[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/k/ - Weapons

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 15758_illLR.jpg (130 KB, 800x529)
130 KB
130 KB JPG
Brainlet here. The m10 tank destroyer is supposed to have high effectiveness. How is this possible? From my understanding the TDs are supposed to act as AT guns in ambush, and when tanks are spotted by the infantry they close in. The M10 has same armor as m8 scout car and is fucked by even a 37mm or panzerfaust. How is this vehicle supposed to flank a stug variant or pz4 and not get fucked?
>>
>>48908486
>The m10 tank destroyer is supposed to have high effectiveness. How is this possible? From my understanding the TDs are supposed to act as AT guns in ambush, and when tanks are spotted by the infantry they close in.
US TD doctrine was to keep TDs as a mobile reserve for countering massed armor formations
they would rush ahead of the main force to occupy advantageous positions to ambush enemy tanks
>the M10 has same armor as m8 scout car and is fucked by even a 37mm or panzerfaust
which is partially why the M10 was phased out in favor of the 76mm armed shermans and M36 jackson late war

however, in theory, the lowered armor was not considered a liability against armor as they were only intended to remove the momentum of an armored assault before real tanks would counter attack
>How is this vehicle supposed to flank a stug variant or pz4 and not get fucked?
by driving into good ambush positions before the stug could

even though it had a hand traversed turret, almost as slow as pivoting, it was still nonetheless a massive advantage as it allowed for aiming without straining the drive wheels and without need to coordinate with the driver

the results speak for themselves, TDs went 2:1 against german armor and were almost 3 times as effective as towed AT guns
>>
File: M36_Repair_Depot.jpg (179 KB, 1208x866)
179 KB
179 KB JPG
>>48908486
Zoomers wouldn’t understand
>>
>>48908486
The short answer is that US tank destroyer doctrine was based on theory, not practice. So whatever the TDs were "supposed" to do according to the field manuals you can safely ignore, as it had no relationship to the realities of the battlefield, and they were used the same way tanks were.
>>
File: 1617712656951.jpg (1.17 MB, 1000x793)
1.17 MB
1.17 MB JPG
>>48908561
>rush ahead of the main force to occupy advantageous positions to ambush enemy tanks
Thats a very small but important detail. I always thought they were on call from the infantry, which indeed they were used like that but makes more sense what you put forth.
>>
>>48908613
So basically if the infantry needed armor support and no Shermans available they would radio back to hq and have higher ranking staff task the TDs out?
>>
File: M7_Grenade_Launcher .jpg (104 KB, 432x347)
104 KB
104 KB JPG
>>48908613
>The short answer is that US tank destroyer doctrine was based
Delete the rest of your post.
>>48908684
If there was no tanks available, then they’d use AT guns, bazookas, rifle grenades, etc.
>>
File: Gun-Guts-04.jpg (169 KB, 690x776)
169 KB
169 KB JPG
>>
>>48908486
This
>>48908561
>mobile reserve for countering massed armor formations
https://youtu.be/7ho8TU_JpoI

>>48909021
>”The problem of fighting Americans is they don’t even read their own manuals”
Roughly, there were doctrinal disputes
>>
>>48908486
Different doctrine, they did okay.
>>
>>48908561
>the results speak for themselves, TDs went 2:1 against german armor and were almost 3 times as effective as towed AT guns
This isn't nearly as impressive as you think it is. If tank destroyers don't have a positive ratio against tanks you can just build tanks unless they are significantly simpler to produce, which these weren't since tanks are much more useful in any other role that isn't anti armour.
They're a specialist weapon against tanks after all, anon.
And nobody liked or wanted to use towed AT, it was simply better than nothing.
>>
>>48908684
That would had been the theory. What actually happened was completely different. Most TDs were partitioned out and organically attached to infantry formation at multiple levels after Africa. A US infantry division had more AFVs than a Panzer division and were typically at close to theoretical strength while panzer divisions were depleted and had the strength of a formation a full echelon below it. A "paper" formation of 4 or 5 panzer divisions would be needed to even match a single US infantry division in AFV strength. Requesting TDs to counter panzers was a fantasy except on the tactical level in the beginning stages of receiving an assault. When you read in campaign histories about how e.g. a counterattack of 3 panzer divisions hit 3 infantry divisions and was repelled, it wasn't some heroic tale of defense, but rather a case that the panzers were heavily outnumbered by TD and never stood a chance of success.
>>
>>48908486
>The M10 has same armor as m8 scout car
no it fucking doesn't
>>
>>48909643
Was thinking this myself. 2:1 doesn't sound very good since it's literally meant to be a counter to the other thing. And like you said, they weren't made any cheaper or easier by forgoing turrets and shit, so they were just kinda goofy niche tanks that didn't really need to be made.
>>
>>48910067
Tank doctrines were goofy for most nations before the war as there hadn't been much chance to put their theories to practice. What ended up working best had been what the planners had had steictly in mind.
>>
>>48910080
>had
Fugg, I meant had not.
>>
>>48910067
they had a 3in gun at a time when most shermans had a 75mm gun, since the 76mm gun did not fit in the orignal turret
and even by 1944, there was only 1 or 2 76mm shermans per tank platoon
the 76mm sherman did mean the M10 was obsolete, but there was never enough of them and they were planning on switching to the M36 in recognition of that fact

for what it was, and for its specific window where it was sufficient and served its role well
and im not claiming it was really good or anyhing, just that it did what it was intended to do, knock out enemy tanks
>>
>>48908486
>How is this vehicle supposed to flank a stug variant or pz4 and not get fucked?
By being fast as fuck boi
>>48908561
>which is partially why the M10 was phased out in favor of the 76mm armed shermans and M36 jackson late war
Not beause of turret turning troubles? I mean, M10 and Achilles turrets turn like fucking trash, M18 and M36 had it better.
>>
>>48910620
while obviously, the ability to turn a turret faster is always a positive
it was not seen a major detriment when it first came out, as it was not intended to fight a mobile battle but lay in ambush

just having a turret at all made it more effective than a casemate even if it turned slowly
it was more so they didn't accidentally throw a track if they had to turn the whole vehicle
>>
>>48908486
>brainlet here
your damn right. you answered your own question, it's all in the name. THEY ARE TANK DESTROYERS. Think of them as self-propelled anti-tank guns. They kill tanks just as good as any other tank or AT gun, but they are also way faster and cheaper to produce. Their actual battlefield use ofcourse, depends on doctrine, but most of the time they are just self propelled AT guns.
>>
>>48908486
You know how things are better on paper that irl? The m10 was the opposite of that. Guess the training was good or something but it is interesting
>>
>>48910067
TDs are inherently designed for defensive combat. But the US got into the war late, so all they ever experienced was offensive combat. As a result, US TD doctrine only really got a chance to be used twice. It was effective both times, but that's an awful lot of resources (including the best tank crews) dedicated towards a doctrine that only gets used twice in the whole war. Hence using TDs as tanks and SPGs all over the place.
>>
Interestingly, the TD force had a lower casualty rate than the tankers. The book "The Tank Killers" was an interesting read about the formation, development, and history of american TD's. I wish I remembered more from the book.

Also interestingly, the TD force had 3 doctrines going on at the same time. As the war dragged on in europe and fewer german tanks were around to fight, as they were being sent east or saved for the ardennes, the TDs were put in other roles which didn't really help their loss ratio. Open topped vehicles are not a good idea to be in when you're in a city.
>>
>>48911170
>But the US got into the war late
lol meme answer discarded.
>>
File: unnamed.jpg (26 KB, 400x270)
26 KB
26 KB JPG
>>48908486
The problem is you look at a TD and think 'tank' because of the overall layout.
>think "AT gun moving using a tracked carrier to move into each new ambush-postion instead of being towed or man-hauled" instead.
The armor is basically irrelevant for AT protection, the same as wheeled AT guns, its all about positions and tactics
>>
>>48912784
War starts in Europe in 1939, earlier in China
US first engagements early 1942
War ends mid 1945
>basically start in the middle
>at least its better than turning up in late 17 for the 1914-18 War when it was effectively already over.
>>
File: 1615995640912.jpg (124 KB, 1080x1211)
124 KB
124 KB JPG
>>48915046
>>at least its better than turning up in late 17 for the 1914-18 War when it was effectively already over.
Only true chads show up a day before the war ends
>>
>>48908486
>How is this vehicle supposed to flank a stug variant or pz4 and not get fucked?

you answered your own question

>From my understanding the TDs are supposed to act as AT guns in ambush
>>
>>48912784
Late, as in Germany had already conquered the European mainland and a large chunk of North Africa. The US had to spend the entire war on the offensive (strategically; there were German counter-attacks at the tactical and operational levels, and two of those involved the only actual cases of US TDs using US TD doctrine).

If they US had been in Belgium in 1940, the TDs would have gotten more of a chance to follow their established doctrine... except, of course, that most of the TD doctrine was established as a direct response to the German victory in Belgium and France in 1940.

tl;dr US TD doctrine was a case of "fighting the last war"... that is, the Fall of France, rather than planning for what would be needed to retake the continent from an entrenched Wehrmacht.
>>
>>48909608
Seriously, folks, please watch Chieftain's TD and tank doctrine videos if you haven't. They explain all of this far better than what you'll get here with a 2,000-character limit.
>>
>>48910788
>They kill tanks just as good as any other tank or AT gun, but they are also way faster and cheaper to produce
Not OP, but these weren't really cheaper to produce,which wa the issue.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.