@xAlexTobiasxB The M-10 is built on a Sherman Chassis and any child could tell that it is really a tank. The tank destroyer designation is stricly a piece of beauracratic bullshit to justify assigning them as "self propelled guns" to the artillary service. Read about Gen. Leslie Mac Nair who was a major factor in this as well as blocking the upgrading and upgunning of the Sherman Tank.
@scottduncan44 What is your point exactly? Still, it's not a Sherman anyway. And even if it is based on that tank, it is a whole new vehicle type. The Jagdpanther is based on the Panther chassis, still it's not a Panther. Jagdtiger is based on the Tiger II chassis, again it's not a Tiger II anyway. And tank destroyers are no tanks and not self propelled guns also, they are just motherfucking tank destroyers. It's simple as that.
Unlike the German self propelled guns the American tank destroyers were tankd. The differences between a Sherman and an M-10 or M-16 were not that great. In fact the M-36b was a sherman with a 90mm turret. The point is that the American tactical doctrine of tank destroyers was a totally artificail creation og General Mac Nair to allow them to be crewed by the Artillary , his arm of the service. General Patton stated that they were just another tanks. argue with him
@scottduncan44 TD was not artillery, rather they were a separate branch. McNair's appreciation of mobile guns was driven by his service in Artillery, but the need for mobile guns was driven by german breakthroughs in france with high concentrations that french antitank units (54 each 40mm AT guns per division) could not match. US ended up not using McNair's doctrine of separate TD groups, instead attached TD battalions to divisions on a fairly permanent basis.
Tanks = Best Vehicles Ever Made
DuelNexus 6 months ago
british version ^^
i all i know : (
0puest0 10 months ago
great tank
calimar28 1 year ago
the M10 tank destroyer is NOT a sherman tank, please fix that in the video description.
xAlexTobiasxB 2 years ago
@xAlexTobiasxB The M-10 is built on a Sherman Chassis and any child could tell that it is really a tank. The tank destroyer designation is stricly a piece of beauracratic bullshit to justify assigning them as "self propelled guns" to the artillary service. Read about Gen. Leslie Mac Nair who was a major factor in this as well as blocking the upgrading and upgunning of the Sherman Tank.
scottduncan44 1 year ago
@scottduncan44 What is your point exactly? Still, it's not a Sherman anyway. And even if it is based on that tank, it is a whole new vehicle type. The Jagdpanther is based on the Panther chassis, still it's not a Panther. Jagdtiger is based on the Tiger II chassis, again it's not a Tiger II anyway. And tank destroyers are no tanks and not self propelled guns also, they are just motherfucking tank destroyers. It's simple as that.
xAlexTobiasxB 1 year ago
@xAlexTobiasxB
Unlike the German self propelled guns the American tank destroyers were tankd. The differences between a Sherman and an M-10 or M-16 were not that great. In fact the M-36b was a sherman with a 90mm turret. The point is that the American tactical doctrine of tank destroyers was a totally artificail creation og General Mac Nair to allow them to be crewed by the Artillary , his arm of the service. General Patton stated that they were just another tanks. argue with him
scottduncan44 1 year ago
@scottduncan44 TD was not artillery, rather they were a separate branch. McNair's appreciation of mobile guns was driven by his service in Artillery, but the need for mobile guns was driven by german breakthroughs in france with high concentrations that french antitank units (54 each 40mm AT guns per division) could not match. US ended up not using McNair's doctrine of separate TD groups, instead attached TD battalions to divisions on a fairly permanent basis.
DonMeaker 6 months ago
please make bigger videos..23 secs is so small
mendacha 2 years ago