Misplaced Pages

#464535

153-634: The FV438 Swingfire was an armoured anti-tank vehicle of the British Army . It was derived from the FV430 series of vehicles by converting the FV432 to accommodate a launcher for Swingfire anti-tank guided missiles . The FV438 carried fourteen missiles and had two firing bins, which could be reloaded from inside the vehicle. It was fitted with a Hensoldt 1x & 10x Military Periscope Monocular Guided Missile Sight, firing station and guidance system. It also carried

306-452: A 3-inch anti-aircraft gun . Although a number were ordered and fifty delivered in 1942, they were not put into service as the immediate threat passed. The design was rejected in favor of developing a 17 pounder armed Cromwell tank variant, ultimately leading to the Comet tank . The Tortoise "heavy assault tank", intended for use in breaking through fixed defensive lines, was well armoured and had

459-569: A 90 mm gun. As Soviet designs became more heavily armoured, the 90 mm gun became ineffective and the Kanonenjagdpanzers were retrofitted for different roles or retired. Some provisions were made for the fitting of a 105 mm cannon, and many of the vehicles were modified to fire HOT or TOW missiles in place of a main gun. These upgraded variants remained in service into the 1990s. With the development of flexible anti-tank missiles , which were capable of installation on almost any vehicle in

612-449: A tandem warhead where the first stage of the warhead activates the reactive armor, and the second stage defeats the shell armor by means of a high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) shaped charge . During the Russian invasion of Ukraine , drones and loitering munitions have attacked and destroyed tanks. Anti-tank warfare evolved as a countermeasure to the threat of the tank's appearance on

765-493: A 57 mm QF 6 pounder Hotchkiss light naval gun in the hull barbettes . Hull and track engineering was largely dictated by the terrain —the need to cross wide trenches—although the relationship between ground pressure and soil-vehicle mechanics was not resolved until the Second World War. Turrets were later introduced on medium and light tanks to react to ambushes during the advance. The tank, when it appeared on

918-492: A battle, having been immobilized by one or more hits by high explosive (HE) or armour-piercing (AP) shells to the track or front drive sprocket. The most famous Italian tank destroyer of the Second World War was a self-propelled gun. The Semovente da 75/18 , based on the M13/40 frame, was developed to support front-line infantry, and therefore had fixed armament: a 75 mm gun in casemate. However, thanks to its low height (185 cm) and

1071-433: A comparatively short-barreled high-velocity anti-tank gun, usually with a muzzle brake , enabling it to function as a tank destroyer. The Sturmgeschütz III from its 1938 origin used a new casemate-style superstructure with an integrated design, similar to the later Jagdpanzer vehicle designs' superstructure, to completely enclose the crew. It was employed in infantry support and offensive armoured operations as well as in

1224-403: A considerable part of its anti-tank capable cannons. Anti-tank tactics during the war were largely integrated with the offensive or defensive posture of the troops being supported, usually infantry. Most anti-tank tactics depend on the range effectiveness of various weapons and weapon systems available. These are divided as follows: Ground-to-air cooperation was not yet systematic in any army of

1377-559: A few shots were expected to be fired from any firing position . Strong reconnaissance elements were provided so that TDs could use pre-arranged firing positions to best advantage. Flanking fire by TDs was emphasized, both to penetrate thinner enemy side armour, and to reduce the likelihood of accurate enemy return fire. All American tank destroyers were officially known by exactly the same collective term used for American self-propelled artillery ordnance, "gun motor carriage". The designs were intended to be very mobile and heavily armed. Most of

1530-499: A great diversity, ranging from light tankettes and cavalry tanks to multi-turreted heavy tanks resembling bunkers, all of which had to be considered in training by the anti-tank artillery troops. The development of these doctrines was the most significant influence on the rapid development in anti-tank technology and tactics in the Second World War. Two aspects of how the Second World War commenced helped to delay development of anti-tank warfare: resignation and surprise. After Poland

1683-501: A greater range than the Panzerschreck could manage. The Hungarian 44M "Buzogányvető" was a successful unguided rocket used extensively in the Siege of Budapest . After the war, research on infantry anti-tank weapons continued, with most designers focused on two primary goals: first an anti-tank weapon that could defeat more heavily armored postwar tanks and fighting vehicles, and second

SECTION 10

#1732855729465

1836-569: A high- velocity jet of metal flowing like a liquid due to the immense pressure (though x-ray diffraction has shown the metal stays solid ) which hydrodynamically penetrates the armor and kills occupants inside. The depth of the penetration, though proportional to the length of the jet and the square root of its density , is also dependent on the strength of the armor. With the development of this new ammunition begun more advanced research into steel manufacturing , and development of spaced armor that caused "jet waver" by detonating prematurely or at

1989-737: A higher velocity L.45 Model 1935 while also making a licensed copy of the German 3.7 cm PaK 36 . However, the Red Army was almost immediately taught a lesson about anti-tank warfare when a tank battalion sent to aid the Spanish Republicans in the Spanish Civil War was almost entirely destroyed in an engagement . At this time, the predominant ammunition used against tanks was the armor-piercing kinetic energy shell that defeated armor by direct pressure , spiking or punching through it. During

2142-621: A lightly armoured Laffly W15T artillery tractor. Other French tank destroyers were being developed, including the SOMUA SAu-40, ARL V39 and various ad hoc conversions of the Lorraine 37L . In the face of the Warsaw Pact, a general need for extra firepower was identified. In the late 1960s, West Germany developed the Kanonenjagdpanzer , essentially a modernized World War II Jagdpanzer mounting

2295-410: A longer barrel than could be mounted in a turreted tank on the same chassis. The lack of a turret increased the vehicle's internal volume, allowing for increased ammunition stowage and crew comfort. Eliminating the turret let the vehicle carry thicker armour, and also let this armour be concentrated in the hull. Sometimes there was no armoured roof (only a weather cover) to keep the overall weight down to

2448-399: A much slower process than simply rotating a powered turret. If the vehicle became immobilized due to engine failure or track damage, it could not rotate its gun to counter opposing tanks, making it highly vulnerable to counterfire. This vulnerability was later exploited by opposing tank forces. Even the largest and most powerful of German tank destroyers were found abandoned on the field after

2601-464: A near miss from field artillery or an impact from a mortar could easily disable or destroy the tank: if the fuel tank was ruptured, it could incinerate the tank's crew. A large caliber gun was recognized as a tactical necessity to attack machine gun positions and defeat any infantry field pieces found in the trench lines which could easily disable tank track with the HE ammunition. This was achieved by mounting

2754-460: A pioneering example of taking on heavy enemy armor from a lightweight slow-flying aircraft. Field artillery were often the first ground combat arm to engage detected concentration of troops which included tanks through artillery airborne observers, either in assembly areas (for refueling and rearming), during approach marches to the combat zone, or as the tank unit was forming up for the attack. Conventional artillery shells were very effective against

2907-490: A recoil that was unsustainable by the mechanism or the rifleman. Stick grenades were used to destroy the tracks by individual pioneers, however this required accompanying machine-gunners to first separate the supporting Allied infantry line from the tanks, which proved difficult. Another tactic was to lure the tank beyond the German trench-line, re-establishing it just as the Allied infantry approached. The tank would then be engaged by

3060-411: A separate Barr & Stroud thermal imaging sight and control unit, which could be deployed up to 75 metres away from, and 15m above or below, the vehicle, connected to it by a cable. This enabled the missiles to be aimed and fired whilst the vehicle remained camouflaged, completely hidden from the enemy in dead ground or behind cover. The Swingfire missile had a thrust-vectoring engine nozzle which gave it

3213-693: A somewhat extemporized nature. Mounting the gun on the Valentine tank chassis in a fixed superstructure gave the Archer , looking somewhat like the light-chassis German Marder III in appearance. The 17 pounder was also used to re-equip the US-supplied M10 tank destroyer , replacing the American 3-inch gun to produce the 17pdr SP Achilles . In 1942 the General Staff agreed on investigating self-propelled mountings of

SECTION 20

#1732855729465

3366-572: A surprise attack and delay any attack while the French Army was mobilized. With the relative numerical inferiority between the France and Germany, it was a more effective use of manpower. Within the line, passive anti-tank obstacles were supported by anti-infantry and anti-tank bunkers. After Belgium declared neutrality in 1936, France began work on extending the line along the Belgian border. Improved artillery

3519-428: A tank destroyer was used against enemy tanks from a defensive position such as by ambush, the lack of a rotating turret was not particularly critical, while the lower silhouette was highly desirable. The turretless design allowed accommodation of a more powerful gun, typically a dedicated anti-tank gun (in lieu of a regular tank's general-purpose main gun that fired both anti-tank and high explosive ammunition) that had

3672-537: A three-sided gun shield for crew protection. For instance, 202 obsolete Panzer I light tanks were modified by removing the turret and were rebuilt as the Panzerjäger I self-propelled 4.7 cm PaK(t) . Similarly, Panzer II tanks were used on the eastern front. Captured Soviet 76.2 mm anti-tank guns were mounted on modified Panzer II chassis, producing the Marder II self-propelled anti-tank gun. The most common mounting

3825-622: A very powerful 32-pounder (94 mm) gun, but did not reach service use. By 1944, a number of the Shermans in British use were being converted to Sherman Fireflies by adding the QF 17 pounder gun. Initially this gave each troop (platoon) of Shermans one powerfully armed tank. By war's end—through the production of more Fireflies and the replacement of Shermans by British tanks—about 50% of Shermans in British service were Fireflies. The Sherman Firefly, however,

3978-479: A weapon lightweight and portable enough for infantry use. Regular fragmentation grenades were ineffective against tanks, so many kinds of anti-tank grenades were developed. These ranged from hollow charge designs (e.g., the British No. 68 AT Grenade ), to ones that simply contained a lot of explosive (the British No. 73 Grenade ). To increase their effectiveness, some grenades were designed so that they adhered to

4131-558: Is a type of armoured fighting vehicle , predominantly intended for anti-tank duties. They are typically armed with a direct fire artillery gun , also known as a self-propelled anti-tank gun , or missile launcher , also called an anti-tank missile carrier . The vehicles are designed specifically to engage and destroy enemy tanks , often with limited operational capacities. While tanks are designed for front-line combat, combining operational mobility and tactical offensive and defensive capabilities and performing all primary tasks of

4284-597: Is available for export). The PTL02 is built on the 6×6 wheeled chassis of the WZ551 APC. Italy and Spain use the Italian-built B1 Centauro , a wheeled tank destroyer with a 105 mm cannon. Russia, meanwhile, uses the Russian-built 2S25 Sprut-SD , operating as an amphibious light tank/tank destroyer armed with a 125 millimeters (4.9 in) cannon. The Sabrah Pandur II is a wheeled tank destroyer variant of

4437-692: Is displayed at the National Military Museum in Bucharest . Another conversion was the VDC R-35 , Romania's only turreted tank destroyer. Two other proposed tank destroyers existed: the TACAM R-1 and TACAM T-38 . Variants of the Polish TKS and TK-3 tankettes up-armed with 20 mm gun (23–26 vehicles) were operationally deployed in the invasion of Poland . They were used as an anti-tank component of

4590-557: Is not considered a tank destroyer since it could still perform the other duties of the regular M4 Sherman , albeit the Firefly was less capable due to the late development of a HE round for the QF 17 pounder. Until 1942, the Romanian tank force was equipped exclusively with obsolete R-1 , R-2 and R35 tanks. Having faced big problems against Soviet T-34 and KV-1 tanks on the Eastern Front,

4743-444: The 1⁄4-ton, 4×4 'jeep' ), French 25 mm and 47 mm guns, British QF 2-pounder (40 mm) , Italian 47 mm and Soviet 45 mm . All of these light weapons could penetrate the thin armor found on most pre-war and early war tanks. At the start of World War II , many of these weapons were still being used operationally, along with a newer generation of light guns that closely resembled their WWI counterparts. After

FV438 Swingfire - Misplaced Pages Continue

4896-497: The 2S25 Sprut-SD , armed with a current-issue 125 mm tank gun that is also capable of launching missiles like the 9M119 Svir , and Israeli-modified Pandur IIs , which is to enter service with the Philippine Army by 2022 armed with an Elbit Turret and a 105 mm gun. Many forces' infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) carry anti-tank missiles in every infantry platoon, and attack helicopters have also added anti-tank capability to

5049-510: The 76 mm gun motor carriage M18 (Hellcat) , based on a unique hull and powertrain design, with a slight visual resemblance to what was used for the later M24 Chaffee light tank. The M18 came closest to the US ideal; the vehicle was very fast, small, and mounted a 76 mm gun in a roofless open turret. The M36 Jackson GMC possessed the only American-origin operational gun that could rival the German 8.8 cm Pak 43 anti-tank gun and its tank mounted variant,

5202-470: The 90 mm M3 gun , and the M36 remained in service well after World War II. The only dedicated American casemate hull design fighting vehicle of any type built during the war, that resembled the German and Soviet tank destroyers in hull and general gun mounting design, was the experimental T28 super-heavy tank , which mounted a 105 mm T5E1 long-barrel cannon. This gun had a maximum firing range of 12 miles (20 km), and

5355-916: The BRDM reconnaissance car, the British FV438 Swingfire and FV102 Striker and the German Raketenjagdpanzer series built on the chassis of the HS 30 and Marder IFV. India fielded NAMIS (Nag Missile System) equipped with Nag Missiles . A US Army combined arms battalion has two infantry companies with TOW missile-armed Bradley IFVs and can bring a large concentration of accurate and lethal fire to bear on an attacking enemy unit that uses AFVs. They can be complemented by mobile units of AH-64 Apache helicopters armed with Hellfire antitank missiles. Missile carrying vehicles are often referred to as anti-tank missile carriers instead of tank destroyers. Despite

5508-576: The British Army of the Rhine . In 1984, the Royal Artillery relinquished the anti-tank role and the FV438s were formed into guided-weapon troops (each of 9 vehicles), one for each Armoured Regiment. This United Kingdom military article is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . Anti-tank Anti-tank warfare evolved rapidly during World War II , leading to infantry-portable weapons such as

5661-567: The Cold War of 1947-1991, the United States, Soviet Union and other countries contemplated the possibility of nuclear warfare. While previous technology had developed to protect the crews of armored vehicles from projectiles and from explosive damage, now the danger of radiation arose. In the NATO countries, little if any development took place on defining a doctrine of how to use armed forces without

5814-523: The Deacon (6pdr on an armoured wheeled truck chassis) and Archer (17pdr on tracked chassis) and US-supplied vehicles, were their preserve rather than the Royal Armoured Corps . The self-propelled guns that were built in the "tank destroyer" mould came about through the desire to field the QF 17 pounder anti-tank gun and simultaneous lack of suitable standard tanks to carry it. As a result, they were of

5967-474: The Geballte Ladung ("Bundled Charge") of several stick grenades bound together by pioneers ; early attempts at the small-caliber anti-tank rifles like the bolt-action 13 mm Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr ; 3.7 cm TaK Rheinmetall in starrer Räder-lafette 1916 anti-tank gun on a light carriage which could destroy a tank using large-caliber armor-piercing ammunition issued in 1917 to special commands; and

6120-536: The North African Campaign . Its experience therefore failed to influence the US Army's anti-tank doctrine prior to 1944. From 1941, German anti-tank tactics developed rapidly as a result of being surprised by the previously unknown Soviet tank designs, forcing introduction of new technologies and new tactics. The Red Army was also faced with a new challenge in anti-tank warfare after losing most of its tank fleet and

6273-623: The Philippines Campaign in the last year of World War II . Remaining units were deployed to Okinawa in ones and twos for island defense during the Battle of Okinawa , but were severely outnumbered by American artillery. As with the Germans of 1943, most of the Soviet designs mounted anti-tank guns, with limited traverse in casemate-style turretless hulls, in a general design format looking much like

FV438 Swingfire - Misplaced Pages Continue

6426-565: The Spanish Civil War , as did the Bofors 37 mm developed in Sweden, and used by many early Second World War combatants. The British Army accepted for service the (40 mm) Ordnance QF 2 pounder , which was developed as a tank gun . The Soviet Red Army after the Russian Civil War also begun a search for an anti-tank gun with a French Hotchkiss 37 mm L.33 tank gun, but soon upgraded this to

6579-695: The StuG III G , against which it competed. Those facts suggest that the Mareșal would have been an effective tank destroyer, had it been deployed into combat. There were, however, also critics of the vehicle, especially among high-ranking Romanian officials. It never saw action because the invading Soviet army had stopped its production. Other Romanian tank destroyers include the TACAM R-2 and TACAM T-60 , which were converted from R-2 and T-60 light tanks respectively. Both of them saw action. One TACAM R-2 survives today and

6732-506: The Wehrmacht officers, and the anti-tank guns were incorporated into a system of obstacles that were constructed with the intent to stop an attack by tanks by slowing it down, separating them from supporting infantry (advancing on foot) with machine-gun and mortar fire, and forcing tanks to conduct deliberate head-on assaults with engineer support, or seek a less-defended area to attack. Minefields laid with purpose-designed mines were used for

6885-523: The Winter War , early tanks (such as the T-26 ) being very vulnerable to them, but later tanks required a well-thrown bottle directly over the engine compartment to have any effect at all. On the whole, thrown anti-tank weapons suffered from a variety of drawbacks. In addition to the inherently short range, they required careful aim to be effective, and those that relied on explosive force were often so powerful that

7038-574: The bazooka , anti-tank combat engineering , specialized anti-tank aircraft and self-propelled anti-tank guns ( tank destroyers ). Both the Soviet Red Army and the German Army developed methods of combating tank-led offensives, including deployment of static anti-tank weapons embedded in in-depth defensive positions, protected by anti-tank obstacles and minefields , and supported by mobile anti-tank reserves and by ground-attack aircraft. Through

7191-511: The gun turret with a Type 90 75 mm field gun mounted in an open casemate with frontal and side armour only. They entered service in 1942 and were first deployed in combat at the Battle of Luzon in the Philippines in 1945. Some were used in static entrenched positions. A variant, known as the Type 1 Ho-Ni II mounted a Type 91 105 mm howitzer and had a slightly changed superstructure as far as

7344-419: The infantry tactics with which the tanks were intended to cooperate. However, there was no means of communication between the tank's crew and the accompanying infantry, or between the tanks participating in combat. Radios were not yet portable or robust enough to be mounted in a tank, although Morse Code transmitters were installed in some Mark IVs at Cambrai as messaging vehicles. Attaching a field telephone to

7497-489: The lift struts , against German armored fighting vehicles. During the summer of 1944, U.S. Army Major Charles Carpenter managed to successfully take on an anti-armor role with his rocket-armed Piper L-4. His L-4, named Rosie the Rocketeer , armed with six bazookas, had a notable anti-armor success during an engagement during the Battle of Arracourt on September 20, 1944, knocking out at least four German armored vehicles, as

7650-659: The 105/25 was used by German forces. A further development was the Semovente da 75/46 , which had a longer gun than the 75/18 and inclined armour 100 mm thick, making it similar to Sturmgeschütz III . Only 11 of these were manufactured. Before the Semovente da 75/18, the L40 , built on an L6/40 light tank chassis, saw action in Africa and in Russia, but with disappointing results. The Type 1 Ho-Ni I

7803-521: The 1960s, the concept of the tank destroyer has morphed into light vehicles with missiles. With the weight of main battle tanks growing to the forty to seventy-tonne range, airborne forces were unable to deploy reasonable anti-tank forces. The result was a number of attempts to make a light vehicle, including the conventional ASU-85 , M56 Scorpion , the recoilless rifle-armed Ontos , and missile-armed Humber Hornet armoured truck and Sheridan light assault vehicle. The recent entries into that category are

SECTION 50

#1732855729465

7956-454: The 37 mm gun was ineffective against most enemy tanks by the time it entered service. By far the most common US design, and the first that was fully tracked and turreted (which became the American hallmark of World War II "tank destroyer" design) was the 3-inch gun motor carriage M10 , later supplemented by the 90 mm gun motor carriage M36 —both based on the M4 Sherman hull and powertrain—and

8109-460: The 57 mm Ordnance QF 6 pounder when that became available. There was extra impetus given to the development of anti-tank weaponry, which culminated in the 76mm Ordnance QF 17 pounder , widely considered one of the best anti-tank guns of the war. Towed anti-tank guns were the domain of the Royal Artillery and vehicles adapted to mount artillery, including anti-tank self-propelled guns such as

8262-506: The 6-pounder, 17-pounder, 3-inch 20cwt guns and the 25-pounder field gun/howitzer on the Matilda II , Valentine , Crusader and Cavalier (Cruiser Mark VII) tank chassis. In October 1942 it was decided to progress using the Valentine chassis with a 17-pdr (which would become Archer) and 25-pdr (which entered service as Bishop ). While there was a general move to a general purpose gun that

8415-439: The Allied infantry would follow and secure the breach, and the cavalry would exploit the breach in the trench lines by attacking into the depth of German-held territory, eventually capturing the field artillery positions and interdicting logistics and reserves being brought up from the rear areas. Naval crews initially used to operate the installed naval guns and machine guns were replaced with Army personnel who were more aware of

8568-666: The British Army had abandoned them by 1942 and the Wehrmacht by 1943, while the US Army never adopted the weapon, although the USMC used Boys anti-tank rifles in the Pacific Theater. However, the anti-tank rifle remained in Soviet use during the conflict due to the importance it occupied in its doctrine of anti-tank in-depth defense, first demonstrated during the defense of Moscow and again during

8721-653: The Finnish Lahti L-39 (which was also used as a sniper rifle during the Continuation War ), the automatic Japanese Type 97 20 mm anti-tank rifle , the German Panzerbüchse 38 , Panzerbüchse 39 , the Polish wz.35 and the Soviet 14.5 mm PTRD and PTRS-41 . By 1943, most armies judged anti-tank rifles to lack combat effectiveness due to the diminished ability to penetrate the thicker armor of new tanks –

8874-570: The First World War was that now an effective anti-tank weapon was available to support the defending infantry. However, the Soviet tanks armed with 45 mm guns easily destroyed the German light tanks. Ironically, in the early 1930s until the Spanish War, German officers were conducting secret testing of a new way of employing tanks, infantry and artillery offensively in the Soviet Union with

9027-429: The Germans' own Jagdpanzer vehicles. The results were smaller, lighter, and simpler to build weapons that could carry larger guns than any contemporary tank, including the King Tiger. The Soviets produced high numbers of the 85 mm SU-85 and 100 mm SU-100 self-propelled guns based on the same chassis as the T-34 medium tank; the heavier-duty powertrain and hull of the IS-2 heavy tank were instead used to produce

9180-456: The Ho-Ni series were 111 units. Most of the Ho-Ni units were retained within the Japanese home islands to form part of the defenses against the projected American invasion , and did not see combat before the surrender of Japan . The Type 2 Ho-I Gun tank used the Type 1 Chi-He medium tank chassis. It was designed as a self-propelled howitzer , mounting a short barreled Type 99 75 mm gun to provide close-in fire support. For deployment,

9333-400: The ISU-152. The ISU-152 built as a heavy assault gun, relied on the weight of the shell fired from its M-1937/43 howitzer to defeat tanks. In 1943, the Soviets also shifted all production of light tanks like the T-70 to much simpler and better-armed SU-76 self-propelled guns, which used the same drive train. The SU-76 was originally designed as an anti-tank vehicle, but was soon relegated to

SECTION 60

#1732855729465

9486-407: The Kursk battles. This became particularly true later in the war when the Red Army assumed an almost constant offensive, and anti-tank in-depth defensive deployments were used for protecting flanks of the operational breakthroughs against German tactical counterattacks. By firing on the lighter armored infantry and support vehicles (e.g. artillery tractors ) the anti-tank rifle units helped to separate

9639-423: The M36 tank destroyer continued in service, and was used in combat as late as the Korean War . The third, and likely most effective kind of tank destroyer was the unturreted, casemate -style tank destroyer, known by the Jagdpanzer term in German service, or Samokhodnaya Ustanovka in Soviet service for their own designs. These generally featured a heavy gun mounted on an older or then-current tank chassis, with

9792-456: The Officer Corps , claiming many of the senior proponents of the new doctrine. Anti-tank artillery would be included in mobile tank-led Wehrmacht and Red Army units due to the possibility of encountering enemy tanks in a meeting engagement . The new doctrines of using the tank, were divided into infantry and cavalry schools of thought . The former regarded the tank as a mobile artillery system to be used for infantry support. This suggested that

9945-454: The PTRS-41, the weapons proved too inaccurate at sniping distances (800 m or more), and the recoil too much for effective use of the scopes. The development of light, man-portable, anti-tank weapons increased during the Second World War. Most were based on the Munroe effect which led to the development of the high-explosive shaped charge . These weapons were called high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT). The destructive effect relies fully on

10098-516: The RAF mounted two underwing pod-mounted 40 mm Vickers S cannon on the Hawker Hurricane (as the Mk. IID ), which saw service in North Africa in 1942 and the Hawker Typhoon was given HE rockets though these were more effective against other ground vehicles. From March 1943 the Red Army Air Force produced the more agile Yakovlev Yak-9 T (37 mm cannon) and K (45 mm cannon) bomber interceptor also used for ground attack, with one example of either gun in motornaya pushka mounts attached to

10251-471: The Red Army Air Force fielded the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2 armed with a pair of 23 mm cannons and unguided rockets, but armored to enable the pilots to approach German tanks at very low altitude, ignoring small arms, machine-gun and even small anti-aircraft cannon fire that usually provided tanks with protection against the bombers. Il-2s could also carry large numbers of 2.5 kg shaped-charge anti-tank PTAB bombs. To give it more firepower against tanks,

10404-414: The Romanian Army leadership sought for ways to improve its anti-tank capabilities. The initial plan was the creation of a tank comparable in characteristics to the T-34 ; instead, Romania went for a number of tank destroyers, since they were more adequate for its industry. The Mareșal is probably the best known Romanian AFV from the war; historians Steven Zaloga and Mark Axworthy state that it inspired

10557-424: The Second World War as combatants developed effective armoured vehicles and tactics. Some were little more than stopgap solutions, mounting an anti-tank gun on a tracked vehicle to give mobility, while others were more sophisticated designs. An example of the development of tank destroyer technology throughout the war are the Marder III and Jagdpanzer 38 vehicle, that were very different in spite of being based on

10710-410: The West. The British were preparing the stop lines and the anti-tank islands to slow enemy progress and restrict the route of an attack. The Red Army however was fortunate in having several excellent designs for anti-tank warfare that were either in final stages of development for production, or had been rejected earlier as unnecessary and could now be rushed into production. The relative ease with which

10863-575: The Western Front in September 1916, was a surprise to German troops, but not the German General Staff . The French Army Staff was highly critical of the British Army's early fielding of the Mark I vehicles in small numbers because the French trials showed the armored vehicles to be highly unreliable. They judged that large numbers had to be employed to sustain an offensive despite losses to mechanical failure or vehicles foundering in intractable no man's land terrain. These losses, coupled with those from enemy artillery fire, later amounted to as high as 70% of

11016-504: The advantage of a reduced silhouette, allowing the crew to more frequently fire from defilade ambush positions. Such designs were easier and faster to manufacture and offered good crew protection, though the lack of a turret limited the gun's traverse to a few degrees. This meant that, if the TD became immobilized due to engine failure or track damage, it could not rotate its gun to counter opposing tanks, making it an easy target. This vulnerability

11169-407: The advantage of a reduced silhouette, allowing the crew to more frequently fire from defilade ambush positions. Such designs were also easier and faster to manufacture and offered good crew protection from artillery fire and shell splinters. However, the lack of a rotating turret limited the gun's traverse to a few degrees. This meant that the driver normally had to turn the entire tank onto its target,

11322-411: The air. One solution adopted by almost all European air forces was to use bomb loads for conventional bombers that were composed from small bombs allowing a higher density during bombing. This created a greater chance of causing a direct impact on the thinner top armor of the tank while also having the ability to damage track and wheels through proximity detonation. The first aircraft able to engage tanks

11475-654: The anti-tank role. By the time of the Invasion of Normandy , the British had the 3 in (76 mm) calibre QF 17 pounder , which design had begun before the 6 pounder entered service, in general use which proved to be a highly effective anti-tank gun and was also used on the Sherman Firefly tank, the Archer self-propelled gun , and on the 17-pdr SP Achilles As towed anti-tank cannon guns grew in size and weight, they became less mobile and more cumbersome to maneuver, and required ever larger gun crews, who often had to wrestle

11628-515: The armoured troops, the tank destroyer is specifically designed to take on enemy tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles. Many are based on a tracked tank chassis , while others are wheeled. Since World War II , gun-armed powerful tank destroyers have fallen out of favor as armies have favored multirole main battle tanks . However, lightly armoured anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) carriers are commonly used for supplementary long-range anti-tank work. The resurgence of expeditionary warfare in

11781-467: The battlefields of the Western Front of the First World War. The tank had been developed to negate the German system of trenches , and allow a return to maneuver against enemy's flanks and to attack the rear with cavalry . The use of the tank was mainly based on the assumption that, once they were able to eliminate the German trench lines with their machine gun and infantry support gun positions,

11934-464: The blocks having the manufacturing letters recessed (vs. raised) cut an imprint of the manufacturing letters into the armor plate—the birth of the shaped-charged explosive which focuses the blast energy caused by an indentation on the surface area of an explosive. Although shaped charges are somewhat more difficult to manufacture, the advantage is that the projectile does not require as high velocity as typical kinetic energy shells, yet on impact it creates

12087-457: The caliber of its gun the 75/18 also had good results in anti-tank combat, fighting against British and American (but not Soviet) units. After the Armistice of 1943 , the 75/18 remained in use by German forces. Built on the same frame, the Semovente da 105/25 was equipped with a 105 mm gun and known as " bassotto " (Italian for dachshund ) due to its lower height. As manufacturing began in 1943,

12240-523: The capability to make a ninety-degree turn immediately after leaving the launch bin in order to get into the controller's line of sight. When FV438 entered service in the 1970s, it was operated by specialised anti-tank units of the British Infantry and Royal Armoured Corps . In 1977, the anti-tank role was transferred to the Royal Artillery , which formed the FV438s into four independent Royal Horse Artillery batteries, one for each Armoured Division in

12393-458: The chassis, hulls, and drive systems of ninety-one Porsche VK4501 (P) heavy tanks, mounting a long-barreled 88 mm cannon in an added casemate, more like the earlier Panzerjägers had with their added-on armour shielding for the gun crew, but in the Ferdinand completely enclosing the gun and firing crew in the added casemate, as the later purpose-built Jagdpanzers would. However, the Ferdinand

12546-553: The cooperation of the Red Army. In Germany, these developments eventually culminated in tactics that later came to be known as Blitzkrieg , while in the Soviet Union they formed the core of the deep battle operational doctrine. The successful test of the latter was during the Battles of Khalkhin Gol although the Red Army foundered on the Mannerheim Line in 1940, largely due to the purge in

12699-479: The crew, having thinly armoured open-topped superstructures. The "open-topped" design format of the Panzerjäger vehicles was succeeded by the Jagdpanzer ("hunting tanks"), which mounted the gun in true casemate-style superstructures, completely enclosing the crew compartment in armor that was usually integral to the hull. The first of these Jagdpanzer s was the 70-ton Ferdinand (later renamed Elefant ), based on

12852-527: The decision that the main anti-tank units—the Tank Destroyer (TD) battalions —should be concentrated and very mobile. In practice, such German attacks rarely happened. Throughout the war, only one battalion ever fought in an engagement like that originally envisaged (the 601st , at the Battle of El Guettar ). The Tank Destroyer Command eventually numbered over 100,000 men and 80 battalions each equipped with 36 self-propelled tank destroyers or towed guns. Only

13005-453: The defensive anti-tank role. The StuG III assault gun was Germany's most-produced fully tracked armoured fighting vehicle during World War II, and second-most produced German armoured combat vehicle of any type after the Sd.Kfz. 251 half-track . Although the early German Panzerjäger carried more effective weapons than the tanks on which they were based, they were generally lacking in protection for

13158-517: The deployment of the M56 Scorpion and M50 Ontos . The concept later led to the M551 Sheridan light tank of the mid-1960s. British tanks in the early years of the war, both infantry tanks and cruiser tanks , were (with the exception of the pre-war Matilda I design) equipped with a gun capable of use against contemporary enemy tanks—the 40 mm Ordnance QF 2 pounder . This was replaced with

13311-434: The design of the later German Hetzer . Standing at only around 1.5 m tall, which would have made it very difficult to hit for its enemies, the Mareșal was a lightly armored, but highly mobile vehicle. It was armed with the Romanian 75 mm Reșița M1943 anti-tank gun, which proved to be among the best of its class during World War II, according to Mark Axworthy. During tests, the Mareșal proved to be superior in many aspects to

13464-419: The divisional 7.7 cm guns brought forward, that would try to disable the tracks with ordinary HE shells (and later AP ammunition). If the crews of the disabled tanks refused to surrender, they were engaged with flamethrowers, or a mortar would be fired on the stricken vehicle until a direct hit was achieved on the top surface, usually resulting in an internal fire. Finally, anti-tank obstacles were prepared on

13617-570: The engine's gear reduction unit, that had either one of them firing through a hollow-center propeller shaft. Following Operation Overlord in 1944, the military version of the slow-flying Piper J-3 Cub high-wing light civilian monoplane, the L-4 Grasshopper, usually used for liaison and artillery-spotting, began to be used in a light anti-armor role by a few U.S. Army artillery spotter units over France; these aircraft were field-outfitted with either two or four bazooka rocket launchers attached to

13770-553: The existing 77 mm field guns (such as the 7.7 cm FK 16 ) of the infantry division's artillery regiment were also eventually issued with special armor-piercing (AP) ammunition. With the appearance of Allied tanks, the German Army were quick to introduce new anti-tank defense detachments within the pioneer battalions of the infantry divisions. These were initially issued 13 mm caliber long barrel rifles firing solid shot. However, these suffered from fouling after 2–3 rounds and had

13923-457: The first time, destroying tank tracks, and forcing combat engineers to clear them on foot. Delay meant that Nationalist field artillery could engage the lightly armored Soviet tanks . This meant a change in Republican operational and eventually strategic planning, and a more protracted combat operations, with more casualties at a greater cost. The only change to the German anti-tank tactics of

14076-466: The first two decades of the 21st century has seen the emergence of gun-armed wheeled vehicles, sometimes called "protected gun systems", which may bear a superficial resemblance to tank destroyers, but are employed as direct fire support units typically providing support in low-intensity operations , as was done in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan . Dedicated anti-tank vehicles made their first major appearance in

14229-613: The form of top-attack shells , and shells that were used to saturate areas with anti-armor bomblets . Helicopters could be used as well to rapidly deliver scattered anti-tank mines. Since the end of the Cold War in 1992, new threats to tanks and other armored vehicles have included remotely detonated improvised explosive devices (IEDs) used in asymmetric warfare and weapon systems like the RPG-29 and FGM-148 Javelin , which can defeat reactive armor or shell armor. Both those weapon systems use

14382-408: The gun into position while under heavy artillery and/or tank fire. As the war progressed, this disadvantage often resulted in the loss or destruction of both the antitank gun and its trained crew. This gave impetus to the development of the self-propelled, lightly armored " tank destroyer " (TD). The tank destroyer was usually based on the hull of existing tank designs, using either a gun integrated into

14535-435: The gun pointing forward with a limited degree of traverse. Casemate tank destroyers often had the same amount of armour as the tanks they were based on. The removal of the turret allowed for greater room to mount a larger gun with a larger breech and leave room for crew. Many casemate tank destroyers either originated as, or were dual-purpose vehicles with the duty of a self-propelled gun, which share many (but usually not all) of

14688-482: The gun tank was intended to be used in a fire support company for each of the tank regiments. No Type 2 Ho-I gun tanks are known to have engaged in combat prior to Japan's surrender. The prototype was built in 1942 and 31 units were produced in 1944. The Type 4 Ho-Ro self-propelled artillery used a modified Type 97 chassis. On to this platform, a Type 38 150 mm howitzer was mounted. The main gun could fire Type 88 APHE rounds and HEAT rounds. Given its breech loader,

14841-591: The heavier-hitting 122 mm -armed ISU-122 and 152 mm -armed ISU-152 , both of which had impressive anti-tank capabilities earning each of them the Russian nickname Zveroboy ("beast killer") for their ability to destroy German Tigers , Panthers and Elefants . The predecessor of the ISU 152 was the SU-152 , built on the KV-1s chassis and shared many similarities (including its gun) with

14994-717: The hull or a fully rotating turret much like that of a conventional tank. These self-propelled (SP) AT guns were first employed as infantry support weapons in place of towed antitank guns. Later, due to a shortage of tanks, TDs sometimes replaced the former in offensive armored operations. Early German-designed tank destroyers, such as the Marder I , employed existing light French or Czech design tank chassis, installing an AT gun as part of an armored, turret-less superstructure. This method reduced both weight and conversion costs. The Soviet Union later adopted this style of self-propelled anti-tank gun or tank destroyer. This type of tank destroyer had

15147-421: The infantry needed to be armed with integral anti-tank weapons. The latter advocated use of tanks in the traditional cavalry way of high-tempo attacks intended to outflank the enemy infantry and sever its communication lines. This approach suggested that the tank was the best anti-tank system, and only limited anti-tank troops were required to accompany them. For this reason the late 30s tank configurations came in

15300-406: The infantry-support role. U.S. Army and counterpart British designs were very different in conception. U.S. doctrine was based, in light of the fall of France , on the perceived need to defeat German blitzkrieg tactics, and U.S. units expected to face large numbers of German tanks, attacking on relatively narrow fronts. These were expected to break through a thin screen of anti-tank guns, hence

15453-481: The kinetic energy of the explosion rather than the ballistic speed of the round on the damage inflicted to the armor. The effect was also concentrated and could penetrate more armor for a given amount of explosives. The first HEAT rounds were rifle grenades, but better delivery systems were soon introduced: the British PIAT was propelled in a manner similar to the spigot mortar with a blackpowder charge contained in

15606-423: The late 1930s shaped charge ammunition was experimented with that used chemical energy for armor penetration. The shaped charge concept is officially known as the "Munroe Effect" and was discovered by accident decades earlier by Professor Charles E. Munroe at the U.S. Torpedo Station, Providence, RI. Professor Munroe was detonating different manufactured blocks of explosives on a sheet of armor plating and observed

15759-464: The likely approaches by deepening and widening existing ground cratering, the precursors of the anti-tank trench . Finally in early 1917 the 3.7 cm TaK from Rheinmetall was rushed to the frontline, and proved effective in destroying the tanks despite limited elevation and traverse. Lack of consensus on the design and use of the tank after the First World War also influenced the development of its anti-tank countermeasures. However, because Germany

15912-499: The limit that the chassis could bear. The absence of a turret meant that tank destroyers could be manufactured significantly cheaper, faster, and more easily than the tanks on which they were based, and they found particular favor when production resources were lacking. The first German tank destroyers were the Panzerjäger ("Tank Hunters"), which mounted an existing anti-tank gun on a convenient chassis for mobility, usually with just

16065-832: The longer term. Because tanks were usually accompanied by infantry mounted on trucks or half-tracked vehicles that lacked overhead armor, field artillery that fired a mix of ground and air-burst ammunition was likely to inflict heavy casualties on the infantry as well. Field guns, such as the Ordnance QF 25 pounder , were provided with armor-piercing shot for direct engagement of enemy tanks. Anti-tank guns are guns designed to destroy armored vehicles from defensive positions. In order to penetrate vehicle armor, they fire smaller caliber shells from longer-barreled guns to achieve higher muzzle velocity than field artillery weapons, many of which are howitzers . The higher velocity, flatter trajectory ballistics provide terminal kinetic energy to penetrate

16218-454: The maximum rate of fire was only 5 rounds per minute. The gun's elevation was restricted to 30 degrees by the construction of the chassis. Other design issues included the fact that although the gun crew was protected by a gun shield with armour thickness of 25 mm at the front, the shield only extended a very short distance on the sides; leaving the rest of the sides and back exposed. They were rushed into service, deployed and saw combat during

16371-485: The modern battlefield. But there are still dedicated anti-tank vehicles with very heavy long-range missiles, and ones intended for airborne use. There have also been dedicated anti-tank vehicles built on ordinary armoured personnel carrier or armored car chassis. Examples include the U.S. M901 ITV (Improved TOW Vehicle) and the Norwegian NM142 , both on an M113 chassis, several Soviet ATGM launchers based on

16524-624: The morale of the infantry by providing a weapon that could actually defeat a tank. Anti-tank rifles were developed in several countries during the 1930s. By the beginning of WW2, anti-tank rifle teams could knock out most tanks from a distance of about 500 m, and do so with a weapon that was man-portable and easily concealed. Although the AT rifle performance was negated by the increased armor of medium and heavy tanks by 1942, they remained viable against lighter-armored and unarmored vehicles, and against field fortification embrasures. Notable examples include

16677-571: The more successful German tank destroyers was designed as a self-propelled artillery gun, the Sturmgeschütz III . Based on the Panzer III tank chassis, the Sturmgeschütz III was originally fitted with a short barreled low-velocity howitzer-like gun, and was assigned to the artillery arm for infantry fire support as an assault gun . Later, after encountering Soviet tanks, it was refitted with

16830-544: The moving/static target's armor at a given range and contact's angle. Any field artillery cannon with barrel length 15 to 25 times longer than its caliber was able also to fire anti-tank ammunition, such as the Soviet A-19 . Prior to World War II , few anti-tank guns had (or needed) calibers larger than 50 mm. Examples of guns in this class include the German 37 mm , US 37 mm (the largest gun able to be towed by

16983-490: The number of German tanks encountered by American forces steadily decreased throughout the war, most battalions were split up and assigned to infantry units as supporting arms, fighting as assault guns or being used essentially as tanks. In this sense they were an alternative to the Independent tank battalions that were attached to various Infantry Divisions. The expectation that German tanks would be engaged in mass formation

17136-599: The older models of Red Army's tank fleet were destroyed by German anti-tank weapons, using tactics already seen in Spain, once and for all focused Stavka attention on anti-tank warfare as Soviet armies were repeatedly encircled by panzer-led strategic pincer maneuvers. Of the major iconic Soviet weapons of the Second World War, two were made exclusively for anti-tank warfare, the T-34 and the Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik . The former

17289-558: The opportunity to even reach combat. Field artillery was particularly effective in firing against tank formations because although they were rarely able to destroy a tank by direct penetration, they would severely crater the area preventing the tanks from moving therefore causing them to become nearly stationary targets for the ground attack aircraft, or disrupting the enemy schedule and allowing own troops more time to prepare their defense. Tank destroyer#Post-World War II development A tank destroyer , tank hunter or tank killer

17442-408: The period, but given sufficient warning ground attack aircraft could support ground troops even during an enemy attack in an attempt to interdict the enemy units before they come into tactical combat zone. Various bomb loads can be used depending on what type of tank unit is engaged in at the time or who its accompanying troops are. This is an indirect form of anti-tank warfare where the tanks are denied

17595-497: The proliferation of ATGMs, some gun-armed tank destroyers remain in use. China has developed the tracked PTZ89 and the wheeled PTL02 tank destroyers. The PTZ89 is armed with a 120 mm smoothbore cannon while the PTL02, developed by NORINCO for the PLA's new light (rapid reaction) mechanized infantry divisions, carries a 100 millimeters (3.9 in) one (a version armed with a 105 mm rifled gun

17748-548: The rear would become a practice only during the next war. With greater use of tanks by both sides it was realized that the accompanying infantry could be forced to ground by ambush fire, thus separating them from the tanks, which would continue to advance, eventually finding themselves exposed to close-assaults by German infantry and sappers . The early tanks were mechanically rudimentary. The 6-to-12-millimetre (0.24 to 0.47 in) thick armor generally prevented penetration by small arms fire and shell fragments . However, even

17901-424: The reconnaissance units. There were also 37 mm armed TKS-D (2 experimental vehicles) and 47 mm armed TKD (4 experimental vehicles). It is not certain whether they were used operationally at all. Due to the quick defeat of France, few French vehicles were built. The Laffly W15 TCC ( Chasseur de chars ) was an attempt to quickly build a light tank destroyer by mounting a 47 mm SA37 anti-tank gun onto

18054-577: The same chassis: Marder was straightforwardly an anti-tank gun on tracks whereas the Jagdpanzer 38 traded some firepower (its 7.5 cm Pak 39 , designed to operate within the confines of a fully armoured fighting compartment, fires the same projectiles from a reduced propellant charge compared to Marder's 7.5 cm Pak 40 ) for better armour protection and ease of concealment on the battlefield. Except for most American designs, all tank destroyers were turretless vehicles with fixed or casemate superstructures. When

18207-529: The same features and layout. Some examples are the German Sturmgeschütz III – the most-produced German armored fighting vehicle of WW II — and the Soviets' SU-100 , itself based on the T-34 tank 's hull and drivetrain. Anti-tank rifles were introduced in some armies before the Second World War to provide infantry with a stand-off weapon when confronted with a tank assault. The intention was to preserve

18360-497: The side armor with re-positioned observation visors. Production began in 1943, with only 54 completed. The other variant produced was the Type 3 Ho-Ni III , which mounted a Type 3 75 mm tank gun in a completely enclosed armored casemate to address the issue of crew protection in close combat. The welded superstructure had sloped armour and the gun mount had additional stamped armour plate. The total number produced of all three types in

18513-692: The standard M4 Sherman tanks, but with more powerful cannon. A 76 mm long-barrel tank cannon was fitted to the Sherman-based M10 GMC and all-new design M18 designs, with the M18 being the fastest-moving American AFV of any type in World War II. Late in 1944, the Sherman-origin M36 appeared, equipped with a 90 mm cannon. With rotating turrets and good combat maneuverability, American TD designs generally worked well, although their light armor

18666-481: The starters during some operations. Deploying small numbers of tanks would therefore cause the Allies to lose the element of surprise , allowing Germans to develop countermeasures. Because the German Army was the only force in need of anti-tank weapons, they were first to develop a viable technology to combat the armored vehicle. These technologies took three ammunition approaches: use of grenades by infantrymen, including

18819-429: The supporting infantry ( panzergrenadiers ) and artillery of the German tanks and so forced the tanks to halt at short distances from the concealed anti-tank guns leaving them exposed to fire from larger, longer ranged anti-tank guns. PTRS-41 semi-automatic anti-tank rifles were also used for sniping since an additional tracer round enabled rapid fire adjustment by the gunner. Although optical sniper scopes were tried with

18972-540: The tailfin assembly, the US bazooka and the German Panzerschreck used rockets, and the German Panzerfaust was a small recoilless gun . The HEAT warhead was retroactively used to give more power to smaller calibre weapons such as in the conversion of the otherwise limited German 37 mm PaK guns to fire a large shell, called Stielgranate 41 , that fitted over the barrel rather than down in it, to

19125-502: The tank – for instance 30 feet (9.1 meters) or less – it might be impossible for the tank crew to see the attacker. Anti-tank tactics developed rapidly during the war but along different paths in different armies based on the threats they faced and the technologies they were able to produce. Very little development took place in UK because weapons available in 1940 were judged adequate for engaging Italian and German tanks during most of

19278-675: The tank either through an adhesive ( sticky bomb ) or with a magnet. The Germans used a magnetic grenade, the Hafthohlladung to ensure that the shaped charge would fire at the optimal 90° angle to the armor. There was also a special type of grenade called the Nebelhandgranaten or Blendkörper ("smoke hand grenades"), which was supposed to be smashed over an air vent and fill the tank with smoke, widely used by both sides in World War II . Molotov cocktails also saw much use, especially in

19431-477: The tank's thinner top armor if fired in appropriate density while the tanks were concentrated, enabling direct hits by a sufficiently powerful shell. Even a non-penetrating shell could still disable a tank through dynamic shock, internal armor shattering or simply overturning the tank. More importantly the tanks could be disabled due to damage to tracks and wheels, and their supporting vehicles and personnel could be damaged and killed, reducing unit's ability to fight in

19584-416: The tank-hull based designs used special open-topped turrets of a differing design from the original tank it was based on, which was meant to both save weight and to accommodate a larger gun. The earliest expedient design was mounting a 75 mm M1897 field gun in a limited-traverse mount on an M3 half-track , which was designated 75 mm gun motor carriage M3 . Another, considerably less successful, early design

19737-796: The traditionally defensive role used in the Great Patriotic War (1941–1945), becoming more mobile. This led to the development of improved guided anti-tank missiles , though similar design work progressed in Western Europe and the United States. Both sides in the Cold War also recognized the utility of light anti-tank weapons, and this led to further development of man-portable weapons for use by infantry squads, while heavier missiles were mounted on dedicated missile tank-destroyers , including dedicated anti-tank helicopters , and even heavier guided anti-tank missiles launched from aircraft . Designers also developed new varieties of artillery munitions in

19890-500: The unwieldy Elefant , now fitted to the chassis of the medium Panther tank , providing greatly improved armour-penetrating capability in a medium-weight vehicle. Facing an increasingly defensive war, the German Army turned to larger and more powerfully armed Jagdpanzer designs, and in July 1944 the first Jagdtiger rolled off the production line; it was the heaviest German armoured fighting vehicle to go into active service. The Jagdtiger

20043-624: The use of tactical nuclear weapons . In the Soviet sphere of influence the legacy doctrine of operational maneuver was theoretically examined to understand how a tank-led force could be used even with the threat of limited use of nuclear weapons on prospective European battlefields. The Warsaw Pact arrived at the solution of maneuver warfare while massively increasing the number of anti-tank weapons. To achieve this, Soviet military theorists such as Vasily Sokolovsky (1897–1968) realized that anti-tank weapons had to assume an offensive role rather than

20196-413: The user had to take cover immediately. Additionally, with hand-thrown grenades, the requirement for the attacker to get close to the tank made the attacker exceptionally vulnerable to counter-attack from the tank (typically by machine gun), or from infantry – mounted or dismounted troops – accompanying the tank. However, if the attacker were very low to the ground, and in very close proximity to

20349-405: The vehicle was originally designed as a very heavily armoured self-propelled assault gun to breach Germany's Siegfried Line defenses. Of these tank destroyers, only the 90 mm gun of the M36 proved effective against the frontal armour of Germans' larger armored vehicles at long range. The open top and light armour made these tank destroyers vulnerable to anything greater than small-arms fire. As

20502-642: The war. By late 1942, the Germans had an excellent 50-mm high-velocity design , while they faced the QF 6-pounder introduced in the North African Campaign by the British Army, and later adopted by the US Army . By 1943 Wehrmacht was forced to adopt still larger calibers on the Eastern Front , the 75 mm and the famous 88 mm guns. The Red Army used a variety of 45 mm, 57 mm , and 100 mm guns, and deployed general-purpose 76.2 mm and 122-mm guns in

20655-437: The well-armoured Soviet T-34 medium and KV heavy tanks were encountered, these guns were recognized as ineffective against sloped armor , with the German lightweight 37 mm gun quickly nicknamed the "tank door knocker" ( German : Panzeranklopfgerät ), for revealing its presence without penetrating the armor. Germany introduced more powerful anti-tank guns, some which had been in the early stages of development prior to

20808-454: The wrong angle to the surface of the main armor. The only significant attempt to experiment in the use of tanks in the late 1920s was that of the British Army's Experimental Mechanized Force that influenced future development of tanks, armored troops and entire armies of both its future enemies and allies in the next war. In Spain, the anti-tank defense of the Nationalists was organized by

20961-610: Was a German 75 mm anti-tank gun on the Czech Panzer 38(t) chassis as the Marder III . The Panzer 38(t) chassis was also used to make the Jagdpanzer 38 casemate style tank destroyer. The Panzerjäger series continued up to the 88 mm equipped Nashorn . German tank destroyers based on the Panzer III medium tank and later German tanks had more armour than their tank counterparts. One of

21114-450: Was a failed assumption. In reality, German attacks effectively used combined arms on the ground, fighting cohesively. American tank destroyer battalions comprised three tank destroyer companies supported by nine security sections. The single-purpose tactics of the tank destroyer battalion failed to account for non-tank threats. In the 1950s the goal of providing airborne forces with a parachute-capable self-propelled anti-tank weapon led to

21267-605: Was attacked, its allies in the West were resigned to its defeat by a numerically superior Wehrmacht. The little information that was brought out about the conduct of combat during that campaign did nothing to convince either France, Britain or the USSR of the need for improved anti-tank technology and tactics. The reliance on the Maginot Line, and the subsequent surprise of the German offensive left no time to develop existing abilities and tactics in

21420-515: Was based on the Tiger II heavy tank featured a very large 128 mm PaK 44 cannon and heavy armour protection. Only 88 Jagdtiger vehicles were produced, barely matching the total number of the earlier Ferdinand / Elefant vehicles. They were first deployed to combat units in September 1944. The decision of German armoured vehicle designers to use a casemate-style superstructure for all tank destroyers had

21573-500: Was breached with tank support during the battles of Cambrai and St. Quentin Canal , although German Command was more impressed by the surprise achieved by the Canadian troops at the Battle of the Canal du Nord . This came to influence their planning in 1940. The Maginot line defenses – up to 25 km (16 mi) deep from the forward positions to the rear line – were intended to prevent

21726-514: Was considered to be the Maginot Line which replaced infantry-filled trenches with artillery-filled bunkers , including casemates housing 37 or 47 mm anti-tank guns, and steel turrets armed with a pair of machine guns and a 25 mm anti-tank gun, although Germany was forbidden to produce tanks. The construction was partially based on the Allied experience with the Hindenburg Line which

21879-516: Was delayed until post war before entering service. A cut-down 17 pdr, the 77mmHV was used to equip the Comet tank in the last year of the war. The closest the British came to developing an armoured tank destroyer in the vein of the German Jagdpanzers or Soviet ISU series was the Churchill 3-inch gun carrier—a Churchill tank chassis with a boxy superstructure in place of the turret and mounting

22032-415: Was later exploited by opposing tank forces. Late in the war, it was not unusual to find even the largest and most powerful tank destroyer abandoned on the field after a battle, having been immobilized by one high-explosive shell to the track or front drive sprocket. US Army pre-war infantry support doctrines emphasized the use of tank destroyers with open-top fully rotating turrets, featuring less armor than

22185-534: Was mechanically unreliable and difficult to maneuver, and once all ninety-one unturreted "Porsche Tiger" hulls/drive systems were converted, no more were built. The German Army had more success with the Jagdpanther . Introduced in mid-1944, the Jagdpanther, of which some 415 examples were produced, was considered the best of the casemate-design Jagdpanzer designs. It featured the same powerful PaK 43 88 mm cannon used on

22338-493: Was no match for enemy tank cannon fire during one on one confrontations. Another disadvantage proved to be the open, unprotected turret, and casualties from artillery fire soon led to the introduction of folding armor turret covers. Near the war's end, a change in official doctrine caused both the self-propelled tank destroyer and the towed antitank gun to fall from favor in U.S. service, increasingly replaced by conventional tanks or infantry level antitank weapons. Despite this change,

22491-444: Was one of the most manufactured tanks in history, and the latter, itself dubbed the 'flying tank', was one of the most manufactured aircraft. The war also saw the creation and almost immediate abandonment of the self-propelled tank destroyer which would be replaced post war by the anti tank guided missile. As tanks were rarely used in conflicts between the two World Wars, no specific aircraft or tactics were developed to combat them from

22644-598: Was restricted by the Treaty of Versailles in its military capability, and there were no other challenges to France and Britain, very little development took place in anti-tank warfare until the 1930s. The Interwar period was dominated by the strategic thinking with fortified borders at its core. These included obstacles consisting of natural features such as ditches , streams and urban areas , or constructed obstacles such as anti-tank ditches, minefields , dragon's teeth , or log barriers. The pinnacle of this strategic thinking

22797-500: Was seen as the quickest solution to anti-tank defense, and one of the earliest post-war anti-tank gun designs was the 25 mm Hotchkiss model from France. It was intended to replace an Atelier de Puteaux 37 mm weapon designed in 1916 to destroy machine gun positions. Rheinmetall commenced design of a 37 mm anti-tank gun in 1924 and the first guns were produced in 1928 as 3.7 cm Pak L/45, later adopted in Wehrmacht service as 3.7 cm Pak 36 . It made an appearance during

22950-557: Was the Junkers Ju 87 "Stuka" using dive bombing to place the bomb close to the target. Some French and German fighters fitted with 20 mm cannon were also able to engage thinner top armor surfaces of the tanks early in the war. The Stuka was also given cannons for anti-armor role though it was obsolete by 1942, and was joined by the Henschel Hs 129 that mounted a podded 30 mm (1.2 in) MK 101 cannon beneath its fuselage, while

23103-662: Was the M6 gun motor carriage which mounted the US 37 mm anti-tank gun facing to the rear on the bed of a Dodge 3/4-ton light truck. The M3 was first used against the Japanese in the Philippines and then in the Tunisian campaign of the war in North Africa. Some were supplied to British units who used them within armoured car reconnaissance regiments for fire support. The M6 GMC was unarmoured and

23256-468: Was the first self-propelled gun design of the Imperial Japanese Army . They were meant to be self-propelled artillery and tank destroyers for armoured divisions . The plan was for the Type 1 Ho-Ni I gun tank to form part of a fire support company in each of the tank regiments. The Type 1 Ho-Ni I was developed by using the existing Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank chassis and engine, and replacing

23409-527: Was usable against both tanks and in supporting infantry, there was a need to put the 17 pdr into a tank for use against the enemy's heavy tanks. The Cruiser Mk VIII Challenger was a project to bring a 17 pdr tank into use to support the Cromwell cruiser tank . Delays led to it being outnumbered in use by the Sherman Firefly —but a derivative of Challenger was the more or less open-topped variant Avenger , which

#464535