During WWII, the German Army produced and operated the Marder III series, which was equipped with the Czech built obsolete 38(t) tank chassis, to combat the Soviet T-34 tanks.Is this allowed?
The Chi Nu 3 was developed in order to cope with M4 Sherman. Its hull is the same of Chi-He and its gun was converted from Type 90 field gun. Chi-Nu was deployed in Japan proper to prevent expected Allied invasion.
According to Greenwood the Chi Nu were deployed to tank battalions, which had Type 97 and Type 1’s. The Type 3’s were deployed as a tank destroyer. Each tank company had a few Type 3’s to engage US tanks at long range. The 28th, 29th, and 30th tank battalions of the 4th Armored Division were issued most of the produced tanks.
With all due respect to the rules on this GB, I must contest the decision on the Type 3 "Chi Nu" not being a tank destroyer. The entire reason for it's new (Nu) design was to counter the allies tanks. This tank was an evolution of the Type 1 "Che He" and the Type 2 "Ho I". It was improved from riveting construction to welded construction. This tank was designed and deployed as a counter measure to enemy tanks, ie. tank destroyer.
With the above in mind, the same goes for the M3 75mm GMC, the M10 and the M36! These vehicles were not designed from the ground-up as tank destroyers because they used pre-existing chassis. Only their turrets were changed, like the Chi Nu. Only the M18 was designed as a TD from the ground up.
If the Chi Nu is not to be recognized, I feel that the M3 GMC, M10, and the M36 along with others I'm sure should not be allowed either. Hate to open up a can of worms here but I'm having a hard time understanding it not being allowed.
Sincerely ,John
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
GB..Tank Destroyers..further developments!
PvtParts
Joined: June 18, 2003
KitMaker: 1,876 posts
Armorama: 1,120 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 09:58 AM UTC
Kencelot
Joined: December 27, 2001
KitMaker: 4,268 posts
Armorama: 2,804 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 10:05 AM UTC
Very well put! I wholeheartedly agree... even though I've decided to build an M3 75mm GMC!
I kind of feel that if the vehicle in question was developed, designed, redesigned, and issued to tank destroying units, it's a TD.
I kind of feel that if the vehicle in question was developed, designed, redesigned, and issued to tank destroying units, it's a TD.
jimbrae
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 11:16 AM UTC
The M10, M18 and M36 series only used the chassis from the Sherman, the hull was custom designed to mount a new turret. There were 'hybrid' versions which simply stuck the M10 turret on top of a Sherman hull.
As I said before, I can really understand your frustration over this subject. If it had been me, I would probably be causing the thread to be locked down by now....Jim
As I said before, I can really understand your frustration over this subject. If it had been me, I would probably be causing the thread to be locked down by now....Jim
jrnelson
Joined: May 23, 2002
KitMaker: 719 posts
Armorama: 566 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 11:44 AM UTC
LOL jimbrae...
Are you good at locking things up? :-)
Anyway - I'm doing an M-10 GMC..... and I see both sides of the argument here.
One thing to consider is the doctrine of the employing army. I don't know what the Japanese doctrine was on Tank vs. Tank combat, but the US generally didn't consider the tank as a weapon to employ against enemy armor. At least not initially. Perhaps that explains the slow response to the complaints about the regular 75mm's performance against German tanks, and why it took so long to upgrade to the 3" gun.
I would agree that the Japanese thingy should be allowed if it represents a departure of doctrine as far as the Japanese army is concerned. Did they try to use tanks to combat Shermans and were unsuccessful (thus the upgrade), or were their tanks infantry support vehicles like ours were. If they primarily used their existing tanks in an infantry support role, Parts has a good argument here. It isn't so much that the design of his vehicle is different than a tank, just that it was employed as a dedicated anti-armor weapon. However, if they were simply "upgrading" an existing tank design to allow their existing Tank vs. Tank armored warfare doctrine to be more "effective" against Shermans, then it classifies as an upgraded tank, not a tank destroyer. Similar to the Sherman tank in the US Army having a high velocity cannon mounted to counter the improved German armor.
My thoughts aren't centered so much on how the vehicle was actually used in combat, but more on what it's INTENDED use was. Obviously lots of different things were used to try and take out enemy tanks, artillery included. The troops would definately use what was at hand at the moment - whatever that may have been. Artillery doesn't leap to mind when you think Tank Destroyer - but they nontheless did it. If this little guy was INTENDED from inception to take on Shermans - it's a tank destroyer..... provided Japanese armored combat doctrine DIDN'T call for regular tanks to take on enemy tanks, but rather be used for infantry support.
Just my 2 cents - To be honest with you all, I like Part's little tank/destroyer thingy.... something you don't see everyday. So I would vote Yea as opposed to Nay... but Lord SS still has to chime in here :-) LOL
Parts - Whatever the powers decide.. be sure to build that sucker up - I'm very interested in the little guy now :-)
Later-
Jeff
Are you good at locking things up? :-)
Anyway - I'm doing an M-10 GMC..... and I see both sides of the argument here.
One thing to consider is the doctrine of the employing army. I don't know what the Japanese doctrine was on Tank vs. Tank combat, but the US generally didn't consider the tank as a weapon to employ against enemy armor. At least not initially. Perhaps that explains the slow response to the complaints about the regular 75mm's performance against German tanks, and why it took so long to upgrade to the 3" gun.
I would agree that the Japanese thingy should be allowed if it represents a departure of doctrine as far as the Japanese army is concerned. Did they try to use tanks to combat Shermans and were unsuccessful (thus the upgrade), or were their tanks infantry support vehicles like ours were. If they primarily used their existing tanks in an infantry support role, Parts has a good argument here. It isn't so much that the design of his vehicle is different than a tank, just that it was employed as a dedicated anti-armor weapon. However, if they were simply "upgrading" an existing tank design to allow their existing Tank vs. Tank armored warfare doctrine to be more "effective" against Shermans, then it classifies as an upgraded tank, not a tank destroyer. Similar to the Sherman tank in the US Army having a high velocity cannon mounted to counter the improved German armor.
My thoughts aren't centered so much on how the vehicle was actually used in combat, but more on what it's INTENDED use was. Obviously lots of different things were used to try and take out enemy tanks, artillery included. The troops would definately use what was at hand at the moment - whatever that may have been. Artillery doesn't leap to mind when you think Tank Destroyer - but they nontheless did it. If this little guy was INTENDED from inception to take on Shermans - it's a tank destroyer..... provided Japanese armored combat doctrine DIDN'T call for regular tanks to take on enemy tanks, but rather be used for infantry support.
Just my 2 cents - To be honest with you all, I like Part's little tank/destroyer thingy.... something you don't see everyday. So I would vote Yea as opposed to Nay... but Lord SS still has to chime in here :-) LOL
Parts - Whatever the powers decide.. be sure to build that sucker up - I'm very interested in the little guy now :-)
Later-
Jeff
PvtParts
Joined: June 18, 2003
KitMaker: 1,876 posts
Armorama: 1,120 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 12:03 PM UTC
To bring it right out the Chi Nu was built for one role..to be used to take out Shermans in the Motherlands defence should the US invade Japan..This is the reason only 166 were built.
SS-74
Joined: May 13, 2002
KitMaker: 3,271 posts
Armorama: 2,388 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 12:32 PM UTC
Pz IV Ausf F2 got refitted with the L/43 gun, and Panthers were developed to counter the T/34. Would they be considered as Tank Destoryers? The Marder was referred as PanzerJager, as tank hunter, simple like that. With the blessing of understand Japanese language, the CHi-Nu was called in Japanese a FIghting Car which translates to Tank, if it's designed as a tank destoryer it would be called "Chasing Fighting Car". As with the composition of the unit that deploys it. I recall for SchwerePz Ab. 501 or 503, they used to have Pz III ausf N as well as Tiger Is, Pz III ausf N were used as protection for the Tiger I against infantry, and Tiger I's purpose was to counter enemy armors, in this case, would we classified Tiger I as a Tank Destoryer. And if Japan did have enough of CHi-Nu to field whole divisions with this tank alone, how would you call that division, a Jadgpanzer Division?
If some of you guys wonder why I being such an ass about this, which is not something I don't usually do. I am pretty easy, LOL. But I feel if we makes a gray area appear, then there is no stop before someone said okay, I am submitting my King Tiger.
I am sorry guys.
If some of you guys wonder why I being such an ass about this, which is not something I don't usually do. I am pretty easy, LOL. But I feel if we makes a gray area appear, then there is no stop before someone said okay, I am submitting my King Tiger.
I am sorry guys.
PvtParts
Joined: June 18, 2003
KitMaker: 1,876 posts
Armorama: 1,120 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 12:48 PM UTC
Sorry for the continuation of this ,but I am truly confused..to quote from a site that sgtreef dug up.."Type 3 Medium Tank Chi-Nu was urgently developed to cope with the M4 Sherman". Wasnt the M4 a tank? and if you build something to cope with it ( I translate that as destroy ) Roughly said it is an M4 destroyer. Please understand my dismay in this matter ,but all cases made against this being what it was built to be, just dont seem to make sense. p.s Truly sorry for this causing any problems..Im just trying to understand why its not what it was meant to be. 
p.s.s they did not have enough only 166 were built.
p.s.s they did not have enough only 166 were built.
Sabot
Joined: December 18, 2001
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
KitMaker: 12,596 posts
Armorama: 9,071 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 01:01 PM UTC
Given that logic, the M-26 Pershing was developed to deal with the Tiger. That doesn't make it a Tiger tank destroyer though. Tank destroyers tend to be defensive weapon systems but tanks are mainly offensive weapons (break through lines so the infantry can exploit the gaps).
Most tank destroyers tend to be fairly useless on the move. For instance, turretless TDs would be almost impossible to hit anything not directly in front of them. Same with modern TD systems. Many of the current anti-tank missile systems must be fired from a stationary position (like the TOW or other wire guided missiles).
Most tank destroyers tend to be fairly useless on the move. For instance, turretless TDs would be almost impossible to hit anything not directly in front of them. Same with modern TD systems. Many of the current anti-tank missile systems must be fired from a stationary position (like the TOW or other wire guided missiles).
TankCarl
Joined: May 10, 2002
KitMaker: 3,581 posts
Armorama: 2,782 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 01:22 PM UTC
Quoted Text
According to Greenwood they were deployed to tank battalions, which had Type 97 and Type 1’s. The Type 3’s were deployed as a tank destroyer. Each tank company had a few Type 3’s to engage US tanks at long range. The 28th, 29th, and 30th tank battalions of the 4th Armored Division were issued most of the produced tanks.
Ok based on that it became a TD.The unit it was issued to were or did use it to destroy enemy tanks,not to go along and breakl through,or infantry support.
jrnelson
Joined: May 23, 2002
KitMaker: 719 posts
Armorama: 566 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 01:32 PM UTC
I agree with TankCarl...
The vehicle in and of itself does not make or bread tank destroyer status. It is the intended use of such vehicle that does. The US used tanks as "break through and exploit" weapons - as did the Germans. If in order for this mission to succeed it required destroying enemy tanks, so be it. This is not "tank destroyer" status, at least in my opinion. M-10, Nashorns, Marders, etc. were designed to COUNTER the enemy tank thrust, and as such are dedicated tank destroyers.
Lets just say that the US never does develop the M-10, M-18, etc... but they specifically allocate a number of Shermans in special "hunter" units to counter an enemy armored attack. These Shermans then become "tank destroyers" because that becomes their sole purpose, while the rest of the Shermans are still tanks because their purpose remains breakthrough and exploit. Of course in the "break through and exploit" role, Shermans will be called upon to deal with enemy armor - but that isn't their sole purpose.
The vehicle in and of itself does not make or bread tank destroyer status. It is the intended use of such vehicle that does. The US used tanks as "break through and exploit" weapons - as did the Germans. If in order for this mission to succeed it required destroying enemy tanks, so be it. This is not "tank destroyer" status, at least in my opinion. M-10, Nashorns, Marders, etc. were designed to COUNTER the enemy tank thrust, and as such are dedicated tank destroyers.
Lets just say that the US never does develop the M-10, M-18, etc... but they specifically allocate a number of Shermans in special "hunter" units to counter an enemy armored attack. These Shermans then become "tank destroyers" because that becomes their sole purpose, while the rest of the Shermans are still tanks because their purpose remains breakthrough and exploit. Of course in the "break through and exploit" role, Shermans will be called upon to deal with enemy armor - but that isn't their sole purpose.
SS-74
Joined: May 13, 2002
KitMaker: 3,271 posts
Armorama: 2,388 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 01:34 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextAccording to Greenwood they were deployed to tank battalions, which had Type 97 and Type 1’s. The Type 3’s were deployed as a tank destroyer. Each tank company had a few Type 3’s to engage US tanks at long range. The 28th, 29th, and 30th tank battalions of the 4th Armored Division were issued most of the produced tanks.
Ok based on that it became a TD.The unit it was issued to were or did use it to destroy enemy tanks,not to go along and breakl through,or infantry support.
Carl I still respectfully disagree, and going to use my argument of SchwerePz Abt. 501 again of the Pz III ausf N and the Tiger.
Actually to deploy 2 kinds of tank in a tank unit is not a new idea. German did it all the times, with the Pz III as the tank defeating one with long 50mm gun, and Pz IV with its 75mm stubby gun as infantry supporting at the beginning of war, would a Pz III in this case to be considered as a TD, hence be allowed to build in this group build?
Even the website you had quoted from, called this thing a tank for I don't know what, 20 times, and only said once, used AS tank destoryer. Are we missing something here? Pardon my english knowledge, I think the phrase "Used As" to some extend is self-explain, if it is a tank destoryer, wouldn't the author just say this Tank Destoryer? as he would probably did if he was talking about a Jagdpanther?
PvtParts
Joined: June 18, 2003
KitMaker: 1,876 posts
Armorama: 1,120 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 01:35 PM UTC
jrnelson....
Quoted Text
JR..however this all turns out ..( and it is very interesting) You can count on 2 things..1) The thingy will be finished before I start anything else, plenty of time left to do a different Tank Destroyer and 2) I will hold no Ill feelings towards anyone for their opinion and will abide by any decision made. Remember its all for fun :-) So if need be Im doing a PB..(personal build) of a Japanese Tank Thingy #:-) Parts - Whatever the powers decide.. be sure to build that sucker up - I'm very interested in the little guy now
PvtParts
Joined: June 18, 2003
KitMaker: 1,876 posts
Armorama: 1,120 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 01:50 PM UTC
I ,PvtParts, thank all for participating in this fun and lively debate and hearby withdraw my Tank Thingy from this GB and will search for another Tank Destroyer....(any thoughts? ) I need to keep building and Im getting nothing done..besides the Uday thing scares me!
p.s. wow a picture really is worth a thousand words!
p.s.s..I will post updates of my Tank...Dealingwitothertanks Thingy.
p.s. wow a picture really is worth a thousand words!
p.s.s..I will post updates of my Tank...Dealingwitothertanks Thingy.
Plasticbattle
#003
Joined: May 14, 2002
KitMaker: 9,763 posts
Armorama: 7,444 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 01:55 PM UTC
Just popping in for a minute ...... but not getting involved in the "is it or isnt it" debate. Very interesting debate though. One thing I saw and am a little confused over is the classification of what is a TD.
But did not early M10s have a closed turret? It was further down the line they took away the hatch.
Quoted Text
I think in this case we should consider a tank destroyer to be A. A low-profile turretless vehicle such as the Archer, StuG, Soviet Su-series, and Hornisse/Nashorn, etc. Or B. Turretted yet open topped vehicles, such as M-10, M-18, and M-36, etc.
But did not early M10s have a closed turret? It was further down the line they took away the hatch.
SS-74
Joined: May 13, 2002
KitMaker: 3,271 posts
Armorama: 2,388 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 01:56 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I ,PvtParts, thank all for participating in this fun and lively debate and hearby withdraw my Tank Thingy from this GB and will search for another Tank Destroyer....(any thoughts? ) I need to keep building and Im getting nothing done..besides the Uday thing scares me!
p.s. wow a picture really is worth a thousand words!
Thanks John, as I said many times, I am sorry about this. It's a wonderful model and very interesting subject. I had actually debated with myself before posting the original post.
Just what nation's tank destoryer you be more interested to do? let me know. Thanks.
Kencelot
Joined: December 27, 2001
KitMaker: 4,268 posts
Armorama: 2,804 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 02:19 PM UTC
Quoted Text
But did not early M10s have a closed turret? It was further down the line they took away the hatch.
PlasticB, the M10 was designed as an open topped turret from the beginning. It wasn't until later on that they realized that the crew was very vulnerable to fragments and snipers and such that they made the armored top.
sgtreef
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 10:57 PM UTC
So while on the subject is a Nashorn a TD?
I would say yes but also used as Artillery so what is the word on this go or no-go? (++)
I would say yes but also used as Artillery so what is the word on this go or no-go?
(++) SS-74
Joined: May 13, 2002
KitMaker: 3,271 posts
Armorama: 2,388 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 11:30 PM UTC
Quoted Text
So while on the subject is a Nashorn a TD?
I would say yes but also used as Artillery so what is the word on this go or no-go?
Lord Jeff,
Of course, Narshorn and Hornisse are both TD, in fact, the rule says it's a real McCoy TD. I don't think you can get more TD like than a Nashorn. Long range kill of a Pershing, you got to give credit to Nashorn.
jimbrae
Joined: April 23, 2003
KitMaker: 12,927 posts
Armorama: 9,486 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 12:03 AM UTC
The M10 'cover' was primarily a field mod. it later became 'semi-officially' adopted as standard. Some (though not all) of the post-war M10s were photographed carrying it. Most of the pics I have, show it fitted from the early part of 1945. This did not suddenly convert the M10 and M36 into tanks, if they had been fitted with plant-pot holders it would not have changed their designation into flower-shops. #:-) To suggest that putting an armored 'lid' on an open-topped vehicle suddenly changes its designation is silly,very silly 
Jim
Jim sgtreef
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 01:36 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextSo while on the subject is a Nashorn a TD?
I would say yes but also used as Artillery so what is the word on this go or no-go?
Lord Jeff,
Of course, Narshorn and Hornisse are both TD, in fact, the rule says it's a real McCoy TD. I don't think you can get more TD like than a Nashorn. Long range kill of a Pershing, you got to give credit to Nashorn.
Cool maybe this one instead of 88. Don't know maybe both can we have two in the build? (++)
SS-74
Joined: May 13, 2002
KitMaker: 3,271 posts
Armorama: 2,388 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 01:46 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted TextSo while on the subject is a Nashorn a TD?
I would say yes but also used as Artillery so what is the word on this go or no-go?
Lord Jeff,
Of course, Narshorn and Hornisse are both TD, in fact, the rule says it's a real McCoy TD. I don't think you can get more TD like than a Nashorn. Long range kill of a Pershing, you got to give credit to Nashorn.
Cool maybe this one instead of 88. Don't know maybe both can we have two in the build? (++)
You can have twenty. #:-)
Hollowpoint
Joined: January 24, 2002
KitMaker: 2,748 posts
Armorama: 1,797 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 02:24 PM UTC
I'm certainly no expert on Japanese armored fighting vehicles, but this dicussion intrigued me enough to dig out a few reference books. The nearest thing I can find to a Japanese "tank destroyer" are the Ho-Ni type III, which mounted a 75mm Type 88 anti-tank gun. It had a fixed, open-top "turret" (like a Marder) and was based on the Type 97 Chi-Ha tank chassis. (This is all according to "World War II AFVs and Self-Propelled Artillery" by George Forty, a fairly reputable author.)
Tamiya makes a kit of the above-described vehicle, but calls it "Japan Type 1 75mm Self Propelled Gun, " kit no. 35095. In the instructions, it is refered to as a Ho-Ni type 1 "gun tank." I believe this kit is out of production, but I acquired one in a trade.
I don't really have a vote in this, but if I did, I'd say "no" to the Chi Nu 3. A tank destroyer is basically a self-propelled anti-tank artillery piece.
OOOOOOO .... That's a spooky thought. Well, it is close to Halloween
BTW, noticed a post on another thread by "Uday_too" -- I sincerely hope the troll has not regenerated and that some poor soul just picked the handle 'cuz he thought it was cute ...
Tamiya makes a kit of the above-described vehicle, but calls it "Japan Type 1 75mm Self Propelled Gun, " kit no. 35095. In the instructions, it is refered to as a Ho-Ni type 1 "gun tank." I believe this kit is out of production, but I acquired one in a trade.
I don't really have a vote in this, but if I did, I'd say "no" to the Chi Nu 3. A tank destroyer is basically a self-propelled anti-tank artillery piece.
Quoted Text
If this continues maybe even Uday will chime in , then it's all gonna go down the toilet.
OOOOOOO .... That's a spooky thought. Well, it is close to Halloween
BTW, noticed a post on another thread by "Uday_too" -- I sincerely hope the troll has not regenerated and that some poor soul just picked the handle 'cuz he thought it was cute ...
sgtreef
Joined: March 01, 2002
KitMaker: 6,043 posts
Armorama: 4,347 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 11:02 PM UTC
Well maybe I will have to start kicking my eleves in the Butt and get them cracking on these models. As 4 group builds by end of Feb will be rough. #:-) (++) (:-)
PLMP110
Joined: September 26, 2002
KitMaker: 1,318 posts
Armorama: 837 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 03:14 PM UTC
Are these guys ok? The weapon is designed for killing tanks, weapon has a low profile, and it is turretless. Sorry guys, I couldn't resist.
Patrick
blaster76
Joined: September 15, 2002
KitMaker: 8,985 posts
Armorama: 3,034 posts
Posted: Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 05:02 PM UTC
I agree that according to the reference it is a tank destroyer. As this is a "Group Build" designed to be fun, not trying to win a freakin medal or money why the holy heck are you people making such a big to do about this. Jumpin Jimminy lets remember to have fun here. I vote in favor of it being a tank destroyer
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.