PDA

View Full Version : M10 Tank Destroyer



RifleMan20
03-03-2007, 03:05 PM
Does anyone have any info about this tank?I saw it a picture in one of my books and am wondering if you could give me a idea.Ill go and serch about though but you guys can help.

GermanSoldier
03-03-2007, 05:20 PM
Hope you like the pictures and information!
http://i4.tinypic.com/3zkqplz.jpg
http://www.audiemurphy.com/m10.htm
Here is a great site for you RifleMan20. Check it out.
http://i2.tinypic.com/34yphu1.jpg

Firefly
03-04-2007, 08:40 AM
Some more stuff on TDs here

http://www.efour4ever.com/tank_destroyer.htm

RifleMan20
03-05-2007, 05:02 PM
:mrgreen: these are great sites they made me more aware of the M10and great pics Germansolder

GermanSoldier
03-05-2007, 06:00 PM
Hey RifleMan20, I known you like the M10 Tank Destroyer very much. (Because you were talking about at school to me.;))
I hope you enjoy these pictures as much as I did.
http://i19.tinypic.com/2ahtzqa.jpg
http://i17.tinypic.com/3zapvn4.jpg
http://i17.tinypic.com/483dv8h.jpg
Hoped you enjoyed the picks guys.

RifleMan20
03-06-2007, 05:20 PM
Great pics my turn:
Nickname:Wolverine
Crew:5
Length:6.83 m (22.41 ft)
Width:3.05 m (10 ft)
Height:2.57 m (8.43 ft)
Weight:29.6 tonnes (65,000 lb)
Armor:9 - 57.2 mm (0.3 - 2.3 in)
Main armament:3" (76.2 mm) Gun M7 54 rounds
Secondary armament:.50 cal Browning M2HB machinegun 300 rounds
Power plant:General Motors 6046 Twin Diesel 6-71 375 hp (276 kW)
Suspension:Vertical Volute Spring Suspension (VVSS)
Road speed:51 km/h (32 mi/h)
Power/weight:12.5 hp/tonne
Range:300 km (186 mi)
I got my information from wikipedia

Nickdfresh
03-07-2007, 07:28 PM
The US Army would have been better off investing the resources into an improved (76mm toting) M-4 Sherman, earlier than they did...

Panzerknacker
03-07-2007, 07:40 PM
Yeap , that open top is criyng for a hand grenade.

Jenkin
03-12-2007, 10:44 PM
All so true, but that was the only open top tank that the americans had used and many had seen devistation due to grenades being thrown through the top.

RifleMan20
03-15-2007, 05:30 PM
o i see so the weakness of the m10 is an open top,never seen that

GermanSoldier
03-15-2007, 07:58 PM
Yes the M10 Tank Destroyer had a easy hatchet that could easily be opened. The M10 Tank Destroyer could have used a lot of changes to it. The gun was very powerful and gave the M10 a well fighting chance on the Western front. However the design was basiacally based on the M4 Sherman. Which in my opinion was a better tank then the M10 tank destroyer. They probably would of been better off to just upgrade the armour, gun, and the top hatchet. So I thank as the M10 Tank Destroyer as a upgraded M4 Sherman.:D I still like the M4 Sherman better. The M10 Tank Destroyer was still a great tank to command in my opinion.

RifleMan20
03-17-2007, 09:51 PM
yea the m4 was a great tank

RifleMan20
03-18-2007, 03:55 PM
heres a picture you can sink your teeth into its gameplay that I was in online
Click to enlarge.

RifleMan20
03-21-2007, 07:25 PM
this is a picture of my m10 getting there butt wiped by some panzers and i think panther an maybe even a tiger this is some game play from COH

Nickdfresh
03-25-2007, 10:11 AM
yea the m4 was a great tank

In the "Fire Fly," "Jumbo," or "Easy-8" configurations perhaps...

Panzerknacker
03-25-2007, 10:58 AM
Serching for some M-10 video I get this.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhd7PD8EGJg&NR (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hhd7PD8EGJg&NR)

Two clips approx. 4 minutes each: the first showing a Jagdtiger on the proving grounds and some footage of the Jagdtigers of sPzJgAbt 512 surrendering in Iserlohn. The second clip shows an "advertisement" for the M10 tank destroyer which is worth watching for the sheer entertainment value let alone being of interest to military vehicle enthusiasts.

GermanSoldier
03-25-2007, 03:58 PM
Very nice video Panzerknacker. The words in the movie were annoying to me because it was a different language. Anyways, great find by you.

RifleMan20
03-30-2007, 10:31 PM
awesome vid man why was some of it japanese then it speaks american in the end of the vid but real cool vid man

RifleMan20
04-03-2007, 11:35 PM
hey i found this its a m10 in action on COH
http://youtube.com/watch?v=meo1Uuwd9-M

Ace Tankkiller
04-06-2007, 05:36 PM
COH is a blast to play,ofcourse it is not exactly realistic,but to be fun everything cannot be realistic.I think he is playing against a bot that is prolly why the tanks manuevered very badly.

Flammpanzer
04-07-2007, 08:20 AM
All so true, but that was the only open top tank that the americans had used and many had seen devistation due to grenades being thrown through the top.

what about the M18 hellcat and the M36 jackson? the hellcat definitely was also developed with an "open roof". the jackson too, I think. if you count the M7 priest to tanks, this one was also open. this construction had it`s drawbacks in close combat situations for sure and also when under fire from any sort of artillery, but for these actions, these tank destroyers or "artillery-carriers" were not made.

btw: has anyone also watched that the jagdtiger is missing one or even more road wheels in that nice video (first part, trial) from panzerknacker?

jens

RifleMan20
04-07-2007, 04:00 PM
o i think i saw that too in that vid

shoogs
04-10-2007, 06:20 PM
the m10 was used late in the war, made by USA and altered by the british, the british put in the british 17 pounder to wich at the time was the best allied anti-tank gun. thats about all that i know but can find out more or use this link http://www.audiemurphy.com/m10.htm

RifleMan20
04-17-2007, 07:32 PM
the m10 was cheap to make i guess cheaper then the m4 i think mostly because of its armor

Nickdfresh
08-01-2007, 08:19 PM
I found myself laying awake last night, and wondering: why the US Army just simply didn't put a modified enclosed turret on the M-10, and engineer what was a decent combat AFV into a MBT?

tankgeezer
08-02-2007, 07:35 PM
For whatever reason, the U.S. seemed to like having their Tank destroyers open topped. A good idea for a sandwich, but not so for a T.D.

Flammpanzer
08-05-2007, 11:55 AM
at least, you save a lot of weight when you have an open top design, you can load and store the ammunition easier and maybe (?) the crew has some advantages in getting out of the iron grave when it is hit and starts to burn. and, the TD were not designed for an anti-infantry-role, so the missing armor on the top may be disregarded. also air strikes from the luftwaffe were pretty rare these days. but if I think of the cold weather in the european theater of war, bbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. IŽd rather have a fully closed turret.

jens

Carl Schwamberger
08-05-2007, 08:53 PM
I would recomend finding a copy of the Leavenworth Papers #12 'US Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in WWII''. Copys are cheap on eBay and in the used book stores. It is a short & critical discussion of the very brief existance of the US Army Tank Destroyer Corps and its vehicals.

The M10 was the result of a pecular development in US Army doctrine for mechanized warfare. The collapse of Poland and France in the face of modern mechanized combined arms warfare used by the Germans was misinterpreted by many. There was a misunderstanding and belief with some people that the Germans had accomplished all this with tanks alone. Some senior US Army leaders became concerned with this idea. The solution selected in late 1940 was the creation of a 'Tank Destroyer Corps'. That is specialized Tank Destroyer brigades would fight the enemy tanks.

Consequently The US Army doctrine for the new warfare was specified as: Enemy tanks would be attacked & destroyed by tank destroyer groups of 2-3 battalions. The US tanks would not fight the enemys tanks, they would be designed & organized for attacking the other enemy forces. Their infantry, artillery, supply columns.

The TD units were to be have two types of combat vehicals,: light armored cars for scouting and covering the heavier vehicals flanks, and a larger tracked vehical carrying a large caliber gun as the primary weapon. Each TD unit also was to have a small engineer section for laying & removing mines and road blocks, and a 81mm mortar section to lay hasty smoke screens, suppress enemy infantry and similar tasks.

Initially specifications for a 90mm armed TD were favored, but it soon became clear it would be 2-3 years before a suitable 90mm gun could be available. Three interm vehicals were selected, a 37mm AT gun on a light truck, a old 75mm gun mounted on a halftrack, and the M10. In November of 1942 two TD battalions armed with the 37mm gun & the 75mm halftrack were sent to Africa as part of the Torch operation. Neither weapon was very effective The Axis tanks armed with 47mm, 50mm, and a few with the new 75mm long guns could easily deal with the trucks and halftracks. Replacement M10 were rushed to Africa and these proved effective against the Italian tanks or the MKIII & MkIV the Germans used in Tunisia. In Sicilly the M10 again proved effective vs the typical German tank.

The very few Tiger tanks that were in Tunisa and Sicilly were so rare they were seldom tested against the M10, and the Panther did not appear then. So, there was little concern about more powerfull German tanks.

In 1944 in France the M10 proved barely adaquate against the latest models of the MkIV and the Panther and of course inferior to the Tiger tanks. Thus the deployment of the new 90mm gun armed M36 was accelerated.

The original doctrine for the TD brigades was abandoned. Only one such brigade was formed & it was never sent into combat. Instead the corps & divsion commanders deployed the TD battalions as antitank companys amoung the infantry regiments. The infantry comanders used them as direct fire artillery as well as AT weapons. Their AP ammo was usefull for driving the enemy out of masonry buildings and for destroying bunkers, pill boxes & other field fortifications. In those roles they were used the same as the independant tank battalions that were attached to the US infantry divsions. In effect this doubled the 'tank' support in the average US army infantry divsion. (Note: after July 1944 the German panzer divsions averaged about fourty to fifty tanks after losses. A US infantry divsion with its independant tank battalion and a TD battalion averaged over 100 M10 & M4 Shermans.)

Originally the open top of the TD was not seen as a problem as it was not going to go anwhere near enemy infantry, but would blast apart enemy tanks from long range.

When originally selected in early 1941 for the M10 the 3" gun was vastly superior to the standard 37mm and 50mm guns used by the German tanks of 1941. The 75mm L24 used on the MkIV in 1941 was a short low velocity designed for shootng HE ammo. The obvious problem of course is that the "interm" M10 remained in production into 1944 while the better armored M36 with the 90mm gun stagnated in development. Had the original plans worked out the TD battalions that went ashore in Normandy would have all been equipped with the M36.

Shortly after 1945 the entire TD concept & doctrine was abandoned in offcial recognition of what the combat commanders had already done. The new M26 90mm gun tank and the M46 on the drawing boards were superior general purpose tanks and filled the TD role just as well as a specialized vehical.

flyerhell
08-14-2007, 02:25 PM
Hi everyone..I am new here but I had a comparison question about the M10. If you were the unfortunate soldier to come up against a Panther or a Tiger in France in Mid 1944, which would you rather be in, an M4 or an M10? It seems like the armor was a little thicker on the M10 and you might have a fighting chance against the Tiger but you were pretty much screwed against a Panther.

Carl Schwamberger
08-14-2007, 09:38 PM
Hi everyone..I am new here but I had a comparison question about the M10. If you were the unfortunate soldier to come up against a Panther or a Tiger in France in Mid 1944, which would you rather be in, an M4 or an M10? It seems like the armor was a little thicker on the M10 and you might have a fighting chance against the Tiger but you were pretty much screwed against a Panther.

Generally the M10 would be better positioned. Since these were not susposed to be assualt weapons like the M4 they were usually, but not always, positioned to take advantage of the terrain and they were moved forward in a less risky manner than the M4. the gun of the M10 was much better AP weapon then the 75mm gun of the M4.

Actually I'd prefer the M36.

RifleMan20
08-15-2007, 03:32 PM
now if you want to live a little longer and still almost take down the tiger orr panther i would be in a Firefly m4 but still i would have to pick the m10 because it might be alble to out manuver and take down with its power

astupiddvdcase
08-16-2007, 07:12 AM
since no one mentioned it. the m10 was had a hand cranked turret which took like 5 minutes to do a full 360 degrees turn. another weakness. m10 was still a great tank destroyer. i like the jagdpanther better, sloped armour, low profile and the awesome 8.8 mm gun plus it had a great speed. ps.COH is awesome

RifleMan20
08-16-2007, 03:29 PM
do you mean 88 mm gun and yes the m10 had better speed because of the lighter load and yeah, CoH does rule:)

Carl Schwamberger
09-22-2007, 11:51 AM
since no one mentioned it. the m10 was had a hand cranked turret which took like 5 minutes to do a full 360 degrees turn. another weakness. m10 was still a great tank destroyer. i like the jagdpanther better, sloped armour, low profile and the awesome 8.8 mm gun plus it had a great speed. ps.COH is awesome

Most of the tanks I rode on, as a artillery FO, did the gross alignment of the gun by turning the tank which takes just a few seconds. The final aim was done with the turret rotation. This has the extra benifit of turning the frontal armor towards what you are shooting at.

Firefly
10-09-2007, 10:14 AM
The open top isnt artillery friendly though!

Nickdfresh
10-09-2007, 09:10 PM
The open top isnt artillery friendly though!

I believe the term is "grenade basket."

kallinikosdrama1992
11-03-2007, 10:20 AM
the m10 was the most used tank destroyer i think am i right ? is there anyone who can sent me the difference between the m10 and the m36 ?

RifleMan20
11-03-2007, 10:42 AM
The m36 is just a more advanvced version with a better mm of a cannon, and was made later in the years

kallinikosdrama1992
11-03-2007, 10:53 AM
thanks for the info sergeant . but could you give me plus info ?

RifleMan20
11-03-2007, 10:57 AM
sure



Here is some good ol fashion wiki help

Type Tank destroyer
Place of origin United States
Specifications
Weight 29 tonnes (64,000 lb)
Length 7.46 m (24.5 ft) (w/ gun)
5.97 m (19.6 ft) (w/o gun)
Width 3.05 m (10 ft)
Height 3.28 m (10.8 ft)
Crew 5 (Commander, (3x) gun crew, driver)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armor 9 - 108 mm (0.35 - 4.25 in)
Primary
armament 90 mm M3 gun
47 rounds
Secondary
armament .50 cal Browning M2HB machine gun
1,000 rounds
Engine Ford GAA V-8 gasoline
450 hp (336 kW)
Power/weight 15.5 hp/tonne
Suspension Vertical Volute Spring Suspension (VVSS)
Operational
range 240 km (150 mi)


only about 1200 were made, not really a mass produced product
the 90 mm gun and better aromor helped the americans to go against the panthers and the tigers

Nickdfresh
11-03-2007, 10:59 AM
the m10 was the most used tank destroyer i think am i right ? is there anyone who can sent me the difference between the m10 and the m36 ?

The M-36 Hellcat was much faster and more agile, and came the closest to being a true "tank destroyer" because of its superior automotive performance which allowed it to quickly outflank an opponent. These hit and run tactics were somewhat effective, however, it's armor was very thin and she also had an open top turret, preventing it from sustained combat and from being a true tank that could stand and fight. I think the US Army would have been better off producing more M-4A1E8 "Easy-Eight" Shermans, but the M-36 tank destroyer was an effective weapon by all accounts.

The Hellcat was credited for defeating two German Panthers making their way into Bastogne on a probing attack. The ambush convinced the German commander that he was up against a superior force than the retreating, demoralized US soldiers streaming through the town to the rear. This delayed his assault, thus, time was bought and Bastogne was reinforced - and the rest is history...

Nickdfresh
11-03-2007, 11:04 AM
sure



Here is some good ol fashion wiki help

Type Tank destroyer
Place of origin United States
Specifications
Weight 29 tonnes (64,000 lb)
Length 7.46 m (24.5 ft) (w/ gun)
5.97 m (19.6 ft) (w/o gun)
Width 3.05 m (10 ft)
Height 3.28 m (10.8 ft)
Crew 5 (Commander, (3x) gun crew, driver)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Armor 9 - 108 mm (0.35 - 4.25 in)
Primary
armament 90 mm M3 gun
47 rounds
Secondary
armament .50 cal Browning M2HB machine gun
1,000 rounds
Engine Ford GAA V-8 gasoline
450 hp (336 kW)
Power/weight 15.5 hp/tonne
Suspension Vertical Volute Spring Suspension (VVSS)
Operational
range 240 km (150 mi)


only about 1200 were made, not really a mass produced product
the 90 mm gun and better aromor helped the americans to go against the panthers and the tigers

The armor was actually thin on most of the vehicle, and the turret would have been blown off by a German 75mm or 88mm round...

Edit: Nevermind, I was thinking of the M-18 "Hellcat," (http://www.battletanks.com/m18_hellcat.htm) not the M-36 "Slugger." My bad...

RifleMan20
11-03-2007, 11:07 AM
well i was close, but my guess better armor then the m10

Nickdfresh
11-04-2007, 07:15 AM
well i was close, but my guess better armor then the m10

You are correct, I am not.

I was confused between the M-18 Hellcat and the M-36 "Slugger"/Jackson. The M-36 mounted a 90mm gun and was basically a vastly improved M-10, which begs the question that I asked earlier in this thread: Why didn't they just put a real turret on it and thicker armor and make it into a real tank? :D

The M-18 was light and very fast. Armed with the same 76mm gun mounted on the "Easy 8" Sherman, she was designed for "hit and run" or "shoot and scoot" tactics. I surmise that the M-36 was designed more static type ambush type work...

Cheers.

Nickdfresh
11-04-2007, 07:19 AM
The M-36 Slugger/Jackson: http://www.battletanks.com/images/M36_Slugger-1.jpg
http://www.battletanks.com/images/M36_slugger-2.jpg

The M-18 Hellcat (the fastest AFV in WWII):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/M18_Hellcat_side.jpeg/720px-M18_Hellcat_side.jpeg
http://battletanks.com/images/M18_Hellcat-2.jpg
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/lsm/dhmg/images3/10749.jpg
Oh, they're so beautiful...

RifleMan20
11-04-2007, 09:38 AM
That is a tank that could take your breath away, because it could shoot your freaking head off and it has a pretty design too

overlord644
11-06-2007, 09:24 PM
does anyone have any idea of what the ratio of m10's were to say, m4's? Also due to their lack of armor i'd imagine that these would not be very good in assaults since if a panzer or tiger shot first, thats it

overlord644
11-06-2007, 09:25 PM
The open top isnt artillery friendly though!

forget artillery, i'd be more concerned about hand grenades

Nickdfresh
11-07-2007, 11:26 AM
forget artillery, i'd be more concerned about hand grenades

I think they were probably much more likely to get hit by air-bursts than by German infantry bearing potato mashers as gifts...

US tank destroyer doctrine usually kept these things away from being used in direct infantry support roles. Although, I'm sure that they were in some instances..

Cpt_Prahl
01-21-2008, 02:08 AM
They were used in direct infantry support My Grafathers unit had an attachemnt of them allmost throughout the war and the M-10 was creditied with knocking out Panthers during the bulge along with Tigers and King tigers just depends on where you hit a tank the rear the wheel sponsons ans side armor were venerable on the german tanks all of the german tanks. And when its a company of tanks firing on one target at a time in ope country no tank German or otherwise can stand up to such punishment.

Nickdfresh
01-21-2008, 05:20 AM
forget artillery, i'd be more concerned about hand grenades

It should be noted that the M36 Jackson or "Slugger" had an armored lid top mounted like hing door that could be opened or folded down almost making the thing a real tank...

gumalangi
02-28-2008, 01:03 AM
That is a tank that could take your breath away, because it could shoot your freaking head off and it has a pretty design too

Brother,. these are not tanks at all,. their diet are tanks,..

Nickdfresh
03-08-2008, 11:20 AM
Seek, Strike, and Destroy: U.S. Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in World War II, Dr. Christopher R. Gabel. (http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf)

**Caution, it's a big 98 page pdf download! But an interesting read nonetheless...

Nickdfresh
03-08-2008, 12:52 PM
I would recomend finding a copy of the Leavenworth Papers #12 'US Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in WWII''. Copys are cheap on eBay and in the used book stores. It is a short & critical discussion of the very brief existance of the US Army Tank Destroyer Corps and its vehicals.



Ha! No need to pay my friend, provided you have the internet (and a good broadband connection!)

Carl Schwamberger
03-17-2008, 07:03 PM
Ha! No need to pay my friend, provided you have the internet (and a good broadband connection!)

Ah, but a paper copy on your shelf wont vanish with your hardrive;)

Also I have found that my visual problems prevent me from reading much on the computer screen, wheras paper print is still much more manageable:(


does anyone have any idea of what the ratio of m10's were to say, m4's? Also due to their lack of armor i'd imagine that these would not be very good in assaults since if a panzer or tiger shot first, thats it

My US Army Green book shows a total of 106 TD battalions active on 30 June 1943, out of 106 specified by the Troop Basis. It does not break down the models they were equipped with. On that same date there were 41 independant tank battalion active, of 73 on the Troop Basis. (independant tank battalions were not in the armored divsions.)

On 15 Jan 1944 the number of TD battalions in the Troop Basis was reduced to 78 and by June 1944 the number active was reduced to 78. The number of independant tank battalions was based at 60 on 15 January and there were 64 active. There were a total of 89 divsions active including 16 armored divsions. So the ratio of TD battalions to infantry & airbourne divsions was roughly 1-1

My copy of Stantons summary of the US Armys units shows in May 1945 there were 45 TD battalions in th 12th Army Group, of which 27 had M36, 13 had M18s, and 6 still had the M10, and 4 were the M5 towed D battalions. There were roughly slightly fewer total divsions in 12 Army Group that date, so the ratio was considerablly greater than 1-1 for the infantry and airbourne divsions.

For comparison there were 313 artillery battalions active in excess of the division artillery battalions. Or, each divsion had four of its own battalions (three in armored divs.) and 3.5 addtional battalions average in support. Since the extra battalions were pooled in corps and army artillery groups and never in reserve the front line divsions typically had a average of 5-6 extra artillery battalions in support.

Note that in 1943 there were 12 TD battalions formed with towed M5 3" AT guns instead of the M10 SP gun. These were a further aberation of the TD doctrine. Usually the infantry divsion commanders parceled out the companys of these towed AT guns to the regiments where they reinforced the 57mm AT guns already possesed by the infantry. Sometimes they made these emplace alongside the divsions howitzers and reinforce their fires with HE ammunition.

***The 'Troop Basis' was a massive document used for organizing and supporting the US Army forces. In one sense it amounted to the mother of all tables of organization and equipment. It represented goals or theoretical targets to base planning on for constructing training and supplying virtually every squad in the army.

RifleMan20
03-17-2008, 09:20 PM
Wow, so really in the year of 1945, the end of the war, there was only 6 divisions that consists of the m10 tank and the rest used the more modernized tanks, and off topic it looks like your a fellow hoosier on this site so hey from another fellow hoosier

Nickdfresh
03-18-2008, 01:33 PM
Wow, so really in the year of 1945, the end of the war, there was only 6 divisions that consists of the m10 tank and the rest used the more modernized tanks, and off topic it looks like your a fellow hoosier on this site so hey from another fellow hoosier

I think you're missing some of the gist of it. The tank destroyers were never in separate divisions but were tasked or attached to divisions and were subject to requests by commanders seeking support, requests that fell off after North Africa...

And the M-10 wasn't a "tank," but a modified M-4 Sherman with a 76mm gun...

Major Walter Schmidt
03-18-2008, 03:05 PM
So its like a "jagdpanzer"?

Panther F
03-18-2008, 04:17 PM
So its like a "jagdpanzer"?

Not even close. Thinly armored, mounted a gun on a fast platform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M10_Wolverine

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/M10_destroyer_du_8e_RCA%2C_Illhauesern_1.JPG/800px-M10_destroyer_du_8e_RCA%2C_Illhauesern_1.JPG


HTH

Nickdfresh
03-18-2008, 05:58 PM
Sixty mm's of sloping armor wasn't that bad, about as much as an early T-34. But its open top was clearly a problem...

Major Walter Schmidt
03-21-2008, 01:45 PM
Yeah, a stick grenade or MK-108 canon down the top.

del
03-26-2008, 12:23 PM
Hi all.
Dose any one have a picture of the M10 Gun sight.
I think it was called [M.71 D, 5X mag / 13 degree FOV].
Any info on this would be excellant.


cheers Del.

Carl Schwamberger
03-28-2008, 06:11 PM
Hi all.
Dose any one have a picture of the M10 Gun sight.
I think it was called [M.71 D, 5X mag / 13 degree FOV].
Any info on this would be excellant.


cheers Del.

I've definitly seen that on a web site, but absolutely cant recall the address. Sorry, get searching.

Panther F
03-29-2008, 08:39 AM
Yeah, a stick grenade or MK-108 canon down the top.


Most tanks (and those vunerable) had infantry support as well as other vehicles. It would be rare a tank destroyer like this would be such an easy kill. :mrgreen:

Nickdfresh
03-29-2008, 09:31 AM
Most tanks (and those vunerable) had infantry support as well as other vehicles. It would be rare a tank destroyer like this would be such an easy kill. :mrgreen:


Actually, not as rare as you might think.

By late in the Normandy campaign, tank destroyers were being (finally, correctly) used as mobile anti-tank guns to screen infantry in place of towed anti-tank guns, whereas previously the field manual --that was fundamentally flawed and quickly exposed as unrealistic and unworkable in actual combat-- held that TDs were to be used as an autonomous mobile reserve to quickly counter armor breakthroughs along the lines. A role that made them largely useless in practice as once the Germans began breaking through, the tank destroyers were easy pickings in direct combat without infantry support and largely operating with little or no coordination with other combat arms and could rarely check the enemy's momentum...

Tank destroyers were even used as a close support assault guns in the hedgerow fighting. Even by the end of the North African campaign, they were being used as company level indirect fire artillery, and that role gradually morphed into direct fire support as the tank destroyer battalions were essentially dissolved into support elements for infantry units as small as platoon level by Normandy. A role considered contrary to their assigned, previously conceived mission and contrary to their training which basically was devoid or combined arms theory and the tank destroyer crews were trained to almost see themselves as self-contained units independent from the rest of the army.

I think the bigger threat than grenades were snipers picking off the crewman exposed by the open tops though. The paradox is that the tank destroyers had to work closely with the infantry to protect themselves from enemy infantry, but they were more exposed and thus were more vulnerable than tanks because of the proximity of enemy infantry..

Panther F
03-29-2008, 11:20 AM
Actually, not as rare as you might think.

By late in the Normandy campaign, tank destroyers were being (finally, correctly) used as mobile anti-tank guns to screen infantry in place of towed anti-tank guns, whereas previously the field manual --that was fundamentally flawed and quickly exposed as unrealistic and unworkable in actual combat-- held that TDs were to be used as an autonomous mobile reserve to quickly counter armor breakthroughs along the lines. A role that made them largely useless in practice as once the Germans began breaking through, the tank destroyers were easy pickings in direct combat without infantry support and largely operating with little or no coordination with other combat arms and could rarely check the enemy's momentum...

Tank destroyers were even used as a close support assault guns in the hedgerow fighting. Even by the end of the North African campaign, they were being used as company level indirect fire artillery, and that role gradually morphed into direct fire support as the tank destroyer battalions were essentially dissolved into support elements for infantry units as small as platoon level by Normandy. A role considered contrary to their assigned, previously conceived mission and contrary to their training which basically was devoid or combined arms theory and the tank destroyer crews were trained to almost see themselves as self-contained units independent from the rest of the army.

I think the bigger threat than grenades were snipers picking off the crewman exposed by the open tops though. The paradox is that the tank destroyers had to work closely with the infantry to protect themselves from enemy infantry, but they were more exposed and thus were more vulnerable than tanks because of the proximity of enemy infantry..

:D That's just what I said, without all the extra fancy words! :roll:

HAWKEYE
04-11-2008, 03:51 PM
The TD's (meaning all of them) were not meant to be used against enemy infantry in an attack role, they were supposed to attack and take out enemy armor by surprise and heavy numbers if possible. They do not even have a hull mounted machinegun for defense against infantry, they were never supposed to be that close to them(some TD units did mount sockets on the turret on either side of the gun breech to mount anti personel MGs after this became a problem). So the worries were not about the possiblity of grenades but the need for a heavy gunned, fast, armored vehicle in the TD role. I think that the open top turret was because of the size of the naval AA gun used in the mount, it could not be worked in an enclosed turret, plus the open top provided the best observation platform. The open tops did not pose much of a problem until the TDs were later engaged in street fighting and the the Germans could shoot down into the open turrets. Statisically there were much lighter casualty rates in the TD battalions (mobile) than tank equipped units.
The TD doctrine was to have half the force be towed and the other half self-propelled, this mistake in judgement became blazingly clear when the towed TD units would get over run and lose their guns, many times over. The armor of an M10 was not that thick and it had a high sillouette but it was not meant to stand toe to toe with a Panzer and slug it out, but neither was the M4. Sometimes that happened and the US AFV usually lost that fight.

The M10 did start out with a diesel engine but those were left stateside for training and the Ford gas powered ones were used in combat. No diesel engined M10's ever saw combat in WWII, as far as I know.

From "The Tank Killers" "A History of America''s WWII Tank Destroyer Force" by Harry Yeide:
"FM 18-5 indicated that tank destroyer battalians would operate as mobile reserve and not as part of the front-line defense." Tank destroyer units are employed offensively in large numbers,by rapid movement, and by surprise.

And as an added tidbit, Audie Murphy got his MOH firing the rear mounted .50 cal at attacking infantry on an M10 that was on fire...

Uyraell
03-10-2009, 09:42 AM
So its like a "jagdpanzer"?
No. More like Wespe : a Panzerjaeger.

Regards, Uyraell.

flamethrowerguy
03-10-2009, 09:55 AM
No. More like Wespe : a Panzerjaeger.

Regards, Uyraell.

Got to disagree here. The "Wespe" (Leichte Feldhaubitze 18/2 auf Fahrgestell PzKpfw II, Sd.Kfz. 124) was an armoured artillery vehicle.

Uyraell
03-11-2009, 02:50 AM
Got to disagree here. The "Wespe" (Leichte Feldhaubitze 18/2 auf Fahrgestell PzKpfw II, Sd.Kfz. 124) was an armoured artillery vehicle.

I apologise:
Yes, you are correct: Wespe was. Hummel, was the artillery variant of the Pz3/4 hybrid chassis.
Though, in honesty, I should have used Marder or Nashorn as a more direct comparison, as both of those are Panzerjaegers of the class I had in mind for comparison to the M10.

Respectful Regards, Uyraell.

GliderInfantry
03-14-2009, 08:45 PM
why was this tank equipped with an open-topped turret?

Churchill
03-14-2009, 09:41 PM
I would say, as purely a guess, so the crew could fire at incoming infantry since the tank itself didn't have a supplementary machine gun. Though I'm sure others will tell you the actual reason.

Uyraell
03-15-2009, 04:58 AM
why was this tank equipped with an open-topped turret?

American policy regarded Tank Destroyers as offshoots of the Gun Motor Carriages.
As such, since GMC's (Brits would name them Self-Propelled Guns) were assigned support roles, open-topped turrets were considered sufficient protection.

As Nickdfresh says earlier in this thread, putting an enclosed roof over the M36 Jackson for example would have turned it into a reasonably good tank, which role it came to be used in, in any case. Granted, some modification of the main armament mounting may be necessary (as had been done in the case of the Churchill NA75 for example), but it would not have constituted a great problem, and could easily have been accomplished at relatively little cost.

The basic reason for the open turret comes down to Doctrine not regarding a fully enclosed turret as being either necessary or desirable for a Tank Destroyer vehicle.
While this can perhaps be excused in the case of the M18 Hellcat, there is much less validity for an open turret in the case of the M10, Achilles (M10 equipped with Brit 17pdr), or M36.
Certainly, in the case of the M36 a roofed version could easily have supplimented the M26 which was initially available only in small numbers. But in mentioning that, we get back into the M26 Thread, which details the often acrimonious debates between Ordinance, Ground Command, and Armoured Command regarding the employ of the 75, 76, and 90mm main guns.

Regards, Uyraell.

Nickdfresh
03-15-2009, 06:26 AM
why was this tank equipped with an open-topped turret?

The short answer: Because it wasn't a "tank." It was a "tank destroyer," and it had limitations much like the German Stugs and Jagdpanzers....

The open top was meant for observation by the crew as it was believed an enclosed turret was not needed because these vehicles would THEORETICALLY rarely encounter enemy infantry. This became a problem when TDs were used as infantry support assault guns in Normandy...

Incidentally, the M-36 Slugger did have an enclosed top, it had a flip top armored lid that could button down the turret almost making it effectively a heavy tank...

GliderInfantry
03-18-2009, 08:56 PM
pictures are very good

redcoat
03-21-2009, 05:06 PM
why was this tank equipped with an open-topped turret?
It enabled them to fit a larger gun in the turret without increasing the height.

jopped
03-22-2009, 01:43 PM
As far as I know, the main reason for the open turred was that it gave the crew a better view of the battle field.
Later during the war, the M-36 Jackson and M-10's were given a thin armoured cover, with large hatches. In my opinion, the crew would be more vurnable to machine gun fire and artillery, then to handgranates.

As said before, these vehicles were supposed to find and destroy enemy tanks, not infantry. And if they met German infantry, these would flee away if they didn't have a Panzerfaust to shoot at it. A regular German soldier would mostly not see that the tank was open, or know this... To a regular German, the M-10 must have been like a Sherman. It takes a lot of courage to run up to a tank to trough a granate in, and these vehicles would usualy be supported by infantry, so it wouldn't even be possible, while a panzerfaust could be fired from a little further away.

There were 3 tank destroyers in the ETO in 1944-45
The M-18 Hellcat with a 76mm canon,
The M-36 Jackson with a 90mm canon and,
The M-10 with a 3'' (+-76mm) canon.

There were two types of the M-10, the M-10 and the M-10 A1.
The M-10 was based on the M4A2 Sherman, while the M-10 A1 was based on the M4A3. Also, the A-1 had a larger turred, and better counter weights, in the shape of duckbills.

The British updated their M-10 A1's with the 17 pounder anty tank gun, called Achilles, and from june '44, these were replasing the regular M-10's in commonwealth service, aldough not all were replased.

Cheers,
Joppe

Nickdfresh
03-22-2009, 01:51 PM
If you read my preceding posts in this thread, the TD crews biggest problem, when they were inevitably used as assault guns in Normandy during the hedgerow fighting, were German snipers...

leccy
03-22-2009, 02:23 PM
In British use the M10's were attached as needed to units

When attached to Infantry tank units in the attack they tended to be used for long range sniping (although on occasion they were caught up in close in fighting) while the I tanks advanced with the infantry

jopped
03-22-2009, 03:26 PM
If you read my preceding posts in this thread, the TD crews biggest problem, when they were inevitably used as assault guns in Normandy during the hedgerow fighting, were German snipers...

Ofcource, you are right...
I however was more pointing to the anti tank point of view, rather then to anti personel. Indeed, for tankers, especialy commanders, and TD crews, the German snipers were a real threat.

In British armoured Divisions, an anti tank regiment usualy had two batteries with M-10/Achilles', and two with towed 17 pounders. They were widely used to cover the flanks of an advance. The towed batteries usualy were assighend to the Infantery brigade, the self probelled batteries to the Armoured brigade.

Atleast some British and canadian Infantry divisions also had M-10's/Achilles', but I am not sure if every Infantery division had these on hand. I do know that later in the war, the 15th Scottish and 43th Wessex Infantry divisions had some Archers. These were 17 pounders fitter rearwards on a Valentine tank chassis...

Cheers,
Joppe