Tank destroyers thought to be obselete, are making a comeback. It started with the South African Rooikat (8X8 76mm or 105mm gun 72mph/120kph), Italian/Spanish Centuro (8X8 105mm gun 65mph/110kph), US StrykerMGS (8X8 105mm gun w/autoloader 62mph/100kph), and French Vextra 105 (8X8 105mm gun 72mph/120kph) Although none of these has been tested against enemy armour it should be interesting to see if and when they come up against enemy tanks how well they perform.
Return of Tank Destroyers
- Thread starter fylr71
- Start date
you forgot the swedish cv-90-120 which with its 120mm gun is perhalps the most powerfull of these so called tank destroyers ,i agree with you that the tank destroyers are more capable now as the they can be equipped with gun launched anti-tank missiles giving them substantial combat capability to add to their high mobility,they would be excellent platforms for use in urban warfare.
I don't see them as tank destroyers. More as heavy weapons support which gives the unit it is attached to the capability to use it against light armor, bunkers, fortified positions, etc. And this they do in a fast and cheap way compared to missiles.
The 105mm guns of these vehicles are not able to go head on modern MBTs which only leaves the possibility to attack MBTs form the side or rear to them which is not enough to be classified as tank destroyers.
The 105mm guns of these vehicles are not able to go head on modern MBTs which only leaves the possibility to attack MBTs form the side or rear to them which is not enough to be classified as tank destroyers.
Yup, but a Russian solution is remain of course : Sprut-SD 125 mm antitank self-propelled floating vehicle, was developed between 1995 and 2002, on improved 7-wheels BMВ-3 origine hydropneumatic chassis, with fire-from-moving-fire-from-sailing capability, with 18 t weight its MG capability is equal to T-90S, it's 2A75 high balistics low recoil MG, and it can be descended with its 3 crewmen on parachute. thance it's intended for 'quick responce forces'.
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/sprut-sd_pm00263003.aspx
- Yes, but thus they became from narrow specialised a/t weapon to something more 'broad-spectrum', yeah?
Mi-8/Mi-17 - no, Mi-26 with 20-22 t max loading - yes. Also it can be descended from Il-76, An-124 WITH its crew inside. it's a beast!
Its MG has also the capability to fire with 125mm gun-launched high-precise missiles like Invar (Sniper-M).
Apart of full tank capability maingun it has remote-controled 7.2 mm machine gun. If to compare Sprut with previsious standard airborne equipment, the 120 mm self-propelled descended Nona howitzer http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product.php?prodID=1785 and BMD-3 http://rusarmy.ru/enc/veharm/bmd3_4.jpg the lasts hasnt got anti-tank ammunition (Nona) or has now obsolet 1 Fagot external missile (BMD-3). Only on the last mod BMD-4 http://rusarmy.ru/enc/veharm/bmd4_4.jpg appeared some (weak however) stick against tanks: 100mm MG-launched Arkan ATGM.
Its (Sprut's) engine is also something special: it is horisontal opposite-cilinder turbo-charge 510 hp diesel from completely new serial 2V. It's 6TD-like (T-84 remember!), but 4-stroked for better torque backup. Very low dimention - good feature for an armored vehicle. the rumors say a diesel from this serial, but with bigger dimention, will be installed on T-95. On only 1 refill it can drive 600 km with maximal 70km/h. Such engines are also on BMD-3/4 and BTR-90^
Last edited:
contedicavour
New Member
What if the Centauro is refitted with the same 120mm gun as the Ariete MBTs ? This is more than a possibility, since the current plan to replace the 120 Leo1A5 is to build as many Centauro 8x8 120mm.
Such a vehicle would come very close to a tank destroyer... though its primary role is to escort mechanized cavalry detachments in an environment that doesn't require MBT cover.
cheers
I think the biggest advantage to tank destroyers is in combat scenarios like the Gulf War. If the enemy doesn't really have any IR or night vision capability, the tank destroyers can quickly move with the infrantry while also have the ability to surprise enemy MBT's with their speed, firepower, and optics.
A Striker or other tank destroyer in the scenario coming upon dug in tanks can use their IR sights at a distance to pick them off at a distance just like M1A1 did during the Gulf. They would naturally take heavier losses then MBT's, but you also probably have more tank destroyers then MBTs in that case.
I would think though tank destroyers would be a void weapon against advance MBT's. A new T-84 against a group of Strikers, the T-84 would probably be able to destroy a number of vehicles before the MBT would be taken out.
A Striker or other tank destroyer in the scenario coming upon dug in tanks can use their IR sights at a distance to pick them off at a distance just like M1A1 did during the Gulf. They would naturally take heavier losses then MBT's, but you also probably have more tank destroyers then MBTs in that case.
I would think though tank destroyers would be a void weapon against advance MBT's. A new T-84 against a group of Strikers, the T-84 would probably be able to destroy a number of vehicles before the MBT would be taken out.
For sure a vehicle with a modern 120mm/125mm gun could act as a tank destroyer.
Because of this I did not put the CV90120 into the same category like the 105mm vehicles.
Especially during defense operations and as said before against opponents against which you have a technological advantage these 120mm vehicles may work well.
And they are for sure a substitute for Leo 1 MBTs because this tank is not very well protected.
Because of this I did not put the CV90120 into the same category like the 105mm vehicles.
Especially during defense operations and as said before against opponents against which you have a technological advantage these 120mm vehicles may work well.
And they are for sure a substitute for Leo 1 MBTs because this tank is not very well protected.
I think, the situation will be change soon, when the tank-launched ATGM are 'learned' from atop attack. Then even 100 mm missile will be dangerous for any existing MBT.
Incorrect, there are a more powerful version. CV90105 Anti Tank Vehicle fitted with a 105 mm gun.
http://www.baesystems.se/Hagglunds/default.asp
you have to take into consideration the weight of the gun and the recoiling mechanism ,a gun intended for a heavy main battle tank would be very difficult to integrate with a light- medium weighted armoured vehicle,i believe the 120mm gun mounted on the swedish cv-90-120 is considered to be the lightest of the lot.
thats ineteresting i remember reading in the janes magazine that the cv90 is equipped with a swedish 120mm gun,this gun is claimed to have a muzzle velocity of around 1600m/sec .
The 120mm is for sure more powerfull than the 105mm.
As for top attack capable ATGMs.
Till this tech is widespread active protection systems like trophy, newest arena, the US raydeon system, german Diehl system, etc. could turn the scale back to guns as the main AT weapons.
Another thing is that the AT role is just a secondary role for most of these vehicles. Supporting infantry with fast available, cheap and powerfull direct fire against bunkers, buildings, fortified positions or just for blowing a hole into a wall is the main task.
And using missile vehicles for this does not works this well because of cost, less ammo and fire ratio.
As for top attack capable ATGMs.
Till this tech is widespread active protection systems like trophy, newest arena, the US raydeon system, german Diehl system, etc. could turn the scale back to guns as the main AT weapons.
Another thing is that the AT role is just a secondary role for most of these vehicles. Supporting infantry with fast available, cheap and powerfull direct fire against bunkers, buildings, fortified positions or just for blowing a hole into a wall is the main task.
And using missile vehicles for this does not works this well because of cost, less ammo and fire ratio.
Partially agree with you about Active defence systems, but they will be a long time the ground for sword-and-shield competition: there are a lot of ideas around about how can the missile to deceive the ADS.
Of course, the primary subject of this thread is specialised antitank moving platforms: if theyre worth or not? If a bit get this narrow topic down, I'll agree with you again: high precise weapon never wil not push the old good shells out in near future.
Hovewer, I put your attention on some kinds of possile intermidient solutions, like rounds with correction, etc. One of the practically used system like this is russian Ainet plugin for HE-Frag tank rounds. It gives a possibility him to explode some meters before the target. T-80UK and T-90 MBTs are equipped with such system that allows to electronically fuse HE-FRAG rounds to explode at predetermined moment of flight. In order to use the system the gunner must lase the target before loading the round into the breech. The round is passed by the auto-loader through an automatic fuse setter, which sets the fuse to explode at the correct distance. the fused round is then loaded into the gun and is ready to be fired. This system allows to efficiently use HEF rounds against hovering helicopters as well as infantry and light armor in entrenched positions, out to 4 km and more. The effective fragmentation radius and range consistency improve three-fold, while ammunition expenditure for a typical mission decreases two-fold. All russian HE-FRAG rounds are compatible with this system after electronic detonator change. It is a beast possibility also for a light BT with 125 mm MG as well!
Jup, those systems are very nice when it comes to anti infantry and anti helicopter actions.
We use it in our Pumas.
I think money is the main point.
If you look at Iraq and at how the US worried about the use of Javelins and TOWs for attacking some lonely sniper or for blowing a hole into a wall. It is a real overkill to use expensive missiles for a task which would be done better by a dumb HE round.
It is also cheaper to use those smaller and lighter wheeled vehicles for this supporting role than real MBTs.
Many european countries as well as russia struggle to fund their armed forces and so using more of these vehicles instead of real MBTs is a normal way to keep costs low while being able to fullfill most of the required missions.
We use it in our Pumas.
I think money is the main point.
If you look at Iraq and at how the US worried about the use of Javelins and TOWs for attacking some lonely sniper or for blowing a hole into a wall. It is a real overkill to use expensive missiles for a task which would be done better by a dumb HE round.
It is also cheaper to use those smaller and lighter wheeled vehicles for this supporting role than real MBTs.
Many european countries as well as russia struggle to fund their armed forces and so using more of these vehicles instead of real MBTs is a normal way to keep costs low while being able to fullfill most of the required missions.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
What about ATGM's with ballistic trajectory paths like Javelin. The concept drawing of ADS I have seen so far doesn't cover this type of high angled attack. Can this be dealt with by just tweaking the ADS?
I don't think that tank destroyers will be used in large quantities against tanks. Because filling some high tech equipment in a cheap vehicle that is more easily destroyed with $ 50,- RPG rocket is not the best way to use in the urban battle ground. But the Tanks destroyers can be effectively used in ambush defences like the M10 Wolverine and the M36 Slugger TD from the WW2.
But also, TD's can give some heavy fire support to the infantry in the field when used in combined arms tactics or in other defensive positions like in mountainous regions in south-eastern Turkey for example.
But also, TD's can give some heavy fire support to the infantry in the field when used in combined arms tactics or in other defensive positions like in mountainous regions in south-eastern Turkey for example.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
This is the famous Javelin video.
https://mfcbastion.external.lmco.com/mfc/videolibrary/JAVELIN-LiveFire_PG.mpg
And better perhaps.
https://mfcbastion.external.lmco.com/mfc/videolibrary/JAVELIN-EXPLOSION2.mpg
It approaches the target tank from a 70-80 degree angle, outside of the envelope of ADS like ARENA.
Or what?
Last edited: