Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sonofatpatcher2
Against our Shermans, it was a superior tank…

The American Sherman was not intended to go against another tank. We had Tank Destroyers for that role. Doctrine at the time (FM18-5) called for the TD units to engage enemy armor and for our tanks to avoid enemy armor and engage only the infantry. In the role for which they were designed they were superb.
The problems we had occurred because the commanders in the field – Corp, Division, Combat Command and task force commanders – apparently never read the doctrine. TD units were pieced out to armor and artillery units and used as such. These Commanders often confused the separate role of Tanks, Tank Destroyers and Artillery. Doctrine called for the TDs to be kept together as a mobile battalion sized reserve that could race to the area of an enemy armored attack and defeat it by carefully picking their firing positions so they could attack the enemy’s flanks and utilizing mobility – fire a few rounds and change to a new position. When they were used this way they were superb. When they were required to maintain static positions directly in front of an attack they had problems.
143 posted on 01/22/2005 8:58:58 AM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: R. Scott

thanks for the explication of the Tank Destroyer role...


145 posted on 01/22/2005 9:04:20 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson