"The Hunters GB" (2/1/08 to 6/1/08)

Carves wrote:

Jester75 wrote: Oh man, a StuG group build just sounds soooooooo delicious!!! No no no, must not think of another group build, must complete current one and past due one...............but, its a StuG, oh the sweetness...............no, stop that , must stop thinking StuG............... Steady man, and get some medical attention You know. I just dont get it. How come a StuG, which it's original role was as an infrantry support can suddently become a hunter or even TD. Was it because of the 7.5 cm and 10.5 cm gun ? --- Ben

Yes, the high velocity 75mm. Essentially, the Jagdpanzer IV was it's successor, after years of combat experience and the designed sloped armor was the most notible improvement.

I really don't feel the Firefly is a contender here. Any other thoughts to the subject?

I always considered the Firefly to be simply an uparmed Sherman tank whereas the Achilles, armed with the same 17 pounder main gun was an uparmed M10 tank destroyer. The distinction is pretty easy to see.

Regarding the Stug. I read the Germans produced more Stug's than any other German AFV during WW2, some 11,000+

Must have been a lot of faith in a vehicle that started out as an infrantry support tank. 

The Firefly might technically be an upgunned Sherman, but it's also without its MG and HE ammo meaning it can't be used as an infantry support tank. If you know anything about it (I don't mean that sarcastically) you would find that it was designed and used exclusively as a tank hunter, and treated completely differently in British armor tactics than the standard gun tanks.

It was used as a tank destroyer far more than the StuG III ar IV, which both filled the infantry support role quite often.Admittedly, something like the Panzer IV H wouldn't qualify, because it is more of a main battle tank, or the British Comet, because it too is more of a heavy tank. But if you disqualify the Firefly, to be fair you'll have to disqualify the StuG's, ISU-152, and the Mk VIII Challenger.

The StuG III F and G are just as much upgunned D's as the Firefly is an upgunned M4A4. At least the StuGs still carry half HE ammo and an MG, which is more than the Firefly does.

I wouldn't be making such a stink about any old vehicle, except that the Firefly is the epitome of "tank hunter", at least for the allies. Stuff like the Tiger, obviously not - just because it has a big gun doesn't make it a tank hunter. But I really don't see how the Firefly can be regarded as anything else...it's quite obviously not a main battle tank.

 

I'm starting to get the idea that fixed casemate = tank destroyer, traversing turret ≠ tank destroyer....

tigerman wrote:

Yes, the high velocity 75mm. Essentially, the Jagdpanzer IV was it's successor, after years of combat experience and the designed sloped armor was the most notible improvement. I really don't feel the Firefly is a contender here. Any other thoughts to the subject?

Thanks Eric.

I have to agree with madmike here about Firefly. It is simply an upgunned Sherman. And I have never heard it is categorized as an TD. If Firefly can be considered as a TD, well, lets just include every tank that can kill another tank.

But that is just my

---
Ben

The M4A3(76) is an upgunned Sherman. The Firefly is a born and bred tank killer.

The reason you may not have heard the Firefly classified as a TD is because the British didn't have TD's in their armor formations. True self propelled AT guns, like the Archer, were the business of the Royal Artillery. The Firefly is by British designation their only heavy tank, designed to support the Medium (Sherman) and Cruiser (Cromwell) Tanks.

The Americans are the only WWII army to use the Infantry Tank/TD doctrine.

 

Not that I'm planning to build a Firefly, I just don't like seeing one of my three favorite vehicles being so misunderstood

And as far as "hunters" goes - when the British ran up against a German heavy, guess which vehicle got sent out hunting?

Which really is what we're trying to qualify. That really was the intended "purpose" of developing the Firefly.

Not that I'd build one either...well, maybe I would. If there were an equally swanky British badge to go along with the others...

Hermesminiatures wrote:

The M4A3(76) is an upgunned Sherman. The Firefly is a born and bred tank killer. The reason you may not have heard the Firefly classified as a TD is because the British didn't have TD's in their armor formations. True self propelled AT guns, like the Archer, were the business of the Royal Artillery. The Firefly is by British designation their only heavy tank, designed to support the Medium (Sherman) and Cruiser (Cromwell) Tanks. The Americans are the only WWII army to use the Infantry Tank/TD doctrine.   Not that I'm planning to build a Firefly, I just don't like seeing one of my three favorite vehicles being so misunderstood And as far as "hunters" goes - when the British ran up against a German heavy, guess which vehicle got sent out hunting?

Grumble.....grumble......... hermes, you make some strong cases for allowing the Firefly. This is one aspect of GB's that I love: research and learning. In view of your latest information about the HE shells and lack of MG, this would seem to support it's role as a tank-killer exclusively. Therefore, we will allow it. I apologize for waffling, but that is why I requested any and all evidence.

Jester75 wrote:

Jester75 wrote: Oh man, a StuG group build just sounds soooooooo delicious!!! No no no, must not think of another group build, must complete current one and past due one...............but, its a StuG, oh the sweetness...............no, stop that , must stop thinking StuG............... We apologize for the above outburst. Those responsible for the outburst have been sacked. We now continue with the regularly scheduled group build. No llamas were harmed in the above said sacking.

Again, we apologize. Those responsible for sacking those responsible for the original outburst, have also been sacked.

Or something like that (it's been a long time)

Incindentally, I'm saving my Firefly for the next Sherman (& variants) GB, assuming that one will eventually happen.

Maybe a Shermans & StuGs GB? Whoa...

Hermesminiatures wrote:

Not that I'm planning to build a Firefly, I just don't like seeing one of my three favorite vehicles being so misunderstood

So Hermes...what are the other two?

Just a simple question to those who know much more than I do: does the Israeli Super Sherman count as a tank destroyer/hunter?  They are quite similar to the Firefly, upgraded Shermans, are they not?

As you can tell, my knowlege of such things is quite limited....

WOW...A GB with over 100 replies and the group build has not even started yet nor is there agreement on what qualifies. Interesting deep discussion. Hope FSM does not need a bigger server to house this thread. lol

Rounds Complete!!

Well, I was going to suggest my SdKfz 10 w/PaK 38; but, after reading all the posts I'll submit a different  entry for this GB. The M-18 Hellcat, if it pleases everyone and Eric will alloy me to join. I am a slow builder so this may not get done in time. At least it will give me some incentive to get started.

Glamdring wrote:

Just a simple question to those who know much more than I do: does the Israeli Super Sherman count as a tank destroyer/hunter?  They are quite similar to the Firefly, upgraded Shermans, are they not? As you can tell, my knowlege of such things is quite limited....

In my opinion neither a Firefly nor a Super Sherm is a true Tank Destroyer/Hunter...

Mansteins revenge wrote:

Glamdring wrote: Just a simple question to those who know much more than I do: does the Israeli Super Sherman count as a tank destroyer/hunter?  They are quite similar to the Firefly, upgraded Shermans, are they not? As you can tell, my knowlege of such things is quite limited.... In my opinion neither a Firefly nor a Super Sherm is a true Tank Destroyer/Hunter...

Hahaha, the controversy may not go away on this one. I still tend to agree though. Waffling again. 

NucMedTech, glad to have you. Which one: Academy or AFV?

tigerman wrote:

Mansteins revenge wrote:  Glamdring wrote: Just a simple question to those who know much more than I do: does the Israeli Super Sherman count as a tank destroyer/hunter?  They are quite similar to the Firefly, upgraded Shermans, are they not? As you can tell, my knowlege of such things is quite limited.... In my opinion neither a Firefly nor a Super Sherm is a true Tank Destroyer/Hunter... Hahaha, the controversy may not go away on this one. I still tend to agree though. Waffling again.

Somebody mentioned wikipedia before on TD definition.  Can we just use that as a guideline here?  (Even though some of you would just go on there n start editing things... )  In the British section, the firefly was specifically brought up as well.  Maybe we ought to use the rest of the time to find that book the page had referenced.  Oh wait, that only covers US TDs.  Can anyone email any researchers like steve zaloga or somebody like that?

 

OK...let's see if I can't solve this once and for all...

A Main Battle Tank is designed to be able to suport infantry, engage other tanks, and assault fixed positions, all with some measure of success. Main Battle Tanks require a good balance of speed, armor, and firepower. MBT's can take plenty of punishment and keep fighting.

A Main Battle Tank carries at least one seperately-mounted MG (not a coax) for defense against infantry and an even mix of HE, HEAT, and capped AT rounds to deal with anything it may face on the battlefield. Almost all MBT's have a rotating turret.

 

An Assault gun is designed to do essentially the same things as a main battle tank, but since they are not so heavily armored and are usually quicker, they can excel as tank destroyers, at least when they have a powerful cannon. Most assault guns have an MG mounted in the front of the hull. They rarely have a closed turret, usually being mounted in a casemate, with a limited traverse. Once again they carry a mix of shells to deal with multiple threat types.

 

A true Tank Destroyer is what we're after in this GB. Tank Destroyers are vehicles that are either designed for tank killing or are highly successful at it. A TD first and foremost must have a very powerful weapon, and secondly must be very quick and mobile. Armor protection is usually an afterthought, since they are intended to support heavier vehicles. The only very heavily-armored TD's are the Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger, and while they were powerful, both (especially the Jagdtiger) were logistical nightmares. Tank destroyers carry a dedicated anti-tank weapon that usually has poor HE capabilities, and 90% or more AT shells. Tank destroyers rarely have MG's and when they do they usually have less than 300 rounds of ammo because of space limitations. They usually employ fire-and-move or ambush tactics when fighting on their own, unless in great force (i.e. the Russians)

 

Given the above, the Firefly is a tank destroyer because it excels only in that role. It has poor anti-infantry capabilites and no MG.

The M50/M51 Super Sherman, on the other hand, is a Main Battle Tank becuase it excels in all roles. Tank Destroyers were invented to support medium tanks before the concept of the do-everything MBT, which is why there are very few TD's seen after WWII.

Hermesminiatures wrote:

A true Tank Destroyer is what we're after in this GB. Tank Destroyers are vehicles that are either designed for tank killing or are highly successful at it. A TD first and foremost must have a very powerful weapon, and secondly must be very quick and mobile. Armor protection is usually an afterthought, since they are intended to support heavier vehicles. The only very heavily-armored TD's are the Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger, and while they were powerful, both (especially the Jagdtiger) were logistical nightmares. Tank destroyers carry a dedicated anti-tank weapon that usually has poor HE capabilities, and 90% or more AT shells. Tank destroyers rarely have MG's and when they do they usually have less than 300 rounds of ammo because of space limitations. They usually employ fire-and-move or ambush tactics when fighting on their own, unless in great force (i.e. the Russians)

Based on the last sentence, then technically the 251's, 234's would seemingly qualify as well. Maybe the TD designation ought to be thrown out.

Hermesminiatures wrote:

OK...let's see if I can't solve this once and for all... A Main Battle Tank is designed to be able to suport infantry, engage other tanks, and assault fixed positions, all with some measure of success. Main Battle Tanks require a good balance of speed, armor, and firepower. MBT's can take plenty of punishment and keep fighting. A Main Battle Tank carries at least one seperately-mounted MG (not a coax) for defense against infantry and an even mix of HE, HEAT, and capped AT rounds to deal with anything it may face on the battlefield. Almost all MBT's have a rotating turret.   An Assault gun is designed to do essentially the same things as a main battle tank, but since they are not so heavily armored and are usually quicker, they can excel as tank destroyers, at least when they have a powerful cannon. Most assault guns have an MG mounted in the front of the hull. They rarely have a closed turret, usually being mounted in a casemate, with a limited traverse. Once again they carry a mix of shells to deal with multiple threat types.   A true Tank Destroyer is what we're after in this GB. Tank Destroyers are vehicles that are either designed for tank killing or are highly successful at it. A TD first and foremost must have a very powerful weapon, and secondly must be very quick and mobile. Armor protection is usually an afterthought, since they are intended to support heavier vehicles. The only very heavily-armored TD's are the Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger, and while they were powerful, both (especially the Jagdtiger) were logistical nightmares. Tank destroyers carry a dedicated anti-tank weapon that usually has poor HE capabilities, and 90% or more AT shells. Tank destroyers rarely have MG's and when they do they usually have less than 300 rounds of ammo because of space limitations. They usually employ fire-and-move or ambush tactics when fighting on their own, unless in great force (i.e. the Russians)   Given the above, the Firefly is a tank destroyer because it excels only in that role. It has poor anti-infantry capabilites and no MG. The M50/M51 Super Sherman, on the other hand, is a Main Battle Tank becuase it excels in all roles. Tank Destroyers were invented to support medium tanks before the concept of the do-everything MBT, which is why there are very few TD's seen after WWII.

OK..I know I am being a pain but based on the above defination, I think the M56 fits your definition. It was designed to destroy a tank, it was fast, very little armor and no MG. Granted, it was a 1950s weapon, did not see combat as a tank killer and was used in VN more in the assualt gun mode but that was not it's original design....Does the M56 qualify?

Tell me why I am wrong???

Rounds Complete!!

"Tank Destroyers are vehicles that are either designed for tank killing or are highly successful at it."

Okay, if that is true then Panthers and Tigers are TD's...

I am not saying a Firefly is definately NOT a TD becqause this is not my specialty. But, I have NEVER seen one referenced as such in any of the publications I own...and I own a lot of refs...If someone could pull a reputable ref (from a well-known armore expert) on AFV's and quote from it that a Firefly is a TD that would carry a lot of weight for me...

Does a StuG III A count? I'd like to get in on this build and it's the only thing I've got in the stash that is close.

I picked up a Tamiya Jagdpanzer IV L/70 Lang in 1/35.

 

Can I get in on this with that kit?

 

 

DerOberst wrote:

I picked up a Tamiya Jagdpanzer IV L/70 Lang in 1/35.   Can I get in on this with that kit?

Yes you may. Good to have you.

Geist, I'm sorry, but the StuG A was an infantry-support vehicle. You need the F/G with the longer 75mm.

Hermesminiatures wrote:

A Main Battle Tank is designed to be able to suport infantry, engage other tanks, and assault fixed positions, all with some measure of success. Main Battle Tanks require a good balance of speed, armor, and firepower. MBT's can take plenty of punishment and keep fighting. A Main Battle Tank carries at least one seperately-mounted MG (not a coax) for defense against infantry and an even mix of HE, HEAT, and capped AT rounds to deal with anything it may face on the battlefield. Almost all MBT's have a rotating turret.

The problem with that definition alone is:

1. The Centurion, T-62 et al would not qualify as an MBT on the basis of "no hull m.g."

Hermesminiatures wrote:

Tank Destroyers are vehicles that are either designed for tank killing or are highly successful at it. A TD first and foremost must have a very powerful weapon, and secondly must be very quick and mobile. Armor protection is usually an afterthought, since they are intended to support heavier vehicles. The only very heavily-armored TD's are the Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger, and while they were powerful, both (especially the Jagdtiger) were logistical nightmares. Tank destroyers carry a dedicated anti-tank weapon that usually has poor HE capabilities, and 90% or more AT shells. Tank destroyers rarely have MG's and when they do they usually have less than 300 rounds of ammo because of space limitations. They usually employ fire-and-move or ambush tactics when fighting on their own, unless in great force (i.e. the Russians)

Ferdinand and Elefant (acknowledged as being included in this build) were neither fast nor lightly-armoured.

 

Hermesminiatures wrote:

The M50/M51 Super Sherman, on the other hand, is a Main Battle Tank becuase it excels in all roles. Tank Destroyers were invented to support medium tanks before the concept of the do-everything MBT, which is why there are very few TD's seen after WWII.

Sounds good to me, like I said I had no clue but I would agree with the assessment that the Super Sherman wouldn't be considered as a TD.  Thank you!

tigerman wrote:

Geist, I'm sorry, but the StuG A was an infantry-support vehicle. You need the F/G with the longer 75mm.

 

Oh well. I'll get something. I'll have to wait until Febuary. There's a model convention coming close to where I live. I've got to save up the cash until then. You guys know how it is. After that expect to see me post back here with whatever I happen to find.

Brews wrote:

Hermesminiatures wrote: Tank Destroyers are vehicles that are either designed for tank killing or are highly successful at it. A TD first and foremost must have a very powerful weapon, and secondly must be very quick and mobile. Armor protection is usually an afterthought, since they are intended to support heavier vehicles. The only very heavily-armored TD's are the Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger, and while they were powerful, both (especially the Jagdtiger) were logistical nightmares. Tank destroyers carry a dedicated anti-tank weapon that usually has poor HE capabilities, and 90% or more AT shells. Tank destroyers rarely have MG's and when they do they usually have less than 300 rounds of ammo because of space limitations. They usually employ fire-and-move or ambush tactics when fighting on their own, unless in great force (i.e. the Russians) Ferdinand and Elefant (acknowledged as being included in this build) were neither fast nor lightly-armoured.

Some good points. This is getting "fuzzy".

This might make some of you upset but a hunter was designed for one prepose and that was to destory other tanks.These hunters where set up for hit and runs(sniping).So of these so called hunters as has been posted were S.P.'S and not hunters,like the Archer or the Elephant,Nashorns ect.....and the list can go on.The m-10 was design to kill other tanks so was the Marders and Stug's f/g and the jagpanzers.The Russians used SU 122 as tank hunters and was also and s.p...The Japaniess had one too with it 75mm mounted on it and was used as and s.p. to.Only Germany had a heavy tank because Hitler wanted it.It was great but the Russian as well as the British and Americans were working on a MBT to cut cost and produce more.The German's were nuts but made some good hunters which was a whole lot better then there heavy tank.Now if you think of a hunter also think of the M-113 which outfitted with Tow is a tank hunter where as the Bradleys use there Tows for defence.Also a jeep with tow for that is there only perpose and the Hummers with Tows.The reason I replyed is because if you included all the ones you have mentioned then this would no longer be a hunter group build but just another tank build.It is true the Tigers and Panthers were good at destorying tanks but they were more of a offensive weapon then a sniper weapon.If you read up on them you will find out that they attacked in packs of two or more were as the hunters were alone and set to snipe.Wittman was cought alone when he was destoryed......Now I will get off myand say that I appolizes to those I might offend,didn't mean to,just wanted ya'll to think about it.Digger

diggeraone wrote:

This might make some of you upset but a hunter was designed for one prepose and that was to destory other tanks.These hunters where set up for hit and runs(sniping).

One thinks immediately of the Hetzer. Small, fast and low with a big sting at the front.