Tank Destroyers.....WHY???

[FLOTSOM]

Hello everyone

was just looking through the amazing sight that was posted by Rich46Yo (<SALUTE> and thank you for the page!)

while perusing the German armor illustrated therein I came across the section on the Tank Destroyers.

Now I had remembered seeing the pictures of them in the past in books and seeing them portrayed in many movies.

I had always had a mild curiosity about them though, WHY?

Why build a tank destroyer that tended to be just as complex to build and almost as heavy as its tank cousin?

Why build a tank destroyer that supported a main gun that was only equal to or smaller than the main gun of its cousin tanks?

Why build a tank destroyer with thinner body armor and an open top giving greatly reduced protection for the crew its tank cousin?

Why build a tank destroyer that tended to have smaller less powerful motors leaving it slower and less mobile than its tank cousin?

Why build a tank destroyer that didn't have a traversable turret thus leaving it at an extreme disadvantage when engaging a moving or mobile target?

Was this branch just a waste of time and resources to produce?

Why not just build another tank instead?

I do understand that some self propelled artillery pieces were confused with tank destroyers, due mostly because of the look of them. but these were supporting much bigger main guns than the tanks of the day could support inside an enclosed and traversable turret. They also fired in an indirect method as apposed to the direct fire method used by tanks. These are not the vehicles that my curiosity is tickled by, it is only the actual tank destroyers that leave me wondering why.

Well that is my curiosity, if any of you have an idea or a perspective on this i would enjoy hearing it.

FLOTSOM

[Furball]

Tank destroyer designs could be mounted on existing chassis of obselete tanks.

They were far less complex than an actual tank without the turret, making them quicker to build and easier to maintain.

Lower profile made them good for ambushing and a more difficult target.

Bigger guns could be fitted to a tank destroyer design.

Oh, and cost.

[BaldEagl]

I always thought tank destroyers were lighter and faster than their tank cousins and had similar guns.  The open turret being part of the trade-off.

They must have worked as the M-10 Wolverine was one of the most produced GV's of the war.

[macerxgp]

Many tank destroyers had a distinct advantage over the other available options in regular tanks. The Hetzer, for example, was easier to produce, and had a lower profile. The M10 and M18 both mounted a heavier 76.5mm (3in) gun than the M4's 75mm, and were both faster and more maneuverable.


Whatever their advantages are, I want no part of them here in AHII. Mostly because they would be freakishly hard to kill in an entrenched position (read, flak ditch in a town. I sat down in one yesterday in a T34/76 and became a tank ace) in another GV, especially the hull-gun designs. The turret designs might be easier to kill, because of a light turret.

[FLOTSOM]

I always thought tank destroyers were lighter and faster than their tank cousins and had similar guns.  The open turret being part of the trade-off.

They must have worked as the M-10 Wolverine was one of the most produced GV's of the war.

But the M-10 was a mostly enclosed turret that could traverse. most of the German tank killers lacked either of these qualities.

Tank destroyer designs could be mounted on existing chassis of obselete tanks.

They were far less complex than an actual tank without the turret, making them quicker to build and easier to maintain.

Lower profile made them good for ambushing and a more difficult target.

Bigger guns could be fitted to a tank destroyer design.

Oh, and cost.

But that is contradicting anything i have found written on the majority of these animals. the tank destroyers tended to suffer from most of the issues of the tank without having the benefits that the additional armor and traversable turret provided.

only 1 body type of tank destroyer (the Jagdpanzer) could actually be said to be drastically lower profiled than the tank, but with the location of the main gun it was not an easily aimable weapon platform.

I would agree with you on the theory of the designers mounting them upon an obsolete but readily available chassis, but if you look at the dates of production and the body types this was not the general rule. they mounted then upon chassis that were currently being fielded as tanks. But even if this was the case, does that give enough benefit to offset the handicaps of the design? isn't the best land based mobile tank destroyer just another tank? didn't the Americans and British create the Sherman firefly just for this purpose? same body bigger gun?

FLOTSOM

[rabbidrabbit]

They would be tough to kill with an exposed top?  Seems like one or two strafing runs would kill the crew.

[Big Rat]

Well it depends on the tank destroyer as far as it's assets and liabilities.  German Tank destroyers, for the most part tended to have larger more powerful guns then the tank chassis they were built on deployed.  Eg. Panther vs Jagdpanther, panther carried the 75mm L-70 while the jagdpanther carried the 88mm L-71.  The same can be said for the panzer IV's and the jagdpanzer IV 70, and the Tiger series (ferdinand/elephant and JagdTiger).  Now as far as having lighter armor that tends to be more the older chassis or captured tank chassis that were converted to tank destroyers.  This would include Nashorns, Marders, and the ilk.  These were much easier to produce then most of the german tanks, and in the Nashorn's case carried the 88mm L-71 which made it really nasty at the long ranges on the eastern front in the early years of that campaign.  You don't need to transvers the gun much when engaging at those ranges.  The germans also tended to convert a lot of their damaged tanks to destroyers, to get them back into the field quicker.  Also in thinking of the purpose of tank destroyers you have to consider when most of them were produced, especially the heavier more lethal versions.  You see most of these appearing in 44 when the germans were on the defensive just about about every front.  So you would set up your your jagd panzers where they would have large fields of fire in front of them to take advantage of their longer ranged guns, and place infantry or other tanks on it's flanks to keep it's vulnerable sides and rear protected. I believe the tank destroyers you are refering to in your post are mostly of the marder series which are cheap and easy to produce, since most of the german tank destroyers were closed up, unlike the U.S and British ones that tended to have open tops. Well at least this is the tank destroyers from the german perspective. 

 
BigRat  

[pipz]

The US split its tank and tank destroyers up into two different missons.The tanks were for infantry support.This is why the Sherman had a co-ax machine gun and a main gun with low velocety that could fire a good high exsplosive round.The tank destroyer was meant to counter a blitz attack and combat enemy tanks.They were made lighter so they could manuever faster to the point of the blitz and out manuever the heavier tanks they were fighting.They had no co-ax machine gun because it didnt go with the mission.They were armed with the 3 inch <m10> and then the 76 mm <m18> gun which had better AP rounds.Later the M36 got the 90mm.The open top of the turret was so that the crew would have a better field of view.In theroy this would give them an advantage over the "buttoned up" tanks they were fighting.The idea sounded good but it never realy worked out.Tanks and tank destroyers ended up filling each others roles where needed.The Shermans ended up getting the 76 mm gun and some tank destroyers had tops welded on to them depending on where they were fighting.


Pipz

[E25280]

Why don't you post a link of the site or the previous thread so that we can properly critique what the site says.

I have never thought "most" German TDs were open top.  The StG's, Hetzers, etc. were closed topped and I believe more common than the Marders and Nashorns.  If the site is saying most German TDs were open-topped, I think it is simply mistaken.

To piggy-back what has already been said about size of gun, look at the Hetzer.  They mounted a 75mm anti-tank gun on a small chassis that, in tank form, was only able to handle a 37mm gun.  So, they found use for a tank chassis that was already proven, and were able to drastically up-gun and up-armor it.

[Sloehand]

As Pipz mentioned, you must think of the different missions intended for each type of vehicle.  Also, be clear whether talking about the Allies or the Germans, as the different strategic conditions and tactical doctrine influenced design and construction. 
Generally though, the tank was built for both infantry support (as best exampled by the German Pz I, II, III, and early IV) and for breakthrough assault epitomized by the later PzIV, Panther and Tigers.  In other words, tanks were best used as offensive weapons.

Tank destroyers were generally intended as defensive weapons that could be quickly moved to, if possible, prepared defensive positions to counter an armored threat.  Though as in the case of the American M-18, they were not always used as such, but employed in more aggressive tactics than they were intended for.

And the reasoning for not using tanks exclusively in all roles was of course, the holy trinity of all human endeavor: time, cost and quantity.  In particular, the Germans needed the most units it could build, for the least cost, in the shortest time.

[FLOTSOM]

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,251091.0.html

this is the link to the original thread. the sight i mentioned is in the first post.

the sight does not discuss the vehicles it is a sight showing the drawings of the vehicles used.

i asked my question based on the drawing of the vehicles depicted inside the sight.

its a really good sight.

FLOTSOM

[Rich46yo]

American planners sat aghast watching the new Lightening war tactics of the German Panzer corps in '39 and most of all '40.

You see up till then Yank doctrine pretty much still existed in a prior war in that infantry was still viewed as the main battlefield component and artillery was still the main offensive striking power. Now all of a sudden their world was turned inside out by Heinz Guderian simply refusing to stop his very fast tanks and not giving a whit about his flanks. Even worse modern communications and tactics allowed armor, tactical air power, and artillery to be used as an overwhelming break thru device. And once thru the gap of the front lines modern armor could roll at will causing all kinds of havoc and taking away the momentum for good from the enemy.

Yank planners had to come up with both weapons and doctrine quickly to counter this new type of lightening war. This reality is what spawned the tank destroyer.

In 1940 there were several counterattacks by both the French and Brits forces which could have caused a big problem for Guderian. The Brits in particular had an armor brigade of fast light tanks attack Guderians flanks and supply chain. Unfortunately the attack wasn't coordinated or supported well enough or it could have succeeded.

But the lesson wasn't lost on Yank planners who themselves were developing their own highly mobile and very fast armored forces. The big problem with TDs were that they often weren't used as intended. Later in the war they were and proved very effective. The Germans used them very well for defense and we Yanks used them well for all types of armor related missions. Eventually the speed and firepower were melded into what became known as the MBT.

Because the best kind of TD is another tank. Heres the link...enjoy...http://ww2drawings.jexiste.fr/Files/1-Vehicles/Vehicles.htm

[shreck]

FURBALL is correct as tank destroyers were a way for nations to produce a threat to enemy tanks using existing equipment and chasis for quick implementation onto the battlefield. As the fighting dragged on the production of such vehicles was probably governed more by availability of critical parts for tanks being limited therefore production of the tank destroyer being the stop gap to get the guns in some usable fassion to the front lines.

[Rich46yo]

FURBALL is correct as tank destroyers were a way for nations to produce a threat to enemy tanks using existing equipment and chasis for quick implementation onto the battlefield. As the fighting dragged on the production of such vehicles was probably governed more by availability of critical parts for tanks being limited therefore production of the tank destroyer being the stop gap to get the guns in some usable fassion to the front lines.

I can only speak for Yank TDs , and the TD force. They were designed and organized with purpose. Not as a cast aside bunch of ad hoc units using left over parts and spare chasis's.

We Americans learned the lesson of Blitzkrieg very well. Our armored forces were completely mechanized, in comparison to German and Soviet units that used a lot of horsepower and leg power to move materials in support of the armor. Yank TDs weren't ad Hoc anythings. They were designed with purpose to kill enemy mechanized forces in both defense and offense. George Patton became a critic of the TD concept even tho they weren't often used according to the doctrine designed for them. Like tanks themselves TDs were most effective when massed, both in offense and defense. The lack of suitable Yank MBTs to counter the German heavy Panzers caused the American TDs to be spread to far and to thinly.

Even still they distinguished themselves in the Battle of the Bulge where they killed about 300 German GVs, about 50 of them tanks, and themselves only lost less then a dozen TDs.

Their first war was also to be their last war. When the M-26 Pershing first saw action it spelled the end of the Tank Destroyer and the beginning of the era of the MBT. An era were still in today. Still tank destroyer crews fought bravely and their sacrifices should always be remembered.

[Bodhi]

Think M-18