America's Most Feared Panzer Killer

At the beginning of World War 2, when Germans arrived in France after taking over Poland, the Wehrmacht’s Panzer divisions shook the world to its core.

The panzer division was much more than just a force of massed tanks; it was a combined arms team centered around the tank. In a Life magazine article published in 1940, an accurate depiction of the shockingly successful German army in the offense described them as [QUOTE]:

“It is not one single weapon, and it's not even a new kind of warfare. It is simply a more ingenious development and use of every kind of modern weapon that has hitherto been seen.”

Faced with this unprecedented threat, the United States Army found itself in a state of palpable urgency. A New doctrine was needed and fast. In late 1941, the War Department inaugurated a unique military concept: The tank destroyer.

By emphasizing rapid response, potent firepower, and mobility over heavy armor, the program aimed to cultivate a specialized force that could quickly engage and neutralize advancing enemy tanks, preventing them from outmaneuvering or overwhelming U.S. defenses.

Would this audacious tank destroyer doctrine be the linchpin that finally halted the German Panzer Juggernaut, or had the U.S. gambled its military future on a strategy few understood?

-

As images and footage of actual events are not always available, Dark Docs sometimes utilizes similar historical images and footage for dramatic effect. I do my best to keep it as visually accurate as possible. All content on Dark Docs is researched, produced, and presented in historical context for educational purposes. We are history enthusiasts and are not always experts in some areas, so please don't hesitate to reach out to us with corrections, additional information, or new ideas. -

[johnjcoxiii]

Why the HELL do all of you Historical Documentarians insist on using the most obnoxious noises (music?) in the background? YOU are the only people who are keeping alive History. It certainly isn't taught in the schools and colleges these days. This information is IMPORTANT and doesn't need to be overwhelmed by or distracted by unnecessary NOISE! For the record, I am 86 and lived through WWII while my much older cousins (32 of them) represented the Family in all branches of the military and all theaters of the war.

[U.S._Army_Retired]

Stop with the fake thumbnails already! The tank on the thumbnail is a T28/T95 SuperHeavy Tank prototype, only 2 were made. One had a turret. The other one, shown, was a tank destroyer set up. It was on display at Fort Knox and sat outside the entrance to the building I worked in. Saw it every day for over a year. The T28 and T95 are the same vehicle. YouTube has a video, search "t28/t95 super heavy tank" and watch it.

[oledahammer]

My Uncle was killed in action in the battle of El Guettar. He was 19 years old, 47th Infantry, 9th Division. May he rest in eternal peace and I will be forever grateful for his sacrifice for the life I now lead.

[jamesg]

The heavy metal music is a distraction rather than a compliment to your very fine videos.

[NoNamesLeft]

You could leave that music out. It doesn't fit.

[Dave-dm]

The British lost a huge amount of equipment at Dunkirk. Much of it was warmed-over WW1 artillery but regardless they had to quickly rebuild their shocks.
The Royal Ordnance Factory Quick-Firing 57mm Six Pounder anti tank gun was particularly successful (also built under licence in USA as the 57mm M1A1 or M1A2 AT gun).
They were in use throughout WW2. One gun even stopped two (genuine) Tiger 1 tanks. Panzer III was no match for this weapon.

[cryptickcryptick]

Tank destroyers were a very interesting combination of economy and firepower. If you have to take on another tank, a tanks is generally always the best option. If you have to take on a large number of tanks, throughout an entire war tank destroyers have some unique advantages. First, they are lighter, easier to move, and cheaper to produce. A tank destroyer only cost about half of what a tank does. So would you prefer 100 tanks, or 200 tank destroyers? Generally, the first tank to fire has better chance of winning any encounter. In a war, one can strategically, use both. Tanks can be the cutting edge. Tank destroyers can be positioned in defensive places, behind hills and fortifications where the thinner steel plating is not a problem. Tank destroyers can also move across muddy fields, damaged bridges, and can at times move faster. It is a physical thing, they use the same engine and are not burdened down with all the weight. This means that even though a tank, might be the preferred option, the better options is the one that can get there. In a situations where you may have a bridge of limited quality, sending over the lighter tanks so troop have some heavy fire support is better than sending over a heavy tank and destroying the bridge.

[archereegmb]

The M4 Sherman was the best Allied tank killer, once it was mounted with the British 76.2mm anti tank gun, and named the Firefly.

[Kaemmer]

This music doesn’t bring ww2 vibes at all. It’s such obnoxious music I can’t even finish the video despite my curiosity

[johntrottier]

Your report makes it sound as if the tank destroyer concept was a success.
But the fact is that the army disbanded the tank destroyer command and all tank destroyer units after the war.
The TDs of WW2 spent far more time acting as mobile artillery and infantry support units that they ever did in the role their doctrine called for.

[WilliamDudley]

My father was in the 821st TD. They landed at D-day + 20, with half tracks and towed cannons. The self propelled guns (M18 etc) weren't issued until months later.

[ricashbringer]

The M3 Lee was not a tank destroyer. It was a stopgap tank put into service until a turret to handle a 75mm barrel was designed and put into production.

[andrewwinter]

Patton, per the biography of him written by Ladislas Farago, Patton always thought the best tanke destoryer was another tank. He never really believed in the Tank destroyer Doctrine because it was by nature defensive in Nature. Patton knew enought about tank warfare to realize that to beat tanks you out manuevered them and took the fight to their rear areas. As he say in the movie.
"I don't want any messages saying, "we are holding our ground". The only thing we are holding onto is the enemy. Were going to hold by the nose and kick him the ass! We're going to kick the hell out of him, .. All... The... TIme! And were are going to go through him like CRAP through a GOOSE!" There is no real place for a defensive-self-propelled anti tank gun in that line of thinking, no matter how fast it is.

What made the M18 valuable was that speed. But It's best use was as a breakout tanks for his armored cav regiments. There were good at that, but never designed for it.

[HeinzGuderian_]

Read "The Panzer Killers". It's about MajGen Maurice Rose and how he used tank destroyers to smash German armour formations. He was a fighting General, always up front and engaging the enemy with small arms himself. He was finally killed by a Tiger commander while speaking to him.

[dougmoore]

At 4:06, while the narrator is talking about the superior German armor, the clip shows a German officer riding in a captured British Bren gun carrier sporting US markings… lol

[blackcountryme]

The music ruins it and I'm a metalhead...

[DavidWilliams-qryj]

Found your back ground music counter Productive, I couldn't finish the video.

[williamevans]

I agree the music doesn't do anything to me for the programming. It's annoying. Makes me want to shut it off and unsubscribe to it

[AltesEisen]

According to a US Army study of tank losses in WW2 for all combatants they could get records on…

1st place killer was Artillery.

2nd place was ant tank mines.

3rd was anti tank weapons. This included towed anti tank guns and infantry anti tank weapons like Bazooka, PIAT, Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck, RGG 43, etc.

4th was another tank.

5th was aircraft attacks.

[jwhite]

like the pictures of M4 firing as artillery but the tank shown at the beginning was to be used to break the West Wall. the sad thing is that they looked like a tank and therefore were used as a tank.