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.

[@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.

[@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/

[@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 )

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@1982nsu]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@le_travie7724]

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

[@danielburgess7785]

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

[@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!

[@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.

[@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])

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@steveturner3999]

Thanks Chieftain.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!'

[@vonschlesien]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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".

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.😊

[@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.

[@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!!!

[@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!

[@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

[@jasonb193]

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

[@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.

[@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...

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@HBon111]

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

[@activecamoflage6649]

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

[@ManiacallyQuiet]

The British reports on the M18: Oi, youve got a license for that Acceleration mate ?

[@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!

[@CAPNMAC82]

Man, those LCOLs are smart, ain't they :-)

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@rizkyjovansjachputra2234]

when the M18 with a muzzle break appear in frontline by the way, is it in the very late war at heart of the germany ?

[@panzerkampfwagenviiimaus1790]

could you do a video on the Bofors SAV 20.12.48?

[@cavscout888]

Comment for helping, but haven't listened yet. Downloaded for ipod listening. LOVE field reports. Am serious, haha. Beats British (not Irish, I-A, or American) historians ragging on all things American all day long. Had they not used the Sherman at all, would be considered by British as worst tank of WW2....

[@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.

[@geofftimm2291]

Excellent!

[@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

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

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

[@stephenrickstrew7237]

“ If you can move and shoot then your pissing through the same straw as Napoleon “ Patton

[@sadwingsraging3044]

Everybody all gangster an sheit till the bushes and ridge lines start screaming in hell cat.

[@Bepis13]

Can you do a video on the 9th armored?

[@MililaniJag]

Great info! Thx!

[@tekumeku2244]

I've been wondering this, What was the unit that flat refused to turn their m10s in for the m18? What was their reasoning?

[@HanSolo__]

No armor I guess. Half-inch thick works only for morale.

[@kemarisite]

@@HanSolo__ fragments and rifle fire is about it.

[@billwilson3609]

A good number of M10 users had no desire to switch over to using a M18 due to less armor protection. They spent most of their time shooting HE providing direct fire support for advancing infantry and armor so had better armor against splinters thrown by mortar bombs and artillery shells. Many hoped that their M10 would would get the new M36 turret with a 90mm gun since the Army was converting some out in the field due to the slow production of M36 chassis. That was due to organized labor problems that got worse so the War Department began installing the M36 turret on new M10 and M4 chassis until that was resolved.

[@jdslipknot]

Zaloga and Chieftain about to go at it. lmao

[@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.

[@doncooper6801]

Could infantry support formation s be blended with TD units? So that the blended composite battalion would not be wrong footed regardless of what they met. Or, would mind set make this unlikely?

[@txdino6063]

Great commentary

[@muttmankc]

Excellent video! Never really considered it, but is not a main limit on off road speed w/ a vehicle this fast literally the inability of the driver to stay in his seat/on the controls as the roughness of terrain+speed becomes too 'bouncy'? Plus the possibly serious injury to other crew members as they are tossed around inside a pointy metal box? Were there any efforts ergonomically to help drivers brace themselves, etc? Obviously a seat belt would seem to be a bad option, for other reasons. I would be curious generally about how common injuries unrelated directly to enemy fire, like this scenario, or losing fingers to a gun breach, etc. were. Sure some were gruesome- don't even want to think, for instance, what would happen to a head caught by gun recoil.

[@JimmySailor]

The comparison with the M24 is interesting. They both weighed about 20 tons, but the M18 had the better gun and almost twice the HP (400vs220). The M24 was also late, only arriving in Europe in December 1944. So why couldn’t the M18 have filled the role as a light tank? The 76mm maybe wasn’t an ideal HE thrower but it was miles better than the 37mm of the M5s that the army was using. The only thing I can think of is the slimmer armor and lack of a roof, one of which was fixed in the field.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

The lack of an MG is also a factor. There is a report around here I have somewhere of what Armored Force thought of M18 as a light tank. They specifically tested the concept.

[@ScottKenny1978]

@@TheChieftainsHatch M18 as a light tank would probably make a good video.

[@Silverhks]

I'm not surprised that the lack MGs is one of the big complaints. This is the same force that didn't want to lose the BOG for more ammo, that would have made the 90mm more acceptable

[@shibblesshalzabot6320]

Have you done a video on the MCLC?? I think that would be an amazing video if you haven’t already made one

[@IvanTre]

One thing I really don't get about '76 being less effective in infantry support' ? What prevented them from making a lower-pressure round mimicking the 75mm in performance ? You don't need thicker shell casing if as pressure from a smaller powder charge is lower, right ?

[@jic1]

Except then your sights are miscalibrated, and you can't put your new low-power shells on target. Sure there're ways around that, but you are adding complexity and reducing crew efficiency.

[@IvanTre]

@@jic1 AP and HE shells already have different ballistics, dude.

[@CssHDmonster]

is it fast? yes compared to the m4, and way better acceleration , surprised that the m36 didnt go for speed too. Not surprising that brits didnt like the speed, considering their tank designers hate to have good reverse speed

[@ARCNA442]

The M36 was just an M10 with a 90mm gun (and the M10 was basically just a modified M4).

[@ScottKenny1978]

@@ARCNA442 an M10 is a Sherman chassis with no armor.

[@SteamCrane]

You can lead on a fast vehicle, if your traverse is fast enough. You can't lead on a sudden acceleration.

[@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 :)

[@charlesfaure1189]

A "bad design" that performs well when used properly is not a bad design.

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

Quality of equipment vs training is always a tough one to judge. In virtually every case I would rather have 2nd rate equipment and well trained and experienced crews over the best equipment and green crews that are still trying to figure out what they are doing. Lately I've been following TIK's Stalingrad Battlestorm and Drachinifel's coverage of the Guadalcanal campaign. What they have in common is that both the Soviets and the USN were throwing whatever forces came to hand in to the battle to try to stem the Axis advance. In the end it worked well enough, but the cost in casualties was extremely high. If there had been well trained and prepared forces that could have been employed instead the Allied casualty rates would probably have been a fraction of the historical record. But that wouldn't have been possible until 1943. Send the officers and men of the British 8th Army of 1943 back in time to early 1942, with the same 2nd rate equipment they had in 1942, and Rommel would never have gotten near Alexandria. Of course this was the lesson of the Battle of Pharsalus, too. So it's nothing new.

[@zachv1942]

Or you have both. You need both. You can't train the shityness out of equipment. Your troops are only as good as the stuff they carry.

[@darwinbarnes740]

Those that used them - knew how to scoot them! 👍

[@karlvongazenberg8398]

For a certain degree, one can get away in an "eggshell with a hammer", especially if it is rather mobile and/or a small target. Sometimes rather far. So, can we feast on sloths and orangutans?

[@codenamehalo9847]

I genuinely didn't know M18s made it to Bastogn xd

[@g24thinf]

How in the world would you fit a 90mm gun to an already cramped vehicle? That was the single biggest crew complaint. Off road mobility is more a function of ground pressure than speed. The King Tiger had excellent off road mobility due to it's wide tracks as did the T34. Personally I'd take a M36 over a M18.

[@Roadk1ll21]

Now I want to see M18 Polo

[@TheAmerican1963]

"Who ever gets there the fastest with the mostest" .......attributed to Nathan Bedford Forrest ....CSA Cavalry .....

[@George_M_]

Lol ofc the Brits thought it was too fast xD

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Yes because you don't need a racing car when there really wasn't the opportunity or the need for THAT much speed.

[@laurisikio]

Q&A: why is it that panther is panzer 5? And why tiger 1 is panzer 6? Shouldn't they be the opposite, since tiger 1 was designed and produced before panther?

[@TexasSpectre]

Because that's what the Germans decided to call them. I'd say ask the people that made that decision, but they're all dead. :P

[@laurisikio]

Hilary Doyle might know

[@jonathancoetzer6937]

Excellent sir Is there any more information on the two panther kills at 2500 yards , such as angle and what ammo was used , maybe hvap?

[@Stardude78]

Panther side armor is only 40-50mm. With a bit of luck a APCBC from a 57mm or 75mm could penetrate, a Panther's side at those ranges even.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Likely didn't happen or they weren't Panthers. Take it with a pinch of salt.

[@glenschumannGlensWorkshop]

Thanks.

[@moritgaming9336]

What model is that in the right side of your table? I think it's a bradley.. M2A2 Bradley? Right?

[@julmdamaslefttoe3559]

Reminder Active, READY

[@JeffreyFF1976]

It is always the training and aggressiveness of the crew. Consider that in nearly every campaign in WW2, if there was a significant difference in the armor and firepower of the heavier tanks on each side, the side with the more "powerful" tanks lost. Simulations of the battle of 73 Easting suggest if the US and Iraqi forces had traded equipment the outcome would have been virtually unchanged.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

i am not so sure about 73 easting was won partially on the back of GPS (something the Iraqis didn't have or know about) (as this allowed the american forces to launch a suprise attack on the flanks by going through what the iraqs considered to be impassable desert). if the Iraqis had GPS (and US equipment) and the americans didn't. well the americans would have had to launch a direct assault on prepared positions without thermals or airsupperiority and would have likely been assaulted themselves by an outflanking iraqi force useing an unknown technology to do so. I don't see the battle going the same way at all.

[@Agorante]

Excellent video. I wonder if however mobility is nowadays as important. In WWII tanks fired something like a average of 13 shots per engagement but today only one. I could be wrong about this but if it's true acceleration is now less important. You don't need to maneuver for subsequent shots.

[@lukahierl9857]

One would still need to move to avoid the shots of the other enemy tanks. Sorry for the bad english.

[@chefchaudard3580]

Acceleration is still important: missiles are still quite slow and take time to reach their target when shot from a long distance. Quick retreat under cover when one aimed at you is detected makes a difference. Even a round takes several seconds to reach its target, and a quick acceleration can put the tank out of the point aimed before it arrives.

[@becauseimbatman5702]

@@lukahierl9857 your English looks perfect to me. Good point as well.

[@ScottKenny1978]

As the others have said, you still need to get out of the position you fired from. Read the tanker parts of Red Storm Rising. ID the command tank (the one with multiple antennas), kill it and maybe one more, move to alternate firing position, kill another tank or two, move to second alternate firing position, kill one or two more, and it's time to leave that grid square because the Soviet artillery is about to remove it.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

the tank onion nees to be considered 1st don't get spotted 2nd if spotted, don't get hit 3rd if hit, don't get penetrated 4th if penetrated, don't get damaged ..etc faster acceleration allows you to cover ground from concealed position to concealed position more quickly reducing exposure time and reducing the chance of being spotted. this is just as relevant now as it was in the past. while speed is less of a defense from being hit, acceleration is still useful. many tank crews are trained to do irregular movement when lased or if a missile launch is detected. this makes it harder for the enemy gunner and ballistic computer to create an accurate target lead (especially when combined with the defensive use of smoke) reducing first hit chance.

[@joshuabessire9169]

And for his next bit, they encounter the black beast of MAUUUSSS!

[@Barabel22]

Would the M18 have made a better light tank then the M24? It was lighter then the M24, faster and able to accelerate better, lower in height by 6-10 inches(depending on if it’s carrying M2 Browning), same width, packs a bigger punch, etc. I’m wondering how the early Korean War battles with M24s facing T-34s would have been if they were M18s instead?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Armored Force said no, due to lack of MGs and roof armor amongst other reasons. However, Taiwan made the Type 64 light tank which is very Hellcat-ish.

[@Barabel22]

@@TheChieftainsHatch What other reasons(besides lack of bow gunner and open turret) are there for its inability to be of use as a light tank?

[@snakeplissken1754]

M18 a tank you can easily double the armor by strapping sandbags to its hull.

[@polygorg]

The M18 is cracked at anything.

[@richardmacdonald6303]

Book of Armaments, eh. Brother Maynard!