I know of a few British tank destroyers that are available and the Lend Lease Act put more US manufactured vehicles into battle. But, how about the AT series? This is really an untapped market. Who else would like to see some of these machines?

I don't think the Allies were big on the Tank Destroyer doctrine. The British had the Archer, and Wolverine (M10), the Firefly could arguably be called a tank destroyer as it was developed to counter Panthers and Tigers (but then, the Pershing was also developed as a counter against German heavy tanks. So where does the line end between tank, and tank destroyer?); and the US also had the M10; M18; and M36. They (US) relied mainly on towed AT artillery, with them being phased out by early '45.
There was also the half-track mounted 75mm gun, which was not a huge success. Correct me where I'm wrong.

The designation "tank destroyer" is where the line is drawn.

Hi Matt,

As Biggles says, the British didn't really have a "Tank Destroyer" doctrine like the US. They had AT weapons, such as towed 2pdr and 6pdr guns, as well as the famous 17pdr towed piece, all of which have been kitted in plastic already. These same guns were also fitted to various "cruiser" tanks like Crusader & Cromwell, and even the "infantry" tanks like Valentine and Churchill.

But (like the US and the Germans) the bulk of British AT warfare was actually artillery-based using 25pdr HE shells to rain down on enemy concentrations as part of a bombardment. There was the Archer as an attempt at a US-style open-topped TD, but this was a deliberate stop-gap to get more 17pdrs mobile - it lost value once enough Fireflies and Comets started rolling off the lines. Otherwise, they used US TDs like M10s (many of which were up-gunned to Achilles standard with the 17pdr), all of which have been kitted.

So, there really isn't anything new left in the way of British AT weapons to be addressed for WWII, as far as I know. Post-war, the UK just went for bigger tanks with big guns, much like the US. (The 105mm L7 gun featured in so many Cold War tanks across Europe and the US has its roots in a UK design.) They also discovered RPGs and shoulder-launched missiles for cheap portable AT warfare, again just like everybody else.

But I'm all for extra kits to absorb my disposable income, if you can think of any!

AT5 AT7 AT8 AT15, etc.

Matt,

What are they?? Never heard of them. They are not American, Commonwealth or Soviet.

Paul

They never entered production.

I hadn't heard of them either. But they seem to be assault tank designs leading up to the AT16 which was built as the A39 Tortoise Heavy Assault Tank. Oh, hang on, The Royal Army talks backwards, so that should be the Tank, Heavy Assault, Tortoise (A39).

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoise_heavy_assault_tank.

They have them in World of Tanks. See http://worldoftanks.com/encyclopedia/vehicles/uk/gb72_at15/.

But apart from the WoT pages I can't find much mention of them, let alone plans. But it would be interesting to display how the AT1 evolved into the behemoth that was the A39.

Cheers,

Marc

I see. I assumed the "AT" meant anti-tank, rather than Assault tank! The Nuffield designs (AT1-AT18) only led to one fully designed vehicle, which was turned out as A39 Tortoise (kitted by Meng). This was NOT a Tank Destroyer, but a "bunker buster" on steroids! However, the early evolutions never got to detailed design stage let alone mock-ups or prototypes, so any models of the series would be conjecture at best with a lot of guesswork. (Paper Panzer springs to mind...) Other than the WoT Forum images, there isn't much to go on.

I made the same assumption.

Hi, guys! Yeah, the British received a lot of US equipment thru "Lend-Lease". If you read thru a lot of "in-depth" reference material pertaining to WWII US Armor, you'll find that there was a VERY HEATED argument going on within the US ARMY as to where production-priorities should go, specifically how many TANKS and "TANK-DESTROYERS" were to be built, and where they would go, especially in 1943, during the build-up for "OVERLORD". OVERLORD, of course, was the upcoming Invasion of France, scheduled for late Spring, 1944. it turned out to be 6 June, 1944, for various reasons that are beyond the scope of this discussion. Most people know it as "D-Day", but in ANY actual invasion by US Forces, even today, "D-Day" is merely the name assigned to the actual day that any invasion is to take place. "H-Hour" is the actual TIME of the start of the invasion.

Actually, the US Army "Tank-Destroyers" were originally supposed to use ONLY TOWED Anti-Tank weapons, such as the laughable M1 37mm Anti-Tank Gun. It was found, not surprisingly, that a 37mm anti-tank weapon was adequate only as a Fourth of July noise-maker. The M1 was successful in the Pacific however, against the completely dismal Japanese Armor, which seemed to be made of tin- There were reports of even the US 37mm Anti-Tank round not only penetrating Japanese Armor, but punching it's way through Japanese tanks, and coming out the other side, much like the German 88 was doing with many Allied tanks.

The US Army's "Tank-Destroyer Concept" was that Tank-Destroyer Units would "engage & destroy" enemy armor from concealed positions, while US Army Tank Doctrine stipulated that Armored Units (tanks) were supposed to support the Infantry as "Breakthrough" weapons, and were NOT to engage enemy armor at all!!! I get mad every time I read about it! Unfortunately, General Leslie McNair was an enthusiastic proponent of the Tank-Destroyer concept, so the US tankers were largely ignored when they pleaded for tanks that would out-class their M3 and M4 Mediums...

McNair was in charge of "Who got What and When", i.e. HE was the power within the power.

After scaling back the 37mm Anti-Tank weapon, the US Tank-Destroyer units were at first given the M1 57mm Anti-Tank Gun, which was an "Americanized" version of the famous British 6-Pounder, which had wrought havoc with the AFRIKA KORPS' PzKpfw.Is, IIs, IIIs and even some Pz.IVs, here and there. Africa was proving to be a highly-mobile war, so the US Army Tank-Destroyer units were hastily equipped with the M6, which was actually a Dodge WC-series Truck, mounting the M1 57mm Anti-Tank Gun. This turned out to be a costly mistake, resulting in many casualties and dead within the US tank-Destroyer Units serving in Tunisia. "We want tracked, armored machines, the TD boys pleaded..." What they got was another towed AT gun- The M1 76mm Anti-Tank Gun, mounted on the standard M2 105mm Howitzer's gun carriage. Cooler heads prevailed when the proponents of the US towed tank-destroyer doctrine and the powers-that-be running the Army accepted the M10, mounting a naval 3-inch Gun, in an all-too-lightly-armored turret and chassis, whose running gear and engine were US M3 Lee/M4 Sherman-based. The concept had now changed to the "Shoot-and-Scoot" idea, but that would not only leave our armor exposed to the EXCELLENT German 88s, and also to the nearly-as-good PaK 40 75s and the even more potent guns of the new Panthers, but would now also expose the even lighter-armored M10s!!! I'm going to skip the Tank-Destroyers' US Half-Tracks mounting anti-tank weapons entirely, because they were just about as dismal as the Dodge-mounted AT Guns...

The M10 first served in Tunisia, then in Sicily, and then in Italy- It was found to be woefully inadequate. As a temporary fix, the poor Tank-Destroyer Boys were given the Towed 76mm Anti-Guns!!! Terrible combat losses within the Tank-Destroyers' ranks now approached wholesale slaughter!

Meanwhile, the nature of combat in Tunisia had proved that US Armor done well under Patton, but in Italy, the terrain was not conducive to efficient tank warfare. We are all aware of the unfortunate "slapping incidents" in Sicily, so Patton was now in the doghouse, and was recalled from the Mediterranean Theatre, and left to stew in England. This is why Patton was spooked into NOT raising his voice in getting US Tankers better tanks than the M5 Lights and M4 Mediums.

When US Generals were asked to make recommendations for new tank-designs, Patton thought it wiser in recommending that the M4 remained in production. He reasoned that the M4 was already in production in great numbers, and alone, certainly dwarfing Germany's entire war production of armor. he recommended instead that the M4 should be up-gunned, but did not specify with what. Yes, he certainly WAS SPOOKED, and he realized that if Ike gave him another chance to command, it would be his last chance for greatness... Luckily, for us, Eisenhower made sure that Patton would lead an Army once the beachhead in Normandy had been secured. We all know what happened with Patton's 3rd Army race across France once the "Breakout" out of Normandy became an established fact.

Even with this success in France, the many-times-overstated "superiority" of German armor and the nature of modern tank warfare now negated the established US Army Tank Doctrine of "Infantry-Support" without engaging enemy armor- It was INEVITABLE that US Armor would HAVE TO ENGAGE GERMAN ARMOR if they were going to support the Infantry. To that end, many hard lessons were learned at the cost of many American and Allied Tankers',Infantrymen's and Tank-Destroyers' lives.

The US Tank-Destroyers also learned that they couldn't cope with German armor, especially since ALL arms of US and Allied Ground Forces had to deal with CONCEALED German Armor. There really weren't many out-and-out tank battles in Europe. The gigantic tank battles of epic proportions during World War II took place in Russia and the Ukraine, and in the imaginations of "World Of Tanks" players. In many instances, US and Allied forces simply by-passed German troop concentrations and armor.

OK, so originally, we were discussing US and Allied TDs. I left off at the M10, which was not really any kind of a tie-breaker, much less a winner. What was left? OK, the M18, which was a real HOT ROD, but that's about it. The M18 still only mounted a "high-velocity" 76mm Anti-Tank Gun, throwing some "souped-up" ordnance which still didn't "cut the mustard", when going up against the frontal armor of Panthers, Tiger Is, and very rarely Tiger IIs. The M18 was, after all, still a "Scoot-and-Shoot" machine, without any "real" defensive armor. There was a REASON why the M18 could hit 60 on good roads. On the battlefield, an M18 was still a fast machine, but not fast enough to out-run an 88, or even a 75-round...

There came then, the M36, which mounted a far superior gun- an adaptation of the US 90mm Anti-Aircraft Gun, which was comparable, but not superior to the long-versions of the German 88s. M36s were too few in number, too far, and too wide to make any appreciable difference on the battlefield against German Armor, but the 90mm gun DID make the Germans stand up and take notice. My Mom's Uncle Ludwig could, and did attest to that. He was a loader aboard a Pz.IV in France, during the war. He and his crew thought that the US had somehow developed an 88...

We know that the US 90mm STILL couldn't quite match the 88 for range and punching power, except for the 90s mounted on a few "Super Pershings" in 1945, and THEY never saw combat...

The US M4 crews learned that they could (and did) take out Tigers by placing a well-aimed WP "Willy-Pete" (White Phosphorous) round into a shot trap such as the area between the top of the hull and turret. The burning WP would sep through the turret race and into the fighting compartment, burning crew members and igniting the ammo. Fire extinguishers were NO HELP, so you either cooked, or took a chance in trying to escape the US/Allied machine gun bullets that peppered German tanks once they were set afire. Uncle Ludwig related to me that THAT was his greatest fear during the war, even with US/Allied Jabos being everywhere, which also was NO JOKE if you were German...

So, after all is said and done, there are some VERY BIG REASONS why we don't have tank-destroyer units today- First, the concept doesn't work. Second, close air-support and artillery can handle any tanks, even large formations of them. Ask ANY A-10, AH-64, or AH-1 pilot. Third, ALL infantry units the world over carry portable anti-tank weaponry on designated individual Soldiers or US Marines, in our case, but Tank vs. Tank is still a viable way to carry out certain tasks in a war. machines such as the Abrams and Challenger can attest to that...

According to this, http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=354, the AT16 design was chosen for the base of the A39 and 25 were order in hopes of being put the use with the 79th Armored Division. 6 were finished by the end of the war, only one A39 survived which is at Bovington.

See ya in the funnies..............

It would be nice to see more of the AT's. I've looked into scratch building one, but can't even locate a suitable base.