"Tank Destroyers " Topic

What attributes do you think make a good tank destroyer?

Heavy armor, big gun, limited transverse, slow?
Example SU-152
Light armor, big gun/missile/ unlimited traverse fast?
Example M901 ITV (Improved TOW Vehicle)

Or maybe a different combination of attributes?

I have some Hammers Slammers Tank destroyers and was wondering how to assign attributes.
(I am not using the official game)

What do yo think?

fast, small, way over powered main weapon, lightly armored.

Fast Eggshells hunting with bazookas

Small profile
open-topped?

What Herr von Shwatzwolfe said. Shoot and scoot.

Doug

Real world examples exist in plenty of both types. The most successful of them seem to have been the ones that are hardest to spot, giving them the first stot, and then the chance to get away.

That wont work in a game where there are no spotting rules.

And the one thing that seems common to them all is the heaviest gun you can mount on it.

Owen

Bren carriers loaded with rockets

In sci-fi/ near future terms…

- stealthy command vehicle with deployable drones and NLOS missile pods

- command vehicle deploys drones and pods which move away from the command vehicle

- drone acquires and designates target,

- NLOS missile launches from deployed pod on command from command vehicle

- crew in command vehicle watches the destruction via the drone, high fives all around

:-)

- command vehicle and its load of undeployed pods remains safe behind terrain to fight another day.

ThorLongus, the Ontos was not much bigger than a bren carrier. Bit taller as it has a top, but not much. Both are sort of like a tracked dunebuggy. Did they ever make an AT version of a carrier? I have never seen one, but I am not an expert at all on them.

owen

It does beg the question…

In a hypthetical battlefield of M1s vs. Challenger IIs vs. Leopards, is there any real need for a Tank Destroyer?

You already have mobility, and a heavy gun. How much bigger would the gun need to be (if at all) to effectively penetrate modern armor?

Tank destroyers make an interesting element in a game, but I think their role has been taken by tank-hunting aircraft.

Badger – the Australians had a trial mounting of a 2 pounder on the Bren carrier (Actually the Australian made "Local Pattern" version). Later in the war some carriers carried a PIAT as part of their fit out.

The big users of the Bren carrier as an AT vehicle were the Germans.

The 'Panzerjager Bren'

Etranger, thanks, cool pictures.

Ghostrunner, a case can well be made that the modern Tank Destroyer is the attack helicopter. Fast, light armored, powerful weapon hard to spot and very mobile. Seems to have almost all the tankdestroyer traits, unless you want a heavy armor add on.

owen

More powerful, and longer ranged gun, and/or missile system than on standard tanks.

Size, armor, and mobility can vary greatly – see German TDs in WWII for the perfect examples:

1. Hetzer – very small, but a decent gun;
2. Jagdpanzer IV – small, well armored for its size, and a good cannon – first the L48 model, and later the L70, 75mm guns;
3. Jagdpanzer V – large, well armored, with a very powerful, long ranged gun, and excellent mobility;
4. and finally, the Jagdpanzer VI – very large, poor mobility, superb armor, and overly powerful gun, able to reach way out and touch the enemy.

Ideally, with a gun turret as well, so they aren't handicapped in engaging in a 360 degree arc.

I think the ideal tank destroyer/hunter should have a better than average gun, decent mobility, and light to moderate armor. A bonus if you can provide decent mobility, with better than average armor.

Also, perhaps better sensors for detection and fire control than an average tank too.

That's the cool thing about sci-fi gaming, you can design vehicles following both paradigms, assign them to different factions, and play a few games to see how they perform.

Outcomes vary depending on the assumptionss the game designer started with, of course.

Stat up a few in your favorite system and see what shakes out!

Mako11-

You kind of prove my point…

If a Tank Destroyer is just a bigger tank, with a bigger gun, same general mobility, and the same (or more) armor, then why call it a Tank Destroyer?

You could argue that an M1 is a Tank Destroyer compared to a T-72.

Tank Destroyers were a design compromise, because a compromise had to be made. In this case, superior armament at the expense of armor and (usually) a turret.

I'm guessing a sci-fi (near future) TD would be similar to the corresponding MBT, maybe with a slightly smaller hull, less armor, more fuel (allowing it to intercept enemy armor formations on the move), and probably a more limited (fewer shots) armament – ATGMs or something similar. The idea being: storm in, take a few shots, then disengage and run.

Think of the original role of Torpedo boats in WW1-era Naval combat.

I still maintain, though, that aircraft fill this role pretty well.

I still maintain, though, that aircraft fill this role pretty well.

What if Air Superiority is contested, there is allot of Air Defense, or not available?

Is there a future for TD's?
After all a TD can be cheaper then a full fledged tank.

"Tank Destroyers were a design compromise, because a compromise had to be made. In this case, superior armament at the expense of armor and (usually) a turret".

Yes, and no.

Compromises were made, but I'm not sure they HAD to be made.

As mentioned, since we are Sci-Fi gamers, we have the luxury of designing our own weapons, and stats, to see how they might fare in battle.

The Germans and Russians used TDs with hull-mounted guns, but the Americans did not.

You are correct, that they decided to go with lighter armor, and a doctrine of ambushing their prey. That sounds fine in theory, until you have to go on the offensive to defeat your foe. Then, setting up ambushes becomes a bit harder.

Turrets definitely provide an advantage to vehicles that need to maneuver, and fire quickly, if they are on the ground. Perhaps, once grav propulsion becomes a reality, that will be less of an issue, since the vehicle will not be restricted by terrain, in maneuvering to get its weapons on the target, since they will be able to rise above that, or easily maneuver around it for a better shot.

I agree, the M-1 and M-1A are definitely tank destroyers, but not sure they rate as "tank destroyers", per se, if you get my drift, e.g. they just have a fairly standard gun, with perhaps a better than average FC system.

Air power can be very devastating, but perhaps in the future, with more lethal weapons, they may not be as survivable as grav tanks, which probably carry more armor, and can literally get down into the weeds to fight and hide.

I suspect against a powerful enemy, air and space fighters will be very vulnerable indeed to fire from the ground, despite their hypersonic speeds, since the missiles will still be as fast, or faster than them, and beam weapons will probably be fairly lethal too.

The end result of the WW2 US Army Tank Destroyer doctrine (highly-mobile ambushers) is the attack helicopter. However, attack helos require both air superiority and a relative lack of local antiaircraft weapons. Fixed-wing CAS is vulnerable to BVR attacks, but can generally eat any fast-mover for lunch in a dogfight (I feel sorry for the MiG driver that gets into a gunfight with an A10!).

Another wrinkle in the 'Tank Destroyer' discussion is how common serious AT weapons are in the infantry. For example, a US Army mech infantry platoon has 8 ready-use TOW missiles. I'd bet that if a mech company had more TOWs ready-to-use (or if they were fire-and-forget), the US wouldn't have the ITVs.

In a sci-fi arena, you need to decide what parameters YOU want to set for your anti-tank options.

You need to decide whether YOU want conventional tank-type AT vehicles or something a little more exotic.

For anti-tank, you could add to what has been mentioned, drones (vehicular and aerial), powered armour with extra stores, advanced man-portable weapons, off the field fire and forget warheads (like tomahawk cruise missiles), suicide bombers, guided mines… etc… with sci-fi it can literally be anything.

So the first question would be…

"For my chosen setting, what would the most appropriate type of Anti-Tank system be?" even before you decide how to tackle it.

For my SF A/T units, I'll be using a mix of upgunned tank destroyers (grav tanks with more powerful weapons than the standard one for their hull size), and some vehicles with long-range A/T missiles as well.

For the high-tech variants, I'm leaning towards a fire and forget type missile, and the vehicles will have the option of launching several at one time, at multiple vehicles, and/or firing several at the same target, to try to defeat the enemy's formidable, active, self-defense systems.

Infantry platoons will have a Milan-type heavy A/T missile launcher, or two, similar to those mounted on the tank hunters, but with fewer missiles carried by the foot troops.

Infantry squads will have shorter ranged A/T rockets as well, issued at either one per man, or one for every other man in the squad. They will be shorter ranged than the heavier A/T missiles, and with less likelihood to hit the target, but they will still pack a decent punch, so can't be ignored.

Small and fast mobile infantry or infantry vehicle fitted with a targeting system, coupled with a large, heavy weapon carrying vehicle with smart munitions.

The recon infantry/infantry vehicle marks the target, the hunter kills it. Quick, simple, and more futuristic than a dedicated tank hunter. Tank hunters have gone by the wayside because they are no longer viewed as a vital system. Most tanks are capable of killing or disabling other tanks at virtually any range of engagement, so unless there is a HUGE technology difference, a dedicated tank hunter is a waste of resources.

Just my quibble with futuristic visions of the battlefield. How many dedicated tank destroyers are there in the modern world on the modern battlefield right now? Things like the ISU-152, or the HUMMER-TOW? Virtually none. Why? In my view because either the infantry already have a man-portable weapon capable of engaging the armor (RPG-7 or similar) at close range where the tank is most vulnerable, OR they have assets which are deployable from long range which require a minimum of equipment to get a round on target with thinks like Hellfire, or other missile systems which can fire with or without a direct line of sight to the tank.

As for how to put stats for the Hammer's Slammers tank destroyers – do you have models you want to use? Do you have pictures of the models? Or were you searching for ideas on how to generate game statistics for them and have them in the game and then design the models?

Old Crow does a Blower TD, I believe that is what Inari is referring to. I don't recall them from the stories, but they have been around in the gaming fluff, and other makes of TD are in the stories.

Old Crow's site is down for a rebuild, so I think this is a cached image: link

I would rate them as having the Blower's hull armor (maybe down a level since the air intakes seem more exposed) and some sort of heavier powergun. Speed is probably the same as the Blower.

In my universe, as mentioned, some tank hunters (which are a very useful, dedicated vehicle to have), are missile armed.

Ones with superior tech can launch missiles at enemy vehicles, not in direct line of sight, and can also target any armor face of said vehicle, e.g. front, side, rear, top, bottom (if the vehicle is flying at tree-top level or above, for the latter armor face).

Those with high-tech missiles can also attack vehicles not in the direct line of sight, but can't choose their armor facing, and MUST choose the shortest, most direct route to the target (e.g. no gamesmanship of flying around that section of woods, just so they can attack the enemy target from the rear).

Mid-tech missiles are direct line of sight, and attack the armor facing the firer.

In answer to "boy wundyr x's" query about blower TDs in Hammer's Slammers stories. Yes they did appear in the book "The Warrior", where they were the backbone of "Baffin's Legion",later known as "Broglie's Legion". They were armed with 15cm powerguns, with thick frontal armor. The Old Crow miniature looks much like I imagined it would.

These are the Old Crow/official Baffin/Broglie's Legion tank destroyers (from John T's Crucible website, of models from the Southern Maryland Wargames Club):

Since you already own the models, Inari, you have some of the basic stats figured out--fixed main gun, hover or GEV motive system, at least some ECM and point-defense systems. As far as weight goes, put them up against the other models you already have figured out and go from there. As a design-point consideration, I would give them heavier frontal armor at the cost of side and rear armor since TDs were primarily ambush hunters and their physical construction (and resulting employment doctrine) would stress 'front towards enemy' at all times.

Oh, for modelling, C-in-C makes some nice pintle-mounted heavy machine guns that can dress up the AFVs a bit for minimal cost (the .50 cals with cut-done barrels are particularly effective for this).

For a hover TD, I really like the looks of the Gladiator, at the bottom of page 1:

link