M-10 Wildcat?

I've read the war diaries of 102 (Northumberland Hussars) Anti-Tank Regt and also the regimental history and Sheldrake is right. The equipment was just the M10 to them, never anything else.

 

In a footnote in Op Bluecoat, the late Ian Dagleish claimed that Achillies and Wolverine may have been post war Canadian names.

 

And Mick Moran (AKA Chieftain) had a contact in Canada that was going to try to find evidence of it. And the result is...crickets?

 

I have much of the unit documents available for the 776th TD Bn as well as their post-war unit history. They were equipped with the M10 in North Africa and Italy, and the M36 in France and Germany. I don't recall ever reading a nickname used in the reports or history. The 100th Infantry Division Assn. website repeatedly refers to the M36 as "Slugger". So much so that, when quoting from the battalion history, they insert the word "Slugger" when reference is made to the M36.

I don't know where the "Slugger" term came from. Maybe it was a post-war invention, or maybe the infantry gave the M36 that nickname. Or maybe the person who set up the 100th Div Assn website was a gamer. Who knows. However, I have seen no indication that the men of the TD units used anything other than M10 or M36 or TD to refer to their tank destroyers.

And yes, the creature on their SSI is a black panther, not a wildcat.

 

That's TD Tommy's avatar.
I foolishly asked (a long time ago) if TD stood for touchdown...Thought he was some highschool kid...boy, was i wrong.
Cheers TD

 

Interesting, I had not noticed the relationship between "Slugger" and the 776th and 100th. It could very well have been just a colloquial term with them. I suspect you are correct. I think the M18 mostly acquired a name because it was promoted by Buick in its advertising as the "Hellcat".

Meanwhile, the TD History clearly states the imagery was of a "black cougar", which is interesting, because there is in fact no such critter. The American cougar (AKA mountain lion, puma, panther, and catamount) species is "puma concolor" - concolor being Latin for "single color", which is actually an overall tan with slightly darker shading. It isn't really a "panther" and it isn't ever black.

 

Probably missing something here...There is no black Panther - BLM will be pissed...
Wouldn't that be a gene like albinism amongst local population.

 

Yes, you are. There is no "black cougar", which is what the TD patch is supposed to be.

 

TD-Tommy, if that unit was assigned M10s when they were earliest available in North Africa, and then M36s when they were first available, which units were given M18s, and how was it determined which units got which Tank Destroyer type?

 

The TD groups had a jeeps and Hts for the job early on. http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf

full of td pdf articles http://tankdestroyer.net/things/articles

 

I'm browsing the articles now. I wonder how it was determined which units got which type of TD, and how effective the M18s were and M36s against heavier German tanks.

 

One of those articles contradicted everything I've ever read about the M18, that its larger, upgraded 76mm gun outclassed the M10s gun and had more success against tanks for that reason. The article about TDs in WWII states the M18s gun had the exact same capabilities and results as the M10s gun.

 

The logic of the Doctrine of Tanks for the US Army just doesn't seem like common sense, that tanks shouldn't be armed to face other tanks. On the off chance that the enemy uses other tanks to defend themselves from a tank attack, why not be prepared and have a tank that can defeat other tanks just in case, as an insurance asset. It seems pretty logical. That doctrine doesn't make sense to flat out say don't arm a tank to take on other tanks. Army leaders and strategists had to envision at some point tanks facing off against tanks if the situation dictated it.

 

It is now axiomatic that "the best anti-tank weapon is another tank" but it wasn't obvious before the start of WW2. When Guderian wrote "that the tank's most dangerous enemy is another tank" in a 1936 it was a bold statement. Although tanks had been widely used since 1916, there had only been two significant tank v tank actions in WW1.

Furthermore, the kind of tank armament available in the late 1930s meant that a tank had to either be optimised to kill other tanks and carry a high velocity cannon which had limited use against other targets or machine guns and low velocity howitzers to deal with infantry and soft skinned targets.

Even after the introduction of the M4 with a 75mm gun capable of firing AP and HE the British and US Army up-gunned a proportion of M4s with 76mm guns that were better against tanks than other targets.

 

Perhaps the doctrine doesn't make sense because that never in fact was the doctrine?

From day one the Armored Force doctrine was tanks would periodically fight tanks and would be armed and capable of fighting tanks. Design requirements for the Medium Tank M4 in 1940 included the 75mm gun, a 105mm howitzer, and a 3" gun, the last because it was realized greater penetrating power would be needed to defeat increasing armor protection in tanks. The 3" gun was tested in the Medium Tank M4 within a few months of the first production models rolling out of the factory in February 1942. The design requirements for the replacement for the Medium Tank M4 were completed shortly after that and also called for 3" and possibly 90mm armament.

However, it was also realized that fighting strength with strength was unlikely to yield good results, so the primary use of the armored division was to avoid enemy armor concentrations, penetrate weakly held portions of the enemy front, wreak havoc in enemy rear areas, and pursue a beaten enemy.

 

Some info on the 'panther': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_panther

Where did you find the info regarding a 'cougar'?

 

Ummm, in the source I quoted from and cited in my post.

 

If you're referring to post #26, I'm asking if you could please provide a link, title, etc. as to what "the TD History" is.

 

The source is contradictory...

Because, a few pages later, it quotes General Bruce as saying (middle of page 26)

Forgot to add the link: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a954997.pdf

The cougar quote is at the top of page 24.