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

Well it's quirky enough and seems to fit the hit-and-run/ambush theory. Sure.

Based on that, then the Ontos would probably also qualify.

Actually it has quantity 3... 8.8cm Raketenpanzerbuschse 43 or 54 rocket launchers (Bazookas)mounted on the engine compartment. It also carried a number of Panzerfaust (not mounted) model 30 or 60 for use by the crew.

Joe, does that have a mounted gun? It looks more like a panzerschrek loaded in there with some troops. I'm not familiar with the vehicle.

9 Toe Tanker wrote:

If your only going to accept "Panzer Jager vehicles" (Tank Hunter vehicles) by definition...to be acceptable subjects for the GB.... ...then you would have to include this one also....Panzer Jager Bren 731 (e)  [:D

 

Well, after consultation off the boards with someone whom I respect, I'm going to allow the 251s and 234s with the 75 pak 40. I'm not going to allow the Firefly. That is a tough one for sure and is open to more debate also.

Hermes, I respect all the effort you put into your conclusions, and I agree with most of them, but others had valid arguments too. I guess we need a common ground.

 

wayne baker wrote:

I didn't realize I was contemplating joining a group build when I started my RoG 1/72 Stug 40 Ausf G.  It does fit, doesn't it?

StuG III G w/75mm, correct? If so, yes. Only the short-barreled A-D are not valid. Just F/Gs.

If you just started than I'll allow it, but please wait until Feb.1 to continue.

CRAP!----7 pages and has not even started!---AWSOME---------tread

I didn't realize I was contemplating joining a group build when I started my RoG 1/72 Stug 40 Ausf G.  It does fit, doesn't it?

How about this for a rule as to what can be included in the build:

Send Tigerman a note asking permission. If he says 'yes', then you are in.  If he says 'no', then you have to try again.

 

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.

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

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".

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.

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!

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:

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."

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.

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

 

Can I get in on this with that kit?

 

 

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.

"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...

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!!

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.

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.

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?

 

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?

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...

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.

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!!

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....

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?