How to Design a Tank Destroyer

[@sweetdreams5024]

Thank you! I was about to build a tank destroyer but had no idea how to. This was very helpful 🤠

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Glad I could help!

[@danielaramburo7648]

Make one for me too.

[@NEprimo]

with the game Sprocket now out, this isn't such an absurd sentence.

[@surtt]

Dang I was still working on my trebuchet.

[@CassandraFortuna]

@@NEprimo It's pretty useful for writers too!

[@WozWozEre]

Ah the Archer, a perfectly good TD that has been unfairly judged in recent years thanks to nothing more than the influence of unfavourable video game mechanics.

[@tommeakin1732]

Games are a great medium for getting people interested in, and engaged with history (I should know); but they are also a massive source of misconceptions due to how games understandably air on the side of "fun and action-packed", whereas reality mostly consists of "waiting around and investing a lot of time to do anything" lol

[@Isidorios]

I learned to drive it backwards (which way it is decently mobile due to favorable terrain resistances) in World of Tanks, and loved it. Great camo, devastating cannon. Just very difficult to use offensively due to having to drive toward the enemy with your back to them. Of course, they were not designed to be used offensively.....

[@filmandfirearms]

It's a great concept, but it came at a point in the war where the British didn't have much need for a shoot and scoot TD

[@iivin4233]

Can be summed up with the phrase, "use as directed." That could also sum up 80% of Nick's points.

[@michaeltelson9798]

@@tommeakin1732 I very much agree, look at the idea that aircraft was the great killer of tanks in WWII, when they weren’t, artillery was. There was massive over counting of kills by aircraft. In the battle at Mortain where a German counter to Normandy was conducted, the same Panther was credited as destroyed by 6 aircraft, both British and American. The truth is none of them did it. A 76.2mm towed anti tank gun did it early in the morning when the mists were too dense for aircraft to see it.

[@sceligator]

Thank you for making this guide. The glorious state of Elbonia shall make its own tank destroyers to your specifications. We shall even name them in your honour! And see no possibility of confusion arising from that decision!

[@edwalmsley1401]

Elbonian procurement I have a battalion of valentine archers for sale I'm looking at you,I also have rotor trailers for them all, your gonna love em they are ace 😉

[@michaelpettersson4919]

They probably put a popgun in it that just have its shells bounche of their hated enemies armour. Or they put a big ass gun on it so heavy that the thing can barely move.

[@BeingFireRetardant]

May the Elbonian Empire forever rise in glory... Elbonian's know neither hunger, nor thirst, but only the taste of victory!!!

[@jackd1582]

Put Bob Semple on the job

[@filmandfirearms]

Moran actually is a pretty good name for a vehicle

[@wyom2838]

Step one: find a suitable chassis Step two: add a big or atleast hard hitting gun to it Step three: ??? Step four: profit

[@somewierdoonline2402]

Step three mobility? Probably optional though

[@zebradun7407]

1. M-274 OR M-151A1C 2. M-40 106 mm Recoilless Rifle with .50 caliber spotting rifle. 3. USMC, US Army See: Ontos. 4. Unknown.

[@Anlushac11]

IMHO if the Germans would have had anything close to the US production capacity they would have produced open topped tank destroyers similar to the US. By fall of 1941 after Barbarossa the Germans were scrambling to mount guns big enough to take out T-34's and KV's on anything mobile enough to get to the fight. This situation was forced on Germans because it's all they had.

[@Anlushac11]

@hognoxious UK was under same restrictions as Germans, only a few vehicles to choose from. Crusaders wound up being artillery tractors or AA vehicles. Cromwell's were used to make Challenger and Avenger. The Valentine was simple, reliable, and most importantly, it was available in large numbers.

[@nathaniel1207]

3: ambush

[@arya31ful]

i came here from that "How to protect PC from MBT video", hope this can helps me against M60 Patton infestation in my house.

[@JohnnyWishbone85]

13:35 -- Chieftain's analogy here raises the possibility of an anti-battleship tank, and in the words of the philosopher Dale Gribble, "I'm skeptical that you **could,** yet intrigued that you **may.**

[@andraslibal]

Never thought of fighters schnellboats and tank destroyers as the same kind of idea. Very interesting.

[@neglectfulsausage7689]

It may be an attempt to conceptually similar, but the schnell looks like 100 tons? And large ships of that age were 100,000 tons? That makes complete sense in the water, where you can exploit buoyancy to float a lot of mass and use even small engines to move large masses as you overcome water resistance. The TD in WW2 was only 10-20 tons lighter, and used almost the same number of crew at any given time as a tank. Its speed was limited by the brutal motor size = weight, weight = need bigger chassis, mistress of land based transportation, so it wasnt that much faster than the tanks it tried to destroy. From most effective to least effective, "Destroyer" from the ocean, then in the air, then on the ground. Because there are weight limits that get harsher and harsher, from fluid environment like water to air, which are greatly supportive to far less supportive, to ground based which is not giving you buoyancy at all. And the number of crew and size of the "ship" you can field gets smaller by some exponential value going from water to air to ground. The concept was something that sounds cool as long as you don't think too much about why its very different. True TDs would've probably been more capable as recoilless rifles on some kind of 4 wheeled Sand Rail chassis, and then you really do have a light, fast unit that can swarm like schnell boats. Now the same thing can be done with unarmored cars that have antitank missiles, which is far more like a schnell firing torpedoes at a battleship.

[@kyle857]

@@neglectfulsausage7689 TDs worked. They killed a lot more thanks than they lost. They continue to with attack helicopters and missile armed trucks filling the role today.

[@neglectfulsausage7689]

@@kyle857 That has nothing to do with their design and everything to do with how they were used. Full tanks would've worked in the same scenarios, that is knowing of enemy tank breakthroughs and rushing into ambush positions based on the relayed movements of the advancing tanks. It had nothing to do with the design philosophy.

[@thralldumehammer]

There's a Minion wearing The Chieftain's cover!

[@cirian75]

That's Sgt Shillelagh (MGM-51 Shillelagh missile)

[@thralldumehammer]

@@cirian75 had no honest idea, typed the first thing that went through my mind, thanks for the info!

[@jeremytibbetts3576]

Long live king Bob

[@bayupriyawaskita2222]

😆😆😆

[@MajesticDemonLord]

BANNANA!

[@bozo5632]

13:16 when the US Army still spoke English. The same statement in 2020 would run two hundred pages, plus PowerPoints, and create enough confusion to cover all asses when it went over schedule and over budget and still didn't work.

[@EmperorEdu]

Don't forget gender neutral language and PC.

[@eliwatson7936]

“We are after a high-mobility mobile weapons platform system which contains the tactical ability to face up against potential near-peer threats on a modern evolving battlefield, something something weapons system something modular”

[@bozo5632]

@@eliwatson7936 Not to pick nits but I think you already went wrong on the first word. Surely there's a more convoluted way to say "we."

[@noobster4779]

"The Chef of the Heereswaffenamt...whatever, the head of the armies weapons development" - close, because the word is nearly identical to the english one in word order and meaning. Only the part "amt" means Office. Heeres (Army) Waffen (Weapons) Amt (Office) Also "Tankzerstörer" literally means "Tank Destroyer", not only loosly but literally :)

[@DerKurfuerst]

You could translate Chef as cook which makes this whole affair much funnier

[@Mugdorna]

Years of bilingual education in Ireland on display yet again.........

[@Dagreatdudeman]

This is why German poets don't exist.

[@werbinich7908]

Freddy Romo idk if this is sarcasm or pure illiteracy

[@BeingFireRetardant]

@@werbinich7908 Oh no, the ladies all love 27 letter words blurted out in guttural staccato rhythms interspersed with hard consonants verging on angry shouts... so soothing to the human ear. The way Germans say "I love you..." has all the aurally pleasing romanticism of a broken jackhammer.

[@martincurran-gray2287]

The Chieftain: “Greetings All!” Everyone: “This’ll be good!”

[@ElysiumNZ]

I still to this day can’t get over the fact they had no powered traverse in the M10 tank destroyer and they put them into close combat action that resulted in turret casualties from shrapnel.

[@limes5295]

My guess is so it did not need to start the engine to take a opportunity shot

[@letoubib21]

@@limes5295 For that e.g. the Panzer IV had an auxillary engine *. . .*

[@colbeausabre8842]

@@letoubib21 As did the M4, which makes the lack on TD's even more puzzling

[@letoubib21]

@@colbeausabre8842 Thanks, didn't know that *. . .*

[@LegoStarHawk98]

@@limes5295 What I heard was the M10 was only treated as an interim TD until the design that McNair wanted was put into full production, which eventually turned out to be the M18 Hellcat. In other words, they didn't put much time into modifying a M4 hull and turning it into an M10, with not only the lack of a powered traverse, but if I understand correctly the driver can't get out of his hatch with the gun forward.

[@Stardude78]

Sturmgeschütz (StuG) means assault gun and meant for close support for infantry. In US service during WW2 this was the M4 (105mm), but before that was available the M7 (actually not very well suited as it was open top) and practically the M4 (75mm) were used in that role.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

The M8 HMC also got a look-in for that role before the M4(105)

[@bubbasbigblast8563]

I love how German tank destroyer design was basically, "if we make everything, _something_ will eventually work!"

[@selfdo]

It was a matter of putting to use proven AFV designs to take larger weapons that their turrets could have accommodated.

[@markbecht1420]

So the Toyota War wasn't a case of a plucky underdog, as much as Chad wholeheartedly adopting classic TD strategy.....

[@justforever96]

Except they weren't armed with anti-armor weapons and deployed as a tactical reserve to face a massed armor attack, so no. They were just lightly armed combat vehicles.

[@DirtyHairy1]

hmm just to be sure I have to ask: the roofs would not protect against a direct artillery shell hit, but from the blown up rubble of a near miss?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Airburst, or treeburst would be the two main ones.

[@zebradun7407]

A dedicate Trooper with a hand Grenade a lot of motivation and a Jeep to carry his large manly Gonads in.

[@watcherzero5256]

Theres a reason that even the early Mk tanks of WW1 started fitting sloped roofs.....

[@arkadeepkundu4729]

To be fair, if any vehicle, even a modern one, suffered a direct hit from an large calibre arty shell, it's probably not the best day. I doubt even an Abrams would be in fighting condition if it took a direct hit to the roof from a 155mm HE round. The crew would probably feel lucky to make it out of there with their ears & lungs intact from the concussion.

[@iatsd]

Thoughts on the British Avenger? Used briefly post war by the RA

[@Asestar]

Most likely the answer is 1: find something that can move, 2: Strap a big gun that you have ammo for on top of it.

[@MarkVrem]

From today on forward, the 3rd world Toyota Jeep with a mounted machine gun shall be called a TANK DESTROYER!

[@MrRenegadeshinobi]

Or a recoilless rifle

[@classifiedad1]

@@MarkVrem Or an ATGM.

[@ScottKenny1978]

@Sony Pony the US TD doctrine didn't really work until we had helicopters with a tank killing weapon. But do understand that attack helicopters are the ultimate form of the US tank destroyer. Light, fast, big guns, excellent situational awareness.

[@andrehashimoto8056]

@@ScottKenny1978, meanwhile the German "attack" helicopter: Mount a sighting AND SACLOS GUIDANCE system above the helicopter blades, have the helicopter stay behind hard cover and/or radar interfering cover, have it fire ATGMs at target without giving said target chance for retaliation.... And yet ask for the helicopter to NOT have a chin mounted turret because "it's too hostile of an appearance for our attack helicopter"

[@DIEGhostfish]

I am reminded how in SW Episode 3 they tried to make those three leg walkers on Kashyyyk sorta like Casemate TDs (Or maybe M3 Lee/Grants since they did have a slightly smaller gun on top too) but they're even worse for ambush type stuff because they don't only risk shaking loose cammo, but outright have to stand up to turn at all.

[@praevasc4299]

Wow! This is supposed to be a video primarily dedicated to tank destroyers, but it provided so much context to all other military doctrines of that time, that it explained the Fall of France better than many videos dedicated specifically to that topic!

[@Stardude78]

Here's a TD question: What's the story behind the "armor bosses" on the M10? Multiple sources just say "applique armor kits were never issued."

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Not often used by the US. But the British and French seemed more willing to use them. eg. 4.bp.blogspot.com/-jyfRwKKFgks/VSQZMk8jGeI/AAAAAAAAAbo/UdWIlkc8KSU/s1600/m105.jpg

[@martincurran-gray2287]

The_Chieftain the guy on the ground seems to be wearing a Glengarry, fro a Scottish regiment?

[@letoubib21]

@@TheChieftainsHatch I love those 3 jerry cans as addtional front armor *. . . ;-)*

[@calvingreene90]

@@letoubib21 They do make good sandbags.

[@wessexdruid5290]

@@martincurran-gray2287 Not a Glengarry, more like a Balmoral Bonnet - also worn by Canadian units. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glengarry

[@jonpick5045]

I'm still waiting for the follow up "How to Destroy a Tank Designer"

[@S.Fortunato]

Step 1: introduce the British

[@MrNailbrain]

"We are going to ignore the jagttiger as plain idiocy." And wehrboos cry all over the world.

[@motleyzadot6867]

lol I haven't even heard many of those types try and defend it anyway but I supposed it would have worked as a defensive direct fire gun but then at that point why make a jagdtiger. They basically made a slightly mobile bunker.

[@23GreyFox]

These biased idiots are on all sides. But i never saw someone defending the Jagdtiger.

[@andrehashimoto8056]

@@kilachiki538, simple... Just make that fucking APHEDS the germans were TRYING to make work... Well start working... Said APHEDS: Take the 88mm APHE shell, put it inside a Discarding Sabot like the Brits developed to make their guns effective KT killers, and fit it for 128mm guns..... The shot could be fire and DID provide improved penetration and damage... But the shell got too fast, fast to the point of DESTROYING the shell itself on impact

[@venator5]

The Jagdtiger was not just a simple Tank destroyer it was dual purpose tank destroyer with assault purpose additionally. (To combat reinforced enemy lines) This is why it had that much armor and a dual purpose (Anti tank and howitzer) gun. It does not seems as idiotic if you keep that in mind. In the end of the war they cancelled both maus and e100 projects and the Jagdtiger fullfilled that role for havind a hard hitter tank against reinforced enemy lines. Also keep in mind that germany only had some strumtiger which was not suitable and some brummbards to fullfill a similar role on the battlefield as the soviet SUs and ISUs do.

[@strykergryphus0207]

@@venator5 The idiocy of the Jagdtiger wasn't that it served no purpose, because it definitely did. The problem is the fact that they took an overweight and underpowered tank chassis (Tiger II) and made it even *heavier* without substantially improving its engine, drive train, etc.

[@rileyernst9086]

I have a Haynes Manual on the Churchill tank. It indicates that it was standard practice to have a squadron of tank destroyers, usually Royal Artillery,(this is going into the Normandy campaign) attached to a squadron of churchills, with direct communication between them. The tank destroyers, are in a reacitive anti tank role ready to handle anything that the churchills cannot. I thought it was an interesting and relevant point to bring up on TD doctrine.

[@CthulhuInc]

i bought the book and it is a welcome addition to my library - informative and well-written

[@Tepid24]

The battlecruiser analogy is an interesting one, because in many ways, the two concepts were largely rendered redundant by the exact same problem. The battlecruiser by the fast battleship, which unified the speed of a battlecruiser with the protection and firepower of a battleship. And in the same way the tank destroyer by the MBT, which unified the speed and firepower of a tank destroyer with the protection of a tank. Albeit the analogy is a bit flawed in and of itself, as the original concept behind the first battlecruisers of the Invincible class wasn't to hunt down battleships, but to chase after and essentially bully cruisers.

[@adamrodaway9116]

One possible overlooked reason for later German TDs needing roofs was the increasing use by the Western allies of proximity-fused shells for artillery, allowing air burst rather than impact.

[@mflashhist500]

THANK YOU to all of my History Heroes who have continued to bring us educational, entertaining and interesting snippets of History on KZbin during this history-making year of 2020. Each week you have provided a very welcome distraction from the ordeals the world has been going through this year. Keep up the good work !!

[@johnnyjet3.1412]

the M10 was made by Fischer Bodyworks - there was a little tag on the lower dash of Dad's '75 Chevy Wagon for Fischer Bodyworks

[@izayo4447]

you forget to mention the legendary Anti Tank Vespa.

[@edwalmsley1401]

Please tell me some clowns actually fastened some form of AT launcher to a moped 🤣🤣

[@izayo4447]

@@edwalmsley1401 Vespa 150 TAP , They put a recoilless gun under the seat.

[@quentintin1]

@@edwalmsley1401 the French used Vespas to increase the mobility of the recoilless rifles of the airborne infantry, the gun was never meant to be fired from the moped while the idea was good on the paper, it didn't work and they were quickly replaced with Belgian trikes

[@edwalmsley1401]

Thanks that's actually pretty interesting

[@mattiasdahlstrom2024]

And the danish 20mm Madsen motorcycle sidecar setup

[@frankgulla2335]

Nice job, sir. you do such a great job of explaining why things are the way they are in the military.

[@sresan]

Николас постарел. Спасибо за твои обзоры на танки, ты идеальный человек. Nicholas got old. Thank you for your reviews on tanks, you're the perfect person

[@Septimus_ii]

Listening to that list of requirements for a tank destroyer, inspired by the Schnellboot, it's clear that no tank destroyer ever built came anywhere close. The best manifestation of it was probably the Panzerfaust - very small, very cheap, very manoeuvrable, very hard to hit especially with large calibre guns and often single use

[@itsnotagsr]

Great video. Would love to see a video on the German half track mounted gun platforms

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

I know it became doctrine and an apparently stated reason was to prevent crews/commanders using them as tanks. But I am still curious as to the lack of machinegun co-axial to the main gun on US Tank destroyers. I would of thought the possibility of tanks support by infantry (despite best efforts of other arms) was still a threat. This is doubly curious considering the pre war 'machine gun fixation" of the US tank designs pre war (M2 Medium, we ARE looking at you!).

[@TheArklyte]

This was true for most Allied tank destroyers on ALL fronts though. Archer, SU-85 and SU-100 lacked them completly, Conqueror, Achilles, ISU-122 and Avenger had only one. American ones also had only one AA mg if they were lucky. Crews on all fronts noted that they need machineguns. Opinions divided on having top mounted machinegun or having coaxial one, but that signifies only one thing - MORE machineguns was preferable by all crews, ideally both roof and coax. I guess the reasoning was also the same everywhere - there weren't enough machineguns produced to go all around so some cuts were made. Tank destroyers and SPGs were viewed as having less need for protecting themselves from infantry.

[@Staghound]

Yes I'd also like to know why a ranging machine gun was not considered useful? surely it gives away your position less to fire 1 .50 Cal round at a target than to fire a 76mm shell and then correct? and it has the added advantage of being able to surpress oncoming infantry should that be what attacks and not the tanks. I can understand the argument for not having a top mount as it may encourage troops to push their vehicles into an offensive role for which they aren't designed not armour for however I don't know how troops would actually do that in the field. An AA mount seems to make sense especially if you are roofless but by that stage in the war the allies have air superiority and it isn't really a threat anymore

[@TheArklyte]

@@Staghound 1)ranging machineguns require special ammunition with calculated loads to match ballistics of the main gun. That means extra spendings, complicated logistics, separate maintenance; 2)it's much slower then loading second shell. Even crews of 105mm recoilles rifles preferred to make two shots instead of using ranging rifles; 3)it's a british Cold War oddity to mount one on a tank, that died out when stabilizers and rangefinders became a norm.

[@Staghound]

@@TheArklyte great answer thanks

[@quentintin1]

almost no TD designs mounted a coaxial machine gun (i'm sure there's a few that did), if they had a MG, it was most often on a pintle. if infantry needed dealt with, you simply loaded HE and ranted at the artillery for not doing their job (unless you were in a Laffly W15T CC in June 1940, in which case you had no HE) the Germans were quite unique with most of their latter designs integrating a machine gun in a ball mount at the front, but i would wager that was due to their experience at Kursk overall the allies seemed content with providing only AA machine guns so i guess that "load HE" was sufficient in most times and for the rest they could just use their superior mobility

[@Nderak]

This sure has been a popular video.

[@chriscamfield7610]

Great video! Note, AFAIK think the first British portees were in France(!) using the 25mm Hotchkiss, for similar reasons. It is interesting to me to see how various British/Canadian AT regiments saw their own role. For instance British 93rd Reg't in Italy saw it to "harry" the enemy and loved the M10 and especially 17-pounder M10 for that. Canadian 7 Anti-tank Reg't (also Italy) saw their secondary role as *close support*. The British army was still in some ways a "collection of regiments" which allowed a fair amount of leeway in how individual units operated.

[@roscothefirst4712]

Excellent 👍 point about mobility being key, - plus of course a powerful enough weapon to destroy the target

[@backblaise1255]

I remember Ian Hogg. and others. claiming in the 70's that the open top was a direct result of the bitter fight between the Tank Corp and the Royal Artillery. Open topped was an RA gun carriage, and the poor f'ing gunners had the privilege of dying from a grenade or shell burst for the sake of fighting for the Royal Artillery! That's how I read it in the 70's, when it was all in books.

[@TheLordinio]

thanks I'm sure this will come in handy at some point

[@BenjaminWeimer]

I like the look of the Pvpjtgb 9031, its like an anti-tank technical. Sorta makes me think of the Halo Warthog.

[@lk_ludikruc8358]

I love these TD videos! Awesome stuff, would love you Chieftain to cover some M10 M18 and M36 experience and performance!

[@nicksedler3848]

I have an M18 your (Nick) welcome to do a video on.

[@Kietache]

Since I and many people I'd imagine consider you an expert/authority in tanks. If you could consider making a series that broke apart tank design, for example suspension systems. They seem to have evolved greatly and seem to diverge greatly over countries.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

Yes, Nick. Interesting and informative - and - I do have my copy of Can Openers. .

[@MisterOcclusion]

I like the naivete of comparison to fighters, Sub hunters, e boats, etc, where all of those vehicles fire on the move with hit and run methods, whereas tracked vehicles of the time did not. If an e boat had to stop in order to deploy a torpedo, it likely would have had somewhat less success. Battlecruisers also proved to be spectacular dead ends.

[@fb97e4ad]

Excellent data and concise interpretation. Thanks for doing these. FYI "Abteilung" (ab = away, teil = part, a.k.a. detachment) is usually a battalion, often a non-line unit, as in Schwererpanzerabteilung (Heavy tank battalion). Some Eastern European countries use their word for detachment (Czech = oddil) to for artillery battalion, maybe since it is meant to fight in slices/TFs in support of line units. The US uses "group" in a vaguely similar fashion, as in X Cavalry Group in WWII, although many of the traditional groups (MI, MP) have been redesignated brigades in the recent spate of "one-size-fits-all"-ism.

[@brentfellers9632]

High tailing it is a reference to white tailed deer running.

[@Articulate99]

Always interesting, thank you.

[@Omegasupreme1078]

Rewatching this as an old favorite. The Germans basically did both, starting out with the Stugs (which were originally meant to be something other than tank destroyers) and the Marder series.

[@homelessEh]

a Brave Creator! TIP that man!

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Not many people seem to be using it, mind. I just didn't see any harm.

[@sebastiankobeh7015]

Just the video I needed for school

[@vladdrakul7851]

The format is old school information about my favorite subject focused. Tank Destroyers. (the JagdPanther being my fantasy tank of choice for half a century). So a great listen. The Jagd Panther is IMHO the most effective fighting vehicule in WW II in terms of capacity. Simply magnificent. Speed, power and protection and armed with the Tiger II's GUN.

[@pencilgaming1233]

And it looks very sexy

[@alejandrobetancourt4902]

That one was excellent.

[@FreeBurd0620]

4:09 somebody resurrect the fools who came up with that and force them to embrace the most Chad way of dogfighting in War Thunder

[@kriztov265]

Cheers Nic. Interesting as always.

[@michaelpettersson4919]

I like the jeep with the backwards pointing gun. Once you fired a quick retreat is probably a good idea. Also the funny vision of a jeep running circles around a tank that desperately tries to get the turret rotation to keep up. Then as in a standard Hollywood western movie duel the point come when someone try to draw. Here that is when the jeep stop makin a circle around the tank and start to move straight away from it in order to shoot since this moment is when the tank actually have a chance to get to catch up with its turret rotation. At least it could look funny in a movie.

[@mbr5742]

Top Gear had a Range Rover vs Challenger episode...

[@nickthenoodle9206]

Always informative.

[@zerstorer335]

It's interesting to hear planner's thoughts about speed because speed doesn't really come into effect in the same ways. A fighter plane, destroyer, or battlecruiser use their speed throughout combat. Not only can they come to the fight quickly, but speed offers protection in the fight because it makes proper lead difficult to calculate. Tank destroyers seem to really only be able to use the first benefit of quickly getting where they need to. But in the fight, the reduced time between firing and impact means it's easier to calculate lead than it is with a ship shooting at a battlecruiser on the horizon and the stop-and-go aspects of moving around cover and stopping to shoot means you aren't able to quickly dart in and out of the enemy's firing range like a fighter plane is.

[@michaeltelson9798]

My understanding as to top covering of tank destroyers in Europe is that the crews of the M10, M18 and M36 is the the lintel mounted .50 cal M2 was mounted for aircraft defense and at the rear of the turret. German AirPower at the time was not a true threat, but close defense against infantry especially to the front was required. The M36B1 being built in a Sherman chassis had a bow mounted.30 cal mg, which was desired and appreciated. Crews would weld piping on the forward corners of the turret to act as pintle mounts for additional.30 cal mg’s. There is a picture of a M36B1 with this type of arrangement and in the movie “Fury” you see both the need and the application on Sherman tanks.

[@joaogomes9405]

You find a chassis you either have tons of and aren't using currently or that you're producing by the truckloads, you place the biggest weapon that can reasonably fit on said chassis (or if you're the germans, overdue it and make a 70 ton monstrosity) and then you cover that gun with some armor so that it doesn't die as easy (or if you're the germans, overdue it and make another 70 ton monstrosity, but this time with no visibility!)

[@j.f.fisher5318]

IMO, the best early-war TD would be an Archer with a QF 25 pounder. Basically, I feel it is a mistake to optimize for AT use, but rather to use a gun that is good enough against the tanks it will face, but optimized for use as a self-propelled long-range artillery field gun since that's what it will mostly be used for. If the weapon can do both jobs, then it makes sense to get more of the vehicles so you have both more self-propelled artillery when you need artillery, and more tank destroyers when you need TDs. Range is especially valuable to promote keeping the guns in a centralized rear-area position while still being able to participate in the fight at the front. I'd say upgrade to a longer-barreled gun up L48-L53 in mid-war and again to a larger caliber, perhaps 105mm for late war.

[@davidodonovan1699]

The hat is back on its rightful place on the googly eyes shell. Thank God. 2020 has kept its spark.

[@SafetyProMalta]

Another excellent informative vid.

[@roelantverhoeven371]

Belgium too had dedicated TD's in 1940. the T13 a lloyd carrier with an open top turret and a powerful 47 mm AT gun.

[@mathewweeks9069]

Your awesome and awesome video be safe out there

[@SnowmanTF2]

I miss read the title as "How to Destroy a Tank Destroyer", so was expecting a somewhat different video

[@michalsoukup1021]

Hit the entire grid square with heavy artillery, if at first, you don't succeed, call for further strikes, any problem can be solved with an appropriate amount of HE applied to it.

[@splatnt1081]

poke it with a stick

[@BeingFireRetardant]

Gas, glass, rag, and a match...

[@toddreaker2298]

Even with no turret, the Nashorn was deadly.

[@andrehashimoto8056]

You put a gun that works and will make short work of ANYTHING it hits even very late in the war, you get a vehicle that won't stop seeing use anytime soon.... This remains true to this day.... If it works, just keep using

[@xcritic9671]

America can afford to make their own hulls for their TD's.

[@mikuhatsunegoshujin]

First minute and a half in we see gangsta shit. I like the designers thought process.

[@013wolfwarrior]

Hungary: when our tank hunter truns out to be innefective against tanks, its still can be used as an anti air.

[@Cheezymuffin.]

method 1: use a old chassis, and put on a bigger gun that would otherwise not be able to be fitted to the vehicle. (Marder 3) method 2: use a new chassis but put a big gun in a fixed superstructure. (SU-100) method 3: design a new chassis/ heavily alter a chassis in order to make a vehicle completely designed for killing tanks. (hellcat)

[@Cheezymuffin.]

of course, every nation seems to have used multiple or all methods.

[@daviddavid5880]

I always liked that old Brit experiment with the rear-facing gun. Shoot and nope out. ("Hit and RUN AWAY FROM THE ANGRY TANKS!") It appeals to my latent cowardice.

[@Kain66666]

Hi! Czechoslovakia had attempts in cca 1931 and later. For example Škoda MU-6, which was equiped with very good 47mm cannon, both anti-tank and anti-aircraft. It was supposed to play both roles.

[@wastedangelematis]

...american TD tree includes turreted vehicles... ... * happy freedom noises * ...

[@thebog11]

If I'm not mistaken, the American casemated TDs in WoT were all designed as bunker busters, not TDs.

[@wastedangelematis]

@@thebog11 i'm sure wargaming had it in mind when humans inside steel bunkers get randomly dmg and soft steel tracks absorb all hail mighty qwaser of dmg, ...but yeah distructable enviroment might push them to that role one day.. :)_

[@petesheppard1709]

General Twaddle...the mind boggles. That had to be as bad as A Boy Named Sue! I've often tried to visualize improvised roofs for TDs, to protect against overhead arty bursts, and it was pretty much what you showed.

[@benfurriel4519]

almost as good as Colonel Pine-Coffin

[@XerrolAvengerII]

I wouldn't expect the thin armor of a TD to protect from airburst shells even if it covered the top of the turret

[@petesheppard1709]

At least enough to stop fragments.

[@johnfisk811]

I used to have Corporal Sergeant.....

[@billwilson3609]

I had a neighbor that fabricated those as a mechanic with a 3rd Army Armor Recovery Company. Said they used whatever thin armor was available since those had to be hinged so the crew could enter and get out fast. They began installing those after snipers and tossed egg genades started taking a toll on crew members. Word about those got back to Ordnance which prompted them to have some designed and made for the TD's. Some were shipped to Europe to be installed in the field and the rest went on the TD's leaving the production line.

[@nicolatesla9429]

The RSO might have a 360° mount, but I can't imagine it would be a good idea to fire that PaK40 at around 90° or 270°. The same goes, albeit in a lesser extent, for the Waffenträger.

[@sejembalm]

Since tank destroyers were used so often as ambush weapons (lying in wait under cover at a probable avenue of attack by enemy tanks), they needed to be low with the hardest-hitting gun you could mount on it. And because tank destroyers were often called upon to take out enemy bunkers, forts and strongpoints, the TDs needed to have really good frontal armor. The German and Soviet tank destroyers like the Jagdpanther or SU-85 with thicker well-sloped armor and bigger gun seemed to fit this bill.

[@piritskenyer]

18:00 "hightail" - Well, Major, that just goes to show that if yoi are high-enough ranking, you can use whatever language you please to get yoir idea across 😅

[@kirgan1000]

do you not know its called "advance very rapid backward to a new ambush postion"

[@imagifyer]

Can't speak for the UK, but Australian Anti-tank/Tank Attack Regiments issued with 2 pounder portees definitely had doctrine/drills for firing the weapons while mounted on the trucks, but for sustained fire etc it was typical to dismount the gun for increased concealment (typically including digging a gun pit and erecting overhead camouflage). According to the history of the 2/6 Tank Attack Regiment the accepted Regimental minimum time for dismounting a gun from the truck and having it ready to fire was 10 seconds or less, Regimental record was irrc ~5 seconds

[@pyro1047]

They missed an opportunity: "TAKs on Tracks Attacks"

[@acorgiwithacrown467]

I can tell you one thing, open top looks a hell of a lot more comfy.

[@918Mitchell]

Watch how a white tail deer runs. I believe that's where the "high tail" expression came from.

[@stefanm886]

Verry informative video. One question: How is that Major Raedemaier/Rädemeier/Rademayer spelled and do you know if there is more information on him and his reasons to go to the US?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Wedermeyer, as I recall. No idea, as far as I know he was an American by birth.

[@stefanm886]

@@TheChieftainsHatch Thank you for answering my question. When you said he was a graduate of the Kriegsakademie I first thought he was an exile (there were quite a few Austrian and German exiles in the US army, a lot of them jews, but also people that fled for political reasons), but it seems that, as you said, he was born in the US. Apearantly he visited the Kriegsakademie as an exchange student. Which is also interesting, I knew exchange students at military academies are a thing today, didn't know it already happened back then, and in 1936 Germany nonetheless.

[@T.S.Birkby]

Please make a video of Major Becker of the 21st Panzer Div and his TD creations from French and other Allied AFVs, which were highly successful against the British in Normandy during Operation Goodwood in 1944

[@B9oyd]

Greetings Mr Nick!! o7

[@deef631]

I would love to see you do a video on the Challenger 1 MBT.

[@PTCello]

21,000 view in ten hours. Respect.

[@johnfisk811]

I do note that when the Charioteer was created to get a mobile 20 pounder AT gun into service, they went for a (lightly armoured) sealed top tank style turret and an open top with or without a separate top (as already used in the Avenger).

[@colbeausabre8842]

Wasn't that 20-pounder and not 30

[@lkchild]

And not designed, built, or used as a tank destroyer. The AT just referred to the gun’s improved performance, particularly versus T34 in tank vs tank combat, as normal Cromwell couldn’t penetrate it frontally.

[@CoolSmoovie]

The neighbors will think twice about reporting me after this

[@scooterdogg7580]

love the hellcat

[@111doomer]

German TD's development was handicapped, (and a good thing too), by the internal politics of the army. When Guderian took over as Inspector General of Panzer troops, all TD's and Assault guns were excluded form his remit. Td's and assault guns were crewed by artillery branch not tank branch so. This led to the ridiculous amounts of small run Td's on various chassis and with various calibres of guns, which had a negative effect on supply and maintenance in the field. Which as I say was a good thing.

[@mbr5742]

The germans also used "whatever was available" ie captured guns and chassis. Because a Marder might be a bad TD but still beats a Krupp Protze or a horse team

[@ninaakari5181]

Only StuG's of assortment of types (StuG III, Stug IV, etc.) were under artillery branch when not deployed in panzer abteilung (tank battallion) of panzer division or panzerjäger division, when they would be under tank branch. And that happened regularly because short supply of actual tanks. German td's like Marders, Jagdpanzer IV's, Hetzers, etc. were under panzerjäger (tank destroyer) branch together with at guns and panzerjäger branch was not an artillery branch but rather an independent branch.

[@launch4]

I always thought an ideal stopgap measure to the larger than expected number of Panthers would be to jury rig a number of otherwise towed guns directly to trucks before they could get enough up-gunned M4s in. Probably not so ideal in an offensive role against ambushes though, otherwise they'd probably have done that.

[@AJ-tr5ml]

Nice

[@TheArklyte]

Take vehicle that can carry the gun, install best gun you have be it most powerfull, most modern or best for logistics. Done. Basically same as SPG. Designing good one is a problem. I wonder how many such comments were made and how hard Chieftain is rolling his eyes at us all?:D

[@TheStugbit]

If Engesa had focused on improving the Cascavel better instead of developing the Osorio it wouldn't have been bankrupt back then. Cascavel was a great vehicle and it could also have been used in this tank hunter role.

[@kemarisite]

"Speed and guns more than anything else." The USN heavy cruiser line concurs.

[@Hybris51129]

With the vehicles being opened topped and exposing both crew and gun/ammo to the elements how did that effect things like maintenance and crew accommodation?

[@JamesSavik]

the Jagpanther was a good example of the breed.

[@blastulae]

German and Soviet TDs were also meant to be used as assault guns.

[@Raptor747]

Not Soviet TDs. Soviet TDs were actually meant to serve as tank destroyers, but they could also be used to fire upon enemy positions in a pinch. Soviet TDs generally lacked the armor to take on anything heavier than a machine gun. They were unturreted to reduce cost/production time as much as possible, because they needed a shitload of them ASAP.

[@blastulae]

SaltyWaffles SU-85 and SU-100 had roofed superstructures with hatches. I didn’t mean to imply they had turrets. But they weren’t open-topped.

[@colinhaggett8088]

Will you do a Chieftain's hatch on the Australian Army's M113 Fire Support Vehicle, the M113 Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle and/or the M113AS4?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

If I ever get good access to one with the time to do it, sure.

[@SeaPhantom]

Nice.