Talk:M18 Hellcat

WPMILHIST Assessment

A very nice start... could easily be bumped up to B-class or higher with just a little format clean-up, and some expansion. LordAmeth 23:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ill do some work today ==MeepSire (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this introduction reads like something from an Airfix model or a Boys Own' annual:

1) "Buick nicknamed it the Hellcat." Not quite. Buick gave it the company name 'Hellcat' for publicity purposes. The vehicle was known throughout the US Army as the M18, by the troops as a 'TD'.

2) "Hellcat crews took advantage of the vehicle's speed to minimize the enemy's ability to pierce its thin armor." Completely and utterly wrong. The M18 was by far the fastest tracked vehicle on roads. However across country it was no faster then an M4 and often much slower. There are two principle reasons for this. A) The vehicles lighter weight gave it less momentum when being driven through thick hedgerows and other natural obstacles; more often than not it would 'ride over' rather than drive through. A tactical weakness in that it presented the underside of the vehicle to enemy fire far too often. B) Its far lower level of armour protection engendered a feeling of caution in its crews. Most M18 crews drove very slowly and carefully up to the line of battle rather than risk blundering into enemy fire which the vehicles light armour would do little to protect against.

3) "Hellcats were used to penetrate the sides and back of the heavily armored Tiger and Panther tanks used by the Germans." This sentence implies the M18 was designed to do this. In fact poor performance of the 76mm gun/ordnance meant this was often the only way to defeat enemy armour. In other words the tactic of striking from the sides or rear was not a choice but a necessity and not just for the M18 but the M10 and even the M36.

4) "Utilized in the western front and in D-Day, the Hellcat, along with the Sherman Firefly and M10 Wolverine, was the main firepower in the invasion of Europe." The M18 was used in relatively small numbers compared to the M4/Sherman, Cromwell, M10/Wolverine/Achilles, towed 6 pdr/57mm, Towed 17 pdr, plus thousands of 25 pdr, 105mm, 5.5 in, 7.2 in, 155mm and 203 mm tube artillery. This sentence is pretty nonsensical.Loates Jr (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

~~Andy Loates~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loates Jr (talk • contribs) 13:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

much of what you said is contrary to objective sources and AARs. the hellcats off-road speed was twice that of the Sherman's off-road speed until HVSS equipped Sherman's improved that to little over 2/3rds. exposing the underside of the tank while traversing obstacles due to light weight was not a mode of loss in any AAR, but a theoretical shortcoming (not surprisingly conceived by the m18's many opponents in the general staff). the shortcomings of the 76mm gun was apparent, but not a shortcoming of the vehicle as much as it was the entire US armed forces... it was still capable until the end of the war at defeating armor, albeit with deteriorating effect, as AARs '44 and onward note 71.227.199.53 (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Manufacturer

Which company made these tank destroyers? Syrion 20:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

several different companies produced the M18 - notably Buick and GM (then seperate companies)--Lepeu1999 18:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be included? Anyway, thanks for the information! Syrion 00:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Looking at the other armored vehicle articles it isn't there either. There was much more then one company building these - the plans were standardized and the contracts awarded to several companies.--Lepeu1999 23:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Buick was awarded the production contracts in two batches and built them all. - swathdiver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.226.169 (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Are we seriously using the military channel as a source here? Surely if the statements are true they can be easily sourced to something more reliable. DMorpheus (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC) The Military Channel is correct in its information, as all of the information they provide on this particular subject coincides with one or more reputable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrotechnicman (talk • contribs) 18:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Fastest AFV?

In the introduction it says that the M18 "was the fastest tracked armored fighting vehicle during the war with a top speed up to 60 mph.", even stating a source for that claim. However, imho this is wrong as the Soviet BT-7 was even faster. Superegge —Preceding undated comment added 16:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC).

Unlikely, the BT-7 was classed as a fast tank because when it entered service it was fast for a tank. The Maximum road speed for the M18 was 59mph. The BT-7 could not do this, even on its wheels. Even if its automotive capability allowed such a performance its chassis would not be able to deal with the unmettalled Russian roads.~~Andy Loates~~

OK, am I retarded or what!?

" [...] On December 19–20, the 1st Battalion of the 506th PIR was ordered to support Team Desobry, a battalion-sized tank-infantry task force of the 10th Armored Division (United States) assigned to defend Noville[3] located north-northeast of both Foy and of Bastogne just 4.36 miles (7 km) away. With just four[2] M18 tank destroyers of the 705th Tank Destroyer Battalion to assist, the paratroopers attacked units of the 2nd Panzer Division, whose mission was to proceed by secondary roads via Monaville (just northwest of Bastogne) to seize a key highway and capture, among other objectives, fuel dumps—for the lack of which the overall German counter-offensive faltered and failed. Worried about the threat to its left flank in Bastogne, it organized a major joint arms attack to seize Noville. Team Desobry's high speed highway journey to reach the blocking position is [...] "

The only thing certain about this action is that Jerries and Yankees are involved... and that Yankees rode in some damn fast Buick ... I would be happy to rewrite it, if only I coud figure out who is fu-ing with whom and in what order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.43.127 (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency in timeline

The introductory paragraphs state that production was started in 1943, but later says we started shipping them (at least, if you read the ambiguous wording a certain way) in 1941:

"When the Americans entered the war in 1941, they began to supply China with armored infantry vehicles, including the M18 Hellcat. "

This needs to be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.33.195.149 (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The name

Hi! I and my friends are not English-speakers. So we have different opinions about this vehicle`s name. Does it mean "a cat from Hell" or "a witch"? Can you answer us? Please! 2A00:1210:2:E1B:F08F:C149:4363:2111 (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose this is a few months late, but Hellcat in English would mean "a cat from Hell", or less literally a "a cat with hellish qualities". This is shown by the logo created by the M18's design team, which features a wildcat biting on tank treads. I have never heard of a witch being called a "Hellcat". -- Bardbom (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Very poor article

This article is riddled with inaccuracies, inconsistencies and misleading claims. I'm sorry but it does not give a true account of the M18 in either its history or operational use either on the battlefield or within the doctrine of the Tank Destroyer Command. It even implies the Tank Destroyer motto (Seek, Strike, Destroy) was a Buick idea.

A very poorly researched article which in my opinion owes more to schoolboy hyperbole than any true account of the vehicle and its achievements (or lack thereof).

Andy LoatesLoates Jr (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent history

In the History section is says an initial requirement was a torsion bar suspension, then further down (near the end) it says after it ha been used in action the Christie suspension requirement was dropped and replaced with a torsion. So which is it? 81.132.108.246 (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hellcat patch

I have a Hellcat shoulder patch. It seems that the patch was sewn onto a uniform. Which units wore the Hellcat?Gptom1972 (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The Tank Destroyers had a shoulder badge (their emblem) for their uniform based on a stylized black panther chomping on a tank, usually with their motto Seek Strike Destroy around it (an internet search often pulls several examples.) Your badge could be that or for a unit that was named "Hellcats." A military indignia expert might ID it. JDNatWiki (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No more metric

This is an American vehicle and its specs shouldn't be primary in metric with an INTENTIONAL attempt to attack non-metric units by using pounds instead of tons when referring to weight. 71.217.221.49 (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you like pounds as a unit? Within this military context (except for bridging), pounds would be the more common unit than tons. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You realize the Americans who used it used metric right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.74.196 (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is, but it's irrelevant anyway. I've placed US Customary Units first everywhere execpt for caliber measurements, as is the norrm for articles about US equipment. - BilCat (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Torsion Bar Suspension

"Buick engineers developed an innovative Torsion bar suspension that provided a steady ride.[i] The Germans had developed a similar torsion bar suspension for their tanks such as the Tiger as early as at least 1939, though it is unknown if the Buick engineers copied the technology from German tanks captured by the allies in North Africa."

I would say that: The exact origins is undocumented and controversial (for example. various automobiles used forms of torsion bar suspension at the time) but Buick may have introduced the torsion bar suspension into the M18 design process.

The following excerpt from an armor magazine discusses the M18s suspension and its origins, as does Wikipedia's own article.

http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/armor/armor-magazine/armor-mag.2002.ma/2torsion02.pdf

JDNatWiki (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The earliest production tank I know of was the Swedish Stridsvagn L-60 of 1934. As torsion bars as springing were well known from cars, their use on tanks as transverse bars with per-wheel trailing arms is hardly the sort of radical innovation that needed to be copied from a captured German tank. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

As it seemed to speculative, I've taken reference to German work out.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The comeplete sentence has to be reworked, currently reads as Buick invented the Torsion bars. Large-scale use of torsion bars in tanks I know of is Panzer II (D/E only), Panzer III (E onwards) and soviet KV, all 1938/39. It wasn't uncommon to learn from enemy developments in WW2.--Denniss (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

For the first half of WWII it was very rare to learn from enemy tank developments! Radio navigation and radar around aircraft was snooping the good ideas like crazy, but when it came to tanks the British persisted with their dreadful obsolescence, the Germans took a very long time before copying the T34's ideas and the US never paid any attention to anyone and kept building the worst sorts of rolling garden shed, made up for by production volume and reliability. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

When the US did come up with a half decent design it was usually only at the end of the war. The British couldn't get their own tank design system to give them what they needed until the war was over and had to rely on US designs. Pity them! When the wrong people are in charge.,.Jdnwiki2016 (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Not quite "over" for the British. The Cromwell (the Meteor engine solving Britain's main tank problem) was reasonable, the Comet (with the 77mm) good, and did see combat, and the Centurion was excellent and just about made it as a completed design before VE day, although not in production volume. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M18 Hellcat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nezavisne.com/forum/index.php?topic=2456.0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706131730/http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/272309/17/ to http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/272309/17/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Philippine Army

Photo of a Philippine Army M18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.3.27.206 (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)