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

CedricMacLaren #41 Posted Aug 20 2015 - 00:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 15789 battles
  • 3,552
  • [RECKT] RECKT
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Aug 19 2015 - 17:30, said:

 

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

 

Not what I was referring to. Someone once made an offhand remark that to them the battles in the North Atlantic were more interesting and important to winning the war than those in the Pacific. That comment set off an argument which lasted for quite some time. Many HAV people are wound a little tight. 

Cognitive_Dissonance #42 Posted Aug 20 2015 - 14:38

    Major

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

View PostCedricMacLaren, on Aug 19 2015 - 17:46, said:

 

Not what I was referring to. Someone once made an offhand remark that to them the battles in the North Atlantic were more interesting and important to winning the war than those in the Pacific. That comment set off an argument which lasted for quite some time. Many HAV people are wound a little tight. 

 

Thanks for the warning Cedric, I know what I am getting in to. I actually ordered two books! I don't mind, as I have assembled a nice library over the years that range in topics from the Napoleonic Era up to the recent struggles in Afghanistan.

 

I understand that because I couldn't regurgitate rote facts from memory  that I will be summarily dismissed (repeatedly), but I look forward to doing some research and posting here. Most of my knowledge is generic as it spans multiple topics and genre's.

 

For instance, I can tell you that the Pakistani Secret Service (ISI . .  NOT ISIS) decided to use Hektmatyar Gulbuddin as their proxy for the anti-Soviet Jihad, and ultimately as a wedge against what they perceived as Indian (as in India) plans of aggression/expansion in Afghanistan, but I cannot relate the subtleties of why they chose him over any number of Mujaheddin Warlords during that time period.

 

I get that I will be mocked, but I am warming up to a topic I enjoy, and I expect folks like Priory of Sion will continue to engage me with challenging questions, it is all good.


Edited by SmirkingGerbil, Aug 20 2015 - 14:45.


Priory_of_Sion #43 Posted Aug 20 2015 - 17:02

    Major

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

So I googled the two authors you listed.

 

Pritt seems to be a general historian of the war instead of being dedicated to armored vehicles like Zaloga or Jentz. So Pritt states that the Jagdpanther was one of the most advanced vehicles of the war. You can have a "primitive" vehicle that can have good armor, armament, and tactical mobility so why call it "advanced? He seems to fall into the category of those who ignore logistical considerations in deeming what is a good piece of military hardware. Not uncommon, but it is an issue. 

 

Hans was an actual German tank crewman it seems. However I can't find anything on the Jagdpanther associated with the guy. Hermann Bix is mentioned, who claimed 16 tanks in a Jagdpanther, but knowing the authenticity of that is impossible without Soviet loss records. EE has shown that nearly every instance of large Soviet tank losses claimed by German tankers are usually exaggerated to the point of ridiculousness. 

 

I do see a reference to a couple of Jagdpanthers wrecking 11 Churchills. I am not too impressed as that what it should do against one of the slowest, poorly armed, and unwieldy tanks in the Allied arsenal in '44/45. I don't see any other instance where Jagdpanthers did anywhere near that good. I see this in a book from Ian Daglish who also states that 1/2 of the Jagdpanthers were under repairs constantly during this time period. Two of the Jagdpanthers were lost in this battle due to mechanical breakdown as discovered by the British after returning to the battlefield nearly a month later. 

 

 



Cognitive_Dissonance #44 Posted Aug 20 2015 - 17:47

    Major

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

View PostPriory_of_Sion, on Aug 20 2015 - 10:02, said:

So I googled the two authors you listed.

 

Pritt seems to be a general historian of the war instead of being dedicated to armored vehicles like Zaloga or Jentz. So Pritt states that the Jagdpanther was one of the most advanced vehicles of the war. You can have a "primitive" vehicle that can have good armor, armament, and tactical mobility so why call it "advanced? He seems to fall into the category of those who ignore logistical considerations in deeming what is a good piece of military hardware. Not uncommon, but it is an issue. 

 

Hans was an actual German tank crewman it seems. However I can't find anything on the Jagdpanther associated with the guy. Hermann Bix is mentioned, who claimed 16 tanks in a Jagdpanther, but knowing the authenticity of that is impossible without Soviet loss records. EE has shown that nearly every instance of large Soviet tank losses claimed by German tankers are usually exaggerated to the point of ridiculousness. 

 

I do see a reference to a couple of Jagdpanthers wrecking 11 Churchills. I am not too impressed as that what it should do against one of the slowest, poorly armed, and unwieldy tanks in the Allied arsenal in '44/45. I don't see any other instance where Jagdpanthers did anywhere near that good. I see this in a book from Ian Daglish who also states that 1/2 of the Jagdpanthers were under repairs constantly during this time period. Two of the Jagdpanthers were lost in this battle due to mechanical breakdown as discovered by the British after returning to the battlefield nearly a month later. 

 

 

Yeah, I had to order the Shaufler's book, was wanting it anyway. So I will get more detail.

 

I am curious though (as I don't know) why so much emphasis is put on Soviet point of view and numbers? Are they not as suspect?

 

I know that German records fall under suspicion, but we are talking about the same regime (Stalin) that entered a non-aggression pact with Germany and shipped many many metric tons of raw material (coal, iron ore, rubber) to Germany helping to arm and spin up the very army they would then fight later. The same regime that kept this fact from the allies. The same regime that purged many of it's own generals at the start of the war, and seeded it's ranks with "spies" to report on any suspicious behavior. Ironic, in that it was similar in function to spreading fear and paranoia throughout the war fighting machine as did the SS (and other Hitler toadies) throughout the Wehrmacht and the old German familial/Prussian professional Generals.

 

I know that a huge and unprecedented body of evidence and documentation was seized and made available to many research bodies and folks over the years representing the German side of the conflict. An unprecedented treasure trove as the Third Reich was a documentation machine. Did such an event occur for the Russian side of the conflict (asking as I am in the dark about this).

 

Anyway, back on topic, so I will get this book, go through it, relate what is written. But why would Russian records have anymore credence over German?

 

I don't doubt the repair records are accurate, I am wondering why Soviet viewpoint and accountability is deemed more accurate vs. German in the engagement you mention?

 

 



Priory_of_Sion #45 Posted Aug 20 2015 - 18:05

    Major

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

Nearly all of the documentation that EE uses is from internal Soviet sources for use by other internal sources. This would be like the a Wehrmacht unit presenting a report to OKW or the OSS helping out the USMC, you don't want to lie to these people. These aren't the people interested in propaganda. These are the people that need the truth in order to do their job and win the war. 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Cognitive_Dissonance #46 Posted Aug 20 2015 - 18:24

    Major

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

Priory, at this point, when I get the book in (Monday with Amazon Prime!), will get to the meat of it quickly, present it's references and what is written, specifically in context to Bix. I will also cross reference to other material I already own, present it here and keep going from there. I am really looking forward to this. Certainly I will not focus on this one instance, but it should start the dialogue.

 

If I do find over time, it was all hyperbola, and I am a victim of "facist inflation", so be it, I am more interested in expanding my knowledge on this topic at this point.

 

Thanks for your insights so far.



Priory_of_Sion #47 Posted Aug 20 2015 - 18:37

    Major

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

View PostSmirkingGerbil, on Aug 20 2015 - 12:24, said:

Priory, at this point, when I get the book in (Monday with Amazon Prime!), will get to the meat of it quickly, present it's references and what is written, specifically in context to Bix. I will also cross reference to other material I already own, present it here and keep going from there. I am really looking forward to this. Certainly I will not focus on this one instance, but it should start the dialogue.

 

If I do find over time, it was all hyperbola, and I am a victim of "facist inflation", so be it, I am more interested in expanding my knowledge on this topic at this point.

 

Thanks for your insights so far.

You're welcome!

 

I don't have those books so I am intrigued in what you might find. 



EnsignExpendable #48 Posted Aug 20 2015 - 18:49

    Major

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

I'm not saying that the Germans are lying because they are Germans. I am saying that the Germans are lying because in literally every single case where I examined Soviet records of the unit that the Germans claim to have completely exterminated, those losses don't match up. Sometimes they claim to have destroyed more vehicles than the Soviets recorded being lost, sometimes they claim to have destroyed more vehicles than the Soviet had in total. My favourite so far is a Ferdinand unit that claimed to have destroyed 200 tanks while fighting infantry that wasn't reinforced with tanks at all. 

 

Priory, do you have a time and date of Bix's heroic feat so that I can check whether or not it actually happened?



Tupinambis #49 Posted Aug 20 2015 - 18:53

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 37848 battles
  • 15,348
  • Member since:
    12-22-2010

Wasn't the M10 technically more successful than the M18?

 

 

EDIT: For that matter, wasn't the Jagdpanzer IV L/70 more successful than the Jagdpanther?

 

 

View PostMechanize, on Aug 19 2015 - 17:28, said:

 

Yeah, that TD that had nearly zero impact in the war (arguably a detriment to the German war effort) was clearly the gold standard of successful design.

 

It was also years ahead of it's time which is why no one tried to copy the concept behind it at all and featured such wonderful innovations such as:

 

 

PFFFFFT Obviously it was the inspiration behind AMX 50 Foch. which proceeded to become the most formidable and influential AFV's of the Cold War era.....

 


Edited by Tupinambis, Aug 20 2015 - 18:57.


Priory_of_Sion #50 Posted Aug 20 2015 - 19:03

    Major

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

Bix's actions were on Nov 4, 1944 near Dzelzgaleskrogs, Latvia. As far as wikipedia knows.  

 

The FHO cut down German kill claims by 30-50%, it isn't like the Germans were unaware of their [edited].



Necrophore #51 Posted Aug 20 2015 - 19:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 31144 battles
  • 4,194
  • Member since:
    02-19-2012

View PostMSgtTater, on Aug 19 2015 - 07:47, said:

60 miles per hour (100KPH) under good conditions.

 

Good conditions = straight line on hard surface with the turret removed

Meplat #52 Posted Aug 20 2015 - 19:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostNecrophore, on Aug 20 2015 - 11:07, said:

 

Good conditions = straight line on hard surface with the turret removed

 

The one I used to deal with would do that (or damn close to it) on a good dirt road, with the turret.  You'll need someone else to read speed though cause the IP is an unreadable blur at much above 35 MPH.

 

You might think are pushing the mill a bit, but it's a '975, and you're using modern lubricants and feeding it 100LL instead of thrice contaminated 80 octane poured from filthy jerrycans.



EnsignExpendable #53 Posted Aug 20 2015 - 20:46

    Major

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

View PostPriory_of_Sion, on Aug 20 2015 - 13:03, said:

Bix's actions were on Nov 4, 1944 near Dzelzgaleskrogs, Latvia. As far as wikipedia knows.  

 

The FHO cut down German kill claims by 30-50%, it isn't like the Germans were unaware of their [edited].

 

Oh, well this one is easy enough. No offensive actions were taken by the Soviets on November 4th, 1944 (they were between the 2nd and 3rd attempt to take Courland). Dzelzgaleskrogs was, in the meantime, well inside German territory (marked by a red square). 

 

Posted Image

 

So there you have it, I don't know who he was fighting with, but it certainly wasn't Soviet tanks.

 



CedricMacLaren #54 Posted Aug 22 2015 - 04:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 15789 battles
  • 3,552
  • [RECKT] RECKT
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

What is today's date?  At the moment I don't know. Any chance someone just reported the wrong date?

 

What about over or under reporting friendly losses and enemy losses?  Which commanders had more to lose if reporting bad news or lack of progress?

 

I have always been told kill counts were exaggerated by Americans in Vietnam. Lies in reports are I am sure not limited to only one side. I heard the Americans in WWII would sometimes exaggerate their losses in order to get more troops and supplies sent their way. Did the Germans tend to underreport losses or exaggerate success because no one likes to support a failure?



660driver #55 Posted Aug 22 2015 - 05:54

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10389 battles
  • 1,011
  • [POSHY] POSHY
  • Member since:
    11-28-2013
U cant trust any data that comes from a ditatorship that will kill you if you retreat when you are clearly beaten and need to regroup imo. What I say is all opinion so treat it as such. I realize the stuff you see on tv is usually inaccurate but are veterans that actually fought in hellcats viable sources? I think it was the series on the old military channel called greatest tank battles where a hellcat crewman recalled his owwn and some other hellcats taking out a bunch of panthers from a hill then backing over the ridge to reload. Nope you didnt wanna get hit in them but they did seem pretty effective when usex properly and I think they were pretty dependable and easy to maintain and mass produce. I mean the engine was on a rail system and could be disconned, pulled, and replacex in no time flat. No way you could pull that off in german armor. Farmboys like me could fix and maintain hellcats and soviet iron. Not so with german iron. Then theres the turret thing. You can still turn and shoot even if your tracks are blown off cause we all know tracks dont magically fix themselves after a 10 second wait In real life! The radial engine it fielded gave it a sweet power to weight ratio partially making up for lack of armor imo. To me the win goes to the hellcat!

EnsignExpendable #56 Posted Aug 22 2015 - 06:01

    Major

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

View PostCedricMacLaren, on Aug 21 2015 - 22:55, said:

What is today's date?  At the moment I don't know. Any chance someone just reported the wrong date?

 

What about over or under reporting friendly losses and enemy losses?  Which commanders had more to lose if reporting bad news or lack of progress?

 

I have always been told kill counts were exaggerated by Americans in Vietnam. Lies in reports are I am sure not limited to only one side. I heard the Americans in WWII would sometimes exaggerate their losses in order to get more troops and supplies sent their way. Did the Germans tend to underreport losses or exaggerate success because no one likes to support a failure?

 

It's not one day off or even two days off. Anyone recording their actions so irresponsibly would not be an officer in any army. Exaggerating your losses for more troops would become a problem as soon as you had to list the dead. After all, their families had to be notified, their paycheques stopped, etc. War is a huge bureaucratic nightmare, fudging your own numbers is difficult. The enemy's? Easy peasy. You don't have to deal with the fallout of that, and by the time anyone compares your records with the enemy's, you'll be long dead, or at the very least retired.



Daigensui #57 Posted Aug 22 2015 - 17:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 32027 battles
  • 29,987
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View Post660driver, on Aug 21 2015 - 21:54, said:

U cant trust any data that comes from a ditatorship that will kill you if you retreat when you are clearly beaten and need to regroup imo.

 

In no (normal) military are you allowed to go into a rout. That was what Stalin was ordering against.



660driver #58 Posted Aug 22 2015 - 18:17

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10389 battles
  • 1,011
  • [POSHY] POSHY
  • Member since:
    11-28-2013

View PostDaigensui, on Aug 22 2015 - 17:45, said:

 

In no (normal) military are you allowed to go into a rout. That was what Stalin was ordering against.

 

you mean men abadoning their posts? Im pretty sure data was fudged to look better when there was fear of retrobution. I mean stalin killed people he was suspicious of and hamstrung his military for this first year of the war from what ive read. You dont cross people like that unless you can take em down. I just dont trust any data from either the nazi or the soviet regime. Call me crazy but I dont trust obama either!

CedricMacLaren #59 Posted Aug 22 2015 - 18:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 15789 battles
  • 3,552
  • [RECKT] RECKT
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013
Ok, you're crazy. 

4thTaterBattalion #60 Posted Aug 22 2015 - 18:29

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 47741 battles
  • 277
  • [OMWG] OMWG
  • Member since:
    05-12-2012

View Post660driver, on Aug 22 2015 - 12:17, said:

 

you mean men abadoning their posts? Im pretty sure data was fudged to look better when there was fear of retrobution. I mean stalin killed people he was suspicious of and hamstrung his military for this first year of the war from what ive read. You dont cross people like that unless you can take em down. I just dont trust any data from either the nazi or the soviet regime. Call me crazy but I dont trust obama either!

 

View PostCedricMacLaren, on Aug 22 2015 - 12:19, said:

Ok, you're crazy.

 

You two are funny!  I like it.  WHERE IS CHIEFTIAN WHEN YOU NEED HIM? :izmena:

 







Also tagged with M18

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users