Tank Destroyers in the Bulge:

Long ago I read, somewhere, that a few ...I believe M-10's but could be 36's....did great service in the Bastogne area keeping German armor at bay. Does anyone recall this or better have a reference? I am also looking for reading material on 4th Armor north of Nancy. This is a great forum with many highly informed people , any leads greatly appreciated.

GB

 

The most significant German armor attack against Bastogne was a reinforced regimental sized unit called Battlegroup Maucke. It had some 30 tanks (including something like 18 Panzer IVs) and two battalions of infantry.

US defenders had M18s with 76mm guns in support and destroyed this force. M18s repeatedly ambushed and knocked out the German armor and US parachute infantry with bazookas, medium artillery, and 57mm A/T guns did the rest.

 

Here is another interesting portion concerning the Second Ardennes Offensive (Battle of the Bulge), the disguised Panthers which appeared from a distance to be Allied M-10 tank destroyers

See:

Germans Disguise Panthers, Cleverly Imitate M10 Gun Carriage, WWII Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 57, April 1945 (Lone Sentry)

I was struck by the lengths to which the Nazis went to make one AFV look like another. False final drive bulges in front, false exhaust pipes in the rear, etc..

 

Even with these preparations, Skorzeny's mission with the fake US vehicles didn't bode too well, heh.

 

Dragon Models has just introduced a 1/35th model kit of these Ersatz M10s. Looks like a nice model kit: 6561 - Ersatz M10

 

If memory serves, the move to intercept KF Maucke was the only time the M-18s were driven at full speed at fifty miles an hour with governors turned off. This had to be done because the direction of the attack on the 101 AB Div came from the west behind the paratroopers, which put the weakest part of the perimeter to the test. Maucke's Pz IV Bn end its end so quickly that the panzer crews were unable to contact 15th Pz Gr Div HQ before they were destroyed. The 15 PGD comander spent the rest of the day trying to locate his missing armor. At around nightfall it was written off as lost. Generally, the SP Tank Destroyer Bn's far outperformed the towed 3-in. Tank Destroyer Bns. The former achieved kill rates of several to one, but for every panzer knocked out one 3-in. gun was lost. The US Army official historian, Col. Cole, later characterized towed pieces as "panzer fodder".

I am chuckling. The Shermans the Germans captured worked much better than the Panther M-10s, without the fruitless preparations and waste of time. There is something comically Teutonic about that effort...

 

I definitely agree. The captured Shermans with Iron cross logos actually served their purpose for the 2nd Panzer, 2.SS Panzer, and the 1.SS Panzer divisions.

Were the three inch guns actually 1:1? That's pretty bad.

If I remember correctly, the standard US 57mm had even more atrocious performance- something like 3 guns were knocked out for every German Panzer KO'ed.

 

According to Harry Yeide's Tank Killers, the kill:loss ratio of 3-in. gun to panzers was 1.3:1. The 57-mm was nearly an assisted suicide device. They were tank fodder. This was largely the result of learning the wrong lessons of North Africa, where the terrain was featureless and the American TDs fought defensively. In ETO the US Army attacked almost all the time and in a meeting engagement towed guns didn't stand a chance. That said, they could slow down the Germans.

 

I remember a 57mm gun managed to disable a Panther on one of the bridges in KG Peiper's advance. The US crew was wiped out in the process.

 

I agree. I was not aware of these measures. Excellent find Clint.

 

The americans used anti-aircraft guns on German infantry since german air power wasn't as much of a threat. it was extremely devestating since anti-aircraft bullets exploded shrapnel everywhere.

 

One thing about the northern end of the Ardennes Offensive was that Eisenborn Ridge was a major path for V-1 missiles headed West. The US as a result moved in a bunch of 90mm AA battalions to shoot them down. These units had proximity fuzed HE AA rounds that were devastating on ground troops in forested areas. Needless to say they were used to that end in stopping the German offensive.

 

Thanks, guys, good information. I expect an open top TD was rather cold that winter. It is probably impossible for ordinary folks to understand the hardships there.

I was not aware of Panthers being changed to look like M-10's. It would appear in the rather terrible conditions that they might come under friendly fire as well.

I also did not know that our 90MM AA's could be fired level like an 88. Always something to learn. BTW, at the excellent military aircraft museum just outside Praque is an 88 on display and toward the West at Terezin, near the concentration camp, are 2 T-34 85's, perhaps post war and a SU-100, just sitting and rusting. Hope they are still there but better cared for.

thanks for the responces,

Gaines

 

When reading accounts of the Bulge I sometimes find it difficult to distinguish between Tank Destroyers and Tank Destroyers (Towed).

The 90mm AA saw considerable use in the A/T role during the Ardennes offensive , the 143rd AAA battalion in particular were very much at the sharp end ; helping to stem the advance of KG Peiper at Stoumont.

 

New to the forum but I thought these might be interesting. These are two of SKorzenys Panther/M10s.

 

Were the 90mm anti aircraft fuses the same as the fuse they'd use for anti personnel artillery strikes?...Wasn't there a proximity fuse that would burst when close to the ground? Or a fuse set to go off at a certain altitude?

 

The POZIT fuse was certainly used in the Bulge ( IIRC for the first time in the ground role ). I'll be interested to hear in which guns : obviously it wasn't used in the A/T role but was certainly successful in breaking up infantry assaults.

 

This page seems to indicate everything that could:
Military History: WWII artillery ammo fitted with POZIT fuze - especially it's first use, monschau germany, artillery units

 

I've never heard of the 57mm a/t gun as an'assisted suicide device'before.But like the man said"they could slow down Germans".was that not it's purpose,cheers

 

This brings up several more questions, having read all the replies and links. It seems the M-10 had twin diesel engines which I did not know. I did read where Shermans sent to the Soviets also were diesels. I know mass production was a huge priority but it does beg the question as to why the US did not produce more diesels? I guess it was the rather large engine mix in the M-4 chassis. One V-8 500+ horse power diesel made to high standards sounds very appealing logistically and productionwise . The Soviets managed all but the high standards part under adverse conditions.

Secondly it seems the TD's were open topped to save weight and provide better visibility but in actually combat did this prove to be a good idea ? Cold, heat,rain, snow, artillery burst, mortars, grenades seemingly would have to be weighed against the above. Anyone know how the crews felt about this. I understand a few attempted to add a top of sorts but I have never seen a report on crew opinion. It seems to have not caught on post war but then TD's did not either given the MBT scenario..

Gaines