I and Proeliator shared the same point ,Achille and M36 did not need to flanking German tanks because they could fire the first shot at long range so they have a good chance to survive without adding armor

My information about WP rounds is too little ,so any information , plz

The Germans used the Elefant in offensive battle ( Kursk)

on the other hand The Russians used DT similar to the Germans although they were in offensive war (in 1943 ,1944, 1945) such as (SU 85,SU 100) and they did very well

but when the Russians wanted a tank to flank the Germans tanks while SPG fired at long range they selected T34
The T34 have a good speed , very good armor and good numbers to successfully flanking the Germans tanks

In 1942 the Americans wanted to copy T34 and the result was M10
though they were very similar in many characteristics (shape ,role , speed and many tank parts) but M10 and M18 lacked the one thing which was T34 had and that was the good armor

and I do not need to write the armor details to clear my point

I know the Russians lost a lot of T34 in the war and that was because the whole tactic was weak

So in successful offensive war the tanks must have the ability to destroy the target from the long range that they can and have the first shot and that is true in defensive war too

That seems a rather strange statement to me. The M-4 and the T34 were close enough that I see no reason the US would have wanted a T34 copy.

Very adept ? Like one or two cases ? And for what type of losses ?

When encountered by the one of the German cats the regular US armoured units either retreated or resorted to desperate measures, it was all they could do.

Here's an example of a M4 Sherman actually ramming a Tiger Ausf.B which was causing havoc on the Allied tanks in the area:


And here a Tiger Ausf.E having been rammed as-well:


icky, you can read this book: US tank and tank destroyer battalions in the ETO 1944-45 by Steven J. Zaloga

The WP use against German tanks is well documented in a number of histories, particularly of the 4th Armored Division. This seems to have been a common practice with Third Army troops. The WP round would be fired to simply hit the German tank somewhere. The results would be first, a cloud of smoke that would likely blind the crew. Second, the acrid smoke produced would be sucked into the tank via the ventilation system and choke the crew.
This was found by US crews to give them time to pump several more rounds into the target or time to run and hide before being shot to pieces.

I have also read a number of cases of US crews being very quick on the trigger. The faster and smoother turret rotation of US tanks and AFV allowed crews to get on target very rapidly. In one case of mistaken identity I read about a US tank crew came around the corner of a road in a town. A British armored car crew had staked out that corner and was already laid to fire if anything came around it. The US tank crew rounded the corner and before the British could get off a shot the US crew had put two rounds into their armored car. Thankfully, the British crew survived the experiance but were absolutely stunned with how quickly the US crew had opened fire on them.

The American TD concept was not offensive. McNair wanted fast tank destroyers so that they can mass against German armor concentrations at a point of breakthrough and stop them there. If he had his way all TDs would be towed 3-in. guns.

No tank or other armored fighting vehicle in the US Army was a copy of the T-34. M10 was a M4 chasis stripped of armor with a open top, hand-cranked 3-in. gun turret. It was meant to give the 3-in. gun a more mobile and stable platform than a half-track, like the M3 TD.

There are plenty of examples. Free French 2 AD routed a Pz Bde in Lorraine. US 4 AD destroyed two Pz Bdes in Arracourt. US 2 AD smashed Pz Lehr in St. Lo, mauled 2 SS Pz D near Avranches and then destroyed the 2 Pz D in Celles. In all of those operations the Americans inflicted lopsided losses on the Germans while suffering very little casualties themselves.

It really depends. If the Americans stumbled into massed, counterattacking German armor without detecting it, then the panzers prevail. Panzer attacks against alert Americans deployed in defensive array would fail with heavy losses.

A good example of this was 2 AD's unpleasant encounter with the 9 Pz D; the 9 Pz, with only one Pz Bn available, decimated a combat comand of the 2 AD and forced the later into defensive positions in towns. But 2 AD resumed its attack the very next morning and found the 9 Pz D gone, because the later possessed inadequate strength to pry the Americans from their positions and decided further attacks would be futile. Another example was the stand of CCR pf the 3 AD in the Battle of the Bulge; in spite of vastly inferior numers, 3 AD mauled the 116 Pz D so savagely that the 116 Pz commander reported his troops demoralized and abandoned the attack. 2 SS attacks against 3 AD positions in the area were similarly unsuccessful, despite even or better numbers.

A panzer defending positions against a US armored formation that did not air or artillery in hand had a good chance of stopped the advance for a while before retreating or being surrounded; if air or artillery came into play the Germans would be wiped out or pushed out within the day. Peiper in La Gleize, for example, was overwhelmed by TF McGeorge, 3 AD in three days of intense combat in spite of having six Tiger Bs. The same omnipresent TF McGeorge then attacked and pushed out the 2 SS Das Reich in Grenmenil--again despite of Panthers and good defensive positions--in two day's work.

More typically, the American tanks would advance so quickly under a protective umbrella of air power that the sheer speed and mass of American attack would easily overwhelm Germany penny packets of tanks. The 2, 3, 4, 6, 10 AD had all done this with the most remarkable verve and tactical flair.

Well I have read his "Lorraine 1944-1945 Patton versus Mantueffel" and his "Siegfried Line 1944-1945" books both describe what I have mentioned before. Read pages 19-20 of his M-18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer" book . I do admit he goes onto say the M-18 was an ill concieved idea BUT it's crews still performed very well ,liked the vehicle very well,and the M-18 certainly came out ahead of it's German counterparts. The M-10 & especially the M-36 performed yeoman work . At the Battle of Arracourt where there equal number of 75mm M3 armed M4's & Panthers the Sherman's clearly came out on top and there wasn't any interference at all from Allied airforces in this battle.

Smoother ?? That's a very odd statement. There was no difference in the "smoothness" of the turret travel between a Sherman or any German tank, only a difference in turret traverse speed. So I'm not sure why you would say such a thing.

I actually have heard smoother before. The electrically powered turrets were highly responsive to the gunner's control and and M18 was an extreme example. Fine aiming was done manually because the traverse was too fast and too sensitive.

I think the M18 was a suicide idea but thanks to the American crews who made it very effective
but it did not deserve to be the 1st or 2nd in top 5

and I did not mean the American wanted exactly T34 copy ,They wanted a DT which share some T34 characteristics (good speed to flank the tanks) and the Germans did the same (Panther) but they selected a more powerful gun to be able to fire at longer range so the three tanks had similar shape (not exactly)

the Germans used that for their benefit so they rigged up Panthers to look like M10's ,the U.S. stars were painted on both sides and also on the top of the turret, the entire tank was painted O.D., and U.S. unit markings were painted on the false bow and rear.

OK but look at the Hetzer ,it generally get's high marks BUT it's traverse of it's gun was the least of any German JagdPanzer,it had a very poor crew layout with the loader & gunner on the left hand side of a gun designed for right handed operation,they were also isolated from the ammo supply. the commander was remote in the right hand rear of the vehicle with inadequate means of observation and he could hardly co-operate with the gunner & driver in order to engage targets. The Hetzer was Well armed & armored along with being extremely well shaped/low silhouette versus say the M10/M-18 but those serious defects I mentioned before can be very telling.
Now as far as the M-18 being a suicide idea let me ask you this even if it had the armor of say the M4A3E8 would it have made any difference ? I mean even if it had 50-75mm armor it would have been vulnerable to just about any German tank/AT gun at most battlefield ranges anyways.

I am agree with u in some points

if M18 had 150 mm it will still suicide idea, I am talking here about the whole idea( which was coming close or flanking more powerful tank to be able to penetrate it)
my solution was equipping the M10 with more powerful gun which had the ability to fire at the longer range before the enemy tank
A quote from me

And what about Stug or SU85/100? I think they deserve to be 1st and 2nd in top 5

This is still untrue. Nothing in the M10 resembled the T-34, from the engine, suspension, transmission, turret layout, gun, armor thickness to doctrinal role. Nothing at all.

I was also flumoxed by "moutan1", and his statement.

"The chassis was from the M4A3 Medium Tank with the upper hull and turret were unique to the M10. The hull had bosses on it that could have additional armor attached." (Tank Data 2, Aberdeen Proving Grounds Series, E. J. Hoffschmidt and W. H. Tantum IV, 1969)

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

Smoother. In a late war German tank traverse was hydraulic and dependent on engine speed for speed of rotation. The gunner could only roughly lay the turret on target and had to make final adjustments by hand with the manual controls. This is due to the inability to fine control the rate of traverse with the hydraulic system. Hydraulics take a light touch (try operating heavy construction equipment some time) and can be jerky if you are heavy handed in their operation. They also don't respond instantly to changes in motion.
US vehicles had a variable speed electric traverse that allowed the gunner to both fast traverse onto a target then use low speed and fine control to lay the gun. This made for a much faster on target time that has been repeatedly documented in numerous histories. And, in tank engagements he who is on target first and firing first usually wins.

The M 18 was part of an overall doctrinal concept. It is less effective looking only when you don't consider the context in which it was used.

The US self-propelled tank destroyer battalion included a large reconnissance section that was intended to scout ahead of the battalion. This gives the unit vital information on their enemy that may be denied them in return. The inclusion of the reconnissance section was to allow the tank destroyers to choose their own time and location for engagment and increase the chances of surprise.
There was also a security section in each tank destroyer company. These sections included dismountable machinegun and bazooka teams that could give some cover to the tank destroyers from enemy infantry.
Another inclusion was a section of construction equipment including excavators, pneumatic hammers and, other equipment for quickly digging in the vehicles. This was included to allow the battalion on the defensive to dig their vehicles in for added protection. Doctrine called for this to be done in 30 minutes or so. Whether this was exactly the actual case in action is irrelevant. The unit could dig in rapidly comparatively.

The M 18 fit into this doctrine being a very fast maneuverable vehicle that could quickly respond to the information the reconnissance team provided. On the defensive the vehicle's armor was complemented by it being able to be dug in up to the turret very quickly by unit assets. As an example, in one battle fought by the 804th TD battalion in the Lorraine campaign M 18s out ran attacking German Panthers to a ridge line where they engaged the Germans from hull down positions knocking out serveral tanks for the loss of one of their own. Other battalion sections ran around the flank of the German unit and popped up to engage them from an unexpected direction.
While just one of many examples, the speed of the M 18 proved very valuable in combat.

In the late 1930s and early 1940s the US developed a new tactical doctrine, whereby fast-moving armored formations were to be countered by a new tank destroyer force comprising towed and self propelled high-velocity and anti-tank guns. One of the first operational results of this was the M10. As stated before, the M10 was an M4A2 chassis, with a thinly armored, open-top turret and a high velocity 76.2-mm gun.

The M18 was the only vehicle specifically designed for the US Army's tank destroyer role. It was far smaller than the M10 and weighed half as much. The 76.2-mm M1A1 gun on the M18 was a development of the 3-in used on the M10 but with better all around performance. As far as armor, the M18 relied upon its mobility and striking power to defend itself. I think it is unfair to heavily criticize the M18's armor protection when comparing it to the M10. The M10's front superstructure was only 38-mm thick, its side turret and hull were 25-mm, and the side superstructure was only 19-mm thick.

__________________


"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon

I read about it in this web M10 Wolverine Summary

<<Development

<<<The 3 inch Gun Motor Carriage T35 was the prototype of the M10. It had a 3 inch gun (76.2 mm) in a new sloped, circular, open topped turret, that was developed from the turret used on the Heavy Tank T1/M6, it was mounted on an early production Medium Tank M4A2 hull. The design may have been motivated by the success of the Soviet T-34, which it resembles in many ways including the similar armor thickness and slope and the choice of main gun. The T35 was improved upon; it was given a sloped hull built on the M4A2 chassis, and had its circular turret replaced with a pentagonal turret, this model was designated the 3 inch Gun Motor Carriage T35E1. In June 1942 the 3 inch GMG T35E1 had its designation changed to become the 3 in Gun Motor Carriage M10, and ordered into full production. A British variant, designated "Achilles", was developed to mount the successful 17-pounder anti-tank gun in a modified turret. It was used by the British, Canadian and Polish armies in Italy and north-west Europe>>>



But the another DT Did not need air cover or surprising the enemy to do better and here we are talking about which was the best TD without any support ,another point, that Americans replaced M10 and M18 with M36(which did not need to flank the German tanks)and that was the solution
Can I ask you, what is your top 5 TD?

Did you notice the qualifiers in your own post?

The design may have been motivated by the success of the Soviet T-34, which it resembles in many ways including the similar armor thickness and slope and the choice of main gun.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

Your source is wrong. The T-34's armor was thin but extremely well-sloped that more than doubled the effectiveness of its armor plate. The M10 had like the T-34 only 45mm of armor, but sloped unfavorably. It was a stripped down M4. But at no point was the T-34 designed to sacrifice protection for speed.

The M18 was a deadly weapon in anti-tank combat. That its armor was thin was almost irrelevant. In a successful deployment of TDs, a panzer column was often destroyed in a matter of seconds without firing a shot or scoring a hit in return.

As TD crews and their combat records showed time and time again, it was the German infantry AT weapons that posed the greatest threat to TDs, not the cats.

Is that so? I have always thought that the 76mm was a 3-in. gun with improved simplicity and reduced bulk, along with a couple of ease-of-use refinements.

Hi Triple C,

The M7 was used in the M6 heavy tank and the M10 tank destroyer. However, when trying to develop a new gun for the M4, the M7 76-mm proved to be too cumbersome and difficult to fit into a small M4 turret. What they developed instead was the T1, it used the same projectile as the M7 but with a different propellant casing. Because they were so similar, they tended to cause confusion with the troops so the M7 was labeled the 3-in gun and the T1 was labeled the 76-mm. However, they were both of the 76.2-mm caliber. The initial T1 had a length of 57 calibers which lead to traverse problems due to the excess weight at the front of the turret. So the barrel was cut down by 15-in making it 52 calibers. The initial T1 then became known as the M1 76-mm and the shorted version became the M1A1 gun. The gun was then further developed into the M1A1C with threads for a muzzle brake and the barrel had rifling of one turn for each 40 calibers, and the M1A2 with threads for a muzzle brake and rifling of one turn for each 32 calibers.

__________________


"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon

The 76mm was an entirely new design. It used a concentric spring recoil mechanism, was substancially lighter as the barrel used a better steel reducing its thickness, the breech was all new too. The M 10's 3" was basically the same as the pre-war 3" AA gun developed in the late 20's early 30's.

As for size, the M 18 is about the same size and almost the same height as the StuG III.

Yes and I use the word "developed" loosely. The M1A1 can be traced back to the M7's inability to fit into the M4 turret. The T1 was then developed using the same projectile, and so on.

__________________


"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon