Sandini TANK DESTROYERS Sandini VANGUARD SERIES EDITOR: MARTIN WINDROW ~ ~ ALLIED TANKDESTROYERS Text by BRYAN PERRETT Colourplates by MIKE CHAPPELL 1 OSPREY PUBLISHING LONDON Sandini Published in 1979 by Osprey Publishing Ltd Member company of the George Philip Group 12-14 Long Acre, London WCgE gLP 0C opyright 1979 Osprey Publishing Ltd This hook is copyrighted under the Berne Convention. All righe reserved. Apart from any fair dealing- for the purpose of private study, research, critlcism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, 1956, no part of this publication may he reproduced, stared in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrical, chemical, mechanical, optical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner Enquiris should he addressed to the Publishers. ISBN a 85045 315 I Filmset by BAS Printers Limited, Over Wallop, Hampshire Printed in Hong Kong The author would like to thank Colonel Robert J. Icks for his invaluable advice; also Mr Theodore H. Aschman Jr and Mr Albert Baybutt. Thanks are also due to Mr John J. Slonaker of the United States Army Military History Institute and Brigadier R. J. Lewendon of the Royal Artillery Institution for permitting access to their records. Some of the material on colour Plate G a taken from the published researches of the Company of Military Historians, USA. We are grateful-to M. Daniel Ambrogi and John Sandars for their assistance with Plates C. D and G. Mike Chappell's cover painting depicts an Mro of the HQCompany, 899th Tank Destroyer Bn., flying the pennant of the 8th T.D. Group, against the background of the LudendorE railway bridge at Remagen, March 1945. The insignia on the hack cover are the shoulder patch of the US Tank Destroyer Forces, and the Royal Artillery cap badge normally worn by British tank destroyer crews, '943-45 Sandini n.d r. o.o rtec and crew at rane"e u.ra ctice. In action as man" of the crew as worked on the as a direct hit wodd often dismount the pun, which would be thrown Prescience b(I.cmkpweatridd., W akr iMlliunssc umor) injuring the men on the vehicle. In 1914W illiam Albert Murley joined the Royal insufficient muzzle velocity; it lacked mobility over Regiment of Artillery. He was commissioned the rough going; and it required the dumping of large following year, and before the Great War had quantities of ammunition beside the gun. ended he had been awarded the Military Cross. .Next, he 'took issue with anti-tank tactics Between the wars promotion for Regular officers p;escribed in the Manual ofArtillery Training, which was slow, but by 1939 he had reached the rank of suggested that 'When engaging tanks with guns major, having held a variety of appointments, giving only a limited degree of traverse, a section including that of Permanent Staff Instructor to a [i.e. two guns] should be employed against each Territorial regiment. He served throughout World tank.' Murley commented that 'any method which War I1 and retired as a lieutenant-colonel in 1946. necessitates the changing of a target from one gun Ostensibly, his thirty-two years of service had to another is bound to be unsatisfactory, as there followed the pattern of hundreds of his con- will nearly always be delay in getting the second temporaries; but there was a difference. gun to open fire at the proper moment, and unless In 1923, while still a lieutenant, he gave a great both guns shoot exactly alike, which would be very deal of thought to the problems of anti-tank doubtful, erratic shooting will result'. defence, and he set down his conclusions in an The solution to these problems, he felt, lay in the article which was printed the same year in the Royal adoption of the 6pdr. gun in place of the 3.7in Artillery Journal. He began by criticizing the British howitzer, and he went on to describe how it could Army's current anti-tank gun, the 3.7in howitzer. be done. He pointed out that it lacked the essential charac- '(a) It should be possible to fix a central pivot teristic of an anti-tank weapon, all round mounting toa tankchassis, thusadmittingall-round traverse-the 3.7's traverse was limited to 40 traverse. The recoil of the 6pdr. is short and the degrees on the top carriage. The weapon had base plate to which the pedestal is bolted would Sandini a kind of box on wheels running on a circular track, thus ensuring that it will always be close to the breech. 'The next point to consider is the protection of the detachment against rifle bullets and splinters. It should be a simple matter to provide a circular shield about tin or fin thick. The shield would be bolted to the carriage, so that when the gun is moved the shield moves with it. The fact of the shield moving with the gun will permit of all-round traverse and will also afford protection of the ~he~=~~no,fthhcspto nres.~tr*nsou@evmbdacit detachment against fire from any direction. entered srrvicc. (RAC Tank Museum) 'The engine could be driven from inside the shield, so that the driver would not he exposed therefore have to be fairly thick in order to to fire. Two Lewis guns could also be carried for withstand the shock of the firing of the gun. As the use through movable [sliding] slots in case of gun will be mounted on a central pivot it will be emergency.' possible to traverse it rapidly in any required Murley concluded his article by submitting with direction. The target could therefore be engaged in due deference that his suggestions were worth a a fractionofthe time taken with the 3.7in howitzer, trial but in the political and national climate ofthe and when once on the target the layer could follow time, very similar to today's, there was not the it anywhere by simply swinging the gun round. slightest chance of their being accepted, although Also, the layer will have only the elevating wheel some years later the short-lived Birch Gun (an and firing handle to worry about, which will result r8pdr. field piece on a Vickers Medium tank in more rapid and accurate shooting. It may be chassis) was produced. necessary to fit a traversing handwheel, but ifso, a The significance of Murley's article is that not quick release clamp should also he provided. only did it predict the layout of the typical World '(P) The fact of the Gpdr. being a gun and not a War I1 turreted tank destroyer, hut also forecast howltzer will enable greater muzzle velocity to be the sort of tactics which would he employed. It obtained. The extra muzzle velocity of the Gpdr. wonid be too easy to suggest that Murley conceived would compensate for the difference in weight of the idea of the tank destroyer; very possibly other shell. The type of shell suggested for use with the officers around the world were thinking along Gpdr. is an armour-piercing with a delay action similar lines, although it would be many years fuse. A Gpdr. is quite heavy enough to stop a tank. before their thoughts turned to substance. In such '(c) The fact of the gun being mounted on a tank circumstances one cannot help wondering what chassis would increase its mobility. It ir not suggested might have been the thoughts of the now middle- that theanti-lankgunshouldgo out to meet the tank, but the aged lieutenant-colonel in 1945, as the Allied fact of the gun being able to moue quickly wouldpermit a armies swarmed across Europe using hundreds of certain amount of manoeuure, and the gun could therefore the type of vehicle he had suggested building more take up anypreuzously selectedposition at a moment's notice. than twenty years earlier. Underpresent conditions it wouldseem that agun must take In fact the British Army had entered World War up a positzon and hope that a tank will appear, and ifone I1 without any self-propelled artillery at all, should appear it may not be possiblef or lhegun to engage it. whether field or anti-tank, and the lack of it was [Author's italics] cruelly felt for several years. It was true that the '(d) With the gun mounted on a tank chassis guns had a new mobility due to the replacement of there should be no difficulty in arranging for the the old horse teams with motor traction units, but carrying of at least one hundred rounds of ammu- this had only been achieved after a struggle, which nition, so the difficulty of dumping ammunition in some measure also contributed to the failure to will disappear. The ammunition could be placed in develop self-propelled artillery. Sandini Opposition to mechanization within the Royal On its own, the hone team versus internal Artillery was not simply a matter ofbloody-minded combustion engine debate could not have delayed anti-radicalism, an ultra-conservative rejection of the introduction of self-propelled artillery into the the concept of total mobility as defined by the British Army for long. The Birch Gun battery fashionable 'Armoured Idea'. Nor was it the serving with the Experimental Armoured Force product of sentimental afection for the 'hairies' were enthusiastic about its rhle, for which they saw which had always dragged theguns into action and a great future. It was unfortunate that senior which had always been the gunners' constant officers of the Royal Artillery and the then Royal companions. Artillerymen are, after all, practical Tank Corps got on extremely badly. The brilliant people, and it seemed to many that as long as some and irascible Colonel P. C. S. Hobart, RTC, later of the team were on their feet it would always he to command the famous 79th Armoured Division, possible to attempt recovery of a gun from a for some reason could not tolerate Gunner officers difficults ituation. Internal combustion engines, on and made no bones about it; he added fuel to the the other hand, were subject to breakdown, and flames by speaking of self-propelled guns as 'Royal this could lead to the loss of a towed gun unless Tank Artillery'. To Woolwich this sounded rather other vehicles were on hand to lend assistance; in like an attempted take-over, and the very cool the case of a self-propelled gun engine failure response was that if the Royal Tank Corps wanted during a withdrawal would almost certainly lead to self-propelled guns to support its operations it its lass, an idea abhorrent to a Regiment which had should modify some of its tanks accordingly. This is always fought to themuzzleand beyond as a matter simply the tip of the iceberg, and the whole story is ofcourse. In the end it was the distances involved in an excellent example ofBritish military tribalism at mechanized operations that led to the demise of the its worst, the net result being the waste of the best horse teams-although, curiously, the majority of part of a decade during which research and German field batteries outside armoured for- development could profitably have been pursued. mations remained horse-drawnthroughout the war. Nor should it be forgotten that for most of the inter- 75mm hM otor G.rirge M% wifb front md sidcdmr .C.-. &d. (RACT dM uscum) Sandini war period the Army as a whole was forced to work within stringent financial limits, and no funds could be spared for projects upon which there was a lackofcommon agreement on policy and which did not seemingly hear the stamp of immediacy. In 1973 the editor of the Royal Artillery Journal, looking for items ofinterest from fifty years earlier, came across William Murley's article, and had it reprinted with the comment that the young author had shown considerable prescience. By then the big gun tank destroyer had become a battlefield memory for as long after the event as it had been Murley's vision before it; but in the few years ofits active life it had had a most interesting and unusual M3 with armoured screens lowered. (USA myl career. On 14 May 1941G rnrral (;curqr C. Mar\hall, Chief of Staff United States Army, issued a The Concept directive for the establishment of an organization, armed with an offensive weapon, whose function The dramatic success of the German blttzkrzeg would be defence against armoured forces. In his technique in Poland, France, the Balkans and the directive Marshall emphasized that this 'was a Western Desert illustrated beyond any reasonable problem beyond the capabilities of any one arm doubt that a defensive cordon of towed anti-tank and probably required the organization and use of guns was not the answer to a massed tank attack, a special force of combined arms, capable of rapid particularly if the tanks were closely supported by movement, interception and active rather than aircraft and infantry. Once the cordon had been passive defence tactics'' ruptured the tanks moved too quickly for further The following day Lt.-Col. Andrew D. Bruce defensive fronts to be constructed across their path, was detailed to set up a planning branch for the and the containment ofsuch breakthroughs seemed new organization, designed to look into the to present insuperable difficulties for armies equip- questions of equipment, training and adminis- ped with conventional artillery. tration. By the end of November the planning In the still neutral United States the problem was phase had been completed, and Bruce was appoin- studied carefully at the highest levels. Within the ted.tp command the new Tank Destroyer Tactical United States Army, as within every army of the and Firing Center at its temporary headquarters at period, there had been a debate as to whether the Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. In accordance best defence against the tank was the anti-tank gun with the new concept of aggressive defence, existing or another tank. Events abroad seemed to indicate anti-tank battalions were re-designated Tank that the anti-tank gun had failed in its primary Destroyer battalions the following month. mission; hut the tank represented an expensive The task facing Bruce was enormous. He had to solution, and in any event the Chiefof thr Armored build a central administrative organization for the Force did not wish his vehicles to he employed in a rapidly expanding Tank ~estroyerF orce, and at defensive rble, as the nature and training ofhis arm the same time formulate doctrine, organize train- was specifically designed for offensive operations. ing, superintend weapons development, and pre- On the other hand, the anti-tank gun was pare tables of organization. With very limited potentially a more powerful weapon than that resources he was founding what amounted to a new carried by the majority of contemporary tanks, and arm of service, starting from scratch. if it could he given a self-propelled mobility it could The basic thinking behind the new arm was be deployed and re-deployed rapidly to deal with simple. Mobile tank destroyers in large numben any developing crisis, which the towed gun could 'The Tonk Dutoyri Hzlory. Srudy No. *g, Hiitorlcal Section, not. Army Ground Forces. Sandini would be deployed rapidly in the path and on the tankdestroyer units is thedestruction ofhostile tanks flanks of any enemy mass tank attack, where they by [the direct] fire ofa superior mass ofguns.'%T he would destroy their opponents by direct gunfire. In choice of a panther head for a badge and a motto of Bruce's own words, 'Panther-like, we seek tnfoor- Seek, Strike and Destrq were constant reminders of mation of enemy tanks and of suitable firins the new methods. positions; panther-like, we strike and destroy by Belligerent mottoes are not usually taken too funjre from favourable positions. This does not seriously by the men who actually do the fighting. mean that we seek out tanks with guns, nor chase them, nor pursue them, nor charge them.'' In the ZTrainmg Circulan 88 and 125,Junc and November $gq$ years that followed, this was emphasized time and again in training circnlars: 'The primary mission of Vbld plbha%rortmealg no-nrmpd htdhir=l eleu meretd-tht or ofrd t ohthef eiMf ss.h 8cm3a7dr-*ap4xl ye7- f innp tch.erp mdamm -iSl ss~liedteiso.n (ToUhf&iCs e T dM useum) Sandini TDF did not dispense with towed anti-tank guns altogether, and at one phase there was even an increase in the proportion of towed guns. Thr 37mm was replaced by the gin anti-tank gun MI. The heavy anti-aircraft element within each battalion was a clear indication that the dive- bombing attacks which had disrupted the British and French static anti-tank gun cordons would have less success against the new American formations. In the event, the twin (and later, quadruple) .50 mounting was used extensively against ground targets as well, with such murd- erously successful results that it earned itself the title of 'the meat grinder'. Fnim-obUperoo wseidno igft .tM hoeQw Sanwr ....,"lerd eivna hl odf estahdned0 ""f eirost1t omM t ZshceDh F-Se&i m.e N. o(rEAtChrP m AAyfrr, miwc&ha),i c hp desAigs neadlr etoa doyp ermateen etniomnaesdse, atnadn kth ed neesxtrto syteerps u pw tehree In this case occasional over-usage by instructors formation ladder from battalion was the Tank sometimes led to irreverent yells of 'Shag Ass!' a Destroyer Group, consisting of a group Headquar- coarse exoression which mieht be translated as 'It ters and HQCompany, plus three TD battalions. sounds unpleasant-I'm not stopping to find out!' The largest formation ofall was theTank Destroyer In spite of this the TD soldier was proud of his Brigade, which included a Headquarters and two trade, and reckoned he was a better all-round TD Groups. As originally conceived one TD soldier than anyone else in the Army. Brigade would support each corps, and two each The basic unit was the battalion, of which army; in fact only two such brigades were raised initially there were three types, as follows: and of these only one, the ~sts,a w active service. Heay, Self-Propelled: Headquarters Company and The Tank Destroyer Tactical and Firing Center three gun companies with a total oftwenty-four sin began moving from Fort Meade to a new per- or 75mm anti-tank guns, twelve M6 37mm anti- manent station named Camp Hood at Killeen, tank guns and eighteen 37mm anti-aircraft guns, Texas, in the middle of January 1942. Once all self-propelled. A Reconnaissance Company established, the Tank Destroyer Center was able to equipped with M3 halftracks (later M8 armoured concentrate on the training of individuals and cars) was added to this establishment, performing units. The men came from the cavalry, the artillery the invaluable service ofroute finding and selection M3 h British service, firing i. the supp1rmentnry dmi of fire positions for the battalion. The 37mm ant,- role. Mlximvm elevndon obtainrblc was +lg degrees. (RAC aircraft guns were later replaced by dual mount .50 T dM uscum) cal. machine guns in M3 halftracks, and the M6 light tank destroyers replaced by the heavier weapons. Light,Self-Propelled: Similar establishment toHeavy Battallon, but equipped with thirty-six M6 37mm anti-tank guns and eighteen dual mount .50 cal. anti-aircraft machine guns, all self-propelled. The light tank destroyer was soon seen to fall below battlefield requirements, and units so equipped were converted to the Heavy r61e. Lifht, Towed: Similar establishment to Light SP battalion, and equipped with thirty-six towed 37mm anti-tank guns and eighteen dual mount .50 cal. anti-aircraft machine guns, self-propelled. The Sandini and the infantry; the first task was to establish a mos in T-ai.. mec omplete absence of stowage suggests common standard of training, including the use of ~ ~ : $ ~ , " ~ ~ ~ ~ t h ~ $ d ~ $ ~ ~ & l ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ sthmeairl l abramsisc anTdD e xcprleowsi vetrsa, dafet,e rT wrhaiicnhin tgh eyo fl eeanrntierde vEi=eWwS. Nofo OteF" "Cchridaessh -bhye ~lmteetlsh,le altemre t~(. MPW.ar-rl MmceUd. .) for battalions took about three months, including five training record was equally impressive, including weeks' gunnery and range practice, six weeks' twoRrigadeand twenty-fourGroupHeadquarter5, tactics, and one week's battle conditioning.' In and 100 battalions. In the equipment field the addition to training new battalions, the TD Center Tank Destroyer Board had developed the MIX established its own Officer Candidate School and a Tank Destroyer and evaluated the bazooka on Replacement Training Center, designed to keep behalf of the Army.% battalions in the field at full strength. A total of Because of his vastly Increased responsibilities, 5,c87 officers and 17,062 enlisted men qualified on Lieutenant-Colonel Bruce was promoted to courses conducted by the TD School, while 42,000 Brigadier-General in February ,942 and to Major- enlisted men passed through the Replacement General in September of that year. He handed over Training Center and 5,299 2nd lieutenants grad- command of the Tank Destroyer Center to Major- uated from the Officer Candidate School. The unit General Orlando C. Ward on 25 May 1943. His achievement should not beseen assimply a brilliant 3ne rink D~~~~~~~c ente~r~ ~~blsuim~ehrhrlndg or a 6nt In piece of administration; prior to the establishment battle condlr~onlngm elhodr. 10 that advancrng troops were bred on of the'TDF the US Army had serious doubts that it from the front with live ammunltlon, lnltcad offrom the flank,, thl, was fnghtcmng, rcahrt~a nd eEecr~vc 'The Tank Dritrqn Mrlory 9