Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: I like Tank Destroyers
Volkodav    7/28/2009 7:58:42 AM
I like and always have liked Tank Destroyers but due to Australia's almost total lack of mechanisation at the start of WWII and the subsequent conversion of the bulk of the 2nd AIF into light infantry to fight the Japan in the Pacific there was never the opportunity to deploy this class of vehicle. It is too bad that we weren't able to deploy a tank destroyer or assault gun early in the war in Greece, the Middle East or North Africa inplace of the towed AT guns and light field guns that (when available) supported the 2nd AIF's Rifle Battalions. They would have dramatically increased the fighting power of our Infantry providing direct fire support and may well have turned the course of some battles. Having this kind of firepower, a platoon of 6 to 8 vehicles, embedded in each battalion would have had a lasting effect in the Army, perhaps resulting in a very different structure today. Instead of the ANZAC Legend being recast around Light or Jungle Infantry there is a real chance that the RAR would have had an effective armoured DFS capability from inception, working its way though generations of vehicles to ....? Assuming we started with something akin to a Cruiser MkIII armed with a 3" 20cwt in a casemate we could have moved onto a Crusader with a 17 pounder serving until the late 40's, then a Comet with a 20 pounder for the 50's to mid 60's, finally the S Tank into the 90's. The Tank Destroyers would replace tanks in the infantry and direct fire support role allowing tanks to be concentrated and used to best effect.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
YelliChink       8/5/2009 12:59:16 AM
Why bother? IJA's Type 95 and Type 97 SHT are so thin that you can break their armor by throwing stones at them.
 
In 50, 60 and well into 70s, Leopard I is good enough. Actually, probably too good. Otherwise, Milan and TOW are better solution from 70s into 90s. Bundeswher replaced all their 90mm on Jagdpanzer Puma with HOT missile.
 
Nowadays, just buy Javalins.
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       8/5/2009 4:23:11 AM

Why bother? IJA's Type 95 and Type 97 SHT are so thin that you can break their armor by throwing stones at them.

 

In 50, 60 and well into 70s, Leopard I is good enough. Actually, probably too good. Otherwise, Milan and TOW are better solution from 70s into 90s. Bundeswher replaced all their 90mm on Jagdpanzer Puma with HOT missile.


 

Nowadays, just buy Javalins.


1) In the 50's Centurion was good enough
2) Leopard I did not enter service in Germany until ~1965.
3) The Tank destroyers are for Direct Fire Infantry support, not as a replacement for 1st Armoured, so possibly you could just keep Centurion in service for this role when Leopard 1 was purchased.
4) ADF currently has the Charles Gustav and Javelins in the Infantry Anti-Tank role.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       8/5/2009 5:35:40 AM
 
Why bother? IJA's Type 95 and Type 97 SHT are so thin that you can break their armor by throwing stones at them.
 
In 50, 60 and well into 70s, Leopard I is good enough. Actually, probably too good. Otherwise, Milan and TOW are better solution from 70s into 90s. Bundeswher replaced all their 90mm on Jagdpanzer Puma with HOT missile.
 
Nowadays, just buy Javalins.
 
Up until 1942 we were fighting German, Italian and Vichy French, who almost always had tanks, in the Mediterranean, North Africa and Middle East. Post 1943 we were fighting in SE Asia using Light and Medium tanks in the direct fire support role against entrenched Japanese. The only major actions the 2nd AIF fought where an assault gun or tank destroyer would not have been of use were in  the New Guinea Highlands. Even there if we had tanks there we would have used them!
 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0e/Buna_%28AWM_014008%29.jpg/250px-Buna_%28AWM_014008%29.jpg" width="250" height="195" />
January 7, 1943. Australian forces attack Japanese positions near Buna. Members of the 2/12th Infantry Battalion advance as Stuart tanks from the 2/6th Armoured Regiment attack Japanese pillboxes. An upward-firing machine gun on the tank spray treetops to clear them of snipers. (Photographer: George Silk). 
 
In Korea we had to rely on our allies to provide armoured support as our new Centurions hadn't arrived and the 50 Churchills issued to 1 Armoured Regiment were completely obsolete. A DFS platoon with 8 Comet based 20pdr Tank Destroyers would likely have been greatly apreciated by 3 RAR when faced with wave after wave Chinese troops at Kapyong.
 
I specifically suggested the Swedish S Tank and not the Jagdpanzer Kannon as the 90mm would have offered no advantage over the 20pdr where the S Tank had a lengthened 105mm. The Centurion and Leopard would still be purchased and operated by RAAC the assault guns / tank destroyers would be intergrated into RAINF as support weapons.
 
ATGW's are great at killing tanks but expensive for busting bunkers and other field defences, which is why there is a return to armoured guns of various types for the DFS role.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       8/5/2009 9:17:34 AM

3) The Tank destroyers are for Direct Fire Infantry support, not as a replacement for 1st Armoured, so possibly you could just keep Centurion in service for this role when Leopard 1 was purchased.


Just this one thing. Tank destroyers are designed as an ambush-style anti-tank weapon. Strategically defensive, and tactically mobile.
 
Vehicles specifically designed to do direct fire support  for infantry units are Assault Guns. There are design features that differs the two, mostly related how the guns are mounted and how the sights were designed.
 
If you do a system analysis, then you'll discover that Jagdpanzer doesn't make sense anymore, while Assault Guns are still handy. French didn't throw away their AMX-13 after AMX-30 entered service, and they continue with AML-10 and ERC-90. French were preparing for different warfare after they left NATO in early 60s, while most of the NATO were still preparing an all-out assault by Warsaw Pact.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       8/5/2009 9:30:15 AM

ATGW's are great at killing tanks but expensive for busting bunkers and other field defences, which is why there is a return to armoured guns of various types for the DFS role.



Sturmgeschutz and Jagdpanzer are different animal. Jagdpanzer faded away after 80s because, as an ambush weapon system, it completely loses to ATGM. Assault guns weren't in favor for a while due to availability of old tanks to fill their role. If you really need to get some light-weight assault guns in post-WWII world, buy French. Otherwise, there is very little reason to get assault guns when enough old tanks can still do their jobs.
 
Also, don't want to use ATGM to bust bunkers due to budget constraint? Good, that's why ADF have Carl Gustav. I'm not sure whether if there's Thermalbaric sounds for Gustav, but it's technically possible.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Tank Destroyers    8/5/2009 5:22:32 PM
Tank destroyers were often problematic.  As a mobile gun platform the ones without adequate armor protection, and/or overhead protection, very quite vulnerable.  They were often cobbled together early in WWII because very few tanks could mount an adequate anti tank gun.  Later some purpose built tank destroyers had heavier armor than similar tanks and had some specific utility.
 
Many nations also used heavy tanks with larger guns than found on the average tank to support them.  Like tank destroyers the concept has mostly faded away.  The S tank while novel was a failure as a tank and was replaced by Sweden with an MBT (LeoII) not another tank destroyer.
 
Most combat turns out to be some form of meeting engagement and the tank is far more versatile.  If the enemy assaults your prepared position the tank is also more useful when changing positions, during retrograde movement, and also far more useful in the counter attack.
 
ATGW in extending armored launchers have been around for decades. 
 
This aside direct gun support is better than none so whether you call it a light tank, medium tank, tank destroyer, assault gun, self propelled gun, etc. there is a role for vehicles lighter than MBT's with direct fire capability- especially in support of the airborne.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       8/7/2009 10:09:28 AM
The STUG III and IV are very similar animals to the JagdPanzer IV, which was designed as their replacement, and the Jagdpanzer 38(t). The STUG was designed as an armoured assault gun to provide direct fire support for the infantry on the offensive and while it proved very effective in this role is was soon seen to also be a superior tank killer to the improvised open topped Marder type tank destroyers. The STUG's were upgraded with longer guns and with their low silhouettes, good armour, aswell as low cost, became very useful in both offence and defence.
 
It is this type of vehicle I am suggesting, not the high superstructure open topped Gun on hull Marders and Archers, nore the thin skinned open topped M-10, M-18, M-36.
 
A series of well armoured, low profile, inexpensive assault gun / tank destroyers, providing direct fire support and when necessary anti tank fire, would have been a valuable addition to our Infantry Battalions through WWII and into the 1990's. I am not suggesting that they replace tanks but rather replace towed anti tank guns leaving the tanks to be concentrated at Brigade and Division level where their mobility and firepower could be used to best effect while the Assault Guns / Tank Destroyers provided direct support to the Infantry.
 
As aside, the S Tank was seen as very successful doing well in trials in Europe and the US. It entered service in the late 60's and was retired in the late 90's; 30 years is not a bad run.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    WWII vs Today   8/7/2009 6:16:20 PM
There many reasons to produce that style of assault gun and tank destroyer types during WWII.  It's simply not viable today.  The British Army in the 1960's tested an entire sdqn with S tanks and tested the concept and found it wanting.  Today armored vehicles are in service for decades and buying something akin to an S tank because it's marginally less expensive vs the far greater utility of an MBT would not normally make sense.  It's worth noting that a lot of armies tested it and nobody but Sweden adopted it.
 
Of course if your choice was S tank, or something similar, and no direct gun support then certainly you want it.
 
I agree with you that western armies in WWII could have used something akin to the Stug or Jagdpanzer but recall that they could afford all the tanks they wanted and used tanks in direct infantry support.  The Stug was originally just an assault gun to assist the infantry because it was cheaper to build than a tank, could carry a larger gun than the tank model, and politically it gave the artillery arm their own vehicles and method to win specific decorations. 
 
Note that after WWII the British used Conqueror heavy tanks to suppport their 20 pounder equipped Centurion's.  Once Centurion got the 105mm one didn't need Conqueror.  Neither Conqueror or US M103 heavy tanks served for very long nor towed at guns.
 
 
 
 
The STUG III and IV are very similar animals to the JagdPanzer IV, which was designed as their replacement, and the Jagdpanzer 38(t). The STUG was designed as an armoured assault gun to provide direct fire support for the infantry on the offensive and while it proved very effective in this role is was soon seen to also be a superior tank killer to the improvised open topped Marder type tank destroyers. The STUG's were upgraded with longer guns and with their low silhouettes, good armour, aswell as low cost, became very useful in both offence and defence.

 

It is this type of vehicle I am suggesting, not the high superstructure open topped Gun on hull Marders and Archers, nore the thin skinned open topped M-10, M-18, M-36.

 

A series of well armoured, low profile, inexpensive assault gun / tank destroyers, providing direct fire support and when necessary anti tank fire, would have been a valuable addition to our Infantry Battalions through WWII and into the 1990's. I am not suggesting that they replace tanks but rather replace towed anti tank guns leaving the tanks to be concentrated at Brigade and Division level where their mobility and firepower could be used to best effect while the Assault Guns / Tank Destroyers provided direct support to the Infantry.

 

As aside, the S Tank was seen as very successful doing well in trials in Europe and the US. It entered service in the late 60's and was retired in the late 90's; 30 years is not a bad run.


 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       8/8/2009 1:43:58 AM
There many reasons to produce that style of assault gun and tank destroyer types during WWII.  It's simply not viable today.  The British Army in the 1960's tested an entire sdqn with S tanks and tested the concept and found it wanting.  Today armored vehicles are in service for decades and buying something akin to an S tank because it's marginally less expensive vs the far greater utility of an MBT would not normally make sense.  It's worth noting that a lot of armies tested it and nobody but Sweden adopted it.
 
I'm not talking about today, I'm talking about the utility of such vehicles from the 40's through to the 90's. By the early 90's the RAINF, who by that time would have had 50 years experience with organic armour, would hopefully have been operating modern AIFV's with 20 to 40mm calibre cannon and ATGW at Platoon level with SP Motars at Company level in their Armoured Infantry Battalions and would be brigaded with MBT, SPG and Armoured Engineer Regiments. The only remaining assault guns / tank destroyers would be with the Light Infantry roled Battalions pending the availability of a modern AGS. The Medium Battalions would operate wheeled AIFV's, APC's and IMV's and would hopefully be supported by an AGS type or something akin to the Centauro heavy armoured car.
 
The majority of nations who tested and rejected the S Tank rated it very highly and went on to select a home grown vehicle instead. In Sweden the S Tank served along side upgraded Centurions until both types were replaced with the Leopard 2 in the 90's. The CV90 also entered service at this time and combined with the "peace dividend" at the end of the Cold War plans to further upgrade the S Tank were dropped.
 
I should point out that we still don't have an AIFV, wheeled or tracked, in service and unless ASLAV's or Abrams are available, our Battalions have almost no DFS and very limited ATGW. Something is better than nothing.
 
Final point, the reason the artillery operated the STUG was when they were introduced both the Panzer and Infantry Corps were struggling to introduce a whole raft of new equipment and doctrine, so were unable to take on the extra workload. Artillery stepped in to ensure this valuable new capability was available in the time frame required. This is similar to how the Luftwaffe gained control of airbourne forces, the Army was simply too snowed under to fully develop this new capability, hence they transfered their paratroop units and school to the airforce.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       8/8/2009 4:12:09 AM
ATGW's are great at killing tanks but expensive for busting bunkers and other field defences, which is why there is a return to armoured guns of various types for the DFS role.
 
A even if the Javalin rounds are more expensive than tank rounds the overall cost of a Javalin that can be carried by one man isn't remotely as much as purchasing and running a 3 or 4 man medium tracked vehicle like a tank destroyer. A better way to beef up fire support for mechanised infantry would be to give them a modern 40mm gunned IFV like everybody else is.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics