Tank Destroyers after World War 2

[Guest Pillar]

The M18 and the Jackson are popular vehicles for Allied CM players on this forum.

Through my very brief readings on armoured warfare after World War 2, I've never found much light shed on the fate of the Tank Destroyer concept. The closest thing I could find was the Sheridan, but that's more of an airborne light tank than a classic TD.

The US Army was thinking of developing a TD recently for Airborne troops that would replace the role of the Sheridan. I think that got canned.

My question to the grogs is: What happened to the Tank Destroyer after World War 2? What did the concept get replaced by/mould into?

Thanks.

[Jeff Heidman]

In the short term, it was recognized that by the time you invested everything you need into a dedicated TD, you pretty much had a tank, so why not just build the tank to begin with?

Of course, some would argue that the current M1A2 Abrams is, in fact, a tank destroyer, seeing as its gun does not even have an HE round for it.

So, you can look at it two ways. One, the TD concept was ditched in favor of the MBT (Main Battle Tank), or, you can say that all tanks essentially became tank destroyers.

In the long term, the development of the AT missile saw the re-emergence of the dedicated light AT vehicle. Since vehicles like the ITV and such could do something that a tank could not, and at a fraction of the cost, it made sense to build them.

Jeff Heidman

[109 Gustav]

The last Tank Destroyer school was disbanded in 1956, if I remember correctly. Battle experience showed that tanks needed some armor (!), so the American tank destroyer doctrine was rendered obsolete.

------------------

No one but the enemy will tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you. -Ender's Game

[SF]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar:

The M18 and the Jackson are popular vehicles for Allied CM players on this forum.

Through my very brief readings on armoured warfare after World War 2, I've never found much light shed on the fate of the Tank Destroyer concept. The closest thing I could find was the Sheridan, but that's more of an airborne light tank than a classic TD.

The US Army was thinking of developing a TD recently for Airborne troops that would replace the role of the Sheridan. I think that got canned.

My question to the grogs is: What happened to the Tank Destroyer after World War 2? What did the concept get replaced by/mould into?

Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The latest TD produced that I can think of was the Swedish 'S' tank. Had alot of novel features, and looked quite radical.

[Stoffel]

After the war the Hetzer stayed in service with the Austrian army well into the 60's.

The German army had used a Tank destroyer to.

I have forgotten its name though have to look it up.

Right now the vehicle you mentioned for the US army is the xm 8 prototype(sorry if I get the name wrong)basically a light armored vehicle with a gun and without a turret.It looked like the S tank.

Their were several test vehicles build they were originally intended for rapid reaction forces and were ideal for the C-17 cargoplane.

But plans existed to equip the armies new light brigades with that vehicle together with the LAV 105mm gunvehicle.

I could be wrong though.SOmeone know more about this item?

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stoffel:

After the war the Hetzer stayed in service with the Austrian army well into the 60's.

The German army had used a Tank destroyer to.

I have forgotten its name though have to look it up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 'S' tank, according to Bovington, was actually an MBT, but is often mistaken for a TD. (Don't ask me to explain, I could not, I just quote what the people there said).

The German TD was the Jaguar. It looked pretty much like the Jgdpz.IV, had a 90mm gun, and later a top-mounted TOW (mefinks). I have just read a website by a German TD Coy that was disbanded in 1996 and sported the Jaguar with top-mounted somefinks.

A friend told me that the Jaguar was also used as OP tank after the gun was removed. They went racing cars with it on the Autobahn.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-14-2000).]

[Wayne]

Were TDs heavily used in the Korean War?

------------------

Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight.

[PeterNZer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The latest TD produced that I can think of was the Swedish 'S' tank. Had alot of novel features, and looked quite radical.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looks radical. Indeed! It was interesting to see it at Bovington, very low and strange looking. However, by all accounts, a piece of crap?

PeterNZ

------------------

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." George W Bush -Saginaw, Mich.,

Sept. 29, 2000

[Guest wwb_99]

As others have pointed out, the concept of a tank destroyer has changed with technology.

But....

SU-85s and 100s are still in use in various 3rd world armies. M-18s saw use in the recent troubles in Yugoslavia.

There are a full variety of ATGM equipped AFVs which would fit the definition of tank destroyer, and have about the same life expectancy.

The German Jaguar came in two models. One was equipped with a 90mm gun, the other with a TOW.

WWB

------------------

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salatamus.

[Jeff Duquette]

The US ARMY tank destroyer center was terminated on 10 November 1945. The last tank destroyer battalion, the 656th, was disbanded at Camp Campbell, Kentucky on 1 November 1946. Several of the more famous tank destoryer battalion were later reactivated as regular tank units.

No they didnt make it to Korea...they barely made it through WWII.

[Snake Eyes]

Combat experience showed that a TD was often called upon to perform the duties of a tank; a task for which it was not prepared. US tank strategy finally evolved to the concept that tanks should/could/would fight other tanks. That was the death knell for the TD. May it rest in peace.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[This message has been edited by Snake Eyes (edited 11-14-2000).]

[Kevin Christensen]

The Ontos, the M56 Scorpion, and any light vehicle such as a HumVee or a Bradley or M113 with a TOW demonstrate affinity with the US WWII TD concepts. Some contemporary crews acknowledge the lineage by painting the Panther-Chewing-a tank TD patch on their vehicles. Some argue that Helicoptors fit the TD concept.

An excellent book on the TD concept, Faint Praise: American Tanks and Tank Destroyers in WWII. Paul Baily.

H.M. Coles The Battle of the Bulge includes an observation that the AARs for the conflict over and over describe TDs showing up and changing the course of combats. Like 'em or loath 'em, the US TD battalions inflicted twice the causalties at a fifth the cost of the average line unit. Adjust that for the much greater effectiveness of the SP battalions compared to towed, and it should give pause.

Kevin Chrisensen

Lawrence, KS

[Robert Mayer]

WWII TD units did so well probably because, well, they were there. In many combat situations, there were simply more TDs to draw on than tanks, and it was more likely to find a battalion of M10s or M18s available for tapping than one of M4s, methinks.

Certainly the crews of these open-topped under-armored vehicles deserve a lot of credit for perseverence and courage under fire; you can hardly read any accounts of battles the US was engaged in in Europe in WWII without coming across cases where TDs played crucial roles. Still, you can't help but wonder whether putting those resources (material and human) into real tanks might not have been more productive. We'll never know I guess.

[RMC]

The Bundeswehr had three models of modern tank destroyers. The original was the Kanonenjagdpanzer with the 90mm gun.

Then there were three missile variants. One had TOW and the other had HOT.

Raketenjagdpanzer 1 based on the HS30 chassis with an SS11 missile:

which was then replaced by the Raketenjagdpanzer 2 based on the Kanonenjagdpanzer chassis and which came in two versions: one with TOW and the other with HOT missiles.

Needless to say there aren't any real battle reports for these things. I have heard that they do very well at maneuver training areas like Hohenfels because of the low profile and the small size of the exposed launcher systems.

There were also rumors that the Soviet fielded a 130mm assault gun/TD based on a T-62 chassis. The only evidence I'd seen for one was some T-62 recovery vehicles that appeared to have had a large opening in the front plate (that had been covered over) that could accomodate a gun.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC:

Raketenjagdpanzer 1 based on the HS30 chassis with an SS11 missile: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can not believe they based one on the HS-30. My dad told me that it was a total piece of junk (he was in the army for eight years in the 60s and early 70s). There were lots of rumours about corruption when the HS-30 was selected. Yikes.

The Kanonenjagdpanzer, nice though. You can really see the design tradition show.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-14-2000).]

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Don't forget the IT-130. The Soviets fielded a TD based on the T-62 hull with a 130mm cannon well into the 70's. IIRC, it was the only afv to utilize that weapon as its powerful recoil could not be contained in the T-62's turret at that time. A very interesting vehicle that western intelligence sources denied the existence of until defectors and satellite photos verified it.

[Olle Petersson]

About TDs:

Tank destroyers, defined as ground vehicles that are cheaper than MBTs and designed with the main/only purpose of defeating enemy armour, have been in use continously since WW2.

There are several examples of light vehicles, armoured as well as unarmoured, fitted with ATGs or ATGMs.

The latest versions of ATG carriers are in English terms usually designated as light tanks, but is nothing but TDs.

About the S-tank:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeterNZer:

... It was interesting to see it at Bovington, very low and strange looking. However, by all accounts, a piece of crap?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Very short: No.

A bit more elaborated: It did have a few disadvantages, but overall performance was comparable to it's competitors; M60, Cheftain, Leopard.

I could write an essay on this topic, but for now I'll just point out a few things:

Major disadvantages

- Leaking hydraulics. The floor was usually covered with oil.

- Crappy ditch crossing performance. Ditches had to be crossed diagonally, and the dozer blade attached to all tanks in the C version was there to smoothen ditch sides.

Major advantages

- Low profile and very small made it very difficult to hit. The entire tank is smaller than the hull of an M60...

- Excellent view when buttoned. Better than that from updated Centurions, and it's often the gunner that spots potential threats/targets.

- Fixed gun with autoloader gives a very high ROF, about 20 RPM.

- Time from target detection to first shot is very short, since the TC has override on the controls. Instead of giving voice commands to the gunner he can point the gun and shoot at the target directly.

Questionable

- Armour. The side armour isn't thick by any MBT standard, and the frontal armour, although sloped at ~80 degrees, has also been questioned lately. It seems that APFSDS fired from a T-72 would penetrate the glacis, engine, fighting compartment and end up in the ammo boxes sticking out at the rear...

Misunderstanding

- Some persons think "the S-tank has a fixed gun pointing forward, therefore it can't fire on the move".

This is how the British army reasoned when they first saw the S-tank, so they set their mind on proving that thesis as well.

They borrowed 10 S-tanks for about a week and conducted a series of tests designed to prove that the turreted Cheftain could fire on the move while the S-tank was expected to fail.

The conclusions were, in short; "The S-tank has to be considered as a MBT." "We've been unable to prove the S-tank's inability to fire on the move."

Not having read the actual report myself, I guess one of the main reasons for these conclusions was that the ability of turreted tanks were greatly overrated. The Cheftain could fire while moving, but the hit-rate was insignificant, and fire on the move was a waste of ammo.

Cheers

Olle

[This message has been edited by Olle Petersson (edited 11-17-2000).]

[jgdpzr]

Olle,

I've always thought the S-Tank is one mean looking little bugger. However, I'm totally confused as to how it could fire on the move. It had a fixed gun, correct? I guess I can see how it could fire on the move, it's the aiming part that confuses me.

I also can't positively remember how the gun was aimed when stationary, if it is fixed. Seems like I remember that the suspension could elevate to allow for range adjustment and I would assume the entire vehicle would rotate on its tracks to allow for horizontal adjustment. But for the life of me, I can't figure out how that would work if the vehicle is in motion. Well, I guess I should say except for head directly toward it's target. Got any ideas as to how effective it truly was in terms of firing on the move?

Thanks for your insight into what is surely one of the more unique AFVs developed since WWII.

[This message has been edited by jgdpzr (edited 11-17-2000).]

[Trooper]

By the maths, I would find it hard to question the S-tank's frontal armor. The vehicle weighs in at some 40+ tons, almost the same as a Russian MBT. And it has no turret, so this extra metal has to go somewhere.

The anti-HEAT strakes would have done wonders for it as well.

I think by 'fire on the move' he means 'fire on the advance'. Both kinds of tank would have to fire from the short halt whereas many people had assumed that the S-Tank was purely defensive in nature and of no use in the attack.

Sweden does have a conventional tank destroyer in service, it's a 15-20 or so ton turreted tracked vehicle with a 90mm cannon. Apparently due to be upgraded to a 105mm. Name eludes me at this time.

The B1 Centauro of the Italian army would be classified as such as well, I believe. So would practically anything with a TOW missile, bar Bradleys.

BRDM-2 w/ AT-5 are tank destroyers, and I believe still placed in designated tank destroyer battalions in the Russian army.

NTM

------------------

The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle!

[The Oak]

I have a book somewhere concerning US tank destroyer doctrine in WW2, although I can't locate it right now. The Germans and Americans took different paths in regards to TDs: The Americans developed open topped turreted vehicles (placing priority on speed, visibility, and firepower), while the Germans developed turretless AFVs (placing priority on protection and firepower).

The initial German TDs were hasty conversions of obsolete tank chassis in an attempt to provide mobile AT support to the infantry (i.e. the Jpz-I, Marder II and III, Nashorn, etc.) They even mounted the captured Russian 76.2mm gun on some Marders. The heavier purpose built TDs (Jagd Panther, Jagd Tiger, etc.) were generally allocated to special BNs held at corps and army level, where as the lighter conversions were mostly allocated to divisions.

The StG-III is interesting because it was allocated to StG Brigades (manned by the artillery branch), Jpz BNs, and sometimes to panzer BNs in lieu of tanks (which were in short supply). The Nashorn was an early conversion that was held at higher level, where as the Hetzer was a purpose built TD that was allocated to dvisional level (as the lighter open topped TD had become obsolete).

The benefits of a TD is that it is usually (unless you're talking the Jagd Tiger) cheaper to produce, and you can mount a larger gun than you normally would be able to mount in a turret. It's interesting to note that Guderain (when he was inspector of armored troops) wanted to reverse the production trend of producing TDs in larger quantities than tanks, and he wanted to bring all AFVs under the panzer arm. This is an over simplification of a complex issue, as I didn't cover all the points in regards to German TD development and employment.

In regards to why the classic tank destroyers died: I believe it was a matter of "the best thing to kill a tank with is another tank." Why produce another vehicle altogether when you have an excellent vehicle like the M1A2 or LEO 2A5? Although it must be pointed out that current ATGM armed light vehicles are in fact TDs (as someone previously mentioned).

There's the old debate of doctrine being driven by equipment, or equipment being driven by doctrine; which is where we were when WW2 began. We had the M10, however we weren't sure exactly how we were going to use it. It has even been said the same situation occurred with the Bradley: We had to have an AIFV, although we hadn't even developed doctrine for its employment at the time of initial acquisition.

The interesting thing is that you really have to look at the specific nation's doctrine and theory in regards to AFV design in order to fully understand their AFVs. Germany's post war AFV development was a result of lessons learned on the eastern fromt (as was Russia's). Germany developed the Jagdpanzerkanone (first with the 90mm, then the SS-11, HOT, and TOW) as a direct descendant of the StG. There was talk of mounting a low pressure 105mm, although this was never implemented. Most (aside from the missile armed versions) were converted into artillery observation vehicles.

Victor Suvorov claimed that the Russians build TDs or AGs on the T-55 and T-62 chassis (130mm gun), however they were never seen in public. It wouldn't really be a secret weapon, as the capabilities wouldn't be any greater than any of their current tanks. More than likely they developed the vehicle to prototype stage, then "placed it on the shelf" in the event that a massive war ever required them to produce large numbers of AFVs. Again, Russian theories differ considerable from US theories (emphasizing speed and firepower over protection in the past). It's interesting how they convert older tanks to support vehicles or store them in warehouses in the event of a massive war, while we dump ours into the ocean....althought that's another subject all together.

Sweeden is interesting in that the S Tank is supposed to be a tank, while they have a TD w/ a turret called the Ikv-91 (which should be going out of service soon). I believe this related to Sweeden's primarily defensive doctrine (that is the S Tank).

Although they now have their own (and better) version of the LEO 2A5, as well as a heavy IFV (w/ a 40mm cannon)-the CV9040. I'm certain this means a doctrinal change for Sweeden.

The XM8 Buford (aka, AGS) about to be produced before being cancelled. It was to replace the M551 Sheridan in the 82nd, and was possible to equip the 2nd ACR as a light CAV RGT. A light armor company team manual was written, although its actual employment was still open to debate (there was talk of having 1 M8 BN in every light division, similar to the attachment of an Armor BN to most INF DIVs in WW2). The M8 would basically have been the only armor support for the 82nd (on short notice) short of the rapid response company/team at FT Stewart.

Is the M1 a tank destroyer? Certainly the engagement priority for a tank is other tanks, however an M1 (or similar modern MBT) is not limited only to APFSDSDU ("Sabot") rounds. The M1IP and M1A1 also carry HEAT rounds, which can be used as a HE round for bunkers and light vehicles. There is also a HE-OR-T (high explosive, obstacle reducing, tracer) round that was introduced after the M728 CEV was withdrawn from service. (although we no longer carry HESH, beehive, or smoke rounds).

Getting back to WW2....that's what's so great about CM: it lets you test how effective they really were. After playing several games on both sides, you can form your own opinion on what TD doctrine was most effective. What would you rather have: a Hellcat? Or a Jpz IV? ...A Jagd Panther? Or a Jackson? and how would you employ them (as they were historically)?

[Formerly Babra]

Mention of the Ontos reminded me of another American TD used in Vietnam -- the M56 Scorpion. It mounted a 90mm AT gun in an open fighting compartment. There was no side or rear protection for the three-man crew and only a modest splinter shield on the front. Combat weight was 8 tons. This conceivably might have been a handy (though short-lived) vehicle in Europe, but in Vietnam it was a dismal failure.

Anyway, as late as the '60s/'70s the US was fielding dedicated TDs.

------------------

I remember it perfectly: The Germans wore grey; you wore blue...

[Banshee]

Link posted from the future war thread : http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/11/17/army.wheels.reut/index.html

------------------

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Banshee]

Updated CNN Link: http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/11/17/army.vehicles.ap/index.html

------------------

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Olle Petersson]

This will answer jgdpzr's question as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trooper:

1) By the maths, I would find it hard to question the S-tank's frontal armor. ...

The anti-HEAT strakes would have done wonders for it as well.

2) I think by 'fire on the move' he means 'fire on the advance'. Both kinds of tank would have to fire from the short halt whereas many people had assumed that the S-Tank was purely defensive in nature and of no use in the attack.

3) Sweden does have a conventional tank destroyer in service, it's a 15-20 or so ton turreted tracked vehicle with a 90mm cannon. Apparently due to be upgraded to a 105mm. Name eludes me at this time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>1) This one is tough for me too. What I do have is some second hand info from a tanker that crewed one of them. He states that trials with T-72 showed the inefficiency.

IIRC the actual thickness of the glacis is somewhere in the 10-15 cm range. Are you sure about the weight? I thought it was closer to 30 tons, or less. The third crew member added 2 tons to the total weight, compared to the original design.

2) Not really, I, or rather, "the Brits", actually meant firing while moving. Then they realised this was a no-no anyway...

After the trials half of the British armour officers involved actually preferred the turretless concept.

3) What you're referring to is closer to an IFV. It's called ikv91 (ikv is short for infanterikanonvagn). The newer designs are CV90105 and CV90120, the latter with a regular 12cm tank gun. If or when any of these are adopted by the Swedish army, I don't know.

As for aiming with the S-tank, it was done by the suspension. Traversing by turning and elevation by raising/lowering the front and aft roadwheels. Controls were pretty similar to those of an aircraft. This also permitted keeping the hull horisontal while moving on slopes. When firing "hull down", for example from a backslope, only the top 30cm or so had to be exposed.

Cheers

Olle

[Trooper]

According to http://home.swipnet.se/~w-42039/Ikv91.htm

the vehicle is classified as a Tank Destroyer, but was doctrinely assigned to a TD company in an Infantry brigade. Maybe that's where the infantry designation comes from?

Any references I've seen for the S-Tank say 42-43 tons. That's a fair bit of metal for a turretless vehicle. Though I have found a reference saying that T-72 rounds would penetrate.

So I'm not sure where the heck the weight is coming from. Hydraulics? (Maybe balanced out by fewer wheels?)

NTM

[This message has been edited by Trooper (edited 11-20-2000).]