Looks cool, but I dont think ATGMS belong at the BR’s you suggested. Also “Original”? when its on a soviet chassis, I think that is a bit of a strech.
There are already missiles at those BRs. Both the Type 60 ATM and Zachlam Tager are 6.7, as are the Ratel 20 and AMX-13 (SS.11). This would be a fine contender at 7.0, as it has primarily MCLOS missiles but carries more of them and has the possibility of using more advanced SACLOS and tandem-charge versions if Gaijin decides to give them to it.
As far as being original goes, it is a domestically designed and developed vehicle built from foreign parts. Seems to be something which you can say about many armored vehicles, no?
2 Likes
Believe me, I am a opponent to all those ATGM carriers and what not. Thats why I dont want more of them at those BRs.
I guess you might be right, Im just not convinced that slapping a soviet ATGM, or 4 of them in this case - on a soviet chassis, makes much of a domestic or even original design.
In the end, in my personal opinion, what all these ATGM carriers do is make power creep even worse when introduced at mid/low-tiers. I think we can both agree that this proposal aswell as the aforementioned implemented ATGM carriers would not work at much higher BR’s, which is why I feel no more should be added or should ever have been added.
I never got killed by Zachlam tager, type 60 ATM or Rakjagpz 2 despite playing at these brs for hundreds of hours because they are simply to defeat. See a missle coming simply drive into cover or shoot it with an mg. The Ratel 20 is different because it has the milan which is much faster but the SS11 missles (and similar missles) are simply too slow to be a real threat. Same will be the case for this vehicle.
The only problem is immersion but at 6.7, 7.0 or 7.3 there are many other vehicles which brake it already.
It would still be nice to have it despite it probably being disappointing
1 Like
Would this mean it has mouse guided missles? Is The tandem-charge missle the same as on the chinese bmp1?
Both would be cool. Although it probably would end up at 7.3 with mouse guided missles, which is fine because after all the vehicles moved up from 7.3 to 8.0 and now with the addition of the luchs maybe there could be a lineup again for germany. Leo 1 prototype with 90mm cannon would fit at 7.3 great aswell
Mouse-guided? Possibly, yes. The upgraded missile on the BMP-1 is the 9M113, which would be different than the possible upgrades for this one. They’d be upgraded versions of the 9M14, such as the 9M14M, 9M14-2, and 9M14-2M. Not sure if those would be provided, though.
1 Like
Dumb that it’s called a Jagdpanzer despite not being a tank itself.
Not really, it’s literally the German word for tank destroyer.
The other Raketenjagdpanzers aren’t tanks either.
@Godvana If you wanna get technical, that’d be Panzerjager, but the terms essentially overlap.
1 Like
Kind of, but the problem is that panzerjäger can refer to things other than a tank-killing armoured vehicle, like the role of a squad, a solider, an aircraft etc.
So if you are translating the word tank destroyer into German, jagdpanzer is the better term to avoid any confusion, as it can really only refer to a vehicle that destroyers tanks.
You’d be looking at the 9M14P (or P1) which was used by Germany, at least on the 9M133
1 Like
Fair enough, I suppose.
@WalletWorrier So no tandem, but likely SACLOS and improved warheads + stand-off probe?
1 Like
Yes. Not very familiar with their use in German service but they were widely used in Poland from 1971 on various vehicles, and the defining distinction between the 9P122 and 9P133 is the use of 9M14Ps and Germany operated a number of both 122s and 133s so the 14P was in the inventory.
1 Like
Based on a tank hull of the Kanonenjagdpanzer.
The hull is a tank. It is a tank. “Tank Destroyer” is just a category sub-class type of tank. It is not a Frontline Tank. A better term would be it is an Auxillary tank, designed to fulfill other roles, besides frontline combat
Even then the German word means Rockets Tank Hunter. When roughly translated. Still a tank no less so +1 cause any casemates are welcomed
Are we really gonna have this discussion? Just because it has tracks doesn’t make it a tank. A tank destroyer/SPG is not a tank. All tanks are AFVs, but not all AFVs are tanks.
2 Likes
“A tank is a large military vehicle that is equipped with weapons and moves along on metal tracks that are fitted over the wheels.”
You can claim what you want but vehicles like the Mark IV and V are case examples of those being nonsensical.
I think it should go 6.7 just like the Zachlam Tager
A tank is defined by doctrine as much as structure. This is why things like the St. Chamond, Strv 103, and VT 1-2 are tanks despite not having a conventional tank structure. A tank destroyer, tracked or not, is not a tank. This is why the M10 Booker is not a tank. It is an infantry support gun. There is much more than just visuals when it comes to defining what an armored vehicle is.
2 Likes
A tank is not a doctrine it is a classification. If tanks are doctrines then planes and ships are also doctrines which means Civil Era ships such as the USS Alligator (1862), are not submarines. Anyway are completely off-topic.
