No music and a good narrator makes this a top class video. Bravo!!

@FactBytes

25 күн бұрын

Many thanks!

My Dad was a gunner in the 807th TD Battalion. Thank you for this video. I've spent years since his passing researching to understand what he did in WWII because he was one that didn't talk.

@ironworkerfxr7105

11 күн бұрын

Thanks for his service we are here,, my dad rarely talked about all his time there...

@ImDBatty1

8 күн бұрын

My mother inherited a book that may interest either of you, or may lead you in the direction of other books like it? My Grandfather was one of General Patton's assistants, and carried the rank of Captain, he was in the tank destroyers, but I don't know more than that... I will ask my mother for the name of the book, and perhaps we can find the equivalent for your family members? What I know about the book is it's supposed to essentially be a daily journal of WWII written in the perspective of the US Army, and gives stats, movements, supplies, etc. Do either of you have any interest?

@jimtom4878

8 күн бұрын

Most didn't talk bc what they saw

@ImDBatty1

6 күн бұрын

The name of the book I mentioned is called: "Combat Record of the sixth armored division in the E.T.O.. from July 18,1944 to May 8 1945" and found a few digital copies of it online...

@patsmith8523

4 күн бұрын

Most veterans I have talked to don't really want to talk about the combat they saw. The horrors they faced. Many suffer from PTSD needlessly. One I talked to was fearful of what it was doing to his family. I challenged him to do something constructive about it and not let it fester. The last I heard he was doing much better.

I read an account by an American armored combat command commander regarding an encounter with German armor. They had a TD battalion attached. He was impressed with their performance, noting that the crews were trained to hunt tanks and it showed. The Free French also made good use of M10s supplied to them, particularly from ambush positions.

My dad was in artillery in WW2, i don't know what cannon but the 105mm was said. He talked of the 175mm was a real beast,

The M18 Hellcat had the high velocity 76mm, not the M10. The M10 carried a canon which was based on the 3 inch naval gun and thus is described as having a 3 inch gun. Later starting in November, 1944 an improved version of the M10, the M36 Jackson, began arriving. It, like the M10 and the M18 had an open topped turret, but it was redesigned as horse shoe shape with the open part of the horseshoe having an improved gun mantle and like the M10 there still had be a counterweight at the back of the turret. Replacing the 3 inch naval gun, the M36 "Jackson" now had a 90mm high velocity gun, improving the killing power. The hull remained the same as the M10. At one point, manufacturers used surplus Sherman hulls, a version of the M36 had an armored hill with a bow mounted machine gun. Because doctrine called for the tank destroyers to be fast in order to find German armor, fire at it and them move quickly to another firing position. To obtain a faster speed than a tank, the M10 hull design had much thinner armor than an M4 Sherman. Before the Normandy invasion, a newly designed hull and turret came out which had slightly thinner armor than the M10, had road wheels and suspension with were totally different from the bogie design used on the Sherman and M10. It utilized a par of larger road wheels with a system more like some of the German tanks used. The track was different and the drive sprocket looked more like a clock gear than a traditional drive sprocket. This was the M18 and the doctrine of firing at a target and then disappearing from the location you fired from. Speed on this tank was close to 60 miles per hour, far faster than the M10 which made about 25-28 miles per hour. That made the M18 the fastest tracked vehicle in the world and would not be surpassed until the Abrams tank arrived about 50 years later. The open topped turret used the same 76mm gun as the later Shermans used but the M18 turret was much smaller and more cramped both in hull and turret sizes than the M10. To make the 76mm gun fit the breech is rotated so that the sides of the breech are not horizontal and vertical as they are in the later model 76 mm Sherman. Note that in the video the M10 is erroneously said to have the 76mm gun. Only the M18 had the 76mm gun. For some reason, the 76 was never provided with a high explosive shell, considered necessary to be of any real help to the infantry that the Sherman was supposed to work with. The M10 did received a high explosive shell and films made during the fight in Northwest Europe and Italy show that the M10 could be used as mobile artillery when needed. AS far as the Sherman is concerned, only the 75 mm Shermans also filled that role. It should be noted that the 75 mm gun on the Sherman was not considered to be highly accurate but an episode in Italy showed that it was the Sherman that was creating a rolling motion when fired. This was discovered when a British Churchill tank with a smaller caliber gun went through an experiment. It was noted that the larger caliber Sherman gun was in great supply because the tanks themselves had been damaged beyond repair. A British officer was given permission to see if the Sherman 75mm gun and mantlet could be fitted to a Churchill. I required some work because the mantlet of the Churchill was located inside the turret rather Han on the outside like the Sherman. The first example was completed and tested and it worked better than expected. In addition, the 75 mm gun was also noted to be more accurate on the Churchill than the Sherman. The reason was that the Churchill's unique hull and suspension provided the tank with a very stable firing platform. There was no rocking motion caused by the tall, narrow Sherman with a different road wheel suspension that caused the barrel to move slightly before the shell left the barrel. Another note. The towed 56 mm anti tank gun was not comparable to the 76mm. It was comparable to the British 6 pound gun and in fact was the same gun, using the same ammunition. The 6 pound gun was also the type gun that was on the Churchill MK 3, and which was replaced by the larger 75mm guns from destroyed Shermans in Italy. Later in the war, the 6 pounder received a new shell which was a discarding sabot shot that was able to pierce the frontal armor of a Panther. And once again, the M18 was not used in any real quantity in Italy, it was still in its testing phase and M10 crews did not like it because it used gasoline rather than desiel fuel and caught fire easily. After the breakout from hedgerow country and the beginning of the rapid advance toward the Seine and Rhine, the M18 was not just able to keep up with the rapid advance, but rather could move forward at twice the speed of a Sherman and the M10. I get my information from the Book Tank Destroyers, the book Mr. Churchills Tank, the Hayne manuals for the Sherman and the Churchill tank. I am not speculating nor am I repeating anything that I have heard on KZread. Tank Destroyers is a book filled with after action reports and individual and crew reports during the war, and is in general, following the time line of the war but includes grouping by topic as well. I have also used American Knights as a source.

@davidmartindale1136

28 күн бұрын

what does ya book say about the FIREFLY or was it just an upgrade for the sherman ty in advance,also what about the pershing or was that just a tank not a destroyer ty

@simondancaster8334

28 күн бұрын

Useful comment. Cheers!

@cascadianrangers728

27 күн бұрын

The 90mm was a hell of a gun, turned Tigers and Panthers from unstoppable terror weapons to sitting ducks and easy cannon fodder!

@papaaaaaaa2625

27 күн бұрын

Two minor corrections. The 76mm gun had a HE Shell available. What was missing until the war ended was a WP Smoke Shell. (Leventhal, Lionel (1996). The American Arsenal.) The connection between Diesel or Gasoline as a reason is...at least questionable. The M10 was Diesel driven, but the M10A1 had gasoline and was seen widely superior to the M10 (Mostly of supply reasons). That is the reason that ALL M36 were M10A1 based and used Gasoline. I'll have to research for the correct source, but if I remember it was a book by Doyle, but I'm not entirely sure! The troops preferred the M10 over the M18 mostly because the armor of the M18 was paper thin. This vehicle was vulnerable to even lighter AT Guns/weapons. No problem in it's true role as an Tank Destroyer, but the TD Crews knew that they had to operate under difficult conditions sometimes. (Like in Normandy after DDay, were M10 had to operate as tanks between Bocages, a role that doesn't fit them well!)

@richardharmon647

27 күн бұрын

Have a little bit to say?

Ill-fated defense of Elsenborn Ridge? From whose point of view? The defense of Elsenborn was a masterpiece of combined arms! Elsenborn became a breakwater, where the German tide broke repeatedly. Nothing got through! Every attack against that line failed. Mainly due to vast amounts of artillery. Not ill-fated at all.

I cant get enough of these excellent videos. Thank you!!

@FactBytes

29 күн бұрын

Glad you enjoy it!

One huge advantage of the Hellcats was they had the best flotation of any allied AFV. They could fly right past Shermans that were bogged down.

You have included much footage that I have not seen elsewhere. Excellent.

Great video, a few minor technical details are incorrect but the broad strokes are right on, i even learned a couple new things

I used to know a fellow David W Neff who was in the 69th division. He was in one of the early tank destroyers, as it was repurposed outside saint Lô. By that time it was called a scout car. He was among a group of them on a crest and watched as the American tank column. Going into that town was absolutely decimated by german fire. He himself took a severe head wound and took several months to recover. After that point they put him into radio communications, Intercepting german radio telegraphy. After the surrender, he was still listening to high ranking transmissions that were considered a supreme important by the americans. David w Neff was a true American hero and like most of them, A very quiet man

the m10s and hellcats performed quite well actually if you read some battle accounts.

@tinman3586

28 күн бұрын

They did but what ended up happening was kind of funny: You started with the M10 TD. It didn't have enough firepower so they eventually put a new gun and turret on it creating the M36. The M36 eventually needed more armor, and they created a steel top for it's turret and improvised armor. Later they decided it needed more anti-infantry capabilities so they put a bow machine gun in it. It basically evolved into a medium tank.

@chippyjohn1

28 күн бұрын

Not really

@user-qo1us9oc7g

28 күн бұрын

@@tinman3586 It started out in north africa, where it was excellent for its time. It was always a glass cannon but crews were trained in ambush and move tactics. In Normandy in Europe you did not really need a better gun because there were not really much open plains there then lets say in Africa or Italy. They were highly succesful in scouting,ambush, getting off the first shot which was far more important and then move and reposition around the flanks to get a kill.

@Dontwlookatthis

27 күн бұрын

@@tinman3586 I am fairly certain that the reason for the upgrade from the M10 to the M36 was to be effective at a longer range. The M10 had a gun sufficient for short range destruction, and the multiple angle turret took a longer time to make. It too, received the add on kits to protect the crew inside the turret from snipers. The M36 itself had the same hull as the M10 and they never put a bow machine gun it it. There was a surplus of Sherman hulls and because the turret ring was the same on both tanks, the M36 turret was put on those Shermans which came with a bow machine-gun. You are right, but I just wanted to add detail.

@user-qo1us9oc7g

27 күн бұрын

@@Dontwlookatthis Well to be fair by 1944 they were facing king tigers,elephants,jagdpanthers ect so it would make sense to upgrade it to the m36. However all the comments i see on lacking anti infantry support i have to explain that tank destroyer battalions had their own eyes and ears, jeeps and scout cars like the m8 would go ahead of the m10s and report enemy infantry,tanks or ambushes. No they were not tanks and even maybe weaker then say a sherman but they operated diffrentLY and thats why they were quite effective.

My father was in a tank destroyer unit in world war II he was a radio man. His unit had the m10s

Well done. Im' a big WW2 fan boy and have been looking for a video on American TDs thats more than a passing refetence . A few gaps here and there but overall well done.

You also might want to ask why the German Stug does not more credit for destroying many Sherman tanks, why is it always the King Tigers and Panthers that get all the attention ??

@Wastelandman7000

26 күн бұрын

TBH the Stug killed more of every kind of armor than the Tigers and Panthers combined. Technically it wasn't the best, but, as a practical matter it was the workhorse that kept Germany viable. War would have been over much quicker if they had to rely entirely on the Panzers.

@user-jp5mn3bi2e

25 күн бұрын

Probably because they both have become mythical creatures, Otto Carius was one of the most well known STuG commanders. I own the Krim Shield of the Hauptmann who had earned his DKiG at the Dnepr river for halting several Russian divisions at a bridge there-with two STUGS and about a Kompanie of Infanterie. His name was Hauptmann Hans Augustin.

Some Amazing Footage. My comment to show support and Appreciation for your Video is as follows. -Big Thumbs Up

@FactBytes

14 күн бұрын

Thank you very much!

😎👍Very cool and very nicely greatly well done and informatively explained and executed in every detail way shape and format provided on the U.S.Armys Various Tank Destroyer Battalions of M10's, M18's and M36's during WW2 on their roles and mission parameters during combat, A job very fabulously well done indeed Sir's!👌.

@tonym2513

9 күн бұрын

👀

Interesting, judicious. Lots of good video.

Grandpa was 776th tank destroyer Forever grateful for what these stallions endured for our freedom Never ever forget and teach the youth what they went through Edward L Haider 776th TDD

@notlisted-cl5ls

22 күн бұрын

lololo. go back to your room old man. story time is over.

After WW2 the TD branch was considered redundant. Once the medium tank was armed with the same gun and anti-armor ammo. When the tracked TD’s were used as designed, within their doctrine, they worked well. But by 1944 that rarely occured

@Wastelandman7000

26 күн бұрын

Yet, ironically, we still have AFVs that can still do the job of tank destroyers, only they're armed with missiles.

@Idahoguy10157

26 күн бұрын

@@Wastelandman7000 …. And helicopters, and jeep’s carrying anti-armor teams. Pull the army used to use recoilless rifles. So TDs never really went away

The TD’s were useful in situations where the Army was fighting a mobile defense. Employing a “shoot and scoot” action, attacking, then repositioning. The U.S. Army did not have a situation as they pushed quickly across Europe, to effectively use TDs. It was the battles where Germany counterattacked, such as Arracourt, and the Bulge, that they were more effective. American doctrine for both using TDs and tanks was incredibly foolish. The M18 was the best design for a shoot and scoot defensive battle. The M36 had the most effective weapon, but not fast. A super Hellcat would have been very effective in an effective role. Had they been built and deployed alongside Pershings and Sherman 76s, (even T29, T30, 32, 34) they might have been even more effective.

🏆🤗🙏🎖️ Thank you for sharing this

@FactBytes

29 күн бұрын

Thanks for visiting

Commander of US Army Ground Forces Gen. McNair's stated policy was tanks do not fight tanks. Fighting tanks is the role of towed anti-tank guns. The Germans had a similar policy at the beginning of WW II. During the 1940 invasion of France Rommel ordered his anti-aircraft battalion with 88 mm guns to engage Allied tanks about to flank his bridgehead.The Wehrmacht anti-tank weapon was a towed 37 mm gun. German grunts came to call it the "door knocker" because it made no impression on the thick front armored French tanks. After the germans encountered the Russian KV and T-34 official opinion changed.

@Wastelandman7000

26 күн бұрын

Maybe, but, if you look at the field manuals for both tank destroyers and tanks it stated clearly the tanks were intended to engage tanks. Technically McNair was right about one thing though, the best way to destroy tanks is with heavy artillery. But, if the tanks ran into them the were to engage and destroy. If the enemy got past the tanks then the tank destroyers would prevent a breakthrough.

@contumelious-8440

24 күн бұрын

Rommel knew the 37mm was too small to destroy French (or any) armor. Thus the 88mm was born as anti tank. I thought this happened at a different point in the war, but whatever.

I'm with Patton on his post war assessment.

M36 was a beast, the 90mm gun was a match to the German 88mm, I wish they would have put the M26 turret/gun on the Shermans (they did but only testing).

@lyndoncmp5751

27 күн бұрын

The commander of US 2nd Armored Division, Isaac D White, wasn't a fan of it. In his report to Eisenhower in March 1945 he wrote : "Tank Destroyer, M36: Has not lived up to expectations, but when HVAP ammunition becomes available it is hoped that it will be more effective. Fighting compartment precludes efficient service of the piece and available ammunition is not effective at required long range."

Great video as always

@FactBytes

28 күн бұрын

Thank you!

I met Sgt. Early, the gunner on the Pershing at 23:56, in 2019 in Denver. There was a small parade in his honor and I was dressed as armored infantry. We didn't have a Pershing, but there was a Stuart and a couple of halftracks there at Union Station.

@svenhillring3275

Күн бұрын

My mistake; Sgt Early was the commander and Cpl. Clarence Smoyer was the gunner I met.

Where did you get the source for the m10 having a 80 second turret rotation

The Interwar Years saw a lot of theoretical ideas - most of which were of varying degrees of inaccuracy. Tanks, Submarines, Aircraft - it didn't matter - there were all kinds of Theories but not enough based on experience - since there was only scant experience from WWI. The Concept of the Main Battle Tank - came out of the Experience of using Tanks during WWII. Essentially, while the Theories had thought up a lot of variations on the types of tanks that could be used - mostly - people tended to use whatever they had on hand - regardless of the purpose behind it's design. Thus - the idea of a General Purpose Tank. .

While thy tank crews are awesome can you do a video of about the mechanics who often work ed through the night to get the tabnis ready to fight asap

If we would have had a decent tank at the start of the war we never would have needed tank destroyers.

Specialized vehicles were too inflexible. When a unit comes across the enemy, they just don't know if they are going to face foot soldiers or tanks. Thus, you need ONE vehicle that can do it all, thus the main battle tank. Tank destroyers would just be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Modern battle was just too unpredictable.

@muskokamike127

28 күн бұрын

That was the big thing about shermans, even though they could be knocked out with ease by tigers, they encountered them so rarely. Shermans were mostly used as anti personnel and assault vehicles. (from what I have read)

@jeanr5544

10 күн бұрын

@@muskokamike127 Kretschmer ( 12 SS.) en a détruit allégrement 36 avec son vieux Panzer 4 Les 14 Panzerjäger de la même unité en ont détruit 96 blindés US. Ratio 6 US pour 1 JgPz IV, cependant plusieurs PzJg IV (3 ou 4 il existe des photos ) ont pu passer la Seine. Les USA reconnaissent la perte total de plus de 900 chars rien que pour la Normandie. Les allemands 1200 . Mais les chiffres anglais, canadiens, polonais, français , NZ, australiens et belges ne sont pas donnés. Pourquoi?

5:20. Even today highway fifteen in pennsylvania has an infamous reputation.

It wasn't that US TD's didn't perform well it had more to do with a lack of targets. After the D day landings the British (as per Monty's plan) faced the majority of German Panzers the vast majority of Panzers fought in Russia. I saw a Pic of M 10's parked on the slope of a hill for elevation of the gun they were being used ad indirect artillery

@wolfganggugelweith8760

28 күн бұрын

Panzer, not panzers please.

@markbrandon7359

27 күн бұрын

@@wolfganggugelweith8760 The German translation of panzer is armor but I'm not German

@castlerock58

27 күн бұрын

Fireflies played a big role in the heavy fighting between British and Canadian armor and German tanks in Normandy. It was still tough going since a lot of the German tanks had high velocity guns that could kill Shermans. The allies lost a lot of tanks but they also killed German tanks that could not be replaced and kept most of them away from the Americans who were able to build up reletively unmolested for the breakout.

@wolfganggugelweith8760

26 күн бұрын

@@markbrandon7359 It depends if You mean the tank or the armor. The knights of the late middle age had a „Panzerung or a Panzer (armor) on their bodies too. So it means this and a tank. They called them also Panzerreiter (Armor rider).

@markbrandon7359

26 күн бұрын

@@wolfganggugelweith8760 so wouldn't the plural of tank (tanks) be panzers???

The TD concept was a good one in principle, though prior to the appearance of the M36 Jackson, the success of American TDs was limited by guns that were inadequate for the jobs they were expected to accomplish.

Used properly, they did their jobs. Mind their job was to stand in the rear and stop counter attacks. At least in theory. In practice they sometimes had to be more aggressive than they were designed to be.

good story, great footage, great editing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@FactBytes

28 күн бұрын

Glad you like it!

The tank destroyer concept still lives in the US Army - they are called AH-64 Apaches.

@user-jp5mn3bi2e

25 күн бұрын

A-10 Warthogs too ;-))

@Ghatbkk

25 күн бұрын

@@user-jp5mn3bi2e Not in the US Army.

Excellent!!

@FactBytes

28 күн бұрын

Many thanks!

We forget how desperate we were at the time, the 76 gun was our antitank weapon 75 high explosive was better anti personnel anti bunker . With our long logistics lines it would take months for our latest greatest weapons to arrive if they were any good. Pershing tank was better but weight and size prevented it from getting to the front in a timely manner, where m4 , m10 and other TD’s could travel on rail , ships, and bridges as is

@01Bouwhuis

28 күн бұрын

76mm shermans were in England well before d-day....the development of the pershing was a long one, could never make it on time..

There is a certain irony in the fact that TD's live on in the IFV's.

Abrams said "We don't need tank killers,we need killer tanks".

@muskokamike127

28 күн бұрын

that's true, and the guns on the sherman were inadequate in the early stages but as some have noted, they rarely encountered tigers and panthers.

@Wastelandman7000

26 күн бұрын

That is true....yet we still have them. Its just that modern tank destroyers use missiles. They may not be officially designated such, but, they still do the same job.

@Wastelandman7000

26 күн бұрын

@@muskokamike127 This is true to a point. But, one reason Allied armor had such high casualty rates was because the German armor was very good at playing defense. Which means too often we were driving into their ambushes and not the other way around. If you look at the Battle of Arracourt where the Allies forced the Germans to come to them the Shermans (mostly armed with 75's) did quite well. And they were mostly facing Panthers and Stugs. After the battle the butcher's bill was that of the 262 tanks and assault guns the Germans threw into the fight 86 were destroyed outright. 114 were badly damaged and broken down, and only 62 were operational. The allies lost lost 25 tanks and 7 tank destroyers. As a division, the 4th AD lost some 41 M4 medium tanks and 7 M5A1 light tanks during the whole month of September. So tactics and position trump armor and firepower. Besides, Panthers and Tigers had their weak points. And even the Jagdtiger was vulnerable on the sides and back.

Tank Overhaul episode 4, m18 Hellcat. If a tank destroyer is no longer needed, then why do we still operate the Republic A10 Thunderbolt 2?

The Panther had the high velocity 75 mm main gun and the Tiger had the 88mm main gun.

@01Bouwhuis

28 күн бұрын

So?

@Swellington_

28 күн бұрын

no shit sherlock

@thatonecousin

28 күн бұрын

No shit 😂and ?

@Clingerman93

28 күн бұрын

Ummm yes, yes they did. I'm fair certain 99.654% of motherfuckers knows that.

@dovidell

28 күн бұрын

@@01Bouwhuis both had greater range and accuracy than most allied tanks / tank destroyers , so unless you got off the first shot where it counted , at close range , it was curtains

My father was in the 801st TD Batallion ....does someone know what tank they used from Normandy through the Bulge?? M10 is the best info I have but not definitive.......thanks

The M-10 and the M-18 were a "Stop Gap" that worked. How to put the biggest gun the American Armory could provide. The 76 mm Cannon sucked. The British 17 Pounder was very effective! Move and fire while moving as a pack worked as the open terrain suited them. Limited units got the 90 mm gun which was not that hard to mount into the Mantle of an M-10. Just like the limited deployment of the M-26. The crews made this work. Blood sweat and tears.

@kenneth9874

10 күн бұрын

Lol

3:50 "This is for the newsreels, boys, so act interested."

Visibility. An open topped tank can see targets much better than a closed tank. First shot usually equals first kill.

@muskokamike127

28 күн бұрын

yeah, hence the hit and run tactic but you have to find them first. That's why modern tanks have stabilized guns so they can shoot on the move.

@lyndoncmp5751

27 күн бұрын

First shot first kill is largely a myth. It depended entirely on the AFV type and the range plus whether or not the target is frontally or on its flank. Etc.

@user-bi9jj6gz1q

27 күн бұрын

😆😆😆

@muskokamike127

27 күн бұрын

@@lyndoncmp5751 dude, he said usually and this is assuming you have the capability of damaging the enemy ffs.

@lyndoncmp5751

27 күн бұрын

@@muskokamike127 I'll repeat, it's a myth that's it's 'usually'. It all depended on the situation. Are you even aware that the mean range in Europe was 800 yards?

The picture at the beginning of this video, the Sherman with all the sandbags up on front of the two soldiers sitting behind! I guess the designer of the Sherman never saw that picture!🤷🏻‍♂️

4:04 are we gonna talk about that m2?

Thanks for another great video! Love all your content!

@FactBytes

28 күн бұрын

You are so welcome!

Who's going to argue against Patton? lol. But the fact the army was able to successfully re-purpose their TD's says a lot about how much they had grown as a professional army.

The 894th, the 749th the 601st,and several other Tank Destroyer Battalions were critical to both the survival,and breakout for the capture of Anzio,Italy in 1944. One made a confirmed kill of a German tank from almost 10,000 yards!

@jonathonhass4178

28 күн бұрын

That is not accurate at all. 10,000 yards is 5.68 MILES and no WW2 tank has EVER had a confirmed kill at anything even remotely close to that.

24:06 Sniper free spires! Tipperary Ireland different story 12th. century Roscrey Round Tower 'tower was 6m higher but was shortened after the 1798 rebellion after rebels used the tower to snipe from'.

Well said but, I disagree your assessment of Tank Destroyers. My former roommate's father-was a Tank Destroyer commander in WWII. You're correct on them being used as a scout, but they were a scout with a heavy punch. They took up slack for Shermans. That said, I have a few photos of them in action. But can't find a way to post them here. My former roommates father, was a Sergent in the 704th?? sorry I can't accurately remember?) Tank Destroyer battalion. One of his thoughts was penciled on the back of a photo he took off a Hitler Youth after losing 10 men assaulting their bunker. It said: "We lost 10 men taking this bunker from those bastards." The photo was a photo of the several Hitler Youth manning that bunker. These men were in the M-10 and M-36 TD's.

Mostly of tank crew from panzerdivvision in 1944 where young whithout experience on western front mostly of veteran have disappeared on the eastern front The right answer to the heavypanzer was the firefly and the Pershing the beast

The Tank Destroyer was just a self-propelled anti-tank gun with similar vehicles in most armies. However General McNair, Chief - Army Ground Forces, set up his Tank Destroyers as the only anti-tank force, in doing so he neglected the tank and relegated it to Infantry Support armed with weak low power guns. During his time in office all improved tanks with thicker armour and better guns were cancelled. After his death in 1944 the Tank Destroyer development was cancelled and the entire Tank Destroyer Command was disbanded in late 1945.

@01Bouwhuis

28 күн бұрын

Because they were not needed or defective. Go check the chieftains hatch.

@aitken1965

28 күн бұрын

Good tactics and coordinated operations made the 75mm armed Shermans more than capable of dealing with the heavier German tanks. No, they could not engage head-on, but they regularly knocked out tigers and panthers from the side and rear. Sherman loses reflect the fact that they were often attacking embedded and well-prepared German defenses.

@leonardkellum6984

28 күн бұрын

@@aitken1965 Sacrificing a few tanks so one could get a kill shot, might have been good on paper. My uncle was in the sherman's , had hip troubles from being bounced around. I read that Patton decided against having bigger tanks available in the book, Death Trap, written by an officer in the tank maintenance units

@coachhannah2403

28 күн бұрын

You are absolutely misinformed.

@coachhannah2403

28 күн бұрын

@@leonardkellum6984- That book has been debunked.

Decent video, but M10's had a 3 inch gun. Yes, in measurement it was 76mm, but it was not considered a 76mm. The M5 3 inch towed gun was the gun for the M10, not the actual, true 76 mm. They were a different case. Now the M18 did use the 76mm, NOT the 3 inch

@echohunter4199

10 күн бұрын

Yup, not confusing at all….got it.

I believe the tank destroyer concept was flawed and its disappearance after the war supports that conclusion. The TD strategy didn't merge well with the overall nature of the allied offensive nature while TD's tasks were basically defensive. Another problem arose because they looked like a tank and too many commanders figured if it looked like a tank it could fight like a tank. So they tried to use them like tanks if no real tanks were available. That was bad news for the TD because their light armor was vulnerable to about everything that was shot at them.

@kenneth9874

10 күн бұрын

It didn't disappear, it became airborne..

Even you accept all the logic behind the TD units, I don't understand why the US didn't arrive in Normandy with TDs with heavy guns. It wasn't till later did some emerge with heavy guns capable of destroying Panthers at the front from a distance. Given how diverse the US fighters and bombers were, the lack of variety in tanks and TDs, especially ones designed as fire brigades when encountering heavy German tanks seems quite baffling. Sure the US won with decent medium tanks and TDs plus air powerin quantity, but why didn't the US at least have armored vehicles comparable to the Soviets?

@dwwolf4636

28 күн бұрын

The Atlantic ocean. A M26 would take the place of 3 M4s if transported. That'll cause alot of PBIs to be killed. Even if the M26 would have been available at the time. M26s were still unreliable in Korea....

@amogus948

28 күн бұрын

Logistic and production I guess. Standardization was very important not only to increase the number of staff you can produce but also for an easier maintenace across 2 oceans Heavy tanks were not a feasible concept when you have to transport big numbers across 2 oceans and, more importantly, were not that reliable (e.g. among many things, the Pershing was delayed also because it had several issues in the early tests) Also, the main role of a tank is not to kill other tanks. Tank engagement were actually "uncommon" in the ETO and most of the time a tank would be fighting infantry, artillery, bunkers, etc For example, most of the American crews refused to adopt the 76 before Normandy because - it would have taken time to train them in using the new guns and they didn't want any of that before the biggest and most complex invasion where everything had to be carefully planned in advance - the 75 was a better anti-infantry, anti-artillery and anti-bunker gun Thick armour and big guns alone don't make a tank better and this decision actually affected the overall performance of the German big cats, which could be used for a limited time for break-throughs before being sent to the workshops for maintenance (the Tiger was designed for this specific role) or turned out to be 20 tons heavier than initially planned (as happened with the Panthers), with many units being understrenght because many vehicles broke down and/or many were left to rot in warehouses because there were no spare parts or it was too difficult and slow to repair them (that's why, due their different accounting system, you had sometimes German units with 70 tanks on paper but which could actually rely on 10-20 tanks) Big guns and thick armour didn't also play a major role in most of the tank engagements in Normandy because 70-80% of times the winner was the tank which spotted and shot the enemy first About the Soviets, most of the tanks they produced were T-34s, which had the same role of a Sherman but were actually inferior in overall reliability and performance. A different environment (open plains), different concerns (e.g. not having the battlefield beyond the ocean) and different doctrines allowed them to focus more on heavy tanks, but they were still produced in relatively low numbers and still plagued by the same issues affecting the German big cats (e.g. the KV series turned out to be an overall failure)

@SmedleyDouwright

26 күн бұрын

The tank units were satisfied with the 75mm gun on the Sherman tank until they encountered large numbers of Panther tanks in France. They left the 76mm armed Shermans parked in England until well after D-Day when there was less than a year until the end of the war in Europe.

@lazybear236

19 күн бұрын

So it seems odd they didn't send a few along with the first wave at least as a test.

@evanderboynton3057

16 күн бұрын

Shipyard crane lift capacity had a lot to do with it

Mon préféré le StuG III Basta!

You left out the M 36 B . This was M36 turrent sitting on top of the M 4 Sherman hull . My father served in a M 36 B in the 813th tank destroyer battalion , company B .

Sherman Firefly? Saint-Aignan-de-Cramesnil on 8 August 1944 when a single Sherman Firefly knocked out three Tiger tanks.

와우 제가 제일 좋아하는 m36!

Tank destroyers should have been looked at as mobile artillery with tank destroying being secondary. Towed artillery is too slow.

@Wastelandman7000

26 күн бұрын

I don't think they had the gun elevation for that. If you look at arty it usually fires at very high angles for indirect fire. The TDs were designed for direct fire. They'd have to design a new turret and replace the gun.

@davidcox3076

26 күн бұрын

As the war drug on, the TDs were more and more used as self-propelled artillery, party due to lack of targets. And, to Westelandman's point, since TDs weren't designed as SP artillery they were sometimes driven onto ramps to boost elevation.

@jamesalias595

26 күн бұрын

@@Wastelandman7000 Thanks, That might be true but they should have been designed for mobile artillery and secondary as tank destroyers. You can never have enough artillery support.

Hitting and destroying a Panther at 4 km with a 90 mm gun? As a gunner on a Leopard 1 tank in the 80's, it was for us difficult to hit a target at 2.5 km's.... We used to target tanks at 1 til 1.8 km's away. The terrain also would not allow it. Housing, forest, hills etc.

Compared to towed anti-tank artillery, then ok, tank destroyers made sense.

@user-bi9jj6gz1q

27 күн бұрын

german Stug III some reports said 30k kills during the war.

@Andy-co6pn

22 сағат бұрын

As a defensive weapon , the towed anti tank artillery made.a lot.of sense

Bottomline - everybody stopped making tank destroyers and focused on tanks, APCs, IFVs and anti-tank weapons for the infantry.

@samobispo1527

28 күн бұрын

The Cobra and Apache helicopters, the Sheridan, the Improved TOW vehicle, and the Strykers in both missile and 105mm gun variants would disagree with you. The attack helicopter embodies the Tank Destroyer doctrine perfectly. Future tank destroyer units might be composed of small remote controlled vehicles packing dozens of launchers for drone guided from operators in vans miles away.

@jimmiller5600

28 күн бұрын

@@samobispo1527 Excellent response, except for the Stryker-105mm. Like the Booker it was supposed to do everything but fight MBTs.

Except the majority of German armour could easily be dealt with by allied forces. It is now considered that the US AT strategy was flawed from the beginning. At the time they entered the war he majority of US AT units used towed AT guns, but this was at a time when the Axis were starting to change to a totally defensive strategy. basically McNair got it wrong.

The M3 75mm gun motor carriage were very successful in the Philippians in 1942. Not so much in Africa. They were never used in Europe by US forces although the British used them in Italy. Overall a failed concept.

Dunno about you but these shoot a bit more stuff than a Garand

My Grandfather was in the Hellcats!

What is a tank destroyer?

I’ll bet the Firefly isn’t mentioned. It was the main protagonist against Tigers and Panthers. A Sherman with a British 17-pounder anti tank gun mounted. If you want to know how tank destroyers fared, read about the Kasserine Pass. They were destroyed by Nazi armour.

@joeysausage3437

19 күн бұрын

Under a british command.

@joeysausage3437

19 күн бұрын

Under a british command.

@kenneth9874

10 күн бұрын

That's funny, the overall kill ratio says otherwise 🤣

The success of the Wehrmacht in France 1940 was not due to packing hundreds of tanks in a small attacking front but rather the concept of ‘all arms’ warfare.

@jimmythehammer3825

16 күн бұрын

Yes and no. The Panzer divisions in the Ardennes (which I know I'm spelling incorrectly) did send large numbers of tanks to overwhelm the defenses in that sector. It's called hitting the schwerpunkt (I'm spelling that wrong too ...) or concentrating their forces in a single area to overwhelm the defenders, rather than across a wider front. Across the theater during the Battle of France I agree with you, the Germans were better at combined arms warfare. The fact that they DID send overwhelming numbers of tanks to a single point was the reason the US came up with the Tank Destroyer doctrine in the first place. See Nicholas Moran's book "Can Openers"

I believe it comes down to character, tanks are not heavy cavalry, they are chariots, as the roles of the fabled cavalry charges have been taken up by aircraft, if you can flatten tanks and infantry as fighter bomber you get more merits then tankers, sadly,

@TinKnight

28 күн бұрын

You can't hold terrain, even for a minute, in a plane. It wasn't until the 80s that aircraft could even reliably target & kill tanks & armored vehicles...so, until then, the tanks & other mechanized forces were absolutely cavalry. Since then, look at the Battle of 73 Easting for proof that modern tanks can still be cavalry. They've not been used effectively by either side in the Ukraine war, because neither side has air superiority... but any notion of the aircraft & drones being cavalry is foolhardy.

@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723

28 күн бұрын

@@TinKnight drones are just longer raged artillery

The Army brass seemed allergic to fielding large guns. Those in charge were too old and out of touch with reality

M18 , m10 , m36 I think stood no chance against german war machines

@kenneth9874

10 күн бұрын

Their kill ratio says different....

Surely a tank should be the vehicle designed to destroy enemy tanks and withstand tank rounds. Tank destroyers wouldn't be needed if we had more powerful guns on our tanks at the start of the war.

@kenneth9874

10 күн бұрын

No one had such powerful guns at the beginning of the war....

The German CAT’S were Hell!

Gee, it's almost like tank destroyers were good at destroying tanks. Who would have thought?

AI?

Tank destroyers look more like modern tanks than the tanks.

Ill-fated defense of the Elsenborn Ridge??Are you kidding me? Well, what if I told you that Patton would not have been able to relieve Bastogne in time had the 99th infantry not bravely stood their ground in that ridge? It was because they were holding back the entire armored column of Rundstedt's Army group A (North). This demonstration proved that it was possible to defend Bastogne even being miles away. Had the 99th retreated, Rundstedt would definitely redirect his armored group to Bastogne to crush the 101th held up there before Patton's arrival.🥱

Land battlecruisers. Same philosophy, same problems.

1:14

Because the Germans they faced were less experienced kids. The mature ones were fighting and dying in the east..

@brennanleadbetter9708

25 күн бұрын

There were many veteran divisions that were moved from the East to the West to face the Allies in Normandy.

1:09 wow, was that a direct return fire at the german with the panzerschreck? And next shot a burning ammo trailer, not good. 22:09 ouch

@muskokamike127

28 күн бұрын

The US finally adopted the same mentality. A soldier with a cheap disposable anti tank weapon is better than a large expensive tank. The RPG is still a devastating weapon.

Gegen den Tiger oder Panther keine chance

@zephyrvs7140

Күн бұрын

Panther und Tiger gingen ständig kaputt. Sie waren zwar schwer gepanzert und bewaffnet, aber gegen die billigen, zuverlässigen und leicht zu wartenden Panzerjäger und Shermans hatten sie keine Chance.

The Americans had a 16"Tank the M54

why didn't the U.S. build a tank that could equal the German tank ?

@mikeTmaggot

5 күн бұрын

They did

@cabbagekoala1

2 күн бұрын

Why would they want unreliable tanks?

Called the runt ,becomes pet

Why did we have tanks and tank destroyers? Wasn’t the purpose of the tanks to destroy other tanks?

@mikeTmaggot

5 күн бұрын

the Purpose of tank destroyers was to stop a break through the sherman was a general purpose tank to support Infantry and fight german tanks Which is why tank Destroyers were phased out

It’s not gwutar

Jagdpanther was best design. Stug III had best kill numbers of all TDs. American for all their constant rawr rawr rawr about how they the best at everything always TDs were weak AF. They totally missed one of the 3 tank triangle musts. Weak armour.

@brennanleadbetter9708

25 күн бұрын

And yet the American TDs still performed well.

@user-bi9jj6gz1q

24 күн бұрын

@@brennanleadbetter9708 no wonder your country is so fuckd

A 4000 meter hit on a German tank in 1944? I don’t think this man has his facts right

@jeanr5544

10 күн бұрын

it was a Panzer I !

Where were the US army in 1939 when we needed them?

@xandervk2371

14 күн бұрын

The US still was officially neutral, no one wanted to go to war. Even in 1940 Roosevelt won the election as a man of peace.

My

No mention. Of. British. 17 pounder fitted. To some. Sherman's. ??

@joeysausage3437

19 күн бұрын

Did you read the title of the video? Idiot.

Hopefully the decades of Wehraboos boastfully declaring that "if they only had built x amount" of Tigers, Panthers or otherwise is slowly being dispelled by the fact that, on both the western and eastern fronts, there were, indeed many guns and platforms that could accomplish the task of taking out a tank. Also dispelling the myths that, unless a massive amount of force was used, the mere pressence of a Panther or Tiger would cause the front to collapse. Those type of armchair generals never did understand late war-present combined arms engagements, much like the Germans themselves at the time. Effectiveness, ease of manufacture, logistics, communication and supporting elements are all key to winning a strategic engagement. It isn't only about armor thickness or gun velocity. So much can be seen by the war in Ukraine where the humble Bradley has taken what is akin to an M18's role as a tank destroyer and infantry support vehicle. It doesn't have the best gun, it doesn't have the best armor but it can survive a hit, take out tanks, be repaired easily and support infantry while being reasonably cheap for its capabilities. The concept of dedicated tank destroyer units may have shifted to shoulder launched missiles and helicopters, but the role that a cheap, easily mantained, fast, versatile vehicle has played in combat has not changed. It count be argued that the concept was ahead of its time by a few decades. But, the weakness can also be shown when there is little versatility, as the AMX 10 has shown in Ukraine. It has a 105mm gun that is capable of taking out many tanks, but it is ill suited for the combat is is facing and not like well by the Ukrainians. A sharp contrast to the Bradley, which, aside from being able to carry troops, essentially carries out the same role, but is far more versatile.