Tank Destroyers; Comments from another Forum

http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=236303

This comment was posted by a member of the Armorama Military Modeling Forum in answer to a question about Tank Destroyers. Go
to above link for full thread.

Written by M4A1Sherman

"Hi, guys! Yeah, the British received a lot of US equipment thru "Lend-Lease". If you read thru a lot of "in-depth" reference material pertaining to WWII US Armor, you'll find that there was a VERY HEATED argument going on within the US ARMY as to where production-priorities should go, specifically how many TANKS and "TANK-DESTROYERS" were to be built, and where they would go, especially in 1943, during the build-up for "OVERLORD". OVERLORD, of course, was the upcoming Invasion of France, scheduled for late Spring, 1944. it turned out to be 6 June, 1944, for various reasons that are beyond the scope of this discussion. Most people know it as "D-Day", but in ANY actual invasion by US Forces, even today, "D-Day" is merely the name assigned to the actual day that any invasion is to take place. "H-Hour" is the actual TIME of the start of the invasion.

Actually, the US Army "Tank-Destroyers" were originally supposed to use ONLY TOWED Anti-Tank weapons, such as the laughable M1 37mm Anti-Tank Gun. It was found, not surprisingly, that a 37mm anti-tank weapon was adequate only as a Fourth of July noise-maker. The M1 was successful in the Pacific however, against the completely dismal Japanese Armor, which seemed to be made of tin- There were reports of even the US 37mm Anti-Tank round not only penetrating Japanese Armor, but punching it's way through Japanese tanks, and coming out the other side, much like the German 88 was doing with many Allied tanks.

The US Army's "Tank-Destroyer Concept" was that Tank-Destroyer Units would "engage & destroy" enemy armor from concealed positions, while US Army Tank Doctrine stipulated that Armored Units (tanks) were supposed to support the Infantry as "Breakthrough" weapons, and were NOT to engage enemy armor at all!!! I get mad every time I read about it! Unfortunately, General Leslie McNair was an enthusiastic proponent of the Tank-Destroyer concept, so the US tankers were largely ignored when they pleaded for tanks that would out-class their M3 and M4 Mediums...

McNair was in charge of "Who got What and When", i.e. HE was the power within the power.

After scaling back the 37mm Anti-Tank weapon, the US Tank-Destroyer units were at first given the M1 57mm Anti-Tank Gun, which was an "Americanized" version of the famous British 6-Pounder, which had wrought havoc with the AFRIKA KORPS' PzKpfw.Is, IIs, IIIs and even some Pz.IVs, here and there. Africa was proving to be a highly-mobile war, so the US Army Tank-Destroyer units were hastily equipped with the M6, which was actually a Dodge WC-series Truck, mounting the M1 57mm Anti-Tank Gun. This turned out to be a costly mistake, resulting in many casualties and dead within the US tank-Destroyer Units serving in Tunisia. "We want tracked, armored machines, the TD boys pleaded..." What they got was another towed AT gun- The M1 76mm Anti-Tank Gun, mounted on the standard M2 105mm Howitzer's gun carriage. Cooler heads prevailed when the proponents of the US towed tank-destroyer doctrine and the powers-that-be running the Army accepted the M10, mounting a naval 3-inch Gun, in an all-too-lightly-armored turret and chassis, whose running gear and engine were US M3 Lee/M4 Sherman-based. The concept had now changed to the "Shoot-and-Scoot" idea, but that would not only leave our armor exposed to the EXCELLENT German 88s, and also to the nearly-as-good PaK 40 75s and the even more potent guns of the new Panthers, but would now also expose the even lighter-armored M10s!!! I'm going to skip the Tank-Destroyers' US Half-Tracks mounting anti-tank weapons entirely, because they were just about as dismal as the Dodge-mounted AT Guns...

The M10 first served in Tunisia, then in Sicily, and then in Italy- It was found to be woefully inadequate. As a temporary fix, the poor Tank-Destroyer Boys were given the Towed 76mm Anti-Guns!!! Terrible combat losses within the Tank-Destroyers' ranks now approached wholesale slaughter!

Meanwhile, the nature of combat in Tunisia had proved that US Armor done well under Patton, but in Italy, the terrain was not conducive to efficient tank warfare. We are all aware of the unfortunate "slapping incidents" in Sicily, so Patton was now in the doghouse, and was recalled from the Mediterranean Theatre, and left to stew in England. This is why Patton was spooked into NOT raising his voice in getting US Tankers better tanks than the M5 Lights and M4 Mediums.

When US Generals were asked to make recommendations for new tank-designs, Patton thought it wiser in recommending that the M4 remained in production. He reasoned that the M4 was already in production in great numbers, and alone, certainly dwarfing Germany's entire war production of armor. he recommended instead that the M4 should be up-gunned, but did not specify with what. Yes, he certainly WAS SPOOKED, and he realized that if Ike gave him another chance to command, it would be his last chance for greatness... Luckily, for us, Eisenhower made sure that Patton would lead an Army once the beachhead in Normandy had been secured. We all know what happened with Patton's 3rd Army race across France once the "Breakout" out of Normandy became an established fact.

Even with this success in France, the many-times-overstated "superiority" of German armor and the nature of modern tank warfare now negated the established US Army Tank Doctrine of "Infantry-Support" without engaging enemy armor- It was INEVITABLE that US Armor would HAVE TO ENGAGE GERMAN ARMOR if they were going to support the Infantry. To that end, many hard lessons were learned at the cost of many American and Allied Tankers',Infantrymen's and Tank-Destroyers' lives.

The US Tank-Destroyers also learned that they couldn't cope with German armor, especially since ALL arms of US and Allied Ground Forces had to deal with CONCEALED German Armor. There really weren't many out-and-out tank battles in Europe. The gigantic tank battles of epic proportions during World War II took place in Russia and the Ukraine, and in the imaginations of "World Of Tanks" players. In many instances, US and Allied forces simply by-passed German troop concentrations and armor.

OK, so originally, we were discussing US and Allied TDs. I left off at the M10, which was not really any kind of a tie-breaker, much less a winner. What was left? OK, the M18, which was a real HOT ROD, but that's about it. The M18 still only mounted a "high-velocity" 76mm Anti-Tank Gun, throwing some "souped-up" ordnance which still didn't "cut the mustard", when going up against the frontal armor of Panthers, Tiger Is, and very rarely Tiger IIs. The M18 was, after all, still a "Scoot-and-Shoot" machine, without any "real" defensive armor. There was a REASON why the M18 could hit 60 on good roads. On the battlefield, an M18 was still a fast machine, but not fast enough to out-run an 88, or even a 75-round...

There came then, the M36, which mounted a far superior gun- an adaptation of the US 90mm Anti-Aircraft Gun, which was comparable, but not superior to the long-versions of the German 88s. M36s were too few in number, too far, and too wide to make any appreciable difference on the battlefield against German Armor, but the 90mm gun DID make the Germans stand up and take notice. My Mom's Uncle Ludwig could, and did attest to that. He was a loader aboard a Pz.IV in France, during the war. He and his crew thought that the US had somehow developed an 88...

We know that the US 90mm STILL couldn't quite match the 88 for range and punching power, except for the 90s mounted on a few "Super Pershings" in 1945, and THEY never saw combat...

The US M4 crews learned that they could (and did) take out Tigers by placing a well-aimed WP "Willy-Pete" (White Phosphorous) round into a shot trap such as the area between the top of the hull and turret. The burning WP would sep through the turret race and into the fighting compartment, burning crew members and igniting the ammo. Fire extinguishers were NO HELP, so you either cooked, or took a chance in trying to escape the US/Allied machine gun bullets that peppered German tanks once they were set afire. Uncle Ludwig related to me that THAT was his greatest fear during the war, even with US/Allied Jabos being everywhere, which also was NO JOKE if you were German...

So, after all is said and done, there are some VERY BIG REASONS why we don't have tank-destroyer units today- First, the concept doesn't work. Second, close air-support and artillery can handle any tanks, even large formations of them. Ask ANY A-10, AH-64, or AH-1 pilot. Third, ALL infantry units the world over carry portable anti-tank weaponry on designated individual Soldiers or US Marines, in our case, but Tank vs. Tank is still a viable way to carry out certain tasks in a war. machines such as the Abrams and Challenger can attest to that..".

 

You, and whoever wrote the article, might want to look at the thread just under this one, "Myths of American Armor with Nicholas Moran".

 

I have been following that thread. about Nick Moran's' presentation at Trainfest Northwest 2015 and discussions about the merits and comparisons of WW2 tanks, and other sources. All tanks are a compromise balance between armor, armament, speed, endurance, construct ability, durability and the ability to operate in diverse conditions. Mr Moran clearly shows the timeline of evolution and improvement of the Sherman and why the tank was a winner.

I hope the some of the knowledgeable people on this board will comment specifically on M4A1Sherman's remarks.

 

The US doctrine did not believe in one-on-one battles. So other means had to be adopted. If something was found out during battle experience, ok, but those were never meant from the start. And they had only 1944-45 to get something done.

 

The OP seems extremely ill informed. Readers would be better advised to look at other, better informed threads about tanks and tank destroyers.

 

I was hoping that the members of this Forum would make comments on this thread that would help me compose a reply to M4A1Sherman.

Highway70

 

There are certainly a number of errors in that, which i can't really go in to right now, as I'm on a cellphone at my daughter's swim meet.

Firstly, the TDs were not originally intended to be towed. A large number of 37mm TDs were tried before the Army settled on the M6. (I've just written a book on this, currently awaiting final editing). It wasn't until the lessons of North Africa that the shift to towed happened. TD branch never adopted the 57mm, they concluded that at range, the 75mm was superior, and continued to use it and the 3" pending adoption of the 76mm. The 57s tended to be used by the infantry's Anti tank companies, which were not related to the tank destroyers.

Armored divisions were indeed to be used in exploitation, but it ignores the purpose of the independent battalions attached to the infantry divisions. They supported the infantry in their attempts to force a breech which the armored divisions could exploit. This role included killing anything which could affect the attacking forces, the field manuals for Armored Force are specific that this includes tanks. A reading of the TD FMs also makes it clear that supporting an attack was not the function of TDs, even if the enemy had tanks in their defensive lines.

Patton had absolutely no influence on tank selection. Zaloga makes this quite clear in the Operation Think Tank video, Part 1. (Go to YouTube, about fifteen minutes in) The towed 76 was actually a 3", but that's a bit nit picking

Finally, tank destroyer units did continue, we just don't call them that any more. The AH64 battalions he mentions are precisely that.

 

OK

The TD doctrine of hunting tanks was flawed. Tanks had more mobility than towed TDs, and better protection than SPs.TDs needed to get the first shot advantage over tanks. "Tank Destroyers", as with "Panzer Jaeger" was a sexed up name for anti tank artillery, essentially defensive weapons even if handled aggresively.. However, the mix of towed and Sp equipment provided to the TD force was, by 1944, fit for purpose and little different qualitatively than that of the Germans, give or take the monsters in the menagerie such as the Ferdinand, Jagd Panther and Jagt Tiger.

The mix of SP and towed equipment issued to the TD forces in 1943-4 was reasonable for the enemy they were going to face. They performed well in the Mortain counter attack and in the Ardennes, SP were preferred for mobile operations as they were better able to move under fire than towed equipment. The TDs also performed well in the ten days of the battles around Arracourt. Bruce C Clarke was able to use the mobility and firepower offered by tracked TDs http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/lorraine/lorraine-ch05.html

M10 was very popular with the British units which used it. When up gunned to Achilles standard with the 17 Pdr it could knock out any German Tank. British attacks in Normandy followed a pattern. The germans would be supressed by artillery and aerial firepower. The infantry would occupy the position. The Germans would launch a counter attack.or two, supported by tanks if they had them. Anti tank guns (TDs to the Americans) needed to be deployed to defeat the counter attack. SP Anti tank guns were able to provide that immediate anti tank defence. Towed guns took too long to emplace and dig in.

There was an obvious convergence between tank and tank destroyer. Tanks could kill tanks and SP Anti tank guns occasionally behaved like tanks, engaging in bunker busting and even accompanying infantry in the absence of tanks. The list of improvements for the M10 from Normandy included a co axial machine gun so they could shoot infantry from behind armour, and an armoured turret top to keep out shell fragments. This could have been fulfilled by replacing the M10s with Sherman Fireflies. In fact the Royal Artillery adopted the Archer SP 17 pdr in a limited traverse open mount based on the Valentine chassis.

After WW2 some countries persisted with the .TD / SP anti tank concept. The Germans had a turret-less AFV with a 90mm gun or SS11 ATGW. The British issued the FV 438 swingfire to the RA and then RAC, while the Soviets deployed the ASU 57 and ASU 85 anti tank guns as well as developing long ranged ATGW deployed on the BRDM series of vehicles. Arguably the TD concept has been best maintained by the USA which developed iair launched wire guided missiles for its fleet of Apache helicopters, which were intended to seek pout Soviet armoured columns in the spirit that Leslie McNair intended.


I hope this helps