Hi, Paul Woodadge, WW2TV host here. You can find The Chieftain's Hatch channel here ru-vid.com. If you have enjoyed this show, please don't forget to click like, leave a comment for other viewers and if you have not done so already please SUSBSCRIBE so you don't miss our next streams. You can also become a member of this channel and support me financially here ru-vid.com/show-UCUC1nmJGHmiKtlkpA6SJMeA. Links to any books discussed, WW2TV merchandise, our social media pages and other WW2TV shows to watch can all be found in the full RU-vid description. Lastly, my own book Angels of Mercy is always available online - more info here www.ddayhistorian.com/angels-of-mercy.html
I'm a simple man: I see an interview with Chieftain, I click. And in this case it looks like I've discovered a rather nice channel that I'm going to enjoy following. Thanks!
It was the 705th TD Battalion under a Col. Templeton that reinforced the 101st at Bastogne. They arrived on Dec 19th and a platoon was immediately sent north to Team Desobry at Noville. I understand they performed very well there and again on Christmas morning when the Germans attacked the western side of the perimeter.
Bravo Paul and Nicholas! Fascinating chat about the Tank Destroyers. Interestingly, I was just speaking with my dear friend Jack Myers today. The 98-year-old Mr. Myers served with my late-grandfather, Captain William McQuade, in the 692nd Tank Destroyer Battalion in Europe during WWII. Mr. Myers told me that firing a 3'' towed gun at a German tank was like a "firing a pea shooter." The 692nd switched from a towed outfit to self-propelled in February of 1945 just before the Battle for Cologne. Mr. Myers was a decorated gunner in an M-36. He recalls with clarity destroying many observation posts and bunkers with the 90mm gun. Jack says the M-36 gave the soldiers of the 692nd TD Bn confidence they could finally go toe to toe with German armor. But with the open turret of the M-36 the crew was exposed to the elements, shrapnel and grenades. Really enjoyed the breakdown, gentlemen. Keep up the great work Paul. Cheers!
Curious that the Americans never seemed to use the mobile Pakfront concept that the Germans used, such as the Afrika Corp, and later the British 8th Army did, whereby one used his armor to lure the opponents armor unto a reserve line of antitank guns. They did do something similar on a Divisional level in several battles in 1944 in France, but this was with the mobile M10 and M18 equipped units. Great lecture by The Chieftain Paul. He has changed many of my assumptions about the Sherman and U.S. Army doctrine in previous lectures he has given.
Remember that during the North Africa campaigns, neither the Allies nor the Axis had yet conducted tank warfare against a similarly-equipped enemy. They were making it up as they went along, and had plenty of lessons under both their belts by the time of their 1944 reunion in western France. What US and British forces generally aspired to in Europe post-D-Day was to be envelopment armies, seen as a low casualty approach based on flank attacks to encircle large enemy units and kill or capture them. That basic operational maneuver was repeatedly successful, although when it failed at Falaise a lot of Christmas-In-Berlin dreams had to go live with the Tooth Fairy.
The American army did not have a lot of towed heavy AT guns. Most of towed guns, especially early, were 57mm. If your heavy AT is mobile you can fix the enemy armor then hit the flanks with your tank destroyers. In truth it didn't happen a lot. US artillery usually turned the Panzertruppen into tiny, smoky bits before anyone could put together a fancy TD flanking attack. There were a few instances. Anzio, Arracourt, and one of the fights around Bastogne come to mind.
An excellent presentation from the Chieftan! His knowledge of armored warfare is outstanding and all base on research into original documents and first hand experience. I hope he comes back on WW2TV soon.
Howdy folks. The Chieftain is the true pro from Dover. His knowledge is extensive and wider than the Texas sky. Woody has the best guests and the best history channel on RU-vid. Nick’s is a close second
Two of my favourite historians having a really great and erudite discussion. Great Stuff Woody, but again no 'Rabbit Hole'? I was planning on a "wee dramm" of an excellent triple distilled Irish Wiskey, the Chieftain will understand my disappointment.
Australians found the 25PDR was a good anti tank Weapon in Tobruk against Pz3 and Italian Tanks. Maybe that experience was shared with the US . The Desert war did have long wide field of view to hold certain landscapes and goat tracks and Hills with dug in Anti Tanks. The British Command never picked up combined arms going forward as a tactic until late 42/early43 creating other chances of sited A/T favour . Not that they knew it
Just watching on catch up due to a lovely homemade curry with friend’s yesterday. Yet again Paul you have surpassed yourself, an excellent knowledgeable guest with Nicolas ( the Chieftan ). Thanks for a number one show and channel, your excellent topics and guests are outstanding, your surpass your self as the weeks go on.👍. Cheers from Wales, a rugby 🏴fan whose team lost yesterday, but never mind bring on the Six Nations !
Again, another excellent presentation. Enjoyed that a lot. Always happy to get new insights and knowledge. Only thing I'll pick up on is the Tiger talk at 35:45. The well known Life Magazine colour pictures of the destroyed Tigers are actually of the Tigers of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 501, lost while engaging British forces near Beja at the end of February 1943. The spot is known as Hunts Gap. Life Magazine mistakingly captioned them as being lost to US forces at El Guettar. In fact there were never any Tigers involved in the El Guettar fighting. The only Tiger battalion still active at that time in Tunisia was Schwere Panzer Abteilung 504 and this unit was engaging at Maknassy the last week of March. It only lost 1 Tiger from mid March to mid April, around Medjes El Bab at the end of March. The road through Hunts Gap where the 7 Tigers were lost at the end of February was an American transportation route, hence when those pictures that appeared in Life Magazine were taken. The pictures have definitely been confirmed to be the Tigers lost in February at Hunts Gap. Sources. Tigers in Combat Volume 1 by Wolfgang Schneider, Sledgehammers, Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War Two by Christopher Wilbeck and the excellent website Tiger Im Focus. Cheers.
The problem is the very obvious M3 GMC halftrack in the same picture series, and there were no M3s used by the British at the time and no American M3s were anywhere near Hunt's Gap. However, at Faid Pass, M3s and Tigers did directly engage each other. Whilst I am well aware that the German records do not indicate any losses that date whilst the Americans claimed one Tiger killed I have seen no other reasonable explanation for the two vehicles to be in the same place, be it at Faid Pass or some other US/Tiger encounter (there were a couple), but Faid is the only one I can find a kill claim for.
I think I have an explanation of the presence of a destroyed M3 GMC in the picture - it was German! 7th tank regiment of 10th tank division employed captured M3 GMC’s in its second battalion and that is the battalion which ended up staying under Von Arim’s 5th Tank Army and participated in the events of Hunts Gap instead of attacking at Sidi Bou Zid out of Faid pass. I can provide a link to the original German documents. And I have to give props to tiger1info page that reminded me of this (their caption lists destroyed M3 GMC as German, which in turned prompted me to recall that I saw it in German docs).
So that would mean, no Panzer VI kills by tank destroyers in Tunisia :) But they were still effective. Did they operate according to the doctrine at El Guettar? Somewhat… 601TD battalion didn’t necessarily “rush” to intercept- they were positioned close to some of the Div Arty/infantry locations, but they were given the explicit mission of protecting against armor thrust. 899TD battalion was already under the division control, so it didn’t have to drive too far to get to the battle - according to the reports, 899TD Bn didn’t beat 2/16IR by much (both were in division reserves next to Gafsa). But of course, without tank destroyers battalions attached, the division would be much less capable of withstanding the attack, so that in itself is a validation of doctrine.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Here is a set of photos showing the 501 Tiger battalion crossing a stream in January 1943. The photos are associated because they're all from the same negative strips, kept in the Bundesarchiv, and you can see that a whole block of them were taken at a place where the Germans paused to build a ramp. Among the Tigers and Panzer III you will see one photo of an M3 halftrack. On the full sized photo, available from the BA, you can see that it's full of Germans. These captured vehicles were picked up in earlier encounters with the Americans, the first of which was 1 December. LInk : tiger1.info/event-page/Eilbote-Oued-Maarouf
Great show as usual, Paul and Nick! I am coming to think that the story of the British anti-tank artillery (1938 to... 1951?) is seldom told, and their presence is sometimes just plain left out of the record.
PS I'm just a guy - no academic credentials - but I'm writing a book on the Archer. There are lots of times I've had a record of an action in a war diary and gone to another account like a history book or even say an infantry war diary and there will be a mention of the actual tanks supporting the infantry but not the A/t gunners
What a great talk! Thank you. I share the misgivings expressed in the side bar that the Aliies overlooked the opportunities presented by use of the Blackburn Blackburn in the air reconnaissance role A significantly under used and overlooked potential aerial component of the Allies Combined Arms Units.😉 @DERP Squad I might have known you couldn't resist the temptation to Praise the Blessed Biplane🤣
I know the Jagdpanther had it’s faults by , by God! What a cool looking beast! Had the privilege of look of the Wealden Trust one at TankFest in 2019. I don’t know what effect it had on allied morale during the war but would’ve scared me sh**less…
Sorry to have missed this first time around. The British produced excellent artillery in WW2 including anti-tank guns. The problem was finding suitable vehicles to mount them in. The 17 Pounder luckily could be mounted in the US M-10 to produce the fine Achilles 17Pdr SP. This was ready for action in 1944 and took part in the battle of Normandy. British industry struggled to produced the A30 Avenger 17Pdr SP, but it was so delayed the war had ended by the time it entered service.
As a kid I did a wwekend with an L118 with the TA on a live fire exercise. We were supposed to be there just as observers, but they were short of bodies. I remember the tiredness!
What a wealth of knowledge from the Chieftain. I came away with a much better understanding of TDs, but find that this program did what I think they are supposed--the interest in finding out more. I am a bit puzzled by grouping anti-tank and anti-aircraft assets together, so that will require some investigation. I think the other item I came away with is what type(s) of ammo did the TDs carry? Did they have to carry both armor piercing as well as HE for their indirect fire support missions? Great program today--thanks to you both!
And yes, HE was carried as well. I don't know if he gives the example of the M10 with the 3" gun - caught just the end of the live stream. They were used to punch bunkers or pillboxes: send an AP round at a view port or slot to crack it and follow up with HE or if flamers were available those would poor in the fire through the newly enlarged opening. It was also found that if they used the 3" HE to attack trucks or other "soft skins" on roads the HE wouldn't create a giant crater in the middle of the road like a typical 105 HE round would (they were used like that in Italy if i remember correctly). Besides at the end of the day they were used in support of infantry since they were "a big gun on wheels/tracks" :)) and like it or not when supporting infantry (either in defense or attack) you gonna encounter all sorts of targets that are not tanks, so an HE round would be effective while an AP round would just stir some dirt.
Yes. I had an uncle who was a gunner in an M10 (601st TD battalion), who told me how they would put a couple of rounds of HE into a building to clear out German snipers.
Both. In one of the speaker's earlier series of talk on TDs, the ratio of HE to AP used, for American M10 units towards 1944 and onwards was about 10:1. You are way more likely to encounter infantry units that can be optimally dealt with by HEs than tanks and armoured vehicles that require AP.
Another great pod Paul ,some of the first US anti tank concepts were initially at first … the use of a mounted 75 mm howitzer which was the M116 onto the M3 half tracks ,and a 37mm in the back of a Dodge weapons carrier . However things were steadily improved with the intro of the M10 and the M18 a bit later ,furthermore as Nick suggests yes the M18 was light and was a fast vehicle ,but when talking to a chap who owned one at a Bovi tank fest showed us the thin armour it had ,and the US TD motto was ,without sounding disrespectful " Hide and Hope " because of how good the German Stugs were ,plus there is an account of how 3 Jagdpanthers who halted a number of Churchill tanks ,because the Germans soon realised it was more cheaper to build Stugs etc etc as they could also allow for bigger more powerful guns ,the Nashorn and the Hummel could also prove nasty in the hands of a skilled crew.
About the "Life" photographs referenced at 35:00. There is absolutely no doubt that they show the battle of Hunt's Gap, near to Kzar Mezouar, which took place from 27 February 1943 and involved British forces only. The M3 halftrack in the wreckage, at "ramming distance", was in fact captured booty used by the Germans. There are photos of M3s alongside these same Tigers in an earlier operation. There are even two photos of an M3 in the same German battle group that was halted at this battle. The locaton of the photos was determined by combining them to make a panorama - there are over one hundred photos of the site. That panorama was certified as Kzar Mezouar by sending a tourist to the spot who took his own photos. But we knew where to send him because we had already matched the photos to the terrain in Google Earth, thanks to the numerous hills in the view. For example, the famous landmark "Djebel Munchar" can be seen in the photos. But it was the journal of the 501 Tiger battalion that led us there in the first instance. There are seven destroyed Tigers in the photographs, and only one battle incurred such losses of Tunisian Tigers. And, by the way, no Tigers took part in the Kasserine Pass battle. There were a handful at Sidi bou Zid the previous week, but they had all left the area when Rommel struck through the pass. You say that an American M3 made a confirmed kill of a Tiger in Tunisia? Could you tell us the details please.
See "The Tank Killers" by Yeide, p 50, A/801 TDB knocked out a single Tiger at Faid Pass. Citing Lonnie Gill, "Tank Destroyer Forces WWII".. I'm quite aware there were no Tigers at the Kasserine battle, I say as much in the video at 35:08!
@@TheChieftainsHatch Thank you for the reference. That's an interesting book. But - I don't think they actually knocked out a Tiger. Perhaps they damaged one, or perhaps they knocked out something else. My reasoning is twofold. 1. The journal of the 501, as printed in "Tigers in Combat", is pretty detailed, seems comprehensive, and keeps a running total of Tigers. It reports no lost Tigers on or about this day. 2. The Tigers at Faid Pass were supposedly from 1.company - the 2.company was sent elsewhere. We now have accumulated photographic evidence of events in the history of all nine Tigers of the 1.company. Every single one of them can be seen at battles and events that happened AFTER the 14 of February. I might also ask, where are the photographs of a dead Tiger at Faid Pass? It seems like the kind of thing that would attract attention.
These M3’s (at Hunt’s Gap) are even listed the OOB of the 10th Panzer Division in NARA archives. So the guys from A/701TD _believed_ they knocked out a Mk 6, but what happened in actuality is a different story. We all unconditionally appreciate the heroisms of soldiers who fought against axis forces, but as a rule of thumb, the losses should be counted using the documents from the side who suffered said losses. Otherwise, according to the numbers reported by the RKKA units, the entire operation Fall Blau would have ended in its first three days as German would have run out of tanks couple times over :)
Shreveport was the headquarters for Army A so Army B was given orders to attack it from the south. They did just that while Patton snuck his tankers into Neutral East Texas to race north on the roads to attack Shreveport from the north. George handed out his own cash to the tank commanders so they could fill up at the roadside gas stations along the way. They took Shreveport by surprise which won Patton a medal that was taken away later after the losers complained the he cheated.
Rommel only wrote "Infantry Attacks" pre war. No literatures on tank doctrine by him given his conversion to Panzer was very much late in the game (as in Spring 1940 with command of 7th Panzer Div)
Moran mentioned that tactics have a general principal. I have had the book for decades but been saving it for a rainy day since I can't put a good book down. I guess the idea is to exploit the enemy's MO. Actually it doesn't take a Rommel to see that all you have to do is chuck a grenade into an open turrent and the Germans specifically aimed for high casualties for the rookie US troops another general principal idea.
You mean Montgomery. Patton never faced Rommel. Rommel had already left North Africa by the time Patton faced the Germans at the end of the campaign there, while in Normandy Rommel was invalided out in July. Patton's 3rd Army did not become activated in combat until August. Montgomery was Rommels nemesis, not Patton.
As an anti tank guy the Tiger seems an awesome anti tank weapon but some types want to use the Tiger to break thru and win the war. Soon infantry had anti tank bazookas.
The Tiger 1 and 2 were heavy tanks, their role _was_ making the breakthrough on the attack. The JagdTiger was supposed to stop opposing tank breakthroughs.
Was there any reason for not including power traverse in the M10? It wouldn't seem to have been all that expensive or complicated to do, and would have helped with the problem of the unbalanced turret.
Particularly given that the M10 and M4 Sherman used exactly the same turret ring… (I suspect that some M4 turret drives were “borrowed” when the opportunity arose by M10 crews).
@@jamescameron2490 They used the same gear drives. The M10 would have required significant rewiring to get power to it however. Not hard for the average electrical mechanic but the average electrical mechanic is a rare beast in WW2.
I think the idea was that the M10 was intended to be set up in ambush positions rather than firing from the halt as tanks would so all that would be needed was small corrections which were often done with manual controls on a lot of tanks with powered traverses Also, it is one less thing to go wrong in the TD so why include it? It also allows power traverse units to be used for things like ship AA guns, tanks etc - these things do not just "lie around"!
Answering my own question, or at least, trying to, the designation "gun motor carriage" may provide a hint. The M10 was basically a self-propelled gun, and a gun carriage didn't have, or need, power traverse.
Did the British have a developed Tank Destroyer Doctrine or was it entirely ad hoc, AT gun based? We certainly developed and used TDs - portees, M10, Archery, Achiles etc. Had a look but couldn't find anything.
@@WW2TV Thank you. I've heard and read about US and German TD and panzerjaeger ideas but never anything from the British perspective. Is there anywhere you might recommend as a place to start reading?
Sextons are tall vehicles and make large targets or poor ambushers. Valentine is slower (though it's lost the weight of the turret armour) but lower and better suited for lurking in hedgerows.
Half and half go for it is the basis of layered defense. You don’t put all in front or all in back. A mixture layered defense. A system the Germans used very effectively on every front. The use of German armored reserves in Normandy was doomed to failure regardless bexause of Allied superiority.
@@WW2TV Unity of effort was not a good thing for the German regime though, it was much better for them to have the military at least somewhat at war with each other as if they collaborated and worked together they might realise that they could/would do a much better job of running the war/country than a bunch of drug addled political extremists... who would have thought?
@@TheDoctorMonkey totally agree: the modus operandi of the German regime seems to have been "Divide & Rule". It would have been a very different ETO if the they had adopted a "Unite & Conquer" strategy to both Arms and Doctrinal development and employment
In Tunisia the only Italian tanks that could threaten Sherman and Lee/Grant tanks, the M14 75 mm self-propelled guns, were deployed against the British. The Americans were only faced with some obsolete light M14s and even punier, teeny tiny L6/40 47 mm SP guns. All US sources are very dismissive of that armour & guns and play them down as a minor nuisance on the battlefield. Robinett thought nothing of them and wrote they were totally ineffective against any US vehicles, which is not true as 47 mm guns could knock out M3 Stuart light tanks and all the more reason, halftracks. The problem is that we don't have much in the way of Italian sources on actions involving the Americans. In his official report the commander of the Italian 30th Army Corps wrote that his 75/46 AA guns - a modern, effective weapon with a still decent armour piercing power by 1943 standards - destroyed 27 American "tanks" (with "tanks" often the Italian meant all sorts of tracked vehicles and sometimes even armoured cars), which is entirely plausible.
The German army in was still using Horse, Donkey, Mule and feet wasn't fully mechanized the army just was under 5%, compared American, Canadian and British commonwealth armies which was fully mechanized the Detroit arsenal was the main armourer of the Allies nations.
All the Commonwealth Armies were fully mechanised before 1940. The trucks weren’t supplied from Detroit - they came from Canada and Australia (built to a British specification) because of severe export restrictions from the United States. The RUSSIANS ran on Detroit trucks. The Germans were progressively DE-mechanised due to lack of fuel from mid-1941 onwards.
Germany never would have had the fuel capacity if their army was fully mechanized. They simply would not been able to run it later on in the war. Horse drawn transportation was actually somewhat of a blessing for them, considering their lack of fuel. They did not run out of grass/hay And of course, horse transport never stopped the German Army from carrying out the fastest and longest advances in WW2. For all the allied advantages in mechanisation, they went hardly anywhere from September 1944 to March 1945 in NW Europe. And how long did it take to move up Italy? Two years?
@@allangibson2408 the British Commonwealth relayed on American produce M3 Stuart light tank, M3 Lee tank, M4 Sherman meduim tank, M10 tank destroyer, Priest M7 S.P artillery, M3/ M5 half track, Chevrolet, Ford truck and Jeep.
@@bjornsmith9431 The Ford and Chevrolet trucks were not built in the United States any more than the Fords and GM trucks that moved the Wehrmacht and Japanese Army were built in the United States. (The Ford and GM plants in Canada, Australia and Britain built Canadian Military Pattern (CMP) vehicles that were quite different from the US Military specification). Both Australia and Britain built their own tanks until the flood of M3’s arrived in 1941 (about six months too late for France). Britain continued construction of their own armor designs throughout WW2. The Churchill could kill any German tank it could catch - the problem was that they were so slow that they had trouble catching them when they ran… (Churchill’s were VERY low geared (but could climb slopes the Germans couldn’t)). Japanese armor was somewhat easier to kill, with the much maligned NZ Bob Semple tank having superior armor to the Japanese front line tanks. (The Australians used Matilda II’s against the Japanese in 1944 & 45 while the 1500 M3 Mediums they were supplied got used for training. The M3 Light Tanks were too lightly armored to survive.)
Can anyone make out the name of the German tank destroyer Chieftain is mentioning at ( 8:32 )? He says it so fast; I’ve listened to it a half a dozen times and can’t make it out.
having nearly been "snowed in" back in about this time 2004 when in Shreveport (Louisiana - target of Patton's attack!) and needing to fly home from Dallas TX with the weather threatening to close the highway, I know of the problems of "continental weather" As a Brit, I am grateful for the gulf stream and our geographic anomaly that keeps us warmer than we should be :-)
Dan Freedman Im the opposite hehe. Britain is too mild for me. Id glad swap what we are having now for some lovely snow. I don't see enough snow here in Surrey. Our weather is one long autumn from November to March. Winters hardly exist. As an avid hiker, I get tired of slogging through mud for five months of the year. Id dearly love at least a few weeks per year of frost and snow. It would break the monotony up wonderfully. Cheers.
@@lyndoncmp5751 another surrey-ite?! you, me, Drachinifel, Alex Clarke... the suburbs will rule the world! I don't disagree about the weather - the mildness means we get the problems of ice / slush / slip but not the firming up and steady state that would let you get on; this is what leads to the chaos whenever we get any snow I do remember a friend from North Carolina reassuring me that they have similar problems there with snow shutting everything down
Ha, Surrey rules. Im in very north Surrey, just this side of the London border. Another mile or two up the road and Id cross the border into London. I have some lovely rural fields and woods near me though. Hence why I like the hiking. But its all bloody mud this time of year, although the lack of rain has eased it up somewhat. Cheers.
The Blackburn Blackburn - you have been visited by fans from Alex Clarke's cult As the High Priest of the Cult of the Blackburn Blackburn (I have the t-shirt to prove it), it is a candidate for the fugliest aircraft ever to see service and as such is notorious for needing to have mentioned "don't Google it!" whenever raised It was an early 1920s fleet observation aircraft designed as a variant of the Blackburn Dart (same engine, same wings) with a cabin large enough to fit an observer with full size Admiralty Chart inside for navigation over open ocean! Suddenly the Fairey Fulmar and Fairey Firefly seem less bad than they might have been in terms of compromises made to fit a second man in!
@Dan Freedman didn't see your comment at first, was reading through the live side bar replay so I found @DERP Squad comment and reacted!😇 All High the Blessed Biplane and all glory unto his High Priest The Blessed Crew Chief 🤣🤣🤣🤣 I stay off the live chat: I don't think Paul is as tolerant of our mutual "Goon Show" humour as is the long suffering Dr Alex😎 and as I really enjoy Pauls channel I don't want to be disruptive to his live presentation😇
The US Army never bothered to design and produce their own tanks between the wars. They made a few prototypes for testing and checked out what others had made.
I'm kinda a cubist, Pablo not Fidel, the Sherman just has too many curves. Don't get me wrong I really like the curves but just not on my tanks thanks.
