Author Topic: I like Tank Destroyers  (Read 20361 times)

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.