From: "Neville Lindsay" <nevlin@bigpond.net.au> Newsgroups: soc.history.war.misc References: <9b78f7$p85$1@news.netmar.com> Subject: Re: "Tank Destroyer"? Lines: 81 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: <H7OB6.6349$W7.28005@news-server.bigpond.net.au> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:56:55 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.45.204.138 X-Complaints-To: news@bigpond.net.au X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 987213415 203.45.204.138 (Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:56:55 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:56:55 EST Organization: BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.net.au) <chrish57@deja.com> wrote in message news:9b78f7$p85$1@news.netmar.com... > What is a "Tank Destroyer" please? I was watching a show on history > channel about the various uses Germany made of Panzer chassis > - tanks, self-propelled artillery, anti-air, etc and they kept refering > to "tank destroyer" versions. > > They appear to be self propelled artillery (without a traversing turret) that > fires in a flat trajectory (as opposed to the arc of a howitzer or mortar). > > What was the advantage of these vehicles? Why not use a tank to kill a tank? > > Thanks, > Chris The responses to date have given some factors in a very complex issue, which go beyond simply having separate guns for tank-killing and infantry support. Infantry support is given by artillery. Tanks do have a fairly minor main armament task of bunker busting (AP) and area killing (canister and HE), but the principal tank task is tank to tank engagement (just as the principal infantry task is man to man engagement). The other major tank task is shock value in helping defeat infantry defences and protecting infantry and APCs in attacking those defences, using mainly secondary armament, and main armament against counter-attacking tanks (more tank vs tank). As the lessons from penny-packeting tanks led to their concentration in large formations, and these formations were not necessarily available to protect infantry from enemy tank-supported attacks, infantry were given anti-tank weapons -specialised grenades, rockets and anti-tank guns - the latter were towed (in fact the Germans found their towed AA artilley 88 gun to be an ideal tank-killer, given solid shot even though it was designed for HE, and eventually put it into tanks). For mobility/flexibility sake, just about everything for forward operational use which could be given tracks was by the Germans and Russians - I have even seen a motor bike with a track. So the infantry anti-tanks guns were put on tank hulls - no turrets, just as was a lot of artillery - a cheap way using superseded chassis to get mobility and protection. In armoured warfare, the idea that specialised tank-killers should be part of the inventory did not, as I understand it, get much credence. After the WWI experience, there were two types of tank - infantry support and main battle tanks. In WW2 the tank destroyer was an infantry support weapon in place of heavy towed anti-tank guns. In the post WW2 era, recall the Conqueror tank, which had a 120mm anti-tank gun (originally with just an AP round) on it when Main Battle Tanks had 20pr/90mm and then 105mm guns. These MBTs were later upgraded to 120mm. But the Conqueror was a destined for the infantry division as a specifically anti-tank defensive unit, not a manoeuver unit. In all this, the MBT was itself a tank vs tank weapon - the idea of having specialised anti-tank tanks in armoured formations was considered a serious diversion and inflexibility when the principal role and design of the MBT was to fight tanks anyway. A matter not considered to date is the ammunition. As tank guns were multi-purpose, the munitions were developed to optimise tank-killing using a tube capable of the other necessary adjuncts to flexibility - smoke, HE, incendiary, canister, pyrotechnic. Starting with armour-piercung solid shot (AP), a hardened cap was added to improve penetration (APC), then as this decreased streamline, a ballistic cap was added (APCBC), then a a small projectile with a plastic discarding sabot to deliver more residual energy at the target (APDS), then a DP rod with discarding sabot to improve drive through armour. So the flexibility of the gun was maintained for both tank vs tank and supplementary tasks, and so the flexibility of the whole tank fleet for a variety of roles, without the early ones of specialisation which seriously reduced the numbers available for any specific task. So why the tank destroyer - a cheap way of providing mobility and protection (against artillery and SA fire, not tank fire) for infantry anti-tank guns. Now there are lots of exceptions to this overview, and no doubt I will cop them, but that is the broad thrust of it over time. NL > ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the eb ----- > http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups > NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts > made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email abuse@newsone.net