Author Topic: I like Tank Destroyers  (Read 19039 times)

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 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!?