s in Belgium during World War II Dedicated anti-tank vehicles made their first major appearance in the Second World War as combatants developed effective armoured vehicles and tactics. Some were little more than stopgap solutions, mounting an
anti-tank gun on a tracked vehicle to give mobility, while others were more sophisticated designs. An example of the development of tank destroyer technology throughout the war is the
Marder III and
Jagdpanzer 38 vehicles, which were very different in spite of being based on the same chassis: Marder was straightforwardly an anti-tank gun on tracks, whereas the Jagdpanzer 38 traded some firepower (its
7.5 cm Pak 39, designed to operate within the confines of a fully armoured fighting compartment, fires the same projectiles from a reduced propellant charge compared to Marder's
7.5 cm Pak 40) for better armour protection and ease of concealment on the battlefield. Except for most American designs, all tank destroyers were turretless vehicles with fixed or
casemate superstructures. When a tank destroyer was used against enemy tanks from a defensive position such as by ambush, the lack of a rotating
turret was not particularly critical, while the lower silhouette was highly desirable. The turretless design allowed accommodation of a more powerful gun, typically a dedicated anti-tank gun (in lieu of a regular tank's general-purpose
main gun that fired both anti-tank and high explosive ammunition) that had a longer barrel than could be mounted in a turreted tank on the same chassis. The lack of a turret increased the vehicle's internal volume, allowing for increased ammunition stowage and crew comfort. Eliminating the turret let the vehicle carry thicker armour, and also let this armour be concentrated in the hull. Sometimes there was no armoured roof (only a weather cover) to keep the overall weight down to the limit that the chassis could bear. The absence of a turret meant that tank destroyers could be manufactured significantly cheaper, faster, and more easily than the tanks on which they were based, and they found particular favor when production resources were lacking.
Germany '' The first
German tank destroyers were the
Panzerjäger ("Tank Hunters"), which mounted an existing anti-tank gun on a convenient chassis for mobility, usually with just a three-sided
gun shield for crew protection. For instance, 202 obsolete
Panzer I light tanks were modified by removing the turret and were rebuilt as the
Panzerjäger I self-propelled
4.7 cm PaK(t). Similarly,
Panzer II tanks were used on the Eastern Front. Captured Soviet anti-tank guns were mounted on modified Panzer II chassis, producing the
Marder II self-propelled anti-tank gun. The most common mounting was a German anti-tank gun on the Czech
Panzer 38(t) chassis; this combination was deemed the
Marder III. The Panzer 38(t) chassis was also used to make the
Jagdpanzer 38 casemate style tank destroyer. The Panzerjäger series continued up to the equipped
Nashorn. German tank destroyers based on the
Panzer III medium tank and later German tanks had more armour than their tank counterparts. One of the more successful German tank destroyers was designed as a self-propelled artillery gun, the
Sturmgeschütz III. Based on the Panzer III tank chassis, the
Sturmgeschütz III was originally fitted with a short barreled low-velocity howitzer-like gun, and was assigned to the artillery arm for infantry fire support as an
assault gun. Later, after encountering Soviet tanks, it was refitted with a comparatively short-barreled high-velocity anti-tank gun, usually with a
muzzle brake, enabling it to function as a tank destroyer. The
Sturmgeschütz III from its 1938 origin used a new casemate-style superstructure with an integrated design, similar to the later
Jagdpanzer vehicle designs' superstructure, to completely enclose the crew. It was employed in infantry support and offensive armoured operations as well as in the defensive anti-tank role. The StuG III assault gun was Germany's most-produced fully tracked armoured fighting vehicle during World War II, and second-most produced German armoured combat vehicle of any type after the
Sd.Kfz. 251 half-track. '' Although early German
Panzerjägers carried more effective weapons than the tanks on which they were based, they were generally lacking in protection for the crew, having thinly armoured open-topped superstructures. The "open-topped" design format of the
Panzerjäger vehicles was succeeded by the
Jagdpanzer ("hunting tanks"), which mounted the gun in true casemate-style superstructures, completely enclosing the crew compartment in armour usually integral to the hull. The first of these
Jagdpanzers was the 70-ton
Ferdinand (later renamed
Elefant), based on the chassis, hulls, and drive systems of ninety-one Porsche
VK4501 (P) heavy tanks, and a long-barreled
88 mm cannon mounted in an added casemate. Like the
Panzerjägers before it, the
Ferdinand received additional armour for the gun crew, but also completely enclosed gun and crew within the added casemate, as later purpose-built
Jagdpanzers would. However, the
Ferdinand was mechanically unreliable and difficult to maneuver, and once all ninety-one unturreted "Porsche Tiger" hulls/drive systems were converted, no more were built. The German Army had more success with the
Jagdpanther. Introduced in mid-1944, the Jagdpanther, of which some 415 examples were produced, was considered the best of the casemate-design Jagdpanzer designs. It featured the same powerful PaK 43 88 mm cannon used on the unwieldy
Elefant, now fitted to the chassis of the medium
Panther tank, providing greatly improved armour-penetrating capability in a medium-weight vehicle. Facing an increasingly defensive war, the German Army turned to larger and more powerfully armed Jagdpanzer designs, and in July 1944 the first
Jagdtiger rolled off the production line; it was the heaviest German armoured fighting vehicle to go into active service. If the vehicle became immobilized due to engine failure or track damage, it could not rotate its gun to counter opposing tanks, making it highly vulnerable to counterfire. This vulnerability was exploited by opposing tank forces. Even the largest and most powerful of German tank destroyers were found abandoned on the field after a battle, having been immobilized by one or more hits by high explosive (HE) or armour-piercing (AP) shells to the track or front drive sprocket.
Italy The most famous Italian tank destroyer of the Second World War was a self-propelled gun. The
Semovente da 75/18, based on the
M13/40 frame, was developed to support front-line infantry, and therefore had fixed armament: a 75 mm gun in casemate. However, thanks to its low height (185 cm) and the caliber of its gun the 75/18 also had good results in anti-tank combat, fighting against British and American (but not Soviet) units. After the
Armistice of 1943, the 75/18 remained in use by German forces. Built on the same frame, the
Semovente da 105/25 was equipped with a 105 mm gun and known as "
bassotto" (Italian for
dachshund) due to its lower height. As manufacturing began in 1943, the 105/25 was used by German forces. A further development was the
Semovente da 75/46, which had a longer gun than the 75/18 and inclined armour 100 mm thick, making it similar to
Sturmgeschütz III. Only 11 of these were manufactured. Before the Semovente da 75/18, the
L40, built on an
L6/40 light tank chassis, saw action in Africa and in Russia, but with disappointing results.
Japan The
Type 1 Ho-Ni I was the first self-propelled gun design of the
Imperial Japanese Army. They were meant to be
self-propelled artillery and tank destroyers for
armoured divisions. The plan was for the Type 1 Ho-Ni I gun tank to form part of a fire support company in each of the tank regiments. The Type 1 Ho-Ni I was developed by using the existing
Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank chassis and engine, and replacing the
gun turret with a
Type 90 75 mm field gun mounted in an open
casemate with frontal and side armour only. They entered service in 1942 and were first deployed in combat at the
Battle of Luzon in the
Philippines in 1945. Some were used in static entrenched positions. A variant, known as the Type 1 Ho-Ni II mounted a
Type 91 105 mm howitzer and had a slightly changed superstructure as far as the side armor with re-positioned observation visors. Production began in 1943, with only 54 completed. The other variant produced was the
Type 3 Ho-Ni III, which mounted a
Type 3 75 mm tank gun in a completely enclosed armored casemate to address the issue of crew protection in close combat. The welded superstructure had sloped armour and the gun mount had additional stamped armour plate. The total number produced of all three types in the Ho-Ni series were 111 units. Most of the Ho-Ni units were retained within the
Japanese home islands to form part of the defenses against the projected
American invasion, and did not see combat before the
surrender of Japan. The
Type 2 Ho-I Gun tank used the
Type 1 Chi-He medium tank chassis. It was designed as a
self-propelled howitzer, mounting a short barreled Type 99 75 mm gun to provide close-in fire support. For deployment, the gun tank was intended to be used in a fire support company for each of the tank regiments. No Type 2 Ho-I gun tanks are known to have engaged in combat prior to Japan's surrender. The prototype was built in 1942 and 31 units were produced in 1944. The
Type 4 Ho-Ro self-propelled artillery used a modified Type 97 chassis. On to this platform, a
Type 38 150 mm howitzer was mounted. The main gun could fire Type 88 APHE rounds and
HEAT rounds. Given its breech loader, the maximum rate of fire was only 5 rounds per minute. The gun's elevation was restricted to 30 degrees by the construction of the chassis. Other design issues included the fact that although the gun crew was protected by a
gun shield with armour thickness of 25 mm at the front, the shield only extended a very short distance on the sides; leaving the rest of the sides and back exposed. They were rushed into service, deployed and saw combat during the
Philippines Campaign in the last year of
World War II. Remaining units were deployed to
Okinawa in ones and twos for island defense during the
Battle of Okinawa, but were severely outnumbered by American artillery.
Soviet Union As with the Germans of 1943, most of the
Soviet designs mounted anti-tank guns, with limited traverse in casemate-style turretless hulls, in a general design format looking much like the Germans' own
Jagdpanzer vehicles. The results were smaller, lighter, and simpler to build weapons that could carry larger guns than any contemporary tank, including the King Tiger. The Soviets produced high numbers of the
SU-85 and
SU-100 self-propelled guns based on the same chassis as the
T-34 medium tank; the heavier-duty powertrain and hull of the
IS-2 heavy tank were instead used to produce the heavier-hitting -armed
ISU-122 and -armed
ISU-152, both of which had impressive anti-tank capabilities earning each of them the Russian nickname
Zveroboy ("beast killer") for their ability to destroy German
Tigers,
Panthers and
Elefants. The predecessor of the ISU 152 was the
SU-152, built on the KV-1s chassis and shared many similarities (including its gun) with the ISU-152. The ISU-152 built as a heavy assault gun, relied on the weight of the shell fired from its M-1937/43 howitzer to defeat tanks. In 1943, the Soviets also shifted all production of light tanks like the
T-70 to much simpler and better-armed
SU-76 self-propelled guns, which used the same drive train. The SU-76 was originally designed as an anti-tank vehicle, but was soon relegated to the infantry-support role.
United States U.S. Army and counterpart British designs were very different in conception. U.S. doctrine was based, in light of the
fall of France, on the perceived need to defeat German
blitzkrieg tactics, and U.S. units expected to face large numbers of German tanks, attacking on relatively narrow fronts. These were expected to break through a thin screen of anti-tank guns, hence the decision that the main anti-tank units—the
Tank Destroyer (TD) battalions—should be concentrated and very mobile. In practice, such German attacks rarely happened. Throughout the war, only one battalion ever fought in an engagement like that originally envisaged (the
601st, at the
Battle of El Guettar). The Tank Destroyer Command eventually numbered over 100,000 men and 80 battalions each equipped with 36 self-propelled tank destroyers or towed guns. Only
a few shots were expected to be fired from any firing position. Strong reconnaissance elements were provided so that TDs could use pre-arranged firing positions to best advantage.
Flanking fire by TDs was emphasized, both to penetrate thinner enemy side armour, and to reduce the likelihood of accurate enemy return fire. All American tank destroyers were officially known by exactly the same collective term used for American self-propelled artillery ordnance, "gun motor carriage". The designs were intended to be very mobile and heavily armed. Most tank-hull based designs used special open-topped turrets which differed from the design used for the original tank model. These custom turrets were intended to reduce weight and accommodate larger guns. The earliest expedient design involved mounting a
75 mm M1897 field gun in a limited-traverse mount onto an
M3 half-track; the result was designated the
75 mm gun motor carriage M3. Another, considerably less successful, early design was the
M6 gun motor carriage, which mounted the US 37 mm anti-tank gun facing to the rear on the bed of a Dodge 3/4-ton light truck. The M3 was first used against the Japanese in the Philippines and then in the Tunisian campaign of the war in North Africa. Some were supplied to British units who used them within
armoured car reconnaissance regiments for fire support. The M6 GMC was unarmoured and the 37 mm gun was ineffective against most enemy tanks by the time it entered service. By far the most common US design, and the first that was fully tracked and turreted (which became the American hallmark of World War II tank destroyer design) was the
3-inch gun motor carriage M10, later supplemented by the
90 mm gun motor carriage M36—both based on the
M4 Sherman hull and powertrain—and the
76 mm gun motor carriage M18 (Hellcat), based on a unique hull and powertrain design, with a slight visual resemblance to what was used for the later
M24 Chaffee light tank. The M18 came closest to the US ideal; the vehicle was very fast, small, and mounted a gun in a roofless open turret. The M36 Jackson GMC possessed the only American-origin operational gun that could rival the German
8.8 cm Pak 43 anti-tank gun and its tank mounted variant, the
90 mm M3 gun, and the M36 remained in service well after World War II. The only dedicated American casemate hull design fighting vehicle of any type built during the war, that resembled the German and Soviet tank destroyers in hull and general gun mounting design, was the experimental
T28 super-heavy tank, which mounted a 105 mm T5E1 long-barrel cannon. This gun had a maximum firing range of 12 miles (20 km), and the vehicle was originally designed as a very heavily armoured self-propelled assault gun to breach Germany's
Siegfried Line defenses. Of these tank destroyers, only the gun of the M36 proved effective against the frontal armour of Germany's larger armoured vehicles at long range. Their open tops and light armour made these tank destroyers vulnerable to anything greater than small-arms fire. As the number of German tanks encountered by American forces steadily decreased throughout the war, most battalions were split up and assigned to infantry units as supporting arms, fighting as
assault guns or used essentially as tanks. In this sense they were an alternative to the
independent tank battalions that were attached to various infantry divisions. The expectation that German tanks would be engaged in mass formation would prove incorrect. In reality, German attacks effectively used
combined arms on the ground, fighting cohesively. American tank destroyer battalions comprised three tank destroyer companies supported by nine security sections. The single-purpose tactics of the tank destroyer battalion failed to account for non-tank threats. In the 1950s the goal of providing airborne forces with a parachute-capable self-propelled anti-tank weapon led to the deployment of the
M56 Scorpion and
M50 Ontos. The concept later led to the
M551 Sheridan light tank of the mid-1960s.
United Kingdom following
Operation Plunder Except for the pre-war
Matilda I design, British tanks in the early years of the war, including both
infantry tanks and
cruiser tanks, were armed with the 40 mm
Ordnance QF 2 pounder and therefore capable against enemy tanks. They would be upgraded to the 57 mm
Ordnance QF 6 pounder when that became available. There was extra impetus given to the development of anti-tank weaponry, culminating in the 76mm
Ordnance QF 17 pounder, among the best anti-tank guns of the war. Towed anti-tank guns were the domain of the
Royal Artillery and vehicles adapted to mount artillery, including anti-tank self-propelled guns such as the
Deacon (6pdr on an armoured wheeled truck chassis) and
Archer (17pdr on tracked chassis) and US-supplied vehicles, were their preserve rather than the
Royal Armoured Corps. The self-propelled guns built in the "tank destroyer" mould came about through the desire to field the QF 17 pounder anti-tank gun and simultaneous lack of suitable standard tanks to carry it. As a result, they were of a somewhat extemporized nature. Mounting the gun on the
Valentine tank chassis in a fixed superstructure gave the
Archer, resembling the light-chassis German
Marder III. The 17 pounder was also used to re-equip the US-supplied
M10 tank destroyer, replacing the American 3-inch gun to produce the
17pdr SP Achilles. In 1942 the General Staff agreed on investigating self-propelled mountings of the 6-pounder, 17-pounder,
3-inch 20cwt guns and the 25-pounder field gun/howitzer on the
Matilda II,
Valentine,
Crusader and
Cavalier (Cruiser Mark VII) tank chassis. In October 1942 it was decided to progress using the Valentine chassis with a 17-pdr (which would become Archer) and 25-pdr (which entered service as
Bishop). While there was a general move to a general-purpose gun usable against both tanks and in supporting infantry, there was a need to put the 17 pdr into a tank for use against the enemy's heavy tanks. The
Cruiser Mk VIII Challenger was a project to bring a 17 pdr tank into use to support the
Cromwell cruiser tank. Delays led to it being outnumbered in use by the
Sherman Firefly—but a derivative of Challenger was the more or less open-topped variant
Avenger, which was delayed until post war before entering service. A cut-down 17 pdr, the 77mmHV was used to equip the
Comet tank in the final year of the war. The closest the British came to developing an armoured tank destroyer in the vein of the German Jagdpanzers or Soviet ISU series was the Churchill 3-inch gun carrier. A
Churchill tank chassis with a boxy superstructure in place of the turret, it was equipped with a
3-inch anti-aircraft gun. Although a number were ordered and fifty delivered in 1942, they were not put into service as the immediate threat passed. The design was rejected in favor of developing a 17 pdr-armed Cromwell variant, ultimately leading to the
Comet tank. The
Tortoise "heavy assault tank", intended for breaking through fixed defensive lines, was well-armoured and had a very powerful 32-pounder (94 mm) gun, but did not reach service use. By 1944, a number of the
Shermans in British use were being converted to
Sherman Fireflies by adding the QF 17 pounder gun. Initially this gave each
troop (platoon) of Shermans one powerfully armed tank. By war's end—through the production of more Fireflies and the replacement of Shermans by British tanks—about 50% of Shermans in British service were Fireflies. The Sherman Firefly, however, is not considered a tank destroyer since it could still perform the other duties of the regular
M4 Sherman, albeit the Firefly was less capable due to the late development of a HE round for the QF 17 pounder.
Romania , developed starting in late 1942, is proposed to have inspired the German
Hetzer's design. Until 1942, the Romanian tank force was equipped exclusively with obsolete
R-1,
R-2 and
R35 tanks. Having struggled against Soviet T-34 and KV-1 tanks on the Eastern Front, Romanian Army leadership sought to improve its anti-tank capabilities. The initial plan was the creation of
a tank comparable to the T-34; instead, Romania went for a number of tank destroyers, since they were more suitable for its industry. The
Mareșal is probably the best known Romanian AFV from the war; historians
Steven Zaloga and Mark Axworthy state that it inspired the design of the German
Hetzer. A mere 1.5 m in height, the Mareșal was lightly armored and highly mobile, making it difficult to hit. It was armed with the Romanian
75 mm Reșița M1943 anti-tank gun, which proved to be among the best of its class during World War II, according to Mark Axworthy. During tests, the Mareșal proved superior in many aspects to the
StuG III G, against which it competed. Those facts suggest that the Mareșal would have been an effective tank destroyer. There were, however, also critics of the vehicle, especially among high-ranking Romanian officials. It never saw combat, as the invasion by the Soviet army halted its production. Other Romanian tank destroyers include the
TACAM R-2 and
TACAM T-60, which were converted from
R-2 and
T-60 light tanks respectively. Both of them saw action. One TACAM R-2 survives today and is displayed at the
National Military Museum in
Bucharest. Another conversion was the
VDC R-35, Romania's only turreted tank destroyer. Two other proposed tank destroyers existed: the
TACAM R-1 and
TACAM T-38.
Poland Variants of the Polish
TKS and
TK-3 tankettes up-armed with 20 mm gun (23–26 vehicles) were operationally deployed in the
invasion of Poland. They were used as an anti-tank component of the reconnaissance units. There were also 37 mm armed
TKS-D (2 experimental vehicles) and 47 mm armed
TKD (4 experimental vehicles). It is not certain whether they were used operationally at all.
France Due to the quick defeat of France, few French vehicles were built. The Laffly W15 TCC (
Chasseur de chars) was an attempt to quickly build a light tank destroyer by mounting a 47 mm SA37 anti-tank gun onto a lightly armoured
Laffly W15T artillery tractor. Other French tank destroyers were being developed, including the SOMUA SAu-40, ARL V39 and various ad hoc conversions of the
Lorraine 37L. == Subsequent developments ==