How Effective Were The American Tank Destroyer Forces During WW2?

Join The Channel for more perks : / @factbytes
The German success in concentrating and using armored forces in a fast-moving offensive in the early stages of WWII astounded military observers.
The US Army's response to the Germans' massed formations of armored vehicles was the tank destroyer force.
Tank-destroyers, like armor and artillery, established their own branch of the army with the support of Lt. Gen. Leslie McNair the Army's chief of training and doctrine.
The tank destroyer concept envisioned battalions working as autonomous units capable of reacting quickly to large enemy tank attacks.
When mobile troops were threatened by enemy fire, US Tank Destroyer doctrine called for them to move fast to a certain position, fire on enemy armor once they were within range and then retreat immediately and take up another position.
In terms of vehicle design, mobile tank destroyers were to be heavily armed but with speed taking precedence over armor protection.
Music Credits: All This Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
Copyright fair use notice
All media used in this video is used for the purpose of education under the terms of fair use.
All footage and images used belong to their copyright holders.
#USTankDestroyers #WW2TankDestroyer #FactBytes

[@calvingrondahl1011]

My father received the Silver Star by order of General Patton at the Battle of Metz. Dad was a combat Infantry Scout for the 95th Division. He liked the Tank Destroyers for their powerful gun for knocking out pillboxes not panzers.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Respect to your father. And commiserations for him having to serve under Patton in the Lorraine. A terribly executed campaign with unnecessary casualties.

[@richardstone3473]

Respect for your Dad. This piece of info from you via him changes the perspective.

[@miked8227]

God bless your father a member of the greatest generation of our time.

[@LordNinja109]

Certainly more pillboxes than Panzers in Europe

[@spmsox]

!q

[@smellyfella5077]

Many years ago at a local VFW I befriended a WW2 Veteran that was a crew-member of a U.S tank-destroyer; he told me that the only reason they made it through the war was because they never came across any Tigers nor 88mm Pak 43 Anti-Tank Guns. I spent quite a few nights at the VFW listening to his stories.....I'm quite sure he is gone by now.

[@angelic_disappointment7889]

May he rest in peace, those were way different times with very tough men

[@njlauren]

It depends on the circumstances and the kind of tank destroyer. They all were lightly armoured,so head to head fighting would be suicide against almost any tank. They were designed for hit and run tactics, get in, shoot, get out. With the m36 even tigers and Panthers were not problems bc of the 90mm. It could take out a standard panzer at 2500 yards,a tiger at 1500 ( depending on where they hit it). My dad was in a TD unit that started w a towed gun, then switched to the m36 in Sept 1944. They were used a lot as mobile artillery and infantry support, my dad's unit I believe was part of the bastogne relief collumn then ended up in Luxembourg. I also know they didn't operate independently, they usually ended up attached to other units. I think my dad's unit was officially disbanded in the 50s, but I don't know if after WWII it became a standard armored unit , I can't tell. The lack of a turret sucked, the freezing cold during the bulge made it miserable,they had 2 hour on, 2 hour off guard duty on the unit. He said the 90 was pretty accurate and worked well as artillery, it is why it also was able to knock out tanks at long range. My dad ended up being cited for bravery, their m36s engine took a shell and was knocked out, they abandoned it afraid that it would go up. When it didn't he and another guy went back in, even though they were immobile, in sub freezing temperatures,and were able to knock out a number of German tanks & protecting a retreat going on. ( This part I know is true, I have a copy of the citation for the silver star award). Tank destroyer doctrine made sense if you think about US doctrine,that was steel over flesh. Standard tanks were designed as infantry support and mobile artillery, tank to tank warfare was secondary in the doctrine. Tank destroyers could in theory get in, kill, and get out quickly, they were that fast. German and Russian doctrine was based in tank to tank fighting, their tanks reflected that. The British on the other hand had the doctrine of tanks doing the job of killing tanks. That is interesting, bc the British had the same philosophy as the US minimizing casualties. One of the problems they had was commanders who sent tanks out without infantry to do fighting. The tanks were designed to work with infantry, it benefited both. With the lack of visibility infantry are the eyes for the tank crews.

[@barkingmonkee]

It certainly seems to me that the tank destroyer concept has been alive and well for the last 50 years in the form of attack helicopter aviation - fast moving battlefield assets designed to take out enemy armor that are heavily armed and rely on speed rather than armor protection for survival.

[@DonMeaker]

And the TOW missile was put on many other platforms.

[@jamespence9469]

Also, the M901 Improved TOW Vehicle - you had a company of them in every mech infantry battalion in the Bradley and Abrams J series MTOE. And now you have the M1134 Anti-Tank Guided Missile Vehicle in your Striker battalions.

[@truthseeker9454]

Point well taken! We might well add the A-10 Warthog to that category. Although both have some armor protection against small to intermediate caliber weapons, neither is intended to survive a direct hit from a tank's main gun. Yet both can certainly defeat a tank's armor.

[@jimwolaver9375]

Doesn't mean the tank destroyer as defined here was necessary. The equivalent of attack helicopters in WWII was (pick your favorite fighter/pursuit plane), and we had those a-plenty.

[@dwaneanderson8039]

@@jimwolaver9375 But the tank destroyers destroyed far more tanks than the fighter planes did.

[@rochrich1223]

The tank destroyers greatest victory is their defense of Bastogne. Sure, the 101st Airborne division was there, but the 705th tank destroyer battalion was nearly the same number of men as the 101st. It was their guns(and the three battalions of attached heavy artillery) that kept the panzers from over-running Bastogne. I'm overstating the case a little,(being peacetime 101st myself) but the efforts of everyone including the 600man strong infantry unit made of stragglers of broken units, should not be forgotten.(if nothing else, it was bigger than any battalion of the 101st) The theory of fast reacting, fast driving battalions worked here. They blunted the point of the panzer attack for a day and occupied critical terrain, in battalion strength. The 101st stripped the infantry from the German attacks and the 705th destroyed the tanks.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Well there wereoa great deal of German tanks left to deal with Bastogne. They had mostly left Bastogne on the rear and moved off west towards a more important target, the River Meuse.

[@celebrim1]

The thing is that this was the only time in the war the Hellcats were used to their intended purpose. The problem the US TD doctrine faced is until the BotB, Germany was on the defensive and not counterattacking against US forces with massed tanks as part of combined arms blitzkrieg. TD's were developed by the US envisioning that they would be a response to the sort of attacks England and France faced early in the war. But that didn't materialize. As a result, while they did work when used as intended, most of the time they were either dead metal or else pressed into service as infantry fire support - a role for which they were not intended.

[@trob1173]

The 705th is honored for it's part in defending Bastogne at the 101st museum at Ft Campbell.

[@donorbane]

As it became declassified it's been credited that the initial stoppage of the German Blitz as by only 4 m18 Hellcat Tank Destroyers. So, tell everyone else who didn't get run over that day how non-essential that tank was! (Not telling you, just find articles like this, massive clickbait.)

[@larryconnerjr1835]

@@lyndoncmp5751you’ve made great points about Montgomery but just remember without American manpower and supplies he and the British military would have never been able to fight offensive warfare outside of North Africa, correct me if I’m wrong but Montgomery received 300 new Sherman tanks before he was able to make some of British arms most important victories in North Africa being that the main British tanks of WW2 were inferior to the Sherman but my main point is that had America not entered the war and supplied England with everything from food to trucks, tanks, planes and everything else England at most could have saved the suiz canal and areas on the edges of their empire and not much else also Montgomery had Ultra code breaking advantage so he knew the German order of battle before his famous El Ali main victory

[@lucasmembrane4763]

That battle in North Africa when the TD's inflicted so much damage on the German tanks was not exactly in open country as stated in the video. The TD's were on high ground on the top of a hill or ridge running parallel to the course the Panzers were trying to take. The TD's were exposed while they fired, but each would fire its rounds as quickly as possible, then go back behind the hill to reload.

[@truthseeker9454]

9:35 - 54 to 17 kill ratio against Panthers and Tigers in one month - wow, that was an impressive performance from the 630th Tank Destroyer Battalion using the Hellcat!

[@klaus-peterborn1370]

The american make all german tanks to tigers, i think most off them where only p IV s.

[@insideoutsideupsidedown2218]

@@klaus-peterborn1370 most Tiger 1 kills were from aircraft (P47) and artillery.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

American enemy tank id was notoriously bad. They claimed Tigers in sectors there never were any Tigers. There were certainly no Tigers where any US tank destroyers were in Normandy in August 1944. On top of this, there was a tendency to lob shells into already abandoned and empty enemy tanks age claim them as kills. The Germans abandoned hundreds of AFVs in August 1944 during the Normandy retreat. Many US tank "kills" were on German tanks already abandoned and left on the side of the roads etc.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

InsideOutside UpsideDown Well actually, comparatively few Tigers were destroyed by allied air power. Only around 5% to 7%.

[@klaus-peterborn1370]

@@lyndoncmp5751 I think also, most Tiger where left behind with technical failures or empty tanks.

[@randallpickering9944]

My Dad was in the 605 TD battalion. He went into the Army in March 1941, but didn't see action until Feb. 1945, somewhat "lucky" I guess. Their 3-inch towed guns were used to support/defend the Rhine crossings.

[@brucebarthold5359]

My dad served in the 602d Tank Destroyer Battalion and saw action in France, Belgium and Germany, including the overnight road march north from France to the Bastogne area and Battle of the Bulge.

[@Char-nu9ir]

Same with my Grandpap. Drafted in 42, but didn't hit the beaches of Luzon until Jan 45. Lots of training at Fiji and New Hebrides on their new M18's I guess. 637th TD bn.

[@njlauren]

My dad same thing, drafted in 42,hit France like 10 days after D Day. I believe his unit was at bastogne, later on was in Luxembourg in early January. The big training ground was fort Hood in Texas, there are some you tube videos about the training, including this bizarre method of shooting small arms in combat.

[@Char-nu9ir]

My grandfather served on an M18 in the Philippines (637th TD bn),1945. No tank fighting, but they supported infantry in Baguio and Manila.

[@Me-fm9zk]

Nobody gives a shit about your grandfather! There were millions of grandfathers who fought in that war

[@night7185]

@@Me-fm9zki do

[@SaharianoDshk131]

Ofc there won't be tank fighting in the Philippines it's because the Japanese barely had tanks and was more focused in they're navy

[@Paladin1873]

FUN FACT: The Ontos did go into combat during the American intervention in the Dominican Republic of 1964. There it encountered and promptly destroyed several enemy tanks, including a French-built AMX-13 and an old Swedish L-60. It was the only time the Ontos ever performed the mission it was built for.

[@user-pe1zs2pn4n]

Love the video! Thank you for posting this. When I first came in the army in 78 I had a chance to meet a World War II veteran at my grandma‘s house in Kentucky. He was a tank destroyer, and I kind of farted him off because we did not have that anymore. I was young and stupid. I will give my right arm to sit down and talk to him for a few days now.

[@charleswilts1775]

This video completely ignores the deployment of towed 3” guns in Tank Destroyer Battalions. My father was a company commander in one such battalion the 823rd. They were not transitioned to M10’s until the Battle of the Bulge. Although not the highest scoring tank killers overall as they did not see combat until June 22, 1944 when they landed in Normandy. They did destroy more tanks in the ETO than any other Tank Destroyer Battalion. It is unfortunate these battalions and their contributions were overlooked.

[@douglassellers7528]

That's what my Dad started the towed gun. Then when the came in with the 90mm tanks he was tank commander of one. 732 Tank Destroyer Battalion bn towed.

[@floydvaughn9666]

If you watch The Story of G.I. Joe, there's a great scene of one of those knocking out a bunker. They used a real Army crew, not actors. The teamwork and speed is incredible to see.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

@charleswilts1775 The whole towed versus self-propelled debate raged pretty much the whole war in the ETO, but eventually something like a compromise was reached whereby if there was a local advance or generalized offensive, the self-propelled assets were placed out front to move with the tanks and other vehicles, and the stationary AT and other artillery assets were deployed as a backstop in case the offensive was stalled and a counter-attack took place, or there was a local penetration by enemy forces. It is worth nothing that amongst veteran tankers, stationary AT guns were greatly feared due to the ease with which they could be concealed by camouflage and how tough they were to spot even at times when they were being used. An enemy tank or tank destroyer had a higher silhouette and was thus more easily picked up when it engaged them. Just one more reason tanks and armored fighting vehicles need infantry to support them in the field, as well as other assets. The towed artillery guys, one could argue, were the bravest of all because they couldn't bug out if the enemy advanced toward them. Not and take their big guns, anyway. Some of those guys who had to set fuses to zero for point-blank use... they were very courageous men. It is also why artillerymen need to train in small arms and small unit tactics, in case they need to function as de facto infantry to defend their positions. Later on, in the Korean War, there were some embarrassing examples early on in the conflict of American artillery forces which were not prepared to defend themselves against massed infantry attacks, either because they didn't get issued weapons or didn't train in how to use them effectively. So, some of their batteries got overrun and captured by communist forces and the guns turned against American forces later on.

[@dons3006]

Being a former infantryman, I can empathize the misery they must have endured with an open top!

[@Char-nu9ir]

Those guys could probably work wonders with tarps and ponchos.

[@njlauren]

My dad was in an m36. He hated the cold, told stories in winter in miserable weather being on the tank in guard duty 2 hours on, 2 hours off around the clock. That meant being on the m36 in the turret, plus they also probably started them every x hours to make sure they wouldn't freeze up

[@i-a-g-r-e-e-----f-----jo--b]

Great video, thanks! I never figured out why they had both until now.

[@donorbane]

the M-18 Hellcat was a revolutionary tank that the Abrams was modeled after. It was so successful and destructive many of its engagements were classified. It's even reasoned that it was only four Hellcats that stopped and blunted the Blitzkrieg on Bastogne. This incredible assault hit the German lines so hard that the German General incorrectly assumed that somehow Patton had already showed up. This allowed Airborne units to shore up the defense of Bastogne and their efforts as well as Patton's incredible march led to Germanys complete and utter defeat.

[@alex_spartan1805]

The Abrams has more in common with the Panther, Tiger I, and Perishing... the Abrams was modeled after the German Leopard tank.

[@donorbane]

@@alex_spartan1805 WOW, you are totally out of the loop. The Leopard was a pos compared to the Abrams and still had a diesel engine. I hate when people don't do any research and want to tell you're wrong. Get back to me when you understand the relevance of the engine used in the Hellcat and the engine in the Abrams.

[@Fuxerz]

The German Stug was better. It was a Mobil artillery gun. It's not a tank in the true sense. 75 mm guns on stug 3 killed more tanks on any side in the entire war. It was actually manned by artilleryman. It was basically a tank chassie with 76mm gun mounted on it. I believe the Panza 3 with the 75 mm gun mounted on it. Basically, it was a tank without a target on it, and it was basically used in the beginning of the war for infantry support. The Germans found out fast. It actually worked as a great time killer. It had a very low profile, and it was pretty maneuverable. It was lightly armored, though.

[@markholmphotography]

The Germans had Tank Destroyers - called them panzerjager or Jagdpanzer. Panzerjäger (German "armour-hunters" or "tank-hunters", abbreviated to Pz.Jg. in German) was a branch of service of the German Wehrmacht during the Second World War. It was an anti-tank arm-of-service that operated self-propelled anti-tank artillery, also named Panzerjäger. Soldiers assigned to tank hunting units wore ordinary field-gray uniforms rather than the black of the Panzer troops, while Panzerjäger vehicle crews wore the Panzer jacket in field gray.

[@peghead]

Fun Fact: Normally, if the word "panzer" precedes "jager", as in "panzerjager" the crew compartment was "open", and the alternative, "jagd" precedes "panzer or Panther or Tiger", the crew was enclosed with armor protection.

[@valkymer24]

Love this! Keep it coming man. ☺️

[@williampaz2092]

The tank destroyer concept was an excellent idea IF you are fighting defensively, that is to say you are the one being attacked. Then you can pull your tanks to the rear and organize a counterattack with them. American tank destroyers proved the concept in North Africa and during Hitler’s “Operation Christ Rose:” the “Battle of the Bulge” (“Watch on the Rhine” was the code name for deception used to hide the German build up for the attack). But while TDs were less expensive to build, tanks could perform both rolls if you had enough of them. Even before the end of WW2 in Europe the TD concept fell out of favor with the US Army.

[@ferstuck37]

Hey dudes your doing a lot of talk about TD the most important one you forgot was the Firefly TD!

[@lucasmembrane4763]

The WWII tank destroyer had one problem when used in an advancing army. The remaining professional army soldiers in the German Army were likely to measure the ground quite accurately before they withdrew. That meant that when they later fired mortar shells, if the mortar shells had not been sabotaged by the slave laborers in the German munitions plant, one of the shells could be aimed quite accurately at the measured territory , e.g. at a house in which soldiers were likely to sleep (although sleeping indoors was known to be a bad idea), or to have a good chance to drop right into the open turret of a TD. That happened to one of the TD's that my father served in, but, AFAIK, it happened while the TD crew was not in it, and all that he lost was my mother's picture. The TD was insured by Uncle Sam and replaced pronto, but not the picture. I would think that the proximity fuse was one reason why the TD's were scuttled so quickly after WWII. It was a very closely guarded secret of the US until the crisis of the Battle of the Bulge, when its first use on land was authorized. It could be used to cause a shell fired on an arc to explode a few feet in the air as it fell near a TD. With the open-top turret, something unpleasant would happen to the crew. The Germans did capture some shells with proximity fuses some time around the start of 1945, but they did not have time to reverse-engineer them and produce their own version(s) before the war ended for them. However, when the Russians overran the Germans, they captured the captured shells, and the Russians would not take long to get all that done.

[@PitFriend1]

Another big difference between US tank destroyers and tanks was that the TDs didn’t have machineguns to deal with infantry, other than some of them having an M2 .50 caliber one intended for air defense. As infantry and AT guns were much more commonly encountered than armored vehicles this made them much less flexible vehicles as it was harder for them to deal with those targets.

[@DonMeaker]

TD s were to move to infantry formations, or behind them, so the lack of machine guns was less of a deficiency, but the 90 mm TD turret on a Sherman hull (M-36 bis ?) did have a bow machinegun. Audi Murphy found the M-2 Browning on a TD useful in one of his actions, and TD crews managed to mount .50 Browning's on the front of their turret in many cases

[@lucasmembrane4763]

@@DonMeaker The TD from which infantryman Murphy borrowed his weapon was an M10. I think that when the turrets of the M10's were extended to the rear to balance the main gun better, around the end of 1943 , it became pretty standard for them to have a machine gun, as the weight of the machine gun back there was very desirable to make the turret easier to turn. If you see a picture of an M10 with the modified turret but no machine gun visible, the gun may be in storage within the back of the turret.

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

yes it was enjoyable &informative Video Thanks About independent Tank destroyers of US Army During WW2 ..Especially Covering of M36 Tank destroyers

[@galesams4205]

Got a chance to see the sherman tank used in ww2 at Ft. Benning Ga. The death trap they were called 6 clyender cadillac engine , 1/4" terrut walls. Served on a M-48 90mm gun in vietnam.

[@raysubsonic]

At the end of the day, it was the numbers that was so decisive. The fact that the US was able to field so many vehicles with a large calibre gun, definitely turned the tide of the war.

[@DonMeaker]

And the fact that the vehicles we were able to field were so good. Even the M-3 tanks had a stabilized 37mm gun, effective while moving against antitank guns. The M-4 tanks combined a stabilizer with a 75mm gun, and 3 inch frontal armor. Wet stowage was retrofitted, and with that, US tanks, if hit and penetrated, only 15% burned. The M-4 served with success from North Africa to Manchuria.

[@jonaarbakke9633]

Let's not forget the massive losses inflicted on Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe by the red army. They turned the tide of the war.

[@Chopstorm.]

@@jonaarbakke9633 Let's not forget the _millions_ of tons of supplies that were sent to the Soviets, allowing them to fight in situations where they normally would have collapsed. There is always one comment that goes "but muh Red Army", totally forgetting that it was a _world war_ , not a war only against the Germans. The Soviets had the luxury of fighting on a single front in their own backyard. The rest of the Allies were spread across the globe, having not only to fight against multiple armies in multiple places, but having to fight the logistical strain of shipping supplies across the Atlantic/Pacific.

[@dutchman7216]

Thank you that was interesting.

[@matthewalbers2906]

I had a great uncle who served in a tank destroyer unit in Europe during WW2. I am not sure what variant he fought with, but I think it was the one with the heaviest gun.

[@signolias100]

fm18-5 states secondary roles for tank destroyers. supporting infantry by direct or indirect artillery support is one of those secondary roles. also the tank destroyer role while destroying tanks was a part of it was actually to halt or stall break throughs

[@vladimpaler3498]

That 90mm gun sure did the trick.

[@Fuxerz]

Pershing the american tank came too little to late in the war. It had a 90mm gun on it.

[@Warmaker01]

There's a very major reason why US Army TD ammo usage in Europe was more focused on high explosive than armor piercing. By the time the US Army was fighting on Continental Europe, the German Panzerwaffe had been in steady decline. You were far more likely to find infantry, antitank guns, trenches and fortifications than you were an actual panzer. Stuff where high explosive shells were going to be in far larger demand. It's the same reason why the US Army never got into a big crash program to have more improved AT capability. Panzers became scarce. The 76mm gun's shells weren't as good against softer targets, and kind of targets that they were facing more and more of. The US Army had even tried out the 90mm gun on an antitank gun carriage, but declined in continuing that venture. But yes, I do agree with the lines blurring as the war progressed. The Sherman platform was flexible, built in numbers. The arrival of the Pershing with the same 90mm gun as the M36 tank destroyer, but with the bells and whistles of a tank. So the US Army's vision of the tank destroyer as they saw it for WWII was endangered.

[@manz7860]

The 75mm on the sherman was more than enough for the situations that it called for. Head to head encounters with big were rare relatively. Why field a gun big enough to take out panthers and tigers when a plane could just light it up from above. Also, there are plenty of encounters of Sherman's outflanking and destroying numerous panthers.

[@billwilson-es5yn]

The M4 main purpose was for infantry support so 70% of its ammo load was HE. Ordnance used the 105mm howitzer carriage for the M4's 75mm gun so provided 105mm barrel kits for the M4 companies so they could swap out the barrels when they needed a few 105mm howitzers to take out bunkers or blow up buildings. The M4 users found that the 75mm and 105mm HE rounds were suitable for disabling any German tanks by busting up their tracks, drive sprockets and road wheels. Those were easier to hit from a distance plus their crews would abandon the vehicle once it couldn't move. The US tankers also liked using their white phosphorus smoke rounds against the big cats since their ventilation fans pulled the burning WP inside the fighting compartment and engine compartment to set things on fire. The Army was reluctant to let them carry more WP since it was already dangerous to keep inside their tanks so were stingy with it.

[@dovidell]

when one considers that the M 36 ( and indeed the M18) weighed considerably less than ( some of ) the tanks it was designed to "kill " , especially taking into account the terrain during the battle of the bulge , there were definitely some advantages in its weight saving , leading to greater use and mobility of more of the roads and paths , which were unable to support the weight of the Tiger tanks , thus gaining tactical and ambush advantage

[@realbartlett8882]

My father drove one in WW2 and told me they operated mostly as mobile artillery. And that they dug in when ever they were stopped. Also that they hugged the spent shell casings to try to stay warm in the open turret. Also they could easily keep up with a Jeep

[@claymoresc1]

My father, 1st Lt. Grant W. Claymore DSC PH, was a platoon leader CO. A 3rd Platoon - 607 TD Bn. attached to Third Army.

[@celebrim1]

Yes and no. The USA was constrained logistically to fielding armor under 40 tons. There wasn't really a way to build a tank under 40 tons that would be favored in a conventional tank battle with 50 or 60 ton tanks, and there was as it would prove very limited utility in building such a tank. The M4 Sherman was an excellent infantry support tank that was "good enough" in an anti-armor role. The US tank destroyers did well against enemy armor, as generally the first side to fire was also the one that won. So they worked. But they rarely were used as intended and in the vast majority of cases an M4 would have worked as well or better. The late war ratio of 3 M4's with 76mm and 1 with a 1 105mm howitzer should have been made standard up to a year earlier, and just having more tanks would have probably worked better overall than having dedicated tank destroyed units if the M4's got their high velocity guns. There is however I think one exception to that, and that is the M36 Jackson which functionally fulfilled the role of a US heavy tank until the M26 Pershing could be deployed. The M36 was under 40 tons and could be transported like another medium tank, but had the firepower to destroy anything it found in the field. It performed very well at the Battle of the Bulge, and I can see a limited number of AT units deployed with M36's to counter German heavy tanks. Otherwise just send more M4s.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The commanding general of US 2nd Armored Division Isaac D White in a report to Eisenhower in March 1945, however, said the M36 has not lived up to expectations. So? 🤔

[@celebrim1]

@@lyndoncmp5751 Without seeing the full quote in context, I can't even tell whether Isaac White agrees with me or not.

[@1918BARsam]

@@lyndoncmp5751 it wasn't a wonder weapon. Panthers and some other German AFVs at long range still required a qualified gunner to hit the right spots, and Tiger 2s nearly impervious to anything frontally and hvap rounds weren't available for the 90 in ww2. But no doubt the M36 were one of the best vehicles of the war. Basically Shermans with a better gun than the panther's 75 and the tiger's short 88. (Yeah, the 90 is better than most German guns except the the long 88 and 128 monstrosity of the jagdtiger)

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Matthew Reynolds On continuously hearing American grumblings about their own equipment vs German, Eisenhower commissioned a special report in March 1945. General White of US 2nd Armored Division responded on March 20. The report was entitled Exhibit Number 3 Personal Convictions and Testimony of Individual Officers and Enlisted Men of 2nd Armored Division as to Comparisons of German Versus American Armor and Equipment. I believe it is available now in book form. White began by making a a rundown of various American armour types. For the M36 he said it has not lived up to expectations, chiefly the gun. The gun had not performed as well as hoped but with HVAP the situation should improve. HVAP was woefully not as prevalent as anticipated, even in spring 1945.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

1918BARsam Dont forget, when the M36 was deployed, Panthers were slightly more prevalent than Panzer IVs and Jagdpanzer IVs were increasingly appearing. As were Jagdpanthers. All had excellent guns and 80mm sloped glacis. The King Tiger was around too, although not common. Heavy Tank Battalion 506 with King Tigers was, however, exactly where US 2nd Armored was (Puffendorf/Aachen areas). I would surmise that Isaac D White, on receiving the new M36 in late 1944 would have been anticipating not merely a good gun, but instead a great gun, able to out range and out slug anything the Germans had. That the M36 failed to do that was likely the reason White was disappointed it it. He probably expected TOO much of it, and for the 90mm M36 to gain the upper hand.

[@shawncarroll5255]

Not a bad introductory video for US tank destroyers, Tactical doctrine, and usage. The one thing not covered here Is the fact that Germans had two different kinds of tank destroyers The jadgpanzer (hunter-tank) had a fixed gun and heavy armor. The panzerjager had a fixed gun slapped on top of a usually obsolete light or occasionally medium chassis, with a box like open topped crew compartment and very light armor. For the Germans they were a stopgap measure.

[@joewilhelm8975]

One thing to consider is logistics. The US had to transport all of their tanks and other vehicles across an ocean to get to the battlefield. A heavy tank as just not practical. The heavier the tank, the fewer vehicles that could be transported.

[@dukecraig2402]

And the fewer could be produced. People can make all the 1:1 comparisons they want but realistically they should make a 15:1 comparison. When I was stationed in Germany in the 80's I spent an Easter weekend at a German family's house, the head of the household happened to be a tanker in the war, we were told from day one in Germany to never bring up the war, it was considered very bad forum to do it but upon finding out that I was a crewman on an armored vehicle that old man was tickled pink and you'd have thought we were fraternity brothers (I still have a hangover from all the Schnapps he busted out). After a while i didn't think it'd be inappropriate to ask the question whether or not he thought that the German tanks of WW2 were superior to ours like I'd always heard growing up, he told me "I'll tell you what was superior, that was the number of Sherman's, when there was one or two of you and 10 to 15 Sherman's come rolling over the hill it was only going to end one way and we knew it". Him and his crew had an agreement, once they were pushed back into Germany the first time they ran out of gas or ammo they abandoned the thing and started looking for an American unit to surrender to. You hear all these stories about American tank crews having "Tigerphobia", well take it from someone who got it straight from the horses mouth German crews had Shermanphobia just the same.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

Re: "One thing to consider is logistics. The US had to transport all of their tanks and other vehicles across an ocean to get to the battlefield. A heavy tank as just not practical. The heavier the tank, the fewer vehicles that could be transported." That is a valid observation, but it isn't cut-and-dried. During the early and middle-stages of the war, shipping tonnage may have been restricted by losses to U-Boats and the like, but as the war advanced, those concerns eased a great deal. The genius of those prefabricated Liberty ships had a lot to do with it, and so did shipyards up-and-down the coasts of the U.S., Canada, and Britain, amongst others. By early 1944, there were sufficient hulls available to permit the shipment of heavy tanks to the ETO. Not in anything like the numbers of the Sherman, but sufficient to equip a few specialized heavy tank breakthrough units, had those been formed. The limitation on transporting tanks or any other heavy equipment or vehicle, including tanks or locomotives and rail-cars or heavy construction equipment, isn't just shipping per se - having a freighter or transport large-enough, it is the dockyard facilities involved, especially the heavy-lift cranes which would be required to hoist these things up and over and into the holds. The argument that one M-26 took up space that would fit two or three M4 Shermans, is usually premised on the idea that those multiple Shermans were worth more than one M-26.... but that all depends on the specifics, right? On how well those M4s perform in combat. I am of the view that the Anglo-American war effort would have been better served by introducing the M-26 earlier and sooner, even if the numbers of tanks which made it to the ETO was fairly modest. That's not how it happened, of course, but it is an interesting question to ponder.

[@insideoutsideupsidedown2218]

@@GeorgiaBoy1961 production ability had a major impact on the situation. Although it would be a consideration to send as much per ship early in the war, by Jan of 1944, that really was not a factor as England was an cramped depot by then.

[@billwilson-es5yn]

​@@GeorgiaBoy1961Shipping tanks was never a problem since the Liberty and Victory ships jib boom cranes could handle 30 ton and 50 ton loads. Early in the war the ship convoys had the supplies going overseas divided up between 10 ships. Each carried 10% of a specific product so if one was sunk, 90% still made it to port. Later on they had Victory ship tank carriers that could hold 254 M4'S or 400 M5's. Only 21 M26 Pershing tanks were sent over. They were first ones produced and sent over without being tested, without trained crews, mechanics and without any replacement parts. The Army refused to use them for a month until ordered by Ike to do so. By then some crews had some experience operating them and some parts showed up. Congress ordered the Army to have a heavy tank in combat before the November Elections in 1944 back in 1943 since the press had the public worked up over the big German tanks blowing away the Shermans and Stuarts. The M26 was slated to go into production on September 1 of '44 but the new factory didn't have any parts to assemble. Their suppliers had to complete current contracts first then had problems obtaining the materials and machinery to make something different. Parts dribbled in so production started in November when 14 were assembled. The first three were ran nonstop around a track for 500 miles with two making it and the third losing a road wheel after traveling 300 miles. The Army declared that was normal wear so told Congress that the M26 was ready to go straight to the front lines without further testing. It took the railroads several months to round up the flatcars capable of carrying the tank and rerouting freight traffic on the twisted route the tanks had to take to have bridges capable of handling their weight. They were shipped without parts since all that were coming in were being used to assemble more tanks.

[@billevans7936]

Cool video

[@lukeskywalker3329]

US tank destroyers were probably the best . Especially the M36 . But the greatest tank killer besides air power were the German stugs . If the stug units knew tanks were attacking their area . They chose concealed positions like take destroyers were supposed to . If you look at tank on tank kill ratios . The humble stug came out on top . Stugs were supposed to just be and infantry support assault gun . But the took the highest toll on allied tanks of all the German tanks. When used on tanks . They were used as per the USA tank destroyer doctrine . So the doctrine was correct . Just USA forces were inconsistent in sticking to the doctrine . The tank destroyers had the potential of being the most successful tank killers . Especially the M36 . Simply misused. The Germans at the start of the war had inferior tanks . But their tank doctrine sound . Their most effective tank was the humble Stug .

[@coachhannah2403]

TD doctrine was sound, for the German army of 1941-42. Germans were far more passive on Western Front 44-45, so the doctrine, while sound, did not match the changed enemy. The guns on tracks were quite effective in other roles.

[@DonMeaker]

@@coachhannah2403 And where the Germans were not passive, during the Bulge, the TDs did great service.

[@coachhannah2403]

@@DonMeaker - Agreed. They were used, but not often as 'TDs per doctrine.'

[@DonMeaker]

@@coachhannah2403 They weren't always used according to doctrine against massed German tanks because the Germans didn't often show up with massed tanks. When the Germans didn't show up with massed tanks, TDs were used to supplement artillery fire, per TD doctrine.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The Stug was only the most effective because there were lots of them. The Tiger was the most effective. For every Tiger lost in combat, they took out 10 enemy tanks/assault guns/tank destroyers overall.

[@sergeipohkerova7211]

I think it made sense for Germany to have tank destroyers because they needed tracked vehicles en masse with ordinance to deal with hordes of Allied armor, and also tank destroyers are good defensive assets. Of course Germany would have much rather had simply more proper 88mm armed Tigers or 75mm Panthers. Resources that the Americans spent on their own tank destroyers could much better be spent on improved Shermans and the new Pershings.

[@DonMeaker]

A Tiger cost the Germans about 1/4th the cost of a destroyer. Their manufacturing techniques were quite inefficient for tanks, part of the reason why they had so few tanks compared to other nations.Tiger I cost 250,700 Reichmarks, compared to only 82, 500 RM for a StuG III. Tiger II (King Tiger) Cost 321,500 RM.

[@endutubecensorship]

I think if they concentrated on making every Sherman an E8 or Firefly it would have had greater results than dedicated tank destroyers. Sherman E8's and Fireflies were targeted first in armored formations because they were feared, as seen by E8/Firefly crews painting half their main gun barrel camo to appear as a regular Sherman.

[@skymagruder5270]

At first early on. Once those German tank crews were killed off or suffered equipment failure, a Sherman with a howitzer or even the non-up gunned were a better option for their ability to fire HE. Antitank guns and bunkers would become their more common foe than a German Panzer that required a 76mm Sherman or Hellcat

[@Blitz9H]

I saw a personal photograph from a German tanker of a knocked out M-10. This panzer commander was on a Mk IV.

[@Imnotyourdoormat]

McNair looked like George C. Scott playing Patton...

[@dakwa1]

You did miss the T19, a Halftrack with the 105 mm Howitzer. It was a decent anti-tank unit.

[@HamanKarn567]

They did a good job either way. And also in Korea and other conflicts. I always thought they were awesome the hellcat, wolverine and Jackson

[@peghead]

@9:22: Demonstrates that being too near a powerful cannon with a muzzle brake is somewhat hazardous.

[@dongilleo9743]

Something similar happened with U.S. Army Anti-Aircraft battalions. They were created as a response to the German use of dive bombers to support the Blitzkrieg in 1939-43. By the time of the D-Day invasion in June 1944, the Allies had air superiority, and there were few if any German planes still in the air to shoot at. The AA units ended up guarding supply depot's against mostly non existent German air attacks. Like with the independent Tank and Tank Destroyer battalions, U.S. production capability was so great that it was possible to attach a Tank battalion, a Tank Destroyer battalion, and an AA battalion each to every U.S. Infantry Division. All three were usually deployed in platoon or company sized elements to provide infantry support. In 1945, with the U.S shortage of infantry replacements, some unneeded AA units were forced to transfer men to the infantry.

[@paintnamer6403]

This video mentions a M-56 Ontos but it is a M-50 Ontos with six 106mm recoilless rifles and then there is the M-56 Scorpion that has a 90mm open mount gun that is not shown.

[@thedeathwobblechannel6539]

If the m10 and m36 tank destroyers had been made with properly thick armor and something like mid production t23 turret with the 76 mm gun maybe even the jumbo turret with the 76 that would have been a formidable tank and they could have put the application front armor plates on the front with spacing to really beef up the front end of the tank. The plates I speak of are for the 47° glacis late model Sherman's there is a picture of a cast hull M4A1 with two of these plates on the front I believe they're 1 in thick plates and then there's space and then it goes to the normal two or two and a half inch thickness a little later model cast hull to the front of that one haf over 4 inches of armor on it all of it sloped. Well still track to the gun mantlet and on the front edges of the turret would give it some more resistance to being penetrated.

[@johnvanlindingham9490]

Seams like you forgot about the Grayhound 6 wheel drive

[@George_M_]

They clearly worked, their kill/loss ratio is no joke. The question is how wasteful it was to have two armored branches.

[@montieluckett7036]

Either Bill Mauldin, or Ernie Pyle, I don't recall which, related this story. A Tiger, this was in Italy, was giving the Americans fits. A force of eight M-4's went out to sort out the problem. The Tiger was dispatched , but only one Sherman returned under its own power.

[@kdobm4340]

In 1955 the Danish army got 48 Canadian M10 Achilles IIc , and they were used until 1989.

[@rajpawar9343]

I liked US tank Destroyers. Specially the M36 Jackson with it's 90mm M3 anti tank gun, challenging German 88mm KWK 36 and 43 and 88mm PAK 43.

[@matovicmmilan]

Believe it or not but the German 88mm of the Tiger 2 and Jagdpanther was almost two times more powerful than the American 90mm!

[@rajpawar9343]

They were same. Just 2mm difference The T26E4 Super Pershing had 4 metre long 90mm M3A1 equal to German 88mm KWK 43 and PAK 43.

[@TheGrenadier97]

The US tank destroyers reminds me of the Tiger tanks: useful machines with probably flawed or dubious doctrines behind them.

[@coachhannah2403]

Exactly. Tiger was a breakthrough tank produced when German capabilities and Russian vulnerabilities precluded breakthrough as a concept. US TDs were a mobile armor-defense system/doctrine produced when German capabilities precluded armored attack.

[@DonMeaker]

@@coachhannah2403 German capabilities in the west didn't allow counterattack in part because of the many and capable US (and allied) TDs. Where they did it anyways, as at Kasserine and the Bulge battles, the Germans lost heavily, and didn't achieve their objectives.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

DonMeaker, The Americans LOST at Kasserine, while in the Bulge, where the Germans were never going to win anyway, the Americans lost three times as much armour in combat as the Germans.

[@DonMeaker]

@@lyndoncmp5751 The Germans lost Kasserine, because they didn't take their objectives. Loss ratio for TDs vs. German tanks was 1-1, considering the TDs were at that point half tracks with a 75mm gun, a considerable advantage for the Americans. Germans never took their objectives in Bulge either, on the northern shoulder, losing about 18:1 in terms of men.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Don Meaker Kasserine was an Axis victory. The outnumbered Axis forces routed the Americans. The Americans were pushed back nearly 50 miles and lost many more tanks and vehicles than the Axis did. The Axis barely lost 20 tanks. Rommel only stopped because he became over extended, supplies had dwindled and the prospect of Montgomery's 8th Army moving up was a more pressing concern. In no way was Kasserine an American tank destroyer victory.

[@billwilson3609]

The US Army developed their TD doctrine after observing how Germany used their tanks. The M10 used twin GMC Diesel engines since their high torque at low rpm would allow the TD to take off faster from a dead stop. That doctrine fell to the wayside once the Germans stopped using mass tank assaults on Allied positions so the TD's were dispersed among the armor units. The M36 was to use the M10 hull but labor problems at Fisher Body forced Ordnance to have Ford mount the M36 turrets on the M4 tanks they were producing. In the meantime, Ordnance rounded up all of the M10's at US training bases to be rebuilt then sent to Europe with a M36 turret before cancelling the contract with Fisher Body. Buick designed the M18 Hellcat to use twin Buick V8's that slid out the back on a tray with the transmission for servicing and repairs. The Army was perfectly happy using the reliable radial engine in all their tanks so made Buick use one in the Hellcat.

[@SvenTviking]

The problem with the Tank destroyer was that they were inevitably used as tanks, supporting infantry in the advance, because tanks were sometimes in short supply or the big guns were needed. And thin armour and open topped turrets is not good around grenades and Panzerfausts. Thus the Main battle tank was developed with speed and a tank killing gun.

[@Garhunt05]

Actually open top turrents were not as vulnerable to panzer fausts because when the armor was penetrated the spalling often went outside of the turret and not bouncing around inside.

[@treyhelms5282]

I think the TDs success is only due to be reserved for purely defensive situations where they had all the advantages except material. It's telling at Arracourt and other battles the TDs performed no better than regular Shermans, despite the TD crews probably receiving more training for that kind of fight. When they were pushed to support troops, because keeping them in reserve was dumb, they suffered. There's many reasons everything but the Jackson was retired after the war.

[@seanmager1168]

The M-36 Jackson/SLugger was not FULLY Retired. As it ALSO Fought/Served in the Korean War Too.

[@treyhelms5282]

@@seanmager1168 True, like I said "everything but the Jackson". That 90mm gun made the difference there. But the TD units were disbanded, and the M36 served instead as a "gun motor carriage" and light tank instead. I wonder with hindsight if the M36 was too heavy to replace the M24. (28 ton vs 20 ton). Would have performed better as a light tank, IMO.

[@seanmager1168]

@@treyhelms5282 OK. that Makes's Sense. But i dont Think it REALLY Matter's ALL that much. dont matter if the M-36 SLugger was a Light Tank, a Tank-Destroyer, or a Gun-Motor-Carriage. ALL which TRULY does Matter is that the M-36 SLugger Performed AMAZINGLY. And No i REALLY DONT think the M-36 SLugger was too heavy to Replace the M-24 Chaffee. As Both the M-24 and M-36 Were REALLY GOOD. As in, they were BOTH VERY Reliable. They had VERY Good Speed. as the M-24 Chaffee's max Speed was 35 MPH. the M-36 SLugger's Max Speed was 30 MPH. But HECK YES. the M-36 SLugger was GREAT. As it's 90mm Gun REALLY SLUGGED German and Russian tanks REALLY GOOD. And also Thanks to American and BRitish Artillery and Air-Support, which was FAR Superior to Germany's, The M-36 SLugger's Survivability Rate's were Better.

[@treyhelms5282]

@@seanmager1168 yeah I think if the U.S. Army had used the M 36 instead of the Chafee, the army might’ve done better against North Korean t34s. But they didn’t. Note that they did scrap practically every other TD I’m aware of, and every TD unit.

[@seanmager1168]

@@treyhelms5282 They did Though. the M-24 CHaffee Yes was 1 of the Tank's Used also in the Korean War. But the M-36 SLugger was Used Too. As Yeah when the M-24 CHaffee's Were Used against the T-34's they did NOT Do So well. But I Guess at that time, That was the only Tank That TAsk force Had for Use at the Moment.

[@tplyons5459]

Gimmy a STUG 3 or 4 or Hetzer any day over those things

[@lukeskywalker3329]

They were actually the most successful tank killers of WW2 . They destroyed more tanks than the rest of the German tanks even though they were primarily infantry support assault guns . When defending against tank attacks . Their best defence was concealed positions as per the US tank destroyer doctrine . It was the only way the stugs could combat tanks . But they did it well on all fronts . Simply because the had to be consistent due to the stugs limitations. Good doctrine.

[@tankmaker9807]

@@lukeskywalker3329 Total Stug III production was 8416 according to my reference. If you add the Stug IV, 1141, it is 9557. As it was Germany's most produced armored vehicle, and after 1942 deployed primarily as a tank hunter, it should have had a good score. I don't have data from all of WWII, but there is an interesting breakdown in my book on the results of combat in the East from January to August of 1944. In that time 4814 Stug's were in action and destroyed 4667 enemy tanks with a loss of 713 Stug's for a win/loss ratio of 6.5. According to the book, the total number of tanks destroyed in the East by the Stug, from June 1941 to September of 1944, is 18261. If we average that out we get 457 tanks per month. Take that to the end of the war in 1945 we can add another 3652 tanks, for a total of 21913. So, if we remove the Stugs in the West, at a guess about 25%? Then 7168 Stugs destroyed 21913 tanks on the Eastern Front for a kill ratio of 3.05. The Stug III is my favorite tank destroyer.

[@michaelillingworth6433]

@@tankmaker9807 Cheap to build, on an otherwise obsolete chassis, and with such a low seluete. The big cat's, including the TD variety got all the fame, but its hard to argue about how effective the stug was.

[@akken2112]

There was no mention of the effectiveness of the M3 GMC in the Pacific Theater of WWII.

[@gamewizardks]

As far as Tank Destroyers and other military hardware, America during World War 2 had the distinct advantage of it's industrial machine. From design to testing and manufacturing, a plethora of weapons systems were developed and produced en masse in very short time. Those systems that had shortcomings were quickly tweaked, those that didn't work as envisioned were quickly abandoned and new ones developed to take their place. Only the Germans had nearly as many ideas and the ability to engineer them, but they didn't have close to the Industrial output of America. The United States wasn't just supplying it's own forces in World War 2 in great quantities, the U.S. was also doing the same for other Allied Powers. This Industrial output was a luxury that no one else in the world had at the time and the war was won on both fronts because of it.

[@miketaylor5212]

U.S. commanders had a habit of using all guns they could get to bear which put the tds is some less than ideal situations.

[@ramal5708]

Dunno if you categorize the Stryker APC with the 105mm gun as a TD, but if it is then US probably the one that still use TD doctrine today. Since others are using MBTs as the means to destroy enemy tanks and at the same time break through enemy lines and hold it.

[@treebeardtheent2200]

It is not. MBTs, ATGMs, Aircraft mounted AT ordnance and guided artillery rounds don't leave much of a gap that needs to be filled with SP AT guns.

[@jamessnee7171]

The Tank Destroyer concept was eliminated by the development of the Main Battle Tank. Another stopgap measure used during WW II was the US Recoilless rifle. I don't see a lot of video info on this weapon system so perhaps a future topic?

[@FactBytes]

Sure

[@Idahoguy10157]

As American tanks were now equipped with the same guns and ammo as the TD’s. The Tank Destroyer branch wasn’t a failure. TD’s by the end of WW2 were made redundant to Tanks

[@sitnam9054]

But Tank Destroyers never went away. They just moved ATGM platforms instead of gun base

[@craigclemens986]

There were recoilless used even in the Korean War. The Ontos was the vehicle name

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

Recoilless rifles weren't a stop-gap so much as their own class of weapon with advantages and disadvantages. Recoilless or counter-shot weapons have been around a long time, and were first fielded in significant numbers in WWII. The U.S. Army and Marine Corps used them on Okinawa in the Pacific, to name one example. But "recoilless" weapons had been experimented with as far back as Leonardo da Vinci half a millennium ago. Recoilless rifles do not require the massive, heavy and strong mount and recoil apparatus required by normal artillery, since they operate on the counter-shot principle. This makes them weapons suited to being mounted on light vehicles, such as jeeps, which was done in WWII. Since the projectile is not velocity dependent in its effects, the pressures needed/generated in firing one are substantially less than with traditional artillery. Most RR shells are based upon the shaped charge principle or some variation thereof, such as squash-head shells which flatten themselves against a surface and detonate - thereby blasting fragments and spall behind whatever that barrier is, and often destroying it in the process. These weapons are therefore useful for taking out bunkers, penetrating reinforced concrete, and the like, as well as against vehicles and armored vehicles. Recoilless rifles have largely been superseded by guided missiles for AT duties, but they remain effective in a variety of other roles. And since they are substantially cheaper than guided missiles for taking out tanks, poorer nations use them instead of relying too-much on TOW missiles and the like. Very common to see these weapons still in use in places like the war-torn parts of Africa.

[@branned]

Anti-Tank TLAT Battalions would be fielded until the end of the Cold War with TOW missiles.

[@thomasgreene4709]

Them Force '21 program developed the Styker BNs

[@TDL-xg5nn]

Lackluster gun? The Hellcat's 76 mm high velocity gun could penetrate the frontal armor of a Panther or Tiger at close range.

[@richpontone1]

Tank destroyers are only effective when hidden in ambush positions and in groups. They are not meant to advance forward as you would do with German Panther or Tiger tanks.

[@billballbuster7186]

The Tank Destroyer and its use was the idea of General Lesley McNair, Commander US Army Ground Forces. His doctrine was only Tank Destroyers would fight enemy tanks. The obvious flaw in this plan was that tank on tank fighting was inevitable. But McNair stuck to his guns, and steadfastly refused the requests from the tank lobby to mount bigger guns. McNair could have had the Sherman Firefly in full production in early 1944, but he rejected it. He was on the point of cancelling the M-26 until he was killed by a friendly fire incident in Normandy. Luckily his successor had more sense.

[@billwilson-es5yn]

The US Army sent experienced M4 crews to check out the Firefly after the British offered that conversion to the US. The M4 disliked it so told their superiors not to bother using it.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

It isn't kind to speak ill of the dead, one supposes, but McNair was the prototypical example of a mediocre man promoted above his abilities. He just wasn't very well-suited to the job, at least not when it came to matters pertaining to armor and armored warfare. He was out of his depth.

[@Ghost0465-1]

2 US Soldiers once destroyed a JadaTiger with a 88mm Bazooka Rocket to the rear; which is fucking astounding considering it was the most armored AFV in WW2.

[@mjo4981]

Notwithstanding their temporary role in warfare, tank destroyer units were important in the Battle of Arrancourt and crucially helped weaken Wehrmacht armored units prior to Battle of the Bulge...

[@LordNinja109]

Which is exactly the mission they were designed for. German attacks/breakthroughs. The nature of the war saw Germans being defensive in Western Europe though for the vast majority of the war after '41. The concept was sound, just the opportunities to implement them kind of rare.

[@ReviveHF]

From a certain point of view, the US Mobile Protected Firepower tank and the Chinese Type 15 can be seen as the reminiscent of the US WW2 tank destroyers.

[@bryonslatten3147]

M10, M18, and M36 had open top turrets so the crew could stand up and scout targets at long range. Operating the gun from a standing position also permitted a higher rate of fire.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

That's one way of doing it, to be sure, but that height adds to the visibility of the vehicle and its silhouette. German practice - especially with their larger, heavier tanks, was to dismount to do recon. If you read memoirs of some of their more well-known tank aces, these men - often the tank commander himself - dismounted and scouted ahead on foot if enemy forces location was not known. The higher-versus-power silhouette dilemma is one with no easy answer, and which has vexed tank designers for years. The Soviets tended to make their tanks from the Cold War forward to have lower silhouettes as much as possible, whereas the Anglo-Americans tended to follow a somewhat different philosophy. The height of the tank - including its turret height and depth - impacts the degree to which the main gun can be elevated or lowered. One famous battle or series of them which this factor came into play was with tank battles on the Golan Heights during the Arab-Israeli Wars. Soviet T-54 and T-55 tanks advancing in numbers often found that, as the ranges decreased, they had difficulty in bringing their guns to bear on the IDF tanks arrayed against them on the heights above. IDF Centurions, on the other hand, having taller silhouettes, could depress their guns enough to engage the enemy successfully. But returning to U.S. tank destroyers of WW2, they were comfortable vehicles in comparison with many competing designs. They were roomier and had more space, which might not sound all that important, but if you are in that vehicle all day, every day, and most nights, too - it takes on a very big role in your effectiveness. The lower vehicles, though, were easier to conceal and camouflage, which made them ideal for ambushes and tougher for enemies to detect. Many of the accounts of tankers which I have seen from that war, say that the men feared enemy AT guns as much or more than tanks and TDs, because they were tougher to spot.

[@badweetabix]

Not in the numbing freezing cold of European Winter. Touching any metal surface with barehands in winter means you lose skin and maybe fingertips, too.

[@bryonslatten3147]

@@badweetabix gloves.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

@@badweetabix - Quite correct, and the crews of the open-topped tank destroyers, whether British (they had some such designs also) or American, agreed. An open-topped design was hellishly cold and exposed during winter conditions and just as exposed during the heat of the summer. Which is why ad-hoc field-expedient sunshades and covers were fabricated and used. And you'll note that no one kept open-topped designs after the war, to any appreciable extent. Bad idea then, bad idea now.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

Open-topped turrets were a bad idea from the start. You don't need an open top in order to scout or do recon of the terrain or possible targets. The tank commander or one of the crew (or accompanying infantry, if present) simply dismounts and scouts on foot to the extent needed, or simply uses the commander's cupola. Far as a higher rate of fire on the tube, proper design of the interior of a tank, i.e., its fighting compartment, mitigates most of the ergonomic issues involves in loading efficiently. Open-topped turrets were a bad idea cooked up by people in the rear who did not understand the hazards of combat - urban combat in particular - or how vulnerable to artillery, mortar and other kinds of indirect fire, such designs made the crew. Exposure to the elements was no friend of the crews, either. Which is why improvised field-expedient covers and sunshades of various kinds were made and used. Virtually no one kept open-topped turrets in armored vehicle design after the war, which in and of itself ought to tell you something, namely that most armies regarded it as a bad idea and not worth perpetuating.

[@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle]

Infantry need anti tank weapons to stop enemy armoured breakthrus. Handheld, towed or mobile. They are all just variations of the same tool.

[@coreyrussellgaming6330]

The towed American guns caused the German tankers a lot of trouble - the American battalions always seemed to have so many of them.

[@wombatwilly1002]

Patton told the powers that be about the "Sherman" We can win with those,build as many as you can.The US were always reluctant to go with a heavy tank figuring it wasn't needed

[@ANobodyatall]

Montgomery was quite similar, when we Brits got our first ones in 1942, but he soon realised that it did not compare to the latest German tanks, aka the Tiger, they encountered in Tunisia in 1943.

[@bradjohnson4787]

Sherman was a medium tank.

[@scotts3959]

Tttttttooe

[@daleconway141]

The problem with anything over 40t was shipping it over to europe, as the cranes were limited so they took the turrets off for transport. even captured tigers had their turrets removed to be sent back for evaluation

[@kenneth9874]

They needed to ship them halfway around the world, most harbors couldn't handle the weight of heavy tanks

[@WizzRacing]

The reason for the design. Weight was everything.. As these had to be shipped and unloaded across an Ocean. Then unloaded on the beaches....

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

Yes, that's true, and it was a factor especially earlier in the war when shipping was in such short supply. But as the war went on, and the enormous industrial base of the U.S. began to tell, securing shipping space was less of a problem than it had been formerly. The same is true of dockside and harbor cranes and other heavy-lift equipment. Gantry cranes in shipyards could lift enormous tonnages, to name one example. The greater all-up weight of an M-26 would have been an inconvenience, yes, but not an insurmountable problem. Some of our larger land-based artillery pieces weighed as much or more than an M-26 Pershing - and the logisticians and harbormasters found ways to load them.

[@theodoresmith5272]

Tank concept in and before ww2 was all over the place and rapidly growing in capabilities. Anti tank guns fell behind in numbers and already not able to stop the top tanks by production. In the desert war of North africa, anti tank guns proved there worth as better and numbers vastly increased. As for the tank destroyer concept, in had its pros and cons but even by the end of ww2 tanks were not the war winners they were in 39-41.

[@jamessnee7171]

Today's critics need to realize that armored warfare concepts had a tremendous evolution in an incredible short time. Things some call stupid today were done using what was available so they can see what would work and what did not. Knowing that every 'experiment' could cost US lives. Heavy stuff.

[@georgehayes8823]

The Germans modified their 88mm AA guns to direct fire weapons and killed a few tanks. i don't think anything was a better anti-tank weapon. It had a huge barrel.

[@garyhill2740]

It wasn't the size. There is less than half an inch difference in diameter between a 76mm and a 88mm. The difference is the higher velocity of the German 88mm, and the harder projectile of the German round, which combined allowed it to penetrate armor better.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

The Germans discovered as early as the Spanish Civil War that the 88mm anti-aircraft gun was in fact a "dual-purpose" weapon, one capable of excellent work as a direct-fire weapon on ground battlefields. They rediscovered its usefulness in blunting the French armor breakthrough at Sedan in 1940. Convinced, they run with the idea and designed dual-purpose mounts, special trailers and limbers, different types of trails, and so forth. Make no mistake, the 88mm gun was a superb weapon. But the fact of the matter is that every one of the major combatants in the European theater had a similar large-caliber high-velocity anti-aircraft gun then in service, of the kind which could have been adapted to the same uses as the German 88 was. The British and the Americans both had such guns - as did the Soviets. They were a different animal, of course, since Red Army doctrine was that any "gun" within range of a German armored vehicle was, by definition, an "anti-tank gun" whether it was suited to that purpose or not. It is probably fair to say, though, that one of the reasons why the 88mm gun became the legend that it did was not just its performance, but the many opportunities the Germans had to use it against British, American and CW forces during the war. Not just against tanks, but think of the thousands of them used against the USAAF and RAF over occupied Europe and Germany.

[@2serveand2protect]

PS. Well! - there You go! Thank You for the excellent video! - I had all my questions answered. I have to add one thing, though! When I watch WW2-footages - especially those of American frontline units - one thing stands always out to my eye - the SHEER number of "logistical" vehicles. For every "Sherman" I always noticed, the vast presence of trucks, half-tracks of all sorts & modes mounting AA-guns, mortars, AT-guns, artillery pieces mounted on or just towed, or simply troops and only THEN the more "regular" trucks, following right behind. It's something you rarely see in footages of German "panzer" units - the the enormous, sheer "logistics" behind the "tanks". That may be due to German cameramen, being more focused on presenting their tanks, rather than anything else, but still - even when they DO show them, the halftracks & trucks are fewer and much sparse, than in American footages, while in soviet footages trucks are almost non-existing and when you do see them they re often American "Studebakers" and - from time to time a "ZiS" appear, with troops either mounted on the tanks or - much more frequently - just WALKING.

[@martinpepperell8424]

You are probably right And I have heard/read that when the Germans saw the size of the logistical support they realised that they would lose.

[@JDWDMC]

The Germans used horses and carts for logistics. Seriously.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

The humble Studebaker, GMC, Ford or Chrysler truck had a great deal to do with winning the war for the Allies. The Soviets didn't mention it in post-war communist party histories, because Stalin forbid it... but most of the Red Army troops and supplies delivered to the front in the war in the east - were delivered in American-made trucks. No U.S. trucks, those Red Army troops would be marching to the sound of the guns and not riding. The same was true of the Anglo-Americans in the West.

[@GTX1123]

The Brits had the right idea w the Firefly. Stuffing a British 17 pounder anti-tank gun into a Sherman, made it awefully cramped inside but it gave the Sherman some serious armor piercing firepower. Fireflies definitely helped the Brits in Normandy when they had to deal w a higher number of German tanks. Too bad the Americans didn't have at least one Firefly for every one of their tank columns.

[@charlessedlacek5754]

Necessary? Depends on the gun size, armor protection, and/or speed.

[@briancooper4959]

All US tank destroyers had the advantage of NOT being armed with the practically useless 75mm gun of the early Shermans. The M10 and M18 tank destroyers had the improved 76mm gun that, while better than the 75, was still not certain to penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger or Panther tank. The M36 tank destroyer, however, rightly scared the Germans because its 90mm gun could put a hole in the frontal armor of even a King Tiger.

[@pughoneycutt1986]

One burning tank destroyer was certainly needed for one day at holsweir. (Audie MURPHY)

[@billgalloway6383]

No mention of Audie Murphy using the tank destroyers 50 cal. MG to repel a German charge.

[@Me2Lancer]

Indeed, the Apache Attack Helicopter is a great one.

[@Dontwlookatthis]

American Tank Destroyers learned that all German tanks had thinner armor on the sides and tops, so their method of attack was to position themselves so that flank shots could be taken. They were highly successful. The M10's gun was affective against Panthers and Tigers, and the M18's main strength was that it was the fastest tank destroyer in the world reaching speeds of 50 mph, rather than the 28 mph top speed of any of the German heavies. However, it was gasoline powered rather than the diesel powered M10 and crews who had used the M10 prior to being transferred to the M18 did not like them because they caught fire more easily than the M10. The M36, based on the M10 chassis and body, had a 90 mm gun with more killing power. In Italy, the M10 crews did not develop a fear of the Tiger because they had learned how to deal with the Tiger treat. However, it was a good turn when the Army decided that the Tank should not be only for supporting ground troops, because they were constantly having to face tanks head on. Their role was not to be fast moving and agile and able to make lightning strikes, they were supposed to work with infantry. The infantry was supposed to protect the tanks, and the tanks provided them with high explosive fire power against infantry positions. So, in deciding to up armor new tanks like the Pershing was a good idea. However, the Pershing, a product of designers being safe back home in America, was still vulnerable to the heavy gunned German tanks, tank destroyers and mobile artillery which could also fire at the Americans one on one. In my opinion, the Pershing was too little, too late. And American tank designers knew that. Now we have tanks that are able to quickly roam ahead of gound troops to neutralize enemy tanks, and troops ride in armored vehicles that are armed. It seems that tanks have become the tank destroyers and the Bradley's have become the old style tank but able to carry infantry into battle. And now, in the Ukraine war, we see that one man with a guided missile he can carry has made the Russian tank and troop carriers dangerously obsolete. Nothing is the same anymore.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

Re: "However, the Pershing, a product of designers being safe back home in America, was still vulnerable to the heavy gunned German tanks, tank destroyers and mobile artillery which could also fire at the Americans one on one." The real problem underlying all of this is the constant armor-versus-gun arms race which went on throughout the war. By war's end, the most-powerful anti-tank guns were capable of defeating even very thick steel armor, especially if it was unsloped or insufficiently sloped. Tank designers must optimize the triad of tank effectiveness: armor (protection), mobility, and firepower. How do you defeat a powerful enemy anti-tank weapon? By adding more armor at greater thickness. But this cuts into the tank's mobility if you add too much weight, reducing effectiveness in that area. And more armor means more weight, which means higher fuel consumption, which means less range between fuel resupply and fill-ups. And so on. The M-26 Pershing was, in many ways, the U.S. counterpart to the Soviet IS-2 "heavy" tank, which - while designed as a counter to the Tiger I - was really in the weight class of the Panther, but with a gun-large (122mm) and powerful-enough to take on the Tiger at parity or better. Super heavy tanks with massive guns, very thick and strong armor and weight in the sixty-to-seventy ton range, were tried by Germany, the U.S., Britain and the USSR - all during the latter stages of the war or immediately post-war. All came to the same conclusion eventually: The largest practical tanks would top out at no more than seventy tons, and future general-purpose or main-battle tanks would often weigh less than that, in the 40-50 ton range. They would be well-protected but not impervious to AT fire. But they would be be hard-hitting and mobile, too. That was the formula until paradigm shifts such as composite armor, digital fire control systems, and the prevalence of man-portable AT missiles became a reality in the 1960s and after. Despite these, the MBT concept survives into the present.

[@douglasjones2570]

It’s alleged that an M-36 Tank Destroyer with the 90mm rifle destroyed a German tank (model unspecified - frontal or side shot also not stated) at a range of 4600 yards with one round. Anyone ever heard of such? Thanks! Peace!

[@RTFLDGR]

"The greatest means of taking-out a tank is another tank." Army Doctrine "Hold my beer." Javelin "Me, too." drone operator

[@John14-6...]

As soon as I saw the M10's gun I thought too bad that the Sherman didn't start off with the higher velocity gun that the M10 had. I understand that when the Shermans first rolled out in Africa their 75mm gun was more than adequate but still I feel bad for our troops being undergunned the rest of the war driving Shermans.

[@LordNinja109]

It was all about weight. The M7 3" gun was a beast in size. The 76mm gun it would eventually receive was lighter and streamlined in design.

[@ilejovcevski79]

Bringing a design based on a counterattacking doctrine to an almost exclusively offensive campaign was kind of a folly of its own. The Ardennes was probably the only time they could be employed "by the book".

[@carlinglin7289]

It strikes me as Ironic that they had so much emphasis on speed, and then used a hand cranked turret on the M10.

[@manricobianchini5276]

Forces or was, depending on singular or plural.

[@bobkonradi1027]

General Leslie McNair favored tank destroyer vehicles, but his design was under-gunned and under armored vehicles. He resisted, to his dying breath, the concept of heavy tanks, or even lighter tanks with heavy main guns. Fortunately for everybody, he was killed while visiting the Normandy area shortly after the D-Day invasion. The flaw was, the tank destroyer was to be used as a defensive weapon, but the Americans were always on the attack, and the tank destroyers were not suited for other than static positions in defense. The tank crews were begging for vehicles that could go one-on-one against Tiger and Panther tanks, but McNair resisted that vehicle, citing the flawed American doctrines for use of tanks at the time. He was an infantryman, and always advocated that tanks were to be used as infantry support vehicles, when he should have been advocating for the German doctrine of "my tank can wipe out your tank, but your tank cannot wipe out my tank."

[@tankmaker9807]

One correction. The 76.2mm gun on the M18 was the same gun used on the M4 series, and used the same ammunition as the M10's. It was not less powerful than the M10 and the M4's, it had the same capabilities.

[@jeffk464]

Yes, they managed to turn the sherman into a reasonably good tank towards the end of the war, when there weren't that many german tanks around :) In all fairness when it was first introduced in North Africa it was very capable against the German tanks of the time. I've heard that was why they didn't try to improve it for the European campaign, because of the performance in North Africa the US army was happy with the Sherman and didn't feel they needed anything better. oops

[@patrickmccrann991]

They are not the same gun as on the M10. The M10 had an M3 3 inch gun (76.2mm) developed from a naval gun. The M1A1 (later M1A2 improved model) 76mm gun was a new gun specifically developed for upgunning the guns on the M4 Sherman and was also selected for the M18 Hellcat.

[@patrickmccrann991]

@@jeffk464 Size was the determining factor for increased weight. They had difficulty unloading the Pershings when they arrived in France. The 45 ton weight created issues with the available dock equipment.

[@tankmaker9807]

@@patrickmccrann991 I never said the M10 had the same gun as the M4's and the M18. I stated the ammunition used on the M10 was also used on the M4 series and the M18.

[@patrickmccrann991]

@@tankmaker9807 My mistake. However, you did call the gun a 76.2mm on the M18 and M4. That is incorrect, it was a 76mm. The 3 inch on the M10 was actually 76.2mm.

[@luvr381]

Tank destroyers make more sense if you stop thinking of them as tanks and realize they were to be used the same way as towed anti-tank guns, just with more mobility.

[@jsuarez1099]

I’d love to see an explanation in depth of the pershing and it’s battle appearances, as I have been able to find little info about it

[@ANobodyatall]

Had very little combat during WW2, like the British 'equivalent' the Comet, unfortunately. Was used in the Korean War, but fared poorly as it broke down a lot and the terrain and the type of combat there was not really suitable for it.

[@jsuarez1099]

@@ANobodyatall it did settle the base for the pattons though, so it couldn’t have been so bad

[@gordonbergslien30]

Be sure to read "Spearhead" by Adam Makos.

[@jsuarez1099]

@@gordonbergslien30 noted, thank you buddy ^^. Also how bad is it that I read the word “Spearhead” and instathought of the medal of honor DLC from like 2002?

[@DonMeaker]

Three Pershing vs. Tiger battles occurred. One was a Tiger killed while still on a train.

[@loneranger5349]

Everything got to have a shortcoming. But when 20 m10s surrounded a tiger the tiger looses.

[@MegaBloggs1]

NOI the germans deliberately removed the turret on tank destroyers to reduce the profile, use the weight saving on increased armour at the front and sides and it made them quicker and cheaper to build

[@iamplay797]

I think the hellcat was great and a cool name eheh

[@badbob6689]

The army had stuck with the Sherman mostly for logistical purposes and heavier tanks were harder to get to the battle front. The use of destroyers' was not a bad idea. Tank destroyers were light and mobile and could destroy opposing tanks. Given these facts the heavy tanks were at a disadvantage as it came down to who could get off a shot first, The problem was US tank destroyers were still under gunned.

[@billwilson-es5yn]

Goering said the US tanks were built like automobiles that had comfortable seats, a smooth ride and quiet engines. He forgot about parts being interchangeable between all versions of the M4 and M5. The TD turrets could be set in any M4 hull and often were to get the big gun back in action while the M10 hull was being repaired. The M36 was a different turret on the M10 hull. Fisher Body was producing the M10 until labor problems stopped production. The Army shipped M36 turrets to France for installation on M4's then directed Ford to set M36 turrets on their new M4'S coming off the production line where ammo bin replacement done outside. Then the Army rounded up all the M10's at the training bases for refurbishment at the Fisher plant with a new M36 turret installed. The M36 contract was cancelled after the 1100 M10'S the Army scrounged up were updated and shipped off.

[@bigbob1699]

The German armor and air power all worked together via radio to maximize their effect.

[@jamesjohnson427]

No shit, And the Russians still haven’t learned command and control after 75 years!

[@ANobodyatall]

Tank Destroyers were ok, as long as you got off the first shot and it hit!

[@flatheadgg2443]

Acktchually it was the germans that came up with the tank destroyer concept back in the 20's.

[@beestoe993]

Tank warfare evolved in leaps and bounds during WWII. But the basic doctrine of the US was NOT to engage tank vs tank, but rather to pummel them with artillery.

[@paullyon-vv9tb]

My uncle Mac was a tanker who fought in the western front he always believed the Sherman tank should of had a good long barrel 76mm.gun with good AT.AND HE shell's he did not believe the tanks should have to rely on destroyers. Tanks should be able to fight tanks and infantry like the Germans tanks did🇺🇸💥👍