Top 5 Tank Destroyers

I think the M18 was a suicide idea but thanks to the American crews who made it very effective
but it did not deserve to be the 1st or 2nd in top 5

and I did not mean the American wanted exactly T34 copy ,They wanted a DT which share some T34 characteristics (good speed to flank the tanks) and the Germans did the same (Panther) but they selected a more powerful gun to be able to fire at longer range so the three tanks had similar shape (not exactly)

the Germans used that for their benefit so they rigged up Panthers to look like M10's ,the U.S. stars were painted on both sides and also on the top of the turret, the entire tank was painted O.D., and U.S. unit markings were painted on the false bow and rear.

 

OK but look at the Hetzer ,it generally get's high marks BUT it's traverse of it's gun was the least of any German JagdPanzer,it had a very poor crew layout with the loader & gunner on the left hand side of a gun designed for right handed operation,they were also isolated from the ammo supply. the commander was remote in the right hand rear of the vehicle with inadequate means of observation and he could hardly co-operate with the gunner & driver in order to engage targets. The Hetzer was Well armed & armored along with being extremely well shaped/low silhouette versus say the M10/M-18 but those serious defects I mentioned before can be very telling.
Now as far as the M-18 being a suicide idea let me ask you this even if it had the armor of say the M4A3E8 would it have made any difference ? I mean even if it had 50-75mm armor it would have been vulnerable to just about any German tank/AT gun at most battlefield ranges anyways.

 

I am agree with u in some points

if M18 had 150 mm it will still suicide idea, I am talking here about the whole idea( which was coming close or flanking more powerful tank to be able to penetrate it)
my solution was equipping the M10 with more powerful gun which had the ability to fire at the longer range before the enemy tank
A quote from me

And what about Stug or SU85/100? I think they deserve to be 1st and 2nd in top 5

 

This is still untrue. Nothing in the M10 resembled the T-34, from the engine, suspension, transmission, turret layout, gun, armor thickness to doctrinal role. Nothing at all.

 

I was also flumoxed by "moutan1", and his statement.

"The chassis was from the M4A3 Medium Tank with the upper hull and turret were unique to the M10. The hull had bosses on it that could have additional armor attached." (Tank Data 2, Aberdeen Proving Grounds Series, E. J. Hoffschmidt and W. H. Tantum IV, 1969)

 

Smoother. In a late war German tank traverse was hydraulic and dependent on engine speed for speed of rotation. The gunner could only roughly lay the turret on target and had to make final adjustments by hand with the manual controls. This is due to the inability to fine control the rate of traverse with the hydraulic system. Hydraulics take a light touch (try operating heavy construction equipment some time) and can be jerky if you are heavy handed in their operation. They also don't respond instantly to changes in motion.
US vehicles had a variable speed electric traverse that allowed the gunner to both fast traverse onto a target then use low speed and fine control to lay the gun. This made for a much faster on target time that has been repeatedly documented in numerous histories. And, in tank engagements he who is on target first and firing first usually wins.

 

The M 18 was part of an overall doctrinal concept. It is less effective looking only when you don't consider the context in which it was used.

The US self-propelled tank destroyer battalion included a large reconnissance section that was intended to scout ahead of the battalion. This gives the unit vital information on their enemy that may be denied them in return. The inclusion of the reconnissance section was to allow the tank destroyers to choose their own time and location for engagment and increase the chances of surprise.
There was also a security section in each tank destroyer company. These sections included dismountable machinegun and bazooka teams that could give some cover to the tank destroyers from enemy infantry.
Another inclusion was a section of construction equipment including excavators, pneumatic hammers and, other equipment for quickly digging in the vehicles. This was included to allow the battalion on the defensive to dig their vehicles in for added protection. Doctrine called for this to be done in 30 minutes or so. Whether this was exactly the actual case in action is irrelevant. The unit could dig in rapidly comparatively.

The M 18 fit into this doctrine being a very fast maneuverable vehicle that could quickly respond to the information the reconnissance team provided. On the defensive the vehicle's armor was complemented by it being able to be dug in up to the turret very quickly by unit assets. As an example, in one battle fought by the 804th TD battalion in the Lorraine campaign M 18s out ran attacking German Panthers to a ridge line where they engaged the Germans from hull down positions knocking out serveral tanks for the loss of one of their own. Other battalion sections ran around the flank of the German unit and popped up to engage them from an unexpected direction.
While just one of many examples, the speed of the M 18 proved very valuable in combat.

 

In the late 1930s and early 1940s the US developed a new tactical doctrine, whereby fast-moving armored formations were to be countered by a new tank destroyer force comprising towed and self propelled high-velocity and anti-tank guns. One of the first operational results of this was the M10. As stated before, the M10 was an M4A2 chassis, with a thinly armored, open-top turret and a high velocity 76.2-mm gun.

The M18 was the only vehicle specifically designed for the US Army's tank destroyer role. It was far smaller than the M10 and weighed half as much. The 76.2-mm M1A1 gun on the M18 was a development of the 3-in used on the M10 but with better all around performance. As far as armor, the M18 relied upon its mobility and striking power to defend itself. I think it is unfair to heavily criticize the M18's armor protection when comparing it to the M10. The M10's front superstructure was only 38-mm thick, its side turret and hull were 25-mm, and the side superstructure was only 19-mm thick.

 

I read about it in this web M10 Wolverine Summary

<<Development

<<<The 3 inch Gun Motor Carriage T35 was the prototype of the M10. It had a 3 inch gun (76.2 mm) in a new sloped, circular, open topped turret, that was developed from the turret used on the Heavy Tank T1/M6, it was mounted on an early production Medium Tank M4A2 hull. The design may have been motivated by the success of the Soviet T-34, which it resembles in many ways including the similar armor thickness and slope and the choice of main gun. The T35 was improved upon; it was given a sloped hull built on the M4A2 chassis, and had its circular turret replaced with a pentagonal turret, this model was designated the 3 inch Gun Motor Carriage T35E1. In June 1942 the 3 inch GMG T35E1 had its designation changed to become the 3 in Gun Motor Carriage M10, and ordered into full production. A British variant, designated "Achilles", was developed to mount the successful 17-pounder anti-tank gun in a modified turret. It was used by the British, Canadian and Polish armies in Italy and north-west Europe>>>

But the another DT Did not need air cover or surprising the enemy to do better and here we are talking about which was the best TD without any support ,another point, that Americans replaced M10 and M18 with M36(which did not need to flank the German tanks)and that was the solution
Can I ask you, what is your top 5 TD?

 

Did you notice the qualifiers in your own post?

The design may have been motivated by the success of the Soviet T-34, which it resembles in many ways including the similar armor thickness and slope and the choice of main gun.

 

Your source is wrong. The T-34's armor was thin but extremely well-sloped that more than doubled the effectiveness of its armor plate. The M10 had like the T-34 only 45mm of armor, but sloped unfavorably. It was a stripped down M4. But at no point was the T-34 designed to sacrifice protection for speed.

The M18 was a deadly weapon in anti-tank combat. That its armor was thin was almost irrelevant. In a successful deployment of TDs, a panzer column was often destroyed in a matter of seconds without firing a shot or scoring a hit in return.

As TD crews and their combat records showed time and time again, it was the German infantry AT weapons that posed the greatest threat to TDs, not the cats.

 

Is that so? I have always thought that the 76mm was a 3-in. gun with improved simplicity and reduced bulk, along with a couple of ease-of-use refinements.

 

Hi Triple C,

The M7 was used in the M6 heavy tank and the M10 tank destroyer. However, when trying to develop a new gun for the M4, the M7 76-mm proved to be too cumbersome and difficult to fit into a small M4 turret. What they developed instead was the T1, it used the same projectile as the M7 but with a different propellant casing. Because they were so similar, they tended to cause confusion with the troops so the M7 was labeled the 3-in gun and the T1 was labeled the 76-mm. However, they were both of the 76.2-mm caliber. The initial T1 had a length of 57 calibers which lead to traverse problems due to the excess weight at the front of the turret. So the barrel was cut down by 15-in making it 52 calibers. The initial T1 then became known as the M1 76-mm and the shorted version became the M1A1 gun. The gun was then further developed into the M1A1C with threads for a muzzle brake and the barrel had rifling of one turn for each 40 calibers, and the M1A2 with threads for a muzzle brake and rifling of one turn for each 32 calibers.

 

The 76mm was an entirely new design. It used a concentric spring recoil mechanism, was substancially lighter as the barrel used a better steel reducing its thickness, the breech was all new too. The M 10's 3" was basically the same as the pre-war 3" AA gun developed in the late 20's early 30's.

As for size, the M 18 is about the same size and almost the same height as the StuG III.

 

Yes and I use the word "developed" loosely. The M1A1 can be traced back to the M7's inability to fit into the M4 turret. The T1 was then developed using the same projectile, and so on.

 

ok ,I think you are right ,I read it four years ago and I did not think about it at all ,

Anyway tell me why the Americans replaced M18(which could destroy any cat on her way)


and let me ask you which is your top 5 TD

 

The M18 was not replaced. Very roughly 1/4 of the TD Bn was equipped with M18s, about the same number M36s and the rest were equipped with M10s. I don't have a top 5 TD list as I don't feel it's a good doctrine. When you look at the StuG, JgPz and Soviet SUs most of them doubled as assault guns. Even at that, it's much better to have more medium tanks. But if I have to make a list, it would be StuG III/IV, M36, SU-122, Marder in no particular order.

 

I mean after the war and it's much much much better to have more or better medium tanks

 

Sorry but you're simply not right about this. I've seen both in operation. The German hydraulic system was just as smooth as the US electric one, and not jerky at all in any way, and frankly I have no idea where you got this idea from ? Also hydraulics are infact in general very smooth in their operation. Furthermore both nations used manual controls for long range gun laying where extreme fine tuning was often needed.

The great thing about the German hydraulic system however was that while it didn't offer as fast a traverse as the US electric system it did however offer higher precision during traverse.

 

I suspect that political leanings played a large part in US TD doctrine. It was primarily a defensive doctrine. IE fast moving TDs that could get in front of an armored thrust ambush it and then displace before becoming decisively engaged. This fits well with US inter war leanings even the B-17 was justified as being used for continental defence vs naval threats. In that regard it was a pretty decent doctrine. The problem was the US army armored forces for the most part were on the offensive during WWII.