Two self-propelled guns vs. a tank

[PeteRR]

Assault guns are not designed for offensives. When you are on the advance, the defender can appear anywhere as you penetrate his front. The ability to traverse the turret to meet that threat is important. When you are on the defensive, especially in a theatre like the Russian Front where you're part of a defensive crust, you're enemy will invariably come from one direction. The Russian's were notorious for tactical inflexibility, that is they would continue a planned attack even if the plan was disasterous. The German would have time to prepare the battlefield by bore-sighting in the areas where the Russian armor was likely to appear. They would also have their fallback positions prepped and waiting, so lack of a turret wasn't such a burden.

Something else to consider: Fire control was primitive during the entire war. Moving and hitting a target at the same time just didn't happen. So an AG in an ambush position was more than a match for a tank as long as it's main gun could penetrate it's target, which the German's never really had a problem with.
The tank would have to know it's target was there, stop, traverse, and fire.

So how did the Sherman prevail? Numbers, airpower, tank reliability, and fuel. The Americans had all 4 in abundance. The Germans were short of all 4 by mid-1942.

 

[AirPower]

That's right, back in the days, tanks have to stop to effectively fire and destroy targets. That pretty much puts it at same level as Tank Destroyers. Now adays we have stabilizers and all kinds of electronic systems to enable shoot on the move, this is something non-traverse TD could never match.

Not to mention w/o Turret, you have no chance of targeting infantry or light vehicles, which these equip with shortrange but deadly weapons.

 

[Manic Moran]

Respectfully playing 'Devil's advocate'...

The US and other nations used assault guns or "tank destroyers" in WWII, and the results were not all that good.

Of interest is Harry Yeide's book "The Tank Killers" which was released about two years ago. It chronicles the history of the US Tank Destroyer corps to the level of individual unit engagements and is probably the best book out there on the subject. The TDs were actually quite successful when they were used as TDs. The initial doctrinal concept of having a swarm of highly mobile concentrated tank destroyers was actually vindicated. The problem was 'what to do if you're in a Sherman and the TDs aren't around?' The second problem was that the Army couldn't figure out whether to have TD battalions as towed or self-propelled, and managed to get it wrong in both North Africa and Western Europe, converting battalions mid-campaign with according results in efficiency. The third problem is that sometimes they just tried to have TDs used as tanks.

The TD concept itself continues to this day, though most usually involving ATGMs instead of cannon. (Vehicles such as the 2S25 and Centauro are still being made though)

A low silhouette is not a good thing for a tank.

It's a very good thing for a tank, if the problem of depression limits can be gotten around, which they can be. See my comments on the Stryker thread.

For the sake of figures:
T-62 max depression 6 degrees.
M-48 max depression 9 degrees.
Type-74 turret depression limit 6 degrees.
Type 74 max depression 12 degrees.
S-Tank turret depression limit 0 degrees. (fixed to hull)
S-tank max depression 10 degrees.
M1 Abrams max depression. 10 degrees.

Creative thinking can get around the problems.

Russian tanks, with low silhouettes can't do it -- the trunnions are mounted too low to allow for adequate depression of the main gun

Technically, it's that the trunnions are mounted too high: They are too close to the turret roof, so the breech/recoil space inside the turret meets with the roof at a smaller angle of depression. They can't be mounted lower as that meets the turret ring. Otherwise depression would only be affected by the interference with the hull, but a T-XX will have the same depression limits over the side as to the front.

The last version that I can recall was the Jagpanther, IIRC, using the high velocity 75 gun on a well armored chassis

Jagdpanther used a long 88. Jangdpanzer IV used a long 75. Jagdtiger had a 128mm. It took into account the fact that if you don't bother with trying to support a recoil mechanism into a rotating turret, the hull itself is capable of supporting a more powerful weapon. The Germans were most prodigious producers, you also have the various Marder models, Nashorn, Hetzer et al, and the StuGs which weren't tank destroyers per se, but did a useful double-duty when they had to.

Lack of overhead protection was also a problem -- the difficulty of producing a system with elevation, traverse and overhead protection, but not a turret, was almost unsolvable.

Again, an issue of creative design. The lack of a turret roof on the US TDs resulted in an ability to depress the gun further. See earlier comment about breech space. One solution is to simply hang the gun straight from the turret roof, and rotate the whole thing in elevation. See the Kuraussier or AMX-13 for examples which have very good depression capability. (12 degrees for the SK-105 for example). I do acknowledge your use of the word 'almost.'

It has been noted here that none of the nations that fielded Assault Guns in WWII field any today

The Jagdpanzer Kanone was fielded by the Germans in the late 1950s. They were withdrawn when ATGMs allowed the 90mm to be replaced by TOW and HOT on the same vehicle. It's a case of technology rendering a vehicle less useful, not of the basic concept itself being fundamentally flawed. The ASU-100 was kept in Soviet service for airmobile units for many decades, if they're not still in service now. I don't think the turretless AG/TD was a problem in itself, just that if you were going to have the time to make a number of vehicles properly, why not just build the more capable one? That, and current manufacturing technology has improved to the point that you can have enough armour and a strong enough gun in a turret anyway.

There probably still is a place for the 'assault gun for infantry support' oncept on today's battlefield, as evidenced by the advent of IFVs and other such turreted, non-tank fire support vehicles (MGS, Ratel 90 etc) means that the days of the un-turreted, heavy-armoured large calibre cannon vehicles are long over.

NTM

 

[1911Tuner]

Q vs Q

>Remember that in the eternal battle between quantity and quality, quantity has a quality all its own.<
******************

To put that in good perspective, consider the Type 56 SKS. Not a high-quality weapon compared to a Garand or M-14...but it'll go bang and put rounds downrange. A dozen men armed with SKS carbines is just a dozen men armed with SKS carbines. Dangerous, but not likely to be very effective except in small, fast-moving skirmishes if they're well trained and highly motivated. Face off with 2 million screamin' Chinese Regulars armed with SKS carbines and you've got a major problem.

Tank killer? Warthog!

 

[Firethorn]

Once again, in modern terms, a tank's main gun firing a depleted-uranium hyper-velocity sabot round will kill any armored vehicle on the planet with one well-aimed shot. As long as that remains the case, there's no concievable advantage to having tank destroyers instead.

If a tank's round will destroy anything, then why bother having armor when you're hunting tanks?

The TD concept itself continues to this day, though most usually involving ATGMs instead of cannon. (Vehicles such as the 2S25 and Centauro are still being made though)

Just what I was thinking of. Like what was stated, a modern tank is capable of accurate fire on the fly. This places self-propelled guns at a disadvantage unless you build them to a level almost that of a tank (turret and all), making them almost as expensive as a tank.

But with a missile, you can have a lighter, cheaper 'turret' mounted on a lighter vehicle than if you tried to use a gun. You also don't need as much of a targeting system either.

You can slap ATGMs on a bunch of humvees and bradlys and such and kill a tank on the cheap as it takes a lot of humvees with ATGMs to equal the cost of a single tank. Sure a ATGM costs more than a tank shell, and it's more of a pain to reload, but the whole point is that you're firing it from an expendable platform and that by outnumbering the tanks 3-6 to one, they can kill the tank before it can kill more than one vehicle.

'Tank destroyers' still exist, but like stated, they've evolved past guns to missiles for the most part.

 

[Technosavant]

Tuner, that's exactly what was in my mind. The guns available to the average civilian may not be front-line military, but put one in the hands of over 100 million people, even if training is mediocre at best, and that's something that will make a potential invader take up another hobby.

The SKS perfectly illustrates the "quantity" aspect- cheap to make, easy to use. Not a perfect "battle rifle," but if you have a large group of guys willing to shoot it at an enemy, you have a force to be reckoned with, even though you might prefer everybody to have a G3 or FAL.

 

[PeteRR]

Quantity without the correct doctrine, training, or leadership can be defeated handily. Two guys with an MG-42 can make a 1000 men hug the ground like they're married to it. For hours.

 

[pete f]

the most important part is the GUN. a single german DP 88mm at one battle in North Africa, was responsible for killing something like 40 or 50 US and Brit tanks in a single engagement. until the Allied forces got close enough to kill the crew with a HE round from a sherman or a grant. Not a Sp or a tank killer but an un shielded AA gun. why? because it could engage at ranges beyond the range of the Allied guns.


Now aday. a modern infanty commander who has at his control a laser designator and pop up hellfire missles could stop a battalion of tanks.
The independantly targeted missle has removed that tank from the battle field for $5000. A $500 dollar popup mine has removed the human element from the picture.

SP's are nice. But the Gun of today is the tactical range guided missle.
The new array of extended operating window missles have handed the power back to the infantry commander. My wife works on guidance and avionics packages for these and I can say they are so scary. Remotely activated and positioned launch canisters, active seeker heads, laser designators that use wobbling frequency's to avoid counter measures. Missle is launched from a remote site 3 or 4 miles from the target, controlled by a FAO or a Infantry commander, which goes in a parabolic arc and drops nearly straight down and can destroy any tank. While our tanks withdraw or attack around the enemy attack. If an infantry man can see the oppostion tank, he can have it killed. These missiles are cheap, accurate to the point of hitting individual people in operational use in Iraq and afganistan.

 

[akodo]

isn't part of the factor behind making tank detroyers in WWII that the option was basically tank destroyer or nothing. Most were being slapped on chassis that were too small, outdated, or otherwise incapable of being made into true tanks. I don't recall much instance of new tank destroyer factories being built, or existing factories for what was then the current, most modern tank that country could make being diverted to make tank hunters. Tank hunters were churned out by factories that could no longer churn out effective tanks, either due to supply limitations, or technological improvments that made the old product obsolete.

 

[Manic Moran]

Sortof. There were two kinds of turretless TDs built in WWII: The first was simply re-using old chassis. For example, turning the Pz38(t) light tank with its 37mm gun into a 75mm armed Hetzer tank destroyer, or the 20mm PzMkII chassis being mounted with a 76mm AT gun in the Marder.

The other kind were the ones which used current production chassis. By and large, any facility which could produce StuG IV or Jagdpanther could produce the MkIV or the Panther turreted tanks. However, a turretless vehicle was simply quicker and cheaper to build, so I guess they were trying for a sort of High/Low mix. Kindof like the F-15 and F-16 combo that the Air Force had in mind in the 1970s/80s.

Vehicles such as SU-100 or ISU-152 were turretless vehicles simply because the Soviets wanted something to get the gun into the battle, but couldn't figure out how to build a strong enough to hold it.

NTM

 

[PeteRR]

If anything, the assault guns on production chassis' were a drain on the regular tank production. The JagdPanzer IV was a more than adequate vehicle, they didn't need to produce the JagdPanther or JagdTiger. Both of them reduced the number of already scarce Panthers and King Tigers.

The Hetzer, to me, is the pinnacle of tank destroyers. It had a low profile, a powerful main gun, and reliable running gear because of it's light weight.


If you ever get the chance to read Albert Speer's autobiography, it's excellent. Along about 1942, the Panther and King Tiger were starting to become a reality. The decision was made to halt Panzer IV production in deference to the Pz V and VIB. The problem being both vehicles experienced teething troubles and if Guderian + Speer hadn't insisted on the continuing production of the Pz IV the Germans would have had no tank production, except for a miniscule number of Tiger I's, for 2 years.

 

[Deanimator]

Wouldn't have made all that much difference. I doubt it would have even extended the war any. The Germans had so many self-inflicted wounds, Hitler probably could have found a way to lose the war WITH the atomic bomb.

That having been said, limited traverse SP tank destroyers are generally only effective on the defense. The Germans were never going to win on the defense, especially against large numbers of highly mobile tanks such as the T-34 and even the Sherman.

 

[Manic Moran]

The Hetzer, to me, is the pinnacle of tank destroyers. It had a low profile, a powerful main gun, and reliable running gear because of it's light weight.

But the 'bastard' nature of its design, basically fitted to a small hull not designed for it resulted in it being ergonomically a horrendous vehicle. Loading it was horrible, and the way the crew were scattered around the vehicle presumably led to co-ordination problems.

NTM

 

[PCGS65]

Our sherman tanks were no match for germanys heavy tanks tiger ect on a one to one basis. That's why the were nic named "ronsonol" because they lit every time. Our troops didn't like them at all. The shells from german tanks would often pass through both sides of a sherman without detonation and our 75mm shells would often bounce of the german tanks heavy armour. I'm not sure they had too many light tanks(germany that is) but the shermans were much easier to mass produce even when shipping across the ocean. We managed to supply enough of them to out number the german tanks 2-3 to one. Plus they ran circles around german tanks. Our men liked to get the german tanks in the woods because the barrels on the german tanks were long and would hit trees trying to aim. So after our men learned(with many casualties)to out maneuver and where to shoot at german tanks only then were we successful. Thus numbers are superior to might. Remember General Custard?
If one can produce enough(that's a no brainer)= victory.

 

[4v50 Gary]

One of the creators of the German Tank Arm, Heinz Guderian, balked at the proposal to increase sturmgeschutz production over that of the panzers. He pointed out that tanks with their rotating turrets were superior vehicles and better able to act both defensively and offensively. It's somewhere in his book, Panzer Leader.

There's also some interservice rivalry going on as the sturmgeschutz were primarily used by the artillery arm. Thus, it became not a question of overall number of AFVs but whether the artillery arm would get sturmgeschutzs at the expense of the panzer arm.

Either way, I'm glad we (Americans, British Commonwealth, Soviet Russians and other allies) whupped the Germans & their allies.

 

[Sunray]

"...SP Guns are generally viewed as cheaper substitutes for tanks..." By who? SP's are owned and operated by artillery types, not tankers. They're highly mobile artillery and are not now nor ever were intended to be nor thought of as tanks. If a tank gets near an SP, the SP gets blown up.
"...nic named "ronsonol"..." 'Ronsons' actually, after the lighter of the same make. (I've had one for nearly 40 years and it still lights every time when fueled) 'One strike and they light up'. Ronsonol is the fuel. Close enough though.
The Sherman's main gun was obsolete by D-Day. Under armoured, under gunned and running on gasoline. Although there were some deisel powered Shermans. The only Sherman variant that could tangle with the Panthers and Tiger I's was the Firefly with it's 17 pounder(76mm) high velocity gun. Same hull and vulnerabilities though. G.S. Patton decided that tanks were not for fighting tanks, but for getting into the enemies rear. There was a better tank available, but G.S. said no to it. G.S. was THE American tank expert. His short sightedness got a lot of guy killed.

 

[Manic Moran]

"...SP Guns are generally viewed as cheaper substitutes for tanks..." By who? SP's are owned and operated by artillery types, not tankers

This thread is generally referring to SP guns in the "assault gun" or "tank destroyer" direct fire support context, not the context of modern self-propelled indirect artillery like M-109 or PzH-2000.

In this instance, SPGs were viewed by some as cheaper tanks. Indeed, a number of Panzer Battalions towards the end of the war were almost entirely StuG-equipped with few actual tanks.

NTM

 

[Preacherman]

The reason the Germans couldn't produce enough tanks goes back to their fundamental weakness - raw materials. They couldn't produce enough ball-bearings and roller bearings for turrets, because the high-chromium steel needed for them couldn't be produced, because they didn't have enough chromium. The same problem affected the jet engines on the ME262: they lasted for only ten hours before having to be replaced, because the internal bearings had to be made from standard steel rather than high-chromium steel.

 

[No_Brakes23]

Not to mention w/o Turret, you have no chance of targeting infantry or light vehicles, which these equip with shortrange but deadly weapons.

Not so, the Hetzer had a turreted Machine Gun that could be fired from inside the vehicle.

The main gun was not as effective when infantry gets that close anyway. That's what smoke dispensers and Bow/Co-Ax/Turret Machine Guns are for.

The Gyrostabiliser was put into combat when the Americans came to Europe, but the Tiger and Panther still aquitted themselves well against the Shermans.

 

[PCGS65]

by Preacherman, The reason the Germans couldn't produce enough tanks goes back to their fundamental weakness - raw materials. They couldn't produce enough ball-bearings and roller bearings for turrets, because the high-chromium steel needed for them couldn't be produced, because they didn't have enough chromium. The same problem affected the jet engines on the ME262: they lasted for only ten hours before having to be replaced, because the internal bearings had to be made from standard steel rather than high-chromium steel.

Preacherman this is true from about 1943 till the end of the war.
From 1939 to '43 germany had plenty of raw materials from other countrys they invaded and plenty of tanks aircraft ect.
Near the end it was fuel and the constant bombing or their factories that did them in. But they learned to build production facilities under ground so near the end they were producing aircraft at a rate above any other time during the war. They needed fuel and pilots which they didn't have. The battle of the buldge was a great example of this. Oh they also ran out of men as we all know.
I love WWII history!! Take care

 

[Husker1911]

"They couldn't produce enough ball-bearings and roller bearings for turrets, because the high-chromium steel needed for them couldn't be produced, because they didn't have enough chromium."

Great point, and especially since Allied (American) AAF leaders targeted ball-bearings as a vital component and sent thousands upon thousands of heavy (American) bombers after their manufacturers. The strategy nearly worked, but was overturned in favor of targeting Axis petroleum production plants instead. Remember the squeaky approaching Panzers in "Battle of the Bulge?"

 

[tanksoldier]

Self-propelled guns are actually artillery.

What you're talking about are assault guns (fixed casemate mount) and tank destroyers (guns mounted in turrets). Also, it took 85-90% of the industrial capacity to build a tank destroyer or assault gun as a tank.


Both saved weight by having thinner armor, and in the case of AGs no traverse mechanism, to carry bigger guns.

This very question was a huge debate at the time (1920ish thru about 1943) and resulted in all three being fielded by the major militaries. Docterine of the time states that tanks were primarily infantry support. Anti-tank guns, and tank destroyers frining from ambush were supposed to be the main tank-killers. It was not envisioned that tanks would intentionally engage other tanks, they were supposed to be massed for breakthru attacks, rampaging in the enemy rear areas, etc. This is the main reason for the light gun that the M4 Sherman suffered with throughout the war. It was designed to engage infantry and soft-skin targets, not other tanks.

What was discovered was that TDs and AGs are too specialized and inefficient. If it takes 85% as much industry to build an AG, the AG has to be 85% as effective as a tank in order to be an efficient use of resources. They are not. AGs and TDs have very limited performance envelopes. Generally TDs are only effective on the defense, from ambush. AGs are effective when attacking fixed positions, but are vulnerable to a manuvering enemy. Hence, post WWII you see very few AGs, and most dedicated TDs are ATGM platforms.

There are a few exceptions. Sweden only ever expected to fight on the defense. The Swedish S-Tank is really an assault gun. There are a few others.

The short answer to the original question is "No". The best weapon against a tank is another tank. AGs and TDs are too specialized and vulnerable.

 

[johnmcl]

Don't Forget Versatility

Oleg,

What a great question. I'm really enjoying reading all the historical perspectives. I want to bring up my thoughts that armor is usually more versatile than self-propelled artillery

Now WWII was well before the idea of combined arms came into vogue. The guys kind of fell into it in WWII though, particularly in town-centered combat. I can see pictures in my mind of infantrymen walking behind a tank as it approaches the town, with the tank providing protection for a squad of guys. I hardly believe such protection was available behind a piece of self-propolled artillery.

I also see photos of two squads riding a tank, but none on SP.

Then there's the argument of providing defensive capabilities. One can see the traversing capability of the tank being considerably more responsive than the SP.

I'm not proposing these thoughts as the primary reason for valuing armor over SP, but addtional reasons.

John

 

[PeteRR]

The Germans were masters of combined arms and formed kampfgruppes almost instinctively. Artillery, of whatever stripe, was always included, if available to give the gruppe some punch.

 

[Manic Moran]

There are a few exceptions. Sweden only ever expected to fight on the defense. The Swedish S-Tank is really an assault gun. There are a few others.

That's one of my pet gripes. By doctrine, the S-Tank was a tank. It was designed to take on and survive all direct fire threats on the battlefield, from heavy armour to troops. An assault gun is primarily an infantry support weapon. A tank dsestroyer is primarily a tank killer (and the Swedes had the IKV-91 for that). S-Tank did both, and tests in the late 1960s showed it to be just as capable at all roles as the Centurion and M60, mainly because no conventional turreted tank had a fire-on-the-move ability either, and the S-tank was capable of rotating its entire hull faster than a tank could turn its turret.

NTM