Could range ( of gun) be the most important factor of a tank?

Ion

New Member
Couldn't you just have a tank with very little armour but a high range gun? Wouldn't it beat all the other tanks as its long range gun could take them out before they have a chance to fight back?
 
Couldn't you just have a tank with very little armour but a high range gun? Wouldn't it beat all the other tanks as its long range gun could take them out before they have a chance to fight back?

It depends on the terrain. There are theories about to have lesser heavy vehicles, which are easier to deploy. There are also active detection systems for vehicles that can protect the vehicle. The Israeli Trophy system and the Russian Arena. However, they don't work against sabot rounds. I am also somewhat skeptical to these systems if they really work. It goes back to the terrain. In open terrain, your theory if I use that term could maybe work. However, in terrain in which the combat range is much lesser, the advantage of the big gun and lesser protection can have lesser significance when the opponent can easily reach out and touch your vehicle.
 
It depends on the terrain. There are theories about to have lesser heavy vehicles, which are easier to deploy. There are also active detection systems for vehicles that can protect the vehicle. The Israeli Trophy system and the Russian Arena. However, they don't work against sabot rounds. I am also somewhat skeptical to these systems if they really work. It goes back to the terrain. In open terrain, your theory if I use that term could maybe work. However, in terrain in which the combat range is much lesser, the advantage of the big gun and lesser protection can have lesser significance when the opponent can easily reach out and touch your vehicle.


This exact type of weapon has been around since WW2 it's called "self-propelled artillery". Basically artillery that can be moved about w/o being towed. These are generally long range weapons, outranging tanks.


An early example was the Hummel. A self-propelled artillery piece fielding a 150 mm howitzer on a chassis used by Germany in WW2.


The US currently has numerous self-propelled artillery weapons such as the M109 which uses a 155 mm howitzer, the M110 which uses a 203 mm howitzer to name several key self-propelled weapons in the US arsenal.


Now as for your question you sound like you are asking about tank destroyers, rather than long range guns on more lightly armored vehicles. Again if we go back to WW2 Germany excelled in these machines with a prime example being the Jagdpanzer, but they were very expensive and costly to maintain with the exception of their successful Stug. Tank destroyer were more popular during WW2. Currently I'm not aware of the US army fielding any AFV that are dedicated tank destroyers?
 
Last edited:
This exact type of weapon has been around since WW2 it's called "self-propelled artillery". Basically artillery that can be moved about w/o being towed. These are generally long range weapons, outranging tanks.


An early example was the Hummel. A self-propelled artillery piece fielding a 150 mm howitzer on a chassis used by Germany in WW2.


The US currently has numerous self-propelled artillery weapons such as the M109 which uses a 155 mm howitzer, the M110 which uses a 203 mm howitzer to name several key self-propelled weapons in the US arsenal.


Now as for your question you sound like you are asking about tank destroyers, rather than long range guns on more lightly armored vehicles. Again if we go back to WW2 Germany excelled in these machines with a prime example being the Jagdpanzer, but they were very expensive and costly to maintain with the exception of their successful Stug. Tank destroyer were more popular during WW2. Currently I'm not aware of the US army fielding any AFV that are dedicated tank destroyers?

During the Second World War, the US military was issued the M10 Tank Destroyer and the mobile howitzer priest. Maybe one of the versions of the Stryker vehicles can be perceived as a tank destroyer. It has a 105mm gun.
 
During the Second World War, the US military was issued the M10 Tank Destroyer and the mobile howitzer priest. Maybe one of the versions of the Stryker vehicles can be perceived as a tank destroyer. It has a 105mm gun.


The US to had many tank destroyers in WW2 including the M10. Of the US tank destroyers the 90 mm gun of the M36 proved to be most effective against the frontal armor of Germans' larger armored vehicles at long ranges.
 
The US to had many tank destroyers in WW2 including the M10. Of the US tank destroyers the 90 mm gun of the M36 proved to be most effective against the frontal armor of Germans' larger armored vehicles at long ranges.

Yes, I know there was another tank destroyer in the US armament during the war, but I didn't remember what it was called.

If I speculate, the concept of tank destroyers vanished when the mechanized/motorized infantry's capability of engaging the enemy's armor forces increased. Can the Sheridan vehicle be viewed as a tank destroyer?
 
Couldn't you just have a tank with very little armour but a high range gun? Wouldn't it beat all the other tanks as its long range gun could take them out before they have a chance to fight back?


In general tank components are proportional so if you increase the power of the gun you need to balance the other components or it will simply destroy itself or at the very least the maintenance levels will be far greater.

Basically you can bolt a chaingun to a bicycle but the result will be a pile bike parts.
 
Yes, I know there was another tank destroyer in the US armament during the war, but I didn't remember what it was called.

If I speculate, the concept of tank destroyers vanished when the mechanized/motorized infantry's capability of engaging the enemy's armor forces increased. Can the Sheridan vehicle be viewed as a tank destroyer?


They likely had many more during WW2 we just covered a few of the more successful machines.


The Sheridan was a light tank with a fairly large gun. I don't think it was a tank destroyer. It was most used in Vietnam.
 
They likely had many more during WW2 we just covered a few of the more successful machines.


The Sheridan was a light tank with a fairly large gun. I don't think it was a tank destroyer. It was most used in Vietnam.

The Sheridan was used mostly by the 82nd Airborne, right? I was thinking about the old concept of a tank destroyer and maybe the Sheridan could have been in that category.
 
There is another approach that has been tried. That is to reduce the overall weight by reducing the size of the turret or eliminating it all together, such as was done with the Swedish "S" tank. That was a turret - less design, where the entire tank was pointed at the the target and elevation was accomplished with a variable height suspension system. This makes a very low profile vehicle. It does mean that the visibility is limited by the limited height.
The Russians have a prototype tank, the Armata, where the gun is equipped with an autoloader and ammunition supply and is mounted on the hull in a small armored capsule. the crew being completely protected in the lower hull. With an autoloader, there really is no reason to have crewmembers riding up above the hull. There are various vision devices on top that should give an adequate field of view.
That's a useful approach: reduce the amount of armor required. The drawback is that it makes the machine more mechanically complex.
 
There is another approach that has been tried. That is to reduce the overall weight by reducing the size of the turret or eliminating it all together, such as was done with the Swedish "S" tank. That was a turret - less design, where the entire tank was pointed at the the target and elevation was accomplished with a variable height suspension system. This makes a very low profile vehicle. It does mean that the visibility is limited by the limited height.

I saw that but isn't it really the definition of a tank destroyer than a tank itself?
 
Okay, here is the basic difference between a tank and a tank destroyer. A tank destroyer's basic job is, well, destroying enemy armor. So it is designed to fight from a hull-down position in defense or ambush. It's an anti-tank gun in a mobile chassis with just enough armor to allow it to survive against small arms fire and nearby artillery bursts. It depends on speed for protection while moving. U.S. tank destroyers and some others had thin armor and many were open - topped making them vulnerable to air burst munitions.
A tank is a weapon of offensive combat. It advances under the cover of it's own artillery fire, The infantry trails behind in armored personnel carriers, riding in the ballistic shadow of the tanks. The tanks drive up on the objective, crushing enemy positions and shooting at retreating enemy. The infantry debusses and kills anyone foolish enough not to have run away. Anyway, that's what the books says.
Needless to say, while this high speed armor attack in going forward the enemy is going to be throwing everything they have at the tanks. So they need armor capable of defeating whatever is coming their way. Hard to do with today's anti-armor weapons. A hurricane of fire is going on around the attacking tanks; their own artillery and enemy artillery and mortar fire. A thin-skinned vehicle can't survive in that environment.
In tank design, there is a balance that has to be struck between firepower, armor protection and mobility. All tank designs are compromises. However, the end product is supposed to be a machine that takes the fight to the enemy, instead of waiting for it to come to you.
 
Once again though what was the S-Tank.
It was a turretless armoured vehicle designed to take on other armoured vehicles, by virtue of its layout it had no independant gun traverse ability and its design gave it little gun elevation (no more than the rear suspension could be lowered) therefore it was a vehicle that could only really shoot in the direction the chassis was facing and had no ranged non-LOS ability.

At best it was an assault gun at worst a tank destroyer and the only reason it got designated a "Tank" is that it suited Swedish combat doctrine at the time.
 
At the time that Sweden introduced the "S" tank, the country was pursuing a neutralist foreign policy and a defensive military policy. In a defensive situation a turretless tank might be okay, because there would be some idea of what direction the threat was coming from. In offense however, where the gun might have to deal with targets around the clock, a turretless tank would be a disadvantage.
On another note; during this neutralist period, Sweden had Special Forces units. They were DEFENSIVE special forces units ! There were air force SF units whose mission was to track down and destroy saboteurs. Naval infantry units whose mission was to lay ambushes for enemy naval and marine forces in the numerous fjords along the Swedish coast. Interesting approach!
 
Back
Top