M10 mounted MG

[altipueri]

The M10 has been a disappointment all my life.

[Michael Emrys]

The top pic on page 131...

Interesting stuff. I've ordered the book. BTW, the caption to the top pic on p.134 has an interesting comment re the discussion of the effectiveness of screens vs. shaped charged weapons.

Michael

[slysniper]

that book has a ton of photo's.

Many I have never seen before.

It is interesting for just that aspect of it.

I wonder where he collected all them from.

[Michael Emrys]

Zaloga is quite the genius at this sort of thing. I have a couple of his books already and expect to collect more. He must spend all his time in archives poring over photos. He sure comes up with some remarkable and never seen before material.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Tempestzzzz,

You're quite welcome, and there's lots more at the main site.

Michael Emrys,

You may well be right, for I have never read his memoirs. In the statement he made, though, he talked about 90mm bouncing off the sides of the German tanks. A rather neat trick for an M10, which is why I believe he had a small memory slip and pulled up the gun from the M36 which almost immediately began replacing the M10s in the 601st TD Battalion.

Zaloga not only writes excellent books on WW II, but does modern and is a most impressive model builder and constructor of dioramas. See the last two at Missing Lynx.

He also works/worked in the defense industry.

slysniper,

I don't know where he gets them, either, but I was blown away.

altipueri,

A disappointment? In what way? This thing was great at El Guettar! Okay. So, it did lose a LITTLE edge between then and Normandy.

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

Nor does it grok how he could wind up totally exposed to fire from ankles up.

Audie Murphy's fight sounds like a classic 'berserker' mental state, one of the stages of textbook combat fatigue/PTSD. Its really not that uncommon in combat, what is uncommon is a guy in that state surviving more than three minutes before being cut down. We've all seen the cheesy war movies with the blood-covered, bare-chested hero holding a machinegun in each hand screaming as he charges the enemy. 'Berserker'.

[John Kettler]

MikeyD,

Considering all the combat that preceded it, I have no doubt he was running on pure adrenaline. I get that. I simply can't visualize how he could run the .50, yet somehow derive no cover from the turret. I wish I could get a mental image of how he could position himself so as to be able to man the weapon while somehow being fully exposed in the process. Every firing position I've visualized so far either provides some protection from the turret or requires an extraordinary set of contortions, such as standing on the deck, draping himself over the turret, the getting behind the .50 and somehow working it. Thoughts?

Regards,

John Kettler

[altipueri]

@ john Kettler. The M10 has always been a disappointment in my (war gaming) life because it looks as if it should be really powerful yet it is under armoured and the gun is still not a match for the Germans. I spent many hours making models of them, converting the Airfix Sherman as a base, but they still got knocked out in no time in the table top wargames of my youth. Now, my conversion of a PzIV to a Brummbaer, complete with damaged anti-bazooka plates, was much more successful.

Audie Murphy was brave and lucky, it is hard to believe he survived. There is a CMBO scenario based on a true story of a soldier manning a 50 cal until overrun, playing "dead" then starting up firing again, and then the trick is repeated. There's just so much luck good and bad that doesn't seem possible from a considered logical analysis.

[John Kettler]

altipueri,

The design is deliberate, for the TD was supposed to be able, under the doctrine when it was designed, to chase down armor, putting a premium on speed at the expense of protection. If you haven't read Gabel's Seek, Strike & Destroy, I believe you'll find it helpful in explaining why you've had the experience you've had with M10s.

http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf

When it debuted in Tunisia, the Germans had two tanks which matched or overmatched it in firepower: the Panzer IV/F2 (scarce) and the Tiger (laughably scarce). Otherwise the M10 completely outgunned all the German tanks. That happy state didn't continue past Italy, where the Panzer IV/F2 became a Panzer IV/G and the handful of Tigers remained a problem. Something called a Panther also appeared on the battlefield. Still not only did the M10 have most of the German tanks at a disadvantage, but it outgunned the short 75mm armed Shermans. By D-Day in Normandy, there still were very few 76mm armed Shermans. So, despite very real limitations against even tougher Panthers and many more Tiger 1s, as well as lots of Panzer IV/Hs, the M10 was still the best we Americans had.

The Tank Destroyer Field Manual should give you a good sense of how training changed when we discarded the "chase the tank" model and went to lying in wait, carefully camouflaged, with range cards prepared and alternate firing positions ready for occupation.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM18-15.PDF

Here's how it's done. The main site has gobs of TD manuals.

http://www.tankdestroyer.net/images/stories/ManualPDFs/FM18-20%20Tactical%20Employment%20of%20Tank%20Destroyer%20Platoon%20Self-Propelled.pdf

While this kind of info can't undo your losses, maybe it'll give you hope for future engagements (preferably, pre Normandy).

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Yeah, the US TDs weren't really intended to go toe to toe with German tanks, they aren't armored for that. The Soviets had a better idea with the SU-85 and SU-100, which had very thick frontal armor and could well go toe to toe all day long.

The idea for the US TDs was that they would attack the flanks of an armored penetration, preferably from ambush, score a kill or two, and then quickly displace to the next position before effective return fire could be leveled at them. This actually worked rather well with the M18, which had enough speed advantage to displace quickly, and had the highest kill/loss ratio of all the US TDs.

Michael

[altipueri]

Ah yes the Hellcat. Now that was my favourite, but much harder to make because I think you had to take the drive and tracks from the Walker Bulldog model and then build the rest of the superstructure from card. Definitely my favourite, and great name.

There's a book called Panther Soup which follows the career of a Hellcat commander from the landings in South of France until the end of the war. Author is John Gimlette who wrote the excellent "At the Tomb of the Inflatable Pig".

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

The Hellcat's ground pressure was so low it could go anyplace infantry could, which is a lot to wrap one's head around.

altipueri,

I've loved the Hellcat ever since I saw my first pic while in elementary school, a love affair I renewed in a harrowing CMBO scenario called "Hellcat Ridge." Then there's this, in which a trashed Hellcat is restored and reunited with its WW II commander.

I had no idea there was such a thing as a Hellcat memoir. Had to immediately go and see what lay behind Gimlette's other book.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

I hope we get the Hellcat in MG. I urgently want to get my hands on a platoon of them, preferably in Lorraine.

Michael

[MikeyD]

the US TDs weren't really intended to go toe to toe with German tanks... The Soviets had a better idea

I recall reading somewhere (don't take this as gospel) US TDs, or perhaps it was just Hellcat, had something like a 10-1 exchange rate with German armor. A phenominal success rate. Compared to regular old Shermans which may have been reversed, like a 1-to-3 negative exchange rate. The US TD concept wasn't a failure so much as the overall armor doctrine. The tank command came out of the war thoroughly demoralized and the TD force was scapegoated because of it.

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

I think the characterization of the SU-85's and SU-100's protection is a bit exaggerated. The initial SU-85 had pretty much the same frontal armor as a T-34/76, and we know that was killable by lots of German weapons of the period. The later SU-85M had a 50% armor thickness increase, and the SU-100 had the same armor thickness and angle frontally. My knowledge base on combat use of these two is limited, with the best account being ambush in a wheat field in Lithuania by unknown model SU-85s. The Panther (and possibly also some Tiger) force had no idea the Russians were there until they opened fire, and the ambush really hurt. My recollection is that the Russians took no casualties in the ambush. Valera used to have really great English stuff on his site, but a server crash left him with nothing like what he had before as far as translations or pics, from what I've seen. Be sure to see the SU-100 goodies I put up on CMBB.

MikeyD,

I'm still looking for the exchange ratio data, but meanwhile I found this Hellcat site. Weirdly, we are the top post on M18 exchange ratio.

http://m18hellcat.com/m18hellcat/Home.html

altipueri,

Here's what TankDestroyer.net had on the 824th TD Battalion, Putnam Flint's former outfit.

http://tankdestroyer.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=282:824th-tank-destroyer-battalion&catid=45:battalions800s&Itemid=103

Regards,

John Kettler

[PzKfW]

Thank you very much on the reference to Zaloga's body of work

[John Kettler]

PzKfw,

You're most welcome! If and when you get tired of Zaloga's treadhead groggery, may I suggest you look at some of his material on strategic weapons, such as TARGET AMERICA (very meaty and have read) and the way more recent THE KREMLIN'S SWORD (just learned of it)?

Regards,

John Kettler

[PzKfW]

Hi John, those two books are probably great, but I'm really interested in his ww2 archival work. The cold war was a tragedy in my opinion. I'm just glad the LeMay types didn't win out. Thanks, though.

[Michael Emrys]

I think the characterization of the SU-85's and SU-100's protection is a bit exaggerated.

That wouldn't surprise me. However, compared to the protection of the US TDs it was a significant increase.

Michael

[PzKfW]

I recall reading somewhere (don't take this as gospel) US TDs, or perhaps it was just Hellcat, had something like a 10-1 exchange rate with German armor. A phenominal success rate. Compared to regular old Shermans which may have been reversed, like a 1-to-3 negative exchange rate. The US TD concept wasn't a failure so much as the overall armor doctrine. The tank command came out of the war thoroughly demoralized and the TD force was scapegoated because of it.

Have you read "Death Traps"? Talk about demoralized...

[Erwin]

Any ideas why the Hellcat was so much superior? Only things I can think of was very fast turret and its own speed.

[Michael Emrys]

Any ideas why the Hellcat was so much superior? Only things I can think of was very fast turret and its own speed.

It probably helped that by the time it came into use the Army had figured out how not to use them. Also, the quality of German tankers, like the rest of the German army, was in decline.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Erwin,

The Hellcat was tiny and sat low, making it a pretty tough target to hit. Worse in turret defilade!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Thought you might find this image interesting:

I spotted it on the dustcover of one of Zaloga's books and it gave me pause as I had never seen an M10 with the hedgerow plow before. The website where I found this says it was near Normandy, but Zaloga says the picture was taken at Düren. Quite a difference in both distance and time.

Michael

[altipueri]

Just read one of the links John Kettler provided, and read about Murphy dying in a private plane crash after the war aged 46.

Reminded me that a great book on 82nd Airborne is an autobiography by Ross S Carter called "Those Devils in Baggy Pants". He served in Africa, Italy, Normandy and the Ardennes. One of only 3 (I think) of his original platoon to survive. He wrote the book while dying of cancer aged 28.