T-62 armor beats anything we have, I know because I left the Rangers for armor

[Mr.Penguin]

That is interesting but not surprising.  The Shermans couldn't get better guns until someone dropped a bomb on Lesley McNair.  That guy was a disaster for the Army.  I never understood the TD doctrine.  I could for the Germans and Soviets, building a self-propelled gun without a turret was easier and cheaper. American ones did have a turret, so they couldn't be that much cheaper or easier to build.

Well, to be fair was the US Army TD doctrine base on a half assed French doctrine from 1940. where the French started to use truck mounted AT guns, TCC's (Tracteur Chasseur de Char). The doctrine had some success with shoot and scoot tactics, against German Tank units racing south along the main roads, after the fall of Paris. The US Army lagging an AT doctrine of their own adopted the french doctrine, first with truck or halftrack mounted AT gun, later with fully tracked vehicle like the M10 GMC TD. All open topped to insure maximum field of view, also not to restrict the rate of fire...

This doctrine however really never worked at the front line for at number of reasons. First the unit commander needed somehow to know in advance where the enemy armor breakthrough world come, so he could be at the right place and time to setup an ambush. Secondly these open topped TD's was to vulnerable to stay at the front line for to long, if the enemy was sneaky enough to use thing like artillery or close infantry support. Thirdly, the shoot and scoot tactic only really work as you are prepared to give ground. And last but not least, the TD units operated Independent of the infantry and armor unit they was suppose to support...   

[grumbler]

Well, to be fair was the US Army TD doctrine base on a half assed French doctrine from 1940. where the French started to use truck mounted AT guns, TCC's (Tracteur Chasseur de Char). The doctrine had some success with shoot and scoot tactics, against German Tank units racing south along the main roads, after the fall of Paris. The US Army lagging an AT doctrine of their own adopted the french doctrine, first with truck or halftrack mounted AT gun, later with fully tracked vehicle like the M10 GMC TD. All open topped to insure maximum field of view, also not to restrict the rate of fire...

This doctrine however really never worked at the front line for at number of reasons. First the unit commander needed somehow to know in advance where the enemy armor breakthrough world come, so he could be at the right place and time to setup an ambush. Secondly these open topped TD's was to vulnerable to stay at the front line for to long, if the enemy was sneaky enough to use thing like artillery or close infantry support. Thirdly, the shoot and scoot tactic only really work as you are prepared to give ground. And last but not least, the TD units operated Independent of the infantry and armor unit they was suppose to support...

McNair's TD doctrine rejected, by and large, self-propelled tank destroyers for as long as possible.  McNair believed that towed At guns (which he called "tank destroyers)" was the way to go, which is why the US still had towed AT units long after they could easily have mechanized them.   McNair only accepted the concept of SP AT when the towed units had suffered enormous losses and were employing field expedients to avoid dying. 

When McNair did accept the concept of SP tank destroyers, his concept was that they would be used offensively, not defensively.  They had light armor and traversing turrets because they were supposed to be always in motion ("speed is armor") looking for enemy tanks and destroying them with the first shot (thus the impetus for gyrostabilization).  Artillery wasn't a threat to moving TDs, so open tops were employed as the means to spot the enemy first and get in the first (and last) shot.

It didn't work, of course, but McNair had no way (barring employing even the slightest amount of common sense) of knowing that it wouldn't work.

[Mr.Penguin]

McNair's TD doctrine rejected, by and large, self-propelled tank destroyers for as long as possible.  McNair believed that towed At guns (which he called "tank destroyers)" was the way to go, which is why the US still had towed AT units long after they could easily have mechanized them.   McNair only accepted the concept of SP AT when the towed units had suffered enormous losses and were employing field expedients to avoid dying. 

When McNair did accept the concept of SP tank destroyers, his concept was that they would be used offensively, not defensively.  They had light armor and traversing turrets because they were supposed to be always in motion ("speed is armor") looking for enemy tanks and destroying them with the first shot (thus the impetus for gyrostabilization).  Artillery wasn't a threat to moving TDs, so open tops were employed as the means to spot the enemy first and get in the first (and last) shot.

It didn't work, of course, but McNair had no way (barring employing even the slightest amount of common sense) of knowing that it wouldn't work.

Can't say much about McNair's doctrine or if he had any influence on the on the TD doctrine I described above, but it was the doctrine they used for their GMC's (Gun Motor Carriage) by the time the US Army landed North Africa and they more or less spent the rest of the war trying to find a way to make it work...

[Razgovory]

The Germans had good success with towed anti-tank guns.  The PaKfronts proved quite useful against an armored attack.  Why didn't the US see the same success?

[frunk]

I think the big mistake with towed AT was trying to use them in an offensive role.  Defensively they could be quite effective.

[Mr.Penguin]

I think the big mistake with towed AT was trying to use them in an offensive role.  Defensively they could be quite effective.

Yeah, the aggressively moving towed guns around sounds more like something you would do with light horse artillery doing Napoleon's time...   

[grumbler]

The Germans used towed AT guns very aggressively and very effectively up until airpower became ubiquitous.  The US Army didn't understand for quite some time that such AT guns were very vulnerable to air and artillery and that their time had passed.  Once you had air and artillery all over the place, towed AT had to be entrenched to survive, which meant they couldn't be used aggressively.  The US had little use for defensive systems.

[Mr.Penguin]

The Germans used towed AT guns very aggressively and very effectively up until airpower became ubiquitous.  The US Army didn't understand for quite some time that such AT guns were very vulnerable to air and artillery and that their time had passed.  Once you had air and artillery all over the place, towed AT had to be entrenched to survive, which meant they couldn't be used aggressively.  The US had little use for defensive systems.

The German use of towed AT gun was always in close cooperation with other arms, not like the US counter who move around on the battlefield, only supported it's own recon team...

[grumbler]

The German use of towed AT gun was always in close cooperation with other arms, not like the US counter who move around on the battlefield, only supported it's own recon team...

Disagree about the Germans.  Earlier in the war, they often used large AT gun screens independent of the main battle line and the rest of the division, especially to ambush allied armored counter-attacks.   German heavy AT guns were assigned to battalions attached to the divisions expressly so that they could be used like this.  You are correct that, later in the war, they were almost never used independently, largely because airpower meant that they couldn't independently achieve the surprise they enjoyed early in the war, and they could be countered with smoke, airpower, and artillery.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Well, to be fair was the US Army TD doctrine base on a half assed French doctrine from 1940. where the French started to use truck mounted AT guns, TCC's (Tracteur Chasseur de Char). The doctrine had some success with shoot and scoot tactics, against German Tank units racing south along the main roads, after the fall of Paris. The US Army lagging an AT doctrine of their own adopted the french doctrine, first with truck or halftrack mounted AT gun, later with fully tracked vehicle like the M10 GMC TD. All open topped to insure maximum field of view, also not to restrict the rate of fire...

This doctrine however really never worked at the front line for at number of reasons. First the unit commander needed somehow to know in advance where the enemy armor breakthrough world come, so he could be at the right place and time to setup an ambush. Secondly these open topped TD's was to vulnerable to stay at the front line for to long, if the enemy was sneaky enough to use thing like artillery or close infantry support. Thirdly, the shoot and scoot tactic only really work as you are prepared to give ground. And last but not least, the TD units operated Independent of the infantry and armor unit they was suppose to support...

McNair's TD doctrine rejected, by and large, self-propelled tank destroyers for as long as possible.  McNair believed that towed At guns (which he called "tank destroyers)" was the way to go, which is why the US still had towed AT units long after they could easily have mechanized them.   McNair only accepted the concept of SP AT when the towed units had suffered enormous losses and were employing field expedients to avoid dying. 

When McNair did accept the concept of SP tank destroyers, his concept was that they would be used offensively, not defensively.  They had light armor and traversing turrets because they were supposed to be always in motion ("speed is armor") looking for enemy tanks and destroying them with the first shot (thus the impetus for gyrostabilization).  Artillery wasn't a threat to moving TDs, so open tops were employed as the means to spot the enemy first and get in the first (and last) shot.

It didn't work, of course, but McNair had no way (barring employing even the slightest amount of common sense) of knowing that it wouldn't work.

grumbler's numerous rants aside, historical trivia like this is why I patronize Languish.

[grumbler]

grumbler's numerous rants aside, historical trivia like this is why I patronize Languish.

  Well, the personal attack won't work; they never have.  I'll keep posting anyway. 

All you do with cracks like that is poison the atmosphere of Languish and drive off those who are sensitive to random unpleasantness.

[DGuller]

Man, you sure don't know how to take a compliment.

[Ed Anger]

Man, you sure don't know how to take a compliment.

Let me try.

Grumbler, you are a very sexy man.

[Slargos]

Grumbler knows on an intuitive level that he is a fucking cunt, and so expects even compliments to be veiled insults.

[HisMajestyBOB]

grumbler's numerous rants aside, historical trivia like this is why I patronize Languish.

  Well, the personal attack won't work; they never have.  I'll keep posting anyway. 

All you do with cracks like that is poison the atmosphere of Languish and drive off those who are sensitive to random unpleasantness.

But we still haven't driven off Martinus, despite all our best efforts.