Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?
Register

M18 Hellcat, the sports car of WW2 tank destroyers

pt7ELFw.jpg
 
Interesting that the rear structure of the turret sticks out so much.
In the cut-away illustration, it looks like there's some kind of containers in there. The radio equipment perhaps?
And in Nort's photos, the outside of that structure looks covered in miscellaneous gear stowed there by the crew. Tarps? Camo netting?

I did a little reading about them, and apparently they were freezing cold in the winter when on the move.
Not only is the turret open-topped, but the engine also had a cooling system which drew air in.
 
Last edited:
It's interesting to see the difference in thinking between the US and the Germans in their development of armoured fighting vehicles. It seems that the Germans focused on heavier and heavier tanks as the war progressed. You can see a clear linear evolution in the Panzer series from the I,II,III,IV up to the Panther, Tiger and King Tiger.

The Americans however did not seem to follow the same thought process and from my limited understanding seemed to favour putting bigger guns on motor gun carriages whilst keeping the Sherman as the main tank despite it's vulnerabilities to the heavy German Tanks. From what I've read, the Pershing didn't really seem to have that much impact on the war when it finally arrived towards the end of 1944 in the European theatre.

I'd be curious to know a bit more about the US reasoning for this.
 
Production costs were probably considerably lower. By fielding lighter tanks with a feisty gun I think they were pinning their hopes of taking German armour out of the equation knowing the cost of replacing battlefield loses of German heavy armour was by that stage of the war going to be problematic economically and strategically.
 
Josey Wales said:
It's interesting to see the difference in thinking between the US and the Germans in their development of armoured fighting vehicles. It seems that the Germans focused on heavier and heavier tanks as the war progressed. You can see a clear linear evolution in the Panzer series from the I,II,III,IV up to the Panther, Tiger and King Tiger.

The Americans however did not seem to follow the same thought process and from my limited understanding seemed to favour putting bigger guns on motor gun carriages whilst keeping the Sherman as the main tank despite it's vulnerabilities to the heavy German Tanks. From what I've read, the Pershing didn't really seem to have that much impact on the war when it finally arrived towards the end of 1944 in the European theatre.

I'd be curious to know a bit more about the US reasoning for this.
Click to expand...

My impression is that the US decided early on to use a medium tank design, and set up all their production facilities to pump out variations on the M4. A medium (rather than a heavy) design would have had some advantages in regards to production speed and shipping overseas. The US didn't even field a heavy tank until the war was almost over (the M26 Pershing).

Early war tank destroyers (and self propelled artillery) seem like nothing more than an anti-tank gun plonked on top of an engine. The Germans developed heavier self propelled models like the Stug because they were easier to produce than tanks, but the lack of a turret was exploited.

The US tank destroyers were designed for mobility in combat, and less armour meant greater speed (they used the Sherman engine I think). The open top turrets helped cut down on weight, but also allowed for better visibility and faster turret traverse.

Tactically, the tank destroyers could be expected to use their greater speed and maneuverability to do things like drive around to get flank shots, shoot-and-scoot, and ambush/evade. There are several accounts I have read where M18's came across German heavies and were able to move to flank faster than the German tanks could traverse.

Strategically, their speed was designed to be used like a fire brigade - rushing to an enemy armoured breakthrough. Although countering this kind of blitzkrieg situation turned out to be fairly rare, there were some situations where it was used. For example, during the Battle of the Bulge they were able to get ahead of enemy forces and block road access.
 
Last edited:
Concord said:
Strategically, their speed was designed to be used like a fire brigade - rushing to an enemy armoured breakthrough. Although countering this kind of blitzkrieg situation turned out to be fairly rare, there were some situations where it was used. For example, during the Battle of the Bulge they were able to get ahead of enemy forces and block road access.
Click to expand...

Pretty much my understanding of it as well. Tank Destroyers were about defence quickly when their was an armoured breakthrough in the line. Which given what the US had witnessed the Germans do between 1939-1941 you could understand the theory behind the concept. The problem was by mid-1944 it was very rare that something like this would happen on the front lines in Europe, as a result many of the Tank Destroyer Battalions were plugging the lines or supporting infantry which wasn't ideal/intended with their designs. Play the CMFB Aachen campaign if you don't believe me. :p

In one instance where Hellcats were deployed as intended was the 704th TD Battalion at Luneville and Arracourt in Sept 1944. Though the battle is perhaps more remembered for CCA heroics (and that of Col Abrams), the TD from my readings were the true heroes of the battle. With such enormous amounts of speed they could be rushed around to meet threats, covering the dozen or so miles from muster to front in very quick time. There's one engagement where a single platoon held off a considerable number of Panthers (40 IRC) on the crucial morning of the 19th. Though the Hellcats were mostly lost in the engagement (they are the equivalent of paper machet), also managed to constantly harass the German armoured coloum taking out 7(?) and crucially holding it up long enough for the 37th Tank Battalion to swarm the area.

As for the US and heavy tanks, it really wasn't an option. They had to fight a war on multiple fronts,all of which were across the worlds two a largest oceans. Having a giant mix of logistical requirements to cater for both medium and heavy tanks would have been a nightmare to get all the required armoured vehicles into action. And even if the US somehow had a Heavy Tank based formation in 1943-1944 on the front lines it's effectiveness compared to the humble Sherman would have been questioned. Most of the US Tank Battalions by the late war were not going toe to toe with German tanks on a regular basis, some formations never ran into concentrated German armour at all.

Recommend watching some of the lectures The Chieftain has given (YouTube). Sums up the issues pretty well.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the info. I did have a look at one of the Chieftains vids and together with the info presented here has given me a well rounded understanding of the thinking behind the US Tank Destroyer development and the intended use. I like the therm 'Successful Faliure' that seems to be bounded around when looking at this.

What I find particularly interesting is the decision to keep the armour minimal on the TD's. Of course there was the speed factor to consider and also the requirement to spot the enemy before they spotted you. But in part it also seems that the thinking behind this was 'outside of the box'.

When all the other factions encountered bigger guns, they increased their armour which in turn prompted the the other side to make bigger guns which in turn prompted the original faction to increase armour etc, etc

The US didn't play that game at all and basically thought that as the Sherman could pretty much be taken out by anything 75mm and up, then the idea of not up armouring the TD's as they will be going up against tanks with 75mm and up , that even if they were armoured they would still be taken out, is in my mind simply genius.
 
I read a second-hand account of a tank vet in an M18 that said an 88mm shell punched through their turret and went out the other side too.
He was blown out of the open top and landed on the ground outside with only bruises.
Bloody scary, but an amazing tale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top