Shrek wrote:No, no. I meant STUGs and Jagdpanzer IVs - that's why I wrote dedicated TDs.
Sorry, but I must still be confused? Sturmgeschuetz were developed as dedicated
TDs? That's news to me.
My problem is that you keep blurring timelines in your comparison. The Panzerselbstfahrlafette 1 and the Marder II of spring 1941 is little different from a US T12 from the summer of 1941 and they have similar missions envisaged for them. But those are both very different from a Jagdpanther or an M-18 of mid-1944.
The earlier SPATs I would classify as stop-gap solutions similar to eg. British portee AT guns, not dedicated tank destroyers as such. The original post by EKB attempted to classify German TDs - "Sturmgeschutz and various Jagdpanzer" - as strictly worse than US TDs, a contention I disagree with.
But the early US "SPATs" were also stop-gap solutions (although the British portee wasn't, it was planned that way from the beginning
), while the "planned" solutions looked similar and retained much of the outline, they were mature systems in a developed doctrine. Ditto the later developments by the Germans, which followed a slightly different path for different reasons.
But I agree with you, all that doesn't make one technologically "better" than the other, they are simply different. OTOH that "difference" doesn't make one better than the other either, they still remain simply "different".
Not at all, but I think it is most appropriate to distinguish between purpose-built AFVs and semi-improvised SPATs when comparing weapons systems of different nations.
Frankly, I think that is an artificial construct. Most "purpose-built" weapons systems have some preceeding "semi-improvised" construct that precedes them. "Distinguishing" between them may keep engineers happy, but its actually a meaningless distinction.