M-10 Wildcat?

Thanks, I thought I gave it in my original post. Oh, I see, I gave the bibliographic citation for it; must have clipped it from my manuscript.

Anyway, the "source" isn't contradictory. The "black cougar" is the description of the distinctive insignia. "Panther-like" is Bruce's imagining of what TD tactics would be. Remember, they also wanted to develop "tank destroyer commandos" who would sneak into German tank laagers at night and slit the throats of crews and the like. On occasion, delving into some of the early TD development is like reading a comic book.

 

One of the articles from that Tank Destroyer website described the Doctrine that I posted where it said "tanks shouldn't be armed to face other tanks."

 

Which article? Where does it say that?

Meanwhile, the Armor Force doctrinal documents say different.

 

Its from an article link on the TankDestroyer.net site he linked, I just closed it out, it was a 4-page article, I'm going through my history so I can recall it and cite it.

 

It was the article from Armor mag, the 1991 issue, the article was called Tank Destroyers in World War II...Flawed Doctrine, Unmatched Bravery by First Lieutenant John Nagl

 

Lieutenant Nagl probably should have stuck with trying to eat soup with a knife...

 

I know, that didn't really make sense to have our own strategists put our tanks at a disadvantage over a bad strategy. I cam understand wanting a separate TD arm, and not wanting tanks to go after other tanks and always battle other tanks, but they should have the capabilities to at least defend themselves or do some damage to other tanks if it came down to it.

 

I too have talked to a ww2 vet and he didn't know what a wolverine was when I asked him but knew the m10.

 

I presume that would be Panther Soup? :eyebrows:

I believe that the cougar vs. panther debate is mostly a non-issue. I doubt that the person who wrote up the "official description" was thinking about it in precise zoological terms. While cougar may have been in the official description, it seems that "panther" was in use at least as early as August 1944: Panther vs. Panzer by Major Gilbert A. Ellman, FA -Military Review, August, 1944.

 

In Lt. Nagl's defense, he was talking about tank destroyers, not tanks. Also, he wasn't advocating it, he was describing the rationale behind why TD's were given less armor and why that led to the much maligned tank destroyer doctrine.

 

Nope. That would be Eating Soup with a Knife http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/L/bo3649905.html by the now retired LTC John Nagl. He transitioned from being an Armor officer to being a counter-insurgency "expert" some years ago.

And that was rather my point, I doubt any of the officers in the newly created TD Command were biologists.

 

Sorry, but you still fail to understand there was no such thing. The "strategy" was effectively the same for the vaunted Panzers - attack where the enemy was weak, especially in tanks. No one followed a "strategy" of using their tank arm to seek out and duel with the enemy tank arm...that is simply nonsensical.

 

I understand that, I was just thinking out loud something else. I didn't say the strategy was go out and find other tanks.

 

The M10 had the sloped armor and more powerful gun than the M4, if they made the armor thicker, fully armored and covered the turret, and made it powered the M10 could have been a solid tank in its own right.

 

Very true. The reports from Royal Artillery M10 Anti Tank units was that it was very good but could be better with over head cover, and a co-axial machine gun.

Easier met with an up-gunned M4...

 

You're basically asking for a new tank just with a 3 inch gun and slightly more slope to the armor. Remember that nice little picture of Boromir talking about how easy it is to change the Sherman's main gun.

This comes up every time when someone asks why the US tanks weren't better. Rather than have people say change this or change that I'd like to see them list the specifications that they think US tanks and tank destroyers should have had. Then we have something definite to debate over.

 

The armor on the M10 was sloped all the way around and the body seemed more sleek, where as the Sherman grew taller and the side armor was flat up and down.

 

The reason the sherman was approx 10.5 inches taller was because they covered the turret which is what you propose to do to the M10.

 

It seemed like the body grew taller and taller where the frontal slope was, where the M10 the body just goes straight across.

 

The M 4 was based on the M3 so it's silhouette is based on the common power plant, a Wright aircraft radial air cooled engine If you look at a section cut through a M4 radial, later that had a variety of engines, you will notice the drive shaft comes out of the center of the radial making it rather high as is the cylinder bank. The drive shaft passes below the turret basket , all of which gives the M 4 it's distinctive side elevation and over all shape.

The M 10 uses the basic chassis of the M4 as well as suspension but it was resigned around a General Motors pair of diesels with a lower height and the crank near the bottom giving it the flat top you describe and lowering the height of the tank. I believe a a top could have been added with a slight lower profile that the Sherman turret and given the chassis reduction would have resulted in a OA height probably 6-7 inches lower if not a tad more. A cupola would gain some of that back but over a smaller area.

US planning put production as a priority over introducing new designs. It the 30's the US army suffered huge budget cuts and tank development was not a high priority. In the 30's it would have been possible for the US to have developed a tank with torsion bar suspended large road wheels to carry the treads, lowering the chassis , and developing a V-8, 10 or 12 cylinder diesel, sloped armor, . they did make a large diameter turret ring that accommodated a turret for the eventual the 76mm quite well . An HE round for it could not have been difficult... A reliable tank, just as easy to ship, and a better platform to develop. But production would have been less. I think it was more about decisions than ability. The above would have been the first MBT to me.

The M10, 18, 36 and M4 all did a good job. The tank I described could have replaced them all. As for the 90mm M 36, The Israeli's managed to get a pretty good French 105 tank cannon in their Super Shermans , admittedly with a shortened barrel and case but it served it's country well if briefly..

Gaines