M18 Hellcat's Tactical Mobility: More from the Book of Armaments

Was the M18 really all it's cracked up to be? Reports from the field.
Public facebook page:
/ thechieftainarmor
Scout Car & Travel Fund:
Patreon: / the_chieftain
Direct Paypal paypal.me/thec...

[@echo_9835]

And Saint Development Board raised the Hellcat up on high, saying, "O LORD, bless this Thy Hellcat that with it Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits, in Thy mercy."

[@Cookynator]

And The Lord spake, saying unto his people that the caliber of the gun shall be 3 inches, and the inches of the caliber shall be 3. 4 inches shall thou not arm it with, nor 2, saving that thou then proceed to 3. 5 inch guns are right out! Once the 3 inch gun, being the third gun be reached, then lobbest though thy holy HVAP towards thine foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it!

[@fshn4x4]

@@Cookynator And then a VW rabbit bit someone's head off 🤣

[@joshuabessire9169]

"And the LORD did grin, and the grunts did dine on the tigers, and panthers, and stugs, and panzer 4s, and kubenwagens, and hetzers and half-tracks-" "Skip a bit!"

[@hoilst265]

"Three, sir!"

[@MajesticDemonLord]

I love the internet when things like this happen.

[@BjornTheDim]

I have to admit, I find the field reports from World War 2 remarkably intriguing material; at least, those that make it into videos like this. It isn't merely that they tend to rather well-written and articulate, but that they have a certain... cutting and matter-of-fact quality, as though the writers were absolutely determined to state the facts as they saw them and make recommendations without any fear of reprisal from those reading them. Drachinifel has read some of the American naval reports from the Pacific from those in damage control positions and they are astoundingly direct and blunt in their observations.

[@Lintary]

Fully agree here and it makes me wish a lot more stuff in past and also present was done like this, no fluf no fear just the facts as have been observed.

[@ThePTBRULES]

Hard times make Hard men. It really shows in the language. I wish the average person today spoke in such a more dignified manner and could actually articulate their thoughts...

[@franciscomoutinho1]

I guess getting shot at is a good motivator to do that. If it's good, it's good, if it's not it's your ass on the line.

[@namja01]

Our modern professional military education teaches us to write in active voice versus passive voice and to state the facts plainly and directly. Lapses in communication leads to faulty judgment/decisions and is one of the primary contributors to the "fog of war".

[@CalgarGTX]

Fast forward today, when I state things at work in an objective manner I get accused of not being a team-player and other ridiculous phrasing ( I work in computer security and computer systems administration where things are usually pretty clear cut, but people still expect whatever bad idea they thought of to move ahead no matter the consequences )

[@tankolad]

The emphasis of acceleration over simple "speed" is certainly a good takeaway from this case study. The improvement of tactical mobility in late Cold War tanks was in large part due to a pursuit of shorter and shorter dash times; the quicker you could dash between cover, the less likely you were to be hit.

[@TheGrammargestapo1]

interestingly, people are starting to wonder whether power to weight and speed are even that important anymore against modern APFSDS rounds. A round going at 1500 m/s with laser rangefinding giving you near perfect elevation by default, and potentially a computer assisted gun sight that calculates lead just makes hitting moving targets so comparably easy. The leopard one was designed at a time when (amusingly, completely contrary to the soviet's assessment), it was assumed tank launched HEAT rounds were the ultimate ammunition and made armor pointless. These are relatively slow moving projectiles, and the vast majority of tanks had neither stabilizer nor had laser range finders been invented. That said, it's a bit of a moot point. Modern engines are so powerful we can pretty easily have both. However, there's also been a resurgence in interest of light wheeled vehicles as a result of modern low intensity conflicts often following roads, not to mention the interest in future active protection systems as an alternative to heavy armor to make tanks easier to transport, so make of that what you will.

[@TheDiner50]

@@TheGrammargestapo1 Speed and lower weight is still worth it. Even if you can not out maneuver someone trying to aim and hit you, well you can still take advantage of that maneuverability and flexibility you get from not having the weight. And there are still limits to what power modern engines can produce. You can not have a reliable engine that is also over stressed trying to squeezes the last bit of performance out of it. Traditional armor do not work agents modern weapons. Only modern defenses do anything useful. Armor was never really worth it. Just enough for machine guns and stuff is needed. There really is better ways of avoiding being hit by a anti tank shot. Better make sure you are not hit in the first place. But best of all is to not need a tank to begin with.

[@TheGrammargestapo1]

@@TheDiner50 modern composite armor works very well against even the most advanced APFSDS. Most modern MBT's have impenetrable turret faces and a small minority are also resistant to anything but the most modern APFSDS rounds along the frontal arc. Modern MBT's also often have a higher power to weight ratio than their lighter accompanying vehicles, despite weighing in excess of 60 tons. So, yeah. Engine power is essentially a non issue at this point. The heaviest M1A2 abrams model has a 23 hp/ton power to weight. The lightest M2 Bradley variant has a 19hp/ton power to weight. In fact, the fastest infantry fighting vehicles in the world are also some of the heaviest, such as the CV90, Puma, Lynx, and Ajax, which are all approaching or exceeding 50 tons. the simple reason is that bigger vehicles have more room for larger engines, and engines do not grow in power linearly based on size.

[@SoloRenegade]

don't forget the cost, resources, manufacturing resources and difficulty, transportation, maintenance, and other logistical concerns involved in making heavier armored vehicles. Quantity has a quality all its own, maneuverability, tactics, and more also play into success on the battlefield. Weight is still a very relevant discussion. Defensive warfare is potentially far less mobile as well, and may need to take more hits when being swarmed by superior numbers. Just depends on the situation, country, etc.

[@gotanon8958]

That a rather bad idea as an AT mine could be carried by an infantrymen which turns it into a lightly armored coffin.

[@SoloRenegade]

Having had RPGs fired at my vehicle, and suddenly becoming aware of just how slow it accelerated, was a lesson i learned in my first combat deployment. Many military vehicles are too slow, or have governors on their engines to further slow them down. I lean on the "go light, go fast" side of the spectrum, but I also understand the value and need for certain degrees of armor for certain applications.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

its why i like the idea of, if not fully separate vehicles for separate applications [like specific urban combat tanks] than atleast have tanks designed from the ground up to have modular armour (somewhat like the XM8, although that is a design modified during development, but its closer than say the abrams with an armour package)

[@trevorlong9831]

We in Australia we used Centurion in Vietnam and it was good!

[@shivampathak5773]

You made me remember the anecdote from a gunner. " you cannot outrun a missile, but you can out jerk it if your vehicle is snappy"

[@Killsnapz]

it really comes down to the proper application of the weapon system. The whole purpose of the M18 gun carriage (yes it was a gun carriage not a tank ) was to carry an effective anti tank weapon to where it was needed at the best speed possible over the worst terrain while affording the crew protection from small arms fire and artillery burst. It was never mean to have the ability to penetrate heavy front armor. It was designed to beat the enemy to a place and ambush them from the side or race around the flanks of the enemy and fire at them from the side. Once spotted they were then to retreat and relocate for another ambush or flanking position. The best defense is to not be there when the shot arrives and the M18 was excellent at accomplishing this.

[@LIETUVIS10STUDIO1]

I think it's why light tanks badly need revival. MBT armor is very needed, but too many holes where a light tank would have been far better, shoehorning in an IFV or (god help) a MRAP.

[@Gepedrglass]

The Holy Book of Armaments.

[@SirCheezersIII]

Armaments Chapter 2, Verses 9-21: “And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, ‘O Lord, bless this thy hand grenade, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.’ And the Lord did grin. And the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths, and carp and anchovies, and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit-bats..."

[@memonk11]

Not quite as effective as the holy hand grenade of Antioch.

[@TheSaturnV]

And thine enemy, having been naughty in my sight, shall be snuffed with thy M18 Hellcat, and the Lord did grin.

[@michaelsommers2356]

Pass the lord, and praise the ammunition.

[@david__w7964]

And Lo! Great was their suffering, and significant were their emotional events/

[@EstellammaSS]

The more I hear about these things, the more I appreciate the fact that, in a war, more is not always better. A bit like how the Germans had to remove the 5cm gun on the 234 because the crew kept thinking they’re in a tank and not doing proper scouting. If you put strong armor on a tank, the crew would be incentivized to use it. Which in some German tank’s situation is all they can do pretty much with their abysmal maneuverability. But, if the crew knew they have no chance of surviving a shot, they would put a lot more emphasis on creating ambush and maneuvering to throw off the enemy. In the case of tank on tank combat, the one that shoots first wins. So if you ask me, I would say the M18 have a better crew. Because they have the most important mindset hardwired to them out of necessity.

[@Wastelandman7000]

True. I'd also point out sometimes a design tradeoff is worth it. Plus if you look at the German WWII tank destroyers including the Stug, doing away with the turret made a lighter vehicle All of them were vulnerable to be strafed with .50 cals and rockets. But, if you look at the number of kills, these turretless designs killed allied armor out of proportions to their numbers. And far more efficiently than the Tiger II. Same with the M-18. the tradeoff worked.

[@mbr5742]

As for fire trucks: Balancing "most powerful pump" vs "pump I can get there" was/is done with volunteer fire departments in rural germany. The often used the TS 8-8. Not the best pump but one that could be pulled by a light truck or a tractor and lugged around by a few man. Good enough to deal with many situations and cheap enough to get two.

[@morgan3688]

In the US this is done by seperating "engines", "tenders", "tankers" and "ladders". Engines being largely all in one and look like peoples idea of a firetruck, and the other three being specialists in their role. There are also other specialized "brush" "prairie" and "forestry" trucks depending on locality and funding.

[@mbr5742]

@@morgan3688 Most of the time done in germany as well. It where only the small volunteer departments. Those had the choice TS 8-8 or buckets. With resonably short distances to a water source (often a special pont) and 1-2 story houses it worked.

[@morgan3688]

@@mbr5742 Because of the huge distances involved in the US and the limited fireline infrastructure (mostly because of distance) even "poor" departments have a dedicated truck or two. Man-portable pumps and or buckets are very very rare to my knowledge. (Exception to the pump being occaisonally trucks will carry deployable pumps for natural water sources)

[@ricklotter]

A very reasoned and nuanced answer. Not edgy or provocative, but ultimately complete. Well done, and thank you!

[@IvanTre]

Zaloga is a fucking tool. Source : read a couple of books by him.

[@jroch41]

Very interesting how Chieftain noted effect of differences in TD & tank school training doctrine.

[@Vilamus]

It is inconceivable nowadays that you wouldn't train tankers to shoot up tanks but back in WW2, tanks were a lot less common than infantry

[@MrChickennugget360]

@@Vilamus of course that is still the case today but then again we are living in an era where the West spent 5 decades facing litteral thousands of Soviet and Warsaw pact Tanks. That leaves an impression after all- Kill tanks,, kill lots of tanks and when you are done kill even more tanks.

[@martkbanjoboy8853]

The Hellcat - (and M10) were still being used in the Yugoslavian Wars. It was important because it would not collapse bridges that had to be crossed. Iff you can't get your tank across bridges its useless.

[@stuglife5514]

Yea there’s a few neat pictures of them laying around abandoned after they ran outta shells

[@Wastelandman7000]

Very true. That's why the Sherman (M4) was built the way it was. US bridge laying and domestic rail systems couldn't handle much heavier tanks. Plus they couldn't hoist it over the side of the ship. So yes, the US could have produced heavy tanks. But they'd all have wound up being stuck in the USA and absolutely useless in the war effort. Better to have a good enough tank than one that you can't get to the front lines.

[@amerigo88]

Regarding acceleration, it is mostly a product of high torque output. The M18 Hellcat is a rare example of an AFV where horsepower matters. For most, torque is more significant, but everyone just reports horsepower, like they were sports cars.

[@Catrik]

That is a common misconception. Engine torque is completely useless without horsepower. What matters is torque at the _wheels_ (or sprocets, in this case). You get more torque with gear reduction. You can not increase horsepower with transmission, but you can increase torque. High engine torque, compared to it's horsepower number, generally just means that the engine is larger, lower revving, heavier and more reliable (compare to a race car engine. High hp, high rpm, lighweight, requires a lot of maintenance). But it is incorrect to assume that a high torque engine is used on a tank because it has high torque. You could put a 110hp, 4000Nm steam engine on an M18, but I think you will agree that it would not be very fast, despite having very high torque (trainfanatics.com/110-hp-case-steam-torque-factory/)

[@SomeRandomHuman717]

One often-overlooked factor in Hellcat's agility is the role played by its first-for-a-US-fighting-tracked-vehicle torque converter-equipped "sort of" automatic transmission, the TorqMatic. From an automotive standpoint the equivalent "low" gear ratios were quite low, allowing the radial engine to get up into its power band more quickly and thereby help the Hellcat's "hole shot" aka off-the-line performance. This use of a torque converter means that up to 4.8 times maximum engine torque could be applied to the drive sprockets from a dead stop, a huge mechanical advantage. From a driving standpoint, since the driver did not have a clutch pedal and gear lever to work in addition to steering/braking levers and accelerator pedal, more muscle power and mental attention could be devoted to steering and the ground conditions just ahead of the vehicle.

[@billtimmons7071]

@@SomeRandomHuman717 Good points. Typical clutch and brake steering/final drives could be inefficient and not very responsive. The torque converter (slosh box) was very effective. I was hoping someone would bring up AFV torque converter tech. Final drives rarely get mentioned in these convos. Note: The Tiger had a "semi" transmission but was a kluge (complicated and not too responsive). No wonder German tanks were often effectively flanked.

[@billwilson3609]

@@billtimmons7071 In the 1930's the automakers wanted to sell more cars to women so had to find a way to eliminate the use of manual transmissions. Buick came up with the automatic transmission that used a torque converter instead of a friction clutch. An Englishman invented a select-shift manual transmission that retained the use of a friction clutch. The driver placed the gear lever in the desired gear where electric solenoids moved the gears then simply pressed down and released the clutch pedal to complete a smooth gear change. The Tiger 1 used a similar solenoid operated select-shift transmission. Buick's automatic made a thump during each gear change that could be heard and felt so GM tried to eliminate that during and after the war.

[@billwilson3609]

Ordnance installed twin GM 6026 Diesel engines in the M10 TD's since those produced a high torque at low RPM's that allowed the tank to accelerate faster from a dead stop.

[@ditzydoo4378]

M-18 has an unnecessary turn of speed... 0_o Said no U.S. Army TD-man ever... ^~^

[@HanSolo__]

British reports on American stuff - a top quality bias I would like to read all day long. :D

[@ditzydoo4378]

@@HanSolo__ They are quite entertaining.

[@FeedMeMister]

It's just not sporting, chap.

[@whirving]

Clearly he was trained on a Matilda.

[@catfish552]

What do you expect from the people who built a Churchill... and then a heavier Churchill... and then Black Prince - all with the same damn engine.

[@Mildcat743]

I find your fire engine analogy fascinating as a volunteer firefighter for a rural department, as it brings up what could be considered doctrinal differences depending on need for FDs. In urban or suburban environments where access to hydrants is plentiful, sacrificing water for a bit more speed to get to the scene is a fair call. Us, on the other hand, have only a single truck that doesn't carry any fighting water (only drinking for the lads on scene when they need to recuperate). In our case, where we frequently get calls to farm addresses and, indeed, random fields set alight, we need as much water on hand as possible to minimize trips back to town for water. Our typical plan is to get our main pumper, a tanker, and our supply van out first. Pumper gets on scene first and immediately sets to work with what onboard water it has to fight the fire. The tanker comes along right behind, sets up a portable tank (little more than a big square kiddie pool with a metal frame), dumps it's water into the tank, and legs it back to town to refill. Pumper drops a hose from their tank fill valve into the portable tank to begin siphoning water. The pumper's onboard water allows it to start fighting sometimes in less than a minute from arriving on scene, and the tanker runs only require one person to be present to do them, thus freeing up the manpower that came in the tanker to assist fighting the fire.

[@jimrobinson4786]

It seems if used as a tank destroyer, it was fine. It was superior in "shooting and scooting". But when used as a tank, to draw enemy attention and fire, it suffers.

[@scottyfox6376]

The quality of crews would have played a significant factor, especially in regards for the Wehrmacht I would imagine.

[@Treblaine]

5:20 suggests it was valued beyond destroying enemy tanks. Specifically referencing it being used to destroy towed anti-tank guns. By 1944 all the anti-tank weapons being deployed against the Allies were so powerful like the Long 88mm and Panzerfaust, they could all penetrate Sherman's armour, your only chance was to shoot back quick or avoid it. And M18 could dodge fire. Surely any armed vehicle would draw attention of the enemy, attention or not trying to lay a gun on an M18 moving so fast just isn't practical. Also the M18 can just go places a Sherman can't go due to better cross country and hill climbing, it's also shorter. The M18 crew all have a much better view to spot the enemy.

[@felicitylongis3605]

Well, I must say this was a really fantastic look at the topic. I've definitely learned a few things today, and really appreciate the time taken to answer my question. Many thanks!

[@828enigma6]

I recall some Revolutionary War commander stating the winner of a particular battle would be determined by who ever got there "firstest with the mostest". A very true statement. Cannot remember his name, and he wasn't well educated, but he knew sufficient about what he was doing to be very perceptive and battlefield effective.

[@markmiller589]

Not revolutionary war - Civil War - Nathan Bedford Forest - but yes, a VERY true statement!

[@JonathanHStone]

@@markmiller589 it's a misquote of Forrest's less colloquial "get there first with the most men".

[@Ensign_Nemo]

Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the top three Confederate cavalrymen in the US Civil War, and is often rated the best one of all. He was misquoted as saying "firstest with the mostest", he actually said "get there first with the most men". He was a tactical genius, but he was blamed for the massacre of black Union troops who tried to surrender and was also one of the founders of the Ku Klux Klan. His success on the field of battle was very badly tarnished by his failure to display any mercy or respect to blacks until he was near the end of his life.

[@zachv1942]

@@Ensign_Nemo I wonder what drove that ambition.

[@jic1]

@@Ensign_Nemo But his change of opinion towards black people was very considerable, and put him at odds with a great number of his fellow southerners. He certainly deserves at least some credit.

[@johnniewalker8410]

You sir are a professional historian of the highest caliber. Hat's off to you, appreciate the content

[@tomhutchins7495]

The comments fit interestingly with Admiral Fisher's idea that "speed is armour". Now we can cut through the misunderstanding and outright lies perpetrated since (such as the "plunging fire" myth since no British battlecruiser was actually lost to such) it is clear that poor tactics and training, not helped by defective equipment, caused their problems too.

[@1982nsu]

The expression that best fits the M-18 is " Hit fast, hit hard, hit often."

[@smuldohuntermuldo9312]

Thanks Chieftain, its still my favourite cat. Really enjoyed seeing the M18 in the "Saints and Soldiers-The Void" videos of several years ago you made.

[@EdAtoZ]

Chieftain, When talking about a piece of equipment, some of the best data is from the enemy side. Any accounts of Germany saying when facing an USA TD do this and do not do this or any german assessments of a captured M18 ?

[@arosha1]

Sounds like a good question for Military History Visualized

[@Treblaine]

Most combat accounts say they have a hard time identifying precisely what equipment the enemy was using unless they can capture it intact to study it after the area is secure. So many reports of "tiger tanks" have been confirmed to in fact be Panzer IV tanks with the wide "schurzen" armour that make the turret look far bulkier and with a big of camouflage and no scale reference it looks like a Tiger. What would the Germans make of seeing Hellcats from a distance while dodging shell sprinters? They may just mistake them for captured Panther tanks repainted in allied olive drab. It sure doesn't look like a Sherman.

[@billwilson3609]

There are a few assessments of US armor made by German officers available online. None have anything good to say about them other than being designed to be slapped together quickly on assembly lines like automobiles.

[@dragonace119]

@@billwilson3609 I mean yeah they were the losers so naturally they are going to be negative.

[@billwilson3609]

@@dragonace119 The ones I viewed were official reports that would be read by the German General Staff so the officers really couldn't say anything good about them.

[@user6008]

At the WWII battle of Arracourt where seven M18 Hellcat's and twenty-five U.S. tanks met a force of two hundred German tanks, who were attempting to push Patton out of the Lorraine Province in France. These seven Hellcats would do Yeoman's work in destroying or disabling thirty-nine Panzer tanks over the course of eleven days of battle. Which is part of why the M18 Hellcat is still considered the most underrated tank destroyer of WWII. The combat doctrine of shoot and scoot.....the M18.

[@billwilson3609]

A few Hellcats were sent to encounter a group of Panthers that were spotted hidden in a valley. They raced pell-mell down some back roads to catch them from the rear. They arrived to find the Panther crews outside their tanks cooking lunch so drove up closer and began putting rounds into the Panthers' engine compartments. The Panther crews that leapt into action found their passage and LOS blocked by the disabled tanks with some falling victim to side shots as the drivers tried to thread their way around those. The Hellcats withdrew once their commanders felt it was the prudent thing to do.

[@user6008]

@@billwilson3609 BWAAAHAAAAHAAAA!

[@mikelong5207]

The Centurion was a prime example of mobility over speed, it's top speed was 21-24mph but its ability to accelerate and dash was good due to low gearing, it also climbed very well!

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

I don't know if you'll find this in any official documents but my dad was a tank commander and platoon Commander and sometimes company Commander depending on how many officers were left during World War II. Officers got knocked out faster than tanks. They kept putting their head out the turret. In spite of warnings. But on to the point. Sherman crewd often disabled their governors on their engines. The aircraft engine set were used including the Ford V8 were detuned. The engines were capable of producing more power but it wasn't enough air flow to dissipate the heat that's why they were governed down and detuned. So when needed Sherman's were actually just a tad faster than they were on paper. You couldn't do it for any extended. You'd burn the engine up but that's what my dad told me they took the governors and deactivated them as soon as them got in combat. For the record my dad enlisted in the Army in 1939 was armor All The Way into the late 40s. By the time he landed in Normandy he was in e6. Most of his rank came in 1942. Just before the torch landings he was taken out of second Armored Division and put in 6th Armored Division to form the cadre to build the division.

[@billwilson3609]

I once had a neighbor that was a mechanic with a 3rd Army armor recovery unit. He said the M4 could do 40 mph when the governor was disabled so many M4 drivers did that so they could reach higher speeds in all gears when needed. My neighbor said the main drawback for driving without the governor was for the driver being unaware of his true speed so took turns too fast which caused the top heavy M4 to tip over onto it's side.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

@@billwilson3609 also burned up the tracks

[@danielburgess7785]

I'd like to see/hear any Axis reports on how to deal with the M18s.

[@leepalmer1210]

The greatest calvary commander to ever live famously said the key to victory was "Get there firstest with the mostest"

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

Jeb, right?

[@billd.iniowa2263]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer Forest.

[@1982nsu]

The expression that best fits the M-18 is " Hit fast, hit hard, hit often."

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

@@1982nsu agreed but I would add one other thing run fast! Personally I like the M18 I understand what it was intended to do. I don't comprehend necessarily the infantry support role that was pushed into because of its open top and light armor. You need your infantry tight around the vehicle to protect it from rockets and grenades. But having a 76 mm gun blown a hole in your improvised fortification can be somewhat unsettling.

[@1982nsu]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer Here a special M18 Hellcat treat for Chieftan's fans. "Tank Overhaul - Episode 4 - The M18 Hellcat" kzbin.info/www/bejne/eHzOgq18ds6Cd5Y ENJOY!

[@Count_Gustav]

6:44 So basically he is the first person who said "No armor best armor"

[@JaM-R2TR4]

its best not get hit :) no matter how strong armor you have, if you relly on it to survive, you will get killed...

[@ScottKenny1978]

Perhaps the first Army man to say that. The Navy had been arguing about the idea since 1900. See Battlecruisers.

[@JoshuaC923]

Hence the leopard 1

[@jic1]

I imagine the first person who sad that was probably ditching a breastplate in the 15th century.

[@Treblaine]

Dex builds are OP.

[@scdoty777]

As always a great erudite take. Even as an Old 11B, there is this thing called “shoot and scoot”. Stay in a fixed position after shooting and then don’t move away from that position quick, you will be fixed and killed no matter how protected you are!

[@Lintary]

Sounds like a case of it was a good design, but like any tool you make it needs to be used in the appropriate fashion and location.

[@le_travie7724]

You're awesome for taking time to keep your promise.

[@opperbuil]

Training and doctrine do attribute greatly in the M18's success. But parts of doctrine and training were also made with the M18 in mind, so the crews could use it well. So it's also a chicken & egg story. In basics, we can say that the US way of implementing equipment to perform well overseas worked. The niche speed and acceleration, sometimes over terrain unsuited for medium armour, is a serious problem when training German (anti-)tank units in addition to everything else you have to teach them. The M18's opposition can also do only so much/little. While it may be an abomination on the tank's holy trinity scale because of low armour, remember that it's a TD instead of a tank. It's supposed to be different, or it would have been another M7.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

tank destroyer doctrine pre-dates the M18. the M18 was designed to full the doctrine well.

[@brucermarino]

Some of these quotes sound a bit like Jackie Fisher on land (speed is armor...) :-) great work again, Sir!

[@jonathan_60503]

Speed (or at least acceleration) as armor seems like it works better on land where sight lines tend to be shorter and more cluttered than at sea, accelerations can be higher, and there can be convenient concealment to dart behind and hide, or nicely solid things (like hills) to take cover behind.

[@brucermarino]

@@jonathan_60503 Agreed Jonathan, even if one considers smoke, weather, and the like. One more important factor might be the much longer ranges and consequent flight times combined with the slow rate of fire of large caliber naval guns in the early part of the 20c when the good Admiral of the Fleet made his comments. Perhaps? Thanks!

[@jonathan_60503]

@@brucermarino To be fair to Fisher when he started pushing speed over armor it was before adoption of centralized director ranging and fire control or the early mechanical fire control computers. By WWI improved fire control systems seem to have been able to fairly easily handle any constant speed a target ship could attain. (So speed, as such, seems to have ceased to provide much protection. However target acceleration or maneuvers still couldn't easily be handled; though ships accelerate and turn far slower than most land vehicles) Ironically by WWI I think the main defensive benefit of high speed is that your opponent was likely attempting to match your speed, and the vibrations that speed caused greatly impacted the effectiveness of everybody's fire control directors. (Hard to range find when the target is reduced to a vibrating blur by all the shimmying the support elements of your fire control director are doing [g])

[@kevin_1230]

@The_Chieftain. Did the Commonwealth armored corps differ in composition or doctrine from the British. You could save it for the next Q&A if you wish.

[@trevorlong9831]

No in Australia we used the Matilda in New Guinea. We were developing an Armoured Division using General Grant tanks but for some reason that folded.

[@Saberjet1950]

i think the unwillingness of some units to switch to the M18 shouldn't be seen as a slight on the M18, but a endorsement of the M10.

[@philipkelly7369]

also soldiers often seem loathe to be separated from the equipment to which they have grown accustomed, often regardless of the circumstances

[@SomeRandomHuman717]

The M10 crews loved their twin GM diesels and were very wary of the danger they perceived of the follow-on vehicle's (M18 and M36) gasoline engines.

[@billytheshoebill5364]

@@SomeRandomHuman717 the gasoline engine powered tank myth has been dubunked soo many times already

[@SomeRandomHuman717]

@@billytheshoebill5364 That's why I used the phrase "danger they perceived." Regardless of fact or fiction, the crew reports documented their belief that their diesel M10s were safer than the gasoline M18s and M36s.

[@billytheshoebill5364]

@@SomeRandomHuman717 sorry for the misuderstanding then, but I thought the reason they refused was because the armor

[@michaelsommers2356]

These readings from the Book of Armaments are truly enlightening.

[@Paveway-chan]

So perhaps, just like the M18 did end up being used, it would have been a fantastic vehicle for the cavalry just as much as for the tank destroyer force.

[@gizmophoto3577]

Great discussion. Thanks for peeling back some of the layers so we can see a bit better.

[@thomasmaloney843]

Friends father commanded an M18 from December 1944 in the bulge battle and onward. He said they did okay against the German tanks. The German tanks he encountered usually did not have turrets. They were not maneuverable and could be taken in the side. He encountered few if any heavy German tanks.

[@thomasmaloney843]

@@lyndoncmp5751 Actually by this time, most of the German armour was stugs and not tanks with turrets. Germans did have tigers and such, but they were not as numerous as Hollywood shows they are. A lot of mark fours were mistaken for tigers as well.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

That's not quite true. There were more German tanks deployed to the Ardennes than Stugs. And Panthers were slightly more prevalent than Panzer IVs, contrary to the myth.

[@billwilson3609]

@@lyndoncmp5751 But the lighter stugs got better gas mileage so more were still motoring around after the heavier tanks ran out of gas.

[@steveturner3999]

Thanks Chieftain.

[@hiltonian_1260]

I am remembering a more recent wargame done by the DOD that pitted a few main battle tanks against a dozen dune buggies with AT missiles. The buggies moved fast, lost a few vehicles, and destroyed all the tanks.

[@Ws_minion]

Yet another case of there is rarely, if ever, a singular truth to a subject. Great talk as always Mr Moran.

[@rileyernst9086]

Raw speed in tactical mobility is great though. When you read accounts of cromwell crews they're always like: 'There came ruddy loud boom, earth kicked up nearby one of the tanks and we all dashed off to cover.' Whilst firefly crews are like: 'There was a ruddy loud boom, earth kicked up nearby one of the tanks and all the ruddy cromwells dashed off, and there we were in the middle of the field; the slowest, tallest tank with the biggest gun. A target all right!'

[@tomservo5347]

I remember hearing on some documentary an M18 commander claiming that they avoided a Panther hitting them from the time they saw the muzzle flash and racing their M18 forward to avoid getting hit. I'm curious what the Germans thought as far as danger goes compared to the M4.

[@thomaskositzki9424]

At 2000 m/yrd you had about 2-3 seconds until impact (IIRC muzzle velocity of the Panthers KWK 42 was 1070 m/s). One second to react, the other to doge. Guess when you are fast enough on the acceleration, that one second just shove you out of the tracetory.

[@Idahoguy10157]

After the war ended the Army analysis was the TD’s were redundant to Tanks. Starting in the 1970’s TD’s returned in the form of anti-tank missile armed helicopters and missile armed vehicle teams.

[@ScottKenny1978]

While I agree with you on attack helicopters being the end result of US TD doctrine, I'm not sure I agree that foot guided missile teams are. Foot ATGM teams are an integrated part of an infantry unit, not so much part of a separate formation. Which makes the Foot ATGM Teams the equivalent of the 57mm AT Guns.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

which is a pity, they (TDs) should have been combined with light tanks. imagine if instead of a bulldog you got something similar to the 'super hellcat'.

[@mbr5742]

M901 ITV in the US is a tracked tank destroyer. The germans employed multiple missile armed and in at least one case purpose build missile armed tracked TD well into the 1990s and a purpose build gun armed into the 1980s

[@ScottKenny1978]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 what, Hellcat with a 90mm? Ammo capacity would have suffered greatly, while the 76mm with APDS ammo was still effective against T55s. Although it would have simplified ammo supply with all tanks packing 90mm.

[@ScottKenny1978]

@@mbr5742 not by doctrine, not like a WW2 TD. M901s are integrated part of the infantry division, not a separate unit "on call" like TD battalions or attack helicopters.

[@Bepis13]

Awesome video. Grandad was a tank commander of an m18

[@blakewinter1657]

I have heard that hellcats sometimes survived hits that would have destroyed an M4 by virtue of having such thin armor that the 75s and 88s would just go straight through them, and as long as they didn't hit anything essential in the process, they would be fine.

[@joeTheN]

That is true of any armored vehicle.

[@Nightdare]

@@joeTheN Not really, well armored vehicles that get penetrated tend to have lots of molten metal flying around in the fighting compartment for reasons well understood by basic physics whereas lightly armored vehicles would merely have 2 holes and a shaken, but alive, crew

[@joeTheN]

@@Nightdare Conjecture versus fact. Read more first hand accounts.

[@tvgerbil1984]

No M18, M10 or M36 was made after 1945. The very first light tank built after 1945 was one armed with a 76mm main gun while having a power-to-weight ratio which was about the same as the M18. So the US army might have judged the M18 as a really good light tank if it had a bit more armor and a roof.

[@waynehankinson8210]

The U.S. military needs a true light tank with a 30mm auto cannon and just a 2 man crew. A light tank that is air droppable and can fit in the new Osprey type aircraft that is being developed for the Army. Would be great if it was light enough to be sling loaded under a Chinook helicopter as well. This light tank could use rubber tracks to keep the weight down. I remember seeing a Uk tank that was tiny, fast and had a two man crew in 1987-89 when I was stationed in Germany. This tank was the size of a small 4 door sedan.

[@Simon_Nonymous]

Bloody hell Nick - this is the most serious I think I have ever seen you!

[@Principator]

The high speed vs heavy armor has always reminded me that if you compare the M18 TD with the post-war Leopard 1 and AMX-30, they share many characteristic. Lightly armored, adequate to excellent main gun, good mobility and speed. M18 89 km/h w/ 19.8-22.6 hp/tonne power weight ratio & 13mm frontal armor AMX-30 65km/h with 18.9hp/tonne power weight ratio and 80.8 mm frontal armor Leo1 65km/h with 19.6hp/tonne power weight ratio and 60mm frontal armor. The AMX-30 and Leopard 1 have far more in common with M18 tank destroyers than their contemporaries.

[@rileyernst9086]

Getting to the fight faster does a merit of its own, even and especially if your unit only ends up as a speed bump. Because even in the worst case scenario and your hellcats are engaged and wiped, they have maybe brought time for the rest of the army to respond.

[@thomaskositzki9424]

Mateeen* goes "Meep! Meep!" ** *Matey and 18. Me and my friends nickname for the M18 in War Thunder. **Usually I don't do silly commentary like this, but the M18 always brings that image to my mind. ^^

[@Wastelandman7000]

Personally I'll go with the field reports over the pencil pushers any day. If its used as intended it worked and had a low loss rate too which makes it very good. If you're putting it in the line in mountainous terrain against a heavily entrenched enemy, that's the commander's mistake not a flaw in the design. As you've noted we still have these lightly armored speedy machines mounting formidable guns/missile systems still being made because they work and can do things a MBT can't.

[@0Turbox]

Guderian once said, that a Panzer's best weapon is his engine. In the case of the M18, the situation was near ideal for success. The western Allied had more than 6x the men and machines on the ground, made millions of air photographs and had, for the most of the time, encrypted Enigma datas for great information about German troop movements. Despite a superb vehicle, if the Germans had something similar, it would die like flies.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

"The purpose of the Tank Destroyer is not to sit in front of the enemy tanks and shoot at them, but to maneuver to a place where it's weapons can fire at, hit, and kill the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible." - Me (In the CM:TTP Video I never made about Tank Destroyers.)

[@davidsike734]

But in order to maximize that tactical advantage they needed to have a gyro stabilized gun.

[@CAP198462]

If I may paraphrase “ I will not allow tank destroyers to sap and I purify all of our precious main battle tanks”

[@billtimmons7071]

@@CAP198462 I saw what you did there :) I love that movie.

[@CAP198462]

@@billtimmons7071 I agree, it’s one of a handful of critically acclaimed films that can be watched more than once.

[@DouglasMoran]

The M50, appropriately named "Ontos" = "thing", is another example of tradeoffs in what was intended to be an anti-tank weapon/tank-destroyer whose top design constraint was that it be air-transportable. It was used almost entirely by the Marines in the Vietnam War as artillery. Its main armament was six M40 recoilless rifles (106mm) that had to be reloaded from outside the vehicle. This, the minimal armor, and the high profile required it to be a "shoot and scoot" weapon.

[@828enigma6]

Can't recall who said it, but one of the commanders made the commend that the side would win that arrived on scene, "firstest with the mostest".

[@cdfe3388]

Re: fire apparatus design. As a career California firefighter, I can tell you that it’s a very diverse field that depends heavily on the area the rig will serve, the role it will fill, and budgets. It is also sadly often dependent on PR, dirty politics, and bro deals, but that’s another story. Anyway, mobility is one of the considerations. A municipal fire department in a city with lots of narrow streets needs a rig that can negotiate those conditions. It’s even more of a thing for an engine optimized for wildland firefighting (what we call a Type 3). Although road speed is nice, what you really need is good ground clearance, tight turn radius, and preferably not making the damn thing too tall or wide to operate on narrow sideslope roads. Water capacity and equipment stowage are a balance, since in the wildland environment you’re generally limited to what you bring with you, but again have to ensure that you don’t make the rig too big to operate on two-tracks and goat trails. Fire engines have gotten bigger over the past 20 years, which diminishes our ability to operate away from the pavement. There’s also the frustrating trend by which as soon as you get a new bigger engine that has enough compartment space to hold all of your gear, the powers that be inevitably decide to add something else (usually large, heavy, and bulky) to your complement, and soon you’re back to compartment doors that barely shut, stuff stacked on the hose bed lids or hanging on the side, and all that fun stuff. Then there’s the issues with weight (especially water), braking ability, fuel capacity, slope safety, etc. And the fact that it will probably still be in service long past the manufacturer’s recommend retire date (I was born in ‘84, and spent five years on an ‘81 model engine-great rig, BTW). The type and size of pump installed is also gonna vary depending on what you plan to do with it (pressure vs GPM capacity, single- vs multistage, Chelsea box vs in-line PTO vs hydrostatic vs skid mount). Kinda like tanks, there’s a lot more to fire engines than just “fire, water, squirt.”

[@stanislavczebinski994]

My grandfather was a German tank driver with Volkssturm. He once mentioned: "Those crazy Americans built a tank with no roof" He simply did not understand the concept of a tank destroyer, shoot&scoot. RIP Grandpa - I miss you!!!

[@richardbradley2802]

I have wargamed using TFLs 'What a Tanker' and I agree, mobility is key, getting round the flank of the enemy tank and hitting his thinner armour also gets you out of the sights of an enemy vehicle. Lets be honest, light armour is no worse than the heavier armour on the M4, most German rounds can get through!

[@christophercripps7639]

Odd the Brits noted an "unnecessary turn of speed;" this from those using the slow, armoured inf tanks & the peashooter equipped cruisers (until Cromwell/Comet). Italy was not exactly ideal terrain for M18s. Not until M1A1 did the USA get everything tactically - protection, mobility, firepower (don't even need to stop) albeit a bit difficult logistically.

[@davidchambers8697]

I don't think it is odd at all. As you say, they were fighting in a mountain range, and no one was using much speed. Therefore, the speed was unnecessary.

[@staffsgtsarge]

There is a difference in doctrine that does need to be taken into account here. To the British the M18 is a sef-propelled anti-tank gun, used as a nomal towed weapon would be. There is only so much speed a AT gun acutally needs.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

peashooter equiped cruisers? thats abit of a bias isn't it. not only did they mount the biggest guns they had available on their cruiser tanks. the crusader even got the 6pdr (and thus had the same weapon options the cromwell got, seeign as the cromwell was armed with the 6pdr and the rebored 6pdr that was the QF 75mm) as soon as enough 6pdrs were available.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@staffsgtsarge i wonder what they would have though of it if the americans had presented it as a light cruiser tank (or somesuch)

[@charlie15627]

Great vid I’ve always had a soft spot for these beast hunters.😊

[@vonschlesien]

"Like a polo pony" is a metaphor that says a lot about these officers' background

[@notjamesstockdale3563]

I'm surprised hearing about the M18's offroad capabilities because the Soviet GABTU testers thought its offroad mobility was particularly poor and that its transmission made it was slow and lethargic. Since Zaloga spent the Cold War at the Soviet Studies Center, he might have been influenced by them.

[@Tyr1001]

that is peculiar. i wonder if it had anything to do with the extreme cold, or perhaps maintenance differences. Even something like using the incorrect weight of oil or grease can have a significant impact on mechanical performance, and i doubt there was an internationally unified standard for such things at the time, as there is now

[@BlueEyesGaming]

im curious to the potential comparisons to some modern armor(probably mainly leopard). get there fast. first. fire 3-4 shots in rapid succession, reposition at rapid speed to avoid accurate return fire. it feels like the idea and tactics behind M18 use has long outlasted the vehicle, even if people are still critical of the idea.

[@gotanon8958]

Its viable as long as you dont encounter somebody with a fire control system then your fcked.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@gotanon8958 not really, anyone with a firecontrol system able to hit you is also going to be someone that would be able to penetrate your armour regardless.

[@EvilTwinn]

@@gotanon8958 A modern berm drill is now supposed to be 2 rounds, generally, but the same tactics and rationale apply. It's all about limiting your opponent's opportunity to engage you effectively by not sitting in front of him. Sure, modern optics and FCS have meant that he's going to see you sooner and range in on you faster, so you can't sit there for 4 rounds, but you can do that for two easily. Pop up, fire, reload, fire, back down.

[@jefesalsero]

The M18 was used effectively in the Philippines in 1944-45. Battle of Manila comes to mind. The M7 Priest was ubiquitous during the Battle for Manila in February 1945.

[@kilo_kilo]

funny thing about the fire truck analogy, fire trucks are speed governed because firemans likes to go too fasts and sometimes they tips over.

[@centurian318]

The original “Not your daddy’s Buick!” Designed by Harley Earl. The 76mm gun was probably made by Oldsmobile and the M2 Brownings were probably GM as well. The only way the M-18 could have been MORE GM would have been powered by a twin Detroit Diesel pack.

[@christofferthorsson7657]

Is the book of armament in the old or new testament?

[@Memphismastermind]

New; the Old Testament one is the Book of Arms. Easy to mix those two up.

[@skullyairsoft80]

Acceleration being more valuable than top speed definitely translates to games such as Warthunder and WoT in my experience, as the way to be successful with lighter vehicles like M18 is to shoot and scoot. Repositioning to deny the enemy an easy shot and get around that heavy armor is made much easier by a tank that accelerates quickly rather than one with a high road speed. This is where modern MBTs have made the most improvement on their medium tank predecessors (as far as mobility goes), having high enough torque to accelerate fairly quickly while maintaining good armor and firepower.

[@andraslibal]

I have a Hellcat assembled and primed and base color applied in my Bolt Action Army (1 to 56 scale). It is so low on points 155 pts as a regular unit ... My friend brought it on the table to make fun of my overly expensive Tiger I and take it out with all of its 395 points that I spent on it ... well he was not successful but could have been - it was down to a dice roll. It has a powerful gun and it is a Recce so it can back out of trouble. But man did I one shot it with the Tiger after it failed. I would say a very handy little vehicle to have in a force composition that is why I added my own to my American forces.

[@gregtheredneck1715]

Best Buick ever made.

[@jonpick5045]

We had a '68 Le Sabre when we lived in the States. Good car, although probably not as effective against a Panther as an M18. On the other hand if you were involved in an accident it would occur a LONG way away from the occupants due to the sheer size of the thing.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

^ Nice.

[@ScottKenny1978]

I'm going to argue with that, because the GNX is a beast.

[@billwilson3609]

The prototype M18's were faster since they used two Buick V8's!

[@HBon111]

My favourite 'tank' errr... 'armoured vehicel' err...'tank destroyer'. I don't know! All I know is that I like it a lot!

[@jasonb193]

I love the M18 my Grandfather was an M18 driver in the 609th TD Battalion 10th Armored Division in WW2.

[@TOO_TALL305]

ah yes if Jackie Fischer was in Charge of TDs in the US the M18 would have been the penelutimate of his work

[@mlefebvre007]

What would be next? Penultimate means the one before the last one.

[@classifiedad1]

@@mlefebvre007 Either the M56 Scorpion or the M50 Ontos.

[@logicbomb5511]

This guys needs to be teaching procurement and equipment history at a or all the war collages!!! This whole dive into the meta of tank destroyers, mobility and the wealth of case study; enlightening!!! Interesting about the armor disparity in regards to the 20mm, isn't that about the most common widely distributed AT in the German infantry, certainly early war??? That kinda protection might really be the difference between vulnerability and impunity trying to flank around the periphery to get a side shot lest a German OP side shot you with a 20mm at rifle????

[@JaM-R2TR4]

Best possible way how to fight enemy tanks is to hit them with flanking fire from positions they cant spot you easily.. and if you are in a tank that doesnt have any armor,crew is extremely motivated not giving up the position needlesly and fire only from advantageous possition... so yeah, it was because of superior training, but the vehicle design attributed to the fact these crews used that TD in ways it was meant to be used, isntead of slug it out like others did in slightly more armored counterparts...

[@geofftimm2291]

Excellent!

[@thoughtfox2409]

2:02 As a voluntary firefighter in germany i can say, no there is no balance between Pump capacity and water tank vs. roadspeed, at least not today. We have powerful enough commercial engines, and a lot of (german) firetrucks are governed to 90-100 Km/h, as most fires aren't that far away for the first responding truck. Also a 18 ton truck barreling down the road with 120 km/h with a driver that might not drive trucks daily is a safety hazard. And what use is a firetruck that never arrives on scene or that causes another accident? Most time is spent driving inside a city, were safety concerns such as other cars or pedestrians are limiting the speed, not the engine. And when the truck drives from one city or village to another a second firebrigade from that city/village is probably already on scene or at least en route. There is, however, a balance between pump capacity and water tank size, as a 2000 l/min pump is no use with a 500l tank (and also the engine of such a small truck may struggle with that pump), and a 1000l/min pump may not be enough for a vehicle with a big tank that may supply a tower ladder. But in firefighting the water tank is only there to bridge the time needed to get a water supply from a hydrant or a lake etc. But firefighting is a way more stationary thing than fighting tanks. The fire is there, and usually dosn't move that far, at least not so much that you have to run after it or away from it (if the trucks are positioned correctly in the beginning). The "driving" part of the call is usually less than 10% of the time needed to finish it. Of course, the smaller the task the higher those percentages go, if i only need to check out a smoke detector (in germany buildings with lots of people or high hazards have smoke detectors that are directly conected to dispatch) and reset it i'm in and out of that building in under 5 minutes.

[@Freedomfred939]

Acceleration was an unintended benefit as TD doctrine was to rush tank killing weapons to the point of breakthrough in order to prevent another debacle as occurred in 1940 France. For all their benefits TD's were removed from the Army inventory shortly after the war. That decision pretty much sums up the advantages of the M18. However the vehicle itself is another feather in the cap for the industrial capabilities of the US. This is evidenced by the fact that the M18 chassis was retained as the basis of several other types of combat vehicles during the Korean war.

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

This Hellcat is my favorite Armored Vehicle of all time … and the F4 Hellcat had the highest kill ratio in the war .. two Very Bad Kitties….indeed

[@ifga16]

The M18 fit two doctrines. Shoot and scoot plus the “Get there firstest with the mostest.” As allegedly promulgated by Nathan Bedford Forrest.

[@joshuacollins5860]

Operational report: 10/10. Vehicle handless well and can drift turns at high speeds. Acceleration HIGHLY ACCEPTABLE, and a great way to make a couple bucks off some poor GI in a Jeep on a drag race. :)

[@michaelcollum3540]

I am an old man and my memory is fading but I seem to recall that WWII US Destroyers were lucky to stop a 20mm shell. Navy Destroyers were fast, carried 152 mm (5 in) guns and were lightly armored but served very well in all theaters of war. I think this description and service record could be applied to the M18.

[@davidhunt1947]

Yes, the turrets were thin.

[@michiwey]

I think the M18 Hellcat would have made an excellent reconnaisance vehicle. Speed, open turret and an armament with a punch.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Such a concept was trialled by the cavalry, together with a couple of variants for the job, most of which did not enter service. What they had seemed to be doing well enough. That said, in practice M18s ended up being attached to cavalry units in the field regardless, due to the obvious ability to have firepower which could keep up

[@activecamoflage6649]

Wait... you put goggly eyes and you’re hat on a shell. Now that’s fun

Indeed very informative

[@Blitz350]

There is indeed a consideration of size vs capability for fire apparatus. The main problem with larger apparatus is the lack of maneuverability rather than strictly speed. For the US the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1901 sets requirements for acceleration , stopping distance, and max speed of all types of apparatus. Max speed is regulated based on GVWR of the vehicle and is 68 mph for any vehicle over 26k lbs and 60 mph for any vehicle over 50k lbs or with water tank capacity of 1250 gal or more. Acceleration standard as I recall 0 to 35 mph in 10-15 seconds. I do not recall the stopping distance standard but auxiliary braking systems (Jake Brake, exhaust brake, Thelma Retarder) are required for large apparatus. These standards are very extensive and go as far as how much and what kinds of reflective striping must be on the apparatus. These standards are technically voluntary but are requirements for grants and most AHJs have adopted them as their own. The main problem with larger apparatus is pure size, particularly length. A dense city may have trouble with a 40 ft long do it all behemoth and require much smaller rigs. This means smaller water tanks capacities which is usually of little consequence in a city with hydrants on every corner. A rural area may require a large water capacity due to no or limited hydrant coverage and also be able to accommodate a larger apparatus anyway. The need to go with tandem rear axles instead of a single axle in particular hurts turning radius by quite a lot in addition to vehicle length. Weight itself doesn"t have quite the effect it used to as motor ratings of 400 hp are very common and ratings as high as 550-600 hp are becoming more common all the time for larger units. The roles a vehicle needs to fill also has trade offs. A pumper/tanker is in general going to be larger than a straight pumper or straight tanker and will generally be worse at one of those two roles due its dual role nature. It can either be an pumper that can be a tanker or a tanker that can be a pumper and not both at the same time, at least not effectively. Similarly a ladder truck that has a pump, tank, and hose added cant carry as many ladders or as much portable equipment because there is only so much space. Suffice to say that this is a very complicated topic and min/max-ing designs is a constant discussion within the fire service for everything from apparatus design and layout to the boots that are worn.

[@washingtonradio]

Like any vehicle, if the basic design and doctrine is sound, it is will do the job well. The question is whether the doctrine made sense for the time period. It sounds like the TD doctrine was basically sound, if misunderstood, for the period. So a vehicle and crew training designed around the doctrine led to a very effective vehicle, if under appreciated.

[@ScottKenny1978]

TD doctrine was hampered by the technology available at the time. It really came into it's own with the development of attack helicopters and guided missiles. Helicopters are much faster than any tank and can shoot and scoot much better.

[@billwilson3609]

The US Army had the luxury of observing what the other armies were doing before the US entered the war. That allowed the Army to adopt practices of the German forces since those obviously worked and create some of their own that none of the sides had thought of yet. One was a mobile force of fast tank destroyers that could be held in reserve until needed. The Army decided to use the M3 halftrack holding the standard 75mm cannon since it was fast (45mph on roads), had good cross country mobility and a low profile for easier concealment. The Army had to change their TD doctrine after getting some battle experience where they found it would be more practical to have those mixed in with armor and infantry units. The M3's with 75mm guns stayed in service providing direct fire support for the infantry along with the M36 and M10's those had for defense against German tanks. Those M36 and M10 crews spent most of their time firing HE at buildings and gun emplacements so many weren't too thrilled with having theirs replaced with a M18 that had little armor protection. The US tankers already had developed the practice of running at the highest speed possible to become harder to hit by tank rounds, AT guns and fired shaped charges so there were plenty of crews willing to try out the Army's new hot rod tank.

[@Activated_Complex]

Thanks for the video. It seems to me that argument about training could equally be applied to some other weapon systems employed to great success on the battlefield: The finest artillery piece in the US Army’s inventory would be completely ineffective without well-trained crews to operate it, soldiers and forward observers capable of adjusting it on target, and the intelligence on enemy (and friendly) positions to know where best to set up the guns to provide support. For that matter, the GI’s Garand rifle required, at all but the most trivial distances, training, practice, and discipline to put steel-jacketed copper on target. And the infantry company needed skilled NCOs and officers (but particularly NCOs) to either outmaneuver enemy squads to get as many muzzles pointing their direction, from multiple angles, as possible, or to recognize and take up suitable defensive positions. And a lack of discipline on the part of a German soldier wielding the best combat rifle of the war, the STG-44, would see them quickly expend their ammunition and resort to their bayonet or shovel like their grandfather who fought in the trenches. Doesn’t detract from the merits of these weapons, one bit, that they required training and hard-won skill to find success in a war between two large, well-equipped, professional armies capable of dealing one another body blows.

[@billd.iniowa2263]

Ideally you'd be engaging targets while you were hull-down. So thick hull armor wouldnt even come into play. And since you were so fast, you could get to those hull-down positions and settle in before the enemy even arrived.

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

It’s nice to start out with the right tactical doctrine for the right weapon…. At the right time …

[@txdino6063]

Great commentary

[@Stardude78]

So, if the M18 and M24 were suitable for speed and strike tactics, what held back the M8 besides anti-armor capability?

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

the greyhound? its poor offroad performance, i believe stuarts were liked in the pacific theature (and to an extent even in European theature) because of their mobility (and reliability).

[@Stardude78]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 Not the Greyhound, but rather the Scott, HMC. The Chieftain pointed out at one point it was considered for use in place of the M7 and M4 (105) as the assault gun. The pack 75mm is a superior HE weapon to the 76mm.

[@jarink1]

@@Stardude78 I believe it was a combination of factors. M7 actually carried more 105mm rds (69) than the M8 's 75mm (46). The cramped fighting compartment and small crew also contributed to lower sustained rate of fire. M7s were normally able to sufficiently keep up with fast-moving cavalry or scouting units to provide indirect fire support, which was the main purpose of US HMCs.

[@billwilson3609]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 The Stuarts small size and weight was ideal for the small roads and bridges found in the Pacific Theater along with being vastly superior to any Japanese tank they would encounter. In Europe the M3 and M5's were used for recon and flank screening since they were obsolete when it came to tank warfare. The M5 was the most popular due to improvements, better armor and using 2 Cadillac V8's with each driving a Hydramatic transmission with both coupled to a gearbox that allowed one side to be disengaged if damaged. The twin V8's made it quieter with improved fuel range (100 mi. vs 75 mi.) and could get it doing better than 40 mph on roads after the governor was tweaked. It's 37mm gun had a decent HE round suitable for scouting duties. They also were used as armor ammunition carriers to resupply the medium tanks and TD's that were engaged in combat then be fitted with a bulldozer blade to push around rubble and fill shell craters when nothing else was going on.

[@thijshagenbeek8853]

Being in the right place ahead of the enemy in anny Day or circumstance. *Some M18 Commander somewhere on a good motto*

[@wlewisiii]

This old tanker finds this video extremely interesting. If I were suddenly dropped in Northern Europe 1944, I'd try to jump into a Hellcat crew :)

[@Mag_Aoidh]

I was wondering how long it was going to take you to figure out that trooper’s hat was crooked.

[@Treblaine]

The Panther's gun had the penetration to defeat Sherman's armour so what scenario are you worse off if hit in exchange for less chance of being hit? Interesting how the 17 ton Hellcat was favoured even when not specifically against tanks because it could go places that the 33 ton Sherman couldn't go. Damn, almost half the weight. I suppose, what were you giving up? If you ran into an 88mm anti-tank gun, soldier with a panzerfaust or Panzerschreck, your only chance of surviving was to not be hit, they all had nominal penetration of 200mm or more. Also landmines, they got so huge they were flipping Shermans upside down, being able to go off road because you're half the weight of a Sherman and not go the obvious route that's probably mined may be the better option.

[@MililaniJag]

Great info! Thx!

[@ahmiv8825]

Can you do a breakdown of the M8 Scott/HMC? I can't find any info about it on KZbin and would love to hear about the history of it's use and tactics

[@Treblaine]

I hear the French used them a lot. Don't know if that's because they really liked them or because it's the only armoured vehicle anyone would give them in large numbers.

[@ahmiv8825]

@@Treblaine interesting, could be both!