Tanks/Vehicles M10 GMC "Wolverine"

[Cosmic_Pretzel 626]

The M10 tank destroyer, formally 3-inch Gun Motor Carriage, M10 was a United States tank destroyer of World War II based on the chassis of the M4 Sherman tank. It was numerically the most important U.S. tank destroyer of World War II and combined a reasonably potent anti-tank weapon with a turreted platform (unlike the previous M3 GMC, whose gun was capable of only limited traverse). Despite the introduction of more-powerful types as replacements, it remained in service until the end of the war. Some of those replacements were in fact modified and/or rebuilt from the M10 itself.

 

It was christened the Wolverine by the British, although unlike other vehicle names such as the M4 Sherman, the name was not adopted by American soldiers, who called it TD (a nickname for any tank destroyer in general) beyond its formal designation.

 

 

Early Development

After their first encounters with the Soviet KV-1s and T-34s, the German Army was poised to revise its tank design and take immediate action to bolster their firepower and protection. On one hand, they up-gunned the Panzer IV, which became the staple of the German tank forces, and, on the other, rearmed the StuG III as a tank-hunter. They also converted several other chassis into this role, and pressed many new specialized models into action. This had some effects on Allied forces, and in particular the US Army Corps, which sought about using a standard tracked chassis to create a proper tank hunter of their own. Until then, one of the vehicles used as such was the T12 GMC, a conversion of the M3 half-track with a shielded M1897A4 75 mm (2.95 in) gun. It lacked protection, mobility and had the limitations of a SPG. The only purpose-built vehicle in service then was the M6 GMC, a Ford truck with a standard 37 mm (1.46 in) gun mounted on the rear bay. 5380 were built in 1942, but this was not a success, and it was considered obsolete by 1943. In 1942, the head of staff was actively searching for a fully tracked tank hunter, using the M4 chassis.

 

Doctrine

A tracked tank-hunter was already improvised and tested on the M3 Lee chassis, and a later conversion of this vehicle became the 105 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M7, better known as the "Priest". For the ordnance top brass, thinking of maintenance, shipping and training, using the M4 chassis for a tank hunter was not only feasible, but also highly desirable. The biggest supporter of this concept was General Lesley McNair, head of the ground forces. This also led to the creation of the Tank Destroyer Force, a dedicated reserved unit embracing a new doctrine. These tanks were held in reserve until any enemy tank breakthrough, and were deployed quickly, using fast maneuvers and firepower to destroy the opposing vehicles. This resulted in putting emphasis on speed and firepower, with some sacrifice in protection.

 

Design of the M10 GMC

Based on these requirements, the first prototype was based on the M3 chassis, and later the production was swapped to the M4 standardized chassis. By these means, every component of the drivetrain, complete with bogies with VVSS, roadwheels, idlers and drive sprockets, return rollers and tracks, and the internal arrangement, were kept. The engine was specific to this vehicle, made of twin GM 6-71s diesels mated on a common crankshaft and specific transmission, and the armor and turret were completely new. The prototype 3-inch Gun Motor Carriage T35 was given a standard 3-inch (76.2 mm) M7 gun and a circular open-top turret already produced for the early production M4A1 (later replaced by conventional turrets on these). The second prototype, T35E1, used the M4A2 chassis and had a new pentagonal turret with flat, sloped sides, frontal beak and inverted rear slope. The mantlet was then wrapped around this "beak". The sides received well-sloped flat armor plates with a ">" section, held in place, like the turret plates, by massive nuts. Various handles were welded on these for fastening external storage. Due to the lightness of the turret and the frontal weight of the gun, two large counterweights were added to the rear basket. A secondary cal.50 (12.7 mm) machine-gun was mounted on top, both for AA and ground defense. The prototype was further refined and ended as the 3-inch Gun Motor Carriage M10, earning the go for production in mid-1942.

The M3 gun fired M79 AP shots that could penetrate 3 inches (76 mm) of 30° sloped armor at 1,000 yards (915 m). The Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap (APCBC) M62 was introduced later, as well as the High Velocity Armor Piercing (HVAP) M93 shot and Armor Piercing High Explosive (APHE) shells. The vehicle could carry 54 rounds. However, this naval-derived round had a small charge, lacked initial velocity and often failed to penetrate standard 50-70 mm (1.97-2.76 in) armor.

 

Production, Operators and Variants

Production was assumed at General Motors Fisher Tank Arsenal in Grand Blanc, Michigan (4,993 M10s and 375 M10A1s from September 1942 to December 1943). Ford plants produced 1,028 vehicles of the M10A1 variant (October 1942 - September 1943), and Fisher produced a further 300 turretless M10A1s used as artillery tractors, later converted as M36 Jacksons. Total units built reached 6,706 in December 1943.

 

The M10A1

The 1700 M10A1s received a gasoline Ford GAA engine, and were based on the M4A3 chassis. The last 300 vehicles received the new M1 76 mm (3 in) gun, which had better muzzle velocity and could fire heavier ammunition. By 1944 the M10 had started to lose the edge against the Panthers and Tigers, until HVAP rounds were supplied, and even then they had to find weak points and maneuver around the German tanks to be effective.

 

Full-Track Prime Mover M35

 

Turretless M10A1s built by Fischer were used as artillery tractors, and improvised APCs for the gun crews. 300 were delivered in total by the end of 1943.

 

In British Service

Several hundred were pressed into British service under Lend-Lease, called (Gun) 3 inch Self Propelled (3 in SP). These were assimilated as SPGs, operated by Royal Artillery units, and saw service in 1944 in Italy and France (especially with the Canadians and Poles). Tactical organization was four-battery regiments, with some alternating two towed 17-pdr batteries and two 3in SP batteries, later rearmed with the famed 17 pounder (76.2 mm/3 in) gun. These conversions, into the new 17pdr SP "Achilles" tank hunter, rose to about 1100 machines, done by the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich. It was, in mid-1944, the second most common British/Commonwealth tank hunter after the Firefly. Sub-types were the Diesel/Gasoline powered Ic and IIc. The Canadians also derived a single prototype of their Ram tank into a M10 configuration in 1942, as the 3in SP Wolverine, for a projected production. Some were later used by the Israeli in the 1956 and 1967 wars.

 

In Russian Service

The Red Army received only 54 M10s, but their action is unrecorded, as well as the crew opinions on these. There is no doubt that the open-top turret was not appreciated in winter, and both the lack of protection and firepower did not contribute to their popularity.

 

In Free French Service

The 1st Free French Army led by General De Lattre received dozens of M10s, operated in similar lines as US tank hunter units. They soldiered well from the French Riviera until the liberation of Paris in August 1944, when a single M10 named "Sirocco" disabled a Panther in Place de la Concorde. They also saw action on the French-German border around Strasbourg and in southern Germany, and Indochina after the war.

 

The Wolverine in action

In US service, the first engagements came in early 1943, in Tunisia. Although in short supply, they proved quite up to the task against any German tanks, including the latest evolution of the Panzer IV. On flat, they were fast enough and able to maneuver around enemy tanks with ease. Their open-top turret was a problem in specific urban and heavily forested environments, and also because of shrapnel and grenades. But the crews loved it anyway, because observation was easier, both to spot enemy tanks and to fire, they could communicate more easily with the infantry, and in case their tank was disabled, they could escape quite quickly, compared to the Sherman and other Allied tanks. There was a waterproof canvas, which could be deployed above this open space. In general, the open-top turret was not seen as a problem since US Army doctrine of use in close support included infantry walking alongside the vehicles to counter enemy infantry tactics.

However, by mid-1944, their speed was not sufficient anymore, nor the firepower. The 90 mm (3.54 in) armed M36 Jackson began to supplement tank hunter units, as well as the M18 Hellcat, which was designed on a lightweight chassis with brand new suspensions and drivetrain, procuring speeds unheard of for a tank in the US military -at least since the famous 1930 Christie. Both models made their presence well felt throughout 1944, but the M10s were kept in service well into 1945, although after Normandy their gun proved to be unable to harm the Tiger or Panther, until new HVAP rounds were more largely provided. The British Achilles 17 pdr conversion was, in this way, quite successful. Two-tanks batteries of these were often seconded to British tank brigades equipped with Churchill tanks.

The crews also began to protect their tanks by any means, including everything they could carry fastened outside in canvas bags, supplementary racks, and then piling sandbags on the front slope and bulks of timber on the sides. This was particularly apparent by the end of 1944 and the battle of the Bulge, when the German Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust teams began to take a toll. Already in Normandy, the threat of bocage ambushes urged the crews to improvise armored rooftops with panels cut out from enemy tanks. There was an anecdote about a 86th Anti-Tank Regiment (XII Corps) British tank which had its turret crew killed and replaced three times, but the driver and tank itself remained safe.

Another flaw noted in close quarter combat was the slow turning rate of the turret, which was hand-cranked. It needed a staggering two minutes to rotate a full 360 degrees. The tank hunter was conceived for open spaces, to maneuver faster than the enemy tanks, and like a SPG, the tank itself was brought to bear at the same time as the turret was turned. It was still better than most German tank hunters, which were pure SPGs with limited traverse. The Browning cal.50 (12.7 mm) also proved a solution to "clean-up" the surroundings in close quarters. In general, the statistics showed that the M10 spent many more HE rounds than AP ones, indicating they were more usually used in tank roles, rather than as pure tank hunters.

By the end of 1944, some M10s were transferred to the Pacific theater. Their firepower was more than adequate against any IJN tanks, but they proved disadvantaged in wooded areas due to their open-top turret, because of the Japanese practice to have hidden snipers in top trees, and close combat suicidal antitank Japanese infantry tactics.

 

 

Images Here

 

 

 

M10 GMC Specifications

Dimensions (L-w-h):            14.3x 7.5x 8.8 ft (4.4x 2.3x 2.7 m)

Total weight, battle ready:    29.6 metric tons (65,000 lbs)

Crew  4:                               (driver, commander, gunner, loader)

Propulsion:                          General Motors 6046 diesel, 375 hp (276 kW), 12.5 hp/t

Suspensions:                       VVSS (Vertical Volute Spring Suspensions)

Top speed (flat):                  32 mph (51 kph)

Range:                                 186 mi (300 km)

Armament:                           Main: 3" (76.2 mm) Gun M7, 54 rounds

                                            Secondary: Cal.50 (12.7 mm) Browning M2HB, 300 rounds

Armor:                                  From 0.3 to 2.3 in (9 to 57.2 mm)

 

(Note: I know many people have already suggested the M10 GMC "Wolverine", but here is my suggestion)

                                     

 

 

[leroyonly 4,311]

Open for discussion 

 

However It should be noted US tank destroyers are on the way, however they will be in a future update.

[BH5496 1,139]

stop suggesting things that are already planned

[Cosmic_Pretzel 626]

stop suggesting things that are already planned

1.  I didn't see it anywhere on the planned tanks to be released

2. Perhaps maybe this can give Gaijin and the rest of the communities a little more knowledge about the vehicle?

3. Are there any issues talking about the vehicle on this topic?

[BH5496 1,139]

1.  I didn't see it anywhere on the planned tanks to be released

2. Perhaps maybe this can give Gaijin and the rest of the communities a little more knowledge about the vehicle?

3. Are there any issues talking about the vehicle on this topic?

Vehicles like the Hellcat and Wolverine aren't exactly obscure vehicles, it's like "speculating" whether or not the SU-85 was going to be in the game. Secondly, if you want to discuss it that's fine, but do it in the general discussion section, not the suggestions section.

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

 Secondly, if you want to discuss it that's fine, but do it in the general discussion section, not the suggestions section.

 

Someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

 

Not a big deal if he wants to put it here. He put equal to more effort into his OP than I've seen most people do in the last two years. It's not hurting anyone, in fact, some of the very best suggestions only get better with discussion. Why don't you let us do our jobs and let us put things where they belong? 

 

I didn't see it anywhere on the planned tanks to be released

 

You wouldn't have seen it on the preliminary tree anyways; There is no TD section on it. I would assume that the US TD's are coming soon, probably in 1.47.

[Cosmic_Pretzel 626]

Someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

 

Not a big deal if he wants to put it here. He put equal to more effort into his OP than I've seen most people do in the last two years. It's not hurting anyone, in fact, some of the very best suggestions only get better with discussion. Why don't you let us do our jobs and let us put things where they belong? 

 

 

You wouldn't have seen it on the preliminary tree anyways; There is no TD section on it. I would assume that the US TD's are coming soon, probably in 1.47.

All we can do is wait, be patient and find out for ourselves. :)s

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

All we can do is wait, be patient and find out for ourselves. 

 

I would say that it is very likely we will see tanks such as the Hellcat, M10, Likely some form of M3 GMC (75 or 105mm howitzer), Likely the M56 Scorpion or M50 Ontos, And perhaps the T28/95 (Which, for the record, actually did see combat deployment.).

 

My guess is they'd be arranged as such: (As they go left --> right, the higher the tier)

Jeep with 37mm

M3 75mm

M3 105mm

M10 90mm

M36 90mm

M18 76mm

T28/95 (1950 Deployment)

M56 90mm

M50 106mm

 

 

^^^^^^ Property of Katyusha ^^^^^

http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/207666-american-tank-destroyer-line-proposal/#entry3993653

Edited January 19, 2015 by BlitzkriegWulf

[Cosmic_Pretzel 626]

I wanna see the M50 and M56. :)s

[Galen503 547]

Someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

 

Not a big deal if he wants to put it here. He put equal to more effort into his OP than I've seen most people do in the last two years. It's not hurting anyone, in fact, some of the very best suggestions only get better with discussion. Why don't you let us do our jobs and let us put things where they belong? 

 

So going to tanks-encyclopedia.com and cutting and pasting their entire article on the M10 without so much as hinting at having used it as a source let alone giving the actual author credit or providing the source at all is effort? This is actually among one of the laziest suggestions I have seen as many posters do take time to compile actual research, cite that research, and genuinely try to create an original suggestion. I would think as a community helper your job is to do at least a basic google search to help protect the intellectual property rights of others. 

 

I don't expect to read a dissertation or term paper but is it to much to ask to at least limit full on unbridled  plagiarism.  But seriously to go so far as to commend it is just shameful. 

Edited January 18, 2015 by galen503

[_Katyusha_ 1,829]

I would say that it is very likely we will see tanks such as the Hellcat, M10, Likely some form of M3 GMC (75 or 105mm howitzer), Likely the M56 Scorpion or M50 Ontos, And perhaps the T28/95 (Which, for the record, actually did see combat deployment.).

 

My guess is they'd be arranged as such: (As they go left --> right, the higher the tier)

Jeep with 37mm

M3 75mm

M3 105mm

M10 90mm

M36 90mm

M18 76mm

T28/95 (1950 Deployment)

M56 90mm

M50 106mm

 

 

Should I be concerned that that's pretty much (with added vehicles) the tree suggestion I made?

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

So going to tanks-encyclopedia.com and cutting and pasting their entire article on the M10 without so much as hinting at having used it as a source let alone giving the actual author credit or providing the source at all is effort? This is actually among one of the laziest suggestions I have seen as many posters do take time to compile actual research, cite that research, and genuinely try to create an original suggestion. I would think as a community helper your job is to do at least a basic google search to help protect the intellectual property rights of others. 

 

I don't expect to read a dissertation or term paper but is it to much to ask to at least limit full on unbridled  plagiarism.  But seriously to go so far as to commend it is just shameful. 

 

Galen, I'm not an english teacher. I don't have the time, the patience, or the effort to sweep through thousands of posts to critique their every word. I'm here in case you have a problem with someone else, the game, or whatever. 

 

Did I know it was copied and pasted? No. If I was some sort of omniscient super god, then no, I probably wouldn't have promoted it as much for being a good post, or perhaps I would have just left a link to the original text.

 

 

Why you're convinced to think I have endless hours in the day to donate to WT, I'm truly unsure of. So, instead of openly complaining about it, since you seem to know where it came from, why don't you just drop a link and just a friendly reminder to cite sources? (Oh, is that not your job?)

 

Should I be concerned that that's pretty much (with added vehicles) the tree suggestion I made?

 

Your tree contained widely produced vehicles. I could name them off without looking at your tree or simply just Googling "American tank destroyers ww2"

 

But I suppose because nobody's ever heard of the M3 75/105mm howitzer before (After writing several bug reports about the current halftracks, I've seen lots of the prototypes, models, etc.) and that it's likely nobody's ever heard of the T95 or M50 ontos, it must be your idea, right?

 

 

I suppose that means I have to cite you because it's similar, so it must be yours?

[Galen503 547]

Galen, I'm not an english teacher. I don't have the time, the patience, or the effort to sweep through thousands of posts to critique their every word. I'm here in case you have a problem with someone else, the game, or whatever. 

 

Did I know it was copied and pasted? No. If I was some sort of omniscient super god, then no, I probably wouldn't have promoted it as much for being a good post, or perhaps I would have just left a link to the original text.

 

 

Why you're convinced to think I have endless hours in the day to donate to WT, I'm truly unsure of. So, instead of openly complaining about it, since you seem to know where it came from, why don't you just drop a link and just a friendly reminder to cite sources? (Oh, is that not your job?)

I perused the first several paragraphs and said wait a second this is way more detailed than I would expect someone to put into a video game thread.This is perfect. I literally highlighted the first sentence on any given paragraph, right clicked and hit google search. The article popped up as the first link. It took a combined 20 seconds. Literally.

 

Why not say you were wrong. This poster simply recommending several tanks with cut paste articles wasn't appropriate instead of defending your original poor judgement and combative response. And you are right its not my job to protect people from plagiarism, that would fall upon honest posters or Gaijin or I suspect anyone claiming to monitor threads. As far as a reader is concerned this was posted as the thoughts of the OP, thats why it is wrong. Someone or group did work hard to create this information, they legally are entitled to credit for it. If you want to be combative and disrespectful to others why not drop the guise of being some kind of helper when in fact you attacked another poster pointing out that this OP had cut and paste several articles for suggestions with almost exactly similar posts just change the tank. If you don't have to time to be helpful don't claim to be. 

Edited January 19, 2015 by galen503

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

I perused the first several paragraphs and said wait a second this is way more detailed than I would expect someone to put into a video game thread.This is perfect. I literally highlighted the first sentence on any given paragraph, right clicked and hit google search. The article popped up as the first link. It took a combined 20 seconds. Literally.

 

Why not say you were wrong. This poster simply recommending several tanks with cut paste articles wasn't appropriate instead of defending your original poor judgement and combative response. And you are right its not my job to protect people from plagiarism, that would fall upon honest posters or Gaijin or I suspect anyone claiming to monitor threads. As far as a reader is concerned this was posted as the thoughts of the OP, thats why it is wrong. Someone or group did work hard to create this information, they legally are entitled to credit for it. If you want to be combative and disrespectful to others why not drop the guise of being some kind of helper when in fact you attacked another poster pointing out that this OP had cut and paste several articles for suggestions with almost exactly similar posts just change the tank. If you don't have to time to be helpful don't claim to be. 

 

Again, i'm not here to chase people down because they stole somebody else's work. That's not what I signed on to do 18-24 months ago. If I had to be the mommy of the forum and make sure everyone played by the rules, I would have never bothered. If I see something blatantly obvious (like the guy who put porn all over the forum a couple months ago), I'll let a mod know, but that's about it. I help in different ways than patrolling the forum constantly. I write bug reports (And likely am the one responsible for fixing some rather important issues), and I help people who ask me for it. Currently I'm a bit idle as my computer is having some issues (And hence, I cannot test problems). 

 

I looked at the OP, it had a lot of good info in it. A lot of the guys around here are pretty knowledgeable about the things they post, and I thought nothing of it. I guess that means I should be fired for not doing my "Job" (Which, by the way, said a lot of things, but nothing about checking for plagiarism in the description). 

 

I'm so sorry i'm a complete and utter failure.

[crazykid33 2]

I very much would LOVE too see the wolverine in the game. It has a awesome powerful 76.2 mm gun.

[DavidXD 1,355]

It's already on the dev server ! (http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/234607-update-notes-149-preliminary-23042015/)

Gaijin passed it secretly to development  ;)s

[Fifty_Calories 619]

Its coming next patch. 

[Emperor_Tiberius 4,493]

moved to implemented :D