Towards the end of WWII the British especially began to experiment with something called sabot rounds, which are projectiles loaded into oversized shells and fired at hyper velocities. The difference is the ammunition they fire. But they are not much bigger than the larger anti-tank guns or artillery of the period so what is the big difference? It is still a rifled barrel (or smoothbore in case of the Leopard and Abrams) that is designed to withstand a controlled explosion and hurl a projectile. It is not so much that gun design has changed - in fact it really hasn't changed much in the last hundred years. The first and the last groups are still very much alive in today's military but the role of tank destroyer has essentially dropped out.
In WWII each army had subdivisions of tanks, usually into Infantry Support (normal tanks like the Sherman and Panzer IV), Tank Destroyers (Stug or M10 series) or Self Propelled Guns (Wespe, Priest). Tank design and doctrine has changed so much since WWII that to many tankers of the period our MBTs would seem quite foreign. Comparing the modern MBT (main battle tank) and that of a tank from the second world war is similar to comparing the Porsche to the Model T.
0 kommentar(er)
