There is the S tank
Others have already mentioned some options, and there's more like the MOWAG Taifun II...
something like the M901 hammerhead maybe?
I think I have to agree with the Mighty Jingles here, Tank Destroyer is a role rather than a specific class of vehicle so it could be anything from towed artillery to an dedicated vehicle like the Hellcat or Jagdpanther.Others have already mentioned some options, and there's more like the MOWAG Taifun II...
...but really, it kinda depends on what you define as a tank destroyer. If it's just something like, say, a ground vehicle that carries enough weaponry to be able to destroy a tank without also being a tank in itself...
...then that means that something like a Humvee with a TOW is also a tank destroyer. You might need to clarify a little on what you're talking about here - are ATGMs fair game, are you looking for something more armored, more mobile, etc?
It really depends on what Monk78 regards as a proper "tank destroyer" for this. Moving away from the usual vocabulary debate when it comes to trying to define the thing (or its equally tricksy counterparts, the assault gun and the medium tank), there's a ton of potential vehicles that could be said to be equipped for killing tanks, but which aren't actually tanks themselves. The Humvee that I mentioned above is one, but there's also things like, say, the Vespa anti-tank scooter.
The reason why I mention this, though, is because Monk's original question might very well not need answering in the usual sense, as the role of the tank destroyer as we know it could (depending on how they define the role) have evolved into other things - as the fast-moving and hard hitting vehicle, one could make the argument that it has evolved into being part of the roster for helicopters equipped with ATGMs and the like, whilst small but concealed ones might just have outright shed the whole "vehicle" component and just morphed into anti-tank teams equipped with guided missiles and the like, whilst others that might define them as having casemates have already had a few examples pointed out on this page. Others become a lot more blurry, but that's why we probably need them to say what they mean by tank destroyer so as to be able to figure out what vehicles might fill the role, or what kind of traits you might need to meet the criteria. are you thinking of something like the car security system they marketed in South Africa some years ago?
something like that, yes.are you thinking of something like the car security system they marketed in South Africa some years ago?
Blaster (flamethrower) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Yeah but that's why I mentioned the South African gizmo which was the worlds most aggressive car alarm. Its basically designed to make people get off your vehicle now rather than to hit targets at a distance.
I think the Korean war technique of having one or more of your accompanying tanks machine gun the unwanted attackers would normally be sufficient. It also has fewer unwanted side effects - covering your own tank with flaming liquids might worry at least some tank crews more than machine gun bullets.
Basically, this. Flamethrowers are nasty weapons, but they do have some serious limitations when it comes to fuel capacity. This is sort of why they kinda ceased to exist in most places - although people can still recognise the value of incendiary weapons, the United States for example moved on to things like the M202 FLASH, the rocket launcher that we most famously see Arnie slogging around with in Commando...
Are those spikes or handholds?Basically, this. Flamethrowers are nasty weapons, but they do have some serious limitations when it comes to fuel capacity. This is sort of why they kinda ceased to exist in most places - although people can still recognise the value of incendiary weapons, the United States for example moved on to things like the M202 FLASH, the rocket launcher that we most famously see Arnie slogging around with in Commando...
...which basically marries the flamethrower and missile launcher together by creating a missle that just douses the target area in incendiaries. All the terrifying effect of a flamethrower, but with far fewer issues - easier to handle, no exposed tanks, much greater range, and quickly reloaded as needed. In their usual form, flamethrowers just have a ton of baggage that is best gotten around of by designing weapons that keep the strengths of a flamethrower, but don't have those issues. In this case, if you really wanted some kind of close in anti-infantry system, you could potentially create some kind of remotely detonated explosive on the outside of the hull, scattering something like white phosphorous over the surrounding area. That'd be much easier to run and less mechanically complex (it's basically just a bomb with WP inside), but a) at that point the concept is probably a bust anyway because infantry might very well have AT gear they can use from afar, b) anything going wrong with this system is liable to kill a lot of friendly infantry that might otherwise protect you from said enemy attackers, c) there's the serious risk of this actually destroying the tank, because if I remember right there's the issue of the fuel/phosphorous being sucked up into the engine, or as the US realized in WW2, that it can be used on tanks because turret ventilation systems could suck the fumes inside the tank, as is mentioned on Wikipedia...
...and make the crew think that their tank is on fire. All in all, the best protection you can probably get in this case is just...your own infantry? They've got guns - why not use them?
But if you must have something fancy, might I suggest taking a page out of this Sherman's book?
If not fire, why not spikes? It works for Mad Max?
They didn't do too well in real combat as multi turret usually means big, heavy, not very agile and poorly protected with a big crew. But if you had a major war in the early mid 30s the multi-turret tank could have been pretty badass and would dominate the battlefield as the A1E1 was intended to do. This would change once proper AT guns, AT rifles and DP AA guns [1] started to supplement the direct firing artillery.So know how during the interwar period various governments had multi-turreted heavy tank models that were basically pseudo land ironclads?
Well recently I had an idea for a alt historical war where such vehicles were the norm at the start. (Alongside light and medium tanks) That has the war goes on sees the existing heavy tanks going through various refits and improvements that belong more on late WW2 vehicles.
I wrote a little analysis of how multi-turreted tanks could have succeeded in the Chaco War a while ago; perhaps victories of smaller multi-turreted tanks in smaller wars could have led to over-investment in the concept for major powers.
And secondary turrets persisted to the Crusader I and possibly including some of the Crusader II. That suggests that somebody thought it was worth including them after having experience with both A10 (with) and A13 (without). The practical response in Africa was to remove them and plate over the hole, but I understand that this was due to a combination of factors including being unbearably hot in the desert and for cutting tank crew from 6 to 5, but quite likely no longer effective in that environment (or maybe just no longer effective).
