Talk:M10 tank destroyer

message: "The M10 also equipped units of the Free French Army; one M10 named "Sirocco", crewed by a regiment composed of French sailors, famously knocked out a German Panther tank on the Place de la Concorde in Paris."
According to Collins and Lapierre in "Is Paris Burning", English Edition, publ 1965, Simon & Schuster, NY, the M-10 of the Régiment Blindé de Fusiliers Marins that engaged the Panther in the Pl de la Concorde was named "Simoun" (p290).  The gunner of the "Simoun", Robert Mady, provided the account of the action to the authors.  M-10 was at the Pl de l'Etoile under the Arch when it was engaged by the Panther in the Pl de la Concorde.  The chef-de-char (tank commander) of the "Simoun" Second-Maître Quiniou estimated the range to the target at 1,500m.  Parisian Mady remembered reading long ago that the length of the Avenue de Champs-Elysées from the Arc de Triomphe to the obelisk at the Pl de la Concorde was 1,800m.  He sets the correct range on the gun sight and scored a direct hit on the Panther disabling it.  The Panther was still able to fight and was only knocked out when it was rammed by a Sherman tank "Douamont" of the 501eme RCC (Régiment de Chars de Combat) entering the Pl de la Concorde from the rue de Rivoli.
Ray Y Cheung (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris tank battle 

message: ::: Sources for 'M10' or 'M10 tank destroyer' name: 
1. D'Este, Decision in Normandy, uses M10 or tank destroyer throughout; never uses 'wolverine'.
2. Zaloga, US Tank Destroyers in Combat, never uses wolverine; always uses M10, M10 tank destroyer, or M10 gun motor carriage. 
3. Zaloga, M4 Sherman at War, uses M10 or M10 tank destroyer throughout. 
4. US Army technical manuals and US government reports on Lend-Lease use the official name, never use 'wolverine'.
5. Macksey, Tank: A History of the Armoured Fighting Vehicle, uses M10, not wolverine, even though this is a British book. 
6. Zaloga, Operation Cobra 1944: Breakout from Normandy uses M10 or M10 tank destroyer, never wolverine. 
7. Fortin, British Tanks in Normandy uses 'M10' (usually) or 'M10 tank destroyer' 22 times; 'M10 Achilles' or 'Achilles' 8 times and 'Tank destroyer M10 wolverine' once in my rough count. Note this is a book solely concerned with British armor in the Normandy campaign and thus would be expected to use British-centric names. For example he uses British designations such as 'Sherman V' instead of the US 'M4A4' designation for the same vehicle. 
8. MacDonald, The Siegfried Line Campaign, uses 'M10' or 'tank destroyer'. MacDonald was both an official US Army historian and an infantry combat veteran of WW2.  
 
I'll add more as I find them. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you realise specialist works on the subject have practically no influence on naming. "M10 gun motor carraige" garners only 6370 hits (Google search), not the 40 somehting thousand you suggested.--Pattont/c 21:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Odd, I would think that if all the historians are calling it something other than 'wolverine' then we ought to pay some attention to that. If most of them are calling it something other than 'wolverine' we still ought to pay some attention. I have yet to find a single source making the claim that 'wolverine' was any sort of popular, well-known or official name. It is a myth being perpetuated by google and now by us. In the wikipedia ranking of sources, published sources come first. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for Names 

message: *Who started calling this vehicle "Wolverine"? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The British called lend-lease M10s wolverines.--Pattont/c 18:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually most British sources I have call them M10s or some variation of that - even if they are re-armed with 17 pounder guns. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: which sources and from when use the Wolverine name? That might give a clue as to when the name became atatched.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a plastic model company Tamiya which released a scale model of the M10 in the 1970s (I think), and called it an "M10 wolverine". I'd love to see popular references to the 'wolverine' name prior to that - I wonder if they even exist. I suspect the name became popularized by hobbyists. British military documents from the war generally refer to them as M10s. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'Wolverine' name fits in with 'Grizzly and 'Skink' so perhaps there were plans at one time to produce the M10 in Canada.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: History of name

message: To my knowledge the British never received any M10A1 GMC's - those were the petrol-engined ones based on the Medium Tank M4A3 chassis and the US Army retained those for its own use (as it did with M4A3 itself). Both the so-called Achilles I/Ic and II/IIc were the diesel-engined M10 GMC (based on the M4A2 chassis) - the difference between the I and the II simply being the change of counterweight at the rear of the turret. [source: "M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers 1942-53" by Steven J. Zaloga]
Paulybear1 (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Variants 

message: "U.S. tank destroyers fired many more high-explosive shells than anti-tank ammunition, indicating that they were employed much like the tanks they were supposed to support."
This is logically unsound. First, the article directly states that the APHE rounds were designed and used for anti-tank work, thus they were a dual purpose round similar to the modern MPAT/HEAT round. Dual purpose rounds are generally carried in larger numbers in the ammo rack, so even in modern tank combat if a tank crew exhausts their Sabot ammunition they will engage tank targets with their MPAT rounds.
Second, if an M10 is engaging in direct fire against non-armored targets such as gun emplacements or dug in infantry, this type of fire would use up many more rounds per engagement than a similar engagement against armored targets, simply due to the nature of the engagement. 
Without having relative ammounts of ammunition expended by tanks versus tank destroyers, or really any sort of substantive backing of this statement, it seems to be without merit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.221.168 (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They were used for artillery support when not fighting tanks, firing tens of thousands of rounds of HE in that role alone (and tanks were also used as artillery when not needed elsewhere). They were also used up front to support the forces similar to a tank.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.21.165 (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The statistic is well cited, so it is not without merit. Second, WW2 ammo was not like modern ammo. They weren't using HEAT in the M10. The AP ammo was solid shot (i.e., no explosive filler). The HE ammo was simply HE, not HEAT. The only other ammo they had was smoke. Third, I am not sure where you're getting the idea that the volume of fire in an anti-armor engagement was less than in other types of engagements. WW2 guns were pretty inaccurate compared to today. So - volume of ammo used compared to volume of AP ammo used is indeed a pretty good proxy for how the M10 was employed. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combat Use 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on M10 tank destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100117020557/http://gva.freeweb.hu:80/weapons/usa_guns5.html to http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/usa_guns5.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article states that the M10's nickname, "Wolverine" was not an official name, like that of the M4 Sherman, M5 Stuart, or M7 Priest.  However, none of these names (Sherman, Stuart, Priest) were given to these vehicles by U.S. government or Soldiers.  The British used names for their vehicles (e.g. Churchill, Valentine, Cromwell, Crusader, etc.).  When they received Lend-Lease American Equipment, they coined names for the vehicles, choosing names of U.S. Generals for the vehicles.  The names "Sherman" and "Stuart" were designations given by the British (British soldiers nicknamed the "Stuart" tank "Honey" because it was very reliable compared to their previous vehicles).  "Priest" started out as a nickname, but became an official designation.  M3 tanks were provided both with 12.7mm machine gun turrets and with copulas, which were given the names "Grant" and "Lee" to distinguish them.  The names became popular with U.S. soldiers, who began using them unofficially, and eventually officially.  The U.S. then began the practice of giving tanks official names.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.191.196 (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  All roughly correct, but the fact remains that the origin of the M10 "nickname" of Wolverine is very murky. It is possible to see the British-created AFV nicknames in use in WW2-era documents. I have yet to see anything older than the 1970s using the term 'wolverine'. Personally I think it was made up long after the war, but, if I see new info of course I am willing to be corrected. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly the 'Wolverine' name had been reserved for Canadian-built M10s constructed using the Grizzly chassis.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vehicles were "Named" by the British 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on M10 tank destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927065842/http://www.2iemeguerre.com/blindes/m35primemover.htm to http://www.2iemeguerre.com/blindes/m35primemover.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is it fair to say that a tank destroyer is a tank too? The tank destroyer resembles a tank. And usually Tanks fire at other tanks.103.246.39.1 (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Turret based tank destroyer designs are relatively few. Tank destroyers are considered solely by their intended purpose in stopping tanks, whereas for much of their history tanks have had a general purpose role. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tank