Author Topic: I like Tank Destroyers  (Read 20379 times)

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
I like Tank Destroyers
« on: August 18, 2013, 12:02:30 AM »
Been doing some thinking about what to do with the Trumpeter 1/35 e-10 tank destroyer kit No. 2 son has been pestering me to build.  Its a late war wiff in a box so it doesn't really matter what I do with it but I would like the idea to be non Nazi and conceivably possible.

As an aside I have always found it interesting that Germany started the war with assault guns that re-roled and then morphed into tank destroyers with the allies, in particular the Americans, started with tank destroyers but effectively re-roled them as assault guns and the war moved on.

Ok my thinking is a military coup in Germany removed the Nazi Party from power in mid 44, say Colonel Von Stauffenberg succeeded in assassinating Hitler.  While ending the war in the west the Soviets refused to end hostilities and pushed on, aiming to take all the territory they deemed to be theirs.  Due the urgency of reequipping units with the necessary gear to counter the massive Soviet armoured forces massing to take much of Europe the E-10 was adopted the British Commonwealth as a replacement for their towed AT guns with production being undertaken in recently liberated Czechoslovakia.  Needs work I know but I will get there.

The idea is the towed AT gun has been shown to be far less effective than the SP type and that a replacement is needed for the towed 6 pounder and 17 pounder AT guns in Infantry Battalions, Reconnaissance Regiments (as well as any RA AT units).

Anyway the end result is each Commonwealth Infantry battalion and Reconnaissance Regiment replaces its Universal Carrier towed 6 pounders with 77mm HV armed version of the E-10 with 6 to 8 vehicles equipping each AT platoon.  The US is suitably impressed with this vehicle and adopts a 3" version.  At the same time turreted TD were replaced with additional tanks.

So here we are I propose an Alliedified E-10 TD to replace towed AT guns to counter possible / real Soviet aggression.


Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2013, 02:15:10 AM »
OK, a quick question.

Was there any significant difference in muzzle velocity between the 17 pounder with its long cartridge & the 77mm with its short cartridge?

I realise that they fired the same shot, I'm just wondering if the shorter cartiridge resulted in a slower projectile or not, as the case may be.

:)

Guy
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2013, 02:54:45 AM »
Intertesting project.....

I went looking for the E-10 on the web because to be honest,  I couldn't remember which "paper panzer" it was (it's definately one of the more sensible ones) and I found this build, which a) you might find useful for tips and b) has a delicious whiffy paint job:

http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=110070&ord=&page=2
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline ChernayaAkula

  • Was left standing in front when everyone else took one step back...
  • Global Moderator
  • Putting the "pro" in procrastination since...?
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2013, 03:49:49 AM »
<...> a delicious whiffy paint job:

http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=110070&ord=&page=2


<<After "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies", here comes a new epic tale with a twist on history as you know it: "Piet Mondrian - Tank Commmander"!>>
Cheers,
Moritz

"The appropriate response to reality is to go insane!"

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2013, 04:18:18 AM »
Here's a scenario:  With the worsening relationship between the USSR and the Western Allies in the late '40s (the most notable case being the Berlin Blockade) the Federal Republic of Germany is formally founded in May 1949.  As part of this, the Bundeswehr is officially established.  Given the recent war and the concerns over German remilitarisation (led especially by France), this force is restricted to purely defensive doctrine and equipment.  In the case of the Heer, this results in a policy that no tanks per se are allowed.  This policy even goes to the extent of stating that turreted vehicles are not allowed and that only guns in fixed mounts are allowable).  Tank Destroyers/Jagdpanzers thus become the most powerful armoured vehicles used.

In conjunction with this, there is a strong desire to produce these vehicles in West Germany as a way of helping to rebuild the economy.  When combined with a desire for rapid introduction into service/production, this leads to the re-introduction of designs already on the drawing boards/in development when the war ended.  The first example of this is the E.10.


What does this give you?  An excuse to do a post war, West German E.10.  I would probably start with it in M47 colour scheme and then go from there.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2017, 02:17:46 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2013, 04:23:19 AM »
De Stijl Pantser design by Rietveldt, colours by Mondrian.

 ;D
"Evil our grandsires were, our fathers worse;
And we, till now unmatched in ill,
Must leave successors more corrupted still."
Horace, 65BC - 8BC. Marsh translation.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2013, 08:42:07 AM »
Thanks guys some great ideas there.

The West German one sounds good, maybe a change in German to American nomenclature from jagdpanzer to Gun Motor Carriage (GMC) to define the vehicles role from tank destroyer type armoured vehicle to the less aggressive and more defensive armoured self propelled anti tank gun.  These vehicle being the only ones of their type are adopted by an number of NATO and other western armies as replacements for towed AT guns.

My thinking is a tank destroyer is only used as a tank when you don't have enough (or any) tanks, it is in reality a self propelled anti tank gun with a direct fire support capability.  The idea I am toying with is the various towed at guns and their tractors are replaced with small, low profile GMCs within the anti-tank / DFS platoon of non-armoured infantry (line, marine and airborne) and reconnaissance units. 

To be honest I am trying to work out a way to get a British Commonwealth version of this vehicle in service with Australia (specifically with a SP AT platoon in 3 RAR) in time for Korea, perhaps incorporating many of the defensive systems developed by the Germans late in the war.  Olive green, white stars, .30 or .50 cal MG and of course slouch hat wearing grunts standing near by. 

The follow on would be the vehicles were upgraded a number of times before being replaced in the late 60s early 70s with S-tanks, which in turn served through until the early 2000s.  This gives me 20-25 years of upgrades to contemplate, as well as whether they remain with the RAR or are transferred to the Cavalry, serving as DFS assets with the APC Squadrons.  A tempting alternative to the alternative would be, if they ended up in CAV instead of RAR would be to replace them with 20 pounder armed Kanonenjagdpanzers instead of S-tanks with Marders replacing M-113s.  Then again there is no reason why Marders couldn't have served with S-tanks. 

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2013, 11:20:42 AM »
To get an Aussie E.10, maybe have one or more of the designers emigrate to Australia with a set of drawings.  In return for being allowed to stay, they agree to work with the Army and local industry to develop the E.10 (suitably renamed of course).  Maybe replace the 75mm gun with a 17pdr?  Have the first ones serving in Korea in time for the war.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
    • SketchUp 3D Warehouse - My Digital Models
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2013, 11:57:08 AM »
To get an Aussie E.10, maybe have one or more of the designers emigrate to Australia with a set of drawings.  In return for being allowed to stay, they agree to work with the Army and local industry to develop the E.10 (suitably renamed of course).  Maybe replace the 75mm gun with a 17pdr?  Have the first ones serving in Korea in time for the war.
WOMBAT :)
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2013, 12:19:08 PM »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2013, 12:35:34 PM »
To get an Aussie E.10, maybe have one or more of the designers emigrate to Australia with a set of drawings.  In return for being allowed to stay, they agree to work with the Army and local industry to develop the E.10 (suitably renamed of course).  Maybe replace the 75mm gun with a 17pdr?  Have the first ones serving in Korea in time for the war.
WOMBAT :)

Waste
Of
Money
Brains
And
Talent

Interestingly it is the BAT, MOBAT and WOMBAT that replaced the towed AT gun in British service, before themselves being replaced by ATGMs.  Ironically these systems ended up being mounted on vehicles including APCs etc. meaning that an GMC was probably not a bad idea.

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2013, 01:28:10 PM »
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2013, 01:54:41 PM »
The change in comclemature from assault guns to tank destroyers showed the changing fortunes of the Germans as the war progressed.  Ditto for the Americans.  Assault guns are primarily used on the offensive, tank destroyers on the defensive.  Tank destroyers tend, with their usually fixed casements, easier and cheaper to produce than tanks with their rotating turrets.

The E-10 might have been a little on the lightweight to carry either a 17 Pdr or a 77mm.  The Archer was 15 tons, the E-10 was designed to be 10-15 tons so it might have just been able to absorb the recoil.   It would have been rather cramped and whereas the crew could get out before the gun fired on the Archer, they may have found it a bit difficult on the enclosed E-10.

The various British recoilless guns were designed to replace conventional towed AT guns in infantry battalions.  They were initially designed to be towed (BAT) and as it was realised there was no need for heavy gun shields and mobility became more important, they ended up being designed to initially portee'ed (MOBAT) and then fired from their carrying vehicle (WOMBAT).  The problem with redesigning the E-10 (which was intended to replace the Hetzer) to utilise a recoilless weapon is that you either have to make it open-topped (with the recoilless rifle mounted outside the vehicle) or design a specialised turret (with autoloader).

As for it being used by 3 RAR in Korea - a recoilless version is unlikely.  The BAT was only just adopted by the British Army in 1953, as Korea ended.   For most of the war, 3 RAR were on the defensive, after the initial "rush to the Yalu" and the Chinese counter-offensive and the 17 Pdrs were more than adequate for that (although, I've never found much reference to their use, except as general artillery in the official history).  They were mostly dug in, on precipitous ridges and the 17 Pdr couldn't be hauled up there, so I doubt an SP could reach them (even Centurions which were part mountain goat found it difficult to climb to the top of those ridges).

If you proposed (as has been suggested) that some German designers came to Australia post-war and proposed the building of the E-10 here, I suspect you'd also need for a recoilless version, some of the German recoilless gun designers to come as well.   If you wanted it to be adapted to carry a 17 Pdr, I suspect it would need some enlarging to accept the bigger gun and it's recoil.   Neither are beyond the realm of possibility IMO.  I doubt though, it would have been in time for Korea, except perhaps at the very end.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #13 on: August 18, 2013, 03:20:48 PM »
Moving to the other end of the scale, I am also planning a post war West German E.100 Stug:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #14 on: August 18, 2013, 03:52:38 PM »
In Lego?   ;D

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #15 on: August 18, 2013, 04:23:02 PM »
Maybe... ;)
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #16 on: August 18, 2013, 04:31:10 PM »
The change in comclemature from assault guns to tank destroyers showed the changing fortunes of the Germans as the war progressed.  Ditto for the Americans.  Assault guns are primarily used on the offensive, tank destroyers on the defensive.  Tank destroyers tend, with their usually fixed casements, easier and cheaper to produce than tanks with their rotating turrets.

The E-10 might have been a little on the lightweight to carry either a 17 Pdr or a 77mm.  The Archer was 15 tons, the E-10 was designed to be 10-15 tons so it might have just been able to absorb the recoil.   It would have been rather cramped and whereas the crew could get out before the gun fired on the Archer, they may have found it a bit difficult on the enclosed E-10.

The various British recoilless guns were designed to replace conventional towed AT guns in infantry battalions.  They were initially designed to be towed (BAT) and as it was realised there was no need for heavy gun shields and mobility became more important, they ended up being designed to initially portee'ed (MOBAT) and then fired from their carrying vehicle (WOMBAT).  The problem with redesigning the E-10 (which was intended to replace the Hetzer) to utilise a recoilless weapon is that you either have to make it open-topped (with the recoilless rifle mounted outside the vehicle) or design a specialised turret (with autoloader).

As for it being used by 3 RAR in Korea - a recoilless version is unlikely.  The BAT was only just adopted by the British Army in 1953, as Korea ended.   For most of the war, 3 RAR were on the defensive, after the initial "rush to the Yalu" and the Chinese counter-offensive and the 17 Pdrs were more than adequate for that (although, I've never found much reference to their use, except as general artillery in the official history).  They were mostly dug in, on precipitous ridges and the 17 Pdr couldn't be hauled up there, so I doubt an SP could reach them (even Centurions which were part mountain goat found it difficult to climb to the top of those ridges).

If you proposed (as has been suggested) that some German designers came to Australia post-war and proposed the building of the E-10 here, I suspect you'd also need for a recoilless version, some of the German recoilless gun designers to come as well.   If you wanted it to be adapted to carry a 17 Pdr, I suspect it would need some enlarging to accept the bigger gun and it's recoil.   Neither are beyond the realm of possibility IMO.  I doubt though, it would have been in time for Korea, except perhaps at the very end.

Fair comments.

Its a wiff so I suppose it doesn't need to be accurate I would just like to get a back story that rings true.  That's why I was looking at the E-10 being developed to counter the developing Soviet threat in the late 40s.  The UK, seeing the need to replace vulnerable towed AT guns, adopted a variation of the E-10 rather than diverting resources from existing projects.  I was the UKs adoption of the vehicle that led directly to Australia's acquisition of same.  I nominated the 77mm HV as it was designed to have a lower vehicle impact than the 17pounter while retaining much of its performance.  The US M5 3" would also do as this is really a replacement for the towed 6 pounder in battalion AT platoons, just far more mobile and versatile, I suppose the German 75mm could be retained as I believe the French used it as the basis for the gun on the AMX-13.  Anyway as I was looking at this as a UK adaption I plucked the 77mm as the gun used.

I had previously toyed with the idea of a casemate tank destroyer based on and enlarged universal carrier or a larger vehicle based on a Crusader or Comet.  Basically one was too small and the to large.  Mark Aldrich's Israeli Hetzer is also an inspiration but I don't want a Hetzer (I have one but prefer the look of the E-10).

Its all in the planning stage at the moment, I have the kit and don't really want to build it out of the box so just fishing for ideas.  Hoping something hits me between the eyes as the obvious way forward other wise I may just leave it in the box until I do think of something I will enjoy.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #17 on: August 18, 2013, 05:21:07 PM »
The main reason why the 77mm was adopted was to enable a shorter case to be used which was easier to handle in the confines of the turret.  The development of the 77mm is a rather convoluted story in of itself.  It owes little to the separately developed 17 Pdr.  The 77mm was a Vickers design and the 17 Pdr a Royal Ordnance design.  When they converged on calibre, it retained a different chamber size and shape.   The 77mm was actually 76.2mm in calibre but to prevent the two types of ammunition being mixed up (17 Pdr which is 76.2mm calibre as well), they officially designated it "77mm".  This is not an uncommon response in military circles to prevent problems over confusing different types of ammunition for different guns.

If I was to choose between the two for use in an AFV, it would be the 77mm.  Slightly less armour penetration but much less recoil travel and a shorter, fatter shell, to enable it to be much handier in confined spaces.  If I was going to use the E series, the E-25 would make a better vehicle.  The E-10 was more an effort to try and make use of otherwise unusable Czech production facilities late in the war, after the 38(t) had become obsolete.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #18 on: August 18, 2013, 05:53:17 PM »
Yes the E-25 was a larger more capable design but I have a soft spot for small AFVs.

The more I toy with the idea the more I like it, a family of vehicles used by the Infantry Battalions and also by the Reconnaissance Corps Regiments (retained rather than disbanded post war) with all tanks being concentrated in the RAC.  These support vehicles would have included the GMC/SP-AT but would also have covered off the roles later assigned to the CVR(T) FOV.  A rec tank with a 20-30mm auto canon, a light tank with the L5A1 76mm from the Saladin, a small APC, an ARV and a mortar carrier.

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #19 on: May 22, 2014, 09:24:30 AM »
10H64 a.k.a. PAW 1000 anti-tank artillery:



When I read about this one on Wikipedia it instantly caught my eyes.  Not conforming to my usual penchant for German late-WWII emergency designs, however, 10H64 is not exactly "emergency" but rather an attempt to create an anti-tank gun of adequate firepower that can still be manhandled by a team of artillery crew.  It fires 100mm (or, if going by its typical meaning in German designation system, 105mm) HEAT projectiles that can defeat 200mm armour sloped at 60°, with an effective range of 1000m.  And it's about 27% lighter than the 75mm Pak-40.

It would seem that at least two tank destroyer designs were contemplated, based on German development of 38(t) chassis, the 38(d).

With Schmalturm:


With limited-traverse casemate mount:


Makes me wonder what post-war Western European AFV design could use something like that......
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 09:27:00 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #20 on: May 22, 2014, 11:14:50 AM »
The PAW designs were an interesting attempt to limit recoil, without going down the road of being completely recoilless with it's associated propellant problems.

The problem though is that by utilising a high-low pressure system, muzzle velocity was relatively low and so the range and the trajectory were effected.  The "1000" in the designation referred to the maximum range.  The trajectory was quite high as well to get that range.  Because of the low velocity, only HEAT could be used as the main AT ammunition.  All those factors tended to tell against it seeing much post-war use as a method of killing tanks. 

Post-war use of the high-low system was rather limited.  I know personally of the US 40mm Grenade Launcher (in various forms) fired from a soldier's shoulder (ie M79, M203, etc).   They have spectacularly low velocity.  Fun to fire, you can actually watch the round in flight the velocity is measured in tens of metres per second, rather than hundreds. The British RN used the method in their Limbo anti-submarine mortar system and the Swedes in their Miniman LAW.  The Soviets in their GP-25 40mm grenade launcher system but apart from that, it's not been used very much. 

Post war, most armies were focused on large calibre, high muzzle velocity guns for AT use and recoilless weapons and then missiles, so the PAW system was sort of put in the drawer and largely forgotten about.  It might have been dusted off for general infantry support, instead of the various "low pressure" 90mm guns developed in the 1950-60s but they were instead standard guns which simply fired low velocity rounds.

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #21 on: May 23, 2014, 05:55:38 AM »


Tank destroyer Ho-Ri, based on the Type 5 "Chi-Ri" medium tank.  This is the Type 2, with centrall-mounted fighting compartment.  Type 1 has a rear-mounted one à la Elefant.

Still to have a 37mm shotgun (that's the only purpose I can think of for that secondary gun) upfront, so the 105mm main gun of both variants probably isn't intended to have a good HE capability......
« Last Edit: May 23, 2014, 05:59:19 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #22 on: May 24, 2014, 06:04:10 AM »
During the Yugoslav civil war, some Serbian militia had their mechanics training T-55 hulls combined with surplus M18 Hellcat turrets.

Granted, 76mm gun is something of a retrograde compared to T-55's 100mm gun, but I don't think it has to be this way in the whifverse......

Like...... surplus M36 Jackson turrets?

======================================================

Actually, does anyone know the internal volume of a M36 turret?

I guess the more to-the-point question is: does it have enough space to accommodate a 105mm/L44 F1 gun?

And if it does...... how tall is it (just the turret) compared to that of the T-54/55?
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #23 on: May 24, 2014, 06:08:30 AM »
During the Yugoslav civil war, some Serbian militia had their mechanics training T-55 hulls combined with surplus M18 Hellcat turrets.



What was the reason?  I assume it was to increase numbers of vehicles using the hulls which presumably didn't have turrets?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #24 on: May 24, 2014, 11:28:52 AM »
I always assumed that was the case.  I imagine the hull of the M18 was no longer functional and they had a turretless T-55.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2014, 10:45:08 PM »
During the Yugoslav civil war, some Serbian militia had their mechanics training T-55 hulls combined with surplus M18 Hellcat turrets.



What was the reason?  I assume it was to increase numbers of vehicles using the hulls which presumably didn't have turrets?

Presumably, seeing how this is one of the last places where WWII-era vehicles were used in combat.
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #26 on: May 25, 2014, 02:22:44 AM »
Personally I prefer turreted TDs......

« Last Edit: June 17, 2014, 09:24:38 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #27 on: May 25, 2014, 01:43:28 PM »
Then you must love the IKV-91 Tank Destroyer from Sweden -

Interesting that at approximately the same time as the Swedes were designing that, they were putting the "S-Tank" with a fixed casement gun into service and the Germans were putting the Jagdpanzer Konone into service which was a tank destroyer with a fixed casement gun.


Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #28 on: May 25, 2014, 06:55:31 PM »
In similar vein, it's worth pointing out that the Austrian SK-105 vehicle is rated as a tank destroyer by the Austrian Army and the manufacturers, although in functional terms, it's essentially a rear-engined AMX-13.

"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #29 on: May 25, 2014, 11:15:03 PM »
Interesting that at approximately the same time as the Swedes were designing that, they were putting the "S-Tank" with a fixed casement gun into service and the Germans were putting the Jagdpanzer Konone into service which was a tank destroyer with a fixed casement gun.

Yeah but Ikv-91 wasn't replaced by the S-tank but instead replaced alongside the S-tank by the Leopard 2.
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline buzzbomb

  • Low Concentration Span, oft wanders betwixt projects
  • Accurate Scale representations of fictional stuff
    • Club and my stuff site
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #30 on: May 26, 2014, 10:19:29 AM »
revisiting this thread has been great.

I have previously done an Late WW2/'46 German AT Guided Missile vehicle. Based on a Panzerjager IV chassis and using the X-7 Rotkappchen Missile


Further use of older chassis with new weapons.
Putting this sort of weapon on the 38T chassis has plenty of merit as well

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #31 on: May 26, 2014, 12:23:24 PM »
 :)

Offline Weaver

  • Skyhawk stealer and violator of Panthers, with designs on a Cougar and a Tiger too
  • Chaos Engineer & Evangelistic Agnostic
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #32 on: May 26, 2014, 06:04:10 PM »
revisiting this thread has been great.

I have previously done an Late WW2/'46 German AT Guided Missile vehicle. Based on a Panzerjager IV chassis and using the X-7 Rotkappchen Missile

Further use of older chassis with new weapons.
Putting this sort of weapon on the 38T chassis has plenty of merit as well


Niiiice... :)

You could write a really credible whiff history with that, drawing a direct development line to the real-life Jagdpanzer Rakete.
"I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others" - Thucydides

"I've jazzed mine up a bit" - Spike Milligan

"I'm a general specialist," - Harry Purvis in Tales from the White Hart by Arthur C. Clarke

Twitter: @hws5mp
Minds.com: @HaroldWeaverSmith

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #33 on: July 04, 2014, 09:19:04 PM »
In keeping with the theme of up-gunning and evolving WWII-era tanks that I've been playing with...... can Cockerill's short 90mm gun be fitted in place of that 75mm howitzer on the M8 HMC?

Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #34 on: July 04, 2014, 10:21:16 PM »
Wasn't there an up gunned Brazilian M-5 with a 90mm?

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #35 on: July 04, 2014, 10:47:13 PM »
Wasn't there an up gunned Brazilian M-5 with a 90mm?

Brazilian Stuart got a new turret as part of the deal though; I want to see if I can keep the M8's stock turret.
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #36 on: January 24, 2015, 11:11:49 AM »
What about something with a couple (or more) Recoilless rifles onboard - kind of like a heavier British equivalent to the M50 Ontos or Type 60?  Maybe give it a set of 120mm L6 WOMBAT recoilless riffles?

This could be an alternate to the FV4401 Contentious (see below) under Project Prodigal.


It'd be hard to avoid taking inspirations from Project Prodigal though:




===================================================

The attachment is a proposed tank destroyer version of M3 Stuart...... I wonder if this set up would work well with a recoilless rifle......
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #37 on: January 25, 2015, 10:08:13 PM »
Is just dawned on me that the Hetzer was small and light enough to be lifted by a C-130.  So following the premise that towed AT guns within infantry battalions were be replaced with a Hetzer or E-10 type vehicle (or even actual modified Hetzers or E-10s) in the early post war period they would have proven their worth in Korea receiving a life extension, eventually being retained only by the airborne battalions as the RAR and RAM adopted newer, heavier vehicles.

These tank destroyers would not be TDs in the US style but a pure replacement for an infantry battalion's towed guns, leaving tanks to be concentrated and used to greatest effect.  Doctrinally think more an alternative to vehicle mounted BAT, 106mm recoilless rifles, etc. and later ATGMs that replaced towed guns than a traditional TD.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #38 on: January 26, 2015, 03:04:49 AM »
These tank destroyers would not be TDs in the US style but a pure replacement for an infantry battalion's towed guns, leaving tanks to be concentrated and used to greatest effect.  Doctrinally think more an alternative to vehicle mounted BAT, 106mm recoilless rifles, etc. and later ATGMs that replaced towed guns than a traditional TD.

So, probably more akin to the original idea of the Sturmgeschütz: i.e. a mobile, armoured light gun for direct-fire support for infantry with some anti-tank capability when necessary, though not as its primary role.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #39 on: January 26, 2015, 04:54:23 AM »
Yes and no.  AT would be it's primary role but direct fire support would be a very close second with a second vehicle type replacing the towed / pack infantry support guns / howitzers.  The idea is to replace, not just the towed AT gun / recoilless rifle but also its tractor as well as the traditional infantry support guns / howitzers, with something far more mobile and survivable. 

There would be an AT platoon with three or four sections, one for each infantry company, each with two vehicles also the infantry would retain their Bazookas, PIATs, etc. this would replace the towed guns only.  The same would apply to, not only, the STUG, but also heavy mortars, AA, reconnaissance, pioneers and potentially APCs.  Sort of an organic Armoured Support Company (ASC?)😊 that can split into sections to support individual companies or concentrated at battalion level as a reserve.  Basically it would turn each light infantry battalion into a combined arms battle group while not detracting from their core infantry skillset. 

What I am doing is implementing a version of plan Beersheba 60 years earlier at battalion rather than brigade level.  On the flip side there will also be infantrymen / riflemen / assault troopers  imbedded organically in all armoured / cavalry units down to troop level, with similar AT, STUG, mortar, pioneer, etc elements at regimental level.

Post WWII three infantry battalions where renamed go become the first three battalions of the Royal Australian Regiment, effectively an infantry brigade, the core of Australia's first standing army.  At this time it was also intended to form a regular armoured brigade, supported by two similar reserve or CMF brigades.  The armoured brigade never happened and the infantry brigade eventually became an infantry division with other elements, including armour in support, but an infantry brigade with organic supporting armour and an armoured brigade with organic supporting infantry, each backed up by a pair of reserve brigades of similar establishment would have been quite achievable and affordable.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #40 on: August 31, 2015, 07:52:49 PM »
I am certain I posted something somewhere about the LT vz 38 being trialled the RAC prior to WWII but I can not find it now.  Just bought the New Vanguard book on the 38(t) and, once I got over the expected spell checker mis-wordings, I was interested to note that the British trials coincided with Germaine annexation of Czechoslovakia and had been courtesy of one of the prototypes being provided. 

The thing that stood out from the book though was the evolution from licence manufacture of Darden Lloyd Tankettes through to their own light tank design for export, that the LT vs 38 was evolved from, were available much earlier and could have been trialled and even adopted by the British.  The TNH could have been selected as the basis for a colonial medium tank for service in the Middle East, India and the Far East, possibly even for the Antipodes.  A protracted Anglicisation would have been required, perhaps even a re-engining  2pdr instead of 37mm, but the thing is if this had started prior to the annexation, tooling, jigs and fixtures could have been in place before hand, like they were for the BREN and BESA.

End result the British have a reliable light / medium tank in the early years of the war that would probably look different to the Czech / German models, but more importantly a platform suitable for tank destroyers.

Offline Cliffy B

  • Ship Whiffer Extraordinaire...master of Beyond Visual Range Modelling
  • Its ZOTT!!!
    • My Artwork
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #41 on: January 17, 2016, 07:58:52 AM »
Hey guys, how about this as TD?  When I first saw the photo I missed the fact that it had a turret as it blended in so well.  Food for thought maybe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT-70

"Radials growl, inlines purr, jets blow!"  -Anonymous

"Helos don't fly.  They vibrate so violently that the ground rejects them."  -Tom Clancy

"If all else fails, call in an air strike."  -Anonymous

Offline apophenia

  • Suffered two full days of rapid-fire hallucinations and yet had not a single usuable whif concept in the lot !?!
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #42 on: January 17, 2016, 09:50:44 AM »
Not quite a tank destroyer but the Versuchsträger 1-1 twin-gunned turretless tank prototype was based on a shortened MBT-70 hull.
Under investigation by the Committee of State Sanctioned Modelling, Alternative History and Tractor Carburettor Production for decadent counterrevolutionary behaviour.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #43 on: January 17, 2016, 10:26:17 AM »
Not quite a tank destroyer but the Versuchsträger 1-1 twin-gunned turretless tank prototype was based on a shortened MBT-70 hull.


This one?

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline apophenia

  • Suffered two full days of rapid-fire hallucinations and yet had not a single usuable whif concept in the lot !?!
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #44 on: January 18, 2016, 09:03:42 AM »
I think that's the VT 1-2 ... but I'm not sure how the VT 1-1 differed. Maybe more like the GVT 01-'05 demonstrators?  ???
Under investigation by the Committee of State Sanctioned Modelling, Alternative History and Tractor Carburettor Production for decadent counterrevolutionary behaviour.

Offline taiidantomcat

  • Plastic Origamist...and not too shabby with the painting either!
  • Global Moderator
  • Stylishly late...because he was reading comics
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #45 on: January 18, 2016, 09:37:16 AM »
Hey guys, how about this as TD?  When I first saw the photo I missed the fact that it had a turret as it blended in so well.  Food for thought maybe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT-70



Great thinking!
"They know you can do anything, So the question is, what don't you do?"

-David Fincher

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #46 on: January 19, 2016, 02:39:30 AM »
I believe the main difference between the VT1-1 and VT1-2 was that the former had 105mm guns whilst the latter had 120mm guns.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #47 on: January 19, 2016, 08:22:01 PM »
Bought New Vanguards book on the British Carden Lloyd based light tanks I through VI and there was a version of the VI with an open topped turret armed with a 2pdr gun that the book referred to as a tank destroyer and lamented the fact it was not ordered into production.  The single example was apparently extensively field tested by the 9th Royal lancers during 1935 though no information was provided on its performance during the trials they speculated that it looked quite well balanced and speculated that such a vehicle would have been quite useful (or at least more useful than the HMG armed versions).

This reminded me of the full traverse 2pdr AT versions of the Universal Carrier (the base chassis of which is not much smaller than the light tanks) and got me thinking that a casemate tank destroyer armed with a 6pdr should have actually been possible.

Offline ChernayaAkula

  • Was left standing in front when everyone else took one step back...
  • Global Moderator
  • Putting the "pro" in procrastination since...?
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #48 on: July 11, 2017, 01:39:03 AM »
Some guy is selling these at a private auction in California, but when I first saw the pic, it reminded me of some Israeli armour boneyard.

So.... Israeli KaJaPa (Kanonenjagdpanzer), anyone? Or a Raketenjagdpanzer/Jaguar (maybe with indigenous missiles)?


Cheers,
Moritz

"The appropriate response to reality is to go insane!"

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #49 on: July 11, 2017, 03:00:05 AM »
So.... Israeli KaJaPa (Kanonenjagdpanzer), anyone?

I'm liking your thinking.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #50 on: July 11, 2017, 04:52:16 AM »
I'm thinking it might cost about the same to buy and restore that one as it would be to buy the 1/35 Revell kit on eBay right now!  ;D

I wonder if that Staghound behind it is for sale? I wouldn't mind having that for weekend family drives!

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #51 on: July 11, 2017, 06:18:25 PM »
Can I have the Staghound in the background, please? ???
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #52 on: July 12, 2017, 05:51:32 AM »
Can I have the Staghound in the background, please? ???


Your bank manager called.

"Evil our grandsires were, our fathers worse;
And we, till now unmatched in ill,
Must leave successors more corrupted still."
Horace, 65BC - 8BC. Marsh translation.

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #53 on: August 06, 2017, 09:30:30 AM »
Heavy Halftrack  >:D :icon_fsm:



High Hellcat  8)


Offline kim margosein

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #54 on: August 08, 2017, 10:20:21 AM »
I guess the Israelis left the tank destroyer out on the street overnight in Chicago

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #55 on: December 16, 2017, 04:38:42 PM »
What if some cooperation after WWII: 2 reccon possibilities.


Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #56 on: December 17, 2017, 02:30:23 AM »
Interesting viewing:  https://youtu.be/7ho8TU_JpoI
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #57 on: December 18, 2017, 07:35:52 PM »
Scaleorama: M18 1/56 + M1 1/72


Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #58 on: December 22, 2017, 12:11:34 PM »
Combining the hull of a M42 Duster AA tank with the turret of an M18, the Type 64 Light Tank:





Used by the ROC Army on Taiwan.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2018, 10:32:43 AM by Rickshaw »

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #59 on: January 14, 2018, 10:23:33 AM »
Interchanging turrets between M10 and M18


Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #60 on: January 16, 2018, 09:30:14 AM »
How about an M18 with an M4 Sherman turret?



Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #61 on: January 16, 2018, 09:31:51 AM »
Recce version of M18 with upgunned (50mm approx) M8 turret.


Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #62 on: January 25, 2018, 12:39:26 PM »
Love this taiwanese version of M10




Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #63 on: January 26, 2018, 04:00:18 AM »
Interesting.  What's it armed with?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #64 on: January 26, 2018, 08:52:08 AM »
Interesting.  What's it armed with?

Apparently (and rather unusually) a Japanese Type 91 105mm Howitzer..   Seems odd to put a Japanese gun on an American armoured vehicle but apparently it's what the ROC Army decided to do after it fled to Formosa.  More information available at Wart Hunder]War Thunder forum.  Zenrat posted this information over at What If after I asked exactly the same question.

Offline apophenia

  • Suffered two full days of rapid-fire hallucinations and yet had not a single usuable whif concept in the lot !?!
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #65 on: January 27, 2018, 07:49:47 AM »
Gun swap? Take the Type 91 out of the Tamiya Type 1 Ho-Ni (35331) for the ROC M10 SPH. Then plonk the 3-inch M1918 on to the Type 1 (perhaps pretending to be a Type 4 75 mm AA gun adapted for SP use?).
Under investigation by the Committee of State Sanctioned Modelling, Alternative History and Tractor Carburettor Production for decadent counterrevolutionary behaviour.

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #66 on: February 16, 2018, 04:12:22 AM »
Interesting.  What's it armed with?

Likely 105mm Type 91 howitzer.  Those vehicles were demilitarized (i.e. having their guns sabotaged) prior to the acquisition; there were, OTOH, plenties of Japanese artillery pieces left behind as their former owners were sent packing.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 04:31:18 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #67 on: May 03, 2018, 11:01:17 AM »
Bismarck, one of the proposals for what would eventually become the Rooikat.

42 tons.  Originally equipped with an Olifant tank turret (which is essentially an up-armoured Centurion tank turret with a 105mm gun)...... looks like the TTD turret was tested on it as well.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 11:06:55 AM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: I like Tank Destroyers
« Reply #68 on: August 30, 2018, 01:48:20 PM »




















[Source]

Unsure if they are meant to be MBT's or tank destroyers.  Unsure as to the authorship.