"SH.A.G" Topic

More pics and build/conversion
link

Nicely done. Makes you wonder why the allies didn't make use of turret-less tank destroyer. The M4 was a perfect platform for it.

Makes you wonder why the allies didn't make use of turret-less tank destroyer.

Why, if you can afford produce enough Turrets to fill all your needs, which the U.S. could, there is no advantage to building turretless Tank destroyers.

To be fair, a lower silhouette is about the only advantage to a turret-less TD. They are defensive in nature, which the US was not going to be on the defensive, so yes, no need for them.

Total Operational Cost.

Does everyone here buy $75 USD sable brushes with carbon fiber bodies and anechoic grip? Or do you buy ones that do what you need that cost significantly less?

While I haven't done the analysis (always do the math), my expectation would be that the turretless would cost less to produce. That extra money could be reinvested in survivability, maneuverability, ordnance, or other combined arms capabilities to improve effectiveness outside the tank itself.

Also, I would expect that they are easier to maintain. Again, reinvest cost, invest elsewhere, or even create a lighter, more agile force that is more adaptable. This savings not only includes mechanical stuff, but I would guess in a capability this size and complexity, you save in terms of maintenance people. Less work/less complexity tends to lead to fewer people per tank … again, resilience, reinvestment, or agility.

But, of course, you still have to do the math yourself.

pssst!..itīs an assault gun..SH.A.G = SHerman Assault Gun

" there is no advantage to building turretless Tank destroyers."
Lower silhouette, More Armour, and larger gun come to mind. Hetzers, Stugs, and Jag panzers of all marks were successful designs.

I am not sure I follow all those touting the superiority or advantages of the turret-less assault gun/tank destroyer. Surely your arguments are still relevant so why are these vehicles extinct?

The was the Swedish S Tank. I don't know if it is still in service.

Lower silhouette also means a more limited range of view that's ok if your always defending and the enemy are coming to you. One things German tankers noted about an advantages the Sherman had is that its height meant it had a better view of the area.

Assault guns are disadvantaged in the attack so why would a military that is pretty much always on the attack want to stop production on a line to convert it to produce a new vehicle that is of limited value.

If our adding more armor and bigger guns the cost savings isn't that great.

Surely your arguments are still relevant so why are these vehicles extinct?

Not extinct.

link

Not dominant because the argument is not widely relevant today. While those characteristics are still true, their relevance to the modern battlefield is less dominant. We don't expect most of our armour engagements to be open field, long range where those characteristics provide the greatest advantage.

The was the Swedish S Tank. I don't know if it is still in service.

OOS for about 20 years now. If you feel old with me saying that imagine how old I feel knowing it! ;)

Those are artillery pieces not tank destroyers/assault guns.

The last real vehicle on vehicle armor engagements took place during the Gulf War and there you certainly had open fields and long ranges of fire.

Currently in the area armor is playing a supporting role, not a primary.

In neither case can I find the use of turret-less assault guns/tank destroyers.

The period following WW2 and up through the Cold War the major combatants expected a continuation of combat experienced during WW2. Yet except for the occasional vehicle like the German Kanonenjagdpanzer (and some light vehicles designed for Soviet ariborne use) no major country aggressively pursued such vehicles (despite or perhaps because of Swedish experience with the "S" tank).

And I too am mystified by what a list of self propelled artillery pieces has to do with these type vehicles. Especially confusing when one clicks on the ones marked "Modern" and one finds most of the vehicles are turreted.

Turretless AFV's had to be running to shift the gun to the flanks, and digging in with flank protection is considerably more difficult. Since IIRC all armies' tactics involved pinning and flanking that limitation is considerable.