The M10 Tank Destroyer

[Butcher]

No arguement that they would try to keep them focused on enemy armor or the possibility of enemy armor but war is war and it would not be possible under all circumstances to do that. Fireflys are an integral part of a Sherman troop in Sherman units or deployed as a troop in a Cromwell squadron in Cromwell units. On the line of advance there are no guarantees as to whats around the next hill, hedgegrow, village, ect. You cant sit around all day waiting for a textbook engagement when your orders are to get moving. Also enemy counter attacks have a nasty habit of getting in the way of such niceties.

As for the exact quantity of HE rounds sources vary as they do ( nothing like a good source skirmish  ) but as in all things real life would rule as king in the field and not some manual or doctrine as to what was listed as to quantity. I doubt many AFVs in the field in NW Europe in 1944 had everything just so; like infanteers, tankers would do what they felt they needed to to fight and to live another day.

An interesting discussion  in any event.

...Oh +1 to the M10 in the game, it was a major Allied AFV in WW2 and deserves a place at some point.

I agree the M18 and M10 should be added to the game...eventually. Just like the I-16, once a few people fiddled with it, it won't come out of the hanger. Problem is with the open turret, a few shots and its disabled and sent packing.

Its pretty easy to disable a Wirb or Osti, however I do agree both should be added to the game eventually.
Problem is "for" example the I-16, it was a nice addition however as we all know its nice to up now and then, however nobody is planning to make it a daily ride in the Late war arena.

My best supporting answer to this is to add both an american and german tank destroyer at the same time, to appeal the community as a whole, make it the M-10 with the StuG III-G.

[Scotty55OEFVet]

I agree the M18 and M10 should be added to the game...eventually. Just like the I-16, once a few people fiddled with it, it won't come out of the hanger. Problem is with the open turret, a few shots and its disabled and sent packing.

Its pretty easy to disable a Wirb or Osti, however I do agree both should be added to the game eventually.
Problem is "for" example the I-16, it was a nice addition however as we all know its nice to up now and then, however nobody is planning to make it a daily ride in the Late war arena.

My best supporting answer to this is to add both an american and german tank destroyer at the same time, to appeal the community as a whole, make it the M-10 with the StuG III-G.

My question is this....and no I havent researched it because Ill get ot right here...wouldnt teh M18 be the better of the 2 when it came to an American TD and the STUG III. I am assuming the STUG had a much more powerful gun (being German) than the M10 (believe the M18 had a 90mm gun).

[Squire]

The guns were close. German 75mm L/48 APCBC and the M7 L/53 3 inch APCBC rounds did @ 96mm or so vs RHA armor at 30 degrees. The M10 had a decent gun.

Two other notes on the M10. It had a higher ROF than a Sherman 76mm owing to its semi-automatic breach and assistant loader. So its capabilities were not just "a Sherman with an open top". Also it was issued the T4 HVAP (High Velocity AP) ammo in 1944 that was tungsten cored and could penetrate 157mm of 30 degree armor at 500 yards according to my M10 book by S. Zaloga. They would not have been a round they had in large #s but it was issued. Might make a nice perk load.

Something else that seems to be missing from the conversation is the number of open topped TDs used by other nations. The Marder, The Su-76, the Archer, M3 Half Track TD (we have it in AH), Semovente L 40 da 47/32, Nashorn and others (not to mention the M36 and M18), as well as recce vehicles and Armored Cars.  It was not the only open topped AFV or TD in WW2 by any means.    

[321BAR]

My question is this....and no I havent researched it because Ill get ot right here...wouldnt teh M18 be the better of the 2 when it came to an American TD and the STUG III. I am assuming the STUG had a much more powerful gun (being German) than the M10 (believe the M18 had a 90mm gun).

M-18 had a 76mm cannon. M-36 had the 90mm cannon. Stug III had the older Stuk40 L/48 75mm cannon and so did the Stug IV. Hell the Stug IV was on the same chassis as the Pnzr IV and the Stug III was on the same chassis as the Pnzr III. All they were were panzers with no turrets. Both Stugs were equivalent with the American 76mm M1A1 cannon in firepower approx. (The American 3" M7 cannon is the same only heavier than that of the 76mm and older by the way which is what is on the M-10). Both the M-10 and M-18 have the same firepower than that of the M4/76. The only differences being the M-10 was built on the M4 chassis while the M-18 was built on a new chassis meant for speed and maneuverability.

The point of armored warfare is to NOT get shot by the way... and speed helps with that while if it does get hit its dead

[AHTbolt]

OH come on "no its open toped" then take EVERY AA vehicle out of the game. You want 15 spits, 109, 190 types because "they were used" and then say no to a vehicle that was there at the start of the war and was there at the end of the war. 

[iron650]

Unlike the M18 the M10 can actually cover the EW. Although it possibly should be introduced there later. It can cover more gaps than the M18 does, being introduced in 1944. The M10 may not be as fast as the M18 but has more armor. Saying no because of an open turret would be saying no the the M3, Su76, Marder, and a few more armored cars.

OH come on "no its open toped" then take EVERY AA vehicle out of the game. You want 15 spits, 109, 190 types because "they were used" and then say no to a vehicle that was there at the start of the war and was there at the end of the war. 

It's like saying no to the M3 Stuart (or M5) they saw the beginning and end of the war.

[SmokinLoon]

The M4A3 (W) 76mm we have in AH, the M10, and the M18 all fire the exact same ammo.  Think of it as the difference between a Browning, Winchester, and Remington 12 gauge shotgun.  Different brands, different mechanisms, same ammo.

As far comparative fire power goes, those AFV's have for all practical purposes the same firepower as the German Panzer IV H and StuG III/IV.  Obviously, they lag behind the Panther, Tiger, and Firefly.   

[Rob52240]

Lets all just assume everyone is aware of the open top and all of us can stfu about the roof.

Since the M-3 with the cannon has been added it has been used countless times to great effect.

The list of vehicles to add that would offer anything new and unique to the game is constantly getting shorter and we need to remember that every plane / vehicle in Aces High has it's own weak points.  For example I will do some perfectly valid nay saying here just to illustrate how silly it is to do so.

Aircraft carriers - We shouldn't have them because they're too easy to sink get stolen
Fw-190 - Useless in a turn fight
Spitfire - Useless as a boom and zoom fighter
Stuka - Completely vulnerable to anything in the air with a gun.
Tiger I - Turret takes a very very long time to traverse & gets shot a lot while aiming
T-34  - No pintle gun
Me 163 - Can only be flown out of a handfull of bases
Torpedo Bombers - Completely vulnerable on approach
Jeep - Only carries 2 troops or supplies
M3 - Can be killed with machine gun fire
P-47 -  Very slow and sluggish when carrying bombs
P-38 -  Compresses very easily in a dive
Sherman Tanks - Easy to kill with other tanks
Japanese fighters -  Easy to catch on fire
Japanese Bombers - Undergunned, not much payload & easy to catch on fire
251 - Rockets aren't usually very effective
I16 - Obsolete as soon as the spitfire/109 came into service
A-20 - Weak Wings
Lancaster - Only has 2 50 cals
D3A1 - SLOW
and the list goes on.

So Please HTC we really have a lot of planes / vehicles with characteristics that leave them outmatched in certain categories so we'd better not have them in the first place.  Please realize your error and Give us 1 Bomber, 1 Fighter and 1 Tank to choose from so long as they're the best at what they are.

<S>

[AHTbolt]

Rob you da man

[iron650]

Rob you're making an excellent point.

[SmokinLoon]

Rob, so what you are saying is that you wont complain when your M10 get its turret taken out by a burst of .50cal fire from a FM2?

Someone take note of this....     

[iron650]

Rob, so what you are saying is that you wont complain when your M10 get its turret taken out by a burst of .50cal fire from a FM2?

Someone take note of this....     

Do you complain when you're flak gets taken out by a burst of .50 cal fire?

[Scotty55OEFVet]

M-18 had a 76mm cannon. M-36 had the 90mm cannon. Stug III had the older Stuk40 L/48 75mm cannon and so did the Stug IV. Hell the Stug IV was on the same chassis as the Pnzr IV and the Stug III was on the same chassis as the Pnzr III. All they were were panzers with no turrets. Both Stugs were equivalent with the American 76mm M1A1 cannon in firepower approx. (The American 3" M7 cannon is the same only heavier than that of the 76mm and older by the way which is what is on the M-10). Both the M-10 and M-18 have the same firepower than that of the M4/76. The only differences being the M-10 was built on the M4 chassis while the M-18 was built on a new chassis meant for speed and maneuverability.

The point of armored warfare is to NOT get shot by the way... and speed helps with that while if it does get hit its dead

My bad BAR, I actually meant to say M-36 in my original Post and not the M18....cuz I did mean the 90mm gun mounted on it...TY for the info!

[Rob52240]

Rob, so what you are saying is that you wont complain when your M10 get its turret taken out by a burst of .50cal fire from a FM2?

Someone take note of this....     

Do you complain when you're in an FM2 and have a few kills to land when all of the sudden......   You can't live long enough or go fast enough to get home and land your kills because someone just sunk your boat and you're too slow to outrun most of the enemy planes that are chasing you. 
But you can claim advantage with the fact that the FM2 has one of the best default rear views in the game.

[SmokinLoon]

Do you complain when you're in an FM2 and have a few kills to land when all of the sudden......   You can't live long enough or go fast enough to get home and land your kills because someone just sunk your boat and you're too slow to outrun most of the enemy planes that are chasing you. 
But you can claim advantage with the fact that the FM2 has one of the best default rear views in the game.

You produce as much drama as my 6yo daughter.    

No, I don't.  I don't complain when the CV turns while I'm taking off or landing, it isnt that hard to accomplish either task.  I dont complain when the CV goes boom and I have no place to land, it is my own fault for not taking more fuel.  I dont complain when I'm not able to land kills for whatever reason.  I take the over whelming majority of this sim-game with a grain of salt.  The thing that annoys me is the "gaming the game" and the total and undeniable abuse of a airplane, gv, etc.

I do think the Wirby and Osty lose their turret too easily, but that is my opinion.