Jump to content


Is the BT-42 an SPG or a Tank Destroyer?


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

BaconMeLoveIt #1 Posted Nov 06 2016 - 01:14

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 13150 battles
  • 1,752
  • [-STN-] -STN-
  • Member since:
    06-10-2016

Wiki just describes it as an "assault gun".

 

Going by its armor and armament, it seems to be either an SPG or TD.

 

No chance on WoT?



Asassian7 #2 Posted Nov 06 2016 - 01:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 24100 battles
  • 11,052
  • [F0XEY] F0XEY
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011
Would probably be a TD

SapFireMC #3 Posted Nov 06 2016 - 01:44

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 3161 battles
  • 1,207
  • [J_F_F] J_F_F
  • Member since:
    01-18-2015
TD's are SPG's... lel

Life_In_Black #4 Posted Nov 06 2016 - 01:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 24493 battles
  • 10,947
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

While it's technically both in the same sense that Soviet assault guns were expected to fill multiple roles, as were Italian Semoventi, the BT-42 was deployed only as an assault gun against other tanks, where it performed miserably. It would be a TD in WoT, most likely tier 4 or possibly even 5 given it's basically a turreted Hetzer without any armor.

 

EDIT: http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/ASSAULT_GUNS.htm


Edited by Life_In_Black, Nov 06 2016 - 01:49.


EnsignExpendable #5 Posted Nov 06 2016 - 02:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
The BT-42 was an SPG. It was armed with a howitzer, which are terrible against targets like tanks.

CapturedJoe #6 Posted Nov 06 2016 - 14:55

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4214 battles
  • 1,916
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013
It's intended role was bunker-busting and infantry support, the anti-tank ammo was an afterthought that turned out miserably against the Soviet tanks. So, a mobile SPG. Still, in WoT it'd fit better as a light tank or TD since it was a direct-fire weapon.

Edited by CapturedJoe, Nov 06 2016 - 14:55.


AGK47 #7 Posted Nov 29 2016 - 00:06

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28196 battles
  • 855
  • [DIMBO] DIMBO
  • Member since:
    07-21-2012
So had it been deployed as a highly mobile artillery piece, is it safe to say it would have performed significantly better? 

Zinegata #8 Posted Nov 29 2016 - 02:47

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9569 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostAGK47, on Nov 29 2016 - 07:06, said:

So had it been deployed as a highly mobile artillery piece, is it safe to say it would have performed significantly better? 

 

It wouldn't have been very mobile in the first place due to the fact it was a kitbash that was about 50% heavier than the original chassis. Moreover, Finland is really a country that is less than ideal for tank operations.

 

That said most tanks actually had some indirect-fire capability. The M10 tank destroyer for instance fired far more rounds in indirect-fire mode than they did in direct-fire mode!



WulfeHound #9 Posted Nov 29 2016 - 03:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 12888 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostZinegata, on Nov 28 2016 - 20:47, said:

 

It wouldn't have been very mobile in the first place due to the fact it was a kitbash that was about 50% heavier than the original chassis. Moreover, Finland is really a country that is less than ideal for tank operations.

 

That said most tanks actually had some indirect-fire capability. The M10 tank destroyer for instance fired far more rounds in indirect-fire mode than they did in direct-fire mode!

 

To the point where most crews had to learn how to change out the gun tubes due to the amount of HE they were firing

zedsdead_2016 #10 Posted Oct 26 2017 - 19:32

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 2348 battles
  • 23
  • [101BA] 101BA
  • Member since:
    01-07-2016

The bt-7 art is classified as a light tanks so who knows what they will do.

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users