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.

[@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.**

[@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."

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@martincurran-gray2287]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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]

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

[@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"

[@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

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@CthulhuInc]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@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"

[@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.

[@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.

[@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 !!

[@itsnotagsr]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@frankgulla2335]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@jonpick5045]

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

[@S.Fortunato]

Step 1: introduce the British

[@homelessEh]

a Brave Creator! TIP that man!

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

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

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@DrKlausTrophobie]

0:58 TAK? Tank Abwehr Kanone? Did the acronym PAK appear later or was it a mistake on your side?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Correct. They changed to PaK in the mid 1930s.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

The specifications from WaPrw in 1934 as transcribed by Jentz/Doyle were still using "Tak" and "Tankjaeger". I wonder if the 1920s 3.7cm guns were retroactively renamed. Wouldn't be the first time that happened in the German nomenclature system.

[@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.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

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

[@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.

[@EdAtoZ]

Chieftain, A silly question, But under the idea of digging in quickly and with a big enough hole to move the tank destroyer. Did anyone think of adding a bulldozer blade to the tank destroyer ?

[@builder396]

I recall M10s having this as an upgrade option in Company of Heroes, though that probably served more to clear obstructions like tank traps, road blocks or offending foliage rather than actually digging any holes, and it was IRL more of an upgrade for the Sherman than the M10.

[@REgamesplayer]

That is not useful as you would think, because as a tank destroyer you want to stay back. However it would fit for an assault gun and knowing military they will try to use tank destroyer as an assault gun thus bulldozer blades are excellent add ons. Not only they provide mine and obstacle clearing capabilities, but serve as an amazing layer of spaced armor.

[@kemarisite]

Here's a silly answer: in Renegade Legion:Centurion, the anti-gravity vehicles are equipped with "digging cannon" to quickly blast a fighting position so they can fight hull-down.

[@ulissedazante5748]

Not a tank destroyer (well, according to users) but one in four S-tank has a dozer blade to dig in the whole platoon. So the idea has merits.

[@werbinich7908]

builder396 the Upgrade you mean is for the M4 crocodile

[@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

[@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.

[@Articulate99]

Always interesting, thank you.

[@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.

[@christophervanoster]

I know the tank destroyers didn’t have roofs, so did they just use a tarp or something when it rained? I’ve never seen a picture of something like a m10 or nashorn with a covering on the roof at all

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

I can't speak for sure about Nashorn, but the American TDs certainly did. Near as I can tell most cameraman in WW2 were disinclined to take photos when it's raining.

[@selfdo]

@@TheChieftainsHatch I believe the M10 Wolverine and the M18 Hellcat both had "roof kits" retrofitted to deal with the rain issue. Not that anyone gave a damn about the crew getting wet. It was b/c the rain played hell with the radio and the fire control.

[@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?

[@BenjaminWeimer]

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

[@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

[@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.

[@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

[@kriztov265]

Cheers Nic. Interesting as always.

[@johnkramer4454]

Hi, thanks for all the fun and interesting information. Question: What is the significance of "light" designator for an infantry battalions in WWII, is it just a lack of organic armor, and does it carry over to modern stuff? Ex: Durham Light Infantry, (Brit), 90. leichte Afrikadivision (Ger.)

[@derrickstorm6976]

They would carry only light squad weaponry, for example light machine guns

[@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.

[@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.

[@blade_pooper2397]

Do you think hover tanks will ever be a thing? If you do, do you think they will be semi hover tanks, such as to decrease ground pressure, or do you think they will be fully hoverable.

[@matthewwoo6715]

Probably not. Current MBTs fit the roles that conflicts in our time would call for.

[@scavulous6336]

Nah, unless there is a major energy revolution

[@nickthenoodle9206]

Always informative.

[@SomeRandomHuman717]

Just curious if there are any plans to offer "Can Openers" via Kindle. A question appropriate to your association with both World Of Tanks and your first-hand personal experience with the Hellcat, the embodiment of America's TD doctrine. Do you know of a reason why WoT' has chosen to implement the Hellcat as an ungainly slug vs the virtual Ferrari of tracked vehicles that it really was?

[@edwalmsley1401]

Because wot really is quite silly. Download war thunder my man and you can enjoy the M18 and also the 90mm superhellcat the way wot wont allow. I crossed over years ago.its just plain better

[@DoddyIshamel]

Well Hellcat had ridiculously OP mobility and was essentially broken for a decade before they nerfed it into the ground so I think your answer is "game balance"

[@SomeRandomHuman717]

@@DoddyIshamel If the mobility they originally programmed into the Hellcat was an accurate representation of its capabilities, then it was not overpowered.

[@DoddyIshamel]

@@SomeRandomHuman717 Its a 15 v 15 arcade game with health bars fought at 100-300m between vehicles which mostly never encountered each other if they existed at all. Of course it could be overpowered.

[@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.

[@billd.iniowa2263]

At 14:05 I really like the gun/jeep combo. Wonder why it was dumped, we coulda built tens of thousands of them really cheap! Maybe it kept rolling over on it's side due to recoil? lol

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Seriously overloaded the chassis. You needed the 6x6 to put it onto a Jeep.

[@DepressivesBrot]

You just don't bring a 37mm gun to a mid or late war fight if you can help it. Not enough penetration against tanks and hardly any explosive effect as a general support gun.

[@tarjei99]

I don't think that the Petroleum Warfare Board had the low pressure gun ready in time for WW2.

[@billwilson3609]

The US Army used a Dodge 4x4 scout car to tote the 37mm gun. The combo was a bust because the Dodge had problems traveling over rough terrain without the gun and the gun's blast would shatter the laid down windshield when firing forward. Some were used in North Africa for a brief period of time which was all the Army needed to realize that it was useless. The War Department hated to see the few that were made to go to waste, so some were sent to the Pacific Theater and some given to the Free French Army after the Normandy Invasion.

[@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!)

[@sebastiankobeh7015]

Just the video I needed for school

[@christopherpogletke2484]

I was wondering, what is the largest turret ring diameter put on a tank/self propelled gun. The largest I am able to find is the panzer VIII maus which is 300cm. And also what is the largest road wheel diameter put on a tank, I am trying to design a vehicle.

[@timberwolf1575]

I would expect the turret ring on the Maus is probably the largest, since pretty much everything developed before/after had mobility concerns limiting the overall vehicle widths. For road wheels, if the Maus isn't the biggest, it could easily be some of the late 1920's or early 1930's high speed light/medium tanks. Note however that the Maus road wheels would be significantly deeper/thicker.

[@REgamesplayer]

Turret ring is irrelevant, it is vehicle characteristics that matter. Take a loot at T-62 tanks. It has turret ring bigger than width of its hull.

[@builder396]

Stuff like Tiger II and Cromwell are the largest off the top of my head, with Tiger II having 800mm, though the obscure AMX-40 has that beaten with 820mm road wheels. Cromwell I cant find any solid number atm though. T-34 with rubber tires is 830mm. As far as turret rings go, anything beyond 300cm will be difficult as standard railway gauge allows a width of up to 3.15 meters, and the Maus used every inch of that limitation and then some.

[@CaersethVarax]

Tsar tank for the biggest road wheels

[@chrisgibson5267]

I disagree. Spookily enough, the Tank Museum has recently released a video on the T62. David Willey, the curator, explains how developments in American armour that made the 100mm gun obsolete, led the Soviets to produce a design that took proven components from the T54/55 to produce a tank capable of carrying the 115mm smoothbore gun. The turret race had to be larger than the T55 in order to accommodate the new gun, hence the overhang ( he remarks on this very feature). So yes, the diameter dictates the size of the gun. Open- top turrets clearly allow a slightly bigger gun,as does a fixed mount.

[@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...

[@jasontrauger8515]

What were the four German half-track "dune buggy" TDs that you showed, prior to the Dicker Max? I've never seen those before. Look like Pz. 1 but the Googles is coming up extremely empty (don't get me started on Bing).

[@Athrun82]

I think they were the so called Zgkw 5t or the project name "Panzer-Selbstfahrlafette 7,5 cm". 3 Prototpes were produced. 2 of them were used in Africa were one was shot down. The last was later modified to be used as a sort of fire control tank for V2 rockets. The Panzer 1 Panzerjäger was basically the Panzer 1 without it's turret but those in the pictures are halftracks

[@jasontrauger8515]

@@Athrun82 Thank you, very much. I knew the Panzerjager I but those weird halftracks were the first that I had ever come to know. Researching now - VERY cool!

[@Athrun82]

@@jasontrauger8515 They aren'T the only ones though. Germany converted a lot of half tracks to tank destroyers. Usualy by slapping armor on the chassis and mounting the Pak40. If you haven't google for "Baukommando Becker" and you should get some results

[@billwilson3609]

During the first few years fighting the Soviets, the Germans were setting AT guns on any vehicle that could handle the weight. Quite often it was done on an as needed basis so guns still on their wheeled carriages were used. They were hoisted onto French tankettes, transport trucks and light tanks that had their turrets knocked off.

[@Athrun82]

@@billwilson3609 From the books I read about the German "Beutepanzer" and the modifications the Germans did it were usually captured French half track vehicles that got modified. Tanks were too (catch-all phrase Marder series) but not all since most of them couldn't hold the Pak40. The tanks were often outfitted with smaller guns or were send to occupied territory as garrsion units and fighting of resistance groups

[@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.

[@deef631]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@Edax_Royeaux]

A question I would have is: Would the Sherman Firefly be considered a tank destroyer? She had excellent anti-tank capabilities, but it came at the cost of a miserable HE shell so she was only effective at one job.

[@p_serdiuk]

It has a turret machine gun, so it's a tank. Conceptually though, yes.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

It's considered a tank, though one which is unbalanced towards the tank destroying role. I firmly believe they're have been better off issuing M10s instead of Fireflies, would be better at the job.

[@vtbmwbiker]

@@TheChieftainsHatch The Achilles version or the basic M10 off the shelf?

[@haruusami1831]

@@vtbmwbiker Definitely talking about the M10 not the Achilles which had the same gun as Firefly.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

No, the 17pr M10 (Both were called "Achilles", the difference was that the 17pr had a "C" after the Mark number, so Achilles MkI vs Achilles MkIC). There's nothing wrong with the 17pr gun, but the Firefly installation was too much of a compromise on everything.

[@AshlandMan]

At 4:09 what event in North Africa is he referring to?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

In the video just prior, I was reading reports from North Africa, one request was for a specific air-to-air bomb.

[@MrLemonbaby]

Another excellent report Chieftain; instructive, sufficient global context and yet completed in under 25 minutes. I have a question about American military observers in 1940. I am under the impression that historically it was common for there to be military observers from noncombatant nations in the armies of all countries engaged in a war of any importance. I long to read any reports from American observers embedded in the armies of any of the contestants of 1940.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

I've been looking out for them as well, but so far I've only ever seen references to dispatches from the defense attache's office in Berlin.

[@billwilson3609]

The US was paying attention to the civil war in Spain and the war in Europe to see what the others had, how it was used and what worked the best. They used news correspondents, businessmen, adventurers, military attaches and diplomats to get the information.

[@TheLordinio]

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

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

Excellent. My question is, was the M-10 a better sturmgeschütz than the German models? It seems like the M-10 may have been better in that role, while the long barreled sturmgeschütz may have been better tank destroyers. (smaller profile and better armor.)

[@torbai]

No

[@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.

[@SafetyProMalta]

Another excellent informative vid.

[@alejandrobetancourt4902]

That one was excellent.

[@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

[@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.

[@013wolfwarrior]

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

[@S2audicoupeS2]

1:35 Chef des Heereswaffenamtes - Chief of the Armyweaponbureau

[@joechang8696]

on regiments having AT company, and division having AT battalion, when did the US decide on independent tank battalions, in addition to the armor divisions? Is a single AT battalion sufficient to stop an armor division attack? Not sure what late war German structure was, but for Barbarossa, the tank army/group was two armored corps, each of which was one or two armor division plus motorized or mechanized? division and maybe an infantry division? It would seem better to have multiple independent AT battalions that could be quickly concentrated to counter an armor corps or complete army? of Manstein was in no hurry to plug the gap (in 43?), waiting to see which direction the Soviet attack would turn before deciding on the right action

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

The thinking was that tank destroyer groups and brigades would handle larger problems than the independent battalions would be capable of dealing with. However, since the Germans never attacked the US in a size large enough that the Brigades and group HQs were disbanded

[@davidodonovan1699]

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

[@steweygrrr]

So with the battlecruiser analogy being made, was this the only properly successful implementation of the type? I mean like the battlecruiser they were also eventually abandoned because they could make the 'battleship' do the same thing only with better armour, in this case the development of the MBT as a true multi-role vehicle much like the battleships of late WWII being more than just the traditional battlewagon, but while they existed they performed their role without being the magazine detonation waiting to happen like their naval counterparts. Also what is that model on the end of the top model shelf with the single track and apparent trailer?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

The Type 10 with the mine roller?

[@steweygrrr]

@@TheChieftainsHatch The one to the right of it next to the small green box. Although thanks for pointing out that mine roller, I couldn't make it out on the screen I'm using. Interesting!

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

On the far right of your screen? An LVTP7A1. No trailer, it's just a cup behind it.

[@lizardodavinci]

This might be an obvious newbie/ignorant question, but seeing as armour isn't my forte and I'm here to learn: Why aren't the Soviets mentioned nearly at all? Did they not have any tank destroyers, or is it like with a lot of Soviet small arms, that basically all the information is in Russian and hidden away in some rather inaccessible archive?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

In this case, two reasons. Firstly, the SUs generally are derived from the assault gun programs. Secondly, I don't have much information on the things anyway.

[@lizardodavinci]

@@TheChieftainsHatch ah, alright. Thanks for clearing that up :)

[@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.

[@Nderak]

This sure has been a popular video.

[@mathewweeks9069]

Your awesome and awesome video be safe out there

[@Psiberzerker]

Step 1: Look at the Enemy. It says "Tank Destroyer" right on the tin. So, what kinds of Tanks do the enemy have? That tells you how much gun you're going to need. If it doesn't have that, it doesn't matter what chassis, and armor you put around it. Open topped, turreted, or casemate with a closed hull. If I'm designing a TD (I just have to point out Sprocket Tank Design as a not-competing game to WoT) The second thing I'm going to look at is Loader Space/Expansion. Meaning, as the war progresses, are we going to be able to fit a bigger gun in? Basically, the way I see SPGs in general is their role is to carry a gun. An ATG, Howitzer, Assault Gun, whatever. Start there, but if this war is going to go on for a while, or you want to use the same chassis, and superstructure in the next war, it might be nice if you can upgrade that gun. Also, it's nice for the Loader/Loaders to have a lot of swinging room. Since they have to swing ammo around inside that hull.

[@Psiberzerker]

"A lot of the vehicles we consider Tank Destroyers were designed as Bunker Busters." Or Assault Guns. The Nazis also named the Assault Gun (SturmGeshutz) just like they named the Assault Rifle (SturmGewehr.) Honestly, the only difference between an Assault Gun, and a Tank Destroyer is the gun (See above) the Ammunition, and the deployment. Assault Guns were primarily intended to be sent against Fortifications. Light bunkers (Bomb large heavy bunkers) road blocks, and fortified buildings like abbeys. A lot of old buildings like abbeys were fortified, and manned, because they just so happened to be built around strategic points back in the days of Knights, and horse drawn field guns. Assault Guns did away with the horse, and mounted it on tracks with a motor. For a dedicated Tank Destroying role, most of them just needed a long barrel, and AP, instead of HE ammo. In fact, a lot of the StuG IIIs were pretty much the original A model with longer barrels, and AP ammo.

[@brentfellers9632]

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

[@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.

[@caseylimbert266]

New subscriber! I've always thought tanks were cool and I've always known one or two things about one or two things about them, but I've recently found myself getting more interested in them; question about tank destroyers: were these ever used sometimes in a way more closely associated with traditional tank duties?

[@od1452]

Was the Arty Branch interested/worried that Sp Guns ( or Tank Destroyers) would change (or worse end) towed Arty during the 30s? I am of the impression that AT Guns vs Indirect fire Guns was a sticky subject with the Arty Branch around then. And I've been led to believe ( I guess meaning , I haven't researched it enough) That Stug IIIs, and IVs were very dangerous to tanks. True?

[@billwilson3609]

The US Army figured to be on the offensive once the nation entered the war so intentionally used the 75mm all purpose cannon in the M4 to provide indirect fire artillery when needed and provide separate sights for that. The Army also ditched horse drawn artillery for halftracks and trucks to tow artillery pieces at first then developed high speed tractors (high speed because they went faster than horses) and repurposed obsolete M3's into prime movers to tow artillery.

[@918Mitchell]

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