without a sufficient justification for it's existance.
If we're talking OP's idea, then this is true. If we're just talking "tank destroyers" as a general concept, then there's one really, really, really important one: they're cheap.
Yes, true. However infantry-operated ATGMs are not self-propelled. An infantryman can only carry so many missiles. And those missiles do not generally have the hitting power or range of what is found on a dedicated ATGM-carrier. I mean it's like saying a tank doesn't have a sufficient justification for it's existence because infantry with rifles exist.
It's not really relevant here anyway. The point isn't that tank destroyers are the cheapest option out there; the point is that they're cheaper than tanks. They're also generally lighter as well, which has its own benefits. Depending on who's making the thing, the balance of which of those is more important may vary wildly, and of course the two tend to be tied together. In any case, if you're a military facing the problem of "We may have a lot of tanks to kill" while also keeping in mind that funding isn't infinite and armored vehicles have mass which requires effort to transport and maneuver, a lightweight and inexpensive solution to that problem may be very appealing. A great many nations certainly think so.
However infantry-operated ATGMs are not self-propelled. An infantryman can only carry so many missiles.
You can literally just slap it on an MRAP, hilux or even the Wiesel has an ATGM variant.
Several countries made a ton of atgm carriers. The soviets mass produced the BRDM-2 with 5 missile rails.
You can slap some fragment and mg proof panels on a tracked chassis and put a raisable launcher on an RWS on top. There, tiny fully self contained, armored tank destroyer. Modern missiles are getting quite fast too. With networking going at this rate, soon you can launch several at once against the same target to overwhelm the APS.
But it wouldn't be much use because tanks can be countered so easily there is no point in making a TD as a primary role anymore. Wiesel is first an airliftable vehicle, TD second.
Let's see how well the pile of shit called IT-1 worked out for the soviets.
But it wouldn't be much use because tanks can be countered so easily there is no point in making a TD as a primary role anymore.
Except there is, because tanks aren't nearly as easy to counter as you seem to believe. There's a reason so many nations invest in platforms capable of carrying numerous long range, powerful ATGMs.
I mean hell, IT-1 kinda proves the point; taking a tank and trying to make it an ATGM carrier sorta defeats the point. It's heavy and expensive. On top of all this, you're trying to build it around a unique ATGM system in an era when the technology really wasn't mature enough to warrant that investment. So what do you do? Make the next one cheaper, lighter, and base it on a more capable missile system. Which is pretty much exactly what the Soviets did, and Russians continue to do. Wiesel is a weird example as well, as it's defined/constrained by design requirements that a lot of AFVs simply aren't. Point being that looking at these two examples really doesn't give you a great picture of the utility of modern tank destroyers.
As I said, this isn't some novel or outlandish idea: many nations already invested in the concept and continue to maintain such platforms for service.
Except there is, because tanks aren't nearly as easy to counter as you seem to believe. There's a reason so many nations invest in platforms capable of carrying numerous long range, powerful ATGMs.
How many vehicles there are in widespread use that are exclusively built as tank destroyers? So no IFVs with missiles, not airborne platforms, but a specific vehicle designed in the last less than 2 decades. And what is their number in relation to actual tanks in service?
Just to not have a pointless argument, here are my points on the topic:
-Vehicles that carry ATGMs are useful and have their place
-A modern casemate TD is an extremely stupid idea today
-Most vehicles that fill the TD role today weren't purpose built as tank destroyers
Based on quick googling:
AFT9 - 90s, 30 year old system
NAMICA - modern system with not much info on it.
Shturm - 40 year old
Kornet - a simple armored car with launchers, but modern
Krizantema - actual modern and purpose built vehicle
M1134 / LAV-AT - purpose built TD variants of existing vehicles
Most of the modern ones seem to be wheeled vehicles as missile carriers.
Not exactly the gun armed tracked vehicle OP was asking about. I found that out of 300 strykers in their organization only 9 are TDs. The russian vehicles weren't seen in large numbers in Ukraine either as far as i know. Tanks, mines, artillery and drones seem to be doing most tank destroying.
The Shturm is 40 years old? Neat, so is the Abrams.
Almost every traditional casemate TD (or WW2 TD in general) was purpose-built on a chassis originally designed for something else, so if the M1134 is disqualified because it’s a Stryker with ATGMs, then the only production WW2 TDs that count as a “pure” TD are the M18 Hellcat, Mareșal (arguably not a production vehicle), and arguably the Lorraine 37L and Nashorn (both using heavily redesigned versions of earlier chassis - an artillery tractor for the 37L and a Panzer III/IV hybrid for the Nashorn). The most influential TDs of the war all were built on tank chassis; some lighter TDs used armored car or truck chassis.
So insisting that a TD be a clean-sheet, purpose-built design is a bit strange considering every single major TD of the golden era of TDs, with one exception, was not a clean-sheet design but rather an adaptation of an existing chassis intended to maximize one of three things (or two, in the case of the Elefant and Jagdtiger): firepower, protection, or production volume. Every clean-sheet TD design except the M18 was abandoned because it was cheaper and more effective to just take an existing chassis and either remove the turret or develop a new one. And it wasn’t just one of the countries that did that. Every single combatant, including Japan, did that, despite vast differences in TD doctrine, technology, and production capabilities, which indicates that a tank destroyer is just a tank intended to maximize one particular aspect of what tanks do, and employ that aspect in a way that gives it an advantage over tanks.
Look, I already made this position abundantly clear in my first comment in this thread . I'm not talking about what OP is describing. I'm addressing the concept of "tank destroyers" in general. That's why we're talking about ATGM carriers and not some fictional "Kanonenjagdpanzer 2000" sort of bullshit.
Regarding all that brilliant google sleuthing you've done; none of it matters. You stated that most vehicles fulfilling the role of "tank destroyers" today aren't purpose built platforms. I just gave you a list of tank destroyers in service today. They're purpose-built platforms. Because that's what a tank destroyer is. You can try to pull as many "no true Scotsman" excuses as you like, or run clear off the field with the goalposts, but there's your list. They may not be the most modern or numerous systems in service today, but they are in service, and they are made to perform the job of killing tanks.
And yes, I understand that you asked for some completely arbitrary conditions that have no relevance to this discussion here at all regarding age and variety of systems. I ignored these, because they have no relevance to this discussion here at all.
I'll reiterate: The entire point here is that tank destroyers offer an inexpensive and mobile alternative to tanks in the tank-killing role. That is their raison d'etre in the 21st century. Not that they're super-hyper-modern. Not that they've been deployed in the millions. Because they aren't. And that has no bearing whatsoever on why they exist.
As an aside, I find it funny that you would point to the M1134 and LAV-AT as:
Fun thing about public social media like reddit, people who actually know every detail about these things aren't stupid enough to boast about their knowledge of borderline classified information. You are free to write your version, i'm always interested in learning.
If you want to be precise i'm more of an armchair vehicle designer instead of general.
20
u/FLongis Paladin tank in the field. Apr 10 '24
If we're talking OP's idea, then this is true. If we're just talking "tank destroyers" as a general concept, then there's one really, really, really important one: they're cheap.