The M18 Hellcat had the high velocity 76mm, not the M10. The M10 carried a canon which was based on the 3 inch naval gun and thus is described as having a 3 inch gun. Later starting in November, 1944 an improved version of the M10, the M36 Jackson, began arriving. It, like the M10 and the M18 had an open topped turret, but it was redesigned as horse shoe shape with the open part of the horseshoe having an improved gun mantle and like the M10 there still had be a counterweight at the back of the turret. Replacing the 3 inch naval gun, the M36 "Jackson" now had a 90mm high velocity gun, improving the killing power. The hull remained the same as the M10. At one point, manufacturers used surplus Sherman hulls, a version of the M36 had an armored hill with a bow mounted machine gun. Because doctrine called for the tank destroyers to be fast in order to find German armor, fire at it and them move quickly to another firing position. To obtain a faster speed than a tank, the M10 hull design had much thinner armor than an M4 Sherman. Before the Normandy invasion, a newly designed hull and turret came out which had slightly thinner armor than the M10, had road wheels and suspension with were totally different from the bogie design used on the Sherman and M10. It utilized a par of larger road wheels with a system more like some of the German tanks used. The track was different and the drive sprocket looked more like a clock gear than a traditional drive sprocket. This was the M18 and the doctrine of firing at a target and then disappearing from the location you fired from. Speed on this tank was close to 60 miles per hour, far faster than the M10 which made about 25-28 miles per hour. That made the M18 the fastest tracked vehicle in the world and would not be surpassed until the Abrams tank arrived about 50 years later. The open topped turret used the same 76mm gun as the later Shermans used but the M18 turret was much smaller and more cramped both in hull and turret sizes than the M10. To make the 76mm gun fit the breech is rotated so that the sides of the breech are not horizontal and vertical as they are in the later model 76 mm Sherman. Note that in the video the M10 is erroneously said to have the 76mm gun. Only the M18 had the 76mm gun. For some reason, the 76 was never provided with a high explosive shell, considered necessary to be of any real help to the infantry that the Sherman was supposed to work with. The M10 did received a high explosive shell and films made during the fight in Northwest Europe and Italy show that the M10 could be used as mobile artillery when needed. AS far as the Sherman is concerned, only the 75 mm Shermans also filled that role. It should be noted that the 75 mm gun on the Sherman was not considered to be highly accurate but an episode in Italy showed that it was the Sherman that was creating a rolling motion when fired. This was discovered when a British Churchill tank with a smaller caliber gun went through an experiment. It was noted that the larger caliber Sherman gun was in great supply because the tanks themselves had been damaged beyond repair. A British officer was given permission to see if the Sherman 75mm gun and mantlet could be fitted to a Churchill. I required some work because the mantlet of the Churchill was located inside the turret rather Han on the outside like the Sherman. The first example was completed and tested and it worked better than expected. In addition, the 75 mm gun was also noted to be more accurate on the Churchill than the Sherman. The reason was that the Churchill's unique hull and suspension provided the tank with a very stable firing platform. There was no rocking motion caused by the tall, narrow Sherman with a different road wheel suspension that caused the barrel to move slightly before the shell left the barrel. Another note. The towed 56 mm anti tank gun was not comparable to the 76mm. It was comparable to the British 6 pound gun and in fact was the same gun, using the same ammunition. The 6 pound gun was also the type gun that was on the Churchill MK 3, and which was replaced by the larger 75mm guns from destroyed Shermans in Italy. Later in the war, the 6 pounder received a new shell which was a discarding sabot shot that was able to pierce the frontal armor of a Panther. And once again, the M18 was not used in any real quantity in Italy, it was still in its testing phase and M10 crews did not like it because it used gasoline rather than desiel fuel and caught fire easily. After the breakout from hedgerow country and the beginning of the rapid advance toward the Seine and Rhine, the M18 was not just able to keep up with the rapid advance, but rather could move forward at twice the speed of a Sherman and the M10. I get my information from the Book Tank Destroyers, the book Mr. Churchills Tank, the Hayne manuals for the Sherman and the Churchill tank. I am not speculating nor am I repeating anything that I have heard on TH-cam. Tank Destroyers is a book filled with after action reports and individual and crew reports during the war, and is in general, following the time line of the war but includes grouping by topic as well. I have also used American Knights as a source.
what does ya book say about the FIREFLY or was it just an upgrade for the sherman ty in advance,also what about the pershing or was that just a tank not a destroyer ty
Two minor corrections. The 76mm gun had a HE Shell available. What was missing until the war ended was a WP Smoke Shell. (Leventhal, Lionel (1996). The American Arsenal.) The connection between Diesel or Gasoline as a reason is...at least questionable. The M10 was Diesel driven, but the M10A1 had gasoline and was seen widely superior to the M10 (Mostly of supply reasons). That is the reason that ALL M36 were M10A1 based and used Gasoline. I'll have to research for the correct source, but if I remember it was a book by Doyle, but I'm not entirely sure! The troops preferred the M10 over the M18 mostly because the armor of the M18 was paper thin. This vehicle was vulnerable to even lighter AT Guns/weapons. No problem in it's true role as an Tank Destroyer, but the TD Crews knew that they had to operate under difficult conditions sometimes. (Like in Normandy after DDay, were M10 had to operate as tanks between Bocages, a role that doesn't fit them well!)
My Dad was a gunner in the 807th TD Battalion. Thank you for this video. I've spent years since his passing researching to understand what he did in WWII because he was one that didn't talk.
My mother inherited a book that may interest either of you, or may lead you in the direction of other books like it? My Grandfather was one of General Patton's assistants, and carried the rank of Captain, he was in the tank destroyers, but I don't know more than that... I will ask my mother for the name of the book, and perhaps we can find the equivalent for your family members? What I know about the book is it's supposed to essentially be a daily journal of WWII written in the perspective of the US Army, and gives stats, movements, supplies, etc. Do either of you have any interest?
The name of the book I mentioned is called: "Combat Record of the sixth armored division in the E.T.O.. from July 18,1944 to May 8 1945" and found a few digital copies of it online... I did some research and found out my Grandfather was in the 603rd Tank Destroyer Battalion...
My dad was a member of a TD battalion , as an adult I found out he had won a silver star by going back into his m36 whose engine had been shot out and while a sitting duck knocked out a number of german tanks when covering a retreat during the bulge . He told the fun stories. The best one was that when they travelled, the gun was covered with a sleeve. Women in the towns they passed through laughed, bc it.looked like a condom in use.
The Tank Destroyer was a specialized concept that was born in a time that the technology was evolving as fast if not faster than the actual tactics and equipment could be delivered to the battle field. To sit here today and judge the decisions being made during the fight for freedom is very arrogant. That said we must look at the out comes from those choices and attempt to make better future predictions about what will be needed in future conflicts. The decisions are that rather than having specialized units for tank battles the military will have a heavy tank that does many roles very well and specialized ammunition for each role to maximize the effectiveness in each role. Great video.
I used to know a fellow David W Neff who was in the 69th division. He was in one of the early tank destroyers, as it was repurposed outside saint Lô. By that time it was called a scout car. He was among a group of them on a crest and watched as the American tank column. Going into that town was absolutely decimated by german fire. He himself took a severe head wound and took several months to recover. After that point they put him into radio communications, Intercepting german radio telegraphy. After the surrender, he was still listening to high ranking transmissions that were considered a supreme important by the americans. David w Neff was a true American hero and like most of them, A very quiet man
The Panthers 75 L70 gun ballistics are indeed most impressive. The later G models started to include the chin mantle that really made this a combat proven tank that changed tank designs until the present day. Great show, many thanks.
I agree 100 percent! AS you know, the big cats including the StrumPanzer which was very nose heavy, had constant problems with the final drives breaking. Currently there is a Tiger E being fully restored in the Australian Armor museum, and while restoring it to running order, they decided to use metals in the final drives that were not around during WW2 and are far stronger. That way they can run the Tiger for audiences outside without the fear of wear and tear on the final drives. Otto Carius who said that the Tiger E was only good for driving about 100 miles on a road and then would have to be repaired. I got this from a TH-cam video that shows Otto getting into a restored Tiger E similar to his during the war, and then he was interviewed and explained quite a few things. He also said that the commander's hatch was actually quite tight for a man to get into but it was amazing how fast the man could get out if it was hit or on fire.
Ill-fated defense of Elsenborn Ridge? From whose point of view? The defense of Elsenborn was a masterpiece of combined arms! Elsenborn became a breakwater, where the German tide broke repeatedly. Nothing got through! Every attack against that line failed. Mainly due to vast amounts of artillery. Not ill-fated at all.
I read an account by an American armored combat command commander regarding an encounter with German armor. They had a TD battalion attached. He was impressed with their performance, noting that the crews were trained to hunt tanks and it showed. The Free French also made good use of M10s supplied to them, particularly from ambush positions.
I interviewed and typed up post-DDay stories of three M-18 guys (two of them medics) and they praised the gun, "We had a hot gun." Several Tigers were hit at a mile. I was surprised to hear that the M-18 had "highest kill-to-loss ratio of any vehicle type in the Army." 27:19. The guys would have been interested in that.
My Pop was in the 818 TDB Co C. He drove a jeep with a trailer to supply the M10's with ammo. His job sounded simple as he probed for mines and directed tanks as well. Until I went to my first reunion with my parents, and I got to see some scrapbook of a couple of widowed ladies. And they made me cry as I saw piles of dead bodies that my Pop was around, and I saw and heard stories that my Pop never told me. And when I took care of my Pop before he passed, I walked down the hall to clean him up in the bathroom; he was apparently hallucinating and told me that he almost shot me and to get into the bathroom quickly, and that he had been shooting Germans all day and that it wasn't fun. I thank God that my Pop made it home OK after being injured at the start of Battle of the Buldge, driving to get or deliver ammo for the Tank Destroyers. He'll always be my hero.
After WW2 the TD branch was considered redundant. Once the medium tank was armed with the same gun and anti-armor ammo. When the tracked TD’s were used as designed, within their doctrine, they worked well. But by 1944 that rarely occured
@@Wastelandman7000 …. And helicopters, and jeep’s carrying anti-armor teams. Pull the army used to use recoilless rifles. So TDs never really went away
Grandpa was 776th tank destroyer Forever grateful for what these stallions endured for our freedom Never ever forget and teach the youth what they went through Edward L Haider 776th TDD
They did but what ended up happening was kind of funny: You started with the M10 TD. It didn't have enough firepower so they eventually put a new gun and turret on it creating the M36. The M36 eventually needed more armor, and they created a steel top for it's turret and improvised armor. Later they decided it needed more anti-infantry capabilities so they put a bow machine gun in it. It basically evolved into a medium tank.
@@tinman3586 It started out in north africa, where it was excellent for its time. It was always a glass cannon but crews were trained in ambush and move tactics. In Normandy in Europe you did not really need a better gun because there were not really much open plains there then lets say in Africa or Italy. They were highly succesful in scouting,ambush, getting off the first shot which was far more important and then move and reposition around the flanks to get a kill.
@@tinman3586 I am fairly certain that the reason for the upgrade from the M10 to the M36 was to be effective at a longer range. The M10 had a gun sufficient for short range destruction, and the multiple angle turret took a longer time to make. It too, received the add on kits to protect the crew inside the turret from snipers. The M36 itself had the same hull as the M10 and they never put a bow machine gun it it. There was a surplus of Sherman hulls and because the turret ring was the same on both tanks, the M36 turret was put on those Shermans which came with a bow machine-gun. You are right, but I just wanted to add detail.
@@LeveretteJamesClifford1955 Well to be fair by 1944 they were facing king tigers,elephants,jagdpanthers ect so it would make sense to upgrade it to the m36. However all the comments i see on lacking anti infantry support i have to explain that tank destroyer battalions had their own eyes and ears, jeeps and scout cars like the m8 would go ahead of the m10s and report enemy infantry,tanks or ambushes. No they were not tanks and even maybe weaker then say a sherman but they operated diffrentLY and thats why they were quite effective.
Commander of US Army Ground Forces Gen. McNair's stated policy was tanks do not fight tanks. Fighting tanks is the role of towed anti-tank guns. The Germans had a similar policy at the beginning of WW II. During the 1940 invasion of France Rommel ordered his anti-aircraft battalion with 88 mm guns to engage Allied tanks about to flank his bridgehead.The Wehrmacht anti-tank weapon was a towed 37 mm gun. German grunts came to call it the "door knocker" because it made no impression on the thick front armored French tanks. After the germans encountered the Russian KV and T-34 official opinion changed.
Maybe, but, if you look at the field manuals for both tank destroyers and tanks it stated clearly the tanks were intended to engage tanks. Technically McNair was right about one thing though, the best way to destroy tanks is with heavy artillery. But, if the tanks ran into them the were to engage and destroy. If the enemy got past the tanks then the tank destroyers would prevent a breakthrough.
Rommel knew the 37mm was too small to destroy French (or any) armor. Thus the 88mm was born as anti tank. I thought this happened at a different point in the war, but whatever.
M36 was a beast, the 90mm gun was a match to the German 88mm, I wish they would have put the M26 turret/gun on the Shermans (they did but only testing).
The commander of US 2nd Armored Division, Isaac D White, wasn't a fan of it. In his report to Eisenhower in March 1945 he wrote : "Tank Destroyer, M36: Has not lived up to expectations, but when HVAP ammunition becomes available it is hoped that it will be more effective. Fighting compartment precludes efficient service of the piece and available ammunition is not effective at required long range."
The TD’s were useful in situations where the Army was fighting a mobile defense. Employing a “shoot and scoot” action, attacking, then repositioning. The U.S. Army did not have a situation as they pushed quickly across Europe, to effectively use TDs. It was the battles where Germany counterattacked, such as Arracourt, and the Bulge, that they were more effective. American doctrine for both using TDs and tanks was incredibly foolish. The M18 was the best design for a shoot and scoot defensive battle. The M36 had the most effective weapon, but not fast. A super Hellcat would have been very effective in an effective role. Had they been built and deployed alongside Pershings and Sherman 76s, (even T29, T30, 32, 34) they might have been even more effective.
😎👍Very cool and very nicely greatly well done and informatively explained and executed in every detail way shape and format provided on the U.S.Armys Various Tank Destroyer Battalions of M10's, M18's and M36's during WW2 on their roles and mission parameters during combat, A job very fabulously well done indeed Sir's!👌.
You also might want to ask why the German Stug does not more credit for destroying many Sherman tanks, why is it always the King Tigers and Panthers that get all the attention ??
TBH the Stug killed more of every kind of armor than the Tigers and Panthers combined. Technically it wasn't the best, but, as a practical matter it was the workhorse that kept Germany viable. War would have been over much quicker if they had to rely entirely on the Panzers.
Probably because they both have become mythical creatures, Otto Carius was one of the most well known STuG commanders. I own the Krim Shield of the Hauptmann who had earned his DKiG at the Dnepr river for halting several Russian divisions at a bridge there-with two STUGS and about a Kompanie of Infanterie. His name was Hauptmann Hans Augustin.
Overall, a cool presentation on a fighting vehicle type that is largely overlooked. Just a note on the 'half tracks' Half tracks (M3 Tank Destroyers) were not armed with 'French 75's'. These were initially armed with US M1897 Model A Mark 4 75mm guns. Later production models were up-gunned with the A5 gun and an improved armor piercing round. Keep up the great work!
Excellent video. My father was in the 630th TD Battalion, and was one of those units equipped with the M5 3" towed gun until March of 1945, when they converted to the M36. Only (very minor) complaint I have is that, although well represented in the dialog, I only saw one M5 3" gun in the video. Most other times it was mentioned, there was footage of 57mm AT guns, 105mm or 155mm Howitzers, or 90mm Anti Aircraft guns. I imagine there is little footage of the 3" gun in film, though I have seen many still photos of them. Still, especially information-wise, this video is excellent!
Well done. Im' a big WW2 fan boy and have been looking for a video on American TDs thats more than a passing refetence . A few gaps here and there but overall well done.
That is true....yet we still have them. Its just that modern tank destroyers use missiles. They may not be officially designated such, but, they still do the same job.
@@muskokamike127 This is true to a point. But, one reason Allied armor had such high casualty rates was because the German armor was very good at playing defense. Which means too often we were driving into their ambushes and not the other way around. If you look at the Battle of Arracourt where the Allies forced the Germans to come to them the Shermans (mostly armed with 75's) did quite well. And they were mostly facing Panthers and Stugs. After the battle the butcher's bill was that of the 262 tanks and assault guns the Germans threw into the fight 86 were destroyed outright. 114 were badly damaged and broken down, and only 62 were operational. The allies lost lost 25 tanks and 7 tank destroyers. As a division, the 4th AD lost some 41 M4 medium tanks and 7 M5A1 light tanks during the whole month of September. So tactics and position trump armor and firepower. Besides, Panthers and Tigers had their weak points. And even the Jagdtiger was vulnerable on the sides and back.
It wasn't that US TD's didn't perform well it had more to do with a lack of targets. After the D day landings the British (as per Monty's plan) faced the majority of German Panzers the vast majority of Panzers fought in Russia. I saw a Pic of M 10's parked on the slope of a hill for elevation of the gun they were being used ad indirect artillery
Fireflies played a big role in the heavy fighting between British and Canadian armor and German tanks in Normandy. It was still tough going since a lot of the German tanks had high velocity guns that could kill Shermans. The allies lost a lot of tanks but they also killed German tanks that could not be replaced and kept most of them away from the Americans who were able to build up reletively unmolested for the breakout.
@@markbrandon7359 It depends if You mean the tank or the armor. The knights of the late middle age had a „Panzerung or a Panzer (armor) on their bodies too. So it means this and a tank. They called them also Panzerreiter (Armor rider).
I met Sgt. Early, the gunner on the Pershing at 23:56, in 2019 in Denver. There was a small parade in his honor and I was dressed as armored infantry. We didn't have a Pershing, but there was a Stuart and a couple of halftracks there at Union Station.
Gimme a Hellcat baby. Aside from their speed and lethality, they probably were less likely to get into trouble traveling through the muddy fields and streets. Several Tigers got bogged down and were subsequently abandoned.
Specialized vehicles were too inflexible. When a unit comes across the enemy, they just don't know if they are going to face foot soldiers or tanks. Thus, you need ONE vehicle that can do it all, thus the main battle tank. Tank destroyers would just be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Modern battle was just too unpredictable.
That was the big thing about shermans, even though they could be knocked out with ease by tigers, they encountered them so rarely. Shermans were mostly used as anti personnel and assault vehicles. (from what I have read)
@@muskokamike127 Kretschmer ( 12 SS.) en a détruit allégrement 36 avec son vieux Panzer 4 Les 14 Panzerjäger de la même unité en ont détruit 96 blindés US. Ratio 6 US pour 1 JgPz IV, cependant plusieurs PzJg IV (3 ou 4 il existe des photos ) ont pu passer la Seine. Les USA reconnaissent la perte total de plus de 900 chars rien que pour la Normandie. Les allemands 1200 . Mais les chiffres anglais, canadiens, polonais, français , NZ, australiens et belges ne sont pas donnés. Pourquoi?
First shot first kill is largely a myth. It depended entirely on the AFV type and the range plus whether or not the target is frontally or on its flank. Etc.
@@muskokamike127 I'll repeat, it's a myth that's it's 'usually'. It all depended on the situation. Are you even aware that the mean range in Europe was 800 yards?
The TD concept was a good one in principle, though prior to the appearance of the M36 Jackson, the success of American TDs was limited by guns that were inadequate for the jobs they were expected to accomplish.
I’ll bet the Firefly isn’t mentioned. It was the main protagonist against Tigers and Panthers. A Sherman with a British 17-pounder anti tank gun mounted. If you want to know how tank destroyers fared, read about the Kasserine Pass. They were destroyed by Nazi armour.
We forget how desperate we were at the time, the 76 gun was our antitank weapon 75 high explosive was better anti personnel anti bunker . With our long logistics lines it would take months for our latest greatest weapons to arrive if they were any good. Pershing tank was better but weight and size prevented it from getting to the front in a timely manner, where m4 , m10 and other TD’s could travel on rail , ships, and bridges as is
The 894th, the 749th the 601st,and several other Tank Destroyer Battalions were critical to both the survival,and breakout for the capture of Anzio,Italy in 1944. One made a confirmed kill of a German tank from almost 10,000 yards!
@@01Bouwhuis both had greater range and accuracy than most allied tanks / tank destroyers , so unless you got off the first shot where it counted , at close range , it was curtains
You left out the M 36 B . This was M36 turrent sitting on top of the M 4 Sherman hull . My father served in a M 36 B in the 813th tank destroyer battalion , company B .
The Tank Destroyer was just a self-propelled anti-tank gun with similar vehicles in most armies. However General McNair, Chief - Army Ground Forces, set up his Tank Destroyers as the only anti-tank force, in doing so he neglected the tank and relegated it to Infantry Support armed with weak low power guns. During his time in office all improved tanks with thicker armour and better guns were cancelled. After his death in 1944 the Tank Destroyer development was cancelled and the entire Tank Destroyer Command was disbanded in late 1945.
Good tactics and coordinated operations made the 75mm armed Shermans more than capable of dealing with the heavier German tanks. No, they could not engage head-on, but they regularly knocked out tigers and panthers from the side and rear. Sherman loses reflect the fact that they were often attacking embedded and well-prepared German defenses.
@@aitken1965 Sacrificing a few tanks so one could get a kill shot, might have been good on paper. My uncle was in the sherman's , had hip troubles from being bounced around. I read that Patton decided against having bigger tanks available in the book, Death Trap, written by an officer in the tank maintenance units
Used properly, they did their jobs. Mind their job was to stand in the rear and stop counter attacks. At least in theory. In practice they sometimes had to be more aggressive than they were designed to be.
The M-10 and the M-18 were a "Stop Gap" that worked. How to put the biggest gun the American Armory could provide. The 76 mm Cannon sucked. The British 17 Pounder was very effective! Move and fire while moving as a pack worked as the open terrain suited them. Limited units got the 90 mm gun which was not that hard to mount into the Mantle of an M-10. Just like the limited deployment of the M-26. The crews made this work. Blood sweat and tears.
Who's going to argue against Patton? lol. But the fact the army was able to successfully re-purpose their TD's says a lot about how much they had grown as a professional army.
Decent video, but M10's had a 3 inch gun. Yes, in measurement it was 76mm, but it was not considered a 76mm. The M5 3 inch towed gun was the gun for the M10, not the actual, true 76 mm. They were a different case. Now the M18 did use the 76mm, NOT the 3 inch
The Germans had tank destroyers long before the Americans! The Stug III was by far the most successful. and was responsible for more enemy kills than any other German armored vehicle!
The picture at the beginning of this video, the Sherman with all the sandbags up on front of the two soldiers sitting behind! I guess the designer of the Sherman never saw that picture!🤷🏻♂️
The Cobra and Apache helicopters, the Sheridan, the Improved TOW vehicle, and the Strykers in both missile and 105mm gun variants would disagree with you. The attack helicopter embodies the Tank Destroyer doctrine perfectly. Future tank destroyer units might be composed of small remote controlled vehicles packing dozens of launchers for drone guided from operators in vans miles away.
I don't think they had the gun elevation for that. If you look at arty it usually fires at very high angles for indirect fire. The TDs were designed for direct fire. They'd have to design a new turret and replace the gun.
As the war drug on, the TDs were more and more used as self-propelled artillery, party due to lack of targets. And, to Westelandman's point, since TDs weren't designed as SP artillery they were sometimes driven onto ramps to boost elevation.
@@Wastelandman7000 Thanks, That might be true but they should have been designed for mobile artillery and secondary as tank destroyers. You can never have enough artillery support.
I believe the tank destroyer concept was flawed and its disappearance after the war supports that conclusion. The TD strategy didn't merge well with the overall nature of the allied offensive nature while TD's tasks were basically defensive. Another problem arose because they looked like a tank and too many commanders figured if it looked like a tank it could fight like a tank. So they tried to use them like tanks if no real tanks were available. That was bad news for the TD because their light armor was vulnerable to about everything that was shot at them.
My father was in the 801st TD Batallion ....does someone know what tank they used from Normandy through the Bulge?? M10 is the best info I have but not definitive.......thanks
Well said but, I disagree your assessment of Tank Destroyers. My former roommate's father-was a Tank Destroyer commander in WWII. You're correct on them being used as a scout, but they were a scout with a heavy punch. They took up slack for Shermans. That said, I have a few photos of them in action. But can't find a way to post them here. My former roommates father, was a Sergent in the 704th?? sorry I can't accurately remember?) Tank Destroyer battalion. One of his thoughts was penciled on the back of a photo he took off a Hitler Youth after losing 10 men assaulting their bunker. It said: "We lost 10 men taking this bunker from those bastards." The photo was a photo of the several Hitler Youth manning that bunker. These men were in the M-10 and M-36 TD's.
Hitting and destroying a Panther at 4 km with a 90 mm gun? As a gunner on a Leopard 1 tank in the 80's, it was for us difficult to hit a target at 2.5 km's.... We used to target tanks at 1 til 1.8 km's away. The terrain also would not allow it. Housing, forest, hills etc.
At the start of the Cobra offensive in mormandy, the US had forty five battalions of tank destroyers available, the equivalent of fifteen tank divisions of vehicles, none of which were capable of offensive action, and none of which ever, in the entire war, fought as battalions. The doctrine was flawed, the number produced was a waste, and the quantityof fuel used simply to move them around was near criminal neglect in terms of the ongoing western allied supply shortages. Creating a massive force of defensive weapons to face an enemy on the strategic and mostly operational defensive was a case of 'let's have this because we can', rather than any critical analysis of need.
Mostly of tank crew from panzerdivvision in 1944 where young whithout experience on western front mostly of veteran have disappeared on the eastern front The right answer to the heavypanzer was the firefly and the Pershing the beast
The success of the Wehrmacht in France 1940 was not due to packing hundreds of tanks in a small attacking front but rather the concept of ‘all arms’ warfare.
Yes and no. The Panzer divisions in the Ardennes (which I know I'm spelling incorrectly) did send large numbers of tanks to overwhelm the defenses in that sector. It's called hitting the schwerpunkt (I'm spelling that wrong too ...) or concentrating their forces in a single area to overwhelm the defenders, rather than across a wider front. Across the theater during the Battle of France I agree with you, the Germans were better at combined arms warfare. The fact that they DID send overwhelming numbers of tanks to a single point was the reason the US came up with the Tank Destroyer doctrine in the first place. See Nicholas Moran's book "Can Openers"
24:06 Sniper free spires! Tipperary Ireland different story 12th. century Roscrey Round Tower 'tower was 6m higher but was shortened after the 1798 rebellion after rebels used the tower to snipe from'.
Except the majority of German armour could easily be dealt with by allied forces. It is now considered that the US AT strategy was flawed from the beginning. At the time they entered the war he majority of US AT units used towed AT guns, but this was at a time when the Axis were starting to change to a totally defensive strategy. basically McNair got it wrong.
I believe it comes down to character, tanks are not heavy cavalry, they are chariots, as the roles of the fabled cavalry charges have been taken up by aircraft, if you can flatten tanks and infantry as fighter bomber you get more merits then tankers, sadly,
You can't hold terrain, even for a minute, in a plane. It wasn't until the 80s that aircraft could even reliably target & kill tanks & armored vehicles...so, until then, the tanks & other mechanized forces were absolutely cavalry. Since then, look at the Battle of 73 Easting for proof that modern tanks can still be cavalry. They've not been used effectively by either side in the Ukraine war, because neither side has air superiority... but any notion of the aircraft & drones being cavalry is foolhardy.
american tank destroyers, some of them were amazing, but none of them compared to just how affective the german assault gun stug3 was and it was built from a panzer 3 hull
Ok, 28 seconds in and I've already got an issue with the narrative. The Tank destroyer force wasn't "innovative" it is what held back decent tank design until the very end of the war. Generals arguing about whether tanks should be armed properly to deal with a whole array of targets or whether they were there simply to lob HE at things for the infantry. Had we chinned the notion of tank destroyers off, we could have had proper tanks much earlier in the war with the industrial output to roll them out en-masse. Tank destroyers were certainly useful and, being cheaper than tanks could have easily had a place in the orbat all the same but the doctrine of tank destroyers was a detriment to allied success rate.
Surely a tank should be the vehicle designed to destroy enemy tanks and withstand tank rounds. Tank destroyers wouldn't be needed if we had more powerful guns on our tanks at the start of the war.
9:58 Did honestly just call a fifty cal, which was probably written on your script in the format ".50 cal," a "point five zero caliber machine gun?" Honestly, you probably needed to be more specific as there are other .50 cal / 12.7mm cartridges, and specified it as a .50 BMG, which stands for "Browning Machine Gun." Regardless you need to call it a "fifty cal," with "cal" being short for caliber, which is a unit of measurement describing the internal diameter of a cartridge in tenths of an inch (for small arms, it's different for naval artillery since they're so much bigger). Further, for small arms, "caliber" is always stated in the singular, where as an artillery piece of multiple full calibers would be stated in the plural...because again, it's a discrete unit of measurement. Tell me you're not familiar with the subject matter of your script without telling me you're unfamiliar with the material of your script.... In all seriousness, this was so jarring that I stopped the video just to write this comment.
The M18 Hellcat had the high velocity 76mm, not the M10. The M10 carried a canon which was based on the 3 inch naval gun and thus is described as having a 3 inch gun. Later starting in November, 1944 an improved version of the M10, the M36 Jackson, began arriving. It, like the M10 and the M18 had an open topped turret, but it was redesigned as horse shoe shape with the open part of the horseshoe having an improved gun mantle and like the M10 there still had be a counterweight at the back of the turret. Replacing the 3 inch naval gun, the M36 "Jackson" now had a 90mm high velocity gun, improving the killing power. The hull remained the same as the M10. At one point, manufacturers used surplus Sherman hulls, a version of the M36 had an armored hill with a bow mounted machine gun. Because doctrine called for the tank destroyers to be fast in order to find German armor, fire at it and them move quickly to another firing position. To obtain a faster speed than a tank, the M10 hull design had much thinner armor than an M4 Sherman. Before the Normandy invasion, a newly designed hull and turret came out which had slightly thinner armor than the M10, had road wheels and suspension with were totally different from the bogie design used on the Sherman and M10. It utilized a par of larger road wheels with a system more like some of the German tanks used. The track was different and the drive sprocket looked more like a clock gear than a traditional drive sprocket. This was the M18 and the doctrine of firing at a target and then disappearing from the location you fired from. Speed on this tank was close to 60 miles per hour, far faster than the M10 which made about 25-28 miles per hour. That made the M18 the fastest tracked vehicle in the world and would not be surpassed until the Abrams tank arrived about 50 years later. The open topped turret used the same 76mm gun as the later Shermans used but the M18 turret was much smaller and more cramped both in hull and turret sizes than the M10. To make the 76mm gun fit the breech is rotated so that the sides of the breech are not horizontal and vertical as they are in the later model 76 mm Sherman. Note that in the video the M10 is erroneously said to have the 76mm gun. Only the M18 had the 76mm gun. For some reason, the 76 was never provided with a high explosive shell, considered necessary to be of any real help to the infantry that the Sherman was supposed to work with. The M10 did received a high explosive shell and films made during the fight in Northwest Europe and Italy show that the M10 could be used as mobile artillery when needed. AS far as the Sherman is concerned, only the 75 mm Shermans also filled that role. It should be noted that the 75 mm gun on the Sherman was not considered to be highly accurate but an episode in Italy showed that it was the Sherman that was creating a rolling motion when fired. This was discovered when a British Churchill tank with a smaller caliber gun went through an experiment. It was noted that the larger caliber Sherman gun was in great supply because the tanks themselves had been damaged beyond repair. A British officer was given permission to see if the Sherman 75mm gun and mantlet could be fitted to a Churchill. I required some work because the mantlet of the Churchill was located inside the turret rather Han on the outside like the Sherman. The first example was completed and tested and it worked better than expected. In addition, the 75 mm gun was also noted to be more accurate on the Churchill than the Sherman. The reason was that the Churchill's unique hull and suspension provided the tank with a very stable firing platform. There was no rocking motion caused by the tall, narrow Sherman with a different road wheel suspension that caused the barrel to move slightly before the shell left the barrel.
Another note. The towed 56 mm anti tank gun was not comparable to the 76mm. It was comparable to the British 6 pound gun and in fact was the same gun, using the same ammunition. The 6 pound gun was also the type gun that was on the Churchill MK 3, and which was replaced by the larger 75mm guns from destroyed Shermans in Italy. Later in the war, the 6 pounder received a new shell which was a discarding sabot shot that was able to pierce the frontal armor of a Panther. And once again, the M18 was not used in any real quantity in Italy, it was still in its testing phase and M10 crews did not like it because it used gasoline rather than desiel fuel and caught fire easily. After the breakout from hedgerow country and the beginning of the rapid advance toward the Seine and Rhine, the M18 was not just able to keep up with the rapid advance, but rather could move forward at twice the speed of a Sherman and the M10. I get my information from the Book Tank Destroyers, the book Mr. Churchills Tank, the Hayne manuals for the Sherman and the Churchill tank. I am not speculating nor am I repeating anything that I have heard on TH-cam. Tank Destroyers is a book filled with after action reports and individual and crew reports during the war, and is in general, following the time line of the war but includes grouping by topic as well. I have also used American Knights as a source.
what does ya book say about the FIREFLY or was it just an upgrade for the sherman ty in advance,also what about the pershing or was that just a tank not a destroyer ty
Useful comment. Cheers!
The 90mm was a hell of a gun, turned Tigers and Panthers from unstoppable terror weapons to sitting ducks and easy cannon fodder!
Two minor corrections.
The 76mm gun had a HE Shell available.
What was missing until the war ended was a WP Smoke Shell. (Leventhal, Lionel (1996). The American Arsenal.)
The connection between Diesel or Gasoline as a reason is...at least questionable.
The M10 was Diesel driven, but the M10A1 had gasoline and was seen widely superior to the M10 (Mostly of supply reasons).
That is the reason that ALL M36 were M10A1 based and used Gasoline.
I'll have to research for the correct source, but if I remember it was a book by Doyle, but I'm not entirely sure!
The troops preferred the M10 over the M18 mostly because the armor of the M18 was paper thin. This vehicle was vulnerable to even lighter AT Guns/weapons.
No problem in it's true role as an Tank Destroyer, but the TD Crews knew that they had to operate under difficult conditions sometimes.
(Like in Normandy after DDay, were M10 had to operate as tanks between Bocages, a role that doesn't fit them well!)
Have a little bit to say?
My Dad was a gunner in the 807th TD Battalion. Thank you for this video. I've spent years since his passing researching to understand what he did in WWII because he was one that didn't talk.
Thanks for his service we are here,, my dad rarely talked about all his time there...
My mother inherited a book that may interest either of you, or may lead you in the direction of other books like it? My Grandfather was one of General Patton's assistants, and carried the rank of Captain, he was in the tank destroyers, but I don't know more than that... I will ask my mother for the name of the book, and perhaps we can find the equivalent for your family members? What I know about the book is it's supposed to essentially be a daily journal of WWII written in the perspective of the US Army, and gives stats, movements, supplies, etc.
Do either of you have any interest?
Most didn't talk bc what they saw
The name of the book I mentioned is called: "Combat Record of the sixth armored division in the E.T.O.. from July 18,1944 to May 8 1945" and found a few digital copies of it online...
I did some research and found out my Grandfather was in the 603rd Tank Destroyer Battalion...
My dad was a member of a TD battalion , as an adult I found out he had won a silver star by going back into his m36 whose engine had been shot out and while a sitting duck knocked out a number of german tanks when covering a retreat during the bulge .
He told the fun stories. The best one was that when they travelled, the gun was covered with a sleeve. Women in the towns they passed through laughed, bc it.looked like a condom in use.
No music and a good narrator makes this a top class video.
Bravo!!
Many thanks!
there was music tho. u deaf bro
@@noob.168the music was in the fire test videos not in the video itself
The Tank Destroyer was a specialized concept that was born in a time that the technology was evolving as fast if not faster than the actual tactics and equipment could be delivered to the battle field.
To sit here today and judge the decisions being made during the fight for freedom is very arrogant.
That said we must look at the out comes from those choices and attempt to make better future predictions about what will be needed in future conflicts.
The decisions are that rather than having specialized units for tank battles the military will have a heavy tank that does many roles very well and specialized ammunition for each role to maximize the effectiveness in each role.
Great video.
StuG is a daddy for all of these😊
You have included much footage that I have not seen elsewhere. Excellent.
I used to know a fellow David W Neff who was in the 69th division. He was in one of the early tank destroyers, as it was repurposed outside saint Lô.
By that time it was called a scout car.
He was among a group of them on a crest and watched as the American tank column. Going into that town was absolutely decimated by german fire.
He himself took a severe head wound and took several months to recover.
After that point they put him into radio communications, Intercepting german radio telegraphy.
After the surrender, he was still listening to high ranking transmissions that were considered a supreme important by the americans.
David w Neff was a true American hero and like most of them, A very quiet man
The tank destroyer concept still lives in the US Army - they are called AH-64 Apaches.
A-10 Warthogs too ;-))
@@CarlEvans-t6h Not in the US Army.
Drones
The Panthers 75 L70 gun ballistics are indeed most impressive. The later G models started to include the chin mantle that really made this a combat proven tank that changed tank designs until the present day. Great show, many thanks.
I agree 100 percent! AS you know, the big cats including the StrumPanzer which was very nose heavy, had constant problems with the final drives breaking. Currently there is a Tiger E being fully restored in the Australian Armor museum, and while restoring it to running order, they decided to use metals in the final drives that were not around during WW2 and are far stronger. That way they can run the Tiger for audiences outside without the fear of wear and tear on the final drives. Otto Carius who said that the Tiger E was only good for driving about 100 miles on a road and then would have to be repaired. I got this from a TH-cam video that shows Otto getting into a restored Tiger E similar to his during the war, and then he was interviewed and explained quite a few things. He also said that the commander's hatch was actually quite tight for a man to get into but it was amazing how fast the man could get out if it was hit or on fire.
Ill-fated defense of Elsenborn Ridge? From whose point of view? The defense of Elsenborn was a masterpiece of combined arms! Elsenborn became a breakwater, where the German tide broke repeatedly. Nothing got through! Every attack against that line failed. Mainly due to vast amounts of artillery. Not ill-fated at all.
Spoken like a true Englishman.
I read an account by an American armored combat command commander regarding an encounter with German armor. They had a TD battalion attached. He was impressed with their performance, noting that the crews were trained to hunt tanks and it showed. The Free French also made good use of M10s supplied to them, particularly from ambush positions.
I interviewed and typed up post-DDay stories of three M-18 guys (two of them medics) and they praised the gun, "We had a hot gun." Several Tigers were hit at a mile. I was surprised to hear that the M-18 had "highest kill-to-loss ratio of any vehicle type in the Army." 27:19. The guys would have been interested in that.
My Pop was in the 818 TDB Co C. He drove a jeep with a trailer to supply the M10's with ammo. His job sounded simple as he probed for mines and directed tanks as well. Until I went to my first reunion with my parents, and I got to see some scrapbook of a couple of widowed ladies. And they made me cry as I saw piles of dead bodies that my Pop was around, and I saw and heard stories that my Pop never told me. And when I took care of my Pop before he passed, I walked down the hall to clean him up in the bathroom; he was apparently hallucinating and told me that he almost shot me and to get into the bathroom quickly, and that he had been shooting Germans all day and that it wasn't fun. I thank God that my Pop made it home OK after being injured at the start of Battle of the Buldge, driving to get or deliver ammo for the Tank Destroyers. He'll always be my hero.
After WW2 the TD branch was considered redundant. Once the medium tank was armed with the same gun and anti-armor ammo. When the tracked TD’s were used as designed, within their doctrine, they worked well. But by 1944 that rarely occured
Yet, ironically, we still have AFVs that can still do the job of tank destroyers, only they're armed with missiles.
@@Wastelandman7000 …. And helicopters, and jeep’s carrying anti-armor teams. Pull the army used to use recoilless rifles. So TDs never really went away
Grandpa was 776th tank destroyer
Forever grateful for what these stallions endured for our freedom
Never ever forget and teach the youth what they went through
Edward L Haider 776th TDD
lololo. go back to your room old man. story time is over.
the m10s and hellcats performed quite well actually if you read some battle accounts.
They did but what ended up happening was kind of funny:
You started with the M10 TD. It didn't have enough firepower so they eventually put a new gun and turret on it creating the M36.
The M36 eventually needed more armor, and they created a steel top for it's turret and improvised armor.
Later they decided it needed more anti-infantry capabilities so they put a bow machine gun in it.
It basically evolved into a medium tank.
Not really
@@tinman3586 It started out in north africa, where it was excellent for its time. It was always a glass cannon but crews were trained in ambush and move tactics. In Normandy in Europe you did not really need a better gun because there were not really much open plains there then lets say in Africa or Italy. They were highly succesful in scouting,ambush, getting off the first shot which was far more important and then move and reposition around the flanks to get a kill.
@@tinman3586 I am fairly certain that the reason for the upgrade from the M10 to the M36 was to be effective at a longer range. The M10 had a gun sufficient for short range destruction, and the multiple angle turret took a longer time to make. It too, received the add on kits to protect the crew inside the turret from snipers. The M36 itself had the same hull as the M10 and they never put a bow machine gun it it. There was a surplus of Sherman hulls and because the turret ring was the same on both tanks, the M36 turret was put on those Shermans which came with a bow machine-gun. You are right, but I just wanted to add detail.
@@LeveretteJamesClifford1955 Well to be fair by 1944 they were facing king tigers,elephants,jagdpanthers ect so it would make sense to upgrade it to the m36. However all the comments i see on lacking anti infantry support i have to explain that tank destroyer battalions had their own eyes and ears, jeeps and scout cars like the m8 would go ahead of the m10s and report enemy infantry,tanks or ambushes. No they were not tanks and even maybe weaker then say a sherman but they operated diffrentLY and thats why they were quite effective.
Commander of US Army Ground Forces Gen. McNair's stated policy was tanks do not fight tanks. Fighting tanks is the role of towed anti-tank guns. The Germans had a similar policy at the beginning of WW II. During the 1940 invasion of France Rommel ordered his anti-aircraft battalion with 88 mm guns to engage Allied tanks about to flank his bridgehead.The Wehrmacht anti-tank weapon was a towed 37 mm gun. German grunts came to call it the "door knocker" because it made no impression on the thick front armored French tanks. After the germans encountered the Russian KV and T-34 official opinion changed.
Maybe, but, if you look at the field manuals for both tank destroyers and tanks it stated clearly the tanks were intended to engage tanks. Technically McNair was right about one thing though, the best way to destroy tanks is with heavy artillery. But, if the tanks ran into them the were to engage and destroy. If the enemy got past the tanks then the tank destroyers would prevent a breakthrough.
Rommel knew the 37mm was too small to destroy French (or any) armor. Thus the 88mm was born as anti tank. I thought this happened at a different point in the war, but whatever.
My father was in a tank destroyer unit in world war II he was a radio man. His unit had the m10s
M36 was a beast, the 90mm gun was a match to the German 88mm, I wish they would have put the M26 turret/gun on the Shermans (they did but only testing).
The commander of US 2nd Armored Division, Isaac D White, wasn't a fan of it. In his report to Eisenhower in March 1945 he wrote :
"Tank Destroyer, M36: Has not lived up to expectations, but when HVAP ammunition becomes available it is hoped that it will be more effective. Fighting compartment precludes efficient service of the piece and available ammunition is not effective at required long range."
The TD’s were useful in situations where the Army was fighting a mobile defense. Employing a “shoot and scoot” action, attacking, then repositioning. The U.S. Army did not have a situation as they pushed quickly across Europe, to effectively use TDs. It was the battles where Germany counterattacked, such as Arracourt, and the Bulge, that they were more effective.
American doctrine for both using TDs and tanks was incredibly foolish.
The M18 was the best design for a shoot and scoot defensive battle. The M36 had the most effective weapon, but not fast. A super Hellcat would have been very effective in an effective role. Had they been built and deployed alongside Pershings and Sherman 76s, (even T29, T30, 32, 34) they might have been even more effective.
😎👍Very cool and very nicely greatly well done and informatively explained and executed in every detail way shape and format provided on the U.S.Armys Various Tank Destroyer Battalions of M10's, M18's and M36's during WW2 on their roles and mission parameters during combat, A job very fabulously well done indeed Sir's!👌.
👀
You also might want to ask why the German Stug does not more credit for destroying many Sherman tanks, why is it always the King Tigers and Panthers that get all the attention ??
TBH the Stug killed more of every kind of armor than the Tigers and Panthers combined. Technically it wasn't the best, but, as a practical matter it was the workhorse that kept Germany viable. War would have been over much quicker if they had to rely entirely on the Panzers.
Probably because they both have become mythical creatures, Otto Carius was one of the most well known STuG commanders. I own the Krim Shield of the Hauptmann who had earned his DKiG at the Dnepr river for halting several Russian divisions at a bridge there-with two STUGS and about a Kompanie of Infanterie. His name was Hauptmann Hans Augustin.
Tigers and Panthers were bigger and scary! The STuG was so effective because it was used in the defensive, ambushing Allied tanks.
One huge advantage of the Hellcats was they had the best flotation of any allied AFV. They could fly right past Shermans that were bogged down.
Overall, a cool presentation on a fighting vehicle type that is largely overlooked.
Just a note on the 'half tracks'
Half tracks (M3 Tank Destroyers) were not armed with 'French 75's'. These were initially armed with US M1897 Model A Mark 4 75mm guns. Later production models were up-gunned with the A5 gun and an improved armor piercing round.
Keep up the great work!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Excellent video. My father was in the 630th TD Battalion, and was one of those units equipped with the M5 3" towed gun until March of 1945, when they converted to the M36. Only (very minor) complaint I have is that, although well represented in the dialog, I only saw one M5 3" gun in the video. Most other times it was mentioned, there was footage of 57mm AT guns, 105mm or 155mm Howitzers, or 90mm Anti Aircraft guns. I imagine there is little footage of the 3" gun in film, though I have seen many still photos of them. Still, especially information-wise, this video is excellent!
🏆🤗🙏🎖️
Thank you for sharing this
Thanks for visiting
Well done. Im' a big WW2 fan boy and have been looking for a video on American TDs thats more than a passing refetence . A few gaps here and there but overall well done.
Abrams said "We don't need tank killers,we need killer tanks".
that's true, and the guns on the sherman were inadequate in the early stages but as some have noted, they rarely encountered tigers and panthers.
That is true....yet we still have them. Its just that modern tank destroyers use missiles. They may not be officially designated such, but, they still do the same job.
@@muskokamike127 This is true to a point. But, one reason Allied armor had such high casualty rates was because the German armor was very good at playing defense. Which means too often we were driving into their ambushes and not the other way around. If you look at the Battle of Arracourt where the Allies forced the Germans to come to them the Shermans (mostly armed with 75's) did quite well. And they were mostly facing Panthers and Stugs.
After the battle the butcher's bill was that of the 262 tanks and assault guns the Germans threw into the fight 86 were destroyed outright. 114 were badly damaged and broken down, and only 62 were operational. The allies lost lost 25 tanks and 7 tank destroyers. As a division, the 4th AD lost some 41 M4 medium tanks and 7 M5A1 light tanks during the whole month of September.
So tactics and position trump armor and firepower.
Besides, Panthers and Tigers had their weak points. And even the Jagdtiger was vulnerable on the sides and back.
I'm with Patton on his post war assessment.
Great video, a few minor technical details are incorrect but the broad strokes are right on, i even learned a couple new things
It wasn't that US TD's didn't perform well it had more to do with a lack of targets. After the D day landings the British (as per Monty's plan) faced the majority of German Panzers the vast majority of Panzers fought in Russia. I saw a Pic of M 10's parked on the slope of a hill for elevation of the gun they were being used ad indirect artillery
Panzer, not panzers please.
@@wolfganggugelweith8760 The German translation of panzer is armor but I'm not German
Fireflies played a big role in the heavy fighting between British and Canadian armor and German tanks in Normandy. It was still tough going since a lot of the German tanks had high velocity guns that could kill Shermans. The allies lost a lot of tanks but they also killed German tanks that could not be replaced and kept most of them away from the Americans who were able to build up reletively unmolested for the breakout.
@@markbrandon7359 It depends if You mean the tank or the armor. The knights of the late middle age had a „Panzerung or a Panzer (armor) on their bodies too. So it means this and a tank. They called them also Panzerreiter (Armor rider).
@@wolfganggugelweith8760 so wouldn't the plural of tank (tanks) be panzers???
3:50 "This is for the newsreels, boys, so act interested."
Great video as always
Thank you!
My dad was in artillery in WW2, i don't know what cannon but the 105mm was said. He talked of the 175mm was a real beast,
I met Sgt. Early, the gunner on the Pershing at 23:56, in 2019 in Denver. There was a small parade in his honor and I was dressed as armored infantry. We didn't have a Pershing, but there was a Stuart and a couple of halftracks there at Union Station.
My mistake; Sgt Early was the commander and Cpl. Clarence Smoyer was the gunner I met.
Gimme a Hellcat baby. Aside from their speed and lethality, they probably were less likely to get into trouble traveling through the muddy fields and streets. Several Tigers got bogged down and were subsequently abandoned.
I cant get enough of these excellent videos. Thank you!!
Glad you enjoy it!
If we would have had a decent tank at the start of the war we never would have needed tank destroyers.
Having an open top turret seems like a constant reminder of how little armor is protecting you...
Specialized vehicles were too inflexible. When a unit comes across the enemy, they just don't know if they are going to face foot soldiers or tanks. Thus, you need ONE vehicle that can do it all, thus the main battle tank. Tank destroyers would just be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Modern battle was just too unpredictable.
That was the big thing about shermans, even though they could be knocked out with ease by tigers, they encountered them so rarely. Shermans were mostly used as anti personnel and assault vehicles. (from what I have read)
@@muskokamike127 Kretschmer ( 12 SS.) en a détruit allégrement 36 avec son vieux Panzer 4
Les 14 Panzerjäger de la même unité en ont détruit 96 blindés US. Ratio 6 US pour 1 JgPz IV, cependant plusieurs PzJg IV (3 ou 4 il existe des photos ) ont pu passer la Seine. Les USA reconnaissent la perte total de plus de 900 chars rien que pour la Normandie. Les allemands 1200 . Mais les chiffres anglais, canadiens, polonais, français , NZ, australiens et belges ne sont pas donnés. Pourquoi?
Visibility. An open topped tank can see targets much better than a closed tank. First shot usually equals first kill.
yeah, hence the hit and run tactic but you have to find them first. That's why modern tanks have stabilized guns so they can shoot on the move.
First shot first kill is largely a myth. It depended entirely on the AFV type and the range plus whether or not the target is frontally or on its flank. Etc.
😆😆😆
@@lyndoncmp5751 dude, he said usually and this is assuming you have the capability of damaging the enemy ffs.
@@muskokamike127
I'll repeat, it's a myth that's it's 'usually'. It all depended on the situation.
Are you even aware that the mean range in Europe was 800 yards?
Great video
Thanks for the visit
Interesting, judicious. Lots of good video.
The TD concept was a good one in principle, though prior to the appearance of the M36 Jackson, the success of American TDs was limited by guns that were inadequate for the jobs they were expected to accomplish.
I’ll bet the Firefly isn’t mentioned. It was the main protagonist against Tigers and Panthers. A Sherman with a British 17-pounder anti tank gun mounted. If you want to know how tank destroyers fared, read about the Kasserine Pass. They were destroyed by Nazi armour.
Under a british command.
Under a british command.
That's funny, the overall kill ratio says otherwise 🤣
We forget how desperate we were at the time, the 76 gun was our antitank weapon 75 high explosive was better anti personnel anti bunker . With our long logistics lines it would take months for our latest greatest weapons to arrive if they were any good. Pershing tank was better but weight and size prevented it from getting to the front in a timely manner, where m4 , m10 and other TD’s could travel on rail , ships, and bridges as is
76mm shermans were in England well before d-day....the development of the pershing was a long one, could never make it on time..
The 894th, the 749th the 601st,and several other Tank Destroyer Battalions were critical to both the survival,and breakout for the capture of Anzio,Italy in 1944. One made a confirmed kill of a German tank from almost 10,000 yards!
That is not accurate at all. 10,000 yards is 5.68 MILES and no WW2 tank has EVER had a confirmed kill at anything even remotely close to that.
The Panther had the high velocity 75 mm main gun and the Tiger had the 88mm main gun.
So?
no shit sherlock
No shit 😂and ?
Ummm yes, yes they did. I'm fair certain 99.654% of motherfuckers knows that.
@@01Bouwhuis both had greater range and accuracy than most allied tanks / tank destroyers , so unless you got off the first shot where it counted , at close range , it was curtains
Thank you 😊
You left out the M 36 B .
This was M36 turrent sitting on top of the M 4 Sherman hull .
My father served in a M 36 B in the 813th tank destroyer battalion , company B .
The Tank Destroyer was just a self-propelled anti-tank gun with similar vehicles in most armies. However General McNair, Chief - Army Ground Forces, set up his Tank Destroyers as the only anti-tank force, in doing so he neglected the tank and relegated it to Infantry Support armed with weak low power guns. During his time in office all improved tanks with thicker armour and better guns were cancelled. After his death in 1944 the Tank Destroyer development was cancelled and the entire Tank Destroyer Command was disbanded in late 1945.
Because they were not needed or defective. Go check the chieftains hatch.
Good tactics and coordinated operations made the 75mm armed Shermans more than capable of dealing with the heavier German tanks. No, they could not engage head-on, but they regularly knocked out tigers and panthers from the side and rear. Sherman loses reflect the fact that they were often attacking embedded and well-prepared German defenses.
@@aitken1965 Sacrificing a few tanks so one could get a kill shot, might have been good on paper. My uncle was in the sherman's , had hip troubles from being bounced around. I read that Patton decided against having bigger tanks available in the book, Death Trap, written by an officer in the tank maintenance units
You are absolutely misinformed.
@@leonardkellum6984- That book has been debunked.
Used properly, they did their jobs. Mind their job was to stand in the rear and stop counter attacks. At least in theory. In practice they sometimes had to be more aggressive than they were designed to be.
5:20.
Even today highway fifteen in pennsylvania has an infamous reputation.
Only problem with those TDs is when commanders used them as tanks in urban or forest fighting which resulted in high crew casualties.
Excellent video; thank you. Is the narration AI? It's good though. Many others are not.
The M-10 and the M-18 were a "Stop Gap" that worked. How to put the biggest gun the American Armory could provide. The 76 mm Cannon sucked. The British 17 Pounder was very effective! Move and fire while moving as a pack worked as the open terrain suited them. Limited units got the 90 mm gun which was not that hard to mount into the Mantle of an M-10. Just like the limited deployment of the M-26. The crews made this work. Blood sweat and tears.
Lol
Very intresting, thank's for sharing😊👍🤘
Who's going to argue against Patton? lol. But the fact the army was able to successfully re-purpose their TD's says a lot about how much they had grown as a professional army.
It’s often easy to forget about the importance of the ammunition available.
Germanys lightening attacks in 1939 and 40 the US faced a daunting reality? Really! They didn't start until basically 1942 😅
No, the Amis were so clever they fought and turned back the clock. This is a highly classified secret that will be released in 2150..
Decent video, but M10's had a 3 inch gun. Yes, in measurement it was 76mm, but it was not considered a 76mm. The M5 3 inch towed gun was the gun for the M10, not the actual, true 76 mm. They were a different case. Now the M18 did use the 76mm, NOT the 3 inch
Yup, not confusing at all….got it.
good story, great footage, great editing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Glad you like it!
5:25. Pronunciation tip: Barrages is pronounced “buh-RAHJ-uzz”, the emphasis on the second syllable, like “mirages”.
Tank Overhaul episode 4, m18 Hellcat. If a tank destroyer is no longer needed, then why do we still operate the Republic A10 Thunderbolt 2?
The Germans had tank destroyers long before the Americans! The Stug III was by far the most successful. and was responsible for more enemy kills than any other German armored vehicle!
The Stug is not a tank Destroyer. It’s an assault Gun
The picture at the beginning of this video, the Sherman with all the sandbags up on front of the two soldiers sitting behind! I guess the designer of the Sherman never saw that picture!🤷🏻♂️
Bottomline - everybody stopped making tank destroyers and focused on tanks, APCs, IFVs and anti-tank weapons for the infantry.
The Cobra and Apache helicopters, the Sheridan, the Improved TOW vehicle, and the Strykers in both missile and 105mm gun variants would disagree with you. The attack helicopter embodies the Tank Destroyer doctrine perfectly. Future tank destroyer units might be composed of small remote controlled vehicles packing dozens of launchers for drone guided from operators in vans miles away.
@@samobispo1527 Excellent response, except for the Stryker-105mm. Like the Booker it was supposed to do everything but fight MBTs.
Tank destroyers should have been looked at as mobile artillery with tank destroying being secondary. Towed artillery is too slow.
I don't think they had the gun elevation for that. If you look at arty it usually fires at very high angles for indirect fire. The TDs were designed for direct fire. They'd have to design a new turret and replace the gun.
As the war drug on, the TDs were more and more used as self-propelled artillery, party due to lack of targets. And, to Westelandman's point, since TDs weren't designed as SP artillery they were sometimes driven onto ramps to boost elevation.
@@Wastelandman7000 Thanks, That might be true but they should have been designed for mobile artillery and secondary as tank destroyers. You can never have enough artillery support.
While thy tank crews are awesome can you do a video of about the mechanics who often work ed through the night to get the tabnis ready to fight asap
Excellent!!
Many thanks!
I believe the tank destroyer concept was flawed and its disappearance after the war supports that conclusion. The TD strategy didn't merge well with the overall nature of the allied offensive nature while TD's tasks were basically defensive. Another problem arose because they looked like a tank and too many commanders figured if it looked like a tank it could fight like a tank. So they tried to use them like tanks if no real tanks were available. That was bad news for the TD because their light armor was vulnerable to about everything that was shot at them.
It didn't disappear, it became airborne..
My father was in the 801st TD Batallion ....does someone know what tank they used from Normandy through the Bulge?? M10 is the best info I have but not definitive.......thanks
Well said but, I disagree your assessment of Tank Destroyers. My former roommate's father-was a Tank Destroyer commander in WWII. You're correct on them being used as a scout, but they were a scout with a heavy punch. They took up slack for Shermans. That said, I have a few photos of them in action. But can't find a way to post them here. My former roommates father, was a Sergent in the 704th?? sorry I can't accurately remember?) Tank Destroyer battalion. One of his thoughts was penciled on the back of a photo he took off a Hitler Youth after losing 10 men assaulting their bunker. It said: "We lost 10 men taking this bunker from those bastards." The photo was a photo of the several Hitler Youth manning that bunker. These men were in the M-10 and M-36 TD's.
How many times are we going to be shown the same footage?
Hitting and destroying a Panther at 4 km with a 90 mm gun? As a gunner on a Leopard 1 tank in the 80's, it was for us difficult to hit a target at 2.5 km's.... We used to target tanks at 1 til 1.8 km's away. The terrain also would not allow it. Housing, forest, hills etc.
At the start of the Cobra offensive in mormandy, the US had forty five battalions of tank destroyers available, the equivalent of fifteen tank divisions of vehicles, none of which were capable of offensive action, and none of which ever, in the entire war, fought as battalions.
The doctrine was flawed, the number produced was a waste, and the quantityof fuel used simply to move them around was near criminal neglect in terms of the ongoing western allied supply shortages. Creating a massive force of defensive weapons to face an enemy on the strategic and mostly operational defensive was a case of 'let's have this because we can', rather than any critical analysis of need.
Thanks for another great video! Love all your content!
You are so welcome!
Mostly of tank crew from panzerdivvision in 1944 where young whithout experience on western front mostly of veteran have disappeared on the eastern front The right answer to the heavypanzer was the firefly and the Pershing the beast
4:04 are we gonna talk about that m2?
The success of the Wehrmacht in France 1940 was not due to packing hundreds of tanks in a small attacking front but rather the concept of ‘all arms’ warfare.
Yes and no. The Panzer divisions in the Ardennes (which I know I'm spelling incorrectly) did send large numbers of tanks to overwhelm the defenses in that sector. It's called hitting the schwerpunkt (I'm spelling that wrong too ...) or concentrating their forces in a single area to overwhelm the defenders, rather than across a wider front. Across the theater during the Battle of France I agree with you, the Germans were better at combined arms warfare. The fact that they DID send overwhelming numbers of tanks to a single point was the reason the US came up with the Tank Destroyer doctrine in the first place. See Nicholas Moran's book "Can Openers"
24:06 Sniper free spires! Tipperary Ireland different story 12th. century Roscrey Round Tower 'tower was 6m higher but was shortened after the 1798 rebellion after rebels used the tower to snipe from'.
Compared to towed anti-tank artillery, then ok, tank destroyers made sense.
german Stug III some reports said 30k kills during the war.
As a defensive weapon , the towed anti tank artillery made.a lot.of sense
Except the majority of German armour could easily be dealt with by allied forces. It is now considered that the US AT strategy was flawed from the beginning. At the time they entered the war he majority of US AT units used towed AT guns, but this was at a time when the Axis were starting to change to a totally defensive strategy. basically McNair got it wrong.
I believe it comes down to character, tanks are not heavy cavalry, they are chariots, as the roles of the fabled cavalry charges have been taken up by aircraft, if you can flatten tanks and infantry as fighter bomber you get more merits then tankers, sadly,
You can't hold terrain, even for a minute, in a plane. It wasn't until the 80s that aircraft could even reliably target & kill tanks & armored vehicles...so, until then, the tanks & other mechanized forces were absolutely cavalry. Since then, look at the Battle of 73 Easting for proof that modern tanks can still be cavalry.
They've not been used effectively by either side in the Ukraine war, because neither side has air superiority... but any notion of the aircraft & drones being cavalry is foolhardy.
@@TinKnight drones are just longer raged artillery
american tank destroyers, some of them were amazing, but none of them compared to just how affective the german assault gun stug3 was and it was built from a panzer 3 hull
Patton was right. Tank destroyers are reactive and audacity is what wins the war.
Ok, 28 seconds in and I've already got an issue with the narrative. The Tank destroyer force wasn't "innovative" it is what held back decent tank design until the very end of the war. Generals arguing about whether tanks should be armed properly to deal with a whole array of targets or whether they were there simply to lob HE at things for the infantry. Had we chinned the notion of tank destroyers off, we could have had proper tanks much earlier in the war with the industrial output to roll them out en-masse. Tank destroyers were certainly useful and, being cheaper than tanks could have easily had a place in the orbat all the same but the doctrine of tank destroyers was a detriment to allied success rate.
What destroyed more tanks in WWII ? Other tanks , Tank destroyers , Artillery, or Aircraft?
Surely a tank should be the vehicle designed to destroy enemy tanks and withstand tank rounds.
Tank destroyers wouldn't be needed if we had more powerful guns on our tanks at the start of the war.
No one had such powerful guns at the beginning of the war....
9:58 Did honestly just call a fifty cal, which was probably written on your script in the format ".50 cal," a "point five zero caliber machine gun?"
Honestly, you probably needed to be more specific as there are other .50 cal / 12.7mm cartridges, and specified it as a .50 BMG, which stands for "Browning Machine Gun." Regardless you need to call it a "fifty cal," with "cal" being short for caliber, which is a unit of measurement describing the internal diameter of a cartridge in tenths of an inch (for small arms, it's different for naval artillery since they're so much bigger). Further, for small arms, "caliber" is always stated in the singular, where as an artillery piece of multiple full calibers would be stated in the plural...because again, it's a discrete unit of measurement.
Tell me you're not familiar with the subject matter of your script without telling me you're unfamiliar with the material of your script....
In all seriousness, this was so jarring that I stopped the video just to write this comment.
The French 75 was a gun, not a howitzer.
My Grandfather was in the Hellcats!
Mon préféré le StuG III Basta!
M18 , m10 , m36 I think stood no chance against german war machines
Their kill ratio says different....
The Army brass seemed allergic to fielding large guns. Those in charge were too old and out of touch with reality
Tank destroyers look more like modern tanks than the tanks.
The ultimate measure is who won!
What tanks did the US have on the battlefield between 1939 all the way to late 1942?
Sunny Taters!
Dunno about you but these shoot a bit more stuff than a Garand