BBA11- M10 Tank Destroyer (1 Viewer)

[Currahee Chris]

WOW!!

Just got this piece and cracked it open last night. What a wonderful piece!! I gotta come clean here, I had no idea what a tank destroyer was. I saw my first M18 2 weeks ago- a real one- at the Army War College- beauty. I was always under the impression that these were some giant behemoth tanks that just plodded along- that the basic philosophy was that the SHerman's were too small and in order to combat the krauts, we would make a bigger, meaner tank.

That really seems to be the opposite, I least that's what I understand with the M18 Hellcat- these TD's were pretty much Shermans but much lighter and therefore should be more manuverable. Am I correct in my assumption here??

How long did this "Tank Destroyer" concept last?? Did we use these types of vehicles in Korea??

The only TD's I can think of from my time in Green were the A10 WARTHOGS!! And I saw them blow the crap out of several tanks all over the world. It's a shame they got kicked to the curb- I still love those things.

Alright, anyway- my wife loves the BBA011- She spent more time looking at it last night than I did- she likes that the snow camo really makes all the accesories stand out- you know, with women, it's all about accessories

STANDS ALONE!!
CC

 

[Rob]

I really like my M10,its one of my fave pieces of armour.The snow camo is good and i am wondering what it might look like next to the new HB's winter camo Sheman.I am hoping we get another version of this particular beast at some point.

Rob

 

[Eazy]

I have the K&C Hellcat TD. It's one of K&C's best Allied vehicles i think.

I like the look of the M10 too and would like to get it at some point if i ever have any money left over in my budget

 

[Louis Badolato]

I think the concept of the tank destroyer was it was more maneuverable and upgunned version of a tank, because our doctrine was that Tank destroyers fought tanks, while tanks broke out behind enemy lines and attacked their logostical support, etc.

The problem was it was just as expensive to make as a tank (because ours had turrets, not guns set into the chassy like the German versions) but because of the open turret was more suceptable to infantry attack. Plus doctrine smocktrine, tanks had to fight tanks when (1) trying to break out and (2) when attacked by tanks. That's why the tank destoyer is kind of a dead letter in the U.S. forces today.

 

[Rob]

I have the K&C Hellcat TD. It's one of K&C's best Allied vehicles i think.

I like the look of the M10 too and would like to get it at some point if i ever have any money left over in my budget

Yes i agree the Hellcat is cool,i'm so glad i got that pretty last minute before it was retired.I like the look of extra firepower the TD's seem to display..more please!

Rob

 

[Currahee Chris]

That's why the tank destoyer is kind of a dead letter in the U.S. forces today.

Well, kind of- the Abrams is as fast if not the fastest most manueverable thing out there now anyway. We still employ TOW mounted Hummers to engage armor en masse- we might send up a platoon of TOW hummers to take out an enemy armor piece. They are rather quite effective, provided they can cover the gap between the Abrams and themselves.

I think there have been a combination of several things that have lead to the demise of the TD, which, I assume is what you were saying.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Well, kind of- the Abrams is as fast if not the fastest most manueverable thing out there now anyway. We still employ TOW mounted Hummers to engage armor en masse- we might send up a platoon of TOW hummers to take out an enemy armor piece. They are rather quite effective, provided they can cover the gap between the Abrams and themselves.

I think there have been a combination of several things that have lead to the demise of the TD, which, I assume is what you were saying.

I, a civilian, defer to your expertise.

 

[lenswerks]

I, a civilian, defer to your expertise.

You're a Major General for crying out loud!

 

[Currahee Chris]

You're a Major General for crying out loud!

HA!!! I was wondering if someone caught that or not!!! Sounds like the Generals have spent a little too much time talking about all their cabanna time and cocktails and stuff like that- they need to come get back out with the troops and "eat some dust" like us poor schlepps in the field.

 

[Louis Badolato]

You're a Major General for crying out loud!

Yes, which means I know less about armored vehicles than the average civilian. Haven't you ever watched our high command screw the pooch?

 

[lenswerks]

Yes, which means I know less about armored vehicles than the average civilian. Haven't you ever watched our high command screw the pooch?

I would never admit to watching such a thing and only under orders would I do so.

 

[binder001]

WOW!!

Just got this piece and cracked it open last night. What a wonderful piece!! I gotta come clean here, I had no idea what a tank destroyer was. I saw my first M18 2 weeks ago- a real one- at the Army War College- beauty. I was always under the impression that these were some giant behemoth tanks that just plodded along- that the basic philosophy was that the SHerman's were too small and in order to combat the krauts, we would make a bigger, meaner tank.

That really seems to be the opposite, I least that's what I understand with the M18 Hellcat- these TD's were pretty much Shermans but much lighter and therefore should be more manuverable. Am I correct in my assumption here??

How long did this "Tank Destroyer" concept last?? Did we use these types of vehicles in Korea??

The only TD's I can think of from my time in Green were the A10 WARTHOGS!! And I saw them blow the crap out of several tanks all over the world. It's a shame they got kicked to the curb- I still love those things.

Alright, anyway- my wife loves the BBA011- She spent more time looking at it last night than I did- she likes that the snow camo really makes all the accesories stand out- you know, with women, it's all about accessories

STANDS ALONE!!
CC

Chris,

Quick answer - the TD concept was an idea that sounded good in the Pentagon in 1940 but proved to be a total failure in actual use. It was abandoned like a hot potato after WW2.

The US Army was greatly influenced by the French Army in the first half of the 20th century (despite our traditional and legendary ties to Britain). The fall of France really shook up the US general staff. They drew the wrong lessons about anti-armor warfare. The TDs were to be a mobile reserve of AT guns that would speed to a threatened sector and set up ambushes and defended positions to defeat massed armor attack. They missed the lesson of combined arms teams with tactical air support and focused on the enemy tanks. This doctrine failure lead to many other bad decisions;

1) When people complain about the Sherman tank's inadequacies, the one real tactical failure was the inadequate gun. Yes, every tanker likes more armor, but they like to move as well. The Israelis showed that a well armed Sherman could do battle with much later Soviet armor. Of course, their example really was a testament to good crews-vs-bad crews. Anyway, one of the reasons that the US higher command resisted up-gunning the M4 was that the doctrine stated that "Tanks are weapons of maneuver. Tanks don't need to fight tanks, we have Tank Destroyers for that job. Tanks are for exploitation and maneuver". That kept the Shermans armed with a 75mm that was a fine artillery weapon, but not a hole-puncher. The existence of the TDs kept the Army brass from up-gunning with the US 76mm, the UK 17-pounder, or the US 90mm until it was forced upon them (the first 300 M4A1s with 76mm guns to arrive in England in 1944 were "orphans", no commander wanted them because they didn't fit doctrine. They were stored in depots in England until July when urgent requests came from Normandy for a better tank gun).

2) The TD proved to be a failure in its original mission. The Germans rarely met the US with massed tank attacks, so the TDs were broken into small units and used as infantry assault guns or to beef up the firepower of armored divisions. When the few massed tank battles did occur, the TDs were not able to concentrate into the massed firepower units that the original doctrine called for.

For further reading; get ahold of "The Tank Killers" by Harry Yeide, an EXCELLENT history of the US Tank Destroyers (and available in libraries or at reasonable cost). Yeide also wrote "Steel Victory" a fine history of the independent tank battalions of WW2 and "Weapons Of The Tankers" a great illustrated history of WW2 US armored equipment that also mentions the doctrine failures. If you have any interest at all in US WW2 armor, you NEED "Weapons of the Tankers". Yeide is working on a history of US mechanized cavalry in WW2. All of his books are available from Amazon.com at good prices. More detail is found in "Faint Praise, American Tanks and Tank Destoyers" by Charles Baily, but this is harder to get, something of a collector's item for US tank researchers.

Sorry to be so long.

Gary Binder

 

[Currahee Chris]

Sorry to be so long.

Gary Binder

Wow!! Absolutely no problem here on my end- I appreciate it!! it's interesting that you mention the lack of German engagement in pitched armor battles- true, I don't recall that really happening very much.

Funny thing, one vet I knew very well who passed away a couple years ago was an officer in WW2- he was trained to use the M10's but never operated the things at the tail end of the bulge- got assigned to an infantry battalion and never looked back.

I could kind of draw my own conclusions on the "life" of the TD concept since you really don't hear about them in Nam or Korea. I also think it is pretty obvious environmental situations in Nam especially wouldn't have been conducive to TD's

Gary- I appreciate your insight and especially the references. Thanks again!!

STANDS ALONE!!
CC

 

[Louis Badolato]

Chris,

Quick answer - the TD concept was an idea that sounded good in the Pentagon in 1940 but proved to be a total failure in actual use. It was abandoned like a hot potato after WW2.

The US Army was greatly influenced by the French Army in the first half of the 20th century (despite our traditional and legendary ties to Britain). The fall of France really shook up the US general staff. They drew the wrong lessons about anti-armor warfare. The TDs were to be a mobile reserve of AT guns that would speed to a threatened sector and set up ambushes and defended positions to defeat massed armor attack. They missed the lesson of combined arms teams with tactical air support and focused on the enemy tanks. This doctrine failure lead to many other bad decisions;

1) When people complain about the Sherman tank's inadequacies, the one real tactical failure was the inadequate gun. Yes, every tanker likes more armor, but they like to move as well. The Israelis showed that a well armed Sherman could do battle with much later Soviet armor. Of course, their example really was a testament to good crews-vs-bad crews. Anyway, one of the reasons that the US higher command resisted up-gunning the M4 was that the doctrine stated that "Tanks are weapons of maneuver. Tanks don't need to fight tanks, we have Tank Destroyers for that job. Tanks are for exploitation and maneuver". That kept the Shermans armed with a 75mm that was a fine artillery weapon, but not a hole-puncher. The existence of the TDs kept the Army brass from up-gunning with the US 76mm, the UK 17-pounder, or the US 90mm until it was forced upon them (the first 300 M4A1s with 76mm guns to arrive in England in 1944 were "orphans", no commander wanted them because they didn't fit doctrine. They were stored in depots in England until July when urgent requests came from Normandy for a better tank gun).

2) The TD proved to be a failure in its original mission. The Germans rarely met the US with massed tank attacks, so the TDs were broken into small units and used as infantry assault guns or to beef up the firepower of armored divisions. When the few massed tank battles did occur, the TDs were not able to concentrate into the massed firepower units that the original doctrine called for.

For further reading; get ahold of "The Tank Killers" by Harry Yeide, an EXCELLENT history of the US Tank Destroyers (and available in libraries or at reasonable cost). Yeide also wrote "Steel Victory" a fine history of the independent tank battalions of WW2 and "Weapons Of The Tankers" a great illustrated history of WW2 US armored equipment that also mentions the doctrine failures. If you have any interest at all in US WW2 armor, you NEED "Weapons of the Tankers". Yeide is working on a history of US mechanized cavalry in WW2. All of his books are available from Amazon.com at good prices. More detail is found in "Faint Praise, American Tanks and Tank Destoyers" by Charles Baily, but this is harder to get, something of a collector's item for US tank researchers.

Sorry to be so long.

Gary Binder

Thanks Gary. Well said.

 

[maddadicus]

A question? If tank destroyers were mostly ineffective as a weapon, then why did the Germans believe in the concept and have so many noted variants? Michael

 

[binder001]

A question? If tank destroyers were mostly ineffective as a weapon, then why did the Germans believe in the concept and have so many noted variants? Michael

1) because they HAD to! They ould not produce enough fist-line battle tanks so the SP guns had to be used to fill the gap and
2) becuase they saw the benefit of SP AT assets to a field commander. The problems was NOT in the US having SP AT guns, it was in their reliance on using them in a less effective manner. The problem with the TD concept was that it was meant to replace a well-armed tank with a well armed SP gun while the tanks went about their business with a good HE weapon. The Germans saw early on that a well-armed tank was the best answer to another tank. The didn't leave the PzKPFW IV armed with the short 75mm and rely on the panzerjagers to take out the enemy armor, the US did almost that very thing. US commanders from the Pentagon down to army and corps level wanted tanks to be the weapon used to exploit a breakthrough - just like happened after Operation Cobra. US armor outdid the blitzkrieg in conducting mobile exploitation and pursuit. The Sherman was then doing EXACTLY what it was designed to do. In Normandy the Shermans were forced to face German tanks and panzerjagers head-on and without a good AP gun the casualties became unacceptably high. The US tank crews were willing to take casualties, but it was galling that they couldn't strike back. The breakout period aleviated some concerns, but then came the fall and the slugging matches along the German border. Increases in 76mm vehicles helped, but they really needed a 90mm tank gun. The Battle of the Bulge saw more US frustration as GIs in Shermans with 75mm and 76mm guns tried to stop Panthers and up-armored Pz IVs (and the occasional Tiger 1 and Tiger 2) in close country. They stopped the Germans and caused the loss of a number of Panzers, but often at great cost to themselves. The TDs had been dispersed and never gathered to the multi-battalion ambush force that early plans called for.

It was also kind of odd that the early TD concept called for fast SP guns, to be able to gather and mass fires on an enemy force, but as the US Army mobilized for the war in Europe the Pentagon cut some costs by making almost half of the TD battalions use towed guns. They were to be with the "leg" infantry divisions. The 3" towed tank destroyer was a good gun, but heavy and not quick to move around on the battlefield. As 90mm M36s arrived and replaced some M10s, the extra M10s were used to re-equip a number of the towed units. Today 3" AT guns are not uncommon in parks and on parade grounds, but few people understand what they are and what they were intended for.

To sum up, the problem was NOT SP AT guns, it was allowing them too much importance in a theoretical battle plan. The manpower, production and money absorbed by the TD forces could have been used to give each infantry division a permanently assigned tank battalion of its own, and would not have slowed the introduction of improved tanks or at least better-gunned Shermans.

Gary

 

[Capitolron]

Gentlemen

I have really enjoyed reading this entire thread - it was very educational - even for a Armor Lobbyist.

I truely appreciate all the knowledge in this forum and thankful for all of you sharing your wisdom.

Ron

 

[panda1gen]

I agree, thanks guys. M10 pic, I like this one too Chris.

 

[Rob]

Gary,thanks for your posts.Very interesting indeed,i learn all the time on this forum.

Rob

 

[Alexdakar]

Can someone take a picture of their repainted M10 because I lost mine.