I was taught the most effective anti Tank weapon was a highly motivated and well trained Marine with a Radio, a known location and a grid square with the proper Freq.
in Finland we took some tar, ethanol and diesel fuel, in a vodka bottle with a large stormproof match on the side. Light the match and toss it on the vents of the tank. Worked wonders. A later version is a wood plank with either dynamite or an antitank mine strapped to it and a rope attached, you'd put the plank in the ditch on one side of a road, lye in wait in the ditch on the other side, and when the tank got close enough to not see you pull the rope to pull the mine plank from the ditch onto the road and kaboom - bye bye tank. The plank one was still taught as official doctrine at least up to 2000-2001, probably still is. Even the molotov was still in the manuals then.
@@noth606 I always wondered why they didn't make a crossbow type thing or sling to throw them. Get you a bit longer range than having to throw it or run up and smash on the tank
Simon is located in Prague, doing a video about tank destroyers of WW2, and yet he doesn't talk about the Hetzer, a German tank hunter built on top of a Czech tank. They're truly an impressive conversion vehicle, and I was surprised to see the top of the hull only came up to about my shoulder level when I saw one at a museum!
The Jagdpanzer 38t -- it was never actually formally called the 'Hetzer'; that was the designation for the paper E10 design -- wasn't precisely built on the chassis of the PzKpfW 38t, but on a modified version of the hull that had been widened and lengthened, with the lower hull sides angled outward to create more room in the fighting compartment.
You're missing the American M18 Hellcat and the M36 with it's 90mm gun. Plus the early Soviet SU76 and later SU100. Hopefully you can make another video to highlight some of these worthy beasts
My father served in a tank destroyer in Europe in WW2 . His vehicle was the M36 B . The M36 Jackson A , due to the experts deciding that the war against Germany would be over by Christmas ( 1944 ) , decided to stop production . However , as most of you probably know, the German army didn't co-operate with this state side assessment ! As an American tank that could take on German armor was still desperately needed , ENTER THE M36 B ! This Frankenstein creation consisted of mounting the M36 turrent on a standard Sherman hull .My father served from D Day ( first wave , Omaha beach , which he rarely spoke about ) into Austria . His unit was the 813 tank destroyer battalion , company B . During the war , he had three of his own tanks destroyed in combat . One hit a mine , one was hit by a mortar shell and one had a BOMBED OUT CATHEDRAL collapse on it ! ( If anyone wants , I can supply details about this ) His final tank was the only M 36 B in his company ( all the others were at first M 18 hellcats , then upgraded to the Jackson ) He told me he got this bastard vehicle ( Ball Breaker ) by losing a coin toss . My father died more than a dozen years ago , but I try to keep his war stories alive by repeating them to others . He only began to tell me the serious stories ( HIS TANK BROKE DOWN THE GATES AT DAUCHAU CONCENTRATION CAMP and how a great deal of killing took place there after the German guards surrendered , things not in the history books ) he only usually told stories about the non combat side of his experiences . Only when I was in my thirties and fourties did I hear of the horrific things he witnessed and lived through. Goodnight Father , I dream of you often , John .
The 76mm gun on the M10 was just fine as was the lower velocity 75mm the early Shermans used. It was also not all that fast and it's sloped side armor made it a bit tougher than it might seem from the armor thickness.
For those confused about the American tank destroyers approach, the M18 wasn't just faster than German armor, it was *ludicrously* faster. It could hit speeds 2-4 times greater than German tanks with better agility too. It could move faster than German tanks could crank their turrets. It was also armed with a large gun by American armor standards.
Fun thing about these tank destroyers is the way they ended up being used. SU/ISU-152 as tank destroyer / assault gun / SPG, M18 as tank destroyer / assault gun / light tank.
@@BRANFED Jackson was even better but didn't see as much action as the hellcat. The hellcat was a total hotrod and had a fantastic k/d ratio. The various Sherman fiascos sadly over shadow the awesome history of us tank destroyers, as our doctrine was very, very different and was great in some ways, terrible in others.
My grandfather drove an M10 and later an M18 Hellcat for the 703rd Tank Destroyer Battalion, Company B during WWII. I have some great old photos of him in the tank. Another with his entire company just before they shipped out to the UK. He had amazing stories about his time during the war; harrowing, funny, tragic stories. When he passed my Dad hung his dress uniform, cleaned and pressed, next to his casket for his wake. I miss that guy.
Using image of a turreted M10 when discussing turretless tanks.... The fascinating part of tank destroyers was the very different doctrine developed by the US versus Germany. That drove the different TD vehicle designs.
To be fair, the M10 is "technically" turreted. It did not have a power assisted traverse and had to be cranked by hand. So the traverse speed was abysmally low.
Simon you were combining the M18 and the M10 in your presentation. The M18 was the fastest tracked vehicle of the war the M10 was barely faster then a Sherman. Another reason for the open top turrets was crew visibility. It was much better in an open topped vehicle.
I think you'll find the Russian BT-2's were the fastest tracked vehicle of WWII. It didn't have much fighting power and the engine was considered to be unreliable, but the BT "Bystrochodnij Tankov" (Fast Tank) designation was real. The M18 was the fastest tracked vehicle deployed by the US Army during WWII.
A turret roof for a tank weighs about two tons. When the design is prioritising strategic mobility and tactical acceleration, reducing weight matters. A roof kit was developed for the M18 and added over a ton to the vehicle, while doing little more than keeping the crew dry that could be achieved with 20kg of rubberised canvas.
@@coachhannah2403 Yes, but IIRC correctly it was very thin and wouldn't have done very well at either keeping out artillery splinters or anything above pistol calibre fire.
One thing I noticed a few years ago with the WW2 tanks is when they are converted into a tank destroyer / assault gun, by removing the turret (which reduces the weight) it usually results in a bigger gun being able to be used which the tank the hull is based on couldn't carry when it was built as a tank. Yes there are some exceptions but in most cases the TD usually has a bigger gun than the tank its based on. Which I found interesting.
Basically, the German/Soviet TD were upgunned chassis at the expense of the turret. US retained the turret, reduced the armor, eventually uprated the HP, for a fast response vehicle (that was, in the end, relegated to artillery and infantry support because, they're available).
I had ancestors in the Sturmgeschütz III, Jagdtiger, and M18 Hellcat. -Sturmgeschütz III: 16. Panzergrenadier Division -Jagdtiger: Schwerer Panzerjäger Abtielung 653 -M18 Hellcat: 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion
By the way. If you want to understand the US Tank destroyer, look up the US Tank destroyer Doctrin. It was intended for them to have little Armour since Good Gun and high mobility was needed for the Tank destroyer Doctrin. I recommend watching "The chieftain". He explains the development of Tank destroyers and the Tank destroyer Doctrin.
Tank destroyers- 2 years ago I was gifted a packet of photos that someone bought in a misc box at an auction. The photos were of a local-to-me man who served in a tank killer unit in the European Operations Theatre! Their vehicle, support units, just amazing photos. Thanks for reminding me of these!
Michael Wittman reckoned that the tank's worst enemy wasn't other tanks but anti-tank guns. Assuming Germany's greatest panzer ace was right then a tank destroyer was the peak of anti-tank gun evolution and thus a very scary prospect for opposing tanks.
The M10 replaced a half-track based tank destroyer, which was what was used in North Africa. Dunno if it could be considered "lethal", but its existence contradicts some of what is said in this video about tank destroyers.
The M3 75mm gun motor carriage was adequate for the job when proper tactics were used. Ordnance had 2,200 produced with 1,360 converted back to standard M3's after the M10 arrived. The rest were used in the Pacific Theater and Western Europe for direct and indirect fire support. The movie Kelly's Heroes shows Kelly's platoon using one in the beginning that was hidden inside a barn with the driver arguing with Sarge over going outside to trade shots with the approaching Tiger 1's.
The US developed the Shoot and Scoot style of tank combat that the TD excelled at. That Generals on all sides often misused them is sad because when used properly were deadly against attacking tanks.
Early U.S. TANK DESTROYER development was a reaction to the speed at which the Germans overran Belgium and France in 1940. U.S. TD doctrine was primarily DEFENSIVE much to the dismay of a few Generals ( Patton and Devers) who were much more "ATTACK" minded tactically.
@@peghead Tank destroyers could still be used in the initial attack from a stand still but they had to use their shoot and scoot style of combat. The were self propelled anti-tank guns.
Somewhat glossed over is that not only are non-turreted tank destroyers cheaper to build, they are also *faster* to build and can have relatively much larger guns. Turrets are complex, extremely wasteful in terms of weight and space, and there is a limit of just how big a gun you can fit in a turret that uses a particular size turret ring (the hole in the hull the turret sits in). Eliminating the turret also eliminates most of the weight of the turret aside from the gun and any other equipment located in the turret the crew still needs (radios, ammo, etc.) - but aside from the gun, the weight of the armor and structure are the overwhelming majority of the turret weight, and you've just eliminated more than 5/6ths of that by getting rid of the turret and just closing up the hole in the roof with the same.thickness roof armor you had before (if you even bother to enclose it). Thus, you can take an older and smaller tank that isn't up to the rigors of battle as a tank, put a much larger gun in it (that you can grab from a towed antitank piece and mount in the vehicle; some design work and fabrication, but not as much as a purpose built tank gun would need) keep the previous amount of armor (or even increase the frontal armor significantly), and maintain or increase the power to weight ratio with the existing engine. So a much better tank killer than the original tank, far, far faster and cheaper than building a new tank from scratch, and it is probably both faster and more heavily armored in the expected direction of enemy fire (the front, since these fight from ambush or other similar stationary positions) than the original tank. That's one reason why Germany had so bloody many different tank destroyer types - quite a large number of them were an almost random kludge of foreign vehicle chassis from conquered countries or obsolete German tanks, and either captured foreign or German towed antitank guns. French chassis with a Czech gun? Why not! German light tank chassis with a Russian gun? Sure!
Why did Germany conquer Czechoslovakia first? For the Czech tank production of the LT vz. 35 and LT vz. 38, which became the Pz.Kpfw. 35(t) and Pz.Kpfw. 38(t) in German service, respectively. When the Czech tanks became obsolete, the suspension, engine, and hull were fine for other purposes. The new superstructure converted them into Marder III and Panzerjäger 38(t) (known incorrectly as Hetzers).
Non-turreted tank destroyers also have the advantage of being able to be built from 'destroyed' tanks recovered from the field that could not be repaired by depot maintenance, and from tanks removed from the field due to obsolescence. Removing the turret and superstructure and replacing them with a casemate upper hull and fixed gun, a tank could be converted into a tank destroyer or assault gun for an even smaller investment of time and resources than producing a new vehicle.
When my friend's son was about three he told us about how he used to be a soldier and was part of a tank crew. He knew quite a bit about tanks for his age. He said he carried a field journal as well. His parents decided to keep him away from France as a precaution.
The use of Zimmerit on German armor was an entertaining example of a solution in search of a problem. The Germans had the Halftholladung (aka 'Panzerknacker'), a magnetic anti-tank grenade developed in 1942, and Zimmerit was developed to be applied to the surface of armored vehicles to prevent magnetic grenades from adhering, with the argument that it would be simple for other countries to duplicate the design. The production and application of Zimmerit was a wasted effort, as the Germans were the only military to deploy magnetic anti-tank grenades in Europe. Its application was discontinued in 1944 over (unfounded) fears that shell impacts could ignite the Zimmerit coating.
The L 48 was also a very good towed artillery and photo are available that show US infantry using captured L 48's against their former owners. They could defeat 3-4 inches of armor at rangers out to 1,000 yards.
there are more perks to turretless tanks 1. number one cause of tank crew casualties, is actually from small arms fire, while they are outside of their tank, whether driving hatches open and a grenade is tossed in or a commander is looking out the top and is sniped. Number two though, is turret shots, since the turret is the highest and least armored point for faster traverse, and most deadly part of the tank, its an attractive target. Also, the point where the turret contacts the hull of the tank is often times a shell trap, so if you hit that point, your shell has the most chance of penetrating. ON TOP OF THAT most of the crew and ammunition is in the turret. so if you do pen, good chance the spalling will kill the crew, and if not, detonate the ammo, killing the crew. taking the turret off tanks singlehandedly increases survivability, since the gun, ammo, and crew is now in the heaviest armored part, the upper glacis. and the tank weighs less because there isnt essentially smaller tank destroyer on top of it, which means bigger gun, more armor, or faster tank. 2. in most cases the turret has to traverse past the farthest point a spg's gun can traverse, the tank is in a bad position and is lucky to not already be dead. 3. turretless tanks are counterintuitively actually harder to disable the gun. on a turreted tank, one of the most common issues is a shell semi penetrating the point where the turret meets the hull which, as previously stated, is an attractive target. in this scenario where the shell doesnt penetrate, it will still disable the turret, as the gear will very likely be bent or broken. you think 'ah but just shoot the track of the spg and the gun cant aim since the tank cant turn.' but then the driver just has to go forward or reverse, and the track that is still operational will rotate the tank left or right faster than it normally could, since the inoperable track offers no resistance and spins in reverse. so to disable the gun on an spg you have to disable both tracks. given the average loading time of ww2 tanks, that could well be close to a minute engagement, easily enough time for the driver to turn to face the gun your direction. try flanking it with one track out, its possible but unlikely, as previously stated, the tank turns faster than usual. 4. as the swedes discovered with their turretless S tank, with the right design, a tank, which normally is crewed by 3-5 people, can be completely operated by just one. between this tanks extreme armor angle, two engines, and max crew of 3 with minimum crew of 1, its one of the most survivable tanks ever designed. the additional 2 crew members can take over the tank without moving, help with visibility, radio, and help in emergencies. altogether probably one of the most operationally capable tanks ever designed. in addition to this, it has one of the most extreme angles of depression of any gun, the whole tank lifts its rear and tips its nose so it can climb a hill and still have perfectly angled front armor and a level gun. in addition to ease of manufacture, low silhouette, and unparalleled armor, armament, speed, and kill to loss ratio, im frankly baffled modern tanks still have turrets, though to be fair many issues have been resolved by now. Finally i just wanna say, if the italians had brains for anything besides racing, cuisine, and music, their semovente would have easily been the best tank of the war. 100 mm upper glacis at a 45 degree angle would have been impenetrable even for an battleship round at point blank range. obviously thats an exaggeration but come on, how did it never occur to them to ease manufacture and significantly improve the armor of their tank by just combining the two glacis into one?! if they swapped the L shaped front for something more akin to a jagdpanzer's front, i dont even think the rivetted armor would have been a detriment. its just ridiculous to double the metal on the front end to make a shell trap, and they never changed it!
@@CharliMorganMusic The Centurion was a flop, it was far too slow to keep up with the Allied advance across Europe, Montgomery kept them out of a good bit of the fighting instead sending in British Sherman's.
@@dukecraig2402 Centurion only arrived on the continent after the war in Europe was over, and it was a wildly successfully and popular design, world class even. I suspect you're confusing it with something else.
@@chromiumphotography5138 That was my first thought too, but he mentioned them being too slow to follow the advance, and Cromwell/Comet were both relatively fast tanks, faster than the Sherman at least. If he's thinking of something slow the obvious ones would be Churchill and Matilda, but Churchill was used heavily in the advance across Europe, and Matilda was an early war tank, so it wouldn't make much sense calling it a flop because it was obsolete by the end of the war.
The reason such thick frontal armor is doable is that since there is no turret, that weight can be used for armor plating. You can only load a chassis so far. And since it decreases the overall height its a win-win solution. Unless you have to turn to keep that target in sight.
My grandfather was a Hellcat division commander in the war, they played a key role in crossing & fortifying Remagen, the site of 1st bridge across the Rhine
@@maxpayne7459 That M4 armor unit had a M26 issued to it. The M4's took positions overlooking the bridge then waited 25 minutes for the Pershing to catch up and take a position to provide the M4's with covering fire as they approached the bridge. The Pershing couldn't cross the river for days until Army engineers located a motorized barge and location to drive it onto the barge and then off on the other side.
Zimmerit was also abandoned because Germany was the only nation to use magnetic anti tank mines in large numbers and because of the unfounded fear that it could catch on fire when hit. The Ferdinand would have also been worth to mention. It originated from the Tiger I program. Porsche was competing with Henschel for the Tiger I design, but when Porsche lost out, they already built a bunch of hulls. So they turned them into tank destroyers with the long 88mm gun in a fixed casemate. The first version was missing a machine gun, and they didn't perform to expectations in the battle of Kursk. Afterwards, they upgraded the remaining or salvageable vehicles to the "Elefant" version with a machine gun in the hull, better armor, wider tracks and improved drive train. The name was derived from Ferdinand Porsche, who was involved in the development of the drive train. Honerable mentions could have been the Stug IV and Jagdpanzer IV, as they were rather similar to the Stug III. Definetly worth a mention is the Jagdpanzer 38t. The Russians also had large numbers of Su 85 and some Su 100 vehicles sporting a more sloped frontal armor and a 85 mm or 100 mm guns respectively.
Since tanks were mainly used for defense, not having a turret gave 3 advantages: cost, a lower profile, and a more powerful gun could often be mounted.
Imagine being 5 guys in an A-10: Waiting for the enemy to close in, then take a shot, and run knowing, it takes the enemy approximately 20 seconds to return fire, if you don't hit perfectly. Must have smelled badly in there.
Generally the first one to fire won the engagement. The M10 could most likely take another shot and move if needed before the enemy had a chance to fire back. Because even a 76mm shell hitting the armor at over 2000 fps without penetrating is going to be, to quote the Chieftain, a significant emotional event. They then have to (presumably) stop, locate the enemy (Which might not be trivial if the M10 is in an ambush position), traverse the turret aim, and shoot back. While the M10 is presumably still more or less on target and reloading.
@@JustLiesNOR The M10 used the twin GM Diesel engines since their high torque at low rpm's allowed the TD to take off faster from a dead stop plus their better fuel mileage allowed it to stay in battle longer before dropping back to get refueled.
In November 1944, the 814th Tank Destroyer Battalion attached to the 7th Armored Division was issued M36 tank destroyers with a 90MM gun. The M36 replaced the M10 tank destroyer just in time for the Battle of the Bulge at St. Vith, Belgium.
The M36 used a heavier turret w/90mm gun on a M10 hull. The first M36's to see combat were 20-30 repaired M4's that had their turrets replaced with a M36 turret. Those were shipped over to get the larger gun into action faster since the M10 hull production had slowed down due to organized labor problems at the Fisher Body plant. They got that straightened out so M36's arrived on M10 hulls for a while only to have production slowed down again by the union. The War Department ended their M10 hull contract and ordered Ford to install the M36 turret on some the M4's they were building with altered ammo storage. Later Ford added armor roof protection after Ordnance studied those that the M10 and M36 users had added out in the field of combat. The Army rounded up the M10's from the training camps and had those converted to M36's.
I was so hyped seeing a M18 in the thimb nail only to find out he didn't talk about it. All the tanks he talked about deserved to be mentioned, but the Hellcat
The 128mm pzgr.43 (apcbc) fired by the jagdtigers 128mm pak 44 gun was capable of penetrating 235mm of 30° sloped armor at 1000m That thing was a beast
whats that ammo for with out me googling?..must be either the 8.8cm L71,.. i thought maybe the 10.5cm or the 12.8cm.. but unlike the 8.8.. i dont think those where used in the anti-roll much if at all.. exception was a version of the 12.8cm that was used on the jagdtiger fyi.. longest recorded kill in ww2 was with a Nashorn 88mm l71 ~@ 4km .. i could be wrong but until someone proves me wrong, ill still with that data
@@BRANFED pzgr.43 was ammo fired by the jagdtigers 12.8cm pak 44, the 8.8cm pak 43 fired pzgr39/43 and pzgr.40/43 (maraging steel cored and tungsten cored respectively)
You didn't need to defeat 235mm armor at all. Too big, long reload, more crew needed, too heavy, overloaded suspension,High silhouette , easy to spot for ground attack planes/surveillance
Is reference to the M10," wasn't able to penetrate the majority of German tanks"? Funny, I thought the vast majority of German production and service were the pzr3 &4, stug 3s, ECT. The 3 inch gun being plenty for those. It was even fairly effective on the panther, though that's starting to get rarer, based on production numbers.
The biggest heaviest one did indeed have a small small issues, A crew of anti tank soldiers or even civilians with RPG's could try to blow the up the tank threads and then it was a gun stuck pointing one way. Sure the people inside would be in at time thick enough armor but... they would be stuck.
They did. They killed more tanks than any other tank hunter, and officially they were designated as an assault gun. My favorite STuG story is when 2 made their way into a group of 7 IS-2s, knocked out all 7 and drove off, without the IS-2s even firing a shot.
Purely because of production numbers. For most of the war, they had relatively limited tank killing capacity, compared to most other German tank destroyers.
The notorious Panzer ace Michael Whitman started out in the StuG III. He was so good at it, they specially trained him and got him to lead a Tiger group. Whitman was one of the few tank commanders that frequently fired the main gun while moving. Quite a feat with the limited fire control technology of the time.
Id say that is probably on the gunner though. One of the things i read about Whitman was that coming from assault guns he was very conscious of tank orientation and had his drivers turn the tank along with the turret.
"Though the Germans didn't invent the tank, they took it further than anyone had before ". *Yeah, Simon, you could probably say that about a Couple of Things, huh?*
I’m always so excited to see new content on any of your channels! I’ve never donated to any YT creator but I will change that today! I’ve learned so much!
The tank destroyer is effectively what we today call self-propelled artillery or mobile gun platforms (kind of like the Stryker system), with the exception that modern versions often also have turrets that can slew to a fair degree though perhaps not a full rotation. The idea there is a lightly armored (protection from infantry and small arms), light weight, highly mobile platform designed to counter enemy armor and hardened installations (gun emplacements, the traditional pill box, etc). It wasn't a tank. It was a gun on wheels and/or tracks.
The Americans also had the M18 Hellcat during WWII. It was built for speedy "shoot and scoot tactics," and could go about 89km/h on road and 42 km/h off road. It had a longer barrel cannon which meant increased muzzle velocity, which translates to armor penetration. They also had special HVAP (High Velocity Armor Piercing) rounds that worked much better against German armor. In the end it came down to the fact that the 76mm gun they were designed around just wasn't all that powerful.
The American M18 Hellcat and M36 Jackson tank destroyers had formidable antitank guns and armor piercing ammo. They weren’t obsolete after WW2 as much as they were redundant. Newer American tanks had the same guns with armor piercing ammo as the TD’s had. In their assigned role of ambushing enemy tanks they were effective. See the Battle of Arracourt in 1944. But since the Germans were on the defensive they normally lacked that role. So they instead provided stellar service in support of the infantry taking out pillboxes, machine-gun nests, etc…
The Hellcat was a much more successful tank destroyer, and was the fastest armored vehicle in the world until the M1 Abrams came into use. A bit disappointed that you didn’t cover this TD.
The SU76 could apparently take out a panther. And they had incredible off road capability making them useful for hunting German tanks in Operation Bagration. They were also amazing in the battle of Berlin
Togg's Simon are the best tanks ever...they even had a hot water spigot for tea. In all seriousness I love tanks, great video! If you ever get the chance to get to Tank Fest it's the best, I'll stop being a fanboy now...🤤
The Jagpanther is the all around best. It had good mobility, good sloped armour but the K43 88 mm super 88 made it a super killer with great optics! The Hellcat with its great speed , 60 mph , and it's variants with the 76 mm and 90 mm cannons made the American sniper awesome. The Soviets had Su-100 and SU-150 were great killers.
They weren’t that’s why they disappeared immediately following the war. He admits he’s no idea what he’s actually speaking to us at the beginning. How can you trust anything him and his anti Israel xenophobic recent video say?
@@marcusjohnbondurajr Mostly, because I don't hate everyone and everything. And since you AND Simon are young enough to be my GRANDSONS, I know a little more about the subject than you do. Now, go hate somewhere else.
Ive always loved the M10 since I played COH. Probably my favorite overall tank of the war, though hellcats, shermans + all their variations and stugs/SU76s are epic.
I was a 0352 (Anti-tank missleman) in the US Marines. It was cheaper to send out infantry with Sabre systems before them in Scout platoons and some surrounding them while they move. We're better at killing tanks and we're also cheaper if we get hit by one compared to a tank haha.
Also much faster to deploy id imagine. Moving 60 ton tanks with all the support required is quite a hassle. Sending in a few Marines with anti tank missiles, a few cans of dip/pack of smokes and some crayons for lunch is faster/cheaper and very effective.
American TDs: Gotta go fast! German TDs: Doomgun-Fortress Soviet TDs: Yeah, so we have this gun, right, and we kinda already use it for pretty much everything, so I was thinking that we just put it on whatever we can find. We have all of those bullet-resistant lawnmower chassis we weren't gonna use so I figure if we could just duct tape the gun up and, like, just keep sending them out there, ONE if them is BOUND to kill SOMETHING. (Late-War)
I feel as if the M10 really walked in through the wrong door here: M10: "Hello, I am a fast, lightly armoured tank that's going to run rings around you." Jagtpather: "Thats precious. Commence fire."
Great video but im a bit disappointed at the unmentioned hellcat, m28johnson and other accomplished tank destroyers. Im not bothered that the t28/29 super heavy td wasnt mentioned as it was primarily a prototype, but im a little bit sad british tankdestroyers/assualt guns were completely unmendtion such as the tortoise and valentine ats. I do only mention this because i play alot of warthunder and world of tanks, so not hearing my favorites mentioned is a bit of a salty relitization
@@XtreeM_FaiL ah, I seem to have been mislead then. Still i do find the lacking mention of the hellcat and johnson disheartening in this video. Still, a breakthrough tank? So kinda like a sturmtiger or bunkerbusting type rank? Might be curious to learn about more breakthrough tanks if you got a link.
@@TheCluelessLucent The US Army expected to encounter thick and well-armed bunkers once inside Germany so had the T28 made to take those head-on. The T28 project was cancelled after the Army discovered that Germany didn't bother to build any heavy bunkers. The GI's were encountering concrete bunkers along the West Wall but were taking those out by direct fire from self-propelled 155mm howitzers.
Zimmerit was thought to be used against molotov by the soviets, the paste was instead meant to stop magnetic mines, Germany stopped using it once they realized that the Germans were the only ones using magnetic mines
Tank destroyers were essentially mobile weapons platforms. Low profile body, armed with an artillery gun, typically open topped and less armor than main battle tanks. They were cheaper to produce and more effective in a defensive role. Just summed this up from 15 min to 30 seconds.
You have two inaccuracies in your statements about the M10. 1. The US only lost 10,000 men killed in action in armored vehicles of all types in the European theater of war. That figure includes men lost from tank crews, M10's, halftracks and all other types of armored vehicles. When we realize that the US lost about 490,000 men killed in action in WW2, that means the armored vehicles actually had one of the best survival rates of any tactical arm of the US Army and Army Air Force, much higher than arms like Bomber Force. 2. The US 76.2 MM gun could pierce ANY German tank armor, including the vaunted Tiger tank, at 500-1000 yards.
2. It could not piece the glacis of the King Tiger or Jagdtiger and without the rare HVAP would not get through the front of a Panther, Jagdpanther or Jagdpanzer IV over 300 metres. Nor the Tiger I beyond about 400 to 500 metres.
@@lyndoncmp5751 If you want to believe that mythology then you go right ahead. I'm not buying that load of manure though. The only one you're correct about is the Jagdtiger. No tank mounted weapon available in WW2 would punch through ten inches of armor. The rest of that is pure manure though.
I am not convinced that the Marders and Nashorn, originally Hornisse or Hornet, were the same sort of project. The Nashorn was a PzIV chassis mounting a Pak43/1 gun, totally different from the captured chassis of the Marders, plus a far superior gun, which could penetrate any Allied tank.
Most of the early German tds are built on the chassis of obsolete tanks who's turrets could no longer hold a gun adequate for the current armor standard, which makes me wonder if the program would have gone in a different direction if they were purpose built from the early days. For instance a td with high reverse speed and maneuverability would be a good fit for ambushes shoot and scoot tactics and an auxiliary driver seat facing rearward would be an interesting concept. Most early tanks have terrible speed in reverse gears and practically no rear vision ports.
Javelin round, Tow missile, A10 warthog, Gustav recoiless rifles, AT4, hand held EFP grenade, RPG7/9... tanks are awesome, unless in an urban environment w/o infantry support.
Exactly, and most British people use that correct pronunciation, but Simon is working for an American channel that caters primarily to Americans who would be deeply confused by tbe correct way of saying it.
American Tank Destroyers sported open tops not to save weight, but to provide superior visibility to spot and acquire their targets. Post war research concluded that the armored vehicle that fired first in engagements was far more likely to win the contest.
Completely missed out on the American M36 & Soviet SU-100. Both served the longest serving tank destroyers with the M36 fighting in the 1990s Balkan Wars & the SU-100 seeing fighting as recent as the current Yemen civil war. Some still serve as reserves in armies of Morocco, Vietnam, etc. The M36 sported the most powerful anti-tank turret from the US, the M3 90mm gun also used on the largest US tank, the M26 Pershing, and Cold War main battle tanks like the M47 & M48 Pattons, the latter still in use today in Thailand's coups, Greece, Taiwan, Turkey, etc.
The Story of the m36 Jackson is simple. The US had a new 90mm Anti Tank Gun which had the same weight as the 3" Gun the M10 had. So they put the 90mm Inside it. It wad a better Gun but the 90mm Gun wasnt really needed since the 75mm and 76mm could deal with almost any threat.
I love that Simon is so good at delivering his lines that unless he mentions that he doesn't understand what he's saying, you'd never know.
Fr lol
Deliver every word with confidence and always as if you knew exactly what you are talking about and it wont matter what you say. People will buy it.
His advertising pisses me off.Nice watch though
With about 20 videos a week made for several years, I'd say he's had lots of practice. Unless you want him to say "Taco."
Thats what you call real ladies man :)
I was taught the most effective anti Tank weapon was a highly motivated and well trained Marine with a Radio, a known location and a grid square with the proper Freq.
The most effective anything is a pissed off Marine.
sticky bomb?
in Finland we took some tar, ethanol and diesel fuel, in a vodka bottle with a large stormproof match on the side. Light the match and toss it on the vents of the tank. Worked wonders. A later version is a wood plank with either dynamite or an antitank mine strapped to it and a rope attached, you'd put the plank in the ditch on one side of a road, lye in wait in the ditch on the other side, and when the tank got close enough to not see you pull the rope to pull the mine plank from the ditch onto the road and kaboom - bye bye tank. The plank one was still taught as official doctrine at least up to 2000-2001, probably still is. Even the molotov was still in the manuals then.
@@noth606 I always wondered why they didn't make a crossbow type thing or sling to throw them.
Get you a bit longer range than having to throw it or run up and smash on the tank
@@travisrolison9646 in the thick woods of Finland you have zero use for range, you'd just hit a tree and give away where you are
Simon is located in Prague, doing a video about tank destroyers of WW2, and yet he doesn't talk about the Hetzer, a German tank hunter built on top of a Czech tank. They're truly an impressive conversion vehicle, and I was surprised to see the top of the hull only came up to about my shoulder level when I saw one at a museum!
He also does not talk about the M18 or the M36 from the USA, the ISU-152 from Russia or the Archer, Achillies and Churchill A22D form the UK.
Hetzer didn't get to Hetz. 😥
The Jagdpanzer 38t -- it was never actually formally called the 'Hetzer'; that was the designation for the paper E10 design -- wasn't precisely built on the chassis of the PzKpfW 38t, but on a modified version of the hull that had been widened and lengthened, with the lower hull sides angled outward to create more room in the fighting compartment.
You're missing the American M18 Hellcat and the M36 with it's 90mm gun. Plus the early Soviet SU76 and later SU100. Hopefully you can make another video to highlight some of these worthy beasts
Nice looking vehicle the M18, ^oo^
My father served in a tank destroyer in Europe in WW2 . His vehicle was the M36 B . The M36 Jackson A , due to the experts deciding that the war against Germany would be over by Christmas ( 1944 ) , decided to stop production . However , as most of you probably know, the German army didn't co-operate with this state side assessment ! As an American tank that could take on German armor was still desperately needed , ENTER THE M36 B ! This Frankenstein creation consisted of mounting the M36 turrent on a standard Sherman hull .My father served from D Day ( first wave , Omaha beach , which he rarely spoke about ) into Austria . His unit was the 813 tank destroyer battalion , company B . During the war , he had three of his own tanks destroyed in combat . One hit a mine , one was hit by a mortar shell and one had a BOMBED OUT CATHEDRAL collapse on it ! ( If anyone wants , I can supply details about this ) His final tank was the only M 36 B in his company ( all the others were at first M 18 hellcats , then upgraded to the Jackson ) He told me he got this bastard vehicle ( Ball Breaker ) by losing a coin toss . My father died more than a dozen years ago , but I try to keep his war stories alive by repeating them to others . He only began to tell me the serious stories ( HIS TANK BROKE DOWN THE GATES AT DAUCHAU CONCENTRATION CAMP and how a great deal of killing took place there after the German guards surrendered , things not in the history books ) he only usually told stories about the non combat side of his experiences . Only when I was in my thirties and fourties did I hear of the horrific things he witnessed and lived through. Goodnight Father , I dream of you often , John .
@@johnvan6082
My dad drove TDs as well; M-10 & M-36 at different times. He was in the 899th TD, joining them as a replacement after Hürtgen Forest.
the m18 90 mm was only a idea and was never use in battle they only try and test the idea and the projects was cancel after the war
@@TheJimyyy Well they did deploy the M36 tank destroyer with a 90 mm gun, so stuff that up your a$$
0:40 - Chapter 1 - Design
2:30 - Chapter 2 - Germany
3:40 - Chapter 3 - Sturmgeschutz III
5:20 - Chapter 4 - Jagdpanther
8:15 - Chapter 5 - Jagdtiger
10:15 - Chapter 6 - Soviet ISU 122
12:25 - Chapter 7 - American M10
The 76mm gun on the M10 was just fine as was the lower velocity 75mm the early Shermans used. It was also not all that fast and it's sloped side armor made it a bit tougher than it might seem from the armor thickness.
Both had problems frontally against the German cats, and even the Jagdpanzer IV.
For those confused about the American tank destroyers approach, the M18 wasn't just faster than German armor, it was *ludicrously* faster. It could hit speeds 2-4 times greater than German tanks with better agility too. It could move faster than German tanks could crank their turrets.
It was also armed with a large gun by American armor standards.
60 MPH on a good road. Why didn't he talk about them?
@@Stammon Because the road part. Of road they weren't faster. Still a great td.
The high road speed of the Hellcat was so it could commute to where the German Tanks were, have a cup of coffee then get to work.
Fun thing about these tank destroyers is the way they ended up being used. SU/ISU-152 as tank destroyer / assault gun / SPG, M18 as tank destroyer / assault gun / light tank.
@@samuelgordino Yes they were, they do upwards of 40 to 45 off road on open ground, heavy forest not so much.
Here I was hoping to hear Simon gush for 15 minutes Bout how awesome the m18 hellcat was.... Maybe next time?
always liked the m36 jackson myself.,. one of the few ww2 ami armored vehicles i liked
@@BRANFED Jackson was even better but didn't see as much action as the hellcat. The hellcat was a total hotrod and had a fantastic k/d ratio. The various Sherman fiascos sadly over shadow the awesome history of us tank destroyers, as our doctrine was very, very different and was great in some ways, terrible in others.
Der amerikanische Panzerzerstörer war sehr Schweinescheiße. Die Deutschen waren die Besten!
@@BRANFED totally agree, we didn't have many of them.
You missed the best allied tank destroyer on the western front, the Sherman Firefly.
My grandfather drove an M10 and later an M18 Hellcat for the 703rd Tank Destroyer Battalion, Company B during WWII. I have some great old photos of him in the tank. Another with his entire company just before they shipped out to the UK. He had amazing stories about his time during the war; harrowing, funny, tragic stories. When he passed my Dad hung his dress uniform, cleaned and pressed, next to his casket for his wake. I miss that guy.
Using image of a turreted M10 when discussing turretless tanks....
The fascinating part of tank destroyers was the very different doctrine developed by the US versus Germany. That drove the different TD vehicle designs.
To be fair, the M10 is "technically" turreted. It did not have a power assisted traverse and had to be cranked by hand. So the traverse speed was abysmally low.
On the thumbnail? That's an M18 Hellcat. But yeah, still turreted, but the video's about tank destroyers in general, not only self-propelled gun TDs.
@@MosoKaiser no, in the video while talking turretless an M10 image appears
@@RobinRobertsesq Oh, right, must have missed that!
* Shows m18 *
Every WT player for miles: *FLOOR IT!*
I just read an excellent article about the 614th tank destroyer battalion. And their heroic stand at Climbach France.
Simon you were combining the M18 and the M10 in your presentation. The M18 was the fastest tracked vehicle of the war the M10 was barely faster then a Sherman. Another reason for the open top turrets was crew visibility. It was much better in an open topped vehicle.
I think you'll find the Russian BT-2's were the fastest tracked vehicle of WWII. It didn't have much fighting power and the engine was considered to be unreliable, but the BT "Bystrochodnij Tankov" (Fast Tank) designation was real. The M18 was the fastest tracked vehicle deployed by the US Army during WWII.
No more visibility than an unbuttoned tank. More room to maneuver, so faster response time and reload rate. Much more dangerous to crew.
A turret roof for a tank weighs about two tons. When the design is prioritising strategic mobility and tactical acceleration, reducing weight matters. A roof kit was developed for the M18 and added over a ton to the vehicle, while doing little more than keeping the crew dry that could be achieved with 20kg of rubberised canvas.
@@DERP_Squad - Roof kit was to protect against shrapnel and infantry fire.
@@coachhannah2403 Yes, but IIRC correctly it was very thin and wouldn't have done very well at either keeping out artillery splinters or anything above pistol calibre fire.
One thing I noticed a few years ago with the WW2 tanks is when they are converted into a tank destroyer / assault gun, by removing the turret (which reduces the weight) it usually results in a bigger gun being able to be used which the tank the hull is based on couldn't carry when it was built as a tank. Yes there are some exceptions but in most cases the TD usually has a bigger gun than the tank its based on. Which I found interesting.
Basically, the German/Soviet TD were upgunned chassis at the expense of the turret. US retained the turret, reduced the armor, eventually uprated the HP, for a fast response vehicle (that was, in the end, relegated to artillery and infantry support because, they're available).
I had ancestors in the Sturmgeschütz III, Jagdtiger, and M18 Hellcat.
-Sturmgeschütz III: 16. Panzergrenadier Division
-Jagdtiger: Schwerer Panzerjäger Abtielung 653
-M18 Hellcat: 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion
By the way. If you want to understand the US Tank destroyer, look up the US Tank destroyer Doctrin. It was intended for them to have little Armour since Good Gun and high mobility was needed for the Tank destroyer Doctrin. I recommend watching "The chieftain". He explains the development of Tank destroyers and the Tank destroyer Doctrin.
The 128 mm was also used as a super heavy AAA. in a towed artillery role.
Tank destroyers- 2 years ago I was gifted a packet of photos that someone bought in a misc box at an auction. The photos were of a local-to-me man who served in a tank killer unit in the European Operations Theatre! Their vehicle, support units, just amazing photos. Thanks for reminding me of these!
Michael Wittman reckoned that the tank's worst enemy wasn't other tanks but anti-tank guns. Assuming Germany's greatest panzer ace was right then a tank destroyer was the peak of anti-tank gun evolution and thus a very scary prospect for opposing tanks.
The M10 replaced a half-track based tank destroyer, which was what was used in North Africa.
Dunno if it could be considered "lethal", but its existence contradicts some of what is said in this video about tank destroyers.
The M3 75mm gun motor carriage was adequate for the job when proper tactics were used. Ordnance had 2,200 produced with 1,360 converted back to standard M3's after the M10 arrived. The rest were used in the Pacific Theater and Western Europe for direct and indirect fire support. The movie Kelly's Heroes shows Kelly's platoon using one in the beginning that was hidden inside a barn with the driver arguing with Sarge over going outside to trade shots with the approaching Tiger 1's.
The US developed the Shoot and Scoot style of tank combat that the TD excelled at. That Generals on all sides often misused them is sad because when used properly were deadly against attacking tanks.
Early U.S. TANK DESTROYER development was a reaction to the speed at which the Germans overran Belgium and France in 1940. U.S. TD doctrine was primarily DEFENSIVE much to the dismay of a few Generals ( Patton and Devers) who were much more "ATTACK" minded tactically.
@@peghead Tank destroyers could still be used in the initial attack from a stand still but they had to use their shoot and scoot style of combat. The were self propelled anti-tank guns.
Somewhat glossed over is that not only are non-turreted tank destroyers cheaper to build, they are also *faster* to build and can have relatively much larger guns.
Turrets are complex, extremely wasteful in terms of weight and space, and there is a limit of just how big a gun you can fit in a turret that uses a particular size turret ring (the hole in the hull the turret sits in). Eliminating the turret also eliminates most of the weight of the turret aside from the gun and any other equipment located in the turret the crew still needs (radios, ammo, etc.) - but aside from the gun, the weight of the armor and structure are the overwhelming majority of the turret weight, and you've just eliminated more than 5/6ths of that by getting rid of the turret and just closing up the hole in the roof with the same.thickness roof armor you had before (if you even bother to enclose it).
Thus, you can take an older and smaller tank that isn't up to the rigors of battle as a tank, put a much larger gun in it (that you can grab from a towed antitank piece and mount in the vehicle; some design work and fabrication, but not as much as a purpose built tank gun would need) keep the previous amount of armor (or even increase the frontal armor significantly), and maintain or increase the power to weight ratio with the existing engine. So a much better tank killer than the original tank, far, far faster and cheaper than building a new tank from scratch, and it is probably both faster and more heavily armored in the expected direction of enemy fire (the front, since these fight from ambush or other similar stationary positions) than the original tank.
That's one reason why Germany had so bloody many different tank destroyer types - quite a large number of them were an almost random kludge of foreign vehicle chassis from conquered countries or obsolete German tanks, and either captured foreign or German towed antitank guns. French chassis with a Czech gun? Why not! German light tank chassis with a Russian gun? Sure!
Why did Germany conquer Czechoslovakia first? For the Czech tank production of the LT vz. 35 and LT vz. 38, which became the Pz.Kpfw. 35(t) and Pz.Kpfw. 38(t) in German service, respectively. When the Czech tanks became obsolete, the suspension, engine, and hull were fine for other purposes. The new superstructure converted them into Marder III and Panzerjäger 38(t) (known incorrectly as Hetzers).
Non-turreted tank destroyers also have the advantage of being able to be built from 'destroyed' tanks recovered from the field that could not be repaired by depot maintenance, and from tanks removed from the field due to obsolescence. Removing the turret and superstructure and replacing them with a casemate upper hull and fixed gun, a tank could be converted into a tank destroyer or assault gun for an even smaller investment of time and resources than producing a new vehicle.
When my friend's son was about three he told us about how he used to be a soldier and was part of a tank crew.
He knew quite a bit about tanks for his age. He said he carried a field journal as well.
His parents decided to keep him away from France as a precaution.
as well as America.
So did everyone else's kid. Mine was found guilty of being a witch and burned at the stake around the time of the Salem witch trials 🙄
@@Wreckz_Tea cool
The use of Zimmerit on German armor was an entertaining example of a solution in search of a problem. The Germans had the Halftholladung (aka 'Panzerknacker'), a magnetic anti-tank grenade developed in 1942, and Zimmerit was developed to be applied to the surface of armored vehicles to prevent magnetic grenades from adhering, with the argument that it would be simple for other countries to duplicate the design. The production and application of Zimmerit was a wasted effort, as the Germans were the only military to deploy magnetic anti-tank grenades in Europe. Its application was discontinued in 1944 over (unfounded) fears that shell impacts could ignite the Zimmerit coating.
The L 48 was also a very good towed artillery and photo are available that show US infantry using captured L 48's against their former owners. They could defeat 3-4 inches of armor at rangers out to 1,000 yards.
there are about 400 numbers enunciated clearly in this 15 mn video, good job!
it is like being back in accounting class
ok your funny!
"Much lower profiles. "
Erm...Simon, The Elefant and Jagdtiger would like a word...
Wouldn't mind more videos about tanks. Revolutionary suspension design? New engine design? How a tank shell works?
Tank you!
Christie, torsion bar, horstman. There, I saved you 20mins of your life. You can PayPal me
Tank shells, kinetic and chemical. Kinetic punches a hole through force, chemical uses chemicals to defeat enemy armor.
You can always become a salt miner....
@@t2av159 I already know about all this stuff, I just wanted him to do some videos on them for everyone else.
@@ChIGuY-town22_ I don't get it?
there are more perks to turretless tanks
1. number one cause of tank crew casualties, is actually from small arms fire, while they are outside of their tank, whether driving hatches open and a grenade is tossed in or a commander is looking out the top and is sniped. Number two though, is turret shots, since the turret is the highest and least armored point for faster traverse, and most deadly part of the tank, its an attractive target.
Also, the point where the turret contacts the hull of the tank is often times a shell trap, so if you hit that point, your shell has the most chance of penetrating. ON TOP OF THAT most of the crew and ammunition is in the turret. so if you do pen, good chance the spalling will kill the crew, and if not, detonate the ammo, killing the crew.
taking the turret off tanks singlehandedly increases survivability, since the gun, ammo, and crew is now in the heaviest armored part, the upper glacis. and the tank weighs less because there isnt essentially smaller tank destroyer on top of it, which means bigger gun, more armor, or faster tank.
2. in most cases the turret has to traverse past the farthest point a spg's gun can traverse, the tank is in a bad position and is lucky to not already be dead.
3. turretless tanks are counterintuitively actually harder to disable the gun. on a turreted tank, one of the most common issues is a shell semi penetrating the point where the turret meets the hull which, as previously stated, is an attractive target. in this scenario where the shell doesnt penetrate, it will still disable the turret, as the gear will very likely be bent or broken.
you think 'ah but just shoot the track of the spg and the gun cant aim since the tank cant turn.' but then the driver just has to go forward or reverse, and the track that is still operational will rotate the tank left or right faster than it normally could, since the inoperable track offers no resistance and spins in reverse. so to disable the gun on an spg you have to disable both tracks. given the average loading time of ww2 tanks, that could well be close to a minute engagement, easily enough time for the driver to turn to face the gun your direction. try flanking it with one track out, its possible but unlikely, as previously stated, the tank turns faster than usual.
4. as the swedes discovered with their turretless S tank, with the right design, a tank, which normally is crewed by 3-5 people, can be completely operated by just one. between this tanks extreme armor angle, two engines, and max crew of 3 with minimum crew of 1, its one of the most survivable tanks ever designed. the additional 2 crew members can take over the tank without moving, help with visibility, radio, and help in emergencies. altogether probably one of the most operationally capable tanks ever designed. in addition to this, it has one of the most extreme angles of depression of any gun, the whole tank lifts its rear and tips its nose so it can climb a hill and still have perfectly angled front armor and a level gun.
in addition to ease of manufacture, low silhouette, and unparalleled armor, armament, speed, and kill to loss ratio, im frankly baffled modern tanks still have turrets, though to be fair many issues have been resolved by now.
Finally i just wanna say, if the italians had brains for anything besides racing, cuisine, and music, their semovente would have easily been the best tank of the war. 100 mm upper glacis at a 45 degree angle would have been impenetrable even for an battleship round at point blank range. obviously thats an exaggeration but come on, how did it never occur to them to ease manufacture and significantly improve the armor of their tank by just combining the two glacis into one?! if they swapped the L shaped front for something more akin to a jagdpanzer's front, i dont even think the rivetted armor would have been a detriment. its just ridiculous to double the metal on the front end to make a shell trap, and they never changed it!
General Abrams said after the war"We don't need tank killers,we need killer tanks".
And that's what we got! The British were kinda ahead of us on that concept, this the Centurian.
@@CharliMorganMusic
The Centurion was a flop, it was far too slow to keep up with the Allied advance across Europe, Montgomery kept them out of a good bit of the fighting instead sending in British Sherman's.
@@dukecraig2402 Centurion only arrived on the continent after the war in Europe was over, and it was a wildly successfully and popular design, world class even. I suspect you're confusing it with something else.
@@Robsham1 Perhaps the Cromwell or Comet.
@@chromiumphotography5138 That was my first thought too, but he mentioned them being too slow to follow the advance, and Cromwell/Comet were both relatively fast tanks, faster than the Sherman at least.
If he's thinking of something slow the obvious ones would be Churchill and Matilda, but Churchill was used heavily in the advance across Europe, and Matilda was an early war tank, so it wouldn't make much sense calling it a flop because it was obsolete by the end of the war.
I like how when Simon is talking about fix castmate guns they show a bunch of m10 tank destroyers.
The reason such thick frontal armor is doable is that since there is no turret, that weight can be used for armor plating. You can only load a chassis so far. And since it decreases the overall height its a win-win solution. Unless you have to turn to keep that target in sight.
My grandfather was a Hellcat division commander in the war, they played a key role in crossing & fortifying Remagen, the site of 1st bridge across the Rhine
Ad i remember correctly, the first one to cross were Sherman Tanks. There were also pershings but they could not cross the damaged Bridge.
@@maxpayne7459 That M4 armor unit had a M26 issued to it. The M4's took positions overlooking the bridge then waited 25 minutes for the Pershing to catch up and take a position to provide the M4's with covering fire as they approached the bridge. The Pershing couldn't cross the river for days until Army engineers located a motorized barge and location to drive it onto the barge and then off on the other side.
Simon you covered the best. You made all the pertinent points.
Zimmerit was also abandoned because Germany was the only nation to use magnetic anti tank mines in large numbers and because of the unfounded fear that it could catch on fire when hit.
The Ferdinand would have also been worth to mention. It originated from the Tiger I program. Porsche was competing with Henschel for the Tiger I design, but when Porsche lost out, they already built a bunch of hulls. So they turned them into tank destroyers with the long 88mm gun in a fixed casemate. The first version was missing a machine gun, and they didn't perform to expectations in the battle of Kursk. Afterwards, they upgraded the remaining or salvageable vehicles to the "Elefant" version with a machine gun in the hull, better armor, wider tracks and improved drive train. The name was derived from Ferdinand Porsche, who was involved in the development of the drive train.
Honerable mentions could have been the Stug IV and Jagdpanzer IV, as they were rather similar to the Stug III. Definetly worth a mention is the Jagdpanzer 38t.
The Russians also had large numbers of Su 85 and some Su 100 vehicles sporting a more sloped frontal armor and a 85 mm or 100 mm guns respectively.
Since tanks were mainly used for defense, not having a turret gave 3 advantages: cost, a lower profile, and a more powerful gun could often be mounted.
Imagine being 5 guys in an A-10: Waiting for the enemy to close in, then take a shot, and run knowing, it takes the enemy approximately 20 seconds to return fire, if you don't hit perfectly. Must have smelled badly in there.
Do you mean m-10 not A-10
@Dr. Bright Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt......
Generally the first one to fire won the engagement. The M10 could most likely take another shot and move if needed before the enemy had a chance to fire back. Because even a 76mm shell hitting the armor at over 2000 fps without penetrating is going to be, to quote the Chieftain, a significant emotional event. They then have to (presumably) stop, locate the enemy (Which might not be trivial if the M10 is in an ambush position), traverse the turret aim, and shoot back. While the M10 is presumably still more or less on target and reloading.
@@JustLiesNOR The M10 used the twin GM Diesel engines since their high torque at low rpm's allowed the TD to take off faster from a dead stop plus their better fuel mileage allowed it to stay in battle longer before dropping back to get refueled.
In November 1944, the 814th Tank Destroyer Battalion attached to the 7th Armored Division was issued M36 tank destroyers with a 90MM gun. The M36 replaced the M10 tank destroyer just in time for the Battle of the Bulge at St. Vith, Belgium.
What about the M18 Hellcat that could move at over 40mph or the M36 Jackson with a 90mm cannon!
The M36 used a heavier turret w/90mm gun on a M10 hull. The first M36's to see combat were 20-30 repaired M4's that had their turrets replaced with a M36 turret. Those were shipped over to get the larger gun into action faster since the M10 hull production had slowed down due to organized labor problems at the Fisher Body plant. They got that straightened out so M36's arrived on M10 hulls for a while only to have production slowed down again by the union. The War Department ended their M10 hull contract and ordered Ford to install the M36 turret on some the M4's they were building with altered ammo storage. Later Ford added armor roof protection after Ordnance studied those that the M10 and M36 users had added out in the field of combat. The Army rounded up the M10's from the training camps and had those converted to M36's.
I was so hyped seeing a M18 in the thimb nail only to find out he didn't talk about it. All the tanks he talked about deserved to be mentioned, but the Hellcat
Love the subject matter. One of the better Sideproject video, although it could potentially have gone 4 times longer.
The 128mm pzgr.43 (apcbc) fired by the jagdtigers 128mm pak 44 gun was capable of penetrating 235mm of 30° sloped armor at 1000m
That thing was a beast
Quite an incredible achievement when it didn't break down
whats that ammo for with out me googling?..must be either the 8.8cm L71,.. i thought maybe the 10.5cm or the 12.8cm.. but unlike the 8.8.. i dont think those where used in the anti-roll much if at all.. exception was a version of the 12.8cm that was used on the jagdtiger
fyi.. longest recorded kill in ww2 was with a Nashorn 88mm l71 ~@ 4km .. i could be wrong but until someone proves me wrong, ill still with that data
@@BRANFED pzgr.43 was ammo fired by the jagdtigers 12.8cm pak 44, the 8.8cm pak 43 fired pzgr39/43 and pzgr.40/43 (maraging steel cored and tungsten cored respectively)
You didn't need to defeat 235mm armor at all. Too big, long reload, more crew needed, too heavy, overloaded suspension,High silhouette , easy to spot for ground attack planes/surveillance
@@therammsteinboys thx.. i did not see you said 12.8cm in the original post so fail on my part
Is reference to the M10," wasn't able to penetrate the majority of German tanks"?
Funny, I thought the vast majority of German production and service were the pzr3 &4, stug 3s, ECT. The 3 inch gun being plenty for those. It was even fairly effective on the panther, though that's starting to get rarer, based on production numbers.
The M10 got a bigger gun when they dropped in a different turret holding a 90mm cannon to become a M36.
@@billwilson3609 and was reclassified as a light tank in Korea.
The biggest heaviest one did indeed have a small small issues, A crew of anti tank soldiers or even civilians with RPG's could try to blow the up the tank threads and then it was a gun stuck pointing one way. Sure the people inside would be in at time thick enough armor but... they would be stuck.
Haha, Pänsajagas :D
No, it's actually Panzerjäger - Umlauts matter. And an A is prounced, well, like an A and not an Ä ;-)
the Stug likely got more kills then every other type of tank destroyer combined
They had a lot more opportunity to score then anyone else.
There were more stugs
Der Stug-Panzer war ein großartiger Panzerjäger.
They did. They killed more tanks than any other tank hunter, and officially they were designated as an assault gun. My favorite STuG story is when 2 made their way into a group of 7 IS-2s, knocked out all 7 and drove off, without the IS-2s even firing a shot.
Purely because of production numbers. For most of the war, they had relatively limited tank killing capacity, compared to most other German tank destroyers.
The notorious Panzer ace Michael Whitman started out in the StuG III. He was so good at it, they specially trained him and got him to lead a Tiger group. Whitman was one of the few tank commanders that frequently fired the main gun while moving. Quite a feat with the limited fire control technology of the time.
Id say that is probably on the gunner though.
One of the things i read about Whitman was that coming from assault guns he was very conscious of tank orientation and had his drivers turn the tank along with the turret.
good video, think you left a few out. SU-85 and the super-dooper SU-100 for instance.
Have you heard of the House on the Rock in Wisconsin, USA? I visited there a while back, and it's absolutely mind boggling how large the complex is
"Though the Germans didn't invent the tank, they took it further than anyone had before ".
*Yeah, Simon, you could probably say that about a Couple of Things, huh?*
Good story well told. The soundtrack is remarkable with flawless delivery.
We need a sideprojects video of a day in Simon Whistler's life of recording ect!
That a megaproject for sure? 10 channels the man must talk to a camera more than his wife!
I’m always so excited to see new content on any of your channels! I’ve never donated to any YT creator but I will change that today! I’ve learned so much!
The tank destroyer is effectively what we today call self-propelled artillery or mobile gun platforms (kind of like the Stryker system), with the exception that modern versions often also have turrets that can slew to a fair degree though perhaps not a full rotation. The idea there is a lightly armored (protection from infantry and small arms), light weight, highly mobile platform designed to counter enemy armor and hardened installations (gun emplacements, the traditional pill box, etc). It wasn't a tank. It was a gun on wheels and/or tracks.
I remember these guys being featured in the Battle of the Bulge game. That was such a good game.
The Americans also had the M18 Hellcat during WWII. It was built for speedy "shoot and scoot tactics," and could go about 89km/h on road and 42 km/h off road. It had a longer barrel cannon which meant increased muzzle velocity, which translates to armor penetration. They also had special HVAP (High Velocity Armor Piercing) rounds that worked much better against German armor. In the end it came down to the fact that the 76mm gun they were designed around just wasn't all that powerful.
The American M18 Hellcat and M36 Jackson tank destroyers had formidable antitank guns and armor piercing ammo. They weren’t obsolete after WW2 as much as they were redundant. Newer American tanks had the same guns with armor piercing ammo as the TD’s had. In their assigned role of ambushing enemy tanks they were effective. See the Battle of Arracourt in 1944. But since the Germans were on the defensive they normally lacked that role. So they instead provided stellar service in support of the infantry taking out pillboxes, machine-gun nests, etc…
You didn't even mention the M18 "Hellcat" which was the most innovative and effective US tank destroyer of WW2.
The Hellcat was a much more successful tank destroyer, and was the fastest armored vehicle in the world until the M1 Abrams came into use. A bit disappointed that you didn’t cover this TD.
The SU76 could apparently take out a panther. And they had incredible off road capability making them useful for hunting German tanks in Operation Bagration. They were also amazing in the battle of Berlin
Togg's Simon are the best tanks ever...they even had a hot water spigot for tea. In all seriousness I love tanks, great video! If you ever get the chance to get to Tank Fest it's the best, I'll stop being a fanboy now...🤤
When in doubt, brew one out
I always love the music in these kinds of videos.
The Jagpanther is the all around best. It had good mobility, good sloped armour but the K43 88 mm super 88 made it a super killer with great optics!
The Hellcat with its great speed , 60 mph , and it's variants with the 76 mm and 90 mm cannons made the American sniper awesome.
The Soviets had Su-100 and SU-150 were great killers.
Nice to see the Nike Hercules, my old missile, in the background at minute 6:45.
Very nice. A much under-appreciated weapon of the times.
They weren’t that’s why they disappeared immediately following the war. He admits he’s no idea what he’s actually speaking to us at the beginning. How can you trust anything him and his anti Israel xenophobic recent video say?
@@marcusjohnbondurajr Mostly, because I don't hate everyone and everything. And since you AND Simon are young enough to be my GRANDSONS, I know a little more about the subject than you do. Now, go hate somewhere else.
Ive always loved the M10 since I played COH. Probably my favorite overall tank of the war, though hellcats, shermans + all their variations and stugs/SU76s are epic.
Some of the su122 shown are probably su152 (with the shorter barrels)
I was a 0352 (Anti-tank missleman) in the US Marines. It was cheaper to send out infantry with Sabre systems before them in Scout platoons and some surrounding them while they move. We're better at killing tanks and we're also cheaper if we get hit by one compared to a tank haha.
Also much faster to deploy id imagine.
Moving 60 ton tanks with all the support required is quite a hassle.
Sending in a few Marines with anti tank missiles, a few cans of dip/pack of smokes and some crayons for lunch is faster/cheaper and very effective.
American TDs: Gotta go fast!
German TDs: Doomgun-Fortress
Soviet TDs: Yeah, so we have this gun, right, and we kinda already use it for pretty much everything, so I was thinking that we just put it on whatever we can find. We have all of those bullet-resistant lawnmower chassis we weren't gonna use so I figure if we could just duct tape the gun up and, like, just keep sending them out there, ONE if them is BOUND to kill SOMETHING.
(Late-War)
I feel as if the M10 really walked in through the wrong door here:
M10: "Hello, I am a fast, lightly armoured tank that's going to run rings around you."
Jagtpather: "Thats precious. Commence fire."
A bit unfair considering the M10 and M18 both came earlier than the Jagdpanther
@@AThousandYoung and both had different requirements than the Jagdpanther.
Great video but im a bit disappointed at the unmentioned hellcat, m28johnson and other accomplished tank destroyers. Im not bothered that the t28/29 super heavy td wasnt mentioned as it was primarily a prototype, but im a little bit sad british tankdestroyers/assualt guns were completely unmendtion such as the tortoise and valentine ats. I do only mention this because i play alot of warthunder and world of tanks, so not hearing my favorites mentioned is a bit of a salty relitization
T28 was a breaktrough tank, not a tank destroyer, same as Tortoise.
@@XtreeM_FaiL ah, I seem to have been mislead then. Still i do find the lacking mention of the hellcat and johnson disheartening in this video. Still, a breakthrough tank? So kinda like a sturmtiger or bunkerbusting type rank? Might be curious to learn about more breakthrough tanks if you got a link.
TH-cam keeps deleting my posts. They are designed to go against heavy fortifications.
@@TheCluelessLucent The US Army expected to encounter thick and well-armed bunkers once inside Germany so had the T28 made to take those head-on. The T28 project was cancelled after the Army discovered that Germany didn't bother to build any heavy bunkers. The GI's were encountering concrete bunkers along the West Wall but were taking those out by direct fire from self-propelled 155mm howitzers.
You missed out the Hellcat fastest tracked vehicle of the war and the British Archer with its
extremely potent 17 pounder gun
Zimmerit was thought to be used against molotov by the soviets, the paste was instead meant to stop magnetic mines, Germany stopped using it once they realized that the Germans were the only ones using magnetic mines
Feel like this would have been perfect for a World of Tanks ad read...
😆
Ugh is such a bad game, pay to play gone crazy...😤
@@ChIGuY-town22_ yeah. Lol
You mean war thunder
Tank destroyers were essentially mobile weapons platforms. Low profile body, armed with an artillery gun, typically open topped and less armor than main battle tanks. They were cheaper to produce and more effective in a defensive role. Just summed this up from 15 min to 30 seconds.
Can you do the Smithsonian either here or on Megaprojects?
You have two inaccuracies in your statements about the M10.
1. The US only lost 10,000 men killed in action in armored vehicles of all types in the European theater of war. That figure includes men lost from tank crews, M10's, halftracks and all other types of armored vehicles. When we realize that the US lost about 490,000 men killed in action in WW2, that means the armored vehicles actually had one of the best survival rates of any tactical arm of the US Army and Army Air Force, much higher than arms like Bomber Force.
2. The US 76.2 MM gun could pierce ANY German tank armor, including the vaunted Tiger tank, at 500-1000 yards.
2. It could not piece the glacis of the King Tiger or Jagdtiger and without the rare HVAP would not get through the front of a Panther, Jagdpanther or Jagdpanzer IV over 300 metres. Nor the Tiger I beyond about 400 to 500 metres.
@@lyndoncmp5751
If you want to believe that mythology then you go right ahead. I'm not buying that load of manure though.
The only one you're correct about is the Jagdtiger. No tank mounted weapon available in WW2 would punch through ten inches of armor. The rest of that is pure manure though.
I am not convinced that the Marders and Nashorn, originally Hornisse or Hornet, were the same sort of project. The Nashorn was a PzIV chassis mounting a Pak43/1 gun, totally different from the captured chassis of the Marders, plus a far superior gun, which could penetrate any Allied tank.
5:55 Damn, the arctic panthers are impressive!
Lol
A video on just the US tank destroyer divisions would be extremely interesting to me.
Most of the early German tds are built on the chassis of obsolete tanks who's turrets could no longer hold a gun adequate for the current armor standard, which makes me wonder if the program would have gone in a different direction if they were purpose built from the early days. For instance a td with high reverse speed and maneuverability would be a good fit for ambushes shoot and scoot tactics and an auxiliary driver seat facing rearward would be an interesting concept. Most early tanks have terrible speed in reverse gears and practically no rear vision ports.
missing the US M 18 and M36. a few Germans have told me that you did not fear an M18 you could see, but his friends you could not see
You missed several tank destroyers. Achilles and Hellcat to name 2 that come to mind. Come on man! LOL
Javelin round, Tow missile, A10 warthog, Gustav recoiless rifles, AT4, hand held EFP grenade, RPG7/9... tanks are awesome, unless in an urban environment w/o infantry support.
That Hetzer Tank Destroyer is one sexy piece of machinery.
"Marder" is the German word for a "marten", a kind of weasel. "Nashorn" ("nose horn") is German for "rhinoceros".
Rhinoceros also means nose horn.
Porsche is a two syllable word. “Porsh-uh”
Exactly, and most British people use that correct pronunciation, but Simon is working for an American channel that caters primarily to Americans who would be deeply confused by tbe correct way of saying it.
In Alsace there is a small fort that got hit by the jagttiger, it literally blown that fort apart
It's not in any way historically accurate but the film Fury is a great watch.
AKA "World War Lazers!"
American Tank Destroyers sported open tops not to save weight, but to provide superior visibility to spot and acquire their targets. Post war research concluded that the armored vehicle that fired first in engagements was far more likely to win the contest.
I love the music choice
An M8 greyhound vs a King Tiger tank (850) M8 Greyhound vs King Tiger 1944 - TH-cam
I would think the firefly would have at least been mentioned, the Sherman chassis with the Brits 7 pounder
Lots of time spent on the German equipment, but no mention of the UKs Achilles? And only one design each for the US and USSR?
Or the unusual Archer
Not that it matters, but a few of those pictures of the Soviet ISU-122 were actually the ISU-152, which had a bigger gun mounted on them
Completely missed out on the American M36 & Soviet SU-100. Both served the longest serving tank destroyers with the M36 fighting in the 1990s Balkan Wars & the SU-100 seeing fighting as recent as the current Yemen civil war. Some still serve as reserves in armies of Morocco, Vietnam, etc. The M36 sported the most powerful anti-tank turret from the US, the M3 90mm gun also used on the largest US tank, the M26 Pershing, and Cold War main battle tanks like the M47 & M48 Pattons, the latter still in use today in Thailand's coups, Greece, Taiwan, Turkey, etc.
The Story of the m36 Jackson is simple. The US had a new 90mm Anti Tank Gun which had the same weight as the 3" Gun the M10 had. So they put the 90mm Inside it. It wad a better Gun but the 90mm Gun wasnt really needed since the 75mm and 76mm could deal with almost any threat.
*Every WW2 armored warfare history buff watching this:* 🤬
Yup. I'm losing my fucking mind right now, bro.
Should have included the M18 Hellcat. The Ferrari of tracked vehicles at that time.
Simon, do a video on the M18 Hellcat. It was a stupid fast Tank Destroyer that could pack a serious punch.