Author Topic: More US/UK tanks  (Read 2057 times)

Offline Cajunn

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 723
Re: More US/UK tanks
« Reply #30 on: August 13, 2008, 07:12:54 PM »
The M10, M18 and M36 all had open turrets. The M36B2 had overhead protection.

M36
(Image removed from quote.)

M36B2
(Image removed from quote.)

M18
(Image removed from quote.)

M10
(Image removed from quote.)



All were tank killers or light support and the open turrets were for easy spotting of enemy armor or troops.
“The important thing [in tactics] is to suppress the enemy's useful actions but allow his useless actions. However, doing this alone is defensive.”

Miyamoto Musashi (1584-1645)
Japanese Samurai & Philosopher

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
Re: More US/UK tanks
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2008, 07:59:23 PM »
I think we should decide the firefly is a US tank and have the cromwell.

Ok its got a suspect basic 75mm gun but 40mph makes it a British Cruiser tank. The power of the basic gun is offsett by being able to get in close using speed. We have had tank kills in the M8. The Cromwell would give us something that would make the Tank battle more fluid with flanking manouvres and the need to get up close. 
In very basic game terms, we already have that with the T-34/76.  Tad slower than the speed you posted (I didn't think the Cromwell was quite that fast, but I will take your word for it), but similar main gun.

I have always been a proponent of either adding additional variants to the existing set (ex. PzkwIV C, D, and F versions in addition to our H) or tanks that add something completely different to the capabilities menu (a true light tank; a slow, heavily armored tank like the Valentine; turretless assault guns / tank destroyers; etc.).  I like the idea of a Cromwell generally, but in practice I think there are better choices to come first.
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline DPQ5

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
Re: More US/UK tanks
« Reply #32 on: August 14, 2008, 01:21:14 AM »
I would like to see the Jagdpanther on the AH battlefield
29th Infantry Division
Darkest Hour Realism Unit
King Company
Sgt. Phillips

Offline bigrich

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 174
Re: More US/UK tanks
« Reply #33 on: August 14, 2008, 01:02:01 PM »
i agree the jagdpanther would be a great addition to AH heres a link to it on wikipedia...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdpanther
fear the FW-190 D9
And the Butcher Bird(190 A-8)

Offline bobtom

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 478
Re: More US/UK tanks
« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2008, 01:06:38 PM »
Wishlist?

Offline flyboy96

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 106
Re: More US/UK tanks
« Reply #35 on: August 18, 2008, 07:04:10 AM »
I would like to see the Jagdpanther on the AH battlefield

 If you get a Jagdpanther then I want a........STURMTIGER!!!!!!!!!!!





HEHE me get a naval gun on my tiger HEHE
flyboy96
Status:Retired
"Circle around the enemy and kick'em in the pants"-George S. Patton
40th FS 'Fight'n Red Devils' (Recruiting)

Offline mentalguy

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 667
Re: More US/UK tanks
« Reply #36 on: August 18, 2008, 03:03:00 PM »
If you get a Jagdpanther then I want a........STURMTIGER!!!!!!!!!!!





HEHE me get a naval gun on my tiger HEHE

Ok, you can have that if I get this.

http://www.active-figure.co.jp/latte19.jpg
PFC. Corey "Mentalguy" Gibson
USMC

Offline TIMMY

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 44
Re: More US/UK tanks
« Reply #37 on: August 18, 2008, 08:52:37 PM »
If you get a Jagdpanther then I want a........STURMTIGER!!!!!!!!!!!





HEHE me get a naval gun on my tiger HEHE

although it would be nice to have it would not do to well in AH
it was designed for street fighting and not open areas   
remember that the gun was a modified depth charge launcher and range was poor

if its stupid gun power you want the Jagdtiger with the 128mm  should satisfy you hunger


Just a brainwave who would use Static AT guns as soft guns on the field or in the town ?
AT guns one of the biggest threats to Tanks (Whittman would back this up :P)
mabye a flak 18/36 for both AA and AT duties


oTIMMYo --flying wasted since tour 84
Time is not wasted if your wasted all the time
its better to see the devil than wonder where he is

Offline sethipus

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 304
Re: More US/UK tanks
« Reply #38 on: August 18, 2008, 11:28:19 PM »
Ok, you can have that if I get this.

http://www.active-figure.co.jp/latte19.jpg
Yeah, but can you contemplate how easy it would be to hit that monstrosity with a bomb?  That puppy has Stuka written all over it.  ;-)

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: More US/UK tanks
« Reply #39 on: August 19, 2008, 05:23:29 AM »
The M10, M18 and M36 all had open turrets. The M36B2 had overhead protection.
Why in the heck would you have an armored vehicle with a permanently open top?  It's begging for a well aimed grenade.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: More US/UK tanks
« Reply #40 on: August 19, 2008, 08:30:18 AM »
Why in the heck would you have an armored vehicle with a permanently open top?  It's begging for a well aimed grenade.

Not only grenades but the crew was also exposed to snipers and shell fragments. It was a trade off on visibility for the crew, tanks having many blind spots.

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: More US/UK tanks
« Reply #41 on: August 19, 2008, 08:41:45 AM »
Thanks.. Seems pretty crazy.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you