Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

US Tanks and Tank Destroyers

Discussion in 'Military Training, Doctrine, and Planning' started by GunSlinger86, Mar 10, 2014.

  1. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    The US gets a lot of criticism, some of it unjust IMO, of their use of Sherman tanks in vast numbers (even though they contained variants and gun upgrades throughout the war), and not developing a heavier tank sooner to combat the German heavy tanks. Leslie McNair felt the Tank Destroyers would handle that job just fine, which in fairness they did hold their own and have success against German tanks. The M10, M18, and M36 had lighter armor, but the armor sloped, and had heavier guns with no turret tops as compared to the Sherman tanks.

    Since the TDs had better and more powerful guns and were quicker, would it have been a good idea to add a little more armor since the front, sides, and back were sloped in design, put tops on the turrets, and use them as actual tanks? That way they wouldn't have had to differentiate between tanks and TDs, and there wouldn't be a need to have separate battalions?
     
  2. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    14,288
    Likes Received:
    2,605
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Good question. While I can't answer you, I'm sure TD-Tommy and other Tank Destroyer experts will weigh in.
     
  3. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,300
    Likes Received:
    1,919
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
  4. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    14,288
    Likes Received:
    2,605
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Good find, Adam. I read this thread before, but my eyes glazed over. :blink:
     
  5. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    That other thread was actually one of my old ones, along the same lines as this one.
     
  6. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    London UK
    So why did you start this one? Were you hoping for a better class of poster or a different answer?
     
  7. steverodgers801

    steverodgers801 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    73
    Shermans were not intended to fight other tanks and nothing was known about the Tiger when it was started.
     
  8. Triple C

    Triple C Ace

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,599
    Likes Received:
    230
    Not true. While the M4 tank was not designed primarily to fight other tanks, it was certainly capable of fighting enemy armor by the standard of late 1942 and most of 1943.
     
  9. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    I must have forgot I made that topic. It was from a while ago and I was thinking about tanks and TDs again lately.
     
  10. 15thusinfantry

    15thusinfantry New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2015
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Midwest
    I think the US really put most of their eggs in one basket, the all purpose M4, which they continually upgraded all through the War. Like it or not it had to become a tank killer. All purpose tank.The 105 version, which were also used against tanks, the 76, and I think they tried to put a 90 in one. Was the Pershing an early wartime design? The M24 I'm not sure of either, but they never really replaced all of the M5s. The TD's used the M4 hulls, or at least some did, and many were field modified in the ETO with plates to have an enclosed turret, extra armor. Remember TD's were originally a gun carriage on a half track or towed piece. A tank was a major upgrade for them. A lot of field modification went on in armor. The US did have that massive tank that used to be at Knox, now Benning. I also remember painting some damn hot tank at Knox that was a prototype TD from the 50's or so. My barracks and basic area at Knox was a WWII TD Bn area.
     
  11. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,562
    Likes Received:
    1,036
    Well, given that the only other basket they had to start with in terms of a medium tank was the M2 is it really that strange? An the Medium M4 remained the basket that worked; there simply wasn't sufficient design and armored combat experience to draw on early on. The result was things like the Heavy Tank T1 (initial development initiated May 1940), which was a dead end, the "Light" (later Medium) Tank T7 (initial development began in January 1940), and the Medium Tank T20-series (initial development began in May 1942). All tanks included "tank killing" as part of their reason for existing BTW, its just that some were better than others. Furthermore, at least the designers of the Medium Tank M4 were farsighted enough to plan on multiple armament suites from the get go. Which other country planned on a single design capable of mounting a 75mm gun, a 3" gun, or a 105mm gun. Even that is revealing in that despite planning ahead, in practice the engineering problems encountered meant that different mounts and turret designs were required anyway.

    The Light Tank T24 program dated to April 1943 and the Medium Tank T25/T26 program dated to July 1943, so were effectively midwar for the US. Delivery of the M24 to the ETO was programmed for late November, but unit conversions were delayed by the Ardennes Offensive. By the end of April 1945 there were 498 Light Tank M24 and 1,298 Light Tank M5 in the three armies of 12th Army Group.

    The original Tank Destroyer concept was for self-propelled pieces only. The 75mm Halftrack Motor Carriage T12 was a concept by Major Icks at Aberdeen Proving Grounds to get a quick SP gun into production and actually preceded the TD concept (the initial conversion lot of 50 went to the Philippines in November 1941). However, it was a convenient match to the initial TD concept developed in late 1941 and early 1942 so became an expedient vehicle until the production of purpose-designed SP like the M10 and M18 could be produced. The towed tank destroyer was actually a throwback, conceived in early 1943 based upon experience in North Africa and Tunisia. It failed the operational test in the ETO and MTO and by May 1945 most towed TD units, which had been converted from SP were busily being converted back to SP, just in time to be disbanded after the end of the war. All towed antitank artillery prior to the development of the tank destroyer concept in late 1941 and early 1942 were actually field artillery organizations and were assigned as antitank batteries and ad hoc battalions during the 1940-1941 exercises.

    The massive "tank" was the T95, which was officially redesignated as a self-propelled piece mid-life. It was conceived solely as an assault vehicle for breeching fortified positions like the Westwall.

    Cheers!

    Rich
     

Share This Page