601st TD Battalion AARs

[John Kettler]

These are the formerly SECRET declassified AARS covering, inter alia, the 601st's sojourn in Italy.

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p4013coll8/id/3582/filename/3592.pdf

The AARs give a real sense of what the battalion did, where it did it, what the threats were, casualties inflicted, casualties sustained and the painfully acquired lessons learned. There is much groggy goodness here (lots of stuff on military and technical improvements), and, unlike the late war ones, these AARs are quite legible. Believe some of you will find the scale of harassing fires simply stunning. I did.

Regards,

John Kettler

[BigDork]

I demand screenshots!!! Text only AARs just don't put you in the battle as well.

[John Kettler]

BigDork,

Well done, sir! Be grateful you don't have to read the late war ones. They're real eye tests. And no, I'm not kidding.

Regards,

John Kettler

[siffo998]

thanks for the link john. very interesting read!

especially the summary that the TDs were mainly used as indirect fire artillery. the writer of the report says that they were well suited because of their guns (14500 yards max range!)

the writer also recommends at one point that the the M10s were used at 3000yards range in indirect fire role and that they should better be used from concealed positions at 7000yards range. because german OPs easily spotted the TDs and shelled the position with artillery.

also its quite interesting to see that its quite a real result to destroy a tank standing behind a house: "B Company 3rd platoon destroyed tank behind house at 300 yards with APC. Shell pierced two walls of house and KOed tank."

its also fascinating to read that the whole TD battalion fired around 350 rounds in indirect and direct fire to support the crossing of a river and only destroyed 2 tanks, 1 scout car and 2 half tracks.

furthermore according to these report the results in CM regarding tank accuracy seem to be quite realisitc:

"B company 2nd platoon destroyed Assault Gun Pak 40 at 1000 yards with three rounds HE delay and three rounds APC."

or

"C Company 2nd platoon destroyed armored car at 2000 yards with 5 rounds."

or

"B Company 3rd platoon destroyed a MKIV at 1000 yards with 3 rounds through the turret"

[hobo]

It is good to know that real infantry commanders make the same mistakes I make:

Comments and Lessons Learned:

(1) One of the most important points, stressed by Allied Force Headquarters,

Fifth A1:my and all Tank Destroyer experts, is that infantry commanders continue,

against the tactical advice of these persons, to place Tank Destroyers in forward

anti-tank positions where they can have only one logical field of fire instead of

placing them in a central posithn where they can move rapidly to cover a logical

area. This tends to:

(a) Absolutely nullity the purpose of the Tank Destroyer -- Mobility.

( Pl~ce the Tar~ Destroyer under small a~s and mortar range where it

will be immediately rendered less effective if the enemy plans to neutralize our

resistance prior to attack. The open turret of tho M-10 makes it vulnerable to

sniper fire. This long-range 31t gun on its thin-shelled mobUe chassis can

engaie a..."'ld knock out a tank at a much greater range than Watry commanders

realize"

© Draw unn~ce8sary fire on nearby infantry.

(2) Some mot~l overhead cover for the open turret of the M-10 should be

developed to protect the crew from flak and falling buildings. It C.ul be so

constructed that it can be thrown off if the Tank Destroyer WDves out to engage

the enelD1'. Plans are being made to construct these 10:: a.lly.

(3) In the role of firing night harassing missions, it has been found that a

minimum of counter-battery will be received if only one gun fires at a time. Should

the number of rounds to be fired or the tme al10ted require that two guns fire at

the same time, it is best to space the guns as far apart as p~ssible. This

Battalion fired 4 guns for 6 or 7 nights, a total of 800 rounds, and received ne

counter-battery in an area that enemy fire was ~ most common occurenceo

(4) At least 6 to 8 ,ower megnif7ing direct fire telescope is needed on the ~-10.

(5) A smoke generator should be ~vailable in each M-10. v1.hen enemy fire develops

they can be used to a definite a.dvantage. The Germans use them. most effectively to

our disadv&ntage.

[Michael Emrys]

Somebody's OCR software needs an upgrade. Not saying it's yours, hobo.

Michael

[siffo998]

Comments and Lessons Learned:

(4) At least 6 to 8 power magnifying direct fire telescope is needed on the M-10.

this point is repeated multiple times in the report (from date `43 till `44)... seems like the one used was not very suitable. or the writer is reffering to the non-existent commanders telescope. because at one point he is also writing that the m10 is nearly useless if it comes under direct small arms fire because there are no vision slits in the turret. therefore the tank is merely blind if the commander is forced to get his head back inside.

[John Kettler]

siffo998,

Page 42 of the STANDARD ORDNANCE ITEMS CATALOGUE, Vol. 1

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13810463/Standard-Ordnance-Items-Catalog-1944-Vol-1

lists the M10's observation optics as 3 x M6 Periscope and 1 x Telescope, M51. What's odd about this is the M10 has only two hatches, and we read of complaints about the commander's being blind when buttoned. Obviously, the gunner isn't, because he's looking through the M51, which is a telescopic gunsight. Since the commander can't see when buttoned, the gunner must have the third periscope. The reason the AARs are screaming for more magnification is that these guys are fighting the war with 3X sights!

Please see M70 and M51 here.

http://www.simcentrum.com/uploads/USTank-optics.pdf

The complaints are backed up by more general statements:

http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=59023&page=1

"German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy."

"The matter of tank gun sights has caused us much concern. I have looked through and worked with sights in German Mk V and VI tanks as well as our own. I find that the German sight has more magnifying power and clearness than our own, which is a big advantage to a gunner."

There are more, but Copy/Paste has decided to quit!

Regards,

John Kettler