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

TD role

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

Are you sure?
I´m not an expert but...

- In what war were helicopters used in an anti-tank role unless the sky was friendly (air superiority) or at least neutral? Can anti-tank helicopters survive with enemy air superiority or (in a neutral sky) with hand held anti-air missiles or radar steered anti-air guns in close support?
(Afghanistan during the Soviet intervention seems to indicate that helicopters used in a difficult terrain were vulnerable even with total air superiority.)

- Light vehicles and dismounted teams likewise - unless in urban terrain or difficult terrain - would be vulnerable to artillery and air attacks?

I just don´t know...
If I governed a small European country without any "difficult terrain", sure I would order lots of anti tank missiles used by "dismounted teams" (in towns and villages). I would also order lots of hand held anti air missiles.
And maybe some "casemate style TDs". For the simple fact that they might survive an artillery bombardment better than my dismounted teams? Given that the sky likely will be unfriendly?

Your conclusion seems to be heavily based on air superiority.
To protect helicopters and dismounted teams.
No air attacks and the ability to suppress enemy artillery and ground based based anti-air?.
 

Bearcat

Banned
Sure they did.

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

These days we call the Apaches and Hinds.

Yep, and M901 I-TOW vehicles (based on a M113 chassis), and A-10s.

Basically, today, a missile is the easier way to kill a tank. So guns on anything but an MBT fell out of favor, in preference to ATGMs on light vehicles, tracked vehicles, helos, aircraft, and even some poor schmoe's shoulder.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Are you sure?
I´m not an expert but...

- In what war were helicopters used in an anti-tank role unless the sky was friendly (air superiority) or at least neutral? Can anti-tank helicopters survive with enemy air superiority or (in a neutral sky) with hand held anti-air missiles or radar steered anti-air guns in close support?
(Afghanistan during the Soviet intervention seems to indicate that helicopters used in a difficult terrain were vulnerable even with total air superiority.)

- Light vehicles and dismounted teams likewise - unless in urban terrain or difficult terrain - would be vulnerable to artillery and air attacks?

I just don´t know...
If I governed a small European country without any "difficult terrain", sure I would order lots of anti tank missiles used by "dismounted teams" (in towns and villages). I would also order lots of hand held anti air missiles.
And maybe some "casemate style TDs". For the simple fact that they might survive an artillery bombardment better than my dismounted teams? Given that the sky likely will be unfriendly?

Your conclusion seems to be heavily based on air superiority.
To protect helicopters and dismounted teams.
No air attacks and the ability to suppress enemy artillery and ground based based anti-air?.

Assuming air superiority in today world is like assuming Naval Superiority in the olden days, useful for conjecture and discussion points but not something you bring up to examine every tiny detail.
 
Assuming air superiority in today world is like assuming Naval Superiority in the olden days, useful for conjecture and discussion points but not something you bring up to examine every tiny detail.

Not sure what you're getting at here. There are some nations that can assume they'll get air superiority in any conflict they might fight, but not all nations are in that position. Doesn't it make a certain amount of sense to imagine what a nation that CAN'T count on that might decide?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
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?

Rhodesian and South African Eland-90s (basically French Panhard armoured car knockoffs) were able to engage T-34/85s and T-55s on a number of occasions.

AMX-13s, which were designed by the French as scout tanks in the late-40s, were used in what we'd know now as an MBT role by the Israelis during the Suez campaign in 1956 and even faced off against Egyptian Shermans and SU-100s.



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.

I'll have to take a picture of that sometime. :D
 
One of the reasons to look at Light tanks and Armored Cars with larger Cal. guns is road use . Main Battle tanks will and do tear up roads when moving long distances on them . Light Vehicles are easier on roads and coast less in maintenance .

Remember that today he who fires the first shot and hits most of the time kills the enemy first .

For an armored Force your logistic tail is very large just to keep the tanks going never mind them fighting .

Also remember most nations can not afford to own the M-1 tank of the US due to Fuel coast and upkeep on the tank .

So yes there is a reason for Tank destroyers to be build and used by smaller nations . And remember most country's tanks are used for parade's then combat .
 
Top