My father was a driver in a Hellcat, although the entire crew was trained for each position. His unit was mainly used as mobile artillery as they crossed Belgium and into Germany, with a stop in Bastogne. He enjoyed driving it and was amazed by the power of the .50 caliber. The biggest pain, other than being constantly exposed to the cold, was maintaining the tracks.

@alexbowman7582

6 ай бұрын

Allied tanks were generally used as mobile artillery or as infantry support which is why although the Sherman’s 76mm gun wasn’t particularly effective as an AT gun it was popular as infantry support presumably mostly with HE.

@brasidas2011

6 ай бұрын

@@alexbowman7582 The vast majority of Shermans used the low velocity 75m which had a decent HE shell. Only late in the war, did 76mm shermans start coming online.

@jimstark3048

6 ай бұрын

@@alexbowman7582😊😊

@lairdcummings9092

6 ай бұрын

There's a reason The Chieftain is always harping on track tension...

@TotalFreedomTTT-pk9st

4 ай бұрын

The Hellcat looks fun if you had open terrain - Whenever I have to work outside (Northern Ohio) on a car or anything clonko - I think of those guys having to change Tank tracks in the freezing cold - and how suck ass - no... beyond suck ass that must have been - regardless of which side - American - British - German - Russian etc heavy cold thankless work

A HellCat vet gave me in ‘77 his combat worn Patch because he was impressed a 10 y/o kid knew so much of WW2. Out of respect to him it is still on my Leather Punk Jacket since 1983.

Patton had a ride-along sniper in his scout car when he neared the line. The rifle that sergeant used was a scoped K-98-K Mauser in 8mm. Just a tidbit from old photographs.

My father was at the Battle of Arracourt positioned near CCA Headquarters. He's 104 and still strong as an ox and sharp as a tac. At one point the Waffen SS tanks broke through American defensive positions and he told me a Hellcat fired and hit two of the tanks in a field. He was on a bazooka team and later hit one of the German tanks from the rear and disabled it. The other German tanks retreated because the 155 mm artillery guns fired at them. American tank ace Creighton Abrams was there in a M-1 Sherman. I don't think the Shermans were fitted w/ 76" inch main guns yet. But they used superior tactics and destroyed dozens of German tanks by hitting them on the flanks. The Hellcats fired from the front and the Shermans fired from the flanks. It was a deadly combo. It was a great victory. Hitler hated the 4th Armored Division because they had killed so many Germans during the break out from Normandy.

@jharris0341

5 ай бұрын

Respect to your father.

@TTTT-oc4eb

5 ай бұрын

They weren' Waffen SS, though.

@bigwoody4704

5 ай бұрын

​@@TTTT-oc4eb so what being fanatical didn't mean good.The Falshimjaegger were much better soldiers than Waffen SS

@TTTT-oc4eb

5 ай бұрын

@@bigwoody4704 Calm down, I was simply pointing out that the German units at Arracourt weren't Waffen-SS, but regular Heer units...

@bigwoody4704

5 ай бұрын

@@TTTT-oc4eb what are you talking about my post got deleted,but I'm perfectly calm - just pointing out a fact.Fanatics don't really make tactically good soldiers.And Patton was decent when conducting a mobile war

Great archival footage! Super timeline account of battle. My heartfelt admiration & respect for these Joe's...the firepower they faced & shut down, speaks volumes of what they were. Bless 'em all! Thanks!

Then-Colonel, later General, Clarke, was one of the most aggressive and successful armored commanders of the American Army in WWII, Europe Theater of Operations. He was a friend of my father's, and I got an earful of advice from the big old general when I was a child.

@davefellhoelter1343

6 ай бұрын

I LOVED these Old Dudes! when they went fishing, played cards, hung out! Most Drunk, some not a drop! I HAD So Many as Heros! growing UP! as a kid who knew history, asked smart questions, and loved and Enjoyed their answers! Wish I had a Better Memory or was a little Older when I realized the Mountains of Men I called Buddies. I would have learned more, but I guess it worked out? Lots of these dudes had never told their Adult Friends much if Any of what they felt free to tell me?

@magnashield8604

2 ай бұрын

When I was a kid, an old marine that served in Iwo Jima sold my friend a can of chewing tobacco at a garage sale. He kind of had the, "you're never too young" attitude. Wish I would have been aware enough to talk with him more.

A old now gone friend of mine, Afton Harmon. At this battle, with the 803rd Tank Destroyer battalion, he advised he was facing a Captain, a 88 round hit the mud about 50 yards behind the Captain, then it skipped and tumbled toward them, passed just over the captains sholder and hit about 100 yards behind them and exploded killing a bunch of people.

Being in a thinskin American TD in WWII would be nerve wracking if exciting.

For some reason, the "Battle of Arracourt" has today achieved near mythical status. At the time, the battle(s) of Arracourt and surroundings were not regarded as a major "tank battle" by any of the sides - at best only a quick sideshow. The Lorraine campaign was huge, and it was a lot of action going on at the same time - so it is likely that the encounter somehow “drowned” in the large picture. For the Germans it was only one of several critical campaigns in the West, East and South going on at the same time. Operation Market Garden started the day before, and took most of the focus in the West. It is telling that Robert S. Allen's 1947 work "Lucky Forward", a volume full of praise for General Patton and the Third Army's campaigns in 1944-45, does not even mention the Battle of Arracourt. It was not regarded as a significant battle at the time, neither by the US Army or Wehrmacht, merely one of many German counterattacks in late 44-45. The fighting that took place on September 19th, at Lezey and Bezange, is usually describes as “the battle of the battle” at Arracourt - the death race of the Panthers. It was in fact a much smaller battle than usually depicted in modern articles. The fighting was between elements of 113th Panzer Brigade, and Combat Command A of the 4th Armored Division, where one company of the 37th Tank Battalion (Shermans), and one company of 704th Tank destroyer Battalion (M18s) did most of the fighting. There is no doubt that the Germans came off worse in the encounter, but it was not as loopsided as often described. There are also considerably confusion regarding the losses - on both sides. Partly because it wasn't really one large battle, but a series of smaller engagements over a period of several days. Some authors only count the first 3-4 days (18 - 21 September), others up to 12 days 18 - 29 September. And it certainly wasn't only a tank vs. tank battle. US artillery played an extremely important part, damaging many panzers and basically stripping the German tanks of their Panzergrenadiers. Allied fighter-bombers damaged many tanks even before the battle began, and did a devastating job after the first few days when weather cleared up, damaging many Panzers. The Germans, OTH, had no air support and very little artillery. Probably more than half of the lost Panzers were destroyed or damaged by jabos and artillery. Many of the rest by M18 tank destroyers. The two German Panzer brigades, 111th and 113th that took part had - on paper - each one battallion of 44 Panthers, one battallion of 45 Panzer IVs and one company of 10 (Jagd)Panzer IV/70 - for a total of 198 tanks and TDs. However, the 111th had suffered heavy losses even before the battle began, and had only 17 Panzer IVs and no Panthers available on the 17th. They attacked on the 18th, and German documents showed that several of their tanks were available the next day. Meanwhile, the US claimed no less than two dozen Panzer IVs destroyed. The 113th had also suffered losses before the battle, and had only 42 Panthers and no Panzer IVs available on the 17th. The US claimed 43 German tanks destroyed on the 19th, while German documents show that at least 10 Panthers were ready for combat the next day. So the numbers the Americans claimed to have met these first days are inflated, and so are also the losses - as shown by the number of operational Panzers after the first few days. This is normal, everybody overclaimed. The only way to get a realistic picture of the battle is to view primary documents from both sides. According to Wikipedia, the Germans lost 86 destroyed tanks + 114 damaged in the 12 day battle, about half of these were Panthers, the rest Panzer IV and Jagdpanzers/StuGs. These numbers are actually more than the total numbers of German tanks commited, so are undoubtedly inflated. Although the two Panzer Brigades were practically wiped out in the September fighting, and left with only a handful of tanks and Jagdpanzers, not all of these losses were incurred in the Arracourt battles. There are also a lot of confusion of US losses. Some claim just 25 tanks for the 4th armored division, others claim 3rd Army lost a total 41 M4, 7 M3/5, 7 M18. Again, depending on time frame, area included and units involved. Total US losses in the Lorraine campaign 1 September to 17 December 1944 were 342 tanks and an unknown number of TDs, probably around 70-80 (Dupuy Institute). The Germans had very few tanks, TDs and assault guns available in this campaign after Arracourt.

@modest_spice6083

5 ай бұрын

LMAO cope.

@lyndoncmp5751

2 ай бұрын

Excellent post. Facts are facts. Steve Zaloga and his myths still continue to flourish on the internet sadly.

@elkrumb9159

2 ай бұрын

@@lyndoncmp5751lmao cope harder

@lyndoncmp5751

2 ай бұрын

@@elkrumb9159 Cope with what? Im fine coping with facts. Please learn how to post in proper English.

My father was in the 4th Armored and participated in this battle

The ragtop Hellcats had some bad ass crews.

A very detailed and Technical book to read on the Battle of Arracourt read the book by Steven Zaloga Patton vs the Panzers Battle of Arracourt September 1944. It a well researched book with detailed reports from both sides. Units, numbers and personal accounts .

Fire and maneuver. Don’t become a stationary target.

@gregflores8959

7 ай бұрын

Shoot and scoot, float like a butterfly and sting like a bee.

I just like the response from the airborne 101st in Bastonge. "We are Airborne. Meant to be surrounded!"

Very interesting. Great footage, too!

@FactBytes

7 ай бұрын

Many thanks!

My dad was in Pattons 3rd army headquarters core initially as a heavy machine gunner but during the Battle of the Bulge he served laying telegraph lines. He won a Bronze star for laying wires under fire behind enemy lines.

This fight was much more representative of most armor engagements that took place in place in France. From what you read / hear, every tank battle was American Shermans getting slaughtered by German Tigers. In reality, the Americans encountered very few Tigers from June 1944 thru May 1945. Virtually all the Tigers were fighting British / Canadian forces. Panthers were certainly present, but the most common German tank was the MK IVH which the Sherman and most other Allied tanks and tank destroyers could very effectively deal with.

@pimpompoom93726

4 ай бұрын

Tiger tanks-both 1 and 2-had a great reputation, but in reality weren't that big a factor in the war. They were big, slow, used a lot of fuel and were difficult to service/maintain in the field. Sure, every one in awhile a stationary Tiger in the right place at the right time took out a gaggle of Sherman tanks-but those incidents were very rare. Panzer IV was probably the best all-around tank the Germans had.

@lyndoncmp5751

2 ай бұрын

@pimpompoom93726 I'd say knocking out 10,000 allied tanks, assault guns and tank destroyers was considerable.

@TinKnight

26 күн бұрын

​@@lyndoncmp5751 Total kills by Tiger I's are in the 5000-6000 range, compared to 1200 losses by all causes. Still nothing to scoff at, & it's worth noting that the Allies considered them enough of a threat that they actively tracked all Tiger movements. But they used so many resources that they actually weakened the German army by their presence, requiring the same number of resources as 4 PzIV's or StuG III's, or 21 field guns (not to mention requiring different tooling & transportation & stronger bridges).

Wow ! This doc has some very good stock film , very nice.

M4 Sherman tank. M18 Hellcat. Great combo!

@Jack51971

5 ай бұрын

The stood little chance against well trained crews in Panzer 5 and 6 tanks. That's Panthers and Tigers!😊

@maxwedge5683

4 ай бұрын

@@Jack51971 The Germans produced about 1,800 Tigers of all kinds. America produced nearly 50,000 Shermans alone. The Red Army deployed more than 85,000 Soviet T-34's. In armored combat, the Germans never stood a chance. Strength in numbers.

Those Hellcats were bad @$$,, & fast as $#it too !!!!

The M-18s usually were used in ambush. Or used thier superior speed to shoot and scoot. Shooting and backing off and later. Reappearing on the battlefield to confuse the germans into thinking there were more TDs then what actually were. My neighbor Lester R.King was a assistant gunner on the M-18 angels chariot. A company, 643rd Tank Destroyer Battalion

The mark 4 German tank was not obsolete, because it could put a clean hole thru any tank on the western front at ranges of 2,000 yrds.I know about armor,because I was a U.S.Army tank commander and served on 5 different tanks through out my time served.From driver to T.C.😊

@Centurion101B3C

7 ай бұрын

Agreed, but none of the German types of armour stood a snowball's chance in Gehenna against the rough equivalent of what the British called the 17 Pounder. Also, the relative success of the M18s and M10s laid the basis in design of later (actual) tank designs Like the Leopard1 (Yeah, the ones that are now operational in Ukraine). High speed, high manoeuvrability, high firepower and 1st hit kill capability was the name of the game.

@markpaul-ym5wg

7 ай бұрын

@@Centurion101B3C British centurion, yes,the 17 pounder Sherman firefly was bad to the bone.That 17lb. gun was taken off of a British warship.The gun could shoot farther than the sight reticle the gunner looked thru.The gun could shoot far beyond anything else on the battle field,and could punch holes thru tiger tanks like a butter knife.Tha famous German tank commander,forget his name, had his turrent blown completely off and his wingman tank was also obliterated at Normandy along with 6 other tiger2 tanks.The 17 lber is rarely mentioned,and the Germans always kept on the lookout for that extra long barreled tank.Have a good one centurion.

@theluckyegg3613

7 ай бұрын

@@Centurion101B3C The 17 pounder was only installed in 2200 Shermans (Firefly) The US were against it. It did a formidable job and it could take out the Tiger one. The 17 pounder was as powerfull as the 8.8 Flak

@Centurion101B3C

7 ай бұрын

@@theluckyegg3613 Ayep! Not to mention of course the later Centurion MK1 through Mk3, but who is counting anyway? The 20pdr, which succeeded de 17pdr, actually was closer to the 88mm in performance, but had greater punch because of better ammunition (APDS).

@itchycooable

4 ай бұрын

@@markpaul-ym5wg Whitman

great footage

@FactBytes

7 ай бұрын

Thanks for visiting

Good vid, but what was missing for info was the distances they were firing from. I'd have been interested to know that info.

First! Thanks for video ❤

@FactBytes

7 ай бұрын

Thanks

I think the magical VTZ Proximity fuses were used here to deal with personal in their trenches first time used in Europe

@user-df8xk8tv7h

6 ай бұрын

Your information is extremely interesting. I’ve been fascinated by the BT fuses since I read about them years ago.

Critical intelligence from above, Throughout the battle, Army observation pilot, Major "Bazooka Charlie" Carpenter, took to the air with his bazooka-armed Piper L-4 Cub, USAAF serial number 43-30426 and nicknamed Rosie the Rocketer, to attack the enemy.

LOVE FROM INDIA

M18 Hellcat is pretty cool looking tank - the Sherman is almost WWI looking - too tall but the Hellcat is much lower profile and I like their gamble to have a fast tank - maybe it was designed for open areas like North Africa ? of open areas in Europe - interesting also that maybe being 'too light' might have let the shell blast right through the tank - since two crews survived direct hits which I thought usually meant complete destruction

The Americans gave better than what they got. The Germans must have felt the heat in that kitchen. Lest we Forget.

@mthomssen61

7 ай бұрын

Bullshit

@lairdcummings9092

7 ай бұрын

Col. Clarke's CCA was an incredibly effective unit, with an aggressive commander whom thoroughly understood his men, his technology, and how best to use them against the enemy.

Very interesting

Bombers - especially improved and very robust / effective ordinance delivery ..... surely a great choice. The better air frame and equipped to the max = F6F Hellcat with Cannons, Holy Moses Missiles and 2000 HP Radial engine would have been even more devastating ! Of course designed as improvement to Wildcat, Fighter / Bomber was folding wings Carrier plane. The missiles would have been unstoppable. One Hell or another. Just a thought.

My father was there the main picture that's on this video is a picture of my father's tank I have the same picture that he brought home he was one of the four that took out the 14 German tanks have you ever want to talk to him he's still alive and he knows what he's talking about

@alandavis9644

6 ай бұрын

My uncle was there as well as a friend. The old friend kept a diary/daily diary on total rounds and the type of round. Would love to get thst to these guys.

Around 7:40 into the video You can see a hellcat firing and as soon as it does.You can see a incoming shell wizz right by a

The M-18 was a popular vehicle, but this account stresses the importance of getting in the first shot, luckily the Pz IV was obsolete at this late stage. The US did not develope a decent anti-tank gun, ever, the 76mm was developed from the 1918 3" anti-aircraft gun, lightened for vehicle use. Hardly state of the art in 1944!

@jwawrzon

7 ай бұрын

Not completely accurate. We developed the *very* "decent" 90mm and put it in the Pershing and M36 Jackson.

@williamzk9083

7 ай бұрын

The Panzer IV had an electrical traverse powered by a 10hp engine. This allowed a turret rotation within 25 seconds. The Sherman had a hydraulic traverse that could achieve a turn in 15 seconds. I imagine the Hellcat was about the same. It’s probably not too much difference if the turn is within +/- 45 degrees though the German traverse often needed fine manual adjustment. These however were Panzer IV Ausf H (Issue H) which had deleted the electrical traverse for economy measures and to increase fuel capacity in place of the 10hp engine). The Germans could do better ofcourse but they were under pressure and one can only imagine what might have happened with a better traverse. The M18 also had an open top so situational awareness was excellent.

@billballbuster7186

7 ай бұрын

@@jwawrzon Sorry. but the 90mm was designed as Heavy Anti-Aircraft gun in the late 1930s, entering service in 1940. The tank gun version was not tested until1944. I

@billballbuster7186

7 ай бұрын

@@williamzk9083 The electric gun travers motor was usually good and on the Russian step fast turret travers did not matter in long range gunnery. On some tanks like the Tiger travers was too fast and caused crew accidents. so the motor was re-geared to slow it down. Many of the later Pz.IV had their motors removed for mounting on Panthers due to the shortage of copper wire. This then left them with with only manual travers by a series of handwheels. A large hand wheel turned the turret at modest speed. Then fine travers for gun laying was achieved by smaller hand wheels. A very slow and tiring method in a battle situation.

@williamzk9083

7 ай бұрын

@@billballbuster7186 This story of Panzers IV having electric motors removed for incorporation into Panthers is at odds with the fact that Panthers had a hydraulic traverse. The Panther hydraulic supply was initially regulated and this lead to a traverse of 60 seconds. The regulator was latter removed which allowed a traverse of 15 seconds though the gunner would need to ask the driver to rev the engine to get full performance in traverse.

Remarkably decent AI voice narration.

The best TD? What about the M36 Jackson, with a 90mm gun. It was considered the only TD that could take a Tiger at a reasonable range. In fact, the range of this gun was the greatest protection for the TD. The armor was fine against spitballs, & it was fast, but these things could not accurately shoot on the move, even though they had sights that compensated for movement. As far as I know, it was the only TD to serve in Korea.

@perihelion7798

6 ай бұрын

Yep. Thanks for the comment.

@alandavis9644

6 ай бұрын

The TD had a torsion bar suspension and a gyro on the gun, they most certainly could fire on the move. My Dad,Uncle and many friends were in them and had high remarks about them.

@perihelion7798

6 ай бұрын

@@alandavis9644 When crews were properly trained on the gyro sight, they proved to be very effective. Most crews didn't get that special training.

My uncle was a Hellcat mechanic.

The attack wasn't on Pattons' Third Army. It hit Hodges First Army, the Third responded to it.

@lyndoncmp5751

2 ай бұрын

That was the Battle of the Bulge.

Hellcat is 1 hell-of-a name for different things : a tank, a plane, a gun, duh, anything else ?

@kenneth9874

4 ай бұрын

A crazy woman perhaps?

Hitler was a dreamer who thought bigger was better. He spent a lot of time and materials on Tiger tanks, Sure they were better armored and armed. But they needed a tank tow and repair truck for every few tanks because they were always getting bogged down or breaking down especially their transmissions, The Panther IV was faster more maneuverable. reliable and were well armed. But were on a stock M18 with a upgrade transmission and reduced armor. The exact opposite of Hitler's idea of a effective weapon. Hitler could have doubled the Panther IV numbers with the time and material spent on tigers.

@lyndoncmp5751

2 ай бұрын

1. The Tiger and Panzer IVs operational average in 1944/45 was pretty similar. 2. I don't see what difference another 6,000 Panzer IVs would have made over two and a half years. Over 100,000 T-34s/Shermans combined were built. Tigers had a 12:1 knock out ratio overall. Panzer IV never got anywhere near that.

@charleslloyd4253

2 ай бұрын

@@lyndoncmp5751 The transmissions' in the Tigers were highly unreliable abd had to be changed out every few hundred hours on average. And there weight restricted them from many off road uses.

@lyndoncmp5751

2 ай бұрын

@@charleslloyd4253 Absolutely untrue. Myth.

Fff----Yeahhhh! Ole “Bazooka Charlie “!

Thanks for highlighting the contribution of TDs in the fight. You only left out the part where German tanks were ripped to pieces by fighter bombers just before the battle even got started and again later in the battle.

George Patton Was the Commanding General.

Many historians feel to mention that most 1944-45 germaan troops n tank units were not well train as the troops from 1939-1943

@petersclafani4370

Ай бұрын

To mention further most troops were youth 16-18 years old

Had a Buddy who had the Job of Recovery of Men and their Machines in this theator, Not a Cool job in the winter with a Bow Saw for Frozen Friends! A Very great Hell Cat story! I Recall was a few years back a group got a Hell Cat running and rebuilt, found One of the Crew Close and Gave him Another Ride in His Ride! Have a Family Member thiscentury In a HELL CAT with the Main Gun!

Where was Allied airpower?

Nah M18 is 5.7 and Pz4 is 3.7, they can't meet in battle.

What is the difference between a tank and a tank destroyer?

@navalartichoke

5 ай бұрын

Mostly doctrine. The Tank Destroyer was suppose to remain in reserve and be committed when the enemy effected a breakthrough, Then they would deploy to destroy the enemy tanks. Tanks were suppose to be part of the attack and explotation, breaking into the enemy;s rear and overruing key positions.

@lyndoncmp5751

2 ай бұрын

Depends on the country. Not only the doctrine but the appearance. The Germans and Soviets had no turret on their tank destroyers. They had a higher superstructure with a fixed gun that had only limited traverse. The American tank destroyers had thinner armour and an open topped turret.

👍👍👍👍👍👍

“Shoot ‘n scoot!”

At the end you mention that they learned to capitalize on the strengths and weaknesses of their equipment. Sorry, but you can't capitalize on weaknesses of your own equipment. You can work at minimizing the impact of the weaknesses, but capitalize means take advantage of them. There is no advantage to a weakness.

Speed is useless in a static fight.

seems more like a tank defeat as only tanks on one side....armored battle bettter name

It had to suck. The Hell Cats should had been equipped with 90mm high velocity rounded!

@brennanleadbetter9708

7 ай бұрын

The war ended before they could put it in.

PAAAANzer

The first shot wins not the thickest armor irrelevant when you have a 90mm gun. 😊

@lyndoncmp5751

2 ай бұрын

Literally stacks of cases throughout WW2 when the first shot didn't win. It depends entirely on the tank type and gun.

THE 76MM GUN ON THE HELLCAT WAS NOT BY ANY STRETCH THE BEST ANTI TANK GUN ON THE ALLIED SIDE IN THE WAR. THE NARRATOR WAS WRONG. STILL IT WAS A WELL DESCRIBED BATTLE. THE BRITISH 17 POUNDER WAS AS GOOD AS THE 88, MUCH BETTER THAN THE 75 OR 76 USED IN AMERICAN ARMOUR. THESE BRAVE TD MEN WERE GOOD AND AGAINST THE MK1V THE 76 WAS GOOD ENOUGH.

@gordonv2456

6 ай бұрын

I've read discussions that suggest accuracy and low numbers keep the firefly from major fame. If they could have made 25K of them, there would have been more combat stories making them more historically significant. The accuracy thing is that while it had the power to destroy at long range, it could not hit at long range.

@DKWalser

6 ай бұрын

The British 17 pounder was a great gun. Was it used in a tank destroyer, as opposed to used in a tank? If it were used in a tank, such as the Sherman Firefly, it wasn't an anti-tank gun (even though it was used against other tanks). The difference between a tank destroyer and a tank is one of doctrine. The Americans used tank destroyers, the British used them to a lesser extent. Having said that, I'm not sure that its fair to say the 76mm was the best anti-tank gun fielded by the Allies. The 90mm was a superior gun to either the 17 pounder or the 76mm. However, the Hellcat, with its underpowered 76mm, was the most successful tank destroyer used by the Allies. There were 'better' tank destroyers, but they weren't fielded in sufficient numbers to have the success of the Hellcat. On that basis, it's fair to say the 76mm was the most successful anti-tank gun used by the Allies. It destroyed more German tanks than any other anti-tank gun used on the Western front.

“Ponzer” fodder.

Ponzer ??? Whats a Ponzer ?

Best tank destroying gun was British 17 pounder as fitted to the Sherman Firefly... Good against King Tigers.

@kenneth9874

4 ай бұрын

The American 76 was effective and much more accurate...

@chrissmith2114

4 ай бұрын

@@kenneth9874 The accuracy and hitting power of the British 17 pounder was legendary.... Just like the rifled gun in the British Challenger tank is the most accurate tank weapon, but has now been degraded to NATO smoothbore crap.... Challenger has the record for the longest tank kill...

@kenneth9874

4 ай бұрын

@@chrissmith2114 the hitting power maybe...the accuracy not so much.

@kenneth9874

4 ай бұрын

@@chrissmith2114 so it made a lucky shot? You guys have an inferiority complex that is hilarious 🤣

@chrissmith2114

4 ай бұрын

@@kenneth9874 There is an eyewitness account of a firefly knocking out 5 German tanks with 6 shells..... at Norrey-en-Bessin. The only thing about the 17 pounder was that it did not have a proper HE shell to hit buildings, but it was a potent tank killer ( which was what it was originally designed for as a towed artillery piece ) , which could penetrate more armour than the German 88, and much more than the American 76mm

Not to diminish any of the American efforts, but this presentation is somewhat American centered and hi-lites only one of several engagements. In the other ones, the French independently had a very significant role to play in defeating the German thrust(s) in this particular campaign.

@jackdaniel7465

6 ай бұрын

That's because this story is about the M-18 hellcat tank destroyer, it's not about the battle in itself, so why don't you stop beating on the Americans, without them how would the war in Europe ended?? Everyone knows French, Canadian, British and Americans HELPED WIN THE WAR IN EUROPE TOGETHER AS A TEAM, that's how it was done.

@jackdaniel7465

6 ай бұрын

Just remember the French, Canadian and British armies used a lot of American equipment in Europe, JUST REMEMBER THAT, not only did they send their Armies across the Atlantic with their equipment along with their huge air forces, they also equipped their allies with huge astronomical amounts of equipment, all the whole fighting the Japanese in the Pacific, just be thankful we had them as allies and stop your sniveling.

Why are you calling them "PAWN-zers"

The Nazi German surely depended upon their superior tanks and that was all

They always point out how the tank destroyers were at a disadvantage because of thin armor 🤣 NO NO NO whoever gets first shot wins either way armor was irrelevant the Sherman's armor was unable to stand up the panzer either so why point out the destroyers couldn't. Destroyers could penetrate the panzers. The Shermans should have all been replaced with destroyers at least the destroyers could kill panzers first shot wins not thickest armor when you have a 90mm

I guess it was not a 76mm gun, but rather a 3 inch gun which is actually 76.2mm.

@OPFlyFisher304

7 ай бұрын

The 76 and the 3in are different guns.

@bkucinschi

7 ай бұрын

Nope, I looked it up, it was indeed 76.2mm or 3 inch. The shell was 76.2mm x 539mm. Even the British 17 pounder gun was 3 inch or 76.2mm, but they called it a 77mm to avoid confusion in the ammo supply. The T34/76 Russian tank had a, guess what... a 76.2mm caliber. Only the 75 mm gun was a 75mm proper.

by the way this story was told, and with the corresponding videos, i honestly believe that this is a myth, a mere story, a propaganda

When the A.I. said " Rep- position ,I quit watching !!

Well, if we had that 76mm high velocity gun for the Hellcats, why didn't they outfit the M4 Sherman with them? Why did it take the British placing their OWN 17 pounder guns in them, before the Americans WOKE UP to the idea??

Sorry, I can't listen to AI recitation, or such badly edited sound that it sounds like AI recitation. The video editing is much better and so is the range of footage.

@Centurion101B3C

7 ай бұрын

Agreed. Especially with a Dutch accent.

AI should not narrate.

But muh Panzer….

"Ponzers"? I just cannot with these text-to-speech narrators. You've done some homework... spend some time with a voiceover talent and make it count.

bruh what is that AI voice... bad

Not to down grade u.s. armor corp but they weren't that good against the german armor. Reason must crews were young n not experience. The avg. Age was about 18 yo

Too bad your narrator cannot pronounce proper names. Even Google knows how.

Does this guy know how to pronounce Panzer, it's irritating to listen to him...

"when americans used his best tank destroyer to hunt the oldest german tank because for newer ones he needed to call air strikes" this is more accurate

@morfarviksturmm2652

7 ай бұрын

Yeah so lets apologize for the accuracy and dominance of our Air superiority then and now.

@SargentoDuke

7 ай бұрын

@@morfarviksturmm2652 yes it was the airforce who win the panzers but hey a freaking Pershing damaged a Panther in Cologne omg awesome.... No 😂😂😂

@SargentoDuke

7 ай бұрын

@@user-oo6hn6ek1d plot twist: M3 Lee was actually cheaper and better than sherman

@robertharris6092

7 ай бұрын

Then a tiger 2 expldoes from being shot in the side by a m18 that coste 1/10 the price of said tiger 2.

@OPFlyFisher304

7 ай бұрын

Real world is not World of Tanks. Tank on tank engagements did not happen with any regularity on the Western Front. M4 Sherman crews did not want to give up 75mm guns as anti-tank guns knock out more tanks than other tanks and the explosive nature of the 75 was better than the 76mm.

90 mm not 76mm. Get your AI voice right !!!

@nichburns1424

29 күн бұрын

In my opinion, mistakes are acceptable, AI voices are not. Its hollow and empty. Shows lack of effort and confidence. I would watch more if it wasn’t an AI voice

A HellCat vet gave me in ‘77 his combat worn Patch because he was impressed a 10 y/o kid knew so much of WW2. Out of respect to him it is still on my Leather Punk Jacket since 1983.