Errm I’m saying as an AA it should have AA ammunition what are you on about
I even made such a report years ago Fwd: [2.70.162] QF 3.7 Ram missing HE shell fitted with VT fuze - Documented Ground Suggestions - War Thunder - Official Forum
3 Likes
may be worth forwarding this onto the new forums
Sk-105A2
Is a TD too
M1128 MGS
Boxer MGS
Maybe too
Added. I think the AGSs come under the Assault Gun moniker, and the SK-105 is a TD according to the Austrians.
Classification: Tank Destroyer
Role: Anti-Tank Missile Carrier.
It carries missiles to destroy enemy tanks.
Realistically that is how it should be done.
1 Like
Yes, I think this is the best solution. The terminology is correct and the vehicle remains in the TD class for gameplay purposes.
Not just for gameplay purposes but also for real life. Any role such as IFV, APC, etc is just the role intended for tracked vehicles. However, they are still tanks by definition. We just don’t call em that cause=People+word tank=frontline combat.
I see your point, but as a general term I usually use “Armoured Fighting Vehicle” or AFV rather than “tank”, which in particular tends to refer to a tracked vehicle with a turreted main armament.
Well AFV Came first but then Tank was coined when the first AFV->A tank. Started to arrive into combat. But the amount of time between words is negligible. It was likely only a couple of seconds at best in WW1. So really all the vehicles on tracks are Tanks as AFV and Tank are essentially the same word that was used interchangeably. Armored Cars however refers to well->Armored->Cars.
ELC bis isnt airborne and there is no evidence its a “light tank”. Documents state its a “tankette to deal with armored targets on 1,5km range”… pretty much defines being a tank destroyer
Ok that’s great, are you able to provide the relevant page? Ill take it off the list.
sharing archives is not my particular interest bc ive been warned for that, but I have cut out a piece from document I refer to
Spoiler
L’idée qui est à in base de l’engin léger de combat a été de monter un armement anti-char puissant sur un citasis de chenillette légèrezent, mais complètement blindé et de cons- situer ainsi un “chasseur de char” léger, mobile, peu visible, capable d’engager et de vaincre tous les types de chars adver nes jusqu’à une distance d’environ 1000 mètres, distance que, depuis, on cherche à porter à 1500 mètres environ.
A partir des éléments mécaniques de la chenillette Hotchkion, 14… a mis au point deux prototypes qui font l’objet de la présente notice.
Cen deux prototypes different par leur armement prin- eipal; le chassis, les or janen moteurs of nécaniques étant les en pour les deux engine.
Le premier prototype réalisé par l’A.H.X. dispose d’un ounon classique a long recul, monté sur “tourello-caserate” (1) tirant une munition de 90mm enpennée à charge crouse.
De manière générale, ai ce type de munition donne toute satisfaction quant aux performances de perforation, il présente, au delh de certaines distances, un manque de préci- bion qui limite la portée utile. C’est ainsi que le projectile BITERGA du poida de Pg. envisagé initialement porfore 350m de blindage mais avec une portée utile de 600 700m neulement.
Des projectilen de même type, mais plus leurde, ont été enanyós par la quite; ils permettent d’atteindre les 1000 metres de portée utile initialement demandén. Touteroin, un nccroissement substantiel de cette portée, jusqu’à 1500 mètres et même nu delà, rente grandement désirable.
the text’s broken a lot bc I copied it via google translate and it screwed everything including numbers so dont use stuff like BITERGA bc its ENERGA in the original, etc
Clearly identifies the vehicle as a “chasseur de char”, that’s good enough for me. Thank you for the correction!
1 Like
Oh, I didn’t comment you have my full support.
Vehicles should be classed (on related to a universal classification) based on what the nations who use them classified them as.
Same with names, names should also be what the operator nation called them for names.
A clear example of this is the SK-105A2
Argentina uses it as a tank destroyer, under the name SK-105A2 Kürassier.
JaPz.K A2 should be the name of the Kürassier in the French TT. Gaijin does everything in reverse
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/q6CPBi4BGViY
2 Likes
The 15 cm Pz. W. 42, Brummbär, Sd. Kfz. 251/9, & 38 cm Sturmmörser are all labeled as “tank destroyers” which is quite bizarre…
Are they not counted as self propelled guns?
They should be counted as rocket artillery and infantry support vehicles, not tank destroyers
1 Like
forgot about the F-117, F-111, F-105, F3D, and the T-95 (doom turtle)
- 15 cm Pz. W. 42 → MRLS
All vehicles were part of the German mechanized infantry (Panzergrenadiere):
- Sd. Kfz. 251/9 → armored infantry support vehicle (APC/IFV)
- Sd. Kfz. 251/10 → armored infantry support vehicle (APC/IFV) [Platoon leader vehicle of other 251s]
- Sd. Kfz. 251/21 → armored infantry support vehicle (SPG/SPAA) [Main task was ground fire support, AA was only secondary]
- Sd. Kfz. 251/22 → armored infantry support vehicle (SPG)
Sturmartillerie:
Part of artillery branch :
- StuG III Ausf. A → Assault tank (infantry support incl. anti-tank)
- StuG III Ausf. F → Assault tank (infantry support, stronger gun to better fight T-34/KVs)
- StuG III Ausf. G → Assault tank (infantry support, stronger gun to better fight T-34/KVs)
- StuH 42 Ausf. G → Assault tank (infantry support incl. anti-tank)
Part of the Panzertruppe (tank branch):
- “Brummbär” (Sturmpanzer) → Assault tank (infantry support) [Hitler declared it as a “Panzerjäger” (tank destroyer) to end a power struggle between branches. It still was designed and used like previous Assault tanks, but in separate units “Sturmpanzer Abteilungen”]
- Sturmmörser → Assault tank (“infantry support”)
StuG III A-E → StuH 42 → StuPa → Sturmmörser
StuG III A-E → StuG III F/G → Jagdpanzer (td’s): Hetzer, Panzer IV/70, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, Ferdinand
1 Like