What if? M8A1 Tank Destroyer

tellis

Member since
September 2004
From: Burke, Virginia

What if? M8A1 Tank Destroyer

Posted by tellis on Saturday, October 31, 2009 9:30 PM

I found an M8 SP howitzer model that I did way back in college. I decided to give it an upgrade after seeing an article in FSM back in 07 about an experimental tank destroyer with a 75mm. It never saw action but what if? I gave the model a metal 75mm barrel, new tracks from AFV club, added some details to the interrior of the turret, spare track to the front slope and a fresh paint job with markings to portray a vehicle operating in the ETO circa fall '44. I couldn't resist putting the Tank Destroyer logo on the side. (I actually did the project a couple months ago concurrently with my M5 conversion but forgot to post) It was a fun project and good use of an older unpainted model done many moons ago.

T Ellis Springfield, VA

Reply

wing_nut

Member since
April 2005
From: Piscataway, NJ!

Posted by wing_nut on Sunday, November 1, 2009 5:41 AM

Dunno poop about US armor but looks like it would be a tough little bugger. Short, stout and carrying 1 big @$$ stick.

Marc

Reply

the doog

Member since
January 2007

Posted by the doog on Sunday, November 1, 2009 6:49 AM

Looks like an M8 with a "hemi", lol.

Nasty little bugger it would have been, I'm sure. Anyone know what kept it from being produced?

Reply

Rob Gronovius

Member since
December 2002
From: Fort Knox

Posted by Rob Gronovius on Sunday, November 1, 2009 7:13 AM

Most likely the M18 Hellcat, the US Army's first purpose-built tank destroyer with 76mm gun. Built by Caddillac, it was also the fastest "tank" during WW2.

Reply

falschimjager

Member since
January 2009
From: Oregon

Posted by falschimjager on Sunday, November 1, 2009 1:33 PM

Rob Gronovius wrote:
Most likely the M18 Hellcat, the US Army's first purpose-built tank destroyer with 76mm gun. Built by Caddillac, it was also the fastest "tank" during WW2.

Being fast doesn't count for much if you're made for ambushing though.

Reply

Rob Gronovius

Member since
December 2002
From: Fort Knox

Posted by Rob Gronovius on Sunday, November 1, 2009 7:11 PM

Ambushing wasn't the US tank destroyer doctrine. The WW2 US doctrine (flawed) was to use highly mobile, rapid, anti-tank forces to move to the point of the battlefield where enemy tanks were believed to be gaining success and may breakthrough.

Reply

falschimjager

Member since
January 2009
From: Oregon

Posted by falschimjager on Monday, November 2, 2009 5:18 PM

Rob Gronovius wrote:
Ambushing wasn't the US tank destroyer doctrine. The WW2 US doctrine (flawed) was to use highly mobile, rapid, anti-tank forces to move to the point of the battlefield where enemy tanks were believed to be gaining success and may breakthrough.

yeah, but iw wasn't a good strategy (the german and russian strategy of sitting around in a large behemoth waiting for the enemy was better)

Reply

Rob Gronovius

Member since
December 2002
From: Fort Knox

Posted by Rob Gronovius on Monday, November 2, 2009 6:02 PM

Yes, hence the word "flawed" in parenthesis when describing US anti-tank doctrine.

Both the Germans and Russians developed their doctrine while fighting a defensive war. The US fought mainly an offensive invasion using forces initially conceived to defend.

Reply

THE MAGAZINE

CONTACT US

RECENT ARTICLES

POPULAR TOPICS

RECENT REVIEWS

POPULAR TOPICS

RECENT REVIEWS

POPULAR TOPICS

RECENT VIDEOS

POPULAR TOPICS

RECENT THREADS

CATEGORIES

NEW PRODUCTS

OUR STORE

CURRENT ISSUE

SEARCH FINESCALE.COM