Happy Friday everyone, enjoy this week's upload featuring David Fletcher. Let us know what you think about the M10 Achilles. Is this your favourite tank destroyer?
I can't say I would be happy to name any 'favourite tank destroyer'. My late father served in 2nd Lothians and Border Horse in North Africa and Italy. His final tank (previous ones had succumbed to 88s and mines) was the 76mm (actually 76.2mm or 3") gun Sherman. I have a picture of him stood in front of this impressive tank in Arezzo in 1945. OK, his M4 was, according to David in his chat 'A tank killer' (some 9 months ago) very good at knocking out the enemy, but I feel easier with the enemy receiving a hit from an AP round, rather than my late father, who had incredible good fortune to survive some horrendous situations.
*Sad chieftain noises* I feel I must make a couple of corrections to this one. David's sortof a victim of the 'entrenched history' on this, which considering the breadth of his knowledge is approached only by the breadth of his moustache, is hardly to be blamed. I'm more a TD/US specialist. The American medium tank was always expected to engage any enemy tanks it happened to encounter in the course of its operations, be they infantry support or exploitation. Indeed, the manuals observe that in the defense, an armored unit was capable of dealing with an enemy armoured thrust as well, should it happen to strike the armoured unit. It is for this reason that Sherman was undergoing upgunning programs even at the time that the 75mm was killing everything it encountered. The Tank Destroyer, however, (See FM 18-5) was intended to be a rapid response force to either enemy attack or counter-attack. The Americans felt that it was unlikely that the Germans would happen to attack where US tanks or anti-tank forces were strong, and they wanted a force which could react to those german armor thrusts as quickly and effectively as possible. Thus the light armor to include the open top meant that it could respond to German movements more quickly, and it was for this operational reason that speed greater than that of a tank was desired. It also helped that the vehicles were cheaper, so fewer resources were being sucked up by the creation of these rapid response units. The other advantage to the open top (also acknowledged by German Panzerjaeger thought of the same time, before they lost the plot to things like Jadgpanzer) was that the open top allowed the tank destroyer to see the enemy tanks before the enemy tanks saw them. See first, shoot first, kill first. It did happen that assessments by M18 units indicated that the ability for the M18 to accelerate rapidly (as distinguished from high top speed) was very useful in avoiding return fire, but the design goal was reaction speed to move to engagement areas (i.e. closer to operational mobility) more than tactical mobility.
I had a feeling from the first sentence from Mr. Fletcher that we would see the Chieftain coming up to correct that statement. You could almost say that Chieftain intercepted Fletcher's comment attack with the speed of a TD!
I'd really appreciate the tank museum do that tank chat again but with the guy who literally wrote a book about American tank destroyers. Oh there he is...
one little caveat on this very video, the Americans totally expected for tanks to engage other tanks, the M3 and M4 were equipped for such situations, the idea of the tank destroyer was that if the enemy does a mass armour attack (like the Germans did in France), your infantry won't ave the firepower to stop them, even with 1 AT gun for every 150m of frontline, so instead they created the tank destroyer force as a mobile reactionary force to counter such manoeuvres, thus mobility was key, not so much for shoot and scoot, but to reach the enemy armour before they do much damage
@@RichWhiteUM tank destroyer branch disappeared right after WWII, and the concept didn't see much light, light attack aircraft with anti tank weaponry didn't really become a thing until much later
@@RichWhiteUM And ATGW carrying vehicles like Striker and wheeled TDs like Centauro. And postwar there were still WWII style TDs e.g. Kanonenjagdpanzer.
@@quentintin1 Not precisely, there were air support aircraft that had weapons capable of killing tanks during Korea. Even during WWII; the US Navy, USMC, and US Army Air Force were placing weapons on aircraft in ground support roles that were capable of damaging armor. The "tank destroyer branch" disappeared but in reality the concept lived on. The role has been split between the different branches with all of them, the one exception being the Coast Guard, having aircraft capable of doing the job. The army and USMC also have ground assets capable of doing the job, as others have pointed out elsewhere. It is absolutely inaccurate to state that the tank destroyer concept disappeared simply because the branch of the army that they were placed in did. It's the equivalent of saying that the army shouldn't have airborne firepower anymore because the US Air Force was split off from the US Army following WWII. Neither statement is true.
As Nicholas Moran has pointed out, and I'm sure Fletcher left out just for the sake of talking about the vehicle more than tactics. Besides hit and run tactics, the other main purpose of the TD was breakthrough protection. The US was well aware of how Rommel and his "Ghost Division" had taken off across France, and they were looking for a counter. A Battalion of TD's would be kept as a divisional asset in reserve, to support a threaten section of line, or worst case, plug a hole in the line caused by a massed armored push.
At 04:05... The Americans had to ship everything over the Atlantic and having two different fuel requirements was deemed cumbersome from a supply point of view. Thats not to say that ALL U.S. tanks were gasoline driven. I believe the Marines used the diesels because the NAVY ran diesel in their ships. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The Marines used the m4a2's because they could get their hands on them. The US marine corps was always last in getting new equipment. They even went to war with springfield '03 rifles instead of the m1 Garand because the army would first be equipped with the new rifle before the marines got some. The army didn't want the m4a2 because of the fuel issues, so the marines took them. That way they at least had Shermans, otherwise they'd probably had to get m3's.
It makes logistical sense. Ask any mechanic how often they've had to flush diesels or petrol engines when owners make mistakes. In the pressure and panic of combat ? It's going to happen.
correct.. European theatre abundance of aircraft plus tanks = petrol Pacific theatre abundance of ships and tanks = diesel. (but trucks/jeeps on petrol got everywhere..).
I come here for the excellent content and also to see who wins the "Most Effusive Praise for the Host In Order to Get Likes" award. Lots of posters competing in a very close contest. Mr. Fletcher always draws a large crowd of overly-flattering upvote-seekers. Very exciting. In any case, nice video as always.
The Tank destroyers we had back in the old days were the M-274 with an M-40 106 mm Recoilless rifle aboard, we also mounted them on M-151 designed for that Mission, called Assault guns too.
My late Uncle George was a dyed in the wool TD man from the halftrack (which he despised), to the M36 which he preferred to the others he served in from North Africa to Germany.
Glad to see more of the tank museum. I can't decide which David I enjoy listening to more. They each have their own great way of telling the history of these fascinating armored vehicles and their crew.
I believe that the "tank wasn't ment to fight other tanks" is a huge and common misconception and frankly, I am quite surprised to hear it from the Mighty Moustache himself. The principal difference is, that tanks are ment to be used offensively, while TD's are used for defence. At least in the US Army, the TD branch was specifically created to prevent a Fall-of-France scenario. That's why they are relatively light and fast, so they can be quickly amassed to counter the enemy breakthrough, and that's why they are supposed to shoot and scoot instead of fighting from a prepared defensive position. Because they aren't supposed to have a prepared defensive positions in the first place.
The problem is that "tanks were meant to fight tanks" can mean different things, a product of the ambiguity of the English Language when applied for technical purposes. The term can mean either that a tank is capable of fighting tanks or that a tank's mission was to fight other tanks. They are not the same thing. An M4 Sherman could fight tanks, was indeed designed to fight the common tanks of its day, and fought tanks quite well. M4 Sherman, nevertheless, was not employed in the mission of Tank Destroyer, which is a distinct mission from that of Tank in the US Army doctrine. M4 Shermans, thus, fought tanks only incidentally as part of its mission as Tank. Put another way, it is lawyers' quibbles over words, and it is thus always confusing for it. Tanks could be made to fight tanks, but were not deployed with the mission to fight tanks unless assigned to a Tank Destroyer unit, in which case a tank became a tank destroyer because its mission was to destroy tanks. To the people who quibbled over doctrine, it was essential that tanks be tanks, not tank destroyers, and tank destroyers be tank destroyers, not tanks. However, to the fight men at the front, they could care less once a panzer showed up.
The US for the most part didnt give its tanks like the M2 and M3 (and later M4 low velocity 75mm became obsolete) guns powerful enough to take out medium/heavy enemy tanks with the low calibre AP main guns the low velocity howitzers with HE that were supposed to be anti infantry were often better in the role. so it was moot, their ethos was give the big gun to the TD and have the tank fall back to TD units in prepared positions who are moved around to where on the battlefield they expected enemy tanks to be. their pre/early war towed TD also had rather weak guns which was why combined with the weak tanks they focussed on producing motorised TD’s.
@@watcherzero5256 Of note, M1 and M2 were treated as experimental vehicles, adopted yes, but they were replaced almost as fast as they introduced. The M1 Combat Car basically was just the most the Army could get the Congress to pay for during a difficult time. Also, its .50cal machinegun was not impotent against many tanks of the day, and as a cavalry scout vehicle, it was particularly viable in the late 1930s against many opposing scouts. Also note, M3 Lee was in development in mid 1940, before Tank Destroyer Branch was conceived and formed in 1941. M3 Lee had 37mm and 75mm guns, both considered anti-tank capable. Indeed, by the time TD Branch was actually making plans, M4 Sherman was already in development! Tank Destroyer Branch was a specific counter to massed tank penetration of the infantry line. The infantry divisions remained the primary offensive and defensive force, with tank divisions to support and exploit infantry success. TD Branch had one job: keep panzers from running unchecked behind infantry divisions when they invariably penetrated the American infantry line through their concentrated mass.
@@watcherzero5256 That is simply not true. The 75mm gun on the M3 and M4 was the same gun as armed TDs when they went into service. And the 75mm was a pretty good gun with AP ammunition, the whole myth of the horrible Sherman's is just that, a myth. They also were looking at installing the 3-inch gun in the Sherman pretty much from day one, it just took some time to get a gun that could fit in the Sherman without compromising ergonomics too much. And it is worth noting that 76mm Sherman's were available for D-Day, but they weren't wanted as it was believed the 75mm was good enough against tanks so the additional AP capability of the 76mm wasn't worth the cost (less familiar to the troops, additions to supplies, less effective HE, etc). In the doctrine tanks were intended to support infantry, and that absolutely including by engaging enemy tanks. Tank Destroyers were intended to be a mobile reserve force that could be rapidly deployed counter large armoured assaults and breakthroughs. Of course since the Germans were almost always on the defensive against the US that only really happened at Kasserine and the M10s were generally used either as tanks or self-propelled artillery rather than as TDs.
Correct. And the open top was both to lessen weight for higher speed, and to allow TD crews better visibility than the tanks they were supposed to be hunting.
And Swedish TDs are technically still in service as ATGM vehicles on the tracked Hägglunds Bv 306 platform. I don't know if they have built any TD version on the larger and armored Bv10 hull.
The old Wobat could be mounted on a Land Rover. You'd not put much on the crews survival though. Same with the 432 mount, an even bigger target than the LR. 😟
If one wishes to get into nitpicking, the towed 3" M5 was a TD. In US WW2 terminology, the mission drove the categorisation, not the equipment. That's why the M5s were in TD battalions, but the 57mm M1s were in the anti-tank companies.
We still have tank Destroyers, just not the designated units. And they tend to have either wheels or rotors now. Also, it's kind of not ture that the Americans didn't expect tanks to fight other tanks. Which is why they were always trying to get the same gun the TDs had in the tanks. The TDs were for fast response to an enemy tank breakthrough.
It's not so much that the TD died as its mission was taken from it by other vehicles. Not just armored cars and light tanks with really big guns, but armored personnel carriers with missile launchers, and of course the attack helicopter.
@@hhale Exactly. For most of WWII, anti-tank guns were progressively bigger and heavier cannons that needed dedicated vehicles ready to carry such weapons. After the war, however, anti-tank weapons that would be given to non-tank units started taking the form of lighter recoilless weapons or ATGMs that no longer needed a special vehicle. We could build vehicles and units devoted to slinging TOW or Hellfire missiles; but it’s more economical to add the weapon systems onto non-dedicated, multipurpose vehicles and units. So the function and role are still present, just not the specialized vehicles.
I will make it to this museum as soon as I can travel there, it looks amazing. In the meantime if anyone visits America it is imperative they visit the American Heritage Museum west of Boston MA where they have almost 40 tanks on display.
Thank you, David. At last, someone who clearly states what I have been arguing with my ill informed friends for ages (when able to go to the pub). You have a 'squadron' of tanks and a 'battery' of M10s since it is an anti tank gun on a motorised 'platform'. An excellent gun nonetheless, my late father (2nd Lothians and Border Horse) ended up in a Sherman with the 76mm gun (I have a photo of him in front of his tank, the photo taken in Arezzo, 1945). David discussed this 76mm gun (actually 3" or 76.2mm) tank in an earlier 'chat': 'A tank killer', 9 months ago.
I read a comment by an American armor combat command officer. They ran into German armor while a TD (M10s, I think) battalion was attached. The TDs ran up a high kill score. The officer explained it as the TD crews actually being artillery and trained to fight tanks vs. the tank crews trained more in infantry support. If you ever get to the US, there is an M10 in the Patton Museum at Ft. Knox.
@@davidcox3076 thank you, David, for your interesting comments. Obviously, in battle, as far as possible, actions are coordinated. From what little information my late father gave me and from a copy of the Lothians' regimental records their actions, with a mixture of mainly 75 mm Shermans, Fireflies (the British 17pdr gunned Shermans) or the American 76.2 mm (3") gunned Shermans, were mainly front line assault with infantry support. A good example being in Italy with the Lothians crossing the Rapido river over the heroically constructed 'Amazon Bridge' - part of the assault on the German 'Gustav Line' at Cassino. Incidentally, my late father and I were pleased to give a small assistance to Rick Atkinson in his 'The Day of Battle, The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944', published 2007, the second of his WWII trilogy books. Thanks again.
David Fletcher is a national treasure. Tank destroyers didn't go away after WWII, but perhaps he means just the term. If the Hetzer, Stug III and Jagdpanther were tank destroyers by design, so then was the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 or S-Tank (destroyer😉), which is a particularly impressive example.
Watching the Fletcher quietly dismantle this vehicle in the same way he does British attempts at war vehicles made me wonder how the comments would develop. I wasn't disappointed. The prevailing tone "America is always right" and "You don't know what you're talking about" was a joy to see. The ultimate, "Chieftain won't like this" being he's the M4's biggest fanboy made my day.
I don't think he he does dismantle this vehicle, rather he doesn't distinguish the role of a tank destroyer properly, as distinct from a tank. Its like criticising a hovercraft for not being a boat and not having a propellor whilst not explaining they both have roles as watercraft. BTW I'm not from the US my Mummy sewed little Union flags into my pants so i remember.
I don't mind his opinions on the Achilles itself, but the stuff about doctrine was pretty annoying. The video is suggesting that TDs were expected to come up and kill tanks for the Shermans which doesn't align with how either was used designed or used. Tanks were expected to engage all comers, and Tank Destroyers were expected to be an entirely defensive tool that rapidly moved to engage and blunt enemy armored thrusts. Tank Destroyers weren't embedded into tank units at all and they operated independently from one another. The idea of shoot and scoot never really happened. TDs used their speed for strategic mobility and then ambushed from concealed positions, and they certainly weren't expected to be used as infantry support guns. Every major player in WW2 was playing with tank destroyers, and most of them (including the US) intended to use them as cheap, defensive ambush units firing from a concealed position. They were also useful enough that every nation used them throughout the entirety of WW2. The US versions emphasized speed above all else to be able to rapidly plug holes in the line. (along with being open topped for excellent sight lines) Whether that choice was correct or not is open to debate, but the idea that Shermans weren't expected to engage enemy armor and instead wait for TDs to come up and kill it for them doesn't align with their actual use. It would be far more accurate (imo) for him to have said that after WW2 the American tank destroyer concept was abandoned because: 1) It was intended to be a defensive tool only. Commanders are not fond of tools that have to be left behind half the time, doubly so in a primarily offensive war. It found some limited utility with indirect fire, but only had a few chances in the war to fulfill its primary purpose. 2) The weapons aren't any better than what the Tanks had. The 37mm was on the Stuart, the 75mm and 76mm were on the Sherman, and the 90mm was on the Pershing. What is the point of a specialist if it isn't actually out-preforming a generalist? (and since we put turrets on them, they weren't that much cheaper than a Sherman) 3) It looks like a tank. Despite doctrine clearly stating it wasn't a tank and shouldn't be used offensively, Commanders routinely called Tank Destroyers up to do bunker busting and position clearing, where their thin armor, open tops, and lack of MGs routinely got them killed by hidden and entrenched infantry.
The main purpose of the 'tank destroyer' in doctrine was to stop armored break throughs. The idea was to have them quickly rush in and slow or stop a break through. It did kind of do that in the Battle of the Bulge. The modern Japanese MCV Type 16 is really a tank destroy, The way they plan to use them is exactly the same.
Basically the Tank destroyers filled a gap with a heavier anti tank gun mid to late war until more allied tanks could be fielded with similar anti tank capacity like the Sherman Firefly .....
Two small points: 1. According to The_Cheieftain the main idea of the tank destroyer in US service was to counter massed armoured attack . 2. The bitterest enemies for any part of an army is usually the other parts of the same army. The 2 together explain the idea of AT guns on fast cars to get to the attack quickly and the weird way this AV evolved. Armour wanted all tanks so artillery didn't get a roof on what would have been a tank. On top of that Most tanks in WWII were destroyed by anti-tank guns, and you could get several towed guns for the price of one of these.
The turret cover was used operationally, though not a standardised version more independent knock-ups. Some regiments started making their own with salvaged bits of scrap during the Battle of Normandy when it was found to be vulnerable to shrapnel and direct hits - a particularly terrible story exists of an M-10 from 86th A/Tk Regt getting a mortar round drop in the turret during Operation JUPITER (July 10th 1944), which detonated and killed and incinerated all of the crew except for the driver who escaped wounded. Photos from August 1944 show 86th A/T Regt had improvised some turret covers, though whether related to specific incident hard to say.
I can confirm that 86th did indeed use a makeshift cover at and beyond Op. Jupiter. My dad was in one of the 17pdr M10's and told me the makeshift cover was effectively just a framework of angle iron with a steel sheet bolted on top. It was mainly just to fend off flying light shrapnel and was never designed to stop anything directed at the vehicle, although I guess it may have helped in the event of a mortar or grenade dropping on the roof!
"that's too much heavy armor. we have to be able to run away faster" "why do you have to run away?" "because we don't have heavy armor" tank destroyer logic
The thing was, it worked. Their ability to get to where they needed to be, the great visibility the open top provided the TC, as well as their ability to scoot made them very effective. The chieftan has a great video on the topic.
I don't know, this video is confusing to me because I understood the tank destroyer from the operational/strategic lens. Its not that tank destroyers were designed to scoot up, shoot and run faster than a heavier tank could, its that when an enemy made a breach in your lines with an armoured assault and were quickly advancing with motorized forces so they could cut off supply lines and such that the tank destroyer was the biggest gun you could strap to a slightly armoured vehicle that could GET to a defensive position in time. Basically the tank destroyer is a self powered antitank gun that had the nice bonus (especially for the crew) that it could drive off after shooting. Tank destroyers are like that defensive guy in football who hangs back a little and looks for where the other team's dudes are gonna break through the linemen and rushes after them.
@@tylerbrown9797 They were basically the linebackers and safeties of the battlefield. Some tanks were also used in the role of linebackers as they could be the pass-rushers after the line opened a hole. I think that should confuse the Brits here enough for today! I also would argue that the tank destroyer didn't actually disappear They just morphed into a different type of vehicle. Examples of modern tank destroyers would be the AH-64 Apache and the A-10 Thunderbolt II, aka the Warthog. Both of those aircraft can certainly be considered a tank destroyer, with the kill counts to prove it.
@@RichWhiteUM Yah, although the warthog should have the capability to fly autonomously at this point though since flying one against an adversary that could actually field modern tanks would be suicidal for the pilot.... I generally agree with you but I would point to the rise of the APC and the advancement of antitank rockets that made the concept of the tank destroyer seem to go away. During WW2 they could barely fit an antitank gun in a tank that could penetrate other tanks, so modifying a tank for the antitank role made more sense. Idk tho, I see many APC type vehicles with TOW missiles on them and I am just an armchair speculator I have no idea if they train to use these vehicles in a tank destroyer fashion.
@@tylerbrown9797 In a limited sense, the Bradley with its TOW launcher could be said to be a tank destroyer, especially the Cav Scout variant. There's also the Stryker variant that mounts a turret with an anti-tank 105mm gun.
The ad's seemed a bit more toned down this time. I didn't get feeling like I was listening to a sleazy car salesman like I have in the past. Would still prefer something at the end like before.
The problem with this broad cast is the Chieftain found lot's of documents showing that the army brass expected American tanks to take out tanks. They tank destroyers were to get in front of hostile breakouts and stop them. They were combat effective though many were used as basically mobile artillery to provide infantry support. That meant that when they were needed to stop a break out they were diffused.
I’m surprised David didn’t point out that the Brits had the exact same Tank Destroyer doctrine as the Americans. The Archer TD was build at the same time, with the same concept, and with the exact same gun. In combat it seems British TDs were used more aggressively alongside tanks. But the tactical/design concepts were the same as the Americans, who stuck more to the doctrine in practice. I suspect the greater combat experience on the British side helped in that account.
British doctrine was actually different - they were embedded in the existing anti-tank regiments and were initially expected only to get to a captured location more quickly and set up to defend against a German counterattack. That's as opposed - I *think* - to a larger and more mobile tank destroyer unit which the Americans expected to use. But as time went on the Brits learned they could use the M10 more aggressively than that.
@@chriscamfield7610 Aren’t there a few occasions where M-10’s were used to beef up attacks by Tank Brigades, to compensate for the Churchill’s gun. I think something like this happened at JUPITER with 86th A/Tk Regt working with 9th RTR.
thought the reason to the open top was to better facilitate rapid fire since you have a larger gun, larger round, and didn't have to worry about trying to maneuver it inside an armored box plus it gave your gunner and tc better sight to acquire targets more rapidly
Wow, Mr Fletcher is wrong! M3 Halftrack did not carry 3inch gun, but 75mm gun.. similar that was fitted to Sherman... and no, Tank Destroyers were not supposed to fight tanks while tanks would support infantry... they were specialist vehicle designed to stop the tanks when they achieve breakthrough... they were mobile reserve commanders could send against enemy in such situations... tanks were always supposed to fight whatever they meet on battlefield.. tanks included! (After all, both M3 TD and M4 tank used same 75mm M3 gun in 1942...) TDs had no turret roof, because they were not supposed to fight on front line, but were supposed to fight in own territory where enemy would not have artillery support at that time (Germans did not have any mobile artillery attached to panzer divisions in 1940, which was what US were expected to fight when they came with the doctrine) And for Achilles, it was not really a Tank Destroyer... because British used it as Self-propelled Anti-Tank gun... British did not adopt US Tank Destroyer doctrine...
@@raymartcarreon6069 The 76.2mm/3" gun was VERY different in all ways from the 75mm gun. The 3" gun didn't have a useful HE shell, but did have a massive case to drive the AP shell to useful velocities.
The "3 inch gun" was not actually 76.2mm; it was called as such so that ammunition would not be confused between it and the standard 75 and 76mm guns as it was all completely incompatible. Just because a gun is the same size doesn't mean it's the same. For example, the long (L/48) 75mm gun on the Pz IV and StuG III used completely different ammunition from the Panther's 75mm.
Actually the concept of tank destroyer is still around. Apache, warthog etc including tracked vehicles. The M3 Gun Motor Carriage (halftrack) had the 75mm 1897 not the 3' gun. The main reason TD's had an open top was for observation.
Even before the Apache and attack helicopters we had dedicated TOW missile vehicles. In all actuality modern TD's share much more in common with the "failed" American vehicles then the Soviet or German ones. Mobile and lightweight to be able to rush towards a concentration of enemy armor
Although the Bundeswehr and Swiss Army continued on with the Jagd Panzer Canone concept throughout the cold war, so tank destroyers didn't die completely. Great video.
And then you can argue that it grew a rotor disc and became the helicopter gunship (at least as far as the concept of rapid moving firepower to plug a breakthrough goes).
I am a little surprised he was off on his history and reasons on the TD. Chieftain is probably doing the most meme worthy head rubbing right now. Tanks were-by doctrine supposed to deal with tanks. Tank destroyers were always stored to be in reserves and had to be fast enough to run to penetrations in the lines and set up in ambush. Topless so the TC could see the enemy faster and shoot first. Did do a few times and we’re really good at killing tanks especially in Italy. Was usually used as indirect fire though because high ranking people hate having tank like things just hanging around.
Well, not really. This is ho the british employed the M10 - with a Royal Artillery crew. The American created the Tank Destroyer Force detatched from just anti-tank defensive guns. Their point was that anti-tank guns were part of the defensive line, spread out. If the germans would use their blietzkrieg tactics, the panzers would concentrate in one area covered just by few guns. The tank destroyers force should be high mobility reserve, ready to go where the "normal" AT guns were outgunned and the massed panzers were breaking thought to form a equally massed Antitank line of defense.
The New Zealanders in Italy were issued with M10s and thought 'great. It looks like a tank so it must be a tank “. Of course it wasn’t. But they found it excellent on the attack. In the past there had always been a dangerous period after the arrival of the infantry on the objective and before the arrival of the towed AT. The M10 could accompany the infantry and be on the spot for the inevitable German counterattack. It also meant that tanks involved could be withdrawn for other jobs and not not be tied down to infantry support after the attack. This doesn’t seem to be exactly the same as US doctrine but is another good use for the vehicles.
Someone asked The Chieftain a while back about the tank destroyer concept going out of fashion. He pointed out that the original concept, a fast-‘moving force to contain an enemy armor breakout, sounds a lot like a squadron of Apaches. Which don’t have a lot in common with an M10, but neither did the converted half-tracks and light trucks and towed artillery pieces the early tank destroyer force used (effectively) in North Africa. Or for that matter, the Toyota Hilux trucks, mounting AA guns, used by Sudan to push back the invading Libyan forces.
I thoroughly enjoy your videos, folks, very engaging, informative, and interesting. I often learn more about vehicles (that I already knew about) than I originally thought I knew because of your videos. Not to be mean and complain however, and I'm sorry if this upsets other people, but the advertisements coming in halfway through the video ruins the experience somewhat for me. While they're only 22 seconds long, they snap me out of my train of thought while watching the video, and then I have to refocus once the ads are done. In fact, I'm at the point now where I'm just skipping the ads because they're more of a hindrance for me. It pushes me away rather than drawing me in to spend my money. I'd prefer it if you went back to having the ads at the tail end of the video like you used to. Just my two bits, I'm sorry.
@RedBaronFilms1918 Adding my own opinion, I am not trying to convince anybody. I was ready to just skip the video in annoyance at the ads but clicked anyway. They seem they have at least muted the SWOOOSH compared to last week th-cam.com/video/YKpMLxOUQqM/w-d-xo.html to a level I can almost tolerate. I don't mind the ad but on a Friday night here 10PM, lightly dozing and listening after tea it was giving me a little heart attack but okay now. It is marked and if I was fully awake and watching I could just skip it. Just a tad lower would be even better :-)
I agree, it was bad enough when they had poor David Wiley flogging cheap tat from the shop at the beginning and end of videos, now they have to drop ads in the middle.
The Chieftan has adequately dispelled the myth of Americans thinking tanks weren't supposed to fight tanks, it simply wasn't true. The tank destroyer concept was to have antitank guns on a mobile platform so the force could be rapidly concentrated where needed.
Not only that but it wasn't just the Americans that got it wrong with tank destroyers. The Brits did as well with vehicles like the Archer and the Churchill gun carrier. Lets not forget the Germans with a whole range of Stugg and Jagd vehicles and other monstrosities. And there was the Russians with the SU series.
IF one visits Yad La Shiryon - Israel's tank museum and memorial to the (Israeli) armoured corps , there is an Achilles tank destroyer on display ( next to one of the MANY Centurion tanks of different variants )
@@Darilon12 And none of the rounds were interchangeable. Even the US 3-inch and 76-mm ammo had different size propellant cases, but similar performance. The 76-mm gun itself was much lighter (1,140 lbs) than the 3-inch gun (1,990 lbs.). So the 76 was better suited for tank installation.. The 17 pounder gun weighed 2,032 lbs.
Didnt the 17 pounder have a higher velocity? Therefore better pen than the US 76.2? But yeah very similar. The 17 pounder was a match for the 88 firing AP.
@@MauriceTarantulas The US M7 3-inch gun on the M10 tank destroyer firing regular armor piercing rounds were about 2,600 feet per second. Projectile weight was 15.4 pounds. The US M1 76-mm gun on the Sherman and M18 tank destroyer firing regular armor piercing rounds were about 2,600 feet per second. Projectile weight was 15.4 pounds. The UK 17 pounder Mk IV gun on the Achilles tank destroyer firing regular armor piercing rounds were about 2,900 feet per second. Projectile weight was 17 pounds.
The tankers life consisted of cleaning up the inside of "tatty" turrets just so they could dirty them up the next day. The worst part is cleaning in between the turret and the hull.
Happy Friday everyone, enjoy this week's upload featuring David Fletcher. Let us know what you think about the M10 Achilles. Is this your favourite tank destroyer?
I think the JagdPanther has to be the ultimate TD on the Axis side, while the Jackson is my favourite Allied one, closely followed by the SU-100.
Nah, I prefer the Bren Carrier/PIAT combo
Somehow i like the Archer more for some reason (i know technically an SPG but they were doing the same job really)
I'd argue that the IKV 91 as well as the PvRbPbv 551, the PvTgb 911, Tgb1111 and PvRbBv (Hägglunds Bv 201-206 platforms) are also tank destroyers.
I can't say I would be happy to name any 'favourite tank destroyer'. My late father served in 2nd Lothians and Border Horse in North Africa and Italy. His final tank (previous ones had succumbed to 88s and mines) was the 76mm (actually 76.2mm or 3") gun Sherman. I have a picture of him stood in front of this impressive tank in Arezzo in 1945. OK, his M4 was, according to David in his chat 'A tank killer' (some 9 months ago) very good at knocking out the enemy, but I feel easier with the enemy receiving a hit from an AP round, rather than my late father, who had incredible good fortune to survive some horrendous situations.
The amount of shade that this man casually and dryly delivers in regards to the museum's vehicles makes him the ultimate tank destroyer.
?
Well said
Nice
Armor-piercing wit.
Ha! True enough 😍👌
I think there are a lot of scale modelers out there who would buy a 1:35 scale model of David Fletcher pointing to put next to their models
Million dollar idea alert
Shut up and take my money already man!
Tank Museum swag idea.
Brilliant!
Id buy dozens
*Sad chieftain noises*
I feel I must make a couple of corrections to this one. David's sortof a victim of the 'entrenched history' on this, which considering the breadth of his knowledge is approached only by the breadth of his moustache, is hardly to be blamed. I'm more a TD/US specialist.
The American medium tank was always expected to engage any enemy tanks it happened to encounter in the course of its operations, be they infantry support or exploitation. Indeed, the manuals observe that in the defense, an armored unit was capable of dealing with an enemy armoured thrust as well, should it happen to strike the armoured unit. It is for this reason that Sherman was undergoing upgunning programs even at the time that the 75mm was killing everything it encountered. The Tank Destroyer, however, (See FM 18-5) was intended to be a rapid response force to either enemy attack or counter-attack. The Americans felt that it was unlikely that the Germans would happen to attack where US tanks or anti-tank forces were strong, and they wanted a force which could react to those german armor thrusts as quickly and effectively as possible. Thus the light armor to include the open top meant that it could respond to German movements more quickly, and it was for this operational reason that speed greater than that of a tank was desired. It also helped that the vehicles were cheaper, so fewer resources were being sucked up by the creation of these rapid response units. The other advantage to the open top (also acknowledged by German Panzerjaeger thought of the same time, before they lost the plot to things like Jadgpanzer) was that the open top allowed the tank destroyer to see the enemy tanks before the enemy tanks saw them. See first, shoot first, kill first. It did happen that assessments by M18 units indicated that the ability for the M18 to accelerate rapidly (as distinguished from high top speed) was very useful in avoiding return fire, but the design goal was reaction speed to move to engagement areas (i.e. closer to operational mobility) more than tactical mobility.
I was just thinking about your videos on TD doctorine when David opened this video...
I had a feeling from the first sentence from Mr. Fletcher that we would see the Chieftain coming up to correct that statement.
You could almost say that Chieftain intercepted Fletcher's comment attack with the speed of a TD!
Did ya hear that? That bell ringing...sounding the beginning of TH-cam's FIRST EVER-
Tank NERD fight...
Round 1...
BEGIN!
My first reaction when hearing him say tanks are not meant to engage tanks "DO YOU EVEN LISTEN WHEN THE CHIEFTAIN TALKS"
I'd really appreciate the tank museum do that tank chat again but with the guy who literally wrote a book about American tank destroyers. Oh there he is...
Great way to start the day, hearing Mr. Fletcher talk about armored vehicles.
Couldn't agree more, a nice cuppa Earl Grey, a plate of McVitties, and a Tank Video with David Fletcher while we're waiting for the Cricket to start.
@@himemjam Don't know what McVitties are being in the US but I would gladly take a cup of the Earl Grey!
Great timing as I was gonna make Achilles tank model 1/72.
"If you can make sure the enemy are playing by the same rules, and they're not usually..."
That's a pretty good summary of Clausewitzian thought.
When you find out your grandad served in these, makes the chat all the more personal ❤
Thanks for everything he did
Completely agree. In fact my grandfather is pictured in this very video, riding atop the M10 at 8’40”! Photo taken in Holland in October ‘44.
It's my son's birthday, just got my Tiger! book in the mail today, and now a new Tank Chat with the esteemed David Fletcher?! Great day!
This man is a national treasure, be well!
Spot on.
This hackneyed and cliched comment should be a YT banning offense.
one little caveat on this very video, the Americans totally expected for tanks to engage other tanks, the M3 and M4 were equipped for such situations, the idea of the tank destroyer was that if the enemy does a mass armour attack (like the Germans did in France), your infantry won't ave the firepower to stop them, even with 1 AT gun for every 150m of frontline, so instead they created the tank destroyer force as a mobile reactionary force to counter such manoeuvres, thus mobility was key, not so much for shoot and scoot, but to reach the enemy armour before they do much damage
I guess this would be one of very few Fletcher's video @ChieftainWG may respectfully beg to differ.
They also didn't disappear. They morphed into tank killing aircraft.
@@RichWhiteUM tank destroyer branch disappeared right after WWII, and the concept didn't see much light, light attack aircraft with anti tank weaponry didn't really become a thing until much later
@@RichWhiteUM And ATGW carrying vehicles like Striker and wheeled TDs like Centauro. And postwar there were still WWII style TDs e.g. Kanonenjagdpanzer.
@@quentintin1 Not precisely, there were air support aircraft that had weapons capable of killing tanks during Korea. Even during WWII; the US Navy, USMC, and US Army Air Force were placing weapons on aircraft in ground support roles that were capable of damaging armor. The "tank destroyer branch" disappeared but in reality the concept lived on. The role has been split between the different branches with all of them, the one exception being the Coast Guard, having aircraft capable of doing the job. The army and USMC also have ground assets capable of doing the job, as others have pointed out elsewhere. It is absolutely inaccurate to state that the tank destroyer concept disappeared simply because the branch of the army that they were placed in did. It's the equivalent of saying that the army shouldn't have airborne firepower anymore because the US Air Force was split off from the US Army following WWII. Neither statement is true.
As Nicholas Moran has pointed out, and I'm sure Fletcher left out just for the sake of talking about the vehicle more than tactics. Besides hit and run tactics, the other main purpose of the TD was breakthrough protection. The US was well aware of how Rommel and his "Ghost Division" had taken off across France, and they were looking for a counter. A Battalion of TD's would be kept as a divisional asset in reserve, to support a threaten section of line, or worst case, plug a hole in the line caused by a massed armored push.
At 04:05... The Americans had to ship everything over the Atlantic and having two different fuel requirements was deemed cumbersome from a supply point of view. Thats not to say that ALL U.S. tanks were gasoline driven. I believe the Marines used the diesels because the NAVY ran diesel in their ships. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The Marines used the m4a2's because they could get their hands on them. The US marine corps was always last in getting new equipment. They even went to war with springfield '03 rifles instead of the m1 Garand because the army would first be equipped with the new rifle before the marines got some. The army didn't want the m4a2 because of the fuel issues, so the marines took them. That way they at least had Shermans, otherwise they'd probably had to get m3's.
It makes logistical sense. Ask any mechanic how often they've had to flush diesels or petrol engines when owners make mistakes. In the pressure and panic of combat ? It's going to happen.
correct..
European theatre abundance of aircraft plus tanks = petrol
Pacific theatre abundance of ships and tanks = diesel.
(but trucks/jeeps on petrol got everywhere..).
the US still maintains the "one fuel per base" doctrine. which is why the light vehicles tend to have engines that run on anything that pours.
Germans and British used mostly gas engines in their tanks as well. I think only the Soviets and the USMC used a lot of diesel.
David Fletcher talking about my favorite tank (destroyer), a dream come true.
Always a treat to come home to a Tank Museum video. :)
He is BAAAACK !!!!!!!
HUZZAH
Wonderfully knowledgeable, honest, “cranky” analysis. Sir David is a blast!
This guy could make a show touting the virtues of the different care bears and id still watch it
I come here for the excellent content and also to see who wins the "Most Effusive Praise for the Host In Order to Get Likes" award. Lots of posters competing in a very close contest. Mr. Fletcher always draws a large crowd of overly-flattering upvote-seekers. Very exciting. In any case, nice video as always.
The Tank destroyers we had back in the old days were the M-274 with an M-40 106 mm Recoilless rifle aboard, we also mounted them on M-151 designed for that Mission, called Assault guns too.
My late Uncle George was a dyed in the wool TD man from the halftrack (which he despised), to the M36 which he preferred to the others he served in from North Africa to Germany.
Glad to see more of the tank museum. I can't decide which David I enjoy listening to more. They each have their own great way of telling the history of these fascinating armored vehicles and their crew.
I always loved the Wolverine Hellcat and Jackson. They were awesome.
I learned to like Richard during lockdown but he is getting close to outstaying his welcome with this new scheme.
I believe that the "tank wasn't ment to fight other tanks" is a huge and common misconception and frankly, I am quite surprised to hear it from the Mighty Moustache himself. The principal difference is, that tanks are ment to be used offensively, while TD's are used for defence. At least in the US Army, the TD branch was specifically created to prevent a Fall-of-France scenario. That's why they are relatively light and fast, so they can be quickly amassed to counter the enemy breakthrough, and that's why they are supposed to shoot and scoot instead of fighting from a prepared defensive position. Because they aren't supposed to have a prepared defensive positions in the first place.
The problem is that "tanks were meant to fight tanks" can mean different things, a product of the ambiguity of the English Language when applied for technical purposes. The term can mean either that a tank is capable of fighting tanks or that a tank's mission was to fight other tanks. They are not the same thing. An M4 Sherman could fight tanks, was indeed designed to fight the common tanks of its day, and fought tanks quite well. M4 Sherman, nevertheless, was not employed in the mission of Tank Destroyer, which is a distinct mission from that of Tank in the US Army doctrine. M4 Shermans, thus, fought tanks only incidentally as part of its mission as Tank.
Put another way, it is lawyers' quibbles over words, and it is thus always confusing for it. Tanks could be made to fight tanks, but were not deployed with the mission to fight tanks unless assigned to a Tank Destroyer unit, in which case a tank became a tank destroyer because its mission was to destroy tanks. To the people who quibbled over doctrine, it was essential that tanks be tanks, not tank destroyers, and tank destroyers be tank destroyers, not tanks. However, to the fight men at the front, they could care less once a panzer showed up.
The US for the most part didnt give its tanks like the M2 and M3 (and later M4 low velocity 75mm became obsolete) guns powerful enough to take out medium/heavy enemy tanks with the low calibre AP main guns the low velocity howitzers with HE that were supposed to be anti infantry were often better in the role. so it was moot, their ethos was give the big gun to the TD and have the tank fall back to TD units in prepared positions who are moved around to where on the battlefield they expected enemy tanks to be. their pre/early war towed TD also had rather weak guns which was why combined with the weak tanks they focussed on producing motorised TD’s.
@@watcherzero5256 Of note, M1 and M2 were treated as experimental vehicles, adopted yes, but they were replaced almost as fast as they introduced. The M1 Combat Car basically was just the most the Army could get the Congress to pay for during a difficult time. Also, its .50cal machinegun was not impotent against many tanks of the day, and as a cavalry scout vehicle, it was particularly viable in the late 1930s against many opposing scouts.
Also note, M3 Lee was in development in mid 1940, before Tank Destroyer Branch was conceived and formed in 1941. M3 Lee had 37mm and 75mm guns, both considered anti-tank capable. Indeed, by the time TD Branch was actually making plans, M4 Sherman was already in development!
Tank Destroyer Branch was a specific counter to massed tank penetration of the infantry line. The infantry divisions remained the primary offensive and defensive force, with tank divisions to support and exploit infantry success. TD Branch had one job: keep panzers from running unchecked behind infantry divisions when they invariably penetrated the American infantry line through their concentrated mass.
@@watcherzero5256 That is simply not true. The 75mm gun on the M3 and M4 was the same gun as armed TDs when they went into service. And the 75mm was a pretty good gun with AP ammunition, the whole myth of the horrible Sherman's is just that, a myth. They also were looking at installing the 3-inch gun in the Sherman pretty much from day one, it just took some time to get a gun that could fit in the Sherman without compromising ergonomics too much. And it is worth noting that 76mm Sherman's were available for D-Day, but they weren't wanted as it was believed the 75mm was good enough against tanks so the additional AP capability of the 76mm wasn't worth the cost (less familiar to the troops, additions to supplies, less effective HE, etc).
In the doctrine tanks were intended to support infantry, and that absolutely including by engaging enemy tanks.
Tank Destroyers were intended to be a mobile reserve force that could be rapidly deployed counter large armoured assaults and breakthroughs. Of course since the Germans were almost always on the defensive against the US that only really happened at Kasserine and the M10s were generally used either as tanks or self-propelled artillery rather than as TDs.
Correct. And the open top was both to lessen weight for higher speed, and to allow TD crews better visibility than the tanks they were supposed to be hunting.
I seem to remember YOU doing tanks chats on Germany and Sweden developing Tank Destroyers post WWII.
And Swedish TDs are technically still in service as ATGM vehicles on the tracked Hägglunds Bv 306 platform.
I don't know if they have built any TD version on the larger and armored Bv10 hull.
This man holds so much knowledge its amazing
He made a mistake though. The M3 Gun Motor Carriage had a 75mm 1897 not a 3 inch gun.
If the other option is a towed AT gun, a TD is a pretty good alternative:
Better offroad capability, better protection and much faster to set up.
The old Wobat could be mounted on a Land Rover. You'd not put much on the crews survival though. Same with the 432 mount, an even bigger target than the LR. 😟
If one wishes to get into nitpicking, the towed 3" M5 was a TD. In US WW2 terminology, the mission drove the categorisation, not the equipment. That's why the M5s were in TD battalions, but the 57mm M1s were in the anti-tank companies.
Or you could tow a AT gun with a AT tank...
We still have tank Destroyers, just not the designated units. And they tend to have either wheels or rotors now. Also, it's kind of not ture that the Americans didn't expect tanks to fight other tanks. Which is why they were always trying to get the same gun the TDs had in the tanks. The TDs were for fast response to an enemy tank breakthrough.
It's not so much that the TD died as its mission was taken from it by other vehicles. Not just armored cars and light tanks with really big guns, but armored personnel carriers with missile launchers, and of course the attack helicopter.
Swedish TDs still mostly has tracks, 4 rubber tracks/vehicle and a fibreglass hull.
@@hhale Exactly. For most of WWII, anti-tank guns were progressively bigger and heavier cannons that needed dedicated vehicles ready to carry such weapons. After the war, however, anti-tank weapons that would be given to non-tank units started taking the form of lighter recoilless weapons or ATGMs that no longer needed a special vehicle.
We could build vehicles and units devoted to slinging TOW or Hellfire missiles; but it’s more economical to add the weapon systems onto non-dedicated, multipurpose vehicles and units. So the function and role are still present, just not the specialized vehicles.
I will make it to this museum as soon as I can travel there, it looks amazing. In the meantime if anyone visits America it is imperative they visit the American Heritage Museum west of Boston MA where they have almost 40 tanks on display.
David Fletcher is my favorite Tank Chats host
In Microsoft Close Combat, this was by far my favorite tank, when I was 7 years old, in 1996 hahaha!
Thank you, David. At last, someone who clearly states what I have been arguing with my ill informed friends for ages (when able to go to the pub). You have a 'squadron' of tanks and a 'battery' of M10s since it is an anti tank gun on a motorised 'platform'.
An excellent gun nonetheless, my late father (2nd Lothians and Border Horse) ended up in a Sherman with the 76mm gun (I have a photo of him in front of his tank, the photo taken in Arezzo, 1945). David discussed this 76mm gun (actually 3" or 76.2mm) tank in an earlier 'chat':
'A tank killer', 9 months ago.
I read a comment by an American armor combat command officer. They ran into German armor while a TD (M10s, I think) battalion was attached. The TDs ran up a high kill score. The officer explained it as the TD crews actually being artillery and trained to fight tanks vs. the tank crews trained more in infantry support. If you ever get to the US, there is an M10 in the Patton Museum at Ft. Knox.
@@davidcox3076 thank you, David, for your interesting comments. Obviously, in battle, as far as possible, actions are coordinated. From what little information my late father gave me and from a copy of the Lothians' regimental records their actions, with a mixture of mainly 75 mm Shermans, Fireflies (the British 17pdr gunned Shermans) or the American 76.2 mm (3") gunned Shermans, were mainly front line assault with infantry support. A good example being in Italy with the Lothians crossing the Rapido river over the heroically constructed 'Amazon Bridge' - part of the assault on the German 'Gustav Line' at Cassino. Incidentally, my late father and I were pleased to give a small assistance to Rick Atkinson in his 'The Day of Battle, The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944', published 2007, the second of his WWII trilogy books. Thanks again.
Thank you , Mr Fletcher .
2:00 “Shoot and scoot” seemed to work well enough for the Taliboys and their pick ups.
only when the US is trying to maintain status quo.
Another brilliantly informative video from the legend
Just received my copy of TIGER! by David, it's a great piece of work beautifully done.
Thank you sir from NZ👍🇳🇿
Never interrupt the tash when he is in full flow! The adds need to be at the start or finish!
I love David Fletcher. That's all I wanted to say. I love him.
Really excellent video. lots of stuff I didn't know about. Love to Learn!
What this man doesn't know about tanks is not worth knowing. Legend!
Well done DAVID, nobody tells the tale lke you.
David Fletcher is a national treasure. Tank destroyers didn't go away after WWII, but perhaps he means just the term. If the Hetzer, Stug III and Jagdpanther were tank destroyers by design, so then was the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 or S-Tank (destroyer😉), which is a particularly impressive example.
A video about the M18 Hellcat would be really cool!
Great Vid as always! No appliqué armor bosses on the flanks. Never noticed before. Cheers!
Thank you for a great talk.
I quickly grab a cup of tea and enjoy double! Thanks good video 👍👍
My grandfather sgt L.R. Samuelson took one of these from Normandy into Germany with the 771st TD battalion before being wounded sometime in November.
Watching the Fletcher quietly dismantle this vehicle in the same way he does British attempts at war vehicles made me wonder how the comments would develop. I wasn't disappointed. The prevailing tone "America is always right" and "You don't know what you're talking about" was a joy to see. The ultimate, "Chieftain won't like this" being he's the M4's biggest fanboy made my day.
I don't think he he does dismantle this vehicle, rather he doesn't distinguish the role of a tank destroyer properly, as distinct from a tank. Its like criticising a hovercraft for not being a boat and not having a propellor whilst not explaining they both have roles as watercraft. BTW I'm not from the US my Mummy sewed little Union flags into my pants so i remember.
I don't mind his opinions on the Achilles itself, but the stuff about doctrine was pretty annoying.
The video is suggesting that TDs were expected to come up and kill tanks for the Shermans which doesn't align with how either was used designed or used. Tanks were expected to engage all comers, and Tank Destroyers were expected to be an entirely defensive tool that rapidly moved to engage and blunt enemy armored thrusts. Tank Destroyers weren't embedded into tank units at all and they operated independently from one another. The idea of shoot and scoot never really happened. TDs used their speed for strategic mobility and then ambushed from concealed positions, and they certainly weren't expected to be used as infantry support guns.
Every major player in WW2 was playing with tank destroyers, and most of them (including the US) intended to use them as cheap, defensive ambush units firing from a concealed position. They were also useful enough that every nation used them throughout the entirety of WW2. The US versions emphasized speed above all else to be able to rapidly plug holes in the line. (along with being open topped for excellent sight lines) Whether that choice was correct or not is open to debate, but the idea that Shermans weren't expected to engage enemy armor and instead wait for TDs to come up and kill it for them doesn't align with their actual use.
It would be far more accurate (imo) for him to have said that after WW2 the American tank destroyer concept was abandoned because:
1) It was intended to be a defensive tool only. Commanders are not fond of tools that have to be left behind half the time, doubly so in a primarily offensive war. It found some limited utility with indirect fire, but only had a few chances in the war to fulfill its primary purpose.
2) The weapons aren't any better than what the Tanks had. The 37mm was on the Stuart, the 75mm and 76mm were on the Sherman, and the 90mm was on the Pershing. What is the point of a specialist if it isn't actually out-preforming a generalist? (and since we put turrets on them, they weren't that much cheaper than a Sherman)
3) It looks like a tank. Despite doctrine clearly stating it wasn't a tank and shouldn't be used offensively, Commanders routinely called Tank Destroyers up to do bunker busting and position clearing, where their thin armor, open tops, and lack of MGs routinely got them killed by hidden and entrenched infantry.
Thanks for the vid. Always great.
Ah, Twin Diesel, one of my favourite actors.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😳😳😳🙄🙄🙄🐸🐸🐸
The main purpose of the 'tank destroyer' in doctrine was to stop armored break throughs. The idea was to have them quickly rush in and slow or stop a break through. It did kind of do that in the Battle of the Bulge. The modern Japanese MCV Type 16 is really a tank destroy, The way they plan to use them is exactly the same.
Basically the Tank destroyers filled a gap with a heavier anti tank gun mid to late war until more allied tanks could be fielded with similar
anti tank capacity like the Sherman Firefly .....
Brilliant ❤️👀👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Thanks again for the great video.JDS in AZ
Tank you!
Two small points: 1. According to The_Cheieftain the main idea of the tank destroyer in US service was to counter massed armoured attack . 2. The bitterest enemies for any part of an army is usually the other parts of the same army. The 2 together explain the idea of AT guns on fast cars to get to the attack quickly and the weird way this AV evolved. Armour wanted all tanks so artillery didn't get a roof on what would have been a tank. On top of that Most tanks in WWII were destroyed by anti-tank guns, and you could get several towed guns for the price of one of these.
The turret cover was used operationally, though not a standardised version more independent knock-ups. Some regiments started making their own with salvaged bits of scrap during the Battle of Normandy when it was found to be vulnerable to shrapnel and direct hits - a particularly terrible story exists of an M-10 from 86th A/Tk Regt getting a mortar round drop in the turret during Operation JUPITER (July 10th 1944), which detonated and killed and incinerated all of the crew except for the driver who escaped wounded. Photos from August 1944 show 86th A/T Regt had improvised some turret covers, though whether related to specific incident hard to say.
I can confirm that 86th did indeed use a makeshift cover at and beyond Op. Jupiter. My dad was in one of the 17pdr M10's and told me the makeshift cover was effectively just a framework of angle iron with a steel sheet bolted on top. It was mainly just to fend off flying light shrapnel and was never designed to stop anything directed at the vehicle, although I guess it may have helped in the event of a mortar or grenade dropping on the roof!
"that's too much heavy armor. we have to be able to run away faster"
"why do you have to run away?"
"because we don't have heavy armor"
tank destroyer logic
The thing was, it worked. Their ability to get to where they needed to be, the great visibility the open top provided the TC, as well as their ability to scoot made them very effective. The chieftan has a great video on the topic.
I don't know, this video is confusing to me because I understood the tank destroyer from the operational/strategic lens.
Its not that tank destroyers were designed to scoot up, shoot and run faster than a heavier tank could, its that when an enemy made a breach in your lines with an armoured assault and were quickly advancing with motorized forces so they could cut off supply lines and such that the tank destroyer was the biggest gun you could strap to a slightly armoured vehicle that could GET to a defensive position in time. Basically the tank destroyer is a self powered antitank gun that had the nice bonus (especially for the crew) that it could drive off after shooting.
Tank destroyers are like that defensive guy in football who hangs back a little and looks for where the other team's dudes are gonna break through the linemen and rushes after them.
@@tylerbrown9797 They were basically the linebackers and safeties of the battlefield. Some tanks were also used in the role of linebackers as they could be the pass-rushers after the line opened a hole. I think that should confuse the Brits here enough for today!
I also would argue that the tank destroyer didn't actually disappear They just morphed into a different type of vehicle. Examples of modern tank destroyers would be the AH-64 Apache and the A-10 Thunderbolt II, aka the Warthog. Both of those aircraft can certainly be considered a tank destroyer, with the kill counts to prove it.
@@RichWhiteUM Yah, although the warthog should have the capability to fly autonomously at this point though since flying one against an adversary that could actually field modern tanks would be suicidal for the pilot....
I generally agree with you but I would point to the rise of the APC and the advancement of antitank rockets that made the concept of the tank destroyer seem to go away. During WW2 they could barely fit an antitank gun in a tank that could penetrate other tanks, so modifying a tank for the antitank role made more sense. Idk tho, I see many APC type vehicles with TOW missiles on them and I am just an armchair speculator I have no idea if they train to use these vehicles in a tank destroyer fashion.
@@tylerbrown9797 In a limited sense, the Bradley with its TOW launcher could be said to be a tank destroyer, especially the Cav Scout variant. There's also the Stryker variant that mounts a turret with an anti-tank 105mm gun.
The ad's seemed a bit more toned down this time. I didn't get feeling like I was listening to a sleazy car salesman like I have in the past. Would still prefer something at the end like before.
I agree better at the end and NOT in the middle.
The problem with this broad cast is the Chieftain found lot's of documents showing that the army brass expected American tanks to take out tanks. They tank destroyers were to get in front of hostile breakouts and stop them. They were combat effective though many were used as basically mobile artillery to provide infantry support. That meant that when they were needed to stop a break out they were diffused.
Love David Fletcher’s way of telling it like it is!
I’m surprised David didn’t point out that the Brits had the exact same Tank Destroyer doctrine as the Americans. The Archer TD was build at the same time, with the same concept, and with the exact same gun.
In combat it seems British TDs were used more aggressively alongside tanks. But the tactical/design concepts were the same as the Americans, who stuck more to the doctrine in practice. I suspect the greater combat experience on the British side helped in that account.
British doctrine was actually different - they were embedded in the existing anti-tank regiments and were initially expected only to get to a captured location more quickly and set up to defend against a German counterattack. That's as opposed - I *think* - to a larger and more mobile tank destroyer unit which the Americans expected to use. But as time went on the Brits learned they could use the M10 more aggressively than that.
@@chriscamfield7610 Aren’t there a few occasions where M-10’s were used to beef up attacks by Tank Brigades, to compensate for the Churchill’s gun. I think something like this happened at JUPITER with 86th A/Tk Regt working with 9th RTR.
@@HydroSnips Achilles then not M10
@@HydroSnips Absolutely true!
@@janvandeven906 Achilles is just the "M10C" or "17-pounder M10". It's still an M10.
Thank you for a very interesting video.
thought the reason to the open top was to better facilitate rapid fire since you have a larger gun, larger round, and didn't have to worry about trying to maneuver it inside an armored box plus it gave your gunner and tc better sight to acquire targets more rapidly
I read that thanks to ATGMs that the tank destroyer concept might be viable today.
Good way of putting it.
01:09 "..which is fine if you can make sure the enemy [is] playing with the same rules they're not usually, but still there we are!" 🤣
Thanks!
Great presentation. Great moustache
" A jolly good way of getting killed". Best description ever.
Tank Destroyer! Please and Thank You!
The anti-tank folks got their wish for a shoot and scoot vehicle in the faster M18 Hellcat.
Best American anti-tank vehicle of the war
Wow, Mr Fletcher is wrong! M3 Halftrack did not carry 3inch gun, but 75mm gun.. similar that was fitted to Sherman... and no, Tank Destroyers were not supposed to fight tanks while tanks would support infantry... they were specialist vehicle designed to stop the tanks when they achieve breakthrough... they were mobile reserve commanders could send against enemy in such situations... tanks were always supposed to fight whatever they meet on battlefield.. tanks included! (After all, both M3 TD and M4 tank used same 75mm M3 gun in 1942...)
TDs had no turret roof, because they were not supposed to fight on front line, but were supposed to fight in own territory where enemy would not have artillery support at that time (Germans did not have any mobile artillery attached to panzer divisions in 1940, which was what US were expected to fight when they came with the doctrine)
And for Achilles, it was not really a Tank Destroyer... because British used it as Self-propelled Anti-Tank gun... British did not adopt US Tank Destroyer doctrine...
3 inches is 76.2mm so he is not that wrong apart from the missing 1.2mm
You are correct
@@raymartcarreon6069 The 76.2mm/3" gun was VERY different in all ways from the 75mm gun. The 3" gun didn't have a useful HE shell, but did have a massive case to drive the AP shell to useful velocities.
@@raymartcarreon6069 The 76.2mm/3" gun was VERY different in all ways from the 75mm gun
The "3 inch gun" was not actually 76.2mm; it was called as such so that ammunition would not be confused between it and the standard 75 and 76mm guns as it was all completely incompatible.
Just because a gun is the same size doesn't mean it's the same. For example, the long (L/48) 75mm gun on the Pz IV and StuG III used completely different ammunition from the Panther's 75mm.
Actually the concept of tank destroyer is still around. Apache, warthog etc including tracked vehicles. The M3 Gun Motor Carriage (halftrack) had the 75mm 1897 not the 3' gun. The main reason TD's had an open top was for observation.
Even before the Apache and attack helicopters we had dedicated TOW missile vehicles. In all actuality modern TD's share much more in common with the "failed" American vehicles then the Soviet or German ones. Mobile and lightweight to be able to rush towards a concentration of enemy armor
Not to forget the plethora of recoilless rifle armed vehicles that existed in between the WWII GMCs and the deployment of practical ATGMs.
If the like subscribe stuff was narrated by fletcher it would be less displeasurable to the ear and the midway inserts too if you may.
Yes
Although the Bundeswehr and Swiss Army continued on with the Jagd Panzer Canone concept throughout the cold war, so tank destroyers didn't die completely. Great video.
And then you can argue that it grew a rotor disc and became the helicopter gunship (at least as far as the concept of rapid moving firepower to plug a breakthrough goes).
david fletcher is a legend
Idk why but I like these tanks more than the newer ones just the ones from this time they seems o interesting to me!!
I want that dodge, just so I can drive around asking people "So, do you want some high speed freedom today?"
Thanks TH-cam for not notifying me that Tank Jesus has released a video.
Purple Heart Box xD, love that term
Excellent as usual except for the ad halfway through.
I am a little surprised he was off on his history and reasons on the TD. Chieftain is probably doing the most meme worthy head rubbing right now. Tanks were-by doctrine supposed to deal with tanks. Tank destroyers were always stored to be in reserves and had to be fast enough to run to penetrations in the lines and set up in ambush. Topless so the TC could see the enemy faster and shoot first. Did do a few times and we’re really good at killing tanks especially in Italy. Was usually used as indirect fire though because high ranking people hate having tank like things just hanging around.
I am not sure why the concept of the “tank destroyer” is hard to grasp. It was essentially a self propelled antitank gun.
Ah - simple.
Yeah, the narrator is so biased against everything American. I guess he forgot we saved his a** in WWII.
Well, not really. This is ho the british employed the M10 - with a Royal Artillery crew.
The American created the Tank Destroyer Force detatched from just anti-tank defensive guns.
Their point was that anti-tank guns were part of the defensive line, spread out.
If the germans would use their blietzkrieg tactics, the panzers would concentrate in one area covered just by few guns.
The tank destroyers force should be high mobility reserve, ready to go where the "normal" AT guns were outgunned and the massed panzers were breaking thought to form a equally massed Antitank line of defense.
@@toomanyhobbies2011 wrong, Russia did.
@@toomanyhobbies2011 Oh dear. Anyone who thinks that is automatically proven to be not exactly up on their own historical knowledge.
The New Zealanders in Italy were issued with M10s and thought 'great. It looks like a tank so it must be a tank “. Of course it wasn’t.
But they found it excellent on the attack. In the past there had always been a dangerous period after the arrival of the infantry on the objective and before the arrival of the towed AT. The M10 could accompany the infantry and be on the spot for the inevitable German counterattack.
It also meant that tanks involved could be withdrawn for other jobs and not not be tied down to infantry support after the attack.
This doesn’t seem to be exactly the same as US doctrine but is another good use for the vehicles.
Someone asked The Chieftain a while back about the tank destroyer concept going out of fashion. He pointed out that the original concept, a fast-‘moving force to contain an enemy armor breakout, sounds a lot like a squadron of Apaches.
Which don’t have a lot in common with an M10, but neither did the converted half-tracks and light trucks and towed artillery pieces the early tank destroyer force used (effectively) in North Africa.
Or for that matter, the Toyota Hilux trucks, mounting AA guns, used by Sudan to push back the invading Libyan forces.
The Man With the 'Tash is back
When this man eventually passes, they have to fire all the tank guns in ceremony!
Danish army used them almost into 1979. Some in storage until 2000. Now on museum.
I thoroughly enjoy your videos, folks, very engaging, informative, and interesting. I often learn more about vehicles (that I already knew about) than I originally thought I knew because of your videos.
Not to be mean and complain however, and I'm sorry if this upsets other people, but the advertisements coming in halfway through the video ruins the experience somewhat for me. While they're only 22 seconds long, they snap me out of my train of thought while watching the video, and then I have to refocus once the ads are done. In fact, I'm at the point now where I'm just skipping the ads because they're more of a hindrance for me. It pushes me away rather than drawing me in to spend my money. I'd prefer it if you went back to having the ads at the tail end of the video like you used to.
Just my two bits, I'm sorry.
@RedBaronFilms1918 Adding my own opinion, I am not trying to convince anybody.
I was ready to just skip the video in annoyance at the ads but clicked anyway.
They seem they have at least muted the SWOOOSH compared to last week
th-cam.com/video/YKpMLxOUQqM/w-d-xo.html
to a level I can almost tolerate.
I don't mind the ad but on a Friday night here 10PM, lightly dozing and listening after tea it was giving me a little heart attack but okay now.
It is marked and if I was fully awake and watching I could just skip it.
Just a tad lower would be even better :-)
I agree, it was bad enough when they had poor David Wiley flogging cheap tat from the shop at the beginning and end of videos, now they have to drop ads in the middle.
The Chieftan has adequately dispelled the myth of Americans thinking tanks weren't supposed to fight tanks, it simply wasn't true. The tank destroyer concept was to have antitank guns on a mobile platform so the force could be rapidly concentrated where needed.
Not only that but it wasn't just the Americans that got it wrong with tank destroyers. The Brits did as well with vehicles like the Archer and the Churchill gun carrier. Lets not forget the Germans with a whole range of Stugg and Jagd vehicles and other monstrosities. And there was the Russians with the SU series.
@@Khalifrio The TDs were very efficient so I wouldn't say they got it wrong.
@@kyle857 If they had not gotten it wrong TD's would still be around today. They are not.
Mr Smith popping up mid vlog and disrupting the wise words of David Fletcher with mustache akimbo is to be blunt annoying
I'm a simple man. I see David Fletcher, I click the video.
IF one visits Yad La Shiryon - Israel's tank museum and memorial to the (Israeli) armoured corps , there is an Achilles tank destroyer on display ( next to one of the MANY Centurion tanks of different variants )
i purchased a panzer 2 and im still waiting cant wait to get it
3-inch gun is 76.2 mm bore diameter as is the US 76 mm gun and the UK 17 pounder gun.
And the 77mm... And obviously the Russian zis-3
@@Darilon12 And none of the rounds were interchangeable. Even the US 3-inch and 76-mm ammo had different size propellant cases, but similar performance. The 76-mm gun itself was much lighter (1,140 lbs) than the 3-inch gun (1,990 lbs.). So the 76 was better suited for tank installation.. The 17 pounder gun weighed 2,032 lbs.
Different names were meant to prevent possible loading mistakes.
Didnt the 17 pounder have a higher velocity? Therefore better pen than the US 76.2? But yeah very similar.
The 17 pounder was a match for the 88 firing AP.
@@MauriceTarantulas The US M7 3-inch gun on the M10 tank destroyer firing regular armor piercing rounds were about 2,600 feet per second. Projectile weight was 15.4 pounds.
The US M1 76-mm gun on the Sherman and M18 tank destroyer firing regular armor piercing rounds were about 2,600 feet per second. Projectile weight was 15.4 pounds.
The UK 17 pounder Mk IV gun on the Achilles tank destroyer firing regular armor piercing rounds were about 2,900 feet per second. Projectile weight was 17 pounds.
The tankers life consisted of cleaning up the inside of "tatty" turrets just so they could dirty them up the next day. The worst part is cleaning in between the turret and the hull.
My sis love this one ...
Almost 2k battles with this nice tank
We want the Director!