- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 4,165
- Points
- 234
All I'm saying is the concept intrigues me, and I still have questions.
A traditional tank destroyer either complements a nation's fleet of main battle tanks in the defensive role, providing a more affordable and mobile anti-armour capability on the flanks (see Italy's Centauro) or in places where tanks can't go or can't go quickly enough (see Japan's Type 16); or it serves as an armoured reconnaissance asset, allowing the scouts to create separation between themselves and the hostile armour they stumble on.
Either way the vehicle lacks the ability to duel with conventional tanks. Once the first round is fired they need to F*** off. Consequently tank destroyers are usually deployed scattered across the battlefield and in small units; both the target acquisition and the decision-making processes are concentrated on-site and at relatively low a rank.
A tank destroyer with the range of a howitzer needs to be supplied with external target data, though, and there needs to be someone who coordinates the fires; hence my comparison to the artillery.
Actually… the modus operandi the Poles seem to have in mind kind of reminds me more of something like a Reaper drone: a machine – here land-bound – that lurks someplace unseen and waits for someone to point at a target miles away.
It does beg the question why that launcher needs to be attached to an armoured vehicle. It seems the biggest threat that thing would face on the battlefield is enemy air power… or perhaps an artillery strike. In the event of the latter you'd want to be protected from shrapnel, I guess; but if the Russians send their Havocs something like a Rosomak isn't going to stand a chance. So you might as well bank on speed alone, no?
Anyways… interesting!
A traditional tank destroyer either complements a nation's fleet of main battle tanks in the defensive role, providing a more affordable and mobile anti-armour capability on the flanks (see Italy's Centauro) or in places where tanks can't go or can't go quickly enough (see Japan's Type 16); or it serves as an armoured reconnaissance asset, allowing the scouts to create separation between themselves and the hostile armour they stumble on.
Either way the vehicle lacks the ability to duel with conventional tanks. Once the first round is fired they need to F*** off. Consequently tank destroyers are usually deployed scattered across the battlefield and in small units; both the target acquisition and the decision-making processes are concentrated on-site and at relatively low a rank.
A tank destroyer with the range of a howitzer needs to be supplied with external target data, though, and there needs to be someone who coordinates the fires; hence my comparison to the artillery.
Actually… the modus operandi the Poles seem to have in mind kind of reminds me more of something like a Reaper drone: a machine – here land-bound – that lurks someplace unseen and waits for someone to point at a target miles away.
It does beg the question why that launcher needs to be attached to an armoured vehicle. It seems the biggest threat that thing would face on the battlefield is enemy air power… or perhaps an artillery strike. In the event of the latter you'd want to be protected from shrapnel, I guess; but if the Russians send their Havocs something like a Rosomak isn't going to stand a chance. So you might as well bank on speed alone, no?
Anyways… interesting!
