The M10 and its Variants, Achilles and Slugger. How good were they...

All I know is that they got utterly BTFO in Argonne forest when tree splinters would impale the crew anytime an explosion went off.

Omfg, please do yourself a favor and fucking Google it's armor thickness. The thing has like 30mm of armor compared to the Sherman's around at least 60mms of armor. Remember that the Sherman was already considered to be way under armored in comparison to alot of the more beefy German tanks of the time. The M10 has less than half the armor of the Sherman. Besides, in it's role as a TD, the M18 was vastly superior to it in virtually every way especially in context of the needs of the war.

The only possible way I could think of to say that the M10 may be any good is that I think it may have been relatively cost effective but I'm pulling that straight from the deepest darkest depths of my asshole as I'm trying to find something redeeming about the damn the damn thing.

The M18 became a meme the moment they put the 76 M1A2 on regular Shermans. The M36 was the only useful TD (at least after they finally put a cover on it so it wouldn't fucking rain inside it all the time).

Imagine going onto boards and talking about shit you have no knowledge on.

M10 was great!
On one hand, it was very lightly protected. On the other hand, open-top gave the crew incredible awareness and the ability to escape quickly.
"Despite not adhering strictly to the tank destroyer doctrine, the M10 still achieved impressive scores against enemy tanks. A US Army study of 39 tank destroyer battalions found that each destroyed, on average, 34 tanks, 17 towed guns, and 16 pillboxes."
[1] Yeide, Harry: The Tank Killers: A History of America's World War II Tank Destroyer Force. 2010. Casemate Publishing. ISBN 9781932033809

Attached: 6028_m10_05.jpg (671x950, 143K)

With its extreme firepower and heavy armor, it was absolutely no match for American, let alone russian "tanks".

Attached: E8B6EDA3-FBAD-4032-9B96-5A1F4D111060.gif (399x400, 922K)

Imagine being such a brainlet that when you see the truth you can't handle it

Bump

Attached: 0_155aa2_2f5da4ec_orig.jpg (2000x1590, 1.63M)

Could you do even a modicum of practical research before thinking you know the absolute truth of the universe because you played War Thunder and read wikipedia?

how are you suppose to use them?

Try naming something that wasn't in COH2 faggot.

TD doctrine was basically to have them behind the front, ready to roll up and engage Panzers spotted by frontline troops. Completely impracticable, but the M10 did well in spite of this.

Doctrine was to keep them in reserve because the strategists assumed the germans would fight like they did at the beginning of the war; with blitzkrieg armored spearheads striking deep behind the front lines. The TDs were made lighter and faster to rush in and cut off these spearheads. The problem was the germans rarely ever made these expected counter attacks, they just kept digging in, losing ground and retreating. The only major exception being the battle of the bulge, in which the TDs could finally be used as intended and they performed rather well in their role. However most of the time they ended up being used as ad hoc artillery or worse; tanks. Neither was a role they excelled at.

The doctrine wasn't bad so much as the germans were just a disappointment.

>Remember that the Sherman was already considered to be way under armored in comparison to a lot of the more beefy German tanks at the time
Please stop spreading this meme. Most German tanks were Pz 3s and Pz 4s and had less armor than a Sherman.

Every Amerimeme AFV was a worthless POS in WWII.
The only two that saw any use in actually combating Axis armor were the Firefly and the Achilles. Guess which two the Amerimemes had nothing to do with?

Absolutely this.

Attached: americanpsycho.png (1252x704, 878K)

They never got used as intended because all the Germans did was lose ground and die horribly. Hard to use TDs to blunt german armored spearheads when they never actually attack you

The Germans never used armored spearheads against the Amerimemes because virtually all German armor had already been destroyed by non-Amerimeme forces.

if they were lightly armored why didn't they use half tracks with anti tank guns in them. Wouldn't that be more affective?

You mean got abandoned because it broke down, got shredded by Shermans because lolPzIII/IVs, abandoned because lolnofuel or nonexistent because HURR DURR BETTER SWITCH PRODUCTION TO THE NEWEST MEME MACHINE

>The doctrine wasn't bad so much as the germans were just a disappointment.

kinda hard to go on the offensive when you have no fuel
Germany was fucked after 1942 as they simply could not fuel their vehicle for any form of offensive

No, I mean destroyed by non-Amerimeme forces. Where were the Amerimemes on the Eastern Front, where two-thirds of all German AFVs were lost? Where were the Amerimemes in North Africa? Where were the Amerimemes in North-western France? &c.

>Eastern Front
Giving Russians a bunch of tanks and planes and more importantly, ammo and ordnance to blap krauts.
>North Africa
Right in the fucking middle of it with fucking M3s that did well enough against German 'armor.'
>This one tiny spot in all of Europe
This is why I contend you haven't even done a modicum of practical research. German tanks were objectively pretty shit, and the "good" ones couldn't drive over 150km on their own power.
Most German armor encountered was the Stug, which a Sherman is more than adequate for. Following those up were the III and IV which Shermans were absolutely more than adequate for.

I mean holy shit, the Ruskies couldn't even get more than a third of their anti-tank ammo to pass what little QC they had, and you think any American machine at the time wouldn't be more than enough to make German shit into coffins?

Believe it or not, Germany did in fact use tanks in Europe, but even MORE TDs/SPGs a la American TD doctrine, and got royally fucked.

>Right in the fucking middle of it
If by the "middle of it" you mean the middle of a full-throated retreat at Kasserine Pass, sustaining over five times as many armored casualties, then yes, I suppose that's accurate.
>This is why I contend you haven't even done a modicum of practical research
Tell me then, where were the Amerimemes putting out Tigers? Where were they putting out Panthers? Why do Amerimemes have such strong opinions about armor design and doctrine when they and their one small-gunned infantry tank had virtually nothing whatsoever to do with encountering and crippling German armor?

They did. And they weren't quite as good, although still excellent.

Attached: id_m3_gmc_04_700.jpg (504x258, 54K)

>their one small-gunned infantry tank had virtually nothing whatsoever to do with encountering and crippling German armor?
>What is lend-lease?
The Russians liked their Shermans, they got about 2,000 A2's w/ 75mm and 2,000 w/ 76mm M1.
iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/

Attached: SC2056351-1.jpg (2714x1809, 509K)

I heard that the U.S. Ordnance Department was aware of the Sherman being a 'Tommy Cooker', and attempted to implement various measures to address this issue. The design team was lead by Sheldon Rosenstein, a convicted child-beater, arsonist, and avid necrophiliac. Sheldon was reportedly pen-pals with Shiro Ishii, and Oskar Dirlewanger. When questioned about these letters outgoing to hostile countries, Sheldon replied that he was merely exchanging 'tips and tricks'. Sheldon's team designed a mechanism that would lock the crew hatches shut, thus trapping the crew, when smoke was detected inside the sherman after being penetrated and set alight. Not only that, but apparently there was also a following feature that was a re-take on the Brazen Bull. When the crew was burning to death, their screams would be amplified by speakers that projected outside the tank. The U.S. Ordnance Department justified these features by proclaiming that the Germans would be frightened by the hellish screams of the sherman crews being incinerated, and allied soldiers would be more motivated to fight hard, lest the same fate befall them. Sheldon also later devised a system that had a 1 in 59 chance of setting off an explosive charge in the ammunition storage every time the Sherman's engine was turned on.

Attached: 1540345405597.jpg (480x360, 46K)

Supposedly, this was to 'test the crew's luck before battle'. This innovation was well-received by the U.S. Army, but was rejected for budgetary reasons. While some of the quite common "Burn-Outs" are often blamed on faulty ammunition they were functioning as intended. Rosenstein himself allegedly payed factory workers to manipulate ammuniton to malfunction, misfire or simply detonate after the breech was closed.Upon receiving news of the Army's rejection, Sheldon bludgeoned his manservant to death with a fire iron in a fit of unstoppable rage. Years after the war, Sheldon tragically died in a fire, of which he had started in a New York orphanage. To this day he remains the only jewish-american to ever hold the Iron Cross without ever serving. Goebbles himself sent a letter to Rosenstein, in which he complimented Sheldon for the destruction of over 1.000 american tanks and called him "the only jew to ever serve the german people".

Attached: stock-photo-metal-medieval-knight-glove-protective-detail-for-a-gentleman-304438901.jpg (450x320, 40K)

>This is why I contend you haven't even done a modicum of practical research. German tanks were objectively pretty shit, and the "good" ones couldn't drive over 150km on their own power.
>Most German armor encountered was the Stug, which a Sherman is more than adequate for. Following those up were the III and IV which Shermans were absolutely more than adequate for.

Lay off the memes and potential history

>When were Americans putting out Panthers and Tigers
Every time they encountered one, which almost never happened, because Germany never made many of them what few they did make fucking broke down or got fuel starved?

Why do you wheraboos think Tigers and Panthers were the backbone of the German armored corps, or anything more than a rarity on any front?

I'm sorry reality doesn't agree with you
Maybe if you stopped thinking vidya = accurate representation of anything you'd realize that the truth is out there

>vidya = accurate representation
projecting

I'm laughing my ass off right now.

>Where were the Amerimemes on the Eastern Front
Outperforming slavshit by their own redacted admission.

Attached: main-qimg-afa102102c866be1da549ab318dc7e47-c.jpg (602x400, 68K)

Tiger battalions and Panzer divisions equipped with Panthers weren't by any means a rarity on either front. In fact divisions equipped with Panthers in number were often heavier on Panthers than on lighter armor -- for instance 9th SS-PzD had 79 Panthers to 48 Panzer IVs and was present at Caen.
They were only a rarity from the POV of the Amerimemes, because Amerimemes never seriously engaged German armor and had absolutely nothing to do with armored combat in WWII.

>often heavier
You mean rarely heavier. The all-time high of Panthers on the Western front neared 500 and in the East was somewhat over 500. You... you don't think that's a lot, do you?

>You mean got abandoned because it broke down
Where does this stupid anglo meme come from?
Look up Bergepanther.

>There was a German tank recovery vehicle
>Therefore, Panthers were never abandoned
Wehraboo logic, everyone.

>Never seriously engaged
Aside from you talking out of your ass, you keep neglecting to respond to just how many of your memetanks were abandoned due to reliability issues or lack of fuel. Which, incidentally, were most Panthers that were seen on the western front.

any advice on how to use them on coh?

Uh, no. I don't know what that is.

company of heros

Vcoh or coh2?

If vcoh you are doing it wrong, just spam 'zooka rangers. If coh2 kite tanks like a motherfucker. Distance is your armor

Its 3" gun could pierce 6" of vertical RHA when the shell left the barrel, and had enough left at about 1000 yards to still punch through about 4" (which is still the front of a Tiger I or a Panthers turret). The lower driver plate on the Panther was also vulnerable out to a good distance as well because of its lesser thickness. Any model or Panzer IV or Panzer III chassis vehicle was vulnerable at any realistic combat range.

The long dong 17 pounder for all of the memes it generates, can only pierce about an extra half-inch of armor at most ranges. It still can't penetrate the front drivers plate on a Panther with standard rounds, and APDS is like trying to accurately target something with a bottle-rocket past about 500 yards.

Unless you are playing mods.
If playing Coh 1 Blitzkrieg mod skip the American M10 entirely and just use the M18 now that every doctrine has it.
If playing Coh 2 Wikinger early game long range ambush tactics against PZ4s are your best bet. Its pretty shit against tigers and panthers but by that time you should have either won. Kite like said and use them in pairs.

>Achilles has 17 pounder, thats all you need to know.
Achilles refers to the M10 in British service, whether it had the 17pdr or 3" gun

>Giving Russians a bunch of tanks and planes and more importantly, ammo and ordnance to blap krauts.

Don't forget ALL their trucks.

Most Jow Forumsommandos don't even into logistics

Coh with Europe in ruins

You ladies arguing about American Vs German armored combat on the western front need to know about Arracourt.

warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/first-day-at-arracourt-pattons-third-army-vs-monteuffels-panzers/

TLDR: American shermans BTFO a German panzer army of Panthers and PzIVs with minimal air support. The Germans were outclassed tactically.

"Of the 262 tanks and assault guns deployed by the German units in the week of fighting near Arracourt, 86 were destroyed, 114 were damaged or broken down, and only 62 were operational at the end of the month". By comparison "4th Armored Division's Combat Command A, which had borne the brunt of the 5th Panzer Army's counter-offensive at Arracourt, lost 25 tanks and 7 tank destroyers."

Also on D-Day and in the immediately following days Kurt Meyer's SS Panzer division attempted several armored attacks against the allied forces in and near Caen and failed to break through, and ultimately were destroyed in the Falaise pocket.

The moar u know

Dirty lying slavs will ignore this

The M10 is alright. It was a good way to put a more powerful gun onto a decent and cheap chassis quickly. Open topped allows for superior situational awareness at the expense of some vulnerability to damage, but for their role it was considered a worthy tradeoff. Honestly, the biggest problem it had was that it didn't have a power traverse, and the manual traverse was pretty slow. Not the worst, and certainly not a problem which ruined the design, as the M10 is still remembered relatively fondly, but definitely a weakness of the design.

This guy pretty much gets it, but a tiny bit more depth can help clarify the situation.

So the thing with tanks and other armor is that they are best used in a concentrated manner. The Germans suitably illustrated that in 1939 in Poland, 1940 in France, and 1941 in the USSR. The US saw Germany concentrate all its tanks in relatively small portions of the line, punch through them, and then exploit that penetration to decisive effect. The US looked around at the state of its military to counteract this and was suitably concerned that it wasn't. That being said, they thought their tanks would do pretty well against German tanks, but as the Germans illustrated, concentrated armor works best, so the Allies wanted to concentrate their own armor to penetrate the Germans as well. Hence, concentrating most of it into specific Armored Divisions (which did have organic mechanized infantry). Some tanks went into independent tank battalions, which would then be given out to infantry units, as it turns out having tanks in direct support of the infantry is pretty nice. However, these tanks would be penny-packeted out to the front lines to help where needed in small units, and wouldn't have the concentration of anti-tank firepower to be able to seriously slow a large German armored counterattack. The need for the capability to stop such a concentrated counterattack lead to the requirement for a force to take them on. Thus the creation of the Tank Destroyer Force.

Tank Destroyer Battalions were allocated to every Infantry Division. These battalions would generally wait behind the lines of each division, waiting for the Germans to show up with a significant armored attack or counterattack, race up to the front of the penetration and blunt it. This would give time for reinforcements to be brought in from elsewhere to contain and then repel the penetration.

Cont.

This idea actually works quite well- providing the enemy has enough tanks to be able to throw at you. Fortunately or unfortunately, the Germans could only amass that sort of tank force on the Western Front two or three times- once was fighting against the British in Operation Goodwood, and then they got flanked when the Americans broke out from the bocage and most German armor was destroyed in the Falaise Pocket. Then you could possibly talk about the Battle of Mortain, and if it had gone as the Germans had planned it I would agree, and finally, and truly the greatest example, the Battle of the Bulge. For obvious reasons, I won't cover Goodwood,

Mortain I'll only briefly cover because it used towed guns as opposed to Gun Motor Carriages (IE- self propelled tank destroyers). See, the US didn't have the industrial capacity to completely make all tank destroyer units into GMCs at the beginning of the war, and so they went into Africa with a large number of tank destroyer battalions still equipped with towed guns. However, towed guns were actually very useful in North Africa because of their tiny size and the long open sightlines afforded by the desert and its hills. Consequently, the mobility that GMCs provided was not considered worth it. This was, in the end, a bastardization of the TD Battalion brought about by industrial constraints and reinforced by the particular situation they were first used in. As such, the Americans were convinced away from equipping all TD battalions with GMCs. This came to bite their ass in the ETO, and especially at the Bulge, with towed guns far underperforming compared to their GMC brothers. As it turns out, being able to move and set up quickly, as well as run away quickly, are pretty useful in the face of an armored attack. Who knew? Following the Bulge, the Americans were even more determined to replace all the towed battalions with GMC battalions.

Cont.

Anyways, Mortain ended up with the towed guns being split up with a company being used in direct support of each infantry regiment, and as a result, they were unable to fulfill their role of blunting the uncoordinated German attack by themselves, although they destroyed a number of German attacks. However, the attack was indeed blunted sufficiently to allow reinforcements to come up and push the Germans back in the following two days. So sort of a win, but showed that towed TD battalions were not really a great idea.

And then we're on to the Bulge, where the Tank Destroyer Battalions proved worth their weight in gold. While it's true that at this point, most TD battalions were getting penny-packeted out due to a lack of German armor and a need for some bunker-busting firepower, when the Germans came rushing through the Ardennes the GMCs especially acquitted themselves marvelously. At Noiville, a platoon of infantry and a platoon of four M-18 Hellcats destroyed 30 German tanks. Indeed, here's an excerpt of the 801st (Towed) TD Battalion's AAR following the Bulge.
>The concensus [sic] of opinions of the plat leaders and the gun crews are that if it had not been for the fact of the non-mobility of the towed gun and the lack of armor protection for the gun crews and in most cases the over-running of the gun positions by the infantry many more tanks and vehicles could have been destroyed.
So yes, even tank destroyers that had been penny-packeted out could reap gross rewards.

That being said, thankfully, German armor was fairly rare on the Western Front. However, had Tank Destroyer battalions been in service on the Eastern Front, or if Operation Unthinkable had occurred, they would have been invaluable in staunching penetrations.

Thanks for good effortposting, user

Thank you, user! You have a wide knowledge of this subject.

>potential history
funny how you mention him as if you'd watched all his content
how romantic
if you didn't get all your information from youtube videos and WoTs you'd know the chieftain and potential history literally parrot really obvious shit from historical books
like seriously they aren't the first people to point out that if "X" was as good or bad as military channel documentaries would have you believe we wouldn't have fucking used them

the final allies vs german tank losses were 1.48:1
this is a pretty damn good score when you consider that the US were usually on the offensive and the germans had time to dig in their guns

and this is for all losses by all types, not tank v tank
US lost far more to AT guns and mines than tank fire, so the final tank score board very closely approaches a 1 to 1 ratio

Eh, the Americans might even have a slightly greater than 1:1 ratio if we're only talking tank on tank kills.

better than british tank destroyers

Its special to me. My grandfather fought through casserine pass and into Rome with this thing. He was a driver, and afterwards transferred to logistics.

In fact there's a book about what his unit went through. Seek, strike, destroy: The history of the 894th Tank Destroyer Battalion in World War II

Attached: Tank_destroyer_patch.jpg (316x304, 94K)

Effortposter here, that's what sparked my interest as well. My grandfather was in the 632nd TD Battalion's reconnaissance company.

Did he talk about his experiences at all before he passed, or did he keep it to himself? As for my grandfather he was really effected from his time through this war.

He never yelled, and never really talked about his experiences. When the topic of Normandy came up he just shook his head and went 'Those poor bastards..' On his death bed he did talk about what happened.

1. He went against Tigers and saw the rounds his TD shot just bounce harmlessly off the front.

2. The bullets would go through the thin armor of the TD and bounce and ricochet around.

3. He recalled liberating a Italian town. Him and his friends- the rest of the TD crew, got piss drunk. He separated himself from his crew to go across the street and kiss a donkey. During that exact time, a shell either a mortar or a tank shell screamed in and blew his friends away, leaving him the sole survivor.

no shit

youtu.be/v7SL8ZVOyAw

A tank that can get destroyed by a single guy who knows how to throw a grenade.

How can it be any good?

Some important context for what follows: the 632nd TD Battalion served in the Pacific for pretty much the entirety of the war. They were shipped out with the 32nd Infantry Division as the first division strength unit sent out to the Pacific, and thrown into the grinder in New Guinea horrifically unprepared. Just a bunch of Wisconsin and Minnesota national guard boys thrown together and shipped off into that hot and humid hell.

>Did he talk about his experiences at all before he passed
Unfortunately, he passed away before I was born, so the stories I received were secondhand, through my uncle. Furthermore, he wouldn't have said anything to my grandmother, nor would she remember if he had, because she's such a difficult person to be around, hence why they divorced. Unfortunately, my uncle developed cerebellar multiple system atrophy, and so when I was old enough to really develop an interest in military history, he was barely able to speak, and died a couple years ago. As such, what I know I mostly found out by my own research and by digging through old papers, pictures, and correspondence.

I know that he was used as a scout behind Japanese lines fairly regularly, as he was half-Chinese. His enlistment papers even had his race as Chinese. Not Asian, Chinese. I know that looking Asian got him into trouble with Americans from time to time, and that he was demoted two ranks upon discharge because he wasn't white. After the war, he changed his last name to a white sounding name and changed the race he put down on papers to Caucasian.
I know he got malaria once in New Guinea, and it came back on the boat ride to Hollandia.
For the most part, as part of the reconnaissance company in the Pacific, he was doing a lot of dismounted security work and patrols looking for the Japs. Did actually see Japanese tanks on Luzon, though. Fortunately, did not have to fight them and slipped away and reported their position back to the company. Don't know much more'n that.

Attached: 20181007_193851[1].jpg (2976x5312, 1.78M)

The Pz4 was an early war tank.
The Sherman was a mid war tank.

The M48 was an early Cold War tank, the M1 was a late Cold War tank. The M48 still has less armor dipshit

as a tank destroyer, a lack of a roof gives it much better vision enabling it to spot and destroy tanks before the enemy noticed them

while the TD concept was inherently flawed, people ended up using them as tanks anyway, the lack of a roof was considered an acceptable compromise for its role
and the M10 managed to achieve decent service despite the lack of a roof, killing more than it lost, due to superior deployment and tactics

the sherman entered the battlefield in 1942, although the M3 lee was in service in 1941, most of the groundwork was laid in the pre-war

>the sherman entered the battlefield in 1942
Yeah, so it should be compared to designs from 1942.

its main competitor in 1942 was the panzer IV D to which it was wholly superior
pazner IIIs were the main tank of germany until 1943 and the panzer IV H which only entered service in mid-143

the sherman was wholly superior to tanks that came out in 1942, and was on par with tanks that came out in 1943

And SPAM don't forget ALL of the SPAM

Would the same number of M-4s have performed equally as well at Noiville?

That is, was there anything about TDs or the TD Doctrine that was actually superior to giving each infantry division an extra ITBn?

>Of the 262 tanks and assault guns deployed by the German units in the week of fighting near Arracourt, 86 were destroyed, 114 were damaged or broken down, and only 62 were operational at the end of the month
This is the best part. Because similar mechanical shittery was suffered by the Reds. Only America was largely immune to constant and unceasing breakdowns.

>stick 5 car engines together to make one big monstrosity of a tank engine
>Still works better than everyone else's purpose built engines.

>laughs in hamburger

>Remember that the Sherman was already considered to be way under armored in comparison to alot of the more beefy German tanks of the time.
Tiger 1 was considered a beast by anyone's standards, and it had 100mm LOS armor thickness at the front. The Sherman had about 90, so the only German tanks that outclassed it were Tiger 1&2, and the Panther - which they rarely went up against.

>However most of the time they ended up being used as ad hoc artillery or worse; tanks.
The Germans had an excellent merger of a TD, assault gun, and ersatz tank: the StuG. Would the US have done better if they did not have the TD doctrine, but instead took their second-rate tank chassis to be used as StuG-ish assault guns? Use a 105mm in a casemate superstructure on either the M3 or M4 chassis and then use it for both infantry support and anti-tank ambushes. If you really pushed projectile development they could even be supplied with HEAT to take out anything bigger than a Pz IV.

Attached: M3 Lee Upgrades.jpg (1426x560, 98K)

thin, sloped armor was better than thivk sloped armor in WW2
the opposite of modern warfare

it was also much better than shaped charges, since mechanical fuzes were more fiddly and could be sheared off without detonation against sloped armor
despite a panzerfaust having 155mm of penetration, more than half their hits were to the side of the sherman rather than the front

large caliber shells like the 88mm acted like a metal punch and could go through thin slopes better than thick flats
but 88mm were a minority of AT weapons

The Tiger came out in 1941.
If you said "but the Tiger was a heavy tank." That logic would be fine if America had a heavy tank to respond with, which they didn't, until 45. So the Sherman is competing with Tigers

>m3 with a 76mm gun in the hull and an m8 turret

that boy ain't right

tiger is best compared with the churchill VII

the sherman compares poorly in tank vs tank action with the tiger, but functions much better as a cavalry tank
it will not win a direct confrontation but would be better at flanking and exploitation of weakpoints

comparing a tiger and a sherman in 1v1 tank battle is obviously going to be weighted in the tigers favor because it is playing into the specific niche the tiger was made for

likewise, the tiger was an expensive and rare vehicle, which docks points away from it

Total Tiger I production-1,947

Total Sherman production (75mm and 76 mm gun)-44,286

So what's this about "competing with"?

Not that guy but basically, no. Shermans would had done the job just as well, without the noticeable weaknesses of the TDs and would had streamlined logistics and improved unit cost as a good bonus. The idea of both concentrating and distributing a weapon system that is needed both in concentration and distributed is hardly an amazing idea either.

Thank you for sharing your story.

Not that guy but, they had a heavy tank and instead they decided to send more shermans instead because they felt that having more tanks was more important than a heavy tank.

Shermans would have had access to HVAP rounds instead of them being only available to TD. even a 75mm HVAP is capable of easily knocking out a Panther.

>Goebbles himself sent a letter to Rosenstein, in which he complimented Sheldon for the destruction of over 1.000 american tanks and called him "the only jew to ever serve the german people".

Attached: 1541540496172.gif (250x230, 916K)