Link to Item
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
REVIEW
M10 Tank Destroyer vs StuG III
JPTRR
Managing Editor
#051
Joined: December 21, 2002
KitMaker: 7,772 posts
Armorama: 2,447 posts
Posted: Saturday, October 12, 2013 - 06:36 AM UTC
Osprey released M10 Tank Destroyer vs StuG III Assault Gun Germany 1944 as their 53rd title in their series Duel. Illustrated by Richard Chasemore with original artwork and cutaways, maps, and useful photographs supporting content by the esteemed Steven J. Zaloga, this book should be useful to modelers, dioramaists, and historians.
Link to Item
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
Link to Item
If you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
staff_Jim
PublisherJoined: December 15, 2001
KitMaker: 12,571 posts
Armorama: 6,599 posts
Posted: Monday, October 14, 2013 - 06:53 AM UTC
A great review Fred! I find the amount of work you guys put into the text of these is really impressive. Cheers ~ Jim
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 - 02:40 AM UTC
Anyone know why the British (or US) didn't experiment with putting a Firefly turret on an M-10 chassis? The result would be comparable to the Panther - well-sloped armor with a high-velocity gun, and a lower profile than an M4. Would be a good 'what-if' project 
Henk
Joined: August 07, 2004
KitMaker: 6,391 posts
Armorama: 4,258 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 - 03:02 AM UTC
Quoted Text
They did, it was called the Achilles
sorry, should add that of course that was the 17pdr gun in a M10 turret, rather than a fully enclosed Sherman Firefly turret. Probably because of the weight.
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 - 04:26 AM UTC
Well. no. That's not what I mean. I'm aware of Achilles, but that was a tank destroyer. I'm talking about an MBT with the enclosed Sherman/Firefly turret on an M10/M36 chassis. If the same chassis (I'm aware of the engine difference between M10 and M36) could handle the weight of the 90mm gun and large turret of the M36, it could also handle a Firefly turret. The M36B1 was the M36 turret on a Sherman tank chassis, so the turret rings were compatible. The Sherman lll and M10 shared the same engine, drive train, and suspension, so I don't see where weight would be a problem.
Henk
Joined: August 07, 2004
KitMaker: 6,391 posts
Armorama: 4,258 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 - 04:54 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Well. no. That's not what I mean. I'm aware of Achilles, but that was a tank destroyer. I'm talking about an MBT with the enclosed Sherman/Firefly turret on an M10/M36 chassis. If the same chassis (I'm aware of the engine difference between M10 and M36) could handle the weight of the 90mm gun and large turret of the M36, it could also handle a Firefly turret. The M36B1 was the M36 turret on a Sherman tank chassis, so the turret rings were compatible. The Sherman lll and M10 shared the same engine, drive train, and suspension, so I don't see where weight would be a problem.
Fair enough, in that case, I don't know. Maybe the fact that they already had the Firefly, negated the need for another variant in the field, which would essentially be very similar to the Firefly. I understand that they could not make enough Fireflies as it was, so perhaps it was simply a logistic decision?
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 - 07:51 AM UTC
To take my argument further, 17lb in the T23 turret (because it's roomier), M10 (or M36) chassis, whichever one is more efficient, on the E8 suspension (to reduce ground/weight ratio). All made with available parts with little to no modifications. Sort of like throwing something together from a 1:1 spares box. It could have been in service from Fall '44. My 'what-if' fantasy tank!
My 'what-if' fantasy tank!Henk
Joined: August 07, 2004
KitMaker: 6,391 posts
Armorama: 4,258 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 - 08:03 AM UTC
Quoted Text
To take my argument further, 17lb in the T23 turret (because it's roomier), M10 (or M36) chassis, whichever one is more efficient, on the E8 suspension (to reduce ground/weight ratio). All made with available parts with little to no modifications. Sort of like throwing something together from a 1:1 spares box. It could have been in service from Fall '44.
I like it. I don't know why they did not put that winning packet together. Why didn't the Brits use the 3.7 inch anti aircraft gun in the same manner as the Germans used the 88mm? They had a potential tank killer right there, all along. Would ave blown holes in Panthers, and probably Tigers too.
russamotto
Joined: December 14, 2007
KitMaker: 3,389 posts
Armorama: 2,054 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 - 08:25 AM UTC
Nice review, Fred. I really wish now there was an updated release of the M10 to accompany the almost monthly releases of new variants of the StuG.
The M10, if I have this right, had thinner armor than the M4 in an attempt to make a faster, lighter vehicle meeting the tank destroyer doctrine. As such it was much more vulnerable than the M4, even with the sloped armor.
A better choice could/would have been the M27 hull with either the 17 pounder or 90mm gun. The M27 was ready in 1943, but rejected as untried, unproved, and probably unprofitable.
Quoted Text
Anyone know why the British (or US) didn't experiment with putting a Firefly turret on an M-10 chassis? The result would be comparable to the Panther - well-sloped armor with a high-velocity gun, and a lower profile than an M4. Would be a good 'what-if' project
The M10, if I have this right, had thinner armor than the M4 in an attempt to make a faster, lighter vehicle meeting the tank destroyer doctrine. As such it was much more vulnerable than the M4, even with the sloped armor.
A better choice could/would have been the M27 hull with either the 17 pounder or 90mm gun. The M27 was ready in 1943, but rejected as untried, unproved, and probably unprofitable.
staff_Jim
PublisherJoined: December 15, 2001
KitMaker: 12,571 posts
Armorama: 6,599 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 - 10:06 AM UTC
Did I just see Henk posting?!?!
Hey Henk... welcome back!
Cheers,
Jim
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 - 03:08 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The M10, if I have this right, had thinner armor than the M4 in an attempt to make a faster
A better choice could/would have been the M27 .
The M27 could have been a better choice, but was not in production and therefore no hulls or chassis lying around for the conversions. The M10 hulls, on the other hand, were available, and although thinner armored than Shermans, did come with the bolts that were meant for applique armor plates, which were, apparently, never used. The plates could have been easily and quickly manufactured and installed. I was purposely limiting my choice of vehicle parts to those available between June and December '44.
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 - 03:15 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Nice review, Fred. I really wish now there was an updated release of the M10 to accompany the almost monthly releases of new variants of the StuG.
On the box art of Dragon's up-coming Jagdpanther G2, there's a line drawing of an M10 in the background. So if that's any indication... I would also like to see a newly tooled M10. I have the Academy one, and although nice, I am not 100% satisfied with it.
Henk
Joined: August 07, 2004
KitMaker: 6,391 posts
Armorama: 4,258 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 - 03:16 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Did I just see Henk posting?!?!
Hey Henk... welcome back!
Cheers,
Jim
Thanks Jim
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.