In order to combat the swift and devastating
German blitzkrieg during the second world war, the U.S. Army recognized the importance
of neutralizing not just individual tanks but also the Wehrmacht's
ability to use them effectively. To do that, an entirely new doctrine
of mechanized warfare was developed: the establishment of dedicated
tank destroyer forces. American manufacturers responded to the Army's
requirements by developing over a dozen models. However, as one need was satisfied, new demands quickly emerged, creating a
continuous cycle of evolving requirements. While the M10, utilizing the M4 Sherman
chassis proved to be a dependable combat vehicle against the medium German
panzers in North African desert warfare, it did not align with the long-term vision of
the leaders of the US tank destroyer force. They sought a solution that emphasized speed,
cost-effectiveness, mobility and firepower. To achieve this, the test models of the T70 prototype were acquired which
embodied the ideal panzer hunter. The result was the M18 Hellcat which not
only became the fastest armored vehicle of its time but also stood as one of the most
efficient anti-tank weapons of World War II. This second generation tank
destroyer, weighing 20 tons, boasted impressive features such as a top
Road speed exceeding 50 miles per hour. Additionally it was armed with
a high velocity 76 millimeter main gun equivalent in stopping
power to the K10's three-inch gun. Armor was soon sacrificed in favor
of speed and mobility and its main turret was subsequently upgraded with the 76
millimeter turret borrowed from the Sherman tank. The m18s combat service began even before
its standardization process was completed. During the Spring 1943, five newly introduced
T-70 models were sent to the Italian campaign. The vehicles were assigned to the reconnaissance
company of the 894th tank destroyer Battalion and took part in breakthrough operations
at Anzio towards the end of May. M18 Crews greatly appreciated its Speed
and Agility in reaching firing positions. However the insufficient killing
power of the 76 millimeter gun and the limited protection it provided to the
crew prompted commanders to exercise caution when considering the complete transition of
entire battalions from the M10 to the Hellcat. The M18 Hellcat had a meager 13 mm front hull
armor, even inferior to the M8 armored car, and well below the two-inch frontal armor of the M4A1
Sherman or the 1.5-inch armor-plate of the M10. Moreover, the M18s turret suffered from
an inconvenient internal Arrangement impeding the reloading of the main gun and
leading to sluggishness in combat scenarios. The arrival of more formidable German
tanks like the Panther and Tiger only exacerbated the challenges
faced by the M18 Hellcat. These apprehensions weighed heavily on
Lieutenant General Omar Bradley's staff as they prepared for Operation Overlord to
such an extent that the commander of the first Army hesitated to convert tank destroyer
battalions under his command to the M18 Hellcat. Out of the 19 tank destroyer battalions
assigned for the invasion of France, only three would be equipped with the
Hellcat prior to landing in Normandy. These three battalions: the 603rd, 704th and
705th were part of Lieutenant General George S Patton's third Army, all making their
way ashore in Normandy by Late July 1944.. During the initial breakout from
Normandy in operation Cobra, the role of the M18 Hellcat shifted
from primarily serving as a tank Hunter to assuming responsibilities in Convoy
protection and supporting infantry operations. The M18 Hellcat's encounter with the Panther
and Tiger tanks of the Wehrmacht was delayed, partially due to the absence
of a significant German panzer counteroffensive immediately after D-Day. This delay in engagement might have been
beneficial as subsequent ordinance tests conducted in the United States revealed flaws that
highlighted the inadequate Firepower of the M18. While initial ordnance tests suggested that
the 76 millimeter gun had the potential to penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger
tank at distances of up to 1,800 meters, it is important to note that
these tests were severely flawed. In reality, M18 Crews quickly learned
that engaging heavy German tanks with frontal fire beyond the range of
270 meters had minimal impact. Additionally the M18 Hellcat offered no protection against the potent High Velocity guns
mounted on the Panther and Tiger tanks. Despite being outmatched in Firepower, Hellcat Crews exhibited remarkable skill in
destroying a significant number of enemy tanks and effectively countering German Panzer
assaults whenever the opportunity arose. Like many other U.S armored fighting
Vehicles during the European War, Hellcat Crews demonstrated adaptability by
developing new tactics that capitalized on the strengths and weaknesses of
the vehicle in combat situations. They leveraged the Hellcat
speed to swiftly position themselves for flank attacks on German tanks. Furthermore, Hellcat crews discovered
that a well-placed shot between the mantlet and glacis plate of a Panther
tank could cause the projectile to ricochet into the driver's compartment,
killing the crew or disabling the tank. These tactics proved effective
when Hitler eventually authorized an armored counteroffensive against
Patton's Third Army in September 1944. One notable engagement occurred on September 19th, when Company C of the 704th Tank Destroyer
Battalion operating under the 4th Armored Division's Combat Command A played a
crucial role in the defense of Arracourt. The company provided assistance in repelling
the attack launched by units of the 113th Panzer Brigade, successfully knocking out
a number of enemy panzers in the process. Taking advantage of the fog for cover, M18's
seized the opportunity to ambush a company of heavily armed and armored Panthers
from the 113th near Bezange-la-Petite. Skillfully utilizing a slight depression
as a firing position, the hellcats unleash their Firepower resulting in the destruction
of seven Panthers before the break of dawn. This tactical maneuver during the
foggy conditions demonstrated the hellcat's ability to help maneuver
and disable Superior enemy tanks. Continuing their offensive, the 113th persisted
in their attack only to encounter the determined resistance of company C once again the company
successfully thwarted an assault on the command post of the fourth Armored Division thanks to
the courageous leadership of Captain Tom Evans. Taking advantage of their positioning,
the lead platoon of company C deliberately drew the attention of the German tanks
inadvertently diverting their focus from the two other platoons of Hellcats that were
stealthily advancing on the enemy's flanks. During the ensuing engagement the three platoons
of company C engaged in a fierce firefight, successfully eliminating four German
tanks before tactically withdrawing. However, as the German panzers and
Panzer grenadiers began to retreat, company C seized the opportunity to pursue them. Captain Tom Evans displayed extraordinary bravery
by personally Manning the gun of a disabled M18 and single-handedly destroying two panzers running
the distinguished service cross in the process. Despite the notable achievements
of the Hellcat around Arracourt, units utilizing the vehicles were
often assigned to secondary missions. Consequently, the deployment
of the M18 Hellcat typically involved company-sized formations integrated
within infantry and combined combat elements. The M18 Hellcat, similar to its
predecessor the M10 was primarily utilized as an infantry support
weapon playing a significant role in the elimination of fortified enemy
positions and pillboxes in urban areas. However, unlike the concentrated Mass Battalion
formations intended for anti-armor operations, the M18 was rarely deployed in such large numbers. Instead, its deployment was more commonly
spread out integrated within infantry units to effectively fulfill its role in providing infantry
support and engaging in urban combat scenarios. Despite its effectiveness in secondary operations, the revised role of the M18 Hellcat
came with certain drawbacks. Common complaints included concerns about the open turret configuration and the
exposed .50 caliber machine gun. Furthermore, the absence of a coaxial machine
gun provided limited protection for the exposed heads of the tank driver and assistant
driver raising additional safety concerns. These factors highlighted some of the
vulnerabilities and limitations faced by the M18 in its adapted role,
reflecting the trade-offs made to accommodate its new operational requirements. Hellcat Crews frequently found
themselves in situations where they had to employ their 76 millimeter
cannon against enemy infantry targets, leading to the depletion of precious
ammunition intended for anti-armor purposes. These circumstances further emphasized
the enduring weaknesses of the M18, including its light armor and limited
penetration power of the main gun. These flaws serve as persistent
vulnerabilities highlighting the inherent contradictions within
the tank destroyer Doctrine. During the final stages of World War II,
the M18 Hellcat had one more opportunity to demonstrate its capabilities
against the formidable German panzers. This occurred during the German
Ardennes offensive in December 1944. The M18's of the 705th Tank Destroyer Battalion
played a crucial role in the defense of Bastogne. When the 15th Panzer Division launched an attack on the positions held by the 101st
Airborne Division on Christmas Day, the 705th and their M18's played a vital
part in holding off the German advance. Remarkably, the M18's were credited with
destroying twenty-seven German tanks while only six M18's were lost during this engagement,
showcasing their effectiveness in combat. The Ardennes battles convinced the
Army of the need to reequip its towed tank destroyer battalions in favor of
self-propelled systems like the M18. However, as 1945 arrived, the focus shifted
towards reequipping units with the advanced M36, featuring a powerful 90 millimeter
gun capable of engaging Panthers at extended ranges compared to the
76 millimeter gun of the M18. Despite the prevalent preference for the M36,
several units opted to convert from the M10 to the M18 indicating the continued recognition
of the M18's value and Effectiveness in combat. In terms of sheer numbers, the M18 can be
considered a successful tank destroyer. Renowned units such as the 603rd and 704th Tank Destroyer Battalions boasted impressive
records, claiming the destruction of over ninety enemy-armored-vehicles
during their service in Europe. The experiences gained from engagements in
Arracourt and Bastogne further emphasized the vital role played by the M18
in neutralizing panzer offensives, and defending against enemy attacks. Similar to its counterpart the M10, the M18 faced
challenges stemming from an ill-defined doctrine. Despite being the fastest armored vehicle employed
by any side in the war, the M18's main gun often fell short in fulfilling its primary objective
of effectively neutralizing German tanks. Battlefield conditions rarely mirrored
the anticipated blitzkrieg scenarios that originally shaped tank destroyer doctrine
and prompted the development of such vehicles. As a result, the M18 found itself utilized more as
a tank albeit one with limited armor protection. Despite its shortcomings
and the challenges it faced, the M18 demonstrated its versatility
and adaptability on the battlefield, contributing to the overall success
of the U.S. forces in World War II. Through the training and resourcefulness of
American service members, the M18 proved its capability to perform a range of tasks making
valuable contributions to the Allied victory.
