I do apologize for any confusion caused by my previous, somewhat ill-thought out post (I typed it in about two minutes on lunch break)
Manstein - The British do not have TD's. They have self propelled AT guns (Archer and Achilles) which are operated by the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers. The only 'heavy' tank in the Royal Armored Corps is the Sherman Firefly. It's usually classified as its British designation of heavy or cruiser support...but it is still a Tank Destroyer, since it uses the unmodified 17pdr with poor HE capability (the later Comet, a Cromwell with the 17pdr, had an improved version that fired a good HE shell)
Brews - I was thinking specifically WWII. The T-62 has a cupola MG though.
Now, I'm going to suggest something, but don't anyone take offense - I don't mean it that way. Even if tigerman doesn't do anything with it, I won't be offended or anything.
This is devolving into arguing over whose' list of favorite vehicles we model for this GB. This is "The Hunters GB" not "tigerman's favorite TD's GB", and also not "hermesminiatures favorite TD's GB". It reminds me of a "discussion" some friends and I had over what was a real hunter - bows or guns, squirrel or elk, whether it was "real" hunting if you used a treestand or did you have to stalk your game, etc. The fact was, that even if we didn't use the other guy's favorite weapon or technique or hunt his kind of game, we were all still hunters (in case any of you are wondering I was on the squirrel hunting end)![Wink [;)]](/emoticons/icon_smile_wink.gif)
We're supposed to be having fun here, and it's not sounding that way for some people. Thankfully, we aren't shouting, but there are obviously some disagreements. Here's my main question: can we err on the side of deference? Like SdKfz 251/22's and Sherman Fireflies? The fact of the matter is that if we're going to start disallowing some questionables, to be fair to everyone (I don't have myself in mind here) we'll have to stick to the Jagdpanzers, M-series US TD's, and the SU-85 and 100. I personally dislike StuG III's - and I don't think that they are tank hunters - but there is a fairly good case for them being a "hunter" in the context of this GB. So they are fine with me, and I'm glad to see people enjoy building them. Likewise many people may think of the Firefly as just another Sherman, but to people like me who build more British armor than anything else, it's obviously a "hunter". If someone has read a story of the SU-122 in the "hunter" role that inspires them to build, well, then that's okay by me too.
In this light, I think the definition we're looking for is this: A vehicle that qualifies as a "hunter" is one whose main combat role is destroying enemy tanks, not being a jack-of-all trades like a main battle tank.
Just my thoughts