Fair enough, I suppose.
@WalletWorrier So no tandem, but likely SACLOS and improved warheads + stand-off probe?
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.