Re: Tank Destroyers (was: GE Mechanics)

Murray;

The US Army phased out TD in the 50's in that the main battle tank was
to be strong enough to destroy other enemy tanks and for maneuver behind
enemy front.  The M1 fulfills both those roles.  Also the cost of having
two classes of tanks would break the war department budget.
David 

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
> 
> > -----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