Tanks we dnt have

[humble]

Meyer,

Your definition of a meeting engagement is completely wrong. Even though its a NATO/DoD definition its actually a very simplistic basdardized "definition" out of context. A meeting engagement occurs any time two forces on the move collide. In fact a critical component of any armored offense is in fact movement to contact. The initial component is charged with identifying and fixing an opforces strength/location and then a second unit is normally passed thru to continue the advance. As a general rule meeting engagements occur as an expected event as part of a general order ie "advance to contact". The Nato definition is really geared toward the "fulda gap" syndrome and the concept of massive deployed tank corps...which didnt really ever happen. A much better definition would be the desert storm reality where US forces attacked on a defined axis of advance until contact and then deployed directly to a hasty attack from a moving advance. Which is identical to both the german attack and the actions of the 7th armored at St Vith. This was a true meeting engagement where an advancing force met a mobile advancing defensive force and its screening components.

Typical US use of TD's in 1944 involved a defensive movement to contact against a known axis of advance...in effect an attack on the side of an advancing opforce. This is both a meeting engagement and an "ambush". The alternative would be the preferred static defense in depth.

US TD's were never actually employed according to the original 42 doctrine at any point in the war. Instead the revised 44 field manual called for static defense in depth if possible...manuevering attack if suitable.

US records specific to kills/losses for the bulge battle are fairly accurate. These encounters are well documented on both sides. The US defenses relied very heavily on TD's thruout the bulge.

[humble]

Originally posted by schlowy2
See Rule #5

LOL, you obviously cant read. What I said is that historical record shows that US TD's normally got 2, 3 and occasionally 4 shots off before german tanks could respond. The 1st is obviously because they tended to attack from ambush or the flank. The 2nd becuase they had faster ammo handling and faster traverse in most cases. In many engagements wgere the ymet nose to nose the TD's still got more lead on target. One of the most famous had a M-10 outside longvilly that literally ran into a german unit at a crossroad. It's 1st shot was almost point blank and took out the lead Panther, 2nd and 3rd shot both hit the 2nd panther and rattled the crew enough they abondoned the vehicle. The M-10 backed of the road and escpaped and in fact sent the report that sent team cherry into confusion. Meanwhile the germans had no idea a single TD did that damage and altered there advance as well....

[Murdr]

By the way, in my game statistics over 70 tours, my top non-perk plane for kills/death is the Dora, topped only by the Tempest and Me262.  That is how 'junky' it is modeled in AH.

[Stang]

The Dora in AH is a great airplane.  With its high speed climb rate and zooming ability it can own despite having a horrible turning radius.  It's just totally dominated by the La7 in the MA at low alt, never allowing it to really shine.  In AvA setups or Western front scenarios it really does great.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by humble
LOL, you obviously cant read. What I said is that historical record shows that US TD's normally got 2, 3 and occasionally 4 shots off before german tanks could respond. The 1st is obviously because they tended to attack from ambush or the flank. The 2nd becuase they had faster ammo handling and faster traverse in most cases. In many engagements wgere the ymet nose to nose the TD's still got more lead on target. One of the most famous had a M-10 outside longvilly that literally ran into a german unit at a crossroad. It's 1st shot was almost point blank and took out the lead Panther, 2nd and 3rd shot both hit the 2nd panther and rattled the crew enough they abondoned the vehicle. The M-10 backed of the road and escpaped and in fact sent the report that sent team cherry into confusion. Meanwhile the germans had no idea a single TD did that damage and altered there advance as well....

I urge anyone interested in American Tank Destroyers to read this document: American Tank Destroyer Doctrine in WWII

It's a 15 meg PDF.. So, be prepared.


My regards,

Widewing

[humble]

Originally posted by Widewing
I urge anyone interested in American Tank Destroyers to read this document: American Tank Destroyer Doctrine in WWII

It's a 15 meg PDF.. So, be prepared.


My regards,

Widewing

Great find...TY

Just started looking at it but the final sentences point to everything i've ever read regarding the TD's in europe...

"The inflexibility of tank destroyer doctrine resulted in its abandonment and led to the employment of tank destroyers in extradoctrinal roles, albeit with a surprising degree ofsuccess. The flaws inherent in tank destroyer doctrine, rather than the misuse of tank destroyers by higher commanders or deficiencies in equipment, prevented the tank destroyers from fulfilling their intended role.

That the tank destroyers performed yeoman service in spite of doctrinal defects is to the credit of the American soldiers who, in essence, created a new doctrine in the field."

[schlowy2]

See Rule #5

[Karnak]

Sherman, no.
T-34, yes.

[schlowy2]

So far from watching youtube:

t34: one track could go in one direction while the other track was at a stop.

different from

Tiger: one track could go forward while the other backward.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Karnak
Sherman, no.
T-34, yes.

But it could only be done at low speeds with the T-34.  The clutch and brake steering unit could cause troubles for inexperienced drivers if they tried it at high speeds.

Interesting note on the Panther Auf.D, crews were told to use the auxiliary brakes to steer and to stay away from pivot steers due to the unreliability of the Panther's steering mechanism.


ack-ack

[Karnak]

You could be right on that count.  Tanks are not my focus, but I had been told that the Sherman's inability to pivot in place was unusual in a tank by an ex-US Army M1A1 commander.  He also thought very highly of the T-34, which was pretty much an exception for his regard of Allied tanks.  The Tiger I and Panther V tanks are clearly superior to the T-34.  

I wonder if the Churchill or other British tanks could pivot?


I started to post before Ack-Ack's reply was there.  I understand that until the Auf.G Panthers had a lot of reliability issues.

[Jag34]

The M-10 had the 76mm gun and was actually far superior to the T-34 we have here (and the PzIV) balistically.

Being a Tanker for 25 years and still going, and a WWII Armor buff all my life, The M-10 never had a 76mm gun. It had the 3 inch gun and in late 1944 the British mounted the 17pdr gun onto there's. The M-36 had the 90mm AA High Velocity gun. This was the only armored U.S. vehicle before the M-26 that could knock out a Panther or Tiger at long range. The M-18 Hellcat had the 76mm gun mounted on it. This also used the new 76mm ammo HVAP (high-velocity armor- piercing). Infor came from "The Complete Illustrated History of British, American and Commonwealth Tanks, 1939-1945" (Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis) and "Combat and Development History of the Sherman Tank and All Sherman Variants"(Michael Green) Also in another Book I have which I can't find at the time, it deals with the Russian lend lease tanks. They, the Russian crews loved the Sherman for the simple reason ( this coming from a few Russian drivers), "You turn the engine switch and it started every time, we could go weeks with out a break down compared to the T-34's." Now armor and 75mm main gun, well, you can't say much about them. Also the Russians got all of the Diesel engined Sherman until mid 1944.

There is my 2 cents worth.
Keep up the great game and please add more armor, like the Comet, the Cruiser Tank Mk VIII, the Churchill tank, KV-1's. M-36's, M-18's

Thanks

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Jag34
Being a Tanker for 25 years and still going, and a WWII Armor buff all my life, The M-10 never had a 76mm gun. It had the 3 inch gun and in late 1944 the British mounted the 17pdr gun onto there's. The M-36 had the 90mm AA High Velocity gun. This was the only armored U.S. vehicle before the M-26 that could knock out a Panther or Tiger at long range. The M-18 Hellcat had the 76mm gun mounted on it. This also used the new 76mm ammo HVAP (high-velocity armor- piercing). Infor came from "The Complete Illustrated History of British, American and Commonwealth Tanks, 1939-1945" (Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis) and "Combat and Development History of the Sherman Tank and All Sherman Variants"(Michael Green) Also in another Book I have which I can't find at the time, it deals with the Russian lend lease tanks. They, the Russian crews loved the Sherman for the simple reason ( this coming from a few Russian drivers), "You turn the engine switch and it started every time, we could go weeks with out a break down compared to the T-34's." Now armor and 75mm main gun, well, you can't say much about them. Also the Russians got all of the Diesel engined Sherman until mid 1944.

There is my 2 cents worth.
Keep up the great game and please add more armor, like the Comet, the Cruiser Tank Mk VIII, the Churchill tank, KV-1's. M-36's, M-18's

Thanks

Your info is accurate. The M-10 was fitted with a modified and generally obsolete anti-aircraft gun, designated the M7 3" gun. However, 3 inches is generally equal to 76mm, which is why many refer to the M-10 as having a 76mm gun. On the other hand, the M-18 was fitted with the high velocity M1 (or M1A1) 76mm, which was developed specifically to kill tanks. When the 90mm M-36 arrived in September of 1944, it quickly proved itself quite able to kill any German tank. The M-36 was lethal at more than double the range of the M-10, and an M-36 recorded a kill of a Panther at over 4,000 yards.

Of note is the fact that all M-10s were powered by twin GM diesels. Those converted from Shermans (the M-10A1) were powered by Ford gasoline V8s. While the crews loved the diesels for their reliability and resistance to catching fire when hit, logistics were often a nightmare. During the Battle of the Bulge, gasoline and 75mm ammo was sometimes delivered to M-10 units by error.  

My regards,

Widewing

[humble]

Originally posted by Jag34
Being a Tanker for 25 years and still going, and a WWII Armor buff all my life, The M-10 never had a 76mm gun. It had the 3 inch gun and in late 1944 the British mounted the 17pdr gun onto there's. The M-36 had the 90mm AA High Velocity gun. This was the only armored U.S. vehicle before the M-26 that could knock out a Panther or Tiger at long range. The M-18 Hellcat had the 76mm gun mounted on it. This also used the new 76mm ammo HVAP (high-velocity armor- piercing). Infor came from "The Complete Illustrated History of British, American and Commonwealth Tanks, 1939-1945" (Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis) and "Combat and Development History of the Sherman Tank and All Sherman Variants"(Michael Green) Also in another Book I have which I can't find at the time, it deals with the Russian lend lease tanks. They, the Russian crews loved the Sherman for the simple reason ( this coming from a few Russian drivers), "You turn the engine switch and it started every time, we could go weeks with out a break down compared to the T-34's." Now armor and 75mm main gun, well, you can't say much about them. Also the Russians got all of the Diesel engined Sherman until mid 1944.

There is my 2 cents worth.
Keep up the great game and please add more armor, like the Comet, the Cruiser Tank Mk VIII, the Churchill tank, KV-1's. M-36's, M-18's

Thanks

I knew it was a "3 inch" gun and there for 76mm...but I assumed that it was the basis for the M1A1. Curious if it used a completly different ammo from the M1A1 or could it fire same ammo in a different tube?

[humble]

Interesting write up...

M-10's in Italy