Forum > The Second World War

M10 vs. M4 - why have both a TD and a tank?

(1/5) > >>

JamesValentine:
MOD EDIT:

I've split this topic to clear up the more practical posts from the sillyness (which is still okay, mind, just in a different thread now).

The OP asked about the purpose and rationale behind having both the M4 Sherman tank and M10 tank destroyer when they were broadly similar in armament and resource requirements.

Abbner Home:
More knowledgeable people will surely pipe up, but...

The US Army at the time had a specific doctrine for what they called Tank Destroyers and those units were not intended to be tanks with a hot AT gun. They were intended to be dedicated anti-tank and thus would not need such frippery as "adequate front armor" or a "closed turret". They were meant for shoot and scoot at medium - long range and were teamed with recon jeeps and armored cars to help located enemy tanks to then destroy.  So the M-10 was the first TD designed to meet that doctrine and thus its existence.

jamesmanto:
The open turret would make spotting and target acquisition easier.

Ultravanillasmurf:
I suspect that the key is the difference in weight between the M2/3/6 75mm gun and the 3 inch M7 gun (plus the weight of the ammunition).

Does the quoted weights include the  M10's counterweight? Field expedients weighed up to three tonnes.

Abbner Home:
I don't think any one is saying that what the Army did was brilliant or wise. Just what their reason was at the time for good or ill.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page