Gun equipped Tank Hunters: Hetzer, Elefant, Kanone and so many more ...

[jcf]

... or did you already know that?  

Yes, so I invoked the name of its all-wheel ancestor instead.  

Which is what my response was about, the M3A1 scout car (not the M2/M3 halftrack), which was tested with the 37mm gun as the M3A1E1. Originally with gun-mount M6, later mount M25 as was standard on the 37mm GMC M6. As stated it was not a success due to weight and height issues, which would have been even worse with the 57mm which was over twice as heavy.

One 57mm GMC T44 vehicle was built, this used a Ford 3/4 ton 4WD chassis that was originally used for the 37mm GMC T33.
It was not successful as the carriage was too light for the 57mm gun and could not provide the necessary stability. Consideration was briefly given to mounting the 57mm gun on a modified T13 'Son of Trackless Tank' vehicle, but it was canceled along with the entire T13 program.

info from Armored Car, R.P. Hunnicutt, Presidio Press 2002

[Joe C-P]

That is an odd looking vehicle. What was the purpose of such a vehicle, if anything beyond a proof-of-concept?

[dy031101]

Something like this?

Very similiar, I'd say. The only differences for the RW planned PzKpfw IV turret with PAW gun would be the slightly longer 38 (d) chassis and rather 'plain tube' look of the high-low pressure gun.

Another Panzer 38(t) chassis with Panzer IV turret.  The PAW 600 gun was fitted with a seemingly-larger muzzle brake...... maybe to make the gun even more manageable to the short chassis of the existing 38(t)?

Yeah, I am inclined to think of it as a tank destroyer- maybe equivalent to a M18 with turret top armour?

[Fulcrum]

How about this:
Make a "defensive" tank destroyer similar to the Su-100.

Take a T-72-family chassis(first take the top part of the hull), built a new armoured casemate over the bottom part of the hull.
Put a 120/125mm tank gun through the gun mantlet.
Have the driver & gunner sit at the front behind armour(plus add some ERA's for improved protection) on both sides of the gun.
Place the commander behind the gunner(the commander will use the newly western-compromised, Soviet-built 12.7/30mm RWS & an independent viewer station(similar to one used on the M1 & Leopard 2's)).
Move the autoloader to the side of the tank destroyer(across from the commander through the gun & behind the driver in a separate compartment).

[rickshaw]

How about this:
Make a "defensive" tank destroyer similar to the Su-100.

Take a T-72-family chassis(first take the top part of the hull), built a new armoured casemate over the bottom part of the hull.
Put a 120/125mm tank gun through the gun mantlet.
Have the driver & gunner sit at the front behind armour(plus add some ERA's for improved protection) on both sides of the gun.
Place the commander behind the gunner(the commander will use the newly western-compromised, Soviet-built 12.7/30mm RWS & an independent viewer station(similar to one used on the M1 & Leopard 2's)).
Move the autoloader to the side of the tank destroyer(across from the commander through the gun & behind the driver in a separate compartment).

There have been persistent rumours such a vehicle exists.  The Soviets had a habit of developing simultaneously with their tanks a turretless casemented tank destroyer version as insurance against the development of the turreted version.   There was one developed for the T55, one for the T62 and possibly one for the T72.

[Weaver]

How about this:
Make a "defensive" tank destroyer similar to the Su-100.

Take a T-72-family chassis(first take the top part of the hull), built a new armoured casemate over the bottom part of the hull.
Put a 120/125mm tank gun through the gun mantlet.
Have the driver & gunner sit at the front behind armour(plus add some ERA's for improved protection) on both sides of the gun.
Place the commander behind the gunner(the commander will use the newly western-compromised, Soviet-built 12.7/30mm RWS & an independent viewer station(similar to one used on the M1 & Leopard 2's)).
Move the autoloader to the side of the tank destroyer(across from the commander through the gun & behind the driver in a separate compartment).

Since, presumably, it can't fire on the move, why not have a combined driver/gunner and save another crew position? The S-tank demonstrates that the workload isn't excessive (he's either driving or shooting, not both). Designing the controls would be more challenging for a trainable gun (unlike the S-tank's fixed one), but not beyond the bounds of possibility, I feel. One option might be to have the gun fixed in azimuth but still elevating, so you aim it by turning the whole vehicle like an S-tank, but don't have to have the latter's complex and risky high-pressure hydraulic suspension system to tilt the whole hull.

[rickshaw]

How about this:
Make a "defensive" tank destroyer similar to the Su-100.

Take a T-72-family chassis(first take the top part of the hull), built a new armoured casemate over the bottom part of the hull.
Put a 120/125mm tank gun through the gun mantlet.
Have the driver & gunner sit at the front behind armour(plus add some ERA's for improved protection) on both sides of the gun.
Place the commander behind the gunner(the commander will use the newly western-compromised, Soviet-built 12.7/30mm RWS & an independent viewer station(similar to one used on the M1 & Leopard 2's)).
Move the autoloader to the side of the tank destroyer(across from the commander through the gun & behind the driver in a separate compartment).

Since, presumably, it can't fire on the move, why not have a combined driver/gunner and save another crew position? The S-tank demonstrates that the workload isn't excessive (he's either driving or shooting, not both). Designing the controls would be more challenging for a trainable gun (unlike the S-tank's fixed one), but not beyond the bounds of possibility, I feel. One option might be to have the gun fixed in azimuth but still elevating, so you aim it by turning the whole vehicle like an S-tank, but don't have to have the latter's complex and risky high-pressure hydraulic suspension system to tilt the whole hull.

Separate elevation complicates the controls.  One of the reasons why the Strv-103 worked so well was because the driver had the one set of controls and literally aimed the vehicle.  The Char B1bis which had a separate elevating gun (the driver aimed in azimuth) had to have a separate gunner to handle the elevation (and fine tuning of azimuth).

[Weaver]

How about this:
Make a "defensive" tank destroyer similar to the Su-100.

Take a T-72-family chassis(first take the top part of the hull), built a new armoured casemate over the bottom part of the hull.
Put a 120/125mm tank gun through the gun mantlet.
Have the driver & gunner sit at the front behind armour(plus add some ERA's for improved protection) on both sides of the gun.
Place the commander behind the gunner(the commander will use the newly western-compromised, Soviet-built 12.7/30mm RWS & an independent viewer station(similar to one used on the M1 & Leopard 2's)).
Move the autoloader to the side of the tank destroyer(across from the commander through the gun & behind the driver in a separate compartment).

Since, presumably, it can't fire on the move, why not have a combined driver/gunner and save another crew position? The S-tank demonstrates that the workload isn't excessive (he's either driving or shooting, not both). Designing the controls would be more challenging for a trainable gun (unlike the S-tank's fixed one), but not beyond the bounds of possibility, I feel. One option might be to have the gun fixed in azimuth but still elevating, so you aim it by turning the whole vehicle like an S-tank, but don't have to have the latter's complex and risky high-pressure hydraulic suspension system to tilt the whole hull.

Separate elevation complicates the controls.  One of the reasons why the Strv-103 worked so well was because the driver had the one set of controls and literally aimed the vehicle.  The Char B1bis which had a separate elevating gun (the driver aimed in azimuth) had to have a separate gunner to handle the elevation (and fine tuning of azimuth).

Yes, but a normal tank driver's controls don't include an elevation function, while the S-tank's do (twistgrip on the "handlebars" IIRC), so the only difference is what that elevation control actually does. On the S-tank, it tilts the hull up and down via the hydraulic suspension. On my proposal, it would elevate and depress the gun and it's linked gunnery periscope only. In fact, you wouldn't really need a manual elevation control at all: the driver/gunner just puts the sight on target and the FCS wouls elevate the gun automatically, taking all the ballistic calcs into account.

[Fulcrum]

I did this rough sketch a couple of days ago.

[ysi_maniac]

StuG III '46