Talk:Tank destroyer

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Untitled

Corrected "Czeslovakia" to "Czechoslovakia", just in case this article is not deleted. (Xenoncloud 17:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Propose speedy delete as of this moment it has no content. If you are working on it, you oughtta put a notice on the page. [[PaulinSaudi 15:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)]]

I attempted to move Anti-tank vehicle to this page but accidently moved it to tank destroyers instead; if somebody could help me move it here, please. --Martin Wisse 15:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My my! This page has shaped up nicely! I just removed the and a company of anti-tank vehicles, as it is no longer true. The Improved TOW Vehicle (the M-901?) is now sitting in target ranges all over the Army. It is no longer in service. Paul, in Saudi 17:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarod997 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Is it true that large numbers of M-901s have been given to the new Iraqi military as military aid from the US? 1630 Hours 14 April 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarod997 (talk • contribs)

Gentlemen. I am a content expert on the subject of US armored forces and TD Forces. Please discuss before you revert my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarod997 (talk • contribs)

Philippsbourg

Chinese designs I was previously unaware of the PTL02, but the Chinese do produce a tracked vehicle which my sources call the Type 86 or Type 1986, which has a 120mm gun that is a (licensed? probably not) copy of the Rheinmetall 120mm/L44 smoothbore mounted in a semi-fixed forward orientation with very limited traverse and elevation. My sources differ on whether it is produced for export; logically I would expect such a vehicle for domestic military use to use the Chinese version of the Russian 125mm smootbore as used on all their current front-line tanks.

Likewise, it seems to me that it makes little sense to put the antiquated 100mm gun in a vehicle of new design, when even China's second-line armor formations are mostly now armed with vehicles like the Type 79 and Type 80, which are very approximately T69s upgunned with the Chinese version of the NATO 105mm gun. Putting an obsolete tank gun in a turret on a cheap wheeled APC chassis seems like the sort of thing the Chinese would manufacture for export, but the contributor who mentions them says they seem to be intended for use by front-line light motorized formations. Are we sure about this?

Does anyone have any information about 1, whether the Type 86 and PTL02 are intended for export, 2, whether the Chinese are manufacturing a version of the Type 86 with a 125mm gun, and 3, whether the PTL02 has a 100mm or a 105mm gun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarod997 (talk • contribs)

The future?

any new models come out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.142.49.135 (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German designs

The Sturmgeschütz III was the most successful german TD, but it is not even mentioned. Why? Markus Becker02 12:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you haven't rectified the problem yet. Be bold! —Michael Z. 2006-09-03 01:09 Z

Done! But better ask fist, before some "uncontroversial" information starts an edit war. Markus Becker02 17:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NBC

How the world loves an acronym, however, in this case might i suggest giving the full meaning as an aside. I realize there is a link given but i would assume the term is seldom known by lay folk and so i think it would just be common courtesy as well as cutting down on Wiki server traffic.

Normally i would be more than happy to do this myself as it is after all such a minor edit, but alas i am here on my mobile phone and for some reason i can't access my log in. Could someone be so kind?

Outofthewoods

58.145.148.3 (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got that for you. 75.85.65.87 (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

difference tank vs tank destroyer

The introduction says

Tanks are generally armoured fighting vehicles designed for front-line combat which combines operational mobility and tactical offensive and defensive capabilities and perform all primary tasks of the armoured troops on the battlefield; the tank destroyer on the other hand is specifically designed mainly for taking on enemy armour.

But what does that mean? Specifically, what differences - in practice - separate a tank from a tank destroyer? What do you look for on, say, a 1943 armoured vehicle to say with confidence whether it is a tank or a tank destroyer? CapnZapp (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO Tank Destroyers employed heavier guns than what a tank would normally carry. As such compromises had to be taken to balance the increase weight and room (volume) of the larger gun. This could mean less armour, decreased speed, no turret (reduction in operational horizontal firing arc) and even an open top. They would have been deployed either in more fortified positions (less open), and farther back in the field. As I'm no historian, this is only what I've come up with from playing World of Tanks. Yes, I know, it's not proper history. But, Wargaming.net bases a lot of their content on historical documents, and from time to time their historians post articles on various aspects of tanks (all based in reality). So, take my info with a grain of salt, but I believe I'm on the right path. Jarod (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missing info

At the end of section "1.4 United States", the sentence ends abruptly with missing content. "A prototype Super-Heavy Tank Destroyer was..." The next line is "1.5 British". Does anyone know of or have access to what the rest should have been? Jarod (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the line from the article (via Undo), which was the only content added in one particular edit. Jarod (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References for the romanian section

I don't yet know how to add the references in the article's format; I don't want to ruin it, so I am seeking help: Could someone please add these references (they're the same as in the articles for the tank destroyers themselves):

Axworthy, Mark; Scafes, Cornel; Craciunoiu, Cristian (1995). Third Axis, Fourth Ally: Romanian Armed Forces in the European War, 1941-1945. London: Arms and Armour. ISBN 1-85409-267-7. Kliment, Charles K.; Francev, Vladimír (1997). Czechoslovak Armored Fighting Vehicles. Atglen, PA: Schiffer. ISBN 0-7643-0141-1.

WikiCorb (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)WikiCorb[reply]

Done. Khruner (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne use?

This phrase is ambiguous and confusing:

But there are still dedicated anti-tank vehicles with very heavy long-range missiles, and ones intended for airborne use.

In the above, "ones" refers to "anti-tank vehicles" (or perhaps "dedicated anti-tank vehicles"; same problem either way).

Does "intended for airborne use" mean that the vehicle is air-deliverable, by airplane or helicopter or both? If so, the article should say so explicitly, to clarify this airborne use.

If it doesn't mean air-deliverable, then I don't know what it means.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hard lessons early in the war?

In the subsection "World War II" it says that, "After hard lessons early in the war, machine guns were mounted for use against infantry, but the limited traverse of the mounting meant that they were still less effective than those used on turreted tanks." However, later tank destroyers like the SU variants didn't have machine guns. Also, some TDs, like the M10, had machine guns that were mounted on top of the tank that could be moved independently of the turret. The Ferdinand only received machine guns after Kursk, which I don't think anybody would really consider early war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PotatoMashed (talk • contribs) 15:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this, "the limited traverse of the mounting meant that they were still less effective than those used on turreted tanks" might not make that much sense either. With slow turret traverse speeds, the hull machine guns in German and American tanks (possibly other nations' tanks too) were the ones that were used the most. Also also, the more advanced infantry held anti tank weapons weren't even in widespread use (or in most cases they hadn't been invented yet) so what would those "hard lessons" have been? Hard lessons learned by which side? There's so much that's unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PotatoMashed (talk • contribs) 14:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Towed tank destroyers

The term "tank destroyer" was ~~the~~ a 1940s American Army term for an anti-tank gun, whether towed or self-propelled. Because most U.S. Army tank destroyers were self-propelled, the term has come to be incorrectly known as applying only to self-propelled anti-tank guns.

Denny, Bryan E. (2003), The Evolution and Demise of U.S. Tank Destroyer Doctrine in the Second World War (PDF), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
Yeide, Harry (2005). The Tank Killers, A History of America's World War II Tank Destroyer Force. Spellmount. ISBN 978-1932033267.
FM 18-21 Tank Destroyer Towed Gun Platoon, U.S. War Department, 1 April 1944
Gabel, Christopher R. (September 1985), Seek, Strike, and Destroy: U.S. Armt Tank Destroyer Doctrine in World War II (PDF), Combat Studies Institute, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
FM 18-5 Tank Destroyer Field Manual, Organization and Tactics of Tank Destroyer Units, U.S. War Department, 1942
FM 18-5 Tactical Employment Tank Destroyer Unit, U.S. War Department, 18 July 1944
Dunham, Lt. Col. Emory A. (1946). The Tank Destroyer History - Study No. 29 (Report). Historical Section, Army Ground Forces. pages 1-52. pages 53-130

-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Toddy1, interesting. I did not know that. Do the sources you listed directly make that claim? What page numbers? Schierbecker (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schierbecker, the various books and documents mention "towed tank destroyers". I have added another document to the list above.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]