Why yes, both a practical and a doctrinal reason for it.Nickdfresh wrote:It was both.
I have...a number of times. He is a good start to understanding what went on, but occasionally twists himself in knots regarding dates. For example, the "ninjas" - really "antitank Commandos" - concept actually only lasted into the early spring of 1942 and was just one of any number of early concepts explored before the heavy SP TD battalion/group/brigade concept was solidified. Ditto WRT the battalion infantry, engineer, and AA elements.If you read Gabel, I'm pretty sure he states this concisely, clearly, and often. Tank destroyer personnel were regarded as almost antitank specialist ninjas that were to be ready to dismount and kill panzers by any means necessary, including using Molotov Cocktails! Certainly there was a practical extension of the open top, but it was also an extenuation of the "big game hunter" mentality that TD'ers were supposed to be ingrained with. This of course was in response to the virtual frozen panic the Fall of France sent throughout the US gov't and military...
Sorry, but that is a mobility multiplier, not an assault weapon. They did not plan on spearing the enemy on their Rhino horns after all. Seriously, all kinds of tracked vehicles, armored and unarmored, were used to "bust the bocage".Well, they were used in the Norman hedgerows as hedge-choppers. I think one would be hard pressed to be more infantry support than that!
And so am I.I was speaking in terms of Tank Destroyers, at least the actual application of them in the field doctrine-be-damned!
I am not sure the M36 was actually fielded by American forces in the Korean War, but I believe the ROK's got some?I think so, but I'm 99% positive the M-36 was fielded with the cover in Korea at least...
The edit button is your friend.(crikey fuck! I'm in quote hell again )