Su-100 v's M36Jackson.

Very true.

On the US side, there were times when tank targets were few that their tank destroyers were used as Ad hoc artillery.

This is true. The move to the MBT did away with or greatly reduced many types of armored vehicles. Light and heavy tanks and the tracked tank destroyer. The point I was trying to make was that if you look at the underlying parameters of each design, today's dedicated anti-tank platforms more closely resemble the US type. 360 vs limited arcs of fire, lightly vs heavily armored, an effective anti-tank gun is merely replaced by the anti-tank missle, and high mobility. The ability to attack from ambush I thought was a universal need/tactic but TOS' description of Soviet doctrine in the use of the SU-100 changes that. Carronade's Jagdpanther would be even more capable than the SU-100 in this role because of it's thicker armor.

Both the M-50 Ontos and M-56 Scorpion were designed to be air portable to provide airborne forces with an anti-tank capability. The Army failed to adopt the M-50 and the Marine Corps took all production, the Army did adopt and deploy the M-56, but because the US military did not (with one exception, Lang Vei) encounter enemy armor both weapons were used in the fire support role.

4th Wilts wrote:

I think it would be more accurate to say that it was a combination of these two factors. The original US tank destroyer was the M3 GMC (Gun Motor Carriage), a 75mm gun M1897A4 mounted in an M3 halftrack. When the M-10 (actually 3-in GMC M-10) was developed, it was decided to replace the limited traverse of the M3 with the 360 degree traverse of a turret. The vehicle was lightly armored because, US doctrine called for fast, highly mobile tank destroyers. This was really the correct decision because of the main type of combat the US ended up facing, more offensive than defensive and stressing mobility.

For the Germans it was more a case of they saw a need for tank destroyers and because of lack of production capabilities they developed the weapons system and the doctrine came afterwards. Early war, when they started encountering more heavily armored enemy tanks the relatively light main gun, of the main German tanks, proved inadequate. They needed a quick way to field a more potent AT gun and provide more molility than a towed piece. They mounted existing anti-tank guns on available chassis. PzII's with captured Soviet 76.2mm anti-tank guns=the Marder II, Czech 38(t) chassis with captured Russian 76.2 guns, then later German 75mm PaK 40's=Marder III. These types were lightly armored and used gun shields with limited crew protection. Germany by this time was being forced over to the defensive and the need for crew protection and the success of the Stug (originally a self propelled assault gun mounting a short barrelled, low velocity 75mm, later upgraded to a long barrelled, high velocity 75mm for anti-tank purposes) led to development of more heavily armored casemated types. It was easier and cheaper to mount larger caliber guns in the casemated types than to develop and build turreted types.

 

Interesting. I remember reading where US tank crews were asked what they wanted bigger gun or more armor and they also went with a bigger gun.

 

A report of an M10 TD Batalion in the Anzio beachhead, 'BRASSING OFF KRAUT' By Maj. Edward A. Raymond, FA.

Interesting to note a comment from the unit.

"Brassing Off Kraut" - Tank Destroyers at Anzio, Field Artillery Journal (Lone Sentry)

 

The early version of the Pz IV and late versions of the Pz III used the 75mm L/24 Gun, this short barrelled gun held the advantage in urban fighting because of the 360 degree turret traverse and due to the small barrel of the gun could not get caught trying turn in a tight corner to hit a target.
Yan.

 

US Tank Destroyer generally outperformed M4 Shermans in tank engagements in ETO. M-18 which was the most fragile of TD's achieved the highest kill: loss ratio against German armor in WWII (Harry Yeide, Tank Killers). The SP tank destroyer's main defect was its vulnerability to overhead artillery bursts, small arms, and lack of armored protection when used offensively to support infantrymen, which constituted the majority of its missions in WWII. In tank fighting, American tank destroyers were not so poorly protected that they were worse off than the Sherman tank; one would be hard pressed to name a German antitank weapon that could knock out a M-10 Wolverine but not a Sherman M4A1.

 

To put the abandonment of Tank Destroyers into perspective, the most powerful American tank destroyer, the M-36 Jackson, mounted the same gun that the M-26 Pershing had, while the most prolific US TD, the M-10, had virtually the same armament as the M4A3E8 tank. When your tanks could do the jobs the TDs have, does it make sense to maintain a seperate branch of arms and proliferate the type of AFVs in service? The tank destroyer concept was abandoned not because tank destroyers were bad at hunting tanks, but because it was more desirable to field a medium battle tank that had a blend of lethality, mobility and survivability.

 

And less logistics having to field different weapons systems. Commonality is one thing, SAME thing is better.

 

Thanks guys,so do you think each gun was ideal for for each T.D.too,and could an did already existing (U.S.76mm H.V.)guns have done better.?Cheers,Lee.

 

The US 76mm was not powerful enough to deal with the German heavies at long range, that was the reason for the M 36 replacing the M 10. The 100mm gun of the SU-100 was very similar to the gun mounted on the T-54 T-55 series tanks and that created the same situation as the M-36 TD not having a better gun than the contemporary Pattons. It made little sense keep a distinct TD when the standard tank carried the same gun so TD were slowly phased out. AFAIK the only country that developed a gun TD post WW2 was Germany with the 90mm Jagdpanzer Kannone that served alongside the M.47 and M-48 , as it shared the chassis with the Marder and was significantly lighter/cheaper than the MBT some standardisation was still there.

 

Well depending on how you define it the "S-tank" might fit in that catafory. I think France and Italy also had some light vehicles with heavy guns that might fit as well as vehicles like the LAV-105 or the AGS. Let's not forget the Sheridan either.

 

One more non-turreted TD was the Soviet ASU-85. This was developed in the 1950s for airborne forces, so the key constraint was weight. I doubt they considered the 85mm gun optimal, except in the case of that or nothing at all. It could be dropped by parachute, using rockets to slow the descent just before landing - not sure if the Soviets made the crew ride it down or if the parachuted separately - and until antitank missiles came along it gave airborne troops a capability they would not otherwise have had. I believe they had some helicopters that could lift it also.

 

Come to think of it, this could be a followon to the original question. The US equivalent of the ASU-85 was the M-56 Scorpion, featuring a completely unprotected 90mm gun on a 360 degree mounting. As with the SU-100 and M-36, we have comparable guns, one fully enclosed and at least lightly armored (40mm max) but with restricted traverse, the other with unrestricted traverse but vulnerable (even to small arms).

 

Thanks for all of your posts guy's,i for one have enjoyed this thread a great deal.Cheers,Lee.

 

I think we enjoyed it just as much, Lee. Thanks for starting it.

 

Hey guys,just an afterthought .do you think the M36 could have been developed earlier,to get to the frontline units.?

 

No. The "battle-need" was simply not there. However, there could have been M4 (90mm) tanks.
Tthe development team of the M26 tank underestimated the time required for completing the design. Army Ordnance, acting on bad information, decided against up-gunning Sherman tanks with 90mm gun to conserve those valuable weapons for the M26.

 

Now,if I threw the M18 hellcat into this discussion,judging by the posts above,doctrine,guns etc.i think we would have the right crack.! Lol.Cheers.Lee.

 

The French AMX 10RC mounts a 105mm with excellent armor penetrating capability though its role is considered armor support and recon.

 

Interesting thread. Two points that I would like to share...One is that part of the reason for the failure of TD doctrine was that no one followed it (big generalization, I know.) Why keep a doctrine no one is going to follow? Second, the belief I come away with from reading Harry Yiede's book on TD's is that they could and did handle German armor without any problem. He cites engagement after engagement where we took out German armor and suffered reasonable casualties.

 

The M18 had the highest kill to loss ratio against German tanks in ETO. The problem was, the Hellcat's armor was too thin to stop 20-mm flak guns and lent itself poorly for infantry support in certain types of terrain. However, Patton's Third Army used M18s to excellent effect during the mobile phase of Overlord by mixing TD platoons with mechanized recon units, which were then able to run around strong points and shoot up German armor.