Mr. Tittles Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Can Mr. Yeide show any docs that prove that TDs were any better than Tanks at 'Tank Killing'? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Originally posted by Dave Stockhoff: Reminds me of the Audie Murphy MoH incident, in which a TD (wonder what it was, it had an MG)...As I recall from my reading of the book, he described it as an M10. The MG was an AA on a pintel mount. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Yeide Posted October 22, 2004 Author Share Posted October 22, 2004 Buy the book, Mr. Tittles. But here's something to whet your interest. Colonel W.L. Roberts, CCB/10th Armored Division, wrote shortly after the battle at Bastogne: [EXT] The TDs taught me and my tanks a lesson that is being straightened out right now in this command. Properly employed in the defense, some tanks must be up with the infantry (I do not say what proportion) and some in reserve in the "socker" role. Those with the infantry must act in the TD role 98% of the time. The TDs know how to do it. Tankers are not as well trained, and they suffered. My eight TDs lost only three while getting twenty-two sure kills. My tanks did not approach that proportion. [END EXT] Dave: I'm in Hyattsville near the court house. Cheers, Harry 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimly Fiendish Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Harry Does your book go into the Christmas Day panzer attack toward Bastogne? (I know, wrong theatre, but it's a favorite of mine ) The usual sources (forgotten them) describe the successes of the TDs covering the German approach and mention Shermans moving to back them up, but don't seem to follow through on the performance of the Shermans. I'd like to know more. Back to CM: Wonder how CM factors training into the game, if at all. You get the specs on hardware when you buy, but nothing tells you "Trained to kill tanks"/"Not trained to kill tanks." At the same price, merely having that info might make you think twice about your purchase. (Imagine if your Volksturmers were labeled "Not trained to fight.") It's a revelation that Sherman crews weren't trained to kill tanks. After all, what else do we purchase them for, with our precious points? It would be good to know if we are buying something other than speed, big guns, and open-top paper armor when we buy an M10 vs a Sherman. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Abrams certainly drilled his tankers to fight tanks (and insisted on TC unbuttoning in most situations). It would depend on the command and if the Tankers were part of a Armored division or a independant tank battalion, etc. Terrain and circumstances weigh heavily on this. I dont buy into the Tank Killer theory if all the docs are from close in terrain and foul weather, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Yeide Posted October 22, 2004 Author Share Posted October 22, 2004 Dave: I cover the Bastogne fighting (theaters addressed are North Africa, Italy, and the ETO), but from the TD perspective. If I recall, the 10th AD records do not give much detail, though the memo cited above was very helpful. In general, you get more detailed accounts of events in the official records from the separate battalions because the armored divisions kept battle records at the CC level. On the other hand, some divisions produced histories at the end of the war with some very enlightening annecdotes. I like the idea of a trained-to-kill-tanks variable in CM. But the gentlemen cited did not say his tankers were not trained to kill tanks, just that they were not as well trained to do so. The TDers took great pride in their gunnery, and there is little question that the TD training system more consistently cranked out qualified replacement personnel than the Armored Force did. The separate tank battalions often received replacements who knew nothing about tanks, and I would guess the armored divisions had the same problem. I'm not certain to which tank-killer theory you refer, Mr. Tittles, but one might note that Europe is mostly close terrain, the weather is generally lousy, etc. That's the real world. Cheers, guys. Thanks for the interest. Harry 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 The silly TD command envisioned some 220 battalions of TDs needed. Of course, this was just more waste and the training center cranked out many TD guys that ended up in tanks! So if they were such hot shots, they got to prove it in a sherman 76mm perhaps. The 76mm sherman had power traverse unlike the M10. I think Harry should read the report to Eisenhower regarding US equipment vs German equipment. US armor and TDs did not have the guns or floatation to fight in open tarrain. The US gunnery FM certainly shows that US tanks had AFV as targets. What exactly does 'trained to kill tanks mean'? I doubt that many of the late war towed units that were field converted to M18 or M36 were super Tank Killers themselves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted October 22, 2004 Share Posted October 22, 2004 Originally posted by Harry Yeide: Buy the book, Mr. Tittles. But here's something to whet your interest. Colonel W.L. Roberts, CCB/10th Armored Division, wrote shortly after the battle at Bastogne: [EXT] The TDs taught me and my tanks a lesson that is being straightened out right now in this command. Properly employed in the defense, some tanks must be up with the infantry (I do not say what proportion) and some in reserve in the "socker" role. Those with the infantry must act in the TD role 98% of the time. The TDs know how to do it. Tankers are not as well trained, and they suffered. My eight TDs lost only three while getting twenty-two sure kills. My tanks did not approach that proportion. [END EXT] Cheers, Harry I again mention that these TD wonder boys may have had access to HVAP ammunition that many tankers would not. A sherman 75mm may not 'do it' because he does not shoot a 76mm gun. A sherman 76mm may not 'do it' because he may not have the HVAP rounds the TD guys have. The Tankers were trained in offensive operations and had been conducting offensive operations typically right up to the Bulge battles. So they were not 'trained' in hanging back and skulking about which is what the TDs did. [ October 22, 2004, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 23, 2004 Share Posted October 23, 2004 Originally posted by Dave Stockhoff: It's a revelation that Sherman crews weren't trained to kill tanks. After all, what else do we purchase them for, with our precious points?I buy the 75mm-armed Shermans to kill opposing infantry and support weapons. To kill enemy tanks...well, I just hope I don't run into anything tougher than a Pz. IV. If I do and can't get into a good flanking position, I call it a day. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmavis Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Originally posted by Harry Yeide: Okay. Shmavis: I actually said that it was Combat Mission that was the greatest wargame ever and got me going on the book. I recommend strongly that you buy another copy, or maybe two just to be safe. Whoops! Don't I feel sheepish. Sorry about the confusion. I found my book yesterday. Yay! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Hello everyone, this thread seems to get to the heart of it. It being the employment of tanks and tank destroyers. The tank destroyers and tanks when they worked together were very effective. The tanks supported the infantry and the TDs took care of the tanks. Its still a good system and is still used today except the TDs are Warthogs and Apaches. This leaves the tanks free to support the infantry in the roll of a mobile pillbox. poppys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppy Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 An addendem to my last post. The US army and probably most other advanced armys do not have an effective close support tank. The Abrams is an excellent "tank destroyer" but a poor close support tank,it is too heavy, too large, too expensive, its cannon is good at long range but at close range,ie 200m or so the old Sherman 75 would with up to date armor be much better in the urban warfare role. poppys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.