The U.S. Army’s Tank-Destroyers Weren’t the Failure History Has Made Them Out to Be
War Is Boring
3613

The article does ultimately state it, even if the preamble doesn’t — the fault was Tank destroyer doctrine rather than the Tank Destroyer itself. Some Historians do, annoyingly miss this, but generally those of a moire technical persuasion do make the distinction.

If seen as a replacement for the heavy anti-tank tank gun — which by 1944 was reaching, if not superseding the ability of its crew to move it and requiring a tow for more than short distances even then- how the British treated it and how the US ultimately used it, then it was a great success.

I would have been tempted to mention its occasional use as an artillery piece (especially in the Anzio bridgehead) but otherwise this was a worthwhile read.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Lee John Parnell’s story.