[NFHale]

I always thought it interesting how we had “tanks” and “tank destroyers” in WWII... (Germans did too).

The M24 Chaffee, M4 Shermans, M26 Pershings were tanks; while the M18 Hellcat was a “tank destroyer” (same with the M10 and M36).

[MasterGunner01]

Army doctrine in 1940 decided that tanks were mainly for the infantry support (primary) role. Tank vs. tank was a secondary role and tanks were provided with AP rounds to engage other enemy tanks that appeared on the battlefield. Tank guns were low to medium velocity that suited infantry support rather than anti-armor.

Tank destroyer battalions had the job of killing tanks. These TDs were fast, lightly armored, packed large caliber, high velocity guns to engage the enemy tanks. The TDs were in their element when in ambush positions that allowed them to shoot and scoot. However, in a head-to-head fight, their thin armor put them at huge risk.

As things turned out, the Army's two tier doctrine did not work. Tanks were used more and more for tank vs. tank fights along with infantry support. Because they “looked” like tanks, Army commanders used TDs as if they were tanks. The TDs with their thin armor were not suited to the task and the TDs got killed in tank vs. TD fights. Post-war, the Army discarded the tank destroyer concept and the tank was to provide infantry support as well as doing tank vs. tank fighting.