Jump to content


Truth or Non-Truth..The M18 Hellcat was one of the most successful tank destroyers of World War 2.

M18

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
229 replies to this topic

Cognitive_Dissonance #21 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 20:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 40641 battles
  • 6,402
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Aug 19 2015 - 12:03, said:

 

You could, I don't know, post some? You're appealing to authority without making any mention of what that authority is.

 

Before I did that, I got the History channel slap, so Kettle and Pot met each other on the way.

 

Regardless:

 

http://armedforcesmu...-tanks-of-wwii/

 

http://www.armchairg...ead.php?t=74421 - this link goes into lengthy detail about what makes up the criteria, it is a good read!

 

I will link the books tomorrow, at work.

 

 



WulfeHound #22 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 20:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 12958 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
So a museum article (that gets a good amount of stuff wrong) and an online poll. Completely unbiased and trustworthy sources™!

cashdash #23 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 21:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 5558 battles
  • 7,254
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013

View PostSmirkingGerbil, on Aug 19 2015 - 14:38, said:

 

Before I did that, I got the History channel slap, so Kettle and Pot met each other on the way.

 

Regardless:

 

http://armedforcesmu...-tanks-of-wwii/

 

http://www.armchairg...ead.php?t=74421 - this link goes into lengthy detail about what makes up the criteria, it is a good read!

 

I will link the books tomorrow, at work.

 

 

 



EnsignExpendable #24 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 21:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostSmirkingGerbil, on Aug 19 2015 - 14:38, said:

 

Before I did that, I got the History channel slap, so Kettle and Pot met each other on the way.

 

Regardless:

 

http://armedforcesmu...-tanks-of-wwii/

 

http://www.armchairg...ead.php?t=74421 - this link goes into lengthy detail about what makes up the criteria, it is a good read!

 

I will link the books tomorrow, at work.

 

 

 

You said you're basing your opinion on writings of historians. I don't see any. I see an online poll from an internet forum and barely a paragraph on a top ten with no criteria whatsoever. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you googled "Jagdpanther top tank" and pasted the first two links into here. 



_x_Deadpool_x_ #25 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 21:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 24200 battles
  • 360
  • Member since:
    03-08-2011

Definitely could be a true statement.  The basis being: It worked well enough to merit mass production by a major power.  Especially by one who also had to bear the cost of shipping them across an ocean.

 

Besides, the title of this thread was that the M18 was "one of" the most successful TDs in WWII.  Saying the Jagdpanther was also one of the most successful TDs does not contradict the first statement.



Cognitive_Dissonance #26 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 21:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 40641 battles
  • 6,402
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Aug 19 2015 - 14:17, said:

 

You said you're basing your opinion on writings of historians. I don't see any. I see an online poll from an internet forum and barely a paragraph on a top ten with no criteria whatsoever. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you googled "Jagdpanther top tank" and pasted the first two links into here. 

 

You didn't read the article, it was quite lengthy . . . and what makes you more informed than the folks in that forum?

 

Cracks me up that you diss another forum for actually discussing something at length, but consider your position superior (in this forum). So turning it back on you, prove that the links I provided are incorrect (you too Wulfe). I only submitted them as armchair general gave it quite a go over, more so than anything I have seen here.

 

Anyways, I will come up with written material. I am guessing Wulfe will provide something substantial, which is helpful and I will dig in.

 

But calling out one forum over another . . . oh the irony.



Cognitive_Dissonance #27 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 21:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 40641 battles
  • 6,402
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View PostWulfeHound, on Aug 19 2015 - 13:47, said:

So a museum article (that gets a good amount of stuff wrong) and an online poll. Completely unbiased and trustworthy sources™!

 

 

I go to lots of museums, are they a bad source of information? What exactly are the errors, and the sources of these errors that the Armed Forces Museum perpetuates? Since you seem to have insight into their procedural method of coming to these conclusions, I am all ears. 

 

Also, do you have any background on Frank Correa the museum historian, have you engaged in any dialogue with him and informed him of these errors?



Priory_of_Sion #28 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 22:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,759
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011

Su-100 was like a Jagdpanther that worked. I love the Jagdpanther, one of the best looking vehicles IMO, but it wasn't too good when it came to actually participating in mobile warfare. When serious breakdowns happen within 25 km or so, you can't be trusted to actually show up to the fight. 

 

So is Su-100 best TD of the war? 



Cognitive_Dissonance #29 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 22:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 40641 battles
  • 6,402
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View PostPriory_of_Sion, on Aug 19 2015 - 15:04, said:

Su-100 was like a Jagdpanther that worked. I love the Jagdpanther, one of the best looking vehicles IMO, but it wasn't too good when it came to actually participating in mobile warfare. When serious breakdowns happen within 25 km or so, you can't be trusted to actually show up to the fight. 

 

So is Su-100 best TD of the war? 

 

In retrospect, probably. But I am not sure that the Jagd had as many mechanical issues, different drive train vs. the Panther. Plus the SU made it to battle at around a 1000 produced, whereas the Jagd was like 383 or a tad less. Plus (props to Wulfe) the gun on the SU,  though of higher caliber was obviously superior to the 88 KwK.

 

But then again we are talking about pure Casemate TD's vs. Turreted. Which early on I should have distinguished.



EnsignExpendable #30 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 22:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostSmirkingGerbil, on Aug 19 2015 - 15:40, said:

 

You didn't read the article, it was quite lengthy . . . and what makes you more informed than the folks in that forum?

 

Cracks me up that you diss another forum for actually discussing something at length, but consider your position superior (in this forum). So turning it back on you, prove that the links I provided are incorrect (you too Wulfe). I only submitted them as armchair general gave it quite a go over, more so than anything I have seen here.

 

Anyways, I will come up with written material. I am guessing Wulfe will provide something substantial, which is helpful and I will dig in.

 

But calling out one forum over another . . . oh the irony.

 

The article is lengthy, yes. The part about the Jagdpanther, on the other hand, is not. I am not "dissing" the forum, I am dissing you for promising us historians and returning the results of a Google search. Do you not understand how sources work? It's not our job to prove your baseless assertion wrong, it's your job to bring us evidence to back up your assertion.

 

As for considering my position superior, I run this little website that just happens to have some notorious readers. So yeah, I'd consider my knowledge level a bit higher than "a guy on the internet".



Cognitive_Dissonance #31 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 22:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 40641 battles
  • 6,402
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Aug 19 2015 - 15:29, said:

 

The article is lengthy, yes. The part about the Jagdpanther, on the other hand, is not. I am not "dissing" the forum, I am dissing you for promising us historians and returning the results of a Google search. Do you not understand how sources work? It's not our job to prove your baseless assertion wrong, it's your job to bring us evidence to back up your assertion.

 

As for considering my position superior, I run this little website that just happens to have some notorious readers. So yeah, I'd consider my knowledge level a bit higher than "a guy on the internet".

 

I said I would provide sources other than links, I guess you missed that.

 

Addendum, before I go to all the trouble (of indexing my thoughts and battle engagements) as illustrated by these two authors and my reasoning as such:

 

Prit Buttar

 

Hans Schaufler

 

Do you have a problem with me using them as a source (which I will cross check) as to the JagdPanthers ability in battle . . . because I don't want to start a project, if you are just going to summarily dismiss them.

 

Thanks,


Edited by SmirkingGerbil, Aug 19 2015 - 22:50.


Priory_of_Sion #32 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 22:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,759
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011

View PostSmirkingGerbil, on Aug 19 2015 - 16:15, said:

 

In retrospect, probably. But I am not sure that the Jagd had as many mechanical issues, different drive train vs. the Panther. Plus the SU made it to battle at around a 1000 produced, whereas the Jagd was like 383 or a tad less. Plus (props to Wulfe) the gun on the SU,  though of higher caliber was obviously superior to the 88 KwK.

 

But then again we are talking about pure Casemate TD's vs. Turreted. Which early on I should have distinguished.

Jagdpanthers did have a "better" drivetrain than Panther, but lets look at a 300 km march performed by 25 jagdpanthers as described by Panzer Tracts 9-3.

 

You have 18 failed final drives, 2 failed engines, 4 failed road wheels, 4 failed drive sprockets, 1 failed main drive shaft, etc. Not too good. 

 

We also know that the Panther's final drive could go about 150 km on average before it fails. A Jagdpanther captured by the British shows that you have to be extremely delicate in order to get 300 km without failure, which is mediocre I suppose. When they weren't careful the vehicle failed in 35 km which is really bad. 

 

You can compare this to Su-100s that are still being used today in the conflict in Yemen which sorta speaks for the mechanical reliability of the vehicle. 

 



EnsignExpendable #33 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 22:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostSmirkingGerbil, on Aug 19 2015 - 16:30, said:

I said I would provide sources other than links, I guess you missed that.

 

Here's some advice: in the future, try to first obtain the evidence backing a statement, and then make the statement. Better yet, form your opinion based on evidence in the first place.



Cognitive_Dissonance #34 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 22:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 40641 battles
  • 6,402
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Aug 19 2015 - 15:51, said:

 

Here's some advice: in the future, try to first obtain the evidence backing a statement, and then make the statement. Better yet, form your opinion based on evidence in the first place.

 

I just updated this post you quoted, I asked about the sources I will be using. Copied here for your convenience --------------------

 

Addendum, before I go to all the trouble (of indexing my thoughts and battle engagements) as illustrated by these two authors and my reasoning as such:

 

Prit Buttar

 

Hans Schaufler

 

Do you have a problem with me using them as a source (which I will cross check) as to the JagdPanthers ability in battle . . . because I don't want to start a project, if you are just going to summarily dismiss them.

 

Thanks,

 

 



EnsignExpendable #35 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 23:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
How about you stop wasting our time and either post evidence if you have any or admit it if you don't?

Cognitive_Dissonance #36 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 23:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 40641 battles
  • 6,402
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View PostPriory_of_Sion, on Aug 19 2015 - 15:41, said:

Jagdpanthers did have a "better" drivetrain than Panther, but lets look at a 300 km march performed by 25 jagdpanthers as described by Panzer Tracts 9-3.

 

You have 18 failed final drives, 2 failed engines, 4 failed road wheels, 4 failed drive sprockets, 1 failed main drive shaft, etc. Not too good. 

 

We also know that the Panther's final drive could go about 150 km on average before it fails. A Jagdpanther captured by the British shows that you have to be extremely delicate in order to get 300 km without failure, which is mediocre I suppose. When they weren't careful the vehicle failed in 35 km which is really bad. 

 

You can compare this to Su-100s that are still being used today in the conflict in Yemen which sorta speaks for the mechanical reliability of the vehicle. 

 

 

Yes, depending on sources, 2 Jagd's knocked out 9 or 11 Churchills at an engagement, but had drive issues and were abandoned.

 

Many other reports detail broken drive teeth etc. Since the OP asked a general question, (yes I stated my opinion a mortal sin) as if a Jagd and other example TD's engaged enemy tanks in fighting condition. Since most accounts of Jagd actions at least had them engage before they broke down, I stated my opinion from that perspective. Also since Jagd's came to in 44/45 typically the crews did not get thorough training, or were green. I cannot comment on the quality of the SU-100 crews at the time.

 

So I would argue, with the incessant bombing, the continuing ruin of German war production capability, and the state of the crews at the time that the JagdPanther fielded, it was a damn fine fighting machine, and in many ways fighting at a disadvantage. So it presented itself well. I don't know how to theoretically argue that the M18/SU-100 would have fared similarly  well under the same circumstances that the JagdPanther endured as it would be purely hypothetical, as we have some historical insight as to the handicaps the JagdPanther fought under.

 

 

 

 


Edited by SmirkingGerbil, Aug 19 2015 - 23:14.


Cognitive_Dissonance #37 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 23:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 40641 battles
  • 6,402
  • [ANASS] ANASS
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Aug 19 2015 - 16:07, said:

How about you stop wasting our time and either post evidence if you have any or admit it if you don't?

 

I will take that as an approval of my sources.

 

Give me a couple days to re-read, and get some ideas to paper etc.

 

You will have to forgive me, because I can't regurgitate facts and figures from books I haven't touched in awhile.



4thTaterBattalion #38 Posted Aug 19 2015 - 23:19

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 47736 battles
  • 277
  • [OMWG] OMWG
  • Member since:
    05-12-2012

View Post_x_Deadpool_x_, on Aug 19 2015 - 15:23, said:

Definitely could be a true statement.  The basis being: It worked well enough to merit mass production by a major power.  Especially by one who also had to bear the cost of shipping them across an ocean.

 

Besides, the title of this thread was that the M18 was "one of" the most successful TDs in WWII.  Saying the Jagdpanther was also one of the most successful TDs does not contradict the first statement.

 

Like what you are saying.  "ONE OF".

Here is another persons opinion. 76MM HELLCAT TANK DESTROYER! Nice video. From Russia. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dhSYDZy2Yc


 

After reading all the opinions.  I still looking into whether or not.  Getting a lot of conflicts on speed.

Like to hear what Chieftain has to say and his sources.

Thank guys.  You have been wonderful in this Post.

Thanks.



CedricMacLaren #39 Posted Aug 20 2015 - 00:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 15782 battles
  • 3,552
  • [RECKT] RECKT
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013
Back away slowly and abandon the thread, Gerbil. There be HAV people about and some of those people are nuts. Even the most seemingly innocent, off-hand comment can result in pages upon pages of flame posts and neg bombs. You won't win this, even if you win. 

EnsignExpendable #40 Posted Aug 20 2015 - 00:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostCedricMacLaren, on Aug 19 2015 - 18:10, said:

Back away slowly and abandon the thread, Gerbil. There be HAV people about and some of those people are nuts. Even the most seemingly innocent, off-hand comment can result in pages upon pages of flame posts and neg bombs. You won't win this, even if you win. 

 

Asking someone to provide evidence to their claims? How totally nuts!







Also tagged with M18

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users