Aloha All,
Thank you @Klaus-Adler .
Thank you for the research @Uncle-Heavy
My official start shots:
Happy Modeling,
Zon
1 Like
The RSO Pak 40 is a tractor chassis with a modified cut down cab and special deck substantially changing the vehicle in order to fit an AT gun with the sole intention for it to kill tanks - therefore it really is a tank destroyer.
Yes, these builds are supposed to be fun, but sometimes people can get offended if the rule goes the wrong way. Sometimes the need to make a decision takes the fun out of it for the campaign leader… Whilst no-one has really shown they are unhappy with a decision made so far, we can make it easier on David by making a selection that obviously fits in the category.
The T34/85 is essentially a T34/76 with a bigger turret to mount a bigger gun to kill tanks is still considered a tank, not tank destroyer. A M4A3(76), is a 75mm armed Sherman tank with a bigger turret to fit a bigger gun capable of killing enemy tanks, but is still considered a tank. The Comet was a tank designed to carry a 17 pounder gun to give it capacity to kill tanks. It is called a tank, not a tank destroyer. As I see it, the Firefly is a Sherman tank with the basic same 17 pounder as the Comet added to the existing turret, it is up gunning the vehicle like the M4A3(76) and T34/85, therefore like them it remains a tank, not a tank destroyer.
This ‘up-gun’ philosophy could be a guide to whether what you want to build is acceptable or not.
David, can I suggest that you expand your rules to add some more definition to what your intention is? Also providing some examples may help anyone joining in in the future. Say something like:
Consider: A tank destroyer should be specifically designed and built with the sole primary purpose to hunt and kill tanks. A Tank that is just up gunned by necessity to take on the latest tanks, remains a tank and is not suitable for this build. An assault gun (e.g. Stug, ISU 152) with a shared intended role of artillery support and anti-tank duties is not suitable for this build.
Examples of acceptable vehicles:
-
Vehicles designed and built from the ground up with the sole intention to hunt and kill tanks.
Hellcat, Kanonejagdpanzer, Striker CVR(T), etc. -
Modified existing chassis which are purpose designed and built to hunt and kill tanks.
Jagdpanther ,Nashorn, Jagdtiger,
A M10 or M36 (Or Achilles)
A Pak 40/4 auf RSO - modified RSO where the cab and deck have been designed to allow the Pak 40 to be fitted
SdKfz 234/4
Su 76, Su 85, Su 100 -
Basic chassis adding a gun with the sole purpose of creating a vehicle whose purpose is killing tanks {This is the real grey area so call out what you feel is acceptable or not, such as whether just slapping a gun on top is acceptable or not}:
- TOW mounted on a ‘Jeep’
- TOW mounted on a Wiesel
- Renault UE with a Pak 36 sat on top and tied down or bolted down.
- 88mm FlaK 36 auf Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.H bolting a Flak 36 on a Panzer IV Chassis
- SdKfz 251/22
- The Zis 30 (a Komsomolets with a 57mm AT gun mounted on top)
and then consider whether you will accept things like:
- the Anti-Tank Portee (some can be removed so is it just a form of ‘tractor’ or a self propelled tank hunter? or
- the 75 mm Gun Motor Carriage M3 which is slapping a M1987 75mm gun on a M3 half-track. The gun was not primarily used as an AT gun until fitted this way…
examples of items not suitable for the build:
Towed Anti-tank guns
Tanks including up gunned tanks (Firefly, M4A3(76), etc)
Vehicles used to transport AT weapons (tractors towing AT guns, Universal carrier with Panzershreck racks, Bicycle with Panzerfaust holders, etc)
5 Likes
OK.
So which category would the TAP Vespa factory fitted with a recoilless rifle fit in?
The intended purpose was for it to fire dismounted (portée style, carry the weapon to the action, unload and shoot) BUT it could also, in pinch, be fired from the Vespa.
1 Like
While I like it, we probably should have discussed it more before hand, I kinda feel like David has a rule and this one has already started. Maybe modify it for the next one if David is bravo enough to run it. 
The Vespa will continue on its own path later as I wait for the RR to show up from LZ Models.
1 Like
This raises the spectre of philosophy and utilisation. U.S. T.D.s were intended to be exactly that; they were intended specifically to go out and hunt enemy tanks (while their own tanks supported the infantry). The same vehicle in British hands was regarded as an anti-tank gun with enhanced mobility to get into position and become static (albeit with the ability to redeploy quickly). The Archer had it’s gun pointed in the opposite direction to that it traveled so it’s not really a tank hunter despite being quite well armoured. Thy could be regarded as an improved portee, but so could the Deacon, a 6pdr mounted directly to a lightly-armoured Matador truck chassis. It’s also worth noting with the earlier 6pdr truck portees as well as being towed the gun could be fitted pointing either backwards (shoot and scoot?) or forwards (tank stalking or just being able to respond more quickly if a suitable target is encountered while supporting an advance?).
Regards,
M
Not to stir up a hornets nest but to me the distinction between tank destroyer and anything else is not if it was designed to destroy tanks. Any self respecting tank should be designed to destroy tanks. If we want to call the firefly a tank destroyer then the panther is too since it was designed to combat the T-34 and KV Series.
To me a tank destroyer is a vehicle that had no intention of supporting infantry in its role. Tanks should be able to engage tanks but also roll into town to tackle infantry support. An archer might be designed to engage tanks but it was never meant (with its open top) to provide close infantry support.
To me tank destroyers are designed to destroy tanks, and only designed to destroy tanks
1 Like
…Sherman and Pz IV…
@Mead93 However, I like the way you look at it and agree.
1 Like
ROFL. Maybe should have worded it an self respecting tank should be capable of engaging other tanks.
1 Like
Exactly Robin. I gave an example of some rules that could be applied and how spelling it out might look, not the actual rules I expect to apply. If David spells out the Vespa is in, then technically a bicycle carrying a panzerfaust could also be in, etc. It is his call.
It is all about what is acceptable in the campaign leader’s opinion… the rest of us just need to respect that decision.
2 Likes
did anyone do any building this weekend?
Are we building in this campaign? I thought it was more of an exercise in meditating on what is possible? ducks
I plan to enter but it won’t be until early next year because I have so much already in progress. I’m planning on either another StuG or a Marder. I’m kinda leaning towards a Marder hoping for an easy build with a Tamiya kit.
2 Likes
Really itching to start my archer. It’s screaming at me from the stash but I need to get my three mustangs to the paint booth first. Will probably crack it open next Sunday
I thought about starting my Ves…I mean M10, does that count? 
Poor @Klaus-Adler just trying to give us a fun campaign and is now subjected to daily ribbing
2 Likes
Can I enter this for a tank destroyer? I couldn’t find it in WOT but I just may not know where to look.
1 Like
Sadly no, Im very busy with school and I need to finish my TUA within the next few days then pack it up to fly to NY by the 15th.
Alright my mustang builds stalled. Tired of filling and sanding seam lines, need a change of pace, and need supplies to rescribe panel lines. So I’m gonna get a start:
As usual, first up, suspension related stuff
1 Like
Thats why I started the Great Canadian Campaign, nothing but polite, rule following hosers on that campaign!
6 Likes
The reality is that reguardless of design intent, tanks, assault guns and TD’s were used in multiple ways. If you check the load out, none were antitank ammo only. Once fielded, their role fell into the needs of the situation.
You guys are evil…evil…
6 Likes