Jump to content


Long Boring Video on Tank Destroyer History


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

Grand_Cookie #21 Posted Sep 01 2016 - 05:51

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 18720 battles
  • 787
  • Member since:
    11-06-2013
did the tank destroyers play a part in any expedience or delay of the tank programs? if they didn't want jacksons and then decided they were great after getting them, did anything like that influence their tank program decisions like a 90mm Pershing? Who needs a T29 when TDs are running amuck?

It might have just been a while since I've read any hunnicut, but I don't remember anything like this being mentioned, not that it was relevant to mention anyway.

Anlushac11 #22 Posted Sep 01 2016 - 22:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 32899 battles
  • 2,089
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

If I may interject.

 

In reference to the M36 Jackson...no.

 

The T35E1 which became the M10 GMC was started in April-May 1942 and accepted by US Army for service in September 1942.

 

Work on what became the T71 (started with tests to mount 90mm in M10 which was a no-go. New turret was designed and built) and later M36 GMC started in October 1942.

 

First combat for the M10 GMC was March 1943

 

M36 was accepted for service April 1944 and first combat was about September 1944.

 

T20 tank program was started in May 1942 but with so many diverse technologies tested in the various sub programs I dont see T20 series being interrupted. IMHO the T20 program was so new and raw that the T23's sent to ETO in January 1945 (Tiger Force) they were barely usable due to so many bugs still in system and were not reliable at all.

 

Even by 1950 M26's in Korean War were considered unreliable to the point that E8 Sherman's were the work horses of US Armored Forces in Korea.

 

In 1948 US Army began program to re engine and upgrade the troublesome M26 Pershings and fix the numerous problems. The program made so many changes that the Army felt that a new designation was needed so it was renamed M46 Patton.

 

 


Edited by Anlushac11, Sep 01 2016 - 22:06.


FrozenKemp #23 Posted Sep 02 2016 - 23:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 40979 battles
  • 3,699
  • [27PZR] 27PZR
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

First of all thank you VERY much for the awesome video.  WG is lucky to have you. 

 

Second, I am boggled by the idea that the American army converted some TD units to towed artillery after Operation Torch and sent such a unit to the invasion of Italy.  I mean, yes, the British were very often lured into AT gun ranges and so on and so forth, which I think that had been true since before Operation Battleaxe in June '41, more than a year before Torch.  And of course that means it was well before El Guettar.  Why didn't this happen before Torch, then?  Did it take that long for the U.S. Army to get reports of experiences of the British i the desert war?  Why were TD units converted to towed artillery after Torch!? 

 

Third, please do more videos like this! 

 


Edited by FrozenKemp, Sep 02 2016 - 23:42.


Anlushac11 #24 Posted Sep 03 2016 - 01:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 32899 battles
  • 2,089
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

At start of Operation torch the main US TD was the 75mm M3 Gun motor carriage, basically the 75mm gun off a Sherman mounted on a M3 half track.

 

The 75mm gun was effective but the half tracks had very thin armor and suffered heavy casualties at Sidi Bou Zid and Kasserine Pass. Even later at El Guettar the M3 GMC did much better but still suffered casualties.

 

The poor showing of the M3 GMC at Sidi Bou Zid and Kasserine Pass were due to poor planning and poor tactical employment. The relative ineffectiveness and high casualties for the three battles was used as a reason that the M3 was unsuited and was retired as a TD. The role was taken over by the much better suited M10 GMC which had its first use a El Guettar and performed very well.

 

Im thinking most of what your seeing converted from TD to towed AT guns were the M3 GMC crews moved from M3GMC to towed 3" AT guns.

 

Most 75mm M3 gun motor carriage's were converted back to m3 half tracks but I think some were converted to T19 105mm gun motor carriages. The T19's were used as self propelled guns providing indirect fire support until the M7 Priest arrived to replace it.


Edited by Anlushac11, Sep 03 2016 - 01:18.


zloykrolik #25 Posted Sep 03 2016 - 02:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 29550 battles
  • 409
  • [RDTT2] RDTT2
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012

The M3 GMC used the M1897A5 gun. Basically a US produced version of the French 75 of WW1 fame.

 

The M2 & M3 tanks guns on the M3 Lee & M4 Sherman fired the same  75x350R  round as the M1897A5.


Edited by zloykrolik, Sep 03 2016 - 02:26.


Anlushac11 #26 Posted Sep 03 2016 - 19:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 32899 battles
  • 2,089
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

View Postzloykrolik, on Sep 02 2016 - 20:23, said:

The M3 GMC used the M1897A5 gun. Basically a US produced version of the French 75 of WW1 fame.

 

The M2 & M3 tanks guns on the M3 Lee & M4 Sherman fired the same  75x350R  round as the M1897A5.

 

That is true.http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/wwIItms/TM9_306_1943.pdf

Edited by Anlushac11, Sep 03 2016 - 19:37.


Anlushac11 #27 Posted Sep 03 2016 - 19:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 32899 battles
  • 2,089
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/wwIItms/TM9_306_1943.pdf

Zinegata #28 Posted Oct 12 2016 - 10:39

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9548 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostAquaShrimp, on Aug 29 2016 - 07:21, 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...).

 

I don't believe German halftracks were ever directly armed with the 75mm L48. They were equipped with the short 75mm - the same gun from the very early Mk IVs - which was primarily an infantry support weapon.

 

Which was the actual intent of the 75mm-armed half tracks: They were supposed to be ad-hoc infantry support armored vehicles. A Sherman or a Stug on the cheap and fighting enemy tanks was supposed to be beyond their abilities. Indeed, I have to note that the British were rather befuddled by these cheap half-tracks in Normandy especially early on when they had difficulty coordinating with their own armor.



The_Chieftain #29 Posted Oct 12 2016 - 16:45

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9526 battles
  • 9,455
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostZinegata, on Oct 12 2016 - 09:39, said:

 

I don't believe German halftracks were ever directly armed with the 75mm L48. They were equipped with the short 75mm - the same gun from the very early Mk IVs - which was primarily an infantry support weapon.

 

Which was the actual intent of the 75mm-armed half tracks: They were supposed to be ad-hoc infantry support armored vehicles. A Sherman or a Stug on the cheap and fighting enemy tanks was supposed to be beyond their abilities. Indeed, I have to note that the British were rather befuddled by these cheap half-tracks in Normandy especially early on when they had difficulty coordinating with their own armor.

 

The SdKfz 251/22 was armed from the factory with the L46 PaK 40. At least 100 were built, plus probably some field conversions from the short 75.

 

This is the more familiar variant.

 

 

However...

 

 

They were not fantastic. Cramped, with limited ammunition capacity. However, they were, to coin Doyle's phrase, better than pushing a PaK40 through the mud, and helped with the shortfall of actual tank-killing AFVs.

 

 



YANKEE137 #30 Posted Oct 12 2016 - 17:07

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 5162 battles
  • 1,262
  • [SOFAT] SOFAT
  • Member since:
    08-17-2015

I was in Bosnia in 1999 for the peacekeeping mission. Out east at Gorazde there were several abandoned M-18s. The engines had been pulled but they were otherwise intact. Locals said that the 76mm guns weren't much use for reducing concrete buildings.  Nearby a trench siege line crossing a hilltop had dug outs for m-18's. From here they fired down into the City. When NATO started bombing they got hit hard. I saw at least two at wild angles and mostly buried from nearby bomb hits. That was either US Navy or RAF I guess.

I often wonder if those Hellcats will be dug up in a hundred years?


Edited by YANKEE137, Oct 12 2016 - 17:18.


Zinegata #31 Posted Oct 13 2016 - 07:49

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9548 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Oct 12 2016 - 23:45, said:

 

The SdKfz 251/22 was armed from the factory with the L46 PaK 40. At least 100 were built, plus probably some field conversions from the short 75.

 

This is the more familiar variant.

 

 

However...

 

 

They were not fantastic. Cramped, with limited ammunition capacity. However, they were, to coin Doyle's phrase, better than pushing a PaK40 through the mud, and helped with the shortfall of actual tank-killing AFVs.

 

 

 

Lol, so they did try mounting the L48. Desperate times, call for desperate measures, as they often say.

lightwaveTT #32 Posted Oct 14 2016 - 12:57

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 12472 battles
  • 885
  • Member since:
    12-06-2014

Not only did i learn some things, I enjoyed this presentation very much. I loved the thing with the questions of 'whats the difference' between TD or not at the beginning. How that leads to present day modern equivalent units, that fill the old TD's role these day's at the end.

 

Can you do another video sometime on the contrasts between the different nations doctrines and driving concerns for there TD AT branches deployment and or use ?

 

Though i know of the German doctrine which had its core concerns rooted in economics and production /  time as i feel their considerations were even more practically hard pressed, (considering they favored turretless td's / at's) id love to see side by side comparisons in this manner between the respective theory crafting and practical usage of some of the other nations which i know less or little about, Russia Italy Finland.

 

My only critisim...  

 

Block Quote

 Long Boring Video on Tank Destroyer History

 While humility and modesty is nice and all. This is not a very good title for the video to be found easily for future reference. I might suggest the alternate video title something a bit more simple and or direct, possibly akin to the below. 

 

Block Quote

WW2 American Tank Destroyer creation, theory, concerns and use.

 

You can place modesty in the introduction it serves a better purpose or role as a opening icebreaker for a intro :) You can expand on that in you're opening, fair warning to those who may only want to see the tanks themselves.

 

Different people of course are interested by or favor different things. Its always good to mix it up for different crowds from time to time, while of course this is niche, and not fancy or showy (which we all enjoy as well). It is also really nitty gritty and was quite well done. In the future keep in mind, not to short change your work or do disservice to your niche audience who enjoy it.

 

Give it a proper title.

 

I found it to be a highly compressed historical overview of the American TD origins dating back from ww2 to what it is today.

.

 


Edited by lightwaveTT, Oct 14 2016 - 14:01.


Zinegata #33 Posted Oct 19 2016 - 10:34

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9548 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostlightwaveTT, on Oct 14 2016 - 19:57, said:

Though i know of the German doctrine which had its core concerns rooted in economics and production /  time as i feel their considerations were even more practically hard pressed, (considering they favored turretless td's / at's) id love to see side by side comparisons in this manner between the respective theory crafting and practical usage of some of the other nations which i know less or little about, Russia Italy Finland.

 

 

 

The funny thing about the Germans is that they had always maintained their own Tank Destroyer arm - the Panzerjaeger - both during and before the war. This was in large part a product of the Versailles Treaty which prevented the Weimar Republic from having its own tank forces. Since the Germans weren't allowed to have tanks, they focused a great deal of thinking on how to properly employ their towed anti-tank weapons against the expected vast British, French, and Soviet tank fleets. A lot of this thinking was retained even after the Nazis restarted tank production; to the point that every German Division basically had a Panzerjaeger battalion so that there would not be a repeat of the last days of the First World War.

 

 



lightwaveTT #34 Posted Oct 24 2016 - 20:50

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 12472 battles
  • 885
  • Member since:
    12-06-2014

View PostZinegata, on Oct 19 2016 - 10:34, said:

 

The funny thing about the Germans is that they had always maintained their own Tank Destroyer arm - the Panzerjaeger - both during and before the war. This was in large part a product of the Versailles Treaty which prevented the Weimar Republic from having its own tank forces. Since the Germans weren't allowed to have tanks, they focused a great deal of thinking on how to properly employ their towed anti-tank weapons against the expected vast British, French, and Soviet tank fleets. A lot of this thinking was retained even after the Nazis restarted tank production; to the point that every German Division basically had a Panzerjaeger battalion so that there would not be a repeat of the last days of the First World War.

 

 

 

Interesting that is something i didn't know about.

 

As a side note during the war the way i understand it the German's created and employed the same basic chasis pnz 3's 4's 5's with different types of guns specifically for different roles that of either the Assault gun (against fortifications) or Tank destroyer.



Zinegata #35 Posted Oct 25 2016 - 04:21

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9548 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostlightwaveTT, on Oct 25 2016 - 03:50, said:

 

Interesting that is something i didn't know about.

 

As a side note during the war the way i understand it the German's created and employed the same basic chasis pnz 3's 4's 5's with different types of guns specifically for different roles that of either the Assault gun (against fortifications) or Tank destroyer.

 

Most hobbyists simply assume that the Germans treated all their kitbashed non-turreted armored vehicles the same, but in reality there were some very hard distinctions.

 

Stugs were, initially, supposed to be "assault guns" rather than Panzerjaeger. This means that their primary role was in fact infantry support, and the Stug battalions were employed much like the Sherman tank battalions which supported the US infantry. That said, later in the war "infantry support" very often involved "fighting enemy tanks", hence the distinction became somewhat blurred especially with the Stugs being equipped with the general-purpose 75mm L48 gun (useful for both anti-tank and general infantry support). In addition, the sheer usefulness and relative abundance of the Stug chassis meant that some Panzer battalions and Panzerjaeger battalions got them instead of Mk IV tanks or Jagdpanzers. Nonetheless, from a service standpoint, Stug battalions were in fact part of the artillery branch - they were technically separate from both the infantry and the panzers and maintained that distinction to the very end.

 

The Panzerjaeger meanwhile were, as far as I can tell, generally subordinate to the infantry or the Panzers. The Germans had no equivalent of the US Tank Destroyer Brigade that allowed a group of Panzerjaeger battalions to operate on their own (although I do believe the Luftwaffe sometimes created grand anti-air + anti-tank batteries, but that's another story). Rather, each Panzerjaeger battalion was assigned to an Infantry or Panzer/Panzergrenadier Division - either as an organic part of the Division or as a supplementary attachment.

 

The organic Panzerjaeger battalions in the infantry were usually composed mostly of towed pieces, supplemented if lucky by a company of armored Panzerjaeger of whatever configuration that was available (e.g. Marders).

 

Panzer or Panzergrenadier Divisions (more commonly the latter, who were rarely equipped with real tanks to begin with) meanwhile sometimes had a Panzerjaeger battalion which usually had better quality armored vehicles like say Stugs or more commonly by late '44 the Jagdpanzer IV. However, Panzer Divisions with a Panzerjaeger battalion usually also had one less battalion of tanks - it wasn't like the US Army where an average infantry Division got both a tank battalion and a tank destroyer battalion. 

 

Operating outside of these organic battalions were various independent Panzerjaeger battalions - which were Corps or Army level assets that were assigned to individual Divisions as needed - of which the most famous were probably the Schwere Panzerjaeger Abteilung (literal translation is "Heavy Tank Hunter Battalion" ) where they concentrated all of the big name TDs like the Ferdinand, Jagdtigers, and Jagdpanthers.

 

Indeed, it's worth noting that knowledge of these distinctions make it rather clear how the Internet tends to over-emphasize the big TDs, when in reality they fought very few battles. We know this because you can track their movements through their parent Heavy Tank Hunter battalion, and realize that they spent most of their time broken-down and outside of combat. The sole Jagdpanther battalion to participate in Normandy for instance basically had a long series of delayed road marches and breakdowns enroute to one or two inconsequential skirmishes. Accounts of Jagdtigers slaying Shermans in the Bulge prove equally fictitious - as the sectors where the battles occurred contained none of the rare Schwere Panzer Abteilung and instead were populated by Panzer units equipped with the more common Jagdpanzer IV.  It was always the workmanlike and more common towed anti-tank pieces, supplemented by the Stugs or less armored TDs, which inflicted most of the Allied tank losses.


Edited by Zinegata, Oct 25 2016 - 04:24.


Long_Rod_Penetrator #36 Posted Dec 02 2016 - 19:52

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 5508 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    04-29-2016
FWIW, in America, cougars are also called panthers. ;-)

lightwaveTT #37 Posted Dec 06 2016 - 06:01

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 12472 battles
  • 885
  • Member since:
    12-06-2014

View PostLong_Rod_Penetrator, on Dec 02 2016 - 19:52, said:

FWIW, in America, cougars are also called panthers. ;-)

 

Im American I lived in Colorado as a kid no one (in the usa i ever heard say) calls 'Cougars',  "Panthers".

They are however traditionally called or nick named... "Mountain Lions".

Not to be confused with the smaller "Bobcat's"

 

The real animal up in the mountains though in North America to worry about (because everyone is armed, if your going to be out and about in mountainous woods alone and you are not a fool you will have at least a pistol), is running into a bear. Most bears have enough mm's of skull (bone / armor) to bounce bullets which is sort of strange to think about but true.

 

In (South) America Jaguar's are called "Panthers" or at least in North America that's what we think of as 'Panthers', because those cats actually are "Panthers" they have real have Black Panthers, i don't think i have ever seen even a video of one in North America.

(the only other place i think they exist i think is in southeast asia, jungle cats, they like the dense jungle environment)

 

http://news.national...guars-genetics/

 

Edit: Apparently they used to be fairly common in North America (even black pathers) till people started shooting all the big cats on sight.

 

http://waypastnormal...ck-panther.html

 

Cougar aka (North American) Mountain lion

 


Edited by lightwaveTT, Dec 06 2016 - 18:26.


GLITTERPOOP #38 Posted Feb 04 2017 - 07:41

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 45 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    10-12-2011

Was the M7 Priest designed with the TD role in mind?

 

I know circumstances forced it to play the TD or assault gun role on occasion, but there are some files in the Library of Congress digital collection from as far back as 1940 that straight up call it a tank destroyer. 



CamuMahubah #39 Posted Feb 04 2017 - 21:42

    Captain

  • Players
  • 19698 battles
  • 1,695
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View PostlightwaveTT, on Dec 05 2016 - 22:01, said:

 

Im American I lived in Colorado as a kid no one (in the usa i ever heard say) calls 'Cougars',  "Panthers".

They are however traditionally called or nick named... "Mountain Lions".

Not to be confused with the smaller "Bobcat's"

 

The real animal up in the mountains though in North America to worry about (because everyone is armed, if your going to be out and about in mountainous woods alone and you are not a fool you will have at least a pistol), is running into a bear. Most bears have enough mm's of skull (bone / armor) to bounce bullets which is sort of strange to think about but true.

 

In (South) America Jaguar's are called "Panthers" or at least in North America that's what we think of as 'Panthers', because those cats actually are "Panthers" they have real have Black Panthers, i don't think i have ever seen even a video of one in North America.

(the only other place i think they exist i think is in southeast asia, jungle cats, they like the dense jungle environment)

 

http://news.national...guars-genetics/

 

Edit: Apparently they used to be fairly common in North America (even black pathers) till people started shooting all the big cats on sight.

 

http://waypastnormal...ck-panther.html

 

Cougar aka (North American) Mountain lion

 

 

Growing up in Florida I remember the Panther license plates.

 

You are right though as everywhere else I have been or lived there were called mountain lions.



kenhk117 #40 Posted Feb 08 2017 - 22:40

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9270 battles
  • 87
  • Member since:
    03-16-2012

View PostCamuMahubah, on Feb 04 2017 - 15:42, said:

 

Growing up in Florida I remember the Panther license plates.

 

You are right though as everywhere else I have been or lived there were called mountain lions.

 

Not to be confused with the Nittany Lion

 

Nittany Lion


Edited by kenhk117, Feb 08 2017 - 22:41.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users