Издательство: Profile.
Серия: AFV Weapons №26.
Язык: Английский.
Формат: jpg (разрешение 300 dpi) HQ в Rar архиве.
Автор: Robert J. Icks
Год издания: 1970
Страниц: 24
Изображения: черно-белые фото, цветные рисунки
THE Tank Destroyer Force of the United States Army had difficulty in deciding on the best form of vehicle for their use. Ordnance converted many varieties of wheeled and half-tracked vehicles into self-propelled experimental gun motor carriages. Some of the tracked chassis available also were so converted. Some of the two former classes of vehicles were issued to troops but none was completely satisfactory. The matter was not finally resolved until December 2. 1941. On that date a memorandum from G-3 to G-4 of the General Staff recommended that a 37-mm. gun motor carriage be developed using a Christie type suspension. At that time a tank destroyer was defined as differing from a tank in having thinner armour, with greater speed, and having an open rather than a closed turret. Such a vehicle therefore was lighter, had better crew vision but gave less protection than a tank from enemy fire.
Формат: jpg (разрешение 300 dpi) HQ в Rar архиве.
Автор: Robert J. Icks
Год издания: 1970
Страниц: 24
Изображения: черно-белые фото, цветные рисунки
THE Tank Destroyer Force of the United States Army had difficulty in deciding on the best form of vehicle for their use. Ordnance converted many varieties of wheeled and half-tracked vehicles into self-propelled experimental gun motor carriages. Some of the tracked chassis available also were so converted. Some of the two former classes of vehicles were issued to troops but none was completely satisfactory. The matter was not finally resolved until December 2. 1941. On that date a memorandum from G-3 to G-4 of the General Staff recommended that a 37-mm. gun motor carriage be developed using a Christie type suspension. At that time a tank destroyer was defined as differing from a tank in having thinner armour, with greater speed, and having an open rather than a closed turret. Such a vehicle therefore was lighter, had better crew vision but gave less protection than a tank from enemy fire.
