So if anyone didn't know this man is the CEO and president of st. Jude medical. So he's not only committed to saving historical vehicles, but also thousands of children's lives every year. Truly a blessing. You can tell this is a passion project for him and i wish him nothing but the best!
St. Jude Medical was an American global medical device company headquartered in Little Canada, Minnesota, U.S., a suburb of Saint Paul. The company was acquired by Abbott Laboratories in January 2017. Dan Starks retired in 2015 as CEO and President. St. Jude Medical was not affiliated with St. Jude Hospitals.
In all of my research on the "why didn't they just put the superior long 76mm gun on all the Shermans" and "The 75 mm short barrel Sherman sucked -- why couldn't the USA do as well as the Germans", I came up with the following after years of diving. There's a reason most dedicated infantry support vehicles / assault guns had short barrels. The short barrels are lower velocity (because of the shorter distance over which the rounds are exposed to a massive imbalance of forces). Lower velocity means that the round can have a thinner outer shell for stability, meaning, you can fill it with more explosive -- AND that shell can be made of softer metal, meaning better fragmentation. This is ideal against infantry targets and has also been shown to be more effective in period tests on inanimate targets. In WW2, 90% of the rounds fired by Shermans were high explosive -- meaning they were MOSTLY being used against soft targets. Tanks most routinely support infantry. When moving to a higher velocity, longer barrel, it's a trade off. You get better velocity (almost worthless against infantry, but useful against enemy armor), but because velocity goes up, the rounds can be filled with less explosive and have to be made of harder, tougher metal less likely to fragment nicely. And so, one solution might be to send a 76mm long barrel Sherman with every 4 or so 75mm short barrels. And this is often what happened. This would give these groups a bit of all-round protection. The American M8 Scott mobile assault gun was a perfect example of the belief that a low velocity, short barrel was superior for anti-infantry work. The Germans went for penetration over anti-infantry capabilities in their later war tank guns. Though there are plenty examples of their short barreled, low velocity assault guns earlier in the war. Like, the Stug III with 75 mm StuK 37 howitzer.
76mm required a larger turret to meet US Army requirements. The US Army actually wanted troopers to be able to work the turret. The Brits just shoved a big gun in and the crews had to make it work.
The M4 Sherman's 75 mm gun M3 (40 caliber) was a more than adequate gun for dealing with PzKpfw. 3's & 4's, as well as having an excellent high explosive round; it was a good, all-around tank cannon. The American Army's High Command knew that the Tiger and Panther were being developed (and fielded) by the Germans, but they did not think that they would be produced in as large numbers as they were, and thus did not think there was any need for a change. (Besides, according to American combat doctrine of the time, enemy tanks were to be taken care of by tank destroyers, not by tanks.) The 76 mm gun M1, which eventually replaced the M3 cannon in Sherman production, had a superior armor-piercing performance but it's high-explosive shell was inferior to that of the M3. It was only after Allied experience with fighting Tiger tanks in North Africa did the High Command wake up to the need for a better gun for the Sherman. mindbomb9341 - Your final note was exactly what the British did with their armoured brigades: each tank troop was equipped three 75mm-armed tanks (either Shermans or Cromwells) and one 17pdr-armed Sherman Firefly. It worked quite well, with the three 75mm-armed tanks generally moving out in front of the Firefly, with the Firefly either remaining in an overwatch position or following up behind.
@@speedythree Yeah. It seems that the Germans went for the higher pen capabilities on their main tank guns -- and were willing to sacrifice the anti-infantry capability to do it. I guess when I was younger, i never realized there was an important trade-off and thought the longer, faster guns that offered more penetration were always just "better". The M8 Scott was a perfect example of a mobile infantry assault gun with a very short barrel.
The US Army expected tankers to do "their job" which was support the infantry, and not go off seeking glory by engaging enemy tanks. Patton, of all people, vehemently resisted the deployment of 76mm armed tanks to France for that reason. Also, as someone previously commented, our doctrine was that AT guns, and later tank destroyers, should handle enemy tanks. This was reflected in the fact that almost half the US tanks initially deployed in France were M5 Stuarts with a 37mm gun, as the MGs were considered to be the most important part of the tank's armament.
I read somewhere that cast-off Army 37 mm anti-tank guns found a useful home aboard USN PT Boats. They were useful for attacking small ships and barges.
That was true in some cases (PT-109 anyone?), but more commonly it was the 37mm Automatic Gun found on the P-39. In fact, IIRC some of those were actually manufactured specifically for use on the PT's.
@@michaeldelaney7271 The PT crews were notorious for "Strategically relocating assets" anything they could get their hands on. Allegedly when an aircraft made a forced landing on a beach, sand bar, etc. The PTs rescued the crews AND the guns and ammo, much to the annoyance of the recovery crews following to recycle the remains.
@@geofftimm2291 "Strategically relocating assets" sounds like something PT crews did pretty well. Surely a useful skill for folks on Torpedo Boats who were originally provided with useless torpedoes. I always thought of PT crews as the Buccaneers of the Navy, so "asset relocation" fits them to a tee.
@@michaeldelaney7271I believe that they would prefer to use the adequate denomination of "Strategic Transportation of Equipment to Alternate Location", or , more ofthen, they would use the proper military designated acronym for it : STEAL
I attended one of your tours a few years ago and it was amazing, you're a wonderful person for trying to restore and teach about such an important time in World history. You encouraged me to begin work on my history degree the moment I graduated. Thank you.
My grandfather, from Oklahoma, was in the 634th TD Battalion, and took his training at Camp Claiborne, Louisiana. He told us the stories of their experiences across France, Belgium, and Germany. Besides a handful of his snapshots, this is the first detailed look I've had at the M10 he fought in. Thank you for this video.
@5:37 - "The M10 is a conversion of a M4A2 Sherman tank, with diesel Cadillac twin engines." I believe the engines are actually a twin installation of the Detroit Diesel 6-71 inline engine, generally called the GM 6046. (GM created the Detroit Diesel Engine Division in 1938; it remained a part of GM until the 1980's.) I think the confusion comes from the fact that the M5 Stuart light tank was equipped with twin Cadillac V-8 engines linked through a transfer case.
What made the Hellcat effective in the doctrinal role foreseen by the TD Branch was its tactical agility in addition to its raw speed. The M18's high power to weight ratio and the very innovative torque converter equipped driveline allowed the M18 to "shoot and scoot" thus being able to deliver 2-3 rounds vs an approaching enemy and then dash to an alternate fighting position before the enemy could bring accurate return fire to bear. One TD battalion commander likened the M18 to a polo pony in its ability to stop, start, and change direction on a dime.
My favorite story about the TD's during WW2 was: before D-Day, and given the experience of TD's in North Africa and in Italy, around half of the TD Battalions in Europe were converted to towed weapons. However, after experience with the TD's in Western Europe, it was decided to convert ALL TD battalions to self-propelled pieces. Since the Army was introducing the new M-36 at the same time, battalions previously equipped with the M-10 were reequipped with the M-36, and the extra M-10's were used to convert towed battalions to SP battalions. Two little known facts about TD's. First, there were some M-10 equipped tank destroyer battalions which were going to be reequipped with the M-18, and they refused, preferring to keep their M-10's. And second, one of the early M-26 tanks suffered damage to it's gun barrel in combat, and so the mechanics simply replaced the M-26 90mm gun with one in the supply system meant for the M-36.
Yet another great video, thanks for posting. For y’all reading the comments, I highly recommend the book Patton’s Vanguard, it’s about the 4th Armored Division and a lot is learned about how the tanks and tank destroyers were used in WWII. The 704th TD battalion refused to get rid of their Hellcats because they were faster than M10’s and M36’s. Great book.
My Dad was a Three strip Sgt. who served with the 825th Tank Destroyers, Sec. Plt. Co. B Highway Green . Therefore I’ve always been interested in the concept of the tank destroyers. Great video.
I think most of the early panzer 4 actually had worse armour then the panzer 3 so the 37mm gun would kinda work… However the Germans quickly uparmoured the panzer 3 and 4 after their experiences in France. The British 2 pounder and French 47mm guns were quite capable of knocking German armour out so they needed to up armour because they got hammered each time the French or British troops could set themselves up for a fight. Only because they outran the allied reaction capability allowed them to beat them tbh.
Absolutely correct. Initially the PzIII was the "battle" tank, armed with a high velocity 37mm gun and 30mm armor all around. The PzIV was the "support" tank with a low velocity short barrel 75mm for primarily HE use, and armor that was 30mm in front but decreasing to 15-20mm around. US 37mm guns never engaged these early model panzers, which were supplanted before we entered the war, but the British 2lbr abused them quite well.
Yeah he seemed needlessly dismissive of the 37mm. Sure, by 1942 when the US really started ramping up for the war is was getting long in the tooth, but in 1940 it was comparable to the German Pak-36, British 2 Pounder, and Soviet 45mm. I think he's underselling just how little armor early WW2 tanks actually had. I think the disconnect is he started talking about the invasion of France, but then jumped to Kasserine.
My favorite TD is the M10, just have always loved it! My grandpa was a M36 tank commander for the Italian Army in the 1950s. A lot of Allied vehicles were left in Europe after the war and a lot of the countries rebuilding their forces used them!
A great video and some excellent vehicles. I always have a soft spot for anything armed with 17pdr. Arguably the best allied AT gun of the war. Respectively I don’t think you can make a general comment about allied tank doctrine between the wars or use of AT. The British experimented extensively in the 20s & early 30s. German doctrine used elements of British thinking. The British and French both clearly anticipated tank on tank encounters as evidenced in the Battle for France, not least the Arras counter attack. Both countries had tanks that mounted powerful ATs for the day and Matilda II saw service all the way to the end of the war in the Far East where along with other models no longer effective in the European theatre, was superior to all Japanese tanks. British and US doctrine continued to vary throughout the war but the biggest illustration is the British getting the 17th pounder onto towed and SP platforms as well as Cromwell and Sherman hulls as Challenger and Firefly.
Good lecture, what a great museum. Such a wonderful collection! Sir, you have created a great museum and have done such a service to our history and nation. Congratulations!
Great video! Interesting to learn how the US adapted until they could make a dedicated TD like the M18. LOL, and then used parts from the earlier versions to make the Jackson! The combination of massive manufacturing and practical policies are a powerful formula. God Bless America. 👍
My father was assigned to the 558th Tank Destroyer Battalion that landed on Normandy Beach on D Day. Their first assignment was to go through Hitler's bunker to find him. Not found but they did collect all the documents they could find and turn them over to Amy Intelligence. Later on in between combat missions his unit was assigned to free POWs ftom the camps. Dad didnt talk about the war much until he was 80 years old. He passed away at 88 in 2005.
My dad served in the 654th tank destroyer battalion, company B headquarters. France, Belgium and Luxembourg. Lied about his age and went in at 15 years old, he road a wla and delivered messages . Alot of interesting stories about his adventures in the military. Would love too find his motorcycle and photograph it. Last time he seen was in Belgium said the snow was up to the head light . It had a plate on the front that said Oh Babe .
The M36 Jackson was still being used by some countries right up until the 1990's. The Iraqis captured some Iranian M36's and used them in the gulf war. Yugoslavia was using M36's during the Croatian War of Independence (1991-1995).
A great video and some excellent vehicles. I always have a soft spot for anything armed with 17pdr. Arguably the best allied AT gun of the war. Respectively I don’t think you can make a general comment about allied tank doctrine between the wars or use of AT. The British experimented extensively in the 20s & early 30s. German doctrine used elements of British thinking. The British and French both clearly anticipated tank on tank encounters as evidenced in the Battle for France, not least the Arras counter attack. Both countries had tanks that mounted powerful ATs for the day and Matilda II saw service all the way to the end of the war in the Far East where along with other models no longer effective in the European theatre, was superior to all Japanese tanks.
As many of these creations found their way into the savage yards of Europe after the war (rather than shipped home), the new state of Israel 'mined' these junk yards for any useable tanks or tank destroyers that could be refitted for use again (1967 Six Day War).
Tank Destroyer units didn't make much use of 57mm guns. Tank Destroyer Branch tested the 57mm gun, but decided it lacked penetration at range compared to the 75mm, so they declined to make it a primary weapon. Infantry Branch would adopt the 57mm as its main AT gun for much of the war because it was more convenient for infantry anti-tank companies which didn't have the same mobility requirements as Tank Destroyer Branch.
@@robertsmith9970 Good on your Old Man for doing the hard job! I find the Infantry Antitank Units are sorely underappreciated. I grew up being awful confused about that sort of thing myself because the terminology is really loosely used. All anti-tanks guns are "tank destroyers," as in they destroy tanks, but not all anti-tank guns are "Tank Destroyers," as in they belonged to Tank Destroyer Branch.
Many thanks, enjoyed your explanation on the evolution of US tank destroyers. I never took to the Sherman...it was conceptually designed as an infantry support vehicle ... but the M36 more than made up for it: sleek, fast and deadly killing machine....one of my favorites along with the Pershing... why did the US not send M36's along with Pershings to Korea?
US doctrine changed, they decided that tanks were better as a multi function vehicle. My dad's unit existed until the mid 50s, but I believe they after WWII used the standard battle tank.
I feel it would be more accurate to say the Blitz set off a AT gun panic. Everyone knew tanks would be important, but everyone had different ideas as to what degree. Additionally, they were seen as offensive weaponry (and so their development a sign of aggression) making their use in large numbers politically undesireable to many pro-peace governments. This channel feels like the History channel at its best; well-meaning, just using sometimes obselete information and not looking much deeper (though I'm loving the increased source referencing). These guys really have the potential to do some good, particularly while the Armor & Cavalry Museum in Ft Benning remains closed to the public.
Some food for thought. Germany's workhorse, the Panzer IV, had only 8600 or so built. Now using some assumptions like if 80% of the defeated German forces being defeated in the East also means that 80% of the German overall strength was sent there, that means of Germany's most numerically important tank, only about 1,700 fought in the West. I bring that up, because for a good portion of Germany's armored forces where converted captured early war vehicles. And many of them left in an un-armored state. The 37mm wasn't fighting off waves of Panthers or Tigers, but even into '45 could easily hold it's own against armored cars and Marders. True it was time to replace it, but the 3inch cannons were perfectly reasonable weapons for the primary fighting as it's almost hard to justify sending guns to deal with a few handfuls of Panthers or Tigers.
My dad was an ordinance engineering officer with the Advanced Section of CommZ, and his job was to work with the line units as they moved to the front to help them set up their Armored and TD units' repair and replacement supply lines. He was assigned to First Army and worked with his Ord counterparts with 2nd and 3rd Armored and with various Cav and MI units. Unfortunately, he passed when I was just a kid so I didn't get a chance to talk shop with him. My bucket list is do some research at the National Archives and the Ordinance Museum to look for SITREPs and Daily T/O reports to see if I can find evidence of his work. I do know that he was visiting with the 14th Cav on 16DEC44 in the Ardennes that got overrun by KG Pieper, and he melted into the forest with his driver and and eventually rounded up a big group of Doggies and brought them back to 2nd INFDIV lines on the northern flank of the Bulge, for which he was awarded the Bronze Star. Great work with your museum and videos!
Due to the open-top design, the turret/fighting compartment was painted hull color, the drivers compartment interior was painted white to aid in visibility due to scant ambient light.
Great video. I don't like the way the museum is set up. You don't get to walk around the vehicles . A great example is Australia Armour & artillery museum , you can get up close
I noticed the gun is not a full and complete gun. Can that be 1 of the reasons the counter weight is not as heavy. ? -- Having a full weight on the rear would make the turret unbalanced -=-
My Thoughts: * I think you are needlessly dismissive of the 37mm. In 1940, it could absolutely penetrate anything the Germans had and was in line with things like the 2 Pounder and Pak 36. We just didn't use it until 1942 where it had then been outclassed. * My readings suggest the Tank Destroyer's speed was more for quickly seizing the key terrain and laying an Ambush, then disengaging. Maneuvering for a side should would have been very risky. The M10 especially has a notoriously slow, hand cranked, turret. I'd argue only the M18 would be capable in the flanking role thanks to its incredible acceleration. * M8 Greyhound probably deserved a mention. It began life intending to be a tank destroyer.
Apparently there's an incoming drone. Many M2's were fitted to armored vehicles by a fixed pintle mount @9:25, requiring the user to crawl all over the equipment to aim and fire, very few were housed in a ringed "raceway" allowing the user to fire from an open turret hatch. The 2:56 photo is just for 'dramatic effect'.
If you are referring to the 37mm, you have heard some misinformation. It is often quoted that the P-39s we gave to the Soviets were used as tank busters. They weren't. They were used as low level air cover. They didn't carry AP ammo. We didn't send them any AP, they weren't going to build a factory to produce ammo for a gun that was in very limited use with them, and their testing with the best pilots against static targets showed that at best only a 7% hit rate could be expected against a tank. Given that the plane carried 15 rds of 37mm, sorties with AP ammo were a waste of fuel as only a single hit might be achieved at best and it was pretty chancy if it would do any damage. By the time the British were putting 40mm guns on Hurricanes and the Germans were putting 37mm guns on Stukas, tank armor had progressed to the point that only a rare fluke shot would penetrate; track hits for a mobility kill were the expectation. The success of aircraft against tanks in WWII was mainly due to bombs. Rockets and small cannon were highly overrated and their kill counts inflated. BTW, the vaunted A-10/GAU-8 combination is also greatly exaggerated in its effectiveness against tanks.
In what alternative reality did Germany defeat Great Britain? That is a serious misinformation. Germany never defeated Great Britain, just as it never defeated Russia.Referring to the retreat, it was not a defeat but merely a strategic withdrawal. A brief research would reveal that German generals strongly advised against an invasion of Great Britain, knowing well there was no prospect of a successful invasion.I would argue that the statement is as absurd as claiming Germany defeated America, with particular reference to the battles at Kasserine and Sbiba Passes.
@@NMMV_USA in your video you clearly stated Germany defeated Britain Germany did not even win the Battle of Britain please do your research before making absurd statements
@@MrCoxy38 Dude! Chill! 😊First of all, thank you for watching the video and for engaging in discussion about it. One of the challenges in doing these videos is that the audience is so diverse with such different levels of background/expertise. Another challenge is most people don’t have a lot of time/patience to listen to something they already know. I didn’t spend a lot of time on it, so easy to miscommunicate, but I said, “All of this changed with the Battle of France where the Germans defeated France and Great Britain in only six weeks”. The Battle of France lasted six weeks beginning in May 1940, ending in June 1940. The battle ended with France surrendering and the British Expeditionary Force barely escaping the beaches of Dunkirk against all odds with the famous British civilian boat lift supplementing the few available ships of the Royal Navy. Check out the movie Dunkirk streaming now if you haven’t already seen it. No question the British (and the French) were defeated in the Battle of France. Another good resource is Philip Warner’s book, “The Battle for France: Six Weeks That Changed the World”. Since you misunderstood my point, others may have misunderstood too. Thank you for your feedback.
@@NMMV_USAIt seems we will have to agree to disagree. With all due respect, there are several points in this video that are factually incorrect, but we can leave those for the uninformed to believe they are entirely correct.
Not sure if its true but I've heard that while fighting in the Europe during the winters of WWII M10 tank crews ( i think it was )found out the turret traverse moved too slow for a single tank destroyer so Group's of 4 M10s would cover each other on the move via each side ( left right front and back...also regarding the hellcats speed does this mean it's the 2nd fastest Tank U.S. history??
@@davidbriggs7365 Preliminary google searches suggest Hellcat beats out (M1A1) Abrams by more than 10 mph. I know the Hellcat trial that got that speed resulted in the vehicle being pretty much a write off from wear, but I'm not sure if they would have done that to a stock M1 (likely the lightest variant).
@@m26a1pershing7 the Abrams from what I've been told...but being second place loosing only to the abrams ( not that its a competition anyway) but it is more of a compliment to the hellcat than anything else
You mean well, but in my opinion you focused too much on the machines and not enough on the doctrine of how they were used. Despite the name, they weren't just to destroy tanks, any more than naval destroyers were used solely to destroy torpedo boats despite their initial name of torpedo boats destroyers at the end of the 19th century. Machines alone don't fight or win wars. It's also the men and the methods men use the fighting machines entrusted to them that matter.
"You mean well" is condescending, but I don't think you need me to point that out -- that was clearly your aim. Videos like this lay the groundwork nicely for future expansion into doctrine should Dan choose. How long would a video need to be to adequately outline US tank and TD doctrine after Poland and the Battle of France through The Bulge?
Video stank to high heaven and needs the modern know it all bs removed. Redo video as Museum Historians next time to get back your flex! And yeah... I know my comment is not condescending but to the damn point!
@@davidk7324I wouldn't expect a single video, especially one of this length, to cover that topic adequately. That said, I have seen better coverage of tank destroyers, both on UA-cam and elsewhere. As a survey of tank destroyer equipment, it did an adequate job, though I did find the reference to an M375 a little odd until I realized he meant M3, 75mm gun, which I would consider redundant in a discussion of tank destroyers, but not in a discussion of half-tracks. (All US M3 half-tracks employed by the US in the tank destroyer role used the 75mm gun, but there were M3's used as howitzer or mortar carriers that had other calibers and some M3's with 57mm guns were supplied as lend-lease to the Soviet Union as the T48, but never got a M number for US service.) In my opinion, the nomenclature issue reinforces my point. This video was focused primarily upon the equipment, but I'm not looking for videos of equipment specifications. It's not my primary interest and in my opinion, there are better media for covering equipment specifications than videos.
@@johnanon6938 It didn't stink in my opinion, it just wasn't what I would've wanted from a video on this topic, for the reasons I've already given in other comments.
The tank destroyers were not designed to fight toe to toe with enemy armour. Being lighter they were quicker, they could maneuver in, take their shot and get out. With the m36 of w the I 90mm, it could take out a tiger at 1000 yards, a panzer at 1500 to 2000.
Bullshit hindsight statements within first 1 minute were puke-worthy. Do better and don't replicated know-it-all bar flies next time tell the HISTORY as it was FFS!
So if anyone didn't know this man is the CEO and president of st. Jude medical. So he's not only committed to saving historical vehicles, but also thousands of children's lives every year. Truly a blessing. You can tell this is a passion project for him and i wish him nothing but the best!
St. Jude Medical was an American global medical device company headquartered in Little Canada, Minnesota, U.S., a suburb of Saint Paul. The company was acquired by Abbott Laboratories in January 2017. Dan Starks retired in 2015 as CEO and President. St. Jude Medical was not affiliated with St. Jude Hospitals.
In all of my research on the "why didn't they just put the superior long 76mm gun on all the Shermans" and "The 75 mm short barrel Sherman sucked -- why couldn't the USA do as well as the Germans", I came up with the following after years of diving. There's a reason most dedicated infantry support vehicles / assault guns had short barrels. The short barrels are lower velocity (because of the shorter distance over which the rounds are exposed to a massive imbalance of forces). Lower velocity means that the round can have a thinner outer shell for stability, meaning, you can fill it with more explosive -- AND that shell can be made of softer metal, meaning better fragmentation. This is ideal against infantry targets and has also been shown to be more effective in period tests on inanimate targets. In WW2, 90% of the rounds fired by Shermans were high explosive -- meaning they were MOSTLY being used against soft targets. Tanks most routinely support infantry. When moving to a higher velocity, longer barrel, it's a trade off. You get better velocity (almost worthless against infantry, but useful against enemy armor), but because velocity goes up, the rounds can be filled with less explosive and have to be made of harder, tougher metal less likely to fragment nicely. And so, one solution might be to send a 76mm long barrel Sherman with every 4 or so 75mm short barrels. And this is often what happened. This would give these groups a bit of all-round protection. The American M8 Scott mobile assault gun was a perfect example of the belief that a low velocity, short barrel was superior for anti-infantry work. The Germans went for penetration over anti-infantry capabilities in their later war tank guns. Though there are plenty examples of their short barreled, low velocity assault guns earlier in the war. Like, the Stug III with 75 mm StuK 37 howitzer.
76mm required a larger turret to meet US Army requirements. The US Army actually wanted troopers to be able to work the turret. The Brits just shoved a big gun in and the crews had to make it work.
The M4 Sherman's 75 mm gun M3 (40 caliber) was a more than adequate gun for dealing with PzKpfw. 3's & 4's, as well as having an excellent high explosive round; it was a good, all-around tank cannon. The American Army's High Command knew that the Tiger and Panther were being developed (and fielded) by the Germans, but they did not think that they would be produced in as large numbers as they were, and thus did not think there was any need for a change. (Besides, according to American combat doctrine of the time, enemy tanks were to be taken care of by tank destroyers, not by tanks.) The 76 mm gun M1, which eventually replaced the M3 cannon in Sherman production, had a superior armor-piercing performance but it's high-explosive shell was inferior to that of the M3. It was only after Allied experience with fighting Tiger tanks in North Africa did the High Command wake up to the need for a better gun for the Sherman.
mindbomb9341 - Your final note was exactly what the British did with their armoured brigades: each tank troop was equipped three 75mm-armed tanks (either Shermans or Cromwells) and one 17pdr-armed Sherman Firefly. It worked quite well, with the three 75mm-armed tanks generally moving out in front of the Firefly, with the Firefly either remaining in an overwatch position or following up behind.
@@speedythree Yeah. It seems that the Germans went for the higher pen capabilities on their main tank guns -- and were willing to sacrifice the anti-infantry capability to do it. I guess when I was younger, i never realized there was an important trade-off and thought the longer, faster guns that offered more penetration were always just "better". The M8 Scott was a perfect example of a mobile infantry assault gun with a very short barrel.
The Germans had nowhere near our production speeds. They had more time to change things per their output, which was slow by comparison.
The US Army expected tankers to do "their job" which was support the infantry, and not go off seeking glory by engaging enemy tanks. Patton, of all people, vehemently resisted the deployment of 76mm armed tanks to France for that reason. Also, as someone previously commented, our doctrine was that AT guns, and later tank destroyers, should handle enemy tanks. This was reflected in the fact that almost half the US tanks initially deployed in France were M5 Stuarts with a 37mm gun, as the MGs were considered to be the most important part of the tank's armament.
I read somewhere that cast-off Army 37 mm anti-tank guns found a useful home aboard USN PT Boats. They were useful for attacking small ships and barges.
That was true in some cases (PT-109 anyone?), but more commonly it was the 37mm Automatic Gun found on the P-39. In fact, IIRC some of those were actually manufactured specifically for use on the PT's.
@@davidbriggs7365 Thanks, I wasn't aware of the use of the aircraft cannon.
@@michaeldelaney7271 The PT crews were notorious for "Strategically relocating assets" anything they could get their hands on. Allegedly when an aircraft made a forced landing on a beach, sand bar, etc. The PTs rescued the crews AND the guns and ammo, much to the annoyance of the recovery crews following to recycle the remains.
@@geofftimm2291 "Strategically relocating assets" sounds like something PT crews did pretty well. Surely a useful skill for folks on Torpedo Boats who were originally provided with useless torpedoes. I always thought of PT crews as the Buccaneers of the Navy, so "asset relocation" fits them to a tee.
@@michaeldelaney7271I believe that they would prefer to use the adequate denomination of "Strategic Transportation of Equipment to Alternate Location", or , more ofthen, they would use the proper military designated acronym for it : STEAL
I attended one of your tours a few years ago and it was amazing, you're a wonderful person for trying to restore and teach about such an important time in World history. You encouraged me to begin work on my history degree the moment I graduated. Thank you.
Thank you for your feedback.
My grandfather, from Oklahoma, was in the 634th TD Battalion, and took his training at Camp Claiborne, Louisiana. He told us the stories of their experiences across France, Belgium, and Germany. Besides a handful of his snapshots, this is the first detailed look I've had at the M10 he fought in. Thank you for this video.
Love these videos from the Museum! Kudos to the Chieftain for recommending it ages ago.
@5:37 - "The M10 is a conversion of a M4A2 Sherman tank, with diesel Cadillac twin engines." I believe the engines are actually a twin installation of the Detroit Diesel 6-71 inline engine, generally called the GM 6046. (GM created the Detroit Diesel Engine Division in 1938; it remained a part of GM until the 1980's.) I think the confusion comes from the fact that the M5 Stuart light tank was equipped with twin Cadillac V-8 engines linked through a transfer case.
A visit to the museum is on my bucket list. Keep up the great work!!
Thanks for another excellent video. Good balance for both new and more knowledgeable viewers.
What made the Hellcat effective in the doctrinal role foreseen by the TD Branch was its tactical agility in addition to its raw speed. The M18's high power to weight ratio and the very innovative torque converter equipped driveline allowed the M18 to "shoot and scoot" thus being able to deliver 2-3 rounds vs an approaching enemy and then dash to an alternate fighting position before the enemy could bring accurate return fire to bear. One TD battalion commander likened the M18 to a polo pony in its ability to stop, start, and change direction on a dime.
We are coming to visit in about 10 days! Very excited to see your collection and meet your people.
This gentleman is very good at these videos. 👍
Thank you kindly
My favorite story about the TD's during WW2 was: before D-Day, and given the experience of TD's in North Africa and in Italy, around half of the TD Battalions in Europe were converted to towed weapons. However, after experience with the TD's in Western Europe, it was decided to convert ALL TD battalions to self-propelled pieces. Since the Army was introducing the new M-36 at the same time, battalions previously equipped with the M-10 were reequipped with the M-36, and the extra M-10's were used to convert towed battalions to SP battalions.
Two little known facts about TD's. First, there were some M-10 equipped tank destroyer battalions which were going to be reequipped with the M-18, and they refused, preferring to keep their M-10's. And second, one of the early M-26 tanks suffered damage to it's gun barrel in combat, and so the mechanics simply replaced the M-26 90mm gun with one in the supply system meant for the M-36.
And interestingly, that M26 was the famous “Fireball”, the one knocked out at Elsdorf by a Tiger 1 at short range
Them M3 half track 75mm tank destroyers worked pretty good in Afirca during Ww2.
Thanks Dan, keep 'em coming.
They are very good videos @davidk7324
Fantastic Video!
Lots of good info here.
Thank you for this one.
Outstanding stuff!
😎👍
you and your military equipment are real treasures , thank you
Yet another great video, thanks for posting.
For y’all reading the comments, I highly recommend the book Patton’s Vanguard, it’s about the 4th Armored Division and a lot is learned about how the tanks and tank destroyers were used in WWII. The 704th TD battalion refused to get rid of their Hellcats because they were faster than M10’s and M36’s. Great book.
Good information put out on these videoa and always great to see old equipment that use to be used. Keep it up the Great Job.
Excellent channel on US armor, history & details are best on UA-cam. Thank you 🇺🇸🇺🇸
Thank you for sharing...
The Hellcat looks sleek
My Dad was a Three strip Sgt. who served with the 825th Tank Destroyers, Sec. Plt. Co. B Highway Green .
Therefore I’ve always been interested in the concept of the tank destroyers. Great video.
I think most of the early panzer 4 actually had worse armour then the panzer 3 so the 37mm gun would kinda work…
However the Germans quickly uparmoured the panzer 3 and 4 after their experiences in France.
The British 2 pounder and French 47mm guns were quite capable of knocking German armour out so they needed to up armour because they got hammered each time the French or British troops could set themselves up for a fight.
Only because they outran the allied reaction capability allowed them to beat them tbh.
Absolutely correct. Initially the PzIII was the "battle" tank, armed with a high velocity 37mm gun and 30mm armor all around. The PzIV was the "support" tank with a low velocity short barrel 75mm for primarily HE use, and armor that was 30mm in front but decreasing to 15-20mm around.
US 37mm guns never engaged these early model panzers, which were supplanted before we entered the war, but the British 2lbr abused them quite well.
Yeah he seemed needlessly dismissive of the 37mm. Sure, by 1942 when the US really started ramping up for the war is was getting long in the tooth, but in 1940 it was comparable to the German Pak-36, British 2 Pounder, and Soviet 45mm. I think he's underselling just how little armor early WW2 tanks actually had.
I think the disconnect is he started talking about the invasion of France, but then jumped to Kasserine.
My favorite TD is the M10, just have always loved it! My grandpa was a M36 tank commander for the Italian Army in the 1950s. A lot of Allied vehicles were left in Europe after the war and a lot of the countries rebuilding their forces used them!
A great video and some excellent vehicles. I always have a soft spot for anything armed with 17pdr. Arguably the best allied AT gun of the war.
Respectively I don’t think you can make a general comment about allied tank doctrine between the wars or use of AT. The British experimented extensively in the 20s & early 30s. German doctrine used elements of British thinking. The British and French both clearly anticipated tank on tank encounters as evidenced in the Battle for France, not least the Arras counter attack. Both countries had tanks that mounted powerful ATs for the day and Matilda II saw service all the way to the end of the war in the Far East where along with other models no longer effective in the European theatre, was superior to all Japanese tanks.
British and US doctrine continued to vary throughout the war but the biggest illustration is the British getting the 17th pounder onto towed and SP platforms as well as Cromwell and Sherman hulls as Challenger and Firefly.
Excellent video, thanks for posting and educating all of us tread-heads!
Great video, thank you!
Good video. Very informative. Kudos!
Good lecture, what a great museum. Such a wonderful collection! Sir, you have created a great museum and have done such a service to our history and nation. Congratulations!
awesome! great video. very informative!
Thank you!
Fascinating video thank you. I learned a lot from it and also from the comments.
Great video! Interesting to learn how the US adapted until they could make a dedicated TD like the M18. LOL, and then used parts from the earlier versions to make the Jackson! The combination of massive manufacturing and practical policies are a powerful formula. God Bless America. 👍
I think this guy likes talking about armoured vehicles. 🙂👍
My father was assigned to the 558th Tank Destroyer Battalion that landed on Normandy Beach on D Day.
Their first assignment was to go through Hitler's bunker to find him. Not found but they did collect all the documents they could find and turn them over to Amy Intelligence. Later on in between combat missions his unit was assigned to free POWs ftom the camps. Dad didnt talk about the war much until he was 80 years old. He passed away at 88 in 2005.
Thank you.
Hope to visit soon !
thank you, mr museum guy!
My dad served in the 654th tank destroyer battalion, company B headquarters. France, Belgium and Luxembourg. Lied about his age and went in at 15 years old, he road a wla and delivered messages . Alot of interesting stories about his adventures in the military. Would love too find his motorcycle and photograph it. Last time he seen was in Belgium said the snow was up to the head light . It had a plate on the front that said Oh Babe .
The M36 Jackson was still being used by some countries right up until the 1990's. The Iraqis captured some Iranian M36's and used them in the gulf war. Yugoslavia was using M36's during the Croatian War of Independence (1991-1995).
A great video and some excellent vehicles. I always have a soft spot for anything armed with 17pdr. Arguably the best allied AT gun of the war.
Respectively I don’t think you can make a general comment about allied tank doctrine between the wars or use of AT. The British experimented extensively in the 20s & early 30s. German doctrine used elements of British thinking. The British and French both clearly anticipated tank on tank encounters as evidenced in the Battle for France, not least the Arras counter attack. Both countries had tanks that mounted powerful ATs for the day and Matilda II saw service all the way to the end of the war in the Far East where along with other models no longer effective in the European theatre, was superior to all Japanese tanks.
고마워요, 정말 유익한 비디오였어요! 🇰🇷
Gam sa ham ni da
Great video
Nice video - what about the M36B1?
Don't worry about calling the M18 as a Hellcat. We all call it that, even though there is a plane with the same name.
As many of these creations found their way into the savage yards of Europe after the war (rather than shipped home), the new state of Israel 'mined' these junk yards for any useable tanks or tank destroyers that could be refitted for use again (1967 Six Day War).
1:44 ah yes, the precursor to the anti-tank-gun Hilux.
The brit 17 pounder was an amazing antimtank gun, so much so the Germans tried to target them first over the 75 and 76mms
You skipped the 57mm anti tank gun.
Tank Destroyer units didn't make much use of 57mm guns. Tank Destroyer Branch tested the 57mm gun, but decided it lacked penetration at range compared to the 75mm, so they declined to make it a primary weapon. Infantry Branch would adopt the 57mm as its main AT gun for much of the war because it was more convenient for infantry anti-tank companies which didn't have the same mobility requirements as Tank Destroyer Branch.
Thanks. My Dad was 87th Div., Co. AT
@@robertsmith9970 Good on your Old Man for doing the hard job! I find the Infantry Antitank Units are sorely underappreciated.
I grew up being awful confused about that sort of thing myself because the terminology is really loosely used. All anti-tanks guns are "tank destroyers," as in they destroy tanks, but not all anti-tank guns are "Tank Destroyers," as in they belonged to Tank Destroyer Branch.
Many thanks, enjoyed your explanation on the evolution of US tank destroyers. I never took to the Sherman...it was conceptually designed as an infantry support vehicle ... but the M36 more than made up for it: sleek, fast and deadly killing machine....one of my favorites along with the Pershing... why did the US not send M36's along with Pershings to Korea?
US doctrine changed, they decided that tanks were better as a multi function vehicle. My dad's unit existed until the mid 50s, but I believe they after WWII used the standard battle tank.
I feel it would be more accurate to say the Blitz set off a AT gun panic. Everyone knew tanks would be important, but everyone had different ideas as to what degree. Additionally, they were seen as offensive weaponry (and so their development a sign of aggression) making their use in large numbers politically undesireable to many pro-peace governments.
This channel feels like the History channel at its best; well-meaning, just using sometimes obselete information and not looking much deeper (though I'm loving the increased source referencing). These guys really have the potential to do some good, particularly while the Armor & Cavalry Museum in Ft Benning remains closed to the public.
Some food for thought. Germany's workhorse, the Panzer IV, had only 8600 or so built. Now using some assumptions like if 80% of the defeated German forces being defeated in the East also means that 80% of the German overall strength was sent there, that means of Germany's most numerically important tank, only about 1,700 fought in the West.
I bring that up, because for a good portion of Germany's armored forces where converted captured early war vehicles. And many of them left in an un-armored state. The 37mm wasn't fighting off waves of Panthers or Tigers, but even into '45 could easily hold it's own against armored cars and Marders. True it was time to replace it, but the 3inch cannons were perfectly reasonable weapons for the primary fighting as it's almost hard to justify sending guns to deal with a few handfuls of Panthers or Tigers.
My dad was an ordinance engineering officer with the Advanced Section of CommZ, and his job was to work with the line units as they moved to the front to help them set up their Armored and TD units' repair and replacement supply lines. He was assigned to First Army and worked with his Ord counterparts with 2nd and 3rd Armored and with various Cav and MI units. Unfortunately, he passed when I was just a kid so I didn't get a chance to talk shop with him. My bucket list is do some research at the National Archives and the Ordinance Museum to look for SITREPs and Daily T/O reports to see if I can find evidence of his work. I do know that he was visiting with the 14th Cav on 16DEC44 in the Ardennes that got overrun by KG Pieper, and he melted into the forest with his driver and and eventually rounded up a big group of Doggies and brought them back to 2nd INFDIV lines on the northern flank of the Bulge, for which he was awarded the Bronze Star.
Great work with your museum and videos!
Question on M10 what colour was interior for wartime white or hull colour 🤔
Due to the open-top design, the turret/fighting compartment was painted hull color, the drivers compartment interior was painted white to aid in visibility due to scant ambient light.
It's Bewegungskrieg, Hitler by basically his entire staff called it a idiots term. Bewegungskrieg: Manuever Warfare.
Great video. I don't like the way the museum is set up. You don't get to walk around the vehicles . A great example is Australia Armour & artillery museum , you can get up close
I noticed the gun is not a full and complete gun. Can that be 1 of the reasons the counter weight is not as heavy. ? -- Having a full weight on the rear would make the turret unbalanced -=-
Ok then... On too the next channel
My Thoughts:
* I think you are needlessly dismissive of the 37mm. In 1940, it could absolutely penetrate anything the Germans had and was in line with things like the 2 Pounder and Pak 36. We just didn't use it until 1942 where it had then been outclassed.
* My readings suggest the Tank Destroyer's speed was more for quickly seizing the key terrain and laying an Ambush, then disengaging. Maneuvering for a side should would have been very risky. The M10 especially has a notoriously slow, hand cranked, turret. I'd argue only the M18 would be capable in the flanking role thanks to its incredible acceleration.
* M8 Greyhound probably deserved a mention. It began life intending to be a tank destroyer.
American manufacturing, R.I.P.
?
0:48 Confirmed. I assessed the towed 37mm as not very effective and I don't have an ounce of military expertise in my background. :D
'defeat' implies 'surrender'? Otherwise it's a 'rout' or a 'retreat' or something else?
1:30, this is true as a atomic bomb has a lot more energy
Old school technicals....lol
2:56 wtf is going on? Anyone wanna help my brain comprehend what I'm seeing??
Apparently there's an incoming drone. Many M2's were fitted to armored vehicles by a fixed pintle mount @9:25, requiring the user to crawl all over the equipment to aim and fire, very few were housed in a ringed "raceway" allowing the user to fire from an open turret hatch. The 2:56 photo is just for 'dramatic effect'.
From a plane it would penetrate
If you are referring to the 37mm, you have heard some misinformation.
It is often quoted that the P-39s we gave to the Soviets were used as tank busters. They weren't. They were used as low level air cover. They didn't carry AP ammo. We didn't send them any AP, they weren't going to build a factory to produce ammo for a gun that was in very limited use with them, and their testing with the best pilots against static targets showed that at best only a 7% hit rate could be expected against a tank. Given that the plane carried 15 rds of 37mm, sorties with AP ammo were a waste of fuel as only a single hit might be achieved at best and it was pretty chancy if it would do any damage.
By the time the British were putting 40mm guns on Hurricanes and the Germans were putting 37mm guns on Stukas, tank armor had progressed to the point that only a rare fluke shot would penetrate; track hits for a mobility kill were the expectation.
The success of aircraft against tanks in WWII was mainly due to bombs. Rockets and small cannon were highly overrated and their kill counts inflated.
BTW, the vaunted A-10/GAU-8 combination is also greatly exaggerated in its effectiveness against tanks.
In what alternative reality did Germany defeat Great Britain? That is a serious misinformation. Germany never defeated Great Britain, just as it never defeated Russia.Referring to the retreat, it was not a defeat but merely a strategic withdrawal. A brief research would reveal that German generals strongly advised against an invasion of Great Britain, knowing well there was no prospect of a successful invasion.I would argue that the statement is as absurd as claiming Germany defeated America, with particular reference to the battles at Kasserine and Sbiba Passes.
They ran them off the continent...
You can lose a battle ( battle of France) but still win the war (WWII)
@@NMMV_USA in your video you clearly stated Germany defeated Britain Germany did not even win the Battle of Britain please do your research before making absurd statements
@@MrCoxy38 Dude! Chill! 😊First of all, thank you for watching the video and for engaging in discussion about it. One of the challenges in doing these videos is that the audience is so diverse with such different levels of background/expertise. Another challenge is most people don’t have a lot of time/patience to listen to something they already know. I didn’t spend a lot of time on it, so easy to miscommunicate, but I said, “All of this changed with the Battle of France where the Germans defeated France and Great Britain in only six weeks”. The Battle of France lasted six weeks beginning in May 1940, ending in June 1940. The battle ended with France surrendering and the British Expeditionary Force barely escaping the beaches of Dunkirk against all odds with the famous British civilian boat lift supplementing the few available ships of the Royal Navy. Check out the movie Dunkirk streaming now if you haven’t already seen it. No question the British (and the French) were defeated in the Battle of France. Another good resource is Philip Warner’s book, “The Battle for France: Six Weeks That Changed the World”. Since you misunderstood my point, others may have misunderstood too. Thank you for your feedback.
@@NMMV_USAIt seems we will have to agree to disagree. With all due respect, there are several points in this video that are factually incorrect, but we can leave those for the uninformed to believe they are entirely correct.
Not sure if its true but I've heard that while fighting in the Europe during the winters of WWII M10 tank crews ( i think it was )found out the turret traverse moved too slow for a single tank destroyer so Group's of 4 M10s would cover each other on the move via each side ( left right front and back...also regarding the hellcats speed does this mean it's the 2nd fastest Tank U.S. history??
I was under the impression Hellcat was the fastest. What beats it?
@@m26a1pershing7 The M-1 Abrams currently in service.
@@davidbriggs7365 Preliminary google searches suggest Hellcat beats out (M1A1) Abrams by more than 10 mph. I know the Hellcat trial that got that speed resulted in the vehicle being pretty much a write off from wear, but I'm not sure if they would have done that to a stock M1 (likely the lightest variant).
@@m26a1pershing7 The M1 also has a speed limiter. Without it, it's possible it could be faster than M18, but it's irrelevant either way.
@@m26a1pershing7 the Abrams from what I've been told...but being second place loosing only to the abrams ( not that its a competition anyway) but it is more of a compliment to the hellcat than anything else
You mean well, but in my opinion you focused too much on the machines and not enough on the doctrine of how they were used. Despite the name, they weren't just to destroy tanks, any more than naval destroyers were used solely to destroy torpedo boats despite their initial name of torpedo boats destroyers at the end of the 19th century.
Machines alone don't fight or win wars. It's also the men and the methods men use the fighting machines entrusted to them that matter.
"You mean well" is condescending, but I don't think you need me to point that out -- that was clearly your aim. Videos like this lay the groundwork nicely for future expansion into doctrine should Dan choose. How long would a video need to be to adequately outline US tank and TD doctrine after Poland and the Battle of France through The Bulge?
Video stank to high heaven and needs the modern know it all bs removed. Redo video as Museum Historians next time to get back your flex!
And yeah... I know my comment is not condescending but to the damn point!
@@davidk7324I wouldn't expect a single video, especially one of this length, to cover that topic adequately. That said, I have seen better coverage of tank destroyers, both on UA-cam and elsewhere. As a survey of tank destroyer equipment, it did an adequate job, though I did find the reference to an M375 a little odd until I realized he meant M3, 75mm gun, which I would consider redundant in a discussion of tank destroyers, but not in a discussion of half-tracks. (All US M3 half-tracks employed by the US in the tank destroyer role used the 75mm gun, but there were M3's used as howitzer or mortar carriers that had other calibers and some M3's with 57mm guns were supplied as lend-lease to the Soviet Union as the T48, but never got a M number for US service.) In my opinion, the nomenclature issue reinforces my point. This video was focused primarily upon the equipment, but I'm not looking for videos of equipment specifications. It's not my primary interest and in my opinion, there are better media for covering equipment specifications than videos.
@@johnanon6938 It didn't stink in my opinion, it just wasn't what I would've wanted from a video on this topic, for the reasons I've already given in other comments.
M-18 was a paper thin crap Tanks are killed by firepower which M-18 was lacking not by fucking speed
?
greyhound killed a kings tiger
@@ducklinglibrary7941 This is a well known bullshit If at all this was Pz4 at most
@@JohnSmith-mb8hi It blew up because nazi tanks are horrible
The tank destroyers were not designed to fight toe to toe with enemy armour. Being lighter they were quicker, they could maneuver in, take their shot and get out. With the m36 of w the I
90mm, it could take out a tiger at 1000 yards, a panzer at 1500 to 2000.
That is incorrect. The United States might not have but European countries definitely had.
The propaganda just doesnt stop and its even getting dumber and dumber
Bullshit hindsight statements within first 1 minute were puke-worthy. Do better and don't replicated know-it-all bar flies next time tell the HISTORY as it was FFS!