The Most Effective Tank The U.S. Had in WW2 (M18 Hellcat)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 чер 2023
- In this video I describe the need and duties of tank destroyers in WW2 and go in depth about one of the most effective tanks of its time, the U.S. M18 Hellcat. Nimble and packing a punch, this small powerhouse was a terror on the battlefield for all who went against its ferocious claws.
Leave suggestions for future topics in the comments below
Thanks for watching - Розваги
The first vehicle designated as a Main Battle Tank was the British Chieftain, entering service in the 1960. There were no MBTs in WW2, and cost of the Tank Destroyer vs. a vehicle that didn't exist for another 20 years was not an issue.
Just found this in my recommendations, to be honest I wasn't expecting such a fantastic video, you have great commentary. Cant wait to see new videos, now I have to catch up what you have already made.
Welcome aboard!
I love that footage from a US Army training film on how to destroy a tank with Molotov cocktails.
A: Prepare some Molotov cocktails.
B: Wait in your foxhole, head down, with them and hope an enemy tank drives over you slowly without noticing your presence.
C: Hope that there are no other enemy tanks or infantry support around and stand up while accurately throwing your bomb onto the tank's air intakes while it is still moving.
D: Survive all this somehow?
Exactly
m18s are my favorite ww2 ground vehicle maybe even my favorite. thing just looks like it can fuck up someones day
Not a tank, though.
The problem with the M18 (in WW2) was very simple: too few, too late.
Speed racer , with High velocity weapon .
I love it, but i hate it in world of tanks though
The M18 is NOT a tank. You get it right in video but title is wrong
We’ll sort of, in some documents it is labeled as a light tank and in that case it would be the most proficient tank. But if it’s labeled correctly as a TD then yes the title would be wrong.
More of a misdirect of information than wrong
Tank.. not a tank, it's not that important. The name that was given to the original vehicles was "Landship", "tank" was used only for secrecy and to try to confuse the enemy, something to do with the original workers at William Foster saying it looked a bit like a metal water tank..
As the original definition of these "tanks" was "armour, firepower, and all-terrain mobility", nothing in the original description mentions that they have to have tracks, for example, but most will agree if it doesn't have tracks it's not a tank.
Given that the "female" Mark V only had machine guns.. then it wasn't a tank either. The Germans quickly developed armour piercing small caliber round could enter the Mark V, it wasn't armoured enough any better than the Hellcat, was it a tank?
If you want to, quite a few vehicles that are called tanks could be argued to not match all the criteria, and some that are not called such could.
The Bradley is an "Infantry Fighting Vehicle", but it's tracked, has decent (for a light tank) armour, and decent firepower (as proved in the Iraq conflicts).. why isn't it a light tank? Because they can carry troops? Merkava's can carry troops, so are they not tanks, but "Heavy IFV's"?
Give it a break, the semantics are pointless, it just isn't that important
@@iffracem Words have meanings. Except, apparently, for you.
The M4 was the most effective US tank in WW2.
In some regards yes, the M4 excelled at being quick to produce and being reliable, in terms of combat effectiveness when not accompanied by infantry the M18 surpassed it in one on one engagements and was capable of holding its own more often.
@@SevsStorys The M18 was the best purpose-built tank destroyer of WW2. There weren't enough of them built however to surpass the effectiveness of the M4. It would be difficult to do so when so many M4s were built compared to M18s. The M4 was able to hold its own also when it wasn't charging headlong over open ground against prepared defenses.