Re: Tank Destroyers (was: GE Mechanics)

At 03:31 PM 01/09/98 -0700, Hedglin, Nils A wrote:
>I too have wondered about the role of the Tank Destroyer in DSII.  From
the
>little I know about TDs in WWII, their lack of defensive capabilities
was
>made up for by their small size & fast speed in comparison to most of
the
>lumbering MBTs.  Unfortunately, I have found that DSII doesn't reflect
those
>abilities well.  Size does matter in DSII to some extent, but speed
doesn't.
>I have tried running what I think to be an excellent TD, Size 2 w/
Class 3
>HEL, but, because of their small size, they get blown apart before they
get
>2 shots off.  The better defense die doesn't make up for the inability
to
>withstand a hit if it does get through, & maybe it shouldn't.	Maybe
the TD
>is no longer a viable vehicle type, especially with the HMMV w/ a TOW
being
>able to do the job just as well.  I don't remember hearing of any TD
class
>vehicles in Desert Storm.  Or, maybe the HMMV has become the new TD.  I
>guess it also depends in the terrain.	Desert Storm was a war of speed
&
>manauvering because of the wide open & reasonably flat sands.	If
something
>like that had happened in South America, then I think TDs would have
been
>able to be more effective since the Abrahms speed would have been
worthless
>in the jungle or mountains.  Then there's the whole AT gun idea, which
also
>seems to be invalidated by the speed of today's (& tomorrow's) MBTs. 
Has
>anyone tried making a self-propelled AT gun?
>Just ranting & raving,
>Nils
>
Actually, a Tank Destroyer usually is/was a SP AT gun. This was the
standart
configuration of German (Jagd series) and Russian (SU series) (also
British
"Archer") tank destroyers during WWII. The only nation that had turreted
TD's was the United States (Hellcat, Jackson). The idea of a TD was to
sit
back, out of the main line of battle and attempt to destroy enemy tanks
were
engaging your own Main Battle Tank's. This was done by giving the TD a
much
more powerful gun than was usually found on one's MBT's (though not
always).
TD's always had the best type of gun aveilable though. These vehicles
were
not expected to be drawn into a slugging match with an enemy tank, and
that's why they have less armour protection (at least US and British).
Speed
has abit to do with it, since the TD should "shoot&scoot", However, most
were as slow as their MBT counterparts. Unlike the British and
Americans,
the Germans expected their SP's to be involved in such stuggles, and
often
suppelmented MBT formations with SP's due to a lack of MBT's. As for the
Russians, they realized that their SP's would also have to confront long
ranged German Guns such as the 88mm and placed a substanial amount of
armour
on most of their SP's. In fact, the SU 152 was created within a very
short
time frame specifically to deal with the new German Tiger I's. However,
one
of the greatest bonuses, and I don't know if it matters in SG/DS, was
that
TD's were usually cheaper and much simpler to construct than MBT's and
therefore more economical and quicker to produce. The big thing to
remember
is that TD's are not MBT's and you don't use them like MTB's unless you
really have to ( ie you have no MTB's). Actually, the use of TD's has
almost
disappeared at this present date. Most moderen nations have the money
and
resources to construct MBT's. Those that don't just buy cheaper/older
model
MTB's from these nations, rather than put money into R&D/construction of
a
new TD. Actually, the Russians are presently testing a new gun, that
they
are planning to place into a TD role ( not sure what hull, probably a
T-80
or 90). Sorry I cannot recall any specifications, but the articale was
out
of a Jane's Defense Weekly from either last or this month. I will check
tommorrow. I don't know why they are doing this, unless cost is now a
factor, and they don't wish to spend it on R&D for a new MBT. 


						Gary The endless
blabberer