APDS and APFSDS are two different types of shot. The APDS round has no fin stabilizer as it is fired from a rifled barrel. Note that the HVAP round did not have a sabot as it was a tungsten sub caliber core in lighter full caliber (90mm) housing. @@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle
Yes, and I think, and I may be wrong, that the Americans didn't even use APDS during the war. (they sure did after the war) It was my understanding that the British were the only nation that used APDS. Americans used APCR if I remember correctly.
I would reference any of the WWII videos by Lt. Col. Nicholas Moran a.k.a The Chieftain. He is THE expert on American armor in WWII. Check out his book on American tank destroyers "Can Openers" for an indebt look at American TDs. @@robertsansone1680
The M36 was to use the M10 hull produced by GM's Fisher Body. Fisher ran into problems with some reporting labor strife or material shortage, so only produced 300 or 400 hulls in January of '44. The Army went out to collect all the M10's at the stateside training bases for refurbishing into M36 hulls. Fisher Body reworked those that used the twin GM Diesel engines while 3 or 4 other companies reworked those with the radial engine. The Army was anxious to get some in combat ASAP so shipped a number of M36 turrets to France in August of '44 for use on repaired M4 hulls and ordered Ford to start setting the M36 turret on M4'S coming off the production line then finish the conversion outside in the storage yard. The Army cancelled further production of the M10 hull after 900 M10 hulls had been refurbished.
The open roof turret may render you vulnerable to a variety of threats - especially in urban warfare - but it also has ENORMOUS advantages! It renders your whole crew aware of everything that's going on, on the surrounding battlefield and potential, incoming threats - UNLIKE in an enclosed tank where you have to observe the battlefield through slits & pericopes, making you practically blind. There were no 360° observation cameras back then, capable of giving you both night&day vision - nor were there "drones" scouting the area for you from above, like we have today. In a tank of that era you cannot hear an approaching enemy column when "buttoned up" - you relied on your infantry to give you "pointers". With these vehicles you could do the scouting & observation by yourself...all you needed was a pair of binoculars. YES - it gave up some protection, but the added benefit of being able to see and to listen to everything that's going on around you, "levels it out", and that 90mm gun gives the capability of dealing with ANY threat. When used properly - these and their "Hellcat"/ "lighter cousins" - were killing machines. PS. By the way - it is a bit ironic how you used the words "ONLY 1300 of them were produced". By 1944 Germans couldn't even DREAM of such numbers! :)
Yeah but it sounds like the Shermans would first contact the Tigers, then draw them in to be fired on by the Tank Destroyers. They didn't engage full on, preferring to "snipe" the tigers before the tigers could shoot back so yeah, the design makes sense. Now there are no "tank destroyers" it's Main Battle Tanks...
That's not how it worked. You don't use armor to bait armor, and no tank is going to be baited out. The TDs mobility was used to guard the flanks. TDs are still built and used.
@@Mokimanify ?? I'm sorry! - WHO said anything about "baiting tanks with other tanks"? ...I don't recall writing anything of the sort... I merely stated that the "open roof turret" had some specific advantages. ...?... PS. Maybe it was someone else in the comments - I beg your pardon, but I rarely come back to check posts out, once I 've written them - unless specifically adressed. Anyway - Best Regards.
The M10 turret was always welded, no rivets. the shaped bolt heads on the armor were bosses meant for applique armor kits that never got produced. the bosses were omitted first on the turrets, then the hulls later in production.
The dispersion numbers between the 90mm, 17lb, & 88mm are interesting, but the other highly important factors that determine a good tank are muzzle velocity and armour penetration.
It's not a big thing, but perhaps there was a typographical error? Dispersion of 0.189mm is smaller than 0.5mm lead of a mechanical pencil. No projectile could fly a mile and land with a deviation 1/3rd of the diameter of a mechanical pencil (33 gauge wire is 0.18mm). Even a laser beam could deviate more due to the difference in air density. It's probably 1.89 meter? (about 6 feet 3 inches). That would make sense because later, it was said that it went from 70 inches to 30 inches. 70 inches would be about 1.78meter (that's much closer to 1.89meter than 0.189mm). It's difficult to keep track of different units. But I'm glad to see that you dug up old records to compare accuracy. That's good work. May your channel grow big.
Yes the M-36 was open top but you forgot to mention that the US Army installed an armored cover for the turret at the end of the war effectively basically making it a medium tank. The M-36 was the only tank destroyer to see service in the US arsenal past 1950 and served in the Korean War....
Good video. Only the British used APDS for their AT guns. The US and Germans used APCR. APCR for the US 90mm M2/3 gun didn't become available until late February 1945 in very limited quantities, and was also used by the M26 Pershing. Another improved round that became available at the same time was the solid shot T33 AP, specifically designed to defeat sloped armor. Unfortunately it suffered the same shatter problems as the standard M82 APC rounds, a problem that wasn't solved until post war. While the gun on paper was very similar to the Tiger 1's KwK 36, 88mm L/56, the much better quality of the Panzergranate 39 gave the German gun a clear edge. US tests of German, US and Soviet standard AP rounds fired at the same velocity showed that the German shells penetrated 15% more than the US shells, which again penetrated 15% more than the Soviet ones.
I might be wrong, but the M82 round projectiles were pulled and re-heat treated, and some newly assembled rounds did make it back to Europe before wars end.
Isaac D White, Commanding General of US 2nd Armored Division, in a report to Eisenhower in March 1945 : "Tank Destroyer, M36: Has not lived up to expectations, but when HVAP ammunition becomes available it is hoped that it will be more effective. Fighting compartment precludes efficient service of the piece and available ammunition is not effective at required long range. "
Interesting content. Any criticisms have already been covered in preceding comments. As a WW II history guy, this was enlightening as I've not heard about this thing. Learned something. Very cool. Good stuff. Well done. 👍
Trivia- It also saw use in the Korean War, where it was able to defeat any of the Soviet tanks used in that conflict. Some were supplied to South Korea as part of the Military Assistance Program and served for years, as did re-engined examples found in Yugoslavia, which operated into the 1990s. Two remained in service with the Republic of China Army at least until 2001. The vehicle is also known under the unofficial nickname Jackson, but this designation appears to be a postwar appellation that was never used by the US Army. wikipedia
Certainly the most effective US Tank Destroyer of the war. The gun was ready in 1943 but several vehicles built to carry it turned out to be duds and so surplus M10A1 hulls ended up being used. It did not enter service until October1944, when it began to replace the old M10 and M10A1. The 90 mm was tested thoroughly against German wreaks, the Tiger 2 was still largely immune, but the frontal armour of the Tiger I could be penetrated at battle ranges. The Panther frontal armour could deflect shots as close as 150 meters. Most M36s ended up in US Military Aid Programs from the late 1950s, though some were sent to Korea.
@@signs80 The big BUT is the fact that HVAP was very eratic at ranges over 200 meters. A problem the Germans also encountered with APCR which had similar construction.
@@billballbuster7186the m18 was the most effective. Highest kill-death ratio of the war. Also thanks to the chieftain and after action reports most crews did not want or take the m36. A few were forced to but more effective than m18 or m10, that's a big no.
@@chadjustice8560 Thats a grand statement considering the M-18 did not really see much action late1944-45, the Germans had few tanks left at this time. The M10 probably took out more Panzers, but the M-18 was the ultimate "shoot and scoot" TD ever built. The Chieftain is a Gamer from WoT, not a real expert.
@@billballbuster7186 I’m sure you’re aware that Nicholas Moran (the chieftain) does have real-world experience as US army armored officer and national guard experience. I’d say he has expertise in the field.
A word of caution with using dispersion values to get the mechanical accuracy of WW2 guns. They did not have modern laser range finders and digital fire-control computers in WW2. Meaning that the raw mechanical accuracy of the gun is very low on the list of factors influencing the chance of a hit. WW2 gunners had to make their best guess of the range, and were still likely to see their first shot go high or low. After watching their first shot go low and their second shot go high, a tank or anti-tank gun gunner in a typical WW2 engagement would have to hope that their target would stick around for the third shot, or they'd have to repeat the whole process from scratch. Which is why you'll often see figures of dozens of AP rounds fired for every tank knocked out, even though all the guns involve technically should have been capable of first round hits.
@@kenneth9874 Only if the person aiming the gun has perfect aim and can estimate the range perfectly. The dispersion factor is probably the most important factor for accuracy on a modern tank, because modern tanks have digital fire-control systems that eliminate an enormous amount of human error. But it is most certainly not the most important factor for the accuracy of a WW2 tank. Human error is the most important factor for accuracy on a WW2 tank.
@@kenneth9874 I have done a lot of shooting. But we're talking about combat shooting here, not range shooting. You need to understand that accuracy under combat conditions is very different from accuracy on a range. You don't know the range to your target, your target is shooting back at you, and you don't have the luxary of being able to take your time with each shot. How accurately you can shoot on a range is not representative of how accurately you can shoot in combat. The biggest cause of misses with a WW2 tank gun is misjudging the range. Remember that there are no rangefinding devices on a WW2 tank like there are on a modern tank. It can take several shots to get the range dailed in correctly, even for a well trained gunner, by which point you have to hope that your target is still around. Which is why the number of shots fired in combat for every target destroyed was always way higher than you would expect from the gun's dispersion alone.
Don't know about that. The stugs performed miracles in the eastern front, even against t34s and t70s. Their ratio is much better than m10s, m18s and m36s.
@@Blefiz Red Army tanks were not that good in terms of quality, operational use and battlefield success. Only the Stug IVs were designed to defeat armor and those were introduced late in the war when Germany was nearly exclusively on the defense. The Stug IVs main canon was simply an effective towed AT gun. The US self propelled tank destroyers outmatched Germany's to the point that there was no comparison.
There were only about 1000 towed 88L71 (PAK 43) made. The all up weight of ~4 tonnes, varied with the carriage, but made them impractical outside prepared fortifications, which were less relevant given the huge artillery disparity by the time they were operational.
I do not believe those dispersion figures expressed at 3.47 they are talking about less than a millimetre of dispersion at 1500 to 2000 yards - you might get a lazer that accurate but nothing ballistic - I think that the units they should be using for the dispersion are meters, not millimetres. The dispersion figures expressed at 4.17 is in hundreds of centimetres - that I can believe. But test figures are only that - the theoretical accuracy of the gun tube and ammunition are minor factors compared to things like the training and experience of the crew, whether the barrels are shot out or not, etc.
The figure they are quoting is MILs - milliradians. His '0.115 at 1,500 yds' has got to be mils, moa would be an impossible three times too small. He uses more accurate post war ammunition data, The *_1945_* H.V., A.P.-T., 90mm gave 17" at 2,100 yds, 0.225 mils or 0.774 moa.
It's kind of odd that we think of WW2 as tank on tank and highly mechanized warfare. The Germans had horses to eat at Stalingrad because that was their prime movers. The Allies also famously depended on airpower to combat German tanks and the lack thereof during the Battle of the Bulge was the reason there was something that could be misconstrued as a minor German success. Still interesting comparisons. But combined arms and infantry support was the true strength of tanks even back then.
The Allies also had artillery. It seems artillery was very effective in the first three days or so on the the northern shoulder of the Battle of the Bulge, with fighting around Elsenborn Ridge. Of note, the Americans employed VT proximity shells, which seemed to have impacted infantry support for armoured columns of the Germans' 6th Panzer Army, when it came to three routes.
@michaeldunne338 those shells are often considered more important than any other weapon in the arsenal of the allies. Certainly they were in the pacific. The ability to deplete veteran pilots of the Japanese naval forces for the cost of a vacuum tube is often overlooked...
Anyone have a link to the souece of thr clip they showed several times of the soldier holding up different 90mm shells. Looks like a training film of some kind.
I don't know why the military did not have a closed hatch on turrent..and more armor to protect crew...the 90mm gun should have available on first shermans
Military doctrine and the american military was a lot different than the german military tanks were seen as infantry support weapons not weapons to take on tanks directly.The german warfare was built on tank to tank high speed Lightning warfare so the doctrine was completely different. So we had to build tank destroyers in order to To get our shermans to win the day on the battlefield. Our doctine didn't change Until after the war when we started making bigger tanks
Trivia- It also saw use in the Korean War, where it was able to defeat any of the Soviet tanks used in that conflict. Some were supplied to South Korea as part of the Military Assistance Program and served for years, as did re-engined examples found in Yugoslavia, which operated into the 1990s. Two remained in service with the Republic of China Army at least until 2001. The vehicle is also known under the unofficial nickname Jackson, but this designation appears to be a postwar appellation that was never used by the US Army. wikipedia
500 meters maximum was necessary against Panther and Tiger frontal armour only. Side shots from any range were never a problem for the M10 or 76mm armed Shermans.
Isaac D White, Commanding General of US 2nd Armored Division, in a report to Eisenhower in March 1945 : "Tank Destroyer, M36: Has not lived up to expectations, but when HVAP ammunition becomes available it is hoped that it will be more effective. Fighting compartment precludes efficient service of the piece and available ammunition is not effective at required long range. "
The TD docterine was never discredited. It just never achieved the results the Tank Destroyer Branch wanted but this can be blamed on the towed TDs attached to the self propelled TDs. The SP TDs were extremely successful in any role. The problem for the TDs was the TAC was simply more effective .. Tank vs tank or tank vs P-47 .. Many countries continue to build and use TDs.
The M10 tank destroyer mounted a version of the 3 inch anti aircraft gun that had been modified for anti tank use. The M18 mounted a 76mm (the same bore diameter but different shell dimensions) gun designed as a tank gun. Very similar but different guns.
Most German tanks on the western front that were destroyed IN COMBAT (not by their own crews) were hit by anti-tank artillery and anti-tank vehicles like those in the video - not by aircraft. Post war analysis has showed that aircraft were not as effective against tanks as reported by after action reports by pilots. Airplanes did disrupt armor formations, and caused havoc among armored support units because those vehicles and related infantry were vulnerable to fire, bombs and rockets directed at the tanks. Armored columns were shredded by attack aircraft, but mosttanks were not. They just ran out of gas because their fuel trucks were destroyed. German tanks found damaged in after action reports were later determined to have been destroyed by their crews and were found with empty fuel tanks. Bottom line: It's was very difficult to get a direct hit on a small vehicle from 1500 feet in a dive or straffing run. A near by bomb impact often was not enouigh to destroy a tank, but it defeintely destroyed un-armored support. This is supported by German soldiers interviews that confirm the findings. Further, they said that they feared aircraft more than anything else because they knew they were going to die, being out in the open, and many dove under the tanks because it was the only hope of survival.
@@Lollygagger-k4p I guess Panther gunner Otto Schaefer was wrong when he told me the biggest fear German tankers had was fighter planes firing rockets. Well I still believe Otto. He sure had many interesting stories. Anyone know why there is a coaxial machine gun. Otto knew. I'll tell you what he said in a day or so. Along with the trajectory of the Panthers high velocity 75mm. O well Otto said it dropped 1/2 a meter at 1000 meters.
@@captjim007 Pretty flat shooting, the 88. Otto had his opinion based upon his experiences being under attack, but the post war record indicates that aircraft were most effective against armored columns - not individual hits on tanks. Otto had good reason to fear this, as it had the reasonable chance of destroying tanks, but most likely destroying treads and drive wheels - but every chance of annihilating his support. Once support for armor is gone, crews will self destruct the tank and march out with what is left of the column. Subsequent fly by observers saw shot up columns and what appeared to be destroyed tanks, but they were just burned out by their crews. I will say that it is true that a tank was vulnerable from the air in WW2 by reason of light armor on top, and could be disabled by 20mm amor piercing rounds above the engine, so the risk was high if you got hit, but hits were not made by precision, but by target saturation, with the hope that a couple would go through. Rockets were devasting if one hit, but most did not and only caused exterior damage, which could be repaired - IF the column was not smeared all over the road. The Germnas considered the attack airplane to be a weapon of terror. As I remember it, the report was released late, as it had the effect of retracting the statements of pilots, who likely exagerrated their skills. I think The Cheiftain mentioned this in one of his videos IIRC. It was a powerful myth much like the one that has still pidgeon-holed the reputation of the Sherman tank as being inferior - something I believed till just a couple years ago. I thought it was a settled issue. Turns out nothing coud be further from the truth.
@@captjim007 The fact that Otto lived to tell the story shows that while the rockets may have been effective on tanks, the kill shots were rare. Except for the few tank buster squadrons, most fighters would have already dropped their bombs and fired their rockets at large stationary targets such as buildings and bridges before finding tanks and other vehicles as targets of opportunity. Spraying a German tank with .50 cal or even 20mm does little damage unless they get lucky and kill some crew or even fire through an open hatch, like the Ukrainians have shown us. Their is plenty of evidence that pilot kills were vastly overstated on all sides. Several planes firing on a single tank and setting fire to some canvas bags on the top would get reported as a kill by each pilot even though it was undamaged.
Trivia- It also saw use in the Korean War, where it was able to defeat any of the Soviet tanks used in that conflict. Some were supplied to South Korea as part of the Military Assistance Program and served for years, as did re-engined examples found in Yugoslavia, which operated into the 1990s. Two remained in service with the Republic of China Army at least until 2001. The vehicle is also known under the unofficial nickname Jackson, but this designation appears to be a postwar appellation that was never used by the US Army. wikipedia
0.0189 mm is considered a noteworthy variation? That's 19 MICROMETERS. I'm no math or physics expert, but it seems to me you could fire on a tank-sized target from two MILES away without more than a millimeter of total variance at impact.
Why did the Army have to designate everything from light and medium tanks, half tracks and guns starting with M? It leads to no small amount of confusion.
If the M10 did not enter combat until 23 March 1943 during the Battle of El Guettar, why does the narrator claim it became evident by Sep 42 that the 3" gun on the M10 was only effective up to 500 meters against enemy vehicles?
The sheer Volume expedited a win. The Israeli "Tankers" know this and built one for crew survival as the first point then the Cannon which suits a desert area.
nope, they are 2 completely different guns from different country, firefly use a 17 pounder anti tank english chambered more or less in 76 mm, M3 gun is a USA gun with 90 mm caliber.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 so was it a bit unfair to say the 17 poumder wasn't as good at Accuracy when the Jacksons ammo had atablizing fins on ?
Well i believe no APFSDS shells for 90mm M3 cannon (which not existed till much longer). APDS yes, but never out of testing. Only HEATFS but in post-war era, can't be considered Tiger/Panther counter measure. 76.2mm was a very capable gun, could reliable destroy Tiger hulls from 1000m (with APCR) or 500m (with AP), which most of the skirmishs in real life happened, same with Panther turret. The only difference from 90mm M3 over 76.2mm was the capable of penetrating Panther hull. In term of penetration, (the M82 shell vs other AP shells) M3 should be equal to panther long 75mm KwK43, which marginally better than 88L56 of Tiger I
what no they put the 17 pounder into the Sherman as a stop gap for other tank projects the British were working on, the m36 entered later in the war after the British had already started to fit Shermans with the 17 pounder. plus this is an American tank why are you talking about a British tank?
APFSDS was not invented yet at this point, first tank that used it was the t-62 from 1961, this is a huge error, like mistakenly talking about jets during ww1, you should probably do a reupload
How? Kinda simple. Unlike the M18, and the Sherman tanks, the M36 had a gun that could absolutely blow a hole in the frontal armor of a German Tiger tank.
Isaac D White, Commanding General of US 2nd Armored Division, in a report to Eisenhower in March 1945 : "Tank Destroyer, M36: Has not lived up to expectations, but when HVAP ammunition becomes available it is hoped that it will be more effective. Fighting compartment precludes efficient service of the piece and available ammunition is not effective at required long range. "
@@felixalbion Even the Firefly failed miserably at Estrees la Campagne on 9th August 1944 when Worthington Force lost 44 Shermans, sniped at long range by the Tigers of Schwere SS Panzer Abteilung 101 and Panthers of 12th SS. Not a single Tiger was knocked out by any of the Shermans, including Fireflies.
@@davidrodgersNJwow all the videos out there about the Sherman with actually correct information and you go with they could build a bunch of them quickly lol number for number the Sherman was probably the best tank of the war.
False. The M18 Hellcat had the highest kill-to-loss ratio in world war 2, and the Jackson - like the Pershing - was way too late to the party to have a significant impact.
Terrible ammo scholarship here... please read Wikipedia before doing this again. The only AP ammo for the 90mm guns in WW2 was full bore diameter AP and AP Capped. No bursting charge (APHE), either.
One thing over looked in this is the Americans are the only ones who used the m36 and well they only had 3 recorded encounters with tiger 1 and i can't remember the number of tiger 2 encounters so they rarely saw a tiger let alone a working one.
The M10 was NEVER called Wolverine. The US called it MGC M10, the British called it M10 (both the 3" AND 17 pdr) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bNjp_4jY8pY.htmlsi=jJNVy55kGppn-O9w timestamp 5:53
I wouldnt be surprised if a dedicated anti-tank team comprised of the guys running one BAR paired with 2 to 3 zooks and then have a Slugger/Jackson attached because armor be damned, the zooks can immobilize them (I'm not sure if the later M9 zook can actually knock out bigger tanks but I DID recall that thing dunk on Pz IV's) as the Slugger moves in for the shot
These were the Great days when tanks actually fought tanks now days it's pretty rare to see a tank battle but they are happening to this day just very rarely in very small engagements with small numbers
Tigers and Panthers were rare on the western front. They only effected the immedeate area of their operations, thus, they were mostly used in defensive blocking positions, and were sitting ducks.
@@Lollygagger-k4p The Panther was the most common German tank in the West in the last year of the war. 1835 deployed vs. 1665 Panzer IV and 1650 StuG III.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Difficulty in overcoming them was not the norm. Only at first. Once any German tank was located, most American observers reported it as a Tiger or Panther because they were so terrified of the reputation. It was the same witrh the Russians: Every tank engagement was reported as being against a Tiger or possibly such. THAT was the reason they were so effective - even when not actually present. Tigers were slow, somewhat unreliable, and primitive compared to the Sherman. The turret traverse was hand crank operated at a very slow rate, while the Sherman had four powerful electric motors that traversed the turret far faster then any other tank in the war. Shermans knocked out Tigers and other German tanks by actually running around to the sides or rear faster than the German tank could either turn about or rotate the turret. Meanwhile other Shermans swarmed the German heavies and disabled them - which was as good as a kill. Shermans killed supporting infantry that isloated the German heavy tanks as well. Without infantry support, any tank is a Sitting Duck. By a large margin, the deadliest armored vehicle against American/British tanks were the excellent German Stug and other dedicated anti-tank platforms. The Tiger and Panther were never deployed to the Western Front in numbers that mattered - except to those who had to deal with them. There were only about 200 of them all along the front during the Battle of Normandy and the Breakout. They made no difference in a combined arms assault where attack aircraft destroyed the support units to keep the tank in the fight. BY the time the Americans and British were at the Rhine, the M-10, M-18, and M-36 tank hunters caused any Tiger/Panther to reconsidered their position and many simply withdrew. These excellent Americn tank killers were built on the Sherman platform because thay were fast and reliable. Everyone loved them, but many Germans cursed the Tiger, contrary to the stories of some post war German authors. German infantry hated them because they were Fire-Magnets, where only the tank would survive.
@@TTTT-oc4eb Yes but, like the Tiger, it was used defensively for the most part - except at the Ardennes Offensive, where its weakness in speed and fuel consumption came to the fore. Several German assaults were driven back with inferior firepower because the infantry was annihilated by rifle, mortar, and machingun fire, coupled with accurate American artillery. Most of the German tanks escaped, only to later run out of fuel and ammo. Once located, American and British artillery destroyed armored supporting units. Report after report from post war accounts indicate that the Germans feared Allied artillery over anything else because it was accurate and never ending. Allied air power also was devastating on armored support personnel and supplies when the skies were clear. Bottom line is that the western allies learned fast, despite the superiority of the German heavies on paper. And, the allies had a never ending supply by 1943. After Kursk, the Germans were literally out of gas.
Since when was Africa considered “the eastern front”? The 90mm gun could penetrate 9inches of armor? And you said it was how accurate? Yeah…few too many mistakes here…
I would take the victory claims with a grain of salt. They seldom match the records captured from the Germans. One reason for this is the engagement of already knocked out tanks. Another is visibility issues. The claims in this video obviously have not been compared to surviving German loss records. Comparisons of claims from individual actions show that both German and Americans overclaimed. The makers of this video should have known better and prefaced such statements with "It was claimed" instead of presented German losses as an established fact.
One M18 units was credited with more German AFV kills in a period in late 1944 than the Germans in reality lost on ALL fronts in the same period. EVERYBODY overclaimed - often wildly. That's why it is important - like you said - to look into primary documents from both sides. From 1942, German high command took off 50% of the claimed kills from the units to compensate for double counting and vehicles that could be repaired. The unit claims were still often used as propaganda, though.
