Help support TMP

"SH.A.G" Topic

14 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the 20mm WWII Message Board

Back to the Conversions Message Board

Back to the WWII Land Gallery Message Board

Back to the Blogs of War Message Board

Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land

Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Ruleset

Featured Workbench Article

Pete Paints 15mm Early War German LMG Teams

Pete is back - this time, with early-war WWII Germans LMG teams.

Featured Profile Article

GenCon '96

The Editor is fresh back from GenCon, one of the largest gaming conventions in North America.

1,188 hits since 7 Dec 2019
©1994-2020 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pauls Bods07 Dec 2019 4:35 a.m. PST


More pics and build/conversion

JMcCarroll07 Dec 2019 7:22 a.m. PST

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.

Personal logo jdginaz Supporting Member of TMP07 Dec 2019 9:53 a.m. PST

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.

Sundance08 Dec 2019 6:51 a.m. PST

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.

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP08 Dec 2019 8:15 a.m. PST

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.

Pauls Bods08 Dec 2019 8:52 a.m. PST

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

JMcCarroll08 Dec 2019 11:02 a.m. PST

" 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.

Marc33594 Supporting Member of TMP09 Dec 2019 7:27 a.m. PST

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?

Shagnasty Supporting Member of TMP09 Dec 2019 7:47 p.m. PST

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

Personal logo jdginaz Supporting Member of TMP09 Dec 2019 8:07 p.m. PST

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.

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP11 Dec 2019 6:47 a.m. PST

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

Not extinct.


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! ;)

Personal logo jdginaz Supporting Member of TMP11 Dec 2019 9:15 a.m. PST

Those are artillery pieces not tank destroyers/assault guns.

Marc33594 Supporting Member of TMP12 Dec 2019 5:22 a.m. PST

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.

Murvihill15 Dec 2019 7:21 a.m. PST

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.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.