Developing Tank Destroyers - with The Chieftain

[@TerryDowne]

The more I hear the Chieftain the more respect I have for the way the US Army made decisions in WWII.

[@Idahoguy10157]

The American way of war. Of that era

[@silentotto5099]

With respect to tanks being destroyed by attackers they didn't know were there... I once saw an interview with a tanker talking about armored combat, and he said something like "You find out you've run into enemy armor when the tank in front of yours explodes.".

[@rsfaeges5298]

Gywnne Dyer, in his TV series "WAR", interviewed an Israeli general who'd been a tank battalion c.o. (iirc) on the Golan in 1973. He had a great fighting position, from which he "serviced" multiple Syrian tanks. Then he decided to switch positions. The first he knew of the Syrians covering his route was when HIS tank exploded. (He obviously survived to be promoted.) His conclusion on this battle was almost a shoulder shrug--that's how it goes: sometimes you're the target servicer, sometimes you're the servicee. Also, check out the "Greatest Tank Battles" episode about the Canadian Sherbrooke Fusiliers in Normandy. The segments with ex-trooper Lawrence are fantastic, through to his conclusion about battle: yes, you have to be good, but no matter how good you are, if you're not lucky then you won't survive.

[@stevej8005]

Another quality and informative presentation - many thanks Woody and Chieftain.

[@davidlavigne207]

My favorite quote from this episode: "If you throw a log across a ditch and use it as a bridge, is it a log or is it a bridge?" [Woody] That about summed it up for me. SPG versus TD is perhaps something we'll never sort out, but I think the Americans tried their best to conform to doctrine as they saw it. What a fascinating question. You brought the right guest to help us understand the question at least Woody.

[@NathanOkun]

At the start of WWII, German 88 mm/56 AA guns (later put on the TIGER 1 tank) already had armor-piercing, capped (Pzgr.m.K.) anti-tank ammo based on a smaller version of the latest German Navy Krupp 203-406 mm (8-16") Psgr.m.K L/4,4 (AP HE Shell with AP Cap Length 4.4 Calibers) fro0m about 1934 for the Navy ammo. The 88mm version used an Army base fuze and slightly different explosive charge but looks identical with its pointed nose and "Knob-and-Ring" (British Firth Company type) AP cap, though with a fixed brass cartridge case for rapid loading. This shell design was the 1939 APC shell. Around 1942 a better, stronger APC shell with a smaller explosive charge, blunter nose under its AP cap, and a truncated cone shape for its new AP cap replaced the Krupp naval-style shell. This latter shell design replaced most of the APC shells for all German anti-tank guns at this time.

[@BlackHawkBallistic]

A 500 yard median engagement range is absolutely bonkers, I can't imagine how terrifying that was

[@davidk7324]

Great show, gents.

[@meddy833]

Thank you for this. The Chieftain is one of the most knowledgeable Armor sources out there. His chat is full of knowledgeable Armor guys and gals as well. They set me straight on something I thought was fact, and I was way wrong. I am glad to have played the fool to learn the lesson. I instantly subscribed to his channel just like I did with yours Mr. Woody. I know VALUE when I see it.

[@WW2TV]

Yep, he's a genuine legend

[@Danish_raven]

What was it that you thought was fact?

[@meddy833]

@@Danish_raven Great question and I am glad you asked. I was watching a live Chieftain podcast and we got on the subjects of the M1A1/2/3. I stated that the newer M1's would ne getting Diesel "power packs" (engine) to replace the fuel guzzling M1. I had read it from a source I assumed would be correct (mistake one) and did not fully read the article because if I had, I would have recognized it was being written by someone who did not know zip about tanks, let alone what powers them. The truth is what is being done is that a separate diesel Auxiliary Power Unit is being added to power the turret and its systems instead of having to run the fuel guzzling turbine engine that powers the M1. There are people in Chieftains chats that are faaaaaaaar and away more knowledgeable than I will ever be about the M1 who corrected my stupid ass, and I deserved it. I own it. Lesson learned.

[@Danish_raven]

@@meddy833 learning from ones mistakes is one of the most important things you can do. Thanks for sharing the story!

[@billballbuster7186]

Very interesting presentation. General Lesley McNair as Commander AGF had control of both Tanks and Tank Destroyer development and production. There were complaints that McNair hobbled tank development as he maintained that tanks did not need heavy armor and larger guns as they were not expected to combat other tanks. Several tanks were scrapped on grounds of cost, weight or transportation, the M-26 was only fast tracked after McNair's death. The M10 17Pdr SP Achilles was produced at same time as the as the Sherman Firefly and 1,150 were completed before the end pf the war. They were used by Armored Division and Army Corps Anti-Tank Regiments. The Vickers 17 Pdr SP Archer was built from September 1944 and served mostly with the Anti-Tank Regiments serving with Infantry Divisions because of its slower speed. Interestingly the A30 17Pdr SP Avenger, which predated both Achilles and Archer, did not enter service until the war ended.

[@catinthehat906]

Presumably McNair thought tank destroyers would combat German heavy tanks- which is daft really particularly in the Bocage in Normandy where German heavies and Stugs could lie in wait, any vehicle combating them had to be able to take frontal rounds without being destroyed to have any chance of survival.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@catinthehat906 McNair wrote the Tank Destroyer doctrine, which also relegated the tank to infantry support role. Sadly McNair was able to cancel a whole bunch of tanks 1942-44, including T-14, T-20, T-22, T23, M6 and was about to cancel the M-26. NcNair died in USAAF bombing of Normandy July 1944. His replacement General Ben Lear reprieved the M26, but by that time it had been delayed over 6 Months!

[@jimgrundy1278]

Another excellent presentation. I'm always impressed by Colonel Moran's use of primary sources and his ability to cut through a lot of myths that have developed over the decades.

[@morningstar9233]

Hi Jim, I'm a Grundy too.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Unfortunately a number of counter myths have now sprung up, such as the Sherman being the best, safest and most survivable tank of WW2, the 76mm being better than the 17 pounder, the Hellcat being superb etc. Its gone the other way now.

[@davidk6269]

Another great job, Woody and the Chieftain! Thank you both.

[@philbosworth3789]

Always great to hear The Chieftain. Great show again Woody @WW2TV

[@jeffbraaton4096]

This was a fun, info packed show. Folks know The Chieftain, so there's not much I can add, you get your money's worth with his presentations. Thou I would enjoy a show with him talking about WW2 gaming mechanics/development. Great Great show Paul and Nicholas, you two are fun team.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

I got you covered on that one already. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqTHe4J-YqyVl5o

[@hazchemel]

There is great satisfaction in arriving at the seed of a thing. Many thanks, and to your philosopher historian guest. Wonderful.

[@jeffreybaker4399]

Been a great week of shows. Need to rewatch all from start.

[@TerryDowne]

Very glad to hear of Sgt. Dring. A superb gunner, who of course has nothing like the general fame of certain Kraut "Panzer Aces."

[@Chiller01]

A great episode! Nicholas Moran cites references to support his arguments like a serious academic. 53:54 I like the idea of using the median (middle number of the range) vs the mean(average) of a data set because it is less affected by a few large outliers and gives a better representation of the middle of the data set particularly if you have relatively few data points. 300 yards is point blank range for virtually any canon 20mm and up. PS I’d love to play rhythm guitar in your new band.

[@scottgrimwood8868]

The Chieftan knowledge is amazing, and he never disappoints. Looking forward to his next armored talk on WW2TV.

[@bhuddy1832]

"Germans were thinking in companies, the Americans were thinking in battalions....." And the American "juggernaut" was just beginning to gear up..... The American doctrine was to create units with the firepower necessary sufficient to dominate the battlefield. As one British officer purportedly noted in North Africa, very early on in the war, "Americans don't solve problems, they overwhelm them....."

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Well this overwhelming superiority still struggled in 1944/45. Take Patton in the Lorraine. In early November 1944 his 3rd Army enjoyed a 3:1 superiority in men and 8:1 in tanks plus overwhelming artillery and air support. He still failed to achieved his objectives.

[@bhuddy1832]

@@lyndoncmp5751 Say what? Have you ever heard of Arracourt?

[@silvermikeGA]

This was a great show! In one hour the Essentials of the TD and it's mission were presented.

[@TerryDowne]

"Will we get there? Probably not, but we'll have fun getting there." What a classically existential passage.

[@jimwatts914]

Howdy folks. When the chieftain talks tanks I listen. Great job by all as expected. Learned a lot of new things. Great perspective and a deep understanding of the issue.

[@WW2TV]

Thanks Jim

[@thurbine2411]

58:13 the Swedish IKV 91 is also very much a tank destroyer for the Swedish infantry brigades. Yes the earlier ikvs were more of assault guns but the ikv was designed with better AT capabilities while being very mobile to be able to follow the infantry in the Swedish forest and snow and mountains

[@LeftCoastStephen]

Checking out the older and longer shows. Excellent show as always! 2 comments: You need to do a show on the economics of armour with Perun. I can only imagine the comments the Chieftain and Perun could come out with. Brad at OTD just posted some pics of a Universal Carrier that Canadian engineers bolted a whole bunch of PIATs to. Only 300 yd range but I expect the devastation in the target area would have been horrendous. I thought that 300 yards was MUCH too close but it turns out maybe not.

[@curtiswebb8135]

World class example of your skills Again.

[@c1ph3rpunk]

I remember as a kid playing out in the sandbox with army men, and the tanks that came with, and using firecrackers (and other devices) to take out Tan enemy armor. Green bazooka Joe was wicked good with bottle rockets at close range. I. Am. A. Tank. Destroyer. Technically, doctrinally, physically, mentally, and spiritually. Fast forward a few years, somewhere in the early 80’s, I picked up a couple spent LAWS tubes at a surplus store. It’s amazing what can be done with those and some model rocket parts…

[@foxtrotromeo25]

Two of my favourite KZbinrs on together. Bliss! Seriously, excellent show guys!

[@WW2TV]

Aw shucks, that's very nice

[@judnichols8041]

Awesome! Thanks

[@lewiswestfall2687]

great show

[@jeromyfisher297]

Some poor sod got to pick it up! Best quote!

[@Kosigan86]

I’m glad your channel is growing. You put out such a great quantity of interviews but you always put top quality into each one - started listening a year ago, and now you have the chieftain on! Cheers!

[@morganhale3434]

Excellent show in a fascinating series, but more questions were asked than answered! I agree a lot with your guest on Italian TD's it's more about mission than purpose built.

[@WW2TV]

I don't think the questions are answerable though, that's what I have learned

[@UmHmm328]

Chieftain always brings up ergonomics. Since he’s a very tall tanker he knows the importance of being comfortable. It’s not about being soft or lazy. Bad ergonomics lead to fatigue & greatly reduced performance.

[@nbr1rckr]

Easiest decisions of my life involve clicking long videos featuring the Chieftain

[@fridrekr7510]

The Germans kept occasionally using the term “Tank” instead of “Panzer” informally at least into the early WW2. “Panzer-Zerstörer” would later apply to infantry anti-tank tactics with improvised or hand held weapons like mines, grenades, and Panzerfaust. The late war infantry anti-tank units with RPzB were also labelled “Panzer-Zerstörer” instead of “Panzerjäger”. They didn’t have separate terms for the organic infantry anti-tank units with towed AT-guns and the corps level self-propelled anti-tank units, both were initially called “Panzer-Abwehr” and later “Panzerjäger”. Occasionally the mobile AT units are labelled motorised “mot.” or self-propelled “sfl.” Otherwise, it’s only the unit number differentiating them, with the organic AT units sharing the same number as their parent division, while the corps level units are in the 500s and 600s. Interestingly, AT units always fell under the armoured branch, initially called “schnelle Truppen” (fast troops) and later “Panzer-Truppen” (armoured troops), not artillery as most other countries. This also explains the later controversy where some StuGs were operated by the assault artillery while others were redesignated PzJg and operated by the anti-tank units. It’s not just because Guderian wanted everything armoured, it’s also because the anti-tank role had always been fulfilled by armoured branch. I don’t think the Germans ever got the dedicated tank destroyers they wanted, like the Americans with their fast vehicles with big guns. The German Panzerjäger I and Marder seem more about trying to keep an obsolete chassis useable, but they neither offer better speed nor a lower silhouette than the contemporary tanks. Arguably, they had better guns, but if that’s the only pro, then the StuG seems like a better compromise and the later Jagdpanzer were of course also built along the lines of the StuG rather than the early Panzerjäger. The other upgunned vehicles like the half-tracks and armoured cars like the Puma were always more about increasing the firepower of their parent armoured infantry or reconnaisance units instead of having fast dedicated anti-tank units like the early doctrine describes.

[@zebradun7407]

Circa Vietnam Our Tank destroyers were the M-151 A1C with an M-40 on the back or an M-274 Mule with the same M-40 on it, the old Ontos M-50 was also used.

[@hazzardalsohazzard2624]

For God's Sake man, go and find someone to interview you and let you tell your stories about Vietnam before they're gone.

[@tackytrooper]

The discussion at the very beginning concerning whether something becomes something else under a given condition reminded me of ATF logic, and how guns become magically "redesigned" into other guns depending on how they are deployed. If I were an ATF agent, I would absolutely say that yes, a tank destroyer pressed into service as a tank, is redesigned as a tank.

[@Neaptide184]

It’s a capability married to a resourced organizational structure purposed, tasked, trained, equipped and manned with a primary mission to destroy enemy armor. Great discussion with a person who understands and can articulate the history of the doctrinal and technical. Having served in many artillery units, anyone who can defend the history of missile slingers (a bullet, cannon ball or shell is also a missile for the uninitiated) like the good Colonel Moran is worth spending an hour listening to.

[@TerryDowne]

Glad to see that the Chieftain, like myself, is a Dr. Pepper fan.

[@TerryDowne]

A super segment, as usual. And you guys should form a band, preferably old school punk. (Reasons to be Cheerful Pt. IV!)

[@Smithgirll]

F-22 "lighting" LMAO But also loved this! Very informative!

[@Thumpalumpacus]

Probably already been pointed out, but Henderson Airfield was on Guadalcanal and not Midway. Indeed, Henderson was named after a Marine flyer lost at Midway three months beforehand.

[@ParabellumHistory]

What an amazing show. I'm sure if it was posible, you guys would have kept talking for another 4 hours or so, and we would have kept listening

[@WW2TV]

Yes indeed, but Nicholas had to get back to his real job

[@jean-claudemagras6026]

Tank destroyer is also an economic turn. Aka removing the turret, reducing armour and upping the gun.

[@jim99west46]

You have such an incredible library of content. Perhaps it's time to get into the US library market with DVDs .

[@WW2TV]

The DVD market is absolutely dead unfortunately.

[@jim99west46]

@@WW2TV retail sales yes, US library's are still buying.

[@jim99west46]

@@WW2TVYes retail sales are dead, but the US library market is huge and they are still buying There are distributors with sales channels for that market.

[@WW2TV]

@@jim99west46 Maybe, but producing properly edited and packaged DVDs is a job that would require masses amount of time. Time that alas I don't have

[@Roll_the_Bones]

I believe Nick wrote the book on TDs. Actually. He knows his onions on the subject.

[@Bidimus1]

The "bomber" sized aircraft as a Heavy bomber destroyer was tried as well (responding to quote ast 13:30) the Zerstörer concept or heavy fighter that would be more nimble than a heavy bomber but having a heavy weapons load. the BF-110 and Bell Aircuda and P-70 ( a converted A-20) were in a way simlar in concept to the "Tank Destroyer" over all they were not a great solution the idea did continue due to the need for size for early radar and operator and night fighter P-61 Black Widow and later F3d Skyknight.

[@lessonslearned2569]

The tank destroyer: the ultimate ambush predator.

[@garyaugust1953]

It makes perfect sense that that Tank Destroyers originated in mid wars Germany. The restrictions of the Versailles treaty forced the matter on them as The Chieftain surmises. Until the withdrawal from the League of Nations and the renunciation of Versailles the German military had no option or what could be proven at the time. I believe the plans for the Panzer were probably in place if not under construction prior to the Nazi party gaining power, having only the AZ7 from 1918 until the Panzer1 in 1934. Remember Hindenburg as president until 1934 as well as most of the Weimar elite had experienced the tanks capability during WW1 and would subsequently want a superior tank themselves plus an efficient tank destroyer. I also laughed loudly at the "log-bridge" analogy.

[@WW2TV]

My log / bridge comment seemed to be a crowd pleaser

[@mbr5742]

Germany did secret tank development together with the USSR in the late 1920s (Grosstraktor, Leichttraktor, Neubaufahrzeug - that was ordered in 1932) and they did build prototypes

[@mbr5742]

Actually the Raketenjagdpanzer 2 (with SS-11 missiles) in it's updated variant Jaguar 1 (with HOT missile / 1980s - same vehicle but new missile) was in service in west germany until the early 21st century (as well as in Austria) and got a total of 3 upgrades (add on armor, new night fighting systems)

[@geoffbarney5914]

35:30 true….they’d just pop an AP round thru the building and take out the tank without HE, something that happened a number of times 😂 (not the most accurate, but it worked out for Otto Carius’ heavy Panzerjager battalion)

[@coachhannah2403]

Question: why were loaders put on the wrong side of the gun (for right handers)?

[@hughbeastodonnell3733]

What are the Chieftain's sources on the Infra Red being useless ? I'm just curious because I'd like to read up on that aspect of night fighting kit development.

[@thegreatdominion949]

Interesting discussion about accuracy versus effectiveness of AT guns (particularly those of 76.2 mm) in penetrating tanks, a subject which has come up in the chat on previous shows. Overall, my (unscientific) conclusion would be that it doesn't matter how accurate an AT gun is if it can't penetrate and kill/disable the target in one or two shots (consequently I would conclude that effectiveness trumps accuracy--particularly when one or more of the guns being compared is of marginal effectiveness for the identified task), and that the difference in accuracy of US 76mm/3 inch guns vs the 17 pdr using more conventional AP ammo was minimal and not a significant factor under battlefield (as opposed to testing range) conditions. The issue of the poor accuracy of the 17 pdr sabot (APDS) round wasn't really that significant as that ammunition wasn't issued in large quantities during the war and I believe that British units too found its performance to be generally unacceptable, that in addition to the fact that standard AP (e.g. APCBC) rounds for the gun were quite adequate for use against all but the heaviest German armour. In contrast, the APDS shell for the 6 pounder was a much more reliable and accurate round that was widely available to British and Canadian armies from mid 1944 onward and considerably extended the capabilities and service life of this older weapons system.

[@WW2TV]

Good points Sir

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Indeed. Its a cliché to cite but Joe Ekins didn't need sabot to take out three Tigers very quickly at 800 yards with his 17 pounder on the Firefly. No US 76mm gun managed such a feat.

[@jayfelsberg1931]

The Germans also tried out StuG brigades with accompanying mech infantry, etc. to make sure the StuGs had infantry support organic to their TO&R. Didn't have enough vehicles or panzer grenadiers available.

[@fridrekr7510]

When did they try this? The only mention of StuG Brigades with infantry I can find is the late 1944 Heeres-Sturmartillerie-Brigade which had an accompanying infantry company who would ride on top of the StuGs outside of combat (so they were not mechanised infantry). They only had enough half-tracks to partially mechanise the Panzergrenadiers of the Panzer Divisions (plus a few token Panzergrenadier Divisions that were actually structured like Panzer Divisions) so I find it hard to believe they would considering wasting half-tracks on StuG units when they couldn’t even mechanise their premier armoured units, much less their mechanised units.

[@jean-claudemagras6026]

Tank destroyer is basically an ambush machine, it is NOT capable of a straight up face to face tank fight.

[@nickdanger3802]

53.50 "median range was about 500 yards" Note to self for "Tigers could destroy Shermans at 2,000 meters" collective.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

But they could and did. The report sent to Eisenhower in March 1945 from US 2nd Armored Division contains testimony of Tigers and Panthers knocking out Shermans and tank destroyers at 2,000 to 3,000 yards in NW Europe. 2nd New Zealand Division also cited a Sherman being knocked out by a Tiger at 3,000 yards in Italy. Didn't happen routinely, but it did happen. Goodwood and Estrees la Campagne in Normandy are other prime examples of long range knockouts.

[@j.f.fisher5318]

My 20/20 hindsight perspective on 90mm TDs isn't so much that it makes them better TDs, but rather that during the majority of the time when they don't have any major tank offensives to stop, the larger guns will be better as artillery.

[@MegaBloggs1]

four weapons with accelerated development would have delayed german defeat-the 262, the mark 21 u -boat, the jadgpanther and the guided glide bomb/cruise missile(if used effectively in the channel)

[@petrsukenik9266]

Chieftain himself said i belive that when TD crews were asked for their opinion how to improve TDs they asked for coax and roof, making wehicle a tank Maybe this was the reason why brits prefeder to make more Fireflies instead lf 17prd M10s ? Brits don't seem to be wery keen on making open top turret vehicles as USA was (after all awenger, closest thing to US TDs brits made had roof, just little raised) , so maybe it was case of philosophy "well when we are 'aking the t'ret we might as well put bloody 'uuf ower the t'ret"

[@petrsukenik9266]

​@WW2TV i made edit and lost my heart, can i get another PLS? 🥺

[@althesmith]

I understand the IR equipment had a tendency of showering the crew with broken glass on occasion.

[@ricklinde9147]

From the descriptions provided, I would think the best anti-tank vehicles would be a swarm of Harley Davidsons with bazookas.

[@WW2TV]

Thanks for the nice comment Rick, and if you haven't already, please make sure you subscribe to WW2TV and perhaps consider becoming a member? kzbin.info/door/UC1nmJGHmiKtlkpA6SJMeAjoin

[@darrenharvey6084]

In the Australian army in WW2 (the A I F ) they didn't have anti tank guns and anti tank units they had tank attack guns and tank attack units .

[@thedeathwobblechannel6539]

Here's my view of the m10 tank destroyer. That hull should have had proper slope thicker armor. E8 suspension. T23 turret or the E2 turret. Or an unknown turret design made a flat plates welded together. Same 76mm gun or the m10's gun .

[@harmdallmeyer6449]

So, you want a Sherman?

[@brucenadeau2172]

in aug 44 panzer brigade versus 4 armor 2 platoons versus a battalion of panther the td lost 3 m 18 hellcats versus wiping out of the panther battalion

[@valriis9745]

Every time he says tank destroyer you think: StuG. StuG, StuG...

[@coachhannah2403]

8.8 was used against tanks in SPAIN...

[@brucenadeau2172]

the archer was made in desert before m 10 sent

[@simonargall5508]

Chief 🫡

[@zoperxplex]

If the U.S. Army had diverted all the resources committed to building tank destroyers into building tanks the European campaign would probably have ended sooner because the advantages that a tank destroyer had over a tank were nil.

[@harmdallmeyer6449]

What would they have done with more tanks?

[@zoperxplex]

@@harmdallmeyer6449 Win the war sooner. There was a reason why tank destroyers were no longer produced by the U.S. following WWII.