Sturmgeshutz or turretless- MGCs, TDs, whatever you call them, were not only cheaper to produce, but you could also mount a much bigger weapon because of the spaced saved by removing the turret, and/or not having to redesign the ring gear etc. Not only this, but the weight saved by removing the turret allows for added armour, as in the Soviet SU100.

The removing of the turret and mounting of a heavy AT gun is self evident in the PzKpfw 38(t) spin offs (Marder series and Hetzer) and even in the RSO with PAK 40. The PzKpfw 38(t) would most probably never been able to handle the 75 and 76.2mm guns otherwise.

The Yugoslavian Partisan’s Pak 40 mounted on an M3A3 also demonstrates this.




Too true Paul, many TDs were lost playing tank!


The following is from memory so bear with me.

At first the TDs were nothing more than ‘mobile’ AT weapons, mounted on a self-powered chassis, instead of towed chassis, this all changed with the introduction of the M18. IIRC this was also reflected in the US AT Doctrine of the day. The first TD to see action with the US forces was the 75MM GMC M3 Halftrack.

The TDs (including the M10) were supposed to be used in the ambush or ‘hit and run’ roles. This is where the theories of why no roof or electric traverse motors come in, for silence, vision and listening. Although many of these theories do seem to carry water, I really don’t know the answer to the questions. But, the thought of leaving off an electric traverse motor, weighing a few kilograms, to lighten a tank is not realistic.


I have always wondered why the allies, when they were converting Priests to Kangaroos, were not upgunning them with captured PAK 40/41s and using them in the AT role.

I have always wondered why the allies, when they were converting Priests to Kangaroos, were not upgunning them with captured PAK 40/41s and using them in the AT role.

Now that is an interesting point however no doubt tempered by the fact that you don't put a weapon into your inventory unless you can guarantee the logistic chain (Ammunition/Spare parts) An interesting 'What-if' nonetheless...Jim

I don't know about the recoilless but I understood the opposite for the bazooka. From what I've read the Americans were playing with rockets and realized their anti-tank grenade could fit on the end of one. This became the first bazooka. These were given to the Russians, who let them be captured by the Germans. The Germans took the basic design and came out with a better one, larger round, greater range, etc. I never can remember the German name, Panzerschrek (sp) or Panzer Faust. I know one is the bazooka like thing, the other more like a modern RPG.

Panzerschreck (tank terror) is the bazooka like thing. Panzerfaust the disposable one shot weapon.
When comparing American & German tank destroyers, you need to remember there wasn't always a plan behind German designs, many of them (Marder series) were panic reactions to superior enemy equipments. Elsewhere in this thread someone mentions the Germans used turretless TDs due to speed of manufacture & ability to mount heavier gun/armour/both, which is true. It is also true that being on the defensive, a turret was less important than a low silhouette & more armour.
After Kasserine Pass, the American half track mounted anti-tank guns were less popular. Since the Germans weren't using many SP guns, it was wrongly assumed that there was a tactical reason for this (ease of hiding etc), whereas in fact they were just short of SP guns! Given the choice, the Germans would have had all AT guns on SP chassis.
However the Americans were quick to realise their mistake, hence the purpose built M10, M36 etc. Originally German doctrine also discouraged tank on tank combat. The intention was to use battle tanks to lure enemy tanks onto a screen of dug in AT guns in a killing ground. Bearing this in mind, a turreted gun allowing for quick changes of target is obviously an advantage. So yes, the American TDs got it right!

Personally, I couldn't think of anything more frightening had I been a Sherman commander than to run into one of those Hunting Panthers. It packed the same gun as the Tiger 2 had that thick sloped front armor, and it was lighter in weight than the King Tiger and could neutral steer fairly rapidly (turn the entire tank on a dime). Something wicked this way passes !!!!

This is an interesting thread to read and follow. You all have me digging into my Tank Destroyer model kits, looking fondly, dreaming of another Tank Destroyer campaign...

Gunnie

Me too Jim. Although I don't think we ever actually officially got the TD campaign going.

I started working on my M3 75mm GMC again. I intend to finish her this round.

GASP! Can it be?!? No - it can't! There has GOT TO BE a Tank Destroyer Campaign! :-)

Seriously - we've gotta do this! I wonder if the interest is still there. The 'Crunchin Kitty' would look great on a Ribbon or Medal if we turned it into an Operation-level activity.

Okay - calming back down now...

Gunnie

No need to calm down.
Lets see if we can get the needed interest to get one off the ground.
Ever optimistic.

That does it! Now you all got this salty dog excited about a TD campaign. I just happen to have a Achilles sitting in my stash looking me right in the eye!

I'm game!

Garry

Well, since the 'Tank Terror' campaign has just finished, I could happily start another TD!

Not quite..the M4A3E8 Sherman was roughly the equal of the T-34/85, with it having the advange of better trained American Crews. You might confusing it with the M24' Chaffee's that where thrown into combat at the start of the war.

IIRC one of the developments of the Panzerfaust, called the panzerfaust 150 at the end of the war became the basis of the RPG-2, which in turn begat the RPG-7 we see everyday.

I'm glad to hear the 57mm had something going for it. My dad was assigned to a 57mm with the Big Red One at the time of the Battle of the Bulge. He was a truck driver and they were about to make him a infantry man but he volunteered for the ATG so he'd keep driving. His was in the AT platoon, HQ Company, 1st of the 26th. A guy on a 57mm in the 2nd of the 26th got a Medal of Honor in the B.O.B.

Dad said they never once fired their gun. Any infantry around them would threaten to shoot them if they ever did. The infantry figured that if they sent over a 57mm the Germans would send back an 88, or worse.

just to clear up a few points gents,

the sabot round was a completely british invention, earlier german tungsten cored rounds worked on a totally different principle and were not copied.

the 6-pounder was issued with APDS rounds prior to D-day which effectively doubled the guns penetrative performance. with APDS it was roughly equivalent to the pak 40 at anything but extreme ranges.

the rounds were offered to the US authorities but this was declined for whatever reason. as has been mentioned once the performance of the rounds became known US gunners tried their hardest to obtain as many as they could. i am not aware of official issues to US troops but this may have happened late in the war.

The bazooka was a US invention, with the panzerschrek being a german copy of the US design.

as for recoilless guns, they had been around prior to WW2 in primitive forms so again not a german invention.

interesting thread

regards

joe

So sorry for the delay Tom! I've been flat on my back sick for a good week now. Still feel like crap, but at least I can look at the computer screen without getting sick to the stomach today...

Nowadays, I skeptically don't think any TD kit is reasonably priced, unfortunately. Though the shape of the Turret isn't quite right, Academy's M36 is a good bang for the asking price. I'd be inclined to recommend AFV Club's M18 next in line, and then AFV Club's M10. Other modelers' opinions vary naturally.

Sorry to take the thread again...

Gunnie

I might have missed it, but as far as I know the main reason was that you could mount a bigger gun onto an existing chassis, as now the chassis would directly absorb the recoil instead of indirectly through the turret. Add to that the space considerations, as the bigger guns would simply not fit in the turret. Remember it took the Germans two years to design a vehicle that was able to mount the 88mm /L71 in a turret. If you look at it, you see that the German TD's have a gun used in the turret of a tank one or two classes heavier:

Marder II, Marder I, Marder III: Open topped. Used the Pak 40 (an 75mm L/46) on a Pz II (or equivalent) chassis. Gun was slightly smaller then the one used in the upgunned Pz IV (a 75mm L/48). even this stretched the chassis to the limits.

Stug III: Mounted the 75 mm StuK 40/L 48 (similar to upgunned Pz. IV).

Jagpanzer IV/70: Used the 75mm Pak 42 L/70. Notice the Panther used the 75 KwK 42 L/70, essentially the same gun. The vehicle was seriously overloaded (ehence the steel wheels).

Hornisse/Nashorn: 88mm Pak 43 L/71. Later to be mounted in the Tiger II. Chassis seriously overloaded.

Jagdpanther: 88mm Pak 43 L/7. Later to be mounted in the Tigger II

Ferdinand/Elefant: see Jagdpanther.

Jagdtiger: 12.8 cm PaK 44 L/55. Gun to be mounted in the Maus.