The West Germans kept building tank destroyers during the cold war?
>>64261897Indeed they did.
>>64261897Genuine question: how do you even hit something with a tank destroyer?Your gun has only a few degrees of horizontal movement, how are you supposed to hit a moving target?Were they purely supposed to hide in cover and engage a small segment of the battlefield?
>>64261914>point the tank at the target>aim with the gun>fireNot very difficult...People should play Warthunder so they could get rid of these kinds of simple retarded misconceptions.
>>64261897>Military continues practicing their doctrineWait till you hear about the soviets and traditional artillery spam.
>>64261914The purpose is ambush and precision long distance aiming. "I can't traverse a turret" only matters at short ranges.
Most missile equipped Raketenjagdpanzer.Kanonenjagdpanzer were only built in the 60s and phased out/converted to Jaguar in the 80s.
>>64261920And yet nobody is building them any more...
>>64261959
>>64261959Because having a dedicated specialized tank destroyer wasn't in anyone's doctrine. The Americans toyed around with it, but they did fast tank destroyers that relied on speed and were basically just a solution to "you can have only have two of armament, armor, or speed". But when MBT came around, you could have all three so why bother with a specialized tank destroyer at that point? Germans persisted with the concept because again doctrine.
>>64261981Thats going to be a bitch to drive.
>>64261981>1m-2,5m Nera armour in the frontwho cares if you dont have to drive much after reaching a good position. What kind of weapon could harm you in a direct confrontation anyway. Its like a maginotline that can travel at up to 70kmh and redeploy with a range of 500km. Give it some LaserPDW and an autoloader and it could be a viable WW3 meme weapon
>>64261897No. AI image.
might build new ones again toopic related; Fuchs Evolution by Rheinmetall equipped with 24 vertically launched multi-purpose JAGM missiles from Lockheed Martinhttps://euro-sd.com/2025/09/major-news/46538/fuchs-jagm-unveiled-at-dsei/
>>64261897The USSR had something like a 5-to-1 superiority in tanks in the 1970s.So yeah, the plan was to set up as many ambushes as possible. Tank destroyers are good defensive weapons.If you were assigned to one of these beasts, your job should a war start, was to drive out to the country somewhere, find a good hiding spot, let the BRDMs pass you by (hopefully), and then ambush the first tank formation you see.
>>64261981>German-American Marvel of EngineeringSEXOOOO
>>64262196Retard.
>>64262293Anon, I think he was joking.
>>64261897That's just germans being germans
>>64262327Why couldn't this work in Ukraine? The weight savings from removing the turret could be used to install more roof armour and the lower height means It could accommodate cages way easier?
Only until ATGMs became more widespread and affordableSoviets also built a fewBy and large those build post-war were intended to lighter, faster and more mobile than tanks, rather than the heavy wartime casemate-types.
>>64262359>>64262327>>64262270Wouldn't these tank destroyers be able to carry more rounds than missiles that ATGM carriers could carry?
>>64261897>Dedicated tank destroyer>Has a smaller gun than the Leopard 1 MBT that entered service the same yearWas 90mm considered good enough since that's what the older Patton tanks had? Seems a bit of an oversight in terms of future proofing.
>>64262327>just germans being germansyeah
>>64262626mind, this was a testbed to compare the speed of autoloaders vs manual loaded guns, not anything intended for production
>>64261981NUT
>>64262423>Was 90mm considered good enoughAs far as I can tell, yes.One reasoning behind the KJP was to get a mass of cheap mobile anti-tank, a gun behind every hedge situation, to counter the soviet numerical superiority.Idea being that they cannibalize the 90mm from their Pattons for a smaller more mobile platform which relies on ambushes and HEAT penetration to do work.The latter became an issue when T-64s and especially T-72s with their composite armor started showing up. Which is also when they started converting them to Jaguar 2s.It's probably worth noting that the KJP 4-5 was considered viable because it was a Henschel and Hanomag design based on their WW2 experience. So they went in with a different mindset.
>>64262626Vgh, the Doppelstug...
>>64262369You have to consider the effect on target, range and accuracy of the weapons. It might take you a few rounds to knock out a tank if you don't have the range down to a T, and once T-64s and T-72s started showing up in significant numbers you'd have to at least bump up to a 105, at which point the ammo capacity advantage diminishes greatly.
>>64261897luv this lil nigga in WARNO. Good for plinking random soviet units on the edges of town and you wont miss it if it dies.
>>64261959Turret rings got cheaper and better and stabilized guns became a thing.It's not that tank destroyers got worse, but tanks got better,
>>64261897Given enough time, any vehicle owned by a German will evolve into a StuG/Jagdpanzer.
>>64263174Animal carnicification vs german StuGification Which is stronger?
>>64261897Someone needed to fuck your mom
>>64262270>The USSR had something like a 5-to-1 superiority in tanks in the 1970s.At the very height of soviet relative power entire warpact topped out at 3:1 advantage in tank numbers over NATO, which would be reduced to around 2:1 most other times.
>>64262656Why would you not instead just make two vehicles, one with an autoloader and one without? What's the point of having them on the same hull? The designs for the two separate hulls could at least be further refined into a production vehicle, this is just a complete dead end developmentally.
The Seedish built probably the best one ever.https://youtu.be/fARGfVA7Mm8
>>64263672because the hull didn't matter, it was just made to have a mobile, enclosed gun platform to better simulate being fitted to an actual tank. Like I said, it was never meant to go any further than this once they had the data they were looking for
>>64264105That's an MBT, not a tank destroyer.
>>64263672Because you could not only save money by just making one hull, you can eliminate a few variables from testing. That's the kind of thing that gives engineers, especially German ones, wet dreams.
>>64261897How the hell could that archaic designed piece of shit compete against a T-55 or a T-64?
>>64264105The reason everyone is going to call it an MBT is because the swedish intended to use it maneuver warfare as the main striking element like an MBT and not as a mobile anti-tank force like a tank destroyer
>>64264105why hasn't this concept been done more often?Seems like the low profile and highly sloped front armor would be a massive survivability advantage
>>64264250>why hasn't this concept been done more often?the Stank existed in a narrow window of time when the ability to aim using the tanks suspension already existed but before stabilizers were good enough to allow accurate shooting while on the moveonce you could accurately shoot on the move, the turret was a necessity to make the most of iteven shooting on short stops was a major advantage, hence why they operated both the S-tank and the centurion at the same time>would be a massive survivability advantagenot nearly as much as you would thinkthe deeply sloped armor was only 40mm thick, good enough to stop 100mm AP rounds but only marginal against 115mm rounds that entered service while reducing size would make it harder to hit at long range, average sightlines in western europe were still only about 1km on average, at that distance you could still hit the S-tank pretty easily
>>64262230This is the future of tanks. The main gun will atrophy to a self defence weapon while missiles will take its place as the main weapon. The vehicle will be relatively lightweight, fast and festooned with sensors.
>>64261897Yes.They were probably some of the most cost effective vehicles for them during ww2. They could produce them quickly and they were very effective against the soviets.
>>64261914You have both Y and X axis movement, it's obviously limited. It's very low profile great for hiding and is best used as a defensive tool but in well coordinated formation can be used in an offensive way. Just really bad for urban stuff.
>>64264225>T-55HEAT could easily go through a T-55's turret let alone the UFP.>T-64shit out of luck aside from side shots, turret face and UFP would've been virtually impenetrable.low profile and high mobility was supposed to allow it to perform ambushes, knock out a tank or two and then fuck off before the Soviets could hunt it down>>64264250Aside from what the other anon said, modern composite armor is internally sloped, you still want some sloping so your outermost layer of steel can stand up to low caliber stuff, but protection isn't as dependent on having a gigaslope externally.
>>64264250>Seems like the low profileA T-72 is only 20cm higher, 10 if you count the commanders cupola on the Strv 103.It was a developmental dead end as soon as tanks could reliably fire on the move.>highly sloped front armorDidn't matter, once the T-72 became the main tank in the Soviet northern motor-rifle divisions it was doomed, testing in the early 90s showed even export 125mm APFSDS would reliably penetrate the 103 with ease.
>>64261981What the fuck am I looking at?
>>64261959Casemates went out of fashion because they aren't necessary. It was mostly a cost saving measure and a way to fit a bigger gun onto a chassis than the turret would allow. Tank destroyers these days are largely missile carriers
>>64261897Sensible. Cheaper than turrets and you are going to be the defender so having a weapon designed to only expect frontal attacks is valid. Same reason Britain still had towed 120mm AT guns in its reserves at the same time.Defenders get home field advantage hence Swedes had the same casemate designs. Other nations went with stuff like Swingfires in the early days of ATGMs but casemate designs were still 100% valid on a defensive posture where you can all but guarantee the enemy will push towards you.
>>64264885A casemate abrams
Is the Stug just in their blood?
>>64261897you wouldn't get it
>>64264885Abrams with 155mm main gun
>>64264318Modern composites would be able to vastly improve the S-Tank's front protection while keeping it in a similar weight.
>>64264953Stugification of Europe was their end game.
>>64264105S-tank best stank
>>64265123Not really, you need volume for modern composites, just look at how turret armor looks like on any MBT. You can boost the armor effectiveness up a bit, but ultimately it'll still fall short.
>>64261981SEXXXXXXXOOOOOO
>>64261914Don't think of it as being like a tank. It's used more like an antitank field piece, but with the advantage of being able to relocate faster after firing and having the crew better protected.
>>64265996
>>64261981Needs a bigger kannon
>>64266061>Jagloepard>Jagleopard 1
Is "now draw her as a STUG!" going to be the next new thing? Cause I am all for it honestly.
>>64266207
>>64266318Need a Jadgt55 and a jadgchallenger 2, fuck it. Give me a jadgpanther too, those changs won't escape it.
>>64261981Its just an Abrams with no neck
>>64266328>Need a Jadgt55Close enough.
>>64266328Look up the SU-122-54.
>>64262656>mind, this was a testbed to compare the speed of autoloaders vs manual loaded guns, not anything intended for productionIt was to test high speed zig-zag stop and go advance. it used two guns to improve hit probability.
Evolution brought us here
>>64266379Is this evolve to Jadgt or return to Stug moment?
>>64266347>>64266350O my, do we have a jadgt90 too?
>>64266398We should return to StuG. The Wiesel was originally to support the infantry, much like the StuG. Put a recoilless or something like the Stryker's gun on it with different magazines for different targets.
>>64266398The Wiieesel is my favourite Bundeswehr vehicle, second only to the Sexopanzer Leopard 1.
>>64266379>>64266398RIP
>>64266453Okay I like that. Its like it belongs in GI Joe!
>>64266453>Not one continuous track0/10
>>64261897They were cheap and easy to make, and Germany really just needed something to get their MIC retooled when they were allowed to rearm in the late 50s. Experience from the last war showed that the StuGs / jagdpanzers were both effective and easier to build. The kanonenjagdpanzer was also (in theory) going to be built on the same hull as the IFV they were planning to operate. Didn't end up going that way, but they could still build a lot of them.>>64266443I've always wondered what'd happen if they had a version with a recoiless, even a good ol' Carl G, because of all the new ammunition types they have for the 84mm. You have laser guided rocket-assisted rounds, programmable rounds, even just the newer DPHE stuff, and the Wiesel even could probably carry a lot.Maybe you could have a combo 20mm + recoiless mount.
>>64261897Makes sense since the east Germans were mass producing tanks
>>64261951my dad was the Gunner on a Jaguar I / the one with the HOT Missle Weapon System in the 1980s https://youtu.be/cEqXEv8sWZ4?si=hHZzaeIcCETfAG9n1 shoot was about 50,000 Deutsch Marksand the Missle was guided by a wire He was stationed in the Bavarian Forest, on the border between Bavaria and Czechoslovakia.and in the North of Bavaria was the Border to the GDRthey also had it on B105 Helicopters https://youtu.be/D2jIgR7twmc?si=tiFTUv2jcPzz0l9X
>>64264885Mechanized viagra.
>>64266061super saysain form of a STUG
>>64261959Missile carriers are easier to build, easier to hide, and just overall more effective at killing tanks than casemates.
>>64261981>>64261897You know it occurs to me that a casemate tank is something you actually can make drone proof.
>>64264171>>64264234>The reason everyone is going to call it an MBT is becauseThey are reddit tire faggots. It's got a hull mounted main gun. It's a TD.
>>64262359That's an airborne vehicle though, a very specialized beast.
>>64264352Khrushev-sama... I kneel...
>>64267381what about this is this a 'TD'?
>>64267763despite being an effective TD, the M36 was also proof that the concept was reaching obsolescenceafter most german tanks were defeated at the ardennes, there wasnt anything left for the M36 to shoot at and it spent most of the war hitting infantry and buildingsand with the addition of a roof, you had a TD that looked like a tank, acted like a tank, and was used like a tankand the M26 entering service meant it had no firepower advantage over a tank
>>64264352>Arsenal Tanks>Arsenal Ships>Arsenal Aircraft bomb trucksIts going to be missles all the way down
>>64267381It's an mbt. Having a casemate doesn't automatically make something a tank destroyer like some kind of video game logic. US tank destroyers were almost universally turreted. Lots of german and british spg's were casemates
Germany was literally the military focalpoint of the world during the Cold War. It was Europe's version of Korea of Kashmir, there were relatively frequent scares over some bullshit happening there. I know it's easy to forget because it's a rich wytpipo country, but it unironically was the place everyone thought a nuclear war would start from 1951-1990.
>>64267782>proof that the concept was reaching obselescence>despite resembling it's successor in most ways>as well as mirroring more modern designs in design philosophy i.e. leo 1It feels like midwits are attracted to this thread for some reason
>>64267810>It feels like midwits are attracted to this thread for some reasonthat was literally allied commands own assessment of the TD forcesthey were quickly developing in ways that made them more similar to tanks in both form and functionhence why TD battalions were disbanded after the war and their role given to tanks, there was no functional difference between them
>>64267823Precisely, the intended doctrine of the TD forces was never resply used and it became apparent in africa that it wouldn't really work anyway. In practice they were almost 'alwats' used as tanks. But the characteristics that defined the american td's largely became traits of the yank forces rather than the other way around. By which I mean mobility, firepower and ergonomics were most desired with a reasonable if not spectacular level of protection. My point being, they didn't become obsolete by design, just in concept
>>64261914the gun could move to both sides +-15 degrees. Depending on its engagement range it has a large area it could shoot. (Assuming I did the math right its been a while)
>>64264225You know how panzerjagers worked in WW2? Like that. Literally exactly like that.
>>64267887the numbers check out. might've been easier to use SOHCAHTOA with the firing line as the Adjacent.
>>64268021>He doesn't use the law of sinesNGMI
>>64264234>The reason everyone is going to call it an MBT is because the swedish intended to use it maneuver warfare as the main striking element like an MBT and not as a mobile anti-tank force like a tank destroyerComplete nonsense, it was specifically a _defensive_ weapon meant to counter zerg rushing Soviet tanks, it had a rear facing driver to retreat to the next firing position.
>>64261981>StuG's your abramscan we make this a meme like the bullpups/unbullpups x gun
>>64268540Swedish field manuals makes no difference in tactics between the S-tank and the Centurion, neither in offense or defense.Large emphasis is put on fire and manouver and bounding advance to quickly take ground to take the enemy by surprise before they can form a defensive line.Swedish "defensive doctrine" during the early to mid cold war was fast armored and mechanised counterattack to disrupt Soviet airborne and amphibious forces before they could secure beachheads to bring in heavy armor.
>>64267800thismy dad was in the german army in the 1980s and an uncle of mine was in the army from mid 1970s till early 1990s it was common knowledge in the command and the officers drilled the normal soldiers in the ABC Defence. Atomic Bio and Chemical Weapons. also many US Army Bases had thermo nuklear war heads stored. a small town in my region had a us army artillery brigade. they had them ready and if shit hits the fan they would use them of course. from Nuremberg to the GDR Border was about 150 Milesthe Fulda Gap Rush B Tactic was the meta
>>64264352too expensive
>>64268540this is seriously the most retarded vehicle everthe notion that movement through suspension is going to be accurate enough for shooting shit is so fucking retardedim convinced Europeans purposefully make their equipment gay and useless so in time of coalition, they can point at their garbage and say 'we don't have that capability, you (USA) do it.' IE how their jets can only fly for 5 minutes but have great 'on paper' stats.
>>64267480Still performs the same niche KanJPz filled, to make a fast, lightweight anti-tank platform for infantry divisions that effectively replaced old towed anti-tank guns
>>64261897Makes sense if the enemy's doctrine was blatantly endless hordes of tanks.
>>64267908>Unstugs your Hetzer!
>>64269346>low poly sherman
>>64269346Brought to you by Wargaming.
>>64269251why wouldn't it be? It worked well in testing and even beat out turreted tanks in engagement times in some situations. It's chief disadvantage was that it could not be fired accurately on the move, which at the time was not considered as much of an advantage given the limitation of the stabalizers they had
>>64264885peak performance
>>64269251is this why the american abrams was born out of he same prototype project the german leo2 came from?a prototype project that was based on german ww2 tank experience (panther duckface anyone?)?is this the reason the abrams uses a rheinmetall gun copy (you're doing it like the chinese!)?And who is this von Braun, what did Lippisch do at McDonnel Douglas?
>>642702631960-1970s tank design in the West had little resemblance with WWII designs.And the MBT-KPz-70 project remained 'modular' enough to keep a certain compatibility between powerpacks, even if Germans and Americans didn't swap the engines.The original gun of the M1 was a modernization of the British L7 105 mm. In the US people thought conventional guns were obsolete for tanks.
>>64261897Everyone did. Even the Soviets and French still made casemate tank destroyers well into the cold war.
>>64269339If one side had only tanks and one side had only tank destroyers, who would win?
>>64262359They're using those things in Ukraine right now, lol.>>64267480It's an airborne SPG but it's still considered an SPG with the same doctrinal role as a TD.
>>64261981Looks retarded in spirit. The glacis on the Abrams should be kept at a very shallow angle and the roof line extended all the way above the engine bay.
>>64266453>half-track to double track
>>64271836tank destroyers by definition destroy tanks
>>64261981Now all it needs is a 140 mm gun.
>>64266457That's because most GI Joe vehicles are based off quirky trial vehicles and prototypes that tended to get cancelled for being too niche.
>>64272265That comes later.
>>64272229yeah but what about the other stuff tanks do
>>64261981>One for the baron!
