 tigerman wrote: |
| dupes wrote: | | Huh. I was trying to simplify the classification of a "tank destroyer" thinking maybe it could be defined as 'tracked w/out a turret' but that isn't correct...thinking about the Firefly and Hellcat. Is there an "official" criteria, or is it just how the employing force designated it? The more I think about it, why is a Firefly a TD at all? What makes it different from a "standard" tank? Is it just it's purpose? |
|
Good points. In the German and Russian cases, they were arty in a casemate or behind a shield, in other words, turretless. The US had lightly-armored open-turreted vehicles like the M-10, M-18, and M-36. They were designed purposely as such. They were thinly armored and designed to hit-and-run, unlike a true MBT. I don't think the Firefly is a good candidate, because it's basically an up-gunned Sherman. Yes, it's duty was to deal with the "big-cats", but unless someone can convince me otherwise, I'd say it probably shouldn't be included. Let the arguments begin. |
|
I'm not arguing either way (but I am interested to know what the ruling is ![Wink [;)]](/emoticons/icon_smile_wink.gif)
) - here's what I found on Wikipedia concerning the subject of Brit TD's. Take what you will from it.
United Kingdom
On the whole, the British army did not subscribe to the Tank Destroyer concept, preferring instead to design tanks armed with bigger guns. Although flawed in many other respects, contemporary British armour doctrine recognized the inevitability of tank versus tank combat and the Army strove to arm their tanks with the most powerful anti-tank gun available at the time.
Anti-tank guns were the domain of the Royal Artillery rather than the Royal Armoured Corps and anti-tank gunned vehicles particularly anti-tank self-propelled guns such as the Deacon and Archer were their preserve.
The self-propelled guns that were built in the "Tank Destroyer" mould came about through the desire to field the formidable QF 17 pounder anti-tank gun and simultaneous lack of suitable tanks to carry it. As a result they were of a somewhat extemporized nature. Mounting the gun on the Valentine tank chassis gave the Marder-like Archer. The 17 pounder was also used to equip the US supplied M10 Wolverine to produce the Achilles. Another attempt to produce a specialist anti-tank vehicle was to fit the 17 pounder to the Cromwell chassis to give Tank, Cruiser, Challenger (A30) and its near open-topped variant Avenger. The latter delayed until post war before entering service.
The closest the British came to developing an armoured Tank Destroyer in the vein of the German Jagdpanzers or Russian ISU series was the Churchill 3 inch Gun Carrier - a Churchill tank chassis with a boxy superstructure in place of the turret. The design was rejected in favor of developing a 17 pounder armed Cromwell tank variant ultimately leading to the Comet tank
By 1944, a number of the "basic" Shermans in British use were being converted to Sherman Fireflies by adding the potent QF 17 pounder gun — giving each platoon of Shermans a dedicated anti-tank tank.
And also the Wiki-definition of a TD:
A self-propelled anti-tank gun, or tank destroyer, is a type of armoured fighting vehicle. Tank destroyers are used primarily to provide anti-tank support in combat operations but do not fit all the criteria of a tank. They may mount a high-velocity anti-tank gun but have an open turret, no turret at all or run on wheels instead of tracks.
Wheels introduces an even different aspect - think a 251/22 which mounts a 75mm Pak. Technically a TD. Sooooooo, is allowing any TD (by definition) what you're after? Or does the field need to be narrowed down to a more well-defined "Hunter" list?