M18 and M24

[funked]

Wouldn't these be great?
 http://battletanks.com/m18_hellcat.htm
 http://battletanks.com/new_page_24.htm

I see all these suggestions for relatively slow boring tanks.  Give me speed!!!

[Jigster]

Let's compromise.

M8 AC - just think of it as an Ostwind with limited  vertical traverse, slower ROF, and double the speed.

M3 75mm - We have the M3 chassis already, sling a M6 or the M1/2 75mm up there on top.

M12 - M7 is nice, but why settle for the 105 when you can get the 155?

M-18 and the M-24 have about as much of a chance as they do...  

[brady]

 
  Greyhound-why?,it's gun could barely hurt the Pzkfw Iv it has no 37mm AA capability,and it could be killed easily by almost everything...
   Puma would be better or a PSW 234/1,at least the later MA could be used in the AA role and it would take out Halftracks with ease,heck the Puma could TO a Pzkfw IV a lot easier than a M-8,and look better doing it
   The M-24 is a cool looking tank and FAST,but it's 75mm gun lacks power and range,and it has weak armor,scoot and shoot..
   T-34/76 or a M4A2 would be better.


      Brady

[funked]

Blah blah blah.
Slow tanks slow tanks slow tanks.
I want a big gun and fast wheels!!!
 

[brady]

   The PSW 234 series had 8 wheals,all wheal drive and independent suspension,the Puma had a 5cm kwk L60 main armament in a fully enclosed turret,and the 234/1 had a 2cm main armament with a coxial MG 34 that could be used in the AA role,both were fast and a way better armored car than the M8/M20.

  Brady

[Jigster]

There's always the various German AC's...

You could have a 75mm FH or the Pak 40

Anyone for a M-37? Combine the M5 chassis with the long barreled M2 105mm and you've got a nice combo.

- Jig

[Thog]

M8 AC had a 37mm HV gun similar to the Stuarts. It's not a semi-auto, so the ROF would be probably 1 per 3-5 seconds.

The Hellcat would rock.

Another interesting option is the HMC M8.  Essentially a Stuart chassis with a low velocity short barreled 75mm.  Light armor, but more speed.  I'm not sure that it would actually have any advantages, but it'd been cool to see someone include it.  <grin>

Thog

[funked]

Yep, speed, guns, speed, and more speed.  Armor and huge guns are useless if you never make contact with the enemy.  Gimme speed!!!

[Vermillion]

I'm with you Funked!!

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[brady]

  Nothing personal m8t's but the US tank destroyers are well collectively ahhh krap....
  They all sacrifice armor for speed and with the exception of the 90mm tube on some late war models armed with a gun that could only be described as moderately effective against German tanks, and less than effective against most all late model German Tank destroyers.
  The whole concept behind US tank destroyers proved to be a bit flawed,especially when compared to the way the Germans and Russians built them and deployed them.
  Another annoying little aspect of them is that they are open toped,everybody and his grandma with a rock in her hand can hurt/stun/kill the crew with relative ease.
  Yes speed is nice but they are, I feel, better choices for speed and a medium armament,say a M-24, a Puma,AEC MK 3,Daimler, to name but a few.
  You will have to forgive my impassioned distaste for US tank destroyers for I am a Veteran of many an hour playing Advanced Squad Leader, and they gave me many a headache.

      Brady

[funked]

I'm sure the M18 was a turd in some games.  But in real life (and probably in AH) it was a real pain in the butt for the enemy.

[brady]

  It would be to easy to kill, maybe not by a panzer while it was moving, but a osty could track and hit it so could ever airplane in the game, if a zero can kill a M3 from above even it could kill the M18.
  And u still have to stop to shoot, al least with any degree of accuracy,They do look cool though

                Brady

  Wait, every dog deserves his day , we need a US tank, so why not add the M18, despite my misgivings about the soundness of the whole concept behind it, it could be fun to have a fast tank.

[flakbait]

You're missing something in this debate. What? Easy; attacking structures. A 76mm gun would give a nasty wallop to nearly anything. Combine that with a chassis capable of 55mph and you've got a great Hit & Run unit for plastering V-bases. Add in an M3 right behind him, and you've got a high-speed capture team. 76mm blows the ack and M3 rolls in before that stupid Osty knows what's going on.

Of course, this would make V-base turn-over rates HIDEOUSLY high. You could see the same two pairs of idiots take and re-take one V-base inside 30 minutes. Field capture would be a real pain, as one team consisting of 4 M18s and a single M3 could take a field. 3 M18s would blow the ack, while #4 played camper near the VH. With an M3 near-by, the field is yours.




------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000

[Wardog]

would prefer the M18 with the 105 howister..


Dog out...

[Jigster]

Delta, M-18 carried between 25 and 40 rounds, and very very few of them were HE.

the assault gun version of the M-18...I dunno.

Using a short barreled M2 they'd be in a nasty position when putting it to practical use...normally within most AT weapon ranges for the howitzer to be effective.

The M-37 wouldn't be to bad tho (you'd have to allow for time enough to lower the out-rigger for the normal M2 though, but you'd have a 7 mile range)