russellmz Posted February 12, 2001 Share Posted February 12, 2001 my friend was watching me play cm as allies with m18 hellcats. he asked about them and i told him a little about tank destroyers and how they were pretty bad in the war. i mentioned that i heard m18 itself had a 10:1 kill ratio and he asked why they were so great and why they weren't the primary tank then. anyone have a good answer? ------------------ russellmz, Self-Proclaimed Keeper for Life of the Sacred Unofficial FAQ. "They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush "They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show [This message has been edited by russellmz (edited 02-12-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted February 12, 2001 Share Posted February 12, 2001 It was the fault of flawed doctrine. General McNair et al of the Army Ground Forces had this theory that tanks were for exploitation, and that TD's were to kill tanks. TD's were seen as lightly armored gun carriages, while tanks were seen as killers of rear-area units (hence the heavy bias towards HE round effectiveness in the M-4 series. TD's ended up too often in pitched tank slugfests because they were up front supporting the tank-starved US infantry, a task for which they were ill-suited. I don't know about the 10-1 ratio, it sounds way too high for me. BTW, McNair paid the ultimate price for warriorhood by getting killed in Normandy by friendly airpower, and so did not live to see his pet theory disproven in combat, paid for with the lives of untold GI tankers and TD crewmen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasoncawley@ameritech.net Posted February 12, 2001 Share Posted February 12, 2001 The U.S. TDs had fine armor killing records. But they are all open-topped. The lighter weight that allows means a better gun or faster speed for the same chassis, and in tank fighting that helps. Where it doesn't help is if the enemy dumps arty on you. I don't just mean on the CM scale battlefield, as a "hip shoot", trying to snipe at speed M-18s with 105mm off-board howitzers. I mean the regular daily shelling of every forward position, plus every breakthrough or hole in the line. You will want a top in an artillery barrage. Little, real world factor like that. Oh, I know what you are thinking. Who cares about a slight drawback against arty, when you can get a noticable edge against Panthers and Tigers? Well, Germany produced 45,000 AFVs of all kinds in the entire course of WW II. Many of them before types that heavy were out. Even in the last year of the war, from Normandy on, less than 40% of the AFVs fielded by Germany had as much, or more, armor, than a Jgd Pz IV. The majority were still Pz IV and StuG III, with about 1/4 Panther, and the Jgd Pz IVs and Hezters, the only common more heavily armored types OK? On the other hand, the Germans fired more than 100 million mortar rounds alone, during WW II. On the screen name, I'm sorry it is causing anyone problems. I don't notice because I have a wide screen. I have asked the board people, and they tell me there is no way to change a screen-name, except to delete the whole thing and start from scratch. If people want me to do that, fine I will tell them to. [This message has been edited by jasoncawley@ameritech.net (edited 02-12-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goanna Posted February 12, 2001 Share Posted February 12, 2001 I am thinking of starting a poll that says "Should jasoncawley@ameritech.net get a new screen name?" Jason, are you aware that in every thread you post in, you create chaos by having such a long name that for many of us we have to scroll right to read each item posted, then scroll back left to read the name of the next poster, then repeat, as naseum. Why not just JasonCawley, JCawley or just the J-man? Your profile is where we look for your e-mail address anyway. Stop by the Cesspool if you need other catchy suggestions for a short snappy moniker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted February 12, 2001 Share Posted February 12, 2001 Hellcat would have been an awful primary tank. It can be killed by just about anything. 20mm AA gun would usually win in a duel. Any arty shell landing close would rip it in two. It was a fine tank destroyer, but the german tanks would not show good sportmanship and only engage tank destroyers. The gamey buggers would instead go against the Shermans. [This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 02-12-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted February 12, 2001 Share Posted February 12, 2001 I also think that M-18s and Jacksons were extremely fit to the environment where the allies ruled air and thus could deny axis' air raids and effectively suppress their artillery. Also the encrusted terrain favoured them. Didn't the allied tds have their greatest triumps in low visibility conditions? Without proper support those vehicles would have been much less succesful. They didn't have enough endurance to be used in breakthroughs on their own. That was/is a task for the tanks. Ari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted February 12, 2001 Share Posted February 12, 2001 Tanks like the Sherman, Churchill, etc. had barely adequate visibility when buttoned up (a single rotating periscope on the commander's hatch). Open tops on tank destroyers gave unlimited 360 degree visibity for the commander and it was this increased situational awareness, along with the v tank destroyer's more nimble power-to-weight ratio, that produced the 10-1 kill ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cos Posted February 12, 2001 Share Posted February 12, 2001 Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net: The U.S. TDs had fine armor killing records. But they are all open-topped. The lighter weight that allows means a better gun or faster speed for the same chassis, and in tank fighting that helps. Where it doesn't help is if the enemy dumps arty on you.... ------------------------------------------- I'm sure bullets are grenads having easy access to the crew didn't help either. ------------------------------------------- On the screen name, I'm sorry it is causing anyone problems. I don't notice because I have a wide screen. I have asked the board people, and they tell me there is no way to change a screen-name, except to delete the whole thing and start from scratch. If people want me to do that, fine I will tell them to. --------------------------------------------- It's shorter then mcosgrove000@ameritech.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 Why did tank destroyers not work? Well, to make a long story short, the US doctrine was to take what we now consider as all the essential parts of a tank and divide them between 2 types of vehicles: tanks and tank destroyers. Tank destroyers got the high-velocity gun and good mobility, tanks got the armor (by US standards of the time) and the anti-personnel gun. This doctrine has quite obvious flaws. What do specialized infantry support tanks do when they meet enemy tanks? What do specialized tank destroyers do when they meet infantry and artillery? In both cases, the answer was "die a lot now". So both problems were eventually solved by combining all the features of both vehicles into a single thing, the tank as we know it today and which other, wiser nations had been using all along. So why did the US have this doctrine? It goes back to the immediate post-WW1 years and inter-arm politics within the US Army. Basically, the in massive force reduction after that war, the brand new US Armored Corps was disbanded. But now tanks existed and somebody had to be in charge of them, so the infantry got control of them (to the point that the cavalry couldn't have tanks--it's armored, tracked, turreted vehicles were called "combat cars"). The infantry naturally twisted tank development to suit its own ends and focused on developing infantry support platforms following a 1918-style doctrine. The cav, legally forbidden to have "tanks", OTOH, focused on making light scout "combat cars" for its recon mission. So by default, the US didn't develop any vehicles with real anti-tank capabilities for a long time after WW1--killing tanks was the job of AT guns. Shades of 1918 again, but at least this time the AT guns were specially designed instead of being field guns pressed into this role in emergency. Then the US started paying attention to current events and learned that the potential enemy might employ masses of tanks for breakthroughs. But by this time, thinking had fossilized that tanks were infantry support things and AT guns were the tank killers. So with this mindset, the natural answer to hordes of enemy tanks was more AT guns, only self-propelled so they'd be able to meet armored mobility with mobility of their own. Thus was born the WW2 crop of tank destroyers. They were invisioned at AT guns 1st, vehicles 2nd. Their intended foes were tanks of the US style, armed with low-velocity AP guns, which the TDs would be able to pick off at long range. Then they'd move quickly to a new firing position before arty landed on them. And when the enemy tanks broke through somewhere else, they'd be able to go head them off quickly as well. Unfortunately, by the time the TDs reached the field, they were facing multi-role tanks able to shoot back effectively. TDs have always reminded me of WW1 battlecruisers. Those were a good idea until the other side got its own BCs, at which point thin armor and speed were of no use. So just as the BC was replaced by the fast BB, so did the TD and specialized AP tank get replaced by multi-role tanks. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 02-12-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 Originally posted by Bullethead: ... So why did the US have this doctrine? It goes back to the immediate post-WW1 years and inter-arm politics within the US Army. ... The infantry naturally twisted tank development to suit its own ends and focused on developing infantry support platforms following a 1918-style doctrine. ... So by default, the US didn't develop any vehicles with real anti-tank capabilities for a long time after WW1--killing tanks was the job of AT guns. (1) Then the US started paying attention to current events and learned that the potential enemy might employ masses of tanks for breakthroughs. (2)(1) Why act any other way? The only potential enemies were Canada and Mexico. Mexico didn't pose much of an armoured threat, IIRC, and Canada wasn't much of a danger either. Defending against these would be (and probably still is) easy even without tanks. Any other enemy had to come across the ocean, and would've been dealt with before they passed the beaches. (2) This was a new enemy, with US as the aggressor. Therefore the doctrine that was developed and well suited for defence had to be changed... Cheers Olle ------------------ Webmaster of Combat Mission för svensktalande, a CM site in Swedish. Norwegians, Finns, Danes and Icelanders are also welcome as members, others can still enjoy pictures and downloads. Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight... Detta har kånntrollerats av Majkråsofft späll-tjäcker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aacooper Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 In Gen. McNair's defense, he along with Gen Marshall built the US Army up from an organization smaller than Rumania's army to the 8 million plus army which had to help win a two-front war. The TD doctrine was a mistake, though I hate to think about the trouble the US would have had if they had Shermans but no TD's. Of course, things would have been better if every Sherman had a 76, 17-lbr, or if more M-26's made it to battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 Originally posted by russellmz: i mentioned that i heard m18 itself had a 10:1 kill ratio and he asked why they were so great and why they weren't the primary tank then. I don't recall seeing any evidence backing up that 10 to 1 kill ratio, anyone have any? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 Originally posted by machineman: I don't recall seeing any evidence backing up that 10 to 1 kill ratio, anyone have any? Seems a bit high, but that may be including all types of vehicles killed, not just tanks. ------------------ You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wildman Posted February 13, 2001 Share Posted February 13, 2001 Just picked up a book at the library I'm starting to read. "Faint Praise: American Tanks and Tank Destroyers during WWII" by Charles M. Baily. Looks to be a good read so far, with everything Bullethead mentioned in the introduction. I'll post interesting tidbits when I come across them. --- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Wildman, How about a publisher, date and ISBN for that Faint Praise book. Sounds very interesting. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 To Olle Petersson: Interesting choice of words, "This was a new enemy, with US as aggressor" Did you perhaps mean "US on the offensive?" Or did the US somehow "aggress" against Germany and Japan in WWII? (BTW English is my second language as it may also be yours; so if this is just a semantic thing, I can sympathize...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 The M18 did indeed have a 10-1 kill to killed ratio of armored vehicles per Evans, Thomas J. and others. (1995). Reluctant Valor : The Oral History of Captain Thomas J. Evans, United States Third Army, 4th Armored Division, 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion). Latrobe: Saint Vincent College Press, back up by a 1953 AAR kill tally of tank destroyer units with 2000+ confirmed (someone kicked their toes on the vehicle) kills of AFVs and a loss of 200+ Hellcats. One unit, in a famous confrontation, traded 17 of their own for more than 50 Panther / Tiger tanks and 15 assault guns. Take into account also that Hellcat units often got a much better supply of tungsten than the M10 units, and M10 units were usually shoved into direct infantry support roles. It was not the main tank for the US because it could not hold the line, support infantry, or do much of anything except shoot up German tanks. Evans, who not only was on the design team for the M18 but commanded a company of them in Europe, said they did so well because they were encouraged to be cowards (ie, never standing up and fighting), they learned to use their gyros, always firing on the move if possible, and they had recon elements to draw fire and distract the enemy (who often took the brunt of the casualties) while they rushed forward and made the kills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Originally posted by gunnergoz: Interesting choice of words, "This was a new enemy, with US as aggressor" Did you perhaps mean "US on the offensive?" Or did the US somehow "aggress" against Germany and Japan in WWII?It's quite intentive. Meant primarily to point out that it was US that had to invade defended territory. (The fact that this territory fairly recently had been invaded by the Axis is irrelevant.) The US armed forces were quite capable, both by doctrine and inventory, to defend US soil against any possible attack by foreign ground forces. (In my mind the different Pacific islands under US jurisdiction were just a remnant from the colonial era and doesn't count.) This is a good thing. They were also ill fit to start any aggression against any other nation. This was even better from a global peace point of view. (Like a fortress; any attacker will suffer, but the fortress isn't a threat to anyone else.) During WW2 this role changed (because the German armed forces were allowed to get substantial attack capability, which they used). Starting with the invasion of Morocco, USA became an aggressor and from there on drove an offence (for which, as I pointed out before, they were less suited, at least initially). In my vocabulary the opposite of aggressor is defender or victim, neither of which is applicable to the US warfare in Europe and Africa. Cheers Olle ------------------ Webmaster of Combat Mission för svensktalande, a CM site in Swedish. Norwegians, Finns, Danes and Icelanders are also welcome as members, others can still enjoy pictures and downloads. Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight... Detta har kånntrollerats av Majkråsofft späll-tjäcker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Slapdragon, One of the links I just looked at in the Hellcat v. Hellcat thread stated that the gun was not stabilized. I admit I have no idea, I'm just curious as to which is accurate. I don't have the game in front of me so I can't check to see if the gun is stabilized in CM, and obviously I can't remember. Just curious. [This message has been edited by jgdpzr (edited 02-14-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wildman Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Publisher: Archon Books Year: 1983 ISBN: 0-208-02006-3 Title: Faint Praise: American Tanks and Tank Destroyers during WWII Author: Charles M. Bailey (LtCol US Army at the time) Hope that is what you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 The Hellcat's gun, according to the people who designed it, was stabilized. If it lost that stabilization, then it was done after it was designed and manufactured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted February 14, 2001 Share Posted February 14, 2001 Thanks Slapdragon. I honestly wasn't trying to challenge the accuracy of your statement, I just found it interesting that I had just read a statement a few minutes prior saying the gun was not stabilized. That site was one of the three linked in the other Hellcat thread, I think it was the second link. I wonder if that website was referring simply to the gun of the specific relic vehicle being examined. It is my understanding that M4 crews frequently disabled the stabilizers (not sure if they totally removed them) because of problems with the gun knocking the crew around as the tank traversed rough terrain. Perhaps TD crews would do the same, although if I were in the fast but lightly armored Hellcat, I'd sure as heck want the ability to shoot while scooting. Also, the open top may make gun movement less hazardous to the crew. Anyhoo, thanks for the reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted February 15, 2001 Share Posted February 15, 2001 Originally posted by jgdpzr: Thanks Slapdragon. I honestly wasn't trying to challenge the accuracy of your statement, I just found it interesting that I had just read a statement a few minutes prior saying the gun was not stabilized. That site was one of the three linked in the other Hellcat thread, I think it was the second link. I wonder if that website was referring simply to the gun of the specific relic vehicle being examined. It is my understanding that M4 crews frequently disabled the stabilizers (not sure if they totally removed them) because of problems with the gun knocking the crew around as the tank traversed rough terrain. Perhaps TD crews would do the same, although if I were in the fast but lightly armored Hellcat, I'd sure as heck want the ability to shoot while scooting. Also, the open top may make gun movement less hazardous to the crew. Anyhoo, thanks for the reply. No problem! M4 crews with the 75 often did detach the stabilizer. M18s sold after the war to other countries lost their stabilizers, so either could be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted February 15, 2001 Share Posted February 15, 2001 Originally posted by Olle Petersson: In my vocabulary the opposite of aggressor is defender or victim, neither of which is applicable to the US warfare in Europe and Africa. Cheers Olle I think the word you are looking for is 'attacker'. From dictionary.cambridge.org : aggressor noun [C] aggressor: noun An aggressor is a person, group or country who starts an argument, fight or war by attacking first. In the conflict with Egypt in 1956, it was Britain who was seen as the aggressor by the international community. attacker: noun: The old lady never even saw her attackers. He has been one of the strongest attackers of (=people who have criticized) the government's policies. Despite this latter choice of examples, in my understanding attacker is much more neutral word than aggressor, which carries negative moral connotations. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andrew Hedges Posted February 15, 2001 Share Posted February 15, 2001 One of the more interesting facts of WWII is that in May 1940, when the Netherlands surrendered, the US went from having the 17th largest army in the world to having the 16th largest army. So there was a lot of building up to do, and quickly. I think the question "why did tank destroyers not work?" is not really a good question. Tank destroyers worked fine, and were very good at destroying tanks. Actual US tanks, which were designed as, for lack of a better word, infantry destroyers, did not do so well when they encountered enemy tanks, as they often did. Thus the real problem was the doctrine that drew a bright line between the anti-infantry and anti-armor functions of the tank, resulting in tanks that needed, but did not have, enough punch in the anti-armor role. Tank destroyers did not have much punch in the anti-infantry role, either, but this tended not to result in their destruction. So it wasn't as noticeable of a problem. Some commentators have observed that the tank destroyer concept would have worked better if the Allies had not had air superiority. The idea being that air superiority caused the Germans to disperse their tanks, which increased the chances of the German tanks encountering regular tanks, instead of TDs. If, according to this reasoning, the Germans were still using massed armor as they had earlier in the war, and did in the desert, the TD concept would have made more sense, as it would be easier to use just the TDs to fight a spearhead of enemy tanks. I don't know if this theory is correct, although I do believe that a couple hundred hellcats would have given the Afrika Korps a big headache. Not sure how much I'd like the open top in the desert, though. Maybe if you had a awning... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts