Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

Armor

Page 1 of 2 (22 items) 1 2 >

Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

m60a3 05-27-2006, 7:19 PM
 Did any TD's match well against the German tanks? I know the Sherman didn't, but I am not sure about the TD's.
M10   M18   M36 What else?
Gun Motor Carriage was same-same as tank destroyer in most cases unless it was arty?

 I appreciate any answers.

                                                                                                         -60

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

rebelreenactor 05-27-2006, 8:19 PM

as far as armament goes, they  could penetrate mose German tanks frontal armor. (not sure on the KT and JT thouhg). However in armor they were lacking by far. I think the M-10 only had 2 inch armor in the front, not much.

So I would say they didn't match well against the German tanks. They could be knocked out too easily.

 

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

T26E4 05-27-2006, 10:55 PM
A GMC was any vehicle carrying an artillery piece -- from the M12 (155mm GPF cannon) on Lee chassis, to the T6 37mm M3 on a Dodge/Fargo 4x4 truck  (think of the Italeri AT Dodge kit).

Were they effective?  Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  Shermans could kill Panzers sometimes.  Sometimes not.  The 75mm Sherman was the equivalent of the most dominant (numerically) German tank, the Mk IV.  It was better than the many Sturmgeschutzen and panzerjagers.  It's well known that the M4s were outmatched by the Panthers, Tigers and Tiger IIs.   However the 76mm and 17pdr Shermans could slug away at them. 

But it's pretty futile to ask which tank is better.  The M10/M36 were useful given the US doctrine at the time, despite its flaws.  However, US units made due and overcame the odds (which favored the defensive) and made Blitzkreig-type charges that would have been the envy of Rommel and Guedarian in 1939-40.  The M18 Hellcat is generally seen as a very successful TD (size, speed and punch of gun).

Please don't anyone reply with "If I were in a battle I'd like to be in a Tiger/Tiger II" and rehash that tired old argument again.

I would too since I want to have the best survival rate.  Like someone else said in another post: if your a divisional officer, you want 100s of Shermans.  If you're on the unit level, you want Tiger Is b/c you want to survive and bring home as many of your mates as possible.

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

stikpusher 05-28-2006, 3:45 PM
Of the three major types you listed, the 90mm armed M-36 was the most effective. It came as quite a suprise to the Germans when first encountered due to its similarity to the M-10 and their familiarity with that TD's capability. The M-10 and M-18 also performed well when employed properly, especially when using the tungsten core HVAP ammunition. Their open tops and thin armor made them vulnerable in city fighting and did not give them good protection in stand up slugging matches or against artillery fire. A variant of the M-18 which never entered production due to the war ending was an M-18 hull mated to an M-36 turret. When fitted with a muzzle brake, this fast moving chassis and heavy gun combo,  succesfully proved in testing  to give US forces what would have been quite a weapon under the concept.

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

Dwight Ta-ala 05-28-2006, 6:03 PM
The M36 (Slugger or Jackson) proved itself to be one of the most powerful American tank destroyers in WWII. Some M36 units were able to record very impressive scores with few losses to themselves. Its most notable weakness however, is the lack of sufficient armor.

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

MortarMagnet 05-28-2006, 8:10 PM
There exists footage of a Pershing tank firing the same 90mm gun in the M36 straight through the gun shield of a KingTiger.  Three shots were fired and penetrated.  One killed the driver and I believe both of the remaining rounds entered the turret.  However, these were fired in city streets not open field ranges.  That said the 90mm could penetrate glacius armor on all german tanks at practical ranges.

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

T26E4 05-29-2006, 12:41 AM
Hey Mortar: Sorry to correct you but you're speaking of the famous footage of the T26E3 Pershing killing a Panther in Cologne (after the Panther had just killed two Shermans).  The shots hit the mantlet and ricocheted into the drivers' compartment, hit one or two more into the sponson.  The 90mm at certain conditions could penetrate -- it's incorrect to say categorically that it could penetrate at "all practical ranges". 

Case in point, the heaviest duty cannon on a US tank during WW2 was the T15E1 extra long 90mm cannon on the T26E4 "Super Pershing".  In one engaement with a Tiger II, its first round ricocheted upwards off of the Tiger II's glacis.  The return shot from the Tiger II missed low (went under the belly of the Super Pershing).  The Tiger II then rolled up on some debris, exposing its belly.  The gunner directed his second AP shot into the Tiger II's belly and it brewed up immediately.  from John Irwin's "Another River, Another Town" -- he was the Super Pershing gunner --  he didn't give the range of the engagement though.

Hope this helps

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

MortarMagnet 05-29-2006, 7:23 AM
It would only stand to reason that I would be corrected about a Pershing by a fellow named T26

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

MortarMagnet 05-29-2006, 7:49 AM
I have seen photographs of tigers and panthers with holes in the glacius.  Even the 76 could do this but not at decent ranges.  I don't want to start up a debate about this stuff, but I can't resist.

I still say the m36 matched well when used as designed.  It wasn't a tank it was a self-propelled gun.  We all seem to try to think of them as tanks but they are artillery pieces with tracks.  German and American tanks were not build for the same purposes either.  German tanks fought tanks.  Shermans shot holes in buildings and blew mg nests.  The comparisons made in these forums is often apples and oranges.  It is like asking if an F-16 and an A-10 got in a dogfight which would win.  Or why an A-10 would be built if an F-16 could shoot it down so easily.  I also believe that forum debaters often forget how backward American war doctrine was in 1942.  The services really had their backs against the wall and something had to be done to get numbers quickly. If that meant the sherman was to be built by the tens of thousands then thats what had to be done.  Tanks development went from the M3 Lee being the American tank in early 1942, to the Pershing in early 1945.  I would say that advancement is not to be scoffed at.  A change is technology and thinking in three years.

This isn't directed to people in this thread, nor is it as hostile as it might seem.  It's a general gripe I have about the comparisons people make.  Sorry guys.

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

davew6003 05-29-2006, 9:08 AM
I tend to agree with the apples to oranges comparison, or the F 16 to A 10. Its one of those things you have to look at in a context. Like which car would win the race. A corvette or an f 150 pickup? Well where is the race? On a smooth race track or off road with mud holes and rocks? I know its not exactly the same thing but its the same kind of thinking.

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

crossracer 05-29-2006, 9:22 AM

The three things you want to balance in any armored vechical is Speed, Firepower, and Armor. In a perfect world you would have 14 inches of armor that could go 120mph and spout a 155mm main gun. However all these are impratical. THe jackson was a solid design combining mechinical reliability with a proven gun. The Hellcat was a revelation to those who served in them, being able to scoot and shoot was a great way to survive an engagement.

   Had the war gone another year the introduction of APDS (prety sure im right on this one) would have allowed the allies a much better chance of a first shot kill.

Bill  

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

T26E4 05-29-2006, 9:33 AM
Hi Dave and Mortar: I'm with you guys, believe me!  There's as many "Which is better: Sherman or Tiger/Panther/etc." threads as there are Angelina Jolie/Bradd Pitt magazine covers!

I hope I didn't come off snippy, either Mortar.  I just wanted to caution the broad language about 90mm guns penetrative abilities.  Really in the battlefield crazy things did and do happen.  I read how an M8 Armored Car killed a Panther once.  I also recall in Belton Cooper's "Death Traps" how the lead Sherman in a column fired a WP shell at a Tiger II.  The Tiger IIs fans brought the smoke into the fighting compartment and the crew abandoned it quickly, thinking it was afire (the Sherman got killed by a second T2 however).  I've read Gerry Chester's accounts of his unit killing Tigers in Tunisia and Panthers in Italy.  He was in the North Irish Horse, and these actions were done by 6pdr armed Churchills.  His online memoir is great but offline but available through archive.org.  (Go to www.archive.org and enter http://www.nih.ww2site.com -- it's a great read!)

Gerry is still with us, contributing Churchill information on ML's Allied DG.  I'm building a model of his Churchill Mk Vwith customized decals of his actual tank as we speak.  A fine gentleman! 

BTW, great analogy about the F-16/A-10 and the Corvette/F150.  The line I use whenever one of the debates emerges is why not compare an Panzer IA to a JS-2?

Take care folks.  Roy

(LOL, you're right about my T26E4 name -- I did a three year build on a Super Pershing and know too much about it!)

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

MortarMagnet 05-29-2006, 10:31 AM
I'm up to 5 years on on LVT(A)-1 but I only have 20 hours into it.  I'm sure you know what I mean.

Not snippy at all.  Anyone that cannot swallow their pride when they are mistaken will become a very bitter person.  You are correct it was a panther.

My grandfather was a Marine in WW2 and he always said that the most dangerous place to be was in, on, or near a tank.  When the artillery picks a target they don't shoot the guy with the rifle behind the tree, they shoot the tank with the cannon in the middle of the road.  Those guys you see on TV following a tank up a hill usually didn't make it up.  He was in the 1st Marine Div and survived from Guadalcanal through Okinawa.

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

m60a3 05-29-2006, 12:16 PM
 Good answers. Thank you all. I wish we had had more TD's than Shermans. The F-16 and A 10 thing is a very good point. I agree.
                                                                        Good day all.

                                                                                                -60

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

tigerman 05-30-2006, 12:42 AM

MortarMagnet wrote:

I have seen photographs of tigers and panthers with holes in the glacius.  Even the 76 could do this but not at decent ranges.  I don't want to start up a debate about this stuff, but I can't resist.

Don't know if you have one, but according to authors Tom Jentz, Hilary Doyle and Peter Sarson in their New Vanguard book on the King Tiger, they have been unable to locate a single photo or documented evidence of the glacius of a King Tiger being penetrated. I've seen the turret and side penetrated though. I'm guessing you meant Tiger I

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

T26E4 05-30-2006, 9:43 AM
A very interesting anecdote: Belton Cooper in his "Death Traps" book talks about how he took a Panzerfaust and test fired it into the turret face of an undamaged, abandoned Tiger II (henschel turm).  The warhead hit a few inches to the side of the gunner's site opening.  There was a terriffic flash of sparks.  When he examined the point of impact, he said there was a succinct 1/2 inch diameter hole where the HEAT warhead hit.  On the inside of the turret, the exit hole was about 3/4 inches and things were brewed up pretty good inside.  I believe the turret face of the Tiger II, production turret was about 4" thick.

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

MortarMagnet 05-30-2006, 11:44 AM

tigerman wrote:

MortarMagnet wrote: I have seen photographs of tigers and panthers with holes in the glacius.  Even the 76 could do this but not at decent ranges.  I don't want to start up a debate about this stuff, but I can't resist. Don't know if you have one, but according to authors Tom Jentz, Hilary Doyle and Peter Sarson in their New Vanguard book on the King Tiger, they have been unable to locate a single photo or documented evidence of the glacius of a King Tiger being penetrated. I've seen the turret and side penetrated though. I'm guessing you meant Tiger I

Not Kings just tigers, less often than panthers though.

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

Luckybob 05-30-2006, 4:58 PM

About 2 or 3 years ago, I had the chance to build a model of the M-18 Hellcat for a World War Two veteran who had commanded an M-18 in Europe.While asking him questions about his vehicle so I could get the details as correct as possible, he shared a few stories with me about his combat experiences. In one story he related to me how his Hellcat encountered what he called a German "Heavy tank". I asked him for details of the German tank and he said it had a "sloped front and a square turret", so I figure it was probably a Panther. In the head-on engagement at about 1500 yards, they put two shots into the German tanks' front slope, neither of which penetrated. He said he saw the rounds bounce off and up. The German tank returned fire, and missed. He then oredered his driver to bug-out as quickly as possible.He laughed, and said "He who turns and runs away, lives to fight another day." He said he knew that he couldn't kill it at the angle he was engaging from and there was no way his TD would survive a hit from the German gun. He didn't re-engage the target, because he said it had moved off. He commanded a Hellcat through the rest of the war, and though he killed some German tanks, he didn't recall any of them being "Heavies". Pretty interesting stuff. The day I presented the Hellcat model to him, his eyes welled up and he said, "Yeah, that's just how I remember it." You have to love living history!

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

MortarMagnet 05-30-2006, 9:20 PM
What a fantastic way to really enjoy the hobby.

Re: Allied Tank Destroyers -VS- Panzers

---

Dwight Ta-ala 05-30-2006, 11:18 PM

Here's a story of a Tank Destroyer Batallion in Anzio.

http://www.lonesentry.com/brassingoff/index.html

Page 1 of 2 (22 items) 1 2 >