Jump to content


Philosophy of turretless tank destroyers?


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

iraqxlol #1 Posted 31 May 2020 - 02:08 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 4434 battles
  • 104
  • Member since:
    10-31-2013

Hello.

 

Lately I've been curious about the general philosophy of cased or turretless tank destroyers.

 

What is the point of not having turret if you aren't going to reduce the overall weight of the tank?

What are the benefits? Bigger compartment? Then why there is tiny Tank destroyers?

Cheaper? How so?

 

 

I got these questions every time time I get Cased TDs, Really hate them, Never got them to work.

 

Also some tips on how to play these things perhaps?

 

 

Thanks!



Warzey #2 Posted 31 May 2020 - 02:21 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 61797 battles
  • 1,466
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011
Well generally speaking you want to play as defensively as possible. That basically means you look at the minimap, anticipate where enemies might push and position yourself to counter them. In case your TD has some reliable front armor you can also play in the corridor and trade with heavies. 

Infryndiira #3 Posted 31 May 2020 - 02:23 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24256 battles
  • 366
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

Turretless/casemate tank destroyers allow you to have stronger armour than a turreted tank destroyer, while mounting a bigger gun. For example, the US T25 AT mounts a 105mm gun, while the T25/2 mounts a 90mm gun, with the former also receiving better armour. A more historical example would be the ISU-152, which mounts a 152mm howitzer on the IS chassis, with the IS-2 tank mounting a 122mm gun. Other examples you can look for include the Tiger II and Jagdtiger, Panther and Jagdpanther, Panzer III and StuG III, Pz 38(t) and Hetzer, SU-100 and T-34, and so forth.

 

In other cases, turretless/casemate tank destroyers can offer a lower profile than conventional tank design. For instance, you can look at the height of the Strv 103 and T28/T95 (despite the fact that both of these were officially designated as "tanks" instead of "tank destroyers").



Kdingo #4 Posted 31 May 2020 - 02:26 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 33290 battles
  • 8,776
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011
Lower profile and cheaper to produce.

Space_Vato #5 Posted 31 May 2020 - 07:13 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 4375 battles
  • 212
  • Member since:
    02-08-2019

View Postiraqxlol, on 31 May 2020 - 02:08 AM, said:

Hello.

 

Lately I've been curious about the general philosophy of cased or turretless tank destroyers.

 

What is the point of not having turret if you aren't going to reduce the overall weight of the tank?

What are the benefits? Bigger compartment? Then why there is tiny Tank destroyers?

Cheaper? How so?

 

 

I got these questions every time time I get Cased TDs, Really hate them, Never got them to work.

 

Also some tips on how to play these things perhaps?

 

 

Thanks!

 

 

RL philosophy or WoT philosophy?

 

And

 

TD or Assault gun? (different RL philosophies...) (FWIW Assault guns are the original SPG's (in RL))

 

 

 

RL philosphy: Cheaper in cost, less materials needed to build, lower profile (easy to hide in defensive situations and harder to hit)

 

WoT philosophy: We need to fill techtrees


Edited by Space_Vato, 31 May 2020 - 07:14 AM.


Draakard #6 Posted 31 May 2020 - 09:01 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 23294 battles
  • 110
  • Member since:
    07-29-2013

Cammo - Cammo - Cammo - View Range - View Range - View Range....

 

Know your locations on the maps (very important).

 

The lights and meds are supposed to spot, and the TD kill from the back.

 

Remember your armor is s*** so don't engage tanks close up.

 

It can offcourse be frustrating when your teammates just charge forward  like muppets and die without waiting for TD support at the back.

 

And offcourse you need to max a few skills, 6th sence is extremely important + Cammo + Situation Awarenes + Recon ... all skills should be maxed before you even start to play your TD.

 

Unfortunately pimping a TD to playable state will cost you 6 - 10 million credits, but will save you lots of frustration.

 

Then again, many of the WOT maps are not designed for TDs sniping at long range... expect to be dissapointed on certain maps (its quite normal in WOT).



Tom_Deekanarry #7 Posted 31 May 2020 - 09:08 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 17687 battles
  • 614
  • Member since:
    06-28-2012

What your missing is tank fights rarely happen at 450m in reality, so the limited traverse that is a problem in this game is more than adequate when firing at 1000m, a 10 degree arc at 100m might be small but at 1500m its huge.

 

Most of the successful TD designs were turretless, the Stug, Jagpanther and SU100 immediately spring to mind, it's just this game with it's silly range limitations puts an artificial cap on the ability of these vehicles to work as designed.



Bulldog_Drummond #8 Posted 31 May 2020 - 09:19 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36205 battles
  • 12,202
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

Historically, TDs were mobile field support guns and/or anti-tank guns

They were cheaper than tanks and effective on defence or supporting infantry, which is why the German army used a lot of them, e.g. more StuGs were produced than Pz IVs.

Lack of a turret meant that they struggled if pressed into use as assault vehicles.

Obviously they were a lot more mobile and better protected than anti-tank and field guns, drawn by prime movers or horses, which were vulnerable to HE and artillery fire

 

 



Frostilicus #9 Posted 31 May 2020 - 09:25 AM

    Colonel

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 24167 battles
  • 3,777
  • [-ZNO-] -ZNO-
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

View PostBulldog_Drummond, on 31 May 2020 - 08:19 AM, said:

Historically, TDs were mobile field support guns and/or anti-tank guns

They were cheaper than tanks and effective on defence or supporting infantry, which is why the German army used a lot of them, e.g. more StuGs were produced than Pz IVs.

Lack of a turret meant that they struggled if pressed into use as assault vehicles.

Obviously they were a lot more mobile and better protected than anti-tank and field guns, drawn by prime movers or horses, which were vulnerable to HE and artillery fire

 

 

 

Exactly right - I believe Stugs were classed as artillery by the German Army of the time, and were very much appreciated by their infantry colleagues



kaneloon #10 Posted 31 May 2020 - 09:29 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 33183 battles
  • 4,691
  • [CROWD] CROWD
  • Member since:
    11-18-2011

Less weakness, less technical problems, less repairs.

 

And I hate them too, this feeling of powerlessness when you are tracked and circled ...



Space_Vato #11 Posted 31 May 2020 - 09:31 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 4375 battles
  • 212
  • Member since:
    02-08-2019

View PostFrostilicus, on 31 May 2020 - 09:25 AM, said:

 

Exactly right - I believe Stugs were classed as artillery by the German Army of the time, and were very much appreciated by their infantry colleagues

 

Exept they were not "TD's"... (It's in the name... StuG. (abr.) Sturm Geschutz (in English: Assault Gun)

 

"While the StuG was considered self-propelled artillery, it was not clear which land combat arm of the German Army would handle the new weapon. The Panzerwaffe (armoured corps), the natural user of tracked fighting vehicles, had no resources to spare for the formation of StuG units and neither did the infantry. It was agreed that it would best be employed as part of the artillery arm. The StuGs were organized into battalions (later renamed "brigades" for disinformation purposes) and followed their own doctrine. Infantry support using direct-fire was its intended role. Later, there was also a strong emphasis on its use as an anti-tank gun."

 

 

Specifically for the StuG series, it became a TD in 1942 with the introduction of the 7,5cm Stuk 40 L/48


Edited by Space_Vato, 31 May 2020 - 09:38 AM.


Bulldog_Drummond #12 Posted 31 May 2020 - 09:39 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36205 battles
  • 12,202
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostSpace_Vato, on 31 May 2020 - 08:31 AM, said:

 

Exept they were not "TD's"... (It's in the name... StuG. (abr.) Sturm Geschutz (in English: Assault Gun)

 

"While the StuG was considered self-propelled artillery, it was not clear which land combat arm of the German Army would handle the new weapon. The Panzerwaffe (armoured corps), the natural user of tracked fighting vehicles, had no resources to spare for the formation of StuG units and neither did the infantry. It was agreed that it would best be employed as part of the artillery arm. The StuGs were organized into battalions (later renamed "brigades" for disinformation purposes) and followed their own doctrine. Infantry support using direct-fire was its intended role. Later, there was also a strong emphasis on its use as an anti-tank gun.

 

That's true, of course, but I used "TD" as that is the game classification.

The StuG was capable of destroying huge numbers of tanks, see https://www.warhistoryonline.com/guest-bloggers/three-germanys-top-stug-aces.html

Not something you will often see in game



jabster #13 Posted 31 May 2020 - 09:58 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12855 battles
  • 28,091
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostFrostilicus, on 31 May 2020 - 08:25 AM, said:

 

Exactly right - I believe Stugs were classed as artillery by the German Army of the time, and were very much appreciated by their infantry colleagues


The Stug is a bit of a weird one as it started life as an infantry support vehicle and was then fitted with an anti-tank gun to become a TD. Later in the war it can almost be considered a turretless tank as it was pressed in to service in a more offensive role.

 

As for the OP’s question, in general the idea was how do yet get a bigger anti-tank gun on an existing mobile chassis so in effect a mobile anti-gun. More armour and low profile would be a plus. The US was a bit different as the favoured a more offensive anti-tank gun policy of hit and run. That means mobility and a turret are far more important. 



Kdingo #14 Posted 31 May 2020 - 10:00 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 33290 battles
  • 8,776
  • Member since:
    07-05-2011

View PostFrostilicus, on 31 May 2020 - 09:25 AM, said:

 

Exactly right - I believe Stugs were classed as artillery by the German Army of the time, and were very much appreciated by their infantry colleagues

 

I think you refer to the stuh not stug. 



Bulldog_Drummond #15 Posted 31 May 2020 - 10:11 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36205 battles
  • 12,202
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostKdingo, on 31 May 2020 - 09:00 AM, said:

 

I think you refer to the stuh not stug. 

 

From memory, I think the StuG was an artillery branch command, and that this was the subject of some political in-fighting in the army as other branches tried to get their hands on it.  Can't recall how that was resolved.



PointZero #16 Posted 31 May 2020 - 10:17 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 48981 battles
  • 1,435
  • Member since:
    02-03-2011


Nishi_Kinuyo #17 Posted 31 May 2020 - 10:22 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 11230 battles
  • 7,556
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View PostKdingo, on 31 May 2020 - 10:00 AM, said:

 

I think you refer to the stuh not stug. 

Uh... yes and no.

Most armies at the type had rather varied designations, and, afaik, most "TDs" were classified more along the lines of Self-Propelled Gun, which also went for artillery based on tank chassis.

 

As for their raison d'être: in-part to have a stronger gun on a chassis that would not have been possible if mounted conventionally in a turret.

E.g. The Jagdpanzer 38t with its 7.5cm L/48. And even then the TD ended up almost twice as heavy as the original LT vz. 38.



Space_Vato #18 Posted 31 May 2020 - 10:43 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 4375 battles
  • 212
  • Member since:
    02-08-2019

FWIW SU-152 was also intended as mobile (flat trajectory) artillery.

It was also capable of destroying the biggest German tanks though. Nice side-effect.

They called it "beast killer"  (but was it an actuall beast killer??? nope...)

 

 

 



1ucky #19 Posted 31 May 2020 - 10:58 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 92891 battles
  • 2,051
  • [THRIL] THRIL
  • Member since:
    11-05-2013

View PostSpace_Vato, on 31 May 2020 - 10:43 AM, said:

FWIW SU-152 was also intended as mobile (flat trajectory) artillery.

It was also capable of destroying the biggest German tanks though. Nice side-effect.

They called it "beast killer"  (but was it an actuall beast killer??? nope...)

Close enough. :)



Rainbowkiss83 #20 Posted 31 May 2020 - 11:05 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 27570 battles
  • 425
  • Member since:
    07-24-2014
They're cheaper (both money and mats) and faster to build (require less skilled workers), they provide almost the same bonuses while used in defensive position as a normal tank (you can get different opinions on that), you get lower % of mechanical failures due to less mechanics in it, the repair required less skilled personnel, they have a low profile and were more easy to conceal.
Basically if you're in a war campaign and u want to defend some position those were the best choice cuz for example you could have 2 guns at the price of 1 turreted, (Hitler??).
USSR used them even in assault cuz...of the raw numbers.
I rememeber reading about Germany using stug in assault aswell but with bad outcomings :P
While, a turreted TD like for example hellcat suits more the "search and destroy" duty of an "attack focused" campaign

Edit: btw i don't see any problem in them being in arty divisions, they had the same duty of a Pak.38 for example, they were just more safe due to the full armor...and mobile due to engines and tracks :trollface:

Edited by Rainbowkiss83, 31 May 2020 - 11:46 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users