Thing is Ukraine wants to use the DPICM munitions as is. One, they need any non-NBC munitions can they get for tube and rocket artillery. Two, DPICM is the wrong shape to be used as drone dropped bombets without major rework.
Yeah, the whole "they want the bomblets for drones" is pretty clearly Journoscum fanfiction.
The only thing that could possibly be even worse for them are the Thermobaric munitions. I'm honestly surprised we've not just bitten the bullet and sent those as well.
They are probably not wanting to start the "conventional nukes" arms race because Russia has tons from Soviet stockpiles, and pearl-clutchers have really eroded the NATO stockpiles.
This got me thinking. Odds are pretty good as this war progresses Russia is going to resort to using Chemical weapons. Those soviet stockpiles of ammo are not infinite and I seriously doubt Russian Industry is able to replace what is being expended at speed. I'd say the most likely location for them to do so would be around Avdiivka . Sad truth is Xi told putin "No Nukes", but I don't think he said anything about Mustard or VX. Which begs the question how the West would react to such a thing, and more importantly just how many Chemical rounds Ukraine has squirreled away. They almost certainly have some, and will certainly use them if Russia does. Which is probably why Russia hasn't. So far.
I think Russia using Chemical Weapons is going to be an international red-line, and for Russia it would be a sure sign of weakness - if they have to resort to chemical weapons to take on Ukraine that would mean they are incapable of taking on a nation 1/4 their size.
Putin uses chemical weapons and the sort of "we don't support Russia but while we want them to settle the fuck down we aren't ANTI-Russia" low grade mouthing-the-words of support Ukraine stops and "Alright clearly they are trying to start WWIII. Let's not." begins.
Assad got away with limited Chemical Weapon deployment in Syria because A) no one cares, its just Arabs not like any people are dying and B) Syria has allies that aren't just Russia, and there isn't an international consortium just
waiting for Russia to escalate the conflict so they can roll in. Syria was also pretty well isolated and embargoed for a long time before due to das juden. Russia is being throttled by sanctions, but the grip is pretty weak - deploying chemical weapons would make countries actually stop doing business with Russia instead of just talking about it.
Additionally Russia has, I believe, been pushed back entirely inside areas that they claim - the areas they'd be using Chemical weapons on would be the area they are claiming to liberate, the people most effected by any wind changes would the hearts and minds they are wanting to keep. Deploying chemical weapons is going to hurt their legitimacy and degrade local opinion.
Minor autism, but the tank destroyers were typically assigned to infantry divisions, the tank divisions not really needing them much. Further, the problems came about in combat because while pre-combat planning was conducted evenly with regard for the capabilities of tank destroyers versus tanks, in actual combat situations the boots-on-the-ground commanders would issue some very unpleasant orders, but to be fair "lightly armored box with gun" is still more armor than an infantryman had at the time, and naturally if a TD of five guys gets gibbed by a big gun in the process of saving a squad or two from fire the company commander isn't going to be particularly heartbroken since that's fewer casualties than he would have taken otherwise.
My source on that was WWII combat vets being interviewed (I believe it was a Audrey Murphy doc but not certain) and I believe it was an M-18 gunner complaining about being sent into the shit and the other TDs in his unit they lost because some Lt or Captain figured they treads and a gun, so it must be able to do whatever a tank a can do.
So maybe it was just that guy's experience, but it seemed like not.