• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)

The 'Secret Projects' forum has a good thread discussing a Leopard 3 'Casement Tank' concept that the Germans were looking at in the early 1980s which would likely have given the basis for the Corps 86 Chimera concept.
Thucydides said:
I rather like this as a tank destroyer/DFSV

And they were operated by the artillery. They've taken the mortars away from the Infantry, why not steal some tanks from the Cavalry too? ;D
Thucydides said:
I rather like this as a tank destroyer/DFSV

But can you fly them from ship to shore with a helicopter? >:D
Having been in a Hetzer, the visibility when buttoned up was terrible. Generally the TC sat on his hatch to be able to see. Oddly enough it did have a RWS on top. That being said, it was a very successfully mod of an obsolete chassis and soldiered on postwar for quite some time.
A modernized Hetzer probably could be slung under a helicopter, and certainly issues like visibility and crew ergonomics (the interior of a Hetzer fit the crew like a shirt) could also be addressed in a reboot.

It is small enough to slip down black tracks and show up in unexpected places, and allied tankers were quite wary once it was discovered these were in the area since they could be hidden away and camouflaged virtually anywhere (for scale, look at the pictures again and compare the size of the Hetzer or its Swiss counterpart to the people on and around it.)

Overall, if I was to make a choice between a monstrous "Chimera" and an SUV sized tank destroyer, I'd favour the smaller vehicle.
Well if we're looking at tiny able to sneak down trails AT vehicles why not resurrect this



The new version could be even be a eco friendly e-bike
A modern day Hetzer would be more a assault gun than TD, the ATGM can handle that threat. Give it a 105mm howitzer, the Hetzer shape is still a good choice, modern track and drivetrain. A smallish RWS, because this vehicle would be working closely with airborne troops and providing them with enough punch and protection to take out strong points and provide some anti-IFV/APC protection.
Something along the lines of an upgunned Wiesel then?

I considered it, but it's armour is less than the Hetzer, (8-60mm) useful though as a companion with mortars, command and perhaps with the autocannon as a anti-IFV vehicle. The modern hetzer would a pure assault gun. One could look at the Kanonenjagdpanzer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdpanzer_90_mm_Kanone, but at almost twice the weight and much bigger, may dilute any benefits. Any such vehicles means less troops, fuel, ammo being landed, so I suspect the Hetzer size would be the max without creating major logistical issues.

Modern casemated tanks/TD's have been debated heavily in other forums. If such a vehicle could be built to make use of a modern gun and fire control system at a much reduced cost for a small military which has a specific type of terrain to defend that would maximize the advantages these vehicles have as opposed to their disadvantages.

Problem is that there are to many cheap tanks with decent guns on the market to make any design worth while. Now if you were for some reason stuck with M3 lights, Shermans, M41 or PT-76 hulls, then a TD style vehicle might be the answer. 
Here's an interesting gun for the Hetzer 2:

The Oto-Melara 60mm HVMS.



It is essentially a saboted 6 pdr Anti-Tank round fired from a necked-down 76mm cartridge.  IIRC the round had the same killing power as a 1980s vintage 105mm APDS.

It comes with an auto-loader mechanism (similar to the Oto-Melara 76mm shipboard system) and a total weight burden of 2200 kg.  The only problem was that there was/is no HE round in that caliber.
We bought the Carl - G and the Bofors... why not the S Tank?


The S tank was likely the last of a breed and a fine example of the class. I suspect the Finns/Germans and the Russians use of the TD's influenced them heavily. The terrain and channeling effect of Sweden favoured the use of the S-tank and it was to be used in support of the infantry, along with the http://www.haaland.info/armour/index.php/swedisharmour/swedishtanks/67-infanterikanonvagn91

I would suspect there would be enough anti-armour weapons in a airborne unit to deal with most threats, which is why I think our modern Hetzers main role would have been dealing with strongpoints with a low M/V 105mm, which could still carry some HESH for anti-armour work.
S tank was a one off AFV that was designed for the country it was used in. It was not designed for anywhere else.

Then there were issues with the auto loader, the track suspension as well. Great idea, but when you're manipulating the suspension in order to get a point of aim on a target in soft ground....it tends to pop the track off.

Not good. Now they have a Leo2 fleet and have caught up to the rest of the world.


Back to Danjanou's Wiesel - How about the TOW variant with the Bunker Buster Missile?

The weight is right for a CH-148/CH-149.  The tracks are right.  The on board ammo load out is very light but, given that these would not be ranging far from a fixed base with logistic support, probably manageable.  They are easier to dig-in than a LAV.  They could always have their power plant and suspension improved to accomodate additional field mounted armour.
We just retired a tank destroyer because the capability was decided as not important enough.  LAV III TUA.
I see I kicked over a can of worms (again).

So question: where in the modern Canadian Army would a vehicle like the Hetzer II belong?

Just so you don't think I have an oar in the water, I personally would support arming the BV-206 or successor with an ATGM or recoiless cannon as an alternative to a purpose built SP, but I certainly would not say "no" if it was on offer.
MCG said:
We just retired a tanks destroyer a few years ago because the capability was decided as not important enough. LAV III TUA.

Deja vu, far out, man.