Did the concept of dedicated Tank Destroyers make sense after WW2?

[NothingNow]

It's just a question that's been gnawing at me for a few days:
Did it really make that much sense? Not like just Casement type TDs, like the SU-100 and the Jagdpanzer series, but also vehicles like the M36 Jackson, and 17pdr SP Achilles, (which were basically Medium Tanks with the Armor of a Light Tank and Jackrabbit acceleration,) and heavy armored cars like the British AEC Armored Car and modern B1 Centauro.

Do they make more sense than using light tanks in a combat situation for given roles?
Like scouting, which seemed to be the entire reason for the M5 Stuart's existence IOTL. Could, let's say, an M10 or M18 Hellcat accomplish the same role as the M5 with less risk and more of an ability to defend itself? Could something like a 76mm armed M38 Wolfhound have been useful in Korea in general as a vehicle for Airborne units, comparable to the Soviet ASU-57 and ASU-85?

Heck, with ERA, ATGMs and Cage armor does it make more sense just to buy a ton of AMX-10RCs, Centauros or Rooikats instead of modern Main Battle Tanks for a motorized or Armored Force?
I mean, the argument for Airborne units is fairly clear, but what about an Armored force?
Also, are modern Light Tanks (Like the Stingray family, M8, PT-76 and the Chinese Type 63) more in the old American-style Tank Destroyer mold or that of the Light Tank of similar vintage?

The links are included for the benefit of Members who don't have access to Macaulay's Gearwhore Nirvana private library, and people who honestly have no Idea what the fuck the M36 was.

 

[BlairWitch749]

The swiss used Hetzer TD's for decades after the war.

They made a lot of sense when you had surplus chasis laying around where you could upgun the platform easily and not have all the expense of installing larger turrets (perfect say for setting up ambush points in west german towns and cities for example if you wanted to do things economically)

 

[Cook]

The links are included for the benefit of Members who don't have access to Macaulay's Gearwhore Nirvana private library…

Mmmm Gearwhores… sorry, I was somewhere else for a moment there.

and people who honestly have no Idea what the fuck the M36 was.

Ignorance will not stop them from commenting.

 

[NothingNow]

The swiss used Hetzer TD's for decades after the war.

They made a lot of sense when you had surplus chasis laying around where you could upgun the platform easily and not have all the expense of installing larger turrets (perfect say for setting up ambush points in west german towns and cities for example if you wanted to do things economically)

Okay, yeah, it does help to explain why the West Germans built the same sort of thing post war with the Kanonenjagdpanzer. Thanks.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Okay, yeah, it does help to explain why the West Germans built the same sort of thing post war with the Kanonenjagdpanzer. Thanks.

Its the same reasoning that made them workable in WW2, dollars and role

Tanks, especially once casting became the norm are extremely expensive and time consuming to build, not to mention, a cast rotating turret is extremely heavy (especially one holding a gun 75mm or larger)

A tank destroyer on the other hand, with it's fixed, limited traverse turret saves a tremendous amount of money, time and manpower in terms of its construction... it can also carry a larger gun for the same weight; so if you are going to get spammed by a mega army of T-34's or 54's; having a cheap and easier to produce weapon's system has a certain advantage

and role is key... TD's can not only ambush and take out tanks, they are useful for providing direct fire support for the infantry (engaging pill boxes and machine gun nests for example) and doing this duty (for a reasonable dollar amount) frees up the tanks for service in the armored divisions conducting long ranged offensives

 

[NothingNow]

A tank destroyer on the other hand, with it's fixed, limited traverse turret saves a tremendous amount of money, time and manpower in terms of its construction... it can also carry a larger gun for the same weight; so if you are going to get spammed by a mega army of T-34's or 54's; having a cheap and easier to produce weapon's system has a certain advantage

and role is key... TD's can not only ambush and take out tanks, they are useful for providing direct fire support for the infantry (engaging pill boxes and machine gun nests for example) and doing this duty (for a reasonable dollar amount) frees up the tanks for service in the armored divisions conducting long ranged offensives

Well, that's well and good for Casement TDs, but what about the American-style designs like the M18 and M36?

 

[CalBear]

Sure they did.

During the Cold War they were light vehicles with TOW missiles.

These days we call the Apaches and Hinds.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Well, that's well and good for Casement TDs, but what about the American-style designs like the M18 and M36?

American TD's represented some really flawed doctrine... the idea was that the TD"s would stand back with their long ranged cannon's and shoot up enemy tanks before they could get into range... the invention of the kampfgruppen doctrine pretty much eliminated the idea of encountering massed tanks. Also urban/broken terrain makes this idea more or less a failure waiting to happen.

Following their incorrect doctrine, the American's did not put suffecient armor on their TD's which left them uber vulnerable not only to enemy AFV's but also to hand held infantry weapons... the Germans, correctly realized that their TD's would end up engaging tanks, and that those engagements would sometimes be at medium and even close range and that in order to survive those engagements, a low profile weapon with high quality thick armor was needed

 

[NoOneFamous]

McNair should have been shot for the idea of the TD.

 

[Don Lardo]

Well, that's well and good for Casement TDs, but what about the American-style designs like the M18 and M36?

As BW already explained, one of the major hurdles in tank construction involves forging turret castings large enough to carry guns that are large enough.

Any nation examining the TD concept is going to have a budget. If that budget is relatively small, casemate style TDs are the way to go because they provide more bang for the buck. If that budget is large enough to support specialized TD units, helos, as CalBear pointed out, are the way to go because they also provide more bang for the buck. If you're rich enough and capable enough to forge turrets, you going to build multi-mission MBTs because they provide more bang for the buck too.

Mission, role, and budget. They'll all come together to drive a selection.

 

[grdja83]

Well there is the S-tank, and there was that West German prototype with 2 guns (unlike all the C&C tanks those were spread out close to edges of front side of vehicle).

But they had to fall out of favor. Indirect fire arty got accurate enough to obsolete the SPG, and in peacetime everyone had enough time and money to build proper MBTs instead of filling up ranks with TDs.

 

[BlairWitch749]

McNair should have been shot for the idea of the TD.

To be fair to McNair, the American's developed their TD's and doctrine for them in the wake of the battle of France; where the Germans employed "massed" panzers in the open fields of France (and the Germans and French created a lot of misleading propaganda that fed this image to be engrained into the US)

So he ordered them built with long ranged cannons capable of engaging massed panzers in the open and chose speed instead of heavy armor

When Manstein ordered the first generation of tank destroyers for Germany as quartermaster general, he envisioned them engaging bunkers on the maginot line, so they where low profile to avoid enemy fire and featured a high explosive capable cannon... they where not particularly capable in the AT role

The American SECOND generation TD's where a disaster because they didn't pick up on changes that had occured since 1940 in terms of German combined arms battle group deployments

The German second generation ones where a direct response to a shortage of armor AND being outclassed by the KV series and T-34 and they took to heart the idea that the weapon would engage at close range and needed heavy armor

 

[NothingNow]

American TD's represented some really flawed doctrine... the idea was that the TD"s would stand back with their long ranged cannon's and shoot up enemy tanks before they could get into range... the invention of the kampfgruppen doctrine pretty much eliminated the idea of encountering massed tanks. Also urban/broken terrain makes this idea more or less a failure waiting to happen.

Yeah, that's a certainty.

Following their incorrect doctrine, the American's did not put suffecient armor on their TD's which left them uber vulnerable not only to enemy AFV's but also to hand held infantry weapons... the Germans, correctly realized that their TD's would end up engaging tanks, and that those engagements would sometimes be at medium and even close range and that in order to survive those engagements, a low profile weapon with high quality thick armor was needed

Didn't they fix that issue with the M36 however? That thing had only slightly less armor than the Sherman in places, and had more armor over important areas. Wiki says that it hit just about 108mm in places, but I kind of doubt that.
EDIT: Actually, AFV database says up to 5.11"/130mm , with an normal level of about an Inch and a half.

Any nation examining the TD concept is going to have a budget. If that budget is relatively small, casemate style TDs are the way to go because they provide more bang for the buck. If that budget is large enough to support specialized TD units, helos, as CalBear pointed out, are the way to go because they also provide more bang for the buck. If you're rich enough and capable enough to forge turrets, you going to build multi-mission MBTs because they provide more bang for the buck too.

Okay, I can see that, but what about replacing Light Tanks with a TD?
A Chaffee weighs a few thousand pounds more than an M18, but is a far less combat capable vehicle, far less maneuverable, and far more vulnerable.

 

[BlairWitch749]

Yeah, that's a certainty.


Didn't they fix that issue with the M36 however? That thing had only slightly less armor than the Sherman in places, and had more armor over important areas. Wiki says that it hit just about 108mm in places, but I kind of doubt that.
EDIT: Actually, AFV database says up to 5.11"/130mm , with an normal level of about an Inch and a half.


Okay, I can see that, but what about replacing Light Tanks with a TD?
A Chaffee weighs a few thousand pounds more than an M18, but is a far less combat capable vehicle, far less maneuverable, and far more vulnerable.

Eh, the M-36 had a rotating turret, which made it a suido tank anyway... the only thing it really skimped on was the roof armor; all it did was rectify the gun problem from the m-10

I wouldn't want to try ambushing people in a vehicle that was nearly 11 feet tall either... the hetzer could accomplish the same objectives (the German 75mm high velocity gun had ballistic properties equal to if not slightly superior than the American 90mm gun) at half the weight, with 4 feet less in height... cost is closely tied to weight, so it was a far more economical and cost effective vehicle

 

[KillerT]

There's been a heck of a lot of TD since the war I give you this list:
UK- Avenger, Charioteer, various mountings for MOBAT and WOMBAT, then missile based systems- Hornet (Malkara), Ferret Vigilant and Ferret Swingfire, FV438, Striker, Spartan Milan, Warrior Milan, Warrior Javelin. There were also LOTS of projects too such as Tortoise, Centurions with a huge range of add ons including the 32pdr and a 180mm gun, oh and the Chieftan/S Tank hybrid.

Belguim- conversion of Loyd carriers with Cockeriill 90mm smoothbore, the JagdpzK Neu (used until recently)

Japan- had a multi barrel RCL system

there are others....

The TD role has now gone-use helicopters, light vehicles and dismounted teams.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

McNair should have been shot for the idea of the TD.

The USAAF got there first.

 

[NothingNow]

I wouldn't want to try ambushing people in a vehicle that was nearly 11 feet tall either... the hetzer could accomplish the same objectives (the German 75mm high velocity gun had ballistic properties equal to if not slightly superior than the American 90mm gun) at half the weight, with 4 feet less in height... cost is closely tied to weight, so it was a far more economical and cost effective vehicle

Obviously. Still, what about replacing light tanks with TD's?

 

[Ak-84]

M-36's fought with the Pakistan Army in 1965 and proved capable of knocking out Centurions.

 

[Seraph]

The main fault with McNair in my opinion, is his stubborn clinging to the doctrine, resisting up gunning even the TDs, and his preference for towed anti guns in an attempt to promote the artillery over the armor branch.

*snipped*

From what I understand, it mostly because its based off the Sherman where the transmission made it so high. A purely speculative T23 based TD would been much lower in height.
But for a turret based TD, I speculate maybe if they had heavy frontal armor(but still had very light side armor), that may be them more useful.

Also, the Hetzer is armed with the 7.5 cm KwK /40 gun which is roughly equal to the 76mm M1 gun.
You're confusing it with the 7.5 cm KwK 42 /70 gun which does come close to performing as well as the 90mm M3.

 

[NothingNow]

The main fault with McNair in my opinion, is his stubborn clinging to the doctrine, resisting up gunning even the TDs, and his preference for towed anti guns in an attempt to promote the artillery over the armor branch.

Agreed.

From what I understand, it mostly because its based off the Sherman where the transmission made it so high. A purely speculative T23 based TD would been much lower in height.

Yeah, the Sherman's basic design is why the M10 and M36 were so effing big, but still, even the T-34 and the Brit cruisers were usually around 8.5 feet tall.