gcalcification: The open turret top was intended to give the crew superior situational awareness of the battlefield: this because the M-10 and the later M-36 and M-18 were supposed to aggressively hunt enemy tanks and kill them. Tanks with a covered turret are harder to see out of when "buttoned up" and accordingly the designers of these tank destroyers wanted to give their crews the advantage of being more likely to see the enemy tanks before the enemy tanks saw them.
A bunch of ignorant comments on here :( The M-10 was a quick way to get the high velocity 76mm gun into action, and was infinitely better than the previous h/t based M3 and even towed guns. There wasn't an anglo-american tank at the time with armour thick enough to resist Tiger & Panther guns, so it's relative thinness is irrelevant. And the experience with it led to the M18 Hellcat and M-36, and up-gunning the Sherman. Without the M-10 the US would have been a lot worse off!
Sudden death to the Tiger? He should have said instant death if you meet a Tiger, never mind a King Tiger. Or a mortar, or a Panzerfaust, or a Panther, or a flak 88, or a Pak 75, or a Panzerschreck, or a Jadpanther.
its objective is to use its speed ,not make a gunfight from a distance,it was firing and moving and the panther's turret wasn't even able to turn his turret and shoot it.But surely ,its not a good tank destroyer,just a fast one.
comparing a T-34 and M10 is riddiculous. the M10 isn't even technically a tank- its a tank destroyer, (And and undergunned one too) not designed to be a ble to face off against enemy armor up close.
The M10 is the most underrated AFV of WWII. My infantryman father remembers them with affection as they were the primary support for the infantry in both their 76MM and near the end of the war in the 90MM version the M36.
@sheep1ful American tanks weren't 'crap,' they were really good at being simple to produce, HIGHLY reliable and low maintenance. Not qualities your beloved Tiger, Panther, or PZ4 or any other famous German tanks for that matter, could boast. Why else do you think they lost? German tanks look good on paper and restored in museums, but not in practice aside from their stats and war stories. Read a little more and you'll learn grasshopper.
M60A3 by 1992 when i was at FT Knox was redifined as defensive Tank because it wouldnt take hit from 100mm. Therefor a Tank Destroyer, it was absolet by then.
M10 engineering disaster = Thin armour protection, could easily be penetrated by German armour piercing rounds, open top of turret exposed the crews to artillery explosions and shrapnel, it also exposed the crews to machine-gun fire from MG-34 and MG-42 (BUZZ-SAW) machine-guns, and also sniper fire. The 75mm gun would just bounce off the Panther tanks, Tiger tanks and the Panzer IV tanks, it's narrow tracks gave it a high ground pressure of 280 MMP, getting stuck in mud, and high profile=DEATH
@haiherosner Yea! But they were fast! You could get alot of them on the front quickly. American Military Power in the Theater had Air power to make up for any short comming . Rommel kept requesting for additional AA guns. 20mm and 37mm. I agree US Army didnt have a Real Tank until the Pershing with 90mm showed up even thu it had a range of 100 miles.
@GalaticSpaceHero That is exactly right, the Americans had to have air power supremacy to make up for their obsolete tanks, other-wise they could not cope with the Panzer army. Just look at Operation GoodWood, in Normandy launched by the allies on July 18-21, despite carpet air force bombing of German positions, they missed most of their targets and the Brits lost between 400-500 Sherman tanks and Churchhills and Cromwells and M10's. The German Tiger II and Panthers and 88mm Flak destroyed them
@GalaticSpaceHero Unfortunately the Pershing's showed up too little too late to see much combat action in European theatre of operations, thanks to dumb-bells in the U.S. Army dragging their feet about whether a heavy tank with 90mm gun is necessary, LOL. IT would be like today, the military asking "Do we really need the M1A2 Abrams Tank, is it necessary?", that's how stupid it was to delay the production of the M-26 Pershing tank, they could have had that tank in 1943, but Gen Leslie McNair=NO.
@haiherosner Yea, your right and the Tank destroyer M10 was why a good Tank design wasnt made. M10 was over rated like in this War film. They dont even hit the target. splashed one short . Gunner re engage ! round short ! they didnt evne have electric turrent , HAAAAAA There spinning hand wheels , not good thing against Tanks with Electric Turrents and high velocity guns.
@GalaticSpaceHero Of course TDs were to supplement towed antitank guns, which didn't have electric traverse either. They took advantage of the advantages of the tactical defense, and worked so well that no german offensive against the US reached its objectives.
@DonMeaker Last time i was 155 towed i dindnt have it either. 13B. 19D /k and the my last gig at FT bragg was a disasator , i got into transportation, what a joke ! COSCOM! All they do is run you to death, no real Combat training. Just looking tough but we couldnt stop anything. have to reliy on MP or Infantry units. I laid concernten out front of fighting position and got my ass chewed out , what a joke, Unit went to Irag came back handed its self bronze stars for handing out mre's .
@DonMeaker I was there for the summer of 1985 for basic and came back in 86 for AIT , split training option National Guard 13B, Private first class. I brought home about $400 in 86. 155 self propel . "FIRE MISSION!" "ADJUST FIRE" HE IN EFFECT !" 5 WHITE BAG" DEFLECTION , i still remmeber some of the hell i went thru for GOD,COUNTRY AND FREEDOM! 17 year old that didnt know shit about nothing. Vietnam vet said dont you know what you are? I said NO! SGT said your in GOD DAM HELL 666!
@GalaticSpaceHero We had split trail 105s with a shield in front. An instructor took a nap in the shadow of a gun, and when the next class started, they fired the gun off and he woke, and ran like heck back up to where the class was to start. It was quite a trick to shoot one round at high elevation then shoot a second round direct fire, with them both hitting TOT. Missions were harder to compute before electronics. We had to do it all with paper, pins, and a graduated straight edge.
@DonMeaker Had a shield . direct fire . im trying to recall in battle in Europe where artillery unit defeated assualt by German armor. 105 HE blew them away.
@GalaticSpaceHero We were equipped with HEAT rounds for our 105, but we were always told that we had about a half inch of steel, and the tank had 11 inches or so. We never wanted to get into a slugging contest, and of course artillery when I served came down via airburst fuses, so the tank would not be vulnerable to airburst frags, while we would be. We worked hard to find good firing positions that were not subject to mass tank attack due to terrain or cover.
@DonMeaker In Iraq , Every Time the M1A2 gunner fired off round he to announce to the Infantry around him with countdown when they would fire the main gun. What A WAR ! 5 , 4, 3, 2, 1, BOOOM! What a WAR! insurgents are listening,
@GalaticSpaceHero It has long been standard practice to NOT ALLOW sabot to be fired over the head of Infantry, for fairly obvious reasons. Tanks had (M-103/M-48/M-60) a phone on the back quarter so you could communicate with the infantry without radio (through intercom). Infantry had, in my day, a system of wigwags. so the squad leader from behind the tank could get the count and pass it on securely. M1 turbine head made standing behind the tank not good, I am told.
@DonMeaker Yea, M1A2 you had to watch when you back into woods in hull down, there are many reports of shrubs catching fire. From what i heard you start smelling smoke and you ask the rest Tank crew if they smell the samething , whos lighting up cig? Then usualy some one yells," HOLY SHIT WOODS BEHIND US IS ON FIRE ! DRIVER KICK THIS HOT BITCH IN THE ASS!" Then when you have your tank away from the fire ,crew is out there trying to put it out. Cook steaks back there, escorts have to keep safe
@GalaticSpaceHero An interesting variation on the self-protection smoke screen... The problem is, how do you screen the tank in front of the smoke screen.
@haiherosner M-10 had 3 inch guns, not 75mm. 3 inch guns were effective against even Tiger and Panther, particularly with the preferred flanking fire. US .50 browning MG was superior in range and penetration to german MGs. Thin armor mattered less if you got off the first shot, which TDs often did in the defense. M-10s were reliable, so they could road march operationally to get in front of German attacks to ambush.
@DonMeaker Still, the M10 was obsolete by 1943, frontally it was not that effective against the Panther and Tiger tank. I prefer the Nashorn with the Pak 43 88mm high velocity gun and the JagdPanther which also had the Pak 43 88mm high velocity gun. The M10 was discoed and the Chassis of the M10 was used to upgrade to the M36 jackson m3 90mm cannon, which is a much better tank destroyer than the M10. The German Tank destroyers had much better torsion bar suspensions compared to U.S. Destroyers.
@haiherosner US tactics were to use flanking fire, and teamwork, so facing one meant exposing the flank to another. Torsion bar suspensions made german vehicles higher than US counterparts. M-36 also used M-4 hulls, and they had the bow MG, unique for a US TD. My favorite TD was the M-18, but that is a matter of taste.
@DonMeaker Trying to roll you up from the flanks is tactic thats been used since the horse was used in combat. Germany was defeated by the time we landed in Normandy. No Fuel, low on food ,no air force, 90%horse drawn Army. Germans later have said they were tired of war. Cities bombed to rumble. Operation Market Garden when USA drop containers with cakes to surrounded Airborne units, the German General said, " CAKES " "There droping CAKES?" " We have lost the WAR!"
@GalaticSpaceHero One measure of a country's industrial capability was the number of cyclotrons. In 1940 Germany had 2, Japan had 1, Britain had 1, Soviet Union had 4, the US had 30. US antitank doctrines were wrong, but not irredeemably so. The idea of separate TD units at Corps moving to the attack was doctrine, and had weaknesses, but TD units were normally attached to combat units before battle began.
@DonMeaker One thing ive observed also is that US tanks were limited as to how they coulnd fit on rail . Take look at how small they had to be to be able to transport on rails, bridges so forth. Im in the trainsportation business and i haul tanks and miliatry hard ware , Size limits.wieght limiits. I dont know what the doctrine worked because in Combat as you saw Kasserine Pass the light stewarts were thrown against Panzers, what tactical blunder. How effective your Combat Engineers are will det
@DonMeaker One thing ive observed also is that US tanks were limited as to how they cound fit on rail . Take look at how small they had to be to be able to transport on rails, bridges so forth. Im in the trainsportation business and i haul tanks and miliatry hard ware , Size limits.wieght limiits. I dont know what the doctrine worked because in Combat as you saw Kasserine Pass the light stewarts were thrown against Panzers, what tactical blunder. How effective your Combat Engineers are will det
@GalaticSpaceHero You will note that the Tigers had to have a row of roadwheels removed and special narrow tracks installed. By contrast M-4 had duckbill end connectors that could be added to increase track width. At Kasserine Pass the Germans had very few Tigers, certainly Rommel hat Pz IV as his 'heavy' at best. Tigers were certainly no use for the deep maneuvers that were in the attack plan. US error was being lured onto a screen of 88mm guns, which no WWII tank could resist
@DonMeaker 3 inch gun? 90mm ? I met old hat Engineer at Gun show and he new his guns, 88mm could go thru 2 inches armor at 1000 meters. 88mm was reported to have gone thru sherman and then a half track next to it and hit killed another group MPs on jeep. remember alot AP slugs bounced off until you got one in or you were close enough , The Guns M10 looks like 75mm, if they were more powerful 76mm you could tell because the barrel is longer and it had to have counter wieghts. 37mm was useless
@GalaticSpaceHero M-10s were designed to use their thinner armor and larger internal space to fit the larger 3 inch antiaircraft gun. Only later were the smaller 76mm guns developed, which used the same "bullet" but a different cartridge case to permit a smaller gun. The powder charge for the 76 was designed to match the muzzle velocity of the 3 inch gun. Toward the end of the M-10 production run some were fitted with the 76mm gun. The M-36 was designed with a 90mm antiaircraft gun.
@GalaticSpaceHero 37mm wasn't useless, it was effective as an anti-infantry or anti-machine gun position weapon, and was identical to the 37mm gun used on the PzIII. It didn't kill tanks on the front slope, or heavy tanks against the side. The US also had 57mm guns assigned to the battalion antitank units, and one in particular stopped a column of Panthers from Kampfgruppe Peiper, long enough that a bridge at TroisPonts could be blown, but that cost the crew their life from counterfire.
@GalaticSpaceHero Early prototype M-10s had track grousers attacked to the back of the turret, and later a large casting with space for luggage served as a counterweight. the 90mm M-36 had a turret bustle to do the same thing. Some British Achilles (M-10 variant) were fitted with the Brit 17 pounder gun.
@Wolfenion haha! luftwaffe pilots enjoyed shooting their machineguns through the open-top turret making this weak crappy garbage ride a famous death-trap much like its brother the M4 sherman "tommy cooker"
@dividednation44 If you saw the planes during the day, that was the americans. If the planes came at night, that was the British. If you saw no planes at all that was the luftwaffe. The open top permitted light weight, faster movement, and better observation. The TDs maneuvered in front of armored attacks to get flank shots, and well behind front lines had little to worry about from enemy infantry or artillery. 4 M-18 TDs dashed to Noville, (north of bastogne) and shot 30 Panthers and Tigers.
war is more then driving around and always having the enemy's flank. you dont get lucky enough, if you would take sometime and read some after-combat reports you'd realize that when an allied tank always tries to outflank a german tank, theres usually a hidden stuG or hetzer, thats their purpose, they were small and easily camouflaged to be hidden and ambush them M10 sherman craptanks. the tigers are always in the defense. choosing a positon where flanking is unlikely
@dividednation44 Get past the US infantry. catch up to the M-10. Find its hide position. Get past the .50 BMG fire, then throw your molotov. If you can. M-10s were death traps, for Panzers.
@DonMeaker hide positon? yeah like there would be much of hidding places. US IG's should be no match for the SS anyways. the M10 would be able to knock out a panzer, unless if the panzer fires first. good luck trying to rotate your turret to catch up with that panzer. the M10's turret is SLOW AS HELL
@dividednation44 The M-18 also had a slow hand cranked turret. Still at Noville 4 M-18s knocked out 30 Panthers and Tigers. The usual approach is to put your gun line in front of the enemy tank, and as he drives into it you fire. Panther in general had to stop, rev engine, traverse, then fire, by which time the TD had put a few more rounds into it. US also used WP smoke rounds which reduced the value of excellent German optics. Many Panther crews unassed when hit by WP smoke, and so survived
@DonMeaker i want the name of the event where the wholly indequete m18 knocked out the steel monsters of WW2 just with WP rounds. if the war had events like that. the germans would've ran out of tanks much quicker
@DonMeaker "Still at Noville 4 M-18s knocked out 30 Panthers and Tigers" Typical propaganda bullshit in the same fashion as Russian fairy tales how about one Stalin tank knocked out 10 King Tigers.
@ViciousCritique Their is a difference between US and Soviet Russia. M-18s dashed to noville, carrying infantry. The infantry dismounted, the M-18s used their speed to occupy firing positions on the flanks of the German attack. The M-18 was the fastest tracked vehicle of the war, and its gun was effective against the flanks of german tanks. Its disadvantage was in the attack, and in that Sherman was better, due to its fast traverse and stabilized gun (with better HE and WP rounds)
@ViciousCritique Their is a difference between US and Soviet Russia. M-18s dashed to noville, carrying infantry. The infantry dismounted, the M-18s used their speed to occupy firing positions on the flanks of the German attack. The M-18 was the fastest tracked vehicle of the war, and its gun was effective against the flanks of german tanks. Its disadvantage was in the attack, and in that Sherman was better, due to its fast traverse and stabilized gun (with better HE and WP rounds).
@dividednation44 Consider what happened when 2nd Armored Division broke out at St Lo against the SS. 2nd Armored division sadly lost 42 men. The 2nd SS lost over 1,500, with another 4,000 captured. The US was not a match for the SS, the US soldiers were far better. Try the 99th Division in the Ardennes. 18 Germans killed for every 1 US soldier killed, with air support not available to the US because of weather. There is a reason why Germany ended the war with the 4th largest army in Germany.
@DonMeaker ok ok ok ok how about the kasserine pass? where 22,000 german soldiers lost 1500-2,000 men and killed 10,000 total, (of which, 6,500 were amerikans) destroyed 183 tanks and knocked out over 700 trucks. and in villers bocage, where 4 tigers knocked out over 30 tanks, many AFV's and several AT guns without losing a single tank (one tiger was damaged though) *to be continued in the next comment, lol*
@dividednation44 And at Kasserine pass the germans were stopped short of their objectives. I like the comparison with Villers bocage: 4 tigers knocked out 30 US tanks, by contrast at Norville, 4 US Tank Destroyers knocked out 30 German Panthers and tigers. Again, Tiger and Panther were very effective tank killers, but overpriced, in that antitank weapons normally cost less. Tiger II cost as much as a US Navy Destroyer!
@ThePooppantsman Villers Bocage was another defense by the Germans. Tiger was not so much a tank as a very good antitank gun. Antitank guns are useful in the defense, but the Tiger was overpriced for a mere antitank gun. Wittmann's company was down to 50% strength before the battle began due to Tiger's design flaws. German losses at VB included 6 Tiger1s, perhaps 15 tanks total. That is 1/6th the total Tigers at Normandy
@ThePooppantsman Villers Bocage was another defense by the Germans. Tiger was not so much a tank as a very good antitank gun. Antitank guns are useful in the defense, but the Tiger was overpriced for a mere antitank gun. Wittmann's company was down to 50% strength before the battle began due to Tiger's design flaws. German losses at VB included 6 Tiger1s, perhaps 15 tanks total. That is 1/6th the total Tigers at Normandy. Wittmann was exaggerated by SS to cover their incompetence v. Wehrmacht
@DonMeaker As I recall Military studies , Accuracy of US Artillery was deciding factor in Rommels decision not to continue the attack. The rounds were landing on the targets and causing large amounts of casualities among the German Infantry. British closing in on there rear and low on fuel the advantage wasnt his any more.
@GalaticSpaceHero Thanks for confirming that Rommel was stopped short of his objectives, and he was suffering large numbers of casualties, so his attack was stopped. Because of the TD organization it took a while to get into position, but after that, they could stop tank movement by fire, and that tended to hold them in place for US artillery
@dividednation44 You are aware that no tank in the world is invulnerable yes? Most US TDs did not even have a HMG for anti-infantry protection, they had been striped down to the trends and gun for speed and a hard hit, with few exceptions. The open torrent on the M10 means better visibility and crew efficiency, so there is less of a chance that enemy infantry would be able to sneak up on it. Regardless of what you try to turn the M10 into, it remains one of the most effective TDs ever made.
@XxxSakura101 one of the most effective TD's ever made? wow slow down, the turret was rotating ultra slow. the open top allowed smoke to easily cover them, and theres no need for sneaking around it, you just walk in there and throw it. theres also something called "mortar" which can wipe this thing out in a moment, you want some of the best TDs ever made? the jagdtiger was the most armored vehicle steel monster made in WW2.with 250MM armor and a 128MM gun, M18, M10, is noeshair compared to it
a weak TD. more like a death trap for the crews. with very light armor along with a not-so-great gun. this thing is fully dead against anything heavier then a panzer IV
@dividednation44 It is NOT a tank; it's an anti-tank (76mm) gun on a fast carriage. It had twin diesel engines,NOT "highly flammeble" fuel, and the turret turned quickly.
@BossHiggs its turret did rotate slowly. the crew had to hand crank the turret around which is a nightmere if your in combat or exhausted. it took 3 minutes for a 360 turn which is very slow. the open top also makes the crew danger from mortar fire and shreds and infantry attacks. and ofcourse, the most simple AT weapon, hand grenades, could be easily thrown towards the turret. YOU have shown your ignorence
@redeye117 First: tank destroyer, not a tank. Second, the open top permits all round observation. Tactics: Identify enemy attack, go like heck to get to a hide position near where he is going. Stay in a hide position until called up to make your shoot. The earth is large, and noone can pound the whole thing. Germans didn't have radar detonated airburst artillery (US fielded airburst fuses for the Bulge). Generally TDs were used behind infantry which tended to protect them from enemy rifle fire.
@redeye117 Shermans with 17 pounders were indeed capable of penetrating Tigers at a distance, but the Tiger could punch the Sherman at a greater distance. 17 pounder Shermans were not tank destroyers, but tanks with significant antitank capability. That would be better in situations where you were attacking, as the Allies almost always were after 1942. The 17 pounder had a HE round that was not quite as effective as the 75mm, and so was a "breakthrough" tank rather than an exploitation tank.
@DonMeaker what? the 17PDR isnt capeble of penetrating the tiger's armor at any case unless with a flank shot. the 17PDR is a 76MM and is not effective against heavies and sometimes even mediums. it is wholly indequete against tigers from the front, but ofcourse is effective against lighter and weakr tanks like a PZIII but later PZIV's enjoyed an above 76MM protection which rendered this gun ineffective. the allies seriously lacked heavy punch armament like the german 88MM or the italian 90MM
@dividednation44 17 pdr was indeed capable of penetrating Tiger 1 frontal armor. flank shots are always preferred, as that gives you a larger target and prevents counter fire. 17 pounder (and US 75 and 76) were of course effective against late models of Pz iv frontal armor. US 76 could penetrate 92mm of RHS at 30degrees, and Pz 4 had nothing like 92mm and nothing like 30 degrees oblique. You need a better source for yoru 17 pdr data. Allies also fielded 90 mm guns in M-36 and towed AT guns
from where did you get this crap? if a 76MM's penetration is 5'3" it is more stronger then the 5" guns mounted on destroyers and battleships as main guns/AA guns/secondary batteries. from where did you get this? hey if the 76MM really had such punch, then the 88MM would do massive damage and probably penetrate 200MM since a 76 could punch thru 150MM. then my theories are right. the tiger II was the best WW2 tank. it had 180MM (!) armor.
@dividednation44 The 88mm is superior to the 76mm, i have never disputed that. And yes, the 76mm and indeed many of the guns used on tanks had higher penetration than many light naval vessels. In fact, the IS series of tanks had experimented with a directly converted naval gun. However, you're understanding of the properties of naval armament seems poor, the conditions of firing are completely different as naval engagements take place at several hundred times the range of the 76mm.
@dividednation44 And hence, loose much of their power in flight. The same is true of the tank guns, just on a much more compact scale. The longer the distance, the less penetration it has, this Si why the 88mm was so effective in particularly on the Eastern front. The Tiger could engage targets well outside of the enemy's effective range. For example, the Shermans and T-34s often had to close to around 1200m before they could properly engage the Tiger.
@dividednation44 There is no probably in statistics, such a word only shows you are simply a fanboy, a troll, or a die hard believer of popular history who refuses to accept factual history. Judging from you're past comments ( Yes i do remember you) i say you are trolling. However, i deem it a merit to educate you a little on tank gun performances.
@dividednation44 The Pzgr.40 APCR shell of the L/57 could achieve 171 mm of penetration at 100m, 156 mm at 500m 138 mm at 1,000m, 123 mm at 1,500m and 110 mm at 2,000m. This means the 88mm outfitted to the Tiger I was all around more effective than the 76mm used by the M4 and most US Tds- however less effective than the 90mm used by tanks such as the Jackson, Hellcat, and Pershing.
@dividednation44 Of course, like most tests on penetration it was conducted using sloped armor angled at 30 degrees. Being more than adequate in dealing with either the T-34 or M4 medium tanks at ranged beyond 2,500m regaurdless of where stuck (except perhaps the gun mantle.) Again however, no German medium tank was outfitted with the 88mm of the Tiger I, so it is an unfair comparison.
@dividednation44 Further, the Tiger II used another 88mm than the Tiger I did. It used the L/71 a much better gun in combat than the Tiger I's armament. Using the PzGr. 40/43 APCR shell, it could achieve penetration of 150mm at 2,000m.
@dividednation44 Further, i must pose the question of whether or not you understand you can not compare a medium tank with a heavy tank? As well as looking at performances of economics when choosing the "Best tank" 500 Tiger 2's had been made during the war, while 55,000 M4s had been made. The M4s had significantly better mobility, and could be replaced much easier, hence it's advantages as a medium tank.
@XxxSakura101 thats it! its the only advantage you can get, easy numbers, but THATS IT! it was a shitty tank, you also dont seem very caring about the crews inside those M4's. they were shitting themselves and praying not to see a tiger or a KING TIGER. if the WP ammunation was the simple soloution to beating tigers, then why did USA made the M26 and why did the russians made the IS2 and IS1 and why did the ARL44 was inspired and designed to beat th tiger? why?
@dividednation44 I have explained to you that it has a superior gun than most other medium tanks, and superior armor to that of the T-34. You clearly do not understand the concept of a medium tank, and the design of heavy tanks. Perhaps you would understand the T95 vs King Tiger then? The T95 had 300mm of sloped frontal armor and a 155mm gun that was superior to that of the King Tiger. So why not compare the two? Because they are of two completely different classes and thus cannot be compared.
T34: has a very weak 40MM armor, has a bad and awkward turret design, wholly indequete against most other tanks of the time.
M4: bad 60MM armor, famed for bieng nicknamed "tommy cookers" for the highly flemmable petrol they used. only a few MPH faster then the tiger I and the fuel store was exposes
@dividednation44 Why? Because it was an improved tank design, and the turret could use the 90mm that was more effective than the 76mm. As i said, the 76mm would capable of penetrating the Tiger's hull, but the 88mm could penetrate the Sherman's hull at a much greater range. So what good is the 76mm if it is killed before it comes within range? This was why the 90mm was developted, it could compete with the range of the 88mm used by the Tiger1 and 2.
@XxxSakura101 Tanker has to know what he can engage , at what distances with his main gun. Im in haul down psoition waitting on a tiger comming up the the road im going to stay put till i can get shot at his side. TACTICS you dont know them your stone cold dead. We had a saying as Tankers if dont know your capabilities then we can always take picture of you dead in there and mail it to your wife. From the Commanders Hatch , STEADY! STEADY ,! Gunner IDENTIFY T-72 ! FIRE!
@dividednation44 It is like comparing a longsword to a dagger, two completely different items with two completely different design goals and uses. One is to be used on the battlefield, while the other is to be concealed and hidden.
@dividednation44 To find hide spots, US TDs had a reconnaissance section and open tops for better visibility. They had good results, so good that every German armored attack against the US was halted far short of its objective. Every single one, from Kasserine to the Ardennes. The agility of TDs meant that they could move between firing positions, waiting in hide positions for the enemy to expose himself.
@XxxSakura101 Further, it was a vastly improved tank design over the M4. It had more armor, a more reliable engine, and it's turret could handle larger guns without becoming imbalanced. The M26 was an overall superior tank, but it was also a heavy tank, meaning more expensive to manufacture, and harder to replace. A heavy tank is more of a tactical weapon, while the medium tank is more of a strategic weapon. Again however, i do not understand your logic in comparing a medium and a heavy.
@XxxSakura101 the M26 was a disaster and a bad tank from the crew's point of view, when the gunner mans the gun and the commander tries to reach out for the machinegun when an infantry assult erupts it would be impossible, the tank had an awkward design and was ten times slower then the king tiger in cross-country abillity (2 MPH off road)
@dividednation44 The idea that you belive it was the gasoline that caused that is proof enough you are a populist. It was the placement of ammunition that caused Shermans to become engulfed in a firestorm earlier in the war. This was fixed with the M4A2 models. Most tanks used gasoline because it was easier on logistics, it was cheaper as it was in less demand that other fuel types.
@dividednation44 It ran on gasoline, like almost every other tank used by every other nation. Learn somthing about tanks before speaking to me again. Petroleum is not fit to be placed in a engine, it is unrefined oil.
Case and point the King tiger's engine:V-12 Maybach HL 230 P30 gasoline
@dividednation44 2MPH? Are you out of you're mind? You would be amusing if you had not been so utterly misinformed about almost everything. The M26's cross country performance was 8.4k/m while the King Tiger's was 15/km, while the M6 could achieve 45km on the rodes and the KT only 40km. Overall they are quite even in speed.
the 90mm AA gun made the M10 a very potent TD, it was able to penetrate toe front armor of a tiger at 1000 meter and with special AP munition it was superior to the tigers 88mm and panthers 76mm.
all in all the M10 had a higher agility then the tiger and a better gun then the panther.
@bigbaba1111 Wolverine M-10s had 3 inch guns, that were effective against the flanks, but not the front of Tigers at combat ranges. The Jackson M-36 had a 90mm gun.
I owned COH Gold and M10 tank sucks, they lack armor even you attack at a flanking move where a panther is focused attacking my sherman then m10 comes from behind the panther, panther still owned my tanks.
@arvine17 yep, the crews sometimes welded together makeshift armor covers over the top of the turret, because it sucks when any asshole can toss a grenade and take out your whole tank.
gcalcification: The open turret top was intended to give the crew superior situational awareness of the battlefield: this because the M-10 and the later M-36 and M-18 were supposed to aggressively hunt enemy tanks and kill them. Tanks with a covered turret are harder to see out of when "buttoned up" and accordingly the designers of these tank destroyers wanted to give their crews the advantage of being more likely to see the enemy tanks before the enemy tanks saw them.
gunnergoz 18 hours ago
M-10 at least wins style points for its coolest looking design of any WWII AFV. Though I have never ever understood the open air top.
gcalification 1 day ago
A bunch of ignorant comments on here :( The M-10 was a quick way to get the high velocity 76mm gun into action, and was infinitely better than the previous h/t based M3 and even towed guns. There wasn't an anglo-american tank at the time with armour thick enough to resist Tiger & Panther guns, so it's relative thinness is irrelevant. And the experience with it led to the M18 Hellcat and M-36, and up-gunning the Sherman. Without the M-10 the US would have been a lot worse off!
AloysiustheGaul 3 days ago
Sudden death to the Tiger? He should have said instant death if you meet a Tiger, never mind a King Tiger. Or a mortar, or a Panzerfaust, or a Panther, or a flak 88, or a Pak 75, or a Panzerschreck, or a Jadpanther.
MartyInLa 1 week ago
@MartyInLa Keep in mind the word "propaganda"
ET42Driver 1 week ago in playlist Liked videos
i eat these all the time in world of tanks
ministerofmagic100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
thinner armour than the sherman right its genocide.sherman firefly is better
sustantivo1espritu 2 months ago
What a load of crap. Thin turret armour , hull armour. Only the gun was half decent. Whoa unto the fool that gets that in a Panthers' gunsight.
4shacks1house 3 months ago
@4shacks1house Tank destroyers are built lightly armoured.
PrivateRyanification 2 months ago
@4shacks1house but there was a shit load of them
sam9116 2 months ago
@4shacks1house
its objective is to use its speed ,not make a gunfight from a distance,it was firing and moving and the panther's turret wasn't even able to turn his turret and shoot it.But surely ,its not a good tank destroyer,just a fast one.
Kivancfather 1 month ago
That Narrator is awesome.
jacobwolf124 4 months ago
Hand cranked turret? This is ridiculous.
r8wing 4 months ago
1:33 poor driver
TheByQQ 4 months ago
comparing a T-34 and M10 is riddiculous. the M10 isn't even technically a tank- its a tank destroyer, (And and undergunned one too) not designed to be a ble to face off against enemy armor up close.
nukeemall123 4 months ago
pice of american useless shit
MaJIbIu 4 months ago
@MaJIbIu You act like you know how to build a tank .... dont watch videos that you dont like idiot
MrRang101 4 months ago
@MrRang101 everybody have opinion. its mine
MaJIbIu 4 months ago
@MaJIbIu
It's not opinion, it's just a plain random, uninformed statement. You don't even know anything about the M10. It was a great tank.
askjiir 4 months ago
@askjiir dude Our T-34 was a great tank - this is a pice of shit. Sorry - but its true
MaJIbIu 4 months ago
Where can I order one of these? :D
djfinnboy11 4 months ago
The M10 is the most underrated AFV of WWII. My infantryman father remembers them with affection as they were the primary support for the infantry in both their 76MM and near the end of the war in the 90MM version the M36.
hoodoo2001 5 months ago
in the real war the american tanks were crap german tanks were the best a tiger had a k/d of 10 against a sherman!
sheep1ful 5 months ago
@sheep1ful American tanks weren't 'crap,' they were really good at being simple to produce, HIGHLY reliable and low maintenance. Not qualities your beloved Tiger, Panther, or PZ4 or any other famous German tanks for that matter, could boast. Why else do you think they lost? German tanks look good on paper and restored in museums, but not in practice aside from their stats and war stories. Read a little more and you'll learn grasshopper.
Slovflyer 4 months ago
Darn it they are sold out! I will have to get a Maus instead. Darn!
GreyFergy101 5 months ago 2
no roof? are they advertising to civilians?
Timb0NZ 5 months ago
How effective your Combat Engineers are determine how you can deploy across rivers , obstacles, mud. mines so forth and so on.
GalaticSpaceHero 6 months ago
M60A3 by 1992 when i was at FT Knox was redifined as defensive Tank because it wouldnt take hit from 100mm. Therefor a Tank Destroyer, it was absolet by then.
GalaticSpaceHero 6 months ago
loader !! you got a style ~~
hwlam 6 months ago
M10 engineering disaster = Thin armour protection, could easily be penetrated by German armour piercing rounds, open top of turret exposed the crews to artillery explosions and shrapnel, it also exposed the crews to machine-gun fire from MG-34 and MG-42 (BUZZ-SAW) machine-guns, and also sniper fire. The 75mm gun would just bounce off the Panther tanks, Tiger tanks and the Panzer IV tanks, it's narrow tracks gave it a high ground pressure of 280 MMP, getting stuck in mud, and high profile=DEATH
haiherosner 6 months ago
@haiherosner Yea! But they were fast! You could get alot of them on the front quickly. American Military Power in the Theater had Air power to make up for any short comming . Rommel kept requesting for additional AA guns. 20mm and 37mm. I agree US Army didnt have a Real Tank until the Pershing with 90mm showed up even thu it had a range of 100 miles.
GalaticSpaceHero 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GalaticSpaceHero That is exactly right, the Americans had to have air power supremacy to make up for their obsolete tanks, other-wise they could not cope with the Panzer army. Just look at Operation GoodWood, in Normandy launched by the allies on July 18-21, despite carpet air force bombing of German positions, they missed most of their targets and the Brits lost between 400-500 Sherman tanks and Churchhills and Cromwells and M10's. The German Tiger II and Panthers and 88mm Flak destroyed them
haiherosner 6 months ago
@GalaticSpaceHero Unfortunately the Pershing's showed up too little too late to see much combat action in European theatre of operations, thanks to dumb-bells in the U.S. Army dragging their feet about whether a heavy tank with 90mm gun is necessary, LOL. IT would be like today, the military asking "Do we really need the M1A2 Abrams Tank, is it necessary?", that's how stupid it was to delay the production of the M-26 Pershing tank, they could have had that tank in 1943, but Gen Leslie McNair=NO.
haiherosner 6 months ago
@haiherosner Yea, your right and the Tank destroyer M10 was why a good Tank design wasnt made. M10 was over rated like in this War film. They dont even hit the target. splashed one short . Gunner re engage ! round short ! they didnt evne have electric turrent , HAAAAAA There spinning hand wheels , not good thing against Tanks with Electric Turrents and high velocity guns.
GalaticSpaceHero 6 months ago
@GalaticSpaceHero Of course TDs were to supplement towed antitank guns, which didn't have electric traverse either. They took advantage of the advantages of the tactical defense, and worked so well that no german offensive against the US reached its objectives.
DonMeaker 6 months ago
@DonMeaker Last time i was 155 towed i dindnt have it either. 13B. 19D /k and the my last gig at FT bragg was a disasator , i got into transportation, what a joke ! COSCOM! All they do is run you to death, no real Combat training. Just looking tough but we couldnt stop anything. have to reliy on MP or Infantry units. I laid concernten out front of fighting position and got my ass chewed out , what a joke, Unit went to Irag came back handed its self bronze stars for handing out mre's .
GalaticSpaceHero 6 months ago
@GalaticSpaceHero When were you at Ft. Sill? I was there in 1954... Haven't been back.
DonMeaker 6 months ago
@DonMeaker I was there for the summer of 1985 for basic and came back in 86 for AIT , split training option National Guard 13B, Private first class. I brought home about $400 in 86. 155 self propel . "FIRE MISSION!" "ADJUST FIRE" HE IN EFFECT !" 5 WHITE BAG" DEFLECTION , i still remmeber some of the hell i went thru for GOD,COUNTRY AND FREEDOM! 17 year old that didnt know shit about nothing. Vietnam vet said dont you know what you are? I said NO! SGT said your in GOD DAM HELL 666!
GalaticSpaceHero 6 months ago
@GalaticSpaceHero We had split trail 105s with a shield in front. An instructor took a nap in the shadow of a gun, and when the next class started, they fired the gun off and he woke, and ran like heck back up to where the class was to start. It was quite a trick to shoot one round at high elevation then shoot a second round direct fire, with them both hitting TOT. Missions were harder to compute before electronics. We had to do it all with paper, pins, and a graduated straight edge.
DonMeaker 6 months ago
@DonMeaker Had a shield . direct fire . im trying to recall in battle in Europe where artillery unit defeated assualt by German armor. 105 HE blew them away.
GalaticSpaceHero 6 months ago
@GalaticSpaceHero We were equipped with HEAT rounds for our 105, but we were always told that we had about a half inch of steel, and the tank had 11 inches or so. We never wanted to get into a slugging contest, and of course artillery when I served came down via airburst fuses, so the tank would not be vulnerable to airburst frags, while we would be. We worked hard to find good firing positions that were not subject to mass tank attack due to terrain or cover.
DonMeaker 5 months ago
@DonMeaker In Iraq , Every Time the M1A2 gunner fired off round he to announce to the Infantry around him with countdown when they would fire the main gun. What A WAR ! 5 , 4, 3, 2, 1, BOOOM! What a WAR! insurgents are listening,
GalaticSpaceHero 5 months ago
@GalaticSpaceHero It has long been standard practice to NOT ALLOW sabot to be fired over the head of Infantry, for fairly obvious reasons. Tanks had (M-103/M-48/M-60) a phone on the back quarter so you could communicate with the infantry without radio (through intercom). Infantry had, in my day, a system of wigwags. so the squad leader from behind the tank could get the count and pass it on securely. M1 turbine head made standing behind the tank not good, I am told.
DonMeaker 5 months ago
@DonMeaker Yea, M1A2 you had to watch when you back into woods in hull down, there are many reports of shrubs catching fire. From what i heard you start smelling smoke and you ask the rest Tank crew if they smell the samething , whos lighting up cig? Then usualy some one yells," HOLY SHIT WOODS BEHIND US IS ON FIRE ! DRIVER KICK THIS HOT BITCH IN THE ASS!" Then when you have your tank away from the fire ,crew is out there trying to put it out. Cook steaks back there, escorts have to keep safe
GalaticSpaceHero 5 months ago
@GalaticSpaceHero An interesting variation on the self-protection smoke screen... The problem is, how do you screen the tank in front of the smoke screen.
DonMeaker 5 months ago
@haiherosner M-10 had 3 inch guns, not 75mm. 3 inch guns were effective against even Tiger and Panther, particularly with the preferred flanking fire. US .50 browning MG was superior in range and penetration to german MGs. Thin armor mattered less if you got off the first shot, which TDs often did in the defense. M-10s were reliable, so they could road march operationally to get in front of German attacks to ambush.
DonMeaker 6 months ago
@DonMeaker Still, the M10 was obsolete by 1943, frontally it was not that effective against the Panther and Tiger tank. I prefer the Nashorn with the Pak 43 88mm high velocity gun and the JagdPanther which also had the Pak 43 88mm high velocity gun. The M10 was discoed and the Chassis of the M10 was used to upgrade to the M36 jackson m3 90mm cannon, which is a much better tank destroyer than the M10. The German Tank destroyers had much better torsion bar suspensions compared to U.S. Destroyers.
haiherosner 6 months ago
@haiherosner US tactics were to use flanking fire, and teamwork, so facing one meant exposing the flank to another. Torsion bar suspensions made german vehicles higher than US counterparts. M-36 also used M-4 hulls, and they had the bow MG, unique for a US TD. My favorite TD was the M-18, but that is a matter of taste.
DonMeaker 6 months ago
@DonMeaker Trying to roll you up from the flanks is tactic thats been used since the horse was used in combat. Germany was defeated by the time we landed in Normandy. No Fuel, low on food ,no air force, 90%horse drawn Army. Germans later have said they were tired of war. Cities bombed to rumble. Operation Market Garden when USA drop containers with cakes to surrounded Airborne units, the German General said, " CAKES " "There droping CAKES?" " We have lost the WAR!"
GalaticSpaceHero 6 months ago
@GalaticSpaceHero One measure of a country's industrial capability was the number of cyclotrons. In 1940 Germany had 2, Japan had 1, Britain had 1, Soviet Union had 4, the US had 30. US antitank doctrines were wrong, but not irredeemably so. The idea of separate TD units at Corps moving to the attack was doctrine, and had weaknesses, but TD units were normally attached to combat units before battle began.
DonMeaker 6 months ago
@DonMeaker One thing ive observed also is that US tanks were limited as to how they coulnd fit on rail . Take look at how small they had to be to be able to transport on rails, bridges so forth. Im in the trainsportation business and i haul tanks and miliatry hard ware , Size limits.wieght limiits. I dont know what the doctrine worked because in Combat as you saw Kasserine Pass the light stewarts were thrown against Panzers, what tactical blunder. How effective your Combat Engineers are will det
GalaticSpaceHero 6 months ago
@DonMeaker One thing ive observed also is that US tanks were limited as to how they cound fit on rail . Take look at how small they had to be to be able to transport on rails, bridges so forth. Im in the trainsportation business and i haul tanks and miliatry hard ware , Size limits.wieght limiits. I dont know what the doctrine worked because in Combat as you saw Kasserine Pass the light stewarts were thrown against Panzers, what tactical blunder. How effective your Combat Engineers are will det
GalaticSpaceHero 6 months ago
@GalaticSpaceHero You will note that the Tigers had to have a row of roadwheels removed and special narrow tracks installed. By contrast M-4 had duckbill end connectors that could be added to increase track width. At Kasserine Pass the Germans had very few Tigers, certainly Rommel hat Pz IV as his 'heavy' at best. Tigers were certainly no use for the deep maneuvers that were in the attack plan. US error was being lured onto a screen of 88mm guns, which no WWII tank could resist
DonMeaker 5 months ago
Comment removed
GalaticSpaceHero 6 months ago
@DonMeaker 3 inch gun? 90mm ? I met old hat Engineer at Gun show and he new his guns, 88mm could go thru 2 inches armor at 1000 meters. 88mm was reported to have gone thru sherman and then a half track next to it and hit killed another group MPs on jeep. remember alot AP slugs bounced off until you got one in or you were close enough , The Guns M10 looks like 75mm, if they were more powerful 76mm you could tell because the barrel is longer and it had to have counter wieghts. 37mm was useless
GalaticSpaceHero 5 months ago
@GalaticSpaceHero M-10s were designed to use their thinner armor and larger internal space to fit the larger 3 inch antiaircraft gun. Only later were the smaller 76mm guns developed, which used the same "bullet" but a different cartridge case to permit a smaller gun. The powder charge for the 76 was designed to match the muzzle velocity of the 3 inch gun. Toward the end of the M-10 production run some were fitted with the 76mm gun. The M-36 was designed with a 90mm antiaircraft gun.
DonMeaker 5 months ago
@GalaticSpaceHero 37mm wasn't useless, it was effective as an anti-infantry or anti-machine gun position weapon, and was identical to the 37mm gun used on the PzIII. It didn't kill tanks on the front slope, or heavy tanks against the side. The US also had 57mm guns assigned to the battalion antitank units, and one in particular stopped a column of Panthers from Kampfgruppe Peiper, long enough that a bridge at TroisPonts could be blown, but that cost the crew their life from counterfire.
DonMeaker 5 months ago
@GalaticSpaceHero Early prototype M-10s had track grousers attacked to the back of the turret, and later a large casting with space for luggage served as a counterweight. the 90mm M-36 had a turret bustle to do the same thing. Some British Achilles (M-10 variant) were fitted with the Brit 17 pounder gun.
DonMeaker 5 months ago
@haiherosner 20 mm will eat it up alive.
GalaticSpaceHero 6 months ago
A specialised vehicle that doesn't quite fulfill its' role.
melvinthedeathless 6 months ago
my grandpa's big brother operated the M10 in WWII he was also in D-Day, he was an Hell Cat " seek, strike , Destroy
jeasocrazy 6 months ago
lmfao, that driver gets a tsunami in the face!!
midairflyer 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FEST HOS MANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
dinkcool 8 months ago
man I need one of these eradicators, those pesky nazi tanks are always humming around my house
TheAdmirableAdmiral 8 months ago
o whant 90001 tanks please
MrAapenkind 8 months ago
LOL! I love the salesman approach! xD
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
What is the point of this crazy advertisement? Who was it aimed at?! (no pun intended)
Bronzewhaler82 9 months ago
@Bronzewhaler82 its propaganda not advertisement
dividednation44 8 months ago
Blaa Blaa Blaa. Throw a simple molotov cocktail in that turret and it's all over.
Wolfenion 9 months ago
@Wolfenion haha! luftwaffe pilots enjoyed shooting their machineguns through the open-top turret making this weak crappy garbage ride a famous death-trap much like its brother the M4 sherman "tommy cooker"
dividednation44 8 months ago
@dividednation44 If you saw the planes during the day, that was the americans. If the planes came at night, that was the British. If you saw no planes at all that was the luftwaffe. The open top permitted light weight, faster movement, and better observation. The TDs maneuvered in front of armored attacks to get flank shots, and well behind front lines had little to worry about from enemy infantry or artillery. 4 M-18 TDs dashed to Noville, (north of bastogne) and shot 30 Panthers and Tigers.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker proof......
war is more then driving around and always having the enemy's flank. you dont get lucky enough, if you would take sometime and read some after-combat reports you'd realize that when an allied tank always tries to outflank a german tank, theres usually a hidden stuG or hetzer, thats their purpose, they were small and easily camouflaged to be hidden and ambush them M10 sherman craptanks. the tigers are always in the defense. choosing a positon where flanking is unlikely
dividednation44 8 months ago
@DonMeaker as the guy says. simply throw a molotov cocktail and there goes your nearly invincible M10
it could be easily overrun with the open top. no wonder they were famously known as death traps.
dividednation44 8 months ago
@dividednation44 Get past the US infantry. catch up to the M-10. Find its hide position. Get past the .50 BMG fire, then throw your molotov. If you can. M-10s were death traps, for Panzers.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker hide positon? yeah like there would be much of hidding places. US IG's should be no match for the SS anyways. the M10 would be able to knock out a panzer, unless if the panzer fires first. good luck trying to rotate your turret to catch up with that panzer. the M10's turret is SLOW AS HELL
dividednation44 8 months ago
@dividednation44 The M-18 also had a slow hand cranked turret. Still at Noville 4 M-18s knocked out 30 Panthers and Tigers. The usual approach is to put your gun line in front of the enemy tank, and as he drives into it you fire. Panther in general had to stop, rev engine, traverse, then fire, by which time the TD had put a few more rounds into it. US also used WP smoke rounds which reduced the value of excellent German optics. Many Panther crews unassed when hit by WP smoke, and so survived
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker i want the name of the event where the wholly indequete m18 knocked out the steel monsters of WW2 just with WP rounds. if the war had events like that. the germans would've ran out of tanks much quicker
dividednation44 8 months ago
@DonMeaker "Still at Noville 4 M-18s knocked out 30 Panthers and Tigers" Typical propaganda bullshit in the same fashion as Russian fairy tales how about one Stalin tank knocked out 10 King Tigers.
ViciousCritique 8 months ago
@ViciousCritique Their is a difference between US and Soviet Russia. M-18s dashed to noville, carrying infantry. The infantry dismounted, the M-18s used their speed to occupy firing positions on the flanks of the German attack. The M-18 was the fastest tracked vehicle of the war, and its gun was effective against the flanks of german tanks. Its disadvantage was in the attack, and in that Sherman was better, due to its fast traverse and stabilized gun (with better HE and WP rounds)
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@ViciousCritique Their is a difference between US and Soviet Russia. M-18s dashed to noville, carrying infantry. The infantry dismounted, the M-18s used their speed to occupy firing positions on the flanks of the German attack. The M-18 was the fastest tracked vehicle of the war, and its gun was effective against the flanks of german tanks. Its disadvantage was in the attack, and in that Sherman was better, due to its fast traverse and stabilized gun (with better HE and WP rounds).
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@dividednation44 Consider what happened when 2nd Armored Division broke out at St Lo against the SS. 2nd Armored division sadly lost 42 men. The 2nd SS lost over 1,500, with another 4,000 captured. The US was not a match for the SS, the US soldiers were far better. Try the 99th Division in the Ardennes. 18 Germans killed for every 1 US soldier killed, with air support not available to the US because of weather. There is a reason why Germany ended the war with the 4th largest army in Germany.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker ok ok ok ok how about the kasserine pass? where 22,000 german soldiers lost 1500-2,000 men and killed 10,000 total, (of which, 6,500 were amerikans) destroyed 183 tanks and knocked out over 700 trucks. and in villers bocage, where 4 tigers knocked out over 30 tanks, many AFV's and several AT guns without losing a single tank (one tiger was damaged though) *to be continued in the next comment, lol*
dividednation44 8 months ago
@dividednation44 And at Kasserine pass the germans were stopped short of their objectives. I like the comparison with Villers bocage: 4 tigers knocked out 30 US tanks, by contrast at Norville, 4 US Tank Destroyers knocked out 30 German Panthers and tigers. Again, Tiger and Panther were very effective tank killers, but overpriced, in that antitank weapons normally cost less. Tiger II cost as much as a US Navy Destroyer!
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker Villers bocage was the british not US! Also it was the 7th armored div. They used cromwells and fireflys. They did have M10s with 17pdrs.
ThePooppantsman 8 months ago
@ThePooppantsman Villers Bocage was another defense by the Germans. Tiger was not so much a tank as a very good antitank gun. Antitank guns are useful in the defense, but the Tiger was overpriced for a mere antitank gun. Wittmann's company was down to 50% strength before the battle began due to Tiger's design flaws. German losses at VB included 6 Tiger1s, perhaps 15 tanks total. That is 1/6th the total Tigers at Normandy
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@ThePooppantsman Villers Bocage was another defense by the Germans. Tiger was not so much a tank as a very good antitank gun. Antitank guns are useful in the defense, but the Tiger was overpriced for a mere antitank gun. Wittmann's company was down to 50% strength before the battle began due to Tiger's design flaws. German losses at VB included 6 Tiger1s, perhaps 15 tanks total. That is 1/6th the total Tigers at Normandy. Wittmann was exaggerated by SS to cover their incompetence v. Wehrmacht
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker As I recall Military studies , Accuracy of US Artillery was deciding factor in Rommels decision not to continue the attack. The rounds were landing on the targets and causing large amounts of casualities among the German Infantry. British closing in on there rear and low on fuel the advantage wasnt his any more.
GalaticSpaceHero 6 months ago
@GalaticSpaceHero Thanks for confirming that Rommel was stopped short of his objectives, and he was suffering large numbers of casualties, so his attack was stopped. Because of the TD organization it took a while to get into position, but after that, they could stop tank movement by fire, and that tended to hold them in place for US artillery
DonMeaker 6 months ago
@dividednation44 You are aware that no tank in the world is invulnerable yes? Most US TDs did not even have a HMG for anti-infantry protection, they had been striped down to the trends and gun for speed and a hard hit, with few exceptions. The open torrent on the M10 means better visibility and crew efficiency, so there is less of a chance that enemy infantry would be able to sneak up on it. Regardless of what you try to turn the M10 into, it remains one of the most effective TDs ever made.
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
@XxxSakura101 one of the most effective TD's ever made? wow slow down, the turret was rotating ultra slow. the open top allowed smoke to easily cover them, and theres no need for sneaking around it, you just walk in there and throw it. theres also something called "mortar" which can wipe this thing out in a moment, you want some of the best TDs ever made? the jagdtiger was the most armored vehicle steel monster made in WW2.with 250MM armor and a 128MM gun, M18, M10, is noeshair compared to it
dividednation44 8 months ago
a weak TD. more like a death trap for the crews. with very light armor along with a not-so-great gun. this thing is fully dead against anything heavier then a panzer IV
dividednation44 9 months ago
@dividednation44
also the turret was slow and was open topped which made it very vulnerable to infantry attacks in urban environments
joseaca 9 months ago
@joseaca true
weak armor+open top+slow turret+the highly flammeble fuel the US used for their tanks=death trap
dividednation44 9 months ago
@dividednation44 It is NOT a tank; it's an anti-tank (76mm) gun on a fast carriage. It had twin diesel engines,NOT "highly flammeble" fuel, and the turret turned quickly.
So you have shown your ignorance!
BossHiggs 9 months ago
@BossHiggs its turret did rotate slowly. the crew had to hand crank the turret around which is a nightmere if your in combat or exhausted. it took 3 minutes for a 360 turn which is very slow. the open top also makes the crew danger from mortar fire and shreds and infantry attacks. and ofcourse, the most simple AT weapon, hand grenades, could be easily thrown towards the turret. YOU have shown your ignorence
dividednation44 9 months ago
why is the turret backwards
101andrewj 9 months ago
is that a TVC?
berettam92s 9 months ago
indeed. you are right meaker.
bigbaba1111 10 months ago
I dont feel safe in that tank.. As its open top is vulnerable to enemy gunfire and mortar shrapnel.
redeye117 10 months ago
@redeye117 First: tank destroyer, not a tank. Second, the open top permits all round observation. Tactics: Identify enemy attack, go like heck to get to a hide position near where he is going. Stay in a hide position until called up to make your shoot. The earth is large, and noone can pound the whole thing. Germans didn't have radar detonated airburst artillery (US fielded airburst fuses for the Bulge). Generally TDs were used behind infantry which tended to protect them from enemy rifle fire.
DonMeaker 10 months ago
How about the Sherman Firefly.. It can punch though a Tiger at distant and still mantain an enclose enviroment.
redeye117 10 months ago
@redeye117 Shermans with 17 pounders were indeed capable of penetrating Tigers at a distance, but the Tiger could punch the Sherman at a greater distance. 17 pounder Shermans were not tank destroyers, but tanks with significant antitank capability. That would be better in situations where you were attacking, as the Allies almost always were after 1942. The 17 pounder had a HE round that was not quite as effective as the 75mm, and so was a "breakthrough" tank rather than an exploitation tank.
DonMeaker 10 months ago
@DonMeaker what? the 17PDR isnt capeble of penetrating the tiger's armor at any case unless with a flank shot. the 17PDR is a 76MM and is not effective against heavies and sometimes even mediums. it is wholly indequete against tigers from the front, but ofcourse is effective against lighter and weakr tanks like a PZIII but later PZIV's enjoyed an above 76MM protection which rendered this gun ineffective. the allies seriously lacked heavy punch armament like the german 88MM or the italian 90MM
dividednation44 8 months ago
@dividednation44 17 pdr was indeed capable of penetrating Tiger 1 frontal armor. flank shots are always preferred, as that gives you a larger target and prevents counter fire. 17 pounder (and US 75 and 76) were of course effective against late models of Pz iv frontal armor. US 76 could penetrate 92mm of RHS at 30degrees, and Pz 4 had nothing like 92mm and nothing like 30 degrees oblique. You need a better source for yoru 17 pdr data. Allies also fielded 90 mm guns in M-36 and towed AT guns
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker hahahaha nice joke.
76 penetrating 90MM? yeah right
dividednation44 8 months ago
@dividednation44 The 76mm can penetrate 150mm of armor at 500m and 130mm at 1,000m using the common T4 shell.
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
@XxxSakura101 150MM armor? your pathetic.
dividednation44 8 months ago
@dividednation44 Look it up then, learn somthing about it. "T-4 shell" "M1A1 76mm" Every TD in 1944 had the T4 shell.
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
@dividednation44 Here you go, enjoy knowledge.
Length of the complete cartridge is 32,6 (828,5mm).
Length of the projectile is: 10,59" (269 mm)
Vo: 3400 ft/sec (1036 m/sec)
Projectile weight: 7,13 Lb (4,26 Kg)
Penetration: 157mm (6,2) at 457 meters (500 yds ) @30 deg.
135mm (5,3) at 914 meters (1000 yds) @30 deg.
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
@XxxSakura101 5,3" penetration?
from where did you get this crap? if a 76MM's penetration is 5'3" it is more stronger then the 5" guns mounted on destroyers and battleships as main guns/AA guns/secondary batteries. from where did you get this? hey if the 76MM really had such punch, then the 88MM would do massive damage and probably penetrate 200MM since a 76 could punch thru 150MM. then my theories are right. the tiger II was the best WW2 tank. it had 180MM (!) armor.
dividednation44 8 months ago
@dividednation44 The 88mm is superior to the 76mm, i have never disputed that. And yes, the 76mm and indeed many of the guns used on tanks had higher penetration than many light naval vessels. In fact, the IS series of tanks had experimented with a directly converted naval gun. However, you're understanding of the properties of naval armament seems poor, the conditions of firing are completely different as naval engagements take place at several hundred times the range of the 76mm.
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
@dividednation44 And hence, loose much of their power in flight. The same is true of the tank guns, just on a much more compact scale. The longer the distance, the less penetration it has, this Si why the 88mm was so effective in particularly on the Eastern front. The Tiger could engage targets well outside of the enemy's effective range. For example, the Shermans and T-34s often had to close to around 1200m before they could properly engage the Tiger.
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
@dividednation44 There is no probably in statistics, such a word only shows you are simply a fanboy, a troll, or a die hard believer of popular history who refuses to accept factual history. Judging from you're past comments ( Yes i do remember you) i say you are trolling. However, i deem it a merit to educate you a little on tank gun performances.
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
@dividednation44 The Pzgr.40 APCR shell of the L/57 could achieve 171 mm of penetration at 100m, 156 mm at 500m 138 mm at 1,000m, 123 mm at 1,500m and 110 mm at 2,000m. This means the 88mm outfitted to the Tiger I was all around more effective than the 76mm used by the M4 and most US Tds- however less effective than the 90mm used by tanks such as the Jackson, Hellcat, and Pershing.
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
@dividednation44 Of course, like most tests on penetration it was conducted using sloped armor angled at 30 degrees. Being more than adequate in dealing with either the T-34 or M4 medium tanks at ranged beyond 2,500m regaurdless of where stuck (except perhaps the gun mantle.) Again however, no German medium tank was outfitted with the 88mm of the Tiger I, so it is an unfair comparison.
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
@dividednation44 Further, the Tiger II used another 88mm than the Tiger I did. It used the L/71 a much better gun in combat than the Tiger I's armament. Using the PzGr. 40/43 APCR shell, it could achieve penetration of 150mm at 2,000m.
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
@dividednation44 Further, i must pose the question of whether or not you understand you can not compare a medium tank with a heavy tank? As well as looking at performances of economics when choosing the "Best tank" 500 Tiger 2's had been made during the war, while 55,000 M4s had been made. The M4s had significantly better mobility, and could be replaced much easier, hence it's advantages as a medium tank.
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
@XxxSakura101 thats it! its the only advantage you can get, easy numbers, but THATS IT! it was a shitty tank, you also dont seem very caring about the crews inside those M4's. they were shitting themselves and praying not to see a tiger or a KING TIGER. if the WP ammunation was the simple soloution to beating tigers, then why did USA made the M26 and why did the russians made the IS2 and IS1 and why did the ARL44 was inspired and designed to beat th tiger? why?
dividednation44 8 months ago
@dividednation44 I have explained to you that it has a superior gun than most other medium tanks, and superior armor to that of the T-34. You clearly do not understand the concept of a medium tank, and the design of heavy tanks. Perhaps you would understand the T95 vs King Tiger then? The T95 had 300mm of sloped frontal armor and a 155mm gun that was superior to that of the King Tiger. So why not compare the two? Because they are of two completely different classes and thus cannot be compared.
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
@XxxSakura101 ok lets compare sherman and T34
T34: has a very weak 40MM armor, has a bad and awkward turret design, wholly indequete against most other tanks of the time.
M4: bad 60MM armor, famed for bieng nicknamed "tommy cookers" for the highly flemmable petrol they used. only a few MPH faster then the tiger I and the fuel store was exposes
dividednation44 8 months ago
@dividednation44 Why? Because it was an improved tank design, and the turret could use the 90mm that was more effective than the 76mm. As i said, the 76mm would capable of penetrating the Tiger's hull, but the 88mm could penetrate the Sherman's hull at a much greater range. So what good is the 76mm if it is killed before it comes within range? This was why the 90mm was developted, it could compete with the range of the 88mm used by the Tiger1 and 2.
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
@XxxSakura101 but bothh cant penetrate tiger II armor, even the luckiest tank crow could'nt.
dividednation44 8 months ago
@XxxSakura101 Tanker has to know what he can engage , at what distances with his main gun. Im in haul down psoition waitting on a tiger comming up the the road im going to stay put till i can get shot at his side. TACTICS you dont know them your stone cold dead. We had a saying as Tankers if dont know your capabilities then we can always take picture of you dead in there and mail it to your wife. From the Commanders Hatch , STEADY! STEADY ,! Gunner IDENTIFY T-72 ! FIRE!
GalaticSpaceHero 5 months ago
@dividednation44 It is like comparing a longsword to a dagger, two completely different items with two completely different design goals and uses. One is to be used on the battlefield, while the other is to be concealed and hidden.
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
@XxxSakura101 theres not always a spot to hide, and even if theres you cant hide out for very long.
dividednation44 8 months ago
@dividednation44 To find hide spots, US TDs had a reconnaissance section and open tops for better visibility. They had good results, so good that every German armored attack against the US was halted far short of its objective. Every single one, from Kasserine to the Ardennes. The agility of TDs meant that they could move between firing positions, waiting in hide positions for the enemy to expose himself.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@XxxSakura101 Further, it was a vastly improved tank design over the M4. It had more armor, a more reliable engine, and it's turret could handle larger guns without becoming imbalanced. The M26 was an overall superior tank, but it was also a heavy tank, meaning more expensive to manufacture, and harder to replace. A heavy tank is more of a tactical weapon, while the medium tank is more of a strategic weapon. Again however, i do not understand your logic in comparing a medium and a heavy.
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
@XxxSakura101 the M26 was a disaster and a bad tank from the crew's point of view, when the gunner mans the gun and the commander tries to reach out for the machinegun when an infantry assult erupts it would be impossible, the tank had an awkward design and was ten times slower then the king tiger in cross-country abillity (2 MPH off road)
dividednation44 8 months ago
@dividednation44 The idea that you belive it was the gasoline that caused that is proof enough you are a populist. It was the placement of ammunition that caused Shermans to become engulfed in a firestorm earlier in the war. This was fixed with the M4A2 models. Most tanks used gasoline because it was easier on logistics, it was cheaper as it was in less demand that other fuel types.
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
@XxxSakura101 i heard it was ammunation but it still ran on a highly flemmable petrol. so eat that
dividednation44 8 months ago
@dividednation44 It ran on gasoline, like almost every other tank used by every other nation. Learn somthing about tanks before speaking to me again. Petroleum is not fit to be placed in a engine, it is unrefined oil.
Case and point the King tiger's engine:V-12 Maybach HL 230 P30 gasoline
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
@XxxSakura101 russian tanks used diesel engines.
ScoopzyDaizy 8 months ago
@dividednation44 2MPH? Are you out of you're mind? You would be amusing if you had not been so utterly misinformed about almost everything. The M26's cross country performance was 8.4k/m while the King Tiger's was 15/km, while the M6 could achieve 45km on the rodes and the KT only 40km. Overall they are quite even in speed.
XxxSakura101 8 months ago
@dividednation44 the M-26 did well against T-34/85s in Korea. It also killed a Panther or two, though both were rare.at that time in the war.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
1:35. That poor driver.
Hathorr1067 10 months ago
Lol they talk as though anyone from town could go buy one, cruise along, and destroy some tanks with their whole family xD
raccoonmatinginyour 10 months ago
the 90mm AA gun made the M10 a very potent TD, it was able to penetrate toe front armor of a tiger at 1000 meter and with special AP munition it was superior to the tigers 88mm and panthers 76mm.
all in all the M10 had a higher agility then the tiger and a better gun then the panther.
bigbaba1111 10 months ago
@bigbaba1111 U are totally wrong on this subject , i guess u sucked your "knowledge" from your finger.
ViciousCritique 10 months ago
@bigbaba1111 Wolverine M-10s had 3 inch guns, that were effective against the flanks, but not the front of Tigers at combat ranges. The Jackson M-36 had a 90mm gun.
DonMeaker 10 months ago
1:36 lmfao driver gets a tad wet!
wetend123 11 months ago
Comparing it to tanks and tank employment is really an apples and oranges argument.
jonesclantd 11 months ago
It's not a tank, it is a tank destroyer. The were under a different organizational and tactical doctrine.
jonesclantd 11 months ago
gimme a frag grenade and this tank is dead.well the crew at least, so that means the tank is neutralised. Honestly this tank is a tin can.
0409ds 11 months ago
well of course its a game, don't know how real life battle works ;)
arvine17 11 months ago
I owned COH Gold and M10 tank sucks, they lack armor even you attack at a flanking move where a panther is focused attacking my sherman then m10 comes from behind the panther, panther still owned my tanks.
arvine17 11 months ago
yes...but will it blend?
bobscanfly 11 months ago
sadly cant pierce tigers or panthers probably could piece panzer 4s
xxAntiemoxxgiggty 11 months ago
throw shit at the open top of the m10, the will surely run in panic, oh boy ;(
arvine17 1 year ago 2
@arvine17 yep, the crews sometimes welded together makeshift armor covers over the top of the turret, because it sucks when any asshole can toss a grenade and take out your whole tank.
Keinlicht 11 months ago
so where do i order one?
dinkcool 1 year ago
ha, at 1:36 the driver compartment (=whole hull :/) gets flooded.
What happens with the water ?
oddballsok 1 year ago
i'll take two !
farmrrick 1 year ago
so wheres my panzerschreck!!
azotjakter09 1 year ago
I think ill get my m10 today!
Kimes90 1 year ago
lol I love this! ^_^
HarlequinCoHO 1 year ago
Sudden death to the tiger MY ASS they needed at least 5 shermans or more prefered seven
lolz139 1 year ago
@lolz139 these are not shermans... The standard version of the sherman wasn't even supposed to fight heavy tanks.
Zdutchman123 1 year ago
tiger lunch
TheProjektcc 1 year ago
what is the song in the begining its sounds fun
urukhai148 1 year ago
fall out boy america...
DJack5825 1 year ago
very cool stuff :D
LegendaryGameTV 1 year ago
Turret traverse is too slow.. ):
SSUstufRudel 1 year ago
Comment removed
13fafo 1 year ago
Comment removed
13fafo 1 year ago
Comment removed
13fafo 1 year ago