The Most Effective Tank The U.S. Had in WW2 (M18 Hellcat) 

Welcome aboard!

Exactly

Not a tank, though.

In some regards yes, the M4 excelled at being quick to produce and being reliable, in terms of combat effectiveness when not accompanied by infantry the M18 surpassed it in one on one engagements and was capable of holding its own more often.

@@SevsStorys The M18 was the best purpose-built tank destroyer of WW2. There weren't enough of them built however to surpass the effectiveness of the M4. It would be difficult to do so when so many M4s were built compared to M18s. The M4 was able to hold its own also when it wasn't charging headlong over open ground against prepared defenses.

We’ll sort of, in some documents it is labeled as a light tank and in that case it would be the most proficient tank. But if it’s labeled correctly as a TD then yes the title would be wrong. More of a misdirect of information than wrong

Tank.. not a tank, it's not that important. The name that was given to the original vehicles was "Landship", "tank" was used only for secrecy and to try to confuse the enemy, something to do with the original workers at William Foster saying it looked a bit like a metal water tank.. As the original definition of these "tanks" was "armour, firepower, and all-terrain mobility", nothing in the original description mentions that they have to have tracks, for example, but most will agree if it doesn't have tracks it's not a tank. Given that the "female" Mark V only had machine guns.. then it wasn't a tank either. The Germans quickly developed armour piercing small caliber round could enter the Mark V, it wasn't armoured enough any better than the Hellcat, was it a tank? If you want to, quite a few vehicles that are called tanks could be argued to not match all the criteria, and some that are not called such could. The Bradley is an "Infantry Fighting Vehicle", but it's tracked, has decent (for a light tank) armour, and decent firepower (as proved in the Iraq conflicts).. why isn't it a light tank? Because they can carry troops? Merkava's can carry troops, so are they not tanks, but "Heavy IFV's"? Give it a break, the semantics are pointless, it just isn't that important

@@iffracem Words have meanings. Except, apparently, for you.