How Widespread was "Gold Ammo"
Дата: 29.01.2015 00:17:15
blackfalconjc, on Jan 28 2015 - 21:50, said: Well, for starters, how about FM 18-5, Tactical Employment
Tank Destroyer Unit, dated July 18, 1944? https://archive.org/details/FM18-51944 Chapter 2.
Fundamentals of Employment 6. MISSION. A. Primary Mission. The
primary mission of tank destroyer units is the destruction of
hostile tanks by direct gunfire. Also, to
quote General Mcnair: http://usacac.army.m...pubs/gabel2.pdf
The tank was introduced to protect against automatic small
arms fire, which was developed so greatly during and since the
[First] World War. Its answer is fire against which the tank does
not protect-the antitank gun. That this answer failed [against the
Germans in 1940] was due primarily to the pitifully inadequate
number and power of French and British antitank guns, as well as
their incorrect organization. McNair emphatically believed
that the antidote to the tank was not one’s own tanks: “Certainly
it is poor economy to use a $35,000 medium tank to destroy another
tank when the job can be done by a gun costing a fraction as much.
Thus the friendly armored force is freed to attack a more proper
target, the opposing force as a whole . . . . “ Therefore,
the task confronting Bruce and the Tank Destroyer Tactical and
Firing Center was not simply one of finding a way to stop tanks,
but rather one of developing a mode of antitank combat that
freed other friendly forces for offensive operations. To meet this
challenge, the tank destroyer creators adopted mass, mobility,
firepower, and aggressiveness as the qualities that would enable
tank destroyer elements to fulfill their mission.
From these accounts specifically, and many others on a more
anecdotal note, early WW2 US tank doctrine was to allow
anti-tank guns to engage and destroy enemy armor while friendly
tanks were reserved for other "more appropriate" targets. '43-'44
saw them turn to more mobile anti tank gun platforms (37mm towed,
75mm self propelled half tracks, M10 Wolverine, M36 Jackson, and
culminating with the M18, the first from the ground up designed
purpose built TD) to seek and destroy enemy armor. And
I'll freely admit that I'm biased on this subject, they used to
make M18 Hellcats 15 miles from where I grew up (made in Buick
City, Flint MI), so the local hearsay and history on the role of
these vehicles is colored by the plants that made them...Heck, my
dad's factory used to make M4 Shermans during the war...
/utestsacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdfacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdfThe_Chieftain: The above does not preclude the concept of anti-tank
operations being conducted by units of other branches. Tank
destoyers do indeed, have as their primary mission the destruction
of enemy armor. It does not mean that they
had exclusively the mission of the destruction of enemy
armor and that nobody else was supposed to do it, The TD
Branch was, as the paper says, designed to stop the attack of
tanks. TD doctrine is much quieter when it talks about the role of
the TD in the offence, where the TD battalion is held in reserve to
deal with any enemy armored counter-attacks. The job of dealing
with enemy armour encountered in the attack was primarily the
responsibility of the tank corps. See Armored Force FMs.
Example http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/413843-nato-survey-1943-pt-2/page__st__40__pid__8416302#entry8416302
See also the TD FM 18-5 of 1944, which stated "Since the
armored division can meet strong armored attacks with
effective organic weapons, tank destroyers may execute
secondary missions on rare occasions, even when a hostile
armored attack or counterattack is imminent." No prizes
for guessing what the organic weapons are of the armored division
that the TD manual says can deal with an armored attack.
How Widespread was "Gold Ammo"