Forget about tanks. Can we have a tank destroyer thread?

File: 1944-buick-m18-hellcat-tank-destroyer-front.jpg (329KB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 2048x1360px

M18 Hellcat is my waifu.

dont have any pictures, sorry. but isu 152 is my fav

File: M31B1+welded.jpg (122KB, 1280x539px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 1280x539px

recovery tank is most sexy treaded vehicle

File: 1485378684202.jpg (195KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1024x768px

SU-100 also look sexy.

>>32783395
the su/isu line all look good

File: M18 Hellcat.webm (2MB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 600x480px

>>32783358

File: Ferdinand_Elefant_Tank_Destroyer_rail_transport.jpg (41KB, 950x452px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 950x452px

The Elefant, this tank would have completely dominated the flat russian steppe and won the war in russia for germany. I can never understand why germany didnt build more of these.

File: ISU-122_Garage.jpg (371KB, 1392x756px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1392x756px

>>32783414
ISU are too boxy for my taste.

>>32783548
Because stug was cheaper probably

>>32783631
i can see what you mean. but i cant think off many TD's that are not boxy. the USA's TD's come to mind, apart from that i dont know.

>>32783548
there were based on the porshe tiger, which needed rare shit for its electric drive

>>32783548
Becasue they were a result of a mistake.
>Be Porsche
>think that your nigga Adolf will surley approve of your desing for another german tonk
>build 100 chassies already
>Adolf: yeah mane i went with that other one
>Fuck what do i do now?

>>32783358
Fuck off turret cuck

File: IMG_0692.png (53KB, 645x1189px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 645x1189px

>>32783548
They were built off of prototype Porsche Tiger Tank chasis that were left over when Hitler went with the Henschel design. There was no point in making anymore Porsche tigers because they were shitty and would be a waste of RM. I love the Elefant but the StuG III did its job cheaper and more reliably.

File: german t 34.jpg (98KB, 800x548px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 800x548px

>>32785165
original

>>32783314
Truly the sexiest. I wish Krokodil or Aureole were real.

>>32783548
It was a 70ton brick of shit, most of them were destroyed by their own crews after they broke down at Kursk.

what's the difference between a tank and a tank destroyer?

forgive my ignorance

>>32785371
Armor mostly. Or lack thereof in the case of field guns.

>>32783434

This is probably a dumb question, but why the totally open top on the m18 ? It's by all means a tank still for the most part even if it has less armor, but in that webm the tank drives down a hill and the loader/gunner are totally exposed.

It seems so dangerous.

>>32785248
>>32785266

Hetzer a cute !

CUTE.

>>32783663
>>32784027
Why did Germany never try to mount the 88mm to the StuG chassis??

It seems to me that it should have been workable..

>>32785482
I can think of a few reasons why
>Lighter
>Lower silhouette
and the last one might sound dubious, but
>Nearly all American TD's were open topped, so they were just following a tradition
So I guess that's probably the only real reasons. Maybe it saved a lot of space

File: Mowag Taifun (2).jpg (3MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4288x2848px

>>32783314

>>32785551
9/10
Would pat

>>32783314
>tank destroyer
You mean Gun Motor Carriages? Because tanks can be tank destroyers, as can towed guns or the soldiers using those equipments.

>>32785482
They were ment soley for fighting other tanks, so the risk of infrantry fire was lower and the open top has excellent visibility. Getting the first shot off is vital in tank v tank fighting, so quicker locating and aiming probably saved move lives than armouring the roof

File: 1394191651734.jpg (160KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1024x680px

>>32783314

File: quiz-13.jpg (40KB, 500x320px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x320px

Glorious baguette steel

>>32786117
thats just looks ill concived

>>32785371
intended role/use.

>>32785482
US Tank Destroyer doctrine favoured their TDs being open topped for a variety of reasons; height, situational awareness, weight.
Other requirements never passed over the brasses' heads, so you see crews with their vehicles having makeshift roofs to protect from weather and grenades.

>>32785521
88mm Kwk 36 is way larger then Kwk 40, it wouldn't fit.

>>32785716

No, he means a fucking Tank Destroyer, which is an armored vehicle designed specifically to kill tanks. It's primary purpose is not to be an all around weapon, not to provide infantry support, not to quickly move artillery, it is to kill tanks.

File: hqdefault[1].jpg (31KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x360px

Hon hon hon hon vere iz ze baguette ?

File: IMG_3340.jpg (527KB, 1185x803px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 1185x803px

A whole foot of steel.

turtle speed tho.

>>32787072
Not really a tank destroyer though is it when it's role was to punch through the Siegfried line.

>>32785482

Solely designed to hunt other tanks, and that big ass open turret does wonders for visibility

>>32785482
>>32785547
The American tank destroyer doctrine in WW2 much simplified is as follows:

Roll fast
Shoot first
Get out

Most people don't realize how limited the visibility inside a tank is. Having an open top made the ability of the tank destroyer to spot the enemy an order of magnitude better than a tank spotting another tank. In this way, the tank destroyer was significantly more likely to be able to shoot first compared to a tank.

Regarding enemy infantry:
Tank destroyers were supposed to normally be held in reserve and sent to counter concentrations of enemy armor (at least this was what manuals suggested be done with them). In this way, normally, a tank destroyer would not face enemy infantry at any kind of range where the enemy infantry was a threat to the tank destroyer.

>>32785721
This guy gets it. Although, military manuals allowed for some variability in targets of tactical opportunity.

File: mobHUrS[1].gif (58KB, 1520x740px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1520x740px

This sexy thing looks so modern you wouldn't believe it was designed in the 50s

>>32787059
>which is an armored vehicle designed specifically to kill tanks.
Sorry but that's not what a tank destroyer is. Tank destroyer is a battalion sized unit whose primary task was to respond to enemy tanks, and these units were made up of both towed and self-propelled guns.

>>32783358
M18 Hellcat is one hell of a Gun Motor Carriage.

>>32785459
>Maus is a tank
>Jagdtiger is a tank destroyer
>Panzer I is a tank
>M18 is a tank destoyer

Armor has nothing to do with it.

>>32786117
Was the ARL V 39 actually considered a tank destroyer?

>>32787786
It was considered an assault gun.

>>32787839
That's not necessarily the same as a tank destroyer though.

>>32787855
That is why I called it an assault gun and not a tank destroyer.

>>32787869
Not in your initial post in a thread about tank destroyers.

>>32787936

This was my initial post.
>>32787839

>>32785165
Fake

>>32787956
Oh okay, I thought you were saying it was an assault gun to imply that it belonged in a tank destroyer thread.

>>32785370
Tiger IIs had that. Elephants worked mostly fine.

File: wrong.jpg (38KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 250x250px

>>32787703

Are you retarded? Sure, you can have tank killing battalions, or companies, or whatever, but that is not what we are talking about. "Tank Destroyer" is a classification of armored vehicle, that is what we are talking.

>>32783548
No anti-infantry weapons.

>>32787703
This is an American view of TD doctrine. Not a global understanding of the 1940s TD as a vehicle

>>32783358
i like how germans named their tanks after cats, and americans named their tank fucker hellcat

>>32783725
you're just mad the hellcat had the best k/d of the war

>>32787093
I think that better classifies as an assault tank or superheavy. IIRC it was designed to take on the siegfried line in germany and roll up on fortified positions while being impenetrable to all german AT guns.

>>32785194

Obviously a scale model...

File: m901 itv.jpg (517KB, 1062x660px) Image search: [Google]

517KB, 1062x660px

Do ATGM carriers count?

>>32783548
Dr. Porsche, please.
The Wehrmacht does not want to buy your mobile space-heater.

>>32783548

What was its advantage over the Jagdpanther?

>>32791339
heavy frontal armor, long range gun, perfect for flat open fields

flat open fields are exactly the type of environment conventional tanks are vulnerable

>>32791352
>TD thread
>Posts assault gun

W E W
E
W

>>32783314
This thread makes me want to play World of Tanks again.
What are some better Tank battle vidya games?

File: shot 2016.12.21 23.23.16.jpg (606KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

606KB, 1920x1080px

>>32791500

War Thunder : Ground Forces
Armored Warfare
Steel Beasts

File: 178 TD.jpg (149KB, 728x1053px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 728x1053px

>>32787276
The Foch was made after WW2, with Soviet IS3 in mind.

Panhard 178-based TDs, the turret of the lower one was designed and built in less than two days before being sent to the front where it destroyed two tanks and a motorized column before being scuttled by its crew.

File: 178 CDM - 4.jpg (84KB, 728x477px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 728x477px

>>32791519
The concept was reused first during the German occupation by Vichy's CDM organization which secretly made around 40 conversions. Some of them were found and used by German troops when Vichy zone was invaded in 1942 while some others were used by the French resistance.

The second time was post-war with the 178B, though it was now for pure rearmament reasons and not as a TD.

File: Jagdtiger_1.jpg (987KB, 2016x1512px) Image search: [Google]

987KB, 2016x1512px

>>32785279

I truly love the jagdtiger but i honestly think it is the single most retarded vehicle ever to go into mass production

the king tiger:

>Very powerful gun (enough to kill any allied vehicle that served in WWII)
>very thick armor protecting it from pretty much 99% of allied tanks (frontally, sides are thinner)
>very slow (too heavy)¨
>prone to mechanical breakdown (too heavy)

And then one faggot decides to put millions of reichsmarks into making it even heavier, with an even more powerful gun and even thicker armor

i mean, dont get me wrong here, i love the thing. but what the fuck is the point of this, then both the Jagdpanther and the King tiger exists

File: 178 Germany.jpg (137KB, 764x1045px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 764x1045px

>>32791528
Germany also converted some of those captured in 1940. These were mostly used in occupied countries.

>>32791500
War thunder since it has an actual damage model. In World of fags you can die if you'll get shot 100 times in coupla but in WT once the commander dies you can be shot there even 10000 times and you still wont die. This is why i left WoT and started playing WT. Don't get me wrong it's not perfect but its much better than WoT.

>>32791529
It was supposed to me magical undestructable weapon that'd chew throguh thousands of Allied tanks so some office man in nazi party thought that it was good idea to spend that much money.

File: 1484593485198.jpg (183KB, 909x804px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 909x804px

>>32787334
in my lack of knowledge I find it quite amusing how could they aim with a fixed canon

>>32791535
>War thunder since it has an actual damage model.
one which makes al but invunerable the soviet tanks, nice

File: Vespa 150 TAP.jpg (77KB, 903x535px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 903x535px

Vespa 150 TAP

>>32788329
Just realised this kek

>>32785371
The difference is intended role, and consequently different design choices. Tanks are designed to be a mobile, protected firepower platform for mobile warfare, expected to support infantry, exploit breakthroughs, and fight enemy armored vehicles. Consequently, they have armor capable of stopping small arms and at least some antitank armament, and are armed with several MGs, and usually a gun with good HE and AP capability.

Tank destroyers are vehicles designed with the sole purpose of destroying enemy tanks, ie functioning as mobile AT guns. Therefore they generally are less multipurpose, and make various tradeoffs to increase antitank capability. The American TDs were relatively light, turreted and mobile as they were designed to counter fast massed armor attacks (due to a misinderstanding of German tactics), but lacked powered turret drives, were open topped to increase awareness but were vulnerable to fire, but had a better AT gun than the standard Sherman tank- 76mm m1 vs 75mm m3, later when the Sherman got the m1 the M36 TD was introduced with the 90mm gun.
Russian and German TDs were generally as heavily armored as the tanks, but sacrificed the turret in order to fit a larger gun than the tank on which the TD was based could fit. So the SU-85 carried the 85mm gun when the T-34 only carried the 76mm F-34, and later when the T-34/85 managed to fit it, the SU-100 was introduced. Likewise the StuG III carried a StuK 40 (basically a modified KWK 40) 75mm HV gun, vs the 50mm KWK 39 which was the most the Pz III could hold.

File: american M10 GMC.jpg (152KB, 600x388px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 600x388px

hallo kameraden
can you show me the way to the nearest command post ja?

>>32787334
Not a TD

File: 1484696876784.jpg (860KB, 672x3832px) Image search: [Google]

860KB, 672x3832px

>>32791917

>>32791395
the tank designs in that game are so fucking cool and dumb

File: skorzeny is a madman.jpg (26KB, 737x467px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 737x467px

>>32791953
zat is die kraut enemy, i will head back to ze comand post and call for reinforcements while you fight it ja?

>>32788181
>"Tank Destroyer" is a classification of armored vehicle, that is what we are talking.
Tank destroyer is used colloquially today for Gun Motor Carriages that were part of the tank destroyer units. For the US military in WW2, tank destroyer was a name for task forces whose job was to destroy tanks.

>>32788224
"Tank destroyer" is a uniquely American term and therefore only the American view matters. But I guess "Panzerjager" detachments were pretty much the same thing - military units whose task was to destroy tanks, and whose names were later on colloquially used to identify self-propelled guns that were part of those units.

>>32791979
I already called it in.
Did you forget that we have a radio in every vehicle?

>>32791905
Only the M10 lacked powered turret traverse.

File: jagdtiger0.jpg (49KB, 700x375px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 700x375px

Jagdtigers really turn me on.

>>32792662
yeah, i can get along with this

File: 10393407a.jpg (84KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1200x800px

What is the sexiest tank destroyer and why it's the Jagdpanther?