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

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

Maybe a Shermans & StuGs GB? Whoa...

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)

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.

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...

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?

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 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....

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. 

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?

tigerman wrote:

dupes wrote: I think we also need to consider that while lots of vehicles had the capabilities to destroy tanks, that is NOT what they were made for. Not many 251/22's or 234/4's were sent out on "hunting" missions to knock out Shermans, as far as I know. Just my , of course. I think that sums it up best. I mean this will be become so broad if we don't define it. I have some reservations about the Firefly too. It fits the definition of an MBT better than TD. This would be a good settlement for Roy Chow help define.

Well sir, I eagerly await your ruling on the Firefly.

Rooted around in the stash last night to see what I had available (I love this part of GB's!), came up with quite a few. Heh.

USSR - Zvezda ISU-152
GB - DML Firefly Vc, AFV Achilles
US - Academy M10 Duckbill, AFV M-18 Hellcat
Germany - Tamiya StuGIIIG, Marder III, Marder IIIM, Hetzer. DML Marder II, Jagdpanzer IV A-0, JagdTiger.

Will probably hold off on deciding, see what everyone else goes with and try to fill in some gaps if I can...although I'm about 100% on that Zvezda ISU-152.

MarkDunck wrote:

If we are allowing a Firefly (a tank with a opened top traversable turret? Then why not these?)

Mark, I have to agree with the majority on this one, in that we're not specifically looking for tanks with opened top turrets. Also, this description doesn't fit the Firefly, as the Firefly was a Sherman conversion with a Brit AT gun, but it wasn't open on top.

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.

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

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...............

I hear you my friend.......I hear and feel your pain.

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...............

tigerman wrote:

Carves wrote:  STUG61 wrote: Eric I'll be doing the AFV club Achilles Mk.II.c. I'll save all the Stugs in the stash for later!! Hey I have a StuG in my stash too. Maybe we can wait until StuG GB come around. --- Ben   It's was done about 3 years ago. I lost the badge. I'd certainly go for another round. I have the Dragon G late with all my goods........waiting.

I'll be waiting too......I only have about ten of them hanging around here!!!

T-rex wrote:

A new groupe build, hum, i'll think ill join ar at least try to get in, Tamiya has release a new Hetzert that i want to build, can I join?

Yes you may. Glad to have a Hetzer too!

"Jagd" translates to hunt in German if this helps to clarify some confusion.

I agree with Dupes,  Tigerman starts it and can define hunter any way he wishes.  WOuld love to join.  But have to finish up a  Merkava IIID and build up a Mark IV for the western desert GB too.  But IF and I say IF I can finish the mark IV in a decent time.  I would like to build a M10 for this GB.

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) 

dupes wrote:

I think we also need to consider that while lots of vehicles had the capabilities to destroy tanks, that is NOT what they were made for. Not many 251/22's or 234/4's were sent out on "hunting" missions to knock out Shermans, as far as I know. Just my , of course.

I think that sums it up best. I mean this will be become so broad if we don't define it. I have some reservations about the Firefly too. It fits the definition of an MBT better than TD. This would be a good settlement for Roy Chow help define.

Specter and Luftwoller, got you guys down.

I think part of the problem here is everyone is trying to come up with tank destroyers...which includes LOTS of vehicles, depending on how broad ones definition of TD is.

The fact is that this group build is titled "Hunters" not "Tank Destroyers", and as such is truly only subject to the vehicles that Tigerman wishes to include.

I think we also need to consider that while lots of vehicles had the capabilities to destroy tanks, that is NOT what they were made for. Not many 251/22's or 234/4's were sent out on "hunting" missions to knock out Shermans, as far as I know.

Just my , of course.

I realise that I'm at severe risk of flogging a dead horse, but I quote:

"In May 1943, the new BP-460A HEAT round was accepted. That ammunition allowed the SU-122 to deal with enemy AFV's at long distances successfully."

Not to be argumentive, so don't take this the wrong way. I don't think that the Sd.Kfz. 251/22 should be ruled out. As the PaK 40 remained the most prolific anti tank weapon that the Germans used. More were produced than practically any other PaK.  So any anti tank weapons mounted on a self propelled chasis should not be ruled out. This is the same PaK that the Marder used. If we are allowing a Firefly (a tank with a opened top traversable turret? Then why not these?) While I do not build Allied armor (O.K. maybee 1 or 5   ) I am not saying that the Firefly shouled be ruled out esp. due to the lack of  Allied subjects. I am not sugesting any German PaK lower than a 7.5cm KwK L/40 be allowed either, or any German traversible turrets.  How ever a Sd.Kfz. 234/4 should also be added to the list. The Encoclopedia of German Tanks lists these as anti tank vehicles. I also feel that the 251/22 should be put back on the list as it was also intended to help fill the anti tank role. I am looking forwards to any thoughts any one has on this matter.

Best Regards,

              Mark

archangel571 wrote:

dupes wrote:  jthurston wrote: OK, here's the hunters in my stash: DML Marder II, StuG III G, Nashorn, Jagdpanther (early) (x2 for some reason); Tamiya 110 M8. So I'll build one of the jagdpanthers, prolly either OOB or with only minor AM (maybe a barrel, etc). Thurston - I'm sure I could help you lighten your stash-load of that "extra" JP if necessary... Watch out for that pair of sink mark infested treads though, providing it's the older Imperial series kit (9015 i believe).  My plan to have a lil more TLC for an old kit like this went out the window the minute I saw those tracklinks.

Yup. It's kit #9012. And it is bad with the stink marks (ejector marks, actually, IIRC). I mean, um, sink marks. I'm not sure right now, but I might have some AM Panther tracks laying around, waiting to wrap around them roadwheels.

If not, well there's another $40.

Brews wrote:

I reiterate that the SU-122 should qualify: http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=45&lang=en

Awesome story there. 

But the main design and purpose for the SU-122 was still an assault support vehicle and self-propelled artillery.  A large calibre shell with close enough distance can definitely cause damage to any heavy armor, but like the report had mentioned, most ended up as dents.  It was like smashing your 1/35 tank with a large hammer (yes i had done it in real life with older 1/48 bandai kits... everyone has their regrets...), so the only thing that broke apart are the joints since their were the weakest pieces.  I am pretty sure a barrage of direct fire from an M109 can flatten even the Abrams.  (heavyarty if you are interested enough to read this topic, correct me on it).  Most TDs have high velocity guns that aim to penetrate the thick armor instead for a one shot kill since their own weak protection doesn't allow any return fire.  In that aspect, the SU-122 just isn't a TD.