Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: I like Tank Destroyers
Volkodav    7/28/2009 7:58:42 AM
I like and always have liked Tank Destroyers but due to Australia's almost total lack of mechanisation at the start of WWII and the subsequent conversion of the bulk of the 2nd AIF into light infantry to fight the Japan in the Pacific there was never the opportunity to deploy this class of vehicle. It is too bad that we weren't able to deploy a tank destroyer or assault gun early in the war in Greece, the Middle East or North Africa inplace of the towed AT guns and light field guns that (when available) supported the 2nd AIF's Rifle Battalions. They would have dramatically increased the fighting power of our Infantry providing direct fire support and may well have turned the course of some battles. Having this kind of firepower, a platoon of 6 to 8 vehicles, embedded in each battalion would have had a lasting effect in the Army, perhaps resulting in a very different structure today. Instead of the ANZAC Legend being recast around Light or Jungle Infantry there is a real chance that the RAR would have had an effective armoured DFS capability from inception, working its way though generations of vehicles to ....? Assuming we started with something akin to a Cruiser MkIII armed with a 3" 20cwt in a casemate we could have moved onto a Crusader with a 17 pounder serving until the late 40's, then a Comet with a 20 pounder for the 50's to mid 60's, finally the S Tank into the 90's. The Tank Destroyers would replace tanks in the infantry and direct fire support role allowing tanks to be concentrated and used to best effect.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Volkodav       8/8/2009 5:22:36 AM

ATGW's are great at killing tanks but expensive for busting bunkers and other field defences, which is why there is a return to armoured guns of various types for the DFS role.

 

A even if the Javalin rounds are more expensive than tank rounds the overall cost of a Javalin that can be carried by one man isn't remotely as much as purchasing and running a 3 or 4 man medium tracked vehicle like a tank destroyer. A better way to beef up fire support for mechanised infantry would be to give them a modern 40mm gunned IFV like everybody else is.


AG if you read my post previous to the one you just posted you will see that we are on the same page on this, in that I have stated the modern AIFV's have usurped the DFS role of assault guns and their integrated ATGW's the tank destroyer role.
This entire thread was based on the concept of the ADF employing assault guns / tank destroyers from WWII through until the 1990's to beef up the DFS of our Rifle Battalions, while permitting the MBT's to be concentrated at Brigade or Division level where they could be used to best effect rather than deployed piece meal in Infantry support roles. The addoption of a modern AIFV by the ADF would permit the retirement of the assault guns, in much the same way as the Germans disgarded their Jagdpanzer Kanonen when the Marder MICV entered service and the Swedes moved on from the S Tank when they got the CV90. You could even lookto the US example of retiring the M-551 Sheridan from the Armoured Cavalry Regiments when the M-3 Bradley CFV became available.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       8/8/2009 9:12:40 PM




ATGW's are great at killing tanks but expensive for busting bunkers and other field defences, which is why there is a return to armoured guns of various types for the DFS role.



 



A even if the Javalin rounds are more expensive than tank rounds the overall cost of a Javalin that can be carried by one man isn't remotely as much as purchasing and running a 3 or 4 man medium tracked vehicle like a tank destroyer. A better way to beef up fire support for mechanised infantry would be to give them a modern 40mm gunned IFV like everybody else is.






AG if you read my post previous to the one you just posted you will see that we are on the same page on this, in that I have stated the modern AIFV's have usurped the DFS role of assault guns and their integrated ATGW's the tank destroyer role.


This entire thread was based on the concept of the ADF employing assault guns / tank destroyers from WWII through until the 1990's to beef up the DFS of our Rifle Battalions, while permitting the MBT's to be concentrated at Brigade or Division level where they could be used to best effect rather than deployed piece meal in Infantry support roles. The addoption of a modern AIFV by the ADF would permit the retirement of the assault guns, in much the same way as the Germans disgarded their Jagdpanzer Kanonen when the Marder MICV entered service and the Swedes moved on from the S Tank when they got the CV90. You could even lookto the US example of retiring the M-551 Sheridan from the Armoured Cavalry Regiments when the M-3 Bradley CFV became available.



Fair enough, though the suggestion of S tanks in the 1990's seems to contradict this. In any case there were better options well prior to the 90's. We had Milan in service and we could easily have bought vehicle mounted versions of that. Alternatively the Marder was around since the early 70's. Don't forget as well that we had 106mm RCLs in service for a long time.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       8/10/2009 10:07:31 PM
Fair enough, though the suggestion of S tanks in the 1990's seems to contradict this. In any case there were better options well prior to the 90's. We had Milan in service and we could easily have bought vehicle mounted versions of that. Alternatively the Marder was around since the early 70's. Don't forget as well that we had 106mm RCLs in service for a long time.
 
Assuming we bought the S Tanks in the 60's or 70's then they would likely still be in service in the 90's. Had a couple of Btn's been mechanised in the 70's with Marders which were then fitted with Milan in the 80's then by all means retire the S Tank from those Btn's. At this point cascading the S tank to 3/4 CAV could have been looked at to provide the ODF with some additional firepower.
 
Yes I remember the 106mm RCL (WOFTAM), usually mounted on the back of a Landrover but during the 90's fitted to the RHS rear of a number of M-113A1's adjacent to the cargo hatch. This was to replace the Milan if I remember correctly. Why oh why didn't we just buy some Milan Compact Turrets (MCT) from the UK to fit to the M-113 and issue them to 5/7 RAR along with some MRV's "Beasts" (76mm Scorpion Turret on an M-113)  instead?
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       8/11/2009 11:22:59 AM

Fair enough, though the suggestion of S tanks in the 1990's seems to contradict this. In any case there were better options well prior to the 90's. We had Milan in service and we could easily have bought vehicle mounted versions of that. Alternatively the Marder was around since the early 70's. Don't forget as well that we had 106mm RCLs in service for a long time.

 Assuming we bought the S Tanks in the 60's or 70's then they would likely still be in service in the 90's. Had a couple of Btn's been mechanised in the 70's with Marders which were then fitted with Milan in the 80's then by all means retire the S Tank from those Btn's. At this point cascading the S tank to 3/4 CAV could have been looked at to provide the ODF with some additional firepower.

 Yes I remember the 106mm RCL (WOFTAM), usually mounted on the back of a Landrover but during the 90's fitted to the RHS rear of a number of M-113A1's adjacent to the cargo hatch. This was to replace the Milan if I remember correctly. Why oh why didn't we just buy some Milan Compact Turrets (MCT) from the UK to fit to the M-113 and issue them to 5/7 RAR along with some MRV's "Beasts" (76mm Scorpion Turret on an M-113)  instead?


What's wrong with the 106? I reckon it was a light, flexible FS asset with cheap ammunition and was good for close range work where ATGW's couldn't operate. There aren't too many other 105mm calibre weapons that the Israelis could have rolled off the back of a Herc at Entebbe drive around blowing up Ugandan Migs! I reckon we should have kept them in service even after getting the Milan then Javalin.
 
As for Milan, I don't know why we retired those so early, we were without an ATGW for a decade as a result. The 76mm gunned M-113's were also useful though I believe they were a bit unstable over rough ground. Between all of that and the Leopards I don't know why we would have wanted a tank destroyer as well.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       8/17/2009 9:18:21 AM
Been doing some more reading and thinking. Once the Centurion was available there was nothing available that could really stand against it until the late 60's. Against conventional infantry the Cent was devastating, i.e. Imjin River where the tanks repeatedly sortied out into the massing Chinese infantry smashing the attacks allowing the 29th brigade to hang on. Had there been a Regiment instead of only a Squadron of Centurions available could the allies broken the Chinese attack there?
 
So assuming our experience in the Pacific was taken into account as well as the proven combat power of MBT's the ADF would have 2 or 3 Armoured Regiments with Centurions but there would still be a need for light armour to support the reduced number of RAR Light Infantry battalions in jungle and amphibious operations in the 50's and 60's.
 
An Australian designed tracked FOV including a light tank, a tank destroyer, and an APC could have been developed using British automotive components  from the Saladin / Saracen. These would be specifically evolved for service in SEA and the Pacific Islands in support of the RAR. They would be in the 12 to 15 tonne class, the light tank and tank destroyer would both be rear engined the light tank with a Saladin turret (76mm gun), the tank destroyer a 20pdr or 105mm L7 in a casemate. The APC would be front engined with a rear troop compartment with an access door rather than a ramp. The APC may be replaced with the M-113 during the late 60's, but hopefully serves on into the 70's or 80's when it can be replaced with an AIFV.
 
Yes the M-113 could have done a better job than this indigenous vehicle but it would be an interesting thread to follow.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       9/6/2009 7:54:55 AM
A new thought, a L7 105mm Casemate type Tank Destroyer, a 105mm Casemate SPG and a 20mm to 57mm auto cannon armed reconnaissance vehicle, based on the M-551 Sheridan, hence also the M-113.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       9/7/2009 5:22:50 PM

A new thought, a L7 105mm Casemate type Tank Destroyer, a 105mm Casemate SPG and a 20mm to 57mm auto cannon armed reconnaissance vehicle, based on the M-551 Sheridan, hence also the M-113.

It's actually possible if you are aming at designing an unmanned ground vehicle.

Because no one will want to sit in that thing. 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       9/8/2009 5:00:51 AM
The crews liked them because they were automotively reliable, didn't get bogged or throw tracks like the M-48 and the 152mm gun proved excelent for direct fire support with HE and Flachett rounds. Vehicles deployed to Vietnam had their missile gear removed and extra MG ammo in its place.
 
Senior officers disliked them because they were vunerable to RPG's and mines suffering high loss rates as a result. The gun breach and shell cases were also in part responsible for the high loss rate due to poor design making them a major fire risk in the event of a mine detonation or RPG penetration.
 
Answer, full belly plate, side skirts and a new gun with safer ammunition stowage. Easy.
 
On reflection it could probably have been adapted to take the 76mm gun from the M-41 or the short 105mm as used by the fire support versions of the Sherman in modified turrets.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       9/8/2009 5:39:26 AM
Something I just found on World War II Forums
FV4401 Contentious
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m199/Von_poop/dfmod-1.jpg" />
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m199/Von_poop/cont.jpg" />
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m199/Von_poop/dd.jpg" />
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       9/12/2009 4:47:58 AM
from achtungpanzer.com
Jagdpanzer E-10http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/jage10.jpg" />

This is the sort of thing I thought would have been a good bit of kit in the AT Platoons of the RAR in the immediate postwar years through to the mid 50's. APDS, HE and cannister fired from a 75 to 90mm gun, a 30 or even 50Cal MG and smoke dischargers.
 Specifications
Model:
E-10
 
Weight:
12000kg
 
Crew:
3 men
 
Engine:
Maybach HL 100 / 400hp
Argus / 300hp
 
Speed:
?km/h
 
Range:
—km
 
Lenght:
-.?m
 
Width:
-.?m
 
Height:
1.40-1.76m
 
Armament:
75mm Pak 39 L/48
 
Armor:
30-60mm
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics