Why didn't the Americans put antitank guns on their Shermans during WW2 to combat Panthers and King Tigers?
Why didn't the Americans put antitank guns on their Shermans during WW2 to combat Panthers and King Tigers?
Leo Wilson
Nathaniel Cruz
What do you think the 76 mm M1 was?
Tyler Lee
couldnt kill ki g tinger
Colton Ramirez
>implying tigers have armor in excess of 200mm on all sides
Jace Martinez
Because the front is the only place a tank can be hit from?
Kevin Hall
because all they had to do was shoot HE at the tiger and destroy their optics. The enemy crew would then bail out.
I'm not joking or memeing
Gabriel Rivera
There was the M36B1
Hunter Murphy
They did, the 76mm Sherman medium tank and 90mm M36 Jackson tank destroyer were both armed with variants of towed anti-tank guns.
The 90mm gun on the M36 might have been a variant of the 90mm AA gun in US service but I’m not sure
Camden Gomez
90mm M3 was the tank version of the M1 AA gun
Parker Ramirez
17 pounder was denied service after testing in the us at least for tanks turrets where too small
Liam Davis
Looks like a Panther
Brandon Stewart
steel quality was so bad in the end the effective armor was closer to the tiger 1 level
Christopher Gonzalez
It is a panther
GRIEFFED
William Ramirez
Nice try, Skorzeny
Gabriel Hernandez
>What do you think the 76 mm M1 was?
Absolutely inadequate by 1943..
Nicholas Sanchez
Because it can't kill a King Tiger from the front?
Jordan Powell
It couldn't deal with a Panther or Tiger at normal combat ranges.
Remember, this is an even wimpier variant of the 3" gun on the Wolverine, which sucked.
Ayden Thomas
>It couldn't deal with a Panther or Tiger at normal combat ranges.
It was perfectly fine in dealing with the overwhelming majority of German armor (from the front), which considering its a medium tank is fine.
>3" sucked
It actually could punch through the Panther from the front at 1km.
Bentley Williams
>panther turret has 100 mm armor
>M93 HVAP has over 100 mm pen to over 2.5 km
Why do you keep posting, user?
Dominic Harris
So if all this mumbo jumbo about the US couldn't kill panthers or king tigers then why didn't the panthers and king tigers steam roll every time they met Americans?
Aaron Ortiz
Kys
Grayson Green
>>transmissions
Austin Martinez
Dogshit tank destroyer doctrine.
Anti-tank weapon go on lightweight tanks (TD's)
Matthew Myers
I'm pretty sure the Germans attack with running tanks, not the tanks they abandoned due to breakages.
Matthew Wilson
They didn't. It's all field misidentification and Hollywood.
Samuel Diaz
>hy didn't the panthers and king tigers steam roll every time they met Americans
Defencive strategy, lack of fuel, unreliable parts, pophistory exaggeration.
Sebastian Ramirez
if the started on a steep enough hill.
(off the record dont forget about their oil reserves after the great Italian army's best defense ever"
James Russell
Nathaniel Gray
>It's all field misidentification
But its proven that Panthers and King Tigers faced off against Americans. Why didn't the Panthers and King Tigers completely steam roll the Americans if they were so unkillable.
Logan Jenkins
Germans thought that too.
tanks-encyclopedia.com
Logan Barnes
>Why didn't the Panthers and King Tigers completely steam roll the Americans if they were so unkillable.
The answer is in your question.
Levi Hughes
A M8 Greyhound with it's 37mm peashooter could kill a Tiger II, what makes you think that a 76mm Sherman could not
The US had actual Tank Destroyers for the job like the M10, M18 and M36, they did not need to nigger rig a TD like the Brits
Brody Rodriguez
>faced off against Americans
7 times. Total. In the whole war.
James Thompson
Are you retarded? Seriously answer the question.
Christian Mitchell
Nobody used that though.
Brody Taylor
>It actually could punch through the Panther from the front at 1km.
lolno.
Where do you morons even come up with this?
Luis Diaz
Are you retarded? 75mm gun hitting Panther side armor in Normandy mostly did that work. A Panther can still be penetrated frontally by a 76mm.
Andrew Gray
Look at retard.
Brayden Ward
3" M7 w/ HVAP M93: 135mm @ 1km.
Jonathan Perez
Nigger what? I guess these photos from the ETO don't exist?
Joshua Jackson
Julian Gray
>Results not based on live fire trials
Ayyy
Jaxon Morris
Arracourt
Jeremiah Cooper
Well regarding tigers in Europe. the first time the Sherman’s won, the second time the Pershing lost, and the other time doesn’t really count since they were being loaded onto trains.
Hunter Hernandez
The values from Hunnicut's Sherman a History of the American Medium tank are correct.
Brayden Collins
187 M36B1 vehicles were accepted between October of 44 to December. There were some.
Nolan Hughes
Isaiah Kelly
Mostly due to doctrine. They said the tank shouldn't be used to kill tanks, only towed AT guns and TDs. Then they went to Italy with towed AT guns and got memed on. When TDs came along, first the M3 half track and then M10, M18, and M36, they were pretty good at killing armor but where never used how they were supposed to doctrinally. (defensively.) Meanwhile 75 and 76mm shermans were killing everything just fine.
youtube.com
Jaxson Evans
What about it?
Brandon Mitchell
That was a regular Tiger, not a King Tiger, and basically point-blank troll shots.
>During the Battle of St. Vith in the Battle of the Bulge, an M8 of Troop B, 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron was able to destroy a German Tiger heavy tank after getting in behind one on the Schonberg Road, though the commander tried to traverse his turret to engage the M8. The M8 fired three 37 mm rounds through the relatively thin rear armor of the Tiger from only 25 yd (23 m), setting it on fire. There was a muffled explosion, followed by flames which billowed out of the turret and engine port.
Nolan Rodriguez
>They said the tank shouldn't be used to kill tanks
Literally wrong.
youtu.be
Matthew Ortiz
>unreliable german "engineering"
>allied air superiority
>not understanding that a tank has a specific role in combined arms warfare
Medium tank does everything heavy tank does faster and cheaper, with the exception of mitigating losses when engaging with enemy armor. If enemy heavy tanks are unreliable, are easily disabled, can be taken out by other arms, or you can simply outproduce your enemy to the point where your losses are acceptable, you don't need a heavy tank. Allies had ALL of these going for them
Carter Martin
Tyler Flores
...okay? I don't see any reference to an M8 killing a King Tiger there.
Jayden Edwards
Hey guys sorry I'm late
Jaxon Miller
That's from the casualties page of that after action report.
Eli Perez
I mean to say they wanted Tank Destroyers to do this. They meant for them to do this when german tanks broke through a line, and not the shermans but that never happened.
Asher Hill
How many big cats do you think were even on the western front?
Hunter Hernandez
You have completely misunderstood the tank destroyer doctrine. It does not say that tanks shouldn't fight tanks. Tank destroyers were intended to be part of an elastic defense, where they would be the quick reaction force that encircled and destroyed the German armored breakthrough. That's literally it. There was no dumb idea that if a Sherman ran into a German tank, it had to call up a tank destroyer to deal with it. The M3 and M4 were designed to destroy enemy armor and their crews were trained to destroy enemy armor, which they did with without issue in North Africa, Italy, and western Europe.
Justin Lewis
Air Power; Towed AT guns, Mines
Robert Cook
>youtube.com
Watch the whole fucking video, educate yourself, and never fucking post on this fucking board again you stupid motherfucker.
Jace Allen
Because there weren't enough Panthers and KTs around for it to really matter much.
Jack Collins
Nathaniel Ross
The Americans didnt encounter them enough to bother developing a long term anti-that solution
Luis Parker
Americans didn't engage Tigers, people with other flags had that covered.