Maastrictian Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 What is the difference between the various types of "big gun" AFVs? ie Tanks, Tank Destroyers, Assault Guns. They all seem to be used for the same purpose (killing other versions of themselves). They seem to be used in different proportions by different sides (the Soviets had 1000 tanks at Kursk and 10,000 assault guns (or something, I'm just making these numbers up)). Was one cheeper to produce but less effective? And what was the tactical difference. Thanks! --Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 Herm. Big subject. This is my whack at the semantics of the thing: Tanks are defined as vehicles possessing a large-bore gun in a rotating armored turret. This gun is not necessarily a powerful tank-killer, as the Sherman line showed. A tank-destroyer is defined as a vehicle possessing a powerful, high-velocity anti-tank gun in a turretless chassis. An assault-gun is a vehicle with a large gun that is not necessarily a tank-killer, in a turretless chassis. They were intended originally for infantry support vs. tank-killing. For example, the early StuG IIIs utilized a short-barrel 75mm gun (same as in the early PzIVs) and was used most often as a support gun for infantry assaults. The line of StuH (assault howitzers) carried large-caliber, low velocity howitzers that could throw big HE charges a goodly ways (it had some AT capability, but was not intended for AT duty) It was only later in the war that assault-guns became so numerous. (esp) Germany and USSR realized that assault guns could be made much more quickly and cheaply (because of the lack of turret mechanism) and that the weight saved could be used for bigger engines, thicker armor, etc etc. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakker@home Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 Pfff, where to begin ? 1) What do you mean by <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"big gun" AFVs<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>, my guess is you mean TD's and AG's. (Tank Destroyers and Assault Guns). 2) TD's and AG's were,as a rule, cheaper to produce then 'turreted' tanks. It was also a way of utilizing 'outdated' chassis as you could mount a bigger gun on the same chassis the you could do in a turret. Their lack of turret however gives them a tactical disadvantage especially when moving. 3) TD's main role was to knock out enemy tanks (hence the name). Since most lacked a turret (soviet, geman) they mainly did this from defensive positions. The americans followed a different approach and boasted turreted, but less well armoured. TD's. 4) AG's were often used to support infantry or armoured units in assault, where there superior HE capability was used to knock out At-guns, MG-nests, Pillboxes ect. 5) for a interesting discussion on the role of the STUG III (a german AG) see http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/003750.html Grtz S Bakker. PS: i'm sure i missed (or mangled )something but this should get this thread underway. PPS: damn Doug beat me to it, and he did it better to [This message has been edited by Bakker@home (edited 04-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaffertape Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 Earlier in the war, most countries didn't have the technical wherewithall to put a large calibre gun in a turret (the reason why the M3 Lee had the 75mm hull mounted for example). The first AFV uses of the German 88 were turretless designs until the Tiger was created. Later in the war, larger weapons crept into the turret, but even then the biggest weapons remained static (Jagdtiger / ISU 152) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoop88 Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 The earlier replies in this thread about cover it. Just to add, however, that a good book to start with on armored warfare is "Panzer Leader" by Heinz Guderian, the mastermind behind German tank development and tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.Tankersley Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: A tank-destroyer is defined as a vehicle possessing a powerful, high-velocity anti-tank gun in a turretless chassis. An assault-gun is a vehicle with a large gun that is not necessarily a tank-killer, in a turretless chassis. DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Weeelllll ... many TDs had turrets. US TDs tended to be lightly armored with open turrets but powerful anti-armor guns to help them with their doctrinal role of killing enemy tanks. The Germans built loads of turretless AFVs as an expedient to allow them to mount heavier guns on light chassis that couldn't support the same gun in a turret mount. Also, turretless AFVs are cheaper and easier to build, which was of concern later in the war. The distinction was really one of design intent, I think. Tank destroyers, as the name suggests, were intended to kill enemy tanks. Assault guns were designed for infantry support and the ability to quickly rotate the gun wasn't very important, so turrets weren't necessary. Since pretty much all of these guns could fire both AP and HE rounds, however, almost any AFV could serve in either type of role with varying degrees of success. ------------------ Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 ERR i have to agree with Leyland here the tank destroyer is not necessarily a non-turreted vehicle the US had two versions of the ACHILLES both were turreted tank destroyers. ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out [This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 04-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 I had forgotten about the "good way to use outdated but still serviceable chassis" aspect of TD design. And yes, I do realize that TDs were not turretless as a rule. I wonder how different the US TD force would have been if the designers had followed the German/Soviet example and designed turretless, but better armed/armored, TDs. When was the decision made (if it was a conscious decision) to build turreted vehicles? It seems odd to me that US leadership stressed massed Sherman production vs. designing a new, much better tank, yet decided to build turreted TDs and accept the slower production thereof. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley: The distinction was really one of design intent, I think. Tank destroyers, as the name suggests, were intended to kill enemy tanks. Assault guns were designed for infantry support and the ability to quickly rotate the gun wasn't very important, so turrets weren't necessary. Since pretty much all of these guns could fire both AP and HE rounds, however, almost any AFV could serve in either type of role with varying degrees of success. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. It really depends on the following: Doctrine/mission goal your Vehicles Opposing vehicles Training of crewmen terraign offense or defense loadout example: BULGE:M10 TDs were often used as direct fire support for infantry actions. Having a turret is always nice but being without a roof is pretty scary in this mission. Long range MG fire actually comes down in an arc and getting a bullet shooting around the inside would suck. Arty, morters, tree bursts all add up to disaster. But its high velocity gun could fire HE and AP at bunkers and reinforced houses, etc and it would be helpful if german armor DID show up. The M10 couldnt use its TD doctrine in the terraign in the Bulge and had to make itself useful somehow. example: Russian IS2. Most people look at this creation and say "Tank". I have read its mission was really an "assault gun". Main weapon was chosen over others for its HE effects. It would blast the crap out of points of resistance and if it had to, take on armored vehicles. It was slow loading and had a limited amount of ammo. Crews were trained to use the weapon as such (I would assume), and after reality sets in they would modify things to whatever would keep them alive/accomplish missions. I could go on but my point is that things are never so cut and dry. The guys on the cutting edge will use the weapons however they can to stay alive and accomplish missions (in that order!). I think if CM allowed the player to give the vehicles an overall "global" mission prior to the start of a scenario (such as TD, AG, Overwatch, whatever) then my stugs wouldnt decide to target a 60mm crew in the middle of a raging tank duel!!!! Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sabot Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 And to further muddy the water... Not all Assault guns/Tanks mounted guns (flamethrowers) or had large guns (German Flakpanzers) (granted, not intended for ground operations, but effective nevertheless) [This message has been edited by Black Sabot (edited 04-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Black Sabot: And to further muddy the water... Not all Assault guns/Tanks mounted guns (flamethrowers) or had large guns (German Flakpanzers) (granted, not intended for ground operations, but effective nevertheless) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No offense Black Sabot, but HUH?? What are you trying to say there? OK, about US TDs. It *is* strange that the US *could* mount larger and more powerful guns in a turret, but then squander the advantage by using light armor. You would've thought that they would've just made one hellava tank. I imagine that there was some sort of a trade-off in mass producing and/or cost. Just like previously mentioned that the US probably stressed high mass production of Shermans (a medium tank) over heavy tanks like the M26 Pershing. You know, in as of CM speaking, it's ashame that the tank killing effects aren't a little more graphic than they are, such as *visible* puncture holes or turret decapitations. But even the tank sims don't really simulate this. OK, maybe Panzer Elite does in a way, but it still doesn't show holes. I'm not even sure that Microprose's new Gunship! and Tank Platoon! games show this kind of damage. [This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 04-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 B17 II will show the actual holes from the bullets and flak. You can even see through the bigger ones!!!!! The futur looks bright! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sabot Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ol' Blood & Guts: No offense Black Sabot, but HUH?? What are you trying to say there? [This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 04-13-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, didn't mean to confuse Let me try again... What i was trying to say was not all assault guns had large guns. Some had flamethrowers, or mortars, or rapid fire cannons of smaller calibur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxhole Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 I was wondering what all the ammo letterings standed for. could someone list all the abbreviations for shells. sorry for my incompetence Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 Ammo Types and #s for US guns(and German but I don't have a reference on hand for the Pzgr. numbers) APC or APBC: Armor Piercing Capped APCBC: Armor Piercing Capped and Ballistic Capped AP: Armor Peircing(solid shot) APCR: Armor Piercing Composite Rigid(tungsten cored HVAP round) APDS: Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot(Sabot Ammo) HE: High Explosive(anti-personnel) HEAT: High Explosive Anti-tank(shaped charge) US and Brit type and ammo #s for bigger guns: 75mm ( -T suffix for Tracer) M61-APCBC-T M72-AP-T M48-HE-T 76mm M62-APC-T M79-AP-T M93-APCR-T(HVAP) 17Lbr. Mk.VIII T shot-APCBC SVDS Shot-APDS Mk.1 T shot-HE 90mm M82-APC-T M304-APCR-T(HVAP) T33-AP-T M71-HE-T Hope this helps dano6 [This message has been edited by dano6 (edited 04-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxhole Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 Thanks, That helped Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 Regarding US TD's: The US had a different doctrine for tanks and tank destoyers in WWII than it does now. The Sherman was primarily designed for the infantry support role (as most CM players can attest to its HE effectiveness). It could, uh... "deal" with other tanks if necessary, but it wasn't designed for that role. Instead it was the doctrine to have Tank Destoyers pursue and engage enemy armor. The design ideal for TDs in the US view at the time (which did change by the end of the war) was to have them move fast (and hence be lightly armored) and pack a better armor-piercing punch than the Shermans. Nearing the end of WWII the US was coming to realize that the doctrine of a dedicated TD and a dedicated infantry support tank wasn't working to the extent they had hoped. Shermans often had to engage enemy armor at a disadvantage (with the AT-weak 75mm). I believe the M-26 Pershing marked the end of role-dedicated tanks for the US (though I don't know what the HE or AT performance of the 90mm was). So, to relate this to the earlier part of the discussion - I believe the reason for the existance of non-turretted TDs was 1) cost (no turret, use older chassis, etc) 2) capability to mount heavier calibre guns (designing a turret to mount larger guns was a significant engineering effort for AFVs) and 3) heavier armor could be mounted on the AFV (OK - everyone has already made these points ). US TDs were turretted because they were engineered to be fast & consequently light; with the open-topped, light armored turret (and initially lighter calibre guns)- there was no need to go with the disadvantages of a hull mounted/turretless design. The open top of the US TDs allowed for easier "crewing" of the heavier calibre guns - and I believe reduced some of engineering requirements (lighter turret, etc.). Of course these open tops were very hazardous to the crews under normal operating conditions of small fire/MG fire. (I have no references on this, but some of this has been discussed before). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mch Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>OK, about US TDs. It *is* strange that the US *could* mount larger and more powerful guns in a turret, but then squander the advantage by using light armor. You would've thought that they would've just made one hellava tank. I imagine that there was some sort of a trade-off in mass producing and/or cost. Just like previously mentioned that the US probably stressed high mass production of Shermans (a medium tank) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Correct OB&G!.... also consider that the M4 WAS a GOOD tank in 1942,when it was produced.in '44 however.. a little dated.(such is industry during wartime...)Gen McNair believed that tk vs tk combat would be mostly handled by TD Bn's. relegating the Amd.Div to a Cavalry role.( proven unsound pretty quickly)American Armor went through alot of rethinking during the war,hence,the preceived "weakness"but,they did turn out 88,000 Tanks to the German 24,000,so,maybe they didn't NEED to be all that big ------------------ It is no disgrace to be defeated...It is a disgrace to be surprised. -attr.to Fredrick the Great- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mch Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 (laughing) whoops....msiread TD for TK! as for Td's..There were speed concerns. keep em' light and fast seemed to be the design principal.(probably a reaction to Towed TD's being immobile and heavy for a fluid combat enviroment) Also:more of the same.the Germans went through their armoured "arms race" at a fast pace in 42-44 to compete with the soviets.the U.S.army had a slower development.(TD's probably WERE adeq.armoured for 41 and 42.not for 44,though) Ex.the M10 had as much(and in some cases MORE )armour than the PzIIIH! ------------------ It is no disgrace to be defeated...It is a disgrace to be surprised. -attr.to Fredrick the Great- [This message has been edited by mch (edited 04-13-2000).] [This message has been edited by mch (edited 04-13-2000).] [This message has been edited by mch (edited 04-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mch: (laughing) Also:more of the same.the Germans went through their armoured "arms race" at a fast pace in 42-44 to compete with the soviets.the U.S.army had a slower development.(TD's probably WERE adeq.armoured for 41 and 42.not for 44,though) B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the M18 was the only US TD that fit into the US Army TD Doctrine. It was realized that it should only be armored up to a "threat level". That is, repulse lets say MGs, ATR, Light Flak and Pak to 37mm. To stop anything else required armor that would slow it down. It was a balance of speed, armor, visability, and hitting power (given APCR). But it also was late on the scene and only had a short time in the sun. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grunto Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 The Assault gun is usually closed top and always turretless... tank destroyers are typically open or closed-topped, but also turretless. Tanks are the most expensive to produce, because of the turret mechanism. TDs generally have a larger gun on the same chassis compared to the tank. The Germans had a general rule that the tank's chassis, when turned into an AG/TD, was given the next big gun up. That's why a PZIII goes from 50mm to 75/76.2mm when you turn it into a Marder. The PZIV goes from various 75s to a very long 75 with the jagdpanzerIV. The panther goes from very long 75 to very long 88 with the upgrade to jagdpanther. Myself, I like Stugs because they're cheap, have decent AT capability, and decent infantry support. My favorite tank though has to be the IS/2 (no one really used IS/3s did they?). The Russians set the post-war standard for tank guns with that smooth-bore 122mm. The smooth bore gives greater penetration but less accuracy than the rifled bore. Anyway, there are tradeoffs when going between tanks, AGs, and TDs. You get more firepower with AG/TDs but the turret traverse of a more-expensive tank is a very handy feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grunto Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 doh... forgot about the turreted us TDs... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by grunto: My favorite tank though has to be the IS/2 (no one really used IS/3s did they?). The Russians set the post-war standard for tank guns with that smooth-bore 122mm. The smooth bore gives greater penetration but less accuracy than the rifled bore. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Pardon my ignorance, but did the IS/2 really have a smooth bore gun? I always thought it was rifled. And furthermore, is a shell fired from a rifled bore inherently more accurate than a fin stabilized shell fired from a smooth bore of equal caliber? I do not mean to start any arguements, I merely want to know. Thanks, Lurker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 The British never really dropped the "Infantry Support" tank from their way of thinking. As you will see in CM, the British tended to make a dedicated Infantry Support version of whatever was their main tank. In CM's timeframe this means a version of the Cromwell and Churchill each armed with a 95mm gun designed for engaging non-armored targets. However, that sucker had one Hell of a hollow charge shell that could clobber most German tanks if it hit at any practical range of engagement. However, they only went out in the field with a few of these shells since space inside an AFV is always short and their role was to take on soft targets and not hard. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted April 14, 2000 Share Posted April 14, 2000 As an aside, the post-war West-German army (which was mostly staffed by former wehrmacht ofiicers anyway) kept the TD idea alive, while the US abandoned it quickly after the war IIRC. The Germans sported a turretless TD called 'Jagdpanzer (tank hunter) something' (I think Jaguar, but am not sure) with I believe a 90mm gun. A later version of this had no gun but a top-mounted AT rocket launcher (HOT or TOW, IIRC). The Swedish also had a similar turretless TD after the war, I believe. I hope I did not get names and equipment completely wrong, but I am sure someone here can correct me if I did . Oh, and my dad tells me that some of the officers not only kept the doctrine, they also kept their uniforms minus the Swastika. He once had to parade in front of a general wearing Wehrmacht and not Bundeswehr clothing in the late 60s. This guy sure liked his riding breeches ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts