Jump to content


Long Boring Video on Tank Destroyer History


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #1 Posted Aug 26 2016 - 22:50

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9515 battles
  • 9,424
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011


WulfeHound #2 Posted Aug 26 2016 - 23:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 12884 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
Ooo, interesting

Nikarus #3 Posted Aug 27 2016 - 00:03

    Private

  • Players
  • 4829 battles
  • 5
  • Member since:
    09-03-2011
Enjoyable as usual

PantherHunter49 #4 Posted Aug 27 2016 - 02:07

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5589 battles
  • 270
  • [D4NCE] D4NCE
  • Member since:
    06-07-2014

*jumps through window*

Who said History?



The_Wehraboo #5 Posted Aug 27 2016 - 06:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 49849 battles
  • 5,137
  • [OKH] OKH
  • Member since:
    04-02-2012
I'll have to watch this tomorrow morning :)

Anlushac11 #6 Posted Aug 27 2016 - 12:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 32879 battles
  • 2,088
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

Watched it. Enjoyed it. Did have one complaint. What was with the noise coming from boom mic? Almost like there was a desktop mic that was being bumped or tapped on fairly often.

 

Have one question.  I have not been able to find much info on the M8A1. Can The Chieftan aka Mr. Moran confirm or deny the following...

 

Someone discovered that the M8 HMC's 75mm pack howitzer shared same gun mounts as M4 Sherman's 75mm M3 gun and both guns fired the M48HE round. A wrecked M4 Sherman was relieved of its 75mm M3 gun minus the gun shield. The 75mm M3 was a direct swap and bolted right in and only requirement was to tack weld steel plates to back of turret to re balance the turret for the longer gun.

 

The vehicle was used as a sort of long range sniper firing HE rounds at enemy outposts and bunkers and due to higher muzzle velocity had much better range and accuracy. The advantage was the lightweight M8 HMC was able to climb hills the M10 and M4 could not and with the long 75mm gun gave accurate long range fire support to hit enemy positions that the M8 HMC otherwise had problems hitting.

 

Tank Destroyer Board caught wind of this field modification and thought it might be useful so the setup was tested but rejected as it had too high a center of gravity and was considered too unstable of a gun platform for the more powerful weapon.

 

 



AquaShrimp #7 Posted Aug 27 2016 - 13:52

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 5183 battles
  • 29
  • Member since:
    12-24-2010
I am amazed at the junky, sheet metal protected vehicles that the U.S. put a cannon on expected to fight a proper tank!  Very informative presentation.  I like to think "Would I have wanted my grandpa to go into combat in one of those?".  Nope!

NK_33 #8 Posted Aug 27 2016 - 14:22

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 16178 battles
  • 3,118
  • Member since:
    12-24-2014

View PostAnlushac11, on Aug 27 2016 - 03:23, said:

Watched it. Enjoyed it. Did have one complaint. What was with the noise coming from boom mic? Almost like there was a desktop mic that was being bumped or tapped on fairly often.

The headset mike doesn't have the foam cover so every time he uses a S or P the mike rumbles.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_consonant

 

Great video Chieftain, but please get a mike cover.



CapturedJoe #9 Posted Aug 27 2016 - 21:30

    Captain

  • Players
  • 4214 battles
  • 1,914
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013
That anti-tank rock might still be useful against Japanese tanks...

Grand_Cookie #10 Posted Aug 27 2016 - 23:29

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18545 battles
  • 787
  • Member since:
    11-06-2013

View PostAquaShrimp, on Aug 27 2016 - 06:52, said:

I am amazed at the junky, sheet metal protected vehicles that the U.S. put a cannon on expected to fight a proper tank!  Very informative presentation.  I like to think "Would I have wanted my grandpa to go into combat in one of those?".  Nope!

It's more that they were trying to take what would have been a towed (read: completely unarmored) anti tank gun and make it more mobile. It was to be used the same as a towed gun. Camouflaged for the ambush and then scoot. The armor was more to protect them from small arms fire. Not other tanks. The only place where they'd be rolling around on the front lines to run into a real tank is in games like this. Set up with fields of fire, camouflage, bush-whack some unsuspecting vehicles, and gtfo.



Alterinus #11 Posted Aug 28 2016 - 20:24

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 7998 battles
  • 835
  • Member since:
    06-25-2015

Dissolved further, the point of a tank was to get a cannon across regions using a mechanized horseless carriage, providing safety to the driver.

 

The point of a tank destroyer is to get a cannon capable of a reasonable amount of Anti-Tank power across regions with the driver relatively safe from small bullets, and ease deployment of the weapon as it is already set up. Imagine setting up and stabilizing an AT gun in the back of a pickup. Now put armor on it. Tank Destroyer complete.



MapleOne #12 Posted Aug 28 2016 - 23:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 21343 battles
  • 1,995
  • [25CDN] 25CDN
  • Member since:
    04-20-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Aug 26 2016 - 22:50, said:

 

Fist of all it's not long and boring...as a former Tank commander in the Canadian Armed forces....it's way more interesting then the majority of the presentations and video's he had to stay awake for.....LOL. Awesome video BTW, Thanks And if you ever find your way to Calgary, AB....beer is on me. 

 



AquaShrimp #13 Posted Aug 29 2016 - 00:21

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 5183 battles
  • 29
  • Member since:
    12-24-2010

A few things that might be noteworthy. I watched an interview with a German half-track commander.  His particular half-track had a 75mm anti-tank cannon on it.  He talked about how it was foolish to send his comrades and himself out in vehicles that looked like tanks, but did not have the armor of tanks.  He also talked how his unit was decimated by tanks on the Eastern front (lots of variables there, but still...).

 

The only other thing I would like to add. Fort Knox used to have a yearly WW2 battle re-creation each 4th of July.  I was amazed at how small and low to the ground the German 75mm anti-tank guns were.  Nearly invisible with any type of camouflage.



Alterinus #14 Posted Aug 29 2016 - 04:03

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 7998 battles
  • 835
  • Member since:
    06-25-2015

View PostAquaShrimp, on Aug 29 2016 - 00:21, said:

A few things that might be noteworthy. I watched an interview with a German half-track commander.  His particular half-track had a 75mm anti-tank cannon on it.  He talked about how it was foolish to send his comrades and himself out in vehicles that looked like tanks, but did not have the armor of tanks.  He also talked how his unit was decimated by tanks on the Eastern front (lots of variables there, but still...).

 

The only other thing I would like to add. Fort Knox used to have a yearly WW2 battle re-creation each 4th of July.  I was amazed at how small and low to the ground the German 75mm anti-tank guns were.  Nearly invisible with any type of camouflage.

 

Yeah, but what's the alternative? Send them out in vehicles that look like tanks, and they might get shot at. Send them out in vehicles that don't look like tanks and enemy thinks "ooh, juicy target!". I'm not sure what difference it would've made for them to be all towed guns with excess infantry.

 

Anyway, what we take away is that tank destroyer is more of a specific set of words defined in order to create a separate branch. All tank destroyers are anti-tank guns, but not vice versa. A ford 250 with an modern ATGM is a "tank destroyer" if need be. A hand-held  AT weapon or towed one isn't a tank destroyer, because neither are as mobile or haul themselves around.


Edited by Alterinus, Aug 29 2016 - 04:05.


ArcherII #15 Posted Aug 30 2016 - 18:14

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20240 battles
  • 1,458
  • [ARCHY] ARCHY
  • Member since:
    12-07-2013

I caught this on youtube and enjoyed it a great deal.  Like the U.S. Army flag in the background.


 

Two questions:

- Would it be fair to say that the TD concept as originally envisioned was almost purely defensive in nature?

- What in the hell is going on in the background because it sounds like a party you just weren't invited to?



The_Chieftain #16 Posted Aug 31 2016 - 07:02

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9515 battles
  • 9,424
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostArcherII, on Aug 30 2016 - 17:14, said:

I caught this on youtube and enjoyed it a great deal.  Like the U.S. Army flag in the background.


 

Two questions:

- Would it be fair to say that the TD concept as originally envisioned was almost purely defensive in nature?

- What in the hell is going on in the background because it sounds like a party you just weren't invited to?

 

1) Yes.

2) Launch party for Master of Orion, if I recall.



Dratt_Dastardly #17 Posted Aug 31 2016 - 12:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 26988 battles
  • 2,075
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011

I watched it the other day and enjoyed it.

 

I was honestly surprised to see in the one report where M10's were doing more indirect fire than LoS.

 

Of course I became more aware that tanks and "TD's" did do indirect fire (with minimal sighting) from the Chieftain's Hatch episodes.

 

It was also a curious information that outside of the US, Tank Destroyers were not attached to armor but to the artillery units.  

 

Now I know WoT separates all SPG's between TD or Arty but did most TD's perform indirect fire routinely?  Like the German Panzer variants and the Russian SU lines?



ArcherII #18 Posted Aug 31 2016 - 16:28

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20240 battles
  • 1,458
  • [ARCHY] ARCHY
  • Member since:
    12-07-2013

Dratt....

 

I thought one of the really well put points was that commanders simply aren't going to let assets (particularly big powerful guns)  sitting around being unused and would adapt those asset to any role they felt could be filled.


 

One could almost put together a Doctorate analyzing how often and where that happens in recent military history.



Dratt_Dastardly #19 Posted Aug 31 2016 - 18:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 26988 battles
  • 2,075
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011

View PostArcherII, on Aug 31 2016 - 10:28, said:

Dratt....

 

I thought one of the really well put points was that commanders simply aren't going to let assets (particularly big powerful guns)  sitting around being unused and would adapt those asset to any role they felt could be filled.


 

One could almost put together a Doctorate analyzing how often and where that happens in recent military history.

 

which is true.  They were meant for defense but with the push towards Germany, there was no need to keep them pack.  It was a good decision to bring them up to the front to supplement those forces.

 

And I'm sure there has been many times an asset or procedure was circumvented past their original use in a way to be more beneficial.   One example would be the self propelled anti-aircraft guns in the Vietnam War.  They started to be used as anti-infantry guns at base camps.



Tjtod #20 Posted Aug 31 2016 - 19:16

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6540 battles
  • 1,142
  • Member since:
    04-01-2013

View PostDratt_Dastardly, on Aug 31 2016 - 13:28, said:

 

  One example would be the self propelled anti-aircraft guns in the Vietnam War.  They started to be used as anti-infantry guns at base camps.

This also happened in WWII with the M15 MGMC spaa being used for infantry support.

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users