Should We Have Tank Destroyers?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ต.ค. 2024
- Main Battle Tanks and Anti tank guided missiles are the dominant tank destroyers and killers on todays battlefield. The days of thicker armour and bigger guns has come to end when it comes to tank on tank combat. But with todays modern technologies and advancements, is the tank hunter killer "The Tank Destroyer" able to be brought back onto the battlefield?
Let's have a chat about it.
Thumbnail art credited to; www.artstation...
Please go check it out!!
Hope you enjoy!
-------------Please Like, Share and Subscribe!-----------------
Check out my store! : shop.spreadshi...
Come chat with me! Get Discord Free! Here is my server: / discord
Add me on Steam: Matsimus
Facebook: www.facebook.c...
Twitter: @MatsimusGaming
Please help support my Patreon: www.patreon.co...
Matsimus Gaming
Should We Have Tank Destroyers?
Like this video????... Check out the new Challenger 2 upgrades coming to the British Army! th-cam.com/video/tK2y2dt8v38/w-d-xo.html
what you talking about is a mobile folding 16inch(405mm) canon, and at that range your more a sniper than a tank so i don't think you need armor but camouflage and sea-whiz.
Hey what is the name of the music at 0:40
If you want bigger guns, I would advise you to look in the direction of a rather niche sci-fi concept known as a Bolo. No, not the two balls on the end of a rope. This is a bit cooler than that.
After seeing that video you are the guy who would play from the depths
Cough cough the designed Fv 215 cough cough.
"Rough terrain becomes smooth as highway"
*gets airtime*
LMFAO
This comment needs more likes xD
Meme material
Jesus what are you doing here
our roads are still that bad
2:35 "who wouldn't be happy at the shooting end of a powerful 3 incher?"
...my ex
I scrolled all this way hoping for a joke like that.
LMFAO good one this is why I love the comment section
Kansa City Shuffle r/cursed comments
That's awesome. Hail to the mighty 3-inchet!
Ahhahahha
2019 Tank Destroyer = Houthi rebel on motorcycle with RPG
With skirt and slippers :333
A Chally 2 operating in Basra was hit by 72 RPGs - without any penetration.
@@wessexdruid5290 73rd RPGrenade: no
@@YC-07_Cronus Why would you think even another 72 would make a difference?
@@wessexdruid5290 when you feel like the guy who sold you the RPG’s may have exaggerated their abilities.
Fact: Tank-Destroyers are just easily movable Anti-Tank guns
Especially the grille.
Back then you had indervedal guns for different rounds. Now we have guns that can fire all types of rounds.
@@neoconwarhawk1001 "Evolution"
@@ForwardTu lol
Do we even use anti-tank guns anymore? i thought nowadays it's usually just missiles that do the job if not other tanks?
*Starts building tank destroyers*
Matsimus: Should we have tank destroyer destroyers?
Smiles in A-10
You dawg, I hear you like Tank Destroyers.
Those are called artillery.
ATGMs
*makes gun even bigger*
Don't let the sweds hear you calling that Strv-103B a tank destroyer. It may look like a tank destroyer; It may act like a tank destroyer; It does the job of tank destroyer, but to them that is an MBT.
Joshua Owens Well our MBT are really tank destroyers.
Not an MBT...
It was designed as a TD but was used as a MBT (I guess??).
The Centurion Mk 10 (Strv 101-102) was the "real" MBT.
Oh yeah you're right, did some 2 minute "research" and it seems it was made to replace the Centurions and in the very end they ended up with the Strv 103 which was perfect for Swedish terrain and indeed a MBT. My bad.
Yea, sure got triggered. It's a MBT and nothing else.
“The M10 will blow the last swastika off any German panzer”
*King Tiger: “Hold my beer!”*
If it could manage to make it more than halfway to the Operation Area without a mechanical failure.
Bridge: *breaks
*BREAKS DOWN
Tank on tank engagements were fairly rare in WW2, but reports on when it happened basically say that usually whatever tanks starts shooting and landing hits first wins the engagement regardless of penetration ability. An M10 may not have been able to blow holes in a Tiger II, but if it ambushed one it'd win. Don't have to penetrate the armor to kill or disable the crew, the 3 inch gun would be enough to cause spalling. The spall would break off the walls of the crew compartment from the impacts pelting the crew to death.
I think we shut this guy down hard enough already.
Edit: Ok, I get it, the King Tiger wasn't necessarily bad. But it still did break down all the time.
Tank destroyers back in WWII existed because of the limitations of the chassis to mount large guns with a traversable turret. The removal of the turret allowed for a more powerful gun to be mounted but also gave them an even lower profile and harder to hit. The drawback comes in on the offense where new unexpected targets pop up in the horizon forcing. The way the MGS Stryker platform operates is really that of assault gun. The problem with a dedicated tank destroyer is that it wouldn't have any advantage against an MBT other than purely acting in a defensive position. In that case, playing defense is what actually makes it work.
If a military wants a mobile gun system, it is very likely they want it to be extra light say under 20 tons to make it air droppable and ability to swim. The problem with that is that weight requirement will put the guns power lower. It is too niche of a platform to be considered seriously. Assault artillery supporting infantry directly is more needed such as the Russian 2S31 Vena where it can fire 120mm HE oriented shells directly at the enemy position when needed instead of relying on indirect howitzer support for every situation. This is especially true in urban combat where you want to shoot a shell into a building instead of shelling at a building. A modern MBT simply makes tank destroyers not all attractive even if they cost more because of the concept of what a modern tank is, which is mobility, heavy armor plus firepower. A modern MBT isn't just going to stand still and always unsuspectingly approach you in your trap. A tank destroyer relies on traps and terrain/camouflage to make them work because if you are caught without your front armor facing the enemy tank, you know what happens next. In that case, it is probably cheaper just use a towed anti-tank gun.
Basically, a tank destroyer would essentially be an assault gun because it can't dominate open areas like as an MBT can. It would be a support platform. The way the M1 Abrams was used in the first Iraq War is the ideal use of an MBT using mobility to flank the enemy and catch them by surprise yet has armor when it needs it. Let us not forget, a modern MBT like the Abrams can fire on the move. A modern tank destroyer would certainly have mobility but if it is faced with a threat from its flanks from enemy MBTs, it doesn't stand a chance. Even an AFV vehicle mounted with a modest gun would probably disable it
Yeah, in war, things don't go as planned. When things don't go as planned, a versatile MBT is better than a specialized tank destroyer. When things don't go as planned, an infantryman with an antitank missile may well be better than a tank destroyer, since he will be in the right place at the right time.
@@Kivikesku The corollary of that is the vulnerability of a potential tank destroyer to infantry or vehicle anti-tank missile systems.
A modern tank destroyer would have to have a different philosophy, created in a modern context. It would have to counter-act modern tank capabilities.
It would have to be:
1. Fast and more mobile
2. Undetectable or difficult to detect, such as being able to hide its heat signature.
3. More firepower, such as mounting a 155 mm cannon as well as using anti-tank munitions.
4. Low-weight to make it easier to deploy
Military:Can we have a Tank Destroyer?
Goverment:we already have a Tank Destroyer at home sweety.
Tank Destroyer at home: *KV2*
Hahah..bahaya nih KV 2...Turet je pun dah petak macam kapal
KV-2 152mm shell components:
1) Stalinium coated shell to punch through fascist steel
2) Fragmenting component to shred the fascists to shreads
3) TNT with Stalinium powder soaked in 90% vodka to cleanse fascist steel for building (inferior) tanks for the future communist nations.
Kv-2 is a heavy tank not a tank destroyer
Jesus Avila It's only a 'heavy tank' in game like WoT, it was made to blow up heavily armored groujd bunkers with machine guns. It was never prepared to he used like the KV-1 or further KV tanks.
@@KnownNiche1999 ah wait it's more of a self propelled gun then a heavy tank or a tank destroyer. My bad.
Modern armored warfare has no need for tank destroyers. Thickness of the armor is not a primary defense anymore. We moved on from shells to guided projectiles where the payload and electronics are crucial, not the caliber of the main weapon. As much as I like big guns, this era is over. AT Infantry is the biggest tank opponent these days. The real tank killer.
basically all hes saying is put a bigger gun on the stryker mobile gun system, which could easily be done, and armor is still a primary defence for tanks. not much can penetrate the du plates on the front of an abrams
T14 has defense against ATGMS so we could need a TD soon and I have a concept or a TD on the Base of the Armata (remove the Turret and put a 20 m long 200mm AT gun inside the hull and give it a hydraulic suspension and better protection and camo, place it in forsts and it easily blows a hole threw a Abrams (note this is a concept from a 13 year old german kid that plays to much War thunder)
but when that 200mm gun gets flanked and the 20 meter gun cant turn fast enough, all that money is down the drain. Also a MBT should be an all terrain, and tanks put out a ton of heat so it can be seen with thermal optics.
also a smaller shell with the same amount of energy will do much more damage. so smaller shells with more power would be better. modern shells are generally relativity small thin, so the armor is easier to pierce.
a modern example is the 5.56/22.3 (the bullet the U.S. military uses). the 5.56 is a tiny bullet, but has the speed to punch through armor, and do more damage, while still being light and easily carried.
on the war thunder note, look at the m4a3 105. The cannon is massive, but the shell is stupidly slow, so it does not penetrate armor effectively. (I think it was a armored artillery piece)
PS: i also know basically nothing about tanks, so don't take my word as fact. :)
hope this helps :)
Bigger boar doesnt = more penetration or power of kinetic rounds like sabot, where all the energy is focused on a smaller point. ATGMs use shaped and tandem charges to bypass the problem of needing a lot of energy when flying, thus you dont waste space on a huge gun, ammo and charges for it.
Dedmaroz69 and dont forget the motherfucking gunships
@2:45 "so easy even your sister could operate it". Classic WW2 footage and sound. Hilarious
and sexism :D
@@mohamadothman9208 that was probably the least sexist thing from the 1940s
Him - “old tank destroyers were slow, heavy and unpowered”
Jagdtiger - *wait, that’s illegal!*
Well their reliability and transmission is crappy
@@GooseyBoosey so they were slow heavy UNRELIABLE and underpowered
The IS 7 and Maus would beg to differ
@@richardroopnarine870 those were heavy tanks that tho
How about the M18 Hellcat?
Fuck it... Lets just build the FV4005 Stage 1 (183mm Autoloader) but instead of the centurion hull, use a Chieftain hull and then build a turbo Diesel engine that actually fucking works.
Chieftain hull? Why not the Challenger 1/2 hull? A combination of armour, engine power and ability to up-armour the turret due to the suspension being able to take the weight. It will also look cooler :D
The 183 would be just useless slower reload higher profile the tank would have to be bigger to fit the recoil of the gun and it would be much slower
Derek John We could use a coilgun/railgun that would have less recoil
Aleph Kasai True, I heard rumours that they are putting the BAE SYSTEMS Rail gun on the new naval ships of ours (Royal Navy)
Still wouldnt fix all the other cons the shells size and weight itself would also reduce its effective range, and with how much dust it would send flying up when shooting it would also be really easy to spot
A lot of misconceptions here about not only WWII tank destroyers but a bout modern tank munitions...
In WWII, TD's ran the gambit of highly armored to next to NO armor. The US TD's, for instance, had next to no armor. The M10, M18 and M36 were all very similar (hell, the M10 and M36 ran on the same chassis with slightly different turret and very different guns) with their protection and it was universally LESS than the medium tanks of the era. The Tanks you are showing from the SU/ISU series are actually self propelled artillery guns. Some WERE pressed into the role as impromptu TD's but the vast majority of them were used for armored artillery pieces close to the front line and their armor thicknesses were thick enough to stop some of the light tank rounds of the era, but not much else. For instance, the M4 Sherman's 75mm gun would go clean through the upper front plate on an SU series tank like it was nothing, nevermind the 76mm later fit to it.
The only TD's from WWII that can lay claim to being heavily armored are the Jagd series german tanks... Jagdpanther (based upon the panther hull), Jagdtiger (based upon the tiger II hull) being the standouts here. The heavily sloped front did more for protection than anything else but their relative lack of mobility made them rather poor TD's for the war the US/UK/RU was fighting during WWII and only particularly effective as stationary guns. At that point, a tow behind anti-tank gun was actually MORE effective since it could fire and scoot at a much faster speed.
On to modern stuff, the M829A1 round fired by the M1A1 Abrams' 120mm gun has a very high level of penetration of armor... the 105mm M1 Abrams from the early 80's was penetrating ~415mm of roll hardened armor equivalent (RHAe), the 120mm is leaving at much higher velocity and is penetrating significantly more, like on the order of 600+mm of RHAe. That's because they aren't firing a 120mm full caliber round, they are firing tungsten or depleted uranium (depends on the nation fielding the 120mm) sub caliber darts in the form of the sabot round. That's just the Kinetic Energy side of things (think WWII AP round), never mind the HEAT round they are firing which is probably significantly more. The problem is that the armor of a MBT like the M1 Abrams variants is designed to defeat HEAT with surprising effectiveness. KE is much harder to deal with than Chemical munitions are since it uses brute force to push through whatever armor is there but th e Abrams isn't poorly armored... the effective thickness of it's composite layered and depleted uranium armor plates is enough to defeat the rounds the Abrams is expected to face off against with relative ease, especially in the frontal arc.
The Russians aren't any worse off... they've been using Tungsten Sabot rounds for just as long as the US has and their modern 125mm round has very high levels of penetration.
As for the TD concept as a whole, in the modern era, I have a hard time believing the TD role is filled by anything heavily armored. The Stryker variants armed with the 120mm guns are perfect examples of what a modern TD would be. Highly mobile, accurate, hard hitting shoot and scoot type of tactics. The days of heavily armored tanks is limited thanks to advancement in missile technologies and bomb technologies that can absolutely decimate enemy tank formations, never mind the use of sabot rounds in the tanks you'll be facing.
I was thinking of helicopter gunships such as the Boeing AH-64 Apache being the spiritual successor to the tank destroyer mission profile. In addition to being mission flexible, they are a highly mobile anti-tank weapons platform.
i would say the a10 is the true spuritual successor of the TD
Both the A-10 and the AH-64 fill that role, with the difference being the A-10 can cover a far greater range, while the AH-64 can maneuver better.
We also have the introduction of active protection systems which don't really care how much armor your round can penetrate, they care how many rounds you can get within a certain zone in a certain span of time.
Canthus13 the a10 also tends to have a longer loiter time than the ah64
Most Tank Destroyers were just older model hulls carrying newer bigger guns. This is the reason they didn’t had turrets.
umm except the m10, m18, and m36 from WW2 were the only true td's in the war
Absolute bullshit.
actually no it isn't america was the only nation to use the term "tank destroyer" the germans used "tank hunter" the british used anti tank gun. so no what i said is completely accurate
Let me rephrase that the m10, m18, and m36 were the only notable true full tracked tank destroyers. Every other "tank destroyer" was designated differently. Stug III for example is an assault gun. Jagdpanzer IV is a "tank hunter"
I always thought they had no turrets to achieve a lower profile
my grandfather used to be a "backward" driver (if you know the tank you understand) for the Strv. 103.
How did he handle driving backwards?
@@Ag3nt0fCha0s The tank was designed that way, it had similar controls in both the front and back if I remember correctly. The tank was made to be able to peek other a hill using its unique track system, take a shoot then reverse as fast as possible before the enemy could react. It could go up to 50 Km/h in reverse and for that reason, it needed a "backward" driver. (4:32)
@@oscarsterner2623 I have forgotten so mucb of what I once knew (
So did he actually drove backwards and if so how did he handle it?
@@Ag3nt0fCha0s Yes, he actually drove backwards. His seat was basically the same as the drivers but it was just turned backwards, towards the rear (he more or less sat with his back towards the drivers back). There he just chilled until they needed to back up and in which case he grabbed the driving sticks and pressed the gas pedal and drove it as you would drive normally.
@mrmichaelmw it is sad that it is no longer in use
"rough terrain becomes smooth as highway"
**tank violently bounces around**
We already have the World's best tank destroyer: A-10 Thunderbolt 2
Wouldn’t last a second against a modern enemy.
@@gryphoncortor8096 agm65 maverick disagree's with you
Aviv Gannon no. The A10 wouldn’t do shit against Russia
why would russia and usa even fight
Aviv Gannon for a bit earlier this year tensions were kind of high. Not high enough for a war tho
Bring back the micro-size tankettes centered on a UTV-sized vehicle and using a multi-launcher javelin missile system.
"wtf is the difference between tank destroyers and tanks anyway"
"well a tank is meant to face every threat, whereas a tank destroyer is only designed to destroys tanks"
*"so why the fuck is there a 50 cal on the m10"*
man i never understand it
Well isn't land also a threat because it can bog you down so I don't understand why they also have tracks? Hmmmm....
It's a weird relic of WW2 tank doctrine. Some of our AFV's and most country's MBT's, already fill this role. We just don't use the term anymore.
Well, two reasons. It gives the tank the chance to defend itself if it comes into contact with enemy infantry, and also it can be used as an anti-aircraft weapon. Just because it's meant to be shooting at tanks doesn't mean every enemy it will come up against will be one.
It is there so that the 50 cal machine gun could engage with enemy infantry if it encoutres and the difference between a tank and a tank destroyer is that a tank is suppose to support the infantry and destroy enemy bunkers as well as infantry and enemy armor and if necessary perform as a Scout. While a tank destroyer is only designed to destroy enemy tanks. I am not an expert I have just started learning about tanks so take tis comment with a pinch of salt.
Tank destroyers have the strongest guns and the armored version of these tanks have limited turret movement.
Imagine seeing a tank moving it's entire body just to shoot enemy infantry.
Heavy tanks have the 2nd best guns and strong and best armor but slow reload speed and low mobility like the tank destroyers.
Medium tanks have good reload speed and good mobility and weak to average guns and generally weak armor making them balanced tanks that can circle some lands and destroy heavy tanks by attacking the back of it.
Light tanks are just scouts with weak armor and weak guns and great reload speed and great mobility.
tank destroyers with turret movements have zero armor and visible crew.
My dad worked in DND ordering and reviewing new weapons for the Canadian Army (so, NATO). He once told me that we don't have Tank Killers anymore because artillery and missiles are accurate enough. No point in building a super strong tank if you can just blow them up from outside their range. You also risk the same happening to your tank. A big heavy front is great for direct fire, not so much for indirect fire on the top
3:17 get your tank destroyer today!
Does somebody knows where to buy one?
Buy now at your local surplus yard!!
buy 10 ... get 1 for free!
WoT
Smashy road garage.
Ask your supply sergeant
"Rough terrain becomes as smooth as highways." 1:25 Exactly right, that's what my car looks like going down a Queensland highway!
Put the Death star gun on a M18. Problem Solved.
Operation How about building robot camels like those used by the Empire? :D
Samanli2014 - The horde in warcraft uses those too and the closest animal we have to that kind of beast is a Rhinoceros or a hippopotamus. However, taming them and training them would be a massive effort. Train them wrong or treat them bad and you could be trampled instead.
Recon from WoT or Star Wars?
Great idea regardless
Miša Mališa can you imagine the deathstar gun on the M18? Bye planet earth 😂
183mm Gun? Put several HESH round and it can literally 1-shot any MBT in this world XD.
No need to waste resources on a tank destroyer when we're too busy fighting countries with decades old weapons technology.
Weapon Tech only evolves based on the needs of the current war(s) fought at the very moment. When two superpowers decided to have a non-nuclear war in the future, then MAYBE we'll see a resurgence of tank destroyers depending on how unreliable air support is against an enemy that has actual means to down aircraft and gunships at a competent rate.
For the time being, don't bother making one. Don't waste resources on a Modern Tank Hunter when there's no Modern Tanks to fight.
The USA is the only super power don't fool your self
@@perfectcell5613 sure bud
Ricewarrior01 China and Russia, in certain areas, have crept ahead of us due to that mentality. Our anti-shipping and ASW capabilities at sea ARE decades old technologies! In those areas, we've had few upgrades since 1991! Always remember, curiosity didn't kill the cat. It was arrogance! That cat thought he ruled the roost, no one would ever challenge him, and he could just do the same thing over, and over, again.
Train and Fight for the war of tomorrow, not who you’re fighting today.
@Matthew Timchenko Vietnam just got out of its "developing nation" status and has a booming economy. I think the weapons quality is going up with it, so no, not Vietnam either.
We do have / did have tank destroyers. A-10 Warthogs.
An a-10 can easily be destroyed by almost any light, 2 man sam like modern stingers.
Wahle Wahle to be fair so can most aircraft if close enough for Stingers, SAMs and AAA
There is no need for dedicated tank destroyer based vehicles any longer, the concept of TD vehicles have largely long been obsolete. The Germans was aware of this late during WWII thus the conception of vehicle like the SdKfz 234 Puma which is already closely emulated by military hardware manufacturers today like the MOWAG Piranha and the newer Stryker IAV.
Also let's not forget anything from sophisticated computer/laser guided projectile to a basic handheld rocket launcher is very much a potential treat to even the most advanced and modern of tanks that could disable if not outright kill the crew inside those tanks.
Soflexx provided said SAM team doesn't get killed in a strafing run by said A-10.
Well let enjoyed the scene while an A-10 try to evade Tunguska hail autocannon fire and oversized S-400 missile.
What I imagine a modern tank destroyer to be is a mobile artillery gun which has a set of 6 drones that fly up and spot targets , relay coordinates to the guns computer and computer automatically plots firing solution and fires. With this you only need a 2 man crew driver and ops. Can take out targets miles away.
new age tank destroyer?? = gunships
Ricardo A A-10s, Apaches, Super Cobras, Humvees with TOWs, Strykers with TOWs, Troops with AT-4s and Javelins all do a good job killing tanks. The traditional anti tank weapons such as Artillery and of course the best anti- tank weapon: Another Tank works as well.
No a gunship is more like artillery in the air. They are also exposed to anti aircraft weapons. MANPADS or an AA cannon like M42 duster can bring them down pretty easily. It is very possible to create some thing like a tank destroyer today even out of the Modern tanks we have, a certain number of them can be modified to perform tank destroyer tactics. In the right tactical situation it could be useful.
The Blue Dragon Cult - Time Machine to the 60's, 70's, 80's Too many things can kill tanks without the need for a Tank Destroyer. A-10s, Apaches and Super Cobras all do excellent jobs against tanks.
For land based assets, HUMMVEEs and Strykers both can mount TOW Missiles. Infantry also can use TOWs, AT-4s and Javelins.
The Blue Dragon Cult - Time Machine to the 60's, 70's, 80's.
What's the point to build Tank Destroyer nowadays when we have ATV(Anti-Tank Vehicle).
More like IFV with multiple heavy ATGM platform launcher.
In short: No. Long version: ATGM's are cheaper and any war in which you'd need dedicated TD's is a nuclear war and so it's useless, plus you need 360 protection for the modern asymmetric wars we actually fight. If you really wanted to do this the cheap and easy version is to build the body of whatever MBT your nation has and then add a turret with a large cluster of ATGM's on top.
Why would you need TD's in a nuclear war ?
You wouldn't, that's my point.
Oh okay i think i missed the ''so it's useless'' part my bad.
The Israelis did that with Magach Pereh.
how is a ATGM cheaper than a shell?
Infantry based anti-tank weapons have always been the true "tank destroyer". Even back in WW2 on the Eastern Front, antitank guns caused a VAST majority of tank casualties.
but did they cause more than the Stug 3
@Albo alt No, other countries have ATGM's as well.
No, Germany invented the Panzerfaust in 1943. Most of the losses came in urban combat. Most Soviet losses were due to 50mm as well.
13:18 He takes a picture of the no pictures sign
Just put a a battleship turret on wheels. We've got a lot of left over ones in Merica.
And if you need a quick escape when getting swarmed just fire your turret and your battleship tank will go flying! Literally!
I have never heard of a 40cm cannon being put on a tank
Givdul Hedberg
The largest naval gun was 460 mm, on the Yamatos.
and those are at the bottom of the pacific ocean.
Just get some divers down there and pull em out. We can fix them.
Lol it would have to be a big tank to fit a reasonable amount of shells
nobody needs a super specialized TD with a heavy main gun. Now ATGM have lots of penetration power and can be placed on a fast vehicle like a humvee or something similar. Even the infantry can carry some AT guns that are capable to destroy a modern tank
What if the newest Russian tank already has a defense system that detects ATGMS and destroys them? A TD would be useful, but it has to be different that before
LP Flore.
What's the point to build TD when you have ATV?
ATV is more than enough to bang tank ass.
LP Flore even then, the atgm wouldn’t be as efficient, if a tank has composite armor. The blast from the war head would hit the first plate and would be distinguished between the space of the first and second plate. This is why we have the apfsds round, it’ll go through with ease.
Modern AT missiles are increasingly top attack models. It isn't practical to put enough armor on the entire top of a tank, spaced or not, to stop these missiles.
The Strv-103, despite the appearence, is considered to be a MBT
Tovarishch Martins t82 was a heavy tank
so this is just for kids
That's when you know Sweden is too poor to have a proper MBT
The S tank rotated on its chassis. Has it's flaws I grant you but would have been a very difficult tank to spot hulled down. Not being known for their foreign adventures in recent centuries Sweden's strategy has been understandably defensive which makes the S tank more relevant.
Robert Li are you saying the STRV is bad?? xD
+Robert Li and made TD that is more expensive than any MBT of its time... yes...
Fv4005 conway: "My time has come"
4004? I think the Conway was the 4004 not the 4005.
@@johe_bhidun The 4005 conway is the proper name for the one that has the barn like turret and is mounted and fitted with a 183mm gun, while the 4004 conway is fitted with a 130mm.
Tank Destroyers are used defensively, Battle tanks, well they battle other tanks/armored fighting vehicles
I thought you where dead??
The emperor lives !!!
In my point of view Tank Destroyers are often used as a sniper, to eliminatete a vehcle from far distance
in ww2 tank destroyers were supposed to be a cheaper option to destroying tanks and the cheapest option today would be to have very long range anti tank self propelled guns
Or a man portable anti-tank missile system like the Milan or Javelin systems.
Or high speed armoured cars with ATGMs and ERA plates covering the frontal crew compartment
And they didn't turn out quite so well as there was never a tank destroyer around when you needed one. Most armies abandoned the idea by the 60s because they were relatively useless and the resources used to make them could just go to a tank that could do everything the TD could do and more besides.
LOL javelins are what, 60k per missile, 150k for the system? not cheap. Molotov cocktails still work for the most part.
its increased to 174k per missile and 200k for the system for javelins. in contrast a 125mm sabot shell costs only 6500 USD per round. its WAY cheaper to use cannons. AND the javilin can not pen modern MBT (which have ovee 1000mm of effectiveness vs HEAT weapons while the jav can pen only 650 while the milan can pen only 720mm. which when combined with trophy systems means missiles are obsolete as of 2018, almost obsolete since the 90s) and are only in use due to most enemies do not currently field MBTs. jav missiles are also way to expensive to justifie usienf on APC/IFV the most comman AFV on the battle field and a paltoon can carry very few missiles. a 120-152mm sabot round is both cheaper and more effectivve than a missile (which is why tanks always have cannons not missiles) the only reasons very light vehicles choose missiles is stress of 125mm guns and infantry cannot carry it. IE a light tank with a 125mm gun is far more effective than some infantry with half a dozen missiles.
No need for a huge ass tank destroyer when a man carrying a tank carrying missile can do the job.
a huge ass tank is not gonna be very fast.
A Certain Chen half track filled with guys that are equipped with AT equipment like these rocket launchers
Ullr the snow God AT guided missiles are 25 kg nowadays. 1 man can carry it and can take out any tank up to 4 km. The missile always hits from above so front armor is useless. It can also be mounted on light vehicles,
Tanks in a missile
Sounds good
it doesn't need to be huge. the StuG was the greatest tank destroyer of the second World War and it weighed about as much as a Bradley. also the gun doesn't need to be enormous. you could use the same 120 mm gun used on the Abrams in a casement tank destroyer without any problem. alternatively, you could use a StuG-like vehicle with a 120 mm mortar system with a long barrel and just use HEAT rounds for AT use. call it an assault mortar or something.
5:10 "It was a big, heavy duty, heavy armored, very slow and very under-powered vehicle"
[hetz hetz hetz hetz...]
The only thing is, we don't want to recreate the Maus. A tank too big, too heavy, and too slow to be practical.
Let's just strap a nuclear reactor to it.
While we're at it... let's irradiate the shells... There actually is no law that bans radioactive shells... They've only mentioned bullets,mines and nukes...
+Veljko Gnjidic And cluster bombs and chemical gas. Let's also put a giant neutron beam on there while we're at it.
Mech Tasker Blasters are forbidden as well, any weapons that use fucusedbeams of energy are illegal... goodbye laser guns from Star Trek that I've always dremt of...
Two words: psychological warfare
A tank destroyer is a big gun that needs to stay protected. Back in the days artillery was too unreliable so tank destroyer were the answer to a demand of precise firepower against tanks. Since they couldn't hide them completely, they needed huge armour. Today we have much more precise tank targeting systems that don't require line of sight, so there is no need of putting a big armoured tank destroyer around them: conceilement over protection.
"Even your sister could operate" oh the 1940s 😂
I like the idea of a
You are talking about the world as if the tank were still the most powerful weapon. Even if you had the biggest gun, the thickest amour, the most powerful engine, an armoured vehicle is still defenseless against airstrikes. Will you say the solution is a 1000-ton flying tank armed with a 400 mm gun?
the solution is to idealize it against aircraft fire and send them with self propelled anti-air and infantry fighting vehicles.
the IFV's push forward with a small amount of SPAA's following them, and the rest stay and shoot tanks down. they could even all push forward, but in my eyes, staying on a hill is better than heading into the chaos.
Pre114 No, is a tank with point defense (the machine gun on the top or a laser) to shoot down missiles.
like a baneblade??
damn, this is hardcore scifi stuff
Kirito SAO Not so much, a German company is already employing Laser point-defense.
A single turret takes 5-6 seconds to take down a small missile with a really low power consumption, but it takes only half a second to blind the missile.
The problem today with tank destroyer concepts is it completely forgets the point of the system, its supposed to be a cheap, affordable tank hunting kit, a great many tank destroyers cost the same or even more then the tanks they are supposed to fight against with less armor/generic abilities. For example the ascod LT 105 costs what, $10mil per unit? Chinas VT5 is $5 mil or so?
The big issues their pricerange, the tank destroyer is supposed to be the cheap and easy option in theory, till the price is more sane in comparason to a MBT, you wont see the concept grow much beyond nations which require specfics, like South Africa. Till this price issue changes, dont expect to see much expansion into the concept.
Not so. Being cheaper is not an overall requirement for being a tank destroyer but just one way which you could make it competitive against tanks themselves. There are plenty of tank destroyers that was far more expensive then tanks themselves even from the start of the concept. In other words its like a sub category inside the topic of Tank Destroyers.
A highly motivated and untrained jihadist with a surplus RPG-7?
mitch verr
The Boxer APC has a unique layout in having a drive module (chassis engine gearbox driver ect.) and a mission module which can be changed quickly allowing one vehicle to fullfill many roles. Now I suggest developing a mission module that consist of:
- a small unmanned turret with an aoutoloader and a 120 mm L/47 (special light low recoil versin of the L44)
- a large rear door giving quick access to (and escape from, keyword crew survivability) two seats for a commander and a driver
- ammunition stowage in front of them behind a blast-proof wall, with blow-off panels at the top of the tank
- a small drone with a camera gps and a laser rangefinder for target aquisition/reconnaissance
- an active protection system (possibly a Trophy or Windbreaker system)
If this is too expensive the drone and the unmannedness of the turret could be ditched, but I think that having a unmanned turret really increases crew protection in multiple ways (turret smaller-harder to spot/hit, easy escape for the crew, no danger from being hit in the turret) and the drone would help alot with having an overwiew over a complicated situation.
All in all this module would allow to convert a standard Boxer APC into a fully fledged TD without the need of developing a specialised chassis, hopefully lowering cost. What do you guys think? :-)
Screw it. If we want cheao, then go CHEAP! Mount multple ATGM's on teinforced suspension pick-up trucks and man them with militia/National Guard quality troops. You could build a hundred of them for the cost of one Abrams, and though it's a shitty deal for thetroops, it's the way we won WWII with Sherman M4's.
I think you should go back to your history books because that is not at all how it went.
I love how that guy says an m10 could blast a Tiger 1, like a Tiger couldn’t just delete an m10 from a mile out
Look at the encounters and get back to us.
Well it can the 76 mm on the m10 is capable of penetrating a tiger from the front and it's a tank destroyer if they actually need to call it in it won't be alone
@@spartanx9293 - Hell, at the ranges of the Fury encounter, the 75 can readily penetrate the Tiger glasis...
Tiger WAS well-armored, but hardly invincible. It was supposed to be a breakthrough tank, able to punch a hole in the opponent's line (thing OG) while being survivable, so the lighter armor can exploit the hole. Unfortunately, when it came on-line, there were few holes to punch. Turned out to be a decent defensive weapon, too, and for an army short of men and fuel, all the better.
@@coachhannah2403 there was also one other major issue with the tiger there were plenty of flat bits to shoot at I personally considered the panther to be the better tank in terms of overall protection
@@spartanx9293 - PzKw VI was a further development of the II/III/IV family. They all share a basic layout. PzKw V/VIb are a second family.
my question now is: should we have Tank Destroyer Destroyer?
with that you start weapon race.
helicopters
Already got 'em. They carry a 30mm cannon in their noses and the boys on the ground love 'em. Well, that is to say our boys love 'em. The enemy, however considers the A-10 to be Satan in plane form.
@Joel S You aint wrong tho.
“When I think tank destroyer i think of one of these...”
*Shows photo of Swedish S tank which is not a tank destroyer 🤷♂️*
It's both TD and MBT
İt is both TD and MBT
And also a Bullpup Tank. How freaking cool is that?
Also it can be used as a hovercraft and or u boat. So versitile!
Impossible. A tank destroyer is designed for the sole purpose of destroying enemy tanks. The fact that this can carry out the duties of an MBT immediately cancels it out as a tank destroyer. All MBTs can destroy tanks, but that doesn't make them tank destroyers. They've been largely obsolete since ww2 anyway.
You know, the su 100 was a very successful wepon in the Yugoslavian wars they had like 50 of them but put out of action because JNA didn't have spear parts... proves a point
I doubt there will ever again be a “tank battle”. Desert storm seem to make that clear.
US supporting India vs China in a WW3 situation in Northern India, also Korea. Not to mention how quickly things can change. (Like the EU breaking up and Germany pulling BS again)
@@wolfsden6479 it’s not about who vs. who. It’s about how to destroy tanks. THAT has become very easy.
@@skyhiker9669 who vs who matters alot because some of those systems are pointless or very much less effective against modern enemy tanks. For example anti misle systems can make anti tank misles far less effective. Also more armor could do this.
@@skyhiker9669 not to mention if gps is gone or scrambled or a battle with conflicted airspace.
@@wolfsden6479 you’re wrong. Heavy armor is an obsolete concept. There will be no more open field battles. It will either be urban warfare or mountainous/deserts. Either way anti-tank tactics will obliterate armor. Or did you miss the gulf wars?
"Why who wouldn't be happy at the shooting end of the powerful 3 incher" -M10 TD video
I thought we already had a tank killer, it's called the apache helicopter. That was the answer to the massive numbers of Russian tanks.
A fcuking 10 is the answer for massive numbers of tanks
Only if you have air superiority
animenut69 which USA pretty much has
Was gonna say this but beaten to it! :D
Hi its Me na our tank destroyer is the Warthog
I managed to model a really low height tank destroyer with a 155mm heavy cannon and a backup anti armor heatseeker setup.
There is a WW2 tank and artillery museum not far from here and they have a 150mm long tom and it is some piece of artillery, I can’t imagine how big a tank would have to be to carry that monster long barrel cannon in a turret and the ammo for it. It would be possible I guess but the logistics would be daunting.
@@gregbeetham3838 T30?
The USA still uses a TD. It is called the A-10 with the brrrrrt effect lol
Follow me on twitch!
m.twitch.tv/matsimus_9033/profile
Them: use big tank guns
Me: models a tank destroyer with a naval gun
You ask me how? It's all thanks to my weird turret design Hahaha
Today we have many kinds of Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ATGM), even a jeep can kill a tank with ATGM, as long as those jeep shoot first before the tank find them.
but the solution is a bit of armour. so you could easily add some armour and you will not have that problem.
APS systems will eventually have the ability to negate current gen ATGMs
yeah, i'm sorry but, when ATGMS are gone, TDs will take over. ATGMs don't rule forever.
but there will be soon technology that can render an ATGM useless such as EMPs, [jam the guidance] or just simple armour [like a LOT.] or reactive plating [blasts missile into space]
Tank destroyers were different depending on the country. Many were actually assault guns that had a gun that could fire an appropriate AT round.
For the USA they were made to fill the TD doctrine which wanted fast and highly mobile TDs that could congregate quickly to stop blitzkrieg tactics. That's why the "ideal" TD was the M18. However it's pretty easy to see this doctrine didn't work because no commander is going to leave a perfectly good afv to sit around waiting for an attack. So they were used for other things are were generally not around to fulfill their defensive doctrine.
They were quite good at it when they did though.
The Russians in particular used assault guns with armor piercing rounds. The real problem with the Russian vehicles They Carried little or no reload rounds in the vehicle. They had to be supplied constantly from ammunition vehicles very kind of kills the whole mobilitie thing. American Doctrine just never worked really well the M26 was a nice vehicle the M10 wasn't that great. The M10 just wasn't as fast or as maneuverable as a Doctrine called for. Being based on the M4 Sherman OH, there was limitations to that chassis that they just had to live with. The later version of the M10 I can't remember the model with a 9 mm gun, the grizzly was pretty good because it had a good gun and better armor than the M26. But then you ran into the whole speed issue again. German tank destroyers evolve from our self-propelled artillery like the Stug. This vehicle was created partly to use the industrial capacity that was building the Panzer 3 that was obsolete. They adopted the chassis for the stud and a few other purposes.
Answer: Because something from above is going to blast through that thin armor on your roof and gut everyone inside!
"if you dont belive us just ask General Rommel" LMMFAO!!!!!!
I'm quite skeptical about slow & heavy weapon platforms with big guns (140mm and more ?) aimed at destroying tanks. IMHO light and mobile vehicles (even able to be airdropped woch is a massive feature for tank destruction) equipped with a multiple ATGM launcher can do the job way better !
PressePurée yes .finally someone knows how i feel.
Matsimus: Tank-destroyer = Heavy armor
Me looking at the American M10 and M18 Hellcat, the definitive American tank-destroyer of World War II: Yeah, no. Not in the slightest.
On a related note, not only did the ATGM contribute to the downfall of the tank-destroyer but so did air power. During the Cold War platforms such as the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II and the Boeing AH-64 Apache were specifically designed to hunt armored vehicles. The problem with most traditional tank-destroyers is their lack of mobility. Even if you do fit a tank-destroyer with a modern engine its mobility will still be limited by the fact that mission profile will have it taking up stationary positions to ambush incoming tanks, as they were primarily used during counter-attack operations to disrupt enemy advances. Not only are helicopter gunships capable of fulfilling this role, they can also go on the offensive and strike enemy tank formations before they attack while also having the addition of a certain amount of flexibility to perform other mission roles.
Old comment, but I found it funny that the intro contained an entire showcase of the M10 in the intro and then he describes the tank destroyer as heavily armored and slow.
The sense of humor they had in that old commercial is pretty cute. “See your supply sergeant today” lol. “Here ya go Private, have fun with your new tank destroyer!”
Why not more than 130mm?
Simple.....muzzle speed pays more dividends, as mass only contributes *1 to kinetic energy, while the square of velocity contributes.
It's also why the Rhinemetall 120mm L55 is more powerful than the L44, higher muzzle speed.
Interestingly the new 130mm gun has a kinetic energy of around 20 MJ, which is the same as the old NPzK (Neue Panzerkanone/New tank gun) project which had 140mm of calibre.
Also the penetrator dart of of a Sabot round is always sub-calibre, as for penetration you should concentrate the maximum amount of force on the smallest possible point, a wider penetrator with a bigger calibre would actually be counterproductive.
Where calibre helps is artillery shells, as you can pack more explosives into a wider artillery shell, and shaped charges like heat rounds, if you wonder why 75mm was the standard minimum calibre of late WW2 it's because it is the minimum effective calibre for HEAT rounds.
One might argue that with a bigger calibre gun, you could have bigger propellant cases, true, but a wider gun also means that the explosion gasses can expand more, leading to a lower pressure inside the gun and therefore less energy.
Although it is generally tougher to build a gun to withstand higher pressures than lower ones, so it might be easier to build a gun with a higher calibre that can output the same kinetic energy as a smaller calibre gun which has to withstand a higher explosion gas pressure.
However, a big calibre gun is also heavy, which can impact the vehicle's capacity to fit on armor, impact it's mobility, not just via speed but also via ground pressure, and there have been some cases in early WW2, like with the PzJg I, a TD based on the Panzer I, where the gun was actually capable of flipping the tank.
A note, the Vehicle shown from 8:40 onwards was actually not designed as a TD, it was pressed into that role for a lack of other availlable effective TDs.
It's either a SU-152 or an ISU-152 assault gun, with the ML-20 152 Howitzer, a vehicle that was designed to give direct fire support to infantry by knocking out strong points or bunkers.
It was originally used as there was no other vehicle capable of knocking out the Tigers and kingtigers at long range, as they found out that their 152mm explosive shell could knock a Tiger's or Panther's Turret off it's turret ring.
www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet_SU-152.php
You're missing the point of the larger bore size. You correctly note that the Sabot round is sub-calibre, but incorrectly assume the penetrator would *have* to be wider just because it's shot out of a bigger gun. It's sub-calibre, you can make it any size you want!
To get a higher velocity within a certain chamber pressure parameter, you either increase barrel length (where you run into diminishing returns pretty quickly) or increase the bore diameter to get a larger gas piston area. The longer barreled 120mm L55 is more powerful than the L44, true. About 10-15% more powerful, it's not a huge step.
A 130mm gun would increase the gas piston area and hence, at the same chamber pressure, the force accelerating the sabot+projectile by 17.4%. The kinetic energy is about 50% higher in practice.
To get vastly better performance there's just no other way than to step up the bore size as we've already done the biggest game changing improvements in ammunition, first with the rifled sabot (APDS) where we upped the velocities and the fin rounds (APFSDS) where we had velocity and long rod penetrator mechanics, with extreme sectional density. The long rod penetrator has also been taken to it's apex already, peaking at a 40:1 length-to-width ratio but has been scaled back to a 25:1 to 30:1 because the longest one was too sensitive to ERA.
+MPI1000 Yes and no, I did not assume that the penetrator would have to be wider, only that it would make no sense to make the pentrator itself wider.
So the calibre of the gun is pretty much irrelevant to the penetrator unless it forces you to use a smaller penetrator rod (both in calibre and overall size) , as you would otherwise get a too high ratio.
So I agree with you on that, as well as on the fact that increasing the calibre increases the gas piston.
I might have undervalued that.
Though from the sparse information that is there, the 130mm gun already has the same muzzle energy as the 140mm, so the question for me is what added benefits would going to a higher calibre than 130mm have for KE ammunition?
It obviously has some advantages for HE ammunition, and possibly but then Matsimus set the parameters as a gun purely for killing tanks, so I'll frame my question with a focus on KE penetrator ammunition.
Feel free to disagree.
To the question posed before I would also add a second question, do you think that the benefits of an ammunition bigger than 140mm would outweight it's problems?
For example the bigger size of the shells, which need more storage space, are heavier and therefore more difficult to handle.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on that, given the quality of your reply.
To an interesting discussion.
THE M10!!!
Best SUV you can get your family.
No m36
You do know how cheap they are right? I could go buy a working vietnam era tank for around 60k(avg) or a hellcat for around 20-30k(cheap side) or 40-60k for one that was made and never used other than testing. Low hours on tanks is stupid important.
Does that make the panzer 1 the miata of the tank world?
Never gonna happen. The DOD is not going to spend millions of dollars on a large gun heavily armored vehicle, when they can mount a TOW on a hummer !
What if there is a Tank (T14 Armata and soon all Russian tanks even T54) that has a defense system that just well... Let's the rockets turn into the ground so they don't even reach it
LP Flore when that doesn't work you use more tow
When that happens you use an Abrams or artillery. An army doesn't fight with platform a vs enemy platform b. It's an effort to field the best army overall starting with the best equipped infantryman and working your way on up from there. You can have the best tank in the world but if you don't have the artillery, air defense, reconnaissance, and air power to go with it you're still going to lose. A dedicated cannon based TD is pointless when you can just up gun a tank. The Rheinmetall 140mm gun was already tested in an Abrams in the 90s. The new 130mm is designed to compromise between turret space and muzzle velocity as the 140mm is downright huge. The US Army is planning to upgrade the 120mm with an electro-thermal chemical ignition system which will increase the muzzle velocity considerably to be on par with the 140mm gun from the late 80s early 90s.
LP Flore use a tow missile as long as you have a wire connected and line of sight your good.
You laugh at it as it's destroyed by air strikes.
1:20 Tank commander: “Lord deliver me from this training exercise”
Thanks for showing the S-tank/Stridsvagn 103, my favorite tank. ^^
robot swed
Robot swede? What do you mean by that statement?
jompelis midi wha
You don't really need big guns. You could always just increase the length of the barrel. As for tank destroyers, the purpose of a tank destroyer is to engage an enemy from an ambush position. One of the most effective tank destroyers of history, the StuG III, had minimalistic armor. what is really most important for a tank destroyer is a powerful gun and a low profile. You see this in most tank destroyers some have more armor than others but the powerful gun and an ability to hide stay constant.
Maverick Raphael H. Sebastian The Hetzer is another great example. Very cheap, very strong.
Hetzer is a great example of being great on paper, but horrible in practice.
Kirk Price Why? Crews loved that tank. And unlike most of other german tanks it was on a proven reliable chassis. There is a reason why the Germans produced much more hetzers than stugs towards the end of the war.
Kirk Price that's because it had weaker 75 mm gun, Germans were so stupid they let the Czechs to design that vehicle and Czechs weren't exactly in a love affair with nazis so they mounted a weak 75 mm gun on Hetzer claiming it's not possible to mount more powerful Sturmgeschütz gun on it ... and the day war ended they mounted Sturmgeschütz gun on Hetzer and sold it to Switzerland.
"You don't really need big guns. You could always just increase the length of the barrel."
Could you though? The 120mm L55 tube is 6.6 meters long already, with the mount and breech about 8 meters... Besides, there's a rate of diminishing returns on barrel length, as the pressure (and hence the accelerating force) is much lower in the last meter of barrel than the first meter.
If you look at scaled down equivalents, like a .45ACP, you actually get lower muzzle velocities once you get past a 16" barrel and the difference is less than 6.5% to an 8" barrel. Diminishing returns.
I could see a 150mm tank destroyers. Maybe not heavily armored, but fast as fuck. :D
the gun would have to not be on a turret in that case.
also, it would need AA support because tanks are easily hunted by ATGM's.
Everybody gangsta until the tank destroyer with sloped 18 inch composite armor rolls up and points its 300mm at you.
Attack helicopters and drones. Thats why classic tank destroyer designs wont work on the battlefield.
Attack helicopters and drones have nothing to do with tank destroyers. It's much more difficult to fight a ground based unit than a helicopter or drone with a fast moving air superiority aircraft. Thats why Sweden uses them, because they have a relatively small air force and are likely to lose air superiority.
The point is that a specialized vehicle like a tank destroyer is only good for that one job. Whereas MBT's and LAV's can handle anti-armor roles as well as support roles.
if you distribute the armour on the top [like i did when thinkingand theorizing about a design of such a vehicle] then you wont have to worry. really all you havre to worry about is the back, but really if you make that tank low enough, there's little to worry about. especially if you put the tank in extra armour and more near the front of the vehicle.
If I can buy 2 helicopters that can destroy tanks with the price I can buy a dedicated tank destroyer, I'd always go for the helicopters. It's that simple. All the units are now multi-role. The role of the tank destroyer is shared by multiple land and air units, every unit needs to have the capability of destroying the enemy's tank, which is why can't design a single vehicle for that sole purpose.
If US army fits rail magnetic gun in something movable with wheels, say bye bye to tanks and armor.
Plazmica 032 The problem with railguns is the energy needed.
It is better to have a laser or an air gun (yes, I'm serius, someone made one that fire at mach 70).
I'm sorry sir but we have never made anything on earth travel at mach 70
Jamie Krutzfeldt I also found out that my information were false.
Still the fastest airgun fired at mach 7 using less energy and space than a railgun.
No need for Railguns. Why do you think the Armor thickness went lower. First shot, first kill.
It is very unlikely that this will happen as we seem to be having enough trouble putting one on a ship.
last time i was this early the Nazi were only in germany
Raptorrab 111 The last time I was early was when Robespierre was guillotined
Napoleon I Bonaparte damn
last time i was this early, their was no religion anywhere
I had this conversation with a friend about the ultimate power of the 183 gun on the FV4005 British Tank destroyer. If they were to modernize the round and put it on a better chassis, it would be able to knock out any tank with 20kg of explosive power from a 60kg round, if not majorly damaging it in the process.
I even made a design of it attached to challenger 1 series of tanks to re-use them with a 183mm autoloader
14:30 Well shit, a KV-2 turret on an IS-4 hull? I mean, i've seen pictures of it but I didn't know it *actually* existed...
Its on IS-2M hull, I think only one was made, but still its a complete beast, imagine seeing one of those in 1945, but sadly it was never used, primarily because it was made after the war.
Huh, fair enough. Thing would've been a beast.
Why the fuck everyone thinks its is-4, its is-2 goddammit, is-4 is so distinguishable
TheBritishBrit KV-2 is made from stalinium armor and when it fires stalin himself will rise from the dead and guide the shell to its target. A new hull will only limit its power.
gaijin's sekrit dokumints blyat comrade)))))))))))))))))))))))
Just shrink the Schwerer Gustav into tank Form and there you go. Or just create a modern Sturmtiger
There is nowhere to test it on & nobody you could convince to sell to... It's peace era.. no major war going on at the moment.. & the role is replaced by MBT..
Tanks were developing in ww2. The MBT combined all of the tasks into a single platform. No need for a separate vehicle. If you want something specialized you'd use an Apache gunship.
12:00 the Stryker was not designed to primarily take out tanks. Its primary responsibility is troop support.
If you want a gun for a new class of Tank Destroyer, look up the 140mm Thumper that the US tested years ago. The shell comes in two parts and is nearly twice as long as the 120mm one.
Maybe in 20 ish years we will have railguns small enough to be vehicle mounted at a front locked position that would be reminiscent of a su76 or su85b layout with the gun running along the entire chassis.
YOU STOLE MY CONCEPT OF A T14 WITH A 200MM 2 METERS LONG GUN MOUNTED IN THE CHASSIS WITH TURRET REMOVED AND HYDRAULIC SUSPENSION!!!!!
20meters* 2 meters would be a Arty gun... Wait a minute
A laser designator with a direct link to an artillery battery.
Like the one on nearly every modern main battle tank? The blue force tracker systems of modern MBTs allow data from the tank's GPS and Laser Range Finder to be transmitted directly to supporting artillery.
tank destroyers are not needed in this modern world, maybe in WW2 then yes they are nedded
taras Well, what about the countries without tanks and have no AT capabilities?
Napoleon I Bonaparte not a problem at all you see these countries that have no tanks or ATGMs are so peacful and are not in a war with anyone so yeah thats is not a problem
taras UwU
if you want to live in peace prepare for war. can't remember who said that quote though.
taras Philippines, barely enough firepower
IFVs armed with cannons and atgms are similar to tank destroyers, though much more practical in modern warfare.
140mm ETC might be worth talking about.
bingo
I love those WW2 informative videos. We are missing so much as a culture today. People call them, "The Greatest Generation" and fight to undo everything that made them great.
Its called propaganda.
To my mind, “Tank Destroyer” conjures up images of the A-10/GAU8 combo...
M109A6 Paladin 155mm Self-Propelled Howitzer [*EXISTS*]: "What am I? A JOKE to you?"
Your channel is one of the coolest I have seen. How do you only have 33.5K subs? I love it!
Curtis Waters thanks Curtis :-) I appreciate that a lot. Not sure myself lol! Wish I had more but I'm just able to entertain :-)
Americans-m10 can blow the swastika off any tank
Maus-Excuse ma’am
"Tank on tank warfare"
- *insert battlefield meme here*
More like World of Tanks or War Thunder memes
Solid armour at the front, sensors on top, vertical launching SACLOS on the back, I think missiles would be easier to upgrade than guns and you wouldn't need a turret. I think that's what your future tank destroyer would look like.
With todays guided/electronic equiped ammo, classic tanks of large caliber have become dinos.
A good approach might be light tanks and tankettes in numbers, with some modern light weight composite armor (of technical ceramic/carbon fiber/rubber/balsa etc.) for better but very light weight protection, and advanced weapon systems.
A good example would be a modernised/redesigned version scimitar/wiesel(1/2), with 20-40mm gun (air-burst etc.) and 2-4 anti-tank missile launchers, coming with LOW PROFILE, HIGH MOBILITY, LITTLE COMPLEXITY and being AIR DEPLOYABLE in numbers for little money compared to heavy (48 t -65 t) and very expensive classic main battle tanks.
The time of main battle tanks is over. And in a battle field where they could play a role, they are easily outperformed by mobile anti-tank systems on the ground and in air already. And the scenarios of tank battles where they might have a role, these scenarios simply do not exist. A main battle tank in numbers just makes up a large target in numbers for any cheap anti-tank capability from air and ground.
If I try to compare a classic main battle tank with a modernized tankette concept of tomorrow:
For the weight of a classic main battle tank, one could have at least 8-15 tankettes. In a battle field a single heavy tank has no chance against 8-15 tankettes with anti-tank capabilities.
For the crew of 3-4 persons on a main battle tank, one can have 2 tankettes of each 2 crew members, which again still can outperform a classic main battle tank, when equipped with anti-tank capabilities.
For the price of a modern main battle tank, one can have 4-8 tankettes. Against 4-8 tankettes no main battles tank of today has the slightest chance to compete.
In scenarios a side always looses some equipment, same to main battle tanks and a theoretical modern tankette. There is some difference when it comes to protection against smaller callibers (
I like this Idea a lot! read the whole thing XD and i agree, tankettes _will_ be the vehicles of the future. you are right about the efficiency of modern warfare, especially guided projectiles where the focus has become "fire many guided anti-tank projectiles towards one target to saturate it" instead of "fire one extremely powerful round that will rip through everything"
As usual, it is the weapon that governs the defense. so since guided projectiles seem to be the most effective weapon, that deliver enough to neutralize the tank, AND can be fired in large quantities, the best defense has become "just don't get hit at all". And this requires that you are equipped with a way to confuse the projectile, that you are light, mobile, and, if you are destroyed then you didn't cost too much to replace.
What the heck is at 14.28? Could that be an experimental IS4 with KV2 turret and arnament? Oh Russia, you did it again :)
it's kv2 replica made for old movies.
I see, makes sense. Thanks for info mate.
"Tank "Klim Voroshilov-2"" - feature film www.imdb.com/title/tt0100743/ directed by Igor Sheshukova, filmed on the novel Valeria Zalotuhi.
The plot:
At the beginning of the great Patriotic war one of the heavy tanks "KV-2" was abandoned by the crew, discovered and brought into an efficient state stumbled on his people. New tank commander, former cadet, decided to catch up with the retreating Red Army, but when I try to pass a weak wooden bridge, the tank fell into the river, where they had been pulled out with the help of the inhabitants of the nearest town. There have been fuel for the future March. However, communication with people has changed the plans of the crew, the tank took up defensive positions on the outskirts and not let the Germans in the town for several hours, and when out of ammunition, the crew blew himself and the tank with explosives.
The film is based on real events of the great Patriotic War, known as the "Rossanensis fight or one against the division".
One of the first descriptions of a single tank battle near the village of Raseiniai, made in English, was placed in the released in 1950 in the USA, the brochure "Methods of warfare the Russian army in world war II".
This, without exaggeration, a unique battle took place on 24-25 June 1941 in Lithuania, near the village of Raseiniai. When a KV-2 fettered the action of the whole German divisions, almost two days.
Джо Неуловимый
Better to make a tank destroyer super light, as short/low as possible with missiles instead of to knock out tanjs from above, say, 10 km away by having drones giving them overview of the battle area.
With 10 km range, no tank can hit the tank destroyer and no/little armor is needed.
Maybe better yet, make it a "tank destroyer drone" so no human casualties?
I like the idea, I was thinking a modern tank destroyer could be a fast, mobile, “stealthy”, and the main purpose would be, once a group of enemy tanks are spotted, these fast agile vehicles can flank or lie and wait in flanking positions thanks to there maneuverability. An MBT is always weaker on the sides then the front
This is a terrible idea for so many reasons it's hard to pin down an exact worst problem. The first one that comes to my mind is the logistical shortcomings. Any army can only deploy so many heavy armored vehicles, so any general is going to have to choose between ratios of the many types, and they just want MBT's anyway so why bother.
Essentially any tank destroyer is inherently counter productive as by it's very nature going to be most effective at destroying it's own side's Main Battle Tanks by taking their place on the battle field.
As an example say the limit for a hypothetical campaign is 100 heavy combat vehicles and the general has the time to pick them. 10 TDs means only 90 MBTs or 20 TDs means only 80 MBTs, it's an insane trade off when any competent general is going to want as many MBT's as possible, 100 in this case. They're not going to want to think about TD's they're going to want to think about ways to finagle the number up to 110 MBTs or more. The comparison gets even worse if we make the example realistic and say that our hypothetical general doesn't get to pick the ratios before hand and must use whatever forces are available within some time limitation. This means that the military as a whole must now deploy TD's and MBT's everywhere for any possible situation because if action is required and the available forces consist predominately of TD's rather then the MBT's that should have been there heavy losses and possibly defeat are imminent.
Tank Destroyers if they're even useful, which is unlikely in my opinion, are a luxury of a wealth attacker or the plan B of a poor defender. But for a balanced modern army they're a dead weight.
US Tank destroyers were light and fast with a big gun.
Germans were slow and heavily armoured
Russian went with the middle ground, pretty well armoured, nice mobility, dang firepower
Destroyers are good for defense and to suport an attack. I think their gun must be 155mm so they can shoot arty shells as well. They must have turret because it helps a lot. They must have enough speed to follow MTB. Finally I think Tank Destroyers dont need armor but it would be good to have some in the front of their turret
AntiTank missiles will stop to work when tanks begin to use machine guns to destroy them like ships do...
Kosntantinos Kontousas Well it should also have a rotatable turret as well as a internal and external turret. The only thing the would make it a tank destroyer is that the ammo would be huge so it could destroy almost all tanks and also its cannon so it can shoot the projectile at a great speed
Take a PZH-2000 and give it additional bolt-on armour.
You need self-propelled artillery? Leave the armour off.
You need a tank destroyer which can be a slower? Put the armour on.
PZH and give it armour and AP shells
by the way, for a 155mm gun to fit on a turret, the turret would have to be huge [bad news for those who want to be upright] or the chassis and turret would have to be huge [a nightmare for defense contractors]
TBH what we need are weapons platforms. Build a New MBT, take the chassis and redesign for troop carry, AA systems, and a general use weapons system (Like a 30mm gun, swappable pods for various missiles heavy machine guns etc). It's a High utility low cost l concept that lets a force do practically anything it can prep for.