American tank design philosophy

For some unexplainable reason, I have always loved the look of US tank destroyers. I particularly like the look of the M10, so much so that I even made a t-shirt with one on it:

http://www.cafepress.com/blackclaw.73745373

Yet I hold no illusions about their inferiority when compared to German tank destroyer design.

The German designs make tactical sense to me. If you want something to hunt tanks, you want a low profile, thick armor, and a gun powerful enough to kill your quarry from any angle. The M10 design had none of these qualities. Only the US M36 Jackson mounted a cannon that was even adequate for the job.

The American designs emphasized speed over armor. While I understand the difficulty of hitting a moving target, the amount of time it took for US designs to close and flank an enemy tank gave entirely too many opportunities for the Germans to knock them out. The US M18 Hellcat could reach an amazing 55 MPH, but the 88 of a tiger tank could penetrate its light armor as far away as 1600 meters.

Perhaps it is the privilege of hindsight that allows me to wonder why such obviously flawed armored vehicle designs were even attempted. But I cannot but wonder why it was not until 1943 that the US came to recognize that its tank designs were a flawed concept.

A related article I wrote some time ago:

http://www.blackclawgames.com/bcg2/inde ... &Itemid=26

Another solid article on US tank destroyers:

http://www.answers.com/topic/tank-destroyer

 

By my opinion germans had 2 types of tank destroyers:
1.Extremly long ranged,light armored and mostly top opened tank destroyers like Marder series,it used his good optics and long ranged gun for tank-hunting,and it was mainly for defensive tasks,coz his armor was this,and mobility was not so good.
2.Smaler,lower sillhouette tank hunters ,with betther armor,mostly only in front like was Heitzer,Jagtpanther,eaven sturm III,eawen if he did not supose to be tankhunter.This second class,succesfuly used by USSR allso,on their SU-85 and SU-100,eawen in SU-152 but his sillhouette was to high for my taste,and it was compromis coz he had most powerwfull gun in all tanks/tank hunters in wwII,so it can knock down the tiger r panther front armor from decent range.
Like i say in anotther debate on this forum,US armor in WWII was fairly obsolent when we match it ws German and Soviet armor,and that include tank hunters allso.
But again,quantity winned WWII not quality.

 

blackclaw:
Perhaps the fact the M-10, Achilles and M-36 had sloped hull-sides gives it a more lethal-look as compared to the standard Sherman.
I like the M-18 Hellcat, but as you mention, lots of speed means less of armor, and I never cared for the open-top turret doctrine regardless.

Of course the T-28 Super-Heavy breakthrough tank was more in-line with the doctrines of Germany and Russia. Like a super-heavy Stug tank-destroyer. 'Course it weighed 95tons and traveled at a top speed of 10mph. I do like the notion of a US-made high-velocity 105mm main gun in 1945 though.

Like you, I believe the German and Russians understood the requirements better... and their equipment was superior both in concept and execution.

Tim

 

Actualy Russians had allso open-top AFV it was SU-76,they used obsolent T-70 chasis and mount 76mm gun on it,and it was not plenty room,so they left it opened.It proowe nicely when we comparing on what base it was made,and it had decent front armor.

 

sinissa:
I was thinking more in terms of the hetzers and Stugs, the jagdpanthers and jagdtigers, the SU-100s, SU122s and SU152s and the like.
The SU-76 was rather the exception to that rule... and if I recall, the Russian crews were not overly fond of their open-topped SU76s.

Tim

 

Nobody liked they top opened AFV coz it was vunerable to infantry attack.And i know,i just mention that Russia wan not exception when we speak about top opened AFV,but i think that SU-76 was not tank hunter.Actualy i think that German has best tank hunters in WWII.

 

sinissa:
God Bless the 8lb. 3oz. baby Jesus!
We are in agreement my man.

In terms of "open-topped" German tank-hunters, the Marder II and III come to mind, but my favorite would be the 88mm equipped Nashorn. Open-topped, and vulnerable to both infantry attacks or air-bursts... but the PaK43/1 88mm main-gun made it a lethal, long-range death-dealer.

Tim

 

Yes,and if i may add,with proper camuflage they can add great dmg to ally's armor before they notice it.But mainly diference between german and soviet was that german focused more on AP ability on their tanks (tiger,panther,more-less all tank hunters) and soviet a bit more on HE (SU-122,SU-152,IS-2).But in stages when germans developed good tank hunters they was in defense and they was swarmed,moslty by Russian armor,later by western ally,so i think that was reasonable decision.

 

The open top designs certainly did offer great visibility, but must have been terrifying to serve in. You wouldnt want to get anywhere near a building or ridge where enemy troops could fire down into you. You certainly wouldnt want to get in tight quarters where they might lob a grenade or molotiv cocktail in. Air burst artillery would ruin your whole day. And even when the armor of the turret did stop an anti-tank round, if you happened to have your head poking out at the moment the round impacted... well you could lose your head.

 

Basically there are 2 types of tank destroyer:

1) Scoot & Shoot

Lighter, faster designs, which are designed to hide in an ambush position, shoot a tank or two, then move to a new position before the enemy start shooting back.

Examples include the Hellcat, the Marders, the SU-76

2) Determined Defence

Heavily armoured beasts, that can sit in one spot and continue firing at the enemy, and have enough armour to be less concerned about whether the enemy fires back. Can also be used in assault roles due to the thick frontal armour.

Examples include the Jagdpanther, the Elefant/Ferdinand, the SU-152


It all comes down to doctrine, really, and which type of TD fits best with your army's tactics, and the situation you are in.

 

Actualy SU-76,again was not tank hunter,he was assault gun,his gun was the same as (in that time obsolent) T-34/76 gun what was not enought for german armor in that time.Actualy russian did not had any tank hunter of that type.

 

.



On the subject of U.S. tank design in WW2 ,
I can't help but to think there was some basic conceptual flaw at the military end
there was a very influential exercise in the thirties ( pennsylvania exercice ?? ) when the armor commander won by taking his unit straight of the map , drove by road and reappeared on the map behind his opponent ,
when answering the inevitable protest he said that a war game like a war is about keeping an open mind to possibilities
with the blitzkrieg of 39 , 40 the very fluid desert campaign and the superficial shine of early barbarossa , american generals got "cavalry fever " requesting fast , lightly armored tanks ,
by 44 it became obvious that the tanks in the U.S. inventory were unsuited to
toeing the line in a ridge to ridge firefight .
too late to do much about it .
all the combatants during the war had unsuited armor at some time or other
britishs ,russians ,germans, U.S. tankists went to battle cursing their headquarters for giving them coffins and expecting them to do the job


.

 

There was a huge conceptual flaw, primarily fueled by the head of the US Army Gorund Forces commander, General Leslie McNair (an artilleryman) and the previously mentioned cavalry minded officers and the new fangeled tank destroyer proponents, headed by Gen Bruce Roberts.
Tnaks were seen to be an exploiting force, only committed once the infantry had created a break, They were then to engage in traditional cavalry roles of disrution and pursuit. Enemy armor was to be avoided and dealt with by the TDs. The TDs were similarly flawed in they were to be lightly armored and deal with enemy breakthroughs with speed and ambush, as an antidote to a 1940-41 style panzer attack. McNair then twisted early reports from North Africa to suit his view that towed anti-tank guns were the best means of dealing with enemy tanks, and ordered half the TD battalions be converted to towed gun battalions. No one seems to have put much thought about dealing with enemy armor counter attacking the offensive exploiting armor forces (the role the Tiger was designed for). As a result, as well as logistics and transportation, the US ended up with relaitvely lightly armed and armored tanks and TDs.

 

Blinded by the awesome glory of the tiger , I never thought of it as a defensive weapon ,
but it make plenty of sense

On the subject of cavalry ,patton after the bocage break-out , he used air power as cavalry , to scout ahead ,
raid the rear area and protect his over-extended flank ,
under the bluster was a very cool commander !

 

i believe the idea behind the open top was that, he who sees the enemy first can shoot first. in a regular tank fighting closed, you are viewing the battle though a 2' by 4' view port, where as being in a open top AFV you have a 360 degree view.

 

.

to be put in the discovering the bloody obvious,but then I have no shame !
After tossing the ball on this forum and seeing it bounce , I would classifie
any open topped, trackted gun carriage as an self propelled gun ,
even in an anti tank function .
if its thick and fully enclosed then its an assault gun
if it has a turret , its got to be a tank
on the subject of artillerymen versus tankist I came across plenty of snide remarks as to the panzer arm trying to get their hands on any guns who moved on tracks , while the artillery was fighting for its independance and future by developing tracted artillery , SP and assault guns
the later being at first sneared at , then confiscated by the panzer administration , on the reasonable ground that often after a campaign of some duration the assault guns were a good portion of watever was left

anybody had some thought about this bitch fight or was it purely german?



.

 

Plus you can build the vehicle ower than if you put a roof on.

Downsides include crew comfort - it lets the weather in - and crew protection - it lets all manner of nasty bits of flyingmetal in.

 

open or closed and tank VS spg

something not mentioned yet is the difference between attacking and defending. in the defensive role being able to see is less important since you should be so placed as to cover the expected route of attack. when attacking being able to see as much as possible becomes very important. the US TDs were built with the attack in mind while at the same time the germans were on the defensive. i've read acounts by US TD crewmen which admit a roof would be nice but they felt that being able to see was worth not having one. more that once comments were made about their vision being a major advantage. as a side note there are many reports of 3" armed TDs killing tigers and elefants at ranges up to 1000yds so maybe they wern't as undergunned as some think. now on to why tanks took larger loses that SPGs. i would bet its a combination of training and tactics. tanks are able to fire in any direction and are often used in ways where this is necessary. this exposes them to more ambush and exposure from the sides and back. SPGs are not designed for such use and are unable to survive under such conditions. hence they avoid them and instead are used where the opposition is in front. they are much less likely to be hit from the back or side. the combination of having their best armor and their gun already facing the opposition along with the reduced chance of ambush couild easily account for their increaded survival rate.

 

Unfortunately, one of the problems of US TD design is that they were not primarily designed for offensive action, but were intended to defeat a 1940 blitzkrieg offensive, through speed and surprise. In actual fact the US was almost always on the offensive. Even in the few caes where TDs had a chance to act defensively, it was usually impractical to use them as intended by the TD doctrine.
The open turrets did give the crews better awareness, as imtended, and reduceed the vehicle weight, to help with speed and mobility. Once in combat however, only the commander really benefitted from the open turret, just as many tank commnaders fought from an open hatch. In the end the TD crews would have been better served with enclosed turrets.
I believe Patton was of the opinion that best vehicle to fight a tank was another tank, buat his opinion was not enough to overcome the cavalry, artillery TD triumverate.

 

so they made a roof kit..

like the 90 mm kit..

or the jumbo with the 90..

How many german AFV were in the west?

How many allied AFV?

10/1 advantage.. +/-

We know who was on the attack constantly and who gave up ground..

and which way the game ended..

First German city taken..

Aachen

what was used ?

completely open 155 SP (with both pozit- delayed and other special fuses)

ouch


As fighting progressed on 14 October, the 2/26 received augmentation from VII Corps in the form of a self-propelled 155mm gun. (The 3/26 was likewise reinforced on this date.) This weapon fired a 95-pound armor-piercing projectile at a muzzle velocity of 2,800 feet per second[33]—sufficient kinetic energy to penetrate an entire block of buildings. Daniel was strictly enjoined to take good care of this asset.



As far as American soldiers were concerned, "Overkill is good. More Overkill is Better!" This was especially true in dealing with snipers and enemy obervation posts:



During this period, the 2/26 found itself taking fire from the rear, despite all its precautions to assure that no Germans were bypassed. After a careful search, the Americans discovered that the fire was coming from a church steeple that had been reinforced with concrete, making it a fortified observation post. This position proved to be impervious to both small arms and 75mm tank destroyer fire, whereupon Daniel again called upon his 155mm artillery piece. One shot from the 155 brought the entire structure crashing to the ground.[38] This use of a 155mm gun as an anti-sniper weapon is perhaps the epitome of "Knock 'em all down."

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/002978.php