WI the US replaced the Sherman Tank in 1943 with the M 10 and M 18

Commissar

Banned
Er, why would they do that? They aren't meant for sustained combat.

I suppose they could have replaced the Stuarts entirely, but they were open topped which would be a problem with shell splinters.

Also they are optimized for destroying Tanks not supporting Infantry which is the primary job of the Tank.
 
Er, why would they do that? They aren't meant for sustained combat.

I suppose they could have replaced the Stuarts entirely, but they were open topped which would be a problem with shell splinters.

Also they are optimized for destroying Tanks not supporting Infantry which is the primary job of the Tank.

World War I called: they want their tank doctrine back

The reason why tanks became the focal point of armored warfare is that they don't have a primary role. They're strong enough to resist most infantry weapons, and can engage infantry fortifications from a range greater than the effective range of personal anti-tank weapons like panzerfaust. They're also able to deal with other armored fighting vehicles, and have the mobility to exploit breakthroughs in the enemy's rear areas.
 

Commissar

Banned
World War I called: they want their tank doctrine back

The reason why tanks became the focal point of armored warfare is that they don't have a primary role. They're strong enough to resist most infantry weapons, and can engage infantry fortifications from a range greater than the effective range of personal anti-tank weapons like panzerfaust. They're also able to deal with other armored fighting vehicles, and have the mobility to exploit breakthroughs in the enemy's rear areas.

Patton is rolling in his grave at your stupidity. Also hundreds of thousands of GIs want to talk to you about how having many Tanks doing CIS saved their lives.
 
World War I called: they want their tank doctrine back

The reason why tanks became the focal point of armored warfare is that they don't have a primary role. They're strong enough to resist most infantry weapons, and can engage infantry fortifications from a range greater than the effective range of personal anti-tank weapons like panzerfaust. They're also able to deal with other armored fighting vehicles, and have the mobility to exploit breakthroughs in the enemy's rear areas.

American tank doctrine during WWII was very, very clear: tanks were first and foremost infantry support vehicles. The planned strategy of having infantry pin enemy tanks until purpose-built tank destroyers could, uh, destroy them didn't exactly pan out, but M4s spent by far the majority of their time shooting squishies on behalf of other squishies.
 
Patton is rolling in his grave at your stupidity. Also hundreds of thousands of GIs want to talk to you about how having many Tanks doing CIS saved their lives.

The 3 in in the M-10 and the 76 mm in the M-18 both could and did fire HE rounds and the 1 st Inf Div's used there Tank Destroyer Battalion as tanks .

And the M-36 had a 90mm gun that could and did take out the largest German Tanks .
 
Top