Following up on Treadhead's excellent post concerning German tank production I'd like to throw this one out.
US doctrine in WWII was that tanks, like the Sherman, were for infantry support, or breakthrough exploitation, and NOT tank vs tank combat. Tank destroyers, like the M10, M18, M36, were supposed to be for tank vs tank. The problem the TDs had was very light armor, especially from above. The open turrets we vulnerable to artillery, and Even hand grenades, even things like Molotov cocktails.
Would the value of TDs be any higher if they had given up the fully rotating turret, like German hunting tanks? I'm thinking of something along the lines of a M3 Lee, but without the upper turret and with the gun mounted in the center, and not in a sponson.
Would that have made the tank destroyer concept more valuable?
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
US Tank Destroyers
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 07, 2005 - 07:12 AM UTC
Snowhand
Member Since: January 08, 2005
entire network: 1,066 Posts
KitMaker Network: 324 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 07, 2005 - 07:37 AM UTC
The reason for the light armor is probably manouverability.
Back then, apart from airplane engines, there weren't that many high performance engines around.
Therefore, to keep a vehicle manouverable, it's weight should be as low as possible.
The allied forced could only have uparmored their TD's if a heavier engine would have been available.
For comparison, a M109 engine has some 800 hp, which is allmost twice the hp of the sherman, and it's 10 tons lighter to boot!!!!
Back then, apart from airplane engines, there weren't that many high performance engines around.
Therefore, to keep a vehicle manouverable, it's weight should be as low as possible.
The allied forced could only have uparmored their TD's if a heavier engine would have been available.
For comparison, a M109 engine has some 800 hp, which is allmost twice the hp of the sherman, and it's 10 tons lighter to boot!!!!
generalzod
Member Since: December 01, 2001
entire network: 3,172 Posts
KitMaker Network: 612 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 07, 2005 - 08:17 AM UTC
IMO I really doubt if it would have been better to make the U.S.TD's more like the German TD's From what I've read the only way the German versions were effective was from an ambush position I really believe having no turret was a big hinderance
However the armor was better I do remember hearing that the U.S.TD's based on the Shermans could only go 3-5mph faster Now why they deployed the M10 and M18's to the Pacific is a mystery to me Even the M3/M5 stuarts could take on the Japanese tanks
However the armor was better I do remember hearing that the U.S.TD's based on the Shermans could only go 3-5mph faster Now why they deployed the M10 and M18's to the Pacific is a mystery to me Even the M3/M5 stuarts could take on the Japanese tanks
Snowhand
Member Since: January 08, 2005
entire network: 1,066 Posts
KitMaker Network: 324 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 07, 2005 - 08:33 AM UTC
Quoted Text
However the armor was better I do remember hearing that the U.S.TD's based on the Shermans could only go 3-5mph faster Now why they deployed the M10 and M18's to the Pacific is a mystery to me Even the M3/M5 stuarts could take on the Japanese tanks
Hey, you say 3-5 mph... I say 10-15 % faster... and considering that German tank turrets were heavy and hard to turn, that IS a definitive advantage.
Kencelot
Member Since: December 27, 2001
entire network: 4,268 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,174 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 07, 2005 - 02:22 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Would the value of TDs be any higher if they had given up the fully rotating turret, like German hunting tanks? I'm thinking of something along the lines of a M3 Lee, but without the upper turret and with the gun mounted in the center, and not in a sponson.
Would that have made the tank destroyer concept more valuable?
Simply put - no.
One of the reasons/doctrines for the seperate TD battalions was for speed and manuverablity. A none turreted tank is very cumberson to manuver into position quickly. Aside from all their shortcomings, their fully rotating turrets helped with their little success.
SonOfAVet
Member Since: January 18, 2003
entire network: 547 Posts
KitMaker Network: 268 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 07, 2005 - 06:39 PM UTC
Not to take over the thread but it is related to the topic....
Something I never understood was why the German's had TD with no turrets...so they are really only decent from the ambush position...what was the benifit ...just added armor?
Sean
Something I never understood was why the German's had TD with no turrets...so they are really only decent from the ambush position...what was the benifit ...just added armor?
Sean
19k
Member Since: April 03, 2004
entire network: 489 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 07, 2005 - 07:29 PM UTC
I think the Germans went with the turretless concept to try to get vehicles out quicker and somewhat cheaper. Since they were by then basically on the defensive (when thinking of the vehicles that came out after '43) it wasn't as important to them to have a turret, they needed firepower and protection at the front as fast as they could get it there. The earlier ones were quick fixes to try to combat tanks the German tanks were unable to defeat. It was easier for them to devise a way to put an effective gun on a chassis they already had developed in order to fill the need as they tried to design better tanks.
I believe that our tank destroyers needed to be more maneuverable and have the turret because of we were on the offensive more often than not. Talk about speed, according to the book "American Tanks of WW II" by Thomas Berndt, MBI Publishing, the M18 could hit speeds "in excess of 50 mph on good roads". That is moving.
I think that as long as the TD's were used properly, the open top wouldn't be too major of a drawback. I sure wouldn't have wanted to use one in an urban environment.
I believe that our tank destroyers needed to be more maneuverable and have the turret because of we were on the offensive more often than not. Talk about speed, according to the book "American Tanks of WW II" by Thomas Berndt, MBI Publishing, the M18 could hit speeds "in excess of 50 mph on good roads". That is moving.
I think that as long as the TD's were used properly, the open top wouldn't be too major of a drawback. I sure wouldn't have wanted to use one in an urban environment.
dogload
Member Since: November 03, 2004
entire network: 585 Posts
KitMaker Network: 201 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 07, 2005 - 09:55 PM UTC
I read somewhere that the concept of the open turret was to differentiate the TD from tanks; to remind crews that they aren't tanks , thus deter them from indulging in tank duties of infantry support and so on-( although isn't this what they tended to be increasingly used for?).
Or is this just a myth?
Or is this just a myth?
nato308
Member Since: October 23, 2003
entire network: 884 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 07, 2005 - 10:40 PM UTC
What I saw on the history channel the other night, and I didn't get to see it all but, what I did was this: the TD's were not suppose to go into direct tank battles, but they had no choice as the Shermans were out gunned by the German tanks. The TD's on the other hand could knock out the Germans at a good distance with the bigger gun. Although the TD's were lightly armoured, this did prove to be a great assest as the were much quicker and more manouverable to the heavier German armour, the TD's could maintain a speed of 55 mph. It today rivals some of the modern armour for speed. The other advantage in the field was the traverse of the turret was also quicker. The disadvantage was of course the light armor, as well as the open turret if in the wrong situation they were easy pickings. As they became aware of the short comings they would try to adapt to better tactics.
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 01:21 AM UTC
I'm sitting here watching THC, an episode on the 3rd Armored division. A veteran of a TD battalion just mentioned that US TD turrets revolved too slowly to quickly engage on either side. He said they would always try to travel in pairs, with one having the turret pointed right, the other left. That way they could more quickly engage.
dogload
Member Since: November 03, 2004
entire network: 585 Posts
KitMaker Network: 201 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 02:48 AM UTC
Quoted Text
US TD turrets revolved too slowly to quickly engage on either side
I guess that could be the case- M10 turrets were certainly hand-wound.
USArmy2534
Member Since: January 28, 2004
entire network: 2,716 Posts
KitMaker Network: 531 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 07:19 AM UTC
Though this wasn't of immenst priority to crews, Army Ordinance reconized another reason for the light armor, thus light weight was that everything had to come from the US. Weight on ships (and also size, which shows the relatively small size of US armor) was at a premium. It wasn't so much that these ships couldn't support the weight. Liberty ships and other cargo carriers were built relatively light and their crews didn't want them laden down with too much weight that would limit their top speed.
Jeff
Jeff
Easy_Co
Member Since: September 11, 2002
entire network: 1,933 Posts
KitMaker Network: 814 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 08:20 AM UTC
Can anyone tell me how the M10 stood against the heavier german tanks with its 76mm did it have much success.
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Friday, February 11, 2005 - 06:18 AM UTC
Tom, T_Terrific, you maid some excellent points but you have made one mistake. You mentioned a couple times the 90mm was a three inch. The 3 inch was a 76mm, though not the same 76mm that went to up gun the Sherman. As I understand it the 3 inch was originally a naval gun. (I wonder if that is the 3 inch gun that was used as anti-aircraft on some ships at Pearl Harbor?) The 90mm was developed from an anti-aircraft gun.
generalzod
Member Since: December 01, 2001
entire network: 3,172 Posts
KitMaker Network: 612 Posts
Posted: Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 02:00 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextTom, T_Terrific, you maid some excellent points but you have made one mistake. You mentioned a couple times the 90mm was a three inch. The 3 inch was a 76mm, though not the same 76mm that went to up gun the Sherman. As I understand it the 3 inch was originally a naval gun. (I wonder if that is the 3 inch gun that was used as anti-aircraft on some ships at Pearl Harbor?) The 90mm was developed from an anti-aircraft gun.
Only ONE mistake!!!!!
Not bad, considering I did it all from memory while seated at a public library!
I think this makes a new record for me!
So are ya gonna buy the book now, or are you waiting for my review first??
Tom
Tom
Who is the author of the book? I am taking some time off from driving truck in less than a week Hopefully I can get it at a local book store in Lancaster,Pa
shonen_red
Member Since: February 20, 2003
entire network: 5,762 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,610 Posts
Posted: Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 04:24 AM UTC
Hey guys, just a question:
If anyone of you played Battlefield 1942, you'll notice that the M-10 had top covers. In real life, did some M-10s had top covers like Shermans?
If anyone of you played Battlefield 1942, you'll notice that the M-10 had top covers. In real life, did some M-10s had top covers like Shermans?
generalzod
Member Since: December 01, 2001
entire network: 3,172 Posts
KitMaker Network: 612 Posts
Posted: Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 08:00 AM UTC
Ralph
Sometime after D-Day the M10 TD's had roof armor put on to reduce casulties due to sniper fire and shell fragments
Sometime after D-Day the M10 TD's had roof armor put on to reduce casulties due to sniper fire and shell fragments
USArmy2534
Member Since: January 28, 2004
entire network: 2,716 Posts
KitMaker Network: 531 Posts
Posted: Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 09:45 AM UTC
I do not believe there was ever a factory issued modification that added an armor roof, but many in the field elected to make ones of their own. "M10 in action" shows a couple of these.
Jeff
Jeff
jimbrae
Member Since: April 23, 2003
entire network: 12,927 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,060 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 14, 2005 - 05:19 AM UTC
Was there actually a Sabot round for the 57mm? I always understood that there wasn't and this is what made he British six-pounder a superior weapon..
By 1944/45, the 57mm was effectively useless against (most) German armor anyway. The most effective 'Tank-Killers' were the 90mm or the 17-pounders. ..Jim
By 1944/45, the 57mm was effectively useless against (most) German armor anyway. The most effective 'Tank-Killers' were the 90mm or the 17-pounders. ..Jim
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 14, 2005 - 05:53 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Was there actually a Sabot round for the 57mm? I always understood that there wasn't and this is what made he British six-pounder a superior weapon..
I understood the Americans might not have been issued Sabot rounds, but that they would trade for them with the Brits. I wonder how many cans of SPAM a Sabot round would be worth?
jimbrae
Member Since: April 23, 2003
entire network: 12,927 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,060 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 14, 2005 - 06:04 AM UTC
Since Tungsten was categorized as a 'strategic' metal and always in short supply, the priority would have been for the 90mm and 76mm (long) therefore it is unlikely that any kind of priority would be given to the 57mm. This isn't absolute - I would be delighted if someone contradicted me!...Jim
Halfyank
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 14, 2005 - 06:55 AM UTC
Jim, I've found a few references to the Sabot for the 57mm, or six pounder.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A2187515
http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paterson/equipartillery.htm
I still haven't found it but I could swear I saw something about only the Brits getting issued the Sabot ammo, none for the Yanks using the 57mm.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A2187515
http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paterson/equipartillery.htm
I still haven't found it but I could swear I saw something about only the Brits getting issued the Sabot ammo, none for the Yanks using the 57mm.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.