Tank Destroyers

[gunnut]

How come we don't see these any more? There used to be a place for them during WW2. Germany and the Soviet Union both deployed huge numbers of turretless tank destroyers armed with large caliber guns. American tank destroyers were turretted, with thin armor, but extremely fast and manueverable.

Why build them in the first place? Was it because of cost and technical issues with mounting a large caliber gun in a turret?

I bring this up because I've been playing a game called World of Tanks. It's a free game with pay content if you so choose. I've seen the ad banner here on WAB, that's how I found out about it. I really enjoy playing the tank destroyer. I like to ambush people. It's fun shooting at people who don't know you're shooting at them.

[bigross86]

We do, but the role has changed, from dedicated tank destroyer to destroyer plus APC/IFV. Also, guns have mainly changed to missiles due to MBT armor getting thicker. BMP-2 have a 30mm gun and can fire AT-4 and AT-5 ATGM's; M2/M3 Bradley IFV have a 25mm gun and can fire TOW ATGM's.

[ace16807]

Re Fixed Gun TDs: I believe the primary reason these were built was that they could take existing chassis that were available in large numbers (e.g. panzer IIIs) which normally could not mount a large enough gun to be effective in combat at that stage in the war and then mount a larger gun compared to the turreted version. In addition, it was cheaper to produce assault guns/fixed gun TDs over turreted tanks/TDs. So now you've converted relatively useless chassis into an effective AFV relatively cheaply.

Re turreted TDs: For the US Army (and perhaps the British? I don't really know much about British armored doctrine) in WW2 they existed in accordance to doctrine I suppose.

I think they are still employed to a certain extent. I know the PLA fields a tracked version and some would consider the Stryker MGS, Centaro and other similar wheeled versions TDs as well.


PS: I see that ad all over the place now, not just here. I've just given up on MMOs. They generally consume your life for awhile or maintain a linear growth model in which it's impossible for you to rise to the level of someone who's been playing for a year already.

[gunnut]

PS: I see that ad all over the place now, not just here. I've just given up on MMOs. They generally consume your life for awhile or maintain a linear growth model in which it's impossible for you to rise to the level of someone who's been playing for a year already.

Actually it's not that bad in this game. The match making system puts people with relatively close gear in the same battle. The only exception is a tier 4 (there are 10 tiers of progression) scout (highest level for a light tank) gets dumped into high tier battle quite often. Guess who plays a tier 4 scout tank to find out about this?

Generally a tier 2, or even a tier 3 light tank, won't get placed in a tier 4 battle or above. Tier 1 tanks (free for all players) don't see anything above tier 2.

This is a pretty fun MMO game. There's no interaction with other players outside of battles, unless you know their names to begin with and put them on your contact list. Each battle last at most 15 minutes, and often end before the half way mark.

[gunnut]

We do, but the role has changed, from dedicated tank destroyer to destroyer plus APC/IFV. Also, guns have mainly changed to missiles due to MBT armor getting thicker. BMP-2 have a 30mm gun and can fire AT-4 and AT-5 ATGM's; M2/M3 Bradley IFV have a 25mm gun and can fire TOW ATGM's.

Yeah, but they don't look nearly as cool or menacing as these:

[ace16807]

It's scarier to not see what's about to kill you.

I think I'll stick to Arma2. Even though it kills my laptop every time I play. :/

[kato]

Re Fixed Gun TDs: I believe the primary reason these were built was that they could take existing chassis that were available in large numbers (e.g. panzer IIIs)

Almost all German StuG and JPz were built on new chassis, not conversions. I can identify about 1,600 conversions out of a total of ~20,700 turretless gun carriers built. Half of those conversions were Marder II. In the end it was all about getting cheaper and faster production; especially for the JPz IV and StuG IV this applies - the factories for the Pz IV chassis were in place and geared up for large-scale production when Pz IV production was dropped; shutting them down and switching tools to a different chassis would have been a waste in the situation, so they kept producing the chassis for these two turretless versions.

[ace16807]

Almost all German StuG and JPz were built on new chassis, not conversions. I can identify about 1,600 conversions out of a total of ~20,700 turretless gun carriers built. Half of those conversions were Marder II. In the end it was all about getting cheaper and faster production; especially for the JPz IV and StuG IV this applies - the factories for the Pz IV chassis were in place and geared up for large-scale production when Pz IV production was dropped; shutting them down and switching tools to a different chassis would have been a waste in the situation, so they kept producing the chassis for these two turretless versions.

Sorry, I didn't mean they converted turreted AFVs to assault guns. But rather that they used existing designs for chassis and modified them as you explained. AFAIK conversions were mainly done as an improvised stop-gap until a more effective means of addressing the issue could be developed.

Also, anyone know about Soviet TDs? I presume one reason they used fix-gun versions so they could mount larger guns to counter tigers/tiger-IIs initially but there are probably other reasons as well.

[kato]

Also, anyone know about Soviet TDs? I presume one reason they used fix-gun versions so they could mount larger guns to counter tigers/tiger-IIs initially but there are probably other reasons as well.

The Soviet actually were far ahead of anyone else in that - they already tested turretless T-26 variants as infantry support guns similar to the StuG in the early to mid 1930s. Following the early success of StuGs in German service, the Soviets decided to adopt a similar infantry support vehicle in three different sizes - the SU-76(M) as a light system that effectively jsut mobilized the divisional fieldguns, the SU-122 as the heavier system and the SU-152 as a breakthrough support gun against heavy fortifications. The reasoning for turretless designs was, as with the Germans, cost and speed of production.

When heavier German tanks appeared on the battlefield, the SU-122 design was taken and modified with anti-tank guns, first a 85mm AA gun (as SU-85) and later a 100mm naval gun (as SU-100). The SU-76M stayed in production throughout the war as a divisional fire support asset, the SU-152 was later switched to a new base chassis and became the ISU-152; in order to compensate for the no longer produced SU-122 (production switched to SU-85/SU-100) the same chassis was used to mount a 122mm howitzer to serve in the SU-122's role.

[gunnut]

Very informative, kato. Thanks. I really love the historical background of these vehicles I'm playing in the game. I never knew much about Soviet armor, and less about the myriad of German wartime vehicles (other than the famous Panther, Tiger, and Pzkpfw IV).

There seemed to be too many different vehicles produced by Germany for too many specific roles. Rather than a few effective and reliable ones to simplify logistics from the production line to the field.

Do you think Germany could have been more effective on the field had production concentrated on Panthers and StuG IIIs late in the war rather than playing around with King Tigers and Maus type "super tanks?"

Here's the wiki for the game, World of Tanks:

Main Page - World Of Tanks

The tech tree sometimes has the appearance of various tanks in reverse order. But let's not get bogged down with details. ;)

[Stitch]

Do you think Germany could have been more effective on the field had production concentrated on Panthers and StuG IIIs late in the war rather than playing around with King Tigers and Maus type "super tanks?"

As much as I love the late-War German heavies and super-heavies (E-100, Maus, etc.), Germany DID waste a lot of resources on these uberpanzers; IMHO, Germany should've dropped the Tigers (as formidable as they were), and concentrated all of their armor resources on the PzKpfw. V (Panther), the SdKfz 173 Jagdpanther, and probably the Jagdpanzer 38(t) "Hetzer", which was a surprisingly effective TD for such a small chassis (plus, it used different resources then the "regular" German tanks, being built on the Czechoslovakian T-38 chassis). Pretty much everything else was a waste of resources, including the Königstiger (as much as I like it). However, Hitler was always willing to approve anything that was "bigger and better", hence the heavies and super-heavies.

[kato]

Do you think Germany could have been more effective on the field had production concentrated on Panthers and StuG IIIs late in the war rather than playing around with King Tigers and Maus type "super tanks?"

Actual production did focus on the "usable" types. Primary production for 1944 and 1945, systems with more than 750 units produced:

-tanks-
4,284x Panther (75mm L/70)
3,763x Panzer IV (75mm L/48)

-turretless-
6,190x StuG III/IV (75mm L/48)
2,736x Jagdpanzer 38 (75mm L/48)
1,977x Jagdpanzer IV/48 (75mm L/48) and IV/70 (75mm L/70)

That's ~19,000 out of ~21,000 tanks and tank destroyers produced during 1944 and 1945. Half of the remaining ~2,000 were 105mm-armed StuGs, the rest were the "special projects".

Also, Hitler did actually order a focus on the Jagdpanzer IV/70 in April 1944 (wanting to drop all Pz IV and StuG III/IV production) - and demanding 1,000 produced per month. Obviously a bit delusional.

For comparison, US mainline tank production during 1944/45 (including after VE day) was:
~2,000 heavy tanks (M26)
~19,500 medium tanks (M4, all gun variants)
~4,700 light tanks (M24)
~4,000 tank destroyers (M18, M36)

[kato]

Half of the remaining ~2,000 were 105mm-armed StuGs, the rest were the "special projects".

For completeness sake, those produced during 1944 and 1945:

- tanks -
488x Tiger II / King Tiger (88mm L/71)

- turretless -
1,001x StuG IIIG (105mm leFH18 howitzer in low-elevation mount)
424x Jagdpanther (88mm L/71 on Pz V chassis)
149x Nashorn (88mm L/71 on Pz IV chassis)
79x Jagdtiger (128mm L/55 on Pz VI chassis)

Arguably cancelling e.g. Nashorn and Jagdtiger could have yielded an extra 500 StuG III (at most), as far as production capacity was concerned. The Jagdtiger was a joke anyway considering the problem there wasn't speed of production of the vehicles themselves - but the fact that there were not enough guns around for them. The Nashorn was intended more of a stopgap measure until Tiger II and Jagdpanther (mounting the same gun) would become more ubiquitous.

Hitler's "let's move all to JPz IV/70" concept in April '44 was actually somewhat sound, looking at production numbers - if a full switch of production could have been established about 10,000 JPz IV/70 could probably have been built within the next 12 months. With some heavies dropped we'd look at about 5,000 Panthers in the same timeframe in addition to that.

Not enough to hold both fronts, but respectable numbers on a scale with the overall production of either the US or the USSR in the same timeframe.

Especially useful considering a JPz IV/70 even with inferior ammunition types (no tungsten available) could penetrate a Pershing from the front at 1,000 meters, while the 76mm of the M4A1 (as the primary enemy vehicle) would have problems penetrating the JPz IV's frontal armour at the same range, and the older 75mm Shermans could forget anything but flank shots at any range.

[Stitch]

The Jagdtiger was a joke anyway considering the problem there wasn't speed of production of the vehicles themselves - but the fact that there were not enough guns around for them. The Nashorn was intended more of a stopgap measure until Tiger II and Jagdpanther (mounting the same gun) would become more ubiquitous.

kato - I remember reading somewhere that they actually mounted the standard KwK 43 L/71 in Jagdtigers, since they didn't have enough PaK 44 L/55's to go around; any truth to this? I've never seen any pictures, either Wartime or later, of a Jagdtiger armed with the KwK 43.

[kato]

As far as i know that never made it past design stage; it was prepared in early 1945, but never made it into even a prototype.

Other late-war projects were:
- a Tiger II with a 105mm KwK L/68 (design only - was the gun for E-75 project)
- an evolution of the Jagdtiger with a 128mm PzJgKan L/66 (design only)
- Panther II with Tiger II components and 88mm KwK 43 (prototype half-finished)
- a Jagdtiger with a long-range flamethrower (three prototypes started in March '45, not finished)