Talk:Archer (tank destroyer)

The article states the breech intruded into the drivers position when the gun was fired, yet goes on to state the driver stayed in position in case the vehicle needed to be driven to a new location in a hurry. If the latter is true then wouldn't he be in danger of a fatal smack "round the back of 'is 'ead"? Andy L 143.167.143.33 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The tank mounting for the 17 pdr had a reduced travel recoil so it did not recoil so far backwards as the towed gun, hence no, the driver was not in danger of being hit by the recoiling breech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Archer was capable of using this advanced round in suitable conditions. Penetration was 190mm at 500 yd and 30 deg slope which was more than capable of taking out any German tank. Just dont stand infront of the Archer when it,fires, . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.71.190 (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

To whoever keeps changing the description of this vehicle back to a 'Tank Destroyer' please note that the British Army of WW2 never called it that, never used it as such and never had crew trained as tank destroyers. This is a distinction that needs to be noted. To state the Archer is a tank destroyer is simply incorrect. Should you want to state it as such, please provide a WW2 British Army or War Department Order referring to it as such and I will change my view on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMMTB (talk • contribs) 06:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

But you are not changing its description as a "tank destroyer" (where you might have a point), you are breaking the wikilink to the WP article on tank destroyers. A link which was already piped so as not to describe this as a tank destroyer.

"Tank destroyer" is a widely-used international term for vehicles of this class. If issued in Germany or the US, they would have been "tank destroyers" by all measures. The only reason they are "not" is that UK doctrine didn't deploy its tank destroyers as tank destroyers, whether these are Archers, Achilles or whatever. That does not change the WP article in which such vehicles are described.

Your change here is damaging (it breaks any link), clearly against consensus and it is heading for a technical breach of WP:3RR. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

The term 'Tank Destroyer' is a uniquely American term to fulfill the doctrine of the Tank Destroyer Command, with its motto 'Seek, Strike, Destroy'. As such, strictly speaking only the M10, M18 and M36 should be referred to as 'tank destroyers'; just as in the interwar period fighter aircraft were called fighter aircraft by many countries, apart from the US, where they were referred to as 'pursuit aircraft'. Without trying to sound too partisan, the British nomenclature is the more correct, 'self-propelled anti-tank gun' (SPAT), which is essentially what the Archer was. The tank destroyer concept was a contrived device to fulfill the aggressive role of the nascent US Army; apart from the earlier M2/M3 half track lash- ups, the tank destroyer concept demanded a 360 degree rotating turret. In no other country was such a vehicle designed. It should be noted that immediately after the end of WW2 the Tank Destroyer Command was disbanded and the tank destroyers were withdrawn from service, an admission of the abject failure of the concept and the vehicles in their designed role. Since that time no US vehicle design, or weapon system, has been called a tank destroyer; such systems are generically referred to as 'anti-armour'..

As for German designed vehicles, the Waffenamt produced many SPATs, none with a rotating turret simply because they were a defensive weapon either to be used to secure the flank of an attack or to lay in wait to ambush an enemy assault. The various German terms can be roughly translated as tank stalker (panzerjaeger) or tank hunter (jagdpanzer). The idea that such vehicles would go out en mass into the field to attack enemy armour (where they would indeed need a 360 degree main gun) was frankly ludicrous. They were quite literally ambush vehicles.

Unfortunately it has become commonplace to refer to any self-propelled anti-tank gun as a 'tank destroyer', simply because that's what the Americans called any vehicle which had the sole job of destroying tanks. Nowadays the M10/36 or M18 would probably be called an MGS (mobile gun system); Such is the vagaries of military doctrine!

(It is worth noting that the correct designations for the US WW2 tank destroyers were: M10 GMC, M36 GMC, M18 GMC. GMC here stands for 'Gun Motor Carriage'. The designation itself is an admission they really were self-propelled anti-tank guns, irrespective of what the Tank Destroyer Command wanted to call them).::Loates Jr (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

In the context of the article , tank destroyer is the common (popular) term that describes the vehicles function. "Self-propelled anti-tank gun" also describes the function - but is not where the wiki article resides. That the British did call Archer a "self-propelled gun" is suitably covered in this article and by piping. Leave the link alone. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Graeme, I've not touched the link, nor do I intend to; I'm simply trying to clarify the correct designation; ONLY the US Army during WW2 used the term Tank Destroyer, and that for a specific series of weapons systems. I did also explain that term is now in widespread use by the public, Hollywood, the media, etc. I am quite content for the link to remain even though it is, to the purist, woefully inaccurate. Respects, Andy L143.167.103.5 (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would submit that in the WW2 context, all tank destroyers are self-propelled anti-tank guns, but not all self-propelled anti-tank guns were tank destroyers. Their use was doctrinally different. Even in the US, a distinction was kept between anti-tank guns such as the 57mm, and tank destroyers such as the 3-inch. A WW2 TD is an SPATG which has been intended to fit a specific operational function. The documentation of the time is pretty clear that Archer is an SPATG, but not used as a TD. Whilst I accept that "tank destroyer" has become the common name for something like the M901 ITV, Sprut, or M1134 ATGMV in modern usage, because there is no such doctrinal distinction any more, in WW2 the distinction was clear. I go through some examples in this video to try to explain the concept. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ho8TU_JpoI&feature=youtu.be&t=332 (5:32 until about 9:25)

The problem is that in parlance, we have a separate usage for the same term. Today the role and the vehicle, although different in meaning, are spelled the same. Not as if that's the first time this has happened in the English language. In the larger scheme of things, the difference between what is a tank destroyer or not is fairly academic. The problem occurs with the lower granularity of a specific vehicle in a specific context; In this case, Archer's use in the Royal Artillery. To compromise, why not simply re-title the page as "Archer (Armoured Fighting Vehicle)"? The hyperlink as it is saying "Self-propelled gun" but linking to TD page is fine, as the TD page does actually delve into the differences between usage a fair bit. 64.201.252.170 (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

But no-one is calling this a "tank destroyer". It is being linked to, and listed alongside other tank destroyers, which is a different thing. A linkage and grouping I would still defend.

Now, is disambiguation in a page name either "defining" (Archer is a tank destroyer) or categorizing (Archer belongs with other tank destroyers)? I'm happy with the second, but I can accept that others might disagree. Can anyone suggest a better page title? Archer (Armoured Fighting Vehicle) is certainly not, as it becomes too vague. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Archer (self propelled gun) would be a bit close to the Archer Artillery System. Archer (WWII vehicle) would do at a push but not sure it's a better title. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The 17 pdr was too large and heavy to manually move and dig-in quickly and so the British SP guns were just that, anti-tanks guns that could be positioned quickly when accompanying an advancing force. IIRC, they were operated by the Royal Artillery (RA) and used as mobile anti-tank guns in exactly the same way their towed guns were used, but with the advantage of being quicker to move and position. They weren't intended for or used for 'hunting' enemy tanks like the US or German vehicles. That was the job of the tank regiments.