The U.S. Army's WW2 M10 Tank Destroyer inside & out at Camp Hood TX (Restored 1944)

The M10 Tank Destroyer was the US Army's advanced successor to the half track based T12/M3 and saw action on all fronts in World War 2. Based on a M4 Sherman Tank chassis, it mounted a high velocity 3' (75mm) gun. It featured an open topped turret and with a top speed of 32 mph, was designed for the Army's "shoot & scoot" anti-tank tactics, not for slugging it out toe to toe with enemy heavy armor.
You'll get a thorough tour of the M10 systems & weapons inside & out, learn the roles of it's four man crew, and watch live firing exercises on maneuvers at the anti-tank school at Camp Hood, TX.
For more on the M10 & Camp Hood, see our video "Tank Destroyer Boot Camp" bit.ly/2ivRCXT
Get "M10 Tank Destroyer & six more films on our American Armored Combat Power" DVD bit.ly/2h2ZzDm Zeno
Zeno's Warbird Videos www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com
Zeno's Flight Shop DVD Store - Worlds Largest Collection of WW2 Videos
Your purchases make this channel possible!
www.zenosflightshop.com

[@sergioflores3440]

Proud to say that my pop was part of an M10 crew in North Africa and Italy

[@colemarie9262]

Oh my goodness....I searched "tank destroyers of ww2" on a whim and never expected to find something like this. My family still has my grandfather's tank destroyer patches and pins, a uniform, plus his letters from both Camp Hood and overseas. I even found his tank license or certification (I forget the exact wording) from Camp Hood!! I'm tearing up at how incredible it is to be able to see, generations later, exactly where he was, filmed in the time he was there, and precisely what he was doing. I can't even tell you how important this will be to a lot of family members, thank you SO MUCH for uploading. I'll be sending to all of his half dozen children, fifteen grandchildren, and my grandmother.

[@ZenosWarbirds]

You’re welcome! I believe you’ll also find this video interesting as well kzbin.info/www/bejne/rJauiZdpasl8pK8

[@richardhaugh5076]

My dad was assistant driver / radio operator in the m10 and then the m36 in WWII. He was part of the 899th tank destroyers, company “C”. They saw a lot of action in many key battles.

[@awinksusanto575]

Gak takok coeg!!!

[@KG-th3cr]

Your dad was part of the greatest generation.

[@johnm354]

My dad was in Recon Company of the 634th Tank Destroyer Battalion.

[@swaggyfarts5654]

@@johnm354 my great uncle was a medic in the 364th! He was the first conscientious objector from Oklahoma during ww2. Sadly he died during the battle of Hurtgen forest.

[@colemarie9262]

I have an odd question, but do you have any of his patches, stationary or pins? Wondering if the logo is the same or different from my grandfathers. I'm totally ignorant of the subsections of military and how each is represented, so csmt be more specific than thay his patches have a black panther biting/crushing a tank on an orange (sometimes reddish, amd fully red on one pin) backround. I know this is random but if anyone has info I would appreciate, like I said I'm totally ignorant of military setup and habe some questions- Like do all "tank destroyers" carry this logo, or is it all tank destroyers out of camp hood, or are smaller groups of tank destroyers out of camp hood given different insignia?

[@stephenweaver7631]

My father trained there, actually helped to build South Camp Hood during WWII. He was with the 630th TD Battalion, and they were converted to 3" towed guns before shipping out to Europe in May of 1944 (mid Atlantic on D-day). Fought from St. Lo to Hilden, Germany, mostly with the 28th ID. Saw combat in the Hurtgen Forest, and the Ardennes, as well as the Colemar Pocket, and the Ruhr Pocket. Wounded in April on the 630th's last day in combat before being pulled off the line. Recuperated in Paris, and came home in late 1945.

[@caprichosmorales]

It was on a disabled M10 TD that Audie Murphy took over the 50 cal. machine gun ; in an act of conspicuous valor for which he was awarded the Medal of Honor; he repelled an attack by a German armored unit.

[@Bill23799]

Thanks Dusty. I think in the film " To Hell and Back " they had Audie Murphy firing that Ma Deuce from a M-4 Sherman. I guess Hollywood film makers could not get their hands on a M-10 for the scene. That, or the director thought people would not understand the open turret.

[@michaelpielorz9710]

The M2 is the ideal weapon fighting an armoured unit? :-))

[@timurlane4004]

@@Bill23799 why did the Americans had turret ?

[@danzervos7606]

@@Bill23799 Audie Murphy was reportedly unhappy that they couldn't find an M10 for that scene.

[@goldleader6074]

@@Bill23799 By the time the movie was made in the mid 1950s, I would guess that all the M10s were out of service around the world (maybe some M36 Jacksons were still around). Meanwhile the M4 Shermans were still somewhat easy to find.

[@carolinegarcia3217]

My dad was in Recon Company, 669th Tank Destroyer BN during WWII. It was attached to the 69th Infantry Division.

[@pR1mal.]

Notice that the two hatches (referred to in the field manual as "Doors"), cannot be opened with the turret facing forward. Notice that the rear profile of the turret and it's counterweights although look cool, were designed to allow the "doors" clearance to open. Luckily, the two front seat backs folded and they could escape through the turret.

[@420foefoe]

There is also an escape door behind the assist driver's seat in case of emergency

[@ZenosWarbirds]

Like what you see? Your DVD purchases at our store make this channel possible. www.zenosflightshop.com Get "M10 Tank Destroyer & six more films on our American Armored Combat Power" DVD bit.ly/2h2ZzDm We need your support! Zeno

[@robertwaid3579]

Great video, informative, concise, filled with technical data, @ clear presentation. The comments by others is very well presented, and researched. The thing I personally, regret is I had an uncle who I was told served, in the armored corp. Before he passed, I never knew. Also he was one never to talk of his past, or even the present. To me he was a great individual, tho distant and mysterious person. Thank you very much everyone, who contributed to this excellent video.🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@dmw1262]

I was at Hood in 76-77. I always wondered what it looked like 30 odd years before. Well, it was covered with a lot more brush then. Those 28% grades were pretty spooky in a M60A1 at night!

[@goldleader6074]

The M10's gun was known as the 3" and from I've read, it was based on an old Navy cannon. The Sherman and M18 Hellcat's guns were known as the 76mm M1. The M1 76mm did have the same 76.2mm barrel diameter as the 3" but the M1's weight was a lot less due to using newer lightweight metals so the 76mm Sherman and M18 didn't need as big a counter-weight as the M10 needed. I don't think you could use 3" ammo in the M1 76mm and vice versa due to differences in the casing shapes.

[@samuelli-a-sam]

Amazing footage!!

[@Fish-kz8xw]

M10 is made for Speed and Power , but it wasn't made for Strength.

[@samiam5557]

Sounds like the same announcer as the one selling a '57 Plymouth Fury in a old advertisement.

[@jeffsmith2022]

Thats funny...

[@Tigerbythetoe]

Never heard much about this tank destroyer before today. All you ever hear about is the M4 Sherman models. I didn’t know that we even had a dedicated tank destroyer before the Pershing. I need to brush up on my US Armored Vehicle History cuz it’s got a lot of holes!

[@robertwaid3579]

May all we lost Eternally Rest In Peace. Least we forget Them. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@garyzaganiacz2416]

My Dad was a gunner with the 823rd. Thanks for putting this up for us to see.

[@joelspringman523]

Much thanks and respect to your dad!

[@LAGERUNG3]

Thanks Zeno!

[@joelspringman523]

Thank you, Supermen!

[@ananatolbell5984]

Great tank, useful info! We are engaged in the development of the tank project. Thanks!

[@joelspringman523]

He played a vital part in the defeat of the Axis powers! Much thanks!

[@webbandrew357]

RIP for the driver- 3:42

[@mikebrown614]

To correct the text in the description, the U.S. 3" gun was approximately 75mm, not 90mm. The 90mm version of this vehicle was the M-36.

[@ZenosWarbirds]

Ah thanks, I corrected that. I got bad info from a web site. I should have done the inches to millimeters calculation anyway. Zeno

[@mikebrown614]

ZenosWarbirds No worries. Great video series, anyway and you're doing something no-one else is on KZbin. Bravo Zulu...........

[@bitsnpieces11]

Zeno: I use a fantastic conversion program called "Unit Converter" from www.jennessent.com. I put a shortcut on the taskbar so it's always available. It's a free download and meant for Windows use.

[@pilet1172]

Mike Brown the M10 actually used a 76mm cannon

[@mikebrown614]

Well, considering that the official name of the vehicle was "3-Inch Gun Motor Carriage M-10" I think you can see where your assertion goes wrong. LInk: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M10_tank_destroyer

[@printolive5512]

Nothing seems to change at Ft Hood ( other than the name) . It looks just like when I was there 50 years ago.

[@vegaboys8196]

Yup. That place will never change.

[@TXLorenzo]

@@vegaboys8196 Some of the old tank trails have been paved, so not as dusty as it used to be. It still is hot as hell during the Summer though, lol

[@joelspringman523]

1980-'81.

[@joelspringman523]

@@TXLorenzo Oh, yeah!

[@coyote4936]

my great grandfather was in a tank destroyer in WW2. fought under patton in france and germany. he was at the battle of the buldge

[@georgel4600]

my dad served in ww2, korea and veitnam. In ww2 he drove tank destroyer his first encounter was in Tunisia he came up over a rise in the desert and there off in the distance was pattons men, my dad said Patton gave the order to fire, the sgt. said to patton but sir we dont know who they are, patton said sgt. i gave you a direct order to fire this weapon. my dad said when he came too, his crew were all dead he crawled out the back of what was left of his tank destroyer with a broken wrist and a concussion, in the hospital they told him this never happened in Tunisia you never was in tunisia, you suffered your injuries when you rolled your tank over in Italy. with a new tank destroyer and crew they were all over italy.in 1985 i found a photo of my dad standing on the left side of gen.ike i had the photo enlarged and put in a frame.2 years ago a friend and i went to a private ww2 museum in Natick ma. i brought the photo with me, in one of rooms was a man in his 90s answering any questions you might have, my friend said show him your photo of gen. ike so i handed him the photo he looked at it he did not say a word about gen.ike. he said look at that srg, next to ike. look at the 6 hash marks on his lower left sleeve each one represents 6 months of combat jesus christ he was in the thick of it from start to finish look at the campaign ribbons. i did not know any of this, my dad did not want to talk about what he did in ww2, one thing he did say is you can play with my metals all you want, but dont ever touch my campaign ribbons he died in 1978 of cancer his dress uniform was stolen by an ex brother in law.

[@winstonchurchill237]

Sold!

[@user-qr7xo3xw5v]

Очень понравилась!!! Интересно !!! СПС за ролик!!!

[@sirboomsalot4902]

The open top allows good vision, and made it very easy to get out of you are hit

[@alexrose9388]

Also left the crew vulnerable to hand grenades, mortar and artillery fire.

[@korvtm]

USArmy stayed with the open top turret through the late 50's I know.Although I did not personally see them I have heard that tha Army used tthe twin 40MM Duster in Vietnam.The Duster was an open top turret mounted on the M41 series hull.It used the same hull components as the M41 but had twn 40mm guns mounted in an open tub.Designed,I was taught as a moblie AA unit,airplanes got too fast,so the Duster was repurposed as a infantry support weapon,

[@Skyfighter64]

Almost all anti-aircraft vehicles were open top designs, prior to the move towards dedicated SAM or otherwise automated gun systems, Soviet ZSU-57-2 included. There is no way that a crew could identify, train the gun, and fire on an airplane, even one as slow as a Fairey Swordfish from inside a closed fighting compartment. As for an infantry support vehicle, any form of autocannon is a huge boon to infantry, especially if the package includes just enough armor to shrug off most infantry rifles. It would make perfect sense to redistribute still very useful equipment into new roles when they become obsolete for their intended role.

[@tzisme]

I was an Army engineer Vn 69/70 we had a duster put up with us at night to provide security and during the day the Duster provided convoy security. We were glad we had it !

[@Sturminfantrist]

@The future filmmaker No Duster is M-41 Chassis @charles woods yes the Duster was used in Vietnam for infantry support

[@Droodog127]

Remembering my friend Phil Bonelli 602nd Tank Destroyer Battalion

[@daveponder2754]

To jg27 Komy The M-10 was equipped with bosses on the hull to ADD ARMOR if needed. The plates were made in different thicknesses. However, most of the kits were lost in transit. Not to worry, tank maintenance crews just cut plates from other knocked out vehicles. Patton ordered this to be done, and forbade tank crews from using sand bags which really degraded performance particularly in wet weather.

[@allenatkins2263]

" His mother was a mudder."

[@HM2SGT]

6:45 2 minutes to traverse 360 degrees... deadly slow!

[@duane356]

The reason the shooter would TRY to coordinate with the driver to speed up getting on target

[@dtoad48]

anyone hear a high pitch during playback?

[@jayjunker8914]

my dad was a driver of an m10 in WW2 in Europe.

[@knightlife98]

Definitely, one of the better looking TD's ever made.

[@yuzbasivolkan86]

Check jagdtiger

[@jobu88]

I have always wondered why the M-10 used manual turret traverse while the Sherman had a powered traverse. I would think a TD would need to be able to swing the turret quickly in order to shoot and scoot.

[@dwlopez57]

Probably to keep cost and weight down

[@jobu88]

@@dwlopez57 Yes probably. On the other hand I wonder how much additional weight the power traverse would have added? Who knows. Anyway I have always wondered about it.

[@jacqueline6475]

@@jobu88 The 3-inch gun was very heavy when compared to the Sherman's 75, and an electric drive-train powerful enough for the extra weight wasn't readily available when the M10 was designed in 1942. As such it resulted to using tried and true manpower. A much more powerful drive-train was introduced later on with the 76mm Sherman, but by then M10 production was nearing it's end, being replaced by the M18 Hellcat.

[@user-bd3gm5xr8k]

Четко , все супер снято

[@Thor_Odinson]

There are many tank destroyers but this one is mine......

[@emintey]

The M10 had some very serious deficiencies as a tank destroyer, it was basically a Sherman with a lot less armor and a somewhat better but not great gun. The Hellcat which came along a bit later however was hell on wheels!!

[@hobbyhermit66]

Purty kool.

[@EpicGamerino]

To correct you on the gun it's actually a 76mm M7

[@peterson7082]

3" gun M7.

[@gu3z185]

Exactly

[@seoulkidd1]

Jumbo Sherman i would rather be in a M10 , M18 or M36 over a M4 because of firepower and plus im claustrophobic lol

[@637man3]

No, the M10 had the M7 3" piece until the final production run late in the war when it got the M1 76mm weapon.

[@EpicGamerino]

@@637man3 why comment on a 4yo thread

[@francissullivan6400]

Looks like someone forgot to tell the m10 it can only go 32 mph..it looks like it's going 82 mph

[@joelspringman523]

How successful were they?

[@khadijagwen]

No powered Turret and Gun Mount?

[@daveponder2754]

Yeah! The turret was easy and fast to transverse, and there was no motor to go out in the middle of combat.

[@drew-rn9sb]

My grandfather was in the Tank Destroyers in Europe, in the Battle of the Bulge, the Tank Destroyer that my Grandfather was in and one other Tank Destroyer were the only survivors , my Grandfather was behind enemy lines for some time in fact. The people/town that my Grandfather and other survivors lived with after the War ,would have my Grandfather and other survivors (it was less then 10 I believe)fly back to Europe and visit those towns and people that hidden while they were behind enemy lines Grandfather ,stated how Piper troops shot the other men that were in the other Tank Destroyers that surrendered

[@markmccummins8049]

drew 42: Peiper had them shot because of their audacity of killing and defeating the world’s greatest armed force, the Waffen SS. Many of their officers, like Peiper, took Hitler’s approach that Americans were “mongrels” with no ability to fight. When the “mongrels” did the SS were incensed. God bless your grandfather and his buddies. Fighting and surviving behind enemy lines is - yikes!

[@samsnyder2498]

Drew, Your Grandfather must have been part of the 823rd. TD. My dad was in that battle and got over ran. They eventually recaptured their gun and destroyed a tiger tank with 1 shot. They earned a second Presidential citation for their actions.

[@TXKnight23]

@@samsnyder2498 my grandfather was in the 823rd as well and he was wounded in the Battle of the Bulge.

[@samsnyder2498]

@@TXKnight23 you will have to let me know your grandfathers name. He possibly served in the same company as my dad but at least they were in the same unit. My dad was Clinton Snyder served in A Co. He was wounded at Mortain but didn't lose anytime. He was in the bulge and had his feet frozen but kept on plugging. He waited until the day after the Germans surrender to then finally go to the hospital. LOL. they were a tough bunch of guys and the 823rd still holds a lot of Army records for vehicles destroyed and tanks destroyed in single day!

[@TXKnight23]

@@samsnyder2498 My grandfather's name was Francisco O. Chapa. My grandfather was in C co. He also fought through Mortain. He and another guy were the only one to survive from the tank after being hit by a German bomber. He would later receive a purple heart with an oak leaf cluster.

[@alauda1038]

Хорошая хроника 👍

[@EMTBAFV]

At 7.12 they make the m10 look massive inside Haha

[@michaeljoesmith3977]

M10 motto "shoot and scoot" ..

[@garrisonnichols7372]

I have the feeling that the M10 wasn't very good for crew protection. Open top being exposed to snipers and thin armor. Also didn't it have a week gun that was the same as the M4 Sherman?

[@frostedbutts4340]

Not the same gun no.

[@garrisonnichols7372]

@@frostedbutts4340 thanks so did the M4 have a more effective gun or the M10?

[@637man3]

@@garrisonnichols7372 The M4 had a short-barrelled 75mm optimized for infantry support as well as killing enemy armour. The 3" M7 on the M10 was an ex-Naval piece that was an effective anti-tank gun until late in the war when it was replaced with the M1 76. So, the M4 had a more broad based gun while the M10 was a more focused tank destroyer. Both guns were fine for the intended role, though both were replaced by the M1 76mm later in the conflict.

[@r.u.s.e3586]

Wow, some of these comments are quite hostile. I hadn't expected that for such an interesting vehicle.

[@tedcrockett1028]

My uncle Dee Booth Company A 776th TD Battalion WW2

[@billd.iniowa2263]

I swear that ground looks familiar. Wasnt there a period movie about an infantry company or squad?? that was tasked to take out some panzers in light woods like this? -- I'm a bit surprised the narrator keeps calling it a 3" gun. That was the 75mm Sherman. M10s carried the 76.2mm gun. Not much difference I know. But still... The 76 had a higher velocity. Some Shermans were upgraded to fight panzers, but the HE round had a lower explosive yield than the 75mm. I dont know why. Anybody?

[@frostedbutts4340]

"3 inch gun" is actually correct. The M10's 76mm weapon is developed from an old AA cannon, the Sherman and later tank destroyers have a different 76mm piece. Confusing I know.

[@637man3]

Hey, Bill, the M10 had an ex-Naval 3"/76.2mm gun, but it was called the 3" because the rounds for other 76mm guns weren't able to be fired from the M10's gun and vice-versa. The 76mm M1 was a replacement weapon for the M10 late in the war but it carried the M7 until this point. The 75mm isn't a 3" size.

[@mkms685]

Poor soaked driver. Lol

[@castlebravo1467]

What I'd just like to know is this: Why did this tank not have a top? It's a war. Is this some kind of convertible tank?

[@daveponder2754]

lighter weight, better visibility. A convertible top was used, or like the M-18 Hellcat crews, they made their own in the field when needed. M-36 was the same.

[@anthonywilson4873]

It was a way of squeezing a big gun into a small tank. Light weight made it fast, idea was to fire from concealment and it could take out a tiger. Look at the size of the ammo. It a field gun in a Sherman chassis.

[@refealibazeta7886]

They decided to keep the top open so it's easier to throw a grenade in the tank. Lol!

[@videodistro]

First, it wasn't a tank. Second, it wasn't used in maneuvering warfare but more for defensive positioning to defend , and sometimes, offensive, use against tanks. Other parts of the infantry and armor defended against enemy infantry. It didn't need a top but needed the room for the larger gun and to be a lighter vehicle.

[@dazedandconfusedstacker9923]

More room than an abrams

[@CW-dl2dd]

So why are there two different triggers?

[@ws2228]

Anton Chigurh Main firing circuit is electrical , manual circuit is back up

[@daveponder2754]

Surely you jest. If one quits..........

[@justinfenningsdorf3741]

Buy your war bonds

[@vance262]

M10 wolverine

[@637man3]

The M10 was called Wolverine by the Brit military but not Yank crews.

[@vance262]

@@637man3 omg my comment was 2 yrs ago

[@pierredecine4386]

The Gun can penetrate the Frontal armor of a Panther, but can't pen the canvas muzzle cover ??

[@TacticalOni]

the cover was to keep dust and particulate from entering the barrel and interfering with gun operation. generally something you want to keep on and intact until you don't need it. Also the 3" M7 could penetrate the mantlet of a Panther at around 1200 yards according to the gun's penetration tables, but landing a shot like that required steady aim and a lot of patience.

[@jonathanfan8813]

I’m just wondering why the M10 in World of Tanks feels like a baby tank

[@tommy.vercetti2003]

M10 was destroyer of Tigers compare to other tanks.

[@kevinpride6543]

Note the sloped armor of the hull and turret, transitioning away from the Sherman’s vertical armor ( exception bow/hull front). This for allowed thinner armor, and a lighter vehicle. Generally this vehicle could not survive a tank duel.

[@daveponder2754]

Like most sites the people commenting have done little to no research. ARM CHAIR GENERALS/HISTORIANS abound. Early 76.2 mm AP (shaped charge 2600 fps)rounds had a secondary explosive that was actually interfering with penetration. This was corrected quickly. The HVAP round was a tungsten core high velocity round at 3400 fps, every bit as good as the British 17 pound 76 mm. Shaped charge AP rounds are not as dependent on velocity as the hardened core HVAP rounds. The Brits 17 pound 76 mm was good to 2900 fps. Even Sherman 75's were as good or better than 90% of what the Germans had until 1944. The up-gunned and up armored MK-IV's, Panthers, and Tigers were a real challenge, but all were slow by comparison with American armor). Only the MK-IV and variants were reliable in combat. The weight of the upgrades slowed the MK-IV to 12 mph cross country, by then improved Shermans would do 18 to 20 even when up-armored, and equipped with the 76. M-18 tank destroyers would do +50 mph on the road, better than half that cross country, and had a better than 3 to one kill ratio against Panthers. Shermans only, by themselves only, took on Tigers only three times during the entire war. The so-called five Shermans needed to knock out a Tiger or Panther is a myth that originates from the the fact that the smallest American armor unit was five tanks, tank destroyers etc. In one battle well over two hundred Panthers were destroyed at the cost of twelve Shermans and three Hellcats. On two well documented encounters M-36 (90 mm) tank destroyers knocked out Panthers at 4000 meters the maximum range of the gun sights. Most crews of the open top destroyers made (or had the maintenance crews make) covers for open turret. Some of the destroyers had convertible tops from the factory. The M-10 and some M-36 destroyers came with external bosses used to bolt on extra armor plate, or it could be welded on if needed. Patton ordered his maintenance crews to do just that to all his armor (Shermans, M-10s, and M-18s), and forbade the use of sand bags as they compromised speed and maneuverability especially in wet weather. American tank crews had the best surviveability of any other branch of the service, Army, Navy, or Air. So to all you ARM CHAIR types DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Otherwise your ignorance really shows.

[@Slaktrax]

Not quite. The 17 pounder is a 76x583mm shell while the M1A2 is a 76x539 shell. The 17 pounder is also a tappered case while the M1A2 is a straight case. The 17 pounder had much better muzzle velocity ( 884 m/s vs 792 m/s) and it was slightly heavier at 7.8 kg vs 7 kg of the M1A2 shell with a better cross section. Only the US 90mm bettered the 17 pdr.

[@Cwra1smith]

You take whatever Allied tank you want and I'll take a Tiger 1. We'll duel on the Russian steppes.

[@videodistro]

You are correct on all accounts. Too many people spout garbage in comments without a shred of knowledge. I suggest they all (including the previous commentary who mis spoke about the 17lb er) go over to the chieftan's channel and pick up some real world knowledge and stop spewing old myths.

[@637man3]

Hey, Dave, just some quick corrections, 76mm AP rounds were solid core rounds, APHE contained an explosive charge that was supposed to detonate within the fighting compartment after penetration. Tank gun fired HEAT (shaped charge) rounds weren't an Allied thing til late in the war; in mid 1940 the Germans were using them in the KwK.37 L/24 and 7.5 cm Pak 97/38 while the Allies were working on troop carried weapons. The 3" M7 gun in the M10 had fusing issues with the small bursting charge in the base of its APHE shell but this wasn't a shaped charge round. HVAP rounds were purely kinetic in nature and saw sporadic use due to its scarcity (about 1/3 vs standard AP like the M79) and only TD units were issued them. Until late war, there were no gun fired shaped charge rounds on WWII Allied tanks, all explosive rounds contained an internal charge that wasn't shaped.

[@bigsolidboss781]

The driver's hatch could not be opened or closed while the turrent faces front, Brilliant design.

[@videodistro]

Wow! You are so smart. I'll bet they didn't even notice that. All those people were so dumb. We need you to go design all our armor. You are so smart. Go get an education instead of acting like you know it all. You don't.

[@dazedandconfusedstacker9923]

Fort hood

[@seoulkidd1]

It was effective in combat even though it was topless lol

[@oogdiver]

seoulkidd1 A regular tank of the time would struggle to accommodate the much bigger gun of a tank destroyer within an armoured turret. With a roof on it made it much harder to manhandle the larger shells too. So the tank destroyer with a much lighter, less armoured, and open top was created. Its role was to destroy tanks whereas a tanks role was to support infantry.

[@seoulkidd1]

@@oogdiver agreed the 76mm gun weighed much more than the 75mm.

[@eugenejuniormiles9334]

First team

[@stevep5408]

Two diesel engines?

[@daveponder2754]

YUP! Two ah them! Would run together or separately. One quits or "gits" knocked out thah other will still run good enough tah hopefully gitcha out ah there.

[@mikebryant8122]

Chrysler made a "30 cylinder" tank engine (1941?) which used existing tooling of its in-line six... 5 of 'em surrounding a central crank, something like an airplane radial engine. Chrysler A47 Multibank. "... Chrysler claimed the A47 could still move the tank it was fitted in even if 12 out of its 30 cylinders were knocked out."

[@_Messerschmitt]

8:35 Why tap on the gunner's back if he could just say "Ready to fire!"

[@TacticalOni]

keep in mind how loud a battlefield is. The exhaust for the engines are only a couple feet long and you're sitting above and in front of the engines. The loader is also drilled to call "clear!" once he's out of the recoil path, giving your gunner a tap on the shoulder is never a bad thing either, in case he's too focused. Though this is a video of training and evaluation, and you can assume most crews developed their own method in-theater.

[@Barnekkid]

That turret looks like a death trap in more ways than one.

[@bobjames6284]

Hell, no. If you can't have armor that will stop anything the other people can throw at you, a huge opening in the roof is your best friend. This was an ambush vehicle, used in hidden positions. The idea was to hit the other guy, then get the hell out of Dodge before his buddies have a chance to shoot back at you. I had basically the same job in the 70's, but we had Jeeps with a 105 recoilless rifle on a post in the center. For this job, being aware that anyone armed with something bigger than a rifle can take you out tends to cut down on the false confidence factor and make you a lot less likely to do something brave and stupid. That's also why TD's didn't have a bow machine gun. It's not a tank, and you better not forget it. Also, this was a transitional vehicle, built because the brass decided that a TD was a good thing, and the quickest way to get one was to convert an M4. The M18 Hellcat that came out later was a dedicated TD, and much superior, mostly because it could get into position and out of trouble faster.

[@papaaaaaaa2625]

@@bobjames6284 The M10 and M18 where also really fast and had a really good visibility all around. If i remember correctly was the M18 the fastest tracked vehicle in WW2. There was one Case where 4 M18 where able to defend 2 villages with a quick Position Change. I think it was while the Battle of the Bulge. The big Problem in a open top vehicle is a. Urban territory. and b. Enemy Air superiority. Both where no problems for the US TDs.

[@bobjames6284]

@@papaaaaaaa2625 - The M18 was damn fast by all accounts, which is one of the reasons everyone loved it so much. I don't think an M10 was much faster than a Sherman, though. It's gotta be hard to sneak around with twin diesels screaming and tracks squeaking and squealing too. I don't even like to think about fighting in something like that inside a town, but I'm sure it happened. You could get killed by someone throwing rocks out a window, let alone grenades or molotovs. Nope, I'd want to be out in the country surrounded by leg infantry and with nice open land in front, something to hide behind, and an easy escape route - exactly the sort of position that the Red Army had a habit of saturating with artillery before their vehicles even got within sight of it. Sorry, wrong war, but the point is you have to pick a good position but not too good because the other people recognize a good position, too. Specialized vehicles are only effective in the right situation, which is probably why TD's went out of fashion.

[@papaaaaaaa2625]

@@bobjames6284 I meant that the urban territory was not a Problem for the TDs because they normally interacted with Shermans and/or infantery in offensive operations. While the Fight in italy the US used M10/M18 First time in a fire support role for infantry attacks. Infantry and Shermans attacked the Village, M10/M18 fired direct and indirect fire. So the Open top was not that much of a Problem in this unexpected role. If i remember correctly was the M10 10 kmh faster than the M4 Sherman in the Road (6.2 mph If i'm correct.). And the M4 was Not a slow Tank. I think the M10 and the M18 are a bit underrated. They could counter a German Tank offensiv AND where able to fill the role of a quick support "Tank" "amored vehicle" whatsoever. And to be true the M18 looks cool. Sure, the TD concept was a...how to call it...unnecessarity (is this correct?), but they worked. Not the vehicles "failed", but the concept or doctrine.

[@videodistro]

Not if you understand the TD's role and function.

[@jeffhelton2735]

More than 28 percent grade

[@robtankbuster5215]

Nice gun but very weak thin armour. Lots of m10's forced to battle the german big cats at a huge disadvantage.

[@RandomDudeOne]

The M10 is not a tank, it is self-propelled artillery. It has enough armor for protection from small arms fire. The crew is certainly better off than a the crew of a German towed 88mm.

[@CarinoGamingStudio]

in heroes and generals this tanks was so slow

[@daveponder2754]

Larn tue scpel, an rite bedder.

[@videodistro]

It isn't a tank. It's mobile artillery used to destroy tank.

[@Bill23799]

How could he be a good " Mudder " if he is a he?

[@thomash4578]

Nice :)

[@nonyabiz9487]

My grandfather was on a US M10 tank destroyer during WW2. He graduated top of his class during Army MOS school. He was on top of the world invicible till he met the Germans on the battlefield and found out quickly the Germans were NO JOKE! He said he was no match to the Tigers and Panzers but it wasnt a tank that blew up his tank but a lone German attack plane strafed the tank and killed his whole crew but him.

[@user-xs5js8ql3b]

I'm

[@Sturminfantrist]

Last night in WTs GF Realistic battles i killed two of them plus an M-24 , one Sherman and one Lee in War Thunder while driving a T-34 mod 42 .

[@daveponder2754]

You might aught figure out what is actually REAL and what is not. A war game is reality!?....LOL....LOL....LOL. Surely you jest.

[@Sturminfantrist]

@@daveponder2754 Whow, really?

[@slippery396]

Open turret ?....what were they thinking ??

[@Coolman0451]

More visibility for gunner and commanders but I agree pretty big target then. All the enemy needs to do i lobe a grenade in

[@bitsnpieces11]

Like the description says, it was used in a "Shoot and Scoot" tactic, so little chance of a grenade thrower being close. The open top allowed better access to everything and a good place to chuck the fired shell.

[@AbokaseeRed]

Better visual. Granted, this is something you can get by looking out of a turret hatch, or installing a Periscope. I do wonder how big a problem an open turret was, given this was not a tank that was supposed to stick to be shelled like a Sherman - on the other hand you do not need to give consent to indirect fire.

[@CharlesvanDijk-ir6bl]

It is an anti-tank gun on tracks. You have to spot first and shoot first.

[@thatcarguy6540]

trust me, a parascope makes visibility horrible compared to just looking outside on top

[@ogalienman]

Ah yes. Firing a 75mm gun at a Tiger in a fancy Sherman...

[@teawiththeadmiral8025]

common misconception the m10 uses the 3-inch Gun M7 which was twice as strong as the sherman m3 75mm gun. and can pen a angled tiger frontally with ease, with penetratrion of 188mm at 500 meters

[@teawiththeadmiral8025]

and its a 76mm gun

[@ogalienman]

@@teawiththeadmiral8025 Nope its a 3-inch gun. (75mm)

[@ogalienman]

@@teawiththeadmiral8025 Also it could not

[@videodistro]

Hey clueless. 3"=76.2 mm. It was also officially classified by the military as a 76mm gun.

[@zad79snafu67]

From my personal point of view..the u.s m4E8 tge m10 wolverine and the brits Qf17 achillies and archer were just an upgunned m4 sherman tanks.not a wholely new design but more to as a stop gap design.their mission doctrine were SHOOT AND SCOOT!!not to shoot it out with the German tanks especially the Panzer and tigers!!the main problem with the M4 sherman tanks as we all know..it will light up the first time when hit!as the Famous German mockery of the m4 shermans: "IT WILL LIGHTS UP EVERYTIME LIKE THE BRITISH RONSON LIGHTER!!" If i was in a situation where i hv to choose between an m4 or a tiger to fight the war,I will 100% choose a tiger tank instead!!even if they add the Famous Russians Kv and T34-76/85 tank and the brits valentine and churchill tank in the list..i still chosed the tiger 100%!!

[@637man3]

Well, no, that isn't true. The M4 didn't burn any more than the Panzer IV and the Ronson/Tommy Cooker monikers were over used. The Sherman didn't "light up the first time when hit!" or the Allies would have lost the war. The Sherman was extremely effective when used to its strengths and has a bad rap that is quite undeserved.

[@jcmarth1]

Wtf open top did anybody consider an airplane coming down out of sky and shooting up the crew of tank and what's worse is that the army ok'd it

[@peterson7082]

It improves visibility ten fold. Enemy aircraft would be an exceptionally rare threat.

[@curbyweaver4606]

By the time we got onto European soil, the Luftwaffe wasn't a factor. We had total air superiority.

[@sirboomsalot4902]

Because it would crease the weight of the truck decreasing the load it can carry

[@thatcarguy6540]

because the enemy wasn't ment to see the truck

[@daveponder2754]

M-10 and M-36 had convertible tops. Or like the M-18 crews they made their own from knocked out vehicles.

[@robertjohnson8938]

Don’t know why they didn’t put that gun in a Sherman

[@videodistro]

Then get educated and you will find out why. Check out the chief tan's channel on tanks and you can learn why. Good reasons.

[@curbyweaver4606]

Whoever came up with this idea was a victim of wishful thinking. Do you really want to stumble upon a Tiger II in this thing? The sphincter phactor would have been off the scale. Bring plenty of clean underwear. On the plus side, 200 mile range and diesel fuel was smart.

[@natekaufman1982]

Curby Weaver The M10 was introduced before the Tiger. By the time Ameticans started facing Tigers, the Tank Destroyer Force started using M18s and M36s, which were more than capable of handling them. Panthers and Tigers broke down far more than their American counterparts.

[@ProjecthuntanFish]

Tiger 2???? You must be a WOT player as the Germans called it the King Tiger

[@daveponder2754]

The M-10 would run circles around a Tiger. The tigers turret was too slow.......OH!......So was the Tiger itself. The crews were smart enough to flank other tanks and hit from the sides or knock out the tracks or the turret.

[@videodistro]

Wow! You are so smart. I'll bet they didn't even notice that. All those people were so dumb. We need you to go design all our armor. You are so smart. Go get an education instead of acting like you know it all. You don't.

[@jefferygreene9722]

What joke of a tank

[@johnmoss6631]

Only joke is you.

[@agentkaos1768]

Not a tank, a tank destroyer.

[@Talenten]

Tiger food!

[@stevep5408]

Yes that's why we speak German!

[@bootscrombled]

More like the Tiger was Wolverine food. ONE tank destroyer battalion (mainly consisting of M10s) knocked out 18 tigers while no M10s were lost to tigers in recorded history.

[@daveponder2754]

Mule Muffins. Do your home work.

[@melvinjohnson7033]

An inferior design like the M36. No protection for the crew from the elements. German infantry liked this design in street fighting as it was easy to drop a grenade in it from a elevated position as they rolled by etc and wipe out the crew. All part off the flawed tank destroyer concept.

[@thesayxx]

i wouldn't call it inferior. It had a way better gun for the role of TD. With its 90mm cannon (since you are talking about m36) things like tigers and panthers were easy pray. And they started to mount turret covers in the middle of the war. Also the point about urban fighting is bullshit, since no officer with half a brain would take a lightly armored highly mobile TD into a urban environment. Especially not for use as a front line tank. That's where tanks like the M4 and later in the war M26 Pershings would be used. The M36, M18 and M10 TD's were designed to be mobile and pack a punch. They were designed to counter the German blitzkrieg tactics not slug it out whit AT infantry while liberating a town.

[@melvinjohnson7033]

Is BloodRaven that ignorant or is he trolling me? Just google US tank Destroyers in Aachen. Plenty of pics of these vulnerable TD's operating in an urban environment and thats just one of countless examples. History is full of military equipment being used in a manner for which it was not designed. Lets think about this for a moment... US infantry in a urban street fight badly needing armored support desperately calling for help and the TD battalion replies "sorry but we might get hurt, no can do." BloodRavens naive assessment is pure rubbish. The combat photos prove that.

[@thesayxx]

Maybe in a support role, where the TD is firing from safe-ish place that was cleared of enemy infantry. That is a dangerous tactic for a TD but viable. As a break through tank used to assault positions where it exposes its biggest weakness (open top turret) not a chance in hell. Also note that the TD battalions weren't used as a armored fists like the m4s, and were usually operating in an area where there were other tank battalions equipped with m4's. Not saying it couldn't be used. Im saying it would be retarded unless its in a last ditch effort. And dont go around calling designs inferior just because you dont like them. American TD's were designed to be maneuverable (meaning fast, or at least faster) and pack a punch. That means they had to sacrifice protection (i believe you are familiar with the holy triangle of tank designs). They were not designed to slug it out with other tanks, but relied on ambush tactics. And no amount of armour is worth more than the ability to lob the first shot into an enemy tank. And whats with the narrating style of your comment? You try to prove a point to your imaginary friend? PS. can you link me a picture where a US td is used as a break through tank?

[@thesayxx]

Also fun fact about equipment not being used in a manner it was designed: m36's (probably other ones too) were often used as a support gun to infantry by providing indirect fire on enemy positions. Basically they used m36's as a divisional artillery piece.

[@sirboomsalot4902]

One good part of an open top TD is it's easier to communicate with troops

[@TheNickathome]

A MK VI TIGER CAN'T WITHSTAND A HIT FROM THE M10'S GUN. HA, TOTAL HORSE SHIT. THE M 10'S GUN WAS PROVEN INFERIOR AGAINST THE ARMOR OF THE TIGER.THE M10 WAS A JOKE. INFERIOR GUN, AND ARMOR. OPEN TOPPED TURRET.

[@peterson7082]

The 3" gun M7 could, and has punched through the front of a Tiger at 750m with shot M79, or 600m with M62 APCBC. As noted in the battle of El Guettar. Armor is not a matter of importance in Tank Destroyer Branch. Open Topped turret increases visibility, which means you can see the target first, and shoot at it first, and destroy it first.

[@Yoyle-jq9ul]

Nickathome Smith shut the fuck up wehraboo

[@daveponder2754]

The M-10 would run circles around a Tiger. The tiger's turret was too slow.......OH!......So was the Tiger itself. The crews were smart enough to flank other tanks and hit from the sides or knock out the tracks or the turret. The gun was not inferior at the time and more than a match for 90% of German armor particularly when some shortcomings of the standard velocity (2600 fps) AP round were solved, and HVAP rounds were available (tungsten core 3400 fps). DO YOUR HOMEWORK ARM CHAIR GENERAL.

[@637man3]

@@daveponder2754 Hi Dave, just an addition to your post, the M7 was ok straight up against the Tiger's frontal armour but not at any kind of angle and wouldn't penetrate the Panther's upper glacis. The M10 had a turret rotation that took 2 minutes to go 360 degrees (which can be reliably measured by a sundial) so that obviously isn't of consideration in a fight against a Tiger. The HVAP round wasn't in large circulation at any point in the war so it's consideration is moot. As far as "matching" German armour your statement is specious, the M10 would lose a straight up fight due to its lack of protection, the TD fought best from cover or prepared positions. There was no issue with the standard AP round, it was the APHE round that had the problem with its fusing, this was never addressed satisfactorily.