Project Reality Forums

The Militia and Insurgent factions are not what one would call the most up to date faction out there, nor would they have access to unlimited funds and therefore suggest that PR incorporate Tank Destroyers, at least for the Militia Faction. Tank Destroyers are essentially very large caliber and powerful guns that are fixed onto a light to medium armored vehicle. They are cheaper and easier to maintain at the expense of a rotating turret and armor. It would seem to me that such a weapon is perfect for the Militia Faction as most of their work is from ambush, a common tactic of the Tank Destroyer, and it would be easier to use and obtain.

Great idea Tirak, makes alot of sense and would be badass.

what kind of caliber gun and what rate of fire? feel free to post a picture!

Kanonenjagdpanzer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This one was used by Germany until the 1980s

Stridsvagn 103 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Swedish Design used until the 1990s

Chinese Defence Today - Type 89 Tank Destroyer
Chinese Design

Rate Of Fire I would assume would be on par if not a little faster than MBTs. In game their specialized role could be reflected by having only but more SABOT rounds. Average cannon seems to be between 90 and 120mm.

For militia I was thinking more of a recoil less rifle on that uber truck they have (that one that can drive up any hill and go over any jump without damage) I would think that they would be more prevalent than an IS250 in Georgia.

I remember those things from WWII. They would be nice, but I agree that a light vehicle born weapon would be best or something handheld.
13.2 mm Anti Tank Rifle
Anti Tank Rifle, Model 35
Lahti L-39
PTRS-41
Boys Anti Tank Rifle

Also, most of those I listed are from WWII so it keeps with the theory that Militia and INS are using old weapons they've found and/or bought.

No not anti tank rifles, those are just HR (heavy rifles) I might as well shoot a .50 cal at a tank. I'm saying use a real recoiless rifle that thing with the propellant blowing out the back to counter act all the force going out. THat would be better

DeltaFart wrote:For militia I was thinking more of a recoil less rifle on that uber truck they have (that one that can drive up any hill and go over any jump without damage) I would think that they would be more prevalent than an IS250 in Georgia.

That would be more equivalent to the TOW Humvee, I'd like to see the addition of a medium armored (Read IFV Strength) vehicle with a fixed forward anti tank gun. I believe that the tactics of Gun Tank Destroyers well suits the Militia in that it fights from ambush, but can still take some punishment.

But the issue is noone has a tank destroyer pretty much after WW2, the idea is dropped for just tanks vs tanks. Its less of a logistics nightmare this way without having 2 different styles of tanks on the front. Except for some self propelled guns that were made as just artillery on tank carriages where it was moved around in a foward position, they soon changed over to the tank turret (IE the Paladin, Ph2000)
Listen I got a list poster of armored vehicles past to present from Aberdeen Proving Grounds. It shows the more outstanding pieces of armor in the war years and in between them. The last one that looks anything like a WW2 Tank Destroyer is before 1964 with germany's JagPz Kanone, with a 90mm gun. By that time the tanks were already using 100mm guns! It's at a disadvantage there.
My idea is for one of those Turcks to be mounted with a recoiless rifle :M40 recoilless rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia M40 perhaps? That would fit in real well for the militia, they fire off back of truck and run into the hills where the tanks cant follow, if the hit isn't bad enough to disable it

See my earlier posts, I listed three designs of different nationalities, the Swedish one used up until the 1990s. The Tank Destroyer would have the capability to get away while under fire from LAT or APCs whereas your truck most certainly would be unable to do so. Besides, I'm sure we can all agree that the militia faction would have a much easier time maintaining and obtaining a Tank Destroyer than a full on MBT.

A tank destroyer is a tank without a turret think about this! The biggest flaw it has it it's lack of a turret! The militia might use outdated items, but they won't use stuff that isn't as good as their T62 in a fight.

An let's think about it in a sense of the public. Are they going to use it as an ambush platform or a tank? At least with the truck they have incentive to use it in ambush since they can hide the truck on the side of the road, which I've seen often. Any armor is used to attack like crazy.

DeltaFart wrote:A tank destroyer is a tank without a turret think about this! The biggest flaw it has it it's lack of a turret! The militia might use outdated items, but they won't use stuff that isn't as good as their T62 in a fight.

An let's think about it in a sense of the public. Are they going to use it as an ambush platform or a tank? At least with the truck they have incentive to use it in ambush since they can hide the truck on the side of the road, which I've seen often. Any armor is used to attack like crazy.

One of the advantages of the Tank Destroyer is lack of a turning turret. That turret is difficult, comparatively, to manufacture and has a slew of moving parts any of which could break requiring massive repair time. The advantage logistically is obvious, Tank Destroyers are easier to field, if not quite as effective. And while it cannot stand toe to toe with a Main Battle Tank, it wiggle room in its operation. One mistake will not neccessarily doom an ambushing Tank Destroyer, it's mobility and armor can get it away, one mistake with an unarmored truck with a recoiless rifle and it's game over. The Tank Destroyer fills in the need of being reliable, easy to field, tough and powerful.

Find an example of a Tank Destroyer that has been produced in a large amount and has been known to circulate around teh world. Then I'll agree with you. ANd not one that the swiss or swedes has been using until the 90s, since that wouldn't have time to spread throughout the world and have its ammo follow it easily

How about making the ZIS-3 movable like in FH2 and their anti tank guns? Yeah, it looks silly in FH2 because there's no animation of the soldier pushing it but I thought that was a good idea in FH2. Plus it will make militia attacks more unpredictable and vehicles will have to pay more attention and be more careful.

The militia already has one of the best anti-tank vehicles in the game, the BRDM Spandrel. When coded as authentically as we can get it, it becomes a tank's primary target if it is seen first.

Not all tank destroyers/assault gun vehicles have fixed, forward firing cannons.

Oh yeah I forgot to mention taht, after the 70s, alot of the TDs seem to be missle carriers
I still think the Militia has a better chance of getting their hands on a RR than a TD, I mean the T62 wasnt hard to come by since there was so many of them, but a JST103 or whatever would be damned rare in Georgia

DeltaFart wrote:Find an example of a Tank Destroyer that has been produced in a large amount and has been known to circulate around teh world. Then I'll agree with you. ANd not one that the swiss or swedes has been using until the 90s, since that wouldn't have time to spread throughout the world and have its ammo follow it easily

Kanonenjagdpanzer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Between 1966 and 1967, 770 were built by Hanomag and Henschel for the Bundeswehr. They were tracked and lightly armoured turretless vehicles, fast and highly mobile, with a crew of four (commander, driver, gunner, loader). Eighty of them were delivered to Belgium from April 1975 onward.

They were retired shortly after the T-64 and T-72 were introduced.

I see big issue here my friend.

Between 1966 and 1967, 770 were built by Hanomag and Henschel for the Bundeswehr.

Ok

Moreover, experienced World War II tank hunters pointed out the deficiencies of the case mate design, which limited the horizontal firing angle of the gun to only 15° on either side. During 1983 - 1985, thus, 163 of these tank destroyers were converted into missile carrying tank destroyers (Raketenjagdpanzer) Jaguar 2 by replacing the gun with a TOW missile launcher and adding some armour. The others were refitted into scout and spotting vehicles (Beobachtungspanzer) for the artillery, particularly the mortar units, by removing the main gun.

This basically tells me they disappeared as the tank destroyer you are saying and became recon or missile carriers, thus this one isn't viable.

DeltaFart wrote:I see big issue here my friend.

Ok

This basically tells me they disappeared as the tank destroyer you are saying and became recon or missile carriers, thus this one isn't viable.

Of course it's viable, some of them were converted and deficiencies inherent in every Tank Destroyer became evident with the introduction of the modern Main Battle Tank, but the Militia is not a modern faction. It doesn't have access to the same equipment as the Conventional Forces.

During 1983 - 1985, thus, 163 of these tank destroyers were converted into missile carrying tank destroyers (Raketenjagdpanzer) Jaguar 2 by replacing the gun with a TOW missile launcher and adding some armour. The others were refitted into scout and spotting vehicles (Beobachtungspanzer) for the artillery, particularly the mortar units, by removing the main gun.

Lets see what they said here.
770 were originally made.
80 are given to belgium.
We now have 660.
163 of them are made into the Tow Carrier
We now have 497
It says the others were made into scout and recon vehicles by removal of the gun. THis tells me they took the other 497 and did that to them.
Lets say they have an 85% up time.
Only 422.45, we'll call it 423 of them are in good condition. What are the cahnces after this was retired it was put up in bone yards with no engines and major components taken out and or put on target ranges for armor training?


Look man I would honestly like to see a JSU122 ingame but the truth of the matter is you'd need to find pieces for them, and you need ammo. Something that old would not be easy to come by by this point. The reason we have a T62 with the militia now is because the russians REALLY put these things out.
--------------------------------------
Here is one reason why an M40 RR would be more likely also.

The M40 continues to be used by South Korea (ROK), Egypt, Estonia, Greece, Honduras, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, the Philippines, Taiwan (Republic of China Marine Corps), Turkey, and many others.

Turkey, and a bunch of Middle East countries use this, so having some of them disappear would not be unlikely here. These are easier to smuggle than Panzers I would think