Talk:M10 tank destroyer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Counterweights[edit]

It looks like there is some confusion regarding counterweights on the M10. The turret rear had two counterweights on all but the earliest models. The 17-pounder versions *also* had a small counterweight on the gun tube near the muzzle. The back-and-forth editing of the photo caption for the 17-pounder M10 doesn't make much sense. The vehicle has three counterweights - two at the turret rear and one on the tube. DMorpheus 15:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Achilles photo caption refers to the text on the left, in the Achilles variant description, which mentions the barrel counterweight but not the "standard" turret counterweights (which are mentioned in other section). And it makes sense to concentrate on the features of the specific variant in the description / photo caption of that variant. Besides, the turret counterweights are hardly visible in that photo...
Of course there is no reason here for a lengthy discussion or an "edit war".
By "earliest models" do you mean the T35 prototype ? Bukvoed 06:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the caption was referencing the text to the left, but it appears that was not obvious to everyone. I just hate to see an edit war over a misunderstanding/misreading. I am not sure exactly when the counterweights on the rear first appeared; the early M10s in North Africa had very small ones, but I recall reading (somewhere;) that the counterweights were not an original design feature. DMorpheus 14:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I changed the caption once more, hopefully it's better now. Bukvoed 17:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the turret counterweights - you were right. Hunnicutt ("Sherman - A Hisory of the American Medium Tank") mentions that first production veicles didn't have these. Problems with turret balance led initially to some improvised solutions in the field and eventually to the introduction of the standard triangular counterweights. Bukvoed 09:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The barrel weight was necessary on the 17 pdr version in order to counter the gun's heavier breech whilst retaining the mount's built-in balance point (i.e., the mounting pivots) for the 3". Ideally the pivot point would have been moved nearer the breech to keep the gun in balance without the weight but that was not worth the effort when the addition of a simple counterweight would do.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paris tank battle[edit]

"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)[reply]

Requested Move 2008[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"Wolverine" name[edit]

The "Wolverine" name should be removed from the title and the first paragraph. It does not appear in any official wartime documents related to the M10. The US service version was never assigned a popular name, while the British assigned "Achilles" to both the 3in and 17pdr versions (although it was most commonly referred to simply as 3in SP M10 or 17pdr SP M10). The "Wolverine" name appears to have first come into use with early plastic model kits in the 1970s. There is speculation that it was the planned name for the proposed Canadian-built variant (this would fit the Canadian pattern of naming locally-produced armoured vehicles after Canadian wildlife). Bunwarrior (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I've just fact-tagged it again after tagging it, and then removing it some time ago. I have never seen any reference to US troops calling them Wolverines even after the tag was there for six months. They are universally called "M10s" or "TDs" in every single reference I have. Even most British sources use "M10" and only occasionally call them "Achilles". The article name should be changed. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article?[edit]

I propose the article be renamed "M10 Tank Destroyer", rather than using the dubious "Wolverine" in the name. Opinions, comrades? DMorpheus (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is the reason the {{Fact}} makes no sense -- the article is named Wolverine. Requiring a citation for the name of the article is slightly beyond absurd. Googling for "M10 Wolverine" shows about 11,700 hits for the term, which clearly indicates that it is not a rare term. Indeed, it is more common than "M10 Tank Destroyer" (about 10,300 hits).  Xihr  23:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, that's irrelevant to the issue. The text says US soldiers called them Wolverines after a British-provided name. I have never once seen the term used in any other reference aside from Wikipedia. The fact that the term "M10 wolverine" is now popularized sixty years later does not address the issue in any way. The question is not whether it is a rare term, it is whether it was a WW2 term or something invented many years later. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first source cited on this is really poor quality. They can't even spell correctly. They wrongly state that the M10 first say action in British hands. DMorpheus (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DMorpheus it is not relevant how come the term "Wolverine" is over the official desingnation. Shouldnt the article be named so...
At the same time, this would also mean renaming articles such as M4 Sherman, Stuart tank and M3 Lee to there correct terms.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite the same issue. The Sherman, Lee, and Stuart were all British designations given during WW2 to those vehicles. No doubt about that. We know US troops used those names too - I've spoken to enough veterans and the names were used in literature published at the time. So there is no need to rename those articles because the terms have genuine historical provenance.
My points here are:
a) The usage of the term "Wolverine" is not currently sourced to any WW2 usage. A google search tells us nothing about this issue. If someone produces a reliable source (not an error-filled web page) showing the British used this designation, OK, I will withdraw the objection. Frankly most British sources call them M10s anyway, regardless of armament. But if someone finds a source showing this name we can make progress.
b) The article says US troops used this name. I don't believe that's true and ask for any citation to prove it. US troops called them "TDs" or "M10s".
Therefore, the usage of the term "Wolverine" in the title, as if it was a significant name, is unsupportable given what we know right now.
Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok checking two decent titles for you:
British Tanks in Normandy by Ludovic Fortin: pp. 104-105 Title for the page calls it hte "Tank Destroyer M10 Wolverine" - then throughout the text only refers to it as the M10 etc and does not talk about the word Wolverine what so ever.
No Holding Back* by Brian Reid: p. 146 calls it the M10 self-propelled gun
Prehaps a more specific book on AFV - Allied ones in paticular may have more information regarding this nickname?
  • book focuses on the Canadian Army and Operation Totalise--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have the Fortin book and it is excellent in most respects, but I don't think it addresses this issue. DMorpheus (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


With no source given for the "Wolverine" name in US use I again suggest the article be renamed and the text clarified to say that the "Wolverine" name may have been in British use, but not US use. DMorpheus (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am checking in one last time with everyone before we change the article name. It has been a month since a citation was requested and nothing has shown up. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move/rename completed Aug 22 08. DMorpheus (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of mentions that suggest it is just posible that it was called that in british service (http://books.google.com/books?q=Tank+Destroyer+M10+Wolverine&lr=&sa=N&start=20) but nothing contemporary.Geni 15:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's something to use as a refererence (specifically [1] and [2]), although given how rarely this is mentioned, it would be nice to find something more detailed, or quoting a primary source.
But the two references currently cited in the intro don't support the statement, they merely use the name Wolverine. They should be removed. —Michael Z. 2008-12-01 18:25 z


Yes it should be use its original American name m10 tank destroyer. while your at should also change the m3 lee > Medium Tank, m36 jackson > tank destroyer and the rest of the miss named armored vehicles back to its American designation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.32.100 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, already done for the M10 and M36. As stated above, the M3 medium was indeed called a Lee in US service (not officially, but by virtually all sources) whereas the documentation showing any usage of 'Wolverine' prior to about 1970 is thinner than tissue. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move - March 2009[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to M10 tank destroyer. Aervanath (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF ? Rename again ?[edit]

This article was renamed "M10 tank destroyer" in August and has just been re-named back to "M10 Wolverine" with no discussion and, as far as I can tell, no basis either. I will revert unless someone has something useful to add to the discussion above. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything in the talk page, the move request or anything else that supports this page move so I am reversing it. If I am missing something please show me. Thanks, DMorpheus (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Google test Mar 9 09:
M10: 9,300,000
M10 tank destroyer: 32,600
M10 wolverine: 33,400
M10 GMC: 42,100

Again, as with the discussion last summer, if someone can cite a single US WW2-era document calling this a wolverine I'll eat my hat. ;) Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DMorpheus (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I object to moving this article back. "Wolverine" was almost never used by US soldiers, but the British always called them Wolverines. Nowadays "Wolerine" is the most common name in all countries, as demonstrated by the above google search. We use the most common name for our articles, not the official name, otherwise M249 squad automatic weapon would be called "Squad automatic weapon, 5.56mm, M249".--Pattont/c 19:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have even ONE source stating that the British Army always called them Wolverines? And even if you did, isn't it odd that we would use the British name for a US vehicle? Given WP:COMMONNAME, M10 GMC or M10 tank destroyer are the best choices; 'wolverine' simply perpetuates a myth.

DMorpheus (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't have a source that the brits always called them wolverines, I read it somewhere a while ago and can't remember where, so disregard that if you like. You just prooved in your google search that Wolverine is the most common name. How that name perpetuates a myth when we can clearly state in the article how the name came about is beyond me...--Pattont/c 19:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do have a source. Faint praise: American tanks and tank destroyers during World War I by Charles M Baily—"Tank destroyers also received British names, such as Wolverine for the M10".--Pattont/c 19:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so 42,100 hits (for M10 GMC) is less than 33,400 hits (for M10 wolverine)????? 'Wolverine' is not the most popular name now. It was not an actual, common name in WW2. The page move was completely improper. This is a US vehicle and should either be known by the most common US name or the official US name. In most WW2 British documents it was called an M10. DMorpheus (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Why this constant reference to what it used to be called? Wikipedia policy is about how it is referred to now (which appears to be disputed). If "M10 GMC" is the common name, shouldn't the article be M10 gun motor carriage (note lowercase; I don't see why this is a proper noun)?
I have no objection to the name "M10 gun motor carriage" since that was the most popular google search result and is very close to the official US Army name. I think "M10 tank destroyer" is the most common usage in the published sources though (see in-progress list below). The "constant reference to what it used to be called" is being discussed because the 'wolverine' name is something that was never/very rarely used during WW2, so naming the article with this term seems a bit nutty now. We've already shown it is not the most popular name now anyway so there is simply zero basis for it as the article name. If it is mentioned in the article as a later-popularized nickname in a few sources, OK. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the subject, but the article's title should correspond to the most commonly-used current name. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While 'Wolverine' has become commonly associated with the British M10, the official name was Achilles for all versions (the 17 pounder was officially the Achilles Ic/IIc). The source of the 'Wolverine' name is unknown, but may have come from a proposed Canadian production version (similar to the 'Grizzly' name for Canadian produced Shermans). It does not seem to have seen popular use until sometime in the '70s. While I would support a redirect and a note advising "sometimes incorrectly referred to as 'Wolverine'", I feel we should not be perpetuating an erroneous designation in the title simply on the basis of Google popularity.--Bunwarrior (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Names[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Object to move (Don't object any more)[edit]

You saw my source above, and Google. It doesn't matter what the common name amoung historians is, it's the common name in general, and google shows that is Wolverine. I do, however, have a list of books that show the term is in ocmmon use now and was in common use by the British in WWII:

  1. Nuts! the Battle of the Bulge, By Donald M. Goldstein, J. Michael Wenger, Katherine V. Dillon: "M10 Wolverine tank destroyer supports the drive of the 5th division..." (The phrase "M10 tank destroyer" is never used, only "M10 Wolverine" and in one place "The M10 was a tank destroyer", and this book is American)
  2. The US Army in World War II By Mark R. Henry, Mike Chappell "The M10 Wolverine was the first TD vehicle..." (American book)
  3. D-Day 1944 By Steve Zaloga, Ken Ford, Howard Gerrard "In the right backround is an M10 Wolverine tank destroyer...) (Image caption, British book I think)
  4. Tanks: An illustrated history of their impact By Spencer Tucker "the US M10 Wolverine tank destroyer of World War II mounted only a 76 mm gun" (American book)
  5. Tank Driver: With the 11th Armored from the Battle of the Bulge to VE Day By J. Ted Hartman "Patton counted on the M10 Wolverine tank destroyers to protect the US tanks" (American book)
  6. Patton Unleashed: Patton's Third Army and the Breakout from Normandy, August-September, 1944 By Tim Ripley "Two versions were in service with the third army, the M10 Wolverine and the M18 Hellcat..."
  7. Japanese Pacific Island Defenses 1941-45 By Gordon L. Rottman, Ian Palmer "M10 Wolverin and M18 Hellcat tank destroyers prooved to be difficult to stop with available AT weapons"
  8. World War II Desert Tactics‎ By Paddy Griffith, Adam Hook "The M10 Wolverine was not nearly as fast as the 37mm portee or 75mm halftrack"
  9. Battle for Monte Cassino‎ By George Forty "Speeding into battle, this M10 Wolverine..." (Image caption)
  10. Europe at War 1939-1945: No Simple Victory By Norman Davies ‎"The task of knocking out opposing armour was left either to specialized units of M10 Wolverine tank-destroyers"
  11. The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II By Chris Bishop "The M10 was the primary equipment of these battalions and was used not only by the US Army but by the British (who knew the M10 as the Wolverine)"
  12. When the Odds Were Even: The Vosges Mountains Campaign, October 1944-January 1945 By Keith Earle Bonn "Typically, an RCT would include a company of tanks (M4-series Shermans), a company of tank destroyers (these could be Ml 8 Hellcats, M10 Wolverines, ..."

I also did another google search for each term to see how they weighed up:

I searched for all caps because searching for other capitalisations brought up less results for all searches, but in every search "M10 Wolverine" gets the most results. I would also like this article to be called "M10 Wolverine" because other articles are named as such, including M18 Hellcat, M4 Sherman, M3 Stuart, M3 Lee, M24 Chaffee, M22 Locust, M8 Greyhound, etc.

I can't see what myth this name is perpetuating either.--Pattont/c 19:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to refure your points on the RM page: 2.'Wolverine' is not the most common name in use today.

Google search shows otherwise.

3. 'Wolverine' appears in no US Army source.

Because the U.S. Army only use the official name, which is M10 Tank Destroyer. That is not the common name however, e.g. we don't call the M249 squad automatic weapon the "Squad Automatic Weapon, 5.56 mm, M249" now do we?

4. 'Wolverine' is not the most common British name either.

Above source list and google search demonstrates otherwise.

4. This is a US vehicle and was called an "M10", "TD", or "tank destroyer" by US troops.

You used the number 4 twice. Yes this point is completely true, though British troops reffered to it as the Wolverine or Achilles, and "Wolverine" is almost universally used today.

5. It is virtually universally referred to as an M10 or M10 tank destroyer in US documents both during WW2 and today, except when the official designation "3" gun motor carriage M10" was used.

  • This is point 3 written out again differently.

6. Most published sources (in-progress list on the talk page) , including British ones, use the term 'M10' or 'M10 tank destroyer' almost universally.

My source list is much longer than yours and shows the opposite is true.

Thus the *best* argument favoring 'wolverine' is that is may have been used occasionally by British sources.

No it's the most common name and is used in most sources.--Pattont/c 20:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that for more accurate google results, you need to put the terms in quotes and add "-wikipedia" to filter out Wikipedia and all of the mirrors. With that added criteria, you get the following:

Google scholar turns up the following:

Google books turns up:

It doesn't seem that the "Wolverine" nickname is widely used in reliable sources. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, why not move it back to 'M10 Tank Destroyer' and have in the lead 'The M10 Tank Destroyer, also known by the British armed forces as the M10 Wolverine was...', and redirect M10 Wolverine to the article. That way, everyone is happy and anyone searching for either term gets to the article. This is quite a minor point, to be honest. Skinny87 (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Skinny has the right idea. As someone who knows a lot more about aircraft than tanks, 'M10 Tank Destroyer' is also the most useful name to me even if it wasn't also the most ubiquitous, better than 'Wolverine' (though I fully agree with Skinny to mention that name in the lead) and far better than 'gun motor carriage'. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I hope I have come into this as an unbiased person, with no preconceived notions. I think the article should be called M10 Tank Destroyer. If you do a search on "M10 WW2", you will find this comes up more than M10 Wolverine. The name M10 Wolverine should be a redirect and also appear in the main article in the intro. The name M10 Wolverine should never be removed, as it is often refered to it as such. However, it is not the main name. The Tank Destroyer is, from what I can determine. This appears to be in line with the above. PS: At least they're not trying to kill the name M10 Wolverine altogether... :)Wallie (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the M113 APC/Gavin discussion I agree then. Move it back.--Pattont/c 11:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the M10. I think I am unbiased here. The M113 is different. This is family pride! Wallie (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the comparison to the M113 "Gavin" discussion is instructive. We have the same problem of a phoney name (in the M113 case) or nearly phoney (in the M10 case) being popularized until it can indeed be cited. I agree with Skinny's idea, which corresponds to the state of the article anyway prior to Feb 2 when it was renamed. The M10 wolverine was already a redirect and there was reference to it in the article.
Thanks everyone. DMorpheus (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As tank destroyer is not the name per se should it not be "M10 tank destroyer" in the same way as we have "Churchill tank"? This fits with the quotes above. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense. Capitalisation implies it was formally known as the total phrase, which opens up a whole can of worms again :-) Shimgray | talk | 18:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DMorpheus. What "phoney name"? We are dscussing the M10 here, are we not? The M113 is a separate issue. The M10 solution is clear, to my mind. The Wolverine name is not disputed. The Gavin name itself is in dispute, it seems. Wallie (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wallie...this entire conversation shows that the Wolverine name is disputed. Anyway, I still support the status quo of the article in February - ie M10 tank destroyer as the article name, with Wolverine mentioned as an alternative name and as a redirect. Skinny87 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very clear from a little research that M10 Wolverine is a legitimate name. Here is an official museum entry, there are others. [3] The main name is definitely the M10 Tank Destroyer or the M10 TD (abbreviated version). It is also refered to as the M10 Achilles in various forms. This is also legitimate. Wallie (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this discussion has died. Wallie (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this request for move discussion had used Template:RMtalk format, we'd might have been able to see if consensus wsa reached. How an administrator can tell what, if anything, we've agreed from the above #i don't know.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

History of name[edit]

Frankly I prefer to use the official name of vehicles, in this case, M-10 Gun Motor Carriage, and use redirects to handle popular variants like M-10 Tank Destroyer, M-10 Wolverine, etc. This allows the article to most easily found, which, is quite easily the most important thing at hand.

I'm facing a similar situation over the Sturmpanzer IV which was nicknamed the Brummbär by Allied Intelligence when the actual German nickname was Stupa. But the former nickname has been popularized post-war by model kits and the like. And if I rename the article I just know that it will get renamed back at some point no matter how well I explain the source of the popular name.

And, by the way, where the dash between M and the number that is universally used by the War and Defense Departments? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The British called lend-lease M10s wolverines.--Pattont/c 18:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Naming of US armoured vehicles of World War Two[edit]

I would like to point out that at no time during World War Two were United States military vehicles given official names when in use by the United States forces. Those supplied to British and Commonwealth countries were given names as part of the official naming policy of the British Ministry of Supply. US designed vehicles had the following naming policy: tanks were to be named after Generals of the American Civil War and armoured cars after breeds of hound; Self propelled artillery adopted the existing policy for British designed vehicles of bearing ecclesiastical titles.

For example the Amercian Medium Tank M3 was used in two variants by Britain. The first variant was called the Grant and had a British designed turret for its 37mm gun. The second variant was the M3 with the original US-designed 37mm turret, which was named the Lee. AT NO time did the Amercians ever officially refer to their Medium Tank M3's as the Lee. The Light Tank M3/M5 was called the Stuart and the Medium Tank M4 was the Sherman. The M10s used by the Royal Artillery were referred to as M10 SPG (with US 3-inch gun) or M10C SPG (British 17pdr gun). The Wolverine/Achilles names seem to have been used post-war.

As far as self-propelled artillery was concerned the British Bishop was the first SPG 25pdr on a Valentine hull, Sexton a 25pdr on an M3 or M4 medium tank hull and the US-supplied Priest an M3 or M4 hulled US 105mm howitzer.

American designed and/or supplied armoured cars included the Greyhound (M8), Staghound and Boarhound.

As far as I know the first US-designed armoured vehicle to be officially named (I think by the Army Ground Force) was the M26 Pershing, it appears the Americans simply 'borrowed' the MoS naming policy and extended it to include any US General.

The best sources I've come across so far are the Osprey/New Vanguard series of military equipments; naming policy is discussed as an aside in some titles.

143.167.167.170 (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)Andy Loates[reply]

British SP anti-tank guns all had 'A' names - e.g., Archer, Alecto, Avenger, and Achilles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from Deacon (6pdr on armoured truck), Churchill 3-inch Gun Carrier. But how does that bear on this article? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you find official names, not nicknames? I don't think the US Army names anything, they say what the thing is.Sammy D III (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deacon doesn't count as it was used by the RA and not armoured regiments. Perhaps I should have written tracked SP anti-tank guns ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The likely British designation for the 17 pdr M10 was probably something like; Self Propelled 17pdr, M10, Mk I, Achilles.
.. .As far as I am aware the last US tank to be named by the British was the M-24 Chaffee, thereafter the names were selected by the US, the M-36 being one, as Jackson (whether a spurious name or not) does not fit in with the previous UK naming conventions, as it wasn't a 'tank', but in British eyes was a self-propelled gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British Variants[edit]

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)[reply]

Combat Use[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on M10 tank destroyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicles were "Named" by the British[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tank[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M10_tank_destroyer&oldid=1200384279"