Prev: Re: Proposed Chat Times for Yahoo GZG Club Next: Re: [OT] Re: Meaning and origin of term I've heard in a few movi

Tank Destroyers (was: GE Mechanics)

From: "Hedglin, Nils A" <nils.a.hedglin@i...>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 15:31:46 -0700
Subject: Tank Destroyers (was: GE Mechanics)

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MBaines@vines.gems.gov.bc.ca [SMTP:MBaines@vines.gems.gov.bc.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 1998 1:53 PM
> To:	FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
> Subject:	GE Mechanics
> 
> I would think that even an armoured GEV would have enough mass/inertia
> that 
> a reasonably sized weapon with conventional recoil compensation could
fire
> 
> and not be too disrupted. The problem is that the rules allow a size 3

> Tracked, Wheeled or GEV to mount essentially the same turret/weapon 
> combination. Certainly GEVs armed the GMS or HEL weapons could move
and 
> fire same for small calibre RFACs etc. I could also see fast moving
GEVs 
> that would stop momentarily, plant themselves on the ground and fire a
few
> 
> quick rounds with a large calibre weapon and move off. Maybe there
should 
> be restriction on the size of recoiling weaponry carried on GEVs.
> 
> My concern is with Fixed Mount weapons, we often refer to these as
Tank 
> Destroyers. The classic Tank Destroyers of WWII were lower silohette, 
> increased armour and maybe a larger gun when contrasted against a 
> comparable turreted model. I think there should be some advantage to a
TD 
> other than mounting multibarrels. This has nothing to do with the fact
> that 
> I have tons of fixed-gun light tanks.
> 
> Murray Baines


Prev: Re: Proposed Chat Times for Yahoo GZG Club Next: Re: [OT] Re: Meaning and origin of term I've heard in a few movi