German Tank hunters?

[Guest Rob/1]

Ok I did a search but found nuthing...what is the diffrance between tank hunter and a tank destroyer?

[Mr. Clark]

"Look at this specimen! Isn't she absolutely Goooorgeous! Watch as I place my head in front of her MG. Don't try this at home, deadly danger!"

Ooooops, that's Australian Crocodile Hunters... not German Tank Hunters... Sorry!

[Guest Rob/1]

Hehe

[Compassion]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rob/1:

Ok I did a search but found nuthing...what is the diffrance between tank hunter and a tank destroyer?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think it's a semantic difference between German and Allied designations... may show some differences in doctrine.

[109 Gustav]

I guess it's just a way to differentiate between the Allied tank destroyers, with light armor and fast movement, and the German ones, with heavy armor and no turret.

Besides, jagdpanzer translates to tank hunter or hunter tank.

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

Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat.

But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown.

And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing.

-Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska

[Slapdragon]

I think tank hunter is a misnomer, since all German TDs are just wheels under an AT gun, some with more armour, some with less. German TDs could fight from defensive, but were no good at advancing or taking ground. The US TD were different -- they could advance, and actually take ground.

Remember though that the assault guns are different.

[The Commissar]

I agree with Compassion.

A German "Tank Hunter" is idealy used as a regular hunter would act. That is, carefully and silently sneak around, get as close as you can, and fire off a single accurate round to bag your kill.

The German "TH's" perform as such, since they are effectively AT guns on wheels. If they start racing around like an American M-18 TD, they'll get KO'ed.

My 2 cents.

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

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

First, the terms are mostly equivalent, in the sense of designating a tank-like thingie (aka and "AFV") that was used differently from other tanks. Hunter is just the German term. But there were doctrinal differences between them which led to different points emphasized on each side. (British and American doctrine was essentially the same on this one, BTW).

What both types are supposed to be able to do, is function as tanks do while on the defensive. Their ability to function as tanks on the offensive is less, but they were still pressed into the role by both sides occasionally. It may also help to understand that the units equipped with them were the descendents, in organizational terms, of towed anti-tank gun (ATG) battalions attached to each division, earlier in the war or in pre-war planning.

The Germans skipped turrets, which saved expense and strain on their overtaxed metals and machining industries, and supply lines (many fewer parts, etc). In addition to being cheaper, turretless AFVs are closer to the ground, and thus harder to spot. The drawback is obviously less ability to react to threats from the sides, since the entire vehicle has to turn to face the target.

The Germans fitted those characteristics to their doctrine on the use of the beasties, which was to fire from concealed ambush. The low profile is great for this and the lack of a turret hardly matters when you know the ambush zone. Unlike the towed ATGs of their predeccesor formations (which had the same idea), they could then withdraw easily and do it again, while their armor (compared to a gun) increased their survival rates during the ambush firefight. Some of the early versions, like the Marder, show their descent from ATG units clearly - they are just an ATG mounted open-topped on an old tank chassis.

The Germans massed their true tanks (Pz IV, Panther, Tiger) in their armored formations, the Panzer divisions (and at some times, Panzer Grenadier divisions, which differed in detail only after a point). They were rare outside of those special divisions, which were never more than about 1/10 German formations. The rest of the army had tank hunters instead, to "stiffen" them against armored attacks and to give them better counterattacking abilities.

There are exceptions to the above by type, though. The heaviest tank-hunters, in limited numbers, were often assigned to the anti-tank battalions of Panzer divisions, or sometimes to special heavy tank battalions (equipped with Tigers) - e.g. Jadgtigers, Nashorns, most Jadgpanthers, and rarer beasties (not in CM) like the Elephant. The idea, obviously, was that the heaviest armor was needed in big tank-to-tank engagements, not along the line in smaller, infantry-dominated fights. This was especially true in Russia, where the largest tank-vs-tank battles of the war were fought.

Another partial exception is the assault gun (StuG designations and a few others). Mostly these fit the doctrine and deployment already mentioned as standard. But sometimes they were more ad hoc affairs meant to lead infantry assaults or take fortified positions, or cities. Again turretless, with the idea now that supporting the infantry with direct fire HE to neutralize bunkers and blockhouses, etc, is going to be the dominate job, from a respectful distance. Some of these were an evolution from attached infantry howitzers assigned to regular infantry regiments, rather than an evolution from anti-tank battalions. Units that didn't have enough of them often made ad hoc versions from halftracks - thus the 75mm howitzer armed HTs in CM, for example.

As an additional point of background about the "hunter" designation, is was traditional in the German (and before it, Prussian) army. The "hunter" designation, stand alone ("Jager"), was used for light infantry armed with rifles in the Napoleonic wars, as opposed to regular infantry armed with smooth-bore muskets and fighting in dense formations. Having better range, they operated independently in small groups on the battlefield, as skirmishers. Many of these units were formed from volunteers in 1913, who supplied their own weapons, especially "sportsmen" from among the upper classes. They were indeed "hunters" taking to the field. Since that time the designation "hunter" had a certain sense of roving, relatively independent, longer-ranged supporting weapons.

Allied tank destroyers or TDs, were designed to act as tanks on the defensive, and were an evolution from dedicated towed ATG battalions, as with the Germans. But the Allies had enough tanks that they generally assigned a regular tank battalion or more to every "infantry" division, so these were not the only sort of armor found outside the armored divisions. Instead of no turrets, Allied TDs had open turrets. This made them much lighter, which in turn either made them faster (like the M-18 Hellcat) or enabled them to carry a heavier gun (like the 90mm on the M-36 Jackson, the 17-lber on the British Achilles, etc). The most common type for the Americans, though, was the M-10, which mounted the 76.2mm like later-war Shermans but was otherwise unexceptional. It also had a slow turret.

Generally, the difference is accounted for by the fact that the Allies put more faith in mobility as a source of protection on the battlefield, rather than concealment and a low profile. They also needed the heavier guns to deal with the better-armored German medium and heavy tanks. Whether mobility is better than concealment is doubtful on defense, but when forced to attack it is obvious enough. Even though doctrine was for the TDs to be used defensively and tanks to handle attacking, in practice the Allies pressed their TDs into attacking roles too, since they weren't defending all that often.

In CM terms, a German SS or Panzer formation can expect to be supported by true tanks, ideally in 4-5 tank platoons (4 in Heer, 5 in SS was "TOE" ~ maximum), but nothing else can expect to be. (In a Quick Battle, take the "armored" force designation, or perhaps combined arms for Panzergrenadiers). Other German formations would usually have armored support exclusively in the form of tank-hunters (Jadgpanzers) or assault guns (StuGs), with StuG IIIs and Hetzers the most common types. These fought in platoons of three, when possible.

The Allies would generally have tanks or TDs supporting a formation, whether armored or infantry division, but usually not both. (There are always exceptions and mixes possible, but it would be more common to see one or the other type). The recon units also used TDs, supporting armored cars and light tanks. Platoon sizes varied, with 5 standard for U.S. tanks, 4 for U.S. TDs and most British tank and TD formations, but 3 in some British formations. The Brits also mixed types in platoons, specifically assigning one Sherman firefly per platoon. American (medium) tank platoons are all Shermans, but the gun types and armor layouts also vary (1-2 76.2mm guns e.g.).

I hope this explains the terms and where the various types came from and what they were meant to do, and what groupings they actually came in supporting this or that unit type. Naturally, war scrambles doctrine with ad hoc measures at some local point of crisis, but the above may help give a sense of what would be common.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

err, 1813, obviously, in the history of "Jager" as a military term. A typo, sorry.

[Ralph D]

Panzerjaeger means tank hunter, but is also anti-tank. Troops and tracked vehicles alike.

Destroyer, or zerstoerer, was commonly referred to as bf110s, ships and such, but damned if I've seen that put to a tracked vehicle. Usually confusion arises between SP AT and SP Arty - hyuck! I'm sure some smart-arse can tell me otherwise.

Regards,

Ralph D