Talk:Tank destroyer

message: any new models come out?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.142.49.135 (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The future? 

message: How the world loves an acronym, however, in this case might i suggest giving the full meaning as an aside. I realize there is a link given but i would assume the term is seldom known by lay folk and so i think it would just be common courtesy as well as cutting down on Wiki server traffic. 
Normally i would be more than happy to do this myself as it is after all such a minor edit, but alas i am here on my mobile phone and for some reason i can't access my log in. Could someone be so kind?
Outofthewoods
58.145.148.3 (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Got that for you.  75.85.65.87 (talk) 07:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBC 

message: The introduction says
: Tanks are generally armoured fighting vehicles designed for front-line combat which combines operational mobility and tactical offensive and defensive capabilities and perform all primary tasks of the armoured troops on the battlefield; the tank destroyer on the other hand is specifically designed mainly for taking on enemy armour.
But what does that mean? Specifically, what differences - in practice - separate a tank from a tank destroyer? What do you look for on, say, a 1943 armoured vehicle to say with confidence whether it is a tank or a tank destroyer? CapnZapp (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO Tank Destroyers employed heavier guns than what a tank would normally carry. As such compromises had to be taken to balance the increase weight and room (volume) of the larger gun. This could mean less armour, decreased speed, no turret (reduction in operational horizontal firing arc) and even an open top. They would have been deployed either in more fortified positions (less open), and farther back in the field. As I'm no historian, this is only what I've come up with from playing World of Tanks. Yes, I know, it's not proper history. But, Wargaming.net bases a lot of their content on historical documents, and from time to time their historians post articles on various aspects of tanks (all based in reality). So, take my info with a grain of salt, but I believe I'm on the right path. Jarod (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  difference tank vs tank destroyer 

message: At the end of section "1.4 United States", the sentence ends abruptly with missing content. "A prototype Super-Heavy Tank Destroyer was..." The next line is "1.5 British". Does anyone know of or have access to what the rest should have been? Jarod (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the line from the article (via Undo), which was the only content added in one particular edit. Jarod (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing info 

message: I don't yet know how to add the references in the article's format; I don't want to ruin it, so I am seeking help: Could someone please add these references (they're the same as in the articles for the tank destroyers themselves): 
 
Axworthy, Mark; Scafes, Cornel; Craciunoiu, Cristian (1995). Third Axis, Fourth Ally: Romanian Armed Forces in the European War, 1941-1945. London: Arms and Armour. .
Kliment, Charles K.; Francev, Vladimír (1997). Czechoslovak Armored Fighting Vehicles. Atglen, PA: Schiffer. .
WikiCorb (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Khruner (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for the romanian section 

message: This phrase is ambiguous and confusing:
But there are still dedicated anti-tank vehicles with very heavy long-range missiles, and ones intended for airborne use.
In the above, "ones" refers to "anti-tank vehicles" (or perhaps "dedicated anti-tank vehicles"; same problem either way).
Does "intended for airborne use" mean that the vehicle is air-deliverable, by airplane or helicopter or both?  If so, the article should say so explicitly, to clarify this airborne use.  
If it doesn't mean air-deliverable, then I don't know what it means.
Karl gregory jones (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airborne use? 

message: In the subsection "World War II" it says that, "After hard lessons early in the war, machine guns were mounted for use against infantry, but the limited traverse of the mounting meant that they were still less effective than those used on turreted tanks." However, later tank destroyers like the SU variants didn't have machine guns. Also, some TDs, like the M10, had machine guns that were mounted on top of the tank that could be moved independently of the turret. The Ferdinand only received machine guns after Kursk, which I don't think anybody would really consider early war.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PotatoMashed (talk • contribs) 15:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard lessons early in the war? 

message: The term "tank destroyer" was the a 1940s American Army term for an anti-tank gun, whether towed or self-propelled.  Because most U.S. Army tank destroyers were self-propelled, the term has come to be incorrectly known as applying only to self-propelled anti-tank guns.
*
*
*
*
*
*
* pages 1-52. pages 53-130
-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Toddy1, interesting. I did not know that. Do the sources you listed directly make that claim? What page numbers? Schierbecker (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Schierbecker, the various books and documents mention "towed tank destroyers".  I have added another document to the list above.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towed tank destroyers