Re: [DS] Why tank destroyers?

On Wed, 5 Sep 2001 15:54:44 -0400 (EDT) Roger Books
<books@mail.state.fl.us> writes:
>I guess I am a bit confused about ecological niches.
>
>What is the advantage of a tank destroyer over using
>a tank for the same purpose?
>
>Roger

Roger, 

Despite my majority of war games being pre-'firing pin' I think I have
an
angle (pun intended) on why American WW2 TDs made such poor Tanks but
were loved by the Infantry they were supposed to support...

Back when Tractics was new and micro-armor was also  I played a WW2 game
with American TDs, ATG's and Infantry versus German counterattacking
armor force.  Used TDS as tanks and was seriously creamed.  A younger
friend who was a true war history type took me aside then using his
guidance we re-ran the scenario and we won.  How?

American TDs in WW2 were *not* even Light Tank capable opponents in
mobile (God Forbid you get stuck with them in a meeting engagement)
battles!  We used the fact that the German player was a linear thinker
and that the key position (held by Infantry and ATG's) was in a valley
with several good hills, ridge lines and structures behind and to the
left and right rear of the 'direct approach'  and one flank was secured
by a river/marsh and the other side was where the 'cavalry' (Allied
Tanks)	was supposed to arrive - but it never was scheduled to arrive
except in the 'intel' brief the German player received pre-game.  Evil
GM
kept rolling the dice (plural) but our combination 'never came up.'

Basically the US TD's were thin skinned, fast and open topped. BUT they
could get *way* down behind cover and only have the /very capable of
being depressed/ gun and a sliver of the turret showing in defensive
positions.  A carefully thought out series of ridge lines or other
covering positions allowed them to be difficult to see until they fired
and sometimes even then, allowing them to get the opportunity for a
'first shot' attack and a decent chance of a follow-up shot before a
shot
back was fired, and they had guns as good as or better then many
Shermans
(main US Tank for most of WW2) had at various parts of the war.  Those
early tanks with 75mm's hung around until the tanks were destroyed or a
new unit with new toys arrived from the states/UK to replace the unit
and
even then....  

Re-engineering a turret is complicated but sticking the new 'whiz bang'
gun on a cheaper hull with an open top turret was quicker and (in
theory)
cheaper.  The ability for increased (what is the word?) 'negative
depressed angle' of the gun on American TD's as a result made for an
Excellent TD in defense/support of infantry (most of the armies in WW2
were some form of infantry - Airborne, Glider, 'Leg', Motorized,
Mechanized, Armored but still Infantry.)  And Bazookas only go so far...

And if the tanks are *that* close you are in deep trouble.  As long as
they didn't have to manuver in view of German Tanks or attack they were
'beautiful' to the average American ground pounder.  A smart German
player learned to use manuver against American TDs in our games once
this
usage of TDs became common in our games.  The 'slow' ones usually made
negative 'trades' in attacks and  afew never did get the idea that the
smarter American players tried to not use the TDs in the attack like
true
tanks (which they were never designed to be.)

Showing my complete ignorance, did the UK have TD designs?  How were
they
applied/used?  

My dos centavos.

Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious@juno.com
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit: