Top 5 Tank Destroyers

I will go with Achille for the western allies It had every thing good speed ,good armament(17 pdr could penetrate Tiger and Panther at 900m and 800m) and It did not need to flank this tanks or to come close of them to win

 

Sorry Freund But ur Achilles Had less Armour & Speed Than M18-Hell cat ,Although it has more Powerfull Gun=17 Pounder (76.2mm)!!
By M18-Hell cat Could Easly Flank a German Tank ,Nevertheless That Could Make Her Sides Valnurable!!

 

A lot of M-10 men refused to take the M-18 and could not be induced to do so. One complaint was the 76mm gun barrel was too long which made it hard to drive in narrow streets and limited gun traverse in close-quarters combat in built up areas. The other was the paper thin armor that was highly vulnerable to artillery and anti-tank guns. Battlefield reality was that TDs more often fought as mobile infantry assault guns and must take the to the offensive as tanks.

Do not misunderstand me, I like the M-18 a great deal. It was ideal for mobile warfare and an extremely lethal tank killer. When an Armored Division was pushing 40 km a day there was nothing better than deploying the M-18 at the head of the armor columns, which massively augmented the firepower of the light recce. troopers. But I do not feel that it can be considered one of the best TDs because the draw backs were quite frankly severe. It was not a well-balanced AFV. The M-36 which combined the 90mm, gyro-stabilizer and motorized turret traverse and decent armor was much better, and if it did not resemble the American concept of the TD, that was because the TD doctrine failed to withstand the test of battle.

 

Triple C,

There are two ways to employ tank destroyers: offensively and defensively. The US tended to stick with the offensive as they were on the offensive when the M18s and M10s came into production. Offensive tanks had light armor, a powerful gun, and were fast. The M18 fit this role perfectly, it was extremely fast, reliable (its engine could be changed in two hours with a trained crew!) and its 76mm proved better than the 3in on the M10 and was certainly capable of penetrating most tanks from the front and almost all from the side. I am not talking about US TD doctrine here, I am talking about the need for an offensive TD and how well the M18 filled that. In terms of armor protected it is lacking. However, as I said before the M10 was also extremely light armor. While it had 39-51 mm in the front on the sides it was no greater than 25 mm. That made the M10 also very vulnerable to artillery fire and to pretty much every tank gun that could threaten the M18. As for the problems you presented, yes those are drawbacks. The M18 and M10 both had a traverse of 360º but in terms of elevation the M10 could elevate 10º higher. And yes the M18's gun was longer making it had to maneuver in a tight city street. I would consider the latter only a minor problem as it was not exactly designed to be maneuvering tight street corners, and I don't see an issue like that arising much anyhow. The M18's gun barrel was not absurdly long, it was essentially on par with th M4A3 (76) and the Pz Kpfw IV. I think, overall that the M18 comes out on top. However, that is not to put down the M10, it was a perfectly capable vehicle. As for the M36, it came into production rather late, and was used more in the assault gun role.

 

Sorry Freund ,that is not true

A quote from JagdtigerI:

:

and that Could Make M18 Sides Valnurable too!

 

JagdtigerI

for example. In offensive war like desert storm the Abrams destroyed T-72 at 4000m , the Abrams (which have excellent armor ,armament and speed 65 km\hour ) could easily come close or flank T 72
(T 72 could not destroy Abrams even from the side) but they did not do that
because it is suicide mission for the Abrams, they preferred to be far away from the enemy as they could


so a tank had less armament than the enemy tanks ,no armor and had open-topped turretpen-topped turret (a characteristic which it shared with the M10) left the crew exposed to snipers, grenades and shell fragments all that made M18 very vulnerable to artillery , infantry, tank and AT gun fire at any range

though a tank had such disadvantages had to come close and flank the Panther or even a PZ IV

I think it is a crazy and suicide mission

The doctrinal priority of high speed at the cost of armor protection thus led to an unbalanced design While the M18 was capable of high road speeds this attribute was difficult to use successfully in combat

so I think the only reason to be in top 5 that it is simply American

 

Mountan,

That is an offensive tank destroyer for you . The M10 and M18 were not unlike the Panzerjager, Maurder, Nashorn and other tank destroyers the Germans used in the offensive role. Adding armor adds wieght therefore decreasing mobility and increasing the length of production. If you want a defensive tank destroyer than you got your Jagdpanzer IV, Jagdpanther, Elefant, etc. Each type had it's own perks but a TD with a fixed turret and reduced mobility and reliability is not what the Allies needed in their push across France.

 

It might be surprising to some, but the real threat to American TDs were anti-tank guns, artillery and bazookas. German panzers were not much feared in the TD battalions as the men were well trained and very proficient at tank-hunting.

 

JagdTigerI,

The problem with the M18 is that it's armour was so thin that 20mm AP rounds could tear straight through it. It offered almost no protection for the crew with the exception of against regular small arms fire. And this quite frankly just wasn't enough, the vehicle was far to vulnerable.

The Achilles on the other hand offered the crew better protection and the powerful gun made it capable of engaging German tanks at long range, something which would've been considered pure suicide in a tank like the M18 or M10.

Still Western Allied TD battalions prefered close range battles where they could utilize their speed & mobility to take out the opposition. They trained a lot in outflanking German tanks and overwhelming them from both sides at the same time. And in general the TD battalions thought a lot more about tactics than the any of the regular armoured units, and it certainly payed off for them.

That having been said the TD battalions were as afraid of the German heavies as were the regular units, reading about many of the accounts it is often mentioned that at no other point was the atmosphere more tense then when hunting one of the German cats. The Pz.IV's were considered equal opponents, and didn't really scare anyone in the TD units, they had dealt with plenty of these before with success, and they felt that they were better at the cat and mouse game than the regular German tank crews.

 

What are your sources? There were certain M4 75mm M3 armed units that were very adept at knocking out German heavies simply by fighting unconventionally using WP rounds instead of regular HE or AP rounds.

 

I and Proeliator shared the same point ,Achille and M36 did not need to flanking German tanks because they could fire the first shot at long range so they have a good chance to survive without adding armor

 

My information about WP rounds is too little ,so any information , plz

 

The Germans used the Elefant in offensive battle ( Kursk)

on the other hand The Russians used DT similar to the Germans although they were in offensive war (in 1943 ,1944, 1945) such as (SU 85,SU 100) and they did very well

but when the Russians wanted a tank to flank the Germans tanks while SPG fired at long range they selected T34
The T34 have a good speed , very good armor and good numbers to successfully flanking the Germans tanks

In 1942 the Americans wanted to copy T34 and the result was M10
though they were very similar in many characteristics (shape ,role , speed and many tank parts) but M10 and M18 lacked the one thing which was T34 had and that was the good armor

and I do not need to write the armor details to clear my point

I know the Russians lost a lot of T34 in the war and that was because the whole tactic was weak

So in successful offensive war the tanks must have the ability to destroy the target from the long range that they can and have the first shot and that is true in defensive war too

 

That seems a rather strange statement to me. The M-4 and the T34 were close enough that I see no reason the US would have wanted a T34 copy.

 

Very adept ? Like one or two cases ? And for what type of losses ?

When encountered by the one of the German cats the regular US armoured units either retreated or resorted to desperate measures, it was all they could do.

Here's an example of a M4 Sherman actually ramming a Tiger Ausf.B which was causing havoc on the Allied tanks in the area:


And here a Tiger Ausf.E having been rammed as-well:


icky, you can read this book: US tank and tank destroyer battalions in the ETO 1944-45 by Steven J. Zaloga

 

The WP use against German tanks is well documented in a number of histories, particularly of the 4th Armored Division. This seems to have been a common practice with Third Army troops. The WP round would be fired to simply hit the German tank somewhere. The results would be first, a cloud of smoke that would likely blind the crew. Second, the acrid smoke produced would be sucked into the tank via the ventilation system and choke the crew.
This was found by US crews to give them time to pump several more rounds into the target or time to run and hide before being shot to pieces.

I have also read a number of cases of US crews being very quick on the trigger. The faster and smoother turret rotation of US tanks and AFV allowed crews to get on target very rapidly. In one case of mistaken identity I read about a US tank crew came around the corner of a road in a town. A British armored car crew had staked out that corner and was already laid to fire if anything came around it. The US tank crew rounded the corner and before the British could get off a shot the US crew had put two rounds into their armored car. Thankfully, the British crew survived the experiance but were absolutely stunned with how quickly the US crew had opened fire on them.

 

The American TD concept was not offensive. McNair wanted fast tank destroyers so that they can mass against German armor concentrations at a point of breakthrough and stop them there. If he had his way all TDs would be towed 3-in. guns.

No tank or other armored fighting vehicle in the US Army was a copy of the T-34. M10 was a M4 chasis stripped of armor with a open top, hand-cranked 3-in. gun turret. It was meant to give the 3-in. gun a more mobile and stable platform than a half-track, like the M3 TD.

There are plenty of examples. Free French 2 AD routed a Pz Bde in Lorraine. US 4 AD destroyed two Pz Bdes in Arracourt. US 2 AD smashed Pz Lehr in St. Lo, mauled 2 SS Pz D near Avranches and then destroyed the 2 Pz D in Celles. In all of those operations the Americans inflicted lopsided losses on the Germans while suffering very little casualties themselves.

It really depends. If the Americans stumbled into massed, counterattacking German armor without detecting it, then the panzers prevail. Panzer attacks against alert Americans deployed in defensive array would fail with heavy losses.

A good example of this was 2 AD's unpleasant encounter with the 9 Pz D; the 9 Pz, with only one Pz Bn available, decimated a combat comand of the 2 AD and forced the later into defensive positions in towns. But 2 AD resumed its attack the very next morning and found the 9 Pz D gone, because the later possessed inadequate strength to pry the Americans from their positions and decided further attacks would be futile. Another example was the stand of CCR pf the 3 AD in the Battle of the Bulge; in spite of vastly inferior numers, 3 AD mauled the 116 Pz D so savagely that the 116 Pz commander reported his troops demoralized and abandoned the attack. 2 SS attacks against 3 AD positions in the area were similarly unsuccessful, despite even or better numbers.

A panzer defending positions against a US armored formation that did not air or artillery in hand had a good chance of stopped the advance for a while before retreating or being surrounded; if air or artillery came into play the Germans would be wiped out or pushed out within the day. Peiper in La Gleize, for example, was overwhelmed by TF McGeorge, 3 AD in three days of intense combat in spite of having six Tiger Bs. The same omnipresent TF McGeorge then attacked and pushed out the 2 SS Das Reich in Grenmenil--again despite of Panthers and good defensive positions--in two day's work.

More typically, the American tanks would advance so quickly under a protective umbrella of air power that the sheer speed and mass of American attack would easily overwhelm Germany penny packets of tanks. The 2, 3, 4, 6, 10 AD had all done this with the most remarkable verve and tactical flair.

 

Well I have read his "Lorraine 1944-1945 Patton versus Mantueffel" and his "Siegfried Line 1944-1945" books both describe what I have mentioned before. Read pages 19-20 of his M-18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer" book . I do admit he goes onto say the M-18 was an ill concieved idea BUT it's crews still performed very well ,liked the vehicle very well,and the M-18 certainly came out ahead of it's German counterparts. The M-10 & especially the M-36 performed yeoman work . At the Battle of Arracourt where there equal number of 75mm M3 armed M4's & Panthers the Sherman's clearly came out on top and there wasn't any interference at all from Allied airforces in this battle.

 

Smoother ?? That's a very odd statement. There was no difference in the "smoothness" of the turret travel between a Sherman or any German tank, only a difference in turret traverse speed. So I'm not sure why you would say such a thing.

 

I actually have heard smoother before. The electrically powered turrets were highly responsive to the gunner's control and and M18 was an extreme example. Fine aiming was done manually because the traverse was too fast and too sensitive.