Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Thanks!

To add on to generalchaos34's comment; not every tank destroyer was lightly armoured.

The Soviets and Germans engineered purpose built tank destroyers that were often fully enclosed. Many of these vehicles were similarly armoured to their medium or heavy tank counterpart, but were casemate style vehicles; meaning they had no turret, just a simple crew compartment.

The advantage of this was the ease of building the casement rather than the turret, and that the lack of a turret meant for larger gun mountings. The Russians produced the famous T-34, which was armed with a 57mm cannon. While an effective tank, its gun didn't have the punch to get through the like of a Tiger of Panther by the mid-late war. So they developed a tank destroyer on the chassis of the T-34 (SU-85 and 100) which mounted larger guns (85mm and 100mm cannons) which were more effective at destroying heavy german armour.

The Germans did the same with their Jagpanthers, Jagtigers and so on, based on the Panther and King Tiger chassis respectively.

So it was really a mix of technological limitations and supply/production issues. A tank destroyer was far more effective at destroying armour/fortifications that a normal medium or heavy tank, but the lack of a turret was a serious threat in any kind of offensive maneuvers. Tank destroyers were also generally cheaper to produce than their medium/heavy counterpart.

I see the OP is referring to the American style of WW2 era 'tank destroyer'.
Turret mounted big gun, light armour, manoeuvrable, cheap.

Why no love for the German/Soviet version of Tank destroyers?
Hull mounted big gun, heavy armour, not too manoeuvrable and moderately cheap.



Zoans are infantry with tank killing abilities. They are like infantry with recoilless rifles.

 Accipiter wrote:


Why no love for the German/Soviet version of Tank destroyers?
Hull mounted big gun, heavy armour, not too manoeuvrable and moderately cheap.

I just described them one post above yours.

Or, here's a modern version of the same theory. The LAV AT. (At stands for 'anti-tank.)

A concept drawing for a modern tank destroyer. This would be fun to kit bash.

Heck, buy a model of this guy and you got an alternate whirlwind/exorcist tank killer

Then there's this little joy from the Vietnam war.


See, the idea of "tank destroyer" is varied and you can come up with anything. Take a Chimera hull, throw something cool on it and bam, you got a tank destroyer.

 Happyjew wrote:
Like a 10/10/10 Fast, Open-topped, Skimmer with a Strength 8, AP2 Lance weapon?

Or a 10/10/10 Fast, skimmer with 2 S8 AP1 Melta weapons?

like this guy on the left

Nobody_Holme wrote:
Or perhaps selg-propelled guns like the StuG III, or y'know, the vindicator.

If the vindi design wasn't based on the appaling rhino model, StuGs in the right scale would be perfect proxies, but they have reasonable front armour layouts and sensibly low profiles. Can't have that.

There's also pretty damn close M10 standins in the shape of Deldar skimmers...

Oh yes, and take a look at many WW2 tank destroyer designs which performed well and tell me again about light armour (hello, jagdtiger)

I see your point, but that was more due to the German propensity for developing a Destroyer on EVERY tank chassis they made (it was pushed by the generals of artillery, as they felt all the glory was being taken by the Panzer commanders).

They made like 500 Jagdpanther, I think they made less than 100 JagdTiger, mostly out of inferior quality metals (and Tiger II wasn't much more, 400 or so?). They were so heavy they routinely broke down due to suspension, engine over-heating and drive-train issues (that's what happens when you put 70+ tonnes on a suspension and drive-train designed for 35-50 tonnes...).

I think vehicles like this exist in the game, as people have pointed out Vindicator, Ravager - how about a Land Speeder with Twin Multi-Melta (ok not really in the hull down ambush spirit of a tank destroyer, but still fits the bill as described by the OP).

You could even class a drop-pod with 5 Multi-Melta LF's inside as a 'tank destroyer' of a variety!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
To add on to generalchaos34's comment; not every tank destroyer was lightly armoured.

The Soviets and Germans engineered purpose built tank destroyers that were often fully enclosed. Many of these vehicles were similarly armoured to their medium or heavy tank counterpart, but were casemate style vehicles; meaning they had no turret, just a simple crew compartment.

The advantage of this was the ease of building the casement rather than the turret, and that the lack of a turret meant for larger gun mountings. The Russians produced the famous T-34, which was armed with a 57mm cannon. While an effective tank, its gun didn't have the punch to get through the like of a Tiger of Panther by the mid-late war. So they developed a tank destroyer on the chassis of the T-34 (SU-85 and 100) which mounted larger guns (85mm and 100mm cannons) which were more effective at destroying heavy german armour.

The Germans did the same with their Jagpanthers, Jagtigers and so on, based on the Panther and King Tiger chassis respectively.

So it was really a mix of technological limitations and supply/production issues. A tank destroyer was far more effective at destroying armour/fortifications that a normal medium or heavy tank, but the lack of a turret was a serious threat in any kind of offensive maneuvers. Tank destroyers were also generally cheaper to produce than their medium/heavy counterpart.

For the main part they used the T34-85, which had an upgraded (it took 76mm - 85mm, even up to 122mm) gun. Though as you say they did produce many SU-152's and similiar.

I think you are right about the supply - for the Germans in particular who had plenty of steel but were struggling for high quality machined parts (the kind you need in turrets!) a closed casemate style machine made sense. What didn't make sense is designing a researching a new one for EVERY tank chassis they produced.

Off the top of my head I can think of the Panzerjager I, Marder (3 varieties...), Nashorn, Hetzer, Elefant, Jadgpanzer IV, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, Sturmgeschutz III/IV (basically a stug with anti-tank gun). Ridiculously counter productive.

 Tehjonny wrote:


For the main part they used the T34-85, which had an upgraded (it took 76mm - 85mm, even up to 122mm) gun. Though as you say they did produce many SU-152's and similiar.

I think you are right about the supply - for the Germans in particular who had plenty of steel but were struggling for high quality machined parts (the kind you need in turrets!) a closed casemate style machine made sense. What didn't make sense is designing a researching a new one for EVERY tank chassis they produced.

Off the top of my head I can think of the Panzerjager I, Marder (3 varieties...), Nashorn, Hetzer, Elefant, Jadgpanzer IV, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, Sturmgeschutz III/IV (basically a stug with anti-tank gun). Ridiculously counter productive.

Well, the SU-85s and SU-100s were built using the original T-34 and later using the upgraded T-34-85, so really we're both right. Its the same way that the SU-152 was built on an upgraded KV chassis (the KV-1S I believe), while the ISU-152 was built off the IS chassis, itself being an upgrade of the KV-1S chassis.

Several German commanders believed in the value of a purpose-built low profile tank destroyer. Designs like the Hetzer and Stug were not so much stop-gap measures as they were purpose built weapons with a very specific role laid out. But you're right in that they designed quite a bit different ones. Though designs like the Elefant made sense, seeing as they had 20 something odd Tiger chassis from Porsche that never got the Tiger contract. Very easy to take those already built chassis, weld a big solid box over top the crew compartment, and slap on an 88mm cannon. You've also nailed all the German TDs I can think of off the top of my head.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Tehjonny wrote:


For the main part they used the T34-85, which had an upgraded (it took 76mm - 85mm, even up to 122mm) gun. Though as you say they did produce many SU-152's and similiar.

I think you are right about the supply - for the Germans in particular who had plenty of steel but were struggling for high quality machined parts (the kind you need in turrets!) a closed casemate style machine made sense. What didn't make sense is designing a researching a new one for EVERY tank chassis they produced.

Off the top of my head I can think of the Panzerjager I, Marder (3 varieties...), Nashorn, Hetzer, Elefant, Jadgpanzer IV, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, Sturmgeschutz III/IV (basically a stug with anti-tank gun). Ridiculously counter productive.

Well, the SU-85s and SU-100s were built using the original T-34 and later using the upgraded T-34-85, so really we're both right. Its the same way that the SU-152 was built on an upgraded KV chassis (the KV-1S I believe), while the ISU-152 was built off the IS chassis, itself being an upgrade of the KV-1S chassis.

Several German commanders believed in the value of a purpose-built low profile tank destroyer. Designs like the Hetzer and Stug were not so much stop-gap measures as they were purpose built weapons with a very specific role laid out. But you're right in that they designed quite a bit different ones. Though designs like the Elefant made sense, seeing as they had 20 something odd Tiger chassis from Porsche that never got the Tiger contract. Very easy to take those already built chassis, weld a big solid box over top the crew compartment, and slap on an 88mm cannon. You've also nailed all the German TDs I can think of off the top of my head.

I never knew the Elefants were produced using the surplus Porsche Tiger chassis's - you learn something new every day! Makes much more sense now, I always wondered why they'd bother researching something they only made 80 or so of! Also explains why they didn't have any anti-infantry armament I guess, they just got rushed to the field with a gun and box over the top I imagine.

I agree 'bout the Hetzer/Stug - they got produced in effective numbers and were the mainstay and had a distinct roll - I think for the Marders/Nashorn etc they were just 'learning the trade' so to speak, working out what an effective TD had (e.g. lots of frontal armour, speed, a big gun, and a v.low profile).

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Like a 10/10/10 Fast, Open-topped, Skimmer with a Strength 8, AP2 Lance weapon?

I explicitly said a Dark Lance didn't cut it, so no, not like a 10/10/10 fast, open-topped skimmer with a S8 AP2 lance.

To the other responses... Zoanthropes are not vehicles, so uh... thanks? I also don't know how the Destroyer Tank Hunter or the Valdor Tank Hunter (a god damn SUPER HEAVY no less) could possibly be classed as light vehicles, but okay... Sure.

I expected the first words out of this thread would be "Doomsday Ark."

There were also designs on the books from the germans for a TD based on the ridiculous Maus and E100 prototypes.

It has been suggested that the germans lost the war because they innovated new tanks instead of making their current (superior) tanks more reliable.

Also, ignoring dark lances for TDs is dumb, the hulls that mount them follow (when fighting armour) the EXACT role of. US WW2 TDs, while other factions use different setups (imperial designs follow german thinking, for example, Tau follow postwar french/US thinking on tanks in general, etc), its posting a thread asking for a specific thing and rejecting it when you're provided with it because it looks wrong.

Wouldn't the Devil Dog count as being a tank destroyer?

I think the Land Speeder, and other race equivalents like Vypers, is currently what fulfils the role of a light vehicle with anti-tank weaponry (depending on what you put on them of course).

If you go a step further, the Vindicator and Warp Hunter are 'superheavy tank destroyers', as their siege guns are meant to crack open hard targets, so in another way they fulfil that role. A step above, you have the Eldar Lynx, which has basically one dedicated hull mounted anti-superheavy weapon.

The shadowsword is the tank destroyer

Yeah, and the Cobra though I think they are 'Titan Destroyers' at that point: lighter vehicles designed to take out larger ones with a fixed spinal mount large weapon for the chassis size.

The Vindicator is an Assault Gun actually. It's built to provide infantry fire support against dug in enemies. The anti-tank capabilities are limited (short range) and a bonus rather than the intent.

Nobody_Holme wrote:
There were also designs on the books from the germans for a TD based on the ridiculous Maus and E100 prototypes.

Is that when they start putting guns of a calibre to match the artillery they used at the time?

Ork Buggies.

Once the new ork codex comes out with the new ork buggies, they will be the fast tank hunters you are talking about.

They just need some grots behind the gun for better shooting.