What exactly was the reasoning behind the development of this thing? What exactly could it do that a 76mm sherman couldn’t? It seems it was noticeably worse in many aspects too, like sky-high crew mortality rates from shell bursts over the open turret top
>What exactly could it do that a 76mm sherman couldn’t?
Listen up, Summerchild. First: At least take a look at the development of the M10 and the M4 variants regarding the time frames, will ya?
Then take a look at the US tank and tank destroyer doctrine of WW2.
It's nice to discuss stuff but you're asking questions that shoul'd have been answered if you'd just taken your time and read the motherfricking wikipedia
>if you'd just taken your time and read the motherfricking wikipedia
What fun would that be
doctrine is the last refuge of the unimaginative
>if you'd just taken your time and read the motherfricking wikipedia
This board would not exist if that gets popular.
>motherfricking wikipedia
Literally the worst place to learn about stuff.
Read a book, you double Black person.
homosexual
Apparently the open top was to get better negative elevation from the gun when hull down... I don't get it. What's the point of making a tank that doesn't protect you from explosions and shrapnel and fire and shit
>Apparently the open top was to get better negative elevation from the gun when hull down... I don't get it
Picrel, the ability to conceal and shoot from a tank behind cover, is a very valuable ability to have in tank on tank combat. Is it more valuable than crews instantly getting turned into tomato paste whenever shrapnel flies overhead? I don’t know.
The annoying thing is they could have had both the overhead protection and open top with a simple folding roof.
Some troops modified them with scrap metal in the field and they introduced a folding top to the later M36 Tank Destroyers in Korea... after not during the largest war in human history. Thanks guys.
it's cuz whoever shoots first wins in a tank fight. the best way to shoot first is to see first, hence the open top. also reduces weight. they also developed roof covers later on
all they needed was a carbon curtain to roll over the top
some tanks have a bulge or hatch in the roof for this purpose
american commanders, like in most countries, were imagining battles would work out like in video games and that they'd always have the right american units fight the right german units. there would be no need for a tank destroyer to have an open top because they aren't fighting infantry or artillery, you see?
however reality unfolded and instead the most efficient strategy turned out to not be careful micromanagement of your units, but rather throwing whatever you had en masse at the problem area, which is what everyone else was doing already. m10s ended up being used as impromptu field guns most of the time afaik. also the americans expected germans to be doing mass blitzkrieg attacks in 1944, hence why they'd need large tank destroyer forces, but this never happened because the germans were (understandably) instead digging in and fighting with a limited number nazibunkers that usually had the transmission 2 miles away from breaking.
There was no video game in WWII
sure there was. why else would stalin and hitler obsess so much over crazy armored heavy tanks? they were both playing war thunder and they realized those tanks were the best for your KD
>why else would stalin
I think the USSR realized that large numbers of medium tanks being spammed was going to be the norm relatively fast. Soviet Heavy tanks didn’t REALLY come into their own until well into the war with the IS2
yeah that ended up being the go-to strategy after stalin stopped micromanaging his army. but before that he really wanted to make those big ass heavy tanks
Of all the wacky interwar tank concepts, I think the Soviet ones are my favourite
Did these find *any* success at all?
Apparently, the T28 heavies actually had some real success breaking through Finnish lines during the Winter War, with a high survivability rate. So they weren’t complete failures, but they still weren’t much to brag about.
>High survivability.
>Finland had no real armor or AT.
No fricking shit
T-35s were only good for propaganda stuff. Most of them were lost due to mechanical faults.
The T-28 had some good features for the time, including radios on every tank and a decent(albeit pretty short) 76mm gun. It was still overly complex and prone to breakdowns, and its armor wasn't good enough for combat against the wehrmacht. Most of them were destroyed at the beginning of Barbarossa, with some being captured and used by Finland.
USSR was going full on mass mobilization already before the war with nearly 10k tanks by 1941.
>why else would stalin and hitler obsess so much over crazy armored heavy tanks?
It's what happens when non-military types try to build a military doctrine based on what they think ought to work. The closest Stalin came to military service would be his work as a bank robber for the socialist revolutionaries. Hitler did come closer, and served as a corporal during WWI - but that meant that he only really understood the low level tactical view of war, and his abiding memory of tanks was WWI beasts slowly making their way across no mans land and smashing German lines.
>closest Stalin came to military service
I think you're exaggerating a bit here
>why else would stalin and hitler obsess so much over crazy armored heavy tanks
Every major nation had heavy tank projects running. Everybody always forgets about the Churchill. America's just wasn't developed in time.
M6 was on time, but didnt really do anything that M4 couldn't while being almost as twice as heavy
>Infantry Tank
>The same as Germany and Russisa Heavy tanks
Absolute brainlet.
>Everybody always forgets about the Churchill
Good.
did Yeager hate the churchill or something
He hated the bongs in general
the M10 came b4 the M4 and its called the US tank destroyer doctrine
US TDs didnt have open turrets to get better gun depression it that was true they would have to have angles better than 10degs which they dont they have same as many other US tanks. US TDs have open tops to have max visibility of the battlefield
>What's the point of making a tank that doesn't protect you from explosions and shrapnel and fire and shit
It's not a tank, it's a tank destroyer. Primary function is not infantry support (which entails more getting shot at, explosions, shrapnel, fire and shit) but to destroy tanks. Visbility was considered key, and there's enough anecdotal evidence to back up that in WW2, the guy who saw the other first and shot first won.
>Soviet Heavy tanks didn’t REALLY come into their own until well into the war with the IS2
homie, the KV series proved to be a real headache to the Germans due to its armor, going up against the early Panzeranklopfgeräte (37mm and such).
That being said, they saw the virtue of the large number of medium tanks mostly due to A. All of their light tanks being destroyed at an alarming rate and B. the inability to upgun the heavies as quickly. The KV usually only managed to stay one size of gun ahead of the T-34 series: soon after the KV-1 started with a decent 76mm, the T-34 also got one. KV was upgunned to 85mm, then T-34 was upgunned to 85mm, making KV obsolescent again.
>It's not a tank, it's a tank destroyer. Primary function is not infantry support (which entails more getting shot at, explosions, shrapnel, fire and shit) but to destroy tanks. Visbility was considered key, and there's enough anecdotal evidence to back up that in WW2, the guy who saw the other first and shot first won.
Except they did end up doing infantry support because no commander was just going to ignore their firepower when no German armor was around and as said
here there was 0 reason not to have overhead protection because a folding roof lets you keep that same visibility. Pic is of a M-10 a crew modified in a field to have a makeshift roof.
It was not visibility vs protection, it was get American soldiers unnecessarily killed vs install a hinged roof.
Why does the M10 come without overhead protection? Because the design intent was visibility. If you wanted overhead protection, there's actual tanks for that job.
Removable overhead protection sounds like a great idea at first, but designers won't come up with it out of the blue. This is mostly because the turret weight had to be reduced to allow for the installation of heavier guns, which was the reason the TDs existed in the first place. Adding top weight goes against that, especially when the doctrine wasn't fully fleshed out but some important dude said he wanted visibility - what sane designer would then add metal where his boss didn't want it and which goes against design goals? Either you put a little bit of metal there and it only protects against rain (which canvas did well enough) or you put a lot there and destroy turret motors. There's plenty of reasons why they didn't come with a roof from the factory. Then reality hit, and unfortunately the US did not have production facilities in the ETO, so they had to make do. The picture you showed is not a makeshift crew modification, it's an actual sanctioned, US-developed kit to add a roof to an M10. The US knew the problem existed and made a solution.
>It was not visibility vs protection, it was get American soldiers unnecessarily killed vs install a hinged roof.
That sentence is loaded worse than a KV-2 turret. Yes, the TD's open turrets were a vulnerability, but there is no statistical evidence that the survival rate on the M10's was worse. Zaloga states some 550 out of 6400 M10s were destroyed in the ETO, while 7100 Shermans (US+UK were destroyed in Europe. Assuming rough;y 19K for the US Army and 17K for the Bongs, all being deployed to Europe that's an 8.5% loss rate for the M10 and 19.5% for the M4. Even if the crew survival rate per loss is double on the Sherman, you'd stil be better off in an M10.
>Visbility was considered key, and there's enough anecdotal evidence to back up that in WW2, the guy who saw the other first and shot first won
1. Most shots missed
2. Most misseswere due to range estimation errors
Should have just given them range finders.
See
You stupid fricking Black person.
>Should have just given them range finders.
They had rangefinders. Needless to say, rangefidners small enough to fit into a tank weren't quite up to modern standards back then.
>Needless to say, rangefidners small enough to fit into a tank weren't quite up to modern standards back then.
optical rangefinders werent widespread for years even after WW2
even the T-62 was still only equipped with a crude stadiaemetric range-guide and the US didnt get coincidence range finders until the M47, whereupon its use was limited to gunners with excellent vision due to the difficulty of its use
the open-top wasnt even for range finding, it was for visual awareness to be able to spot and engage targets to get the all-important first shot
>What's the point of making a tank
>a tank
This is why we can’t have nice things.
Air bursting artillery had to be done by manually setting timed fuses back then, which might be good enough for shelling trenches, where you can dial your settings in since it isn't going anywhere but not for peppering highly mobile armored fighting vehicles.
With the widespread adoption of vt proximity fuses immediately after ww2, open topped vehicles quickly went out of fashion.
Hint for OP who gets his tank info from warthunder: 3 inch gun on M10 and 76mm on Sherman are totally different
>What exactly could it do that a 76mm sherman couldn’t?
Exist in 1942 when America entered the war
The 76mm M1 armed Sherman wasn't fielded until the latter half of 1944
It was a cheap as frick tank that got the job done, wasn't quite t-34 tier, but it was definitely below the Sherman after the Sherman had a bigger gun put on it. Also the turret was easier to make.
I read/heard somewhere that it was specific to the doctrine used, like it was meant as a sort of mobile anti-tank gun rather than a tank-equivalent. I think it was cheaper to produce too.
The US developed their Tank Destroyers on a doctrine formed in direct response to the German’s blitzkrieg, which was deeply flawed considering the German Blitzkrieg tactic pretty much never played out like it did in France for the rest of the war. Basically, the Tank Destroyers were independent tank units that would sit behind the frontlines. If an enemy tank unit was to break through their lines (blitzkrieg), the tank destroyers would act as a reactionary force and intercept them. So the M10 is a great example of doctrine driving design. They emphasized a big gun and high mobility. The open top turret was to help visuals which could give them a leg up in spotting enemy tanks, and in theory, the blitzing tanks wouldn’t have infantry support, so the drawback wasn’t seen as relevant. Obviously everything about this doctrine was wrong and therefore the tank design was just pretty bad. But hey, weird tanks and doctrines are what makes WWII so interesting!
>Obviously everything about this doctrine was wrong and therefore the tank design was just pretty bad.
The tank destroyer itself was designed well, the doctrine was just bad (or not bad, just never came to be used effectively).
Open topped tanks are not a good design, especially in WWII. The Ferdinand got turned into the Elefant specifically because they lost several of them in kursk to infantry assaults. And that was a tank that was shooting tanks from 3000m away.
You could argue that the M10 was a good design for a flawed doctrine, but I don’t think that makes it a good tank overall.
>You could argue that the M10 was a good design for a flawed doctrine, but I don’t think that makes it a good tank overall.
M10 was not a tank. Got used in place of tanks, but it was not a tank, therefore, it should not be judged by tank standards. My motorcycle doesn't have a roof or a trunk, but I still use it in place of my car because A. I have it and B. it does the job well enough or better in some cases. I just don't judge it for not having a roof when it rains, or not having a trunk when I need to get groceries.
The big problem with the doctrine is that it didn't work because the preconditions for it's efficacy did not materialise. We'll never know if it was effective in it's intent had those conditions come to be.
Okay I’ll use the term AFV. It was a bad AFV. WWII was a conflict where infantry assaulting AFV’s was extremely common. The M3 Scott was specifically not used in the pacific because it was too easy to assault it in the jungle. Better?
And as for the doctrine, Germans DID “blitzkrieg” after. The US tank doctrine just had an unrealistic expectation of what that entailed based on France and Dunkirk. Blitzkrieg was just a standard breakthrough attack with mechanized troops. By the time the US entered the war they had the combined arms to respond and their army was mobile enough to not let it happen as bad as it happened at the Maginot Line. Also, if that wasn’t the case and a Dunkirk situation DID occur, it would be better to have Tank Destroyers in other companies, not in one concentrated force. And that’s exactly what the US did immediately after WWII.
Whats an M3 Scott?
I expect M3 Scout Car
I think he means the M5A1 Scott, M5A1 Stuart with a open top turret armed with a 75mm pack howitzer instead of a 37mm
No, the problem with the doctrine was that it was shit. The Sherman would had done the job just as well, without introducing yet another vehicle into a difficult logistical situation.
>The Sherman would had done the job just as well
Fighting tanks with tanks gives you no inherent advantage. A vehicle built specifically to kill tanks on the other hand does, and if it's cheaper than the tank then even better. That also ended up being reality, the US tank destroyers did better against German tanks than Shermans while being cheaper to make. The only real problem with it all is that Germany couldn't field enough tanks to make it matter, but that's hardly the M10 designer's fault.
>Fighting tanks with tanks gives you no inherent advantage.
yes it does, it simplifies your supply lines and gives you greeater flexibility overall. Tank versus tank engagements are a relatively small proportion of encounters involving tanks. The reason everyone adopted medium tank/MBT doctrine is that having a tank with good mobility, a good gun, and good armor is more useful in more situations than having dedicated infantry tanks, cavalry tanks, tank destroyers, assault guns, and all that other stuff people for which people developed "it's-not-a-tank-don't-call-it-that."
By the way, McNair, if you see a B-25 Mitchell above you, you might want to duck.
>the 75mm Sherman, which was lamented for its poor performance versus armor would have performed just as well as a 3 inch anti tank gun, which could penetrate every German AFV but the Tiger frontally in 1942.
How do you have so much confidence and so little knowledge?
That's the M8 HMC
The US TDs were a way to put Heavy tank firepower in something with the maneuverability of a medium tank or better, while still having a turret, because casemates are a handicap. How would you make such a vehicle, moron?
>M3 Lee land battleship
You are a literal reddit spacing moron. Yes, the French and British had the facilities and experience to make a large cast turret for a tank. The US, which had done very little tank development in the 30s, did not. The M3 was a stopgap that could be made right away to have a 75mm armed tank in production ASAP. This is literally documented. It's the reason a lot of the components of the M3 were reused on M4. They knew the M3 was an inferior design, and production was shifted to the M4 as soon as it was possible.
>The weight differences between the 75mm and the 3” gun were negligible
>Sherman could have easily carried the 3” gun with little effect on it’s performance
Wrong on both counts, and also ignoring the size of the breach and mount are a major factor in putting a gun in an AFV.
>Yes, the French and British had the facilities and experience to make a large cast turret for a tank. The US, which had done very little tank development in the 30s, did not.
LOL! Yeah you're right, large casting are only used for the production of tanks, there is no conceivable civilian application and thus the U.S. of Frick'n A. couldn't make large castings...
>The M3 was a stopgap that could be made right away to have a 75mm armed tank in production ASAP. This is literally documented.
It's literally wrong, the U.S. and many other nations were perfectly capable of producing large castings but the M3 was designed as such because it was based on false belief WWII would be the same as WWI and the answer was multi turret/multi gun tanks.
> > Sherman could have easily carried the 3” gun with little effect on it’s performance
> Wrong on both counts, and also ignoring the size of the breach and mount are a major factor in putting a gun in an AFV.
The British put a 17pdr into a standard Sherman turret (turning it sideways for ease of loading) the much smaller U.S. 3" gun would have been no problem.
>>And yet M10/M36 crews had to jury-rig machine guns because they DID have to deal with infantry.
>When? Where?
During WWII in Europe.
> > the heavy turret counter weights and heavy engine.
> what source says the engine and turret weight capped the m10's speed, and not the gearing?
Son, a 3000lb counter weight and a 5000lb engine is going to affect the vehicles performance, do you really need this explained to you?
>>And yet M10/M36 crews had to jury-rig machine guns because they DID have to deal with infantry.
>Both had a .50 mount on top of the turret.
Neither of which was practical, as the crewman had to literally climb outside the vehicle to operate the machine gun.
>The British put a 17pdr into a standard Sherman turret (turning it sideways for ease of loading) the much smaller U.S. 3" gun would have been no problem.
No you moronic Black person homosexual it was put in sideways since that was the only way it would fit, look at pictures of the firefly inside, it’s a fricking nightmare as the elevation control was still in its right side up configuration
>Son, a 3000lb counter weight and a 5000lb engine is going to affect the vehicles performance, do you really need this explained to you?
i'll be over here waiting for when you give a legitimate answer:
>the m10 had the same dash and sustained speeds as the m4a2 despite being ~5K pounds lighter. so again: what source claims the m10's top speed was limited by its turret weight and engine weight vs gearing?
>During WWII in Europe.
Where? When? Citation? Webpage? Anything?
Read a book, Nubian.
What fricking page Black person?
>not reading a better book
I love the T49. Cute li'l fella.
>zaloga
>osprey
no thank you - if i wanted information that shallow i would go to wikipedia
>The British put a 17pdr into a standard Sherman turret (turning it sideways for ease of loading) the much smaller U.S. 3" gun would have been no problem.
The 17pdr recoil system, barrel profile, and gun cradle all had to be completely redesign to fit in the Sherman turret, which also needed holes cut in it for the repositioned radio sets and a new hatch for the loader, since the larger gun breech prevented him from reaching the hatch on the opposite side of the gun. The hull MG was also removed and the gunners position was used for ammo storage, because the shells were significantly larger than what the Sherman was designed for.
There are trade-offs for everything.
>It's literally wrong, the U.S. and many other nations were perfectly capable of producing large castings but the M3 was designed as such because it was based on false belief WWII would be the same as WWI and the answer was multi turret/multi gun tanks
Black personhomosexual, this is literally documented in the design in ordnance department documents. They wanted something, utilizing stuff that was already being made for M2 Medium, armed with a 75mm gun. The M3 was the best design that could be made right then, with the Sherman replacing it as soon the design could be finalized. The design of the M3 started in July of 1940, after seeing exactly what kind of war was coming in the German invasion of France.
Literally any research on the topic confirms they you are literally moronic.
> There are trade-offs for everything.
Was the substantially larger 17pdr installed in the Sherman? Yes.
Could the smaller 3” gun have been also installed in a Sherman? Yes.
Are you a dumbass? Yes.
> > the U.S. and many other nations were perfectly capable of producing large castings
> this is literally documented in the design in ordnance department documents.
God damn, you kids are stupid as shit. I weep for the future of humanity…
>Could the smaller 3” gun have been also installed in a Sherman?
I'm not sure whether the 3" gun from the M10 could fit into the Sherman 75 turret but the 76 later used by the Sherman could.
Whether it should have....
>Lack of hull and Co-axial MG is bad on M10
>the Sherman Firefly is proof that you could fit a more powerful gun in a Sherman, just had to delete the hull MG to make room for a reasonable amount of ammo
I love it when you morons argue against yourselves.
You don't understand anon. The firefly was a trend setter! Who knew that all tanks would eliminate the hull machine gun only a few years later!
oh and no, the doctrine was just flat out bad. Ridiculous to create entire armor companies for what is essentially a glorified rear echelon duty.
> The tank destroyer itself was designed well
Not really, the success of U.S. tank destroyer units was due to training, not better equipment.
The M10 wasn’t any faster then a Sherman yet had a far less armor and also lacked co-axial and hull machine guns and because of the poor turret design with the heavy 3” gun, it was unbalanced and required a huge counter weight (3700-2500lbs) to be tacked on to the back and it also lacked a power turret traverse (even though they were available at the time) and as mentioned, while the open topped current was great for quickly spotting tanks or bailing the frick out if hit, it provided no protection from artillery and infantry fire. Also, the turret design meant the hull hatches couldn’t be opened unless the turret was traversed to provide clearance, which is why most pics from WWII of M10s usually show the current slightly canted to the side so the driver could stick his head out the hatch.
A disappointing design (regardless of the ineffective tactical doctrine) that didn’t need to be, if they had only put a little more thought into it.
>Also, the turret design meant the hull hatches couldn’t be opened unless the turret was traversed to provide clearance, which is why most pics from WWII of M10s usually show the current slightly canted to the side so the driver could stick his head out the hatch.
Thanks, going to have nightmares of my head being caught between a turret and the rest of the tank
there was no turret basket so escape wouldn't have been all that big of a deal.
>had a far less armor
It wasn't meant to resist being shot at, because the primary threat if was supposed to go up against (tank gun fire) could just as well penetrate it, regardless of armor.
>and also lacked co-axial and hull machine guns
It wasn't supposed to provide infnatry support (and hull MGs are a meme)
>and because of the poor turret design with the heavy 3” gun, it was unbalanced and required a huge counter weight (3700-2500lbs) to be tacked on to the back
Yes, and?
>and it also lacked a power turret traverse (even though they were available at the time)
Keep in mind most casemate TDs also lacked power traverse. It's not much of an issue when you're sitting stationary in a pre-prepared position.
>and as mentioned, while the open topped current was great for quickly spotting tanks or bailing the frick out if hit, it provided no protection from artillery and infantry fire.
It wasn't supposed to be shot at by artillery and infantry fire.
All the points you mentioned can be summed up in one sentence: the M10 was designed to bring a big 3 inch gun to the battefield at reasonable cost to it's functionality in it's intended role as a tank destroyer. It did so. It it a good design.
>Design a war fighting vehicle
>It wasn't designed to be shot at
So, you are admitting it's a bad design then.
>M10 was designed to bring a big 3 inch gun to the battefield at reasonable cost to it's functionality
But it wasn't a reasonable cost. It's only overlooked because the US had so much excess production capacity that it could afford inefficiencies like this.
US planes are another example of this, where at the US industry was producing 5 fighters that all basically did the same job.
>Design a war fighting vehicle
>Design it to be shot at
So you're admitting you're a bad designer? I wouldn't design a vehicle to get shot at, that just seems like a bad idea.
>>and it also lacked a power turret traverse (even though they were available at the time)
>Keep in mind most casemate TDs also lacked power traverse. It's not much of an issue when you're sitting stationary in a pre-prepared position.
Difference is casemate TDs only move the gun 15-30 degrees or so, so the gearing can be a lower ratio. For the M10, the hand crank has to move the turret, which is unsurprisingly heavier, so you need a higher gear ratio The bad weight distribution of the M10s turret makes things worse, the Panzer IV had basically over twice the turret rotation speed with the hand crank and mounted a gun that had equivalent performance
the slow turret traverse was not seen as a major disadvantage in its role of ambushing enemy armor, as it was not meant to engage the enemy in maneuver
it was meant to allow it to engage targets without needing to turn the hull and risk a breakdown and to allow for fine adjustment from the commander without the driver
and just having a turret at all was a significant improvement over being in a casemate
If you have a turret might as well have an electric system for rotating it. Did they ever add it later?
>If you have a turret might as well have an electric system for rotating it.
it just was not a priority for it, the loss of it was not nearly the deal breaker WT players think it the turret designed for the 3in gun meant the M4s turret traverse would not fit, and the purpose of the M10 was a stopgap to expediate a heavier weapon earlier, so it was decided to loss of a hand crank would only affect it if it was caught in close combat
>Did they ever add it later?
the M36 got one because the 90mm was too heavy to properly hand-crank at all
one was developed for the M10, but it was decided to prioritize the M36 as the M36 totally superseded the M10 in every way
>the turret designed for the 3in gun meant the M4s turret traverse would not fit,
Nonsense, An M0 was in fact fitted with a power turret traverse once it was realized that huge ass turret counter weights would be needed and the manual traverse was horribly slow but by then, it was already in full production and the M18 was intended to replace it.
> the M36 got one because the 90mm was too heavy to properly hand-crank at all
More nonsense. The M36 had a properly balanced turret that could be easily (albeit, slowly) manually traversed but it was fitted with a power traverse anyways, due to experience with the M10.
The Brits added one to theirs since the 17pdr was heavy as frick, like the M36 90mm gun.
>the Panzer IV had basically over twice the turret rotation speed with the hand crank and mounted a gun that had equivalent performance
what were the traverse per handwheel revolution values for m10 vs pz.iv?
M10 depending on the source had a 360 rotation of 80-120s
Hilary Doyle gives the value of the manual traverse of the Panzer IV as 2.6x slower then the powered traverse. The electric traverse of the Panzer IV for 360 degrees was 22,5s, so with the hand traverse, 60s
all of which means shit since there's no way to set a maximum speed for manual traverse. which is why i asked about the degrees per handwheel revolution.
The number of deg/turn is irrelevant if we don't know the force to operate the handcrank.
Sure 1 vehicle might have 4 degree/turn and another might have 2, but it is irrelevant if the first vehicle has a stiff crank, and the second is as light as a feather.
> > had a far less armor
> It wasn't meant to resist being shot at
The M10 sacrificed armor for speed yet it wasn’t any faster then a Sherman., in part because of the heavy turrent counter-weights and heavy twin 6-71 engine.
> > and also lacked co-axial and hull machine guns
> It wasn't supposed to provide infnatry support (and hull MGs are a meme)
And yet it was attacked by infantry and used for infantry support.
> > huge counter weight (3700-2500lbs)
> Yes, and?
The turret traverse was glacially slow, the last thing you want in a vehicle that’s supposed to snipe enemy tanks, not to mention needlessly hauling all that unnecessary weight.
> > and it also lacked a power turret traverse (even though they were available at the time)
> Keep in mind most casemate TDs also lacked power traverse.
Casement mount gun TDs obviously don’t need power traverse.
> It's not much of an issue when you're sitting stationary in a pre-prepared position.
Except it is an issue when you expect to be outnumbered and need to cover a wide front.
> > it provided no protection from artillery and infantry fire.
> It wasn't supposed to be shot at by artillery and infantry fire.
That’s nice, tell it to the Germans…
> It it a good design.
I’ll grant that it was clearly better then a towed AT gun.
>looking at top speeds (limited by transmission gear ratio)
homie it had a better power to weight ratio. It was faster (accelerated faster), top speeds are irrelevant because they can only be used in ideal environments which the M10 would still reach top speed faster.
> > looking at top speeds (limited by transmission gear ratio)
> homie it had a better power to weight ratio.
It was a bit more nimble but didn’t achieve the intended overall performance, which the later M18 did (even if the TD concept was ultimately a failure).
> > That’s nice, tell it to the Germans…
> You do realize the France was liberated and Germany surrendered?
And yet M10/M36 crews had to jury-rig machine guns because they DID have to deal with infantry.
> > not to mention needlessly hauling all that unnecessary weight.
> weight doesn't affect traverse effort. balance does.
I’m not talking about turret traverse but total weight. 3700-2500lbs for the needless counter weights is needless weight for the vehicle to lug around, plus the twin 6-71 engines weighed almost 5000lbs while the Ford V-8 was less than 1500lbs.
The point being: the M10could have been much better if some common sense had been applied to the design.
>And yet M10/M36 crews had to jury-rig machine guns because they DID have to deal with infantry.
When? Where?
>And yet M10/M36 crews had to jury-rig machine guns because they DID have to deal with infantry.
Both had a .50 mount on top of the turret. Fricking Audie Murphy got his Medal of Honor mowing down Germans with an M10's roof-mounted .50.
Exactly. They had to "jury" rig an anti aircraft gun to the vehicle by having it come out of the factory with it attached.
Absolute hacks!
> That’s nice, tell it to the Germans…
You do realize the France was liberated and Germany surrendered?
>The M10 sacrificed armor for speed yet it wasn’t any faster then a Sherman
No, it sacrificed armor for a 3 inch gun.
>And yet it was attacked by infantry and used for infantry support.
Because the US ran out of tanks to shoot at, doctrine and design can't really help with that.
>The turret traverse was glacially slow, the last thing you want in a vehicle that’s supposed to snipe enemy tanks, not to mention needlessly hauling all that unnecessary weight.
It's not as if tanks were bombing around the battlefield at 80 MPH. The fastest thing on tracks out there (M18) was only doing 55MPH, and it certainly wasn't doing that on any terrain. Unnecessary weight doesn't matter as much as it brought more operational capability (bigger gun).
>Casement mount gun TDs obviously don’t need power traverse.
Casemate TDs are limited by their gun mounting: if they want to turn more, they need to start engines (because the engines are off), meaning they can get spotted. Yes, the M10 would have been better with a power traverse, but it didn't have one. What it did have was practically the same gun movement speed of most contemporary TDs, and more functionality to boot.
>That’s nice, tell it to the Germans…
OK, next World War we'll tell them to bring armor.
>I’ll grant that it was clearly better then a towed AT gun.
Not just better than towed AT, also better than a 75mm Sherman in some regards. If you had to choose between a 75mm Sherman or an M10 to go up against a lone Tiger, I'm sure most people would still pick the M10. Of course we'd all prefer a 76mm Sherman, but if they aren't around...
> > The M10 sacrificed armor for speed yet it wasn’t any faster then a Sherman
> No, it sacrificed armor for a 3 inch gun.
The weight differences between the 75mm and the 3” gun were negligible, a Sherman could have easily carried the 3” gun with little effect on it’s performance, the M10 was designed with thin armor to increase its speed yet it ended up being not much faster then a Sherman due to the heavy turret counter weights and heavy engine.
> > And yet it was attacked by infantry and used for infantry support.
> Because the US ran out of tanks to shoot at, doctrine and design can't really help with that.
The TD concept was flawed from the start, as it required the Germans to do what Tank Destroyer Command wanted them to do (only attack in large formations with little infantry support) which meant the M10 was flawed from the start.
> > not to mention needlessly hauling all that unnecessary weight.
> Unnecessary weight doesn't matter as much as it brought more operational capability (bigger gun).
Unnecessary weight is always negative and could have been avoided by designing a better turret and/or installing a power turret traverse.
cont.
>the M10 was designed with thin armor to increase its speed yet it ended up being not much faster then a Sherman due to the heavy turret counter weights and heavy engine.
what source says the engine and turret weight capped the m10's speed, and not the gearing?
Don't you know that if your gun requires a counterweight to not destroy itself it automatically makes a vehicle inferior as its carrying that weight?
Weight means slow. Slow means bad. Bad means M10 bad.
the counterweight had nothing to do with the gun destroying itself. the counterweight eased traverse on slopes. the m10 had the same dash and sustained speeds as the m4a2 despite being ~5K pounds lighter. so again: what source claims the m10's top speed was limited by its turret weight and engine weight vs gearing?
No. Countweight bad. Weight bad. Bad means M10 bad.
>The weight differences between the 75mm and the 3” gun were negligible, a Sherman could have easily carried the 3” gun with little effect on it’s performance
No. Just no. If it did, they wouldn't have designed the 76mm.
>the M10 was designed with thin armor to increase its speed yet it ended up being not much faster then a Sherman due to the heavy turret counter weights and heavy engine.
No, the M10 was designed to field a 3 inch gun. Speed was the Hellcat's game.
>The TD concept was flawed from the start, as it required the Germans to do what Tank Destroyer Command wanted them to do (only attack in large formations with little infantry support) which meant the M10 was flawed from the start.
Not when you judge the design of the M10 at the effectiveness at which it could perform the intended design goals. You don't judge a PCC by ELR standards.
>Unnecessary weight is always negative and could have been avoided by designing a better turret and/or installing a power turret traverse.
The weight was necessary to field the 3 inch, therefore, not unnecessary.
>Not providing the M10/M36/M18 with coaxial and hull machine guns was flat-out stupid and M10s and M36s ended up having to install jury-rigged canopy armor, another obvious failing of the design.
Those kits weren't jury-rigger, they were designed to be retrofitted.
>Except the M10 had only marginally better armor penetration, while lacking armor protection and machine guns.
Armor that doesn't matter if you're going up against an 88.
>Speed was the Hellcat's game.
the tank destroyers desired speed always, but were stuck with expedient designs until the m18 could be produced. bruce disliked the m10 because of its weight and that it wasn't much faster than a medium tank
>TD users actively refused to convert to the M18 from the M10
thanks, anon, but that doesn't change bruce's opinion of the m10 while the m18 was being designed
Who cares?
people who desire knowledge about us tank destroyers in ww2. speed was desired from the start, but the vehicles initially available weren't able to provide it. so saying "speed was the hellcat's game" is misleading since they wanted speed from the m10 as well, but it wasn't able to deliver.
>M10 crews didn't care about speed
>And so refused to convert to the M18
yes, anon. and surely you can see that the crews' opinions were developed AFTER the vehicles were designed, which is what we're talking about. or are you simply being intentionally obtuse?
please let capital letters enter your life.
> > Casement mount gun TDs obviously don’t need power traverse.
> What it did have was practically the same gun movement speed of most contemporary TDs
Manual traverse is used for fine adjustments and in that, the M10 was no different then a casement mount gun TD but there is no denying that 360* traverse is better then 10*-30* traverse.
> > That’s nice, tell it to the Germans…
> OK, next World War we'll tell them to bring armor.
Not providing the M10/M36/M18 with coaxial and hull machine guns was flat-out stupid and M10s and M36s ended up having to install jury-rigged canopy armor, another obvious failing of the design.
> > I’ll grant that it was clearly better then a towed AT gun.
> If you had to choose between a 75mm Sherman or an M10 to go up against a lone Tiger, I'm sure most people would still pick the M10.
Except the M10 had only marginally better armor penetration, while lacking armor protection and machine guns.
>Except the M10 had only marginally better armor penetration, while lacking armor protection and machine guns.
How can you be so fricking wrong? The 3 inch gun is about equal in performance to the M1 76mm.
The 3 inch shells are fricking twice as long as the 75mm M3 cannon shells.
God damn, this board if full of children...
So you’re telling me the 76mm/3 inch guns had only marginally better armor penetration?
>The turret traverse was glacially slow, the last thing you want in a vehicle that’s supposed to snipe enemy tanks, not to mention needlessly hauling all that unnecessary weight.
weight doesn't affect traverse effort. balance does.
>if they had only put a little more thought into it.
They did
>shell bursts over the open turret top
Friendly fire with VT Fuses ?
>shooting the cannon and then the turret ball
Damn they really did have WT in ww2
tiger chad
The 1 smart Germany tank player in a team filled with brainlets. War Thunder is truly a recreation of real life.
>Shoots gunner through coax
>Then blacks barrel
>Then misses cupola
Lmao
It's just plain stupid. Remember, this tank had no machinegun either. They thought it'd be in a vacuum where they would only ever face enemy tanks. Why bother with overhead protection if infantry is not a threat?
>What exactly was the reasoning behind the development of this thing?
to get a larger gun into service in 1942
>What exactly could it do that a 76mm sherman couldn’t?
the M10 was a stop gap to mount the over-sized 3in gun in the M4 sherman
the 76mm sherman required a new turret to properly hold the new gun, so they quickly hashed out the M10 in the meantime
>It seems it was noticeably worse in many aspects too, like sky-high crew mortality rates from shell bursts over the open turret top
the open-top allowed for better visibility
which is important for the TD role, which is intended to ambush enemy vehicles
>the open-top allowed for better visibility
>which is important for the TD role, which is intended to ambush enemy vehicles
>Faster and cheaper to produce, it's a tank destroyer moron.
If it was meant to be a cheap ambush vehicle with a large gun, then why did they bother with a turret?
Because frick you, that's why
Because turning an entire fricking tank and causing a buncha noise will get you spotted quicker
>then why did they bother with a turret?
Because turning the whole vehicle to aim requires close coordination between the gunner, driver, and commander
It will also put unnecessary strain on the transmission and increase the odds of a breakdown
Turret is equally necessary on the defense as the offense, combat is not predicable and the enemy isnt walking into your pre-prepared killzone every single time
It was actually easier to bail from an open topped vehicle than a closed one in case of emergency
Because turning a tank isn’t simple.
neutral searing is a fairly recent thing anon.
a lot of tanks in WW2 had neutral steering, it was just more of a last-resort as it could de-track the vehicle when doing so
things like the Nashorn either have to operate at extended range and/or across a narrow choke point, and in a battle situation that is not rapidly changing
they are over specialised and somewhat inflexible, but it's ok considering some of the alternatives such as lugging about a PAK 43 by Sd.Kfz. 7 or hand
Neutral Steering also slowly digs a tank into soft ground
on the Tiger and Panther it stressed out the Drive train too much
Hydraulic and Electric Transmissions can also do neutral steering, Char B1 uses this to aim the hull Gun
but for the time its not worth the extra weight and complexity
Panzerjagers like Marders and Nashorn would be operated the same way as towed anti-tank guns, and the same idea continues to exist to this day with ATGMs mounted on light armored vehicles. The US Tank Destroyer Doctrine was something completely different where the TD units would be a reserve force that would counterattack a potential blitzkrieg attack.
Hindsight would prove this doctrine to be wrong
Marders were actually very effective when employed in their actual role of ambushing the thing is the battlefield is always changing and a lot of the times they were thrown into battle on the attack witch happened a lot in russia because of the swarms of t34s and got decimated witch is why they prioritised the stug cause it was a much more versatile in its role
>which*
Marder chassis - Panzer II, Panzer 38(t)
Stug chassis - Panzer III, Panzer IV
I don't see how reusing older chassis from obsolete vehicles has anything to do with prioritisng the StuG.
Also Marder / StuG / Panzerjager all have the same role in your mind, don't they?
Same role yes but the marders were used primarily as a stop gap measure due to the alarming rate of the t34s production ramping up and during early 1942 there were very few weapons the Germans had that could reliably take out the heavier russian tanks you gotta remember this is before they mass produced the pak 40
StuG was an infantry support vehicle, panzerjager is a general term for tank destroyer which the Marder series is a subset of. And if by reusing obsolete chassis you mean taking old panzer II/IIIs and rebuilding them, you're more right than wrong. StuGs were built using the same chassis design, but weren't converted from existing tanks. Marder vehicles were generally 1/3 conversions of existing vehicles, 2/3 new builds. They weren't really re-using old chassis, they were just throwing a bigger gun in a casemate on an existing design.
>you're more right than wrong
*more wrong than right
I've had too much whiskey
Marders were built on the Panzer III chassis at times, too. The Marders were a stopgap solution to buy time for late-model StuGs, long-barrel Panzer IVs and the Panther to get into mass production.
>Marders were built on the Panzer III chassis at times, too.
Where? When? What's their Sdkfz designation?
In the early 1930s the US high command decided that the US army needed tank destroyer formations.
>What exactly could it do that a 76mm sherman couldn’t?
It existed before the war even started while the M4-76mm. entered service in January 1944 and it's gun was not the same, although the gun of the M4-76mm. would fire the same round.
> It seems it was noticeably worse in many aspects too, like sky-high crew mortality rates from shell bursts over the open turret top
Yes but the USA didn't have the necessary knowhow to design well protected turrets with high caliber guns and their corresponding parts in the hull at that point. This is why the M3 Lee exists.
So the M10 got an anemic turret with a high caliber gun to save weight.
>It existed before the war even started
homiewat
>In the early 1930s the US high command decided that the US army needed tank destroyer formations.
No it didn't, in fact pre-WWII U.S. _tanks_ were armed with machine guns as pretty much everybody thought the next war was going to be like the last war, with massive trench lines and zerg rushing infantry attacks. The U.S. only developed the tank destroyer concept after reports of the French using truck mounted anti-tank guns successfully (on a couple of occasions) during the German invasion in 1940.
>>What exactly could it do that a 76mm sherman couldn’t?
>It existed before the war even started while the M4-76mm.
The M10 used the 3" gun (76mm) which was an adaption of the pre-war anti-aircraft gun. The later 76mm gun used with the Sherman and M18 was a different and substantially lighter gun using a different cartridge case with the same projectile.
>> It seems it was noticeably worse in many aspects too, like sky-high crew mortality rates from shell bursts over the open turret top
>Yes but the USA didn't have the necessary knowhow to design well protected turrets with high caliber guns and their corresponding parts in the hull at that point. This is why the M3 Lee exists.
Nonsense, the U.S. was perfectly capable of producing large heavily armored cast turrets, the French and British produced entire cast tank _hulls_ prior to the war and even Australia produced hull and turret castings early in the war.
The M3 was a derivative of the pre-war concept of the multi-turret "land battleship" tanks that everybody experimented with, which in turn was based (once again) on the misconception that WWII would be just like WWI.
>So the M10 got an anemic turret with a high caliber gun to save weight.
The U.S. tank destroyer concept was a very fast, lightly armored tracked vehicle with a powerful gun (which would become the M18) but at the time, manufacturing and logistics issues meant that the M3/M4 chassis had to be used, thus the M10 was developed.
Faster and cheaper to produce, it's a tank destroyer moron.
The US Tank Destroyers weren't particularly cheap to produce vs tanks.
They were basically tanks without a roof in fact
One grenade, boom, the entire crew is dead.
why would the tank destroyer be unsupported by infantry and other tanks
are they russian?
Aachen, m10s were actually grenaded from up above due to it being urban combat
This thread only exists because of that one time during the bulge where like 5 m10s got liquidated by 2 panthers or some shit
As if anything else would have fared better
they got massacres at Kassarine. That’s where this photo is from
Got Audie Murphy out of that though.
I wonder how M10 APC would do
>reasoning behind the development of this thing
it's a mobile anti tank gun
the open top allowed the crew to spot targets a lot faster
it didn't work out
artillery was everywhere and the open top made the tank destroyers vulnerable to air bursts
infrantry with grenades would be a threat too
>it didn't work out
literally every country used open-topped destroyers throughout WW2
that they were obsoleted by the end of the war did not mean they were bad during the war, as they all saw high kills for low losses
>literally every country used open-topped destroyers throughout WW2
mostly because it's an easy and cheap way to mount a large gun.
The alternative to an open topped TD would be lugging a PaK-40 or 17pdr through the mud.
Needless to say, Pak-40 bolted onto obsolete chassis which was what Marders basically were, is better then a towed AT Gun.
M10, M18 and M36 weren't cheaper to produce then Shermans since they basically had all the bells and whistles of a tank but without a turret roof.
The 3 US tank destroyers are a case of doctrine driving design, and not combat experience driving design
>The 3 US tank destroyers are a case of doctrine driving design, and not combat experience driving design
How the frick are they supposed to have been designed based upon combat experience when all the American tank destroyers were designed before Operation Torch.
You may as well state that water is wet.
While the concepts and designs did exists, that is still a long way from that, to prototypes, testing, production and service. However TD Force was the baby of General Bruce, who wanted proceeded forward with his "plan" and didn't look at what was happening in North Africa, Italy, and North West Europe
Water is wet.
They are very much bad designs that would be laughed on here today if they were produced by anyone else (especially the British).
The only reason they are seen remotely positively is because they were on the winning side.
>They are very much bad designs that would be laughed on here today if they were produced by anyone else (especially the British).
Its an M4 sherman hull with a 3in gun, why would it be any worse than the exact same type of vehicle such by other countries?
It was used as a self propelled anti tank gun and it eas successfull in that role
It was able to use existing M4 production lines so it didnt displace production like the M18 would with its unique hull
It made more sense than the archer which had a gun that faced backwards
The M18 didn't displace anything; it was built entirely at the Buick in Flint, Michigan which did not produce tanks otherwise.
Tanks were made at the nearby facility in Grand Blanc however.
To further expand on this
The advantage of most tank destroyers/assault guns is that they a low profile. Well this is not true for the American TDs unless we compare them to the "heavy" tank destroyers like Elefant, Jagdpanther and Jagtiger which are in a different weight class. Even the Hellcat, which has a low profile, has a larger profile to a StuG, Jagpanzer 38t, Jagdpanzer IV or Su-85.
The second advantage is that they are meant to have lower production costs. A StuG ausf G was about 80k RM, compared to a Panzer III ausf M which was around 100k RM. The Su-85 is around 120k rubles, vs a T-34-85 of about 150k rubles. The 3 US TDs are in the same ballpark as the Sherman, $47k USD, $51k USD and $55k USD for M10, M36 and M18 respectively. And the ad-hoc self-propelled anti-tank guns like Marder are even cheaper as they are an obsolete chassis that has already been produced, with a PaK-40 stuck on top (or 17lbr in the case of the Archer), and are there to be superior to towed AT guns
And the third issue is armor protection. The M10 and M36 at 29 tonnes aren't significantly lighter then the Sherman, yet have much worse protection. The M18 at 18 tonnes, is vulnerable to 8mm AP under 100m.
>It made more sense than the archer which had a gun that faced backwards
The Archers gun placement makes sense in the context that it is strictly a self propelled anti-tank gun in an era where tracked vehicles don't generally have good reverse gears. A towed gun can't reposition once combat has started. A Marder, has to reverse out of it's ambush position, and turn around to move, which exposes the crew to enemy fire. The Archer doesn't have to do that, it just drives out of it's ambush position to a new one.
It makes more sense to use a TD derived from the primary medium of the time for commonality than an obsolete vehicle whose spare parts arent even in production
And the higher profile was more than made up for by its ability to aim without stressing is tracks
M10 totally made sense for the time, which was to rush the 3in gun into a hull in time for North Africa
>The advantage of most tank destroyers/assault guns is that they a low profile
>height of Marder III: 2.48 m (8 ft 2 in)
>height of M10: 2.57 m (8 ft 5 in)
*yawn*
How does this disproves my point event especially when Panzerjagers aren't meant to be a good design, just better then a towed gun, using existing obsolete stock. The M10 used a modified M4A2 chassis in a similar vein to say StuG or Jagdpanzers. The M10 has shit armour, not much better then Panzerjagers while the, while the StuG was protected vs the 75mm and Soviet 76mm at medium ranges and the Jagdpanzers IV had the frontal armour protection similar to that of the Panther and weighs 5 tons less then the M10,
m10 was an interim design that general bruce hated for being slow and heavy. it got the tank destroyers something in the field while what became the m18 was being developed, but the tank destroyer administration had no love for it
>How does this disproves my point
>The advantage of most tank destroyers/assault guns is that they a low profile
>this is not actually correct when you realize that Jgpz IV and Jgpz 38t were *not* most tank destroyers by a long shot
You played yourself. You're sitting here trying to represent the Jgpz IV, Jgpz 38t, and StuG III as every "normal" German tank destroyer while pretending the Marder series, which was the actual stopgap in similar vein to the M10 and just as numerous as the forementioned excepting the StuG, doesn't exist. You've made up your own dumb criteria for what makes a tank destroyer a *good* design, while completely ignoring that different armies have different doctrines and priorities, and therefore desire some tradeoffs over others when designing their vehicles.
You've been told what the M10 is, and I'll reiterate since you haven't seemed to grasp it yet. It was a stopgap to get a 3" gun into service by 1942. Which it did just fine, much like the German Marder series. You just seem to be having an autistic tantrum over the fact that the USA was rich enough in natural resources, factories, and brains to be able to put the gun in a turret, whereas the Germans were not.
>Not applying the "tank destroyer" doctrine that you have mashed together out of all the doctrines you know to all militaries
>Not using the parameters of your "tank destroyer" doctrine to decide what is "good" and "bad" even though is rejects conventional positions and in some cases basic thought
Where do you think we are? M10 bad because I said it's bad. It just is okay?
I hate where we are but it's been 15 years and I can't leave ;_;
This place is the worst kind of prison
M36 and the M10A1 both are between 4-5 tons lighter (29 tons vs 33-34) than 76 mm armed Shermans common late-war and have a stronger engine than all of them but the latest M4A3 76's. They actually has a better power to weight ratio than the T-34's and regularly cracked 30 miles per hour on roads and hard ground. The original M10 had a significant horsepower advantage over the M4's fielded in 1942/43 prior to the issues with the earlier radial engines being sorted out, plus were about 2 tons lighter.
I love that you have such a shallow understanding of all the different nations doctrine regarding tank destroyers that you have simply applied the same thinking to everyone. You had added in so many things other than "it kills tanks" to the requirements list that it is unreal.
I wish I had such an emotional investment in hating the american tank destroyers to hate them as much as you do.
The American TD doctrine and the vehicles it produced were bad, and would have been laughed at on this board had they been produced by any other nation.
>implying we don't laugh at the doctrine
>implying that we in anyway attribute success against the Germans to TDs
The fact that you continue to try and nitpick is all the proof needed to know you aren't actually looking to learn/understand anything and just looking for an "America stupid" item to latch onto.
You're ignoring that all except the M10/M18/M36 had limited traverse casement mount guns, which was a serious disadvantage.
No I haven't. As I have said, the US TDs have all the bells and whistles a tank would have, except a roof. So they have the advantage of a turret, but at the cost of the profile of a tank, the production cost of tank, and yet they have thinner armour then tanks, and have no roof armour to protect the crew not only from enemy fire and artillery, but also the elements. So it's fascinating, they combine the 1 advantage tanks have, which is a turret, and the disadvantages of the adhoc self-propelled AT guns strapped on obsolete chassis, which is limited protection to the crew, yet also have the disadvantages of tank compared to a casemate tank destroyer/assault gun, which is profile and higher production cost.
Fascinating how such vehicles are seen in a positive light
It's all a tradeoff, ligher armor means tank can go faster. No roof was for battlefield observation purposes. It is a pretty weird vehicle all things considered though, which is why I like it - it's quite unconventional and therefore fascinating to me.
1. The US literally did not have any obsolete armored chassis to mount guns to. There was no surplus of panzer IIIs for the US.
2. They performed reasonably well. The US Army ordinance board did not see any reason to stop producing them. 76mm Sherman’s are quite rare (1/4 at the end of the war) so having M10s/M18s/M36s to supplement them was a good idea.
3. The open top turret allowed for good visibility and communication with supporting infantry. You do realize that pretty much every country other than the US had no way to communicate with tankers and infantry other than the commander exposing themselves. Americans put telephones on the outside of the tank so infantry can communicate when the tank is buttoned up.
4. The US lacked the transmission that allows for treads to rotate different directions, the Germans did so their casemate tanks could rotate in place. American, British, and Soviet tanks could not. The Americans did not pursue casemates because of this. Plus casemates are still highly impractical even with the special transmission.
>76mm Sherman’s are quite rare (1/4 at the end of the war)
"by the time of the Rhine crossings in March 1945, approximately 40% of the Shermans in European Theater stocks were armed with the 76mm gun"
http://afvdatabase.com/history.html
>The US lacked the transmission that allows for treads to rotate different directions, the Germans did so their casemate tanks could rotate in place
not pz.iii or pz.iv
Height actually made a lot of difference in ww2 because most tanks used manual rangefinders and I heard the t34s were notorious for having a terrible time shooting at distance witch is why the stugs had a field day with them when they encountered on the steppe
>M10, M18 and M36 weren't cheaper to produce then Shermans
The M10 was something like 40% cheeper then a Sherman.
The Numbers i have for M10 are $47,900 and for the Sherman are $44,556–64,455
>M10, M18 and M36 weren't cheaper to produce then Shermans since they basically had all the bells and whistles of a tank but without a turret roof.
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
tree burst is where its at
>artillery shell hits tree
>splinters everywhere
Hie thee to Chieftain's 'tube, he covered this on multiple occasions from different angles years ago.
>What exactly could it do that a 76mm sherman couldn’t?
Be in service with the USA before June 1944?
>What exactly was the reasoning behind the development of this thing? What exactly could it do that a 76mm sherman couldn’t?
The fact that it was made before the 76mm could even be finished.
M10 were available from 1942
Shermans with 76s from mid 1944
yes this is because TD gays actively blocked the adoption of AT guns in tanks.
[citation needed]
>What exactly could it do that a 76mm sherman couldn’t?
Lighter and cheaper while retaining the ability to split a panther in half even from the front. Since MBTs weren't a thing yet, US armor doctrine early on required different armored vehicles in different roles.
>retaining the ability to split a panther in half even from the front
Nothing to retain here. The only 75/76mm gun able to do that was the 17-pounder. You wanna crack Panthers from the front beyond virtually point blank range, you'll be waiting for the M36.
It was developed before the 76mm Sherman as a tank destroyer, not a tank.
>Peak American TD
>Cheap
>Low Profile
>Mounted on an obsolete chassis
M10 shitters on suicide watch.
It was also had an obsolete artillery gun that didn't have a trigger for the gunner to press. Had to have the string pulled by the loader and used an obsolete screw breach. So yeah, it is basically a worse PaKwagen
I always wondered why the germs never just did this earlier on I know apparently the shorter barreled 75mm howitzer 251s were quite effective when using heat shells
251s were also short on availability for their main purpose as APCs to transport Panzergrenadiers whilst there was a glut of obsolete pre-war light tanks that could mount a PaK-40
Don't forget
>Canon de 75 modele 1897
>What exactly could it do that a 76mm sherman couldn’t?
Exist when America entered the war
>What exactly could it do that a 76mm sherman couldn’t?
It looks cool as frick
The m10 was developed for the sole reason that its a really fun tank to play in world of tanks
Anything else is irrelevant in 2022
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand the M10 tank destroyer. The design is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of tank knowledge most of the design features will go over a typical treadhead's head. There's also the M10's turret, which is deftly woven into its characterisation- its lack of an electric traverse mechanism draws heavily from American Tank Destroyer Force doctrine, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these design choices, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about US military technology in 1942. As a consequence people who dislike the M10 tank destroyer truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in the fact that on average M10 fired 11 high-explosive shells for every AP shell, which itself is a cryptic reference to Clausewitz's Prussian epic On War. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as U.S. Army Ordnance Department's genius wit unfolds itself on their monitor screens. What fools.. how I pity them.
And yes, by the way, i DO have a Wolverine tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid
the oilgear traverse system was tested on the m10 in 1843. the tank destroyers liked it, but by the time the tests were done the m36 was coming online. the m18 had power traverse as well. the weight of the ordnance didn't matter for traverse effort as much as the balance did
>the oilgear traverse system was tested on the m10 in 1843
omg a typo
ITT: Not a single person who has read any primary sources or secondary sources on the topic at hand
ITP: Not a single person who has read the thread
>Literally muh feelings > your feelings the thread with not a single source, factual statement and anything other than TD bad
>Reading this mess
Why is everyone arguing over an old tank?
welcome to the internet, anon. enjoy your stay
I'm waiting for the brass to try it again
Try what, arguing over old tanks? Or the M10 specifically? Or the tank destroyer concept?
>mfw nobody in this thread realises that they did intend on having a electric traverse for the M10s turret
>mfw it was cancelled because the M10 was going on of production
see
>Reading a post that hasn't encountered capital letters
No.
it was hydraulic anyway.
Black person there was more than one developed.
more than one was developed for the sherman, but the westinghouse system was not tested in th m10. oilgear's was. Black person.
There was more than one developed for the fricking M10 you illiterate Black person. Learn how to use a fricking capital letter and then learn to read a fricking book. It took me five fricking minutes to find it in
that book that you can buy a digital copy of for $2 you double Black person.
i have a hard copy of that book. on p.134 is where he talks about the oilgear system being used. the oilgear was the preferred traverse system out of the three developed for the medium tank, so it makes sense it was the one chose for trials in the m10. Black person.
American doctrine saw tanks as primarily an infantry support platform and called for fast, lightly armored gun carriages to engage with enemy breakthroughs of armored vehicles.
It is not a tank. It is a tank destroyer.
Think of it as an anti-tank gun with its own transportation, meant for rapidly deploying into defensive positions during an armored attack.
Just happened to be used as a tank most of the time, because to the average infantryman, if it looks like a tank, it's a tank
The actual answer can be found in the dates that different guns went into service.
> in 1918, US army type classifies 3 inch gun M1918, with a 40 caliber long barrel.
> Fast forward to 1941, the US army is looking for an anti tank gun with more punch than 57mm gun M1 after the Fall of France.
> Natural candidate is a derivative of the M1918, stretched to 50 calibers for better performance, adopted at 3 inch gun M7.
> Gun is mounted to heavy tank M6, the T-6 turret on the M4 is designed for the significantly smaller 75mm gun M3 can not fit the M7 due to volume and large size of breech. Open topped turret on a M3 derived hull is designed for the M7 and that gets type classified as M10 tank destroyer in 1942.
> 76mm gun M1 is designed as a lighter and shorter derivative of M7, with slightly shorter barrel and wider but shorter round to improve ease of handing inside a tank turret. Turret for Medium tank T23 is designed to accept 76mm gun M1
> T23 project is cancelled mid 1943, the turret of the T23 shares turret ring diameter with M4 and is ordered into production in late 1943, creating the 76mm Sherman.
The M10 was ready with the 3 inch gun about 2 years before the 76mm Sherman was ready. That's why it existed. Once you have them, you might as well use them.
Well yes, but actually no...
The US did not want to put the M1 gun into the M4 turret for good reason
The US army correctly deemed it wasn't worth losing the ergonomics and rate of fire to cram the 3inch into the T6 series turret ala Firefly.
That's the prototype with the 57 caliber version of the 76. Production M1's were 52 caliber.
>What exactly was the reasoning behind the development of this thing?
Interservice rivalry.