US Tank Destroyers | From Defunct to Dominant 1942-1945 

In all of my research on the "why didn't they just put the superior long 76mm gun on all the Shermans" and "The 75 mm short barrel Sherman sucked -- why couldn't the USA do as well as the Germans", I came up with the following after years of diving. There's a reason most dedicated infantry support vehicles / assault guns had short barrels. The short barrels are lower velocity (because of the shorter distance over which the rounds are exposed to a massive imbalance of forces). Lower velocity means that the round can have a thinner outer shell for stability, meaning, you can fill it with more explosive -- AND that shell can be made of softer metal, meaning better fragmentation. This is ideal against infantry targets and has also been shown to be more effective in period tests on inanimate targets. In WW2, 90% of the rounds fired by Shermans were high explosive -- meaning they were MOSTLY being used against soft targets. Tanks most routinely support infantry. When moving to a higher velocity, longer barrel, it's a trade off. You get better velocity (almost worthless against infantry, but useful against enemy armor), but because velocity goes up, the rounds can be filled with less explosive and have to be made of harder, tougher metal less likely to fragment nicely. And so, one solution might be to send a 76mm long barrel Sherman with every 4 or so 75mm short barrels. And this is often what happened. This would give these groups a bit of all-round protection. The American M8 Scott mobile assault gun was a perfect example of the belief that a low velocity, short barrel was superior for anti-infantry work. The Germans went for penetration over anti-infantry capabilities in their later war tank guns. Though there are plenty examples of their short barreled, low velocity assault guns earlier in the war. Like, the Stug III with 75 mm StuK 37 howitzer.

I read somewhere that cast-off Army 37 mm anti-tank guns found a useful home aboard USN PT Boats. They were useful for attacking small ships and barges.

Love these videos from the Museum! Kudos to the Chieftain for recommending it ages ago.

My grandfather, from Oklahoma, was in the 634th TD Battalion, and took his training at Camp Claiborne, Louisiana. He told us the stories of their experiences across France, Belgium, and Germany. Besides a handful of his snapshots, this is the first detailed look I've had at the M10 he fought in. Thank you for this video.

I attended one of your tours a few years ago and it was amazing, you're a wonderful person for trying to restore and teach about such an important time in World history. You encouraged me to begin work on my history degree the moment I graduated. Thank you.

@5:37 - "The M10 is a conversion of a M4A2 Sherman tank, with diesel Cadillac twin engines." I believe the engines are actually a twin installation of the Detroit Diesel 6-71 inline engine, generally called the GM 6046. (GM created the Detroit Diesel Engine Division in 1938; it remained a part of GM until the 1980's.) I think the confusion comes from the fact that the M5 Stuart light tank was equipped with twin Cadillac V-8 engines linked through a transfer case.

My favorite story about the TD's during WW2 was: before D-Day, and given the experience of TD's in North Africa and in Italy, around half of the TD Battalions in Europe were converted to towed weapons. However, after experience with the TD's in Western Europe, it was decided to convert ALL TD battalions to self-propelled pieces. Since the Army was introducing the new M-36 at the same time, battalions previously equipped with the M-10 were reequipped with the M-36, and the extra M-10's were used to convert towed battalions to SP battalions. Two little known facts about TD's. First, there were some M-10 equipped tank destroyer battalions which were going to be reequipped with the M-18, and they refused, preferring to keep their M-10's. And second, one of the early M-26 tanks suffered damage to it's gun barrel in combat, and so the mechanics simply replaced the M-26 90mm gun with one in the supply system meant for the M-36.

A visit to the museum is on my bucket list. Keep up the great work!!

We are coming to visit in about 10 days! Very excited to see your collection and meet your people.

Thanks for another excellent video. Good balance for both new and more knowledgeable viewers.

Them M3 half track 75mm tank destroyers worked pretty good in Afirca during Ww2.

Fantastic Video! Lots of good info here. Thank you for this one. Outstanding stuff! 😎👍

you and your military equipment are real treasures , thank you

Yet another great video, thanks for posting. For y’all reading the comments, I highly recommend the book Patton’s Vanguard, it’s about the 4th Armored Division and a lot is learned about how the tanks and tank destroyers were used in WWII. The 704th TD battalion refused to get rid of their Hellcats because they were faster than M10’s and M36’s. Great book.

This gentleman is very good at these videos. 👍

Good information put out on these videoa and always great to see old equipment that use to be used. Keep it up the Great Job.

My Dad was a Three strip Sgt. who served with the 825th Tank Destroyers, Sec. Plt. Co. B Highway Green . Therefore I’ve always been interested in the concept of the tank destroyers. Great video.

A great video and some excellent vehicles. I always have a soft spot for anything armed with 17pdr. Arguably the best allied AT gun of the war. Respectively I don’t think you can make a general comment about allied tank doctrine between the wars or use of AT. The British experimented extensively in the 20s & early 30s. German doctrine used elements of British thinking. The British and French both clearly anticipated tank on tank encounters as evidenced in the Battle for France, not least the Arras counter attack. Both countries had tanks that mounted powerful ATs for the day and Matilda II saw service all the way to the end of the war in the Far East where along with other models no longer effective in the European theatre, was superior to all Japanese tanks.

Excellent video, thanks for posting and educating all of us tread-heads!

Excellent channel on US armor, history & details are best on RU-vid. Thank you 🇺🇸🇺🇸

Fascinating video thank you. I learned a lot from it and also from the comments.

The Hellcat looks sleek

I think most of the early panzer 4 actually had worse armour then the panzer 3 so the 37mm gun would kinda work… However the Germans quickly uparmoured the panzer 3 and 4 after their experiences in France. The British 2 pounder and French 47mm guns were quite capable of knocking German armour out so they needed to up armour because they got hammered each time the French or British troops could set themselves up for a fight. Only because they outran the allied reaction capability allowed them to beat them tbh.

Good lecture, what a great museum. Such a wonderful collection! Sir, you have created a great museum and have done such a service to our history and nation. Congratulations!

awesome! great video. very informative!

Great video

The brit 17 pounder was an amazing antimtank gun, so much so the Germans tried to target them first over the 75 and 76mms

My favorite TD is the M10, just have always loved it! My grandpa was a M36 tank commander for the Italian Army in the 1950s. A lot of Allied vehicles were left in Europe after the war and a lot of the countries rebuilding their forces used them!

Thank you.

thank you, mr museum guy!

Hope to visit soon !

Great video! Interesting to learn how the US adapted until they could make a dedicated TD like the M18. LOL, and then used parts from the earlier versions to make the Jackson! The combination of massive manufacturing and practical policies are a powerful formula. God Bless America. 👍

Thanks Dan, keep 'em coming.

I think this guy likes talking about armoured vehicles. 🙂👍

Don't worry about calling the M18 as a Hellcat. We all call it that, even though there is a plane with the same name.

My dad served in the 654th tank destroyer battalion, company B headquarters. France, Belgium and Luxembourg. Lied about his age and went in at 15 years old, he road a wla and delivered messages . Alot of interesting stories about his adventures in the military. Would love too find his motorcycle and photograph it. Last time he seen was in Belgium said the snow was up to the head light . It had a plate on the front that said Oh Babe .

The M36 Jackson was still being used by some countries right up until the 1990's. The Iraqis captured some Iranian M36's and used them in the gulf war. Yugoslavia was using M36's during the Croatian War of Independence (1991-1995).

Nice video - what about the M36B1?

Many thanks, enjoyed your explanation on the evolution of US tank destroyers. I never took to the Sherman...it was conceptually designed as an infantry support vehicle ... but the M36 more than made up for it: sleek, fast and deadly killing machine....one of my favorites along with the Pershing... why did the US not send M36's along with Pershings to Korea?

고마워요, 정말 유익한 비디오였어요! 🇰🇷

I feel it would be more accurate to say the Blitz set off a AT gun panic. Everyone knew tanks would be important, but everyone had different ideas as to what degree. Additionally, they were seen as offensive weaponry (and so their development a sign of aggression) making their use in large numbers politically undesireable to many pro-peace governments. This channel feels like the History channel at its best; well-meaning, just using sometimes obselete information and not looking much deeper (though I'm loving the increased source referencing). These guys really have the potential to do some good, particularly while the Armor & Cavalry Museum in Ft Benning remains closed to the public.

Question on M10 what colour was interior for wartime white or hull colour 🤔

Some food for thought. Germany's workhorse, the Panzer IV, had only 8600 or so built. Now using some assumptions like if 80% of the defeated German forces being defeated in the East also means that 80% of the German overall strength was sent there, that means of Germany's most numerically important tank, only about 1,700 fought in the West. I bring that up, because for a good portion of Germany's armored forces where converted captured early war vehicles. And many of them left in an un-armored state. The 37mm wasn't fighting off waves of Panthers or Tigers, but even into '45 could easily hold it's own against armored cars and Marders. True it was time to replace it, but the 3inch cannons were perfectly reasonable weapons for the primary fighting as it's almost hard to justify sending guns to deal with a few handfuls of Panthers or Tigers.

I noticed the gun is not a full and complete gun. Can that be 1 of the reasons the counter weight is not as heavy. ? -- Having a full weight on the rear would make the turret unbalanced -=-

Great video. I don't like the way the museum is set up. You don't get to walk around the vehicles . A great example is Australia Armour & artillery museum , you can get up close

As many of these creations found their way into the savage yards of Europe after the war (rather than shipped home), the new state of Israel 'mined' these junk yards for any useable tanks or tank destroyers that could be refitted for use again (1967 Six Day War).

You skipped the 57mm anti tank gun.

'defeat' implies 'surrender'? Otherwise it's a 'rout' or a 'retreat' or something else?

Ok then... On too the next channel

My Thoughts: * I think you are needlessly dismissive of the 37mm. In 1940, it could absolutely penetrate anything the Germans had and was in line with things like the 2 Pounder and Pak 36. We just didn't use it until 1942 where it had then been outclassed. * My readings suggest the Tank Destroyer's speed was more for quickly seizing the key terrain and laying an Ambush, then disengaging. Maneuvering for a side should would have been very risky. The M10 especially has a notoriously slow, hand cranked, turret. I'd argue only the M18 would be capable in the flanking role thanks to its incredible acceleration. * M8 Greyhound probably deserved a mention. It began life intending to be a tank destroyer.

American manufacturing, R.I.P.

It's Bewegungskrieg, Hitler by basically his entire staff called it a idiots term. Bewegungskrieg: Manuever Warfare.

2:56 wtf is going on? Anyone wanna help my brain comprehend what I'm seeing??

1:30, this is true as a atomic bomb has a lot more energy

0:48 Confirmed. I assessed the towed 37mm as not very effective and I don't have an ounce of military expertise in my background. :D

From a plane it would penetrate

Not sure if its true but I've heard that while fighting in the Europe during the winters of WWII M10 tank crews ( i think it was )found out the turret traverse moved too slow for a single tank destroyer so Group's of 4 M10s would cover each other on the move via each side ( left right front and back...also regarding the hellcats speed does this mean it's the 2nd fastest Tank U.S. history??

You mean well, but in my opinion you focused too much on the machines and not enough on the doctrine of how they were used. Despite the name, they weren't just to destroy tanks, any more than naval destroyers were used solely to destroy torpedo boats despite their initial name of torpedo boats destroyers at the end of the 19th century. Machines alone don't fight or win wars. It's also the men and the methods men use the fighting machines entrusted to them that matter.

In what alternative reality did Germany defeat Great Britain? That is a serious misinformation. Germany never defeated Great Britain, just as it never defeated Russia.Referring to the retreat, it was not a defeat but merely a strategic withdrawal. A brief research would reveal that German generals strongly advised against an invasion of Great Britain, knowing well there was no prospect of a successful invasion.I would argue that the statement is as absurd as claiming Germany defeated America, with particular reference to the battles at Kasserine and Sbiba Passes.

M-18 was a paper thin crap Tanks are killed by firepower which M-18 was lacking not by fucking speed

That is incorrect. The United States might not have but European countries definitely had.

The propaganda just doesnt stop and its even getting dumber and dumber

Bullshit hindsight statements within first 1 minute were puke-worthy. Do better and don't replicated know-it-all bar flies next time tell the HISTORY as it was FFS!

A great video and some excellent vehicles. I always have a soft spot for anything armed with 17pdr. Arguably the best allied AT gun of the war. Respectively I don’t think you can make a general comment about allied tank doctrine between the wars or use of AT. The British experimented extensively in the 20s & early 30s. German doctrine used elements of British thinking. The British and French both clearly anticipated tank on tank encounters as evidenced in the Battle for France, not least the Arras counter attack. Both countries had tanks that mounted powerful ATs for the day and Matilda II saw service all the way to the end of the war in the Far East where along with other models no longer effective in the European theatre, was superior to all Japanese tanks. British and US doctrine continued to vary throughout the war but the biggest illustration is the British getting the 17th pounder onto towed and SP platforms as well as Cromwell and Sherman hulls as Challenger and Firefly.