Very nice, thanks for posting it.

clarythedrill said:

---

I believe I have read that WWII tankers wanted a 5 to 1 ratio against the germans if they were going against tigers. When we finally started to field the M26 we were able to go toe to toe, but those poor Sherman crewmen knew they were short for this world when dealing with german armor.

---

There were something like 30 M26 deployed before the end of the war. They were more than able to take care of Tigers with the Firefly and the Sherman with the 76mm gun which was in use in 1944. The 3 inch gun on the M10 were more than able to deal with the Tigers. The deal was that there were not that many tigers to deal with, mainly Panthers and Panzer IVs. Almost every tank that the Americans ran into was a "Tiger". In reality they were Panzer IVs.

If you've never seen this video, it's a good take on WWII armored warfare in urban terrain.

clarythedrill said:

---

I believe I have read that WWII tankers wanted a 5 to 1 ratio against the germans if they were going against tigers. When we finally started to field the M26 we were able to go toe to toe, but those poor Sherman crewmen knew they were short for this world when dealing with german armor.

---

The first M26 in combat was lost on its very first day in combat..... to three rounds from a Tiger at 100 meters.

The first M26 kill was the next day.. at 1,000 yards while on the move a Tiger I with four rounds.

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/m26-pershing-americas-heavy-tank/

Rabid Cougar said:

---

clarythedrill said:

---

I believe I have read that WWII tankers wanted a 5 to 1 ratio against the germans if they were going against tigers. When we finally started to field the M26 we were able to go toe to toe, but those poor Sherman crewmen knew they were short for this world when dealing with german armor.

---

There were something like 30 M26 deployed before the end of the war. They were more than able to take care of Tigers with the Firefly and the Sherman with the 76mm gun which was in use in 1944. The 3 inch gun on the M10 were more than able to deal with the Tigers. The deal was that there were not that many tigers to deal with, mainly Panthers and Panzer IVs. Almost every tank that the Americans ran into was a "Tiger". In reality they were Panzer IVs.

---

Yes I am tracking the firepower of the M10s in the TD battalions, I was talking about our armor protection of the M4 series, as it did not take much to penetrate that platform.

Why the Army grouped most TDs into general support battalions instead of spreading them out is beyond me. I get that we wanted to surge large numbers where necessary, but were then unwilling to deploy them where they could have made a difference against small numbers across the battlefield.

Some really good info on the realities of the M4 in WW2 and debunking a lot of the myths surrounding how bad a tank it way. We just didn't run into a lot of German armor on the western fronts and when we did we pulled back and killed it with something else.

That dude's accent was killing me. At first I thought maybe he was a South African but as he went on it sounded more Irish. I had to cyberstalk him turns out his alma matter is - University of Dublin

Now, how he got to be a Major in the Nevada National Guard would be an interesting story.

I've met a few South Africans in the U.S. military, plus Brits and Irish in the Australian military. Australia will take Americans too, but you've got to give up your citizenship. They do pay better than our armed forces.

HollywoodBQ said:

---

That dude's accent was killing me. At first I thought maybe he was a South African but as he went on it sounded more Irish. I had to cyberstalk him turns out his alma matter is - University of Dublin

Now, how he got to be a Major in the Nevada National Guard would be an interesting story.

---

Nicholas Moran AKA the "Chieftain" from World of Tanks online wargame. Has numerous videos on YouTube called "Inside the Chieftain's Hatch". The dude knows his tanks. He was a tank commander in the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment and proudly wears his Cav hat in some of his videos. They are easy to binge watch.

clarythedrill said:

---

Rabid Cougar said:

---

clarythedrill said:

---

I believe I have read that WWII tankers wanted a 5 to 1 ratio against the germans if they were going against tigers. When we finally started to field the M26 we were able to go toe to toe, but those poor Sherman crewmen knew they were short for this world when dealing with german armor.

---

There were something like 30 M26 deployed before the end of the war. They were more than able to take care of Tigers with the Firefly and the Sherman with the 76mm gun which was in use in 1944. The 3 inch gun on the M10 were more than able to deal with the Tigers. The deal was that there were not that many tigers to deal with, mainly Panthers and Panzer IVs. Almost every tank that the Americans ran into was a "Tiger". In reality they were Panzer IVs.

---

Yes I am tracking the firepower of the M10s in the TD battalions, I was talking about our armor protection of the M4 series, as it did not take much to penetrate that platform.

Why the Army grouped most TDs into general support battalions instead of spreading them out is beyond me. I get that we wanted to surge large numbers where necessary, but were then unwilling to deploy them where they could have made a difference against small numbers across the battlefield.

---

There is a very good book about TD doctrine and performance by Harry Yeide. Called "the tank killers"

Turns out one of our own AD Bruce was the key driver behind TD doctrine which was concentration of TD battalions in the event of a German breakthrough. Successful when practiced in North Africa but Patton hated the concept and dispersed the assetts as much as possible along with other commanders.

Fascinating read

I'm sorry to say that I had no knowledge of General Bruce. Appears to have been a great man.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Davis_Bruce

Anytime Tank Destroyers are mentioned, I always think of Aggie MoH recipient Turney W. Leonard '42.