light infantry battalions had a company of 12 humvees with TOW missiles, but they were never really used against tanks, save for a couple of minor engagements during the two wars with Iraq. Even the Indian-Pakistani wars saw tanks fighting tanks as opposed to tank destroyers.

[punishment 1]

guillira wars in my opionion are just a last resort to a already failed battle with organised forces. (The battle has already been won but some fight on not really dealing any serious blow to the enemy).

An example was ww2 again :P where after the wermacht surrendered in germany the SS were ordered to wage guirilla war against the enemy , i think this lasted a month or less and that too failed

[Zerg 0]

I don't know of any battle where the outcome was determined by dedicated tank destroyers after WWII. I know Israel lost a lot of tanks to Sagger ATGMs, but those were/are considered infantry weapons. US light infantry battalions had a company of 12 humvees with TOW missiles, but they were never really used against tanks, save for a couple of minor engagements during the two wars with Iraq. Even the Indian-Pakistani wars saw tanks fighting tanks as opposed to tank destroyers.

Well there is this famous example where in the 80s Libyan armor was forced to retreat from the Aozou Strip after heavy loses were inflited on it by Chadian Technicals - civilian pick up troops that were improvised to carry recoiless rifles or anti-tank missle systems.

Yes their success came as much from tactics, morale and skill of the crewmen (and the many blunders of their enemies) as from the weapons they used. And tanks with equaly skilled, motivated and bold crews could probably do the same job as good as they did (but at a higher money cost).

However the point is that in certain situations and if used correctly a Tank Destroyer can be as effictive weapon as a tank and since it is cheaper it would make sense to field them in some numbers.

It is just that it shouldn`t be forgotten that a TD is a less versatile weapon and certainly no replacement for a tank.

[scary 0]

guillira wars in my opionion are just a last resort to a already failed battle with organised forces. (The battle has already been won but some fight on not really dealing any serious blow to the enemy).

An example was ww2 again :P where after the wermacht surrendered in germany the SS were ordered to wage guirilla war against the enemy , i think this lasted a month or less and that too failed

That's not really true. Guerrilla operations can be highly effective, they're certainly the only way for a civilian/resistance force to mount an offensive against an organised military. In the modern world, civilian populations have no chance of matching the firepower of a State military. Even organised militaries have use for guerilla tactics; smaller forces can use them to level the playing field against a superior enemy prior to an assault and larger forces can use them to diminish the abilities of an equally matched enemy prior to an assault.

If it wasn't for Allied guerrilla operation in WW2 the D-day landings would have never taken place. The Resistance groups were guerrilla fighters, they supplied necessary intelligence and created disruptions that enabled conventional engagements. SOE/SIS operatives were guerrilla fighters; among many other things they performed guerrilla attacks on German heavy water production, without them the Nazis would have developed the A-bomb long before the Allies. Commando operations were just organised guerrilla operations, they led to Hitler's infamous Commando order.

Guerrilla tactics beat the French and the Americans in Vietnam. The Cuban revolution was a guerrilla win, as were the Chinese Civil War, the Anglo-Irish War and the Seminole War.

Done properly, guerrilla tactics can destroy armour before it reaches the battlefield and cause enough disruption in supply lines to force the enemy to retreat.

[IceShade- 0]

Wonderful reply. Makes an awful lot of sense when you think about it. Was the T-34 one of the first tanks to use sloping armour to deflect shells?

I guess not!

According to this website, http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/5pansar/index.htm, which is a really interesting site, they show this image:

http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/5pansar/5sidor/5bilder/landsverk100.jpg

This Swedish light tank protoype was shown to the public in 1934. Notice the profile and the sloping armour all around compared to the "new" design (red line) in the Russian A 32 (see this) that came four yeas later and was the protoype to T 34 with the same design.

[Gadger 0]

Evolution of fixed AT weapons; or rather the breath of mobility put into AT weapons that we're once thought unfathomable or inefficient - recoiless rifles, rocket propelled arty, self proppeled arty, the huge leap forward in targeting systems for CAS, the development of rotary winged aircraft with heat seaking missiles, the engagement distances for MBT's; again due to developments in targeting technology. The tank destroyer hasn't died, it was just a static anti-tank cannon on tracks anyway - its just evolved into those listed above - in the same way fixed anti-tank weapons evolved into the tank destroyer. Technology has rendered the use of the "classical" TD uneconomical, and certaintly inefficient. The evolution of warfare in the last century, from static to fluid to fully-mobile has rendered its use obsolete.

[ran 0]

Tank destroyers dead as far as im concerned its still alive and kicking but its form just changed thats all

striker,s-tank,m-113 with tow,italian centaur.french amx/panhard wheeled tank destroyers ect

oh and theres also the 2s-25/sprut-sd, looks like russia's pt-76 replacement

http://afvid.topcities.com/specs/0-9/2s25.html

This just in : the AMX-10RC is in use in light cavalry units around here. It's mainly used as an heavy armored recce asset and would be used as a fast armored asset in enemy lines breach exploits for harassment actions.

Since the red bear disappeared and the iron curtain has been pulled we don't have the need for wheeled tanks to delay a massive armored advance on the western european territory or to provide stop-gap solutions to airborne armour raids on our soil.

The 10RC nowdays is somewhat just a deterrent in asymmetric warfare and peacekeeping ops when it's deployed. Its 105 is enough to fulfill most of the infantry support needs and to slice through most of the things we may face actually. Don't ask it to destroy something to modern though.

It would be useless on a modern battlefield as it is somewhat obsolete in the great scheme of things as long as it doesn't undergo extensive upgrades when it comes to its powerplant, armor, weaponry, electronics and optronics suites such as what's proposed by the GIAT.

I'd say that the same goes for the Centauro (which got its own upgrade proposals).

And I'm not even talking about the ERC-90 with its cigarette paper-thin armor and weak gun by today's standards. The reason why it's kept in french inventory is because of our comittments in Africa mostly : you can easily airlift it and it's more than enough to face the opposition it could encounter in those shitholes (the occasional 60's vintage BMP, the bashed toyotas and the hostile crowds with its good ol' cannister round). It was a replacement for the AML's in the lineage of the Outre Mer (over sea) armoured cars.

I think the sprut is a logical move in today's world : what can the PT 76's gun do in today's world filled with reactive, composite armours ? Add to that the fact that the 2S25 uses the same caliber as the rest of the russian arsenal's MBTs. I doubt that the mobility benefit is that big though and I'd take a T90 fitted with armor over a Sprut anyday if what I want is AT infantry support. One argument in favour of the Sprut is that it can be airlifted but I think that's mostly aimed at possible foreign customers inspite of the russian military organisation. It's light amphib tank like its older brother the PT76 and that's just what it is.

The future is already here hehehe. ATGM made huge progresses during the last 30 years be it in matter of guidance systems, range and warheads. Their vectors, be they helicopters, planes, light vehicles or simple infantrymen make them the definite tank killers. They're fast and become ever harder to dodge with double warheads (triple soon ?), counter-jamming and top attack routines. Call them as a whole whatever you want but then again a lot of the things and people carrying these toys don't serve the only purpose of breaking tanks.

The time of tracked vehicles with large guns (that's my notion of a tank destroyer, some of my elders seved on free french TD M10, might explain why) serving the single purpose of destroying tanks is gone and gun-armed wheeled armoured vehicles now just serve as gap-fillers in situations where hauling a MBT to the theater of operations wouldn't be fast or cost-efficient enough.

[Zerg 0]

Evolution of fixed AT weapons; or rather the breath of mobility put into AT weapons that we're once thought unfathomable or inefficient - recoiless rifles, rocket propelled arty, self proppeled arty, the huge leap forward in targeting systems for CAS, the development of rotary winged aircraft with heat seaking missiles, the engagement distances for MBT's; again due to developments in targeting technology. The tank destroyer hasn't died, it was just a static anti-tank cannon on tracks anyway - its just evolved into those listed above - in the same way fixed anti-tank weapons evolved into the tank destroyer. Technology has rendered the use of the "classical" TD uneconomical, and certaintly inefficient. The evolution of warfare in the last century, from static to fluid to fully-mobile has rendered its use obsolete.

That is what we think. Until the next massive war like always shows us to be wrong on at least half of our doctrines.

[punishment 1]

Wonderful reply. Makes an awful lot of sense when you think about it. Was the T-34 one of the first tanks to use sloping armour to deflect shells?

I guess not!

According to this website, http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/5pansar/index.htm, which is a really interesting site, they show this image:

http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/5pansar/5sidor/5bilder/landsverk100.jpg

This Swedish light tank protoype was shown to the public in 1934. Notice the profile and the sloping armour all around compared to the "new" design (red line) in the Russian A 32 (see this) that came four yeas later and was the protoype to T 34 with the same design.

lol some of those early tanks look more usless then usefull

i wonder why they scrapped large calibire weapons the germans had some armour with larger weapons than todays MBT's. What would be wrong with a 150mm round on a mbt? even though such a weapon would probably be classed as artillery.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

i wonder why they scrapped large calibire weapons the germans had some armour with larger weapons than todays MBT's. What would be wrong with a 150mm round on a mbt? even though such a weapon would probably be classed as artillery.

Germany did some research on a 140mm gun on the leopard 2. There are even some pictures flaoting around on the internet of that beast.

The US is looking into rail-weapons for the future. Since the enourmous power-usage this is still something for the long run and is far from ready to be used on the battle-field. The 140mm gun achieves almost the same penetrating power as those rail-guns and it much better than the current 120mm guns. It never made it past prototype state though. Quite a shame since the 140mm gun with it's very long barrel looked awesome!

found a picture on my harddisk;