Are they a meme? Everyone seems to want tanks, I cannot recall anyone saying: If only we had some tank destroyers we could have won
Tank destroyers
Are they a meme? Everyone seems to want tanks, I cannot recall anyone saying: If only we had some tank destroyers we could have won
>I cannot recall anyone saying: If only we had some tank destroyers we could have won
Clearly you have never spoken to an autistic wehraboo then
>Can't even formulate an actual argument
Why is PrepHole so retarded now?
>now
they had their use in the ME
so no, not a meme
>Centauro
>tank destroyer
uh oh, War Thunder has given you gamer brain and now you're a retard.
the only possible cure is to never pretend to be informed about anything ever again
show us a real tank destroyer then
The Israeli Pereh missile tank is the only real tank destroyer I can think of.
The Centauro and probably everything else you think is a tank destroyer are really Assault Guns / Fire Support Vehicles.
2S25 Sprut
>t. played Battlefield 2: Modern Combat on the PS2
That game would lag so bad at times. The ps2 couldnt handle it.
They were also in that shitty bf3 dlc
>That game would lag so bad at times. The ps2 couldnt handle it
Oh, absolutely. I broke at least one controller due to getting frustrated with the lag. The Xbox 360 version was far better.
Have these been deployed to Ukraine yet?
>yet another piece of Russian vaporware, same as AN-94, SU-47, etc etc
>has this been sent yet?
none of that shit ever gets sent, anon.
They're actually in service though.
There were only ~20 Spruts in service as of 2010 with the VDV, which by now that means probably even less are being fielded. They have never seen combat, nor would they probably ever after their recent lack of success with airborne operations.
>Sprut-SD
Is that actually intended as a TD though? Seems more like a Russian MPF equivalent, aka a direct-fire SPG for infantry support roles. I know English-language articles usually call it a TD but that might be from writers/editors just making shit up based on what they think they know, rather than actual translation of RU documents regarding the vehicle
Also, out of all the SPGs mentioned, I believe the Japanese type 16 is actually expected to serve as a real tank, ie a primary maneuver combat element instead of just a support gun
things like the one in your OP aren't really tank destroyers so much as meant to fulfill an assault gun role. They can operate as tank destroyers, but they're basically meant to carry a tank's direct-fire gun while being a lot cheaper and lighter than an MBT.
Centauro, even the Centauro 2 with the 120mm gun, isn't a tank destroyer.
Yes, with the right cartridge, it could kill just about any Eastern tank in service.
It's meant to be an assault gun or FSV similar to the Stryker with a reserve anti-armor capability. You do NOT want these things to be man-fighting tanks or IFVs, and you definitely do not want it straying into RPG range, which you could get away with with a real tank.
TD is more a thing of total war. Reuse the same parts/hulls with a oversized gun with lots of trade offs to carry out that role.
IFV with oversized guns (overlapping with light tanks) arent TD.
fucking loves wheeled armored car with barrels, my favourite gender.
i always got sci fi vibes from these dudes
too bad it was only a mockup
They look cool, don't they?
that’s not an “MGS 2” (whatever that nomenclature may mean)
that’s a B1 Serie 2/3
STUG STUG STUG STUG STUG STUG STUG
The old style WW2 tracked TDs were a result of a desire to get more expedient mobile anti tank capability to the front in a wartime economy. If two factories are producing more guns and motors than the ones producing tank hulls and turrets, then diverting the excess to other vehicles is a good way to get guns to the front.
OPs pic is of a "mobile gun system" which while conceptually similar to TD's would be employed differently and were purpose built to provide "fuck that thìng/those guys over there" capability to lighter mechanized infantry who may not otherwise have that capability in their brigade.
Tracked WW2 era TD's probably aren't coming back because there's so many alternatives that don't add a new armored vehicle to the doctrine and logistical complexity of an existing army. Infantry, air, and IFV Anti-Tank systems are so potent I doubt the need for them will ever arise again.
>cheaper
>faster [big gun]
>fixed AT guns are pretty much write offs once spotted or overrun, this can move
>purpose built to provide "fuck that thìng/those guys over there" capability to lighter mechanized infantry who may not otherwise have that capability in their brigade
Then: not having to wait for enemy tanks to waltz into close combat range of bazookas
Now: cheaper and faster main canon round with radically lower exposure time IF used properly compared to guided rockets
>Are they a meme? Everyone seems to want tanks
So TD's really became a thing in WW2 but that was a war of rapid tank development, they all started the war with mostly 10-20ton tanks with 37-47mm cannon and by the end 35-70 ton tanks with guns between 75-122mm. Making an all new tank from scratch was time consuming, costly and fraught with teething issues, see the Panther and Pershings, meanwhile nations were stuck with these production lines suited to building lighter vehicles so they just started mounting bigger guns on them so they could still fight.
After the war TD's took a steep dive because the question was, if you needed a vehicle with a bigger gun, why not just build a bigger tank? It was relative peace time so there was no massive time constraint or need to compromise. Eventually they all got to the point where their tanks reached roughly the maximum amount of armor and firepower that was practical which is where we are right now. The role of TD's briefly turned to ATGM carrying vehicles but that fizzled out when they became compact enough to mount easily on basically anything, especially Infantry Fighting Vehicles so it did not make much sense to have a dedicated vehicle.
Wheeled Tanks/TD's/Fire Support/whatever you want to call them have been around for a while but they more have to do with providing light infantry primarily using wheeled vehicles with a big ass direct fire cannon since a 60 ton tank is a bit cumbersome to attach to these units. They don't seem to be for the purpose of solely destroying enemy armor. ATGM's either man carried, vehicle or aircraft mounted seem to have taken the role of TD and they are very good at it.
i think there's a need for assault guns - essentially tank with a turret that doesn't turn. so it has the same amount of armor as a tank, just doesn't aim as quick, and its cheaper
Tank Destroyers came about in WWII to deal with the problem of armor breakthrough. The defender has to disperse their forces, including their antitank weapons, along the entire line, while the attacker can concentrate tons of tanks and hit in one place to overwhelm the local defenders.
The solution was to create a mobile reserve of anti-tank forces that could quickly respond to breakthroughs and kill tanks. The best weapon for the job back then was fast, lightly armored, self-propelled guns which were called tank destroyers.
Today we don't have as very many tank destroyers because the best weapon for this job is attack helicopters armed with anti-tank guided missiles.