Why the M18 Hellcat was America's most Underrated Tank Destroyer in WWII

[@dons3006]

Being a former light infantryman and riding in an open top 5 ton in the rain, I can appreciate the misery of this vehicle in bad weather.

[@frodonifinger2628]

It was even worse! The engine was the air-cooled 9 cyl. radial using a huge fan to cool the engine. The fan draw all its air through the fighting compartment. So the crew couldn’t shelter for chill factor as the draft came through the open top down to the rear. Hell of a frost box

[@tacomas9602]

@@frodonifinger2628fuuuuuuuck that. Imagine the M18 with a Ford GAA and a (mostly) weather tight fighting compartment. I never understood why they made tanks miserable to fight in. No heat is insane to me. AC? Drink water lol. I’m sure some GIs rigged up fans

[@hitchhikersguidetotheusael967]

​@@frodonifinger2628why wouldn't they disable the fan in cold weather. Watching the engine temp carefully. Perhaps if it is starting to get too hot in the winter they could reverse the fan to vent warm air albeit smoke and fume heavy into the fighting compartment. Crack drivers hatch if getting sick.

[@frodonifinger2628]

@@hitchhikersguidetotheusael967 the cooling fan was an integral part of the engine. Without it it would overheat. Neither could it run idle for any period of time without overheating. M4 Sherman had the same problem using the radial engine. It was an air-cooled engine enclosed in an engine bay at the back of a tank.

[@HappiKarafuru]

They didn't even to make Atleast a retractable or deployable roof for the hellcat atleast had some shade for the crew to settle outside of combat

[@eligebrown8998]

The Hell Cat wasnt a tank. It was a race car with a gun.

[@jwhite146]

an old German tanker once tole they did not worry about Hellcats that you could see but were always worried about its others in the Hellcat unit

[@davids.5467]

My great grandfather served in the 705th Tank Destroyer Battalion, Company B and Company C as a 1st Lieutenant. I can only imagine the hell that he went through and yet came out uninjured the entire time he served with the 705th.

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

When all other types were bogged down in the mud ..the M18 was the only one that would make it through

[@jackzimmer6553]

Because it was so light!

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

@@jackzimmer6553 the suspension really helped ..and it was fast and agile .. The chieftain really goes into depth about it

[@HappiKarafuru]

And the first one to make into the front and fire at incoming wave of German tank

[@rinkevichjm]

What about the M36?

[@KeithG4CZA]

​@@jackzimmer6553l😊

[@calvingrondahl1011]

My father fought at the Battle of Metz and received the Silver Star from General Patton. The M-36 was effective against pill boxes too.

[@saberdogface]

Metz was a real slog. My hat's off to your dad and his buddies.

[@jackzimmer6553]

@@saberdogface The M36 sported a 90mm gun. It could do some damage! God Bless your father for his service on this earth!!

[@Fjjfuffnr244]

My father and grandfather fought on the other side of the planet. Your father was a great man. Everyone alive today owe him and those like him a great debt.

[@midtownmariner5250]

Called the Greatest Generation for good reason. Much reverence for them.

[@ToddiusMaximus]

Iron men of Metz

[@justonemori]

55 mph with an open top is nuts!

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

Came for the Hellcat, stayed for the incredible Panther footage😅 Hellcat was like Heavy hitting armored car. Shoot and scoot!

[@tomw324]

Some of the footage looks like computer generated tanks set in outdoor landscapes, then made to look like 1940s film. AI generated? Think you are going to see a lot of that in the future along with AI scripts and narration. If I find a channel is mostly AI generated I'll pass, prefer the human generated stuff like pre-AI books.

[@Kumyar]

​@@tomw324 This whole video is AI script. Im fairly certain it is. And the footage is mostly CGI with real footage sprinkled in.

[@TheJimyyy]

@@tomw324is not , the footage are real is just bad quality for some of it

[@branden3785]

the bad quality footage is real, the other stuff most certain is not@@TheJimyyy

[@TheJimyyy]

@@branden3785 it is real

[@davidfisher12865]

The Sherman is the darling of most documentary's. Thier purpose was to support the infantry. If you watch raw uncut film, you see great lines of m18s and m10s that really killed the German tanks and won the war.

[@executivedirector7467]

@Phil McCrackin The red army used the same ammo the US used in their Shermans. Many Shermans had the very same 76mm gun the M18 had.

[@executivedirector7467]

@Phil McCrackin No proof = bullfeathers. The red army wouldn't have much reason to use different ammo in their Shermans so you've got a pretty high burden of proof here. The US 75mm was about as good as their own 76mm F34, and the US 76mm was about as good as their 85mm ZiS-S-53. So given that they were getting mountains of ammo from the USA, and these guns performed on par with their own, why would they bother ? They did not have a wealthy economy.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

@philmccrackin9260 - Re: "Why the US department of ordnance chose inferior ammunition for its Shermans is a mystery... I believe it had something to do with worries about wearing out barrels too quickly." That's pretty much correct. The original gun for the Sherman was decided upon by a board of ballistics specialists, most of whom came from artillery - howitzers and field guns - as opposed to high-velocity AT or AA guns specifically. Their concern was barrel wear, and by limiting the 75mm M3 gun to relatively low-pressure/low-velocity ammo, this issue was less of a concern. To be fair, at that time, early in the war, the 75mm gun was comparable or even superior to many of the guns which armed the tanks and AFVs of our allies and the Germans and Italians as well. When the first Shermans were received by the British and Americans in North Africa, they were well-liked, and since the largest and hardest-hitting German tanks were the Mk. IV Special and the occasional Tiger I, it was thought to be a good tank and a good weapon. The short barreled 75mm M3 gun was not the equal of the high-velocity 8.8cm gun used in the Tiger I and in towed artillery, but the deficiencies of the Sherman only came to the fore later on, in Italy to an extent and in the ETO after June, 1944. The 76mm gun was a good design, but in comparison to the 17-pounder of the British, its case propellant capacity was somewhat lacking. Ike and his staff - who had been briefed on the new gun and been told it was equal to taking on the best the Germans had - did not request M-26 production be increased in time for the invasion of Normandy. Later, when 76mm shells were bouncing off the glacis plates and gun mantlets of Panthers and Tigers, as well as assorted German tank destroyers, Eisenhower was furious and thought he'd been misled. The "wonder weapon" had not lived up to expectations. What saved the bacon of American tankers and infantry, too, were the artillery, tactical air and the TDs, the tank destroyers. The M-36 immediately became sought-after, since it was armed with a hard-hitting 90mm gun, and the M10 MGC armed with the 3-inch gun was also a serviceable weapon. These tank destroyers performed yeoman service not just as tank hunters/killers, but as mobile artillery against enemy troop concentrations, pill-boxes, roadblocks, and so on. They even served in Italy as de facto indirect fire artillery, using ramps to gain the needed elevation to do longer-range fire missions. The 76mm gun needed hotter anti-tank ammo, and this arrived in the form of tungsten-cored "HVAP" or "high-velocity armor piercing" ammo, which was souped up in comparison to earlier AT loads and also had that tungsten carbide tip. This round proved to be effective against the heaviest German AVFs. The problem with HVAP is that there was never enough tungsten to supply all of the needs of the allied war effort, since tungsten carbide was necessary for use in machine tools as well. Tank and TD crews were allocated a few HVAP rounds every so often and husbanded them for use against the toughest targets, reserving other types of ammo for routine work. By late 1944, the existing M36s and M10s were augmented with M18 Hellcats, making TD forces even more effective. If I was a TD commander back then, a staff sergeant or whatever, and I was offered a choice between the three, I'd opt for the M-36 Jackson. The M18 was faster, but you can't out-run a high-velocity gun, right? The British had their 17-pounder armed TDs, the Achilles and Archer, too - which were also very good, and since the 17-pounder gun had the choice of APDS ammo (armor-piercing discarding sabot) very high-velocity AT rounds, they were set against the toughest German armor. APDS was a stupendous performer in terms of penetration, but it was inconsistent in terms of accuracy. That was its main drawback. The technology of saboted sub-caliber ammo was new in those days, and they hadn't yet worked it all out. General George Patton credited the artillery forces with being the 'secret weapon' of the American army during the war in Europe, and he wasn't wrong. Even the heaviest toughest German armored fighting vehicles - such as the Tiger I and II, Panther, Jagdpanther, etc.- did not want to be caught in the open under a rain of a time-on-target fire mission by 155mm "Long Tom" artillery pieces or the like. Vis-a-vis artillery and tac air support, the Shermans had a nice feature if they needed help: Built into the rear of the tank near the exhaust was a compartment holding a field radio telephone which netted with the tank commander and also, later on, tactical air and artillery and other assets. Pinned down infantry behind the tank could call for a fire mission or other assistance from right there behind the tank.

[@executivedirector7467]

@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Excellent post. If I may offer one addition: a field telephone was not standard equipment on US tanks prior to the M26. The field phones mounted on M4s were unit improvisations. Great point that armies fight as combined arms teams. It's not one weapon system vs one enemy weapon system, which is how some people seem to think about these things.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

@@executivedirector7467 - Yes, good catch... those radio telephones were a field expedient done at the unit level. The U.S. Army in those days was very bureaucratic and inflexible in garrison and to the rear, but in the field, initiative and problem-solving were prized. Made a heck of a difference to the effectiveness of those units.

[@Barefoot-Bob]

I dont know where you get your info from, Patton used m18 as rear guard at hq roles. at Arra court they set up on a ridge and were firing and backing up. The flank attack was done by short barreled Shermans. The 76mm by tests at Aberdeen showed it had only slightly less penn than the 17 pndr but more accurate. So basically blabbing the 76mm was not a good cannon is BS.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The gun was excellent, but ammunition subpar (too soft) and had a tendency to shatter against thick armor.

[@marktwain2053]

​@@TTTT-oc4eb That wasn't a case of it being "Too Soft", but rather the exact opposite, it was too hard, which made them so brittle they would just shatter against a Panther's surface hardened glacis. They were never given enough of the proper ammunition (which was also a bane of the M4's 75mm gun) that had the capability to penetrate the front glacis of either the Tiger 1 or the Panther at 1500+ meters. What it boiled down to was some of the top brass not wanting tank-on-tank confrontations. Unfortunately, no one told the Germans that they were supposed to play nice with each other!

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@marktwain2053 The 76mm M1 was a very accurate gun. Unfortunately, unless it had access to the very rare APCR round, it was plagued with poor quality ammuntion. US tests of the standard anti tank shells showed it could penetrate the Tiger's frontal hull armor out to 1000 yards and had an anti tank performance comparable to the 75mmL/48 in the Panzer IV. But the tests were flawed: 1) US armor test plates were softer than German armor, 2) the shells were tested without HE filler, 3) the shells themselves were too soft. In combat the harder German armor triggered the weaknesses; the HE filler had a tendency to detonate at impact, causing the projectile to shatter. And even if the HE filler did not detonate, the poor quality projectile would still often shatter against armor it should have been able to penetrate. The net result was that it performed only slightly better than the 75mm. The Germans had faced the same problem during Barbarossa, when the mighty "88" often needed surprisingly many hits to destroy the KV-1. By 1942 they had solved the problem. The problem for the US Army was that the 76mm M1 and 90mm M3 did not see combat in good numbers until late 1944, and then it was precious little time left of the war to correct it. Only the first Panthers (D) had face-hardened armor.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

@@TTTT-oc4eb - Good summary of the tech issues. Anti-tank shells which depend on kinetic energy to penetrate enemy armor (as opposed to those which also or solely use chemical/thermal energy), need to be both tough and hard. This is because face-hardened, laminated or layered armor types often featured a very hard but brittle outer shell, backed by less-hardened but tougher material on the inner armor. This feature was copied from naval armor plating technology, which had benefited from several decades of development prior to WW2 by way of capital ships such as battleships and heavy cruisers. As the war dragged on, thicker and tougher armor plate was met by the use of larger heavier higher velocity guns.... and this arms race is what caused tanks to balloon so much in overall size and weight as the war went on. Larger guns require a heavier platform and recoil mechanism from which to shoot, just as thicker, heavier armor requires a more powerful motor, transmission and suspension for the tank to remain mobile. A larger engine and larger gun, plus heavier thicker armor, meant that the tank itself was probably also larger, heavier and had a larger diameter turret ring. And don't forget room to store ammo. Is it any wonder that by war's end, the largest tanks were pushing or at - in the case of the Tiger II - seventy tons? This Gordian knot was cut by the innovation of chemical warheads for AT use, such as shaped charge warheads as used by the U.S. bazooka, German panzershrek and panzerfaust, as well as late-war U.S. recoilless rifles. Soon enough, there were shaped charge and other chemical/thermal warheads for tank guns and field artillery, too. The British developed "Hesh" technology, which stands for "high explosive squash head" - which made use of the Burney principle.

[@michaelpierson7256]

I know a guy that had an M18 hellcat, I got to fire it at our cannon shoot. It later blew up killing the gunner & owner. It wasn't reactivated right

[@agrameroldoctane_66]

We used them even in 90' against Serbs t55's quite sukcessfully

[@matovicmmilan]

Really? I'm a Serb but I can't remember a single occasion of you using the M-18s against our T-55s at all, let alone successfully. I'm not sure that the cannon of this thing could theoretically pierce the front of the T-55?

[@bobbrinkerhoff3592]

Have you ever really listened to the old newsreel tapes of the war " Patton's 3rd army ,along with elements of the 2nd and 8th armies took " , Dad was in the 2nd (A of the 612 TD ) , my uncle was in the 8th (89? Sorry I don't remember ) , both had Hellcats . Patton had a tendency to " borrow " them when needed . The 612th was also at Bastogne and received a unit citation for getting there so quickly. Underrated hardly , overlooked definitely .

[@ReviveHF]

The M41 Walker Bulldog and M551 Sheridan could be seen as the spiritual successor to the M18 Hellcat also both of them were often relegated to anti infantry role in practice

[@executivedirector7467]

But they were designed to completely different doctrinal purposes. They have some hardware similarities (very light, very mobile, hardly any armor, heavy firepower).

[@tbd-1]

6:00 Parked one side on rocks(?) so they could depress the gun more.

[@willliam8857]

watched all of the video 10/10

[@dresden3913]

The 76mm proved to be a very effective cannon during tests ran on it. Saying it was insufficient fire power is an understatement. The 76mm was plenty of fire power for most thing in ww2. And after D-Day there wasn’t an absence of significant German panzer offensive. They were sectioned up north in British sectors.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Even the commanders of the US 2nd and 6th Armored Divisions complained about the 76mm gun. It was deemed unsatisfactory without the rare HVAP ammunition.

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

I would give this video a C grade. The TDs were often used as StuGs because the Germans had nearly run out of panzers in the West after the collapse of the Falaise pocket. Division commanders got tired of having them just sit around waiting for panzer attacks that rarely came. They were no worse at this than the M8 GMCs. Not ideal, but they usually could get the job done.

[@freddieclark]

By this time of the war the Stug was used almost exclusively as a Tank Destroyer.

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

@@freddieclark True, but the original IDEA was to use them as infantry support armor. That's why the first generation had the short barreled 75mm.

[@freddieclark]

Not just the first generation, Marks A through E all had the short 7.5cm cannon, However as the Axis forces pushed deeper into Russia the Sturmgeschütz crews were increasingly forced to act in the Anti-tank role. By Feb 1942 the 7.5cm Stuk 40 L/43 was added to the remaining order of Ausf E and they were renamed Ausf F, but even this only equipped 118 units, as a change to the more effective 7.5cm StuK 40 L/48 was made which equipped the remainder of the Ausf F and Ausf F8 production run. Thereafter and for the remainded of the war (and accounting for the largest numbers produced) the Stug was eqwuipped with the AT weapon.

[@mattharrell6880]

Hellcats were never underrated. The US Army knew exactly what they had and, if anything, used it too often.

[@SlavicCelery]

Looking at these comments people don't understand the doctrine of TDs. Seriously, they really don't.

[@mhh7544]

I recon it was fastest tank in WW II .

[@kenneth9874]

It wasn't actually a tank, its protection was surprise and speed

[@mhh7544]

@@kenneth9874 Jep, it was TD .

[@ebperformance8436]

Nothing wrong with the hellcat…it did what it was built for’ destroying German panzer’s, and king Tigers’ yes the armor was thin, but it had to trade the armor thickness for the gun, it didn’t get bogged down in mud, because it was a light Tank….even Sherman’s got bogged down. The Sherman was another tank built for what it was supposed to do….easy to drive, faster, lighter, easier to repair, and dependable, and many was created…it was later upgraded to the M40 and the firefly, or fury….so there were different Variations of the Sherman tank. I don’t care what people say….but I loved the T-34…the looks, the firepower’ 75mm gun, were able to take out Tiger, and king Tigers’ it wasn’t as Reliable than a Sherman, but more reliable than the over engineered German tank….many T-34s were upgraded as well.

[@robertharris6092]

I agree with moost of what you said. But the sherman wasnt remotly fast. Esp before the A3. Swedish field testing post war found as such.

[@RTFLDGR]

Sad the A.I. commentator does not properly pronounce the name of the German Army.

[@JamesRowell-fj7uq]

There was plans to put the turret of the M 36 on the M 18

[@dennislemasters4339]

correct that would be the super hellcat

[@Sid-jx4gl]

Perfect armored cavalry vehicle

[@Wargoat6]

11:30 The ammo against infantry was different than that of armor.

[@drmarkintexas-400]

🏆🇺🇲🎖️🙏 Thank you for sharing

[@JoeHinojosa-bd9hu]

It was SO Fast, a Tiger couldn't turn it's turret fast enough to track it

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Tigers could pivot on the spot.

[@Homeschoolsw6]

The front armour on the M18 is thin for a vehicle designed to fight Tanks. You wouldn't want to face a Panzer in the open with this. Same with the M10 Wolverine. And both were open topped, if infantry get near you you'd be in trouble. Then there's mortars to consider.

[@isidroramos1073]

I'm answering before watching the video, but that's exactly the problem with the US Army tank destroyer concept. It was based on German tanks operating alone (with the Luftwaffe providing reconaissance and support equivalent to artillery) To be honest they often did in 1939-40 but that was out of necessity, the German idea was always to have all arms in the Panzer divisions mechanized, or at very least motorized, and operating in combined arms teams - and that meant open topped vehicles were in for a lot of unwanted attention from mortars and artillery...

[@tvgerbil1984]

To be fair, quite a lot of German armour-hunters or Panzerjäger were open topped and thinly armored, like the Marders and the Nashorns.

[@Homeschoolsw6]

@@tvgerbil1984 Fair enough. How did they fair if Allied infantry got close to them? Probably less than great, If I had to guess. Or when mortar rounds began falling? Not sure.

[@tvgerbil1984]

@@Homeschoolsw6 The German Panzerjägers were supposedly deployed in defensive or overwatch roles and engaged enemy tanks at range, especially the Nashorns with their 88mm Pak 43s. They relied on German infantry to provide close in defense. So they fought in completely different styles to the Hellcats and Wolverines.

[@isidroramos1073]

@@tvgerbil1984 Exactly. IIRC initially the plan was to deploy the tank destroyers coupled with AA vehicles in quite big units, keep them in the rear as reserves, and when the Germans made a blitzkrieg attack and punched a hole in the Allied lines those units, with their high mobility, high AT power and strong AA support would be ideal to contain the penetration. They were designed to counter a kind of attack that wasn't going to happen.

[@robertrawlyss7373]

Am I right in thinking this was a tank destroyer and had an open turret?

[@executivedirector7467]

Yes

[@Robert-hr6sh]

Yes, correct.

[@brooksroth345]

The new panzer brigades in 1944 were very flawed idea. No recon troops, no artillery or anti aircraft guns and liminal infantry. As a result they had no anti-tank guns or recon vehicles guarding their flanks. Combine this with the fact these German tankers were green. The hellcat crews were better trained and led. Still a great victory. Also demonstrated how desperate the Germans were.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

And Panzer Brigade 111 didnt even RECEIVE its Panthers to start training on until 5th to 7th September.

[@tanksaresocool]

i fucking love this thing

[@828enigma6]

I imagine with the scant armor the TD had, the crews had to learn quick and well, or die.

[@johnrmonroe3946]

Do you have any information on the 899th TD battalion?

[@kristelvidhi5038]

It was thanks to these TDs how they won the Battle of Arracourt.

[@Legion_YT_]

Maybe if they developed an effective sabot round for the 76mm like the British 17pdr it could’ve been a bit more effective at punching through some of Germanys late war heavies

[@DrunkenJinger]

My all time fav tank! Yes i called it a tank

[@realhorrorshow8547]

"The absence of a significant German panzer offensive after D-day." There were plenty of the buggers up north in the British sector, including the SS Hitlerjungend.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Yes there were nearly 2,500 in Normandy and another 1,000 or so in the Ardennes.

[@thomas15082]

An infantry support vehicle with an open top!

[@Idahoguy10157]

For the commanders on the ground the M18 was available, and looked like a Tank. Guess what? Since it looks like a tank and shoots like tank it gets used like a tank. After WW2 the TD branch was considered redundant to the M4 and M26 tanks carrying the same 76mm and 90mm guns as did the TD’s.

[@executivedirector7467]

Correct. TD units fired far more HE ammo than AP - meaning they were used like tanks, just as you wrote. Postwar, the TD branch was abolished almost immediately, having been rightly seen as a mistake.

[@Idahoguy10157]

@@executivedirector7467 …. TDs came back in other forms. Large recoilless rifles on vehicles. Anti-tank missile teams . Attack helicopters. Better infantry rockets…

[@executivedirector7467]

@@Idahoguy10157 That's completely missing the point. There's hardware and there's doctrine, which leads to force structures. The US Army knew its TD doctrine was deeply wrong and abolished the units and ideas about how to use antiarmor weapons. That is utterly different and separate from any discussion of hardware.

[@2adamast]

@@executivedirector7467 The US army tank doctrine was OK, they focused on operational medium tanks and had an appropriate response to tank offensives just in case.Where now they are stuck with 70 ton tanks

[@executivedirector7467]

@@2adamast The US Army is "stuck" with the best tank in the world. Yes, it's a heavy fuel-guzzler. It's also leathal AF and so fast that tactical practices had to be changed to accomodate the speed. So I don't see your point.

[@deejayimm]

Why do all of these military videos nowadays have computerized voices? I get it with some of them, but it seems like every freaking one of them.

[@angelo_giachetti]

How did designers expect crews to stay effective in winter weather for days at a time with no shelter or heat? BTW, my dad spent all of 1944 in the ETO in a 105mm crew. He referred to all blond haired blue eyed men as krauts. We are Italian.

[@michaelpierson7256]

My friends 76mm M18 hellcat gun blew up killing him & the gunner about 9 yrs ago. I had fired it also😢

[@erichammond9308]

The Hellcat was an amazing piece of engineering, the fastest tracked armored vehicle ever built - it's standard 55mph top speed is unmatched to this day!

[@chrisperrien7055]

2nd fastest. Original model M1's could do over 70MPH. I took my M1 (serial # 0054) up to 63MPH, with powerband to spare on a dirt trail running on diesel. I never took it up to max speed. 63 tons going 63 MPH was fast enough for me.😎 Granted , the M1's speed is usually listed as 45 MPH, and the second version the IP M1 flew in at about 50+MPH as they toned down the motor from the original and added some weight and the newer M1A1's A2's and Block III /SEP's which are even heavier probably do go about 45, but the original "Chrysler" M1 was a really fast death machine.

[@erichammond9308]

@@chrisperrien7055 doesn't going that fast risk damaging the suspension?

[@chrisperrien7055]

@@erichammond9308 It will wear out faster, and there is more of a risk of a catastrophic failure. Which was why I only did that 63+ MPH once with an M-1.. You don't want to put so much stress on your two tracks and suspension, if you don't have to. If Chit phucks up at that kind of speed , in a 60ton+ vehicle , you are in an immediate "train wreck" .

[@erichammond9308]

​@@chrisperrien7055I knew that the Abrams was governed, but Dang! 60+ mph by something that big is plain nuts!

[@ebperformance8436]

@@chrisperrien7055​​⁠the M1A2 is a monster! Those Tanks are fast, good armor, fire power, Reliable, easy to repair. The dessert storm Tank battle, was insane….and it was the older M1A1, they wiped out many many T-72s. One M1A1 Abrams was hit by a T-72…All crew survived, and took only 1 hour, to get it back into the battle, only one light armor Bradley was Destroyed …some light armored Bradley’s were taking out 72s’ with its awesome tow Missiles.

[@rossthompson7956]

They put the same engine used by our fighter airplane in it so it made it fast moving and the ability to roll over stone walls.

[@profpainter5841]

Using APCR ammunition which was limited in supply, the 76 mm gun could destroy a Tiger in a frontal attack.

[@robertharris6092]

The american 76mms APHECBC shell can penetrate 140mm of armor. Why would you waste one of your HVAP shelle against a 102mm thick plate. Esp sinnce the m18 should be shooting it in tge side where its 80mm.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@robertharris6092 Tiger I effective front armour was around 130mm on the lower glacis due to nickel steel of 265 Brinell Hardness and the 24 degrees angle and over 150mm on the mantlet in places. And of course even if the Tiger is standing slightly oblique (it was very rare for a tank to engage another tank perfectly perpendicular to it) that's more effective thickness. If a Tiger I is at a 1 o'clock position you are talking about 150mm effective front armour on the lower glacis and about 125mm on the upper glacis and nearly 200mm in places on the mantlet. The 80mm side plates were over 90mm effective dead straight. Source. Thomas L Jentz, Germanys Tiger Tanks. This is why shots that on paper should have penetrate the Tiger I routinely didn't in reality.

[@robertharris6092]

@@lyndoncmp5751 why would you shoot the lower glacias. The only thing behind that is the transmission. And yeah itd stop the tank but the tank could still potentially fire back. And. Again the us 76 can pen 133mm of armor at 500m. So the upper front plate is plenty penable. And the 90mm effective side armor (the actual side behind the tracks thats not angled is still effecticly 80mm) is a trivial shot.

[@ronbyers9912]

infranty support should have been the role of the Shermans.

[@tacomas9602]

I like to think of the Hellkitty as americas “Leopard tank,” in a way. No armor best armor.

[@partygrove5321]

Open roof turrets make them vulnerable to thrown grenades.

[@NaraaErik]

It's my all time favorite in War Thunder

[@richpontone1]

You may want to read this article on Tigers. 1. The high fuel consumption rate of the Tiger meant that resistance fighters could destroy vulnerable German oil tank trucks rendering the tank immobile. 2. The Tiger by virtue of its heavy weight could break a light weight bridge and fall in lakes and river. It’s four meter high snorkel would make it impossible for its tank crew to breathe and survive. 3. The British Firefly Sherman tank could destroy a Tiger as it did in Normandy in killing the German tank Ace, Vitmer. 4. The Allies adopted a strategy that when an Allied tank or infantry encountered a Tiger, they would not engage it but rather radio their Artillery which could destroy it by virtue of their much higher caliber guns.

[@executivedirector7467]

All tanks burn a lot of fuel and all mechanized units are vulnerable to logistics attacks. Even the vaunted US logistics system occasionally failed in WW2 even without enemy air attack. There is nothing special abut Tigers in this regard. German mech units ran out of fuel frequently even in 1941. Any Sherman could knock out a Tiger under the right tactical circumstances. Indirect fire artillery is not generally effective at knocking out tanks. Those guns fire mostly HE and smoke ammo, which cannot normally penetrate tank armor.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

"Vitmer" - you mean Michael Wittman, do you not? The famous German (Waffen-SS) Panzer ace.... the men famous for the massacre at Villers-Bocage.

[@executivedirector7467]

@@GeorgiaBoy1961 There was no massacre at Villers-Bocage. I would never defend the criminal Waffen-SS organization but let's get our facts right.

[@richpontone1]

@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Yup, you are Right. I was Wrong.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

@@richpontone1 - Don't worry about it. Next week, the tables will probably be turned and you'll be the one correcting me.

[@jonathanisernhagen6515]

The person who titled this video should have viewed it.

[@josephjuno9555]

My Dads Uncle was in an M-18, he was Killed in France they were in battle after Normandy.

[@3lullabies]

My grandfather was in a hellcat with Kopsack and the 602nd td...trained at Camp Hood, Camp Bullis, and Fort Sam Houston. SEEK STRIKE DESTROY

[@gjfwang]

It’s a convertible with no roof

[@randy-tzu1624]

Didnt they add a 90mm to it later on?

[@radioactivebacon3975]

Did we send tank through Normandy in late July because? I'm confused because I called allied forces landed July 6th. I feel like I'm missing something but I've never heard of anything else happening with Normandy since the invasion

[@brucewelty7684]

Overlord took place in June

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

The basic flaw in Tank Destroyer doctrine was the erroneous assumption that they would be able to selectively engage enemy tanks. The Reality was - that when they needed a "tank" to support infantry or go against enemy tanks - they used whatever they had. If they had infantry that needed Armored Support - they took whatever they had available and if all they had was Tank Destroyers - that's what they used. Same thing with using Tanks like the 75mm Sherman's against enemy tanks. It didn't matter if something else was better at the job that needed doing - what mattered was what was there. They used what they had. They had the same problems with Light Tanks like the M-3, M-5 and M-24. In Korea - they had some M-24's in Japan when the North Invaded and they sent them in - but - the North had T-34/85's and the 75mm Gun on those M-24's had a real problem with them. When they got 76mm Sherman's and M-26's they were fine. All of them could destroy each other and the USA had better optics and better training. Thus - Light Tanks and Tank Destroyers were abandoned and they adopted the idea of a Main Battle Tank that would do everything. They all had real armor. They all had a coaxial machine gun and they all had a big gun. Since they were all heavier - they all had big engines and a better suspension system. That is what they are using now. .

[@SlavicCelery]

What the deuce? Did you not read TD doctrine champ? They didn't EXPECT Tanks to selectively engage TD's. The expected TD's to engage an armored attack from the enemy. The error is that that the Germans rarely went on the offensive after the introduction of a truly developed TD force. After the introduction of the M18, the only major German offensive was the battle of the bulge, and the TD force was EFFECTIVE. You don't understand history.

[@executivedirector7467]

@@SlavicCelery That's both insulting and wrong. There's no need to be rude here. The original TD doctrine absolutely *did* envision the TD battalions deciding where and when to engage enemy mechanized forces. They were supposed to be held in reserve and deployed in response to large scale German mech offensive action, using their speed and their organic recon elements to find favorable times and places to engage. "Selective" is a pretty good word to describe that. It is also true that" a) since few large-scale mech attacks occurred b) since the doctrine was bollocks c) since no commander was going to let a capable, expensive unit go without a mission ....when everyone knew since 1918 that infantry accompanied by something that looked like a tank was far more effective in the attack than infantry without tank/tanklike support, = TD units ended up acting just like tank units. The fact that some TD units were effective in their altered role, or in knocking out tanks they happened to encounter, does not change the fact that they were almost never used according to doctrine; the doctrine sucked; the TD branch was abolished almost immediately postwar and has never been revived.

[@R.Specktre]

I think an updated version of this tank destroyer would be an excellent light tank choice for the American Army these days.

[@JJABRAHAM69]

The M 36 Jackson with 90 mm was the only weapon that came close to meeting the requirements of destroying German medium and heavy tanks. Comparable to the British Firefly.

[@simonbarnes7620]

And yet the firefly only had a 76mm gun the same as the Achilles, imagine the damage that could have been done if the hellcat was armed with the 17pdr!

[@executivedirector7467]

And yet an awful lot of Panthers were destroyed by ordinary M4s with their 75 and 76mm guns.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

@@simonbarnes7620 The Sherman Firefly was armed with the 17-pounder gun, which was the equal of the German 88mm gun in terms of anti-tank performance. Regular versions of the M4 series had either 75mm or 76mm guns, but "Firefly" M4s were easily-identified by the long barrel of the gun and its rounded muzzle brake. The Huns soon learned to target them first when setting an ambush or otherwise attacking British-Commonwealth tanks. The Achilles and Archer were two tank destroyers used by the Brits-CW: The former was an American M10 chassis equipped with 17-pounder gun, and the latter was a Valentine tank chassis with a superstructure for the 17-pounder which provided a small amount of traverse. The notable feature of the Archer is that the gun fired back over the engine compartment, and not forwards of the vehicle. A Hellcat armed with the 17-pounder would have been dandy as an anti-armor weapon, but the foolish American ordnance experts, so-called, turned down the British offer to share the weapon design with them. The 90mm gun did the job, but the 17-pounder was a superb weapon in its own right.

[@simonbarnes7620]

@@GeorgiaBoy1961 the 17pdr was only 76mm which was the point! Although re-reading my comment it is understandable for the confusion. You left out the Challenger and Avenger (although the Avenger was too late to see any action) and the comet.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

@@simonbarnes7620 - The caliber (diameter) isn't the key here, as you seem to think. The key is the performance of the gun and its ammunition. The 17-pounder may have been "only" a 76mm gun or so, but its performance in terms of muzzle velocity, range and striking power is what made it an exception weapon. These were made possible by the design of the weapon, in particular its long barrel (to allow the propellant more time to accelerate the projectile), its large shell-case capacity (more powder means higher pressure and greater MV), and the high-grade of the steel used which permitted higher operating pressures than some other designs. The same was true of the German 75mm gun used in the Panther, the KwK42/L70 gun which attained more than 3000 fps MV using the Pzgr 39/42 shell. Re: "You left out the Challenger and Avenger (although the Avenger was too late to see any action) and the comet." No, I didn't "leave them out" - they weren't relevant to the discussion, which is why I didn't include them.

[@ahmadrusli5629]

Why are the sherman firefly tank are not been use in Korean war?

[@bluntcabbage6042]

Centurion replaced Firefly in British service. And Firefly had a ton of flaws that were overlooked in wartime out of sheer desperation but post-war those flaws were unacceptable.

[@SuperBROKEN81]

The M18 was the best tank in the war. Best Kill death ratio.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

No that was the Ferdinand and Tiger. Over 10:1.

[@SuperBROKEN81]

​@@lyndoncmp5751Talking about the Allied side

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@SuperBROKEN81 To be honest, I really don't know what the Allied one was. I don't have the stats for the Firefly or Wolverine or Archer etc. Or SU-100 or IS-2 etc.

[@SuperBROKEN81]

​@@lyndoncmp5751Dr. Mark Felton provided it

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@@SuperBROKEN81 What were the stats of the various allied ones?

[@nicktheboomer]

A movie featured two M-18s - Saints and Soldiers: The Void (2014)

[@HappiKarafuru]

The only one time when a cat fight a cat Battle of Arracourt

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

Arracourt demonstrated that U.S. Army armor/tank-destroyers could be just as effective at destroying enemy armor as their counterparts in the Panzertruppen, when operating from good flanking positions with defilade. Terrain channeled the German armor right into the pre-registered and sighted-in U.S. "kill zones" and they sustained serious losses. The Panther is a tough out frontally, but from the flanks or the rear, they can be taken out, and that is also true of other German armored vehicle types, Panzer Mk. IV, Tiger I, etc. And against the Mk. IV, which was still the most-commonly encountered German tank, they were very effective against its armor from all angles. The Mark IVs were a good design, but by that stage of the war, the Allies knew them well and how to handle them, since they'd been fighting them for a while by that time.

[@James-nl6fu]

The M18 Hellcat units learned quickly how to work as teams. Fascinating stories of taking out Panthers by shooting together and hitting weak spots like the shot- trap between the gun mantlet and driver hatch❤️

[@freddieclark]

At combat range they would not have the optics to aim directly at such a small area. Hitting those points was as much luck as judgement. Also the Panzer V's 'shot trap' was quickly fixed with the addition of a chin to the lower mantlet.

[@jackzimmer6553]

US Army doctrine in WW2 was to use Sherman tanks as infantry support. The TD’s like the M18 were to take out the Panzers. I don’t think they used many TD’s in infantry support especially in urban areas. For one thing their armor was too thin and the 76mm HE rounds were inferior to the 75mm guns on the Sherman. What kept the M18’s alive was their speed. Shoot and scoot before the enemy’s armor could engage them. Speed is life! Great presentation otherwise!!

[@marktwain2053]

I never could figure out why they didn't have a lower velocity HE round for the 76.2mm gun to mirror that of the M4's stubby 75mm. Too simple for the brass to understand I guess.

[@executivedirector7467]

That is not so. Tank units were expected to fulfill many tasks. Independent tank battalions were there to support infantry divisions, and most infantry divisions had a battalion attachd most of the time. These tanks were also expected to fight enemy tanks. The armored divisions were expected to be used primarily in exploitation missions but they had to support infantry and fight other tanks also. Whle you are correct that the TD force was a specialized anti-armor force, that did not mean that tank units were freed of the antiarmor role. Also, TD units were often used for infantry support; they fired far more HE than AP ammo, and frankly were used almost interchangeably with tanks. All of this is documented in the US Army field manuals of that era.

[@JD_79]

Uh, no. The Sherman was a tank designed to do all the things a tank does. The TD's were designed for a specific scenario, to deal with enemy armor that broke through the lines. That's why TD's focused on speed and mobility. The reality of combat saw the TD doctrine was flawed and that is why they were often just used as any other tank would be and why the TD concept was largely shelved after WW2 to pursue the doctrine of a main battle tank.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

@ jackzimmer6553 - The U.S. made plentiful use of its tank destroyer arm for missions other than hunting enemy tanks and other armored-fighting vehicles. Obviously, "seek and destroy"enemy armor was their first mission, but in Italy the army had used parked (on ramps to elevate their guns sufficiently) TDs for artillery-type fire support missions. And TDs proved to be popular and effective as mobile gun platforms for advancing infantry forces, too, including in urban combat where barricaded enemy troops were a frequent problem. True, their thin armor was no defense against heavy AT weapons, and only small arms, but provided they had infantry to protect them from such, and could shoot-and-scoot if need be, they did well. There is a famous photo of an American tank destroyer - if memory serves it was an M10 - supporting the consolidation of Brest, the port on the north-western French coast. Defending forces dug themselves in and proved tough to root out, which is where the TDs and tanks came into play. The differences between the 75mm M3 gun and the longer 76mm gun were there, but they were not as dramatic as you make them seem. The former had a better He round, whereas the latter had superior anti-armor performance. However, it isn't as if GIs in need of support could be picky or anything like that. If they needed a fire mission, they weren't going to complain about something as inconsequential as that, if it meant waiting longer to get help. You fight with whatever tools are at hand, and combat troops don't always get the exact equipment and weapons they prefer when/where they need it. Speed is life, true, but only up to a point. The M-18 Hellcat was the fastest tracked vehicle of the war, but even it could not outrun a high-velocity anti-tank shell.

[@ebperformance8436]

The M18 didn’t get as bogged down in the mud as other tanks, it was made for what it was built for….speed, and destroying German tanks….they also didn’t have any issues passing over bridges.

[@ronmailloux8655]

I wonder if any met Milly Meter.

[@freddieclark]

The 76mm M1 gun was the same one that was mounted on the M4 medium tank. It never fails to make me laugh when it is called a highly effective high velocity gun when people talk about the M18, but is slagged off whenever the M4 medium is mentioned.

[@kenneth9874]

The 76 wasn't on the Sherman's at first

[@freddieclark]

@@kenneth9874Correct, but I am not sure what your point is? The M4 medium entered combat in 1942 with the 75mm M3 gun. Production of 76mm armed M4 mediums did not begin until January 1944 (the 105mm armed M4 medium began production in February 1944). 76mm armed M4 mediums were first deployed in the ETO in July 1944.

[@kenneth9874]

@@freddieclark many have the original armament locked in their minds, which actually was best for most of the work

[@bluntcabbage6042]

@@kenneth9874 75mm M3 is the most underrated gun of the entire war. It was a truly excellent cannon that did great in almost any situation it was put in, while maintaining a high ROF and great HE capacity. Very underrated.

[@kenneth9874]

@@bluntcabbage6042 it was great at its intended job which was infantry support

[@Khalifrio]

If anything the M18 is overrated because of its speed. In fact there is no documented records of that speed making a difference in battle. While the 76mm was a good gun it was let down by not getting any high velocity armor piercing ammo until the war was almost over. The other issue with the 76mm was its weaker High Explosive round compared to the 75mm. The 76mm HE round had to have a thicker shell casing due to the guns larger propellant charge to get that higher velocity compared to the 75mm. Thicker shell casing means less explosives in the shell so less boom when the shell hits it target. It would have been smarter to build more M4's with the 76mm and give them proper HVAP ammo. Use those extra M4 76mm's to take the place of 75mm M4's in the armor units and assign the 75mm M4's to the infantry as support since the 75mm gun was better suited to the job.

[@kenneth9874]

Nope

[@robitusscyth9486]

It depends if your undetected that speed can allow you to get into a flanking position quickly it's more a situational thing but yeah it can matter

[@braddeyoung8701]

The Hellcat was the most effective U.S. tank destroyer of World War II. It had a higher kill-to-loss ratio than any other tank or tank destroyer fielded by U.S. forces in World War II. Kills claimed were 526 in total: 498 in Europe, 17 in Italy, and 11 in the Pacific.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

@ Khalifro - Re: "If anything the M18 is overrated because of its speed. In fact there is no documented records of that speed making a difference in battle." Obviously, you are correct in the sense that no matter how fast was the M18, it couldn't outrun a high-velocity anti-tank round from a German 75mm or 88mm gun. But to claim that speed has not made a documented difference in combat is simply false. And the point can be proven without making reference to the M18 specifically, but by understanding that who wins and who loses in battle is often a question of OODA loops, i.e., "observe-orient-decide-act" - also called the "Boyd Loop" after the American military theorist and officer who thought it up. Getting inside your enemy's decision-making cycle is often how you win in war. That's what made the German Blitzkrieg so fearsome and effective during the early parts of the war. The Allies turned the tables on them later on in the second half of the conflict. Speed is a desirable attribute in a tank destroyer, especially one intended for use as a flanking or ambush-type weapon, as were the M10, M36 and M18. They couldn't outrun enemy shells, but their mobility and speed did make them harder to hit when in action and their speed also enabled them to be moved around the battlefield more rapidly than traditional slower tanks or self-propelled guns. And don't forget that generals like Gen. George Patton prized speed of advance over almost anything else. When on the attack, Patton and his men in 3rd Army didn't want to give the Germans even a moment to catch their breath. So it is true, at least under some circumstances, that speed kills.

[@Khalifrio]

@@GeorgiaBoy1961 I never said speed did not mater in battle. What I said was that the speed of the M18 was never mentioned in official reports as making a difference one way or the other. If it had it surely would have been mentioned in reports some where. Yet historians have gone over a large chunk of the reports from WW2 and the speed of the M18 never came up. Now, we all know the archives are a jumbled mess so its possible that no one has come across such a report just yet. But at this point no one has found one.

[@ComfortsSpecter]

Speed, Spotting, Best Gun Also, Clam down with Historical Misframing

[@robertharris6092]

Wtf are you talking about the 76mm gun being underpowered? It coule frontaly penetrate the vast majority or german vehicles. And the few it couldnt were produced in such low numbers it didnt matter. Especially since they should be using their speed to get to the side of the enemy.

[@norbertopineda1167]

En mi opinión el Hellcat no logro un reconocimiento mayor porque los alemanes para la fecha de su aparición tenían pocos tanques ..... si hubiera tenido mas objetivos seria un vehículo legendario

[@squid6368]

ok im not a skeptic usually but a lot of the footage towards the middle seems like 3d or ai or something... idk looks weird

[@HarulikeTofu]

Rain- Open top tank

[@mericad5273]

Underrated my ass. M18 is my favorite tank (tank destroyer) of all time. It’s a beast

[@LongTail8443]

18 is legal, I guess.

[@josephjuno9555]

Why didn't they put a 90mm gun on them? It had thin armor but it faced Germans with Thick Armour! -an anti- tank killer need a gun that can Kill Tanks! Those were made here in Flint Michigan!

[@James-nl6fu]

The M18s halted the panzers. Saved the reputation of the American Army in Rout. No medals of Honor awarded

[@lukeskywalker3329]

Gee ! Great stat's at Bastogne ! And they were up against king tigers 🐅!!!!!

[@Joe-bx4wn]

FAST CAT. 🐯

[@matthewsullivan5531]

Open topped, virtually unarmored, armed with a gun that couldn't penetrate the front armor of their main opponents over 300 meters. So what you're saying is an abject failure. Got it.

[@jeffapplewhite5981]

Made by GM,Buick auto plants.

[@jjnix9517]

Because it looked like a tank and confused people who can't tell the difference between the two. The same people who cant tell the difference between simi auto full auto and a bolt action.

[@Paulftate]

Semper fi

[@jamesharrison6201]

In German, is enunciated as a V. V in Deutsch is pronounced as an F

[@KirkDavis1966]

Who has undestimated The HellCat? He'll even DODGE has a hot rod named after it..Ever play Company of heroes? Holy hell two hellcats eat KONIGSTIGERS FOR LUNCH..

[@brucewelty7684]

Snow in France in SEPTEMBER?

[@frankbarnwell____]

No one called the German attack in ww2 "blitz krieg ", until after The 75mm, 76mm and 17 pounder had the exact same diameter. Different breech and ammo specs made putting different marking on ammo very important

[@moonryan3908]

Afica cool

[@wadewilson6628]

So we're changing the narrative again to now the 76mm couldn't punch through German armor? It's hilarious how we love to twist history.

[@MoisesAguirre-uv4oy]

All they needed was a roof and they would have been straight

[@tobijug]

anti.......the word is promounced antee, not ant eye, it is from the French language, as is chassis, promounced shassee - maybe we should pronounce Chigago as Chick arr go

[@tomservo5347]

They were used more as highly mobile artillery in indirect fire roles more than anything else.

[@Al-ng2wn]

No armor, best armor. - WT

[@billballbuster7186]

The idea of the Tank Destroyer was flawed and restricted tank development in the USA. Several tanks with better guns and thicker armour were developed. But cancelled as only Tank Destroyers were allowed to combat enemy tanks according to General Lesley McNair, Chief - AGF. When McNair was killed in Normandy his Tank Destroyers died with him, at the end of WW2 in August1945 all Tank Destroyer Battalions were disbanded.

[@bluntcabbage6042]

The standard armament of standard US medium tanks (75mm M3) proved sufficient for all tasks given to it except in extremely rare circumstances. It also turned out to be an _excellent_ gun in many ways, including in the majority of armored engagements American armor found itself in - infantry support and anti-fortification. I have no doubt that the TDs restricted development of more heavily armed American tanks, but it wasn't as though there was a dire need for such heavily armed tanks. Even dedicated TD units found themselves running out of armored targets to engage, being stuck with infantry support.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@bluntcabbage6042 That is true, in Normandy the British 21st Army Group took on the Panzers of Army Group B, in all the British destroyed 8 Panzer Divisions. One can only imagine the carnage if Bradley's 75mm Shermans (Spam in a can) were all that stood between Army Group B and the sea. Ask any US tank crew if they wanted to fight in a 75 Sherman, the answer would be no. It was "Spam in a can" or the "Ronson". The only people that advocate the 75 Sherman were those that didn't have to fight in it.

[@bluntcabbage6042]

@@billballbuster7186 Uh, you just regurgitated a load of long-debunked myths. "Ronson", "Tommy-cooker" (refers to flamethrower tanks, not Shermans), and "Spam in a can" were not historical nicknames for Shermans. There is no _credible_ source that states as much. Shermans had excellent crew survivability rates and a lower than average ammo cookoff rate - they were the first major tank design of the war to use wet ammo stowage en masse. In fact, when 76 Shermans were introduced to the Western Front, it was often the crews of the 75 Shermans themselves that turned down the 76s. The 75 was really completely fine at killing anything it needed to - fortifications, infantry, buildings, Pz IVs, StuG IIIs, and Pz IIIs - while having a great sustained ROF and easy to handle ammunition. Even in the armored engagements wherein American/British 75 Shermans engaged German armor, they usually did fine. This included a scenario where ~8 Panthers were destroyed by a group of 75 Shermans with minimal Allied casualties. As it turned out - a lesson that would be learned for all armored forces after WW2 - simply hitting a target was often enough to knock it out of action, unless you were truly using an underwhelming gun (a la Japanese 37mm guns), as repeated hits would wear down armor plating regardless of whether the round penetrated or not, shredding the crew with spalling and prompting most tank crews to bail out the second they're hit whatsoever. All this considering that 76 Shermans, M36 Jacksons, M18 Hellcats, and M10 Wolverines were extremely commonly serving with armored units to provide support on the off chance a 75 couldn't cut it (it usually could). And remember, if all else failed, white phosphorous shells from the 75mm were found extremely effective against all armor, as no tank had yet developed NBC protection and thus the burning gas could seep into the fighting compartment after a direct hit. Don't even think about citing _Deathtraps_ by Belton Cooper or any other source that uses it as a reference, because that book is a load of crap for assessing the Sherman's performance for a variety of reasons.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@bluntcabbage6042 Debunked by who, a bunch of armchair warrior Sherman fan boys? Get real read some accounts from the guys that fought in Shermans.

[@bluntcabbage6042]

@@billballbuster7186 It's hilarious that you speak of armchair generals when it was real source documents that state Sherman was a perfectly capable, reliable vehicle in American and British service. Testimonies are nigh worthless for assessing the capability or strength of a tank. The war was a massive one where the individual accounts of a few dozen crewmen cannot and will not speak for every crewman who ever served with a vehicle. It's a well known and established fact that soldiers _hate_ their hardware, almost universally. It's a commonly seen phenomenon that no piece of hardware is "good enough" in the eyes of a grunt, hence the common sentiment in various militaries that establishes that grunts will complain, because that's what grunts do. This is not a jab at soldiers or trying to disrespect them, it's just pointing out that it's a common coping mechanism for a soldier exposed to the stresses of army life and war to gripe at things that are otherwise fine. Technical docs, inter-departmental memos, field reports, post-war stats, and trial results all point to Sherman being fine. This isn't a psyop from "armchair generals", it's just making use of original sources that state the absolute contrary to your claim. Testimonies from jaded veterans is not equivalent to hard data. Even just comparing Sherman with cold stats about its physical capabilities compared to the other mainstay tanks of the war, Pz IV and T-34, will show it in a very favorable light. And to further drive home the fact that Sherman was not a "ronson" or "spam in a can", here's a nice stat: Of the ~50,000 tankers the US sent overseas in WW2, only 3% died from enemy action. Of that 3%, only half died inside their vehicles (Shermans, Lees, Stuarts, Wolverines, Jacksons, and M18s largely).

[@31terikennedy]

The problem with tank destroyers is they're redundant. Put the same gun in the Sherman and lighten your logistic load.

[@bobkohl6779]

Turret from the 76 Sherman? NO. THE British 17 pounder was more effective. Sloppy history. M-36 Javkson had a 90mm

[@tomasreyes2622]

Bro showing a m36 and calling it m18

[@marmadukegrimwig]

Yet another film ruined by a ridiculous voiceover……..

[@jean-francoislemieux5509]

first time i hear there was m-10s in north africa. (at 1:19) maybe its because there was NONE... not a good way to start watching a video, and a big NO NO in terms of reliability of your chanel

[@FactBytes]

The combat debut of the M10 came on 23 March 1943, during the Battle of El Guettar, in the Tunisian campaign part of the larger North African campaign. The M10 was initially successful as its M7 3-inch gun could destroy most German tanks then in service. During the battle, M10s of the 899th Tank Destroyer Battalion and M3 Gun Motor Carriages of the 601st Tank Destroyer Battalion destroyed 30 German tanks, although 20 M3s and 7 M10s were lost. The M10 did not see much anti-tank action for the rest of the North African campaign, and instead was used as mobile fire support. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M10_tank_destroyer

[@executivedirector7467]

M10s were absolutely used in North Africa.

[@flounder2760]

Ah yes the panther A weakness that kead to later pa ther models putting a flat chin on the mantlet