Author Topic: We need a tank-destroyer! M-10?  (Read 1613 times)

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: We need a tank-destroyer! M-10?
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2009, 12:14:54 AM »
But it would in AH, since that's the standard treatment they get. It would be cool if we got more realistic ground handling and lots of random roads with random buildings, bridges, etc, all over the maps.  Would allow for more tactical variety and more realistic setting to ground slugfests.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: We need a tank-destroyer! M-10?
« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2009, 12:28:50 AM »
You actually think there wouldn't be a track differential of some kind added with GVs using rotationless turrets? The TD turret guns sound like they packed an above average punch, and the speed would make mobility an adequate counter balance to light armor.  T34s are already fast enough to throw off about 2/3s or 3/4s of players' aim.  60mph would put it on par with the M8, which is definitely a ($#@ to hit. Add an above average main gun and it will see plenty of use. The only true vulnerability would be A2G fire.
The terrain shortcomings of the game are a factor but not nearly enough to make something like an M18 unviable.

Re-read my post.  You seem to have it out for me as of late and you're doing your best to get into an argument.  "a track differential of some kind for turretless TD's"???  You're making some very broad statements about "TD guns sound like they packed an above average punch", etc, "speed and mobility", etc... the issue isnt the M18's gun, mobility, or speed.  The issue is turret-less TD's.  btw... the M18's gun was the 76mm which is less powerful than the Brit 17lb'er, and more powerful than the German Pzr 4 75mm (comparable, iirc), M4A1 Sherman 75mm, and T34/76mm.  The M18 would bring speed WITH firepower to the game.    

The current track model does not allow a tank to sit in one place and pivot, hence if one is behind cover in a turret-less TD two bad things happen: first, you must move forward or back (that requires a running engine so there goes the element of surprise) to traverse the gun further than the 15-20 degrees that requires a running engine.  Secondly, by moving you could very well A> take your target ot of sight of the gun due to being below the mound/bunker, etc or B> move forard and become canted on the mound and still not get a shot due to being too high, etc.   It must move forward or reverse to turn the body of the tank.  Unless that model is corrected, the turretless TD's are sitting ducks and they will be left behind in the hanger for teh Firefly.  If a TD is going to be introduced, I would highly suggest it have a turret (M10,M18, etc).  Do you really think HTC is going to change the 5 other tanks in order to add the StuG, Jgdpzr IV, or other such turret-less TD?  I doubt it.  They'll continue with the model they have and as such the turretless TD's will be at that much more disadvantaged.  
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: We need a tank-destroyer! M-10?
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2009, 01:10:18 AM »
1- TDs having to get track differentials if they had any IRL is a given; a broad statement on a broad fact.
2- It's not hard at all to add individual track brakes. Therefore turretless TDs are not an issue for this reason.
3- Yes I think the other tanks would be "changed" if the introduction of separate track controls required it. It would be an improvement. That you think they wouldn't and insist it couldn't be otherwise is stupid. Your rants are uninformed, on top of being old news.  Separate brakes have been suggested on the forums and in game before that, for years already.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,202114.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,201287.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,138226.msg1556017.html#msg1556017
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,112773.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,112200.0.html

All in all there's no reason for the TDs, turretless or not, to be considered "pointless" additions.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 02:44:47 AM by moot »
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: We need a tank-destroyer! M-10?
« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2009, 04:25:09 AM »
An M-3 can not do a sustained speed of 40 mph let alone 50 to 60.  I also highly doubt an M-18 could manage 40 mph off road for any sustained period.

I always hought the M-3 goes about 45 mph. Were talking game here. If the M-18 is modeled for 60 mph then it will go 60 mph in the game, 100 mph downhill.
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: We need a tank-destroyer! M-10?
« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2009, 10:11:01 PM »
1- TDs having to get track differentials if they had any IRL is a given; a broad statement on a broad fact.
2- It's not hard at all to add individual track brakes. Therefore turretless TDs are not an issue for this reason.
3- Yes I think the other tanks would be "changed" if the introduction of separate track controls required it. It would be an improvement. That you think they wouldn't and insist it couldn't be otherwise is stupid. Your rants are uninformed, on top of being old news.  Separate brakes have been suggested on the forums and in game before that, for years already.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,202114.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,201287.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,138226.msg1556017.html#msg1556017
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,112773.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,112200.0.html

All in all there's no reason for the TDs, turretless or not, to be considered "pointless" additions.


"Rants".  You need to look up the defintion of "rant" because if you're pointing fingers at me you're being one Hell of a hypocrit.

LET ME SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU as I have said this already and you seem to keep prodding for a fight:

If HTC does not fix the inability to pivot a tracked vehicle in place (brakes, reversed tracks, etc) then adding a turreltess TD would be a lot of resources wasted for all the reasons I've already mentioned.  If they do fix/update it (I doubt they will any time soon but if they do then "WTG HTC!"), then fine add in the Stug, Marder, Jdgpzr IV, etc.  I dont care about previous threads suggesting brakes, etc for tracked vehicles because as it is we dont have it so suggesting we add in something that would otherwise be very handicapped would be a "moot" point.  Until then, if a TD is going to be added I suggest the M10 or M18.  Please, dont interpret my stance on teh matter in any other way, Mr. Over-Informed and Current on your info  :rolleyes:
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16333
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: We need a tank-destroyer! M-10?
« Reply #20 on: January 28, 2009, 11:05:32 PM »
I still think having a tank/TD without a turret in the AH2 realm would be pointless.  It wouldnt have any advantage over anything.  They had very little ability to traverse the main gun.  They sit very low, which in the AH2 realm is not like it was in the real deal because of the bunker-behind-mound effect most tank players use in game.  And to top it all off, the ability for the tank/TD to pivot in place is not present, tanks have to move forward/reverse to turn.  Not being able to pivot in place would really be a "shoot me" invite for the StuG, Jgdpzr IV, SU-x, etc.

Maybe I am wrong on this one, but I doubt it.   ;)
Proper separate track controls were'nt vital to the GVs we had added already. They would be to turretless GVs. They wouldn't be more than a minor feature as far as code/recode goes. Can you not do the math here?
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: We need a tank-destroyer! M-10?
« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2009, 02:53:03 PM »
Proper separate track controls were'nt vital to the GVs we had added already. They would be to turretless GVs. They wouldn't be more than a minor feature as far as code/recode goes. Can you not do the math here?

Is that kinda like baffles on the Mossie with regards to the minor code fix?   ;)

If HTC doesnt alter the ability of tracked vehicles to be able to pivot in place, then having a turret-less TD (or other such armored piece) would be near suicide).  If they alter that, then I'm all for it.  Until then I say still with a TD that has a turrent.
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline Babalonian

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5817
      • Pigs on the Wing
Re: We need a tank-destroyer! M-10?
« Reply #22 on: January 30, 2009, 04:01:02 PM »
The STuG.

Thread = over.
-Babalon
"Let's light 'em up and see how they smoke."
POTW IIw Oink! - http://www.PigsOnTheWing.org

Wow, you guys need help.

Offline BigPlay

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: We need a tank-destroyer! M-10?
« Reply #23 on: January 30, 2009, 04:56:18 PM »
I'm for a TD and have been for a long time. My preferance is probably the M-18 as I believe it was the ultimate TD of the war. Best of all was its speed and the combination of speed and firepower would make it a great addition to the game.



Definitely your opinion. I guess it would depend how it was used but calling it the best TD of WW2 would be a stretch. The German Stug alone probally killed more tanks than all the American and British tanks combined including the TD's.

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: We need a tank-destroyer! M-10?
« Reply #24 on: January 30, 2009, 06:40:40 PM »


Definitely your opinion. I guess it would depend how it was used but calling it the best TD of WW2 would be a stretch. The German Stug alone probally killed more tanks than all the American and British tanks combined including the TD's.


That doesnt make it the best.  ;)   Total numbers of StuG's and poor allied/Soviet (mostly Soviet) tactics were probably more of a factor, imo.  Besides, the StuG wasnt a designated TD unlike the Jadgpzr IV, M18, etc, it was an "assault gun" for use in directly supporting infantry.  That isnt to say it wasnt used for killing tanks because it did just that, but it wasnt designed nor implemented in that fashion. 

Besides, nothing was the "best" in WWII.  It all depends of the realm in which we're talking about.  On paper, the Panther was the "best" medium tank of the war but paper doesnt tell us all the problems it had, either.  On paper, it appears as if the Me262 should have ruled the skies, but it didnt for a multitude of reasons.  Always keep things in perspective. 
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline Babalonian

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5817
      • Pigs on the Wing
Re: We need a tank-destroyer! M-10?
« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2009, 07:30:45 PM »
Besides, the StuG wasnt a designated TD unlike the Jadgpzr IV, M18, etc, it was an "assault gun" for use in directly supporting infantry.

You're right, the STuG wasn't designed to be designated as a TD... and that's because IMO it was the first (that wasn't just a widowmaker).

If you'd look into it, when the Germans designed the STuG III there wasn't any place in military doctrine for Tank Destroyers.  Why go out and make something for a task that there was no demand for?  As a demand did, they found simply upgrading the armaments on the STuGs to ones more suited for anti-tank purposes than infantry support resulted in the most successfuly mass produced TD of WWII.

All the other TD you listed above were still dreams and ideas in someones head, or at most plans on a board when the STuG was already in action and tearing steel up in Europe.
-Babalon
"Let's light 'em up and see how they smoke."
POTW IIw Oink! - http://www.PigsOnTheWing.org

Wow, you guys need help.

Offline Bodhi

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8698
Re: We need a tank-destroyer! M-10?
« Reply #26 on: February 01, 2009, 11:23:00 AM »
I always hought the M-3 goes about 45 mph. Were talking game here. If the M-18 is modeled for 60 mph then it will go 60 mph in the game, 100 mph downhill.

I have an M2A1.  It will not go 45 unless it is going downhill.   If there is any incline, it is lucky to do 20.

In game, I think it accelerates too fast and has to high a top speed.
I regret doing business with TD Computer Systems.

Offline BigPlay

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: We need a tank-destroyer! M-10?
« Reply #27 on: February 02, 2009, 02:23:41 PM »
That doesnt make it the best.  ;)   Total numbers of StuG's and poor allied/Soviet (mostly Soviet) tactics were probably more of a factor, imo.  Besides, the StuG wasnt a designated TD unlike the Jadgpzr IV, M18, etc, it was an "assault gun" for use in directly supporting infantry.  That isnt to say it wasnt used for killing tanks because it did just that, but it wasnt designed nor implemented in that fashion. 

Besides, nothing was the "best" in WWII.  It all depends of the realm in which we're talking about.  On paper, the Panther was the "best" medium tank of the war but paper doesnt tell us all the problems it had, either.  On paper, it appears as if the Me262 should have ruled the skies, but it didnt for a multitude of reasons.  Always keep things in perspective. 

 

When did I say it was the best. My point was that even  the Stug which was not designed as a TD had more success at killing tanks then American and British main battle tanks did . Hands down all the experts say the Jadgpanther was probally the best TD of WW2. The SU-100 was probally the allies best TD, at least by number of tanks killed goes. My comment was based on that guy saying that the M-18 was the best TD of WW2.

Oh yeah if you think the Russians were the weak link in allied armor then think again. The armor that the Russian's fielded was some of the best of all the allies. The only reason that German armor was as good as it was, was a direct result of countering Russian armor. The standard Panzer Mk IV and the Stug would have been sufficient to deal with any American and British armor all the way up to the end of the war. I'm not just talking on paper . Stugs killed more armor then all American and British tanks did combined. So being that the Stug wasn't even designed as a TD it sure did it better then just about any TD in WW2.

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: We need a tank-destroyer! M-10?
« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2009, 09:43:22 AM »


When did I say it was the best. My point was that even  the Stug which was not designed as a TD had more success at killing tanks then American and British main battle tanks did . Hands down all the experts say the Jadgpanther was probally the best TD of WW2. The SU-100 was probally the allies best TD, at least by number of tanks killed goes. My comment was based on that guy saying that the M-18 was the best TD of WW2.

Oh yeah if you think the Russians were the weak link in allied armor then think again. The armor that the Russian's fielded was some of the best of all the allies. The only reason that German armor was as good as it was, was a direct result of countering Russian armor. The standard Panzer Mk IV and the Stug would have been sufficient to deal with any American and British armor all the way up to the end of the war. I'm not just talking on paper . Stugs killed more armor then all American and British tanks did combined. So being that the Stug wasn't even designed as a TD it sure did it better then just about any TD in WW2.

My reply about the StuG not being the best was countering the "quantity" arguement you made, thats all.  But again, I wouldnt use total number of enemy tanks killed as a measuring device for quality, either.  To say that the StuG destroyed more armor than both the US/UK did combined isnt telling the entire story. [I dont have the number in front of me so these are number from the air] ... if it took 1000 StuG's to destroy 3000 allied tanks, and it took 200 JgdPzr IV to destroy 1200 allied tanks, obviously the numbers dont tell the story.  Plus, one cant forget to mention the close proximity fighting in bocage Normandy (easy to set up ambushes) vs the open steppes of eastern Europe where the Soviets and their "move towards the enemy" tactics played into the hands of the well trained, experienced, and professional German panzer crews.  I understand your stance on "StuG wasnt a TD but destroyed ore tanks, etc", but that doesnt lend to the gaps that AH2 may have.  No sense in adding in a like armed and less menouverable vehicle vs the Pzr IV we already have, imo.     

Likewise, I didnt say the Soviets were a weak link.  I mentioned their "head strong into the enemy" mentality and their lack of armored tactics, legit training, and decent armor leadership at least until early-mid '44.  Their tanks were not a weak link in the least bit.       

  :salute
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline BigPlay

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: We need a tank-destroyer! M-10?
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2009, 12:48:34 PM »
Just under 10,000 Stugs were built. Just under 50,000 Shermans were built, 30,000 T-34's were built during WW2, over 80,000 over all. You have to remember that of all major countries that fought in WW2 that Germany had the fewest tanks and TD's built . So quantity really isn't a factor concerning the Stug since it's production run was far less than any allied main battle tank. The point I was trying to make was that the M-18 was not the best TD in WW2 nor should it be added before many other TD's. The only reason the Stug would be a logical addition is that it can span all 3 arenas rather then just the LW. Soviet tactics were rather crude in the way they managed and trained their armor crews but the British had no idea how to use armor either. They were mauled at Normandy and their knowledge of armor fighting was inadequate against the Germans.